Digitized by tine Internet Arcliive
in 2010 witli funding from
CARLI: Consortium of Academic and Researcli Libraries in Illinois
http://www.archive.org/details/illinoisappellat223inilli
Term No. 14.
« "\
A 1^ ) ;
/
JOSEPH F. DEROUSSE,
. CHARLES R, BARTBLS,
J : App^Hant
q cksw^^^"^-^
Opinion by Higbee, P. J
Appellee's declaration as amended consisted of one special
count, alleging in substance that the plaintiff is the lessee of
the east one half of lot nineteen of survey three of Kaskaskia
Commons, Randolph county, Illinois, and that the lease under
which he holds is in words and ligures as follows, towit: "This
mdenture made this 21st day of October, A. D., 1889 by and be-
tween 'The President and Trustees of the Commons of Kaskas-
kia', of the county of Randolph, in the State of Illinois, on the
one part and Samuel Ragsdale and Harriet Gendron of the
county of Randolph in the State of Illinois, on the other part;
Witnesseth: That the said 'President and Trustees of the
Commons of Kaskaskia', for the consideration hereinafter
mentioned, hath demised, granted and to farm let, and doth
hereby demise, grant and to farm let unto the said Samuel
Ragsdale and Harriet Gendron, his executors, administrators
and assigns, lot number nineteen, survey three, containing
39 10-100 acres, situated, lying and being in the Commons of
Kaskaskia, as surveyed, platted and recorded in the recorder's
office of the county of Randolph, in the State of Illinois ac-
cording to an Act of the General Assembly of the State of
Illinois, approved Janui'y 3rd, 1851. To have and to hold the
said premises, with the appurtenances thereunto belonging for
and during the term of fifty years from the 16th day of Feb-
ruary, A. D., 1889, fully to be completed and ended.
And the said Samuel Ragsdale and Harriet Gendron, for
themselves, their heirs, executors and administrators, does
further covenant and agree to pay, or cause to be paid, to the
President and Trustees aforesaid, or to any person by them
authorized to receive the same, the sum of one dollar and five
cents per annum for each and every acre contained in the
premises aforesaid; the first payment to be due and payabl-
on the first day of December, A. D. 1889, and annually on
said day thereafter, during the continuance of said lease; and
the said Samuel Ragsdale and Harriet Gendron further agrees
to pay, or cause to be paid, all assessments for taxes for all
purposes that may be assessed against said premises, accord-
ing to law, during the continuance of said lease. And it is
JAN X . o^
^z>
further agreed, by the 'President and Trustees' aforesaid,
that the said Samuel Ragsdale and Harriet Gendron shall be
entitled to use timber on any of the Commons of Kaskaskia,
(not leased), for the purpose of fire wood, building on, or
fencing the premises aforesaid, as other citizens off Kaskas-
kia.
And it is further agreed by and between the said parties,
that any failure to pay, or cause to be paid, the rent and taxes
aforesaid, on the part of said Samuel Ragsdale and Harriet
Gendron, shall be considered a forfeiture of the aforesaid
premises."
That said described tract of land was subsequently sold
by the Land Commissioners for the Commons of Kaskaskia,
as provided by an Act of the General Assembly of Illinois,
known as "An Act to provide for the sale off the Kaskaskia
Commons, upon the Island of Kaskaskia, in the county of
Randolph, and to create a permanent school fund for the in-
habitants of said Island out of the proceeds of said sale, and to
punish any person failing to comply with the provisions there-
of", which said Act became a law on the 16th day of June,
A. D. 1909 ; that by mesne conveyances the defendant, Charles
R. Bartels and one Emery Andrews became the owners of
the fee simple title to the said tract of land, and thereby be-
came the landlords of the plaintiff, that the plaintiff pays the
annual rental as provided in the above lease to the defendant
and one Emery Andrews, his landlords, as aforesaid; that the
said tract of land is within the Kaskaskia Island Drainage
and Levee District, and by virtue of a certain levee and drain-
age construction, the said tract of land was greatly bene-
fitted, and that said tract of land is liable for certain special
assessments against it and payable to the treasurer of the
said Kaskaskia Island Drainage and Levee District ; therefore
in consideration of the premises the defendant, Charles R.
Bartels and the said Emery Andrews were liable for the
special assessment for the years 1918 and 1917 assessed against
said land and due and payable to the Kaskaskia Island Drain-
age and Levee District, yet being so liable as aforesaid have
failed to pay the same and the plaintiff, Joseph F. De Roussee,
to save his own interest in the above tract of land paid the
same at their request, in consequence whereof the defendant,
Charles R. Bartels then and there became severally liable to
the plaintiff in the sum of forty-one dollars and eighty one
cents paid by the plaintiff to the Kaskaskia Island Drainage
and Levee District for the Special Assessment against said
tract of land for the years 1918 and 1917, and being so in-
debted, the defendant in consideration thereof then and there
promised the plaintiff to pay him the said sum of money on
request.
Appellant filed a general and special demurrer to this
declaration, which was overruled, and he stood by his de-
murrer. Judgment for $41.81 was entered in favor of ap-
pellee.
It is contended by appellant that when the lease under
which appellee holds was executed the lands in question were
public lands, and the fee therein was not subject to any kind of
taxes, either general or special, but that immediately upon
the execution of the lease, the leasehold interest became sub-
ject to all general and special taxes, and the lessee would have
them to pay even though nothing was said about it in the
lease. He further contends that the provision of the lease by
which the lessee agreed to pay "all assessments for taxes for
all purposes that may be assessed against said premises ac-
cording to law, during the continuance of said lease", meant
and included all special assessments which might be legally
assessed against the premises, and that therefore the lessee
was legally bound to pay the special assessments against the
premises legally made by the drainage and levee district as
stated in the declaration.
Appellee on the contrary claims that special assessments
were not included by the language used in the lease and that
when appellant failed to pay those assessed against the
premises for the two years named, he, appellee had a right to
pay them, as he did, and to recover the amount so paid from
appellant. It is to be observed that the amended declaration
alleges that the amount sued for, and for which judgment
was given, was paid by appellee at appellant's request, and
that afterwards appellant promised to repay him. Appellant's
demurrer admitted these allegations, which in our opinion
stated a good cause of action. Appellant stood by his de-
murrer when it was overruled and the case now comes before
us on the common law record, without any evidence. This
court must then presume that the trial court heard sufficient
evidence to sustain the allegations of the declaration and sup-
port the judgment. If appellant desired to raise in this court
the questions argued in his brief, which are above briefly
stated and which involved questions of fact as to the history
of the case he should have offered proof or there should have
been a stipulation of facts and the same should have been pre-
sented by a bill of exceptions. As these facts are not in the
record there is no way for us to ascertain them and therefore,
uipo^ the record before us, the judgment must be affirmed.
/ Affirmed.
/ Not to be reported in full.
ti^^^^^^^'^^i^'^^^^^^M^^
3.
<»*e
\
^^ >~
Tf^
Term No. 16
IN THE
appellatp: court of tli
fourth district
March Terai, A. D.
MODEL LAUNDRY CO.,
\ Appelle|
\ vs.
C. F. SHORT cWpANY,^
jellant.
Appeal from
City Court of
East St. Louis.
223 I.A. 629
<3.
Opinion by Barry, J.
In an action on the case Appellant was charged with hav-
ing driven its moving van through a private alley on the prop-
erty of Appellee, and in doing so it struck a certain guy wire
which was attached to and supported the smoke stack on its
building, thereby causing the said stack to fall and to damage
the building, rendering it necessaiy to close down the laundry
for a certain time etc., all to the damage of Appellee to the sum
of $1,000.00.
The general issue was pleaded and the jury returned a
verdict for $533.50, and a motion for new trial having been over-
ruled judgment was entered for that amount. The motion for
new trial set out that the Court erred in admitting improper
evidence on behalf of Appellee, and in excluding proper evi-
dence offered by Appellant, and that the verdict is against the
weight of the evidence.
No complaint was made as to the giving or refusing of
instmctions, or that the verdict is excessive.
It is contended by Appellant that there is absolutely no
evidence of negligence on the part of its driver. The evidence
shows that the lower end of the guy wire was fastened to a post
or iron bar about five feet from the ground and extended in an
upward slanting direction to where it was attached to the stack.
The evidence tends to show that the top of the van was thirteen
feet from the ground. The driver admitted that as he passed
under the wire it was on the post and that when he saw it next
it was off the post. At least one witness on behalf of Appellee
testified that the van struck the wire and tore it loose, and that
the stack then toppled and fell. The stack had stood in proper
position for years and no claim is made that it fell because of a
high wind. It would be difficult for a jury or the Court to reach
any other conclusion than that there was not sufficient room for
the van to pass under the wire mthout striking it, and that if
the driver was exercising due care he would have observed that
such was the situation before he attempted to drive under it.
It is our opinion that the question of negligence was
purely one of fact for the jury, and we would not be warranted
NOV 101921
C1.EHK OF THE APKCLLATK COURT
FO'JRTH DISTl^lCl OF ILLINOIS
in holding that their decision on that question was manifestly
against the weight of the evidence.
It is also contended by Appellant that there is no proper
evidence as to damages sustained. While we are not entirely
satisfied with the character of the evidence on that question, yet,
in as much as no Complaint has been made to the effect that the
verdict is excessive we are inclined to think that no useful pur-
pose would be subserved by a reversal on that ground, and the
Judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Not to be reported in full.
.«»^^-^»^2--«^>^-^^,
/ /
c<
Term No. 2t
IN THE
APELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FOURTH DISTRICT
Agenda No. 33
\ March Term A. D. 1921
ROBERT GOTT, eSal,
THE CLEVELAND, mNCINNATI
CHIOAGO & ST. LOWIS RY. CO
^ppelli
m 10 1921
CLERK OF TV:E iPf ELIATK CCD^T
FOljriTH DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS '
a>5
Opinion by Barry, J.
This is an appeal from a judgment for $118.23 in favor of
Appellees, and is based on a claim that they sustained damages
on a shipment of dressed poultry and eggs received by Appel-
lant at Norris City, 111., to be carried to Philadelphia, Pa., ancl
there delivered to A. N. Risser Co. The shipment consisted of
16 barrels of poultry, iced, and four cases of eggs and started on
its journey on Nov. 14, 1917. In the ordinary course of business
it would have reached its destination in four or five days, but on
this occasion it arrived on Nov. 23, 1917.
Upon arrival at Philadelphia the agent of the connecting-
carrier learned that Mr. Risser had committed suicide and that
che company was insolvent and delivery could not be made. An
effort was made to notify Appellees and to get instructions as
to what disposition to make of the consignment, but notice did
not reach them until Nov. 29th, 1917, which was Thanksgiving
Day. The shipment was intended for the Thanksgiving market,
and it was then too late, so Appellees declined to give instruc-
tions but later directed that it be turned over to Walker and
Rice. They sold the poultry and eggs on Dec. 5th.
The connecting carrier placed the shipment in cold stor-
age on Nov. 24th, where it had remained until turned over to
Walker and Rice. By reason of the delay in getting the proper-
ty to destination and in giving Appellees notice of inability to
deliver, the poultry had changed from "fresh killed, iced in bar-
rels" to "cold storage stock", and the eggs from "fresh eggs"
to "refrigerator egg.s" The result was that they did not bring-
as much when sold as they would have brought before the
change.
At the trial a juiy was waived, and the Court found the
issues for Appellees and rendered judgment for $118.23. All of
the propositions of law offered by Appellant were marked
"held" by the Court, except the first which was refused.
Appellant contends that the Court erred in refusing that
proposition, but as we view the facts disclosed by the record, the
Court committed no error in that regard. The law applicable to
I^uu
r--^
the facts in this case is fully set out in Mich. Central R. R. Co.,
vs. Harville, 136 App., 243, and Edson Keith & Co., vs. The A. T.
& S. F. Ry. Co., 192 App., 350.
Appellant also contends that the findings of the Court are
inconsistent with the propositions of law held by the Court in its
favor. The Court simply held the law to be as declared in the
propositions, but that the facts did not make a defense for Ap-
pellant. We are of the opinion that the Court might have very
well refused all of the propositions of law on the theory that
they did not apply to the facts of the case.
In our opinion, the findings and judgment of the Court
are fuUy/sustained by the evidence, and that substantial justice
has bean done. The judgment is affirmed.
/ Affirmed.
V Not to be reported in full.
y^i^ y^^^^t^i^^*^ <^62£^<',Ze^'^'^^if~/-f';f^-2--^
2.
cC •t
VI
K I
Term No. 12
IN THE
(APPELLATE COUET OF ILLINOIS
FOUETH DISTEICT
Agenda
March Term, A. D. 1921
WILLIAM F.\VAN BUSKIEK,
Appellee.
EDWAUD B. CI^K,
\ ^i^ellant.
NOV 101921
Appeal from
Circuit Court
Pope County.
Opinion by Boggs, J.
223 I.A. 629
An action in assumpsit was instituted by appellee
against appellant in the Circuit Court of Pope County to recov-
er a balance alleged to be owing on a note of $1200. executed by
appellate to the Commerce and Savings Bank of Chicago and by
said Bank alleged to have been endorsed to appellee in due
course. The declaration consists of one special count and the
consolidated common counts. The special count was the ordin-
ary count in suit brought by endorsee against the maker of a
promissoiy note. To this declaration appellant filed the gen-
eral issue and four special pleas. The first special plea averred
that the note in its inception was given under an arrangement
contrary to public policy in order to thwart and frustrate the
State Bank Act ; that appellee, Van Buskirk and one Grissom at
the time of the making of a certain note on which the one ^ued
on was a renewal, were promoters of The Bank of Commerce
and Savings ; that Grissom and appellee were to become the of-
ficers of the new Bank and did become such officers, appellee the
president and Grissom the cashier and vice president ; and that
they had the management of its affairs at all times from its or-
ganization to the filing of said suit ; that at the time of the giv-
ing of said note it was agreed "that same was not to be opera-
tive as a promissory note ; that defendant should never be call-
ed upon to pay it ; that Grissom assured defendant his subscrip-
tion was for the purpose of making it appear that the required
amount of stock had been regularly and lawfully subscribed and
said note was only to be held until the bank was organized, the
stock sold to other parties and the plaintiff's note returned to
him. ' '
The second special plea alleged the same state of facts
relative to the promotion and organization of the bank by Gris-
som and appellee; etc., and then alleged that a bank examiner
had objected to said note being listed among the bank's assets
because it was for the same amount as the amount of stock
standing in appellant's name; that as a result of such objection.
Van Buskirk made a fictitious endorsement as president of said
note to 'himself and that Van Buskirk was not the holder in due
■course, but a mere volunteer.
The third special plea alleges that Grissom obtained sub-
scriptions for the stock of said bank from other persons, taking
their notes and that the bank released said persons therefrom,
returning their notes to tliem after the bank's organization and
while Grissom and Appellee had the management thereof ; and
charges that sucli rek^ase of said persons operated to discharge
appellant from ]iabilit\ on tlie note he had given. All of said
special jaleas above mentioned aver that appellee had knowledge
of said arrangement with appellant or had the means of obtain-
ing such knowledge and that said bank retained said stock sub-
scribed by appellant and held a power of attorney to dispose of
the same; that appellee had knowledge that appellant's renew-
al note was executed and delivered upon the same understand-
ing and arrangement that existed when he executed the stock
subscription note and that such renewal was executed while
Grissom and appellee were in charge of the affairs of the bank,
or that they had the means of obtaining such knowledge. The
fourth special plea filed by appellant was a plea of payment.
Eeplications were filed to said special pleas and issue
was joined. A trial was had resulting in a verdict in favor of
appellee for $758.82. Motions for a new trial and in arrest of
judgment were made by appellant and were overruled by tiie
Court. Judgement was entered against appellant for said
amount and costs . To reverse said judgment this appeal is pro-
secuted.
Counsel for appellant in his brief raises the following
propositions which he insists arise on t'iie record, viz: whether
or not appellee was a holder in due course; whether or not ap-
pellee was the owner of the note in question in due course ;
whether or not he acquired said note as a mere volunteer ; and
whether or not there is sufficient facts in the record to support
the plea of payment.
There is nothing in the record to show affirmatively that
appellee did not receive the note in question in due course. The
evidence on the part of appellee tends to show that the original
note, of which the one here sued on is a renewal, was taken by a
man by the name of Grissom vrho was procuring subscriptions
to the capital stock of The Bank of Commerce and Savings, and
that said note was in the sum of $1200. for ten shares of the
capital stock of said bank at $120. per share. Said note was
made payable to said Bank and accompanying said note was a
power of attorney signed bj' appellant authorizing the sale and
transfer of said stock. While said note was held by the Bank
it fell due and appellant gave the note here in question as a re-
newal thereof. During the time said note was so held by the
bank, five of the shares of stock held by appellant were sold by
appellee for $600. and credit was given on the note in question
therefor.
It is the contention of appellant that Grissom with the
knowledge and authority of appellee was authorized to take sub-
scriptions to the capital stock of said bank, the parties subscrib-
ing to give their notes therefor with the understanding that the
notes should not be paid and that when the stock was all sub-
scribed and the bank organized, that the notes so taken should
be returned to said subscribers. It is further contended that the
power of attorney accompanying said notes was for the purpose
of authorizing the disposal of said stock to other parties so as
to effect a release of said subscribers who had given their notes
as above mentioned.
The evidence, however, fails to support this theory of the
fri-^ ■
case. The only witness testifying on behalf of appellant was
appellant himself, and while he testified it was the understand-
ing he had with Grissom that when he signed the note, (of which
the' note here sued on is a renewal) it should be returned to
him and that he knew of his own knowledge that the notes given
by two or three other parties for stock subscribed by them had
been returned. He did not testify, nor is there any evidence in
the record to the effect that appellee had anything to do with
this arrangement or that he even had knowledge of the same.
The evidence on the part of appellee is to the effect that
the note originally given by appellant, of which the one sued on
is a renewal, was given to the bank in payment for ten shares
of the capital stock subscribed by appellant ; that said stock was
issued but was not delivered to appellant and that a power of
attorney authorizing a transfer of said stock was given by ap-
pellant and was held with said note. Appellee further testified
that when the original note fell due that appellant gave the note
here in question in renewal of the same. Appellee further testi-
fied in effect that an officer of the clearing house in examining
the notes held by the bank objected to this note for the reason
that it was for the exact amount of the purchase price of the
stock subscribed by ajjpellaiit and that the bank ought not to
take or hold a note of that character. That by reason of this
criticism he, appellee, took up said note, paid the bank in full
therefor and as the president of said bank endorsed said note
and held the same as endorsee. Several letters were offered in
evidence by appellee from appellant touching this transaction.
In all of said letters or writings with reference to the original
note (of which this note is a renewal) appellant made no ques-
tion as to its validity or as to his liability thereon. This corre-
spondence run through a period of some two or three years and
never until after this suit was instituted did appellant say any-
thing in any letter with reference to the arrangement which he
now claims was had between him and Grrissom with reference
to the gi^ang of the r/riginal note. An attorney representing
appellee tewtified that before bringing suit on the note here in
question he took up with appellant the matter of payment of
said note and that appellant did not question his liability there-
on but insisted that if given time he would be able to take care
of the same. We are therefore of the opinion and so hold that
the evidence in the record wholly fails to show that appellee did
not come into possession of said note in good faith. Knolt vs.
Conright, 202 111. App. 502 ; Page vs. Hallam, 212 App. 462.
It is also contended by appellant that appellee in the tak-
ing over the note in question was a mere volunteer. In other
words, appellant contends that inasmuch as he did not request
appellee to take up said note and appellee being the president of
said bank, his taking it over made him a mere volunteer and not
a holder in due course. We do not tliink this point well taken
as the evidence shows appellee paid full value for the note ; and
the same was taken up by him by reason of the fact that the offi-
cer examining the securities held by the bank objected to it.
The further question is raised by appellant as to whether
or not the evidence in the record was sufficient to show payment
under the plea of payment. There is no evidence in the record
to show payment of this note, excejot as to the $600. heretofore
referred to.
It is further contended by appellant that the court erred
in refusing to allow testimony to the effect that Grissom had
3.
promised one Calkins aud one Eose, subscribers to the capital
stock of the bank in question, that their notes would be returned
to them, and that said notes were so returned. While the court
did sustain objections to evidence of this character when first
offered, later on appellant was allowed to testify he personally
knew that the notes given by Calkins and Eose on subscriptions
to said Bank were returned to them, so appellant had the benefit
of this testimony. Appellant, however, on cross examination
stated in answer to the question as to whether or not the stock
issued in the name of Calkins aud Eose had been sold and the
proceeds used to pay off their notes at the time they were re-
turned said, he did not know as to that.
Appellant further argued that the value of the remaining
five shares of stock issued to him and held with the note of ap-
pellant, should be disposed of and the proceeds applied on the
note. There is no contract between the holder of the note and
appellant that this should be done. Of course, if appellant had
paid the note, he would have been entitled to the return of these
shares of stock and that same situation exists at the present
time.
It is also contended by appellant that the court erred in
refusing the eig'ht instructions tendered by him on tlie tiial of
said cause. No instructions were given on the part of appellee
and all of the instructions offered by appellant were refused by
the court. We have examined these instructions and so far as
they state correct principles of law, they are not applicable to
the facts contained in the record. Other of the instructions that
were refused by the court did not state correct principles of law.
The court therefore did not err in its rulings on the instructions.
Appellant further contends and arg-ues in his brief that
the verdict and judgment in this case is excessive. An examina-
tion of the record disclsoes that the amount of the verdict and
judgment is less than the principal and interest would amount
to if figured to the date of the rendition of judgment at the rate
of interest set forth in the note.
Finding no reversible error in the record the judgment
of jdie trial court will be affirmed.
Judgment afiirmed.
Not to be reported in full.
c^^^
a^'^-L ^^
J^^:^..^-u^Uy^ f^-Zf-^ ^
1^ rr.,— ■
i:l-':^tt3f'«^">*
(
Term No. 26.
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FOURTH DISTRICT
March Term, A. D. 1921
J. P. MURPHY,
\
Appellee,
JOHN BARTON PAYNE, /'
Director General of Railroads, ^
Agent,
Appellaj4t.
/Appeal from
/
^ Circuit Court
Gallatin County.
g (T. ,.^
O^inion-% BOGGS, J.
Suit to recover damages for the loss of five hogs in a
shipment made by appellee on April 22nd, 1919, from Equality,
Illinois, to the National Stock Yards at East St. Louis over
appellant's railroad, was Drought by appellee against appel-
lant before a Justice of the Peace, and on appeal therefrom
to the Circuit Court of Gallatin County, a trial was had, re-
sulting in a verdict and judgment for $145. in favor of appel-
lee. To reverse said judgment this appeal is prosecuted.
It is first urged by appellant for a reversal of said judg-
ment that the trial court erred in refusing to exclude the evi-
dence and direct a verdict in favor of appellant at the close of
appellant's evidence or at the close of all the evidence; mo-
tions for that purpose having been made. It is only necessary
for us to say that in our opinion the evidence of appellee taken
with all inferences legally to be drawn therefrom made out a
case for appellee and would have supported a verdict in his
favor. The court therefore did not err in denying said mo-
tions.
It is next contended by appellant that the court erred in
permitting appellee to testify, that on account of an alleged
delay in the shipment he was compelled to pay an extra feed
bill of $21. and that such delay would result in a shrinkage in
the weight of the hogs and a consequent loss to appellee. An
examination of the record fails to show that the testimony in
question was properly objected to. In fact, counsel for appel-
lant practically so concede in his argument as to the shrink-
age caused by delay in shipment. We therefore hold that
there was no reversible error in the ruling on the evidence.
The next and principal ground urged by appellant for a
reversal of said judgment is that the verdict is against the
manifest weight of the evidence. It being the contention of
appellant that the death of the hogs in question was not the
result of negligence or lack of care on his part, but was caused
on account of the hogs being over-crowded in the car and on
account of the hogs being driven to the shipping place for
loading.
The evidence discloses that appellee is a farmer, sto.clt-
30
^'^0'^
NOV 10 1921
.V\
'-LATr. CC-I.'PT
r OFiLLIMOlS
raiser and stock buyer; has had about three years experience
in shipping stock. The shipment in question contained eighty-
three head of hogs; fifty of which appellee had fed on corn
for ninety days and thirty-three of which he purchased about
three days before said shipment was made. All of the hogs
were in good flesh and would average about 200 pounds. The
testimony of appellee and his witnesses tends to establish that
the shipment was made in a thirty-eight foot car, while that
of appellant was that it was only a thirty- six foot car. Appel-
lee and two other men loaded the hogs and another party saw
the hogs after they were loaded, and all testified that the
hogs were healthy and in good condition when loaded and were
not crowded in the car. When the car arrived at the National
Stock Yards it was found that five of the hogs were dead. The
hogs were shipped in Pennsylvania R. R. car No. 647327.
Albert Smith, an inspector for the Western Weighing
and Inspection Bureau testified on behalf of appellant that
he inspected Pennsylvania R. R. car No. 643737 on April 23rd,
1919 and found five dead hogs which he numbered 31554-5-6-7
and 8 by fastening metal discs in the ear of each hog. W. J.
Embree, a veterinary surgeon for the same company testified
for appellant, that he had inspected the dead hogs bearing the
above numbers after they were viscerated or cut open and
that none bore any internal marks or bruises or other evidence
of violence, but that all but one of said hogs bore evidence of
having died of acute congestion of the lungs. The remaining
one from pneumonia. He further testified that an animal
that has been kept on heavy feed for fattening, atrophies in
the vital organs ; that it becomes lazy and will not exercise and
that a walk of a quarter of a mile will cause it to puff and
pant because it is not used to it. He also testified that the
crowded condition of a car will tend to produce a congestion of
the lungs which transportation to the pens had started. Said
veterinary's conclusions were that 83 hogs in a 38 foot car
would be crowded and that the five hogs died from the causes
he gave as a result of being driven to the stock pens and the
alleged subsequent crowded condition of the car.
It will be observed that the witness Smith testified that
he inspected car No. 643727 and there found the five dead hogs
in whose ears he inserted the metal discs and these are the
hogs which the veterinaiy also inspected. The hogs in ques-
tion were shipped in car No. 647327 according to a preponder-
ance of evidence. It is therefore not altogether certain that
the inspector saw or was testifying about the five hogs of
appellee. Even if it be assumed that the hogs inspected were
the hogs of appellee, still the cause of their death is a question
of fact for the determination of the jury. The jury found
adversly to the contention of appellant, and we are not dis
posed to disturb their finding.
Proof of delivery of live stock in a live and good condition
and its death while in the custody of the carrier, makes a
prima facie case against the carrier, subject to be rebutted by
proof that the death of such live stock was not the result of
a failure on the part of the carrier to exercise the degree of
care which the nature of the property required. Burke v. Ex-
press Co. 87 111. App 505-508; Ry Co. vs. Fox 113 111. App. 180-
184; Ry. Co. v. Johnson 114 111. App. 545-554; Gilchrist v. C. &
A. Ry. Co. 158 111. App. 117-118. In our judgment the verdict
is not against the manifest weight of the evidence and the
trial court did not err in so holding.
Lastly it is contended by counsel for appellant that the
court erred in its rulings on the instructions. Two instruc-
tions were given for appellee and seven for appellant. There
was no serious error in the giving of instruction No. 2 for ap-
pellees, being the only given instruction complained of. There
was only one instruction offered by appellant that the court
refused and counsel for appellant practically concedes in his
argument that its refusal did not affect the result of the ver-
dict. There was therefore no serious error in the ruling on the
instructions.
Finding no reversible error in the record the judgment of
the tpiSl court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Not to be reported in full.
-//^^
3.
ry^
n^jfti
r
Term N'p. 51
Agenda No.
IN THE
APPELLATE COUET OF ILLINOIS
FOUETH DISTEICT
March Term, A. D. 19
TILLIE iKfcDONALD, Administra-
trix of the Estate of William C.
McDonald,VDeceased,
\ Appelle^
\ vs..
ST. LOUIS, SPBINGFIE
PEOEIA EAILROAD^
Lppellant,
AND
Appeal from the
Circuit Court of
Madison Countv.
m 10 1921
Opinion by Boggs, J.
This case comes to this court on Appeal from a judgment
for $6,000.00 rendered by the Circuit Court of Madison County
in favor of appellee as administratrix of the estate of William
C. McDonald, deceased, and arose out of an accident in which a
passenger train of appellant collided with the automobile of ap-
pellee's decedent at a railroad crossing in the unincorporated
\allage of Hamel. The Declaration consists of three counts.
The first count charges general negligence ; the second count
charges the operation of said train at a high and dangerous rate
of speed ; and the third count charges failure to give any proper
signal or warning of the approach of said train to said crossing.
All of said counts have an averment of due care on the part of
appellee's intestate. To said declaration appellant filed a plea of
the General issue.
The Village of Hamel consists of a saloon building, a
dance hall, two stores, a garage, a grain elevator, appellant's
station and a few dwelling houses. The highway on which the
accident occurred runs due East and West. Appellant's rail-
road crosses this highway at an angle of practically forty-five
degrees and runs in a northeasterly and south westerly direc-
tion through said village. Said saloon building is on the north
line of said highway fronting south, its northeast corner being
fourteen feet and three inches from the west rail of appellant's
track. Between the saloon building and the track is a trolley
post having a diameter of about one foot. The saloon building
abutting on the highway is twenty feet and three inches mde,
and eighteen feet and ten inches west of said saloon building is
a coal shed. Between the coal shed and saloon building is an
alley or drive way and at the north end of said saloon building
is an "L" extending into said alley. Back and North of said
saloon building are other buildings, obstructing the view of ap-
pellant's track to a person approaching from the west. The
highway is sixty feet wide at this point. At about the center of
the highway, at the point where appellant's track crosses the
same, planks fourteen feet long are laid between and parallel to
said rails. On the south side of the highway and within ten feet
of the west rail of appellant's track is a stop signal or signal
post. This stop sign or signal post is directly south and on a
line with the east side of said coal shed. The west line of the
saloon building extended south across the highway would inter-
sect the center of appellant's track at a point ten feet south
westerly from the end of the plank crossing. This crossing has
been found and been designated to be an EXTRA HAZARD-
OUS CROSSING by the PubHc Utilities Commission.
The decedent, William C. McDonald drove his Ford auto-
mobile to Hamel on the day of the accident and parked it in the
allej' or yard at the west side of said saloon building. He made
a trip to Edwardsville on appellant's road and returned on the
i :30 car. Shortly thereafter, appellee 's intestate was seen back-
ing his car out of said alley. The record discloses it had been
raining and he had the side curtains up. He backed his car to-
wards the west and came to a full stop, with his front wheel
about twentj' feet west of the west rail of appellants tracks. This
brought his car directly north or immediately opposite said stop
sign. The decedent then drove his automobile towards the
crossing at a slow rate of speed and was struck by appellant's
train on the crossing.
The evidence in regard to the speed of the train and the
signals given is conflicting. The evidence for appellee shows
that the car was travelling from thirty to forty miles an hour
and that no warning signals were given except the danger signal
irmnediately before or simultaneously with the crash. The evi-
dence for appellant is to the effect that sigTials were given five
hundred or six hundred feet north of the crossing and some oi
the witnesses testified that the regular station and the danger
signals were also given. The motorman on said train testified
that he did not see the automobile until his car Avas within about
twenty-five feet of the crossing.
When said automobile was struck, it was pushed down
the track a distance of three hundred seven feet, while the brak-
es were set and the wheels sliding. The decedent was taken from
his automobile in a mangled condition and removed to a hospi-
tal where he afterwards died.
Four special findings were submitted to and were answer-
ed by the jury together with their general verdict finding the
issues for appellee and assessing her damages, etc. The answers
to the special interrogatories were consistent with the general
verdict. A motion for a new trial made by appellant was over-
ruled by the Court and judgment was rendered. To reverse said
judgment this appeal is prosecuted.
It is first contended by appellant for a reversal of said
cauje that appellee's intestate was not in the exercise of due
care for his own safety just prior to and at the time of the acci-
dent. The conditions surrounding the crossing in question are
somewhat unusual. An examination of this crossing as disclos-
ed by the plat designated defendant's exhibit i will disclose that
while the stop sign on the west side of the track is only ten feet
from the nearest rail, a person in the center of the highway di-
rectly opposite this sign would be at least thirty feet from the
center of the crossing, travelling on the center line of the high
wayyytn approaching this crossing all that the law would re-
quire is that the decedent use such care as a person of ordinary
prudence would exercise under the same circumstances. Bjinn.
vs. C. C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co. 239 111. 132. The statute requiring
that a person travelling on a public highway at a dangerous
railway crossing must bring his vehicle to a complete stop at
.^
the etop sign is for the purpose of giving him au opportunity to
obsei've the conditions of the surroundings in regard to a pass- ^Ji/^^
ing train. We hold that appellee's intestate having stogpedjjis — -"^'^
automobile opposite said stoo sign, the law would^-equire him
to again put his machine iii motion and drive it around to the
same position and stop it again in order to comply with the law.
The only witness in this record who testified as to the
position of the decedent after backing his machine out of the
driveway and facing it east preparatory to crossing appellant's
track says that when he had completed this operation and stop-
ped his machine the front end of his machine was within twenty
feet of said crossing. The record discloses that the decedent
was at the center or north of the center of this highway, and
there is no point in a line drawn through the stop signal perpen-
dicular to the center of the highway, which is Avithin twenty feet
of said crossing. The decedent therefore was complying with
the law when he stopped his machine where he did before he at-
tempted to make this crossing.
On the general proposition as to whether a^jpellee was in
the exercise of due care for his own safety, just prior to and at
the time of the accident, it should be borne in mind that on the
north side of said highway was said coal shed and saloon build-
ing and a large telephone pole, and that the southeast corner of
said saloon building was only fourteen feet, three inches, from
the west rail of appellant's track. It was therefore impossible
for appellee's intestate to observe a train coming from the
northeast, on appellant's track, until after he had passed this
saloon building. One of appellant's witnesses testified to hav-
ing made certain measurements and observations with reference
to the ability of a person to see a train coming from the north-
east. This witness testified : "I was fourteen feet west of the
westerly rail and saw up the track five or six pole lengths, poles
one hundred feet apart. As I approached the crossing going
east I could see further up the track ; standing in a line with the
stop sign that is the same distance west of the track and oppo-
site the plank crossing I could see seven hundred or eight hun-
dred feet up the track. ' '
The testimonj^ on the part of appellee is to the effect that
the appellant's train approached this crossing ranning from
thirty to forty miles per hour. On the part of appellant the wit-
nesses fixed the rate of sjDced at from fifteen to twenty -five miles
an hour. The record, however, discloses that the brakes were
applied by the motorman when his train consisting of two cars
was within fifty to a hundred feet of the crossing and the car ran
307 feet south of the crossing before it was stopped. The jury
would therefore be warranted in drawing the conclusion that
appellant's train as it approached said crossing was running
from thirty to forty miles an hour. We think, therefore, in view
of all the circumstances surrounding appellee's intestate just
prior to and at the time of the injury, it was a question of fact
for the jury as to whether or not he was in the exercise of due
care for his own safety.
In Passwaters vs. L. E. & W. Ey. Co. 181 App. page 44,
being a Third District case, and being a case where the court
had under discussion a question of due care, similar to the one
now under consideration, at page 47 says : "The train was three
or four minutes behind time and was ninning at from 55 to 60
miles an hour. It is contended on behalf of appellant that the
3.
i3»17
deceased was not in the exercise of due care. The crossing is
shown by the evidence to be a very dangerous one for a traveler
coming from the north. A train coming from the west could not
be seen because of the hedge and the knoll, until the traveler was
thirty-five feet from the track and then only for a short distance
along the track toward the west. Appellant's counsel state that
thirty-two feet from the crossing a traveler could see two hun-
dred to two hundred and fifty feet when looking west, and a lit-
tle less than twenty-one feet he could see beyond the whistling
post. A train traveling sixty miles an hour goes at the rate of
eighty-six feet per second. When the train was two hundred
and iifty feet distant it could not be seen by a traveler on the
highway thirty-five feet from the crossing and if a traveler at
that distance from the crossing should then look and listen he
might neither hear nor see it, and yet in less than three seconds
it might be on the crossing. There is no law in this state limit-
ing the rate at which a train may run in the country, and a rail-
road may run its trains at any speed thought proper consistent
with the safet}^ of travelers, who are attempting to cross the
highway crossing iu the exercise of due care for their ovv-n safe-
ty, and with the safety of its passengers and employees. Part-
low vs. Illinois Cent. R. Co. 150 111. 321. Wesley James and the
foreman of the grading gang, although half a mile distant, saw
the deceased drive on the track. The evidence does not show
either that the deceased looked and listened or that he failed to
look and listen before driving on the track. It is manifest that
the witnesses, who saw him, one being a half a mile behind him,
and the other half a mile in front of him, could not see what he
did, and a failure to look and listen is not necessarily such con-
tributory negligence as will preclude a recovery. Dukeman vs.
Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. R. Co., 237 111. 104."
As the evidence clearly shows appellee was driving at a
slow rate of speed as he approached said crossing and as the
evidence is conflicting as to whether or not appellant blew any
whistle or gave any warning of the approach of its train prior
to reaching said crossing except the danger signals that were
given when the train was only from fifty to a hundred feet from
the crossing, we are not prepared to say that the finding of the
jury that appellee was in the exercise of ordinary care for his
own safety is against the manifest weight of the evidence.
It is next contended by appellant that the record fails to
show that appellant was guilty of the negligence charged in ap-
pellee's declaration. As heretofore stated, the evidence is con-
flicting as to whether or not appellant gave any warning of its
approach to the crossing in question, other than the danger
signals that were given just before the train reached said cross-
ing and is conflicting as to the rate of speed said ti'aiu was going
at said time. We think therefore in view of the dangerous con-
dition of this crossing the jury were warranted in finding that
appellant thru its servants was negligent in the operation of its
said train as it approached the same.
It is next contended by appellant that the court erred in
refusing to permit Hall, gj civil engineer, to testify as to the
least possible distance a Ford automobile could be from said
crossing after having been backed out of said passage way.
There was no error in the court's ruling in said matter.
It is next contended the court erred in permitting an im-
proper cross examination of conductor Ernst and motorman
4.
<%*»'
Williams. So far as the record discloses there was no objection
made to the cross examination of Williams on which to base
this assignment of error. As to the cross examination of the
witness Ernst, we think it was warranted as it had to do with
statements he was supposed to have made prior to testifj^ing in
said cause that were inconsistent with his testimony on the
stand. The court did not err in its rulings in this regard.
Complaint is also made that the court refused to rule in
the presence of the jury on the action of appellee in sobbing and
displaying her grief. The ruling of the court was made out of
the presence of the jui'y; the court stating that appellee's show
of grief was not unreasonable or excessive and did not continue
through the entire argument. No error was made by the court
in its rulings thereon.
It is next contended by apellant that the court erred in
failing to give appellant's refused instruction No. 2. Twenty-
two instructions were given by tlie court on behalf of appellant.
The given instructions covered eveiy phase of appellant's case.
So far as refused instruction No. 2 contained correct principles
of law, they were covered by the instinictions given. The court
did not err in refusing to give this instruction.
It is next contended that there was no sufficient proof of
the death of appellee's intestate. William Hosto, a witness for
appellee testified that when the electric car stopped the automo-
bile was under the pilot of the car and that it could not be re-
moved until the electric car was backed up. That McDonald,
appellee's intestate, was doubled up in the machine and "look-
ed like he was mangled up." The witness thought he was dead
and observed no signs of life. We hold the evidence sufficient
to show that the intestate died from the effects of injuries re-
ceived in said collision.
Lastly it is contended by appellant that the verdict of the
jury is excessive. The evidence shows that the intestate was
tifty years of age, in good health and active and had been pursu-
ing his calling as an auto liveryman. He left a widow and three
children. The evidence in our judgment was sufficient to war-
rant the amount of the verdict.
cFinding no reversible error in the record the judgment of
the taal court will be affirmed.
ly/ Judgment Affirmed.
Not to be reported in full.
^.<^.
Term No. 25. Agen^ No. 12.
STATE OF ILLINOIS
APPELLATE C OUR
FOURTH DISTRICT
\
October Term, 1921
WILLIAM PHILLIPS,
Defendant in Ern6r.
WILLIAM H. Decker,
F*|aintiff ^ Error
BARRY, J.
! . 'J
0y.^/!92l
V ci-t.RK OF ry.F. Aph-E'.uyn COUPT
X, FL'L/iiTH Die- T,-;il,Y i)v iLLIIlCiS
Error to
City Court
East St. Louis.
Defendant in Error sued to recover $10,000.00 for per-
sonal injuries occasioned by an automobile owned by plaintiff
in error while it was being driven by one Leo Martin. The
general issue was filed and also a special plea which denied
that the driver of the car was the agent or servant or that he
was engaged in or about the business of plaintiff in error at
the time in question. The jury returned a verdict for $15,-
000.00, from which defendant in error remitted $5,000.00. The
Court then overruled the motion for a new trial and render-
ed judgment for $10,000.00.
The issue raised by the special plea was the only contro-
verted question in the case and the burden of proof was upon
th defendant in error. He sought to prove that issue by
showing that Mr. Martin had been seen driving plaintiff in
error's car at other times and also by proving alleged admis-
sions by plaintiff in error and Mr. Martin to the effect that
at the time of the accident the latter had gone on an errand
for the former. They denied having made such admissions
and testified to facts that would support the special plea, thus
making a sharp conflict in the evidence on that most vital
issue.
Defendant in error was permitted, over objection, to
detail a conversation with Mr. Becker, substantially as fol-
lows: That Mr. Becker told him he had plenty of insurance
on his car. That Mr. Becker asked him what he would take
to settle and that he told Mr. Becker the amount. That Mr.
Becker said he wanted to know exactly what offer of settle-
ment defendant in error had made to Mr. Berth, the insurance
man, who had been to see defendant in error at the hospital at
least six times and once at his home. That when Mr. Becker
told defendant in error he had plenty of insurance and want-
ed to settle, etc., defendant in error told him all right, but he
never saw Mr. Becker again until he saw him at the first trial
of the case. The evidence was objected to on the ground that
it was relative to a compromise or settlement of the case, and
the overruling of the objection was reversible error. Barker
vs. Bushnell, 75 111. 220.
The jury would naturally consider it as most cogent evi-
\
^.IJ
dence of an admission by Mr. Becker that Martin was his agent
or servant at the time in question. It was evidently intended,
also, to inform the jury that Mr. Becker had insurance and
that the insurance company would have to pay whatever judg-
ment might be recovered. It is not strange, therefore, that
the verdict was for $5,000.00 more than the amount sued for.
No objection was made to the testimony on the ground that it
was improper to show that plaintiff in error was insured and
it is too late to raise that objection in this court.
Counsel for defendant in error contends that independent
admissions made during an effort to compromise may be
given in evidence against the party making them; at least,
unless they are expressly stated to be made in confidence or
without prejudice. Domm vs. Hollenbeck, 142 App. 439. While
that is true, the record shows that just prior to the testimony
above referred to, defendant in error testified that plaintiff
in error told him that he was sorry that the former was injur-
ed and that he, plaintiff in error, had sent Mr. Martin down
town on an errand. So it clearly appears that counsel were
not satisfied with proving the independent statement or ad-
mission, but insisted, over objection, to show the talk in regard
to compromise and insurance.
It will be seen, therefore, that the question of insurance
was brought in by counsel for defendant in error in the direct
examination of the witness. It also appears that in the direct
examination of another witness for defendant in eiTor, coun-
sel went into the question of insurance by proving that plain-
tiff in error said to the witness that at first, in talking about
the accident, he did not say that Mr. Martin had taken the
car without permission at the time of the accident, because he,
plaintiff in error, had been informed that in such case his in-
surance would be forfeited.
In view of the many decisions of our Supreme Court
holding that any reference to the fact that a defendant is in-
sured should not be permitted, we are at a loss to understand
why counsel should jeopardize any verdict that might be re-
covered by making such proof.
The instructions to the jury on behalf of defendant in
error directed a verdict on proof of negligence generally with-
out confining it to that charged in the declaration. Instruc-
tions not limited to the negligence charged in the declaration
have often been condemned and on a retrial this error should
be avoided. We are not to be understood as saying that the
instructions should refer the jury to the declaration to ascer-
tain what negligence is charged against the defendant. The
instructions should define the issues to the jury without re-
ferring them to the pleadings to ascertain what they are ; Ber-
nier /s. I. C. R. R. Co., 296 111. 464.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Reversed and Remanded.
Not to be reported in full..
150 - 259
RALPH A. I^ll,
App9ll«6,
LA aRA.N013 '^tFATB M'SK,
a Corpora ilia,
! A
pp©ll»6t.
APpsAL mm cowTT counr or
c;)OK cumrTT.
223 I.A. 63
MB. MUSIDim JTJf^TTCE DSTBR
MR.rVBRIS) THX OFIHIOlf OF THS COURT.
f The dsfend&nt appeals fro^i a Judg-nerit entered
agftlaet it in th« County court of Cook County in faror of the
plaint!^ for ^,000.
The action wae in troYor for ixn allayed wrongful
conversion on April 4, 191 ,, of an auto »• lie, the property of
the plajntiff. April 5, 191B, the defendant oktalised a jud • sent
•galnatj ^jrthur J. Smith and (Sraee 'C. Saith upon a matured and
uapeld promiesory note dated October 11, 1917, An execution is-
aved eri the jud^ent was placed in the h&nds of the f^herlf f oa
April 4, 1W8, and upoa the same day the sheriff levied urjon an
autoso jjile at Keck'e garaj;e in L& Sranse. The sheriff advertised
the prftparty for sale to be held on April 15, 1918. So bidders
l>eia^ freeent oa that data the aale was postponed to April 25,
1918, vhen the property w&e sold to a bidder for '^400.
The facts o the case, as shown hy the evidence, are
ia subot'Anos as follows: The autO'^io.lle levied upon was purchased
hy plaintiff in 1915 for tha su of t2223.40. He thercHfter drove
it about 13,000 ^iles when, expectini«: to enter the United Fitates
military service, he delivered the car to Sohllle "fotor Car
Company of Chicago for aale. The ?^c}!illo '[otor Car Company's
place of usiness was on south Hichittan avenue, and its manager.
10 IROOO TT1C999 ID)
,,** i 0 .A.
.WtfDH SHT 'vX, ;«,
9 tit Jm iftT«l
tilfe£ . OS I
,9»il:
1aX»i<.'^
b99Miiotmi M« Mqy j^irr '
tea
V«»« XT!
1 O;,^:;.
Sdwla V. Sehillo, dellrered the oar for storage to his f&ther,
AdMt l^chlllo, who operated a garage on liferth arenue, Chicago.
The plaintiff. Drain, and Arthur J. Smith, frieds of tiro or three
years standlnp, met January 26, 1918, and In the course of conrer-
eatioa between them plaintiff offered to sell his car to Raiith.
In the couxpany of one Benson they went to Adam Sehille*8 »;arag6
and after inspection of the car plaintiff and Pmith entered into
an agreement for its purchsse by Hmlth. The agreement was oral,
4ttd, as shewn bj the uncontradicted testimony of plaintiff, was to
the effect that Smith agreed to purchase the car for ^1,000, In
testifying the plaintiff said:
"He asked me what I wanted for the car. I told him a
thousand dollars, and he said he would buy it if we could make
the terms ri/tht. I asked hiaa what they were, and he said he
would pay me a thousand dollars for it, a hundred doliurs down
and a hundred dollars a week until it was paid Tor. The car was
to remain thez« until it was paid tor. *
Plaintiff did testify that he told kAna Fchillo to
deliver the car to Smith when he called for it, but his undisputed
testimony is also to the effect that he and Omith agreed that the
oar was to rersain in Rchlllo»8 garage until it was fully paid or.
At the time the agreement was entered into Smith gave plaintiff a
cheek for t.100, drawn upon defendant bank, whicti refused to pay
the cheek when presented for pajnaent. January 31, 1918, the
oheek was protested for non-payaent and returned to plaintiff.
Shortly thereafter in the early part of February, plaintiff met
Smith in Chicago and showed him the protested check. Plaintiff
testified that at that tine he said to Bmith:
"If he couldn't make the first payment, if he couldn't
pay that, we should call the deal off. I told him the deal
was off. Thcit was all then, I just called the — called the
deal off."
The evidence is undisputed that up to this time
Smi12i had not obtained possession of the car. February 19, 1918,
or shortly before that date, f^mith, while intoxicated and without
■«W 1 . . _ - --.
.10'} biAo; e«w »J: £i^o Ato
J '<e:f s/s.,
. --C (unr
.'t-ti LMJk
the conssent or knowledge of plaintiff, took the car from the Adaa
Sehlllo garage and on February 19, 1918, )l&eed it in the Keck
garage at "^aOrange. February 6, 1918, plaintiff directed Edwin
W. Sohille, manager o' the ?5ohillo !totor Car Co., to notify his
father, Adaji Fchillo, that the deal Tor the sale of the autoriobile
was declared off, and not to dellTe: the automobile to Smith, Ada«
Sohillo testified that he was not notified by his son of this fact
until after Smith had taken the car. Shortly after plaintiff be-
eaae apprised of the fact that Smith had taken the e&r he again
met hia at Chicago and demanded that he, Smith, return the car to
the Behillo gara^jce. Bmith admitted he had taken the automobile
without any right to do so, and ronissed to return it. Plaintiff
immediately thereafter entered the ailitary serT?ice of the TJnited
States at "^ashincjton. Plaintiff was notified by letter that de-
fendant had levied on the automobile to satisfy the Judgment against
Smith &nd his wife, and April 30, 1913, fire days after the sher*
riff's sale, he sent the telegram followia;' to the defendant:
"TJnderatund you have sold "Ioline-Knii;i:ht thinking it
belonged to A. A. Fmith. Youre absolutely wrong. I will hold
you liable for all damages."
Benson, plaintiff's former partner, testified that
Smith informed him by telephone of the contemplated sheriff's sale
and that he in turn, before the sale, telephoned 'Tr. Kilgour, presi-
dent of defendant bank, that the car was not the property of Mr.
Smith, but was owned by plaintiff; that Mr. Kilgour informed the
witness that the sale would go on and for the witness to see the
bank's attorneys. Mr. Kilg ur, however, denied any recollection of
this telephone oonTersation,
There is no denia. that Smith had no right at any
time to possession of the automobile, which was the property of
plaintiff. Rmith's failure to make the payments as agreed by
him and hie delivery of a worthless check to plaintiff authorized
*«Vl VtO flfU Tic
rn^wioo Mii
•"xaila acU -sa^li* a'^pit ^yit ,8r«.vr
... •j^iTKaili
}
Mori
iaJiiioQeUi sauc
^a^ be
.tlaiS
'/.^ temra a*-
iliA
a<U aas e# aecaJ
la ■oHoariaorx jprn baiuaJb ,y«t««> ' tiuatf
.aaj^aaTariTO: aiil#
Xn« ' xaia $mAt .aliiav
rai ^tfiTk^ mm mttiMPimq mti ei^aat •» vttf.' . . 'tl^MXq
A««li«[i^iM ttt»ni«Xq 9i iteado aaalift^ov a i* r^aviXai^ ajU tea x«ii(
plaintiff to regard the contraot ua cancelled. But, even if
Rmlth had made the first payment required by the contract, he
would not liare been res tad thereby with any right to poB session
of the car; euoh right rested upon his naking full payment as
agreed upon. Certainly, after February 6, 1918, when Baith ad-
■Itted his inability to pay for the car, and the calling off of
the deal by plaintiff, it cannot be held that the relationship of
rendor and rendee existed between him and plaintiff,
SoTeral months before Smith reaored the autoaobile
from the garags the defendant bank extended credit to him ,nA his
wife, and it is not claimed that prior to the aaJciag of the lery
the bank relied upon any act or promise of plaintiff, and it
nerer at any time parted with anything of value as a result of
Smlth*3 possession of the car.
The owner of chattels jnay recover for a eonversioa
thereof whs re it appears that the party in possession is not aa
Innocent bona fide purchaser for value; a ind-;ment creditor who,
as in the present case, takes possesBion of property not the
property of the jud;:Mient debtor cannot be said to be a bona fide
purchaser for value, and we are inclined to the view that cuch
Judicpnent creditor's position with respect to property levied
upon is the same as that of an attachment creditor - the judgment
creditor's title to the prooerty is no better than thi.t of his
Judgment debtor. This is particularly so where, as in the pres-
ent case, sufficient eviderice is admitted to warrant a finding
that the Judgment creditor had notiee of the owner's interest in
the property before the sheriff's sale was had.
In the case of Corzine v. Brents, 123 111. App. 615,
it is said;
fl'^ »ir
' t «J 'T
•i'
•Id
■'IT O *0:JOrf D^ n. TOJli't'in
.jo-^1 VAV oXmi r*"'-' "3 •fit r*
, * ..«^(t
"A Judcraent creditor does not atsjnd in the position
of an innocent purchaser, as he purts with nothing in ex-
change for the prorierty, and does not take it in oatlafaction
of his debt. Re takes no greater interest or oetter txtle in
the property than his debtor, "^^chyeizer t. Tracy. 76 111. 345;
Berry v. " P. Allen & Co.. 59 111. App. 149; Nonotuck F^ilk Co..
T. Levy, 7^' 111, App, B'ST"
In the case of Sehweizer v. Trucy. 76 111. 345, it was
held that where a person had ourebased goods upon fal::;* aad
fraudulent representations and thereafter sells thera to aa in-
nioent purchaser for value the latter would acquire a valid
title thereto, and it was said In that case that
*an attaching creditor stands in the li/];ht of a purchaser, not
Becessarily as against tbe world, lut as b-gednst another pur-
chaser, the creditor htiving, hy virtue of his attaci tnent, first
obtained poosossion of the property; thu3 acknowled^-ing the
common doctrine respectina: the sale of personal property, that a
sale without tho delivery of possession is void as against sub-
sequent purchasers and creditors, n x n m
But in the case before us, the attaehinr^ creditor has no such
plain rule of law to invoice in his behalf. He can cite the
doctrine thst where personal property has been obtained by
aeans of a fraudulent purchase, a bona fide purchaser thereof
from the fraudulent vendee, for a valuable consideration, withoiit
notice, will acquire a good title, but that does not eabrace the
ea-se of a aere attaching creditor."
It is attempted to draw a distinction in the applica-
tion of the rule between the case of an attachment creditor and
that of a levy Toy aa execution judgment areditor. The Buprene court,
however, in Hohweizer v. Tracy . supra, relied expressly upon the
case of Toualey v. Tousley. 5 Ohio ft. 78, where it was hel.i that
•a Judgment creditor is not a purchaser nor entitled to the privi-
leges of that position. "
In its opinion in the Sehweiaer ease, supya, the Su-
preme court said:
"The only difference, as affects the present question,
between the lien of a jud/rTient and one acquired by att:-ch;nent,
is that one is general and the other specific. «'e are unai.ile
to see that this distinction should chani?e the rule in its ap-
plication to a case like the present."
We think that the evidence here shows that plaxntiff*s
«c
Dri# ail;'
Jt -t K i»
, i<xi/eo ^tmtqun aifT .-rottb^m tnsriMtait soi^LxeiM ju t(f Y!«^^ ^ ^« ^'^^*
»di B«qw xf »•««<!"• I^ilwi iJSSiSSSL •i •T»»od
#«C# Jkf«i timm H . ot ^«» mne
-«« a/i ni
right xo the automobile was im edlate, absolute ^nd uncondlti.onul,
a&d that it did not depend upon any act to be perforated )»y Ida.
He had never delivered possession of the property to Baith, and
the takinr: of the automobile was wholly irithout the coneent of its
owner; h^enee, as a necessary result, the levy by the bank thereon
did not and could not vest it with any right thereto.
It is maid that plaintiff a alleged transactions with
Bmith having been in parole and unrecorded, the statutes give the
garage keeper, Keck, a lien on the automoL>ile and that as a con-
sequence plaintiff was net entitled to an int >edi&te or absulitte
right of possession thereo;. Ther^i is nothing at all in tills
point. The uncontradicted evidence discloees that the taking of
the oar was wholly wron^^jful and unauthorized. It is urged, too,
that the defendant was an execution creditor, that its judgwient
had become a lien, -j^nd that this fact distinguishes the instant
ease from the eases above cited. Reliance is had upon the case
of Craneer Go. v. T/illiaTis. 191 111. App., 451, where it is said:
"It has been frequently held in cases where an officer
wajs sued either in an action of replevin or an action of tres-
pass, that the execution was sufficient to protect hlin if the
suit was by a party against whoa he held the execvition, but that
when he levies upon the goods of a third person, a stranger to
the execution, he must produce the judf^ment as well as the writ
to justify the seizure."
In the Grancer C oapany case a conditional sale of a
piano was -aade; the vendor, retaining title in hinBelf, delivered
the chattel to tVie vendee ao as to clothe him with apparent owner-
execution
ship, and it was held that a bona, fide purchaser thereof or his ^
creditor was entitled to be protected as against a claim of the
original vendor. As hereinbefore stated, the uncontradicted evi-
dence in the case at bar shows that plaintiff hcid not delivered
possession of the car to '^m.Lth, and that ^ile an attempt heid been
made to sell the property to hisi, the attempt to do so failed, due
• ^
>^t; iiJ J
■IT' ci.r/ *XiwO«;oj;;J!i i>rj
.sT ft-ur
'.t tg ^•
'CiMBKft H:
jTAflM
:»t»4* ^tljii.- -^r
"X ^8»V /I'l .i.!.'.
Off fclA
.4V-,J-It ft'--' ' '- -'^
' "^U hi«8 ' ' '
• -W -■ .« ••*«^V .♦'' ,-..^.v-
. *£.««q '
. ...i^
"tfc m m* tA!i.- i^trnf.
'(ftll ^
»3f »• -n^
0tm:v--. 10 -
aa
mtn
!;'j:9.ij rtO i ■ ^?^;-;et;
\^
lo ws: '-
,0«v
- f<?
^^ftf•'■Jblr' «^i: ,»j»i{i .to^f-
.ij e#.f« ;
s ...n yefj it©0i-
•/•TdrfJB »f
:fci-
!• l» wsmiw •*•«»
AYl 8«#ir 1
• !• tlAa l«aai;f tttffM « »ai>o ^^xjgwrt' ^aogatO orttf kJ
fraaari :oJ^ .iJaaMiri ai a: 'iJMTav .nafcKar »tCt ;afe.(ur asv viMil^
' '■ fa9xticiri» dttw mlK tuitv lo 9i a« oc aaiUmr •df 9S fa^^aifa •tit
\ mid. «o Itartarfi ifmMA»%»^ t^iTt apoif « >art^ kl^^ : Jknj* .<|jfa
atit *ta fliZaXo r. icnlana a« bmt9»tcn -ioilb^ro
-It* haioiteK^Kad' lio
rr aad ^«4 tqMailu aa 9lx.iM iani tu- . izj »Ai ic ttdlcesava^
aa* «bai:i«t oa oft •# tfew^la aif^ ,?lrl Ov« x^riaqoiil aJ^ XIaa oi aftaai
solely to the fact that Smith was unable or unwilling to comply
with the terms of the sgreement. Further than this, ©n Febru-
ary 6, 191S, Saith consented to a coaplete cancellation of the
agreeaient. Here there was no vaatin? of the purehi.ser with
indicia of ownership. If there had heen, the cases cited would
hare been an authority in favor of defendant 'e contention. Nor
does the evidence show that the plaintiff stood hy, with knowl-
edge of the levy, and" permitted the sale to he made without pro-
test. Tndeed, so far as the evidence relates at &1 . to this
matter, it shews that plaintiff acted promptly in notifying de-
fendant of his ownership of the automobile.
It is said that no showing w&s made by competent
evidence of tha ja&rket vulue of the a-utoaobile at the tiWe it
v&s levied upon by the sheriff, A witness, lleck, testifying for
defendant, said the car was worth $500. Benson, a witness for
plaintiff, testified that on April 4, 1918, the car was worth
from flOOO to $1200.
The trial court i'^properly ad'aitted evidence of the
cost of tha car at the time it was purchased in 1915, Tliis error
was not, however, so serious as t© authorize & reversal of the
judgment.
TThlle objection is made to the action of the court
In giving and modifying certain instructions, it iz our opinion
that no error w&s thereby comuiitted which would warrant » reversal
of the Judgment.
The Judgment of the County court is affinaed,
AyilBOD,
BcSurely, J,, concurs.
Vatchett, J., dissents.
e
liOks tftXo «««de MLt ,<i!t«ft4r b*Ml •tndtf "' . -.0 «ivl.<«A
i:a«n^lv A ,Cfo«0^ .OfiH^ r{»f^m nmr tMA tjit Jtlat »^R«*fi«%«fe
dlfiow INBW ^AO «/4^ ,61' -i<rt* fiat'Jttfiwl .^^i
Bttt ^e •0^f»61^ir» i^«^J:^Jb» irXt*cfoi(;wi tlttt^O XdlYO
lo-nt* fa i»j*ti»tt; OD
jatfon tmi-fwmini'i Ri 9i^v .-'0 »Xict.r
150 - 25921 »5R, JtrpTTCB 1!toSURl?I.Y '^PRCIAJJ.T COfTCTinRTH^,.
Defandant hud notice before the sale that th« automo-
bile belonged to plaintiff, then in railltaiy serrice out of the
State. It adaita receipt of another such notic*. written, from
plaintiff before It receired any money from the eale or satisfied
its Judgment against Smith. This takes the bonu fides out of the
sale .
TO. JDSTICl ^lATCtfSTT DISSSI^TIHG.
I dissent from the conclusion reached and fro^n the
law c.a stated in the opinion of the majority of the court. Upon
the facts as stated in the opinion, with undisputed f^cte which
appear in evidence, I think the plaintiff could not recover.
These additional facts are, fiinat, that plaintiff
n«Ter returned to Smith the cheek given in payment of the first
instalment on the contract of sale; and, second, that Benson, who
testified that he told one of the Bank's officiwls and its attorney
prior to the sale that pl&lntiff, not Smith, owned the automobile
in controversy, volunteered so to do, und did not assume to or
actually have any authority fro>'n plaintiff to give i:.tiy such no-
tice. This is established to be a fact both by the testiniony
of Smith and Benson. There was, therefore, I think, no evidence
from which the Jury could properly find that the defendant had
any not .ce prior to the sale of plaintiff's al"'eged rijjhts, and
notice five days after sheriff's sale ^'S^XWHimmiT. was unavailing.
oex
>««rO#.'. lAt 9iMm 9i^ V%%1WS vex. , -.i.K 9').
«»' >^nA i»«dd«»i iroi«tfXe>ROd 9cfJ me\1 vtaoh< .
Otto .iio«tT«s #«. bAii {•.: initioo ■
xtafiiM 9tt ham «Xai»m3 0*<3«r t ^« *x«:r
jponiimnf eii^ ^tf lU^d t9«l u »6 0) batfii ' ^1 tiHT .•»!#
•o^*fiiT« on ,3(ji2iU I ^•zotwxa'ii «■«» ea^rfT ift/3 lo
4*lliini«Xq !• »£m9 •tf nm
.8ni^i.iv^iti; rii>» XHSDDOtXXJGVlC eX^a amivoda is-. * .-on
The uncontradicted eridence also shows that the automobile was de-
livered to Bniith on plaintiff's order.
Adam Schillo, from whom f^mith obtained the automobile,
was Buhpoenaed as a witness for defendant, and testified with ap-
parent reluctance:
"The "Joline Knight car was hrou-ht into my place of busi-
ness that belonged to ilr. Drain. Ke told me he had sold this
ear to 'Ir. Smith. Ke told me to deliver possession of this car
to Mr, Smith, and I delivered possession to 'Ir. Smith; that was
the last I saw of this automobile, Mr. Drain told me to deliv-
er it to 'Ir. Siuith, After Drain told me this, my son told me
over the 'phone not to deliver the car to Smith, At tiie time my
son told me tliis the car was not in ray possession. It was gone.
Smith had taken it away."
The opinion of the majority relies on the proposition
of law that a judgment creditor does not stand in the position of
an innocent purchaser, as he parte with nothing in exchange for
the property and does not take it in satisfaction of his debt;
that he takes no greater interest or better title in the property
than his debtor. That was evidently the theory of the trial court,
and reliance is placed on the law as stated in Pohweizer v. Traoy ,
76 111. 345. It was held in that case that an attctching creditor
does not stand in the same position as an innocent purchaser for
Talue, as against the claim of a seller from idaom the JudgHsent
debtor had obtained possession of the property by fraud. That was
the precise question before the court, and that decision has, in
that respect, been since uniformly followed in this State, But
that a judgment creditor is in a different position is established
by a long line of decisions in this State,
The precise question as to the rights of a judgment
creditor was before the Supreme court of this State in the case
of Van Duzor v. Allen. 90 111., 499. There the plaintiff vendor
brought an action of replevin to recover a threshing machine whicli
had been levied upon by Judgment creditors of the vendee. The
court there said;
:•««*♦ DLffOT ^ifaxivj
8i; .
-▼/ ^
ai . . ' c
flcii>iBOqoiiq 9dt HO eaJ.l9'x x^irtOuA o aoinZ^^c c
lo Moi^iaoq »ri^ al Amtis ton B»oi> ii^j'.btno tuatn^tUsl a - -ur ?r i jo
X^^aqovf tSi ul •ItU tBif<S .V o T.aitatttJ.' t" *■ — "" o-t teya* art i^tU
rrc^lAoio ir.L trills ent f»rit ffi h£»ri »«»* .tT .aw: .fir 9V
ftiri ^udai Bftn'i «x»XX»a « ' ■ lis^* aii .avXsr
««w .di;«icl t¥' Xli^i:»qeit<[ «rCi lo «o^«ras«got At»aricJ-Jo bjvf 'X»j*ci«&
r I oiK^.--oh fTdi boa ^tfisa^ erf* 9-iO'\i>ti ad^aavp •8lB«<t« •*!*
WrfalXd:«;^aa al u^iita9q inav.e'tlJt ^ . .1 to^lbvv* tatr
.ei^iSf* tiidt cl arroiittdsft J» hmlT giroJ • x^
'^t 9tis 'Olt0oop eeiaa*!
roba^r IliinlMl:. ttUt ifitt .?er. ..£11 09 .««; lo
»rrr .•abr(07 ortj "Jo eioilfcai: /f aaqv b<ilTaI iNi^tf hmd
: M«a atar':^ fiuoo
10
"It clearly appears frora the eridence that, as between appellant
and Ouston, the trade rrae not so ft.r executed as to pass the
title of the property to the latter. Ae l>etw9en thsm, apnellant
could no doubt hr~Te mairtfiined replevin Tor ite recovery. But
the question ie presented, whether or not there was such a sale
ajnd deliveiy as to render the property liable to lavy and sale
on execution against Gaston, whether or not there was such a
sale und delivery ss passed the title to the purchiasora n k n
without notice, n n n
i\ bona fide creditor, riho under a Judr-ment and execu-
tion acquires a lien on property thus situated, occupies the
saae position in all respects as does a hone. Tide purchaser.
Where the apparent ov.ner of property thus acquired had the in-
dicia of ov^nership, and may sell and pass a ;50od title to a
purchaser without notice, a bon<u. fide creJitor may seize the
property on execution and sell it thereunder, and pass the ti-
tle, not only against the apparent but also the real owner.
The creditor end purchaser stand on the aame footing, and each
will be equally protected."
Again applying the sarse principle in the c -se of
gilbert V. Natl onal Cash Hetyister Co.. 176 111. 288, the court
said :
"In Illinois 'if a person agrees to sell to a^:Other a
chattel on condition chat the price should be caid Within a cer-
tain time, retaining the title in himself in the meantirfio, and
delivers the chaitsl to the vendee, so as to clotiie him vkith
apparent ownership, a bona fide purchaser or exec ition creditor
of the latter is sntitled to protection as ar^i'-innt the claisi of
the original vendor,* Harkness v. Hussell, il8 U. S. 678;
Brundage v. Car3£, 21 111., 329; !lcCor-»ric]c V. Kadden, 37 111,
370; Muroh v, Wright. 46 111. 487; Miich. Central Rj^. Co. v.
Phillips. 60 111.. ISO; Lucas v. Campbell. 88 Ii: . 447; 7an
Duzor V. Allen. 90 111, 499. n n y(
tv. v.:.aDuaor v. /ller., oupra. we held that a bona fide
creditor, who under a judgment and execution acquires a lien
on property while in the actual possession of a vendee by de-
livery froai the vendor, or taken and held by his consent, oc-
cupies the zone po.3iti.on in till rsepects aa does a bona fide
purchaser from such vendee."
I think there is on principle a clear distinction
between rights of an attaching creditor and a creditor lewying on
an execution issued on a valid Judgment. The execution creditor
1gj the aatiafaetion of his judgment gives value, while the attach-
ing creditor has only a claim triiich has not as yet been reduced to
judgment, and all hi a rights aro dorived from the Attachment Stat-
ute.
Moreover, I think that in this case plaintiff by hie
01
SttAi if <
•Urn s
'imup ttii
•J.^;■•i
*Ui-
Iir
go»i «cpq « «<«gi:) «.
5U2g;
-rr - i L<»ir
-ftoait^A •df vllifaf ,»trtftv R^rrl^ #iir»(D|M(t a^?*- "^^ w^ift^y^ktmB nMI x'
.*ifu
■ill x<f lltiBi^/ t en^o HidS ml iBiH txitdi X .v^vomecV
11
conduct waiTttd any cl&im to this autofflobile as against the de-
fendarit. I'luinilff knew Gmith hud possession of the autoaobil«.
This was the middle of February. The sheriff's said was had on
April 2ZiUi. Par about seventy days, tVierofore, knowing that
Smith was clothed with the indicia of title* plaintiff rsade no
further effort to reclaim his property. She only excuse he gives
is that he told Smith to take the automo&ile back to the garage aad
thought he had done so. Smith betruye li like guileless confidence
in plaintiff and allows him to keep the protested check, although
the sale Is supposed to have been rescinded.
I think on the plainest principles that plaintiff by
his aetioi^, as against defendant, must be held to hare waived his
right to rescind. I think this is tlie law even in those states
idiich go so far as to hold that neither creditors nor purchasers
can, under such circuRistances, take any title other than that which
the Judgment debtor has. Latherby et al . v. CiuaiRlngs. 54 .W.J.L,
^''2; Smith T. Denny. 6 rick. 262.
But even it' it be conceded tiiat there were issaeo of
fact which should have been subraitted to the Juiy, I think the in-
structions given and refused would require a reversal in this case,
becauny, in effect, these took all questions of f .ct fra-^i the jury.
Instiruction Ho. 1 for the plruntiff told the Jury:
"The court instructs you that if you believe from a
preponderance of the evidence in this case that A. J. Pinith
mronr^fully obtained possession of the Zoline Knight autoraolule
in question, if he did, and held said automobile wrongfully and
without iiuthority from the plaintiff, -when it was converted by
the defendant, LaGarange Btate Bank (if it was so converted),
then the defendant is not in the position of an innocent pur-
chaser for value, and took no better title to eaid antorsobils
than the said A.J. Smith had, if any, at the time of said con-
version, "
Again, in plaintiff's instruction Ho, 3:
%crtf*t
tef*Jido^ tJH 100 ete^ib^^e %mt{tl*ti t»d.
h■^
It
■■'9
It
!£ .0K fT«ltOtf«}rxa »«lliiKi«i<i mt 4«U^
12
•You are ins true ted as a ';natter of law, tiiat all that
need be shown in an action in trover for the conversion of per-
sonal prOfii»rty ie t^e ovrer^Mp of t'c* pr^jparty ir> the pl^-in-
tiff; that it ca»e into possession of the defendant, and that
defendant converted it to his ov-n uae."
These Instructions, it is ajparentj wholly i^snore the
defense presented in the case and plaintiff's theory of It.
I think the court also erred when by the tentii in-
struction, at the request of plaintiff, it told the jury, as
matter of law:
"that if uTider the evidence end the instruction of tho court
you find the defendant p^uilty, then the measure of the plain-
tiff's daoif^ee will "be the retail piarket va lue of the property
at the time of the conversion, and 5:^ interest thereon, since
that date, but not to exceed the sin of *1,0'>0.00."
Hot only does this instruction state an incorrect
rule of lew as to the rTeasure of dafnaijea, tut I think it »a8
clearly erroneous for the court by this instruction to intitaate t«
the jury that Si, 000.00 might be 'vlloweo.
I think, also, defendant's tl'ird requeatad ine traction
should have been ^iven and th<it it was error to -efuse it. It is
as follows:
"Th* court instruct?; the j'urj .-.s a rrsatter of law, that
where one of two innocent persons must suffer as a result of the
wron^r commlttsd by a t';ird person, the loss must fall upon the
one of the two parties who, by his ucts or conduct, put it with-
in the 7509fsr of the third party to cause the loss,"
This proposition was not covered by any other instruc-
tion, and assuming that there were iasues of fact in the case, de-
fendant was entitled to have the Jury so instructed.
I think the jud>;;3ient should be reversed and the cause
remanded for another trial.
SI
it
-•X
9 MT k^ma
•rf » •-
-r ; ^i.ti>j
•or..:. .a»«-t
9 -^pT* rftwx' ^i Jerf*"
i/oiiiirT»» yXy««I»
•1 «l
*4»iii .jtaX "Jo tfiiiim ij
•a(J i-
^\f%il9ni MM
•di/Tttni 9«u>C) tn« x<| A««i«ir9
• aif«0 94;; bl&« >»M97^ »0 LJjjO;
t«7 ^•tla•lce1[
mA • 26026
\ AppAllaat,
CHICAOO CITt aAil.lAy CO.,
K / 223I.A. 631
muvrsn&3 me onnitm of tm c uwt,
Coek CftuHty to reeover dama^** i'ar tjijaries trhish piaiatiff 'a
«
d«oi«ratiafl charge* »»«r« (jftuaefi by the n«3gii{;«ncy of sdfvmnfea
of defeudanta m Ibe opsjfa^iou oi* a atrawt -w . Th^ a':'rJSe'*.t
occurred at xYm o^i-jvar ai* ««at A<t»r.« smd I.*i8al1* »t.ir*f**t9, %i»
e«g», lilt sbi»ut tflx o* alack on *he eycning of Mar^iTi 11, \^l^,
l\vid«incB ©fferc'^J fnr plaintiff tCRdu ti nrov» th<&t
he intended and attempted tr> '^^lard s .«itta®t enr tott lf--.A?id ^n
AdaaiB Btr««t; that fea th«» e*r aj;vr«'.*»i'i*d I*!5»31« «tr«^t pJ^liritiff
«*v«d i»io h&M «,« & fcigKfti foT t>ie *;e:r to st^pj t)3t»t ti.« et.r
stopped or aloweu ciown tc a uici* &p*«d fc-'id plaintiff took >''•*. i. ef
& oentcr apriKut en its rear jflutfftrKi lird ri''efr«^ «'i* f<»«t ^»ri t^
«air step; t^ftt t»till« he wai» in Uii& j|.»'^eiitirn thi; C3ir gave » t:adid«n
Jerk cind pt-ooeedftci «e&tv&rd a6v.*<itt<i LAt^i&lX^ strvot; th«t bt theraby
lABi hla hnid nf the oeuter uprit;ht «iBd tvft.B thr^Trn fff hit biplane*;
that h« e«iy.«d 6 remr rod oti the wifctfox'A: of th« ctr nwl i»ht
•vune urounn to the real of tb« plittfors; that hr wao drat;4.-ed liy
the mB-wjsent of tti* ci*r a tii(ttt»noe ef ebout 40 feet bf^fore belim
tlirown to the jjttveJwfeuti 'vlusii k6 b rerult of ti»^ fhll b(- i^uetftined
i^ skull fratttur««
The «i.i6© wtMB tried bef^Jirt u juirj', wftieli r^turfiod a
irerdiet in faror of defeniRuta taid a Judgaent was entered thereoa
a
\
MOM • Mt
^ lit. ,,• JT >i^-J
'i*#r'»*tr , <t jico
Xd»
1 nrsyr ii n 'Siij
which the plaintiff seeks to roT@rs« \ty his appeal to this court.
Plaintiff ineists that thn vertliot id contrary to the weight of
the evidenoe; that the court improperly inetruote4 the jury and
that error was ooiathlttod in i^dmittlni; oertain eTldeoee offered by
4ef«ndant and in refusing to ade^.it STi^ence offered by plaintiff.
Plaintiff and ona of his witneosea testified that
Juat \mfore the a-acident happened the ear stoj^ped at the usual
stopping pldoe east of LaiJalle street. A witness for plaintiff*
STans, testified that he was uncertala whether the ear oame to a
stop or whffth^r it elowed down* Other witnessss stated that ths
oar slowed down 4«»t hefore it reached the crcsaing. Hie motor-
BUMi testified, "I figured on stopping on this side of the erosa-
Ing unless I had th® sigaai fr«aa ih* officer te ga Rhftad." A
polles offioer detailed &% the Ititorsection of LaSalXs and Adaais
street testified that he had griiren a sigstal for the wovSng of the
Borth and south truffle oa LaSaiXe street ^for© the streetoar
reached the stopping point east of LaSalle street, and that while
the oar w»s east of the crosswalk he gave the >si,2nal for the Bove-
stent of east and west troffio.
1'here ia ^ diroet oontradiatioo in the evidenos he-
twesa ssTeral of the witnesses at» to whether the plaintiff was
standing an the street waiting for the car to approaoh, or whether,
as testified l>y Kuhn» plaintiff's witnes», he ran toward the ear and
attempted to boar4 it. On this pnlnt l^hn testified as follows:
•Ct» Wsii* you saw hiss, didn't y»u?
A. All I seen him was cutting across on a slant.
Q. Sunning? A. Te», eir.
^, Did h« run until he t?ot up tn tne «»i5d of the cart
A. He did.*
O&a Kenney, a witness for defemiant. said:
.}Tlf»' 1 till X'^ MI^Tvn fi mitm— Ytitninln mdj d9lAw
In J .i»r •ri. ":~:"j1»1si
t«f l^*Y*tle g»««klT« ni«4^** <f. ..vv^U^ nl b^l^l^woe •«« tni* #«iCi
• lijl#nl«i« x*f l>n«lte •9ct»mv» ikeOut o*' «ai«tfl«t ni few* Jnntnm'Xmb
mi'
•Xlite ««fl/ !>.>
ton Y«0 Mi bTA*:
«
bntt-ytf*
iw Ml ait wan
-ola IMP
'if«X
-./. - . 4-.-^ ,^^ ^^ ,^^
• *V>fl it oft* ?
iOiMm ,JftM»n9\9i
Imildinf; lln« of LrSrIIc atr««t. I wafl b-ti?«<»n * ^« north
tT»ck snrl t»is cnt^i of i.b*t n<»ft>7 vaiic, I noticed a B-.sfl
run out froB the eirlewalk and grab the ear. H« «as In the
ibct of trySnff ta ^-^t m bnndh 14 than be eiipptc and fell
trtm the car behind Xt. <ffhen thii» man ran out and tried
to bear'i ';<*« c«r It was >,;4c!i:ln)J' up speed to ipeke the croea*
inn at LaBaXle street.'*
?be teatlveay of the notorman and eonduQtor ie to
the effect that no one «aa waitlni; near the street Intereeotlon
to board the ear. A witnees, i^Tana, aald:
"Xhe first, thing I noticed wa& that he had hold
at tbat rfell. Ue wj^b on the s«t'-*o t^f th« car finally, y/hsn
he got on the atep of th«s oar he was maybe Ifi or ^ feet f ron
til* xTHlk, TiiQ oar had then inore»s9d -r^nslSdrsbiy in «•»««;««. »
riK' ?ritlonee intro<Iu<i«a ©a th« trial both on behalf
ef the defen<Jsnt and the plaintiff ia -»f such oharsct«r that «•
are uapvitf to V^old th»s4 th« v«r<!i8t of th« Jury ^uis »»«if«atly
•Salnet the weight of tH« evSd«ra^«. ?h«r# ia evidenes in the
recorti whieh supports th» e«mt«nwion that plaintiff I'an froa the
olde^felk end iBtt«i5i>i#'<f to "hoisrd the <^r v*hile it tras in asetioa
and iner?!a«ing itt et-^st^i as it aisp^^ao^irfscl tha lnt«ra«otlon.
At the r««itu«»t of dof?rn<!ftnt th« aeurt irave the Jury
an ln8ti»ij?tlf\n, %a* X4, as follown:
**If ycm bslii^re tr-^ix ths evidence, un<}er t.h* l^nfl-truo
tions of tho court, that the defendant had no notice . or in
the 3x«raia» of •ordinnry ftare coui^ nst hsvc- k^n'M'S tV/s-.t !>•«»
plaintiff intended to board th? aaid ear, at the tijsje and
ipisce in •«jt»^,8ts-Tn, a,jn<J If yflu hi=lif"»€ frt<ni th*- evif^ence that
he was injured in an attjijspt to boara the o&r unier such sir*
eueiatiinoes, your verdtvTt sauet be in fsivt-r of the defenfle-nto.*
it itt argued that dftferdrntte ipere requiTfi?. to ojcer*
aise the hlgr^^^t <ii«fix*«a ef osr^ to disooYtr plf«l«ttff •« Ij'tontioa
to boarri V'-t Gux . Tlie Instruction, rlien oontsldcred in norinfictlaii
with the fwcts cf the «&»?«, vms not iibjHctionpibJe. It di!*octed m
▼ei'd:ict in favor cf defCJnUatits if th« jvry "helievftd f5*o« the eYl»
denee that defon&ants h«vA no notice, or in the «»x«>rel8« of ordinary
oare could not have known, that plaintiff intended to board ih^ ojtr ,
Plaintiff 'a theory is that he twas atandiag waltins f'^r the osr to
approaeh} that he signaled to the wetorMiaa and that as the ear
9d$ 9h%»»mJ »%«m
ll«d-
>i 6««<7('
-Iv .
-<•• «ffi lyra inAtfol
•loved doms as- stopped at 2^Sali,«i fitr«ot he attcueptad to b««rd it.
Htueb of the •▼ld«noe» however, ten40 to «st«bllsh the fact that
plaintiff, eltbeut ootioe of anj aort te the pereona iu charge of
the ear, ran fron the eidettalk and att«!Kpt84 to board the oar
while it «a8 in asotlon and ita apeed accelerating* Under the
evidenee the 4ury could properly ecnoiude that defendante haA
ne notice* and in the exercise of ordinary oare oould not hava
reeelTed knowledige of pl«tintiff*0 intention to hoard the ear*
7he law does net require peraone in eharge of tha <9p«ration ef a
atreetear operated in Dm heart of a erewded olty, to exeroiaa
the hi^.h«st degretit of eare to diso^^ver the intent of peraone
eian(iing or paosing n<far or about the car on tho i3tre<?ta and
sidewalks .
The evidoAoe uhowtt vhat the plaintiff ?iid In fao%
attespt to >»oard the car and whether hie conduct was such afi
would ostahlioh the relation trmt that time of pu»»9iig«r and
earner between the parties is a stuoh disputed i^uestion. But
hewoTer this nay he, it eannot ho held that such relation ex*
iated h«fore plaintiff s&ade the atteaspt to hoard tho car; that
eould he aYi^mn only hy proof of an express or iRplied inTfttatiea
en the part of defendant to pl&intiff to board the ear and aa
txpntttn or iniplied aeceptanee thereof hy plaintiff* '^he jury
had Sttffioient evldenoe heforo it to warrant a finding that defend-
ants did not intend or atteeipt to atop the oar east of l>aSalle
street to take on Mnd let off pasaeu^ers, and even if it be oen*
eaded that plaintiff's t«>atimeny that he was stanainc in the
street valti»K for the approaohiog oar and that he gave a signal
to the notonoan of his intention to beard it, he true, this fact
in and of itself did not naii« hm a pao^enKor on the (mr* This
relationship oould not he imposed upon defendants with <ut their
inplied or exy?estsi consent. If the evidence offered for de*
• IMA WU
^ite aX«w«M« *di aui
•■-■- ■••► ikUfI Mti.'""
.■- i.'fi»
. vet v«X mTT
.*■ «itc«4 tv ftMta 4mA9 m»t\ ifUttx
•M ttoiiftirs doiM J«(U bl^A ^4 i^namo ii ,»d »«« vi.^ iwwrwi
AS &nj» ■Y'k-- "^-t MAOtf oi lli»ai«i:<i ni iatU^aitXwL
•XIaSji. }» wif} <;<»#« oj <f«»iif«i «o her*.
*nM scf Ji Ii aav* In* . •«« "tlr. ffii ht,
Sffi At sAihojk;* •«« M iMl' x««iiitia«« fl"t1i4lUAXq iaiU i»«»M
JUojii* « tTKi ft • tmo 'yitiit^Aoii%%^ »tiJ fiJt
iitm\ mUi' y»an€>49m 9<i
•icCT .xiir> %itt a* it^»«MM( m mv-i
••f . *l"l« »r
i n«
rxqx»
^Ib •ism
ftn<Unt« Is tru«, then no Aot wma p9rtnvmi4. by th« p«r«ona la
eharge of th« car which euthoriJEixl plaintiff to b«Iif>Ye thmt
4«f«n4antii w«r« r««dy and willing to iicc«pt biro &• « pussengar;
h« in no sensA pJL&eed hteetlf in charge of d«f «ndiinta , nor, 1>«»
fore he attempted tn board the o«r, did he ooeupy * place in
mny Banner under defendant** control.
I« C. k n, I. R. JR. Ct», V. lefiHiag&» ^^3 111., 478.
the Suprei&e court said:
"Although it le not necesinry that fare ehould he-re
been pe^id or an expreae oontraet made, it in noceeeary that a
pereon ahould he under the control of a carrier in order to
b« entitled to its care ae a pa»«enser« {2 ^ood an Hallway
Law, 1037.) He Ruat he at eeiM» plaoe under the control of
the ojtrrier s^d provided for paseengsra bo that it may exer-
oiae the high degree of oare exacted fr^c it; eund the nere
fact tami. un intending pfi.attei'UKer h«a & tlokei and intenda to
talbce a train does not create the relation of eerrier and
paeaenger.**
^a G. i?« T« Co. tr. 0*lrien.. 31© III,, 303, the Su»
prene eourt aaid:
*fhe relation of pasaenger tmd e&rrier is contractnaJL
and doe a not arise out of the fact that a person rune toward a
novins ear to get i^n 'board, but the relation may t;e proved by
eircu»atan«ea . **
Heraralble error waa not cowitcitted by tho court in
giTing thi» inat motion, or in (jibing in»%ruction« Uo», 17 and 10.
Instruction Ifo. 17 ia in part eubatantlalXy 6i]F.ilar to instruction
Ho. 14* !Jor «X& we beliove the court ot^xsiitted re'?eral>)le error in
Ita rulin^a upon the adr«^ieaibility of evidence .
Imipeaching qu&istione were a»ked witne saea Helve raoa
and Jehnaon for the purpose of ispeaching eertain toatimony given
by the polieeean, F^rnea, who teatifled for plaintiff, f^rnea'
teetieiony in the main is to th« effect that after he gave the
aignal for the east and we at traffic he aaw a man hanneing onto
the baeie of the weat beand atreetoar^ that he waa dragi^ed about
12 or 1ft feet; that he then let go and fell on hia back in tha
ear tracka. lie teatified alao that he did not tell nn attendant
at a haapital that plaintiff tried t« board a !80vin« car and fell
ml mu»9%^ »rf* X^ ^wrw>^<^ ftpr ?fK» <mi mits ,Pffis st if9anlm9\
ife^.* •♦T*
8T^
oJ mtav-
•«OV« ft<T aJt vS
A«A«iq»& Mil
<of« vf^ ,to< •<xXi wr
9«< is
02
arl .7
%CJ ;t! '''.'. nf ni'f t'f- a£3*2 ^fv.'
IX«) kui las AAlToxr « «n«(iif ni b»l-'
•liUXin .v'?
(t<:aur(ol hfu
f
•> 3X ta Si
off OR %ho orn»fi«mIk, and further that he did not U^IX officort
KalT«r8on find J^ohnson that "that la the way the aeoldont happened,
right there at the j>lt&e«f) of the aeeldont." The impeaehing ^uee*
tione put to Jehseon »nd Kalv^reon subutant Lall? follow and indi*
oate thl6 tesitlKony of the poXleetaan. Teohnlcally, the Jjetpeaflhing
eltnevHee* Attention should hnTe %teen direotcid to the tiflse and
plaee where the alleged oonTeraatlon took rXaee, hut %)w o1»4«ctioii
to the qui»e tione wa« that no foundation had heen laid therefor*
Cej&plalnt is mode of other rulings of the t.rial
court en the adi^tieeibllity of e'vidence a» to uri^tieh it ia oar
opinion no rerereihle error wae ooEiraitted.
The ^ludgwont of the Superior court io affirwsed,
MeSureiy and Matohett, JJ«, concitr.
.-io^*t».'rf bin.
» 1110 0':
bus xitmmm
16 • a«i7
R. S. ST
▼■
WABASn RAXIIAT
•ntUukt Xm Krro
Airy,
tifjria Xrr«r.
niaoR TO
COOHTY CCU«f,
OW»K cctiirT,
223 I.A. 631
HBLXYimfD TR8 OPlKIOli 07 TRl COURT*
Plaintiff brought suit in th« County Oo>art to
r«oev«r th« vala« «f 395 erat«B of eantaXouiMia which h*
•hipp«d on July 17. 1916, from Bl«Tin«, Arkftnaas, irim th»
JPr«««ott & H«rthim8t«rn Hallr«*d, tft F. ::. HolUs ft Co.,
Ghleage. Xllinoia. the ahipnisni rafiehod Chloa^ Jf^ly 21,
1916, «ver the rails of dafondant eanpeny*
The daolaretlan ohnrgaa in tvo counts that tha
d«f«nd£nt aa a eaanaon aarriar had agraod to si^fely tranaport
irnd deliver tha property to plaintiff at Chicago, and thutt
an warehoueeMAB at Chiot«go it had promiaed on the Slat day
•f ^ly, 1910, to safely store the property* The defendant
filed s plea of the general issne to the firat eount with
notice of a defense of re a adjudieata* la a plea to tha
aeeoad count defoadnAt raiaed a etttestion as to the Juria*
diction of the trial oourt to detemine "the effeot of tlw
enrrier*8 tariff as to the icing of ahipaents without
preYiott» action hy the lnt«»ratat€ CoBsieree CUuen; lesion.*
Jttd0aent was entered in the trial court in faivor of plain'^
tiff ia the awe of |)29G.ao, whi^ the defendant aeeka t«
reTerae by appeal to thia court.
Sotwithatending the faet that the larief e filed
for defendant preaent sen^ral interesting &nd difficult
$^lk9 • ftX
•? T!^"*''^ f
«^7c»*nrM ai *«.v
.t?K
lo-
ad «<*)lrf" »M«*»£«ttti»:>
• ••0 i ftlXM
;{<«
. ;ȣ
iatfjf hJM .•$««lli9 iJI 11X.laiAX(l •« X^'VINi*"^ ^*XtA IMM
iUMta*t9i •£! mxfswqfxq niU ^ftv xi^"^
ItA. 10
diiw ima— tuilt •Ai i»4 Mr««l XAttjnwB **>^^ '^ ^-^^Q 'i J»«iX'>
••intft Mil M «4 tfitamap m hitlm\ tfu . . .'<»o »••»••
ib»lX1 •l»li'f ftflJ }4aI« «0«1 »iU iiaXtea^A
«|ia«ftbiea» w* bAT« tt«t 1>««n aldod by the filing of brlnft on
behuXf of plnXatitt*
21. Jle urg«d th»t the trial otnirt err«d in r«fustag
t« grant u Q^iatiQUimatf of i^hit etmot on motion of defendMit;
tlt$^t orror w&ii oaiuaitteti in a rulins on tho Adaisaibility of
•ri4eno« orfcr^d in ^^of of « 9lea ii^iah it io o«.id oufficient-
ly nlXegeet u i'onbox- ntSJudioation of a question of faot in oott»
troversy in the ]^roa«rnt miit. and. also tho.t oraroro w«r«
ooatsiitt«d in ruXlngs on %he Hdmiuvtibility of evideneo tendorod
in proof at oths>r fnots in ioouo in th« euso. '^e oxp^oso nft
opinion ^;s to the TAlidity of tho peaition t&kon by oounool
for d«f«ndstit ftii t« oertnin of thotto ^<rationa for the reaaons;
first « that ois th« JndgpMint is to he roT^roed »nd r<HR£tnded for
• now trial o«rti«.in oi' ^oae qpuoatiOAa say not a^ain aria* and*
aeooni* V9 hoditato to dat«rsin« other questions pr«a«ntod with
the aid. onXy« of i^ sarte argMKont*
fh«> pXaizttiff aoenia to have roateA hie caao in tho
trial dcnirt upoa Wh«r ohargo thut the d«fendant as «are)3AueeB«n
had faiXficL to k^fiip the o&r iem-a while it remained on a teon*
traeh in Chicago in Yiol&tion of a tariff of the initial carrier*
A tr&ffio a^mugor for f. "S. Kelxie ^, (^<>.» te»tificd thut he
found the nolona in the oar on ita arrival in good oondition and
that five dnya thereafter he found tt» oar abort of iooa the
salons ript^nin^jf and he requested to have the aaae i^d aa re*
(laired by the tariff which waa not done, reaulting is the Iocs
of a large pro^^rtion of the BteXone*
the plaintiff i!»tmght to prove a fixing of the
tariff with the Xaterstate CoMKorae C4m&isaion» und^r whioh it
was oXaiBod in the trial Qourt thtr^t ddsfendant w&a ohe»rgeabl«
as warehouaenum with the proper prottetion and tare of the
periahabXe good» while they ramainod in th*) oar on defendant's
lajtoi^Wv «1 feirsTA J<r0ne Xalii Mi< <>«l<^ LHlUr
•AOfi al t»»t 1« c ■ -TialXa t'
IwioiMirv itfj tat iiJi<m«i«it» ^^t^dir !• iiijrai'}^ o4 »« #aMifeM»%«* ««ol
ii*1t A*t:»mia»T httn fr»riftTrs •# M •< «n»«»":rt -^.iJ- i ;«tff «#rtlt
•tfi ai •«nA Mill J^ftiaart «vai( na Attnm 'i> i^iY
»mi«9 • oe fe»Rl«£Wi*r SI ml tiki tifl «ei» oti.* f«*if mT fe«Xl*l k^d
Ml »«^ hmltlf ^i»m •lYtevJ 4
•dt (Ml to tffuiie iwt iMfJ hotic^ •«( t»tft«*'s<M<c mt/uk mm% $nMi
••« Ail hmi KMid i«i(i vvnif tt^ bniuam'^^ M hii«. ."uticetflv aaiX— r
•••X mtJ nl ^nr'f"-t '^h ioa l^m tli^tMm I'.^-i^^i ^Ot ^ Aavti^
•umiiNi arfl t« ■'^^'^'"i- nqtnq »ai«ati • t«
•HUntvuxatf «u«r ;tmmbm9^mb i»df ^t««* X«An4 mU ol JitAiaia ••«
• *iaaA««ti)£ ao ni haolat jJi/fn «i^o«> aJMAitaiisq
•u
traok, by the teutlaoay of one Frotent. teaimgar for 7, A.
Sellit & Co., oonaignoe iu««4 in tho bill of lading.
It io our opinion thot the t«irif f should have been
•hovn hy the produotion of » eopy thereof* oertifled to hy a
proper offieer of the Interstate Conseroe ComKiissioa. By
oeotion 7905, par. 13« Bemee Federal Code, 1919, (O. ti.
Statutes) tariff «oha<lules are nade aaiters of pablie record*
oertified oopioa of idileh are to be reeeired in evid^nee with
like effect ae the originals. It wa»a also, error to permit
oral proof of market reports of the tJaited states SepartKoat of
Agriculture; these reports sees to be maitters of pablio reoerd
and oould his uhotm in eiridenee only by the production of
eertified oepiec.
In th« eaao of Mutual Craage Dietributoro y. Of^f
km y. » a, yp Ry. Co«, general Ko, 26516, this oourt held that
the exoluaion of evidenot' tending to proTo a ouston andi^r which
a ooaeignee w;io required to protect goods after their arrival
»t the place of (Sttstiaatien and while upon the traeko of a
temiaal oarrier, i^as error, and that "it ir»s proper for
defendant to ahow thtit as a Matter of (sustOK it had never per*
fomed nny euoh serTiee for the |>laintiff or other shippers.*
We think the trial eourt should have admitted offered
•▼idoBOo «hioh tended to show that by a general eustom the duty
of proteetiag the goods was iaposed upon plaintiff, uid, also*
excluded OTictence offered by the defendant was admissible to
prove that by a ot>ur»e of dealings between defendant and tha
tOBsigaee the latter had aeottiied the duty of profe^otins ship-
moats of p> riehable goods while en the terminal oarrier*o
team-traok At Chleago.
The Judgaent of the County Court will be reversoA
«Bd the oettee rcnstnded to that enurt for e now trial,
Asvsasim ash r^audbb.
•«-
«yUi^«< t« iXltf •.Ktf'ol b9mm —n^> ro ^ *ii.i«l
!• u .-, t .-; 1 loo«« A . >
j»«U(i frXfl^ft J7i;oft utAS ^dXddS ••H X«'taffta ,.o^ .ii,1#> Jff f^ ^ *» >A
4»Uhr %%tma mmi*m • mrwxr, o amt^ulnn^ 94ti
ItntX' "in ftliO0« rv=%Jivx%i n »n:-.l«Noo «
•:w *i* d-ris I'ftft ,-t»«^is ««f4 ,»*Ji'>c':: • .. /.-••.'
'i — .... ^^am in(«ni»B A if!t i»Hi v«4t •if !>•<'■.'. -.. —
• *ttilt«0 X«Si«X«# Ml# OMI AlXlftl •**••» •JLtCft' a ttlVMI
• ilvclUiarJI OKA OUATi
Gcaeral of HatXro«ul«i, op«rui
Chi«ttita Burling ton M-^lboy
Railroad Conpuny, » ^rp«r^ion«
Befftml«»f in ^^rror.
•• • ae7X7
IBVAKD K. BZL^, A4Binietrater
•f tk« «0tiit« tf Wftlter Xinder»
VXftiatiff in Brro/,
' SBaOK TO
COOK COUHTT.
22SI.A. 63i
3
iiRMir8R%& Tim OF2SI0II 09 fEE eotrsKT*
l*laintiff 8it«]c9 by writ of orror to r«Yera« » Judc«
■iOBt ontorod in l>h« ^ituiHirior Cmtrt of Cook County in fttvor of
tho d«f«nd<jint«
The third oount of th« declaration filed by |>lAlntiff
nllogod that defend«at trito in pooaoasion and control of oortoia
railrottd truoko and right^of-wtty mnning; in an trasterly and
wosterly direction through the Vill«,go of l*o franco; that ooid
troclcfl wero intoroootod oad croaaod in aaid Tlll{&ge hy « public
hi^way» Fifth oToieie, which vtai in a northorly luid southerly
dir«otion; that on t^ohruary 1« 1919, the d^fend^mt opereited •
certain en^iao «Ad train of coro in on OttRtsrly diroction upon
ito trooke at tho said intertt«ction; th»t defendi^t eperotod
smtoo At tho intero«fOtion and thnt it imo ito ouston to looox'
the OMBO i^Msn trains wore approaohiag the orootfing for tho
purpose of preventing poroono frOB oro^sina over the inter*
aeotion; that this ouetom vraa known emd relied upon hy tho
public, iaoluding plaintiff *o inie&tato; that at the tiao and
plsoo in <|u«Btion the defendant hy its servaato oereleaoly aad
aonligently operated the engino nnd trftin of oars froroao and
over the oroasing ''without loaoriag ooid gatoo, eontrary to
the eaotOM aforesaid«<*
\
rxru • M
IT «r
,%('^T . «': Wlif
• l»»*A»»»k
ISD
«is#i*» 1« Ifn.tmm ham MklsvvfAfxf ui omw iu- hiv^%S,iM
%mnl 94 mfi^m •il has »•&-
M» DStin^ lltM ^* tUMt4 ton Miinn* 3< "Sift XXl«91|iXlMI
»9»
A femrth count of th» 4««X«rAiioR ohttrg«d thct tlM
4«fen(iriiti atkintajinea at x,hQ erosalng a oertain b«ll; thtit» it
wtes Ita oatitMi to rine th« Ivelx to notify porMiis of th« upproaQfti
of trains; that it "»«gllg«ntly pro9«rll«d« oporatod and naintaiiMd
oaidi eagino aadi train of oars toward, upon* aorooa aad oTor sai4
railroad orosning* without ifingia^ oaid ^jll« and ooatrary to t)M
eaaton afos'ea'aid.'*
tha oTldeaoo introdnood on tho trial showe that tit the
tlm and place of the «i9<»id(iiit the d€tf eadaiit naintaiotd in tho
Tlllago of l«a GruafO three traeka upnn Itr. right-of-way, whi<di
traeka oxtondod in an ntrnt^T^ly and wostorXy direct ion; that tlM
traoko woro oroaaod at grado hy )i^ifth aTomo* a pubXie otraot*
iA)i(^ run* in a northoriy and southerXy direotioa; that defendant
maintained gateo en the north and aoulJl^ aides of ita right-of-way
which were operated hy l«T«r hy a tew«m«n; that de/sndimt aXao
naintained, near the intersection, a imXX, wixioh ic cu8to»e*rily
rang to vsixn persona of approa<jhins trains,
j^laitttiff*a int«Btate*ff death was osmaed hy a oeliisioii
iMtvoea a taxioah in whioh he w@,s riding and a train pa&aing at
a high rate of ap«e4 in an e«^aterXy direotion over the southcnKOst
of the throe traohe on d«fefiulant*s right of way* the aocident
happened about 7:40 o*olook on the owening of February 1, 1019*
Ihe eTldenoo ohnwa that ^ust before the t^ecident eeotrred tha
taxioab driver had boon employed to trgAsport three persons to
Biverelde; that plaint if r*s intestate, a boy of about the ago
of 16, voluntoredt to show the driver of the cab the raute to tht
paaeengers* dostlaatlon. Seooasod get into tho eab and sat on
the right side of th« froKt seat. The eab started fro» the
railroad et«itloa, whloh mtm aiUiate^ west of Fifth avenso, rovoA
cast a short di»tana« and then turned south on fifth avenue and
was in tiM aet of orosiving tho railroad traohs when it ran into
•iU «# XVa^^AM baa ,ii»tf klM toifiiU^ tfimHli* ^.voli.j^^ti? hutsrllc^
iu imH* ftwatfa ttklvi nAi n^ Mifr
mU nt tuUmiaUm tami^nti iq tea Mtii
%Mr*t»^ifjUv aAI to •»»!« fUwu« ixui iP^mi acCt if «•*«» ^«iU«t«iMi
o«JU tfO' iwa^vik #AKtf siuMRcrol « ^tf vct&X x4 »»^«i?«4« rxi>«r do iff*
aeiaiiiM a t^^ ba«»»tt ■>« •(tf«;.i> K't^w.w., »..* •i'ltUniaXl
ML .Sg9M99» Mli 9%OilHl fff\^ iJiAi imtutf tttr'^t^Xm MfT
mU 99 tumt mUT #«c «U 1* ivrA^b mU vMhi o4 ito««»^atfio> »ax u
•• tan j6ji» iftt« 9Uit •imi ««« 4»»«M»«fl: .iMi^AiUiB^^' '«««iiir»«»f
mit ma^y it»i«A«« ila9 mLZ t««ait ^arMl mu; U i»t>Aa IK^it •««
•3»
tb« 0(»oonc^ or third 0£X of tha i^aA'^iing i;r&tn. ov«r&l viba«a«««
b«4biried ih&t &.% Uui zim9 6b« %&xie«lb eatoro^ on ilof«&d&nt*s
afiighiioof-way the g3.t«s ^shsvm ttv «)>nd tbu^t, nci l99li #a^ riso^liiis*
1Rfe4»» t«9i8t;l»OBy finds eosse Cdrx'oTwjr&^icn in t*;aiiiB«By offerfcd >y
t]a» d^sf^iMt^^t • SIxft tpeiNl of th« tis^lofe^ »s it oroa«a<& bh« tradJcs
vj^o v^iTldualy ^^tlMi&tevi "by %h'& vitnesu At frogs & tc XS bil*b an
It^iir, »nd it;. £» iwt dttni«4 thet the 1br«^in fit the tl»« of tbtt
etlliaien wiit.^ looYitig &t a higa f'site of e|»«e6* 'Xhere is «. tiir«at
cftBflifct i» the *»Yid©no« fa t^w t^tetker the guies wera «Jo^ti at
tim ti^M tb» t'ijiiocvT^ pt««i$!:f24 «n t;o th<f ri£:ht»or^«7* Cur nltsvtt*
for «lef«m<iKiit t«Bt.if led U'lit the ©«fe «2 fe firivftu through the g&tos
fiXtlsr they were Iot»«n&d lifiifi tht e*le*r!ic« »M«« iimX, ««C8 trm «rf
tii« gittuB »&£ fQ«n(i» i»t«»^4if(tel> ftft«r %hf? (--.is^i^n&t hr^ppesiea* to
I'XfeiKtiff. >idvr«v«r« i« Qftt irt'^sefiticiig thie osurt t«
th« trial pr«|K}»^r<rfet«» iu fur»w ^t pl^iniitf* The only reasoa
asei^ed fer «• r«7erft«;i is th&t th€ &<rurt «fz-«ii iu e^iviafi cfti'tftift
iAetr«£{3tio«i« i« th» ^uty ^t tht r«^u9»t df the d«f«£cd«4£t* flbui
e<»uz>t at thtt 7«<gufet of d^iife&d&nt gava th^i Ju^ry th« ffiilv^wia^
ifistsucttiaii:
•^Tfe* Jury 8.r« ia^'iruat-S'l th&,% rAlir9e.d« fcxa JdR^a^tsd
in the |>«rfox%iuio« of ei huninefla of & qUAei public n«itttr«»
asd in aiiTryiag out tfe4 ^■ar^f>m f'sr whicfe 4h«y Afs sreai^d,
tsu»t neoeee&rily often operate their trains at such a rute
of »?a«<j. th.'it tb-sy eimnot Ise brought t^ a 3-a<I4*» stop
without endHngering the lives tmd itufety of those riding
th-airiSiB, fliay travel *)n 5ix«4 trfecka .^rul it is. th<? iuty
of anyone ttnteriag u|»ori a oroeaing of a ^biic highway ami
the rttlXro ?'} tJpMOka to tise s&rg snsi caatioa to &ac<iirt«ia
thti^t a tr«tin is not appro it!, ohing the crossing, or if one ia
»j»9P»> i«*iins »»!l ihout %^ 5.'»sii etnT tha isrogeiag to trait
ttntil the train hne ]^«i,6»ed t>efore it o>^ia ^ piuieed over**
The 9Vi<leHoe in the e^ee shows th<tt the pIeiotiff*a
intestate w&b ft boy ahout X6 yearo of ase* Sose «tueetiOB ie mado
in the hriefe of eouneel ao to whether he was a passenger ia tlM
t^iXiea^ &t the tine of the aeoident* Mðer he ims a passenger
-t-
mm k^lJ^-^
a* nd" .^»»|>a«l''k -^J
!• arm 00;
aw aoif«a *<iL. ■^'i'ti^
asiviij-
ami»ixlc9
• ^*w IV
»4 , ... -^ . .^.. ».
. "^"^ •
CMJT Al^fd «. . _ . . :i^? tc.L»«
■•••rx xXa« •If? .titinl'ftXe 1 -
ttiA^fe sotti;! »;
. \::«Aa»l** 9^
iiai«*XJiSl •!(;
ni ec -3 ,■ :
■1 ftno '^^.
•*Ytl^aiaXq «ill .Ail
:aeltfain:i«ftl
) ak
»r mtrtXy t- gueet of tt/j dvtro^tf <»f %h» «i^b <!•«• not* 1b ▼itif
ef cib; t i>#<!«to to be th« oono«<t«(l faots of th« ea8«» app«{tr 6*
l»e ia»t&ri£vl. ¥hr fB«t i», wh»i0Y«r tele «t»ttte «it.t^ s-sXhtloa t»
tla<? i9B«rat4r>n %f tli« "iSAto, h« h»d no Qonirol theroof and hud no
|)0«tr to intffrfei** wit^ tho wAtmc^r of Itii operation*
It i» iiiiii9it«jrl %hn% «io«i«a»o4*« koomlodgo of t.h«
tAtuRta:^^ rciquiis'-ad «f);jt« ;pdult»iv^ aetioa upon hia parts »^d tbjit lm4
i)Hi evld«n«« aliown hia failurti %o unt in seine roaeonable aumnor
to provfiat the a9aid«nt« th«n hi« Qon<i'j«t vouxd saount to ooa«>
tributary n{;gll^ftn<£$. l{4$Xift£i9«i ig hthd upttn ttie qaoo of Qp^ v*
jp£Xar, 3«4 Ui., ft47.
"It '»#« e«0«ntlal for the i^X&iatiff to provo that aho
«&£ in th8» txorclac of oi'dln&xy e&f® far ■i3.«r c^n saf aty ia
sppro&ohin,^ «ind j^olng upon th« cross tag* aad sho was not
r«li«v«(l fro», %3Mit, cluty b^oiuise tihe wr^s riding in an suite*
■u>bil9« If ahe oxereioed uucb ojare stay aofXigenes of HthoX
Sha»t«ugli could not be is/j^tt-d tf> b*r» l*t fth* -Rc/ald b«
r«epon8lbl« for her own nOigrligoaoo • ?he plaintiff sat at
vhe rigiit oi' tii<: criver ia from, mix^h .-t Xecet eqii'.?:.}.
opportunity to observe (t«JiageT eusd the ftppro<^oh of th« trslnf
fcud l;«ia^ toumi to prcve ti]ie» «3vProte«,> of crvUnf-ry Cf,i« fey
horeolf , it «i<« no losmt b«r duty than th^^t of the driv«r
tfi obKurve u»e fcvoia dMrigfeT, if pr* ctlcttblG «;-r.sS tt wrrti thd
^TA^**"- ippfe ▼• ,4^feic$:ig« Cto ^« ^♦. S80 111., 460;
tiXftoBtifiiatEatsSe nJad no roKiemberuans of tho
occurrt'lioc* and tes- cml:. x'^l-tfejaco te prfrTO ?ii.r fir»<ir.f.ry
•«^r« «»» tho te&tiaoay of iithel JhAuobsugh mid Belio ^ood
fca t»o whf-t ihey (i<':ul«i iei^c,®
AeceptlTH^ th^» <i«(Gi»ifra i<%» tiii (-^iOir^qaato (&KpTe>x\;ilon of the Xh«r
appXicebXo to %hm m^4Vf<lt% i'm/C «fa^« xti^itfiC of oar, R6t ia control
of. but, rxdiai; ia aa {4&i^n«»bil^ ut t3i£ il^e of t« colliuloa, tlM
l«agO{tge of tihe opinio!:! ds'is aot niMtliori«« tho §;iving »f the
lastruotion oafin|:>l3laft<i Af . th<» iai>tm^tioB -Wlla thts ^1ur>' %h»t
anyoa* ent.jfin^S \i|»«n n raiiro <!5 oj'09*ilnii(( 4a jNgJiuArea to u«« sard
aad oiaatir^a to aRctsrtain tJ9?it h %rntn to not najiroachiaj?. oif if
ono 1.3 ap;3ro;i^ia4 and »b<)>(% %o pa^9» SiiPiir th« orassiing, an? nuoh
pei^flon ia roauirtd to mtit until thn txain hua pasitiod* Kit 3h 7&li4
eritiaia;^ aig^it; bo 'iRAil^ Df tho ln»t;raetion* It nay bo aniMwhat
'n;f9^g^ti^i9til to vijr th^t ths InBtruotioa should baTo rs<»iir«d tho
•a '
mi. ^I»V
""' ' ' >"* *■ • ♦ ' '■
Z XUfT i Si .1
tibial:
IB .
«
Xtfl
4.111.
.TO
•9m
ftBd enution* ned if thiu werii its ojily defoet ve ml^M it(»t r«*
gtirt. tlie inR>.rtte%ion a» ao errontiOU9 fis to «tttthoris« a rerflrftal
of t:fe« ^udgB«nt« tat %lm instnKS^loa in «ffo3t told th« Jurj
thtit it w(ia the slaty of ^^odfised not to pans 9T«r th« orossiiifc
if hj th« «x«roi»« of o&r« aa^ «ftotion 1&« c^uis c^eortaia tb«tt
ft trokin W)ft« appro riehlng* la thlt: pirticBlar the inrtruetlon
is aef«ctiT« in thtsit th« e^^^icionee aito^ti tlir^t Aeoos^aod ImHd no
«ontr«l of th« oar tmi ih t h« Bi^^ht woIX liA've l>««n e^-^rrioA onto
the tr^eks )iy th« feHioa of the driT«r ^Tca though he, doooiMioA*
lucd exeroieod evfsry i^e&»OR»bi« prsesaition to prots-nt hi»»olf trm
injury* In any ovent* th« law did not r«<|uir9 d^e^ased to oxoreloo
jBorc than ordinary euro to pretsat hiaweXf frm Injury, luut. if
in th0 ex«3*eitio of tli&t earo* lus '^oavo a|^prl»«d of th« ftpprO£.«ii
of th« tr>;iia then tt iMfftWMi hi® duty to $km Ti^mins t« the driTor
of th« o«b«
th« instruction tellu &h« Jury that irroBiH?otiTO of tte
fact *» to vhother dcc^'iB^fi had im.7 lm«wl€«J|fe or ootioo of tho
«<9profteh of %h9 trein h« «rt m not to pft^o ovor tho cro&eing* Tlw
Ittctmotion I0 net Xi»it«"J In its appXioa^tlon tr> th« con<tuet of
tho drlYt;>p or s.hR tsi^'ioeh, it «ipr>lifJB to anyone, wi*& uml-'ir naj
eir<nir.?str.neos isiflrHt he fth«yat to orooe & r^lirood nnd otroot intor*
•oetioB. If &i»T>aki,«d to tho foot* ttf tho prooont cfnt<a it night h«?«
inpeoed mi infooolhillty niMin doffoosod. 80 ««b ooatod in t^M
0A% sh4 o i^ftosoaKor* or »t I^ioit «« « fuoot of che dritrer and
he hnd no (iiroet oontrol. OT«r tho o^emtioa of tho owr; othtr
l^iTon inntraotiono ror^ii^ud d&oo&sod to oxereiae ordinary oaro
t«r hio owB anfety «nd to )£oop a lookont for tha approach of
troino and if ho h«o«no Mppri««»d thoroof » th»t ia» of tho
approaoh of a train* to giro dno «mmiiis t>a tho drivor of tho
csh, Thoeo inotnictionu whioh aloo aro eoagilainod af atata
•«•
•Aio^M" -tii3f»<Hi .' ^«X %A3 »iti .tutttfll
Jfs«o-^ t>9tii«^v 9d4 at
•f« or
- -. k...4 .
!• lftt<.«^«a •Ai l«1 y«ran(rni a ftui t»t i>ar r^ra •111 fwl
TUlee miffiaivmXy rttj»vf»v«« t e]^pli«(? t© the coa^ct of
diso^^r^ed.. fh» intit>ru<i%l»n 4n qunotlon, uowrvcr* ttgweed «
far^kftv »«d p«rtiii|»a, under the ciraixv>»t^x>Gef wliich f^c-^tssll^
•3cl«t«<3 Ht Uv tino of ti3M uiici<iQvt, v>n imposit^iblfi duty upan
4*oe«s«d not to ]p»i»8 ov*!* tbe tz-»oki»* Cottpvel for (ii:f«nd{;)it la
xepX^ io tfee erlticlm of this lfii«trttotion u&y th^t th« only
o^IiigictSon iKpoc«»d ity the &»i>trv«tl»n up^xx d«eei.fi«<l wfta "to
U8« eert Hftd e»xition to taoerttskln whetlier a tr«4& vaa appro»chiag*
and if a train m^a nip pro ii.«hifi,g t» give the train tite right*of-o«3r«*
It le ffuitt coseei'ra^le tlmi <»n th« ftOi&itted f &ot» of tfat eooo
tbo !3eo««>i»<idi* iifeiilo la tlso «ji@rol«o of ordinery ooro cmd oaution
for bl» own a«f<gt3r, without felt Gon»ont« mi^bt linv9 l^oon e«i>rrl*4
onto t]&« tr«ieka 1>y oonslaat of the £?iT«r vhieh doooasod o«naId
sot eentroi. It doos not th«r«>fox% aziower tfeo o&j<!70tlone aiido
to tho lD»tra.atloa to m»y thnt tiua deoe&ood 8b«»uX4 v>%v9 ^Ires
tbo mp-Jto&t^aJLim train the rl^t-of-w^y if h«« do«&»904» t^ tho
ox«rei»« of o«ire oad eoutlon oould <&aeertftln tbut it vas^ ^pprose^i*
lns«
Ir the caae of j^. ■lli_Bl#..t>f &,j?.,R« -'-t j-S* v. Hatohtnooa.
X'^ XIX. • !>92, the ti«pr«a>d Court crltioi^ttd lih» follOMrlng
laotruotion:
"Xhsi jary ara iiidtraet«i4 thf&t it «»« tisc duty of tlM
?lw:lEtSff» >r'ferr cr4$5iiSs,? tfcv tr^-cX? upc.. wJ.i'^ i.he
co^ii&ioa ooGUir?i»d« to lodjr l» both dlrootioao for tho
!9j^pr«i',!:>\ of an;? ";.rsia, II 'f.^a ?il»o ills dUity tc* cbj-isj-rt
aey wtarixx}a^ ^ivoa of tho «i^i>ro^«h of smy tr«la« »nd if
to pasvi ttioag in ftront of him, i« -cfaK hi» outj to ^top
In ItiB -iaieiislon t-)!^ ■t'jy.rt ««i;i:
•■*> fiT* n>»n*f fif exfjr<*!J^;if>:?-j "by ^hi;i ou;*':; ivriCf.-i
IM^ttlUii: upon thtt i.Aw iu»d f lictt nnd of iiko oxiproseioao
of <»thi*-»* -jfrnrts '»f *ns hJfrheiit r'>-ii3';'a:-.al':.li ^.y, -J^ „ ^li^
tukXar^ &f otui ap^roHchiaii a r»iiroc*d oroosiag to psuiio
%n4 l«oJc for fthd i-ip .■r^.>ci!'^ i>f ^i^filjVT, w-ic Ku«h rigli^reitat
fihS would t ia Uni eiuiO then under oonfild«rfttioa, pn^cXvult
a rocov.''Ty. Byt ^tt '*.-<» not ,'^;»ap:'!r'j:^ "c ;n 7, ar a K.ist'itsr
oi !&»» vn&v i» p^rooi* uji^i^roK^uhing & roiiro&d crosuing*
■Rhn?,-^ thai** %sn itrii^hing ^Lpptirunt to *furn hiM of dKOger*
1« il*».ti4« tI#««At>|%t4i •9t0^
a^* •«* i^f; .t>o>t r 1^^ nntS99^i^&% 9Ai ^ >v?>«9Ml «ei#;i«i .:
••at td4 t« •tf»4»l t)<»tf. lit o>£ir*vl»»<a<*.c •^loft ai #Ji
M1<S7«0 Br«»>f «r«H4 llkU* •i«#«nii» wll tfiKvjrf^tw ,r.i >V» ■»# alif n«7
«<f»«««FQ» iM»« «ii #«tf^ ttlatiu»»K<( tiXtma naidtnw jmu ante it* ••iaidxt
»■-
0^
r.
I
r;
•
M.
•b
•\ •
.-,,,..
:<io«>«a toaai.
, ;
^ioan la Miii
-t»
i4ii«,m -iu-y iv Ae ta •.iii;*rii nii i'^r«t»ns «/' v* ttfr^r, Trt^s
iruiftAiai; irstias* is v9f^%T»^ to 3kook ttX89<!rhsr« tliim
# * # # ♦^o #
AttijT pftt<i«ot and ejwreful wnn «youXd in more t!^«».a <»>!3erv«
'^>ndic«by*di3r a f ".ilur*? T5.o l^oi! or llstfJA 9sp«-3iaH7
«b«r« it ».frirmuttv??i7 appear?' t'v.t Innlsing end iir-tonlng
Ki(iht h*ve eatibled tS:?? partj' cxp«ti«'rv t;o injury to :^^<!* iJh'.
train f^^'tl t):ai» »iVoid being injures, ia evidence tending
9© th»t * (sh0.rs9 of nogiig-ssnct? o«»i3 fee predicated upon
1% 4s ottr cpir.iotv tfcts^t th^ iiisty«^iec, etcb If e9?ll«54
8«l«ly to tn« cnn'!»io^ of tJje ^<river as;J/''fct ^??>-ll ^.« the fju?>J«:ct firf"
6S> In tSe iM?«wvttt e«a«s i*^ ani;>c*ir« i;>.«'.t ^^«e«!i»e?e^ h?v'. ?H'> enntrftl
•▼«r ^a oj)r< ration of th« o«r,
rhe 4ud^oat ©f tteo tswjj^riiir Cfivrt ttill K* r^-x'^rs^d
MtA tfeo CtiKu>»f? r<^i»tin^>««t to t>*f=t emart for » »*"» i,ti?l,
X»tahj£:tt« J.t t^oncure.
metU si--^ r.i4 itc"
9d3 ,M
our; fril Jmm
HUM
95 - 26751
TA» A, ^BBTUR for the use Off / )
A9T0KQBILI OT»?l»?miT;?Jffr OF / )
AxmaoA,
TS.
•^ISTKR CARTAGH C0l3»AaT»
a Cor|)Oratlo«,
OF CHia-UJO.
22 3 I.A. 63 1
lanvsnsB rm opiuiqr of tios cotjrt.
PliaitTtlff breu^ht suit in the ilunieipal court to ro*
cervr th« oua of $4:^7 • 33, l»»iB|S proalicaa allftflod to h»T» to^on
•arnod •» «ix pilieios of aut<»aobll« Inauraneo issued to dofond&nt.
On the trial it <*a» stipulated that plaintiff delivered
to defendant five policies of laeura^nce in ^iareh, 19S0« and a sixth
pelley im April S, 1920. Defendant retained these policies until
Juae 16,1920, Triien it returned ail of them to plaintiff and at the
aene tiate set up a claim that lYm policies had teen auto^aatioally
euneelled *1>y a 30 daye** clause in each of fhea. Defexsdant pai4
attthilH^ en aeootmt of preaiuns upon an^ of the policies &nd it vas
stipulated that pnmivms earned thereon to June 16, 1920, tunounted
to $437,33. the SUA eued for. Jud«:!:»«nt vas ent<ired in the trial
eeurt In favor of the defendant and plaintiff appeals. Ho appe«Tanoe
has been filed in this court on behalf of appellee.
A clause in the policies prorided that unless the precniun
•trOTlded for therein be paid within thirty days frca the date of each
policy, the policies would beoae void from the b«({laning. It is
arfued that defendant had no legal rif^ht to rely upon this proTisioa
because by mitual agrssMoat between the parties the pr««iu«s were to
be paid in six monthly install sientsj and further, because the "tisirty
win
rr.
\
\
V 1.
r^<■^o _ f^o
. , ., .., „., :-^ . ., . .'■ !•▼•»
f*iT» a<(^ trl btn»in» •tm it
avlAVK} 0»Cf airiDlr!! jI»1t»«4 ••JLoiXeq •ill r
a«laiT*«« ai^t ••«v titoa oi id- ol»i» #mU A^tf^u
Aagr* clauee" in the policies vfto for tJNi« 'b«nefit of the inmirmr
undi could b« &nd, In the iare8«nt e&s«, «&• vaiTttd isiy th« insux^r
by extttTidlag ezNtdlt to d«f«n<l&nt for pa^faoat of tb« premiiew. Th«
•vid^noe shOfsrs that dofendftnt agr«od to pa^ th« prei«Iua8 in six
Monthly payments. This a.$rTm9iimnt rondored the thirty detys ol&u««
of the policies lnoper»>tiTo. a proTlsion of tho policlos roquired
ths pGi^'Aent of prsaiums within thirty days fro» their d&te, /laiin-
ly, this proTiaion awanji th»t in the absenee of ^.try other or special
agreement the premiu«s were to \>« jmiA on the dat«! of iaeuunee of the
policies or withia 30 dayo thereafter. Here, howerer, the par*
ties Bpeciiilly e^greed th&t the pro««iiuats were to be paid in eix
monthly peynents« and the defendant new seeks to eaeaxje lituhility
under the contracts by t^ing adYant£M^@ of hie own default.
Tb«re is also foree in the eontention thAt the thirtgr
days cl&us* referred to was inserted in the contract for the bene-
fit of the insurer} that it h^A the ri^ht to and that it did. in
the interest of defendij.nt, waive t^;e clauee in favor of less on-
erous provisions, I'eople v, CO'^'^erciul Insurunoe Co.. 247 111, 92,
Defendant accepted the itolioies and l»pt theis in its
pesssssien fox- some saonths thereafter, and it id^ould not he lillewed
to escape liability for the premiu^ns by setting up its failure to
eoa^ly with the tersis of the contract.
The Jttdfpnent of the Municipal court Is reversed and
JirflCMnt entered h@re in f<iVor of the plaintiff for the suc^ of
f 437. 33.
UeSurely and Matchett, JJ,, concur.
:n M'^n.vtfcifi ^^ »ji
^v'jHt -; ar
•mi»l r
^»tMl>a»\uk
; 1 j»? j>f#*
tim wi htim% horn
• 'J :
«. .!<^i >4Kfl |"i*r
-no . 10 i»vt0$m^ attf
le ri/ti Mi^ n«^ latMEyt^^
108 • 36761
WILLIAM J. m^mr & son.
A Oftrporation* 1
\ Appellant »
Ta*
iiA
lUHJrOlS IHDKM«ir« XXCHAMSl
and SKTSHMAH AND nL%lB, Ino
A^pollec
\
AJ?i*SAL mOV WJIICIFAL cotmi
07 CHICAGO*
223I.A. 632'
KB. mmtDim justics qsvrr
tmLirmasD rm osfinum or thb cotmy.
Plaintiff larought tfult In the imnioipaX court of
ClUaaso against the dftfen4aat to rscovor $779. S0» bding the asnunt
of ooJBp«naatloii awarded by th« Xllinola Industrial Commiaaion to
on« of plaintiff *a «i&plo^a who accidently euatained injurica in
%h» eourae of hia anplosnsent «n August 11, 1919. The caaa wmm
triad by the court without a iviTy and f indinga and judgnont wart
antarad against thu plaintiff, from n^ioh dafandant appeals* i '^
Oafandant la engaged in thft buainena of writing
indemnity insuranoa fo? employera. It had issued auccaaeivaly
three Workmen* a oompenaation insurance policies to plaintiff for
perioda of tisMi aa followa: From August 10. 1916, to Auguat 10,
1,9x7; frcMB Auguat 1, 1917, to August 1, 1918, and froai Auguat 1,
1913, to Auguat 1, 1919. The evidence ahows that from Auguat 1,
1918, to August 1, 1919, insured had paid no premiuaia on the laat
policy iasued, and that there ivas due defendant on August 1, 191^
on the three policies a total sun of between $70Q and $300.. That
theaa proisiuma were .iue and unpaid on August 1st appears vary
elearly from the testimony of Oeoar ?^tagnuann, who teatif ied for
defendant. Svidenoe for the defendant tonda to pr^ye that on
June 13, 1919, it a general suinager advised plaintiff that unless
a aubatantial paynent was made on the praniuii aeoount to ^my 1,
xatas * 101
\
.04^
Op A
' ♦if''..
a^ A
«WVBI
1 <* uat i.'o) 9di
ai «»|t«tAi h^altiimsm xlstt%bi99m mhr mn^'-.i-'-K
mam •(Ui» tit .Qi^t ,Ll fax^icA rio ^i^
^I»vlftc»ooii« b»Asiii teJt IX .•vfftoXcMft 7*1: m^amtimak x^itBMhpi
«X ^tx/fU* wml l)4i« .SXdX ,i XMKDJiA aj ,rx<7X ,X l«i«attA «•«% ;fl9i
,X iuu^ttk matt ftiJ ovoiia M^vJkXv* «tS .fXtX ,X <r»tft«A e^ .i?X«X
>»^ .'U«»«4 nci 'Uaq bmd tmuont •tfiflX . , XtX
f^Xex «. ^ai9iia»t«# •«Ji» OAK w%mdt j- <tti;X«q
•••Xny tfiufi tlliai«Xq Ifuirbm laipiaMi ivsMv^ all ««XfiX .tX «uA
19X9* vithin a woek and th« Italanoe du« on the aooount paid withia
30 days, tlui Insuranott policy would not bo r«nei»«d whan it axpirad
on Auguat 1, 1919. fhia notioa, whlolri waa oral, waa aonfinaed !>y
lattar Mailed to dafandant on the aane day. PayaMrnt of the px^rniuaa
due waa not vada in aooordanca with the notioa nor at any tim prior
to Auguet 1* 1919* and the policy of inauranoe was not at that tina
or thereafter r«ne\rod.
The aooident ooeurred on Auguet 11, 1919, and on the
following day the Insured Dtade a parent of ^272 for premiuna on
the policy which expired iUtgvist 1, 1919, and which wae the only
paynent wade on thia polioy* ?hc def«>ndant waa notified of the
aooident to insured's ssaploye on August 16, 1919. Defendant vrota
plaintiff in part as follows:
"You were notified both verbally and in writing that your
policy expired Mgost ist »nd was not rene^id* Therefore
you will imder»t«u}d t>uat Shensan ^k Illis, Associated ^*
ployers' Rsciproeal is not covering any of your operations
subsequent to Migust 1, 1919."
May 17, 1920, an attorney for plt^lntlff wrote defend-
ant that plaintiff would insist upon defendant's liability under
the poli^ for any eosipensatioa paid plaintiff's employe.
X paragraph of the polisy reoites that the oontraet
Bight be terminated upon the first day of January, April, July
aoi October by either party giving the other ten days* notice in
writing of an intention so to do, and that in default of paynent
of presiiumB due, the contract could by ten days' written notiee
be cancelled. The polioy further provided that the tens of 1a*
suranee was to begin en August 1, 1918, and end on August 1, 1919,
and "for annual premiums, for annual periods thereafter until
eanoelled*"
It is our opinion that paragraph So. 11 of the eon*
traat, which provides that the contract sight be eaneelled upon
the first day of January, April, July and October upon ten days'
*nl<Fic» il nitu ftwwtrx v^i joa HCmni x»iltm 9tttunt}unl 9di .B^;«b ot
mUJ ^«lCi tfA iOD «4« (MturstfCAl lo "(^XXMI •(. X9X «X 4«ii»4iA e«
•fU oo JMui (9X9X «XX Iftcf^a* »« ^9-'T<n»eo Hiftbsuon wfT
tXao wdi tav daXxfw fejiA ,9XeX ,X intrnuk bsv^cix* /toLlir \;»lXo« 9ili
•Aj ^rt bo2'iiiAi3 (Ml*- tnMbti9^. »5juk ^af«i«tl
•^OTW Ja»te«)»Q .9XVX ,&X jau:^ 'htt'iuax r>i>i»oa
«a«X;t«*9»q« ««•% )o ye J'
•bnftllftb ^J.i'sw .-. j.i< n j 4i<i4 l>.» t v.-,tii.»^i» Jill , ikt* «>* y,* '
,W%Clqm» •'^lliAlaXq biuq OOl in an c^^^f-rt* r(lla to'? ^•o^Xptl •*{-
ax vaiitin *v%mb aot vatf^n Mf^ inXviKit «#*«iiQ Twf^t* \tf f»^a#«0 laa
^n*flr<«q )c jX(-ct»b nl i«r,^ tn^itik am to yililw
•oljou AoiiXiv *«XA^ "<>^ Xif bXtfoo #9AfiifcH> »di ,oab tmisotq 1o
•Pi to vt»i odi JtuU tmbitvm 11 lXo<f odT .boXXoonaft otf
,c; 1 .1 ,rtyaoA :iji ,BX(fX 4X ^Bo^iia <vn AX^»rf ni •«« ooAaiuo
itir.u ftlimvfai obolnoq Xanrt mutmw-m Xjirnn • iia
".boXXooOAO
•^'^^ *»K' :o £1
written notlOA haa no application to the faets of the present
ease; and further, in thtt fi.beenoe of OTidenoe properly in the
record tending to prove a eertain rale of the Xllinoia Industrial
CoBUBisalon* urged upon our attention, no sons ideirat ion oan be
given to the rule, nor can it l>e regarded as a part of the eon-
traet between the parties.
Paragraph No. ll,referi°«<:l to, reXatds solely to a
right reserved to either party to the oontraot upon ten days'
written netioe to oanoel the eontraot. Here, however, we are
net ro4|uired to oouaider a iueation aa to this right, but one as
to whether the oontraot sued on had actually terminated on iugust
1, X919« eleven day* before plaintiff's oKploye was injured.
It is asserted for plaintiff that the clause in the
eontraet '*for annual preE&iunse, for e>n»ual periods thereafter until
eaneelled,** oontinued the oontraet between the parties beyond the
4ate of the accident, imd this notwithstanding the fact that the
plaintiff htjid not p^id premiuns due under the polioy sued on aaA
prior policies issueu to it. ^e do not think this is either a
fair or rectnonable construction of the language quoted. Clearly,
it was the intention of both parties tliat pressiume wore to be
paid for the protection given to plaintiff under the polioy.
It is true that the polioy required the p^yiaent of these preniums
after an exaiisinatiou of plaintiff's payroll and m^ adjustment be-
tween the parties • The evldenee shows, however, that certain of
these exarainiitions had been isade and bills had been rendered to
plaintiff for payKenjtrs due amounting in all to between seven and
eight hundred dollars, and that plaintiff had not paid these
premiuas •
fhe evidence discloses that en June IS, 1919, the
plaintiff was expressly notified both orally and in writing that
unlees the premiims due on the poliey were paid it would not be
itimmtrxn tii )o sitMl
•.•lim»ll<l(lH «e
*mcMii n*t aoQtf it
■« »n<-
•dit ml MiiaX* Ml# im4* \%i4mtmi^y
ftrf# Smii tomt tiS -sittlbattifiii tw3 ^
m I9(i)k*t ml ¥iiii i
.floi««>laaaO
)• ai«.t*iM> i^«ri^' «i»r«««ci ,_i. „,.
mii
"■-i
. 9iuikn»t^
r«t)«ved August 1, 1919. If the contenbion o£ pleintiff ie cou&d«
then the contrftot nsrould Taci continu«d in forea even thouglk It ap*
ptt&rn that premiussa due on th« policy h«ui nover Yj««n p&ld and In
ffeoe of tha fiiot th»t pl&iutiff h^^ bi»en expreaaly notified that
defendajit «rouXd not perjalt a retn»«al of its ohligatlona to plain-
tiff unlass tha pr(»KisiuiQa due were paid as direetad by the notice.
We think it a fair oonatnjction of the notiee to hold that the
yaytaent of the prensiuias «a« u oAndition preeedent to the oontinua*
tion of the jioXioy (after the d^%6 of its expiration.
The foXlowiniE paragraph fii.pp«&TM in printed fore an
the baeK of the policy:
"If this qcmtraet aov«r» any work lone in the
State of Illinois, tha Industrial Board of the State of
lllinoie hM0 r#quired that this contract shall not he
caaceiled hy either of the parties or he allowed to
expire unvil stuoh board has re'?eiT«d not lesie than ten
days' notiee of sueh intended cancellation or contesrplated
expiration. It is, therefore, a^resd that auffieiant nntlee
will he giv«n by either party of ari intended cancellation
or intea&ion not to renew to pertr-it the attorney to give
■aid Industrial Board at least ten days* notice thereof.**
7hle piive^rKvii. ie followed by the sentence, ''*In 9it*
aees Whereof, the Subeoribera have severally executed these pras*
•nts by and through their duly authoriased Attomey-in«1?aet .* Then
followa » blank line for the signature of the attorney*in-faet,
tliat is, one of the def endmits . these provisions wore not signed
by anyone; it does not, therefore, in ear Judgi^ent, beooKe a part
9t the eoatraet sued upon, ^^rther than this, when the relation-
ship of the parties and the subject aatter of the contract and
the express language of the l&st sentence of the para^ra;.iK is
eonsidered, it ia evident that the paragraph* even if considered a
part of the oimtraet, was intended to provide a sneans «rhorec>y tha
attorney in fact, that is one of the viefendante, ssight be givea
an opport inity to apprise th» Industrial ComaDiasion of the in-
ni t(V^ tlMi ''i^^^ UvvSi
m; ^•cl Mtt to mm'i
«Mf^ •••Imr tlt9
biiJ^
1?M| « Bia<yt)'^d ,)a^mt^ku\, tun nl ,»
^1- ^9»\,(iuM tai4 fij3« ;;;>. .la
A h't-vsMAitor '!J nara ,«fcjai9aia<; •tii itii titvLxv^, . i Ji .^a^aiiiaaaa
'-■ii 1 x*^*^*'^ atuUM • •l>lvovq 0i hmba»tai mmti ,J»arUn<w aiW la ^^"'f
,l»irii »J iri Am «alCMlAAalat adl to ^tt-^ »* 4 mi ariiK.^ fljt x(aff?CJl«
-.ii . laaitiuio*) Xa2i^«ubii ,. la S^e^^nn am
•urtd'e intention not to renew the contract. Thft evldeno* do«t
disr^lose that defendants notified the Induatrial Cownieiiion on
August 1 , 1919, that the policy iaaued to plaintiff expired on
August let and «»• not renewed; that on August 11. 1919, the
Coonissioa la written &e}mowledg;B:eut of this notice, stated to
diefendante that in compliiuioe with rule 26 adopted by the Cob*
nission, the termination of thi! policy would he effective as of
Augvet l», 191<>. This latter notice to the defendants did not,
and eould not, t^eoo^Bte a p«rt of the contract. Rule 26 of the
Coso3?i8sio» was not admitted in ovldenee and is therefore not
bafore us* Whetever may h» said of any rights accruing under
the paraurarli either in the Goaaslsslon or the parties to the
contract, it saees evident that the purpose of this pftras!:raph was
to require sufficient notice of an intention to cancel or tenel*
nate the contract, so that the attorney-in-fact (one of the de-
fendants) Bight give the Industrial CojmQieelon at least ten days*
notice thereof, and so far aa the insured is csonoerned, the evi-
dence does ditsolose that he had astple notice to enable him to pro-
tect lUs rights, if a*iy, under the policy, ^e insurer does not
eomplaiia in the proeeedinii of a laoJe of notice, and the evldenoa
shows that insured in fact k»td actual nxx^ suff ioie>nt notice that
the policy would expire on Migust 1, 1919. Iftiile we have not heen
aided In the solution of the (}ueatioa under cons Idierat ion by a
citation of any authority whatsoever, we are inclined to agree with
ttM contention that aaaured waa only legally entitled to the notlea
t^ioh was (?iven to it of the intention of deforidants not to renew
the policy.
the judgment of the H^nielpal court is affirs^d.
VoSurely and ^atchett, JJ., concur*
(ion bii) a^o^l^atls^
•tU to OS 9iiiP . ^»« -
■•« ifrtjit9«T«{| air
.e^ ■-■-
loft fi94«ft lOTUOal »''>
••A%bl«« Mil rtv..
n»*v — 1/ ♦■■" . --■:,('■ r . I 3m'-
•oi^ofl o^U r x^l^Vti xX«o Mnr b*«if».(
vOA»i Inotflolob :<
.i bilMkO ba«
ioi] atfir ttotai fcw— 0
.tti^ MCI
9irx|noo
ima
- ^-r-' lAfti
MM
.-]U lfta« x^nAMOtf
113 • 8«770
MULLlfi B. }!y.T>Ri!D, Atelnistratrix
«f thM &(it«t« of Trmnk "4. Hldrcd,
Api)«ll«ni«
CILIA r. ,?U3aKa^| individually
ae ^^seutrix •t %hm filX of i^Pi
Jl. Sldr«d, i3«e«*i|«d, VY.iZm L
J3S01IE i!U:^TIS, Mffinistraio
0. t. «. 0f ih« iS«r|«t« of
X. Sldrvd, D«eca««4«
\ APP«1
AI'PKAL FROM StJPltRlOR
COO!^T OF a?OK COUSTT.
r» Q C%^
23i.A. Q32
Ilil.IVKHM2} THK OFIHIOH OV THiS COtlMt .
fnuik W. 81dr«d filed a bill of oanpliilnt in tha
Suparior court of Caok County in whi'Sh he prayad that Calia T.
Kldrad individually and as axeeutrlx of tb® laet will of Trad
IS, Sldrad, da«ta»8«(l, nnd Jernma Ifueatia* ftdir.iniatrator with tha
will annaxad of iiaid astate, ba required to ao<:ount to eonplBiinant
for woney received and apornpriated to hi» own tisa by Frad '?,
Sldrad derived frotps tha aale of eertain real estate td^ich tha bill
alleged vaa owned prior to hie death "by ?rad K, Sldrad and <m>«»
plainant aa tenanta in oosKon.
Tha bill ehargad that the tananoy In common in tha
raal aetate waa derived by daviea under tha last will of Sales
V. Sldrad, who died hiaroh 16, 19t)3, and who by his last will
devised and baqpieatned Uie residue of his estate to Fred i^, and
Frank W. ^Idrad, his sons.
Frank W. Hldrad died while the suit was pending in
tiMi ftttparior court and Hellia B. Sldrad, adninistratrix of his
•state, was aubatitut<^d as oosplainant *
the original bill aliened inter aiift that Prank W.
otnt • exx
, [' »*«•
^S
■ T
b-m \9 lit-
■•J': •^rf '
.. ^ Ka^ *■
.i»5bXS
♦ ^•♦otil Xttttmm lol
■ -— '• — *'X«
..,.,- ... -_. .- „. i^
XXiw l#*'f -ibf x^ ^f*^ ^"^ ,^'^X ,'»i ff»t*' -iw ,»n*i« .*
•111 1 -ttiiuk. 9iti
Xldred and Prod B. Sidr«4 had entftrtd into » gaiwral eopartnership
for th« parpnoo of Mancming, buyinit and •oiling r«al rotate » and
that oaoh had o^ntrilnitod thoroto hla interest In tho real oatato
dorlTod by thes under the will of their father; that thia oo*
partnerahip continued until January 3, 1915, when Fred K. Eldred
died; that a oonefldera^^Xe part fit thl« real estate had heen eold
under the oapartnerehip agrenstent by Fred Sldrod and that he had
failed to aecf«unt to Frank ■^, j^ldrad for hie fair share of tho
jproooeda of aneh salea*
The anavor filed ttdi»itted oertain allegatione of
the hill, hut denied tho exlfxtence of n oopartneratiip het^raon
Prank <ir. Eldred and 7red K« iildred, and it alleged that all tho
huolnoiSB done by Prod E. JEldrod and frtknk W. Eldred in oonneotioa
with the aalo of real estate was tranescted hy thetr: as tenants in
OOBQSOn •
It was alleged in the bill and the ansver admitted
that Prank 'S, Sldrod and Fred £. Kldrod «ere tenants in common of
certain parcsela of real eatate, p&rt of vhioh «a« located in the
state of California, the annver* howoTor, denie<i! that Prod &,
Xldred applied to his own use out of the reeeipts of any salts
of the real eatate nore than hia lawful and rightful share of
said receipts, and it alleged that Pred B. Sldred had fully ae»
oounted to Frank W. %ldred for any part of the reeeipts or profits
derived froia the oale of any real estate in which they were inter-
ested as tenants in eeimeon*
The oausw waa referred to a naster in ehanoery ts
tAJte evidenee and report hia eonolusione %Yimr9ir>n» The autater
reported, adfnong other thin^^s, that on .yunc 34, 1903, Prank «.
Xldred and his wife authoriaed, by power of attorney, Pred S.
Sldred generally to sell, Mortgage and convey by eontraet, deed
or other instrument in writin^t their interest in real estate sr
hmd •A itti bnm htitrt »«irt X^^ !««
•Hi ai »ti^«r
«o« tJ^Xifl t«d iMbI8 .11 hwtX Sad.
&A«f tea »»«ill
-r#«<l« MMI it»«a ^'f'-J
^■» «afir t^ btkfk
<^l^«ap ^Ijfa^aa^^nq
J t ZlSlU
. *KJ rti.,fliJ> iu:J .1114 mrii
aamrtX
i ^^ ^ k . 4 _ '
fUkmm aif? •nortafi^r afialauI»«ofi .!>i I-
>» 9faJa
. .:. '.tseto^ LL«a
'* 'wTi hav£«(aib
■mnsro ,l>»#io<}m
.;•««« *«tJ»Xft
va a^Ataa iMWt mk 4aa«940i
i«ii#iw aJ tttmnnttnt tarfio «o
p«r8oniil property Xoo«t«<l in the state of Cftlifornia* d«rlv«d by
tlMii undtr the vim»f B«lo« ?. Rldr«d; that undar said povar of
attorney Frad it, JSlarad had tranafarrad fa hia peranneX aeeount
the sun of #X«348.02 on daiioait in a bank In Ut6 Angalaa, Cali-
fornia, in the naiaa of idalaa «^. KXdrad; Uiat ?r«d E, .^Xdrad had
taJnn charga of tha raaX eetata In whioh ha and Frank ^. ^Xdrad
trara jolntXy interested ; that Vred 5« JBXdred had, through tha
•C^noy of the Citisens HationaX Bank of Loa AngeXea, received
payment on contraot» for the aaie of parte of thia reaX estate;
that ha had axeeuted daeda to parties irtto had emnpieted paynenta
•a eontraota to the Citimna HationaX Bank; that such de«d8 vara
axeeuted by ?rad t. SXdrad indiirlduaXXy and as attorney in fact
for Frank w. SXdred; that the pajnoanta reeeiTod under the eontracta
for aaXa of tha real estete were oredited by Fred H. BXdred to his
individual «ieeount frois th« t.i®e that the pow«r of attorney imm
executed down to the date of hia death Jami»ry J», X9X5; that 9«r»
tain baoka af aeoount. deeds and eontracta for the enXe of reaX es-
tate in the handwriting of ?red ^. SXdred and aXco eartain oheoka
and Touohara in his handwriting drawn in conneotion vitb the sales
of real eetate in C«Xifornia were found antong the effects of Fred
1. SXdrad after his death, paymenta for which* eoll«otad by Citi*
sans NationaX Bank, had baen credited b]r the bonk to the aoeount
af Vrad b, KXdrad. the sastar aXso found that Frank w. SXdred had
charge of real estate in Chicago owned in ommon by him and Fred
M» IXdred, and that he, lYank <%. l?Xdred, had kept books of account
af hia daaXittga therein and had advanced certain leoneys derived
froB their saXe ta Fred !?. SXdrad.
The jaastar further found that Vred S. ItXdred and
?raak W. SXdred were not en/^aged as copartners, dealing in roal
estate; that they were jointly intorested as tenants in oosnsan
tntm mh^mb tioM. ?««:• ;](cui^ inT^n/i."?. 9c,w-:
l^nk Art'
«•!•«- inr/--. * u: \
4uuf>-^ iq«< AaH .bvtbXX .t Jfi
kwrlnm^ t^MiMi oiaitM b»on«Tba ted
.bnftX*
tea
«ar:(n>- ; •• bit.'
. .'; lo mm arti
t .«Jtirral
: Iff
vit ta x*nai|«
i^Tfioa ao laaaixav
te|ii»wR« baxC aif tmd$
a^eanciMae ■•
r,<^ ba#oaaita
. -'6 ta^
T\j .-'^
.;»' p bvjju^oxw
''- -^---W Ills#
. ..i «tfa^
»Tu riKTV te«
. frr' 1c>
?»» ftnts-
.-*«•
|iiLA/>>^«!; anaa
•It ^a
^lYteb
.«
iX««Jb sii lo
ivii mn\
toa-rv
-a
•f th« Iftfidi d«Tls«d to thtrn by th« will «f their father, «nd in
•ales of ocrtAin «f thea« Xandaj and th« mAater, after stating
the account In hiii report, foand that there waa due the eatate ef
frank «. Bldred. deeeaaed, from the eatate ef Fred ?. lildred, de-
eeaaed, the auKi ef $17,677.13, Kxoeptiona were filed to thla re-
pert by defendanto, ell of whleh were sustained by order of court
entered n l&my Q, 1930.
On ttay ?A, 1920, the court gaTe leare to eoaplainant
to file an Msended bill Inetanter and a rule eae entered that
defendant plead, an««er or desur thereto within twenty daya . An
aoended bill waa filed in which it is not charged that a eo>
partnerehip existed between Frank w. Kldred and Fred R* Hldred to
deal In real eatate. In other reapeete the anerided bill is aub-
atantially like the original bill and it eeekcs an accnunting on
allegatione that Frank V. and Fred i. Bldred were jointly inter*
eeted in aellinK and dlapoeing of real aetata aa tenenta in easi*
ia
son. kn answer filed to the amended bill in aubatarice/siinilnr to
that filed to the original bill and denial la nade wnerein that
Fred 3. lldred had durinfr hie lifetii&e reoeired and applied ta
hia own use more than hie proper share af the profits frov aales
•f the real estate. Conplainant filed a replieation to this
answer. On HOTenber 27, 19^' , tht> court entered an order die*
Biicsing the amended bill for want of e<|uity, f row which order
eesqplainant appeals to thie court.
While the record is not olear ae to what was in the
ffiind of the court or counsel at the tive the order of din-T-issal
was entered, wa gather that conplninant tendered her amended bill
en the theory that she had n right to aaend nfter the evidence had
been taken, so that the allegations upon whleh she lu&sed her right
to «a aeenunting mif;ht confons to the proofs admitted in the cause
>• slAia* ail.1 •tfib Mi» •^•'i .jt^qvx »<UI oI #AM»e« «((i
-91 aJUfi •! J^«Ii) »n»« •0»li({ . £. TT»,fX« !• wm Mil .»9>mb
OA •m%mh x^navl irl/^ilflr 9<5M«(t^ yit"- • "vviM th<i9Xq 4fl4i*a«l«l>
• «o • imsii k9%%MA::t JtM S) lit fum iXltf b»*WMB
•1
««i&i nIrsM* titaa •! X«int4 h*fl XX' i>aXlt ««|ti
ei li»iXqq« ib«« b«vX*09i «k«li9t: jm.ira^ te<( ftvntXX .t fr^vt
m$lM9 MiTt •#l)4Hi<) •rf# !• *rmHm ««i*7^ aXif a«i(# «%•!« ••» mr» tltf
•iili di aoi^mtHm^n m *«Xlt #a<«aiuftX«(fluiO .«^»^«» X«n mU 1e
•^iJb *t»fti« •« ft9ir«#rr* l««e . v«X «t^ irMfaaivwiC nC .9tfva««i
Yftl^o rfslifw mc>-\t aX^lup* ^ tdflv Till iXitf Mt»n9«« wU yalMia
.iVIM* tliff •! •X««i«4ll |ftJUli«XfWM
ft4« III •«« «Ml« •! •« im%l-9 4MI ai Aiii«««*n t4^ •XlfOf
X»««l'<f«Xb lA «i»kr« Mii Mill viii l« i««ntf««i ta ^Vi«»« tifi )• Mi«
M«M Mil nl b«##i«b« ■)«««<( •«ii 9>J anrlnao - i^xi: 9^x<'ay(»»«# m •#
Th* abstrnot of neard ahowa that « Motion was mada for le«T« ta
flla ttaa ajnended bill to conform to the aridanaa takan* This »•»
tion was originally nada bef or« th« oourt had disposal of *xc9'^
tiens ta th« laastar'a report. Leave to fila the anandad bill «ms
nat grantad until after the axoaptiona had Ijaan ruled upon and
sustained* The court aeeva to have been of the opinion that the
nair pleadings amounted to the bringing of a nev suit and he sug*
gested that the iesues raised thoreun'ler be referred to a neater
to take proofs, ete. Counsel for ooaplainant, hovever, stated that
he hed bo further proofs to offer and he requested that the eri-
denoe irhieh had already been taken under the original pleadings
be eonoidered by the oourt ae evidence tending to prove or die*
proTe the issues of fnet raised under the new pleadings* This
the oourt deelined to do, henea the ordar diwKisalng the «eenda4
bill for want of equity.
Tor the defendants iu is insiated that the evidenea
taken is wholly inapplicable to the c«ise made by the amended bill
and insuffioient to warrant a decree thereunder; that if the court
erred in falling to refer the oause on the amended bill to the naa«
ter, eueh error was invited by cojcplainant's refusal to offer any
nair proof thereunder, lender th« allegations of the original bill
e(HBple.inant*e ri^ht to an aecounting was baaed in part upon the
charge that a oopartnership existed between fred l^* Eldred and
?mak w. Sldred with referenee to the real estate owned by than
tM tenants in nommnn, The evidence does not sustain this charge.
The vaster found that rut\ «4oh oopartnership existed and that tha
interest of eaeh of the persona nasied was merely an interest as
tenant in eommon in the real eetata . "the amended "bill proceed*
net upon a theory of copartnerehip, but that of a tenancy in
eMBiRoa in the real estate, and we have to determine whether the
allegations of the wsended bill were so germana to the allegatioag
* f -. ,- T
#ii«<M adv 1:1 J^a4i i-i:»ea9»Yiw4;7 •»««•£ • Jtrnvfu^i
'ttm aiU aJ Hid htJ^ifmrn »oJ a« •vium »>
;iitf X4AC
»i*»' r ; AAi'j /' 5 ,<,"•* gill
;i'
.-y.-i* Hi na<«t
.dIDoaat bmm
Mtiltmt Ai bain a
l«(rr« van
;*»ctimiaX<waa
'.->.» '1 a«
'ilKJtK Ml?
#a«T»tnl
v.Miat
->-c;w *a«
of th« original bili and th« relief pr»y«4 thereunder »e that the
trlftl court should have per!«itted the evidence taken undvr the
first bill to otanrt as eYidenoe to h« coneldered under the anended
Mil.
It ie elementary that where a tnietce of funda ap*
pliee the amb© to hie personal use he stay lie re<|uired to render
aa necottnt therefor to the eeatui au£ trugjt. Where it appears
that one tenant in oomsron h&a receiy^d more than his proper share
ef rents and profits derived from the sale or use of the ecMnmen
estate « the cotenant way coKpel hira to aoount therefor hy bill
in chancery for an »GCountinn« Che ne^ ▼• ^'Ueke. 187 111., 173;
"the liahility of one cotenant to aeemint to another K&y arise
eit>ier friNi reoeiving fron a third party more than hie share ef
the rents and profits, or from his appropriating to hie own use
■ere than his proportion of the ooiseon estate. (Awgelo v. An^elg*
146 111. 629.) the rersedy is by action te cfnepel an aeeountinf •"
As disclosed hy hoth the original bill end the
attended hill* the oonplainnnt sought to conpel an aecounting for
aioneys received by tveA S. Xldred on the joint account of hiisiaelf
and Frank «. 7;ldred. The prayer in each bill is for an accounting
and the right thereto, as shown by both bills, is based upon identi«
•ml faots. stated otherwise. It la shown by both bills that the
right to an aoonuntin^ is predicated upon the charge that Pred
1. and lPrtk.nk W. Sldred were tenants in conirson of certain real
estate; that Fred S. «as authorised by power of attorney te deal
therewith on behalf of frank W, and that he, Fred £. Sldred, had
as a eonseiiuenoe of this authority disposed of the property by
eontract»} end deeds and had received and appropriated to his own
use Boneys paid to hi« by third parties for the Joint benefit of
hintself and Frank ^. Sldred. it is true that in the original
bill the pleader concluded that the relationship between ths
ttomnoo *rf.1 ^i> »
mUx* «<m
MM mr* «ljf oj ifiii«l«q«t^
tot j^
crve aid »i b»)»
lo ii^»ri»if iniet
I. . ■ , i
■9 m u
n« X«^y#
■ • - '--s»
sift*
^i»
■til *JJW ran
^XMiHiK
1»reth«rs, ss shoim by th« Isill, establltshttd « oopurtncrship .
This error, If it wn« an error, howcyer, vould not in our opiniaa
preclude eoKplftinant from esaerting l)y aynended bill a 8u'l>atAntive
right, alao charged in tlie orijiinaX bill, to an accoun%in« predi-
oate4 upon a charge that Frank ^. and Fred %. Kldred were interoated
in the property, not ae copartner* "but an tenants in cowson.
In the case of Allen v. foodruf^, 96 111,, 11, it
was held that vhnre the actual facts are correctly stated in a bill
and proved, it ie the duty of tho court to render aueh deeree and
grant euoh relief aa the lair retiuires frooi vuQh facsn, without
regard t« the theory of th« pleader in framing the bill, •Hia
rights must depend upon tlte aetu&l faete stated, and not upon
the erroneoaa conclusions of the pleader T?ith reupect to theia."
In the case of rrftatlce ▼. Crane . 234 III., Stva, ths
esttrt held that:
"A eoKplainenii Kay aeiendl hie bill to Jtcet th« proof
after the evlience h*i« been heard, and if the defendant desires
to procure additions! criience ^ter the ftmcndtv-cnt he should
ask for tirao In whloh if> j^rooure and present thtf saise, Rther-
wifee his position is no differsrit t)*an if the uaniters intro-
duced by the assendiSieMt had been in th« bill originaily.*
Apparently the airended bill ims disRiisaed for want
of equity because the ohaneellor was of the opinion that ths
filing thereof fusounted te the beginning of another suit and that
the evidence taken by the matiter was insufficient to sustain ths
allsigations of th?* original bill boeause that bill alleged a co-
partnership. We are of the opinion that the order should be rs-
▼•rasd for the reason tliat it ap shears fron the allegations of
both bills and f roK Ui* evidence taken by the Master that the
oonplainant was entitled to an aceounting even though the original
bill •rroaeoualy charged the existence of a copartnership. Ho new
issues of fact were presented by the new pleadings. The c«M&plain-
ant had the right, if »he saw fit to exercise it, to stand upon
•IK''
(r>ue Stmii^
.^..:j2 -t i:..
.<: ^litt'j
*/ ■
-00 a b*afij:x« Xll¥ titai —um»
to »ml»min»l
<*ii'i wfjn '».
th« pxt»of« %ak0n t»td«r tti« erlgitial bill in iWQ»p0rt Af thtt SBendud
1»lll, HnTln^ gei«'«n h«r ri^t ^© ««» aegiJUMtiHg \md«7 either or
v»d«r the ^ri^lnal bill to ^tiuiit »« «vlddnott t^ "bo ssoufiidevM ia
prtt«f or AiRisroof of th« iciaiuo^ pr®««»it«d «»ior th« a«w ^lm»dtati»*
»• do «ot thiak »roT>«r x>risu8ti«« roiq^trlrtd «lth«r or Taoth of th«
l»ftrtl«tt to tl5i« i«itt to tfiSfeBitit to e r««-rt2>f«r«ae« of the oftUMi to
tli« naotor for tlxo imr^oso of jroto'Sdlne at <»3in!y£a«r&ble mTq^mntm
•nd iffitte^t tr»tiAl« «Tldo»eo &Xros49r to&on imd4g»r the origlneX plond*
jyRg:«, ao soir foot or faott hayiii^ INNm all«go4 in Bubsef;u«3xt
plt^niingf^ «4i1gJx elaanspod in tho ©lightest dogroo th« suattera aotuelly
in ooatroTerigr iHttiNNm tho perti^o* Counofil for d«fe»d«tnie in tho
triol (?4?«rt urerod thmt wadwe the proafo t»k«». hf tho s^astor, in thai
it did not dioelQfiO tbat & »op&rt?i«r«fe^lp esciotod, oa «Iies«d« de»
f«»dm?*e eouM eot feo eo^«lled to &oeoant aaclor the origlnol Mli*
Thio n^aitistt eeesap to bar* Voei» owetaliiod in tfee trial eemrt «wS
eeisiaeoX ntt«m ftleo to %>«▼« tak«^ tlio pss^itioa tkst viitm %h» elt&aeellor
««|Ego«to<fi A roforimeo ta tfe* mai^itor of ttoo ls«uea praeentod by tho
»ev pl€{E,diiig», that <»«f «mdft«t * at proof aistould not bo rei9:uir<»d rmtil
ftftor oeR?5lRlnRnt fo«A oalsaittffd pr©o# an<^or h«r iwaondod >ill« Oa
eo?!B!ilainai3t*« rofito&l to d« »o tlit a»t«i3ia«4 bill ym* dissdssod for
*ii»t of iKj^ity, We thiak tliio miti mrvf*v find tho ex^Sftx* will l»o ro*
▼eraix* with diireoti^sns to tfco trial ooitrt to enter an ordor i» tii#
•«««« fijs^lnK that «©w39l«4,ln*!.nt i« lajtitlod to e» iin9«ot»it ing upoa
Oiri^.©ne« alr^ftdt^r tj»fe«H aad itl9» to r#ff«r tho eauoe ^o » aaeter to
etato tfe# »-«eoia»t and t« t«3c«? Mditioisal nroofo if noo^aaary, if any
ifl of fared, .«r«? -ro]»ert M« <yonelualon» tlior«>oa t© tho trial court jth«
oaaNO to i»,roe«ed thereaftor in aooordaaeo istth ustial Tsraetlao*
?li« order of tHo Sti|»«riar ooart is rorerood aad tJia
o«U9« remaadioil "^tli dirootloos*
Itflvaroljr and Matehott, JJ,, eontmr*
;!»'•'•- 'K /f* nt titg Ine^lViiXit •i'J -»fi'* fu^U^ n'imerir mM
? viir'
'w^,i^»
»air«o
WWlBf WILT
IS4 « 26792
In Ho T«atat« vf ^^T.IAH STI^OinXira,j
On Appnal of viLLIW ^AITKIIRJ, Ei
of Kstuie of irllli^ Stirol»uii«r,
\ Appollantf J APMM mem CTRCTTIT
T8. \ / ) COTJRT OT COCK COmHT.
%
223 1 A. 63^^
KR. pioisiDim JUSTICE mmm
D1ST.ITSRB3 THB OPIBIOK 0? "fflK COUHT,
VlXlloi Btrolsneler diod on th« ISth d«y of July,
Vn.9, Prior to hie docith in ^tsr$ 19I9« he oper&ted is ssloon at
smdMr 932 w^ot X^Jco 8tx««t, Chlo&^ro, &nd plsilntiff at th« tlmo
owned i^d operfttdd a hotel at ntmhor 10^5 ^«st Lake otrent. After
the death of Strolmsier pl&lntiff filed a clai« a^sHnst hi* eo*
tate baaed ttpen the alle^^ed pror^iiaaory note follow! t^:
■♦840.00 Chicago, ^&f 8, 1919,
Thpoo MOnthe after d^ for V£ lue receired T proTsiae
to pay to the order of H^nry ^lllao Sirht Hundred and
I'orty (1840,00) Dollars at Chicago, III., with intereet
at six per eOTit per anrmm t^fter date until paid.
Signed m. Strohmeler. "
On a hearin^r in the Pro!>at<:» court the claim was
allowed and illlam waltking, executor of the estate, appealed
tJ»e eauae to t^e Circuit court of Cook county, i»feore & trial
vao had dg^ noT<| before a jury ».hich returned a rerdict in faror
of the <ftaiaant. Jud^nent was entered upon the Tsrdiot and de-
fendant brings the caso hero ^y appeal for roTieir.
The defendant insista that 3trolaaeier*e aij!?naturo
on the note is a forf?ery. Sridenoe introduced upon the trial
ahovs that the eXaiiaant and doeoasod had boon aofaaintod and
voro friends of years atanding. At the tlaw of his death do*
\
39T»S * UX
i^bd
xmfaitrUii malLli.
V ^ noo u. t
9mii
• »tt 5^^
' .l*yni<i,<i
I,
TailA
.#f»n*ii
»>(fta: /«<»'
-
-a»
»; -! *«-
♦ •"■ «i4i:.
-
'..'» «<
^rv,
5
I'
'^
t;*iMiitVi(.'
'•^-^IMfclV
C4«s«<l h^A on d«po8lt in thr«« Imnks in Chloftfre a total «um Qf
»«r« thsn ^«X,000, $1«76«.34 of tihioh w*» on depoult in tht
Plr»t fra«i * S»vlns» B*ak of Chi9«go. $4,070.81 in the C«ntPitl
Tni»t Cawpsny of XlliR'siff, »n4 $l,W&2.H1i in tbo .Vark«t Trust *
»»Tinffi Bank of Chity^ffo. In etfaition to this h« owned certain
?«•.! «Ktst« <)n4 ««m j»oe««eii«4 of i4>»tt rty bonds of the fae« rnlus
»f $2100. 7h« enma to tbe oreSit of dae^aet^ in th« %anJca nan*
tlonsfl v«r« d«po«ited if vwriour f«mountt on dlffarant dataa.
Cniy two witb^raww^le iwra ipedia by hlir frow hie aceowat In thi
Ccntrfil ?Tuet C9«!i?aBy sftar April e, 1«11» s«nd only one with-
dr»if»l wt3 isedt froiB Ma ©ooouwt in th<? PI rat Tmet ft SaTings
HonTt: -iurinir tfee yefiir 101©. 7h« paeownt, hoveT«p» ia tha ¥»rlMi%
Truat .^ ivaTlngft Baak a^otera ©«T®r©l dar^oalta wade luring tbt
!B0Kth.6 of April, ¥«^ and ^jb«, 1919, ^wd fraotuant witMratrals
if«r« ffi&4t theref r»«a followiisi* tJw ronth ef Jantjary of that y«»r.
thia &c(*CttRt eho«B that on ^areh 8, 1918, Strobwelar withdraw
IIOCO froaK thla Tuan^; an^ thi*^ h«^ h«4 auhsa^iuent to that data
withdrev« rarieue a«sri» thartfroii; ha had ««t a.t any tissa r«-
Quest**?. «. ItTRn or horrowad w.oniy frp'*-- t.be harfca.
Twt< »«itnf»««» taatifSod in tbe Circuit court en
hah^lf ef the plaintiff; rn» ftf t.h#»a«, Klalnav, taatifiad in
euhHtsJf5c« thcl h» Fen irdohted tfi- ♦iha oXnlFJint in the auw of
$»5C nr, R note »eoi>ra^ by r ohr^ttaX mortpafsa on an aut<ts^ohila;
thct liy rxrffjig0s»f»nt with Wl?lr-«, eleiwunt, he »at hise and
atrohn»«jier on th» pomar «f Clark and Randolph etrcftta, Chicago,
about ttys* o"«li*ciE Hny P, 1^10; that thf thtnia :ei«n rode on «a
elftTStor ■:© the ©iffica of £'r . Schulwan, an Mttomayj th»t tht
only poraons prsownt in th*'; «ffift(i» wo?« Sohialmaa, Btrohnaiar,
deeaaited, yilli^a, alRiieani;, and Klolnau, the witnaaa; that ha
•aw Willns wrlt<^ tha note in ';ri<^8tion euxd that Strohaieiar
aigned it; that ^trohisaiar brouffht a blank note with hin and
:'»i^
miS 9%iniwiJt
tf»W k^
?4*« 9X9V
il'Uimmi ^v
\ei s?
J0ftM
•i*:
gave it to aillfltn; iumi hAr atroh»«ii>r* had oth«r blfink ant««
la Mo yoaicet; ttieit At thla tiA« t)i« witiMss p«ia ^illaa th*
$350» auaci Umt Willns, putting other nonay with It, pA»»v6 i%
to Stvoiasmier, wlvo pXao«d it in hia poolctt; thftt ^B40 waa counted
out laud in th« presenoe of the «ilm;aa' To aay th« leaet.tho
tttstitoony of uhlo witnesa la unreli&blo » B« v«a a vitaeas far
oitkiiaMiLUt ia i.ii9 Jc'robata court when the matter «aa oq hearing 1)e*
fora thfikl fjourt, tmd the tttenogrnpher who took notea nf hla
tftstiibiony testified to atat«ts«>nt8 wsjA* ^y the vltneaa vhieh
contrtulicted hia tsatii&ony in tho Circuit oourt on Btany iBHtarial
points* ikocurding to thoae notaa Kleinau stated in the Probata
court &ha,t the p«rtiaa imXkod up to l^hulm«n*8 office* K'loinau
aatid In the Cirouii; oourt that £))trohmal«r brought a blank note
«lth hlBi, arhere«v8 h« teatlfied in tha i^robata oourt that Villna
took th«i bl«nk note out of hie» Wiilj»a*, pookat. In the Probst*
court h» utAteci that Stroh»aier aignad the note aittin^ down; ia
the Ciroult court he oaid that he signed it etHn-iing up leaning
ever the tul^Ia; in the Circuit court h« atated that the IS.V;
paid by hift to «»iliaia aiia pRio in "twantiea and tena,* jrat ia
tha Frob&te court "tm teatifiad that he p&id the money in "three
one hundred dollar bilila. ttro t«entiea and one tan*" In the
Jr'rob<&t« court he aaid that he paid intereat on the note, vheraaa
in the Circuit oourt ba denied t>iat he peid any intereat thereon,
so ttri that abiding the faot that the note bora intereat at the rate
of six per cent*
I'ho tcatisony of the attorney with reltntion to what
occurred in hia offiee ia aomewhat va^iue. Ha teetil'ied that
deseRaed at the tixe taiJcod about neudiag aionay t:> buy whiekey
and that the olaimant had offered to ^ive hi» eoaw . ';lhile it ia
aought to nake it apytear that th«! vhree perfianm involved in the
transaation vntnt to Bhulssan's privAtm offiee aa a fcara matter af
l»tiii>t«« turn '^is.
mi ^ijmn^ ^'■
^■■•''■'^
♦/.^ :
,aoai*f(i ^S9ir«^«l x<«« ♦^ ' " "' '""''* '^*a«* ^»
- Jf.- '^ • . .. - .„
!• Y»ijiMi aYMK tt nil —tilit •Siktliq. t'nusl> .- u
0oiiT«nl«Re« , Ifc is R vrry fnir arfiincjt th«it their preoene*
th«r« !• »ocount«<l for by th* f«Let tbitt whutSTtr tkt* niiiar* of
th« transaotlon nay httrt b««n» tha> wcrt deoirouo of httviog
t)i* aid of cPttnB«l in «x«cMtl»5fr it. ^otwithetoudiBg thi»,
tta« attoriMy eppeare to haT« paid only very eatuid. attention io
vhat tranapirod in hia office* ^e did not dra* tih« note in
question nor did ha attend to ita execMtion; nor did he taka
any part in oounting or delivtrini? to daoeaaed tha ^4C . 3aaa
avldenoa ««a introduoad also which tende to oho\r uhat thie wit*
ttaaa anada oontradiotopy atatessonts in the Pro>>ate and Cireuit
eourts aa to what he saw and hoard of the traneaotion while tha
fiarsona eono©rn«?d ware In bin 'iffic*. !?o eTldenc© waa intro-
duced which tendo to ahow what diapositioa Strohneier mudie of
tha ^1840 whish it is eaid he rcocivtsd for the note. Xhia money
doea not appear to h»ve been deposited in miy one of the three
hanka in ^ioh he bad aeeounte . Partner than that. If, ao
Sleinau and ^htalnaa woul^ hmr« us bf'lisTe, h« borx'owed the «o»ey
for the purpoaa of buyinir whiakey, it ia a «trar^a elrouisstanoa
that neither by reference to tha hank vrithdravala nor any other
eTidenee in the roeord i» anything ehown to «£>!ta«:li«h the fact
that StrohBeler did jsurohaaa vhiekey at or ah out tha tine he la
said to have reeeiTod the $840 frost; willsa.
The oharaoter of the testiaouy introduoad on hehalf
of claimant eaata 8a<r.ewhat of a elotid upon the ^enuineneae of tha
traaaaotion alleged ta hRva taken t>Iaoe in tho attomoy'a offioe.
'Smt aeide fro« thi» the rooord centnlno evi'?*?nce whieh in eor
opinion would hare warranted a verdiot «Bd judgr^ent in favor of
the defendant .
two expert handwriting witneasee teat if led that
is their opinion the alleged aignature to the note waa not the
genuine ai^mature of i>trohreier* Vhe opinion of theae «itn«ea««
■■it wdi bMl^-
!{"{::! O ?«-|'rf . TWO . '
el jii 9«{ .
It*
' -Jo Ll4 MfJ
3a Mli
b•ou^
I'. .>...^ . .(.. .,^. ,«^
.'r»
>>•
••»
J— ' la fiolajq.
Ill «i
V9M l>A8«tf npon « notrparinon miadc by th«B bot«*«n ii0v«r«l f«nuia«
BlgnaturttR of dseoa^ed, nd,-«itt«d in •▼IdciiM for inir()o»«a othtr
ttuM th« eQmpftrl«on m«4« • All of th«s« admittedly gtnuiii* aig-
naturitt shov r d«f Inlta and ••elXy noted diffarcnce bctwven thtfik
»nd tht «lKnatur<> on th« noto, and the tefttlMony of thesa vit*
neasea ic of titioh eharaetar that «re are led to believe that ih«7
teatified trutixftilly; that they were not Rietaken when they ^are
it as their opinion that ttoe note wee nl^ncd by <« peraon other
thast the one who had ei^ned the adj^itted doouffenta whieh bore tht
genuine cignAture of deoeased. Certain characteriaties of the
fireaulne eignaturee appear to be wholly laexinif; In the oignature
to th« note*
At the repeat of the plaintiff the court gave the
jury the instrtjction following:
'♦The ,1uyy «r© inetnictort that if Die $ury belioTe
froai tl»«! -JiVi4ei.ee that WillitxRi iitrohaeier in hia lifetiiee
executed tht? note preacnted «« ^rlalntiff'a exhibit 1» then
the jurii' will find the iBfvoti for tr.c cIj- i<usm-st and *-il; aaaeae
hio damngea nt the assount of the note with intereet thereon at
tlic rfttt! of 6 per ei»nt per anrium from the date of ita execu*
tion,"
thia Inatmetion dlreoted a vcrdiet In favor or tha
plaintiff if the ,1ury beli«ve4 T;hat ^trehseier h&d executed the
note.
lltiile It ig true that th« defendant denied the exe*
eution of the note by fytrohseier ami that faet waa the principal
natter in controveray between t>:ie pnrtiea on the trial, it waa
incumbent, neYertheleas* cii^on the plaintiff to prove not r)nly the
cenuineneee r$f the signature, but nlso that the note waa c;iven
for a valunVle oonsideration. The evidence of fared by the plain-
tiff touching the natter ef the eenaideration was «|rtite as un-
reliable B8 thftt adicitted to prove :;h«? execution of the note, and
it cannot be held, in view of the ahorueter of the evidence, as
indicated above, that th« alleged eonnideration for the note
Mil until lircvtriNi ••«w^»«f «w(i v^
••iff ft«»r**»<f e-
•van X*^^ iM»Aw AMbtltti
^uti atf* iMo mii aa^
• V
i i « Mr
•«i u>! tdi x^ Jirxvllo vsntiblvf t^Sr .ii«lt«Y*%ion«« *UmtUmv 4 yi1
ten .•^•n txi: 24WOMU •AJ •ViVtn o 'J)i^ ijS4tX •« •14J«iXM
was K fact ttdmittad Xiy defvaduat upon the trial. ¥be givinir of
this instntetion ««s error.
Th« jutigBsnt of fch* Clroult court in r<iYer««d nith
* finding of fact.
B«Sur«ly and ^aiehott, JJ., concur.
l^i - 36792 V'lHOlSO O:^ ?AC1t ,
W« find ii.a a f hLOt ibr the e«a« that the pmaiitnoi'y
note In quas^ion was not wxeouted by (lec«ased, williM. KUroliseler
Si* V - ^4|
itI*Kt<' a«w floi^a«i9 ni »^Ofl
155 - 267 »:
flASIC VOOT,
re.
ntTjA^ VALTKTiro'^lft>»eiit«r
th* TjABi '.'ill -n<l\7«atiiaMint
App«llj
APPSAL PROK CIHOnr COURT
0? COOK cotnmr.
223I.A. 632^^
Judf^ant waa antored i*; th« Circuit court of Cook
Cttunty on «.j»peal from an order of the ProbAt« court of cook County
4i«allowiB|t m. cl&i« of ?ranlc Vogt affnlast defendant. The Jud^iment
In the Circuit court entered tipon & rerdict of a Jury v&.» in fuvor
©f the cl&imarit. Vogt, for the etiai of t3600. iefendant apr>ealB
to this cotirt.
It i« eontend«d on beh&lf of <4«fondant that the evi-
deitoe introduced on the tri«l doea net eustaln the yerdict «nd
4tidjr»«'^t and that the court erred in sririn.r to the jury the in-
etruction following:
'The jury are instructed that if they bsliore fro-n
the oTidence that TiDioss strohi'seier in hie lifetline received
the 9u?a of ^,'^,600 frok the cl:dmant, ''rank Vojjt, &nd t^at the
taoM h;%8 not beec repaid, the^ it is th« duty of tine jury to
find the issues for the claimant iatoA to aseeee the ol«*i.i!»&nt*8
daoft^s at the atm of |3600, •
The erlde^^ee shown that Filliaa Stxoteaeier* deeesiaed,
<3&rQr yoare prior to his desit^a on July 15, 1919, operated » s&looa
et 7,&, 032 leat Lake street, Chiobgo; that Uny It, 1919. he h&d
on deposit in banka in Chicago to hie credit the au-n of about
♦21,OCiO and w»8 posaeased of otber property of relue oonsiatlniE
of liberty bonda, real eat&te and Judg'^ent no tea; th»t he sain*
tain«id e a&Yleisa aoeount in t«>o of the banks and & ch^eVing ae-
eount ia the Market Truet lb Sarini^s Bank. In the mor^tb of '^ay.
sea./
/CtTM • 9U
AT.V VVjLBV
9 I
9iJn*r m iioctf irci'vtxt* 9<itiV9 ixuon^in Mir ft!
■£»l«fc *t» "^fj«i»<f KO »M*l>r'»t«<»« 15'
>(»ifi!j ,t*o«^«
.'n«n r::x!t.''
V9 9tii
if 9 •di
^ Mcnt
r to
1919, he misA9 tan deposits and dr«w U?irttten checks on thi« letter
account. Pcnetlae Is the y«»r 1917 ^trohnsler sold his s&loon to
the elaimajfjt, Vogt, tftio operated the business until April, 1919,
vhen It w&s ir^f^iilQ tsksn over by Strohiasler; both Strohseior And Vogt
oeeupied mows Above the saloon.
BvldeTUje intr duced for the cltdrswint tends to aho*
that %sgr 5, 1919, ntrohneier exeeuted « !»per ehleh in words and
figures is HS follows;
"I. 0. U. -*3,60O.
^'illi&a Strohmeler,"
1%e «Ttdenee shows that Stroh^eier was & business m&n
of soiee exp'»rl«*sce; that ho was in possession of ten Judf^jnent
promisffloxy notes at tiae ttae of hie death and had for years trans-
acted huaiuesB with b&nlcs In Chica<:::e. The paper which contains
the «Llla(red promise of Strohiseier %&b, when oonsidered in eonnoo«
tlon with the appar-^fBt experiflince of both ths clai^aant and Stroh-
wfSier, a most unusual doo^Mtent. It i^ not sore thaa two inches in
lens?th and less than an inch in »Adtii. Junt why such an taaportant
transaction should be expressed in thXu manner is one of tlte un«
usual questions in the ease; though said to hare im*n executed
by «& business ssaua it baars no dix%9, nor was asiy ti»e fixed therein
for the payment of the sum of ^3,600, in i^lch amount it ia suid
StrelusQier, by his execution of the instrumont« became indebted to
clai?ii&iit« Anotlier oireumstane* in connection with the siatter is
th&t one 'fillas, who testified for complainant, is the saae person
who filed a olain against Strohneier's efsti^te and «^o obtained a
4udj?aent in the Cirajit court on a claim for $840.00, which Judgaonfc
was reversed by this aourt at tiw present t«nj. (nee "illas. Claiy
aa,^. vs. altlcimy. gyeeutor. aj£.. , ?»o. Z679k , not yet reported.)
^illms testified that Strohaeier esMe to his, rlllsiis', rooming
heuse and SAid 'there was goin^r to bs seae transaction of leaning
.ft. .
, t »i MuiliCniv
(uiA- 0aori«u<i ^ >3.
^XAe^
.p •/«* J,>*<f
Ronoy* ia 8trotaMi«r*a ula,o« of lusinoas that moraing;; tliat he,
ivillAB, want to Stro)!M«ier*e saloon, isrbere h« found one Hitter
tmA el&iMAnt Vogt. Pltt«r teotii'ied thet ^trolmeier b&d in*
fomMd hin on the preeeding dagr th&t he «a* noim* to take ov^r
the saloon fi©» Vogt, who vas goin?;^ to Iowa; this, notvithstand-
Ing the f&et tb&t the awee ^itnesa iklso testified thut Vog;t
had surrendered the ealoon to StPoh«eier in April, 1919, Thi»
witness further testified th t when he flrat saw the paper in
^iUestion it was about four inches long J*nd two and onO'^talf
inehes wldej t^^at it -^as not lifled; tbst it wa* « re^l&r l»lank
piece of jiJtiper and th«sre were no linr^s on it 5 that when he first
saw th«T pupttr f^trohsM ier h&d take^ It off hie desk; that he, the ,
witness, "heard hi:^ cut a piece, nuick, like that, sounding like
a cut ^rlth & pair of shsmrs"; th&t Strohmeier ^en gsre the pnter
to Vogt, who wrote on it the letters and fii^ures "I. 0, IT, $3,600'*{
that TOgt gave the paper to Str^ihmeier, *© then yi-fned it; that
Mfter the sig-itag Strohneier iooV & mit of shears nd trl^^isaed
it down; "X e&v him use the shears {** th&t a lawyer, Sehulraan,
lat«r pi ced the figures "5-5-19*' on the h&ok of the fis^v^^r^ The
testinony of this witness was weakened on oroee-exa&iinution.
KotwithBtandiiMg; Ms et^tei^nt thai in the first instance the
vrltin*!; was i^ade oa a pi«oe of unlined ehlte p&per, he tid^altted
oa eross-exttjnirsation tha-t it contained lines, '^'hile he t'; stifled
he saw !>trohmeler sign the inetrivaent he admitted that lae had
stated at an earlier hearint^ in the Probate court that h^ wa«
unable to swear that the paper in evidence %ae the one he saw
Strohsieier sign, and th&t in answer to a (|uestlon whather he
had seen Strohweier slffo the paper, he had answered in th« Iro-
batc oourt, "Well, now, T wouldn't say that. I don't 'aeliere
that is his slgnatur*. I 4on«t think that. Ths^t ain*t the
«f#
■3 p:U »ei
wK?
HO l*fl*XtfCr
^'M
aetft X ««ea 8tr9)UMi«r mign. IX «.lr.*t ahaptdi th«t ««/." T!la« t««>
tlmotQr of this wltnesa, »« d«Yel op«d upon eros8<--«xsia;l nation, Lb,
to 8&7 th« l-!aat, not isftpreesiTa. Tillam t«otifi«d t>^^t aft«r bo
ont«r«d the ottJ^oon on tho dur in question Strohmoler i^y« Y.im a
bluo Rtool rovolvor and oftid to him "to put it in trt pockot wad
stand oror fain; t>iAt ho «ao >$olnT to borrow somo aionfty froa 7raiik
Vo^tj" that tho witnooo took tho roroj iror And stood Tuard ovor
tho persons ong^ged in the tr?in»&ctlon; that Vojit took four or
flTii pu.ok&gos of pM^por aonoy trtm the sfifo vbioh w^ro counted by
8tvo2uooior« ^ho than pl&csd tho nosoy in ti p&por shoo box :^d ft«t
it Wok underne&th tho bar; th»t follovdn' this ftrrta^noier reachod
into © c&so ejud l»roTis?bt out a pioee of papor Pvbout throe irjchos
wldo and fiiro or six itichos long ^hich ho cut down «lt*> u sb«o.rs
both boforo and &ft«r it was 8i:>:nod; tbat Strohmeier thon said
to tho «itno8S» "Fo^, Ronry, I ant goinp to take this w?»ta.ir© &nd
you follow m» upet»?4r8,*' This ttitnesp further te»tifi©<i th&t ho
talkod "feitfe Strohwolor h. few d&ya beforo h« diod, »t »hich tJas
StrohMoior ss^id th«At ha vras geij'ss: to ^-Uchijjan to try to rogaia
his health, then ho «&« -oin-' to r>ubu(,tt0, Iowa, to way Frank Vogt
baek that aonoy th«t he loaned from him. rillas to stifled in tho
Cii^cuit court that after tho transact4.on ho followed Btrohsidior
upstairs and "saw bin safely in hie roo^^" Notwithstanding this
dotailed infor*nation i^irttn to the Jury in the <^jreuit court, in
the #T»ba.t€ court ho in effect deniod this st^ter.itsBi, by saying,
*I followed him as fur us the door .nd he went upati^i.rct by hia-
eoir, "
Infororioos atight reis-ffonably bo drawn from the tes->
tisboiQr of tho persons in the saloon at the tisM of the elle^ed
transaction whioh would ssilitato against the olal<s made by Yogt.
BMM OTidenee was sdnitted to th9 offset that Strohneier in->^
tsnded to purchitse whiskey with the borrowod noney. Proof to
-8 J aTT '.til }.*rt 1$ *c;
^ZiX« f»lawKn:t9 M»« I ^9tt
'.>'< i*t^.
lUiaiii imty xpi
tmwt9%*U m^tjm^itp
ifMWU-
ii»jm a»
itn
>Ai
n.*yiir» lit t*-^ ». .
pi<3 til frsxiiiaa^ »£ — .. .
«t rayrf
. t„ _3wrf
m$ ^.eoTH .xMf*** b««rii«!
1 ^^•
•A I—
oorroborate this tcstimotiy, bOK«Ter, is si^piifioontly laekingt in
the record. Ho aufflolent fmaon i« sbovn wti$ StrohoMier should
borrow thin l&rc« sam of money wbon he h (id at his disposal $31,000
in eash donoslted in Chiojtipo Vsnks. vhlle the oridenco showi that
he had many transaotiono vith those banks within a. ttn months pro*
eodlm; his de«>th, nothing is shewn thereby or '■y his aeeounts in
the banks «hieh tends in the oli^htoot deftroo to proTO tiiat ho
laad reoeived l;3,600 on Hay 5, 1918, or that ho h*id thereafter ox-
pondod this or a similar sun for «tiiakoy or for any other purpose.
One vitnose testi iod that aftor the trsmsaetion BtrohsMier said
that he was goln^ to buy Liberty bonds. Liberty bonds of the faeo
▼blue of $2100.00 only woro found in his offsets after his death.
Bo evidence was offered tending to tSmm how deceased disposed of the
Money. Certain rent roeoipts were introduced in erideneo. and from
inspection of thoat and the palter in v>Jioation support is feur^ for
the argument that the instruaent with Stvoh93«ier*s tfonuins signature
was in faet out frea a rent receipt reeelvod by Vogt for rents paid
by hi« to StrohsMiler, and that th« letters "I. 0. U.* and the fiir*
ures •^3,600* wero written above the sifrn&ture.
Other matters might be indicated which tend to dis-
prove the testiaiony of clei'«a»t'« witwae. It will bo sufricient,
liOwoTor, in this connection to say that it is our opinion that the
woiffht of the erridoBCO in the oaso does not support elaisuunt's
claim, and l^at bolag Se, it was iaeu^ibont upon the trial court to
instruct the juxy aoouratoly as to the l«)-w applicable to the case.
The instruction quotod above is faulty in that it says that if the
jury believe tron the ovldeneo that Stortawior in his lifetiaio re-
ceived the sum of .^3600 from tho claimant, Prank Vogt* and had not
repaid it, thea the Juxy wore to find for the olaiaant. This in-
struction is misleading;. It tended to divert the minds of the .1ury
•Will 1^^ t« *W(/C<f ^#n Y^-K*^
♦w
.Art09«t «rf#
•ft-'jf
Aljfl Wtt-i^Oif
^d
, ■ ' J
•■»•»
9» ffttifW mr/y^tf vilt
1
"•vf r*#»#a lf«f
.bR«(i
nt
wmri tt »aO
J
aX«T
4 oV
:•(!««
tv*f a^
iO
from the real lasue of fket in tbe otMB*. which was whether oIal<«aat
ft»d others had conspired te defreud deeefteed'e entate by fabricating
with the aid of Strotaneier's genuine sigrsature a el^a AKdirat the
estate. There ie eridenee in the reeord tendixvt te ehew that Vogt
had p&id Tarloua euaie of money te Strohaeler «hlelb h^', r^trohiMier,
did not aad wae not required te repay; i^nA miitlle in other clrcust**
stances the firing of the instruction «ij^ht net be erroneous, we
think the attention of the jux^r ou^ht te have been directed to the
only important controwersy of ffa-et in the ease, n&'aaly, whether the
paper in tiuestion was aotu&lly dellTsred by Storhoeler to clainant,
and whether he, 8trohmeier« had reoelTsd a consideration therefor.
If It can be said that the I. 0« V, was written OTer Strohiseier*s
name without his lcno%l«dge or eonseat, the ease of the elalH^^ant
fails irrespective of v»hether the elaliaaat had ewer s*^e other
leans or ttayaaents te deceased that had net been repaid .
The Judgment of the Circuit court Is reversed and
tbd eause remanded to that court for a new trial.
IteSurely and Matchett, JJ,, concur*
«»«r (Mkljl* ,•«.. X^tfl •fit imnti
1 9«v Lux to'T tuh
• *-^d^A: 7-s iJOjrjAlw »£« '1 <W ru-
!;!•.■>. iTj.:' hrtu vi*t"'«V
140 - 36804^
\ .
SCHIILH07 DISTIXWTIJIO CO,, A
» Coryoration,; / )
▼t.
Appelltutt*
THOMAS BiaaiHS, \ /
\ AppelXM.
APFlAi. KliC/W MUUlCIrAL COUHI
OF CHICAOO.
22 3l.A.63a/
OSLIVIHKI) TJIS OJPIHIOB OJP ?HS CCUPT .
this is tui appefti frosu a Judfs»«nt. of the Funlclpal
eourt of Chioago «nter©<i on a renliet of « Jury Ik fuvcr of th»
defendant fer $1000 on a aet-off f 11«<S by defendant tc plftistlff *•
•t«te&.ent of cl&i&, in which pl&iutlff alleged thsX defendant mm
indebted to it for hia l»re&oh of a oontx-aot to purohHse fifty
berrele of i>hit$key or fifty whlskt>y certif ie»te».
Tiiore in » filrect contradiction in thp evidence e.e
to the tenss of tU« contraet »%i«d u^on. "xhv plaintiff ineistt
that tho deferjdmnt had »icy««ri to purcbttse' of j/l&intiff whiskey
certificates* vhiie the d^fettdattt a«eort« that th^ agreeiaent, ti^i ch
was oral* was for the purchaee by defeRd»ijt* of fifty barrels of
iitai«Jk:ey. It is adjBitted tJtat SJlOGC wae p«i:i. to or de.^»8ited with
plaintiff by defctidant at tne I'^sm th& agr««nent w»s entire.' into*
r^idenee offered by piwiattff tende to prove tJwtt
the eontraet provided for th^ aaie of wfaiakey oertifioatee and
not for barrels of whiskey. On the ovher hand, defendant intro-
duoeA proof that he had a(;reed to purchaee fifty toarrele fif
ahislcey to be delivered to hiia in <:{aantitiea as ordered by hi»
fron tine to time a« the needs of his bueineas required.
Defendant's evidence tends to ahee that no part of
n^vm «•
MAf! . lk*X
.;tnai:X»s
t O U ti.
^^
li <ii»«3^T
Xaq^^xau.i aji'j i;«»
• '
^C^'til ftd.
• 41 «OtT«%tv
^7ibj|nJnnr
- ■rrTad
- .'jt^D «^Anl1 i«xU« 111(4 riv .<9
lo 4tA^ on f«i(« voda oi mhnmi •»ii»t,ir» «*^}>Mi./<n>^
4V ,X«10 l««
• XO^oiiAv
tli^niAlq
th« fifty ltorr«X8 of whlakey whieh h« A&ys he oontraottd for im»
doll7«red to or offered to 1>o doXi-vored to him*
'^liAt cone titu tod ttoo oubjoot mat tor of tho eoiatraot
tMUi a sharply eontooted <iue«tion of fact In the trial court* 7h«
record contains OYldeaoe which, if be 1 loved by the Jury, would
varraut a finding that plaintiff had orally agreod to deliver
fifty b&rr«l» of whiokay to ^ho defeMa»^ as ordered by hla and
a» the De«!ds of his buslueoB required, ajsd that after making the
contract plaintiff waa eivher unable or unwilling to cosply with
ite terKg. VifUile the evidence as to the tercis of the contraot
between the ptartles is oontradiotory, we are unable to held that
it does not preponderate in favor of tiie oontentloa of defendant*
Two vitneeees testified upon oHch side. A witness for plalniiff
testified T;hat plaintiff* » representative had on tieveral occasions
after the naklni; of the a|$rees!ent r^quersted defendant to pm^y the
balance due on the oontraot ao that plaintiff oould deliver to
defendant whiskey certificates, whi^sh plaintiff in^sista oonstitutsd
the subjeet matter of the eontraot. this testimony is, in effect,
contradicted by Big>:;ins, defendant. In an a»ended statesent of
elaist, however, It appears tliat the plaintiff in one eount thereof
directly charged that defendant had agreed to purchase of plaintiff
fifty barrels of whiskey, and this allecrAtlnn harmonizes with the
position taken bv defendant*
At the beglnnlnct of the trial plaintiff in«.de a notion
for non*auit, ^^hich motion was renewed at the close of all the
evidence . These js^otions were denied and |»laintiff asserts that
this was error.
Section 30 of the ttunieipal Court aet provides that:
*]tvery person desirous of sufferini; a non<*8uit on trial shall
be burred therefrom unless he do so before the Jury retire frojt
the bar, or bcifore the court, in ease the trial is by the court
without a Jury, states its finding.**
ft«i« Mid x^ li>ft«»ft^o mm •:;imtm9\1t (wl> o« r--:^
•flolsj.. <«v»« no toitif
iX»& bitftt*
^«, 1,-.. ...^ (.,„.^-,. ~.. .4..,. ,:. .r..^..l,,l.
9j>!»fta ftdii Aft
•'J
. 4 m:f mn .
i i trf. -n '•
It la iiiai»&e<l that th* phrftse ''ftyery i^orson" la broad
•noutjn to iacluae ttw pl»intirf« notvithetfitnding the fact that the
reoor4 ahd-v« the>& at the ticte th« notions ware mada defendant ImA
fll«d his dtateKent of sat-off tuiA mm» insiatine upon a judgaiant
t,):ii6rt<!m in hia favor. l>aotion 2C of the is^nlcl pal Court act la
axiVdtaniialXy the aonua a« Beecion 70 of the l*raotiea Act. Sactioa
4d of the Pr&otiaa AoH, howavar. Is ae followa;
"When suoh plea or notica of act-off ohail hftve bean
Intarpoaad th« plaintiff aJ'iftll not be psnflttted to diemlas hla
Buit without the consent of the 4efQridant, or Isare of the
court.*
While tha substanoa of faction 48 doea not appear to
hare bcaa Ineluded in tha l^tinislpal Gourt aet, the Municipal eeurt
of Chloago being a court of reeoM, it ia properly applicable to
practice in ^hiki. court. Section ^ of tha Municipal Court act la
not repugnant to Section 4£ of the fraetloe aet, and it ia now a
settled matter that rulea of practiea jsrovided for by the ?raeti9«
act are applicable to prosei^dinga in the Municipal court except
where it appaare that »tatuiea relating apeolfioally to practice
in the Municipal court ture iitoouaiateut with the proviaiona of tha
Practice uct. Xiie trial court did not err in denying the notion
for a non-auit*
Juna 7, 1919, plaintiff sailed a letter to defend-
ant, & copy of which waa offered in evidence by plaintiff. Tha
court auatalned an objeotion to ita in!.rodu<ation* rlalntiff >g
brief reeitea Utat the letter wa» offered in evidence for the pur*
pose of ahoiwing ^hat the pl&intiff waa at all ^ixcea reedy, able and
villin^ to carry out ita oontraot and alao *f or tiie purpoae of shov-
ing notice to the defendant, that unlaoa the balance of the purehasa
price wao paid within a tine specified plaintiff would be efiwpelled
to sell the certifioatee in the open iBarket," etc. while it nay
hmti%4 «i "MMMSH T««v** vtmmesn wfa tmii !>««iiJttAl •t 41
a»*d #v4u( IlM<« ll««(r»ft lo Milan -'
»'»!; »>■
-tL i'^ t»i
•I 1
- uco
i-»<f osASlrfD !•
h:0 ni »Oi.*0S'X4
;ctAjq|u«*^ lea
li.. .*. VIA 1*41
,tiit.a$A UU at
. .1 •ellPAVf
.JiWftoAOII « lot
•«Ad« Ic saoqiuq «c<.i lo'i* u»mi to* l&A';«ri(;o ija iu-
. am
•?eoq
ailXlv
to «A« XI»« el
tiff for m wm^fmry iigati»«i 4i^«»^ii%*
litwrily mm m%0m%tt is*^ mumitm
I r
^' ^ufst '^f? * rft rvfl^ R'.^rtr^ v
111* for Ui« «»tb«v pttsi^««n tttated* ^» l«ti«r was Xsjrs<»lir imUU>
ii|^ of a«lf»8«STliig Mtat«m«ni» modyo hy plulBtlff , vliieh th* .luiry
vftuXd k»T« a© rigM ta '»)»}. ^4«y. !lei )»nre».r 'rsus «t»n«4tt*^ ia »w»
fttolAK to oAwdt tk« Ltttor Ib ovidoiaoo.
A iLttJit «sa«ad«4 »ffi.d«Ti« 0lT«:red Igr i^ilaintlff oa
it* atotJeon for m 0«ffiiti»att«ia«:c '«lii«^i hja4 ia.3r««Mly '&««» d«ni«d,
«»■ pM»|N>vl*y «xol«^4NI iSton »ff«ir«d tio «Tt4@ne« on ^ho trials
Ooiia»«a. for ^l*«n«l»£xt lm4 ioo'l ^ist^^if^?/^ '%^ it« «€(i<tla».\(^H>
'Sh» ii<smi% diroo%€4 iib^ ivuey to find tlM looueo
ogo.l.n«i li&o 93,6lntiff »» his oliiiJB mimJi.ni^ defendant* flilo !»•
•iv^.Hi'tioa wtM. mrmtt^ lio«tt»Ofii |slfliiiitiff*o «rrid«)f)e« 4iA ix»% «^«v
thttt h« hftd o^tiftftiaoiS «>ni@r (l«^«i$f« W tJ»o laLogod ^t'^acb of tl»o
eoitt3*»«t lajr dofoi^oiat*
%• •«%«l)l>iid» thtti %lt* @9«%ifiM»t m&o for -^tlskey to !»« <i«i.lrey«4 oo
the oadL^aneie* iVf 4of«»ft«i:t*9 tmel£too& ^wDuld r«K|Uir«* ¥lt«vo i«
«Vi4«»«« #ii4iilh 1 011^9 to provn th«i tl3.« <!l«fo»AKiKl 4«a«»(Uid[ ftf
\m.»^mXa of ^ilsle^y im t^o oo£i%«m«t, t^.idb fO-SLl^tif-f r«fti««<l to d*-
Ii-V«3t« iianMK|iii«»ttly tho ^>«hii^iiloa Mum^smnt to ih^ t^itod Stftio«
WxitmA s;tft.t#« Oo»(p^o«« iuadl ^m W 't^* X«isic&atuxs» of tito tH»te of
lll&noie, tihitjiit ?<mdo««d it l«^;l,ly i!apo»sil»l« to emrwy 9Vt tko
ter!a.9 ^f tisto ^tm^jem^* the (iRilaootQuontI? «aft«t«4 Xnwt omumn^ o
total fai1LiM'«i of tito «^».:»i'«I«t)ratioo for def«^td«nt*t |tX9t^««o onA
Im «m t}&or«r«y« «atlti«<( td nv^isof #r ^»<?X ttii-^ doiwoii mU0 lagr
tmtm
tmlmmy
yrtmt
.-^ ^d:^ MA. ;«fi/l
12 • 2«1M
\
\
W.O?T.,-' C THB 3TATS5
Hmf^Mmnt tit nrvor
Plaintiff in i^mx.
) /t^R.K>R TO aronicii^a eotwt
O? CHIGA(K>.
KDR, J^TICB ItoSHOTiar SKLnBRRT) TKR OPIJriOH 0? tH« COURT,
StftadftBt vaji found guilty i^ & Jury upon infora**
tion fllod ciuutflws tb&t he was in Tiolatton of eootion £70,
«b<ipt«r 38, of tho i^oTiood St&tutoSi eswMnly ealled tbo Vosranoy
Statute!. Judnpnent h&Tlas ^«n enturod en tho verdict* h« aaka
thia eeurt to rereroe,
nto iaforaatioa oJbarfod th&t defendant fiam, on Jsrnu*
ary «« 19SG, in Cbiea«»« an idle and dlsaoluto person, habitually
nofleotful of i^io enploy^tent, etc., followiag; the lAngu&ge of the
•tattle. The |>70seeutlea introdaeed oridenoe that defendant wae
arrested on the night of Januaxy 4« 1920. about 1< :30, in eotapasgr
with t«o other 'rt«n, one of whots, a police officer said, had heen
prerieusly arreste4. Defendant elaimcd to "be tnpleyed by the
Janitors* ^ion and introduced evidenee tending to su|»port thio.
Shere is soaw unoertalnly as to just what issue was
presented to the Jury, for upon Aotion to quash the inf oroatiea
the trial court said the first ceunt could ha quashed, but net the
seooadf and the jury ^as iastrueted that portions of the at&tute
were not mpplieabla to this ease ttnd that the state was eoafined
to the eh&rge that the defendant «^as a well keewn thief and one
iriAO loiters areaml publie thoreu^hfi^res. This was upon the er>
ren'^ous assuesption that the iafomation was eovpesed of werious
e«Hints eharsing differsrit erlaes. In People w. Klein, SV^* 111.
MXM • U
W
t; i> o .
ij
?:r>;ii*
-*»nt-- ."-■iiusi Ikiure'i r-' :
. 91^
KfiMico-i ci .OCiOX lir»f<« ,i>«9X > ipMMMi^ !• ttfUla fd> n« 6«i|*tt^aA
vnj iMi i«4S; ,Ma»— » mT MUfov trir»o ;'«rti .
•^9 mii m9^u »Nr mldx . •yi^lii^— wiff
4J2C, it vriui hold ihttt eueh ttn izif oxifUiti oa eoatttiaod ealy oat
ebiirgfa, aaaely, th«t d«f«nd«.at vfts « ▼ag&'kMid aadl that Xhm
Txrioua ellnipiiloiui tending to bring bin within th« d«fialtioa of
tluit ehHi«(tt«r a^touBt to ao aoro thtj^r a ftlngls Qhs-xc®.
f'Olioo offitwrs wor« peiraitt^d to tootify not only
as to other &rrtti>ts of defendant. Vat t«lao tui to the ftrrest of
other people, very aXif^htly it' &t til, connected »ltto defond&nt,
In the Ktiti^ e«iee, uu££Si,* ^^* <id<iU&Bion of ais%llar teetinaony was
held to be prejudleiftX*
A wltaeee trtui e»Mrni8»d i^viA jM^rrnltted to teetify con*
eomli^ the che^rGuoter of the t$elc>s^rheed whsre defendant was
arrs^etedt thnt nei.ay aa;to^ot>il6 conoerna ««)ro thfire with tirea
and autonebile aeoeaeoriea; oil citlcmlcitod to lapfroea the Jury
trith the ^«lief or saapieion %hi^t defeit<£<Mit waa ia the nel^ter»
hood with orlmini:^! deaiga upoa th«a« ahope «>ad thoir content*.
Saeh efidoi^ea ^&a vholly improper*
ie aee no ro^^aon ^hy ttie 1 :('.<« t motion as to oireu»»
etasitial siTidsr»a in <&vimiu^l c.-^ee» aiiouM h»ve been giTOii. Ihlla
the in«truetioa adght be giren in a proper c&se, it had a« a^pli*
eatioB to the proa^nt trial « It ^^loi Incrmbent upon the proseeu-*
tion to prore the ohari*« m&de in the inforsi&tion I97 OTldenee of
faots. Cireuastimoea neroly sivlas rise to euapic^ioa were iMt
m are fallowing what is aaid in the opinion of the
Bupr^HM oourt la the K l<;,i ji csiae, aupra. &nd under ita iii^ut>iorit7
wa ahall roTorae the Jud^ai^ttt and renand the eatne.
••var, ?. J,« &nd ^tehett. J., eoneur.
1« t »b •df iutf ffellt«f 99
-«0» <i.
:>.tj nji \
•V? 'S'/.v,
to oc
>o<t •t«-
'^•OlC^t
0^.
** r^^ i •«> f i 0**. »T
.voonotk
-OT9I IXojfa oj
.tovoff
34 - 26404
\
ORAXSBS KAPLAV« Aiel^tntt* of^
Bitttt« of Johii H. T&iUMierl^
Bankrupt, \
\ App«llaJ,
▼a.
!R TfUCUIS,
a.
APP.^AL JROM MOTICIPAL COURT
csr CHiCASo.
223I.A. 63S^
MR. JUSTICl IfoSURELY HBLIVISRBD TRR OPIHTOH Oy THS COURT.
^nilB ia an appeal froa a Judgaent against defend-
ante for $1336.75.
Plaintiff's claim waa baaed upon a pro'nlaaoty note,
and Deoaaibor 5« 1919, JttdlC»ont was antored under a power of at*
tomey to confess Judg^nent. Deowaber 22 a petition waa filed
asking that defendanta be glTen leaye to defetxi « inbiob v&s al-
lowed, the Judf^ment to atand aa security. Affidarits of defense
vere filed and also a notice of set-off. Tbere&fter trial was
had by the court, resultim; in a finding, entored ^roh 22, 1920,
that there was due from defendants to plaintiff $1336.75, or the
ea#ttnt of the judgment entered Deeenber 5, 1919. An appeal was
pregred fr<Mt this final Judirment on condition that an appeal bond
be filed within twenty days, a bill of exceptions in ninety days.
The appeal bond was duly filed.
There ia no bill of exceptions in the record, hence
we eannot consider objeetiona and arguments predicated upon eri*
denee presented and rulinga ;aade at the trial . ^ zattst presuiae
there was sufficient competent eridenoe to aupoort the judiorment.
August 23, 1920, defendant M&rtinkns filed a writttn
■otlon supported by affidaTit, again making that the judg^^ent
WtTOa
4*'
) IS -^ o
•Jtai«l*A lartid^ #a«a9tot «> xo^'i i':^^''
j^r-^A
•T~, <s :.'■ '/!">■''
•irui
•8K9l*£' ^o tUi.v^i>i1^A .X^Xnr' ' /i (into I
-XT* ff !• !oJ«:i.ciyt: nlf e.v>i. -.^1.. f,; .-oo idrttuM 0w
be raoatcid and defendants p« ml tied to defend on the ground of
what a]>parently Is olaimifd to be newly discovered eridence. This
■otlOQ wae orerruled. Defendants hure argued here as If this
latter order wae before us on uppeal, but this la a mlistakea
Tiew of the matter, ^en defender ts perfected their appeal fraa
the judatment order of ?Xarch 22, 1920, by filing their appeal bond.
In contO'aplutien of luw the ctise was pendln^r in the Appellate court,
and the trial court h&d lest jurisdiction. TJerrlfield ▼, Cottage
Piano C!o.. 2S8 111., 526. The trl»l court therefore could not
properly t&k»» any »etion upon the petition, and whaterer action
alfcht have been tak n is not properly before ue.
The arguaent, th^t because t^ere is no bill of exoey*
tiOBS before us there ie no evidence lo support the Judtfm^^nt, is
probably based upon a confusion as to the pr&otice in ohancezy
and the different praotioe in a suit tki, la^, which this is. %•
see no reason to disturb the jud|»ment.
Plaintiff aeks for statutory deaa^et, -•lai^iini? that
this appeal Is tak«n for delay, but wo are not irjclinod to allow
this .
She Judfliaent Is affirmed.
DoTsr, ?. ^,, and Ifatchett, J., oonour.
S dvimX c a«iM« Jaoat3>J^t Mil
o; »;in-xc>r .90ii»Jtt«i^tirt l»»i 0,^1 #a«<>3 l^lri •tit htuk
■" ^ ^- ■- r . . .,.. ■ •' •'• «• ..03 oiMlt
••a
#ttrf.f
. mltis
APFSAL mm cirr cotmi
CTITCAOO H:?I3HTP.
92 - M741F ,
\
'ILUAK H. 8T0LTI.
▼•. ^
BOniT BAI1S« \
Appelv.iuiVl
/^ O -^ *■ *-"'^ '■^ \J %Jy <_0
KR. ju^tiCT ?iesno8i,Y mLvrmjOi tm qptbxov oy tkb cotrnt.
Plaintiff in this eaa« Is Villi«a H. ^>tolt« and <!•-
f«Bd&7it is B^wsy B&kar, but In the abstrAetfl and brief a theaa
Bagwa are T^rnrwtA in the title, contraxy to the statute, nhleh
rtt«jiulr»8 that caaea efeall ba entitled in thia court ea they were
in the trial court*
Flalxitlff Stolte*s atttotaoi>ile octrae Into eolllaion
iri^ ft trvck Owned by defendant, Bajk;er. Plaintiff brought suit
to reeoYer diuaa^a to his autosobila, and upon trial by a jury
ImUI a Yerdlet for $233. &&. Judcasat »aa enteral thereoi:!, froi
whioh dafeiadant api^sala.
The aeeldant happened in the City of Chioai^e
Heifhta, at the interaaction of Otto bouleY'u.rd a north and south
atreet, &nd sixteenth street, nhioh runs east and vreat. There la
aeae dieputa la the testimony, but tbe juxy properly oould ball era
that ti»e auteaioblle of plaintiff, drlTan by hia daughter, an udult,
VMi ^oing north oa otto beulavard en the ^aat or right aide of tte
atraat and had entered the Interaaetlon and «aa about in the centra
of Sixteenth atraat when the truek belongias to defendant eeaw fron
the weat goin^ aaat en Sixtasnth straett driving f^^at on the north
or wroni; aide of the atraat; It turned further to the north in en
attempt to paaa in front of plaintiff*s attto?!iobile. In avln-^iBg; tha
truck around tovarda tha northeaat its rear right fender atruck the
front of plaintiff's autoaablla. The jury »aa justified in con-
\
Ut tfH
V
Mtff^9b ifDlKNr
•nl<s«» Mt# nl #0O4yK taw &«« ltoi/*#miitiTl «di i>*Yoia« ImwI hiiii i^atla
itlvoff Mfi pro #««\ }gK.lyrirb .laa-Ua lUnaWxie r ni*]v #«#w •tCt
oludinst thttt If d«f0ndttnt had been on ths right tldt of th«
street h* would have paesed safely In the rear of plaintiff's
autOineblla^ but that belrv^ upon the wroiu; side and etteinptin,:: t>
oroea in front of l^e autonobile, defendant's dri-ver was (guilty
of neglirtence cauBins^ the acoldent.
Defendant claims that plaintiff's driver *»s guilty
of contributory ne^.Ti-enee, based upon the cridence teniitv? to
flihov ^at ^he had little ex|ierie>jce In drlTing a car; biit it
does not it.ppsar that this alleged inexperleiaoe oaused the aeoident.
Aa experienced driver would prebitbly not have acted differently.
Defendant complains of «hat in the brief is described
as instruction *^o, 1" given at the retiuaet of plaintiff. The
brief does not tell us what the instruction is, aid ob referring
to the ub^traot we do not find any instructioa designated &b
•No, !,• Refusing defeJislant's offered instructions "SToa. 1 to
8 inclusive,** in questioned. This is confusing, for the abstract
AovB that the court gave deferniant'e offered instructions TTos. 2
to 14 inclusive. The proper practice is to set out an instruction
in the brief and tJ»n criticise it. Hiraply describing it by a
inialHir &vA assert Ini^ that it is $?ood or bad is set sufficient.
However, exa-^iination of defendant's offered instructions whioh the
abstract shows as marked refused, does not conrrinoe us th»t it
was prejudicial error to refuse to give thesn.
As to the rights of respective vehicles at street
intersections, we are in accord with v^hat was said in the opinion
Itj ICr, Presiding Justice Thomson in Strelau. :\dmT, v, C. C. Ry.
Co.. 218 Til. App, 630, opinion not .ublished in full. The rule
that both parties have e^^ual rights at intersections does not
mean that the two vehicles are equally entit Ted to use the
erossing at the same aosient. Ordinarily the rul^ is that the
vehicle «hich reaches or enters the erossin^^ first should have
tJIl;:', .Vied
.?! , . nj o'v '> , crt no*' aoic »««•« ,^ ':-.o^<»t: X*S-" ' * -•
Ji t^ :i l|^t<li'%om•l^ <icXqaUte .ili •«jtai#i'X» ««d# tm* ^»lt^ mM tU
aot«iq:o WAS nl biom mw #«(« ti&lw Ina^ae- mi ,um>iS9mnmttti
.'^ .0 .•» .3jEfiii .a»Iiwi« «i mmmmts oo^jvuL »p .«k t^
-y-'/i Otis ,liuy at hf ttt noktUuf •<>&• .4|q(A .j.xi 0iA . .<0
lor. ••ol) Mil»iio»«v:>.rni /«> •^flfell £•(}>•• •▼«< sil/tuiq flMtf ^m4i
ihm right of vay, t^ut this "do«« not liftply thst retri^rdXasa of tta*
•p«ed« of tho roopeetiva Tohieloo or tho poflslMlitiea as to
•topplnif tlMBU or guiding them frost th« path in which thoy a-r* ap-
proadtiin.'t the interteotlon, tind othor fa«ts that a&y }»% inrolTod*
tho one first roacbing or entering upon the Inte reaction auqr b«
driven ahead rec&r41eie of oonBequencea and relying upon the
driver of the other vehicle stopping in tisie to avoid a colli-
oion,»
To are content to abide by the verdict of the juiy
on the f aots, and mb there w&e ne 9rror upon the trial the judtaent
is affimsd,
AWfTSmO,
T)ever, P. J., and H&tehett, J,, concur ♦
,hmn
,^«7»<l
104 • 26760
:• \
KUCfflKY MOTOR 'fAR COaPAlTT,
a CorporcitioB'^
\ Appellsint,
\ M OF CHICAOO.
THATCHBR V, ROyT,\ *^
APPE VL FRCM IStmiCIPAL COORT
''vy ^23I.A. 6^4^
ItR* JUSTliSB 'IttrTTTHSLT rJELHTKB^D TVm QVIWIOH 0? TOB COtfat,
FltkinXitf, tha Htt<sh«y Hotor C&r Co., broUf^it ouit
elaisilng ft balamafli due of |179,40 for ropalr* w&de tm the de*
fondcuni*s «utot!tob^I«. tTpon trial by the court tindim tmd Judg*
■©lit i»er« for defendant uad plaintiff appeala.
There ie no dispute a-n to the character of the re*
paire or the reaeoa&bleneee of the charges.
H'rom the evidence the court could properly oonclud«
thttt in 1917 pl&intiff ^i^m in tbe n&ivenn of jselllrsr &ad repair*
ins Peerless automo^^iles; that ti *!r. CooXey was ite sii^ent, vice*
president »^nd SHles»&nbger and was ts^lso neg^otibtini? lo&ns for his
coapa^ for the purpose of carrying on its business; th«t ia Sep-
tfffltber of thtit year Cooley prop<Hied to defendant that if he \iould
buy one of their automobiles and would also bosist plaintiff In
obtaining; leans of money from a Hr. Beach « the corspuny vould in^vm
to repair and maintain the autoisobile jatrohased v<-iti.out chart^.
This was accepted by defendant, ^ut the agreement was not in
writing. Thereafter defendant bou^^ht the car, at whie^ tine a
written order for the Peerless autoritobile at the agreed price
twes ^Irea ^ plaintiff throoi^h Mr* Cooley, which order eonteiioed
the words, "This order when aoeepted by the coaipany shall consti-
tute the entire uKrenment between th» parties." 3ubse>iuently de-
fendant aseiated plaintiff in obtaining loans for large sums ef
money itisountiug to between |25,000 and 150,000 by introducinR «Cr,
OftVftS • ^x
''i^bO •i
oMiT .#rr»f^ji B^ii SAW x*i«oO . ixdS :«9Xiti«B?e|-fl« ■••X«»M iisi
al lliiiitaXq i9immm ^nLn t>Xi/A.v bm* ••XidflMO#0« xiadi !• «t« Xf^
•n^a htm^m ypM^mto »tU «4flM«6 . .v0%t xim«« !• mui»X ttfilRX«##»
.•stYAdo ^olii* JieaiiAtiiq •/ Mo^vr^uji Af^ alJt^tnlJtm ba» tlmqan •#
Hi $0m (Mw ^ft»fw«vis ait .: '\Atnm\9ti x/^ b«tf^f •otM •«« aldf
m •■111 doidw Iji ,t«o ti$ #ffatf««f #aa^rwl*A it##l*rx«(rr .•lal/linr
•oiiq **«T|^ Arf^ #« •Ilo*R<»lis« »99lrm9Fi mtti io\ nmtrko ami) tin
hmiUtHM imbtio Unidm ,x»X*o» ,-x}t a$tt9ndi rXXiatJUq x/l ■•'^ii mw
-XiMCOd XXitda tB^*»o •<tr yd hmitiwm Md« «»Ho aiifr ,»lrt«» Mif
y mam tivaX no »aliilji.! itSaUtq b*#aXts« #0Atet»l
.%y ]wil9»h«tlni xt OOO.Oflt JkM 000, it« M*«t«tf ol ipilnif«» tMMt
Cool»y to '!r, C, B. JStttflb, u siori«y lai-jd^r, und takinjst part io the
negotiation ani oonjstmmtien of such loi^n?. Subeet^uen ly plaintiff
wrote to d^TanAtknt, oneloeinff a Mil for rapalre, shich dofftndant
eheved to Cooley, who said It vas a lalato^ke *mA tore up the bill.
Later on plaintiff wrote to dofandant j&slciag for rtmittiirEcee. but
defendant replied Xhs^t tinier the a^reenent )>et»e«n him and Mr.
Cooley with rr^ference to leans, etc., no ob&r^os Y^ere to te made
for rcpalre.
It was eoiapetent to introduce ©ridence <%8 to the
Torh^l Ji^re^aent, not for the purt>oso of sdterlr^ the writing,
but to 8ho» tbB entire a^ream^nt. The written order 8ubaequ«ntly
executed was In part exeeution of tbo parol a^reeeient. This is
in accordance with the rjla thait
"here the 4i?re«3i<5nt is not reduced to v.Titin.' ut le inte';ded
by the p&rties to r';7st in parol, tro .^Titten inBtnjii.^nt being
eubseque^tly executed ir- part execution of the parol is..rreesi9nt,
and not for the purpose of put tin-' th;^t a^reesa^nt in anting,
it la well settled that an inetru^«nt thae executed does not
supersede < prior parol agreaaient,'' 10 THiling Case Law, vol.
10, p. 1019.
i^e Hi 80 Vig or* on :^ide ce, vol. 4, section 2430. Thie rule
was followed «ind applied in rlatt t. Aetna Insur&ncis Co., 153 111.
113, and eases there cited. In JuohM * La:-^ Co. t. Fittredj^re ^
Co.. 242 111. S33, this exception to the general rule stated in
Telluride Power Co, t. Crane Co., 208 111, 218, is pointed cut.
Tha tivdltm was Justified by the OTidenoa ^nd there
is no raason i^- law to reverse. The Jud/^ss&nt vsill therefore be
affirmed,
Derer, P. J., and Matohett, J,, concur.
»l; *■ '■ . ••(•• •■; ■ ■; ,0 on
Jt t
ItltttiAlq M v*#«J
XM(f9«T
r^«>.. i««>i{t«
' tixtf
■.•>9«a* i%aq ui.
t-aia bA^Vtm^
r,(T*Meeov: f!t
.1 ^rf* x^
'fftfira
■3
,1tS-MX
«v«a
110 . 2676«
CITY OF CUICAOO,
\ ) A?p^ vnm wnicivfi. court
VHIW JAJflSOT,
0? CHICAGO.
Appellant. ) / ^ — - « ^ f. /iPs
\ y 223 I.A. ^^^
MR, JUS7IC1! ^eSTTRf!LY DBLIVmilB TTtR OPItflCM 0? THl COmiT,
I B«f«rn!ant. waa o^p.^i?'?^d with lf«itpir^, «iara|flng;, fR&ir)*
talning &nd owning ft eosx^on g«unl>llng house in the city of Chl>
CQifo and upon trial by Uie cctirt <'«'•« fourad gtiilty ^s-tv^ rir»d.
$100, &8 thfi Abstrnet shovis in oae plaea, wk«l«-.« in £itioth«r it
tayt $200. Def«!:dttnt app^ails to this court, vnt tlio City dooB
not appear to defend ti^e Judgment,
'*» »r« of ^9 ©pinion th«vt th« ©Tide! c« does not
awpYiort t1:j« charji;*. Tho police offic rs sew ten we'j» including
d«fei:!dant. for % few minutes st&ndia^ Mraund a pool table on the
nl^ht in question e.t a place eall«:d the Saratoga Club, Apiiarantljr
there was {f«i»bXin@ «ith diee, Def<%nd«^nt worn » ^reen Apron vith «
pocket in it. lien the police arrived sotae one not identified
pulled the money and the dice with a oane tov&rds def^z»lent, whe
picked thetQ up, put the?) in bis aproit and rec to the toilet room.
Defendant denied th^t he was the keeper of the place, ^ut a4Qrs
that he playa pool tnere and th»t the place is s, club run by Joe
*?lenn} that ;e, defendant, does not rtm the pl&ce Uut ejoee up
there to viait. flUems testified that the Gjirato^ is a social
and political club, incorporated, with a aeaborship of 500, that
he saalces his livinc: runriinn it and in its first -wice-oroeident and
general nunager. He says th&t geaablins was not allowed by the
constitution of the club. Other witnesses teetify th&t aisnn was
the itanacrer.
MfM - OXf
T r>
S
f) hg'i' r:ttl"t'9
■•O/'
*Or
tXliv
OA diU
f»r 4'i*t,'»t''»»i
Xnioea " ' ' ^' ■->. -r ;-* « f* • t bmiliitai^ ,...■■. .SLnt-r c . ,
#.irf^ ,006 :- . _. - _ .!'«'*; IP 'J >r» / ,cftfl» Xjv . *sHtM
(ji h%m%liM #«n ami i0i i fj<T«M«a
••• ctfiaXD #Mfi x^il0«# ■••••nil* «x»f(#0 .tfifi <> npliuiitwno^
,tm%0n»m mtii
<«hll0 th« •rldenea raises a fair sua pi ci on that
Jor^ison was gix-Qbliag vltii dic«, «« do not beli«T« it la auffleiantly
proren thut h« kept, mf^aacod* amintalnsd and ownad tha •■tabXlsliyttBt,
h»noe fim ^udr^ent oiuat be rove read and the causa ramandad,
mrsUSRQ ^2TB RBI/SDID.
IJaver, P. ■'^,, and ¥atebett« J,, eoneur.
iu-:* BO ioiaft^m tint 9 •••tax ^oa^lttw wD •li^
.'.•^•ll4Mti^*^ vrtrm
119 - 2«776
TtJHS PSTSBBOH, ^
JXTLIUF LJWMB. et »l\
On Appeal o
On Appeal of mmAm'^, HiaCH
Aitpellan'&B.
rPPKAL FRCM FUPSmOR CODRT,
COOK CGUOTY.
2 3I.A. ea
5W. JTIBTICB ?«cSTJRSLy DSLIVaRXD THS OPIHIOiT Of 1H1 COimT.
Thlm is aJB appeal >^ Sdward J. 'Cioch and 3>w»ft (Slseh,
hie wife, from a d«er«<» givi*«f the co3jplain»nt a Mechanic's lien
for $4S4.4S on Sdvard Misch*8 l»ter«8t in pretises omiai by then
jointly.
The e&u«e wao referred to <* mk&t&T in ciii.o?oery, >vfio
found th«t ^reih 1, 1917, Rdward J. ^Ueoh and B^aettv \UBCh, hie wife»
were the awnera in fee si«pl« as joint tenants of the premises in
question; that ISdward J, Miscb for hii-nself a^ril «« «««ent for his
Adiife entered into a contract with Julius Mnder for the erection
of » bulldiiag tipon said premises, arai /pril 1, 1917, Linder con-
tracted with Ture i'eterson, the coraplairjant, for the exea-m.ting and
niasoQ work, ftr an &gjreed price; that J^terson eoupleted his con-
tract and th&t his work enhsa^csd the ▼slue of the preniises in ex-
cess of tho subcontract price; that oa August ic, 1917, there re-
mained a balance due of |i410 «fith interest; that SJepteaber 26th
coaplftinant serrsd upon Edward J, «i«ch his mechanic's lien ?jotics,
but the aastor found that it did not i?pi»ar that thif. was serred
upon lacaa ?€iwoh, althouifh »h« was in the premises at the tiaw. Tht
master found thtst oomul&inant complied with all the renuirsients of
ths statute to establish «. lien gainst the interest of def^ ndunt
ISdvard J. Miseh in the pre-^.ises, und recommended a decree for
$454.42, irtiich was uccordin^'ly entered. The abstract fails to shew
9^m • til
\ ^MMntm tMVT
.THUDO tar 10 T{OTKx«io BRt caoKfijaa i^jmnvwa lonttrt .itv
,xUafi
ai ■•al.'fn.: ft^l^ \o mftttitfi »»l9l mm ^lwi9 •e'l t't u%ttmQ m$lt mtm
Mmwnit. .L hn^f ;i!0lft(N9
biT. ^rtTMwsoKfy -n^o trU ,s««t«^9'.' mitt tlii\t b9i9Mt$
bfHl>j ^'^wr9M A« tat «;hMv «o«4«i
-^: «r'!>-'» .rf''/ , i" J); i««i#aa9«VB i»»W 'i* •■•o
frvrifrn a«« nUid i**'ii ^batii.v. jvn ' «. M ^^1^^) If imam mtU tut
mST .■•rit »f<J #• ^©,1— ^.. ... < ..h . js^ ^tlM9tln mrntf nmqn
!• e^R^r^ijtjvjjav Md Xi ..-..i. ^. . ■om imdt fcjoMl Kt#«««
any objeetiona to the mi:i.»ter*a r«tX>rt or -Ar*^ •xceotiona thereto,
heneft (-11 nueftions of f&ot mist b« preaunv^'i to be correctly de-
oid«4 by the triftl court, Hulaendf^ll t. T&£b02, 200 111, i«^pp.
860,
Tki<(i prinoi.j)a.l point ur<red ofr^minKt the decree le t^at
it awarded the lien a/s^aiunt the intereet of KdwiLrd .7. ^iscdix only,
and not a^inet the Interost of "^vmA "^lach; th&t &u th»y vere
9«;ner8 'B ^o^xtt ten&nts of the pretilsee, reeoTevy must be had
««i(e.in«t both or none. The cifteee cited to eupport this aire not
portimiRt, a« thej »re aotloiie at 1** for the recovery of k judg-
ment ft<3;ain«t the contractor ^nd owner. Section 1 of the Mec^iui-
ic*e Lien Act, ohsp. 32, proridee th«it '
"Zhie lien ahsll extent to s'-n «etfcte in fee, for life, for
yeare, or ««iy other estate or siny ri;?ht of red^aption, or
other intereet whloh such owner raay h4!.Ye in the lot or truot
of land at the time of miikinij such contract or atay suV-ae-
(4iiently require therein,"
Section 3 proTides thwt in case the title to la^nde
upon which iaproreae "Jte are Mttde ie held by hue band i*nd wife
jointly, the lien atoy attach to »wefe laade liod iiSproTeaer; te *if
the iTsprovemente be tawJe in pureuAtnoe of 4i oontraet *ith both of
the« or in pursue. »"jee of ?; eontraot wilfc either of thea." Kenee
the lie» !alfl!ht h&ve been found aifRiaat the interest of both par-
ties; but this is net neeesseLrilvT in confllet «fith the first seo>
tlon of the statute, which »uth crises a lien agaimt one joint
tenant. '^» are referred to no decision in tbie at%>te to the
contrsury, smd there ia no subst^mtial re&soB to rererse a decree
&t the inat&nee of defend&nts bectmse it aeards less to cenplHin*
«nt thun he might hare had. ^^jebbejg litwibef ft Supr.l;/ Co, ▼, Brick-
son, S16 Mass, 81, seens to hold thttt the lien leust be upon the
whole lii^nd tmd not upon an undiyided interest, where all the
joint temmte vere erecting the building, but in t)te l&ter case
li arc : J« »?.<fo xn^t
vt»« x**'^ *^ *'*^ ;t<o^. /an ale < "h tn*
tnd W .^air.Y xtvt^oa^ ,a»el<t<»^ a4# *)• •fftjitfal' Jr «i»n«c
Jo
1 ,Wfl'J
•«ii>t«v(r(M
«mfn
.. . ll 'O-J
-9»a ^n
^niati *<*^ .t an l^r.
'•••©♦f ^tm ai ■■
b«^icat*it a^
.*niift»#
••i!>afc • ariarvT oi ifoaAeK t8i#f«ii>atfLn4 o
aialqmmti o<t aaal ai^«r« ti m«t»oaii §4tn»btf^*k '^o •» -idi t»
Mil «OQ» ad #aim nail arfJ Ijrtt smdaa ,f8 .>».< .^^^
•a^to *ia^' £ «(ji nl Suti ,]M\ih' uniiaama ai[«« a,|RA4ial Inlot
o^ ^OJt^my ^U * P. Co. V, :^uf aad others, 235 lydhttt., 112, It
«•« hold that whila ana tanttnt In aoanutR a«nnot anairnbar tha a««
iata of hlM eo-tanaat, thara ««aa no Tolld objeotion to astubllah-
img a aacAtHtaie's lien en the Int^ratt of ona tenvint In acRHMa,
ftlthottgih patitiomra hATe jnroeaedod -vgiiinet both ovnert, all«(|laf
tbitt labor maA ai«tart4»ls were s^ippli d iKlth thair oonaant; th«Lt
tha aha. re of th« t«aant who «A>JKi»a the eontrhot aay b« held for
the ««rk thoa «tithorlB»4 and « lion estMbll^hod as«d«st it.
eouRa>!kl for defanditnta contead that ISdward J. 'iiaeh
WM not the ogeat of hie isrifa la this ouitter. If tbia is trua,
it ie an additional raaaon to attt&eh tha lien to hie interest
•ttly.
Torthazmora, we do not u^m htm JEbma Klso^i, one of
tiM appollattta, ean oomplain haoauae her iBtereat in the pretiiaaa
■mtm not oabjeeted to the lian.
It ia aot the Ikv miAar the g^raaent statttta that,
yajaants h^Tins h«as noMla to hn origlnul contractor bafora the
•erriee of natlee from a etibeontraotor, aviOh notice ie inaffeetusl
baeaoea aad« too late. TTnder the iE>r«aent at;itut« tha lien at*
taehat from tha d&te of the eoatraot. Pitteburg^^ rlate (?1«mib Co.
j^ fel , V, Krfarum. ^l.*^ III. '-pp. 315, 891 111. 64; Taa^leton Idjag
Co. T. Bartlini} at i^.. Sl« 111, App. 651. ISepeoially applicaala
to thla east la the opinion and daoiaion in ffialeaaj t. Snchiua.
Sia 111. App. 409,
A further r^iason for aupr>orting tha decree la that tha
the
idMitraat fails to show that aay of tha points in/az^niaent «•*• maArn
in the trial court.
The decree is jirop^r and it is afflraed,
AFFiaMBD.
Deror, . .\ , ?kWl Katahett, J>, eonour.
lO -AC IS.,
.t-i
•YMi Ouo mmi
9rt9tn
MTtft - IB I
.ar
.miaou
^•iSiVk
V 9«iair(
iS ••l|««I y.
1 14 O0«)' -
.ytvtfi jjiAOip^^M
0 * 7tf jf
•xhlbit«d in tb« sh0v vindov of defendants* stor* thra« or four
ergandltt dreas«» in e«abin&tion with hute of the aaaie mt^teritd*
shaped so-aetHing like & etinshade. There «&e u sale of one of
these ooabin«i.tion8 to a. reltitiTe of tl'te pli^intlff, ^nd trtere is
foree in the suj^gestl on th&t the btqrsr a»ds the purahdee not to
eeeure the garsient hut at the inifJt&nae of the vUtiintiff, to se«
cure eTidoROtt. A f^vrmr employs of the pl&lntiff teatified ^
deposition &a to h&Ting seen u lejrge a\;p9iber of h«ita on diepl&y
on the preaiaes and clerlts offer! nfC the^vi to otie toners, ^^e «.re
of the Opinion th&t his testimony ir».e properly discredited hy
the testi'^ony of memy ether witnesaea.
So these fi»cts uiasunt to a breach of the eoven^nt
«MB&inst the use of the pre^^.vies for the «&le of aillineryt
Courts »ill not fitTor forfeitures, ^nd. to &T0Ad ihi», & strict
construction wiXl he ifirtm to the coven.iwt cl Us*ed to he hre&ehed
end the j^ets olaiMMd to aaount to & hrei^eh. will be scrutinised
closely. Hawe^s ▼. Fayvj[r« 161 TIX,, 440, Utb thia in -atiind, ««
hold thsit there was bo hr«&e>. of th« eovenants in -.question t^nd
h'j<nee no ground for forfeiture, «.nd for tbe following rofeoons.
It ie A oloss <;|ttestlon A9 to eh«^.er these sunsh&ds
hats in eo^l!>in£ttion with dresses of the saaie material oould ««*
durately be ealled mlliinory. Hespeetlve asmneel h&ve del red
deeply into thia interestir^ siih4eet. i^e prefer, hov^erer, is
thin inotartoe to «k«c«pt the epinift£i of ^« Hight^sj^a. in the
esilliaexy business in the uidjoining etere« who would tmturally
be keen fro^a self interest to dlBcern ixnj Tiol&tion of the dt.nti«>
nlllinery eoren&nt in ^^uestion. He testified that he «ould not
eonsidsr that outfit aiillittsry, "Thsit in not the subjeet of
aillinery, » is In «y frank opinion, X would not eonsidsr this
ailiinezy at ell," It is "out of tiie ol&ss of aaillinaJsT, and
to #<fo lM tl»n tt •■!»« tv
tj«»/^*.<jji^(«
■«D
'>««»««i
ion bXoOv
• Iri# 1«%i«fO« too friu*>» T ,tt«ittict« i(ct««*> t»
tea .•tK«*niriltt \d ••aI* »«<» \$ #«•• .
^HjyrU Off am arr
thbt he wtaaiiwd thOM hate. i^nA am it di4 no h&m to b^i bunl-
n««o he did not ot^jre hov smny vera sold In defendants* store, be-
o&uee he would not eall then nllllnery. The distinction he eee^aed
to outke wMi that millinery aeans hats abl4 indeuendentl? of other
Ip&nMnte and aot v. eoatMruition of & nu'm9T dress And sunshade
sold aa one article 2^nd net separately, ^e conclude that ths
articles exhi)>it(»d in defenda.'^ts* store vere not AiXlinery vrith-
in the iseanin^ of the odTen».nt in question.
A sele of one h«tt ia not the sale of tsilHinersr.
Iflllinery ie a generic term indicating h&ts in nunihexni. In this
miase of the word mlllinerr y»» not sold in defOY'dants* presises*
The display of these articles tmd the sale of one
•f then did not «3«iount to the tise xnd occupancy of tiui i^remiees
for the sale of nillinery. The words "use* o-nd "occupied* l«i»
ply more th«n on isolated single inet&nee. They imply habitual
and eustOisaxy use and occupancy of the prwnises for f, certain
jmrpeee. These vords hare l>een so construed in 'ffestc beater Fire
Inaurancy Co. ▼. Poster. 90 111., 181; grand Lodjge A. 0. n. y. ▼.
Belchaai. 145 111., 308; 0«5eU Y. Sinclair. 153 Til.. !^?5, and
Other c&se«. The premises In i,,uestion cere not used and occupied
in the forbidden busineee.
Other points hare been suggested and ari;?ued. lut the
eonsideratione abore indicated are sufficient to ^Justify the
Judi^ent of the trl»l court and it is affirved.
XJerer, :/, .T. nnd Ka^tcfeett, J., coni^r.
19COO 10
n^f'i Off
•IMI Ri
ii*r>illi
'ir* «*^'-
datnr^i)
TtltM
'^ i.i.r^9ui • .'oo
Ut <• 80811
8* VOfSKO, Doing ^BasiiMSS &•
Wfttropolltna l^rttad CoapAny,
il^pp«llft»t.
AFfVAL mcii mrsficip/x
J08SPR H. aOLJymR <4pd TTU.I,^ ,
App«i|e««^'*''^
KR, JUSTICE ?f«8TJ»BLY DRLnrgPISD TH8 OPHTIOM 0^ THB COVlVt,
This is an upimal frcna « Judipoient randered upon trial
"ty th« court in a eult broufv-bt by s. wosko* doing bu8ir»»8 as
Mi»tropolltan Thraad Company* against Joooph Ooldner i^nd 'llllam
H. ($llly, doing business as Independent "IDiread Hills. Appellfisnt*s
statsnsnt In his bzlsf does not disclose what the Jud^rnnnt was,
n9r does his abstract. ISiese omissions would Justify on afflraanes.
Ks infer that the ; ourt found for defendant, / ^ j
Plaintiff's brief does net give us sufficient inform**
tlon to arrlT* at nn understanding of what the laetMS were in the
ease. Fron deferidants* brief w« gather that the suit was brought
for the alle«red failure to deliver oertala goods said to be purchassd
by plaintiff of defendants. The eridenoe waimuited the trial Judge
ia finding that in the fall of 1919 plaintiff pUced with defand«n«i
A series of five orders for different kinds of thread dismounting ts
ever $6000. The terms of p^^^yMRnt on all orders were cash on the
loth day of eatih »en^ for goods delivered the preceding month.
The bill for Januaxy goods* payable February 10th* was not paid by
plaintiff* and defendants brought suit therefor* finally ccmpelling
jpsyncnt. Thereafter defendants declined to deliver any nore gooAg
to plaintiff exeept for eash or a eertifled cheok* which plaintiff
deelindd to f;iv«. tJnder suoh cireu^iuitances defendants had the rii^^ht
to cancel the contract and to refuse to aaks further da liveries.
1199Z. - Sfll
V
•4 oaaoJtK . ' td:?n$9%<i titm » ni ru^oo mm yo
maiiSl'^ bn. ,r...^.... .v„vj:i>^>, .■ • , ■f/t»qpo'? ''- — -"^ - * ? '--ritflf
,93.)'. ;'lr.' 9a»j(T ,i'>.tTt:f «<:' 4lf< of.r! !•«
•'t'Jtre «c rrts f^f nsot ^©i-
3 >. , r..i<x# mii$ b»tasrx%*m •crohir* MfT . •/nAX-n*l»ik 19 tXtinlmtv x*f
M nie>t>nft WflX !• ••Wm «
•xtf no tfAAO viMT n*J»to ttfyt
Xtf hlMi /o« •■« ,ittoX x>«m**V sX^UncAQ ••^^•?» >pi«tfrMl vo% 7
y I r«» xXf«ail .volrtMit #iv« ttbfuvt: 1«A br
\1UPt»ln iloiil^ .ifdada b*nx^*0 » %• dm»9 «•! lq«MC« TUj
td^ki •lU tad 9*n»bef'\9b m^tnui mtstn io A9im vtlMQ .•rrlji o# t -ta laet
HjM Co , V. Dswoj^ <^t a^. . 14» Ill« 138j C. ? . Co«il Co. ▼, v?hit— tt.
378 111. 68S,
No sufficient roaaonB tire prosontadl gbewiog tbut plain*
tiff was ttntltlcd to roooYor, and tbo jttdgaM»nt of tho Munloip«l
court is affirouHi*
Doyer, '. J.» and Hatohott, J., concur.
.KM .
161 - £6820
AMDRSW J. O'COiriJBLL.
App«ll8JQt,>
AP^BAL FBOM CIRCUIT COORT.
T«.
COOK COUi«TY.
JACOB Mlliiia. %/)
— •• /' 22 3I.A. 635^
MH. JUd'JjIOE MoaURSJuY DSXil/ffiiiiTL' ITEK OPIUI ON OF TES C0UK5D.
flbintlff, O'Cozuaoll, brought suit allo^iii^ thet i*Lil9
li« «aa in th« exeroia« of ordinary oare for his own abfaty, d«-
feMajcit 30 neglieontly drove and operated hia autooobilci ea to
fltrika pl&intiff , icflioting injiiries for wbioh h9 ol&lias oompan*
•«tion* OpOQ trial tha jury found dafandant not eollty, and Jodg*
aant was anterad &0!oordi£]|ily, from which plaintiff appeals. Is
the JodeiaeiJit nmst be ravarsad and tha oausa raaandad baoaosa of
errors upon tha trial, it is unnaoeasary to disouas tha faota of
the ooourrdnoa*
Tha identity of defendant as the owner and operator of
the automobile whioh struok plaintiff was a oontroverted point.
i^laintiff olaims that this was adoiittad by a special plea, hence
waa not in issue and that the court erred in refusing to inatrxiot
tha Jury that defendant, by his plea, adraitted ownership. We do
not think the position is well taken. Ihe first pleas filecl by
defendant wara tha ^onexAl issue and a special plea denying owner-
ship and operation; subsequently another special plea was filed,
the substsjiice of which was that plaintiff was covered by the Coa-
pensation Act. In this plea defendant admitted tha ownership of
an autoaoblle operating upon the streets of Chicago, '^which plain-
tiff alle(ies collided and struck upon him." Strictly construed,
this plea does not admit ownership and operation of the automobile
which struck plaintiff, but even if it did, defendant had tha
rl^ht to file inconsistent or contradictory pleas, and one plea
0»8M - 161
JIOO'O .'
.fcT
•iliii ^«i(» Vxi^%ii» tlMB td^otd ,U^ta»'-J*0 ,111
-•& ^x^tlai ovo «il/£ xol ttXM vvitaiA'x ..v>:k»x« a^ oi M« tit
•^ as tlltfOMOJ'xrA mid hwimf<io Mma •to^5 ^<ru«^i^a M ^aaAoftS
-a»«mi» mbJUIo til doiOm xol ■•i-n/tni gnZ^olitoJ: .tli^olAiq »:CiaJ^a
to a^iMil vxir Bsxroti* o# ^xMi»««MUur ai iTi ,iBlxt miif aoqjB aTOtT*
• aenaitt'ooo mdi
• taioq Aal^t^voT^iYOv « a«* lli^aX«Iq HmniiB daidv alitfotto^jortf t>i(^
aon»4 (««iq i4io«qr« a ictf b^tttmkM •«« aid# #«Ai aniaie Xlltal^l'i.
toaxfiiktl of ^iaulcY aZ btxf ttvoo ftdt f/uii ham mumtt al iea Maw
oft air .^IdMjmamo k^ttlahm ,aalq aiji \4 .^oaAoalaft Xaii# xvit a^^
\tt balil aaaXq ^atll aAf .aa^U^ iiaw al aol/iaaq aii^ iaitU #oa
-taovo ^ixaaA aelq laloaqa a Ana anaal X4>Tanoj ad# a^av foaJbaalaft
,Aaill aa« Aalq iaioaqt TOjUoua \liatntp»it4BU jaoi/aiaqo ktu qlda
-a«0 a<t^ ttf bmxmroo saw lli/otalq #«*i^ aaa ilviifir lo •O'vi^atfaa adi
lo qXila-xaoMro ail# 6ar/l»Aa ^oaAoa^aft aaiq alili al ;0Xlaaiiaq
-oialq sLotdm" «o^olxlO la a^aaifa aji# aoqii ^^nl/a-xaqo ail<lo»atB« oa
(baffil^aaoo tcl^o2t/& ".rJttf aoqo turttw bam ftaMXiac aa^aXXa l\it
mlldcm^Smm mdi lo aoitaTOfO kmm qXilatamro tlmbm toa aaaft «aXq aid/
a/1/ 6a:i /oalnalaJ* ,Alft /i ti aara l»^ «lti/alaXq iart/« 4i> lite
aaXq aaa bam .aaaXq xzttvtbmiiaoo to laa«aiaaoatfi aXll oi /xl^i
oaimot b« taken &dv&ntaea of to iielp or ritlbt* another, and la
neltiier an admission nor evlddnae of a faot denied In another.
Streot H. a. Co. v. Morrison. 160 III. 288; Barker v. Berth. 88
111. App. £{&, affirmed In 192 111. 460; 31 Cyo. 210. The plea
of non-ownership atlll remained in the oaae and plaoed upon plain-
tiff the burden of provine the allegations of the deolaration
nptm this point.
I'he testimony as to the Identity of defendant with the
person Infliotin^ the allsi^ed Injuries to plaintiff, did not so
prore the defense as to oompel the verSiot rendered in spite of
•rrors upon the trial. There were auoh strong oontradiotory af-
firmations and assertions from the varioas witnesses as to make
necessary a trial free ixom the iiifluenoe of improper oonduot of
counsel •
Defendant introdooed in evidenoe what is oalled a re-
lease, ai^ed by plaintiff, reoitin^ that for the sum of $60 paid
by the Xrarelers' Insur&noe Co. plaintiff had released the i'erro
Construotion Co. (his employer) and the ZraTel@rs' Insuranoe Co.
from liability and as full settlement for all oomponsation from
them under the Compensation Aat. This was proper as tending to
impeaoh provioxxa teatimoriy ^iyen by plaintiff but oounsel for de-
fendant oommentine thereon in the presenoe of the Jury said, "You
oannot make a olaim in one oourt and oome in here and try and
hold somebody else up," and a^ain, "Gentlemen of the Jury: This
is an |80 law suit. The iPlaintiff has been paid his damages in
this oase by an Insuranoe Company under his olaim to the Insuranos
Cooipany under the Compensation Aot, and he siened a release of
his olaim and assigned Lis olaim to the Insuranoe Company."
This was unjustified and prajudioial. ii^Tldenoe as to the wife
and ohildren of defendsnt was l»o«Mipetent and espeai&llf pre-
^^ 'Maui 'V ^ft^T«* ittM •xii eai iBmUW *^ '^^ •£ •! f-^
Mml% MT .OiS ••^Q I& ;0d> .iii S«i «1 HmUi^ ««a .qn^ •ill
oa /ea Alb .nttctlai^i 0/ swJt'Uftal A»^«li« •At tnlftllal m«-zm
le •/2q« ol A«'rs&a»t itttx^r 9ti9 X»«t»i>e <i/ •« ««aa):«fi Siii troicq
%tati as b« a64B«»a/iw ■^'olxar ^t tmtl •ael/raftSA taa eacl^aMYi)
!• ^ovAncc taqo-x^Kl lo •ftatttrllcai ^dt tscA MtS iMlil & vxAa**e*<i
• iaaxiiroa
••Y 4 Aalljio ai /«i(w aoaaAira ai A^atriai/oi tiUiAfivtaO:
Ai4iq 06| io aaa ad^ toI /ad/ ^J/ioa-x ,ill/ai«iq t' Aao^ii: .aaaal
OTTat •a Aaa^alat Aaif llitaiaiq toO aooaioraul *Mxwt%'9Mil mtLt \4
,01 aaojB'uraal 'atralsraTT ad/ boa (Yaroiqaa aid) ,ot uoiittntttoD
sonA aoi/aanwqaioa Xla lol /uoroi/Zac ii»l a« Acsa t^MUdall «.-a^l
0/ ^5na/ 8« laqotq aa« ald7 ./cA aolfaaitaqvaO ad/ laAior aad#
•>a6 tol laaififoo /Ad tll/niaiq xd itavi^ X'i*'''^iff9^ tMCtr^^q da«a^al
frcY^ , Al^a XT^l a^' ^0 acaaaaii] ad/ at ooataftf' gal/aammoa /oaAoat
AofB xtf Ada aiad al aaiot> bam trtroo ano iti »laIo • %Mm foaiaaa
'•IdT {txfirl ad/ "to aacai/rtaO^ ,alaAa Aoa ^,*iti m^l^ xbotimft Alad
ol aaaMiaA aid Alaq aumit mid t\itatttl*i adt ./laa ««I Ottf a» al
•o.-uirciial ad/ 0/ mlslo aid taAcur <t(S«Q>PoO aoajiotraal na \4 aa«o ald#
V aaaalat a AaA^a ad Aisa ,/aA 00! /vaaaqvoO ad/ rtaAivr xn«<l*«0
".foaqproa aoaaiiracZ ad# tf/ irlAtc did 6anAl»aa Aiw arlaio aid
o'ilw Biit or e^ aofTaftlvat .lalei . i>iia baltl/afft'iff •«« B'^nt
-oiq TTlIaltjaqBe bns /netocpiRonl aaw ^-ruA.tOafi la uaTAildo AOk
JnAloisil was the ar^^aoMst of d«£«ndajQt*8 ooonsel in whioh h«
■aid, "G«atl«ia«n of the Jury: In oonalderlng your verdiot in
this oaat, hava sympathy for the Defendant and his wife and
ohildren.'* iiT«n where the ooort suatalned objeotiona the harm-
ful ef foots of aaoh remarks are not recaoyed.
for the reasoiis above indioated, the Judgment is re-
▼eraed and the oanse is remanded.
RBVSBSIP AMD RJUiUDSl.
Dover, i*. J., sind .latchett , J., oonour.
a«i ■
iA« •!!« tilt hsm ta»H»t»'l tMl# 10% -fAi««wi %^%£L ,m«o i . .:
170 - 2«sa«
■s * H«
Appellftnt^
A TR^.niH(5 CO.,\a Corporation, )
tjppolioe/ )
) APP^f^L ?TOX MOBICTPAL COOSt
0? CHICAOO.
9 ^
iNb/ /;^ ^ ±
.A. 635
«R. jtTSTics ^cf!:inm.r VKmnwB ran opisiot or rxs coobi.
V,
flaintiff , bringlrusr suit on & certifictite of dopoait
for 1^10,000, upon tHinl by tho court was hold not ontltlod to
reooTor; h« uppeals froa the Jud^^tent of nil oar-iat.
The oertiflo&ttt ima d&tod -(ferclrj ;a , 1900, 15o,^s«a4
was mado Doooaibor IS, 1916, &nd »uit ooMiOtioed J me 15, 1917,
The oontrovortod pointo rolito to (1^ th« «t«itut« of li-iit4sition«,
(S) the nooeesity of a dataand wlthiin a rofesonable ti le, und (3)
th« of root of oeotlon SO of the Tllinois «t$>ktut« of lialt&tions.
The eourt found the fs cte to be that the plaintiff,
V« ir« lM«y«on« oa March 31, 1900, da osited with the defendi&nt at
lfO»e, Alceket, the 8u« of #10,000 and thoreus?on. by its duly au-
thorised af«nt, the defendant execiited and delirared to plnintiff
a eerti float e of deposit as follows:
•tlO,0'^'0.(X) CISSTmCATS 0!'' PSFOSIT Mo, H761
HORTH A-mmt/''S TRAH'' PORTA TI oar & TRADIHrJ CO.
So»e,
Mealy, Alaska, 3/Sl-AoO
TT?!*; CURTIFIISf that "■'. H. ISsa^srson ha* deoosited Ten
Thousand Dol are payable to the order of f>, H, SiiaKirson upon
return of thie Certlfioate properly endorsed, Sot eutject to
eheok, t^jnd redeemable in ;oid dust at the current rate of ex*
(tibange 16.00 per oae or in U. r>, or Caoadiun eurrenoy nt the
CfMlipany*a option.
HORTH AliESRTCAH TRARS vORTATTOJI & Tft.DI^ CO.
B|y n, J. SBi¥leton;*
that neeemter IS, 1916, plaxntlff endorsed this instruaent and
presented it at the principal office of the defendant in the
City of Chioago, and ]M^»ent was refused; th>vt defendant is a
\
<9 O i-
.riaro9 ufmo nrgx%0 *m efn
tMM - of 1
/
.Tl-^SJfio
<r J. t-" . ■" •
L-ilaa: lift ■i<^ - -
.TK :
'■sJTTSrr-c
»»j*i ftrtt
.mfiSm
Vtltnl^
.4«t» *< e# !;
Jri inAbntf^Ab
•dj
t*S:.'
X^ru .OK
•,0 ft"
oorporatlon orj^anlsttd ond«r th« I .we of Illinois on April 14«
160S, and hat ftt nil tlraos thoro&ftor «&int«klno4 its princlpAl
offioo in Chicago. Illinois; tb«t tho pl&intiff since tho yetur
1904 has rosidod in California; th«t defendant niikint&ined u&d
•peruted certain branches of its busirtese bt rt^rious points in
Alttska it.n^ also At Seattle in the 3t£^te of Washington; that ««monc
the br&nehes in Al&skK nram one at ISwrn, Alfivska, vhioh was oparN.ted
iiiev fro-n the ■einter of 18«9 to so«« tine ia 1506, but not after
Vmj 1, 1905, at whlc^i time the defendant disoontirsued the opera-
tion of itti at&tion or pic ce of buBineae at ^oate; that prior to
l90^ and 00Tttl?^«u8ly tip to the ti«» of the triiil, defendant bad
certain agents and rej-reeentatives in Alaektt en<|;i«Ted in arid con-
dvetim;!; ite r^esiness, &nd has been eaptvblo of '^.ttin^^ sued i^ad aenred
with proeese in Maslni} that plaintiff oever resersted the instru-
ment sued upon to defendant or mide &.ny demaaA upon defendant for
the payment of the aa«a» until Deeewber 15, 1916, althou*Th fro^s and
aftor the date Of said iaetnment, Mareh 31, 1900, it could have
iMeii presented to defenda^^it :i»nd payment of saoe de-^'iir^ded bj plain-
tiff eit) er in Alaska or in Chieage, Illinois; that aaid certifi-
eate had neTer been paid and th&t defendant has not delirered to
plaintiff the tiuantity of goid dust spoeified Uiercin, or returned
to plaintiff the mount of f^lO, ooo depoaited. It ■nti.e aIoo fouml,
as a su&tter of faet, that the statute of limitatiomi of the ter-
ritory of Alaska applicable to instruments of this kind required
aetion to be coasaeneed thereon within aix years next ufter the
eause of uotion had accrued upon such irsstru ent.'
Plaintiff <|;uestlone the flndiix^js with reference to
the status of the defendant in Al^;»ka with particular reference
to its lieenee to emrty on siusiaess there, ^e hold, hOT'OYer, thut
the evidence justifies the oonclttsione of tbe court.
■lenilll l« 99
(■•fln tAii j«<? ..<i .». VI * + iif«» vdl 111 9l.i :
W#«1t*qO •««> - CTT #« M<e Hv.: 4?t'-
-noo
fc^- ■^r» nxM^fio
•VJM' A/ifOO ii ,0091 «i''
'in»9»tit[ n994
till
(hf •rj:i'»^' II
.' nno;;«9Vj> Hi
■ itnj
W« baira oonoludad that tba ivnAgmmnt theuld Imi afflraed
teeaut* of th« ftaiur* of the pltn^ntlff to makm a dmtmdi withla tt.
r«asomt>ble tlaw. Ho««T(?r, b«fortt oo.it^.«nti.aiK upon this point, ««
noto briofly tve other nutters presented in the briefs.
BefendArit eentonde th&t the aet-ion is b&rred by
the Bt«%ttite of limit&tionn of Illinois, eiiieh la ton years, or of
Alaska, wMoh is six years; that the eertifioate of deposit is in
len^ol effeot a pr<Mii8soxy note payable on demand, hanee due on the
date of its execution, so that the statute of limitations bex;an to
run from its date. The supporting eases are Bank of I'eru t, ?am8-
wortte. 18 111., 5«Sj LMUf?hlin v. Marshall. 19 II.}., 390; Swift t.
Whitney^ 20 Hi,, 144; Hunt v. Divine. 37 111., 137, <i.nd the luster
oases of favanag^ t. Bank of A.aterioa. 239 111., 404, und i^eoplf t.
Belt. 271 111., 342. In these caaes eertifioates of deposit hare
iMMrn held to be like a proms sexy note, payable on de-iai^l and gvr"
eraed by the rules and prinoiples applioai)l8 to that class of
j^aper. Stat it has also been held that, under oertaio circus-
stances, a eertifioate of deposit has the eharaoter of a general
deposit and not of « ro^lssory note. ■» aoCorAick ▼, Hoptrins^. 287
111., 80, it is held t^i&t u oertifieate of deposit
"has still the diBtinKUishinif features of the bank deposit that
it is payable only upon dera^ind at the b&otk i^nd on the return of
the certificate rroiserly endorsed. The borrower of money «ho
executes a proniasory note for it i» bound to seek his creditor
and pby him, and a bank is not different in this r«9;>^ct from
an individual, ^t a bank is net obliged to seek its douoeitors
and pay thsM.*
This epiBios also quotes with approral I'rom vUliett v. Capital Ci'^
Bfcrik. 128 la., 275, «^ioh held that suoh certificates are neither
loans nor bailments in the strict »«nae of the tem, tut that it is
a transaetion ;)eculiur to the banking business and one that courts
dhould reeoc;nise i%ti& deal with u-ceordln;? to co<it«sreia} ttsa^^e. In
the erdinary^ deposit, unless ciroumstaaees are s own «hi(^ eMaount
to a leeal excuse, a previous demt^nd by the depositor or sosm other
JbMrtnta stf bill* 'It tii»«ilMirt 9d9 1*^ »• ma^ ••'
9VtlA0W
" -i .tt: ft
T.- : *)J!<>
.to3 ei
tl'
•■ «l -^ ■ ■
i; TI.V ^i. W!7 i R^'
Ui2
rrT «»yb
poraon isy his ordtr is ii3dl«p«nsabl« to tb* mAlntenaiMts of lua &«••
ti«n for luoh d«p09i.t. .Uroiagt ▼« ^.tkxag. 77 111, 263, und omi**
oitod*
HftOOgnlKinii; the v&rlant d«eifli.o»« upon this point
usA without dioouRslng or <»tto%ptiB)^ to distir^ulBh thea, «o c^uoto
Ml oxpyoeslttg our opialon froan DAniel on noj9!;otlai3lo Instrsjmento,
6th ed., vol. 2, p, 1907, wh«r« the wuthor, notint? tho oonnictinf
doeitloua aa to «h«a tho »i«tttto of ll^alt&tiono bogiaa to run on a
Gortifieate of dopo^it, au^yo:
■Uao ©ortificato la payu-bla whac jMs-yaerit la donandad by tho
pajrty entitled to race ire the n&n^y, emd ^9 arouchas tha
foot tqr prodiucia^ tba iBatru'iJsnt with oTridenca of title. If
tho Statute of J,i-nit&tion8 b«ginB to run at once, a«.ait -uust,
of eourea, bo m&int&lnM.'«>le &X once, i*nd, tnerefora, ';0 'irior
darfljin'i would be n^cm&n&ry, But ssuch in aot the uau&l conta-*-
jjlatioa of either the doyositor or the h&nk, Tha forser aeoka
an indafiaita inveet'S^jnt oi his funda. The bank ia not ex-
peeted, tteeord^n^ to the w©e,fre i-rid practice of such Inatltu*
tion«, to ee<s.>f hia 4»nd offer pav;^nt, fes ia the ordir.ajry ca-aa
of & demand louu. And the better op.nlou aeevia to us to be
th»t the st«-tute of Limitations only begins to run when thi&te
la an tMsiual do^umd of p&ymer;t in 4u3 fom, and that auoh de«
Mand amat proeodo a eruii.*
Sootien ^0 of tho IlUnola St&tute of Litait&tiono,
ah«p, SS, proTldoa that
"When a euuae of liCtiOB h&a «> risen in & 8t«^tft or territory out
of thla Bt«to, or in & foreii<??i country, acd, isy the laws there-
of an tictiaa th®r©Dn csnvot be ^aaintainad hy re&aon of the lar-sa
of tlntit i^ri actios thereon ehall not 1»a ieaintained in thla ^ttt^to,"
Dofaudant'x'' Glai« th«kt t'hla hajrs tha preaent »etion ia
awt ^ the f^et th&t it waa a reeidont of Illinoia at the tine tha
eauea of aatlOR aecruad ^nA ^till la. ^e hftve held that aoctioa SO
dooo not apply unleaa tha part lea »oro aon-reaidants of Illinoia at
tha tlae tha cause of action aocruad. polta Baj; Co, ▼, Ley land Ig
jgo,, 175 111, App, aa, Bee alee ghloa^ Mill & Umher go. ▼. To»n-
aan^. 203 III, App, 457, and eaaea there eited.
Tha certificate of depoait ia 'lUaation waa payable
«pon ita return properly ami oread. Thla laipliaa a da^s&tnd for
paynarst, ahioh dafandant eonteoda auat be fl»da «ithl& a raaaonabla
fc" •-•»
Oh* Hi .-_.., „ ad «r«{
»rct)T .T . t
"ft^ trf^-'j «»»o.7?)
;sm •tf iaiMi ah
tima; th« altttrnatlY* is a p«r!»«tu&l liability of th« i^tonAttntt
ndiioh th« polley of the law int«rdiot8. In Justness 4ind finimsst
th<iirs should be sobm duty upon tho holder of euoh a eertlfioato
to aet with refsronoe th^jrote vitMn smm roASORft^lo poriod, do-
ponding ujjOB th« oircu'«tst««noeo of th« c »o. In 26 Cye. 1096,
it ifi 8t6<.tod that, whilo a domti,nd may gonor«lly be neeeas&xy to
stftrt tho etAitute of limitiktlons in »iotion. it smat, &8 in other
e&soB, bo iMddo itbln a reteeoa^olo titte. (>n poKO 1198 the rule is
Ottktod thus I
•Whore i>lfaintiff *o right of action depoRde up -n aome act to
iM performed hy > ia prel irain&ry to eo^rju^encing suit, Ja.nd be
is under no reotr&lRt or disability in tkie parforw .nee of cueh
»ct# toe e&nnot awspend indofiT^ltoly th» mnMino: of the stututo
Of linit^itions by delaying the ■..■jerforn.-.nee of the preliriiniiry
aet; if the time for nuch p« rf ona&nco in not definitely fixed,
a rosBon&ble tia», ^txt that only, will be Ailiowed t^'-er'tfor.
The rul* th^-t *hero tho rl.^iht of ■iotion dare^^io «y>on a pro-
llaiinarj^- atop to be taken by plaintiff ho eannot indef i 'itely
4o'la.T the taViag thereof rsets upon thf; principle that plain-
tiff hJMi it in his T Oner at al t.ates to do the t^ot «hioh fixes
his right of «tction."
Hhero there are no spoei&l eiretj^satancos 4S)30untin.r to
a lo<(&l oxenco, a reasonable time for making the de^Mnd %ill net
iM beyowi the sttitutory ygriod of liait&tioa proseribod for ^rinQ"
iag the particular kind of action, and (^t the explratloa of that
tine, if no do«;)j^£!d h&s boon M&do, Vrxa et&tuto of li)9it&tione will
begin to run, as tho lav will parestoMi that the di»itind was outdo
at the propor tiwo. In Ced:mn t, Bogery. 10 i'iek, (l£*.06,^ 111, a
elaltt lay dormant for ooTontoeR yesirs, during which time a denand
sight h&To been iaado, but was not. and no reason t^seigned for the
ooULsoion. It was held that the deaand should have boon Ttado with-
in a reasonable time. Tho court says:
■A party anist not be permitted to sloop OTor his rl^rhts to
the projudioo of the party on when he autlcee a clriis and who,
by the delay, nay bo doprirod of the OTldenco and aeana of of-
feetuully defer^inff hiatsolf, "
This rule was applied to a oertificato of deposit ia
i'ieree y, ^t,t^tjs^ National Ba^nk. 216 Itaso., 18, citing a nttjauer Of
»1 mini •».:-■ ..-UJOtlfi
-:!<« iM lit
> M(# aofv BuiksMr
aftxil Aft*U« t»^ d«U i'^- W suu«J . ^ J
mnotn
nvffitj
Ad4 ^1
nim
:«^-:
U^w .»<
.om^av .- ffi
« fta*. •oa*-
,31 ..saatflfS JJBf£ IfaSJiii ^-
Il»9sa0h!ui«'tt0 ottsds holdiiii; that the tiim within lAiich a dttsaaA
Wtat b« m«td« iff th« tlsM llaltad for brinctlmg an aetion. r« find
this rule applied in & largft iitffib«r of ctaaes ir ot>>er at&tca;
luaong thea are •yrl^r.ht t. : 'ai iw . (M**.,) 34 a«. Rep. 24; Th <»«&,» t,
P&cifle 3eaeh Co.. (Cal.) 46 ;■«.«. 8M; nXli>e t. Berlin, {Cb.1.
47 rttc. 377, 878; Hi^h v. 3o& rd^ of Ce??sai-.inlenere. 9^' ]:nd. 580;
Atehieoa. T., ^.^^ S. y^ n^ Co. v. Burl ^nj^affl> To»r: ahjj) . (Kita.) 14 iitc.
271, 273; Travelere Tns. Co. v. r?tueki^ (Kaa.), 46 /'hc. 42; Smith
▼. SiBith*B Estfc-te. (Mich.) 51 H. T. 6U ; LusaliB ▼. n&xUn, (So.)
16 S, V, 912} fit«tte ▼. Herten. (Lfinn.), 61 ^. T. 450; K-eltbler ▼.
yoeter. 82 Ohio r-t. 27, 51; !?},igfal | t. Me&d, 4© Vt. 540: Beury Broe.
goal. Jfe Coke Co. v. ?ay«tt« County £ourt, (O'.Va.) 87 B, K, 868. In
Shelbuyne y. P>oblnson. 8 111., 597, the -reneral principle la stated.
Thfflre J*jpe cases to the contrary, notably jmiet;|. ▼. Ciipltal City
Stuie Bmk, 1S3 J&., 875.
Th« re&eonableneas of reciuirl%' trmt de ^^M eheill be
taade within a re&soRt^ble ti-ne i» Of-'^phaeized 1^ the f^iOte of this
ftaee. Thep® is tJie unexj>lainad delsxy in pr«si»atl»g the eertificAte
•f nearly seTonteen ye&re. In the aeantimQ tl«» a^ent of defendant
«li« eigned th« eertif lo&te, HMbl'^ton, has dieappe&red and hie
provable death la au^Egeated. There ie alee the diaapoearanee of
other persons mhe Wight haTw hiad some knoirl$d.re of the tr».nsaotion.
tb»rm ie alee the disap'^earanoe or deetructlon of th» v>ook& of the
defendiust eoutaiiUOf the records of Xusinese at TTo'^e. Alaaka. Then
were pr;^uced certain MiRual trial balunoee or audita pur^>ortinif t.e
ahow dei^sita on Ixand ^t lone on d^^tea be^inr.im; May 31, 1900, and
nasttally thereafter, including December 31, 1919. Theae do not
ihaw &Tfy record of any eertlfieate of depooit of llO.OCO, They
AiOW eertiflcatee of de.>oeit out;i!t&ncilng on ^lay 31, 1901, for
•mr tl5,000, en %«y 51, 1902, something erer f7,00C, and fre«
■■i -"if A..
OJ'.
»X
»(£ L ;. .).r :.■
,fio:tp*
«r.'
Magr 31, 1005, to 1919, 148,80 on ttajtlk year. Tb«r« wia testimony
thBt nil of th« outBtandlng oertlfic&tes had b««n paid oxo* t this
lt«!a, th« holdttjr of iRtolGh h4i*d nerer dppe&rvd and could not bo lo-
cated. Thore j.8 i^lao t>ae fi*ct, which la not without oignlfieeinoo,
that th« pliilntiff gfiT® no tontlmoay vhatover upon tho triul of this
Ottse, oithor in person or 1^ doponxtion, ajad &s ho did not s^opeur
at the tri^, defttndtuii had no opportunity to eress oxsmino hia.
It has boon held that a plaintiff's failuro to testify ruises mi
iaforence that his olaiis Is not in IfOod faith, 9 Snay . of St.,
5*8} Hardinis t. Ame r i can 1 l^c oae Co . . 182 111., 551.
The eertifietite of deposit haying been vaatm la
Alaska, its l&w siu3t govern its o Iig:&txons.a8 no other suoeifie
plftoe of porforannoe ic deeigtra^^ted. 12 Corp, Juris, par, 30;
Bond V. 3rG£jS, 17 Til, 69. The reasonable ti^^se for pliAintiff te
Make «^ de^aand for paynsent was i^ithin the ^.^riod of the Al^^skti
statute, which would end in i^rch, 190<$, Upon the legal presuiapo
tion that d«^»nd vs« then m&de, the cause of action then accrued
tind the statute of 1 i^iiitati one then be^an to run. It is unia*
portant as to whether the 8t«»tute of limitations then eo?n fencing wss
that Of Al:&ska, »ix years, or of Illinois, tea years, for the suit
vas not oooKnenoed until after the expiration of the lon^r period.
If it be su^eeted that, as defendant elo»ed its sta-
at
tion at Ifoae in May, 1906, preeent&tioa of the certif ieate/thut
place thereafter i^uld havfi i»een uB&Tailing, it is sufficient to
reply that the oTldenoe discloses the.t defendant lealntained a mm*
ber of other stations or agencies in Alaska in 1906 and for some
time thereafter. It eas also sufficiently proven that license
fees to do business within tha territory were paid for aorse years.
inclttdin.*; the year 1917, In »ny event the burden was upon the
plaintiff to shew an excuse for not staking a deatanfi in Ali ska
within a reasonable tixe, that, is, within six years after the
iil'^ • .' *«n« M.*e -<>•»'• ^ ,
lUI StMli
-vilt btt
d^i orxaro:;) ^ctw v.
..-T»»»«-3 vcfi
.•jMJ4k««
>X n©j
tn «ft •» '<* "Tci rj.
■i:-'\inr.v>
vt J. __ - -. _
enrrf^-
T .rre
•:« tt^'
date of th9 oisirtif lo«t««
For the rtt««9onH u);ot« int^lo&iad tba juAtfmint •f Ite
IIunioi|>al court i» affixned,
Mnr»r, »\ J,, aad Ufttchetl, J., concur.
S16 . 80876
1X41X1 nmaam.
TSL'.O" CAB COHPAIiy,
OF COOK GCOBTY.
223 I.A. 635
IffI?. Jr-^TICS lU8llf*a8I.y SSLlVElfflD w??
A. i.TVrT
OH Q? nre catTRT.
Plaintiff h»iTlng b««n « truck a-nd &n^ur«d by b t<^xJle&b
belon^Xn? to the defendant l^rou^ht mtlt for oi>ap«n««tioa, aad upon
trial had « 'wrdiet for t3,000| fro« the Judg^aient thereon defendant
appeale.
The aoeident hapti>ened la the ^r&nxng of ^faroh 0, 1919,
at the intersection of Horth Mlehis&a boule-m-rd, whleh runs nortti
and south, and Chioajnio avenue, whleh runs eaet and west In ChlesKe*
The only questions argued ii.it9 these of f^ot touohlng
the alle^d eontrlbutory negligence of the plaintiff and tbs oegll-
genoe of the drirer of the taxieab.
Tlie Jury proi:»»rl7 eeuld believe that at the time In
question a police officer vas statiorjed at the Interseetiea for the
purpose of reipul<%tlsi!; the traffic ; that this van dene by i^iving
whisitles, on« whittle Ind ioatin:: that the north urd south boitnd
Tebieles should proceed, two whistles iotdicatin^ that the east and
west bound traffic should saore; that these are the usu«l and cus-
tomary signals for the regulutiOtt of traffic at street intersections
in Chicago; that plaintiff crossed thie interseoti.on evez^ day and
vas familiar with the tr&ffio regulations; th»t the driver of the
taTlca1> In (^uestloa was experaenc»d and drove on Mlchif-an boulevard
nearly every day and vas faailiar «ltb the syiste^ of handling twiffle
at this point. . t * '•ftintlff vas valkiag ei*8t on the north side of
C O O
*Vft /»o tiasas**
»f0M - btA
aun
. »'
-Jt N*»r! ;i6ii^^I's9ir«» ^^^^Lxi^■ c-if}
' -cwtWA •111 "i^ >
■ LI f r^ f ■>! • ^S *»*? jf A0V4
i-.i/:.«
Yfc% "n«Y# ffiJIKiTT
"ift »f)ir t^TOr i«
CMo&go ttTttnuc, aM imi ahjt wm at th« corner of Miehigaa l»oal«Tavd
tha polieo offleor gav* two vhlvtlos for the tr^fflo to norm to
tho 9Hai. a»d ireot and for th« north and soutb bound traffic to
otop; that i>ur!bUEs.nt thereto th« o«ii«t ii^od woot traffic tfgAn to
aOTO; t))at a lariso Motor bus, conini? froai tho norths etoppod upon
tho el)?n&.l of tho offioor about 18 foot off tho erooowak of
arenuo ;
Chicago^ that plaintiff paoaad in front of this /roing o&aterljr pur-
ouant to tho ni^ni^l «.»d tho wovomont of tho traffic; that tho t/a^xi"
eab In question was eoniag i'r^m tho north on ^iehi^ait boulerard, and
whon about ISO foot north of Chlca^^ aronuo wao ti^olng «t a opodd of
from twonty-fiTo to 30 mllee an hour; that whon plaintiff got l»oyond
tho attending sietor bus »ono littlo distatsoo oho oa» tho g^pproaehiag
taacloali and.aesumlnf that its drlTor would be ob«di«»t to the offi*
eor*e el^nal and obs^ervant of tiio traffio r^oireisient, proeeedod to
crooB the street. The driver of the taxieah« bo«eTer, either he-
«fau80 of hla exceeaive speed or through failure to notice the aig-
nale of the officer and the ttOire»ent of the traffic, proceeded to
croea Chic»|fo aTOnue and otriiek plaintiff, injuring; her. There «&•
OTidenoe that after it struck her the taaricab did not stop until it
fot to the south aide of Chicago avenue . Although it vaa cuatoimry
to have »i police officer at thie intereeetlen to re^vjlate traffic,
the driyer of tho t«iXica1» teoti fied thjit he di<3 not leno* whetlaer
there va« any officer there or not| that he •didn*t look for one,"
Vlth th<»ee tii^o%» hefore it, the jury «ae Justified
in finding that defendant's driver k!.us ne.erligent in his Overation
of Urn ear tivA that plaintiff hn& the ri^ht to aeause the traffic
regulations would be obeyed, us she heroelf was doin^ la prooeediog
to croos the street; that is so doin»^ she was net guilty of contri*
butory negiiife;enoe.
Wt have earefully reud the exhaustive brief axsd an^u*
)• if£Mrii«e*ift •
•1 < vow
^ tcuttra
yiUOijn- T 't llr«t ••'-
;. » :- k I
'.A. > '.1.^^
t-^u'.al
>•»»*»<»?
■«©1 Jlo.
> e«J eio./t a*'
««« 9r
'"id •»
now m»dj
.•nop
-LT^VA Atl^
')Tltmamtix» wtU k*9n
rsont of tim abl« ceun««l for the dttfenda-^t. ^ut saflMi eonsidariible
«xp«rlenc« In thl» ol&se of cbsae has not ^ex^ittftd us to saalM
th« »ffirmanca of thi« Jud<? ont m£ difficult aa tbe l>ri«f seeas to
lndie«it9 It should 1m.
D«rv«r, ". J., arid "fatchett, J., concur.
^^^^^u.^^
ess • 80913
\ Appellee, / \
ADOLPH KCK!f.^tTri,
l^t. )
or COOK cornrry.
IC«. JtTSTICE JtcSTJFEBLT Blt'.rVBSRD TIB QPIVXaST 0? ?«E COtTT?.
Plaintiff, while drlTlag his tiuto obile, ««« «truek
\i$ d«f«nclAnt drivijiet "^^^ auto^obilt. npon milt for da«&^oe fvt
p«r»on«il in^urieo r«ottirod th« plaintiff h«4 a TBrdiot for
iTfiOO and Jttdg^aorst was aooordinrly «ntar«d, from which dofo-idaat
uppot&lo,
Th« decl^ratiOi^. in various counts ;.ll*^:;ee that
(1) doferdant »o earolttii&ly and RO^li^ontly r?i.n his ».uto^^otiltt
that it ran into machine of plaintiff; (S) *ilful &a<i wanton
conduct its ruaniag th« i&Tato?soi:.il«j (^^ ajsd (4) oxcoosiT? 8j;}««d.
TiM plow «&e the jj^onoral ieaue.
Tlio cioeidont h&pponed on the sorain^ of Tl&y 21, 1913.
Plaintiff WAS drlT^iiUj: his »utonobil« south on Union aTonue, u north
and south stroot in Chiesiso, whilti defendant was drxirins^ his &uto«
nobxls west along 45th street, «hXoh runs east ^riA west. The froei*
(dost happened at the interseotion of the two streets. Th^& is &
»lx«d rosidenoo 's^xA busisos-^ district, ob the northTrest oorner is
« pubXie school, on the southwest corner a residence, on the
southeast comer a store and fl&t building and on the northeast
eomor a store and flat buildim^ built out to the lot lines.
The Jury properly could beliewe that plaintiff wa«
aurrlar; south on TTaion avenue n^^t^r the west cur^, and as he ap-
proached 45th stroet was gsiag at about ten to fourteen alios aft
hour. 8 he j^ppro«M8hed 4?th street, he looked eastward ii&A. west*
'8P
o v^ ^
fOr r- eft »»1 tlV WHi't .•f f :©.' Oi l»i '!»rt»b t^
u T«i5tn*© ct t *i>jn»l©b (I)
,b99qt «kTl»S»OX9 .1 ^otika«9
.-no« t»i{> «« ft*i(»ti<]«d[ #^o«felfta«
. "0 .;•»« ^aJ« iBA« mttui ttoiHyr ^4991* *». eXitfMi
.•i»«t>a •wtf Ml# to a»ll9«n: ' #c«J>
•r'.- . ii»t 1 i«mo9 trnmnUitpi ,Xeo.-^o« •tUw^ «
;faa«ii^toA *tu no boa KnifeXlvtf #iiXl Jio« ftv«ta « t«vrm« i-«MMlt«o«
ward for oth«r rehieles. Ke could so* r.bout sixty or ©l.^hty fs«it
«RSt on 45th strse*,, but saw nothing. He proceoded, rut wb*:n bs
cot Into 45th atreot he uem defendant's ^^utOx-no^llo ooi^ing west*
orlx about 100 to ISS fe«t oast of i?nlon. Defendant was dririBg
him nMthitm at this tine at &bout 25 siles &«.« bour, which ho In*
oroased && he nctarod tho Intorseetion to ^beut 30 or 40 miloo aa
hotir. Ko did not signuX vlth hie hem. vlfUnXiff procoeded sout^i-
word <m T;»4on and hud rs&ch»>d t^n %outh side of 45th streot with
tiic front ©nd of bin ca** soiitb of the ourh at the eouthveat corner,
or« as oomw witneoeos sny, tb© ontir« ceur waa soyith of the curb.
At this tl'!!© doferidant, with irjoroaoftd i?pe«d, turned eouthwasterly
dirootly for plaintiff's m-iChino, atriSriivr it on tho Xefth.(,nd sido
towards tho roar, kn&Gtimr it over tho curh *».ic! ovorturmrji? it upiw
tfeo p«*rlcway. fostissojas' ji»d photogrikphs in tho roeord show tlset It
oas vory l>fedly *rco>f«d, .ludieatin^ that the defeedatit'e eay snot
hoTO boon impellod &^alnst it with groat feroo &nd @pe«d.
It is set argued that tho verdict v&u t^^anst tho
proponder&noe of the ovidenee, fetit the^t it was orror hy the court
to suli^it to tho inry tho iiuestion of i^anton and wilful conduct of
tho dofanditnt in tho opor«^tion of his automobile, this *«« dono ^
oultailttiBg a apoeiml intorro^atory ^o follows: "^^ao tho oonduot of
tho doforsdact, as shown by a propoadoranoe of tJje oridorico, of sueh
a roeklona oh*sjract«r as to show un uttor dinrog >rd for tha oafoty
and lives of othor pf>r©on»?" whioh wm» (a.n«wer«d sy tho jury in tho
af f irsaativo 5 lilno ^ eort«d.ii inatruotiana to the offset th^t, Lt
thn jury b«lloyod th*t ^he injury «ao *nflictod r.tcMwSBly, oil-
fully ihrid wantonly, t.tvi thwt thla w&s tho spt»roxin».t« ot^uao Of ttas
iR^ury to thii plaintiff, eontrilsirtory noffllgonco or tho plaintiff,
if a»y, «ould not provont hia fro^ roeovoring. SaltaittiRg to tho
jury tho Q,uestioii of the wilful ivnd wanton conduct or tho defendant
was orroneous only if thoro vao no evidence tending to prove this.
■J :>"•.) »w> -jv.' ' ir^ mf
H<« »•
r««n/ fl»*4 jntMi
J
It ia atr(«rted thwt, even if «1of«ndunt*3. cevr was drlYon ut <- high
■and ttxeeseiTA rate of eo««d, thlci prorcs Qnly grosa nttgliK,enc«
and not a wilful and v»nton aot, t^A that speed in atoi of itaolf
cannot bo sueh An act. gofftar r. ?^. St. '."-. h f.„ %. Co.. 150 111,
A?tp, 476. Hillftsil aad wa"tc*? conduct !:-» ^e«r. -ef»aou so i-i* uct of
Buch R reekless Gh«rti«t«r r-e oroiro tho poroon is &ctias in auoh a
Manner aft indiciitoa an utter diorOeT'^vr^ for tha »»f«ty ^ud livoo of
otViere. I. C. R. ^A. Co. v. T^l.-^or. 20'; 111. 624. *An ont^ro ttb»
ocnco of cares for the life, jKirauM or prop«r6y «:? othore, ii' ouch
fie oxhibitu irsdifferoiiot to eonso^tuer.ooe. •♦ ]Iel<ien£'ttich^ v, ijr«.aiaor.
260 III. 44e.
" n Intontxon&l dierofHrd o" . known duty ncoesQStry
to the »i»r«ty of a poreon or prop«rty of aaothor *.nd an ontir«
abeeiACO of c«.r<t for tho life, vf.recn or prupertv of oir.er», euch
as exlilwits a eonsoious iadlff«renc«» to consoitursnoeo, :3t4kos a es^s
of constructive or 1 «?^5.1 ^ilfulnesB svch as charges & p«raon whoso
duty it was to oxerciso cars wit- tho consaqusnooo of wilful iu-
j's.lldron TixproBs Co. v. Knjg, 291 111. 476.
"fil Vlll' iB not s^ necaseai^ 'StlamxA of a nan toe JACt.
fo coftgtituto/s'antsin ««.ct, th« tjarty doin.r Uio uct. or failirij,- to
act «LU«t bo coneolou® of his &ct, thou^jh ht^-vin.?: no iii^ont to in-
jure, t»niat b« eonaolouo frosj his kno»led>:« of eurro i- 'i jnij circu^?-
stuncea *>.nd «XiOtitn- corsditiorjs, th^^t- hie conduct hIH natura . ly
or 5)rot.«ibly rosjult la ia^ury,
mvnXnr v. I. C. H. I-U. 2?6 111., 470."
^» P»Qialo V. ygv^ovitoh. sao 11I», 521, th« d«fe;idM9t
eaused tho d«at*i of another tgr etriktsk^ hia with an auto-sooile which
be was driving at a hl«;h r^te of Bnecd. He wa.s Indlnted „tA found
f^yilty of siejislaxif->i[ter. To drive recWLessly t\ &■ Mgh rate of speed
ritbout warning across a pl«ce *h -re ©there wsy reasonitly he expoated
to fe-s, is wilful -iiid wanton conduct. ?retchett y, t. C^ F. :'. Co..
l»Tr 111. App. 224; He ice v. Chicttgo ^ a. H. R. Co.. 254 III., 604.
ihether the defendant was guilty of wilful er i^anton conduct or
groisB negligeace waa a (question of fi^ot to be suhaittod to the Jury
aad not to he determined by the court. C. B. .% ;. t. UarOT^ski. 17V
in., 80. ttnd it must he suhaittod to the jury if the record die-
M lfO»B ,-?
!• ••'/
,
•«• anx^n* nA"
rfMNI ii ,
n* .
.l^»mr«TBJ .-?
■ rfp; .-A..
-tti £i''
f>c. •
<:*^^^f i
. •>►> . i ; T v^»fi
.#•«
\_
^^ .i*«*o?uii> .▼ .^c.^ .Mud* ^^ y0 ^mntm^fk wl U ^m lm»
clOfi^B any oridanco tesidiaT to support tb« ohorgt la tha dsolawi-
tlon. !\ J. i ", If. Co. V, r>urfjf. I?l til. 492.
?roin 00 nnl deration of tiKso oi^seo &n4 othurs which
might m oitod^ ve ivre of th«» opinion tliut it -aa-n purely & <«v«8tloii
•f faet to Iw au^itted to the Jury t.& to wbnthcr ti';e Adfaniiiuit In
drirlsii:; bin Oftr «t a %i1-?)^ n^te of t3^jeeA «tithout eouudlnn Mo bora
60 ho uppro£i.ch«(l em InteraoctlBg fttroet vfe»re other Tohieloo £.ould
rottsoJJJit-ly 'ii^ oxi»«cto€t to bo, wae ttak-.t.a "tad -Ailfal coniluct in-
flictltt'? the injurlea in .uesjtion.
1^0 sus^ootloa thii.1 tixe ovidenoo toi^^da to »how xhat
rvhfcn dofondunt 8»w .^, cclllijion vao itwvitaislo, juc tatomptod to
ikvoid it^ and h«»e« oould not huire bo«n fuilt; of uja intOMtxomil
wrong, 1« met 1»y ^e<? irfL..« v* £ii^£££ig,f ^^7 111., 4«1, b.uc ioo,i>lj» ▼.
giTfcrta. 293 111, 2?v.a, where it ie held ia «ubet-Jice t>5»4 tho »t-
iexpt 4t the I^^t minute to t^iVoXd or iloago an »ccldoat does not of
itBolf nogatiTO wllfxil and w«.ntOB e©-nduct.
It is fcrgued Xhut tL© Jury atoould »ot havo ic^«oa in-
•tructod they «iE>'t find t^^a defendsujt guilty of wilftally and
a
wantonly in^urlBij pl&iRtlff Vx/p^ftpos'-or^iaco of the efidouoe, so*
8»ute plKintiff might h.-iTo the rl "ht t^ lanforcd tiio Jud^aieat
tt^ai»et the defend«i?)t toy i^jjriootTucnt; hojscc the rali* »a to tim
quantum of proof must be the •ftae ao in a ctimlnali o&ee. t'u<At X9t
beyond ».. rfett,aon«ihl*^ doubt, the Inntruction as to the prdpondera.nee
of the eridonce ia In tJ^<» «®usil f or ? t-nd has beoa fei>proTed ia nu-
«erott8 oasee in motions of this kind. It h&s ij^leo teen «»pproved in
«a oetior. for per8on«»l iajtiriee ehArj^int <^ »ilful &z:d wKu-ton bot.
is the r«oent decision in Berr-i^r t. ^. C. n. n. Co.. 29« 111. 474.
If there should he any do«iht sio to tb« &i,»|jlio«.fcility of tha-t de»
•is ion, &e the defendaat there «4ie & r&ilro&d eo:np&ny, w hold
that the inat^int defendant eeanot (iueatiea the propriety of the
inotruetiOQ on the preponderance of the eridenee beonuee. ^ hie
n*f ••Miblv
^^ .9C\mt9<i sersftiiy* rm i« *a&<Jtt«lBs
tp. («j
ln«»tttne«, the court gart four llk« instruction*, nanaly, inatruc-
tlofw Hot), 17, 18, 19, unA 21, »nd la tioerefora «»topp9d to oom*
plala of «R in»truotion in Bubvt'^rtoo llko thoeo r«S(UAat«4 by him
tmd glTon. Ko, Chiaa^p B. Tdr. Co. ▼. Pft^aer. 190 111. 78.
Oaa of tho inotruotione glTon i^t the invtbn<f of tho
ylblntiff bOf^im with thees words: *Th« Juzy are inatr*.Kst«d fct tbe
inntAnoo o' tho il&j.ntift'*'. tJndoubtodly eo to <t««in;n&t« »,n instruo*
tion for olthor pGi.rt,Y i« bad pr»otioe und aiv^ht e».ua« <i rovora&l.
Plaintiff's oounool statos ti'mt tJooeo words w«ro ineortod throu)i;h
In&dTorteneo, «.fcicb wt aro incliaad to think is otTious, -^e «j^e la-
torostod, howovsr. in nrhs-t «&a SHid by Jxidgo Oary irs Barn^^.^ & Rich*
iftydson Hfg. Co. r. ^gnsr, 64 111. ;.r-. 375, to tho oftoet th^t this
a«»n«r ot' prosoutin^': inntructioas h&d boon oustonii^ry without co<i%Mint
for ooiSM tvoaty-five years befoi^« %hilo owt&^'^nxjm tho pruotico,
this dooislon di'i not ro7or»« tho Jud^ont oti ti^i^t ^eoo^nt. Tho
eourts h&To ixLso refueod to rovex-oo oeo&use of si.:ailar iapropor in*
otructions in I, ,€« a^, H.,. C<>. r, JUtrsoa. 16J» Hi, 526. AxieMl|i ajj, al^.
''• ioo^\o. 134 111. 41«:.
%'% ATo not convinced th^i thet reaaons prosoatod by do*
ftnd&tit's counsel uro sufficioi;t to roquiro ^> r&vor-sbl of Uxo Jtadg-
MOnt, and it ie affirttod.
DoYfer, .'. J., iftnd Kfctohett, J., concur.
.1.
8i
'^ff
S84 - 265$8
tor use of WV^ViOS diTA.RAHTarE .'.HD
ACCIxasST CCPCl'Ainr, a\ corporation,
^* Appelloo,
JOHH (}KI?7IT!I8 and 'MBOlii W.
ORTTFITHft, Solni; Buala|«s mm
ppRAL raosc >roificip/L
) OOerff OF CHICA(JO.
6^
223 I.A. 635
KR. ;rtrsTTC7i MAfemrr ©awysaKD thi ofikioh o? ths cotrRT.
Ihia «•«• vt&o bef oro us on & forsor appeal ; Ttothsohild
Ti. CJrlffitfes, fil4 111. App. 29, A Judicaent In faror of upiTellos
pl&intlff w«ai there rorersed, thin court holding, contrairy to the
rulln^r of the trlel court, that the affidavit of aiarits presented
triable iesuee of f&et. The claim of plaintiff is on en lalleged
promise eontainad in a. buildim;; oontr&et entered into between
plaintiff and defenaants, *h reby def indents agreed to indemnify
and hold pltiiintlff h»mles« from eert&in olttims, dem&nUs, Judcrments,
etc., as in said agreement eet forth.
One Elisabeth Baxter sued plaintiff in an action on
the ttttse for personal Injuries sust&ined by her as a result of
tripping on % oertniia canras placed in front ox^ the elerators on
one of the floors in plaintiff*8 etore, in ivliich defendants and
their subcontractors were at that time ^lerforaing work under the
ter^s of the bulldin«^ contract. The plaintiff clainoed the de-^iand
was one which, under the terms of the contract, defendants were
bound to sare plaintiff harmless, und notified defendante te do*
fend that suit, but defendants refu^i^cd so to do. *^re. Baxter
thereafter prosecuted her claim to jud^aent, and on appeal to this
\
5$fl>fi - Me
%«
ftSA ■HTIT'
GGd .ii.i
cni»«4#i( o#4rt btnuium ivsttapsi ^ihlitm
■titfP-viiifl ,«te4MR»6 4««l4ii» ci«l'x#o mml utntevtMl VliSniail^ Mod ttf!«
no jiox.?»i! a/i ni llXfntwi'i; bono imtXjeR itfrninKXliK omO
lo ^fu9n A av -iftd ^ ibociiA#«ti» ••liirtBi Xanovtog tol •*•!
«• mfi*r9lP o^U !• jhioml ffi b*9Jilf ONnijia fl:t«4T»o • «• ]|«ii!s:ii^
•til YttlMV it<Mr »niin«lto«; ft«i# ^» ' mc m%oimMritnp4um timdi
hamnk mdt AmUaXo Htini«iq[ orfT .^«Mi-2daoo luaiMtiK' wU !• wmio#
•i»« a^MtfLnolob ,#o«5«iMio oiC^ ^« •«!•# Mfi yoJ^mt .delifv ono mmm
•HiH •# o^AAftnAtob boVilioa bmm ,««»X«auM( Iti^niMiq •▼«• of hsiMtf
• iiw B^ lMiKt4« no t>(«« ,#«oii||bitt o;r aloXo YOd 2>«Jvomow noil— nortt
court th« judj;t««nt vmm ftffiroMd, and e«rtlortirl de lad by th« 8u*
preaw Court. Baxter y. j^o;^baehlld fk Co, . 204 111, App, 346.
Aft«r the judit;n>ient In the Inda-inlty suit in favor of plaintiff,
aotheohlld k Co., waa reYarsQd nnd the eauee redocift»t«d in the
lewer court, the plaintiff fll^'d en aaonded at&te^ent of clttiM and
defendants an (ueended nffideTlt of merits. The cuubo «£vs tried by
the court without a jury, ^nd the plnintlff eubraitted evidence,
\mt the defendante offered no evidence in their own behalf. At the
conoluelon of the evidftnce the defendunts reiiU«eted the court to
find m» fs«.et« tha.t defendante were not guilty of any act of nesrli*
Sirence allei^ed in the et&teatent of ol&im or ti.ny atcitetnent thereof;
th«kt no act of either of the defendante or of &ny or ^heir aub-
eontraetore was the proxis«it« causae ot any injuries ulleged by
the atttteaaant of claiai or any olain thereof to h».ve caused in-
juries to l^lisabeth BiKter, Both of theae requeata ere refur^ed,
Defend&nte also reuu^^sted the court to hold aa propoaitions of lav
that the evidence did not ohov neglir^enee on t):>e part of the defend
ante or f^ither of them or any of their auboontr&etora; that the evi«
denee vaa inauffloient to find defe'idante g:uilty of neglitrenoe as
eharged. »-nd thM. it faj.l«sd to ahev that any act of the defenda/^ta
or either of th«s;n or any of their aubcontraotora w«a the proxlaate
oauae oT the in^uxy alleged to \i».r9 been BU8t^•ined by Jliaabeth
Baxter. Tha court »1ro refused to hold these propoaitiona of lav.
Appellants, defendants here, contend that there was
no proof of tuny neeli|iroBee on their part or on the part of any per-
son for vhfM they are re8T>onslble which resulted in or cuused the
injuzy to Hrn, Baxter, and thi^t no aet of theirs or of any person
for whOBi they are responsible was the proxisiate cuuse of the in-
jury.
.hhZ ,<{(, imnq
.YtUnUL 'ot •rfi «*#1A
.•one&W* b^ikmtiim ITLlSaini^i a* t^coo •di
us Jiuoo trf .>A\n«l«^ ^-Ji 0t. -is ^tl sroittiiisaeo
-d'OTI -: ■ ■ '
' "■ ■ ■ : Zii'.^n i
Htfti t* tR«ltiM<lw. ...
o
mom ii
-Hi t
-^ ^Raoiatiftia aiCt
...*ri{ a^ aaHiit
The •ridlane* t«nd»4 to ahow that th« drop cloth ima
laid an tb« floor of plaintiff *a atora l)y tha aarvantti of dafandiuita*
aubeontr&otor, who waa at that tiaa engaged in painting the buildii^
aa required by the eontraet; that no ona elaa helpad to la;/ it; that
it %'a8 tm old olath about 12* x If^* in aisa; that it wae furniehed
by the ttibcontractor; that the purpose of laying it «aa to prairent
I>aint isetting on the floor; th><it aa laid it waa flat in aoma plaoaa
oa the floor »nd at other plaeaa vrinklad up; that the cloth waa
laid between S and 8;30 9*eloek a. «., and that the accident hap*
paned between ®:30 and 10:00 a, «, ; that the cloth wae not changed
from the ti«e it ima laid until ttie accident occurred; that during
that tlflMi no eenrant of the plaintiff had anything to do with it in
angr way; that wliile it waa thus laid ahout 500 people walked over it,
^0 think in view of this evidertea the tri»l court waa
Juatifiad in ftndini: not only that the dafendanta* aubcontraetor
laid the cloth but Tsaintainad it up to th« time of the accident.
Certainly the ewidenca doea not Juetify the contesation of ap*
pallante that ^e neglij^^ence causinjBr the injury to lytra. Baxter
"connieted solely and entirely in peraitting ousto'nere of appellee
to walk oYor thia eanvaa and makis it dangeroua, after it had ^an
properly laid,**
Tiw 55aaterial parte of the contract on which plain-
tiff*a euit waa haaad are in the record. The contrset exoresely
proTldea that «ppellante are to "he reaponaible for any Injuriea
or aooidenta, howowar reaultln^t fron the work eoT^red by thia
oontr<iet;* that they "ahell indemnify and saw* the party of the
flrot part, its leseora, and each and all of then, harnleae froB
and againat any and all olaima for da's goa, injury^, coats &nd
axpanaaa whataoerer, and howawer ariaing, to all property whateo-
OTOr and &11 peraona whcsaoarer, in or about the worK, caused hy
gt9l9 •# b^r If Mfr
M« 4»0Xo •ri^ *'-•" :qp kmtimi'tm ••o«Xq io4to $m ha^ x—D. •iCI a«
^fioiiy*> ion :t.'. .<ior 1 ...-{j I'MTc Cf. }t in»*w^»o ftoaaq
■ -tre--" <»j ■.'. ItfO'/t. ; (JMr V»*
.ta«ftl»«ii •!& 1* •ml) *>' fwAiJi^r i«»I
••X n«ii0i«v3 yaittlr' ^lo* IkiiaiMWo"
a»<^< lt4i «ili««»]Mi«l> aJKft <i«Te :iCX4ni •#
*,hl^l xXt«ft««
• ^ alKiaira^aoii vtf* •# t;*i«r atoAXXacffa imtit ••Atrvv^
w«t aaaXjntATi ,f!»j '»•• JNi* ,rt««v ' • 'iiri^
htt* 9ir-— - '- , ^ft") mmlMl9 XX* wn** • .«»w« amm
"••imdm xf'. ,„- -tliM x&r9if4 buM ,<>a)r»>c ,- oMiianxa
^ boavao fiiow aiU iiro«(*i no rii .taTaoaMorf* antianaq XXa tutm ^aro
any nttgllg«no« or &ny not ttithAr of omission or eoaKalsoiea what-
ao<iT«r on tb« part of th« p«rty of the soeond p&rt or their sub-
contraotore, in earryiag out tho work called for b.v this eoa*
tract}" that "the eontractor shall ([(usTd the public effectually
from liability to accident in conaev.;Uence of Ma operations dur-
ing the entire pros>:reso of the «ork« both oy day and by ni^ht,
and he oh^ll be responsible for any and all damage vhioh may be
caused throuirh his neglect or failure to jproteot his employee aaA
the ^blie frem accident,"
«<e think that uc^er these prorisione of the contract
the court ni^ht properly construe it ae being in the nature of an
insvsranoe contract, and that the rulia|{e as %o propositions of
fact and lasr requested ware correct. K^ C. H. etc. t, f'outherff
SL* 2£ES.£®.» isi !fo. 375.
Aj^p^lanta have quoted at length tron the opinion of
tblB court on the forster appeal, and urge thut the oonstruotion
there jwt wpon the contr&ot ie binding her»» citing Boyle Ice Co.
'^' Cal. Ice Co.. 194 111. App, 47S, The decision on the former
there
appeal is of couree binding here, &nd the law/stated necessary t»
the renderini^ of that decision is also binding; but we do not
understand that mere dicta is controlling. The ^u^stlon on the
for^aer appeal was whether the affidavit of sierits raised an issue
of fact, "he eontraet was befor<% us there only aa stated in the
plead! n^gs, which were ssssended after the cause was reinanded. The
provisions of the contrHct Itself &re now before us, with all the
evidence submitted on the issues rtiieed by the pleadiiij^s. Ve
think the finding and judgment of the court is correct and it
will be affimed,
Dover, P. J., and HeSurely, J., concur.
-Iff* fii*U-^»«» tJLd to •»n9iipiM0«» 114 #iMHktoM •# \mid«ij: ffM^
•4 \»m i*uli!fm m^m^ tin to« v -v- ^X4i«Mm««^ •* ISjaH9 «I te#
"to s«0L#x«oa.C9., r*^!*tff% *4;r i-affcf f>n4 t^otii/ROs i^tt/nmrni
i[»isn«»l «(i 00 eai^ifb it4t .W^ wiViiA »ill *^» j»X »£»2 •''
•oft»i «Mi At9trK c^itv «lUr%l« •!<» tM#«(fr )UMr Ii*«^«* twrtol
42 - 26667
KkfmmKJS V. tp^-^L, / ^
) XSROH TO MUHICIPAL CCmt
)
)
If, IK, COOJ'SB, Jr\, / >
Oy CHTCAaO.
^23I.A. 636^
«». jiranaa MAfCimTt D3Mr»Ri© tna onmon o? the cotjrt.
fhls WIS tm aetion in the trJlal court for foroibl* d**
talnar, 7h« f^ota in th« m.»« m«v undi«i>ut«di, ii»4 t»t the close of
the eridonoe the ootxrt instructed the jury to find the Iseuea for
the defendant. Jud^c^aent t^&^e entered on the fitKiln^; and this vrit
of error ie hrou«?ht by the plaintiff to reriew the record,
A notion wsk9 aade \>y defendant in error In this court
to dlenies the writ of error for %&nt of Juriediotion, and tiiie
atotion «»8 reaerred to the hmttxliif^. The theory on which the laotion
waa rrooonted waa that an action in forcible entry and detainer ie
a apeoial «;t«itutox7 proceeding, and «« that atatute providea only
eaa aay, Yia, an ftgpe&l perfected by filin«^ » Uond in fiTO daya
from the entry of the jud^ia^mt, hy which the Judgsient a«y be ra«
Tieved. it in claimed the eti^btuta ay inplie&tion exoludea » re-
Tlev in &ny other way. ?hlB argument diere^arda the provisiona of
paragyaili 265, oeetion 2, ohfipter 37, Hurd'a i^evieed Statutea 19X9,
«Sileh pxQTlda in ^ubatanea th&t all aetlona in forcible entry &aA
dat&in<sr ahall be dealgnated »s s^otione oi' the fourth olaaa; uxtA
section 83, piMragraph 236 of the same etatuta, ^hieh providaa for
the roTiev of Jud^^rtD&nta entered in fourth ol&ae aetiona hy writ Of
error only. H, k A., laraOls^tfiM ▼. n. a. Cagufalty Co.. 272 111, 161.
The notion !suat }>e denied.
The fketa in the caae aaea to ha fca foUowR: Prior to
TMM - 8»
THJ'
8 .A.I ''^S.'^
19 »«0/v
.OXfl «^
April 8, 1'920, on*3 -ajry T>, H*iilr«ll iwrn tJ'ie ownar of an apartment
tuildin^ situated at 7245 CoI«s »Tenue. On« of the«« apartments
w«i« rented to the defendant, Henry «?, Cooper, and be oooupled the
•uaie under the le^se, whlc^i wa« in writing and contain«>d a. oove-
n»nt to the effect thttt the leetsee should huve fend hold the pretal*
■•« •fro» the 15th day of Jenuary. 191?^, until the 30th cuy of
April, 1920, provided 8ix% days uritten notic© io gifn leeaor
\gy lessee of lessee^s intention to ternin&te this lease on said
Iwit af ntioned d»te, otherwise this lease, including «11 oovenrinte
and eonditions ther«»iii shall contltnie from ye&r to year until teres!*
asted l»y & liki) notice in some erssuinir yesr. T^ssor is entitled
to terminate this lease upon like notice to lessee at llko d^tes,
\)y st&lling said netiee to the within aentloned promises, addresrsed
to the lessee."
%r, Bess iras acting-:: es Ire. Fsslreli'a agent, 0»
JlMMHUry SI, 1^!^0» she direeted her agent to o&noel this lease to
Cooper, a.}«i at the saae tisie wrote, ??;iving; the agent the niuaes of
tenants in tbe \milding. :f»»ruaiy 5th '^frs, K^iskell wrote Hess,
enclosing « letter i^ich sh«i had r?2ceived frota Cooper, and said
that she h&4 iafoirmed Cooper tb^^t the renting was in the hands of
Bess, and asked if Cooper had heen inforssed of the Increase of
rent. The said dnelosed letter re^td -m fol'e^s:
"In reply to ^our letter of the 31 et, T vieh to «d«
rise uiitil I looked over ^y check stubs on the 16th of this
month, I ««s under tXje iiapresoioti I had eioilod you cV'Sok for the
January rent, I trust thsit you have received it ujr this tiae,
I enclose check for Fsoru^iry reiit,
I preswns I should take up the c^^tt^^r of a new leas«
with ''tr, Hess, as we will "be um'i;!^ to Tst hofise in tl'na for the
expiratloB of the old one, ^rvi nr, ■ri,->5t. who is renting froa
us, wiohes to stay until aftar th« eehool ter . is ov«r. I told
hia thfikt it was satisfactory to «m providing, .vou were f^AVorable,
Kindly advise tcte ia re^rd to this at Hotel Stoweli, Los Anreies,
Thanking yo« ia advance for a fnvoraLl^ reply, I mm
Yours trul;y,«
<* t* ^»^^
i^«S(r5
• .»»«(«
■0 .^rrf-
1« Ai^aaii All; . 'J &«»i^O
To this letter €rs. HsiBk«ll replied, c^it^ntlBg p«xad«»loa
to Cooper to contiau^ to tmblat to Mr. '^^right, but Btv-^lng nothie^
vh&toTor about the ronowal of the loaee. ^(r. Hoaa« upon the receipt
by hla from %V9, Haelrell of Coop«r»» letter to her, attempted to
fire ixotlee to Cooper that the leaser feaid elected to teminat'j! the
lease, the letter waa registered &nd for«»rded to th^ Hotel Stowell,
Los ^n.mle^Bt Calll"orni&, but &p|i«irently Cooper h&d left I-oe Arirjelee,
Kherefore the notice did not rtftcb hiTt ^nd seTer^l stonthe later it
«e« ret«me«i to ^Ir, Heee. larch $Vn Heae l-. Co, received a tele^rea
from Cooper reading lui follows;
•*^re, H&ekeli fedyisee sae that you &re hAndlina: hsjr prop-
erty, kindly -ne-il sie a l«&ee to 0i:rn, Box 212, '^i'intar -aric.
Florida. *ill arriTe tb«rtt 'i&rch 15th. You kr.ow I had 12.AZ
Colee Averjue Apart'^eat one."
Tt»o dstye thereafter Hees .Ss Go, wrote Cooper *t the
Tloride Mtdroea. stating:
•la tiinewer to your telegraa received March dth, in regf^rd
to the a{»rtiaest at 7248 Colee wrstniiH, *ill s&y %tih.t this b'U.ld-
iag has been sold by '•■tra, Haokell, v^nd the nmv ownar vsill take
pOBsseBoion of your .flat May let. It vou ^.lll c&lX ?*t our offiCe
when you ccRne to Chicts^, we will try and rtrranije to «ret you an
apartment . "
I^ter Cooper returned froa Florida, and there ie t««B-
tlaion:f to the effeot that upon hio arriv&l he went to the office
of Heaa .& Co, aereral ti«^8 ^nd \a«i4e ini^uiriea xs^lh reft' r^nee to
other flsito; thai ha said he his,d to s;ot out of the flE^t ha vus in
tmA wanted Heaa .3s Co. to find anot^»er one for hiaa. This was about
April Ist,
The plttirttiffa, «:bo brought auit, are the purohi^aers
froa txis, Haakell, The aols contention of the appellar:'. i« thfet
the faeta in OTi der.ee warranted the aubialaaiOR to the Juz^ of the
queation vhether Cooper h«»d waived the notice neeeaaAry to termi-
nate hia leuae, or ««mb by his oondttet e8tapT>«d to aaeert th&t eueh
notice eaa, .n fact, given. '>e do not think ther<» le nny queation
IWic
.IIswoJ?
■ft
■-i'^
w.(; J ■ -3 •-•■..■f-:> '?:
-.'-•.fiiWijr'i^U^ •I"
Rswr TO
for tho Jury an th««« ftiCts, Ho notice vmn yifn &b re,uir«d ly
the teritts of tho !«&••. Xbe Idttur of Coopor to ^ro. Haekell,
asking hor to addreoo his ttt Ixts An^eleo on it rolutlroly unla*
portsAt mattor about a euVtoru^Rt dl<l not uuthojriso ^ doparturo
from tho oxprooo prOTlolono of the le^so, %hloh were under
eeal. x>efe!)diiRt was in posseeeion. Thia anounted to notloe to
the pl4»lntlffs« who purohaeed from iCre. Haskell, of ibdl the do*
fend&nt*8 rights. Ifeltlior the mere faet thst apon Cooper*8 re-
turn to Chlcaigo he inquired as to other apartments, nor liny of
the other facts proiretd, a-nount to eiUter walTor or estoppel, &nd
no jttrj' could reasonab^ly 30 find. Winf»ftheik Ins.^fyO* '"♦
gehueller. flO 111, 470; Knlcker1?ocker ▼. Oonld. 80 111. S88;
Bs*;^ S.tt-te Bank v. MIS£» ^^ ^-"Jr&y, V>-8«. 498.
Itie jwdfr^ent ie affirmed.
I*eTer, y, J., and lUsSurely, J,, eoneur.
bn :"•» -so •' ^i
;a^I . , ■ • .v;
.SJv
52 - 266 1^5
\. / ) afpsal mon ciicniT court
FRA.HK: »A.R-«0% THSHAJf hTiTBmm, Jr..
OF cGcr oomrry.
23 I.A. 636
WR, JTISTICI8 nkfCmm I>Hrr.IVi!mi5D TH2 Oi-IJUO^' OF TH!^ rotTRT.
Appell*«, who was eoaplaijmnt below, fllod as aaisndaA
bill df eomplKittt Hfrainat appellanta. Ifrv&lK B&rrov, TheaufcS And^^r-
•oa, Jr., liXllam J. Crowley, Tho Ohloa^o ^otor Dolirory CanpHiijgr
»nd the TTolon Trtuit Comp&i^, in ^ilei^i it alle^ftd th^t on Juno 25,
1919, tbtt ^otor Cffispany hs4 e^n outota^ndiisg oaM^nl stock of tbs
par Yalue of $B,m:)0, divided iflto ICK) shureo of |50 e&cb; thiat
omi '^eilliam ^JacI>oiijpf&-l 1 on that dat« inducoi coaplainttnt and do-
fondant Barrow to ^oin hiss in pwrchaolii^ said stoek, and to th»t
ond Kaado eortisdn f&loo u.n& fraudulent ro',resoi»tKtiQn« s-O to th«
finHnciiil oomiitioa of oald corporation; th»t r«*lyins? on the s&rio
the purol!&»e w&« ijs&do and the etook ttooriawpun roienued, M ohsiroo
to Barrow, 53 ehursa to ^aoDoiaga.11 a.nd 35 sh»re» to coaplalnant}
that upon diacovoriikT the falBity of the rerreaontbtaona of '<Jr.
MaeI>ous;i^ll It i»ae eou^liit to eoatpol hiri to make ^ood those loesses
as»l that ho dlaappoarod; that 99org:o H. '^hite. an attorney. wb» e^ ••
pieyod in that t)oh&lf , but «JLti<out »rail; that bolleTlag that Hao-
Douf^all had thua forfeited nil hia right imd elainj to any atock of
tho corporation, they sought to Ioo«).te hiwi in ordwr to Institute
*legal proce^dinga" to the end that a surrender or c/moelljwtlon of
the MaePoui^Hll stoek Ml^^ht be enforced; that thoreafter until Jurte
2S, 1919, contplainant »nd 5arro« ourried on the bunirHsss of the
corporation as if the interest of 'C&cDottgall therein had been for-
feited &nd the atook o^'sed by eomplalnant uibA Barrow in e<jUul
\
MA . M
. ' ,f^
,eS Si. .; Icui
«•'♦ u** ,dXtf
.■9uli» ''>4-
• •CO©! ••Odi _., , ^ ..,. ,. J^VMHbMl*
\9 ^Ao b»#i»1<xol mdi hail ilnftiwa
cunounts; thai fc)>out the tin* of Utt«D«fagall*s 4i«»pf«»i«jae« Bar*
row trans f^nrrttd oao of hin ohuroo of atock to 0«oriee y., VhitMi
thiit conpX&ioant itad BArxew oontlnuod until Junn ^8, 1919« to
gXf »11 thsir tl«« to the bUBiness of tho oorper&tlon &s if
tbo ottKO voirt ft copartner8hlp;t^&t no dividends were paid, but
the profit* were divided ae Bal&ri<»e in •(^ual eaounts; that ofru«
pliain&nt, Vhltet «nd Barrov constituted the BtmrA of Directore;
theit all de^ie were piiiid and t: e eoruo ration pros^red; that at
a ■•etlni; held June 2Z, 1913, '^rr&v 'wae cowsisslOTied in behalf
of th<» corporation to find ^^el>0Ujg^ll ai^ obtain a releaee and
surrender of the stock held ^ hiaj thtet B&rrow fou:«i hla and
secured the said ttteek and u release of uli elaims ot the cor~
poration against ^aeDcm^all upon the pa;^ent of flf^O; that hs
drev flSO frosts the funds of th«» corporation and paid the sasM
to lacBoufj*.!! 5 that Barrow, aetiiajg fraudul^^ntly, took the as-
•ilt^>»a<>i3t of said shtx'res in bXtaonk and afti^irwards dei^<Jb&nded the
isene or the stoek to hisqself, ^hioh oo^plainant. &« seer^tax^
of tbft cow^pQr, r«>f«t>eiS to doj that thereafter, by a certain
Inatrta^nt in writing dated June ao, lvl9, Barrow attempted to
assign etx aht^res of this is took to defendant ^howas And -arson,
Jr., an «iaploy« of the Tinion Traet Coapaisy, and six almrcts to
defendant *illia« J, Crowley; th«t at the annual saeeti n^r of the
ooapany held on .Tune 28, 1919, AniJereon and Crowley appeared
and olained thss ri$rht to rote the stock, aud that Barrow
fraudulently sought to haw« the saaie to ted Ami sou^'ht to vote
21 shares of the stock obtained fron ^aoDougall in hie own n«fs«{
l^at Barrow was ohalrian Of the <weetln«^ md frauaulerttly an*
neunced thsit the di root ore for the eoming year eleoted were Bar-
row, Anderson, Jr.» &»d complainant; that as a matter of fast
QlQOrge H. 9hlte was i»t eaid time duly elected as a director aad
not Andarson, but thi\t 3arrow, count iof the 'JacD>«^all stock, re«
wt»w nb»^mk .■qlrfii»riJi«tqoa
•AM to^ uj.*^ Uls «»i^«toti»» ft^ ^«» •ami") mt* ivxt OAX^ tr*vft
.„.. ^.,. - of )(»«t«i •Adt ite mtnunrtin nXm 'imj «»«
tfiMlmpx ,lioaa#JHtA ,ireii
fU8«d to mco^ni»e the q loot! on of "bit* &ttd »ft«rm<.rda pr«tead«4
to orguQis* the Bourd 6f ?lr«ctor« um himself, Andsraon, Jr., t^nd
eottplalniuit. i&nd Imetedintely^ uftor tht eseotinj^ pm tended to die-
chtorge coai-Iainaat frem Vm nmrytloet of th« eorporatloa, ordered
eonplaincint fro^ tho pr«iii«;tt8, refused him infort<iittlon ;n)>out the
affaire of the eorpor^ition; biKl thttt Barrow is la poeees^ion of
tlie cerportttion &b « result of fraud and peraoni^l Tiolonee
threiiteaoA,
The Amended lailZ. prtky<»A an answer, but not under
o&th; th&t Barrow flhotild bo d«ere«sd to h»lA ZH ah&ret of
stock, ralee^med and aurrendered fey ^^iM!Doug«*ll in trust for the
benefit of the corporation, the Motor Cowpanys th&t h«j, B«irre»,
be direeted to surrender the eertifle&te ret)r<»sentlns; imeh
eh^ros; th»t the pretended s-eai:?jiwi«s»ie ef atook to CrowXey and
Jkni&TBOA ahould fee set .isidej that Qrewloy &ad An^tsrson ahoMld
be enjoined from pretoadinc? t* be etookholders or rroa f^ctiag
&s officers of %>i& corporation^ t>*at the pratended electioa ef
Anderson as ^ 41r«etor shoaXd t>e set «.«iide, <4nd eoisipl&laaat,
B&rroK ::x«»d White deol^tred ih«i d.u3^ «l«ffite4 iUrdotovs; thh% eoa*
pleioant shoxild ~oe restored to the office of seerettiry und
treasurer of the corporiition, and Bsurroe enjoined from ?&yia«
out the money or funde of %ho oor,.>orutlon. (s^nd froa i;!sterferiiic
vXth eoapI<Unas}t la his rt^.hts u.»d duties tui seoret<^ry and
treasurer, ate. tTho bill also prayed for ge»er*il relief,
refendants ang^ered denying; tixa «d tested f^lae rep*
raemtei-tiona and denying} iiH the ifaateri»il facta i&ll<9i;ed in the
bill . Heplioation w^is filed i^nd the e«.tiae vmi referred to a.
<aaster in oh&.noery te take the e-vldence a.ad report. The ^«^8ter
took the evidence £«d reported t^iat the eostrpl&i nant h&d f.&xled
te prOTe the isuiterial elleg&tlone of his all ef oe«)iplalnt; that
•4t #«oif< no I J
h id ''.Tt »>»(*•, ,-,i
•^! ^fsrln
feXffOflK se«t*l«[A
,-ifixi;«t,»5.J
• • rt '% "4 . "
Ui« »«jp« ^»«r« not »u8t»ija©d by the cTldeno^j that the •quitias cf
the Gatt0« were vlth the defondcmts und aficinat th« eo»rlftlnant, and
thftt. th« ooapXKinent mtn not entitled to th« reliof prAy«d for.
II« r««0B!m«>nde<J that a deores be onterod diaaiiaoing th« bill of
oowpljiltit at complainant's eo«ta for want of equity,
thv coHiplainant f^X«d objectiona to the it&star's re-
port, irhieh ware (»T€»rrule4« And th«ae objeetiona upon the hearlv
before in* o1u>ino«lXor wupe ord«T>«di tn sietiij afi <)xe(}t»tief!9 • the
ehancailov euatteinei fc>>« excoptioaa of the oompl^iintint In p«irt
»riU eist.«2'C'i the deer«« fr^n which tnie ftpptsal is i«k«n*
The (ieeree fin^a th»t e«or< und ell of the ssiteriikX
«llagetlon« of the hill ef complaint vere proved; that '^>ie aqui*
ti«v of th«r csuee «ere wivh ike eonplaiaftnt; thi^t the defendant,
the Chioa^co Motor i^elivery Co., Wks a, eerpormiion ergeniaad wad
deln£ t>uaijieaa anaer and h;^ virtue of thi» 'x»vu of the istete of
Illln>^ia; that am &uihori»ed eft^ite>l atook of $10,000 waa dividad
Into 200 Bhareo of the pax value ef $S)C «»oh, «f whidi only 100
ahax'ea he.ve been ieaue^iti &hftt on or shovit June 30, 1915, the
outeteuridi&i; «ia«i[ ieaued oapitAl etoek of the aaid Chicane Hoter
I^liveiry Co., oonaietin^^ of 100 aharaa, wmrt pui'ohaj^ed hy tha
eo»5i>l«in»nt, A. K. Bre««ee, tlie tlef on^Sajit , Frank Bcrrotr, and ona
William l^acslJeuKftll, fr«wa one Ceorge TTollandaworth, who vae than
the owner thereof; that the funda for tLe pur<jih«r.ln« of eaid
ahnres of iiitoeic, eOTOuntinfj to ^3500, wore fumifihed hy t)>e <i9»
fandAnt, ^^vtutk Burrow; that upon the purchaae of ©aid ICC eharea
of stoolc out? certifiocte for 34 aharea v»s issued hy anid corpora*
tlon to Raid defendant Frank Ber^w, and on« eortificate for 33
ah^rea was ioeued hy aeiiU oorporation to the eet&plaiaoJit, A« H.
Sreeae, and one oertifioate for 33 aharea, beiuig eertifioata no*
5, vaa iaeued hy aaid corporation to eaid Villlan i!ael>oucall; tlilk^
eonteBporaneoiaaiy with tlie imrohaaa of aaid atook freoi aald Hol»
tea ctfti •Tvw ••«•(> aru
erfT .»' ■-
OOX XJt»* rfftitiw Ttc ,r(*ji9 edit t<^ 3#rl
CM» tarn Athr ^UiinwhaAll^iii •yi««4» Mr* «Mt ,i<ji»<>g>aM natiXit?
IkXJM 1« ^i»mfl9rc»i •Jit lo'k •Aolit trfi 9mU I'imwtmlf %tifm u(i
■ruul* Of/X M«« t» •M^twtl uLS iic«« 4r*iU : .jrfl«ba»l
£r tn^ tii ^- t\i4f9 #«• iko4 ,w»^-'«'< »"mt ; :•* tk&M Bi nmXi
hXiw^ ftidJ •! ««X«. uJijM ttf ^f4rft«i •<■« •wyHu
'^oK hXmt a»ml iltWs kX«« to M«frvuH i»(K lUiw xX«»(i»ti«>vof «•#■••
lAndiivorth &nd the iB«u»no« of sAld sharts of stock, said a. n.
Br««s«. said Trimk B&rrow and said Wlllian ^aoDougall entered
into the follo^lm; trrltten b^reeaentt
"Chlo«mo, June 27rd, 1915.
■?©, the underalgned, hereby *4gre« fee followe: First, the
o&plt£il Stock of the Chicago Motor Oelivexy co. which is now
l80ued, ahull be divided ats follows: Thirty-four shares to
Trunk l^rro'R, Xhirjy-three shuree to A. K. Breese, Thirty-
three )«Wirefe to ^illiuffli H, 'suc£tou([!:all; Oecoad, if-X} of the iiboTO
Stock to bo hold in tnist by yrunic Bi^rrow, who ohhll have the
rif?ht to tt-ll tine dividends p&id on susse u?^til be Bb<ill h«re
reoelTed in cosh dlTldeiids the nun of 12,500, at %hich tlaui
the stock shtill bo returned to its OE-n^irc, as stip'ii^^d above;
Third, duria? the life of t>i.o trust ti?re«sient ^«^lllleaa -Sac-
Deugail. , «.B presidert. fl.U* 11 roceive f* Bi.li*.ry of iAO pttr week,
A, K, Breese, as vice-presi ient. ehcdl x^ceire a salary of
fSO pttir «eek, and B'raaJc Barrov,, i(j» secretary, ahsdl reoeive a
salary of #32,50 per week. jPourth, we a.'ree each leitVi the other,
to look &fter our respective d'jtJes .Uli^i'e'^itly, uod to wort, to-
gether for one Biia..*le parposm &nd ri&ke the buQineeo Bucceosful,
In witness wteer^of, -we b»4ve h«n»xinto 0®t ovr hands «.nd seals
at Chleai^, lllirioia, this 25th dey of June, ' . D, 191S.;"
that said stook eortifie&tes issued to said a. Tf. Barrov axKi said
'^^illian i^oj}ougall ««r<e upon the execution of said .irree-seat de»
live red te and b&14 by said Frank Barrow, in confer a ty with said
aj^ree^ent, v-ut wlt^^out being endorsed or iiSfiifSied i» blank or
otherwise by either of 8<^.d parties; th&t in the saentlit of August
or ^ept«sber, 1915, said Williim) -faoBoui^i^^l abanciomd and severed
hia oonneoticm with the said Chicago 'Xotor Belivexy Co. and did
not at eny ti»e thereafter work «lt>) or contribute to the carrvlng
on of the business of said corporation, or in any asAner perfoxm
or attempt to perfons Vm agreement entered into by him, ae herein
above oet forth; that after said filli&w MacDOUfifall febandoned tind
86 're red his conrieQtiOB *iitfc the t>u8ir»«s of said Cbicau^o VTotor
I^elivery Co, eotitplalnant and defendant Frark Mrrow jBana-ed, con-
ducted end carried on the buslTiess; that shortly aft^r fao^Jougall
Hbs.ndoned said business cornplai n?>.nt and d.efersd-ar.t entered into an
oral a)!;[reeBBent with each other th«it the profits earned by said
corporation shoal:! be divided e^^ually between then* and thii^t when
defendant Barrow had received from the profits of said corporation
the SOB of #2500, together with Interest thereon, whioh he had ad-
Jhn(rr»« ciffM U^'-
twfdf
^9 ,<iXt' t«
ii«t«r $:te» tm» .iMtfi/ «MMl»tf tXl4Ui«>« k^ki^ik w t^Xtforia mit»ira«(ri««
▼Anc«A t9r %hm pnretmn* of tho otttatanding 100 •h«r«« of atook,
Um otook imd iMialiums of th« eorporatloa ohould b« oonsldcrod mm
ovnod loy then jointly. In oqual proportions; ttiat in purouanoe of
•aid agreement defendant Banroir watu paid fron the fundi of the
eorporatlon ^he eusa of ^:S?i9, being the awount of eaid euoi of
|8ftOG with interest* which had been advanced for the purohase
of the nuCatanding XOO shares of stock of the corporation; that
the final paynent of said sun mma kumIs to Barrov on or about Julf
f, X917S that in pursuanoe of the oral affirseieeni the profits of
the corporation were equally divided between Breese and Barrov up
to JTune 26, 1919, with the exoeption that half of the said sujk of
#871A whioh was paid was deduoted from the share of Breese in ths
yrof its of the corporation, and the other half charged to the ae*
count of Barrow; that o^ter Barrow had been paid said suff, the
stook oortificat« theretofore isisued to Br«^«se for 33 shares of
stoek in the oorporation was tie live red by Barrow to Breese; that
the oertifi'^ats Ho* 5 for 3d shares of otook theretofore isoued
in the none of Vllliaes MaoDougall was held in the custody of Bar-
row; that the saatter of so during aa assigta»ent and relinquiMhraent
by ifacDotti^all of hiis rights and interest in uaid oertif ioate wm»
the sttbjest of f recent disousuion between Breese, Barrow and
George ''. Vtaits, who constituted the Board of Directors of tha
corporation; that i]».n:i«di«it«ly following the aatmal aeeting of ths
Stockholders on JuiM 2Z» 1913, tho matter was diseuseed by thsa,
aad thereupon Barrow undertook to find KacDottgall and endeavor ta
•sours an assignment and rolinfiuiah&^ent of his interest in the
stock csrtif ioats; that nn about July I, 1910, Barrow seeureA from
HacSougftll a written assignment to hiisself of this stook cert if i cats
•ubA paid therefor the sun of $1&0, with a cheek drawn on the funds
«f the corporation, idiioh were later charged to Barrow's personal
sseount; that thsrsupsn Bar:row claimed these shares of stoek be-
■?• MUt Mm 10 iiri "iu» 9&-' «M atf^ ««i4«tar»«»
•rf4 ««Mi i»l«i} Ai«q is*»«f lUHi ««^*;«« «»</1« «JHI»^ {vreviMI 1» itmtmm
t« atauuta £4 vol M*»«t ajr JnmmI i>'iAl*«»'(Mi^ si«fti'tx«t|«t ilM##
^•iit ;#««d«Q: 0^ v(n:i4»i( ^ *t«««^ai; Mm i«»i4iN4MriaA aitf oi 3«»*#«
-i«« 1« cfrc^'ftuo Mti «i JbX«l *«w iXa^MvOMUf Miaiiilv la •«»« atf» «i
InaivialiiMi-^*^ ^aa tavatttlaaa «a iAl%ii»aa <rM a^t Aaif* fvav
aaw •Jaaxti^tto l>ijwi lU «ar«f ini ftiu» •90ti%t7 $,^ ]ta iXayrnttaM i#
tea imxaC «aa:»«78 s»««^ik( a«i«a«»iii> #ii*Kpa«1 ta ^aafctfsa aM^
aeC^ yo ria#a»iia la ^<saa«: atf^ *»jrMdi.ratiea Mte ,a44ifii *i ««Kaa«
tti lo sR^t'Mi Xamaa te^ ||AJi«*iivki •. : j i^^iml ^aifa ;ci'>ii«<Kaat*a
,saiU xtf 6a««iiati^ a«v X9ifBM , S aax ne> « .■
el -lovaate* iuu liu^tf^r^eii*' *»ni*^ M ^fnr. ct^vataili Imm
9ti$ ai Jaii'v^.t. .d«» iMi a^naaa
aaul *nuo»« «> .*4rili4«aa >(aa4a
•4m»i\ttf9 iv>Aju i>. « XJuaimCla^M
•teal pdi no oauitA tfu IUm% tea
Xaaaa^HL s'l^' ftv^iatfo va^al ava» e atf^ t«
> J iiLon.ra ic «*-xan4 mi !/f>9(»^
iU>BC«4 to hin incliyiduallyi that therettfter until th» annual »««t»
ing of tha atockholdars hold on or Mtout JUna 28, 19X9, tha profits
of th« earpo ration warn equally divided betwoaa Barrow and Hrveaa;
that tha o«rtlfioate Uo. ft la atlll In th« poas«aslon of 4«f«ndant
Barrow, haa not been aurrendered or oanaelled, nor any other iur<-
tlfloate Issued In lieu of the eiiwe; that on Juaa 20, 191?', Barrow
yratended to aaslun aix shares of this stock to defendant Anderson,
Jr« and sis shares to defendant Crowley; that aelthor of said As*
fandanto app^^ored to te^stlfy on the hearing and no proof waa of*
t9vA in support of the pret«;nded asslgnwenta; %hat neither of
than were stockholders in the eorporatioa on the Aay of the an>
mial Meeting hsld on or aliaut 9\iim 26, 191$, ear qoalifiad under
the by-laws to sarve as a director or offleay; that the purported
election of dlractors and offioara at the stookholders and direo-
tors stto tinge of June 2a, 1919, were null and void; that Breeaa,
Barrow and Vhita wero duly elseted direc^^ors and duly qualified
and acted as esuch direstora «tp to June 3S, 1919; that at the an-
nual neeting of the board of directors held June 22, 1913, fol-
lowing the annual a\.oekhQlders nesting, BarJiNnw was chosen preoldeil
and Breese aesretary and treasurer, and duly qualified, and aote4
up to June 38, 1919; that by re^aaon of t}ie nullity of the stock-
holders and dlr<!Ctors meeting held June 28, 1919, Breese, Barrow
•ad Ihite have ever since boon and now are the direotors of the
corporation, Barrow tlM prosident and Breese the searetary and
treaaurer; that tha oertifioato Ho. & and the 33 shares repreoentdL
thereby war* at tha date of the filing of the ei»plalnant * s bill
of complaint and now are the property of ooaplalaant A. B. BraoM
and Frank Barrow in a^ual proportions; that it should be surrendeatA
to the Chieago Itetor S«liv«ry Co. and oancellod, and in plaoa thara-
of new eertlfioatea for X6^ shares should be issued to Breeee and
Barrow respeotlvely; that Braoae ahould reiabursa Bar
-ow for half
i—^mf Mat wrroir •MwtMf i«*iv ^^ o,tni ■K'l««^«q««* «A« t*
VMiMll ,«XtX «nB Mtft no i«d4 ;iMCMi Ml# It mUl mX J««M«JI f4«oJt%K#
«s«rt«(MtA liuiJ>a»7t4 •<; ilo»l# •lit« )a ««««ito ^a* s«i«uui o« Wl>«cl*«c
*M DlMi %« fttfiiMi latfl nE*£vrO taat'f:^*t> r* •ruMto Ki« tarn «A
•1« MM 1»M« o« fMui ^O'HumX Kli^ no X nA9%fim ttaaiff 1 1
's»t«« »«lltXAtif YMt^O^ii ,IIJ^ waul y.i.'s.^ -•':• ;io k£»d AOikS—m Lmm
Mtn^tut axt^ 'Aft' (tvviYire «o ni«>i9««i^ « a* <»n9« •! MMX«^tf m(#
«tMift»tfl' i0aii tM«v fe«« iXiMi •^or ,Qt9£ ,0£ MtHl ts fi^A^vtM vva^
k«llUiiM)» ^Xt>6 iiA« rto«*»ttl» **#o»l« tXat^ •««« atXifv Mui vmimI
*ii£ wtf^i i« ;«<« |«X«X ,«t (Mrux .'HnXl^.liuwi •« km^mm *M
-iolt ,6X«£ ,S£ «OuC lftX«lC •«»l»*«^ft 1* «»ViMNf Mil 14 ;|fU#»Ml X4MMI
4»*t»« IMU .l^tXllXJIXr %Xl^t *«» ««««f«»«»«^ teJI lC«UMCf»M •••»«i !>«■
•^r»o4«- mC/ til ic^l^iMi vail !• AAtMk»ic ^ jr«ri| 4«i&tX .tfS »«t/t. •« ««
VOtKAc. ,fMI»*iVr ,&X«X «a( MtA l>£«f yil#*«« •1Mkftl»ftjU Ajm •««ftX«g
mU 'Ui «i#i*nil^ titi •«« vMi AIM «••< immkm «««>• *t««[ MIMV Mm
tea OtWM»Mi Mfti MAcnrtr te« »i:«i^tt»t4 mat •rMnwe «n»l»4nc4it«M
IXicf m*i vfittttuqmsf MU lo »niXi1 mU %» M«b «M J« •star i^itiTt
M»n #nMrlAl<f«w« ^c v:«t»vivt4 wOl ««ii vim JbOB VJKwiWM 1»
J»iui »»»»-. •»?! Mf M0«MiAi fdX Y«t m^^wt^A' ■■n !•
of said sum of |1A0 «xp«n/t«d hy hi» In aaeruring an aoaignaiont
fron KaiBougall.
Tlpon this finding of faoto it mui deoreed fcbftt Barrov
fortliwith dtllvor up to feho iworotary of the eorvoratioa certifi-
cate Ko. 9 for 33 ethAToa of t^took; timt the aoeretary of tho oor*
peratlon should forthwith CAnoel live c«rtlflocit«» and tho prcsl*
d«nt and aooretary iosue nev oartlf Icettoe to 3arrow for 16^ shares;
that And«?a<3n. Jr., should be |)erp«tuaXly snjolned and rsat rained
froBR a»Aertin£ any elate to ths offios of director in the corporsk-
tion* and that Barrow should be perpetually enjoined and restrained
frmi aeasx'tlne any oXaln to th« offioa of treoaureri that Anderson
and Crovley and eaoh of them should be p^rjtetuolly enjoined fron
interfering with the ssanageesnt of th« property or affetlrs of ths
oor::?oratlQn, and were enjoined and eoQ£?aiaded to turn over forthvltk
the httslnesa, property and affairs of the cor^i^oration to Breeas,
Barrow and White.
Appellants contend tloAt thare is ae pr<»of In the ree*
•rd tending to ahow that appellant Barrow ever recelTed tha $2fiO0
which by the ternss of the tercss of the trust asreesBent was to ha
I>ald to him, and therefora arg«ii« that at the hefclnnlnp; of this
suit the shares of stock deserl>>ed In the trust agreeaont wera
still held in trust « mid appellant the legal owner thereof. 7hla
is directly contrary to the fln<ilng8 not only of the decree* hut
also to the rep4irt~ of the naster. which says "that the business of
the eonpany prosT>ered to suah an extent that by July 9, 1917 » da*
fendant Frank Barrow had baen relabursad from the not eariilnga
af the coapaay in an aeount equal to his original Investasnt* ta*
gather with Interest at S per cent; this reimbursement having been
mUm oat of the salaries oredited to hlsself and Breeae*
iaMCR»4aM M t0lt*»— 111 alii <ftf t>»iMl 00X9 )• mm hiM %•
•ill^OM a«i. W9« t* -Ci«j97e»a erf: «nrAlmb iUi*ditol
aor>«ta4 ^a4I ;v»rttfibt»!r} to wvt'i .^i misS.u -^o* iftMVMtf* jmmI
aev) i»«iiiota* xXX«<id»^«Ki iitf »i««C« «atfl )« Ma* Ihui ^«JC»«90 ftiM
. WJiifV tea «rtii4if
*w4 , »•!»•* mU Ic %£«• 4oa a^aitelt «tfl o# x'un»9iv» tXi««ilfi at
"io flOMUsMtf eit4 ;r4Mi^ a^lMi ifoiilir •«•#«■« ma l»<>i#M««« »tfi •>f mX*
•jWBi^nAt iMi Mi; Mrrt *Mnr«(f9t<f«r iiMitf «iiiii mrxiCAtf :imPt% ttmitfl
W9 thinlc tboit finding 1« austaliuid liy th« •▼IdttnM .
flM eentrollinc ia»u« of faet in tb« <hub« ia irii«tV»r appellant pur*
eh«««i tbe i^aer^eu^all stoek for hizanvlf an*, oo holda It, as ba eon*
ttnda* (uid %h« n»»i«r found, or wbathor ho purohaaad tho saiM undtv
olrauBatajiiooa «uah n» would inpmaa » truat upon it, &m %h» bill
Allogaa and tho daoreo finde* AppolXanta havo not argued that tliia
finding ia agalnat tha prapondaranca of the avidsnea, e^nd «e would
hava to «a find in etdar to justify ua in setting it aaida* Bat
appallimtii oontond that th« ollttgationa of tha bill in thia reapaot
do not ooirraapond with the ]proof and the daoree, oitinK WtXay^ v*
Wllaon. 368 111, 370. It ia ol»i»«d th*t tha bill, deoreo and
proof do not eorreapond in that tba bill allegaa that th« atook mmm
purehaaad by Barrow by and en behalf of tho <sorpo7«tion, whcr«*a
tha «-7ideno« aatabliahcs* um appollant <?oat«nda, that h« purchaaad
it in his own right, and the d«o«'tt« finds that it wfts purohaaad
by J^aaaa and Barrow Jointly ia a^»l pro port iona. 9a do not thin k
that thie oontantion ^an bo euetainad on tha fa.eta. It ia tnia tha
raliaf xivan by the deereo waa dirferant fro» that spaoially {»niy«d
far by th« bill, but the aBsended bill ooutained a prayor far fni»
•ral relief, and the rule in such oaaa ia that the eomplainant say
have aueh relief aa ho ia entitled t« under the all««c«tiona of
fadt eontained la the bill aad the proof made in aupport theroof •
Van gantofi t. Vg^ ^SfiaiSfi* 36^ ^^Li. 4W; Sibba r. Pavia. 166 Ul.
205. Aa ia aald in A. Y, & S« F» RY. Co. ▼. §%SS^, 2»0 111. 428,
"A general prayer for relief ia auf f ieisnt to aupport any deoree
warranted by the f&ata alleeed in the bill and eatabllshed by tha
eTidenoe." 9e do not; think the Allegatione of the anended bill
in this eaae and the proofa are ineonsiotent with cacdi other or
with the decree. Equity rtigarde the substance of thin((8, not
the for» merely; and «Aiila it ia true that the anended bill al-
•tut $umHt^%/k tMtlMlv tJt m^m •*** -* *""'' ^'^ <^u^«k ^illorjMjn «ft
9 of tVlM
^ii mro »in «i il
•rfj §ini si 17 ,aiid.!(l 91*4 t^o ^MHAjAin ptf a«» <.
.*Aoe slill l«i(tf
-0»s Yot 18':
.« n^ lu^ «« wirad
>»A .tut
.XXI 'idX »i^
••6*
mt9 xtf W4toUtf«i ax<f arfi nX »»:|i-.i.i u
XXXtf *«ka«i«i ftd4 i« •«»X#«%*XjU (^
lit
X«C«s t,h»x cK« J2oeZ>ouKAll atftok im» purah»0e<l "by B«rr»w for an4
on 1»«h«lf of (he Kotor eorponitlea and viiJi iia funds, it also
Allegod f^bat Aft«r ttoo dlaapp«arftno« of t?«aPougnll %h» bualneat
of th« oerp^a ration vac earriod en by Bronsc ejid ^rrow the iiMie
9M if th« MKODttu^tolX tto«3j£ hod been 'sa^eolloa. ff.nd forfoltod *«in4
all tJM outstandinig stoek of oald oorpo ration held and omied hy
jouT orator and said Frank Barmw in •<pal aesount*." In tha
fourth para^raii^ of th« «a»«adad bill it i« all«g«d, '*that it
«as undorotood and aisra«d» and t^lneo the data of tho di«Apt«ar*
anea of said 9iXliaiB ^ae.t>e]agall it haa \Hfn understood and a^rood
\iy and bot««os said Shrank Barrow and your orator t that the said
J^rank Barrow and your orator owuad «c}ual iaterosts in said Chioaigf
ifcsiar Beiivary Comp&ny*" i'h« proofs abuni^antly sustain thsss al*
laitations, and it thus beooK^ts wholly Immaterial as betiroen tha
parties to this suit whother the (Corporation should be h«ld to ba
amtitlsd to the MadDoui^all ©took, or Barrow and Breose Jointly sn-
titled to it. there is thorefore, we think, subatantial correa*
pondenoe between the asionded bill, tho proofs and the deoree*
It is next oontended that the daeree is erroneous
aa to Anderson &nA Crowley. It i» said that ewen aooording to the
findings of the deoroe, Barrow had 16i shar«i) of the l^aotiougall
stoak. and therefore a lawful and valid right to transfer that
amount of stook to eeeb of then. It ie said that no one disputea
the faet that they were gi'^en the steek{ that it is olaijied in the
osended bill, ^djeittod In the answer end testified to by the wit*
neeses. ?hia is hjit-rdly aomirate . The axaended bill alleges *a
pretended a»aign&:ient'* of this stook 1^ Barrow to these two parties,
the eyldenee showed that !'aonoug»ll*9 oertlfioate tnui in the hands
of Barrow; the alleged aoalgimorito to Andereoa nnd Crowley wwrt
nat offered in ^videnea; neither ^deraon nor Crovley testified}
••«nA«u4 Ait iimjMK^Atf )<i itmajri
•If.' 9#ti»(i«n X«iqi)» ni «v<'
-iic-.r^» XjiI ln4ii*c(M »a! - it>i0rf; «! »i»:i,
•tf^oMcn^* ai ••t••^ »:U 4iuf? b^bu^mtb Smut »1 4^
Mff A# ft«i^ii»»«ii «•▼• 4«ait l»i«« ai «l •xo^O'^^^^Att tf««V4MMUi >.' im
•4 in •r<j x^ o4 towAtmrn^B Ami vmmim mmt ni Jh^xImImi ,iX4# lialxwipi
•IT*" -=^ ttui •M*a/>r i»tt»Xi* u. aC %•
• A.< .^..«««" _^» ^>. .....< k. . >_-.
Atfa T||j«Jti>iuii«4if» ar
* lAla?
w>oa
u
th»t9 1» n» pro^f that %hiay eft \>eoase •toelthoXdera of record;
«bA fitnly suata,, aeoordlng to th« 1»y-la«», had & right to vote at
ttot annuea nesting. Crovlvy and Andsrson hAT« asked no rclltf
lA th«»« pr»a«edlRgs, and m think ths dterao is not crroncoua
aa to th«M.
It iB next oont«Mded tlia'v thir dacrea should not haT*
baaa snterad iu favoz* of Brotiaa* 1»«toaua8, it 1» suid, hr, cones
into court »Ath uncX«ari hdtui«* This mtggestion ie b&sod on tbt
f mdingtt t;o '^h« ffi^et that aftor ikaeDougalX diuap «ar«:4 it vaa
eonplainmnt wl::iQ »ugg«»ted tJiat 9ithc»ut puyintg diridvnds the
salarifB* of Barrov and hisiiiiajLf ahtmld 1)« inor^^suiad in auoh a vaj
a» to get t^ 3»rdf its earaod by th«r oorporation* j!hia« it is
ur^ed, is a fraud whidh wmild prevent a dearee in his faTor. It
it were heid to 1»e a fraud, Barrov ^artielpAt«d ia it; isut ve do
not thinlc the Baxijs of equity on ishioh appellants rely has smj
application hare. In the first pX«o« because the evidence fails
to establish any fraud against MaaOoug&ll, but rather t@n<!ls to
indioate that ^raeOougall attestptofU to defraud both Bre»ae »nd
laurrawt but also )>«cauE(e the fraud clais^ed is not with r^epeet
to the very Matter ooaeernin^ whioJii the aeended bill prays for
relief. Hallo ra^ v. iiallormi. 1S7 111., 100; Chioago v. Stock
Yarda Co.. 164 111* adfe.
fh« decrot* in affii-njed.
Stvar. J?. J*t and ^e;:,>u rely, J«> contmr.
u
•r«rf ^
^2 fc^M-
?>;^J It ':.
■ JO \lm* hoB
nt
•g-vc
*i Biaai
9lL'
&^n^lJ^
.tOli«»ilTMii
H* i»tf«-
aitf«««« --i
>«q[i9«M»4 Xi«9ii:
.*mtJkai
MU4*.^
JiKi ,w«t%«8
rt^ftt»t>.
-r
■ ''^•^.o^-^j' •
^"
• 'itiii.i»a
iiaX
86 - 26740 I
U. J. BARI7ICLS and J0IIK BAiRNICLS^
Trading &• Bftrniole Bros.,
BRROR TO CTRCITIT CCTOI
\ / ) 0? COOK cotmry.
BViOS Fisa^i
T}«fend#it in JSrror,
^23I.A. 636^
MR. jmTICK fCATCHETT BSTTVBRSD THS OPTWTOH 07 THS COUffT,
Xagr 8, 1916, the plaintiffs belev, «h« ars pltUn-
tlffs in srror hers, filed a dcclarHtiOB a^galnst the defendant
ehargini; the utterance ox^ false and slanderous words by defend-
ant ef and coBcerniBg the plaintiffs. The defendant filed a
plea of "Wot guilty," 'larch 11, 191G, plaintiffs, by leare girsn,
filed an amendment to the declaration, and to this deolaratioa
Ml Msended defendant pleaded the general issue and filed a further
plea of the Statute of limitations, «;hieh plea alleged that the
original declaration did not state a cause of action. To this
pica plaintiffs filed a replication, to ti^iieh defendant demurredg
and on April 27, 1918, on motion of the attorney for defendant,
the demurrer was eavried back to the declaration as amended, and
sustained, and leave was giren to file an eraended declaration in
t«B days.
September 16, 1919, en aotlon of defendant's attorney
it was ordered that the suit be dianiosed for want of conpliiuaoe
with the rule to file &a «iaendftd declaration. October 18, 1919,
plaintiffs entered a motion to set aside and Taeate the order of
dismissal entered Septetftber 16th, and this motion was continued.
Deessiber 15, 1919, on motion of the attorney for defendant, plain-
tiffs were ruled to file an swinded declaration in five days, and
in default th >reof the cauee should stand dismissed at plaintiffs*
eosts, notioe of the rule to be serred on plaintiffs by registered
•rm:
d&b -^ •
\
§s
.1
0>Ta6 - M
*. TT/.lfi '^VSO
r»mi«*«Xt.' •
111
rtcii.
•oamkUimiok %4 tnmm 1*1 Ifviamlk mc ;.^^9 mmw il
■ail« D*eai1>ttr 18» 1919, plaintiffa filed * sceonl «aand«d decla-
ration, to which defendant flleA a fKenerel deJBurrer. June 19,
1920, on motion of attorn'ors for defendant, "the objection of the
defendant to the further eonnlderation of this cause ae a pendlae
e&uee, bein^ now here considered, it io ordered that said objec*
tien to the further eonaideratien of this osiuse be ond the saae
it hereby eustained for non-eenpliance «ith the order of April
27th, 1916, to which ruling plaintiffs except. And the cause
stands disalssed for noa-eompllanee with said order of April
27th, 1918, and that the defendant have «md reooTsr his costs
herein of and from the plaintiffs, and that he hare exeoutioa
therefor,*
It appears from the bill of exceptions l^at the or*
der of ~*«ptember 16, 1919, was entered upon a genoral eall of the
docket, and with the proTiso that defendant should notify plain-
tiffs ef the action in the oourt; that plaintiffs were so noti-
fied; that the attorney for plaintiffs then presented to attorney
for defendant a stipulation to reinstate the cause, and set it for
trial Hovember 20th; that the attorney for the defendant crossed
out the words of stipulation and wrote thereon, "Defendant does
not object to the entry and allowance of the aboTe notion, but
■OTftS to dismiss s&ld oause for failure to comply with the rule
or leare to amend granted plaintiffs;" and that he therefor*
ga.Te notice that he would call the notion up for disposition
Deosnber 5, 1919, at the opening ef court; that counsel for de-
fendants wrote plaintiffs* attorneys on December 13, 1919, notify-
ing them of the rule to file a declaration within fire dsys; that
said notice was then sent by registered mail, and that the order
entered by ^e court on that date was in the h^^ndwriting of de-
fendant's attorney.
->«X9ftji WbR*CM fenoeiM m k9ti <KMfn»t>»7r ^llam
mit lo n^kf^i4c M&* ,ifi*liM9\»b tc .iojr 00 ,OS^X
MMMft mU JtaA .jr«*a«9 vltlJUfiUXq: Itfti/ V •# .6X9 £ «ii#TS
sfit%»»x(t m-mti td i .•TliltrxAXf miit «9tl l .«T«tf
•«rlsl(ir tl^i^oflf ]i/ir«i1i «a4Utael4a) ■ :j:vo^ »dl d^TX-" '9)Coft>
A»««««e $ttJUnt0\itt mU «»1 HMn«/^« Ad^ ^lU ^d^OS T«tfiM^H Xali#
•melMAr^ ad tmtU imu "iltlllviAiq J^«#ru»iC!B btiB<t« ol ar^^ai to
atliiftOqfliU Tol titj wittt till iX«» i^Xxtor «▼«!
••Jb 10*) Xf^««ru«, ;#li«0C !• aiiia»«» «» r"'' .e tr^fstootf
•t^i#*n «tI«X .ftl «4t^m»o«a fio •XMinoi'^w *«>)XI < bnvt
;r'tdt t«vh rvi') irXrfliv mil4»MX»«|> ^ ftXirt »f<# to fleHd aei
xmtm tii intu bmh, ^Llnm t9a«i ei.s^9>( x^ tmmn umlS tuim •si^ost bime
••b 1« ?pi#i«wAii4uC mti itL »mm %ti%b imAs me ^a»oo mKit ^iT Jhn»#fl*
Tbe notion of Dm defendant for a rule on plaintiffs
t« file an {mended deol«.ratiOB walred tho Tnotion to die^iss and,
in effect, reins tatod the c*«e upon the filing 1:^ plaintiff* of
a d«elaT8.tion in reeponae to the rule. ^lunster r. Boyle . 50
111, App. 672{ grand Pacific notel Co. v. j-inkerton. i-17 111. 61.
Thie being the state of the record, ire do not think we oan pass on
the natters avgfued ^y appellee, that the d««urrer should he car-
ried haok to the deelnration and judgment aiiren for the defendant
sa the ground that plaintiffs can not r&coTsr tinder their deola-
rstion. The denturrer of defendant to pla.intlffs* aaended decla-
ration has not heen dlepOBsd of l»y the trial court. Action thersea
by that eouz^ must preosde a ruling on the saae question by this
eourt. The judgment is ti'iereforte roverssd and the oause is rsaaadsd.
fdVEREnSD ABD WttMnSKS,
DoYer, P. J., and MeSurely, J., concur.
• A V f. r » . ^. <*• *> "T .
ft06
>f:T
■J trr K .' - c xi i«"i T I 3 * r i'
^i'. 9iit
•0
,t«0«O
•8 • 26754
V'lRintiff \n Irror,
flODIfRIGX 9. OUYia an| KAKKT/
H« EARP8R, Coparfctwrf
M OUVBR ft COMPAHY,
Defandanta mi^crzair.
sitnoN TO cTRCTjTi cooai
0? COOK rOHUTY.
223 I.A. 636*^
<>«/
«». J!T3TIC» SCA7CHRTT BILIVIWRD THR OnmOS OP THS COtWlT.
Appftllaat, ndio was plaintiff below, ^rou^ht un
aetion for fraud and dooeit as^aJLnet the 'ppolleoi, cortartners,
elsaarslni^ Uiat thay had saetirad the execution of a written con*
traat with him throui^h fratidnlottt repraaantatlona. a doraurrer
was oust^im^d to th« ori^^inal doolaratioiif wh<nr«upon plaintiff
filed an anendad declaration in two counie. A ^neral da'siurrer
to thia declaration waa a.leo sustained, the plaintiff elected
to etand lay hie aaended dec 1 oration and judgment for eoata waa
entered ag^iiinBt him* He eued out thia writ of error to eeeure a
review of the record. The 8ol«« qu'>atioii te be decided ie whether
the Miended deelaration statea a ca«iae of aetioa*
The declaration charges that the defendante ware in-
terested In the aale of certain lai^s known as the Snipe 7Ake
Vlteat Landa, in Saskatchewan, Canada, and heias deairous of raia*
inv woney in nn adyertiainii eastpaiga for the eale and diopoaltion
•f aaid lands, on Fs^maiy 14« 1918, induced plaintiff to enter
into a contract by falne and fraudulent promises, "and wrongfully
and injuriously contriTinir and int ndin-^ te deeeiTe, defraud and
injure the plaintiff, falsely, fraudulently and deceitfully rep-
resented to the plaintiff that they would repay the sua of ten
thousand dollars out of their ooflmissions from the nala of said
land, at the rate of two dollars ($2.00) for every acre of l&nd
MTM • at
"sn
\
ooc ' 3^^
.«V^l^^^-
M
i'A ti^'r 7i - <rV.
^ ,»Ofv
rcl molaaJlMK- /»• •iMilat k««MMiC#
aoid t>y thwt; th&t tlM said pl&intlff sh«ald hare an latorvtt in
the oparatlon by J. X. Baatklm & Co, of th« lands said by th«
Baid dt fondants, and tho said dofondants agrood that tho said plain-
tiff should sharo in said Int^^irost in a st»i squivalsnt to t«o par
eoat in tho oultiTatlon of all l»;ndB in said Snipo Lako Sistriot
sold toy said dofondants. as fully sot forth in tho oentraot; that
if H oori>eration a^oild be horoaft< r formed to take orer the said
business, as specified in said contrast, that two per oent of the
eapital stook shall toe allotted to the said plaintiff, aud without
any further ccaolderation th«m th^ Aimishiag of tho said sum of
ton thousand dollars, as proTidod for unier the ter^^s of said oon-
tract; that the land tfrev whaat thst was aellinf at two dollars
per Imshel; that the laisd was then worth the narket value of
Id5 p' r acre; that the plaintiff woul4 grow ii^iensely rloh by this
InTostment, and rould triple his iarestistent; that tho defendants
undertook to sell said Snipe Lake ?heat I<ands witl:in 30 days frcn
the date of said eontraet, and that thereby the plaintiff would
haire his iaireet»ent returned to hlis wlt!'J.a do days; that plaintiff
would nerer h&ve an i«v©st'5i«nt Offered hiai that was so well safe*
guarded; thmt bis Inr^i-stflent was tho first derolopsaent enterpris«
in which the plsi-intiff was proteeted fro« unforOsoon doTolopnent
expenditures; that the defendants stated th&t they hi<id expended to
date 129, ono on said lands, and agrssd to inrott the further sws
of $100,000 of their own money in an adYortisiog oaApaiga, exoiu-
sirs of noneys imrested by plaintiff under his contract.
That plaintiff, mot harins seen the land and relying
and oonfiding in the re\>reBontatlons, entered into (a contrast.
«feloh is set up i£ hasf Torba. This oontraot in subatanoc pro«>
..... him 1 o- ^
It
-no-
...» .;. • -^ ^^>»^^^ ^gg
I9\9b hist T^f t'-S
•mi
1: .>»«*
;j:eft»ir(f ttKi
^»frM XlM fti t*«#«*ta0
9ti-— ^099% tm.i\ »(tt ««fr Bumtimmmi mlU Smtit {WJ^sjvs
i r--^— rvz^ fr«/(»«r<nr M« t%t«iliA«tq net tfto^Ar ox
•^ t. .- ■ i^- v »»^«t» •taiiiHi*t»» «(f» ^4fd4 t— Mtrt—tat
▼id«8 that plaintiff «(fy*e8 to oontributtt to d«f«ndAiits the sum
Of 110,000 for thft pMTpw of d«f raying: th« initial «XT>«n»«* of
atfvertlsliair ^b<3L protootlnn the saile of &ld la-nda, which dl«f«»nd*
ante h&d undertaken at the {general SL^ents of J. 3. Housi'ino a: Co.;
that the etoney eo adTaneod should be repuld out of ooasiiaolene
earned }>y defendants at t)ie rate of IS.OO for every uere of lund
so'id cty tlie parties of the eeco'nd p»rt, upon the p&ysaent of the
purehuBO price of $65 per ftcro Iqr the puroh Aser; that pld^lntiff
Ohould haro tm interest oqulTalent to 2 per oort. in the oultlTu.-
tion of all land in the Snipe Ij»k« Bistrlot sold by defendants aus
general sales «.g«nt in behsJlf of J. 15. Houskins % Co., &nd the
0<|Uil])nMiRt therefor, Ani^ that if a. cor oration should \m fomod to
take over the business plaintiff should hi»T« allotted to hia S per
cent, of the eapital etoek. The consent of J, . Kouskins to tbeso
promisee is vritten on the contract.
lElio isiended dool duration also »lle{S;od thttt plaintiff
9&ld the sun of |10,000, and thfitt not less than sixtjr days after
t>ie date of the eontraet defendants atwndonod the enterprise;
that the representations were ess^do hy defendants while knovtine the
sans could rtot he fulfilled. In a seoood eount the declaration
alloiged in addition to the abore that "the said defendants at the
titiM» of entering: into the aiproo'^ient of the I4th day of ?Oi>ruary«
1918, and for a long tiaie prior thereto, acting as the agents of
the said |)laintiff , for and in that udti^lf in a fiduoiary oapaoity,
proflULsod and a^^roed with the plaintiff that they, the defendants,
would, as plaintiff's agent, and i^ile aetlng as tho agents for
and in this behalf of the plaintiff, eeoure the return of his in*
Ttoteent withis sixtr da,ys of the date of the contraet."
vo think the deelaznation failed to state a c&uee of
aotion in frsud and deceit. Ji^raud is a false representation of a
hi-
>->.'. .U '"> "J-
■-<(%■>>.»?
••'»
'rf •&.
•<■;
io4» , ^
ii^ii-^JSiittt'l
1 11 »• . .1 >*~t >i I (>T>^ i»Ti,; «ai«ii;
^o fi.M it /.. '.-•*»!»•< /I •'I «» r«.> ji •• r ^^I><«v 9 i i^n^ kti4> Ai^'v^ ^' ""^tf^M
wftt^rlol f^ot wuAm «lth the intftntion to d«eei7*, vitti knovl«de« of
it* f&leity or with r«olcl«88 disregard of #i«ther it be true or
fiiXoe, upon uhioh the plaintiff relies to his injuzy. The r^pr^^
eenttitlone set forth la the aawnded deolarstion were $1 titer of fu*
ture '.>ccurreriOee Khioh, thod^h false, are not actionable &• fraud*;
,feithley V. Mutual Life In«ur»nof C;^.. 871 111. 584; mere expreee-
ions imA opinione »lto not aoti.ona.blej ^tiawein v« aranTille Nat .
Baxik. 292 111. SCX); and of lOiattere eqti&Tly within the knowledge odf
both parties, or iritmaterl&l; in neither of which eases ure the
•««e aotionaiole. Tuck v. Downing. 76 111, 71.
App«>lltitnt relies much on the theory ih^t the eeoond
ttount «alleir<}e a fiduciary rel^^tionship between the parties. This,
howerer. is mravrwA only as Uie conclueion of the pleader, which is
inaufftoient. Aillir»a v. Ofannoa. 246 111. 98, But even if the
relutionehip were sufficiently averred, plaintiff's contention in
l^ls respect could not be sustained for the reason that it &f-
flr-^atiTely appears froai the ple&tUm that this relationship, if
it existed, w^ not aa essential el@ ^ent but onTty a oollateral
oirou<astt&noe of the tr^Jasaetion. !fhe remedy for the injury set
forth in the declaration is not in this fttrn of motion.
fho jadgmsBt is affirmed,
AffXflEnE9«
Bev«r, :■, J,, and McSurely, .., concur.
"It: "^o 1
:o oi|li*fw«in(
•ill •«<» 0««jka r{aii2«
nmUt mil
i-t^- JRIf^D
tMO«Ml ttiii it iittl
•.I4 #i l»f^* rem '"i^.jo i.'>»/'oen nf-il
If ,qlrfimo <iit <t«f\
/'^lofior
109 . 26765
\
Tsn KmLvm hwns^ co.,
» Cdrporsvtion, V
\ / Al»I*aA.L ntOK IDHICTP-L CODRT
▼«. \
) OP CHIC AGO.
m>-fO-DATS M/.CHXHB'|t)RK?(. / )
a Corporation, \ / )
Appellant jT )
V 223I.A. 637^
MR, JUPTICB ^TCfmrr IMSLIVKHBSD the OPISIOH 0* THl COURT.
In this c&se pl&lntiff ^ppdlleo's st«.t«^ont of olois
allogod the sale and dollTBiy Toy plaintiff to defdnd^nt of 13,480
f««t of S X 6 factory maple flooring at |70 & thou&and foot, with
var tax of $3.22 added, und that no p«^rt of tho purobaee prico had
boon pa id .
Tho dofenda^t sets up in its affidarit of .-av rito aa
allayed dofenso to the \«hole of plalntiff*e do^aarod, f>^ich defenao
i»t Btat<!d to bo that "plaintiff did not dolivor to defendaat
18,400 feet of 2 X 6 flooritm or any other kind of luaber or aor-
dliandise.'' The affidavit farther atates ti^a-t an e^ont of plain-
tiff breu-^ht to defendant's place of loueineaa a trueXlo<^d of
lunber. of an unkno«Ti aatount, and that oa examination it was found
defeetiTo in th«t it wae decayed, warped and un8ala:>le for the pur-
7)080 for which it was ordered, to-wit, *to uee us flooring in the
buildinj^ of defendant," and that the agent of plaintiff "aslced
pomiBSion to leaTs the same upon defendant's pre:tiiee8 until a con-
renient time to remoTo the saaw, whieh roiiUest was granted." and
that "the limber is now en the pre itsee of defendant, subjeot to
the order of plaintiff, und has not been aoeepted and will net be
aoeepted by the defendant."
The oauee was tried by the eetart without a jury and
TFTtr,
«»T»8 . 901
;■*( • i ^ *i '^ J
f^.ln ir. r« *rTr<-
1« ftjMf
89
•If 10
V9-^B Li a
— s n#9o
ei
<««1»^ t« ■•«l-'n«sq g^lt a* WOK Bl «Wv«I mU* #«4t
iBltmVl
f*j»k ao
findinc was for tho xjl&intiff In the eum of f^l296.82« iind Judg-
■•nt onto rod on the finding.
Th« OTldoneo for plblntlff tended to nhow that the
buBlneoB in controToray wfts conducted on behalf of defendant
throu^ ita aeoretary, 'faurey; that April Snd ho executed the
follow! nf order In writing:
"'ieejie enter ovir order for the following: 18,000 feet
8/fl Vaple yaetory Flooring t70. per 1000, delivery when asked."
that at the time of executing the order ''r. Haurey aaid they would
want the lusher in al>eut airty dayej that plaintiff thereupon or-
dered the car of lumber; that the Iwtber arrlTed on the C. B, A
. ride trnok at 13th and Canal streets; that ?faarey asked that
the car be put in the y&rd until he wanted it; that h» was told
it must be unloaded; that he, ^Jaurey, said hif could not handle
it, and h9 w&s told the e^r would be unleaded Ht 18tb and Canal
and thi^^t he could have about & month in vhich to tak^; it; Uiat
about a ajonth liiter l^Saurey infornaed plaintiff thet he could no*
take it; that they had oh ranged their plane and were not go in? to
use it for a while, snd aslted if plaintiff could diepoiee of it;
that ht was told "Ifo," when h® said that defendant would try to
sake plaoe for it on a vacant lot, and later e&id that plaintiff
eould send it in a couple of days; that after three or four leads
vere delivered ^{£».urey stop-ed dellTsry on aeeount, as he eaid, of
lack of Rpace; that he ai^ain was seen '^nd told he oould put more
on top of the pile. %^hen he said to send out the baliusoe, which
was accordingly done.
On the other hand the evidence for the defendant was
to the effect that after s few loads of the lumber were delivered
"^aurey told the driver, "I don't want none of that luaber, it is
tte good, I told hits I cannot use that lunber because it ie not
the lumber 1 ordered. I said, *If you unload that lumber that is
r»t»i3i.'o.!nTj- so sa;T( ' T©^ nmi ftf* fen* ,>1
iti >• »«e«sil> ftlj»«i YUln^ . . .. ,,. ,. oav
tliJalAia *4iiti »i«« nnfi )! Th^»«t « «• #1 ^i) Mtflir atf^K
htt»o 9t htr
«Mt #«»£iifll«l> •f(^ i«7 •f»n*M'r« •fir M«tf t»r '
#•« tit 11 »•«««•¥ t*<f«iiX i«rfl •au ^•nami) t »lrf '
&t your risk. T won^t givo you th« help to unloa4 it, booaus* it
is toad lunoor, aplit and rott«n all OTer.»* 'laur«y furthdr to«-
tifi«« that hd oallftd Mr. K«nilttr Of tJi« plaintiff oosipiB^ny and told
hia tb« sasM thlfig; that ha, X:«ml«r, eald '''TaJfca it in, the driver
is on ths way, I o«nnot stop hica now.* I says, *It «ill be «.t
your ovtn risk if yon do,* so he sayo to tako it ftnd he will eone
&nd see «•." Th? witness fm^tlior euys thc^t hs hud a talk to the
flMie effect with Mr. Car^iohael of the plaintiff eompa^ay, and that
at the tin« the oxtier was r-iTea it %as orally agrwed that defendait
should have lunber of the aaine kind as thut fumi»hed on a prior
order; that this luaher was not of the numsi kind.
?fuch evidence was heard lay the court on hehalf of
the plaintiff to the effect that the luaher was of the kind des»
erihed in ^he written order, and on behalf of defendant to the
•ffeot that it was ravy deieotive and not of the kind prcTioualy
furniehed.
^ think the controlling question under the plnadlnss
is whether the luaber delivered was in fact accepted. As bearing
on this iBf$\j», a letter written by defend&it in rwsponse to the
letter of the attorney for plaintiff, attktin;:- that the account
had been placed in his hands for i^mnedi&te adjustment, is signifi*
cant. The reply states:
"Replyin*.'- to yours of October let in reference to the
claim of the /'aialer Lijsiber Co., nore than forty per cent of this
luBiber is below apuoif ication und ca»iTiot be ueed. ^e t-re will-
in«;: to sot tie our !>ill Just as soun as Xeraler Lumber Co. aake
proper alloriance for the poor lijmuer, \-e have no desire whateo-
ever to <3irter into a lawouit in regard to Uiia lautter, and wish
to settle same to the satisfaction o£ all conoemed,"
The evidence also tends to show that one of defend-
ant's men piled up the lumber; that after it was unloaded defrndant
had Its i«en separate what was considered the best lumber from the
mm^t 1^(it%ti^ xmaaH •*.%«Te lU mfftn Wmm $ltt($ ,«»«mkI %m4 mi
}« •<( ...» ^. ..,,». ' -'-'^'- iii ^#B »•<!««» 1 tX'v lii m» mi
^^•r..■•. 'if .•• ht^A
lOi^
otrfeiiTTi.
.Jbi.i:
:<ii.>
prfj t«
& iMiaiur
»v
•vift
t^iimtt nift.^
.i«M«
V !* -^^bV
.iiml
JavoedJt
:«».'
• lif# \o ^w** i»<T v#'»&'» an<f* ♦nor ,,e.T Tcfn.
-XXiw !•
-oslAri* (n ■fii.-i <i . ,;
'-«
rsat and put it in sap&r&te pll«s. It ileo upiears from the bd»
dltlODf?! !il>iitr»ct ©f the rsconl thut ?*!«n one of tho ozperts who
testified exanlnsd the Innber while the trlel was in psroti^reee,
he found eeyeral piecee of bc^^rd that idaoved new a&w cut <ai;.rke
thereon. Section 48 of the Uniform Palee .'ict, Furd'e Rer.
Stat. 1919, chapter ISlei, p£^« 2665, prorldes:
"The buyer is deeded to h&Te aeoepted goods when he
intiaa&tee to tho eell'^rr th^t he hag aeceptfsd them, or when the
is bare been delirered to h;«, e.nd he does (tny set in rela-
tion to them which is inconsistent with the ownorship of the
seller, oi* *hen, after the l&pse of a rcasonKble tiae, he re-
tains the goods vithout intimating to the seller thut he has
rej!?cted theai."
We think the urt contradicted OYidenee in thi^ c&»«
shows ftcta ef defendant in relation to this luisber -which is in-
eona^stent with the owuerahlp of the seller, ?ind !<«uount in law to
an acceptHi»;e of the goods. It in true that under the prorieions
of the S&les Act, in the absence of expreee or lajilied agreetaent
of the pe-rties, aoenpt».nce of the tfoode miuld not dischurge the
seller from liability for ds!aa,^»«s for bre&ch of &ny profilpe or
warranty in the oontmct to sell; b>5t the defe^idfeat did not stt
up any counter claim in his e^fid&vit of »«rits, nor file liny off-
set, based on th«! brofech of aiiy proraise or vfarr&nty. But eren if
tlM issue had been ruieed by the pleadings, the evidence le so oon<
flictlnu tha-t we would not be able to say that the findinfj of the
triid <Tud^e should be set t^nide. It appoare from the record that
••mples of the Itxmber were brout-ht into court, and pu>v3ittr»d to
the examination of the trl&l Judge. These exhibits hare not b^en
pareserred for our inflpection. The trial court therefore had im-
uoual a^ilTantages for weighing the evidene*. We cannot on this
issue of faet» therefore, say thtit the ju;l«ment Is manifestly
i^ainst tho wei/^ht of the eridenoe.
The jud^^nent is afflrroed. AyriBOTD.
Dever, P. ^'.i «wnd MeSurely, J., concur.
-V4« 9i\: rorrt 91*'
•fi nn
• <-(i <>;{ ;
T-tjti ^ .V . .{ or Wv i>#t> wl t3««:i «. '"
#•• #oa ikiA t'tmiM^lait - trritT%««
IX nvy^ : *m'iiit mii so A*«3^ ,!<»«
(7«, ■>•*'» mr'.S
.•luon
:ir«tf«i»M ha* ,
/f)T
Appellant,
116 . 2«t7S
mtacr «, sscira,
App«mae,
\ ) j^HAL Fncw mmm OR cotrar
Of cooft ccjrrBTY,
223 I.A. 637^
Wn. JtlBTICni ^TGHSTT ©ST.IVIWU TH» OPISIOS 0? THK COTTOI,
Tha plalBtiff in thle ofest suod the defendant In en
&etion on the e«k«« for dema^Mi all«i|ed te hare been 8t» twined bgr
reason of the negleet of the defendant in driving hie auteao'cile
at the Intereeetlon of laSalle and ^tonroe etreeta in the eitgr
of Chieago on June 22, 1918. Jud^raent in the eu^n of IS, 000 van
entered on the Yerdiot of a ^ury in faror or plaintiff, and thie
appeal followed.
Appellant doee net cluin that pl^^lntlff eae guilty of
oontributory ne^lit^enee. Hie .:>rii»olp&l {?ontentlen8 are ths^t s.
elear preponderanee of the OTidenee tends to ehow that defendant
was not futility of aiqr neir^dct proximately teadinrf to okuse the
injuries for which plaintiff sued, had th&t the Judj^toent is for
ea oxoeeeiTe sanount. It is. of oouree, the duty of this court to
examine thft eTidenee and if the Terdiet is clearly and SMuilfestly
againat the weight of it. to aet it aaide.
The accident in question oeourred about 11; 20 a. m.
LaSalle atreet extends north and south, ^lonroe atreet eaat and
«eat. The intf^rseotion of these streets is in the heart of ihn
huainesa Aiatriet of Chioaso* and the condition of traffic at the
ti»o of daar the accident happened aiade tv><$ situation a dangeroiM
one. yor that reason a traffic officer was eintioned t>)«re to
contro the traffic.
Plaintiff was at tb»t ti«e living in sterling, Illin|Bl8,
SrvM • hU
. «v
'AH
^i^ ^KUX
"•tv^ trnttf •«(!• #1 «kjf».
Ian ^pM 1i« itll**?-*
iOfl SMT
t« •Kit
but had \f9n a riaitor to the oity befor« (tnd vat mmttthat fMBiliar
with tb* eonditiOR of tr&rel In the hoart of th« eity. He was walk-
ing north on tha east aide of LaStdle street and when he reaebed
iffonroe street waited for the traffic ts go hia way. When the
idilatle View plaintiff walked alon«( with other pedestrians until,
as he imyBt *^*o first tiimg I knew I was sitting down on sanethlqg
and then up in t^e air, awi ^itmmA up ai>;alttBt another ear." l^e
injury to plaintiff was c^kused \ty the oollision of a Mall truek
driren by a nforem'sent eiapl^ee with a five passenger touring au«
tomoblle driven by the defendant. tThe mail truok was Aoring north
on the east side of lAnallo street; the touring oar wts taoring in
a southerly direction on the west side of the sane street. The
defendant says when he first obserred the inail truetr it was 150
feet south of ^lenree street and was preee«ciing north on a wet pawe-
nent, at a speed of net less than 15 to SO niles an hour; that when
he started south he imt his hand out, ^iTin,<? the proper signal t«
indicate that he was to turn the eornsr; that the streets were
sllpi?exy and that he proeeeded vexy slowly; that when he got within
three feet of the southeast oorner. the ioitenebile was struck ri<7ht
in the center by %}» aall truck; that he was gtHm?, round the corner
at a speed of i»% mere than six or eight miles an hour; tiiut when
his oar was struck it slid orer to the nortl^^east corner of Monroe
sad LaSalle streete. He says, "I was struck with such force thet
I could not control ny car in any direetien; I slid right orer. I
WM«ber ploklng up ftslth and oarryiag hlsi orer. I hit «mother
ear and pinned Sodtli between ray ear and the other."
The drirer of the truck testifies that be was pre«
eeedlng at a speed of about ei^tht miles «n hour, idten &11 of a
sudden this touring ear swung orer In frent of him, right by his
side. He eays. *I tried to aroid; I seen that t>:)ere was no way
htdkmvx Ml awhr tuea fwtt* mi
br.f, i'.'d
ii'Mnt to noitibnm'a •fit -Clhr
.^WlA*' l*«l/« •OUKtl'
'/•; /ncr- no ii«ol» 9*t^^X« ««« I W9M± I ^ii .tm art •«
fa- Of- -...■.-
C<f!r „-^ ,. -^.- ..--.. - ,, .-. ;„-...
tcA* 9ikAi iittxs^ i*?* «?
1$ turn
•ttvi ^tIM^
.TO.
•f f«ttlas mmy fron his* that I vould hartt to hit him," K« »ftjrs
dttf«ad&nt vaa •«in(];lag Mreund th« eoriMr at a «p«ttd of •lf;ht««ii
mlloB P9T hottr, and that he, 4«fendant, did not nthlct his signal,
indieatlng that ho vaa m^m to tnm, did aot put out hi« hand or
blow a horn*
Tho traffle of floor tostifioa that from th« time do*
fondant** autoioobilo andortook to turn from LaSallo otroot to
Xonroo stroot it had tl»o to ^ot on to "^onro* etroot avay froa
tho onieoins truck, ojccopt for tho spood of tho trucv, and that
dofond&nt k<spt goln$ at the samo rata of opood until ho vao
•truok by tho truck j that ho, dofondarit.passod hia« the offieor*
on tho «oit eido. Ton witnoasoo in all tostified to the ooeurronoe,
and it is the eontontlon of the defendant that tho OTerwhelming «oi#it
of tho eridenoo in to tho effect thut tho nogli^onoe of tho truok
drirtr vaa tho aolo cauao of tho plaintiff's iajuxy.
It nay be oonoodod that a propondoranee of tho o^i*
doneo indicates that the driver of tho truok ima ne(;li^oat« but
thia aloas is not eufficiont nooosaerily to indicate that defend-
ant vaa in no respect guilty of eonofurring negli«'!;enoe. ^^o think
that not alone tho testimony of the Kritnoaaoa, but the Taeta and
eiroumatancos, indicate that tho question of whether he waa guilty
of auoh concurring »agligeneo« waa for tho Jury. The oridenco ia
undiaputed that defendant aaw the driTor of the truok ^nd noted
tho apood at which he waa prooeedln>T «^en the truok waa 150 foot
away. The north and south traffic waa than soring in reoTionso to
tho whiatlo of tho tr&ffie officer. If defendant had waited until
thia traffic had passed, it fnay be that the collision would not
lukTO ooourrod.
9X'- C^lMi yiiTjrji 1©
p •.♦■:
"i-WlJ i*
yrtib
.'>? ion .'
« . ~ t. i' .
3 !. r ^4>1S -J 17. J
f» think th« jiary was Justlfl«d in finding thai
d«f*ndant d«eldttd to take til* «h«ao«a of beating tb« txruek, and
for that purpoao ^lado the turn at a epeed nMeh the d«f«n<lant eon*
eedo» «ay haro \»o«n ton alios an hour. It oao a erovdod stroot,
as the noon hour aoproaehod. ^fondant and others then drlTlng
at that plaeo ««r« bound to oxor-riso reaoonaole earo, In vlov of
the apparent oituation. In view of defendant** o«b teatisionjr that
h« saw the truok atmivgf it vaa a question for tho jury to aay
whether a ptjrson in the exorolso of rotasonable eare would have
tried to maki? the turn ^ead of ikB truck, Ae to the ?isinnor in
whioh it tursied. the epo«d, whether b«i signaled the truck, whether
ha kept his oar in control, the erldenoe la confliotlng. Wo har*
road the testliionsr aad vd.thout disouoeing it In detail we are in*
olined to the Tiew that the Tordlet of the Jurjr »ao Justified.
Appellant further oonteMe that owes if defetrdant
wm« negll^nt, hla aegligeneo «a« not tix» proxi'nato cause of
plaintiff's injury, and en this point relies on Selthe ▼, SJSSiSSr
wealth gjlect. Co.. 241 111. S52. He argues that he, defendant,
eeuld not reasonabljr be supposed to anticipate that the tumin«r of
the oorner la the maan^T indleatod would result In Injuzy to the
plaintiff. ''• do not think the authority eited »ppllc«a>le to tho
fkets appMirlag hero. I'he street w£is, as before stated, crowded,
the situation daogeroue, and an ordXtjarlly prudent porson would, wo
think, hare forosooB, not the precise aoclde^^t of course, but that
eoMo such accident Right probably occur, as tn result of defendant**
nogll^ronco.
Appellant next contends that the dacimgos are oxooss*
Its. Tn this rospoet the OTidenoe for tho plaintiff is not eon*
tradietod. ?laintiff at the time of the injury was 4d years of
ago; ho had been crippled in his rin^t log frcm boyhood by hip
To w-
eTA/i Live* o%«'j t
' * • ■ • Mi-. -" » . • ' ;>«"» . HT'
-oi «a. ^;— ,-..
lO ■ r t«fr MffOO
dls«at« and wallced «lth « oanv-« h« Ttorm an •xtenaion shoe eii;ht
or nliw Inehse high, ^fter th« injuxy ho vaa t«k]con to fH. lAiko'o
hoapltal; hl« loft log who loooratod from knoe to the groin. H«
mma oporatad on and was in tho hospital a)»0ttt oo-wn weeks. Aftor
tbtt flrot dressing: he was taken oare of ^ internes. Tlesh was
taken tr«m hie log at different tiates. After lot&Tlng the hospi«
tal he went to his mother's home at PolOp tllinois. He ueed a
oruteh and eane, and six weeks after l^aTln;; the hospital restiated
work as booklcee|>er at a salary of #26 a week, ni$^ lniK ,fave him
pain, and at the tine of iHne trial would beoome nunb. He paid
f9k) to the doctor and dl5 a week for the eare at the hoapital.
After leaTiag ChioaiCO he was treated hy another doctor at Sterling,
Illinois, ehe dresaed the injured llaih about three tl'xes a week
timtil the end of the yeflur. ^Jr, Marsha, the firet attending phy»
aician, testified: *X exas&inod hint and fotind he had lacerai^ted
wounds of the left lower thii^; the skin was torn &ad the snueeles
were torn en the thl^; the wound rec:uired suturing the atiseles
of the thigh and skin, throu>-^h the miscles of the lower p»rt of
the loft thigh. That was on the ineide of the left leg. Tfe
cleaned the dirt out of it. I sewed the lauocles and skin up a»l
drained it. The laoertti on must have been six or seren inches
long and around two inches deep, k w x The popllteus and
pjrrifomis was torn across; that is, the reotus frnoris and the
hloeps fcnerie were torn across, and part of the sartor ius muscle
was torn rig^ht aero8S{ thiit is, torn into the aubstiuace of the
Musole. The function of theee musolos is to extend the k2we at
the thi^. They rotate the knee up, like this, at the thigh;
extend the leg, not the knee, that is fron the leg up. n n m
T know about what hie eendition is. There is a hig sear froa
loss of eubstanoe aerons where t>!« wound was. The leg s>^ows a
T«i"l.^ . AXuPv /or^a /J/«v'.. i-.:^„«9ii 4;i.T a/j«
L.
■V ctft c-
lii>i J ; n.t^>, to- 9111 t>9€fnt
:« ad«</ (rv4il #wn roijia^o. ' <iiT
•; n-%oi itMm
llttla fimctionnl lo»« from the watind. It would be rery haixl
for !*» to CBtinato on tho poroontn^e of funotlon«»l loss in tb«
1««.-
It iB ahftwn by th« «Tidone« tliut tboro •mmm u tplg
coar froi the loao of substt^nco isioroofl whoro th« #ound was. &nd
th&t the coitrt, on objection -tade, rofuBOd to ttllo«. th« iury to
aeo the Injured 11«1». ^e think, in yiev of this eYidenee, «•
cannot eey thnt l^e Tordlct of |5«000 Is so exeeeslre o-s to in-
dicate p&seion or prejudice,
Sotfte instructions asked for by defendant were re*
fused which mljisht well hare been given; but on the whole the
Jury was fully and eorreetly instruated ariii the judgsent Is at"
flmed,
Ammsi>,
Bewer, i. J,, aad VeSurely, J., concur.
o# iiMutrt ,»Js- "lit tAiif
- ~"*r fro #1 — '- '- -' •'■-- *'••=— -'-• '• ■
. t:: v. t ■ • , * iefHt9 1- . ; »Te^
128 - 26788
AOTIB JUmWKt \ ) /
Apswlliutt.
\
CITY Oy GKICftOO, 1
Appelift«.
1 /
COOK COOKTy.
22 3 I.A. 637^
«?». JtBTICl MAlOBF.Tr DaJTJVBRlD TE8 OPIHIQH 0? TFfl^ COtl.tT.
Plaintiff stied th« dof«Rd&nt, City of Chio^Ko, in
h«r deelteratioa alloglnj? th;i;t th« d«fe&(5&nt In uaation, n^j^leot*
InC it« duty, c»r®l«B8ly «t«d nejfflis^-wntly 8iiffer«d a certain aid©-.
valk controlled by it to be "o«t of repitlr and in a broken and
sunken cordltlon" for e long ti,««, a^ll of ^ich it kn«w or vlth
tin* exttrelme af dillgeno* might hare teo*.n} tb«k.t she, pl&lntiff,
««« with due e^x% **l1tins tbereoa wis en sbe eteppod upon a de-
fective -j^art thereof » &tjd was t.>i©r«'b5- throwft down s^nd in^ureAj
tb«t the eidevalk at the point oosaplained of had eustkea in the
defeetire and anrep&ired portion tJ^ereof to a depth of, to-»it,
tvelre inc^iee Iselov t^^e lerel of eaid eldetialk, and that ii pool of
water had been allowed by defendant to fons therein; that at the
tlse of her injwry ioe hMi forued hereon and sno^- h&d ftoetjmulated
thereon «
Befendant pleaded the general issue f^nd plsiintiff of-
fered eTldance tending to nustw-ia the material «.lTei?«tione of her
deelaretiOQ. At the eXoee of pl&intlff's eridenoe the court on
notion of defendant instructed the jury to return a rerdict of
net guilty. I'laintiffe action for «. vasm trial »ae orerruled aod
jud??Rent entered s^cet.is9t her for eeete*
It le apparent th^^t the court had in «ind the gene ml
rule th*i4t « aiin ioi 'Rlity ie not, under the la« of thle State, liable
V
\
MSl,
for vihut ttrei <t6>llftd "slipping aooidonte,* th«.t is. injuri«e r«*
■ttltiivr from the tesxpor&sy sliiperixMisa of sidewalk or stroet
resulti-of fro'vs tvaturftl caueoo; but tha&t rule doo» not ebt&ln
ti4i v« under9t&-nd it where, us b«re. the eviflenee tends to shew
tbut the slipi^ery conditit^n of the si dewtilk concurs with n defect
therein, without which defeet the Jury might reasonably find the
Injury itould not hare ocerjirred. CI t v, <?f ChioS|^o ▼. Chace. 33
111. kpv,, 65ij gi^nOBd ▼. MfcTseilleg. 190 111, Apsn 2?7; prt^Cftse
^* City of Chicago. 19.? 111. Apr,, f^, ^ A. R, L, 1150.
Defend^tt b&s not (Appeared in behalf of the jttd^sMnt
entered in its favt>r. The Jtidf^awnt is x«Teraed and the cuuse re-
Bumded for a,nother trial,
anrar, p. J,, ttad ««Surely, J., concur.
■•(ft •! slmol '"J .•«iNl ■« «tt*/<i» #J teAtcttteu #« •«
•«« *«tfA9 aiff brut \kftm err »x «:
t • -1 ->»• » *. * »
,1ii-M(r
iMVCttV k^
149 - 26808
0L9A WILTJAMSOS, \
App«ilt«,
TRAME KAPLAl,
\
Appellai^.
) ff'.FmM. FROM 8UPIRI0R COURT
OF COCBC CtXHSTT,
22 3I«A. 637'^
KR. JITSTICB miCiaWT DKI-IVBRSD THl 0PINI05 OF THB COURT.
Pl&intlff below 8ti«d the defendant alleging in her
declaration th&t on September 3« 1914, ehe was walklm; on a side-
walk on Randolph street at the Intersection of Orten street and
in the exercise of reasonable care, when defendant, by his servant,
negligently aanan^ed and drore n horse and btiggy alec^ Sreen street,
and that through his negligence the horse and bu^^^y eo&lided with
plaintiff, injuring her. Defendant pleaded the general issue.
The case has been tviee tried. On the first trial
the jury disagreed, and on the last one the Jury found the defendant
guilty and assessed plalntiff*s damafres at the sum of $1,000, for
sbioh saeunt Jstdgaent was entered.
It is the principal contention of appellant that the
fwrdiet is against the manifest weight of the ewidenee, and that
at any rate, under the rule announeed in Peas lee r. 31ass. 61
111,, 94, the (^utrntum of affimative proof necessaxy to sustain the
Terdiet was not produced, and that the judgment should therefore be
rerersed.
plaintiff testified in substance that at the ti<ae in
question she was walking eastward on the north side of Randolph
street en the left side of the street; that when she j^ct to dreen
street she stoped off the curb and looked botb ways; that she saw
no Tshloles or buggies going: froa either direction, whereupon she
c> ss . c?^x
If
\
V-^g
«#»««i« n»*irf ^•-'- .1,^-- •a'* <wf *y«T' bn* li«ii«a.i« \ttamfilli^m
tutu t»i>l/<«d is^t^cf tafe •aterf e. .. ... ; ..i.,a« «lif xtsatc^dll #ar'* ^f^^
Itf*^-•'1t€' _ - . :.j:i ano ta^X adi no bttji ,i^*t>£.&.., v^-. : -i^
ij': .OOO.lA "^ Aii it< eaxiAirAh a'^li^rLtXq b»aa*««A hnn \ilLsffi
. b 91 'iJi ■:'■') ft-« Sii9r-bt}' fnvmm slaiiSm
#«-rij 'vhiTa •dt '10 laf^'^av ^aaltooa ait}^ tuntm\* ai totMar
X . ff,^,oJ^ bI kaanwodOft aim odi rtbrnu ,•***[ ynn ^m
&iHt tjc^tsbfl oi tM*AO*orr looxq tvilMntitla lo p/j^ib«y]| aaO .il9 .
o<f anolaioia L>X{foHa itt»ft7>A«t •di i^ictt tirra ,baoiffto<rq Jon ttav ^e!ii»r
.taaitarot
09'fj«Jatfini «i ban liaaJ l^i^nXAlf
liQXoiiaAA )o aMa iftnoa aiU no btumiif mKHlMw mma ado froijaaup
craatO a# ior4 ar^a nar ; Jaat Ji «f^ rial ••amla
■V a of iufaoX it«nii tfitf(; '^ baqca^a aria lavxia
•Ka aaqvrx mTw .soUootlb larfna aierl inlai. aai:niirfd la •aXolrCar o«
stajrted to cross Grsan strset; that ata« was aeeoapAiiled by har
•i8t8r-in-la» (nho was absent froa th« Stute at the tim* of the
trial) and th&t when about two or three feet from the east curb
her 8ister<*in-law called to herj that ehe, i^lalntiff, looked orer
her loft shoulder, when she vas struck by the shafts of defendant's
btiggy, thrown to the street and beeame unconscioue; that the first
thing she remenbered aTter that was that she was sditting on a
box on the sidewalk at the east corner of the intersection, and
that ahe does not remember hew she f^ot there.
The driTer of defendant*8 buggy testified that he was
drlTing the rig of defendant at the time in nueetion; that he was
going south on (Jreen street and to the Maxwell street market; that
the horse ^hieh he drore was sixteen or serenteen years old; that
he drere on the west side of dreen street, p&seed the corner of
(Ireen and Handolpii stre^sts at a speed of about three ailes aa
hour; that a horse drawn truck was inmediately ahead of hi«; that
he did not see plaintiff pr ioi* to the time she was hurt nor after-
wards until he saw her sitting on the box; that neither the horse
nor wagon touched any person at that pl&eo on th&t day; that when
he was in the center of Handoli^ street 8 0:^eon« "hollered" and he
went over to the northeast oomer and stopped; that he then saw
plaintiff sitting on a box in front of m conniissiOB house; but
he denied th« testimony of plaintiff to the effect that he, witness,
had & black eye and referred to it at that time, saying. "Look iriiat
I got?«
Plaintiff's testi'nony as to the fact that she was hit
by a buggy is corroborated by the testimony of one Connors, a do-
tectiTO for the City, und &lso by the sRtbulance phyeiclan at the
Desplaines street station, tiho testified that he was called to the
seem of the aocidont at the tiate in question; that he «ent thero
; tttcti
J L6ia»1»T tnn 9X9 ^c^XtJ ^ Xwid
•1
and found two apparently Injured vo aen, on« of whoa was plain-
tiff; that thoy w«r« ta)c«n to th« OAergency hospital, whore a
euperficial oxaraination i«as made; that they refused to reiaore
their clothing for a aore thoroujsih exaiaination; that be found
an abrasion on plaintiff's left elbow; that he {;aTe her spirits
of aamenla and touched up the parts with tinoture of iodine.
In reeponae to the qu'-stion, "Do you remember the
policeman?? the drirer answered, •! was standing on ttie corner
for five minutes, and the polieeman oane orer to me and asked
if I drove that l>uKgy, and I told him yes."
^Te do not think the doctrine sanounoed in Peasleii
'^' ^lasB< supra, and followed in the oases cited toy appellant
is applicable to titxe state of faets which apxjoars here. It is
true that the driver and plaintiff contradict each other, but
her narratire is atore probu'sle than hie and hetter harmonises
with the undisputed faets of the ease. These fucts. we think,
tend in the «ain to corrohorate the plaintiff, '^e think the
▼erdict of the Jury was Justified by the eridence and that it
was properly instructed us to the law. The Jud<7»ent is af-
firmed,
Tb9nmr, P. J., ^^nd -icSurely, J., concur.
" . 9«t «»li< Mo,i
^Unt" »vr .atofft •>i«ffT .••«o
.•it.;;"' I.: rr
.'sirvfjmltnm c*
^laxfa^:
.imrop , , r, ,x-ft>''
158 - 26817
»S, J, FR/JIK AlHSlflOR}.
aOBHRT S. ABBOIT,
Aplclld/. )
Ap?i?AL man nxjr&ncm. cckj?«
0? ceoK cotmry.
223 lA. 637
ttR. JtmTICI? ^.fCICKTT 1fllT.I?11B!B ms OPIJriOB 0>? TB25 COTfRT,
. tlse appellant brou^rht ^ suit In o^8« a^a.inst Uie
Atf«t3d.ant --ip;}©!!*©, i!ill<!j«tiiaf7 th« prublieation of "falsfi, scbnddl*
•M* »&lieloti«i, 4«f<:iimatory ^^nd libelous atetter" oi and concem-
imt the |>l&inUff, to hia dstass^ge. ?h« sBtttt«r in tiueotioa v&«
iill«^o^ to hare iTecn puuilished in ti<fi "Chicago j^iol'endor* " a
putpBr of vtiieh tiio dufsM^int i» sditor and proprietor, fim
articlft vao h«i&d«<l *I>r. Ar^aetroi^ «lASh«4 in u mlxup." TIm
article it0«lf WAS 3.# follows:
"Pr. J, Pra»k Arraetrong, 1924 'mat :ijik9 Street, lii»vi«g
his offic« and rettidiersce sat 1024 '-©et Lake Street, Chicago,
ie reported to hfe.ve been seriously cut, Frid;*,-/, '.ovc iber
9tli, ■vli^n h@ w«ii>8 4i0cueed of beli^ fsmiilitt-r fcith a 'iaan*s
wif« on :fulton street, Chicikgo, It ic cl.ilRied ih;.t r-r,
AzntstrortsT was w«stmed to dlaeontiime hie fre^u^nt o^^ls at
iii0 r&n xri&iiGe, .-^ud Friday aorniijg wan found in the- house
when he was not ^inewsrii^ a prefeeelonsl call, ireeto
oh^nge. Soter hulsty. Kxit Roc, Y^ithout collur ij-id p^n,
but » deep ipish in hie l^^ok. Park ATeime Hoepital rendere4
mediotkl i»»siati>iiisoe.*'
tiM declare ti en by in^ruendo eha.r^ed VnsiX by the
vords used defendant stwi^nt to ba urjdereteed &s ««tyiftB; th&t
plaintiff h&d 'been piilty of h&Tim improiter eexutd rel«itiOBe
eith the wife of auother sma roeidlast ©n yulton street, etc,
A deeiurrer to pl^i^ntiff *s third amended declaration y&a OTer*
ruled, and defendant there^apon filed u plosi of the igeiieral is-
siue and £&T« ciotlee of oertiiiu »i>&ciiul to&tters u^en «hlol;^ he
vould rely &e a&i<ttare of defenee. to Uxls aetioe plaintiff
ti-rRra
r^^
nrvijor
VXftM - »l
• r7'<i5i/i rr
W
'(•S.-Mu. ..... -^'i'' lio noX»^»t>lIci^s; : . .. .••-CI'*... . .. .
filed H. ep«oltiCL r«plio&tion» •« caill«»d* S* further efforts to
settle the pleudltvice were nitade V either jnn^rty, tmd in tfala se-vii-
tion the eauae »aa iiubmitt< d to u Jury j^hiob, u^fter he&rlo^ tbe
evidence, brow^jht in u verdict of not ^cuilty, op vMch the eourt,
after arerruliag wottoap for b. new trit-l, k--^ • t ^rr at, entered
^vAgiamttt, &nd pletdntiff appesLlB.
Rule 19 of this court re^^uirea thut the brief of ap»
pell tint or of plaintiff in error ahtdl elo&rty ftnd concie-sly st^te
the error reli«j£ on for rovereal. there are sixteen laaaiirmientn of
error <«tt«s.ohed to the record, i».»d the brief of appelXaat doee net
tell u» upon which of these &^pall&33t roliee. The OKtine was »et
for ortt^l «.r4ia»9nt, ^tid from t3%e ot«;tdaent svide b;y oouneif)! t^t thM
tine we gather th&t the &llei^ed erx'or upon %hic^ he reliee i9 that
the court ianrogerly received evidence offered "by defenda-nt over
plaintiff's objootion. The n^iond^td deel,»ratlon v.aa very broad by
Innuendo, and it i» is^pp&^s*&n% the defe^-dajit did not« either by
notice or plea, wtt^uayt to Justify la the tochElcfiil s«n«e. Huch a
plea la in the na.turo of ona In isonfessioa bn.j ?.voidane«, ond ther*
are deeiaions in this i^t^^te which soom to hold tb&t it ought t«
8ts.t6 the ch&rse ti«;t»i»iit the plfciatlff with the 9«tne preoinion a«
aa indiotctont. Cooper v, x.awreuee. 204 Til, App, 26lj povia v.
yriddle . 216 in. 355,
The iciotice, however. di4l sat up (na-tten? of f«et vhich,
if true, tended to oho* thi*i the uordo used did not i<"plj- t>ie
eharse oot up hy %hB inr^aondo of the' dccle^ration; that tha publi-
cation vtas not «i»liaxouely »iu4a; ih&t the cAuee of notion hiA been
releuaad, etnd oort^iB otitor mattora .diich wight proi^r-iy be noa-
aidered by the Jury >n the saitigvition of daia^nieB.
1© •<fni *-i'<« *-»/Cr .£«•&;»▼»« 10^ lift - . _*i» •<<#
vym»)i9 "tc rtoitf* nccv fell rr*l
Y*V4: /sntvllv •o«r»f}i.v» i>»Tu»ftat Xt^afO^Ml tutrte «ifj-
9flti t. Sti^
Tbft pATtloulb^ ruling coapl««.ined of i» that the court,
<»v«r tkitt objection of plaintiff,, posmitiod on* Q>iovs» 0*2t&n»en to
tostify thtit he, tho wit»»OS» at ft date pr^or to th« publluation
I'ijft * awosft^o for tho plaintiff &t plaiatiff'o ofx'ioo; th»t in
r'^snonso tiioroto tho doctor o&lj.«d at tli« bocM of tho vAtncras;
tl««t wh«n h« emw tb» fl-itneoe, in th« preaonc® of the *ife of tho
witi$«oe, MQCuaod hint of imprope^r conduct; thftt pl&^intlff grabbod
tiiO witness .aii3 t,h« *uta«3»» itaacKod pifeintiff dovn; thwt la tho
flight tvhioh entsuod plk^intlff v«« cut »-ni£l loot blood; th»t tho wifo
of witncMBO 80X«a!.Md and van. out of %h& door, am that tho 'Kitoesa
graubod yliidntiff by th*? colJ.wp a»d toro hi* neotetie off; that
piifcintiff »« auto:40toilo xe&» th&n in. front of the houso, urid tha,t «
im»l?er of persons w&m in tho aoig^tt/Orhood u.t (ho tiae. I'he
plaintiff ^soirod to strike oust ttoio ovid«snoe on tho ground that it
vao not ad.aLi«Bi'alo, bo<»«:^ua« no ploii of ^tietlf ie^tion had beon
filod, To do aot th4i*ic W»o court erred is this reupect,
jDoftttsdant reli»-^d on the B^-t^'Ci&l ja^tt^rs set up xa hio
notieo, whioh, u»dor aoctlon 46 of 'tho Pra.etio« &ot, Hurd*e Rot.
St&t. 1919, isiago 2Sa5« he iaight properly do, ida-xatiff did not
•♦ok to huTw th® owffioionoy of the notico toetod prior to tho
hoariog by demurrer or otxior«ioe. On the corrtraxy ho unnecoaoarily
filod m. ropli cation to it. Tho eridmnots- «&s, wo thintc^ ud^issit)!*
undor this notico, not for the purpose of Juotif ication; &«t on
other iesuoe whicii it was the duty of the jury t^ pues on. If the
pltd.atiff f«iti.r9& tb^t the jury alifht ro«*.rHi this ovidenco <*« tending
to i>roire Jiiatifloatioa, be obould ruA-re ^.akod & proper motructioa ia
that ro{$t:a!d. Tii% iicui true tl one i».v® not «vbetraGt«d« &nd ror »u^t w«
know euch i^ai instruotioa may har^ boon »o%u '.atod and 0:ir«a by the
court.
Tho ^udijsMWjt ia aJTfirniod. ASFtUfflin
Tmrmr, p. j.. «nd nc-urely. r.. conm,/
xmr4f
*niv»
Ti^tAat
ni « «arf.
167 - 26d2«
Bn»/.«iv ?. Bus;|,
100X8 8. C09ai.
■xr^AL WBBm WWICTfAT. COTJfRT
OF CHICAOO.
22 3 I-A. S3 8^
«»• Jtfsncs «at(:r»tt 03r.Tvsi?»n trae opijiion o^ fai cotrt.
This «ft« aa flietioia In foreible detainer. There mts
6 trial lay jwry, & verdict for the plaintiff and juagment entered
thtrvon. The one ieaue of f&ct in the OMie was whether ia certain
ol&use in the le&se «hlch required either p^rty to ^^^ive a sixty
day notioe la order to termin;ats tim tea&ney wut erased prior to
the execution of the Xeaee,
fh» wltnese Tlugiaer testified that be «ks forrwrly a
part owner of the preraijses and drsifted the lease In iiueetionj that
the lease at the tine of the tri^l was in the 8i».«a for<a &» when it
eume hack froii the defendant; th5*t fc©, tlie wltneee, struck out the
sixty day clause when h® wrote the lease. On erose'^exaiai nation be
•aid he did not submit the lease to defendant persontaiy« but
placed it in the tafAxl l)ox and that he found the lease returned to
hiia in hie ntail box.
To the contraxy defendant testified that the lease
vas not in ths same condition as when be signed it; th&t the leass
be signed ;Ud m»t contain any erasurs; end that the sixty iny
clause in the lease vas not erased at the ti»e he signed it. He
further denied that he had reeeiyed a copy of the lease.
It is the oontention of defendant that the evidence as
to the erasure is eveiily balit3>noed« an<l the verdict should have
been for the defendant under the rule stated ia .'-easlee v. glass.
dC^^U " vol
.ffr-'- .• rtis rjrx.
•^w ■ ■ •
-ii^ nil axtfAlo
61 III, 95, followed In H>necy t. VugSL* ^^^ Til. Apo, 690, and
many subsequent cases. '^e do not think th&t rule applicable to
the facte In thle cage. Fltvgner, who testified for plulntiff,
had sold hie Intereet In tbe premises and woe therefore «*. dlsin-
tereeted witnese. The defendant, neeesaarily, «tts not.
further, it t^rpears that the origin«il lease wae in
eridenoe and suliKalttdd to the jury, but it has not ilMten f/reeeryed
in the reconl for our inspection. Its lihyBtcjta condition way,
for feu^rbt w« can say, have had great w«if^ht »ith the Jury, and
propwjrly eo,
Apriolxant also contends that the court erred In in»
etn^ctins^ the Jury. The record^ however, doee not i^ov any oV-
Jeotlon ^iSide by hi« at th« tim^, and we think there was no error
which could have in any way confused the Jury as to the Issue,
Appellant furth^er contends th&.t there is no evidenee
ttiat defendant is the owner of the premises , There is evidence of
the relation of landlord amt tenant between the oartiee, and under
a fsmiliar rule defendant is eo topped, Cax„t.e.r v. ^^ar shall. 72
111, 609; Knefel v, ,:;aly. 91 111. App. 321.
The Judigment is affirmed,
Bever, Y, J,, and MoSurely, J*, concur.
^tMisa^Ll net teOi^aM oelw ^nm.: > 'i ni Bf^t uU
i^#vncMnt «9«<^ fa, tut ti xvt 9tf^ ^ k9^$tmta* bm» wtm^Stf
-«io to* iv*?"
ions Ot; Miv ^t^tii jCmaW.
,((fn^frv[
o aoc*o ail
./ ' * t •
.An^i'f^a aX lC»»5jti''
rtit%tnfn
til) X'^ll
■[9iuB^i
1T« - BS8S5
8 \
\
AppeilOQ,
0? CHiCAao.
um» n, HA»n,
AppelXlnt.
223 I.A. 638
-^w
Ita. JUBTICF, CATCJ^TT BRLIVISHSn THE OPIJfflOK Of TH COURT.
The pl&lntlff «ued on a prowls sory not* for t^jo som
•f f!SC'''*0,00, vrlth intsrect at the Tt^Xt- of 6 p<»r cent per'«innuTi,
fi»a .Tune 5th, 191t>, This noto w»b fna.d« on e&itf June Sth by
th« d«f«nd«Bt to the ©rder of on« I. 1. Wilson, end wa» V>y iiald
Vilson dluly ^ndoreod prior to its dsliveiy to the plaint Iff.
Tho affidavit of 'merits »idmitted the executloi of tbo
iaetriJt'j^ont aued on, but Ian led th«t defendant had jrecolred any
cone ideratl on for the note exee'^)t the sum of $5C0, It further
••t up that about the Ist of ^ebninry, 1''19* I. (}. Vilson wae the
agent of %■ eert^in JBinlng ocpspany and sAeo the af?<?nt of one rotter,
irihe wRs the !SH.n&,-er of th&t cos^pany; that Potter and "Rilaon en-
tered into nef^otifttioaa with the defendant for the purpose of eell-
lB|r to defendant &nd ©there ^seoclnted with hlw a ^mijcrity of the
•took of said corporation; thut the minln«ir proj>erty in tiueetioii
h«4 prior to th« or^iRJilsetion of the corrjoration been the property
of TsiemonB Irnown ;e "The Jenkln* heir*;* that Potter entared into
an ajjres'nent with thp said lielro wfafsrehy he ««?reed to foxn a cor-
poration to talBo over this Minim? nroperty and to iaeue to the
h©lr« fflOO.OOO of the wtoclr of the oorporati'on in payment tvs
properties, v/cth the understantSSaf that tiald heir* wonld pnt up
this Btoek vlth Potter, -«ho agreed to sel It &nd turn over the
proeeeds to the hf»lre} that the property waa not to be deeded to
this proposed eorperatloa until the eaid steok had xi^iVti sold aaA
8sa»s » irx
^^
880 .A, i
\
•rj ,
10"! ff;>e
-III* yiifmi
jy^t? ^-r
& iin»&ttmriMii
> y* ^o yil'*.' ... __,, -. ...
'ft 9^0^
I, #119 Ml'
• •<-' •» !)•»•
btu kl99 t»0<S hMd i(»«t9 hlmm frrfi lllwr «el#jr
y M^9tti
aeeount^d for; tbot th« stock and d««d« nimrm olae«d In •acrow for
that purpovtt. and th&% wh«n #85,000 hud been paid to sail iaelrt
the d60d8 uoiild pftiia to tb« corportition for th« purpose of record;
tli&t the corporation hoA no other !;<rop«rty of T&lue; that Potter
■ureed to make certain deferred pay<sento to the ht^irs, tend ia the
eTont of failure eo to do. the «*f^e«aent to transfer all pro parties
vao to becoae mill and Toid and the proporty lect to the corpora*
tien; that prior to Jtine Int. 191S. Potter and others had atade all
the accrued pRj-fonts a« agreed { that dafendant riade an li^roeu'^mt
with T, 0. llleon &» th' «M?ent ©f I'Ottor &nd the mlninjc coapany,
vbereby defendant i» feehulf of hiwaelf and othero usas to purchaoo
§00, 0(.>0 ah^ree of e&ld ntoek on condition th&t defendant's ^nining
engineer should find eertsln re presentations siade Kith refsrrinco
to the property to b»» trtte; and if tho sacw should be found n&tia-
factory to defendimt; th-' t the plaintiff was & stockholder and di-
rector of the mining cty%pi».ny and toad knc^led^re of il' these fc.etoj
that X'otter wtm about to default on one of th« payRse-ta to the
Jehkins heirs, whereby tho proiMsrty Rould be lost; that plaintiff
uriired deferdat^t to nake a trip to the property speedily; that do*
fondant vas adTi«(ttd by Wilson that hd had talked vith the plaintiff
and that if defendant would m&kn the note tor the uaount needed ^
Potter and the oort^oration he, T;ar8or^, «^uld n^iso the ^ecey oa
said note for this purposo; that plaintxff vn» udTicod by t ilsoa
of the oi roil ms tun cos under wbi^ be ii«LO sakxng the note, which it
was aisroed would be returned to hin if tho propnrty should not bo
oatiefactory to dofondant; that oa tho 24th day of 'Uifuct, 1919,
defendant 7101 ted tho propertxee, which vero not as represented;
that bo tlioreupoa notified the cossparqr th&t he i^ould not nroeeod,
and de-aandod the return of the note or the Oiiuiralent therwof,
iftiioh was refuKOd.
tn: .rxix-/ «fa«it*« M^'x*'^*!* tti^t^*^ j t;a«tap
•ArMi<^:'<do oAt at #«9J[ v^«io'iq iMli te« bi9T iMut Sim «ti«»ad ot ■•#
XI* «Mr i^i«( «T9iU« JNm Y^^tV/ .C£9£ ,^«/ MWV o> -Mtvq *«K^ :n«t4
X^i ^»Af»r '^ •'<♦ N»»»
7h« partiaa suliailtted their •Tidttnee tmn6lm: to
•uvtBilR th«lr reoTtectiv« eontentxons. The e«\i»« ri&» trjlod "by th«
court without ft Jury a-nd a fi?wilng for tfee plaintiff In the full
acKOunt of the note wcui «&d« «uid Ju(U:ia«nt entered thereon.
On the tribl the plaintiff testified that he bouffht k
the note froan X. 9. lileon uImI gare hln a e&shler*e cheek therefor,
of ft3,000. ntie eheok was produced and is In evidence, dated June
9. 1910. Plaintiff further teetifled that the only telk he had
with Wilnon at the tiae "was to caah that note for hi** and flfir*
hl« the aORi«y for it,* Plaintiff weui later called hy the defend-
ant under eeetioa 33 of the tlttnicipta Court aet» &-nd denied in de-
tail any euoh kaowladc* a« w»» set tip in defend&'it'e affidavit of
iteritB, mt on the contrary said that thxve or four dhyn after the
tra£28aetlon the defendant told bi'i, "you oar. int B»»re you a:et your
weney , "
Defesidant teatified &e to ihe <!ircur!)BV^»ees under
^ieJi the note waa made fend delivered, hi« t«»t-iaony in genjiral
tendln' to auetain the alleg&tioBs of the affidavit of awirite.
Wilson i^so teetified nnd '?otter*8 depoeitian vihb taken.
We think it ie ®8tas?li«h#d hy a preponderance of the
evider^ee that the defendant knew when he »ade the note that it was
to fe« negotiated and the proceeds thereof ueed in !?j^ia*ir the «at«
pensea of hie trip to the «aine« trnd in nskina^ pa'-Teent to the
Jenkins he ire. the evidence does not eetablieh that the note was
to be retnmed to hla in ease his examination of the property
proved to he unsatiefsictory, or th&.t it »«s (Jelivered nr>on such
condltloa^ Section SJi of tim Hfegotl&ble Ia8trume):-ts Act, Hurd't
Rev. Stat. 1919, p. 2028, provides:
iitn .
- "■■- ■> » '-.'.T ■ * a. ■■
< h»ltmt %htMt %09 Itt r.»<ffMl ftlC# silt
•»• tri ft«t fj*^i9lK- R0^^»«« tebnr itut
- ■■ vtmttft Hi
•A holder in due couni« la * Isnldor nho hun ta.ken the
inatxt2!sent utider the following; conditions, first, th(<.t th« in«
etrim^nt i» couplet* --.nd r«?jiar upor. its foce. y»coni, th&t
h« become the holder of it before it wai; orerdue ard wit^iout
notico that it h&e been trevioualy «iife>(onor«d, if auch van the
f&ct. Third, that hB took it in «ood fttith und for value.
Vourth, th»t at the Xima it »»» negotiiito'l to bim he had no
notice of amy infirsity in the inotnssont, or defect in Urn
title of the person n**?'OtiM.tlnft> it,**
Section 1^5 of the e&ne «et 33revide» in substance ^et
the title of e person who no^otitites »n isiptrusasnt is defective
within the i»«ani3*i?- of the act when he 9bta>in« the InstrrrAont or
mny eij^frmture thereto hy fretwi, dvrewffl, force «.wl fe«r or other
unlawful meiBtte or for jhb ill«ff«l eonelderRtlon; or tphen ho no-
?fOtia.t«e it in breach «f 'faith, or under mjsch cirouastancee 9M
swotint to fraud. Seetlnn f>$ j^roTidee irt »y!;>«tanRce that to con-
stitute notice Of infirtaity in the inatru/aent or defect in the
title of th*: persttn negotiating t>>« «»..««, the p^rtson to vth-iy^. it
ip tiegoti&ted nmst have had ectual notice of th« infirsity or de-
f«ct, or knowledge of such fKOtS thi^t hlg action in ttJcing the
tt^stnm^nt ®»ownt» to hud fslth. Section 57 provide* th»t. «. holder
in dw« ooure* hoMs free from 'iijy defect of prior tit)e fond fr««
fron defenses except ».e tf^v^-'.n notetf; no or« of ivhich defenses is
elsiliaed here.
Th« evidence ^m is* r^nA it shows rlthout contrttdio-
tion thi*.t the a©t« was i:lT«n l>y d»f©nd&at to ^ileon for the express
imrpoBo of heing neffOtiif4t«4l, *»nd th»t woney aiKht be obtai rod User*-
on, ae beforfi! fituted. While the evidence tilso t^otra that tJie gar*
ti»s tH^reed that if uptsm «xai!«ination defendant decided not to ^»uy
the pro?j(»rty, the twto^niil^^ uf the aet« ohould o«s roturned to d«fend-
».nt» it doee not tend to »hOW th«t flt1*»er the note or the %.moaiit
of it v«i» to be returned by L&rson. Th".; proraiae to pay is unoondi-
tional, and evett if p&role evidenee were mdaieBlble to ver/ the terns
of the noto, which it is not (Killer v. ^ells, 4« 111. 46 j ^oaher
V. Rogers. 117 111. 446; Shulta v. 'teyer. 181 III, .'■■pp, 335), euch
im:
^ntita no «v
fTO^^'K:} n ><♦ r
- '--^ **^ p*t' ^
»r " t »
i
4mr«*attnt would not, an w« r«*4 tb« statute, pr**T«nt » r«f«5T«ty
under the fuotn which h«T» i?ivp«iftr,
Sftction S9 o^ th«"» ^potlable In»tru«trta Act, iBM»r».
fETOvides tibttt nn »ceoffl!^odation party le »«• who feaa Bl<?aed th«
lnotnim«nt ae ^m)rftr, drfew?<r, f»oceptor, eiidoroflr, for ♦.h** ,'>nr')o«e
of Icmdins hi» tnwa* to f^&m oth«r person, and th«t mich jt'iTty !■
ll&bl« on th« InBtrumejat to a holdor for vtiliw notwl t)«t»tndlng
•ueh holdttr *t tho time 9f t^ititigr, the instrtmont Vrrtew him to be
Mily »« Aooow^odiition jmrtyj and in o&b« a tyiinMf«r nfter «? turlty
*9i» int«r«d«d "by tlio ttoceai^odation y».rty, notwlt^et&inSim: c»ch
to«ld«r aocjulrod titl« ^fter jaaturity.
^'e tnlnl^u»d«r th* tjndisvatifld f<iet« of t35l« e«^af»,
that dtfondant w*.« an acco'wsiotiati on isaker, i»nd that the plalr;tiff
could r©cdT«r. The »5«d«Tii«r.t is therefor© effljwed,
tSerer, . J., and '^cBtirely, J,, cOROir,
t4f - S»909
nam. s. ro7R» \ )
%
\
WRIGHT COCK,
j AFBlAf TOO« CIRCUIY cotmi 0?
CO;^ CCTHTT,
223 I.A. 638^
IfR. JTTSTTCI5 ^ATClfSTT SSBLTVISH^ TRK 0»n?ia^ 0? TTfy? COTTRT.
f3M «i|^p«llftni» hfir«, «}30 ware <i«f«i-;^d«i.&Ui below, v«r«
flu«d by plaintiff th«r«, th« 4»pp«ll«e hora. In (»n i&ctior. of asauap-
0it. Th« <loelari&ti OB 20C8i9t«4 of t)io eo^i^on count*. Att«.obod
thoroto tmM sea AffldeTit vhi&h iftlXegod, th&t tbo pliilntlff*e el&ia,
ivas on £t.«ooiiat of monay bolon~J.n»; to tbe plaintiff i^lob "is unlav*
tvXly antt tortlouoly hold »nd r«taln«4 b/ the <!lofon(i«a?to to tbo
•oMttat of $8»7t>9.X7«* llao <lool&iution v&s filed July 30th, ma.
1^ o. bill of pftrtloul&m eubooqu^ritly filod the plci^intiff set up
thiit prior to Aiagttot 31, XGliS, th® eat^^to of ^l&rtbA 8. Hill w»«
t3a* •wiM»r of eortftin ro^ eot' to in the eiV of Chlca^, Cook
Gountar« Illiaoio; ths^t th« dofondni^^^to were tnisteeo of o&ld eB>
tsite; tba>t pXia^lntlff, aetiai^ as en^^erit for e&id eetiite, ^etkoed s&ld
real estate a^ i»e entitled to eOt«»l<i;elota of |9, 668.71, frosa whieh
»\m there w^re dednoted eertalajlieburse^ento, tmon tinn: to :l^l,104.96,
lot^ylng du« to the plaintiff for hXs oe^raioslons the avm of '^8, 563.75 {
th<it thQ def«n<l.fent^' on Auy^uet 31, 1916, enene Irtto the Doeeenelon of
•aid last fu&sMNi oum of nonoy. &ik1 that out Of eajLd »uts on th«t da to
thoj paid t'i pl&lntlff $]S,6S4,Sd, t&nd withheld aad retbi^ed the b«il*
aiMMl, aaiouA In^ to th^ sum el6.isied.
The defendants e&cdi filed sej^torate pleas of the geneml
iasuo, and eiMth 1^ affldftvit aet up that he hxA a good wad ateritorious
defease to the *hoie of plaintiff** cia«. ehich was stated to be
M^tm - c»s
t99 X^f
: «rHi<^i.^<>i
^ > . J _ > '
iijiorsi-
thftt tkoy did not tortiounly withhold &ndl r«t*in moiuiy twloa^a^ t«
tib« plaintiff; that th«y »trft net in4«bt«4 to tho plulntiff in any
■un «hutoo«T«y, «4 »llego4 isy hi«i{ &n{$ that, if plaintiff was OTor
•ntitled to angr ooaiponoati on for mervicm ro.'4der«4 the ont^te or to
tho dofond&rito, h« h&d l>««n fully componsatod and paid, Tho issuoo
as tbon aad« up woro tried hy Jury. At the eoiaeluoion of al' tho
tootimony tho dofnnda^tte asked an inutrtiction to find tho isauoo lo
thoir f^Tor, ithich vao doraod. The jux? found thai issuee for the
plaintiff and aoeooaod ^o plaintiff's dia^m^mn at ^e eun of.
:?&, 61^.56, aad the eourt* owrraling a motion for a n&M trial,
jud anient
Ottterod/on the verdict.
Under appropriate aasigiaBMats of error the defend «.nto
oontond here that imder the fvj4i%» of tii» aaee. flret, no Joint
J«4^!:«ient ^ which aMUi of the {lartiee beeaae liuble for the «hele
of the «uROunt ean l&o suat^^ined, i^n& thut this dofenee «ae oTailablo
to defendant* under tltite plea of the ^general is one. although no
plea denyi^ Joint liability was filed. ??ecoadly, they further
eontend that tho Tordiot asd jttd;-moat are manifeetly against the
weight of the oTidenee, &.nd %iM&t u new trial #iOuld have boea
granted by Vn<j court for thtit re&son. Those contentiose roviuiro
im «x»?.i nation of the evidervoo,
^o evidenoe eubnitted in {>l&intiff*o hehalf rests
prlaarily upon hie ow teetlraonj, although it is contended that
the plaintiff's version of tho trtmaaetion is oorroi;or&ted by
evidenoe subTiitted on b^shalf of the defendai^s. The defendants
were exeeutore bad trustees of the eet£it« of 'lartha ":. lUll. The
estate owned a pieoe of propert,v in th« oit:* of Chioaiico, «^ieh it
was ooneidered v^uld he ideal for warehouse purposes provided it
had proper railwgr faeilitieo. Thira property adjoined the north*
weetem Railway Company's tr«oka. il&intiff undertook to neoure
•Ic
•: O*
>t«OB
Witt J«wrtB
9 Ca
th«Mi r«.il«»y f»eilitltt &n<i to aeeuro a 1«m4Mi of thoso pro.nlees
for wbrehouso purpooeo. PTo suooeodod in dolA({ oo, ^nd on June 1,
1916, rondoiHid a t>iXl to tho truatoe for tho oufs of $9,663.91,
OS brok«r*o oow?t lee ions for hi« aonrieoo in thtit rogf;'rd. On Au-
gvttt 30, 1916, dofendiiknt Hill d»m the cheek of tho •st.:^tG! for th»t
aaoiint to the ordor of the plaintiff, which oheok urn* doliTorod to
plaintiff \iy the defendant Cook in Coo)(*e offioo in the Stoolc Sx*
0h«ing0 ^'^iilding on Auji^et 31, 1916. '^Jhllo plaintiff h«i4 been
»b«ut thla v'.-ork eertKi.ln «tdTanc«o i\nA boon m&do to blr«, '%'hioh it
lia4 iMton Agreed should be p&Jld out of thoeo eont-;ti anions, %^hen
•»m«d. After tho check was Jianded to pl?^iatlff ho, plaintiff,
oxpreooed a. Amtht mt to whether tho c»@hior of the b^^nk would
OAOh 00 la.>^ & oheok »t pl«»intiff*0 retiueet. Thereupon defendant
Cook endorood th« cheek $»nd ^mt bis 0, li:. to plaintiff** endoroo*
went of it. ?l«dr3tif.f thon eront to ihe b^i^nk, presented the oheok
to tbe payln? toller, was i^ld Una nmonnt, t^nd broU'.rht the ?9on«y
Wok to Cookfa offioo. Plaintiff teatifisE:
"Aftor the oiJtok ^aa o&ahed I took it to ■'?:r. Cook»»
office and laid it on tJje t&vle, fend I ©Ktid, ♦There it i«.» lie
oeJLd. •Toll, we will fiot t?<oee cash iteas &nd figure it up.* He
took tho 9t»jBh itetao ^vA counted thmi up, end took th&t 4^ount of
aonoy out of the bil:n, and %h^n vhen that van done, he au&de
three piles siFid aaid, •Two-trirde for liill und asyoelf »nd l/3
for you,» s^nd I oaid, ♦'^here do you /;et tliat staff?* He sold
♦Th«it*« th© wa^ it ha« got to be,» and ha did it, and put the
halttnce in the dratwor mid closed it up. 1 e%ld, *l won't stand
for it, it wa« either my money or not *^ cent w&s vey «on^.* I
B&id, 'The estate p^ld it. It is 45. fine way for two trustees
to act. It either belom?;© to 0*0 or to the eetsite,* I mitde
quit© a^ little etay in tho offioo, wsis «*ni5ry ftheut it, but
eould not bolp wyeolf bec&uao he had Isrorago orrer ne, for he
was s director in the comi?Hny of v.hich T w«.a socrr-tury ntyS. that
eott9«.ny owod m» money for raisins 1500,000.*
Asked on oroee osM^niimtion whether prior to the tino
tlM dlTision w&o »s»do ai^thlAi^' was siiid. or was timers i&ny a«tre«4ent
betwacm plaintiff %nd dofoidt^nts th^t the co:%si8»ions should Oe
split equo&lly botwoen theta, i>li«.intiff denied any such aj^reonent or
eonv»r««tion.
'J t'ttpy
-iftlWllA Mli
■^'■Ku r u:.,i '
1o ln04ii»i^
. n fr f </ . . r?
0#
■; j^-*^ ■>
ui-;. ' r:
10 - a'oni'tM
Th« plfibintiff further tOBtificd on cross a>u>i:n^ .srvtion
that thore wa« no difficulty iMttveen hlas »aA Aefonciunt Cook ^e to
the «0ttX«3unt of th« OtoHh Items; th(!;t tho«« sunouttts were udranceA
K»te to M«, tuid in e«i«e the »ehe?iui did not go t^hrough he w&e to
tn»rk it out in some «*y. He further testified that he «n.de ao fur-
ther aention of the st&tter te either defendant fro^ the tiae it oo-
eiirred (the 31et day of /lu^ust, 1^16^ until the l&tter part of
Jaau^xy, 1$1S, althotiuith he repeatedly met ihmn soth and did buei*
ae«s with th«i duriat that time. Repeatiinu<^ on eroea exaiai illation
the ooeurrenee at the tiae hie aeney was taken frost hii»« ae he al»
leges, he eaid, *I had the ^oney on the cheok. I don't think orer
fifteen ainutes when I esu^^e into Cook's office and said, *Here is
the money.* I said, *Let*8 settle up the oaeh ticirets,* and I laid
the aoney on the desk. Mr. Coolc took it and <sounted it» then he
began fif^uria^ the ea»h itS'^s, the» he took the ^naount of the cash
ite--!8 out o the ^oney, then he took the amount of money out ^nti
split it in threo ways, thut as into three e>^ui^ parts, ti.nd. said
•Here is yours,* ami the other two-thirde beionga to Charlie RilX
and ayself.* t said, •'^here do yeu get that stuff?* He said,
•Two-thirds helonga to us und oae-thlrd is youro,* I sfaid, •!
«on*t attend for it,* Th&t is all he said, 4i«5 ha took it, that is ,
two or the piles. Ke handed ae the other one. r took it. T said,
*I don't knoiK irhera you get this stuff, this i» fine treutssent; it
belongs to -jae. T ought to hay-i! a.11 of it or the estate, orje or the
ether. Yeu are aetiag as trustees or t)ie estate, and here you are
grafting turo-tbirde of it here,* tliere «aa aothimi else for mo to
do, because I fli^-ired that half a loaf is better than none. I said,
•I will get tlie other two- 1 birds latar en.* » w n I took tli- one-
thlsrd and went bfeOV to -^y office <itlone, lot*Ting ^^.r. Cook in the
rows. He put the money in his desk drawer asd locked it up. I
deR*t recall whether I s«w tr. Cook that day agi*in or not,"
' '■' . c .
*i/>
[»tf 1^
:«no« •rfl
•i
8
•/1 3
".icc lo ttli»»i ^k lt*rf^ ito«0 »,<J=.ii« Il*a»:t jr»«c;S
On th« contTtkVj Cook t««ti.fi«B tlmt dttf«nd&^t« joxiwd
with plulntlff in the ef forts to d«T«lope the property, u-nd that
plfldntlff tttld he would diTide vith Kill and witness « one-third
to e»oh, of the &^ount he would reeelTo, but that be« plain tiff,
wail not In e finH.nei&l eondltlon to take e&re of hlaself during
the time th«kt he w&s v.eri(iRir on the projeet. snA th<trefore, he
wmild h&ve to hare his liTlm? expensee p&ld; th&t he e&id he would
need at l^^iMit |t30 « wwek, «t.nd the defena&nts agreed to pay hla
that {)^«ount durin,^ tbe ti;B« thut he was working upon this plan,
and Mil ezpenaos that sight be neeeaeairy as ho went itloais; that the
Sorthweetem H<^d at first refused to put in the switoh traolcs,
and plaintiff and defendante quit working o» the proposition; that
plaintiff itfterwards eame h&.ck and told then that he could get the
Korthwestem to reoosnend to the Cent ion Council the passiai; of an
ordinance that would glTe the^ t'^e ri^ht to put in the switehimg
facilities} thai the ssiittor was t^xereupon a^ia taken up, and in-
terriows were n^ with Tarloue aldex^en with reference thereto; that
a corporation was org«tnised. of i^ioh plaintiff was »ade secretary;
that defendsmts continued to jmy plaintiff l30 a week and ^idvanced
aone^ for dinnere, b&Q4«uets, oempiuij^n expeaaes, etc., at which the
siatter wtus proTset^id; that up to the U»e plaintiff bej^an to re*
eeire #!I0 a week &m seoretar:/ of the company, defendants paid bia
|30 a week. l^ie witness testified that On August 31st plaintiff
hlnself fii;ured the different ite<»e of expense* subtracted thea
from the amount Of the eoisMlesion ^nd divided tint bal^ince inte
three parts. He says, "Xr. Roth figured up the baount of the ex-
penses, eubtr^ot^d it from the tot^^ ooaiaieeion, divided the coai-
alssios into three parts, «hioh eetablished the u.^M»unt of two-
thirds* then added to that the i:^mount of these expensee, i»nd counted
out the money, and handed it ovwr to mi, shioh wae for the ex;>eneee«
that is, it was to x«pli*e9 these expe>3fle8 that we had paid out in
mT9t 99 •'•
UMiitu* lie ^«m
•if ,♦<#!♦-: -;i
bli ^ OTiUi cJ aviwj kit
Harl *r . ..„. a»*ii* Bi.^ ..- ...;..-, . ., -<'' ^'■-^- -.
mid t^im . iic^ft^fl «« :<*w e tifit •'TlM
th« ««rly part of that year, on« -third for ^'r. Hill and on«-thlrd
for aiyaolf, T first saw the atonoy he h*d xn my office nfter he
had figured up the amount of the exi^eneee, and the unount of the
ttto-tblrde. Before the figurlftif vae done, I b^d net eeen the aoney
»t all; the fl^iree had been hrou^>:ht out; ^r. Roth took the money
•at of hie pooket, oounted out the stoney thi»t i^ae due In accordi«no«
with the figuree* &nA handed it over to ?ae. I did not have in my
hande at ^ny ti^ae durln.<^ thct interriev th'^ whole cvnojnt' of n^ozsey
that he brought in; T did not oount it; I oounted the isiineunt he p««id
over to lae; I nnrnr h«d the tbxrd, «hleh be kept, in n^r poneeesion."
rhe witnees further testified that he rmt the «eney n the drawer of
hie desk, leieluding the exipeneee and two^irde of the tol&r^ce; th&t
he did not lo«k the drawer; that plaintiff sit no tisae sjade any ohjec-
tiOB; he, plaintiff, aade the division of the snonoy hiraoelf ; th&t he
did not eesy, •'^ere did yow ijet that staff?" th«t ae a mutter of
faeit tt>fter the division wae rmAti, the two %ent out t^ ether; th»t
ao olaln was ssade or, him by plHintlff until eighteen nsontho later,
wiie« plaintiff «ie^ed the witnea^i to give hiai hiss proxy to Tote hie
•took in tlio etoreinre eoaipany; that the witm^^s told hi» he would be
pre»ent and vote the etock himself, &nd thc&t plaintiff tb»n eaid
that if t^ witneoe did not five hi« the ptotl^, "1 will deinvmd of
yen the repayment of the aoney that 1 g«ve y6u at the ti»e the oo»-
miseion w»« received;" that plaintiff then left ttie roo-n, and thut
he h*i.d no furtJ^ter conversation.
The defendant Hill testified the^t he first «et plaintiff
in July or iftiisuet, 1913; that he, plaintiff, then ea^ne to defendant
and aeked ahout putting up a )»ttil43ing on th« Kinxle street property;
that he, plaintiff, eaid, "?'e would try to promote the co-pany and
split three ways,* that le the eubst&nee of wh&t he said; that he,
Hill, was net present when the money wa« broa^Tht in Cook»s oTfioe;
» ^ - -m*^* #x(rft t«» nm% *ii> vvmii^ ,^e«« iMr ma
Mm a«^i It^r- .f frc)4 .tl^Mvtil i(o«r« ttt «t«ir fe<iN» J.n— H
; :(« Aim .a«M •«l»' n*2 oMtf YliiMteX^ t»M 'ift^vf^Mw •«« ttoi«»te
llMiftMil0f» 1 -)«wrA i» xJEW OA
ti0m t4mmt- rjif^'i tuo4M lt9tmM tmm
that a, long tiiao .ftei; wXtnftsci did not rete uer tntt di'%te« bvt after
th« orgttnisatlon of tho corapuny, ho net the plaintiff by »ppolntiBent,
wfaon ol&lntiff told him ho was not goln»? to lot ''tr. Cook "got aw&y
with the OfO;" that ho was sorry to bring hl«t (Hill) Into it. but ho
woo going to |(ot o-Ton vith Cook i£ it took orory bit of money that
ho htt4«
Th« witraoofl furtbor tootifiod with rofearonce to the b-l"
iMHUioo |ior vook, th&t was ^&>do to the plulntlff. ixtsA produced the
ohecke ahotrins oueh pasrmonto. On cross exa-alnation the citneos re-
iteriiktod that in frequent comrsroationo ):>ot«e£Fn hlmnolf. the plain*
tiff and dofffiiidant Cook, it was said thi«.t the co^apnieBion voyld bo
split throe ways, s-ad th»t dofendsmte wera to pwt up the aioney until
It was aeeonplisbod, if poooiblo. the wltnoos Ruff, & partner of
Cook in the practice of low, teotifioB that on the Sli^t oay of Au-
gust, 191fi, ho was In hia office adjoining; the offioo of Cook; thiit
ho did not hoar the eon-vorsation «>otweon Cook and plaintiff, hut did
hatro a eonveroation vith the plaintiff in rogtrd to th<a.t interviev
«nd the division of the !»ouej; th«t l&tor in the day, in the absenoo
of Cook, the plaintiff ea^io back to the office and said to itnees,
•Itiat do you think that cian Cook did? I Oiiid, ♦! don't know,* He
said, 'Co»ao in here, I «a«t to show you,** and that he took the wit-
ness into Cook*s offioe. opened the drawor of Cook's desk and said,
•Cook left here today, 4«.n<S there ia about 16,000 in thct drawer,"
Plaintiff f\irt^)er said to the witness they had Just divided the eom-
siission on the l^ase, and that witness then went out in the ^resonco
of plaintiff, and told the 8tenot:!:r«*nhar to close Cook's door, and
vndor no cireitr!Ui!itano«s allow any one to tmter hio office unti.1 ho
should return. The witnoss further testified th&t the fira <tf Huff
aod Cook had loaned IS'^O to pl&intlff, of »^ileh he had repaid llOOj
that ho afterwards coaled ulaintlff up and iisked him to repay Itj
'^^^ ' UMan^M Mir il
y •-^ ,IXeX .turn
•"^ ^^^^fc 't«»©3 : ci# im^ oft #^w»
•,#ox ••ata Ai «M* 4 .rxci^ cut «bo9' ,»lii»
.o iwmmth •41 t*n«qo .••XIV* «*M««0 mmi m*t»
'•^'' .YviA^^ #tt»rf #l0j[ JCoo.•y«
^\M 4am-
' *• ROlMlK
>^« •MS Ui.
thAt ftt that tliMl plaintiff aaid that Cook had deu>;ltt orosMd hiMj
that in the original arrM^n^enent th«y had ^T««d to dlTidtt ftttoh
en««thlMl; thi»t plttintlff w»« to pose um a eapitfiliet. but th«t
Cook had told i>artlee with whom they were deal ing that inutead of
plaintiff .feeiim a capit«liBt, he wae workinp for Mill land Cook »t
^50 » week, !.nd had thue spoiled bin oh>^e«e of getting & %ig
thlBp; out of the Centr&l Cold Btor»i|;;«; thf^t up to that tint he had
iatei^ed to divide ererythiag three waye with Hill and Cook, out
new h« «ovtId not ^et a da n«d cent of his; th«t he wae going to
fot evezythinc he oould out of it« unci they could paddle thair
oim oanQ«{ a.nd th?it lifter plaintiff told hia that he dlti not have
to ^Irm f?ii:i or Cook arty part of the oo^nniesion; that he et^ahed the
ohfiok and eotild hawe kept the whole of it if he h&d wanted to do
80, but felt they hud done good work and helped him out «hen he
seeded it, and eo ho hfed hrou ht the aoney over a»d giTon it to
Ceok, addl mr, "I am going; to jget even leith that f©l ow if it tukee
the loniii^et day of aiy life."
In rehttttsil plaintiff denied the cotrrereatione to which
Huff testified.
The i&ppell&ate invoke the rule li id dlown in f'eaeelee t,
«1&«8, 61 Tl^. . <?4; Hugycraft ▼. Barie, 49 111., 45S; .Pick v. Swengots.
157 111, /'pp, 68, and tha atibuequewt c»ce» ttdtoering to ths-t rule.
They oay & new trial eheuld hare been granted heeauee the verdiot
roots upon the uneupr>ort4>d testiaony of the plaintiff, which le
poeitively contradiated hy the defendante. Appellee contende that
there ie no a.h8olttte rule that the unsupported testitiony of the
plaintiff will not euetain an action, citing ^tyggart r, Pooria py,
Co.. 179 111. ^pT>. 2P9; Knowleo r. rnowlee. 86 tU.. «• Cook ▼.
Wolf. 29€ 111.. 36. Ke file© aaye the bill of except ione, &eiae
a pleading of the teppell^nto, muat be taken aoot fttrexigly ajsainet
fc';-f Sr* fit."
flic: a tufa $uo
^ti 11i.f
app«llRnts; 3rafa^«j« t, H*Mip«fcp.n. 270 711. 259; th«t th« plaintiff
is ttntltlod to thft ben9fit of tba proof mtre^uotd b> th« 4ftf«r.d'-
*****■? fi?old i» ▼. ^ernjpr. 151 Til,, 554; thfct VTldtfnett brouti^ht oat
on eroBS •x«Bitt«>.tion t^nd not Btrloken out on notion, «h«thor
rooponalTO or not, roaalno in tho rocord b* proof; 3 teal 3;^lea
CorporRtion t. Induatrifcil Con'^iggion. 293 111., 439; th&t tbo plain*
tiff i» ontitlod to the benefit of oreiy fuct prorod, i».nd of erory
Infereneo f«ftYertibl« to hla «Lri8lni7 froa tho Avidanoo. /'vaoi^ ai,Fro6t
▼• Strachburokl, 143 111,, 196. All th«8« lust wmnd |)0:nta aoy
b« concodod. ''« hti.iro ^iToa 4iae eons id oration to then. Yot upon »
roTlev of tho whole of the oridenoe, we eoncludo thftit the ▼«>rdiot
la this oaae la olo&rly «ig&inat tlto woli^ht or UiO OYldeneo. iuad the.t
» notion for a now trlul (^ould h&re boon gi%mtod u on that ground.
Tliia is not i«lono bee&uee tho v«!r<iiet rests upon tho vneorroboratod
testlnton^ Of the pl&itstiff, vhleh is do'^lod by tho defo^idan.s. who
»ro in turo corroborated by the tooti sojscy of Huff, but also kioeauao
tho plaintiff tolls i^ story which is improbable. It is inprob«k;.lo
thii^t he %-ould have broiaght the otirren^ to the officre of Cook s-nd
turned it over to hla la tho JAuanar vhieh he relate*, if he were n
faot tho ovner* It is highly Improb&ble th&t one vi'r.o knew he h&d
va absolute ri?jht to such an »«y«nt of aoney %ould h ve quietly »o«
(^uiooood in the atteopt of another to ii»>«T>roprii)^te that noney to
hla ovn use. It is istproh^^blo th«t &ftor eoeh s wrong so pl&intlff
testifies to, h^^d boon committed, the wronged i^'^rson would tor more
tlua a year raeot frosi Ai%' to day t^ose v^o h«4 thus wronged hl^,
without OYon speaJKinj^ of ^e nsitter to then, r-laintiff fiwos a
pleualble «Kou8e &« to one defendant, but not the other. The eheoke
i^loh &n in eTideneo tend to eorrobor«&te defendants' yersdon of the
tre.na«iotlOQ. Their narr&tions are ^ore orofc>^»le fmH oonslstent. '^O
therefore th nit that os the rerdict is manifeatly «wst«inst tho weif^t
of the OTldence. the court should h&TO grunted a new trial*
>l.
•x»u;^ '■
* tfSelSMSi *^ g-<ff* m#W«/f*rr a«
jno«*tll|
» JNIII^V
•ivAlSOriq.'nf (4 il •»l<,.td
j-;;aaai'
wa ■ ;-.i -.¥» TO- r>.» '^i^.ij r
.'4>rfJ •fr'-'
I ..r .. I
S^srrcrr
T»ft C
^f»rt»^
tfilti»<« o
10
Vtt »r« alao of tho opini«n uad^r the facte «ts dlselos'td
Iqr th« eridcnoe, thi*t pl&lntiff '&ll«d to »hot & joint ll^Mllty,
This <i«fon!9e defendants oould iiT4»lI the-'ieelvee 4f« ttlt^ouith ther«
vfifl no speoiul pla«, Impgrla.1 Hotel Co, ▼, Cl*fllw. 175 111., 119;
Sttpre^ne hod^^ of r'nited "■or>c;-i»n v. /uhllce. 129 111, 298. Tt rtoee
sot appe&r, on plaintiff's own teat^ lony, that Hill i^artlclin^tsd in
til* ooenrereJLon of plaintiff's r%oncy. It i7»e unco ntr&dic ted th&t he
reoeived from hie eodefendant onlj ontt-h^^lf uf the j^ount wMeh
plaintiff clwiras Wft» Improperly held by Cooli, a-i^ th^t he wae not
preeent &t the iilleged conroredan. ?li>t,intXff %aiired the 8uppo««d
tort And eiMtd in aesumpeit. He would recover, it at fill, on tho
and
theory thiit defendant* had/r«coived yione^ which eqiait<i.i»l3r belonged
to him. cook, on pl&iT>tlff*s theorj, would be liisiksle for ^-ill.
Hill oould at the ^set be li>ibl« for only one-half of tlie mav t&kea
t»y Cook, But a Joint Jud,JT!t«nt would ssake Kill liaol© for the full
eflH»unt. ^Ull and Cook were not p&rtnere, and %m ple»idinii^e do not
«o allege. Hor is there (my eTidertee which could {^uetify & findiatK
thftt Hill Joined in a piaa to eonT«rt pli^intiff »s ao'iey. k joint
«etiOB (i^ednst Hill '-^vA Gook, therefore, would not lie. I tn portal
Bote! Co, -r, jCilaflln, eu^ru ; TTnit^d ';;'C>r|£^t<?n r, "uhlke. m;pr&;
She^rdeon r. Ho?^I«>h4, 2S -isc., 106; ^t-s^n&hfer, r. Git-oBa. 19 Johns.
427.
For the reaecne ir5<Ji.cuted the jijds^sent tiil. be reverced
and tbs ctuae remandsd.
DCTor, :, J., tnd 'JfcSur«ly, J,, concnr.
tx
A nrr^ 1f»6"y "saiP-T.tti
lo mnt/t fM
/ra^9 «<#
i0n M i/oH
bnB
iS
/
14 • ^Al
lU0aX«Ai\8fAft fDBIZTini8 flft,.
▼. \
/ o< r) ^ Y^
V^jUnXiff in v,rTcv
men 10
223 I.A. 638^
XR, yil!^XtlXH« ^SfZOK 0*OCK'^R tf«liTtr«d ill*
•finion %f th« a»urt.
Fl«ln«iff ¥roufi)it vnit. AgAlaat Ai»f«n4iait t« r«*
«i«f«a4i»At failias t« «i*liT«r to plainilff lmlM>r vhloh Um
lattvr luul pur«luie«4. Xhtfre va« « fln4tag aait J«<tg»»ai ia
favar af plaiinii ff far #;iil,8,43, ta r^'<r9r99 «)ii«h ili« d^faad*
aar praaaeatae %hl» writ af arrer.
yn« raaartf 4iaelaa«a that plaintiff aaa aagaca4 !■
tiui Mtaafaetara 9f furnit«r« a€ i^aaland, i^^Jiohigaa, and tha
dafaadaat in th« lumbar ^•ia«KT la (JMeaea; tkat a rapraaaata*
tiva af iafaadaat aalla4 aa plsiatiff at it* faatary far tlia
purpeaa af ■alXiax lonWr* fharaapaa a arittaa 9T49r t^r
ibraa aar laa4a af aaft alat aas aaaa ant bgr plaintiff and
a«lif«raa ta 4«f«aaaat*a rapT*aantatiTe. it proTidaa far %h»
ra»aa«in« af tiba Itmter lor 4(»faB4aat bafare d^lirarjr to plaia»
tiff at ita tmnt^ry, c»» aar aaa ta ba ahippa4 at aata, aa4
tha ar4ar aaataina4 tha fellawlac; "Sabjeot ta aaippiac 41^
4ara %t «aaa«llatiea if aampla «ar is r«>ociTa4** laaa af %h.»
laabar «aa «Tar 4«iivara4, aaa pl&iatiff baing ablica4 ie f
iato th« narkai and paraHas* lanbar at a highar fvlaa braasht
&-' . >
.»? T*.cfc'i,i'»i J a art >*«!i«ifir t«<i
■ ('« i:sl t{««tf*«l tJl !• tlii-tflflilor fl« fc«XI.
^. .:■ mbtt %mf m£p tjo^
this suit t* r«tt«T«r lis omsnmfifit,
tkitcm !• n» ««iiflAlMi i« tb* amount •f ih« rt— f »,
%ttt th« d«f«iidaRt eeBi«»d»a (1) that iH* vrd^r flTina Vj rl«la*
tiff f«r thu liai1»«r ««• n«T«r aee«9t«4 \f 4«f«a4«nt) (3) that
if tb* dafmttfant )»« aoe^ptcd th« •r<l«>r. It vas net biadiat )»•*
•«tt0« It »*• ttail«t«;ral in t)wt It 4114 tMit r«4|«ir« plaintiff
ta a«o«9t aaA pay for thn Itmbar, and (S) that if tharc ««• a
Mnding aentraot h«i»a«n tha 9artl<>a it va* gaTaniad hjf tha
lawa af Mialiicaa i&ad andar tha ctatata of yfvk6» af that otata
it waa onarafaraaabla haaaaaa that st^tnta yraTiaaa that a oen*
traat far tha purataaaa af iiarehandita far ISO.&C ar isara is in*
▼alid anlaat neiaa neta 9r aLCMwrandtMa ia aignad hy tha partjr ta
ha ahargftd, ana that th re ia no ittdh nata or maaarandtoi ahaafs
^yr th» avid(«nne.
Jtftar tho writ^an arciar awa dalivarad hjr plaintiff ta
4«fandadt*a rapraaantatlTa it aae e«ni !sy tha iatt»r ta (i<»f*nd*
aat in Ohieaga and aftarvarda th«»ra waa eerraspandanaa betaaen
tha partita in r«tf9r0n99 to tha Iwthar. ¥ha d^faadftnt soatania
tlMt tha artar aaa narar aaaaptad baeanaa tha first 1 at tar vrlt-
t«i Iqr dafandant ta piaintlfr, datad fabntargr 81. adriaaa plain-
tiff that dafandant had "a lattar fr^m anr mill* to tha affaat
that thay oould not ra»fHK» th« lumbar basaaaa tha aav aoad far
that pitrpaaa was aut of raynir and oauld not bo uead. And it
vna anccaatftd that thay parait dafan<lani to ship tha Iwabar and
plaintiff ia tha ra«a«wing at a priea af l-l*rc p«»r thauaaad faat
I ant than tha i»riaa aantionad in tha 9r44tr and that fraa thia
ana athar lattaro paa<>:iag bataaaa tha parti *• it appaara that
tha eriiar mic navar aeoaptad bjr ^a dafandaai. It aauld aarra
a« uoaful parpoaa to dlaanoa all af the opTVp^nAmn^^ but tra
thiak it avffiaiant ta aajr apan a earaful Qensidf ration af it
that it alaarljr appaara that bath partiaa thrau^hoat tbo ear*
/^ ^«<^irr«a •#« iJt ••tl'M^ ii(i4 flii*vJMr iwartia— i^xteitf
k' ■ : •. ■ / I -■ »-• w « n .•
bmm tw
• iff/ «<rcl Ifltm hx^' ifMM* 9mht*> '*'*f maA9 %m%i
r«»p«atf«ate« tr«at«<l Xh» natter •• though tli»re «•• • tercftia
•ad tmlm %t th« tbr«r« 4Nur« •t luab«r* tmr the « f«ii«uit la •«•
•f it* l«it«vs ■t«t9»i *0»ii you all** u* to nak* a •ubttlta*
ii9«* *f a 4if •rtat kiad vf lumbar* and in anoVbar asltlag plain-
tiff if th« ord«r eonld nat b« 9aaa4»iad* «hath«r tha ardipr
aat bladiac whan it was aallTarad to <i«f*ndant*i rai>r«^a«Rta»
tiTa at J!4i«hifaa it is unnaeaasary ta daaida b«e«u«a vhora
i* BO dattbt bat tbat ib» earrapfaaditada bctvaan the parti at
•bava that batb plalatitf and dafaadaat oaaaidarad that thara
aaa a blading aaci valid agrf»«n»nt aatarad lata wbarelqr tba
flaiatiff aaa ebllcad te aeoapt aad raealTt tkraa car laada
af lunbar and tha dafeactant aaa obligated to furniah it. fba
aeatxaet mia, tborefora, aat imilateral but «a* bilataral aad
biadiag aa both partiea« ¥h«th<Ar the eontraat aaa a MiatelcoA
PT aa Iliiaeie aaatraot it iwaaterlal b#i9cuB« in no rreat aould
the i'tatttta af frauds appl/ OTea if it ba eaaaidered aa a ¥iahi*
can aeatraat, fpr there ia oaffleient acaaroAda oicned ta taka
it out %t the atatate* Tha aeaaraada eeatiatad af the earrea*
paadeaoa betaaaa tha partiaa.
fha jadfmmt of the Tinloipal <;aart of Sliieag*
ta affiniad*
'T,-
mUutatt m
Mio r. '■
1 K-fi»4» •% .-*j »wj If •las Mm
.-aJLvCtLAa »c
! > .^ << 1
i * !C •»**.?
aw
of It
..< ;l. ,>a ml
.4^-
'aifo» •«
•T-
mH*aft%imm $>
•••Titi
»• ' : »
<«<V«I y'*?*** lU.M*! J '»* ''ifti'U 44BU
«»
.••X
-«#«
•*%■
AjHt
XSfoX
m • 8ft#ot ^
AUQM acntAit
9bm ocunr
'^ ^ o -L.Aa v) O o
r
IB* »Sa»lBlMG iVWmSE Wt9&Mm& A*llv*r*4 tto •plaitttt
•f tlidi ttourt,
|S,e&€> vitib iBt«rett ili«r«*« m% €$ pmr amui fren i<«e«ab«r 1ft.
19C9, anc $a,ceci «!%« lat^r^at at iJhf^ rata vf 73£ per aanaa froa
April 1, 1919. ili<^jr« ««e a ▼•rftiat and Jla4pMii% ia 9lailaUff*a
fsTar far #T^T4C«8t to r?v«raa ahioh 4v>>f«ii4^at prasaaaiaa tM«
writ af •rrar*
tlia raa0r4 iiaalaaf^M tint plaiatif^' aati «afMi4«at
lHi4l Imwrn aa4«aiata4 titr •««« tlaa lfri^w ta tii# aattar* inrrolT»<l
ia tDl* attit; that ia 19C9 4i«»r«n^ at t^(%ti iatf^ri^etatf ia tli« ^tara
SalMrlMil 7anka wooquaaiir, « aar^^c ration, »R<i the Altwra SaWrl^a
H«a«« ^wmfmitft * oar';>rr«ti&a, CeXoraida ecatpanla*. aad tlkat IM
iMNiaa^ plaintif te invest ^3,0€€i ia tlia stook af th^sa taa
aaafanioBt ^ »har«a •f itee fatater aati ir af tkm lattar* flaia-
tiff*a ^eaition is tftat ahca dafvadaat aaui^t ta haTa har iaTsat
th« #9,<;«0 hm tai4 har tlmt turn iatraataaat aaald h» safa« bat
tkai if it fravad atheraiea, h» w»ul4 gaaraataa hmr a«aiaat lasa
ftttfi ae ud r<>fttB4 t« Umr tha ^S.OCO witJ) ttjK itttaraet. Tkercapaa
tka wmmt^ aas »<at Vy piaiatif • wtaa r«al4a4i in Qhioac** U <«•
f«nc»nt at Swirrar. Tolaratfa. Tha Q<?rtifioata« »f ctaelr vara far^
*■ J^fiit •
s
, •*»^ i. \ ^ ■
^ a o '> f
<|r oi
.^CMJUBOltt
Mvl9V«i (|f«*#f«Mi.'N(# «• VftAttt Mitt HAM t«t MaJl^
ia«rai iMf •v«4 ^J «l]»t>M» #B**«itl»ft ••«(« i^taa «i ii«l«l»»<: •*llii
W,r4»4 i« hmw V ^>t* d«f<»ii4lAa%. Th* si**!! in th« t«« ^oayanl^s
]>*t«r pr«T«4 U b* ««rilil«»* and •/ n» t«1u«,» an* sh* th«n(i «••
»ui4c<l ilwt 4«f«iid«nt mak« ct«(i hie gnmrant** antt r«>9«|r Um»
|9*CCG with iiit<^ar»*t «• SKrv^tf* mf'^n^unV 9 1>««itieii «•• tlwi
IM ind«o*d i^ftiBtiff M M«k« th<» InvvcWimii Init UMt IM «id B»t
ia«3r««t*« %« r«>fttnd te»r ito« «en«3r If thti T«iiluf« w*» not • fin*
MMial miaatse. As i« th« $JI,CCC glTwa \v plaintiff to itM «••
t«H(imn% April 1» 1919, this va« •Ti«l«n«»«d Iqr a«r«naant*» premit*
••ry n«t« af iluti 4«t9 4u« aa* /««r af%«r 4«t* with iatf^raat at
tin yar annua* payal>la •«ai*Mia«alljr. Xfei«f« la na oaataatiaa
tkat May fart af tkk« prin^ti^al ar lnt«jr-ftat haa hm'm paid, Imt
ilM dafttnaa Is thAt th« d«»f«»Tid«^nt« «b» aftar«ar4a fi)«T»d ta
0alara4a, «<Riit threuer)» bankrupi^jr aeMdsiliag thl» ItaM and
taa vaa thtraliigr ralaaitad frem pmying this iA4'»l>tedR<i9«.
ThM in»t&nt eaaa »«« Ijroujjht it, th« i:<«p*rior Court
•f Caek; Cauatjr JTuaa 29, 1919. go far •■ it ie matarlal ta
iMT nata4, tlia 4lftfan4»ini f ilatf a plim af tha ea«ai«l iaaua
aa4 tim flva fmx istatata ef ilaitatioaa aad that ha had hactn
diaaharswd im bankruptajr af aay liahiiit/ en tha praKlanary
aata* to tluraa plaaa plaintiff r«pliad tliat an Aacaat ftS,
1919, ana at divara ath#T ti««» ftf4«» that 4ata tha dafandant
Mada a a«v praaiaa that ha Wul4 pajr the plaintiff tha auosiat
aha alalavdi, laauaa wmr9 Jaiaad aad a trial haa hafara a
4«dca r«aultini£ in a varuiot and Jadcmant far tha plaintiff,
thmre ar«r* only ta« paint* af aantravaray Wtvaaa
tha partiaat (I) ahath^r daf»ndant had piarnat<»ad rffpayatant
af tha l9«0Cv() in aaoa tha invaetsiant in tha ""rlorada eoapanlaa
praTad a failura, and (2) whathar aft«>r df'fendftnt'o dl«ahar»ra
in hankiruptey ha wada a naw praaiaa to ^ay th» i^laintiff tha
#9,CC€ prinaipal and lat«r^at vhiQh ah<> al^lna. tha aal/
•«* tmti 9d9 km* •^mulMf on la - ^ «/ pi»Tm t»#«l
liMl tltUM; KMMf MM( «<t«\»li|| 10 ItiPd ititf Ittf '^<i 19 ffsQi ran »^tU
TJJ.^ Ct*
•?*« «SJ*!»n Jf »*?.;•
•^ 4«|-'<«#jm;
.Ax«i ••« •««>
^3
•IM f» 1 X« XII9I«» ^
(0,7 c'
* •^
i?;» t '
.. ..*ijit l*v\*«» .
'■'■" »«•-■•' ■*'
:, 9d
aft Mfl»«* M $mii teii«»ii ItivnlAitt ft«»X«it •« ••«•«
..,'*■••;■' ..r- •■»»• v-
..»•^ ' Art If nr .
tritn»»i»«» in %)i« «aMl ««r« ill* iiiaintiff »a« tjn* 4<f»n4iiRt*
««• mix ihKt ««• effcr^ti •r x>#9«iT*il •» ito* trial.
l»l»illtiff WsUflfftf tkai »h« h*4 kit»»« %hm d«»f«»4*nt
•iad« April 4, 19(4, At viaoM Utttt »h« )ui« •pmi* bu»la««» 4««1*
in^a with him; th»t in M<»ir««1»«r, ItCt, vIm r*e(«iv«4 » l«ii«r
fraai it«f<mdftiit, «h(» «»• ih«n iiYin^ In iMNiTey, vto«r»i« tlu»
49f«n,}ii»\, nmlttr^. h^r %« ««ii<i hin |3,0C<* i* iiiv«ftt in ih« Sol«iw
»d» oom9«iii«»{ thai ah» luttl s»at ^s l^ti*? in • ttatall ]M«t«»
%«ftX'4 «»ji4y \>9X In A trunir «li9r« eis« 1e*fi i% r«r « nunbvr of
y«ar«s tiMit, «k« l«iki«r !!toT«4 ii«>r y<»fti4#i!i<i« iiii<i ihc trank ««•
9l»««4 In » 9%«r9>»T0§m in %h9 V«s«a(»nti tlw^i ik^^r^iiftAr tli^r<»
luid b«<»it « tmrglAzy in the 0ter«*Tc«M« ih« truak 1»rek«» open*
•n<l tK«> l«tliir nii»»ixig« &li« teittiifi«4 that All* r«M«RiV«r«4 the
MtbstAnoo of l;h« l«ti«3r an^ thati ia it 4»f»»(i«int cAid: *%ln41jr
•*«4 «« #9«e0(» t« iaT«at ia Ihm Altera littburlMn 7mm» C««paa/
•liar«« %f »t«elB. i will g«i»rttRt'<<>« yt^a m^HlnMX all 1«cr with
tlia •« vilA r«tttni th« |tA«OC<$ mith slat par a^nt ini*r««t thi^rm^n
alMuAd tkM invaataiant prev* » failar«« i want aentrel 9t tha
aaflii^aajr ana «««t istatra th« viitiag; i»«w«>r an tha steak af tMa
aaayaxgr • * ; that upon r«>««ipt af thia latt«>r she awnt 4afaR4aRt
a Araft far $i,Gee aR4 an SaaaatlMir 14, IftOtt, dafandaiit aaknavl*
a«ga4 raaaiiit af th#> Avaft Ity lattaf* Thla latiar was aff«^ra4
in 9ttdmM(ti an4 is aa fellawat
*9awrar, OeXa. l)aa««bar 16, 1909,
Oliia^'Ca. 1U«
Baftr lUaa BajniMint
X r#affiv»(9 yrur talagran af 14th iaat.,
mn4 ta4«j' r<»e«iTa4 yoir 4raft far tS,€rc, I anale«a
h«ra<^itlst follewlais otaek,-
SC aharac Altttva 8ttlNirl>an Fan» <3a* par valua ...^MGO
le aharaa Altura t^VarWa aa«»« Ca. »ar valua IHjIMt
par talua -«^.— ..^ ♦iCOft
•««
.^esi.n^'t i *iii &a« TTUPi*;.. *
■H/r ' (<■/ til "Watt^ailiw
Mil t« X«il««» tuav i
•tlmnt9*^ .'9391 .ax VMfMr.
T(«
TMtfa
/R*At«*Vnjt
>irt
••'ifX .dl tWaNif>«(i .0l»O .vwwwff*
tn«".
HA441
«4-
Vhlc BtoeJc ie mrUi iMur at l«ast #S,CC|}
t«tey. J b«Xl»v« the b«ck VftXu* 1* <$4.C<C. It 1»
•l>solut9ly 0 rtaln io b» irorih «3,il't «nu le gr^sily
ln«r<»AS« In ys1u« a« tAlvR «r« a*(i«. i f»4>l tb«l
X Will n>9k« It <rorth #t«CCC ia l9v» th«in six •otiihs,
ttad mmn a-ll to« l»nil la mGl4 it will l>««:in te 4rmm
ThfT Alitir* Suburbiin Hoa^t CompAfljr in «
»•« ftoi8p»nj- Ju»i bcu^^;nt ISK «er«» for i^9r,rcc.<f
vltb full wBtvr Tii}ht9 • th<^ rtcclr i figure will go
to |ia(.ic; A «lsMir«.
/h# A^tura £«ilsurb«t) V«m« '^^e. tuna lb««n
»»llinji. Cut of S92 aor»a «riin<»thiac Ilka SCt aaraa
]»ftT9 ba«n t^cXi* ^^«n It in ^ll «eld %kft ataak will
k« wajrth pfltr,
I doa*t bffllaiTa tint you «rv«r auida « aafar
laTft«tim#ftt,« it le bo mid to deubl* and b« safa all tha
tlsa, »• avary tract add grata Tsera TaluaMa whan i»»
pravad b/ th« ptirah«se>jr>
1*11 g«t«ur«Bi«a yea agntlnat laea, will
mur^m ta rafunA yr r prlnel$»al with 6:$ lat(»ra«t
•ltettl<} all agr pradietiona fall, »c yea ara ska**
Itttaly safa*
1 am at h«T« th« rating p<vw-ir( ifclao 4aaix-a
firet aj?tl0n af IC iaya an ih<^ atcek if eff«ra4i
far a&lft,
X will r»i>r.r\ 9To§,r»9m tt^fii i.it&4t tc tl»«*
With a ^arry Chrl»taaiaa« l aai
Youjre T^ry traly*
Wm., Blarkwap, Jr."
Vith this latt<;r war» «noloaa4 tba •<trtifla«t«» of ateek. Caa
v^rtlfluata wa* f«r U aharaa in th# fainaa ocmpsinf, whiab rm»
eita<l "fully paid «ji«« noa*aaa«esa1»la", en« q rtlfiaat* t»r
Aim skMraa aad »nath«r o^rtificata for ana aKar* in tka haaaa
•MtiMiny. Thaaa e'-itifii«»i«a wmtw k«4« aut %• tkia <i«f*adi&Bt and
kgr lUa andara<p>d on th« b«ek to plaintiff. f« th«ir faoa tbay
raoltad <*fully y^aid a«d Boa<»a»»aKsakla.* Plaintiff farther
ta*tlfia4 that on ar atiout l£aroh 3C « 1918, ah« r^a4»lTad a
dlTidand of llCtj tiaat in July* 1915, dafanii«Bt e«ll«^ oa har
at har h«aa i^ Chlaano and disaniaaod aema ath«»r da«lia£a;
that pTir>r te thia tlma ha teld har that the atoak ia th« Oela*
rad« aaa^aalaa waa warthlaac and that th« nortsaKO an tha farsa
(;
»*-
.; i ^^'X'? " ■/ '^Tw '•• \.' -^v; nj '.VI n/
■ .'\t tt»* •*•« fci9« -f '^T* •«
■CI I
-.at,' /r*T
t> 1 A « H» V
•a*) .%*»^Jr) "to r.: lOiSliM* <9t«« t«##«i Vidt (WAV
Iiaifi hn^n fer<iral«»«dt tb»i sh* r«o«I.T»« » L«ti«r from 4|«f«il4»
ttMt <Tttljr 3iti Itlft* 4*f<«nuanl ilTing *t th«& tin* In Chle«c#t
ihai ftfi«r«ord» he «eitii eat •! Hat h«M« an &h«>ridAn Hoiid ftntt
K»ld h# im.r-%0€ to vtAri in • ntm \m»ln*inn »n4 w»i«t«d t« kfMV
if i^Iftlmtlff vevld l»n4 to.i» ffi«n» Monfty for thttt p«rpo»«{ thai
*l sftift, 'yotsi HkTit «lr9«d9r TAry d*»fljr iM d«*Vt m>4 jr*« atMuld
••i ft«k me* for any noRoy*" «ad h« r«^ll«d, **Z intend t« j^d/
yf>u th« |S,t>cr viih aai iii%«r«iit» ilw «£.C«€ vlth •!! iat^r*6t.
If jr«ku vlll 9mXj girit m» tmm m^ntry te Mlp «v »i<».ri this
<i«t«f %itt«« l!«rtaa«* j» 7y««t Ceaya^y X e«(i turvljr p*/ yeu in »
jr««r t»< t*o /tajr« st th« furih««t. *"; Vmt »h« t^n uild %•
dcfs^n^^at, "*W}M»t »beut iJei« c;#l»r»dw iiiv»BtW9ni9 #lt*i «lMai tiM
|l,Cr<;;«t Ittfti »t>oat tUfi AltTm iaT«»i(a«nt of #3,C0CT*» Ji« said.
**X iBi«Rd %6 pajr jr >u litili tb« iiai« and t.i&« <Kl%«rft« tb(i> ^a.CCC^
witk all iaUreat «ad i^ #3,CCC viih all int^retit if /ou will
»al> hsUp ft«' aivtrt thi* Susirftata^ llartftag* Jk Tmet ^emiipanjr*** thai
«h«t afiorwe^^rda leandd hin tfi difff^rmi iloMia $lt€ , lacc, |4CC and
llTQO. K»«JAitt« a i0i»l ef #i*DCi* «hi^,ts lui had cln«« r«>^d. fh« da*
fandaai t««iift«si tj»«i gn-icT ia i>iM«iB^r li, IKt, h« dltJ aai ariia
9lai»tiff a li»ti»y 1« wM«h ha aiaiad thai if i.lai»ilff waul*
iav«»i la.CjvC) )i« w<?ad eaaraai^© .h*r a^aisai l«e«, C^Tioaaljr
ih^ra la na di«s»«i» that ha did wrii« and aaJI th^ lf?ttf»r af
Sa«««»h«r 16 abava Qaot«4. ^a tttTih«;x' i«eiifi.^d that ha had a
aaMTaraailaa wiVn piitiaiiff st the M^xsiwn Hatel an tha BCih
•JT diik of /uiy^, XPlft, aati that hm did nai ihin t«Xl ih« plaia*
iiff ihat ha intaata^d te r7>f»ay har th« •a^CCf and i«i<»r«ei« «Ti«
daaaad iKjr ih» neta, if aha aauid aalca a farihar laaa ia hl«)
tkai iha enljr «oavaraaii&a had «aa*ihai aha had haaa dawa ia Qtm»
Tar and uadRr»iaad ih* baaltruptey paiiiiaa asa rilad aad the fta»»
▼araaiiaa «»« alaa« thai lina. 1 oauid da nathiair uaiil iha
haakrapioy paiiiiee v»« aut af th* »ajr« • » • i ax^laiaad ia har
%tm% tlMjf (tii# iiiittm#jrB) ««>r« cUli fi^htint (th* p«titl«a)
«litf t MM^d net d0 aigrthiiic vnttl that was oat tf ih« woy";
ikftt tlukt «•• all that «»« aaitf an that attbjaat} that nathiag;
ma afti4 ia refarcna* ta tha #9,ror Ivvaatmaai la tha Altura
sta«k mnA tlMt at na tlaia «•• aigrthlag aaiAaliaut any sttarAn*
taa« aa«i that aathing tv»» anid at iHa itarrlaen Motal aaarraar*
aatlan AlMut tain paying tear any mon^y vhatarar] tkat aftar
Ilia filing af tHa patitirn ia iM^nkruptay taa «l«l aat tall
flalmtitf tkat ha vo /id :m/ '^•t' aay maaay axa^pt %hM 99^mnl
mum agsracsiiag 11600 whloli aha laanaA 1UI». Ha farlKer
taatifia* tbat lie did not tall ylaiatiff tha Marlcaffa Im4
)»««n foraolaaad en tlia Allura fama aatf ttaat h» Iraaia af na
■wttfa^a ItalBf fartalaaa4 aa tl3» favMa; tbai li« did aat tall
lilaiatiff tliat tta* 4iTid«adii whleh H<> hsf^ taat har had nat
baen paid Iqt thm Qrapaay Wt ««r« paid avi% af hi a ava i^aaltat*
fha dcfan^aat alaa cffarad in avidfHno« ««;i»iaa af oortaia af tlM
3)ra«aadtne* ia taia iMiakru^tey sattar in Caiifaraia* th« aohadula
•f whialt ahava plaintiff aa an* ti d«f<fn4»Rt*» arf^ditora, ari*
A^aaad %v an oaaaaurad aata far I8IHC* Tha Wnkraptajr pT9O0*'4*
lag ««a iaatittttad Juaa 1, ltl4, la %h* miMm Btataa liiatriat
Oattrt* far tht^ ^artham £4Mtriot ef Califarnia, And aa ar4ar
•f tlMt 0mvkr% aJbawad tliat d«faadaat liad aaaipiltad with all Out
ra4|Mir«M»At» af th« laa ia t*etermn»* ta l»ttRlrruptey ane It vaa
9trAmw«4 %hM% he lia dlaaliarsad tri^m all af fei» praraMa dcto%a
vhieh axiaiad an Juaa 1, 1914 •
OfHfliiiai ia wad' ta th« ruliaea ef i.ha 9aart ia tba
•dtaiaaian af aTidenaa* tteat yihmn plaintiff taatifl«d tliat aha
ha4 r«aaiTad tka lattar ra^aatiat lte<* inir»trv»«>at ttf tita M«G^'
aad ffwaraniaalac Ita vaffwyiattnt la aaaa th« vantar« i?ref4 a
failure, eouaeal far th« daf^ne^at, 1>afar<» tlia eont^aia af iha
••••
«►»( ■ ^ ■• :
•!*•* «%•>. :i . -■•40 •• '^.
•1U
l*ti«r W9T9 Ai»ale»«d, »C4«ht te find tut hjf er«s<»*«j(a«ilA»»
%ien vliwitaiwr plvtniiff r«B«nb«r«<i it* 0»nt«nt«} tluii i^lain*
tiff HM t«0Urii»4 nbf^ b«4 tbin l«tt«r ieK»th»r with atkeui
a A«iS«tt •iii«r I«tt#r« in « pft«t«bo»r4 b«x in « trunk wlaieh ImuI
}m9n Wrclaristtdj ih&t d«i«ad«nt*« eoun»«l Vntm asked* *>•«•
aaa jrevi dasorilM ia tli« aeurt Ka«i Jlnxy any ather yartieular
laiinr that Has miB»iR£ at that ti;«#?* ta which olbjcaiian
araa •aftlaiaAd} tliai ha aXaa a»lr«id pi«inilff durlnc thi« or««»>
asMiiaatiea if ato« had nat iaietifi<»4 at a f«ni«r trial of tto*
oaaa thnt th« l^ttar irtiieh nha «Ial«»d t« haT* last aa« plaaad
In a e«rtala ean<l^ bax at ar «h«rtly aftar tli« ilaa «ha r««
eo'iTad it and that it hiifi nat %««n takan out of th« bas alnaa
that 'im«. Objection to th« fern af thia 9tt«»ticn was aua*
tain»dj tiuit ah« al»0 tnietiflad that «he Had raad tha«t lattara.
a«d eauatal far df^famdant ttoaa a^k^idi "fall us ahet enas you
did ri*>ad** Vv trhloii 9l»jeetlea was »u8t»ia«d« It 1« arc«ad
fran thie that th« ««iiirt aaduljr liaiit«d th« aro»f)««xa»inatloB
•f ttilB witaaas an a vital yaint af tiia oa»a« «a hava axamia*
•d tka r&Qmr4 an till* paint ana fln4 ilMt aftar (?«>m«al far plaia«
tiff ted brought aat th« faot that plaintiff toad rcoaiTad neli
a lattar from d#f»adaat, ticfara galac further with har axaailna*
tion, en ttaa r^^ont 9f eoun»al f»r d#f4»nu«nt fea ere*a*ax«ffilnad
kar Itmtnr^ ftlia wa» j^amitted te •%«!» th* aentants pt thm l9itar.
thk»t af aeuraa, wnn ih4> proo<»r ^r^mtt^rm* Va find uiMin anoh
axamlaatien thet on this pliaaa sf th» aaaa caansal was giTsa
gr«Mt latitttda by tha trial Judca and th«t h« aras»*anuBiaa4
plaintiff in gr««t d«tall and that braught va% aa tlii* oraaa*
awualaatian *ttffi9l«nt ta «ntitl« tb« plaintiff ta thTAaftwr
•tat* th** eent«nt» ©f th« lattar. ta thlnlr th^r# was na snW
ttantial arrar in ti^^ ruling of th« eo >rt*
•r.
had A9liit tfairsi • «1 s«<f ^i«atf»4 < j ••«•* •
iktfl If l«l^ i-^mft « ^« frwItAlvM i«« M««^ "^^v U B^UMiifMa*
j|«»«X<i •«r l«^i •▼sji oi 6««Ia1» Mis ttnlOw xtSi inA4 Mtao
iftl o»t<^ ii*«<« «« IX«T* 4i>:ri(4« 9ftfi > iftmmti99 HUM
!!»«■ aMv ^ai"^ •* .»iJidM»«t< Y'^-^^f «Ai •«» «••
•••••to aiMt («• 9< .,.»>»#«' imdt hms ti^i^h l«<»«i Nl >-^-^"--rq
tla* ooart £aTf^ 9 lomtrueticna r«<9i«««t<^d )qr Um
plttlniiff, IS reqa$«t»d by yi« 4«f«A4»ai« «a<3 S suteitWA
V t^» d(ir«n«iant ««rf! snt;<iifi«U ftdC th«n <!▼«» U ih« Jury*
f inairuoilons $tit't^.a b^ ih» d«f«nd<int mprit r«ft»»«4. ?»«flaittt
la «««« to thf> %hr9ti lnairu«tl»Bt {(&tmi ni plaintiff** r*q[afffit.
Sy en* ef in*»i» tK<^ ««urt ia»trtt«t«a th;^ jujry tfetst wliil* ite«
'bttrdtrn ef preef «*• up^ii %hm plAintift %c pTorm li«r nnf* ^ •
prepeaderitnoa ef x.hf! «Tid<-ne», villi Af ih«> Jvcy feund that ih9
•Tid«Q04« l»*«rinK en bar «•»• pr»peadTKt«d tn h«r f«Ter al*
though \n% •lightly « it wc ild >« »ijfftoi«nt f«r tl)« jviy t«
flad th* ifi)^tt«« la har f^ver. It ia ajrgtt*4 tK«tt thit Inntruo*
tt«a la wreng V«oattR« it in «ff«;^<?t told th«» jury that If tli<^
)»all«'v#«l trtM m pncpondartta** «>f th# rtrid^ne*' th»t plaintiff
prevad M«r ejsa* by p ^r^penaarstwo® «f iiae «'Vidi'n9# a* »tRt«»d
la her d'?«l«r«tte«, it wea'a *ntitl» hwr to a r^rdict, tht-jr^lgr
ignariag th<" dcfi^naa of tha . tatota af Liaitatioas aae tha
diaotstarga ia bankruptoy %n« ti»a r«i>ly of th4» plaintiff aatUag
«fi %h<$ saw pi^aiaa* aaaa ef aKiinh ai»)>«ara trta^ th« d<»olaratiea.
thm iaatraetioa ^ivaa 41 ^i not adrlaa th«» jury tlaat ti^ay abauid
find far th# vlaintiff if ah^i provad har ?ft«a aa all«>g«d ia
liar daelaration, bat it it to th# «ff^et that t^laintiff vaa en*
titlad tc n v^rdlnt if ilii«' JIttry baliarad tliat alA* aa%abli«h«d
har eaaa by » pr^pandorane? af th# f»vid#nee, '^oraav^r th^r
d^^feadnnt ott0r^4 «n iastmetien whl<sh iald th^ Jury thst aa
a maiifir ef lai* it would nat b« n«a«aaary ftr thim to caa«id<rr tlta
(|ttaati*n af dematfea "anlaas an^a until s<n first di>t*rmina that
Xhr^ plaintiff bas aatabliahad hffx <7Aaa by a prfpaad^raaea ar
gr«atar vai^cht •t %hm «vi(ii«>n (?•*•'* This ia^tmatlen th<madda4
that ihm aMK^aat af tha dajitag«>» ahould not b«> arrived at by th«
aa«a»ll^^ "q^atiaat* 'uathed* Tk«* ot^urt atruok thia iKttar out
a»d g*Ta tha iaakraatlaa aa Kodlfi* d. If th^ jre* «aa an; •ryr
•^tft 9tU t ll««Ttli **"" * "• Ik**!**"" -"-^ ' -'"^ -'• '"'
.iot>vp«x K ^., tr*vi,» »i«'»ti ^ _. _i
*l t*!' <^ #0i>ttfiYtlM ' It #lflf KVIMMM
Yiiintrnfn *Kif» ««ii«>i^|in» «4^ ^><<% 9mr9U94
>Oif*rv AJl ,l9ia>««>v - ^ i*i«iaii« hiiemt 9t ^m9tUm%Pi»>^h "^tui lit
<:*u«f« t«A« im^S Vtwu *»)!«i •«Air«« «»w bib tmwljk m»if*inMBmi <M(f
ai h*:gmitm mm •««t'^ «»«( b»vrt«i »<£* Ti lllfr.
Y« ••«lirr<*k«iMi«nNr « ^ Meo Y>Hf »Mi«ii«r0#«« »iMl YtiStrimt^ <mI#
i«»l»»MMl# (feM»Mi*t»t «ll(Y «.«9N«l»iT» •(«* t« Mfl** tf»#*i»^
^U4 Y^ll*/ ■11(1 i««rU« #tv«« a4T .iMNli*] •^■•l#««r* l>»iA«t ■■•»
ti«n nn& whi«)i tli« ««ari c«v« a» a>«tiifl<»«t« t« think th« ftrrer,
if flugr, v«ul4 n«k warraiit • r^vnrSAl of ih« 4ttd«ctn«ni, b»e»us«
ii i(t <tlf>«r upon A ei-n«i49ratiett sf «ai of th* lfi«tnioii««a
t)Mt plAinilff ••Jilt iMii r«<9ftT»r iaiil«»»(' •h# 9>ttt1iH»tt*d t)(#
Hi* 4i««bajri;« in ImnVrtiiii^jr , 1i««nMn« ih« Jurjr v#r' t«)4 in a
nmWr of innijruetlcn* th«i the 4i«f«^n«« «r Vanltruptdy «»• •
Ingal and jpr<»p*r di^'fanv* ie ^ iR««i# ana ihfti >;«f»j'c « n*v
fr»«iB« «eul«l nlrriate thi« 4«>f<^]3K«, »tt«h n«rw pr&Mivn nnst 1h»
■n4e in •i««r ftnd; unn^uiTossl tcnsn and tlmi ih« fact thai def«B(ft»
ant liad gen« throu|{h bankruptoy «n* a»fiontm4i«ta4» and th« Jarjr
vert^ tiMia tald tJMt in th«»a atrea«iat!9n««t ih«/ ah»uX<2 find
th« lenaaa for %h* d^faaiant "nnlanK yau kaliava fr«ai a pw'im
faailajraR««^ er «irr>«t«r vaimht ef iH« «Ti4«ae« that ttoa Attfcni*
ant hat ina#4( a 9l«!tftr naaiialirasftl promiem t& iMmy th« aataunta
Tar vhlon aha tm»9* siaa<» th« fiiins af th« patltiaa in bank*
Tvkp%9jft an4 tUtat if t)t«> Jnry Valiffv«<i frcn tkw avi^lanaa tliat tha
4*fan<sant''« atatiRst^nt In raf rrane* tc r<»payla« tha aiaR«»jr va«
anijr a h«p« ar ax^aatstien «f <s»f<»n(i»nt ti» pay, tH^y aha^altf find
t^r the a<»f»n(laat«
Coatplaint In nlat uuUti t« tha giTing cf an iniBtr«ietl«a
at %h» rai)ue«t ef plaintif t arltftalh told th» Jnry that aa a nnttar
af Ian th« axiitt«no« af a pricr ind bt«4aacB w«» a saffialant
eantldc- ration far s n»« pra«iie« to pii|r tha aiua ina* antt if thogr
lialiavad from th« aTltianoe that th« a^-fnndant pr«nia«e tr pay
tha plaintiff aftar ha aa« adjndiaatad a hankrupt vhatoTor
•naa ha »m*€ har ahon ha fiiaa hi» patltion in ha^kruptay* than
••mica.
. > 1
••*u
,«rft)f«
•jr-^ilr
M«i
\it»«i
'fail*
) h9$ilmlmm»m a»^ 1*! •flirts m
4 IftHl-t
a a^v ^i«vii»«ii«^*' '> u
«•»<;
%*i<4 ti M« «fMii MMM "k^l ^« •# ft-t^^NTft «^fl « «•% flftt#««*Ai«li«0
\h» imrj oi^lit flRA ih<> l«su«« Jer %k« plaintiff sn^i •«•«?•
iMir 4MHmft» at vuQii MM •• ito«y alight tim4 !• «h* iMr «F«a
•ueH lB4i#bicda«»«« Cn* AbJtoticMi Hsti* l« that it immtt nmt re*
quir« thft Jvvjr tr first find ihni th« «}i^f«»ii<S'.int w»» in4«>>t*4
t« plaintiff •« ill* til «|(«4 8H«rBnt««> f*r ih« l9,frf { that
thi0 liftbilltjr van di«pttt(^d| ttrnt th9 Inttnietlon tolC tli*
jwrjr tli^t «1I tli»/ a«<*4 find frrn^ ih«* <»irid<xnQ«? mm that th« d<^f*nd*
ftiit fluida « n*m ptwt^ittm ^t tlwt if did n«t riMjuir* xn«m t« firnt
flad ttt« d«f«Ad^Ht liabXd f«r th# #3,Ctt • V« ttiialr thm i«»true-
tien i» not «tt)>j«»et te tht ebjcetion miA' » Whil« it sifTiit •d«ll>
Ihi iai^roTcd tap&a. it in •ff»«i ield ili« Jat^r %hakt m pri^r is*
d ktddiicdc •%» » »Mffi0i«n% •ea»i4«'r«tittn tt sui»pert th« oaw
]^rttai»« t« pmn %hff plaintiff, ,^ia4 tkat if iJta* Jttrjr balievad
fr€« th« «vidna«« tlkat tlM dcfwa^&At, aftar ha had Wcin adjudged
a iMuikruptt frimimma te ]»«jr plftiniif; «kaiav*r h« ewad h«r yrior
ta the ti«a he filad tiim patitieis in )»aal(ra^i«gr, tHati llk«gr
■l«)it fisd th« laouaa far the ^laiatiff vn4 aaa«»8 h«r daaaffaa
at ttka aiKo lat af au^fe yrier ind^bt«dne««. Ifrea thie it »»;> <<»ar»
tlMit 1»afera the jury aald find ttoa aaaunt af p»l»lntlff*«
daaac'^e tl\«jr «aat find Uii!» aaeunt af th# «ld iad«1»tadna«9 whiab
n«o«arsTily re^airad tlHw, V»far« th«jr ««>ld iaaluda th« |lS,OCt
in thalr T<«rdi«t, te ftna that d«f»«d%nt had agr«>«>d t« r«pay
thia amc^'tnt tc plaintiff in «?)*»« th<^ ^elarade Tpfitar* va* a
failure. .J^a thia¥ th» Jury »<»r9 a«t at all aielad.
fba eaurt alaa tald th0» jusy that tli(?jr vara aai
Wund te bali«Ya an/t^iiaf ta l>« a faat aispljr *ha9ftae« a witn«ag>
■tatad It ta h# ca« provided you baliara frcM tha t««ti«anjr
that tuah witaea* hat t^atili a faldaljr aa ta aueh faat.** It
la eeataadad that this iB»tjru9tiaa ic wren« ia that it aavd tha
aard •ta»ti«eny* iaataad af th-e ward •«vi<i-oo#* and that in tha
r u J 1 ' ' ■*•]
^.'<J i o'f J tn) or^l ••» !«•
tti« tfrvQi of ih« Ifievraetien vn* tc l«ll th* jutjr tlMt ihiqr
**iwijr 41«r«s«r4i iH« (••(iaieiqr of •pp«ll«nt en ftfqr fa«i if %^t
i««tis«a)' i« Q«iitnttfl(}t«4 V tff«ti«ioiii)r cif mj*?*!!***" notvlth*
• tftnAiag i)»At tten •▼«n»h»liaiii4; w«l«ght ef tfeowBMnUirjr «iri4«(M«
alroiMlatRiljr tt«rre1iorftt«A tim d«f»n4«ni* ff« think ihl» iantrv**
U«n <i«li iMt «ii»lft»tf ih« iutf *^ Mil*
«eart %• siv* inttruotica* «ki«)i, t»r eonv«nleA««», w« nuaVvr
'• 4i.6* 6* 7 And •• ineitniaU«« 8 Vdii io tb« •ff«oi ih«t
«h«r» • g«ui,riuit««» 4«p*ad« apea thft hapt^vaing of « e«Btiac«a<|]r
as «lAifli«cl ^ t^a plaintiff, atie ausi prova V * prapoatfar-
aaea «f iik« «iri<iftnoa tlmt »h0 natifiadi Uta euarentor wlth^la
a rvasonabla tiaa af t«r tnm ha|)fi>aaia« of nuoh araat la order
that Mm ^#f«n<j«iat «i«ht pretent hiacalf if ha oeald, aa4
tliat avaa if th« Jury faua« frcrn th« oridcnoa VtmX tlM» writ-
tan 8aari»Rt«« vaa «a<j« by th« <i«f«>nct«nt oo jsialailff olftlKa,
ih«gr aiiaaK fi»« th» ia»a«e for tb<f 4«fantfaai if tltif«jr foattA
froa tha «rid#aea plaintiff faila4 to notify Ma »f tfca
KtapjHiBlag of thKf aontiaganajr* ap^n «hi9)& H« would baoeaa
liabla on kto isttaraataa, within a r^accaablc tiaa eft«r tlta
iMpponini; of naeh ooatingant avant. Ih« iBctiiaoticB is not
oXaav iNtt ombigitteao. It aight h« aiolaaaiac Mia, th^rftnitt^
aao prou«rly r«fUKa4« I'his ia not iik« a oaaa «li«: • tlw
l^uurantey aoiot b* natifiad ¥t tka ftajraa af a aet« that
Haaaad tor {Mnywoat hao baaa a»«la and rofaaa4** irtiaro tha
Cnaraatar is to pf tk<>» d»1»t of Aoattei^r. tfaraavar* ia tka
inotaat oaaa, tha aTid«na« shovo that fl«<f*n(dsat vao e«waaotatf
aith tha Colarada eemfaniao end wo. id natuntlljr Imoa m»f
aliaat thoi affairo of thooa et; paaiao tha^^ tha plaintiff.
Tha inotmatian, va think aaa prei»<»rljr r«fao«»<i. laotruotian
<f«»4f Mia •« ,«»->n«iii«T»«« vol .«l»i»<>if »«i»A#4»«'x4««i fvia •« i-it«»
h»ur ft —wmml «mU Mill kX4»»dji ipMV
miH ntnAti »,^«ir)<»i kMk •feaai •••d ««< ici««tiN tot kHMwi
^J « •. ifl's^r 1^rtl •HO.!)' *4m
4 Mu«ht to %0l\ %^m jMrjr «• » matter •f lav thai «if •
yrtnlMi t» p«jr »n a«ti«n )>«rr«d bj? tb« 4«f«!iidAiit*a 4t»*
elMUrca i|^ ^aekntptey i« nada aondliiraally, th«» aation is not
ftif^ anlvac and until iJa* acadition «ttan«iii« avoh |)ra*
Mia«» if maf» )ia« b««(n fulfUl««** It i« axvaatf that plaxn*
tiff** tff«ii««s^ a« t& th<> a:v preoilaa aa4a ^ it<«f$ntiniit ia
tm% m. «*re •X|ir<^aaiatt af a haya ai* intant timt tha d-^f^ndant
will \9 aMa ta i>ay liia lnA«bta4naa^ ta ylAiatiff »nd, th«ra*
fara, iJilei InstruQticii nhaxld hava baen «iTaa. Tha laatnte*
tiaa w^9 la tha natara pf an a'batrnat s>rapealtien vhiek it
ia navar 9rr^r to r*Pi99* Maraavtr, tte« J«»3r wara inctruet*
ai» at %iw ra^aat af <l«f«ndnnt» tliat ^tufttr^ %h»jf eavli find
fi»r tha (»iaintif'^ •« tha imaation af a nvm ftraaina th«y amat
baliava trem tha tTi4«n<»« that tha pvwniaa ana mada iB elaar
and «n««itivaa«l iairaa, and unlaav' tha inrf haliavad from •
prapend'^rftntta af tha avi4«na« that tha dgfaniawt toact nta^e
mah a ol aar and uvatuivaaal priAiaa t« pa/ plaintiff thajr
aliaai.d find tha i*t!M«n ter tha 4f'>f «>n.»nt« thm 4<tffn^«.nt
••jrininly h»t4 all tha hanafit ha ana antitl«d ta in thaaa
in»trn«tiana« % d««fandaat** r«fna«d inetraatien ft it ,
vaa caught ta tall tha Jury that tha hnrdan 9t proof «na
•pan %hm plaintiff ta preva all mf the iatuaa axaf*pt d«f«a«>
iuit*ff dleaharga in hankruptoj and tha plan af tha ^:tatnta
af JLimitatiana« It is argaad that plaiatiff hr« fight into
th« nasa Igr ropli'^i^'tioa a na« and affirsuktiTO laana in which
aha aat «p tha naw pramiaa ta pay aftar th« diooharea in hank*
ruptay aad tha Statata af Linitatitaa and* thOMfara, tha
Jury ahaald hawa Wra teld that tha hardan waa upon har ta
prowa thif naw prantiaa* tha:» vara tald thla in aaathar inotruo*
tlon te whiah «a hawa h«*r<»tafara raf«rr«d and thia waa aaffi*
aiant* 1^ refaaaa iaatruetion d tba dafandaat naught ta tall
• i - ■
«»ilNl*VA ««# 44iU lM»#«t4 t« wit'
• ■r 1»«^« 1» u^K%mt 9tA$ fmtu «t»i. Mil IS*4 •# 44jiii«t smt
>'«n#»*i -wmM^b* ai »l-ii _--- ^>-* • .4«i««tt «^'" ••<'/ t.'>r:
•1^
th« Jax7 tk»t unl«»H it>«^ found freat ih» ffTidftnoo that
9l»l«tiff wf i«r«4 t« rc'titm th« vtook to d«f ^nttniiit ttiwM
M« p«yiii« th« $I,OC>c with Intwr^Rt i]Mr**n, thf»jr iImuX^
riiKl the luffuffs f«r ite* dafi^ndant. Oinrioaisljr ihl* wb»
lii«0rr«ot b«o^tt«« It «i« »•» •ff»ot ih* *a,ttC tvi4*ii««4
be vorUEk3Le»R ftn<l of ne y«lu«. Xh« mcirueiioa v«« «l«firl7
wroatf. By r«fii»*«l la»trtt«Uon f It w«» cvnght t« t«ll tlw
J«xy itaAt If tb«|r lNlii«iT«d that plaintiff wad 69>^tmnimn% vi»r«
•«i»«ai/ dr«ctiM« irltae«i»«», tb»y 9h«ul4 find f«r th# «»ff»nd«
ami H»»tt th« i|H«»etien of tJli* tt<K« |>ro«l«i« if th* Jury bAlt^T^d
ih«t th« •thftr eTidi»n«« ^•ftj'ing ttfrdn that aubj^dt mi* «T*al7
telAiie«d. IM« inatrttstioii 1> iiiii«l«»tdin«. dftf«Rd«Ht*a
••imBdl SAjr ifei»t It i« dffeet *t«lld th« jury th«t If th*^rd
i« no i^Tid«n9« en ih« Bal}J«et df « ndfw 9r««ii»« axdei^t thai
MMUddtinfi fr«n th« n«utlM ef itt» i»lfti»tiff AJitd d«»f «iiesa«it»
th«B, inftdaash «d t)i« plaintiff affinaid tlMf« was a n«v
frMil0« en th« e«« hxAd, and tkc; sof^di^aBt d#nit« it ftn tlM
• tli«r, and if tl»« plaintiff an«£ th« d«f«»adHfit ard dually
dr«aibl« witn«» ««, it A»9r«eariljr felldvd ttoat ilkd plain*
tiff iia* net isustaind t.t)* l»»rd*n df pr^nt d» thai, idcua**
Xaaif<!*stljr tkis tt]rgtt«sftat id diieeuttct hdd»dd« th« jarjr •heuid
doaei<t«.r all af t'm «\rtdwAA« in th« d««d in d^diding whether
th r' was a Bd« prmai^d* fl«fad«d iRstruetien S wat ad frlldVdt
^Thd dduri iR«trttet» th*?' ^ury as a aattar df lev thai the
lilaintiff oanndi r»»d«T»r an th« l«ti9r af i3»d«5«hai» 16, 19Ct«
in %ifi&fncn in thiv tand*" Of Odurd*, that iattmotidn «aa
dl^nn^r vreng. It »du«sht to dinsl«? eat n l9tt«r dfr^^r^d in
•Tid<me«. &Jtor«>«T«r, thA Jary v^rd indiruttiipd ai d<-f«ndani*c
r<H|Madi that plaintiff ooald n«i reeoTer en thin l«tt«>r a» a
gttariMite« ualeiie th» jury helieved frca the eridende that the
4efen«iftat «rot.« t< plaintiff tha letter thaivvae Idst dr
-ci*
#MU xtmi tU
-Alt' Y %'rn .'^ - ' i^%rm niimmim
stw a' '^J iti'j ' "I <»oft«'.!*» at
•tttXMi* Tl»^«r» vaa n* •rror in ri»f«»i«f iii# iaaimation.
tkti liffmndMnt »1»« vff^rad wi Instmatlrn \c th* cff«et tiwi
it «• Id it«i lti« a«a«cfi«rjr tmr in* jvrjr %• «ea»i«i«r th* <}«•••
Uan af dMia^aa aatil ihajr h4i4 firat 4»%af«laa4 <l«f#n4aiii*a
liability Igr a prafaBAaraaaa ar gr<Mi%«r *ai«(lii af tba avitfwiaac
aa4 if tli« Jitry 41 d 4#taf«i»a ih« <ia«aiiaa ia favar nf Um
iaalailff« ibay ajiouid not nrriTa at th« a«««iit •f 4aakac«a ly
alMt ia e&ll^d th« *ipiatiaiii* maihad* Tlia lalt«r part vaa
•trialrma oitt, altlQlfi i« eVrletitly oarr#oi« fkara ia na raaaan
«<ll|r au«h m att««»«tlaa alumld b«» civaa ta ttia Jury at all, aa4
thmy ««r«> tal4l i« atliAr lnjitrtiati«»ft ha* thcjr ««>r« ta arriTa
at tha a«auRi af aiuaafaa in Q«a« tli«^ aiNroli fliMI tba iaavaa
far tha ^plaintiff.
It Ik alaa nx«a^& iiuit tha aTi«;ifno« fall* ta aiaiw
* nav pr«»ttl&a t« pay plAlfitl:"f| trtmt tM* maot Un(»t s^ui )»a a«i4
fraa tha ariAaaaa la t)iat it wka an «xpr«)aaiaa on behalf 9t
IhM daf an4aiit af «& iatantlaa ^t h§^9 t« my tha aaiattat «lalaa4U
ffa tliiaJt ih*t tlka aaat t^uat e»a ba aai<& ia that thla quastiea
waa fro^«rly laft to vi*0 Jaxy aa«t that thay wtm alaarly iB»
atrttctad aa thia paiat i« thraa 9r four iaatraaiiaaa at tha
r«4«a«at itt tha 4«f»xt«i»ttt«
Ca«]iiaiat i* mft4a that th<^r<t ia a 4iff4»r«aa» ia tha
lUMms) of th^ Jarara ainaad ta th4 v^rdlat aad at thalr aaaaa
appear in th«> rtQef-4. Ihara ia a Klight 4iff«>rAnaa ia tha apall«
ln< af th0 aaraaaa af aa« af th« Surmrm aa4 a fav af th«Bi aigaad
tha Tardiet by th«(ir iaitiala rat>)cr thaa by th«>ir slv<m n«t«aa*
fha polat ie irivial aad 1« «>fftlr»ly wltViaut ssarit. further*
mtrnt tha ra«ar4 raaitaa th«t the Jury aaiMMiallad fatand tha
tanaaa, ato* • withaat raaiiing th<«ir tjam««.
«»{•
i$t4U ^it'i'tla ... . „ ., am k0%*t%» §mi* *m»*m»%*h itttt
mU /• 9m% Miami HP >
,m*0ttn amwkt MwM t« ■•^^ «JM*— -?-mi"-» -
li la fttrtki«r u.rgtf4 i.h»% Ui« T«rdloi and j«4cM«ai%
l»%i<i f*r the •(•ok in th* £>aVarlMiB 7Mnui iSMtyMgr «• ««ll ••
%luk% Xm t)t« iittburlNui Wt«M» fiwmpma^, «liil« tlui icatlxeay af
plftlaiiff w»« if' %li« cffftoi Umt th« g«uur«iBt«# only ««nt t«
«t««1r piirokiAt««i6 in the fiim« e^atpani^. «• think ihl* •rfumAni
1» «!»« 4»niirel/ without m#rit. l>lftiRtiff t*atifl»(i tlutt di#f*fi4»
«Bt wns tc rectum li^cr tl>9 |8»CC'C ar# latrr««t th^rcan in oas*
tli« inT«»tm«at «raa » fallar*. It la olffay tlMt th« wliaaaa
414 iMt dllfrar*nil»t« b#tw«i«a Ui« t»« ecsafanl***
AaailKir peint ooni»l«ia»« af is tJMt tii« aeurt
•luBuld have auataiaed a mettea i« dir9«it a T«r«l«t >«««««•,
aa tf«faatf«;at*a aauaa*! aajr, th«» mXl^gnA aav praais* ««•
«*<!« "trior te itw adJuSieatiaa* af <l«r«iutant aa a iMak*
mpt, anci iv ia attfaatf vkftt tfe^^r^^ ia aa |ir«af «ia<t« aa u
»h«a ilw A<^f«a4l«Lai vaa i»4yittciijg»d a iMmkrupt. thia, of aauraa,
la aa iaearraat atat«n«at* 3»f«»<ti%at hlaiaffif aff»r«>d aTl*
<l«na« ahoving tM«l. h# vaa adjudieatad a lMaok]>u]!>t an J«iaa I,
Ifl4, tind tba saw prattl^a «aa iiatf* In Aacvat, I91ft. «• ara
«aabli» ta aMkpraliaod hav aueh an «risu%«nt a«a W edTan^ad
la ih# atftta af th« raeard«
Ot*w « eanalcif'ra titan af ilt# vhola r«eoril, wa fchiak
4«f«R4''ai hmw ha4 a fair trial. Iik4^ i»stt«R «<»r« not inrrolTai
kai 9'»r« ainple, tb« only euVataatial di»|ittta koine ^* t<^
irtiaih«»r «afaa«aat kA<i «««r«nt(«a<l iha rajMtynvat af tha #3,C0e
la «a»« tha lavaatnaat vara a failura* aoc vriurth^r aft«r
4«faa4»at*a 4ieehikr|gco in kHskruptey h» maan a a«v promiaa
af pajnaoni to plaintiff, Ik«ro la alvajra aona tochnista
•rrar in anj« r«aar«, teat mm ara elaar that «a a 9oaald«ra»
tiea mt tha oatira raaar4« the Jary aoaid not hava raaaoii-
« "iXa*
4««y..'
-.{.<
•fHNI#-
>«*iMIV^9 •'
':«# amir.' i%H
\»lim\ fmtmJt MM
IfMOA «
■i$a MWtftltlM*
italKi •• ,>"l.*^»1 f rr»r(v V -.tin /;:
•lijr r9m4mw*i>4 mmg •th«r ▼•rdiici, a ii thi* being ir«*« mt
li«tt#r r«o«r«A Might !»• i«*^«» sa «ii*tbf»r iri«l. I-'<h)»1« t.
Ill fin i6?« 111. .^63. ¥• tMB>r ihAi th r« i» n» muWUnUAl
•n*«r )wi thai vh« (ii«fttn(i'»Ai ^» reo «iT<>tf •▼•17 frvtcrntien
•f ih« i«.« iff «»i9ji k« vna •ii(itlft4« flij* Vtfrdiet i« lus^ljr
W« r«sr«t tb^t b«f«r« wiuklciiutf an •i'd«r tf mftii
W9 amat Mijr •o»»>Uiiiic m»xm, d«(iiii»«l for d«f»«ditAt )i«« nat,
ia hit brief* aue^tttt • *9mr% »ao el«>»r »%«%•«•«% «f vIm» n«Mi*
*• r«tttlr«4 Igr kii1« !• ef this «euri, but ih« »tiit*'iMiit i»
iarr9lv«4 tm4 eoiifii«iiii;* ah ia«titt@tieii efferei ligr d«f»a4«ai
hijia«lf but whi«H ««• r^^fiisw^i bgr th« seitri i» «|tidit«l kad h«r
tJMni A«<l» iie»«t %!» i»«trii<»ii»ii v@uXd h«>T« l«fi th« Juirjr ic
aq^«««il«tii ttR the iu»eunt tf «»lttittUft*» <!•»«<«»• AMI ia the
argiuieni f»ll«wiac ih* b:ril«f tim inmXrunttf^nn sire »^et dis*
«ni«»«d ia ili«> artier ia'^vltiabi tlMf «9.9«ajr in tk<< «iV«ir««t af
ri^aarA* In r««%, sa^-ari^tr let faliav«4 mn4 aa«> af th«« ia
tflaaaaaai at tw« ^Iffvrrat gila««ff« If l«la 19 «f thia aa^^rt
«ar<» fc»ll9«a4« iribieh r«^ir«a t)i« ftrsw«e>ni ta fellev the
jM^iBta Ma4« ia th« briaf, &n4 if th* ini^^truotiaas »Tm t«k«n
ay ia ar«i(?r, %k r« baiag aa r»«Kaa mt^ tha^ fhauid ba tr«at*
atf ath«rriifta» a gr#at <J^>a>l af labar iHi'.\a ba «vai«la4. lh*%
«• )MiTa a«i4 )t^i.>i«ii«& viih gjrratajr faraa ta th« aa^a^llad
bjriaf ftn<t ai^puamit fil<»tS b^jr ta« plaintiff. What kaa bcaa
fila4 h*r9 an balwlf af plaintiff ia af aa aatictsiaaa «h«t»
•rmT ta tbia aa^iri. llMt ia d@»icnata4 aa «n «rg«ai»at falla**
ing xh*t briaf ia na argtaaant at all* It ia a Hi<^^^t« »t«t4Ha«)att
f^r axampla, Uuit **Thif ruliaga af th« eaurt apca tlk« evldrsaa
««r« »«i praja«liai*l ta tlia tfaf aactiiat*)^ mnii agniB« *thm ia»tr«i<
to #ii«*4,»9l#^ iu( •in mi
* "• n (I '/ ail p " . n it-i ■■' »
- .. » . *., iRni0««v- ... -** .'*•' > •»
•IT-
tlona giT«Mi f»r t^e i^laiatiff ««r« n«t •rr«ii«N><i«*| "Th* eourt
«id iM»t «rr in r»fuaia« tn* in«tnioti»«* tf ^ff^ndfittt*, with*
•ttt any •rgimaRi •r a|»pli9$>tiftn ie th«^ ;»•• b«fer<» us. W«
thlak this brltf of 9lmtnXitT — fmf tmil9 Us qorpIjt with
Ui« ro)** tf thiiii 9PkT% thfti it •Hikt mt ie riaunln in th«
til99. It i« tiMtirefere •iriek«'n tram ih» r^oer^t ef tbia
••art*
i» «ffijrMe4.
n^scfV AX& tjou^Ht 33, ^nmn.
K^
U • 264m
nuMost nuMi,
^ /) ^0^ A
i4?9ClX«««
fi«rp<trsUoa, \
[•i^XAL jrivtM
'^ 2 O 1 -A. D eJ y
f
n. FRFSiDiiTG mstieis e*3ciiGK d«iiT«r«<<i th«
ofialvn 9t the evurt*
Tlaintlff 1»rou«ht •;itlt ft«;ftln*t dcf^naant to r«a»T«r
(IMMMI** f»r p«r«»»«l iiiittri«»8. tluii'* •»« * T«rdl<it of ^3W)G
In h«r f«T»r. &h9 cniifr** « rumi^Utur for #3CC oatf Jtt4cm»at
««• ttnt«r«d on t^t* v<iir«liet for |3,&<:c, to rrvorot vhieh th« do*
foaaoai firoooeuioo thio o^^i^ool.
Sko rooord 4iseIo»eB ih»i botvoon S:9C ana 6:c<&
•*«loo1t in iho oroQiag of Jan« 4, 191c , plaintiff ao«l hor
}Msboa4 vor« oailriag ooutli oa i&« voat eldovalk of 'olvaiMa
■nroBttO a1»out 3&C foot oouth of 147ih otroot la tho City of
Harroy* It «ao a voodon oldovalk oenolstlaf of tluroa otrlagoro
uadornooth and Hards or planko nailod aorooe th<m. Plaintiff *o
}K>oltloa 1« tJiat tho oldovallt vao old. jpartlall/ d«oajrod* aad
oo«« of th« boarda loooaj that hor huthand otoppod oa eno of tho»
%aarda oauolng it te fljr up In front of hor ai^ainot vhieh oho
trlppod, foil ftn<i vao la4ur«d. tho dofondaat*a pooltlon !• that
iho sldomillt «a.» in fairly good sondltlon aad that tho aooldont
oottld not ttavo hajiponod in tho aaanor that plaintiff o&id It did.
Plaintiff tootlfiod that on ttao aftorne^a ia qvootien
oho and hor huohand aero walhlns •» ^h« oldovalk, ho ywahiac a
.voJuu6i nmudn
V ...
.r
.9.qi»«iitu« « .y&VHAi! N(j rrit
( v.»^
•irii«b A«nra)?
••* f^ tf«i<lv •tY#T»i •« ,{>d9«C# loi tnt^x^w tU Hm b%\^m» mam
- " ••«*»MI«t<| JlJWiMWl
\m X#in Air; '.t^a lUfM !• iCiv^* i«»1t adC Ji.«tf« Ma»t«
•t*3«ltta •«t*i/<i TO Bni#«t««*«> ifl«fr«kiii tt«l^««« • •mm fl .xvruUI
• *iai«ai«i4 ,m^di •••«»• k 'luiXil I* miftm9ti kfl« 4(^«Mra«4av
tan ,b«vw«* xllmUrtmq «tX« •«<■ tfX«>r»jil» »rfl Huii nl ctl^ifffNi
•if* ifelifv ftAi«a« v*il !• imm^y . > ii ]|»X«»«« «*«••#
iadl •! ••tiX«»q •*#««*«•>•* «rif .»A'(iiit.t<& cvvr ^ ,k«««iTl
,kkk #1 6lM «»'•'' 'rjif «•««•« •fl(t •! lMui*««Mt tvAti i^m kUimm
m luX^avi •«! ,)rx«««i»lc «u mm itnittrnm vx^m tmmMmmm «««l Haji «to
•ft-
iMlqr aanrlae* in «MqIi v«a tluiir ST a««th ol4 \mhyi th»t ih*
¥«ard fl«v ttp Itt front tf hur amaiast vhloh alt* atumlilad uidi
fall en Imr aid*; that 'acwahav agr feat a»iisht In tli* b«artf antf
I fali an agr laft aida« Ha atappad an It «ad iha >«ar< flav
«»." Friar ta tha tiii^a •f th« trial plaintiff** hvaband diad.
Tha aridf^nca furthar iandn to shew th*t the sidavalk waa a
vaeden ana and vaa laid about 17 yaara bafara tha aeoidoBt}
tliat it VI9ISS mado of toaarda laid aeraa* thr«a otrinKaraj tlMt
it vaa rougli in plaaaa and the bearda leaaa and that It rattlad
vhan vallcad an. Viteaoaaa far tba i^lalatiff iaatified that it
hacl b««n in had eonditien far a last aiNaaa of tlaa prior to tho
dajr ia taaatiaa. !i:ha avidonoe furthar tande to aha* that isHBOd*
iaialjr aftar tha aeeid«at plaintiff fait aiok; that ohc and har
haaband want ta thair haaa and that ah« iraa oaafiaad te bar had
far alz er aaraa day*; that th«»ra m«r9 iadieatioas tandinc ta
ahaw that th«ra aigbt ha a Miaaaxria^as that about tan alajra
aftar tha aaeidant aha «ant to nm* a phjraioiaa irtie axamiaa4
har and told har to ^o hmaa and Iraap off hor faatj that a day
«r »o latar th«»re vaa a lal aearrlaca and that plaintiff vaa
laid ap for n oonBld^rabla ti»a aftarwarda. Tha daotar taati*
fiad that ia hia apiaion tha iaiary aha raealTad nieht hara
•aaaad tha Mia<$arriaea« Tha aTidatiaa alaa tande te ahaw that
aha waa a atrons healthy awnatt hafara tha aoeid«nt« ami that
aa a raaalt af it aha laat a graat daal of waight and vaa as*
ahXa to da har aoirtc for a laag poriad of tltaa, Xha dafandoat
offared oTldenoa t«ndia« ta •haw that tha aidavalk vaa in fair*
ly «ioad condition prior to tha aaaid«nt, but va ttoiak upon a
aaraful roadiag of all tha aTidaaaa intha raoard» that tha Jary
vaa varrantad ia fiadlag that th9 aidavalk vaa in Tory bad aaa*
dltioB and had bam ia aaeh eenditioa far a laag tiaa priar ta
tha aaaidant.
mn »v»«. Xial 1
(^a**l«*« (Nil *»t«*c»¥ «t»»t *"'
MXtiAl a J^tli bHtt *•■■'• "^ "-^i fc.N^ ;j- .
•m$ *nitniMitr $Aits bit* m%Att%Mtflm it
4t 0o<4ir tnitit
■ 7 mntf A--
th* d<»f«ndBitt first «on%«nd« thst 4h* JudgsffBt
■iMuld b« r«v«rs«4 fn>r the r«!«««n that the oeurt ftAaittM
•Tl4«ao«, 9T«r its s^Jsotioa* as to the oonditisa sf ths
sidsvallt for a oeasid' rabls psriod of time bafsrw tha assidant,
aad it is argaad ttoat this was arror \>««auaa tha allagatiaas
•f tha d(?<iilaratlaR witre nat brsad ancueh ta varraat tha ad*
mlaaion af auoh avi,d>°ne«« Th« d^alarallen avarrad that tha
plalatif ansa in tha ^careiaa af ardiaary ears for her eaa
safaty aau that dafandaat earalasftlj- and nagligantlj avtffarcd,
parmitted aad allavad tha sidcvallt to ba d«>eayad and laoaa,
"all of akioh tha dafand&nt kaav er hy tha axaveisa of ardia*
aX7 o&rs eatild hava koasn* and vhiah the plaintiff did nat
kaea, ate. it is eoataadad that this allagation was euffioient
to adnlt proof af aatual no ties to tha defendant af tha eondi*
tioa af tha aldaaalk hat that it aaa not bread anoti«h ta a<balt
STidanoa tandlac ^o shew implied knovladga en the pajrt tt
dafandBRt, So authority 1r eitad in support af this oontantloa,
and, indeed, we think none ea« he found. It vaa allit^ad that
tha aldewalk vaa defeotlTa and itangerous «^nd that th« dsf<«nd*
Ant fcgr the exerolss af rpaaenahle e«ra aheald h«T<r Imevilk •t
Its dafeetira eeaditiea. This was suffici<<'i3t to admit praaf
ahawin^ that it had h«en in disrepair for 8em«>^ time pri&r ts
tha aealdeat, ae as ta brin^ knonrled^a tc dafendftnt. ffe think
there is no Merit in the paint, flar da «e think that the point
that the Yordiot an$l Jadgxent are net auat&lned h/ the eridenas
is saand. It vauid at^rva as ueaful parpcaa to aaal/sa the evi*
o«noe in detail af the aareral witnessea further than «e haTa
already stated it, hat we think it quite elear that whether the
aaoident happened aa >>laintiff testified was clearly a <taaa«
tiaa for the jury aad wa are in aa $»oaitiaB ta say that tha find*
in« af the iary adaptin« plaintiff *e Teraian af the natter is
l«fl! bid Icli'inlafq -.-Aj o« *iiv<»fi?( •▼«<( ftii«»» riito) ipui
IcTfiiBtltm *«« 0«ii«$»xi« aiii J9J11 MAil»i^o<»» ti >• .«««i
•libsM »dl t« if;^i»«Ati»b tdl «* »«tl«0 Liir#e« to i«9X: liflft^ «l
#i«*s 91 djiuotf Hiiattf Iftn •»« II i«i(# #•• <Uwi»i« Mil ")• isr«)i
,eNiildN)ltf«» tl/tl "Y* MMfim ni *»ll» al i|frt«i(l#* •! »$m»bm$\*t
*mtU ^s*M^ »^ 12 .biiir«1i •€ nnt mn.^9 teldi Mr «l»«*kflil >ns
\« 4|V9(rr -^TPrf t,'t>-tt1^ rVB* dJbfaRoBR')! To fli#ltt«*lC» Mil "Vf l««
1r«»na[ lt«b« I'^tm i«v .^t.UMri9^ 4rvll««>9k •«!
0.t Tli.i •iiki- Ti«g»^» , .•«Jl ^mtntln
tti^ .#ffrfr««»- rflr(»<r«' ^t^tf 93 mm •»« ,#;i4Mt«9« mU
Ittioq 0... . >« ;> -)r Ob t«' >([ Mit Hi iXtmm n<v <«/ wtMli
•oiMk2>» 9<t yfi tmutMtmfw t%n Mxm titvmfewi btta loll!': jmii
•It* Mfl •axX«n« Jl •»«>qtiff Xtft^An «r iXtnMr #X .iMto** a I
•rml 9m nMt(s iMfiti/t ■•••»iilA« JattTMi viH !• Xl«#«ft «l •••«*
«iCl «<M(l«iC<» /«i<i ta«£(i *i L lUii mw iw4 .li b%tmim x^a^Tla
•••tr# « xXx««X» tg¥ ib*ltll«»l tlllffisX<i »« k-tivHrqwl #8v*Im«
•*«i) wl# #«41 t«« •' a«Xl^ i«« xttfi a^ «•! «6il
«l ic«««««; ttiil )e ••l«i«v t'miaiAiq afili««t># ^\«t •Hi 1« yii
•4«
^•fflfTu «• think; ttint ih<*r« i» nething «tt all IxprAbabl*
in plaintiff* tB»tlmony n» t« JmwIm a<»eiA«nt ©oettxra*,
^t thnt an th« eonirnvy 4t •••»■ •ntlrtly r«asoanbl« •• th«
jury touni*
k further »olnt it «*it tl»% it »•• th» duty of
plaintiff. ftft«r vh* yftaeiv^i th« injnry, t« u«« r^-ntcnnbla
OUT* tn *ff»et n •p««<ljr r»«0Ynry isgr ••aaring the ••rTi««»
•f » pl^siQinn, Irat that 9h9 failed in tfeia rm&^r^ ninos tha
<lid net ga t* eaa a i»))]r»l<3i«ui until ten cay after she was in*
jured, fh-»re 1» nat » aard ef avldMioe in thw r*ear< that
tliia delay in any manner afi«raTata4 lamr eondition ar ten4««ed
ta brine a^ut the miaearriaga. War da wa tMnk that the
Jm4i^ent le at all axaaaelTa, bee .naa the eTid#nee ebawa fra«
tlM time af the aecideat antll after the mieaarriace plaintiff
•affered aerere fain and that ohe »«a in bad aaet af the tlM
•ftar tha aaaident and prler ta the aisaarria«a and far tea
•r three waeka th«reaftar, wnS that eha aaa unable to do her
haueaheld nark for nearly a year th»reaf tar} that when eha did
nark aha baaa»a Urad{ that prior to the aaaideni eha aaighad
•bant 130 pawida and aftaraarda abaut ICft yaunde. la theea
airauKatanaaa va thinJc the damagea are rmi. exaeeeire.
CaKplaini ie alee mado that th«> o mrt erred in pmT»
■itting ■ aritneee far plaintiff, S^ra. LavrenoA, to testify that
•hartly after the aeeid<^nt aha helped talce eare ef plaiailff
and that plalntif > «ae eicb at har etaMiek and had peine in har
Bide. It ie eaid that this vae elearly InadHieeibla b^oauaa
the eympteaa teetified to were parely eubjaatiTa and that a lay
vitneec eheuld net ba pamitted to teaUf^ an enah nattara.
►>-
Mita*^ A'Ui/rUiiq ni
•al •«» Mft t«#
«vt to) i^tui •s*^*'****^« ^-^
t^-' 'titfAllJW MMT tk'IS l«ri
bkk Alls ft»Ji6» l«eii t*^'*
^ (•«in«»»«» lit) ifl k
49«r vrtB
«i«q ft4 Ml«l #T«i» «iM #mU «»«• ^i» 94 i«lAl««ii»^
f MH< •!(»«•« i«tlMll XlVM»X» 9^ »»ft9 Pmg» frlM «l #1 ••^It
•5*
W« •««»•% tmf that if 9l»liiUff ««r« "aialc m% la«r stMuMh*
tli« syaftMit V0U14 1B« •ttbJ*«tiT« only, and viill* it »igM
!!•▼• 1»««B n»r» proper to have ih,« *iin«t« giT* hmw tpinian aa
t« %h» pain in bar aida* «« ihiak the Jury vaa n«t at all
Mialad fnr na ana aan iaatif/ aa a paaitiva faat that aaathar
faraaa ia aaffaring pai»« Ihe Jary Imav that aha aaa aaraljr
CiTiac ii^r opiaion. Va think tha alight arror vaa aat af
aiia)i aattura aa vcuid warrant aur diaturbin^t tha Jadcaaat,
ta tha aantrary, upon aa axaainatian af tha tmti ra rifrii
«i tiank th«> defendant haa had a fair trial aad «aa civaa all
tba Vanafita 9t the Imm that it vaa 'imtitlad ta.
Tha aaaldant hfo^fanad in Jua«, IflC. XMs tat«
«»a ittatitttta4 JDa««nit»ar 19* l$ie* WMt haa eaasad tha dalajr
ia in n9 vay axplainad. Cattna«:i far tafandaat axiraa that tha
auittar man d«»farr«d hgr tha plaintiff hut th»r« ia no aridanaa
•f thia faat ia th«> reoard. Wa think this eaaa aheald hara
Wan hraui;ht to trial long aga and tha faot that it haa not
h««n diapoaad 9t Ions h*f am this aan ha laid at tha doar af
heth i^artiaa to tha eaaa*
Shia Jttdinant af tha ftuiparier ^aart •f Cack Caunty
ia affimad.
AID tATLen* n^mnwsR^
•J* «
tt» »wrt^ t««r l^iM filial tisl « ih«& »««i trntk
--» ' -''* .V ,,#»' (»|t «i si
-- -. ->>■■> «4M» t»##MB
/j'f ri 3A »iV'ii'tT»"f
I A
\
APPEAL f«WI
»V«. \ / ) WnflCIPAL OOOKf
SH, jr. luvunro iw^^r^J ) of chicao©,
AP*U4
Mil, pinesiBiio JOBTXCi o'oonen (saixT«f«i «&«
223I.A. 639"^
On Jii»« ts« llt>ao« plaiatiif bifooi^ii mi ««tio» of
r«pl«irltt «li»i«iUMI tUftit h* k&d » lL«a «» <3«f«Bd«nt*« »uta-
»«1»il« for l«i)M»r ««i«id «ftt«jrlal« futtiia&«4 la ae^j^kiair ropalro
upon tli4 *tttomB)!>ll« aadi th«.t h« vik» lor«fnlly «Btitlft4 to tlio
po«o«ft«tMk of it, A writ €>t ir^pUTitt l»»u«d «ua4 t]i« rotura
th«jroo«i «hotr« tfc*i ta» eat iwui s'^Kiiy y-sjsi-fnriotf on Juao 3»,
l*i0, i»f *ii« tjs.lilff of th« ifni^loipal Court of (Ailan^ «ad
4ollvc^«^ to rlaJiiitiff. At tho h^^nnr* b«tor«t th^ eonolualott
«f »il of p3L»iattft*« «rS^ffl6«« «h« a«\art «ao of tibo opioios
t%At plaintiff eo-aiii fiot »aio)ii»lB lila motion t9s turn r«4UM»a
«ba.% be ItaA not aootplioa i>ltb %h& pxe^'lfiiotts of ili« <l»4rii«o
X««2>«if*« X»i«tt aot» iooo. ^»« ^l>» 30 fvn4 M# Ob. CS» lt«8.a
(idiS). Tk« aourt «h«a fouad fth*t %ti« rlg&i of i,osoo«»lra
of ti&r «u«o«o^il« »i»« oot itt plaintiff Attd o»»rdo4 a irrlt of
*o^«ao kabaoAo l»jr tli,« :re»uirm of tlio vtOf;'«x-ty« to rov«jr»o
otloii ftlAlfttiff pro«Oiau««» «fei« «.i'l>«ta«
f&« r'?aor<l (tlsolo««« tb»t pljt^lattff «»« lo tlio
fO»«fO «ad MittoAoMlo tsipnAt oa«lo««o %»! tb«t <i«f»m1«.o%
kopt liltt o«r la rl«^^atis:f*t iirara^o} t&at rrior to OMoa^or,
XdX8» ooriHUa r«r^ir» »«r« «%<!« oa tii« iMitomoteilo %t fIj^Ib*
tiff for wbioft dof«fi^at failed to pn?} ti^«t la D«oe«to«r*
XSXd, pi<%inttfr dUlafr4 % ll«a «R tlito «»r for ib« ^ork ctono
AjiiS r«fu««t) t« T? vr^it dof^adoAt ico r«»o-v« it froa tko ir«r««o.
\
.\.
.f/
•ilt 11/ i^^^i MUiS.' lObt Ai^
' t.«A<»iil^
■»vo««t #t »<;
-3-
la lfAr«k, Id^o, <l«f«nc3«a« forcioij r«HM»T«<i th^ oiur fro*
l»l«.iiitlf/*» K«%«^«e. Ill Juaa roli^wiac the r«»pl«vi» Milt
finding ataiiAAt klm foi tlic t«a««ii %&«% Jki w^a ««tltl«d t»
a ll»ii UAftcr th« y<r<iirl»lw« mX «%• imi% «)»•▼• ««»tltii«4« awl
IiU »rfl|iitt«ii« 1« %« th« «ff#«« tliAt lit a«n>.:littd ^itn »il th*
r«vittir*tt4nt» ttiT %)nm% m%, Tli« 4«f«ad«ait ftyf^«» tk9 9%mt9tutf»
t%t» qiiefttltMl «« 49 ik«ti iyivc t« 4«>«»l.d« b»e^us« «• fla4 up**
«»f 0«a *»a<tRi&atl0ft thai a. f»» n&akM «.ft«r tlaio &irlejr« 1* tkia
•%•• <vcy9 jriX9(9 %JI« 8^tMi« G^i^jftt oX tbLid 8t&l« U %J»« •&•#
•^ijftiAX* fll4fftff IiMilrfff fit*# ^^^ XU. 394, b«ld kh«
«k«r«jfoY«t tl»ftt plAlKilff »»« ttot iatlfiX44 t« n^y ll«tt ^ad
arriRff^.
iE»4i TATlEiOK* JJ« ooacor.
^i
•'«»ff
19 • i«tC«
iM Ml ^xm cy JBuiitti. ft.
OOKA MXXlUli, »• •xeevtrlz tta4*r
tli» la«% vlll Mi<l t«ai«H«nt nt
\ naiaiiff ia Rr:
iMn XAjmis,
CIRCUIT stnat.
^fvadanvia Brror.
223I.A. 639
SI* m&tlOM XA7L0& A«IiT«r«4 th* onlaiea af
ite e«iirt«
A almim was fil«4 Iqr i«««n Uartaaa ia th« ^rekaia
Court ageiaat tho t»iiRt« af iaaaaal S. Bajraaa, Itaacatt^d,
far th« sum «f IIC.CCG.CC ane iat«r««t at tfew yata af ^%
p9T aanua frcua S«^i«>ffib«r S, 10C9.
ea Juljr iT, 191»* tiM frateta Court all«««4 Laea
lartnan** elftia te Ui« sxiant af |13,457«0<} aa af th«
Saraath «11aa«. Ttaera «a« an appeal en ih» part ef Cera
Bqrmaa, ^xaantrtx ef tha aetata af iteaaacl S* Bajraaa, 4a»
eafisa4, to th* Cirault Oaart* Tha:*-)* vat » trial ia tha
Oirauit Caurt and 4a49aaat apoa a 4ir»at«*4 vardiat aa* »a»
tarad in favar af tha olainMit, Laen Hartami, ia tta# eua af
flft«T99«39. %f rm^r^rmm tliat 4ttdiaaat this writ af error
it froaaaatotf.
Tha a^iaenao thavt that sa Sayttahar 1, 190*, Lata
lartMui Ma4t a eendiUonta purohacia fr«a Jataa M, lam, s« ft,
Hajraan «nd Jalm Jl, ftaan Oa. ef Uo tharas of the aupital
staak of tha laad Vatta freduets cioa^any far #lfiF,CCC>«C€
a '»^
'( V>i» •« ,1.
Tf ffiina
«lM<n0 at
.XX1090 19^^
kJ i..*
•v
i(<» )•'
.\j
9 «M ti^l T*")
*kt may tl«« mft^r •«!• (1) jr««r frois dfii« vf
9«rehe«« of thic »i«ek »nd vithin flT« (9) /»«r*
fr*a 4i*t« vf parelMie« of ihle sioek* /ou sr* i«
h«T« ttic priTili^* »f r«turnlrm to us anitf atoelt
•r eueh st^ek «« yoa rajt r'^e<»iT« sf «njr oihor ftov*
pmvsr vbiQb siay p«re)u».«« th« righte anJ a«««tii vf
••id food ^ttst« a*, end i»ira« its stock in li««i of th«
sboTs mvnii ned stoek V S^^ii^E thirty (ac) days r««
tios in «riiins to th« «B«@rsicAstf 9T amy •«« th«*r«*
of, whiefe saici r<«tl^« shall W s4drAseo<l to th* aa4«iw
siffMNi ar •«»••«• th#r«of St th« sffio* ef tho JoIm
it. HWM Cnmmsqr* in th<» ncokery Hldg., c;hi«»f#. 111.
a;nd in th« iixpi ration of thirty (SCj dsys frets tli*
4*t« BU^ vritt«. neti9« hss b«4Mi deposited in the
msils «idr*S6«dl to tits imdr reign»d or sMi«sa« th^ro*
•f, fts abovA providod, ««, the ua<i^rsicB9d, Jeintljr
•atf ••▼•rslly «sr«e that vo vill imi^ ts you in eim*
tlM said soai ef ll€»ecc, to^'t^xer witli 9% interest th»«««
en frea tke uate ef this eon tree t to th^ ti»« wfemsi »atih
paysRf^ni siiall k« ftade. lese suck sw er Bums as you nay
have rfst^iTf'd ky «ay of divid®*^* «^ ethcrsise upt>a said
steek er the stoek wuioh yoa nay re««>iire in li«k th^r«N>
ef durins tli«^ ita&e ytu esuiy held eaeh steek.
fr.e iat^ntiea ana c^arpese ef this eonaitioaal eale
is te ffive yeu th^> xij^ht to rftara the steek eeaditiea*
aliy fHtrehased h«r«?aad«r. er eay unA all steek whieh
y©«4 nay r<?eeiTe t« r^ef, t© us at any tin* after one
year freai the %te ef its arehase er within five yestrs
frea tite o^te of its pnrehase and npea yc^r giTia« the
netiee aheve proTided. Bt tb<> expiration of thirty
4aye required fer ea-h notioe, we J<^intly »nd sever*
•lljr agree ia pay te ytfn ii^ «ash th«> r»id ip'm ef
#il&«l^<^, te$eth9r iritn 6i int#>ri»fit th^?f?en freis the
data 9f its ydurnhase nntil th^ o,-^te ef th«^ said p»y»
wmmt te he siad^ by us te y&u, lese wny dividends er
profits that y<u r"C<*ive ap n eueh ptoek while y«j
iMld thp ean«, th r«»^ inpurini^ anrf ->jfct*etinf yea
a«ainst loss »ad giving yru 6^ upon year »caey in the
araat you s«>» fit te return said stook vithia th« time
aad ia the aawier %beve provided."
On September la, 19K , e letter signed hy all the
aellers of the ste^k was sent te Leen Hartaan, the /arehaecr,
•aggesting that he exehange the KC sharas ef feed iasta
i^re<tuots '^oapany for steek ef the ^^iai^ard Aleahel C^H^^Miyc
vhieh latter otmomny had prepeset; te give t40C«CC per ahara
fer tA# eteak ef the Veed ««ste ^rodaets Compsny providing
aertain eenditlons ««>r«> falfilled.
t« «#•» M«t «««1| 0M iA*
-»w<tf l<t«t' «n aim* UU
• i
■-' •<
1« &>k,
•3*
SvMi aotifyiac hisj thai .«r»UAni to th» a|{r«eHi«>nt of hcpt«BWr
S» 19c9« h«> 4««ir#fll to tttr« ov«r tb«> ctcelr mM rve^lT* 1»«i«k
lh« #IC»OGC»ro In ttiimk with liit«i^»Bt «ii ftiC p«r •Bfiua; and ea
ih« «»HMi dKt« h« sffat a ««?gr ef tftr^i. latter to i?, S* BayvHoi*
Csa Hargarat '^lattcy, a atenagrftphvr, it^ntiflad that nha wreiff
ike latter at th» dietatlon of Laan Eartaaa and aftar it «aa
•igfi*ti %9r Ikin mailed it. Thm vitn«as Lanirwe rthgr t «tifiatf
that in tha '^^pri-ug or aarly ::inae«r af 19121 Laan Hariaait is hi a
•ffiae aaia tc ^. S, Xa/ttan* **£ hi^T* aant jca that notice and
X aaat jrc « tc taka up these o««rtifi0Atea ia aeoertai&nac vith
tmr asraavaat*} tiMt ^isjrtaftK thoft n^tsiad tke aertlfioataa %rmt
i« Hnymmn ami said, *H«re are tite eertifinataa"; tjauit Ba/aaa
tken eaid, *t a» aet prci^arad to pmy that noa. I aiah ycu
aeaX4 reeoaai4er the «att«r of the It^as «ttt north*; that
HartaMa thaa aaid in aahfitaao^, "1 ewtttot naa that lanti at
that priaa,": Uiat at that ti»» the four 9«rtifietRtea af
ate«]t «ar« lying on Har^aaa** daalt.
on ApMl 29, 1918 • ^. @. R^iQnsan «rot» to Leon Hart*
MUi ta th« effeet that ha had had a eenirereation aith INraa aad
that the latter stat«4 *that th«rr«> would be ahaelutel|r rw qaea*
tiaa aa ta th«ir aeetiag /'ur deaand at the tine and that la*
tfapMuimat af aaythiag else th<? value er >> jr stook and af all
tta aiK«»r aeemRalatioaa vhieh vcald eaina alaafc eith the ehaaga
weald mere than affaat /c r elaiata and intereet tgi' a great
deal."* ete. In thf» BniMt letter Haynan requested Rartauui
aat ta ha aaxi&aa shaiit the matter teit to let it r«at.
Oa Juae ii&, 1912, fia/stan a^ain vrete tc Laea A^rtaaa
atatiag th&t, he h. d effared certain real aetata hcesaea lart*
■aa had aaked his; to relieve hia of tiiir rtaek, end eaid far*
thar. •which I weuid a-ladlar da with aaah if Z had it airai labia
.flMI^!« •# T«t- •«•» •«•« MW
•<rfw •ITS iatit b'^nu ^m9
ttih t«« mmmixai' limi^tk •'Ai
^%VO ««.! »Bf»*t «»•/?* ^{)<w ^ . — -y^ipt inm
'*i •> , "liUI9««t kl««»
-•MV •« %S»tuicm€m 9€ bicrew •i<m1^ ^i J«tft
««M«Taft ««»i Qjt *•««» vlsai* MN«|»& ,lti«i ,«i^ •■v<. »0
.4.
iMi I im ttriillng t« mA9 tliia Mi«rlfl«« ruXhmw ihiui )mt» you
4i»eefit<>«tf«4« partieulnrly *• >'ru boufthi this vip^n mj roe—
»*n<i«iida«* Ik* I»tt9r Ihwn ««4<>rtatli»« t« off^r «ert«!tiii nmX
m»%m%9 m% ^SO.CC » front f»et.
It is eoBteB4*d on b«h&lf of 8«r» Boyattun as oxoov*
trlx* of iho ostftto of %tMiH«l S. MftyflUM, itmtMmmd, thai for
Bartman t» b« oatiil«d tr. bis Qlaim against tb« astat* ho aast
yroTa that ha yhjrsloally t«aiii«red to th# ▼endoro aader the ooa-
%raot of i>apte«b«r S« 1919, ihv Aares of stoek vhieh «uib<»r th«
tamsa of tbe oeatraet tko Tonaors a^raod to raimrohaoo* Tba
ooaditiemO^ oontraet of swiraliaaa of ^aptaabar 3, 19(9, pro*
▼1<I*4 tliat Bartmaa was *to teva the priTilago of returning
ta as said steels or saelt stonk as yeu mmy r e^ira af k»j
othpr ecaaany * * ♦ by giving tMrty (3C) days notieo in writ*
lac * • » anti at Uta exgiraUam of thirty (3p,) <i»ya fr<m lh»
4«ta mteh vritiaa nation baa ba^n d«|>a8ita4 In thm isailB * • *
mt tka aadi^rsigaad Jointly and is«»T«raIly a4|ra« that «a will
IHiy ta ftm in aasli th^ aaia stw af lie»<9Ct9«e0* ate. Svoa
If no tendf^r of the etao%: of th ^/tandartf Aleahol 'Tonpany van
«a4a by bin it aauid »««» that BartokoA ]prop#rly natifiaA
ligraan an A#ril ft, 1912, whfn bo areta to hi^n «tatin( that ba
desired to tarn otmr the etaek in question and r»ecritra tho
»1C.C€&,C€ aaali «itb iat<»r«st, ^m kpril 29. 191S, and on
J^na £S«1912, wban Hi^rnan vrote Hartataa that be heu hac a
talk with Bvan and ti»it tba latter bad statad that tb^r«> aouid
be no qaastirn aa to iartaan's dinaad balag »ata and furtkar
vrate sndoaTorias ta get gartaan ta aansider fsTorsbly tba
taking of a- rtain real aetata on the viarth slwra in i^aynent
af the #ie«c<c.0O snd interest, no (ittestion vas 8iad» as ta anir
pkjrsiaal t«ad«r af tka p«r titular eertifieatoe af etaeir en the
yart of Hartatan. BiQr«an reaasnisad tkat Hartaan kad made a
•»•
mm% &wmfk wiM %mk$wn mmi\Jt*a»m mJaU &t»m •^ ivAIilv mm I imt
•t#
•T«rf e^* mam m»£::r-iea i««!4 ;f#ftiT
!««• •jM «« tmm • * * yU
■ -mmt om ti
-^rl'nr at •»l;r«iO av
«.i1; a^il «x«»fc (^) V*!
» «- '' ti :»iim«tfb
"T dMi«# ««rr9« 111*
: «*&;?•••« taw ••iJ«(i»» ai <»«#« «lf «nro pxmi «i ^xX—k
.>iU SmU b^Mim kmd wmsSmi •n* ' *- ' «<«« ■•«« ri4i« <i««
All! t(irf«t#v«t ^*:.i9tfj»6 <>) «a»'
Xf*-i AJ aa t^baw aaw nai#a*^ap an .
■ aa faa^o ^a ««»i«s it iliao valvr r -
:i^l<a^
i raala-frff
mmtitfmotttrj 4«Ne«n4 f^r a 0Rji«ell«iie>B of Um mi1« mm wum mm»
%kXl94 U to* paid tit« nC«COC«€C ft»d iat«>r<^«i.
H«Ti»g ia «ia4 t)i# <joiictru«iJi< n vhieh tUtjwmm pla««4
ttpoR tlM «:»iitr»et »• ar9 ef th« rpiaxeo Ua«t ^iartiMM vaa R»i
r«%ulr»{i to Mik* • 9iliy«ieal t»ii4«r of th« atedl. A» th«- eoart
•ftid In SlsA ▼• RI10X, 19C 111. 813. •It is pvmltilM* ia
e«a«irala# • s«airaei te look to ihe lat«rpr«tatloa that Uio
portiea th<»ro4o haTo plsood tli«r#«a in ito ^orfomoae* f»r
aaci«t{£aeo la »tme'>ttmiRintf ito trae mooaiac.*
farther, tHat •▼14en«e eaf fi ei ^sily ot^va thiBt m phy«
aioal t«Rd«r ««« astaelljr mtt4f"» l^n^pmrilfv Xtftiti^d ttet
■artMHi to2.4 3«jraaa« "X Imto etmt yeu iltat aotie« aad I vast
foa io taica VLp ih^oa ««»rtifiaate« ia aacordaaei* vith oar
•Kraattoat,*: tteat ^rtaaa handod tho oertifioAtoo oT«]r ta ^pgr*
■Ml a«4 n^id, "haro aro %hn e«rtifi'^ataa.*; that ¥mymmn ihmi aald,
*I aai aai irreyarod to i»ay iii«t aev. 1 visli yri ir^dd r«»0eBeidar
thm ■attar of that laad aai nor%ii»*; ttiat Bartaaa th^a said ia
•alNitiMiaa, "X aaaaai aao thi^t laad at thai friao**^ It ia a»-
««aivadiaia4 tlMt th« four e«>rtifit!^at«a, h«iag far a total of
MO oharet* of th« ;.tandard Alaakol '^oaiHuiy* vf-r*- en Kartauoi'a
doak aad ia the preaoaoe of Ea/aaa at the tiao of tha aeavaraa-
tiea, it ia traa ^^at tk^re i« ao oTid«aa« in tha raeord ao
ta Um aataal axeh«asa hf Earteaa of th# eertifi(;»t*a of oVoslr
ia thm »ood Vaata ii^radaeto CojHpangr for efrtificntaa of «to«k
ia tk« StaiUiartf Alaohal ^aayangr* iwt it i« only r<»acaaabla ta
iafor froM t)i^ taatiaoajr of i mn^pg^rMa^ ^ »ad tja* Iftiar of
BagrMHi of Aaril M, 191S, that aa«di an azahaaca aaa aad«. and
fartlii«r« tkat AurtMHi r«e<*iTad S4C aluuraa 9f staater^ AlaaiMl
<Na9aiqr otaak for ><1b int^rx^ot in tbo >?eod laata fradaata
Oaaiya^f ^« iastaat eaoa is aot li)r» tbat of ga»d»r«oa ▼.
1N«« •/*•
fcrr.nrnaft X^iJot"^ tSmti
«*«*»-f»f«f fcr
li«»oX« immxfi ti9tmi »wiJ<^Hs.Jvn
Awn mam mmmiiMli imAt neuit ■ -^n.
immw i f>tut
^ ra iw
41* .«»'< H •
., .» -ixJX«JI J^r*
HUf Hi ^v
•,««{•"« '
U i*J .
: t .i\
• •««i. .
•«iti»Taoi>
«• kT>-^
4to«i« td
^♦'Sin 'c
n-ySr.' l"»t*
. .' i.'iSl MM MM
•t 5UL;:f.„,.f^_ •'* '■**' "'^
•6*
«h»«to«. 13» 111. 681, •• i« tto« l«tt«r •••« It w«« »r«Tid*4 U«i
if Um fKreltea«r "elAoia !• return aaicl ftC •b«r*a* •!«., vnercaa
ia tlM frMMit •»»• MsrtMUi lui« tn* privil«s« of i«tttrttinc ti»«
mfk Vy glTinc thirty da/c natl«« in writinc, Msti. rotving givaa
tmrtj 4ay» n«ti«« in writing, th<^r<- v « mj ti«di»rt«kiBs by the
▼•iNter* t^t ihe^ wtuld iMiy th« »iC .CCt .C© isBd int»r#»t. *lwn
v« o«ii»ider th«< sttnaition of the t>ur«)m«« as t^X9r99m*^d in th«> «•»•
trft«t, ttD4l fchff thirty tfaye notie** giTon Ity KsrtMMui, «b4 th«> l«tt«r«
*ritt«a \Qr nm^mmt imgmXh^r with Xhm tv^wiistoiqr of i.ftMW»rthy,
wMeii st«ads ttaeeatradietcd* «« f««l iMvml te tt«»0l«d#} that natlkB
iag f^rtlMr r«»Ai»9«i to hfi dcn« »• » «9Aditi«B pr««»^Kt, •■
thd pmrt »f >MrtMUi ta •ntltlad tei» t« tli« mttvrB af th« Kca«gr
vitb i«t«r*at.
it it: fKrth«»r e*at««(UMl tlt»t %h» trial iadg* err«d in
rsfaaiac te iMrjmlt eo«a««l for tlftc axadatrix of M*jraKd»*8 batata
to ifttorracata tk« *ttern«y far Martsaa aa te »tat«««ata aaid ta
hAT* b*en i^d* Dy tfc« atteriMsy • ia tJMt ««ir«« af forsor triala
isvolTinc tm« sMitter • to th* •ff««i tlwt aa tea^^r «f tha
atoak waa nada Iqr ^artmaa.
tm trmam i»caaiiin«tiea of Lnngm^rthjf H# t«fitified that
IM had tal4l th« attejn»«ry for KerUnui th« aa¥at«aa« af th* aaa*
v«raaticB )i»tw>aii BoyaMm fta4 Bartaam at th«> tia* af th« trial
0t thia eaaea bafara Jttd«a 9ara«r in tk«» Frabata Oettrt. Ia
191ft th« aaitter Wfara Jadge iBra^r vaa api»aal»d to tha ^ir^
•ait Caari aad «aa $«rtially triad bafara Jad^a B>^rratt in
191i« Satoa^aatly in Jaaaary, 19X9 • tlM aaaaa «aa agaia
triad bafara ^adga Kafiaarty, &nd finally diai^aad af hmfwf
Judga teaftaarty in April, 1919 •
Caaaaai far Cara Sajr^iaa* axacutrix, eeataad that,
inapmuch as the evidence of Langworthy, a? to the tender, was
.».«*A j».-
-4*
•i*i4«; »^i Mar «cHMi#itftc t^ raivln «»i««« vxi* vttf^< «t4 *jm »#4Mait
t»^ &!•« •i«»«»j«*« *i mm mmm$yutii tm^ vt^mc*^* mu •#A»«%t«4«i •!
aiAl'U «MnO 1« «*iii;«i» tdf «! * j/m%»i*» *A4 i(tf «r4« ««•«' wvai
Hi 4J«iT'J «»ti»iii •^•I'Hf Ii»Mi i;£»ii: iimm
mimoa 9fw ••Kfto «||« ,fX9l ,x;«ft««*l «i 4iint.»ji9ii»^ba ••Iff
-7-
B«i Frodtio<>48 until •}]«ril/ h^T^rf th> trlMl Y>«fer» !«<«;• Mm
Soorty, it is »ubjr>ot to Kuepioicn, nad thai ihcy ateuutl
hiiT« 1»«»B atlloYvd ic -^nX cf^rialn qufteticn* ic th« «itnr««t{
Sdw^ril tt, ¥«lc4raUial« vho oondtieieil thn trials lHif«r# Jwdg*
|fora«r anci Jud^ « «iCeorty. 7eun»*l f»r C»r» H«jr%An, «x«9Utrix,
•ell*<i 1M»«r4 a« r«lfi«nth»l •• • witness and »ft«r iaierr**
gating hiai as te nis psrtielFatictt in tto«i trial sf th«> olaln
Wfsr« J«^« iismcr« ana Xttt wiiaesp etatin^ thnl h« dia ast
yttt ldUiicw*''^Hir •» i^ «ta»d a«r tJuuBinc Hia« ac1c«d th« »it*
■••s «h4i>th4(r at the e«inela«iea of thtt eTitl^nee ^•forr JuAif
Hsmsr, thi! latter ««k»d thp fellswiag <|it«Rtion: *Is thsjr*
aajr •viasnee- sxecrpt th« l«tt«r sf tH# t^nd^y; if th»re anjr
•Tid nee sf any orf<*r t« r«>tar3i th«>< Rt«e)rt ».B(t did yeu rcplj
ie tbat qasstisii as fellows; ^e«>9t in the lstt<»r sf nstie»
mtk4, in thn clai« its«lf«* Alfto, ftftur th? vita#eK had stated
tliat h<» eeada«t«d t>M» tri«l sf thf- t^ac* iMtfeir* Jadge i^^sOoartgr,
tli« «a««tica «as proptt«iid«!<; *Qpoa said trial <iid jrru et»te
in si?«a eeart tkat tii«> sTidsaec «hi«h ve id b« 9r&dtte«d at
tJBia trial Issfors Jvdg« ^e<»«srt]r «fs«1u b« salMt«ntlally thi»
MMM evid(->no# whLQh ims pr«dtaic«d bafere Jads* M«m«r in tha
kuiarias fe*fore the i'rsbats c;©art?» Als«, •idld /cu furtluir
ststa, ia ^cut opsaiag stateaumt t« th«' eoart. tlMt tker<?
was Be pMgrnloal tea«i«r sf thf^- a«rtlfieatas of etaek bat that
said t«B<l«r vae unaee^eeant as ««ul4 appear frcn an cxiunin»>
tiea sf the eentrast Itsslf and th« a«iic« «i«rTed ia aossrd*
aae* aith th<> e«atra9tT» Xo all tiiaaa ^raestioas •bjf>ctiena
vara M««^taln«>d 1^ tK«i oonrt. la *rm af th« eaimioa th^t tfeM»
raliags af th« trlAl Jad{r« in ^artalalBig sbjaetioae ta the
qaaatiaaa pro^oandad mmt not saeb arrar as to Jaetif> a r«»
▼arssl. That ut. Felsanthal at « praTl&as trial ct»ted that
ha had n« atn»r •▼id«°»o«> %t tasdar than thst oeataia^d ia tha
affcr ta r#>tara tha staah: *»d that in Me aaaninii; etat«»<»Rt
•■ •»ki^ •%m\^ tmirU •<(# %i«n«4 ^ ii«M jnwtiit #«r
««9««iiv M(# «4 MI*M«««|I «I»JX«» tUm «4 MV9XI4 «»»^ »¥44
•90*1 n»t«tf ato^Yt MM ••#•■*«•• 4Mnr • !«<#••«• Ht«vMl
Wl» Mil IHniiMm »mid —»■■«■ «•« *««#« wM «• f<^t«fit #«f
lfe»« «r*\ lilft (iflTA fiCft»ii» Mtf mrMfvii •« r^Jfrn tr rr^tVf
;[k*^«jr« fcaMf x^-^nftf %Ai t«#t» .->'ri,* ".^i^Wi miAiv. Art; ni j^ba
4HI«it«9t^ SS*!!***^ M' •ftMn.f
•8*
•t«%*d \im% IhfT* vmrn m ph^vie*! i«n4«r 9f ih« ft«rtiflo«tM
•r •%•«&} th»t stteh t»a4«r ««• unn«99«ii«Z3r2 iu*t st th« flrtt
trial \i«fer9 Ju4«« KoGoertjr h« ctatAd ito*i tli« •Tidi»n«* vhlab
would 1>« pr«dttO«d w«'Jild b« imti«i«n\isllj trie •aM« •'ri<l«n«« »•
fetiKl b«*ii predu^ied Vfff»jr-«> Jadfc >i«m(»r« vouli, a^l taken t«*
C«tbey, bA ef little if «n/ iatpertiuiee ia tUe Inetaat ease.
In the Tiev ve take ef the eTld«neff and the Imm
ayplioaltle th«»r«»t« the >raff >re4 eTid^noc vhioh It ie aen*
tended Iqr eeoaaal fer Clera Heyman, the •xtfUtriM, ehattli hara
haea a4Hitte4« aauld >se entireljr iwaaterlal aati trraltrant.
rinding «• arrer in th<» r4»e«rd the 4ttd««ent !•
affiru.«d.
%*@6wmK f*'* Ate TBt'ifici, i. mMem.,
mU k9imim
ii»^» *^n»0^%f> f.t^ -j^ •ftlHiV n«>M im^Mi
.'>!»«« Ill*
i /
/)
Bef«nd»nt in
JAtti^e TXiiBil*
CKXHXMAL Cf^UKX,
H
JPl*lttJl^ff In Jlrror. )
lot* J98TI0% ¥A¥^X«B d»IlT«rod ik« «Flaioii »f
ill* 9«urt*
«Rs iii<ll«t«»<l eh«urc(»4 with teujrftliirjr frcM a rRilr«4^4 frciicht
9M «Il«g«d t« 1»« omiAeS «ad e^wrat^d 1^ th U8.lii»«ir« k Ohl«
]K>rt|r frooi th« ee»i>anjr. &«iiag «»ll«4 f%r irlibl, ih« fulengr
««• »«iT«d «• to «atth eouAt OBci the d«^f#s<iaat pl«»d«(l n»%
g»iltj of r>»ttjr IsitQtsn^, ^jT *er«Mi«Bl» ih« eaus* «r»» sttlniiiff^
W iibv trial J«d€« vitheut a jaiT*
flK» •vid«ae<( shewc aultstsatlallj th* foliewiogt*
8««e tla« *« J^ly 19* 1919, a ear laad af aMtoaaMl* tirw
«»• cMr>9*d in ft 'aat« 7a oar Ha. 359it fra»t Akron, CMa, to
aaasc peiat ia tte« Weat. The <i«»r pa«K«d thro^ta t)i« ^ity af
8lilo«s« and yart af '^aek Qavaty and ««a for m. ti»a uadar Uia
eonirol Mid oluurga af th^ ^alilsorc it CMa B&ilrvad '^aaipaigr
aa«»tr)i«4rft in tto« Tialnity af YVth atr«4»t »nd VaHtara •▼•nua,
Tiw> ear ia wMah ihf ti r«»a vara alii|>p«d «»• apaaad and •
amliar af iiraa ttoram aut. Yva af tfee tiraa wara axhibitad
la oaurt and afr*!r««l ia aTidaaaa*
(
1
^a^d^'i x i^t
.2S
WmrXf in tli« m«rniac •! Jttl|r KS, 1919, t«e hmi,
OunAerwMi ana i<el«]r, toe«th«r irl th Um 4ef(iRdent, i]rl«r,
««r« «rr««t«4 »»at 79th and w»ai«fB avcnu*. At th« ti«« tli«]r
luul • taurine «<ur whioh vaa atAtlenad alMvi aft faat •ff tha
raa4 anc a tmak whieb tHaijr had »t«tlon«d »l«iif ai4a af ft
Bali;>ib«riR« diteh. Mltmrnn, an •ffie«r af ihm Baltlmora *
fhla* with aeaif ath^ra, than arraatad aiiad<'ra«iit ytiXn^ aad
Yjrlar. Aliaui Tft tlraa wara foait4 1^ tl9« effi '^^ra* Th«]r vara
s«ftttcr«d in an araa acc y»r4a a««jr fras tha tmek and taur^
ing aar in a fidld aloacaida ftf tha **llraad traolc. At tlM
tinia af tha arrast, rolajr and Tjrlar vara with iJna iruak*
liaoMin, tha effiaar» had acate talk vitb Fciay and lylar and
•• th«y wnnt Vftttk t« ti9i« tm«it, Oando^raan atartad ta run
ttaraagli tha fiftld. thm dffiatr iban m^rfttt tl»a«,
Hainan tcatified that tk« tjmdk and taurine
9mT ««r« \sy %h0 r«llr«(Mt« *i3«ttt tcc #ard« avajr from vh«r» tha
»aa *«ra; that tlt«> n^araat of th« tir<»« vna nat fuita fttc jarda
inaida the field; thnt th«»ra was a bctfteh of ihim froai 15 t«
38 in n piltj that th«r«> vtira no tiraa in th« traek pr tanfw
ins ear,
Cna Vina, tha 9«af«nsar a«ant far tho Baltlawra k
•llift ft»ilydnd, t«atififtd th&t ha »a« a larga atttomebila traak
•tandiai; k«a&da tha ra«4 vithaut any ligbta and a teurinc 9or
dnvn in th«^ fiwld bahind een« vlilawa, An« that in goinn dean
tk«»r« %h«jf favind Taarl^r and j^^lagr vha aald tK@y vera «»itins
fur t«» nan vkn kad gana ta a garaca to gat gaaoli na fdr tha
taurine ear* kut that npan axaatinins tha ail tank in tha teur»
inn •ViT tha/ faund it aantainad fiva gal Ian af gaaalina.
On areaa ««anlnation ha tc8tifi«d that tha tiraa that
WW daattarad alang tha railraad vnr* akaut St>< jrarda awnjr
•^•V HHfT ««^»f irtt« ndi y^ tr *%kt ftf i»'i>4A mtnlXt
hn» mXt^ ^A* t*^''^ <<^'t* *^** *•»« ^'*c .^Yiuvlt
-\ni
•Hi t«l CalfMIASI , >«,'«'-.>-.-.. '•> •«f«8 ImhI •(fw *" "tl
,t>a lint tin >9 (v». iisfc^tf* ««!
from viutT'^ th» traek and teurinc •*' ««r«} ibtti Ui«/ found ih«
tir«« en ih« )i>erning ttf Jul/ 33 a1>#ai ttCC A.M., «1 though
?ol«jr, (JttA4»rsen und I'jrlor v«r« Rrr«st«4 m\ SiCO •'eloolr that
Momliif, >i^f«r« ihffy feand Aay Urvo ta tbf iprairl*. ¥li« ttar««
m»n v»r« t«fc«fi io th« d<9teotiY« Wromi, (^nd th«> f^hie^^ge p«li««
ii«tifi(Nl «hffr« tlt« ttr«« wmr^. fomi4.
A iNii«lnMHi« 71««lt«r, %»9%ifinti that «n th* neming
•f July 83rd, In ih» noighlNirlMMid of VSth an« W««t»m ATcnu*,
»l«iti StSC in ih* morning ho omr o lot of ttr«o lying aoar
th« iroolt and mIoo •«« Ur^^o fadllng or relliag out of tho
doer of o frolght «a.rs th®t> tho train nao aotlag, lutid )3o rop>ort*
od th« (situation to o raiiwo^ dotoetiva} thitt thio tirwo vrre
ooaiag ottt of ih« oeaaad o&r fnm tJbo onglao. Cn aroosooxaaina*
tiott, ho fcestili«>d tliat in >il« ittdga^nt th<f tir«to did not fall
out but vore throan out by t^xsmv poriMon la the tr«ias that it ««io
dark »nd he eeald aet ooo ahtad @n<i th«»v hr> 4i(i not e«» ningr^ody
tkro« th«« out*
Frloy, s^aifrd ^ tho d»f«Hnd^nt, tootiflod tliat amdaiw
•Ml ttnd 'iylor aant aith Mai iho night %#far«s thct iht^ wmtX oat
ta got oeao %o«r; tliat ah«n ihmy get out in th« noi«ch1wrbaod
of 79th atdaat ho notioad th« i>n«ll of leather Inarnlng in th«
olttteli of tha nnehina} that hm oteppad th« aaohino and got andftr*
neath to ti4$ht«n the oaring} that ho had boon working about
Xhr>^9 qaartero of «n hour vh^n fivo non oaao uf vii» rifl»e|
that th«» re^noon ti^o watofsabilo aai» off th« rtro«t woo booAttoa
tliojr movod it th^j^# to it aculd not be to aa|i#ady*o any and
to gat it put af the dirt oats' the graoo*
Qandoroon, o»ll«d b> tho (3i«rf«n6ant, t«otifi«d thot
ho droTO th« tra«k and that th«y want out to got ooao bettl«»d
-/■-
•li*
•<>fl
. » » .Tig 'I
, rtCIMlfiJ «rw
iti9 9tnm 'iftfl^ #Mfl(J 2%f«t«tf /
(t««
i»»«JM»
l«i(i
n»«r x^
/«9«tt«l
•li
•4.
¥««r; thiii thr^ truok b«lonc9<() i6 thm a4T#rtiiiiiM eonpKnjr iMt
thai h« Vu«iv tto« 1»«a«' h« «a« wprVing for wtilA net ••jr aigr*
thine; that h« ««> t«14 it weuild take alwut h«lf to tvo heura
to go »ui :vn« o<Mi« b««lc) thii i'clojr hod • Haiok; itaat «hon thojr
cot to Woot«*m oTWMio aemothlng bappMietf to iixo Bttiok eor and
tli^ ot0i>po4 ond «a it waa nndcty tA«>^ puahad it off into tlko
graoa 9»4 that aftorvardo tho offie^ro eaaio aleac anii arroatod
th«aj ihat 1»« Irnoo nothing about an/ tir«>a boln4E in tiiat aoiitiiri*
Wrhoo4.
It ia qaitip abvieue tram a fimtvtul oxn^ination of
tho 0Tld«>aQ« that it do«a not preTo boyend a r«»apeRablo
tfottbt that tho d^^fand^^nt vaa golXtgr of th« orleio of larooiqr,
Vhan tho d9f#Adnat vna arroatad iho offi<3«»ra did not knov
that thrr9 wt>T« tir^a in tho noi^Hborhood that had bofta
throtm aut of ona of thft fr«i£:ht oara along ai4o of tho rail*
roftd* Thay *or« not dioooTorod until flTo houre iatar,
and no tiraa «or« found in thtf trunk or autoniebilo, oo that
th<»r« ia no oridrnoa of any phjrsioal eenneetien batvooa tho
dafAn^ant and the atoioa ]»re^«rtjr, no ovi4«n«o that tha oriJM
of lareoay «ae eenaugMatod* tho eireumataneao in whieh tho
dnfondant »sa found majr havo oooaiod ouapioipuo and Majr haTO
floo»o4 at th« tlao auffici^nt to ;ittatif> hi* »rr«at, but
with thM raoerd aa i t io^ and no aotaal eonnaotiaa of any
kiwi batoooA tho d«f«nd»at ana tho tiroa bting i>hevn, it
ia iapoaaiblo t ooneluda that th« oTidnneo oatabliahod bo*
jrond a reaaonablo doubt that th« d9f<>)ndftat vao i^uilty of
laro9ny, Xo van not ehargad «ith an attempt to eamwit
laroonjr. It ho ha<3 boon, and u^an iho trial ha>i >>««a foua4
cailtjr, wo alcht not hav« b««n Jaatifi»d in holding that
tko proof vnta iaaaffiaiont.
imi tfiw' 9.'-' .rt«>i*T..ft>ii »rtj
;.T<»l'iij im.
t»iU l»4w ^mM liliUm
"■.11* t-^ri TroluH •» .J
:' ;«i(Liii) v&i« AA^iikVA
>flre (tljn]|
.>:»0<ilCHJ
J i ,«*
Wi.
im^t 99ihi nUmni m-
A nuab«r •t vtHwr «cnt#atiftii« »r« nmA* •« Wluilf ^f
tb* d'^fmidrxnt ^% in th« vIav w* talt* of th« «>»•• it Is an*
ii««*«««iir t« set thou ferth imd di«««»a ih«n.
T)i« jtt4i»eBi, ih«r«for«, will )m» rvT*rt»d«
e*0ciKa, f,j. umi tmMmJK, i. eeievii.
m»m
1« \tad^*t at •*«■ •«• mm'
•0V « i 4 1 ••
m4\
1 -MqifMri Mft
.a;iw .•■vr
•AVStt;*^
§4 • 2ai74
\
naiatiff tk nrrvr.
[ c-J. (J .Z
fAKIM^ VYtOciKX, 9% ml.
JMf«Mftots in .iiirrer.
223 I.A. 640^
ILK. JtJOlifl ^ TAyjXR <lPliT*r«>d tbm opinion ©f
the e»urt»
On fi«t*b*r 4, 1910, th« 9 mitlKinant, etmaitlav
Ssaf ranvki , filed • Mil %f o»«|iliiini in tho Superior Seurt
•laiMiiig t)l« felletriSKi that in Jun«, 19C7, t^nm fyvoelrl
Iwrreved ll.CCC from hia and 9r«iBi«<^d to giT« tilM a mertc«c«
•a a certain Lot a, (Ifl ff« tria 3Strff«i, eld nusibar) in
OM«««a, and te allav bin in liau af iat<»r*»st, tG liva
rant tT*% an th« ^rmmk^itu antil th«» «>1,CO<'.CO ana rwfnidj
thnt i^yaaelri prad^ead a writ tan di>a«inant} Ullins tH« een*
plalnant i i tinm b mertgai$aa ane perouad^d hin ta «i«n and
aautenta it; ibat ha •cuid nat raad ttr vriia ^i^lish and
raliadl uip^oa th« reprea^niaticna af Wjraaaki} ihat ha, tha aaa*
plainant, teok j^eaaasvion af ih« daattnaat* and vant inta
yaaaacaion af a thraa room flat ^n th« ipr«mi»ea; that auV»
aa^ttantljr, in Aiignat, 19(9, vtolla in pc a«aafii«n of Kim flat,
ha trei* iafornad that WyaliaU wna nacatiatiae with ana Alfaaa
and hif* nifa t^r th« %h19 af tha prep^rtgr; that ha than apnllad
ta Vjraaaki far th«> ii«^mant of tha daht} that niran Wyaaalti'a
failura ta yay* h# oenanlt4>d a loayar and ih^n laarnad far
th« first tima that thf> doeomant ha aignad in Jnna, 19C7,
vaa nat a nartcaca* hut waa » ^entrant far th** aala af
V
V
9? H«M»i^
.tr:;:. ;l- iijr
!
( •int'si P • f .
.sf^a .A.i c
#Yi««3 t«i«««i^ *iti ol i«ijiX«A*» 1» Iii4 « Mill ,ii«ffint«Mi
•▼iX •i ,J$-i:v*ei lO M9lX Si: ivl^I VdlX« 04 ftll« ,«1^»JtA?
{bJUMfv-t mam 49. ){>J. ' '/rir ••«i|ja»«f •di «• vnl t««iii
»«• «%i» •! Aid halMUM«*f >fW ,»'^^^MI « SSW it #IMJlAal7
•ffull/k ant <fJ i» SffltrttOi^r fr.« lir»4«t* ^'^ ^^ iO^ffl «C« Ml
•a*
tJw pro|»o»rtjr Y^ wyeeeiri te the eeKplftiaant f«r fTtOC.CiC;
Uwt ih<^n to jirstffei hi« iRi«rtt«t, %n Angiiti 26, 19C:9, h#
iMtf thffl 4««tt«mt filed f«i r«ctor4; lh»i en Aiac«st S5, 19(9,
i!]ra*«lci ».nd lifta wif« madie • «riti«n «i«r»«««iii te ••!! the
pretx^riy te the Alf«fie« fer 4f7SCC •€<€; tlimt en Atqfpiei 9C»
19C9, «y8««ki eo«mitt«r<t enieiile, sutid Mi^eeituently th# puMlo
«<taiAi»trBter wa* put in fshoTK^ ef hie eetste} thait en See*
e«lM»r 8, 19C9» Hmnfyt^ ttyeeelti, (videw ef th^^ 4«<tmnnd) end
bis heire fil^d a tiill for pArtiticn ef th« proniieee, la
the Clreult Oeirt* te whieh he, x.h« ecaii^Iiitiniknt was Di»d« «
yerty: tlMt WAnd* Vyneelti. ime mppeint^d r«e»lT«r to t»k«
elmrt* ef the pruminee in <|ttevtl&n{ thiait h« ««» ord«r«d
te ehev eR«»e vhy »ie ekettld ii«t pmy rent; that eTldAnee wae
b««ri, 3<!nd th« rule W s)mw 4)«tttee dl»e}mrce<l} that eulsett*
ciuently th«> ismrtltion euit «»b dl«mi8»'>d; tlMt en S^ptfiro-
hmr 28, 191C', Wi^nda fyeeolti %»<:> the heire ef the d«e«a««d
\Mgmn tt euit ef foreiM« entry end detainer eg&inei hla
and h« wae 9(jmpell««d te murrmn^at ^eeeeenic-n. 7 Am liiXl
praye tlu»t he wa,jr be deareed to have m li«i» en the ivremieea.
in the ewa ef y&,OCC«Oe •• of )une 17, 19G7, the data ef
the lust payeseni of part ef the erigiaaX lean ef #1«^C.C€*,
aad that he -say have int«r«et thereea ninee the date ef
hie erietien and that in oaee ef a dofault the property
be eeld te eatlefy his elain, ete.
«n (eteber SI, 1917 • the defendante filed •
deatarrer. That van averruled, and en OeeentlMr 19, 1917, they
anetrered, «in<!t te tha laitnr a replioatien «ae filed. The
■atter warn tried hefere the Chaneeller, witheut a r^fer«ne<K
te • f^aater. la brief haa b«>eR filed hnr(» on behalf ef the
d^f end»Rta .
» ' .:^
it/trf . om
■%A a AtkA-f ^ •> h
At th« trial viiiM vltn«s»i!!* w«r« e«ll«d mn4 t««tl*
tlm4» tif f»r th* aoaplainant and ttor«« f«r th* defendant.
Jhm ««a#l«inant *«« in^ll^lbl* ti; t«nilfy «• te what trana*
farr«4 between hlai and V/eooki, avinH to tha dlaath af tlM
la t tar.
Aftar ft oaraful analyaia of th« »vld(«nnf» va ara
9f tKft epialen that th^ scasplalnant ahavld bava ba»n da«Jr#a4
tfoa raliaf h# jpra/ad far*
fh« eTid^ooff af th« wltn#a« Korean aatabliahaa all
thf) nftliariAl fa«t«. Ha aaya that Baafranalri llvad at a plaea
•f hla, and that lia tald him WyaoQki. vhe baardad with Ida,
XarS»n had erma eaah} th^^t h« Intraduoad E'safranclci to fyaceki
at hia« Kor««a*« hauaaj that th«^ haa tharaa eomraraatlona,
th« iaat af wMqIi vaa an Juna 7, 19C7, at bia houaaj that
tii«^ ra vera fear pr#a#Bt; that thi^ o^vi^raraatiea waa thai
Vjraaaki aaid ta SsAfranaki, *lf >'oa will let ma taka tha
•oiMgr 1 will (siT« )r«u eix par a^nt intareat and a iaarte«iia'*j
that W/a«oki a«id. *In eaca you gat nerriad, i will giv*
/«» acuaa racaa «hiah will \m aquiTalant ta tha int^roat
jA^ mrit sattiag; and if net« than I will pay yeu tht^ intar*
•St"; that ha vaa in th4» bttildln« baeiaaee and waa alvaya
iR BOAd of menfty. Fttrth^r, h« t<^»tifiad th^^t the manay,
iKtC.OC #f it, was paid in hi a praaanoc, in hi a badrooa« tt
l^»«ski} that tha aomplalttaat aftar th»t livad »t hia.
Korean' a plaoa abattt a awBth, aad th»«i haTins raaanwhila
baan marriail, nre-vad into ^yaaeki'a preipwrty. aooupyioc tbraa
roaaio in tha roar; that dyaooki pai«t hia, t^^rgMUt abaut
twanty-fi-ra or thirty dalXara far halyiog him gat the laaa,
Tha aTldanoa of Kargaa ia quita fully oorrob«ratad
.J
• ' )HM|Mf 94 t«l|«
. . I i«atf«it til''
•4«
^ ill* witii»*s Joliin rra»» Urn Bmy9 b« «»• pr<»s«nt »t ili«
■Mr«tiiMI «h«n tJi« eompl«Xniuit 9«lti %y«eflki tfe« first 9^f»
■•nt, V7CC.CCJ thAfe ii ««• at Korgmn*t plike*} that V)rM«ki
Mi4 h* wantodl t« i:>erre« aowa w«n«9r3 th«t it v»« Aipril ar
/«■•, 19C7, thftt ^«> firot ft»lr«^4 K(»i*k«]i; that h«> than »p>«1c«
ta t}i« oc'KplalnajRt anei told Hia h9 had ta gat aona noney
te liaild » 1»uiltflB|t{ th«it xhtf or^mplAimmnt tald hin h« hnd
tnljr #7Ct.tC and that waa at honaj tkat at th« naxt maat*
inff th«t oo«Rplain«nt lat him hAT« tli4> ITIO.OC} t^t faur
dajra lat»r Wjraaalrl aalrad th^ octinj^lftiRaRt far a««# mora
ii«iii9r{ that tha prnprnr tma hrou/^ht 9f*r th* ^^undajr aftar*
vftrda} that It waa m lane P*'P*'^» «»n^ ha* hima^lf, aa^Id not
fmA JSngliali} t]n»t th«>> eantr»et af »ala itirodueeti at tha trial
laakad lilca its %^l .\>»afr«nakl iaid it en a tatila and aaid
ta t&tt eewplainant, "i^^afranaici, thla la teed, s»na It i« a
r'<'afipt; it ic as ge«d as ycnir mona/**} that abciut three
week* later the ef^mi^lainattt gsTe 'iyseclci |9C)C.C>C mer^. A
reeeipt mas efffr«$d in eTid*no». "iunti 17, 19C7, HaA«(ived
•f S. &aafrnn»kt, #3C>C.0C and property 191 «• ^ri4» &tr4»<*t,
(aicnea) £^* H^eeaki*** tn areaa exarainatien hr stated that
the eentraet ef sale vhieh vaapredueed at the trial «a« the
{>ap«r Syeeeiri jirf*a'»«t#d te th«» ncntpliiiinfint, unA or re»dlxeot,
thai at %h(" time wyse<;»Iri ai^ked the ee«|>lainant for m lean,
he aaid he weuld i^iTe him a iTiertigage en hie heuee, i«!eaniag
the heuee eemplainant afterwards went te lire in.
the enly seunterruiXiiig cTia<-''<Gi^ in th»t ef tw*
witaeae«?s, ^ukewslri and Pasln. they taatifiad te a trass*
Mitien at wyaeoki*e affie«« 4£4ikoareki say a it eoeurred in
AM«tist« 19C9, an4 t'a.ztn says ii waa in 19C>9. bat aJhe da«8
a«t reatesi^r the date* ^^.atewaki teatififfd that an thet
«rt«« »M(# «• t*^ M«l« tVHtl «0 Swti ,?>V/ (•«ttV
J •Want
■^, ,«., :' ■ ...... f
' ln*i« «(>Twr(*4t« #.MiitAjii'.
•»« . ", ...... •««.,. -,..*
9*^t vit* 41, ^ - V . sji^ t^o« «tMI ,t«ia>ii
ib« h*u«« tr p«j^ r»nt*2 mn<i fttrthcr. thai if *h» aoui^ get
WMthcr ennteavr t«te]r b« vculd ••lH i%"| %hm\ th# sowplnia*
»«t MUlli, *0e> h««i4 and 4* it*« euSan l^fti^ln Mi)r« arhn hoMirtf
Vy«««lci in hir office ••% ih« oomi>l»i rum t *WhAt ar* yeu
coiufi te 4«, jrc'ur eentraet «ua« ttp • lent tiato •gvT* ftitA
tluit SMifrantki vAid, "I !»▼» no aeaiqr** that '«]rM«1tt far-
thfltr tftid, *X hftT« gmX »o»9 party %« Inqr iluit plaov, what
wr« jrau goinc %e d«* aad tliat %h9 eoMylAiiuat Mia««r*4«
*fi» «b«t you vattt**
Xul:airaki*R bttainea* vas itaafc of an intorprettr
and iw«ati<ai«r, and gattia^ paraeaal iajar/ oaaas* Susaa
(H^ia n«irar ka«« Xh^ eesnplaiaaat* aeraly haard hia oallad
Saafraaaki, aad did aat kna« vbat p*oi>fttj iraa r*(t»TT9A ta.
thw avid«»B«9 ahava that wHila th# eoaplalBMat vaa
ia pcaa«a»lan af thi* tlir<('« raena* vjraeeki and hla wifa* an
Aagttvt as, i9€9 • fiT« dajra b«far4» ha eoi«ffiitted auioida •
aaa<ra t«d a eontraot far thm aala af th#> property to th«
AXfaaaa. Ttiat ia hardly aaaaiataat vith the elai« •n ha*
half af Vfm gafenA'^Rta, that l^aaaki had aatataRdiag aad
Mae«noaiad eentraet ef e&la ta tha aomplainant. Ihan, taa«
tha «Tid«nc«> of Kargaa an<t irTua ia atmacly ecnTineing. 'jrha
aaaplaiaaat hRd \>9»n ia thia oouatvy but a fsv yaara an4
aaald aat raad ar writa ^agliah, trhila oa tha ath«r haadl
Vyaaakl vaa in th« huiXdiag and real aetata Intaineae ^ad
aaeded aonay. The teatiaaay af ^^kovaki »na £iasaa i'a^la
ta vhat th»> alaia thej^ haard at «ry«aoki*K affiee« at aaat
i« net atreag or oenTiaaiag. Of aauraa, the ecaplainaat
vaa ehttt aat tfm talliag vhat taa)r ylaaa in «yeaaki*a lifa
•4*
lrtii»il MtM tv* •! i^*^ (!«• < >0*' «t»A«f #•«
ima- fMf •# V ^9 •▼«( I* ,ikt»c «*dl
AA«»'i .«•««» viiii^di: XtMvcAifiij ^ti^ .i(»/«%ilt»vsl h»A
^•Xl«a «iJd J»«jHMf ttln't^B .irtiiOiCiiilvfft** pMj vivihI n«Ti»« iilf«f
••^ i>irCT*l»i »«¥ V>'^'<'^'t<i ''''«''-' '^ vanaT i%a .^1» ^a* , lii«iup<itM£
<»il^ 9t i|H»<;o^ «c(t ! ; ... - .usvmm* m *«#mmm»
tim« fttlll v« are of tli« epialoii th«t the •Tldi<?ne««
Igr a cX»ar 9r»9«»4«'f^*nA'^« •H«v* thm% «y»«alri i»t the jasaiy
thraufh ft promis* t« flT« • nutrtsag* •» th« i>rop<>rty ta
(itt«BU«ii, nn<i iKftt» ik«r«f«r«, thtf <!«j||)lAin«iii i» •ntltlatf
U %h» relief ha prajrad f«r,
Tha d«er»« will ba raT«>ra«4» aad thn oauta ra*
■■tiiad, with dtiraatleao to •nt^r a (l«rtra« In aoaardatiaa
with th« far«fi«liic oeneia«iaBa» and ih« prajrar cf tha biX|
•f «««flal,ai«
^•ocimcii, P.J. (!oirao»st
90 • Ml<
\
TBTXTA aoai.X)ycjnRS«
^'
A99«ll««*
XAXfKLL M. OCIJSsA
/^
.^^
.i
Of CHIOAOC.
i^,."«yj 22 3 I. A. 640
a^
V
««• JOSnc 1A1(LCH 4l»llT«r«4 %)M opinion of th*
••uri*
flai» ftfip««l Is trim m 4a4<Hi«ni rttn4ffr*di ia Xh*
MuoieipAl Cvttift in f«ver ^f Vhn ^•Intiff * Vftnita Geuld
Jon«», ftCAliist th« A'»f«nd <nt, M«x«9ll m« Jm»«>», in lh« mm
•f #4ft5«lft on a.n ft|>p««l V«n4 tignvd 1»y %h« 4<>fMi4»«i «• varct^t
vkieb iMttA ««■ giTim in ih<> ^i»«ric>r Ooart upon nn «PT>«tl it
this ornrt lay K«rol«l H. J»nft« fre* a <^«>er»« •nt«r»<3 in tli«
0ii9«ri«r Ovurt ia fav«r ef ili« {Plaintiff.
Xh« st»Wm«ni af «lai« «f iha laiBilff a«ta fartk
tfeMt in ilia aianih af Jnna, 19lf « aha «aa ili« aouapialnaiit aa4
•aa laral4 «• J^anfla waa iha A«faa4A»i la a aeriaia wiit ikmi
fancLiac in iha Smpmriet Cauri af ^aak Oaaniy; ilMi a a^riaia
4L«inT9m ««a «ni«ra4 in thai auii freai ahiaa iha aaitf Baral4
A. Jaaaa prayatf aa ap^aal ia iha Appallaia Saari af illiaala
t9r iha nrai iii»iriai{ ihat Uarald ft. ^aaaa and ihn 4afaB«-
aat* Haxvali m» JTaaaa aat«rad into a e riain aypaal baa4 ia
ihai miii ia iha aaa af ncoe.CC, dai«4 #vaa, 1919} thai
Xhtt aaid Har«14 S. Jenea fail ad to praaaaiaia hi a appaal viih
affaai aa ^andiiiaaad in iha Wad and an Caiahcr ?, 1919, aa
ardar vaa 4mt«r«»d in iha Appal la ^a Caurt dir^oiii^ ihat tha
f -^ »• '
•lU >• tff9ijii<«» Mi.^ ik««*vii«fi :iJu:ui £;ii4vu ^K
•#^«««
mm mtti . /|«««iai fmnHHf^t fSiMfi
ka» #iM««i«A«>r« •A^ «*w Mf* ,9X4*1 .strft t« ntfMii •«< «i i«(l4
ftiNtI tiiM mlfiix** « Hi #n«kii»')r. ,,« •»«•( .ft 6(»iuiMI •••
fciinuril bias yiU dalrfv cmi « >9**
aistfiili 19 t'tuaVi •Smli»Hnk mtti •# JUMt^«« am 'mm%it%n mmmtl^ JL
mk btmd Uftmm iii*^t 0 it w«i ti»c«jfl» 9f^ ,ima
SmAi {fflQJ .*Ai/% *•«»» •O'^. mU
HMNWl •# Hsrold R« J«ii«« b« dlMil»»«d eui tf said oeuri}
%hm% %}%* •jrd«r dlMi»»iae th« Appeal is 1« full f«ro« itttd
•ffeet fupd ilM i«ds)i«nt ap '««lra froa aUIl unpaid; thai
itM dcf «inAatiit» UaxvaII j^. Jon«e, le ii^debtsd ie tli« plAltt*
tiff bgr Tirtw* «f th« bend in th9 «vn ef |4ftft,lS, b*lag U&«
•Mount of iho Aoeroo appnalod f»on, together with oertala
•on to.
On Umx«h 89, 10^, th« dttfend»at, ItMcwoll M. Joaoo,
filod tm offidaTit tf 3i«ritB. Urn therein »«iitt«<i tiiat ho had
•ac*tt)it*4 tlM »ppo»l bond «• suroty for Harold H, Jon«ii, bat
olalaod tliot ho feooamo our'^tjr oo that th« d<»oreie oppoolod frwi
vouXd bo roTi«wod bar tH<» Aypolloto Court, Mi«i that inaMmoh ••
tlio plaintiff r«^ftte«d to otipalaio that tho eortifionte af
OTidvnae in %h» saitoa apponlod froai ahoald b« inoorporatad
in tba tranaaript of %h^ rooard in llan ef r oovj» <^nd a eapgr
•f th« oTidonoo aat^ld not b« tbt«iia«»d in »pt tima, %h^ plaintiff
\V 1^*' o*B AA^ praYent<»d and snada it |jap«aeibla for tha aaid
Harold 8. Jonas to proaaenta hia appaal vith affaat. It i»
fnrtMar oat fortb in th« affid^rit of narila tbiat tha eola aen*
Btdoration upon whioh th<» appaal band waa axaautad aaa ta ab*
tain a Ota/ tram the aaandad daarea appaalad froa until tba
datanttinatien of %he eacaaa. and that b/ raaaan af tha dUaaiaaal
•f tha appaal at tH« instanoa of tha plaintiff tha oanaidera*
iion for tha api>tal bond failaa* aaci furth«»r, that ainoa tha
dianiaoftl of tha appeal in thia eeurt ana prior la tha inatitn*
tien of the iaatant oara ia tha Uuniaipal Court an ardor aaa
ant«frad in tha aaparier ^laurt in tha a«aoa nontloaad in tiM
bond; that Harald H. Jenaa pagr to tha plaintiff oartain
af nantr in full aatiofaotiea and diaeharga af tha a«cani
■aatianod ia th» bend Ixmrm in ^naatien and alaa in anathar
Mm A*^^ Had al i»l £•*< « k •»!<; >Ai'.ftfn«ni . .>«iu
1||A9 ~. ' K&9ft.•■^:;J
<%¥« Xi4«a MTSl i^*4;M»fO ••«»*fr ksiAitva* ftMt wftt %*#« « «i4Mi
•4i Hi b»«»4#n«ai •«tM»f-i M>. «; ««i«MiiaS 9^4 ni itmx^ttm
ktnd In a slatllar •»!%• mmi that %hM% %r49T atti««aU7mlly
«xiiiiCKista*<l mn4 •aii*ri«r4 tti« AppMil W«tf ]ier*i« att«4 «F«a»
•ettSKAl for ilie plrAntift •tmelc tlk<« affitiavli of aarltB
frwft ttt« ril«t muA ihn dft^f«m<!r^nt «I«^«siiaK t« st«ka4 vn hi*
affidAvii •! mvrite J«tdpi«nt vms th«>R 4»ni*r«d in fi&Y»r itf
tha julftlaUff •»<! a«aiB»t ih« d«f«ii(i«.Rt in ifo«« »att of ll^CCf .CO
la dwiat «»'& th# sum of (^4ftB*lS d«««j|«s t039tlL<»r viilt ao&to.
Thlo ai>i»««a 1« tokoa tttm %TBm% 4tt4c&tat.
to »r« of ilaa «?>i«iea ilMt lli» offla-iTlt of n«rlto
did not •«'! ai» a good A«>f*n«o.
Afl to th« ooatontloa tliutt ih« priaeiyol in tho %oa4
««• unabl« to jiaorfoot tilt appeal 1»»o&uf»« ilta plalnUff r«fu*o4
to atlyalato that th<t o^rtlfloato of eTldt<rnc» in iha «iatt«a
«f}>04»Io4 fr«iB s^uid b« iaoerjtoratAtf in the iraaooript of
tli« rooord la llovt of & ocjty, it lo only naoot tary to Mgr tttat
tlio liiw 4o4>o not r*<rdlro oaafo a «tifalati»|| a^aiaat tha vill
•f tha plaintiff. iStipulationa when aa<i« aro v&laatary*
Aa te ttM» ooataatien tbat tojr raaaea of th^ lilMBltaa].
of tno appaal on motion of tiia ^)l alnti ff th«r# «res tHan a fail*
ajro of oonsid*? ratio* and tha )»oad 1»«OMa a null It/, it Is mffi-
olant to oa/ that tht fAiluro of tha dafanciKnt to ^arfoot hlo
09900! «aa ontir^ly hi a ovn fault aB<J undar aueh olitottaotaaooa
it liao %<»0H hts^ldi in a mualHir of n«aa» that th«> dl»>ftif!aal of aa
a#roal i« oqulTaloBt %o a lagal and taohaioal afflrmaaea of
t^ Jadgmant bale* an^ antf tlae on appolloo to elala a forfo4«
t«ro of tha apvaal bon4 and proaaoato aa aotl'tt thoraoa.
HoConn^]^ V. aaajlaa. a Seaa. 671; groeaataa v. Sohm. ac7 111,
App. Ift^J ngf^Ui^ T. laohanii^. in ill. Ap», 3H1; fioaglo ▼.
^.
1* I '1 A A K'<V
- #««.LA|i« J.'* nil*
!»« $4Ui it
it^
%m»»n
i-'i
imtiK^'-
\m
91*
:n^-f bnn':
-1^
.'^ iuuarl ;'** •
f>i
I« §4 m. A#9. •!•{ Hccm T..afcu«>fc^n»i«. tT ui. «jic.
1% km qali« anlik* vnvii « ■ttaatlon «• In ^^UlJUC '^^ AtftilK*
lOS II • 37S* •■ ttoAr«> it «*• •htfvn ih*t th« «»uri Mad a« j«ris-
4i«il«a of tti« ralijl^ct •f %h9 «99««1, an;' Vhr b«n4, tlk«r«f«r*a
As i* th<>^ fitrih<»r •eni<*«iUoa thtkt, •!««» th« 4ift»
»1»»*1 9t tbi* Appvul in tHla e«»rt an4 friar ie ili« inatltution
•f fcba iiiKtant «&«• is ih«» MnnioifaX 9»uri an erd^^r van *^ttt9«w
•4 la ilM 8«]M»rier C»uri In iha tan** m«ation«d in thtt b«»4
iluit Maraldi H. J«n«s fagr te tlm plaintiff ••rtaia mnn tf
■•aajr in full »ati«fa«tion an4 41«ixluir9« af th« aiteuat i&«Btien*4
in iliA b#ad b9r# ia fttaation antii af »n«thrr b«n4 in « nixilar
mit, wiiiolt 9riifitf aniawaUoAlly axiiagal (had Mid aaUsfiad Utm
apyaal Iwad h»r«iB mad a9«a« «• naad «aljr vny tb^i all itaana
aukttvrA a» far an ifeM tttrsty** nlillgatisn ic eend«m#d» ward
ff li^ff> faatdi. and iht r« is an arid'^n le vh»% eine« h« <ixa«tttad
tten 1»ond, «ny part of tli'^dnVt liad l^an |Nnid ^r «aiT*d %r !■
aajr any die«liai«nd» vr th«t bin ri|;>fii» »a a nurftty h«v« 1ia4HI
isyairad.
Vindinc ttd 9Tntv ia ilt« r'xsard, th* Jndgaani in
affimaA*
e*Qcwmn, »,j, ASM rmmmt, j. mmtm.
.OU .Ui ft 4AiA£iXimtk* •" Mtmk !•<« •«4A -^^ M
L^lM^ lit ^^9!r mm
'•ntm
tmltmlm « «i »«• r
<rt«v ,J»«ail*»ii4» 111 ttdiv -tlm
^4ti««x« ♦if »•■ •JlJUlI ilkJ. 41
• 1 #IV*«1|t
4YY9 «n snaNiftY
v&vjrtl'tlia
,a^'i.
139 • 26K'6
▼. \
0« iu Am^t m^o MAX XI It
223 I.A. 640
Ma. JTtrnO XAYUR d«liir«r<v<f tfeit eolnlon «f
«ttg»« ftud «)»i%in«d a i«)4g»«nt • thn oan*« te«i»f trl»4 Vr t!i«
til* pl«lBiiff*« olaiM va» ihftt h** v«r1r*4 f«r the
tefradsAta frow MMrek «C, If IS, •! #ac.06 a «••¥ »nd •arned
|41Q.Ges Ximt ha had baaa yaid •acS.dT, laavinc a Valaiioa
dtt* af #ii7«»lS. lh«! dafaadanta t^ affidavil af nariia daaiad
that ttaay had aaiplajad Kits aa ha elaisvd, ar vhet thig ara
iadai»t«d ta hia 1» any amonst*
ftaallar* tha plalatiff; aad hia vlfa. and aaa inriT«,
t«atlfl«d far tha plaintiff. The ftTldiiea af ^nallar ia that
k« vrkmA far the defandftnt th« firat tl«« la 1917, and fer
abe^t A yaar at llO.OCi a wawlc; that ha bagan agaia In Fahmary
19111, »Nd that tha dafaadaat aald *t aill pf fn tha cam* aa
hafara*. a»d di4 fay hia ISO, to a waak fron th«» aarljr yart af
7ahr«fary until isarah »C , 1918. aftar whleh ha ©al/ gava hiai
aaaM aaall a«aniita, hwt from tima to tlina praalaad ta pay hl«
\
l^
.T
<;/■.«<«# ^-^mlb^t
i)«IMUV
• <t«7 i
j##« k^r
•i 'vin^i.*
1 L« i i J "•• (
4^ ^
iWI'M %.iw»«
soo« m« h« oo<w4 »ftk« ■ l««B on a arrtaia li«iildla(. The
irerk don« was in and ftVoni » far«9<i. H* any* h«< werkedl f«r
ma r»niil ihft l*i;t«r p«rt of A^i>»t, 1918} thftt be Xoft
htm* ftt olx in Ui9 !aemln|[« took no tl«« off for m«olt «ad
worttod ■toftiiXjr till »ix in tho <$v»Rifui; somtUmoo till •#▼«•
ooiKOtiRoo till ton} tlMt iNurt of th9 tiKO feo trao working with
Xr. lonrjr on nn invention; that h« got nltog«th«r |24C*O0
After Mnroh 8C, l@ia; thftt tee vorkod nntil iept«Rkor, 1919*
The oTidenee of hie «rif« i» that in a eenTorsBtion vith Benry
ir<i^rpi«««1»er ldl8, Hearjr taiA tlMt in » eo<iylo of voeko h« vetiXt
got m loMi on^ vonld pojr the plntntiff hlo jmf and »oro« na4
wonld OTon ktDT him on OntoaKOhilo.
the vitnoeff Driver, o ^oli«« offio^r. testified that
ho talked witii Eenry at tiis home ia r«>gard to hie arraagORont
with tho plaintiff »na that iienry told him the plaintiff
•tartod at #^«00 a week ana that he paid hin right along.
TNtT the d«fen4antc, one Banolav teotificd ihst is a
talk with Mnollor abc^tt «^a# li, lilt, the latter told hi* he
4X4, not oare whether he got any wagoa or not ao they wore work*
iiig on a patent and Kfter the patrnt mm» finiehed, he wao golRg
to have hie oharo of it.
Tho ovidrnoe of the d^fe«4buit» Mro. Henry, Ir that
oho and her hnobaad «Bployod the 'rialntiff; that on ^prll IT,
ins. In her kltohea hor h^ahaad said t» the plaintiff* I will
sot ho able to pay yr-^ mn/ »6re wageo.* Cn oro^o oxavination
aho taatified that ahe did not know whether her hnoliaad oaid
that ho vowld not bo able to pay tho plaintiff at all or jnot
■• «oro for a oiiiio.
b\U .itiribXivtf HA (<• MAI
#>•£ M' i«fi(i iei«i . to l'i»s
im Cl**!! 1«1 11« •'^U' ' -> ,«**I»t;.
IS* ,4
#••. 'flu »a j^akJ
•5*
ni« •Ti<«<»B«« of Hfftiry, ih* tf«f«n4ent, it th»i en
April JI7, 1918, h« tol4 the ylninUff li« ««. id Iiat* to l«jr Ua
•ff li««iin*« IM (R«ttr]r) 1m4 im m«r« ««Mgr| thai IM pluintiff
••14, all right, Uiat h« lo»4 9l«^ty vf «tti% la his own )!•««••,
Ihtt t)i«t h« WD^IA atsy nith HAory for SC 9t fit d«i/» «lth»>it
99^1 ih*t h« |Nii«i the plaintiff l»»*t«'?rn ^pril £? Mifl Cot«1»«r
13, 1918, th* •14111 •f iMC.Ce) that tM^ did tvy te «;«t • )»«i
• f #8,CCC;,00 en Me h«<^««2 thnt th« plaintiff h«lp«« hin •!!
• l^trat, H« denied tvXltag th« plaiistifi' that h# minld net
fAjr hla until h« c»t th« l«aa.
frmm the for«>gaifm it is q^it* •tirions that, Md^rtf*
i«f t* th« lam, «• would R«t ba Jnstifiad i» everrldinc th«
4«d4paaat vf tJtkO trial Jn4<«. At boot th9jr« !• vf^jraly a o«»>
tradlQtioA* it bo«fMi«s a «in«*tien of orodilMIitjr, aad w« at*
Iqr no meaaa in oiteh an adyantac««nd pool tl on a* the trial Jndg*
«aa in dotarminiag wJona «•« ialllns th« tmth. ]!••• t. rillar*
%rtm, ac9 iii. 193:
' ♦ihara the trial eo>^rt, in a trial irlthe^t
a SviTj* has Had an opyartnnity of s«(>lng ih«f «itn#ae*
•a ^mi ftf h«»arinf th«ir t»?tinscny at it ia d«liv«r»d
•rally, thr flndinss of Rnfsh ee- rt npvn mtfrt^ 4}naBtion»
•f fatrt, «h»n th« teaiimony i« «;t<nfl tetiag, «ill net
•rdiaariljr b« dictnrb«d, en a^paal, nsleee eweli find*
iac« are el<*arljr and Kanif^-atly againat the pr»pead«f«
aaee tf th# •Yid/'ne<».*
tt»© oont*niirn ©f oounael far th« defendant* that
the judsneat, heiaf f^x !••■ than thediffereitea betvaen the
total aiftouat, ficared at ISC.CC a aeek, lea* the ada^tted
feanttent of a total of #JK4c.CC. ia, th^r«fora, erreneoua, ia
aatanable. He eeaplaint en tfewt ground ia »ade en behalf ef
the plaintiff, and a« eroas»errora era aeaigned.
It ia Qoaeaded that the trial jadse erred In allov
lac lie ,00 far atterR«3r*a faea. Th* jttdcm«nt will be affiraed
•4«
fii' ■
at
iMiailll' '' iiMMm&tft •HI ••Ml •*VMn««tft i^l ml
AFrXIUIItA,
.fili::^*: it' ,{• «K^ii.°
36Wt A. illAitX, )
am J. n^iVt
-?
tF auiCASo.
223 I.A. 640H
thft ft9urt,
ta »^ U, l»St, the plMittUff, Jolm K. Qoitry,
•l»t»iii««l 9 Jii4i^«iit tQT o«afe«sioa agAinst Ui« d<>»f«ii4»a%, «|^b
a l«ae«, in tke «aa cf I8&.C0* timt Jjudmiaat «»c 9*d« ay af
|4f«0G fer r«fit for t.h« awatii sf April* 19»?.; 4m,m tnr
attorney* « f^mu la a for^lM* d'talaer ault* aad #M&.c-Ci far
•atarln^; af ti3«t jad#.s''««:nt b/ eoaf'^tiiicn, c^n .rtta«r S, l^tfe*
«oaa»«l far th« <ii«>fen^«v)rit a«<iff « etlen trt Tittoata t)ta Jad^aaat
Iggr o»nf«ftt!lon* flth tfeat motion h« fileil an offid^vli imr»
porting to «ot forth th« faeto apon ahlch tteo motion amo
lM«a4. Ihoi ."notion woa eontii^aad aatil Jaaa 11, 19:iC, and on
that 4«ta tbo trial Jaiga, af tar ordarlag that th« Ju<i«a«nt
\^ oonfffooien 1>a rftdae«d to $6ft«co aaO aooto, oTarmlod tho
jaatloa ta Taoato tho Jadgmoat 1^ eonfoooloa. Iliio apuoal io
tharafraa*
TKa laaaa ue^a vhlsh ti»o 4u^<<'«n^ *** «Rt«ro<i vao
datad Ayrll 1, 191f, and loaoad a o«'rta&g flat aonalotlac
af olJC rooMo oa tho oooaad floor la tho bailOiag Irnewa as
aaee aaat Tttli ^troot. to be ao'^uplod ao a rAoidaa«a fraai
ti&Af • ofi
r.^H.
•MlAJ»W» %9 'vi
Ot^B .AT <',gS
.imAtl*^%k
man «r«ll«i ^t yiiUvsf
wt->i1 i»»«i*t>i«%i m ma t> >JAX i»f** MIkfi
•8»
Iftjr 1» l«lf • to Ayril SC, lf8C, nt « t*tal r«nUl vf IMC.OD*
yay^abl* la mm* •f I46,t< en tl»« first iMy of ••ell •«««*«Aiag
«»atli. Ih« l«A«i« «eatAin«4 • elatts* vhioli jir»Tl4*« ftr •
•0iif«»eUii sf 4ti4«R«nt 1 >««•• of ft tofault hy iK# 1««b««, th*
4«>f«n4«nt, Ml i« WR^r of ih* eov«ii«nta ihitrcin M«mtion«d.
fh« affitfavit ef tho 4«f«nd«uii r*«lt»a« that H*
•0OHpi«4 iho yriMiaoo ttntfir tli« !««■•{ timi «n aroh IJI, I9ac«
a Halt in fcr«ibl« d«iain«r «»• i»ro«clii B«ainst tal^ Iqr ih«
was
flalntiff* an4 on viur«h iti(k%h, im49pnm^mnX9rtt4. in Ui« ii^iwi*
•lr«X >ouJrt in fttTor of it.b« il«>f«n4&nti- iJftafc •» etaroh ftf,
192C:, aiioihor cuii in fer«ibl« dtftainor ««• hreMchi«c«in«t
iiM 4*foii«AMt, an4 o« ^areli 9C« 192C, Jadi^cnt for pr»»«««ioa
«NUi '•ntforoA in faT»r of iiw tilwintiff and againat iha tf9/<»i|iA»
aatt ^^^ *" Marali 91* llfM , t}i« «l9f«ad»nt aavwd hl« traforttjr
frat^i ib« ^raadaaa eAd *ihat iataodiaialj Xtk^nrmmtlmr tM.n affl*
mm% aaa notified ihst ilia leiqro for aaid 9ir«nia*>« tr«r« d*iliT«r»
•4 to tiaa plaiaiiff h«raia and that thlo affiant i« lafamad
that on, Vo»<nt« April A, 19t0, th« plaintiff h«r«ln r«nta4
aaid |»r«Mla»« to anatHcr party, snd tliat affiant ic farthf»r
iafani*4 that aaid iwrty aaa ansioaa and willing to inoTo lata
aad aavild havo oievod imto aaid prcnisoa at oaea« and thai it
«aa thoa ][M>«»ltel« for aaid plaintiff to lamadiatal/ o«e«r«
aMit)it«»r tanaat vho aao willing to pay rant for the aoatha 9t
April at Xh» aaata or a gr^atar rantal tban thio afflMit ^aagaa
tfeiat tea baliVMHi tlubt aai4 plaintiff aaald h«Ta oacarrd mioli
a tanaat, willias ta pay rontal for tha waath of April, 198C«
iMd ha daalrftd to 4o oa} wad koya ta talts promlaaa vi^r* «iwaa
ta tha party wto raatad »«a« oa April 16 asd »r«nie«a war9 aaaa*
»la4 ^ aaid pajpty fraw April 1« to April K inalaalTo."
fha affidaTit far thar r^^eitaa that an aeaaaat af tha
.»»
nni
'itXn lAtf^
QBW
1t9m%9
lt4^tJtml
■> ^ « titles ^■>fiit>r.ju i*^ £-'!<» ls» i;: 4l«t
oir . xxiM mm* xjitMn - ^ >
.3.
i«44pn«mt f«r 9«»««a«i»a •nt<»r«4 agaiiatt ih* d<if«ndi»Bt Ui*
plkimtiff ««iT«4 amy riirlfti to eonfftn* JmA^wnt for r»nt
wM«li th' rffaf t«r t»«o«a« 4tt«2 that in* plaintiff hsci no ri«ht
%• •enf»»«c J«4^«nt f*r «ttem«y*i> f««« •• prcridod ia tk*
favar af atttmogr airing taia th» ri(i.hi to «enfea« Jad^aaat
far faiiara to ,^ay rent* and, fttrth«r« that iha anoant al*
iaaratf, biag #4€«te« attcrnigr** fe«a, waa uit«arranta4l and
aaraaaaaabla.
I'ba qapciien in th« ostaa Ir vh«th«>r th« affltoTit
ia vuppart of tK# aatian ta vaoaia vaa *uffiai*nt. It ia
%h.p lav that tho affliaTlt aheuld cat eut aaah faota aa
eoastltate a sfrjjt.tt facia dafanaa. Ktata Bynlr ttf ^li»te|i t,
lar^ctorat. 1»5 Ul. app. i< Ij Vai^tti ▼, -?arr. I3f ill. 3€8j
T. Kaaaaa, ISC 111. App. 3ia*
tha affidavit r«eitee that tsa arah K ,» 19»C, tha
plaintiff obtainnd a jutilgs^ant for ^'C^aaaaslen and that ea tba
naxt day tii« d@rand»at s^evad hia property fraft tfea praniaea.
It further raaitea timi tJM aafcndsnt «aa aakifiad thattha
Itfgra far tnc pr«iisaa war* a^-^liT#r^d te th(> plaintiff, /hat,
af aauraa* i» a aiara statanent af naaraajr. It than raeitaa
that tha dafaadant aaa iaformad, hat ciioffa nat sajr ^ «hea«
tlMt an April 6. l»8t), ilia plaintiff rantad tha pr«nia«R "ta
aaathwr party" bat it daaa nat aay te ahao. 2t farthar
raeitaa that tha d«!faadant aaa iafantad that aald party •
%at net giving hia nana • waa anaieaa and villimr te 'r.^if inta
tha praraitaa and «a Id bare i«avad into tha pramia^e at enoa,
that al aa ia atatad nttrmXy a« h«araay^. It farth«ir real tea
that •it aaa th»H paaaibla for aai<3 plaintiff to im^adlatal/
•i»ura anathar tanant who aaa aillin« to pay rant far tha
aanth af April at tha aama or a greater rental <* » * and e • •
•iTj ia fa:^m\>.r <■:»,' 4iaa4.«^jB »<»^».-«r» ii9i'<«i»4 ^04 :,)7 ^ir*- :\S0(,
if>»*llJit ««»l':'>o »i #'<^ii 9nJ wxdli .... _ Y««r99
•#* M««lMBt9 Mil »«#o<^'f t^itmtmfn ntU ,(.««•£ .3 ii:i«.^ no iMiii
t%#t-^' —..-,__. . _ . »-,
Xi»4*lfe^ '«u .-J 1 r r/". .'nil B|»ii ir
) ^..«>F' « J
.4.
that he btll«T«» that «»id plaintiff ecvlA hm^*t neeurvA
•U9h « t«n*at wllllni; to pftjr r«rital for th« month of Aprli,
Ifac, tuK4 h» d«»ir*d «• tc do.* ih« nf^re stating of a
pa«»i1»illtjr and baaiag v^an that atataAant af t>aliaf da*a
nat oonatituta suoh a atvtaisant af faeta *•• uodar tha eir*
tusaiaaaaa, tha lav re^uiraa.
Xha affldarlt fuirthar atataa thai 'kaya ta aaid
praslaaa W9rti ^irtm ta th« pf^Tty «ha rant«d aa»« an April !•
aii4 fraaia^a ii*r*> aacafiad Iqr sai<l P«rt/ fr<^ai April 16 ia
April St InolusiTA. It «tataa ne furthitr alrawiataiiaaa an
that aaVjaot and it may aall be thnt th» plaintiff did naira
aama arraafaatant far • txttnrm tanant and allavad him aaa^ifa*
ilaa af thr i»r«mla«a for tha laat taa vaaka inApril withaut
aharelnc rant tharafar.
11k# aenditlen axpr«a«ad is tha latter part af tha
•ffi davit that tha jtlaintiff imd na right ta eeafea* 4udg^<«ant
far rant aftar tha Jud^paiant t^r i^aaaaaien «a» ^t!ti#t»d ia uatan*
aVla* Aaaerdinc te tn« tarma af tha laaaa tha judgsant far
^aaaaaiaa did nat iaatray the plaintiff** right to aoafaao
4«d|pDant far rant, aroiaaiaa y. i^t, i^aal "iruat ^0.. 14? III. AM}
VilliaMO ▼• : hart, 194 111. App. 478. «a rnr* af tha oipiBioa
that iha affidnrlt vaa «e «<>faativa that tha trial Jvdga, ia
th« axaraiaa af r^aaonal^la diaaretian, vaa vail v«rr«nt«d in
avarruling th« matlon aad aat»ring tha judt^w^nt.
yiadlag aa arrar in tha r#aar4 tha j«dgai»nt io
afflm«d«
•H/ \« #<i*ti i«#/«l •«l#«t ^^^ttvifai* «t«#ti«*» ♦'ft
§ '^'V.,
J
n*iiiuff 1/ vt^vr.
«Ultll «D
223 I.A. 641^
UK* 4V«rX8S fi«(MjSCS d«iivttr«r« vh« ei>ini»ii of ih«
eonri*
fli» t>l*iiitiff, it«oT««, filwd hi* d«nlar»iien ^^alnst
ifeu* 4«f«n<)«nt» •llCKliif that th<«\ir "on aaroti 9, 1916, in 'otic
Cc^HMiy* Xllinels, with ft>r«* and ania mttf* «n ae««nlt •« Ui«
ylainiiff a«(A l»««t ftiUI ill ir«atcd hi«i and <l«>tAin»d M^ !• yrl*
aan UM»r«« vitlw^i any r^aaenabiii aatjura, far th» a$iaoa af ta*
irit« IM Iwnra tlwfi aaxi fallowing^ aentmry t« the lawa af
Ulinala and a^alaat «ha will af ttia »lalatlff • « • ^arafara.
\h0 plaintiff 9999 tlmi iM tiaa ittt«uii«ed iMs^mg* te Uw anaoBt
9r #T»,CCC and ito»rafara auaa.* Sk* d«faadaiiia InTclvad filad
• pXmrn 9t %hm gmaral ia»na. tliay alaa filad a apaalai plaa
ia tua afftat tlaai th* i laintlff atcfki nat to toava bia aaid
aatiea far ih* r#aa«n that an ifea 4ata in qaaatioa "ihajr ^•r*
paliaa affia«ra af th« 'liijr cf ':3)iiaac», l««fnll}r appainied
i|Uui««ardaii«a «iir> tha !««« aad aa a^iitfi affie«ra thajr Isad thn
paway aa<i atiiherlty, aad it vaa th«ir dntjr wadar tha lav ta
arraat nay p^rsaa * • • far wiiaa» arraat a «arr«iat aaa iaaaad
aitt af aajr oanrt of acapat^nt jnrlBdintiaa* aad ihana daf«n4»
aata. Jaiatly and savarally. aTar aad ataurga tha faot ta toa
that aa, ta vlt, 9th tfajr af »arali, A. B. 1916, thay did arraat
7t *MM
\
, ■ •jf-t-r'
'^rrT^ f.
•dLf tt a^lmf
,r
fif .*<> . JliiW'A'. .ir-'AijI-i'd
\
,i-i*'tO
Ml. ,., .. . .- .
)«
ilM tmi.4 lUtVrXlltt K««v«s toy Tlrtti* and stitherltjr vf » 9%h%*
mmrrmnt ia«««d etit af • •e«tjri ttf amim^*"^ Jarittdiotlca*.
Til* w»rrani rtt^rrtii t« ««• than ••% ttiti in ih« ;>!•* ia f>ill
J«l»iljr tttto ••v*rAlly, pr^jring "jnAKmeAnt, if vbe •«14 plaintiff
•ttgjit i« hAV« hia nf«r«««Lla ••tion aAAxavi %,'to«m vr aiih^r tf
The plaintiff fil#d « r«pll3«tl n to th« g«ii«ral
l»«Yi« , ieiaiiiK i«»ti« aa thai i»l««» and • tf«Ri^rr«r i« tha
•9<!Hiisl plaa. th» trial ««Mrt evarr^aad tl«« ;»lalntlff*»
4MKirr«r to ih« <jl«f«i}d;mta* »9i»ttlal i>las and tha ylalntiff
al»«t«d t© et«nd by hl» d4mqnr»r, nharatipon, th* plaintiff •
a«it «aa dtR*l»c*0 an4 %hn (»enrt «ni«rad Jttdfpnant in favar
•f tlM dafffnu^nti; and againat tl^a |»i«lntifr far oeata* ta
Jffrm9 whi«li tha piaiatiff Iws parf««ta4 thla a^j^aal*
is 0^r Oi;^iai«», th« triai ae^firt arr^d in koldia^i
Ifeai the apaaial |»laa aaa a gaad fiaa in bar «f ilka pl«int4ff'a
Mitiaa *a aat fr<rtlk in hi« d«elaraticn* It daaa not a|)i»aar
fro* aay faeta ailafa^ in tha i>l«a tliat tb* plaintiff raalatad
tkwrm9% 9tk ltst« o«<^aaic;at in (ii««atien nar that th» d«faadaat«
«aad na nara t%r99 thmn waa rnaaonabl/ a««#c»»ry tc Arrnat tba
plaintiff BMd pXmum him in Jail; aar tliat tliay ttfra«d tha
plaiatiff aTar t« tha propar Atithariiiaa praaq^tiy; nar tKat
annb Aalajr at tii<^ ra nuty baYa toaaii in %riii«inc the ;a a in tiff
%mf9r9 the aiaciatrata« aaa aat isnrwaacnaMa, aar tliat tkia
•nraat teak plaaa within tha Jnrladiotiea af tha daf<»Rdant«.
WMuily. ia tha 31 ty af Ohiaaca. 7ha plaintiff aoataa4a that
iha piMi «aa \m€ ha«ait«a it did »«t appaar fraa aajrthlBc
allagad th rein that tha d«f «rQd,<»nt» vara a»th{>riaad ta tkrrm^t
tha plaintiff aadar tha varraat, aar Uuit tha plaa rafarrad ta
tha griavanaa awaplaiaad af in tha daalaratiaa. aar tint tha
•»•
ttm'i ml (mt MtMjm Mtf
fl^-:
9l
l-i. r» t*^ Mi
Mil hr«nii»!ft> ic*'(.) all tilm\ nk «M <»«»«i4 ''Mb 111:.
BMilltliMI ««tl Tmoipt ^(W w«|»«»MI MM «^« ••ftr »t4^
^•tm*mn%9 lawful Ij i«priMm*« ill* olsiaUff In ;1«e1c 3«9»V»
%«it in enr •?iaiea «♦■• ftf t)i«»« 9«at«^ntle»a ar« i«ii*bl«,
v« ««e«r th« oyiaioB that thm plMt «»• »4liJ*«t U Vb«
AvBnrrsr fil*tf«
nm J««4cR»nt af %h« .^)p«rior Q«nrv af <3«ok C«nfiV»
1», thf^rvfor** r«>T«r»<»it «ti4 th(« ennoa i» r«m«ji4««l to itet
Mnrt vtih dtreetiont i« tnviala th« i««it}rr*r of th« plain*
tiff t« ih« 4p«Kilal pi Ml flle«i li^ th« 4i»f«a4»ai»«
^^QtiMmUt ».J. Ait; tAtUH» J. 9(iff9ill«
tmtJ 9i (•'♦toiup'- .tl
.m-: <y: »4 .h.uiai aui •%•« ,/»», ui5»#
/
as • «M>sa
TBI MOJri.«\CV tnx etATY tiW XLLUCaa.^
▼••
\ nain/iff la %rrtr.
nmB It
WmX CI ?AJL «:"MT
22S I.A. 641
^
Xhit l» ft bft«tAr4|r i>ro«««4itt£. ii Jury «»• »ftiT«4
V ^^« (i f«a<3i%nt «tfi4 at tli« ••a9ltt»icR «f th* e'viitno* the
•fittrt f e -nA the d>rf»aeStt»t gwiltgr »n«i ««t«rMd J«dsn«ttt, r^
((«lriaf th9 d«f<»«k<t»:itt to p«y te th« Cl«r1( ef th« eetirt, f)ir
tk* «hiX4 in «ii««tiea 41, ire itt ln«t««llR«»T}ts »• 9rovl4«d
^ thv »t«t«i%«* to r«T»r«« this Judgsitnt tiM tfAf^ndnnt iM»
•««4 ent tills writ «if «rrer.
la «vi>port af th« ^rlt af •rrar^ tK» dvfMKSi^mt eoa*
tand* that th« trial a^nrt arr^d, hath in i^ltilac Inecapatant
aridwaaa and la •^atainlBg a^4<*atl6a« to ecnpataat arld'aea
tiEUkt Dha-ld hmw }im«n Adinlttad. fhlla ttaa oem|ilaial»|{ wit*
U»*» waa on ih» mtmmA aad aftar aha taatlflad ta tha effaat
that th« d«fana«>At hwd hnu aaxnal iatairaonraa with har a
ttuahar af tin«», ha^glaala^ la JAntiarjr* 1916, »nd c otlaulac
antll the «ii.fiiaar of 1911>, ttad h*d f«rth«r taatlflad that oha
haaaaa yracAaat la faanary, 1919, aad had advload th« da-
faaoaat ^t har pra#aaaaar ooaifftlaMi In F«br««Ty, eha was aolrwd,
*Bi« jroti talk vlth hl« ( th» dafanoaat) at aay tiaa In r«f»r<i»«ta
ia Itt and aha anawarad •Taa. 11k «lfa tald mm not tcleave
&i,^. • r,x
^i Tkhl
.■'.■.". a
-fit; . '
- ' ~ »•' f •"■'■•-•-■••■' ' .^-^ ,.-, -, <« • ^ .
'-'^^ <»ttAia .
'■■■r i -r , ':i »1 .t. •.-.
9VB9X-'oO Jon - . ' '
•8*
tli« hew** Matll it «»• nil •▼•r** Th<* dff«iidr>nt ebjcetwd t«
tiQiia astf th« •bJ««tion vmm eT«rr«;l«i. Ihia *«• crr»r» la th*
first pl»e«« th« Mainrvr ««• not r«»»(»ensiT« tnd «rf»n if it had
b««n it was in<ioKip«t«nt 8«4 •taeulii bmr* %mmi atriakcn, in
the abavnov af «•«• shewiim te th« «ff««t thnt thA <i»f*Rd«)A%
«*• prraent «t th* tine ttf t:h» »ll««r«4 rcmirk Itjr bi« vif«.
It ift tirgfttf h> th» 8t«t« that isaaMwak aa th« hearing waa ha4
h«f«A« the oo rt witJaiO t a JwiT tha Jm^Kaaat aill nat ha ra*
^mrm*A hy r«a>on af tha a^adtcioa of isaoaiipataiit aTid«a«<r
aa it «ill ha ]»r«»waad that th^^ ao.srt diar»«ar4a<t anah aviaaaaa
aad in r^^aahiats lt» fiaifiias eoneld«'ir«»tf anl/ aitQh avidf^naa as
taaa eenyatant. Thle i« net th^ rnla* A alailar aeatan*
tiaa fma «ad« in Iba --'aei-la ▼. Rami, ast III. tGft, «hara tha
SvyTana Cat«rt aaida "Tha aa^irt, in the a»fsct>iat »ffori %• a«a*
taia J^d«aaata vhloh a^^s^aar te ha rij^ht an tha fli«rit8, haa
fr«c(«r»ntl/ haXd in eiTll a««s#» that If, wpen m r«vl«w af ths
r«90T4^ thf» aenpataiit rri4i*ne«' atiAt^iaa th« i^dcsaat, it
vlll «at ha r«TanHi4» and had eaitf that tha mmm» hamfTil affa«t
daaa nat fallav vh«jra a aauti la triad hgr a aenrt vithe^t a
ivitej aa iih«r«! tha trial i» hefar>« a 4orx * • * ihat r<ala
ia earraot «h9r« lapea » reviaw af ida r^e^ft tha aa^-rt eaa aajr
tlwt tha Judg^ant ia ri^ht r»»sardla8«i af tha adaiiaaiea af
ineonpatant avid«n«« anu «rranao>!)» rulinsa, hat th<<>)r» ia a«
eatiraa ef dattad r«}«aeaiR£ in9%ityinti a eeaelnalon that a
aanrt aanaidrins aTid«a«>« ee«ipat«at aa«i ralaTant aa t«adiiic
ia prave tha laa«a wh««t railing en th«> a^aiaaien af taaiiaMOij.
ragarda it aa iae<Hnppt«nt »nn net t«»dingte v^Tur*! tha ia^na
aiiaa finding tha faet.*
Vmia th« 4af andiuit vaa en th* atnad, tectifjring
la hia aan hahalf, ka ana a«k«d, "JMd aha (th<> aeatplainAng
vitnaaa) at ntqf tlna aiian aha want aut tha aigbi hafara.
ml «•»>■
• auml»tt% '^•^ ■'• '•-•>■■•■-•'-<■ •<. »-''• ^' --- — ' xiiii J4 MA
«• *«ft . ..- y„ ii»ii i»l hum
^^«>'^i• {•rtaobatf mii>« •«li ^odi »Juift« ami irr «!H»«-il>v*t ttf J A* iXltf
i4^i« i%n-*n s yet k»it4 •& i«j«» • •«•!(« tM-Ai^l ««(b »•«*
•Xirt #»* * T««i « •^.•l«<f •! :« tA ^fMri
1,4 «4tJ S »tHt4
' .J ■
0#«« hMi« Hfttf i*ll jr«v «iiA jeiir wlf« ihAt nb* )ui« W<»a rftf««t*
ial. fliw o«Ttrt •T«rrnl*4l ih* tbj»«tl«n tMt %h9 witn«Ks iui«««r*
•tf, "»lii« did. i ir»Mi4«»*t ■«/ sh* JttBt vxaatly jhit ii v^^t /^t*
«»nl4 «i(ll r»iM>4. lih* ••ia all* ««• or^t viita a j«>'»t man mi« !>•
«■« «aA«r tit* iafLu«ao« of Ilqatar aaa aiiil« tli«jr v«>r* «re««lac
a l«t * * •*• ll»r« th» da<irt iat«rx>ipt«d nad ad(lr«B«lac aotiaaaX
for th« 8t«t« aa1r«(l, "What ana th« f^ranad of 70««r ebjoetlaav*
aa4 aoHMoal. itB»aar*d that th» flrat iNirt of tlia «is*»tlon vaa
loading and ««MUC**tlTa and that thM i^tlior part aas iaanat^riol
aad addod "It h»9 met hm*>n \tnvght oat oo tlio dlrnoi** Vltoroapoa,
tko oo^rt aaid* "X aill «««taia tl^o e1i4««tloa oa that cro^^ad. I
t«k* it jroM vo Id hoT* to bovo ahova *«<n<»thioc oho aald to tiia
1»ofO'i» ]r£>*i eaa co late it ontb« af>oo»*axaniaation. If «iha ad*
ait* it tliat v(»ild bo tho «ad of it* C» tlu»t grottad /(^*< wrgo
X atiotaia thft objoetioa.* fhle al«« «a* it9T9T* lh» origiaal
•bjoatioa ahlob wont to tb« farm af ilia ^aootioa woo good aad
if it iiad b*«a aaataiaod ontkat gronad« aotiasoX aii^ht woll tta^a
alUMcd^ tlk« t<»tm of hi a %ao«tioa, b«i tli«r« vaa ao baai* for
koldiat tho qaaotioa bad oa tiaa gronad tbat ii had *aot boon
broii«iht ait oa Vn** diroot.* Vo aaovw* to nool mit^ bar* booa
raferriag to tho diroot ea»o of tlia Staio. It i* apsoroat thai
th»d«f«mao aa* off<»riaft oridonea that th» oeaplalaiag vitaosa
had bad iatoraonrao with iroa oth«r thaa tb# d*fond<»at« fhia
«Tid«!no* va* ooaptataat abothor that ottbjoot had b«oa nantloaod
aa th» diroot oatio or aat« Xha ocnjrt ooom* to havo had aen#thlag
in aind vith rofor«ao« ia diroot and ore*o*«Xfs»l nation. Ihi*
tao*tittn w»« a*k«d aad r^iliag aMd« abila ih» d(>f<»n()ant va* oa tha
otaad in hi a dir»ot axaaiaation.
It ie nvgad that th« trial eoMrt orr«^ in snotainiac
iho objooticao of tho &%m%m to ih* t^Rtiaoagr of d«f<>adi<at*o
.••^•iMft > Jure i' »«>jd 91" ;;»*:>« ^n*
I .ft:, .rf*'
«!<( •# i»l«« %«• j|igiijw<»a«« inr»r - ) ttii«-l
|MI« It99ii «<"» f%9Jj9*ufi ' ^ ■ -ri .■' I- 'JB9
k«n i»«Uv« lAdl %mU9dm fnt* r^'^btf
Mt «• 909 tm^iiif". >XUU> «*•• ^li olltt^vp
•4.
vlf«. Tli« p«lHi i« aci t«n*U« for sh* ««■ net ■ tMif^tciit
«itn«sa, IXiittolt &tAt«t«a, Ch. ftl, •««. ft (J. It A. yar. 6&a^).
asked wh«»«A«r an* •▼•r h«<i « <s«)nT«rs*iies vit.ti th« f^oxi^lBlaliic
vitnttsc in vnieili iti« l»ii«r H«« tol4 th« «ltm««« alietii hm9
■arriaga* Cb^!»a%i«ii to this 4|it«»tion v»» K»iitAin«i(t «n<S this
mllnc »!»• in aer'iKntd a« arrar. 7h4» eliJ*«tion «ra« jiraparly
•«rBtAln«d* itiaanitioh a* it aar an «>ffart i« Imfiaaoli tli# noaplaia*
iiiC «ttn<««a an^ no prai)«r fonfiAatlen aa» laltf far this t»f>ti«
«eii|r alilla th« oeApXalnin^ wita^iee waa on tteo •t'snd. 9a««aal
far i}t«> ^9it9tk^M,n% «|^9r»oiaia4 ihi<» far h» r»«all94 th'» aaM^^lal**
iim vliarsii te tiM «t> nd and fttt«R|)t*<s %• lajr th« pre par f&<iii4»*
U«n Igr ahaviaf that »h« knaw Catb«rin« Kail/ and ^y aalrinc ilia
Titneea tlia fcXlaaieg t|u««tlen, "Baiaaaa J^^ly, 1918, aa4 9m\trn»
mry, 1019, did yn tall Mi»a Kallj yeij v^r^ a narriad vaauuiT*
that 4«aatiea mtm a%4«otad t« aa l>aia« taa lad»flBiia and tkM
«a«rt anatalaed Iha atojaetica* Ja o«ir es>laiea, tM« alaa vaa
Xbia ««• ft aaaa in which ih« airld«Aeii> waa in chary
o«afliet. fha taatlMaajr ttt thm enmpl«iala« witn«a» waa ii|»»
•«i9;i>ert»d aa aha waa tha onljr wltaf»ai!> an^lnat th«» «$«f«>n<iftat«
Ihila i^arta of har ttatlmoajr a<»««i vary iaprabahla an« althangh
aha waa oentradlietad la aoaa r^ ap»ota hjr sayaral of iha wit*
aaae#« oih^r iHaa th^ d^fwa^i^nt, wa ar^ aat af tha apiaiea that
tha aaea laonewhi«?h eha^ld ha r«T«ra»di withant ranaadlac,
htit that it ahanld ga iNiale far a aaw trial.
f»ir the raaoens »tatad tha jndffnaat af tha IMmiaipal
Oanrt is r«Yar««d aad th« f!a»i»a is r«aan4ad ta that eeart f^r
a aaw trial.
In»#»fa»« • ^Mi Mr* Ml«
.<«*i 4«i^
■> b^>'8A
> sa^wMt* V'
n-
ltf«««Mj
alNAbllMir
% MXO c
3l %*JNiMr»i a I WN^Hw #ir# im i
.i^kXlJ
*^^l-
«M • MXO§
▼•
a ••rperstlea, w%
' ,. 1
"-/) ^
kAAtS
^ /^ tj
I.A. 641
MM, JmtlG'.^ tyitamJi ^f^lkr^rmA ttai^ oplnicn tf
ih« e«urt*
Jttd«m««t f»r |16«CC0 r«rii;«v«r4»d ity th« i>X«inilff, Sltfmffy* Morris
|i 0«npi»ny« frllovini^ « Tffrdiist far that wneunt rfturn^i bjr m
jury in ar «otlon nn th« eas«, Yh#r«»in th* plaintiff tth«rg«d
tlMt tbntr dcf'^Rdants bad eons^lrod t« rain lis Vtisinoas b^eaua*
it «»• «tiitf«r««lllng ibmn «• a «o»p»tit«r in th^^ etationsry
•tt|»9ljr bu8iii«f»r in th« "iitnf tf ^hiesi^;* and b#9att«« it v»ul4
«»t maintain e#»rtain prie«» whioh it all«g«A hnd b««ti fixad
Iqr tb« dafaaAHAtc thrauKh the ahiaait* Stationars Avaoeiatiott.
tf vliieh all tha ««fead tttta ««r« mcwlwra. It vaa fiarthar tti*
].ac«d in th* d^alaratian tliat Ity mtimidatioa and aalavfal
indue««ant», tha d«f#RdABt» had e»at'>4 rarieus ai«nafaetttr«>r«a
jabhara and whalaaalara to r<>fttaa ta oentiaiia aalling tha
flaintifr, «h«>r«b7 the $>iaintiff va« pf«T«»Rt«d from earr7ing
out ifta aaatraeta with itsr aaetamara* wharaf era plaintiff
had haan dMumad ta tha axtaot af llfC.rCf «
far aewa jraara priar ta 19tft, thr««> brath<»ra, Williaai
S, itaiaaa (icnawn aa Jaak Paaaaa), &Mnii»l Janeo* and Marria
•ous • cci
ajiunraixi
.V
tkd
-Im %md4xu'l ««« ^i .«tMfa*a »t».-
^lilaiAlf •in^t«f4v »«t»f»»#«u- K4ss\.ra«iO %ik Jve
. ~ If 1t« I .' bm^mmh rn^ bmM
•1-
JNetf ♦ hat* V»»a ••••«l«i«4 %«f9tli«7 in i««IiB4i in e«riAia
llm«ft •! «t«itieii«r|r »uFi'li««* antf«r ill* ««»• of trnlT«rft«l
Xililwa •»« 0«rW)n ihB#«r Coiapaajr, wttloh ««• not lM««irpor«i*4.
Za 191ft, ^•rrit an^ Ja«k raaa«« oir^«nis«4 a ••r$*oraU»a i«
•acaca in lli« ««»ar«l viAtimarjr ant: erflo«' auppl/ feMcinatt,
aadat %i»« aa«a af S14aay Marria as 0«M(»«ay. Merri* l^uiaaa
vaa fr»sitf»a%» ffaak Faaaaa «fta fi««]r»tiiri aa^ iteararar tad
i» cttflUea te iK* Faaaaaa* %hm Umttrt^ af £tir*atara iaalud^d
A. A« (lr«aa>iarf »ati Slathaa Sraaaaaa. Saai Paaaa# «»• anployad
Iqr plaintiff en aalarj aad aawaiiaaiea Wt he aaiiatf aa •ta«i>[*
Hi* <«craFiaoiiaa «itf> tlia .tsintiff aarprratiaa Wisaa la ^av«a»
iMif, 1915. At firsv iha eas^ital sU^k af tfaa ^laiatiff 9tmp»
aajr warn $»,CCC Iwi ia l»lt it ai!»e iaar#a«a4 ta llS.OCC and !•
iha felleainc yaar ta lK«c<c, !>«iia in ilia laiiar jrmir tha
i»lalftUff raM»av«d io lavsar <|uart«r«, ahaf*" it ha4 ov«r taiaa
ilia Asraaa abioto i»aa 1»aaa airailablc at tlk« flTai I«e«ti«a*
Tluit ih* plaiaiiff*« ba«ia#«» iner<?ae«<i rapidly aaa t&ai i%
vat aaaaaatiRfi a i«J^«« and 9r9m»»T9ti9 Vuaiaatt at tfaa tina
ilUa aatiaa »«it )»aj(ti», it aet d«fti«d Imt the plaintiff tmn»
(•a<it« iltat, ware ii &e% far tfe* adtlaat af tlva 4<>faadaata«
aaatplaiaad tf » lit graatk «aui4 aava ^*n m^r* rayid wad itt
iMtoiaatt aa^.ci irmv« laar^atod te a attavitlljr icraatar axtant*
7hvf Ohi«m«a statleaara Aaaaalatioa «aa areaaiaad
in 1«M and vaa aat isaari^aratati. Aftar thia (t«f»n«rnt hAd
fil««i a Pimm mt tha saaavtl iaaaa it fit,»k*<i lmmr« ta withdraa
it and flla a .l$m ef oal titl aarpcratian bat tbat matlaa
aat daaiad. It te»«i fe\ir elatnaa af aaabairMii|i« asaavAiYa*
Mtxlliary. indlvidaal and iMnmrm^. ^aautiva aaabart aa»»
tittad af partaat mr fitnt who a«r<!* raiail mr abelatala
ttatianart laaatad la fiHiaage, thm^ pmiA mtmm ia »ra^r«ita
ta tha tiaa of th»ir feavinats. vn« d«f«B<iaBta '^-tav^na, Malan^
•^ari- •••• ' ' -^•<* *- >- *-• '-''- -■■ ' ■-..•* ^ ■■ - f-->t ^,^
mi t>. ,,
97 tiff irr.'/ *. .J ; *V*i*ftt
itif»l«» ^•i<f«':?} xi2Ji<<^^
./ir»»v» ,i|iiUN4MhHMi t«
••Mt«tir«4f «i (KAii fri««- YMTr .>2 hm$%x
Uv« M«mb9r«i ef ih* Aa»««liiti<>a* Attvillary atMi1»«rii ••nalatctf
0f aMuiaf tto turer^ «f g««tf« tarriffd by ttiftti«n*r«. Cf th« sis*
i»«B fims n»«i94 la th« bill tf p«rtliral«r«, •ight v«r« •ux-
ilitktj i»««ib«r«.»f ih« A«ii(»«liiii»(i at tiM ilM* of t]N« trial..
Tha at>u»r ntaaufaoittrara naiaad in tha bill of pariieulara ynf
nmiar waaitrart af tha Aaaaeiatian. Raa« af th^ <3»f4Hi4l««ta
tir9r hal4 aiUiar IndiTiduRl ar hanararjr %anbar«hiipa ia tlta
Asaaaiatian* 'fha albjjaata and pari»«ea af the Aaaaeiatian aa
aat farth ia ita bgr*la-wa« »<»re tc bring Uia namlwra iata alaaar
iouali witli mm9f'- athar} ia r^fam a1ni««a axiatiag in th« eVatien*
mtj buainaaa; ia diafuaa aeeuraia and raliabla iafamaiiaa}
%• praoura ttnifanaiiy »n<} e^^i-ialatjr in thr anataaia and aaagaa
•f tJka iratfa. and ih<»r«bjf braaHan tb« baaia api»a vhieih tba
bvainaaa »aa oantnatadj to aat far er baiwaan ita lawabara ia
mattara af aanti^Tarajr ar adjustetini,, and ftenarall/ ta par*
farm an^i aat appart&iniac ta tta« tmda, nai in aanfliat witli
ilia lava af the Vnitad ^'tataa, ar af tli# ftata af lllinals.
A fanaar 9r<»«id«»t af th# Aaaaeiatian txttifiad
tlmt the aatlYitiaa af ih« Aaaaeiatian aanaiated af fraquant
maatiBKa of tha mambara irii«<ra th^/ «^r# sddraaead by diff»rant
■fankara alan« tfaa linaa 9t gaed marolwndiaiac} that tha
Aaaaeiatian d«»terminad upen « nunbar af g«>naral buainaaa paliaiaa,
mifih mm tka teaura far opasias and slaaiac* th« haara af aartt
far m»n and waaaa miApl0j—9t th# tim« far 3atnrdajr eleaing and on
viut fei»lidaya ta elcea; ana alimiaatad aaajr unfair trad* praa*
tiaaa. aaob aa «iTiac rabataa an aaaaaata ana 3hriataiaa praaanta
ta 9m99^^Tmg9 trada. Saaa tima aftar ita orcaniaatiea, tlia
Aaaaaiatiaa airfajnisatiaa vaa aluiagad ta almt ««» ima«n aa tHa
Mjtaand plaa, wMeh inTclTad tha aal aa tioa af a alwiriBaa, aba
«<-
■■la «..'"" -liUJ OS ^AB^-1l 19
ft r- : ■ .. t ^
>r/wiQ «i*4ii4 ii«li' V ft*4«tfifi'
WM m dimin%«tT9»%m4 9«r««n nm% m nam'bwr of the trad* •r In*
(tuitirjr %0 «^le]i i]M At«o(ii«ti«B «»• •fctft«li<>4. finder this plan
ihjLfi 2>«rii«» ««• uBumlljr a lavyvr. ttoh ««a ih<« tolimony af
tlM df^f«ni)«ji% Ogran, vha «»• a laay^r and th« aHairmaa af
ih« Aa»aaiaUrn at tli« tiraa af thn t ial« Tl»la witnaav fur*
iher t«atlfi<'^ that th« /ianooiatiaa alaa maintaiaad Qftrtaia
aaaial aailYltlaa, a«9li ma a iHiviing laagva t^t ih« olnrlra,
(•If teuma»)»nia, an aanutil fiald day* Tarlaua dlanara and
luaetoaana and aa amsal l»aactttat and %tom% in eann»otloa wltb
lift adu mtloaal aatiTiti^c It «a« a part af the dutiaa af tka
chairman ta aUidjr th# trad« aa a whola sad Ui^ ra^atioa af iha
AaaaeiatioB and ita ^aialtera ta tha trada; to »a«Br«» aa far
aa paaaikla* the adaptiaa pt aaifem aesountinit ayntaar^
aapaalally tha e«a radassoiandad >7 th« ii^a4aral 7r*da ::aBu»iaaieB,
far r«tall a«re)mnta{ tlMt dHrl»8 tiut war th* Aataalatian taek
ap aaoli QOftatlena i^a 4dint dttXirartaa tkn4 all qvaatlonit intW
aittad ta b»«iAaa« man g:«A#rally %>y th« "aunoll af Utfaaaa;
that tha Aaaaoiatlon hald fra^uant n^etini^a at vhloh laataraa
war* iiriTaa to tha mspl^y— af »»»Vi#raj thai in th* yaar pvm
▼lena to th« trial th^^ itfiaolatlon hald a aeri«a af aix aali^a*
auuBaKip dinnara, vhara addroas«>e> w«r« g:lTaa 0n aalenuNaahly
tur a 9iaa fr«B tka SiialdaB sehael af S«aa«aanalii9s that it «aa
tka duty af tka ehainaaa ta nalca aaaljraaa and aurrvya af iahar
aaaditiana, Matt*ra of el ark hira and eoaQinratlTa atatiatiea
aa thaaa aulijaeta and aen^aet a oaafMiiga aaoh yvmr alaac dda*
aatlaaaX liaaa far m^^Htyma*
Xt wm» furthar in avidaaaa that bai^iwiBc ia mtmAat
1917* tha Aaaaaiatiaa raaagniaad a taadaaay an tha part mt •urn*
atatienara ta ha eoralaas la tha laattar af beakltaapiac and Iraay*
ins »nd figuriaiK thair aTarhaad axpanaaa, aa tha Aaaaoiatiaa
ap^alatad a aehadula eanraittaa vhaaa daty it ««a t© deti^raina
1;R\ «
pmm4
\Od'^t ^f «^ilV*i.'* . -,» .- .,_ ..-.. „il» iwCf I. ... . tgi
V*¥b«0«U flit ^iKtiit
vlHit It oonsiderod fair pri««s •n fmriemm *rti«let In th«
trad* tunn thir^ttch Wlletln* vM;«h v^rf! dl«tribui«d aaisng iU
mmt'hmrM tt^at tir,« ie iiiM«, thvKv priow» ««r* jr««*aM4m4*tf fkr
th»ir «<l»ptioii. It ««• iH« t*»ila«ii]r tt •a«ta ftf th« manlMir*
•f th« ABscttiAtlea er th«t* oona«Mil<»d wiib it, w)ie v«>r« witn*«»*
•• ott th«> trilMf tkunt tt«nli«r« cf th» Juine9i«tien mmr% tmd«»r
a* •I41giiti»n t# follow r#««NM»«i4«« pri«<^«* tlMt wiiilr ih*
it«nb«ri» g«n«rAlljr ftt1li«««!d th««« r«ec«R««nd«ti«a«, fr«fu«ntl/
thai «»• iwt tti« -««•{ tit^ftt a* r«««rd vat kvyt •• t« «h«th«r
•r a»t ««ib«rs awititAin»<i tb« i>rie«» r«o«Miii«a4«d and that MMib«r«
Might adAi^t Ihim. 0r n«t *• tluty elw»«.
It is ea« of th» 9«at«(aticB« of tha d«f«i4Mltfl
•ft thii ft]i»]»a«l that th« vtrdiot mtd Jadcm<(mt »r« a^sainast tha
•anifaat vaie^ht af tii« aTldanaa and thai %h» ^udgmani ■teal4
iliTaftr© ba r^veraad *lth a finding af faat*
7e ^n^k<» eut lie oatse it was iitoualiaai npen ttaa
ylalatiff to «aia1»lltj& Igr ih* «iridftn«« (1) that ih» defaiMl*
ania o«n»|tiri»d in i]M» naanar allft^<td« (U) that mid dvfendaaic ar
aana •f thaa a»«iniitft«i 9mtsM avari aot ar aaia In farthftraaea
ai auoJa aenapiraoy, and (9) Ukai ih<^ plaiaiiff vaa deisagad ih»ra«»
Iqr* ca tm <|;u<»Rilan af i^ail»ar a oaaaiiirAajr txiat«»d and aeia
lud iMitn aeflmiited b^ tbo d#f«nde:nt« la fttrth<^raBe« af ii«
a larga a«eaat 9f teaiiiaoajr «a» sulaalttad 1^ bath sidaa in ina
trial itf tlui aaaa* Mjf ihis tafttimanjr ilka plaintiff aadaaverad
ia atoaa tJ^t a aaabar af diffaraai natiufaQtarara had refuaad ta
fill its ardara, unl««e it vauid a«r«a ia mtiataiB the priae*
raa«wiwida4 by ilia Cbiaaga stationarb Asaa^^iaiiaa aati thai aar»
tain ladiTidual d*fandanic rayr^aaatad t« iha flaiaiiff that
aal«a» It bea«»« a ««nbar af th« Aa»04iatiaa aad a^raad ie mU»»
•--. x44 j:,^,,. ... .. ... ^ ^'i-t fS- 1»R|« «^«rfA4|0r(o.v .1.m,.» 1#
%m.in Mid did Rwintoia aaeh pric«0 «« th« Ac^*el alien rm9mmm»4*4,
%h0y «ttMl4l ••« thAi ih« pXtiinlitt «i»s ttnubli! to p«r«ll«l^• 9*x»
kttia lla*» tf aiAraliftaidift* freM tho iRARttf»etiir«>r«. T1i4» d«f«in4*
•Rts lniro4ttO(^<t •Yid»nQ4t inrappori of ili«lr p««itlon, ihat mi
•ia«b ktir««t» bad biicn ft»d» by ttnj indtT&doala inrvlTwd sad ih«t
Ui«jr hitd ii«t. r«f»«st«cl »! ]^r«9ttr«d any sMknufHatttrvr* tc r«ftta«
t« *tll th« plAinUff «••«« tat tiMt Moh diffiottltin •• in*
plaintiff »tqf hav« •x#«rl«A«4r<>d vltb a«nuf«otar«r» ia t^l» ra*
gari van to* t« a tfoartaga of aiatariala, ia acwa iaatsaeaa, aa4
ia aoaiia •t.hrra, ta «|tt«ctions aff eating tb« plaiatifr*s araAlt
with tJiia aanafaoturar* in question. t%m plmiatiff aada aat a
•troas«r ^«aa with vtmrf^not to aoma itaao allagad in th* Mil
•t ^rtietilara thmx it did aith eUi«re« If tha plaintiff* a
aaaa raat^d antirwly on tb# eYi<l#»ie« rof'rring t© c^rtaia it«Ra
and tha alla«ad rafuaal af th* maaufaoturara ar Jabbara laTalTod
ta aall th* ^lailatlff baaaaaa af eoaiiilsiwNi af tha 'flULaai^
Stationer* a Aaaaaiatioa •r ita mambara, avin^r to the plaintiff *a
failurt' ta maintain |>riefs r«oi«attaaded by tn« Aaaeniatian, aa
aaulii be inaliaad lo the riaa that the Terdlst and Jadcarat were
acainat tb<« oanifeet weight of the eYideaee* t^a the ather haadt
if the plaintiff* II caea r«atec dia the eTidenae relmtiac ^ 9mw^
tain ath«r itaaa« w% aeuid net be aa inclined. Cn the ahela
eTldMi9«, aar «aaeluaio|l i& that we wet^tld net be Juatified in
findias that the aanelaaica af the Jaiy, ta the affeat that
tb»re vaa aaeh a eenapira^ a a the plaintiff aliased, ta ah lab
tha defeadnata w«ra »artiaa, and that avert aeta had bean earn*
Kitted, at leaat by mimfi af th« dafendaata* in ftirth"ranee ^f
aaah eanaplraey, aae againat the naaifeat weight af thm »Ti«
denee, fa are aet unmindful af the faet, ae far aa tb* era!
teatlnenT^ irant, th«i. tha plaintiff *a «maa reated eatirelj an
tha teatiaonjr itf the three Panaa«>e, wbila thr>r- w«>re soma nlna*
tM»«»«wn»t tmM*mt0'mm. mdi mm ••otvQ ^ml-t «Hf Ihw hik t>mt mimt
•«•« tt BsU Alto's u "^s^ A* «i«;r»rt fta^t^ » ..,.. ^jejI^i mI4 II
#«t# «r«^1[4 •«/ H^ .Vtov •Wfj 1« MteiKCMM* ^•& SaHS lurutilt
t«»n «liR«B««B for th* ««fcB(iani«, tubs t»nt tally tfonyiSK th«
^••iiHiirBQr 9t th« plaintiff* s wltn«*»«»«, •«!:)•» of th«ai vith r»o«>
jNHtt to •««« Inot^nooo vhioh v«r* iaTolT#4 and oth»ro with r«o*
^••t to oih«r i»iBtBn»«o. rho plolntlff*o eoo* in thio rog«rA
«»« tMLtorlalljr otr«iiethonod Vy e rtain oorro«p«ii<l«<ti«« vtiioh v»o
ifitrodtt««4 in oridm**, fiin*«»«R for tho plaintiff t*>ttifio4
tlutt tho ABiorie«n Pnnell OiiMfaiur, through thwlr Kr. Kondriolt*
h»4 notifi«4 tb« pl&iatlff that tk^y ooultf not fill ito or4»T«
ho«att«« tho Chtasgo 8tatio»or*8 Aoeoolation wnt> oliJtotiBc
iHieottoo of tho failurft ef tho plaintiff to »aiataia ito roo«»»
■Mi«4«4 prio«o} that th« rsfiiORX ef th* Aaorict^A Ponoil Ooayaaur*
roforr^d to* r«o»lt<!!d in ac»rtftin HoKal yroooodiaga boiai: talroa
a«aiBot it Itjr tho plaintiff $ that aftor th^oo proeootfiac* **r«
inotitatod one of th«) plaintiff* noj^ Kondriok in tho offi(»9» of
tho »t*om<qr t93t tho Anorioaa Fonoil Ceapaajr and VhAt in tho
oanraa of ooavoraatieo, v^«ieh th e» teolr plaoo. f«n4lrie1r handed
•ao of tho Faaoooo a tetter, pur>?ertinc; te ho diroetod to th«
Aaorieaa iPonoil flvrnprn^qf hgf thn plaintiff. l>nn«oo d'^olinod to
oisn tho l«tt«r nn ro^ostod. and rofufod to hand it haolt to
tho r«ipiron#ntatlTeo of thi«^ AnoricjPB l^oaoil Ooaiipaigr. Zhia
lott«r va» iatrvdMuifNl in oTidPae**. It roa4 as fellow* t
AaoriOAn i^onoU Oowyany*
U«m 'i*rk Ciity, lov Yerlr
CNmtloMum:
flof«rrinf to disouBcion vi th your Mr. Kondriok
r«latlT«» to «iBdo« disilojr i-'^ whieh wo hoYO h^an
offering for th« paot aoToral «o<»Jca Vonno poneilo at
60 aaoh* hog to adviao that thi» !»■ boon di»c«ntittu*d.
•o aro dwairotto of at all tinoc mintaiaing friend*
ly r<9latioa8 botaoon ouroolvoo ana the paneil auunfaet*
urora, and aro only toe glad to obtain tho priooo r«»
oolmondad by thn Chioaco tstatienor** Aaooeiatioa.
W* aamtro you of cur eo*oporation te this «nd, and
further that it io our intentien io# and w« ahall, in
tho future, at all tii«e»« endeavor te Maintain priee*
on all poneilo ef your sanufaeture and ef-'>r»d hy uo
te ttus trade at th<i^ priooo r»e<Mnaended by the Shieaiico
Stationer* o Aeeoeiatien.
•Mt rt^lw •ft'^* -^ - - . t» pt^iiKM^
.< r ,.
Im >
. ' • ' UM ..
'*M>i%*^
•l»all>
•»t *-.
•flai
tc« - -
r
•
- -1
•■ <■' '
, ft \ ..... ,1
9
•8*
V»iih«^r K«a4ri9k nntr %h* mtXem&f for th« iai#>rl0»a fcnoil
«pp««r#ct %» i«<iti fjr IM this vtr«.
On* of th« tR«inaf »o t«r«r n fr«m whom the plaintiff •«»»
i««4»4 It, iMU dlfflottltjr in proeuriim c«e4c '^ r««»«n vf th«
evMpl&iat of iiw Shiei)i«ie oiiitien«r*« A««oai«Ucn« »n<j c^rtmiB
•f It* ni^mh^rs, tgr r«^«.««n «f ijti« fmi'iura ef th« n^laintlff t«
■ainiaia Afteeei«tl«a prie«c» «(-.-'« i^ie dresetai Brase i*ln Co.
Itt e«nn«eUttn «ith ih« t««tiia«ay i»ibi» r«Kard i« thel CUmFanjr.
Vb« pluintLff lairedueaA a l»tt«r 3r?>e#iTe4 hy ii fraa •»•
l^ah of i-htii trmpmny, tas^iiitm aa feXlaaitt
*8litf3r Marrla In OMqMwy,
S a, X>a ^alla ii^r^at,
@iil,«««a« llliaaif*
aantlaanni
W« are in jp«»o#lpt af y^wr If^tto-r ©f th«»
• th inoi. nad note that you are argantly in n«#4
•f ill* fiiaal 4da»Ba%ina 3»ittii ne ejrd«r«'>i under data
af ^(tiy 14 th.
Wi* tmtrvt tc» a4Ylca jr' ;: %h»t «• hava aa
AteMaatina }«in» oa h^ad for shijiHftai, nor «r«tild
wmokvtt to ship aft#r h^itm informal «f the ri4ieu«
l«««ly lew 9ria«e «« ahioh cur gee4e are being die*
i^eeed ef.
ie %»¥• a niQ* eei«blisba<l pin trade in
QMeaiia, ^md rath«>r than Jeepardiaa thir trade, «a
diaan it adrieabla ta dieoentiaue eapplyiag ycj.
fhe CiKl<%n($a dealera, tc «h«« «e e«ter«ae
af eo^iTtm r*'t«r to th«» r^preeentatiTe et&tloaery
lu»aaea, are deeireue ef makiag a lagltimata prafit
mn %hin eomm^iX.^ mmti ii. ie eui deeira ie aaeiet
tbea ia ttiis regard*
Va recrat asa^<»dia«l|r tiuit we aaet take
tMe aatiea 1m t tlM» trade aa referred te abeva enat
be pretested*
Vary truly youre.
XAl-liK (il^igned) K.A* Ktteh.<«
la eataaeetiea with ttie teatieteiqr r«>f»rrfnc te the
the
traaeaetiena tf th« plaintiff wi th/Glabe<»i9reniie)r« c»., eaa
af the ^enaaee te«tifi<f»d ta a eonTeraation with ut^ Bleine,
•eeretary and traaaarer ef th# oenpaay, at ^ineinaati in Jaaa,
X91ft, at which time he ffodeaTered te s»latt« a larce 9r^«*T vitli
Hi ' V-
ttaAt OM^Mtagri XhnX Bl»ia* d«nlln*(i ih* 9r4mr altlM&ttKli th« wiW
«••• tff«r«« • 4r»f% f«r #1,CCC' o» aea*unt and •uec««t«d that
tlM) baliiiit* •! ih« •iti^r aklght b* •hli^i^cdl t« tli« plaintiff
8.e.J>*{ mat ttpoa baing aakad vl^F tKa ai»ba*V«mleka ?a. waalt
•ti a^ll t)k« plaintiff idlftlaa atatad that U&a plaiatlff had
baaa eiattiag priaaa ia Cblaa^a una tte raat •f tba atatiaaara
vara tl^} ratine to ti»« ai*1ie*ir«rni<ika Ca. tailing tha plaintiff
imd had aaid that %h0f vauld throv oat tha gaatfa of that
uumfafltarar if U*« ^F-%)fe» lattar aald ta th« plainiiff; that
tha wltna»«i wid h« h«4 aema friandp amanc tha naaibcrs «f tha
Aaftaeiati«ii, vh^^raapaM* Blaiaa trld hln te ga baoir ta ^'lihioac*
and a«a a«ma af tK«R« numins thmm, and *cat th««« paapla ta
t»X» jratir ard4>r*« And *X will ahip it dettbla ^uiek's thnt
llaiM Mid that th« ai*1»««i«y«iak« St. ««ald nat ftffar« t«
"tAk* a eha»9« idth all that lntaiii«aa ai^ainat jroura*. llalaa
•ad an«th«r witnaffd, an «spl«3r*a «f tha aiab««¥araiaka Ca.
admitted ha ha4 tha a nfrreaoa raf«rred ta with t'mnn^*, vha
aald ha wauld faaalah aa r<9f«raneaa nem* af tha atatienas^
d^alara in 7hle««a« aad thath* auggaatad iPanaea da aa»aaalas
•waa af tha«. Oa daalad tha aahat».ne« af tha ainTaraatiaa aa
iaatlflad to Igr i>aa«a« and atatad, in effaet, thttt the eatira
%*Ik hatvaan tha plaintifi<e rapranvntatira and ftlaiaa had ta
Aa with tha aatahlishing ftf a baaia t*T or«dit vhieh tha plain*
tiff iaairad tha aiaba»#«nileka Ca. ta axtand ta it. In aannaa*
tlaa vith thia inaldaat, tha plaintiff latradaead twa lattara*
tha firat aad«r data of /uaa 11, 1918, fran tha plaintiff ta tha
01aha»fanilaka 'Sa* aad tha aaeaaA «ata4 Juna Zl, 191«, fvaa
tha lattar aempany tc tha plaintiff. lh«aa lattara r<»ad aa
falloras
•I^MldD %S it*mt t 9S (Kid l»Io4 ^ aijiio«««A
•tiiat •
•i fcM( -
••••«•» ( •! ikm»#x» or .of
mny ,ftf»l ,«f: ««»ff^ fr^ti^ ^nr?*
;1
(i>l«R« 0m
lN4^iaM
-■i iiM
••"»> «w,r**»'*
-»1»'«0
a>i<'<^> «1.
.:> VJHMI
'<»nii«»#
:fr«#
»k
y1i$
"OhieAit*. Jua* 11, 19ia.
Ciwviiuuiti, Ohio*
MTXi^l^lCV 07 SAL)«;^ MAHASSll.
Confimlnc o«r re««nt c»nT«r«ailen vh«n ihm
wriXwv «aa ia yrur eltgr witu r««f<»r»<«»» that jrcj
vottld %• viilinc to ••11 tt« proYldlag «« eeuld
g«i OMis»ii% fron Mr. Glbba (»f LiuUk, ^^mlib ^ CfiApaiQr.
Xr« karaJukll tf ^arshalloJaalcsaii & 0«nF*n9r« •M4 Mr,
0i«v«ts af Ciarans* M»l«ii«jr.
fa viaH io adTlaa ytta iA»t «e ballara It vauld
¥• p;.;«aibl«r far a» t» gat tva af tlii«a abava »•»•
iiaaad taaeama to a^t** to hara jrcu ^all us.
Wa ahead like ta knaw vteaibar it veuild l»a
»ati9faataar7 te you if %«« af tihc tluraa vlll te
eaticfiad.
Kindly adriaa «a Ibgr rwiura mail ae tlmt aa «ill
\f abla t« s«t tti« abava isiaBtioo#d aoaaaraa ta a^raa
ia lh«t prapoAitioa aa mada V y<^^*
TJMuskiac jr&u far yeur prenipt attmtirsa. w% ara
^•Tf traljr youra,
SidaayMarrit * Oa.*
*$lfialaa«U, J«»« 21, ina.
SldJtay«Marrle 4 '^e.,
5 S. La i:^d.le '-H. «
Chia»^^a» llllaaia.
dantlamani*
laKlyiiif %a yiur iaq^alijr, «a fafel that it
will l>a liaai te hava th(» r»oan»«Bd*iien af all thraa
an<i wili prelMkbly sa^ tium altaut ih^ «al>if?r tto« naat
iiaa «a hava a vholaaal*; r^prnaf^ntatlTa la Chieaga.
Xcura l^ly,
TtM aiaba-ttamlek* Oe.,
J. "">. Blaiae, Jr..
Saa. * Sraaa."
Xa aur aplalaa thaaa Xattara tand'>td •trcnely ta
••rrmhmtmi^ %h^ a«eaiiat ahleh tha ylaiatiff** aitaeaa «aYa
af tha «caT«raation bat«««a J^aa^a aad llain*. f^rtkaff«ara«
it ia hardly naQ«>aaar)r te (reiat aai that it vaald b« Tary
ttHBAtural, te aiy thft laatt* tor iMQr iiMmfa0t«ir«r in di«ou«B*
lag aradit vlth a daalar* to ra^ira t»u» lattar t« aatabliah
a W«ia far eradit by praourias aither tlM C.K, •r tha *r«ea»»
«^t.
-trr^-".'** i • ;ti»|»
•«fl ?-^"
6
X-.'«» .
•OtH:
M'
•ri
ii
or •»
#*!>
♦•»
'.»♦ »?
u r
4tf Ml 4
4Ml»iTt)A
*'/ ,'. *.»
.•?.•' V- >«iTY«li»^!Mri^M
.«X9< ,I&
, ii Rfiniti?" r
aii*ft iL
. a » vx K « • oiMi
•II-
■•nAatioii* •t e(*rtain 9f hl« emycUior*.
la ▼!•« 9f th9 Q*rr(^»|)eRd«ii«« %• vhioh «« hmt*
refffrrtA, nsd taking all %h* ieBii«*agr t««*ih»r, »• ar* of
the opinion that «« would nai 1»« j««tifi«4 in naiiiag a»14a
ih« vardiat and Jadcnant appaal^d frosa, as th» gremd itaai
ttoay «)«rft ai^jtinoi ih« <aanif«ot aaigtot of th« 9riAim99 aa
the quastion af iha alleged eonopiraey.
But, oliaa thouticto a aoaapiraojr axi atari* aa all«g«4»
and oTartaeto w^ro aoanittod Iky iha i<^fmn4mntn %r aama of thaa,
in furth<^rane<^ of th^ eenc^^iraajr, it in; InounlBant upon tha
plaintiff to a^a that it hud Buff4»r»d aetual danes** a» the
raault of it, Ixffera thri; oculd W a racav^iy* In it* l»riaf
tha plaintiff ean«ad»a that aaoh ic tha lav. In 5 R.O.I.. p.icei,
thi» aathar atataa that is aneh an action aa tbie, «p«>alal
daaaca anat "b* pr«T«d« eiting ^^fnn v* ^aath»w. (19C1) A,0.
495, hclding that a Qom^inaticn of tvo etr mora, «i ttieut
Jttctifioation •T axottre to injtira a tsan in his tradt \>j
Induoiai hie ottatanara «r aarranta tc braak th*>ir contracta
with hiai or not to trada with hl« or ocntiaua in r<ia an-
pXayaant, is aotinnabla, if it raawltf in pmB&f tc hia.
In IS C»J* p. Ml, it ia pointed o<t that unlear aeto ara
dona Igr tha eonapiratora "which aota reault in damaga", ••
alTil aetiea liaa. *!Die giat of tha aotien ia tha dasaga and
nat the oonapi racy. " Suah aaa the holding of thia court ia
ea 111. App. 391, affim«*d 176 HI. 6C8: tear tin t, l^aoliiif,
9S 111. App. 44: Hall ▼. Fjrgt Satl. g^nk of Chica<^a. ISC
III, App, 441j Baffy T. granfcanbay^p. X44 HI. App. ICS, In
tha lattffr o«aa thia eourt h<»ld that a alTil aetien eiumat
hm aaintainad far a mmre ewnapiraajr, faaiagaa af an aataal
•ill ■« ••hmhbIi X«»t»« b«- :~ ^ ttil«i«il|
.•itf •^ tH^iMfc III •^I^M^.T ji -^1 .-»,• rr .ijr,j a* .'HiffX^Xf
•ts a^Mi a«i»Xiur iA*^' -i«it •! ii ,IM .f .V.O tl arl
m ^'^untmnMtt Ml iii'M ^* «- --' -» MTf ^ saafe
.ftif*p4 .T ^-i^npji tti<» .frl tti Uorvtrtu ,rr» .'. ?
iQ/rvT.T i»el<i»« iiri» *X«iC i^0*« -< Ua« mmw t##i^ fill*
•ad Bttt yuaitlT* eh»r«et«r «M«t tlwm frt>» the eeiivplrttagf
\9f9tm thm ••tisn Ann b« ■mintalaod. Where •ot«al drnmi^ffs
Mr* fit^rmk, uiMiplarjr «•■*«•• Mgr aIm b« r»««T«r«4i.
In the 7A»« at bar th« Jury w<»r* inetruet«4 that
if tlui> faun* th« iama* in faTar af plaiaiiff thay slight
allav Ktmiplmrf «r puniilva AaAaffaa, In fluffy t. fraidtw^
M2ft* JB&22A* ^^i* eeurt, «ltiii« my,||,ft v. i.«elif. »up»^.
hald tJ^t withoDi proaf of aetaal dainaga, TlnAietiva ^r
fuaiiiTa Aamtgaa aajmai ba allattaii*
l«i, tha plaintiff, althatii^h ea«ia«r<ilttc thia ta
b* tka l«a, aattt«>«4a that ita aYi<i«tta# iaolwded praaf af a«t»
ttal (taaiaca. Tha anly preaf raf»rra4 ta k^y \h« plaintiff in
this oannaaiioa nnA th« only praaf «a haY« iNian abia ta find
in the reaard aa th4» aubjaat 9t «ll«ir*4 aetu^l dbutaea, invclTaa
nn arfi«r ahioh ^-ar'-ia i*anaaa twatlfl-^e ha andaaTarad ta plaaa
the
miiii/Qlttif9->'S9rnlokm & Ca* trrmr th« talaphana fn fahjmazy 1C«
1917. Xhia la th« enly wit»«i^« mm t ctifiAd «^^»t tftis aTdor
aad th ra ia Haob ck>eat hi a t«>«ti«iemr that i* laiia oaaatia*
faataiy. Ha t?atifi«d that h« e»U»4 vip tii« Chioaga affica
•f aieh«*i«araie)ra CcHapaaar ea<l "taik«4 witiv th# sftiaa Hianag<!>i>
a HT* Marl ar Mjiyar ar aaaathiag like that. I ireul4a*t ba
tmrm, that is tha way it ie pranoane»4* It may ha Hay, U^tl,
Kay* aaaathiac lilra that.* Cn aroetteaxaMi nation ha aai4 ha
talkail with a ir. tteyr, aa naar aa ha aauld ran«nabar} that
h* aalrad ta tailr vith tha vhalaaala 4apart»«nt and that vhaa
ha gat tha party in qaaatloa* th«> vitaaaa aaid, *Taka an arAar*
and that tha party aald, "Ail right, «hat ta it?" aai that h*
than pr*aaa4adi to gira tha erd«»r. Aa ta tha aa«a 9t tha party
in ^aaatiaa* tha witaaaa aaid ha «»• nsi paaitiva vhathar it
aaa haytr tr Marl, bat that it ««a aaaa thiag that aaMatfa4 lik*
ip««lfMMW ««M ATCl iriin ^mim «-ot«M<«a/^» •rA#imf «■» koji
tM0 ^•#»»t./»ii< ~i^i mai %m4 im •««» wAi
IBSMSSS^ '^ 3Q3M& ^^ •••^mb^ vvi^iiMt t* i««I««»k» <r«XX0
MBIHL -•^^•J •▼ Sllaei ^fOaXit ^$%r9Ct aMi tigMl «llli
T« •vjur»i(»i«lv ,•*«««* X*»^l>« !• Is^ «ni^ t«i# JklAll
•**«•/ !• «4 iwr- :-. «'«]M»U>* «(Vlil«iit
• ) •\At tMftMMMC <9ii«if»|il Oti*«i«i4 *A# ,a«S
««tl 4MMttf •iUp <i iOMU VNM|#**4 Ci. <>••
,ff«»k ,xaV •< VI iX «WMnr«li«nr^ •! ii v - ? «Jt ;a4i .nim
tttS |«W/WiMini ^l9«tt Ml M •*•»' -- .- , :Jt:m MvKlmJ
•irii I«|MI«NH i«lf| jpi'iJ^ONM !!«• #t #aiiM itui ,Tx%*. f* ft*l(<2>i «««
•13*
thai. M« fttrtli«r aKid, "I ov^ find •«! frsv • ir r«oor4B
4nut«tlj vhe that ««••" 8eunn«l fer 4«f«ndAiit« ••lr«d hia
If li« ««uid d0 th«t and eXrm hiM tHe nmmm Xmt^r and h» said
h* »«uld* Cn ih<» afiirniaea af th» fellavins day, an dlraat
•laalitatian, tM» «ltaaa» aaa a«k«d If h« rwnaatbarad tli«» nasM
af iba •alas aaaacar af tha Glalaa*«anti«ka C0«|Mmjr ta vhaa
ka caiT* hi a ardar an fabruargr 10, 191T and h« aiid ihat it
mi« aithar Marrav 9T Uarli. "tlwt in aa naar a« I aea r«ata»»
lN»y. • * • 1 mat hisr. ano« in iha ilaaiaa &t#ra vith Mr. ai^ili.
• « • ilia \nj9r af ih« Baatan Siara, • • • i waa iairaduead
to hia as ih« salaa aaa«sar« and ha axylaiaad to m# ttiei ha
iraTal«d araund. that l»a haa an affiea li#»r« and at tlaaa ha
H^av around ia ooTar ath«rr iama in th« Tielnitj and thai hia
iMMd^ttariara ara bar« at iha Ohiaaga affi'ia** Cn his di raat
■anaainatiatt, ihi« viiaa«« t^atifiad ha vaa tali Iqr ihiv r^W'''**
aantativa •f uiaha-yamieVa that thi^ wen Id nat taka ih« ardar.
<'thftt th<i*y aaid • h»farf> i ^av« ih« ardar, ihajr aald, Wha is
tniat ih#a 1 raid, Sidnay Mania * Canpaajr aad tlMa I «»▼•
iha ard«rr«"
Vn orasa axaminaiioa this wiinan* i<^citifi<rd Vteat ha
the
aaiXad iicy&laba»ilarnioka ea. and aek' ta talk with iha vhala*
aala d^paxtnani, and utiaa gattias th<i«»|lajrijr ia Quaftiioa ha taid*
"Xaka an ara«r, and tha partgr aaid. all riiK.ht, what is it; aad
that ha than prae«ad«d to giTa iha ardar.* Ma furthar tatii*
fiad that ha had kayt a aaaarandioi af th« arder ia faaeiiaa
aad that iha ard«r «a» no follovas
.*'J^*vf'*** "*• ^ Gclaakia «a»aa. » gn»m Ha. «c
Colaahla ca.aa. u ara.« a. to I Sa. U Sx fhaS.
^.!^;r ; * *''••! i'i**'"-'*". « «ra». aap aia«. ft
aTary aav Tiimm, a •«>••• .iw».v« a *« 0 «<« «
■ill $mn imm ^kmkmtt «< « Tt«in«» «*▼••«# *«M«« avflHi
ziiz
^cir4«, 1 §ro0» «»p*«iB4» clip Wttrds, I gr»«»
a»imr4>iic ii« •nT9li^p«M, 1 • It 4en*t sajr *n«
V«l^p«s, bai th«t 1» «h«t they ftrw. '^
It ir»ul4 ••«» frc* thin ti»»tim»q7 \t>».\ %hm «ltn'»iii!> scaitit t« aajr
tkuit >u> ««11#4 np %hm fmrtj $n mt^wtlott •n4 %hm% Xhm i»«rt|r
flr«t a««<»rtftin«4 vh» it ««« «ho wi»nt«<t t« 9la«« th» 9r4t^r tknA
upen i»«la« atfTlt^-d th*t it wnt i^i4ii«7 it»rrl« » f«», tli# partgr
••Id, in ma1i»t«ft«#, *A11 ri«M, vbiit ie th* mr^ttri* Mttf^ that
h» pr»e«*i»4i t« glT« it A» dtt«il«A ftWT* ftnu ib«t aftitr all
that, ite* partjf »«ri*!*d th<» witfl4f»» t}i*t ai«b«*««raio%« viial4l
«•% t«k« ibtt ordsr*
Vm* viUi*«« fttrth^r t«>8iifi«4l tluit upon thit 9tAt>T
the
Iwiat r*f«Mtf «gL/t}l«¥«»y#nii«k« C«., th« plftlAtiff ««nt
•b««4 MBtf par«kM«if»4 tkft good* •l.0««lt«r«2 tliai h* ««uld n«t
•ay timjf tjri*4 i« Ui;r iH«n •l»«vh«r«» •» y«l»3m»ry U} thai
%h9y *Mlglit hmf irlnd witbin « «««lt;'' tliat h« ^id n«t r«««ttb«r
J««t h»v loag ii «»a ar fre« wt»m Ui«jr first tried ie Ingr g«»d«]
t^t "waanar er i»t4>r* thay «t«Tt«4 t0 %ii)r ff«ad» fran MoOlnrgt
tlHftt thtty did n^tlry t« ««i a«y ^^tad«c» ft*m Ut till Uic wiitl*
•rd'*r; that th«^ Wu^^^t utmrn af tiM eeada fro* th« A««tc<!i»t«d
»t*ti9««r« ^«pi»3Mr ^-t vhidh veld gaad** at vhalaaala; that thair
did sat aak tiut Afimaiatad «$tatloaara aups>ly ce. tc fill tha
aBtira ardtrj that If th« tnmp$ai(f hn fillad th« catir* trdar
it aaald hava ba«n pwrehan^o at a «»»%llar prie* thna aaa paid
ta tha Tarieua ^onaanta tr^m whaa furohaaea irara mmdmi itat
faada pureiiaaed fras» aiabaoWarnleka Cantpaajr wauid 9*m« frwm
Sittoioaati aad th« plaintiff aauia hara ta pay aartaga fra«
the faetarjr te tha fraight dt^pat In that ^;itjr aad the railraad
fraight ehargaa tr^m ^inaiimati ta luie v«a. Or« ^f tha tta«a
thia vitaaaa tcraUfied tha plaintiff pvralMiaad fren Jahbara i»
191T, hr r^aaca af th* rafaaal af it* ardc^r h/ ^* 01aha»W«»-
Zlt'
jNjli an '
i:«it » vkOJ ififtf t»d9 biktlktm^ f j ' a^x ift t»*f»i t\ * A-i i
lA^*/' iK# ««tfV t«tM MMNr «WYl -^ •'«t 44«i
•ifr Slit 99»9iH:i i/ta #•» fri ta^*^ ^i* «M(» #flC#
-It*
aiok« <!«,, «•« r«Mr«4 i« «• *tlMimi«ii tr«ii»for «m«9*" %r
*fliMia«ii fil«B*. Cn er»R»»«xaniln*tloB it «•« nhttvii tlimi thl«
MUtittlt W9,n mmii* ^ »«T»r«I xwmfftci«r«r* 9%hmr ihaa t)i« C!l«lMft»
ff«r«il9lr« C«iii9»»iqr mi4 MSMtac ^<"" *">^* Jmimmn A ?lr¥«, 0*ttk 4 C«kb,
and C«rb«ti Manmfaa taring 0mk9*fVl t>i«t th« plnlHtiff had b««tt
• ett«tett«]* tf TuMMua A; ien»* teritur all %)»«> ttai* ite«y luttf %•••
in b«ftiae««2 and 1m« 4«tt« • rery l«rff» lNi«in««« «ith th«m. Ihm
wltoAae eoiilA n«t r«aiemb#r wb«th»r tb« vlKlniiff trlait t« b«jr
tli«B« fll«« tr«H thlB iKaiuifMtt«ir«r «t tbr tia« tb* pmreimm*
«•• iMid« frees tit* j0ti)>«r in WIT, •r vfeMt Tmnaa Ie Srb«*t
]^ia» WR1I, alt)9i«u^h hm a<intitt«<l h« Imaw of na r#«i«a« visgr plftia*
tiff oa^lA nat ^y« psrefoasad from tbia eenoars at leaat part
•f tlt« fUaa plaintiff h^d trdv^xmci fr«% th« aiabiN»Weriii«ka Co.,
afttf irkioli «<(»ra ala* «anttf««tur«r ^ tttwmtm 4 Irba,
Afiar 4at«ili«ic th« attunptad t«laphaaa ard«r ta tha
«laba»ar«rni<3k« Ca«|M»Dqr* ia yabrsKry, 1917« tlt» «!%««•» t^cti*
fia4 te a l^nf iiat ftf tn«r«haa<>a freia evMr aaaa«m» aa fallavas
"Fab. 18. 1«IT, 2 ^rrart l»tt«r fll»«, fre^ MaClurg k Oaapaajr
t9\t* 23, 1917, 1 craae mptm-,* l«tt#r filaa, fro/.^ i^eClurs & Ca,
fall, av, l«a^, I 4a». lawnath (^uvba) n\*» * • • •
Marab 6, 1917, !/• ttfa*» Hammttth loiter niaa« partjr net /giTaa.
Havab 1S,I,917, 1 graita Sajprooia latt<^r filas, tram MaCIur< «c Ca.
* 8«.1917, i croRii MMMatii l«tt»r filaa, partjr nat giTaa.
* 30,1917, 1 fra«a Sapraaa lattar fiX^s, tTi»(T> utOlurt k 8a.
April 19*1917, 1 (SJfBB ftapraaa latter filaa, p«rty not ^ivaa.
Kajr 15,1917, i g,r»int iKparatar letter filoo, partjr aat gifaa.
Mar lt*1917, a «o». Ie. 4 «Taxy day filra, fra» at, U, tolali.
JNok* ••1917, 1/6 (Sac. oYftrjr Aay filaa, fra<^ aaSliurg & Oa.
** 17,1917 1 grace superior lattar filaa, fran Maeiarf * Ca»
• 33,1917. 3 daa. fta. 3. aver/ day filae, fre<« S.H. Valah.
July 1,1917, 3 ureaa 8apr«aia latter fll'^*>. froa Mo^lurc * 6a«
Attc* 4,1917, 4 daa* l^lkanaen filen, party net j^iTan.
* 7,191t, 1 gr»»» &«pari«sr latter fil**, fraw JKoOlurg k Ca*
* 3t,1917, 1 grass lap<>ratar fii«a, froa tfoClurg 4 Ca.
" ^•Ifll* I grtt%tt Xmparatar fil'^p, aarty aat i?;iTon.
Oat. 33,1913, 84 «a». S». 4 wfry (tay fllao, party net givaa.
" 3C,1917 1 gas. Ke. 4 arary day filaa, Aaeaeiatad atatiaaan
Sapply Oavyasiy.
laT. 3, 1917, l«8/4 dat.Va.S orory day latter filaa. party aatgi<
3aT. 3, 1917, li das. 3a. 3 a^ary day filaa, party net glTan.
lav. 13, 1917, 3 das. OT^ry day filaa, Aeaenistt^fd Statieaars Sapyi
■av. 49, 1917, 3 <i»»» av^ry day fil«»a, Asoaei^tod £$t«tirnaraSappl:
KoT. at, 1917, f gra«t ItRp^rater fil«a, party nat giTaa,
r%aM i^
-.tm
iY«
^{:fi .t^
,«#& ,7%9
•li*
»•▼.
at,
, l«XT,
0»<t,
in?.
m^.
» 1917,
V«b,
, 19U.
t»b.
, 191S,
f«b.
as
, 1918.
lt*r.
11
. I9ia.
iMw.
. ivit.
Ayy*
3.191»,
A#r.
1*1
. int.
M«jr
, ins.
M(Ky
14
> 191S.
<7u»«
. 1918,
J'ttn*
, 1*18,
iliiii*
, 1918,
IWM>
» 1918,
Jtt««
, 1918,
#tei«
i«!
, ins.
Be tf«t«,
8« «»U<
4 dti* *•. 3 •▼#ry a*/ fil»«, P*rtjr »»•* «lvwi.
8 gr«BS l«>ttf?r fil^*. 9*rt/ n«t EiT«n«
4 «r«»« fil#», from »o»toil i»i«r».
i croBit &tt|>r«M« l«tt<!i ril^c, frtw M«ciarc Co*
1 grot* t^ttf>r«M« letter fil«» fr«n M«31ar« A G*.
4 4«*.9Y«ry 8*y fil#», A.» o«i«t«4 iit»%ien#r«6upvlyC8
I gr«»« attpr««« letter fil««, psrty n«t giT*n.
a 4»; l3ik]i«mt«r l«tt«r flic's, ptttXj nst giT«n.
8 d*s. lmp«rait«r l«ii«^r files, Mrtjr net glT^n.
1 groBB Su»r««« l«tt*r lil»», f«rty net £iv#n.
8 d««. tmp^frtki^r fll<»K, i»«rtjr not nl^^n*
1 groftgt iiupr«mo I«tt««r flloo, p*rXy not glT*ii.
1 grooo S«|»rMt« l«tt«»r filco, from l^er^lvrg & Co.,
gross SniiroBMi lottJT fil*», o©rty not «tlToii,
groFP SMi^iroMO l«tt >r filos, por^ net gtT«»n.
groRs 8ttfr«M lott«r flloo, fxtj not j^Itab.
1 gross tlttfr«H« loiter fllfs, from ««Cl«rg It Co.
1^^ tes«8o,W& SKennoa innsf r eas«o, from HeClurg.
t <•«• L«gftl •▼•ry day filoo, n« party glvon."
In «ORn«etlcB with his t««ti«oagr «o to imeh of th<»o«
purelMisoo, th# wltnose g«T« tls* pttr«h»so pri««, which ho eioitei
%• iNi « fair morlKot prieo« and h« «ilira gtoTO th« liNjinufseturor**
yriflo on tho artiols pvrohs^oil, moAning th i^ligr, the aieb9»««r*
aiciKe prie«. if* teetifi«<l tto«t th<*ee pwrelwiiee w«r« smoo *t«
fill our ord<>re« le r«{»lee« th« ord«r «• plse«»a vith 01oW«>«er»
nioke 4 Co., vhieh sriko not filled ^ ih«R.* Be v«e esked whet
th« reletioii wee hetweea th«>s« pureh»s»s end th« order of Jfeh,
IC, 1917, ana he attcw»re8, '*fhey w«i)td not takk» tai^ etore order*
end »e had to g«t th« geo«is is ordtr to ke«p oar door open**
'li«re is ao t^eiineajr ia th* reeortf ea te whet, if eny, r^^aeea
wae glTea for th*' rwfusal *f the erd^r ef ymhr^mry IC, 1917, if
thf^re wee s«eh m. refusal , nor is th^re mny t««tiMeiqr ia the
reeerd as te any s«bee«|tt*Bt attempt of the pTaintiff^ ta bay goed*
frwn the caohe«^emieke Ge. Cf eevraa this pleintiff eeuld net
yroT* deaagee 1^ snoviag th? refusal of en ord«>r, teadvred
te the dlehe««eraieke Co. for o«rtaln gee4e, and then yroTo |mr«
ehaaaa it had aade fres othor eoneema, during the* aevt y«ar sad
m half, theee purehasee iaTclviag eese goods set ineladed ia
•^1-
*</\<i.
.••Till ^OO
« ••0 A s<rvn:-«
.•» A amOMi lie
»^«li» •»rx;i X
.fl/ex
.tl9X
• 8X&X
««i«X
•ai«x
.iic
• ftX<^
.«XWi
.txdx
.AX«i
•sxoi
• IIX9X
«(tXtfX
• U*X
«iX .«aS
,X »(Ufi
,» •Kirl
«»X Misrl
the allcff»d •rtf^T, mna th« puretafliiitttt being f*r sacuats
grtmilf in •xe9«« ttf th«ii« IbtoItwiI In %h« all«s«4 r«fua«4l
•r4«>r, ftAd 1» »•«# lB«t«n««« 1% app*«i,riais tte«»^ ^j^* prl««»
f«i4 ia«r#ft»«4 ihi'otti^ ih« f«rie4 in <i«(tsUoa« M*r tan
AMum*** ^ prvTcn vialoh ttr* •l«iai«4t t« Imit« rttmilt«4 fr«i
ih« r«fa*»l 9t «B •rd«r giv*tt to r <giuittfft«iiir«j-» V tiMviiig
]nir«litt»*« ««id* fre« •ito«Fr», ••«• tf iHtHW «•»« j*b^«rs, «a4
•Ml* r«tai].»rs, «e|»«oiftllx vher« it is nuevn ik&t th» goods
••«14 hov«i l»«i«R parehftsr^ from 0ti»«r msnafaetaroro tmi at
Mftnif aotnror* • prioo*. As to tn# •••««llo4 vboloaalo pTi«««
•f %h« AotootAtod BtatlcBoro ilumwfiWt ^a«eo« «dBitt«tf th«rjr
woro hlglior thon pl«iiiiill'*ii r«t«il px&soo*
Tor tho 4tfon«uimt», ono vkTphjr t stifi^^d tluii tm
tmo tlM aooiet«ui% auumcor of tfeo Slobo»«^omio1ro aoayttogr »t ttio
Odoogo breineli «nd hAdi iMroR vfttlt tluit tixm Hr S3 jro«r»| itot
tlkoro WIS aol^dgr «onnoot*i vith %hm <9nnpmmjf «hoo« iuub« woo
•iatllor to onjr or tho mnboo RMntienod liyr ^'orrio Jhtaooo; thot
thoir Chloitieo oalf^ir ^sanogor wao obo S»r4»oil» nntf tbot tho
fijitoiigo orfl«7o of tii« ai*»Mgr 414 not soil ot vliolooolo to
4«olort oxoopt oo m aoooMiBO<iAtioBi thot in 1917 tho ;e«pMQr
]to4 • vtelooolo oolooMMi »t3» oaoio from c:ittoiaaMti ob4 ««4o
Ikio hoo4qtt»rtoro at tli« Otoiongo offi«« Mid tooir oliolooalo
tiaio
or4«ro] that thlo ro|Mroo<fiitatlvo opoat Tory littlj/at tho
Giiioogo offioo, not nor** than ono^lmaf a* hour at a tiao iui4
that ho «ao nefc in Ohioimo aoro than a 4i^r at a tiaof that
h« ooato tlaoa atajrod aa loi^r ao flTo or oftx 4ajr«* f no
Vittatala ti^atified th»t hf> had ohjtrgo of th9 tatloa»r*o
fio|Mirtai«gtt at th<> 'inoimati offieo of 61o¥o»V«mioko (TMipamr}
that ho ha4 hoon aolliac 1a 3hi«^ig• for that oom^aay for about
ooroa /oara aa4 van in Chieaga about th« ai .::!«> of January*
■ i
#Mfj |ii%/»*t eft «#> m^l f«Mi« A*J» atiNf §td b«A Aftunctf tt^aAtfP
4UIV MNUr »••«)« tPMWi— • 9 »»^»«««NI» iNMfttt •»■ rt*Mi
.Tii«ntr«V ttt ^t; — - ' '"" mk ^m
1917* Kiigriac fiY* 4r six 4«/« aoid that h« vii« n«t in Chl«]ftg»
•C«ia until Jun* 17; th«i irh«n h« v«« in Cim«ag» h« turn •••*
«ttat«Mi«(l ic e&ll on tki* ftt«tien»r*B %r»4« to mtilX ih«ai 1Ul«
•MipwRgr** g»«(}»; tliat hti lrn«« ih* ]^rs»MMl mt ih* ^liUl«a|E»
•ffioe ia y«)i)ruajry 1917 «ii4 ih«t Ui^r* v«» «• eii« in tlMit
•ffie« «n«Mi iMa« »•• tiailar to aoy af iImb* aontien^A ^
Karris i^aaaaa aa4 that H« w»» th« only vhola««l* r<»ipr«s«ata»
tlT* af v.ha GlalHH»V«r9ialr» (!«• te c«vi»r tlMr ^hioHga territory
la 1917. frwa th« tc'stineRjr of thiit «itn« '• it sT>t^»ar« ttwt
sa«« •f the price* raliad upon Iqr th<> $>lalBtiff aa Slel>a*
Warniaica 9xio*>Bt v*r« ie fa«t, a«t thf^ pri«<»« «liarca4 f«r tha
gaail* in att«eiion \if that 'Mipaajr and it furth'-r appa«r<*d
that •em« •t th# ttana iael«49d in th* all«K<^d ial«]p>i&B« ttr^Lmr,
vrrc ndt av«a manufastarei Igr tfo# dlaha»Varai«lr« CM^Miyr Midi
««•*« JMintaa, t« th« aitnta*. On* Otirtis sf larr^Vaak Ca., al»a
t«»iifia4 aa v« the pri6«s ef aie)Mr»V«mlelca Ca. ta 4iaal«ra ia
1917« which vara hin^har than thaaa tir»tifi«d t« hy «'Mia»«.
Hhi>«» ^^ »aer«tary and traasurar af vb4* uioha»w«raioka
Oaattajaqr, alM> t<?«tili <t that ffittataia »aa th« <»nljr r«pr««cnta>»
tiva af that etmptaqf aaTvriag 'ihifiHga. far aiialaaalv er4ar»*
in 1917, an4 that ia F«hmary »f that y«ar» their ChieiMCa
affie* hm^ no «na in its «Kpl«^ i^hata nima an* •Inilar ta
•ay of tha«« aaatiened hy JPtuiaaa* Bit al»a t«»tifiad thai
his ooc&lHini' r<«c«»iT«d n« ardera from th« plaintiff bvtvami
Jannarj 1. 1»17, Md July Se, 1913.
Xa sur opinion, any finding haa«4 enthf faot that
tha plaintiff liaTa the ^r^ftr «ll««#d, to the <ilah**w«mioka
GeAijMMgr. ca fahrusry IC , 1917« and that anoh arder ana refuaad,
&• a«i:ain*t tha nanifaat vaight af tha tvidcaea, aadweara far*
th*r af tha opinion, that any fitt4inc Um% tha plaintiff aaa
>tt*
v^ » ^ •«•«
># H«4i
r«>('it,»9 itm
-if: J
MC» Y*^ h%-
0. , :.. : 4//« i»iw»a •«(»{(» V'^4^* •#& |U *»• Ml Mil •c>All«
••««.•.'' ^i«4ffi^X4[ •1)4 aa<Kl 9%9t>xm -m >>.7^<»9>»« ^|M<iin •!<(
»)f/
'f>nti',% dJ
•19*
V th» allcgiKf a«ts ef th« 4«fi»nteais« •oHflftlacd cf ,
i» mit9it»9% ih« aanlfwat ««ickit 9f ih« •▼ida«ff«* TJm r*o0r4
•twia4*aily a^vwa, an4 ln4««tf %ib« , laintlff <•«• a*t dvajr thai
trvm %hm ii«» af ti» iae«rf« ration, 4a«n io til* tlsa af tha
trial, it Aid mn rrar Inarn^aalnc Irasinae*. lat, a» atatad
toafara, tb* i>laintlff*s <!ent«ntiea is that. Iwd It nat Was
far tli4« aota ef th« Owf^nd^nta eo«iib>laina(t af. tha inar#a«a ia
tha Taltuaa af itc Vaitl na»« ««ul4 hmrt^ bmmn evan mora rapid
than it a •• Va find na avid-nsa in tjsa raoard te aubatantiaia
that aantaniian, bat, hawarar, that may \m, aa a^raa^r atatad,
tha anlx avidf-oa au%aiitt«»d. In 9f«^f Af aotual danaga and
tfeia aaljr arld'^noe 1^ whieh tha plaintiff eantenda, in thia
aaurt, that tuoh diMa^iaa mmr» praTan, vaa th«> «Tid<»Bea ralat*
iaft ta th» »lli»iKad talaplMaa erd^r af Faltraary 10, 1917, aad
tha )p«rehaaa« ol»ia#d t« Jswva baaa laada iKy thru plaintiff ha*
•aura af tha lefnaal af that ardcr lyr tha tilaha-silaraioka
Q9»ptUQr, In oar opinion, that avidenaa falli attarljr ta
aatahliah daan^gaa aa elaimad*
ftr tha raasona va ?i««ra pointed out, it it car
apiaica that, aaaunias tha ocnapiraay to ba aatahliohad, aa
allasad, tha plaintiff vko aai daaai^ad ther«1qr and thnrrfara*
tha jadvnaat af tha 01 real t Oaart io reTorawd with a flndini
9f foCt,
amWM^ 9ZTH A 7X8DtVa if TACT.
rUTAlW «r FAQTs
Va find aa a foot that tha plaintiff «a« aat
da»«c«i %gr tSka alX«|cad aenopirat^ or hgr any aota af tha d<$faad>»
aata ia fttrth»ranea tharaaf .
elOCHIIOH, Jf'.J. CC-NCUBS,
In Tiav af tha vardiat af the Jarjr, iaTalT«
kitan m%—^ tn^wm n^^ •rmH kXMw cf^nittnf i<^ Vo »«»ffr «tfl
,6«#*#a -^»«tfJi %.:-.< .fT990ii ,ii^i ^AbUatiOiOs jaSI
•W rtlin.r. ^^. (,. ,^.-..»iii% Mli
•Mit»\»ft •rti to ■tell t*<* ^ «• tiMi 9mflt» iMCi xi^ k«Bfl«M»
•so*
latff •■ It d«««» naOr ih« ln»traeUon» ef IImp osurt • 4«iffnilii*
• ti»ii tkkt ih» plminXitt «uff*r«d aotaiil dAfM)««« Igr r*«Mn tf
ib« ••««plra«jr «n« th<« «•%• ef Uui d«f«n4iijiit In fttrth'^rmno*
i)i«!r««f^' I HUB •€ Ui« •pinl«« ttet Ui* arldAa** •!! tli« tttbJ«oi
•f attitud 4««wi«« tt« ii «yp««r« in th« v—t4 4««t ntt warrant
th« aaaclnaicn %hm% tint ^ud&umt «f ih« trial ••urt la ae*las^
th« naAif*at ««lght af th* avldMnaa. It majr b« tma t>iat
tka i«Biiaan|r of isisarria ir%n«o«« aenaarnlos tha asxaat ■•»• af
tka repr^^aantatlva 9T thv aie1>»»W«rRi«1ca Ca«« la aawovhai
•enfaains. but, n<iT«rth»laaa, hia t«»ti»aiqr« takan alt«gatlMr«
•a to tha Tarlana dataila •£ tha order giran aa Vabraary 10.
19iy« la aa dafiaita and bo atraag aad la ne llttla aantra*
▼artad by th«» atcra ii<^(ftt&ir«a •f MtiriMMr wtid Blain*, and hi a !•••
tl«a«|r aa ta tha bl«har yrlaaa ha hmd to pajr la aa a4(ri«in«
X «w ttaabla te acraa trltit tha RUkJorlty aplniaa ef th» Court
that tha T«rdlat %f tha jurjr, aa far aa it InYolYaa proof af
aataal dawacaa, la ai^ainat t>i* msnlfaai waight ef th# aTld«na».
^ /) -H a
•4 . 8614V
/
f la '^txntt.
07 OHXOAtiO.
223 I.A. 64T'l
K», Jtf£lXXO fT«Maoir tf«iUT«r«d the epiniva ^f
% this writ sf «rr«r, t)t« d«f<mdAnt, !C*ii]n| ••'vlis
lac ^^^ Sttl^tir •f t»«ltia « T«er«at, aft«»r V{>r4iat %>y % 4nT* «ad
••nt«aeiai( hiai i« «lx «f»nihs la tbc !»>*»•• of eerr<»eiioa ia
a#«Uaa Vn af tM« arlaiaal Cod*, {/.& A, yar. 39M)
d«flBas aararal «la«a«a af i^araaaa aha "ahall b« <^%mmmA t« ba
aaa thej^ ara aa«lara4 ie %• Taca)H»aAa.* flM '^Mialaint ia tlw
aasa ai bar ie basa« aa Uiat jiarasrapb %i Vm nt&iata asiA it
aliaysaa Uuii ta« Awfananat (1) "aaa aa 141a aatf aiB*elnt« p^X"
aaat"; (ii} aaa tltoi h«'*aaii haMinally aa^iaaifnl af hia aaplaj*
aaat an4 9«1I1bs and aid oat laafnlljr praTldc far hin«alf*j
(3) aaci tiiat ha **a«elao%«d all iKafril 1im»ln9»fi ano <tia kabli-
nally alca»»|>#nd his tima withe- t glviac a caad a«eanai *f hl»»
••If*; (4) aa«l thai ha *waa kaawa i» W a jil«s1t|>aa]tat, having
aa laafnl a««n« cf an p part an<i waa habitual Ijr fannd ar«vliac
la .'^aa laltaria^ ara^ad t))are*i«Jh^faraii*« all la Ticlatlon ^t
tli« aaatlaa of ih« atatata r«f»rr«4 ta*
Tar tha prasaantioa, %nm i^tyaa, tettlflad tkat ha
?>1M • H
)M<kU&i.
.>x
Il^,0^4^i.
**- .0-<i^.<w^
•6ft i? ,?^;!^
*'n- Qj )>^igm<^it wcj {{Jirfa* AIM Mi««1|»« '!• ••••«£• i*«»lF»« ••iti'k*^
9/1^ 0i /rfi*»{(:.>io - >Ai *.»fta««f«s»T w^f ^J b«««lMili vna v*a# •««
S*ti:*«cii4i nqll •l»ivrt<( xllnymml <r«a »!• )»•• iBlfive (Nui 4«*ff>
•4 Mm! »U dm MMivixf Itrtmi (Xa k*#Ml«M* Ml tatft am (t)
•«i«i !• i«ff9»»* t*«» 41 IDiJtvil #«"«(i<-|iv tNilt alM &ii»t»«««JyK tlX«r
•iilirraf ,i»ir»*<r4ei<9i « atT aJ it«f«tf t^Y* M indU ham {^) I'tlmm
•Mm
m »«li«« •ffie»r •aA nt ibe tia« hm ttrr«ct«4 th* 4i«fMi4*
ani h« first —m His iuuiging •» « sir««t o«r holding tlie turndl*
tirltb his L«ft >iand ««(/ >iisliii»«; a mas WMa«'i lfo«r* •heM of hia
iat« ih« vsr; i)mi th«> '^«^r slovsd ny and it««r« Woltcd e«i •£
ill* osr and Kdllj raad as far aa th« aaxt earnar anei iropipad
•ff and a«e»a tmaki tlaat Balljr fan far %h« n^uX aar that oiMsa
alaag; and gat held af th«> haii41a in tl»« »ftma !»raiiicn h* was ia
aa tit* priTTlofiB o<$r and Maara ran in nnd startad ts sri^ii^ Ais
aajr iata thm oar, whe aiai^s* th<r witaass arrastad ^ih th« da*
fandaat and M«9wm» th» aitaaas fnirih»r taatifi^^d, ev#r abjaa*
tiaa, tlukt }i99r« van a yiakpaakat} tJiat hm aalr«^d th'^ ct#fffadant
alMira be was «arkia« aad ha aai^ tbst ha van warkiag far a roal
aslata mm and wpoa baiag aakad vhi>rm th« affiaas a«r« ka did
a«i aara ta atnia aa« that npon baing ^nasiif^nnd fnrth<»r aa
tha f«Iiaviag 4«^, h« said ba »a» nai narkiag aad Had sat
kaim far ti»a pravi<:vi>a aavaa «eniha; that his last aark was at
•arjr. ia4i«aa, far a saving aaakiaa saatiMiajr* Agaia. avar 9yti—»
%Xim, tkis «lta«aj!f was par«iitt«>d ie stata tlaat ka had arrasiad
tka d^f#a4aat ia Ai^ril, i»it, at «%i,dk Xlrn^ *hm was sani ta
Jcilat far violatif>n af hit paral** On ares«*a3umiaation, iMs
vitnass stated tkat tk# ao«!a»iea ia <i«*aatien aaa tk« aaljr aaa
aa ahieh ka kad utrmr saan Uenr* aad that ha had aat aaan tka
dafMidsnt far 18 ai»ntka iiraviaits ta th« tins af tkia arras t*
•aa e*Bri«ii, alsa a i>ailaa affi<!«>r« i'^atlfi^d iteat ka talkad
aitk th« d«>fandftnt at tha atatian aad that tk«i lattar said ka
kad nat kaon aarkiag far thi* last a<>Tatt aantka] that he aaksd
tha d^fandaat aha Msara «a» and ka ra^liad *that*« the wir*}
kat I SM gaiag ta gat rid •€ that kii«.« Tha aitaas* aaplaiaad
that tha axpr^sii'ien *a^ra* maaat a i^itlrpoakat, th« "vira" kaiag
tha aiaa mm 9«its his fiagars ia tha aiatiaa* peokata.
•ill !• 4Nl»(fs tt*^ k^hmm nmm a ^1 bnod i < . : d^iv
^lt«^^ I^MS «»in«« tmiti ^Ai m.' ilStL bt» ««» 94U
■t X>i i* : !»«9f tmo hmm tl#
n- 3«' Il>f^-«r' i««i #«q| |>s# ((■•jKa
- ' ^i«¥ fe«4«l«n«il 'ivwnjjrw iU94 «««fv«.(Nfl» •%*!• Mif Willi V
i'- ■ ^.. ... <. mH •%•#•
^•n C'Mf .n*\ ^i-iX9m 4mi «
•I iMmM MW 4MI« imU *0JUt0 40 ••!# ;i«F«ft|l^t<«iir «4t
• i.iii tiwliiiH— ■■■awnnifc n» »,ltl«t| •! {«i<«jT i«l lt»llj%
VMM mmmi t9m i>«f< M #«(» WR» vs«««i wmM «•«• lb«tf <Ml rf»M» •»
•«l«tf««4 *««l4r <<r •»« (MM mU
4«s«rit>«<t hiiasvlf »• JBtt«im«*« ii»iui«ias S«i*MMUi f«r Um £iaf«r
twit' fi««liitt« C<Mi^uqr« If# tffttifi^dl itat hm hm6 InMvn ih*
Ofandant for %w ^•mf mi4 tint h» hmi vorlied far a br«thi>r*
la*lw «f %h» «iin#*» at «if'*«r»nt iim*«{ that far aba^t Uiraa
aantha ar«Tia*a to th« <Uiii>« af arr«»t ih« d«fan4iiBt hud b»mi
«arkii^( farth* vliaaae an a aalargr «f IISaCC a aaak auitf a«i»
Mitnieiia; tkat ihit «er1( ««b aat ataadty; tlut th« dcfandioit
aa4« hlnaalf ganarall/ «ia«fql aranatf iba «tftr«, alvaoiag
aaa)tia»» and gfttting i})«m r^'ailjr ia ga ani aa«t di6 aarta&n a«rk
af aaaravalng mad laaating paapla «lw haA parahasatf naehinaa
aa ii»a anii h«d baeana dalia^tiaRt ia ibeir aaoannta and maTad.
Ytala aitaaaa gava aavaral naaaa af i»«aple wklah baa baaa glTan
%• Um dafaaaaat far inTsatlgatiaft and alaa aaaiionad aaa 9t taa
faraaaabjr nana aad gava tbair addraaaaa, to arban tb# dafaadcjtt
bad Mia da aal<«» aa aaaMlaaloa*
In m%P'-'er% %f tba appaal tba df^fandnat eaataada that
tbe iafani»aii«« 4a«« n^% ebarga anjr effaaaa nndar ib* Yagabaad
Aat aad alaa tbat iba avid«^naa da#a n%% aaaiala any mt iba
abargaa eant«iR«»d in %ba infarnatiaa* tb* ftrai and third
abargaa in iba infar»aiiaa ara elaairljr iaaiiffiai»Bt. Aaaaf
•ibarc d9alara4 bjr iba ci»tttt<» io ba vacabanAa ara **all faraaaa
aba ara idla and diasalnta aad IJ^W iff »^^ ^fBiUW* •»< •!••
"ail paraana aba mtm idla mr diaaalnta Mid aha fiagiaet all lav*
fnX btiaiaaaa aad wha habitually mia^ayand tbalr tiaa by fra*
(laantint bana«a %f ill«fa«a, saaiac banaas ar tiypling abaya**
fba firat and third ebargaa ia iba aaaplaiat aait partiaaa af
thaaa alaaaaa in tba atatttta wbiab ara laatarial and witbaat
abiab na arima ia abftyftt4«
tba aaoand alanna in tba avmylalnt, ta tba affaat tbat
A^v . Vff IT* • mrt\ asLS **f<*^&A •»<
-'J Rwdr
■- » « ^ ■,
■^-r?
,'lf itf ft
•*>
tm
•m
*vi ^ t ftAA ear
••!« km *M||Mlif ^t<rtff fa jtfy *«• •4tfS9*mMk fta 4»
• «tt v# «Br# \i»At ttmmfi$*>mJtm x^Oim* tamet %^ turn mmU^f l»t
.•«0i(« :inJli<i<i# <&• ••ovtif INi^wm *«*»1l*i «r«««l litMiMiw^
^(fMUlv kmm i«itMs.« •T«-A»i#» ••««•<« aA^ HM «mnmU* •■•M
th* i«r*n«tant im« h«bit««llj n«gl««tfi»X 9t hi* •w9l«|r««iit
«ii4 on^lliac MKt 4i<t Q*i lawfully proTld* fpr hiMcslf, vhll*
iMi is %h*i l«ngtt«9« Af ih# «iatitt«« i« twfflei^ntlj •« t« nft1r« It
» TsllA oluurg* of «B •ff«n»«. In •uv •pinlttn ili« •nrlAiiie* ia
ito« r«o«r4 full* far shari af bclnc eanTiaelnc b«y«Bd a r^aaam*
a1»lc da*>1»i, ihat %tt« <l*f«ntfaat vaa sullty of tills aitu^a.
fha fa>iirtli thar^a Inth* iafaraatloa vaa nat in Uia
iMicnaga af ih» atatttie vhiaii aajra, a«aMg aitiara vha aiaall ba
4a«aiia4 ta ba plakpeakata, staall b« inalDflad "all paraon* wha
ara knovn ta ba * * * piekpealtata, vhath«r hf thair avn oaa*
f«ceioa 9r athtti^laa* <^ ■* * nn^i h^Ylng na l«iwfnl aaaaa af a^f*
ipart, mrm ha.bltnalljr fftnnA pravllni; arotmd * * * arawda4 tharattg)^*
faraa, eiijra cr awril1»«a«a"» If va aanaldar tlia fa«*rtb aliarfa
ia i:b« (i<»»i>l»iat to b«> Bviffiei«nt «ta4«r that ftart af th« atatvta,
%Jut fiiiaatloa ramalaa aa te vhath^r tlia prt^af vaa anffiaient ta
anatain it* In tn^r as>lai n It vaa nat. It ssHat ba kapt ia
aia4 that te seaviat an«» af thla ahMrga it lanat 1»a akaws that
tha (l<*f«nel nt had ne Isvf^fl a«aRa af awppart and that ha aaa
itfltllliMiy fanBd iiraaliac «ra»n4 a ara«4a4 tteraMgHfara ar
0tir sa tha aaaa aajr ba. Va av* vary atransly iaoliaad ta baliava
fraai tha avi<t«naa that aa tha aasaaioa ia qiiaatiaa tha dafaad*
aat aa<t &aara wf attaiaptiac te piak ]»ottkata» Unt, aa 9tar
fiapraaa 'a«irt paiataa a^t ia tha r^aaat aaaa af Ikua »aaala ▼•
fikjUl. U9ii ill* 42C, "A piakiMiakat i» nat aaaaa»arily a Ta«a»
ka«4 fam4»t tha praviaiaaa af tha atatnta." Tnr%h*T, tha ari*
d<^n«a da^a nat ahaw bayaa« a raaaonabla <la«ibt that Xh« dafaaA-
aat vaa withe^t lavf^ »aaaa af anppart. It iadioataa rather,
tha aaatrayy.
Xt aaa nat atraafia that th« jnty feim« tha t^f^n^
Ml «fi»#tl||r* •III MPifl K , )rt« n.« "^t «|MMl» hllMtf m
m*i il^da Mi« tttrfi* »M«iM «w-^c M»i^^ ' '
•ft» asiKi'cvq Ha" k^htrl*ni mi Jl^t-^^ ,
•.>,>•>-)•- .■.>;--\?^.?»«Ti Bii ■9'-'.
MM 4m3 fMl# i>M« #TMI<^ O^ Mil "d^
fm 4nur1M»M«tif *tti»ri» 4 tew«%« )uiiAi««« Ate
••jMrv • XitHmmmmwmm *«» vi #»i>i>. -if* «a^yUB
mi gwlltjr. «ft«r ife« trial ••*%r% Iw4 p#r«itt«4 (•▼•r elbjvvtieii)
m p9\iot> efflacr to ahev Hgr hl« t^atliiaaj that tho d^fandlMit
hmi 1>*Mi prarletialj oenTlotad af aam** ariiaa and vaa aant«»aa4
%• Jcllat an4 that aftar his r«laaa« h« liad b#«Q arra>ta4 and
ratwraad to Joliat far violAtioa •f hia j^aral* aad alaa i« viav
•f tiM faet that in tlia eo!tr«« of th« oral iRstniatiaaa ta Uta
ii»iir( tte* trial to»?rt atat«4 tkutt tka faet that th« <i«>fancLaiit
h»«i B«t valcan tha atajid ahonld ttat« is aaii af ita«Xf» h« tmktm
•caiaat htm, *b«t vith all tha ather faata and •! re«wataiiaat
ynrt «ajr eanaiiar that ani««ion to taira tha «tiuMI«* bji4 In viav
af tha 9a :yt*» fnrthar iafftmetiaa ia the aff«9t that •it tha
•Tidanaa la that h« h«a hmmk nn9m?lmy4 far th^ laat aaraa
aantha ^riar t« hi a arraai, that, tuidar •«» lav, wakaa hl«
a ▼a«rant, a Ta«a>eB4.*
yar the iNiaaaaa atata4, tha jndgaaNt §f the l%mlai»al
0a.»rt la ravaraad.
0*deiieE, *,j. A!«i. xAXUh, j. irHSwR,
•ux;.
) I \
en • 26188
eCRA a. CKCSSV
App«lle«^ }
SnSLSr SGfHMICf «lt4 MAHZB
KeifligL FROM
SIJPSSRKH CC:TRT,
COOK CCOTTY,
A»ptt|lants.
223 IcA. 642^
MR, JUailCK 'iiiGHSOH deliTered the opinion af
th« court.
9y this app«flil the defsndantB •••k to tftyeiV a
decree of fiirooleftar* entered in the Superior Court of Ceelt;
County, folleving defaults in oert«tin peymente en ^ prinei*
pal note ef #5CC.0C exeeuted by the defendant Hel*n Sehmidt,
■eeured by her trust deed eonTeying cert, in real property.
She answer ef the defendants, filf^d to th? complAinant**
hill of oomplaint, alleged in euhstanoe th?.t the note ia
question was iBYalit* as it had b@en glren larlthout oonsider*
ail on and its exeoution had heea proeured l)y duress. Tha
eamse was referred te a Master wha fully reported the faota
found frca the eridenoe tagathar with hi a findinfs that
th<«re ma censidpratiaa far the note snd that its exeeutioa
had not been procured by duress and his reeammend&tioa that
a deeree be entered aa prayed for. Objections and axcap*
tions to the Master* s report were overruled and the deeraa
af pealed from was ent'^^red aa reooiomendad.
fha Master found thf^ facts te be aa fellows: Cne
8itoay Sehmidt was a stockholder in I'he Union Seatraeting
MX»ft • M
\
o or
.ir : . ::%<: r
a •eTc- T*x 99 *'#;■. .:•;■'.' •r'>n rtr.tf ia»q'^i> a xJij {,c
nk ««i<»n «j1J ^ ..:>J»«rtr« ni ^9*Ita finisi^aoe ^6 1114
«T«bl«non ^irorf^lv n«YlD R»»ff r>«r( ll ■• .IIJjbtmI •«« iv«lla»«p
*ilT .ttariut '{^ 6<»iimii%4i 4W*(' l>«it a«iio9*wi lit I»im ■«!#«
•q«o»» ham aaeil9«t<fO .lol b«vnt •« l»»i«#ii» ^if ••'r»«5 «
9«»-rp)ft 9(<^ £)«« b»Xuti9ro «-x9W #t<;^n 9'tm^mMii ms 9» an9ti
.h«tiii«iitafOMi^ it» «4rv awl IkvlMt^f*
OvmtwMj, holding 18 of the ICO sharct whioh made up its
capital stooV. Of the other aharea, 30 r«in&iaed in the
tr«asury of tha oompan^. The affairs of th« eonpany «*re
•ttoh that it needed more capital. The company was engaged
in building faotory buildings* i>ehnidt personally, vas
WBgaged in bttildiisg and selling small flat buildings. He
wished the Company to extend its operations aKd en(i,age in
the eonstruetien of resideneee and flat buildings. He
expected to be able to give the Company eontraots for such
buildings to be erected for hisi, thus increasing the earn*
ings of hie stock and enabling him to malre profits en the
resale of the buildings.
Sehmidt had known tb^ complainant, Cora S. Gross,
for many years amci at Tarious times prior to her msrrlsge,
she had sought Mr ndTiee in burineps matters, Early in
1915 he told complainant and her husband of the Union Con*
traoting Company and recommended the purohaee of its stock
as a good isTestment. ^;omplainant*B husbnnd did not think
well of it, but, unknown tc him, oom;>lainant used $3, COO
ef her funds in purchasing the 30 shares ef the stock whioh
had been in the 'ompany** treasury, inuring the first year
thereafter complainant receiTed diridends aggregating 7
per c<^nt on tnie steek but following this the company get
into difficulties and was obliged to liquidate. Its debt«
exeeeded its assets and the liquidatieto yielded nothing
for the stockholders. Complainant requested i^hmidt te
either have the Company repurchase her stock or asmme the
responsibility for it himself, inasmuch as he had iaduoed
her to make the investment. He s^greed to asciume liability
te her for the #3,000 and pursuant to this agreement he and
Mil Hm vatfwf II14M-' v' . Sii Tjti l.t. -IS n. ^ifpf^^iMoB
9iiam xawfvet mU I0 •«<#> ......v. — «.u 1« x*"*''*'''*
««v «xXJtem>«t«« tftlaHM .aipiii^iliiir xvo#o«t anl';Xtj0tf ■!
.ataibilMT #ajn ^it« •••«oi»ia«t ^« mlt^rxiiaot Mil
•iii R« ailtoKi •atain •< aid ^ttlL4mpm bnm <aa4a i^il la ai«i
.'«»ai»Xi«tf aiU la alaaai
.aKAJtvian titll ol Talrt4 aaAi^ «#ai««T M i>«a #tJr»x itfuir ««t
tU \l'u^. .a«a^^ff.aB<4(i««i«r «a a4»it*a aiit m-^ao^ hMt ailt
-a«0 coXaO ptii )# ^aa«fB«4 «aj( Iraa i«cAi;»it»a» Aial mC dXftX
:fi>al« ail la aavCaviiqt v*^ MbftacMiooa-c kiM -^fui^^gft aA4ia«rf#
OPii>a£<t j>9aa iaaiil«itiafoc «»ixi 04 cnvo , , i.av
ifeijto loaia v>ilJ la aa««4a o;( mU ^Xa-aHoso^ (U abtuul xe< la
«a*\ lai^n iMU naitvl .^cvmiaaYi a^vtAVW^ v^' «<^ •••<( J^Mf
T ««i4asaiiiM> abaaa«Ti^ JbaTiAsav #iUMiiai««aa i»41aaTitiM
laa XMqooa aUi aXiii MiivaXXal 4utf Maa^a eX4<4 «a #s«a iiac
«id»fr ail .ai«tXi;pXX oi ^^iXrfc aaw toaa aal4Xi*aillXft aiai
IMV'i^'^'ff baliXaJ(\ fltaXlaliliiipiX %M taa aiaaaa m^ i aa*aa»xa
#1 tbimA^ aaiaaaoai ifia«laifAa9 .avaiiatfifaaia adl «al
'ydt aaonaa f ^ooia vaA aa4Mtatjf«aii ^Mtmd ad# avMl tailtAa
baaukiri ban' atf a« /lanatafil ,lXaa«ix( tt val x^'-<^l^i(«<«*«**v
%il£i4aiX aauaaa 0. b*wtjj. .•.«4taT«i aiij aiUi* nJ tajf
iiui an tsaaavina »tjAi ai «Ha«a^iiq fcna 900,11 adi inl «a<( ai
his wife executed tvo mertgagee, eeouring hla twe netmi
f%T $1,C00 eaeb, oeaTeylag oertain property referred te
in the reeerd ms the Drake avenue property. Although
title to tiiie property was ia Sehsidt* it belonged to nie
mother and these Mrrtgt^ea were executed and dellTered vlth*
eat her knowledge* They were third mortgagee but complain*
aat aoeeptea thea thinking they were first lien*. CoMplaia*
aa^t did not turn haek her eteok at thie tiae.
Seae time later, cofflplainant'e huebBnd learned
•f the inyeetment ehe had made and of its uafarorable tut*
eea* and he hr<d aeTeral talks with rotaaidt in which he took
the position that it wae Ineuabent en the latter to protect
hie vife from any leee, Ae a result, Sohraidt gave two notes «
•ns for ^3|CCC representing the eri^giaal iaTestraent and the
ether for #150 representing interest up to that tiise. It
appears from the reoord that complainant continued to held
the two prsYious notes for il,OC}0 saoh and the mortgages sa
the Drake sTenus property, apparently as security for the pay>
aent of Sehaidt's notes for $9,CC0 and fl&O. Later Sshaldt
dellTered to ooaplainant^s lusbaad what purported te be a
warranty deed conTeying certain property, signed by eas
Spillaan and wife. 1!hi8 deed contained a notation ea its
face to the effect that the property th<»reia referred ts
was belag oeaT^ed as seeurity for sohaidt*s twe notes sf
#8,000 and $150.C0. The property purported to be ooar^ed
Hy this deed did net exiet and the eigne tures to it were
fictitious. This fact was dieeorered by Qoraplainant**
hueband when he attempted to have the deed rseerded and
when he adrlsftd Schmidt of his discoTsry, the latter requeet*
ed hia not ts institute any orialaal proceedings but to girs
n' ----'Yttx y0%»nvx% «l*#^«»e itfiiK' ,•'»•• •^^•X|> «#*
• in •! »«s«oX*4 il .iftlaoM at »Mr tlt«<r««Jt %Ui 9i ••Uli
.«»«iit mltit $m 3toel« -&M1 :f«wo tnnf jmi ^ii #jm
•^M oXtfAlontllUff til to %0« •!»&££ u^J C/.3 j^tr«Ja»Vfii '
ft99i 9tl daXiiv Hi tbimd^r. tlttw 9Ttl^
CO ••IKS^'XOA «4^ 'jMs H«m» 999,X# rs«) ••^00 mtfir9tn 9^4 ttAi
4bUu/mB x-iimJ .01X« *«• 9^*C| tot aa^oa <i*tkiipl9d !• ^«»«
« «tf «^ i>*i«»CUH| t*Mir lis«<f«Mt tUMMilAXqjBc* »if A««ttirlX«A
•li «« SaltattMi • 6«jiA«>tiott b«t£ sJUlt .•%lir Imm •AMiXifS
•^ *»Ttf>t«« 0i^<*»lCi Vl*<791Cf «Jl^ 1«JU ^C«)7» mU W IMM>1t
b«vv»B* •«' ot l^w#T»ir«ni v^*<^«'(4 tK: . >3X$ ACM OAa«€|
•YMT #1 o# aMMtiMaia ••(« Am i«lx» #mv 4X*^ *M>b «IMi ti^
bo* bci^«Mt b««l> «iU •▼/«! 44 »#4««il#ii fi( tmt^ huaM^ml
0rt» ui imi «ftBXb»<»*9T« Umtmtf xfm ^tutMBmJi «i cron mtA *•
hia an ttpportualty to rAalist ea crrtaln building Tenturea,
Bahnidt promiKlng, «^,r eccn as theca maturedi to pay hi*
aates. ?cmpl«)ln&nt*H husband did net say vhat ha would da.
Xhe prior ineuicbranoa* aa the ]}raka aTcnue property
eama dua and the heldfre refused to extend. One Krejci, re*
yreaenting thcst , notified the defendant Marie S, Belaaidt,
Sida^ Sohmidtte nother, that the nates secured by tVicsa in-
eunbraneea would hare to be paid. He also diseuesed with
her and with her daughter, Helen Sebiaidt, the other defendant,
the situation iRTolring Sidney Sehaidt and the oenplalnant«
Ceaplainant^s husband refu8<>d to hare anything aorf; to do
with Sefaaidt and the latter requested Krejei to att«Bpt ta
effect a settlement between him and complainant and her has*
band. Subsequently a settlement was reached whereby Bohmidt
eattsed his sister lielen Schmidt to execute her two notes far
ISOO.OC each and two truet deeds and aesigiSBnents of rents
seourine them. It is one of those aotr^e wit i the trust dee4
and aseigament of rente seeuring the eama that is iarolTed
in the suit at bar. The oth^r of the two notes, with the
trust deed and assigament of rents securing that note is
iarolTed in a similar suit, being '^ase Ho. 26189 in this
court, a decision in which iasAso being rendered this day.
Uader tha tarns of this settlement, Schmidt also caused the
•quity ia the Dz«ke ayenua property to be conTeyed to com*
plainant, and complainant returned to Sehmidt the etook she
had purchased in the Uaioa Contracting Company, the fleti«
tieus warranty deed and the third x-aortgaga notes on the
Drake arenue property. The stock in question was returned
ta the naiaa Contracting Compaay* ibe teatimaay ladieates
that Sehaidt*s two notes for |3,C0C and #150.00 were also
•*•
• •ft ftlifOV •!< 4 Ait'
d$br k—mit^*ik on La »£
•J Jt%jmjSH at IttiifX i;
tmi «4i te* «t.lMfe« t»i»
tbij&Jci. ^«ii»2ii^ t^;i&«.)i < ut«^« r ^#ff»otP4Ni/i«t .fr«atf
T^l •A,^*a «W tfeff •^li««x» 3^ .':!lau<f>a n9l»;^ T*ii«Jt£j fell! W4i««*
ftio9i )• nl'iiftmqklaaJi •«« iftmdb #tir(# tmt ^aa ifOJi» >>o.909f
•ii -^ttm ,fi9n mi s''- " — <fie »ifT .nuB«f *■ •»)•« ■•itJ «tJt
• 1 •.^03 ^Ajf# K«itiri>o# nv..' ''- '-— rn(iir«« turn %*^ imvxt
• V^b «J:i... .. . wci«t tsin'i eiijlpii ifolifv fli ;.-- ^ » «#«J»4<i
•tfi b««««« •■X4I t»i«Ce0 ,ifv««ijU/«t tUtS 1o «aR«# «ii# i*iMrtr
■«Mio W ^•t*vfl<»9 •'^ J^ iJ'i^>'^'rts <»nlrMirA MbrM r<l^ irt \tkirp9
ft«atiii«t 8r. ^»p oi <»«fi •tf . •< #int»r« •<*«■
1 •tamed te him Imt It is nst elaar tr9m th* reo«rd «h«a
ttaat ««• done.
Th« Master further fsund that in one t^ msr« sf
the coiiTersatiens with ehaldt, Krejoi said, in suhstanoe,
that unless he made some settlement with the complainant,
her hasband vsuld cause him te he yreseeated byt that it taa4
net hean shomt, hy a prepond^^rance ef the eyidf>nc?, that either
esKplainant er her hoshand had authorised such statements.
It was further found thet the defendant, Helen Schmidt, had
aaquired title te the mortgaged property from one Anna F.,
Steok (her aunt) at the same time she had ezeeuted the trust
deed heing foreclosed in the suit at bar, and that she stated
te Krejei, she had taken title for her baather; also that
Helen Sehmldt later oenTeyed the property te her mother, the
defendBnt Marie S. Belsfiidt.
¥h« Master further found that the eonreyttsoe ef
the equity in the Drake arenue property was in p&rt payment
ef the |3,0CC irtiich Sotoidt undertook to pay complainant aad
that thfcBi together with the two notes far fSOO and the trust
deeda securing the same, lAiioh complainant seeks to foreclose
in the suit at bar, asd oasa Ko, 861S9 aboTe referred to, were
aeeepted by her in full settlement of her el»,im against Sidney
Sehmldt.
It was further found by the Master that, while the
defendent Helen Schmidt reoeired no financial oeneideratioa
far the execution ef the note and trust deed here inTolTodi
she executed aad delirered th^n te enable her brother te make
his settlement with the oaiiplainant and proeure the return of
the fictitious deed and carry out his promise to make good
wbtrij 9if^ b9c> jji •<(« ft«li $«il«i «uLt Joi {itum Mil) <•*#■
taAt if
•fc«Tl«T«i f«9K M«b i9tni *fui «4i>a mU 1« a#ilu»MW 9«U ««1
M92I 9£tr iaet« ■111 li^ H, -^ *!»** tiiailJUvAl «M
the loss which oenpl&inant had suetai»e4 through the steek
iBTeataent the had h««n iadue«4 to aalc* V her hrether, V
vhleh he had expeeted to henef it, heth in his indiridttaX
Wsiacsa and aa a ateeXhelder in the eomyaay. It vas the oeaw
elvsien ef the Maater that ther« vaa eonsi deration far the note
here in suit and alao that it had not been executed heeaue*
•f dur«as« as olained by the defend?.nts.
Inaupport of tnia appeal the defendants contend
(1) that Sidney Sehaidt vaa under no legal liability to coik*
plalnant \j reason sf the inTeetment she made and ita uafoxw
tunate outoome and that hie liresiiae to maks good her loss vaa
ecnaequently nudi^ factma: (2) that the Tarious aetea he gare
her were vithout oonaideration and that ia so far aa the return
•f thsae aatss to Sidaegr Ssteidt fumiehed the reason for the
•xeoution and deliTery of the nets and traet deed here inrel*
Ted, the latter were alao without oonaideration; and farther,
(3) that ia ao far aa the return of th^ fictitioua deed turm
nished a oonaideration for the execution and delivery of ths
note and truet deed here InTolred, th<> latter vaa haaed en a
esaoideration trtiieh was against public policy aad illegal tmd
therefore Toid, and (4) that the note and trust deed in ques*
tion were executed aa the reault of dureai!:.
In our opinion there vaa ample eonaideratioa t^x the
original undertaking of Sidney iieteidt to save Mrs* Gross
hanalesB from any loaa by reaaon of her iaTeatment aad alao for
the Taricua aotes he gare her and her hucbaad ia Tiev ef their
psa tion that he, having induced her to make the inreatBieaty
was obliged to reiaburae her. It is act neeeasary to deteznias
vhether Mra. Orocs had such a claim against Sidney Schmidt as
vould have enabled her to recorer agalaat him in a suit at Isv.
iMtitkrthal aid ml tii^ .iilMi^tf mi ksl^MM d«i( U, d»Um
««•• 9tlt Miiv It •XMaf'vo (Hfi aX :i»b/«i(:<s»l« « •• bmm ■••aJtaiirf
•i«r. 9il# tail a«tijR<rifti«CM aav '^•r"*^ licKi t«^«*l^ Mti la nolairXo
•«oe e^ \i k.^''^ir,..i XeiaaX an 7ai>Ajyi a«w ihimi9' fnbLi imAi (X)
•^e'lKjv a^i hnm aJb«B aila ^ii«Hfa#Ttti »ii^ la nsaa^i ^ iauacliiXq
9mt SBO^ «»<( Jl««i aM«* oi Mimot^ kXiI l»iU %aii ^vaa^vo msttntti
aTfiA ai( a»Jaa ■««XtAT a^U JsiU (it) tflTWlfftJ WiWIflJ ^^^(•I'y**^ ^
anvlrx »it> «« nal •• nJt iMAi hum «aJU«TafrX«ittta Anoifllir %i»:m i^d
•dt nal AMuiftx wii b^AnXjnMX tklf''' ' ^-^nXio ai aalaii a?
•Xovai aiAif t»nh ititni htm •itm «' l>iui AaXiaowaa
,ii'>ri,ti«l bfii» ;flol*«nt?>f. isaov /ii»oi*J ^ - > ; ■% -sa/JteX aifi «*•▼
•^j^ (idllttoair t>ai£«|a
^#«if ^rfi (JkaTXoVKX aicaif ft««i) Icirtl bus aJair
baa Xtf^aXCl kiw 'q;aiXas[ »tl€an Jenla.vv MW A^litt traltrf^blaaao
Miavy ici ^Attlk >a«tt KM* ftian af^ tiuSJ (^) lba» ,61«t v-ralv-fjii
.taaitfb la l£tia«'; ad^ aa halvaajia an** cali
•ill nal a«iiMi»hiMei^ '.-^^..^ .4., ^. .^. ....w , i.
aaa^O .a'&li av4M ol IklaatoJH fanl>Us la anlM^lv^^ .^i^ .^nxij^ixo
lal aaXA bna /laaailaaval fii Ya a»aa>-t xif a«»X vtm «ia*tl a«al«tai(
liMti 1« vatv tfl tm&vtb/T tad bam i»ii was *'< aaia« mit'^itmr mdt
«/nrajal«aTfi sili *: taW Jb<»airt>fii a*^*'^ t*'' ^«(f' MX' aaif
•Rlantalab ai -ttwiaan^A i««t ai il ,«a/< »«iri|ii«X«T •! t^nlZifa •«#
a4 llbtMf«4 xaafttt twtittg* mir Jr^ tt il»«a l»«f( ft0Wt9 ••vil vatflMftr
It is eenolusiYCly sh^wn hy the reetrd that l)«th Bh« and h«r
husband wer-e actinc in good faith in pressing her elais, an4
that in an effort to settle the inatter, Sidney Sehnidt Bad*
his original promisa and gar* his rariouo notes. His premisa
was made and hia notes wore giToa without any fraud on the
fart of the oomplainant of her husband, actual or eonstrue<-
tiT« and the agreefflents thus entered into hy him were fairljr
eatered into. It follow* that his original promise was made
and his notAS were giren for a sufficient eonsideratioa*
McB:inley ▼. Watkino. 13 111, 14C; Hoaowian ▼• Jarris. 79 111.
S18; Adams t. Crown Coal and Tow Co.. 198 111. 445; ffalker ▼•
Shepherd. 210 111. ICC. Furthprsore, in part at least, the
consi deration for the ^500 note wnd the trust d(>ed here sought
to be foroelosed, i^ifteh were exeeuted and delivered laijr the d««>
fendaat Helen Sehmidt, was the return to her brother of the
rarioue notes and ooeutities he had giren the oomplainaat
and her husband. Sren if her brother* s notes had been girea
without Qonsi deration the return of them by the parties to
whoa he had giToa them« would furnish ample consideration
for the ex<»oution anu (iffliTOry of the note and trust deed
iarolved in Xhp suit at bar, for reasons whioh are apparent
and upon wtiich we need not elaborate.
Vo are further of tho opiaion that the faot that part
of the eonsi deration for the execution and deliTery of the note
and trust deed herftinrolTod, was tho r#tum to Sidney Sehaidt,
by the complainant and hor husband, of the fiketitious warraa*^
deed which ho had giToa then, in ao way Tltiatos the transaetion*
It does net appear from any testimony in the record that either
tho e«aplaiaaat or her husband, at any time, agree<l not to
institute criminal proeeedlngt against Sidney Selnidt, if tho
toffft .Mini* t*(( tnAOV^^t n< <Mr'' - " •— ^ -^^ ^^ffV fe««^««rf
•Aiur thkml96 XMtlkia «i##;«e « i. . . .<-. ns «t ^«ttl
-otnf«{ro9 19 l4v4iMi ,ftiiiMr»ir<< x^tf tn ittmmtmlttmom Mil 1« it«f
vTful jto<)b J»«»n, •*•©
•^ ■•l#Y«f w(4 x^' ^•v f<(^ Mo^
r('-)l^s'<>^ .taAoc •XqKJi jivir .^ajri^ imyJIiS to^n 9n ttodw
.•J«v<^£X# .ton b*<»A «V C(0Mi« ftO^il bllA
tiMii tA^i i»«:t flOtt l4M£i ndiaifio aiU lo Y»«itfvtA <>«« yt
oiQlpvmMMni tit 90ftUtir x^m •« ni. ««»/fi nsTi:. ^'iv >9«*
xtUt9 $ada kxoMit M(i •! iPMBliaM YM Mill ^«»4;!()ir /o/^ r">«t ^I
R»ttt and trust deed her* iBYolTcd were excoutcd. Sidn»x
Selimidt hlma<>lf t«stifi«a that when h« aale^'d fir« Sreaa net ta
preaaouta him erimlnally, but gire hi« an appartunity ta wark
aut aaaa af his buainess daala and pay the amount ha had yra*
mlead to pay. Dr. Gthpv, would nat aay «h»t he would do ahaut
that* one way ar the athar. It alaa appears that at the time
the note and trust dead here inrelTed and alaa the nata ant
truat deed inTo^ved in eana Na. 261B9 were turned arer ta the
complainant, a^d Sehaidi reeeired baek hi a na tea and hia flat*
Itleua warranty deed, the eakplainant'a huah^nd retain<?d a
yhatographle oepy af that dead whloh he had Bade.
Aa to the final paint urged, it Is our opinion that
the reeerd falls to shew that the note and trust deed upon whleh
the suit at bar la baaed, was executed under duress. Although
denied by Sidney Sohmidt, the Master was warranted, by the ether
aTideaoe, In finding that Krejei wae thf; repreaentative af
Sidney Sohaiidt In the nacatiatieaa oonoeraed In the sattlament
with the ooBplaiBMit and her huaband. It appear a from the
•Tldaaca that Kra^ai told bath the defendnnts, at leaat en aa«
eeetaalea, that unless some aatisfaetary aettlffnent was made
with IXC, Oroi^a, and his wifa, Sidney would go to jail, but It
also appears froM the record that neither the eomplainant nor
her hasband eT«»r nade aueh a atat«nent either to Sidney Schmidt
•r the dafendanta ar to Krejci, or authorised Erejci to »ak«
that atatamaat to the defendants. Krejel took the note aad
trust deed laTolved In tba suit mt bar, to the plaee of reai«
denee of the def«>ndants and left them there. The defendi^nts
seem to hare talked the situation erer with Sidney Oclmidt.
lat r the defendant, Helen Schmidt, executed thi? papara and
they wera returned ta Krejlil and ultimately delirerad ta the
9i i*a (ia«tO «td :u>iimmmt km1v*1«H> ««l'^l:r»»« 1X»»«iaF ;
••Vf h«il tti liwoia* %di ^Mi ftAft ti»*l^ ••.>aJc«W alM 1* ♦««• 4m«
»iie •:r«» ndt —Sm btm ft«TX«t«l 9t«ft k^^k Mtnt bna s#«fr «d#
•a« ao #«A4i ^« tniti:bm9t*ti pdi d)o*! ibloi l^imxJi ituii •ct»blf^^
miwB aav ia»«AiHi>« x«»i Siila liaa oibcmi ■ »/r.u j|t.ii ,a«i«««»a
fi iud •Xi*t •! •« bXirw XMfeita «*liv V ,i?«aii ,%l dikm
lAlwfoO x»«tt^ '^ v^MI* tmmitiit n Khm 4tMi ««iri Immdmmd rmd
,ntiadm3 tM^i® all itr i«kT« R«iJ««ti« a/W fdimi •ViHf •! «»••
•ompIaiiiAat. The doouaents in ^ueation were executecl by the
defendant, Helen Sehmidt, after due deli)»«y*tien and apparent*
I7 after ehe had talked th« eitaatlon orer with her mether
and her brother and under euoh oircuraataaeee, eren though
Krejoi had pr^ricuely iasci« the stateraents rat^rrei te, it
eaaaet be said that the exeeutlen of the note e^d deed were
brought about by dareMi. Rendleaan t, Rendlemaa. 156 111,
568.
We find no error in th«: reoord and therefore the
decree of the Superior Court ir ftffir»ed.
e*ci)^t^ciK, »,i, j^ii I'HCMsoi, J.ccscua,
iCs*«h# a»r» , ••oiui^ svurtt ; ysg ^mC bn«
.HUC ... ,..^- ...>o»©
(3CKA ft. 9mm,
A|»j»«ll«««
SOUllZIff ,m4 IfAKXK
ft, ftonuiff
• \ A
\7
1 '"1 './ 3 ,
I
223 I.A. 642
5^
7M» VIM a Mil to fojr«ol0«« a trutt (£#«(l «x»eattttf
%gr t)l«« aftfvnciAAt ifaJLan s«)mi<tt te ««Qar« b»r naif^ for IKC*
flia suit at bar ifrreliYa* th{> tamw f^aia «a4 ttaa saaia «itt««tla»a
af law aa ara pr«*«atftd in 9tfm #lift],SII In thli' 9i>uTt In vhieli
aa aplalaa 1* ihit day bala^^ fll«d. Th« tva •altt ara alitra
la all r«a|M»«ta. w» will, thrr«f©r«, nat r^yaai te«ra what
wa hava liad aa^aaion to aajr in th« eplalen tiXmi. in e«»a
#801911, intt far th« reaaeaa th^r« sat farth, th« 4itf9rm* af
tlit Suparior Caurt, appaalaa frca In tn* ault at bar, 1»
affirM«a»
Axnian».
• •CC»MCi«, ^.J. ABv TAXLC'M, J, ^X 8CUK,
ttIM • M
IMTf 4i|[t^
H
.£li-.;:nft wfiru
\
^a ...
V-
!• '.si(»i';o 'lU
.#14- y
irf' Ilea nmt *dl .!>« < tiU ni m<Blmt i n«
!• ••1l»*b sill ,4(tV»1 I** «t'fi4 MHI«»»-7 v-^ «Mmf%
•«nr'
•>'< .ft^rv^'f
•8 • 3fta«4
Atamm uuionn.i
49P«l^»a^«
▼.
QUAMLm XXMBXI,
MR, J*»STie«; tm
J^. . ..M^U*-*-'- -
223 l-^' ^^'^
d«Hv»r«d th* opinion tf
ill* <!0«>rt.
Ity tHlc »i»D«atl ih<* plaintiff t««>lrs to r«T«rs« «n ordrr
•ni«r*d ia th^ ^n»i«i|>al c««ri vf f^lklo^ic* ▼•efttiac • d«fftnlt
f«A(i»ttt in th« %ym of ^119.05.
t]i« dnfcndant iMk« «U»fAnlt«4 Antt Jndcmoat w;>« ont^roi
In favor of th« pls^intiff en fi«c«Rib«r «t9» 1919. ca Jaawary
9« 198C» » motion «•• made in bahalf of th« dafcndani, t.hat tho
default Dtnfti ^nd^ont «nt#r«(l a^ainot Ikim ^o Taeatod and •«%
aoidc and on January It, 19ac XSmlX aetioa «uo 0Torr^)i«d. On
r«t»rit«i-y 1JI« 19JSC, the d'fVndant filod a potition vtador Sootioa
JIX of ih^ nnieipal Co-«rt A.et* in n fnrth«>r offort to hoYo tlio
diofntilt oatArod B^ainat liia on SoooalMnr 99, 1919, TaoatoA*
ea ?o1»r«i«i7 !•• 1981^, that ]>«tltic» «•■ d«nlod. Cn F«1iir««r]r
•4, 19at, tkw d«f«nd«at auUo a motion aolciim that the ardor %t
tho <io*irt ont^rod on fobr«ary 16, 19iG, lio Taoatod and not aol4«
and that hlo i^otitira oovViae to vaoato th« original indgaiont
of iaoooMhar 49, 1919, ho alloood, Th« dof»n(i Rt*c laot notioa
oaa allowod and tho ord«r of Fohmnrjr 16, 192C «ao Taeatod m*
vas aloo tho original iad«a«nt of i^oeoahor £9, 1919, yrwn
this ord<?r of the oiMnioiyal Oottrt* ontdred oa rohmanr ad., loaa.
2
• V
! L. l5» y "t tJviiftAift''
K^- •■■<«. J
,}»«•:-'' ♦Ki
*»-«^
ittmi*^ htrt^imm tLpAtafe
tvartfUV Hi ,iHil««* aav ••l#l#fHi #«U. ,(S>i ••! irt«0«¥«t «•
.91 .Ml
tlM plaintiff !)*• 9«rf«ttff« this aptpMat
I» enr opiBioii tli« trial a«Mrt vrr^d In •atcrlac
til* trA^r ap^wiaexa frMit 1% in onljr irti«r« th<» <l«f«MdB8t hm*
aiad0 n» ftetioK t» TAcatVc ••t asiae ar ««dliy a jii4g»«nt,
irithiji thirty da/a after %h0 •ntrjr af auoh Sn4ti;m0nt, tkiat tha
ifuaiaipal Canrt liaa Jnriatietlen ta aaiartalA a j^atitian alli^»
i«C sratmAs far vaaatinc th« jntfgatant vhioh «a-ld ba anffioiant
ta aaviaa tla« saMt ta 1i« vaaatatf by a bill in acini tj« i^Miiiaipal
aa<3irt Aat, Sao* U ill* »ta. (/,auk,) par. 3335. na£& ▼• SkSlM»
l»ft 111. App. $41.
Vha ardar appa«3.a4 frc» 1« th«r«fara rair«raa4 an4
the Q^^^^ia rmuknii't ta tlta ^nBi(3i|»al Sa^rt af c;hia»iKa aitli
4tr*etiaaa to ax;^t«M(a tha ordi«r af Fabrttary 24, I92c« fra«
ttia raaartt ii^^riaa ▼. Ifaria. SC-7 Hi. Api>. Xia.
, F.l. A»i) tAYWH, J. «5r»<5f»ll.
9fUMm4m9 mi hrni'*- -■■■■
44 i« •». 'a#»uw ^.M
478 • dM4« 1
Api>«ll««,
/
fBAXOXB fOUDOl, /
Appelant. ;i
/
^-^ 22 3l.A.642^
Hit, ItrSflO TUCMSeV d»llT#r»4l ill* •pialcn of ih«
Shl« i» a b««tajr4)r prec«e<liiig in>iitni(»tf ^ the
r«;i»trix» MArcAr«% MMAAim, ««Aiii«t tiift d«f«n4iant« yr«B«ia
<l«iy epj^«fljr«4, «ai«r«4 • pl«« of iwt gvllty* tmlTiHl his right
i» a trial af tha lsaii*a Igr * Juvy cn^ tha laauaa ««ra aiiW
wtttad ta th« aenrt* Aftar a haajpisf th« aaurt fanad iha
iafanimit fvill^ aad an t«r»«l JudUpnattt* finding that tha da*
fan<i«at vac tha fathar af tlM iNiatard etiild af tha ralatrix
and ard«»riac the dafantfant to i>«y #l,lr'€ in mennar and faxa
na proTidad liy tha atatut** far tha atippart af a«td ahild.
thm d«f*ndaat prayac! an appaal fr«« tl>« JtidgMant,
t« tMa aanrt, whieh waa allavad, Mia ai^paal band in tha anM
•f #S«Oee «na A\iXf filad and ap]»reTad*
▲ aam^Iata r^tfrA vaa filad in thla v^ytrt Ity tiue
dafnadiMtt, and altliougb a ntabar af ardara hmf baan antarad
nllavinc %h» d^fandnnt additional tima to flla hia abatn«%
Mid briaf, tiaana daetmanta teva navar b««tt filad.
Xa arrar in t^ raoerd haa thrr<:fara t^aan brani;ht
ta tha atienticA af this ocurt and na maaon haa baaa ftdiniad
,^>^m ?I ■'., ■ :
; S 2
#«r.{»n«t*;u sift •«jM0i<S If #iif<«n X««[A«4«iftf vMt^ i ,j»i(Ii^
#ii»i'i till MtiiMv «^li0a nut \9 w»t<t m U'»'%ft49f ^km%m*<it^m fJCa*
Hfoa irrMT t«y««i iuli &«« v>jrt • 1^ f«#««l «jU !• X<iJtt# Ji i$i
•«k ««| #«itl sMlAfli): .iava^vi (^•n^tM ken XiXl»« iMteOO
\(,v • * ■ JI.- « il« n« VW A * I RMW W-l«li«-i «IJ«JI<JSTVV A
^UTt tty^ VATMf •»«*» ciAajarMi;^
fil||timtf m—4 •%m't«x*44 tutd bx—»t %tj mi xtnxm •■
tmM
•itfc to «!• f*r • r«r<r«rt«l or «»4ifleatlfta cf th« Judsm^ni af th*
M«ni«iiMa Court* !• ihis o»»«« and th^ r«f«r» th« Jitdenwiii of
tto* M«itti«ii«i 0«»r% if afflxM*4«
•*oomeK, »•;. AID fAYLUR, 1. mw9m*
.-■4ri.. -.lUlfAl ii«4 .W.* ..H j,;:-n'»'>
390 - 26964
J. xoRMAS jmsn
WILLIAM SS-SaiOUR,
hi ^ t . -'-'*^ •"
▼•. \ / ) WUlCVfAL COURT
07 CHXCaOO.
KB. v^iuimua jvit'sicji minLm hsliy^ksd thk opinion of thb court.
On Oet«b«r 27» 1919, 'left^ndaat purchfts«d of plaintiff
at Chiea{;o a Bt«el water tnnk and tower than standing et Part
Arthur, Texaa, and haTing a eapaoity of 100,000 gallons. 7h«
oala prioe wi».i $70C, and defend^mt paid #200 in oaoh and axoeutad
and dcllTored his proniasory note for f500« payable to plain*
tiff's order, dated October 37, 1919, and du« two aonths there*
after. D^fondnnt a|Ere<^d to taka down and roaove the tank and
towor. On April 3« 1920, the note not haTing been paid, plain*
tiff sued defendant in the Iftanioipal Cnurt of Chiosgo, claiaiing
the aaiount of the note and intereet thereon at the rate of 5/^
per annum fron I>ecenbQr 27, 1919. In his affidavit of aerits
defendant eet up as a defense. In sabstanee, that plaintiff
represented that the tank nnd tower could be taken down, shipped
to any desired destination, there rQ*ereQted, and used as a
atonme tank for water, that the tower w«b capable of supporting
the tank when filled with Tratt?r, and that the pTKtes of the tank
were 5/16 the of on inch thick and capable of being re calked aad
were not pitted; that defendant relied upon said representations
and executed and delivernd the note in part consideration of
the sale price; that plaintiff deoeiTed and defrauded defendant
in thisi that the tank and tower could not be taken down, shipped
and re-erected and ueed no a atorafje tank, thet the tower was
not capable of supporting the tank when filled with water, that
the plates of the tank were not 5/l6thB of an inch in thieVness
\
»MM - OK
WXP.% UXSIM
\
TKQOS .utzoiiiini ( \ .«T
•ooaoud «o
\
^m^eifniis it^uixw
.Tf>«oo isr «o «oxtz«o 91IT mrKKYXJum rsuamo t^zzaia omai^ajif .ax
MR .tnoXXaa 000«OCkX )• \it9it^ii» m Mntnuf ^ia .aaxvT .inflx^
-alAlCi ci BtMitxm^ «(K>d< -mt 9i0H x-SAttsJton's^ till b«rx«vli«fe bott
-n«f(i «jUn<i« owi i»ai> frnta «(X9i «rs i»tf9^i>
ban 3(ji)«t ^mU avowiy bff« inri»> «li.ii »^ li^«»t9M i»«2>isi«l»a .ivllji
8#i's<MK \9 ikr^kltlA «lrf Id: .91*1 fttfi %9!S:ayit mnnoM Yvq
« aft *9«o ^^» «^»^nir(«»*0T MKlfD •ffai^aalfitt* ))mi*«* 5(«A •!
km basLUoM iflifttf 1« •£tfJKr«» <»«« iCtiiU ilMl vo to m«iikt\^ mot
lo ««l^«n«ikia«o» ti«q si ft^oa •W# ib«i«Tji£«* ban »•!«»<»• bmM
taAtw\*lt bmhtunlah baa l>rrlo»«itt ^'^iitl^m^K <mC |Mit4 vXm* mft
btnktlB ttunb niuUl •€ t«« b£w— xomwt bam tuf^t ^lit ttuts %»itU rI
Acw ivwotf •<<# iuAi «itaai nMrc^ fe»»nr Jitf!n JivtovtMfvt biu
or e«^bl« Qf ^iag reealked, but verc full of pit*, itnd th*
taak wft« •• btidXy oorrvdcd* mated and wrn eut thet« triMn
d«f«iidaat attenptttd with all rcssonablfi c«.r« to take the tank
doim, it broke, and that at thr tlae plaintiff made aald
repreeeatMtiena the said tank waa worthless and unfit for any
^purpose or use ether than tn be Junked* all of utaieh facta were
well known to plaintiff at thd time and were unknown to defendant;
and that by reason of the for<>f;oing the considorstion for the
exeeution of the note Has failed* etc, The cauee was tried
before the enart without a Jury, resulting in the oourt finding
the issues acainHt plaintiff, and on June 3« 1920, Judgaent was
entered a^nin!;t hia for costs • By thl« appeal plaintiff seeks
to rererse the judgment nnl asks for Judgment here against
defendant for the aaount of the note and accrued interest*
iPlalntiff had been a eivil engineer and had speeialisod
in building conxtruotion ^'or Baay years, but he had noTor bought
or sold any second IsMnd steel tanks or towers, of whioh facts
defendant was infonsed. Plaintiff at one tins had boon aaplnys4
by the City of Chicago aa an arohiteot in its building depart-
aont« and defendant* vAuo for mere than 15 years had boon m dealer
in seoondohand machinery and construction equipnont and had taken
down and re-erected sf>oond hand tanks, there became ae^ainted
with him, and, after plaintiff eeased working for the City* had
employed him as {architect and ong laser on two occasions. Cn
September 10* 1919, plaintiff entered Into a contract with the
City of fort .^tl'ittr, Texas, wherein ho agreed to dimsantlo and
remove within 60 daya the tank and tower and to pay the City
before beginning the work of ditm^ntling the sum of H2ft. Duriac
the month of aeptember plaintiff informed defendant at Chloago
that he had pnrehasod the tank and tower and was soon gaing t«
Texas to inspect it, ehioh he thereafter did* and on October S*
-8-
■ *•
; iRiifcffMoft A^ mmMetma <rt«v lb«« tttii f*((i ;• IcUiniaiq 0.* iiwoa:^ XX tr
•«• 4A<tmbpt A^^ *( •«u^ '{CX41X4 /ttia«»« ••iw«i mu
^.v^rXqcs ii*«4r ibtiut tsiA tn* in 'iVJai^f- .««>«/ ..^ lotiliovt**
OVJUi JMC<< ^ff* iXil»
be4^aX;!Mi^o.i^ nr , iiw^ /ifuitf ;>noo >< Bb
ao .Miaiaivvoft ««# a« 'XMMi^o* tuwi «oe#Xib»-- < bait*i«»*
11 -tAq •< *i|« tiarM ktm liMiU *iU vviJb M oi4|Xw •▼•»»
•)«si V :h iamhm^X^t fHyneljil '^U^nijva.t ik*<(v ' "f^f* ^'^
•8-
19X9« at Port ilrthiar h« paid the City the sua of $425. After
hio return to Chlongo defeniluat had oeTer&l lnt«rriews with
hia relatiTe to defendant aeeuaine Ms oontr%ct with the eity
and purohasing fron hin aaid tank and tower, and defendant
olaiBS pXaintift' then nade the aXlege<J folsa ropresent^tioaa
upon which he (defendant) reXied. ;>ubae(|u«ntX3r( hoveTer*
4efeadant eosettinieated with a man n«aied DifiiDukee, ?t Port
Arthur, rertueeting that he inspect the tank and tower and
■ake a report aa to their eonditien, and on Octolser X7« X9X0«
defendi^t reoeived a teXegran freai r.i&Biukea, ac foXXova: "Tank
la good condition except top ring« T;hi(^ has fl>w pittes; top
no good; "baXeony cannot be uaed; first 2S ft. section of towor
good shape; baX&nce Is fair; Xaddor no good; four traea loeaas
liad shape} pipe to tank good shape; guy rods and brace rods
good ahape.* On October 21 » X0I9, dsfisndtmt decided to pur*
chase the tank and towsr« eade the cash payaiont and ge.Te pXain-
tiff the note sued upon find recciyed from pXaintiff a written
asaignment of aXl ef plaintiff *s titXe and interest in hin con-
tract with the City and in the tank and tower* About thia tiae«
or Xater, defendant nrranged with the Connecticut UetaX k
CluuaieaX Co. to u«XX r.o ii and to r«-«trect the tank and tower
at lew Britain, Connecticut, at a price nf >0,70C« erected, an4
in December, 19X9, defendant sent Frank Burke, a Chloagft
atruoturaX iron worker in hia employ, to ^rt Arthur, to die*
aantXe end take down the t&nk and tower, /.fter working on the
Job for acTez'aX weeks and afttr dismantling the reof and tws
or three rings of the tank Burke abandoned the job and returned
%• Cnioago, and defendant did not th^^reafter further dieaaantls
the tank and tower. Burke* s teatxnony \faa to the effect that
he found the roof in bad ahaps • the majority of the aieets
being "beaded, rotted through;* th»t the tank h^id been buiXt
in seetiena sr sheets, one SY^rXapping ths other and that hs
,?l«?i,
.jq bam
,9XBi. . fo*»0 am hi\t» ,a«jki
Aim?" lAiroXi'^ latmntii m$-^l mta
mmtf9<i n»ttni tu^t ikoof mi
•■Mitt (II
■ji.(la boo)
•ni«lQ «T»a hat ;}n«atf <l 'f*^ **^ ^^^
; i^mdm
^,9<!D>(iv two!
bVATjftei bad <f6t •tf' l!>ftftc!>fir.(i« r^t-^MR :tn
ilkni mf*f htitt tfiir
f««nd th« riT«t hea4» on th« Iwld^ •t th« tv* top rlnca baUl
^en catsn off by «uiii; thnt th« 8h««t8 «»r« to bsdXy pitted
that they cottld not be used aftnlnt ftXthough the eondltion of tto
bettea ones was not so bod; and that he concluded th' t the tank
VRB not in eueh condition th»t it could be taken dovn and re*
erecteda that while the bottna part «ii;ht be so used the rest
vae "serrioeable for Junk only.* He, hoverera expreoeed the
opinion th«t *the tank with additional naterial oould h*Te beoB
taken down and ereotod. with the mated portions taken out a»d
replaeed with new or second hand portions," but at great expense.
He further testified as to the tower that he found the four nain
posts in fair eondltion, though a little rusted; and that about
flTO of the oroos»been8 or struts were bndly rusted nnd were not
of Sttf rieient strength to hold a tank of that si so if filled with
water .
The evidenoe ȣ; to plttintiff *s representations Made to
defendnnt after tlM former's trip to Texas and his inspection of
the tank and tower is ooaflietlng. Defendant testified on direot
•xsaiinAtlen in substanee that plaintiff told him that the tank
*waB in first class condition except th^ w^^lk around, and one of
the struts int the tower," that the plates were of the thickness
of 5/l6ths of an inch as indioated on a drawing, that defendant
*eould take the tank down and re-erect it and deliY»r it to a
ottstoner,* and th^t d«>fendfittt "believed those statesients to bo
true and relied upon then RbsolttteAy." Tot, on orooo-oxaainatioa
defendant admitted that plaintiff told hia that the ladder was
BO good, that s«M of the supporting arches of the tower were
badly beaded, thot the roof of the tank w»s badly corroded, oaA
thct the balcony floor around the tank was eorroded and in bad
shape; and defendant stated that plaintiff did not infora hia
hev aaay years the tank had been erected and that plaintiff did
kfUi Bikoit f«»# cmi Ml !• Jjtilii v*^ "(> •&!«»/( ^wIt tji^
•rf^ )• ii«i»lba«e tU if'HUoHir /< leu blMo x*^ #"^
■••tf cnrArf &X»«> l»in9iBm Imfittt^tthm it It tamt trfl* in4i n^ktiif
feOA #00 ■«(si fte«lii«q b»i«i^ ^dJ if^lv ,R»#»9t» baa mrtA ««toi
.»«ii«^» 4«9«ii in ^m/ «,«cte£#'c«« luted iut«tC'« ift wmi jf/lw ft«a«iftv
to s«llo*««sl «lif bnn •«:; i-t^ »'T«iirio1 mU i^ttm tjtnhn^t^h
1t« •«« tec ii •«•»&• «]»l#ih«fto tuii* #»? :
SmmJtm9\»b tmii ^^tmmth m «« bo/Attttel ■• Mbmi ndftl\e t»
M 0S ii xvrklnh bn» II S9tf-^% bna fwb ttu^^ ->nj -i-imi bluns*
mT 6i vlAMMJ^la 9u9tli bvfmklod*' SU0ba%"\tb tttdt kiuk *,irMipi«i»
a«l^aiil«rx»*«t»TO mo ti»Y ".i{i«ie(r'— '- ^^Mfi f^ofv iksllrt baa Mnit
■uw l»bh.ii •!<« #««jii «tr( hi9f 1 -.;; ^imC^ h»l||itfU lA»bfPrt»ft
V10V tMKit atifl la aMlonA »al^oqtMi •'-^ "^f* •<■>«> '*»<> «li«oi *«
i«B «J»efn TC5 xXiba^ nw tfaaJ mCi !• loo iCit ,frftlt*«^ xXHiitf
mid uf\ni #M A1& '\\itnUl«\ fmdi bf>. .aM^*
kllk llitalaXf «j(iU biM bela*ii* noatf UmA j((v -s««x XAMi ««i(
not Hfty that in maJclng his ia89«oti«n h* mat Inaidt nf ttat
tank; sad d«f«ndaat further ndniitted thut. "wanting ••■• littl*
lia«* •n the tnnk and tovar, h* oauaad tli* said rtiport theraoa
of Dlmukca to b« aade to hin, vhioh h« racelTad 10 days ^«fer«
lu» aadt th« purohaea. Plaintiff* 0 teHtlmony hs t« vltj^t h« tald
dafendaat as to t)i« oonditlon of the taak and tower prior to
the Bale, !«« In au'bataaoo. that In maklBK hlo Inapeotlon of
the tank ho had no facilities for getting; iaalde thereof and
did not laapeot the Iaalde; that the aeuttlo hole was badly
ruatod« that aono of the platoo of the tank and aoae portions
of the tower wore in auoh condition th> t they would hat^e to ho
replaeed hy new aaterlal* that ho had aeatsured the plates at
the edgeo and that they vtro of the thickness Mentioned la the
drawing, that the upper rlag of the tank was rusted hut that
froii the eutalde the other plates of the tank did not appear %•
ho pitted, and that* j^ hl,s, oplnioo. hy replnclng the stool
whoroever found to he corroded and hy o«r«>ful dlaai«ntllaK« tho
tank could he re-ereoted in another plu.oo«
la the ease of ?^oV-rt8 r. APPlogate. 153 111., ?10, 216.
la dlsctttslnK aa alloged warranty, th« court said, quoting frea
Konney v. Harding. 65 111. 364« 269: "In doteralalng whether
thoro was la foot a warranty, the doelsiwe tost Is, whether the
Toador assuaes to assert a f aot of whieh the buyer is Ignorfint,
or merely states an opinion or Judonont upon the matter of which
the Tender has no speelal knowledge, and oa whioh the huyer say
be expected, also, to hawe aa opinion and to exerelae his Judg*
aeat. In the fonwr oabe, there It a warraaty; ia the latter,
aot," In Tellurlde .t'ower Co. y. Crane So., 308 111. 218, whioh
W'^s a salt at law to roooTor the h«laaee due on a eontraet of
oalo of a quantity of iron pipe, the court said (p. 227); "la
the bargain and sale of an exlstlag chattel there is aot, ia
•13 til •■•■ aclifMY** ^»Adi e>e»#i«rA TMa-ivi tAAMw^* !>■» itmmi
0# ii«l^ t««ot taa ilAat fttft 1« MilitaMe •>' iiuJltaatf*
anoint lof •aiNi lAA Kasv mUt Io ii«4mI^ •HS \« eiw .UMavf
•^ •« t^Mf MtfOir t«if^ '-"^ B«ii|l>a«IR l(t»UII si 9'XOT «9«*# »d4 1p
mU «1 buflJtfu •••flUsliU Ml )<* 9'^»« X9Hi }mdi ham ««gk* sM
•# v«*«<I« #Mi klk Maal MM 1* ••«i»X« <xwU« m^i •J»i«4tf« mM m*?!
«ivl sali«up ,i>iA» inuoo vifar .x'"*'^ . «»XI« ■« naiaftjwinii ai
«M(ttir« ^taiJir:efk «X" t«»X «»»£ .XXI fiS ,i|^{.Ji ."^ ISfiMl
,#Kav«n9l «i i*XMf «il-' rtol-iw 1« iKvaaii tti ««■«■«« t'^btrvr
JiMv )a Y»##(t« scCi a^qv 4nMq^ir( %m n^JLnkn^ urn «»t«;rb ^X'
^pw «»x« -<^ «• Atui «t9»>ftXv«ait X»ic«*4« wi »*ff T»ft«*v «il#
•abut •Xj( Mlsttnt* «l M» n*tiilq« mm n .eaXa ,b»#D9«xs W
•^•##«X Mil Vi IX'"*^'^'^ ' *' »*TM<^ I<MIMI 1Mrf«1 Mi^ ^Ml
jtoiiftr .axs .XXX eos ..J2.XL • 2ii aaatfS 2&UifiLUj^ ••
)• io«T#a«e a oa i»»fr aoAaX«4 adJ la-roaa-^ la fl»a a a-v
el* ;(V?S •5[; hiAa inwaa «n^ •««Xq oo^it 1« xtUnmm • !• •'KM
«i .Jon al rxaiCi l*iimdo anXJaixt im lo aX*« b«« Mlafutf aifl
th« abscnoe of fraud* an trnpllcd «»rrajity of good quality or
eondition of th« thing aold. Zn Rawain^ r. CoXdwoll. 45 111.
A9f,0 175* vhoro plaintiff stt«'d to roeoTcr tho purohaae prioe
of a oocond baud "boiler aold to dof endant and tho boiler was
found to be ao eaten up with rtt»t and out of repair that it
would not work properly, the oourt said (p« 179): ">!o ivplieatioa
ariaee that a warranty exiets that the artiole, aold co soooiiA
hand gooda, will answer the purpose ffir whieh ■ado." In yuohf
St Lang Co* T. Kittredgt jt Co.* 243 Ill.« 88, 95, lAiioh waa a
suit p-t law to reooTer the prioe of a certain aaehiae, in whidi
the defense was that the Tendoe was induoed to order the siachiso
through the false representntions of the render's agent, the eourt
said: *The falso representcrtien which can ho aade the baoie of aa
action or the rooeission of a contract, where there is no relatioa
of oonfidcnoe, nuet bo of a naterial fact. Hatters of opinion
between partieis dealing upon equal t^znes, though falsely stated,
are not relieved against. l6xagger»tion in the conmendiation of
artieles offered for sale will not OTOid a contract.* In Gillesjio
T, Fulton Oil A Gas Co.. 236 111., 180, 198, it in saiA: "A
■isrepreacnt&tion idhioh will ^^rrtint a oourt of eqpiity in settiag
aside a contract auot contain the following elements: i'irot, its
form mast be a statement of fact; •eeoad, it aast be isade for tlui
purpose of Inducing the other party to act; third, it must bo
untrue; fourth, the party Ciaking the statWMnt muat know or holioTO
it tn bo untrue; fifth. th<« person to shon it is made must beliOTO
in and roly upon the truth of the statement; sixth, the ntatomoat
anat bo material." In Croekor ▼• Banloy. 15A 111. 382, which was
a eaao inYol-ving alleged false represent at ioas as to the ridinoss
•f a sllvor mine, the court quoted frM» the cose of Parnsworth ▼•
Puffner, 142 U. £., 49, as follows (p. 296): "And i^ 2 Fomeroy*B
.111 c> .xifiri^^ .r taiamti "^ •^^•^ »»^^^ *<<^^ ^* tfntba*!}
wnt ««lle5 vrfj htui intbttn'^b tl II o-^ -r^^jov. Anfctl bg— »• ■ lo
tt StAi xlttq^t 1* #u* ^fMl lain r"- -^ - r»^«* ••»<•# bajMil
in»l««»lt«at 0X" }(<fl ,t) %t»9 ttm>9 ./.. . imco^f Syw iw 61««»
*««»•• •!« fciwi .%l»it-ca WU ^«ufi ti-Rlxa x^ft^TMrr « fai<;r :»«11Ui
MteWf fll " • tibvM Itolffv ^91 t8«r>«iV atfl 19VMU Lliv .rt: f» Mi'
« as* tf»tifv ,«« .M ,.1X1 km: ,.02 ^ tali»i^fi)I . _. _;_:_ _
rf»lffir al ,9airfe<«0i nltntfe *. 1* aftl't^ sid^ n<>T«o»ii 44 wiil If 41«»
l7iieo Mil ,#n*?|o «'taiM9T MU lo •ffttliu^nttt9ir99^ tsl«) «di if-
aell«i*K «n •! •ntMU AiMfv ,lt)«t#aoQ x !« oAiMtisatn «ff:r nt sdlYon
,i>«l4i#« ^X»tl«t tfstf'Vifl tfttcnf^i Xiii/p» it«(;w s«U1a«1> c^^lltjtq ft*i«#iM^
f2<e»XitiD ul '',itmi)ao» a tiOT* IM 1X1« aX'i «•) l>iri«Yk« «*Xol^%«
A^ »»la« rI n ,««I .a*,; mia ,.j£ «£0 4
• #1 •#«1ir :v^Bttm»X* ^ivoXXat mU atstitmt taum iw0%iiK>t j» tAliiiB
M<4 Knl «fji!i« »4 /ant 41 ,A«oeat •fanT ^t Sti^miniu u mT J««a aval
•ff >&raa II .i^tlil:; ;#n« ai x^^«<r 'r«:iio »flt aaiaabul la aaoq^ot
aralXatf no vooaf /aim /na«»iatf« arfl aBli(*sr t^«« otft ,il/t»al laintMr
•valXa¥ Jaiaa •bum nX H aaif* ni nonfq •Kt ,ili\t\ {awlatf atf a# #1
^■MM#«/a «cl# .ifixlB ;/oa»»/n#a anCi to iC#arrd axfi igi««a> xXai Aim ai
a«ir ila/ifr .S68 .III ^.*^ .xalAftl .t ib^^s^O nl •.X«Jti*««« mT #«aa
aaa«ii»iii atCd o# no mamii-aitfB^^tq^^ mI«1 HafaXXa |i»^i«T«t aa«a m
•^ tflUUDEUA^ ^■'M *rf< «<^'' *a#aap ^nnt) arft «aiilai ttirlXt m !•
a*T«Y*ar«4 r ml hitk* t{ZQ' .«! 9wmUn\ •■ C»l ,<— ttgg
Bqttity Juriaprttd«ao« (neo. 893) It Is A«oIar94 that ft party it
net justified ia relying mpnn rwpre sent Ht ions nedc to hia: '(1)
«!hen, befere entering into the contract or ether traaaaotion, he
actu&Ily reeorta te the proper Kettne of sieecrtnining the truth
and Terifying the etateacnt; (2}, I'hen, having the opportunity
ef Making ouch exaainntien* he ia charged with the knowledge
which he ncoessftrily would have obtained if he h^d prosecuted
it with diligence; {&) whtn the representation ia ooneeming
generalities ec;u«lly within the knowledge or the meana ef
ac(!Uiring knonrledge poaaeaaed hy both parties,' But if the
neglect to make reasonable exMainntions wottld preolude n party
freat reaeinding' a oontrHOt on the ground of f s^ae taxd f rsadulent
representations, £ fortiori ia he precluded when it appears that
he did make such exaaination and relied upon the eridenoc ok-
tained by such examination* and net upon the representntiena.*
In the present caae. under the facts as diaoleaed froaa
the evidenee nad under the law. we do not think that the defendant
freaented any defenae which would aroid the paysent of the aamunt
of the note and interest. So expreae warranty as to the tank and
tower ia shown and under the circuiBBtancea none can be implied*
Aad we do not think that the e-ridonce ohowB that plaintiff Bade
any f&lse representations, knowing or believing at the tisie that
they were untrue, ^ven if it be onaidered that aeae of plain*
tiff*s representations were untrue, it does net appear that
defendimt relied upon then. On the contrary it appears that h»
had an agent inspect the tank and tawer aai report upon their
condition before he Made the purchase and aaeuaed plaintiff's
contract with the city of ?ort Arthur* Much otreas ia l&id upon
plaintiff's alleged repreaentntion to the effect that the tank
aad tower was in such condition thi^t it ceuld be tnken down,
re»ov*d to another place and there ro-ereoted. Sren if it be
consider<?d that plaintiff ao stated without <iualificnti4n.
-r.
■i x^^»9 • i»iO *«-MXe»» ti tk (Btf .•m) —tfhwvfX^i^ Vl«»<
<i '
t* ftJlA'y* «(;> TO ft^oXvdOl! f:zJ ni»
Xi-i"*^ « •biK£9«tf bllrav 6is«x.. ..-
inmiM* iijtfr to iNtts^^^ sw-fir
•UlAXt lo »ato« ><l{i li«t*T
---'-' fioqv ^oqai lata ^avei^ baa tfiiMi %rii ;}^a'
.'.iJfllaXci Aaamva *au? ".^'.■''•■•.— - ..«« «^.--» -.<
coqa JliaX at aa#«9a Komc . ;4,...
^nmi mif fmdi ^olla aril ei naL
%6 it 'il ntrr .boivara^at a^«
««al|4ralllXiiup fuoifli* !<•#«
t koa
ouijut la
iioXiia
-»
. ■ . ^ ■ dX^aa
ibtfiovsT ^ai\
to siC
— n» oa I^ajC
* ^ • ; f- "oa
i#iilafq[ ^a^jT fr«>«ahlaiiatt
-••
although hla tCMtimeny show* that the atntotneat wes ■Aterially
qittailflcd la that Bany parta vrauld haT« to %• raplaeed with
BOW BAterial, we think the statement amat be ooneidered aierely
aa hia opinion or Judgnent upon a natter, on i^ioh defendant
aheuld be expected to exerciae an independent Judipaont*
7or the reaoona indicated the judgnent of the
Mnioipstl Court ia rerereed, and Judgment ia entered hero
againat the defendant* ^viXIiea Soyneur, for the aaiount of aaii
aete« $nrr;, together with intereat thereon at ^ por aniam frm
]>ooember J!7 , 1919, #50, being the total aaount of $99C.
mnriRavo asd judouskt hkrie for $550 •
Banioa and Morrill, JJ., concur.
ifllw hMNiiq»<s mT 9^ »Tftif ftXM* mtm tads Bk tfkttlmmik
.08^ .' ill O^
.9«
S90 > ?<fi«4
flMDJm QV 9ACT3.
V« f iBd as facts in this ohss that at and
lisfors the tias sf the sxeeution of th« note sued upon
the plaintiff* J. Herman Jensen* did net make any false
er frioidulent irepreaentntions, upon which the defendant^
Villiasi aeynour, relied, as to the condition of the tank
and tower in question.
AdM fa $i$d» «»«» »lii$ at ttf»«l a*^ ik<i> 9*
ff»<i» bmni «#MI «C^ l9 a*Jfiii»«ix» wfl !• Mil# *<U viclstf
tiiAtf ftil>< !• a«i^l&Roo «dU oj- ti^ thmklurt ^•nmtf'^- mxttlHW
4
i^p«ll««s
mmm schhxqt.
Appillunt*
Cly^
Anst^L imoK
0? CHICAOO,
223 I.A. 643^
MR. r%{aii)2iia i\^uricn QAimjxt mtnimm tm OJPXMioit ow tm count.
Oa Jttly 2« iVl^K 9lftintiff im«4 d<»feiid»nt in tlw
XttBleiynil Conri if Chlcftge to reo<»T«y th« mia of |200, i^leh
th« X«tt(^r h«ul rff<i«iv«i!l <«« a loan In .ii«pt«»l>er, 1916, '^fenAm
ant flXcd an »ffld»Tlt of s^orit*, together with » »tat«M«nt of
olain of 8«t»off • )l« did! not Hicput^ the loim or tho anount
thereof* l9ut elDiaiec} that pjlftlntiff «»» indeht^i! to hi« in tho
mm of $165.75, for oert^iA o^Moaisalona in iiar&tt»neft of t«o
oxpreoe «gre«»»«tnt«« nhiRreby in i^eptoshora I«X@, defendant Agreed
to purehase for plaintiff 26 harroXo of whi&Itejr for a eomnieBion
of S eonto per gaXXon* to b« paid by pXaintiff upon the purehtvoo
hoiag oonouBmnted* end hereby in l^e^ireMber. X9X8« defendant
asroed to pnrohaao for pXnlntiff fliO additional harroXo of whlekey
lipon the etwe termer «n4 that defend^tnt had paroh.>»od all of eaiil
vhiukey, «»(»unting to Mtf-. gallontt* nnd th'>(t tho osaio had heen
ae-iepted and paid for hy plaintiff, hut that defendant ha4 not
roooiTod any p«art of eaid sun of 4X33.75, ac ooetmiesione, irhloh
woo ft proper off-eot »o t^giiinat plnintiff'e olais. In his
affidoTit of HsritB to def«ndtint*o clela of 8«t»off, plaintiff
denied nalting the alleged a.Treejsente to pay oomoioHionRt denied
that defendant had purohnnod tho whiskey for hint, denied that
ho vaa indebted to defendant in any amount, but he did not
oet up aa a defeaoe that def«nd».nt at oaid datee eaa not Xioenaod
ae a broker in tho pur^iaee or ado of whiokoy.
\
IV..-. 1a:
^ikMBOM
mii ttith ttmf tliJ
'■.''\it9imm9 JO "8t«'^ XP-tfalJliir to nk^ '• ''" - '- "S"! •«MlD*r«« W
In , rt«J!»«l«R#0 YM '• = i»»i«»*
ion
I I : f* ; 1 i I * <• ■
•2t»
On th« trial l»«f«rft a Jury, th« lni«1»iednea>a to
pialntiff on th* Xoiin bolng a(tmit%9d, defeadfuit wmo first
sailed .hb a vitnas^ t« M»tAin tb« «ll«g«ti«a» of his olniii
•f »st-off (!<Bii plttiAtiff wii« oallsd fts a «ritn«SB under s«<etioa
fii of ths Munieipiil Court Ast. Their testiasay Kade aut ti
•trsatf ariatH facie o»ss for dsfendant on hie cl&las of »et*off •
Ob srsssoexsualxuition defendant tSQitifi^d in suhfltimo« that bs
w«» a ahiskey broker »t th« tines «f the «i«kin£ of e'«id F^grss*
■snts sad had bsen ouoh until the tine of the triQl. H« ^as
aot Asksd »nj (luoetion mlBZlra to his having or net having a
Xiosaso Mt 0!4d tiK«», or Kt the timss plaintiff hought tha
ahiskey, to ^ot sm sueh a broker acd na eTidonee »«^8 introduced
in referenoe thereto. At tho onncluttion of d^f endtont's cridsues*
the Qourt, on plaintiff b jnotion and ov«r th« objection of
defendtmt, inistruoted the Jury to rotors a verdict finding the
issues os&inet defendant and to assess plaintiff's dnasfos at
the mm of $300. 7h« jury returned tmnh a verdiot and jul^aent
was entered a^ainat def«<ndHat in such mm and this np^enl follow*
It is n^jiurnnt that the court gave the instniotion on
the asswaption that it ^t^a inounbent Hi»on defendt^nt, ;U8 a part
'^^ ^^' fffi!»yt fftoly c»ae, to show thrt Hi, the tiaos stated ho vreo
duly lioenaed to aet as a whiiskey broker. Und»r the st^te of
the pleudinga »ad the evidenee introduced «e think thet it was
to be presumed thnt ci«fend«*nt was duly 11 tensed, tht^t the bordea
of showing to the contrary was upon the plsintiff » and th;it the
oourt erred in giving the pereaptory instruction. The question
of the oxisteneo or non^exiutenee of a lioeaso to defendant to
aot as a whinkey broker was only collaterally involved. In
AVhm V, Ornsaie, 263 111., «3«. 638. it is astid: "The suthor*
itiOB are not all in haraony ta to who has the burden of proof
mtml9 ttid ^f •a--' ^^9 ai^Smm •! ^••lUiv a at «»XX««
a is* »o«a xao«iJ»«jr nivif^. ttifo9 I
.>t*«l»« "^tt «1«X7 aJUt no immba^Ttikb n«l ••«o f/f^^ 0tiJtL li**«4«
lo *■.•! flXq a«a«»
tnaacr. >i« •*<
-TvT-. . bam r. 'ft* aa«
.6a
ix»% a aa a^oabantab na^fv #«»(fjau?<a4 ««w *: lai^qaMtaa aMt
Taia aa«|} aiU :Agit3 latlt *^'^ ^*
.. ;J4ia •'.' . I'vitf^J x^**^ ' ' '^"^
a«v #1 jiiiff 3Lti Tjleti aaaaMy* »iia ,a^ e;i^i0i>ax« •<#
«ab<(»f r.oxj x*wfc ' ■" ' / ^awMavq !»d A^
< itaX<l t^ aa%v « -* ^^i- .(.is .^u) a^ Boi**^* '^^
^..^,-..r. .4,<ii49tf9<faftl ^va^faianaq aAl iniviji al bani* ^looa
eti rnr<vjni»^j) at aasaalX A t:a aaawitoiy^«r^«r> in aanatcKi^ ttrii la
,feavrc'*fti vIXa*(o4<XXoc> vir' v*t.^t 'o»
tfa aift* li Ji, ,»*.^ . _;
la«nf ta ••Miitf atfi a«4 rnt* •* a« xa#inar lii
•3*
on tli« qineatlon wh«th«r one of ih» fsTtien la dnljr lic'sr.fl^}!! to
projOtlee m OBrtuin profesMlen or do * a^rtnln elsja^ 'it \Kihiaa%»t
« * wktre the queation ftrlt«» dire^stXy on «n ln41«tK«ttt «r in a
fcael •otklon fer violating the atatvto, vh«r« th« prdsecvtlen
!• oa tehiilf of %b» public, tho (Mithorltl«s all a^ren thitt th«
hoirdsn of proof roots upon tho d»f©ndi»nt, * ♦ ?he Rti^ht of
authority* howevsr, la to the cffoot thkt whoro the qiscit?i,len of
ffttoh ft 11 ^nao lo ^nXy eolIaterolXy InvolTod, the llf;:?tt9« viXX
t« preeuflied unleaa proof to the aoatmry le prcftsat^d 1»,7 tbt
oth«r perty. (iiS£feSllios *• £k»Sft^fiii» ^^ *«»<!•, IS; §a^.th t.
Joyco . 12 Bojpb. 21; ^t>mjl?M. ▼• iiRXSf-* 1 Donio» 178 j Bro^ra
^» T"'*^!^- '^ *' *<***• ^» Hoy«c[ ▼• isAiac* ^1 p«, at. 47f^.*
fhtt Jtid^aoat of the Sualclpal Onurt la f0r»rifti(\ and
the (unaso lo r«»and««t fer a r«* trial*
^c Sti^tr* '•tn * • .«■«{•«« l*Jb 9Hr flVfy «#«M li^ctq Itt a•^«■tf
106 • M768
\
«• e. luam.
A»ji^XXmi«,
T»i
u
f
'.igf^
Oy OHXCAQO,
'^.
/^ i...-' -i- » X Vi. « '{_J '^ Q^
On a trial TjofovA a Jury In th« UtiniiSlpcl Court of
Chtoas* » Ysriliet wns rt^tumod finding th« is8««n .^irainat
plaintiff, imd on lioTstaber ^« 191^, a ^udi^eat w^^e •ntflr«A
•Cainet plaintiff far aoote Qn4 thla app«al followed. Vo
printed brisf an4 ^rgmisent on T>ahAlf »f deftndont hi<if been
filsdt in thla 9«urt>
In Svxn*, 101^, plaintiff jHrthtnuA » dra^ etore at
2901 «fallae« Btr««t, Chia^joira, ef one Chslovlnski for I3B00.
In ordftr to make a epsh pn^ment on tha purohnsA isrio^ he
borrairad «ith«r $1600 or flBOO fr«i (i»f<!»nd»«t, took po^sesnion
•f th« «itero ftn4 oi>er«t«d it. X4it«r h« borrev«<i #^0 mora
from Hcfnndjiist* In Jiumary, 1917, b« aold %1m stora t« oaa
9arei3rnBJci for 14000 • r«c«iYinK ^.16oo in oaoli anrt |r?4rto in
32 aot'9s of $75 each, ono mfttarin^ eoeh Konth. At this tima
lit waa ntill ind«bte<x to defendtiint far menmj borravwi! bat tba
amoant af tlM inaebtodnooo «?8 in dio|>ate. He ^n^ »i»e inlebted
to l^hiliy ^ollok in tha onw of $800 and to John INKSnes; in a
likv warn - a total of $400. About t>iio tino ha cnl1.«itad in
tho ^«rionn Army, Baing d««lro«» of «ottlin^ hi© cl&bt«
before learing for JPraneo, he oallod an dafendnnt mni o«rt«l«
Has* tint ions ^ro had, Aooardlnc to jlaintiff'o tOHti«ony
his ind«bt«dna0O to defendant veo fixed at ^2000. and %•
■,U.^ 6
i«Q
1/ wt-
.•y
.L 1« '<
$M "JTC
ft<»n -.'*'?T*JT T^t:*f!f!
91 UNI i>4|l<t<HtO
•ii «tf«Mlll. Ill .
oat. .rt9a«v rtoft^ :uilvo#Aai mm «ifac
•viidtf
xaAXKiranr
•••
•iu».bl« d«f«ndciiit t« r«e«lT« i^»3n»«nt •f aaid «Mmait h« 4tXiT«Y>«4
%• 4ef9ndent, «A<1 ill* latter »c?«pt4d, said 3? notts, ic#i-rvgmtlng
#84CCi, «ndi It WB« screed thu t defaadant shrmXd eollcot \.htttt
iwtti!* end pi>y mit of the pro<i««ds the •<« of $400 to Boll«k Mii
;r«hn TudftCK »nd r«tAln thj b.<42f»7i«» ia 14*?«i'intl«n <if plaintiff '«
•Aid lad«bt«da««a t« hla. On the triAl def<^n<1(Mit ftd»itt€d tlicit
h» li»d eolleeitd th# anmiBtte d«9 on »11 of th« notoo* \nt tliat
hm Hrd poid nothing to a^id Bollok or Jobn fvdoez, ond furtlior
•teittod tbnt «t t)i* timi of the u^iA iicf^tl^ tioes he yrM»i»«d
yXaintiff that ho would "pny th«*!0 ston off, and ths.% subsequentlj
ho told John Vttdi»02 thftt ho «auld pay hin $800 if he oolleot'^d th«
BOtoit* It further ^ppvarc th«t ohilo pl«,iatiff w»b in i'riwcc
ho roooiTod a lottor fr«R defendioit 4«»t#d <^guot 13, 1919, a
portion of -nhioh is «>« follova: "Voa h»Te written me whether 1
h«vo Sfetlafiod John 7ttdiie« «tnd Fhilip; 1 hnve not aa jet, bo*
•Mioo Z h&re wa-ited for yoit when you will gv.x hack**
Plaintiff >}r«mKHt oait «>a the tht^ory th»t an sgreeaient
•f aottleiaent h»d be«n mane :xi» to the enmmt of ixit, inciebtodn«i>£
to dofsndtuit und ae to the nerie nt ^<;«tl«;ment, that plaintiff had
oarrlod out hia p^rt of the agro««aent hut tht^^t defend nnt htui not
perfemeci hia part, that dcfen4«ait h»d eoll«?ct(»«i the full RRount
dtto OB th« '2,2 aotoa hat h^^.d failed to pa^T 1^400 thereof to the
partioa d^etignr^t^ ! and had failed iMeid refxiaod to acQ^unt therai'or
to plaintiff when rntfaooted, and th«»t d«feadaat vaa indebted td
pl&intiff in at«id otua, l>ef«nduint*s theory of dcfonae who, aa
diaoloaed from hXa «iffid«iTit of norita, thut wh«n plaintiff pur-
ohaaod the drag otare in Jfhne, 1912, a rerhal ainroeaent waa «ade
hatveea plaintiff »nd defendant thft.t they ah^uld heeoMO partnora
ih the huaineaa of operating anid «?toro; that plaintiff thoro«
bad ivXXr )a«
: ad^
I—
nr'.i ; .'Ml
M ^m ^
taummm Xi/vl mU r «iK
»ftcr oyerated the ntftr* for their joint benefit; thut idion
plaintiff told the atore to wiurosynaki he re oiTcd il600 in
e«sh (whioh h« had conT^rted to hio e«n use for his oharo in
the busineae), nnd anid 32 notea, whieh he ther«>8fter delivered
to defendant "aa and for defendant* a share in the drue huaineaa."
Thia theory ia at Tarianee with defendant 'a testiaony and letter*
ae she re outlined, and with hi a te: tiaony to the effect that ho
had neT<9r aalced plaintiff "for any earninco of the drug atore."
Vurthersore, plaintiff denied the exietenee of any partnerahip
•groecment with defendant, and it further appeared on the trial
that i^en plaintiff pareh«aea the dmg atere a bill of sale of
the etook and fixturea waa oxeoated by the aellor to plaintiff
alone, and the notes giTen et the tiao for the balaaoe of tho
parehaao prioo tvoro aigaod by plaintiff alone.
In 1?> Corpua Jttrls 357, it io aaid: '/t/ter a Tali4
OMBproniso agroeaiont h»o been entered into any cubat^quent
roaiodj of tho partioa, with referenee to tho aattera incladod
thoroin* nuat be baaed on the egroeaent, it operating ae a neiYor
•nd bar of all included claisiO and pre-existing oanoea of aetion«
and it io not noooaoary thnt thts cMaprociiae ohall hero bean
perfoneod.'* Ooe, aloo, l>yrefi>forth ▼• ir'alwor l-qeuontic Xjre Co.,
240 Zn., !!&• ZA.
WO are of tho opinion that the rerdiet and judgnont
•ro againat the nnnifeai weight of the evidnnee and aguinet
tho lav* furthezBore* we think thnt the trial court erred
in refuaing to giTo to thn Jury two instruetiono, offered by
plaintiff, whlQh wore fr^^vted upon his theory of the ease an4
whieh atated the law with aubatential aceuraoy. Re had a
right to have the jury inatnaoted upon hia theory of tho eaao«
nt 9XjvU %iM Y»1 (*«« mr* «ltf ruM luaf •!< dteldir} dto«»
"•aOMil««tf «inA »M9 oi •tjr«I*i •'lAokBala* f»l Mt« )ia" iambfny^b Shl
*.aY«jr« iinfr n£t !• •Vii«nM* %iui i«V tlitSatmSKi bt/£mm navfto tec!
«lifai<SMUrt9f VM !• •MiWtlJM Ml^ bnjtf*^ V - aMnvfinifT
no nlAs 1« XXItf a rtAjT* «•«* ^^ hmMikttvfi lli#fsljiX«| mid* 4AMi
Mftf ">« ftp«*ff.'f *rt' -»^! »Mr« -.•/ •>,. Bfl-*,., --Ja« mU hBM «MK)X«
x*^ri*» M M 9iii#jy«a4|« ti tin^mnn::- :c. fr«a«^ atf ««««> ,<iiaiMi#
tnr?«'^ \« avac ixa*rT« him «ad4ii» kakatCasl 1. I ham
liaa^ arttiC llMfa «4ljae>'r«aao mU taii^ x'<"Mc ' ^ &t tt hmn
• 'A JCUl StAiMi^ .y £rtotaa«fl .aal ".r^anttViHi
#Jt«ii»Nirt »•■ t«l^»v on .i»lrti<ia *if/ ta ni* 0c
lajLUan Ma aMia&lva «»j*^ > .^astlaiut atf^ ^aiiitga Ma
bnta «taa« i«Jhi# atftf taiU iLtUiU m ••<iaarx»ri«YtfT .iral aifi
j^ brcatla .acallainlaAi a»i T^t •nO mt aTl« «^ Mlaalat al
fmM 90M^ a^i to tia«»iti •li' l avav toim* ,t1J^.
e tMH att •tAoYMMi l»^ t njtw vaX aifl fcnt«#«
(• •« ♦•<# la x^o^^U altf aoq< —> — wt ail* arail M ^»,|4«
vlicrc* ea shewn* Mmt theory h^d « baaia in the eirl<t«ne« upon
triliieh to reat* (Chioago Wnicn Tr notion Co. ▼. Brpwdy. 206
lU., 6X5, 6^3.)
7or the reaoona indlo&ttd the jadpient of the
Ifunicipttl C'mrt la reT«r»ed and tho Onuae remended.
BiVSRSSD AMO RBIIAVBKS,
lame a. J,. cnnoar9{
Morrill, J., took no part la the deolaiea.
.t^i-r.-'ann Mimo «>^ •>«« hnv - ImqtntuM
12« - jwrea \
mix, uau.
T»,
AFP«lX«#i
JACOB asCRXAlR.
Appall ant.
5AI* fROK
If!niIClJPA2. COVflT
0? chzcaoo.
223 I-A. 643
■R. Bissiitiio joatzeK ghxdlst oisuv^miKB nix opxview oy tks court.
In an action In foroil>l« detainer, conraenocd AH
noTWMbsr 9, 1920* for thii rooovery of the poaaeaslon of tlM
2ad flat af the building known at 131? S. Lavndalo aTonuo,
C! loafo, tht oourt dir«ot«d the 'ury at the ooBolttslen of all
the «vldenoe to find the defendant, Jeeob aohn«ir, gnilty of
unlavfttlly withholding froK plaintiff the posseeeton of the
preaieee, the jury rotumed aneh n verdiet, and, ea HOYcmher
24, 1930, the eouirt adjudged that the plaintiff reeo rer
poaee salon of the prwaiaeo and the.t a mrlt of rest itut Ian
iaeue* Xhia appeal faiaewed.
INifeadaiit oeeupifid the preniaes under a writ tea
leaae, expiring Jtiae 30, 19^, and containing the uaual
eoTeniuite, frtm Dara Becker. The nanthly rent reaerrad w«a
i|4S, payable on the firat day of eadt and ewery Boath.
Defendant had the option of retaining the preniaaa for aa
additional year, expiring June 90, 19ai» «^ioh he exereiaed*
and waa ia po8»easion «hen the aation was brought* Oa
Vo-fei^.ber 3n, 1919, ix»ra Beoher, leB»ar, aaalgaed her intareat
la the leaae to plaintiff, «tnd thereafter and up to and in-
nlttdlag October, 1930, plaintiff rttceiwed the aaathly fn\
tnm defendant, jc'laintiff ecBKeaoed the nctinn baeause ha
had aot reoelved the rent for the aeath at llovember, 19flQ»
aad before bringing suit he onueed a notice to be aerred
peraaaally apan dnfendaat, notifyla^ hin thnt his tenaaay in
\
N&V»« - ^*i
\
^j» ^. > - rn I .».. <j> va^ >A V
,7nrKiC MKt w 5romio nit ais xx r
,t«iit»i-^/.
. iu -i i :.
,4144 .0«b
jittiiufl*t*Y Iro iJhr« a t»ili ba« atMiiaiMf tit to a»l«aM«iif
.bvvaJLIttt I«»f<|* oid* .soa«i
XttOAtt wt} naliUmimiM htm ,08fi ,0C MUf% jinltXqxe .MuiftX
«« lol «MlM»it« tit BAinJt. **llf« Mf# bMf #a«ib««t«€[
fititiai t*tf JknoUcwa ,%a^a«»X ,'4)»2Ls&V; M«a ,ffXffi ,')C n»tf««T«V
•Hi bmm •$ na bv» n^rUtwAi imtx ,Y\ft«siAl<|t *$ tn**! 9Mi mt
tii •a0*a«tf acvXlA* »i(i »«MiiM<ia»e tlli«i«i^ ^imnhm^l^A anl
•Ottl ,««#«»v*ft \m dinm Mil ««^ *«•« mI« ft«*rA«»M «•« Wif
•s*
tht fr«ai««« hod 1»e«a t«>mlnat«4 lM«au»« of hia dnfaalt in tlui
pajmeat af r«nt. IM (««tlfled th»( on Bovtmbcr 3, 19ao« woA
again on th« folXovlnft day b* tttlaphoned d«feadcint*a ayartmat^
infomed ifae person irtw im»w«reA tli« t«leph«a« a«ll that th«
£^OT«Biber rent htid nftt lM«n paid and Inquired whan it would b«
paid, and thnt upttn o&^ eeonfllaa aaid p«raoa lan^diately hung
ap tb« recclTar. K« further taatlfied that e»rly in Cotob«r,
ltao« ha r«ea iT«d la tha umal cauroa of aiail a latter* duly
addrasaad t« him, dated SaytaMhar 30, 19S0* and signed "Jaoob
^ohnair,* as followat
*X urn sending you a (diaek far rent for tha
whole loonth of Ootober. A Bsan «a«t hare to fix tha
water and he did net fix it right. Vm siek and
tirod of you. If y^u are not going to aend a goad
man and fix it right, X*m not going to pay rent
and 1*11 have it fixed myself by a good Mui, or
elaa I tm goiag to report yon to tha Health
Depnrtaiant Mid let the» dncldo**
On the trial defendant att«opted to show that oa
Oeteber 29, 1920. ha had c<j4isad a oheek far $45 to ho written
out by one B. Krulewleh, payahle to the order of "Jaooh
Sehnair," and on the b%ok of irtU^ ho had oioioad oao 3*
Pekowaky to write the endoreeaent: "This eheek la for raat
for 1317 S. 2*awndalo fron VoTOirber let to Oeeeisber let, 19ao;*
aad that oa the followiai; day he h d oaatted the oheek co be put
la a etaaped envelope, properly riddresaed to plaintiff aad
sealed* and that '.lef nndiott had p«r«OBally depoaited aaid letter
ia a geveriaient »ail box. Plaintiff denied reoelTlag aay aadh
letter or eheek. iroa if he had, the oheek a^ld have boon
worthlesa in his hands for there was no teatiaeay that the cheek,
whioh was aado payable to defendant* a order, had boon eadoraod by
his.
Undor the poeuliar faoto* as dlBOloaed froa the entire
ovideaoe, wo are of the opinion that the trial court waa fully
justified in directing the jury to retura the Terdiet they did.
•ft# ni iXj»sl»i> aiJt to •ftuaftiitf dnvniM >»« «*#« u«l a «•« URirc<; vrr
ftcM .WtX .S v»4fl»T»l «• iM$ h»ni$—i til •fft*^ t« $mMgs»%
•di $mdi Xi«* M«<^«X«i Mf9 fiNnr«v«aM tAr sMntMi aiOt ^•■it'hU
•<r M»o« #t aM«« k»nXii|fftl ftitt bi«« ••#< fMi fe*ji $mm% vaiffltTttS
yuaX X^»^«i^"«Bl aort»t AiAv Ji^««nfta *>«» >:o<i« i«f{J bii« %hkMq
tXirt> «v*'^»i a ii«« ^* •nii(»o X«««» «mC4 ai; b»Ti*Q»i ftjl «nKfX
«iC^ tot iM«t 'X«1i tf»»i(e M tf( > Z*
mUi Jill fti •'»aif «-••■ '-• '" -*^ '■•^•' '*'-^ ■■-i.-ufj.
bftn sttiia ai*2 ■
t>e«iA « fcaM o^ ;,
<(« ,£UMi boon
•ii Ml* fr««itao /^t«4 4M( lft»X«ii» U ile««( m(# «• taa *«<iiMitf*t
"i0ft9X «|»X «(«#(«««aG •« 4»X •x«4(fl«v«l| «t9l >UMbm4U .a TX«i 9«>
^iKI atf 9$ ifoMfs «(U b«w«MO l-..d ait v^ aia-^t^XXol aK# «• 4I«|U tea
b«« lUiiiJUXQ a^ t»a«s»i £ui vXiaqot^ .a^aXaraa lk»9«i^« « fli
ittftai *i;iM J>«jriaa%oJft xXZaaaataq JMm( f. a iaia »AaX«)^
iltMi yaw t^alviaaat hxtmitk YUimiMi^ .xoti o^ju^ji JaaaaistTaft a Ai
atarf arait »iiKi» <a»rts mU aboil ad ti mat*' m3i»9d» t* val^aX
«jlaa<fQ 6/ii 4'vtfj ia*o^^'>*' *^ *«^ anafU iia> aAoad aX/( aU mmmUifiom
t¥ baaiAtaa "''•*^ ' -"■ .^»J»ia a'lacbnalab a# aX<ai^ " *» -^ *«* itoiibr
.al/f
•ril^m aiU »&%\ J»a«aXa«4ib <m «afaal talXM»a% aiii xmibtUt
tXXal Aifv iiaaa l4iXt« aiii JaMi JiaitbUie a4t la anm m «aa«abjiva
^Hii x*^^ ^aXbtvY nai a^tffvi ai t*uit ati- j^iJaa^li nX baXli'aat
«s«
and la eBt«riii« tlie judgn^nt appenled froa, accordincly
AffXflRS*
lariita and Varrlll, JJ., 9«n«ir»
-£-
143 • ^eai
e»piu>tneroa •^••»
A9P«X1««I
&• J. C. lte«brtacAfe Co^
I /1 , 1 ^?
APPBAl. fIlOV
MUVICIPAL COURT
OP CHICAOO,
2 2luI.A. 643
ME. tassiDZira jui^nm oftiBMT sstzvimBaB thx ojpxsxoi ot ?bb court.
Thio is an appeaX fr«im » jud^ent f*r $70 » r«ni«r«d
■^aiast tbt defendant (appellant) "by th« yunicipal Court of
Chiciigo on Jenuary 20, 1921, after n trial lB«for« th« court
without a Jjttrjr. Xh« app«»IleoB have not fil«d any apnearaaoft
•r any printed bri^f in this emirt.
The Ration, vhioh is in eontraot, vas otnmumecd on
Oetaber 36, 1920, In additi«a to 3* C. ]«oartn«y, the ."!cen«By
Tir* and Hubber Cempany. a oorpor^ition, and 9r«'than Blo^^nf ield«
prtaident thcroof , miY* nada partios 4«f«adant, Vat darin^r th«
trial th* oe«»« wsa dlnsistod as to tho «arpar«ction and Ble^a-
field, ^laiatiff'e claim, saountini? te ttC, v«e for «ork and
labor done in rtmavinj; certain rubbish dvsriag the month of
May aaa en June 4tb, 19?.Q, frnm a ^uildinf rt 12C6 \ l&th
street, ChicA^e, «bioh iMiildiag had theretofore been psrtiallj
destroyed b:/ fire, yorty yards of ru>9bish were rweoTed rt a
priM of >1.75 per yard. The defendant, l«ooBrtney, ivao the
agent for the ovner of the building and the oerporatioa ^as
the ten»nt.
Coaaael for tteoartacy coat end that the eTidenee diees
net dia«losH any liability on Mecmrtaey's part to pay for tiie
renoTal of the rubbish* ?e find that the teetinony heard at
308»f • S»X
\ ,r:o8»'' KJjux
tSUOd JAUOIIVN
•otAaxuo %9
\
ftMn.0t
I.
•T
#Tiift« wfi »te*9«» /I* ,X^u*?J ,c3 V"'*'»»''"^' «• OMttlrf^
At l^owMump •A'v .Iftn^ilaet aX at {ft>X,'^.>r ,««l#£>i> »xfT
Yn»a«oA iM ,x*oit4isHf r AaX;ri^t>« nl .O&OX ,M 7»«rQ^»0
,bXcll«)»X8 fi«({i< C bn« ,»oXf;ri«faM « ,x<^t*»^ intfifKR J»iut fttlT
•wm^tA bpA «*X4iaY*«T09 Mi> «# «« i^tatXfliid xav m^o •Ai iMlti
Nm i<s«r i«1i a^^ ,0r$ «J vit^AuooM ,siXitXo ii*ll|tiU«X1i .Mttll
le ditt;«« viC^ lali^t (inXtftfrt niftinaa soivcvbi ai •nel» t»<«i
Ki^^X ••• aor.X t£ nntbliui « «f>it .OSHX .ift* »A<rl A« iMn TftM
•41 •«>7 ,x»a'i*ve»K ,in«^a«l•k MfT .il«ijix ^•^ fV»X^ t« MHf
•Av «tll4ioqfxo» tit kOA ^mihllinf mU >• !•«•• ««(i nO !«•»■
••efc •enafeiT* »t<^ d^tif^ bnoiSMt^ x*ai'XK%»^ rial Xaaauod
ajU tol Y«< •^ li^f B*x«fi^'iaB»Ml A* x4iXltf»Xi v*'^ ftftXeaX^ Jmi
$» b%Mod xa««ii«ai at' ' tUl «t< .<liiiitfin aifj !• LaroiMt
•»•
%h» trial is Inperf^otly abstrnetftd • aon« Miterial pertiana
are entiraly emitted frna the abstraot. After aa axaainatleii
of thQ bilX of ex«Aptiona oontainad in th« trandoript^ we
arc of tha opinion that the finding and Judfncat ara suffieiently
■nstained hy tho •Tiddnoo. Ko usaful parpasa will be aerrad in
a discu anion of it* aore than to tsffntlon that it appears thrt
•a intpactor of ihe City of Chieago insisted apan t^ho rcx(thrul
of tho rubbieht that Veonnrtnay agrr»«d that plaintiffs sight
ramoTO th« Baae at tho price nentionad and thcit it vcv relieved
to ths amcmnt and at thn timee aentioaed. Xhe Judgment ia
affiraed,
Barnes ar.d t^orrill, JJ.« eoneur*
iadt n-ia^^qa ii i»d^ meliMnm «i Mndt •"ttn ,#Jt It UMl»9imailb m
ITT - 2«83T /
lUHGUd iilJEflUH aad SikKUSL / )
KAfZ, ^ / ^
/
O/.:^
or oiuGAao.
WALLlCa M. BUiUOt^Hd, «a«/ ) 07 OIIIOAOO.
\ /
\Avpjn.lsint ,
In & 4th olaes tort eaii«» trl«d l>of3r« ant of th« Judi^s of
th« tfnaloipAl aaurt 9f Ohloaga, withovt « Jutjt. on 3«pt«a1»er 28,
1920, tii« plAln tiffs r«ooT«rod a JuAa:n«2it far ^138 a^lnst th«
d«f«nAant.
On Oetalfttr 16, 1919 » d«f«ndant, th«a tha 3wn«r of a tw>»inLat
trlolc building, at 2030 Romboldt Boxilevaxd, Chloajfro, antarod Into a
mrlttan airre^nant with plalntlffa ts sail to than tha building aad
tha land an whloh it staod. At this tima ha had his rasldenea In
»na of tha flats, aad it was prsfi dad in tha a^raannnt that ha was
t;> ramain in passassion of tha flat until April 30, 192G. fharaafta^
tha agzaaaent was odnsuamatad aad dafondant beoama tha tanant of
plaintiffs aad atantinnad io to ba until April 30, 1920, whan ha
▼aoatad the flat. In moving out his hoosahold affaots ha took
away hie g&s-ranga tak& hie rafxigarator. Thara was aTideaea tand-
lag to show that tha markat ralua tharaof was |>138. Xhara was no
sTidanoa showing that aittoz tha r&nga ox tha tafxl^Tator was
paxnanantly attaohad to tha buildiag, 9t that thair ramoral daaagsd
ths building, and in aaid agraaMsnt of sitls no »aatisn was nada sf
thas.
Flaintlffs, on tha thaorjr that tha ranga and rafrl^^eratoy wsrs
fixtuxas and that ths ownarshlp tharaof pasasd to thsa whan thay
ipuxohasad tha building, brought tha ^esant aotion, oharerlng in
tfaslr statament of elaln that defandant had wrongfully oonTartad tha
artielas to his own uss. Ths trial oourt found tha dafaiidant guilty*
and assasssd plaintiff's dsnsgss at ths m^ of $1S8, in tort, and
\
V88AS - ?TX
V
-. one etclfttf ib»i«w ,ftOft» #T«t s«*Xe rtt» r ^-
tftn><w# A tc i»inrc Slit o»i{# «^iiiftfini^»£ «ffX9X ,hl xWtiT^O ^
te» %iuhn94 •A* mAt e# XlM e« •tXitaitAlq iltlv tatoMV^s M*tlt»
•Mr •i tmAt tt»m*9t9A tli al t*h ^««qr ««v #1 Aeui .atfAXt Mis Ic Mit
»na«tM(? .0I9X ,05 Ut%k IktMM t9il\ t^t \9 «cift«»«RCsi Al at«M»t e;r
•if Mitv «0tex «0« XltqA Xltcir 94 «l «• HjroJttjtfO ia* 9li\t9ai»U.
i«f* Alt •#ft«lt» *Xcd*a0CJt Mid tue ^Jtrvt al .#4iXl ft^l lk»t«MV
Aw^mMk ImrmnBX xi%t*i tmdt %• ,%atb:ia4 •At ti h^dmitm x^tummmfq
\t 9bmM «■• «t>1ifMi ea •.tea y*^ J<v««i*«r&i» £tia« oX Au^ u^t-: utf ^it
YMli SMI» rntH •$ ^•••m% lo9X9At 42<l»««anr« •dt tadt taa ••x>f4xil
•At ft«t«iitao» 'xiUnittt'tm A^H #iui*A»t«A teiit bIaXc )« #»«•#«#• vi«l#
.#Xlin| eoaftMiki^ •At bwflt txat^ X«l«t ft^lT .•■ir mn BXn c9 ••J:»l#«s
*«• .tft Kl ,MX| lo #ra •^t t« ••9«mA •*lUlaXAi« tessvtM Im
«at«7Qd th« ,hide:nflnt Appealfid trvm,
Wt ar« of th« opinion that nnd«r the faots dicioliacd th«
jud^tiuint oanriot at and. Hafrlg^ratsra and gae zangta ax« not
H^nerally oonaldared aa fixturaa, nnlaaa thay ara ao parmaaantly
attaohad ta tha building that thair raaaral will matarlallj
injura it. (13 Knoyo. Law, End fid. ft47; Maria ▼. Balfeld.
194 111. App. 364, 380; 276 111. 594, 609; faanln^v . Vahay.
18S Uasa. 47, 48). In tha preaaat oaaa tha aridanaa doaa not
diaoloaa that tha rafzigsratsr and ^aa-xan^a vara so parmanantly
attaohad to tha Gliding that thair rarno7»I by dafnniant
materially injurad tha 'ballding And dafandant ahjtad nt»t ha-ra
baaa hald guilty gf irr^ngfiilly caavartlng to hla imn usa hla
•im propart^. Tha ^udgjaaat of tha !^unislT»al C^art i« ravaraad.
az7£a3^i) ffiTH fiiDiia or faoy.
B&HSSS, and MOiUIXX, J 3,, donotir.
tcji •«« ■•9«n M9 Ikiui ««ft«tratitt*£ .koats tviuiM »—f trt
.tX»tl»g .▼ »X«>a -.T'M »M AX ,wi .fftMS U) .#1 vivU^
*JS^£l '^!SI2££££i i^* «*** '"^^^ ^^^ i^'*^ '^^ -i^l^ *^^< ^^
t«n tMA •ftii«l»iT* tift •mat fne^^0-^<l (kil<r al .(S^ ,T» .naaJi BtX
mnul ten AXvciUi ra0ibcui2(iA Act4 .yUAllMT eit^ li»vrtfli xXX^t%<iit/M;
•JLK Mur nwc •!£{ «f ^^t%imie9 ^XlJift^cvir tc -i;^!!!;!! i^X»4
. . \% .iUIfilfOII bsm . ftXtEAt
-5-
177 - 2«e3T
rVimati or JXCS. W« flad m aa ultlnatc f&ot that
th* dnfandaot; did nat wr^i^fully oanTczt to his 3va u««
tih« refrlf^eratsr ar gao- riin<^« in quest loa.
^.
Tcwn - m
••0 JIWO alii ct .^7»% *^w tttt tXb tctidnuAikM •At
/
40 • 2M55
II. R. TAYXX}H«
otiPiiBdaat in ^vnvt
▼•<
owmM f • yHisBY, \ /
Plalatiff In »riiir.
2^^'^x
'^S*^ /t^'
; HUVI' IPAL CCURT
07 CHICAaO«
^.A. 644^
MH, jrt7»TZeH BARS3S mTORBQ TRX OflKIOH Of tm COffltf,
irror Is as signed in thi« oaa* te the notiea ef tbt
trlAl eeurt la itrlklng d^feadiueit** "sixth* affidavit of defense
f res the files* and In entering a Jttd^^eat "by default for
$2 • 316 • 67 en the etateaeai of elajte*
defendant la error urgee thet to eonslder the <{ueBtloa
yreeeated, the notion to otrlke end aald effldarlt of dafenao
should bATe been preaerred hy a 'bill of except lonOf and none
appeara In the r«>eord«
It haa been f«0(|tteBtl9r held that under the praetloo
that obtalno In the Knalelpal Cnurt an eff Idarlt of aierlte filed
liy the defeaAoat la the d«f«ndtmt*a pleading and take a the plaeo
of a plea la oflmmen lew act lone, aad that a tBOtlon to strllce the
aaaie perfenaa the of floe of b di<«ttrrer. In a elsllar eaae^
HarMOa T. Qallahaa. 386 111,, 59, It wan held that the eotloa Of
the eonrt la sustalalng « atotloa to strike the affldaTlt of
merita was preaffirved for roTlew without a bill of exoeptione, tho
■otioa te etrlJM he lag oae based oa the laaufficleney of tho
pleading and not one based en ether grouada. It i» nppareat
frttB this record, as in that ease, that the purpose of the
■etloa te atrlke was to teat the suff ioleney of the affldnrlt
•f defeaao. Zn eaoh of the orders striklag the preTioue fire
affidaTlts of d«?fense defmdaat was given leave and tiae te file
a aow affidavit. Bat in the erd«r striking the "ulxth* affidavit
StX-i t:
.«V
tCJtttlf
i>«Xil »$ki9m \m ilrmhlttn tit- LaxXdntM mU f ris
4a»«»44« .•Aatrs'*^ TifJe it? ^'i>r.r-<f *iia l«n ^.'TS jyiltisX^r
•a-
a« lemT* vms gircn to f 11« an«th*r» And a default Jud^Bcat wum
iMB«dlat«lj •nt«r«d for fftllttr« to fil« an*. J>«fend«at vTldent*
Xy alaated to a1»id« %j th« last ttrlokan affidsTlt tor tha par*
9«a« 9t testing its aufficlaney »nd thar«fora tlM motias was la
tha natttra of a deanrrer and properly preaanta tha quastiaa
Vefara na without being praaerred in n. %ill Of cxoaptiona*
fha at&teaant of olaia vae far money loaned by plain*
tiff to defendant and alleg«d a failvre o.nd refaeal to pay tho
eaao oa rcqiaaat aa proni««d» The strieken nffidarit deni^^d that
it vaa a loaa and cat up thnt it was pe^ld to hiv aa eoapensatien
«nder a rerbal contract, Afhile tha aff idarit unn«ee83arily pro*
oaeda to plead eridantiary f aata tending to show that tho aoncy
wfs a eonsid^ratioa for tha eontra«t» it sets forth in mibstanee,
though inart if i daily* thst money wa© given ae ooapenaatioa for
tha eetabliafaaent and operation by <)efendant of e coal yard for
tho purpose of «dT«rtiaing and selling coal of a eeapaay. of whioh
plaintiff vne proaidaat* general nanager and principal owner.
Though poorly pleaded we think the affidarit presented istniea of
foot th&t entitled deft^nd^nt to n trial en their merits. Hedaead
to siiAplest teifas the ieeoeo presented were v^cther the money was
a loaa aa olaiaied by plaintiff* or eoMpenpr^tion und«r a centraot
as elaiaod by defendant, v^iotlter there was saeh a contract was
a (Btestion of fact, and i^other the ' oa^y wa£< given a» ooapena«itioa
pursuant to aadat eoatraet or as a loan was another tfuo^tion of
fact idiioh required subaiosion of the case upon eridence. Tho
provisiono for simplified procedure in the Xunicipal Court ««ro
aot intended to increase the difficulties of patting a controTeray
at iastto.
fho Jttdffaent will be reversed and the onuse remanded for
A trial on the isaues of fact preaontod by the last atrietea
affidavit.
ftridloy. P. J., and llorrill. J* etmcur.
«i SAW mHiwa ^ •• •ii a«li(DHj \% M»t
•ntAlq t<r M«i«i t»flWi t«t o«« mi» ■*tm$»im MfT
•cue X-'^it^'"
X»>Mi Mti jrn.' went
itmhnB '
r.i^ ii3'
:li
rt Jt Wi. ?.f(l
"f^tfWiT
i - ' JM9 ^&M •IV: ' '•>< iiXw /a»im»|;{, »if
70 • 36718
mi lA^Hl^HOW,
App«lliint»
"\
Od3^
ATFtAL mOM
WTVicxpAL entmt
07 oaxcAOO,
223 I.A. 644
p^
MH. JOailC^' BARias DRWY*?{l'fU TUB OfXlTlOS 0? T1t« C09RT.
J^abTUitry 19, 1020. » Jodgnttat for |161«20 end coats
was tntcr«d for a|pp«llant in tlUa eeae. It vnta «et anida mkA
TA«at«d navcmbar 1« 1920* en Mpp«llec*a atotlon ««/)• Oeteber 29^
19S0a anpp«rted by hl« atiflrnfty'a »ff idtts^vit vhieli a«t up as th*
sal* grnund for the motion thi^t dof ««nd»Jit and hla nttomay hajd
no kiiovlodce of asiid Judgnnnt until noTeral aonths After it*
«ntry, and th^«t the tDttomey h«^d relied on an ornl proaiiBe of
•pp«llant*a sttomey to notify hiia when th« enuse wf»s set for
trial and thet he r^oeired no such netiflcr^tion*
9e need not eoneider the counter aff idaTlt vhiOh
deniea the making of aaoh proaiae for a motion or petition of
th' t eh»rrioter« aado after the lapae of thirty dajrs fron entry
of the judgment, can l»e entertained hy the emirt onl^r etien it
presenta sueh a atAte of faoto i^» would osueo the judgaient to
be Taented by a bill in etiuity. (leotlon ')! of the Kunieipal
Court Act} Aweriepn .^itire ty Co. ▼. B^iaff. 214 111. App.» 466.)
le sueh state of faota is uet forth in the nffidsTit or petition.
lot only doea it fail to ahow h. want of negligenoo on the pnrt
of tho petitioner but it fnlle to set forth any of the olenento
of f rend, aocideat or Miatako of vhieh • court of equity would
take eognisanoo.
Aoeordingly the order vne»tiag the Judgaent will bo
roTeraed.
tridloy, 9, J,, end Morrill, J., eonour*
#1 r--:
•4 Llkm #ii«iN$Mrt
\
t 'f< :< fen.* y:
•a
t# wit" n tw ere
ttXTr>
9Mi ii ,!T?i<.' -i-KI
.Tf.» j«a
ifrt
103 . MTU
VISGISIA '10\IHJ0M. a niiMr,
by GOHDOJi 'i»i^70H» h«r next
frl«nd«
Appellee, ) APPXAL yROM
KCHICIPAL count
0? cHic»\ao*
ailL^ X}« RKCAT, V*»«» / r t. -^ r^ T l\ £? /I A^
k •'/Ayp.UaJlt. ) 2 2 3 I -^*
11. roSTIC? BA?«XS BBLIV^Ti^^ TBS OPXMION OF THK COUIlt.
August 14, I92G, appelate «nt«r«4l into h 'rrltten
tt«iitr^et '9ith ftpn^iiaint to worlr for It «» »n ont^rtalonr at
exhibition*! or plnyn t^r a period of four ve^ks at the msn
•f flOO per week. The cotttr».et provided that either purty
Might t^wnalnste it t>y glTing "at miy tlve efter the date of
openln^^ of the pX«3r» two weeks* written notice." The play
opened (>v^uot 16. Mguet 19th she notified defendant hy
telegrsM of her intention to terminate the oontrseta to trko
of feet i^n^Say* Uepterber 6th. The erldenoe tends to show
that eho w««e dleeh^rged hy defendant Septenhor let« ahout
the stlddle Of the third week*8 eerTioe« aai that ahe waa paid
|40.70» the pro rata aamunt due for that week up to the tiwe
she «ae dlachnrged. This suit wao brought for the balane«
due for that veek* and Judsnent van elTon therefor oa tkfO
theory thnt def^ndnnt brenohed the oentrgot. The evidenoe
aupT^rts thiat thc^ory, and ^udgpent was entered for the unpaid
•alary for the rest of the week up to ^ieptecber Sth«
The only point Kade on this appenl is that the notiee
oottld not properly speolfy ne the date for tensiaetien of the
contrnot a di\te subeeqiucnt to the t«o weeks Iroa the tlae it
was given. Tltere la nothlni? In ^his point. Xt is also eoa»
tended th»t ehe did not tender her sejrrlceB uftcr t^optenber let
t%r tho remainder of that week, ohm did not hare to if she
MTfte - cox
If
^ ;■ 0« m
, ( . > .-r « >v ^ » .
X^- ■>■ T -CJi-^. f -.J
Tp
i/ft
#u9<r« ,iiiX i«^««4f*/r 4a«llr
MiMi •«« ^« t»iii ham a»»Xv«or
tMUlAtf %d4 to?
fci«qiij# flrfi Tol i>ti
'....uix Mil.] ^i-a; B '( ' - --^ Bllit ■«• •JUBM lalmi .
1«X V»^^Jf;;T«" tv^lit «»^lTYM ^^tul rilt. Mto l44# k«l)R«l
•«•
WR« ^i»nhhrgeA at. the «)Ti<tene« tends t* fihaw. The Judgnant
GrldXey* P. J., and Merrill. ^«. eonettr.
^•«^«t MiT .vorf* iti »bm*9 Mwsftl
,<Li>f
,nmn< . nvrca bfl »t'»i'^**^
U7 • urn
{
Jen CLABK,^
▼».
\
■7
APP«1X««»
) APPSAX. FROM
MirVICIPAL COQHT
' 09 CRICAOO.
22 A. 644
This Is u suit in forcible detainer for iMiflBeAniOB
•f preKieea eocupicd by ap: ellant under ft written l«a«e t%v
•BA y«nr which teminated &ept«iib«r S0« 1920 •
The onXjr qmcatinn pr«&entod is vhethor ther* trnt
«n agr««nent for ths extension of »ald l^^ao on tho al»ia
•f ivhieh defcndiuit hold over*
Dofenduit te-ftifisd nh»t on July a^>.h prerioun he
lu4 o Qoav>£rfl)>&ion with yl&lntiff in r<»gtfird to hif ^onMinuing
to liTO in thft flat aftor the !$<»«« «xpir«d, and th^t plain-
tiff ftaid ^hat h« would lot him i>t,»y ^t «auld *h&T9 to r^ioo
th* ronfc to fftC* - the le«i»o proviiUng for a rsntcl of t'^lO
for th« year pciyable in tvrlvo installment e of $42.50 eroh;
thftt defend'ABt said he wa» willloj; to pay it» imd thft ploia*
tiff had otiid nothing to him aince th».t tiae vith regivrd to
VACfttinp, the pr«mliics; th<«t r.bovt the Tridffle of /«puat plu-in*
tifi" cakel hije ,«h9t he v-'ne f^olng to do, and he -fid he wso
Itolag to stay there and Inop the flat, ond plaintiff r(*plieds
*X hare perB«nA.lly nothing t^S'^itt^t you; do not loiow anything
acelBJt you.*
fhis vae all ^o teutisony offored by defendnjit.
Ztle inouf f ioient to shew thnt tho minds of the p»rtlee mot
(.
\
«ai^> d -TT-iHJs
(
'
VJJQi
V
«(>ii><.;»ihu \io
»tTW;
wou
mi «Xt tjit a« • ; un9ix9 r)* (M
-nHJrtr .' T- ^--.Ts .oiii^v* ^ • ••i wit t»iti ^" ■'' ^
T^iiXq l«lC» bas «#l %a^ 9$ T-nltH'v ....ir M( kla9 ^««fbJI»tt:
ei KrcHji^n jftiv 9mkf i<-ti' <>i }}alitlMi ^1»» ^nI( "^^i.^
* ■ ■
iJN»lX«*f ^ll^«l«l4 boa , >ital Un:
^mliUxiut w0iai
i9m nviwT'iq vifj )o ubmi ^ fi^ vent* <s« jrn>ip|ll««nt »i. T
^
•a*
in MA Agre enent • Plaintiff nslther Agr««4 t« Keotyt* mr
4effn(iMit t»o giY«« the •peoifled inere(%«c<t rental nor for
oajr partiouX«r tiao. Zf tholr aiinda «iet In an «{rr*<*ai«ni
for
for a icAS«/an«ih«r 7«ar tn« oontrnot OMna vlthln tho
Siatvita of «rnads. But it ia apparant frm daf«ndant*t
•an te»tt«ony thot tbora ygnu na agraimant that oould ba
onfercad against hin or in hi* own faror* Tha jud^iant
will }ae Mffinsed*
AyytfWRD*
Oridlejf iP. J., and Morrill, J«, concur*
161
mC^ ftl^i* •■no iffjittiiso «(i a»»t *( »ii4 Mui^*' <^l
;raM«liirt MOT •«•▼«! mrc alrf ni «• wtn #Bja«i« fr«»tiA«»
• JhNnllia •¥ iXHr
J I ) , i ^ (X^
las • \ S670O
\
smtu bi»\r browk.
o t-^ ^ ::^
.V
MfVICZYiO. COURT
Of CHICAOO,
CHA!UbI& B. BARIIpT, / }
\
i22Sl.A. 645^
In this suit th« plaintiff olaincd that d«fen<l«it
•wtd him -^ll^Q.S^ fftr prof eissional 1«88.X s«rrio«i) r«n<i<«r«d »t
4»fcfident*(i roqu«»t in filing •l>Jentiona l>#f«r« the Board of
RoTiew of Cook Uotmly, and in procuring a redttetlon «f the
tnx8« OR def«»ndont*« Tutsi nnttyXa «9 tteiecnsed hy the eseooors*
Th«r« la no luention th«)t plnintiff rendered th<» serTloes and
thet if ht la antitXfld to com!>«ni^atlon therf^for it la for tiio
fkvnunt cXained and for vhioh Jud^ent wfia ettt«r«d»
Plaintiff had preTloaaly r«nd«rtd aimilnr aprriooo
for d«f«ndant. July lO. l^l^t d<?f«tnd£*nt ^roto fro« Paris,
Franco, to plaintiff aaying th»t he had written to anethor
Xavyer by the naae of Coehrnne, to look after hia tnxea» hut
poaaihly the aattor had heen negleeted, and reqnoated plaintiff
to attend to the sane *on the aaaie hasia t^t before,* if
attention thereto hod been neglected, md to do so "before it
WAS too late, if defendant virs iwt hoaio,* It appoaro that
plaintiff aought to reach as^id ttoohrane, and alao defendant's
vife« b«t ires unable to get in eonnnnic»tien vlth thea. f«o
days before the time would expire under the eta tuts for filing
objeetiena plaintiff went to the Board of RoTlev to aseertain
efttether any had been filed, l^amine that the foet could not
be detenainod without a aoaroh thrnugh aeveral thousand
Tr-
oarfti.
ai^
kj
.JflMiX»^^-
•«U
mw.: X'r% ^ix
'.•iXi«l« t»^9hH9^ x£»tt0lrti%^ *«< ItljraijsXf
.il?^^ Msnl A^amw #«ufeii(it»fc «^i(fX .oX xlsfl, *im
»«r ««««M« tiif t*#%ji 3ro«x •$ ^•mn'uit,^ \% •mm ntn \d t«xv»x
tfX rc^l^^r* •• •*>**' , >t» 0X8*1 i^*^ A«<f •li»i«ill if«Xiii»ii«
<«<i rc«««fi . mo^ Urn •«« ^aaterVb tl .•#aX ••^ ttaw
• '^aMta*l4i» mX* l»mi ««ii««if»»» Mna tfaam aJ #if8«»« m#«i«X«
»alXi ns»t.tn inU «»lMuy ftvivxa bX<M« malt atfl «icol»<r atai
nl«»nff»aa ai aalTafl la biaait aiU at lir«v '^MJaIaXv acai#aaitfa
«a« kXitaa tt>«) mIJ ta^ 8At«uaa .^Xl) «ao<r Ud y^u ^atflMla
taaatfotfi XjTxaraa ^wn4i ilataaa a im»d9tm ftaniBvata* atf
•8»
•bjeetiontt alrtady fll.ed« ha praporad ob4«etlona« ead « f«v
dayt l»t«r reo«!lTinenotlo« fron th« BOMrd vf RaTlcw to Att«iiA
to th« K»tt«r Apptared lD«f«r« anld Beard oiad »itk«d f«r, aad
proottrcd, a reduction of the tajces. At th»t tlao defendant
hiiid net retttmed to «.mflrlCA« It alao appaaro tl&(\t defendant* •
vlfa aa« lawyer Cochrane, \Mt he having learned from plaintiff
that the latter had already filed eh4eetion« and was goi&e to
take care of the mmtXrOr did nothing further.
It ia the elala of appellant thi^^t appellee deeeiTOd
la«ycr Cochrane into the ^lief that he had an arrangement with
appellant to attend to the natter and th&t otherwise eaid
Cochrane would l;aTe attended to the matter for appellant without
charge, a do not think the OTiiienoe ia oapahle of that eon*
etruetion, hut think that cenditiona existed which entitled
plaintiff to act for defendant purauant to hia requsat*
thA 4ud£pottt is affirmed.
Oridley. i?. J., and Morrill » J., ooneur*
•ft*
S itculi hi
.'r.^i^iX'--:;.
:uOI|M ... , . sC»jr htti> ,** ."-^
136 • 36794
AHA 8*
lAURXSH COUP.
» e«rporatidn»
APPEAL TROl
KUBICIPAL COURT
OP CHICAGO.
'fPP«iia.«e«
VR. JUi$fZCIS BAtltSS S8UVBnKI> 9K8 OPXHIOK OP TRI COURT,
'223 I»A. 645^
Plaintiff 1i«eiaB« » patron Af & stor* In tdileli
tf*f«ndflint sold l«t« ar«Mi« oenfeetlena tmd aeft drink* •
She tank aff her hat« valued In her atataoant af elalm at
|15, ^Idb oontaiaad a Jade pin* Talaed at $S9a and laid
the hat» aa ahe olelme, en the tahla vhera ahe was eating
iea eraiM, and aftarvarda left the ntore wlthoat taking it.
The next day ahe returned and made Incplry for the hat
Imt it eottld not he found* Another witnaas eerrahorated her
atatenent that the pin «as in the hat when ahe laid it on the
tahla,
A witnaaa testified for defendant that ahe found
the hat on the table and handed it to defendant* a eaahier,
and at that tiiM it had no pin In it; that there were quite
a few people in the store at the time huylng confeetiona and
Arinka. The oaahier testified that no pin waa in it idMa
it waa handed to her» and that ahe laid the hat on top of a
hox and wont to auppor. ^en ahe returned It had fallen in
tiM hox and ahe then put it on the olg^r oounter at the aide
of her deak. She did not notiae wheth«?r it waa there when
aha left th^t night or not. It waa iteero any peraon oeulA
reaeh and take it* There waa aoaie ({ttestioa as to the condition
\
V
•oeiiaxM %»
\f —■ .1* JL 4j ^ »-^
liaiifW fli •tols « !• aorzl
9ikKp mw •VMfl ftid;i ; ' ryl(T or? 'hp:i it f»M' t«
a«*r #i «i ■•« eiq mi tmKS bvDllaO lAlHan* mR .ajlnlYb
mA ««XJU1 biiif #i h9tnui*r Mfv smW .hk^jm dt inmw km E«tf
•»iB Mf# #• T*#«A»o ii«»l« Mft «• il tm «M(^ Mfii ta« xatf net
flMfv MMlt t dvtm ••liar iAfl 61b Mia .Matb ««jr to
Mm* omym X— rvftrfiv I .^en -xo irfsia 4«fC« #l9X fttf*
••l^lbaos Mfi ft^ «« »»i#«»fl|i wMMi ««» •I'Mff .il «I<|} h«a «b«»7
•s»
•f tht hat tat no eTidene* aa t« its Tftln* «x««9t thnt the fall
#20 for it «li«A new. The finding af th« court was f»r ths
dsfsndant.
At Most under suoh a state of facts the delirer/ ef
the hat to appellee hy the finder thereof oould be considered
only as a gratuitous bailment for the benefit of the owner^ and
in saeh a fiase the bailee would be required to exercise no aoro
oaro in keeping it than it would exercise in the oare of its own
property of ef^ial Taluo. (Miles ▼. International Hotel Co., 989
Zll., 330) and the real qfttention of fast raiood is whether sueh
eare was exoreised. We cannot any that the court erred in find*
in£ that it was* nor in reaching the eonelnsion that the hat pia
W8.S net in the hat when left in defendant's oare. It was a
oeeendohand hat and the CTidenee in regttrd to its condition would
iadioato that it was net of auekh ralue, and not sucAi as would eall
t9r the exereise of uzmsual oare and attention. The facts do not
present m ease where there is an invitation to the pntron to lay
down or leare the srtiele* mi eh as wrs pz>esented in aiost of the
easos cited by appellant*
The jttdgnent will be affiriMKd.
AyFlJ«IKD.
Qridley* P. J«, and Uorrill, J«, conour«
blmq t>- i«»ax» mml*^ Mi t m MMwftlr* tm imt imH lit t«
«iU <&•) ■«« Sttf iMfl ^« BAlMilt Alt? .vsA aMt-* ^1 t«) Ml
tW ..5»S ^•^•p Xaffol^*tm»^al .v j^JJ^) ,«L«l^.r Inn n !• Vi*sr<nf
4»«» t^jf; >i<ft el b^ftlat J^?^ ""f^ n9llii«i«!p . /t'^S ».XiX
-ftal^ ni iruff ft.'.- itntsme •» .b^EirTnT" r -». *rrA»
iXiiov a»i .ii«i|r9 9e(^ fidui 5m/( tmtd^hmn^ft
#tta •!» «#«jit MfT •a*!*!!*^!* Hju •tfstf iBmuau to •sir
XsX '' Ivat OM »l tnmAi ittmii' •..3^9'rq^
fltcM Utt ^«Mi 0I b*#ir««*Yf Aiiiv Ml ifeua «ikXalH« uAS •tm«X yo ixrAh
• i^aAiX•<rVi< X^ b«tXo •••«#
• t>MrcX1tlii atf IXXv ^JiMiftbtft ttf
f
\
miLY n, da; «t ai.. Aoi
\ni»iM9B» aa B«nn«tt*B»y a||
Conpnny*
AF#ellajit«,
A.
a oorperation, /
c>^. .y K.
1
APFBAL TROK
MDHICIPAL count
oy cKictso,
IBR. aVu7XC£ BAVi8E8 DELXVBaiSI fll OPZHIOH 07 THI QOUBf •
3 I.A. 645^
April 30* 1930, plaintiffs (appellanta) filed their
■tattvsnt of olai» in the i^nioipal Court alleging the aecept-
anoa by th«a of a preTiaus effer by defendant to sell to thaa
1750 eaeaa of ungraded nascntel raisin* of the crop of 1919,
at ^3^)^ per pound, f. e. b«, Chleago, to he paid for hj siglit
draft with bill of lading attached; that a draft on plaintiff
for |11« 168. 38» the purchase price, was drawn and paid; that
thereafter the shipment frcm defendant vrae receired at Hew
York; that on exaaination of the goods at thst point defendant
found that thej were not in aoeordanoe with the agre«aent of
sale; th^t they were not of the orop of 1919, nor of standard
quality and were d^nBagod; that "plaintiffs refused to aocept
said goods and deaanded of defendant thnt it repay the purehase
price, which defendant refused to do«<*
i'laintiff 8 further alleged that they had contraet*4
to soil the goods oalled for in their agroeoieat at a profit of
#479.35 whi<!^ they lost hy reason of said default hy defendant*
wherefore plaintiffs daisied Judgnent for said paroh^-Mio price
and for the amount of said loss so sustained,
After defendnnt had filed its affidsYit of iserito
plaintiffs on September 2, 19.'}C« by leaTO of court filed am
\
eiAtfi . MX
Want «.I« 4n tAa .ft TJIIS
( ,•• . . . , -J?
C* . •♦til .
miiit •i XXm •: ta»bn*\»h xtf <f»lt« viAlTOYq m \o aeuU xd soffA
«6XCI tp ^PtO 9d4 %# Mlife^ 'row bt^hAt^Hii )• •»?.'«# OdTi
iifffia x^ «*1 MM •<( 04 ,•;
^«iW ;hXa<t hrut nvtb «a« ,*oirtq *''/cr •>!>.« pru- .jla^ ".^t
!• jaoj3Siv'X7,A i^di ditu Miuiftaotaa ni ^ftn ••xmt x^di i»JU buuot
ktmtmm^p !• imm .(XVX'jl* q^no si^^ "^^ ^«a nm x**^ ^^^^ {tXat
Mad»7flf mCJ xm*** '^ ^-^f^ #a»bfi»V»Jk \m h%hmmt»b ham cftoef bi««
!• illt^f a ^0 I«*ia>tn8« ^aiU lU vol |>aXXH9 afce*! »il^ XX»r ^4
^imhmo'Ub xt «XaMl*» *^l« la noaaav x*' '"^X x««fj> ifalAr ifi.«T^
•aX'Tf •aaifOT^t l^^a t*! #«a«|^vt ^^fl^'i^ «tli^flt«Iq atalaiaifv
• fraaia^dst •• aa«X ftlA« ta #awa«a atfi v«1 taa
atXxaat la tkm^KWm ail ftaXIl *«M UuijMiala* ft\k
nm baXXt ivtfaa t« ariiaX x' tCVti .t vaibntqaa ca aYki^alaXf
ai«in4fd «tatexi«fit of el«ia which differed frtm th« original
l^y adding thereto th&t \iy muson of defendant* h refuaal to
oooopt the goode plaintiff » iniri; obligi»d to sell the« for tho
price
best/obtbin»b2.e, whloh »ta« $9taoi«3C, and to pay oertttia
enumerated eh&rges Monunting to 91»378.06» "thereby oeoaeioaiac
a loos to the plAintiffo hy retmon of the defendant** brenoh
of aaid VHrronty in snid agreement in the unount of ^3, 253 .46,*
ehorofore plaintiffs prnyed for Jjudgnent for the l^'St noned
aaount, and ')475«3A, & total of $3,708.71,
On defend«nt*« action the cnurt struck the oaoatfed
otateraent fren the fileo on the ground that it veo ineuffieieatc
and diB»i08ed the auit. Ao under the naloe of tho SfunioipaX
Court eueh notion performed tho function of n dewarvr thia
mppeal preeeats the qfue^tion whether the snonded etateaent of
claiB} stat^a a emiae of Hotion within tmy of tho ressedioo
provided for in the iTaifona Saloe Aot, Hurd** '<. i:. Chap.,
131a, aoo. 99, tritiieh provide*:
(1) ^here there ie a breaeh of warranty tho
buyer aay, at hio eleotion:
(&} Accept or konp the good* nad set up
against the aelXcr, the brefiCh of w«rrnnty by way
of reooupoieat la £iiiiaution or extinction of tho
prieo.
(b) Accopt or keep the gooda and Kointain en
action against the aeller for dsnogoa for the breach
of Wfvrranty.
(o) Hofaao to ttcoept the goods, if tho property
therein h«9 not paaaed and siaintain an notion ag&inot
the seller for diMai^KOf- for the breneh of wjirraaty.
(d) Heaoiad the contr^^et to aell or the aalo
and refuae to roceiTO tbe gooda, or if the goodo haTO
already been r^caivad, rfrtum the» or offer to return
ttami to the aeller and rooovsr the price or any p&rt
thereof which has been paid*
(2) 0h»m the buyer haa elaine^ »nd boea graatod
a reaedy in any ooo of theao vaya ao other renedy oaa
thereafter bo gr»nted.
(4) *lhoro the buyer ia entitled to roooiad
the aele aad eleete to do ao, the buyer ahall c«aao
to be liable for the prioe gyen rf turning or offering
to return the goodo. If the price or any part thereof
solnq
.IT. tOVaes^ t« X«jre4 , . ' bum ttuwwm
•X4d ^»f»oe-j> I. "ifl roiir>ntfl m(# 5H<ni;1 »•♦€• noJ[^o« ifn
!• tn««»c aiftifw no 4/«9aviv . ^
•iff %i re d9!t9it^ 4 oJt »Tili «t»iir (i
• 7«tXfM '
mam x^***^ ttufto MI Mxam
. %aln<f
>«! Mf A^
»
•rr;--- riiarf': Ttrtorf 9tU ,«>• ' •,» • '>X ifl 6rf*
Hgi '{£21 SfHUL,"'
•m
luis nlruHAj btt«n pnld, th« a«XI«r sh&ll 1»« liaMe
to rep'y Ro isnch thereof nn has l^*fta paid poa«»
■Q*y,J^°.,«>^^''^ ^0 Tttturii thfl geoda In txohnage for
rcpayncat of the prl"*?,
(5) *jrhciMt tho buyer is cntlkled to r«8oind
the Bal« »nd oloQttt to do so, if thf ffo^l^r rftftifife*
to ftccopt im offar of th# buyer to rotwrn tho goedf.
tiMOttyor shall thereafter be deeaod to hold hs
WiiXoo for the seller « • « * aubjeot to « lien to
•oottro the repnjneont of tho price pAid, which oaa
W enforced only by a «<tlo of the goods as provided
in ^'eo. fi3 of the ;aleH Aot."
Appolloe oonteada that tho original etntenent of
olaia is prodieeted upon & rescieeion of the oontr«)ct» that
thm aaoBded etatomeat is iaoonsieteat therewith, thrt appellanto
oloeted by tho origin«rl »tat<!iReat to adopt the remedy for a
roooiosion, and therefore "no other rmiedy o«a thereafter b«
grejitod" beeejuee under eub-sectien S! of seetiea 69, when tho
buyer has elalaed and been {rrnnted » remedy in ^ny oae of tho
ways proTided for in section 69 ee ^foreeaid, "no oth<*r renedy
eaa therewfter bo granted. •• The difficulty with appellee *s
proposition is a sieapprehennioa* vo think, of what ia meant by
tho worde "granted a reaedy" as used in eaid eub-s'iCtioa 3.
One can hardly be e»%id to haTO cl»iieei^ and been gmated a remedy
until the right to one of the statutory reaodiee hea booa
oxereiaed« and «« apprehend that when a suit boeomos ne'seosary
for that purpOFJO th»t he oxutaot be ;>id to have boon "granted"
his remedy until the cl»im made ia Ihe suit h^e been in nofae ^^ay
disposed of. It would bo inconeJLstent with the ri^ht to amend-
moat to say th^t a party mnst be prooluded from ehanging tho
theory of his right to relief.
Alt in neither the origlaol nor the 'imoRdel rtefsment
of Glaim do plaintiffs plead faots eonetituting a reseiosioa «f
tho eoatraot or the right to relief upoa thet theory, as provided
for by statute. ection 69 (1), (d) proTidee th?^t upon
roseisNioa of tho oontr^.ct -fhore tho goeds have already been
«4«
ft# ntiX m mi #*»ttfM • • » • '••XA«tf
Rfto ifrirtw •f'Jti*^ •oiiq »i:{j 1: T'JinM
ft»hiv«n^ •« slioaii itdi to r. . •kd
#(Ufl •^8«v#atto wit !• ««iiiai9B*ic u »•<[» b»#aali)rvt ul alaXs
Xftaan -i9j(#« «a** «ibi' njt^e** Ml to^ ft»blTnq at**
"^''-^XX^fq* rf*^* V i... , .inttMtyi 9if • '' " ■ ■>
MvW •«# 9*lJb*«4«r tvo.^i0#»#« «iit9 >o »«• •! rf^*v ftjf# Itina
"ba^wrr^i'' n#«tf amif e omuf md ir.dJ MOCunt t«l(t ti^
%«r aoMi lilt aa*^ w^r 5tiT« -^t art »lka« mitUa od9 Itfrtu *:^*■•n tliC
.!«.' id 19 X^99lU
innmf^r ■ fii t^n Xi<nl9li« aril YM«t; (f
la flaiaaiovat m T^Uoili9ao» tiit^J txa«X« aYlUnimiv. «a mtiaXo la
^•tiiroTt «« ,x'fd3 i*Hi if^w lalXa^ ai #Miin atfi ':a ^aattaaa ad#
aao ■i»(iirai«< ) ^) ir«lio<» ,mt9inim xi tal
saatf (f «»•«• aii ^'nao atfj 1« tioXaaiiyaanr
• 4*
reoeired th« Imysr nuat "return thvm or offer to re turn thtai
to th* aelior" in order to roooTor the priee whioh has toon
paid* Thoro ar« noxsaxafe nil* gat ions to thnt offeot In «ithor
•f th« stiitoaentn of /slain, i^nh. aYnrnxiato vero esoential to
present a oaso of reeoiaeion of the oontraet. The allej^ationo
iB the statements of nlalst that "plaintiffs refused to fiooopt
the goods'* are of bo avail ivhen the faots pleaded Indieite the
ooatrnry. It appears froa other allegi'.'tlons that plaintiffs
reeoired the goods, paid for then and later sold then. Had
plaintiffs offered to return then to the seller and the l«tter
bad r«fu8i<>d to aceept the offer they night under suh«8ection
5 eforesnid have held the geodn ve 'bailee for the sellctr suh*
Jcet to a lien to otvcare the repayment of the purohase prieo.
Bat haying fjtiled, aa mast Ve inferred fron the ahsenco of
•negations to th»t effect* to offer to return the goods, t)w
relBtionshtp of hailet; did net exist and the se^le of the goods
'hj plaintiffs was an exeroiae of ownership thereof. Plaintiffs,
therefore « «ere relegated to the renedy provided for In suh*
seetion (1) (h) upon which the amended etatesient of claist seeao
to be predieated. As so sBondad the statement of claim on the
faots pl<>>a(ied shoved an aeceptanee as aforesaid and proceeds upon
that theory in the aTements as to the damaibreo sustained for the
^ireneh of wrrranty.
^0 thinlCa therefore, that it was error to strike the
•mended statement of claim. While, of course, some of its
allegations as referred to are inoonai stent with faeto pleaded
shewing an aeceptan<ie of the goods, yet It would be unjust to
deprive plaintiffs of all right of notion beosuse of such
teehnieal ineonoistenoy.
Ttao .ludgmeat will bn reversed and the eanse rmnandod*
Oridley» ^. j,, and Morrill, J., ooaour.
«r»t-
r-
•4U9
.Ml. .... ..;* •.>..- -. .^« . -"'^' '
•i(^ re
• b«f n
.^■»«w» ..I. .ULli
... . ^ .T»UllO
168 - 26821
SA9 RASIClV
\App«ll««,
Appelant,
^PPSAL TRGK XnilCIPAL COOlf
TB. \
\ )/ Oy CHIGAOO.
223I.A. 645"^
Ma. JU8TICS MSIBS SBLIVBBKD TTTS OPINION 07 THE COURT.
Appallee mad« a eontraot to build a b&ra for up-
pell&nt for the sum of |1350. He brought this action elalming r
>»ttIano« duo on said aontraot Of $143 aad $493.60 for extras fur-
nished at »ppellMnt*8 request. The jury returned « rerdiet for
#477,30 is pl&intiff*s faror and jud^i^aent was entered thereon.
Ob appeal defendant urges that plaxntlff did net
oonplete hie eontraot and that defendant did net ask or contract
for said extras. The eridence on these natters is conflicting
•ad in aome parts irreeonoilii'ole. It would be extremely diffieult
to iitte'^pt to analyse the sami, as neither of the parties nor their
vitnesses could speak English Tery «ell» and all thair teeti^nony tts
tranaoribed is not perfectly intelligible. But fron our reriew of
the saoie as abstracted we eannot s^ that the yerdict was agiainst
the Buinifest weight of the eridence. It was of such a character
that the Jury, ifeo saw and heard the vitnesses. were in a ouch
better position to detensine where the truth lay as to the matters
in dispute than we are. Heither of the parties produced or kept
aa accurate or businesslike account of their Biutua.1 transactions.
If the jury beliered plaintiff's testineny. which is supported by
sone corroboratini ciroi>iiBti^nces and sene a<tsieBienB by defendant.
It was sufficient to su^tiin the Terdiot.
We find no reversible error in the court's rulings ^nd
do not feel Justified in reroraitiT the Jud.»Ment or requiring a re-
nittitur.
Orldley.P.j., &nd Jlorrill, J., concur.
\
itedfi • 2MJL
« f^istleti) n*iifiis e ! .:t| To a>u9 *rur to> |^nJf•If^
. :9M f*f Ci toA^taee fti«9 tie mo*- :
li^di to • »«^.'
^UK » Aa »->•« ,•••«*««« V ■^•d bttU Wit« Oji^ , odt tsdt
, mat l^^» muni l^uitm ^ JtiuuoQA j^xii^««i«Jtiitf^ t« o^Atzfoau; tu
t<( b»rTeqqB« ft M^iiim .^r!P«.>^0»l •'tli^«l«X% A0T«XXMf X*f»l «lt %Z
.tnktnmr ^dt nik^3i'UM mi $r •"*•"» mm tl
aul X»«) #•« ok
Tfr.t r ♦* J M
XAJEtXV
XUZABSm BUSRIV,
T». \
/
' 67 (; (L
AppoBi froa Oiroult Oiovjrt
of no0k Ootinty*
TMe i^p«al i« from & jusg»«iit far fS90«C0 initcrcA
•n «. Tiirdiet far that ttxs in eu awtios for felss tsq^rleoTuaent*
Oa a reriev of the eridene* «• thlalr tli« T«rdlet wan mftnlf««tly
•igftiiist th« ii«i«^t of th« «rid«fne« aisd that it should har* b««B
f»r dtfendnnt.
PiRlntiff h«d tjottght and paid i^r » pair of elrp**
frost d«f«Rd«iit 9mA 9n the o@@ttiii»a in <i|ue»tien teek th«n IbftQk t»
111 a 8t«i?« {tnd siGii^t to h;r.T9 h«]r ai»»«y r«f\mded« Sh« ftrrlTtd
t}i«r« sbotrt 6:30 p* m., defondATti*g eloelag; tljB«« JD»fendAnt imm
•till the»# tout «ag»ged with tw cuttowere. All ef his wtiployat,
« dOMn or 80, had left exeopt hln lfi,djr eaxhisr «nd a ladjr alerk*
Tli« ttM> jretiai; ladiM bad an their hats and vara abaut to laara tha
plaea* FXaintiff daalin^d ta ^a ^raltad en hy than, ima tald da»
fandfiidt vaa l^ruey in liia prirate offiaa, that it waa the elaaiac
hawp, Intt ^a tav>k off h«r hat, oat dO'an, aM insistad en aaaing
Aafandant, aayi»s oha vantad har at&zioy Imok. Tha taa l»4iaa laft
als»si Imadiataly and in a rt^ort tiaa tha %w) <matonara follavad*
Plaintiff thea aaut into daf««(laat*» private offiaa and danaadad
Vaak har laanmj* Ha said it aaa net hi a habit ta rat^im mmn^jf aa
ynrahaaasj that it ma hi a aloaisg tisMi that his aaahiar h««
i^na} t)uit hm aiahad ta aateh a train hasM) end aakad har ta aaaa
at anethar tliaa* flba rafaaad te laare vitbaixt her aenfy araa idiaa
lia ra^uaato^ har to do oo« Sha raeiainad oaatad and aaid aha aould
Htto'
^Xirx/o^ ir«o!> \i>
tw^jf^
- soi
iiJ^O .h
,^ V<
\
a»W( «t»i< itiu^tbk il »tMf ham mmhkrm «/» to fd^U»«r iwf* ^htifijmft
^•vJt-iiuk awn OS ttfi '. f* zMd
! ^4r ft ta
A#l>f(4|f*i'^ .'■•;•/■ '»-■ ■•iri')/i -'. - .'->b 9^fttl l'"i.v ew^rTJf '<[
IkXirtv iNti ^ A4MI hn» ^inM ImmiImm »iia m tdtf
stay them ttntlX mHMlfii% if tAi-9 *i€ hH c«t iMfT nwMir* lt« th«t
wint dvt 9t th« fvoat tenj^ wui tnaked la front of th« aior* tnii*
ing for « aifi^t «»t«b»iai t« aj^i^Myt liiMi In « f«v alButoa a
|9>ello«r^en 99mm, t^lMtwd itfierily 1»y &mth«r« Th«7 had ««■• i«
rvsTTonn* t* li«r t«lftph»ntsi4C to th« ^lio« artatlon* H« laformcdi
than «f tlt# ultitfttion and tttolc th«aa Into tli* utora* @h« than
<AiAiT»ed tli«t h« h»A l,«ek«d the d»9r u|M»n b«r, end h« d«nl«d it«
Thtt •ffinami teat if led thai nlte alee deelaved nAm tmuld atay
thexa witiX midni4iil).t far Hair SMi»ii^« Ivot 9m th«ir tsusR^^oti^a <i^
fendant gsve li»r a raet^isrt md the/ all laft tha site re*
file waa kejr anl^ wltaeee* Oa the xsat«irla]l ale;»ent» ef
tlte ••«• aa te her daaaanort h«r d«el»4r9d Intention te vanala
tbtre, her rafaeal to leave ^tan rai|«eatad te do ae, and ea ether
MKtterc, tlk* aaa eeatradleted a/ the defendant* tire tea yoang
ladiee* eaa ef ifttaa Mta a» langer in defen4ant*e m^Xttf, «Ufi4 the
tae paXise offieam« thm tea yaanc ladiaa teetlfied to the fMTle
as a^-ra ateted that teak plaae in their pmtmintm before they
left the »%&tm, -^ieht aith the teatisa^ny •f defendant and the
inallea cffl«tara ae to the auheeqaeat ineidenta ttn*} her deflnnt at*
t&tttde and manreraatian, together with het »an i&dideeioaa apaa the
altnaae atnnd, laaTe wst deuht ia ovur loinda aa to i^<?re the pre*
Ipaademnoa of the «nridew«e llee. It olaarX|r msbstantlntea dafaa^
ant* a eXalai that ea the oai»a»ioa in fiaeatiam fld»e arrlTod at the
eXeelag: ^oar, aae ipoXltel;/ redueatad ta mwm c^ another tine, and
rafaaad ta XaaTo the etora oven iife«a no tat^aeeted, and that tdie
aae tmt Xeokad thar«ln as &n& oXal:-»»d« Under eu^h elreuratteneaa
ske aaa aat thara hj iaTitsition bat as-^ a tra«|)s?«$«r, ntnd aas net
held »x detained there foraiiay ar asainat her alXX,
that defendant Ixaji. a right ta inaiet tq^a her XeaTias
the etora at the eluuim hour oaanat l»a qaaatioaed* Xt wm
M^* ^ MM^mk ▼• H«iH>IX> 45 111 . 307. 3701
Iti MKtD §411' ■;» • . "^ jiFfc-w lioi ^*<«usr> irarrivQlIp^
Mtf# (»^ •«t»tf» «»(# «ita amMi tm^i hm tnlitmiH mti t« tmdi
y% Utmmim toi^vMctf #41^ .44 *ki^ •^ *>v-,
tl»»t a^j 199^ t 'jfo% emit #tfl .r^ts*
•i« in..
-99% #■-: :' Oi i^<^
or*^ ■ — '■ — "••JsMrpt^ - *" '- "-'•■■ -"■•'•- ■ . w.v..,-,»»
''TU* T«ry fset th«t » pjref«»8l«B«X nut or »«reh»Tit
•r ttilicT per8;>a, o|»ttus on offi(»# to iransAot bunlnava with
•ad f«r the publio, no dotilrfe is ft t&Qlt InritiitloB to all
ptrMAt hsrin:.; l-asin«aa «lth hla, and a ]p«7ni««lon t« oth«r«
tt enter, unleee fortoiadeu* BKt k« do»« n«t !•»• hiti oontrol
OT«r it. or t'a« rijxht te v»r«TWtit ti^<« k« plwi»»» ta «nter,
«n4 to requijr* ttny er all p«rson« to d«?art, aftor they h«tT«
oaeo ent ar«d»*
.AocoxdlngX/ «0 th« vdrdJlot «»• naniretrtl/ agAlaot tho
voie^t of iHt» «vl<titn<»t l^tt judgi.'.«ai vlll 1»« ]r«T«r»«d with m. flnl*
Ing of faot*
Grl^dy, ?« J., otid «^rrJLll, J», ooncwr*
tnv'r^
-a .U«<
•r-nrti n tin** l^.
^ 9» ,
#Tti»d X'f'-* '»criii ♦i»4'
^.' K,, • «!«,«
m'rU&tltfV
>Y*:i w
iIM^O
SOS * 20Sfit wimim ov vjm^
Itt find tiuA ^p^XMy XUn.'kfttJsi firadln, «»» ii«t <!••
■kytln I«7voa« for^ibl/ or a«aiiist hmx viXX lui 4ilXag«4 in her
fftst«sui^i df «lAiau
37 - 26539
\
imnm B. '^«)OLFAl?xecutrix of
tta« Zatate of Al^fred E. %'oolf
B*eeMied,
Appellee,
R. (JOTTLHtB,
A{^ll&rt.
PSAL Fx«« MOTIC IPAt. COUai
OP CHICAaO.
223 I.A. 646^
mi, JUSTICE '.^OHRILL TMLIYSKSD THB OPIHIOS 0? THK COUST.
Ilila ie an appeal from a Jtid/fment of the ^lunloiptal
court of Cliloago for I16S8.50 in fnyor of plaintiff, who Is ap-
pellee hare, &nd ui^nat defendant, who is the uppellant.
The stateiaent of elsda ollegea that plaintiff's cluim
ie for soney due upon a certain prcmiseory note executed by de*
fendant for the stm of 11500, dated Deceiiber 5, 1918. p&yablo
Januaxy 31, 1919, and delirered to plaintiff, i^o ie ths legbl
Owner thereof, and that there ie due plaintiff the sum of $1&00
with interest thereon fne^ the date of the note, & copy of which
1b attached to the etatemont of claia.
The original affidavit of aierito denied any inde: tednese
upon the note and uTorrod that said note was executed in donformi^
with a certain written agreement aliened by plaxntiff e»nd bearing tli.
■aaw date aa the note. This agreement is in the foza of a letter
from plaintiff to defendant and is aa followa:
"In considerution of your giring ne your note for fiftooa
hundred dollara ($1500,00) due Januarj' 31, 1919, I hereby a^reo
to accept the return of some raerchandiee which you purohmaed
from Alfred T.. Toolf Co. &n& should I sell Uila aerehtindise for
the saaie price plus any expenses and inf^rest before January 1st,
1919, I will return to you the fifteen hundred dollar note (tlSOO)
or giro you credit for prorata asouat if you instruct ie or my
ugent to sell to some one at a loss. If we cannot sell before
the let of JanuMiy, 1919, I sua to h&To the pririlege to sell to
the highest bidder for cash after receiving offers from « few
dealers and ai^y loss sustained by me in selling the portion un-
9i
\
«S8fts - re
X
V
--'" i .run xi««'ij. <. I" iij^.<.ji»o • cr«qpv airti -i
> I .«xt/ .
(on
*^" '.' • ■»<■
J t
•i llnm
%i
f
»**
-■'-
-«»i '
•Old la to be p(U,d by you to ae in cash as soon as sale is mttds.
The yardstjte sib inro-. ced by you and i&£i.r)ced by your ex»ai«er is
to be tm&r&nteed by you.
This a^reemert i& sirned in the presence of
Witness MJfmn K, '?'00iar.
The follow! tt<F; is a part of the above agreement.
If you cooperate with me or ray agent % buy a fixir por-
tion of these woolens for cash in Decenber I Ic^v© it to '^r. Oor-
man to decide upon extendin;r the period not to be liiiter than Jaoy.
3l8t, to oell to hi :he8t bidder."
The last paragraph of the original affidavit alleged a
failure of consider: tion by reason of the non-compliance of plaintiff
with the teriis of this agreement. On June 3, 1920, the last para-
graph of the affidavit of iterlts was stricken froa the files and d«>
fendant grtuited leave to amend within five days.
The last amended afflfavit of aerlte, filed on June 19,
1920, denies any inde'ttedness upon the note In qiuestion and alleges
that there was no consideration for said note. This affidavit was
stric)(en from the files by order of court and a uoton for leave te
file an amended affidavit of ?neritB denied. Thereupon Jud rnent by
default for want of an affidavit of merits «as entered a^^ainst de-
fendant on June 17, 1920, from «hieh this appeal was prsayed and al-
lowed. On Jiily 7, 1920, the appeal bond was presented and approved
by the court*
A petition to vacate ti^tis Judi?ment ^xnd an anended pe-
tition for the sane purpose were filed on June 30, 19S0, and July 9,
19;i!0, respectively. This petition was denied on July 17, 1920, for
the reaeon that the approval of the appeal bond deprived the trial
court of any Jurisdiction to consider the i^nended petition te vacals
or to enter ony further order In the ease. Te review this ruling
of the trial court a writ 0f error has been issued >n& is new pend-
ing in this eeturt as ease Bo. 26699, whieh has been eensolidated for
hearing with this e&se.
As we view the controversy, the only ^^uestion before us
for determination is whether or not the la«t sueendstf affidavit of
.•btm «i ttmm n* tr»OB •« tiBM% ul mt sf art
' l»d •! •! Ar»«
^ o.t
wrfT
Oil
a urn
m h9%*tU tlwBblVt* lsmiistt%9 axil 1« ifqarftfYA^ 'b*X M^f
<«ib fina aaXn cfd M»tl ««3(dit#« mw ajTi^Mi t« «iT«l»ni« mitt !• iCqjrrs
il bmtiuni^ ituttmmt
b^vai-i^iM. 'A{u» b»J'i*mviii m*>-0 >ifi»
.:f-
".01 nsijit
- -^df indi n—mw% miii
..^Yo^J-rT.-
!• tlyahiWrn fe»J»i'
j»ib ttl
narlts «!»•▼• aantlonsd, in connection with th&t portion of th«
original affidurlt of aeritet which was not otrloken fro« the
flloo, atatoA a good defenao to the action. Thla affidarit al-
leged want of eonaideratlon for the note and auat he oonaldered
hy Itaelf wltliout reference to the allogatlona of the former «.f-
fidaTlta, except that portion of the original affidarit which
waa not atrlcken. Undoubtedly an affidavit of «»rita is auffi-
cient if it eeta up a good defense to the whole of plaintiff a
clai» and specifiea the natmre of eueh defenae. Prl ndle ▼.
Sanders, 207 111, App, 99} Mgller r. ^'alenatey, 204 111. Ap-). 362,
Defendant is not ehli^ed to plead ev*derti»ry fucta in hie af-
fidarit. Shlweall T. Lehaian, 198 111. App, 29.
we are of the opinion that the last a-^ended affiderlt
of awrlta, alleging a want of consideration for the note, toeet>ier
with that oortion of the original affidavit not atrlcen, atated
a good defense, (iffegoti&hle lastrument h&wu H. S, ohap. 98, sec.
28), and that the court erred in atriking the aaae from the filea.
It la therefore unneeeaaary for ua to consider other (iueationa die-
euaasd In the brief a of oounael .
The judgment of the Municipal court la reveraed and
the cauae roiaanded.
HIVBSBSD ASH HBtAKOBB,
Oridley, P. J., and Bamea, J., concur.
, .1
:».\.^ ./
t
. t© aKiJ-
91 •Stf4M> Mit
»U»
M - 268M \
\
\
immS B, *OOEF;\ Sxeoutrix of ti
latAto of Alfred E. Woolf. Dodlased,
t)durend8mt in Sraror, )
V3. \ / )
PlaiAtlff in/Rrror. )
OF CJIICA5U.
. / 22 3I.A. 646^
This e&a« is coneolldated for heariiu; witb e«.8e Ho.
26559 in vbich &n opinion has !>««« filed on this d&te. The order
vr^vvinit «<^<i rem&ndins the former e»se renders the present pro-
eeeding unnecessary. Therefore ve shall not ooneider in dotail
the Huestions involTed herein, which involye the ruXiiig of the
tri&l court upon a petition to Tbcute the jud^ent n^leh has beem
rvTersed by the opinion In cuoe Ko. 26539.
The writ of error is dismissed.
Oridley, ', J., and Bftmee, J., concur.
TT-:?
115
\
^•Mt^jlr
t«8it - M
oJl#a«i/... a 4
•mc«m
8f« -^
ARTlRm O, LOKS
App«ll«e»
▼n* } VtniXCZPAL COimT
, OF CHICACK), ^
J, D. 5HAIF0RD, l^fi^r^T.'l AAfi^
Appellant. $2 2 3 i'^* t) ^ O
MR. JUSTXGH MORRILL DBLIVBAKD THE OPUflOK OP I'HB COUHX.
Flftintiff brought milt la the Itunlelpal Court af
Chleago t« reeoTsr oeNnmlBslons alleged to ^ duft hin upan tha
aala of certain all property owned l»y <Sef«ndfJnt. There waa
a trial by the court wlthnut a jury, resulting la a finding
and judenent for |25*318 In favor of plaintiff, iriia la
appellee here.
JPlaltttlff*8 qIaIm for theae eaBSil8»lonB Is hased
upon the following letter, dnted May 12. 1917. frm drfendioit
to plaintiff:
"la the oTent that I make a sale of aiy ref inery^
trnk cars, die i;,riba ting etatlans. oil wells and
equliMient to the B&rnett Oil ft Qaa Co.. for $750,000
under a contract which shall provide for final pay>
ment within two years fro» i'ay vlOth. 1917. I, or in
case of my death, ny legal representati-Tes. will pay
you a commission of three por cent en the ceid sale
price, for your seirrices aa the broker in the deal,
to be paid to you in cash ^epeTcr I ehnll ha^ve _
received fiill pajwtont for said property and paas
title . X ^111 advise you of the payaenta so aade."
The evidence shows that plaintiff waa the procuring
oaase of the aule. He brought the parties together. The sale
iFfts Made to the Barnett Oil and Gas Conpany en or abnut Kay
12. 1917, for the sun of "yT&O.OOO. payable la three Instalmenta
of $350,000 each, on January 1. 1918, July 1. 1918 and Jnnuary
1, 1919. respectively, evidenced by the notes of the purchaaer
for these aaounts. Afterwards aone pajnsente were Made on these
aetes and soae oaah advances were made by defendant to pur*
ehaser. so that la January, 1910, the Barnett Oil * Oas CoKpaajr
9f<
UUSTHk
^#■6 ./i,I -^ooj
• ffl«XIfHr«A
.QJIOftARe
• tliV8Q iXT V) lOXKi^o SHZ Q:s.mviiii: d^ntiox f^iiuVl .xx
9di n<»f0 «lir •tf^ Mf •! bt9i»XX« •fiolaBlmMO X9r—% •« tiaMiie
BOlJbrtl^ « nl JMU/Xmvn ,^tirt 0 tiNirUXv «tu»» •!«# 'jtf Xitia* a
•X ftdir .tTtXtfaloXn 1« \»r«l «1 tXS.asf ir.1 ^•^*»»t *«•
.•imi ••XXeqfs
Miftntf al aiioiiisXiwoe mmU i«1: slAXt «M'kX4Bi«X^
£akiMi»tfll> wn^ .rxer . ' M t«#j(b ,ftt%l iuilv»XX«1 ftifi '>a^t.>
:lUlfiX«X« t
mXf^^^'^^'^ XfB le •X.«»ri a "ilaiii * . --. - vi^i. v* a.d^ «X*
Jina aXXMr Xlo •<ijioil«i« aai^iR^iiJeXI) .tuM <Ati
000,OJir$ lat ..A^ eaCt A X19 ti9tn»tL «lfj A^ ^fl«i«|Xli»«
w^«q iMMt\ tttl •f>lv«i4 XiAifa itelifv t»«v#a«o « i»f»R*
iiX to .^ ":t .rfio*: x«> 'Mnl - » owi nlMitw *«••
X«f XXi> JcMrxQvn Ins* fi>ek >:« "^^ ••^^
•X«« b la tfff«9 TffH 9^. tXaalMfcoo m crcx
tlM%b ally Bi iMlaitf aifl aa taaX-rts* xtM% tat «aait«
'••Mil «■ araaafaf ««# !• ;yn»tlvft« XX i ..^^_
lalTMaaTq aif# aav 1t'llj«il«X<[ fidi rrftiia avnaJkXTa ai(T
•Xa« adT .laitf^a^e^ fiftmq axfi iiiiacxu mK .aXiui atfi !• acaao
tan t>/^tf« ta «• TJM««i3 aaO ft«a XiO ##airLaff arf^ vJ •kmm mm
miaitmlMUtti vatrft ni •I4m%»9 ,000,0«rf! la ma aitl val .rxtl «fX
jrtnmutX htm HI9X ,1 xXtfl ,MfX .X tmmuI >• •ifB«a fOO.OCtt ta
taaaifaiiftr ac(# ta aa«a« arfl x^ baaaaMva «x^arl#9a<{ar« .VXOi .X
aaadt aa •bmm •tww •inmttimi a^a aivavnatV .aJRoAna aaaiCt 1M)
••xwf •< im*hm»\»k xt aftaa anaa aaanaTia iCaaa «aaa kn» aa#a«
•8*
a.-a> indftbts'i to defendant in the bum of $604,000 . At that tine
a eettXement waa auide between defendant and the Barnett Oil *
9aa CoMffimy, whereby the three notes of i|2IK),000 each were
surrendered to aald ooapany by defendnnt* who accepted new no toe
of the JBarnett Oil k O&s Company for the entire balance then
unpaid, aaounting to i|tf04,000, and thereupon conTeyed tho
property to the purchaser, niese notes were secured by a trust
deed upon the property mentioned and also a second mcrtgai^
upon property in Kentucky, the description of i^inh is not fur*
nished. These facte are undisputed except that there is ooao
controversy so to the Rxaet date of the original noten for
$250,000 each.
The record does net show tho number, date, amount or
date of maturity of the noten secured by the trust deed or
mortgai^e of January, 19ia, although defendant thinks there were
thirty-six of them. iJefendant teotifiod that the settlement of
January, 1191S, wae made necessary on ao^ount of the inability
of the Bfirnett Oil Jk Oan Compimy to meet its obligations, whieh
is not iiepnted by plaintiff, the record is not clear as to
what paynonta were made upon the new notes givt^n in conn^^otion
with the settletQK^nt of jRnuary, 1918. The only evidenoe as
to their final disposition is contained in the teBtimony of
defendant, who says thet he trannf erred all of his interest in
these notns. Tho date, tem» nnd conditions of the transfert
as well Hti the name of the tranaforoo, are not mentioned, la
propoeitions of Ijiw or fact wtrre sulaoitted to the trial eourt
and none wore lield or refused.
Appell&nt contend {! th^t appellee is not entitled to
tho eossission mentioned in the letter of Kay 13, 1917, for
the reaaon that dsfendant has net receired full pajRvent for
tho property, it beini; admitted thnt ho has passed the title
«t-
^,^t ,••#«« XJUii»iYo adi lo »#«Jb Amoc* mIJ %i mi x**»ir«t Strati
•inr aiMlialiiiii^ AilvJmetab itj^tHuUJLM «8X0X •x'««<*»*^ '^« vnKa^tMi
X^liicfMil fMli V #iittOiro« 00 x'lji*"*^*^ •Jm»« aMT ,(Uei «rMMBUll
Hoiifir ,«iii9Uj^slX^4 all tf9tfM w) T.Rft^ni^'^ t«ff ^ XIO iitimAi! Mf# !•
•i a« Ti^ftlb iijr. si b^iKiai ftiQ be^muli) ,»e« al
a*l^- ijl as/ac vsq vti nmtu »b«ji •tmr a^nnancaq #«ffa
•a ••nttblira xX«« vitT »$t^l •y?.«(inf^1 lo ^anartlJ-fM •!(; ditm
lo ^iio«lJrv!a^ •» ^nl0in«9 ml nol^laaqftiJb Lnnlt ilocfi ai
ml Un^iul mU It XX« Amatamavi ad #*tf4 ti^M aiftr ^Siubtftmk
t%0\mmM^i wii lo |i««l#jtX>aoo btut «anai .o^aA oifr .oatfoa a^wgi
M .btaol#«o« ^aa rrn .•otalnnai^ ai(^ ta mmi aiU «a XXaa ac
«iitfo» laiii aill a# Mtfiiai^ini wia^ #oat t* «m£ la acat^iaofAif
.^•^auln to>Xfi( avav t9«9 ^a
a^ jbn.'XJco ;oc ni ooxxau^A iiitf4 ^tea^aoa tsaiXaQqA
^•1, 4^191 .S^ van M «»^'*X •^ al bvm^fifm miU99tmm$9 iM
lal twmi9% XX»t frarlaaai iaa aaK i«i»Jkii9la» ^«iU aeaan aiCi
mUli mMM ^•mmmm mMd. md MMdi •^-^■^•^-^ --' •> ^-mgnmrnnia mdi
•»•
thereto* It la urgtd ¥y appellant that the aeoeptanee •t tlM
new notes of the Barnett Oil lb 8ae Camptaxy in Jaimary» 19X8,
In aettleoient of JLto existing indohtednoBa for the halanee duo
oa the orifi-laaX notes and for adranoee aade hy d<»fendant did
aot eonstitute parent of the original notes and did not render
plainiilfr's eiais) for oornissions due and payable.
Zt has been held repeatedly that the aeceptanoe by a
creditor of notes of his debtor in lieu or in extension of
feraer not«?e does not neoeeiarily constitute paynont of tho
fonaer notes, (wilhela v. :: ohaidt^ 84 111.* 183; ^alsh ▼•
Lennon. 98 111. 27), bat It is equally well octtled that tint
giving of a new note accompanied by the aurrender of the old
note la priaa f naie^ paywent of the orif^inal debt (lEfigft. ▼•
Esttite of Cttnningham, 267 Hi. S76; Yatea t. Valentine. 71
111., 643.} 'whether or not there wus a oatisfuction of the
old dfibt depends upon the intention of the parties and is a
question for the ^ury to rtetensine. Boulter ▼. Jdiet Hat.
Bank. 295 111., 594; Janaen ▼. ££4Syfea2« ^-^ HI.. 4fi8,
A fair eonetniction of the agreejient contained la
the I<?tter nf 'ay 12, 1917, intlloetes t*»t It wss the int«»ntioB
of defenlfint not to oonrey the property until payrent therefor
had been aade in full nne. that passing of the title should bo
dependent upon such payeent. i%fends»Bt ssye he so understood
the agreement. It is adnitted th&t defendeat oonToyed sad
passed title to the property to the Burnett Oil it Qes Compeny
in Jr-nutury, 191B, In con8id{>rr<tion of a settlement of the
existing Indebtedness of said ooapaay, whioh must be presuaed
to h»re been satisf i otery to defendant. la the absence of any
proof of the contrary intention of the parties, we are of the
opinion tht.t the notes which dofcndsat then receired, coupled
with the conTcyance of the property which he then sade, Indieato
^.
,dX«X «5n«'A«^ A^ xa««B»5 ••# « Ilo «#«ii9*C aiit 1* «fl»ir«A «»«
Mft •oaai^tf 9jU «0t ■•Mil>»#«reJMii inl^«lx* vtl Y« /a»«»ia#«« nl
«»tetY i^a bik Um «9«m l««iiW» mlt 1» tirMic«« •#ifil#«itM tM
• •Xtf«t«< ft«» •!* •Jr*ia«Jtv«eti ^•'^ «l«io «*l\l«ftl«ft
to naivanlxs nt le otXi al TaJ(f•'^ aid 1» ••tma ttt nalTibaire
•▼ tf«Xf>7 ;«8X ,.XXX W V «r»rtXi^r> .aWow «a*ircl
•CI iadll btX^fta XXair xtLatip* nt 9k iw« .(TC .XXI «• flnWltll
ftXo tifi t# T^AaavttfK imI^ t^ b»l0i»<t«i>«O0 aiaa w«#i « l^ a^^lvlt
• ▼ i£122£) ^^*^ Xaialdi^o ait4 la iaa«9nEMr: alo^l aat'iq aJL a^m
XT .'»n^Jna.('?V .▼ wytfgY ;«S"'^ .XXI T« .fiHatlmnMO la »ia#at
ail^ la ffal#a«l«l^a« a ttuNt rxaii» ^^« ta varflaj(t)r (.09 4«llX
s al Ma cai^^^i «d;i 1a mllaaiai atf^ %tnu a&tiaqab itfaA fkte
*iti£ > a^Xol .▼ ^ffiXflOg . anion alaH vi ^ia( a>f;f tal nallaaap
.8d> «.XXI tffX TftrtflfttT^ -^ j[|.»*nc;| ;»«/r ,.XXI BCS. «|n£
fli eaclalnae jrMrnwr;!^* atf^ In tmlio'j\i^nt^ il»l A
flaltnaMi wtTl ikttv ^t t«»taM»aX .fXtl «8X t«^^» ta##aX «M^
^•Irtaili ^Mi'xaf XlJiTV x*^^'^^'^^ *^' t*v^x** i^ '•* tftakoalaft la
atf AX«ie«i aXtlt aKiT la Sfft*a«4 ^"^^ ^<« XX0I nl •»«« iraW li«if
baa#aTabMii aa aif rt««* fAAbnaln'J .tiiaaix'Q '^^^'^ tnc« iRabn»f#ib
ftoa ftat*^A09 fjM^aalal^ laifi lt«iitafta al it .Ifnaaaatta «itf«
XM««aO aaO A XIO «#aai«t aif» at t^a<ian^ a^ ni %ltii JtaatAf
•ffi Ic litaaaXilaa « ^a aaAlvt^wftianaa nl ,«X4X •t'xa'KMV «1
^AHMaxq atf i«m( ilalrta «ts<ViM liiaa la aaa«A«#tftbnl ^Allaiva
Xoa 1* taaaatfa it» at . ^nafuiala* b# \«aia^Wt.>aa ffaatf arar^l a4
mO la ava a«r .aalitat aift la aoAinaifd v**^^*'*'' o'*^ ^* laavf
JiaX^iiaa ,ftt*Tla9rt aatfi H»teat»l» AXila aal-aa «U t«A> Kaiai^a
ataal^ni aa&av a»rf# atf ilaltfv xti*fo«l a4^ lo ftanataTtfaa atft :(llv
that »ftl4 iMt«« aoHivi%ut«d auoh a pajnont ftf tlM eri^laal
debt aa to render d*fen>1tmt lialole for the e<Uffini»alen« elAia«dl
by pX&lntlff . This is enpeclHlly true In Tiew of the faot
that dtir'-^ndrmt, vhe teatiflRd on behalf of plaintiff, as well
aa his own behalf, fnlled to dieolosn either the exact emoiint
of pajntcenta aade an t)te nnten given Jln Jz»nu«Ty, 1910* or tha
oanaidfiratien receivod by hlK for their transfer.
The f indiatc and ^udflsiant of the trial court were
justified by the law And eTldcnea; therefore the jvd^eat of
the Ifualoipal Court Is affimad*
Crldley, V, jr.» and Br,rnes* J*., concur*
•>-
I
«<n9 aJL aiiCT 'C#
tt tmmmiif*v\ —'■' — f''* — '"'* r^-KiBblT* bar i»»X Mft x^ ;.^*.i ..»,
4M ^ 26576
\
OAKLiub »0?0R CAR Cq^VAMT,
» eerpviration*
App«ll«c«
\
lT». / } HUHICIPAL COUFir
AFF&AL TROlt
V
ft eerporfxtion
App«llant«
OF CHIC.^0.
] ^ '^ '1
y ■■■'■■■: t . /-%, ^ 1 i '-i: 1 ; '
MR. ^STIC!": lR)R!iXLL DlLXVXHStD tWl OPIWIOH Of TRS COURT.
Flaintiffa v^o it ftppclle«> here, brought cm »otlen
of repXvTlB to detentine its rii^t to tho jpooeoosioa of •
oertain nutonnbile . ¥ii«r« wee a trial before the court
without a jury, retmlting in 'a finding of the right of
property in plaintiff and asReoaing plaintiff dcoaages at tho
sua of |69C. JudigMont was entered upon the finding and an
ftppeal prayttd and allowed, A roTeraal io anught upon tho
f round that the Judgment io oontrftry to the law tmd tho
eridenoe and that the diwagAa were exeeoi^iwo*
A etateaient of claiB wee filed by plaintiff vhioh
allegeo in oubstanoe that on Decjinber 51, 1017, defendant
wrongfully took the property of plaintiff, conaibting of one
Xodel A4B Oakland limoueine autfMBobile with complete e<;uipment
and unjustly (detained the atoBO* the effideTit of merita denies
these al legations and allegea that the autonobile in queation
waa tho property of defendant and allegea that plaintiff ua*
lawfully took posneasjion of the aomo on January 17, 1918,
¥ho OTidoneo showa thtsit there had been Bono telephone
cenTeraationa betwoea tho aauiatant general nanagor of tho
plaintiff and one finrney Flynn repreaeating the defendant, in
whieh the foraer had told the latter thrt the oar waa ready
for dttliTery and roqueatlng Kr. Flyan to ccwe down and get it
ftW^
J
(
f$mO JA'll'^^M'*:!
I
,TVa4V1
0
•
•«I«A .
V
r
\
.«T
'
.-> «ol««*««o(| •rf^ 9^ i^i*! ''tl oaiflr:9tf»t o4 «lf»Xtrt Iff
Wtti II4M|« Mj^iros St i^»^«T9ii A .£iMr«£jU biiA bt^Bicq X««qq«
%dt hum w«i mU «« xtnxinm* «i tfAM^^irt ciil i«iU bfljioYi
#a<i&n»t«k .VXVX ,X€ t94tm9^t>l no #m(^ MiuilttfiM al ••a*XX«
Mto 1o »nliait««e «lllliit*X9 to x^''*4v^ •f<^ <••<* t^ii^SAOtw
^Mflllwp* •^•X<Ta»o tf^iv •XltfMfk^Mi MXaMiaX ba«i)C«0 <»f XsbolC
••l««fc •#!«•« left JlTaJ^illa t0ft .MM* ufl f«niAtftft xXl««UUr *«i
•SM l^i^niaXQ ^*i(' ••i«iXii baa iiMfe«»l»!> !• x'i*<'4»iq %A$ •««
• bXtfi ,ri x'taonal m ••»• tif^ 1» «olaa«n*»q jfooi x-^Xi/twaX
■1 ,iaab«»ltft •Ai %tktSu9%v%VL^t een(Xf x«"*'*'l *•* **"> tlllaiaXf
Xi^an •«r«r fat etfj -^i^aX •«# M*4 hAtf TMnsl ocU il»iff»
#1 tw% tea nvab mmm> oi na%f!^ ,t% i»fiie«*araY ^aa t'lvrlXab vat
.a.
•Bd hrlag with hia $1390.91 in pajnoeat therefor. ¥t , Fl^mn
replied thnt he wxta r«ry buoy and msked the asslst&nt manager
te deliver the oar, which the letter Agreed to do, elthough
It wee oentrc^ry to the rules of hie eonpaay to deliver a oor
without paTinent therefor. The ABalntnnt nnnngcr teld Plynn
that he would heve the eer delivered by e eeleemHn neaed
Jaokeoa* through whom It hcd heea bought. Jeokeon'e teatlmoay
ehove thisst he delivered the cer ivt the Vlynn Auto Llvrry, He
wee Accompanied by e mechanic who drove the oar. Upon tihelr
Hrrlvsl Wr. Flynn offered hl« a cheek for ebout $1100 in pay-
stent for the oart whioh ha declined to neoept. The ear wae
then Inelde the 71yan garage. Jnckeon told Plynn th»t he would
be obliged to take the ear back to plaintiff 'e plr>oe of bucsinoeo
if ho eould not get the paynent which he had been directed to
eolleot. He attempted to get Into the oar and drive It from
the garage but was forcibly prevented from so doing by the agent*
aiid employes of defendunt. /vfterwarde he T/ent to the garage with
the bailiff who had the replevin writ and took the ear away uader
the protection of the bailiff* who kept the servants of the JKlyaa
Company from forcibly preventing its removal. This evidence is
ttBdieputed except that there is soma eoatroversy as to whether
or not actual vloleaoe was used or threatened en the oecasloas
mentioned.
It appears frma d«fendaat*B testimony that oa December
11» 1917, defendant had entered an order with plaintiff for the
purcthaoe of four Model B Oakland limouBlnes for a total oonsid*
oration of $6860. Certain dcciuctions were made from the rurchas*
prloe on account of an allowanoe for an Oakland roadster and
oertaln disoounte, leaving a net o^sh payment to be made of the
sum of ^5599 .64. This document further provided that the pur-
ohaeer should pay for the oars wlthla ten days after notice
•••
mmtlt .tM ,%9t9^tU fiiM^yt ttJt l«.f«)e<t tan Htkw loiirtf hm
x^^tuut immi9l»»' 9d9 kwdmo hew x^i^ \ ^a(<«' i^oiXii^Y
lflM>Vfii« ,9Jk •# *••«»« t»^tfli »r^i rfOlliV .Til* aiU IVTlittA •!
Tito • n!*Ti£*i» •# -^Mi^cM AM ^« ««lir( Ml-' -iJfl«»o a«v tl
VImM aoftr .TAO vifi »TViJb Mfw 9JJtaif»*a a x^ b^kam^mt>09m iAW
•16«« n^ OOXil tut^^M i«l il»«Jo « Hid bM*lle aK%Jit ,iH ImrltXA
•flw ta» aiCt .#^«oo« ei b»niXtt«J^ od ifoirfv ,t«» mCI 9«1 itfit
JkXoBv Mf #«tfi kiteXY hltkS a»fulnr.l ••ia5«9 lurcX^ <'«^rfi «Al9fli {VMli
•BMrl«uif )o e^'X? t'^tiiniivX^ 6i yimtf *iii» 9/f^ Ml".? r. 'siXcTo ttf
04 b^^onlft itAOtf bAi( Off cfolKw ttfiw,a*i fuif iw^ '?) out 11
(Bonl II ovlifr teo T«o oxfi e.^nl i^ss o^ h«^4«n '(or-
•ia«»o ftWl- X* 1*1 0^ •• aonl i»o#aoY0Tq yXtfJldtol arw .^
diiw otjrtM Mf'^ *^ ^**v •<< oMinniillA .taaftiiio)ob lo ooxaXqao bn«
<xofe«ar x*^* 7«»> <N(1 aieet ht»m iliv alv«»Xq«-s ohl b«f( qi<» ''illXlotf oiil
orcn •di to Ot^oATrroo orf^ jqoil od» ,tliXl»<< f»iU lo Aol(^>•trK9 9dS
mi ooBoblTO iilffT ,lMyom*\ »it %al:fa9r9'g^ xidlot9'\ mtnt \ttmqimO
votfioifw oi tea x*^*^*'^^n<«3 oino« «i otvrf^ lacfi ^Tfooxa Dsitfqslbav
Mioioadoo uli no baiia^avtiii to ftoov mmrn ooftaXolt laji^oa #Mi Tt
• baft^ilffoa
■xttfsooaa ao i'a4'U xaO"Xis»i a*#aatn3l9& af»it aTaaqq^o IX
Otfl Tol imcXiilq «riiv ToMO a« h»Ta««ia b«r( ianhaalaft ,VX9X ,11
•feXo«ao Xaioi a toI aaalaiMiiilX hnaXsiad C loboV too) \n ooaitoniKi
MMUfttMv oeU MOTli afcan n»« aflalio«l^»h nXaltoO .OtSftI )o moI^oto
kttm TO#a&«eT ftoLo/iUo fia toI odoaMroXia oa lo ^aircotia tfo aotT«
orfl 1«» aftaai otf ol leMaRCM ^l*«t> #*• a inJhra^X ,b^JUfOoall> iUjiItoo
•T«« oiCi laid fto*rroT« Torf#n«i imtumt nlclT .♦••e«<a| to am
•Sfliaa -ralla axnt nnJ aldikrr aTas »rf.} TOl x^V bXtrnifa ftadm
-3-
that th« enra trare raady fer ^alirery and thnt f«i^rc t0 d« ••
should be e breach of th* ft4p*e«n«nt} that la oatie of vudh lrr«a«h
ths seller nlsht retain as llnuiastad daaa^ss th« cash ^dcpssltsA
bj It as j^art pa^nssat* It further proYid^d th»t If lastead of
a^Jcla^ A cash deposit the huyer should dollrer to th« seller a
vsed ear, in thit STent, In case of failure of the purehassr
to pay within said ten dsya the cnr so dt>lly)!>r«d to the seller
ohould bo returned on payr.ent hj the p>ureh<aser of fSOC as
liquidated damages for n hreadt) sf the contraot, together with
expenses the hujrer sti^t have Incurred in repnlrlni!, f<elllng»
adT^rtlalng. storing and Insuring the said used oar. It appears
frcK* thfi doourtent In tpestloa that a oertala Oakland roadster
wau dellrered hy def entrant to plsiintiff In part payaent an the
purshasff. Thin doouaent wr» signed by the Flynn Auto Ll-very,
hat does* net %pv<9ar to have heen signed and aoeefted by aay
offlo«r of plaintiff. It irill \e noted thf*t the cash pajneat
of $1390.91 deaandf-d by plaintiff for the nutomoblle inrolTsd
heroin «ms nne-fourth of this total ORSh payment spnolfled la
this d9ou?nent.
It aeeaa to bo the theory of defendant that this
lection Is « »ttlt b»i»ed upon the aboTn mentioned document or a
breach of Ite terns and that the dimnga*. If any, which plaia*
tiff fun reooTor au»t be United to #S00, the ll(\ulde<ted dMtagoa
therein specified. Thl« theory Is untenable. The nctlon la a
replevin t^it to try the right of poseeseion of the auteiRObllo
in question and to determine the daaagos. If any* sustained by
plaintiff by reason of the detention of the ts^utaaobllo by
defendant. This Issue Is wholly Independent of the teraa
of the offer to purohsse above mentioned. She finding of the
trial court thj^t plaintiff waa entitled to the possession of
the a«itomoblle In qEueetlon is sustained by the prcpondertsnoe of
M 9k »l itUll
•M owe it» ^* '
.ija«JV(«pq #a99 e« #i %^
■■*0t ^Or.
bsTXoviri •ii<f««D^tK oi<;' :jrnJUiX« X^ '
t« MAatvMiA^^vt ftifi xff ib<»«iit«
ai i;ci : .!'u, n;
-4-
th« eridenee* and therefore eennot 1»e dlHtttrb«d*
It in a1«o contended that th« d?>!r.Ag«)a ewsrded plRltt->
tiff ar« exoessive and should 'o« lialt«d to the sun of d'^OOa
tho WBouat of unlliiuldatnd dan&get) »p«olfled In the Mgro«>
■iont of Deoeaber II* 1917. ab already i^tated, the proTislont
of tho «upp«tte'd citntrnet of that df>t« do not control In any way
the deoloion of the iSBues involTed in this case. The evidenee
IndloateB that during the tine the cnr w&e in the poBseesion of
defendant it h»d been daa&ged and its vntlue depreciated eo that
ite Tolue ftt the tiiae it \fa8 taken under the replevin writ «»«
between seven and eight hundred dollMra* Thie ovidcnoe is
prttOtionlly undisputed. It is therefore apparent th»t the
Ju<l(^«;nt of th«< trial court in aaaeaaing the dasages at the mm
•f ^90 VftO eu stained by the evidence* v?e are not Juotified in
disturbing the judgKont of the trieil court unlese th« ocuse lo
ole&rly agAinst the weight of Uie evidenee. Qgilvie v. Copr.laod.
145 111. 96. It is well aettled that ooBpenarition for any
actual injury to pr >perty wrongfully taken ie one of the element •
of deMfige whioh way be aeseeaed againet the defendant by a
•ueeeseful plaintiff in a replevin euit. fhis iniludee not only
oo*i»&a£iuvion for any d«^terior«ition in the value of the goods
replevied Ahile they were in the hande of t.he defendnnt, Viut
&l80 fo«* tiice lobl and «:itpen@ea incurred by plaintiff in r^oov*
ering the arm&, flrennan v. ^;hinkle . d9 Ill«, 604; Moi^nouj^^
V. Re illy « 151 111. App. ti^'i,
'like judVMint of the Municipal Court ie affimed.
Sridley* :?. J., and Qsrnau, /•» oonour*
•.aiaX« km^Umm ataMiA* siCsr iMtt fr»M»t«*o *•!« ml ri
•••ffl t« aiM Mil 04 A^tlAlI #« fUu^Om k»M •viamwmw •tm t%Mt
XMT YiM ai Xn^laeo i«c •» 9tti» t»dt ^» ^6ffic#iio» iHMiMrQM •di la
lo «ol««Mif«« •di aX a«v rso aiU tmli mU tuliiifr 4«4i ••^aaiUid
imu «a ika#«Aen««A aaXsv ati turn »«»aflw6 aaatf teii VI ^«sA«*lak
a«v 41i» a^r»i«a^ a4^ «»lMiu «»iC«;r a^v II aaUt aiU 4a atfXat a^l
eJt •o0oJ»iY!> alif'X •atAlXftJft t>9iftftfinf ^rijila ftm amy— AttmrjMf
mm •At itk a»]|a«i* adi aKltaaaiiA oi Irtawo XAiTt *cLS le l|i«aiM|
ml Musa «M# aaaXiui ttiu«>» LmJtxt Ml J \« liwiliw^ #<(4 anXtftv^oiik
4MHiHHfi. *'*' *^f**Q •tt»a»btva aifj to lifftlav aiU «aiil«i^ xixmmlM
a^SMaaiv 9M t# an* al tatbU xSJitfi^tMnM xtxfi%x^r% m ^«»U>i Sjky4»*
m rrf iaabMalak aittf i^aiv^ i^aaaaaa atf x*« 4aiAi aa««aA !•
i|ia4» IttK o»i>ifiratl bAjR .^Imi iUvalqav n ni Itii^aiaXt IiAkaaaana
a^ei «i9 Xp auUv aitfj^ Hi ii«Jlii«rrel7[a4»A icna t*\ aol. -:>
#ifi( ,9MahiNia,loi» aiCi ^o aJtiutfC aAir «i aisw \acU aXJtila it^^'
•Mil W^ftA .J.Xi It
•Xittanll^i ai ^<uioO jUTi;rJtnt4Kt aift )o laanat^oL Arff
.(<;'«} ■
• luaaaa t*^« .aaanuti ui>. .... •t|alJbi«C
54 - 2«6a7 / '';:J.,. 'J (J^
PAOB J. THIBOOTAIK,
\ Appelle
T8.
J0S3BI>R A. nk'9BTt^WJSt'L,i
\ AppdPllant.
^/,j-
J-PTAL TICK MOTICTPAL COURT
23 I.A. 647''
MR. JUSTTCIS UOSRILL Tmi.Vmmi) THIS OPISION 0? TH8 COURT.
Plaintiff, who is ap;>«l.lee h«ere, on NoT<mber 20, 1920,
)»rou£ht «n action of forelble dtt&iiner efre-inst apr>«ll«tnt to recorar
p«ss«a8loa of « en« story frejae building lae«.ted upon the r^&r of
the T»«&nt lot lamed lately BOutb of and a^ljoining a brick building
located at 4856 Broadway, in tb® city of Chicago, used b^; defaridant
ai a laundry. The ease wae tried bofons the court und » jury. At
tha close of al"" the testtnaoay th« court inatrwcted the ^iwri' to
return a rardict fi^.din.^ defenlant jfuH^ of unlawfully iiith}ioldinc
the pre?8iB08 in ^uest on. This rerdiot was returj^ed and jtidRcient
entare.l thereon, froa which tfeio aypeal ia prosecuted.
The evidence ehows th^it dafendant went int* posseasiea
of the »remlaea under am oral agreeaeat with ];ilaintlff which was
the result of u converaation between the^ en February 17, 191?.
The tenancy waa terminated en 9oTe*sber 17, 1920, by a tiiirty day
notice, expiring on that date, ^^iven by the ^'s-ir.tiff for that
ptiirpose,
Tt is contended by iippellant that the leasing :!.aa for
aa i!?f?df;nite poriod and that defendant ^aa entitled to rerbain
poast-asion of the premiaea and uae the aujna &a Xonw, is^s he deair«d
to do 80 or until plaintiff deaired to build upon the pre^niaea.
This (JuLleged agrecnent If made would hawe been in violation of the
statute of frauda and apparently would have created a leaas «hleh
might hare been in perpetuity. Undt^r the atatute of frauda tha
J
TKir* -WF ?<©f'
T^
jas. ft;l# ^cffoe lit* <ia^ v'
1.;: ji^- ji-
,Ba«JlKe-. , „vh.. — -. ..~ 4 -.- - ^. ■• - ««
le&a* vaa not good for orcr on« ytntv c<.n& it was properly eonstrued
1»3r thtt oourt to bo a leaoe fro'i ntontli to month. The iille-od &i;roo-
IMat eould not furnloh tb« b.^sia of a^ defenso to thti ftotion.
Vheolar t. ^rankenthal. 78 Til. 124; Hollitor y. 0. T* Thoa Van
company. 118 111, App., 293} Hador T. Huffaen, 125 111, App, 554,
The tenancy from aontb to mouth vae tarsi ina ted by the thirty day
notice giren to the lamtlord, Crelghton v. '^w.adere. 85 111.. 543.
The judgment of the Municipal court i« affiriaed,
aridley, p. J., »vnd Bamee, J., concur.
.CM Off
.t«
v>,
7i - 26727
EA.RRY BLOODi a Minor,
RITA BLOOD, Y*^* ^^•^^ ?r#end,
i^aintiff i/^ terror.
SSROR TO CI?«?TTIT COURT
) OF COOK CODSTV.
CQVStdlSm COH^mr, # corporation .-^k) ^ -t- « -X
D^findai* in Srror. ^2*3 I. A. 6 4 7
SIR. JirSTICB KOHRILL USLIYKSSP THS OPIHIOM OF fHI COURT.
The deel&ratloa In this «&•• contains three eountt.
In the firet count it ie alleged that the defendant earelesely,
nesligently and improperly operated its truck eo that plaintiff
was etruek by it amd suffered serious injuries as 8)[.^oified there-
in. The second count chari!;e8 failure to sound a horn or gire ether
warning of the truck's approach. The third count ch<^rge8 excessive
speed in opexvtin^ the truck along ^euth Park avenue und throujj;]! a
clonely built up reside <ce sect! en of Chicago. The accident oc-
curred OB December 8, 1913, at or near the Intersection of 3outh
Park arenue and Twenty-fourth street in said city, ileas of the
general issue and non-ownership und operation were filed. There
was a trial before the eourt and jury. At the close of the plain-
tiff *b t«t»tXmonj the oourt instructed the ^Mry to return a yerdiei
finding defendant not ^llty, which wae done, notion for » n«v
trial was overruled and judgment entered on the verdict. A re-
versal of that judipient is sow^ht upen the j^reund that the evi-
dence on the part Of plaintiff taken aa true i^d cenBidered moot
f&vorably for hiai, with all Just inferences to be drawn therefrea,
aade out a prima facie c&se. The victim of the aecident %«• a
child twe years and ten months of a^it and therefore i.t is adaitted
that plaintiff cannot be charged with eontri utory negllirenoe and
that the neglis;enee, if any, of its parents cannot be attributed
\
ttT»S
T>
X
*^a .1
Atis oa iotn^ a#i ksl^iaqa xJ^i^Q^OQ^'i^ >>«« xXi' --*;Ui»«a
t Hm fioltulat tm^ll— bmfWi' --litf tutm
3ia« •9'^al^laait qa j iia xXaaoXa
tit^o IV. i« ,CI€1 ,8 vatfowoaQ «o Wnim
' ^^t ... . ,. — ,..., i,. ^uirt^a tUtv\'Xitntntf bum mmefra Hxj^
^ »di la •9*Iii -u-f.i Im .tvuL ted ^%»oa nris aialaii lali^ « a«v
#9iMav . fri^'j'i's -; , rd# fta^otnt#«aJl ^voo mO y^omi$Bt^t m^Wli
»9^ .sf?o!) aaw rfoidw .^fXlim ia« ^oaJmalaft r^xi:.')'':^
-•^ A .*?»' ^nnlna tnaa^bv^ hnn ^a/tniOTC r j
*>tv" ■■'-f rtaqv tiC^aa «i ^aafftfeirL o iMt^mr
bmr*blf »inl a« netful lll^niAC^ ta #y«i adt aa aaaiaA
.Mtavla-i. < •ananalal laart 1 ^ T^tfavaTJ*!
:ifo afeuUB
<>•' 'vt ftXi<](a
to ib« ohild. Th« -Uetlatony of th« d«otor «■ to plaintiff** In*
Juri«8 «••<! not 1m eonsidored a-t this tlxM.
Th« oTidena* of ethor «itn«aso» ahowe tb«it the aeol<-'
dont occurred at the tiao &t»i plae* aboro ot&ted. One wltneso t«o*
tlfiod in subat^nee th&t be aaw plaintiff standing n^Wir the north*
•act corner of the Interaeetlon of Tiventy -fourth street t^nd South
f«rk arenu* with a little iSirl; thkt « truck be Ion an,,- to the de*
fondant eonpany omso north on fiouth l%r)c aTenue, paaslng the wit-
ness, traveling at least fourteen or fifteen siiles an hour «is it
approached and erossed Twenty-fourth street; that the drirer of the
truck inereased his speed at tlie street Intsraeiitioa soTsnl miles
an hour la order to peas in front of a beer wagon which was solag
west OR Twenty-fourth street and that in so doing the truck was
driwen diagonally aerosss tho street in a westerly direetioa and
traTeled on the wrong side of the atreot. Rs felso test! led thtit
there was an alteroatioa between the driTor of the beer wagon and
other
the drirer of the truck and that there were no^rehieles en the
street at the tise. He continued to observe the trucV, «hich, as
it fedTanoed and turned diagonally back toward the east side of the
street, obscured his riew of the boy, and that he next saw the
driver of the truck picking up the boy near the rii'ht front i*eel
of the truck.
The child's mother, in addition to testif:/lng as to
plaintiff's &;;e and Injuries, etn ted that plaintiff was in front
of the house between three and three thirty in tli« afternoon} t)iat
defendant's truck ooae nlong at a speed of fifteen or ei^iihteen miles
tm hour ans speeded up to twenty ailes an hour. She also testified
oonoerning the altereation between the driver of the beer wagon and
the driver of the truek; that she went outside nnd found the Con-
kim Company tmek Ho, 9 in the street loaded with coal. She
—4I! a« fit ttii'^^h i<*ili1
r-rOD •< .
-ion 'v» »rfT
^>rKl« if:
8»:
.tQS'^ lamf
0
»»t.fi f ««•
•!(?. . XaO :
tiMB ««nt to tha drugstore olos* hy and found the driver of the
truck present there with the injured boy.
The j^randnother of the ^)0y testified to seeing the truck
BtandlBg in the street vitb a vet, dark red spot of about two inohes
in diameter oa the right front vheel and that e little piece of white
olotVi with h&ir or h&irs h&n(;in;!r on It vat Kdso present on the wheel .
The lav gorernlng the dleposition of i& 'notion to inetruct
the Jury to return a Terdlct has ^en repeatedly deelfered tiy the re*
Tievinit courts or' thin state. The decisions upon th» Bubject were
rerleved m detail In the case of Idbbjfr. Hcleil h Llbby v. Cook. 222
Ill.« 206, and it vas tlMre held in substiinee that if the record eon-
tains aqy eridence from vhieh, if st&ndlog alone, the Jurj could,
vithOttt tecting unreaeonsibly In the sye of the lav, find that s^ll the
aaterial allegations of the declaration h&Te been proven, the case
should f?o to the jury. The saae rule was (aore recently apr^lidd In
the ease of Kelly t, Chicago Cit^ Hyg» Co. . 283 111. 642. We think
that the evidence in Xiiia case, substantially as above set forth,
fairly tended to prove the material arera^nts of the declaration and
that such evidenee taken by Itself was sufficient to sustain a verdiot
in favor of plaintiff, although It awiy be true that a verdict for
plaintiff if returned eould net be sustained, on a motion for a nev
trial, as aga nst %he aanlfest preponderance of all the evidence.
Lib jr, •'■JTcNeil ^ Libbji; v. Cook, supra. The (iuestion of the preponder-
ance of the evidenee does not arise in passing upon a aotion for a
peremptory instruct! oa. It is also true that Huestions as to the
velght of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses cannet
be considered in connection with euch aetien. Kelly v. Chicago Citx
Rye. Co. . Bupra. te are of the opi^nlon that the tfesti lony on behalf
of plaintiff "wui sufficient, if taken by itself, to sustain & verdiet
„ .■.;,..*,,». '> -'. I.. -..< - ^ \» {
1 .^ I'
VOA
wan « *t*l aei#o
• -111; cv c- m»q
1* " ■- -T»nit»0» •#
o
•r^^
court •rr«4 in Inetruotin^ th« Jury to return 13. T«r4iet in fu.vor of
def«ndant,
The ivA^mmnt of tho Clreuit court is r«iTera«d and th«
oa.80 rotnanded.
rans^iD AID nnuvz)K9*
Oridloy, "'. J., and B&rn«9, J,, concur.
(> /^
^ / / ..:; /) -^ I i
87 - 2«741
"\
AWiA KlWntBh, / )
Vlaintlff in frror, \
\ I ) T<\(HO'^ TO CIRCUIT COmtT OP
^•- \ / I
JOSSl'H OBORFy)^ / )
Peflmdan^an ftrror, )
MJl. JTT3TICB MORRILI. IJKI.IYESKl^ TH8 0PIHI05I 0? TKl COtJHT .
The daelKration In t)3ls ease eont^ins one count and
eliarges that defandant coraaltted an assaalt <*nd battery upon plain
tiff, boating: hor with a stle.<< and r^ulling a quantity of hair Tpoai
her head, k plea of the general issue vaa filed bnd a trial had
"before the court and Jury, roeulting in a rerdict of not guilty.
A iBOtlDn for a new trial was overruled and Judfrmant entered upon
the rerdiot for eeste fassfeinct plaintiff. A rerereal of thia judg-
■ent i« now sought u on the ground that errors occurred in (tivlng
certain irstruetions to the ^uxy.
ITe bill of exeeptione has heen preserred. It has been
repeatftdly ruled by the Bupro?^ Court of thia Bt«to that in order
to present for reTiew the action of the trial court ^n firing, re-
fttsiaic; or modifying instructions it is re<^uiBite that the inetruo>
tions be set forth in a bill of exoeotlone and exeo'-tions thereto
noted la such bill. The inotruotlona cannot be taade a part of the
record except by their incorporation in a bill of exceptions. "^T^y
T, aeall. 6S Til., 188; C. B. h ^. R. R. Co. ▼. Haeelwood. 194
111., 72 J I. I>. 4b V/. Ry. Co. V. Hendrian. ISO 111. 501 j Arnold v.
T. "Dodson^ 372 Til., 384. These uad numerous other authorities also
hold that Instructions are not nade a pcurt of the record for reriew
in eases where no bill of exceptions has been preserved, but the
clerk has inserted eopies of ^e instruotions in the transcript of
reoexd«
uybs. ' fs
TOTTff <ri\iB
{tiwo€R) wtmoz
"ti^a ./^
> IQZVXYO m (tmr
■> WIT?
J ^f J 3W±^{4 CiA.'V
oaW lAiii 4 hot b9>li'i «!.:* o.-mtl X4rt*R*; T»rf
• xfei
muLi Bail:
5rxiM»oo sno'n:» lurf^ frsurdnc* .n von tl ;^n»K
wot) ftrte-jqtfR •fLf iiJ bdfmt xX^i*^'^**
to Uain#Bni k«t40
i*alo B Ml www te* •sbMT .MS* ^r)& «jto
1 .l>»ni»«*nc tnw^ %Mi Bffo. Off rxad* •0*mo »t
le 1. i.tcjnJ7# Bd^ cl mt9 Ui>tnimnt »«a Ic B»i«,»» k4^rt—al •a4 iVmX*
Thtt record therefore does not prosont for roTiow any
of tho Allejjed erroro discuBood In the brief of plb-lntlff in
error.
the JudgBMnt of tbe Clrouit court In tifflmed^
Gridley, P, J., and B&roee, J., concur.
f»i 'y'i t$rt i -f
rarxt9
.wo::>^ .BotrtJM kn^ :kHO
§9 - M7&B
JULIUB Di|BITB,
T».
•'■■:^ ;
6:?^ iA>7
App«|:
:. FRCK lUTNICIi^'L COURT
OP CHICAGO.
SOUTH 8IBS ^UICK S^SS
/.pf«ll&nt,
223I.A. 647'<
«R, JTJBTICB HORallL ri!ET.IV1IRBI> THE 0PI5I0K 0? THE COT»T.
The statsiaent of olalm alle,«^4 &b IndebtednsBS on
the part of defendant to plaintiff amounting to $1467.06 mnd set
forth the specific itera.8 thereof. The largest of tVieee items
is & charge for four awnthe rent of eert&in preiaieee at |175 »
menth, amounting t» $700. Ti-^e other ite<»» &re for electric light*
eoid, ^nd telephone service used on the demised preaiees, ooaimis!-
eiOBS paid in connect! on with the business of defendant conducted
•a said premises and for the eerrices of plaintiff in tmd absut
defendant's business. The affidavit of «Mrits denies the existence
of the indebtedness but does not iiuestion the reasonableness of the
respective charges.
The evidence shevs that the business relations betiieen
tbs parties originated under a written ac^reement between plaintiff
and one Neuburger. ^e was a large stockholder and director in the
defendant company and at one tine Its president. This agreement
provided for the occupancy of the premises in question by the de-
fendant company at the rental above specified with no obligation
on the part of the lessor to furnish heat, light or telephone ser-
Tioe. These pre^iises prior to the ugreeisent had been under l^^ase
to plaintiff. The agreement ^Iso provided that plaintiff should
devote his entire %imm and attention to the service of defendant.
IT-
/
io« h/t« *0.r:.._. jjw lli/i_ - #i«ilMi«'l*> 1» m*q ot*.t
wmnit Mill' J ^« #««rL<*X *rft .tc»T«;(i MMii '^llisat* Arf^ dtfl
••ni»iff«o ,««»JLjMn« lM«ln*fc <M(^ no l^a« t^9ifr^M^ Mi#fCq*I«^ tea 4^0*
ft»^friilmoo ta^invle* 1» •ttnlaiM •iff iCtiv Kotfrntmo ai btmq mtfl*
it»4» bm ttl li'ilSmiMln \9 ••ain*ti mdt nol k(ui ■•«l»««i bl«« a*
9»a«iiijt* •!(;» ••l/i*A •/iiMi !• itwahnia mdt ^twafml ••trrAft(t»l«ft
. ••»; ■
.jfxAi^t^l^* t* ••Ami^a •rff o# ••itif*li« kara anil nits* alA •^•▼•ft
The terma and conditions of this iigr««m«nt in so far ua the ease
af footed defendant wore expreoiHiy bocepted lay all the atockholdero
and direetors of the defendant company, k,8 ehown by a vritton en<-
dorseiaent upon the inetrument eigned by them. The relMtioas thus
established were the subject of sundry conrersatlona betireen the
parties which do net in any way tend to raxy the ter^s of tho writ-
ten Instrument so far as the indebtedness spool f led in the 8t«.teaent
of claln is concerned.
There was a trial before the court without a ^ury, re-
sulting in a finding and judgaient in f&Tor Of plaintiff in the sunfi
of $361.06. A rofersal of this jud rswnt is aoui^ht upon the ground
that the Judi^ent is eontrai^y to the law and the evidenoe iind t^iat
plaintiff was not entitled to recover for electric light, coal a-oA
telephone bills and for eoasetlesions paid to a third party. The
fiij^i^reis^ate mount of these items, to %hich speeiXic objection is
auide, is 1307.06, Plaintiff* s clai« was tor |1467.06. The judg-
OMnt was for 1^851,06. It in therefore apparent that the court al-
lowed defendant eredit for e>n ^jBiount considerably in excess of the
items aboTO aentioned, on which defendant has assigiMd error. Ko
propositions of law or fact were subi^iitted to the court and none
held or refused.
Under these olrcuiastanoes it is Impossible for us te
hold that the Judgment is 'nanifestl:/ contrary to the weli^ht of the
eridence or contrary to the law.
The Judj;5ment of the ''^unieip^'il court is affirmed,
AV7IR1SBI}.
Orldley, r, J., and B^irries, .7., concur.
-Si^~ .ao.Tfr^l 701 •4Hr stale t'l^i. «J .0Jk«B
9dt I ifseTx but tU ;-»ti Sloil
... « •. . ■ -•■'* ■■-' *• --( — •■- • -■'^^*
*r« et T^«
v,)|
A
/7 .
1
120 - 26777 \
▼a,
|i|»P«IlM,
1AR9 TXmxm 06M£'a1|Y»
Anmu viust MiffliotPAx. ooTnr
OF 0HIC4Q0,
223 I.A. 647^
^Mbis ie aa »|>iNMa to r«v«r«e ft jud«;m«nt of tho Mi»»
ttloipol «oart of Qhiooco for $<0@ «n4 oosto in t^ftut of Kpr^alleo*
1&0 «Mi plaintiff Oolow, for doa»Mi(Ni to hio px^oporty allogod to
hoTo lBO«a au«tRixi«d \ei lUa on ^OTWtalNir 7, If 17* On that 4a to an
oiootrio doliv«)Xy tmoV:, oisnedl andi oipoxmte^ by dofendant, oollidod
olth tlbio front i^art of plaint iff* o atoro* Xooated on Imkm otroot
in M«X]r&oo Fark« IXlinoio* fho «iat«nont of oXaix allogoo tu^lt$jwMi%
on tho part of dafon4«nt in tho nwBHiieor^ont, oi^oration and oontrol of
Ite truck, Tho off idoYit of sterlto oontaiao a gonoraX denial of tho
allocations of the statomont of oIaijB«
tlto oYldoneo «lto«o that Xako ntroot io imTOd ^th briek
WB^ lP@rfo9tly loToX* It i» 62 foot wlds, running oaot and woot
throni^ Molroeo farlt* k puli^iio i^ark is Xooatod on tho north oido
of l4dce tttroot, oxtondiii^ tbo ontiro diatsineo botimon Swrontoonth
and Mgbtoonth ayonuoa. A 9nl»lio st^hiool bulldin;; i» looatod north
of tho iMifle in ^o ^ddlo of a o^uaro blook, Al»out fiTo hnttdroA
intpiXo woro in atteadanoo at this 04^o«l building on tho day of
tho aooident, A grooory »n<^ dolioatoaeon atoro, oonod bgr ono
Annn T«na« obo «no ono of dofondant'o ros^uler ouatoissoro* ia looatod
•n tho oottthooot oomor of ^orontonnth nronuo and ialeo stroot, faoing
iMrth an laJko atroet and oMit on iSoronteonth eronuo. Tho riuniei$»aX
building is loontod aoxvoa tho stroot on tho nortliweot oeraor* i^ain-
/*• ) *\
\.l oS2
/
/
,7tmoG i\ .^ «o Koz«i«o an tMsmrum .uzii. ow sc^xtfrji .r^
mm «#cfr iiMiw ^•^■NiCR A» miM yfl bmu^mtmmm mtma •iomI
#MHti« aoimi mm k^^iti^ml «•«««« tt'tlUNMUAt ^ <«C *«*»^ «mI# fU|r
^« Xt«Am» ham m^liMmmq^ t^tivmmnm mdt au #wMirt»ft %» *««< m(1 a»
tmitrU iUJ» A*v«« »i 4r<«*x#« M(At IimU kwAb mmtmhiy/m wifl?
Imw :iMa i««i jjurnXfomm . ^•^ M »i it JLwwaX xUtm^vm tmim
itM>lii>nn twi »»< Mnji^clA nXimn mtU imllimmJtm ^hmmjtn m^lml.lm
MIttmm Bmtmtiml al jmthll»f4 Xm^m «tMMt A *ii*JMNnni .#— M%lfc *H%
ktmkmd «vn 4M4A tJUaltf •«««•• m tm •JCblOn •(<« aI *ttm mdi tm
Yt v«J^ m^ tm mdttiM^ tmmdmm mka$ 0m mmmmhmmitm mi mtmm mlUftfi
MM "fir kmmf ,m%Qim ii>inwii»»A C^>. kttm iMMrm 1 •#mibi9t« m0ik
hm$m^*l •! ««tttm*iaM» VAfiom 9*tmmbmf\mA )• •am •«» •«kr ,a«tT mmai^
W^Mmm'i ,i*«v«« ftK*! Amb MMMTn dl«»^AMiv»8 >• «•«(»• tmmmdhitm 4mO ««
l4ifl«ln«V •10 »tiwtvii i!»<»aiiifli»» ■• ^mmi ftiw $••%$• mTtm^i, mm tUiMi
tlff*» «tor«, kiMim fta 1710 LaJce atrvtft, !• l«««i*d on the soutk
«M« of tti&t etroet s'aeut 200 faat «m«t af 'ij^* tvan** star* aa
the allajr l^aivaan 3etrffifiteent]i and 3::lght««mth areriuea.
JDafandant operetta a IPttkary aatabli^mant Ixt Chlsiaffa
and isaiiitaina alaatrla irucrka far Vhn purpaaa af dalXretlm «imT»
<^Andlaa to ita tre4« la CSiieaiea and ridinlty* It also siaintalaa
a garaga an<l rtupair dl«}»ajrtBt«iil far Ite tvueka* Ttoa eleoirle traek
In quaatian mm aparatad hy mmm* af a oaiatyol lavar looatadi aa
tha laft aida of tha 4rlrar*8 aa«t* Thla Imtmt had fovof aatahaa,
aa<^ af #}1<^ Is^lafttad a diffar<m% rata of apaad* ;%«n the lerer
aaa ia a ▼ax' lo&l ^aaitiaa it aaa in aavtrftl. la addltlaa ta tha
laTor it had a swit^ flvg l^oatM on tha ri^t ai^le of tha driirar'e
aai^* thla plxtg «&« ^^ ^^« 6^a|>« af a p<meil aa^ eould 1»« x'anaTad
fx«n tha »«it^ aXat* #Mm ^la aviti^ plug «aa laaariad aad
pulled txp is ih« alat, tha aff^it watsld l>« to eamiaot tha battevjr
«Lth tha 9M»t«ir« Iftum tha avitoSi plug mui ^ludaad datm t}» hat t erica
laald {Snarsa aad itfaiaa it «aa in a hariiM»ntal poeitlan it vauld ha
neutral* liiaa this a«it<sh plug mta r«mT«d fxt»m tha alat tha traok
eottld nat ha atarted wilaae anothar ^Xug ama insartad ia tha alat*
Tha truek eould ha attartad hy insarting tha awitnl) flvg and jialllm
it up aad Iqr paahieg tha aantral larar datm« Thaaa tva ai»avatiaaa
wttr« ra^uirad. If aither tha oantral lavar or tha aait^t plxig ma
in natitral tha traak «»ald aat roa* Tha trae)c ^sas )slaa afulppad
aith a ataariaiE tftiaal and a f»et hraka. The drlrar of tha tra^
had vorKad far tha dafaradant aan^pany ahaat ten iMara and had \im9R
on this trada raata ahaat foar yaara^ On tha saamiau af nvtfas&t%t 7,
1917, #ill@ ita drirar waa ia ^ira* -"mm** atara, tha traek ran aast
aa lake $traat for a dlataaaa of ahaot SOO f««t« At that tiisia w» ana
OB hahalf of dafwadaat aaa ia attandanoa a|»oa tha truck. After rai>»
aing thla disttmaa tha truek turned aouthaaat, running attr#a8 tha
aidaaallc aad aollidiag aith tha fraat af plaintiff*a buiidiag« br^k*
KlirM lufl fw bt.^fmt^ Qxn m mpmdI ,«%•!« a*nU
»»»^ ra* Ump-o- ■ ■'^i !^lrkf >9 nam
9»At^f*At wAf mntt^ **4M)t •«» HMtv dmv» ftdV AMU ^t^im mM t&hf
mT ^Xv»« fk :MJ#i»(Kr l«4towl««il % Hi auto #i wnAt bok iipaiH hi^mr
noli t&; bMK IWXt dMi<«* «it )ifei^ti»«tfl t<f ftM^tAi* •< »i»mt *an^ •iff
Mc«iaMMr» «v# -MrMlT •iMrvft tiiv^X XoYttie* •£<# ]|iri4«»«f fl» #1
mm Vfitf tf»ttm 149 ' XmioM «4lf *> - o^^t •«•«
...ij uji/ . -T# #*#f m htm i«e/ir ;jrais*so « /«#•»
ii9»<< Am! .tea (fuitsi a»^ 'ViriiKi^ UJijim tnRlktnflttSr «itt "tf^ l»MiiOtt Mtf
,f waiHWW 1« KKAiMrMI 9^ M^ «rK*«% mNTT |M»«« fti«^ «i«l# •l.Vif ■•
tmm tM tfaart? — .-^'%4#» •«ianft¥ t4«<l nl kut •\t»irtth miti *i' «» /'fflX
9^ %0 mmM4 ima - .->«) MC IllWte t« MNiAlHift ;2 val Jmy^-. - u «•
«a#t& •l»»Mit »4U Mf» MillMffM^t 114 MM ^-<tZrtB*'tob ^ \X»di^ «•
tb« drlTttV rwM^ai th« truok tli« aetor wui •till rtaanlng* The
eoatrol ler*T wk* in the foisrih or hlc^ «l^4i«A Aad the wit eh flsig
wt* In an "on" position* The dri7«r baelctkL Mh0 ivtick out and
«««d it ftll (iagr* ?tothiag «a« f»iind to hero Immmb danftgod al9«iafi
the trttok #t«n ia«p«ote4 that nli^t*
Fl&iatlff oentende that dsfendttnt tme ^pillty of bo0»
ligeaoe In the raimagesient of lie truok; that the djriyor did not
•to? the %tU9k la fmnt of K^m Took** otor* hut Jta^od off ^itm
it vmo In tuotioa, looTln^ th« wit oh fXug In th« elot «nd the
hftitorioo and laotor miaB«otoA» so th&t tho taruo:]!: coniinu&d on itt
way ^th no one in &tt««k^no«, mad eau»«d %hm dacis^o* Befondont
oontondo tttat the tm«k nm» etartod ^ the aet of a »<di89l boy n
R»e«o SnarrinOt an indopoadant third pta^fi that the dafondant had
no eontrol OTor hia and is not iiatdLe far his aot*
Th« drlTOfr t oat i fled that «jh«n he drorra u)^ to ^o*
T«i«H*a atora he ihut off hie ^ower lajr putting lioth avitah and IsYor
in neotral aad sto|r^d hie traelc* He then took ao»a starohandlaa
•ttt of hio tmaic and t^rriod it Into the etera* Ihllo tranaaoting
hie bueiaaaa vith %ra« T«tt& hm mm infmtimA hy her tliat hie truok
«•• gone* He th«i vwm out of the ataro and foiaad the truek -rith
the swtor still ruiming, Uio oontsDl leraar in fourth epaod and tha
•witoli ^Ing «^. Three different vitneaaea, isho are in no cay oon*
noetod vlth the ^artiea to the auit, teetifieii in substanoo that
they aav tha drlrar get off the truok aad that it was left ststndiag
ia front of Wn* Twn«a atora Uv a definite length of tijoe, Tbay
alsie aaw tim boy Booeo aiaarrino ivm^ on the truoi£ and do aometl^ing
iiith its aeeebanioBii therau^n the truek started* i^ooo Quarrlna
than iveapMtd off and ran <la«i Kig^taanth arenae. |ps. y^mm is the
nniy vitneee #10 teetifled In aaaordanoa wit^i the theory of plain-
tiff* Bx9 aay* that aha ima in tha haak part of her etora nanciiii
miK tiXttm hum afir
tea tm9 tf.t
Oi€l BR'
« K4r«
ft^lillt' TTC
*-i
*r?t 6:t;» .
-J i
v^t. **0 4Atf~'
^,. •,-.., ■,^».-
JMH«'.
h^.
B«l
•XlA ,9'ttfif- »^
•^ |vf«r N>
art:
•dt ■! esadT • U
HWftV tb« lovltttx idsivn nh* «k« th« drlyer Jun^ from th« truek a»i
OCKBMI Intd bar »ter« t0 coll«ttt hl« tmney, fSh« nay* th«.t at th«l
ilnt the tyu«k wrn* still In rnetlon* Oa evosa gaoaauuttien h«r t««»
tiaiOR/ «h«ini ih«t «drta «»« T@ry tinoartmin aa t« th« date <ah<in «h« iw»
n«Bi1»«r<Nl »tt«ing tJa« 4rlv«7 Jw^ off tiie tru4Bk, imd a4Mtted th«t
th«r« i«ft« noihlag fixing this favtleuli^ moraijag 1» h«r nlnd oTty
viih him rosul&r 9U8%«««
Xi i» a«s«4 tqr «qi^^1«« that th« dodtrla* af jgyi iiSJtt.
l^q:'^,t^ fipBllQS and tli«t t%i« oaiirt oorrsotly Inntvuoted th« 4VT
that if they ^belirrad trtm ihe trrldenee that the instrtsaiast ar
abjaat eaitslni?; tha injoiry was txader th«s control of t£i6 dafandaai
and that Vfi£ iajuiry a»s ona ^iefo waold m»t in all |iVQ)>a^llity
bare aoeitrrM if the ^eraaa (»pt»Ktlag: the truek Mad exareiaad dtt«
•am in s» daing, then the praef of tlie aeoidast ■wmm iJObft. XftSlJi
proof of m^li^mAtm and the Icmydeii af preaf mm on dafandaxrt ta
fhinr l>y a prapendaranoa af the erldenea that it axareisiSNl due aara
1b ep«»ratiiig the trtt«ac« "^hla eoatentiaa le haaaA upan the aaao af
gal^fawt^ f* gltj? tl ^JMMt^, ^9 111., as» iMfih halda ettbstantlally
la aanfaxssity with th« inctruetion ».h»r9, aaantlaaiad* Thla inetruo*
iiaa did net aararaetly etate the lav a|»plioakle to the aaaa* 1% la
nail aaitled that the rul« af jsit Ay^lj I^aaitiijr oamtat be applied
^ere there i« na dAiraat eridanaa of nefXisfmo* ea the s^ajrt of
dafaridant, and it le n^parent that ether eaueae may hare led ta
the aaeidant* The gromt veii^t af aridenee in this aaaa la ta
the effcot that defendant aaa euilty af ae negllfcanaa. The traek
«a« Btanding; en idMirfeata^ leral s^rouad* It doulsl net hmra etsrtad
af its eaa Tolitioa, 1% naat hare haaa wt in faotion hy the later-
▼anlBg aet mf wkm third i>arty. The iajitjry raaultad from the aat
9t th» third party* The oondltiea yikitdx aaa areated hy dafandaKl
#« ^Jri^r tXOT <Mtt .YiMMW aM J^9»iKw •# M9l« «M «tol t«09
^i«# i*tf •«xi4UiAaEMap ««oiit •• ««oitt«Q uX llitm Mnr jteMi ♦^l 9adfc#
•«« •Ak iMtAr ti|»t» •({» 9i «« AJU.^«»av ipt»Y m» iM imM «rt<ia ^Wtl;!
mi vk §9*9 mkd^ nl 9M»blf9 ^n ii^tm tenqi mtU ,HmhlP9M^ msi^
^9m%i Vifi* 099M99Uwtt m U XtJUtnk canf 4««M»t«|k A»4) $9t*Mm $0L%
h9irMMi9 IffKtf H«l kXirW 41 •ftl«i«VJ|i £»v !b4M#M ttiW
•f»#»i tlfi \|tf «|li#«fli Ml #M flMMl •«»4 ivOM ^j .j|O£.(A40T «W« OAi^ It*
*w» OKI me* |p»iJ(MM« ^purtRl Mff *r/ttm ink9i m»4 )• #»« wXmrt
$tmm»'htk t* *>*i*rt» »w tl9h^ iMiJiMOM -•" .^ * *- »■'' ' ■* '^*
not th<? pr»xiiMt« ••»»« «f t}i« injury* Wo n«ellg;«»«« oim )hi
<Auilg«4 agalnciit the owior of th« tnpu»k from tho faust that he
failodl to taJte pmnwatintm Agninet tho iniotforenoo of a third
»«»ty. In euoh a oaoo tho rtao of juai iHift MSO^^M <io»» wt
apply. Thin irulo oonmot h« applied vlioro wm neeligoneo on tho
imJPt of tho <i«S!fon4Ant ittoho^nn hy airoot oridoaoo* and ^oro it
ii* npyiajront that thovo iroro othov oaaooo %ha& tho aof«indant*»
aoeligaimo vihl#i ledi to the eooldont, Kjihg;^ t. Co^iy^ »yofiriji||t
ihid 343J '^^rn^^A.^ ▼• Siaaas. i»7 ibi* aei. th^ u«t oa«« «itod
iriT^lTOd oirounstftnooo TWy olmilttir to thooo ^nhidb oxi^ted in tho
prooont oaoo.
wo are aXoo of tho oi»inlon that tho jttdi^ont t»r tho
S^lolpal ee-uis^ io eontrary to tho imtinifoBt weight of tho oridoneo.
Tho jutl{W<s'-it io haoo4 vi|M»n tho rtk^A as4 mieortain tootiia»a^ of one
witn«e«, ^0 is uneorvotjorat^d, Hor ttRotiiaony io dtiroetly oontra>»
Rioted b7 throo Indopondmtt «y« ^Itnoeeoo and also hy the pooitiTO
teotisiwny of the driTor* ¥h«s plaintiff hao i^roirod no eauoo of ao>
tlon ftgaiaot defendant, ffiador ouc^ oiretfrnetanooo it is tho diity
of thio eourt to reverso tho jadgwrnt, MmmW^ ▼• P„t,l^ tft,C,* ^Y*
C£., 197 nu lrs», 37«i SaZ£T. gt |t-.t, |,t ,|»^^t„yit ^> go... 162 Ul.
348,
Tho Jttdgaont of tho STanioipal «ourt is revoroed with
a finding of fs>ot«.
jynMMHI VTTH 91118X18 09 li'ACTS*
Oridloy, ^♦^•» •«* Bameo, J., concur.
04 tfj
j1«^ ij-ri
TAtf
Atfjfe
.»t«« #mMi«T<;
1v
•YKiO i)«iMi
ifoe ai
^tl
M94ltf
• 1
^oMQIkirt M^
..1r
4 8t«>«;^i«
.->i«^4'fc#^
<'i((*
t»l.>
iat<'
•«rM(«» ,«i ,«icJir«l! fen
ISO • :t6777 ttmOM mf WMfSM*
V* find fts ultl»utt« foots In ttXts ea«« that defendimi
«*• mi ^ttiXty of th« n«gllg«no« shuTged in plftlntlff *is wXmXmmnt
•f «jL«im, «n(! that thm lajory t» plaintiff *» property ims n*t
«*«««d >>y th« lust 9f d«f(fnd«nt»
u« • mt9o
T».
Iron 4k ^t«el $o*t^
1/^
; J
Of CHICAGO,
1223 I.A. 648
y
Rift Bt«t«MBt of o1»1bi in this n»f, filed Ma/ SOt
IftaO, alleges thftt pl&intlff*a elalxt le for the mm of $5«G00,
eTld«need by » checlt drated Febrwiry S, 1920 ♦ drniwi on J?er«mui
Bree. BeiUcing Ceapaay of Ch4cBf»e by •^ipfenrtant widi payitble te
plaljitiiff« and proteat fees thor«oii ationntlng to |2,fi8, te-
gopher with interest at five per e^nt per anrium from th6 dnte
•f the eheck. Thtf affidavit of merits alleges. thi<i^t the cheok
ttt ftteetien «&8 giTen in payment for a gn^ntity of yard rails
vhioli plaintiff Bgretd te dellTor te 4lefBBdsuit witkia teeaty
Aaya frwe rebi-ufsry ?, X920S that plaintiff has failed* re-
fweed and neglected &e d^^llTer ef*i<> rails ft any time and that
df^endaat lias receiv«K) no oonsid«er'>tiea for said oh««elc etber
than tbe undertaking above mentioned, Tkere wee a trial befese
tke e<mrt without a Jury reeultint^ in a fin1in>i and Judgmeat
la favor of plaintiff for |S177,10, a reyersal of ehioh ia
aee aougkt*
Ylur OTidenoe shova that en Tebruary 7, 19^» tkt
fartiea entered into a written agrement* vhieh among other
things provided that plaintiff represento itself te be the
oeaer of a largo quantity of iron railo and bare vhieh it
.tt
n^
a?:*-! rti n icIJaji-V a1
'. u -'».*. »; I
,14 Jl»«Ut
MO ■ i : ..
r« Mim
^titt* iiiHMw iTsiikr ,#amMMift irMlAfii « f' ^« ••l^vaf
•HI MT «^ UMtl minr
•s*
•greed to ••11 to defeiulMit At $45 per «r««8 t«a f • •• b»
WtnlAmr, ColArado. and furthor r«eit9d that FlniRtlff hcMl fiy
httadrvd t;«ns «f ttueh rftllfi re«dy fttr shivwent, vhleh would
0M«i«A«« within twaaty ditys fran ih« •xtcution of th« acr««*
■••t« and tluit plaiatiff «<rald ooafciau* to ship ta d«»feadant
fraa tl»« to tl»«« aa that all ralla ahould \f shipped prlar
ta July 1» 1930. The teme of parent acre that the 1m j«r«
•OBteKporrmeimely with the eaaatttiaa af afraeaient, pajre tha
•eller the mm ttt |&»000 la eeuiA, the receipt ef whleh vae
aekaewlAdged, Saldi |S,OOC aaa te he ap lied and or edited upon
tha first shipaent of rails until ^iliaiietad as saah eredlt* sad
that thereafter tha hayer ohould pay for e«<^ shipMoat en
preeeatatioa af a bill af lading* The presideat of the plain*
tiff earparntien testified th^^t he r«eeiTed the eheek in qiaeetiaa
at the tiiea of th«$ exeootion of tha agraesMiat and that ae raila
mt aertihaindiee ^t a»j kind was OYer ehipped hy plaintiff ta
daf endaat •
Under eeetioa ao af the Hefietiahle ZastnuBeate Aet,
ahtenee or feilure of consid r&tiea ia a sat tar of defence
acaiaat any perean other than a holder ia due eouree. The
validity of eu4rti iiVtvnn* has heea repeatedly recognised by tha
reTievfiag oourts af this etate. (^orwitifc ▼• ^£|,i££» 6S 111.
»•»; MlMa ▼• !lfilll£» 5»» Ill«» 386$ Fferr,if, t. ^feifJjEi, 171
111* App.» 17^. fo are of the opinion thnt the eridenoe la
this oaee fully eotablisheo the f E>ct that defendant received aa
ooaaid<9ratioa for the sheok in question and that (her^fora
plaintiff eanaot reoover in a oult upoi> naid eheek*
It ia urged hy appellee that the oontrect hetweea
the parties eontainad a further proTloion whereby It wae agreed
betaaen the p»rtiee thut defendant was to eeoure a *b«nk
guarantee* for the pay»«nt 9t each and every shipaeat of rails
•t*
bllftsv ; -■■''■- -von ,v uBv* 4r-nfelUi(
Miw tf«i^ vtft •J(««ft i:. mum mLi
mmtw k<-- •if •S M» oi»0«eA blti^ .h»9^1wmBtmm
IK-'
* ^
I**?-
ui sen
^•<.? *
•0 fr»Y|s
nn
.Tc;
«••(
trt*
crot
•!•
tty«n pr*s«Btation of tlia bill ttf lAdiag aad wle^t ««rtlfleiiki«
and thai in th* «Teiit «f th« fitilnr* of th« \ny9r to sooMr* nieh
guarantee the seller night retain nnd ke«p the $5,000 paid hy
defendant to pliilatlff upon the exeoutien of the oontreot, aa
Xl(|aidated digaagoo* It should \m net«d th«t the allegad gaarantoo
of pajQMBt ivaa net to he fumiahed until prei^entatlen of a rail*
road %ill of liulittg aad weight oertifionte. ao no shij^cat wao
orer nodio* it ie obvioao that no hill of lading aad ifoii^t
fiertificate were over pmaeatod to defendant* and eonseqaeatlj
dofeadMit wek9 ander ao obligation to furaiah the gu&rantee la
qaestioB. The positioa ia ttBteaablo for the farther reason that
this aotioa io npon the oheok ia qaoation aad not for the reooTerj
of dioumtos for the hret^eh of the eontraet hetaoea t1i» parties*
fhe jttdffnent of the l^anioipal Coart is reT«rs««d vith
a finding of foot*
wsfsmm nrn fisDiss ot FACf .
aridlejr, £"• J«» aad Bamos* J.* ooaaar*
'frrltr*-
lC1t«T«»«S 9idS Ift^ IMT ♦*«M
't' tXlw
•it \c> K
;iUft«it •
«X>XMtO
U8 • 2«79e
«• find as an ulttaa^ frtet ir^ ttal* oa«« thnt
defaadiaiit re<s«lT<id no denaldorntioA for Xht dhftok ««t
fortli In pl&iiitiff*s etat«««nt of oljalai*
Ml
// 'f
150 - 26309
Appellee,
\ # j <IP?ML ?ROS CIRCUIT COTJIT
) w COCK coTwrr.
Xl^pelldktB. )
22f?I»A. 648^
HR, JU8TICB MORRILL jmLlVKmtt TOT OPIUIOW 0? Tiff: COTHT.
^Riia appeal seeko the reTersel of a judgment ef the
Clrouit court of Cook countj ror $600 Siga.in»t appallfe;.nta, ^e
vere defendants in the ooiart below. The ease w&s .ried before
the court and a Jury* Appellants contend that the Judgment ie
contrary to the law and the evidence and that the court erred
in sundry rulings upon nueetione of eridenee atnd in giving euad
refusing Inst rue ti one. It will not be necessary for ub to die*
cuss these rullnge, ae we are eatisfied that plaintiff is not
entitled to recover under the e-ridenoe and the l&w spplieahle
thereto.
The declaration contains four counts, in two of v^ich
defendants &re charged with malicious prosecution of the plaintiff
and in the other two counts false arrest and false Impr iaonmsnt are
charged. The evidence unuiuestienubly discloses that sundry chlekens
were stolea from the defendant ?faxy Boughan. i!er son saw one of these
chlelcens, which was dietinpfuiahed l>y the najsm of "Army," upon the
preraiees occupied by plaintiff. T7pea this infer ation beina' coa-
Kunicated to Mary Bou^aa, she went to the Idwards* domicile, vdiich
was in the sole custody and control of plaintiff, o-nd found there
her pet chicken, denomin».ted as afoi^said. TJpoii the arrival of '♦.re,
Bouj5han at the house, T?dwarc{s, the plaintiff, ij7»ediate.ly looked up
the basement before entering into eonversation vlth her. /vfter sooB
inconses^uential talk with ISdwards , Hra, Boughan left the presiees,
and In resr-onse to her telephone ceaBaunlcati on Sergeants Brennaa and
W6M - 09t
^•etlt
S^^
c
.tWPOO HP* ^'^ VfO.,... , .,. _!._.,-- .
•ii^ ,«#njtiXM<l« iwii«»B 0014 1C01 Y^nooo <oo9 It ^tvoe iU:9nl9
rcolMf 6*Ayj sjiw t«^Mi »A7 .voXttf Inurto (iiU at B^cijrter«)»Jk wtam
WH^S tT«r; ;f;j| SOcfVMT* •/&> AAA VaX •(St •# 7til«#MO
taa SO. »0n»fttY» !• •a«li»«a»i> •»«■ •yriXjfT X*^^<tV* XX
««.; 0^ c -col x^ammmiMm 0di ^ . etiMlfstntcffl nirtMilri
t«c: •! lll^ciiklq jaKI bsJtlut^*4)« tnm mw •« «fiiiiXfin( •••(i^ •«»•
*Xtf«#lXq«a w4iX etO btu •on»ikXv» »itt itkiv nrroovv •# k«Xti#«*
ctdXibr !• owl ri «Bia«oo urol »Bl«4'n»u ndtarsi^^h m(T
T7ift«io«itq[Ai ••!«) tei« ^•*T'v« •91m1l miuuop omS ^lul^o wfl «ii bttm
'n ' V MO V" *7l ,amH^9r rtabaalat sjit «m1 ••XotB witwm
i«loX «li# wtqlf ,mimlMlq ftf *«lquO!>o ■•miJcMiq
M*4i taitr- ' '^-- "0 X«stfl*o AAA t^vtatft fX*« •«(# al mv
TO* ^«^t t«,i .<^i.y floX^Anavc^ - -.. . .. --*— ~- '.%-.< ^fT»««««tf •<»
. ••«!■<*.., ,_ il«X luicf* •A'i .— ' -»^— Kf i«wp»«»«»«i
IfeCerthy, who &r« mIso dAfendcuite in the court 1»el«v, vont Kith her
to tho ^dw&rds* house. Bdwards told then that the chickens upon
the premises belonged to his inother and that he vas in change of
the premlBos for the purpose of selling 9ggB and ehiokene. Ptubee-
quently cfrs. Boufhan^s chickene were found In the baeeaent of the
house by her (md the officers. Mwarde was thereupon placed under
arrest and charijed with petit larceny. T^pon the tried of the case
Xdwards was dlschur^ed. He thereupon brotil^t this action.
Tn » recent decision the fiupreme court of this ?^tate
has reviewed the lav upon the subject of aetions for aali clous
prosecution and has stated the facts whlcb are necessary to sustain
such an action, a^ong «^lch necessary elesaests are the absence of
probable cause for the proceeding upon which the action is based,
and the presence of nalloe in the action. ?he absenoe of any of
these elements is sufficient to defeat a recovery, ^lenn t. Law-
rence. 280 111.. 587. The court said in substanoe that if imlice
and want of probable cause do not concur the «tetion cannot be -«aln«>
talned, ^e burden is upon the plaintiff to show that there was
BO probable cause or reasonable ground for the prosecution, citing
Israel ▼. Brooks. 23 111. 526. Probable cause has been defined in
HarplxaM ▼. '^hitney, 77 Til. 32, as such a state of ff^cts as would
lead a person of ordinary cautiousness and prudence to b-^liare and
to entert&in an honest and strong suspicion that the person is
guilty. See aleo Ross v. Innis, 36 111. 487; lCcT>avid ▼. Blevlne .
85 111. 238. The belief thi&t the accused is ;i;uilty aust be lield in
good faith aad bated upon circumstances suffieieutly strong to ln>
duee the belief in the mind of a reasonably eautious parson that
the defendant in the prosecution was i^ullty of the particular of-
fense charged.
In the ease at bar it is undisputed that the chickens
aW'* /^^
'^ \timmuff
/» mbtmtrM
•SWlfv-C
TS'iTOSp'c Jt t»srt^!t
— ilnis It fMdf >
yiilta ,ff*litfOM9tq ftX<fifeoMi«en nc »»uii9 •!
*f ,00rrir^
,biMri«i#
HAt aoancaq e«aliua» x^^^^ciaawn « to tnlm Mf ar
-To r r > - /T to x*-fJ^i^ ■•♦ rroUL-oapoiii ftfi
w«re ctolan and that they were found upon prc'RiPes In the Mle
oustody and control of the person accused of the theft. He at
first denied the presenre of the ohickens irhich were afterwards
found In the b&senent of the pre<ni8e8« which he ht.d locked up.
He na^e no objections to their re^ov^al. re are of the opinion
that the oirouastunces were sufficiently stron-^': to induce the be-
lief in the aind of a reasonably cautious person that plaintiff
was fn^llty of the offense oharfee4.
But it is urged by appellee that there should be a
recovery upon the counts chtorgiag false arrest and false Imprison-
ment for the reason that it is unnecessary to proro malice or want
of probable cause in an action based upon those counts. This iiUes-
tion has ulse been considered by the Supreme court in the case of
gnrJTht T. gjbeont 219 111., 650, sfhioh is cited by appellee, fro«
sbleh It appears that under section 4, dirision €, of the Crisinal
Code of this aitate, "an arrest may be taade hy sm officer or a pri-
Tato person without warrant for a criminal offense co^!;»ltted or
attempted in his presence und by an officer ^hen a ori<ninal offense
has In fact been eommitted and he bas reasonable ground for belieT-
Ing that the person to be arrested, has comittltted it.** In discussing
this statutory proyxslon the court indicates that both a citisen and
an officer aiay arrest when asi offense is committed or attempted to
be oommltted In his presence, but an officer »ay also arrest where a
erialnal offense has In fact been ocHStsltted and he has reu-sonable
grounds for belisTlng that the peson arrested has ceswtitted It.
A citizen does not have the power of ausJclng an arrest ui^er the
latter elreirastanoes. He must not be pemltted to take the law
Into his own hands and to js»ke an arrest upon pro b^sble cause of
guilt. The arrest in the oase at bar was mads by the two officers
who are defewlants herein, and as has already h—n Indicated, they
had pn>b4*ble cause for balieTing that the person arrested had eoa-
^.•.^« ml* r,} mm<a>.'»mr. r.«. m f>^tf«n W** V"^* t^-f* taM |r«X»^« »HW>
- F^^ ' nXjTT .a^finoa oooSt noqv j^^a^ «ei:i9« lut al •aui
^.•ium-i- Hoa- aq 9tAa imAt Jialr* .1 a(^1fl*^-^■..
«^1 •« •<•# »# bM»l»tacr ar: ton iwm •?! .«0fm«t«»v9Vin n»«#«i
'^^ '^' «•«•» ttn«i» OR %Tkjm •* biwt ■Jhruttf inro «!«( etnl
't» ^ t^MKsXa ajarf VM tea .riaita
aitted the offense charged. TTnder these cXrovussta-nees protec-
tion anaet be giren to the eltlaen yho n&kes the coapla^nt and
to the officers who nalce the arrest. This has been the rule
followed by the courts of this State from an early date.
peddo -v. Board, 43 111. 95.
The orisrinal certificate of OTidenee filed herein
eontalned no record of r motion for a nen trial «yjd its denial
by the court. / docuraent has been filed which is deno-ain&ted a
supplemental bill of exceptions but which is In reality an aaend-
ment to the" original bill of exceptions. This doctaaent shows thafc
a motion for « new trial was made and oyerruled by the court. A
motion has been made to strike tl-.is docuiaent fran the files. This
motion is denied. Anderson t, KarstenB. 297 111. 80.
The Judi^ment of the Circuit court is reversed %ith a
finding of fact.
wmtmm'D ^tf nmim o? r/,CT.
arid ley, y, J., and Barnes, J., concur.
• Ot^f -
-L-toiiv Bit X^li*
•iter
J »7 87X^ IK* i^l/M U^ If
c Mor>9K on Dftftlaivfop
1'. r-VjJl L
Mlliiir
XIO - 26409
FIBBIHO 0? ?ACT.
V« f lad as lUD ultiuatc fact in thie otAse thnt tlioro
«ft« pro1»«ibl<» eattftc fer b«XievinK thctt th« plaintiff «»•
guilty of the Aff«an«i ahnrRsd Agsiost him.
%9^^ . NX
l»ft • 3i814
\
\
1 .
V
/
AFnUL THOII
KDvzczPAL ectmf
07 CHICAOO,
Ob ftpp«ia ef LAilDOK il^BSLL H03X,
|»p«Xlant«
BR. JUafZCS UOH-.IiJU DBI.ZVSR10 TUB OYZVXOI OV TBS OOVRT,
2'>
\
This suit it liaacd tt]>on the proTiolttna of « niaetjr-
nin* year leaM, dated HoTen'ber 24« 1911, deMlelag the praniaet
kaoim as 178* 182 ff^et Washington otroot in the City of Chiea«o.
The fcppollee v » the leissor in said l«a80 nnA plaintiff in tho
kuaieipal Cnurt and the eippellant was loooee therein and ono
of the defendants in the ourt belov. There went BUB^rouo
ossignsaents of the louue subsequent to its execution, so that
ot the time the suit whs instituted the interest of the origin*!
losBoe vim owned hy appell»nt and his eo-defendant* Daniel J.
aohayl<sr, Jr. Under those assignoents, defendants "beosao
jointly and se-rerally liable for the perfomanoo of all tho
eoTonaats of the original laaso. Tho ea^e was tried before
tho onurt without a jury and resulted in a finding and Judgsiont
in f&Tor of plaintiff in the sun of $5,070.73, a roTorsal of
whieh is now sought. The appaal was prayed by both defendants
Ittt has been perfected by the defendant Hose alono*
Tho statoBSAt of claia alleges tho exeentien of the
original lease and eovenants therein contained relating to the
payment of taxes and assesssients upon tho demised property,
the wariotts assignments of the looBee*o iaterest as ahero stated,
•ad that plaintiff's slain is for the asieunt paid by hisi in the
MOCt JAntA i
-X«««la « 1* •aftlnlTot^ Oil. •! ^Jktta alAY
Uii Al ttiiainXd feoa mvaX iii«« nl lontvX sKi & « t«XX»a«« mCX
•«* ;'WU *A««*X B«ir ««iaX»^A trfi Ikm #iuwk} X««Jt»icafli
«U»T c;::r] oritw wr^tR ^wmltnl ^-ZI^^O MM Oi •I^AMA«»t»fr mU !•
X«ai»li« mC; !• ^satatni m(^ b«lvll,i8Ki saw tktn tit •mli mU 1«
tit lim !• MMunoticvq wCl vat «X#alX tXXavvTM ia« \X4al«t
tnaaqifttft ^Mi ftolKnil a iU bvtlif^t boa x^-^^t 't tm*diiw ifin^n mU
t« Xaaiarei • ««V.oru,a< ta am a^ll «i Witaimlti la ioit«1 •!
■liialiaolfffr lUatf x^ bw^iit^ ajtw X««4(f« arft •!!()»»• von al ifalAr
• •*•!« 9a aft lOAi^ftata* aitir ttf l>«#aaVia« Baatf a«tf l«#
«U ta nailaaauia mI^ aaiaiXa «Jt«It ta #aa«aJ«ta adt
aitf4 •# iAtJ<«X»n *9ai«#«*t> n^a^ailf a#0«Aa?aa boa aa«aX X«iilai««
«X#i*il»if baa laat ad4 a««tf a#«a«Hiaa««a Aa« «aiuv< to iammf^&n
,%iiu4t 9-w4m «a tnansiAl a*aa«aaX atfi )• atfia«R;i|J;aaji avol^ur aiU
•itt Ri ■lit ^tf Uaq tfnxfoan adi ia) al aiAXa a*llil«i«i« iadj baa
•a*
fvrokaM •t a ««rtlfloat« of sale of tht oaid proaioos for
non^payasant of the gftneral tnxee for tho your X^IA mni iatoroot
tlMroon; slso for the purehnee of three eertiflcateii of sale
•f eatd pr«Bi«oo for non-payment of different opcoial i%«fi«BnMati
upon aulA premiooB with interest thereon and certain oiais paii
liy plaintiff t%r ooanisaiono in conntsetion with the pareh»80 of
•aid oertifieatoo* and tho flarthor ooat ttf |700 for attorneys*
foeo in the prose cation of this nuit*
Tho aaend^d affidavit of merit* filed hy a^pellaa^
ooto forth the execution of the Xnnim of KoTosbor 34« 1911, aai
•undry proylaiona thereof relating to the asaignuint of tho
lessee** interest therein. It nlso alleges a release and dia>
eharge from the paynent ef the various olaias npon idiioh this
suit is hused hooauso of the provisions embodied in an agmemon^
dstod Kovenber 19 « 1917, hetveen plaintiff an<A defendants* A
proposition of lav hassd upon this ground of defenss vhs refused
hy the trial sourt. Ho argument is presented to this court based
upon that refaaal. we therefore conolnde that this ground of
dsfense hNiS boon abandoned and waived by appolXaat*
the affidavit of nerits also sets forth sertain
provisions of the lease of Novenbor 34, 1917, which will bo
disoussed later, regarding;: the payment of taxes and special
assesf^ents upon the denised premises, ano the failure of
plaintiff to give to appellant a thirty day notice in writing
of the payment of the various mma for sbieh plt^intiff claims
reimbursement, l!he affidavit d6ni9s that plaintiff is entitlog
to recover tho items charged for OMmiss ions and interest upea
its various dishursomonts. It also denies liability for
atterneys* fees, Ths making of the payments sot forth im
plaintiff's ^statement of claim is not disputed, but it la
alleged by way of defoaso that the motion was promHturoly
•«•
^««7. rnl baa OKI Y««t •di i*> avx^t it-rinw^ MCi !• ^MacfffvtfWI
to ^ Mf« dtiw ••|#«af»NK? ai anelvaiMMM «•! ltlJ^i^
*«X«<r:«^i« lo) OOT^ >• mm v^'l^nv^ «j<i bsa ««»#Aani^
• tim •Jidi to Jiojt^iioa«eif ttfJ Ji^
loAiX'xiisa ttf baXlt •^liias )a ^Jrrji^ilrl* btbnaaw aflOT
&na ,JXti «MI «»tfierr»M t» •a^oX *as to natlm^xa attf M«ial ata«
iti ta taMnftlaaa Mt# (w inl;f«ia^ toarctrfi aflolalranq t'^'HM
•aJtfi :3i9j|f ItfnaiTal a'a^aftX
atAitl Oaliva a«4[tt MaaXo «fl«inrf <»K« t0 MaotM •<<' ■•tl •«i<4i
ininr^ittVi* »<* ai t>atb«<r«« axaitlTfttr mI4 t* fteOMOatf Aaar<r ai ^Xm
4 .atfiAbita' ftl^KlaX^ liaa«i9€ «VXr< raK ft»#ab
ibaav'taic «t^-« aanela^ 1o i«ftr<^*:£ alK# «avir CHiaad «^I la a«X<^t««4«^t
ta BfiiLr*^'-'?* ainj a'firrncf* aw .lli^^«^^1 #njrf;r no^ff
• #aaiX«r.4...^ cNi ^>.»*.«w hfta »MMlo^^ecfA ft«'v;f nv.- • »-vv%».
siAiY^e iiS%9\ •##• iNiXa tt#lYa« ta ikwbi'^.l4 fuft
^ liim dMtihi ^fXfX a^t «ia4feaa<r»K Ita •axaX aiCi ta ««aitXTan%
Ittf-.c".- ta. tttr^i^i t« #«M«(4«^ aif^ WtfiTaaat ,^0#«X ^aa««aaXib
>Ais taattaatf •Mloftft aiU n««9 staraflitaaaaa
•■laXo t^l^cUiXQ ilaieUr <kot mum •troltmr aiD to tKMCfjKq Mil in
*aX#l^aa nl ttliolAXf «ail# afjnaft ^XrtfbX^t* w<T .tnooianwtfsiav
aofiir tfiir'.^tmt btw oitainaXnafta T9t bayiM<o •am}'! arfi varaora ai
<(«t t^lXhTafX N#itt<>*. MX/t jTi .a^naBMrCMfa^t: aoo^iutr •#!
«i il#iot #ti »#aiaMpa< aiU t« soXjCmi a«tf ^m^o^^*
•1 it in^ •fta#J^[8l^ fftfi »1 «lr. (\ifnXAtq
xXaru»#*«nrrq a«« aaltaa aifi iMl* taaalaft t« x/m x0 *«aaXX«
•1*
brought an aoeount af thm failure of plaintiff to glT* tha
thirty day notioo «1}0t« laontianod and that dafendanto ara net
in any cTent 1 labia for the varisua itaaa of eoBsiasiona a&d
intereat in oonneotian with tha puroha»a of the aertifioatea of
anle or plaintiff's axp'snsaa for ntto maya* feea inourrad In
thia uetion. Tipon the trial of the oaaa it was atipalatad that
in tha erent of a judgmant for tha plaintiff* tha eun of $400
Bight ha included an {icoount of suoh ^ttornaya* faea* whidHl
waa dona. Tha JudgBont included the rariaua itana epeoified
in plaintiff*!} etateaiant of olaim aatnunting to $4«67C.73 and
|40C on aeoount of attornaya* faaa. aalcing the total aisount of
the JudgBtant $6,080.73. There baiag n« diaimte as to the amount
•f theaa diahitraeaenta by plaintiff, it fallawa that tha rights
•f tha partiae antat be dotenained by a conaideration of the tazas
•f tha original le^taa and the eTidenoa aa to eonplianee with
these tcnaa by the reapectiTe partiea*
th^ principal queatien preaantad for detenBlnntian
herein ia» idiathar, in view of the praviaiena of the laaao, plains
tiff oould Maintain thia auit without giring the thirty day notice
nlready Mentioned, it being contended by appellant thnt the giring
of thia notice wus a condition precedent with whieh plaintiff wqo
bound to comply before inatituting ««it« Under the tenaa of tha
original leaae tha loauoea agreed to pay all taxea and aoaeaaiienta
within thirty dbys after they reapaotiTOly beeme due and payabla
and to make aueh paTmant in apt tiae to prerent the accrual of
amy penalty thereon or any aale 9r forfeiture thereon or nny p»rt
thereof. 7he laaignago of thia ooveaant ia plain and tha obligatiaa
iaposed upon the leaaee by ita tenia ia abanlute and iadapeaAaat
•f any of the other prorlaions of tha leant, sro are of tlM
opinion that under: ita proTiaiona plaintiff had the riglit to
Maintain an aetioa agaiaat the loaeeo far the aMouat of avah
Son %XA «i#fl inSi bOA )»<ita^kin9m rrotfA mnitttt x»^ t^tfjtfl
A«a «a*l»«tetta& to aji»it i>»eliaT an; n«^ •itfuii tawrt xa> ot
iCstifw «aM>t *ii^Mrxe#4< tlt>0e to ttrvnooti at fttfenis'ni atf i^iu
iUlm •oi)»ll«M»» *# ttc Mf(»};iv» tiCl litSA <M>.«i XAnJta^io «tf^ )•
rrUrnf trf'i-i'' -^1^ ?/«^n»i»ii'in atUtayp X«qip«liq arft
•«iliil<{ ,<>«=>< f •Aolttiva'sr; ^atv 111 ,y««[Jm<w- «•! ju»«k(
flew mtalAlq ifeiifv fCllw /Ji««96rr9 aei^lbato a aji*v aalieo •idi \t
tU ta aurat atfl t»7i«Q -tl^a B<tl^v'l«}Q'l aYalatf xA<*«^^ ^^ bsaotf
■#n»Mnaaca« bita »9m»i JH» XM tl ft*»iqM i«te«ti M(# taAaX XaiAitliit
•Xtf«t-'*4 te' «v* •M»a«tf x'tvl^ott^*^ t«<('* «#tta «XMb t'tii^/ lliMtIv
la trirti '^n -ift^ tsairat^ ai mdt ^f« al tfAa«(a9 tfami «Un oi Mto
#«»« noavaif^ aYvtl •>ia'Y f aXaa v.xia ta aaa^aif^ x'Xafla< x**
aaila^iXtft mU ^(Ts t'tnlq a^ ^aan*va« airfl la wpktn^l tlX .'^.oataifj
$tnka»^«^r:. h1 atrta^ »$jl \it ^^•••t mU> na<o ^*ewUll
ail .*a«*i Mil la AaalalTavQ <Eo/f9a a<l^ ita
a4 #<f>)it «jf# barf llllfllAXt ut^thf'Txri afi ,^aWur iaiitf tttlaKa
Uttfa *• iotK-«w •<<* -xt^ •••••I fl*!^^ «" «al*»« *• Mtumlta
•4»
taxes smA caaesoBiiiitfl paid 1>y hla. la ndditien to this yrorlBiaa
of pnrKigraph 3 of tlM orijiaal lenee, -;fhicb hao Jtt9t been ooa*
■ idered. tlie leaoe further proTided in substttnoe the-.t if the Xeeeee
ehottld fail te pay any eueh tuces or aB^«ss«r.enta« the leaeor aight
at hie optiena although not obligated ao to do» adTanoe and pay
•ay and all nuineyB raaBonably iieceBflary to ataJce g^^if afly aue^
defaalt of the[.JLeaeeem and if the leneor should sake any sueh
payment* the leecee oerenantcd to r^pay the lessor the an^aiat
thereof within thirty days after aotiee by the lessor of sueh
payaent vith interest thereoa «»t the rate of seven per cent per
aanua trtm the tiae when sisiid pajaxents were aade rospeotirely.
It was further prerided in said lease that if lessar
should adrance any aoneys for the fajnoat of suoh texes or
•ooeseaeats or for the redeaptien of the deaised preaises froa
•ay tax sale or for the purehR;»e or eaaeellatien of any tax titl«
thereafter derived under eueh sale, it should not be obligatory
apon the lesser before taaking nny sttch adTiuice or payment to aaka
any ia<^iry whatever into the validity of any such t$^xee or
assessaents or any sueli tnx title, and further that in purchasiag
aad eaneelling aay tax title upon the preaises the leseor shoul4
not be linitod to the amount to whioh the holder of sueh t -x title
would bo entitlftd upon the setting aeide of the sane by deeree of
oourt* but the lesBor should have the right to aake such tnrae
with the iMldftr of sueh tr^x title as the leseor mii^i d«e»a proper,
even whuugh the sg&t^unt paid thert>fer be in exoees Of the n«r>unt
which the held^i^r of aueh t»x title would be entitled to receive
aad th t the ontirc sua ao paid by the leeiBor shall then be due
•Ad payable to the leaaor fron the lessee •
The evidenoe shows that the non-yayaent by defendant*
of the t^«xe» aad speeial iiaseasaents set forth ia plaintiff *•
etateaent of claim w&a brought to the attention of defendaata
•»-
•INW mk«(f 'itwt *Mt floiiNr ,«««fiX *"-•
irf»l« tot t<«
ditjauMfi^-wtfta^fti**. '»««* ^-^ -*»* i«»
itewt le 19,^*01 «i{T x^ MJt.l«« Y*itft n(«ft t^-xirfi fi2<(ilv lavrcttrfl
fieijisil'fo «f t«c Mvftila it tftX.** ifstm tvAnw h«Tl«oi> -
«4»« oi^ ^fMwx«f %e wMtuv&M 0bm x*^ t^lMam •'s»l»^ tMseJ
n« <»9x i tf^cm \:n'> to ^^IblXiiT oi(^ «^ai Ttrofitifir t^iJip
tTir i4^ ooolw^itc) tliiooiu
.-i-Kq.iT. is. <h -ti^, • "J 01 f»*jji.v JW«/ llo;i
••••■•X o4:
otfao^Bol*«t x' ^«Maq(«<r««HN9 otft tm0i4 torwto OO'
o'ttii«ii<rT n/ 4#1Q^ iroo MnoonowvAa X«i»i»t« JbniD «o^
•••
aor« tluui thirty Anyn pri^t t» the inatitutioa of thia suit.
flu falXura of dtfendaato to pay thea« texoa and apaolal
aasoaaaenta in oonforaity tvith th« obligation iapoaed upon thai
hj tho lenao waa tho atthjeot of mmeroua iatenriowa 1>ot«e«n the
attomoja and age»t« of tho p&rtioa horoto, and in on* of thoeo
intorriowo it vaa apparsnt that dofandAnta oxpootod plaintiff
to bring action for the non»pa]Mont Of thaoe texoa and aaaoamonto
and infercntinllj invited plaintiff ao to do. In Yiev of thio
OTidenoe, we luro of the opinion that the trial eoart vao JoatifioA
in holding thnt plaintiff wna not preoladed from bringing this
aetion on ncoount of any failure en hi a part to giro the thirty
day notice nentiont^d in the original l«aae«
But it ia urged on behalf of appellant that the notioo
vhioh tho leasorawere re^tired to giro should hare boon in writing^
Betting forth ia detail the it«BS of plaintiff's clalMa and
further* that euoh written notioo should have boen depoaitodi
in the n;%il ia etriet oonfomity with the proviaiona of paragraph
13 of tho loaao. This par^^grnph provided th»t et^eh of the partioo
ahould deaignato aosie peraon or oorpOTfition in the City of Chioago
ao hio agont to recoiYO notioea and d«utnda and ahould fumioh
hie own addreaa and tho address of aueh agoat* whieh night bo
^aagod frott tiao to timi« and further provided that if any
aotieo eoBtenplated by the proriaiono of tho leaao ahould bo
addroaaod to the party to be notified at the addreaa ao furniahoA
or to the agent oe deoignated, and ooat by registered vail to
oueh party or agent at ouoh addreaa* aueh delivery or aendiag
ahould bo doeiMid for the pnrpoaoa of tho lease* a good and
euff ielent anryiee of auoh notice upon the party oo sought to bo
notified. A8 WQ Tiew thia provlaion of the le^ao* it aet forth
a aethod by which either of the partioo to the leaao aight giwo
notioo to tho other and that by eoaiplying with thaoo oonditiono
tho party oo notified would bo prevented froa disputing tho
•flat aUU f 0»iiitfl#MU 9Mi #t <i*iT« rfaft ^rvijCl
mC# ••mr#»<r •W9tn**mi mmnitmaa 1« tftoj^^rifa tif# 9tm •nm I •4$ t^
•••4# %• «M 111 teii .•#«it*tf nmlitrnti Mtt >• «|Mm»ii »fi« BX*Bn9ttm
\\k^al»tq ^•t9Hpf Miiutbm9t»h i»At ta^tAW «jt^ SM •••Im^imk
ji«i*(jt.' (ni^i iMU* ti»if# n«tftX«o mi9 It* rut ew ,Mii*biT«
9ini yinii:(M- f v«vr^ MAtfXt»1l| ;t^« max Itl/QiAtf] li%i(4 9«i*iCrrl al
•oi;;.. ^:. ... »fti»i:£»(;(|£ 1^0 lXiid«ir no ftustv •! #i ;)0ff
bttltnnfffh 11^90 **9tun bltrtin «ei#o«i a^flrw tirtm f»A) ,*^ff^e?
Ka^TH^vf "^^ tfi»l»tTOt4: «fl «l«r x^<w(A^<^ t**!*^" nt 1'.
9»i»'tA\q wit to iC«,«tt ^Mtf4 Mfclrrrq d[«rji«|^««f «. .
•9o»lrf0 %• x^^^ *At ml MOl/.^vftq- :ab^i»<[ «§•• ttMltl«»l» «X09ff«
rf»lar«et AXinmAi a«im sMumo* ift*» «4i0j;l«a untt^tn t>$ t»m» mid •m
9i 9^iM 4mitfir «lnt9M tfft0« !• •««v*6« «Ai hiu* vir'tnli.l.a ctv« tM
\:yif 'i lb«<lk|yt«« %Nf#w1 {>n« «o«ii' •# «sXd tt»T'k '>»9«Mto
•9 IlMir i>»^*^9li|»t i(cr v- ^ . ilAfr7)i««h en inv^ ■ vd
saiMHMi nt x^t«vlX»b itBCd «(!c<mi:'-: tf»M 9a tair^a t« x-'~^^ ^tn
ham b9(i% a ««««*X iMfi iM ••••n'rut ftfri <s»'^ ibMvi*«j^ tftf bXtftnin
rf^rrvl #«« ii ««vft«X M(# !• a«t»lrf>v« vJbKiT wnir »«- c/v .tM»X^J;4«ii
«n«l#l*«M ••vii« gskm »iRjtxX<tM» x^ ^«uli i>m itnitia mfU •« d*l»Mi
•«^
Bufficieney of the n«tioe, 2t dofincd a aethod of aerrinc e
aetic* or domajnd whloh* under all oirotmotoiMos, would be daoaeA
•uffioient «md ralld* Thia preyislon do«» not preclude either
of the p»rtie8 froa glYing h. different kind of a notiee aa4
■«r-viac the eaae in « different manner. It does not rniuire
thftt all notice* aust \>e given tn the raenner specified. Con-
■equently «e consider the position of oppellant untenable « in
urging that plaintiff was pro eluded froa attintftininf]; hie notion
1»y his failure to give a written notiee in the B^iinn«nr specified
in paragraph 15 of the original lervne, it being apparent that
defendants had aaple notice und wore well swaro of their de-
fault in respect to the pnywent of taxes and assossnents aero
than thirty d^sys prior to the institiation of the suit, ^e do
not think th&$t justice requires us to hold thr t this suit was
preaaturely brought and to subjec^t the parties to the ^ditional
expenses of n further suit*
It is also contended by appellant that t)M owners of
th* leasehold estate are not obligated to pay the itoms of
•xpense incurred by the lessor for eonaiesions and attorneys*
fees and for interest upon the aa»unt of respeotlYe sales for
taxes and special aseessaents. Wo aro of the opinion thnt tho
iteas for conmission and interest are proporly inoiluded under
the provision of tho Iohso whereby the losaor is entitled to
repnyment for the entire sua paid by hia in purchasing and
cancelling any t«ix title derived under any sale aade en aeeeuat
of the non*pK7a<}nt of inxos and asaesenents. It is oont(^n4ad
by appellant that no t^^x title was pur chased but thst plaintiff
purohased eertifioates of sale only* These certificates <!iro
aade assignable by the statute of thio state and an asaisnaeni
thereof vested in the assignee of the right and title of the
original purchckser. 7)io ^tuproae Court of this state has eon-
sidored the rights of the holder of a tax title in tho eano 9t
«»li#l« •ibulflttt! imv "^Att CSl«lT««t{ mitts .ftiX«T Itoir iSftf*l>lMl
9xiar*i% tmt •vtth tt .i*<miMi Mr»i[«<ilib m «t «bm» «rf^ ta^r«*i
ti. .9ltf««»^n» «ttsXr*qq« t« aokikaiff Mil ii9bi«am> vv x'^tftiyttt
•intit>« tiff ?MtifttMitln« iio-r% WJbtfi»<»i^ (iA« YtijrcJtoXq #aiU bkI^t*
••!> TtMtt %• •^ava ttw9 awtv Mm ^mI^mi AXcdto bmS ctttrtlNrvl^ft
^«^ ••X4W 9▼ll^»tt«Y t« tirv^iM ^rf; ft«9« ^8»ir«Mi vol »n» «••%
i%bnv b^btffnai x^*<l*^9 •^^ Je*n»ral tea M<oi«»i«aM lal aiM#i
•1 %%Ultttt ml t»o«ai arft t^afMfv a^raX aH« Ko salvimq atf»
faHw*9m aa aJMor «£•« xa« *r«^lftf bavi*(«l^ 4»X^ir xvl >:«« MiUXaoaaA
M^fti>#««o tl ^X •■tHAMiaaaatt bna aaic'l ta »«»ia|<iS«>e«w 0<f^ ta
m#alaXt itU lw# ha*.ifoYav a«v m£$li »mi ma $mHi itimiL9%%M x^
rt» «>»taal)|#ii»e •m^ift ,vl«a hjIk* la aataallKnoa »a«4iCan«q
#«a wail vat im ina alata alitl la a^vfM^n 9(f# t' »ItfAn>l««« «>ba«
•^ lo aXll# kna itt^kt 9di 1* awtslaai cut ai »••••▼ laavaift
••* aiMa aXrftf la #^»^ft lawtfaH aiJT '>>itif Xaai»iio
la aui* »di mi mtMki jMi ji i« «*axMf a^a i» ■■■■^^ .t^i -■-*-
Xarwdn ▼. CX»», 235 111., 583, end the lttn«:a»g» there used iiqilies
that n o«rtiflOAte ef a tax aalt 1« tho ti^l-valeiit of » tax title
and thnt hy tha endora««ent and dolivnry ef tmoh n ««rtifieat« ef
sale the a«3lgnee thereof »eq[tti3r«8 a %nx titln. f therefore can*
olade that plaintiff tma entitifld to rfiffersr all nonays i^aid by
his in parohaaing a tax title and in eanonlllns any oueh title aa
veil At all reasenahle expnnaes incurred by hiie in 90 ining* it
Veins proTldwd la the lease that the leasor sight adTanee and pmy
all money r«a»OBaUy ngeeao-^ry tft an)ML,ettod-nn3r_defm»l^ ef th#
Xeeeee, 7h«re is no santention or proof hat thsi^t the pnjment
of eooBBiasions wr.a *re>ts;onahly neee0is<»ry* in order to sake ifood
tlio defaalt of the leasee or thst the sonsnst^siiiona bo f»aid w*re
nnre-.aonahle. It is not f!<»nlf»d th&t under the prevlPiona of the
leaee if plaintiff i« entitlttd to rofsoTer, a r«)'sennhle alleirKnoe
thoald bo Kale for >ttorney«* feeo in this procendlni;. The amount
of such nliowanee wae >9tipQXated hy the p«rtie«,and therefore no
4iooHieiOB of thio feature ef plaintiff *e olain la nee«aaitry,
HO are of the opinion thrt the judipnent of the trial
•ourt vaa in aonforeity with the 1««? &nd the '»ridettoe» an^ it ia
therefore affirmed •
Oridley, ^, «r,,,{tnd Samos* J.« oononr*
-r-
X«
A
HKUOI HOO^SH, Adaialatratr
•f ths featate of Kenteoav r^ C •
ApptflLlant* } AP9SAL ra<«
i
)
} CIRCUIT COUHT,
COOK COtTFTT.
)
22i3I.A. 648"/
MB« JV^TXCS MOnnXlX 13KLIVSR2P ?!1S OiPI^XOV OF TH£ CCtfRT.
Xhia notion va» "brought \»y th« appellant* who vas
plaintiff In the oevirt 'belev, to r<*o«ver 4nnag«« for tho
death of WoatfrfURAry C. 7oop«r, olleged to hciTO b««n onosod
"by the neglieenee of an erploye of the defwndant, wbo w&s
then driving ite horse and vagon on Madloon street in the
City of Chioi9go «kt the intersection of th<$t street with
'srella street. The dL«eIarH.tion eontslned two counts. In the
first of «hieh def^ndfint is ehnrged with negligenee in the
nenfkftesient oad control of the horse and express wagon* The
•eeond count ehftiyca thnt defendant caused end p«raitte<1 the
horse and wagon to be driven at an linreasonsble s.nd nnl&^'rful
rate of speed, theraby enusinjt; the said horse and wagon to
run into the decedent so injuring bin &» to otmee hie dei>.th*
There was a plea of the generel issue. She enuse was triod
before the oourt and a Jury* and xf% the eonolusion of all
the evidence the court, on motion of the defendant, inetmotoA
the Jury to find defendnat not guilty, whieh was done* Klotiono
for a new trial and in Hrrest of .ludj^ent were denied aadl
judgment entered on t>ie verdict.
There was a foxver trial of this ease, resulting in
• JudgMont in foTor of plaintiff for the snsi of $8500, whlek
«r«B affinsed hy this oourt* fherouyon defendant prooocutod
its petition for a writ of eortiorarl in the ^proa* Court,
\
Hi >'»
V
u
'-.•/f.-lrr.ft
o ^^i ^*^ .♦»ii»v*A\
*•«•«• a*»tf dYMf •# i»»]i«XXA .i»9(»«H .*> t^»MrjU«4ii^« die
•sfl Hi #»«Ti» «f>«ll!uil( ar« fiotsnr te# M'^a^ ' -^*
«U b^iiUn9^ bum frMim* #ink««%*6 tMif;r »ii^juSi> Jaiir
Xtrtr«Xair ka« •!#««•«« ••!«» ft* l« llt▼l1t^ rcf oi rnmwtnr 6ft.' tnoif
•« tt*l*" ^«« AirtM iticti Mti ^ultimo x^vfUi •&»•«< t4i t^«t
»«Jht4 ««« ••«»• MlY ,%iM*i tai9tm^ mii lo •«!« » imv »i«iX
A*i9mi«iiJl .^Mbsst^i Ml to iv«ltf<>0 no ,«im9 fttft •MtaJ^iTo ttf^
•'•li«> .rjtlin fa #«ii»a«1t«h fe«|t «« xt»l mCI
Hi »iUjXm«»y «»m» Aiifl !• X«intf i««i«l « •«« •\mCT
itoJute .vMlM !• MM wiCi !•> ttl^nlaXq to lorrs) oi l«MmJ>tft «
to#l|i»«»«T« #aAk««l«k ft««WI»l(r •J'XJMO %ldi ^ ^MRf^'- —
wlil«h v9a alle««4« and on the iMartng in thnt e«art the ^adgo
aenta of this 4«nrt nad ef the CircMilt Court were rcTsrsed aaA
the eeae rea^nded to the Ciroait Court. Ho Open; t. AdaffB »»pre»e
SSSSSSSil* '^^ 111*. 169. The opinion of th« Supreme Court
earcfuIXy re-riewed the ftvldenao in th« a«ae end nfter a eoneid-
eretlon thtireof reached the conclunion that plaintiff had failed
to ahow that deeensed «»a in the exeroise of ordinary onre for
his own (nftfety at the time of the f*ceiv^ent. Thia concluaion la
predieeted upon evldenee tending to ahow that nt the tiae the
deeedent oterted to eroas ir»dii»on atre<»^t in a northerly dirietioa
fren the aouthvest co;tior of the atre<!>t intora^otion, th«re ««a
atending upon the eouth aide of Vodieon street tm «:^s!terly bound
atreetear and in front of it » wojton draim by tno poniea* Tht
atreetoar and the wagon were aweitin^, the eeat and went aignal
hefore eroasing ^lla atretrt. i)«oedent pat»ed in front of the
atvoetoar between it and the weii^on in front of it* Troie thia
otate of facta the eourt oonelude^l that the deoedant, if ho
oraaaod in front of the atreetoar before it etartsi?* -n.\.« distant
froai the atroet oroasin^; aa f F<r n9 the length of the team of
poniea and the wsms^br* which wua in front of the oar* On tho
other hand* if ho did not paaa in front of the otret«toar until
after it had atHTted nnd had nored over thia distimeft to the
orosaway, he waa attenptin^ to oroop the street b«t«<!>en Tshiolea
ROTintii; enst and weat. theae eaat and west bound 7<?)HioXen had the
right of wny, and if deeedent went betwetm two of thirm he eould
not wall have he«n UBttn and eould not r>t*^dily eee i».pprou<:hing
Tehioleo. The court held thr^t the evidenoo failed to ahow that
in attcapting to oreaa the atreet at the tiae tanS pl^vce and in
the aaanor ho did* the deeeaaod waa in the exeroise of ordinary
eare for hi a oaa oaf ety.
*. -iw* .*.*un»f» - > ^' .in'ihX^tM %Hi to •«.-, .... . «,— . .^« •!*
fiJi ivtv^Mf tar
«Xnii»9 ♦tit.
nti actt ■a in) m i^olano^^ ^rtn^« aj'
■^■iiHiZta if-dt '\9 lfl«'rt Ki ••oq :
'9Hm mi hvXlal -? . _. - __. Jttfo- >•/<; .<vir»}rt«f
«t^*'^> <^ a*'0 "'^
•a*
Zt l8 urged 1»y ftppAllant th^X the •riA%»99 in tlw
l»*t trl»X Af th* oastt ahovs thrt diee«<ftft*d in going northerly
««rot« Madison street «»8 on the crasevalk »t a ti«« vhen th*
traffic VA» pftsaing north end eouth along ^elX» etre«t end
that it doee not show that he paaved hetveoa the etreetear and
the teea of ponies and vuison nentionedt in the opinion of the
Sitprese Court above oit«d. «%ile th«! opinion of %hc oupreso
Cnurt, based upon the «vl4enoe «^t the fo:««r trial, anst
govern the Cironit Cnurt, in t*ny further proce&4ings in the
oasot so far tut legal pritteipZer?i verti laid down therein, y^t
the eon elusions of the ^preoie Court tie to aattiirs of fact
does not eontrel upon another trisl wh^reia th« facts smet b«
detemined from the evidence then introduced, grentioe t,
Srane. 340 III,, 280,
The eridenee on the p&rt of pleintiff r>t the last
trial of the oaso eoasisted only of the testlAoay of tea «lt-
Bosses, oao of urtioa was the plaintiff. She had no kno«led|[e of
the aeeident and testified only ednccmiag h^^r relantienahip to
the deeoHsed, his aite, |^oi<?al eondition, ocsuputien, er\rning
oapaeity and her less of mippert on aoeaunt at his death and
her aprointiB^nt as admlnietratrix of his eetnte. Her «Tide.BOe
also eetablishod the fact tho^t two of the witnesses at Um
fem^r trial of the ense died prii^r to the lact trial. She
other witnesR testified thi-it he siet the doeeased at the etreet
taterseotioa Mentioned. The treSfic ^t thrt ti»o was marims
north and south ea >'ells stsreet and the east nnd west bound
traffic OB SlAdiaon str^tet vtis halted; th<^t the dee<:^tleat,
aeoflsipanied by one BHSket (who has elnoe died). stf»^rted »erot«
■adisoa street on the pedestrians* orosswalk. fm east bound
streetear was standing on the sooth oide of kodison street Just
west of the orosswalk. After decedent had atnrted across
^;rf• *•« 1i»C
J O". J HPT J P'
••nsbiv
;«0Ai7';?? felt" ^to \^iii> t>n.tai«A«te ai :» Mff.^ **i .r Ifj'
*o -v^Salvoitl »n ft »efj st^t a«}f
JkCM ifJii»<^ 9lti "- »^eM !• ai^iX vm( A«« t'l
ya»t t9*Tia «4Miltkall 1« gfclo Miliar aAr na T^tminjn mw -uialaavla
•a«ta« tet«»Ja kmd Aan^i^^ ak^lA. .iC^MMHMMhaMA l* #•••
Kadison •ir««t the »ign&l via voundsd far the traffio t« wore
• aat and vast on Mi^^^laon atrent* fh« witnaaa aeif th« dl>9fnni»At*a
haraa and w&gan atr-mdlng on the eaat Dltila af I'alla strait h««dad
wast. Aa soon na th« Bignul vum given for tha «n«t and waat
trnffio to itoTft, the drivar af dffandiuit'e tafloi t-tarted tip tha
haraas and l««hed than vith tha lines until he got tYum Intn n
gAlXop, 30 th>it the horaaa were (Toin.'t ^t r; »pe«d af tan or twelTa
Kilas an hour. At the west arosawalk the horaatt and vnfvon nollidaA
with df^eadent with aueh TioXenaa that thf latter w-e thrown t<) tiM
ground and tha whaals of th^ ^uKon p»ie»ad orcr his >>edj. Injuring
his so soTerly th^t ba died rithin d fe^ hours. It is apparent
th^t tha «Tidanoa upon the l&at trial of tha CMaa d if farad vatariaUy
trom that which wan givan &t tha forai«>r trlnl.
Tha ^uprana Court in doeidiiiF thr- omaa of li^hyt
lic^igjl A Lihby V. Cook. 22a 111., 210, ofiirffttlly reriewrrt tha
prior deoieiona of tha court upon the subject of «rranting an in*
atruotifin finding tha defendant not fruilt.y %t the Aonclttf>ien of all
the evidenoAt and held thnt a notion for au nh inetrttotlen ahntild ha
allowed *whera tha oTid«jnoa, with ali. tha loglttar.te and natoral
inferencftsi to ha drown thorafrow, is wholly Inwjf f lcl«»ttt. If
oredited, to sustain a Yordiot for tha plaintiff," ?)>nd th«t th«
inatmotion shnuld not ha givon "exoept where there la a suhetantial
failure of eTidenae tending to proTe the plaintiff's eauaa of KCtian
or to proTe soca material fnct ntifimti-^Tj to eetnhlish it," citing
authorities, the well esteblish^d rule is thtit where "ewidenea
introduced an behalf of the plaintiff, whf;n taken to ha true, to-
gether with all the legitimate inferences i«hleh nay he drawn there*
frtta in fs.w»r of pluintiff , tends to support the o:«i8e af n^iaa
sat out in his deelarHtion," the Botion should not ha giran.
Union Bridge Co. ▼. Yehan. 190 111. ,374.
ftTMl i
•4t #••«#• «Ml*«V
•Hi 4»
Mir t- iiTW/l* Urtir »♦!:? ' '■-^* • -^ *- «-.^a/>>'■
■C^ 'i
XAtwtnn Isim ilia
•i*
V« are of the oplnlen thnt th«r« von «Tid«n«« la the
r«e»r'l vhieh, ct«A<ling nione» with all Iffitlaiatt lnf«r«B««a
vliioli night 1»« drawn therwfraw in fftwor of th« plaintiff, wrs
mffiol«nt tn suotoin a Terdlot in faTor of p3L«lntiff • Za Ki«h
a eaa<( th<» .iury ahouXd hare bwan nXX»wed to pans upon th«
CTidenew end the notion for a ptrtmptnry iavtruetion ohstuiA
hurt b««n dteaied, Bartalott ▼. International Bank* X19 Z1X.«
^^^i Cfftt^ ▼• GoXwbian Expotition. X75 tXX.. 472. Ao trao
asid >j the Utt9r<niO Court in tho e»80 of JUj^bby. KoHeiX k Ui^T^X
^* CoolCa onpiTfta "thoft Koy bo in a record evideneo «^leh,
otaadiai; aXono, tondo to pro to alX the B&tf^riaX nverBente of
iho deoXaration and whioh is therefore auffioient to eupport*
warrsnt or Bttntsin h Tordiet in faror of plaintiff, and yet,
«poa the whole record the evidence mmj ao preponderate against
plaintiff that a werdlet in hie tn-wt oannet etand when tested
by m Motion for a new trial. • • » A werdiet for the defendant
ehfluld not be directed when (.here la in the record ewidenee
whlc^ fairly teada to proYO all the material averetente of tho
deolartttioa**
Tho jiidemont of the Circuit Court ia roweraed and
the eattse rtm^knded.
Oridlwy, r. J., and B»me9, J«, ©oncur.
ax iecrff^lT* airr »*r<»il^ swUlc *♦«? lo »-:
Wi'-n'd rtoi^ev ■ , - »tli ban »9a»* iT»
#iuVa*l4i' oe(i <i«l #*i
■■•■ -T**! Hi :
14l"';i Of!, 7il«
TR0KA8 J
TOBIH and PR!n> BHflTDT, / )
AVpellofea. )
APPSAL JICW CIHCTTIT COU.«?T Of
COOK COmiTY.
223 I.A. 649^
IIH. JUSTICK MORRILL IBHIVSRBD THB OPIUIOlf 07 TITF COUHT.
Appsllant, vho was complfa-inant 'balov, filod his bill
for an injunction on iCsjjr 24« 1920. An or^ar granting* the injunction
was entered on that date without notice to appellees, isho were de-
fendants in the court below. They filed their answers to said bill
and a motion to diseolre the injunction was esade and entered by the
eourt. Ob Korember Id, 1920, the bill was dissiissed on sotioa of
the eomplainant und the injunotion diseolyed. By leave of court,
granted Noyera^ier 22, 1920, the defendants on that date filed their
atiilgestion of dartages ai^ on Soyembor 29, 1920, daaiar^es weire asecBsed
against ooaplainant in the surn of $190, f^ich he was ordered to pay
to the clerk of the eourt «itl:;in fire days from the date of said
order. A rerersal of this order is 8eu<;;ht i» the present appeal.
The record oontalns no certificate of evidence u-nd the appellees
have filed no briefs herein.
front the fore^^oing statement it is apparent th&t the
order B.sse88ing dassages upon the dissolution of the Injunction was
entered by the trial court six days after the dismieaal of the
suit upon the motion of oonplainant. Ho order reinstating the
cause is shown. 'Rie statute of this State prescribed, in substanoc,
that upon the dissolution ef an Injunction and before final disposi-
tion of the suit, upon the filing of written suggestions of daaages
^ reason of suoh Injunotion, the court nay hear eTidenee and assess
s
\
\
Qj^'d J
•tit vi h0t9$m9 te* slitfr nam moltr :$ t^ivMit,
linAi J>*Ii) Bimb iaiit no «inMl^»l«l> •!(.' JtS tcMfMrreff te^orxi
VK ** btffkno SUV sii d9lxiw ,061^ lo eui/ ;> i^aniiisa
Maa l9 «»ii» •:<^ Motl »y(^ aY>" jr-iuao a:a 1o sCialv atU «}
,La»qq:« ^fraaonq; r>ai 10 oiiW 1© Xa»«aTf
•••XXeqtfe •ijf Ana a^i ('i:.--» lo vj^oX^iltfto on a0l«#ii«M j^^dst m
.r!iM«il «lai%tf M k*Xit •TAit
mtL$ tMit $nt>\m.isi' mi ^ ». ^.tv^.^^iu ^i*w|<a>aa) aaii Morf
•mr aol49muiMJt aifl lo «ai^»XeaaiJ^ acEl fraqK >»aa— > saXa«aaa.-> T«*«e
•lU lo Lmumlm»lh •At ttttXm mj/kk xtm #T0«o Xttinit A^ t*' Jbaia#aa
M(^ ]|iill4»4afiian 7*i^Y« an ,#«a«JUX«JM« !• cr*iloai ai(# «•<}» ily«
.o«M#«4«a Ml ,ika^lt»arx4 a^«48 altft 14 9iuS»i» rndt .iivMa cl »«tr«o
-laoqtXb Xanll aitol^tf ktu* moiiaituiMl tut lo «oi#vXoaaXA mA m«vi ^'-^
a»«aai»ib la mae 14 ttrattim ifitirw lo sviXll adi tt9';u ,jrl*is trfl lo noil
• aaaaa Aim aoaatlra xaarf i^aia tivao mdt ^mcti9nu{jil Mau la ffaa«at xi#
■ttofa dMUkgVB »m the nature of the ci£«e may require. R. B., chapter
69« aeetien 12. The langwijice ie plain that the suggeetions «uat be
filed and the daattges aeseBsed prior to the final dlB^OAltion of
the suit, irihloh in tMs c&se took plb«e on Hoyeoiber 16. 1920. In
the csiee of Convay r, ?o^e. 161 Hi, Aop., 119, a SttC{<;e>tlon of
teaagea v&b filed after the dismleBal of the Islll and an order en-
tered striking t}te sajne from the files. There was hold to be no
error in this procedure.
It 13 irell settled that jurledietios over parties to
a cause is temin&ted by the disatiaeal of the ease. Jurisdiction
OTer then is at &n end and they st&sd as they did before the cooi-
SMncenent of the suit. ICorptan t. Caapbell. 54 III. App. 242.
!Ehe order of the Circuit court ia reTeroed,
(Jridlay, :. J., and Barnes, J,, concur.
. - - . fio t»-T f". yooi «»«;.• Bl'/i al Ifvliii .iXtft •(<#
,'ik'iifiat> ,.C ,a«»«iit 1 iktXibisO
180 - 26840 Vi
?. C. VCOORB, BotnK BiuiiB«s« la
CO., \
^Appttlle*,
▼«.
'v»^
) A?i«AL FROi wnnciiiAL court
CHIOAOO mXOTRJC COJlpTHDCTlbW CO., )
a Corporation,
OF CHICAOO.
S^ox.A. 649^
UK. JXraTICl MORRILI. DET.IvaR81» THB OPIHIOH Of TRK fOTOT.
Suit w&s broUf?;bt lay plaintiff, who 1b appelloo kero, to
reeoTor the sun of #34S allagod to be duo hi^ from deforciant as
3
eoamlBSionB on the sale of a 200 KVA/phfeoo Altortu^.tor to the Ortoid
Bap ids Piano Case Coopany of nrsxii Rapids, Michigan. The statement
of olaia sets forth that it vas agreed between plaintiff nnd defend-
ant that the said naehino should be billed to the purchaser for the
sum of $1500 lose fire per oent., one-half of which purchase price
to be paid on arrlTal of the saohino and the balance In thirty days
•after being in operation;* that the defendant, in consideration of
the procuring by the plaintiff of a sale of said inaohine to said
pnrehasor, was to char^o plaintiff for said naohino 11200. loss 10
per c^nt. it said 9raiid Rapids Piano Case Coqipany nade the pay«onts
as abore indicated. It ia &lso alleged that said purchasar paid
$1500 for said aachine, less fire per cent, thereof, or a net stai of
#1425, and that there then beecae due to plaintiff 1^345. oonaisting
of aa iton of |£25« vihloh was th« difference betwoon $1425 and |1200,
aai an itosi of fl20, being ten per cent, of said sum of $1200.
By its affidarit of laerito defendant denied naking or
haring any agreement with plaintiff regarding 9tki6 sale or any sale,
and denied that plaintiff procured said sale for defendaat and that
there was any indebtedness whatOTor froa defendant to plaintiff.
There was a trial before the court without a jury, resulting in a
OMM • ••!
i
'1 MTwr
o) ,MtMf ••XXtqqii •! fliCv «^li#atalq -^^
S
fR»«9l«^« Mff .«Bft<f3l9 ,«MqaiA jMUrtC Y« tCMNIMOfl •MlS ail/
^JU« o^ imttmm: : j.;: ^#al«X«r vdV T^ viinfeoT«( ad^
CX ft :^ wridQJW iii«« -^i mi« ,ii»MHl««ft
lo «fa l*n a«I ,.»c^ndMt A)i«a i«l 00iX|
avifalvKee .9^;^ 'ni^aiJtI<( oi ov^ fia»:)arf fi*r<i tni««(i tMtt$ bum ,4S|.X|
..^9X1 *A« «t>Xf Mw^*tf •eiiM^lllb •!<# MMT itoli^ ,tSll# !• flMl (w !•
.OOSXt ttt mia ftlM !• ./n»e t«t 0»1 vrl»<l ,0$Xf Tt« amti bm tea
.•£jn jjn» to oXa* kx«o nffti^'«?t*v llX^iit«Xq[ M^iv #«M»«t^^ v<» ^*uv^l
t^ (. AfM ituAnw/\m% *i«l oXao M»« teuroon^ IXtimUtq ftU 6*l«*ft Am
i>r<j«rf Oi #lf«bflO^Oh flttVl 'AVt^tr.!^ •••Ilb«#tf«tei XM •«« tt»(ll'
rfM.^-i ir^M^ g, ttnttfiv ..««- A4f^ »7olMr iBlxi m MW MASS
finding and JudpMBt ia faror of plaintiff for $545. Ko propoaltlons
of Ittw or findini^s of foict were ambmitted toy olthor sido. A rororeail
is sottf^ht upon the ground that th« oridenoo doos not sustain tho
finding and judgBont.
The erldence a^ovs thut defendant sold uad shipped the
■Aohine in question to the Orand Rapids llano Ctise Coapany in
January* 1920* pursuant to a vritten order from that company re»
oeiTed by wall. The letter from purohaser to defendant containing
said order was dated Sa-nv^ry 7, 1920» and referred to two letters
from defendant to the 3rand Rapids Piano Case Company dated January
5, 1920» containing a quotation of price for the aaeklBe. The na-
ehirm was sold for $1500 less a discount of fiye per cent., Maklag
the mt price $1425. laintiff testified to sundzy conversations
regarding the sale with different persons who were either officers
or employes of the defendant corporation. The testiiaony of plain-
tiff as to these conrersations is directly contradicted by eaoh of
the persons with whosi said respeotlTe conTersations are alloi^A to
hare been held. On June 8, 1920, defendant wrote to plaintiff ac-
knowledglBg receipt of a letter from plaintiff claiming « eostsalssioa
on the sale of this machine. Defendant's letter stated the receipt
of the 9Himr for the maohlne from the Qraad Rapids Piano Case Coa-
paigr and denied that defendant had erer quoted a price of $1200 less
ten per cent., and speeifleally denied that plaintiff h^ any eeanett-
tlon whaterer with the sale of the mawhlae in quest ioa to the Qraad
Rapids Flano Case Company. Copies of sundrj'^ letters alleged to hawi
been nent ^ plaintiff to defendant were reeeived in oTldence o-rer
the obJeetloB Of defendant's counsel. No notice to produce the or-
iginals of these letters is shown by the reeord and no foundatloa
Appears to haTo been laid for the admission of thj copies. The presi-
dent of defendant company denied the reee^pt of any of these letters
T*$nwm f- ,»bXB Ysrfil* t^ t)*##i»<<ar to wm£ '^c
•d# toqqltfa baa tla« l.i4)bn*ls* /^irfi vvorts aorrai^T:. acfjr
b1 ta<^9[*»3 *•«»> •RAirv iblq^iiH Jta*tO «tff ct nolifuf ai aofrf—
X%4tfft£& iaiaA -Xn'^*'*^ «a«3 o' > — '^ * '* ^* faabttBt^b itofl
- -.^'^ .anliiaA-r »■'-' •- — * — -,^, . . ^ .- .^twoo ,'"»•:»'■ -•
gaao - , ilaa a.^.t
-aa# aetr .iiall«n« -^ 'aft a/t^ '^o aa*^
Cv. rn(« saoi^iSrxaTvrea avitaa^e i:« anaa*^
-ij. fii.rni.iii oj sJo-i^ t: ,'-t)n*tnh ,09f : . liXaif Aaatf ararf
Haiaaiatooa • :talmUlti IIJ o i^lm^wt ^l%b0lwvmt
iqt—m arfi 5a^«^a rcal^al a*tffiiAa»''. 6i alfti ^e atka •it^ '6«
-aiaO aajaO an»li mhi<iMf. JbrivrS atfi oiovl! MrMa^MK Bri: .^rra arfi %•
aa> ba^aivp «»ra kiul #iMiftiTa)aJI tatft h*lM%h Jkouc XPM
-aanaao t bairdb xX^*i'*>9*4V te« la^T ff*#
ttttnc ri«iiaat), >< ait# to a Ma «tff cCrlv i«ra^«rf« ttttU
mjtd o.* ;na9 aa«8 oraH thitftK
%«vo taeax crriiw jrrAiMats* ,[ X0 J^*** I***'
.£aan»aa a^iiwbnalab \a aailoat'o «di
' tj«itetfa^ vacTa al arc k JLact^i
iw tiTtid &S e*t4angt<ta
•xe«pt that of June 4, 19S0, which witB &n8««r«d by defendant's let*
ter of June 8. 1920, Al^ere mentioned. One ef these coplea, dated
Jaueuury 15, X920, oets forth pl«ilntlff*s claim sub8tAnti«lly ea
•]»eiTe stated. The reeelpt of thio latter i» denied by defendant.
Plaintiff does not attempt to prore stay further eorroepondenes
m«ntienlng a eonmieslen on the sale, until the letter ef June 4,
1920, abore mentioned, wherein plaintiff oalle attention to his
claim for eenaleslons on this sale, by way of set-off to a olelm In
faTor of defendcknt and a;j!:&in8t plaintiff, to which plGiintiff *8 at-
tention had been enlled by a letter from defendant's attorney.
Itie OTldenee, based upon either the alleged conTersatlang?
or the eorrespondence. does not show ai^ airx««nittnt on the part of de-
fendant to ps^ plta^lntlff a oo^smlsBlon upon thle sale. It is apparent
that the i^inds of ths parties nerer met upon that subject. The find-
ing and Judjajment of "ttie trial court were contrary to the manifest
weig;ht of the STldenee.
The judfrment of the Munloipel court is rare reed with a
finding; of f»ct,
Qrldley, ?. J., and Barnes, J., concur.
,^ ttwl Ic .•i«a «:!t no nolanlMnps o ji^JUMitnMi
^iMi ftU.' too ttf %c
.Utisaot:' !:tn«a l 'dlbllO
X80 - 26840 FIin5IM3 OP PaOT,
V« find aiB an ultimate faol in tbii oaas thcit tlwr*
was no contr&ot betv«an the parties for the payment of a cow-iiseiea
Isy defendant to plaintiff upon the sale of the aaohlne Mentioned
in plaintiff* B etatexKnt of elala.
VXttfl »ai^ •ctn 9t.^ r tV
3l8f \ 2M4f
AFJPIAL rROK
/
223 I.A. 649^
M«. JUi-TICK MORnXU. JJSLiyHKFOJ XMB OPXNZOV OF TBa CWHT.
TiM doQlaration in this oiiBe AlXeg«» tkuit on J'vXy
28» I9I9, dftfendi^t, withool. aay rcaaonable or proper eeuff
tor so doingf mb nttomoy for XhervoA Sgeror f nlaoly and
HAlioioaaXy suod out of tH« MualelpaX Cnurt of Chieaf^o o
writ of oftplaa ad aatlofaolendt^io aKalast pl&lntlf f in •
oortoin «uit in soid court, wherein 8«id Thereo* Sgoror woo
plaintiff nnd tho plaintiff in thia iiuit w&a defendant, in
whioh A Jttdipant for $200 and ooata wins adjwdgod to aaid
Tkeroea ligeror for har dcasAgaa in tort, «ad that pttrattaat
to aaid writ plaintiff tnrita ibipriaonad in the Cook Cnuatjr
jail until ralaaacd hy du« process of law, and t)iat plaintiff
vaa injured in her reputation, e^amoter and atanding* preTen1»4
frea tranaectiag her lawful Ifuainaan and waa put to great treahlo
and 9Xp9n9m in ehtainini; her dia(:ii»rffO.
A plea of the general iasuo waa filed axid a apaeial
ploa vharoin defendant alXegod that he was mployed hy the aaid
Thcroaa ii^gerer for the proaeoutioa of the said ci>8e in the
l^'unioipal Cr^urt of Chlongo. The plea recitoa the prooerdinga
in the eaae, whidh vta^a in tort, the verdiet of the Jury and
the Judgnent of the onurt. It alao aTera thnt dafendnnt, under
the temo of hia eaployKont hy the aaid Thcroaa i^erer, wne
entitled to reoeivo fifty per oant of all noaeya reoeiTed and
roooTered hy virtue of aaid JudgaMtnt and that therehy dofoadaat
s
•ffivn nt 10 «scn«« mmx manrunr juiutuom urn : .:^»
#jUMrso^ i«fC# ham •#*tol ai aoiftaslk asjf to^ t«tioi|]'. Acrttiff
l(^Bi.r.^ S[*»9 Mfi al b»n*»il<UHi •««* 1'^|llliNi«; at
llltOlftiq Mill JUM ,««X y% ••l»»e^f flttk X^ t)Mtt«l»K ii^AS X; .
•C#orvi tasii AJ #ii« ••« tea •••«l«iftf X«l««ii y»c( :}^i»Muaiii jmiI
.•liitllciait; Yatf jULtAinJiT* «! Mttsfxn ft««
XAi9»q« « ka» %%tl\ Htm •m«I Iahmmi mC^ 1« saXf A
blAa %ii xi h«xttX«a* ««-'» mf 44a(^ bm^llm inMim»\9% «|»%Mf« «oX«
mU al Miv* »!«« mU !• ««l«i«»Mmf mU «•! «*t»t9 iMftVMft
tea vt*i •dt y* tnlkf^ %A9 %t%%i ml •«» *M« .oaA* Aifi ml
^•(ta» «l«aMra^«» «i(4« BiaYa ««Xii ^I .tTim* Mtt t« #at«i«b«t mU
Aaa k»Tl»o«i •XMMa iXa 1» f«»a ttf ^'llt •▼Xft<«f«'( s^ b*Xil<«ft
•»•
b«eMM •quitabXy » pnrt owaer of the JMdgM«nt. Th* pl«A «teit«
tlM it«uan«e of th« writ of oaplaa ad eatiofaeionrtup and Ita
dollrarj to tho ))ttiliff , aftor def«n<i«nt had filed a ecUodttlo
elaiailBc her •xomjutloao and there had been a return of tho
execution anaatiofled. A roplieation was filed dcnyine: that
plaintiff sued out oaid writ of oepiae ad sntlgfaqlendtMt and
dellrered tho oaaio to the hailiff of the Itunioipol Court pornuant
to his enplojpment as attorney for said Theresa ;<^gerer«
There vao « trial before the court and jury reeultlag
la • Terdiet and judgment in favor of defendant, h reYeraal of
that jadgBont io enught upon the ground that defendant ettuaod tho
losuanoe of the writ of Oe^plwa ad »?ttl8f ftciendtw and tho
lapriBonaioat of plaintiff wlth'tut nny reaonable or proper cmise.
Appellant esp«cii^lly reliea upon tho contention that the foeo of
the sheriff for re<i«iviag plaintiff and her board at the Jail
Wire not paid by the oeeditor in person but were paid by defendaat«
idM wao tho attorney for the creditor*
tho oTidenee shows tho prooeedingo in tho <irlginAl
•nit in tho Munioipal Court vhereln Theresa %orer reeerered a
Judgment against plaintiff as alleged in tho plca^dings in this
oo«o» the issuanoe of an exeoution and its rettum unsntisf iod^
tho aubtsecoaont iasuanao of the writ of capiaa (k<\ as tief sciendum
and tho retnrn thereon thf^t she w&s rolef^sod under t> writ of
lliobeao corpus. It also shoved tho employment of defendant ao
attorney for Therooo t«gorer in the original suit and the agreement
that defeaclnat as suoh attorney should have as a part of his
foes one-half of tho money b recovered under tho judgment; and
that the said Theresa »gerer direoted rtefendaat ro her attorney
to pay to the jailer the foes required to be paid by Ihv in suoh
eaeos, and that sh« furnished her Attorney with Koney to bo so
applied .
•$•
mil ktu ggt -iftktt^ to #lT«r Afff "I* ■•««iMst mU
toi MlHBlMilliiitI It »^^»^ '^'^ ^^^ *^* •*<'• ^f^**" llliiilAMr
Mil ftM» ni tOMR--
'\n.- i'-iir fflu'' ':.£"■•• is i» 'ft !,■■ •" " ■ • 'onviiPiAX
Hat ^i«o^ n«rf »im tli^tflJtAlq 3^-.- . . . .LixttOM tdJ
!• ;
W« aaderstand tlM lav to >e thnt la ord«r to suatalA
as astiOB for th« aalleiotts alms* af legal procean. tha axi*i*a««
of an ttlt«rior parpate nust be cho^m, and furthtr, there amat ta
aaaa aot in ilie use of the proceas not proper in the regular
proaeeutloa of the eaae. Zt hne heen held repeatedly that the
regmlar and legitisftte uee of prooeea le nbt a maliciouii ahuaa
of oneh prooeaa. Bonney ▼. King. 301 111., 37; Keithley ▼.
SteTOBa . 236 111.. 199. The oTideneo in the eaae at tar does
net ahov the prectenee of either of these eleoienta lAiioh are
eaaential to the prosecrution of an aotion of this kind. Tha
procedure followed waa in otriet etMBplifOioe with the Btatute.
Rogardloaa of ehether or aOt defundnnt waa the e<Tuitablo
owner of a half interoKt in the judgofant* which doea not aeon to
be denied by appellant » we see no merit in the oontention of
appellant thut the Jail fees am at be paid by the original Judg*
moat oreditor* Ko criuae of aotion accrued to plaintiff merely
beoauae theae faea were paid to the Jailer by defendant aa attorney
for the judgment oreditor and not by the judgnent oreditor per*
aenally. It ie a fnndnmental principle that one who doea an aot
through the Bediua of another io in law ooneidifred us doing it
hiaaelf . ?hi8 naxin la eapeoially applicable to the relation of
attorney and client, ^'e are of the opinion that the judgaent of
the ^perior Court is in ctonfomity with the evldenoe in the eoao
and the law applicable thereto*
The Judgment of the ^perior Court ia affirmed*
Oridley. P. 3,, and Barnoa, J.« conour.
iaX 04 xtMiwff Jma aa'^- !• twif ail; nl .}o« •«»•
fft'oc -. c ^ t> .. -J Tfuj n< ^sntkJtff 9tK »••! ,*iXX ACS .jt.j^yt '.'<■_■
tttff .l)iKii[ ulds '!:• «oil0« «A t« npl;tm*ovt% 91U1 »$ lmlim—»
■.■«
»■ oMiablvft o<i. :.' Xsx^-iuur xsl t ; . loXtft^jui. MU
.•J9'XBil4 •Ic ,3i4<;q« vol vdi Ami
-\
199 - i^6859
\
OICaR BCBSmCKSt I>oiM; Business
H. ?.
Appellant .
A
APisAi mm wuNT"
0? CHICAOO.
OUHT
223 I.A. 649^
XS. JTHJTICB *«0RRILL BBT.ITKlOtD THB OPIKIOH OP TiiS COtlHT.
Plaintiff's statftosnt of claim fllsd October 8, 1920,
shows that the »etion is brought for oonwalsalons earned in the sale
of certain real estate located at 4120 Hills avenue, Shica^o. The
asuBunt of oosmiasions claiiaed Is $220. Fl&lntiffs claim to have
boon agents of the defendant m proeuriB^ the purchaser. The affio
Aavlt of merits alleges that defendant has no aot^uaintance vitli
plaintiffs or either of them, did net eontraot with them or either
of them to sell the property la cuestlon or any property, and further
denies that plaintiffs OTor perfo3Raed any serrioes for defendant and
denies that he is indebted to pl&lntiffs in any sum. The ease was
tried before the court without a Jury and resulted in a finding and
judgment in favor of plaintiffs for $220, k rerersal of this judg-
ment is sought u|>on the ground that there was no eontraot between
the parties whereby the relationship of principal and lii^ent was
ereated. There appears to be no question ae to the «ttount of the
eommisaions. In ease plaintiffs are entitled to reooYor.
It has fre^iuently been held by this court that in aa so*
tion to reooyer roal estate brokerage ooDeninsiOBS. an imiploymeBt by
defendant to eel- the property must be shown and that the mere faot
of a real estate agent hawing been inatrusMsntal in findini; a purchaser
of the property at the price quoted by the render does not entitle the
•CROC
Q!'.6bt • 9fl
ll«l ,• . :l'-
e i> r^
Jn.-!!i AShJf^A
\
T'.-'.n-,'- ':
ciia»jrf( on Off oj^ uttt^q* m«dT .l»«T.«^n
«a9 •«« tllllfflAEq •<»» nl ,»fft>/
-rsif>'^o-'i 9isim9 I*n xmrQtun %i mlf
•C^Bt to a oMcalsalon unless he Is able to show liia eaployvent by the
•vner for the purpose of effecting the s&le. Bunn t. Saith. 190
111, App, 530; Morton ▼, Barney. 140 111, App, 533{ ffJLlcpx t. Kto.-
drewe, 150 111. App. 27. It Is also true that iB an aetion of this
kind the burden Is upon the plaintiffs to prore the eontraot upon
which they rely. Jaokson t, Kohler. 289 111, 444. On the other
hand. It sottBs to be Osiually well settled that a real estate broker
who has eoflBMneed negotiations for the sale of the property of his
principal whleh finally result in a sale eannet be deprired of his
ooTamlssions beoause the owner took up &nd completed the negotiations
directly with the purchaser. In Hafner ▼. Herron. 166 111., 242,
it Is held that it is not always neoessaxy that the purci^aser fheuld
be actually Introduced to the Ofwner proTided it appears afflrntatirely
that t%e purchRser was Induced to a ply to the owner through the
InstroaMntality of the broker or through means employed by the
broker, and that where the seller oonsuntwtes a sale of property
eren upon different teras that those proposed to his a^snt, the
latter will net be deprlTedi thereby of hie ewaal salons. If plai;i*
tiffs were enployed by defendant to find a purchaser for the property
and throii#} their efforts t- e owner was brou^it into eoBBBttnleation
with the purchaser* plaintiffs could net be deprired of their con-
alnnions because the owner of the piroperty completed the negotiations
hlm&elf or through others. Rlgdon ▼, Itore . 22« 111. 387.
The STldenee In this case shows that defendait owned the
property in vtuestlon and! that he sold t^e same to Cora rsilsabeth
Brown en March 5, 1920. Plaintiffs iwere enfa,!;ed in the real estate
business In Chicago at the tiiM the negotiations took place. One
J. ^, Thompson was in charge of plaintiffs* office en Forty-third
street at that time, Tboapaon testified that he called at defend-
ant* s residence und was lnfor»ed by defendant's wife that the house
•fif .^ ycoJJT ]C7^ XXI 0*i .iy»a<^ .T H>^<» ;0C« ,^A «ttZ
a«qu #o«iY#ii9« •as «¥» '"lilMi*!^ «Ar «»«&> «^ a»>XB'} •<& tali
•ill 1» ic#«t'q<j-i4 9x^j 10 bXa« mU Ytf) MMlitaZ^eiM **»aaMBo« ajirf ^dw
•".ivfT^r ij '
#«0 Cl
X*i
vi: . '■■
•s.-^dibiv
■MlX««tf
*1*i> lA bfti
•'JU<^
'tan
vas for eal« but waa referred to defendant with reference to the
price. Later In the day he had a telenhone oonToreation with de-
fendant in which defendant stated that hie price waa $4500 csush.
The witness told defendant that he had a purehaser for j^3800,
but defet^ant refused to consider this offer and told him to g%
ahead and get $4500. He stated that he shoved tbs pre^^ises to a
mmber of prospeetlre eu8t<xters betveen f^eptember, X9X0» and January,
X9S0« and always saw defendant's wife wheneyer be visited the house
with sueh oustoiwrs. (Hi Janui^ry 2C, 1920, he had an Interviei* upon
the subject with a Mrs. Brown, vhm subeequentl^ir purchased the heus«.
She eaae to his office lookln^t for a heua^e to buy and he took her
arer to defendant's residence but did net 8« inte the house with
her, telling her th^t the house was for sale and su^gcasting that she
go in and h&re a look at it. Later he had b oonTersation with de-
fendant orer the telephone, vdio said that Xho^apson's bxxyer had been
there and looked the pi ce orer und said, "It looked like they
Mean business." Defendant then stated that he did not want te
sell the house for $4500 ajsd pay a oenanission. Thttspson then tolA
defendant that if he was unwilling to sell for $4500, *We will
have to look for a better huyer." Defendant deniod any dealings
with TbOBspson and expx^snly denies that Thompson sent 'rs. Brown
to hia. Defendant's T^ife corroborates defendant's testiaony to
sosse extent, although adsitting that she had had oonTorsatlons
with Thompson re);;arding the sale of the house. Tfrs. Brown, the
purchaser, testified to a oonTersation with Tho^ipson in which he
had discussed with her the purehaise of defendant's property but
did net urg* the purchase of it because she was not prepared to
pay $1,000 in cash on the mrehase of the property. She says that
Thompson told her it was so use for her to look at the property
unless she could pey "$1,000 down." She then stated that she vould
•a of Mtif l»Xo^ lut« «»llo •!«!# •e»nifi|«a» •# IwmIot gti^tm^l^ ttl4
m^if w^rroiitl «• k^ m< ,0891 ,0£ xivattncL «9 .»t;Mft»t«am ito«« Jfiliv
iMl <»oj •£[ tarn xwo -- v-^i/ooX »ami> nkii 9S »■»« «ir7
(Ui:? •ttt%d •Hi •til 6-%, vt8 84n •*9niiJbrO*6 •.
■••tf bM:i T«r^o «*iie«Qr'?.'fr tit: liH ,9e«A|aX«# afl^ !K*ik|i t^
XerU »siiX hvi99l ;.orro 90 i«i wU ^•lUml bms rtttSt
ftrai nmdS aos^spiCr .aei«eXa«9« )»«i1 •iU Hbb
oj ^'^;;nitti ubnalrJk ••#«'ao<f«'3i;o» al^^ a*toalM»ant«a .ftM a#
aooi^aataiQKOo tiaAa il||«aiUrj;« «^a«xa aaoa
aiii ,r«roi . .aavaii mtu la aXAa aili ^j.; ^acfvatfr tUlv
{noiO d#Xa nailaa^atn* i>9i%lmAi ,ia«Ar(»siK2
Ji''<i V«a«i>- -itnataJb "^ y i«»i rf^iv .(<asa«/a«i^ Jhad
AtiiJ aiitf #.'
1-a^.J s-4<iA ti4& ,i^if»ii^*^-x^ a^v -1410 jit 000, i4 i(«4
V ..... r
•xamln« the property. Tbompeon w«nt vith har but ther* waa nobody
%t h<me. Th« next day Eh« vent baek and defendant** wife referred
her to 'ir. ^pt. L>Uer she had n interrlew with Hr. Apt and told
him that ^!r. Thompaon had informed her about the house, »lthoui;b
ahe had knovti about It before, haTlng learned that It waa for atU.*
from conreraation with one of the neii^bbora.
In view of t^le confllotin^ teatlaony aa to the bual-
Aaaa tranaaotlona lietween the partlea and the negoti&tionB with
the purchaaer which finally culsninated io a etile, we ttre not jus-
tified in holding that the judgment of the Municipal court was
eontrary to the !»anifeat welj;ht of the erldenoe or that the court
erred In holding that the relationship of principal and a«(ent ex-
lated between the parties.
The Judgment Of the Hunleipal court ia affirmed.
drirtley, P. J., and Barnes, J., concur.
•Lmt ho': i ^•anJisX ielrvt-' .©^c^'Yov* iZ iu^i,^ s- o:jX karf dif«
dtiw tire m^mti^MVAff 9^9*
^UQ9 odi i^mi 10 ^ort#^Ir« O^ <^ i:iaf%ttt09
««tfoeeo ^,t ,»»n-x48 t (;*Xi^iv#
'^^
5^
^
L..^>
Generi.1 No. 7207
October Term, 1960
Agenda No. 3
I Wabash Railway Compad^, a corporation
Plaintiff igrError
^^^"A. 650/
A. E. S^taley Manufa^uring Company, a corporation
fendant in Error
Writ of Eiy;<!^to the circuit court of Macon County.
GRAVES P. J.
Plaintiff in error is a railroad corporation and de-
fendant in error is a manufacturing corporation and had
railroad tracks on its private property which it was de-
sired by both parties should be used by plaintiff in error
in handling freight shipped to and from the plant of de-
fendant in error. For the purpose among other things
of fixing the rights and liabilities of these two corporat-
ions in regard to the use of such railroad tracks by plain-
tiff in error, a contract in writing was enteredi nto be-
tween the parties whcih among other things contained
the following stipulation:
"The Manufacturing Company agrees that it will
maintain the said sj^stem of railroad tracks constructed
upon its property as aforesaid, in good operating condi-
tion; and will indemnify and hold harmless the Wabash
Company from all claims for loss or damage to persons
or property, which may arise from or be caused by the
sole negligence of the Manufacturing Company, its
agents, servants, or employees, or solely by reason of
the failure of the Manufacturing Company to perform
the covenants of this agreement on its part to be per-
formed."
Thereafter a gate post was placed by defendant in
Page 1
error on its premises so close to the railroad tracks there
as to render the use of such tracks by plaintiff in error
for the purposes mentioned unsafe for the servants of
plaintiff in error of which facts plaintiff in error had
knowledge. Thereafter a servant of plaintiff in error
was killed by reason of the dangerous condition created
by the presence of such post there. The administrator
of such deceased servant sued plaintiff in error and re-
covered a judgment against it for negligently causing the
death of such servant, which judgment was paid by plain-
tiff in error after it was affirmed by the Supreme Court.
The suit at bar was brought by plaintiff in error in as-
sumpsit to recover under the contract mentioned the
money expended in such litigation and in liquidating
such judgrnent. All of the foregoing facts are suf-
ficiently disclosed by the declaration filed in this case-
A demurrer to that declaration was sustained by the
circuit court and judgment was there entered against
plaintiff in error in bar of its action and for costs. This
writ of error has been sued out to reverse that judg-
ment.
Several special causes for such demurrer were as-
signed,
Page 2
only part of which need be noticed in this opin-
ion. The main reliance of defendant in error to sustain
the judgment is placed on the contention that the con-
tract sued on provides for indemnity by defendant in
error, only when loss is suffered by plaintiff in error
arising from or caused by the sole negligence of defen-
dant in error, its agents or servants, or solely by reason
of its failure to perform its covenant in that contract
contained, and that the accident made the basis of the
suit was not caused solely by reason of the failure of
defendant in error to perform its part of the agree-
ment or by the sole negligence of defendant or its
agents, servants or employees, but was due in part to
the negligence of plaintiff' in error in operating its train
in a dangerous proximity to the post in question.
Th right of the parties to make the contract in
question and its validity are vouched for by plaintiff in
error by bringing suit thereon. A party to a contract
cannot at the same time rely on it for a right of re-
covery and deny its validity where such right is limited
by its terms. It therefore remains for this court to
determine what that contract means and what the
facts are that are shown by the averments.
Page 3
There are no new or unusual rules of construction
to be applied to this contract. It, like other contracts
must be so construed as to give effect to the intention
of the parties if the same can be done without doing
violence to the language employed. It will not be con-
strued to be a contract to indemnify one of the parties
to it against loss or injury resulting from its own neg-
ligence unless the purpose to do so is apparent from
the express terms of it. (See Ruling Case Law, Vol.
14, page 47, Sec- 5, and cases there cited.) There is
nothing in this contract that even remotely suggests
the possibility that it was intended by the parties to
it that defendant in error undertook to indemnify plain-
tifl" in error against loss or damage resulting to it by
reason of its own negligence or the negligence of its
agents or servants; but on the contrary such indemnity
is expressly limited to such damage as shall result from
or be caused by "the sole negligence" of defendant in
error, its agents, servants or employees, or solely by
reason of its failure to perform the covenants in the
contract to be kept and performed by it.
The declaration in the case at bar clearly shows
that
Page 4
the damages for which the judgment was ren-
dered against plaintiff in error, for the money expend-
ed in the payment,of which, it now seeks reimburse-
ment, were caused by the negligence of plaintiff in error
in operating its train in dangerous proximity to the
post in question, an entirely seperate and distinct neg-
ligence from the act of placing the post in the improper
position. It follows that the damages for which the
judgment in question was rendered were not caused
solely by reason of the failure of defendant in error to
perform its part of the contract sued on or by the sole
negligence of defendant in error or its agents, servants
or employees, and were not such damages as were cov-
ered by the said contract.
Whether or not there might have been a common
law right on the part of plaintiff in error to require de-
fendant in error to contribute or indemnify it in case
there had been no contract is not involved in this litiga-
tion, first because this suit is not based on a common
law liability, and second because the contract covers
the entire scope of liability for reimbursement and
limits as well as establishes such liability to that
Page 5
fixed by the terms of the contract.
The demurrer to the decaration was properly sus-
tained. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Page 6
General No. 7219 / Agenda No. 9
October Teriqf 1920
\
Dorothea J. Murphy/Defedant in error g<^ ^X^
Walker D. Hine§, Directo/ General of Railroads, operat-
ing Chicago ^& Alton/Railroad, Plaintiff in Error
'^ /
Error to the Circu* Court of Macoupin County.
GRAVES P. J. \J
Dorothea J. Murphy brought suit in the circuit court
-of Macoupin County against Walker D. Hines as director
general of railroads, operating the Chicago & Alton
Railroad, and recovered a judgment for $500, to reverse
which Hines sued out a writ of error from this court.
The evidence shows that defendant in error was
driving an automobile along a public street in the Village
of Nilwood in this state and while in the act of crossing
the tracks of the plianifft in error was struck by a loco-
motive drawing a heavy freight train of the plaintiff in
eiTor and was injured. There seems to be no conflict
over the claims made by defendant in error that she was
injured, and that there was an ordinance of the village
in force at the time limiting the speed of freight trains
to eight miles per hour.
Plaintiff in error bases its right to a reversal of the
judgment upon two claims, viz: that the speed of the
train,
Page 1
though excessive, was not the proximate cause
of the injury; and that defendant in error was guilty of
contributory negligence.
The trial court in an instruction told the jury that
to warrant a verdict against the railroad company the
negligence of its servants must be the sole and proxi-
mate cause of the injury, unassisted by any negligence
on the part of the plaintiff and that if this was not true
they must find the issues in favor of the defendant. In
other instructions the jury was also told that the alleg-
ed negligence of the railroad servants to warrant a re-
covery must have approximately cause the collision. No
instruction was given by the trial court to qualify in any
way the statements of law as above quoted in substance;
so it was clearly explained to the jury that the act of
negligence upon the part of the railroad company must
have been the proximate cause of the injury.
This court is now asked to find and determine, upon
a review of the evidence, as a matter of law^ that the
speed of the train, although admitted to be excessive,
was not the proximate cause of the injury. The ordin-
ance of the village governing the speed of freight
trains running through the vil-
Page 2
lage, limited the speed
of such trains to eight miles per hour, while the speed
of the train that caused the injury was from twenty to
twenty-five miles per hour, as admitted in the brief of
plaintiff in error.
Defendant in erroi' was used to di-iving an automo-
bile, having driven one for about three years previously;
she had just been out of her car at a nearby store and
at the time of the collision she says she was running
her car at a slow rate of speed, and in this she is corro-
borated by other witnesses.
While many of the facts pertaining to the collision
were in dispute, a fair review of the evidence leads us
to believe that the jury were not unwarranted in find-
ing that the excessive speed of the train was the prox-
mate cause of the injury. If the train had been mov-
ing at eight miles per hour only, there is reason to be-
lieve that a collision would have been avoided. This is-
sue was one of fact for the jury to determine.
Plaintiff in error also contends that defendant in
error was guilty of contributory negligence to such a
degree that no recovery by her can be sustained. It
seems from the
Page 3
evidence that defendant in error,
with her mother, drove her car in to Nilwood from the
east and stopped at a store about sixty or seventy feet
east of the railroad crossing, and on the south side of
the street on which she was going westerly. The rail-
road was south of this store and ran at an angle across
the street on which was the crossing it and where she
was injured and that the view southerly or south, from
which direction the train was approaching the crossing,
was to some extent obstructed. Defendant in error, as
well as some of her witnesses, testified that she looked
towards the south in approaching the crossing and that
she was driving her car at a slow rate of speed. The
evidence was conflicting as to just what took place at
the time of the collision and it would serve no good pur-
pose now to canvass the testimony on that subject at
length. It is sufficent to say that if the jury believed
f] A n •;^^
General No. 7222 / Agenda No. 12
October Te
Martha M. LBgan, Appellee
'vs.
The Mutyal Life Insujfence Company of New York
\ ■ Appellant
Appeal f ronx the^ircuit Court of Moultrie CounjgE. - r* r^ C\ -3
GRAVEs.p.j>' 2231.A.65U
Martha M. Logan brought suit in the Circuit Court
of Moultrie County against The Mutual Life Insurance
Company of New York to recover the amount claimed
to be due her upon a policy of insurance alleged to have
been issued by the Insurance Company to William H.
Logan, husband of said Martha M. Logan, for the sum
of $10,000. A trial was had before a jury and a verdict
returned in favor or said Appellee in the sum of $10,000
and interest. Motion for a new trial was made by the
Insurance Company, which the court overruled and en-
tered judgment upon the verdict; from which judgment
the Insurance Company has appealed.
The main question involved is whether or not the
policy of insurance was delivered to William H. Logan as
an existing contract of insurance, or whether it was in
his hands for examination and determination by him as
to whether or not he would accept and pay for the same.
This policy of insurance was dated on the 15th day
of January, 1917, and William H. Logan died on the
20th day of the same month. At the time of his death
the policy was in the possession of Logan or his wife, but
no premium had in fact been paid, although the policy
contained an acknowledgment of the receipt of the first
annual premium.
Appellee claims that the delivery of the policy was
complete; while Appellant insists it was not delivered as
a binding contract but was delivered to Logan for his ex-
amination and determination as to whether or net he
would pay the premium and retain the policy as his own.
Page 1
The application for insurance was in the usual form
and made before the company's medical examiner and
contained this clause: "The proposed policy shall not
take effect unless and until the first premium shall have
been paid during my continuance in good health, and un-
less also the policy shall have been delivered to and re-
ceived by me, during my continuance in good health."
Two agents of the Appellant, who knew that Logan
held another insurance policy for $5000 in the Appellant
company, and who were advised by Logan that he had
$10,000 insurance in two other companies, solicited him
to take out a new policy in the Appellant company and
to submit to an examination by their medical examiner,
and make a written application for the insurance invol-
ved. Appellee, upon the trial, testified that the policy
was handed to her by Logan at their home three days
before he died; that she took the policy and put it in a
bookcase where it remained until after the death of Lo-
gan, when proof of death was made and liability denied
by the Insurance Comapny.
On behalf of the Insurance Company Malcom Me-
Quarrie, agent of the company, testified that when he,
the witness, and a Mr. Strathern, also an agent for the
Insurance Company, called upon Logan to talk over the
matters of insurance, Logan said he was carrying all the
life insurance he thought he would carry and that he
objected to being examined for any more, and said he
would not take out another policy, but when he was as-
sured that it would cost him nothing to be examined and
that taking the examination would not obligate him to
take more life insurance, he said he would be examined,
and did so; that nothing was said at any time about any
credit being given or time of payment extended upon the
first premium due upon the policy. He also says the
talk with Logan and the examination proposed were for
the purpose of determining whether or not Logan was
physically fit to take out life insurance. He further says
that the amount of insurance
Page 2
put in the application was
not suggested by Logan, but that the suggestion came
from the two agents of the Insurance Company based
upon their information concerning Logan's financial
standing.
The witness Coffey, who conducted the medical ex-
amination for the Insurance Company, testified that Lo-
gan came to his office to be examined; that after the
conclusion of the examination Logan said he was not
ready to sign the application but was willing to sign the
medical part; that Mr. Strathern came in and witness
told him that Logan refused to sign the application; that
Strathem then said "that Logan ought to sign in order
that I should be paid for my medical examination;" and
that he, Logan, would be under no obligation to the com-
pany until the policy was paid for and delivered; that Lo-
gan then signed the medical examination.
The witness Strathem testified that he suggested
to Logan that he be examined for more insurance; that
Logan said he thought he had all the insurance he ought
to carry; that he, Strathem, then said to Logan that no
financial responsibility would be incurred by an examin-
ation and that Logan would be under no obligation unless
a policy was delivered and paid for; that afterwards at
the office of the medical examiner he read to Logan
from the insurance policy the clause "The proposed pol-
icy shall not take effect until the first premium has been
paid during my continuance in good health and unless al-
so the policy has been accepted by me" and that he then
said to Logan, "If you sign this application the doctor
can get his fee and if you do not sign it he will get no
fee;" Logan then said, "If that is the case I will sign."
The witness further testified that no premium was paid;
that nothing was said about the payment of any prem-
ium; that no note or obligation of any kind was given and
that no credit was mentioned. This witness also testi-
fied that in fixing the amount of the insurance in the
policy at $10,000 he and McQuarrie looked up Logan's fin-
ancial rating and figured on that basis, thinking Logan
could afford to take that amount and that nothing was
said between them and Logan as to the amount.
Page 3
This in substance was the evidence that we regard
as material, tending to show the character of the deliv-
ery of the policy to Logan. From a consideration of the
evidence as a whole, it is manifest that a preponderance
of it is not in favor of the delivery of the policy to Logan
as a contract of insurance. To constitute this policy a
contract of insurance, Logan must have assumed some
liability or obligation. It could not have been intended
that the policy would bind the Insurance Company in case
of Logan's death and have no force whatever in case he
continued in health.
Appellee, however, contends that since the policy of
insurance contains the clause "the receipt of which (the
first premium) is hereby acknowledged," the company
is estopped from proving that no payment in fact was
made and therefore delivery will be presumed. The
rule is that possession of a policy by the insured or the
beneficiary named therein, containing a recital of pay-
ment of the premium, is prima facie proof of payment
and delivery, but that it is not conclusive of those facts
and may be overcome by proof that it was not paid for
or delivered as a contract of insurance.
In the case of Adams, Administrator v. The Colum-
bian National Life, 191 111. App. 378, cited by Appellee,
it was held to be against public policy to allow an insur-
ance compg.ny to deny payment of the premium contrary
to the terms of the policy, if the policy has been actually
delivered, as a contract of insurance. .
In the case of The Massachusetts Benefit Life As-
sociation V. Sibley, 158 111. 441, also cited by Appellee,
where a like clause as to first payment was involved, while
it was contended that the first payment had not been
made, the question of actual delivery was not in doubt.
The court there held that there was prima facie proof
of first payment and delivery which might become con-
clusive upon the insurer if the policy was actually de
livered as a contract of insurance.
Page 4
The judgment of the Circuit Court is, therefore, re-
versed with a finding of fact to be incorporated in the
judgment of this court that the pohcy of insurance sued
on was never delivered to or accepted by William H.
Logan as a contract of insurance.
Judgment Reversed with finding of fact.
Page 5
General ^o. 7230 £ Agenda No. 18.
\Octobe^S^rm, 1920
Clara Le^ard, Appellant^ OOT \ £1 r^ f\H
L^Mockbee, Appellee
Appeal fronii/che circuit court of Vermilion County
GRAVES P. J.
This is an action in forcible entry and detainer. Ap-
pellant was plaintiff in the nici prius court. She is the
owner of the premises involved in the litigation. Ap-
pellee was in possession of the premises as tenant under
appellant. The lease was in writing and provided that
appellee should have the premises from March 1, 1915
to March 1, 1920, and contained the following stipulation
as to a renewal of the same:
"Second party having the privilege of renewing said
lease for a period of five years on the same terms and
conditions, provided said second party gives notice in writ-
ing to said first party of his intention to renew the same
six (6) months or more pror to the expiration of said
lease and provided said first party is living at the time."
On September 5, 1919, appellant served appellee
with a notice in writing that as he had failed to give her
notice in writing six months or more prior to March 1,
1920, at which time his lease would expire of his inten-
tion to renew the same, he would be required to surren-
der possession of the premises
Pa^e 1
to her at the expiration
of his lease on March 1, 1920. On March 4, 1920, ap-
pellee not having surrendered possession of the premises
to appellant she began this suit in the circuit court of
Vermilion County. The declaration was in the usual
form and the plea was the general issue.
It is not claimed that appellee served appellant with
notice of his desire to renew the lease six months or
more prior to March 1, 1920, but on the contrary it is
conceded that no such notice was served. He now claims
he had such a notice prepared on August 30, 1919, and
that he went to a public gathering where he saw appel-
lant at a distance but did not serve it; that August 31,
1919, was Sunday; that he attempted to find her on Mon-
day September 1, 1919, but failed and that he served her
with the notice on September 2, 1919. In his argument
in this court he claims that appellant concealed herself
to avoid the service of notice and that she waived the
General I^fp. 7237 / Agenda No. 24
\ October Teri|?' 1920
A. L. Browfi and Mary J. Bjpwn, Defendants in Error
4y E. Wils^Plaintiff in Err<2 2 3 I e A. 6 5 1
Writ of error^to the Coenty Court of Sangamon County
People, ejCjrel Rojr E. Wilson, Plaintiff in Error
A. L. Brown and Mary J. Brown, Defendants in Error
Writ of error to the Circuit Court of Sangamon County.
GRAVES, P. J.
Roy E. Wilson instituted a proceeding by habeas
corpus in the circuit court of Sangamon County against
A. L. and Mary J. Brown to obtain the custody of his min-
or daughter, Dorothy, whom he alleged was wrongfully
withheld from him by the said A. L. Brown and Mary J.
Brown, the grand-parents of the said Dorothy. About
the same time, the grand-parents commenced proceed-
ings in the county court of Sangamon County to adopt
the said Dorothy. Issues were closed in both cases and
such action had that the writ of habeas corpus was denied
in the circuit court, while the county court ordered that
Dorothy be adopted by the said grand-parents. A writ
of error was prosecuted by said Roy E. Wilson from the
order in each of such proceedings and by agreement of
the parties the two
Page 1
cases are here consolidated and
treated as one.
The question involved is whether or not Dorothy,
the minor daughter of said Roy E. Wilson, can be adopt-
ed by her grand-parents without the consent of and
against the protest of her father upon the grounds set
up in the proceedings in the county court, viz; that he
had abandoned Dorothy for a period of six months or
that he was an unfit person to have the control and cus-
tody of said child.
Dorothy at the time of the hearings was eVbt years
old; her mother had died leaving her anc' two other
daughters, one five and the other three years of age.
Dorothy at the time of the death of her mother was in
the custody of her grand-father and grand-mother, i. e.:
her mother's father and mother, and was there at the
time these proceedings were instituted. Roy E. Wilson
demanded jthe custody of Dorothy from the grand-par-
ents and upon refusal filed the petition for habeas cor-
pus, and about the same time the county court of San-
gamon County ordered the adoption of Dorothy by the
said grand-parents.
In the hearing in the county court upon the peti-
tion to adopt, the finding was that "the father of said
child has
Page 2
abandoned and deserted said child for a period
of six months next preceeding the filing of the petition
in this case and that it would be to the best interest of
the said child to be and become the adopted child of
the petitioners." In the circuit court the custody of
the child was committed to the grand-parents with no
finding of fact as to the unfitness of the father, or that
the father had abandoned and deserted the child.
The law that a father has the right to the custody
of his child as against all others, except the mother, un-
less he has forfeited that right or the welfare of the
child's demands that because of unfitness he should be
deprived of it, is too well established to make it neces-
sary to cite any law other than our statute. Under our
statute, Sec. 3, Chap. 4, governing the adoption of chil-
dren, the law's requirements are, so far as applicable
here, that the child must be abandoned or deserted for
six months or that the parent is unfit to have the cus-
tody of the child. The question involved is not wheth-
er under the evidence the child might be better off with
the grand-parents than with the father, for every fit
man, even in poverty, has the right to the custody of
his child even though it grand-parents
Page 3
may be able to
offer the child a better home.
The evidence in this proceeding is in a very narrow
compass. The most than can be fairly claimed for it is
that the father, Wilson, after his wife's death allowed
Dorothy to remain with the grand-parents for a consid-
erable time and did not contribute to Dorothy's support
as much as her grand-mother thought right, though the
grand-father says he never asked Wilson to contribute
to the support of Dorothy. There seems to have been
no competent evidence that Wilson is not a fit man to
■ nivfSi;
vS^:*^/ ^ I ^ i'/fxi
General No. 7243 / Agenda No. 3)
October '
George W. _ ^ ,
223 I.A. 651"^
Frank R^vden, Appellant
Appeal from the^ircuit court of Jersey County.
GRAVES P. J.
George W. Taylor brought suit in the circuit court
of Jersey County against Frank Rowden to recover for
commissions alleged to have been earned by Taylor up-
on the sale of a farm owned by Rowden. A verdict was
returned in favor of Taylor in the sum of $5000 upon
which a judgment v/as rendered, from which an appeai
has been taken to this court.
Appellant presents two questions for review, viz:
whether or not appellee's employment as a real estate
agent for appellant had been terminated and ended by
appellant before the sale involved was undertaken or
made, and whether or not the contract sued on was one
between appellant and Taylor alone or was a contract
between appellant on one side and Taylor and one Clark
jointly on the other.
There is no question that Taylor was, at one time,
employed to sell Rowden's farm and that he undertook
to do so and associated H. H. Clark with him in that un-
dertaking, and that
Page 1
he did some advertising and for a time had
a prospect of sale. Every attempt upon his part, how-
ever, proved unavailing and seems to have ended when
a deal prosposed between Rowden and one Solomon fell
through. This deal was attempted to be negotiated on
the part of Solomon early in the year 1918 by the Paul
Jones Realty Company of St. Louis, with which company
Taylor had had some considerable correspondence and
with whom he also had several interviews. An earnest
effort was made by both Taylor and the Paul Jones
Company to interest Solomon, who at one time seemed
disposed to make a trade for apeplant's farm. The ef-
forts upon the part of appellee to close this deal ran
through a period of several months and finally came to
an end in July with nothing accomplished. When it was
found that the Solomon deal could not be effected, Row-
den seemed to have determined to make no further ef-
fort at that time to sell his farm and, in our judgment
upon the evidence, ended Taylor's authority to sell.
On this subject Rowden testified that his first talk
with Taylor was in February, 1918, and that in May fol-
lov/ing
Page 2
he went with Taylor to see Clark at Wood River
when he made a contract with both Taylor and Clark to
engage in the sale of his farm; that about the first of
June, Taylor made a trip to St. Louis and when he re-
turned reported to Rowden that he had seen the Paul
Jones Realty Company, and about July 1st told Rowden
that he would bring a buyer for the farm; that the
Prospective buyer, Mr. Solomon, came to see the farm
in the latter part of July and at that time Rowden told
Solomon that if he bought he must do so soon as he,
Rowden, was going to make some expenditures in con-
nection with the farm if he did not sell. Rowden fur-
ther testified that about August 30th, 1918, he was in
the office of the Paul Jones Company and was there ad-
vised that the Solomon deal was off, whereupon he,
Rowden, said he had bought a mill property, was going
to build some sheds and a silo and was going to buy a
tractor and that his farm., from that time, was off the
market; that upon his return to his home about Septem-
ber 1st he saw Taylor and told him of his visit to the
Paul Jones Company; that the Solomon deal was off and
that his farm was off the market. Rowden further
testified that about September 1st he wrote Clark that
his farm was
Page 3
off the market; that he also went to Tay-
lor's place of business and told him that his farm was
off that market and that after that time he never had
any conversation with Taylor about the sale of the farm.
This witness further testified that on the 28th of Decem-
ber, 1918, to close negotiations begun the latter part
of November, he sold his farm through the agency of
the Paul Jones Company to Major Britton and that he
had paid said Paul Jones Company a commission on
such sale of $8500.
James C. Campbell testified that in the office of
the Paul Jones Company in either June or July, 1918,
when Rowden was informed that the Solomon deal was
off, Rowden said, "If I cannot make it now my farm is
off the market." This witness further testified that
after the Solomon deal was declared off Taylor was in
the office of the Paul Jones Company and that he,
Campbell, then told Taylor that Rowden had been in the
office some two weeks berore and there said his farm
was off the market and that Taylor replied, "I know it,"
and proposed to revive the Solomon deal.
Harry A. Forward, an employee of the Paul Jones
Company, testified that Rowden was in the office of the
Paul
Page 4
Jones Company on August 30, 1918, when he was
advised that the Solomon deal was off and that where-
upon Rowden said he had bought some implements and
tractors and had m.ade some improvements on the farm
and that his farm was off the market and not for sale:
that soon after the 14th of September, 1918, Taylor was
in the office of the Jones Company and wanted to call
on Solomon when the witness, Forward, said to him that
Rowden had informed the Jones Company that his farm
was off the market and that he had so notified us (the
Jones Company) over the telephone; that Taylor then
said he was notified the same, but he hoped to get Sol-
omon to make some proposition that Rowden would
consider.
H. H. Clark, with v/hom Taylor was in a way assoc-
iated in his effort to sell the Rowden farm, testified that
in a letter to him (Clai-k) Rowden withdrew the farm
from sale. A letter was put in evidence showing that
on the 31st of August, 1918, the Paul Jones Company
advised Taylor that "the Solomon deal was entirely off."
Taylor in rebuttal testified that no-one in the Paul
Jones office ever stated to him that Rowden had been
in the of-
Page 5
fice of the Company and had said that he
had taken his farm off the market. He also denied that
Rowden had said to him that his, Rowden's farm was
taken off the market and was not for sale.
This was in substance the material evidence upon
this branch of the case and from a fair consideration of
it we cannot see how it can be said that the verdict is
supported by the greather weight or preponderance. On
the contrary it is manifestly against the weight of the
evidence.
Taylor and Clark had a common interest in the sale
of Rowden's farm and made, for a while, a common of-
\
\ \c^J u O 'U
Geneial fcjo. 7249 ^Agenda No. 66
October Term,
3
John R. Abbott, ^pelle^^ C\ C\ "T fK /• f ^
\ '^s.y^ V ^ *~> i. « A • O O -*•
The Couaty of Adrift, et al.. Appellants
Appeal from Mie Cicisait Court of Adams County
GRAVES, P. J. ''■^
This is a bill filed by Appellee to restrain the carry-
ing out of a conti-act made between the County of Ad-
ams and one John T. Inghram, whereby he was employ-
ed to perform certain services for the County as an At-
torney, for which speciiied services the said County
agreed to pay him a stipulated salary. A demurrer to
the bill was sustained by the Circuit Court and the Com-
plainant stood by his bill and the same was dismissed
for want of Equity, whereupon he brought the case here
on appeal. The order of the Circuit Court sustaining
the demurrer and dismissing the bill was reversed by
this Court and the cause was remanded to the Circuit
Court with directions to overrule the demurrer. The op-
inion filed by this Court at that time is reported in Ab-
boi V. Adams Go. et al, 214 111. App. 201 where a complete
statement of facts as they then were, may be found. Af-
ter the cause was reinstated and the demurrer to the
bill as it then stood had been overruled pursuant to the
mandate of this Court, defendants. Will J. Smith, Coun-
ty Clerk, John T. Inghram., Edward W. Peter, County
Treasurer, and the County of Adams each filed seperate
answers to the bill in which all of the material averments
of fact in the bill are admitted and it is averred that
Rule 18 of the Board of Supervisors of said Adams Coun
ty had been abolished by the said Board and that the
finance committee of the said Board had been empow-
ered to employ "all legal counsel they deemed necessary,"
and that acting under the power so conferred upon it,
the said committee, the said Board concurring thereiiiT
had employed the said John T. Inghram to render for
the said County certain services specified in a report
made by that committee; that the said Inghram was not
then acting as Attorney for said County under
Page 1
Rule 18 but was
then acting under a contract with the finance committee
of the Board of Supervisors of Adams County, whereup-
on Appellee by leave of Court filed his supplemental bill
in which he alleges in addition to the averments in the
bill that was formerlj' before this Court that the Board
of Supervisors of Adams County had repealed Rule 18
referred to in the original bill and had passed a resolu-
tion attempting to vest in the finance committee of the
said Board power to employ and retain legal counsel, and
that the said Board acting through its said finance com-
mittee had entered into an illegal contract with the said
Inghram whereby he was employed and retained as a
pretended counsel for the said County at a monthly sal-
ary of not to exceed $150 per month to be paid in cash
by the said County, the said Inghram to maintain his of-
fice in the Court House of said County, which office is to
be maintained and furnished to him free of expense and
at the expense of the said County, by which contract the
said Inghram was to represent and act for the said
County in all legal matters and proceedings then pend-
ing and which might arise during the vacation of the
Board, and to rendei- all legal services to the said County,
the Board of Supervisors and the several committees
thereof and the several County officers, which might be
required, except such services as under the law could
be rendered only by the States Attorney; that the fin-
ance committee had reported to the said Board that the
said Inghram had earned $450 for the months of Sep-
tember, October and November, 1919, and that the said
Board had authorized the issuance of a voucher there-
for and directed the County Treasurer to countersign
said voucher and to pay the same to the said Inghram
and in case he should refuse to do so to have legal pro-
ceedings begun to compell him to do so.
It is further alleged in said supplemental bill that
the repeal of Rule 18 and the making of the illegal ver-
bal contract by the said finance committee with the said
Inghram was a mere subterfuge to evade the law.
It is further alleged in said supplemental bill that
the said Inghram is not and has not been the States At-
torney of Adams County or his assistant, and that he has
never been appointed by
Page 2
the Court to act as such, and
that the States Attorney had not requested the said In-
ghram to assist him in any manner in his duties nor has
be asked the County of Adams to employ an assistant
for him, and that the said States Attorney has never
failed, neglected or refused to efficiently discharge all
duties required of him in his said office and is able and
willing to efficiently perform the same; and that it is the
duty of the States Attorney to render all the services
which the said Inghram had been employed to render.
It is further alleged in the said supplemental bill
that the said Board of Supervisors had already made an
appropriation of $1800 to pay the said Inghram the pre-
tended salary stipulated in said illegal contract to be
paid to him as an Attorney for said County. The prayer
of this supplemental bill is for an injunction restraining
the carrying out of the oral contract that was entered
into by the finance committee with the said Inghram
and ratified by the Board of Supervisors or the payment
of the said sum of $150 or any part thereof, which by
the said agreement was to be paid to the said Inghram,
and for general relief.
To this supplemental bill an answer was filed by the
County of Adams, and Frank A. Jasper as Treasurer of
said County, by J. Leroy Adair, States Attorney, the sub-
stance of which is a denial that the contract in question
and the acts that it is alleged preceded the making of it
are illegal. None of the material facts themselves are
denied. From the facts alleged and admitted in the
answers filed by Appellant to the original bill as amend-
ed and to the supplemental bill in connection with what
competent proof there is in the record, it is established
as facts than an oral contract has been entered into by
the finance committee of the Board of Supervisors of
Adams County with the knowledge, consent and approv-
al of the said Board and at its suggestion for the employ-
ment of the said John T. Inghram for the doing of the
same work that this Court held in this same case when
it was here before, it was the duty of the States Attor-
ney to perform. Abbot v. Adams Covinty, 214 111. App.
201. The only real difference between the facts alleged
Page 3
in the original bill as amended and those now before
this Court by pleadings and proof is that there is now an
oral contract for the employment of the said Inghram
while before it was in writing. What we held when the
case was here before as to the rights of the County of
Adams to contract for the employment and payment of
others to do the work the law makes it the duty of the
States Attorney to perform, and for which a very sub-
stantial compensation is provided and paid to him, we
adhere to now. We. are satisfied that the action of the
Board of Supervisors of Adams County in abolishing Rule
18 of that Board under which the contract set out in the
original bill as amended was executed, and the making
of the oral contract set out in the supplemental bill was
m^erely a subterfuge, a shift and device resorted to in the
hope of confusing the real issue. However that may be,
the new contract as we view it is at least as viscious as
the first.
The Circuit Court by its decree restrained the per-
formance of both the contract set out in the original
bill as amended and the contract set out in the supplemen-
tal bill, and the county has appealed.
The decree of the Circuit Court is in accord with
the previous mandate of this Court and with the views
above expressed and is affirmed.
Decree Affirmed.
Page 4
GeneiV No. 7253 / Agenda No. 39
October t/iti, 1920
Confer M94Mi4 ^mpany, Appellant
). J. Holt^man, et al, Appellees
Appeal frofe theycircuit court of Champaign County.
GRAVES P. J
This is a suit in assumpsit against the guarantors of
the honest and faithful performance of one B. W. Clark
of a certain contract made by him with appellant where-
by appellant was to furnish to said Clark certain med-
icines, extracts, etc., for sale by him to his customers.
The declaration consisted of two counts. In the first
count it was alleged in substance that Clark had entered
into a contract with appellant for the purchase of goods
on credit to be sold by him to consumers; that the same
were to be paid for in installments of one-half of the
amount collected as the goods were sold and the balance
within six months after the termination of the contract;
that the defendants had guaranteed the honest and
faithful performance by Clark of this contract; that ap-
pellant had shipped to Clark goods under this contract:
that there was due from Clark to appellant for goods
so sold $1672.29, and that more than six months had
elapsed since the
Page 1
termination of that contract. This count
contains a copy of the contract.
The second count contains an additional averment
that appellant had rendered to the said Clark a state-
ment showing a balance due of $2005.82 and that the
said Clark had signed a written statement acknowledging
that amount to be due. The plea was the general issue
with notice of special defenses which was in effect that
Clark had remitted to appellant in cash an amount equal
to one-half of all the receipts from the business and that
he had done so each week while the contract was in
force until his account was balanced; that in so doing he
had within six months after the termination of said con-
tract paid appellant at current wholesale prices for all
goods delivered by it to him; that Clark received the
goods in question by consignment as the agent of appel-
lant and not as purchaser of such goods; that the acknow-
ledegment of Clark is not binding on his sureties these
223 I.A. 65lV
appellees; that the contract required of Clark to pay one-
half of the moneys collected from the sale of the goods
in question and that appellant is estopped from claiming
more than that amount, and from
Page 2
claiming that Clark was
a purchaser of the goods and not merely an agent of ap-
pellant for the sale of them. The contract in question
is as follows:
"Whereas, Mr. B. W. Clark of Sadorus, Illinois, de-
sired to purchase of the S. D. Confer Medical Company
of Orangeville, Illinois, on ci-edit and at wholesale prices
to sell again to consumers. Medicines, Extracts, Spices,
Soaps, Stock Tonic and other goods manufactured and
put up by it, paying his account for such goods in install-
ments as hereafter provided.
Therefore, he hereby agrees to sell no other goods
than those sold to him by said company, to sell all such
goods at regular retail prices to be indicated by it, and
to have no other business or employment.
He further agrees to pay said Company for all goods
purchased under this contract the current wholesale
prices of such gooda by remitting in cash each week to
said Company an amount equal to one-half the receipts
from his business until his account is balanced and for
that purpose as evidence of good faith he shall submit
to said Company weekly reports of his business; provided
however, if he pays his account in full on or before the
tenth day of each month he is to be allowed a discount
of three per cent from current wholesale prices. Upon
termination of his contract from any cause or by either
party he further agrees to settle in cash within six
months the balance due said Company on account.
Unless prevented by strikes, fires, accidents, or
causes beyond its control, said Company agrees to fill
and deliver on board cars at Orangeville, Illinois, his
reasonable orders, provided his account is in satisfactory
condition, and to charge all goods shipped him under this
contract to his account at current wholesale prices; also
to notify him promptly of any change in wholesale or
retail prices.
This contract is subject to acceptance at the home
office of said Company and is to continue in force only
so long as his account and the amount of his purchases
are satisfactory to said Company, provided, however,
that said ,B. W. Clark, or his guarantors, may be re-
leased from this contract at any time by paying in cash
the balance due said Company on account.
Dated Orangeville, Illinois, November 28th, 1911.
The S. D. Confer Medical Company
B. W. Clark.
For and in consideration of the Sum of One Dollar
to us in hand paid, and the receipt therefor is hereby
acknowledged and in consideration of The A. D. Confer
Medical Company extending credit to
Page 3
him the under-
signed guarantee jointly and severally, the honest and
faithful performance of said contract by him, waiving
acceptance and all notice, and agree that any extension
of time or change of territory shall not release us from
liability hereon.
(Responsible men sign in ink.)
(Signed) D. J. Holterman Occupation Farmer Sadoris, 111.
E. Styan " Sadoris, III.
John H. Rock " Pesotum, 111.
Guy Cook " Ivesdale. 111.
(Appearing on the back thereof is the following:)
These blanks are for office use only
Contract No. 1
Name B. W. Clark
Received Dec. 13, 1911
Accepted
Price List and Copy Mailed ■
Territory
State Illinois
County: Piatt County, 111. & four townships in Ma-
con County, P>iend Creek, Oakle, Long & Whitmore.
Notice: This contract will not go into force until sales-
man receives "Agent's" Confidential Price List" and in-
structs Company to make first shipment of goods. If
salesman should not find prices satisfactory on being
submitted to him, he can return them to Company and
contract will be cancelled."
On these issues the case went to trial before a jury
Appellant proved the execution of the contract and in-
troduced it in evidence and it was then stipulated be-
tween the parties that there had been shipped by ap-
pellant to Clark during the continuance of the contract
all told goods to the amount of $7190.1-3 at current
wholesale prices, and that Clark had paid appellant in
cash and credits $5515.87 and that such amount was
equal to one-half of the amount received by Clark from
the sale of such goods, and that the amount so received
lacked $1672.23 of equalling the current wholesale price
of the goods
shipped. Appellant then rested its case
and appellee moved for a peremptory instruction direct-
ing the jury to find the issues for the defendant. This
motion was denied. Appellees then offered consider-
able evidence for the avowed purpose of showing the
construction placed upon this contract by the parties,
but particularly by a,ppellant, after the contract A^as
signed. This evidence was objected to by appellant and
was admitted subject to objection and was heard by
the court out of the presence and hearing of the jury.
After listening to this evidence the court announced that
the motion of appellees to peremptorily instruct the
jury to find the issues for the defendants would be al-
lowed; the jury returned into court but no further evi-
dence was heard by them and the court gave the per-
emptory instruction asked for. A verdict for the de-
fendants was duly returned and a judgment in due time
followed in favor of defendants and against plaintiff in
bar of its action and for costs.
Where the terms of a written contract are uncer-
tain and ambiguous and the language employed leaves
the meaning of the contract in doubt, parole evidence
may be received to ex-
Page 5
plain it; but not so if the inten-
tion of the parties can be gathered from the writing
itself. (Rector v. Hartford Deposit Co., 190 111. 384;
Waiton V. Follansbee 16.5 111. 486; Kimball v. Cun^ter, 73
111. .393; Strauss v. Cohen Bros. Co., 169 111. App. 341;
Williams v. Press Pub. Co. 126 111. App. 126.)
In the case at bar the contract itself is not ambig-
uous. It is plainly a contract for the purchase of the
commodities mentioned, at current wholesale prices, for
resale to consumers. B. W. Clark, the purchase in the
contract, to have no other business or employment and
sell no other goods than the goods purchased from ap-
pellant, and to pay for the same by turning over to ap-
pellant a sum equal to one-half of the receipts from the
business of selling such goods until his account is bal-
anced and upon the termination of his contract from
any cause by either party he agrees to pay the balance
of his account due appellant, if any there exists, within
six months from the termination of the said contract
Some minor matters are mentioned in the contract, but
they are as clearly expressed as those mentioned. A
wide discrepancy does not exist between the
Page 6
contract
sued on and what was said and done by the contracting
parties in and about the attempted performance of the
same. The contract was clearlj'^ one for the purchase of
goods to be sold. They conducted the business done un-
der it in a way to be strongly suggestive of an agency
on the part of Clark to sell the goods of appellant.
There being no ambiguity in the terms of the con-
tract sued on it was error for the court to hear evidence
tending to show the construction placed upon it by the
parties. This was not an action to reform a contract,
but to enforce it. ii it had been a cuit to roform the
r"^ntri"*. ^^" rv^^of if >,nf nU nf tVin nin'rlnnnr^ filrnn hv
tho court out of the prQacnec of thft juvy, would not
only havo boon admiooablc but very pei'suasive. — If tlii;
cvidcnoc wao offered cind admitted, aa haa been auggcot
od by Domc of the eontcntionj, made, to hliuw an tjstup-
pol, and if that qucation waj. then piuperly befoie the
court, then it should havo boon oubmittcd to the jury.
In any view that can bo takon of thijg capo, Xt was erior
for the court to admit and consider the evidence offer-
ed by appelle on a motion to peremptory instruct the
jury.
Page 7
It was also error to give the peremptory instruct-
ion directing the jury to find the issues for the defend-
ant, for there was evidence in the record of the contract
and a stipulation of the parties showing the delivery of
the goods and admission of existing indebtedness. In
other words, there was evidence in the record from
which, standing alone, the jury might without doing
violence in the eyes of the law have found a verdict for
appellant. Libby, McNeil & Libby v. Cook, 225111. 206.
The judgment of the circuit court is reversed and
the cause remanded to that court.
Reversed and Remanded.
Ge^Wal No. 7258 / Agenda No. 15
October
Appellee
22a l.A. 651^
Danviltte Street Raj^vay and Light Company, a cor-
poration, Appel
Appeal from tj^ circuit court of Vermilion County.
GRAVES P.
A service truck belonging to appellee and a street
car belonging to appellant met on the right of way
used by appellant in the streets of Danville and
the truck was injured. This suit was begun to
recover for the damages done the truck. A verdict for
appellee and assessing his damages at $563 was return-
ed by the jury. Appellee filed a remittitur of $180 and
judgment was rendered in favor of appellee and against
appellant for $383.
It is first contended that the court erred in deny-
ing the motion of appellant for a continuance. The
basis of this motion was the absence of a material wit-
ness. The affidavit in support of the motion for a con-
tinuance was insufficient in that it failed to state that
the testimony the absent witness would give would be
true. It is further insufficient in failing to show facts
to support the conclusion that if the conitn-
Page 1
uance should
be granted the testimony of the absent witness could
be produced at the time said cause should again be
reached for trial. It further fails to show that tiie
same facts appellant desired to prove by the said ab-
sent witness were not also known to many other witness-
es by whom the same could be proven equally well as
by the said absent witness. The motion for a contin-
uance was properly denied. NlacKii^hani v. IVIcBean, 45
111. 228; Eames v. Hennessey, 22 111. 629; Cook v. North-
wood, 106 111. 558.
An ordinance of the City of Danville granting to
the Danville & Eastern Illinois Railway Company a fran-
chise to construct, maintain and operate a street rail-
way in certain streets in the City of Danville including
the part of the city where the accident involved in this
case occured, was admitted in evidence over the object-
ion by appellant. This appellant contends was error.
The record shows that appellant is the lessee of the Dan-
ville & Eastern Illinois Railway Company and was at the
time of the collision in the exclusive operation of the
road constructed under the franchise granted by the or-
dinance in question. The ordinance in question requires,
as one of the conditions upon which the franchise could
be accepted, and the rights thereby
Page 2
granted could
be enjoyed, that the tracks should be so laid as not to
project, be more than one half inch above the level of
the street "so that carriages and other vehicles can
easily and freely cross said tracks at any and all points."
The second count charges that the rails on said tracks
at the time and place of the collusion in question were
so laid as to project five inches above the surface of the
street and that as a result of the condition of the track
and the negligent manner in which appellant's servants
operated its cars the injury was sustained. The proof
shows that the rails in question did project above the
surface of the street several inches and that the driver
of the truck in question attempted to turn out of the
right of way when the car approached and was unable
to get the truck over the rails that so improperly pro-
jected above the surface of the street.
The lessee of a railroad takes it subject to the per-
formance of ail lawful requirements of the charter or
franchise under which the same was constructed and is
operated and which make for the safety of the public.
Pennsylvania Co. v. EEieii, 132 111. 654; Chicago and Erie
Railroad Co. v. fi^eech, 163 111.
Page 3
305; People v. St. L. A.
& T. K. R. R. Co. 176 111. 512; Suburban R. R. C. v. Balk-
will, Admix, 195 111. 535. It was proper in this case
that the jury should know not only what the franchise
ordinance required in that respect, but whether such re-
quirements had been complied with and if not whether
the failure to comply with the same was the proximate
cause of the collusion. For that purpose the ordinance
was properly admitted. The fact that such ordinance
may show^other requirements which have no connection
with the collision does not render its admission in evi-
dence erroneous. Neither is it important in this case
to determine whether a lessee of a railroad is by reason
of its relation as such under any obligation to perform
the contractural obligation of its lessor. That has no
relation to the cause of the collision in question.
On cross examination the boy who was running the
truck was asked whether he had a Chauffeur's license
at the time. Objection to that question was sustained.
Page 4
It was not proper cross examination of anything the
boy had testified to. and the objection was properly
sustained.
Proof was admitted over objections of appellant
tending to show what the use of the truck was worth
during the time it was being repaired. This was erron-
eous because the only loss shown to have been sustained
by reason of the truck being out of commission was sus-
tained by the firm of Chavis Brothers, while this suit is
begun by one of the partners only who was individually
the owner of the truck. The proof conclusively showed
that the work performed including $15 for bringing the
car from the place of the collision to the garage togeth-
er with the materials furnished in the repair of the
truck amounted to $383. On that state of the proof the
jury assessed appellee's damages at $563. Appellee
then filed a remittitur of $180 leaving $363, the exact
amount of the cost of repairing the truck including mat-
erials furnished and work performed. Judgment was
entered for that amount only. It is manifest that any
harm done by the 8,dmission of the evidence in question
was cured by
Page 5
the remittitur. It is true that where
there is anything tending to show that the verdict of a
jury was founded on the passion or prejudice of the jury
a remittitur will not sanctify it; but where an excessive
verdict is returned as a result of miscalculation or as in
this case because of some improper element of damage
which the jui-y have been led to consider by the admis-
sion of improper evidence, it usually will do so.
Several other complaints are made by appellant as
to the rulings of the court on the admission and exclus-
ion of evidence and in giving and refusing instructions,
but they are without merit and a detailed discussion of
each of them would unduly extend this opinion.
It is next contended that the evidence does not show
negligence on the part of appellant or lack of contribut-
ory negligence on the part of appellee. Those questions
are for the jury and it is not the part of an appellate
court to substitute its judgment for that of a jury on
questions of fact when there is evidence strongly tend-
ing to support the verdict. It is only when the verdict
is manifestly contrary to the evidence that an appellate
court can properly i-everse a judgment for
Page 6
that reason.
In this case a careful study of the evidence, instead of
showing that the verdict is manifestly wrong forces us
to the conclusion that it is right and that the judgment
should stand.
The peremptory instructions tendered by appellant
were properly refused. There was evidence in this rec-
ord which standing alone fairly tended to support the
claims of appellee and from which the jury without
doing violence in the eyes of the law could return a ver-
dict in favor of appellee. Under that state of facts it
would have been error to give the peremptory instruct-
ions asked. Libby, McNeil & Libby v. Cook, 222 111. 206;
Finding no reversible error in this record, the judg-
ment of the circuit court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Page 7
General No. 7261 Aafgnda No. 45
October Term, 1920
Charleston State Bank, Aj^ellee
GRAVES P. J.
Isaac B. Craig, Appellant
Appeal frofti the circuijrcourt of Coles County.
223 I. A. 652'
This is a bill iniquity for an accounting brought by
appellee against appellant and arises out of a series of
transactions commencing with a contract entered into
between the parties in 1906, whereby appellee was to
advance to appellant and did advance to him $4000 with
which to purchase several hundred acres of land in the
State of Texas, which he was to sell and divide the
profits in a stipulated manner. Appellant purchased
the land and sold it out in two seperate tracts. One of
these tracts containing 200 acres he deeded on November
12, 1906, to one Geo. W. Hogue for the expressed con-
sideration of $5175. The deed recites that $3175 of this
was paid in cash and that $2000 of it was evidenced by
a certain promissory judgment note payable to appellant
due in one year drawing seven per cent interest and se-
cured by a trust deed- Appellant has consistently con-
tended since long before this suit was commenced that
he sold this 200 acre tract to one John Hall for
Page 1
the con-
sideration of $2000 and that before the deed was made
to him he. Hall, resold it to George W. Hogue and re-
quested appellant to convey it to Hogue for the consid-
eration named in the deed, which he did; that the $3175
named in the deed as part of the consideration in hand
paid in cash was, in fact, two promissory notes, one for
$1500 and the other for $1675, signed by one W. H. Gal-
braith and on their face payable to Mrs. Geo. W- Hogue,
wife of the grantee in the deed, which said notes appel-
lant turned over to John Hall to whom he had sold the
land and to whom they belonged, and that all he ever
in any way received for that 200 acre tract wels the
$2000 for which he contracted to sell it to John Hall;
that the officers of appellee bank knew all about the
transaction at the time; that the balance of the land
was sold in January, 1908, and settlement thereupon
made with appellee.
Appellee concedes that settlement was made accord-
ing to the stipulation in the contract first above refer-
red to as to all the proceeds of the land transaction ex-
cept the $3175 mentioned in the Hogue deed as the
cash consideration. The Master in Chancery to whom
this causi. was referred to state
Page 2
an account between
these parties charging this $3175 to appellant and found
and reported that after so doing there was due from
him to appellee .$1163-50. Exceptions of appellant to
this report were overruled by the court and he was de-
creed to pay appellee that amount of money.
In order to warrant that decree it must have the
support of a preponderance of the evidence in this rec-
ord. Hyde v. Heath, 75 111. 381; City Bank of Ottawa v.
Dodgeon 65 111- 11-15.
Appellant when called as a witness by appellee and
when he subsequently took the stand in his own behalf,
testified to the contentions made by him as above re-
cited. If his testimony is taken as true, and it must be
unless there is sufficient evidence in the record to the
contrary to overcome it, then all he ever received for
the Hogue land was $2000, the Galbraith notes while they
passed through his hands were never his and he never
made any claim to them, but turned them over to John
Hall with whom he dealt in the transaction. In this he
is corroborated by the witness Abel who says he saw
these notes in Hall's possession. The fact that Hall was
able to and did sell
Page 3
the land for a very considerable
sum in advance of what he agreed to pay Craig for it,
in no way impeaches the transaction between Craig and
Hall, particularly when at the bankruptcy sale of Hogue
this same land sold for but $25 more than Craig claims
to have received for it, which strongly tends to show
that the price Craig sold it for was its fair cash market
value. It may well be, as has been suggested, that the
deal between Hall and Hogue was irregular in some way
and that the excessive consideration received by Hall
from Hogue was in futherance of some scheme to cover
some of Hogue's assets in contemplation of bankruptcy
proceedings, but that in no way tends to show that Craig
received more than $2000 for the premises.
Appellee states several times in his argument that
the deed recites that Craig received the $3175 Galbraith
notes. There is no such recital in the deed. It is re-
cited that part of the consideration for the deed was
$3175 cash in hand paid, which is concededly not true.
The testimony of appellant shows the $3175 was repres-
ented by the Galbraith notes; that they were delivered
by Hogue to Hall through appellant as a conduit.
Page 4
There is
no positive and direct evidence to in any way contradict
the testimony of appellant. The nearest approach to
it is the testimony of Hogue, the grantee in the Craig
deed. He says he remembers the fact of purchasing the
land of Craig; that he paid about $26 per acre for it and
that he gave Craig the notes in question in part pay-
ment- He does not say with whom he made the contract
to buy the land or that Craig ever collected the notes or
that the notes were ever paid by anybody. The state-
ment that he remembered purchasing the land of Craig
could at the most be no more than a conclusion from
some fact not related and cannot be regarded as a con-
tradication of anything appellant testified to. Even if
these notes were delivered to appellant as his property
there is no proof that they were ever piad to appellant
or to any one else, and by his contract with appellee, ap-
pellant was bound only to account for the money he re-
ceived for the lands. The circumstance that appellee
stopped receiving deposits in 1914 and went into volun-
tary liquidation and made no attempt to collect this
claim until this suit was begun is very suggestive that
appellant's testimony is correct when he says he set-
tled this whole matter in
Page 5
1910. The preponderance
of the evidence in this record instead of establishing
the findings of the decree are manifestly contrary to it.
Appellant insists that the evidence warrants a de-
cree in his favor against appellee for $97.73. In view
of the testimony of appellant that this whole matter
was settled in 1910 a decree in his favor for $97.73
would be as contrary to the evidence as the one appeal-
ed from.
The decree of the circuit court is reversed and the
cause is remanded to that court with directions to en-
ter a decree that there is nothing due either from ap-
pellant to appellee or from appellee to appellant and
directing that complainant pay the costs.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Page 6
Genei^l No. 7262 •Agenda No. 4
, October Term,
/i
Ernes\L. B^attews, by his ne)^ friend, Appellant
\
Viola M.'^Mathews, and "^ L. Mathews, Appellee
Appeal froA. the Cir^jm Court of Christian County.
GRAVES P. J. "^ /i.. ^ ^. . « ,-«,,..- ^
Eddie E. Minnis, dies^ testate on April
Viola M. Minnis (now Mathews) his widow, and Ernest
L. Minnis is His only child. At the time of his death;
Eddie E. Minnis was seized in fee simple of a farm of
one hundred and fifty-three and one-half acres, on which
he was residing; also an undivided one-half interest in
another tract of land containing forty-five acres. By his
will Eddie E. Minnis devised all of said real estate to his
son Ernest in fee subject to a life estate in an undivided
one-half part thereof which he gave to his widow the
mother of his said son. After his death his widow and
son continued to live on the home farm. She was duly
appointed the guardian of their said son on April 16,
1909, and on May 26, 1915, she was married to one L. L.
Mathews, one of the appellees in this case. The new
husband took up his residence at the Minnis home farm
and has since that time conducted the farmrng operations
on the lands above mentioned. Ernest L. Minnis, the
son, while yet a minor began this suit in Chancery by
Will Minnis, his next friend, praying for partition of the
premises in question between him and all others having
an interest therein and for an accounting by the said L.
L. Mathews of the rents and profits realized from the
premises of appellant while the same was occupied by
the said Mathews, and for an accounting by the said Viola
M. Mathews, his mother and guardian for the rents and
profits of his interest in the said premises received by
her and for general Relief. Issues were found on this
bill and the case was referred to the
Page 1
Master in Chancery
of that court who took the proof and reported the same
without any conclusions thereon as directed by the order
of reference in this cause whereupoon the court found
what the interests of the several owners of the land
were and decreed partition thereof according to the in-
terests so found, and also found that appellee, L. L.
.§i^9(fe>leatn|^* 6 5^2
Mathews, had paid to appellant all that was coming to
him from the use of the said premises and that there
was nothing for him to account for and dismissed the
said bill as to the said L. L. Mathews and refused to re-
quire an accounting by appellee Viola M. Mathews, his
legal guardian. The basis of the decree as to appellee
L. L. Mathews was the finding of fact that he had oc-
cupied the premises of appellant all the time under a
lease made by Viola Mathews, the guardian; that it was
for a reasonable rental and that he had paid all that he
had agreed to pay. From this decree the son Ernest L.
Minnis has appealed.
That L. L. Mathews occupied the premises during
all the time he is charged to have done so is undisputed.
The character of his occupancy is shown by the testimony
of Mathews himself. He testified that he occupied it as
tenant under a contract of leasing made between him
and the guardian of the said Ernest L. Minnis; that he
was to pay as rental $4.00 per acre and keep the sheep
and horses of appellant, except for the last two years
when he was to pay $5.00 an acre for part of it and share
rent for part of it and was to keep and feed the horses
and sheep belonging to appellant. In this he is not con-
tradicted by any one and is corroborated by his wife the
guardian of the boy, who testified that her husband told
her the cash rent proposed by him was as he thought
about right in view of the expense of keeping and feed-
ing the stock of appellant and that he settled with her
from year to year on that basis. There is no averment
or proof of any fraud or conspiracy to overreach appell-
ant in this leasing. And while there is some proof that
part of the time during which Mathews occupied these
premises the same
Page 2
could have been rented for a very
considerable more than $4.00 or over $5.00 per acre when
the expense of the care and keep of the stock is taken
into consideration at a time when the grain and hay that
stock consumed was like rental, abnormally high, we
think the compensation for the land so paid by Mathews
was fair and reasonable, at least we can not say that the
finding of the circuit court that it was so fair and reason-
able is manifestly contrary to the weght of the evidence.
Finding no reversible error in the record, the decree
of the circuit court is affirmed.
Decree affirmed.
Page 3
No. 7265\
\ __
April Term A. W. 1921
\
Hulda A. Waltojf Appellee,
Agenda No. 4
Bloominglon, Decatur ^d Champaign R. R. Co.
Appeal frorf^. the _^rcuit Court of Macon County. '•'*■• \J 9J f=r/j
GRAVES P. J.
This is an appeal by the Bloomington, Decatur and
Champaign Railroad Company from a judgment against
it of $1500, in favor of Appellee in a suit for damages
for personal injuries, as well as injuries to her automo-
bile, resulting from a collision at the intersection of the
public highway and the right of way of Appellant be-
tween an electric driven car of Appellant and the auto-
mobile in which Appellee and her husband was riding
and which he was then operating.
There are five counts in the declaration. The first
count charges Appellant with general negligence in the
operation of its car. The second count charges Appel-
lant with negligently operating its car at a high and
dangerous rate of speed. The third count charges the
failure of Appellant to give any warning by bell, whistle,
or otherwise, of the approach of its car. The fourth
charges that Appellant allowed weeds and vegetation to
grow upon its right of way so as to obstruct the view of
persons approaching the crossing, and the fifth charges
that Appellant, well knowing that the view of persons
approaching the crossing in question on the highway was
obstructed by vegetation and a line of poles there situat-
ed, negligently managed and controlled its car there and
struck Appellee.
The only facts that are undisputed are that a colli-
sion occurred and that both Appellee and the car in
which she was riding were more or less injured. The
evidence is strongly conflicting as to whether Appellant
was negligent in any of the ways charged in the declara-
tion: as to whether Appellee was guilty of contributory
negligence: as to whether the husband
Page 1
was guilty of negli-
gence that should be imputed to Appellee, and on sever-
al less important questions. The evidence as to the
ownership of the automobile, the extent of the injuries
of Appellee as well as to the amount of damage done the
automobile^ also as to the existence and extent of the
claimed obstructions to the view at and near the cross-
ing where the collision occurred is far from satisfactory.
In that state of the record it was of the greatest import-
ance that the jury should be fully and accurately instruc-
ted.
The first instruction given at the instance of Ap-
pellee was intended to state the rule as to what the
proof must show to constitute negligence in the rate ol
speed the car in question was being operated at and just
before the collision, but it is so involved and confused as
to be likely to mislead the jury. It practically tells the
jury that "it is negligence to run a car at a rate of speed
that constitutes negligence." This instruction is in part
as follows:
****"It will be sufficient so far as the allegation
of speed in said counts is concerned, if the evidence
shows that said car is shown to have run at such a rate
of speed as it approached and passed over said crossing
as constituted negligence as alleged in said counts."****
There is nothing in this instruction or in fact in the ser-
ies of instructions that defines when or what rate of speed
in the operation of a car constitutes negligence, and it is
in other respects muddled and erroneous.
The second instruction given at the instance of Ap-
pellee undertakes to announce the rule of law that the
exercise of due care by a person confronted by sudden
peril does not require the exercise of such calm delibera-
tion and judgment as might be required of one having
more time to consider the situation, but it entirely ig-
nores the question of how such person came to be in the
position of sudden peril. It is erroneous for that rea-
son. North Chicago Si. R. R. Co. v.
Page 2
Cossar 203 111. 613; Elders v. Peoria St. Ry. Co. 200 111.
App. 487; Healey v. Chicago City Ry. Co. 167 111. App. 524.
Appellees eighth given instruction is on the question
of the measure of damages and is erroneous as to the
damages to the automobile which the jury are told in
substance was the difference between its fair cash mar-
ket value before and after the collision. The true meas-
ure of damages on that branch of the case is the cost of
repairs and the damages sustained by reason of the nec-
essary loss of its use while being repaired. Coyne v. C.
General
7269.
October Ten
Gilman & Comp
Agenda No. 51.
\ Alec Gud
1920
y, Appellee,
Appe
W?,
O
Appeal from the Circuijf Court of Montgomery County.
GRAVES P. J. , / j^
Appellee obtaini^ a judgment againsSiAppellant for
$2768. for damages for failure to deliver a lot of hides
purchased by Appellee of Appellant. Appellant has ar-
gued several alleged errors for the reversal of this judg-
ment. First it is contended the Court erred in admitting
the testimony of the witness Pollak as to the market
value of hides in Litchfield and Chicago. The objection
made at the trial to his testimony was that the published
quotations are the best evidence. The evidence shows
that he was familiar with the business of buying and
selling hides: that he was in that business: that he had
known of sales of similar hides: that he knew what the
published quotations were and that the market prices of
hides in Chicago, Litchfield, St. Louis, Mo., and Ft. Way-
ne, Ind. were the same. The published quotations were
only one of the sources of the information the witness
had as to the value of hides. The objection was proper-
ly overruled. He was a qualified witness on the subject
and his testimony was not secondary or hearsay evidence.
G. G. 0. & S*. L. Ry. Go. y. Palion 203 111. 376-378, 0. &
N. W. Ry. Go. V. Stock Farm 194 111. 9, Jackson v. N. C. &
H. R. R. R. Go. 167 111. App. 461-468. It is next argued
that there was no contract because there was not a meet-
ing of minds as to its terms. The preliminary negotia-
tions concerning this contract was made over the tele-
phone but what was then said was excluded by the Court
on objection by Appellant. The real contract was made
by letter. Each party writing a letter to the other party
confirming the contract made over the phone and recit-
ing the terms of it in equivalent if not in identical langu-
age. There is nothing in the contention that there was no
contract. It is lastly argued that the Court
Page 1
erred in sustaining
objections to telephone conversations between Appellant
and someone at the office of Appellee. The evidence
sought by this excluded conversation was that the prices
f
^. 652"^
named were f. o. b. on cars at Litchfield and Chicago.
When the witness Pollak was on the stand, Appellee un-
dertook to prove a conversation between him, then rep-
resenting Appellee and Appellant, and on objection of
Appellant it was excluded. The ruling in both instances
was erroneous under the authority of Godair v. Ham.
Nai. Bank 225 111. 572, but the Court was first led into
error by Appellant and he cannot complain that the same
erroneous ruling was made against him. McKinzie v.
Lane 235 111. 544, Oliver v. Oliver 179 111. 9, Smith v. Kim-
ball 128 111. 583, Bernstein v. C. I. & L. Ry. Co. 147 111.
App. 447.
Other errors than those above referred to were as-
signed, but they are the only ones argued in this Court
and it is a familiar rule that errors not argued will be re-
garded as waived. McElroy v. Catholic Press Co. 254 111.
290-292, Brown v. Burley 168 111. App. 114-118.
The judgment of the Appellate Court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
r"""v''
General Ho. 7272 i Aegnda No. 54
^- OctoberjTerm, 1920
Edwafi^d Thompsoijf Publishing Co., Appellee
vs.
\
\
Appeal froAjJa* Circuit Court of Tazewell County
GRAVES P. J. . _ ^ l./J^^ 6 53 1
Appellee began this case to recover a balance claim-
ed to be due from Appellant upon a contract to sell to
Appellant a set of law books known as the American and
English Annotated Cases. In the making of this con-
tract Appellee was represented by a person who signed
himself as James Thomas, Agent. It was this man
Thomas who prepared the contract. He pretended to
make the same in duplicate but did not in fact do so. The
copy he left with Appellant contained the words "This
order is subject to approval of books on delivery of di-
gest" while the copy forwarded to Appellee contained the
words "This order is subject to your approval." For a
very similar contract made with Appellee, the Edward
Thompson Publishing Co., by this same agent Thomas
for the sale of a like set of books and in which a very
similar discrepancy appears between the original con-
tract and its purported duplicate, attention is called to
the case of Edward Thompson Co. v. Hunt, 218 111. App.
616. In the case at bar Appellee secured a judgment.
Appellant has perfected his appeal and has filed in
this Court his transcript of the record and his abstract
of the same together with his brief and argument, in
compliance with the law and the rules of this Court. Ap-
pellee on its part ahs ignored the appeal entirely, and has
filed no brief or argument in support of its judgment.
The rules of this Court provide that "If the defendant
in error or Appellee shall fail to file his brief in compli-
ance with these rules, the judgment or decree will be re-
versed pro forma, unless the Court on examination of
the record shall deem it proper to decide the case on its
merits." There seems to be no reason why this Court
should feel called upon to hunt up a defense for Appellee
to save its judgment for it, if it has not sufficient inter-
est in it to file a brief and argument in
Page 1
compliance with
the rules of this Court.
The judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed pro
forma because Appellee has filed no brief to assist the
Court in sustaining it, and the cause is remanded to that
Court for a retrial.
Reversed and Remanded.
Page 2
(Sxi -2 r '/ ^ %. i
General No. ¥283
o.fS
Agenda No. 63
\ October TWfm, 1920
\ Joe Bonio/to, Appellee,
vs.
Nicolai, Appellant.
ngamon. County. - ^
Jo^ph
Appeal from thM^ircuit Court of _
GRAVES P. J. '^ /W t>
In December, 191S, Appellant received from Appel-
lee $500. and has never returned it. Appellee claims it
was a loan to Appellant vi^hich had never been repaid.
Appellant claims it was Appellees share or investment
in a proposed corporation to be organized by Appellant
and Appellee and some third person yet to be found for
the issuance of funeral benefit insurance. This suit was
begun by Appellee to recover the $500. in question to-
gether with interest thereon. The case was tried by a
jury. By its verdict the issues were found for Appellee
and his damages were assessed at $531.25 and judgment
was entered on the verdict.
Three claimed errors are argued by Appellant.
That the verdict is not supported by the weight of the
evidence: that the Court gave two improper instructions
at the instance of Appellee and refused two proper in-
structions requested by Appellant.
The only witnesses in the case were the parties
themselves, and the testimony of each was diametrically
opposed to that of the other. It was the province of the
jury to weigh the evidence and pass upon the credibility
of the witnesses. In the performance of that duty the
jury found the issues for Appellee and after a careful ex-
amination of the evidence, we are not prepared to say
the verdict is not amply justified by it. It is not the pro-
vince of the Court to interpose its judgment for that of
the jury on questions of fact unless the verdict is mani-
festly wrong, which it is not in this case.
The instructions given to which objections are made
are clearly right, and those of Appellants that were re-
fused are confused, misleading and not warranted by the
evidence and were properly refused.
The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
r*X^
1/a
General Np. 7290 / Agenda No. 7
April Term A. D.
Jaspe\^ Shadid for use of John P. Snigg,
Defendant in/Error
Homer 1% Shonkwy^r, Plaintiff in Error
Error to CirooitJ^Durt of Sanga;
GRAVES, P. J.
Jasper Shadid, by the name of Joseph Shadid, ob-
tained a judgment in a Justice Court of Sangamon
County against one Sam A. Gazelle for $200 and costs.
Gazelle appealed from that judgment to the Circuit
Court of Sangamon County. His appeal bond was sign-
ed by Homer N. Shonkwiler and was in the sum of $500.
On a trial of that cause in the Circuit Court Shadid was
again successful and obtained a judgment against Gaz-
elle for $200 and costs. That judgment was assigned
by Shadid to John P. Snigg who had been his Attorney
in the litigation, the consideration being a balance due
for fees which appears from the evidence in this record
to be $125. That judgment so assigned was never paid
and this suit was begun in the name of Shadid for the
use of Snigg against Plaintiff in Error on the appeal
bond, which he had signed with Gazelle. The case was
tried by the Court, jury being waived. The Court found
the issues for the Plaintiff and entered judgment in his
favor for $500 debt and $75 damages to be satisfied on
payment of the damages and costs. Why the damages
shoud not have been the full amount of the judgment
against Gazelle and interest thereon does not appear.
Shonkwiler has sued out this writ of error.
The first point made by Plaintiff in Error is that
the appeal bond signed by him was made in a suit in
which Joseph Shadid was Plaintiff; that the judgment
assigned to Snigg was one in which Jasper Shadid was
Plaintiff and that there is no proof that Joseph Shadid
ever did obtain a judgment in the
Pa«e 1
Circuit Court in the case
in which the appeal bond sued on was given and that
therefore no breach of the appeal bond is shown. In
his statement of facts Plaintiff in Error says:
"In August, 1919, one Joseph Shadid sued one Sam
A. Gazelle before James Reilly, a justice of the peace,
for the sum of two hundred dollars and recovered a
BTil.A.653^
judgment for that sum. H. N. Shonk\viler signed an ap-
peal bond, appealing said cause to the Circuit Court, and
when the cause got into the Circuit Court the proceea-
ings thereafter ran in the name of Jasper Shadid again-
st Sam A. Gazelle. Jasper Shadid executed a power of
attorney to collect that judgment."
During the trial, both John P. Snigg and Sam A.
Gazelle, the principal in the bond sued on, testified no
objection being made to it, that Joseph Shadid and Jas-
per Shadid were one and the same person. This part of
the evidence was not abstracted. It follows that wheth-
er the case in the Justice Court was in the same name
as Plaintiff as the case in the Circuit Court on appeal,
and whether the assignment of the judgment in the
Circuit Court is signed by Joseph or Jasper Shadid, the
case is the same in both courts and the judgments in
both courts are in the same case and the Plaintiff in both
courts is the same person.
Plaintiff in Error argues that there is no proof that
Joseph Shadid has not been paid his full judgment. In
that contention he is in error for the abstract prepared
by him shows that the Gazelle, the judgment creditor
himself, testified that the judgment had not been paid.
An examination of the instrument called by Plain-
tiff in Error a power of attorney to collect the judg-
ment, and by Defendant in Error an assignment of the
judgment discloses the fact that it is both an assign-
ment of the judgment and a power of attorney to col-
lect the same in the name of the judgment creditor. The
assignment of a judgment rendered in the Circuit Court
on appeal from a justice of the peace carries with it the
right to sue on the appeal bond. Ullman vs. Kline 87
III. 268; Knight vs. Griffey, 161 111. 85; Same Case 57 111.
App. 583.
The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Page 2
i
No. 7296\ A^nda No. 13.
April Term, A. D.
People of the State of Illinoiaf^Appellee,
\ vs. j^
ArtPiurVj Anderson and F.^lbin Anderson,
Appeal from-, the Circujft Court o:
GRAVES, P. J. ^'
Appellant was inHicted at the April term, 1920 ol
the Ford County Circuit Court and on being arrested
during that term he entered into a recognizance in the
sum of $800, in the usual form for his appearance to
answer to the indictment. Appellant, F. Albin Ander-
son, was his surety. The cause was then continued until
the next term of the Circuit Court of Ford County
which convened on August 17, 1920. At that term Ap-
pellant, Arthur Anderson, failing to appear, a judgment
of forfeiture of the recognizance was entered and a
Scire Facias was ordered, returnable to the first day of
the December term, 1920, and was issued. The return
thereon shows that it was served on Appellant, F. Albin
Anderson, on September 22, 1920 and that Appellant,
Arthur Anderson, was not found although the writ re-
mained in the hands of the sheriff until December 4,
1920. On December 7, 1920, the same being the first
day of the December term of that year. Appellant, Ar-
thur Anderson, was again taken into custody under a
criminal capias. Thereupon he entered his motion sup-
ported by affidavits to set aside the forfeiture of his
recognizance; this motion was denied. Appellants then
filed six pleas to the Scire facias.
A demurrer to all of these pleas except the plea of
Nul tie! record was sustained, issue was joined on that
plea, and a trial by inspection of the record was award-
ed and had by the Court without a jury. The finding of
the Court on the issue found was for the People and ex-
ecution was awarded against Appellants according to
the form and effects of
Page 1
the recognizance, in the sum of
%^%^\A. esa'^
The first reason urged by Appellants for a reversal
of the order appealed from is that the Court erred in
refusing to set aside the default of the recognizance on
motion of Appellants. Whether or not that is so de-
pends on whether the facts set up in the affidavits filed
in support of the motion are sufficient to show that the
failure of the accused to be present in Court according
to the terms of his recognizance was due to his own
negligence or design or was caused by some circum-
stance not within his control. The facts disclosed by
the affidavits are that Appellant, Arthur Anderson,
gave his recognizance in the usual form at the April
term, 1920, of the Circuit Court of Ford County and
that his case was then continued to the next term of
that Court which convened in August, 1920; that almost
immediately thereafter he left the jurisdiction of the
Court and went to a place in the State of Wyoming 55
miles from Gillett which was the nearest place where
mail could be obtained and so far as it appears left no
word with any person where he was going or how long
he expected to remain away; that not even his lawyer
knew his whereabouts or how to reach him; that noth-
ing was seen of him thereafter by anybody in Ford
County until December, 1920, and that he did not go to
the post-office more frequently than every fifty or sixty
day. He says in his affidavit that he went to Gillett in
the latter part of July, 1920, and stayed there a month in
quarantine. He also says he went back to his claim the
first week in August, 1920, (which locates him in two
places at the same time) , and that he was there confined
to his bed most of the time until September 10, 1920.
In the next paragraph of his affidavit he says he re-
mained on his claim until September 28, 1920. No ex-
planation is made why he did not communicate with his
Attorneys during the time he was in quarantine in Gill-
ett although it is disclosed that both mail and telegraph
were there available. He further states that he found
out some time after September 28, 1920 that his recog-
nizance had been forfeited but he did not appear in Ford
County until December, 1920.
Page 2
The impression left from a consideration of those
affidavits is that he was at least heedless of his obliga-
tion to appear for trial under the indictment if he did
not deliberately and intentionally ignore it. We think
the trial judge was well within the proper exercise of
his judicial discretion when he refused to set aside the
default.
Appellants next complain of the action of the Court
in sustaining the demurrer to their second and third
pleas. The second plea set up the motion to set aside
the default together with the affidavits filed in support
of it and was bad. For the reasons already stated those
facts constituted no defense to the Scire facias. The
third plea is a denial of some of the facts charged in the
indictment. It is wholly immaterial on the question of
liability on a forfeited recognizance whether the De-
fendant is guilty or not guilty of the charge made in the
indictment. Peoole v. Rubrighi 241 111. 600.
Other errors have been assigned but they are with-
out merit. The judgment entered by the Circuit Court
was in the correct form, Landis v. People 39 111. 79;
Burrall v. People 103 111. App. 81, and was the only one
that could properly have been entered under the circum-
stances shown by this record.
Judgment affirmed.
Page 3
r-^.^jy. ■) A
^
General No. 7^99 >!^enda No. 16
\ April Term, A. D. 192J
\
Johh D. Hembrough, Arif)ellee,
John Barton Paj'ne, Director/General of Railroads,
\ AppeD&nt
Appeal from the\Circyt Court of Morgan County
GRAVESP.j. - 22 3 I.A. 653^
Appellee shipped three carloads of cattle from
Woodson, Illinois to the Union Stock Yards at Chicago
over the Chicago and Alton Railroad. He claims they
were not transported to their destination within a reas-
onable time and that they were in other ways mishand-
led in such a way as to injure their market value to the
extent of $780.25. To recover such damage he brought
this suit. He secured a judgment of $531.68. From this
judgment the Director General of Railroads has appeal-
ed and has filed an abstract of the record consisting of
129 pages, and a brief and argument that contains 35
pages of printed matter. The transcript of the record
contains 200 pages. In his brief Appellant has argued
the admissibility of evidence, the weight of the evidence,
the corrections of several instructions, the law of negli-
gence as applied to delay in transporting live stock from
several angles, the measure of damages, and numerous
other co-related subjects, but Appellee has failed to file
any brief or argument whatever.
The rules of this Court provide that if the Defend-
ant in Error or Appellee shall fail to file his brief, the
judgment or decree being reviewed will be reversed pro
forma unless the Court on examination of the record
shall deem it proper to decide the case on its merits.
The judgment in this case is sufficiently large and the
questions involved of sufficient importance and difficulty
to warrant Appellee in taking some interest in this ap-
peal. If he does not care to help the Court come to a
correct
Page 1
determination of the questions presented, he
certainly can not expect the Court to become his advo-
cate.
The judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed pro
forma for failure of Appellee to file a brief and the
cause is remanded to that Court.
Reversed and Remanded.
Page 2
ex ' ''' 'MJ
General No. 7221 / Agenda No. 3
\ April Term A. D. /92I
\ / „
Frank P. Illman, Defen^nt m Error
Elza Kruse, et al.^aintiff in Error
\
At.peal^om SchuyJ^. Q q y « /? p^ >|
HEARD. J. -^ ^- ^3 lo/l. 054
Defendant in error filed his bill in chancery in the
Circuit Court of Schuyler county against plaintiffs in er-
ror alleging among other things that Frans H. D. Kruse
died seized of 90 acres off North side of the South West
quarter of Section Twenty-eight, Township Two, North,
Range One West, Schuyler county, Illinois; that he died
testate July 4th, 1899, leaving Elizabeth Kruse his wid-
ow, James F. P. Kruse, Franz H. Kruse, George W. Kruse
Susannah Greer and Doris Matthews his children; that
his will was admitted to probate, Aug. 19, 1899; that
the fifth clause of his said will gives the above described
real estate to the widow for her life, orders that at her
death it shall be sold by the surviving executor, and the
proceeds divided equally among the above named chil-
dren; that George W. Kruse died prior to Elizabeth
Kruse leaving plaintiffs in error as his widow and chil-
dren and only heirs; that on May 2nd, 1900, he for val-
uable consideration assigned his interests in said estate
to Franz H. Kruse; that Elizabeth Kruse died May 24th,
1919; that on May 2nd, 1900, George W. Kruse by writ-
ten instrument assigned his interest in the estate of
Franz H. D. Kruse to Franz H. Kruse for valuable con-
sideration; that on Nov. 8th, 1912, Franz H. Kruse for
valuable consideration assigned his individual interest
and the interest of George W. Kruse to Robert P. Kruse;
that by written assignment the complainant acquired the
interest of Robert P. Kruse and all the other heirs of
Franz H. D. Kruse deceased, to the above described real
estate; that by virtue of same complainant became the
equitable owner of said land, and elects to reconvert
the funds arising from the sale of said land into land;
that Franz Henry Kruse as executor threatens to sell
said land under the authority given under said will. Bill
makes plaintiffs in error and other parties defendant
and prays that the court will decree that the complain-
ant holds the legal title to said premises and enjoin
Franz Henry Kruse from selling said land under the
power given him by said will; that the court will decree
the legal title of said real estate to be in the complain-
ant; that the court will decree and confirm complainant's
election to reconvert the money arising from the sale of
said real estate into lands and decree the legal title in
in the lands to be in the complainant; that the court will
decree the complainant is entitled to immediate possess-
ion of said premises, and all of the same, subject to the
rights of the tenant James Parks to cultivate
Page 1
and remove
his crops from said premises.
Plaintiffs in error answered the bill denying that
George W. Kruse ever sold or assigned his interest in
said real estate. A hearing was had and the circuit
court entered a decree which is in part as follows: "And
it is further hereby ordered and decreed by the court
that the said Frank P. lUman is the owner of said real
estate and that the legal title thereto be and the same
is hereby decreed to the in th'e said Frank P. Illman as
fully and completly and to all intends and purposes and
with like legal force, and shall be so considered and held
both in law and in equity, as though he had received a
deed of conveyance thereto from the said Franz H. D.
Kruse in his lifetime or from the said Franz Henry
Kruse as executor, or deeds from the said Susannah H.
Greer, George W. Kruse, Franz Henry Kruse, Doris
Mathews, and James F. P. Kruse.
And it is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that
the title in said real estate be quieted in the said Frank
P. Illman, and is hereby fully and completely vested in
the said Frank P. Illman, both legally and equitably.
To review his decree Plaintiff in Error has sued out a
writ of Error.
It is apparent from an inspection of the bill, answer
and decree that a freehold is involved in this case and
that the appeal should have been taken directly to the
Supreme court.
The Clerk of this court is therefore directed to tran-
smit the transcript and all files herein to the Clerk of
the Supreme court.
Page 2
General No. \7247 / Agenda No. 2
\ October Terny^20
Phebe Bradj^Appellant
ren, Appellee
Appeal from '■Circuit Court of Adams County -j- II /J P' Jft
HEARD, J. -*'^^* ^*>^
I
Appellant while riding in a one horse buggy, with
her nephew, the owner and driver in charge, was injur-
ed by reason of the left rear wheel of the buggy being
struck by an automobile, operated by appellee, as the
automobile attempted to pass the buggy going in the
same direction.
Appellant brought suit against Appellee to recover
damages for her injuries and a jury trial resulted in a
judgment in bar for appellee against appellant from
which judgment appellants has appealed.
Appellant, with the exception of one ruling upon
the admission of evidence as to which the court was
clearly right, makes no complaint in his brief and argu-
ment of the action of the court in the admission or ex-
clusion of evidence, or the giving or refusal of instruct-
ion but devotes the entire argument to the question of
whether or not the verdict was contrary to the manifest
weight of the evidence.
Page 1
It is conceded by appellee that appellant was not
guilty of contributory negligence.
The declaration consists of three counts. The neg-
ligence with which appellee is charged in the third count
is the failure to honk a horn to give warning of the ap-
proach of the automobile. Five witnesses testify that
the horn was sounded while appellant and her driver
testify that they did not hear it although they were
otherwise warned of the approach of the automobile.
The negligence with which appellee is charged in the
second count is a failure to keep a look out a head.
Three witnesses testify that he did keep a lookout a
head and did see the buggy and attempted to avoid it
while no one testifies that he did not keep a look ahead.
The first count contains a general charge of negli-
gence in the management and operation of the automo-
bile resulting in the collision and injury to appellant.
Appellant and her nephew testify to a state of facts,
rX^
which, if believed by the jury, would warrant them in
finding appellee guilty of negligence proximately caus-
ing the injury, on the other hand appellee and two men
who were in the automobile with him testify that as
they approached the buggy from the rear, the driver of
the buggy looked back and saw them; that he then
started to turn out to the right; that the driver of the
automobile then started to pass on the left; that the
driver of the buggy then
Page 2
pulled back in the beaten
track; that the driver of the buggy then again turned
to the right; that the driver of the automobile again
started to go around on the left side of the buggy and
the collision occurred. These three witnesses testified
to a state of fact which if believed by the jury, would
warrant them in finding that appellee was not guilty of
negligence, or that the driver of the horse drawn vehicle
was guilty of negligence, and that his negligence was the
proximate cause of the injury in either of which events
their verdict would be for appellee. It was purely a
question of fact for the jury and in the conflicting state
of the evidence, we would not be warranted in disturb-
ing their finding.
The judgment is affirmed.
Page 3
Genial No. 7295. ^Agenda No. 12.
\ April Term A. D. 1^
Fred Rhoads, Administrator B^ate of Harriett
\ Terrell, Deceased.^ppellant,
A. B. Hiiston, Executor H?tate of William Terrell,
» Deceas^ Appellee. n-
AppealVrom Cj^it Court Edga^o)J©;y^ X .A* O O Jt
HEARD, J. \y
The abstract in this case does not disclose the nature
of the action, what proceedings were had in the circuit
court or what errors were assigned upon the record.
It is a well settled rule of law in this state that a
court of review will search the record for grounds upon
which to affirm a case, but will not do so to find error
and it has been repeatedly held by this court that where
the abstract is so imperfect as to render it impossible to
acquire from it any correct idea of what transpired in the
court below the judgment will be affirmed pro forma.
P. S. G. & E. Co. vs. Wrede, 217 111. App. 407. In re
Smalley, 217 111. 488; Sellers vs. P. P. Co. 217 111. App.
617.
The judgment is affirmed.
\
General No. 7298 / Agenda No. 15
\ April Term, A. D/1921
Adolph Hunziker/Appellee
■; vsJr
Thomas A. Mqlcahey an^Katherine A. Mulcahey
% Ajipellants
f.o. Ta.ewel.. 2 2 3 J. A. 654^
HEARD, J.
This is a suit brought by appellee against appellants
husband and wife, upon a promissory note for $1000
with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum; sign-
ed by appellants, dated Sept. 29, 1910, and payable to
the order of appellee Feb. 15, 1911. The declaration
consisted of the common counts and a special count on
the note, and attached to it was an affidavit of plain-
tiff's claim. Appellant filed a plea of the general issue
and affidavit of meritorious defense, setting up that the
note was a forfeiture note given by appellants in case
they did not carry throufrh a certain real estate transac-
tions and was not to be collected if said transaictions were
carried out and that said transactions had been carried
out. On Dec. 3, 1918, the cause was called for trial be-
fore a judge other than the one before whom the present
case was tried. During the progress of the examinat-
ion of jurors, appellant asked and obtained leave to file
instanter and did file an additional plea of failure of
consideration with an affidavit of merits. Thereafter
the trial proceeded. A jury was sworn to try the case
and during the examination of witnesses appellants ask-
ed leave to file additional pleas verified by affidavit of
meritorious defense. This was denied and the trial pro-
ceeded resulting in a judgment for appellee against ap-
pellants for $1468.16. From this judgment an appeal
was taken and the judgment reversed by this court for
error in refusing to allow the filing of said additional
pleas. Hunziker vs. Mulcahey, 215 111. App. 508.
Upon the cause being redocketed in the circuit court
by leave of court, appellants filed an additional plea of
release and an additional plea of payment which pleas
were also verified by affidavit of merits. Issues were
joined, the cause again tried by jury and a judgment ren-
dered by the court for $1,599.15 in favor of appellee
against appellants.
Page 1
It is contended by appellants that the verdict of tne
jury was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Appellee to maintain the issues in his behalf intro-
duced the note sued on in evidence and rested his case.
Appellant Katehrine Malcahey did not actively par-
ticipate in the transaction further than signing her name
to the papers and hereinafter when the term "appell-
ant" is used it will be understood as referring to Thomas
A. Mulcahey.
On July 25, 1910, appellee through the negotiations
of a,ppellant entered into a written contract with one A.
H. Nichols for the purchase from him of 170 acres of
land. The consideration was $35,000 payable $2,000 in
cash in hand, and a mortgage of $15,000 taken back for
a period of five years, and the balance of $18,000 pay-
able in cash on February 15, 1911, on which date the
deed was to be delivered, and the transaction completely
closed. At the time of this purchase appellee only des-
ired 80 acres of said land and had arranged with the
appellant, Mulcahey that he should re-sell 90 acres there-
of. Forty acres was re-sold to John Schurter by written
contract for a consideration of $9,000 payable on Febru-
ary 15, 1911, on which date the deed was to be deliver-
ed, and the contract fully and completely executed.
There was an agreement between appellant and ap-
pellee that the remaining 50 acres should be sold so as
to net the appellee $7500, as contended by appellants or
$8500 as claimed by appellee. Appellant began to look
for a purchaser and found Mr. Cooney wanted to buy,
but had city property that he wanted to put in at a high-
er price than it was worth and the 50 acres was raised
to $10,000 as its selling price. This town property was
50 feet off the north end of two lots in the Village of
Tremont. Cooney offered the fractional lots and $5,500
for the 50 acres. Appellee said he did not want the
city property at any price, that he needed all his money
to pay for the 80 acres. Appellant then told plaintiff
that he would take the fractional lots and with that un-
derstanding; two contracts were entered into on the
same day, the contract from Hunziker to Cooney, agree-
ing to convey the 50 acres to Cooney and to take $5,500
in cash and the village property, payment to be made,
deed delivered and contract fully performed on Febru-
ary 15;
Page 2
1911. On the same day as the execution of
the Cooney-Hunziker contract, to-wit: September 29,
1910, and in accordance with their arrangement, a con-
tract was entered into between appeiree, on the one
part, and appellant, Katherine Mulcahey on the other
part, for the sale of the village property to Katherine
A. Mulcahey. The consideration recited in said contract
is $4,500. Both appellant and appellee state that this
was not the true consideration. Said contract further
recites that $3,500 was paid cash in hand, receipt of
which was thereby acknowledged and that the remain-
der of said purchase money is due and payable February
15, 1911, at the First National Bank of Tremont, Illinois;
deed to be executed by appellee and placed in escrow
with the First National Bank of Tremont, Illinois, to be
delivered to second party at the time of the payment
of the purchase money therein described.
The main controversy in the case is as to what was
the real consideration for the sale of this city property.
Appellee testified that the consideration to be paid was
$3500, $1,000 of which v/as represented by the note in
question, $2,000 to be paid Feb. 15, 1911, and the bal-
anc'"" $500 retained by appellant as commission on the
main real estate transaction. Appellant testified that
the consideration was to be $2,000, $1,000 of which was
to be the note in suit, and the remaining $1,000 to be
paid, Feb. 15, 1911.
October 1, 1910, appellant gave appellee a check for
$250. February 17, 1911, he gave him another for $450
and on March 1, 1911, another for $1300, which latter
contained the words "in full for property." Appellant
claims that this latter check was in full settlement of
the whole matter including the note in question and tes-
tified that on March 1, 1911, he gave appellee the $1300
check at the First National Bank in Tremont; that at
that time he asked appellee if he had the $1,000 note
there with him; that appellee said he had forgotten to
bring it with him, but would go right back and get it;
that appellant told appellee that it was not necessary to
do so; that he could hand appellee the note or destroy it
and that appellee said he would do so or if at any time
appellant was by there to stop in and get it; that he dis-
missed it from his mind and never thought of it. Ap-
pellee testified that at the time of getting the $1300
check the $1000 note was not
Page 3
mentioned at all and con-
tradicts all of appellants' testimony on that subject.
The controversy resolved itself into a pure question
of varacity between appellant and appellee and in view
of appellant's contradictory affidavits of merits we can-
not say that the jury were not justified in giving credence
to appellee rather than to appellant.
When the issue is purely one of fact it is the special
province of the jurj^ to determine it and when their ver-
dict has been approved by the trial judge, who saw the
witnesses and heard the testimony their finding will not
be disturbed by a court of review unless manifestly
against the weight of the evidence. This rule is so well
settled in this state as not to require the citation of au-
thorities.
The case was tried and a motion for new trial over-
ruled at the September 1920 term of court. Appellant
excepted to the action of the court in overruling the mo-
tion for new trial and prayed an appeal which was not
perfected. The September 1920 term of court adjourn-
ed without a judgment having been entered and without
any minute of such judgment having been made by the
judge, clerk or other official of the court. At the No-
vember 1920 term of said court upon motion of appellee
the cause was redocketed and on Dec. 27, 1920, judgment
was entered as of that day upon the verdict. Appellants
claim that this was error. No judgment having been
entered upon the verdict at the Sept. 1920 term. At the
end of that term the cause was a cause pending and un-
disposed of and by the statute of the State it automat-
ically stood continued until the next term of court. Sec.
56. Chap. 57, Rev. Stats. 111. People vs. Nooman, 276 111.
430.
Upon cross examination appellee having stated that
he had sold the note in question was asked "Who does
own it?", to which question the court sustained an ob-
jection. This ruling is assigned for error. The action of
the court was right. Appellee having filed with his de-
claration an affidavit of claim, appellants were limited
in their defense to such matters as were stated in their
affidavits of merits. Complaint is also made of the ex-
clusion of other evidence offered by appellants. The
questions asked called for the conclusion of the
Page 4
witness and
were improper.
Complaint is made as to the giving of one of appel-
lee's and the refusal of four of defendant's intsruct-
ions. Of the refused instructions one was not based up-
on the evidence and the material points of the others
were contained in other given instructions. We fina
no en-or in the giving or refusal of instructions.
The judgment is affirmed.
Justice Niehaus took no part.
Page 5
Genera] No. 7304 , Agenda No. 21
April Term, A. D. 1921
John W. Luttrell, Appellee, j^
vs. /
__Charles E. Wyatt and Margaret J. Wyatt, Apj^llants
Ralph Luttrell, Ralph Luttrell, Trustee, and R.ji.. Child,
Appellees
Appeal from SlipgamcC) yQ O T \ Ct t^ /%
HEARD. J. \..^
In this case appellee filed his bill in the circuit court
of Sangamon county to vacate and set aside a prior de-
cree of said court upon the ground that the prior decree
had been obtained through fraud. After amendments
had been made to the bill a demurrer to the amended
bill was sustained by the court and the bill dismissed.
Appellee prayed an appeal to this court and upon hear-
ing this court held that the circuit court erred in sus-
taining the demurrer and remanded the cause for fur-
ther proceedings. Aftei; reinstatement in the court be-
low answer was filed denying fraud and alleging laches.
The cause was heard and a decree in favor of appellee
was entered setting aside the former decree for fraud
and requiring appellants to pay appellee the amount of
the promissory notes, the collection of which had been
enjoined by the decree vacated. From this decree the
present appeal is taken.
The bill is extremely lengthy and the alleged facts
upon which it is based are set out in full. In the former
opinion of this court the material allegations of the bill
are set out in full and for a statement of such altiga-
tions reference is hereby made to such former opinion.
Luttrell vs. Wyatt, 214 111. 655.
The evidence in the present case tends to support
all the material allegations of the bill and this court in
its former opinion held proof of such facts would be suf-
ficient to maintain the bill.
While the personal of the court has changed since
the former hearing, yet the decision of the court on the
former hearing is the binding law of the case so far as
the present hearing in this case is concerned. The evi-
dence was lengthy and conflicting on many of the
Page 1
material points and no good purpose would be subserv-
ed by setting it forth in full. The Judge who saw and
heard the witnesses found in favor of appellee and his
finding as to the controverted questions of fact has the
same force and effect here as the verdict of a jury.
Under the evidence in the case we would not be justified
in setting aside his finding of fact.
The decree is affirmed.
Page 2
/ r
/
y
GeneraK No. 7308 A/cnda No. 24
■y April Term. A. D. 192
\
In Re Estate of George Games, D^eased, Thomas
Miller. G^ Williamson, Guardiai^t al, Appellants
Fred H. Farf^nd. Administra^r with the Will An-
\ nexed, A^ellee
'^M""''"^^°^I.A. 6 5 5'
Appeal irc?Bi Circijft Court
HEARD, J.
George Carnes of Griggsville, Pike County, died
July 19th, 1917, leaving a widow, Margaret Carnes, him
surviving, but no children, and by his last will and test-
ament nominated his widow as executrix ;md after giv-
ing a life estate in all his property to her, provided that
after the payment of $14,500 in specific legacies, the
residue of his property should be divided among twenty
nieces and nephews. Margaret Carnes on August 2, 1917
filed in the County Court in writing, her declination of
the appointment as executrix and requested the appoint-
ment of Fred H. Farrand a^ a-^'r-iin'strator with the will
annexed. Farrand v/as appointed as such administrator
and qualified giving a person" i bond.
The widow filed in the connty court her renunciat-
ion of the will and e'ecte^^ to take her statutory share of
the estate of her husband.
At the March 1920 term of the county court Far-
rand as such administrator rx'nhited to the county court
his fina' account for settlement. Various objections were
made thereto by appellant and after hearing the court
overruled the objections e-cept the objection to an item
for interest paid upon a legacy and approved the account
except as to such item, which item was disallowed. From
this action of the court appel'ants appealed to the cir-
cuit court of Pike County and upon hearing in that
court the action of the county court was approved in all
particulars and appellee's account was approved except
as to said item of interest. From this order the pres-
ent appeal has been perfected.
There were seven objections made by appellants as
to the items with which the executor charged himself
and five as to items for which he claimed credit. Ap-
pellants in their brief as to six of the objections as to
the
Page 1
items on the debit side say that "the item is stated
in such a vague, indefinite and careless manner as to be
practically unintelligible." The abstract filed by ap-
pellant does not comply with the rules of this
court in many respects. It does not contain an index of
the exhibits and from it it is impossible to ascertain
whether cei'tain alleged exhibits were introduced in evi-
dence or what their function as exhibits were. Appel-
lee's account for settlement, which with the objections
thereto, were the basis for the adjudication, does not
appear in its proper place in the abstract. A search of
the abstract reveals the statement "exhibit 2 is the
final report of Fred H. Farrand administrator, to which
objections and exceptions have been taken." Without
any connection with this statement being shown there
follows what purports to be, and we shall for the pur-
pose of this appeal assumie, to be, appeLee's final account
for settlement and request for discharge as administra-
tor. An inspection of the items covered by the six ob-
jections above mentioned shows that they are item.s of
monies received by appellee entered in the statement in
the manner in which such items are usually entered in
such accounts. Appellee, when a witness upon the hear-
inij' was interrogated as to these items and their correct-
ness and no evidence was offered by appellants tending
to show that they were not correct.
Appellants contend th'-t the first item with which
appel ee charged himself. "Cash as per inventory $9,307.-
82" is not correct in fact. The evidence shows that
prior to appellee's appointment as administrator with
the will annexed certain grain and stock was sold by the
widow and a person other than appellee, the money de-
posited in the bank and when appellee became such ad-
ministrator $9307.82 was the exact amount of cash which
he received. The objection therefore was properly over-
ruled.
Appellants claim that the allowance of $2310.23 for
appellees commission as such administrator was exces-
sive. The real estate was worth about $12.5,000 and the
personal property about $35,000. Appellee received and
disbursed over $45,000, a portion of this sum coming to
him as a portion of the proceeds of a partition sale. Ap-
pellee, as a witness, testified to the services rendered by
him, the time devoted to the business of the estate and
the estimated number of miles travelled. He had acted
in the same capacity at other times and he and two
other witnesses who had performed like services several
times, testified that the services were
Page 2
reasonably worth
$2310.26. Appellants offered no evidence to the con-
trary. The judge of the county court and the judge of
the circuit court, who saw and heard the witnesses, al-
lowed this sum and we would not be justified in setting
aside their finding. Kuehne vs. Malach, 286 111. 120.
Appellants object to the item "Williams & Williams
Attorneys fees, $1,000." The objection as stated is "the
item claiming a credit of $1,000 on account of attorney's
fees to William & William is objected to, and it is sub-
mitted that the same ought to be itemized in such man-
ner as to show the particular services for which the fee
is claimed." Were this a claim of the attorneys for
their services this objection might well be urged, but it
is not. It is the claim of appellee for a credit in his ac-
count by reason of having made one payment of $1,000
to Williams & Williams for attorneys fees and there was
no occasion to itemize the fees in appellees account. It
is also claimed tha.t at times this firm represented the
widow and not the estate. The undisputed testimony
is that th§ widow paid for the legal services tendered
her and that no charge was made against the estate for
any services rendered. A. Clay Williams, a member of
the firm testified in detail to the rendition of the ser-
vices and that they were reasonably worth $1,000. The
judges of the county and circuit court both heard the
evidence and saw the witness and approved the allow-
ance of this item and in this state of the record to set
aside their finding would be unwarranted.
It is urged by appellant that the court erred in al-
lowing appellee credit for $917.10 paid Carpenter &
Stover for a monument erected over the grave of de-
ceased.
The evidence shows that appellee considered deceas-
ed a man of considerable property and as he said in his
testimony "there's nothing in the world we can do for a
man after he dies except give him a decent funeral" and
he considered that deceased should have a suitable mon-
ument erected over his remains and that, considering
the widow the proper person to select the same, he sent
the monument salesman down to her to let her look over
the samples, but gave no instructions as to her signing-
the
Page 3
contract which she did.
Thereafter appellee filed a petition in the county
court setting up the facts and asking leave to assume
the monument contract and pay for the same out of
the funds of the estate. The county court denied the
petition whereupon appellee prayed an appeal to the
circuit court, where, after the overruling of a motion by
appellants to dismiss the appeal, both parties appeared.
A hearing was had and the circuit court very properly
ordered appellee to pay for said monument out of the
funds of the estate as a part of the funeral expenses
of said deceased. Appellants contend that this order of
the county court was a nullity because after the appeal
was allowed by the county court no transcript of the
county court proceedings were filed in the circuit court.
From the condition of the record in this case we are un-
able to say whether or not such transcript was filed. Such
transcript does not appear in the record neither does
there appear any positive proof that no such transcript
was filed. Upon the appeal from the county court to
the circuit court being allowed it became the official
duty of the county clerk to make a transcript of the
county court proceedings for filing in the circuit court.
In the usual and ordinarv course of procedure such
transcript is filed in the circuit court before the circuit
court assumes jurisdiction of the case and the parties
appear and try the case.
It is a well established rule of evidence that every
officer is presumed to have performed his official duty
and that, that which according to the common experience
of mankind usually happens in the usual and ordinary
course of business, is presumed to have happened in a
particular case until the contrary appears from the evi-
dence. Mayer vs. Krohn, 114 111. 574; Ashley Wire Co.
vs. 111. Steel Co. 164 111. 149; Paden vs. Rockford Palace
Furniture Co. lU. App. (2nd Dist. October 1920
Term); Cone vs. Jeffries, 7 Allen (Mass) 548; State vs
Gritzinger, 36 S. W. 39; W. T. Co. vs. Wright, 78 N. W.
942; Oregon Steamship Co. vs. Otis 3 N. E. 465; Perry vs.
I. A. B. 73 N. W. 538. It will therefore be presumed in
this particular case that the transcript of the county
court proceedings was filed in the circuit court before
the appeal was heard in the circuit court.
Page 4
We are of the opinion that appellee was entitled to
credit for the amount paid for the monument.
The order of the circuit court appealed from is af-
firmed.
Page 5
General Ho. 7311 >^ Agenda No. 27
April Term A. D. j0Zl
John Barton P^ne, Agent gf the United States, Etc.,
\ Appi
Appeal frofei Ciniftiit Co)^ Pjke Qountv.
HEARD, J.
This is a suit brought by appellee claiming that
while the Director General of Railroads was in the con-
trol and operation of the lines of the Chicago & Alton
R. R. Co., he negligent'y caused the death of six hogs
of appellee while being carried from Nebo, 111., to the
National Stock Yards at East St. Louis, 111. No judg-
ment is shown by the abstract filed by appellant in this
case as required by the rules of this court. It has been
repeatedly held that when the abstract does not con-
form to the rules of the court, that the court is not re-
quired to search the record, but may affirm the case
pro forma. P. S. G. & E. Co. vs. Wrede, 217 111. App.
407; Sellers vs. P. P. Co. id. 617; in re Sm.alley, id. 488.
The record discloses that a judgment v/as rendered in
favor appellee against appellant for .$321.90 damages
and costs and we have considered the case upon its mer-
its.
The praecipe and summons purport to be in assump-
sit, but the original declaration which consisted of two
counts alleged appellants liability to be a failure to safe-
ly carrying a shipment of appellees hogs from Nebo, 111.
to the National Stock Yards at East St. Louis, 111., and
negligently causing the death of six of such hogs and
for a failure to deliver the shipment within a reason-
able time, thereby causing the death of said six hogs.
To this declaration appellant pleaded the general issue
and four special pleas. TJie first special plea v/as that
the carriage in question was made under an express
shipping contract in writing; that in said contract, appel-
lee agreed for value to take personal care of the stock
in transit by watering and otherwise tending the same
and he expressly relieved the carrier there from, but
that the appellee failed to take care of the stock and
that by reason thereof and not on account of any negli-
gence or fault of the caiTier or of the agents and ser-
vants of the Director-General, the several injuries were
3 l.A. 6 5 5^
caused and not otherwise.
The second special plea set out similar averments
with copy of the contract and that the plaintiff failed to
comply with the condition of the contract which required
that within four months of the delivery of the stock
claims must be made in writing to the carrier at the
point of delivery or at the point or origin and that the
plaintiff failed to comply with this condition.
The third special plea set out the contract and thai
at and before and during the time of carriage of such
shipments, the government of the United States had
taken over primarily for government use the line of the
Chicago &
Page 1
Alton RaiToad Company and all connecting
lines between Nebo and the said point of delivery, that
at and during said tim,es said lines of railroad so taken
over by the government were congested with an excess
amount of government and other freight and the ter-
minals and switches between the point of shipment and
point of deliver^' were congested and over-burdened
with public and private freight; that at and during said
tim^e an excessive and unusual amount of freight was
carried to said National Stock Yards by and over divers
lines of rai'road and that any delay in the delivery of said
shipment to the consignee, if there was any such delay?
was caused directly and necessarily by these conditions and
not by any negligence on the Director-General or of his
agents or servants operating the lines of the Chi. & Alton
Railroad company, nor on the lines of any connecting
carrier; that the said Director-General then and there
provided and furnished for said shipment good and
sufficient cars and other railroad equipment for such
shipment and a reasonably sufficient force of train men
to carry said shipment within a reasonable time; that
in fact there was no delay in carrying said shipment over
the line of the Chicago & Alton Railroad Company; that
said shipment was in fact delivered to the consignee
within a reasonable time under all the surrounding cir-
cumstances.
The fourth special plea was similar to Plea four ex-
cept that it charges with much more particularity the
provisions made for carrying promptly live stock under
the ordinary and usual conditions of traffic; it then avers
that on the morning of the 17th of June, 1919, after
this shipment had been accepted, and had been carried
to a point at or near the said National Stock Yards, and
before the arrival of the train at the yards, an unfore-
seen, unusual and unprecedented congestion of freight
traffic there arose at, in and on the tracks, switches and
terminals of the said National Stock Yards in this, to-wit:
that on the morning of said June 17th and before 9:10
a. m. of said day more than 500 cars of live stock arrived
there for delivery to the National Stock Yards; that the
said stock of the plaintiff reached and was carried to
said National Stock Yards promptly and in due time and
at 9:10 a. m. of that day; that it was then and there the
custom and duty of the carrier and of said National
Stock Yards to place and unload the cars of live stock
in the order of their arrival at said Yards; that said un-
usual and unforeseen condition of congestion was not or
could not have been foreseen or provided for by the ex-
ercise of ordinary diligence in the premises on the part
of the Director-General and connecting carrier; that on
the arrival of said live stock of appellees at said Stock
Yards at 9:10 a. m. of June 17, 1919, the said Director-
General and connecting carriers had then provided and
furnished sufficient employees and facilities to deliver
and unload the ordinary and usual quantity of stock but
that by reason of the unforeseen.
Page 2
and unusual condition
above set forth and not through or on account of any
negligence of the Director-General or connecting lines
of said Stock Yards, the said stock of appellee was un-
avoidedly and necessarily delayed in unloading.
Issues being made a jury was selected and the evi-
dence heard. After appellee had m.ade his opening argu-
ment and after appellant had made one of its arguments
the appellee by leave of court filed two additional counts
to his declaration. Additional count one was a substan-
tial repetition of original count one, and makes no refer-
ence whatever to a written shipping contract. Addit-
ional count two charges on the shipping contract in writ-
ing as the same had been set out in appellant's plea two;
avers performance of all the terms and conditions on his
part to be performed and charges that the Director-
General did, by negligence and delay, cause the death of
six hogs.
Appellant contends that the action of the court in
allowing the additional pleas to be filed was error. The
action of the court in this regard was not error. Sec. 39
Chap. 110, Rev. Sta.ts. of III., provides that at anytime
before final judgment in a civil suit amendments may be
allowed on such terms as are just and reasonable * * *
changing the form of action, and in any matter either
of form or substance, in any process, pleading or pro-
ceeding which may enab'e the plaintiff to sustain the
action for the claim for which it was intended to be
brought or the defendant to make a legal defense. See
also Sec. 1, Chap. 7, Rev. Stats, of 111. If appellant had
other evidence which he desired to offer in view of the
changed pleadings he could have asked to have the case
reopened and submitted his evidence or if he was taken
by surprise and the evidence v/as not at hand he could
have asked to have a juror withdrawn and the case con-
tinued.
Appellant claims tliat as the contract of shipment
provided that appellee would take personal care of the
stock in transit, by watering and otherwise attending to
the same and he did not do so he cannot recover. This
clause of the contract v/as waived by appellant as this
duty of watering and caring for the stock in transit was
taken upon themselves by the employees of appellant
and neither opportunity or facilities for watering or car-
ing for the, stock in transit were furnished appellee.
Appellant claims that there can be no recovery in
this case because claim was not made to the carrier at
the point of delivery or origin within four months after
the delivery of the livestock. This position cannot be
maintained because claims for damages in transit by
carelessness or negligence are specifically excepted by
the clause of the contract requiring such notice.
It is claimed the evidence does not show any such
delay in the delivery of the hogs as to render appellant
liable.
In T. W. & W. Ry. Co. vs. Lockhart, 71 111. 627, it
was held that where a
Page 3
common carrier contracts
to fonvard and deliver goods at a certain point, it is the
duty to so convey and deliver them within a reasonable
time, and if it fails to do so, it is liable, whether it knew
that its connecting line could not without unreasonable
delay forward the goods or not and it will not be release-
ed from its liability by a delivery to another connecting
road, but will still be liable for any unreasonable delay,
although the same occurs on account of the crowded con-
dition of such connecting road where such liability is not
guarded against in the contract.
The evidence shows that the train on which the
shipment was made was slightly behind time in leaving
Nebo, but arrived at Venice 21 miles from the stock
yards at 7:10 the next morning. At Venice the car was
transferred to the Southern Railway to be delivered at
the yards and by it delivered at the yards about 300
yards from the unloading chute at 9:10. The day was
very hot and the car stood in the yards until 1:10 when
it was taken to the unloading chutes.
There is evidence that when loaded at Nebo the
hogs were in good condition and when the car arrived at
Venice the conductor of the train inspected the stock and
testified that there was nothing wrong as far as he
could see there and that as far as he discovered the
stock was in good condition.
When the hogs were unloaded at the chute five were
dead and one cripped dying soon after.
The employees of the various railways and of the
stock yards testified as to the handling of the car of
stock, the conditions at the stock yards and the amount
of stock received and unloaded on the day in question
and the order in which it was unloaded.
That there was some delay prior to unloading the
stock is not denied but appellant attempts to explain it
by reason of the congested condition of the yards. Ap-
pellant also introduced evidence tending to show that the
hogs died as a result of over exertion before loading and
not by reason of the delay.
Whether or not there was an unreasonable delay in
the delivery of the hogs to the unloading chute and
whether or not the hogs in question died as the result
of such delay were questions of fact which it was the
peculiar province of the jury to determine. There was
evidence in the case upon which to predicate their find-
ing and we would not be justified in setting it aside.
It is claimed by appellant that the court erred in
the giving, refusing and modifying of instructions. The
court gave to the jury at appellees request 14 instruct-
ions. Appellant tendered and requested the court to
give to the jury 30 instructions. Of these the court gave
13 as offered; modified and
Page 4
gave 8 of the others and re-
fused the remaining, of which refused instructions the
greater number were not applicable to the case by rea-
son of the change in pleadings. We have carefully con-
sidered the instructions, which are exceedingly lengthy,
and the objections raised as to the court's action with
reference thereto, and are of the opinion that the in-
structions as a series were fully as favorable to appellant
as the law would warrant and that appellant has no just
cause for complaint of the court's action with reference
thereto.
The judgment is affirmed.
Page 5
732
General No. 7321
April Term A. D. 192
Andrew Grenias, et a],
\ vs.
Earl Hill, BlarJche Huff, Milli§^nod grass, and Fred
^".'?""T,4, 655-^
Miller, Apgellants
Appeal from Circuit ^urt S
HEARD, J.
Appellees were the owners and operators of certain
■ restaurants or eating places in Springfield, 111. Sept. 17;
1920. A strike of all the union employees of these
places was called, October 1, 1920. A bill of complaint
was filed in the circuit court of Sangamon County, by
appellees praying for an injunction restraining appell-
ants and others from doing certain things in said bill
enumerated and on said day a writ of injunction was or-
dered issued by a judge of said Court in accordance with
the prayer of the bill of complaint. An injunction was is-
sued accordingly and personally served upon appellants.
The injunction among other things enjoined appel-
lants from in any wise, by force, threats, intimidation,
interference with, obstructing or stopping the business
of the complainants, their servants, or employees in the
maintenance, continuance and operation of their res-
pective business; from compelling, inducing, or attempt-
ing to compel and induce by threats, intimidation, force,
physical violence, or other unlawful means, any of the
complainants' employees to fail or leave their employ;
from preventing or attempting to prevent any person
or persons, pedestrians, or patrons of the complainants
respectively, by threats, intimidation, force, physical
violence, or other unlawful means, from freely entering
the respective places of business of the complainants
for the purpose of obtaining food, or for any lawful pur-
pose; from in any manner combining, conspiring, or agree-
ing to attempt to injure the business or property of the
complainants or to destroy, hinder, obstruct, or inter-
fere with the prosecution of the complainants' business,
by threats, intimidation, force or violance or from agree-
ing or attempting to injure the employees of the com-
plainants respectively; from congregating, about in or
near the premises, grounds, buildings, restaurants, cafes
or property of the complainants or either of them for
the purpose of threatening or intimidating or
Page 1
annoying
the pedestrians and patrons entering the places of busi-
ness of the complainants; from molesting, attacking, ac-
costing, laying hold of or threatening or interfering
with the employees of an patrons of the complainants
respectively; or from gathering large and threatening
forces and standing in front of the places of business
of the complainants or in the alleys, approaches, entran-
ces thereto, for the purpose of their presence of threat-
ening, intimidating, or annoying the employees of the
complainants and the patrons of the complainants or
any person desiring ingress or egress from or to the
places of business of the complainants respectively; from
in any manner conspiring or combining to do or directing
the doing by any person of any injury or bodily harm to
servants, agents, or employees or patrons of the com-
plainants or destroying the property, equipment, or
places of busines of the complainants respectively; from
maintaining at or near the premises of the respective
complainants any body of men or women for the pur-
pose of intimidating by threats, demeanor, violence, or
coercion, or any unlawful means, any patrons or any
employee or future employee of the complainants or
persons who desire, or any and all persons, desiring in-
gress and egress to and from the respective places of
business of the complainants; from unlawfully doing or
attempting to do any unlawful act or thing in further-
ance of the conspiracy set forth in this bill of complaint.
October 6, 1920, appe^ees filed in the circuit court
a petition praying that appellants be attached for con-
tempt, the petition and affidavits accompanying it set-
ting up alleged acts of appellants which appellee claim-
ed were in violation of the above quoted provisions of
the injunction.
Attachments were issued and October 8, 1920, a
hearing was had in the contempt proceedings, appellants
being present and testifying in their own behalf. Oct.
11, 1920, tihe court entered an order finding that appel-
lants were each guilty of violating the injunction there-
tofore granted in this cause in manner and form as set
forth in the petition and affidavits, and that they should
«ach be fined in the sum of fifty
Page 2
dollars and costs, and
that they be committed to the Sangamon County jail un-
til the said ^iies and costs were fully paid.
From the entry of this judgment the present ap-
peal to this court has been perfected.
Appellants contend that they were engaged in peace-
ful picketing; that peaceful picketing is not unlawful in
this state and devote a large portion of their argument
to this contention.
Appellants were not enjoined from peaceful picket-
ing; the petition for attachment did not charge them
with peaceful picketing and the question of whether or
not peaceful picketing is lawful is in no wise involved
in this case.
It is urged by apepllants that a respondent who
honestly thought the order of the court did not forbid
the doing of the acts which constitute the contempt
should not be imprisoned. In the present case appell-
ants were, not sentenced to a term in jail but were fined
and as a method of enforcing the payment of the fine
and costs were ordered to stand committed to the coun-
ty jail until the fine and costs were paid.
Courts of chancery are by statute given power to
enforce their decrees by imprisonment. In the major-
ity of cases like the present a mere fine without an or-
der to commit the violator to jail until the fine and costs
are paid would be a mere farce and the impecunious of-
fender could violate orders of courts with impunity and
render nugatory attempts to maintain the dignity of
the court.
Appellants contend that their acts were in every
way lawful and did not justify the punishment imposed
on them.
Whether or not appellants acts were lawful is not
the question in this case. It is the settled rule in this
state that if the court has jurisdiction of the parties and
of the subject matter, an injunctional order made in the
exercise of such jurisdiction must be obeyed until it is
modified or set aside by the court making it, or rever-
sed in a direct proceeding by appeal or writ of error
Lyon & Healey vs. Piano Workers Union 289 111. 176
Ash ? vs. Garment Workers Union 290 111. 301. The
material question is "did appellants in fact violate the
terms of the injunction?" It would serve no good pur-
pose and unduly
Page 3
prolong this opinion to recite the evi-
dence in detail. There was sufficient evidence in the
record to warrant the court in finding appelUants guilty
of violating the injunction if such evidence were be-
lieved by the court. While much of this evidence was
denied by appellants, weighing the evidence was the
province of the trial court, which possessed many ad-
vantages in this respect over a court of appeal. It is
settled by law and established rules of practice in this
state that when a case is tried before the judge without
. a jury the conclusion of the judge as to matters of fact
should not be disturbed unless clearly wrong.
In this case the trial judge who heard the evidence
found as a matter of fact that appellants had violated
the injunction and we would not be justified in setting
aside his finding. The judgment of the circuit court is
affirmed.
Page 4
/ 0 ^
-O-
Genera] No. 7328 ^^enda No. 42
April Term, A. D.
Nancy E. \Miller, Administratrix debonis non of the Bs-
tatk of Samuel Milter, ^eased, Appellee
G. A. S^ults, Adminij^rator, etc., Appellant
Appeal
Vom Loaan County Ciig^tXourt ,
\jr ^2 3 1X655'^
HEAJFID, J.
February 25, 1918, at the home of appellant, Geo.
A. Stults, one Samuel Miler, a brother in law of Stults,
died, leaving him surviving his wife, Nancy Miller, and
two daughters, who had been living seperate and apart
from him for five or six years.
On the day that Miller died Stults procured George
J. Smith, his attorney, to prepare a widow's relinquish-
ment of the right to administer and the next day went
to her home at Springfield, 111., and procured her signa-
ture thereto. March 9, 1918, Stults filed his petition m
the county court of Logan county for letters of admin-
istration on Miller's estate, in the petition stating that
the estate consisted of choses in action estimated to be
worth about $340 and on that day was appointed as
such administrator, giving bond in the sum of $700.
When Miller was taken sick at the home of Stults,
he had in his pocket book a draft on the Illinois bank
at Springfield for $340 and a note executed by Frank M.
Elliot of Drexel, Mo., payable to Miller's order for $1000
and interest. On March 19, 1918, Stults collected the
$340 draft and deposited the proceeds to his credit as
administrator in the First National Bank of Mt. PulasRi.
Stults, as administrator, on March 21, 1918, fixed on
May 2, 1918, as the date for the adjustment of claims
against the estate and on the same day claims of Mrs.
George A. Stults for care and keeping of Samuel Miller
$100, of John T. Hershey for funeral expenses $146.75
and of Dr. Denison for medical attendance $14 were fil-
ed against the estate.
On April 12, 1918, Stults deposited to his credit as
administrator of the estate of Samuel Miller, deceased,
in the First National Bank of Mt. Pulaski $1011.83, the
proceeds of the Elliott $1000 note which through the
efforts of his attorney he had succeeded in collecting.
On April 22, 1918, Stults filed in the county court,
as administrator, his inventory of the estate dated April
15, 1918, in which he charg-
Page 1
ed himself with $1340
cash on hand which on the hearing he testified represen-
ted the $340 draft and the $1000 note. On April 23,
1918, he filed an additional bond of $2000. On this same
day Stults filed a claim against the estate for "purchase
pricu one team of horses $290; corn, $36; oats, $2.10;
corn, $68; board and washing 3 years 1913-1915, $621;"
making a total claim of $1020.10.
On June 8, 1918, an attorney of Springfield wrote
Smith & Lincoln of which' firm George J. Smith is a
member asking for information as to the assets of the
Miller estate and the claims filed against it, suggesting
that Mrs. Miller would be entitled to a widow's award
if there was any money with which to pay it, to which
on June 18, 1918, George J. Smith, attorney for appel-
lant, replied as follows:
"June 18, 1918
Mr. John L. King,
Attorney at Law,
Springfield, 111.
Dear Sir:— In Re estate of Samuel Miller, deceased.
Replying to your kind favor of the 8th inst., relative
to the above matter would state that at the time of fil-
ing the original petition we had no information of any
additional assets except the $340 and so alleged in the
petition, filing a b-^-nd in double that amount. Since the
filing of the original petition we have learned of an ad-
ditional $1000 asset and included it in the inventory and
have since prepaved an additional bond, so that the gross
assets of the estate are $1340.
As to the matter of the widow's award we would
state that we are advised that prior to the death of Mr.
Miller he entered into a contract with Mrs. Miller adjust-
ing their property rights. There have also been claims
filed against the estate, aggregating an amount in excess
of the available assets so that we do not anticipate that
there would be any money with which to pay any wid-
ow's award even though she had not contracted prior to
Mr. Miller's death relative to this matter.
Very respectfully,
Smith & Lincoln."
September 13, 1918, Mrs. Nancy Miller filed her peti-
tion in the county court asking for a revocation of the
letters of administration
Page 2
granted to Stults on the
ground of fraud and misrepresentation in obtaining her
renunciation. The petition was heard and the court or-
dered that Stults be removed as administrator; that Mrs.
Nancy Miller be appointed as administratrix and that
Stults file his final report and account as administrator.
Feb. 22, 1919, Stults filed his petition for leave to
amend the inventory and on July 16, 1919, filed his final
report in which he charged himself with but $340 assets.
In his petition to amend the inventory and in his final re-
port he claimed that deceased, in his lifetime, delivered
and transferred the $1000 note to Mrs. George A. Stults
and that through inadvertance and mistake the same
was inventoried as an asset of the estate.
Objection to report and petition was made by Nancy
Miller, administratrix on the ground that the $1000 note
in question v/as an asset of the estate. Upon hearing
the county court overruled the objections and granted
leave to Stults to amend the inventory by striking
therefrom the item of $1000. From this order Nancy
Miller appealed to the circuit court.
A hearing was had in the circuit court which re-
sulted in the court entering an order denying leave to
Stults, administator, to amend the inventory and sustain-
ing the objections of the administratrix to said report
and ordering that Stults, administrator, charge himself
with the proceeds of the $1000 note, from which final or-
der of the circuit court appellant has perfected this ap-
peal.
Appellant bases the claim of Mrs. Stults ownership
of the note in question upon the testimony of his daug-
hter Florence Stults, who testified that Feb. 22, 1918,
Miller while in bed sick at the Stults home asked her
to go up stairs and bring down to him his pocketbook;
that upon her doing so he called in Mrs. Jane Stults and
handed over to her a draft for $340, stating that he
wanted to be buried in Buckhart Cemetery and that he
wanted the proceeds of the draft used to bury him; that
he then took from the pocket book a $1000 note sign-
ed by Frank Elliot and handed it to Mrs. Stults with
the statement that he gave it to her for what she had
done for him; that Mrs. Stults then took both draft and
note and placed them in her silver case in the pantry,
where they remained until after Miller's death; that the
day after Miller's death her mother gave the note to
her father; that about Feb. 23, after the relatives had
all gone, her father and mother
Page 3
in her presence discus-
sed the conversation in which Miller gave her mother
the $1000 note. Stults testified that he got the note
from his wife after Miller died.
Nancy Miller testified that on Feb. 25, 1918, Stults
came to her home, told of her husband's death and ask-
ed her to sign a paper which he had so that the under-
taker could go ahead with the funeral: that she signed
the paper without reading it; that Stults said the funer-
al expense would be $135 and that her husband had
only $61.50 left; that on April 6, 1918, Florence Stults, the
witness came to the Miller home in Springfield and in
conversation with her in reference to the note in ques-
tion said: "We wrote out to Kansas and could not hear
anything, but got a lawyer after it, and we still don't
know how much money there is, but there will be some
for you and the children" and that in the same conver-
sation she also said, referring to Miller "He did not talk
any while he was sick; all the talking he did he was out
of his head."
Emma Miller, a daughter of deceased, also testified
to Florence Stults making these statements to Nancy
Miller. Florence Stults denied making these state-
ments.
Whether or not Miller in his lifetime gave to Mrs.
Stults the note in question for what she had done for
him was a question of fact to be detrmined by the court
from a consideration of the testimony viewed in the
light of all the surrounding circumstances.
The general rule undoubtedly is that positive test-
imony of a witness, uncontradicated and unimpeached
either by positive testimony or by circumstantial evi-
dence, either intrinsic or extrinsic, cannot be disregard-
ed, but must control the decision of a court or jury.
People vs. Davis, 269 111. 270; Larson vs. Gloss, 235 111.
584; Kelly vs. Jones, 290 111. 375. There may however,
be such inherent improbability or unreasonableness in
the testimony when viewed in the light of all the other
testimony and facts and circumstances in evidence as
to justify the court in disregarding it even in the ab-
sence of direct contradiction. Kennard vs. Curran, 239
111. 122; Kuehne vs. Malach, 286 111. 120.
The trial judge saw and heard the witnesses and
had advantages
Page 4
which we do not possess in
judging of the weight that should be given to their tes-
timony. Under the law and established rules of pract-
ice where a case is tried before a judge without a jury,
the conclusions of the trial judge as to questions of fact
should not be disturbed unless it clearly appears from
the record that such conclusions are wrong. Kuehne
vs. Malach, supra.
Appellant claims that the court erred in refusing
the following proposition:
"The court holds as a matter of law that where
Samuel Miller owed a promissory note payable to his
own order, signed by one Frank Elliott for the sum of
One Thousand Dollars ($1000.00) and then and there
with the express intention of transferring said promis-
sory note to Mrs. George Stults, his sister, delivered the
said note to said Mrs. George Stults without endorsing
same, and she accepted said note and retained possess-
ion thereof until his death, then the said Mrs. George
Stults would be the equitable owner thereof and entitled
to the proceeds thereof." This proposition assumes the
main controverted questions of fact and the court find-
ing adversely to appellant on these questions the prop-
osition was properly refused.
The order of the circuit court is affirmed.
Page 5
\
\
General IsV- 7332 Agenjj
April Term A. D. 1921
W. W. Hinds, Appe
vs.
W. U. Hutcfiinson and W. H. B^isho, Appellees
Appeal from Circuit Cyfirt Edgar County
HEARD, J.
'^'^^ I.A. 656^
This is an action of fraud and deceit brought by ap-
pellant against appellees. The fourth count of the dec-
laration, upon which, and the plea of the general issue
thereto, the case was tried, alleges that appellees con-
spired to defraud appellant out of 125 acres of his land
in Edgar County; that as a part of said conspiracy ap-
pellee Hutchinson induced appellant to rely upon and
place confidence in his statements; that said Hutchinson
acted as the agent of appellant and while so acting as
such agent induced appellant to exchange said 125 acres
of land worth $12,000 for a farm in Crawford county
worth $500; that said Hutchinson intending to deceive
appellant represented to appellant that said land in
Crawford county was worth $100 per acre, was on a large
oil field and that there was fine oil underneath it and
that if appellant would take said land in exchange for
his Edgar county land that as a business proposition it
would get him out or debt and solve all his financial dif-
ficulties; that said representations were false and that
appellee Hutchinson knew them to be false; that relying
solely upon said representations appellant consented to
and did make exchange of said land.
A trial resulted in a verdict for appellees and judg-
ment in bar in favor of appellees against appellant, from
which judgment appellant has appealed to this nourt.
It is contended by appellant that the verdict is
against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Appellant tesitfied that in the summer of 1915 he
was living on his 125 acre farm in Edgar county; that
he had known appellee Hutchinson 35 or 40 years; that
in the latter part of June said Hutchinson came to ap-
pellant when appellant was working in his corn field and
said he would like to trade appellant's farm for a farm
in Crawford county; that Hutchinson said "you had bet-
ter trade it. I am a friend to you. I am doing it just
for your benefit and it would make you money;" that ap-
pellant told him he did not believe he wanted to trade
at that time; that three or four days after that he came
to appellant's farm again; that Emmet Scott was with
him; that Hutchinson said they were passing and stopped
to see if they could trade appellant that farm; that
Hutchinson said the Crawford county farm as a farm
outside of oil and gas was worth $100 an acre;
Page 1
that there
were tv/o gas wells on it and oil all around it and that
land around there sold for $100 to $125 an acre; that ap-
pellant told them he would study about it; that inside of
a week Hutchinson came to the farm again with a Mr.
Merrick; that Hutchinson said Merrick and his son in
law were partners in the Crawford county farm; that
they wanted to dissolve partnership and would give him
a better bargain than they ever would again; that Hutch-
inson said it would make him more money than he ever
made in his life; that he promised to go down and look
at the land; that on the 5th or 6th he and Hutchinson
went in his car down to Crawford county; that Hutchin-
son told him he was a friend of his and wanted to see
him make more money and not work so hard and that
he had been over this land several times and knew everj^
foot of it; that they did not look at the farm that day;
that they drove along the west and south side of it; that
they did not get out or stop the car; that Hutchinson
said he did not want to get wet and that he knew all
about it; that they just drove on to Robinson and not
finding Merrick and Biles at home returned to Paris;
that three or four days later he and Hutchinson went
down there again; that on the way down Hutchinson
said that he had always been his friend and wanted him.
to trade them; that he (appellant) proposed to go past
the Crawford county fa.rm, but Hutchinson said he didn't
have time and that it was not necessary as lie knew all
about it and to take his word for it and the oil and gas
would make him rich as there were two gas wells on it;
that he (appellant) told Hutchinson that if he traded
for it he would trade for it on Hucthinson's word. Ap
pellant testified to many other statements of Hutchin-
son as to his friendship and as to the great benefit ap-
pellant would derive from the trade.
Appellant testified that he met appellee Perisho in
front of Hutchinson's shoe shop one day just after he
had been down to Robinson and Perisho asked him what
he thought about the land and that he told Perisho that
he had never been over it and knew nothing about it
only what Hutchinson said and that Perisho said what
Mr. Hutchinson said you could rely on and that Hutchin-
son was a good friend of Hinds and "Wouldn't do him
nothing but what was honest; appellant testified that
in making the trade he relied upon this statement.
Perisho denies this conversation with appellant and
testified that at the time this conversation is alleged to
have taken place he was either at Hot Springs, Ark., or
on the train on his way there and he is corroborated by
several v/itnesses. This is all the evidence with refer-
ence to Perisho's connection with the case. He is not
shown to have been interested in the land or in the trade.
July 7, 1915 a contract for the exchange of the land
was entered into by R. L. Biles, agent, party of the first
part and Hinds and his wife party of the second part
and appellant testified that when he signed the contract
he
Page 2
relied upon the representations made to him by
Hutchinson.
Appellant testified that after the deed had been de-
livered, Hutchinson asked him for $250 as commission on
the trade and that as he did not have any money he sold
him a mule and a typewriter and gave him credit for
them on the $250.
Appellant introduced in evidence contracts of later
date than July 7th between Hutchinson and the other
parties in interest in the trade with reference to finan-
cing the trade with appellant and a division of the prof-
its on the trade between Hutchinson and the other part-
ies to the contract and also a written statement showing
the amount received by Hutchinson as his share of the
profits. Appellant introduced some evidence of state-
ments and admissions of Hutchinson.
Appellee denied the making of any and all the state-
ments and representations claimed to have been made
by him; denied having said or done anything to induce
appellant to make the trade and denied that he had any
connection with the trade except that on the day that
it was made he went with appellant at his request to
Robinson to examine the abstract of title to the Craw-
ford county land. He also denies asking for commission,
denies receiving the mule and typewriter as payment of
commissions and says that the mule was bought in May.
Hutchinson is corroborated by the other parties in
interest, who give in detail the negotiations between ap-
pellant and themselves leading up to the execution of
the contracts and testify that Hutchinson took no part
therein except the examination of the abstract and as-
certaining the amount of incumbrance on the Crawford
county land.
We are of the opinion that the evidence in the
case entirely fails to show any liability on the part of
appellee, Perisho. If the story told by appellant and
his witness be true there is a liability on the part of ap-
pellee, Hutchinson. If that told by Hutchinson and his
witnesses be true there is no liability on his part. There
is a sharp irreconsilable conflict in the testimony
in the case and in such case weighing the tes-
timony and determining on which side the truth lies is
peculiarly the province of the jury, who saw and heard
the witnesses. They evidently gave credence to appel-
lees rather than to appellant and the judge confirmed
their verdict, and by reason of the law and the long es-
tablished rules of practice we would not be justified in
disturbing their finding, it not being manifestly against
the weight of the evidence.
It is urged as error that appellees attorney on cross
examination of the witness Emanuel Hinds, a brother
of appellant, after he had answered that he was paying
1-3 of the costs of prosecuting this suit, was allowed
to ask him
Page 3
how much he was paying. We do not
think this was error. One of the elements to be taken
into consideration in weighing the testimony of a wit-
ness is his interest in the result of the suit, and it is
proper on cross examination to ascertain from the wit-
ness th,e fact as to the witnesses! nerest..
Appellee Hutchinson, when testifying as a witness
was allowed to give in evidence conversations which he
had with the other parties to the contract entered into
between him a.nd them with reference to the division
of profits resulting from the carrying out of the trade,
at the time of entering into such contract, the objection
being that it was not in the presence of appellant.
Appellant in his declaration and upon the trial con-
tended that Hutchinson was appellant's agent in this
trade and introduced this contract in question as an ad-
mission tending to show that Hutchinson had hot been
true to the trust reoosed in him. It was therefore
proper for Hutchinson to explain under what circum-
stances the profit sharing contract in question was ex-
ecuted. Hutchinson was first asked what the arrange-
ment between the parties was with reference to hand-
ling the land in question. This question called for the
conclusion of the witness and when objection was made
on that and other grounds Hutchinson was then allowed
to tell how the contract came to be entered into.
On direct examination Hutchinson was asked the
following question by his attorney: "Now Mr. Hutchin-
son you may state whether or not at any time prior to
the buying or trading of this Crawford county land or
after the trading of the Crawford county land you rep-
resented Mr. Hinds in any capacity?". Appellant ob-
jected to the question on the ground that it called for
a conclusion. The objection being overruled, the wit-
ness answered: "I did not" and the ruling of the court
in this regard is assigned as error. The question called
for a conclusion of the witness and called for an ultimate
and not an evidentiary fact and the objection should
have been sustained. No harm could have resulted
from this ruling, however, as he had already gone over
in detail and denied all acts or alleged conversations
tending to show that he represented appellant in any
manner in the matter question-
Other questions are raised by appellant as to the
reception or exclusion of evidence but we find no rever-
sible error in any of the courts rulings thereon.
The court gave to the jury at the request of the
defendants the follov^ing instruction: "The court in-
structs the jury, that if they believe from the evidence
that any witness has been successfully impeached on
this trial, or that he has v/ilfully sworn falsely as to any
matter or thing material to the issues in this case, then
the jury are at liberty to disregard his entire
Page 4
testimony
except in so far as it has been corroborated by other
credible evidence or by facts and circumstances in evi-
dence."
This instruction has repeatedly been held to be bad
and its giving in some cases held to be reversible error.
In the present case, however, appellant cannot avail
himself of this error as the only witnesses whom the
record shows were sought to be impeached were wit-
nesses for appellee.
The instructions given to the jury were numerous
and lengthy and many objections are raised to the rul-
ing of the court in giving, refusing and modifying in-
structions, the principal objection being that by differ-
ent instructions the court instructed the jury before the
plaintiff could recover he must prove "that the defend-
ants knew that the statements were false and that the
plaintiff did not"; "that the defendant intended thereby
to cheat and defraud the plaintiff"; "that the plaintiff
relied upon the representations"; "and that he was de-
ceived thereby". Appellant contends that it was not
necessary for him to make such proof in order to entitle
him to recover.
In order to maintain an action for fraud and de-
ceit the evidence in the case must show:
1. That the representations as charged in the de-
claration were made by the defendants, or one of them.
2. That the representations were false and known
to be false by the defendant making them, and made
to deceive the plaintiff, or made as a positive assertion
recklessly without any knowledge of its truth.
3. That the plaintiff believed the representations
to be true.
4. That the plaintiff making the purchase or en-
tering into the contract relied upon the representations
and was induced to make the purchase or enter into the
contract because of the same.
5. That the plaintiff has suffered damage thereby.
A representation to constitute the basis of an ac-
tion for fraud and deceit must not only be false and
known to be false by the person making it or made as
a positive assertion recklessly without any knowledge
as to its truth, but the person to whom it is made must
believe it to be true, and rely upon it, and be induced
by such reliance to enter into the contract or make the
purchase in question. Merwin vs. Arbuckle, 81 111. 501;
Wachsmith vs Vartini, 154 111. 515. A false representa-
tion if it is not relied upon by the plaintiff when enter-
ing into the contract cannot be the basis of an action
for fraud and deceit.
If a person, instead of relying upon the statements
made to him, makes a personal investigation and in
making the contract relies upon such investigation and
not upon the statement an action will not lie even
though the statements be false. Billstrom vs. T. T. T.
Co. 111. App. (2nd Dist. Oct. 1920, term)
Page 5
In the present case the declaration alleged that the
defendants knew that the representations were false.
We are of the opinion that the court did not err in re-
quiring appellant to make the proof specified in the in-
structions as prerequisite of his right of recovery.
Other objections are made to the ruling of the court
upon the instructions. From a careful reading of these
instructions while we are of the opinion that some of
them are inaccurate and that some of them should not
have been given, when they are considered as a whole,
taking into consideration their extreme length we are
of the opinion that the average jury would not have
been misled thereby and that appellant was in no wise
prejudiced in the matter of instructions.
When the jury retired to consider their verdict the
jurors were allowed to take with them the 4th count of
appellant's declaration over appellant's objection.
While in some cases it has been held to be error to al-
low the jury to take with them the declaration over the
objection of the defendant, we fail to see how appell-
ant could have been prejudiced by allowing the jury to
take with them the count of the declaration which was
the written statement of his claim.
Finding no reversible error in the record the judg-
ment is affirmed.
Page 6
General N6i. 7335 Agejffa No. 48
\ April Term A. D. 1921
D. N.\Wisherd Sons Company, ^^pellee
\
Chicago, Buftjington & Quincy^ailroad Company,
^ Appellc
Appeal froA Circnitjtourt Silaifi^ Coanty. /» ^ g^ *)
HEARD. J. \ / ^ '^ O 1 .A. 6 5 6
This is a suit brought before a Justice of the Peace
by appellee against appellant and taken by appeal to the
county court of Adams County where a trial de novo re-
sulted in a judgment for appellee against appellant for
$195.01 damages and costs of suit from which judgment
this appeal has been taken.
Appellee's claim is for damages to three shipments
of oysters consigned from different paints in Maryland,
with different roads as the initial carrier, which ship-
ments were transported by appellant from Chicago, 111.,
its eastern terminus,, to Quincy 111., in refrigerator cars.
There is evidence tending to show that the oysters
were shipped in wooden boxes, each containing five one
gallon cans and having space so that the cans could be
completely surrounded by ice; that when the first ship-
ment was received in Quincy, there was no ice in the box-
es, and that the oysters were soft and almost unfit for
human consumption; that when the second and third
shipments arrived at Qunicy the oysters were frozen sol-
id and were in a damaged condition; that on each occas-
ion the shipment was at first refused by appellee; that on
each occasion after being told by either the local freight
agent or claim agent of appellant to take the goods and
do the best it could with them and to file a claim for
whatever loss was suffered by appellee and that it would
be sent in; that appellee thereupon received the oysters,
disposed of them, suffered loss to the amount of $195.01
and presented claim to appellant therefor. There is evi-
dence tending to show that the first shipment was delay-
ed in transit four days but there is no evidence as what
occasioned the delay or upon what road it occurred.
Neither is there any evidence in the case showing where,
in transit, the oysters became spoiled for lack of ice or
through the negligence of which carrier the first ship-
ment was not properly iced. Neither is there
Page 1
any evidence
as to which carrier had the custody of the other ship-
ments when they became frozen.
Complaint is made as to the action of the court in
giving instructions. The first instruction given for ap-
pellee has repeatedly been held to be erroneous but un-
der the state of the evidence in this case appellant could
not have been prejudiced by it. At the request of appel-
lee the court gave to the Jury an instruction as follows:
"The court instructs the jury that while the plaintiff
must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the
oysters in question were spoiled or damaged by the neg-
ligence of the defendant, such negligence may be shown
by the admissions of the authorized agents of the defen-
dant, as well as by actual testimony as to acts of negli-
gence; and if the jury believe that the plaintiff has prov-
en either actual acts of negligence or negligence by aa-
mission of the authorized agents of the defendant by a
preponderance of the evidence, then the jury should find
the issue for the plaintiff and assess its damages at such
sum as the plaintiff' may be entitled to by a preponder-
ance of the evidence, provided you believe it has been
damaged as set forth in these instructions."
This instruction is erroneous in assuming that the
evidence showed that there were agents of appellant who
were authorized to bind appellant by admissions that ap-
pellant was negligent. A further objection to it is that
it is not based upon the evidence. There is no evidence
that any agents of appellants were authorized to admit
negligence on the part of appellant. Neither is there
any evidence of any admission of any agent of appellant.
A request to appellee to receive the oysters and do the
best it could with them coupled with a promise to send
in any claim for loss which appellee might sustain falls
far short of either an admission of negligence or of liab-
ility on the part of appellant.
The court also gave to the jury an instruction as fol-
lows: "The court instructs the jury that if you believe
from a preponderance of the evidence that an authorized
agent of the defendant, authorized so to do, induced
plaintiff to accept various shipments of oysters after the
plaintiff had refused the same or was in the act of re-
fusing
Page 2
the same, by representing to the plaintiff that
if the plaintiff accepted the shipment and sustained any
loss by reason of their frozen or damaged condition to file
a claim for such damage, and the plaintiff relied upon
such statements and accepted such shipment, that then
the defendant would be liable for any loss on such ship-
ment, and the jury should find a verdict for plaintiff and
assess its damages at such sum as appears from a per-
ponderance of the evidence it has sustained."
This instruction directs a verdict and fails to contain
all the elements necessary to be proven to entitle appel-
lee to a verdict. What is said as to the instruction last
above set forth applies with equal force to this one.
The giving of these instructions was reversible error
and the judgment is therefore reversed and the cause
remanded.
Page 3
A
^
No. 7338 \ ^ Agenda No. 51.
1921
.bel Casteel/Appellee,
Springfield Consolmated Hallway Company, Appellants
AppeaJ/from Sangamon,
223 I.A. 656^
HEARD, J.
This is a suit to recover for personal injuries sus-
tained by the appellee July 26, 1918, while a passenger on
a car of the appellant. There are three counts in the
declaration to which the plea of general issue was filed.
All of these counts aver the relation of carrier and
passenger; it is averred that there was a certain raised
and oval shield in the passageway between the seats of
an open car and that the same had becom.e so smooth
that a person stepping on the same in getting off said
car would slip; the third or additional count averred that
the said shield was in such smooth, uncovered and un-
protected condition that the same would cause any pas-
senger stepping thereon to slip and fall: all of the
counts averred that while the appellee was walking in
such passageway between the seats to the place of exit
for the purpose of alighting from said car, that she step-
ped upon the said shield, and on account of its smooth
condition, slipped thereon and was thrown from the said
car and injured.
Upon a trial the court instructed the jury to find ap-
pellant not guilty. The jury rendered a verdict in ac-
cordance with the instruction, upon which verdict judg-
ment was rendered in favor of appellant against ap-
pellee. Appellee appealed to this court. The judg-
ment was reversed and the cause remanded for another
trial. Castell vs. S. C. Ry. Co., 111. App.
A second trial of the case resulted in a judgment in
favor of appellee against appellant for $521 damages
and costs, from which judgment appellant has appealed.
It is claimed by appellant that the court erred in re-
fusing to instruct the jury to find the defendant not
guilty.
Upon the former appeal in this case this court held
that
Page 1
the testimony in the case fairly tended to sup-
port the allegations of the declaration and that the
court erred in instructing the jury to find the defendant
not guilty. The evidence in the second trial being prac-
tically the same as on the first that holding must be ad-
hered to by us and and we must hold that the court did
not err in refusing to instruct the jury to find for the
defendant.
It is claimed by appellant that there was no evi-
dence of the exercise of due care on the part of appellee,
who testified that as she was walking to the side of the
car to alight, she reached for the upright post of the
car and that she was looking at the post when she step-
ped upon the shield and found it slick and slipped upon
it. Whether or not appellee was in the exercise of ordi-
nary care for her own safety was a question of fact for
the jury. There was some evidence tending to support
their findings in that regard and we would not be justi-
fied by the evidence in this case in invading their pre-
culiar province and setting aside their finding.
It is claimed by appellant that there is no evidence
of negligence on the part of appellant.
The charge of negligence in the declaration was that
the shield in question was in a smooth, uncovered condi-
tion, and that the same would cause any passenger step-
ping thereon to slip and fall.
Appellant introduced evidence to the effect that the
shield housing and equipment in question was in com-
mon use throughout the country, that it had been in gen-
eral use for twenty-five years and that it was a recogni-
zed and apj)roved type of equipment.
While a carrier of passengers for hire is not an in-
sure of their safety and liability does not arise from the
mere happening of an accident, yet such carrier is held
to the exercise of the highest degree of care consistent
with the pactical operation of the road and the mode of
conveyance adopted. Where the evidence shows that
such carrier allows its equipment to be and remain in
such condition that any person stepping thereon would
slip and fall we cannot say that a jury would not be jus-
tified in finding such carrier thereby guilty of negligence
even though such equipment was recognized as stand-
ard equipment and was in common and general use
throughout the country. I. C. R. vs. O'Connell, 160 111.
636.
Page 2
The jury by their verdict found appellant guilty of
the negligence charged in the declaration and we are of
the opinion that the evidence in the case was sufficient
to warrant their finding.
The judgment is affirmed.
Page 3
General NA 7343
\ April Term, A. D. 1921
No. 63
Deceased,
Speliant
Tazewell County
Z2ii i.A. 6 56
C. C. Drake, j^dministrator of Ralph
Appellee
vs.
Johik S. Nixon,
Appeal from CSrcuit
HEARD, J.
This is an action on the case brought by appellee
against appellant to recover the pecunid.y damages sus-
tained by the next of kin of Ralph Drake, a boy 6^ yearn
of age, by reason of his death, caused, it is alleged, by
reason of appellant's negligence.
The declaration consisted of an original count and
two additional counts, the original and second additional
counts being what are known as speed counts. The first
additional count alleged negligence in failing to give
warning of the approach of appellants automobile. Each
of the counts alleged that by reason of such negligence
appellee intestate, Ralph Drake, while in the exercise of
due care, was run over by appellants automobile causing
the death of said Ralph Drake. To these counts of the
declaration the defendant filed a plea of the general is-
sue. A trial resulted in a verdict in favor of appellee
for $3,000, upon which verdict judg-ment was rendered
and an appeal taken therefrom to this court.
October 17, 1917, .iust about 12 o'c'ock, noon, ap-
pellant, accompanied by a daughter, 31 ypars of age, was
driving a seven passenger, 6 cylinder Buick car, weighing
from 3500 to 3900 pounds, south through the Village of
Goodfield, a place of about 100 inhabitants, upon a pub-
lic highway. Arriving at the intersection of this high-
way with one going west. Appellant turned west. After
going west about 125 fe«t the front left wheel of his car
ran over Ralph Drake, injuring him so that he died a
few minutes later.
Ralph Drake had that day been attending a school
which was situated at the south east corner of the inter-
section of the two roads mentioned. Wben school clos-
ed at the noon hour he and several other chldren traveled
west toward their respecitve homes on the highway,
which was an ordinary country road of the width of
about 60 feet with a traveled track between the weeds
or grass upon the sides, estimated to be between 18 and
V
25 feet in width. This road was practically level, but
drained to the east. The children were walking together
in the traveled road, it being the only place for pedes-
trians. The oldest child observed the Nixon car coming
and said "Here comes a car." Thereupon the children
scattered, most of them going to the south, but some
went to the north of the traveled road. Ralph Drake,
the undisputed testimony shows, started towards the
Page 4
north of the road, some witnesses saying he got as far
as the grags. Hen than turned and ran diagonally toward
the south side. He stumbled and fell in the roadway
and the left front wheel of the car ran over him. Miss
Nixon picked him up and carried him to his home, which
was nearby, while appellee went to the nearest home to
call a doctor. The doctor arrived too late to be of any
avail and RaJph Drake died 15 or 20 minutes after the in-
jury.
There was no evidence of the giving of any signal
of the cars approach. Some of the witnesses testify
they heard no warning. The evidence conclusively
shows, however, that deceased had timely warning from
Mrs. Nellie Blaine, the eldest of the children, of the
cars approach.
The only witness interrogated by appellee as to the
speed fo the car prior to the accident was the witness,-
Nellie Blaine, who testified that when she first saw the
car it was going south on the north and south road; that
she thought that just before it reached the corner the
car was going about 20 miles per hour, maybe a little less;
that after he turned the comer and came west he slow-
ed down and as it came up to the crowd it was not going
over five or ten miles per hour.
The only other evidence offered by appellee in his
case in chief, was the testimony as to skid marks from
the place where the car stood after the accident running
back a distance variously estimated by the witnesses in
the case at from three to fifteen feet. The road had
been oiled the year before. It was hard and dry, but
not dusty. There is no evidence in the case as to what the
driver of the car did at the immediate time of the ac-
cident with reference to stopping the car. He was not
a competent witness and his daughter who was the only
other occupant of the car testified that when she saw
deceased start to run back across the road she stood up
in the car and screamed, centering all her attention on
the boy and paying no attention to her father or the car.
Neither party introduced evidence tending to show
and relation between a skid mark from 3 to 15 feet be-
hind a car and any given rate or rates of speed and this
court can not take judicial knowledge of the rate of
speed at which the car must have been going to have
produced the skid marks in question. Fannon vs. Mor-
ton, 111. App. (2nd Dist. Oct. 1920 term.)
Appellant contends that this case should be rever-
sed by reason of the improper conduct and remarks of
counsel for appellee used during the argument of the
case and instances of such improper remarks too numer-
ous to specify in detail are called to our attention. In
fact the argument of appellee's counsel to the jury,
which is set forth in the record, instead of being an ap-
peal to the reason and unbiased judgment of the jury
sitting as a tribunal to impartially consider the evidence
and do exact justice between the parties, was an inflam-
matory appeal,,
Pa^e 2
calculated to arouse the prejudice, sym-
pathy and passion of the jurors and divert their minds
from the questions which were really before them for
decision.
While it is true that the trial court sustained object-
ions to several of the remarks of counsel and instruct-
ed the jury to disregard the same, yet the rule is that
although the trial court may have done its full duty in
its supervision of the trial and in sustaining objections,
a new trial should be granted when it appears that the
abuse of argument has worked an injustice to one of the
parties. C. U. T. Co. vs. Lauth, 216 111. 176; Bale vs C.
J. R. Col 259 111. 476; Bromley vs. Peoria Ry. Co. 217
111. App. 661; Eshelman vs. Rawalt, 131 N. E. 675, 293
111. 192.
The facts in the present case were such as to require
its fair, impartial and dispassionate consideration by the
jury. The following language from Bishop vs C. J. Ry.
Co.. 289 111. 63 is so peculiarly appropriate to this case
that we adopt it as our own: "While it is true at timesj
in closely contested cases, counsel may inadvertently say
that which is prejudicial, the influence of such a state-
ment may generally be overcome by sustaining object-
ions thereto and by retraction on the part of offending
counsel made in good faith, yet where it would appear,
as it does here by frequent instances-, that counsel has
in the presence of the jury indulged in acts and state-
ments prejudicial to the rights of the opposite party,-
and which tend to indicate that he was seeking what
might be gained from such prejudice of the jury, such
misconduct will amount to a mistrial of the cause, unless
it can be seen that it did not result in injury to the
plaintiff in error. We cannot so hold here.******While
it is unfortunate that this case must be reversed for these
reasons, yet it is a misfortune visited upon defendant
in error by his own attorney. When intelligent counsel
persist in conduct which he knows may result in setting
aside the verdict of the jury if he secures one, he is
thereby deliberately taking chances with his client's
rights******While it is regretable that this case must be
reversed because of improper conduct of intelligent and
able counsel, yet if courts of law are to be sources of
justice, the rule that parties litigant, regardless of who
they may be, shall have secured to them the opportunity
to have the issues of their case tried by a jury free from
the prejudicial influence of improper conduct of counsel
must be strictly enforced".
The judgment will be reversed and the cause remand-
ed.
Niehaus, J. took no part.
Page 3
Gen.'No. 7346 I Agenda 57.
\ April Term A. T
Floyd J. Hutson, Defendant in Error,
vs. f
John Barton, Payne, Opera^g the Cleveland, Cin.
cinnati, Chicago & St. Ifouis Railway Company,
PlaintiK in Error.
Appeal fror
HEARD, J.
This is an action on the case brought by defendant
in error hereinafter called Plaintiff against Plaintiff in
error, hereinafter called defendant, to recover damages
for personal injuries resulting from a collision between
an engine drawing a passenger train of the C. C. C. & St.
L. R. R., while the same was under the management of
the Director General of Railroads, and an automobile
truck driven by Plaintiff. The collision occurred at a
point where the tracks of said Railroad cross Third
Street in the city of Charleston.
The declaration in the case consisted of four counts
of which it is only necessary to mention two; the second
which charges negligence in failing to sound a whistle
or ring a bell, as required by the statutes, and the third
which was based upon an alleged violation of a city or-
dinance of the city of Charleston which provided that
no passenger train should run within the corporate limits
of said city at a greater rate of speed tnan ten miles per
hour.
A trial in the circuit court resulted in a verdi^^.t for
plaintiff against defendant for $1500 damages upoa
which verdict judgment was rendered, to review which
judgment defendant sued out a writ of error from this
court.
It is claimed by defendant that Plaintiff failed to
prove that plaintiff's injury was the result of any negli-
gence on the part of the defendant charged in the de-
claration, while several witnesses testify that a whistle
was sounded and bell rang on the train in question,
other witnesses, v/ithin hearing distance at the time of
the accident, testified that they did not hear a bell ring
or whistle sounded. The evidence showed that the
train at the time of the accident was being operated at
a rate of speed which was in violation of the ordinance.
While a violation of a statute or ordinance which does
3I.A. 656
^
not contribute to bring
Page 1
about the injury cannot be made
the basis of a recovery, yet, when such violation is the
proximate cause or one of the causes without which the
injury would not have occurred, such violation will ren-
der the violator liable to the injured party if he be free
from contributory negligence. Whether or not such
violation was the proximate cause of the injury was a
question of fact for the Jury which the trial court pro-
perly submitted to the Jury.
It is contended by defendant that the evidence fail-
ed to prove that plaintiff exercised due care for his own
safety. The defendant's railway passes through the
city of Charleston in an easterly and westerly direction.
Third Street, the street herein involved, comes from the
south and is paved up to the southern limit of the de-
fendant's right of way. There are four tracks running
over this crossing, the south one is the main line track;
eight feet to the north of the main track there is a pass-
ing track; eight feet further to the north there is a house
track which runs to the freight depot which is located
two hundred and fifty feet to the east of Third Street
crossing. At the platform of the freight depot there
were four or five box cars which had been pushed in
there by the switch engine which was then working in
that vicinity. Fifty feet to the north of the north rail
of the main track there is an elevator track, and to the
north of the elevator track there are several buildings
including a grain elevator. Standard Oil Plant, coal sheds
and stock yards, all of which are located on the defend-
ant's right of way. The plaintiff was in the oil business
and just prior to the accident he had been to the oil
plant to have his truck filled with oil, after which he
started south over the Third street crossing. When he
reached the elevator tracks there was a switch engine
switching cars on that track. He stopped and waited
for it to back east, then he drove his truck on over the
house track and passing track to the main track, where
the accident occurred.
The law is well settled that the evidence must show
affirmatively that the plaintiff exercised due care for his
own safety and that liability cannot rest upon imagina-
tion, speculation or conjecture, but must be based upon
facts established by evidence fairly tending to prove
Page 2
them. Peterson vs. Indus. Com. 281 111. 326; W. S. Co.
vs. Indus. Comm. 288, 111. 206: U. D. Co. vs. Indus. Com.
295, 111. Ill; Royster vs. Murdock 111. App. 2nd Dist. Oct.
1920 term.
The law however does not specify what particular
thing a man must do to he in the exercise of ordinary
care for his own saftey. "Due care and caution" is a
relative term and what is required to constitute such
care depends upon all the conditions and circumstances
surrounding the person at the time he is called upon to
act. If he does some act or uses some faculty tending
toward his self preservation, whether, under all the
facts and circumstances shown by the evidence he was
in the exercise of ordinary care for his own safety is a
question of fact for the Jury. Rosenthal vs. C. & A. R.
R. Co. 255, 111. 552.
In the present case there is evidence that just as
plaintiff came across the elevator track and was 50 feet
from the main track, he looked east and did not see the
train. There is also evidence that between that point
and the point of the collision he stopped again or slowed
up.
Taking into consideration all the conditions sur-
rounding Plaintiff as he approached the point of collision,
the number of tracks, the fact that there were cars on
three of the tracks, the fact that driving a truck re-
quires some care, the fact that there was other traffic
on the street and the fact that he had a right to pre-
sume that defendant would not run the cars at a rate of
speed prohibited by ordinance, we are of the opinion
that the court very properly submitted the question of
Plaintiff's exercise of due care to the Jury. The de-
cision of questions of fact being the peculiar province of
the Jury, we would not be justified in setting aside their
finding under the evidence in this case.
Complaint is made of the giving of plaintiff's in-
struction upon the subject of the preponderance of evi-
dence. While this instruction contains some defects, we
are of the opinion that when all the instructions given
upon this subject are considered together, the Jury
could not have been in any way misled upon this subject.
Finding no reversible error in the record, the judgment
is affirmed.
Page 3
}(\n
General No. 73(11 Afenda No. 12
lOctober Term, 1921.
James Flory, Appella
Eug^e Bland, ^^^ellant
Appeal from the OJrcuit C*urt of Shelby County.
)t SheiDy uounty. \
223I.A. 657'
HEARD, J.
Appellee brought this suit against appellant in Jus
tice Court and it was taken by appeal to the Circuit
Court where upon a trial before the Court without a
Jury, a Judgment was rendered in favor of appellee
against appellant for $138.90 and three fourths of the
costs from which Judgment this appeal had been taken.
Appellee's claim is for services performed in boring
two holes for we'.ls, in which no water was found and
cleaning out an old well for which latter service a claim
of nine dollars was m.ade.
Both parties agree that the first well was bored un-
der a special contract, the only difference between them
being as to the price to be paid, appellee claiming that
it was $1.00 per foot to hard pan aiid $1.50 per foot
through hard pan and appellant claiming that the price
through out was to be $1.00 per foot in case water was
obtained and 50c per foot in case water was not obtain-
ed. No water was obtained and the second hole was
dug. The evidence is somewhat conflicting as to what
the arrangement was under which the second hole was
dug but both parties testify that prior to commencing to
bore the second hole appellee told appellant with refer-
ence to the cost thereof "I will treat you right in this
next hole."
There was testimony in the case that at the
Page 1
time of doing the work, the usual and customary price
for boring wells like the ones in question ranged from
50 cents to $1.25 a foot and for a dry hole 50 cents to
$1.00 according to contract.
The first hole was bored 54 feet to hard pan and 5
feet in hard pan and the second hole was 54 feet to hard
pan and 31 feet in hard pan.
The contention of appellant is that under the evi-
dence there were but two Judgments possible, either
$171, for appellee, or $81, for appellee, and that there-
fore, there is on basis in the evidence for the Judgments
of $138.90 rendered by the Court.
With this contention we can not agree. There was
evidence upon which the court could find that the rate
for boring the first hole was fixed by special contract and
that the rate was not so fixed as to the second hole, but
that it was bored under an arrangement whereby appel-
lee was to treat appellant right as to the cost of boring
it, in which event, appellant would be liable to pay appel-
lee the usual, reasonable and customary price therefor,
in that neighborhood, at that time for doing such work.
If the court so found, and the amount allowed would
indicate that he did so find, the amount for which Judg-
ment was rendered, $138.90 falls within the range of the
evidence and has a basis in the evidence.
We, would therefore, not be justified in disturbing
the courts findings and the Judgment is affirmed.
Page 2
/
General No. 7363 Agenda No. 63
October Term, 1921
John Victor Jockisch, Rose Armeda Henniq^ Elizabeth
C. Brines, Coniplainants, Appellants
\ vs. J
Rudolph Clifford Jockisch, The Y\*t State Bank of
Beardstown, Illinois, a corpora^n. The Krst Nat-
ional Bank of BeardstowiyQllinois, a corporat-
ion, Defendant^, Appaifees.
Appeal from Cass. 223 LA. 657
HEARD, J.
May 26, 1920, appellants filed their bill in chancery
in the circuit court of Cass County, alleging that Will-
iam Jockisch, the father of appellants and of appellees,
Rudolph Clifford Jockisch, died in the year 1905, intes-
tate, leaving him surviving a widow, Elizabeth Jockisch,
and two sons and two daughters, being appellant, John
Victor, and appellee, Rudolph Clifford, his sons, and ap-
pellants Elizabeth C. Brines and Rosa Armeda Henning,
his daughters, as his only heirs at law.
The bill further alleges that at the time of the
death of William Jockisch he was the owner of fifteen
shares of the capital stock of the First State Bank,
Beardstown, Illinois, and fifteen shares of the capital
stock of the First National Bank of Beardstown, Illin-
ois; that while upon his deathbed he called his children
and his widow to him and requested that upon his death
the dividends arising from the said shares of capital
stock of said named banks, be given to the said Eliza-
beth Jockisch, for her use and benefit for the period of
her life and that at her death the same should be divid-
ed equally among his four children and that he desired
the farming lands he owned, consisting of about one
hundred and twenty acres, be purchased by one of his
sons, so that the title to the same would continue in the
Jockisch name; that such land he considered as being
worth $125 an acre; and
Page 1
that he desired one of his
sons, either appellant, John Victor, or appellee, Rudolph
Chfford, to purchase such land at that figure; the pro-
ceeds of the sale to be divided among his heirs.
That he desired the title to the homestead in which
he and his wife then resided to be conveyed to the said
Elizabeth Jockisch by the heirs, requesting that in the
2.
event the said Elizabeth Jockisch found the homestead
too large for her purposes, that she be permitted to sell
the same and repurchase a smaller residence.
The bill further charges that during the period of
by the father was never reduced to writing, but that
subsequent to his death and on or about the 30th of Oct-
ober, 1905, upon the request of the widow, John Victor
Jockisch was appointed administrator of the father's es-
tate and that he duly qualified as such; that the estate
of William Jockisch was duly administered upon and the
administrator filed his final report and was discharged
by order of the County Court of Cass County, Illinois, on
the 6th day of December, 1906.
The bill further charges that during thep eriod of
administration upon the estate of William Jockisch, no
attempt was made to establish th© verbal request of
William Jockisch, relative to the division of his estate, as
a nuncupative will, but that the children and widow of
said William Jockisch sought to carry out the dying re-
quest of their father and entered into an agreement
among themselves, providing that the land and person-
al property, including the shares of bank stock belonging
to said estate, should be divided agreeable to the wishes
of the father; that in pursuance to such agreement so
made among the heirs of William Jockisch the farming
lands of which William Jockisch died seized, were pur-
chased by appellant, John Victor Jockisch at the said
price of $125 an acre, and that a deed was delivered to
him by the remaining heirs in which the said Elizabeth
Jockisch joined, conveying the title to such lands to
him; that a deed was made by the heirs conveying the
title to the homestead to the widow, and that the thirty
shares of bank stock of said mentioned banks were, in
pursuance to such agreement, assigned to the widow by
appellant, John Victor Jockisch, acting as administrator
of the estate
Page 2
of William Jockisch, deceased; but that such
assignment was made with the understanding and agree-
ment among the heirs that such stock should be held by
her, the said Elizabeth Jockisch, only for her life that
thereafter Elizabeth Jockisch continued to hve in Bearfls-
town until her death on the 13th day of February, 1920;
that from the time of the death of William Jockisch^ ap-
pellee, Rudolph Clifford Jockisch, assumed to act for the
said Elizabeth Jockisch as her confidential agent in all
matters relating to her business affairs, and that for all
that time and until her death, appellee, Rudolph Cliff-
ord, was, in fact, her confidential advisor, and that due
to the confidential relation existing between her and the
said appellee, Rudolph Clifford, the said Elizabeth Jock-
isch reposed great trust and confidence in such appellee
and relied upon him to manage and control her business
affairs; that prior to the month of January, 1920, Eliza-
beth Jockisch acquired by purchase twelve additional
shares of the capital stock of the First National Bank of
Beardstown.
The bill further charges that Elizabeth Jockisch de-
parted this life at Beardstown, on the 13th day of Feb-
ruary, 1920, at the age of eighty-one years; that for
more than two years before that time she had been af-
flicted with the diseases incident to old age; that some
time before her death she had developed carcinoma of
the liver and due to such cancerous growth, had been
for many years before her death in great pain anS
agony; that in addition to that trouble, she suffered from
arteriosclerosis and a diseased condition of her kidneys,
and that on the 6th day of January, 1920, she had be-
come weakened and impaired in mind as well as body
and that at least for one year before her death she was
wholly incapable of transacting business intelligently, or
protecting her own interests; and that during all of that
period of time she relied upon the advice and counsel of
appellee, Rudolph Clifford Jockisch.
The bill further alleges that appellee, Rudolph Cliff-
ord, was fully aware of the condition of said Elizabeth
Jockisch, and knew that
• Page 3
she was not capable of intelligent-
ly transacting business or protecting her own interests
in any business transaction; but that notwithstanding
this knowledge he took advantage of the confidential
relation existing between them and of her impaired con-
dition of body and mind and procured her to make an
assignment to him of all of said shares of capital stock
of said banking institutions.
The bill further alleges that at the time of such
procured assignment on the 6th day of January, 1920,
the said Elizabeth Jockisch was of unsound mind and
not capable of transacting the business then in hand;
that at such time she was dominated by appellee, Rud-
olph Clifford Jockisch, who obtained title to said bank
stock at a time when the said Elizabeth Jockisch was
under his undue influence and restraint, and that in
equity and good conscience the said assignments of such
stock by EHzabeth Jockisch to him, are wholly void and
without legal effect, and that in view of the agreement
entered into by appellants, and appellee, relative to the
disposition of their father's estate, the assignments pro-
cured by said appellee, constitute a fraud upon the
rights of appellants as heirs at law of William Jockisch
and Elizabeth Jockisch, deceased and that such assign-
ments were wholly without consideration passing from
appellee to the said Elizabeth Jockisch.
The original bill prays that appellee, Rudolph Chff-
ord, be required to reassign said stock to the estate of
Elizabeth Jockisch or to pay appellants and each of them
such sums as shall represent the fair, cash market value
of said stock, together with interest and accrued inter-
est and dividends.
Appellee Rudloph C. Jockisch filed his answer deny-
ing the trust agreement among the heiis of William
Jockisch set up in the bill; denying that at the time of
making the assignment of the stock, Elizabeth Jockisch
was of unsound mind; denying the fiduciary relation set
up in the bill and denying that the assignment of the
stock was procured by undue influence.
Page 4
After a hearing in open court the chancellor dis-
missed the bill for want of equity.
Appellants introduced evidence tending to show the
making of the agreement between the heirs and widow
of William Jockisch set up in the bill while appelle-e in-
troduced evidence tending to show that such agreement
had not been made. No good purpose would be sub-
served by discussing this evidence in detail in this opin-
ion. While the greater number of witnesses testified in
favor of appellant's contention in this regard the court
who saw and heard the witnesses found that such agree-
ment had not been made and from the record in the case
we cannot say that he was clearly wrong in such find-
ing and therefore we would not be justified in disturb-
ing it.
It is claimed by appellants that Rudolph Jockisch
was not competent to testify as a witness upon this sub-
ject. Appellants as to this contention were not claiming
as heirs of Elizabeth Jockisch, but as heirs of William
Jockisch and Rudolph was a competent witness upon
this portion of the case.
It is claimed by appellants that Elizabeth Jockisch
was not of sound mind and memory at the time of ex-
ecuting the assignment in question. Two of the com-
plainants, the husband of one of the complainants, two
daughters of complainants and their husbands and the
son of one of the complainants gave testimony tending
to show that in 1916, there was first noticeable a change
in her mental condition and that thereafter up to the
time of her death she was subject to lapses of memory,
delusions and hallucinations and gave it as their opinion
that she was not of sound mind and memory. Two
medical experts who ha.d no acquaintance with Elizabeth
Jockisch, in reply to a hypothetical question embodying
the alleged facts stated by these witnesses gave it as
their opinion that she was not of sound mind. This tes-
timony was more than counter-balanced by the testimony
of many disinterested witnesses, among whom were mer-
chants, deliverymen, next door neighbor, women visit-
ors, her attending physician, a physician called in con-
sultation, the witness to the assignment and the notary
public
who took her acknowledgment to it, who all gave
testimony tending to prove that she was of sound mind.
In McAweal v. Hillison, 291 111. 319, it was said:
"Impairment of the faculties by disease or old age will
not invalidate a deed, if the party executing it has suf-
ficient mental capacity to understand his acts. It must
be shown that the grantor, did not have sufficient mind
and memory to comprehend the nature and character of
the transaction. Mental weakness that does not amount
to inability to comprehend and understand the nature
and effect of the transaction, is not sufficient to invali-
date a deed. The burden was on appellees to prove the
allegations of their bill. (Willemin vs. Dunn, 93 111. 511;
Kimball vs. Cutty, 117 111. 213; Sears vs. Vaughn, 230 111.
572; Dalbey vs. Hayes, 267 111. 521.)"
In our opinion the finding of the court upon the
question of mental capacity is not only not unwarranted,
but it the only finding warranted by the evidence in the
case.
It is claimed by appellants that a fiduciary relation
existed between appellee, Rudolph Jockisch, and his
mother; that proof of such relation establishes prima
facia the charge that the execution of the assignment
was the result of undue influence and that appellee has
failed to overcome this prima facie case by proof.
The evidence shows that appellee Rudolph Jockisch
transacted some of his mothers business for her; that
she instructed the bank to honor checks drawn by him
against her account and that for the purpose of paying
some of her bills she gave him bank checks, signed by
her in blank, but in the view which we take of this case,
it is immaterial whether a fiduciary relation existed or
not. The mere fact of a fiduciary relation existing at
the time of the assignment would not of itself render
the assignment void. It would only shift the burden of
proof upon appellee to show that the transaction was
not the result of wrongful or undue influence, but was
the free and voluntary act of the assignor.
In Volbert v. "Volbert, 282 111. 415, the court said:
Page 6
"Counsel argued that a fiduciary relation existed be-
tween the defendant in error. Jay Valbert and his father
and that therefore the deed was prima facie void. Con-
ceding for the purpose of this case, that such a relation
did not exist between the son and the father, the exec-
ution of deeds under such circumstances will be held val-
id if it appears it was entered into with full knowledge
of the nature and effect of the deeds and resulted from
the deliberate, voluntary and intelligent desire of both
and not through influence engendered by their relation-
ship."
Adolph E. Schmoldt, vice president of the First Nat-
ional Bank of Beardstown, who is also a lumber and coal
dealer for whom Rudolph Jockisch worked testified that
on Jan. 6, 1920, he called at the residence of Elizabeth
Jockisch for the purpose of taking Rudolph in his car
■ to his work, as he frequently did; that Rudolph asked
him to come into the house; that he went in and found
Elizabeth Jockisch there; that Rudolph left the room
and went down stairs to attend to the furnace; that af-
ter speaking about her health and ordinary greetings
she said that for a long time she had been wanting to
transfer her bank stock to Rudolph and had now fully
made up her mind to do so and asked him to witness the
transfer; that she then got the shares of stock; that he
filled in some blanks and she signed the assignments in
question; that he witnessed it; that she said that she
would like to have a notary public acknowledge it and
asked him if he would have one come up; that he told
her that as soon as he got to the office he would call
Judge Dietrich; that she said she would be much ob-
liged if he would do so; that he talked with her prob-
ably 30 to 40 minutes; that Rudolph was not in the room
with them at any time while they were taking about tne
assignments; that when he went to his office he called
up Judge Dietrich and asked him to go up to take the
acknowledgement; that in his opinion she was of sound
mind at that time.
W. H. Dietrich, a lawyer and notary public, who had
been county judge
Page 7
of Schuyler county four years and mem-
ber of the legislature two terms testified that prior to
or since Jan. 6, 1920, he had never represented Rudolph
Jockisch; that on that date Schmoldt told him Mrs. Jock-
isch wanted him to take an acknowledgement of a trans-
fer of some bank stock; that that evening he saw Rud-
olph out near his garage and went over to him and Rud-
olph went with him over to his mothers; that Mrs. Jock-
isch invited him into the front parlor; that he said he
understood she wanted to see him and she told him she
wanted him to take an acknowledgement of some bank
stock she was transferring to Rudolph and wanted him
to look over the paper and see if it was done legally;
that she produced the bank stock on which the assign-
ment had been filled in and signed; that he told her it
looked as if it was legal; that he told her he did not un-
derstand that it was necessary to give acknowledgement
of bank stock, but that it would not hurt anything; that
she said to acknowledge it; that he went through the for-
mality of asking if that was her signature and if she un-
derstood that by signing it she was changing the owner-
ship of it and explained as best he could the efi'ect of the
assignment and that she said she understood; that he told
her he did not have his seal with him and would take it
with him to attach the acknowledgement to it; that she
told him to do so; that he asked her what to do with it
after that and that she told him to turn it over to Rud-
dolph; that he took the assignment with him to his office
filled in the acknowledgement and thereafter turned it
over to Rudolph: that he was in Mrs. Jockisch's presence
about 15 minutes and during that time Rudolph was in
another part of the house talking with some woman who
was there; that in his opinion she was of sound mind at
the time.
After a careful consideration of all the evidence in
the case we are of the opinion that whether or not a fid-
uciary relation existed between Rudolph Jockisch and his
mother the Chancellor was fully justified in finding that
the assignments in question were made freely and volun-
tarily and not as the result of any undue or wrongful
Page 8
influence.
The decree of the circuit court is affirmed.
Page 9
.->-^
\
V
General- No. \7387 IkgenAa No. 42
\ October Term, A. D. 19pi.
Charles M. Ferre, A^ellee
\ vs.
LaB;in Yoder, ^jpellant
Appeal from Circuit OmxX of Macon County. ^
HEARD.J. V 2 9!^ T.A. 6 57 '
This is a suit brought to recover damages claimed
to have been sustained by appellee by reason of alleged
negligence on the part of the Appellant in causing an au-
tomobile driven by appellant to collide with a truck on
which appellee was riding.
The trial in the Circuit Court resulted in a judg-
ment for SlaOO.OO damages, from which judgment this
appeal was taken.
Appellee was an employee of the Meredith Furnit-
ure & Storage Company of Decatur, and on the 27th day
of December, 1919, at the time of the accident was rid-
ing in the rear of a truck of said company driven by an-
other employee of said company.
At the intersection of DECATUR street with South
Fairview Avenue in said city, the truck upon which ap-
pellee was riding while going east, was struck by a five-
passenger touring car driven by appellant going north.
At the time of the accident appellee was riding on
the open part of the body of the truck for the purpose
of watching a piano which was being moved on said
truck. Appellee testifies that he was on the south side
of the piano and that before the truck started across the
street he looked south and saw appellant's car about 175
or 178 feet south of the crossing coming at the rate of
20 — 2.5 miles per hour but that he had no way of warn-
ing the driver of his truck as the driver was in the closed
cab of the truck.
Complaint is made that the court refused to give the
jury
Page 1
the following instruction:
"If you believe from the evidence in this case that
the plaintiff, by using his faculties with ordinary and
reasonable care in looking out for danger, could have
avoided the injury in the case in question, and that he
negligently failed to do so, and thereby contributed to
the injury, if you believe he was injured, then he cannot
recover in this case."
While the jury were told in other instructions that
appellee could not recover if he vi'as guilty of negligence
which contributed to bring about the injury, the principle
contained in the refused instruction was not covered by
any given instruction. The refusal of this instruction
was reversible error. C. C. Ry. Co. v. O'Donnell, 208 111.
267; Flynn v. C. C. Ry. Co. 250 111. 460.
Complaint is made of the giving of appellee's fourth
instruction. This instruction is apparently based upon
language used in Nonn v. C. C. Ry. Co. 232 111. 378, but
we think it subject to some criticism, as not being in
strict compliance with the rules laid down in Pienta v.
C. C. Ry. Co. 284 111. 246 and 0pp. vs. Pryor, 294 111. 538.
For the error in refusing to give the requested in-
struction the judgment is reversed and the cause re-
manded.
Page 2
r\
iv. , \ /
( C>;' J A ,^ ^*
7^ ^>,
^'y>
/
General
7402
a No. 45.
October Term, 1921
George W. Shutt,
Chicago, Vilmington & I^klin Coal Company,
a Corporati^ Appellant. ,
App^ai^rom Sang^r^ q» T A fi ^ • "^
HEARD, J.
This is a suit brought by appellee against appellant
to recover damages because of the alleged subsidence ot
about four acres of appellee's land caused, it is alleged
in the declaration by reason of appellant's negligent fail-
ure in conducting its mining operations and removing the
coal from under appellee's land, to leave adequate and
sufficient support thereunder. A trial in the circuit
court resulted in a judgment for $2200 damages in favor
of appellee, from which judgment this appeal has been
taken.
Upon the trial certain witnesses who gave opinions
as to the value of the land after the subsidence stated
that they had taken into consideration the fear of fu-
ture sinking of the land. Appellant moved to strike out
all of the testimony of the witness on the ground that no
damage can be recovered in a subsidence case except for
a subsidence that has actually occurred. The court de-
nied the motion, but stated "the jury will disregard the
witness testimony as to damages so far as it is based
upon the possibility of the future" and later gave to the
jury a written instruction to the same effect. Appell-
ant's motion being to strike out all the testimony of the
witness, it was properly denied as the witness had given
much testimony which was competent.
Appellant contends that appellee should have been
limited to damages to the land subsided and not extend-
ed to the forty acres in which it was situated. There is
no question that in assessing damages the inquiry is lim-
ited to the tract of land immediately
Page 1
affected. When,
however, in a subsidence case, the sunken land is a part
of a tract with which it has been used for farming or
other purposes if the use of the whole tract has been af-
fected by the subsidence of the part then damages to the
entire tract can be shown.
There was considerable conflict in the testimony as
to the amount of damages and as to what should be con-
sidered in estimating the damages. This state of the
record required that the jury should be accurately in-
structed. The court at the request of appellee gave to
the jury an instruction which contained the following
language: "And you are further instructed that in deter-
mining the fair cash market value of the plaintiff's land
at any given time, you have the right and you should take
into consideration all the facts and circumstances exist-
ing at such time, as shown by the evidence, and which, in
your judgment, would have a material bearing in deter-
mining the amount for which said property would sell at
such time, in so far as the same are disclosed by the evi-
dence."
This instruction left it to the jury to determine in
their judgment what evidence would have a material
bearing in determining the amount for which the pro-
perty would sell. Whether evidence is material is a
question of law for the court and it is error to submit it
to the jury. When the jury is left to decide what evi-
dence is material or has a material bearing they might
find material evidence to be immaterial or immaterial
evidence material. Baker & Reddick v. Summers, 201
111. 52; Kreiger V. A. E. & C. R. R. Co., 242 111. 544; Laug-
hlin v. Hopkinson, 292 111. 80.
In the condition of the record in this case we consid-
er the giving of this instruction reversible error
The judgment will be reversed and the cause re-
manded.
Page 2
if -IA:- /^>/
General No. 7408
'^
October Term, 1921
a No. Go
George Mochel, Appellj
vs.
Geoi%e Rice, Aj^ellee.
of City
Appeal from Ciij
HEARD, J. _
July 16, 1918, appellant being the proprietor of the
Silver Moon cafe, a restaurant and bakery, in Pana by
a written instrument made a conditional sale to L. A.
Shoupe and R. T. Clark of all the stock in trade and
everything upon the premises used in connection with
the business. The instrument contained the following
among other provisions: "It is further agreed that if the
purchaser shall not have paid the remaining fifteen
hundred ($1500.00) dollars by the 16th of July, 1919, or
shall have an execution levied on his goods, or suff,er any
act which may prejudice the vendor's rights, or fail to
observe the stipulations herein contained, the vendor
may resume possession of the above-described imple-
ments, furniture, fixtures, etc., and for that purpose may
enter the premises occupied by the purchaser.
It is further expressly understood and agreed that
title to each and all of the above chatties shall remain
in George G. Mochel, the vendor, and that he shall re-
main absolute owner of same until the final payment
shall be paid."
About August 21, Clark withdrew from the partner-
ship and was released from the contract by the consent
of appellant and a new contract was entered into be-
tween appellant and L. A. Shoupe, and dated back to
the date of the origional contract with Clark and Shoupe,
but it in all respects strictly conformed to the origional
contract between appellant and Clark and Shoupe as to
terms, wording, times of payment, conditions for for-
feiture, title, etc. From then on, until September 11,
1918, L. A. Shoupe continued to operate and conduct the
business.
September 11, 1918, Shoupe without the knowledge
or consent of appellant transferred his interest to appel-
lee by an instrument containing provisions similar to
those above quoted, appellee having full knowledge of
appellant's rights and interest in the premises. Appellee
took possession of the property.
Page 1
■of Pana.
223 I. A. 658^
September 17, 1918, appellant
learning of the sale from Shoupe to appellee made a writ-
ten demand upon appellee for the fixtures, implements,
etc. Appellee refused to deliver possession and appell-
ant thereupon brought suit in replevin. A trial in the
city court of the City of Pana resulted in a judgment for
appellee against appellant for a return of the property
and $500 damages from which judgment this appeal was
taken.
Upon the trial of the cause the court allowed appel-
lee over the objection of appellant to give in evidence
the amount of receipts and profits from the business
during the six days it was conducted by appellee. This
was error. The measure of damages in replevin is the
value of the use of the property during its detention.
Speculative or expected profits cannot be recovered.
Green vs Mann, 11 111. 613; Butler vs Mehrling, 15 111.
488; Alley vs McCabe, 147 111. 410.
For the error in the admission of evidence the judg-
ment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Page 2
7
•-^'- /
\
General No. 7^81 ^(genda No. 5
^ April Term A. D. 1921
incan Bros., Appelk
H. Donaldson, et a^ Appellants
App^I from Maconf> O O T /I /^ P^ O ^~~
"2 2 3 I A. 65 8
NIEHAUS, J.
The appellees, Jeremiah and A. C. Duncan, compos-
ing the firm of Duncan Bros., entered into a written con-
tract with Rankin Whitham Co. on December 12, 1918,
for the purchase of 386 acres of land in Sheridan county,
Mo. As a part of the consideration for this land, Rank-
in Whitham Co. agreed to take from Duncan Bros., cer-
tain property at Lintner, Illinois, and a stock of merchan-
dise, which was to be invoiced at cost under the terms of
the contract. Contemporaneously with the agreement
referred to, Rankin Whitham Co. also entered into con-
tract with the appellant, J. H. Donaldson, who had act-
ed as agent in bringing about the sale of the Sheridan
county land to Duncan Bros.; and by the latter contract
the appellant Donaldson agreed to carry into effect that
part of Rankin Whitham Co. contract with Duncan Bros,
by which they had agreed to take over from Duncan
Bros, the stock of merchandise at Lintner at the cost
price. And Duncan Bros, acceded to the arrangement
provided for by the contract last mentioned; and it was
understood by all the parties concerned that Donaldson
was to take the stock of goods in question from Duncan
Bros., and pay the cost price therefor. In accordance
with the arrangement thus made, in the month of Janu-
ary 1919 following, the stock oi merchandise of Duncan
Bros, which consisted of groceries and dry goods, was in-
voiced at their store at Lintner; and for the purpose of
in-
Page 1
voicing the stock Duncan Bros, selected C. C. Howe,
and the appellant selected C. H. Hill to assist in the list-
ing of the stock, and the fixing of the cost prices there-
for; and with the assistance of these parties the stock
was listed, and the prices fixed. Aside from the persons
specially selected for that purpose, the appellee A. C.
Duncan, his son Kenneth, the appellant Donaldson, and
his son Charles, and Alonzo Adams, an employe of Dun-
can Bros, also participated more or less in the work of
preparing the inventory and fixing the prices of the mer-
chandise, which constituted the stock. The evidence
shows that the cost price fixed for the goods, was the
cost price which prevailed at the time of the inventory;
and the total value of the stock thus listed and priced
was $9978. 43. It was conceded that the appellant Don-
aldson was entitled to a credit of $6500.00 on the
amount thus ascertained, inasmuch as he had turned
over to Rankin Whitham Co. and Duncan Bros, had re-
ceived credit for that amount on the land purchase; al-
so that he was entitled to a credit of $33.03 for errors
made in footing up of totals on inventoi-y sheets; and
that the appellant was entitled to a further credit of
$711.73, which was the amount of his commission earned
as real estate agent in the sale of the land referred to,
to Duncan Bros. Deducting these credits from the tot-
al amount at which the stock had been valued, left a
balance of $2733.67; for this amount the appellant on
March 12, 1919, following the making of the inventory
executed and delivered a judgment note to the appellees
which was made payable thirty days after its date. The
note also provided for an attorney's fees, but the amount
thereof was left blank. Sometime after this note had
become due, the appellants had a judgment entered up-
on it by confession in the circuit court of Macon county,
which included an attorney's fee of $200.00 At the
October term thereafter, the appellant
Page 2
filed a motion sup-
ported by an affidavit to set aside the judgment. The
court ordered the judgment opened up, to enable the
appellant to make his alleged defense, and to plead to
appellee's claim. The appellant pleaded the general is-
sue, with notice of a claim of set off. He also filed a
special plea alleging a total failure of consideration; the
special plea however, was withdrawn during the trial,
and is therefore eliminated from the case. There was
a trial by the court, and the court found the issues in
favor of the appellees; but also found that the appellant
under his claim of set off was entitled to some addition-
al credits, namely four items, $67.00, $42.00, $25.00 and
$75.00, making a total of $209.00; and thereupon render-
ed judgment for $2923.89 which includes $200.00 for an
attorney's fee; an appeal is prosecuted from this judg-
ment.
The principal controverted question, which is raised
on appeal concerns an item of $2200.00 claimed by the
appellant as a set off against the amount due on the
note in question; and it is argued that this amount rep-
resents the difference between the original cost price of
the merchandise in question, and the cost price which
prevailed at the time the stock was inventoried. It is
contended that under the written contracts between the
parties, the appellant could be required legally to pay
only the original cost price of the merchandise. The
contracts in evidence do not say whether the cost price
mentioned is the original cost price, or the cost price
prevailing at the time the contract was entered into, or
at the time the inventory was made. The construction
however which the parties themselves placed upon the
language used, clearly indicates, that they understood
the cost price referred to, to mean the cost price pre-
vailing at the time the goods were inventoried. And
the m.atter was adjusted on that basis. Under the cir-
cumstances
Page 3
referred to courts give effect to the con-
struction and the interpretation which the parties them-
selves placed upon the language of their contract; and
their acts and conduct of the parties in carrying out, or
giving effect to their contracts, will be considered bind-
ing. Sholl Bros V. P. & P. U. Ry. Co. 276 111. 267; Merle
v. Beifeld, 275 111. 594; Gillett v. Teel 272 111. 106. It is
a sufficient answer however to appellant's contention, to
point out the fact, that there is no evidence in the rec-
ord to show any other cost price than the one which was
adopted by the parties at the time of the inventory.
Appellant also contends, that the burden of proof
was upon the appellees to show what the original cost
price was. Appellant's only defense was set off; and the
rule of law is clear that where set off is pleaded Eis a de-
fense, the burden of proof of such defense is on the de-
fendant. Moreover inasmuch as the appellant did not
make any motion for a new trial, he is not in position on
appeal to raise any question concerning the force and
effect of the evidence, nor that the findings of the court
are not sustained by the weight of the evidence. "The
weight of the evidence can be considered on appeal only
where the question was presented on a motion for a new
trial and ruled on by the trial court." Anderson v. Kar-
stene 297 111. 76. Nor is the appellant in positon to
raise any questions concerning the allowance of the at-
torney's fee, inasmuch as there was no issue raised in
the court below concerning the propriety of its allowance.
We are of opinion that there was no reversible er-
ror in the propositions numbered 3, 4 and 8, which were
held by the court. The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Page 4
General \io. 7310.
April Term. A. D,
Elmer Kelso,
\ Joe Chioman, Appellee
^3 I.A. 65 8
NIEHATJS, J.
In this case the appellant Elmer E. Kelso, a real es-
tate broker sued the appellee Joe Chipman, who was the
owner of a 200 acre farm, in the circuit court of Fulton
county in an action of assumpsit, to recover a commis-
sion of $600.00 which he alleged was agreed upon be-
tween him and the appellee as compensation to be paid
by the appellee f ihe found a purchaser for the farm re-
ferred to.
The declaration alleges that the appellant found a
purchaser namely, Thomas M. Weber, who negotiated
with the appellee and finally bought the farm in ques-
tion for $30,000.00; that thereby the appellee became
liable to the appellant for the commission agreed upon.
The record discloses a conflict in the evidence concern-
ing the matter of how the purchaser was procured, and
who procured the purchaser; and it was a contested
question in the trial court whether the appellant by the
efforts which he made, had induced Weber to become a
purchaser, and was the first to interest him in the mat-
ter of the purchase of the farm; and whether the appell-
ant also induced him to take up the negotions for the
purchase of the farm with appellee which finally result-
ed in its sale. There was a trial by jury and the jury
found a verdict in favor of the appellee, upon which
judgment was rendered, and this appeal is prosecuted
from the judgment.
Page 1
The main contention which arises on appeal con-
cerns the giving of certain instructions, and it is claimed
that a number of them were erroneous and misleading.
Errors in that respect are pointed out with reference to
Instructions 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12. The 5th instruct-
ion is to the effect that if the jury believed, that the ap-
pellee by his tenant was in communication with Weber
the purachser relative to the sale of the farm prior to
any negotiations relating to the sale of the farm be-
tween the appellee and Weber; and that the sale of the
farm was solely brought about by the appellee, that
then it was the law that the appellant could not recover
anything for commissions for the sale, even though they
might believe that the appellant did make some efforts
to interest Weber in the farm. This instruction is clear-
ly erroneous, in that it makes the appellants right to re-
cover commissions depend on whether the sale of the
farm was solely brought about by the appellee, and in
effect told the jury that if such sale had been brought
solely by the appellee, that then the appellant had no
right to recover. It was conceded that the appellee had
solely conducted the final negotiations which resulted m
the sale of the farm by him to Weber; but this did not
necessarily deprive the appellant of the commissions, if
the appellant was the one who induced Weber to become
such purchaser, even though he had nothing to do with
the matter of the sale by the owner. Hafner v. Herron
165 111. 242; Pridmore v. Wilson 159 111. App. 343; Rounds
v. Victoria Hotel Co. 184 111. App. 501. Substantially the
same error appears in Instructions 6 and 7; and by In-
struction 8 the jury could easily be misled into the same
erroneous conclusion. Instruction 11 was also objection-
able; it told the jury, that the existence of the contract
between the appellant and appellee would not prevent
the appellee from selling the farm himself to a purchas-
er procured by the
Pase 2
appellee and under circumstances as
would not entitle the appellant to recover a commiss'on
from appellee without specifying the circumstances. This
instruction was misleading in that it assumes in effect,
that the sale of the farm in question was to a purchaser
procured by the appellee; and could readily be construed
by the jury to mean in connection with the other instru-
ctions referred to, that the circumstances under which
the appellant would not be entitled to recover a commis-
sion, were present in the case on trial. We are of op-
inion that Instruction 12 is objectionable for the same
reasons stated concerning Instruction 5.
We find no reversible error in the admission or re-
jection of eivdence; but for the errors indicated; and for
the reasons stated, judgment is reversed and the cause
remanded.
Reversed and Remanded.
Page 3
X.
GeneraXNo. 7344
April Term, A. D. 1921
Jesse A. Midler, Administrator of th/^Estate of George
W\^ Woodward, deceasaff; Appellee
\
Chester ^O'Byrne Transfer Co., Appellant
S /
Ai^eal frjpi Champaign. -^
NIEHAUS, J.
This suit was brought in the circuit court of Cham-
paign county by the appellee Jesse A. Miller as adminis-
trator of the Estate of George W. Woodward deceased,
for the benefit of the widow and next of kin of said de-
ceased, to recover damages suffered on account of the
death of the deceased, which it is alleged was caused
by the negligence of the appellant, Chester & O'Byrne
Transfer Co. There was a jury trial, which resulted in
a verdict and judgment in favor of the appellee for
$3000.00 This appeal is prosecuted from the judgment.
The negligence charged is the running of appellant's
automobile taxi cab at a high and illegal rate of speed
on University Ave. in the city of Urbana, and thereby
coming into collision with the deceased who was riding
along the avenue in question ahead of the taxi cab. The
evidence tends to show, that on May 15, 1920, about 8
o'clock in the morning, the deceased Woodward was rid-
ing on a bicycle going eastward on University Avenue to
his work; that just before reaching a certain driveway
on the north side of the avenue, east of Orchard street,
he turned north easterly toward this driveway; and that
while doing so, appellants taxi cab ran into him, knocked
him off of his wheel, and to the payment, whereby he
received injuries from which he died. It was claimed on
the trial as a matter of de-
Page 1
fense that Woodward in mak-
ing the turn towards the driveway had failed to. give a
signal with his hand, as required by the traffic ordinan-
ces of the city of Ubana; and that his failure to do so
contributed to bring about the accident in question. Ap-
pellant on the trial offered to put in evidence the ordin-
ance referred to; appellee objected to its introductionj
and the court sustained the objection; and the ordinance
was not admitted; this ruling of the court is assigned as
error. We are of the opinion that the ordinance was
competent and material; and that the appellant had a
I.A. 658^
right to have the same submitted as evidence to the
jury. The appellee had waived the necessity of prelim-
inary proof to establish the fact that the ordinance had
been duly passed and published, and that it was in force.
It was competent and material and should therefore
have been admitted. Doyle v. Village of Bradford 90
111. 416; C. & E. I. V. People 120 111. 667.
The appellees contends, that the ordinance was prop-
erly rejected, because it is inconsistent with the provis-
ions of the Motor Vehicle Act; and because its provisions
are already covered by the act; also because the ordin-
ance is unreasonable in its terms. We cannot agree
with this contention; the ordinance appears to be no
more unreasonable in its requirements than the Motor
Vehicle Act itself; but is somewhat broader in its scope.
The requirement of a signal with a whip or hand, as
well as with the arm signal, required by the Motor Ve-
hicle Act, is not inconsistent with the provisions of the
act, but simply adds a further requirement. Paragraph
26 of the Motor Vehicle's Act of 1919 expressly provides
that "nothing in this act contained shall be construed as
affecting the power of municipal corporations to make
and enforce ordinances, rules and regulations, motor
trucks and motor driven commercial vehicles used with-
in their limits for public hire or making and enforcing
reasonable traffic and
Page 2
other regulations except as to rate
of speed which are not consistent with the provisions of
the act." The City of Urbana therefore was within its
powers in passing and enforcing the ordinance in ques-
tion. Nor is there anything unreasonable in the require-
ment that the hand as well as the arm is required to be
used for signaling. A point is made concerning the lack
of proof as to the time of the passage of the ordinance;
we think this was covered by the waiver of preliminary
proof. For the error indicated, the judgment is rever-
sed and cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
Page 3
'X
^zU'^^
J
GENERAL NO. 7257
OpTOBER TERM, A. D. 1920
\
Harriet L. Anderson, Administratrix of the estate of
Thomas D. Anderson, deceased, IJ^endant in Error
John Barton Payije as Agmt of the Uni
Governmer)^i<'Tlaintiff in Error
Error to the Circuit Court of Vermihon County
PER CURIAM
The writ of error in this case is prosecuted to re-
verse a judgment, for $3500.00 and cost, recovered by
defendant in error, as administratrix of the estate of
Thomas D. Anderson, deceased, who was struck by a
passenger train and killed when attempting to walk
across the tracks of the Chicago and Eastern Illinois
Railroad Company, at the Main street crossing in Hoop-
eston, Illinois.
The negligence charged in the several counts in the
declaration is a violation of an ordinance limiting the
rate of speed at which passenger trains might be run,
while within the corporate limits of the city of Hoopes-
ton, to ten miles an hour; failure to ring the bell or
sound the whistle on the engine of the train for a dis-
tance of eighty rods while approaching the Main street
crossing; a violation of the duty to maintain a watchman
or gates or similar device for warning, at such crossing,
of the
Page 1
approach of trains; and a general charge of
careless, negligent and improper management of the
train whereby decedant was not advised of its approach.
Hoopeston is a city of six thousand inhabitants. The
street on which the accident happened is its principal
street built up solid with business houses directly east
of the railroad and on the west by business houses, resi-
dences and factories. From two hundred to three hun-
dred people crossed the railroad tracks on this street,
daily, during the thirty minutes immediately preceeding
seven o'clock A. M. at which hour an emlpoyee of the
ii?dg4tis^* 658
s
railroad company went on duty to raise and lower gates
at the crossing in compliance with with the require-
ments of an ordinance in reference thereto.
On the morning of September 26, 1918, a number
of people had congregated at the crossing in quesiton
while it was blocked by the passing of a south bound
freight train composed of forty five cars, intending to
cross as soon as such freight train had passed. Thomas
D. Anderson had come from the east and was standing
near the east side of the north bound track. A few feet
in front of him was a man and just behind him were
two young ladies. People were standing on the walks
on each side of the street, others were in an automobile
and two with bicycles — all waiting
Page 2
to cross the tracks.
Immediately after the freight train had cleared the
crossing the man in front of decedant crossed the tracks.
Anderson and the young ladies attempted to do so when
he was struck by a north bound fast passenger train,
known as the Dixie Flyer, at five minutes of seven
o'clock running one hour and a half late.
A large number of errors assigned on the record
are abandoned by not being argued. (International Har-
vester Co. V. Industrial Board, 282 111. 489, 492). Those
argued are that the verdict of the jury is against the
weight of the evidence; improper argument of counsel;
errors comimitted in rulings in reference to the admiss-
ion and to the exclusion of evidence; and in giving and in
refusing to give instructions.
The evidence establishes that the passenger train
had been running, in violation of the provisions of an
ordinance, through the corporate limits of the city to
within a quarter of a mile from Main Street at a rate
of from fifty to fifty-five miles an hour and there is ample
evidence to support the contention that its speed had
only been reduced to from twenty to twenty-five miles
an hour at the time of the accident.
Independent of any ordinance it was the duty of
Ihe railroad company, at common law, to regulate the
speed of its trains
Page 3
with proper regard to public safety.
(Overton v. Chicago and Eastern Illinois Railroad Co.
181 111. 323, 326; Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railroad Co.
229 111. 621, 629) and the jury were justified in finding
that it was negligence to run the passenger train in ques-
tion over the crossing at the rate of speed it was run-
ning at a time when the gates were not being operated.
The jury were properly instructed in reference to
what facts should be established by defendant in error
in order to be entitled to recover and that such facts
could only be established by a preponderance of the evi-
dence. The evidence was conflicting as to all such facts
and we would not be justified in disturbing the verdict
of the jury unless able to say that it was against the
manifest weight of the evidence (Toledo, Wabash and
Western Railway Co. v. Harmon, 47 111. 298, 303; St.
Louis, Jacksonville and Chicago Railroad Co. v. Terhune,
50 111. 151, 152, 153) and that we are unable to do.
We express our disapproval of several statements
made to the jury by one of the counsel for defendant in
error but after a consideration of all the reasons urged
for a reversal of the judgment of the trial court have
then reached the conclusion that the reasons assigned
are not well founded and that such judgment should be
affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Page 4
GENERAL NO. 7260 AG^jjfOA NO. 44
OCTOBER TERM, A. D. l§|fe
Edward S. Bradbury, Ap^llant
r
Johii Barton Payne, Director General of Railroads, etc.
Appelfee
Appeal from Circnit Court Ford County.
PER CURIAM \/ 223 I. A. 6 59
Appellant purchased a railroad ticket at the Twelfth
Street Station of the Illinois Central Railroad in Chicago
on June 19, 1919, entitling him to be carried as a pass-
enger to Bellflower, where he lived. He got upon a
train which left Chicago at 9:45 o'clock on the night of
that day and which was not scheduled to stop at Bell-
flower. The ticket reads as follows: "Illinois Central
R. R. One continuous passage Chicago (C. S.) 111. to
Bellflower, 111. Good one day from date of sale for con-
tinuous trip via short line on trains scheduled to stop at
destination, otherwise passenger must transfer to local
train. D. J. Phelps, Gen. Pass. Ag§nt." When he pres-
ented the ticket to the conductor the latter informed
him that the train did not stop at Bellflower, and that
he would have to get off at Gibson City, and wait for
another train. He told the conductor he would not get
off at Gibson City. When the train arrived at Gibson
City, the conductor again requested him to get off which
he refused to do. There-
Page 1
upon the conductor asked a
policeman at the station to remove him from the train.
When the policeman approached appellant, the latter
said "I will not resist an officer. You can arrest me,
and take me off", and he thereupon left the train with
the policeman and walked with him to the city hall
where nothing further was done in regard to the mat-
ter, and appellant waited in Gibson City until a train ar-
rived which took him to Bellflower. Appellant brought
this suit which is an action on the case to recover dama-
ges for the humiliation suffered by him on account of
being compelled to leave the train at Gibson City in the
manner mentioned. At the close of all the evidence on
motion of appellee the jury was directed to find appellee
not guilty by their verdict. This action of the court is
assigned as error as was its action refusing to admit cer-
tain offered evidence.
It has long been the settled rule of this state that
as between the conductor of a railroad train and a per-
son riding thereon, the latter's right of transportation
depends upon his ticket. The ticket presented by ap-
pellant entitled him to ride on such trains only as were
scheduled to siop at Bellflower, the destination named
on the ticket. His ticket did not entitle him to ride up-
on the train in question and when the conductor inform-
ed him
Page 2
of that fact and requested him to leave the train
at Gibson City and to take the next train which would
stop at Bellflower, it was his duty to do so. It is not
claimed that either the conductor or the policeman used
any unnecessary force or any force at all in causing him
to leave the train. Whatever indignity, humiliation, or
mental anguish appellant may have suffered by being
compelled to leave the train in company with the officer
was the direct result of his own conduct, and he cannot
recover damages from appellee therefor. Pennington
vs. I. C. R. R. Co. 252 111. 584; Kiley vs. Chicago City Ry
Co. 189 111. 384; Pennsylvania R. R. Co. vs. Connell, 112
111. 295; Pullman Palace Car Co. vs. Reed, 75 111. 125; C.
B. & Q. R. R. Co. vs. Griffin, 68 111. 499; Malmgren vs.
A. E. & C. R. R. Co. 193 111. App. 241.
Appellant testified that the ticket agent in Chicago
informed him that the train stopped at Bellflower, and
that when he went to get on the train he informed the
porter that he desired to go to Bellflower, and the porter
directed him to the car which he entered, and it is now
urged that for this reason appellee is liable. Neither
the ticket agent nor the porter could waive the limitat-
ions on the ticket without authority to do so of which
there was no proof. Pennington vs. I. C. R. R. Co. supra.
Page 3
Appellant offered to prove by the witnesses Flint and
W. J. Carlisle that they rode from Chicago to Bellflower
the latter part of the year 1917 on the same train; and
that it stopped at Bellflower; by the witness F. W. Car-
lisle that the train stopped at Bellflower in August, 1918;
and by the witness Fry that the trian stopped at Bell-
flower two years before June 19, 1919. It is now urged
that the court erred in refusing to admit this evidence.
There was no error in such ruling.
The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.
Page 4
General No. 7371 Age^rfSa No. 20
\ October Term, 1921 /
\ -^
Lotus iGrain & Coal Company, a Q^rporation,
Appellee, J^
/
ppellant.
Champaign.
HEARD, J.
Appellee brought suit in assumpsft against appellant
to recover damages for an alleged breach of contract for
the sale of corn by appellant to appellee. A trial in the
circuit court resulted in an instructed verdict for appell-
ant, from which judgment appellee appealed to this
court where the judgment was reversed and the cause
remanded. A second trial resulted in a judgment for
$650, damages and costs in favor of appellee from which
judgment this appeal was taken.
Complaint is made by appellant of the giving of in-
structions. When this case was here before the court
held that a valid written contract had been entered into
between the parties. The contract is fully set forth in
the former opinion of this court, to which opinion refer-
ence is made for the terms of the contract and the con-
struction placed thereon by this court. Lotus Grain &
Coal Co., v. Zimmer, 217 111. App. 592. The instructions
of which complaint is made are in accordance with our
former holdings, and, while the personnel of the court
has changed, the former holdings are binding upon us in
this case. We find no error in the court's ruling upon in-
structions.
Appellant contends that under the evidence appellee
is not entitled to recover. While the evidence is conflict-
ing Appellee's witnesses testified to a state of facts
which, if believed by the jury, warranted a verdict for
appellee. The jury evidently did so believe and we
would not be justified in disturbing their finding. The
judgment is affirmed.
^ a r-. T /» Q.t^Ck^^
it against appellant ^ • \}^ ^ \j
TU'^
General Nb. 7381 JkgenAz No. 30
\ October Term, 1921|
Harry Gilbert Brown, by Stella Brj^n, his Next Friend,
Appelle«
3
Lo^tta R^owry, Ap^ag ^ J ^ /j^ ^ 659
^ ^al from McLean
HEARD, J.
This is a suit brought to recover damages for injur-
ies sustained by Harry Brown, a minor, as the result of
a collision between a bicycle on which he was riding and
an automobile of appellant, driven by her daughter. A
jury trial resulted in a judgment for appellee against ap-
pellant for $1400 damages and costs, from which judg-
ment this appeal was taken.
The collision occurred about 4:30 P. M., October 1,
1920, in broad daylight, on Main street, a north and
south street, in the Village of Normal some distance
north of the intersection of that street and Harris street.
The first house north of this intersection on the east side
of Main street was a house known as the Carlson house.
Some distance further north and on the west side of the
street was the Brooks house. Each of these houses was
set back a short distance from the street and each had
a driveway running down to Main street.
As appellant and her family came north on Main
street in the automobile driven by his daughter, Harry
Brown, a boy 12 years of age, who was delivering papers,
after leaving a paper at the Carlson heme, came down
the Carlson driveway and started to cross Main street
diagonally to deliver a paper at the Brooks house. When
he was within a few feet of the west curb his bicycle
was struck by appellant's automobile and he was severly
injured under circumstances which would render appel-
lant liable if appellee's witnesses are to be believed.
There is, however, a sharp conflict in the testimony and
if appellant's witnesses are to be believed appellant was
not guilty of negligence and the accident was caused by
the negligence of Harry Brown
Page 1
in suddenly attempting to
cross the street in front of appellant's automobile.
Complaint is made that the court erred in excluding
?. written statement signed by appellee's witness Smoot;
which contained statements tending to impeach his testi-
mony given on the trial. The paper contained state-
ments which were not competent and there was no error
in sustaining the objection to the paper as a whole. The
paper did contain some portions which were proper mat-
ters of impeachment and when these portions of the
statement were offered seperately they should have been
admitted in evidence.
Complaint is made by appellant of the admission in
evidence of an ordinance of the Village of Normal with-
out proof of its publication. It was a penal ordinance
and required publication. Just how this portion of the
ordinance which was read in evidence was competent we
fail to see. It is either meaningless or refers to a motor
vehicle approaching a street car.
Complaint is made that counsel for appellee were
guilty of misconduct in bringing out the fact that an in-
surance company was interested in the defense. This
was improper and might have been reversible error. Ap-
pellant is not in a position, hov/ever, to raise this ques-
tion as when objection was made the court very properly
said "It is improper and if you want to have this case
continued, I will do that." Appellee by failing to take
advantage of the court's oflfer of a continuance must be
held to have waived the error. She chose to take her
chances on the jury's verdict and so cannot now take ad-
vantage of the misconduct. Appellant's attorney in the
cross examination of the doctor who testified as to the
boy's ailments was guilty of similar misconduct.
The first instruction given by the court at the re-
quest of plaintiff is one which has been repeatedly con-
demned for referring the jury to the declaration for the
elements necessary to entitle the plaintiff to recover.
This instruction was particularly bad for the reason that
the declaration had been amended by the addition of six
counts and
Page 2
four of these additional counts were mater-
ially amended previous to the trial.
The court at the request of the defendant gave to
the jury the following instruction:
"4. The Court instructs the jury that if you be-
lieve from the evidence that the defendant's car as it
approached the plaintiff was being operated at a greater
rate of speed than fifteen miles per hour, and that the
plaintiff before and at the time of the happening of the
collision was in the exercise of due care and caution for
his own safety, and that the defendant's car ran into and
struck the bicycle on which the plaintiff was riding and
that this occurred in a residence district within the cor-
porate limits of the Town of Normal, and if you further
believe from the evidence that the driving of said car at
such speed if any such is proven by the evidence, was the
proximate cause of the injury to the plaintiff, you should
find the defendant guilty."
This instruction makes the operation of appellant's
car at a greater rate of speed than 15 miles per hour
conclusive evidence of negligence. The law in force at
the time of the accident did not prohibit the operation
of an automobile at the place in question at 15 miles per
hour, or any specified rate of speed. The statute in
force at the time prohibited the driving of an automobile
upon any public highway "at a rate of speed gi-eater than
is reasonable or proper having regard to the traffic and
the use of the way or so as to endanger the life and limb
or injure the property of any person." The law also pro-
vided if the rate of speed of an automobile operated up-
on and public highway of the state where the same pass-
es through the residence portion of any incorporated city,
town or village shall exceed 15 miles per hour, such rate
of speed shall be prima facia evidence that the person
operating such automobile is running at a rate of speed
greater than is reasonable and proper having regard to
the traffic and the use of the way or so as to endanger
the life or limb or injure the property of any person.
Operating an automobile
Page 3
at the place in question at a
rate of speed greater than 15 miles per hour would only
be prima facia evidence of negligence which might be
overcome when all the evidence in the case was consid-
ered together. It was not negligence per se, or conclus-
ive evidence as would be the rule were the law as stated
in this construcction.
In Cont. Beer Pump Co. vs. Cooke Co. 299 111. 105,
the Supreme Court in passing upon the effect of a
Statute which made the report of a referee to whom an
account had been referred in an action of assumpsit,
prima facia evidence said: "The provision of the statute
that the report shall be prima facia evidence means sim-
ply that in the absence of any contrary evidence the
finding or verdict is to be in accordance with the report.
It is not a question of evidence and does not change the
burden of proof. When evidence is introduced and sub-
mitted to the jury the case is to be determined upon
the whole evidence." The giving of this instruction
was reversible error.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Page 4
A
General No. 7389\ Agenda N5/S6.
Ocfipber Term, A. D. 1921
Georgei.W. Paullin, Appellant,
\ vs.
William S. Watsos and Harriet Fgf^cis Watson,
^Appellees.
Appeal^o^paig 2 3 T . A. 659'^
HEARD. J. W^
This is a suit brought by appellant against appellees
to recover the purchase price of a fur coat purchased
from appellant by appellee Harriet F. Watson, wife of
appellee, William S. Watson. A jury trial resulted in
favor of appellees and a motion for a new trial was de-
nied.
The abstract in this case shows neither the rendition
of a judgment or a prayer for appeal in the court below.
There is therefore nothing before this court for review.
People V. Shapiro, 203 111. App. 292; Sellers v. Puritan
Product Co.^ 217 111. App. 617.
The appeal will therefore be dismissed.
Gene/ak No. 7421 / Agenda No. 60
\ October Term, 195
John T. F^iey, Edgar F. Richard^J. Frank Ryley and
J. CarrolI\Fahey, partners d/ng business under
the firm iiame of John T^ahey & Company,
\ T^23I.A. 660
Sidney Grain '^^omnefey (a corporation), Appellee
Appeal from Champaign.
HEARD, J.
Appellants, grain exporters of Baltimore, Md.,
brought suit in assumpsit against appellee, an Illinois
corporation, engaged in the grain business at Sidney,
111., for an alleged breach of contract for the sale and
delivery of corn. A trial of the case resulted in a judg-
ment for appellee in bar and for costs, from which judg-
ment this appeal is taken.
In January 1917, I. H. French & Co., were doing a
grain brokerage business at Champaign, 111. On Janu-
ary 13th or 14th, or on both days a representative of
appellee and a representative of French & Co. had con-
versations resulting in a contract for the sale by appel-
lant of 10,000 bushels No. 3 corn at 95c per bushel to
be delivered in January or February, 1917 to appellants
at Baltimore on a basis of 19.2 export rate, with Balti-
more rates and official inspection, appellee to draw on
appellant for the amount due on the shipment of the
corn.
It is claimed by appellee that this contract was not
made with appellants, but with French & Co., but the
great weight of the evidence is that at the time of mak-
ing the contract French & Co., were acting for appel-
lants and that the representative of appellee was fully
aware of that fact.
Page 1
No corn was shipped to Baltimore under this con-
tract by reason of inability to get shipping permits on
account of an embargo on Baltimore, during January and
February, but the evidence shows that the time for
shipment was extended.
March 14, 1917, appellants sent appellee the follow-
ing "Please ship the 10,000 bus. of corn, due us on con-
tract, to Messers Rumsey & Co., Chicago, 111., for our
account."
April 12, 1917, appellee shipped a car of com to
Rumsey & Co., and wrote appellants as follows: "We are
today shipping FIRST car white corn to Rumsey & Co.,
for your account. Will ship more as we get cars, have
asked for cars to go Chicago, any thing you can do for
us in the way of getting cars would be appreciated as
we have the corn to load."
April 14, appellants wrote appellee as follows:
"Yours of the 12th enclosing us copy of invoice covering
shipment of 1 car corn, to Rumsey & Co., Chicago for
our account at hand. We thank you for this shipment
and sincerely hope you may be able to fill out this sale
in the next few days. You may rest assured if we can
do anything in the way of securing cars for you, we will
do so. We have been using our best efforts to help ship-
pers in this direction, but it seems to be rather uphill
work to secure empties."
April 18, appellee shipped Rumsey another car of
corn and on April 20 wrote appellants as follows: "Have
shipped to Rumsey & Co., of Chicago, III, 5100 bu. corn
as per your instructions and will say in regard to bal-
ance, that we claim inasmuch as we offered you the bal-
ance during the life of contract and did not get any bill-
ing for same that this fills our part of the contract and
will consider it closed." To this letter appellants re-
plied by telegram declining to accept cancellation of the
contract. April 20, 1917 No. 3 corn was worth $1.51 to
$1.53 on the Chicago market. Other correspondence took
place between the parties without result whereupon ap-
pellants brought this suit to recover their damages.
Page 2
At the request of appellee the court gave to the
jury the following instruction:
"12. You are instructed that if you believe from
the evidence that it was a part of the undertaking of
the plaintiffs in this case that they would do anything
within their power in the way of securing cars for the
shipment of the corn in question, then it is incumbent
upon the plaintiffs to show by a preponderance of the
evidence that they complied with this pi-ovision of the
contract; and in the absence of any such evidence it
would be .your duty to find that issue in favor of the de-
fendant."
There was no evidence in the case on which to base
this instruction. It is true that Best, the representative
of appellee, testified that at the time of making the
contract "I asked them with regard to possible embargo
on shipments East, and they answered me in case of
-embargo, anything of that kind came up, they thought
they would take care of the situation by getting permits.
—a system which was in vogue a good deal, and they
thought they would be able to get the car billed by get-
ting permits, even if there was an embargo." This
statement that they thought they could get the car bill-
ed by getting permits falls far short of an undertaking
as a part of the contract "to do anything within their
power in the way of securing cars for the shipment of
the corn." The natural effect of this instruction would
be prejudicial to appellants and its giving reversible er-
ror.
The court gave to the jury the following instruction:
14. "The Court instructs the jury that if you be-
lieve from the evidence that the defendant company or
some of its officers or agents tendered delivery of cer-
tain cars of corn of the kind specified by the alleged
contract, to the plaintiffs or their authorized agents,, in
keeping with the contract of sale if you find there was
such contract, then such tender is presumed in law to be
a tender upon such contract notwithstanding that no de-
mand for credit upon such contract may have accom-
panied such tender."
Page 3
There is no evidence in the record of any tender of
delivery of cars of corn to appellee or any evidence of
any tender of delivery of corn to any agent of appellants
authorized to receive such corn. The original contract
called for the delivery of the corn by appellee to appel-
lants at Baltimore, Md., where the corn was to of-
ficially insnectecl anci lated. The evidence in the record
falls far short of showing a legal tender.
The court at the instance of appellee instructed the
jury as follows:
"15. The Court instructs the jury that if you be-
lieve from the evidence in this case that the defendant
offered to sell 10,000 bushels of corn to French & Comp-
any upon the condition that they were to be guaranteed
against any embargo thereon, and that French & Comp-
any in accepting said offer of sale did not accept said of-
fer upon the terms proposed by the plaintiffs, but ac-
cepted the same without any proviso as to guaranty
against embargo, then such offer and acceptance would
not constitute a contract in law and in the absence of
further proof that the defendant had waived their said
proposition requiring the guaranty against an embargo if
you find from the evidence there was no such proof, there
would be no contract between the plaintiffs and the de-
fendant."
This instruction is not based upon the evidence and
its giving was reversible error. There is no question but
what a contract was entered into. The representative
of French & Co. who conducted the negotiations for ap-
pellants testified that he bought 10,000 bu. of corn from
appellee and Best, the representative of appellee, who
conducted the negotiations on the part of appellee, testi-
fied that he sold the 10,000 bu. of corn. That there was
a contract is also shown by all the letters and telegrams
in evidence.
These instructions were prejudicial to appellants and
their giving was reversible error.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Page 4
Genial No. 7300.
April Term, 1921
Arthur Swain, Appell
^^ Appell^t.
John Bartc^ Payne, Directorjiffeneral of Railroadsv
)ellajft.
rem M^can -■- « j^ ^% 4\.i^ —
T23I.A. 660'
NIEHAUS, J.
In this case the appellee Arthur Swain sued the Dir-
ector General of Railroads operating the Chicago & Alton
Railroad to recover damages for alleged negligence in
the shipment of 84 head of cattle from Chicago to Sin-
clair, in Morgan County. The declaration charges, that
the cattle were negligently and unreasonably delayed in
transit; and were negligently allowed to be kept confined
in appellant's cars more than 36 hours without feed and
water; and were not-tlelivered and unloaded by the ap-
pellant promptly; and, that by reason of this alleged neg-
ligence of the appellant, the cattle in question became
sick, injured and damaged, and two of the cattle shortly
thereafter died. To the charge of negligence in the dec-
laration the appellant pleaded the general issue. There
was a trial by jury, which resulted in a verdict, and judg-
ment in favor of the appellee for $420.00; from this judg-
ment an appeal is prosecuted.
Appellant contends, that the evidence does not show
any negligence in making the shipment, nor unreasonable
delay in carrying the cattle to their destination; also, that
the evidence does not sufficiently show, that the injury
or disease which was found in the cattle when unloaded
at Sinclair, was caused by any delay in the shipment.
We are of opinion, that
Page 1
the jury were warranted from the
evidence in the conclusion which they reached on these
questions; also that the appellee was damaged to the full
amount found by the jury. Appellant contends, that er-
ror was committed in asking Dr. Charles E. Scott, a wit-
ness for appellee, a hypothetical question as an expert on
diseases of cattle, and the causes thereof. The hypoth-
esis was based upon the diseased condition of the cattle*
at the time that they were unloaded; and the object of
the inquiry was to get his opinion, as to the cause of the
diseased condition of the cattle. His answer was, that
exposure would naturally cause the condition of catarrhal
trouble, from which the cattle were suffering. We think,
there was no error in allowing the doctor to g'ive his opin-
ion as to the cause of the disease, with which the evi-
dence showed, the cattle had been afflicted, at the time
they reached their destination. Questions of this char-
acter have been held competent and proper under the
circumstances here presented. People v. Penman 271 111.
82; Holcomb v. McGee 217 111. App. 272. The opinion of
the witness therefore, cannot be considered an invasion
of the province of the jury concerning the determination
of ultimate facts. Complaint is also made of the giving
of the 1st and the 3rd instructions for the appellee. The
1st instruction contains an abstract proposition of law;
and appellant contends, that it is misleading, because it
may be interpreted, to assume that the court thought
that the cattle in question, had been injured by delay in
transit. The instruction, though in the abstract, states
the principles of law involved with substantial correct-
ness; and it is not apparent, that the jury could have been
misled into the assumption suggested by appellant; es-
pecially when the instruction is considered in connection
with the instructions concerning the same matter
Page 2
given for the appellant. Appellant's criticism of the 3rd
instruction is, that it assumes negligence on the part of
the appellant. We do not think this criticism is justified;
a reasonable construction of the language of the instruc-
tion, does not warrant such an inference; and appellant's
instructions are strong and clear upon the legal require-
ments, and the neccesity of proof, of the negligence of ap-
pellant as alleged. The record does not disclose any re-
versible error and judgment is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Page 3
. 660
^^ [ol/Cf'^
\
General No. '7303 Xgenda No. 20
\ April Term,
E(jyard P. Irving,
\ vs.
Joseph Ayers \x\A John T^Ayers, Appellants
Appeal frojff McLean
NIEHAUS, J. '**'*^ O - . /» /» /\ ^
This appeal is from the judgment /or $3085.00 ren-
dered in the circuit court of McLean County in favor of
Edward P. Irving, appellee, and against the appellants,
Joseph W. Ayers and John T. Ayers. The question
presented for review, concerns the allegations made in
defense of the suit, in four special pleas, to which a
.demurrer was sustained by the court. The first special
plea avers, that before the making of the note which
is the basis of the judgment, one W. E. Surface who
was the owner of a dairy farm, and the appellee, Jos-
eph W. Ayers, entered into a co-partnership agreement
to conduct a dairy business; and for the purpose of rais-
ing, buying and selling cattle, hogs and other stock, as
well as general farming; the partnership to commence
Sept. 1. 1918, and continue until February 28, 1924.
Surface was to contribute to the partnership, the use
of his farm, which contained buildings for dairy pur-
poses; silos, and other structures, required for farm
purposes; also the milking equipment, which was on the
farm, consisting of milking machines, gasoline engines,
pump shafting, etc. Ayers to live in the house on the
farm, and to contribute, without expense to the partner-
ship, all the labor necessary for conducting the busi-
ness, operating the farm, and delivering the products
thereof. The partnership was to buy, through equal
contribution of the partners, all
Page 1
live stock, implements,
feed and grain, used on the farm; and to take over by
equal contributions of the co-partners, all live stock,
tools and equipment: except as before mentioned; the
prices to be agreed upon by the co-partners, or fixed by
disinterested persons. Ayers was to furnish any mach-
inery or equipment which he owned, for prices to be
agreed upon. No contracts were to be made without
the advice and consent of both parties; all monies re-
ceived, were to be deposited in a designated bank in De-
catur, and paid out by checks signed by Surface; that
Ayers was to give his entire time to the business; and
Surface was not required to give any of his time to the
management, or work of the pai-tnership business, but
that Ayers was to consult with Surface as to all mat-
ters; that Ayers was to keep accurate books of account,
including a record of all cows; such records to be open
to inspection of Surface at all times; and Ayers was to
have the use of the house on the farm, and all necessary
fruit; also, the garden and truck patch. It was also
agreed, that Surface should keep the exterior of the
building used in said co-partnership business in repair;
that Ayers should do all the hauling; and that any alter-
ations or additions, and expenses in maintaining milk-
ing machinery, water supply and equipment of the farm
were to be paid for by the partnership; which milking
machinery was to be left on the premises at the expir-
ation of the partnership; that the partnership was to
pay the expense of the rent of a tenant house, if the
same should be necessary, to house any of his employes;
that the partnership was to re-imburse Surface for the
expense of seed and labor in putting in the wheat then
sown on the land, and also pay for the expense of the
seed and labor of putting in the alfalfa then sown and
growing on the farm. The partnership agreement also
contains stipulations
Page 2
concerning the amount which each
partner could draw from the earnings of the partner-
ship, and concerning the accounting to be had, and con-
■ cerning the earnings accummulations which were to be
equally divided between the partners. Upon the expir-
ation of the term of the a.greement, the partnership
was to end, unless extended in writing; that thereupon
Ayers should vacate the premises, without notice; that
at the end of the partnership, or at a sooner terminat-
ion thereof, the parties thereto, were to make a true
just and final account of all things relating to the busi-
ness of the partnership, and in all things adjust the
same; that the stock, machinery, utensils or other prop-
erty was to be sold, and the proceeds divided equally
between the partners, or otherwise disposed of, as the
parties to the agreement should mutually agree. The
plea further avers, that the parties mentioned, pursuant
to the partnership agreement, conducted the dairy busi-
ness specified in the agreement, and gathered together
a large number of milch cows, namely sixty, and trans-
acted a profitable business; that on the 9th day of June
1919, then entered into another written agreement,
which recites the fact, that they desired to terminate
the partnership on Jan. 1, 1920; that, in order to amend
and supplement the partnership agreement referred to,
stipulated and ageed, that Surface in consideration of
the terms of the partnership agreement, and of the
agreement of Ayers to vacate the premises on Feb. 28,
1920, agreed to pay Ayers the sum of $2500.00, and it
was further agreed, that the partnership business, should
be continued and conducted in accordance with the part-
nership agreement, until such time prior to Feb. 28, 1920
as the parties might mutually agree to sell or dispose of
the personal property belonging to the partnership,
which sale or other disposition, should take place some
time during the months of October, November
Page 3
or Decem-
ber, 1919, and prior to the 28th day of Feb. 1920; that
during the months of October, November or December,
a just and final account of the partnership business
should be made, and the machinery, stock, etc., should be
sold at public auction or otherwise divided equally betw-
een the parties. The plea further avers, that the partner-
ship business was continued under the partnership ag-
reement referred to, as modified, from Sept. 11, 1918 to
June 11, 1919, and that large profits were made. It is
further avers, that on June 11, 1919, the personal prop-
erty of the partnership business, excluding the rights in
the land and buildings of said Surface, used in said busi-
ness, was sold to the appellants Joseph W. Ayers and
John T. Ayers, for the sum of $10,000.00, of which sum,
$1500.00 was cash, and the balance was in the form of
four promissory notes, one for $2500.00 and three notes
for $2000.00 each, payable in one, two, three and four
years respectively, from June 1, 1919, which are the
four prmoissory notes described in Plaintiff's Declarat-
ion. The plea further avers, that thereupon Surface,
and the appellants, entered into a certain agreement,
which is in words and figures as follows::
"This Agreement, made and entered into this 11th
day of June, A. D. 1919, by and between William E.
Surface, party of the first part, and Joseph W. Ayers
and John T. Ayers, parties of the second part, Witness-
eth:
The party of the first part, for and in consideration
of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) to him in hand paid,
the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, and in fur-
ther consideration of the agreement by the parties of
the second part to pay the indebtedness of the co-part-
nership heretofore existing between William E. Surface
and Joseph W. Ayers, under the firm name and style of
"Surface Farm" does hereby assign, transfer and set
over
Page 4
unto the parties of the second part all his inter-
est in the said partnership, except as hereinafter pro-
vided:
The party of the first part does hereby assign,
transfer and set over unto the parties of the second
part all his interest in the personal property belonging
to the said partnership, including all his interest in the
crops now growing on the farm more particularly de-
scribed in the partnership agreement of the 21st day of
August, A. D. 1918, except the party of the first part is
to receive the sum of Fifteen Hundred Dollars ($1500.)
out of the wheat crop when it is sold, and the parties
of the second part agree to pay to the party of the first
part the sum of Fifteen Hundred Dollars ($1500.00)
out of the wheat crop whenever it is sold.
The party of the first part does further assign
transfer and set over to the parties of the second part
all money in bank and any accounts owing the said co-
partnership, and does hereby authorize the parties of
the second part to collect the same without any liability
too account to him for the proceeds thereof.
The parties of the second part do hereby covenant
and agree to pay all the indebtedness of the said part-
nership and to save and keep harmless the party of the
first part from any liability on account thereof.
It Is Futher Agreed by the parties of the second
part that they will vacate the premises now occupied by
the said partnership and deliver up possession of the
same to the party of the first part on or before March
1, 1920.
In Witness Whereof the parties hereto have hereun-
to set their hands and seals to this instrument executed
in duplicate the day and year above written."
Page 5
The plea then alleges, that under and by virtue of
the foregoing written contracts, it was the duty of Sur-
face to keep the exterior of all buildings on said prem-
ises in repair, but that on the 26th day of July, 1919, he
permitted the exterior of the large cattle barn, in which
all of the milch cows and cattle feed were kept, to be
wholly destroyed, and that thereafter until the 28th day
of Feb. 1920, Surface refused to rebuild said building;
that the appellants had no other building, than the cat-
tle barn referred to, in which to house their milch cows,
and were thereby compelled to sell and dispose of said
cattle, and on the 13th day of August 1919, to abandon
and cease operating said dairy business for want of a
place in which to care for said cattle, and to conduct
said business, to the damages of the appellants of $10,-
000.00, and that the appellants suffered great loss of
profits, to wit $10,000.00, which they would reasonably
have made in said dairy business up to the expiration of
the time fixed in said written contract.
The foregoing matters set up in the plea, are aver-
red as a basis for the alleged defense by the appellants^
that there was a failure of consideration for the note
in question, which it is also averred, was assigned to the
appellee after maturity.
The second special plea alleges substantially the
same facts concerning the partnership agreem.ents, and
the failure of Surface, to rebuild the cattle barn, also
as a basis of appellants claim of failure of consideration
of the note in controversy which it is averred the appel-
lee is not a bona fide holder of, for value in due course.
The appellants also filed tv/o additional special pleas
which allege the same matters of defense to the appel-
lee's right of recovery. The appellee filed a demurrer
to the special pleas referred to, which demurrer was
sustained, and the appel-
Page 6
lants thereupon withdrew
the plea of the general issue, which had been previously
filed to the declaration, and stood by their special pleas;
and the court thereupon awarded to the appellee a judg-
ment for the sum mentioned. From this judgment an
appeal is prosecuted.
The appellants contend, that the matters set up in
the pleas show that there was a failure of the consider-
ation for the notes in question. The averments in the
pleas which concern the consideration for the notes are.
that on June 11, 1919, the personal property of the part-
nership business (excluding their rights in the land, and
building of Surface, used in said business) was sold to
the appellants, Joseph W. Ayers and John T. Ayers, for
the sum of $10,000.00, of which sum $1500.00 was cash;
and that the balance was in the form of four promissory
notes, one for $2500.00, and three notes for $2000.00
each, payable in one, two, three and four years respect-
ively, from June 1st, 1919. It is apparent from this
averment, that the notes in question were given in part
payment of the personal property of the partnership
business, which was sold to the appellants. There is no
averment in the plea, that the appellants did not receive
the personal property of the partnership business, in
part payment of which the notes referred to, were giv-
en; and the necessary inference is, that they did receive
it, hence it is apparent, that the consideration did not
fail for which the notes had been given. It is true the
plea also alleges, that there was a failure on the part
of Surface to carry out the obligation which it is claim-
ed he assumed in the partnership agreement entered in-
to between him and the appellant Joseph W. Ayers, to
keep the exterior of the buildings, which he had con-
tributed to the partnership between him and Joseph W.
Ayers, in repair, in that he had failed to rebuild the cat-
tle barn, after it had been destroyed by fire, in conse-
quence of which
Page 7
the appellants were com^pelled to aban-
don and cease operating their dairy business for want of
a place, in which to care for their cattle, and thereby
had suffered great loss of profits, which they would have
made in the business. It must be pointed out that, if
it be true; that Surface failed to carry out an obligation
which he assumed in a contract between him and the
appellant Joseph W. Ayers, from which damages result-
ed, that this damage could not be regarded as a failure
of the consideration of the notes which were for pay-
ment of the purchase price of personal property pur-
chased by the appellants. It is also evident, that any
damages which may have resulted from a failure of Sur-
face to rebuild the barns in question, (assuming that he
was obligated to do so) could not legally be utilized, as
a matter of offset or recoupment against the amount
claimed to be due upon the notes in question. Such
damages if any, could only be recovered by the party to
the contract, namely Joseph W. Ayers, as an individual
claim, and could not therefore be recouped or offset
against the joint indebtedness of the appellants set forth
in the declaration. Priest v. Dodsworth 235 111. 613.
Moreover the agreement to repair, whatever may be its
legal scope, was made for the benefit of the business of
the original partnership between Surface and Joseph W.
Ayers; it does not carry by its terms, or by implication;
any obligation to repair for the business of a partnership
subsequently formed, and between other parties.
It is also contended by the appellants, that under
the written contract entered into between Surface and
the appellants on June 11, 1919, by which Surface trans-
ferred and assigned all his interest in the partnership,
and his interest in the property of the partnership, with
certain exceptions, which agreement provides also, that
the appellants are to vacate the premises, and deliver
possession of the same to Surface, on or before March 1.
Page 8
1920, by implication transferred to appellants the right
to use the cattle barn in question to the date mentioned.
Assuming that this implication may properly be drawn
from the terms of the contract, the right to use the cat-
tle barn for the partnership business of the appellants
would not carry with it the obligation to restore the cat-
tle barn in case it was destroyed, and there is nothing
in the assignment contract referred to, which in express
terms, or by necessary implication, obligates Surface to
restore the cattlei barn in case of its destruction.
For the reasons stated, we are of opinion, that the
matters set up in the pleas, do not show a failure of con-
sideration for the notes involved, nor could these mat-
ters legally constitute a setoff or recoupment against a
recovci-y on the notes, and do not therefore constitute a
legalaefense to plaintiff's right to recover on the notes.
The demurrer was properly sustained to the pleas, and
the judgment rendered is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Page 9
'7
L'iXi
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the^ourth day of October,
in the year \of our Lord one thousand /line hundred and
twenty-one, Within and for the Secjmd District of the State
of Illinois
Present--The Hon. &ORRANCE DIBELL,/Pres iding- Jus t ice ,
Hon. NORMAN L. JONES^ Justice.
Hon. AUQUSTUS A. p/rTLOW, Justice
JUSTUS Li JOHNSON^' Clerk.
CURT S. AYERS, ^lieriff
I.A. 660
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
l\ll/ the opinion of the Court was filed in the
Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
6928. 31.
Judson 3 . Josl3n:i^
Appellee ,
vs.
Estate of Horace otocking,
deceased,
Appellant.
Appeal from Ogle
DIEELL, P.J.
On March 30, 1920, Judson 3. Joslyn filed
in the coxinty court of Ggle Co-iinty a claim againat the estate
of Horace otocting, deceased, in the sum of |l, 795.10. The
olaini was tried and disallo\7ed in that court and claimant
appealed to the circuit court, where a jury was waivei and the
cuase was tried and the claini was allowed as of the 6th class
in the stini of |;i,26i.8£. The estate appeals.
The undisputed facts in this case are as
follows. Judson 3. Joslyn, Horace Stocking aiid Dexter Stock-
ing, were equal owners of throe pieces of reel estate in Hock-
ford. On January 19, I9I2, the;, executed an instrur.ent hy
which they provided tliat the title to the j)roperty should he
vested in Horace Stocking in trust and that the tru.stee should
collect the rentals and interest from the property, pay all
tax-'>B, insurance, interest on mortgage inlehtedness i;.:id other
expenses incident to the proper aanagement of the property and,
if such income did not pay such expenses, each party should
contrihute his share of the deficiency when requested "by the
trustee; it made it the duty of the trastee tc sell ana convey
the property and collect the consideration ind divide the net
proceeds equally between the said three parties; that, if
Horace Stocking should die bef9re the trust was terminated
■■yj.j.\<: mo' : H" rc_.
(
( ,'--"■
(
BCfild ilJ^d esLt to B£ l«eworij£ baw mluLo sdi Loe f)ei:i^ baw obasjo
o Ota ds/io siri^ aJt e;fe«:l boitniBlkaa &siS
-ioctC loifxoCL Axis ■^l:iooSb aoenoS. ,ircL6JX, .S, coeJbxrL .ewoXIoi
-J-^i'Bo l3fl-x to oeoslq so'xrl* 1:o eiexrwo iMTpe tiew ,8ni
v/j v'i.i9t:urx^aiii cut l^e^'xjoozs x*^^ ^SlQl ,ttl \tu£im4l 0O .Mol
" oLtli 'odi iiidi bBblroxq -^lit doidv
b uj luii iuui iaxnt a.1 T^al^ootG aosioE at Jbetenv
•if;^ f!ioa!t teatoial Laa alaisxtn &dt to%lloo
:fiom ao ta^t&Jlal ^eoixaitsual ,«ex«^
> . .)x.ijim TeQaict aff^ ot taebloal BMfl»qxs
. <i f '" X9 (locra \»<i ioa blJa saooai rfotre \l
■j-Il::! erit lo eiAifa Bid %ta6ttinoo
Jub 9tli tt •bam tl ',9»iBn-ii
J9wf*(f \XI«i7pe QJbeeooiq
Joelyn should be successor in trust, clothed with all the
authority given to the trustee. It contained other provisions.
Across the last page of this agreement these words were written:
"Assigned to secure |4,000. note made to Horace Stocking this
date, Peh. 7, I9I4, Judson S. Joslyn." Stocking sold one
portion of the premises to one Hoffman and apparently divided
the proceeds. The sale to Hoffman was before the date of said
endorsement on the contract; and apparently the proceeds of
that sale were distributed or at least received by the trustee,
before the date of the |4,000 note. On June 3, I9I4, Horace
Stocking sold to William J. leay and wife by contract for a
deed a second piece of/treal estate for $7,600, of which ^500.
was cash in hand and |500. uas to be paid each first of July
thereafter till all vt'as paid. Said Payments bore interest
at 6fo, In December, I9I6, Horace Stocking conveyed the premises
to Leay and wife and received back a purchase money mortgage
for $3,600. securing a note for that amount due five years
after date, with interest at 6% per annum, payable semi-annually,
the interest being eveidenoed by coupon notes. Although said
note was due five years after date, yet it was paid ani the
mortgage released in May, 1918/ On December 16, I9I4, Josljm
gave to Horace Stocking hid note for the sum of $1,332.34,
due one year after date, with interest at 6% per annxun payable
semi-annually. The note stated that it was secured by an
assignment of his interest in the trust agreement first above
described as to that part of the land which had not been sold
and conveyed. Horace Stocking died April 25, I9I9. There-
after Joslyn acted as trustee as to the land not yet sold and
though he answered a question to the effect that he had sold it,
yet he also showed that he was collecting rents from that re-
maining pxoperty, Horace Stocking left a will which appointed
• •MolslTomq ic«dto bwt.tuta.oo tl .ftusnt 9At ot aerl^ \iliodtaM
: i9titi* 9^9V oA-xov ea*dtf' tiiMi«rx:s« alAt \o sgaq tax:! adt aaoioJL
utAt -galTLoott »OA^iioH o^ a^aa atoa .OOC,^ rxiroea c^ Lefc^IaaA"
Mto ^l08 ^llaotS "•ff^lBoL .o noBhul .^ICI ,V .(fo*? ,etMb
bottvXl xZtuMiBqqA Ana oaoftloR aao oi^ soeln<rxq wfj- lo a^ttxoq
hlee \o BiBii edi »^olatf aav oaaftlaH ot alsa e^T .e£a«oo<xq ed^
to Bib 9990X0 odf %ita%iMqq» Aoa {tojBt;tnoo od^ no ^rreoiarxoJbne
^99tBsit 9£t id b«rtno9i }sa«I ta 10 Jbetir(fi'x^8££ ei9w el^a taif^
aaaicE ,*I«I ,fi ©iiJTT . >J^on 000, ♦■J: ed* lo ©tafc ©d* e^oletf
rioifftir !bo «00i,V^ vel biuiee JLhor^lo enelq JCuioods a i>98A
^ii/*^ 1:0 taiil: xfeas blaq etf ot aa>!v .003$ baa ba&d al deao aaw
taeie^ai a^ad SToesi^aU £lc£! .Jblan eau ILa LLtt i&^taeaexU
cuwxiiidrij odt b9%fimio9 :^i:-Aoott ooai:ofi ,dI6I ^rsdsa&oed al ,^h #a
«^jji|g.rioffl \;aixoffi 9B£doxaq a :!Coa(f ^evJteooT bna elrlw £aa ^ae«I oi'
B-xisd^ oTil BJirii J^iuroffla tad^ to± a^on a :^l'm»s8 .OQd«S$ 10%
llBinvxsr- miiti 9l(Ie.\sq ^maiaa leq 9^d #a ^seactal dtlr; ,B4^aJb le^ta
6ia« ci;jirodlIi. .ji-i'rn -oqjifott \d Jbeaca^lBTe -^196 te9t9ia±- 9di
odi %jxa ilaq •■■■ -v ^etAh lotYx saae^ BVil «jb£ saw 9ioa
trilsoX, ,>iei ,&I ta^aoaa aO V8I«I ,^«M xil Aeaaeln eaa^^xoA
«|kE«&SC,I$ la eiiJB 9d& not •: .,ailoo^£ eoaiofi o^ e^^
eltfayaq fluuxoa 'xaq kb ^a laeia^aJ: d:tlw ,a#aJb ^ca^ta 'ia9x 9ao exrJb
Hj^ \d JbaxiToB* t^til^ lioti^i's a^oa edT •>^IIaxmaa-Lnee
arotfn iC^tll triBuiBOt^id iiuit 9di tsl tanetal eld to ;rxxMiinsl88B
ftlOQ uaod 4*00 hut doJttfv Aoal ed;^ "to tiAn iadt oi Ba l>edlioaBJb
-9'xn . 'O^r: eoBToH .le-^evaoo Jboa
jbcta J^Xoa t9\ #ofc An^ jutni na iba^oa ir(l60» tetta
,il tlos Aad Bit tadtf #OBlt» b^^ e^ aoltBonp a Aartairaaa »£ d^uodt
- ~ :^ad^ atett a^naii fcii^aaXXoo aaw od :rad^ Aawoda oaXa Bd ^91
katuloqr-a doiifv liim a Heal lAllaatS aoaioH •\tYBqo-i« ;|iiJbaiaa
3.
Dexter Stocking and another executors. The contents of that
will are not in this record. The evidence clearly shows that
Joslyn paid in jPall to the estate said note for $1,332.34.
This claim against the es,^te of Horace Stocking, deceased, is
to recover the shar« Joslyn had in the proceeds of said note
of $3,500, given hy Leay and wife and paid in the lifetime of
Horace Stocking. The accounting hy Joslyn an succeeding trustee
is evidently not due to the eat&te of Horace Stocking, hut to
those who take this unsold land under his will.
In order to recover his share of said pro-
ceeds of the Leay note, it was necessary that he prove that he
had paid the |4,000 note ahove descfihed. Ee did not claim
to have paid it after Horace Stocking died. He was not a
competent witness to prove its payment to Horace Stocking in the
-lifetime cf the latter, if otjection v.'as made thereto. On
page 2 of the ahstract near the "beginning of the testimony of
claimant occurs the folloviring: "Testimony of the witness as
to any matter before the death of Horace Stocking, objected to
as incompetent. Ohjection as to events before the death sus-
tained." As this case was not tried hy a Jury, if the fore-
going from the abstract is coppeot, it must he understood that
the court treated as incompetent all evidence h;, Joslyn as to
matters ooouring in the lifetime of Horace Stocking. Eut that pt
part of the abstract is not supported by the record. The
record showed that Joslyn was called as the first witness after
certain exhibits had been introduced and was examined at some
was
length without any objection. He then asked to look at certain
exhibits and asked if he had ever seen all of them before.
An attorney for the estate objected "to the incompetency of
Mr. Joslyn as a witness in his own behalf." The court said
.t^'j- ifloic ^Xu^»io daaeJSlre eilT • •Aiotw Klit at ion «a tJilM
,t1 icl otoa Alee •^*ta« eift o# Ilift at Alaq A%£aol
•tet 5(s8 M itteeotq AJr^ fat b»S CE\Itr,!; crcife£s edt twroo»t ot
It «At at J&l«q Jbjr,' ollw Jbiu ^tfiaJ* x^ ^^^^ ,OCe,B| io
ixJbeeoaire Cub ti^IaoL ^tf ^nitntrotiai; aiiT .^ni^oo^B 6o«toH
. , Hco;fC •eaioE . •• 9dt oi %tih toa xLtanbtyro bI
~.JLd lehsia Jbxul IZoaajr sidt BiiBt oifm esojd^r
•^o ereda Bid liBTOOdn o* leAit* nl
I AUb 9H , bed fio ii»b gtkxSb at^a 00C,^$ ex(f blsq b&d
Hflllooi^ 90JSI0H 'xetiA ti Al«ti 8T0tf oi-
. . • ■ 'i^ol^o ii ,Tai^«I ©d* lo oaxWelii.
to '^iia^I.r&e^ an;}' . ^I^otf atf# xaaa tCATtecTa Bdt lo S a^£:q
a« aeaxitJtw eA;f lo ir!o:aI*a8T'* :j|ninroXXot 9ttt «tjjooo tOBiilJilo
x.-jJb feilJ 6iol»d 6*a©T- ^ nolJoa^cfO •tcafsttaooiLt ts
-:>:vi. adt 11 ,V»^ * !;<' *»i'i ■' '^3.'»o Bid} bA ''.iextid^
•if'«kolYa XX/' i.Tf;:t ■< (noojtti ba la^ee^t ttaoo t^i
.^.irjj' '^ :r -.Lii .\t sat'Xixaoo ata^^ao
oantatfi} •di to ^aq:
1 >r ' 3otS iadt btmo£9 Mooe-x
£ jjf atlffli!xft alBttao
c : ttoetifo XjOA iaodiiyi d:
i: tl balAJS bn.^ aJ^lilitca
•»rf* TOi \9artGiia ah
4.
that the executors were defending in their representative
oapaoity. An attorney for claimant said "suh sequent to
the deatho" The court said "If it is anything that transpired
auhsequent to the death of Horace Stocking," and an attorney
for claimant said he would make the witness competent "before
he git through. No ruling waa made and at a later stage in
the examination and apparently refeiring to this siih^ect, the
court said: "I haven't riled on that yet." We conclude that
the estate did ohjeot generally to the competency of claimant
and that the court did not rule upon that ohjection "but re-
served it. The ©"bjeetion, however, was not well taken he-
oause it applied to all the testimony of claimant, and he
testified to m^ matters ocouring after the death of Horac»
Stocking and as to v/hich he was competent. Before the close
of claimant's direct examination he was asked if he had ever
received, any part of the principal or interest of the ;il,eay •
note since the death of Horace Stocking, and he replied not
that he knew of, and thn+ he was certain that he wo^^ld know
if he had received it. He was then asked if he had ever re-
ceived any part of it, and he answered no, and he was asked if
he was at that time inde"bted to the estate of Horace Stocking
in an; way that he knew of, and he answered no. Claimant was
called in re"buttal and was ejtejuined upon matters upon which he
was comp*tent, and upon cross examination for th;; estate he
was asked if he made an assignment of his interest to the
amount of said |4,000 note and admitted it. On re -axaminati on
by his counsel he stated that that indebtedness was all paid to
Mr. Stocking before he died, and that his last payment {which
referred to his check to the executor paying the balance on
the note for §1,333.34) cleaned up the assignment. No ob-
jection was interposed at that stage of the exauination. No
.^
r
ji^tliieoMttt ttadi s^tiftii'u- I tarn fruro9 adT '*.ift«eJb odt
r,iot»d' ^fflsi^oq^coo Ba»ii4'lw eAi fOlHi AiCffow td i)i«B iatmiiaLo lol
^/^;^ sJbxriofto© ■:■ . *w ^f^ii* no l)8ltT f'nex .roc
ihcuiaiiilo to ^(0£rod'9qraco vii '^i %Liijnma9% toeldo bU> Qt»ieo Bdi
'■iid cot^o^ldo i^i aoqsj elm: toa Jbib irLuoc &iit tttdi ha&
-orf csiai^ II»w toa suw ,tevoworf .noltf^oetrfo ftiC^ . ■ Jbovaee
<Mf bim ftaaaxaLo 3:o '\(coa]2tBe > i> o^ JbcIIqq^ ;}i esfffio
eaolo eri^ q-xcIo .;raPT3'j.:oc> son 9d dotdv oif sb bna •galiooi^
a«vs Xiiuf erf li Jbe^fOB Sfiw srf iiot^anbaaaK toetlb s^tauiaiaLo lo
• ^iNe^p^ «{* 'io iiotatul 10 IjBtioflliq exl* lo txisq 'iru.Jbeviaoe'r
^o/i ieilCiO'r: od baa ,8/ii3{oo^8 oaeiofi lo dtatb ^t eoala dfon
wo/rl bL:'OHi sil J-iui;t jr(J:«4"X90 aaw ed ^-idt baa ,%o wea^t ed iudt
-OM "itava ieif Atf ^i: AestPA aed;^ saw eH .4*1 J)e7J:e»e-z ££il •£( li
l:i j&«3lud asw od .':»m ,on Jbdiewsne d({ txus ^tt \o tiaq^ \aji JbeTioo
yiiiooJa 9031^ tRo ©ri* 0* betdebal otatf i&di tB ajpw erf
saw tfremfft- x. oil to* «lo wool oil ;t«£f^ -^w
eri r bo<:l3La^» a^w l>rus I«tttT(foi n.l JbalXso
:±iUAx« •«o«o xioqir baa ,tae^^qmoo asw
eii oaut;^leua £i£ ebam 9d 11 Jb»i[a« unr
riol^' u etoa 000«^t blAB lo ^xurona
ot Jbi. nson^oJ^cfA^x ^ batata arf laaruroo aiil id
dohkw) tt a^olatf bxxI^oo^S .tM
id ot Aai^talai
-uo «ii4 <{tf 4>«iitAei.o (^a.&c;&,I$ 10I etoc odt
0? • *« Jbeaoqn:o;fai aaw ceito*^
6.
one testified any further aTDOut the $4,000 note. Joslyn
produced cancelled checks for all other payments made by him.
The payments made by Xeay on the contract before the conveyance
to him £ind purchase money mortgage for $3,500. seems to have
been distributed. It seems ii|ppssible that Horace Stocking wouDd
pay that money to Joslyn while he held the $4,000. note. In
ordinary business conduct he would apply Joslyn' s share of the
first payments made by Leay on the $4,000 note which was secured
by an assignment of Joslyn' s interest in the entire property.
So, too, when the |3,500 note was paid by leay, he would be like-
ly to apply Joslyn' s interest in that money upon the ^4,000 note.
When it appears that Josjyn shows cancelled checks for every
other payment, and does not show how he paid the $4,000 note,
the reasonable probability is that it was satisfied in part
by Joslyn' s share of the money paid on the $3,500 Leay note.
Joslyn diu. not produce the $4,000 note and it may very well be
that there are endorsements upon it that would explain how it
v/as paid. If the $4,000 note had been paid by Joslyn before the
Leay note was paid, it is strange that with h^ share of that
money not paid to him, he should soon after give Horace Stocking
his note for $1,333.34. Vife conclude that v/e ought to so pro-
tect the estate of Horace Stocking as to require the time and
manner of satisfaction b;) claimant to Horace Stocking of said
^4,000 note to be shown more fully than this reGo;rd discloses.
If the objection to the competency of ^sai^^^^^£c%- as a wit-
ness in his own beha^lf was taken under advisement by the court,
it should have been sustained and we must treat it as sustained j
and then there is no competent proof in this record that that
$4,000 was paid except unsatisfactory inferences. Until it is
paid and its lien upon this trust fund extinguished, claimant
cannot recover. The judg|ment is therefore reversed and the
cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
xr(X«o^ .oiofi 000,^ ^i taodt i9AtitA \ti£ tsltJttee^ tat
Mjxom sniilo^^d es^ioM ^j^lt •XtfJLaaQf^tJt Mie«a tl .Jbe^xrtflnlBlb naetf
t'ljuis 8'ix\^B0^ ^Xqf<a AXxrow md tdMbabo asMdajortf ^lACiibio
v^ tu)w si^id^ t^OK 000«^ aiC^ no ^«ed \{cf •Jbai a^aaor^aq ^aill:
. ^;^'s»<ioiq tittat bdt oi ^eara^al a'ar^Xao^ lo ^Maanslaaa a« ^tf
-©Xil erf JbX.<;^w wf .^»" 'i<f ilA<l ««*w a^on C06,ii;| aif^ aaiw ,ooJ ,oB
.8d-or, OOQ,H f^i sio<iS \{*coia ^a;^# ai i^efial a'miXae^ ^Xqtja oi xL
\-xe7« Tolc 8:^os>i(o ibaXIaMteo ST/oKe xr^Xec^l* sfisiit aaaeiqr a ;M fieifV
^etcn 000«>$ srC.t Mvo (jrf worf worfa ton aeo6 Jhcus ^JxtaervMq "xailto
^Vif; ,.i tp. \iA.Zi.(i§iSoiq fiLdBao&a^s. lit
9(f XXsw Xttnr xfica tt JbUM ttua. 000, #$ Bdi 9t>cb(rTq ten i*lJb xneXao!^
il wai ;9^aX(,iX9 iiXxrow dadil' tl aoqv etjasoiaa'xoiine d'Xi} ai^^ fAii
^ilii'ao^u 3<»4icoE dTjts ^6j^t£ aooa Itlaodit mS ,Jilsi oi hl£^ toa \9B0ttt
-(T. .'idt BbuZ^ano 9li «^€.SS&, It tol aJ>oa aXit
i'jh ^i.lt>o:rc. fiocxoH to atjii^^as 8il;f to9i
DisB ^o ^oiJU/Owfi aoj^oii o^ toji^l&lo ,d aoifoaleltaa lo ■xaiouun
• 8 il ^n^XXtA i(«oa owQda atf co a;toii 000, X^^
--' ^ to xaJx«.teqaKi« actiT o;f izoiJrecta'o Bdt %I
^iv^« :taAXTtr r'Aw llfftdad owo a±4i nl auaa
.l£)^ajcre aaatf cTaii jbisorfa tl
T rij^ ioo-i(; Tr:*Tt>qu.o© oa al •tttii a»di bna
:ai \xoi-DjclaU«t:ii0 ^qaoxa JbJfcau aiHr 0(X>,^#
nx)t i^Bvii aiilt rro^jr natX aitl f<aa Maq
f+ i< r ♦'.4..i|«r rrf ..«i- . .'laTooerc (oaruiu
.i)ei>nMaaa nejxao
^"^^ second"^ Is^nic-r'"'^^ \ ''■ I> JUSTUS L. JOHNSON. Clerk of the Appellate Court,
in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof,
do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court m
the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of
said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this day of
in the vear of our Lord one thousand
nine hundred and twenty-
Olerk of the Appellate Coiirt.
bl''^
'^>
rj I J / 1.
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COUI
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the Murth day of October,
in the year of our Lord one thousand 5n.ne hundred and
\ /
twenty-one., within and for the Sec(^d District of the State
of Illinois^:
Present--The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL / Pres iding Jus t i ce .
Hon. NORMAN L. J0NE6 , Justice.
/'
Hon. AUGUSTUS A. />ARTLOW, Justice.
\ /
JUSTUS ,L. JOHNS,
;/n,
Clerk.
CURT S. AYERy, Sheriff.
22 3 I.A. 660
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
NOV 2 1921 ^^^ opinion of the Court was filed in the
Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
b
6909 No. 1^
The Globe & Rutgers Fire Insurance )
Company, |
Plaintiff in Frror, ) Writ of Error to the
T«. ) Circuit Court of
The Illinois Oil Company of ) Rock Island County.
Rock Island, )
Defendent in Error. )
PARTLOW, J.
Plaintiff in error, the Globe & Rutgers Fire Insurance
Company, began an action of assumpsit in the circuit oourt of
Rock Island county against the defendant in error, the Illinois
Oil Company of Rock Island^ Upon a trial by jxiry there was a
▼erdict for defendant in error and to review the judgment rendered
on the verdict a writ of error has been prosecuted from this court.
On December 1, 1916, plaintiff in error issued a policy
of insurance to defendant in error on several oil tanks situated
in Oklahoma* The policy contained a recital that each of the tanks
was constructed of steel with steel roofs. Subsequently a fire
loss occured and it was claimed that three of the tanks did not
have steel roofs as provided in the policy. A disput-^ arose over
settlement of the loss on account of these three tanks being with-
out steel roofs and negotiations for a stt lament were commenced.
Porter and Hoffman, who were insurance brok-rs, were actively
engaged in conducting these negotiations. Fach party denies that
Porter and Hoffman wfre their agents. Wagner and Glidden acted as
adjusters and the total loss was fixed by them at |13,356.93, It
is claimed that there was a settlement but there is a sharp con-
flict in the evidence as to its terms.
Adolpli F» Hoffman, one of the brokers, testified that
he had a conversation in the Hot'l Tulea, in Tulsa, Oklahoma, with
Frank P, Welch, the president and general manager of the defendant
f toed
»i; r-tS 10 *llf (. ,101X1 at ^\t}at£t^
.^♦ojooO iarX*! Xoofl ( lo yaJsqaoO ItO atoatlll 9tSf
f ( tboAfisI ioofi
•Mutiucsl ^ilt ei98*«a A ecfoXO irf* «ioitq at \J.tfaJts£H
atoffilXX dif^f «Toai6 ax ra*<ta3t&t 9di^ ^Bnt^ei^a y^fauoo tttslsl ioofi
.' '.en 9i[9xf* xt^t t"^ C-eit? is: .TciO ifcOjsIal afooH lo XJOwqaoO XiO
i>«i»£a«7 ■tmU!:fiJb&|; «td^ 7»iTa? o^ Jbits totts at fa£ba9\&b lo^ tolimT
otI Jb»;fi;osao^q n^sri sjstf totis lo tXiw « tolJbiST 9rft no
^oiloq ^ tejjael loiie <1 l\ltfli*Xq ,3X81 ,1 iscfoaoea nO
b6fJUSti9 BiCUit XiO iJ8T9Y9« flO lOllS fli tiX.3fc£T9l8t oJ sozi^Ti/aai lo
. 1 :t v* "- r:o«e ftsii Ittt^^x « /jdniaiaoo ^o-t-toq *dT .jB«iod«XiO nl
5iii .£ iJ.Ta&ixpeaduB .s^ooi Xds.ia jlttv Xaaj-s "to Jbatouxtaaoo bsw
9ofl jbtb KTlaai '•*di lo :i«sx/l^ Sjittt^ t^mtMlo isv it bus tsxuooo aaol
rwwo ^iOTA toqaiJb A .xolXoQ aHJ' nl tafcfvotc; SuB aloOT Xwrfa Wjfcd
-ntiw ignlstf BttLzf -it-xd*. a.^atf^ To tat/aoojs ao taoX 9df to ^asmeXMea
,t«ofl*»«oo 97-^- -^-r^T' Tol «nol:t«it09aa bas a!tooi I^ata ^o
Tf/-v^t;' ^otcd aofl^ivaffjt ©law oxfw .aj^jnlloR bae x9tro^
tMc: . xotiAtto^^ea eeodt ^attoubaoo al 1 93.831x9
ax t9i^* a^btlG true i9a^«V .ajnas-* rt^^ 9%S9 aJueWoH trua istto?
tl .SC.r :£,CX xtf a4iv aaoX Istoi ^dt ba£ az9S9U^bM
-r. i 9T9rf 'iraX.^ ' ?B a ajBw aiad^ t£dt b9mt£lo ai
.8«n* 9Ji eoaeJtiTe dri;f nl ^olXl
dtiv ««BCf(j-XafO ,atXtfT at ,44XtfT r t^ atf.-) al aot&s9i9ra9o * Isd »d
in error, in whiob it was agreed that plaintiff in error shoxild
pay the full loss amounting to $13,356*93 and that defendant in
error would pay the difference between the premiuin charged on the
origins 1 policy of insurance and the amount of premium which would
have be en charged had the three tanks had steel roofs, which dif-
ference in premium amounted to $1350.00, and, in addition to pay-
ing the difference in premium, the defendant in error agreed to
again insure its property with the plaintiff in error. Hoffman
is not oorroboratt d in this respect by any other witness.
On the other hand Frank P, Welch testified that he had
a conversation with Hoffman, in Tulsa, in the presence of Tilliam
F* Bowen and Walter A* Rosenfield, in which it was agreed that
plaintiff in error would pay the full lose amounting to |13, 356.93
provided the defendant in error would give plaintiff in error an
additional two years insurance on the property at the rate of $1.75»
He is corroborated in this by Bowen and Rosenfield.
On December 13, 1917, a check for |13, 356.93 sent by
plaintiff in error through Hoffman to defendant in error was
cashed by the defendant in error. A demand was made on defendant
in error for the |1350 additional premium on the original policy of
insurance as testified to by Hoffman; also for 1334,38 for what is
Icnown as a binder, that is for premium on insurance \inder a tempc—
rary contract, pending the issuance of a policy. Defendant in
error refused to pay either of these amounts and this suit was be-
gun.
Several reasons are urged why the judgment of the trial
court should be ^leversed but none of them are argued by plaintiff
in error. Coxinsel has seen fit to merely state the grounds without
presenting their view thereon.
At the close of plaintiff in error's evidence and again
at the close of all the evidence, a motion was made to direct a
verdict for plaintiff in error. The refusal so to do is assigned
&
tissoAMi ioi<x« at IJtimksl^ tMdf b^^ritm mtm tt tfoldv at «iciie at
at faiita9i^b i«l^ boM fif.8ac«ex| ot 'mtiassomM «aoX llu\ 9di xsq
9dt *iit a9fnit%<S •ociVfWtb 9di t«9 ^^ov to^n»
-ttb doistv «r>loo« iM^a fr«d[ tia^t •airlf sdt bsa Jba^Tjaiie 09^ trad
o^ £>»*tS« losie at ^asta^\9b «df ^»uim»iq at •oasTaUlb tdi ^t
ojsalloH .loiTd ai ItitAtjtXq 9di {iitv xtrsqoiq aft duraal ats^
toaqasi ai4^ ai 1 3;f.3aoooTioo toa ai
■: ".IX . .ou .-a iq ju.- wi »^«XiiT «i ^Aanl^oH ditm floij**^ > .^ujc a
,.-.,«» 'foiifii «i (AXeitaMoR •A xa^tl^l £i|« a>woa .1
S. . _ . : ssol i;Xjat ^di x*<J AXi/ow toxt* &t WliatAlq,
c- -yoi: srA la afYij Aliiow lOTie ai .^n-;b: ^.laJb 9rf;f iiabJl'VOXq
2Y.I' ^0 .' -?pTt^ Wl^ no •oaiTUL/Bai -.w^t X.8aoititJb«
.ii,"! .a J8»fl bas a^woS \d aixf* ai bifarofiortoo ei aH
-dt Se.'^^C.eil 7o^ ir»t; , -31 ,SX TSi-fMSOdO itO
>b ao 4^ ua>rla«o
fttiXoq UalT^t"- ^tto tttSibs 0
eon£TUaai
-r r*' . ,Tsi>nitf £ a£ awojrf
9oa.evaai ai^ ac^te^ «ip«TtaQo xx«a
t)'JB«*87
J. ^e-i^vM 9cf tiJiOiia ^itfoo
-u-.T^, n» a 9*ti X9aavo0 .iQ^-xa ai
. ----ii *air -» '- ->'■• -—-
..«,;, ..0 aaoXo
... -^-..v .AOA«i^i»» ad* XX- J -Lii-^
w- -. oa I^'*u*9T 3dT .Toxia at ^ll-tni^Xq tol totbrxBT
a.
as error, espeoially as to *1350.00 on theg|;ound that a settlement
was made and there was an accord and satisfaction. In support of
this contention it is claimed that if the check was sent in full
payment and conditions were attached to this check, that the sending
of the check and the accompanying conditions constituted an offer
of accord and satisfaction, and the xeoeipt of the conditions and
appropriation of the money constituted the acceptance of the con-
tract. For this reason it is urged ther was no question of fact
for the jury as to liability on the $1350 item, but it was a
question of law for the court and the court should have directed a
verdict. In si^iport of these contentions several cases involving
accord and eatisfaotion are cited, including Ennis v. Pullman Palace
Car Co.. 165 111. 161; Snow v* Griesheimer, 330 111. 107; Canton
Coal Co. V. Parlin, 315 111. 344.
If the facts in the case at bar were not in dispute but
were likt the cases cited there would be merit in the contention
Of the plaintiff in error. Where a check is sent in full payment
and conditions are atte^ched, the sending of the check with the ac-
companying conditions constitute an offer of accord and satisfac-
tion, and the receiving of the check and cashing the same constitute
the acceptance and a contract is thereby affected. Plaintiff's
contentions as to such an accord and satisfaction are disputed in
this record. It is xindiaputed that some kind of a settlement was
made at Tulsa, Oklahoma. Four persons were present at the stttle-
ment. One of them testified to the settlement as contended by
plaintiff in error, the oth r three testified in support of the
claim of settlement of the defendant in error. If Hoffman had full
power and authority from the plaintiff in error and acting as its
agent, entered Into a valii and binding contract with Welch, as the
agent of defendant in error, at Tulsa, Oklahoma, in which contract
it was agreed that the plaintiff in error was to pay the loss in full
on condition that the defendant in error should again insure its
^■"* '1 soltastfloo aid*
.*0JB1*
« ■ '^rioT ^qqtr« «I .toifcasr
-i.t!'^ .T . i inl ,'.T;):l,';ior. , ooa
20tnx .XII OSS (TSAi •/(•«. ^08 iXSX •XII 2dl ..oO zjbO
tfi- ^^q 9x1* to
\oo aaoI*ltao9 BXiXXflB(;pioo
•totX;i8.iu9 d£. 3 jiixXvIao^'X add , loX*
fi '' ' D0£ ad*
■ ' T^'rs... . IC'C&o ^'.3 : Ci/L 07 ?.f <-.:10XJa 9^X100.
« ' '■
^ " ' ^ yiuq^tbtoj 8jt *I .Jbaoosi aldif
-' . -nOi^aliO xA^iat i£ ajbjBs
, , ^ ... a»* aari* lo 3«0 . *aoffl
os-ri'- 1 i^c s.-f* , loiaa fli l^X*xxXjBlq
5 ta«Ni'»X**9e *o ntALo
IlL
i*lLaoo 00
property with plaintiff in error for two years, then all of the
parties to that oontrac" were boxond by its terms and had the right
to rely upon that oontraot and to have it enforced, Unler euoh
conditions neither the plaintiff in error nor Hoffman had any right
to substitute other terms or conditions for the ones contained in
the contract. Hoffman in a letter of December 5, 1917, stated that
plaintiff in error had agreed to pay the lose in full on the basis
of increasing the rate on the present ineiirance policies to S3.70 ,
making an additional premium of tl350, together with continuing in-
surance for two years. On December 11, 1917, Welch replied to this
letter denying that any such cgreem.ent was made* The draft for the
f\ill amount of the loss was dated December 13, 1917, and had no
conditions attached to it. On December 13, 1917, Hoffman sent this
draft to defendant in error, together with a letter in which he
stated that the settlement was based on an additional premium, and
requested a check for the same. The mere statement of Hoffman in
the letter containing the draft that the settlement was on a 3^
basis and reqiie sting a check for the balance did not aione and of
itself bring the facts of this case within the rule as to accord
and satisfaction announced in the oases cited by plaintiff in error.
The terms of the centre ot, and the question of the authority and
the agency of Hoffman were in dispute. These were not questions
of law flor the court, but were disputed questions of fact for the
jury to determine, and the court committed no error in refusing to
direct a. verdict upon the question of the additional premium claim-
ed to be due .
As to the $364,68 for binder insurance, plaintiff in error
contends thaa there was no dispute as to this part of the contract,
that it was part of the terms of settlement, the araoxmt was not
disputed and the court should have directed a verdict*
It is not claimed by plaii tiff in error that any written
(r
roqjU xlvi et
'v>'CT'v)ri iC' T x : 1 : 7iti. •'^i 'j 7uj air. x^a afiolli&xiOO'
,'"''•'■ ," TSffa««»a ^o t*it9l ji ttl naaYialE tttBttaot adt
.., _^^ ..i. &soI *tft ^jsq oi ::tJ2-ri* tjsxf T0TT9 Hi 1"i^nlaXq
^ Irilaq *ca -l4/«ai ^a«a*l . :v 9**1 Sid* gflle to
.'(it .?^X| lo aulaaiqr Ijeaoi'^ilM^i? as ^atizm
"s-'T-oaQ flO .sTAfei -. eoasrmt
lout \aB f f^fft ^crhfc
t<-j(}!t:eoen i>»*£Jb •«« etc
,ioai© at iasta^Tiai: xt
8as«.t«*^
tir:
W tud (*1i/00 •X{* loi
;S t^ en : oo
: ^#
policy or other writing vfas ever issued oove ing this binder insur-
ance exopt as hereinafter stated, and we hold under authority of
Cottinghaui v, Nat* Church Ins. Co. 290 111. 37, no writing was
iKoessary. John D» Lester, assistant secretary of the plaintiff
in error, testified that the plaintiff in error issued a hinder
which was given number 237960^, that it was issued to defendant
in error for Two Hundred Thousand Dollars, was in force from Decem-
ber 31, 1917, to February 7, 1918, and that Porter and Hoffman took
the binder with them, Hoffman testified that the binder he ordered
had no particular number on it. Welch wrote to Hoffman to the
effect that a letter had been received from Hoffman stating that
Porter and Hoffman had covered defendant in error's property in the
sum of Two Jfundred thousand dollars and he asked for information
concerning the same. Welch wirdd once or twice to plaintiff in error
about the binder covering defendant in error's property. One time
he received a reply and was referred to Porter and Hoffman and the
other time he received no reply. The binder was only for temporary
insurance pending the issuance of a policy. The check in settlement
was sent December 12, the binder was not issued until December 31,
and while it was only intended to be temporary it was permitted to
remain in force and effect according to plaintiff in error until
February 7, 1918. Under this condition of the evidence it was a
qiiestion of fact for the jury as to whether or not a binder was in
fact issued, what ooaipany issued it, what property it oivered; how
long it was in force, its amount and the premium, and for these reasoaa
the trial court did not err in refusing to direct a verdict for this
item*
Complaint is made of the refusal of the trial court to
permit the witness Letter to detail a conv«rsation between Hoffman
and Candee, vice president of the plaintiff in error. This conversa-
tion was out of the presence of defendant in error and ae the proof
C(
jjaitXiv on « _ .-_- -u _ AOVtiiX} ,ttM ,r aaui-^atti^O
'«nl «s* ' ,i069TCS i»cf«m asTl^ tjv ilx>tdw
^/.^(•^^►eg Jb«tii T->!to^ tad* JbajE ,SXei ,V tiJStfTtfoT o* .Tiex .
3/f# b9nttm9i njsHH^oR .nodi d^iw 7»i
toiir dol9W ,ft ao ndmua lAissottimq^ oa bsd
*: Xiif^OTi a'tciTS ai .^Oftadlaifc tsisroo ttul a^sMoH fciu is^to^
nc "i^C-'z- ©If tn.B »?T3lXofc Jb«i:8Uo;tftf b^ttaaf qwT ^o aOEIt
Tot- '^r>ivi TO 9oao L*iiw ifoXsW ^dt sixlcraaoiTbO
' -3TT9 ai tnAbn«^8l) srila»Too asLfltlrf ad* ;f0oef«
•tf# fcfl.fi a*Ax'ofi t>«ri i^^jio^ 0+ Jt»«Ti©leT a«r fcoA xXqai ^ fceviiosx ed
T^TOcjBie:' ^=*ald adT .xXq^a on fc3Tl9o*x 9£ emit TSif^o
:^a:- .'Xoq 4 lo ft«ajau8 8 2 9d^ -^aiiiaBq ^oajixu^at
Xitmj roiii ai \'^ ' -^. '^ c;f .^niittoooji ioslla ba« •otoI aX iiX«a«t
fl »«■ ^i »n'»-= f-' 'oMf lOo aid* i&i«n .-^191 ^t ^i^^xriddt
.. ^sm labiti - - .-; - -.a* tx«t *^- J«^ *o aoi*»««P
wci ;kit Vic ': Ti7?ac-?o tartw »:tX batxaaX vai;cpoo tiiif-.v ,^£yaBl iloal
B««e*t ^g»i' idi ttts tmro^x i saoX
tX/ 4il*
• na^X
J ::ixaa at ialMlqaiaO
- 'i»q
-^ . . , ^aiiiuO LfLfi
70iq a/J:? 3 »■«'' aoX*
dd*A not show that Hoffman was the agent of defendant in error
the evidence was properly excluded.
The Plaintiff in error ooniplair.s that the witness
Qnayle was permitted to testify that no policy or doc\iment na.B
issued to evidence the binder insurance* 'Upon examination we find
that Quayle d£d not so testify but he did tes+ify that no policy
or binder was ever received by defendc^nt in error. While it is
true that no policy need be iasued to render the insuranc" binding,
yet there must be some evidence upon which a liability could be
based* We sec no error in the evidence admitted.
The fifth instruction given by the court told the jury
that if they believed from a preponderanc ■ ox the evidence that the
plaintiff made and sent to Porter & Hot'fm;.n its check for |'13,356«93
as the same appeardd in evidence, without the endorsements thereon,
and that Porter & Hoffman transmitted said check to the defendant
and enclosed with said check a letter imposing certain conditions
upon the acceptance of said check by defendant, then the def':ndant
would be bound to accept said conditions in case they acoeoted said
check; provided thc-jury believed from a preponderance of the evi-
dence that Porter & Hoffman were the authorized agents of plaintiff
in imposing said conditions.
The only objection to this instruction by plaintiff in
error ie that it was highly prejudiofe^to instruct the jury that
before the plaintiff could recover it must show that Hoffman was
the authorized agent of plaintiff in error to impose said condi-
tions. The evidence shows that negotiations of settlement were
made by Hoffman. In order to bind plaintiff in error h© must have
been the authorized agent of plaintiff in error and that element
was properly contained in the instruction.
Objection is made to the first and fourth instructions
in which it is urged that the court improperly told the j\iry that
l:; totXoq ■ Lt*9t tii ti%)Hur9q a«ii sXx409
tc r«di T^trat Lit sd tmd x\ti%9t oa i^oa 1)^ slxsafi tadi
atf bXjtfo^ . '^-Iw noqpu dofl9i>l79 esoe &'' ;f8u ^ti^
.L'9t7J:a5ji •»(r9t)iv9 9di ai loaia or etm dW «£da4d
5 a 9x^5 aoiiouiient di\ll aitfT
1 fcooqe-rof ^ -sot"!: teTsJtXad ^sii* H Mftt
. bT.,ii> to* ao.«>o .^^x fl ^"i/oH A T»;f"So9 o^^ ;cts% fcfi* 9tj)m WlitttAtti
■:btv at thxsi^q» aajw ^t b£
-n-J:-] .St • » £3j jin.fiiX^'Xt AjBalloB * I'^^^nY *«£:i baa
'Col' t' aco r.i-ti -o s" ' a^fauC # ipaicto Jbl^a xi^lr JbaaoXoud btM
- - ~ - •' ,;t««:ucr r^. ^J ^oaxio tlJSB lo •0flJS^::0oo4 adt aoqu
•^" b»T»iI»-3' x«'t'^''^* ^eJbivoiq iioaulo
.anoi^^ !oo viJtM ^oisoqal at
^^ iv^i -ill'. -- .:i? >i aoi^aatJa X^no atfT
-ac x.-irr ...^ ,r..i-'—--' ■• '-^IfcirtaH tXdjlrf aAtr ft j-jEii. .- ^-,*a^
- - fl -■" '" ' -^ ;voo»t tlAoo \^ltat*X<i adt arotM
-^'Lrr^i ... ilttnlalt lo *fl9;|JB fcatlio/ltwjB •:dt
■n-w ..; .. , _ ^._. .arjea tail* avoxfa ooasfclTa 4tfT .Bcrot*
9V«rf .tai;'a tfli tot.' rtl **." rif*/.-, tai; :? latio al .^AJBtloH ^c^' ^aai
fata.'. > ^ .^ ft9«fT0rftn* 'Jirit iia»v'^
.'•o!"' -r^Hirl '^K? :ite<T05q aaa
aaoif. - !:>tt«»t'^0
*^i Xii/t rf blv^ >roo sd* t*<I# b'^xtt 9t ft xiotiftr «1
a binder was a document. As we have before said a binder does not
have to be a writing or a docxunent and the first instruction lid
not so state, but the fourth instruction defin:3 a binder as a
document. This definition is in aocordanc^ with the evidence in
theo&ee* James D. Lester, a witness for plaintiff in error, stated
that plaintiff in error i aued its binder which was given the
number 337960j and that Porter and Hoffman took the binder with
them. Hoffman testified tl^t the binder had no particular number.
What this binder oonsielts of or what evidence there was of its
existence does not appear from the evidence but if it had a
numb«^r and was delivered to Hoffman, it certainly did not consist
of an oral contract of insurance and the instruction was in ac-
cordance with the evidence.
We find no reversible error and the judgment is affix'ned.
Judgment Affirmed.
a
K
'.\itAi[«Xq tot MftQ .'1 eOM^L ••a^o^it
eii. ^c ^ >^^ *o&9JbiT9 isitm urn lo «t*isaoo IdJbiLtcf tMt IWKff
.: (. . ji »Ofl>UJtr« mit mvjf\ xa^qqjs ton »iob 6oa9tatx9
"sikcoc tea itL ^.i.^i3^xH ^i ,a«»iloH o:^ L»T9vlIadb ««v has 'c^dnva
^'^''L^o^d'^dis™!''^' I- ^«- I. JUSTUS L. JOHNSON. Clerk of the Appellate Court,
in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof.
do hereby certify that the foregon.g is a true copy of the opnuon of the said Appellate Court m
the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof. I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of
said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this day of
_ in the vear of our Lord one thousand
nine hundred and twenty-
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
:§
"i 3(^
■v.^ / c^cU, -O
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE QCURT ,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, th^^fourth day of October,
in the year of our Lord one thousand/nine hundred and
twenty-one, within and for the Sec/nd District of the State
of Illinois: \
Present--The Hon, '^ORRANCE DIBELL/ Pres iding Justice,
Hon. NQRMAN L. JON^S , Justice.
Hon. AUGUSTUS A. /aRTLOW, Justice
f
JUSTUS L. JOHNSfl^, Clerk.
CURT S. AYERs/ Sheriff .
o o
3 I»A. 66T
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
i\IOV ^ l^-'^l *^® opinion of the Court was filed in the
Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
6936 Agenda Uo. 39.
Appeal from the
CircTzit Court of
McHenry Coxinty.
John Harrison,
Appellee
vs.
Julia P. Herrington,
Appellant.
Partlow, J.
Appellee, John Harrison, obtained a judgment for
$480.00 in the circuit court of McHenry county against
the appellant, Julia P. Herrington as a coxmnission for
the sale of real estate and this appeal was ^irosecuted.
Appellant contends that the evidence does not support
the verdict. It is undisputed that, in March, 1918,
appellant placed 400 acres of her land in the hands of
appellee for sale, and that on Fehruary 21, 1919, she
entered into a contract of sale with Fern Rogers for
160 acres in the center of the farm. She afterwards
entered into another contract with Rogers for another
160 acres, and later sold him the remaining 80 acres.
She claims that all of these sales were made throu^
William Douglas, her confidential advisor and agent, after
appellee had informed her that he would make no further
efforts to sell the land.
The evidence consists of the testimony of appellant,
appellee and Douglas. Appei^lee testified that, in March,
1918, he had a conversation with appellant at her home
in Woodstock. She asked him what he thought her land was
worth. He told her it was worth $160.00 per acre and she
told him to sell it at that jrice and she would pay him
two per cent commission. He then went to Pern Rogers,
her tenant, and had a talk with him about the place.
.9Z .oK ebnwgk dS(d
( ,rio8i:a7aE adoX,
f eelleqqA
.vJiuioO ^^aaEoii ( .8t
(
( .noi^nlaieH .1 zlLnT,
( .i-oBlIdqqA
Tol (friMoa^t ' -baiilB^ifo ,no8lTTaH ndol^ .salleqqA
taai&^B ^^njxoo TcrnaHoM lo *ixroo ttnoilo edt at OO.Oe^-f
10^ notaatcasaoo a aa noJgaliioH .'i «iIuL .irialleqqa exIJ
.Jb8j-xR)S80ic, ai::w Iseqqa eldi had eiBiaa Xaei lo elaa exfj'
i-ioqq j£ ioa aeob eoaublre edi iedi abaetaoo ^nalleqqA
»8iei ,dozsii at ,tadt baiuqatban at *I ,tolbiey adt
lo abasd Qdt at baal tad lo aeioa 00* baoaLq Jnallaqqa
•da ,QL£Z ,IS Tircaincfal no tad* Lna .alaa io1 eelleqqa
Tol aiosofl mel ditm alaa lo *oaii^noo a otat beiefaa
abiBwi9tJ.B adZ ,an.gii edt lo leiaeo &dt at eeioa 061
tsi&oaa lot B^rsgoH ditn toa-itaoo ladioaa oiat baiatae
• aeioa 08 T^tatamai edt mid bloa latal baa , aeioa OdI
it^uoidt aJbaoi encew aolas 9aerf;f lo Lis t&dt asntaZo ad8
"letlfl ,iaef^s baa roatrha laUnafiilnoo tad ,aaIairoCI mallXlW
tedttifi on eiim JEtlxrow ad iadi tad ^enrxolnl bad ealleqqa
,baaL edt Ilea o;f etiolle
,;tnarieqqa lo \;flomltaai odt lo a^alanoo aonaJblve exfT
.iloiaU at ,iBd& ^olli^aei eallaqoA .aalgxroa Jbna eelleqqa
efflod tad ie taalX^qqa dit^ aottaataraoo a bad ad ,8LQL
eaw baal tad td-%uodt ad tarfw axtd Jbeiea adB .ioo^eLooW at
arfa bL. ■ etoa leq OO.OSIf dtto^ asm it leif bLoi eH .il*iow
mtd ^aq iblnow etria baa eol'x^ tad& ia it LLaa ot tatd bLoi
,8ie90.: cnal oi cfxxew aadi efi .aoiasionnoo ^aeo leq ow^
• eoaXq exit iaoda axtd ditu tlai a bad baa ,SaaaeS tad
Rogers said he would not pay $150.00 'because hw could
get it for $125.00. He had another talk with Rogers in
May, 1918, and told Rogers that if he would buy for
$150.00 an acre that a road would he put through the
farm that would increase its value, and Rogers told him
he would buy if the road could he put through. Nothing
more v;as done for two or three months. Appellee examined
the records of the township to see what had been done
on several other occasions when attempts had been made
to open this road. In the early fall or winter of 1918,
a month or six weeks before the farm was sold to Rogers,
he again saw Rogers who told him that he had just about
decided to buy the farm, but was afraid he could not get
the road. Appellee said he would do his best to get the
road and thought it could be secured. Appellee testifidd
that he saw the commissioners of highways and secured an
attorney to draw a petition for the road and the petition
was presented to the commissioners who refused to grant
it. An appeal was prayed to the county superintendent
of highways but the road had not been opened because the
township had no money with which to pay the damage. He
also testified he did not go with Rogers at the time the
contract to sell was made, 'because there had been so much
opposition over the road he was afraid some one might see
him and think he was acting for personal reasons. In
March, 1920, he talked with the appellant and told her
that he sold the farm to Rogers on account of laying out
the road and that he was entitled to his commission, and
she told him she did not think so because Mr. Douglas
sold the farm.
Appellant testified to the making of the contract of
sale with appellee. In May, 1918jj[i she said that appellee
JaLaoo nd osuaoetf OC.OdI$ x«q toa bluow td btae aie^oS
at 8i09o£ dtt-n iZAi ^tdioaa bad eH .OO.Sai| lol tl teg
Tol ^xrrf l>rirow ed \l fadi eie^oH Mo* Jbxifl ,8X61 ,^aM
0i(* il^iroidit too ed Jblxrow Ikaoi £ *arft aioa na OO.OSl|
.Bid JbXo;f aaasoH bas ,eirl8v a;tl •aadToxil JSIirow ;tBdi' nrcBl
8i"iidd'ol! .dyroid* taq ed bLaoo baor edJ 11 xad bLaov ed
ionl.uBxe esIIaqqA .adJnom eeodJ- to ow* lol endl) aaw eiom
onoi) ae9d bad tsd^ii eoa o* qiflarcwo^f ed* lo aJbiooei ed*
eJbBrn noed ^Bd B*q.aB**« nedw anolBBooo led^o laievea ao
,6191 to i9tal<N TO Lls,\ \lrae ©d* al ,b&o% ahii aaqo o*
,aT930/. 0* f>l08 BBw fliTBi 9d* ©Toled ^%9»m xia to d*aoni «
*0odB tacrl had ed tadt mid blot odw aTdgoS waa alarga ed
*93 ton bLaoo ed btatla aan iird ,inTBl edt ^d o* hebloeb
ad* *d8 0* *a»cf aid oi Jblxrow ed bt,i:,e aQlIeqqA ,J&bot od*
JbAi'S:i*8«* eelXeqqA .iJSTjjoea ad f)Ixroo *x td-^uodi baa bacn
aa bertiioea baa a-^awdgid io aTexxoiealoanoo ed* waa od *a|d*
noi*i*iq ed* jbxiB baoi ed* toI noi*i*eq a WBxb o* ■^eOT0**B
*n«T3 0* boaul9i odw BTenolaalflmioo ed* o* lie*neaeTC£ aaw
*neJ&ne*niTeq!je ^*mroo ed* o* l)e\;BTq aaw iBeqqa iXA ,*i
«d* eauBOed l)en©qo need toa biui baoi ed* tad a\avd^Xd io
. ^^Buibl) ori* -^aq 0* doldw ri*lw ^exiom oa bad qldanwo*
adi eiui* ed* *b aTesoH d*jtw 03 *Ofl bib ed J⪙tl*ae* oala
rioxtn 08 noed J^ad eTed* eaxraoe^f ,ebasn bbw IXea o* *OBT*aoo
ee« td^lm eao enioa IjIbtIb bbw ed ^bot edt levo flol*XBoqqo
«X .BfloaeeT ranoaTeq 10I ^itoa asm ed Inld* ba» mid
" " ftXo* baa inaJLLaqqa eit d*jtw liaiXB* ed ,Oii«X ,dOTaH
..j>^ 4z^i\(«X %o *ij.'oooB no aTe^oii o* anal ed* b£oa mi t)uit
bna .noiaairamoo aid o* JbeX*i*no aaw ed tadt baa batn »di
f.».rt;-,r .-..K\ ^T^n.,..- -v. ^^.^<•l.t +M ' :-.f^ «if>«j oaXd J&Xo* eda
..uTBjt edt bLoa
to *DJ3T*rtno 5-u* to yiii«ai ed* 0* i)6i"ti*Be* *aaXXeqqi'.
'''*-f' i : ods ,»8I'«I ,vflM nX .eelXeqaB d*iw elaa
came to see whether she would take a little less money.
She wanted $165.00 net per acre for the 160 acres and
flSO.OO net per acre for the "balance and refused to take
any less. The last time she talked with appellee was
January 17, 1919, on the east side of the put lie square
in Woodstock, when appellee said he had no prospects
for sale, ffarms were not selling and he said he would
give up trying to sell the place. This last part of her
testimony is denied by appellee. She testified that she
had no further talk with appellee until March, 19£0, when
he claimed the commission; that the sale was made through
Mr. Douglas and that appellee had nothing to do v/ith it.
William Douglas testified that he made the sale to
Rogers. He first talked to Sogers ahout it in February,
1919; that appellee had nothing to do with the transaction.
Rogers was not called as a witness by either side, but
the record shows that a subpoena was issued for him by
appellee but he could not be found on the day of the
trial.
Appellant clairas she did not give appellee the sole
right to sell this land. The law is that the principal
may employ several brokers to sell the same property, and
where the land is sold to the buyer who was first procured
by any of them the principal will not be liable to other
brokers who were not the procuring cause of the sale.
Day V. Porter, 161 111. £35. If the broker abandons all
efforts to sell, the principal without liability may make
the sale. 'i"est End Dry Goods Co. vs. Maun, 133 111. App.
544. It is only where the broker is the procuring cause
of the sale that he is entitled to the commission, but
where he is the procuring cause the principal and the
.^*>xior VB9I cZt: ".w e:l8 iBsLiedx s»a o* omao
-onmLad adi lo'i eioa^itq tto OO.O&lf
a^v. ittti beilBi uda tait ^aal edT .aael ^cb
siiJXTpe uildaq erf* Ito oile tsae mdi do ,8X61 ,VI iciaxntol
. J^ssqaoiq on bad ed btaB eeXXeqqa neifw .Xoo^sftooW rxi
bluov axf i)lJ9e sxi l)aa ^XXXsa ion. eiew eonalL .eXaa 16I
lod lo i"iA3q d^aaX BldT .aoeXq •dll' XXaa o* gal-^J qxr evla
ada ^arii^ hutlltafti erf£ .©sllaqqa vrf Jbelnal) el \aomttBet
aeiTw ,Oi>€X .lio^aM Lltass aeXXaqqa xfcMw IXaJ iexf*^x;l on bad
d^sxorsit •bam aaw .eXaa sitf taxf;^ ;noJ:E8Jtnmoo exf^ iemlaXo ed
,tt dttw Ob ot ^Idtoa bad eeXXeqqa iadt baa aaXaj^rod .tM
88 Bdi ataa »d t&dt baHtlia&i aal-gnod. maiXXlW
. 'aintfe^ nl *1 tuoda aiogofl ot Jbeila* taail eH .Bie^oH
oiioaaaaii eA& dtin ob ot -galdtoa bad eeXXeqqa iadt ,-6X6X
iad ,df>iB ledtlB \(i aeeattw a ea beLLao ioa aaw a^e^ofi
\rf aijLd ttt bstmat eaw aneocJij-B a iadt anode btoo&i edt
adt to \ab edi no basrot ©d ton t Luoo ed tud ©eXXeqqa
•Xoa erf# aeXXeqqa evi^ ton i)x£ eda Bo.laXo tnaXXeqq
XaqicnX^q 9dt tadi ai waX edT .^xuiX alcCt XX ea ot trlsli
ibca ,x#Taffrrn '^frsa srft XXee ot aieloTtd Xatcevea •^toXqme ^tam
ieajTooii t»\xr(f edt ot JbXoa ai boat edt eiedw
tceilto at aldatZ ad ton IXJbw I^jqiacliq eiit mexft to ^na xd
to eaoBo ^aiiuoo'tq adt toa eiew odm aieioid
L la maobaada Teloi<f eiit TLl .&£„ dX ,ieti[ol'.v ^aa
•doffl V qioalrxq edt ,XX»s ot q tootle
•Si tiitu . aa exit
etau«o ytnliUDorq -lit ai itoioacT aai a-t(td'*i i(Xno ai tX .Md
tinf .jtGj^aalmiBOo ' tltoa e' ^rft to
exit ijiie XaqioaXan ^ai ausMQ 9allJ;;ou-x^ t>iit ai ad aiadv
customer eaainot collTide and excape paying the commission.
Hafner vs. Herron, 166 111. ii42; Rigdon vs. More, ZZ6 Id.
382.
There is no dispute concerning the original contract
between appellant and appellee. Appellant contends that
this contract was terminated "before the sale and that
appellee was not the procuring cause. These were purely
questions of fact for the jury. It v/as for the jury to
say whose evidence they would helieve. They saw fit to
helieve the evidence of appellee. We will not disturb
the verdict imless it is clearly against the weight of
the evidence. People vs. Mayor of Alton 209 111. 461.
It is not contradicted that appellee took active steps
to lay out the road. If he had not done so that fact
could easily have been shown. He would have no apparent
interest in the road unless he was trying to sell the
land. The time taken to have a hearing on his petition
might explain some of the delay. We have read the evi-
dence with considerable care and cannot say that the
verdict is contrary to the evidence.
The appellant and appellee had some conversation
relative to submitting their controversy to Mr. Jewett of
Woodstock for settlement. The appellee was asked upon
the trial, the following question; "Was it settled on
Mr. Jewett 's say-so?" Over objection he answered, "It
was not." He was then asked if he was "v/illing to
settle on Mr. Jewett 's say-so?" and over objection, he
answered: "I was willing to settle on Mr. Jewett 's
judgment." It is objected that these questions assume
that Mr. Jewett had expressed an opinion in regard to
the merits of the controversy and the answers tend to
.LI d:^ ,91qU .rr aoJb^lfl ;Siftii .HI. ddX ,x[o-xrc«E .sv tieal^H
.aes
.t/3iift JbJXS elAS 9if^ 9T0^e(f Jbsd'Biiiinisd' bbw tosidrtoo elift
illoioq eivw e8»xiT .•axiS* ^xiiixxoarxo ed^ ^on ft^w ^elleqqB
o;^ \/rut ed^f lol aaw *I .T^'t •^^ "^o"^ toBt io anoi^aeup
oi ilt w*« ^eiTi! .sv^llsd Alxrow ^co^t soneilra saoxiw -^aa
tfixnfai;!) ion LHh sVi .»dllee[q£ lo eoneJ&ive ddd' sreilecf
lo ;fri^ew edt taaia^ja -^iPiaela ai *Jt aaeliixr tolbtex add'
.Id^ .III <iOS aotLA to lO^aM. .av olqoe^ .eoaeJ&lra ad^
eqa^a nvltoa Xoot eolleqqa I'jsrCt iDe;l'9i£ai^aoo ;t'0£r aJt ;M
tos'i tadt oa »aob ton bad exi II .baon sdi iuo ^X o^
^iToiAqqa Oil arail iilirow e£ -sxwodB ased evad \LtBU9 blaoo
mii IXaa oi sftlxtt a«r exi aaeXurx baor edi at teara&al
aoltltBO aid ao "gatiaad b ay^ii oi a»:LKi 9isli sd'i JbxiaX
'trm adi Lavx oTaif aW »-^aLab edt lo eaoa fiXjaXqxa id-%ta
9di tsidi^ %se tonnas bne etao dLdBitfblsaoo dityi .aaxfiaJb
.•on»l)iva eri* c* ^imitaoo ai i^ali>'xev
noltsai&vjToo aiaoe bsd aaXXeqqa Ma ^ciaXIaqaa exfT
lo ^^awel* .tM o* ^eiaTO'r;frTOo tltuli T^ntiiladaa ot erttnLst
noqir Ae^taa aaw saXXaqrra erfT .;tn8ffl8X^^9e toJ: HoatsbooH
fi'^ bmL&tB9 tl aaitf" ;nottasap HfiiwoXXo* i>Ai ^Lsirt edt
a aft aoiioo^do tavO "?08-^sa a'^^ewe^ •iH
li f>eia« nodi aati aH " ,ioa saw
. '.oltofjido lero ftoa "?©«->i«« e'd-*aweC .iM no aZiiaa
e',t;f»wo .'jjif ;T0 alitae oi janJtXXiw saw I" iJbeiawaaa
aofv&eA ri eavxfl i&dt baioaldo el tl " ,iaaia%bmi
ot btPiyst ak .^otntro na JfouBeaqxa bad ;f^awa( .<xM tedt
0^ bnai ai^wwii adi bna ^BrceTovtaoo axi^ to a^i^eoi &dt
show that his decision was favorable to appellee. After
those questions were asked and answered, the court per-
mitted appellant to testify that she stated her case to
Mr. Jewett and he did not arrive at any settlement or
agreement. We do not think any of this evidence shouH
have "been admitted hecause it tends to show an attempted
settlement or compromise, but we do not think its ad-
mission constitute reversible error.
Complaint is made that the court permitted the
deputy sheriff to testify that on the morning of the
trial a subpoena had been p]aced in his hands for Fern
Rogers by appellee and that Rogers could not be found.
We see no error in this evidence. Fern Rogers bought the
land. His evidence might throw considerable light on
the question at issue. He had been a tenant of appellant.
Appellee testified to several conversations with him
relating to the sale of the farm. If he could not be
found and that was the reason why he did not testify,
the court and juty had a right to know the reason for
his^l^sence, especially in view of the fact that hia
place of business was in the town near the court house
and he had been in the court room during the term of
court. It was not error to admit this evidence. V/arth
vs. Loewenstein 219 111. 222.
The fourth instruction told the jury that if they
believed from the evidence, facts and circumstances
proved on the trial that the plaintiff, John Harrison,
was the procuring cause in the sale of a part of de-
fendant's lands ujider the terms of an agreement, and
if they believed there was an agreement between the
plaintiff and defendant for the sale, and in such agree-
ment the plaintiff was to be paid a commission, then
-: , .a'xbwaad itxts 6K(aa •lew axxol^aenp eaot(^
ot ••ao v*d Ae^a^a axis tadi ^^ttatti ot ^a^^Iaqqa f>e^^ia
10 ^aaoal^^ea ^a ;ra evl^xia toe hlb ed imM titmBl .iM
biaoda noaeltv alit lo ^xui Hsildt ton oJb aW .^aeinsaTsa
i)d;fq<T:9j'^a oa wode oj^ 3ba9i tt aeuaoatf i>adt^Jtai6a xtaacT araM
-i>d Q^^ jLaid^ J^on ob aw ^ircf .aeimonqinoo 10 ^nemal^i'aa
.■X97ia aX<r.tai;aTei e;f0tl;}'8aoa aOlaaiai
9At Jb&^tjtorxeq ^ixroo 9I£;^ ;f«ii;^ aJMm ai trttalqtnoO
•^axinoni ail^ ao tadi ^^tie&t oi illrrarfe \ina»b
uis'w lol ajbaad ali{ al LeoaLq aaacf itiui aaooqdxra a Lslii
.baadl etf tea bXuoo a^ce^ok tJ3cI;f Ijiis aalleqq^ y.d aie^oH
'di tdv^aod saesoH itie'i .oonaiiive elxfd" al icrria on eae aW
ao id-%11 eLdaiBijleaoo moidi td:%tia aoneJbiva alS .£xiaX
-aaIIaqs.B lo ;^xxAaa;^ £ aaatf Jbaji aH .ai:/aBi ta ao2^ae0p Bdi
mid dilif enoitaa'ie'vaoo I.i^'xevaa ot Jaei'iltaei aalleqqA
atf 3oa blijoo &d II .arua^ a^^ lo alae &dt ot ^oitaXa'x
^-^Itaai ioa bib ed -^w xioeaa^ edt aaw ;fail^ £xib Jbxurol
toi floeaai edt wooat o;t td-^i e bed ^rfct i)Xi8 tiaoo Bdt
aid t.di toal sxft \o weiv ul ^IXaloaqaa ,aona^^ a 1x1
aajDoif iiaoo 9dt ibbr avot edi a.1 aaw aaeaJtajjcf lo aoalq
lo i,ns^ axf;^ •%al'xnb aioon tiiroo ad/ n^ naatf ^ad ad i>iia
dtiatv .eonaljlva aid* *laif)is o;r loiie toa aaw *I .taxroo
.333 •III ilS aiad'enawaoil .av
•ia-'i-' Vi tad;r ^lut 9^* *-Co* noiiosntaal diiuoTi adT
(.Qjoilo £n« a/oal .aoaaJbJcve Bdt moil i)aTelIatf
,noBXi-w^i. uiiM^ rllid-uialq aild* t^t i^tit Bdi no itoYOiq
-•A lo io 8l«a ad* nl aojCMo ^atioooiq ad* aaw
ia£ ,*riaii.o. r-.^noi ad* ae^tur aAaal a'*aai)nel
ad* aaaw*ad - ^toiooas^ xia u^m mi^dt i>avaJtIad ^ad* li
^aa'iga dosin. ul J^au^ ,vrr.e ad* lol *nadbaalaJ& btm lll/niisXq
they were instructed that the plaintiff had a right to
recover even though they might believe and did "believe
that the defendant employed Will Douglas and other persons
to assist in making said sale, and tho^t the said Will
Dougles, or the defendant, or other persons, did assist
in making such sale. The objection to this instruction
is that there is no evidence that Douglas was employed ,
by appellant to assist appellee in making the sale. The
instruction, however, does not state that appellee em-
ployed Douglas to assist appellant. In fact it does not
state who Douglas was employed to assist. The instraction
is not very accurately drawn, is not clear in the language
used, but does not constitute reversible error.
The tenth given instruction told the jury that when
an agreement for the sale of properjjy was entered into,
the agent was entitled to his recompense if he succeeded
in procuring a purchaser who was ready ;^ able and wL lling
to purchase, even though the ov/ner and said purchaser
did not follow the exact terms under iiriaich the property
was listed with the agent. The Objection to this instruct-
ion is that it does not require the broker to make known
his purchaser to the seller. The instruction announces
an abstract proposition of law that has been approved
by the courts in many cases and in fact, under the evidence,
was more favorable to the appellant than it should have
been.
Objection is made to the refusal of the court to give
the third, fourth, fifth and seventh instructions offered
by appellee. The fourth instruction was covered by other
instructions given, and the third, fifth and seventh
0v»J:ju*4 iil- tlleo ^jl^Iin \;er{;t d^aodt aeve itToovx
auoartag len^^ ''od lllil b9\oLqia» ttmba^leb &dt tRdi
lim Mas aau •t^xi^ Jbjxs ,el«e l)iaa ^xlUbm ai ^aiasB o^
4 i>iJ» .efloazeg laifto to ^^nflJbno^aJb otfi' to ^aelsxroQ
loijoiniaOft »t[ii oi ao it oe^do odT .alaa douB -^aHea xxi
l)e\:o£ni09 a«w saXaxrod tarf^ sonaJblYo oa ai eierf;}^ ^^d^ ai
adT ,«Ifla %sit i^aJiiam at eelXaqqa j'aleaa oi iaalLeq.q& y^d
-■9 e^XIaqqa iijii 9t&ta ton aeo£ ,ieYeworI .noitoxntaal
toa eso6 tl toat al .taaXXeqqa talses ot aaXsxrod l>8'^oXq
aoitoin.ti-nl &dT ,tBl&aa ot JczoXcine aaw aaXs-ffod odv etate
0-^&is%i:uil 9iii cri laalo ton , .5 tXe^rBitrooa ijTev toa al
.-ji/xf aXdiaiQvaTc eJJi4^Jt*«iU . .Qob ^ad ,i)9axr
nexfft ;farl^ X^fi e<tt JbXot noltoxrxtanl xieyls dtaet drTT
, otci iaaaJne aaw ^laqonq lo eXaa ex£* ^o!t tnemeei^a aa
b&b9&Q0iSB m[ 11 aaaeqfflooei alxf ot JbeXtitne aaw taesa odt
SxilXX Jw bnz oXdB 4^^ae7 aaw oxfw leaadoiJiq a ^alixrooiq nJ:
leaailoaxiq iilaa i>tu zeapo wit il^xro/ft^aave ,eaaifoaxrq ot
\trQqoi(i »di daldx leliur Bonet io&xfi edt woXXcl^toa bib
osntHal Bldt oi aoitoi^dd axtT »ia9S.e odi ditu beialL aaw
tTKotal slaoi 0^ iKkoTd exU •%tap9i toa ^•ob it tadt ai iiol
asonvoarra aoltoxfi^aai ai(T ATfXXea e/(t ot leaarfoixrq aid
btfW9'xo(\i^ aaecf ead tarft waX lo xiol;t'i< oaitatfa aa
^9bi7e 9dt i9baii ,tbal al ban aaaao yiam ai e^iixoo adt \d
evatf ^XjuoiIb, tl nadt tnaXXoqqa 9dt ot oXcfa-ioyal aTom aaw
.freed
e^ i;^ oj ij io i uJ jj ;^iJ jui oi itoltoo^dO
Xeiatlo un ^jjvtaal 4itfii<:>^<7c. j»aa dtltt ,dtixrol fAnldt odj-
. < + ', r-f h^M- r..,vv -0 f^ointaal dtiu^l oxPT .taXXeqqa ^d
instruotions did not state correct jpropositions of law
and were properly refused.
We find no reversible error and the judgment will
be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
STAT. -
SBU.»Nt> l>i6JiiiOT. t
1(1 Mr said Secoml District .m'
jy certify that the t'o'^
<i entitled cause
10 ttnoWjtaoqoiq Joerrioo 9tBtB ton bUb Baoliointaal
.L^axriei iLi&qoiq rtew boA
'xvsSbol srf* baa it«cie elcTle'reyei oa AnJti eA
^''^^ SECOND DISTRICT. ' i ^*'- I. JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court,
in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof,
do hereby certify that the foreg-oing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in
the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of
said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this day of
in the year of our Lord one thousand
nine hundred and twenty-
Clerk of the Appellate Court.
'J\
J^,
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Beg-un and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, th^fourth day of October,
in the year of our Lord one thousan^nine hundred and
twenty-one, within and for the Sej^nd District of the State
of Illinois:
\
Present--The Hon. DORRANCE DIBEL/, Pres iding Jus t ice ,
Hon. NORMAN L. JO^IlS , Justice.
/
Hon. AUGUSTUS k/ PARTLOW, Justice
JUSTUS L, JOH^ON, Clerk
CURT S. AYERS, Sher
,,, 22 3I.A. 66f^
AZ
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
^lOy 2' 19'?'' the opinion of the Court was filed in the
Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
6965.
Agenda #54.
A. L, Freed,
Appellee,
Ys.
Sinclair He fining Co.,
Appellant.
Appeal from the City
Court of Kewanee, Illinois.
Part low, J.
Appellee, A. L. Freed, obtained a judgement
for damages against the appellant, the Sinclair Refining
Company, in. tte city court of Eewanee. To review that
judgement this appeal was prosecuted.
The appellee was a monument dealer in the
city of Kewanee and had a concrete platform on the north side
of Second Street which extends east and west, and on the
east side of an alley mnning north and south from Second
Street, on which platform he exhibited his monuments. The
alley adjoining the platform was paved with concrete and
sloped gradually from the west toward the property of the
appellee. The south end of the platform was about four
inches above the alley with a -radual slope until the plat-
form and alley were on a level at the north end of the plat-
form. On the west side of the alley and opposite the plat-
form was a Standard oil filling station and one entrance
to the station was by way of the alley. On the day of the
accident appelleepad three Vermont grajaite monuments, each
thr-ee feet wide, three feet high, one and one-half feet
thiick and weighing 1800 pounds, located eighteen inches apart
on the platform and facing Second Street, the v/est monument
beijag one foot from the alley line. They were on three dies
and there was no fence, rail, gaard or curb between the
.^\
.ca«d
9dt mc-xt X«aqq^
,6eII©qc.A
• Jbe^xroet^oiq 8£w Xsoqqa aidi taeci^iibiil
r.uj J. laleeA iaotsttnom b asum •6XI«qq« oili)
ojb^a iftioii ad^ a0 cxolt^Alq Bie^xoaoo m bzd bnM aexxaweS lo ^^lo
eii^ nt Afu ,^«e« Jboa ^bas aibae^xtt iCoJtdv t^eitt biiooeS> to
i»iio«6(^ noit itiJSOB bOM dt^oa ^aiatun x&LLb aa to •l>ia #8ae
oftT »aii\&aumoa Bid beildidxe 9d aciottalq doldm ao ^iBBii'c
hiii! J oioaoo ittivr ^OTaq ««w ai-io%#«Iq edi -gaXaJiolbs \&LLji
&n:i io ^.tiBqoxq tdi k-ismoi tnem dMi «o«t ^XI«a6jsis ^eqola
iffr. I Jv^ucfi: e^tr, rarzot^alq ftilif lo Aae ii#JV0« mIT .ee£Ieq(.a
-taXq wf^ iliau eqoXs Iavl>«*( s li^lw %tLL» wit •Totf« aedoisi
-*^a£q 9dt lo tn iiST*! a no »ia« ^ella itoe ioiot
-^nlq Bit eiieoqqo i>aa %alla arf^ ^o oLie ;ra8W oif;f nO .ono^
eoaaiifae eao Jbaa ool^a^a foillil Xio Maima^e a saw anot
oiii Jo -^Ab 9di . »XX« 9dt lo ^«« i<f saw noi^a^a aiU o^
lioiiO ^siat iaoan^y ^eidt ibaopeXXeqqa ia^blooa
' " " - X dj^.o t^-^ ie>e1 ,-blv *»el eeariJ^
jn^io Ad" ' , ai>asoq Outjji ^nidalew bae ioldt
>" >ii ^aow 9dt ,ta*ij(' ;^iiwo»^ Soioat ibna arrottaXq oMi' ao
> Q yj^y ,^^iiy •wtiX i;*X£a adi iaont ^oot eae SAJtetf
alley and the momiments. It had. "been snowing and there was
fresh snow on the ground. Appellant's Ford track, without
chains, drove into the alley, the rear end of the truck skidded,,
hit the monument next to the alley and this one knocked over
the second and second knocked over the third, scarring and
Boarking them. The case was tried before a jury and at the
close of the appellee's evidence the appellant moved to in-
stmet the jury to find the issues for the appellant, which
motion was denied. The jury returned a verdict of '300.00
and judgement was rendered u )0n the verdict.
The first error urged is that the evidence does
not show that appellant was guilty of any negligence but
does show that appellee was guilty of negligence in placing
valuable property on a prominent alley without guard or pro-
tection. The declaration contains one coujit and alleges
general negligence.
In Volff Manufacturing Company vs. Wilson, 52
Illinois, 9, on page 14, negligence is defined as the omission
to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those ordin-
ary considerations which ordinarily regulate human affairs,
would do, or the doing something which a prudent or reasonable
man would not do. In Hart vs. Washington Park Club, 157 111.,
9, the question under consideration was whether the declaration
sufficiently alleged the negligence of the defendant, and on
page 15 it was said: "In Scott vs. Docks Company, 3 Hurl & C,.„
596, it was said by the court: "There must be reasonabJ'e evi*
dence of negligence. But when the thing is shown to be under
the management of the defendant or his servants, and the
accident is such as in the ordinary course of things , does
not happen if those, who have the management, use proper
c ..re , it affords reasonable evidence , in the atsenee of an
•s
ai}« eri^dt tsu» snlMOoa neetf bad il •Btawaauoa 9di bam ^eXIJi
Saodttw ^iosnt Aic«l ■'tttalloqqA •taaoT$ edi ao worn itaeYt
3tfti)i3t8 iom^ eidit t« tae ladt edt ,X*-^-I^ a/£^ otal vrorb ,8xxl«/{o
levo jbe3£jcr--A ttco •Itft Ass ^ellA exfl ot tx^a taiumoa tdt ttd
bam -^ilrfmcB ,Mltft 6dt tBTo A»jtooxsC Jtoooea tos taoosa ed^
edt tA Jos X^^t ' eiolecT b9tii aew aaso djff ,a9d} ■%alt'ijaa
-al oi ^evom laallaqq« 9(l;^ soaaJbiva a'saXIaqqa aill lo aeolo
iioijdw ^^osIIaqqA a/H lol aamal aift Jball o^ Viol edt ioaria
OO.OOfi^ ta i9lbn%r m btntrtei x^al edT ,b9laeb aaw aoltom
ttalitrrev aift ao^ a bonebaer sew tn8a!^^l>xr( Jbxxa
e&ot etmeblre bdi i&dt si ba-gia 1011a terlft erfT
iad 00x103! J^on laa la TttXlua e«w taallaqqB T.-j^rfd' vtoris Jon
snxoBlq nl • "■ ;>n lo \;tltj33 aaw eelXoqqa taiJ woifa ^seo^
-oiq 10 t — V ijaXXjB i"fl»nlfflOiq a aa -^Jhteqcio ©Xrfaalav
-"--■• - .-. <.r^^,.^•,,^ > ,,r. ^+ .-r. PoeL edT »aolto6t
» 90fle"o ?■ r-anrr rTTenag
„. , --.._^ ._ ^naqiBoO aflJtiijt»e!taaeM WXoV nl
floxBtifflo 9d# aa bonllob at eaa&^kL-gea ,*1 agaq flo ,e .aionlXXl
-flii)io n^cif^ Tfcf l»ei , ^ffl aXtfaaoaaei # doldm jnlxId'eaioB bi> ot
^es-x: .ad a^aXx/^ai -^Xlxafliftio doJtrfw aAol^BiaJblaxioo j^a
sLdAaoL sahbnq a xfolxfw -^itttdftmoB ^ftlo6 •<# 10 ;aiA blaow
,.I£I T9I ftfffXO llaS aot-^aldv . Jb ^oa i>Xxrow cam
'iiiaXoaJb mdS t9dt*dm a«v floi^faiaAlaaoa 'xttoB aoXtaeirp axft ,6
no ba» ,tajsbn9\ob &dt lo aondaifgaja •dt Aa^aXXa "iX^aaXoil^tra
.3v ttot>t al' ibtM Bam ft 91 9r%eq
rtinoa flitf^ \# AiBS.asir ^1 ,d(8
•ic.i iftltf? Qd7 nerfw txrfl .aono^^Xaen lo eoaeb
J lo tnemasj
a if 008 ct taeblooA
<ku ad-r v d cii'.; .aaod^ IJ: aa^qacf J'^r'
iB > rtfanoeisei aMot^a *' ,
3.
explanation by the defendant, that the accident arose over
want of oare." This passage was quoted with approval in
North Chicago Street Hailway vs. Cotton, 140 111., 486.
In Addison on Torts (Volume I, Section o3) , the rule is thus
stated: "Where the accident is one which would not, in all
probability, happen, if tjie person causing it was MSlng due
care, and the actual machine causing the accident" is solely
under the management of the defendant ... the mere occur-
rence of the accident is sufficient prima facie proof of
negligence to impose upon the defendant the onus of rebutt-
ing it." Upon this basis of these authorities the case of
The William Branfoot, in 48 Fed., 914, holds, that "when an
unusual and unexpected accident happens, and the thing caus-
ing the accident is in one's exclusive management, possession
or control, the accident speaks for itself, is itself a
witness res ipsa loquitur, and in a suit of anyone having
anjkction therefor, the fact of the accident puts on the
defendant the duty of shoving that it was not occasioned by
negligence on his part."
Appellant contends that appellee should have
placed his monuments at such a distance from the alley that
a car skidding could not strike them, or if he did pat them
so close to the alley line he should have protected them with
a guard of some kind. The appellee owned all of the lot out
to the street and alley line, He had a right to use the
entire lot out to the line for any lawful purpose he might
see fit. He v/as "guilty of no negligence in placing his
monuments within one foot of the alley line and was Tinder no
obligcttion to protect them by any kind of a guard. He was,
therefore , not guilty of any negligence which in any way
contributed to the accident.
uj .lalXC
2U . , ,YJirl<fa<f<«q
'.t(fOfl« Iflir#Ofl'p! , 91B0
-iiro&o . . . itiBbn^^ -\»f>fia
saiiq i. 8 al ^ae£loo£ edi
xo oaao erf* aeii^l- - irf* flO<5
, e&Iorf , ' . ootojrzS oubIIIIW eilT
- . .. o i; i: J eift Jki: id tneJblooa t»toeqx9mj uaaaa
,istilapoL jsbiil 69-x am^at im
foa Bam tl Ss^.i ^nlAOiia lo ^txrJb adi^ ttxAbaeteh
". ' : ' ' lixaBlIjen
Bflrf* +-r f ^-crc* <^ilitm ton Jbljjoo anlAAIla tao b
rf;fi.. _™ - *if aull -^aXlB eit* o* aaolo oa
itZdo
TJnoo
4.
On the other hand, when the driver of the truck
drove into the alley, it ss his duty to have his truck under
such control that he v/ould not injure appellee's property,
tailing into consideration all §f tlie physical conditions
surrounding the location. There was anovj on the ground, the
alley was paved and sloped to the east. These conditions
were plainly visihle to the driver of the truck. Under these
circTimstances the truck heing ujide'"!' the escslusive control and
management of the servants of the appellant was driving into
the alley in such a manner that it skidded and struck a
monument which weighed 1800 pounds with such force that it
was knocked over . We know from eo .imon experience that it
took considerahle force to knock ovvr a monument of that
kindo The law does not impose upon anycPlie the duty of
anticipating the negligence of another for it is presumed
that all persons will conduct themselves with ordinary care
and so as not to injure the property of another so long as
the property is upon the private premises of the ovmer.
Zoepke vs. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Ry., 200 111.
App. , 247. The question of negligence was one of fact for
the jury, and under the authorities above cited and ujider
the evidence in this case , the negligence of the appellant
is amply proved as charged in the declaration.
The third instruction on "behalf of the appellee
told the jury that the appellee had the right to use his
own property and the whole of it to the line of the alley
for any lawful purpose, and the defendant, "by its servants,
had no right to injure such property so located, whether the
same was near the alley line or otherwise, and if the jury
"believed from the evidence that the monuments were located on
the lands of the plaintiff and aopellant, while in the course
of their duty, drove a truok into the momunents and injured
•*
lit 9dt aaAir ^Ioap
robaa torn nd 9t \ttit bU .xol^a eii oiai eronb
,^#- cirtoi toa i)X«ow aiC tadi Loitaoo doaa
c,!<: , .t ao voce 8£w eioifT •aoit£00l Bdt ■^atbaaorinB
^. I IOC aeedT .tsAo Oift o# Jbeqole ^cs beraq b-sw ^^elXB
.1 laiiiU .iofn;f edt lo xeyli* eili^ o* eldtaiv ^Lal&Lq eiew
^Lix' lo'i&aoo •7iBirIss« eid^ 'X*^jbiix7 snied lojnif oif^ aQonB^faauxoTlo
1+ "yilvl-ct BBw *xi«XIeqq« 8i£* lo BtflBY^ceB edt J.o tae^e^aaasa
^ xojr.^s bOA b9bbtii.a il iadt teassjam b do job at ^^bXIb exf^
il iadt eoiot doisa dtim abairoq 0081 bed-^lew doirlw taeaxffaois
ti tadt eoaeliecixe aooou'oe mortl wotxi 9W . -xovo ^ejioooji bam
i^dt \o tnnrsannm i- iwvo aoosoL oi 9»iol eltfaietlBixoo ioot
^^ nci^ir BBoqiui :foir e»oi< wbI biIT •Aall
i»8fluree x lot lexftooB lo eoaesilseii eif^ -^altaaloltaa
etAO yriMntbio d^Iw aerlhesaedi ienbdoo Iliw aaos^eq IXb iadt
aa ^ael oe iM(;fon8 lb )(4^:(eqorcq sd^ •rxjvtfli ot ^oa om ob jbiXB
.. AO 9dt lo asaimBiq B^BTliq trfi^ noca al ^tisqoiq erf*
.III OOS ,.A£a olIJtOB^ JjHB Analel , j-%BOldO .ar siqeoX
bHB £b71o evotfB Bel^iiojitffB sdt :fhaa hoA ,\£xvC ^^^
0 eono^lIsBn ed;)' ,eaBO 82d# nJt eoneJ&lvs ed^
3l> ed^ ai be/^iado mm ^Bvoiq \Iqau2 ■ i
no Uomtetai brtdt edT
Mil Jbad 9»lL»qrim mdt tadi y^ial edi blot
.^IL ed' "0 9Xodw 9dt baa ^^'•lo's^l ^^o
, \-\L.bati< , oBoq«iq IxilnrBl v»« ''fol
, irjjf.sju.i ;e nJit»»-Jii iiuj.'s d'Xtf^al oi tdfiti on Aad
i,i -"« ,o8lwr ^+' ""> flBlX x^-^-^' •<* TBBXi e«w emB8
ao b9i ni^nimfJL. w... d;f •oasiiiTe w(l aioil AeTeXXeoT
A(. iu .JrLaXiBqnB bam ttltoiBXq «(# lo atoal Bdt
dJ^ otai sCexrxl » oTorJb ,^0£ Ti»di^ to
5«
them, as charged in the declaration, then they should find
the appellant gujllty. Complaint is made of this instruction,
hut it clearly states the law as we ujiderstand it, and while
it is contrary to appellaJit^s contention of the law, yet
the court committed no error in giving it.
Counsel for aopellee, in his closing argument,
said that the instructions of the court, in his judgement,
would he that if the appellee erected his monuments on his
ov/n lot and appellant ran into them with his truck, that this
was evidence of negligence , and under this evidence appellant
should be compelled to pay whatever damage was suffered.
It is also insisted that counsel for appellee persisted in
making improper remarks in reference to the failure of appell-
ant tc offer any evidence, and repeated these remarks after
objection to them had been sustained; also he insisted
that appellee was entitled to a verdict for interest.
The entire argument does not appear in the
record and it is quite difficult to pass intelligently upon
a few remarks selected here and there from the argument. The
first statement with reference to the law was proper. The
appellee was not entitled to interest and such claims should
not have been made. The mere fact that appellant offered
no evidence was no admission of liability. Counsel had a
right to call attention to the fact that no evidence was
offered on behalf of appellant and to drav; all proper and
reasonable conclusions therefrom, and he had no right to
urge that such failure on the part of appellant to offer
evidence was an admission of liability, and after objection
was sustained to that remark it was the duty of counsel to
refrain from repeating it. We think, however, that the
verdict is clearly within the evidence and that no injury v/as
•a
v.'i't blwo6H 'i^^ t^^dt ,ao^^«u-io«A «dl at boytado b& ^meii^
t.
,tt 3alvl3 al rozf on Ae^tioooo ^auoo mii
iftt'iOlo aid ill ,0el£«qcr« :tot leejuroO
, T;(t^jio5.mt ai.*! iti ^iijoo 9dt lo aaoi^oin^aai oaj jiiaj x»x«8
aixl ito e^naorraois utji baltotne •elXeqq^ 9tf;f 11 ^Biil etf i)Ixxow
..■^ -^^+ f.,^j .^^ ditm nedi otai. sxai iaBLleqo& Jbcus *oX xiwo
„, ..Iva 8lil# lajbiifr 1)£tb , eoce^llsen %o eaneJ^lye saw
..anvlliro usm e^jsoAl 'x•Te;^£X(w -^aq ot teXX^qmoo etf bLnoda
nl beicleiaq ••Itoqcra rrol Xaaniroo ^Bxf;^ ita^alBnl oaXa al #1
-XXaqqA !• trxaltat adt ot aoaei'tor al atiaaei leqotqait ■%aliaia
i.9ila Kttatavt oa^Ht baiaaq . jocexjiva \fia lello ,i iaa
hntaieal %d oeXs ;baalataaB rxeecT bad madi oi aoiiOB^do
. aaraSal lol toli)aev a ot baliliae earn eaXXeqqa iadi
Bdt al lAoqqA toa aeo£ taatan^ia eiliae adT
aoqa \ltB.o-%llLaial aaaq oi tlaoll^lb eitap al ii baa biooBt
edl .^iieffiu^ia adi moit Bi6di baa otsd bBiooLea a^IiAoiai val a
•ifT .leqoiq aaw waX erl;^ o^ aoseiolai ditm #aeae^A^8 ;^eall
bLuoda mutaio deva baM teBiBial ai beLtttaa ioa aaw.aaLLaqqa
beiaVta ijoMlZaqqa tait toat aiai ad's »Bbaai aaad arad ioa
« beji Lear '^tZldail lo flolaelai£a on aav aoneflTo on
■ ''ifablva (*a iadt iaa'i adt ot noltaatia XXbo o^ id^li
LLi .-'.b ai baa tonXXaqqa lo Uadad no beialio
^moi^aradi aaelsxxXoaoo aXtfanoBaai
o ^laq edt aoa^taLta't dooB iadi er%iB
^\i,jttldmiL lo aoleslrobA oe 8«w aoaatlTO
adt saw tl %ianBi iadi oi baalaiaae aam
^.. ,.„,^^oif ,i^tri:f a^ ,tl ^altaaqai moil ataztai
am:, vitrrn on i* i Ea». r. . ifj :'ii£*i>' ', Lr.j&Ia 8l iolLinv
6,
caused by such improper repetition.
We find no reversible error and the judgement
is affirmed.
Judgement Affirmed,
• d
• aoiitieqtrx leqonqiat dooB -^d b^eoBo
fnomv^bal erf* bus lovtm tflrfiaterei on tail mil
»beant1^B el
• 69. -I it* A Sn^a^'^bnT,
'^^IL^^ Jl^r^Klfx^^'- 1- - I. JUSTUS L. JOHNSON. Cler. of the Appellate Court.
in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof.
do hereby certify that the foreg'oing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in
the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof. I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of
said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this day of
in the year of our Lord one thousand
nine hundred and twenty-
Clerkofthe Appell-ate Court.
o(
7
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COUR/,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fourth day of October,
in the year of our Lord one thousand n/ne hundred and
/
twenty-one, within and for the Secon^ District of the State
of Illinois: \
Present--The Hon. fORRANCE DIBELL, presiding- Justice.
Hon. NORMAN L. JONES / Jus t ice .
Hon. AUaUSTUS A. P^TLOW, Justice
JUSTUS t. JOHNSo/, Clerk.
CURT S. IyERS/ Sheriff .
22
66^
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
ivC'' the opinion of the Court was filed in the
Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
6963 Agenda 6C
David Lapsley, \
Appellant
V8.
George Chatfield,
Appellee.
Appeal from the
Circuit Court of
Kankakee County.
Part low, J.
Appellant David Lapsley, filed his bill in the
oirouit co\irt of Kankakee <So\inty against the appellee,
George Chatf ield, for an accounting of partnership
affairs. The cause was referred to the master who
found there was |1601.83 due to the appellant from
the appellee. Exceptions were filed to this report and
upon a hearing those exceptions were sustained as to
certain items and a decree rendered which found that
there wae due $659.78 from appellee to appellant.
From that decree this appeal was prosecuted.
It is contended hy, appellant that there are twenty
specific items which were either erroneously charged
against him orfor which he should have received credit
and each one of these items is argued separately.
The evidence shows that about March 1, 1903,
appellant and appellee entered into a verbal contract of
partnership for the buying and selling of livestock.
This partnership continued for about five years, during
which time no books of account were kept, but they
settled their business transactions at the close of
each deal. About March 1, 1908, they verbally agreed
to enlarge their business and to include farming ani
ranching. They rented a farm, equipped it and carried
on business on an extensive scale until about the
9dt TOii X<eqqA f
lo tii/oO itiwoiiO ( .«▼
.Y^ouoO atHJKiaAl. (
.90ll9qqA
.1, .woii-ijsl
ail;f ni Ilitf slii teXil ,YaIsq«l tiv^Q ^njsXIaqqA
t9aXlaqq« 9di teaijsgji xttwdb aai^BixusS lo ^auoo Hx/oaio
qldsTsa^ijeq 1:o "QattauoooA aA io\ ^blBittsdO asioaO
odn retBJsa ^dt ot baxTalei a.ew aaujBo exfX .Bil«ll£
Gil tnjBlIeqq^ odt ot 9Ut £8.I0dl| a^sw Qisdt tcojol
ca^ ?::o::sT elrit o* Jbelil: 9T9w eroitqaoxl .aaXIaqqa 9di
ot iM l>8flX£lBua aiaw aaoid-qeoxa aaodt :gaitJied & aoqu
i&dt lauQ\ doidft Jbaial^nai aoiosl) ^ txi« aoa^X al^^ieo
.Jn*XIsqqj6 oi aaXXaqq* mottl 8V.ee8t ai/t a-BW aieri*
.La^i/o&BOiq ajsw l£aqq« Qldi aaioal) ^£il^ moi'?
Y^ae*^ 9i£ aisd* tjari* ^a*IXe qq* x<^ l)etna*noo el *I
JbagiJBilc x-^^tfC6noi:i8 lad^ia aiaw rfolriw ema^i oilioeqa
^jLbaio tavieoai 3v«d Mvoxle ad xlolxfw lolio fflin tani^£
.iXa^jsiaqea b^u-^iA ai ama^i aaari^ lo ano doAtt hoM
,eOei ,X fioiaM *i/oo.8 *«ri* aworia aonaJblTa 9riT
lo :to«x^noo Xjstfiev < oiat btiBia* aaXXaqq* Jbnj8 d'nijXXaqq*
.ioo*BaTlX "ic ■^.atLLaQ LaA -^ai^u^ ad* lol qXdaiani-i^i
galii/Jb «aidax »v^^ ^i;ocf£ lol tai>ai*aoo qlda7a£i4"x«q aJUfT
veri# Ji/d «tqaj( aiaw tnwooo* lo a:<ood on ami* doldw
1c aaoXo ad* *« anol*o««a«x* asenlax/d iled* taX**aa
tecisA y,LLM<if'i x^dt ,80ex ,1 doiAM *uodA .X*ab do*a
fccj; onlm-ijsl aJbuXofll o* to* aaaniawd ilad* egiaXaa o*
iiaitt 0 tn^s *1 ieqqlupa ,flii«l * ta*flai ^adT .anldooai
*M^ :ff/ctdA Ii*flt/ aI«oa aTiaaa*Xd a« ao aaaaiaud no
first of March, 1916. Books of aocount from Uaroh
1, 1908, until the end of the partnership were kept
by appellee. It is very apparent that these books
were very crudely kept. Charges were not made at
the time of the transaotions. Items were not entered
in their regular order and the hooks are apparently
untrustworthy in many other respects.
The record in this case covers over 1300 pages
and there has been no regularity in taking the evidence,
but the evidence goes from one item to another without
system. Almost a year and a half was consumed in tak-
ing the evidence . The books of acco^UJlt as kept by
the appellee were offered in evidence and appeared in
the record as Exhibits A, and E. The master states
the account by first computing the totals of Exhibits
A and B., then by making such additions and deductions
therefrom as the evidence justifies. He stated the
account of each party with the firm showing how much
each one owed the firm outside of the partnership books,
that is, what amount was due from each partner, which
amounts were not carried on the books. He found the
total receipts of A and B to be $131,804.40, and the
total disbursements to be $131,988.31. He found that
the appellee admitted indebtedness to the partnership
amounting to $1401.50, a list of which was attached to
his report. He foimd there should be deducted from the
disbursements shown by Exhibits A and B, $988.54, being
either improper charges or charges which had been
dvplicated. He found the appellee entitled to credil
amounting to $ai69,90, being itemized and attached
to the report. He also found that the appellant s"*^-*-*^
I .i.^> soil tauooo^ lO VfooS' .dXSX ^Aort-aH to ;faYil
eicoJ B99ttf tmift ^neii^qqA y^s^ al ^I .asIXdqqja yd
ttTs^ne ^ofl »i9w cinatl .eaoltojMastt sdt \o emit 6dt
^li^asi^qq^ 9t£ eiood 9dt tam rBbro i^Xjj^gei itadt al
.atosqea? i^dto xtum al x^^oirfntntau
se^fq 0061 tevo ateroo saao eidt si tno6^i odT
^9omtlT9 9Cit ^ttUst nx t^-I^TAXxr^aT on aaacf asd oia^t biM
ti/oJ^iw 79iftoiM oi ira^l affo no^l aaos •orratiTO arf^ focf
-3[£t fll tsmunnoo sMw tXad Ji l>a4 i[£9X * tnomlk .mate^e
ifrf tq»i 9M tat'OoojB to sloocf arfT .aonatJrva sif^ gni
ai ^£>»T«aqqis Isaa aonai:. jiav aaXXaqq^ arl^
attJBts fttJitt 9ifT .a La^ ,A ailJtiixl sjb tiooat arf^
• tMldx? to tIJBtot arft gnittuqaoo tetlt if^ *fl«dOOia axl*
aaoi^oi;£>at tns enotittbB dou9 :gnliAm \€ n9dt ,.9 JbajB A
a^i3t8 9H .saJttlc^ex;^ aoaatlTe Bdt bm ooitaiaxi^
acuz! ♦od sfliworia uTit 9djf rf*iw Y^i«q :-foj8a to *ruJOOO«
(Siootf qlxfarc»fl;fijBq aif^ to aJbia^t/o sTlt 9di Lawo aao doaa
tfo{r, -1 ' t-i«q no*a aotrt ax/t bjbw fauomA t^dii ^9i tjuit
a.. _ i*T .■:ia,-)cr erfi ao JbalTiJBo toa aiaw atouoiu
3-ff f> it a tn« A to axqiaoai X4i^o^
^ oi a^nacaaitfcfalt Xjiifbt
r|f(fB*t9nt7aq 9il^ o^ ak- 9ttiiiLb4 aalXaqqa arft
•Mr doidn '■ '*I? 03; •'jnltm/omja
^t woit Aatoutat a<f tXuorfa ataift bouot aH .tioqaa alxf
,*^.989| ,8[ Jbii« A •midy orfa 'atntfflaaix/cfalt
rat liixf rlolx^r aa^iAxfo ^o avs^'^o leqovqal iMfVia
lia% tallaqqA 9di toffot aR .bhiAoliq^ib
X. baiina^l gUlatf ,oe.S8XC| oi -jni:fru/oBui
be oharged with $3180.49, of whioh $1764.49 was aduitted
by the appellant. The master went into detail ae to
many of the items which are included in his report, but
most of thei terns included in his report are contained
in Exhibits A and B. The summary of the master's report
is that there was $1601.83 due to the appellant from
the appellee.
Upon a hearing of exceptions to this report the
chancellor specifically passed upon seventeen items in
which the report of the master was modified. These items
amoimted to $942.05 and were deducted from the amo\int
found due by the master, leaving $659.78 due from appellee
to the appellant. Each of these seventeen items deducted
by the chancellor are argued separately by the appellant
and it is urged that they were improperly deducted. On
an appeal of this kind it is the duty of the appellant
to present an abstract of the record in such a manaer that
the reviewing court can, from the briefs, arguments and
abstract, ascertain whether or not the chancellor ruled
properly. That has not been done in this case. There
are 6ver 1000 pages of evidence which have been condensed
into an abstract of twenty pages. Only one page of the
abstract has been, on an average, devoted to over fifty
pages of the record, OuiP attention is not called to the
various pages of the record where the evidence relative
to these seventeen items in dispute may be found. We
have gone through the abstract, briefs and arguments
where references have been made and have attempted to
ascertain the correctnes of the ruling of the chancellor,
but it is impossible, from the manner in which thie case
t9*titAfi am O^.^TXl doldn \o ,e».08XS$ dtiw tos7«xlo scf
iift oial taew X9i»zm sxfT .ta<fr(Xoqq« 9iit ^cT
:^ucf . tatuloai 914 doidw ta*^! «dt lo xa^m
tt^ni.-:faoo tx* froqtr u: at b^tuLoai CBai^lsdt lo taofl
'i9;fa^A 9tit to f«.aaiauja sxfT .9 ta« A s;M(liifx? ai
noTt tOBlXsgqjB srl^ ot avt S8.I0dl| tjn Brptit tJUii 9I
.9 9ll9qq« odt
•tfil tioqsT aiif^ o^ enoi^qaoxD lo ^Ixjiod a aoqU
fli ametJ: iss^ncvsE noqi/ i>aa8£q ^[XXAoiliosqa tpiI.9oaJuio
ama^jt assifT .teilltoa a^v aa^a^a 9di lo :fioq9i axl^f dotdv
tavo«« 9fl^ moil t9^oi/l)a£ 9X9W baa dO.S^e$ 0^ i>9liiuomjB
96XX9qq« aoTi 9x/t 8^.838$ 3nlv«8X tT9j^8£ffl 9di \<S 9uh bauol
b^ixiiithb effia:M rr9a^nevaa ^aad^ lo nojsS .JnjsXXsqq^ srft 0^
tOAtXeqq^ 9d^ ^tf \L9iAisq99 bQU^i^ 9XJi rQllBoa^do edt ^cT
oO .tatcat9t ^XigqoiqaX eiow ^9£l^ t£dt Jbaauf el ^1 bas
ta^XXeqqf Qci& lo Y^iJl> 9^^ al ^-t taJjC ald^ lo X^aqqa aa
#«xft laooAn a cioua nt i;7009i exit lo toJiriidA as taaaoaq 0^
loM ataQoitr^ie ,Blelrtcr Bdi moal «flao tzuoo salwaXvaa odt
taXuT ToXXeoA£iio odi ton 10 fdt9dw at£ii90B£ ^toattedA
at^T .aaao etdt aX aaot naacf too a^ tJuiT '\i19q07c1
bfasbaoo aaacT ota^ xlolilir 9Qa9btY9 lo a82«q OOOX tot^ 9zs
id& lo 8i«q OHO x^aO .aes^q xtaBiii lo to<aii^ad« as Qiai
vo otf £>atovet ,93«taT« a* no laaatf e«d toarfBdJi
i -i . 'IX4»o ifo^i *^ :iOitaBitA'4uO fbjopBt 9dt lo aos«q
oTl^AXaa aonaJblva ^di oiarfw bxooBi 9dt lo aas^q auoZ^fv
aW .tcujol 00 YMB ati^qaUb ai i-.tit iiaotnevaa BBBdt ^t
etaaouijia ba» alait<^ ^toaxisda adt d^ordi f'flos oyaiI
o:! t>atqn]9#9^« B7sd boM bLjuu oaaO »Viiuf aaoaaielai aiodw
c "0 ^fllXui axf^ lo aaatoasToo Qdt mIa^xboba
has been presented, to ascertain the facts. T^e have not
only examined the briefs, arguments and abstract, but
we have attempted to go into the record, to find the
evidence concerning these items. We find there are
various pages of the record concerning many of these
items which have not been called to our attention in
the abstract. In order to ascertain the correctness of
the ruling of the chancellor, it would be necessary for
this court to read the entire record of 1000 pages, to
abstract the same and note the various pages upon which
the testimony was found concerning each specific item.
Upon appeal the reviewing court is not called upon to
search the record as it woxild be necessary for us to 'do
in this case in order to ascertain the correctnes of
the ruling of the chancellor.
Notwithstanding themanner in which this case has been
presented, from the examination which we have made of the
briefs, arguments and abstract and that part of the record
which we have read, we are of the opinion that it was
given careful consideration by the master and also by
the chancellor. The evidence presented is, on many of
the items so uncertain and so unsatisfactory that opinions
might differ as to whether an item should be allowed or
not. In many instances, in reference to the items com-
plained of, the evidence simply shows that one of the
parties testified that he thov^ht it was a proper charge,
while the other party testified that he did not remember
about it at all. The complaint of the action of the
chancellor is based largely upon the fact that the
chancellor refused to allow credit to the appellant for
these seventeen items because the evidence oonoerniag
them was uncertain and also because the chancellor held
jti: .da bos t^aaams^A ^ai\§f.%d pdt LtattuBX^ K^^ao
^dt otaX C8 oi LpiqjBtStA ev^ad aw
-aad^ gfl^flxacaoo aoaativa
c :AJiiB iiaxasaaaoo i^vopai a4^ lo aa^^q avoiv^r
.-IX aoiia^its zjlto o^T JbaXI«c neif toa avjuf rioi^w aoio^l.
^9 saendoeiioo srfd- aiJS«^l8oa^ o# laJbio nl .d^0£3^a^,a fxf^
7ol viJBaaaoafl •d Liuom tt ^lolisoaBdo sdt to :^ailu:t 6dt
of ,aa$^ 0001 to ttcooai 9ilta9 9d& t^az o^ truoo Btdt
dotd^ aoqu asg^q aji/oxi^v oat stoa Jba« aa«a 9dt i^sxtad*
.xa^l oDloeqa Loae axxicTaoaoo txxx/ol bjbv xaoatta^i adi
of aoqu tbLIJdO ton al tu/op ^titalyai odt L^oqqs aoqU
ob'ot au lol ^liSBseoaa ad tXuov tl a£ taooai aif^ ifoi«f^
lo zacitoQiroQ adi alB}r9Q9.& o.t z9bro at aaso aidt^aJli
.ToXlaoaJBio odt lo i^atisri 9dt
:i99d aiJ. anAO aidt doidm at raaa&iaadt ■gattiastad^ttvtoli
9dt \o aiJBD' 9vi:d 9« liotdM iiott4atm*x9 9dt ao^t .Jbad-aaaaxq
t'UiQ9\ 'j r«q tBdt bas toaxtads has aiapmr^ts ^a\9tid
9JtK ti t£jit aoiaJLqo sdi lo a«£ aw ,Jb«ai avAif aw iIoMw
xci oeije bas lalejsm ail^ y<^ noi^jtaai^iaaoo isjlsrso aavlg
to Ya«<T ao «ai l^a^naaa^q acaatXva ^T .loIXaoa^do adt
aaainiqc -o^o^taZf-aaatf 9a Jta« nistiaoau oa atRa^4»a4^
10 Aawoi-L« 9d LluodL y.xtadm 9t •* X9\\tb td^J^
-Koo aitatt adt of ao^a'xolai ai .aaoa^aai xasai al »t^
t awo£La x-^^"-'* aoxiatiTa 9dt »lo iaaJt-fU.^
,«i'ii„.c ^Ji'-^ A •'■ -'i't b9l'lXia9i aaWxaq
itc/mamai tc i ib 0:. jj-i-rj j. .L^iTriej {i'UBq lad^c art* aXirfw
'"' t;toa ad# to ^nl«Xqmoo ailT ,i^ 4m it tuod*
r fo4t adt ao^f/ xl9i^r£tl ba^Jtd at lollaoaado
-3'' »'^;t o# ^itoM woXXa o^ tf9au'%9x ■xoXXaoa.uLo
00 a abtv adt aauexti^d amail aM^aavaa aaad^,
'^'.'ijcii'o Cut «6ii«oad oaXjs ta* at&txaoau aaw mad^
that the burden was upon the appellant to establiah hie
oase, and that he had failed to do so by the preponderance
of the evidence, therefore, the items should not be
allowed. From our examination of the record we think
the chancellor was fully justified in his rulings. The
presumption is that the decree is correct and unless we
can clearly see that it is not correct it is our duty
to affirm it.
Complaint is made by appellant of that part of the
decree which provides that each party shall pay one half
of the cost. It is urged that the appellant was compelled
to file this bill for the purpose of establishing his
rights and he should not be punished by having to pay
one half of the costs. The appellant alleged that there
was due from the appellee about $10,000 and only about
one-tenth of that amovuit was found due by the master and
a much smaller amount was finally decreed by the chancel-
lor. Whileit is true that the appellee kept the books of
account, yet it was as much the duty of appellant to keep
these books anl to see that a proper record was made of
the various transactions as it was the duty of the
appellee to keep them. Both parties were responsible for
the condition of their affairs and for the large record
in the case. In chancery cases the question of cost is
largely a matter of discretion of the trial covirt, ajid
while it is a judicial discretion reviewable upon appeal,
ordinarily the decision of the trial court will be aooepted
as final linless the discretion has been abused which has
not been done in this case. Merle vs. Beifeld, 37^ 111.594.
We find no reversible error and tlxe decree of the cir-
cuit court will be affirmed.
Decree affirmed.
£i9tao^iq sil^ X^ o* o£ 0^ tell^l ttJtii ^A tadt bajt .eaao
:(rTtK^ tw bsoot? sxlt lo no2;f£aiinaz8 u/o aoi'V .i>ewoXlA
crlT .Ejiolivs tiii al tsi^X^avt \av\ asm lolL^oaedo 9ci&
8w B9^1au toA lodTioo £>1 i:si;o»Jb 9dt i*iit hi aoHqtauatiq
^At )e ^TJ&q isAi \o ici&ll^<i^A \d ^tam at tatsLqatiO
*.i^i 9xxe Y^<I XX£d« \tXMq rfo«e tAtlt eoJblvoiq xfolrfw eeioaJb
taXXoqifioc a«w toeXXaqq^ axft ijuit b^^xsf ai ^I .^aoo 9dt lo
•id |nX<iaXXcr«;rfr9 ^0 eaoqxvq 6di to^ xlid eXrft eXll o^
X^q of 8iiXTjB£{ \di badsltiL .jjorfs ad ba« mtd'^tt
•Taxlt #^^ Jba99XX« tfajiXXaqqjs e .Xiul eao
^iJOtfjB xXno bciM 000, 0X$ fuod£ aalXsqqjs axf;r aoTt at/l> b.sw
teu lo^Bcam ad& \d sx/Jb JbAVol a£w ttwoma tad& lo jf^aal-oao
•Xaeiu.^s 9dt x<i -tieaioeJb xX,X«ail ■«« tauoms i9£lBmm dci
; aiood 9cii iq9i aaXXaqqa t^dt tadjf 9U%& al ^isXXifW .xoX
<i^9t ot ^ajiXXaqqA lo \tub %dt doum •« ajBw #1 tax t^avooo*
lo eb<aH a^w Moaav leqoiq s tjuit eae o;t tn^ aiood aagd^
9dt ^0 t^J'^ 9^<^ 9'^ ''^■^ *' anoint ojteniAi^ auo ItJBr 9di
•xo'\ 9XoXtxiOQa0T eitw eai^ti>q dtoS .aaniT qoai o# oeXXeqq«
btmaet av^«X odl sol Lha tri*^'^* rtsds to aotiltaoo 9dt
bi itioo lo aoi^89ijp Bdt aaa-eo ^zaoajvto al .eajso 9di al
int ,;TiJoe lAlxi 9dt \o aoltatoalt lo te'Sfi^j: « ^Xe^i^X
, :iJB ao^ id«w9lv9T c:olt':*io& it n J tl eXXdw
&a#q9C;;j| ttf XX4i t7«oo o.'eicei ~ iTJUxXtio
9Md . rrfv ^ei-cff^is ceetf Bad agti . .w XacI) ma
^t.XXI ■&? •Xzel/ .9a«o aii lot aaacf ;foa
-lie aatoai 94^ ba« toi79 oXtflaie ail; aW
.Ii9artill« 9d XXlw iruoc iUte
\
STATE OF ILLINOIS, I , ^ ^, , r , v ,w r- .
SECOND DISTRICT. \ '"'• I, JUSTUS L. JOHNSON. Clerk of the Appellate Court.
in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof.
do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in
the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof. I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of
said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this day of
in the vear of our Lord one thousand
1
nine hundred and twenty-
Clerkofthe Appellate Court.
\
■0
' ■•'W7"ri
:■■■?:»
.,;,.t5.v5'..;j
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11