'■).<>'! n
OCiiN'^,
^5
s?>0 i
IS"- ^'
y --^
tlVED ......
JAN 16 I960
\\V
k
General No. 7325
/
Agenda No. 40
\ April Term 192V
M"ilo Wheeler, ApjJellee
Cyrus iO. Lovele^, Appellant
Appeal from Cqunty _^urt Macoupin County.
HEARD, J.
q,unty ^ourt
This is a suit for a broker's commission on a sale
or exchange of real estate. It orignated before a Jus-
tice of the Peace and was brought on appeal to the
County Court. The appellee recovered a verdict and a
judgment for $96.20, and costs; and the appellant in the
suit brings this appeal to reverse the judgment of the
County court.
The facts stated briefly are as follows: The appel-
lee, Wheeler had authority from W. E. Schmidt, a bank-
er at Gillespie, Illinois, to sell 240 acres of timber land
at a purchase price of $17,000.00 He also had author-
ity to sell 160 acres of prairie farm, which belonged to
W. G. Bartels, a retired mine owner living at Carlinville.
The appellant. Loveless wanted to buy this Rinaker
farm, but he desired to dispose of and pay part of the
purchase money for it with a 74 acre tract of land which
belonged to his wife.
Appel'ee went to the home of Mr. Bartels in Carlin-
ville one morning and contracted for the purchase of
Bartel's 160 acres known as the Rinaker farm for a pur-
chase price of $30,000, and he agreed to pay this sum,
by deeding to Bartels, W. E. Schmidt's 240 acres of tim-
ber land at an agreed price of $17,000 and to pay $13,-
000 in cash. He gave his own personal check for $1,000
to bind this bargain with Bartels. He went to Gillespie
that same morning with the appellant to Schmidt's bank
and made known to Schmidt that he had bought the
Bartels farm for him, and then on the same day about
noon, appellee, acting as Schmidt's broker, as he says,
sold the Rinaker farm to the appellant. Loveless, at and
for a purchase price of $32,000, a part of which pur-
chase price was the Loveless 74 acre tract at a valuation
of $65.00 per acre. So Schmidt sold his 240 acres to
Bartels for $17,000; Bartels
Page 1
^A'
U
'X.i.
h'-i'--:A
Digitized by tine Internet Arciiive
in 2010 witii funding from
CARLI: Consortium of Academic and Researcii Libraries in Illinois
http://www.archive.org/details/illinoisappellat226illi
sold the 160 acre Rinaker
farm to Loveless, the appellant, for $32,000 and Loveless
sold the 74 acre tract to Schmidt for $4,810. It is con-
tended by appellant that as appellee received commis-
sions from Bartels and Schmidt that he is, for that reas-
on, precluded from collecting a commission from appel-
lant.
In Bunn vs. Keach, 214 111. 259, it was said: "The
general rule is that an agent cannot act for two parties
whose interests are adverse. The rule that a man can-
not serve two masters is as well established in law as in
morals, and an agent that is employed to sell cannot be
agent for the purchaser unless the principal sought to
be held liable has consented."
Bartels and Schmidt each testify that they knew
that appellee was to receive commissions from the var-
ious parties. Appellee testified that he told appellant
that Bartels was paying him a commission and that ap-
pellant replied that he did not care how many were pay-
ing and that if he deeded the farm he would pay appel-
lee two per cent. This conversation was denied by ap-
pellant who testified that he did not know that appellee
was to receive a commission from the other parties and
that he only agreed to pay a commission in case the 74
acres were sold for $75 an acre.
The questions involved in this case are purely ques-
tions of fact which it was the province of the jury to
determine. The jury having determined these questions
of fact and the trial judge who saw and heard the wit-
nesses having approved the verdict undei the evidence
m this case we would not be warranted in reversing
their finding.
The judgment is affirmed.
Page 2
i ;■-:••- Ir
.!■',■;• _('f hi
"r-;,, '■■■!,} u
■.,-■-■: i-ai'iv; Ofi cc
/•'•'-'Vvjii,
\
General No. 7329 Ag^da No. 43
\ April Term 1921
William Hartlipp, Appepi^e
vs.
George Wiemer, Appellant
Appeal frora^Logan.
HEARD, J.
6
This is a suit brought by appellee against appellant
for damages arising out of an alleged bi'each of warran-
ty in the sale of an Avery tractor by appellant to appel-
lee. A jury trial resulted in a judgment in favor of ap-
pellee against appellant for $450 damages and costs,
from virhich judgment an appeal has been taken to this
court.
The warranty alleged in the declaration for the
breach of which appellee claim.ed damages was: "That
the said tractor was then and there well constructed ot
good v/orkmanship and material and was free from de-
fects of workmanship or material and was well construc-
ted and that the said tractor would do good and satis-
factory work and would operate and could be operated
in a satisfactory manner and that if said tractor did not
do good and satisfactory work he the said defendant,
would make the said tractor do good and satisfactory
work as a tractor."
Appellee testified that when negotiating for the pur-
chase of the tractor in question appellant told him that
the tractor was guaranteed to do good work and that if
it did not he would make it work good.
At the request of appellee the court gave to the
jury the following instruction: "The Court instructs the
jury that if you believe from a preponderance of the evi-
dence in this case that the defendant George B. Wiemer
warranted to the plaintiff William H. Hartlipp the trac-
tor described in evidence, as alleged in the declaration
or any count thereof and that the said tractor at the
time of said sale and warranty did not com.ply with the
terms of said warranty, then you should find the issues
for the plaintiff, Hartlipp."
Page 1
If the warranty was made as testified to by appel-
lee it was not warranty as to the condition of the tract-
f-
/-r,
5
.;Vi7/
Ai'. ■ -UU-.'- ■'
or at the time of the sale, but was a warranty that if the
machine was not at that time in condition to do good
work it was capable of being put in such condition and
that appellant would put it in condition and make it do
good work.
The evidence clearly shows that at the time of the
sale or very shortly thereafter the tractor was in good
working order, but there is a sharp conflict in the evi-
dence as to whether or not when complaint of such con-
dition was made to appellant, he did not put it in good
working condition. In this state of the pleadings and
evidence it was clearly erroneous to instruct the jury to
find for the plaintiff "if the warranty was made and that
the said tractor at the time of said sale did not comply
witht he terms of said warranty."
The judgment of the circuit court is reversed and
the cause remanded.
Page 2
Lno r:.-tl'^i:.r,-: ;foiJf n; rt/.-{ -i^nrio
::r[:t '-.-I.'
■:■-''■■-' ■;] I; ,!■'(( Jcn-
■^9?.' .'Vrr ■. yi-^r,-)
". i-vr:^
X.
^
%f,.
V
/
General No. 7.^42
Agenda No. 55
April Term 1951
Adolph Oberle, Appellee
\
Louis Lessman, Appellant
Appeal from Montgomery.
HEARD, J.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the circuit
court of Montgomery county against appellant for the
sum of $291.68 and costs in favor of appellee.
The suit was originally brought before a Justice of
the Peace where no written pleadings were required and
in the circuit court on appeal appellant had the right
without formal pleadings to urge any defense which he
might have. Lathan vs. Summers, 89 111. 233.
The evidence shows that in the early part of 1919
appellant and appellee entered into a partnership agree-
ment to purchase and sell seed com, appellant testifying
that it was the agreement to purchase two car loads of
corn, one to be shipped to him at Raymond, 111., and the
other to be consigned to H. J. Bender, brother-in-law of
appellee, at Nokomis, 111., and appellee testifying that
the agreement was to purchase only one car of corn
which was to be shipped to appellant at Raymond.
The evidence shows that the parties went to Jack-
son county where two cars loads of corn were purchas-
ed, one which was shipped to Raymond, when both par-
ties were present, and one, the next day, by appellee,
when appellant was not present. The latter car loaa
was shipped to Nokomis and retailed under appellee's
directions, he receiving the proceeds of the sale. The
checks received from the sale of the Raymond car of
corn were all made payable to appellant.
Some time after the Raymond car of corn had been
sold, the parties met at the office in Raymond and fig-
ured up the net profits on the Raymond corn and founa
them to be $596. Appellee demanded payment of one
half of this amount, and, according to the testimony of
appellee, appellant refused payment saying that he had
a half interest in the other car of corn and he was going
to hold this money until the other car was sold and re-
ported. The theory of the case as tried by counsel lor
/?
V.^^
^ ^j 6 I • A«
9 s
■^-.o'bi ^'
i.v'irj
' l':':yi
appellee was that it was a partnership matter involving
only one car of corn; that is, the Raymond car, and that
there
Page 1
had been a settlement or adjustment of the ac-
counts as to that car of corn and that a suit to recover
Oberle's half of the net profits would lie and also that
Lessman had nothing whatever to do with the car of
corn that was to be shipped to Nokomis. One of appel-
lant's contentions was that it was a partnership matter
extending to both cars of corn and that an adjustment
of it could not be had in a court of law, but that it
should be tried in a court of chancery.
In Burns, v. Nottingham, 60 111., 531, the court said:
"It is the settled law of this Court that one partner can-
not bring an action in assumpsit against his late partner
unless upon a dissolution of the co-partnership, the par-
tners account together and a balance is stated in favor
of one and the other agrees to make payment of such
sum. The balance so found must be a final settlement
of all the partnership accounts, but balances only struck
preparatory to a final account are not sufficient to form
the subject matter of an action at law; until this is done
the remedy is in equity."
In 20 M. R. C. L. pg. 924-6, it is said; "It is a gen-
eral rule that so long as a partnership continues one
partner cannot maintain an action at law against the
firm or against his co-partner on account of the matter
connected with the partnership. This disability contin-
ues until there is a settlemnet of the accounts and a
balance struck and persists, until these events transpire
although there has been a dissolution of the partner-
ship. ***** Nor will assumpsit lie in favor of one partner
against the other on an implied promise except for a
liquidated balance either struck by the parties or a re-
sult of a final adjustment of the partnership concern."
In the succeeding section of 20 R. C. L. page 925-6
it is said: "The converse of the general rule limiting the
right of one partner to sue his associates during the con-
tinuance of the firm relation in reference to partnership
matters, also holds true, and it is generally recognized
that after a balance has been struck, based on account-
ing between the parties, one partner may sue his co-
fo '">i7-i;if; ■J''iJ V'' ;•<:■;.; iJs
:, ]i-ioi-:
partner in assumpsit for such balance."
Upon the trial the court at the request of appellee
gave to the jury the followino- instruction: "The court
Page 2
instructs the jury that if you believe from a preponder-
ance of the evidence in this case that the plaintiff Ober-
le and the defendant Lessman stated an account between
themselves concerning the purchase and sale of a car of
corn, and a balance was sho\vn to be due to plaintiff
from the defendant as his proportionate share of the
net profits of the sale of said corn, and that the plain-
tiff has not been apid by the defendant, then you should
find the issues for the plaintiff and fix his damages at
such sum as you may find from the evidence is due to
the plaintiff under said statement of account." This in-
struction directed a verdict and was erroneous in entire-
ly ignoring the material question of fact as to whether
or not the partnership agreement covered the two loads
of corn.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Page 3
jffw. odi:
-rfi sif'T "
-3'ii:n3 Til e
;oiTiS'-f;i7 asr'fn oKj
ru
\
/
1 /
/ /]
/ f
Ky
( '
IN'
>
Xj^
\
General No, 7345 /" Agenda No. 10 '^hSi
Floyd J. Hutson, and Williaoff H. Nicholson,
\ Defendants iiT^Error
vsy^
John Barton Payne, Agent, Operating the Cleveland, Chi-
cago and St.\ Louis Qfiihoad, Plaintiff in Error
Error to, Cole^County Circuit Court.
This is an action brought on the case brought again-
st John Barton Payne, agent, operating the ClevelanS,
Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway Company by
appellant, Floyd J. Hutson and W. H. Nicholson, appel-
lees. A judgment for eight hundred dollars was render-
ed by the Circuit Court of Coles County against Appel-
lants and he prosecutes this appeal.
The appellees claim is for damages to a truck claim-
ed to have been sustained in a collision with a passenger
engine of the C. C. C. & St. Louis R. R. Co.
At the time of the collision the truck was being
driven by Floyd J. Hutson and the collision is the one
which furnished the basis for the claim in Hutson vs.
Payne, decided at the October term and reported in 111.
App. Reference to the opinion in which case is made for
a full statement of the location, facts, circumstances and
surroundings of the collision.
The evidence in this case is practically the same as
it was in that case and we held in that case that the jury
were justified in finding that the driver of the truck was
not guilty of contributory negligence and that the acci-
dent was proximately caused by negligence of appellant s
servants.
Complaint is made of the giving and refusal of in-
structions while two of plaintiff's instructions are some-
what defective, we are
Page 1
of opinion that v/hen all of the
instructions are considered together the jury could not
have been misled thereby. The instruction refused was
properly refused.
The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.
Page 2
f
f Li A fyi
General No. 7347 Agenda No. 58
April Term 1921
Hoveland, Sardeson, McColm Company, Appellant
vs.
Emma Sell, Appellee c\ C\ r* ~^ fi '^' ^'
Appeal from Christian. ^ ^ 'Q JLoAe ^^ ^
HEARD, J. > /
Appellant was engaged in the business of manufact-
uring ladies' and children's coats in Chicago. Appellee
was in the retail business at Pana, Illinois.
In June, 1918, a salesman for appellant called upon
appellee and secured her order for several hundred dol-
lars worth of goods to be shipped to appellee during the
month of July, 1918.
A portion of the goods were made up and shipped
to appellee about July 18, 1918. Appellee immediately
returned some of the goods received, claiming that they
were not according to sample and wrote appellant ask-
ing to have her order cancelled, and stating that she
would be in to see appellant about Aug. 1st and that she
wanted to see what she was buying.
Appellant immediately replied that it would credit
her with the garments that she returned, but that the
balance of her order was in work, and that they could
not accept cancellation for them, and would ship them.
Appellant held the goods until August 3rd ,at which
time it received a letter from appellee dated August 1st,
stating that she had cancelled her order, and that she
could not receive any more merchandise.
Some time in the early part of August 1918, appel-
lant shipped the remainder of the order of goods to ap-
pellee at Pana by American express. Appellee refused
the goods when tendered by the express company and
after being held by the express company at Pana for a
considerable time they were sent by the express company
to its salesrooms to be sold for the express charges.
Appellant then brought suit against appellee in as-
sumpsit upon the order for the purchase price of the
goods. A trial resulted in a
Page 1
judgment in favor of ap-
pellee for costs, from which judgment this appeal has
!(Li.i), inqj
■1-: ^-^I^:.:•
>rr:iU .i^a'i'i
been taken.
It is claimed by appellant that the verdict was again-
st the weight of the evidence. It is not disputed that
the goods were to have been shipped in July, 1918, and
that they were not shipped at the time specified in the
order.
When a contract specifies the time when delivery is
to be made, time is of the essence of the contract, and
if delivery is not made within the time specified the
buyer is not liable upon the contract and he may refuse
to accept the goods. 35 Cyc. 175.
It is claimed by appellant that by reason of the let-
ter of appellee asking to have the order cancelled and
stating that she would be in to see appellant about Aug.
1, appellee cannot urge as a defense to this proceedmg
that the goods were not shipped during July. With this
contention we can not agree. Appellee did not ask for
a delay in shipment, but for a cancellation of the order
and the letter should have operated as a warning to ap-
pellant to strictly comply with the terms of the contract
if it desired to enforce it.
A complaint is made of the refusal of an instruct-
ion requested by appellant. This instruction was nor
consistent with the views herein expressed, and was
properly refused. Some complaint is made of the giv-
ing of instructions on behalf of appellee. We find no
error in that regard.
The judgment is affirmed.
Page 2
,': ]i- '■
L-^: /^; / . :/
.^'
General No. 7350 •' Agenda No. 61
April Term 1921
Harlan Ripple, by Wesley Ripple, his next friend^
Appellee
; VS.
Wabash Railroad Company, a Corporation, Appellant
Appeal from Vermilion
HEARD, J. \f
Harlan Ripple, by Wesley Ripple, his next friend,
brought suit against the Wabash Railroad Company and
the Danville, Urbana and Champaign Railway company.
At the close of the plaintiff's evidence the suit was dis-
missed as to the Danville, Urbana and Champaign Rail-
way Company and the declaration amended so as to pro-
ceed against the Wabash Railroad Company alone.
The first count of the declaration charges that the
Wabash railroad company within the limits of the vil-
lage of Tilton had a switch track immediately adjoining
a public alley; that the ordinance of the village of Tilton
prohibited the obstruction of any street or alley, and that
prior to June 8, 1920, the defendant negligently placed
a pile of ties partly across the alley and partly upon the
right of way of the railroad and within two or three
feet of the east rail of the track, and constituted a nui-
sance which attracted, or was liable to attract, children
of tender years, and that the plaintiff was attracted to
said pile of ties, and while playing on the same, a num-
ber of cars upon the switch track were bumped together,
which frig-htened him so that he slipped and fell upon
the track so that he was run over and his left leg cut off.
The second count is substantially the same, except
that it charges that the railroad company, knowing the
location of the pile of railroad ties, permitted the same
to remain and thereafter operated cars over the tracks.
The trial resulted in a judgment for $4,000 in favor
of appellee against appellant, from which judgment this
appeal has been taken.
The evidence introduced proved, or tended to prove,
the following facts: that the right-of-way of the Wabash
Railroad company along
Page 1
this switch was twenty feet wide;
O O ^ T • '"^ ^'
■ 'd -W-- :-'i -y 1 y
h'>yiiu.)y dzu:
''. <9v:,Gnii'(^-
-in-/;,} r'. Ov ' '■
\-r- to- A Vfe
that running north and south immediately adjoining the
right of way upon the east was a public alley, fifteen feet
in width, platted and laid out; that there was no fence
between the alley and the right of way and that the or-
dinance of the village forbids the placing of obstruct-
ions in or upon the alley, in whole or in part. The Wab-
ash switch is crossed at a point about six hundred feet
north of the place of the accident by a public highway
known as the Catlin road. The switch from a point
about two hundred feet south of the Catlin road and ex-
tending north was equipped with a trolley, so that elec-
tric engines of the Danville, Urbana and Champaign
railway could switch cars on this track.
In the month of May, 1920, the Wabash hauled ties,
eight feet long, six inches thick and eight or ten inches
wide on cars and distributed them along this right of
way to repair the track. They threw the ties off, one
at a time, from the cars, ten to fifteen ties every thirty
feet. No attempt was made to pile the ties, but they
were slipped off endwise. These ties remained along
the right of way from May until some time in the month
of July, at which time the section men of the Wabash
put them in the track, taking out all old bad ties ana
putting in new ones. Not all of the old ties were taken
out, but about ten to every rail. The grade of the track
was ten to fourteen inches higher than the grade of the
alley.
Harlan Ripple lived with his father and step-motner
in a house on L street in Tilton. L street is parallel with
said public alley and runs north and south. The Rippie
house faced east on L street and at the back of the lot
upon which the Ripple house was located, ran this pub-
lic alley. On June 8th, 1920, Harlan Ripple was injured
on the track at a point directly back of the lot upon
which he
Page 2
lived, about 75 to 100 feet from his house. At
that time certain cars were standing on the switch, and
the Danville, Urbana and Champaign electric motor
backed into these cars, struck them and bumped them.
A little later he was discovered crawling over the ties
spread along the track, with his leg badly crushed. His
mother then found him and carried him into the house^
:zcrr^ ,^•■■t
;';-:'5T?^ ■,,;,;; T'ltjlSi ;;(('
and his leg was amputated.
Appellee introduced evidence tending to show that
at the place of the accident there was a pile of ties from
two to three feet high extending from the alley to with-
in two feet of the track and that the top one of the ties
extended from two to three and one half feet into the
alley where the end rested upon the ground and this
pile is what is claimed to have been the attractive nuis-
ance.
There was evidence tending to show that for three
weeks prior to the accident small children frequently
played upon this pile of ties but there is no evidence
showing that any of the railroad employees knew of
such fact.
There was no occurrence witness except the in-
jured boy and he testified that he was standing on the
ties and the cars came up and bumped and scared him;
that he fell down and cut one foot off and that is all ne
knows about it.
When the evidence is considered in its aspect most
favorable to appellee the case is one of doubtful liability
and it was therefore of the utmost importance that the
jury should be accurately instructed.
On behalf of appellee the court gave the following
instruction: "The court instructs the jury that if you
believe from the greater weight of the testimony that
the defendant, Wabash Railroad Company, on and prior
to the 8th day of June, 1920, was in possession of a cer-
tain switch track running through the west part of the
Village of Tilton, and that the right of way of said
switch track abutted up and against a certain public al-
ley in the Village of Tilton, and that on and prior to said
date the said defendant had placed or maintainea
Page 3
near to said track and in whole or in part upon said pub-
lic alley, a certain pile of railroad ties; and if you fur-
ther believe from the evidence that said pile of railroad
ties was so placed in violation of an ordinance of the
Village of Tilton, Illinois, and was so situated and con-
structed so as to attract, or become liable to attract, to
be and play about the same, children of tender years and
if you further believe from the testimony that the said
defendant, knowing such facts, operated or permitted
} -Ui'bri
ri ■■■■; /it.f •?;■' ^■'■■- 1" »•
.'; V vi.
to be operated, cars over and along said track while said
obstruction there remained; and if you further believe
from the testimony that the plaintiff was a child of ten-
der years and was attracted to said pile of ties by the
allurements thereof, and, while playing upon the same,
was frightened or startled by the movement of cars up-
on said track so that he fell from said pile of ties upon
the rails of said track and was run over and injured; and
if you further believe from the testimony that the plain-
tiff was in the exercise of due care and caution for his
own safety at the time when he was injured; that then
and in such state of the proof, if such state of the proof
exists herein, the plaintiff has made out his case so as to
require said defendant to show that the said plaintiff
suffered such injuries without any fault on its part.
The giving of this instruction is assigned as error.
By the giving of this instruction the jury were in effect
told that there was evidence in the record from which
they might find that the pile of ties were placed where
they were in violation of an ordinance of the Village of
Tilton. The ordinance in question is as follows: "No
person or persons or corporatons, shall erect, construct
or place, or cause to be constructed or placed, any build-
ing, fence or other obstruction, in whole or in part, up-
on any street, alley, sidewa'k or other public ground
within the village, under a penalty of not less than one
dollar not more than two hundred dollars." There was
no evidence that the pile of ties, if there was such pile,
was placed where it was in violation of the ordinance.
There is a very serious conflict in the evidence
Page 4
as to whether
there was in fact a pile of ties at the place in question,
but if there was such pile, it was on the railroad com-
pany's right of way and there was a tie with one end on
the ground from two to three and a half feet out in the
alley and the other end resting on the pile of ties. Even
if this constituted a violation of the ordinance there
was no evdence whatever that such violation had any-
thing whatever to do with bringing about the accident.
It was in no way shown by the evidence to have been a
proximate cause of the accident. It is not every viola-
tion of an ordinance which will render the violator liable
:;-.f^ ■/;'.
•.. -■!
r ■;j;:C::;i:-;o yni
for injury. It is only where the person injured is in the
exercise of ordinary care for his own safety and the
violation of the ordinance is the proximate cause of the
injury. The reference to the ordinance in the instruct-
ion in question had a tendency to mislead the jury.
This instruction is erroneous in other respects. In
order to charge a person engaged in the business of
handling a dangerous agency with liability it is necessary
that the injury which results from such dangerous
agency be one which a person of ordinary prudence, in
the light of the surrounding circumstances would reason-
ably and naturally have anticipated. Austin v. Public
Service Company, 299 111. 112. It certainly cannot be
held as a matter of law that the servants of the railroad
company should have anticipated that a boy standing on
the ties would be scared so that he would fall in such a
way that his foot would be crushed under the wheel of
a passing car.
While this instruction does not direct a verdict i*.
purports to tell what is necessary to make out plaintiff's
case. Negligence to be the basis of liability must be tne
proximate cause of the accident. This and other of ap-
pellee's given instruction entirely ignored this rule. The
instruction is also erroneous in telling the jury if a cer-
tain state of proof exists that the plaintiff has made out
his case so as to require said defendant to show that the
said plaintiff suffered said injuries with-
Page 5
out any fault on
his part. In this case even if the evidence showed the
facts stated in the instruction the burden of proving de-
fendant guilty rested upon the plaintiff and defendant
was not required to prove itself not guilty.
An instruction which tells the jury what is necessary
to prove plaintiff's case must include all the facts neces-
sary to make out such case. This instruction after in
effect telling the jury that if they find the plaintiff was
attracted by an attractive nuisance and while playing up-
on the same "was frightened or startled by the move-
ment of the cars upon said track so that he fell from
said pile of ties upon the rails of said track and was run
over and injured, etc." There was nothing inherently
dangerous in this pile of tios which could cause the boy
•i-i-\\/\[ jrij
-1 --^r h t;;: ,, a.oi >-\\ y:.
v;.iT>Hf.-i -cyKfl^
to fall underneath the wheel of the car. There are no
facts stated in the instruction or in the evidence as to
the manner of his fall, the connection of the pile of ties
therewith, or how he got from the ties up the grade and
beneath the wheels in any way that the court could say
as a matter of law that the plaintiff had made out his
case.
The giving of these instructions was reversible er-
ror. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
sJj rjiiij v-si
/'/
'^^Ji
fA.
4L ..i
ff^
General No. 7358 / Agenda No. 9
\ October Term 1921
->PeWitt W. Smith, Defendant in Error
\ ^^. ;
Allemania Fire Insurance Company, et al.,
Plainitffs in Error
Error to Circuit Court of Sangamon County.
Hon. Norman L. Jones, Trial Judge
HEARD, J. 2 261
Defendant in Error, DeWitt C. Smith, filed a bill in
chancery in the Circuit Court of Sangamon County, to
recover upon twenty-two fire insurance policies, aggre-
gating $86,000, issued to him by the seventeen defen-
dants. The Court entered a decree awarding him $78,-
409.26, and apportioning that amount among the sev-
eral defendants. An appeal was prosecuted to this
court by each of the seventeen defendants severally,
which appeals resulted in a reversal of the decree, the
cause being remanded to the Circuit Court with dir-
ections to proceed in accordance with the views express-
ed in the opinion which is reported in Smith vs. A. F.
Ins. Co., 219 111. App. 506, to which opinion reference is
made for a statement of the facts.
A rehearing in the Circuit Court resulted in a de-
cree in favor of Defendant in Error against the seven-
teen defendants for the sum of $74,971.87, which amount
is by the decree apportioned among the several defen-
dants. Plaintiffs in Error have sued out writs of Errors
for the purpose of having the decree reviewed by this
Court.
The first contention of Palintiffs in Error is that a
court of equity is without jurisdicton in this case. This
identical question was raised in Smith vs. A. F. Ins. Co.
supra, and, while the personal of the Court has changed
since the decision in that case, the opinion in that case
is binding upon us now, and we must therefore hold m
accordance with the opinion then expressed that the
Chancellor did not err in assuming jurisdic-
Page 1
tion of this cause.
It is next contended that the Chancellor did not
Q%^
j(...^ ■■•rn^'':'T
r .-^ t . / '^ : :
adoupt the correct measure of damages. This court on
the former hearing held that the term "actual cash val-
ue" contained in each of the policies meant "reproduct-
ion value less depreciation for age, and not market val-
ue," and that holding is now binding upon us.
Much evidence was introduced bearing upon the
question of the loss sustained by defendant in error by
reason of the partial destruction by fire of the building
covered by the policies in question. Without detailing
this evidence in this opinon, suffice it to say that the
chancellor evidently attempted to proceed in accordance
with the views expressed in our former opinion, and his
finding as to the amount falls within the range of the
evidence.
The decree of the circuit court is therefore affirm-
ed.
Page 2
■ft. ^»
\
General No.\7359 / Agenda No. 10
October Term 1921
\George Steeljf, Appellee ,^
/ Qi n^ f^
Chafes Grition, Appellant v^-
Appeal from the Oountw" Court of Vermilion County. . .^^
HEARD, J. • '
This is an appeal from the judgment of the County
1
Court of Vermilion County in favor of appellee agamst
appellant for $110.00 and costs.
Appellee's claim is for professional services render-
ed by him as a physician and surgeon to Appellant's son .^^
who was 29 years of age. Appellee performed an oper-
ation for appendicitis upon the appellant's son. Appel- "*-■
lee testified that after the first operation appellant told
appellee that he would pay appellee for further services
rendered to the son, and that the services for which claim
is made were rendered after such promise and in pur-
suance thereof. Appellant denies the making of such
promise. This raised a question of fact for the jui-y and
they evidently found in favor of appellee.
Appellant contends that even if such promise was
made, it was a special promise to answer for the debt
of another, and therefore, void by reason of the Statute
of Frauds. If appellee's testimony is to be believed,
then the promise was not a promise to answer for the
debt of another but was an original undertaking on the
part of the appellant to pay for future services, wheth-
er or not this promise was made was purely a question
of fact for the jury, and we would not be justified in dis-
turbing their finding.
Complaint is made of the admission in evidence oi
statements of appellant's son to appellee made out of
the presence of appellant while the son was being exam-
ined by appellee prior to the first operation. While
some of these statements
Page 1
were probably incompetent,
the vital question in the case was whether or not the
promise was made as claimed and these statements
could have had no bearing upon that question, and their
admission was not prejudicial error.
\,
10 A
^4i.^-'
Some complaint is made as to the giving and refus-
al of instructions. We are of the opinion that the court
did not err in that respect.
The judgment is affirmed.
Page 2 '
X..
General No. 7373 \ |' Agenda No. 22
October Term 19^
The People of the Sfete of Illinseis, For the use of
Joseph C. ©verby, i^i^pellant
''^ -^ Or '"'
\ vs. ^ y y
S. S. Kres£-e Compan:?^ a CfVporation, Appellee
Appeal from the Circuit '|]ou^ of Sangamon County
I /
HEARD, J. I /
if
This is an appeal from a judgment of the circuit
court of Sangamon County in an action, heard upon ap-
peal, brought in the name of the People of the State o^
Illinois, for the use of Joseph Overby a colored person,
under what is known at the Civil Rights Statute of the
state which provides:
"That all persons within the jurisdiction of said
State of Illinois shall be entitled to the full and equal
enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities
and privileges of inns, restaurants, eating houses, hotels,
soda fountains, saloons, barber shops, bath rooms, thea-
ters, skating rinks, concerts, cafes, bicycles (bicycle)
rinks, elevators, ice cream parlors or rooms, railroads,
omnibuses, stages, street cars, boats funeral hearses and
public conveyances on land and water, and all other pla-
ces of public accommodation and amusement, subject
only to the conditions and limitations established by law
and applicable alike to all citizens.
2. That any person who shall violate any of the pro-
visions of the foregoing section by denying to any citizen,
except for reasons a.pplicable alike to a,ll citizens of every
race and color, and regardless of color or race, the full
enjoyment of any of
Pan-e 1
the accommodations, advantages,
facilities or privileges in said section enumerated, or by
aiding or inciting such denial, shall for every such offense
forfeit and pay a sum of not less than twenty-five (25)
dollars nor more than five hundred (500) dollars ^o the
persc'n aggrieved thereby, to be recovered in any court
of competent jurisdiction, in the county where said of-
fense was commJtted; and shall also, for every such of?-
ense be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon con-
viction thereof, shall be fined not to exceed five hundred
>^-
'.*^-
A. o26
l^jk
(500) dollars, or shall be imprisoned not more than one
year, or both; and punishment upon an indictment, shall
be a bar to either prosecution respectively."
Motions to dismiss the appeal and to affirm pro
j'orma for v/ant of a sufficient abstract were taken with
the case and are denied.
The appellee operates wliat is known as a "Five and
Ten Cent Store" in Springfield. Among its departments
is a lunch counter at which food and drink are served.
The counter was in the form of a hollow rectangle, 30
to 35 feet long, with a marble top 18 or 20 inches wide,
in the center of which rectangle were steam tables from
which the food was served and the working space for
the waitresses. High stools with a seat about 10 incnes
in diameter and v.ithout arms or back were located quite
close together all around the outside of the counter.
About four feet from the counter and parrallel thereto
and with no partition or division from the stools, was a
row of 19 chairs, v/ith backs and wide shelf arms on the
right side, on which dishes could be placed, such as are
found in many cafeterias. The food was all served from
inside the counter by waitresses, and whether it was to
be eaten while seated on a stool or in a chair it was of
the same quality and price and served by the same wait-
resses. On the v.'all, just over the row of chairs, was a
conspicious placard on which was printed: "The manage-
ment reserves the right to seat their patrons."
The chairs in question were not reserved for color-
ed
Page 2
people but were used indiscriminately by colored and
white persons.
About the first of July, 1920, Overby, accompanied
by another young colored man, entered appellee's place
of business and seated themselves upon stools at the
same counter and called for food and dinnk. They were
informed by the parties in charge of the lunch counter
that they could not be sei'ved at the counter but that if
they would seat themselves in chairs they would be ser-
ved. Overby and his companion declined to occupy the
chairs and left the place without being served, and Ov-
erby instituted this proceeding as the result of the oc-
curence.
There is a sharp conflict in the testimony as to what
v/as said by the parties at the time of the occurrence,
Overby testifying that the paities in charge of the luncii
counter told him "We do not serve colored people at this
counter. If you want to be served, get over there
against the wal'," and that the Manager of the place
said, "I don't serve colored people at this counter; there
ib a lady you might be objectionable to her. If you
want to be served you get over against the wall." The
making of these statements is denied by appellant's wit-
nesses, who state that Oevrby's attention was called to
the sign upon the wall and that nothing was said about
their colored people.
While an eating house or restaurant is sufficiently
public in its nature to be subject to legislative and muni-
cipal regulations, yet it is a private enterprise, the pn-
vate property of the proprietor and in the very nature of
things the proprietor must exercise control over the place
and the patrons. It follows as a necessary incident of
such control that one operating such eating house or res-
taurant may make all reasonable rules as to the method
of serving patrons and conduct of the business as long
as they do not conflict with any legislative or municipal
enactment. Overby's right in appellee's lunch counter
vv^as no greater or no less than those of a white man. His
color gave him no greater rights there than a white man
v/ould have under
Page 3
the same circumstances. It would not
be seriously contended that a white man had an absolute
right to be seated and served at a particular seat in a
restaurant, or to be served by any particular waiter, or
to have any particular kind of chairs or dishes. A white
man would not have a right to insist over the proprietor's
protest, upon sitting down at a table where for any reas-
on, the proprietor might think him uncongenial to the
other guests or when his presence might interfere with
the enjoyment of the other guests. A white miner or a
mechanic in his soiled working clothes, while having a
right to service, would have no right to insist upon seat-
ing himself over the proprietor's protest in just a position
to ladies dressed in delicate fabrics which might be eas-
ily soiled nor would a white lady no matter how reason-
able or well dressed have a right to insist upon bemg
seated at a table with a party of business men who were
discussing their business affairs. In the very nature of
things, discretion in seating their patrons must be vested
in the management of such concerns, and the posting or
the placard "the amnagment reserves the right to seat
their patrons" gives appellee no greater right than he
already had under the law. It only called the attention
of the proprietor's patrons that the management intend-
ed to avail themselves of that right. It was a rule which
apphes to all alike whether white or colored.
Having a right to seat appellees white patrons it nec-
essarily follows that appellee had a right to seat its col-
ored patrons as long as it did not isolate them from tne
whites but furnished them seats used indiscriminately Dy
whites and colored people.
The vital question in this case was a question of
fact and it was put directly up to the Jury by proper in-
structions, and we would not be justified in disturbing
their finding which has received the sanction of the Cir-
cuit court.
The judgment is affirmed.
Page 4
General No. 7382
226 I.A. Q2,f
Agenda No. 31
ctober Term ]J21
\ S. Lee C4x,
\ vs. ?'■
Missionfield Coal Con],^any, a corporation
Error to the Circu|t C(^rt of Vermilion County
HEARD, J.
i^'
The cause of action in this case arose out of the
fact that Defendant in Error, which is hereinafter re-
ferred to as defendant, entered upon the premises of
the plaintiff in error, who is hereinafter called the plain-
tiff, who had a farm adjoining defendant's premises,
mined and took away a quantity of coal therefrom with-
out the consent of the plaintiff. A jury trial resulted in
a verdict and judgment for plaintiff against defendant
for $270 damages, and the only question which plaintiff
seeks to have reviewed is the size of the award.
In McGuire vs. Boyd Coal and Coke Co. 236 111. 69,
the rule is laid down that the measures of damages for
coal wrongfully mined beyond the limits of the mine is
the value of the coal at the mouth of the pit, less the
costs of loading and handling the coal from the place
where it was mined to the foot of the shaft and for
hoisitng and dumping it into the car at the top.
It was stipulated by the parties upon the trial that
8,386 cubic feet of the vein of coal had been mined and
removed by the defendant.
Plaintiff introduced evidence tending to show that
8,386 cubic feet of the vein would produce 353 tons of
coal, while defendant introduced evidence tending to
show that the amount of coal was 346.2 tons. Plaintiff
introduces evidence tending to show that the value of
the coal at the mouth of the pit was $1.75 per ton, while
defendant introduced evidence tending to
Page 1
show that such val-
ue was only 95c per ton. Defendant introduced evidence
tending to show that the cost of loading the coal into
the pit car was from 34.5c to 35.5c per ton, and hauling
it from the place where it was mined to the foot of the
shaft and dumping it into the car at the top was from
21c to 25c.
Plaintiff introduced no evidence as to the cost of
these operations. According to the figures above quot-
ed, under the rule laid down in McGuire vs. Boyd Coal
and Coke Co., supra, the minimum amount of damages
shown by the evidence was $124.32, and the maximum
amount was $413.60.
The verdict of the jury being within the range of
these figures we would not be justified under the evi-
dence in this case in disturbing their findings.
The judgment is affirmed.
Page 2
•V --/
d- S%
X
-* %
( i - A^
/o o r T
^ /<W A= v/ X
/ Agenda No. 70
General NoX7385
\ October Term 192/
■?
Joseph ^. Lyons, Complaina^ and Appellee
Mary Frandes Lyons, Defeiraant and Appellant
Marjk Frances LyjjifTis, Appellant
o
.:%
Jos4ph P.Xyons, Appellee
Appeal from the _^^uit Court of McLean County
HEARd, J.
The abstract filed by appellant in this case is a mere
index. It does not set forth the bill, the evidence, or the
decree and does not comply with the Rules of this court.
While this Court will go to the transcript of the record
for reasoiis to affirm a judgment, it will not go back of
the abstract for reasons to reverse one. The appellant
who prepares the abstract must cause it to show all er-
rors relied up for reversal. Warren vs. Armstrong 214
ID. App. 188.
Appellant not having filed an abstact in compliance
v/ith the rules of this court, the appeal will be dismissed.
f ~\
^iS
/ o
'" <^ "Tf
^ y Kj k.$>
Agenda No. 31
21
Appellant
Carlinv\'.e Mining Company, Appellee
Appeal f ro;n ^ircuiW^ourt of Macoupin County.
\ /
HEARD, J. -;/
This is a suit brought by appellant against appellee
for services alleged to have been rendered by appellee for
appellant.
A trial wais had and upon the appellant closing his
testimony in chief, the appellee entered a motion to ex-
clude all of the evidence offered on the part of the ap-
pella.nt and for judgment in favor of the appellee. Said
motion was allowed by the court, and thereupon judg-
ment v/as entered by the court in favor of the appellee,
frcrn which judgment this appeal is being prosecuted.
During all of the time the appellant was engaged in the
performance of the services for v/hich he has brougnt
suit he served at various times as president, secretary-
treasurer, director and manager of said company, and a
part of the tim.e held more than ore of spid offices at the
sam.e time.
There vras no evidence that the directors of the cor-
poration ever fixed any compensation or salary for ap-
pellant prior to the rendition of the services and it is con-
tended that therefore appellant is not entitled to recover
in this case.
In Chicago Marconi Co. vs. Boggiania, 202 111. 312, it
is said:
"V/hile the principle is well established, that in orcier
to entitle an officer of a private corporation to receive
com.pensation for the performance of the duties of his of-
fice, it is necessary such compensation should have been
authorized by the board of directors or by the by-laws of
the company, it is also the rule that for the performance
of duties or service outside and
Page 1
apart from those impos-
ed on him by virtue of his office, suxh officer may, if such
extraordinary services were rendered at the request, or
with the acquiescence, of the corporation, recover upon
u?
di S
a quantum meruit."
In Rose Hill Cemetery Co. vs. Dem.ster, 233 111. 567
tiie Court says:
"The old doctrine of the common law that an agent
of a private corporation could only be appointed under
the common seal of the corporation, if it ever was recog-
nized by the courts of this country, has long since given
V'/ay to the modern rule which is now iirmly established,
that an agent of a corporation can be appointed by parol
for any proper corporate purpose, and the acts of agents
thus appointed within the general scope of their author-
ity are binding upon the corporation, and all services ren-
dered or benefits conferred at the request of its agent
raise an implied promise, to enforce which an action is
maintainable against the corporation.
"In justice and reason no substantial ground exists
why a corporation may not make contracts and assume
liabilities in any manner that a natural person might em-
ploy, except in such matters as the charter of the lav/s of
the state prescribe a particular method of procedure. It
is a v/ell-established doctrine of the law of agency that a
subsequent ratification of the act of one who assumed to
be an agent supplies the want of previous authority. A
corporation may ratify the act of one who assumed to
act for it and thus remove the want of authority in the
first instance, provided the act is one which could have
been legally authorized."
Appellant in his testimony stated that the services
for v/hich he was claiming compensation were not per-
formed by reason of the fact that he was an officer of
the corporation and tliat the services performed were no
part of his duties as such officer.
When a motion is made to direct a verdict upon tne
trial of an issue, the party against whom the motion is
directed is entitled to the benefit of all the evidence in
its favor, in its aspect most favorable to hirn, together
with all reasonable
Page 2
inference and presumptions which may
be reasonably dra'am from such evidence. The evidence
is not v/eighed and a'l contradictory evidence or explana-
tory circumstances must be rejected. Yes vs. Yes, 2.55 111.
414; McCune vs. Reynolds, 288 111. ISS; Plum vs. I. C. R. R.
Co. 220 111. App. 554.
Applying this rule to the evidence in this case, we
are of the opinion that the court erred in directing a
verdict in favor of appellee.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Page 3
in
'%
2261 k. <i^
General No. 7390 Agenda No. 37
October Term 1921
Swift & Company, a corporation, Plaintiff in Error
vs.
Normal State Bank, Defendant in Error
Error to McLean County Circuit Court
HEARD, J.
Plaintiff in Error brought suit in trover against De-
fendant in Error for the conversion of a check for $90.52
Defendant in Error plead not guilty. A jury was waived
and trial before the court resulted in a judgment for
plaintiff in error against defendant in error for one cent
damages and costs, to review, which judgment plaintiff
in error has sued out a writ of error from this court.
In the year 1919, W. L. Hogle was a salesman and
collector for plaintiff in error. He took orders for meat
and collected payments from its customers. The pay-
iTsents were made to him by the customer's checks and
in cash. At frequent inteiwals Hogle made itemized re-
ports of orders and collections accompanied by a remit-
tance of the payments. In order that he might maKe
the remittances he was authorized to endorse customer's
checks with a rubber stamp reading: "Pay to order of
for exchange payable to Swift & Com-
pany, by ." After the check was stamp-
ed with this endorsement he was authorized to fill the
name of the payee bank in the first blank and to write
his name in the last blank. With the stamp and author-
ity he could purchase exchange at any bank and endorse
the local checks to the bank as consideration for the ex-
change. Hogle had no authority to use the checks in any
other way or to use any other form of endorsement. He
could not use the local checks or the purchased exchange
for his personal use except by forgery. By this means
the local banks handled the local checks and Swift &
Company received one draft instead of
Page 1
many checks.
Hogle without authority endorsed the check in ques-
tion in lead pencil: "Swift & Company, by W. L. Hogle."
The defendant bank received the check so endorsed, col-
lected it from the McLean County Bank at Bloomington,
the drawee bank and received the proceeds for its own
account, and thereby became technically guilty of con-
version.
The defendant in error interposed only the defense
of mitigation of damages. Confessing the conversion,
defendant in error has undertaken to mitigate the con-
ceded damage by an attempt to prove that the check was
actually used as part payment for a draft which the de-
fendant in error issued to Hogle for Swift & Company on
August ISth. Swift & Company received and cashed the
draft. The question in the case is, whether this parti-
cular check was actually used in part payment for tne
draft.
This question was purely a question of fact to be de-
termined by the court from the evidence in the case. We
are of the opinion that there is sufficient evidence in the
case to support the court's finding that the proceeds of
the $90.52 check were used by Hogle as part payment for
a draft for $385.02 which he purchased and sent to plain-
tifl" in error and which draft was received and collected
by plaintiff in error. The court having found that plam-
tiff in error received the proceeds of the $90.52 cheeky
it follows that plantiff in error was only entitled to re-
cover nominal damages.
Barrelett vs. Bellgard, 71 111. 280.
The judgment is affirmed.
Page 2 :
.^
General No. 74 ^ J- Agenda No. 52
October Term 19^
linnie Zelk, Appellee
Charges Simon, ^pellant
Appeal from the Ci'fe^uit Coi^ of Sangamon County.
HEARD, J. \ /
Appellee brought suit against appellant in the cir-
cuit court of Sangamon County and filed a declaration in
assumpsit consisting of one count, seeking to recover for
labor and services performed in and about the household
of appellant. Upon motion of appellant, a bill of parti-
culars was filed claiming v/ages for work, labor and dom-
esitc services performed by appellee in and about the
household of appellant from the 24th day of February
1916, to the 24th day of October, 1920, being about five
years immediately preceding the filing of this suit; at
the rate of ten dollars per week. Appellant filed the
plea of general issue. Trial was had upon the merits and
a verdict was returned in favor of appellee for the sum
of $1,699.00 and judgment was entered upon this verdict
from which judgment this appeal was taken.
About twenty-three years before the beginning of
this suit appellee, who is now about 47 years of age, be-
gan working for appellant in his household in the city of
Chicago. Shortly after she began this service the fam-
ily removed to Elkhart, Ilhnois, and she came with them
and continued to work for Appellant in his household at
Elkhart for the next nine years. About the end of that
period of time appellant and his family removed to
Springfield, Illinois. Appellee came with them also ana
continued to work in his household until she was dis-
charged some time in 1920.
Page 1
Both parties agree that the services were perform-
ed and that they were not gratuitously performed.
Appellant was a grocer in the City of Springfield.
The members of his household consisted of his wife, who
died August 15, 1916, his brother William, two sons, Phil-
ip and Julius, all grown men, and one daughter, Natalie,
aged about eighteen.
Appellee claims that she was never paid anything
for the services rendered.
Appellant testified that he started out prior to Feb-
ruary 24, 1918, by paying appellee four dollars per week
and that during the five years in question he paid her
five dollars each and every week, sometimes by check and
very frequently in currency; and that when this suit was
instituted by appellee he did not owe her one cent.
Appellant was corroborated as to the making of
payments by his two sons Juilius and Philip and by Chas.
Anderson a truck driver at appellant's store and also by
about 40 checks drawn by appellant payable to appellee
which seem.ed to indicate a weekly payment from appel-
lant to appellee. In explanation of these checks appel-
lee contends that there was an agreement between her-
self and appellant, that appellant should each week, leave
a small sum of money at his home to pay minor house-
hold expenses, such as laundry bills, insurance bills-, and
newspaper bills, and in pursuance to this agreement ap-
pellant gave money and checks ranging in amounts from
$4.00 to $10.00 each week, either to appellee or to nis
daughter Natalie for that purpose but that none of these
checks were for wages a,nd that she retained none of the
money or proceeds of the checks for her own use.
Appellee testified that while upon two ocassions dur-
ing the twenty-three years appellant promised to pay her
wages no specific amount was ever mentioned or agreed
upon. At one time in her testimony appellee testified
that in June, 1917 she was working for appellant under
an agreement whereby he was to
Page 2
pay her four dollars per
week and board and lodging, but that he never did it but
later claimed that she had not so testified. In this state
of the record it was proper for appellee to introduce tes-
tim.ony as to the usual, reasonable and customary price
paid for like services in that community, at that time,
and appellee did introduce such testimony.
The court refused to give an instruction requested by
appellant and such refusal is assigned for error. The re-
quested instruction is as follows:
"The court instructs the jury that if you believe
from the evidence in this case that at the beginning of
the time in question the defendant had the plaintiff in his
employment upon the agreement and the understanding
between the parties hereto that the plaintiff was to re-
ceive in full compensation for her services the sum of
four dollars per week, and that subsequently, by agree-
ment and understanding between the parties, the plain-
tiff was to render the services in question for the sum of
five dollars per week, and that in pursuance of such
agreement and understanding the said defendant did pay
the said plaintiffs for such services in accordance with
their said agreements and understanding then in such
case it is your duty to find for the defendant."
The evidence was very conflicting and appellant had
the right to have the jury fully instructed as to the law
of the case, especially in view of the fact that appellee's
witnesses had fixed eight dollars per week as the sum
which appellee's service were recently worth. The re-
fusal to give this instruction was error. The judgment
is reversed and the cause remanded.
Page 3
..D
it-
General No. 730X / Agenda No. 23
'>% " April Term 1921"
?iw Meridian Amusemeijt Company of Illinois, a corporation
'. Appellant ;
'"t^ ' vs. ^'
J The Home Theatre eompany,/a corporation, Appellee
,«^. Appeal from ivermilion.
\ '\ 5 /
NIEHAUS. J. \ /
%-- \/
This suit was brouk'ht by the appellant, Meridian
^ Amusement Company of Illinois, in the circuit court of
Vermilion county, for alleged pecuniary loss, which it
claims to have suffered on account of the violation by
the apepllee. "The Home Theatre Company," of a res-
trictive agreement, by the terms of which, the appellee
*^3&s* 'v^^ prohibited from operating a picture show at its
theatre in Danville, which is known as the "Palace Thea-
tre;" and is located nearby the Picture show theatre con-
»^ ducted by the appellant, which is known as the Fisher
Theatre.
It is contended by the appellant, that the violations
of the restrictive agreement referred to, commenced
about May 1, 1918, and continued, with the exception of
short intervals, until March 13, 1920, when the appellee
was finally enjoined from the further production of pic-
ture shows at the theatre mentioned. There was a trial
by jury, which resulted in a verdict and judgment for the
appellant; the amount of the verdict and judgment being
S250.00. The appellant claims, that the amount of dam-
ages assessed by the jury are inadequate, and prosecutes
this appeal from the judgment.
The right claimed by the appellant for the recovery
of damages is predicated upon the loss of profits by rea-
son of the
1
wrongful competition in carrying on the
same kind of theatrical attraction by the appellee at its
theatre, located close to the theatre of the appellant,
where similar performances were being carried on; and
thereby decreasing the attendance upon its theatre,
which necessarily resulted in a loss of profit in carrying-
on its business. On the question of the damage which it
sustained, the appellant offered evidence of the pecun-
FS: .oK Rf?f:;:'A
crilji'ioT'T ,jfr;[!3([rfr> -ja'A ■■i i'' .m r'''
U:\\
:■'■■ .,;';! ^-: r
.'N'f.l'O
:<( .-:,L:i ;i '^ilt
<Jiij lo H!
■■ Q,-'* ! ■!
■•rtiiONT ■ ,:f ■;-. .)■,
iary recepits derived from attendance of tlie patrons of
its moving picture shows, and the net profits reaHzed
therefrom, from March 11, 1917 to October 13, 1917; and
from March 17, 1918 to October 12, 1918. and from March
17, 1919 to October 11, 1919; and also up to March 13.
1920, that being the date when the final decree for the
injunction took effect, which prohibited the appellee
from further picture show performances. The appel-
lant offered to prove the attendance receipts and profits
of its theatre after the injunction took effect and the ap-
pelee had ceased its picture show attractions, from April
5, 1920 to October 16, 1920. An objection was sustained
to this evidence; and the evidence was not admitted. We
are of opinion, that the appellant had the right to have
this evidence considered by the jury on the question of
the damages sustained by appellant. The evidence had
a tendency to show what efl'ect the stopping of appellee's
picture shows, had on the attendance on Appellant's pic
ture shows. In Southerland on Damages, it is said, that
juries should be allowed to act in cases of this kind up-
on probable and inferential, as well as direct and positive
proof. "And when from the nature of the case the
amount of damages cannot be estimated with certainty,
or only a part of them can be so estimated, no objection
is perceived to placing before the jury all the facts and
circumstances of the case, having any tendency to show
damages, or their probable amount so as to enable them
to make the most in-
Page 2
telligible and probable estimate
v/hich the nature of the case will permit." Southerlan--]
on Damages Vol. 1, p. 121. 'When profits are the object
and inducement of a contract and known to both con-
tracting parties so to be, such profits may be proven as
a measure of damages for a breach of contract if suscep-
tible of being proven with reasonable certainty.' C. C.
& St. L. Ry. Co. v. Wood 189 111. 352. Evidence showing
an increased attendance and hence increased profits der-
ived therefrom, after appellee's wrongful competition
was removed, would necessarily have a tendency to show
the injurious effect of such wrongful competition, and
the damage resulting therefrom. We are of opinion
therefore that this evidence was competent and should
■'I ;: :
■:U:.r-': ■■■'■ '.■■■:i.i:
i>l.rr,H; r.,:r, i ■
have been submitted to the jury. St. John v. Mayer 13
How. Pr. 527; Hitchcock v. Anthony 38 Fed. 779; Hoogen-
dorn V. Daniel 202 Fed. 431. The appellant called I. C.
Davidson as a witness, and he testified that he was in
the theatrical business in Danville, and had operated a
theatre there since May 1, 1917. He was asked this
question: "You may state if you know whether the in-
crease in attendance on theatres in Danville — the gener-
al volume of attendance — increased of decreased for the
year from May 1st 1918 to May 1st, 1919?" The Court
sustained an objection to the question, and this ruling is
assigned as error. We are of opinion that the objection
was properly sustained. The foundation for asking
such a question was insufficient; inasmuch as it did not
appear, that the witness had the knowledge which the
question called for, namely, of the general volume of at-
tendance upon all the theatres in Danville, even though
the increase or decrease of the general volume of atten-
dance upon theatres in Danville, might have had a bear-
ing on the particular matter in issue, which was whether
or not the attendance on appellant's theatre was decreas-
ed on account of the wrongful competition set up by the
appellee.
Page 3
The giving of appellee's instructions numbered 1 and
3 is also challenged as error. These instructions in ef-
fect told the jury that the plaintiff's profits, if any, pre-
vious to the time when the appellee commenced the op-
eration of its competitive picture shows, were the only
tests from which they could determine the question, of
whether the appellant was damaged. We are of opin-
ion, that these instructions v/hile in harmony with me
rulings of the court in excluding the evidence heretofore
referred to, fix too narrow a limit concerning matters
which the jury have a right to consider in determining
the loss of profit; and are in conflict with the principles
emphasized in the authorities cited.
For the reasons stated the judgment is reversed, and
the cause remanded.
^ Reversed and Remanded.
Page 4
rii-': .>:<
wi o ^ T A ■^, 9 S
^
General No. 7gl7 / Agenda No. 32
\ April Term 1921
Harry L. Nichoj^, and Effie N. Park/r, Conservators of
E.\F. Nichols, AppeJ
\ vs.
Charles "H. Woodruffl Appellee
Appeal from/rike.
\ NIEHAUS. J.
-^
^ . In this case the appellee Charles H. Woodruff leased
^ from the appellants Harry L. Nichols and Effie N. Park-
'r\^^^^ er as conservators of E. F. Nichols, two tracts of land
^ situated in Pike county, in the locality known as "Black-
wood Bend" in the Sny Island Levee District; both
tracts were located in the bend of the Sny E'Carte
stream, which runs through the bottom land composing
^ the district. The tracts are also adjacent to the waters
^- of Kiser Creek, which had been diverted into an artifical
^ channel, and a settling basin constructed near these
lands; and at the time of the leasing, a protective levee
was in process of construction between the settling bas-
in and the tracts in question, but had not been complet-
ed. The leasing in question, was by oral contract, in the
fall of 1919. In the month of April following, a new ar-
rangement was made between the parties, by which one
of the 25 acre tracts, was eliminated from the contract
by substituting therefor other land, concerning which
there is no controversy. On the remaining 25 acre tract,
was a growth of alsike clover. By the agreement of the
parties this clover tract was to be utilized for raising
corn in the season of 1920. In the beginning of May,
1920, the appellee made an effort to plow the tract in
question for that purpose; first with a tractor, and af-
terwards with plows drawTi
Page 1
by horses; and he had suc-
ceeded in plowing between six and seven acres, when
a heavy rain fall set in, which resulted in a rise of the
waters of Kiser Creek in the settling basin; and the en-
tire tract upon which the appellee had been working be-
came inundated. Appellee testified, that after the rain,
'the entire tract was flooded; and that water was run-
ning all over everything; and that they had to hurry to
.ov'i isn'r:;
•':y;-K- /ti.-^b.xVVT J
II ri--,';-,' .>i-;-%'i
;>r v..
• ■ I ii-<iL >> ,Mo,i;;-! ...
get the horses out; that the water was about knee deep
in the barn; that the barn was on the highest ground.'
The appellee thereupon abondoned his efforts to farm
the land; and went to the house of appellant Nichols to
inform him as he said, that he "was done on Blackwood's
Bend;" not finding the appellant at home, and left word
to that effect with his hired man Kinder; and Kinder de-
livered the message to appellant Nichols. Afterwards
the appellant assuming, that the appellee had no legal
right to abandon his efforts to cultivate this land, and to
raise a crop of corn thereon, employed attorneys to com-
mence suit to recover damages from appellee; and on
June 25th the attorneys employed, sent a letter to the
appellee informing him, that they had been employed
for the purpose mentioned, and advising him to see the
appellant Nichols at once, and arrange the matter in or-
der to avoid suit; which the appellee did, in the latter
part of June. When the parties got together at that
time, an adjustment was agreed upon of appellant'<3
claim. There is a sharp conflict in the evidence as to the
exact terms of the adjustment agreed upon. The appel-
lant Nichols, testified on the trial concerning this mat-
ter as follows: "He asked me, what I wanted to do; and
I told him, that the clover seed was good; and I was un-
able to attend to it myself, and if he would do that, I
wouldn't have any claim for damage on the part of the
ground that was in clover; and he said, he would cut
Page 2
the clover, and save the seed, and give me half the seed
threshed." And that on appellant's own suggestion it
was also agreed, that the appellee would get an early
variety of corn, and plant the six or eight acres that he
had plowed.
The apepllee's testimony concerning the transaction
was as follows: "I asked him about the business, and he
told me if I would plant what I had plowed,' and try to
save that clover, that was all right, good enough, he
would withdraw his suit. I told him I would do the best
I could, and he said, that is all anybody can do."
As to which of the parties gave the correct version
of the agreement reached was a question of fact for the
jury. The evidence shows, that the appellee after the
last agreement was made, planted corn on the six or
•;". :l')iif C'.f:
md :»<-:-; ■:-- f-IT^ .f,e= =
.'J Vf;O-;!t;v0J
'T?.:; o5
eight acres, which he had plowed; and that he also maae
efforts to harvest the clover; he first made an arrange-
ment with Lee Main to cut the clover. Main testified,
'that he toM the appellee, that he would try to cut the
clover; that he looked at the land; found some weeds
and some clover, and some sticks and stumps; and, that
that was about all he saw; but he did not cut the clover;
he did not think it could be cut.' That Woodruff after-
wards came to him, and asked him, if he had cut the
clover, and that he told him, he had not, and couldn't
Main also testified, that there was trash and driftwood
on the land, small trash that had come in there with the
flood. The appellee thereafter, tried to get two other
men, to cut the clover; one of these was Milt Gwartney.
Gwartney testified, concerning this matter as follows:
"I went there to cut the clover on this land for Mr.
Woodruff, I took my son and two machines down there.
I started to cut it, took a ridge first, it was a mass of
weeds. I run into some fine brush, and went a little
further and ran into fine driftwood. I went on,
Page 3
and struck
stumps, and I backed out of that. I found some ola
bundles of wheat around there. I could not see clover
enough to pay, and I throwed the cycle bar up, and
went home."
Complaint is made of an instruction which the Court
gave to the Jury concerning the adjustment agreement.
The instruction is as follows:
"The defendant claims that after the high water of
May 11, 1920. he and the plaintiff entered into a new ar-
rangement and contract, whereby the defendant was to
plant com in the portions of the clover tract which was
then plowed, and whereby, also, the defendant contract-
ed that he would cut and care for the clover seed crop
on the unplowed portions of the tract if he could do so;
and in consideration thereof the defendant claims that
the plaintiff released the defendant from the latter's for-
mer contract to farm the land in corn. The defendant
further claims that he kept and performed his contract
as herein set forth; that he did plant the plowed land m
corn in a reasonable time thereafter; and that he in good
faith made reasonable exertions and efforts to cut and
!-f-i yH ted
■■,; tf,; r.
<! 7;5.^TiSVfvJ
^•^[•Ttiip' yjf",
>i:;'-- .- -;;i;t
id.i..>
care for the clover seed crop, but by the use of such reas-
onable efforts and exertions, he was not able to cut and
save any clover seed. If you believe from the greater
weight of the evidence that the new contract was made,
as claimed by the defendant, and that the defendant
kept and performed the contract, by planting the plow-
ed land in corn in a reasonable tame thereafter, and by
using reasonable exertions to cut and save the clover
crop, you should find for the defendant and against the
plaintiff on the question of damages claimed by the plain-
tiff."
The appellant contends, that this instruction, was erron-
eous. It is clear however tlhat it correctly presents the
appellee's theory of defense; and merely submits to the
jury the determination of the questions of fact connect-
ed therewith; and which are vital in the controversy.
There was no question about the fact that there was a
final agreement made between the parties, which was
made to adjust their differences; both parties testify to
this fact. The instruction submitted to the jury the
question, whether the agreement was made, as testified
to, by the appellant, or as testified to, by the appellee;
and if they found that the agreement was, as claimed
by the appellee, then to determine from the evidence
whether the appellee had complied with it. We find no
error in the instruction. The jury by their verdict
found
Page 4
these question of fact presented for the deter-
mination of the jury, and they found in favor of the ap-
pellee; and they were fully warranted in such finding
from the evidence. The finding of the jury on these
questions was decisive of the controversy.
In this view of the case, it is not necessary to dis-
cuss the other questions raised, concerning the general
rights and duties of tenants in the cultivation of lands
leased; or the extent of appellant's right of recovery un-
der the Bill of Particulars. The Court properly render-
ed judgment on the verdict; and the judgment is affirm-
ed.
Affirmed.
Page 5
• Ji'Vv's:? ruj.i.
+ *
ch
n
^\
General l^o. 7323
<^ <'^ X •'?■ O
Agenda No. 38
April Term 192Jf"
1^6 Town of Griggsvil|#, Appellant
porge R. Newriian, Appellee
Appeal from Pike.
NIEHAUS, J.
This is a prosecution brought by the appellant Town
of Griggsville in Pike County, on the relation of Williard
Nesbitt, Commissioners of Highways, against the appel-
lee George R. Newman for an alleged obstruction of a
public road, by encroachment thereon by the appellee.
The claim of the appellant being that the appellee built
his fence beyond the line of the public road, and into the
public road; and after notice to that effect by the Com
missioner of Highways, failed to remove the same.
This case was in this court on a previous appeal; and
the judgment from which the appeal was taken, was re-
versed and remanded; Town of Griggsville v. George R.
Newman, 214 111. App. 653. After re-instatment of the
case in the trial court, another trial was had, which re-
sulted in a judgment and verdict, finding the appellee
not guilty; from this judgment an appeal is now prosecut-
ed. Various reasons are urged for a reversal of the
last judgment. The first point made by the appellant is
that the verdict is contrary to a clear preponderance of
the evidence. This contention is based mainly on the
fact, that the appellant had the greater number of wit-
nesses to testify upon its side of the controversy. It is
familiar law however, that the greater number of wit-
nesses do not necessarily make a preponderance of evi-
dence in favor of the side upon which they testify.
Page 1
Witnesses, who testify in a case are not equal in credi-
bility: nor do they have equal knowledge concerning the
matters about which they testify; nor are they equally
intelligent, and fair, and truthfully inclined; all these
elements and others enter into the question of the
weight of the evidence, and in determining the credence
which the jury will give to the matters concerning whicn
they testify. Applying the usual tests, which the jury
had a right to apply, it is evident that the greater num-
ISO! m-'sT ^hoA
.■?.'/
iTl'ji .r.J ,'.:■■!:
io j:.-"'!.a'i3M
ber of witnesses did not carry the greater weight of the
evidence in the judgment of the jury. As has often been
held, in a case like this, where there is a sharp conflict m
the evidence as to the controlling facts, it is peculiarly
the province of the jury to determine where the weight
of the evidence lies. The jury found in this case that
the weight of the evidence was on the side of the appel-
lee; and the finding of the jury on that point, was sus-
tained by the trial court. This court would not be justi-
fied under the circumstances here presented, in holding
that the verdict was manifestly against the weight of the
evidence.
It is contended, that the trial court erred in admit-
ting over the objection of the appellant, evidence of the
varying width of the road in question, north and south of
appellee's land. While it is true, that the variance in the
width of the highway at points north and south of the
appellee's land, was not relevant to the main issue, nam-
ely, whether the appellee built the fence in question
along the line of the former fence, which was conceded
to be on the line of the road, or built it about four feet
further out in the highway, it is a controverted question
in the evidence, where the line of the former fence was,
which was conceded to be on the line of the road. Un-
der these circumstances the lines of the road above and
below the appellee's land might have some bearing on
locating the line of the road along the appellee's land.
The
Page 2
court limited the purpose of the admission of the
evidence by instructing the jury, that the measurements
as to the width of the road in controversy, and the road
north and south of the Newman land, were admitted in
evidence only for the purpose of fixing the location of
the old and new fences, and certain land marks such as
posts, stumps and trees mentioned by the witnesses; and
not for the purpose of showing the width of the road in
question along the Newman land. Insofar as it had any
tendency to show the location of the matters referrea
to, we think the evidence was not incompetent.
Appellant criticises some of the instructions given
for appellee, and insists, that the language used, may
have misled the jury into erroneous conceptions of the
law. We do not think the criticism is justified. The in-
structions must be considered all together, and as a ser-
ies; considered in this way, they state the law with sub-
stantial correctness; and we do not think, that the jury
received an erroneous impression concerning them, nor
wrongfully applied the law to the facts.
It is also contended, that the court erred in not
granting a new trial on the strength of the matters con-
tained in the affidavit of Williard Nesbitt, which recites
certain alleged newly discovered evidence. This newly
discovered evidence was inreference to certain facts
testified to, on the trial by the witnesses Galloway, Os-
born and Weeks. Affiant averred in the affidavit, that
he expected to show these new matters by the same
witnesses; and others who were not named in the affi-
davit. Appellant had an opportunity to elicit the mat-
ters set forth in the affidavit on cross examination of
these witnesses, when they were on the stand, and tes-
tified at the trial; or by calling them afterwards in re-
buttal. The affidavit was clearly insufficient to warrant
the court in granting a new trial.
Page 3
It is also urged, that it was not proper to render a
judgment against the appellant town for costs. The
judgment for costs was in accordance with the provis-
ions of Section 6, Article 5 of Chapter 139 Revised Stat-
utes. Town of Anchor v. Stewart 158 111. App. 205.
We find no reversible error in the record and judg-
ment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Page 4
i-i-:. jorr oF; jiV,''
.rJirl ;-,;. oj v/k; oiii fv.)'
'ii't 1 ■■'■ :>c\ ' ■ H'"'^;;
;.i;j, . ,iiy J on'
■■:>ioJ.'l :c:iit::-a ,■;:; -
; ST!/;-].
General No. 7331
April Term 1921
John Bond, Appelle
<4y
Agenda No. 44
4
J. H. Augtin, Appfellant
Appeal \ f rony^ord.
NIEHAUS, J.
This is a suit to recover damages for an alleged
breach of warranty made by the appellant in the sale
of a stallion to the appellee. There was a trial in the
circuit court of Ford county, which resulted in a verdict
and judgment for $200.00 in favor of appellee; and this
appeal is prosecuted from the judgment. The appel-
lant contends, that the trial court erred in the admis-
sion of secondary evidence, namely in allowing the ap-
pellee to testify from his recollection as to the number
of mares, which were served by the stallion; also that
it was error to allow appellee to refresh his recollection
from a memorandum which he had made. The testi-
mony of the appellee concerning the number of mares
served based upon his recollection, was not secondary
evidence, even though he may have kept an account of
these matters in a book. It is elementary, that the re-
collection of a witness concerning a fact or a transaction
in which he participated, or of which he has personal
knowledge, is the best evidence on that subject. This
evidence therefore, was the best evidence, of which the
nature of the case was susceptible. Nor was it error to
allow the appellee to refresh his recollection from a
memorandum he had made concerning matters about
which he was competent to testify. Iroquis Furnace
Co. V. Elphicke & Co. 200 111. 411; Diamond Glue Co. v.
Wietzychowski 227 111. 338; Brown v. Galesburg B. Co.
132 111. 648
Page 1
Callahan v. Conran 172 111. App. 261.
It is further contended, that the record does not
show that the appellee was qualified to testify concern-
ing the market value of the staUion in question. It ap-
pears from the evidence, that the appellee had been m
the business of buying, selling and standing stallions, for
about twenty yea,rs prior to the time of his testimony.
This was sufficient to qualify him to answer questions
=%.?
r%
/t
SY: -i-ri'>:;A
[■37^ iff,.'; if:' T."1 a':i;.;firf(a3i) 'Usvo'.ifyi.
;.i J'toOiiSt: ff/: ' -
■9- uH* ii;dj ,v-
i-iii
■ion
concerning market values.
It was a controverted quesiton in the case whether
the appellant had warranted the stallion to be a foal
getter, and a first class coverer. This was the main is-
sue and concerning this matter, there was a conflict in
the testimony of the parties to the suit; the appellant
da'iming, that he made no warranty at all of the stal-
lion's qualities in that respect. There is evidence cor-
roborating appellee's verison of the matter; and appar-
ently more evidence corroborating appellant's testimony
on that question; but it was a fair question for the jury
to decide, where the determination of the matter invol-
ved the credibility of the witnesses, who testify for and
against the respective parties. The jury believed the
appellee, and this ocurt would not be warranted in hold-
ing that they should have believed the appellant; and
we would not be warranted in holding under these cir-
cumstances that the verdict is manifestly against the
weight of the evidence. Harroun v. Benton 197 111. Apj .
140; Welsh v. Chicago City R. Co. 195 111. App. 146; Pix-
ley v. Swail 194 111. App. 151; Village of Bolton v. Lewis
194 111. App. 71.
We find no error in the giving or refusal of the in-
structions in the case; and no reversible error is disclos-
ed by the record. The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Page 2
sih ic: Vj
'[ Sr
■no :Jr..i!^:';.-:j- -ni :,0'.'>ib.i ovof! ;v..
:ii:A .!'; le; r^r-r.T;.'' .-• nfj.v:'.H .-=',.
,;■: :v:t;^I .rr/. .al ^i-.L .c'J .'? vji'i o
■ ■/.■■■..I .V • -"if"! l" li'L;;'.'!!'/ ; ?oI .nc;/-
2 'iVii'T
X
i
\
\
rt> ^'
^>^
General No. 7340 Aegnda No. 53
April Term 1921 ,:
Edward Wolf, Appellee
vs. , •
Turner State Bank, Appellant "S^'S
Appeal from Chnstian. "^
NIEHAUS, J. '|/ |S^
The appellee Edward Wolf commenced this suit in
replevin in the circuit court of Christian county to re-
cover possession of a promissory note of the alleged val-
ue of $4000.00, of which he was the maker; and which
he claimed, was illegally detained from him, by the ap-
pellant. Turner State Bank. The main issues in this
controversy were, whether the appellee was the owner
of the note in question, or entitled to a return of the
note, which he claimed, he placed in the hands
of the cashier of the appellant bank, upon certain con-
ditions, which were to be complied with by the Daniel
Hays Land Company, and which he alleged, were never
complied with; or whether the appellant bank, was a le-
gal holder of the note in due course, for value, and with-
out notice of any infirmities effecting the execution or
negotiation of the note. It appears from the evidence,
that prior to the making of the note, two representa-
tives of the Daniel Hays Land Company, Yates and
Brainard, entered into negotiations with the appellee, in
June 1919, for the purpose of selling him some land,
which the company claimed to own in the State of Cali-
fornia. The initial negotations on the part of the com-
pany, were by Yates; but subsequently carried on and
brought to a conclusion by both Yates and Brainard. The
appellee testified, that on the evening of June 16, 1919,
he went to appellant's place of business, to see
Page 1
L. E. Swigert
appellant's cashier, and sought his advice concerning the
matter; and told him about the land deal which he nad
on hand; and that Yates wanted him to leave the note
at the bank on deposit until the contract for the pur-
chase of the land was returned. To use appellee's own
language: "I told him, I didn't want to leave a note, that
would cause any trouble; if there was any chance; ho
''A .;bn's:A
■ i firs fli'i;J bo'ii^
li-jirtv.'' mR
i !::;-';j4u 0» J;^
■jvr ,i>r>-3-
;( -fn
BO?- 0+
said there wouldn't be any trouble; he said you leave the
note here, and it will be perfectly safe; he said just draw
up a note payable to yourself, and leave it; I told him, I
had no contract; it was to be sent to the company for
iheir approval; and if the contract was not changed by
the company, or the deal was off, the note was to be re-
turned." It does not appear clearly from the appellee's
testimony, just what changes were to be made in the
contract, which the representatives of the Land Com.-
pany wanted the appellee to sign. According to the
testimony of the Land company's representative, Brain-
ard, the change in the contract which was to be made,
was this: the time of the appellee's trip to California to
inspect the land, was to be extended from ninety to one
hundred and twenty days; and Brainard also testifiea,
that the appellee had stipulated at that time, that the
company should sign the contract before he did; and that
he wanted the company's signature as evidence of their
good faith, before he signed it. And Swigert testified
concerning the return of the contract to the appellee, as
follows: "As to mailing the contract back, the arrange-
ments were made with Mr. Brainard; I understand, that
it was to be either mailed back to Mr. Wolf, or the
bank." It is claimed by the appellant, that on the even-
ing in question, at the end of the negotiations which took
place in a room of the bank, that an understanding was
reached that the company should have the right to have
the appellee's note discounted by the bank.
Page 2
so that the
company would immediately receive the money there-
from; and that if the appellee after his inspection trip
to California didn't want the land, he would be entitled
to receive back his money from the company. Swigert
testifies in reference to this matter as follows: "Mr.
Wolf said to Mr. Brainard, that he would be willing to
put up a note and leave it with me until after his visit
to the land, and inspection of it; Mr. Brainard positively
informed him he would not consider such a thing under
the circumstances; that he must put up a note that was
payable to the cashier, on which they could get the cash,
a note that could be discounted. They discussed the
proposition further and finally Mr. Wolf proposed to Mr.
■■xo' r-M.vT :.-ii "1.- s-
: ■-■J c?l;. iv:/;.-':..,':^ !.«£ ,^'vfii.' v;jfi-;.wj
;;:i .vijisd oi!;
Brainard that if he would endorse the note with him, he
would execute the note; Mr. Brainard wrote out the note
and handed it to Mr. Wolf and Mr. Wolf signed his name
to the note and turned it over and endorsed it and Mr.
Brainard immediately endorsed it himself." He also
testified, that "the note was then given to me or the
bank, to be discounted; no special arrangements had been
made before that; it was negotiated at that time *****
then I for the bank issued a time certificate for $4000.00
payable to the order of the Daniel Hays Company, at
Mr. Brainard's direction; I issued it the same evening
that the conveirsation was held ***** I handed Mr. Brain-
ard the certificate just after Mr. Wolf had left." The
appellee denied, that any other agreement or under-
standing was had concerning the note in question, ex-
cept the one testified to by him; and that the note was
negotiated without his knowledge or consent; that he
was not present when any negotiation of the note took
place; and that he did not know of the issuance of a cer-
tificate of deposit for the same to the Daniel Hays Land
Company.
There was a trial by jury, which resulted in a verdict
Page 3
finding the issues for the appellee, and judgment was
rendered upon the verdict; this appeal is prosecuted
from the judgment. A reversal of the judgment is urg-
ed for various reasons. It is contended, that the trial
court erred in allowing the appellee to testify concern-
ing the real property which he owned. This testimony
insofar as it indicated the financial ability of the appellee
to pay the note, and established the fact of the value of
the note, was not erroneous. But if there wias error in
admitting this evidence, such error was clearly waived
by the appellant, when on cross examination he elicited
from the appellee the same facts in detail.
Complaint is also made, because a question was ask-
ed the witness Swigert, about the financial standing of
Brainard. While this was not a legitimate subject ot
inquiry under the issues, the question asked, and the
answer given, did not result in anything that can be con-
sidered prejudicial to the rights of the appellant, and
therefore, was harmless error.
Appellant insists, that the verdict of the jury ir;
: :'■ ,.^n.: rhl""/ :;jo,-; -if <;••-■ !o;n-'.i [il,
'•Jo'i of'j Im:- :'ofvv -vtu: ii.i.T .^ir':
;l,. v;n5v,;ulo
against the weight of the evidence. The record disclos-
es, that there was a sharp conflict in the evidence con-
cerning the details of the transaction which resulted in
appellee's making the note in question, and putting it
into the possession of appellant's cashier; none of the
three witnesses, who participated in the transaction,
agree in their testimony about the transaction. It was
therefore the peculiar province of the jury, who heard
and saw the witnesses, to determine where the truth in
the controversy lay; and the jury was in the best posit-
ion to do so. The circumstances apparently corroborated
appellee's version of the transaction; and no reasonable
explanation except the testimony of the appellee, ap-
pears from the evidence, why if the Hays Land Company
was to receive the
Page 4
proceeds of the note at once, the note
was not made payable to the company, instead of to tne
order of the appellee himself. It is clear at least, that
the court would not be justified in saying from the proofs
in the record, that the verdict was against the manifest
weight of the evidence.
Complaint is made of the giving, and the refusal of
instructions. The second instruction given for appellee,
is criticised because the question of appellant's knowled-
ge of a failure of consideration, is not coupled with the
time of the purchase of the note. The omission is not
important, inasmuch as all the evidence bearing upon the
question of knowledge, is to the effect, that whatever
knowledge appellant's cashier had of any infirmities in
the note, he had at the time of the negotiations and pur-
chase.
Appellant also contends, that the third instruction
is erroneous, because "nowhere in the instruction is
there anything stated with reference to the proof of
failure of performance of the condition upon which said
note was delivered." The instruction does indirectly as-
sume, that the condition upon which the note was left
with the cashier was not performed; but the evidence
is conclusive upon the point, that no contract was signed
by the appellee; and no deal closed by the appellee after
the note had been given. Assuming as we must, that
the jury believed the testis* >ny of the appellee concern-
'■r:' --.fl n;
^ >d: 1o
&;-!)
.1i-f. •,■!:
i'1 ■■.-
. civ-- .v-;n :_,.
n1 -yJi ■m:kI'^-
,nr'; ,:-bffy;;>o-;
ing the conditions upon which he left the note with the
appellant's cashier, the jury could not have been misled
into error by the inference that the instruction assumed,
that the condition had not been fulfilled. The assump-
tion in an instruction of a fact, which is conclusively
shown by the evidence, is not a sufficient legal basis for
reversal of a judgment. Martens v. Public Service Co.
of Northern Illinois 219 111. App. 160; Peterson v. Elgin
Page 5
A. & S. Traction Co. 238 111. 403; Chicago Screw Co. v.
Weiss 203 111. 536; Citizens Ins. Co. v. Stoddard 197 111.
330; Illinois Central R. Co. v. King 179 111. 91; Morris v.
O'Brien 81 111. App. 203.
Appellant's criticism of the other given instructions
for appellee, we think is without merit. We find no er-
ror in the refusal of appellant's instructions which were
not given.
The record does not disclose any reversible error;
and the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Page 6
/i-viTfi;"-:^ f,''irvi..'i-^rrf vr'i i^rif ooas iv''*nf -j-
■:::;! ?i(5f;rr rr;..;oi j ri ")i ji' ! i;= n dorr ■-,[ ,r3;-
r. 5!,r;'i.
.V ai-i-x^'^ ■;;; .!;/ 0?! v^^iji .v .- ., ..:
■ ;';0t;3 o'ri'?i.'::vivac. ■'.->■ ' ' • '■
3 opis*!
%
General No. 7348 / Agenda No. 59
April Term 1921
f^ Benton. Tipsword, eVal, Appellees
I vs./
Chas E. Springstun^et al, Appellants
Appeal from qty Co^t of the City of Pana.
NIEHAUS, J. S
^ The appellees, Benton Tipsword, E. T. Mahin and
j^:-^"^;-*as^ Orlin Morr as trustees of the Methodist Episcopal
%^' Church South, of the State of Illinois, a religious corpor-
ation, filed a bill in equity against Charles E. Springstun,
\ the appellant, and Peter Sanders, in the City court, of
^: the City of Pana in Christian County, alleging in the
I bill, that the church mentioned in its corporate capacity,
% is the owner of certain real estate in the City of Pana,
^ which is described in the bill; and which theretofore,
% had been used for the purpose of relgious worship; ana
that said premises contained a dwelling house, which
had been used as a parsonage in connection with the
church; that the congregation constituting the church at
Pana, had become so reduced in numbers, that it was
unable to support and maintain a church; and that there-
fore the church building had been removed, and the con-
gregation dissolved; leaving the dwelling house or par-
sonage remaining on the premisps; and that after the
dissolution of the congregation, the management charge
and control of the real property mentioned passed into
the general charge and control of the Annual Confer-
ence of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Illinois, whicl;
Conference by and through its trustees has general
charge, and exercises supervision and control; that at a
quarterly meeting of the conference held at Donaldson
Church,
Page 1
in the Moccasin charge of the Salem districr,
pursuant to the by-laws, rules and customs of the church,
and by a resolution lawfully adopted, it was decided that
the church property mentioned, should be disposed of;
and that thereupon the trustees of the church were
authorized to make sale thereof, and to execute and de-
liver all necessary deeds of conveyance therefor; that
the trustees placed the property described with Baldwin
.1 -r-;,. ,,:{t
'li'\
V;n- i:.
& Baldwin, agents, for sale; and that said agents made
an oral contract with the appellant for the sale of the
property referred to, by the terms of which, the appel-
lant agreed to purchase the same for $1000.00; that
$100.00 of said purchase price was deposited by the ap-
pellant with said agents, under said contract to "bind
the deal." That afterwards said agent acting for the
trustees tendered a formal written contract of purchase
to the appellant, and requested him to execute the same;
but that he declined to do so; that thereafter the trus-
tees procured and submitted to the appellant, an ab-
stract of title of the property; and also executed and
tendered him a deed for the same; but that the appel-
lant has steadily refused to accept the same, and to com ■
plete the deal. The bill also alleges, that while these
negotiations between Baldwin & Baldwin, representing
the trustees, and the appellant, were being carried on,
the appellant surreptitiously, and secretly, and without
the knowledge permission or consent of the trustees,
fraudulently represented himself to be the owner of the
property contracted for, and rented the dwelling house
on the premises to divers persons and collected divers
large sums of money as rentals for the same; that the
defendant Peter Sanders was one of these; and that
Sanders was in possession of the dwelling house refer-
red to on the 6th day of May 1918; that the trustees up-
on learning of the course pursued by the appellant, caus-
ed a notice to be
Page 2
served on Sanders for the possession
of the premises; and that Sanders afterwards attorned
to them; and thereafter paid rent to them; that there-
upon, the appellant instituted an action of forcible de-
tainer before a justice of the peace to recover possess-
ion of the property from Sanders; and did obtain a judg-
ment for possession against him; but that Sanders has
appealed from this judgment to the city court of Pana,
which appeal is pending and undetermined. The bill
further alleges that appellant is claiming, that he has
acquired some right or interest in the property in ques-
tion superior to that of the trustees, by virtue of his un-
completed oral contract of purchase; and that the apel-
lees fear and believe, that if the appellant is allowed to
jf ' 'i:r- 'if
proceed in his action of forcible detainer by reason of
the limited defense available to Sanders, that their title
may be clouded by this suit; and that the value of the
property may be materially affected thereby; and that
it may cause irrepairable injui-y and vexatious litigation.
The bill prays for an injunction to restrain the appell-
ant from further pi'osecuting the forcible detainer suit
against Sanders, and for an accounting of the rents col-
lected by him, and that the title and possession of the
appellees may be quieted and for other relief. The de-
fendant Peter Sanders entered his appearance in the
case, but did not file any answer to the bill. The appel-
lant, filed an answer, in which he admits that he pur-
chased the premises for $1000.00 and paid $100.00 in
cash on the purchase price; and avers, that under the
terms of purchase the appellees were to submit a prop-
erly certified abstract of title, showing merchanta'ole
title thereto in the Methodist Episcopal Church South,
of the State of Illinois; and that when such abstract was
presented with a warranty deed with full covenants of
warranty, conveying to the appellant the premises re-
ferred to, the appel-
Page 3
lant was to pay $900.00 as the full purchaser
price of the property. He also avers, that it was agreed
that the appellant should immediately enter into the
possession of the premises in question, pending submis-
sion of the abstract; and that the appellees accepted the
$100.00 paid, and placed the appellant in full possession
of the premises. He also avers, that the appellees have
never tendered him an abstract showing merchantable
title in the church, nor a proper warranty deed; that he
has at all times been ready to complete his part of the
purchase of the property, when the appellees tendered
him the abstract and deed required by the contract of
purchase; and he also avers, that he had full right and
lawful authority to enter into the possession of the prem-
ises at the time he did enter upon the same; and that ne
continued under such lawful right in the undisputed pos-
session of the premises until about the 1st day of June
1918.
Upon a hearing of the case, the Court rendered a
decree finding the facts substantially as set forth in the
j.^nrioi \,:
nil ;;./s ;v:a-'j[->iii ml:
:b 0:11'
■l-hhi'.V j;;r':f ,;-li
:^Tn -yfif j:Tt:';;}qc;^'
■1 ;-:.r-i; '.oj.
;0.--
■sV&V,f:-ii
bill; and finding, that the appellant entered on the prem-
ises and took posssession of the same without any legal
right or authority; and without the knowledge and con-
sent of the appellees; and that he collected as rent the
sum of $78.00, of which sum he had returned $2.00,
leaving a balance of $76.00 in his hands; and that he
should account to the appellees for said balance; and
that he was not entitled to recover for any money ex-
pended by him upon said premises during the time that
he had wrongfully possessed himself thereof. The de-
cree also finds the facts in relation to the tenancy of
Peter Sanders substantially as stated in the decree; and
enjoins the appellant from further prosecuting the for-
cible detainer suit.
The evidence adduced on the hearing of the case
fully sustains the findings of fact in the decree. The ap-
pellant had
Page 4
no legal right under his contract to purchase
the premises to take possession, nor does the evidence
show any other agreement, authority or consent by the
trustees, to take possession or from which a right to
take possession could be inferred. The appellant was
a mere trespasser upon the property; and therefore had
no right to lease the same, or collect, or retain the ren-
tals thereof; and the decree properly compelled him to
account for the same. Clay v. Hammond 199 111. 370.
Being a mere trespasser, he could not legally recover
any money that he had expended in connection with his
wrongful entry upon or posesssion of the premises. It is
apparent also, that as a matter of law, Sanders being his
tenant, could not legally dispute the right of appellant
as landlord. The Methodist Episcopal Church South, al-
though the real owner of the premises, is not a party to
this forcible detainer suit; and it cannot assert its rights.
The legal result of the forcible detainer suit therefore,
against Sanders, would be a judgment in favor of the
appellant whereby he would regain his wrongful posses-
sion of the premises; and the judgment thus obtained
would necessarily be a cloud upon the right and title of
the real ov/ner, the Methodist Episcopal Church South.
Alcott V. The American Straw Board Co. 237 111. 55;
Boley V. South Park Com. 215 111. 200; Griffith v. Griff-
:;-:: y.i-, ?,;-■; .-H.tibv' \ r.r. •>;•
■1 Iv'-i'-co i>
h-brf>:
'I.- c-.!:)'-;.c^ ''Mr/!
.: .■ -^ ;.i-i: -'':;o! .>.
b-K-.:H -
ith 198 111. 632; Shu'tz v. Shultz 159 III. 663; Rigdon v.
Shirk 127 111. 411. And it is clear a'so, that in the situa-
tion referred to. the appellees would be involved in othe,-
litigation, to remove this cloud, and regain the possess-
ion and control of the premises. The right to relief oy
injunction under these circumstances is clearly establish-
ed. Goodnough v. Sheppard 28 III. 81; Wangelin v. Goe
50 111. 459; Hodgen v. Guttery 5S III. 431; Gin. LaF & G.
R. R. Go. V. D. & V. Ry. Go. 75 111. 113; Kesner v. Misch
107 111. App. 408.
We find no error in the decree and sam.e is alSrmed.
Page 5
' ■■< i't'\ 'i'!!
*t
X
4t
nXi
/
General No. 73^7 ^# Agenda No. 8
\ October Term ^^21
J. ^. Ross, Plain^lf in Error
Georg-e B.\ Maston, befendant in Error
Error to Vermilion
NIEHAUS. J.
/
The Plaintiff in Error J. C. Ross, filed a bill in equity
in the circuit court of Vermilion county against Defend-
ant in Error George B. Maston, to which a demurrer was
sustained: and he thereupon, by leave of court filed an
amended and supplemental bill, in which he set up in
detail the history and course of proceedings in the cir-
cuit court on appeal, of a certain cause which the Defen-
dant in Error brought against the Plaintiff in Error, and
his wife Elleii Ross; and in which the Defendant in Er-
ror sought to recover a commission for bringing about
the sale of a 320 acre farm, alleged to have been owned
by Defendant in Error's wife Ellen Ross, which litigation
finally resulted in a judgment in the circuit court of Ver-
milion county against the Plaintiff in Error for $320.00,
from which the Plaintiff in Error prosecuted an appeal
to this court; and this court affirm.ed said judgment;
Maston v. Ross 201 111. App. 355.
The Plaintiff in Error asserts in his bill, that the
judgment finally recovered against him. and which was
affirmed by this court \\as illegal, void and unconstitu-
tional; that the Defendant in Error threatened to issue
an execution thereon, and attempt to collect the judg-
ment; and tlireatened to bring, and did bring action on
the appeal bond given on the
Page 1
last appeal; and fur-
thermore, that an action on the appeal bond had been
brought after the original bill to which a demurrer had
been sustained was filed. That personal service in the
latter case had been obtained on J. S. McFen-en the
surety on the appeal bond, but not on the complainant;
and that a judgment had been obtained against the sur-
ety for $433.19, which was the full amount of the judg-
ment against the Plaintiff in Error, and costs; also that
the judgment against McFerren had already been col-
.-J ' J .■ ■ - ' -I ! .
lected by the Defendant in Error; and alleges that the
Defendant in Error, is insolvent; that the Plaintiff in
Error is liable to McFerren, and will have to re-pay tne
amount of the judgment recovered against McFerren;
and that unless restrained by injunction, the Defendant
in Error Maston, will spend the money so collected by
him, and prevent Plaintiff in Error from recovering -le
same; and thereby deprive the Complainant of his
property without due process of law.
A supplemental bill filed, prays that the court will
restrain and enjoin the Defendant in Error, from spend-
ing the money collected on said judgment against said
McFerren; and from preventing the Plaintiff in Error
from recovering the amount; and, that the court will
order the Defendant in Error to return to the Plaintiff
in Error the full amount of the money so collected oy
him on the judgment referred to, together with costs.
A demurrer was filed to the supplemental bill and sus-
tained by the court; and the bill was dismissed for want
of equity. From the order of the court dismissing the
bill a writ of error is now prosecuted.
It is sufficient to say concerning the judgment ren-
dered against the Plaintiff in Error for the commissions
claimed by the Defendant in Error, and all the questions
re-
Page 2
lating to the liability of the Defendant in the judg-
ment, for said commissions, and concerning the jurisdic-
tion of the court to render the judgment and to adjud-
icate the matters involved, were finally settled by the
opinion of this court affirming the judgment; and have
therefore become res adjudicata; and cannot be made
the subject of review by bill in chancery. There are no
facts stated in the supplemental bill, from which the in-
ference could be drawn, that the judgment against Mc-
Ferren the surety on the appeal bond referred to, was
not regular, legal and binding; a court of equity would
have no jurisdiction to interfere with the enforcement
of such a judgment. Nor would a court of equity, have
any jurisdiction to exercise control over the money col-
lected by the Plaintiff on such a judgment. Nor would
a court of equity under the averments of the supplemen-
tal bill have any power to order the money collected by
;. ,-; , .f^ >. .. ;(
M6 -R'
the Defendant in Error be returned to the Plaintiff in
Error. It is clear, that the supplemental bill is wholly
without equity: and the court properly sustained the de-
murrer to the bill. The order of the court dismissing
supplemental bill is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.
Page 3
■^^'
/
V-
/^
2 9 <? T /\
^ O X ® ri © '<^
General No. 7364
Agenda No. 14
October Term 1921
John Thomas, Appellee
W. H. Kraft, Appellant
Appeal from McLean.
NIEHAUS, J.
John Thomas the appellee brought this suit against
the appellant W. H. Kraft, to recover damages, which
he claims to have sustained, on account of injuries to his
horse, buggy a,nd harness, resulting from a collision with
the automobile of appellant; which collision he alleges,
was brought about, by the negligence of the appellant,
in driving an automobile at an excessive rate of speed.
There was a judgment before the justice of the peace in
favor of the appellee; and appeal taken to the circuit
court, where a trial de novo was had, which resulted in
a verdict by the juo', finding the appellant guilty, and
assessing appellee's damages at $177.50. The court ren-
dered judgment on the verdict; and this appeal is pros-
ecuted from the judgment.
One of the errors assigned, which is urged as a
ground for reversal of the judgment is, that the counsel
for the appellee by his interrogation of the appellee as
a witness brought out the fact, that the appellant was
protected in whatever judgment might be rendered
against him, by insurance. It has been repeatedly held,
that to bring this matter to the attention of the jui-y m
an action of this kind is reversible error. Bishop v. Chi-
cago Junction Ry. Co. 289 111. 63; McCarthy
Page 1
v.Spring Valley
Coal Co. 232 111 473; Mithen v. Jeffrey 259 111. 372; Turn-
er v. Lovington C. M. Co. 156 111. App. 60; Fuller v. Dar-
ragh 101 111. App. 664; Emery Dry Goods Co. v. De Hare
130 111 App. 234; Wullner v. Smith-Lohr Coal Co. 156 III.
App. 486; Vacker v. Yeager 151 111. App. 144. It is true
the court sustained objections to those portions of the
answers which referred to the insurance and to the in-
surance company; and also ordered the answers stircken
out. This did not remove the effect of the answers from
the minds of the jury, nor could it remedv the harm
h[ --y^ ^ ,^.^jy
:'V:l->: Mm
:rU
id-i .-■V:;t \'!< ^
■:'. v;-;,-r jj .6uf^t■
• fi i ■! f; olA ',''-■'} '.\'- '■-'■'''-'
■! '"in; f,r) ]?■
.,<[,) oi y:
which had been odne. It must also be pointed out that
it was error, to allow the witness Lee Bozarth, to give
his opinion about the speed at which the appellant was
driving his car, without being qualified to testify on that
subject by a preliminary examination showing, that he
had sufficient knowledge concerning the matter of the
speed of automobiles to enable him to form a correct
judgment on that subject. Barnett v. Levy 213 111. App.
129.
For the errors indicated the judgment is reversed
and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
Page 2
ji■,^:
r;;; -d;
,T) %^
r%/
/
\
^ hoi U
General No. 7365 ^^^^^ ^^ 15
October Term 1921 /
Henry H. Hansen, J. C. MitcheIJ*^Cnd F. J. Parr,
Plaintiffs in Error
vs. ,. ■
John R. Bradshaw, Defendant in Error
Error to Sangamon.
. NIEHAUS, J.
The Defendant in Error John R. Bradshaw on the
20th day of May 1920, had a judgment entered by con-
fession in the circuit court of Sangamon County for the
sum of $29,382.85, against Henry N. Hansen, J. C. Mitch-
ell and F. J. Parr, on a judgment note and the power of
attorney, which is the basis of the controversy. The
note and power of attorney is as follows:
Decatur, Illinois, Dec. 31, 1919.
$26,500.00.
On March 1st after date, for value received, we or
either of us promise to pay to the order of Jno. R. Brad-
shaw, at the Milliken National Bank, twenty-six thousand
five hundred dollars, at said bank in Decatur, 111., with
interest at the rate of seven per cent per annum from
date if not paid when due.
And to secure the payment of said amount we here-
by authorize, irrevocably, any attorney of any court of
record to appear for us in such court, in term time or va-
cation, at any time hereafter, and confess a judgment
without process in favor of the holder of this note, for
such amount as may appear to be unpaid thereon, to-
gether with costs, and 10 per centum attorney's fees, and
to waive and release all errors which may intervene in
any such proceedings, and consent to immediate execu-
tion upon such judgment; hereby ratifying and confirm-
ing all that our said attorney may do by virtue hereof.
And we hereby authorize said bank at any time, at the
election of its president, cashier or any other officer
thereof, to apply toward the payment of this note whetn-
er due or not, any money which said bank may have in
either of our deposit accounts.
Henry N. Hansen,
J. C. Mitchell,
F. J. Parr.
(Documentary stamps, cancelled $5.00; 10c; 10c; 10c.)
'4. (K'1
:i?. ,r! nt'ol
fi- -iijjilvrcs^iiiU ■•;'T
O +v^rf:
jfi!;or-^fi ')!
At the May term of the circuit court in 1921, Henry
N. Hansen, one of the defendants in the judgment, made
a motion
Page 1
in writing setting forth in the motion the
grounds upon which he claimed the right to have the
judgment opened up, and to plead matters in defense
thereto. Afterwards, the other defendants in the judg-
ment, H. C. Mitchell and F. J. Parr, also filed their mo-
tion in writing together with their affidavits in support
thereof to the same end. Upon the hearing of the
matter, one of the defendants, J. C. Mitchell, was call-
ed as a witness on behalf of the plaintiff, and was ex-
amined concerning the matters contained in his affidav-
it, which had been filed in support of his motion to set
aside the judgment. The Bill of Exceptions shows, that
the seperate motions of the parties were considered to-
gether as one motion and denied. A Writ of Error is
prosecuted from the order of the court denying the mo-
tion. The Plaintiffs in Error claim the right to have
the judgment opened up and to plead in defense. The
right of the appellants, to have the judgment opened
and to plead, depends entirely upon whether the affidav-
its of the parties, filed in support of their motion con-
tain matters which show directly or by reasonable in-
ference that the Plaintiffs in Error have a meritorious
defense to the judgment, or some substantial part there-
of. We find that the following statements of facts ap-
pear* from the affidavit of the Defendant Henry N. Han-
sen, which was part of his motion; "Fourth, the note
and power of attorney was extended on to-wit the 3rd
day of March 1920, for a consideration of $1500.00, which
was paid to John R. Bradshaw, and the said extension
of said note and power of attorney has not expired.
Fifth, there is no interest due until the extension of the
time expires; but that said judgment has a large amount
of interest computed in said judgment." The affidav-
its of the other defendants in the judgment are corro-
borative of these verified averments. The
Page 2
judgment
note in question was for $26,500.00; by its terms no in-
terest was due thereon or payable until after the note
)f?'!'.::i'i
■ "v 'f .'Wi
<i[i^:>u\- nt 9^)f
had become due. If the time of payment of the note
was extended from March to June 1920 by this alleged
agreement of the parties, then the note did not become
due until June; and no interest became due until June;
and then only, if the note remained unpaid at that time;
hence under the averments at the time the judgment
was taken the defendants were not liable for any inter-
est. Assuming, that the plaintiff under the power of
attorney had a right to take a judgment by confession
on May 20th, 1920, such judgment according to the
terms of the note and the agreement referred to could
legally be only for the amount of the principal of the
note and ten per cent attorney's fees, which together
would make a total sum of $29,150.00; the judgment
however is for $29,382.50; thus showing an excess of at
least $232.50 over the amount the plaintiff could be le-
gally entitled to recover. There is a clear inference
therefore, from the affidavits of the defendants in tne
judgment, that they have a defense, to at least a part
of the judgment. We are of opinion that the court
should have allowed the motion to open up the judg-
ment, and should have given the defendants leave to
plead. The order of the court is therefore reversed,
and the cause remanded with directions to sustain the
motion of the defendants in error, to open up the judg-
ment, and to grant them leave to plead in defense.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Page 3
:-'\-i
■(■■> !'--:.:^
3di 'fjv:
'5s^'%
■■■^
-^
A
:2<_
/
/
\
V,-''
> ^^^- i£GI.A«629
General No. 7374 Agenda No. 23
October Term 1921 ,'
Fred Baber, Trustee, Appellee
vs.
Erastus Hurst, Appellant
Appeal from Edgar.
^ NIEHAUS, J. /
'^\ A
. "Vs:'-=... °" February 10, 1915 Charles Hoult, Laura J. Hoult,
\^ '"■"" Everett Hoult, J. Warren Hoult, Annette Hoult and
^"^ Lewis Hoult, entered into an agreement with their cred-
itors, including the appellant, Erastus Hurst, by which
they conveyed all their property real and personal, ex-
■^ cept 80 acres of land, to the appellee Fred Baber as
^ trustee, for the benefit of their creditors. The agree-
ment recites, that the debtors named, were indebted to
•%^ sundry persons companies and corporations in large sums
of money, amounting to about $150,000.00; and that
they owned about 714 acres of land in Edgar County; and
about 560 acres of land in Bolivar county, Mississippi:
and approximately about $10,000.00 worth of personal
property. That Everett Hoult, one of the debtors nam-
ed, was possessed of real estate consisting of about 160
acres of land in Edgar county, and personal property of
the value of about $3000.00; and that, inasmuch as num-
erous creditors had taken judgments against the debt-
ors named, and had brought judgment suits against them;
an had executions issued thereon, which were then in
the hands of the sheriff of Edgar county; and that the
debtors being so indebted, and desiring to secure an
equitable distribution of their assets among their credi-
tors, to secure as large a return as possible from their
assets, and to prevent a sacrifice thereof, agreed to trans-
fer
Page 1
their property to the trustee. The agreement also
provides that the trustee shall hold the property for the
uses and purposes of the trust; except 80 acres of lana
occupied by the debtor Charles Hoult and his family as
a homestead, and including all household goods, and the
improvements on the land, which are exempted from the
operations of the trusteeship; and it was further agreed
by the debtors and the creditors, that certain indebted-
.1 .-iUAi'iiii:
■,; r-3:i(; ■•,■■;
ness against the SO acres so exempted, should also be
assumed and paid by the trustee out of the monies or
assets which would come into his hands as a part of che
trust estate; and that Charles Hoult was to receive the
SO acres of land, free from all existing encumbrances
thereon, except the general and special taxes that were
then due, or would become due therafter; that the 80
acres of land, which by the agreement, was released from
the operation of the trust, should be released to Charles
Hoult as his seperate property. The agreement also
provided, that in the event the trust estate, after de-
ducting the 80 acres of land referred to, should be insuf-
ficient to pay the indebtedness held by the creditors, the
trustee should apportion the fund among the creditors
in proportion to the amount of their respective claims,
regardless of any priority of liens then existing. It was
also stipulated in the trust agreement, that all liens held
by the creditors, except mortgage liens, made prior to
December 1st, 1914, were to be assigned to said trustee;
and the trustee was fully empowered to sell and convey
portions or all of the trust estate, and make good and
sufficient deeds of conveyance thereof, free of any kind
all existing liens or claims of liens of any of the credi-
tors.
The appellant Hurst's claim consisted of a judgment
note made by Charles Hoult, Lewis J. Hoult, Everett
Hoult and George W. Fair; the latter not a party to the
trust agreement
Page 2
either as debtor or creditor. Fol-
lowing the execution of the trust agreement on March
22, 1915 the appellant took judgment by confession on
the judgment note, for $9210.67 in the circuit court of
Edgar county against the parties named. The appellee
as trustee, proceeded under the trust agreement to car-
ry out the purposes thereof, by collecting the assets and
converting the real estate into funds for distribution
among the creditors, in accordance with the require-
ments of the trust; and made distribution of the funds
in his hands from time to time among the creditors. On
August 24, 1917, he paid the appellant two dividends of
20 percent each upon his claim; and on February 2, 1918
paid him another dividend of 20 percent. At the time
. , J.. ,,. r
■n\li ■/
of the filing of the bill of complaint herein, the trustee
was ready to pay another divdend of 20 percent; but re-
fused the further payment of dividends, unless the ap-
pellant should assign his judgment to him as trustee,
\yhich the appellant refused to do. The appellee there-
upon filed this bill in equity, alleging that the appellant
was a party to the trust agreement, and had received 60
percent by virtue thereof; that under the terms of the
trust agreement the 80 acres of land had been released
to Charles Hoult one of the debtors; and had been re-
tained by him under the terms of the trust agreement
as exempted from claims of the creditors; but was legal-
ly charged with the lien of the judgment which the ap-
pellant had taken, contrary to the force and effect of
said agreement; that under the terms of said agreement
the appellee was entitled as trustee to an assignment o'
appellant's judgment; and was entitled to have said
judgment released as to all parties except George Fair.
The bill also prayed, that the appellant be compelled to
assign his judgment to the appellee as trustee, and that
he be compelled to execute a release of the same as to
all parties except said
Page 3
George Fair, and to release any
lien he might have acquired thereby on any of the lands
involved in the trust agreement. The appellant filed an
answer to the bill, in which he denied the right of the
appellee to the relief prayed for.
On the hearing, the Court found, that the appel-
lant's judgment was not an enforcible lien, except as to
George W. Fair; and that the appellant as creditor upon
receiving his distributive share of the debtor's estate,
must take the same in full satisfaction of his claim
against the debtors; and that the judgment should not
be lien upon any of the property of Charles Hoult, Laura
J. Hoult and Everett Hoult, and restraining the appellant
from enforcing the same as to any property then owned
or which thereafter might be owmed by them; from tliis
decree an appeal is prosecuted.
The rights of the parties concerning the matter in
controversy must be determined by the terms of the
trust agreement, by which the appellant and all parties
to the same were legally bound. It is clear from the
■1 '-idi TSiK'if
■■, ■,<> la
terms of this agreement, that the appellant would have
no right to enforce his judgment, or any lien arising
therefrom, against the 80 acres of land retained by Char-
les Hoult and exempted to him; and the decree insofar
as it exempted this land from the operation of the judg-
ment was proper. But there is nothing in the trust
agreement which provides, that the creditors are to take
a partial payment of their claims in full satisfaction
thereof; nor that they thereby relinquished any right
which they legally have to enforce the payment of any
balance that might be due them, against any after ac-
quired property of the debtors. We are of opinion
therefore, that the decree was erorneous insofar as it
deprived the appellant of the right to enforce the col-
lection of any balance that might remain due upon his
judgment against
Page 4
any property thereafter acquired by
the judgment debtors; and that part of the decree must
therefore be reversed. The decree is affirmed insofar
as it avoids the operation of a judgment lien against the
80 acres referred to; and reversed insofar as it prevents
the appellant in obtaining satisfaction of any balance
that may remain due on his judgment after his full share,
in the trust agreement funds is credited thereon, out of
any after acquired property of the judgment debtors;
and with directions to reform the decree in accordance
with the views herein expressed.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part with direct-
ions.
Page 5
vIt :v.-i-
T .r:^-;?'^V--i '^'^
\^
c
"^^
^i
^^
C% -r^ -r fi '-"l Q
, ,, . ,^2u i.A. o^
General No. 7380^. / Agenda No. 29
October Term 192|''
James "^. CofFman, AiJ^ellant
'^ vs. / ■
Eugene', Colgan, Mpellee
Appeal from S^gamon. :
NIEHAUS, J.
j^^ This suit was commenced by the appellant, James W.
CofFman, in the county court of Sangamon County, again-
st the appellee Eugene Colgan, in assumpsit, to recover
the sum of $1000.00, which it is alleged by the appellant,
was due him under an oral contract with the appellee,
under the terms of which he was to find a coal mine
property, that was suitable for the appellee's purpose;
and which he could acquire by purchase. There was a
trial by jury and after the evidence for the plaintiflF was
heard and concluded, on motion of the appellee, the
court directed a verdict for the appellee, and judgment
was rendered on the verdict. This appeal is prosecuted
from the judgment.
The only contention involved in the appeal concerns
the legal propriety of directing a verdict for the appel-
lee, which necessarily raises the question, whether there
was evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant which,
with all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom,
v/ould have justified the jury in finding a verdict in fav-
or of appellant's claim. The appellant J. W. Coffman.
who was a witness in his own behalf testified, on the
trial concerning the matter in controversy. He stated,
that he was a real estate dealer; and that he had a con-
versation with the appellee concerning the matter of the
com mis-
Page 1
sion which he seeks to recover; that in this con-
versation appellee told him, that he was going to be out
of his mine at Mt. Olive the first of January following,
and wanted him to keep a still hunt for a coal mine
That the appellee said "I don't want anybody at all to
know much about it; and I will take care of vou if you
find something. He said "find me the stuff, if you o-et
.t, and I will do the work, and will pay you for your
trouble." That thereupon he looked for a mine for the
.T. .8uah:!!i;
d:!; .-;('
bi,-
appellee in seven or eight places; that he found a party
who owned a mine at Pekin; and that the party was Dav-
id Grant. Grant told him he had a mine to sell; and told
him what he wanted for it; that he went to Pekin to see
about Grant's mine; and got Grant to write a letter giv-
ing the net price of it. This letter he turned over to the
appellee. That the letter was to the effect that Grant
would take $40,000 net for the mine; that the appellant
thereupon told him, he would call his engineer from Mt.
Olive, and have him go and inspect the mine. He did
call up the engineer, and told him to go there the next
day; that the engineer looked the mine over, and spent
a day there; and reported favorably; that after that, he
and the appellant and his son Howard and their superin-
tendent Smithousen, talked over the matter of purchas-
ing the mine, and that they authorized him to telephone
and call Mr. Grant and tell him they would accept the
mine; that he went to a telephone, and called him up,
and told him, they had accepted the property, and ar-
ranged with Grant to come to Springfield; and he came;
that on the day he arrived, appellee had a conversation
with the appellant and his son, after he had taken Grant
over to the St. Nicholas Hotel; that this conversation was
had at appellee's office, and that he first talked over the
matter of the commission which he claimed he had earn-
ed, with his son Howard; that he wanted five percent,
and Howard said.
Page 2
that it was too much; Howard thereupon
called up the appellant, his father, to talk with him
about the matter, and turned around and said, father
said $1000.00 is enough, and he is perfectly willing to pay
you $1000.00 for this proposition; that thereupon he
went to the hotel, and got Grant, and brought him to the
Colgan office, where a contract was made by the appel-
lee for the purchase of the mine in question, and $500.00
was paid to Grant on the purchase price of the mine.
We are of opinion that this testimony standing in
the record as it does, uncontradicated, justifies the inter-
ence that the appellant had performed the service for
which under his contract he was to render, and for which
the appellee was to renumerate him, namely, to find a
mine that suited him and which he could purchase; and
that the parties had in effect agreed upon the amount
which the appellant was entitled to receive for his ser-
vice, namely, $1000.00. In this state of the proof, which
made a prima facie case for appellant, it was erroneous
to direct a verdict for the appellee. The judgment is
therefore reversed and the cause remanded.
Reversed and Remanded.
Page 3
■fCJcrs ':".
^^
/ Os 1
i ) I.
\ J
>%>.-
Y J :f-
<>."-*. 330
\J _J^ »
Genera! No. 7388 / Agenda No. 35
October Term ^$21
Cassan^-a B. Hartfoi^ Appellant
I vs
Lester |\.. McM^ers, Appellee
Appeal from iCouri^ Court of Champaign
NIEHAUS, J. ' ^"^
This suit was brought by Cassandra B. Hartford, the
appellant, to recover rent for the use and occupation of
a garage situated on her property which had been oc-
cupied and used by the appellee Lester A. McMasters,
for a period of 32 months, from Sept. 1, 1917 to April
30, 1920. The suit was commenced before a justice of
the peace, and on appeal, was tried in the county court
of Champaign county. The trial resulted in a verdict
in favor of the appellee. The appellant made a motion
to set aside the verdict and for new trial; but the court
denied the motion and rendered judgment on the ver-
dict. An appeal is now prosecuted from the judgment.
The ewklcnce shows, that the garage in question, is sit-
uated on a lot in Urbana, owned by the appellant, and
known as 406 South Co:er Avenue; and this lot adjoins
the premises known as 610 West Elm street, owned by
appellant's husband, Dr. William S Hartford. There is
no controversy in the case concerL.ng the fact, that the
appellee oecupeid, and used the garage in question for
the period of time, for which rent is claimed; and the
evidence is a^so undisputed, that ths rental value for
this use and occupation would be $2.50 per month. The
appellee, however, claims that he made a verbal con-
tract with appellant's husband. Dr. Hartford, from whom
he purchased the adjoining property referred to, who it
is insisted
Page 1
acted as her agent, in that behalf; and that
under the verba! contract he had the right to the use of
the garage rent free, during the time in which the pay-
ments were being made under his written contract for
the purchase of the Elm Street property, and until the
completion of such payments thereon. The verbal
agreement insisted on, it is contended was made just
previous to the signing of the written contract for the
purchase of the Elm street property from Dr. Hartford.
This verbal agreement as set forth in the testimony of
the appellee, is based on a conversation had between
ihe appellee and Dr. Hartford, and is as follows: "I says,
I have no garage. There is none on my property, I am
buying from you. I have turned everything I have in
cash and collateral to you, and I can't afford to build a
garage and neither can I aiford to rent one. He says,
'You make use of that garage. Its a double garage,
keep on using it as the man v>^ho is living in that house
today is using it.' Under that, I used that garage." As-
suming that Dr. Hartford used the language testified ta,
it is apparent that it does not sustain appellees conten-
tion; and that it does not exempt the appellee from tne
payment of rent, for the use of the garage; but that it
has directed reference only to the use of the garage by
the appellee. The lav/ does not raise any presumption,
that a use like the one in question should be without
compensation therefor to the owner, unless this was ex-
pressly agreed upon; or, unless such an agreement would
clearly arise, by reasonable inference from the language
used. And it must also be pointed out, that if this al-
leged verbal agreement amounted to a right to the use
of the garage in question on appellant's premises, rent
free for 32 months, there would be no consideration to
the appellant, the owner of the premises, for such an
agreement. In this condition of the record, the agree-
ment was not a legal defense to the appellant's claim fo"
the rental value of the garage.
Page 2
The verdict of the jury
was therefore contrary to the law and the evidence; anci
the court erred in refusing to set it aside and grant a
new trial; and the judgment is therefore reversed and
the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
Page 3
i /
\ i
J>
t 1 / / 7 ' \
i ' n n
V
^ f^ 'O
General No. 7395 /Agenda No. 4i
October Term 1921
Henry Horner & Co., Appellee
vs.
Gaetano Passini Appellant
Appeal from: Christian.
NIEHAUS, J. ""^
In this case an appeal is prosecuted from a judgment
for $1126.21 against Gaetano, Passini, appellant, in the
^' cuit court of Christian County. The case was tried
without a jury and by the court. The claim of the ap-
_^ pellee is based upon a written order purporting to have
^ been signed by Passini for a carload of Black California
4 Grapes. The order was taken by one of appellee's sales-
^^ man, named Falco; and returned by Falco to the business
house of appellee at Chicago. According to the writ-
ten order turned in by Falco ,the grapes were to be
shipped to the appellant C. 0. D. to Kincaid, Illinois; and
were shipped in that way. Wlien the carload of grapes
arrived at Kincaid, the appellant refused to receive them
under the C. 0. D. conditions which required payment
therefor before he could get them, claiming, that he did
not purchase them in that way. The vital question m
the case, is whether the written order handed in by Fal-
co had the signature of the appellant upon it; and this
question was one of unusual difficulty, because Falco
was not a witness in the case; and because whatever
signature had been attached to the written order, had
been erased from the order, while it was in the custody
and possession of the appellee, without any explanation
as to the cause or reason for its erasure. The only wit-
ness to testify concerning the signature of the appellant
was George A. CarpeTiter, who was the buying and de-
partment manager of the appellee. He testified that
the
Page 1
order contained the appellant's signature, when it '
was first turned in to the house. But it is clear from
Carpenter's testimony, that he had no personal know-
ledge concerning the writing of the appellant; he had
never seen him write, and had never seen any papers
containing his signature, which he personally knew was
30
," Ui><ii;J'iK:riQ i\ 1.
..,;:; . f OJ'sl.^c
' ,-:i/'->-!n .':
l.J;!t :-::-r\
actually written by Passini. As to his knowledge about
this matter, he testified: "I know the signature of Gae-
tano Passini from seeing it. I have a correspondence
with him, just two or three letters he signed, and from
that correspondence I am familiar with his signature."
Passini denied, that he had signed the order, which Fal-
co had turned in; in the face of this denial by Passini,
the proof mentioned cannot be regarded as sufficient to
establish the genuineness of Passini's signature, if there
was one on the order. And the trial court held, that the
written order had not been signed by the appellant.
The court also found, that the contract, which was made
between the appellant and the appellee was an oral con-
tract. The evidence, and only evidence, concerning an
oral contract, is in the testimony of the appellant. Ap-
pellant testified with reference to this matter as follows:
"Well Falco was there, and tried to sell me a carload of
grapes. He said, he would send me in three shipments,
and said, when you sell the first shipment, you send me
the money, and I send you the second shipment; and
when you sell the second shipment, I will send you the
third one, and you send money. I never ordered any
grapes from Mr. Falco, where I had to pay for the grapes
at the time I received them at Kincaid, and take up the
Bill of Lading. I used to buy from him before that. At
the time when Mr. Falco was there, I did not order the
grapes shipped so I would have to pay for them when
they came." In this state of the proof in the record,
there is no evidence that the appellant violated
Page 2
his contract,
by refusing to receive the grapes under the conditions
of the C. 0. D. which the appellee was insisting on, and
seeking to enforce. The judgment is therefore erron-
eous; and it is reversed; and the ca-use remanded.
Reversed and Remanded.
Page 3
11 .'■:;.'
i!-X:d>no-j i.ril -iahm:
.y;in!j::T'vi osfi'
X A
fiA
J \j J. o rl s '^ *-^ ^
General No. 741^ /genda No. 6S
V)ctober Term 1921 " .^
First National B\ink of Morrisonvirie, 111., Appellee
^^
r^St
MarA A. May, A^ellant
Appeal from ^ristian.
NIEHAUS. J. \ /
In this case the First National Bank of Morrison-
ville, Illinois, appellee, took judgment on the 11th day
of May, 1921, in the circuit court of Christian county on \^
a judgment note, made by D. H. May, and the appellant
Mary A. May, for $2744.26. Thereafter on the 17th day J
of May following, the appellant as one of the makers "^^
of the note in question filed her motion in the circuit '^'V^
court of Christian county to set aside, or open up the \ t
judgment, and for leave to plead in defense; which mo-
tion was supported by her own affidavit, and by the af- %2
fidavit of Anthony May, her husband, who had acted as 1
her agent in some matters connected with the execution \
of the note. The averments in the affidavit of appel-
lant are to the effect, that the judgment note in ques-
tion was executed as a note for $600.00; that when she
signed the note as maker, the words Six Hundred Dol-
lars were in the note, and that the word Hundred was
changed to Thousand so as to read Six Thousand Dol-
lars; that after she signed the note, she gave it to her
husband Anthony May who, acting as her agent, deliver-
ed the same to the appellee; and that the note was al-
tered after its delivery without her knowledge permis-
sion consent or authority. The affidavits presented a
prima facie case of material alteration of the note; Kel-
ler V. State Bank of Rock Island 292 111. 553.
Page 1
The motion to open up the judgment should there-
fore have been allowed, and the appellant given leave to
Plead in defense. The order of the court denying the
motion is therefore reversed, and the cause remandea
with directions to sustain the motion.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Page 2
i/';fri'"i.) f
r; ;' (C-.'ri f^'^HT'TK
.}{ .*.! V;; ;.^&'-,i /iJ
;f!'-:';';b i" fif
!j.j;u '.'>!v/ .Lncvig'if! isr
-!j;-(i-f ■'■: Ji
t: oss-l
-^
ID ■ \ '^ / ■>.
3 '* y
'""^
General No. 7413 / / Agenda No. 53
\ / October Terirf 1921
\/ /
\George Smith./Appellee
\ ^^)
Aiigelo Giovamii, Appellant
^peal h-afn Macoupin.
NIEHAUS, J. \ ^^
In this case George Smith the appellee sued the
appellant Angelo Giovanni in the circuit court of Macou-
pin county in trespass. The declaration contains three
counts and charges in sustance that the plaintiff owned
certain household furniture and chattel property which
was in a dwelling house occupied by him; and that the
defendant forcibly entered the dwelling house and dam-
aged his household furniture and chattels. There was
a trial by jury, which resulted in a verdict finding the '^'^,
defendant guilty and assessing appellee's damages at % *.
.'f3.50.00. The court required a remittitur of $100.00
which was entered, and thereuiwn rendered a judgment *j"
against the appellant for $250.00. An appeal is pros- I
ecuted from the judgment. f
The only question argued concems the matter of
the damages; appellant contends, that the damages al-
lowed are excessive; and that under the evidence the
appellee was not entitled to more than nominal damages;
and therefore, that it is apparent from the amount of
the verdict, that punitive damages were allowed. We
cannot agree with this contention. The evidence in the
record fully sustains a finding of actual damages suffer-
ed by the appellee to the amount embodied in the judg-
ment; and the court was fully warranted from the evi-
dence in rendering judgment therefor. Judgment is
affirmed.
Affirmed.
.1 .awAuasi
.0 rj
!': '-"■ i';
,^
\
General No. 7420
October Term 1921
R. W. Hilmer, Appell^'t
vs. /
Bruce Sewing Machine Coofpany, Appellee
Appeal from gafigamon
NIEHAUS, J. -,y
This is a suit in replevin brought by the appellant
R. W. Hilmer, to recover a piano of which he was the
owner, and which had been taken by the appellee, Bruce
Sewing Machine Company, from Concordia College,
where it had been placed by the appellant under con-
tract, for the use of students in that institution. The
appellee claimed it took the piano from the college, un-
der misapprehension or mistake, thinking it was one ot
its own pianos. The case was tried in the county court
of Sangamon county without a jury; and the court found
the issues for the appellee, and rendered judgment
against the appellant for costs of suit; also for $25.00
attorney fees. An appeal is prosecuted from the judg-
ment.
It is claimed by the appellee, that the taking of the
piano was not wrongful, because it took it under a mis-
take. The taking of the property of another by a per-
son though by mistake would be a wrongful taking; the
mistake might be a moral excuse for the taking, but
would not legalize the taking; and moreover would not
be a justification for a wrongful detention of the prop-
erty from the rightful owner after the mistake was dis-
covered; nor would it be a legal defense to a recovery by
such owner, of his property. Inasmuch as no motion for
new trial is incorporated in the Bill of Exceptions, the
appel-
Page 1
lant is not in position to raise any question con.
cerning the weight or sufficiency of the evidence and we
must assume that the findings of the court are sustain-
ed by the evidence. But the findings of the court, as-
suming them to have been sustained by the evidence, are
inconsistent with the judgment rendered. The Court
found that the appellant was the owner of the piano m
question: also found that the appellant was entitled to
.?!•:■.. i-r-'T
;.i; :i! .:-^>M- : '^^■
^ fi)
--■r^ J i'-.^i^
A e^i'OX" in-uii;
the possession of the piano; and that the defendant nev-
er had any right to the possession of the same. Under
these findings the appellant and not the appellee was en-
titled to judgment. The record does not disclose any
legal basis for the assessment of costs and an attorney
fee against the appellant. Judgment is therefore rever-
sed and the cause remanded, with directions to render
judgment in favor of the appellant.
Reversed and remanded with direction.
Page 2
'--V
^ 'V^^^A^^
Qtn, Uq. 7313.
V
1
' / 7 ^-^ V
^-
<
/
y
%
^.-^
— *^-__ ^-^^
/-^Tl,
'^"-^-■■..--
^.....---it^Jjda Ko. :^8.
Al>riZ J^ra, 19;U.
Boland E. Stafford an-:! > / """^^-u ' ^^
Sarfi C, BroahjL partner*, «to., ^ / --^ -' "^^
\ App«ll«9S»
V04
ei.Ac 631
i^cort of Lo^-^n Coaaty.
1, V. tills, \ A- ^^:
App«Uant tma th« oim«r of 008.84 aer-a «jf
l^yttci la Piles Cotmty, Illinois. lpp«Ila»a w©r«* r©«l »«tat3
brc^ara. 1Qi# «ifiAemj» is £h« ?=::«• 'M fairly tanda to sho«i that
a{^pdlla,iit pls«j ..I %k^ X^^iX In q^sstloa in th-s hani,^ of «&pp<»IIa*ia
to' sail awii^ %tm& it i»:%s a^rasd b»twa»n tita r^f!irtl»a that in otu+«
tisd l^nds #o2^ iiol4 by af'p«»Xl?i6» thay ??ar«? to ha.F^ for th«ir
06i»«sl3»l(m lai the »a8ie brcas^ht OT^r $1^0 j^sr ayora. It farther
titads to ikixm tiMfct tl»@y ii^«:?sat04 <^ ^n^ofe ti^U'ir lii tho laivi
«&lol^ th«y ©ffiarsd to »«11 to Msa at |SQO jm? t««r«. ^ll« th»
«Tid3n0a falls to s^stfiblish ttiat »pp«Xlii'-;a aacie a Aale of the
pr^asiaaa to Iksi-^^ for #300 psr acra, or ^^ly ;.th«r amcarnt, or
tJtot Ij® wat,^ y^ady, ^llllt^ stM abl« to buy the aoeso for t^OO
per acrt9. It do^a ««>nclu»tvely aho?? tJrtt h« In fsvct pttrohaa.:;;!
t*» s&ae of api^llaM thrcwj^ thn sottvltisH of his broth^sr
Sb^i% 3. 9111s s»a;J one C. T. Livlr'.t for 0195 p«r aora. Thia
-r
■^■L ,1
whls^Ji tha^ nan al%%si X« thsir dus ar» cor lanltmii rrirn^d by thoa
la tills tr»]t;3j£Otion. Tha o^iie na^a trldl by the otjurt^ a jury
bales watvml. fh« o<3art fmssd the i-ireuoai for tlm app«li««« ;4ji:l
&9£M>i»S3d thtfiir ^fmi^ns i!it |30400, an*t ontsr-rtcl ^ud^-mt for tham
and n^if^t a|3p«ll?%nt fat that amoimt an.1 for «oats«
%|5«llsff8 do not ttrgua that th«y sold th«r lan;l to
Isaier, nox t!jat thay sssadg a blndli^ ctmtraat with hte to purfsh^vja
It, but th«y Isi^ir^t tJint a.9 ^sy procn«??^ri a jairahaaar who all
to his thay fe^v» 8 -mesd thirty o^^s^laslcms a.nd t^t t^isr.rfora
th« ;}ttil^ant ahculd bat swffljssad. fi^%% thsy stra antttX^d to
tl^ Sk^ira«4 &{»s«laai^gis cai tfm tranamstlcgt If as tha ooart ftamd,
a«3 It dl4 that ths atls was i^ite by 1^Jp«»^l5Wit to a mt^toner
who ?m,i prc^urenl by ntspelltms, la con»lu8iir«ly s>«ttl»i by th?i
holllE^s of tfwj Supr^saa Court i n j|lafiia , |r , y» R^irr cm^ 165 II a »
24S «UKi In H,lg^,;tOR ?. Hora, ^S 111. 383 •
Ifee o«ntrtwJt "^stabllshrid }yf th« ?sirli«iKJ3 pro^!o<?«d by
8i$ip#lls^0s in this oa.^fj aati t^leh tho trial court found to ba
tme tj^a that appell«»9 wttj^a to hftva ~i '■'■- *r ^om^i^lone all
for
th« l?yftd ^s^ »oa4/^©»<^r $xm psT aora. Tha etrod«nc« Intro-
V <
'^- >
^^o*»l by thess alao sho??^ that th^t laticl wta 5»oll for 513:> par
aori, Th» ©nCTi«d c«!issj,f«lc»i» arfl thereby ^^onolualvwiy flx??<l
at |45 T^mt ^at^ ejf 137397 .80 tliat W» }j«-ll^ tfe« oxc«i-ii* ovsf ,5130
psT a«r© f or ??hlcJh th» laad wa« f?oid. fh« trliX n(3«rt crcajiptttml
the d'ysagoa at tSf) p#r asrs or t-30400« ^s^% aeaa arrcar* ffeare
l3 ao ««'iaaa«>«t ?^feBtt»ir«r tt« rtiloh to basm a flndtit^j that t!i»
o)Ssmi^;{iais e^moc!. esa^t^dm! $4S par j««r©.
I^s ^u^tpsant. of tjia oirmilt «oiirt ia th^a-raf ore g-a-
yorsad as?! lu^iptont la ^m»rcv% ta tiits Qoart in f^tc^ ot appclla.^«
ajid ^^iast uppsllaait f©jr ^^3B7«?^ gj^ for all »08tsi of ssiitj
but that t,h» ftost9 of fths apps^al m a.as0g!sod agfiinat t-hn aj^-ellftss.
o
r-^
_^,^'
^1<-
A I ' f '
No. 7332.
October npirin, 1931.
J. G. Chambers, \
PlaintifA in Error,
vs.
nda No. 13.
A. T. Thompson, etkl.,Com- )
Missioners, etca.
Errcr^^o Circuit Court
Louglas County.
Defendant in\ Error, J
\
Graves, ?. J.
sX
J. G. Chambers prssantad a petition for
mandamus to ths Circuit Court of Eouglao Count:/ ^o compel the
commissioners of Lrainage District No. 1 of the Tovm of Areola
to repair, rebuild and maintain a bridge over the main ditch
in said district which passed through the land of the petitioner.
Judgment by default -.vas entered against the defendants, v.'hich
'/vas upon motion of the defendants set aside and an answer and
replication filed.
The cause was heard by the court and the issue found
in favor of the drainage commissioners, and an order entered
denying the right of Chambers in the premises and ordering him
to pay the costs. From this order Chambers sued out a writ of
error from this court.
^ :..!:•
It is first contended that the trial court erred in
setting aside the default and allo'.ving the coraiTii 33 i oners to ans-
a
wer and make/'dsfenss. The petition for mandamus '.yas filed to the
October Te^i'*'* 191S,of the said circuit court and the comrrds-
sioners served with process. iV de^nurrer to the petition wa.s
filed but no action by the court was had at that term of court.
At the next term, being the March Term, 1919,af f idavits that
none of the defendants was under disability/- were filed byuthe
petitioner and about that time it vvould seem that the attorneys
representing the respondents and vvho had filed the demurrer to
the petition for the respondents ended their connection with
the case and other cotmsel were employed. At said March Teorm,
192)9, a default was entered against the commiasioners and a peremp-
tory writ of mandasrius a'.varded.
The action of the court in setting aside the default
and allowing a hearing upon the m^erits of the case is now
challenged by plaintiff in error as "constituting an abuse of
discretion by the court." This claim, in our judgment, is
without merit. Suit was begun at the October Term, 1918,
service had and a demurrer filed 'by the defendants, which was
left undisposed of during that term.; an amended petition was
11. r.'j.
,-f _C '/'lO '
}■ : J
:iV lo .rlL'ZZ ,,.;flt?
::aif:: ,;
!3i;j?i;.:;. :;
n-.:xro.
^:;.'s:: •:
filed on December S'tli, 1918, on which no action sesms to have
bs n had until the following term; at the following tcjrm, March
1319, the court entered a default against the defendants named
in the petition and ordered a peremptory writ of mandamus. On
March 39thj still of the said Iferch tstui, 1919, defendants
appeared by thsir present attorneys and presented a motion to
have the default set aside and for leave to ans-'sr the petition
which motion V7as supported by affidavits setting up a substantial
defense. Under the circoinstances involved we do not think that any
good can result from discussing at length the right of the court
to set aside the default entered and allowing a full defense
to be made; Under Sec. 58 of our practice Act and the holdings
of our courts of review under it, such action is wholly within the
discretion of the trial court and c charts of review can inter-
fere only when such discretion has heen abused. Under the
showing made here, the petitioner was subjected to no material
delay and no substantial ris^ht he had was inpaired by the
court's setting the default aside. ^."^'e do not think there is
this
anything shown in this record to n'arrant tka court in saying
that the trial court abused its discretion^ in fact it would
seem that the action of the trial court in trhis respect ws-s
eminently fair and proper.
eq £i 1:^'X'-.
<tr;c.
zC
UC^li'
■s:- c *'xa: ^H^nm li^v
Upon the hearing of the claim of th^ petitioners to
have a bridge across the ditch upon his premises built and
maintained by the drainage comraissioners, the claim was made
upon the part of the corajiiissi oners th£.t v;hen the ditch v/as dug
across the premises of petitioner in the year of 13QG the lands
through v;hich the ditch passed, and now involved, ware owned by
one C. C. Wood, a remote grantor of plaintiff in error, and
that said VJood agreed with the then acting drainage commission-
ers that he would not ask for a bridge across the ditch to be
built at the expense of the district, if his landa in the
district should be classified at zero; that in th-tt event he
would not be assessed to pay any tax in said district and in
turn he vTOuld not ask the comiaissi oners to construct a bridge
on these landsj that the corrir-issi oners in pt;rsuancd of said
arrangement had never extended any ta,x upon the lands involved
and that no bridge was ever built or maintained by the commis-
s
sioners upnn said lands.
The drainage corrmis si oners also claimed upon the trial
that even if the plaintiff Ih error ever had any right to demand
a bridge, his right to do so was barred by the statute of limita-
tions. This was the view, seemingly, adopted by the trial
:i:Sf.:: v^I? ^o .^U^.
::vics;i:.jf.OT
:^::i: ::OCi Ln^ ,^;.&S^q:
;i "\ .. :.:!iii^:Lo '^o "~c:ctET,
■ycv :tt.ds -.:.■- fi:l-
,iS-o = ;iCi:i
':'M-u.-i3d
court. The coinniiss loners filed an ansv^er ssttinp; up the stat-
ute of limitations to ivhich plaintiff in error filed a repli-
cation; thus an issue of fact was made for the trial court
tc hear and determine. Considerable evidence was heard upon
this subject which v.'as conflicting in nature, •vhioh the trial
court was called upon to weigh. This issue of fact the trial
court determined in favor of the defendants in error and in
our judgment there v;a3 no error in such holding.
In a proceeding by ciandamus the petitioner is bound
to establish his right b3'' such evidence as will make a clear
case. A rela^tor C5i,nnot demand a writ of mandamus as a writ
of right. The granting of the writ lA discretlonaiy iTith the
the
court in view of all/existing facts and with due regard to
the consequences v;hich v/111 result. People v. City of R. I.,
215 111. 488.
There is no sufficient showing made in this case to
I
warrent this court in determining that the trial court was in
error in holding that the relator had not established his case
by such evidence as made a clsar case. The judgment of the
circuit court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
■j A., i. vix" ■xo':."":^' ;:
,ni&m
.^o.-j X^'i-";; ■ r{" 101 ::--£ifi! s,-ni- S
:.o^ oi-xtno^
nc^.:\ 5 i/rfjj-^vfr ;:i _,jTiJ:
d'C; ■, "to ^Uf^r- i i:l.'!'i
1 i ins-la^ ■'.el odi
.■.•-.iijif Xo-'I o'^fjc ii/ lO'
. I sucioirst-: ■■; orf.' tu::u,;
?;;;,;..> ri;:;i;. :o
.■ v _ ^'U .
:jor iPi-;;
ll£^^
'>!«l^
- Aijwn^la No. 17,
Error to Counl;-/ Court
Jaim^a C. Da#&, DlracTtor Gen^^' ) of Sangacion* County,
aral of Railroads, «tc., /
- /
Plaintiff In T^x^x,
\y ■
Gra¥3S, P. J.
Ira F. Tisiat, «t al., uatlorr t.ha fljtta naws
of Twist Brotihersi, brmght m\% in the oirouit court of Ssmg-
amoB County against Jasaaa C. T^ivis, as Direetor Ganarril of Hail-
r^4s, eto., to r&eovrsr for dawags* allegad to have bt, n sus-
taliied by defandanta In error through the no^Ii^^nt dolay by
plaintiff la errcsf in tlw tran«portatlo8 of oom fi-oa^ Saat St.
Louis, Illinois, to P;ori;*, Illinola. A trial wui, had b«forft
% jury and verdict rstumed in favor of th« plaintiffs in the
suit fdr t&o staiB of 0a>3.35* U2?on which, aft r overruling a
BiBtion for » n^jw trial, jurtgHont -sraa rendcsred. Th© matter is
:ir.i 0-: . n-
ril^ixj. iitoc
X::vV 0>, U..
.Si'lj:: ff' 7i, .Tl -zc-^t: o:.
, X : :;T:r. X : .rr. •; c;': ' I'J..
\z^.':: er vi:i' f^ri
-;AXV^O/{o :*
:;i.--^j.
/ ,■-■■'
.tJen. No. 7368. ^ Ar?«nda Ko. 17.
/( October Tara, 19J51. /^
1 /
Ir^ F. T«lat, at al., ) /
%afet^hmt in Er.or,
\
r^ /^ ^ /I ^' ^ 1
Srror to Co«nl;7 Coux't
Jafflsja G. I>Aik&, Dlracrtor Genr/ ) of Saiigamtm, County,
aral of Railipoads, <i%c,, /'
PlaiMif f In |r^r,
Glsava^gj^ P. J.
Ira F. f^Sst, f>t al., uBdfir t.ha fim niuas
of J»iat Brothera, b^caight miit In the circuit eottrt of ^!in<^
arnon County aj^iadt Jasa^s C. T>'tvis, as Director Gangnl of F^ail-
r-i^-is, eto., to reeov5?r for dawagss alles^ad to have bo n sus-
taltiftd hf defendants Iti ei'ror throu'^h ths nsjglii^esst delay by
plaintiff in error in tb© trasaportatios of corn fvmi^ Sasi St.
Loul», liliBois, to pEjorla, Ililnota^ A trial w.ui» had bai'ore
% ^urv and verdlet returmed in favor of ths plaintiffs In tha
suit for tha &im of 0^)3.35, wpon «htcJh, aft ;? ov&rnillr*g a
Billon for a ii«w trial, jurlgRsnt isaa rendered, tha matter ia
in thla cawtrt tjqpon » writ of 3r. or su«?id out by Davis a,n Dirao-
tor, ate.
Ths suit was brought to rucovar loss by daaag© to
eom said to h^va arisen on two difi*r«wt ahipaents, which were
aet up in two different counts in tha dQclaiutloa. Un<iar ths
first count it «»s jaad« to appear up«i the trial >hat notice of
olalK was not givon within four montha aftur th;) arrival of tho
car of oorn Involveia at Puoria, as i'aqulriid by tha bill of Ifui-
Ing, and as to that oount no recovery ?*aa hn,ii. ThJ jury by its
verdlot fcund in favor of the fwlat Brothers upon tha v^acjt^nd
oounl: aloi»B« nhidh count had to do with (ono oar, Ko. 45950.
Plaintiff in er or first contando that thsra la no
dvidanos ef tho otmdltion of the som at tha tiss ^on it was
deliv^rijd t« the railroad co^any for shipinant. Upon or hefor©
the tri&l in the court belosr, a stipulation was snt^sred Into
betss n th« partisa by f oiroa of whieh tae gra^ of coim at
the plaoo of shipment oould hs shown by ths inapsotlon cart if i-
eate at plstpe of ahipiisiit* In pursusmoo of this agr'3omant ths
in^>©ctlon oertificat© ^as aisiitted in svidonoa wmi ahowcsd that
the oorn shis^i^d in the car Ho, 4^50 vvsa, at tl^ time of its
receipt fcr shiioient iprll 17, 1918, "i n atmar^mt f^oocl ordvf. ^
In o«r^o|toratlcfi tastiwcaiy was -^Ivan to tha effaot that the
dom ^wa deli-varsd to tha as^rrisr >*aa cool with no si|Tr» of
hoatii^* Ondsr this evldenee th« Jury was warranted in finding
ttMt e«iPB wheiBi r^elv^d \^ t^ oarrles was in go d condition,
aAd wfiftiid be is the ^-ms ocmdltic^ ^hen raoeived in Peoria, if
trsmspoi^tecl within a. rsaacskablu tims*
Plaintiff in airor n«xt contunJs that a oarriar Is
not an Inaurisr of prompt cUillvery of property rocv^lvv^i by It
for shipBant. That* Bay be eoncait^d to b3 th© law, and y«t the
carrier would b« hald to saka dcjlivary within a rvtaaesiablo tliaa
Bftss raceipt of prt^srty for 9hip«(^nt imdrtr all thd olrciun-
stanoas sufroundli^ th& oaa®. That this is tha la^ ssoims to
lk&v« been r^'XH^nised by ths plaintiff in mrrnf in hla saoc»id
instruct ion tendsrad aaid givan py tha oourt, v?hioh in <sf c^ot
was that a carrier muat daiivsr a shipsGnt wlt.hln a r^aaonabla
tho
tiiMi undar a^/aircmmstancas. If t!ia tisa in transit sa^i®
to ^ r-ia8onabla,th9 Imxdsn is then wpcari the oarriar to ahow
that rijasonabls effart has bosn aada upon its part to transport
tlsm gooOs wl^in a r&asta^bls ti««, h:avixi^ ocsnsidsrstion of ail
tha ssrrcAsnding ciroiisatJUfiees,
In tha oass at te.r th^ avldai^© showact that tl^ caip
of com in qjiastton wa - inspaotsd <m the 17th of April, 1318,
at last St. Louis and ocmsi^sd to Psoria, and there s^as «vi-
di^nss tending to 3h09 that swoh oar v?as received in Psoria on
or about tbs 6th cf Hay foliosiag; that is, a pt»ri©d of &ind~
t««n dajd soAsa to hav» «laj>89{i bstwosn the data tha corn wia
recalvncl for shiim^nt at ^at St.Lcaiia ?vnd itn dtjliTv-jry to
losing tliat tlw usual tis« rs^iulrxl for aiiah shl|«ient %% 5tix;«t
th« tiais of th« j3m.|«0Rt irorolvad m\M from t-»o to thJWJ - d-tya,
lf!^97 tlMi cixcnmatanoets is wvMaiSJcj it tm? fairly a ;|utt»ti(99i
of f^«t fo? tl\» Jury to Hfiy ?^»t!ltiif or wst the tSfi» tsUctm in
ahlpa^mt n'%a or ta^va not a raae^ssahis ii^ for th.it transi ort
of tha oar of oi^tn from East St. Itcails to Pao^iit, Plaintiff
In ^rr-or aevdn no atta^t to mh^m any «»^mtt.X ocst^tS.<:aii« aiiy-
raaa:Ur^ this sMpssnt, tfhlfjh ?r*aii;t ffj^-lain or «xmt3s th« 1:iiay
froR »hlsli It is olaissdt ctoaagita r»si*lte4 to iia f «*n:i^mt8 in error*
1^ OB3r 3ti%R-jftt th^ ^ury «a : fally r?-am«at«l in finlinf tfeat
tjfe^ra was ^assui^ial dalay in th» tst%afl^?ort ef «\r Ho* 4^6^*
Plaintiff ia u^ror tmx% argtt^« that tl«jr» i» not atif-
f is last ahc^li^ emdm »» to <iatis or t^m ©f il^liyary of ^u* So.
4^:10 at Pdorlaj th?it Xu thn% thm avidoiKJo falls to ahow th»
tlss «h<>n th» c?*r la ciu«stltm did arriv« in Pnoyia, and thctt
a© premoe^tlcss can bn iitiul^d tm tMa ^sore stai t^r«fora tlvs
03ts« ea«(t fall fcaf s««it of «»ldR«oe» €in the st^^eot of prasrs^^^
tion or want of prestattptlon plaintlfi In orror citos sar^^ral
authoritl33« Wa have aonslderrj.i fchosij ca:i05S and %xa of the
opinion that ruync. of tli«m stipport thn cjontanticn here Kada.
In <Mte of th<m9 «&8»«# ga r.i .r n^ y» The Psq^Ih^ 334 111. 170, tho
holding wa5 lisrely to th»5 eff«ot that tha birth of a child born
to th© prosecutrix about six aontha §tft ^r an allegsf.l rape dos3
aot r&lst asif f»fii«ip|>ti{m as to the guilt of th» p't.r1.y ».o<ns3 3(i.
In another e&Hej oitsd, G lobis A os id pnt ^ Xn;mrr->nqa Coaiioany y«
€briach. l63 111. 6']5, the? holding ralate i to th^ manner Is
which a lean Q^ms fcc his dssth upon a oXavisj for Llfa Insui'ancjs
whers th^r© was kq dlrsjot proof of tha eausa of death, fhtt
SaptQm9 Ooort thara say, "A r rima faota c%3& of aoollr'ntlal
4eath ttcm a strain received by tha daoe ised In lifting a box
of aahas is not mtiAi» i«it by e¥idetK!a showiag t&stt t-.ha daseaaad
probably died frtsa the ^ffeot of a strai^^whare th« f-Jtcst of
having
his^/llftijy? tJis box of 33h«s Is not proTei iiviictly but iriaraly
prsawasd froa the olroitaatanoss."
The laat oas« Just r^farrsd to is as strcmg ir.3 asiy
asathorlty cit^d on this mi^^ect end se^s to ua to fall far
short of aii^sportlng the oialas Kade hy plaintiff in orror* In
! ^^ti^•i ^
ii ,?.!
that case tl» dafendant insurance oowpany was confront 3 d by a
presvjnpticn marely and liability waa assarted solely u-on th(3
precomption that tha dHCaaaed had baan atrainrd in lifting
ashes merely bscauss a part of his labor conciist-j.; in loing
that ;^ork» Furtharmort?, in the case at bar ths plaintiff in
error knav;' or should have known When tha car in uisp^uta waa in
fact delirerc?! at Peoria and being in possaasion of aunh evi-
dcncs i3 not in a position to a.'-y that a rt^asonabla prejsusption
is not to b^sctvcn foroe '.fh-in the povter ia in its hania to
oreroosie tha prasumption if it be v^rong.
*■ Th3 svidansis in thQ case xKirly shows that defendants
in error aufforad substantial damagss aa.i that suoh daaagsa
rssntiltQd froa delay in ahipaant by plaintiff in error in no
way sx^Dlainsd. fhs ludgRant is ri -M and ia affirmed.
Jiidgfflant affirmed.
:J. >-,^tri-'
Filed alone Juno 9, 1922.
mmm fsoH-LifS B«5S^i'm «e^*Ar-ri, A rfW^t>i.»rio 0<i-L
\ / ) ^wfiAX. mm £j«i»:msoH ^mm
V»;
ngiiiiijit a tliiM |j»*l^ tm tMiS liiaSfilitf 'i*a?©^a;«><l rey 1^ t^«f first
ties of f i?«^ y«*ijn»i, If thUst ktvd &i tm ^titan is g«v«rt3«fe^ Iry tl««
fey ife«s fir«t %»igM»fo »l"^ »»»ti<»» 39 tss liet a liability i'or t»jfw»l«« i©
tluK |»«r«M^m* te% 1# «m & iNnr s»M 4i#tlm»t os^i^o «f action eo>^6l^ii.]3^
.SSeX ,e tiifuT. snoXfi fisXil
Cl U G ./i . X O
e**
.i-^iS^A,,-
1Kr£%£l
^fe"»■
-,r;i v,r'«>;v^ «9 "Sm
Oeltiwa J5t&t«« Cljresilt Court of Aj^p^als .for t^ila alr«^i:lt, ir.
Mxssslm^* ■*• yj^gj-iuLjiJiJu.,;^^ Min ^,*« '^^ ^<w» ^^^^'t ^^s**. '•*>" «
41vlA«fS «t»irt( »u»tttt)B«4 t^tis Tie* of a9i»«lij»«t« Gmb* s»i»ft li^j
(¥©# SS1K>3, 111* j^ij»,o5f>irJlon fll^d 0<si# f*, XOia» Bttt y«jt i'»5*ort*:.U )
t© it» ««^si'6ess,<&nt Uwtti the roiiuli-^KsstMi oi" fifoc>idi«M fjposi etefttyi'tuiojpy
iB«;;li4v«ift*-5« ©■« tb^ paiirt of t:h» mt^X&fme' «?d*.l » l;lrilt6»i ion ©a t\m tssMmnt
of tlj© .r^esverj, «,M ti*at^ mo oonoitu^Hl, th«(i ^usilon is c«« i'or iw-
,^^^» ^?«) tlJis i» ih« vim> whicsh «•<»» ta&«K ©f tii@ c;iiif?»t,iafi by
<**«* iSSS8t« ^® e»i»«il«3«S' trtiia itevsiS^^ift ©f fisn ,sl#it of s*eti.6« by a«
«®spXo3^ir ui'jaair th® fiwrt, fejfaftct-!^ «if @e^tie» il» «« f«lly «i|>u©jrt^ 1»y
UUmS^ ^MM ^^s^^m 9X' » ^^ ^i^« 2.^'''* s«i^t«=-'»»-»i> a@ *?^ i>*^:^««'^
«il«st« ©f th» ta^fuJ^t ]Nt^ar>ll#»iK ef !&« f©s?a ©f tl*« astttm* (laj^iUilr
8ki y» <^. V, f« S@ .. 2M IXl. m^^)
W« illMar«fi8r» bei^ tJ-iat %'km %Tlei3L emuwt sim is»1. »w in
this Ji^OiK^Kfi i« affir.£e4«
cji^% ^v
r t^ : ti »••■>« :
ti*'J ■ijiiv-. i!:"i
?*?■• ': ■ "^^ 1? *T?.& *1f fsT^ * ^t*^'^
Filed alone June 9, 1922,
^PEAL FROM
'\J «•*
/' MUNICIPAL COURT
OP CRICAGO.
S59 - ^6433.
BELI, A HOSfELL COMPAITT, & corp.*
Appellan^f
OlOROi: K. S?OOR» I
i; /^
**R. Justice TAYLOR d«iiv«reji t&e opi^loo of th«
oourt,
f h« e«m9« '**■« ■ coB«ol,Jiaa-4«.^---w'J^I^^"^ it«lJL and Bo»ell
( j^ofepfagy v. spoog , Oea^srai iTuisb^r 5^8433, jfoi ueafing« W«
havg &»ao'^uc0il our o$;i£d .^a in Ge&ox&l Ruieb&X' ;'>&43S, a^M
therein »9t. forth t)i@ faofts «i>a<i ili@ 1&« »hj.cii in our Jvuig-
ii«at was »p|»lia&l&l«.
th« triaX liftdg*, in tbe i&st«.nt 9&»«> found ih&t
tht yJMyy&tifi: ^a» «atitl0d to r«oovdr tQfrt.l%%9& up to October
is, X917f the d&t0 af tbe &iX«g«a &«#ig»i5eat|, a»0'UJRtl&^$ to
16416. 3V j»Bd Intor^at &.13& tutored jtt%«tiAt therefor. That
«&i» d a@ apparently o& th3»tli4or;f that tbe oontraot of May
1, m^t «&e binding* but only tip to Ootober 15, 1917. For
the v«a6oa», botfever, which wo have eat fortb in ovur (pinion
la Bell and Biwrell v. g-poor . Gaaer&i iru«b«r 36453, the trl«l .
jwlg# @jrr^a, and ttio s>&ov« me:&tioii«d JucS^gmeat auet b^ atodifl«d.
jru4g««eat will be «nt<gred ^4«r«^t, in ttss in«t«^Qt ua&e, in fsirer
of BqH a&d Howell Coeipdiiy c.nd ag»in«t Spoor, for tue t,hr««
ia^talleiente of royalties, duo October r^I, liil7, January 31,
aoj^i April 30, 191S, being 1^1,000.00 plus intsreet >xt five
,22eX ,e saul »fioX« bell's.
\
»>>«;«.; -/'.i ■■^'J.^'i^,-^^.'
-3-
per cent ou the three inet&llokento at $7,000.00 each,
froto their roapeotiv^t clue d»tea» lu&ttely* October 31» 1927«
Janus^ry bl, 1>>IB, ana April 2iO> 1918» to d&te, BKftking
ia all, |3&«&79,17« tqg;etlier with ooete,
JUB0ME3T MODIFIED aod JUDGMENT HITflE.
0«COSSOR, P.J. a»i THOMSOH, J,
r^r^st .t<<2s^. cfu^'xaon -"m
J
n •
CAUL S. JPO.t%«cM,
■*^«
Ap|»^ll4»«»
2 2 6 I o A c 'o d >4
aM Ml:«rsaifc«» mm-m^mt Cfh.%&.%^&t wsvt am iisto b^ a.??- !S.!at«MJlsli«t
■fey tte« K^ysttB® ull. & l4;AKMf'3i«1,wid^M^ Cossi?«iy lefl'deh ki*A 4®liv9r«(t
tey jpil.aifttlJI' la tfe^ SiT0ait #sfart ^^f S^si^ C^uriiy^ f^y dfsKsssj;::«8 for
im t*ial tli« .^x«iisiw i^ii *i 4vSi.i!itef&e&u5rlnK £-a«Bpaa|" was? (liaEtetwM
ijaw^^ft ^J'ai* ill© s^M ©f f3,00e;, 4'aEie« U* Umtsmm, iMividiyilly,
baui \^st>u#it tij# suli to ^feia eourt for ^-Ktri©*-,
■^fet« aal/ .j*<>43si4 «&M© ia tS^a lijri«r t'llM "by s^n'Oilajit
ia tfeat ,?^ste D» BaJTic^n eawis-iet ibe heM legaXly li«.hl«» for 8. toy*
«®^ltt«i 1^ hia irtft* asidi la mxm^^ <^f thi« &-»iiieutlsm it 1®
ttyi»d tl'sj^t i&® fiTidsise* latrodu^td «s th» trial afeo-^a ihai 4:rs.
^ ^ ,w «ii» I'iJ \^^
»«!«i'.*«5 t.<> tkfls a.i»« of th* eajr fcy 1*1 s* rlf« or th© ilay «>f the -icet*
'mim» t#!st i'sMm^r ©f »«iig'«;i{er» iitiri^ m^ia- tiis iis»w'i6««
fossil? *»^# iRir':'fii?.««4 •5«?Mg.fe i^SiiiS^, t^ ^mm tteitfe &j>i». il&as&ts k&d
iS&y of lltCf ?s.g;Pitent fexs* IIs!6»aS»# <^<ims{^iMiu^ fej? Ijsa- slfcfe*!Sf-, Miss
9>f' tvmiia&Mtit)^ V;'.el,s»«»*» *.n ««eii»eti.«}fe with i* px©p«i&'»d pu-a'oii&tte- Qf a
«®**fly5» fe,T Mi©* t?».f«*» JSfi».ti if 4t V® 8#iES«»4«4 t?!mt tik® sviti»ki«<t
d©«» t«>«%i «;« &hinsf itisi M:?^* K^sr^*** h«Ml vtlf^n %hn -mtati&hile^ sA
tJii« t».«t W8«i4 iMiit «r#«t>« Sit "lls*1itlit2' a4|Mn»i hiss,, as iit«j «'ri''i«««e
iife?*w» tfefiir, «-& t^toe d^ ia qtt-«i»t.i«»» Ifcr4. Es«rA'®» wawi net ui^iag iH«
s»«ii tlm^ c?S5Sfi 'tes saia i« lyaa^i sih^ft ■«■*» ^^i-^iiji* ■&&-« e«e jfai* 'x«r ©•««
8««.aMl £^t -^i&ii^iliS AfSMiX Ih^ « ^if« is •oX«sly
sisiit3'©»»4le]ls t©.ir 5a«y ©wsi ie3rt« dtsn-e Iti ih<$ ^af»siS«u.t4GJ» «i i»«x «im
tifet* i«> w^ tl2i«3c %h3 ,^53.t|^«HB% ie fAV«r ftsf pk&J^iUt itiusv l;»a rs-
#t >^-- ^ . m^^rr^ Im ' ** ^^c»':> ^?
saiM
fie<l trwthl^ily ©0«i6«TJiij»4i; tte© asutfeosliy to »«?« *Jfe« ©*r "(siia the dtijr
t&ai My«, lijsrl^Mi waw ■»ill;<mi .b«3r >Mi0k«?*»4*8 ■*«*,! tsrltjr t« U8« ito© «saf
&3B ili« da;v ©f tJiu i«selci<mt« 5kit «ir«a if sjJi® k?id Sii© Bi«rt 5?««%!tjs.©i€>ii
fea? h«r ©«rg;lig.»siae® iia ©^^ratijfjL,;, ih« ear*
la tlS« «■»»« ®f i^M^j^ V, £^11^ 3©? Ill, 430, i'lss i5ttssl'«sBJ«
e*ii,rl lieM ilis^tj
•a imiNiat its .tt«i liable f^y iliwi t«rt at Ma mis^r sh%XA
thai a@«5rg# J, V-^n ^sM aot a s^^tgtiMat nh.imf:fmir», i«B msAi-s-
f«ir laiurl#s e«m««d bjr It t© tr«vs»i.«r« ua th« Jiig^-wsi^ , r«gajrd,i»a»
©f tli® i^m.<o^ ■at %}i€ iri^^T, C^^Ml^ r. '■-'f-'---^?, tS S', K, lllj
■iMf.^«,ft f. igiisailiisia* 3i--*-^ wis, 4ij '^Sag; ^:' '■■ ^Ji, 47 «ti«h, e^», 1
,f«r fei« ©^m ftt:r5J«s«« i« »®t llritsliSr ""ar tfes i3«||.Iig«i«e «i»f %h»
\&Twmmw in Urn »,s# ®f ih© si^eAtia^.;' (l^ty;tla^^ y. Mll^fji;^ im i&b,
ll^m) ffa® ewag** 8:f im ®sjiif9,eA>Ml« i«. mt li&l«'i I0i? att lm4^tf ^-fis*
i3m murtm^ w&it n.t tk«S ttm^ &.% 3.ila«jrt.y ff«s» #-«-jrvic« of hi® master
s^ Bdi «-«^agi»^. In i»ia^i fai» ^a*t«r*s "basin^a* Wi ^reua j??jrsui»(g
4k4 so it -mM-j' b« h<il.d h«jF® that tli« «rtm«r ©f s« autasr/obl le
in list re»p»ii»ib:lt for iti* 3Bi#gltg«>i(ii us© ©r i)?® j94AShiia» t*y Me ^ift.
If iSv« latt«r is adt lit th« tinm &!' Urn »c«U3pr«is«^ ^<&rf'.:;raiag soa9
««rri«« f®r h^ie im»%M»sid atr em^i^m^. s^ut kis buBinese.
t» t.l*« ©*8« #f a3FJil»&j3 If, £§^i^ .K>«i 111,, 40, ttm api-riir
©f tli# ftar wsMi thi» &'T?Mi«i?*a A«a|^t«», ami ih« ^|>r<m« ui»tJTt li«&14 uj^oa
%.}m f-:^te &f t^ai er»e)« th^t
"•i^e WSM8 p«rfD;ttJii.tt^; tfe® b«»ini^8« sM ^fcutj/ of httjr tntltmt ih fa«
a«^a!i«r a»<;3 -H%h. th« aa^aaun 8at.fei9yi»»4 l?^ hiai, Qh« waa, if sot the
»mtntmi%, at i«a,»i tlk® ^i^nnt m£ Ji^r f&t^fi* Is tn* ps^rfunasfta© »f
tii« diAiy ft-r buslB«ii», l»i8»Mlitjr ■;&©» n»t, <»f «^ure»«., r««t ©n Utft
ftSi«€aa, wh»ra i1j« f •:».«%» proven «3Miate<i tJje .r«l,-vtiana*(i^ of saast«r
■■■f'» m. *■
^«^ ii\ ^ OktA
%9 drlv« li for Ma fatJx^r, tat «*<r tMiik iha fa«t«i In ti'il« esuwi
«r*atM l.h« r«iiaiti©.rs »f Ki^jencar of th« >:!i?iT«r t^^* th« o-fmer of t.h«
ean 1b» ne li^ljillty wi tii« Qvnnv of tii© oar In isuah » o «ia« >.aY«
not striofly aui>i'^^r«'i l^ that vl ««-,*•
W« think It ia«j? be e«l4 that th« i»«l£iht of mjt>>«rlty
ie t'> th« »ff®ttt il8«kt th« c«n«y ©f an «»i0-i;i6[l;-il« vmy pwrylt Isiis
•trfftRt, tthild, or *tf« to u»e an^ op®rmf « tfc« Tfthlcl© witVi«ut
ipwmrrlftig «agr liability fer th« )ft»g,llfi®itt op«ratl»ii thi^rmitf if It in
ma>4« ta i^p^mr tJysit Ui« ««jr **» n»t feivln^^ «ta*d Its furth«ra.n<j« of ojp
1» 8«nn«teiio!i wiiJi ,a«gr TSfualness ©f its ©wftssty, />| |;S£, i^| y. ^'M Mf ^^^"^
III. 4^1 Ma^s ^« iMa* ^■-'^•^ -J-^^' ^->»
Me^y*!^ *»kI Ka^tshatt* JJ,, itmmuitm
iS»s*«MMi««f«rtj »«f MMV $%m'
xn - mn&
\ 4
32
0^ aom oafi'fi.
i aoy5f ,
©s tjs« 'i»eat fo^fia iitjatef Bi^iIe #f Ch,i««Ngio f«r fe.« au*ft tiC #S,9<it'*, f4i3r»
4«Hreyeti th« fthe«& i<> f>l,atrrt,tff , m 'fer^s^in^f 0#»?*»r«tlo», »«(#, that
%fe» Wtflri Swim iii^t^ B*«^ i*«fu9®d i^a^-gt^ifi th«3pe&B •afe'sy? t*i« ethmk wm»
t« .%M ^i-s si«ll t© rt^r^j^smi firiy eii«*« «f Ti^s9k«y far t*»« cotxi
©f |iS,5CHJ t.0 fee 4eliv«y«ia ©si tim ■l^ 0f ttie i^tirefeaee j that Jtwtjo'tet
3p«'?^i'ea*9ni6'i to 4«f«J34i:tat that h« «aui tb« '*'«rse|P &t a^ Js,%4 ib*
to 4®liv«r fehe ^hi as. «?y i« Aet'eodaM , l^'ut s^aai: hia .^tjrpt-8» wimi t©
4«tfi'a»4 d0f#mi&8t Ijy ©Maioing fip^is ntis tii« nh^ek tos* i.t,if>0; that
iui'^-eaant itrrep i?@fe#iire4> tli» wMsiiey c®iitjra«t!e4 i&t^ and tbM Oie
«%•« wsyg tried is^efsire a jury «hiofe r«turis^ a ir«y41<)t in fsivei?
^n the trl&l ©»« J'sisftjjitei SUtjljBj 7nm\s^,(%T u£ a «*leBis
e«al[tt$tM h:g d«f««flSgu'£t, te»tlfi«d timt h« had ealled up plaintiff's
if\.
v./ . 'i. i « -«..-■
(l*V VifH
.tftf^h ''f^'^t.f-Y^'>'-'^.'i '■ -"f .f
Vuti^/tf'^ftfM.ft.' A«f »ll«j6«|-% . i^«**f-
,:i s !'£:<■
hmi^ slb9U% t)irft9 )»*oleek m% th« skriernaoa at the <ii^ ih« obftei: ««•
giT«ffi to ^«ecVs )3tfK5. talksad. with plAlRtlff *8 »»yjKg iella*'; iiint h«
*lr««t«>4. lite ?iet t<a. i>*j? i5i^^ y*i.e«k If j»r««evit«:Hl fey J&«iib». J^svcatiw
Ixaui f^rrsseyly Ksft ^wri a.cea«nt »t ite«! ^j^auk. the j^myin^g l-.ttley'd
iiiisetiiS!©R.>! WS&8 is i.he «iff««i t$i«t eSteija htid, iiltlk^'A to hi.® ©n th**
►^Ji^smft aai tteat H®, t*i.«» ^li««9(8|, rM iaferi»«d stei» tfeat th<s ^jheejt
fe*d ^-ad4 the e-^-:®e& «as®n ii isf*® a-r«j|«SjRt^ *».t ti*« %&«*& ^^yi Um% &t
&3.1«^M Igr d«fwt.^s^t« Wkil« tJsftr® »««ss;S is lj« a disfifui* Ik %h«
tiff »t %h& tint »f tJ3.« t«lftplio«^ iS^EY«tr*s,t.l yas b»iis?««is. St«lii hsiA
tk« teller, w« tfeia^c lh44t tJi« »ir44«n## t^i^e m^t sisffietently
fiaiatiff aft«* ki!i#wl<»€gft 15^. 'fe4^e« Ki^»58 i« •it sf the aliagsNl
frmi^ t$^«»*A $a 4.*^tmvAtmt* '£h@! s]:;e#j^ «iyR >^r«$s«r!t«d t-jr --.'.r*
tl*« ©(m^-aw^ 6f il«.e»fe«,
la i«^peaa'®*se# tT fefliEf feaa fee**?? f 1J.M iK tills esmxt
«a %'#iaU nf t«f«M^»t» i\» ti5« «m»« I© tiv 4^© fe*ek is %h.^ %Ti^
wstigM ®f tli« «ifi4<ia«e, «»«it|>t t® n^j ttoM it i» ««r aplnt^a that
#« tfe« e¥id«?i«« tli« |i&il4p«.st Ik farar &f tii# 4«if ^Misjit afc^ttM isot
%« p®3«jtii«4 to ffltaFaS*
*'he Ju4|^©Rt df the Ott-fferi©? a#urt ?rHl t..U«3f«,f«l« ti*
sr«vs3r»«4 '/jpd l^« e«u8t« 3r^^a«!<i®4 *.* that «»urt»
^r:^*«.1.3f ^atel M*t<ftt#tt, JJ,, o^naur.
"f^ .fei^#ss»gE#**fJ»- #^*»
tt Corporation. / ) 2- -> "a T ^ '^i 3 9'
)
\ y ) OF cmcmo,
S« A. SACc.iailli and Mi«J) «. y )
Plaljatiff brou^ii as nation in th« ^ntolj^al court to
MMMV97 %tJ» mm ef |309,S3 alleged to lt«s?» fe«en Ai»« it by d«fe»a»
«wit« ^©B ws ali.0g»4 |piras8i@« of <Jef«!R.<iaRis to sink« to pl^intitt .
«» %Il.«ir&Re« of 5/@ e&»t a pound on S6,2S$ i^ouna® of wnx soXd and
4«lir«ini)4 to lilaintiff lij d€!f«sa4Ant«,
:&«jreRd^nts fllQd lan siTfldsvit i@f ^@:rit8 to pli^intlff *K
•IaIk, In whiah tM«y cl«r2ii»4 tit« sKakimi oi* tfe« a^Xowane* to pl^in*
tiff «s &3.I«^84 in tlio »t&t^M«fit of oliy.s# S«f«Btl«tnt« fui*ti»«r Bot
13^ tJiAt th«3r fe^-*d offered to isjike the alXmfmm*. only en th© condi-
tion that plaj.nl.lff 'sowl* pVLr&htm^ isj»d ^'4«oo]pi a tfeird eay of
««x« which it "waa «ai«i|«4 |»l.iii«tiff fead coRtraetod far -^t t^e iitm
it 9nrehaii«4 tho ««« »I^t« reforrodl te» isltieh oonelatod of t«n» oar*
lAstdsi tliat plaintiff r«fM»#4 this of far ikM. it nmo thaToaftor «!ltl!t-
43*«m« B«f«»4anta »l«o filM a aotM^ff to th^ olalm., In trz-ieh tlMjr
tmargM t:h&,% Tiy x-aasoit of plaijatlff •» failaro to skcoopt th« third
««r of iwMt »8 oontraetod for at a prloo of 10^/ a i>oy?j(5» tlioy "Voro
e^li^ged to go Into tlio open 3a<»Tkot rmd aoll a^id wasx foi* the aoc^'^unt
«f ftliadBtiff" at a loss to dofend^^Msto of $^^.S5«
0» a hoarlng l>«for« Uio eourt wlt>.«t»t a jary th® yourt
foun^ tho issxiOfi a^miMOt th« dofoftdssnto q» jilsintiff »« sst-if ^sf^nt
Of «Xai»., »M aooooaad plaintiff** da^a^oo s^ the mm of |S$^.ft3.
,n O *^%' f^ t *%, *^'^
S.-i-iiiiii*."^,'
.,?* i-Kft*.-
:>m> 's'fts
ft
uxiA it fU3rtht2' founts thtt l»fiu«B ia^%i^»t plaintiff ^n dv^tn'iiAiim.i**
•et-off, an^ jius««ss«d d«fend»i:tta^ dsKuagfts ii.% the «vi^ of |&f^&,
Jl^^eai wats tli«r«f<»7« r»ndesr«4 in fsiTor oi' Ux« a^fj^iv'sasutu itts- tii«
ffUit ef |1«5S,47« llae plstiattff feyiag» t3a» a««« to tMs c<»«.jrt fey
Wf«re we, thertfsjjre, enly tJt« question of th« J«s*i propriety of
ib« findlttg,® af ih« trial court in f^^or of th« ddfars^laatis on its
j^Qt-^ff ifeud ©n iMa gu©»tion the <rn<l»n«e is ceiif lietin^.
9f ir«ac fjreas d^fen^a-nts te ¥e d«rilir«re4 d»« oaix- Ouring ®a«^ of tli«
woatlitt 9f 0«i9l!»ex'» gi»f««-4ls«&ir ais^ I>®#<tel>ffi3r, i9l,S, at a. ;pri©» of lOi^
a p«uiia, S«pt«»=fe®r X4, WX&t d«f«,mlmBt8 l»y letter aeeepte^J tJi«
drdttr for tfe® tlijp«« ej»rl©a^a ©f waai, 'feiutt It iadie&tM th«r«ij« it«
wl«]i. t^at platntifi woula »«c©pt tht first &mx ftft «®©n aa |»o»«ible;
tfe«'*»th®r twa ears* t«> &» for^iwri i» Sovars*^r and l>ec«»a^er »^ sj«r
year imeirustioBs* fh®r«for«, lei uis hair* ymtr shippiag issti-u©-
ti©B8 ois first ear sas a^eis .'^n y<mr c»st4a«r will aoe^t.* "he ftr»t
two earloaAs «o»trsMjt*4 fe3f w«r« ds^ly t«HT»r«'.i t« pl^aim-iff , lind
tfee «d»ir©Ysr«y v?Meli gsr* rise ts tlw litlgatiaii c«mcer«» only
th® tJhlx^ ear eostra«st»d far.
The mrM»n»9 t«nds to ©hew t'hmt «4,to rtferaiaw to all
t&r«« ©ays ijj« i»arti©« agy»«4 that Xh&y w«r« t© 'b© te«W by d«f«)nfl*
ft»t9 ^tttil tk9 pliidi»tiff ha4 i]»4ii»ai^ lis r«i^ia@8@ to a«tc«^t tto«a,
fh<ir« 1» ^re«f tfe&t tlie first tw> &»*» -sfare n&t aaliirer»d until the
flr»t of tli« y««r 19^^^ aXtiiiou^ d«f«.«^5mi«» epvidf^noo »hows tfeat tb«y
WRr® r«Mi^ i©. A«liv«r i)i«a 4urlag th« aoaihs of S«pi«jaber mid Oeto-
ber, 1S13, «»d ifej»t 4«f«ndaat« during the laonth of .D«e«isb«r, 19 1®,
had s©re than *a««gh of th« a.%t»ri»i »n ha«d to att^ply th« tisird
«i)jrXoaft« ^lxi<^ UBder th@ coairadt Wft« to b« deliTor«4 in .r>«e«u'^bar,
1913* *£hers in s€s»ft •vl40n9« tl%»t tl»'tr«^t«r, su^ s^a late ajs
IbKTeh «r April, 1019, a^«tidardta h^ urg«d '^X^ntiff tf» st«efi^t ihtt
It*
■.9M
.».r^
U, A, 'Umt'^mhViXt i«l'eJt«l«*^t , i«>8tifia>4 thai In Falit-tmry,
191$« hm re'qnA»et»d llr« :^nniii &f plt,d.ntift eocapany, to a^ewpt tbt
X^i^? iefovm^ ISmtls that h« '«o«dU4 a«ll t't'i« wax <m th«> 2£j.irket. 'I1b«
di»fen-i%ni# ^pesir t& hm'^ hmA %h^ ^eue oit It^nd r«»iady JT^r dftllvevjr to
to tte« «ffe«t tliat pl^aatlfl" had fmlled not only t43 siv« th« 9M,^»
«.ft©p ife« ffi»nfch of S««e«to«'r» l«*ia, r«fU9©a t© feuseept tfe« j(asiti»ri&l,
jr«i4®d m.i?«B, %gr plsiiatlf f , tilt Mitloii im«' fe.f«n*i|lti %y a p\iroh.ri»«»r t»
rd#8ir«3r far ars. all«,i§«4 faiXur^ t& ^ml.ir&x- a ^i^Bititf ©f mmlt a&or
i3p»et«^ fear, wJiiofe «»a i© fet 4«l,iTr#*r#d a* @M«t«i£! by a« pwi««iSi?*»«r.
In itee |»y©ttent ©i,^»e tiie suit id Iry tiae ««ll»i* ie r^^&r^w tor a
txaetcd fef. H«af«, w« ihiiilc^ the «nr.i««f}i«« t«tsds t,0 ahr^ tbist-t th«
e«lX®y iitaM r«i«ly t© ^«XiT« %1&« )saat«arial, Xf «r«g are rlghi i».
««K -WiSMi t® 1>« held "fe^ yi« der®^jl»Bt a«1)|@«t te ifet reii«ri|»t of
aMpwt-m instjmeiieiia fr^s plaintiff, m^ tkat .pX&iatirr had »ig-
idLI'lM it@ i}it«atiQ» @»t t«» rectdiv^ the n^ierial, ila.«£3 it foliovs
law i® ®8li tiie «»» f«nr th«- ?*««#a»t ef iplmijtttff aasd timt d«f«»d«»
a«i« we?« <mtitlfe4 %9 y«a©v$r dB®ia#«» fea*** upon the dlffwreitc* !»»•
wfeicfe. 4«f0Miftntli aetually se&eivmX for tla« «at«^laJU ffe^i thi;rd
essuriessi ©f iir«x was sold fey ««f*a4ant» In th« ssfsjf&et In asalX lots,
tfeft first ©f wM-&h mm sold i'ja Ms^r, 191^, fer a 3/4 eesafcji s*. imsuji/I,
■.,¥'•. fi';v!?,! H:'- ;•, ■■,•..•> ov'.. ' ^< ^js
■a.;;-
1« S*«ift.- wet *^'
^SljJiiif'^St.
'fli« la«t lot w«i« m%4 -Sfrntem^mt 20, t^X^, at 6 3/4 eentn •-. ^ounA.
0p cosBtplatnt Is Mada of the action oi' thte trifiJ, ^u^g» in tajciiy^ th«
f«mla»t» ^y tto« byftsaeb of th« ooKtr«iOt.
fjbi«ir« Ig «© yaerlt Ih:; *^i« -poiat gsM« tfeat the datij&g**
tfei i%lSt9it^m@m l?et*«r«n tKt ^aoatraet ^rie® aisfel the mit^«t fri«« 1®
JNwjsdaiti^r, 1§18. I'he $asu5e wers »9.1<i i»w th« gcsricefc ■aafi this is ^cisw
«Yi!i0.Re« «f tise market |sxi.G« at th© ttts*^ ©f the s<, i^rojs the fficte
tfeat tli« gX^intlff 4id B9i glv« «a!ti|3fpi,ttg lBstr«0tion» fer tb« fir»t
*ve ©arld^a ic fee dti,lTex-«i4 ttrnd^^ tb* eontraet u«!.til *>®e«^«j* 28,
iSlS, that It 4i4 »t tte«ir««jrt«r iiKlieat» ?«ii^ posit lire refusal t«
afiSftpt d#liyferi of t^ tisix^, es*» uatil A^rili 191®, that tke thlipi
«8X wag held %y ^^nMsmi ant 11 t>mt tim* m% th» request of pi4«.la»
tiff, IS.M4 ife«rt tfe« delay is 4«liT«r3f' was,a t*it r«®«lt of 3»l^ijitifl**»
«5«». oeMtiCt, w^ tfaitik It «ia^ fe« icfeyrta tn^i th« |j»rti«» tt* tfe«
«oiitr»«t .Bjesaifi*^ tte© e0»tr««t »» fjAr is« it r«l&t««i t© Anlty&vyt
smA tim% %lm "by^weh 0f t>i.« eesty&et $114 net motusbll;^ h&cut until th*
ift#i^h «f A^rll, 1®!^, ^h«» lit® plai?jtiff a©f mlt«?iy r«l''«,st«t to .»o<s«jpt
Hub mat Ariel.
The 4%dipse«4 of -the ifesalcipai 6*ourt i». afft^fsM.
Mel^jLTfiily %s^ Etttehfttt, J?., eoiismx-*
\.
tti • Mam,
\ "^ ^ ^ ^ ^- " ■^ d ^
t^mja. tnm mmici^AL oGom
\ •/ fe? -^'5 ^_- I /?, Q
\ J ) mm.
A Corporation, \ / )
fh« d«f«!i4ar;t, CsfflsiareiaX Say Unit. Ccft'tpa^, a c<?r«»
9<»rtttlc!n, ^|>«»al9 trosi a Judgment immiuTmA «atsaln»t It In ths
M94,hQii%f tor %h0 mm ©f 11,14.0.
In M« «itat#f8«nt 9f elUiiJS' plmltikiff «J.i«>j6j«i4 th»t
ford €@ii^s^|' 9f Pemtiiylv%nia %^ li« ^u ^^xub^ te ««11 syut@££!6bil«
•JS ©jr3i«r fareas A®4f*«« Iterpto^ & '4©i5<s foy six e^rlossdt, of 122 anit»
of S4- 9er o«at* of tJ^. puT^ht:iM9 lories*
in tlj© y«fe^r^: t^ ^t>^ tlwa,i tha ©Mey far t.fci® eiji eairlo(*<l« of
trueks ««MSB iB fae^t eo»t»uinaat»4 sad iS0mrxknlcAt0d to '^..M »e6«pt«d
by tfe« S^Atforfi C©K»|^aay i« Bueh ma^;imie »» te reader It liable for
t]b.e mmstim»i&^6 &I.X4sg«4 to ti« auei t^ft jpI^iaUff* KTld«(n<ie la
t.fe« r«e93P4 tswds i© tb^s? that oa« Miteh«ll un or a,b«ut AutgMat
14« 3.d].4» hM t&k«t) ovftr the )m8itt«eti aM »«sele of th« l^iiAford
&6^m^ smA tisat la.t«r In o«tob®ir, I^IS, tlie»« »9»«t» i9»r« con<->
tatcik a first ori#3P for tkr«« uialtt fre® ija4Ura« ilurpfey .^ '5oh8
in ^al;y, \9X&i thaX l%t«r« <»a ^pt.«m1»«iy 14, 1916, he oM^lni^
fro^d th0 l^ttsr th« X^^gar co»tr%eti tbst usd«r niiii w***^<'«-
^ ~f f^,
Hlsaion of d| £»«7'«ent« o» th« 'i^un)m«€> pirio* %m aalciO of th«
kind in qu9»il9a ajad t)i«t vu&d«:y the &dntr»ot a d«>^Q«lt of XO
9«r otsnt, 0/ Hie i^uroltiase prl@e »ii,a r«!tiuir«4 fro© |»«rJMj«« to
vritioii -^Iminti^ aiifiht anlX tru.oX»j that Murphy ^-i Sone, riftsr tH«
d«ntraot f^r lh4» «aie ef ih@ six carXoii&4« ol' tmelcs li^ b«ttn
i»gr««4 upon* .2r«f'js«d to «!clT%no« tb« lO pt^r ueiti. 4«p«»«Jlt, {-living
mt a r®*«ieni tfesjrefsj' th&t it ^*a^ net iiBti'orsie'i sm to th« Xln-mcievl
r»«:;;»©RBibillty ^t tJfew lli«,<if©.2*d "Swsjpt.'my? tliat to d«t.«i"srfiK# 4i«
r««poii0l(?iiliy ^jodijrow Jtlu.v|}hy ef 4nS3!«« i^^rpjsgf a^ u«nam .aad hie @e<^*
rtttjtbaqr ^^ gone t« i^hlladtflitliia. to mik9 iwm«tl^iA%i&tm*
l«l^Hliff 1i-»»til"i«dj *X s**at Ihs «yA«3P i». A« f.sor
&s @ltlpa#ni is @9r>^«»3rT;H»49 ^1 I icissw ef say ama imo'wl^-^w is thai
tKera w^th %Ji|f®« uisita tthip-p«4 ^y jia© aa r* pari of that ©M«3f;'*
tletAt &ft*r M«yp^ t*M Ma «««r«i^ury r«t\4jm«<l frost PfcilA4«l.s»hi*
f» speeiai ©oistraet wam Mi^ 4;r^0rs t*f» «lijsin«ii3tg tlio io i^i^^r
««]Rt. 4«fffla4i r©!^uir«ss»nt { t3mk% *X '=?«nfc aad te©k tfest, ©Tdar for
tJtft «lj£ (^&.yisad«« *• Plainiiff fu3re,fe«ir testified tliat t* st^rfc
%!«« tlasjwuftfter la© jr©©«lv«4 a tsslegrgsa from th« fi^ifera e«ifa^.a.Tiy
whiol-i a4Tis>#4 bl« te "heist ©ff ©» llJAJiipfey co»tr*et apeeial ooii**
ir^et in p3m«#»» ©f ««(i^Xeiie«. Wiii foyw^jp* dir«ot on tli«
twenty^first," 8«^tft®ls«y 16, I^IS, at letter «»« mailed 'oy th»
lw^f®3Nt Oiifipiyssf to flalatifr* iH ishiea the fdjRaer 9t?tt«a th«Kt.
*?4iirB3by ■»»» isi bem on ir«(tn«ft4(»3f. Tlaey awt^jM^a into a tenta-
they got l».aelij, ?isi4 »@sit ia tl^«ir d^p^^it***
&«to%«r ?, ;i£)13, tl3« BttAi^ord Gui^iistiy wjpwt* to slKkin-
iiff Aft fcllawsj
*lair« ftt harsl yeur latter of Ji«pt®5il>«r SI'tk, an4 -stmlvS «ay tiust
the feiuypfey vJo» b^iv^ reriumw^t otar ooutraet, ai^,ne<J, but 'naro
etx^e^ ««:t a if«ry lisip^ortawt oisiase. So -*« oanr^et aay that tha
Mssttter its GlQge-4 uistil they aoaoi'ilij^iy ol^ t&« ooati'act in-
«t luring tteis t;!;^! ■»«,*'
;i:Xi> &^ ^f %&T ff'i Tm^rt-^r" Pli:Cft?-of: ^1f t^ffa^ SmiW^i*::-'L'^A
^i^,
'^ ■{*««!.■ .« -%i!( '^s-
?li« I«tt«r of Ociobeir 7th obo^a that Murr^hy 4 lonfli
haA 8ign«{l A oontrcuBt with nim.% i« i^sdd to )>« an lT^«pertaBt £:1'AU««
•isloken thftr«fir€N»« CdiT«»!^eiidcinc« in th« r^co'M lYi-U(jat«« Ifmt
the Budford OoM^sm iraa plea««4 wttls th« •«rvlQi»e r«n<l«r»4 Tsy th«
plaintiff. In 0R« Xf9ii«3r ^ated Oeto'ber S, 191<^, it ats^tes that
It wtmM ©all th» attentlew of Mr* Bavia, tic oaleB rnjsm!ig«y» to
the «tiJi,yact«r ef ttoe WdJ*: p^rf oiwttd by i»X<&lrtttfir ttp to th« <iat«
of th« iet.t«r - "sfor 4»tttim«« tbe ^urpJiy d©ai, " It i« oi)J«otod
tlMtt th« oert'»s»oii<c5enee «rat» lPiprop«rly aslKiittoi in that th^e slg-
»&tur<te of tit is«r»o*i» :^«rp«rtlng ts have aigTa«4 t>).« letter*
for tfe« K«4f or4 eosapaj^r Ji**S B©t l>««ii pyaT«4. tlie latter* •*•»©
properly fedaitt^i; th-sy e^isMituted m oimre« of e»rrei?ponii«tt««
Ij«i*-6»|} the plHiRtlff ttad the Huilfoydi Coai^aai^, and »any, if not
^it« !ai:t.j of t'n« |,«tt®^y« 5?«i« eo«?su,«i««ifel©»« nrritien i© ■^l^^iniiff
in ana-^mr to lettajf« sent ty hi* to ttao oasj^&ny, j^^^c^ , !, EMi^
lij?,t|' Ca, ▼. isSSl^mjL* 19 S 111, .%]?, 41CU
Wfeil« thMT9 la ffl«jm« 44mM arieiag out ©f tli« «Tide»«M»
•i to *Ji«tii^^ th» K^dfard eo®si?tay had in faoi eoaipl«rt»a tlie d^aX
ffST the sl3t ss.rlo'sde ©f tns<xk« ^Ith ttoe feisty CoKJpfimy, wst think
«!n(mfit^ l« ssh&«B tJi«re'fey to ^:ivo rise to * pr«»»3e.iption th^tt ihia
finally
o<i-n1.r*«fc 'mi» in nmm i'9f^<j*>nsu!-3^.s,t®«t, Tfe* |jl»intlfl"'8 i&atl'ajony
is to tli© eff^ot tfe«;4t ii« p»»oui?«d tbe or4«jr saawl that tl»e HudiTcrd
esKpany thereafteir notified feim to "iiuld off* furtkoy effort* In
«^nn®etlon th*r«wlth} t&sat it «'»» it« intent ian t»? oerw^slptia th«
arran^emaRis with tb« lurpfeg' eofap^kny thrmjgh it« eal^a ra«.n-:«g8r,
lasie fiaet oc-uM n»t #«fslv© ttoe jalaiRtiff of his srlijiit t« ooia-
miKSi^fta on the c^ntraet rren if it vere mnAe to js^o^ar that th»
«tant.3rmet '<m9 fln:^ly i8a4« f»n ters»» ^^aA oeftditleas dlff^roRt farcsa
Mmmm -ixpen »hloh the plaintiff 1)y hio ooutraot of ^ssployssent ««jt
a»tm:siftzm. te siais;% aontr&cts l"or thz Hudford Cot^^smy,
Ivldsso* intz^due«d ^|r d«f9n^«»t> eh^va that ilM
M''
tS-liiSilt
iit&m ^-
lru»ines«s of ihe Mu^foard. Oojisjpaj^ tionS aasimed all of l-*» liabjlt-
il«s i9hleh had aiocviittd after Au^et %4, X9X6. th^ only Ksail*
a«ny off^rea hy tlof^nd^Rt wMeh tends to <5«ny th« iwieduilon »f
i^« eoiitriwst ^Ith th^ torjstoy c^cajipja:^ is th® te»tljsony of a vlt*
nftsa iak«» €»« -written iattjproip&ioriee^ wJkj ssaidi:
4«f@n4*«t, y9«»erala,l Car ^nit C®5©pany, nor the Hudfor-i ^oj>t»
Sons 4»ring t>^# moslk ot ;i«|»t€fcm1»@ir« 19 IS, 7h« C<»iass«r«d«.l
C*3P Ualt S$4a|>afjy »ol'I »e«»« unit® to abbAp«w Mwrphy *; ^lon» s*t
fMa teatiKKjB^ d09« ae-t dtr'setl.y oeut rati let tJi® 4«ft"
nit« stSki^eftTji «f ^laiatiff that li® liM «lellT«r«d t3i« oardar for
tk« «ix eiarls-wia q£ «3aits to tJia flu^fori C©s8pa»y» 'f):j«r« ia
ly. -^ M f n. ^'^tl i.' ! .P^^'O^ *^* t***5 eajitffast -«nB mi^^ Iby plaintiff 'sdtli
MatriKhy iSs iJ$B«s that tSitr^acftftr, tl5j!^5Ugli t^ tw>.ilt of >3lAlistlff ,
diATofiSat t«jitatiit« MXi->Afi^<Ba«Bt» v«m misA% ^Ith V^rphy & <3«ia»«
Hawsfcha? t.a4t« feesitsilTP© aryi2Kge.'»«r!t», wht«]ii ob,&«g««l t>ie ftsra o^f
IImi «®8tr*et thMt plAintiff ws# aatt'^JPla^d t«? aaijtj s^ye In
faet cfjj^ietsd, ^au & ©Sittfer Tsr-iiieJi ar^jattd p-feCMli^J-l^ ^Itfcdis th«
kiis»ies3f,|:# 01' tfe« lludfe^ri^ C€«sE|>aBg^ ©sr 4l®f«»dawt, Its guoeetsoy,
la t3*« ©&iie ©I' e^y^jif mism^ ^' IXm^^S^ 3L70 111.
iktl^^t ^» tlMi ^^ux^ soldi
*Tha»t the f;,4Ct© in this ©as® justify th« «^»5.4e!ittlOH af
the s»«©9^iils«Nl «3Ec«pti0n In ssuci: ru.le, thut 't}i«r^ the miTb.lffOt
«att«if at a a^ativa «vexvi#nt lt«« pem»llaj?jLy within tho
fesewleda® fsf the d«f«>»<3arit, th« "bwrd^rn i« o.-4et msun hirt to
tv-^ftm the 3a«!e«'*
t*-&et witk AftiiJ'aw Mxix^hy ^i a©n« whleK w»s 9ail»4 for under the
ffial3t«««a, the e^i^oetta was »eiT«t a|m» <iefdndant*B attorney, wJto
4«ni«€ thiM^ S84^ paF«r va» @v9r In th« posaesalen of 4ef«naar(t.
In thft «aa« of jiMMii ▼• ^^.^^.^Jt Mk^ b^smM^*
139 111. Ap:t, 3'^S^ tJi® (iourt aald;
••Wlien !Wt «,rr«inj;j«^f«tnt with a pro»p«ottiro mJ^«3^'-fcB»r rlpsn*
Into a. &iU.«, It glv«» jfc riglit to tha ??^eftt. to a ao.v.ii«»iiaiii
fer th« r«!R»en that th« /.glut's offo^rtfe rtr® the ©t'fiolent
cause of ia s«ile; «*•* th*t <«» js^g^ni u»4«r «a};iir«u:i' oi «i!i-
ployiSJnt le mstltl^d to eoB:Ml«s5l»nR on 'i-ut'-iBobilt-B !*ol4 by
iil® -^rl ftfiljiai usrfcdar *arrajxg«sant«* ^ffeet-^Ml while In tb«
prlnclr>al*s ^'^ploy, although th« ears i%r» not 4«il¥er€t4
aitS paiiS for u.nill -.'fX^r M'^ «3i3«8ixrg« s>rior to lh» t«r,'ilim»
tl«rj ef hie ©ontraet ©f ^sssBtlcss^^^jt**
A« siat««J, s^bQ-r*, tfe^r«is ie fJOi^sR «▼ i^ene* ^')vidii i«ud»
ttt •%#» tfeat th« «oKty».ot for tfce e&li! ©f th« truc:8;« t© tb«
itoai^fey eoiufjauy ^a* in fast e»t©r«4 iate «»*S. th« plaintiff* rlrJat
%« ei^l9«loR ©Pttia tie! fea -iljx&satttl %y r«a»<itfi ©r th« f ^set ii-sat
tb« M»df»M eois^a-ixy 0^ itij mi««ess®r fewwit aeen fit to taite tht
»&kiRg of tJi« a«t«sl te«%» wta4#y wh4«sh the i|.#od« w^ir* e.<yi/i e^ut
331,
1l^. iM further U3rg«4 tha.t ih® reeoird sJifisrs ei Vi^iianc*
l»«t'7«@n thfi! aXI#g&tlii»n« of th« at$i^t)$^$;rit df t^laiiti &»d thm prQ'ai^
la plaintiff* stat^^.^wt it is &lX8g<s4 iimt ou* Bruall aots4 for
tfatK Hu&f^i^ C«>^34»y i» nialKiiig tli« e@iitjr«0i ei «33a^l9y:^^®nt» Uniaer
tfee eirl4«B$« Uiej?« i« iacasse doubt &« ia *fe®ttk«jr IMs* Qottt3met
wa« »a4© -s-ith o»® Hsad.»©a for tJi« iliiif@r<l C'@.«»^an/ oi* ti^iili Bswaas*
]^t T»lmteY«:r th« tarutte of ih« «8»tt«i? aaj la®, It ie oar dfttnien
that th« «viAene« lyjtro*iie«4 <S1<S niat t«aa ta ^rove a cwiuao af
iMttlon diffemat fjfoa th%t nllegsd in tfeg «tat«5sent ef oli^ija,
Th« SfulJ»ianti"r« grownd for T^coirery ther* ^1«|{«»| i» tJwet tia*
Bttdford C^aapaay hr*4 agreed tltrm«gii it« ^tc*'n* to «iapIoy th.-
.plaiBtiff , awd it l« ©f no aatssrial c«>Tj»e<j\»«rMJ0 whether Ru«i«on
©jf Brwafe aci®4 for It in \M saofcia^ «»f* this e0»tra«t« it is net
Aitpaidsd iJmt plaintiff «!*» «ssg»l03r»d 1*y the Hu4fer«i C«nsji)5yjy, At
tlit« tima of Mis «ieplfl$%«iat bntM Br^ali »adt Huisofi trere .0r«»«nt
9M %9th %^9k ^si3f% tn tTam ««aY9r«»tie» witM hin« Bruafe thmxmtittttf
wEiS
tR t»»lmXf of th« K»»4f©M ««fi(^<»«3r, wdTamced p3lJ»i«f.lff ti'rtB 9t4M of
jei«iHi« l^ 111. Apfi* SI* In ^fcHjr «rf«iirlt« l.t 4vim imt ^mm^tjt ^Htit
ttifj;^ t%|«»ti«a v«i» ^mi« fey d«fti!idi!-sit at il!« tii«» ifo» «ir4d«,n»« w»b
*It i« w«il g%ftt«^ il-iai im «'^J#©tl0fi. allt^iiig V4ali«i©«
)WI •
A- CorpotutioR, \ ) / v;- 9 1^ T Ai '^^ ^
In * 9t«,teias3-it «?X olai« flXe^ Im tli« MiAiiicipitl eourt
tlm -^lAlntlff ©dX^^e^ that. ih« dftfeadiwrt «a© l.R:iftbt@fl ty It 1r tfe«
sasc ©f |l.€l6.f S for 4j>«.rt»4is 4jo«^» aelivejpud t<^ d^fort'lsast um «wly
9, 19 ISO,
*!eJfeiiiSmii filed tm affidavit «»f ifserltt amd & ©lal« of
»«t»&ff , wbieh latter eet »ui thai oa Hisgr SO, l^BSt), plxi>im%iff mX$.
<^9f«.n.A$m.% «!«rtalR "eaoasid ittfeeaj* timt tkt t«na •'*»««ei!sd tul»e-«'* veM
gag«^ tp ifldt«ate i*eir iuls«« f»©ai. which the tmnmSmtxiimr^B nam* tetifft
^.aranty of qaialiiyj that Ih^ t«vm ^SQoon-:^, tubtB* dl^l sifti dt^liiHttt*
«ae<5 or paieh®<S tab«»j that ^afttrKlarit h^Ml a(j<a«pt«d tiae ttatecai &t
thslr inveic* pri«8«8 l^wfor® it iiM mt ©p^Q'rtuaiiy i«j «^,dLns th«B;
that tJi«j tul>08 (i,40S in rBSTsibsir) aet;<9pt®sl l^y d«f«ndaBt wer« l;-; faot
iield lay defarj4«jat ttt^4@«t ts» l}t«? ardsr ©f j^laintiff, 'm'^i thstt thty
Traimel««»t that th« a«f8ftd.a«t hf»A gtirtu » *tiff*d9 aceeptjanee" for
%e »«y *t« th« teet ^i ^ ft.^it hoia**- tb«r«of on July 6, 1930, th« mnount
op ^
i^ifaLikj^ V
trade
ml i(«kii^»>«o«i>tanc«»* ami tiiJit Aofendant ha<3 puld th« i>aia« at isi«turliy'
Tk^ <?»f«elsmt furtV.er eh^rgM that It 4.ld not di»©or»r
th« defontlTQ eendlHeB of tb<i tu^aot until Juis» Xw, 19 ^« ^)efer»3aitt
ol«laa the rlgbt t^> »ot off tlj<? aBWJBt paiA 'by It for th« tT>ib«»
n^aiiavt tb« d«»<niiil of iDlf^lntlff •
0!i plaintiff** -Wiotloe def«Bdmit »» (aXfidHivAt of merit*
««(& B«t-ofr wmr9 stjr,lcl:9n fxxf^ja ihft f ll«)a aj*S Jud^^jwr.nt wao orste3P»4
In f«vor of pl.i..l«tlff fer the wm of |l,61d,94>, frtwa wliioli .tu^^paftnl
Avfend^uai api&@als« It is acncedfid. tt^ d«f«n<iamt tfctftt a wit-off Is
•ttly «0ll6ifirakl$l« ii5. tl-la St^tte t?ij«rfe th« 4«ir.a»d art sea ottt ef th«
•^n# trs.Tis*«tle» a^ that "sefeleh ti^iVf* r;iae to i>iaii»tlff '» elalja ©r
a
ilu4 ths s<st«0ff d«i!m«?«S 5B^»t "bt fs^llqulaiSitM wa^Mut, Beftsndsmt
iasists th^ Itti ^^tmnik i& for a li^iAulcA mm*
A fuMhrnt- y-oiat Is ?:s4.il» t^at Ir* tlmi it a(|sp®ia.rs ty tten
0ltiMwrit of ii^i.t*^;ff t*i»i th« plaiatirf i« «► forwlgn cerperatloB*
tha olalst of 4®feft<lfent ssay, evc-a tfcoia#i unlif?Hi4«te<S and a.e am ft:s»
oeptiOR to th*i g«iiex's4. s'ylft b*^ rst off *iM;t-v-lMst plaintiff** dei&smd.
IF* tSxink co«.us«l far (aefewta-nt is e©rr«et i& se^yin^ tlitat there Is
nothing in th^ rase«»jfd wiiiofe ^bm-i-m tmt tli»-4 order for th« 1406 tul»(^'8
w«k8 a pmrk af & leyg«i,r oM^r, {:*» sssft «!ii«h .!^ll«;,;atlon i=^J3«ar» in th»
ftff Idiiwlt tf j®®y4t« 63P tiia elsda of »®t*Rrr, ah ahargM la tlm
«l»t£i of ««t eff, 4«sl"«ndani <iOBtr*«,«!t0.d to ^reh:a.a« l4r/6 tul)R« at
|1«1$ ea«h. It is states! ti?^t this a^r«essent oonstiiutfts & group
»_f ««ntr;*ete eorrteaotj^ltig' ia 0am'b«^ to th« musb^r »i tut®* r«Q«iY«d;
that a. total wum fe«d i'Ser, ?!R.14 for itm 1400 tufa«*» «it -I.IR ^siaiu
^^ 222^ »i! Miii;fat ■v* H^_as tjruiit 5J0,, i'^ 11 1., S4s,
•ths rtil® d» Iteia i&-im l>y Ftjur«<-sn« (vc?l, i?» ^, &17) i«;
*tt th« p^r% te 1s« i^iRrfoaisfHrtl ^y ©jcwi jsarty o^^naiete ctf ««v«r*l
4i«tiR«st mid ««f.ajr«te it«'.--J«, st.R4 the ps^iee to 1>6 paid by th»
ether is sjpporlionnd te ®*oh it«w to be pp.rfo,r"«d, or is lifft
tQ Iji* ifflpiit4 ^y law, s»u«fe * eonti-inet will getjerally "be heia t»
1»* »e?erable, ♦ Aisd WKartoii ( a«(c-. '?'4S, L*!ew ©f Sentrast*) «siysi
"''^e* » &eiHKi#ep»a»4^i«» ia dlirifiljls issd the prte* enn 1»« app©3p»
^%H%ui»»
Mm ««»1I1S iidi
ijr.r"" 1?^
iiUJ. i'*"i ifeii-'-
.., ^ ,-,. , r^«
l^ortittn«d, th«a, if ti distlnat 41vl»it>le |»f?rfcl«»n oi th« oonsliten^
ilea faJ.lu, the irlce p*il'i foe tmeu porti»n o*n b* i«»cov«r«4
htu^kt* Slid that *1ji e5ii»«« -♦ in «Moii th* oc n a !<' oration la
divlcilslQ, liic yuTii\,j^»&T raa^ eledt to t*i>.«& y»hat ct^ti bo dcliviired
to hisi, ujiA in mioh c i^se, if the pux«)'.a«« «ro»c> has b9<»ri ^laid, h«
e«m ree<sT<ir l:>4^«iiK th« «xo9»b, er if th#r« hm» bttftn no p«;yn>«ni, «!•«*
f «nd aje ,|ftnt£. ' *♦
V« ihiwJc tb«ro l» i«f(»rlt in tfe« contention th&t th« cote
trsi^t whieh tmd«aflie8 tli« olalf«5 of Boi-off is a«mra)sl« at l«a4it
in «« far aa it is clj^ia«d thai a»3r natftbaar of the feui}ee a.«IiT4yed
irars valu«I»«« «xiS not in «o««rd%t»c« with t^«i t«x%a« of th# contrttcrt*
SJefftttdant in subst*n«« j^fca«^» %h%% uf^»x th« ooatr««t
the iut'^a which v<ir» io» be dsliv«r«4 to it w«r« to h<a new, Lut vdlhcu*
th« sasisaf aeturer * s nais® th«r«Ofij tKst sslslwiiff in fa-ot delivered to
d«f»ndi»nt w©it», patel3se«i aa'S, ^iif<»©ttvi& tvih&m, h% th« tiiaa the octntrAct
ant says it w&a bouiad to afi^ di4 fii®^ tscfor* it h,.!sA mn o-pporti^rtity t*
«atjmi»e tJj« tub9« whiab hM. b#«,n ?5eli'»«3F«4 to it. :&©f «!nrla«t' * a-l-
1®S#4 srtght to r«eGVoy &yjai%« o«t or th« alXs^^atitm that pi&ijitlff
ha4 deliver^^ t© ^«f«!ii^.a3!rt twb«« i-v^i 4n <!o»?pl.ia««« with. t.h« tormtt
of tfe« eoatraet. It is cJisarg^d in thp 5=et«'fl>ff that tJj€ defendant
&cn«spted MSNt tlar«»^ the *trada J5»ee<5|Jt*«.}.««>'' ]?<d<? f<;T tte.6 1406 iuya«
vriiieh imrt btllfed to 4«i*«Mairt at #1,18 eaeK, TJ^e elai/<i in th« »«t-
©ff is for th« r«tum itf' 4»f«iidatnt of tto,® |mro>5S0« priea of tl4«
tuL®8. It is alejur tln^n, thai the dsiT^n^imt *is «5,:»l?a is r»% for -:m
ualii^ui^at^d ttu®.
Xt ie further A!i««rt«4 tlmt defeMAst h'^s » rl^jht to
s«t off his ol«i« «e»ij(wt i^lHlntiff '« d<?^«P,4, >?'©«*:(,»« it. aj>p>:mrii
that plaijstiff is a fertile e«jriJoyatloB .-^^nrt thJ.« «ertt«ntlon is 8U|>*
^©rt#4 by t&e QiiA«ft ©f s;4<8@^ #,f»t, e^ Fag-^j^ Og.. t. SE2.-!l3jia £l!X« ii£»*
10® 111. A^p., 484. &n^ m,ml^ r* Wfti.^ eji-. SlI III, A!»:#,, 8S4. It
t» nTi^4.f Ise^ravesr, tlmi thi& d^^lslone in %hm»e tw© «»99» are B©t
8©tt.j»a.» in that t^^ failM ts iU«tint:;^iii& beitre^n a rl^&t ©f »*t-eff
^£
fti o«B8(ton Itm laA th« TtxX9 a^]»llom1&I« in equity*
111* Af)p., 106, a piO* oi" jMrt^off ,-Mch wasi Btric-«:>i!, »«t up <.bat
th« |»l*iKtlJT va» a norv»ra»iilert oi" tli« i^late ox' Illinois, in de-
tiding ibafc Ge»»» i&« oourt eai.4:
itug tbai in an aotio» »t 1«»7 the r»aid«tRe« vr n0R*rest4«nn#« of
any of th,« »arti«J5 ia r<sat<srial« It it inte t.Hsre l« laaigua^e in
U^ imiM £^Efx ££• "^» J#p^ Bji?.g,ita iisxsisoas ^' ^^f Jiaaijt
Y« ESiSS£i jys^i wjjiieh jaight oe ©onssiruod to st* hold, but em
•xaJSGaatToti of ti5!«»« o«s«fl inf1icat#s th?a.t the autlaorllloe relteA
tiipon werft 4eoislo»a of i^c-urlo of other ©t.;U.c« acnstrwliiti »tatttt»s
«e»««t tally differ««t frost tm ©tatut«« wV^eh eontyoi ham; and,
further, Uiat thisae ccurta tm^^eridt^ntly isci r«aqulr»4, •^io ire !Ar» ,
to <aiatt»^:ui^ l»«tw»«B aei*o.i"yTisy(? and erjuital-flc ;:'«t.-off , Irs
equitablt s©i*©ff tfee r^siiieiiGe ef th® |slM?»tiff fiurjd hia inftoX*
T«ncy «ire uswalXy naterisi."
In tls« ©a«« of JSiS-Sillti: ■*'• lyLlia^ •^^*>» 2§JI4'3, ©pinion
filed K€(y9.«^'»b»r I§, 1521, (isot yat jmpariM) im* »a£i«* IjjfiMieii of fcii«
A|>p®llate e«ttJPt «i»tch d«e!.da4 thM Il^imas cstaafe, gupra, atatM aB
foll«rva:
*PlaiRtt*f Wft* « aon»r^«id*rtt, 'rker«for« flftfRndniit vaa
«ntlt\9d to file His claiffli of est-sff f«i: uulisjuidatad dMaipMl
RSd to a tri??.l upon th«? wp'rits- '•^fhile it ia trt-.«- .-.> ^^i g«n»*.rat
rttX« ili^i a d«-i'<4»ja(l for ttBli«iui,daie4 dia^!A<^@«i ^j&xtoet b« tim e«!bjtt«t
i^f A claia of set*off, y»t it is well established 1)y deeistons of
iMs court tlmt ti« excpy^tlon axfslB iri a e>'.«Be wheir® tha p-l&intiff
ie e. 39©E-t8eid«nt. tli^re n^n & ruffiiias^ aoco'trnt bot-v©er. th« i>^*j»
ti«3 tft this sjuit, sjM it wftulii tod laajust to allow tbe plaintiff
to i«r0&e th& aid of tfe® OfAurtc i?f this state- t6 p'-^rrait blci to
&«.Uet aoa@ itttm «»f tlie aeeouitt in kle fairor, 1i»rin<;:> suit on It
Ir this state, awd -at tb<^ sfgjje tisie refuse to p*srj;!iit. t.be d«f«8nda«t
t» laak® hi© defensMi, theipeVy coaK^elllnft hi* to ^Q to pl/Untiff *»
d©ai©iXe to 9a9 for Vh« iteia due to tlbe defetidjuf^t «n his aeaouttt.*
iR tbe WL9»\y oae«, EiBH^i* *^ '^*® hcM, &« an «s6oeiHion
%« tJbe i5«*«»2nBil yule, fhtit a olitla fsi? «nli«i«ld-fi.ted dacaa^jea ?aay ^e
»ei aff lis a srait at latr >sy a, «j>rj»jp«re.4de-at f'alntiff • A» s»t%ted
above, it is &ar spirdon that defendant 'a ^Xttim is^ for a liiiiiidateA
euia* %ut aaid« tr-an thim, mn& <ST©n if &.^fffn0s<aA*n clsdw rasg^ Is?? a^4
t^ 1>« etti» for mlXiqrui^»t®d d«»s^<@.®, it wau av^tilable t« dofendauBt
in. % euit bT!^#tt ^iUn»t it by a non»reeid«nt, Our atterttien bae
»et bee^ direeted to at^ deeisioB of the auMP^eisae mmjri, qt other
■X
ctmrtft of Ttrrtmr in t^-^lfli «tate, aaaseptinis: only the il^i3i3gj8«»*r,
tlx» iw4;-aawni 9£ tJs* liunicJ|ja.l «s^mr% will Ve ^t■?«r•e^i
«i^ ife« t«u»« tmsMMM to that ©ouJrt witii {lijffttitiong to vatrnt*
th« ©r^Scrr »trlltl«g ar|i»p«»llimt*« affidavit of »i«rit9 »n(l ««*-efii' fy««
^» files.
■>? ^.f^ r;t
JiT '.!.•<, \
►#!v?;M*«Sl
49 • 2S@ap
\
3om J, JmA"^Y» 0ns of th« iiurvi)
y«»
A,
f,
o
EmOR TO iiinCVlT OOUKf
OF CODE COUHXY.
CATHiBfcoB, ^Amf. CAtmmmiTi )
Fifeintlfl* in :. rarer. )
V
Sy this ^f.rl.t ®t ©rrar to tJi.« <3.ir««.lt court ©f Cook
Coiiat:^ ili9 aeftB'iWits »«»k to r«nr«r«« s)^ jw'^s^^^t «iiter«4 in tlmt
oouart ^Rltsat thesa %ti4. i& fmuT of tli« oiai^tirr for the mva »f
17933,83. th« r«eo3rd Eiadft i« tJi« eiui« jmd tlie q^iastion* pmn&tit^A
iMtm &S9 «i4lBet&»iist-lly tfe« aaa© «u» ia tfee ease of StMi X» ^Jg^f ^g?
W^llSmMM s^-^ IS.^ E« H^^ilSSH* ^^o* See 83, <9s3s«ideA at th« j^rsB«i3t
t«3MB ©if tMa «ourl, jmd. for tJi# r&&»(3tm givea i» the ©pinion
flle^ la tliat eas«, th« jt'..i;m*mt of tli-e Circuit eou-rt -#411 lsi«
ir«Te»»«c| ®»d t3i-5 ©9M.s« reeEiaMsd,*
SCeSarcXy asrf Matoii«tt, J^. J,, ooecur.
I KSi'
8 8 9 J~ T a S S
.,t>;V'ifjy . . . ;.«^
SI • a^'92
Of IJ-tlKOlS*
ire
3mm mQn^%,
nvtfin^^ in Irrojf,
i^/^UJ-oAo v>Ou
\
\
J^ft« iirftB iStO of iae Cirl^sslnjal coi^rfe ©f \i&^k aon^Bty, Yh« in«?.l<sl'<
sent t;harti.«4 il^ai ^^f^Mitnt «bil« living at v^H4 Sgjuth 'f«iba«fe
&Y®mi«» CM ©ago, pri@r t© 43*g:a»t i0, .191m* had aieXes ttm^ the
v»ltt« «f 3©# pfsr tta©«s®aiad. fast, ilm lfS'U«te«mt. iasluiJ^d % «»unt
sf yftefti-v-tug «t©l,eR ^s^^p®rt3?» toi©'H'in<j t>i* B^jm« t© "&# stolen,
fsT tits dsf«?sdiaiit*« ©sr© gaia sma to |!»rev«»st %tu* tj'e^^if f.TOia
lt»«tty»iaifi« S«*ii« (#14 •§«*♦) A6d w« furt^.«y iUn-di, fyaui the sjvi-
ag# of 43 ye&re,*
Su&m&'R^ ^^^ f^%»iMi4 i^&n the TsMiet aa& the etrairfe
•««t«ra©«ll th« d#f«Kifi«wjt ie «a« yaaar ir^ tfe« Mowss ©f CerriMStlon
^8d to f»«y a fis.® 9-f llOD, tte« d(sf»««i&a% aa-ska tci r«iir«r»« thlsit
|li4#»«»t in t)iie court.
St»e« i}i« filing ^ tl^i« 2<9«d7d asiil <!jil>«ty««t «f
5p«e«?sl ia tlil» court &n m&tl^n ol 4«fend?mi ia error the eourt
©« Mi?T«s#«r 18, IS^, ftt3?aefe what j^urperlt^a to h* ;* »Ui eX
e'-£©«r/tl»3^ fapifts tli« filisft, f« 1j.«y@, fhsrefer*, ©uly this evsiiesint
, / '■■^■^
•f & fvX^i^ ors th« 16%h A»y of Aw^-aat, K>iS» fhw ver^let of the
Jaj^ f@ua«S, h^jp <^%)tilty <vf pec«iv.lng atal*r« yrs^jjayfey of t'nt, value
M .for a snisdi^eiijsstr*
lUisdtailena I'^n rm. nmittts^ t.h« «rtx®» *«lv« only »«8.u-r3;sc.nt ©f
a^smr «fbleh tkis ?^f«nrt i» '!«iti'^.©riaea t& c^n^i'^^T or, tfc« ip»e©r<i
before u« i^ the ©m« i^Meb, r««ii«« thai *tli;#. souirt was wlthomt
|Qi?ifs^S!ti@]s ta »mteritig |ttdf^3®««i ^.nd taigas iiEfeg: s^sifp.**, * fh^
Im i& fiett'««pl5a% sfteilsr sHuatiO'ia the ;3^j>reme Cff»i*-ri
any ats»t« &f fmist^ ts .prsincune* is ««.eb % g.vi*©^ teui it -^-cm
^lemimteT tmy Iw i>aid a® ta this p-olij? , ii is
fiwtr o^ii^en lk»t t&« ^wlgM^nt <^f ih« tjeiaO. oeuy* c^rirtet >« r?-
eass iba M^rgsd aigain«t ife« TaliSlij? i^l tfca Jwai,:/B@«t is thai tfa.«
ijidlctftieni eha^g^a a felaay ^iki the ver^Siet and 3^:l,.-»«nt ih«r«o»
ar« l^r * alM^gitsausor. tens -«r« p«jpi?4it#a t« «:5s»mlne t)t4! ffvi.-l^noe
It slight 'b« th{i?r» tli&t ^s a matter 'Of fafflt the «ts^hte«ifi months
tsivisitsfeticjj? ais£ut« apjj lying t® ad 84<te®eta6rii h.%a x^kn te«J'&re 4t»
f«n*l,«tt was pl^eflNl up«>n txlal* Th« <iii,t« fix«4 in the IndletmeHt,
howirrftr, is a^t ©©iaelttfElv^ anSt BStwtfi"!«ttmtUaig that it Ils»<5 thtt
?4, t(» %;■■
mi^
.XWj «■(■.*•.*'•:
adssllfeid on tii* trial t© prov* t'iiat t>w> (^ffera* hsil bewn ?;o-'.r-ltted
»p©ss ?*ii3r 4«ty pmstinun io th« filiw^ o^ the InMetwi^wtt.
Is. %im «a«« m 4'«i,'^l^M ^« MlSiL* ''^^Sl iil., 431, ih»
!^p^«7i<g (gtmii) h«Xd iMis
y««r, fe?At tte© tlsifii aiay ba Aaiia at ;*ay tlm« prrfl«i«f« to tho
fia^lnt, Of t-H« indi«it?3«fitt# dariiii^ Viw period w'^.thtu wMdh It
In t.h# ®imn ©f Stli'ij£i~^» ES§El&t ^^1 111., aai,
it was* clai5»«4 that tka»« KTssA « irariane® fc.«it'«r«t#ie tji« ^xxmi' aaA th*
«riHS« wm <Ji3«altt<s4 1b Mg^fit m^ •m-ptms^h&^yt , Ifci^j while ^^-^^
sf ii-i® ®»eis-»#:» it u«t«! a^-t 'fee ^.r««i«i®l^ lal4, aji4 ^i iji
miifi^i^nt If it T&@ I&I4 &t »«i3f tiss® 'U0f@3r« tk« /illjig ®f
th&t tk^s €?ff«iisjt w»i^ ©*3!?itit«d aB -ivgi^ .',1..^ -■■'XthXti ttet ,^ar,i,od »f
iij»it.ati®« m^ l--3f®3r« tte tat©.rxs*tles wa» l'il«<i wsaj? m^Tfieitiist,
ttM &. ««£mcti©n. iimw^^n «3<mld 1s« vslsiiiiiS#<S is %bx- of a^y otl:^«y
isfarsatidw ©f i.ndletmS'Hi Tex tl'i«5 s-asj© ©-tt^ii^e iiilu^fc<^ to teutr©
wan ls«-ln fefeat %lii^i?« tiff-tr^Bi #ft'«.r!Be8 w#rs! pr©v«d UB;^«r «&*i indlot*
I9t»rat at liftViiig «^«^8^1»^^ ^n &i£t'»sr^nt dates » tfee ia«r®rt4aHt« «aight
whtaii trati»a«iii«!a »ir ©ff«fn»« It w«yil4 rely* iJsat t>-® e-viden^e which
sheref«4 dietiatit Ir&asMiMijrtloiiiE AM mtt ar«afc« at ^^a-isiiee, nincm the
^a%« ^ll«|^ie^. "sTAt |j«®^t«x>lal.
flie t*iA®5iee ifi«ft ha^Tii^ fe#en p3n»e«rip®4 l"*y fcill ®f #aB»
««l»tis}®«, -we i^r« unWclsfe ie r^old Uiat th« ^u^U^ent is errcn^oma.
It .1® f»u« '%hm% the iMlftei&iit «haw^M a .ifelat^, '/h« indlet^eut
fear j^ntiTla^ tlm fixr'p^rig in. tiuesii^a iBol».4«4 th« ssieaesfeat^ff
«3FliBS §f ^liisij tke S«f«nAaiRi «»« ^Tauad guilty, :<.ad »hiie the iji*
Met^ewt aharg®« thai th# effease fair ?»Mch the 4«f«K4«tRt w«mi
r>.
i-'i^i^j:.:^ ^.•.,^i,i,'^
f^:%j J--;.:,,
t.:¥r-:^''tnri&
Indict t<S *&» oo^iltt«d fMT9 thaw «lght««n wwuthe prior to the be-
ginning &t %h.9 trial, th« trsri-fiRna* May well hrxynf siown, the dat«
flx»d in tk« itatllQireztt b«ln£ iansstteri&l, th^t ills ^TtlMn w&ai
AatuftXly eossaltieii tfitiiin tlMtt X3 aionfc^s poriod.
In tlM» ea«« of T,lij(i^8^^§oa *• S£^aJi£» ^^^^ til,, 2fi6,
*"h« r^st aupnose fimt the «Ti'3«fc«c# 8«at&in«4 the verdict,
SLtiA thai r» ol&4®ci^©» ^'a* ufgest t>iat eridenc* ■wa« r5,{t>'ltt,«d
Wiileh »«« sai?j?l.ica>>le to oee but ^hich '«ra» sot siipoiicaJ;/!© to
the ether clef ®n'l-«ist j far, wntU ths tfoatrary i--* sij-iown, it ^IH
he |>r»syim«'i the ctaufi; .ieeiAed e^rar^jetly, *
If the s^ldenee upoia VT-'iyh th& o<.-jrsrictl»n of th® dtasf affiant
is iJS^pM hM b««fi fif®s€rT«4 aRd wa« litfox^ ««, asd if it nho-wiMl that
i'fcie iEllsae was ©osraiitM sagy« tim& «dlgfet««st «ioiitth« bttfort tlsai r«iuxtt
of the indi«ijs«mt, tli« Jwd^^Rt ©f fcli® trial, e-ourt w^wltn haY« to 'fe*
r«ir©riMi4, Bui on tJj« p«e«i?a »# ^aare aBafels t<5 «&y ife&t the «tlXag«<l
erirae wa* In f»*et eoaisitt«<i 2S»3e« than fdi^it**!! isi^aths j>i-i©r to ih«
mtufa of tJj« iisdiotfftisnt .
1^« ^tt^gsjant of t!s«. Grisainal &&axi its i^Sf 1x^94,
Il98iuhily «nS l£Ateh«ftt, ^J«, eeaaur.
:^n
*^..-
U • 270M
\
«iil i-^ari t«»ts«P.sAt OF 3^AC;t,» i / O O /C^ T /I -^ Q Q
m mmM. ecHrni-y.
V
t» l^3P«i1&ai« tis* last wiXl and te»ite!fi?>t ®f --Ji&ssKJb H. ^rshaty, Aa .^ij^pftiil
VMM %^sa»n fr«M*« tM« ©3r^«jp t# tli« t?i3R^u:it «©««*# 'k#si&>; ««t«r»d lajsi ©»•
i«r dsiRylng farob«4l4> ©f tii« sa3,i«ii^ 's^ill. Fr<»Bi th® latter ©j-«:J,»r li»nrf
», I.«WH!as^, pyopeaest o.f tb® will, terisge fh* 0fiUB«» fey aj*p©«l t© iisia
©'•-urt.
In t>i» trial «9i»rt th» si»lfe^»®yiMB«£ iifitn^siaeiB t© th« «ill
t@«t|jfi»a«1. tbai the t*J!«i«tfe4S3P »%««*, »»ml#a, |HAblis*i#4 a»il ^dolfay^a
tfe« l»8tir»i»«Bit i» b« fela lj»«t win mmi. tmmmmi^ is tkisl*- pt^-isnnc*
in hA9 i»r«»«n«« aifisS Ib tfee |»j««»r»«t of ««((h 0th«r »1^»^<S tJbHr ««&$■;©»
ii»R,» warn liklied ««- s wttise«» ^y ««jit»«tajsii. B«i t«>«tijri.»4 tltat h«
9m» «^ atiojTftfty iit Imri that a» «ia«r- b« l5«d fniquenily a^ri««d teat*.
tisy »m% that h^ lisai 4r»rt(s4 thm is«tjetm«n-| •ffewMl a« t4t« l*»tt©?*i
will* 'ffe« *iai dlreote!^. thjgit at tJM i«»tat03pJ« 4#at>;ii a «al.l&i«r&X
^»t« f^r t!i« mm of llCHiO, «3ta«ut«« fey Ussfsry ^. Lfftasm, ■*.■»« to be
faliy paU sMsa eimc«Il«4 smA w«t» i# to« 8fU2Fr®K«l«r«i<! to him 'srlth th«
■K'? V
9 M, T fk .C^ Q
■•if ii;^
1% ift i&f<;i*tt«?d thai t«i %hn time of Me (i««t<.t.r:^ t«fttn:ite2-*a
««tiitft «»ewni«d to &)»9Ui ^atiUH,;. Sic ptrQ^ialon v&m nmi9 in th^ will
for th© «fOwt«»t*int pr h«r alater, vJyft. JHtty, or ?r«rtaru-?«( Vo;-ir-6, *
fii««« ef d«l'9»d!a^t. AJfter j>roiri^lag for c«rt*.l?5 l©jjH«ie» ih.« will
iirrt@i«»<^ a«ii ec^t»tffell«4 Ijjt hlasj tls« lB©aa»« tJ3«r«.froffi t« toe j?ai4 to
«t to«r 4fea*fe t© t'fisi in th.« Kesse for SripFl^^ Sfell-^ren.
SNiX %h9 »pp^X%fmt 1% £« iBisist^ th%t tlio law in thin
8t«i« 1» thai 9» g^^j^e^I t& t>i« ^ir^uit s»o»'ri f-ftm am «r<3«v or in«
fT«*HS,i« #«»*.»* «test4tiia4j ft will to j^sp^lfatss, a m>xtt#»tsmt fe«4« rjo rtjfsfi^t
&£ %h» will ««• «Hi«is^ la^ fitM^t 3&B&l»ul«l«%i, »r '^i%M»:ir im:»T&T^v ist&n^
duet, i4^^«iXl«© ^H8«ia thl© ^3mi»©aifet»r4 %3r a»®<srtlMig th*t wndue i.«-
flu^nsA will "fe® fjt«»i»*©d 'a4v«jp« «» «0wfi€«niiail. !p»Ia*4©,« «3dl(ii« !>»•
%w««»fi A t«»«t»iojr m^ «m ^iiss^n^y «!» i>i?«|»i^i>«!« n will ujn^i«!r whieh the
SlAttsr iu ^ »«.b«ii.miiDbl b^mfl«istx^. thl& mmh in ooa«tt4«4 l^ te^*
f^llimtt but t&« l^.t«jr a»s«x't» thA% m^«»» ih<& ri#u^l2««3r r<ila.iiini»
fti)4s> wliieh giT«s rl»« is th« |iy©»Ui^tia« e^f iaB4u« ittflu«tt«* 1« saad*
t« «i|it«Mi* 'fey tiMi leatiMi^ia^ of tM «&|i«ertfeltt^ w4in*aj»«», 4eY«lop4Ml
«ith«ir ttpoa Siff^t sr «res«H>«.aciK9tl»i»j|i«^ «^« 'a'ill Hm»t bit w^lil<^ t«
tlsmt »«i%.l3«'ir i^ Illimiift at^titatft trnf (l«@idM «as«« p«i?%£it & «eBt«»8t*
aiSLt qI" u tdllX to tx^ ib« ^«@ti0a of !»eafitl oj^»«it^ 9ir atjti^^m tnfliaano*
twi««; tim*. tfe« IflBif y«dt»rr«» t@ suciy intar«ai«td ^*irt;? a 2l£j:.^t i» fil« a
>»ill ic» ostitftst % ^11; iliai if #fmt^»t;i^ in thm pxn9mi% 4mmmi 4esijr««
t# ®S3ti«»% tfe« ifcll#f«>^ -wtil l>««AW»* &i uMm^ iaflu*n««, «sh« mift-t file
a feili ihfjT@f»3r| tl%at ©fee isljil isi»t b«i |i«maittM to try that qi»ft»ti«a
t-wi0«., I'ir^t ¥y k«r a©?>-««l is tl»« eireait is^art« «s4 «:#(i<s?i^, 'by
fiMiSS * 1»ill te mt w&i^» %h% wiXU
p4t ■ -i/ff^ t ft-'ft^
Xt h<iiM %««n £t«14 tlmt undue lnn\)«nott will b» 7i>r«mM«(Kl
wher* it a(|»p«'APB that the p«r»on *h© drafts a will for a, t»at-itur !•
ft •i^l»st?s<«ti%I bsnafloi^MT tJ»«r«ln t4.rtd 9ceu|»l«» % etoafidenili^l rel&tloa
t9«rft7ii tbs t^siai^r tatth qm «l>to)mty smd ellcmt. In n^iet of thet tt»0««
"trherv this ^rlnoipl^ i» •iimmol^i.t^ tim ountosia 'W(»r<» Vn^^ua ¥y th«
fiiiag •f a bill, .%^ft£ T. liftsa^. ^s? J^i-. J-i^i §s^ V. liaaa. s*"*
432^ jjjad ;^X^ .V ^^ "^^ XSJiHsX* ^"^ XX1,#§@1« .H«rwev«jr» tn 1*149 cn»e laf
^ui^iftrll^ V. ^SS^^t S^ 111., 44<'(, « unfit of ftrror *»« i»ro««cut«d
to r»Y«rii» a« ©)fd«y of t'ne Oiraulf «0«.rl of Oeoi. Gtaunty ?«4n4ttlBg »
ftldllBg ttest eas* the ^j^^rts** s^ettrl. «»i<is
statute p.wifi^»» tJiat h» %#«ti*8«iii5r ef 1t»© «u'l)»c«'il..»ng
to irnr-^ll4ai© It. ^*fe® <.iiPio««-is:xa?.?.i*Vi-tlaw of siikj.a.pi.'sd 4«T«l»p«t tfe«
aes^ida^tiai. ifelaiioiii mtist ing, t«t»«®« Wun4»3ri.ieh, and Mr«, 2jc«r»«y«*
li vlll ^-9 %0t«d ilv»t ib£> «:<{»M3!^ In it* eplnloii staie«i
mii Ijy tfe« ej*'©B*aGKayRin«tl9n ©f ©»« ^e»j^» % mxh&exihin^ witn««»»
eaill«4 "fey i>*-t ^^jpssast ef th« -will. It is e#a««d«i3i that In * Vftli
e.i>ateet b«gsiiii "b^r tfct filljife: &t a. Mil »i3^« tafl^eisee is-i.ll fe« pjpesjijs^^
«h®yt it ^p&mtn that & tsi«iii«f leiakiy a»€«r tha will h«Mi Wr»ii » i-idu-
siajry r«X^l«iiti^^ iofvnabrd th« i«aftate7 &nl Urns d'j?^'t«4 th» vlll, and,
fttrtte«»# imder t^ f |t|« ^,«8 , y^.i^ ft?i««, t^^t^^ . ^arad. «ttier oa»«8 olteil, i8u<*
9V«»iai#il«a «ill b« i»tiuS45ed «ir«n is eauM dl' an ei^iJ^eiU. to ihe c;ireult
«&urt fT«m ^m orS4Kr of the Frob»t« e^urt odmittlag th« «111 to pro«
Ibato «h^r« ih» f-;^t of ub<1u» i!iflu«i^<e«^ %^ jt^^imsoa oiT fiduol^Ty r«l«»
tl^»shiii» or @tkcr«ri9«, ia a^^dUi to «i^«a3r ¥jr th«i i««tij^ony of BubeeriW
lag «ita®«««« to tfcsfe «riii.
i«^M ■■- ■ ■■■■■" -> ■ ■■- ''''■
, ««^'a !»*» soft's JE**^!***?
ti©a 9f mi*du« i«.ri-u#n,ct rsti#«s& fey tin® ^e^Mti^m^ ^S tivt s»ib»«vitelag
laid down i» Qtlmr ^,««.id«4 em»«« 1b thi* 3f *t#»
ita i'amit v* iirnXm-M mf ill*, ?M4, tum uwsirt »(*i(is
y«a«#» tfemt iat®f'#S"t«€ ^^irttftiii, ialili®ug« ssstlft®^ sun** ar^psaJlegi,
tte®9« wJw i!iaa«rt .aad iho'^is ■«fJa# 4©»3r IM ir&litity ar ttee 'rill,
■|»jetfl1L«^« af lining %hM mm^ f««'«tioe twi»«, fire! otj ti.*^ py©-
ant isa^t 3r#»©ri to Ms fell.! in chaH<5ei?|r..*
la iM e&#« #r In.^^ p£ ^Ei^ V. ^^Isin^, l&S 111. i67.
^« has tfefe^ ri|?>i tnJ- n^fKaar siM sm® i2:«» .|j,y®iseifu"*nt fitf tM
«tll, 1*y |sf^p«r aM l«g:iii»!%,t« i««iii!3«^, ia^» ©at » 2li®l -CaSlSl
«««« »ai^lfent:lii.g ih'" .a4i.:.l««ioi5 sf fc>ie fel.I#^s>d will to protat®,
ftci«9i»t is inTaiidai« er -ti^'Btfoy such -iifl'il, ' a«4 it 'io«>« net
wttejwt.®* app^iMr fjro« th© #vi4«n&««, he h«fe« «l?j»je sai th* issw
1?«:r»it« him l# ^Q iss t^t j^«^«««dl8i; • '^f >^«f !•»*» eottEt'«^«T«t.Ul««
}m smmt numn te .hi« bill i» e3BMi»3<itP3r, "
^^»4^-i:£4/tmk:- i'
But «s,|ip«Xl9« ednttadfl! t>ta,t th« ovldtneu o:t *. '■ _ .?
©ff^resd for th* par^aa* of ©.V^aitrin^ that un*au« l«flu«.««« w«® '-ii.vd
by ht« ••S'l-iiyh ataivu»it«f4 to f !"««« in tJift execution of ttm will, la
ih« «aA« dl" lAttjNta^ V, AXle|!^ ^ 29S 111., ©n |>&g» 545, tb« 5^Jtt|»jr«?a«
Ci»art »«dd that uMtit influexsieii is <% speel^e of i^aristjmetlTO
fr»»4« It dees t«jt follow fv^m Uils, )s«w«ir«r, thn-'t th« a®n&«£stivnt
watsi gatitlftd to &&IX wlt?3«8»«8 to proirft thit ftar«reiffl« of uxMue in»
f lt*sii,o:« ea ti^ psufi of l*<m»B, 3««« sHiffieu'ltsr will, te« etjoowtit^yflwl
if on& attts-ispts la a;ilfe clsar ft Al»ti nation l3®iw«-«n <j«?fi«tructiv«
ffmxA and u)ii4u« lnfit4.«i«s« in ^o »aklrs|i: ©f a ittXl.. Xt is tnij" op»
Iml^a, k®w«v«ic, tiiat SA :^ros«^:^Slag b«|pi« isj tli© l*»o'teatt» ^ourt for
lfe« ad^aieslon «f a will to pjfoVate, %s^ i»tat««l tr. tJA«» ^f , &^, %, can*,
j^igjgl^, la a«yel^ a pr0®»«4i.a^ *t<» sdbaAt th® ln.«trai«0fst i» yjrofc&l«
siad r«fiax€ €Mi ». ^lli., l«>«:9'4mg airty^e® wl3« <|t«6iii:UBe iti f&lidity it
e©«*tK8t It** toy ftiiJag a till in Qhr^n@9r*f, ^ille B.n<Iu« itii'lacBot
i8«ar in »&s*» omii®« .isa^amttt t& ©©j!iBiim«tlY« fr^mA, y« ihtste that th«
fifsnsffi of tla« incited ©eftea i« t,b&i a a<3nt«st of & ^Tlll ©r this
gTeuRil, m f^t ssftntaJL i»«»]!^«it«»iiey, »fe-mls5. fe«' i»)aititxstM te^- th«
.il^|fi^l.l«« urges that thm sJllftged u»3ue 4nf.l«#KC« «f
tin.* |iiT©9®«ejst of tla© wlli a^p<^»rs fress th« testijaony ©i* tli« laajfe*-
^Bribing witfte»««ft, Culvtir, o,n« ©f tlm su^e©fi"b.iag ^itaefl»«»,
t®»ttflit4 that b« ,fe.f'4 no <3o-«tet Imt timt J-amsKn iliPancd th« wiii^
»ltlso^ttgh he furth«3P »t&t«d In dlr»et t«J«8« tl(,«.t &« had IWJ ittt0iirl«4««
©I* wb0 wip©t« th« will, 'i'h© t«!«ti/.:3©}ty ©f tlils «u'i>»«rrfeinfi iEfiij5««8 i«
ale® to tfe« •fXaat tte»t th,® t©»tat©jp fetsd oallM mt Lessn^ass** ©fflee
tfuring «. pcri©4 sf twc? year* sua oft^n a» «v«r/ t«a dAgr* »r one* «
w#€lE, ^ad tliat t«aiator j&a^ contultud i4Jas*» iis r^gai-d to e«^ai&
iiiiht-|9fi| %^% i^tsMflis dl4 net x««aU m.^ litigation. On tti« trial
,^m m- ^£^' «fci,:lN^ #»';
l*«in»n did »ay tii^fct >.e Wiyain th« orJ.fe;l?j»l «!riikfi tkf tho will. '« do
not thiitk tiie sirldftnoe »f Cwlvor in auf fie lent to ©atafcliifih njAa^
f&f^ ijl a eonri45«»iili»,l reXjitietnaKiij 'batweftn tbft i«ttt.aior ftn<! I*<»fflarij
acnd it i» mtr opinion that ib« t«sti^)o;1ly of L«m«.n was not ad:;i0aibl«
In tiilft pvoooedlng to prevo this f^iei.
rho 4u4!4Pittat of th* Siycwtt owurt wtlX ^^e ravutweft :iii»A
tfee ©&uo« r«?;}.fended foj .fux-tfeor pi'o««®sSif»g« in b..ai*E»«>»y with tho
3««6iiir«Xy» P» J.jtMEKi SUt^liOtfc, J., a«f«mttjr.
mi ^< iiK6Hi4
ciacASc ammu cosa^w, )
\
f
if
T A
\ /
\ /
\/
tr< lt«vreJt, tSlf ^ tV^p pl^lntlfl* mlA to a«fej34«.tt to
%i» -dftllir^jfi&i, isi R(&»<&:il«, Illtjsets, bttTraow April I«it 5!i^«f. :!?-«« isassbar
klgijsifa^ for t&t Q©««ty <»f QmiU*
»s*fl t© fay theyftfor .^l*2fi s«j. isulsie y=aM, Xsssa 40|f a t^^n, ©y 6C/
.«-84.« orally m^ wa» lat«r flMSKft^-gaed t>2? «t X,»tt«.r from ??lalntllf
It was py9-»id«* that t^ ln«p^^«t1om of th« material
''«iiil to fee siadt at flalistlff ♦« i»l%«t sit K»-i3R»»ad .Ta.3($stli»», '^wr*
l^laiistiff ^TQ4xmm gyscrtl, snly pis-rt of vht&h I'ms »Tiitat;ift fcr road
'fewilding piir5?«a«», ?»r tMs S"--!«ii.»oft It is cstiteKi;^®* fc-tvat 5;i^e pMT*
«luMM*» Wii« t© in«?p««t Urn grav»i »t Maasswjsd 3\t»«iioa be fair* al.isN.
Kii«nt«
®via«ne« "w»« int3r0dw<i«d &n ths trial whiah t«ai1«Nl
t« 5y«jve tJxat deftudant ha4 f«lJ.®4 to ir»«]^»ct tbe mateslftl at
,A,I 92S
Iltt««llQ ssr't.aJ-n 'jn!iT»*i^J.e« nt (^^nftiX -ybi^h was net flttft'l fsy
^jf «•- Si;'iA:'st:y ?)n.:ti».«'*«' '"'"Ho i!f?*«ns«te'l tbo «sa.l«rlai,.. tliftr«t»p©tt <» rep-
eontr&et «i3e8trieati«m». ?!?«& ■^rrti^^'t tM«n »g-r«M tl?'Si the /.ir?iT«l
tiie ixdal that fT®s JtJn« i8, JS'K', t© S«pic)al>ei' ll^ 1911J, th« plstlrs-
tif-f shiyi?{|4 tc feSf«tt4ai't frtJia Fl*i3afl«l4 6095.^ r;u'i>le fHj'tio of »a*T4
ftB^ ^r&vfl. t© ^^«0<sllt '«fhlei-' t?sts MQ#4 la biAi1.c?lacr the roa4«
acjifroiitefl %kti parttee at iih<% iia® ©I? th« r«Jeeti<»» oi" tefe !g&i«.]P4iifcl
f^if:5^al trcm Mm^wn^ ^^mci'ien^, Tt la «td.«tjt t)mt sit, thin ti^j® tJai
il'iiSKtsiait fjfc^ H^^s»i@kI 4Py,i?.oti.o«, said 3ii^-ii«e t5w» pajptiea u^iix^^d. that
«|}iii.lp£u?;4ts ffiflgiitfe l>p- f'e-.a® fifter <l«m« 1«» Iflt, fptm ^lriij43:l«l(S, IHi»
%M pla3it« fhoj8Sil'%a-r tJifi m'stsirifil r©^;:jirsi^ i?as sJiiw^md from the
i%ttaf i»l%«e» llio $^it W£kfi 'bsr^^kg^ to in^&oirttJf & htxliitm^ <M« UTtan
be4v®0B ilr. H.sfem-,&iial f©r th« ivl>*iwt,lff r*»i ?il?, l»inl".i,-iar for ■««>feDji-
ant. My. K5ts3s^B«1 t«st4-fl«4 titai h» toM Mr, LeiKlisger ihjit d«-
a|k«a« I1.2S a oubio ^rarA of 300<» s>ound», |>reiri<l«d p^Untiif «aa
#«#,«(#■ »«tt»AJii?*««i«« » m it/s"'' < '■^-
<f 'r, t "f-N-.v-c ' Tf'. !fi
%» «S»*»#t »i«^- ■■.3eOd
r4 <^'« #'i$i'
•S^^^if .::•'■•
waa enters Ixitd, l>ut th« i?«*l mk-ttnr i« ;li»[?ut«r 'S><5t.T8'fe«n t.h« p,-ijjrtji::i»
is at io i*!hftt dwdxiatlon »h«ml«i 1»« is^fed« f»r ttoft f3f«igM ©.han.'iss pf*i4
•B tjh!« ®«,t«rial ifliiip»5e<5 fafeia iMM Fl»l»if4«14 flismt. i'or tfe.*! 4^1" ^-^nd-
salt it is urg<5>ti that the ©rigisai aosKtraast, fe<sin^, in 'stritiisg, c<ju1i3
B«i 1B« a^iifl«d 1i^ tlm !sJL3Li!isg«4i «»l>s«<|u«»t a|jr«!as&©!fxt, which wais oral,
f* tMi$lE *!*• ®r4gi«tt.l aontraet, aekiit«fv«r Mi«y ls«* miii. «uk to tli* »alBi«
it ma^r fe« ©alli*d »uf^y ©o^lfi^t tfeist ©©iftrast. ia this ^o^tleuissar,
3i3f* lia.-jflM»M swat Mr. l*timijag€T eoBtriadlct e««l-j ®il«»
*itla tmt^imn®» t© what ^phws a^id s#m€#«iiiag (3eeSAi«ti(tJ»® foar :fx«i#it
a^i;y«es.®r.t tfe&t tfe« pl?«.ii3tlff did «®i sigfet te, «tor Ali it ^nt^w*! to
l>ft3P.sit a ti^uetloR for fr^liJttt ys,t« «karg«;« ipp»*t,<§«' than %hmt sat-aal*
SMI fi^i^t ratft thereon ktimi Hois' ^ ten* fh« imTehR**!*, hor^eYcr, ««•
d.u«t«4 f:r€^ tint ^si.mi»% ilue d4«f eMsmI; ^^ ^ ion ;«nS )M»t i}%«) e^#\int
)a«tB»llijr p^d a« freight cheyrgsa, ,4JLtJi««gl« Mr, l-«!ijrata^WP tortifletf
tJmt fe«! iisd .«ifi>t (8g»««^- ta ii^siy t»©T«a»M fr^ijjbt rate*, «« IMbJc th»
y*c&jpdi dlsoioaes tb»t ti •mmn t3m «li»«r iBteistida of t3j« t3iajrt.4«« t©
par«>Tl4» oal;^ fuT a 4««Sttetio» fresi tbs p-ajpchjis* prless of tJie statsriaA
%h» mafmnt Q,«t»aHy g^al^ a« fr«i|^st iJiisr^oa. Th« rate u8W4ill;y IpaiA
»n 8blpTs«»t8 fjpBii £>X£dli^i»34 wa» gO^, Tii« grste |)vl.et of Vh« ^t-
tsfial waa %& hm II, aS a aatoie yaf€, fx^s^ ^^ffelsh w»« t© he 4«^ot«4»
«« TW« koia, m^ & t©s, or ?S/ a eufei© yaM. fte« plaintiff iMi»lat»
tbat it fea4 tk« riiikt %« ««<|yiet flfi^iT a t&a, ©«■ ©O^jC a ou^>l« y^vA, a*
fywl^fc etsajpgt* na tii« ^*t«3rtal* thl» w^a4 leav« a tt«t ptlc» eoi«ii!»6
t^ ib« 4«f®Rdaiit ef oialy 35^ a, auMe y!*rd, -wlwr^a* un<l?!3p Vbm original
v ^ -J .'(;>' "I iiVJJ
'iV*<;.;;'iv;!'iW'if.:
'X«Ug»t
conirattt Um n«i pila® ty lv« paid for th«. S[Wttt»i"i#.i nhtpiimi from
Ra;&^^nd function wa« to b« Al^/ a ^ilDle ynx^t., le«« 15^ >. mibie
yard, whlci- defaiidant afferM ta pr'ijt^ vm» aXlavtmA fav traoltajs':- ..u.-.
0^i»i%ls«i»A* t}3.« fast of tho iftattor I3 thM d<il'«iia«uit «ri'a.'^ui «iu«
tii0rlty frois plaintiff deducsiM fro??* ttee pwrch&an* prleo mortf than
wan ^etu&Ily ]^al^ as freiiitt eharga* f@r tha s%.%t«rrlaX lOtlpipM frois.
Flaiiiri«M« Due to tha f'suut tBttt tlsie «iat«3f4al •«•»• »htj^pM l» oara
of a aamlotpsl eorpftyatian» tha freigM ©Kargea wmr^ r^dutsad 10# *
t&» ox Itlif a eubitt -y^Mt «R(3 ib« 4af«niifc»t w»ms9 to 'Nr of iha aplAlan
tlMi4 tMa jr«i.uoito» siMmaM i»»7a ta lt» 1j«n<g.fit. ^e flo i^t ti7,t«jt so,
as dn the «hi>le evi4«ne« and &n t.fe« sd^itt&A fiiata &t^ sire\33siit.%YiC9«
af the a^uK» Sef«^amt was net p«i^tt@4 ta ^adtset «9rt thjm ^ma %e*
tmaXly pAiA OR thia aaaouiai*
liSKatavaj' si«ty 1>« the fa«t» a« t© tSm all®^e<l »«liea?rueni
a^ivam^^nt, a'l>out -^-il^ thfira la s9ki.«& dta:^ttt« in tha «)irl4ttna«, we
tlniidE it s^^aara fx^&e tlia ral^tio»s 0^ tlm piirti^»t the xjatura af
tlja flEufeJfeoi matta? ©f ttoa o«»aty«MBi isntl tfeia f?^ta and «ljre--iiS85i>t'Atvo«8
'ala«tm ^ tlia airid^nea that usitlbar ijajrty at mw tlma ^7«@4 timt €«•
€«7idafti «aa ta Va perrdttM t« daUuct .f:r«»R the pir«hsui« l»ric« of tfea
Bsatsrlia f ujpjsl sJiad ii»r« tlwn tJie ^tmi aataally paiti Xoir fr#i;^it
ofcy&ygeo, fhero w®* »uffl«l®nt atid^no® io war.r?iTrt a fln--?.iaii/; that tht
Q^rigins&l 6imtr««et va« a^iaill'iad hy a m«%s«^U'?»t oral n^ra^nent, Wt in
a^ «v«»t def«'Mant vaa eot «iititl<»d ta da^ot »ar«s t>'-an thtt fr«lght
tba Jw^ip»i»t<}t of tjhtt lijinielpal eourt ^m»t %>« r«T«ra«4
ai^ a Judtvimant ent^icjreNd til iM» court 1» f&T«>r aX tl'ia itlsiiniiff for
%^ misi ©f l»ei»3S, tha bal^mea which :plaJ.sttff isxiwta i» -lua «» tba
|Miif#iie»e pr&«Mii ai* tl&s iK&iarial, fumli^ad 4«f«M«at,
And jTu^ODa^iff msi.
MibS^v^lj mxA Hatc&ett, JJ., eoneur.
iU^-tr
I*
^t|jSt«<i ?*«f
'.'.j^ i;ii!£^ ^^
135 - 27wS7
vs. \
IIAHUIL B, ?JJl^A una H,, V^'-
) jRi'P-Ul, .imOM ^SIl^SMOR COURT
asLiv^aiB rm opisiok of ted?, ocAsm,
This GiiS^e '«as i,rlft<l in th« autp^riar G«*«rfc of ciook
County tffifore tha court sirwi tJ jujey. JucV si^snt w.«.!a f^Bt«re:d 1r f^Ytkr
ef tb.$ plaintiff f&r thii )ii<im Qf |5,^!k>, fro^a ^irMeh d^Tii^Mant j!i^[»»
peals.
2Ut|^ bre&i^ of ^ contrm«st ®utfir®4 Into 0m April 12, l9 2t,, u.niiejp
which ulainiiff n^n&4 is purchase fr«i8 '♦Pajv.'JHi* & Kramer** a quantity
|tf felaak bdolt Mridsra "boaM, the oonir«t>8t ©n lieiuvli^ of the vftndor
•*'as e?iga«d# *Pa».8@6it & ILe&tmT, "fey H, to^mer, F?in.amsi. a Erew^or," rinf!
for th® veaa©.^ 14 w®* si^^BM *H»geii»telnii»ya^d«ar iw'oiap-j,?Qr, Jos^ufe
K«g»n3tsiln, Secretary,®
pl#ft deni«4 the ft34»i«iH5« &t s^ |sartn«r8hlp b«tiB«en t>?en on April
12, l^go, t.h« «l«t6 ft,f t.b.« «x»eution of tJsi«» eerrtrsact, -in^ the prlacl*
pal ts«u« V«f0i?« tJie trial coiirt »»© -wteetfeer tha d«f«Blaata wei^t
pasfti^ra mife thfs tiss«. It Is aul'iiitted that ihs eontr^iict was «3cecut<jd
In tji« abse-nea of the viof«Ki4ant P«aiiajaa« S'laniKia -raa Fjr«sia«nt of th«
Chtestgo LoatHer ^, Mereaatlle G'oii^ar.y, ■«'hi«h dl4 a go^ivsjral raasaifaotur-
i»g and sserehan^liett bu9ijies@. Kr^sb^jr at «&nd ^oforv th' tim« tho con-
trskttt was sntered Into waji «ss»#e4l in th«i pureha»« aM »ala »f ansgr
a»!? n«»y sup^iliea. Psmaaaa t«i>tlfi«d that §C8b« tl;»« "before the ax«»
s«ti©n af th^ contract he atM Kremeir h^ bought *9o?« ^oardi* siaA
that th«5f ibea{fht tt fcet>«*^'«J^J ^^i^* th«y had had dsals ^th 9n«
H-aasgnrty fox the »Ale of fco«Mr4 fflatorl:'*!; that In th« traasaation of
this l>u6ls'':»s tl-jey ft.una it. conv«).-sl<?Rt to «»t,a1jlleh a Joint Isieink
ttfted in ihs 4«al3 ^iih Hag£i«?rty, ■>mt t^u^t "in tho»« ath&r dftsa^. iJmt
INI kjfed w« did ««t ^sf!® that.,* Svld«aa3« t& t'h« x«eoirA ieu^a t« ah&tr
tfeat tliia ;foini tim&k aoaomiit w%» elos<id en Uareh 9, 19 'O, t«voic«»
C]9.««&s giT«a la ijs^ym^nt for tlaias saat^rial w^i-e !Sa4« ^ayafela to
Pmimm & KjpQ,issir ai^ tsejMi ^«!:l0r««4 u«d®r thiis nas® fer €«?>** sit.
BYiflane^ sixo'WB timt rin» Moir!«1»«>r, 191S, t«j April, itS^.> ihe <3ef®tia-
ast® 0e®'43f«d <p.aiititi®js ©f :§»«Mati/iia@ f3p©issf t:to« iimit«<l st«te« g«"»«m»
t«iitifl®4 tfesit k« haa t>u@iK;©g» !$..•■ ®Xs with W'mmsi& mi4. B«lfe#a Kartaasap in
X9.5^» *^ith rftfereafi* t© Si«sjlla piaj>«r and »oacr4;** that in cenneetion
th«T«witfe b.« set #ef#^idi84st« at hi©, Haggsrtjr*®, affi«« isi tlie latter
l^art ©f MajroK &t tJj;« fl^nt i«&jrt of April, W^,
.^. EogiRfassi^ija, f^r tlte -plairUff, testlfiai. that April
t« »«iw.y« tli« Mile of Isfeciing eov^jp'fc^ i&« goo<i« ®©jsiraet@t3 forj that
feotfe. def«?Kia®te w'orfs prtee^t at tk;.^ ti^^j fckat 'P«,n«iA hs-^a. in hi»
^0®i(»S!Si©n js 4wi^lUa%is af tfe® eoiatriMSi; that h«, i,h«i isritaes®, a^vld
t© i?«.B«s®, tlxBkt ha imd «ws® f^sr tfe« feiilss of lading ecverta^:^ tii« oars
of boai^ -^ieli th& -sttsofto had piiroheysio^l- j tkat l^iattasta %n reply stat«4
that h«t the witROso, wa« not mim, to got tJie «to«it 'boeattse fee ha»d
$urolia»-#i it «t too lo« a flgisres tMt a tOKtsttvo *5&X« of it had
teo«ii a^4« io a;fi®th«y party ^mSL «t^ aopoait aa^o «i» » bin-lor; that «▼«»
it ffet SFropc6«4 tOBtatiYO ealo fU4 isot go tteougja hn, PatswBia., oouXd
alw»y« laskke fche ^Xaiutiff takt it, Thio testisiowjc is -liroctly con-
t»)»dietM hy tn»t of r'amatft, S^« «tti9ift»soo ^m» teMftri^A for tho
'^^atjjg^pfcti ^i«E^ m^m>ii!^
%'■ i-'-i^- '^- i^KAf.: 4^5.
f>ii"4?a»e #Jf
:'h«*ii^!tS91!{
]^»rti@« to tiife ault o&ntradlct e«eh other In X8ia1fc«ri«l -way*. ¥:mamM,
fianteiS that h» imd Zr^mtr w«re partnajra at lh« lim.; tiio eewtracl «*•
•nt'sre-d Into, although lirotasr, wSio wats called aa a -'IIwsjjk for
plaintiiX, testifi«<T thatt h© had i>ureha»e4 the at&t«rial stKj^ Bign«<5
the TfXittan c©nt3r;a«t oia "bc.h^tXf «.f "F-asusraa &. KTO««-r** tssmcdi <.*t<sly uTtmv
It is eo®|)i''&i»«d that tiie t«l«ph©n3 ^aonvsir&ation »»•
iB^operly stdrsitted In «int«jv4«, a® do not tMnSt »o, 'ili«r« vas
suffieient cTldena*, if lb«siier«4 by the ^ury, to warrsmt th« f intJin&,
fteidtt Sx%mi t>i« t«'iepheB<^ oomrersatlen, tliat a inartaej-ttiip «:^»t«i<l
bei'»«9& i»fendafit8; at least a, a^fftci^ant J2^£|^ fj^^A ait^'s'isig wa»
iB»4e thjstaftof, aM tko preo-f 01s thia isaw© iti sufrtelent aisisie froia
tu^ ateissioR® said to hriT» "feesB »!4de "by &r«Ms«r, I'liw tele-pho-n© cjon-
ir«3?»®tioB wa« feM b«t^eea Kr&m&r suad l*ama«®ib ©n th« day that tJbe oon-
%»&»t w«ui ---nterfti iste. fh* material hM bSf«i4 off%r«ni to |jis.''.intiff «
f#w liays ■feefej?® th«t eonirmct waa »ics«a^ a»4 piaiBtifl' lij),d th« s>roij©si-
tloK e.f it« 3p«i3reh4tse. iA-tKi«r jicrajiiil^ration. *^ril 1/itli Kw^genst^in fo»
IJlatatiff^ mJoA .Eyftaeif a^'faeA ufseia ^ puT€h^si& pi'ie^ Tor tbe «jai»ri»l,
l>ut ^tfcr* f-ig-isiag tto« &&tttar4W}'l firoiaay ^aallfea lijaiaesa @n the »ph<jn«.
Vitii«es«e for pl&latiff testified fh&t Krfe®«r imis th&t h« talkod o»
the telef&tae i^ith PaKaKia, ae^. tii,fet is© rwatdfi the twsatratjt t© i.las (rrer
tlia *|riNoi*tj tto»t fc«, KpeBi«r, thea lasnij up the reeeivei' sai^ isala,
•Fanaasa ©aye lt*» all r4g,hi; thsit 1 ah©al<5. eiijn it.**
itgenst^in te»ti.tia^ tlmt »t ih« ti®« Ii«e 4«ifwaitdc»d of
]^4maaasi th.9 delivery sf ili* aatftjrlal t&e l&tt«ar hstsi ^::^a n© s'bjcse-
tten th&t KT<sm^T ha& eM»m&«6. te aet for hi^r, sub M» pajrt«ar.
In ih% c-a»« ©f a,&BlQ^ r, MeM . 17S .tli. 13, the eeurt
*Bat wh«!r« «uffi6le»it «viAenc« bae bo«n friven to rai»« a fair
py««a«ptioa that two or %9t» j»«Tsmi« ar* j>artJ5«i'«, then the* aoi«
WRd d«elai*»tionii of e«ui^ «y« tuiaisstbl© a« «vii]ene» against th«
oth<sP8, for the purpo»« ©r »Xt%n^h9nim ^'^» pri.gts xa:le «s*aife
aiytaiy ssta^ilisfee^. {J^incsley on ?artn«rB>>ir.s, as, B7; 1 Green.
X»«f ©K lvid8»e«. See, 117,) If Gonlan, toy his dsel^atiensor
»«it« &«1(1 himself ©at as a p^rtmr of tfe® rim, as daclarad ia
■kmi^m nX tstAi.'St fi»m wi-'
■'ii^'i^m
Ih& vcrilo't of |.L« JuTy i-a Jset wanifewtiy ivgairmi the
gr««it«r ««lfe,*t of tih« eYidl.©nc#» TJi«> «ouyi 4id not err it>. .?<9fu»iHg
ie jfive an instnteiten ti^w^SeyetS f«»r the d?!;f«ni3a£st«, Tfee l?j«tj*u«»
tloa te.l'i t.h«s Jusy that in €^%^TniMii^ ^Mtrnv %b@ 4*!f^n€sin%t)t x-^ere
p«ix%twr» sttt tS_i«i tin® tfee fiwitrffl^t '?»s €X«euttdj the Jttrj/ woald hw«
a l>arts*sj"«lttp b«!tw«#a d«f-ajv'ay!^t», asld® fT<sm vfh&t oeoiirrs^i at t}m
tl»« of IhQ tiSlsi^li^ti® «snirer»aii9Ti., I,'mm^T*ii ^--ji«**«i©n» sysid! state-
p.;«nt« %^® la thn p^t^umi^ti of wltaess©*} «t tlve tim^ tl's® t«X«^H«ni«
Urn t^« iris.! of -Uie o:i^«.
fSurftlji iiUi ifssi^hett, JJ,, eaist«tii'»
r
"^^'■"^'ZUxX \ / ^'^f^i.A
(£i>
GdaAR £• BHO&SS,
I J /
J'
MT,iviH» tm KiFtmm m rm ^mm*
T0VIM9 & jttdgJ8«tst ««i%«!X«4. agatnat fol^ iti th« Muwlaip«.X o«5ort of vhi-
oakg© %t!v$. In fa-ffor of th* plaintiff t^r tlie twes of ■|1C,4«72. FI».l«tiff
1»aaftft Ms rigijt t» r«««T«ry upeia aas till®g*tlo» in blu etatoia«»jtt of
eXftiss tfeat TStell© K«,, plalKtiff , ©wxsM ««yia4»i !>«*■■ d»#« w-rcJ far a
p0Tt®4 ©f al»i»ut tAiN»» jesar* tim 4ef«a4awt, witheut ih« eoft£s*nt &M
«ecdiMii th«! wHl af flaitttirf, tr»«i»a»««i th«sr*an ?aa4 used tls« s«e9«{
tl»« »ai4 prteiis®® *i*4 h«4 »^i^«d to pa^r pXaiatiff tfe© eusa ©f |iS£j for
Stt«ih »is«; Voj^i Asfendstni Ja^ ti^reaftetr d^ntinuftd to lUin ths »a14
tharmi^fs^rn smA was ieg«*.lij Ix^vin^ tt |)^ f©r the ua« ther«K>f •
In Ma SbfflAavit «f »m'i%» tke di«f«Ma*tt aXJ«g«d that
lt« iid iM»t knsw ik&t jf>XjxlRt<iff w«k6 iir^ 0«»#r ^f tho p.r6>;;3l»«a in 'lu^s*
tion uatiX abeni J^pflX XO, i91$« «h«r, h9 r«e«iy*4 » Xfttittr ROiifylnc
Mbs of tli© latt«r*« Qivnsri^iii; that m yart of th% preistaes in qa«»»
tiofi h!iA b*eii g92jeraXly ue«A a« a ]^Mi« drlT« for store than tw«nty
y«ar» prior to SsTci^bor X5, X915} ilsjat Ho* the dof^nt^ant, hotd not
u»«« ths )?a4rt Of »aia pro'.^nlaot ta Q«i98tioa after A^vil 10, 19IS,
»M that k« sMTToif 9tfem4k plaintiff #^ OT aji^ 9thmT mm for tbi
ttoo tliercof.
A» tfeo |ud«^ont la tfe« mi% i» to %• r«r«r«NI «iiA
k^d
At «;.'l
r%*.&«»*^v
f^-sr
3«i{i8»«f
QXS
thm «jssu»ii infe^(Mia«d to th^ triaJl eourt for a mtm tri^i, '.<?« »:7^3re»« no
opinion upOB several quacttions araiaefl in the brief filml ty 4.«i'<'vr3dsmt,
fhere ie a dirwef. contradiction In tin© <&▼! df,mO« as to
trhetber iim pariiefl n or about A^TiX X0» X9l^>, liadl e«st.?r«a into an
•«»e«raent for tii« payaent t»y d®f«iSRtiant for tJus «»«? ai th« pr«i-3i»«»
to thai 4ate. B«t whatover ««i|^ be ttas tr«tJii of the aaattfir, wcs ure
in«lln«4 to agr-o® wtth th« «ont«yaio» of d«fond.a3tt tS5J*t plaintiff did
»ot «J^w toy a p!r«poad«3PaB©« ef thm eridoBoo that ti^s <lofenaa.nt i« f-.,ct
u»«d tb« |»r«^iiee« in t|u««tiofi aft«iP i^rll 12, 19X5.
lfe« pXaiatiff t«»tifi6tS that d^fendfejit h^id a^rttCNl to pay
|2& for tr*« uao of th« py®slsse« p.rie*' to tliat 4ata gin4 jplsiliilirf *•
elfcisa ts th« smln !• for t«f«n4«mt*i8 gill#g®4 usi^ «f tl!« prof«iHby for
ma.^ tijsa th«r#a,ft#i'. B«f«afi4sJEtt d#!:i£#^ thmi &« faad eT®r pr^stKea to
fay pl«^i,i8tifl' a^ ®tia for tb« w»© o-f tlio f r«i^»&«,
.4 9&yt of pXai«tlff '8 fe«etiisoi4y Is t.«> the effeot tkat
*th« City to0li^ 'tb« iot m%<i p^^iM »« l^&C) fmr it, tha Intwreait on
tble aa^unt a^ 5 p«r €«ttt. ipej* aarjaaa for th« ti£M Mt* Bi^ociJcs u»od
It and the t^yaae* o« th« iet »ouXd ssft©iiat t© |1D4,72, j.tnd tl^ts. In
mjf 9p4etiOB| «ouXd h» fair, ro.sui0»abX« a^s^ for ttiam^oo fcir it« uso***
W« think tMa «vtd«?n©« ia ins^jlTleteTit to ebow thii
fair r^ntml vaiuo of tM froi>«rty Im *|«e©tlea« But th« «vidano«
i» f^«rt Soee siot «h««r tl^t tli« d«f«Ei44tit «i»«4 tb« |»r<ml««o aiftor
iiprix ia« xsxs,
08 diroot oxtsaiin^t ion pXaiittiff testiflO'l thai fe«
di8«ovorM thi^t lile let wan ^eln^ mo«& for storage of iHtllding
aukterisaii aaS oa a driTOway, *OTi4ontXy fey the p&uriy «feo ownod
tli« a4Joisi»j£ 9r«^i»««;* that h« ]at»d« trips to tho Xot and "oav
that it tffa* stiXX ^oing ust»d for tfa* i^rpo««B »«8tiott®4 up to««*
&l»9ut t:h« 3r4 of May, 18 XU,* Oa er©s»-#x»siii^Ation, hetrov^fr, ho
•»i4» *.I nmt^r saw Mr, Uroolt* d:dLv« hi» vm^m ©Yor th-^ m>rth«m
p3X% of «a4d Xot, ©r OK tbe eftKent oldewmUte, Thoro wore wa^n
t^.. »ru "ift .«t«« »«W' %i»t .tm»Sm^t»h. pi. 4««*\,
»#
^3 $&»%»it
mmi ^■
« ii<'<^ if ini i.
-'it^-sy'' S'«:
S!.|*A I |j®ll«v-s tines* ia liv*-v® b«.«»: trs^is ^^ad© Ikjy Sr* Braoka' Wiig-aiu*
flif <l,«l'e'Bi»»|i t'im.% h« ,fea.(i m»t «8®a th* |>jrevjits®» after .4pri.l 12, X916,
■■'ifr|A^««t;«Mi#- ^mmi^m^:^^- .*iw»^i(t.1*»»; im ,«l V>'
3.@3 • STll?
WXminiitt hrmkg^t fait in ihm 'mmUip^l ^^^.ri «r
e&l«Jis<^ t& jp#©®''r«r ife«s ®tm tf $%V$ for l*fe»r srf. a^attrlsl f«3;i«f,iM
A«f«M®«it hmS. ^:r«M t<f »«^ late $im, m%A th%i Si®^ ^i;a,i5t±rf ,
&s %Ut trial t*J3s p:i»iaiiff lastiriM Ihi^ h« is>*-
vm mml^i&^ ^luintUf inr#,i«?<^«Kl itf^^lasit t.H»t iss, ?>,l,asjt.trf »
W^f »£%mi: tM« ^mapl^ti&n t.f t-M s«ffe., JUmfy gar©. fl?iiMtlt".f
as ©Mftr «|fait i-#f«fiA«w*t far -|.^,«s f.fis^«^si tf HUi far t,ls,a lafark
^rx^
J' \ i ■
plti3i<!ti»m te p«8j? for the work j>«iifoir»se4 .*nii «i.-it«3Pi*jl rurvilsheii b.y
liladrttifl', 8.8 jl tlmt this; ;i;y®slfii« w»s sa«4i« bath befart a^»4 aJ'tftr
the e«B8spl«tl«K <&* th» ?Fork» It i» i3?*A« la&i liji^ t.««tv.').i;my ia
!i$tt0e4 Oft %h$t tri<5il to ir^urragit tfee firi4iajg: sasi ju4|.:i8J««t isi .fa¥or 6jf
the sflaistl^f. 'i%# fi!Rdt,n£« »f ik« t.ri.«&I c!«mri mt^ n&t xi--ti.ln8t
tl>« •vl^lsisi©® -'ASi4 t-fe« ^ll«g4Si.t-i®*a« s^' the tta.tej-j^iit Qf elate, l'h»
au'l^slmtiij Ms*i© «itili Irigmrar,. th% ^»fmml &^M%wimt®T, %^t tfc« «^i?H-5jc'«
flit t©§tii^Ry Sfl' pljitfittfi" &M &i6 w.iia<-t»si«» t«md8 ta
mlgnil^ s^i^ M»t@^»«rtt» JJ,, ®&@<^ir*
wn • anas , /
\ /
\ /
wnmmm &a^m\» } / '"J O n j re .,/-. .^ m
Vi>©u«^«. ) / '^'' ^ o 1 , A^ o ^ 4
A.p_;'">ell-snt-,. ) /
H^ /
\ /
th» l&intaipai e^urt «>ir CMcajj© in tm&x ©f t.h«- plaintiff for thm
mm of |Se f©r ^«(^'es ojrul » further mm ©f $10 Ktt,?^ryt®y'» fe<»«
Hit. «*»« w--sija tjrl«# 'fcc^feysg tl*-« wtsPi -^tth^at a jst-i-y.
The «fifidi«tH©<& «}s@*^ that ■|jlaiiiliff was ts^lo'yesl hf tl^f^Mstnt ae «
b©olcket^«r tipmk tfes 1st day ©f ^etesuss^, If SO, austii A|j»il S®»
i^SO, ti.t % talsfer^ ef $150 a iaaaili., l*l.«.iB,tiff left dfafeiMast ** «sa^oy
«a th# ls.tt€i:r 4*t«, *i wlil^h timt it Is ad;iltv-:4 tlu-j^ns ^S4« -dwa hSM
for «al3jpy tli« »^»j ol" |X^, 345-:^ it i« c©,ti««d«54 tteat tk^sr© ira* du*
fllaintiff a fuyfcisjsr aais ©f ^7*M> for -aoB^if .HftanM 'by ai» to deX^iJidant
e®yt9r«sll«3'Bi, M tlhe tiw* plaistlft luff tli« w^ley ef 4«f0a6:A^ h«
dr«« & ®h&ek &B Ms own fm-^r for th«i m^. «f $130; ^€0 of this imn
is in di8p»%# 'te«tW8«s tto* psirtlen. FX«ii»tiff*» posit lo» Is tbat ho
w«* infex^^il T^iHtn htm (Sist^TM the »©rYi«© <^f dftf^ndar.t tb»t he vm»
io W&S4: tMi»4l«ys l>ut ■»&« te h«re si week day off in lie^ thereef ,
Piftlutlff t«8tifi«a i>iaifc h« »OT«r i-oesiv«d th« d^y off sus a^y«e4.
E« r««i»lv«4 d»rlac th« «K>uir«<i «f hi» ^a^loy^seut on© check, •^liieh
bor« t>t© rKstatl«B» *I» full «f «tt^«tt f&x ^' up to week ttndlng KasM^
31» 15S©,* Flmiuiiff 'a ©lalis is for »#rvloe» rendorsa \>y hljs on
tv«l've ^Sundays at th« xmt« Otf $S a Hu^sd*^. On Saj 1<9, 1921, tha
4«f»Bdia«t f&id plalsUff hy ofa«ek tfe« sias ef t^3,S0« xhi« l*ttik»
4rv ^■■. T 'Di. O V
9<y rA^ I. ^^^"^
J* .«!«S^!S
A:&!> "tl'1^ "f^.;^ ■ ''5 WMT ' tii€' wmf
-r-^i''*5f»
'^ ttil«^ iif^?.!
:%|| ■ iWa«i
tersat ^tu« tb« |>X«i»tlXf on 1\1« X©»n of I7S0 to -^ftfeaAaTji, C-var th«
prate©! of the •?>la.1iBitff <^)af«:mlant d«<lu«2i«6 fros» the {i»)9uni dw*
©veA^^al^ plain liff for 'wa^e. D«f<mdant*8 vice rvyesi'lent t<'*»tified
that th« |®D '»'«i» d«auet«4 toe<s-rm»« pli?ilntiff haS. ssftlu to h4:K tkstt If
fl9f9ti€«»t wifea*is0t »at4i»fi«4 tJiat tfe« |6© waa flu* j»laintirf, tKea a«->
tiff testified, that h?* »tiAd<» ■'■ut th« s,h«MSA pa^^Me tft hlms^li" T0T
tX&O for w^Rgftft wlth«^t amy wnd^ret «n<Ji*^ with d«f«na«int «.» to « 4«*
ffeteyo la ttd fem.|lM^ aitpstjtd shft^TR "by the «Tl4«Be« with ir(i)c@if«»d«
to t^M ItSO 3U>^aw ««S4|« t© feh« €«f*)fs4aa*fe, TIU« ?sa«ui«t wa» loua«4 to
dafsMant mi,4 a« 9art ef it "^fss r»piU4l «iBtil ^ofeisdasai had 4ellv«r«4l
tft pliitiBtli^f th« «}i«s3k f®F |#t,5C".. 'fhi0 t5ba«k t*€sr« *on tta fme th«
stst^«s#at, *I*aid i» .fall t© aat© fs»r »«©;«« k «i#«*' fli.« aii«ek ^?a»
s^ssittMly t;iV3« to ^Isiatlff a« pmet prnjimunt ©f ih^ euta loasied to
def 3n-?tsot , It ^«i!9 tiot SI, ps.>^®nt f«r tr»g©» arnl ^Is-intiff ,ls s»t
bmmi liy ife« 8tat«Es»jst, S?i« ah««k fer :^i80 4«lttr©?'M to plaintiff
at the tla* ^s l«fi aef«a4ajFSt*» ssai^ioy wam si^piisd by aef «R?ii*nt *a
prffsid®nt &s4 tr*a«ujp«r. At tMs titae t)i«r© wa* ■!«« tfe# pl&intiff
a furt^jaj" mm $f ttS© with int«!r«»t «!»i tfol» Xatt«y fm% i» »«t in
diaimt®, tUQ-m 's-as. it »««^8., at oa« tl»e « di«]^t« befar^oK tai«
p>arti«» a» to trli&th&T tk« |«0 wm due tJi« jialBtiff for •wago*} itt
tb« tla« h« laft tha ii»£^l«yK?i9nt ©f dafanAact. FXati stiff at ihla
tlK* in»i3t«Bd tlia.t th« latter ««gb tms aue blai ami th« d«feB«aant
»a»aute4 and d«14T«r<Ni to hia a oh<^:k for flBO.
It is InaistiNi t>iat the Judpn^nt fthsul4 t>@ r(rtr«>r»ciid
"fee«&tts« ef a el-aimM V!sxisme«i l^atw^en th« itat%a«»ii ©f olaijs ^kad th«
^stMm»?. ^$-%i: '^^imfM im^t<i>>tfiii iii»:l^ti- .
1 ir -s '. »•'- .-. s!! ?i J. »i .1' 4.f- T.'v.'.*,
■««•>■ V,;: ■ .*..i
.f^^;r »:iirJ h
fi;ft5|.fejjii5!'^5
4hrid«»iJt lHtr©4u««fi, It i» iriii® lliat It: isstifying the plair<tifir
tt«l<ll that he hsd bs^n padd all ih® >?a»;€« du« hlni vher. h« i*»o«ilv«d
the 05i«»k for ^100, iinet th-j^ 6tat*jja«tit of claSm «h»«rg<»8 th* def^nrlant
wltte «n l»d»fet««iKe6» of |dO i'or ^a^jea du© plainilff . Vh« l«3su«,
]h»w»v«y» Gti tfe«!! trial, as slsoim b^ ik«j «vi4«i«a« iiitrodwcsftd, v*a»
whether tlt« d«fcxi«i&ftt SiAsd a right t« dMuet th» |60 4^r««a th« check
d6liv«r«d i« pajnsent of tlj« loan. Sot^ithetawfliR^ ^l^ntlff >« at»|,»-
B«»t tfe»t Ise hM be»n paid ail the •»<%•©« du* hira, >?ai whin^. it apparwist
tr^m tJi» eiritl«fje« tis^t th® «|ii«0t.iott in eottixoTftrsy «vt th« trial ra«
wfesiher -asfftBclant was is*l«tet©d to pl^intUt in tlt» mm. of ^66 for
»««««, If the tlieajcy iSMSvaRGd?! «a th-n ♦,ri*a toy a»f«a{|.&i-jt ia «uoe«|it*4
an tilt tTyi« ojse, tfeeii tli» lB»y» at tl;-^ tti%l ■«?»» tli« queati^n »f
wfeat wstgfts. If any, -»fftr« 4u« j^lal.fiti,.ff, B«tf®nslttirjt '© ;?>»sjitl«a ©n the
trial 'waut that it fesd- pai<a tfci« |7^ i^^awRftd in tw© ©©peir»t© asjoujat*,
ea« t&T 1^, 4ny.l*iat4. in. ila« -^IMi ^a^&k-, aad tii« 'bEiUir*«* %y deliver*
Ing the ishe«k f^r ,^^S,^j. In ^tlv^r wg3NI», defeiMast txlM tJui e^^uM»
•is the tJi«fic3f7 tiwkt It ii4i*a ^sdS. th« leas is fail with i;Qt^r«et ^md
tiwt it ^uM im% itm»M^& tp p'l-:i,i-ntirf in smy m^m iO-r W44g*«.
TiU ivim9» in ft fwurtlfi ftlsjus &»«« in th«f Stoaieipsil ©ottrt
&r» wimt tl3i« »irl€i«s5«« jaak^as ih«sa# i^ast In tMa ecjjse, ok i..uci ith«)ory ef
It Is fartfesy w;rf«iS titat th« o©«.rt errwii in ^lo^'S'lfflg
ilK» mm ef |1& ss" Mtt-rm^y'r, ir««i». It l« a^id, tJmt la W«)aceep«r la
not a vage eartier, a&uBeel r©ly upcB a d<»eiaxon by th« Xliin»ia
Appaliat® e««rt ir'. the oab* of ^ai3,a3^ v, Hg^j^x* -'0» 2a&l'«e, (not yet
rejM&rt^d,) '^0 ^ti nmt r^^^d %hin 4*»isi©« awi «,tt«ffiis>ti«g to modify
tlio nil® ii4,4 (l^ira is 4sm ©la-bsarfi^t* ^ls(i»a "by 'ir, Juatio® -©ars In
t^« <ta«« »f Itt,e-^;i^ V. r.ssBt8ffl. 34 Hi. A|?|t., 544, affimed toy th«
@ii^r«a6 C©»rt, 134 HI,, 144, In tJi« Appall ata Court deciaion th«
»«*#S:
:f-^f!^l,^:- .i/it^mmin
■0t'&m^'»mse. »»««*# *^.
^:s# ifi ^'
di<««) »y ©f ^rojiwyiy nanof Ji«tur«4 by thm oorKWi-^ailon, -jure, we think.
'?■= '^ ft*i;f''" 'S'^-fST. ## *^'^^f''!f"^
<:tt;a *i.;: .'lajislvai^^ ■ ■:**^v
\
U9 m sfim \
h* a. mmimot
/ 226 I.A. 635
vn, \ )/
01 (micMiQ,
MLIVKM0 r-m Qwmim ok rm OQism,
ffXvdniift ohXa^lnwid a judftis^ti'nt in th« ;«iuf4 e ip^il court
#f iaii«ai|« agalaat 4«f ^.r^arjt fyx- ihm m«& &f |ii)0 ai»4 dStfensiant ^»
S'lalnilfr *6r©Uj|hi suit- tis r«cov«3P :|S0© frtsw d«f®si<l*mt
vhieh plMstiff a,li9s:es h« il»piosit#'? T^yitii tJn*? lattvsy a« security,
On fftbiwsjfy X5» 1916, ©M® iiorit« uarinti' l«a««d e«ytai.i3 pjrwBiise*
ttm& <Jefesylaat B©@gi;aKo for & t-#3P5a of t«B y®ai?s., iia»tn«r ©b f'eln-
jpu&yy le, 1§19, su9®ig»ed th^ 1@*»« t© lltaa WMat, plaintiff, »«-
fendaat, &v®r his (Gflfn @.lg»mtur<i, csn-^«8t«d la ih<® i%iim!i|,;»a<giat *»M
aek^rwl^dge'd tJie r««#ip:t ©I* th«i sum ©f IS^OO depo^ltoil ?*» eeewrity
for r«ntal« for th® 'bajLan©© e.f th« ter^i ef lis.© Ishmmi, '•esld »taa
to tsa h#Xd a« 8«eurity fer this leaa«, «n4, at the «ptplriitlon ©f
tiiig leis«e the svsn to fee rstura©^ to '^^t, I':lia8 '^feisa,*
*'els3, ih« plialntiff, testified X)H6XX£}tX2X?UfiX3t3lJa§X.
jyiaixJ^KX)eXjyEXJSMX^?JM3C tfe^t fee is«?v«d fro® the pra«iis»®8 Au^jwoi
15, 1910; that ©n the 14tl!i fl»y &f 3^1^ hi» eredliortt h..=4 soli eat
a p&ri of plaintiff** «©»€• lo@M(f^ Ik the pr«sais®»; that at thla
tlsae his pent wae paid i'or th« ssoatJs ef July, Jisigwtt $, 19li>, «i0»
f«a4ant In writing notl£'i»d |jl*lBtiff thmt h«, def^tifJaKt, li«^
l«fts«4 th« )^r«i<iisee to eee JU«vltsm t&r & %^rn beglrming Aui^\iet 1,
1919; tl^at L««ylt«ui h^sid p^4, th« A^igumt, I9l§, r«Rt i'ev the p3r«y;4*
ft«« sqrt<3 thftt *«i« jne« ba.^e br<jk«« ymar lesuM» Vy aot co«plyij5g. with
A C^ O
tx9m ^mms'9i. ■.%»'
^v* ■•■'*^ *'^-'^*i-*i-*k-'\yvA<rfv*fciv^A A^/wwv.ViVA
i
tt8 tftrsas, I hereby notify you to -iv* up pcKoeeBBlon or Urn pr«siia«>«
t» Mif» l4ivitfm in 5 da-j?s. You »trfo also to '-MJjust what«T«r ir*nt ia
4te* lar. .T.«Tit8aR fro:;* tb« let of thla ^ontJi,*
ifcft woij^Jit ®f Ih© «ridej3c«. :i.»laintti'f an-l dsfsswdsiUt directly &on*>
tra4let «a«h 9tli«ir «dtfe r«f«r©n©« t«s ttoa |S«:)0 4«p©«it, i:'lai,ntlff *»
t«®tiai«fsy is sap|K»rted fey tho roc^iis^t s*ar ife® mmuint sifpsM by d«*.
f«s!?4s«jt. ^Ul« tl» evideae* i^^ cai'ifiietliFjfi, w« think th« 4«JT
aM trial SuM^a ^ser» in a ^oh 'btit^* posit ioa te judge df it«
wsiijb.t ihaH 5*r^ w»,
Th<$ «fiden??« tends t© «*#« thai 4«fQ?j«Sarit 1®&S©4 tfefe
pinifc';>i8©« %& l*#Tita« f©r & t®iw 'b^lnnixi® .^gust 1, 1®!©. If t!ie
|>l«4i,ntiff rs» R©t in (default I th.%n tM <l®f«i?Klant dir«etl:s? viol«i«9d
th® eo»tr®et with plaiailfl". B^fe^last IMieatft^ in tli« as©8t p«»i»
iiT« stiRRsr M« fttr^sis to #iri«t pl^l^tift irtm tli« -pT^ni-i&im* But
in ttny tfrtislr tb@ d^f^^t^^ut »to9uia i3:Cit 'b« i^tyseitiM to x'«i.sdn tke
fSOO 4i«p08it«4 witla ih,lj?j ^» »«eu-r4ty, 1% Ae«« n»t aj^p^ay thai any
actual 4«23.sg®« »«re mist«ii»«4 fey tfe« defsadAj-n- by rijasoB ©f ^lala*-
tiff '» fsilttr® t© p»y rent for ih« pr^rnlues for the ^osith sf Auipimt,
•J* if i,ii@k««g&» feiMS SMieru'trt to def «rid«mt th^;:/ rir© «ftsily a»€!«jpti8»lMsibl.*,
Is tfee CMSte of ,1) ^; b ,i^. v. g,a,tf^.«(bi».rf @ | , ^£ ^.*^ "Mm III, A^p,
>, ikt® ®®mri ^ald;
*t.hS!re a X^»»^t fleets ta tais® Mvs*itfi^e <9t Itiss l®-g,aul
.right to tsrainate a isa** for tfa# failwr® to pay Sf^Jit oa V^m
part of tb.0 lessKKw, m^'i. «ueVi iesate is dldposafiss^d of tb®
|»reEsi»e« l^y t!u@ proeeaia af law, suci: l^a4i«, an-i«r th® deolsiona
l« this St&t©, rmnX he r«giirded, ae toT^^^iftsted am' ihe 0^atr*clual
rsl&tiensl'ilis 'oetwften t.h« l@«3or <Attd tJtfe i«9a«o tiier«by dle3alv«4.
^.SfeU V, ^mi, 03 111, -^f. 377; Wgfe^ T. Jgx* ^^'^ *li« %!»• ^^'^'"-*»
Oni&r ttie ei3ro«i4KtiWce» isiiiown fey the tvidfisice tt mz&i T3«8 h^ld
that tb.e tef smisjiiis, - h«! leasor« ef th« pr®jiais«a, iiB4, by tfesir
^WM «iet, «h©9@ti t© fttt att 0r4 to ths leat8«, to »«c«r« tJaa psr-
f©rmai5«« ef the t«rwife aad coai?lti»aa of which tte« dtfeslt la
^u®«ti®.B wms. jasyi®. **ji,«fr:*..^ *■««■* ffee tj^idej^fte J-UBtl.fied t>i« ir*»
r®r«««« that gfe© (t«i»jit) ■»«.« 'ii«|M!si8«»s«Nl of the pr«;;>ls«e f^r
tJim r®&80Ki that ah« htidi f.all©i! to gisjy r«nt dw.e una«r tbe lease,
Ttie dagfi.^i|i0 -whic^i a*jt53r«©4 to thffl dftfeaA&ats fross th« vi^l'ttion
(&f thla pr^isls* wfe« readily arfwJ definitsly a«o«rtainrilil® fey
r«f©reK0e to th» 1«immi. fh;«»» dJiK^>&S«e would tuBomnt t« ^150
for &tki»h j^tith tliat islii» failsd to i^iky t^>.e r«»jat a&r«<$d upon. Ucditty
>''"*.7* "-~r^f^ TJ%' - »-'«■;# '<!f^**i5rt *'*^^^!*"'?''t1^ J ■*?:"" S'
rM^ *«^
■,Ji-A .,7A«;, iSMsA-,,-:*;*,^..-:/-
aueh clreiuastanc«» It woul.-s b« noat in9iiuit0:>lf.<-- to i*llow th*'
In Ui« c.'OKo o/ >va4l9i'f V, M^way. 196 111, 36iJ, the
"Pettier tii« t«TK. 'Iiqurl4ai*ii djste»«^««* la u«e«i or not» tha
id«« of ihs coujrtB 1» to aaoej-iistin, if .nf-»*©l'^il«{ the actuaJ, <*«rs«
ages Buet&tn®4, *rKX If it i« pocsibls to *ii&eexlain t4i« fiiotu*!
4»&a#j;K«, O'r if ito«! amount of l|ijttifiat«d ^sitsa-stgim KsentioniBd in
the contract i« «3corblt^nt, Uia coux-t. «fl'ill fejinatnte thtj aeiount
aui a y-eajilty, ry.ther thaii sm8 ll(|uidi^t««i 4!i?3:-sj:*';«, It is aald
in tlae ueefield Ciis^e, ftfgx-^. that tlie ?>hra3« 'llQui<Jat.e<l ■imt^.^icfsu*
haa efttn b««R m;aMle to 3pe.!>«}. Vp-'?n&.lty* iX th© atrici £: --nntruetion
e>f t*n© ^ir&eeoloij^ wouXd ^qt"k oj^jxiNasaioa u^tsn ih« obligor, or,
if ih® e?ifGX««S!ent <fi ih« eoatriStei ^ouX4 fe® y«oaBaelsjy.itte?I«i, the
eoujrte "a-ill th«B eo«Rtru© th« «Kiouat !iiJA«»ed isi th« cantraoi .a« a
l>*na.lty« <'«a4 it se^iRe ir©fii all tJae eaeoe that, wh&tcrrar raay fee
the isroMifig of ths cestrast, t.te«j sowrt* vfill ;*;1-f;;it ©vl(!«vtQ0 as
to wfh«tlier or »oi t.h® strict erii''er«<s.r4cnt df Its jsroYlsion* *0Mld
work a fcard»Salp W|»©n ti)® ©bXitior,*
Ja?i^«ist of tifc© MitiMi6.if.»l oourt ia sslTii^se-il,
M«0tt««ly ttssi M;&teh«tt, ^sT,, eonewr.
Zi^f^iJ k$. •■.' is
Am - 27414
THIS vmm^ Of rmi
/
fC^ C) f^ J
^ V' J.
rifc O
/> o f^
T, )*•
to tl*i» eeayt s^e-kg t© ireTsrn© ^ ju%a-««t p-aiey«4 a^«iln«t hlia
©ourt 1by th« P#9ple of iim Stat© of lXlUmi»»
0ouyt witSa feairiifej eng-:3^«4 l«i its.® piraetle* sf Ma^issla* ^j»;d i3UJi,f.e3ty
%t tli«- St«tt« «f Illinois, ^f&n4Am> fil'«^, sa afeat^st^t «f jr^cord
aad also a |jriate4 'fcyl«f s^ marg-y^^'Bt in iJ-di* «-ourt &n4 tb.ereaft*ir
f ll«4 a 'WJpitt#ji iseti«*a fsy tb« sole |»«tp«i«sf? of 4.1a^?i^.«lng; tlte isum.
peal csfi ih« grmmiSi ijie»t tls^ <ij<.^s« ^eiaii a «ylaiRal ««»«» thia
on aptseal;
h^ writ of er^sr, Tne r®eara ^-fefoare tjs ah^iscg that the off^nsN* of
t^Mcli ih@ dttf«»4a»i was f^u^. guilty i» ^ %i»l«sei«»i}or»
la th* ea«« ©f i»to^,.3lfa. v. ^^..hn,»<?j,. SSO 111, X94, t3n«
ftii i MM MI iMMtt h«M i^l^s-t & odi%vl«ti0it% in th« ^iajii^ip&l d^mri for &
mis4%»e«sidr i« r«<rl««i&bXe by a writ of «rror oaiy im4 net by aso*
9«ii^« *thm ©ttiy SMUibed of t«vi«ss?l»g « ojEl-Aanal ea»« i» by writ of
««rr^r, ( fy«»eh t. F«mafe . ff ill,, ,t3l.)* It is ur^^jod, ii6i»ffiir«r.
X«l|^* -t^!
•Xjsscrqfi no
'fto^ '!•,*»£ i
KiaiiJ tfi fe«' Srttt ®rr«33e<ri«» J|ifcA^e«t, '^« do not &ij3r«>« 'Hth t*\ls
e©nt«ntia«i, Til© ^oisat sr^ide tfea.l ih* i*«ri ha,& ■fe««tt iTourii-J te fe«i
«jft©«0«tiiut4«»5i,l. «m,«i i»s m/dpnf fe« r&i««d i» this ^.©art 'ra stp^^feAl
till* es^yt i^ijmat P6f i«« "by *p^«:«3. «= i»4pM*nt «».t®3P«4, i.n &
tyiffdiml e^tse fa©^#"»sf #rr«5i(i.ii«ma i)aa£ 4%<^gm«i%t is*y fee,
Bi« «kiy!>«»l it sit felt sa@-d.
Mt^iuPfil^ mmA m^%e)m%tg ^■J,, sfffjidiajf.
2 * 24960
•X rel. Albert ^ Snuttlor,
TK©Mi»0Olf, Mayor; ®%;;tkltt G,
HEALTf, S*i|se|f'lntettd«^t of S'olleft,
OlTil serrie* Goj^uls4lon«r» of/
tb« City of CM(e<imu, I /
••-^ jI * ri o G tj %^
Thl» -«-rit of «rTQT %ring« in rmvinvf a . lajodessms pro-
e«e<ilRig6 io comj^X re«|>0ndeitt« t& reln^tat* Albert W, Grawitier,
the xtlBfctor, in the foliee 3«|?s*3rtKgfrit of ths city ©f vh.t«aeo«
B«sp6»d«ntd' dftftmrr^r tc th« f«titioii wt&B ©vftrruled. HeiBpondetvte
el«eied ta stan<S by their d9m&xrer, aM judjisjcnt wse «nt<3r®d WBar«l»
lag the writ* ?'« «re a«k®iS t© re^ersfs the ^uAfs^^nt trnd relator
do«»8 s»t aip}9<e%r here io ©©ntest.
A nusiteer ©f irslid rea^ona are jjr©s«ntett for rev«r»al,»
lla4«r th® air«im8t«me«» ■»« ©®t# onlj eiit® of tk«J»«. The petition
alleges th»t r«l«ii.tor wa» ttnlawfully redufse^, in ratsk or> Janufiry 31,
1^7. Xk© petition wiis filed Jamx'^^ 6, 1916, n«strly nineteen year*
aft«r tb« event c^^l&iiied ©f, amd ao valid «ciib9.u«« ia ©ffered lor
the 4*X^» IMS delay i« •uffiel^nt to bar the rli^t ©f p«titlon«]r
to th« relief eouijht. grtgta^ i p y» git,7 of Chlfcrtf^ g. S4S til, 26, S«;
g»g^ . aS3 III., 115; j^^ V. Clt:y o£ ^Hieg^o, 22^ 111., 310 j Bla3g#
V. l>.ind>l^. 22S III,, 555} gj^ v. aoaaol^ . S24 111. WIS? Kt^SXmlM
"^^ <^i t,>- &r sMaasa» ®2o iii,., 488.
I'he ^u«lg«a«nt of th« Cirovilt eourt is revereeiS eundl the
eauae is reroantJod with direotioas to «^nter an orAor ouBtaining the
i!«-3wrr«r gcud to dli»aiBe ttoo petition.
BEViiBaSJD fJfD aSl^lCmD WITH DIJ^iSTIOHa.
«*-ri<
>7 - 3«47i^
VR,
\
/
/
t^
p.
5
\
imuxmm tm wiKiojt m w& mum*
^Xti^ t.9sw<sa t« tJ?«5K If J the deir4*r,e«tKt , i::.n(| mjsois tyial, fey th« ef?«rt
h«4 ft fln4ii5g aM, Jud«g®«i!t far ISOSS.IJS, SV©i« tMs 5waj.^$*«t de/(Kt»^l-
aust a^i»@«l»«
"Oi« paliey iipjuyed fsk(^%i«st lo^» Isy Isuargl&ary ©»■ Wj«
It -gfas pi-svjldftd. theysijs tSiat th« .ijoatidsy di«i oat osiTiis* li»»a *lf
»asur®\i, ©jf any sse^fea* ^t Ms haM0»Js®M, aj arty ©tiiey ?jffreon !«»•
fwllf tt|»tirv tfe« f3r«5«t»®« i« l®f liomtM a» principal ©r aocene^or in
tfeat the. fewjpgiai^ Itt Qu«sti»a esua© within this ©jg)»fni^ti»g frarislou
ef th« policy, «m4 laouc* 4s;f*fMJaKi I© tm% liable.
*4, 0» Uie 24t3^ ^s^ of i;ievftj?t^®.r, 1919, 3^ aWut t}sy««
©*«1«©|£ is the 8»0r?>ijqi4:., th« ,pre-;.-isi«8 cov«r«<l b>' the In^vyane*
ttisi«l* sai4 aoliey asd w^-iiftduXe ^«r« gu»r4e4 fey * ;'i<iiht watel-ssnaa
«si|>I«y«4, 1»y tB.« piaiiitlff*. At the tisa« ftbove Bi»r,ti«JB«4 tkre«
©ailawt w<?.iM» ofe««rv«d "by the aigis-t •wnteiia&« olija'feinti; crtrer th*
f«fi«« ie th« r««r i>t said pr«KJi««». Ifee nii-;ht w^iefrjan shot at
OH® ©f the ia#» (in4 Jfy.lB^t©R©* tha tKr«« of tfaejH away. *Vl'i« ni^^ht
Wftt«im«ii ««^«-avor«-:3! te> cisll thfs eity i;»€!iiG:«, Hsut tiouls m»t g«t
t«lei»)i9ii« eaasmswieatien from uald pr«i^iit«6« H« tlian w«ttt «wt ©f
tlMi J»3F«»1»IW t® ijetify th« polie«, aaH In gning «4t»ay t.b«r«f !•©«
'G ,4jj/i^v«ii,,«'i., O-v^-Vi^.
''if in '.''di^-
citit5«:R« In it, H« toM tJf»«m hi» trm«l»l« pmfi thay tol^i iii«
ih«3r -ymtXd tak« hlxn ta lh« polio© aitattXoa, shxrou&nt to t.h«lr
iirritAtion h^ anti^red liKs auto.'t!©i';ll9, iiheR th«y, tiM^er threat
af lc.lllirt4; JilsK, too,lt SkW-ay blR r«-volv«r. U'V'.ey tli^n (itQ'VS -m^- i'Tom
tli« pr«B>i»«e ?Mid «Bt tii© i>;4r««i! m^ti »fe,« hM 'b©«n f jrS,gh.t«n®«J fr^m
tb# te4ii.dln^^,«^«£5 i«sl>:J ihflss to ^fO ajrjd, flnlnh t>MJ j|ol> of teurgLar^
1,1! inc fl*l^- •pxmiineti,
"S'. ^.jit ««4(S g»*«g srssat lJ3rj!j«-iflia,tely to 0*^44 bui'l-rling
saaSl ♦^l^»lta» ©p«n an «»ut»la® d&or. mm^klm » ^uxigiftriewiii «ntry
ixtt« iwJLd |?r®r;i.is.e«, Ibjf for0« ainJ ylole«e»; Uiai when th»y hiwJ.
gl^itttj iK®ii« t:h« |>i*«E»ii®9» tJ;i#y ifeissK, fe^* iV^js u?*?© &t a Mgh «3S.»
l^ljB(«iir»» hlmi op<»n th^ ifauli door; i^imu with r. b{-4siiii«.r th©y
lrok« op^i tiia inri®!* 4oor ^f th# va«Xt 'wkI wh^n in tlw vaiwlt
ifed:^ fe/ %h(^ use of « hiaist-'ictr ksm^&ktA thm te^b ef f the a?j«4li,l iHik-
tieii l^«.k tci th« »a,i>, w'rdel'i wsi« in©t4«' o^" ihe v»;:<lt» fej^.i in
tk-S' IwX^' fSiU;;; ii;ifie t;-:-©^ J^"^ ^ ^ii^h vS'viciSiV© fcj:;l blotw i.Ui* ^^-hoi©
4o»» ©ft sai'-i »af«, si«4 tktt« Is tteey sitsl^ irass the ln»i{1«
th.«p«air th« »i3B, of tltra« tJi»iu»siid -sjad forty-seTwis vicllsijpii
(|3,C*4?), jtio part of wl'^slcfe ^»fe ev«r 'b<s«>ri r&ow^in^eiX^ iM all
of Kifhitsh. tai^ money '■^s.e the pxo^srty ol t>5-« plaintiff*; timt
th:« mh'^'STj &T "bufigl&ry ©f sMd fgresslsea, »€» KtKio, w>as In tiur*-
oih«af oaiisws} that up io Uiij tisi© ^f S-*d.fS, liapv^ning® aiii/i .Law»
r«i%«j« S4t«iitll w^is «a|»l©f«d fey ^lalatlffn ft^m tlt« ii& ti«a« ««
a flfj^ip a«m, ie KStle far ih<w la -jSijBSrTlrig order oxi the. >l&nc«
flOsOJf ^_i4riiiS4; gaiGh tiia#« *i,» th«^- "peyii fa^sTlit^^ ?*«tfeii» 4.ai^eiRg; that
tJt« pimm,ln9»t 'fcwt :had otoami^neA tJi© attes^t t© ^ak@ a feurglrtri-
m4» entry a.« &«eouat ®f ife« p<©® te-siB^j ■»r9»ent.
*0, %hiiX ©K tJic ni^it ©I" l^cvosifeejr SS to 24tJ*, li^l^,
h« «ae ^r«)»««t at sM&idi p;f«e8i»«» in th« p^rfor^^mise ®l' h4» rtyti««,
aM fift#r li'KVljit; it"'-c pr4w,?ia«a fa? th«a nii^ht ^i?ent to & r«W:d«»«
Tc-tt8 s»^res4 upon 1&#tw#®a hiSfS«lf amd 9a.ld wjiligwa, aJvout one
hiOJf ssiie :*w«^j? fjpess ©«i4ti pi'ft«iii*«», »nd slid not a^sain e-fit^y t>i«
aM »m th^ 0®ll4;® afecettati at fhe, burgifeX©; tli#t hf vj,,ia to
hmxM » al^&r« In tlat Xo#t oitais®^. fr^i^s s«)l<4 f-js^- i8s», wisleli
«iha,r« was ta "h® two h««direA arjfl fifty fioilsdnis (lij&O.vu),
*7, fks &isfl.Oi'r;;«wt at «®Ai J>mwr®«®« Mit«h«H fey
the ^Ifetntlfl'ii wi^ ojidrf* 01a tti0 feaais^ tliat 3i<j el'^-oald -^xk ior
tiKSB 'wliaB«v@.r tfe^y wsttl^ oall upess hi^* t© 4« 0©, ©itJ-'^r on
S^ttirtssj^s or SuRd-ai^s, or teoll^saya^wfeffiB thfty 'nmt» &m'-i^^ in
feafing ^^lle 4ajtj©«»j that ua»» mish iiittoealeyis they '.90»14 p«y
At 91^ ti3»« «&?|>loy«4 U|»e» a weakly ©r saontJily ^>*Hi» of «sM5>l©y-
saeat of eaid plsiliafciXfe, -And h« fe.;^ sxo^trjiag to do «ith iu-mdXl»«
tli« fuiadai ©f pljiietifft or of keeplBt th^ir !»«»©«»• *
.S^ tImiM f ^t« nme th^t L&i?ran«« Mit«»ix<<r.3..l nmm & cer*
Tftnl 9^ 9^l9y<» #f tb« Inaturtd ai»S li!^li«»t«d mi psrlneipnX er
8«Q«Bffl«ry in »f f*»«tij*i ©r ^ttwsBptiag i© «ff«et th« tJurgljsryT */in
««c«»««ry i« hs w)^ ^iaj^id* fey, ms& aids, afc«rt» or a8si.»t»,, or •^'ho,
a©t 1k«lii£; pr*s»«nt, aMlms, «b«ttiitg or »«0istlf%K» iiath adYi»«d, 9»»
► ti»,t^'''''<^' ?'■■'? '^^ K"'-"*?^^*"^*-"?*! 'f^'?*'?* .*?■?" 1'^ ■'^v 6? *'■'■■' ■°:'<^?.^Sfc 'rr Sf*»T*?'*W''E'*ii Ti"!^
:■«■ S«i:sax5
')(!' «• %*■
«x»4 *fi ■v^iineijjmi aitJ ^unisixed a-e sord Intily* * Criisin.idL Co^c-, ^*?o.
iSll, i»t&tut«, Cahlll* tiin 'tou«»glary if®,* 1« pur«uano« ®f & |^,l»!3i ass«d«
t&« :plj»lutlff9, ^isaii purarusfcKt to the -plan h® ;sjet t)s,e «atl.%w» at a
t» tfc« meaning ©t t^« lao^ng© t^ asgr l,3aa,lL h« w&e isot is»pili«at«4 ««
Sltoheil was «sapIoy©d a« floor sian Vi^jea piaiKtlffa
trere 6©»iasti^j^ Ijafelie dsuRCii:^, «iileb cexifirfeils' took :^l&e* ?>k
&i^t f«ir »uefe. ««^3nri6«». it wtws & i&tf lions^ after fee hM tlni&hwi.
tt i» «Rp»«€l ^y ^2.feliitifX», h«. iJraa i3^i foi ®»ploye or a^5i'irant of the
«i«ssui?«ai stt tl3# ©3ca«t ti©e «»f th© bts.iegiaa'y. W© 4© not ■U'drtlt thim
ie 8©ub4« W1bi4X« «^lfey»4 fey plaini-ilTa Im pi*jeilei|jatr4 iiot only
in thm -^lan fe© aoimii fhm ovim^t hut &lmii in a pi-JD^ar attim^t. Xt
1« « fair tismMp%i®n. %ha^% x'm plmn of ii,^tiratioa r©8wiit©!a frissi feio
f«aasll.ia*ity witii tiie ^t-^Mism» «wft«-| th.^g eustor* «lt'h refeyenca t» tfee
4l8p©»ltl©B af fXai.ntijff»*' p«e©i|iit» ©.f moisaty, Ob© salas in mtt
pv^mmi at %im aniuAi ■si®»©!at oi' tla** &m^i^&i.u.n &i th« earisie- is &m
ac«#sso3Ey «n4%»' ti»G «tatat« ■sib® *Jintl4 advieisa, «ai>our&g;ea, ai-5ed
or *i*(&fct8g ill* p«s|i«irttti«B of ilm crljit,* xt la evident t}:&% sil
thVM thifig* w®ir« fiene by i4ite>tel?t, trklle ^ip:oy«d by tJi« plal»tlff»,
fe.«w«« hiB erJise ef ■fe-^inst an aec^sstfJry i« the 'eurglajy waa eor;siitt«4
wkil« fio es^l©y«cl, a»d fee wiwi implicatml aa pTi»ici|tal or acctsftsyy
la (»ff©etin.g yj# burgiary,
A. as4®riiy of t)i« c^uri is af th» opinion that th«
fa«t» ©statolii^-tSte eontlitlotui with r©i'creno« to th« lisi^Ilo^tlon
•X m. servant «*» e^Xey* «r tlj€ pi^ujatiffg 1» th* burglary ^Mah
m&let oj»«r&tlT« the- px-orision of t-i« inswrano* i^oli^y sitoov« r&fepsmti
13«T®r, J,^ eoatjuars, and Mateliattj -T, , dlss.»nt».
^?i> -■■ , .'.^y
■m. hfi-ii\
411 - 7/n^
if
V
r
\J jL 9 rs. ©
rsi
Off GUICASO,
f0r ITS hg4 by tjlalmtiff in «», aetiftn *® re«0v«ar futt^ral 'fe^nfflfit*,
not t^x px'Qil'it* Xn eoKisid^tratloi;, of «j«rt%in jt^-^mmiittt fvom %a«ib<^3rii
wbAa a* i»t«XT&2.», €,«f«ndiyit im4«3risufce« t© i^ay be-W'SiMte to a i?l»«
i^l«d oar »:ie^ mw(^ar« «kI la «£««« ^f 4«t4th |7S f»r fuisjeria. «.j^«rt««s,
B^«.X<*!r» ,l>y«>Tld« that ttJt f>M«rft,l l>«neirite wtll Imbe paid
ll9*ii f&« i®«ttb ©f ©u® i»h* ha« fe«!«ia @i mmM^'S l^or ow# ytar prier ifei^fNi.
to, aiff^ (i9f@»diSBt <»}.a.Jjsaii timt JUitil» lii@v«ns!ia», «t il!!.($ \>Xwti »f k«r
A»atfe, li«d m>t lHi«ti » ai«mb©3r »f©r iM» X©ngt>s. »? tiai«« iihe 4i*d
^ius® M, I®i0| s»a «asi® wttii«i#»«» testify tfe»t isihef Joli5««J th» clul»
in ^^ily ^i tla« p3r«vi0u» y9«x, as Bl^«m liy ««rt«&n reooMft of th«
•i^S3Si.i«»tloii» ¥9 »e«t ikl« s>Iaii3tiff lTiirodU(i«d ix) «Yid«rne« a ^t»3f^,,
fl»«i»$iRX «ard ieim«4 by it* «h0^i»g; reeMptt ^f dues %i^ &«i»«essii«{ttc
ft»8i iB«!slH8r»« T5 1« «AX^ l(«i«r« tb« ©Ign.'fctureMi of a s««r<etii»y of d»»
»«gfl%L tb«s««^jrtejr i« Tstn^g ^•a until about tho t^e of la^r l»ot illnooo
mnd hor t«%tk« fh« ro^ei^t of liuos «aA nooo-iemonto b<^$innittg with
,„.,„.. «..*,j^ raft %^ Iff?--*-
..it^ajBtl jXi3^la»»® ■$l'V**t*f Jfaa^^i-J^wrt « aJ ■-;
■■•?"= 'v^ tm'M ^i- -Mm ■ iff.
v|-~.^RSN'' Ife^t ■'^'M^®*^ I6#it*«*^4sisr ^i'
«5».i#& i« SMJr..
v:m^i-- >■ il^ia,. .lijui.- •'^^^i^
raotheir J[ola«d d«Kf <«ndant " » oargifl^le&tlon isit that tl»ie, sisvd. h(>.ne* hsA
bee« «i sseffiber for ov«t a yftttf at th« time ot h«r de^th. tsueh wbjb t,Ji«
oi»inl0T<t of th« trial eouri iii»0b th« fsi«i», f«fj<ii tin***? is »et Uuffi-
cl«nt «irid«»»o 1» th« r«««rGi t«> omi^e us t« dia«M;rc3e.
@%«fin«»»« Tli« con»t,itutif»n provl4«e th^t:
**^1 re«.p«i«table «jmeB "fcettif^^tt a^@a of 16 '-mi. 4® ^«ay« «>ld
will fe« «li||ll)l« fsr si«es"bey»hi|>, toi' peyson i8*j# ^^'In* *'^i® «1w*
U8d«ir a fal»« atatess^at p«irtaiMi«!|j t& ago sn* eth«rwls«, asatJ ih«s
•tt^e i« fesainii to 'fee ti?u«, sht -srill tm% fe« allowed t« r»ts«iv«
siek tf«?s$fit«# neltBfsy will alje ^ al.io-w«d to T»c®iY9 ^i«^ rJeath
V^tftCffltg, smd her a*?** siiali 1&« droppfed fpisr"; tha s-^li-feooic of
the Glub,*
Bfif«isda3iit says thiat ISy», ateveseyji ha^ p^^Aml th9
ellgi%l« a||« 'at th« tia« ^« feftoiBB*: a m^mt^^r, h«ae«« W3sa«jr ti»i» ©aw-
stlt\?.tieftal |?yoTfisidj|, ©Sa^ald imt b« allawa-ji, to «««ly« a?^ 4l«»th
^d» pr€»vi«i0is i« a llttl* as1slgtt,cm» as to the st^^tas
6f a p«jr»iaB ©■»«!► 4f ar«ara ©J" a#« •«la« 1»«c«i®® a Kscssfeirjr of the «l«fen4t^
ant a0«i«t2f» 3[t «lo«s sot cl#»pl.y »t»t« that mieh a person aliall
H©t receive msy 4«atl:i %«nB»fit». Kow^vtr, aaausiiiig tKat tli« provi8i<j«
Twan iniendM fc« diaprlra sm evf?r»ttg« zaasslaey ut msah b«naf it», th« r@o*
03N1 faile ta atoow that pla^lstiff 'a j^tethsr had p€U»»«<S t.!i« «Xi^ibi« a«a
at t*i« tiata sfca l>:^i[^e a ia«sfe©if, l^are Is yw def inlta <rvi(J.«»«« aa
ia h«r aga, ^a h«tv« aplni^tne of aaxrtain paretnas fjtia war* far th«
i^at j^art affiaors of tii« daf^ndajat ©oanpvUatian, tliat ©ha ap9«aros4 ta
l>a aa eltl w^aaa, lliay cULffaiP a« to tha years ©r faar aga, althou^
lidita fa«t«3pea &m «|>iniaii aa to leisa %hjm fifty,
©pinion «ir3,a«j5®« as to ag«, fe?ia«j4 'Ufton skupeiiufamsie, in
•t«»ati^«s Mffiisftlfela, Ijut ifj %h9 Dxaaant iuatanca tht offieara of
ttea dsfandaa^ eorp«rs6.ilo!i ara astogpiNl fro» raising th« dtfanaa »f
a«t feaaad B|?#» th« aeaa'fear'a t^p-unx^xmrn, thuy had baaa &©ila«ti«it
<'
yi ■ ■■-■■*'
;^^,,tr<a1'&^.. . ;
lt4*=^=T T'' S*tr
*«*•■> » »
^^- ^*^'
P*!a«*i-<(<i*«'
mii»^ . .::'m^m&
^^*^a»'i»!».S.
4m*» im4 %M»mBwmn%9 tton 'x»t tot oTsr a, yiaf, btuS »««n l»«r t7«»>
i^wtntly an^ had vi»lte<3 }i»r 1» h<sT iiimeas according tG the rule?*
9t th« »fif«l«ty, 5>nc5 set the fun«*iPftl J*«fcdl glv«n a fiojral «i®^l««s, ,»J5
lB«w 1b« |>«irialtt ed t» «»©i4 lis ^t^ligaltea ^leewe©. at thmir i&pinimi
■feftr la geo4 «taadiag.
Uef«ry ii«d Miit«*i®tt, J^, , 60 amir.
im Ssm .«JiS)Mvr <J^|^#;'
t .f. Cyirt:..'a
\
\
y-,
\
/ -■
T
<J
Appellant. / )
U
I>«fsml«ait ee®k« 'fey ii-ii«( .as^fe**,! tM ti^-tvr^sO. of a^
Ol^lBiMift la Soe 111. A|»p« 30 i, «iaA SIS 111, A|»p, l0Cj. ¥« ehKtlX
feisdj^Rt. I>«f?»?;?ia;et &fr.©rteA «*, es^v-ntcjc elsiijs 'bas^el Mpmi alli>,g»4l
damage* te^oasee sf %im %re.^eh ®f plaifiitffas' «»istyaet n&t %u »#11
The ©sly paint pr«»#n-t^ in ifttftttdasi *8 5,<ri«f U|»©ie th»
■!^re««wt a^|>«s8l ta^titat hy tii«* »o.BtiPa«t ti»« dollar® ifnar feajersiiint wa«
tlffa ts ether partlee* eonirary to th« oontr^oet.
Jn smr fiyst oplnioa In tfcia ^am w« ]ii«X4 tl^M thig
e«silxi&et ^rne ai$lls»i«ral. an4 so Sax an its proTieiono m«^ "bm <st«.M t»
1b« «x«eutei^, it- In ee ied«finite SiSiel tinesirtaln Ik lis tens* aa ta
tte« t«y®» upon shisK {|»o49 had V«en sold aa4 <leiiY*ir«<l, i»«f owd-'
%nt*e «JOBtenfci©B in tirt© first ssopeai wa« tsj»t It wsus (Entitled to
r««iov«y g«M«xml dss®ag«« &M a^t th.e tw-o dall.-sjr« ^.l«i?rekjiee raf«ri*«4
to tB tiws «rltl«g. A^ip*r«ntly oe th« preaent «^i3oal tl»«y •••k
ai^d ,i\,ldSS
^ ttJi'
to r««^»T«7 dA^«kg«t »t thtt tvv a^Xlajr rat*.
l'li*t«T»ar tffiay !»• the obligAticins ttn(!«r th^ eeatrswt,
4«fen4«3t haa foiled to nltom ih«t .iilalatiXfi traaelnjil It i« »oy
pajrtieulsar. An i0«ff«etUAl utt«!rt|ii vac cj<n€« to pxtt-vo t)r4a, Vut
w« suns of the opinioii. ilj« trial e>i»uri «a» Jiastirle^ ite J-islfiinig
th«i t^^ «rvl4«n«« fa-lleil In tb.i« re«p»ot« If pii^lritirrs g&Id
• ijslXaur ^iur^«ntfl to pr»hibit«d «!ust(»?i@rtt, it al'i&^il^ h-A-vn b«en
•»»y for i«f«i5.da,nt i» bKVt pyoAut'®^ at>js# ©f ihass as «";'?i.l as tfefe
jgarment* tiwjy tii^»a«slv«» ietsJ .|Hty«&ia»«4.» m> th«t tli« cat^rt xsi,^t
^«4gft »» t« tJfHi fa®t of fcli« &ll«g:«?^ "bjc^aels., 'A« gsim^nta i«rer«
89i istredueftd, in ©tmti; «iSHi n© expX&B^tif^s ^ir^n m to this.
On iii« other tessd, iritn^se®© teatifl«<? tpr ^"I's.lstlfrB tlsst
g»arm«nts of fhe e^'fiw i|««ig;n v«»ye »«t aoM to ©i>Mjr ?i3/Aartla*9,,
#»ftao& fea* fe««n py«»««t«4 for yerlftwisB^ th.« |>i4i>^«)st, whio. is
3Batfi>»«it liijia l)«T«P, -J--?'., e^ftiyus'.
-r.vl rh!t^
88 • 27038
idOAir ASiiOCiATioii oy the tii«Mi
Of ALi. a^lSt^ JPAHISH,
i KltKOR TO
w« I / ) atJi'Sh'loa COURT,
) COOK nou»*nr.
1
ef«ndanti, Ijr' a^J*ror. )
HI*, JV^tlCM MATCSMSTT DSLIVSRSD THIS OS'INXO.H OF tHK COCiRT.
Oa J^^omary 14, 1^19, pl(*lstlff in error fll«d Ixla bill
in •'ittltsr in which h« i»ll«8«4l th«t «a ^oTomber ^, 191':, he en>
t«r«<3i Int© A Tftrbftl ag)r«sa«ent with d^f^ndant, the t«r«8 of
viixeh BT9 set forth in deti«il« ^t vhleh in subfttittiee 9«rt ikmt
oofijplainant v<mld horrow ^3,S00 fras d«sf«ndant, to b« weed \ty
defendant for the purpose of obtfslninjf th® titlo to eortiftln
prewiooo i©8cri^«<J In the bill «jf eo»pl<sint &M the d«»er»«s;
that orwplnlnant executod u trust «l«od ««nTeyi»g the jir^mi^.n
no 8«cyrity therofor; thot eontr»ry to the t«r»» of o^id
«er«<»3ent, the title to said preaiiiefl wbs taken in th« nmsm ef
Aefendient; enS thf!>t the/<«by ^e (lef«ndg]ii ^osmo a tmatee
of «»e title for eo»|»lainant*e hoB«fit,
The bili, s.» oi'lgia^lly fr©««<i, preyed that a i»»ist«r*»
Aeed under whieh d«fenrtfint tooic titl?? to the prewtses might ho
declared roll and voi«i and e oloud on ri!6«Bj)laiBant*a title, end
that the e>sm9 aiit^t hs rtfllvGrefJ up e«id e^ne«lled; that « mit '
for possession hBi?un by defeaisat in the MunieipAl C-wrt •f
ChlORgo ffi^t be enjoined nnd other relief given. By on
Mnondaent to the ^}ill ewaplainimt ofterimrds offered to i^
equity in paying any s«nie foun4 to be due from him to d«(feBd»int,
end farther prayed that nn oeeouniini; mii^Jlit he t»k«n, finding
trtiot »»s due under the tome of the traot deed, end the otfaor
tonne «und <:ondltione under ehioh it w&* given, end the defendoat
r
O k3>
:T'%:Ay'- "mi
l\f.i !;^M :MO^ •»!»-'
,.f,f.
»» r^
•2«
BhoulA l>t r««|air«d tft «xeout« nMd deliver u. vArranty 4end of titfr
pr«Al8«8 to tho cinHplrtin.'iiRt. and that ujion ita fnllurf »o to do
*wlthia thfi t.i»o fixed by this ourt,*' the »*t«it«r In ehunocry
ffiiglit be directed to do 00*
.:mf»n4stnt »ne«»r«d, d«;nying the »at«rifrl f»oto ao
allegod in tbr Vill &« ranendnd, mnd tim estupfi w^ti roferred to m.
mnisttTt who took tJa« evidenoo and f ilod o. report, to which no
execptiono wor« t&kea, »«4 whloh th» <i«oro© (entorefi withnut
objection) »pproYed, Th« r*»Gord, ifhieh io ty pr««oip«, do«« not
oontaiB the jR«^ter*» r«|»ort nor the r^videnc*, Tswt the decree
findo tht fa>ots to l>« ne followtu Alimjt January 12, 191 r*» th«
premioos in f|«ei»tioB »i»y« aoquirrd hjr ;Heiai«»«l8« HrylinuWl. On
j^-isuary l.^» i9J3, atoe end hwr hn»bs«d J»je«f exe'^tol tlieir tmot
deed ooniroying tho i^re»ii«® to Ralj^h Z. Ten»llltger, to eemtro
t>»eir noto of i?,,eoo <Siie f4v« y»aro nfter d»to. fi<?o«a!ber S2,
1915, taioy axeouteiS a further trast 4«e4 on ih« o^id pre»iee8 to
^earaol Mioon, s«<mrlng th«ir in<l»lbi«dnee8 of i^l«0OO» J^ly :^4«
1913, two ssT'sral jud|pent« i?«r« olstsiinssfJ j^^ainat th«sm in tho
Muaioipail &mr% of Chjieago, sna l'«%raary 10, 19ln, «jieoutioaa
ioauod on tho Judt^ent^ w«r« levied. -&@f©«lt w^e »«dic in tho
peyiient of the m>te9 oectired by th« ? icon trust doe^i, ond tho
@#nor9 bogMs suit to foreolooe thai o»aio« On $«^y 13, 1915, n
deeroo of o&le w&s etitorod, and tho pr««iso8 vero aold on 3ut^
i, 1915, to MiQon for |1,1CM3, and he re<3oiTo4 tho umal no. ter'o
oertifioato of ssl« thor^fer. ^ost^f Brylineki disnpp«c»TOd, niiA
his «herttabot3t» oro unknown. Agniooska Bryllnokl and the
^oKiplstinant at that tiAo rouldod 9n tho preniooo, ond eooi-
plfiinRat, ffith th« i^n»®nt of Ms scothwr Astnioaalea desired to
»c<^ir« title to the pronlsoo in lueotion* He aiade ap&liOAtioa
to the defendant for tho loan of $:^,300, and app«^red with his
attorney before a Refuting of the bo^^rd of dircrotaro of tho
defendoat eorporatioa October 7, 1913, «)Tieed the* of tho die*
■^II*^ ^r*' .%ii:
ixkMm'.
imikB.» '
• 3-
8ppesr!uie« of tlie father, and sL-^ttJcd th'^t h« ciosired to ottaia
a lofta of |3«3Q0 t9 pAy ^ff this outstandini; clAinu of Sa»a«l
Mioon and the loan of ^i!»500, wlxioh wmh then held by th« H«m«
Bank & Trust Co, M« adTlsad th« directors that h« had nad«
arrttnAementu «ith Mioon »here>y the rawster** curiificMtc held hy
Mieon oouXd 1»« o'btalnedg nad thftt« when the soain anstured ^iepteaber
9, 1915, 5* aifl,itt»r»« dee'l would fee procure i to iiisi imd title there Isy
eutablii^^hor^ in hln*
the negotiation* ^«ero ^sosnpXeted (October 5 , 191^, an4
ttate eheek ime dr^^wn \>y Vtue ofiioials of the 1«fi-nd«snt -B«oeir. tion
to the ord«ir of c<iK;i>i,ainent» ftaaorsed by iin, and r;; turned to the
treai^urer of ikne Asjoelation, »lio, in tirn, d«»livpred It to
'4'alter Jaaeiaki, t»h© mia ofi"ici»l aotiary of df;:f«ttcl«nt. Mromsmr
20* 1910, th& 'Sempii^inant signed tta «^2'e<3!;.«nt «J:ii«ih atated that
ht h»A borrovad fr^s the def^ndnnt ^,300, and in eoA»ider(it4on
thersfor pr^^isod to pay ■^,2'6 upon x^.-^turdey of c»ch ««ek vntll
a&id pftsr^entsnta dhoald ti'^fu^ that eaount* and th<s;t he ^ould ela«> pif
6 per eent interest on &«^id eoK en the firet '•*«itard«y in euoh aaA
eTery ntonth until the principal sua should >>c repaid* Ji-Jt further
aoairity for the payment he ejus'iute^ p trust d«ed of th^t date^
conreying and ^j^rrantini; the pr<>mi»ep to one Qoeroncski* This
trust deed was Uuly adknoi»l«a^ed $t.nid re>3orded*
In %h<s Bionth of -Mcetethett 1915, e<HRplsdiiant and de*
ftnd»at purehe^»«d frcm Mioon the ourtifieate of siale* and receiTtd
the SffiBse endorsed in blank by Vicon. The usiount then clniued to
be due under Hm Hiuoa fer&i^loeure mxa ^l8S57«r>o, of whioh I1057.&C'
was paid frea tke proeeeds of the l«ao, and the aiance by c<aB-
pl^nant. h\trf\t% Beoeffioer 13, 1^1!^, th«»re whu^ du& to the dome
lank d> Trust Cn,, the sua of |a411« plus intereat upon the
priaeipal note of |a900 fr^aa Jvly 15, 1913, to Deceaber 13, lOlS.
Bef eadaat pemittad d«f eult to 1m aade on this aaricase and a
ftff'f
<ifM#««
«e-i##^#-.l«l:inlt:;
is-lif «liil«;.
'.SA'-o- .,i „/.1-.»?. ■■ *<:
firjB.r^f ■<** r:-^^--.-t:!"-.
■iTiiH^
*4o
hill vfi.Es i>ul9«e!^«ntly f Hod to forecXoeo it* e^fendant fll«d
lt» Rfiemer in th« forwoloeure pro c«»f dingo; ft drcrcv of isnl*
wjts entersd therein on .Tftmiary ^» 1^1 '• i*in<iine due thf s«u«i »f
|aS44oiC and |3Ca solieitAr*0 f««» etnd ooet* oT suit, th*
presjises wer« ooI4 ua<l«r the iW cr«R on Febra^ry ?i^ 191T, to WWfttcr
♦frastlckl for $3,000 and » au-iOtwr's Cflrtificats delivered to lilm
ther«for« eptam'ber <35, 1917, he, alter, a9>»igne<l tho a&lA
c*'rtlf 1 e»t<'' to Paul 6ovrr<»nsjti, wlto oa ^'arttsry 4, Xi'lO, »ealgne4 it
t<l t)&« defendant, .'^i^st ^4* 1$13, d^fen^nnX obt&iJiei ft snAster**
deed u|>on th9 e«riifiOi»t« of s&l« to -ifssMial l^icion, Trhicli «r^ avily
»cfejo?'ledg<>^ Kjftcj r«cor<2ed,
Th« Uteres further finds that the defendant h»Si full
lnf»i».^tion wad .knowledge ef tin© pu-rjsose of the cQiBpi»ln«»t to
ufre ths Mleon foreclosuro sn » jBeans of elcarinjj up the title
te the proniseo ^nd to »stallieh thf> ss^e in hiao^lf tsutuje^t to
fht litn of t.h« truiet l^od to ir»Bl «3c>«f6n«ki; tJhat -''itilter Jj5*!eieltl
representing defendant yefeetedly fftll«d and r«fue«d to ghttj out
rjiffh aTr£n>,;9s,« ts, Qlai»injr that th«re wa« net ouffieiont roon«y in
hl« isftnds t9 pay the a»«fmnt dasj thnt tha d«fen'3isnt should have
o>t».li5«d th« «s¥»t,«'r*ii dsfjd to the pr-^aioos utt<5er the 'Mieon fore*.
ole«aro on agt^abor 9, 191*5, aa4 thot the title n^uld th«n hare
ho^a enoua'oered only hy thts tru^t d»ad to th^^ Uimt Banlc at Trust
€••{ th»t it vss the dMty of the d«fand«mt, aM. it W0<3 bound under
it* a^sro^^cnt to tilBH the title to th« prealsoe in eoaplainant*e
name, anA tho aiiti mo of isf^ndant in taking title tht-?roto in itself
give? it ths l9g,%l titl** ns trustes only for th« us* &nd hen«fit
0f cfliR|»latn«nt; th^t deftttidjsiiit shmjld have c'«plet«d the puroha««
•f th« in«Seht«dn6si5 of the Ikw« Bank & trust Co. prior to the filing
of Mitt bill of ocw^laint, and thus h»v« aared the Isr^ pr-nunt of
i^ots ftsd Oftlicitoro' fa«8 vhlch Rcenied th«r<mn<3cr; that dcrfondoat
kftd expend^^d soaiea for taxoo mb4 interest for Iribieh it is entitled
to oredit; th»t defendent i» wtlitnf,, upon repojpment of the nnoimt
■i*mmmi^mi fh
<i»9w
dua to it, to convey to tho coii^lain^nt th« titlo of tlm pre»is«a;
%}imX thn assowit du« oa ^uly ai. 1930, t« 1^3707.14; t^iiat thm mi«texlel
all«£ailo«» df tk« eeesplnlnatst * • l»iXl of o«npl«klnt, as sra9nd(»d» !»«r«
j^ret*^ c%tvl are txia*, and th»t dtfftndaai holds titia io th« pra,&ls«a
1b guest iO» for tltm compX.'kinnnt , subjoet to ih(s ^sount <3u« it« and
tbftt upoa i^«ym«»nt of Sj&id gaaoont th9 dsfemisBt should \>» dirsetad to
•x«out« and daXlYOr t«» th^^ 00!:s#Xt4aAnt £^ dtnd to th« t>re:sises to
•eouro the relea«« "by P»ul 0owranakij rals^sing tfe« trust doed to
his, "It is thOTofaro order«d« adjudged Si^ de«ro«d timt tb« c iqo
lilainant pa^ to the defend^int the aus) of #1909«14 on or 1}afo7« ^ly
S, IS SI, iogethar irith S:i interest p^x aamoi froo ^ly sa, 19S0»
tc the date of payment, toKOthar ^Itk all aionlos :psdd out l>y dafond*
ant for inaurarieo pro^iu'^s, taxas, sp&oiaj. asa«!»»manta »Qd lissproiro*
ffiOfits aft or ^ttly ^» Idl^; that Yjcpon t)io parent Iselsyg i&sdo tha da«
fe&d&nt oo«ir«y and doad'sill its tl^t In goid to e^ald pjraisia^s to iba
0(»^lai.»i'iiit ; t&at 1» default of eoj^laimswt to pa^ »«td ^ma, and In
tfce time proiridad in tbta door««, tSit eoas|»laln»$jt 'a >>il,l do stsmd
dissdised: that if the prar^daos &r« aot rodaasaad in s*eetij?d«aca ■wltli
tlila 4.^9T*%t thei eoiKpI^«>int^t fea ft^ravar ^arrod sajd foroolosad f3si»a
ftll acuity of radfl^tioa mtA cX^I-k of, 1» and to said px-miinmut «Ad
«T«ry pajrt a»d p^aroal theroof whiiU^. shall Bot h&va boon rado<9a«d.» **
^tnottgh it doaa not app^sjr %hsA tmy obj motion wakB
iita^a to t:ba daoraa ni tha ti£ia it v«a eet^srad, th^ ooisplsilns^nt haji
•asd wtt tMa writ of artor to seoura a reY«rsal, baoauaa, ha eaya,
a eoiurt should nest hs?ro daora^d that if the iiressiaas vera not ra*
Aaamad in ^oeordanoe with tha d«ora«« iim «<»9Xjalnaat ahould bo
Vwrrad and foraelosad from all oqiuity of r^da^tlon, Pls^^jlntiff in
arror oo'^anda thai tUla osoonta to a atrioi foraoloaure, i-mt'i t)mt
ia iiata of tMa i^roviaioa tha daareo 01^^04 hava i»rovida4 that if
tha aneimt du* «m net 9»iA, tha inmX aat^ta #tould ha sold in erdaqr
cs«r ;|Xe)»9A ,*aJ8lfe««iU^*i» mi' mmm <fcl»»'^% 'i^^iflt^^f' i^««?f^j
- ^ ^f^Jimm- '©sit t* #^ii&:* *wt«i!»4E%®»v. ■ t»t^M«f^-
,mm %M 1^*^ '^?s«1t «i»ja6» vm *(W^«i^* ?sf :<«f^
lit?;* »^^J^■ • ^t0^imfii ^m-t-ia ^^■■
km ^i^mmmm mm »#i^i^-»1^
%Q ?«7 the flsaount, an^bjoet to eoajplHlnant '» rl(^;ht to r«d««ss In •quity.
In ■u^pojrt ef thia eont«ntion plaintiff In «rr«03r eitiit '^\^\'ioi i v.
▼• A^,I^¥^^f,. 193 111,, S2,
th« coatentitm i« a bov«1 oae in ▼!«* of s V* pleadlni^a*
ttiM tha rrldeneft, vrhioii «»« lis h«£&'(&i^ yith the tlMioxy of th« bill
and %hm r«ll«f i>r«y«4 for, Ea «]peeifioAlly st«t«<3 In his Mil tiiat
Ka Wjaa i^ady a»d nrlllljig t^o iNkgr iiueh sums aa mi«iht be found tlua, and
doea not ncm (tesy iba% tba w.iB aa t&\mA ta be «iu« is aorraot. Tha
a«R^l^%l»%nt fllM the bill ^MSid <l«fe¥)diuit did nat fila Asy orasa-bUl
»a» aaak aff li^ativs* irall®f , th» «a^©« «lt«4 by oossi^lain-aRt t-.^ar^ly
auataiis the |>«l«t f©i» T*fei®h b* oowlaMa, In ,$1 ^,140 ^3^ v. ^tiisMSSSiMt
_MX&iM* ^^^ apinlas sr&s fiXad st tlaa Sa$!t«!S}ber t(»2m af tha iiu|kr«na
a^&rt, 1370 • In thai Oj^aa i^ bill hM baait brought to for#ola»« a
ia»rt®asa« aM it waa thare htld arr&r to daeree a starioi f93ra«Lomijn[i,
i^xa it did sat appear fhet t!i@ saartga^^ar traa lsi»olv«nt or thtti tlia
of
aeriga^ad ^j-amlaaa wer^ iHemtfiQi^nt Yalu« t« aatiaf^ the debt.
yya , tt , ^ v» feii^. B*aia» *«"* * pwra bill to r«4«a»i im& fkm ^estiaa
lUMPa ralaad vsa not la aiiy wn^ imri^lirad or diaeuaaad thora. a^jj jiiffli
▼• St^wrajlta ^t «tu^gt« ^'aa & aaae wr,©,y® a jmrty, t^lng a Aaad, ssbBoluta
aa its fi^ea but i» jr»«t aa aaaurity, baling oonvay«»4 iba tltla to a
iMra pm!%y waa bald llabla in aasue^ait te tha ^;B|,h1^i^,|^ a^ tafui^t *
la ^^yftg^Htay ▼. I^M^a* JBMSi* *^« aossplataant f ilad « biU to radaaa,
atiii tha di€sfa«ida]it fil«4 a eroaa*bill to f^raolo^e, tdm^l tha ^tf9im9 ay>*
tavad (s^ttnted rallaf undaaf botb bill ajo^ eroaa-^bill. Xt w&» thar*
l»aXd tbai slitoft roreoXoaujra wa% npnttit^d on tba oro6@*bl\l, tha rlgbt
af radat^tioM of tba 0(snplaiaB«t shoald baira bean ^tT^^utrred by tba
tieftv9<k, the aourt a^d:
:':yrrifii'i:i m^f
>Atf .*C«.i.'
iw
m.. ;mm i|o«
tl. N^.-ifi'
■^.
-?•
« ffiori^s£«i is thfti iJbd ftQni]»lftlnant !>« &X1<»««4 to raaetta the
pT9Wii»0m upon psjanent of the mm foum^ to b« <hio, i^llhln a
3reasQn%bi@ tiae to !>« fl3«.«<5 th«r«ln, toj^ethnpr vdth coetta, tmd
Aireoting th« defendant to dleeh*3rg» the saortgag* or to comrvjf
tlifi ^yepsrt^ to th^ caispXHlnant, 1? the dikf«(n.Umt haXi» a sl«ed
ln8ie«id at a faortgag* <mi 8«eurit7 &« iix« p^/^sttaut ol the; niomry,
Kck thatt is default of suoh .'pi%;^ment withlB' th« ti^e «$.a<^>clfi0a«
ihft Mil 1># dltBai»e«4,, CltSkSfi '»• fet,t,ct|>. IK'' 111,, -16^^; |
*o»» ^^J 1^^S£ ■*• iisX* Siii lA., l"^,) aiait this is not sjerely
a Mil to yiaiSt, it fe also a bill, to for««lc»»«« ";'hiX« th«
oTlglual bill of ih« i^'peXliiats 9©ek» r«d«.«^ti«nj, tb© cross*
fell! ©f th« !^p«il«« »««ii-» a i'tsreeloewr© of the !«;■.>.«?, t or *fi ^«®d,
y«gar4«d ®jb » sjoytgag^ fsr tJie 9<»e\«rlty of the title lfid«bt«dl*
Tj!i# CiBJise C!B5j« on to ba heard upon Uie ii:j«*&iia^i of tli«
final <I»«T«©, aud w»Xi*jf was gjRsatQd, net jn»r»ly «ji»«»n th^
©rlgi«s^ Mll^ 1&ut u|ioa th« oross^Mll »lao. A» th« ja-'aia
relief grajRt«il is Urn f£>rigelaeur« <j-f a ;.;9rttisfi;«» th© o^mrt,
^eloir bI:*^M ltav« or^S^yiwi a si«i.la of tJio |?ysp^iri,f , bO' ;-t8 to
l^es^it t%<$ ^^®%lm),%» te. r«4«^s ili:$ #«!£§« ira .aei>^rdit>n'0@ ■9t%h
me preYiaitias ®.f tii® sstatut®.*
» M&M*"*^^ ^ *s^«* '^'^^T9 »iXl®r hmi
1r 18#4 i8&-#is titi® to aftrtain l&j4i» ujsder u direet for««lo«ftir<i,
aatl msuQM iralu^'bl« is^roraa^^ts th«r«oi»* Seiott^ the ^ofetf^stfit.
In tbe f0r««lSiK«x« proc«®4iis8«, eat4 hoX'.'5«y «f t&a legajl titl«, a|M»
ptftareS vit^)in tkrfii« y^:a,r0, %« U3»«l«r 'dte* Qha^'iOitry «taiut« b« hsi4 «
ri^M to do, fe® h.airiag fe«eii »«r«F«ft oaly fey pttbilcatjloB, md »»•
«wr«3f«Kl th« origiisal blXX, H« rJLs® f ilad a «r€j»»»feill to ^Ixiefe
]ffilll«r wa9 aM« <l@f®siiay»t« Xh'« eoui't 4@ex^«4 th&t Soatt i«l^t
r»di««ffi ifey pm,fin^ ife« s^oiaat of tKe wortii'iag** ^«®l»t said, th« value of
the i^B^TOT^ssiiit* Q»ii^«^t«d fi^ |13,Q00« >«Ddl that in ii«fa>ult of
vedei^tion the pr«»i»«8 cO-ifmia %>« iM3»Id, rii« principal ^uejstion
Ib the &a»e iri^ whether Mill^Mr w&e «8titl«d to y«««iive 99^ for tl^
$^s^rov«eB«tjiii ^hish he h&A madm* Vh9 eentrt h&M that he iriie^ l^t
aleo hold that he h^^ no olalm en S«9it*s title to the l.^inda otlMtir
tha» tha ll&n ^f tha 2so.rt|iEage ; timt th@ court mhoulil h«t,ire aao«rr«>
taioad the Ta3.u« of t.ba XiaM i«d®p««4«ntly of the iiBj;»rov«Ji«nte,
aad If It Si.S i^t aa»««i4 the «asmu3t of tha »et«« h^M Iqr <M»n»
9lai!ri«»t« ^g^imn tmy filad thair t»ili|, than h» ehauM ka pextslttaA
,^.^,../ ..:;.W t^ /SM>^t* '•'- ■"'
^fm^ %^ SM-^f^umm.'^^'M-i.. .- ... »..
ie r«4.««n In 90 day* }>y pttyine, th* <X«bt ^ 1 „ - ,. .. :r<tis^ i^&xfts ^imd
eesis; tb&t iX th« Imad did not •^fttal In v«au« th« iscsount «f
t^« dl«bt, a d«ttrfte oi* «i>.X« would be libelees ind stitould not b«
]feE^«« On ili« oth«» h*nd. It the v*1m« of the isa^j^r^'H l&nd should
'•a»ii«d ih« S.«l?t» tJh&t a 4ft«x@^. of $aXe Hliould b« saadtt instead of
ft striat foreclosure*
Tb« MXl In tl^« in@taM 6$us# ^^698 net a.Xl«ga ibat
It i« »i>t « bill t» foy»clos«, aiid it ie uot fnssf.ed oa timt thaory,
Xnd«ed th« e«!3|>laia«'mt hsMi iso j!50*tf--,®g» to iovH&Xea9, 'i'h.e Ijlll
wa« pri:;i>arily oa« t© hssve » traat 4e®X%r«4, aM f«r le«v« %^ v*»
4mm tT<m the .Mleon f9ire>«l«»»u3ne. It aXXe^^d timt tho ao^lai r<v«in't
v«e wiXXing to T^enfm
Th© d»er«(e «J* «&!# ^'tij tb,« |>rivlX®g« t«j r<Me«i« '«y<mXd
ht Inoonsist^ist with that Qff<&r, ccmd iaeoasist^itit with i)»i: theory
©B wMeh tiie "feiXI imM %nm&h%, M-s^rism ©MMnM *hat h-is 1>1XX &Siki»d
foy, a d«OT«« In «soafe3Paity ^life lt« all«gatie»a f«td 9r«3r«r for
ir«Xief , eos^XadtiaRt w»n HLpp«a.X» ^md ajgj£8 fb^ai tM» d«»or<l^ %« rtt-*
YejPiMid* ¥« 4o not tM»lc hiu sonietitlotl <^ma M msaiain^d* In
Usa^M ^- ^LMia^lia* i^ ^^-* ^37, t^ S*^yfl^e «oi»irt in conolS«»-
l»g ft d««rs^ dx^ered on a blXX Ibr ^^i^lit to r«d««a» ffid.id:
•Whftt l8 ft jp«a«»riaJ?X« tl»3« ia which to y«deffia **■*«* r«»ift
in til® »j>und diaeretiea of the otmrt,"
Aad «NpJla in ?todm;^^ ■¥, ^mly^. 3X7 IXl,, 162, wh«T« a
jtinior asorig-agtft brcjas&t a laiXl to r«d««TO fsroa %h% fe3?«oiD»ur« of ft
s@Bl€»x- »drtga£«|, th« «oitrt eidds
"Th« tlaui In wMcn tho redftjsptiea »haXI l>« made r«»t;»
!» %h» diaoretioti of the c^mrt,"
£ttt d9f«it4imt hag E»}t ftftkM that his ttiori^smge b« lor««
mlosftd.. Oo«|»XalRaiit «X«et«!d to br.l«^ a. blXX In whlcs.^ h« aXXagad
kla -srlXlingxiftse to p«|r th« ij^l.«M«d»ft»» i»«eur«d by tl>« t^rtga^ft*
tmmA
«*.«*# r
$mm»:
«#•
i^«»9 benefit©, h« no«f »««it« r«llef lnoonal«tent idlth Ms «ff«r
t» j>«jr, H« oannot "^loiw fcat .i*«ij? oold''' at th« aasac tlBses. lie ie
net ttnttil9d t» » S«6t«» Is^yiM on tl^e 4«)ulble tlm&Tejf xh^kt he is
jWMsly B«sA willtiig; to p«y i*t»?. that Kts i9 tiat xvacS^v fwi^X 'a-llllug
t© n^.
TJis fRr«Mfl«»»wr« ©f the >«o,H«,ag« ^aven by »»Ms>la.i»i«a»
i« defttudant is iM»t iKfr@3l-HMl lis tbii^ pr«>e&edi»g« The 4««r««$ afeouM
im% tt-tmt«iii ai^ l»ng!ttai9« ts'Mfe.h w(ml4 hi*v« 4lt« «IT««it sf 4e|>riTi»g
Il^u2.d 'bm a«HSp«»4 to |>«y th« mm foua-a du« Jn » r«MMiowafelft tia«,
mtA in iMmitt tMstyeof hi© Mil sfeeyM h9 li,»deaM» l?ut his
equity #f x^4»sp^i<m s^mliJi t^t 1b« t(9ym&l&.B«4„
VpQYi %h^ original l».»swrtBi; ©I" tlai» «awt*e t..h« c<mft
9vevest e^ «oi39tru.eti»ft b«it^ pX-^mitd thmT»@n^ -wM^ih. 'i?9U%i& mmi^nt to
ft for#elc»m»:z« @f 9<»api«^ij%amt*0 equity of r9d<iKi^ti<3tt mM«r tb«
fsert|$ag«« A. petition foi" x^b.^^uriiig h^^ sonvlneQll us th&t sros
vltit iHisi i»e»4il'ias.'tioit« th« 4tfi«8<««. ffli^t stiil bo «o eox»»tru«<t
IMS *o feairs tlifti «Cf««** tilt <l<N»r9« wiil, tiiar^Kforo, b« rairerscd
SiM tJ^« s%ui»@ iro^s»»dtsdi, ^tb. dif«oti0.a@ t4$ ft»%«r a de4x<«« in
Sionfox%ii3r with %h« iri«»s e^.i*ft«t*M in tliis «i>iitiea«
'mm Mm:^' <^M^ -^a/aia^isNSt, **6*i.JScj ^ - "««^®^:«g
MW&iW'S^'^S- (M^fl .liM^ jEitiife: ^'W*** *-■
i
* \
m* ar.ivfici^ Mi^aijsxT aiMm^siii tin mxmm m m^ e<;4ji4T«
saw »«t f4*-aith in ^mt^tX^ ii«t w*^!©!';. !» ^I4^»i4m«« w^re thut <s«is*i»
pl^ilgtaiit wmkM, 'esi4rs'@» .|;?.,®«')fi fro.!® a^fs^s^Kt-^wat , %& Is* u,»«4l ^y 4«*
fk» fetllt j&a ^^jplgifc^iiy fl^ife«4, |»^Mf«4 feat .» iaa,»t#3r*»
isaiglji Ts# ^jsJoi^M 3*sifi ^*fe«y wnlt^t ,^ts»* 1*3? '&» m^^w^vmmk w %h%
('
T. ^ 4> ft
■,*isy5"
it» f»i1i«r« »<;• to m ^within %h» %m4^ ftm^ ^,/ ihi-j. coun,*
stlXe®®a in. t}jt« fell! a.» «ffi«i*4M, um %km c-m.si<» ■wais s^fsiyirt*^ ts iit
tJi« f%^«t» 10 Ij^ aft faXlmMi m&mt Smmm^^ 1«» Ml?, 4fe« |g4?«!al«««
MI'?» sHii a«4 h».t 'Mmhrn^ S%%mi wmi^j.%.^^ tit*ir %m»t ita^ ^nm^^*
|t»#*:^'0 tsfe fi'**! ;ytmy« ari.#.r 4m4* M&mAh^T «2j Itt 5.3, tut^ «««ut«4
liitf«®ilt w&® i^jrwi* ,te tfeg f>»^ai®i«i ^S tki^ &!&%^m i^miu.jmA "fey fkm Ulmem
tl^s^l^ts.r«4, asa4 hi© ^^'tm-m^mttii »r« j,tElEsi»^3i^» .it^iw^isk*. Byjll.»«kt
t&ftiWRf^r s?f^mi««4 %& pmf PhM nmm ^hitm^m »f «mm wd«* urstll
wfity *8«'fefe WKill Cb.« _pj?iB»i3^1 mm m^mM- ^« ir»i»ai4« A« furttiUft
aeemyii^ ,f»r ll§« ^»jf^!«ai tea «3»6e«utp«« « ijf«»t i®<s4 »f iJs»% 4*i«?,
mm j«44, f*»» tM ip3f««^©^» ef tfe« i#Ai-j, saaji tis« 'K%ii-im9 toy «<«»•
'BmSn & txumt «*• t]fe« n^ of §S4il, ^jIu* iatsvfeiit a^taa t:h«
^.^ tA
-^,ii^r,?.„.^l^^i^r.. ;-,;•?«
itr«di tk«r«lii e» im.ixks^jpy 9^ 1S?17» fl»*^,ing i\nit the «ua» tt i'lm^^W
ui»9» tfet o®Ft:t^l«»t'5 oir f^lt* t& ;:'ji5Msk«,i ,'4isrft»|, -^JsleJ'i waji <|u3ly
tfesa h«v«» fee#» ^^mtea^eaNi ©si^- by ti^i t;.^»fc 4i«#4 %» tfe« k««« B«ilt
ik«ir«i« t« txmU giiraa It i:k« l«#£^al iltle »» tjm«i#« «>nXy^ for
il»» lj«Kf@ &mm %^<^X^tm awwMii «!• «#*# m&. mXk^li^m* fmm
tM*** s»^^ i^i*^rt»t r©3r wfeleJv it in «i!*iti«4 to ey«4U| tJwt <!«•
•aieitnt duo «sj Jwly Si» IS-Ui/, i« ^3*J«07a4j aj«it llm isaat«ri«a f*Xl**
•«« la fsua«ii6« for tfe« ©©s^laauyiswit, mi:4mi% to iSiie Js^eMmnt tm^s It,
tttk^l th&t tt^&is 's^&jm^m ^ said «i^^imt t^ d«f«».«3%«ii @^»mld bw dl»
rect^a ie- ®j*»eut« ms^ A«il'sr«ar t© the c6J?^laili4asit a 4fe«*a. *,a itee
ismet i««€ t® >:*:te# *I4 tn lt!i«sr«l"»3r« 9r4«,r«4, ?At4iif%irf m^ dmm^A
t&at t^ «esa|»la,issa^. p^g is ik® d«ife»4*i3it th® mm ©f #3ti)t,14 on
m« e«s^1.ai«a2ji»» bill 4@ et-iiii^ dli««s£l»s-«^l timt if th« ^x^teslee*
«»^ «lal® ©f , is jmiS i» mAA firsrssii«f, .'sis4 *t«ry .i?*rt m^ p&n^mX
him mm m% %hin ^nt #f #r»«.r t« 0«*msw » .rsnrww&l, fe«m^,fe«,
»fe«ul^ ^ I»a4rr»4 asd r^r^el&»«4 fi^i sll ®t|iAity &£• rmdm^ptl^m*
FltsiMilff la «#Tftr «#is%€*j4e Um«. thl» ^sywa-t* to a stsi^t ror»»
^l#«ji3?», m^\ thai ^ Mim »f tfei» pm^itiima. lfe« d»«.r^ «3«»ild
l»W« ptmtdti^ tMa.i If tb« ttia«>^t ^b&m *s« aat p«*M, th« r«al
ao J^I.
i(i**«*'W*
t«KtJlo» stlaistlff In erres" tslta* ^'-'^I r^/UB **■» ^ ^^-ttgr ti c s ',* ^^ ll\t
111* m*
the. KiQWitmit Itin Xn a n®v»l ©»« in vl«»^ of iiie jsl/^ad-
©f %3fftn 'a 411 &j^ tfei® r^ilJ'tf prayed fos"* M«f jspeetfisal.l^ utatM
in hist fell! tfeat l» wa« 3P»ac5^ jm4 >*illia^ t«) pssjy isueto «u»« a«
Bight fe« fe^»d a««,ija4 4*>e5«f sai m»^ d®*^ that tl»«i swa »«? fy^ujisi t©
a 14 imt f41« s.«gr Ii«i0,i-»M11 mr a»ak ^Hfjaa-tiTW y<8ll«f, Tfe©
l*«sl4 «pj?a>ip fee ^.(^eiwte a «tri«?t ferae itjisus*, *f^r« li, ^iid m% a§t^*a*
w«3r« «^ iii&«ff:t0l«t!!t '<§&X'A» t« s^iislTif tSj« 4»l&t* '^'risliiy^ t. g^l^ h»
fl g^ iJI I ^^. *%«! a pup* bill t® Jp««l»as3 sm^. %h^ t'u^stlcm rja-i^-st-i hsres w^»
r«Ml« fewt ijs fsi®t a« ®«eusfttj# feijvtiag «jasiv«y»a th/« fclil^s t© a
thl»4 ^.^urtjr ^^aMi te*M llii^li» !» »k««usa|»«i% te tli« <^.t»,t^vjf4, m& .%J^Mk»
^« ^^illiil£ ^» l^,l.^i^^^^> .^yi2£l« *»« ^©t^l»liijmt fil«4 a ^Ul
*<» y^««s.* SHs4 t&» rf«f«tsi|jsa»t ftl^ ifak c3p0«a»blll t© ror«^
©lo»«g ani tM 4^^vm «m*er#d graaisia y«ltsf uM«r ts®tlj ^ill
ais& ei««a»ljill, 1% ■w&m ih.ere ht»14 ihsii «iae« rioysiel«»w.ire w»m»
••n*« erdlniiry tteftr«c s>» sa lowing; pf«rti«ij to jre«l««Ts fyciR}
R sjcit:iiige» l3 th.cu U'iii» ^'.OKr!ii>-itt-iRt be tillo^:?*?"''! to T«4««a the
9rifeai««« ui^os p»^«?nt of t}it» «uia fcf'uuij to t>« da*, witiiin &
rtHMianafeX© ti@»« i© h^ fi-Amd t.&fer«itt, t<>^«iih«jr wiUi costs, mxh
kirt^tim, ti»« ilefeudsmt t« '5taa^;i*r4i« Uj« .-•.■.» rli.a^i** t>r to a^mymy
t-hfi |l^ro|lc»•ty i« ti4® ia«J£^vXs;t.i»«»ni, if the c5«iS'«n4rm.t hfettis ** iji^^-d
ia»t«ii4 ©I" « 7mT%^&^9 iM 8««urity on tin? g«i^!a»«t of th.« Kion*y,
«M thai in i\®.f«'.-'5l*. *ts" «uc>: cj>,>.yKH»«i Tithlj': tk«i tl.;:i» »r i!i>^vif i^iS. ,
th« ©««!«»» «aisa«;- on. to b«s h^sjpd ug-ifK Ifm w^im: o^ ii^t
y«ii@f gif&j,tt»3d i» ti3<! r>or@©l«m»r« ©f a 63«r4g5;aij:«, Oia ct-*tt3ri
j^erfesit the, «ii$Tpfa.1vm5t» te r^^i««!m 4Ji« tta^s.a Ik .'i«c«s!^lsi«,«M5i; ?;fitfe
is fth® fe'X'®«i«8miNi |>*^»«s*cll«|f»,ftM &sl?t«3F &f %m. l«>gai titl«^ aj^
•w«««4 tM ©ri^iaal ^IIJ., He %l»e fli*a & €.y?,i©e*biiS. t» ssMaJj,
mxiesr wm ^'^4* 4«!f «md«ji» 3%# tj^^rl 4««»«®d. that 5S«eit ^gM
!>» tfe« «£M»« w«i» ifte«%kcr M4ll€*sr ■mm mi%li\^&. to rea^iY« iwty r«»r tfee
iasfr^Tes-ffimt^ »Mefb M« 1^4 smjis*. tS»« &<mt% 3^«l-ri thai h-* ^a«, hut
»3.»» hsl4 l*aa»t he hsiA im eX«im «m i5©ott»« fcl ti« to th© IstM*
«<4i«ap tHsa^ t-fe# l.i@» ©f tht a#3SlSff«ig«} tkat t)a« eo«aft »J«mld haiwi
»«@«3riiii«i«d tis* val«« ©I* th.® Ims'S iijvl«|i«isd«ntl^ »f tia^s igsprsir**
»«nt«» .^i»^ It it €\4 tmt «xei»«a t^» astou^t ty£ th« i^t<%» Hel4 tiy
e*»p-X^ljai^nt» vhm, ihssy fiX^-a th%lr Mil, tfedn fee a*«i«i4 ltt« -pfsT*
^(^-^ i>!tut^ fyifh»j^- -.'.r iy^i-i^^^f^- v.kmt'^t^t /Sfet '^lat i^iifrntiMi.^ ^a^/i^.iipf^ai
im,^ ^ ■■.-«. ^l- 4
^l#i«^*l*'
ttlitM t© **4»«Bi in 90 d«y» by paying the di«fct, i^pmymmntmf
flttMmat 9i' t/i^ d^Kbt, ^v (ld€r«» of «&!» vcul^'s l»« u««]i!fi«» nod AiumM
I3)i:«' MXl lia thfi ljeii!St.a;!;]i i».as« 4de» £loi sillege that
B«e«{ '---t in i^t » %iXl to l^or^iftl^^sft, i%d it ta »i.-t irr&:i#4 en tk»t
ti&e'Orjf. X.feft«#ii th« s«ai©lai]sii?mt hit* tso i^rigiiatii* to fey»e'2uj»«»
fer^ & Ae«3r«« Is ©«af©sss»ity wlili its %l.l«c:^t®as» mt^ pra^e-F fojp
r»li«f , e«H^i-a.l^i5ii »®* !*|.>^©al« .«Bit smku %'tmt tijis ^«or®t* 'fee r«-
■*• .l^|,,l| ^ ^t|j ;y 10^ III*, S3?|^ itiMf I^^Tpj-*?®* mmsuet i» wnnai^'srliig a
4«wii3P»« «8i-|.tr«4 mi * Mil 1«pa»*5ilit %& m€^m&t n^€i
*Wlmt ie » i*»?^iP©3ait%l« tisae 4a wM»ja te ]Ni£ft«Mi *■■«•*** rests
^0^ a^ilii 1» ^^» ¥. ^||||» S17 III., l«t, '^*«^ »
Ittsier s#©rtipig»9 byeiaj^t » feiXl t© ir«4»«« ?»©« the foy«el««ur« ©f ft
«.lo»®4» GmsipiMdmamt «i««t#d i© fe«lag ts> feiXX in wHA^b fes sll®g*i
lUls wiliiai^ss^ii t© i^iay iJws lr*ct©lEjt»^.n<&«» a»ou.f«d "by th« laejrt^-ag:**
iMt-Bi^^t
%'ktA d«>n«llt&0ti thai h« i» J^aS^ mud ■tiilXixiM t(» pfty* Umim, ^MmltiMA
«iiid wiliiitfii l# .|»ay mA %m% iw %» mi mMi* a»d willing its pa^sf*
%kt9 4»«i««< til® «©^li*ii»«i% i^« rewver tersris^i m^ $wmt&m4. tmm
«ll «^«»it-f ®r ret#,t3f%i<ia jm^ &i^m ^^m: j&lsi. i^5^Ei£ o.e, in %xa t©
#i^uw»»:4Ji^ «**«*»«;
Smm L, MAST 4, 4 'i^. / i'
vutrMViy^xs and ».V. i *
\
!%« d«f«»dant in arr;p», 'sfh© wsk» pl.'itntlfl' in th« iria.1,
•iir»r here. s^»jseton« wa« rwtmitsstbl^ i© ttot itpyil t«ys3[ of ceurt
mti^meja* tht dieaX*r»ti«» wfta sat flX«4 lijr th« pla-lntlff ttnttl
V<!W«s6€t efiAers«r» on .i prfjiisilsKaS'jf jaote far the »tu3 of 13,3^0 Att«
lf«T«Bi*®3p SI, iS^^Ut sitii iBt4»ir©at a^t tb@ raft® ©f ? per a«nt. p«r
asjRim ssXt^r as^urityj tfca.t plaintiff wa« the «^»n<*r ©f the »©te,
wkish wa.# toe .sM ttK^adsl, s^ #a Metesabaf **.!, 10t'/, during t>s,ak
hours* fch« aat® «^a» pr«»enfc«4 l»y pltxiiitiff to dejr«n4ant», l)ut that
it «%« iu»t &o««pie4 >^jsd was n»£ |>%id. It all0g«»i>ii %,h^% j^roi^ati
«iai dul>" »&d«» »»!$ tfiitt . i%»ktr« ai34 ni^QxnnrB given iut notie« df
lR<td«d in tlie declarailQi!, Attad^iftd t"fier«to ^&» a aopy of tb«
instruissnt stt^4 an, ^sufKt of tho recount, sittA an «ffidaTit tff th«
ag«»t for Us.* pl&intlff , settiaig iX0 th« fu^tux's ©I" tfee el«tiSi but
©a^ttisg. is St St 6! wh»t iwsBtjaat, If wijy, waji «ialK«(t1i 4© fca ^w«.
At th« trial t^XH OR K«iy 5, X9^i, %h» AetmiXt ©f do*
fem^ar-ts «■»« taken for '^^ant of a glo», smd jud^iac'Rt -9nt«»jred for
[i8d',rTa§g
4 ■ • ■ ■ 'I' 4 ■
th« ftill iss^unt of tJi« plaintiff *« eli»J^, »«so\ii3tine to the «rim
^djpiWT^t, AttiSiiftt /S, Xli<?i,tbi* woii0» was derdeA. Apf;«al w«.»
ihlc "OfTit of ©rror ira» owflid tmt,
fli« saotlon to v*c4te th.« 4«<**-;»*nt vfii» «Ufip9rt«>d l&y
certain affid|yiTi^«, *h.tern g«t -p in i»tj*b»t&n«.« tlis^t n«lth«r th«
d^fetvlaat® nor th«ijf AttojrnfsyiS h,-4d <»ny a^tici* ©f tlte ««itry of
ih« 4«f3alt aM iuag»«sit uitti^l aft^r tl»« expiration of ili« tsrtB
d«f*«9e to th© 8.ctleiK Ir ttoi tl^i«y -syrdre Jn'UTl«3u?tl ^Eid^rser* of
the Jiet« 3Sttt»^ e«, ^afl t>^at it tJ?93P«f?s3f« T»»e48Mi« oeeessairy tfcat th«
®at« »ho«l!3 tee n2r«t®ut'e4 te- tht »iik9r» at libit tte^ af aatuyit-y
aeffttidasta «>x»^l'J ¥« girftn i5©tl3« ^af 33eai»?>«.?saant,a.e iraqwi*^1 by
iisw} t>?at th<* n^t**^ ifra* m»t r>T0B«fS:'l«4 At tfeM tl^ne, nor netle«
iK^iT«» »« r#^ulyt<l 1>y Ijkv, T!s# ssffiatifit »is®0if iciallj?- 4«i5itd
tJmt def ©Mantis fe.^. «raAy»# tj^tir 3^i«]ht« In ^m way*
fR0te ^«p* alss ««t ??.5 t«»-'5f«t3' te ahgw thiit 4«f<?o4«
Sist« ha^ €®iit?l®y«^ & flra -gtf att s^rn^^yft lo ^ftf^Wv! tb^ sjwit, rh«
&.!*ii fll»4 an ^ptja3r!*i«Bi«(j timi tfee 4!**fen«« ef th« <inj.lt Wfte ^Xji«!«4
in el5arg« ef a «^'3fe«r of tMs fii^, v*© ther^atftey, ob ^^ril 3,
1021, died; tfeas* tfca <l«feni6« &>^i Ifeau b^csn iur»«4 ovfsr ic Anotli«r
«tto3m«y, wli» S'sj5t3f««#fcf«s4 tb»t fe<' wa*? e^sf loy*?^ t© a«f «5w«? itei«
««•«, R»rt anen i^jeh r€p-i«8«.ntatlo« tJr^e scatter vae tiira«4 ever to
hi», ii« bsing tli«a lufoi-aad ©f Urn faet tiiat tliis a«cl?iyatl©jrj ^f
tlisj p3.aistlff Hy4 eet yet i>«#a fllad; th*l fee failed to ril« ih<s
flea, am^ tJi«t s« ustioe va» giY«n te ief<ra<t«u(?ta ©r thfttr mi^f'-tM
sn-ler te tfee ©?4«x- ©f diefault smd ©ntry ef ^\«j!t3»«nt, ana »a
X-' ■■■' nam'' *r^'r-"-.^j-ft, ^-^J
>^ yi^f-fttf ^p|* ''li^
9q of tli« 3u-^«yior court of ^JooJt County, "rfilch la a^ ioXl^j^m
*Iio sictisn will l»« >ac&pA «r ejpdoj? ffi4*di« In, angr «»«•(
of eald ■ptri,? h?** b««n efit<*r««i, «3CiB«i3t i^^swr* t^je y.irty is
triisl c&l«n«i«tr» "
faalt and i»4^i^at aaitearatl m^r« t^an ^sad e»t©jf«^ te«lo3p« th« e«ji«
It in UjTS*^ fey 't'**« d«l"»ftdastR iim% tM trl«^l otjurl
coatentjon l« «ad« on the tfc«oary th^t ^-ilthough tk» tersi *t «'>'ileSk
lag is»4« «»si l»y 3P«isfe«on ©f tfe® pr^-vis&Wa* of etetl^ji ^ i»f tijt
i*raetl«« Mi, Oahili** IllijKiis a%atet#e, WWL, p^% S6M, iBit
4ftfeM»8t8 w«rt M!.ttil«4 to tef^ tilt e^earei-it sf fi&st dfti i*^ in tha
Xm tk« first pls««, w« thi»^ U iss i#ipas«»?it ibM
fX&l»ttff i» i^t ««tltl«4 t© el^m t&« %itt5#ifits ef tii« ^r«vl«io.tt«
®f &«@ti«A S§ ©f tife* Frsietie* Mit, CaJjlll** 11Ur«>18 Statute*,
ItSl, l^^t f$7a,«*iii^ pir9iri«l»s in m^ljat<M!ic« that U: xh^ pl&i&iiff
»f ««B«y# shsJLl fil« witis Me 4ft#l«ur»ti«a on ^tMrnit Sii^^iHg
tte« aatay« sT hie A&m^Qi$. a»i the sSBi&ujsit d»« fctn fracs il»Q dftlerKlffait,
&f%&T &J.l««ri»g to tfoe 4®f»wdaBt all bis 4tt«ti ©i«»<lit», i«->^«tl©»«
tmA tset*eff«» if any, h© ntmiX te «atltle4 t« Jttd^:j»«nt m» ia «&«•
«f di^cailt« iant«B0 tl» «i»f«n4ant, hi» agast ©jf Hi* atiomfty, sh^ll
fix* ■sdth Ms til»* ftn atf ft^SBVit •tatisii tH&t h« v®rtly btsXieTim
i«f«!idtti:it ha« «, g$Qa <l»f.?j(i^9 vip&n tli« ^«rl%ft td the v!l^l« or a.
,£^iii» BMSj J >(*>«■: lft?f.4 1/^ ^■^kX'ffim Pli «a* **<
*#^ !W# IsMl «'4|liS»
of tk ploadlKi4S» «4«iw««;:l« v, iP»Afi{ild, 87 111. S8« It le tHeaf«for«
•«»«iiilal th»t ih« )a^fidATit 0iat« tlis wMunt due, Eund th« oedsclQii
%<> ttatt maih iisousi is* va think, fatal to ths ttffi<3ttvit« '^Ithoxtt
auflh % »t«tei«««t i« tfe« affi4*vii, w« tMnk 5jX«4,fttlff wa« aol -^i**
H©"»«v«i?, tfe* ju4.^«nt oid*jr 4tB«li" jf^eitsa thai fcb«
•ubi^itttd fe*3?sifi tej the pX?iiietirf,* sad ??» thtniK, tH*i t-hi» «st.i»t«sfant
ttftej" tM tsr« kad e3ipis^«4, S^„A?rA laEil3li2£ !;&• "*'• jskj^felX Si
temiM* ^ ^3.1,, &M: i^l^ if. £m^^. e? III.. 53'?. xnit the .^-
fidaarit* l3B »u|)t^«2^ «f the ai«tloa ©«t u|^ f.r*«5t« «taeB, IMRi u»cen»
#f 4aem,,^»« ©jf tSiilB^ of ©vitttnt?** Ib %hi& i&hsmit-^ of *.« «ffi<9:Siv3t
&f mirits • asd tfcftrii ■m&m n^ &SSi^^it ^t rmT%t» here m tlie «vl ■:)«»«!«
12i0 affMurrl^ ales sin©* yi^t tla« emiiws wtts triedl -^ItJiji*
mi.% feissla^ pl:-i«<i4 as may #«l«n4»iP, sm^l t^&t tfe« trl%l ■ra« *in4 flrad tJu^
Ittdiiissftt «at&re4 GVL% of tJi« peir-jlap era*?, t54ft plalialiff did n«t
t^ tk* eoftxt ea t!s« pr^pogltiem QJf l«iW ■«1v9tH«ip these fHat.« were
•nffiftiest- io Justify «» ©y4«r «t%i»g »»1<I« tJs* Ji8rii;Bi«nt aft«y
*j5t«* »6tl®rj t^^sMi ^t#««Baft3dll3r t.iLsM on *«®ti©» air c»f tlie ?3p»«tic«
***-♦ ,MM^t "^Mer in «ufestaai«« |>r<;iriA<9B tfeat ajrytrai of f.»at &fiy
b« o»irr««t«4 '»sf ^^^ tX'liO. e«tt2-t «^ti^ th» iu«t;js«j&i taxxs oti i^ i&9ti«»
«ii]&stltu'l4Nl ffiy %}m imtam'A Xm vti% of wrv&y ASUBM JUfttlft* ^^ '^^^
*<m3ly »rr©r« ef foat, n«t ^2»i?*r»»t au«7« x:im fixm ef the
«tlt?*d in m^|8©-yi »it ife# !J8»ti#« as-a tm% sapj»i*^»sli €?» the ir«#«ri«
m$it it9 «iyi» «)«t%i»t^&rsii-ia'2^ S(ikf v#«ttlir«^ m>X %hmt plmntiS^f in I9»:t «»•
^tii«sif '6«ii54 ?!>»#«* a#««t til® tart sal «.sa.^tt!l,!»y,
is ]nrv^z'»«A mmi Urn iSiiiu#« r»»j^d.ftd»
VBz • awfts I
X
h^t^ndnnt ig ..tt^t, } 2 /^ 6 1 .A .-- 6 v.
loss J-. SAJIt/t. #. 0. VC^WVAKXa "" J t ^''
fend g. i^. P;rrHOK;tii,e«, 1 ■^^-.v.-f /
I'lftlntiffs in I'T'm?, ) * x
K'^^* Katies; MAfCKSTt lHUV!m.?f» fH« OPIJJIOS OF till' eouc^T.
ia this eiiEfi th.e dttfeadimt 4ft error, wh© -ftas pl&latiff
IwlAfr* oa M^reh 10, X921, til^d a |^r>x0eip« ttndi &a^$, out ft «rum?!:on«
against 4ef«!adan«©, who jsre ^l»iintiffe ija ^rmt li«re, rtstsirn&Wt
mn& Oft MsT«h i?, 19iU, 4«jf«tt48.i5t« fii^-l their. R,p'i?«««ron«e tey tk«ir
sttoraeyB. tb© ileelarstion w-^ei file4 1?y th«s plsiistlff in th«i
e»iie April 20, 19S1, thtm d«f<jl»rfstio» »il«g«d that on ^u|5U8t
21, If^^c, ths defsn'^feiitie hmmmtt endoresrs oa ii proRissaory not*
for «M» 8u« df |3,30Ci, dus MoT^mfe^r jtl, l«2C', vitJj s,»t«?re»t »t
Wi« rate of »«Yen gar e^at jJcr ammiis aSi^r vm^ri%f; ibiit plaia*
feank l;i»ur», thw sfttft ^*a*5 |>i?«»ent«fi^ fey i*l»lntii*f i« d«?f»n<l*»Bt«,
teut th-jX it «■ S5 '£S*>t &e<?«f|it««J, wja© n«»t pai4, wid ther^uimn duly
prt»t«ste.:t, jaad th« ifcaJs«ra Jind t^# wn4«raer© *jiv«i» due no tied
<sf its noB'S^ay^snt*
Ja oth-sr counte it i»«iS Hll«gc^ ti&Rt <S(Bf«ndftat« v«lv«d
piif«£«8tsi«Bt Qf t^« fi«%9. l;ii»e ermnto in, all were inoludsd in t>«
d«8l^r^tiott smA tli«r« were «iLtt.ach«d tlt«re1«6 » «o|)>' of th« z%&Vsm«in%
«j»d ®s aistl ^f ih« »ec«ui3t, Httd aa Bf.rtd»vii of lh« i8g»at for tfe«
plfeistiff, ^t tii« •sffliSa-rit di4 n«t state ^at sft^unt, if &nf^
w«a da«, an isay 5th, thereafter, it »»« ordiir»<l th.«>t th« d??ffkUit
of the d&ttn&nmi» shovild b« ti»,ia(» f o p want »f a j^lco, *^«r«f«Pt
tit« plaintiff dugfet t© toaive and roeover af and freia tJst ■-i^-fead»nXM
^mn
f% «"
T fS.
did -*5.'^'
sn-miMi 4^i»#*«»'. rmm^'
-2-
r«?f«irenee is ht\4 %o th» court to ii^.'-ieietR \h« plAlntirf'ei dum^ftt*
ttei>'«iB; rmd th« cmrt «««■ htfr*. after h««.rlii|E JB.li th«? si'iiriBrotlons
sJiiS pT'^rtt^ evilaalttcfi bor«in toy ttei! |»Iaiinilff* ¥i.m haine fully
the i!i«f ©nclante t& il5,« wwiB of thy«i< th'niffaodi iijjret hundred twi
<4i»lli&r» *in<J fftur eaattt.'* ^tw-agg^fettt w&s ther«u|;on «nt«r»d ft»r
Xh&\ tmtxunt*
n«tio8 t«s ir&amte this judgM^ttt, wiiicjs Bsoit«B #n j^gniet 6, iO:'l,
»«» df«r»3mX«a ^y th* e»tt,rt. Apr-*?!*! Wf^:^ prsfy<sd mn4 »ilo-«fed, Init
©PSMsFtsatly not perf«f5te<J, a»4. ih»r«faft«r, tMs isrlt ©f «rror '»»b
sttwd «ttt. tliar Kotioa t« taoati; ttt.« ^ittdgiBeat *»»« «up?«rte4 by
e«yt«ia ^sf f idairl t« »i;icH ^#.^«f ife«»i£tu « |*a3rt ef ttoe roeftrisl fey bill
>i&f»ndmnt& a^r tMiP *t.tt©rttey« hf..d ^ny »dti®e of the ft-ntfy »f ttot
iefattit .%nti ,i«cig®®Btii WHtll «fK(e«utie« '^ii^d taieen dat under «siid
$i^4^iyti%l "ihrn-ii VhA^ haY« » sscfit^fi^u* O-fefeaa.*,? t© tht **@t4«tt at tht
.^lAintiff , ia tfe^.i lh5jy &rs; istUvi^w&l *a4«ri»«r» of tJi® not© ««e4
«tt, ana %hfil It therefore &iif!«i«n»«? neetsssary t3ai?>t tJw net# iBiteoaM \j«
fytiicttt&d *.« tk« isaJfesrs >*t tbs© U&«t ef saaSurity sa4 mt ths pla««
«ii«5r« the ss«ee r^-e isad® f»y«bi«, Rnt* th^t %h<s- 4ef«n<tsiRte ehouid !>•
glire» »fttitre ats r«<pir«4 by Xs.w raf a»n«^a3mi©nt; th».t neitta^r th«s«
tSj.ii^a aor any «n© »f thiea ■»?iiB 4one, aad th^t 4,tf»B{!@i»ie hadi wt
It la fBi'ifesr a«4« td »pi»eaT by on» «f the «ffi<S«ivlis«
tfe^-t a f 4ri» «r ^ttora«y® s»?s,8 esployisd to deftafl tfee ota»a«, and fllod
it® »i>|j«4tr«m««i that tbt J6fett.«r wf-:i» placed in cbferge of one ef th«
fli«sBsl>«y«j df Vnii firm, who ^iisA th»r«efter nn r-.|?ril 5, 1921, end
tfe^rs after auotJicr .:'-tiorney Hpp^nr^d a,t tihelr of floe and »t»t«id
tiJwt ]s« *f:.s eali3Mjri8«4 by tba 4Mf@n4^%nt» to h«a«ll« tfe« m»tter, Kn4
%h>'\% u^n thia r«pr®c«n^tion i* ^-^.s* ttt?n©<i «y?»r to hlas; t*b«t h«
(tMii attorney) WfAa aoiified th^t<t tise «ppesrftne« of thm defrnmimt^
:..»«! «»«■;
«sfes 'i*» jwaul 1(*^ ^'••
i ;
h«)i4 i»«<«a fii64, iKii thsiit ins d«ci^rdiiaA oi' ibe t>]i«i.intiff hiMi not
j^'t iMi<^}s TiXtidii i,hm% la» i'tt*ilmi to f ii« tha piAnt. of th« i«f«inaAiii»
t'^ t^- dtaclmf««,%ik6j»i thitt ao notioo mi^ £iv«ii the {i!«3f«n4i<?^«[te or th«ir
«i£i^»iit« pjTjkor 'i« tlitt 9^^ir 91 a«fi^ult ii^na ^atey of ,1u ^i^^t nt Haa »o
i!ho |U{I(^«»% i^ae «i'iier«4, 8i» r/viaeao# in b«hci»Xf of 1:fa« lilis^liitiff
la tho «.m:«« 'w%d effe''re4» Tha 'i«»f<itn4Hjits» is.lso«,upon Xh& hM'Ting,
"S'lsj asaiian wiii W inward or or-w-fer asjid® %n any «5»i«o.,
iritiiout aoti«j» t© Us.* 9i> .aeite |***rty» wSsere tii« fis,p|3er>r.*iiMio
fc>efissai«iQtfi. furtiiei' aff^frwii is sfeoiB' the ^iifjauit mad jfwtisi&eut entei?«jd
OKI U^f ^, XW^l, '^sim %mkmt um^ ^ntdrc^a before tho eaii^o wm(& r««i,«^A
h&v%^ lar«te j^l«o#4 oa %^«( tr&aX 0«l,«»«l%r«
fell* ca^rt «pr*4 ta i^sjfiisf.iisg t«> aet aaiclo Ws« 4ua^«»t ef ti**- tfcio t©«m
*>t *fei«l5. it 3f5ii» «Ktt«rfe'6 b,«i «rjs|»tsma, Tis®»i» it wiii 1»e uaae-eesttary
to «j©'a6tii«r# «i6 tfe« «3?4t of error brian® ^^ **»* «tooi*f r^fctarci, Mni
EsJtee it i>«>«aifel6 '£« rslse tia« «ftt«9tiOB T^hetisier the Jut^eat itss»«if
iis fr«« i'naB «*.¥■»)?» ;/« tJiiais it ie aot. tecti*^ E>8 of t3*e ^TAotio*
i^«t, '^^^^khili*is Hi. \>tiit«t«o« 1^2Xt p, g^td, |iroviii«!9 ifi »»l»otaa«»
th&t if tfe« j^l&iiitiff a|ton i-ijay sruit «^oa » «ontirf;et» ^xp-if«e« off
i«B^iia4, fey yio -mjafeoct of jB®nejr» aiiftil f il« witii Sii» ^stftijrjrsfctiOtt
j*a :.^f fi4&vtt »ijewiiftg tiw imtare of >ii» sieiaftad »ad the smettaPl 4»« Jai»
fro^ tii» ■i»f«a4jiat, after faievwing ii^s th.^ df^feadi^4it aXl hi» ^ttst
arojlit^, dKelaetioaa un^ e^t-effs, if ^jtiy, h« ahmXl %wi feuti tied tO
4lts^ig!®«»t. ii» is «^230 «»* 4^f»ialt, uwkiois* %m d«f»a4«ijit or bie Agoat
Of %tt<»r««jy, SiMill ^iie ^ith fel# pi«», sa affidavit etfttlag t&a.t
li«i vftt*4l^ !*s»li.v/ir«vi a«l*«tt«J«(Kt Ji&s «. gia«Nd i(sf«»«* to oaia outt upon
.fe««|ia;Ja5 ?ff^f-\
»*i^-.;
^iij^**?^-'^
arr:
%iyi-.««i;i»^«(f||ll »l«l
«!«4^«^..
• iVi'i.V.
.i4^?ji;
• 4-
th« merits, io th® wJkiIb or « portion of ti» plaintitC^s d^msvnfl,
4&tO.
AH w« uatleretftiid the law it srva th» |mr^i>«! »f tlw
L«f48lnftty«. in eiiMStiag thio at*\ttti« to «xf«<3lt« tM txny^ing ©f
nay cwwe i*^ «Ul<s!l!i there ■*»« no »ub»t&n-s,iel d«f«aft«, wud t» ji^twit
tSta fe»£}o«»*5»ftBt ©f cia««kU«» in sjacU b»s««i »4th<3«t tisJtlnp evid'^irta*.
th» tfsff J'li'.»lt re-^ilred -s-ivs suV'Sti tutW'l for- iM fvvidf^.c« w i <U5
otherwise It w^uld haiNB t»*>a m*ntB'.ciry to take, thifi ffl'ltJnTit,
it h'-.& b«&^» h*iid, 1» ia t.nt nature of & pleaain^.. SreEengte t,
JlroBfiftla . 3? ill, ;sa, it i» €®8©sti4a t*i^«t th© wfridftvit sha.li
«tRt« Ih^ Rts'-jiiBt !isi», ASd tiJ© o«.ia*ji9ii t* *»tste uacte «u» a,wi?,mt
is, •»-»* tkiak, fatal t« th^e affi^sTit. '•flthsut eweh «!str*t®®ent in
ilie ^jt'/i'^uvlt, 9N? tiilniE ^laiatiff wss aat «iktitl@4 t« tlsk» ^mjftt«
of tii^ ^t£i^t!i<', unsl t^r-^rit^gea enr.,'ld ii«tt ls« &8i>stf;st34s4 Ia tli<^ e)»s«B9tt
a-l' Bu«fc &n afri'i^iafit withr*ut tfiJilRg evidensw, fead thi® f»vi4<Bite«
0^.14 aot fee t»jff.en at »ay tl®« othej" than on tlAv? risgal^^r ewll of
Ui® €!aas« <?.n th« oalen4«r (ifJ^iie, --m her*, -sisl'satie.nt*^ a^'f-ic^raBae
»«-i* oa file) without «?>tioe, asts r^s^f^jirei '^y th^ rul# ef c^-irt*
fh9 enurt, tJter^forc* «fr«d in hsftrinn ^Jite ccur^t; without noUee
»&d in sBtorisg ,fucigiB«iBt ^itli'^ut «vidsne©« >or the@« r«"r4is?»na
the ,1tt«S|^tiit win ^ r«,i?V0r«e4 stad th« csas* rewt^a^ted.
simfim 0^ ^<^'
■:M'i*ft*q r. ■*?« tlt.ffw ■ »lf<^
,tf nkkit
"9
■*.t*
f»uaft«i««
304 » ^7163.
TMMiS B0lt2»,
\ > 2^6l,Ae636
\ ) /' or micmQ,
IfATIO
go:
ft Coypcra-tloft,
•.*'
ii5t,, *1p3Tiei MiifClSW ISgX.I"r/?a2?'23 «»> CiFIMOll OF Tli^t- eo^jEt,
B;;f tli40 ?5i;?i>«»l the 4ef«iKlafit «e-eii:a t© r«!V«r«M» st j»4.-;:Pi<jHl
f©r ili« iNam ^f $S,1^ 'r>sBt»ir«><i in if swot of Uta |».l5ilnUff ikj<?si the
|tl*tRtlff ag<ui»ii»t tim l^ag of sin fmt®i«0%ll« h^ th«il"t uy rob'fcery.
ii©ti«ii .QM^ pT9^f s>f iQRiis Is inmiffi'&imnt. t© ttt^ttaln tljfi .fla-Jliftg
«f til® ©0t*rt ar4 ^Mt 4n««ffi«il«fit to mx&XtjiXxi tiie SBa»ut»t &f 4^^^&gMtm
not, anl: esEeeptiTie !a«© t-J?** 1»yfm^^rtll oo?TT®ralftP or p^crRtiou >^r a
mortgagoi^ pr 7.e.ndee ia possession under mortgage, conditional sale
R^
als~8 IjBnolJxbnoo ,aaBBv>'i-on isjbnt) neiaaseaoq ut ssiu^v ic Togfrs.f'X'jra
or -jjilferag^e of teals ©r y«|j*lT •sniitmesit'"- • ■*•*
Th« i.«fen?lm«»t »«y« ihM the ,»l.!»lniiff fjiilwd to 'proT«
tiPiveta-3 fee la^etiiaM'y kifs, &tH| «p©Q if i««» tfe»t tii^ paeoai' iffa« d«f lolwnt
in t&iki It fa,il*d i« «i@t&l;)Xifth tfed.* tSve 5mt<aBW3'fc'il« i*a» stolen l»y
»t>s«^3ftR etboy than ;^rra€>?5« Itit Viwi ljs«».ir»d*« Jii(9u®»h«il4 at in his
«m^t&j» Flats tiff ways tkai tM pw&&f ^^ff^rftd ©ams^'-fc I** I'^eM to
«»i-%i41«te that «»t«:riaJl fiMSt, «at«€|>ti ¥y fei3.8i»g & pre»uejpti£,>« ut^a ».
j>rfc«ua^t i®», uriiiar. ia wBt -^tnp^v |>w>rf , siting ^jl.«t , tj ,t^ .aa£iJ^,aal IM*
"f* 'in.KkiiM» i«^ i^-i»t sss; .^.f^iai ^« isMiMt^i* 3a4 sii,, gas.
{m% «Meii tis^ i% was «l&te*dl tis« ?i53at-,>,'aQlsii,^ '^jsyB jital«tii) lt,« •»»« oi>»
«faiogii4 #t &i<OTit ftigM tVsirfcjr ^mA mh^ut hsiXf ifen ko-ui: ®.rt«-jm^«
i©«lt*€ ^ttt tHlf<«t^ tfee «ia,t d©»J! «tii4 «&* tl3«ii ItM <i0^T '*8Me g«?»«:
ga.rag«r |j^ «ritieii few kts^t .feiif^ eairj tkm. h© the-aglit ac^m^a^sMy sslfht
hm*^ %mk%n it «6 a Jfk^*! iJmt lie tJb««i «».ll,tA »4p t&«5 WiaT-t-» fev«si»«
kst4 tlst l;:e>'0 «»ir tjfe« ©s^r; that •*»» da* h^^ sm0««» *» ft ir^ ssy fe-s^lcy,
ffciat tlfe* esfcjp wa.« ai^t iait.ta I'f^it tfca* Sft'*«J¥ wl^ i«|r o^a»«r* ©r p***-
i^.M S)iDrm&- «ueS -^J^:^ i^"
lk&% tliD« ^i»8» nmrk« irsMi Kili«%4eKl«ll^ but th».% ,'illi«b«^cll Ma not
^?« ii»j' Jktej'ai to th« su«to^9ii»bll« «r to th« l<*ek, Cn WMdlrfct ?:««
aaaiAi^tion tee sagni ife«it Hiltftb«d«ll tf»« erse c:^ feh«» li«iy» ths%t *fork«4
f»r kiss. i» hJLi$ ««wloyB{ th&l h<? was ijot hi?? i^KawffsNti*; thfj-i ht> *3f*;.«A
t&«JW» a* » s:mli«3r s»t>1i ^^kS v.-ot paid t© driT* tJa* <;^Arj t.Hst on th«
auS 1^1 fe« w&® ill thi* «alf><»«i 4usli^ ttee itee »■)•.««« pL.^tintlff iia,ls8»j<!
Ui« e*ir. FlsdKttff &l.ea is»l-1 that h« Ismail 37 ^esploye* ^or.^.l«^. for
kfaet Is tt:i.# »43l0@fi 'mS the &s^nTit% ^l&fe w«« £ili«i»die^ im 0mm%9i^%J»n
•ttk it{ thM ibe feBs©graa oa tM ear «?«» asit V» m,,, sjtst 5% t, ; feiialj
vmm »i^.^r wMete fee ran tlm trnke^n «f»d ssftss^ty^l; y.i&t Kiii«%>#(tfii
va«fe##. it a,tiel el)S«ysM it maA Uufsik ««qp« ®f i* l^ fefe® g.surjig#, r*s^ lbe»
»id«3 asM wr,ra«*i ijt ike «^'e«apet,
fek*i 8US «£ia|ji&3r« ».'^«id Hiraej!! KsigM J(i^t« wiM»n in Ml» .wuiiS'seellft
««®«tisa««,fe«t hm did n»i fe*iT« sasythtwg t« .is ss;iUi itj ttt*t plaias*
1m4 ia»t ««*» &iis A©*^ ^ j«s8fcr'i-a«s4 » 'iB»j&if tr .ad.r«, ajBst hM not »ent
f^t» evid«t»©« ^ pl,*i®tiff i» m-% e©atr^l«t«<i in un^y wgiy* i^Ma
iHx Isii^ Mis. m* ▼• ^M Sii^^jsa: iim- S&* • i^-^ '•^» «'. i^\ -^a aay*
IMe e^id«ri«« iz iasu*- f la4-4at ta ©aataiis tlif tiMiiti, th«.i tfe* aa*
t©a«Vlle WAS -«4el^« TSj? 6CJi»» afwg r.et ia the ^tspioj^-vrt^ ?5tv. ., of
p\i&im%iff* ^»-*- wi» tl^S-t* ( ei««a«!94««j ths* tit* »irid«)Bfi^» h»jr« 4» wr^t
«ite4) ipi lifjpd.ljr SFustf?ite« tJi« jjoistt .«!«^ft.. In tUat «ma« tl^esr* w«t
it.
<««& •^^igi' -t#:' »#««?.» 1^ 46 ««( -JN^jfiwi i^'^
6 triml l&y inry t-m.'-t titi« so»rt l»aijmcie-4 th« jury to lino f»r
tk« ^liiiistiff «» iwi4«?ifi» ««m««i|»«t «teiaw to Uv.ut which th«
Iwfy* wM«te wd.^i% fc.'We f<maA ^tli^y for ©y ■.s^jai.iiait th® plsdn*
tiff. In ib,« iKstMst «!fi«l« lh« riTsalng »-.f m® amrt take* thm
t^jiiak w« &fm m fiM, ii©i? tkict tl»e f rs^cif that tfc« «Mt««a©'bll«
was t%ai|.«a ^y ®'S®« aee et.h®r tfear? ^l^iatifr*® ®rsiple3r« 3«i©t»
t© yws'fferjf, «3i« «¥li«tia« ®*j0-»« Uiat ©a S«ft8!j\&#r 9%h thm ^»
f««i!l«t5t wrote U fl,^iaiiff eiaiini; tks^i it %imUm4. » imp^tX of
%mta tHeft fcisusH, wM«fe it mkm& Mm. U fill m% ^IVx tm
%tmat aM »»-.*« t@ it »» thu M>%fe 4i^' sif s«Ft«6^MSf, ISJM* «mb«I
•%49it«ti«5», Wfe tJsJuk ilsufe r^ifthey proofs is>f X&»m nn^m timnt^
A« te the «^nt-®»ti©a %h^t %h€t pt&q£ Mil fm% mk^lsdn
^a» Si^?iuii ©f 4;8gs.s@*i«, it »»«R-'iffl ttoat tlit f»ll^iy in fw«;stl9« s.p««
«ifts.«iiJ,y »i«*t«» tla»t iJj« a^-3r«e4 iraltt* ©t thm mtnmhlXa is
Ig^i^JS. A poU«s^ wS,t.h tfe* »«# iprai?i»l.a« w»» tsn»tn«4 ¥y t*ii»
»«>f^-j- i««^* ^!^ 1*^ t?" ''"^ '■^ f
■' -'r» M# J&fi»« .
tisss;t^
ito^awi 8t-=i8.t,i&^, Urn emrt 4iA wmt «rr In afetfc-ti0i»s«'«i of dcBfte-tg«j»,
, F, 3,, afid mrv^x", -J,, iion«mir.
.«v;:» ,,
^
./
m^ mmim^'%A3t&^mt MLivia^> wm. Qnmot m rm amm^
ffeis Is an a^^jseevl fey tli« i»f Qn-iiaust i^«l©ir frsws a
i» f-5iv<»x of t*i-@ pi?*! stiff Ar. th® «s«ii of I'^.SOO, «Bi<^'r«d
ttp«n th* Tisr^iet of & |««^* ta«ttan» f©r a r©w triaX f*®*? tp arrest
%hm first mmi% pla^isitiff sa.l<i^0» tMifct ©» ^j^»t Xl, 191'!;?, *%*
th« «©«»ty i^©y«a§i4,* tli« 4«l'®Ji4A8t was indi,©fct«d t© tia* plnln-
tiff ta tfe# ft^K «rf |g,g0O fay saen^y ye«eiY«4 fei? ^iiiil t0 %,fe» <&»•
of tb,«. ijlaisitlff aa*t ®t, kla i'»«f^ff'»t, and, tl»*t 'te«4jas *9 i«d«fet®<l
iJt* il»f«jad«yst pi^mi«j«4 t« gsaj nimm. i^qa^jstta, wfeieh fe# *i.i&« irefu»»a
to 4.©, tfei« »«eoa4 ea-ttisit «li«gM timt «fct tl?,e eaaa* tlis© ssiiuJ t.I.5s««
tfe.« <}«feis<agi«t WAii iiadftfetai f^r ih«s 9mm flgao*int# fsi" mtmw^ l<mt
asa*a ftii-'faa«^ et hi« r«';m«»t, 'm>i that, ^©issg therit ln4«¥t«4, to*
f3r©Kl««4 tfit pa^. Ib Vm I'hiwA ©dttst it 4® ailf«g«4 tli^t ®tt ite.«
»«ae ii»« ^js^ tlae« f,te« tlelntiff ^aM m$A. 8ttlvi*«ie«Ma t© tKe de«
f«Kdaet, at hi 8 y«i?|uese, t^« »i» »f #S,SO€;, vhleh tfee defendant
»gi««d ts x«^ai;|r: ^nafftrth^t***, il«f«n4*at, not ragayding fe.l» «^4
»«-v^yftJ. i»'V€eiie«e, tout e»atriTla« t« 4«(|«4t» jsmd iafarmi^ th» ^^lala-
tiff ia, tM« |j«B:fe.alf , hsw ^t ^id«l tli-» i«dld mj^ »f sjon^y with i.»»
t«ar©8t tli«iN»9iii, ©r aay pai?t tJi«3P«of,fc© tfe« pX&ii3tifs\ Imt I4ja«
wJjftlly B»fgX(6et«4 «nA x>»^fu«#4 sad »tlil d««» «i^©«t «i«^ refuse «e
i© lift, t® the <*as8-ug« ef tto« i^lHlmUff lia tfe« ataa ©f |S,5Q0,, said
th(»i*«f«l'« M bfinisa M» wiit.*
w.-\ i^
■r V'-. ]!?(■• ■p"T>'&n
■!.^. '*'"■: 'i' 'a* ■"* ■' '
trusBrisle'
-ffl^Hiii' t#
■A
tiff wlsi«h allsifffls tfcjEkt l>3i«r« is 4u«i ta Vila, <&ft«r i%13.o»fi«t5 ttll
de^uciionit %iu1 9ff««ts, th<» ctiK of |i3,554«3.d« To t' Is d»eiaraiion
th@ d@f«Rdaigii f ll«d 9, plea of tio$i»as«ys|»0ii !SinS. m^ j^iffldarit stt^tiitg
that bi« d«f«M»« wiw, •I'h&t tfe« plaintiff <ii4 »ot l«aa 3^1^ iitett®:^ to
tilts aftfertid'SiJRt, <9JSd iJ^ai tl4« 4*f«r>4,'5MSt .lid «©t »t WQT tJ;a« re-
««iv« a«y sB^ney "feielaKgisg t© or for tii«s ksb of th« jsil*&i»tlft,**
ti* e^sBw the foXioalBg faet*: tli® ijlaiatlff' In ?<iiSk^ jand Au^guat,
f©r t3a« Xillnala StiMil iii^^spsm^, alii;«agto at that s>;^rtleu.laj? tiim
had b«*!a ia tM^ eoauBta?^ »fe«a^ six jrsiSjrs, sasd stt %hi» ti«i« <l«eirt»4
ie 3f«iiiijm t« his tisti"?e ©©tintipy, -^sl^oJi U^ thi^n fratssad ii»d©r tfe«
f«Rtrs-?i ©I" tto« a©s?yl>lic of FolMid, th% rle,f«,vv'J-smt, Bjps^li^rsk^r^ WMl
m ^Tt!k»T «an«Siiotli^ a 'feu8lyi«9« nt lo. 3.^:,' K^ith '®«11,« uti-fiftt In
Slsiciig«, sjidi fe«S4 ll«M»nse» »& t© d© fr^kssj tj*» O'lxit^. 0tat©» ««'*«irtwseat
®ji4 fh# 0ity ©f ilb.i«®^» E« $t^m$:B te he?® ©a»yiM $» at l®&«t <&
part »f M-« Imsinsss at I®, ISC; l^nyb w«ix» atspeet uie^l»r tJi© ftaa**
ftf *?ht.»BlaR Aatfieaai, Ba»»««,«* m th» nm^e pl^me ir»ft tJwi tsain af»
fl«» of n, prlvsis l&aijjt «©}s4wet«4. "by tJa uudiay the hsj^ki «.f tli«
ia f©y«lipa «s»)ia«g»., nni in €Eon»eati»n irttu tJiM b««i»«a» «ag35.»/«4
^ay 8^ 111©, plaiaatiff ««tst t.^ th«offi«« -.t 'Stella
«tl««t f&ip tkm ^,jr5^©6« of 9«oari8£ a passtssert, ?4«(i ui that tla?e h«
l^adt t© tJMi d«f«i^a«t t2k,0Cj, for iFtii^s^a^ a©f «sia<ii»3Eit g««r« fela a r»*
•«ift, "^oount ©f d^»«lt f«jr t3r»tiJ(|!ortatioii to Folatid,** Hm^^
"^teftlaa Aasyleaai :^ir«a(tt, ;t. Bratslsssfaicy, per T, '«,» Mh^ 34, 1919,
■m hM,1:
ftsMMlimh e-,-.
Im iim ».ii# 'iMm^'
^"lt:^i;.i ,tJ:-*&fej
■j!&mm'''&im
m
am »s $mt k^Mt ■imk^m'^im mM^
?t^;£.v.^ av-tiii
■ -^Clk**l 4^*^ *«W*rf 4V. ii.g««>U
' «1 $sii<mM »-M»W ii!s(M«M ,^li|' „ i*'>"" s
W.f#«tW:*s^-i4MMI'S*#«*i#^'<^# f»«Wt ^.i
s» , * iii
:.vlr;^«^*' *»*.-
,«*
*:t^,!^.'-;;*f:.^^^ s'l«irii»ri!!vV #^0
#..
titti ttii«» v»X^ la.OC»« fox- «hl«h im ir«o«iv«di a r«eeipt stating ih«t
It vas for *@«9'^mifii of afridaTlis and ia«aUfl&t&tl<m proof. ** thl*
r«eetpt also -watt slt^zwd *Ku»«laii As^t^rioAet Bar««tt» .'. Brskdl-^iWttky,
]^«r T* w,** ftisd wu» stt^j^Mtd ''ftuseloa Ameri«rs»i }dwre«u, jhM'^^.*
te tlm Qmnm&Xtit* 0«.««»s»X »f tJ,i« Keimtlle ©f FoXairaS at l^crw Vo-k
f©r a 5s«»iJori» and this 8^s|»lio»tS.»ii in att«aft«d %3^ the d«f9n-d%«t,
with ^l!9«a>a J««as«r,aj| •witR«»^«», and jms^^jytss to t»« a8it«towi«<lg«d
lstf©y« iJ®pfei« Wjr8««JHma3aBk, a n&tfixy pubit®, wis© w«u» insri In th«
tb« ^»«^)i\^ert.
Fi^iutltf Irad «i» d«|j«alt wiir- tS's* M^m-^f lelswii Trw«t
he tee-tifiet, at th* 3P«q»^«t rtt th« ^litf^sstafit, aufei &e it auaLeiitt**!,
ii»S « •tMsh|fir*» ok^tlt: «£M) t.b«r9 ^imn m^^^innt hie 9t«e<ntnt» pay«3i»l«
to %im aedtiv ef Sfs^ftla^-'fldi^ & ^d^an^, fi^r the su!!^« of $2«500« &.r^
ikis €:he'@k -wnM d«llY9re4 to B7i:i,sla(«aliq|t <!!> 60 », "»>«« e2i:'>6ix-«£>d th« ««»
to %hM drd«jr el tl^ 0«iKtii»@Bt«iX &. §«r^<@re.tgi lati4i»«tl B^^nk, nj^
tb« ««n« ira« i»ai4 Ts^ t]b,«i -^^tonij^ l@l«!ir^ lank 0x1 Ajt^utut i3„ MI^S. Cm
i3gm mum &ai« ^«f@:iNtaat ^«Xiir«rM t'S pl^^.i^tifl' 1»9ok ^J0». ;'M>3Q,
jn^pttm tl»« 'bss^^k 9f i»Mc!lbi spp«iar» %im fri^t«Ba.0fiti, **i^6»iaii Ba^ in
0hie«£«», &T9mXtmi^s^ ^ €g,, Basateirt, Main -Qffido l€iC^ ^'orth Wdlla
StT««i. Bram«fe 1^@ W«9t 12tb artr^st, CBileago, IlliweolB." 0» tJi»
ifmwv p^i» i% i^be fslX^ving; '{^xisttiim (ShsMaj Book S03i9, £F;4i,»«
X9»9^ <& a«.« ®»j;{^#X'«. All our <l«^»0'J8it« ar« xisaAfi sn^]j;)«»«t to %h9
ite^«t lltJ4,iSl0* mlslaa— '— ■ — —Ifl.eoo IS, ice, «
tt{M»B tli< trlai ef tii« ««Hie««
i^:^.w.
ht ,?"l'.l? ,
f«i)iii«at sMd h« «cmld g:«t it mayt^ in a eQ«i|!>X«' of tlAyta <!ijr at ooupl«i
«»n«y c^^i \ap.* ■s*iaiBtlf.3f t6«tiirt«», *I aid not h)*v« a^i^ idea
tti all oliiiut ©h»ngl»s tlii» Kson«y Ibefa** tlmt tira®. Be bi^ught uf»
I sai4» *l g.«t ao riO*i«y i^itb ik«, I eanmit eJwij^** it» * 1 told him
»y 3^»9y wasfli is the stony ItlaM Tys^at «i S&Yirigs l^aaJt* Jl*! »at^,
•I will «e«4 ssy i««» alamg will* ycm t© the l>sajlc imA j&a «®ffli« back
iriih Mm, • Me mint & msat with ®e t& agf .b«tM»e %(» jg;«t asy «h«ok
fee** sa4 I tosk a oh8«le ©at of tk© INsok.**^* ffe^tt i» isll th» c»ia*
v«r««ili»B 1 fe-»(l witJi Ms-, ^Tnji^%>^&k^ at that- tijs®,* ]e»X^@^int if f
sta^y K^ t©<&k it feloiigi tijat Ke» ^laistlff » tkea w«j»t with Ma to
«ky est hi« Qffi4® ai iimt iisssi; %h,&% aft»y a oo'saplt ©f s«aBih« h«
tm^Vk w«nt id »e« gjlMml tM l»«s$peri, tsua -t^^s tola th%t li h&d ust
3«Mfc o^MS«| tliat k« ^913:14 imre. to wiiii « y<?aff ^MfsT* ke «.ttul^ g«t
it J xhmi hm %li9n tmUeA al>0tti Xlm m&msy mM saM, "th® 3aon«y ie n«
»i^t, tfc« ie6»»y 'Will 1H> all j^^t aft«r a ©oupls ©f yeaar*,*
FlaiaUff fifey* tbat J».« a^ala v©nt t© sli«f #Bd&fet mjftoir
* e«m|>l« sf si^titfe* .wRi mki^>S. Ma abemt tfes fi«»sportj t2i«t ^«f<»n4ajjt
•Aid he 4i^ Wit g«t it, ami ipliiintijfl' »ay» that h.« a^ain told i-'la
ii%»«t tfee SKjjsey, that %h« immty t^ae m> t^c^l feeoaua* "the m»9imn
twamtry was Iji-efc®," ssaad dtfrniilast »ai4, "mat it all riglit, y«u
4id xi.c^t to eka^« It;** th»,t a cc^upl@ (sf youtjhtii l^t^f fe« »^»i.n
i«Mtulr«d «^ttt tli« paftsparfc mM d«fetidajrit w&i4, "Tov get it, jwi
««t it,* -Fl^atiff «a^« that at th«t time ha loM tfee ^sfandaiit
♦I oassnol ^ir« ^ett a»y iMtr* tJum #SSO,»* wsd th*t at no iine
dtA to« giv« to plaintiff oir sVaa^ pl-ilrstlff any r«VX«s.
©» er<j««f9xas5l Illation plai«tyf »ili^,ltt«d. that fee h,s-i4
tiMliMt.- di«P oxidant About a«r:'^«iii ;»-«<rlra, hotv mt^i''^ h« t^nuld «jE«>Kinfi;« for
lifi« t3r»«o*eflisMa *'ot the €®f»adaijt t'SKtifie^ to * ao«*.
ir«r»*tioii -^feteli plaintiff fest^ witb &«r, is -rhle^i He Si-j44!, *»Bo ywn
iMsJE X -slli Tj« s,fel« to us« Ha,»6iaja yt*T»l«iB theanst* 1 «aid, *Ye»,
eertainly j©m -^11.1 be afele ie us* fiusaiaa tuI>1«is tYio.tNi, "beoasis*
for ft I'&og tirae tJi«3r is-ill ^© in elr«v5la.ti©a in timt |nr»TrlBc«, * H»
said, *Th«!s X will e«aftsdi'ity tes^« to sha^«g« t© :i^bX«a»**
lisIanA 'fca^j ll^at jjXrdsttiff Bunt a -^iifeSyasiraa. slij? tferoitgh si,m
thmX, mn th^y 0i^e basalt;, pXis.i«st iff t^M him h^ h'^A puT^h&aad u m^
r«tel«» "fro® a»»* %q%€ feiax: tlJ« ,i^i® h# t?.a^ tald, a»d i»«&€\1 tfei«
epini^n ef th© ^?i^tt@8s sm? t» wh«th«y ke lia^ paid too «»<*';, tft
■ifJiti^ ifitn«»e jmpl-i^^, *'It wiui tsttff «®I.liHC jrat«» at tlmt tia®."
©«fe?sd&3St »af« tbat plaintiff told Ma th»t he "i^^isji^a
%}m% Ji« 't«M Jsia th.^% 1m ^mkXil femv® t&isas mt axty tia«t that has
.mttil«» 4a »^pi«t w*i«n fe« 'wa-si T*»i goiniS* *o whlela thft plsaiatiff
risplted */««»* ^M. b« als© aayi th*t i^laistiff sal(« t© biei,
r«a4:/ to 1^, tisen I have sqt paB» Ive^ls:, tli^n I wiXl csill at ^ur
©ffi«e ai^ take s^ Buaei«is 3ftt%il4ft»5* na t van a^rweal^le* ^m& said.,
•T©« mm Xemtm i% foj? »»f« Stft^ping** sasd gave ,hlzj & fa^-vin^m boolt
f»y tfelft |?«T9osMi, that w6 hs,Tfo dit Ms aeasuat X$,<^iO m1»le«, Tk«a
I 3®nt la^ si^0 «sit, tfe«it traweaeiioji, that oonvsireatiow %'hlofe 1
.%#4^«s«> % ^'^m:m». ^mnrnfUp m
..jSsSr ts^. tatrf* S'^w- irfflca'
^i^'ii^^'i ^ -•■•■'•* •' •■-'#^*»S'' •^#^ f^**
*5ffelSS^ ^I^M fflf**
>*^;?' sa.Hi.,;:';:;'*i:Ji:-! '?=? "A$$B^.'r-
ha.T« iufst t9l'A%9d eoRoaiTOwJ %hm tninawnetitsn ryll^'^in© >S4jgu'.*t. 11th,
fr!i«a thl» eh««k w«« fertm^jl-t biatfc hy vr. .T«K5ft»r,*
Identifying a p^lta Ibckjjc f©r \Q,4»-::0 rutaX^iS pro^uee^
"by filaiailf f , <i«fQnd&Rt »«44., "the book i» li p*»ii h^ok by and freiw
BrASlaeraiqr & Goati^H.'aiy' io £Shrl9tl«si Uli^^ey* At this tl%«9 vi^«n ttv*
5^ea«y 'rsa QpliotQied, -^w had ls^a»il }i.iM. *.• booJc; for IS, 61)0 rutile*.
At thM et©®« ©f all i*s« «irisi«ne» ^i«f«?itfl8mt ^ad* « m&»
tloR ti'sat '.k« iurjf ^«i ia«i|ru«!t®d to ftE4 f»3? *li<9 4sf fm^a-ist, wJ-daii
j&ef tndant- «rg«« t3i»t ti^e ©oart ©rr»« lis <J«n^in^ tSie
laotlon Its Arrttut af |i«<liia«'?»t ,- l!H^mi«« €>f ® jaianoi^^X' of ifee s^sfewa.*
with ik& mm&iftm* Ptif^Mmtt f ileil ^ pi,** «ifiMtl®fl a® folXj&w»s
*latg«B« Br?<jsla5«ra^y, doing feB.8lns*s» a« H^T-a^lm^mky i>: uss^rai^, «!X"-
jilo^ ■%&!«», *AiicS[ tfee <a»Jt««KSaist BagtSBft BTti«.T«?»»S,y, «•■>••■»«•* ifej.© at-
f«mM»^a ossswa,'* «ite, iUfter tfeft ael:9'y (^f tins JBd4,me5-;,t, »» in&tlo«^
of tfe« plaintiff, l«»«iiV9 WfWi igiir«i4 to tm'^M tfe« d«alsair»-tio» ©n lt»
tmm fey ««#1s»t.iiutiaiK *^g#»t Mipi%nXmrm^** tn pl.'!;«« of *n.jsvfe5ir
By*«,lBW»ky»* nm |»«j»i3f 4«ftKi*rl»*!i, aad tlie Julti-ewvat was aewii4#(t to
©&Ty«ef«3s4 with %h.«> d«cl«.jpati<3B in tlrnt sr»««>ei»t« ■•'« <?.« satit think
tS9«r« l» a«i' aaylt in ihla c©«t«rti«}tt ©f a^'p^ll/sat. In iM^ flv$s%
■pXm%t ■fe«f0^»«a the d«ff«oi *pa« waived Tfey a plea t^& ihe K«rit*. 31
^e* tl?i »R^ is %h.ti mmeon^ pXamA^ ^^c^sue^ Ui^- JiMid^«att w&a «^«NftA<»
afei* ta tteis r®»p«st «it>\«» 4wriaf or affee* th« tejaa, IXy* "*•
A»>^9lX«nt fujrthftif ajTji^fts tli«l. 9» the «t»d.iapi%-«^ «-«l<»
^K
15*;,
<!«««# th« »»tlon for a dir«<sie»d Y^rcUei nhoul^ )».».▼« )Mi«n t^,iyrmn,
bat we iMaiE tJ^se* wam ^Ktmis «Ti4«R«« -sTtoieh iriK}ui3'<e<l ih« &"m*^ to
l»ft •HUml.ttM i9 tint jl»^*
Jt is not ar^iefl tliat tlt« 4««ry waa err«»n<»«>u8ly In-
»tjpwct«d, A«r tfettt t^iHf w»« ?*ny »rroy or. t.>i« yuii»g» of th« cauyt
d«no«« it i^oul^ huTK b««n »«t »«i4« »n«S a n<sw trial g;rs»Jst«4. It
em tli© theo!ryt<1aat ^^« a«sl»^ 4S^2ff'<i^i§t«t wwe thai tim «3i^fe^ns« <jf
j^l&intiii: *s i..j^ii@«l St.:fet«« m^i*®^ f®r rutel#» isoiai«1 fe« estitstmr--.%t.«<l
esly i» «■»«« iJl&iittiff »# pawaijaTt wan afeialat^,. That migHi b« a
yeaeansttele s*»d pif6»l>»fci«! ©ousstrusstitu ©f th« -whole iT«ri,s--*etta«, <m
^9fmmlmit wtmid l:i«v« tm n»m f'&s: th^ 7u%Xft« W3=ilfeesa t>je pataa-p^yt
^flfcs sl*t«tin«sd, thin ih««i?ar io sa«i» «aa»i«tai»% with tiie »t.^4t*«a^nt
**R3f ti»8,*
^P«1X©« f«jcth«x' «wi^^.«»ts tJ^uat tb« vajr^l^t jsmy to©
ia ^^assf «sifi4eft««i iirs44-«ati!a« tfeiat tfe<s i^laiiatifir ]K«44 iis^ejpfwoi
ttoi »o €Xer&:t a* it, ^AgSit 'fe« uj^on thai jpeim*. Mvi )m<imbtm^ly tm^
•»u>« »b#si't i® $astk«r« Xli« eriaenfi® iiXm taBs*© to «b«?f that h«
»«li«4 @a tH« »t%t.ife8««tf ef a«ifej5dflj(st «*i^ fl«f«t4sn9t*» es?|»l»y««
in thX» %ximmmtiim. It la aX&g f»lr to infar fresa tim «irl4©t5.9a
tijat tlw «i^#nd-aRt kad ^11 kBs©*lf4^ i« ail tb««« isatteri*, a«4
c
inii^iX^o&x^.:
he J»ut ormt % trtutsaation with s»l4,i&iirf whereby h« afccuar** ■i;:.l,5<X>
for t]b,at vjnieh l)««a^« worthlnsa, iiut thefl(« and other tixt^ori*in,
«oa»i3tent witb tl»« «t»t«;i«nts which ii}i« ^dtneaa** f»r (aefandnnt
toaiify plaintiff nisdm in oonneetiou '«i4tfe tiw* irsmatM^tioa, arxa
which he MtwM n«t oaIl«4!l on i« re'bwttftl to darqr. I^'hiw migf n&T«
l>««a an ia«6v«yt®R«« » Tbut w« ajr« oMlg^^ to 4»«1<J« lh» eaww* 2i«ir«
vltttesr,»» as»d a.no»ntr»tlJ.let«<l, v« tay« olsligad on the r«oora to
l^^8l<4* with 898S0 zti5.\aiOtaT»c«, i-iiAl thm rnr^ict in .wanlfestXy sigaiBat
tfe« w(il£ht Of tfc.fe 4»Yidfin(B«. For this rsa.««R th« ^adpsent i« ro*
Tereisfl ansl tbe ansaao r^ssau^edi for a ne» trlaX.
. ;<!>'
%A ,««■«>
239 • ^flU
mfh A« k^mrwh^m.
^p^lXant,
T A
o
Of «HiCftGO,
in. jusfics MATOESft p?aa:T.msi} tm Q9tsim o? ths cotrnt,
la thiti o;(>8i« %Kut fi.pmVi»n%t vim nais plnintifl in tiM
triftX oeurt* %>.r«afh% «a nation In f9rf3l%il.« 4«taia«'i> to r«e9v«r
P*»»«a»ion of eartain freoii^es saittiaitd in ib» ''^^iy of cjjicago
sad Covatjr of Ce^lt, $ht» defendant* Krer« e#jp«Il»«s ^^iXlitui
^md<a«ll« John Baridlictltf^r. K. a* Srx^y^vmn »md ThiMfts MoCurdy,
tho ©ffi«s« wf^« trle*l by tjfiit enuri without a Jai^» tfe« e^twrt
f«^aa4 tfeo ^jtf^Bdr'mtsi »8t gtillty* d^aieA ^litlntlff *e m^tloa for
a a«» trial and in i&rrost of 4''*<^iP»'?«*» ^«^ «nt«r«<i jutlgnont for
(i«f«nlaiits on tlie fia«liBg»
^Mr &.atioa of %in6 plaintiff m,%9 hs^^ei. on 8«MiTi»ion
< #f oetitioa :^, eii«i|!t«r ^7 of t)i« ot^^toe of IlXiiH»i»» CiOiil^**
a«<r« ^t«t* X9^\t ]»« mti,, «H3leh proTideo in eu'bst&nfio thf:.t ft
^Xesiatiff entitled to %he s>08»«£iaioa of lands or ttnei&eato nagr
reaver th« sfjae when tfe« Inndiist or tennnf'ato b«v« !&««« eonr^ryed
Vy ®3&j gyaator ia »««»@fttiOtt nr sold u»d«r tHe Judgjaent or
(3«sy«« 01" any o'vurt in this .Jtato, or l»y virtae of *aij ©cio or
&ay fitortgogo or ?'«dr^a of truat Q«>niigitt«Ut i&ad tho srantor ia
yoosoo^iOB or i^ari^ to s«eh Jadip3«Bt o« d9or««? or to oneh
aartga,!® or 4«!?-ti »t truat, titter tb» ©x^irHtioa of tho ti»» Of
ftedenptioa* tehcra redsaption is s^iXowed toy iaw, r<@ftte«s or
tMgXeetR to «ttrr«ader foseofivtioa thereof after dom&ad ia writing
Iqr tlM» porftoa oatitied tlM?r«to or Ms figeai*
,o
<S> ^Oi .''^e I
tiif^M^Jt'
«2«i
The facts in evidence are pr«ctically undiBputed.
The defendant William faddell vas In posBeasion of the preailBts
through the other defendants, who were his tenants froa month
to month, and demand for pos bobs ion was made upon all of them.
The title to the premises v»a originally in James L, Clay and
Sarah .?., Clay, By a deed dated June 1, 1916, and recorded June
5, 1916, they (James L, end ^arah) purported to convey the
premises in question to one Mward Clay, Jr« Thereafter on
i^gust 9, 1916, a judgment hy confession «as entered in the
Circuit Court of Cook Coumty, in favor of Seva A. I>effler end
against said Jaates L. Oli^ sad ^arah ii. Clay for the sum of
#5,306,66,
Bdward Clay sold the property to the defendant Vaddell,
There seems to he seme obscurity ae to the exact date, hut he
made an initial payment of $2O0 en the parohasie price, ?7hich was
$3150, and also took possession. Other payments were thereafter
made and an instrument purporting to he a deed from Sdimrd Clay
to William f^ad!ell was recorded in the recorder's office of Cook
County on Migust 2S, 1916, On Hovember 2, 1916, a creditor's
hill was filed hy complainant in the ^perior Court of Cook
County^ nhidn bill was based upon the Judgnent of /.ugust 9tho
^he made defendants thereto said James L. Clay, -^exsh K, Clay
and Edward Clay, Jr, A decree was entered on March 18, 1918, hy
which the deed frtua Jaaee L, Clay and '^arah ii« '^lay to JMward
Clay was set aside, and it was further directed that the premises
should he sold and execution issue on the judgment against James
L. and ;^arah , Clay, The premises were sold under the
execution, and the sheriff's deed was issued to the appellant,
ThB decree upon the creditor's bill does not refer
to the pui^rted deed to William Vaddell, nor does it &sevam
to pasa upon his rlchts or the rights of defendant* s tenanta
holding under hia»
The plaintiff objected to the introduction in evidenoo
of the purported deed from Bdward Clay, Jr« to lllisa %ddellp
but as the oTldenee aho^rs that v^ddell was in poseeeiilon prior
to the filing of the creditor's bill under a contract of pur*
we think
chase en which he had nade subataatlal paptents^this was iai«
aateriale
The appeliisuit insists that upon introducing in
eridenee the judgment and the decree and shoving a jsale there*
under « and that the time for redemption from such &ale had
expired, and thst demand in writing for possesQion vue made upon
the defendants and that tho^ had refused to surrender tho
premises, a prima fade case whs made out under the statute «
To 80 construe the statute vould require th;}t ve disregard the
meaning of the phrase "or party to such judgment or decree.*
As ve read the statute tlK demand is unavailing unless tho
party vpon whom the demand is made is a party to V&e judgment
or decree, othertrise, as appellee points out, the effect of the
statute would be to make it possible th&t a peraon might be
disposseseed of any land belonging to him, although there had
been no proceeding by which the rights of the parties had
been adjudicated «
Appellant says that if Sdwsrd Clay, Jr* hnd been
in possession of the premises during this equitable proceeding,
waA had remained in poesesBion after the sale of the premises,
he ccwld have been ousted therefrom in this motion, and that
the defendant Waddell and those holding under him sttnd in the
shoes of Edward Clay, Jr«, and ere in no better or more
faTorable position than he would be if he were himself the
party defendant, ^e do not think that this contention can be
sustained for the reason that when James L. Clay and Baxeh S»
l>Aii «i-ea <fr-i/8 fi^t fi«>llQar9&e% %0t sssi-. - ;"- ,."rr..'^,nsT
i-(^j*f iSiM ^mit-- •■^'■"- ".? —••■>*-■--'- -*••'■• ;- -•; ■ ■■■-•
Cl»y conveyed th» pre»lte«E in question to iKdward lay on Junt X*
1916, th« juci|!pi«at ae»in»t th« (cr^mtere h'ld net bcnn taken« »nri
the grentee therefor© tank the title fre** and ele»r of the lien
of the Ju Jfpient. Union ». ?Mnic ▼, Lwne. 177 Hi, 174.
While it is true that th^ft deed vn.e «ftensf«,rd9 9«t
A«ide upon « fin<}ing by the s^hnneery court Ihr.t th«; stoee wae
»A.de la fraud ©f the gr««tore* crertltore, n«T«r the lees, the title
thus plaoed in JSdimrd Clay had hecn hy hiju conveyed to ^''illiaa
waddell prier t© th(s entry of the deorec, and that decree di<i net
etteapt to «dJudioi;.ie «*Jil Lt^» vsddfill*® rights in the pr«»iaee*
The generftl rule is, undeulfttsdlyi as r^tist^d in 2 Blmek
en JudiDRS'ntB, p. 717, "It is a uniV'^real rale th»t all who pre
aeil^er p&rties to m jud®sient nor privies to iweh partlee, »»?•
vhally tre« fro® the e*tO|>?el of the judg^entj*' e.«. ^ne Bald in
the laiehes© of Kingston* e cats®, SC Hot* iit* tr, p, 55S, '*'..vh«it
h**» heen aaid fet, the bar is certRialy true «« r g*n«rel principle,
the.t a trsan section between two parties %n u judici&l ftroceedisig
ought not to ym Ijinitng upon «t third, for it would be unjust t«
bind »ny petvon who ooul>i net bis ?idj»ittt?'' to »«.lte a defeocft or to
exe^^ine witnee^ee, or to appeal fren a Julpdent he esight think
erroBeeus.**
The s^ee rule ie alee laid A^nm in P^ Cyo, 1357, vhere
the euthor eeye ei Ju<}g»ont in &n iCtian re»p^;cting real property
er title or riithte thereto sgRin^t l^ grantor of euoh property is
binding OB hie gr%ntora, provided the latter acqiuired his intereet
©I'ter the institution of the s-uit or issfter the Jadgircnt wrq
rendered, but not »iier© th^ rt^^hts of the grantee vested before
the ^nsR^neetsent of the e,etion, unles^^ he is amde » pitrty
thereto.
Appellant relies upon t^«> ea *«, JaoltBon v. i^eurren,
32 111, 321 cmd aice v. Brown, 77 111, 549* 8<fvith«r eiriite, m« think,
sustains her contention. In J>9e)c8(m v. arre.n» Uils eection of the
^gSM^ w ^«ti ■:
.5.
feroiblft entry ritid (Iciainnr ei&tute ta eon£ti-u«d , and it is
«ald that it i« a r«B»dlfol ^3tMtiito mn6 ahunld 1»« ooa»trtted In a
lll>eral manner. But th« fw>lnt thmr* 4«>eided w«8 oaly thrt r
9ttrch&s@r gearientf Xtt« 1» bound by » die«r««». In Hj ce v, Br oing^
gy pry « it »p;s? red that one Flllm ^>mu in^ehtM to » nftn naMr4
Brovn, «nil cx«ent«d oert^in truet ^eftds t0 eccvirc th« paya«nt
•f his net«B for thr t dr^bt. Th« tntst d««ds ^«i:V« pover to
Brown, in c«se of d^fsiilt, t« aeli tlaetiie lands* Upon default,
a suit in «(^ity irua be^n and a deQr«« vas «nt«tred snd th«
'property sold, '^ic* wa^ not «adie ei P^rty t« the for«cl?s«jr«
froce^din^fi. It wns enntend«d in th«»t c^i^e th&.i ^>iee «»^-> not
bound by the d«er«e, but tfe« e urt held, tbat felth .uith n«t
n«ned &» s def ««ndij»nt, hs if'>s! bound by th« dc^ereo be9»\aB« he w»%s
in poseeis^ion undi>r MilXn, n^ w^e mftlcer @f the d«ed» of trtiet.
There is «k ole-^r <^i3ttnction betiN»«n th»t ef^e« etnd this one*
Rim thsre took hie title sttb^sft te th« lien ©f the mortgage.
faddell did net UJas hie title ($vibj<^et to the lien of the Judg-
taunt, tv &?a4deli hati :^reh; »od the pr^iBlsea here in controrrrey
fro« JeoMO I.* Clay and 2»«ri^ ^m Clny af tar the .iud^ent had
b^eene a lien on the ^roj^rty, the oaees would be analogous*
The precisjm ^astion has, ve think, nf ten been paewed
on by thie court, TJia© in J^joholson v. al leer , 4 111* icpp, 404,
wwieh « a «i sj^s© brought under this swctiyn of the ot^tete, we
e^idl; *fhe plaintiff •» rii.?ht to the posseesion of tt» pr««>ioe«,
ahere the d«f«rndimt in »x«<^tion ie »leo th« d^ftin^Ant in the
is
aetien of forcible d'tpiner^/ folly ©at»bliBhi«d by the introduction
in »Tidenoe of the ;}udsMont, S'tecution, s'^le thereunder and
ttheriff*8 deed* Sttt where the defend«jat in th« i«ction is a
otrens^r to the Judipeni* it is apprehended th^t it ttu«>t be
shown thtst the psrty in poosesi^ien holds the prestises in sub*
ordination to the title or poa«eeeieii of the Judflsent debtor and
that hie right to the poseeoiiion ^a-a aoi^aired by iiiM subeecpaent
'it -immM nfif'Mi^ ^feift^ ##ii»*^ ftuf^'
, ^ Urn" :'rk $i.mkM .#»Jfef^
. m0 »t'?' ^::^W*';'J' '««-.
aJt
-6-
to th« lien ftf th8 Julgaient upon v^ioh thr premises "irert dold."
And la Kin^s'bwry t. rorjcin^^ 15 Hl# App, r?4<5, w« auld: "Aa
a<$tlo» «f f ArQli»l« det»lne? «n4«r thl* «p«iclfl«»tlon of oaid
6th (tlmi{s« lifts only a&Hinvt *^ P^rty to staoh Judguent or ^•er»«{*
the parties to tint Judgment •«oulii inoltrde onl:r ttao&«< t>)|;& iiii.it ulioai
it ^ftA r«ooTsre<i, an(i thtta« «dio wnrft l^und hy it* Ho privity of
eatAto in «nn«n to «xi»i 'b«ti*e»n api^^lleea imd the Jud|^«nt
debtor, m^ oven tf that iwro nr -n^mld be msiivBa'^i, it dooe not
appear their pf»ss«rs3ion is in eubortJinritlon to the titl« or rigtot
of pos'^^s^ioQ of appollont.'* This liu)gu«^ fits tho fa<it8 of
this oaso*
The Ju<i|peni of tho trial oourt wa^a right oiMl
it ia affirmed*
Mc^'^ttrely, .-■•, j,, sm^i .Divers ^^t ^onaur.
Zf^X . f7209\
ifs-.
B«lag Title inffi»| «s U^mem .mz^no^iTk ^ ^ f^ T A '"fl ^ '"/
ii! wJ^i^fc- tJifty el«i« disa-^^se Ib tto« te'S ©f ?Jl&4g«5© try ir®.?^^» »f
a»dt dsiiversr^J «i b^mdl, ia ^&ii 'fey -arhiah It ^!f«04 %& ^a.^*^i«ie tli»
4«iiT«iry 0f tfos»i« g««jd« ^ f. A, Qms^ vnt&r k O0, iw^oysliiig to tfe#
»«»t of elaija tissd !SSia«> a. pss«t <sf it,
«IS^ €«.f»MU «f f. A, easTpSHiftjf A 'O*,, tjut saljsitteiS tkai it dSd
tisrk&,a- e®r ■ --ttraii©*, i4..s it titm 1«hI t® fetI4*--»ve, It rx*rth«r B«i
t«f tJiat it» ipyi«ici,|*al had .^sst«r«4, lnt0 e«rtals oimtraets w4th
tfe« li©®<s«» ^iUitCEsoblle Ws3?Jkii »« ©y afe<^t B«tj«i8l>«jr 12, t^M, to
far?ii«li ?s.at!srlal» a*-^ fs^ipigfttst f«i» H»it#^<»bli®» la tw© lata oar
©3P4erfflj tMt th®»« ce^tjr&et* »ic-wat©s! In iaon»y to «i«wt |3?,OO0t
tlstat tite ^i@s«»«v« ^tsKsio^tid Work» £«ru»^ t& enrey out it^^ ^j%jrt
&t «%i4 e&«1,r««i aw* :ref^se^^a %& tsJ^9 <^adl p-aj? for the ts»terlai»
«otiti!%@l<N! /-^r« a¥%9 th.«t Ifen »^d pris^l^^^ '^^-ft* th«r«W 4«»^^«d
A* 1 Ov^ >^
OJfiilft
r;^;.^:. - I^
|y)« » -jrisfet to m% off agisliwt tii« ia«;s:»»(j ©f the plsjlntir.?«» ainft
th« jury to r«turja, » T®>r4iet for Um ■plain%kit» -m^. wnmiiu
ili« 4m^x^» «fct ill* «W0i «if $%ms,W>f mtif^m f^fv n nm^ txial s^xmI
Slid «l«li¥®i')*'3 x-asa to t4sie lyalt^Esebil.® 'M^tim^ a eor^erfitioR, aM
li iiB mt» for itet jF'@«i,8«Hft, li4i^3.«f lis %h.^ (mp^,Ttn&r!ihipt im&mm^sb.
a« %h® hvfwi di4 tt^t -mn t® lt» "#« «»« t4l!«Nl it a atasfe«J' «f e».tt»»
lieX<!l»g that » fissu ©y <a«s»st®.tatiom wktisfe <»onA««t« li!«».lR«*»«i irmja-
&etloa« unAev m nmm ta#tj*iigig thmi i% i» ^ @fi|i^jH.«.«!i'«^4|i is ««•
We 4e i«>t thiiOt t^Sfr« it ©aagr ©iria^K^e froia -^hleli « Jm^y «e«i<a
temvn^^Xy tiM. ttot i»l?ii?iUffii r«i*se«t««tt«.S ih«gt»i&Xvea t© b© a
twi^feiift *"0rk8 of ki»@<j«t«f, lM»sli&, its »ue<j««ffi(&3r8 gas* atsigB*"**
f* A, Qmrp^nt«T &■ Co., l»e,, vhliih hm ^Ktejrea liste a »«rtttlR
»®«^elMl»fi ie **i« |»^'?iai«as ef »&:U e^utriMSt, a»« shall in4mnlty
W« 4© not •«« ^stftytiiiHg In HjIii l^aH*r««5ig« wMeh tm^unin
to 11 y«^r»t«t5tsitl<Ml thut thft Aut^'-^sjobil'Si ^ork* 1^ a c^ai)r.vf^iratia»»
ttii» i^Tonmm *lt.f?** mi^.t v-^ry 3r.f:'.i_^«rly rsfsr lo u e«?>Airt««r«hip
a 8orp-ora>tl©B ]j« sai« I© h^sve "lawful fs;^r<»»fiint«itit«i», wu?5««o««>v«
<|«tM l.*a^.'sa?y Stb, «iiii»h loays, *":^s Tftfwrrswi £}i« mattsr to our
Ijoar^i of «l3r«(©t<?ra 'it v-t» a-o^cs , " %«''. it iss fe%i«| tJmt this aatoonts
to a re^s-fssmt^tlea t^afc tJ»« etm^mra was a c@r'>»5«tti«»n, it
tl»« fi«r€Rd«i,at ia tlii* 5!ta*iriK|j. af t&.« crts^tt'^Aet,
^@ lbl«^- tfee uM «f ill® ;»«a!^ *M©««®«'?f Aiiito/^afellgt
thmt the i.«f®]adimt wsu is missf irs^ 4©@sif#-A in tM» r©»f««t|i ^ssl
tiii4t tlMt pQini ismi-nat therfffsr* b* fia«t«iB,<tS»
that lfe« »lslistlff« had i^ives e»yt*iii, mth^r ♦»Ms3fss i'<^r asod* t«
ta« F, A, ta»^®i»i<»r 4 Co., a,®*! kx-yi ftft®r»a,3?4» ^sratigfujlly e«sfic«Xl!Wl
tut th© i«j0tjai ®f ^lalatiffs* ©'uam®, TSies« iijw|s?»»««^d er4«r», it
s^pftmrs, »«.j?© tb'»tt^t te litaT« ^»isii gi^«ai 'by a»® Biit»»eaa, ««.4
■|»X«infelff« assuisiw* %l»at th«r«? is no «Yi*:1ie««a ten4l»g te «}ieir
thftt By<3x««sa hsMi migr aeithoslty to ^Iv^ th« ord«3rm, Mitel l* 4e»
fesaAant i»&Bt@ii4» tSmt th«re was ».t l*m«t s«ffia.i««t evlAenot. le
g?e to tK« |wif7 @a tM* pQt«t. ^©tl5«ty th«-r«f w«mi ©» jwt, '««» iMnlc
it Msii!««»«s«3^ t« =l«eM«» a® i)s® »ff»«t elftJKTly «£»fii.^ xtet 1»«
allew^ far atbe^j- reae^is*. ia ti^« f4r»t pim&it^ %imt yi^t ©I*
SkOtion, If it «is&lsftt«^, •»».» in S'. A, <^-s4rp*at®r * 6o«, 8»t ia
tfc# <l«f»ndswt, isai^ It Ik t&« g«»«yal i?»l« that » ©tiafttty, in tfe«
■r,n «fe|j4^-
skl}»»n«« of an *»(» tgi-^ssiat , »ay n»t 8«t atS a right of «otl©» Vys*
X»ia^B45 to ih« la«uir«<i, a«;?^ ,|, v. i^ya, 19 XXI. jfii5^|», 4^^. In
^aidate^ dia^iski^^^, vMch It in cle^r, «# IMniK, ettuld not %• set
©Xf fey tbi« invurer In xm aotiaB up&n tb« lb»nd^ th« oottti*a«t0
luring «nliir«l^ »«?»«a'at« ancJ ^l»t.Xi>«i trmi Uws o«intr%ct upon
^., ISt Ul, ^p, 34V, £|i^^. V. iig^, ^miM*
,F, J., «i»a S*^^?, !'♦, «ssaeu3F,
.ifT
^fMf^ Jbvj^j^fi..:! ,^?ip(|l»a> /tesiti ji^fiflf^ #i-
• unm \
»., ^nsfXiE MAStatf igi*i¥'imi TIE mmtm m f« ec^i;^.
This is JMS: :^.p«ml by Cn« ^mfmitumt h^lom fr<m « i^»4,g»
of «t Suty :*l"t«r « ss«>|.i©n fey ^^mi^-mnt fs^r a jsmsw i5S*l«t3, K%4 l>«»«n !g»v«ip»
Flaintltif** ii%i»-t®s»®!3t »f «l.ai.,^ was fej*a»(l wj tl>;r®«! 4ii'-
feyfeftt sllei^iidi (»if^«r« f«:jr Ittisbty giirSB by plaintiff to- d.^Ji's^Kismt,
sos^ wkleh It wa® all«g«d tfe« ti^f^M^ast ae<3«pt®il# but aftero?aM»
«r^«»« wa» !©• &?>&l» fi>y tw« ft&ra of 4/4 Ist mtd Bia4 sjj&|> ^s» ius-t]&«.r
tli* sMs^^ 'Asi^ aM«* i®» ioif fcM* #110 ^aar ef §/4 '1st a»d a»sA s^
«i@e:»ft«i«e« l>y -iftfosiAaaii ®f *m«th»r «st^er, B«* 5IK)d, on o«t©fe«r 28,
3$ 119 1, fox- {jsjriB emr 1.8% a^ ^sjd s«^ pi^ It^l^r stt l^> % ti'isus^jid f««t*
iftsi Jwasi 14|, Jtii), tJi« S«f«ndi^)eet deliY«3f«4 t© %h« plaintiff ld«5^
«f iMe £«8K?wnt ©f lHmls«T »»» ©^iv^lent to th*is deHv«Ty &£ t^m c^xn
aal a©i »ae «*«*# ljee«si«« ih^ eestentw ®f «»« ettr, asecarainit %• t4i»
mismm
?)(tAi?l' ^ ?■
■»m M»V
«a^« of atll eiNp»&«iti«i« i»«r« telni; u»«4 hy the ra.tljroAj4 lln«!t in
tlk« ais3dl« «■«»%, fmd thftt the fTelgist vjbjp in -^i^iiifth tbt« aiiliassent
of ?■««« 14, 1I&X9, W8t8 loa.4«4 w»» of dtsatei^ th« oapaotiy oi* fh»
*y d«f«KAai«t 4i»elsa!rg«4, i%» ofel,%.i<ti«»ii vmitr (atrd*!- l?o, 50?>6 for
JUi t© »M«» M»m UiSift tlit affidavit ©f saorit* 8«t«
4«fiiiiSt0 I lis© f#r «Mp89tfe«t$ tliss^i t:h^ ?i?iaint.lf,f kmm at tl^e tis*
tliat e«tA^ «M«r was giverw. ti»t t}i« !S«fgB4ak?«tfe*a» ^jp-erating » srilll
t8m%sj*H S;»«fr tS-sMi 8ai«l «tll wsts In pr^a^a* af ©©^ssstim'ti isa, &«»l
that tM tisa® #f «asif«®8t «l«##»4«^ ap^a tlae alfetltij^ »f tJj« 4#f «&ml-.
atni l« j&awBSLfSi^twuni »*i^ l,Jto¥*r in sat 4 mill aM ^iip Uw mmisi t'tv^Jfc
0m. liml&'mt t® tJi® ^l^i«itifr# m^i thm pl¥4li8ii.f:f l»^s4 Jie ^i*i,M i« d@».
n«i^ y&« lM»i@€l»i« deli?#3qf 0f »4ii lij^fix-j timl In feh® ;^«i»r It 19
^ys« raiiif adl iis, Us* il&t© ®f toiaJLatt.ass* was 40s;*Me th© tmt^ml f«s4»-
fali« «Bi^ tl&i* aftsf Maj? 34, 191"*, tij« aralnfall lawar t^►« atlii «-f
is If, sie ag«i«i»t §7 l.n«h»« of :%v®rs*®« )fMiifall 1ft sstld t«.]rrit«jy
la^»8ib1L« tnw %im Aistmxdimt ta pt^^ykr» f r^gM OjS^«t ^^4 Q$t^^3rftt«
ttt will m &m %& mmif>SmitiiS9^ lo^^ e»a& :«hl|> th« litm^s!^ in ^«f9»
flan, anil tfea* %h»m$ f4*iet» p»fjju4yiMi th« plai«llff to giv« tfe« *«•
f»!*i4a«st m, t^&>mina^hXm t£iH« stft^r t>3«»« 41ffleultt«» w*3r« ov*r«««t«
Ih »3Pt«f t® ^uli^eF awdd Iawa3b«r5 tHai In m^Mt, l!910,4«f«Mat!t
l>«lii^v«a it wmtXi fe« i» a- pasitioR ta ship »«.ld ear «f linger
.tM tmt^ti pet'
'■■msi.
-i«:a;.s:.,t.
k.f$ %.':.V'V'l^ tf..;;%V?.!>i<i'
'■ '^l^'t^^^ ■■i^vi^ ■" ■'■
wlttiin tb« foU'.-'wiag alasty <i«yii| ^t, that It fowcaa* l!ffp<»o«li;'li» for
th« AftfsridfcBt «» to dc Vy S['«?ii9'«jn of tbe <so milt Ian* fitforowai.^j th»t
fey 3o|»t«85'fe«r 1S, X91«?, It fe«M5 bocojiMi lsi^oa«ifc-l«» .C'er tfe^
r«&so»B» for tTm A«f«j^«e»t t« ««t it» %i%X in »p«jr-aiioiis tHt*! i»
October, 1011:*, dftf^ndant ¥«lit*(v«4 tfe«.t tt «i»uX^ ?a«ikc ©4^4 alil^»
mmst of lwj!ib«r batw«eis, tha X'S% »»d XMh «f UovossiMsar, h-wt iiiafc it
th«i» ;ii.l80 |>06«es.« Xike'rii»« i.iiit^c»»^ibl^ ttt tdtl]^ '#<a1i$ X^at>-«X'.
ihdt t1h« plaintiff aid uot «wi® «iigf «-u«h ®o>8t«'m«t, but &&i6 tfeat
tS5« flalmtiff i»l.epho3:?i®4 to IM 5i#|"«:ti-4»«ct ^t'U&mxrAt^s auah »rt ©r-
4er, sjtd thai ili« 4®-f-t«difflMBt irrstft tfe-ft plaintiff e© 'ystefe^r 2-ii»
®jrdiay, siffelcfe feerjal ©yi^eir tte* 4ef4m4;Awt mm^t r^eslvest, lli« s-^f*
fMmvit ®f ?g»rii« al'^0 s^t u|» #»*«%« t-mdiii^ to ^©is- Uxm% ti*.«
«ESsstt3it ©r 4«£a,a^e«,lf im^^ was X««s» tJuwi «.X^ls&ii»4 fey plr*int.ifA» swsa
skXX«i£«4 tte»i t3i« «*tt Tif&« f-fiS3S5ttu2P«l^ feroti^t* At t3s.« oli»^.« «f
the irvldeiseff fen" the pXatssttff ar-.i 'feef^y® t.h« listrwdust.ioji of ^sny
«Tl4t»e# liy tl'ts a«f 'fsRil^iwt , til® «OEttrt, m\ &&i%9n ir tfee f*ii^.intlff,
inittre<S iaa ©rS^r, «vi^«KiiiXy foXXe^ijas^ tX»? praetl#«t imprdviwll of ia
s«>miw* IF, ii^feii< i3 ^ta^ 4t^ ^:^ I XI., ^m^ tha^ tint A«f0.n4iiiiit. i^^vkXA
a®t 'feft siXes'ed t« iatr«4w6« sKuy siri^an^® wB^Jes mi<l in support ©f
tke sffiAstvit dt m^ti-i& ni«<l, 63t«®f;;;t »^« to *ll«fatla»» thssjreXn to
tfe« ■etfmt tJiat tfe® f*ir, r^aawsiifcX® e*l*i ssaritat trsaue aiT 0/4 X»t
miSi, ^^ &«p ^as Xi«sib«r in th9 m^nthit of B&vmsSi^w and l}«e«Hitl»«r,
3LtX9^ w(M» ti&\ $X^@ A t.l^9^a^3!d feiity ^t 's-«a9 baf^ves #&i' 'Stixl $f&
Tallin &f 4/4 Xttt im& Snd atip gyus Xws^«r during d«tXd period was
sidt 192 & tkiRi»aa«l fit«t; tha^ «» Oi»r i»t«di &• i« ^r^ecifio^ in
tJia drdeirs «f tSi« pXatnttff ^o«» uis-t i»X<A m^OOQ fwt of essp g»fla
XiuiNtX'^ l&«t It h©X4.« tTcm ei^ht to t«B UiOtisMsjrst f»«i of such
X»»9NMr*
m»ffm- !#.' ^ '^#
.,.:■ ::,-..,-^ j,:^;,^^ ^-..jjf.jjfa i(s4i?s;.« 0^, ^Ss^: fet«falJE## 'I
t^ 83N»w l^y o«i9|>«i«iiit «>vi4e«<t« tfe.at f»» Ju:<t® 14, 191?', tfea d»f«n<5»mt
4«ltyer^d t© the flsdRtlff I9,S?i3 l"»et of i»t aM 2nd astp gim l*s»»
«i.«iMiiiii tb© deliY ify of lhi» Xxmhnr was ©^lynleBt to the <!*•
llvflry ©f t«» e%x» :-is*tdl net en« c^r, fAirwS oUmw f :>.cte swit iij* In that
re»st««t l*jf t}M» »ffida-vit of sseritft, feut ^^a ebJ^otifJia bj tlis plain-
tiff to th« !Wliai»t?i©,R of mieh «vi4«r?e^ w^n 0u«t';iiaedi, ««'.i it i* Xhm
s©atentl»B ®f *|!s|»«l.laRt s.*.ai tfe# osmrt «iry#<l to iMa 3pe*f5«€t, i;U«<l
tte-a.t eTl*»n<5» a« t«> tit« k^&tm prsMRtlo^e irti^ ©wstsaii af th-ft l:uato«jr
irt»ide mnm adstaKiMe f0.r tto.« i«i^«0« ®f Bh&-<«?in& l<te© j!ir»p«r eon-
tiff fc^l.0«, that i)» I'-mmm^ 's^f tli« ®-M#3? is js^i «^s%l#a««i«: fu*>*
th«>r, tksfet 'tM® off ex* !«■»« i«fl©i««st Iw iJasat it f^ii i%et seiRtaie aa
•fttalflieHstl,, ©X" that thM pl&Xtitlif elthsr hM a«fasil kne-^n.^-ge ey
«6«14 b« JTatrl^ «teayg«d with lisariKg 3ciiOwl®4|gi» of it. ^sjjd tlmi it
fttrtte*!*" 4i^ «et effer ii» aSmw tImA, pluinHfi -was » sserffeer ef ih.«
fr»%li9»al -Hjitrti'^tj-M 'im^mt A-s^ooiatl^a, «itissg JEtm "*• }^i$^l.jy.»
%m tiu mw* SO65 MmM '^^ It^^a»^^ jtii, ^p, 454. -jroatftv**
99am9t be su6t&iia»4 Sojt th.e !r©u«0!i that t&« eoyr«»lj©s4«ne(e of th«
psatl^»t '5tBd «»|sffi«iaaiy I^.tt«re ■5*rl.iie« to ife« t^laintlff by th«
4(iJf#js4ant,s>l«0® tt ei>«atr?ieti©« v^on tfe« eaatwset 'ishiek Hi«^«» it
w»» in tii» KiaAa of t>i» |»;^rtl»« t© the oisntreat.
fife® «©3rjF«»poa^le!sie»« «l'^»wa that feh» pLaiatiff &vntimt»
•XXf itmte%.»A u-pen tha 4«vlv«?y to it of aw&thep car «f itiia%«r
4^li k'^ It0^^^
i-i" *W ■ »**^ 1IS»
w.ij~.^ 44, l^it^'ift
£rr#«uii£frt
ft&r«d«h tt $utt s* »»oi3 5*» w* p-osKibly o«m,* •*»# will m^e aJi.ls>*
fit®rt t« a® teetter o^jaati^tetioii »3f ». w^nirswut t>s<&ii :.h«
©n® wfeleh tfe« partis* h-ssTe th«®.t«lr«« ®dS0'|»t«d, iSUyiEll. 'v- Xa&i..
SI'S in., l<^a), »M ^-p«!ilajfit ♦ « ffwi co«»t3aie'lie», »iidi«sjmt©<S,
$b« jil&lntll'f ^islBts m*t, tli« ©r4««' stii »«i .sail f©*^ l,ius%«r s®Ea»«
fftttwy*?! ait d«#«5cy|«Bt*« $A%X in Ui%4>»l?m&, rkw} th«sw '^raa ttotidau'
t© |fr«ir«sit d«l*®sti^et fr®a f illiaij ths 9M«ar ¥y ^»4«.m iato the
But «ir«B if th# e@sir««t fer** net &«s«5 tfey» es&iSlfi^^l,
ilft* aiTflds^'it i»@^14 »«4, »® think* Jn-*-**?^ 3re»«rit^4l «. I«g3ii «j:<i«,smi
fsr l"all«ir© t© a«ltv«3r, te®««5*ft« it is tii« general y»l« iS3k®i he w*to
pfssEl<s«» 8si5<j«3s4iti&-»«aiy t» iSel*ir«ir iiii tmi mm\x9%4 "fey inability
tMSX ^hkBmg £^& SSmiMl£IISJPI» ^^ Xii« ^5- *^-
©r at ieairt Hbmt tl^«ye wiai « 'liiiaMSttoM for tise Jury «n tfe»t Issue,
«i^,'l %im% iv. nm^R ife#3r«for« «rr©r i'or tlMi <?0u.rt to inatni«t tfe«
4Ni»3-" t« find tb<9 ifsisueisi in favf>r »f th« j>l;Kijitlft,or, .'^^ I'*; -lid,.
^*.
to Inst-p^et tK« j-ttsry tJsAi th» only q-w,i»j»t Ian It sight ■•jonielflt.r wmw
th^ aw«j*jnt of ^?i3Ra^i|» wlAixstiff wsts ^jfttiil^i t© y«e»v«if, If ?Mjy
w«jy« ^iftsr«4. K-ot ^nly 'U4 th« s»Hrt ^lv» tfiat^ l?istraot ions,
^% flil«c» l?5»tanx«t«d tfe« ^jtiyy "i)*** the or».l fl3P^«ir |sriy«n Vy pXaIw-
ti^'t t9 th« aftfatnstsjfjt over t*;© t9lf?pliei»ii oa ye%o*>9y St3, ISl'^, to*
«5*»tjrSi«t wbei^lsy isls^tretiff >>«««»«« «|ilt|j;sit^- aivS ■fe--itni* to afiee^t
BU*, Chleags, &^s«?s1^«r 1, .li?l^-, ^m« ear ef 9«^ gu.t8 luffii'fe«r %a twst
f«rth, %i i«Ci ^liar t>«*«»'^a3i?^ f««t.* BSit «ifiJ.«K«Ni urnm thltt rmJitl
l!r, l««Xlsier, f««#]fft:l m.mii^%it #f il** >i>X?aKS(tiff e^asp^srj^y,
4/4 mA «;«»• ©f d/4» sad M asl^. Ii«- t^*» ex^aetJr^ n&r^ fitim Ms eon
I ©aid, 'Wt«slt t'« willing t© %igiy .siert asso fa?@8 fow, {ir»*r gl-**^ .y^n «
for^ t© cell 1% f&r i«8« fe^MMB |6«;,T. * t staid, *t0tt c«as plek k# fesr
.%&day» w« ^^6 «aterti^ y-o«i* «r4«if fer &s« ear of %" lw% oM SM
^.M.«i! «h^ M>^ '
*«*«« J^i* ipf.'
«M 9liSi««i in 3, 0. ^:i, smlX %»ox, i&ft^t a voci^e at»i»# had be^s
placed th«3re©n. Th« ^lu^llcat* app^aiys In €iv.ld«!nft« mm i?lal3nilff ••
•aftxlbit Ke, 3S» !«ifl l«» usui fello-vai
*A#ril aAl So. i^2k'ri3
Illinois Ai;uii4ii»g; •*fiBj.j53ifijj
Wftttejrra Av^ri5*e ShK^ i^SM street.
M. iK^» A, r&rife :-. {^«j.
Fl.«a«« ©Rl.«r ottr oMsr for tfe^ follo^ng
«|Wil^ii|r ^«»«3lptii!^ Frio*
|L C«i» 4/i Xst £:- Sfmi S.^ f'tiH
ISbtl^ 'fi* i?'. 0, B, smr tjp®.«il:
llli«j&is M«ml-iiiis^ U^^-imsf
^ wstdtiiftjf 3G, 101<:, the ;ltf@«fis«it iryote |)ls,i stiffs
*A8es^4i«4 %& euy xtcarl* y«u u**® telsiing 4S? ft ©f 1*
t© life.'?© j©u tfiife^ hikuk tblis Xusiljsjjt in '.jUe^tstleB. '^■e r»ulfl s^t^;'-
|3»»ti, fe«w«v®3r» ttet j^ou is©l^ this ©9«B ttjitil tfo® ©Ui^jr two
v#ytli t^lle i© 3K5Y«, Xi' not, ia^ «?111 feboa arrsitier-© to u»«
**Gefitla^^^j Isp %o this wi'ifcisti ws -jx^ tstill -wadf-tn^; to ree©Jv«
as tttvfjle®- Blse-riisg *feat the c%y ^ 4/4 ■'md osac »f 5/4. «« e©*"
©rdfti' -wsrt *Jbip9«i4(f feat vHi-^iui aiij a-eswlfcs, la t>j.3re ai^
UeaaiM-lity ©f gsttii^. ^©tfa ef tfe«!jMi «iwr» err^ to u« wit.iiso«t
ttiid«y «rs^ 0r {ilTiiia a» «»®^« d^flaiti i»'©M st^r-taliito^^ t« It.
A.r« y0« it! li t«8lti0it t*; iMacf-apt as aaailti»R3*l or(!«r ok th.« smr
ftf 4/4 »t l^ti.Ov, fe°« «^ul4 in«j3r«s»»® thig »rd«r to afesut ftv»
«a>r«, %bski i». If ^«itt *w» lo i>©».itieiR t© f-a^oifth,, Flea.** a4»
^ p«vi^|»«y lath pimli&tif'f «^«iti «r9t9 to «Loi'erk4.&^t«
0i^p»^Ml9!'t nni *'"'^ ir#J
«gr«wg«atr, BM'S -^-isfcilsffig tX&^t %h&^' ^nnXd -tteXferst* r^ further v^fflljii;'?*
^n 3i«*ve33S»er i4tli diea*4tsif5.«^3ft •s?r»l« plaint iff;
yo** n^- «s. TSfTy l^isf p!si.««, w» i3fu»i ;^m will |j«t'rK5lt w® 4© iss.3sS:,f»
tMs! ^sij^isssfijli tat ^mi at eaii«. «»(s.i'Uia^;, ^rmtr fw«»-^«^3l«»' 3!'«'pt:3?,
l>y Cte« fi«ftiid.*wt l« Ku^ti-i^r ittttjr df*4®i isTrasaJl&^x If, 1919. fear.
1R» *fe«tM ®ee«pt M» &T&mt f^r .«& (s^jp fti $m»Qi> is«ti i.s*t aia<l ant
r^oftif**^ tlmijKtiff *« «3!feiMt, earner So. §3l)i# aaasf. tl*»t kw ecasM mtt
«M^ itot *fe#-ia hm uu'M. t,l«t i?-«^»a. *^14* ht M-id i». sAi»i tH# yM ct^»§f
it a.11 th# «.i®«», l5«t li^r^T tl'fS fH8>e«i.¥« It, iJtfe® &%imi0>mit jfeii«#«
#» H B.^^, iE'-alSIZ ili.« '*'• Ha&lM* *i^ Ill«i #t4»®®i, ^etisia pvkt
Ifeni tit* f-r^s^al «nr^«r i« Alff^x^iint B«4t'«M*3.1y fr^Rs ife^ «^r%i eo»**
^^llT^fftd is t® te« ICi amd IS l»eli l«.rsi1i.toii, -whil*! Uit IsKj^il'i* »«»•
«t6.i«» tfe»ti tb« *ia«Xity «lmli 1>e -^^t Is te©'wi8 a» *iityaig.Ht fti^ajtei**
aa4, itM^hi, th&fe d-ftli^aj^' was to 1j« art«f tl^ i*r#^imt?? oreiSTi ^«
tMalc, 1te©w«iNir» th« oral ^i5i?sv«T*»iin.n as »i*®itt«d, t©««th«r witfe the
l«tttr tT^&m mfrnM-mlf^m^titMimd «t« «ff»jr mid m-s^-otmsm^fmS. i©»
t«W'»®sWX t^
%mr%
iSief ifrr''<r'*-'**''^1H'',i^
'iM ■.*l imi.^
qimltfi9)»tJ,9rt, ^RMJlA h{vr0 Meii mi^ssti luted tea- i5i?; cojitraot
•Llreswiy krw»«, bat ws <^.o not ifiad ^nyt.Hlag Ik tbe «vi<)leno« to
iifidioftte that It wan tli© ijatonttofi of tli« .|>arti«fj tij»t the
oentruot ehiO'TaM fee ocfwi.itier:*il «)p0js th*> r*^c©l|>t ariu acoeptanee
•f ^.«|:i B,n (SJrder. Hes't '5«ai» the ifritt^ti tjfc,rr«»»jj«>m^«ns« b©«»
tw«»n ibis p&rtiRS. pr'j?clMA«« ih® cc?ii«tru«t,i(M» for Tirt-sioh d»f«nd»
»ai oo»t«n^». It» 6 Ralli^ Csu»« htm, f&gWB 61S iAO«S S19, th«
l«» j^sille*1sl« is 8taie4 a» foUcrset
*^i;0y« 0ostiPaetiB<g l^&rtiee a^ir«« t« »#4£uk# t>f.€[ii^ oontJWMrt ■
to i»riting, thP! 'm^sstlon whftt^ier iS^nl? inegot;l,'Sitiftna coiMiti*
tut«f a i>ye»ent efintrf-MJt» uraaily d.fpeK<l» wpon their ist««-
ti(?!ij> r>r, ns It, Is ■3oat^tte;«s ?ix;r>f"se «»#;■*, ^y>0n ■^'/tinflmr they
ir?t«nfi i.ii« -^rt-ting to fee fe si©i;&Al.ti«»ia pxw&Mnnt i® t.h® tv^Viisg
«ff9Qt nf th^ aoRtract., *>;:« ^xr,r«?5»4^?^ «f tba if».«9» r-my fe®
att«^t#4 isi <?tJMr wi>r$.mi if' ^'fc^ rrltt«i^ drM't ia iriif»a4 'by
^udr py®vi0i*e cotttraet, lis ab®an«t0 4®®» wot «tff««i t:h«
fciAdiB,g fa ret of tte# eontract. If, h^ir«ir«if, tt is vi«¥r«4
aa th« <^0a9ui3!§ati9a ^t t.h« 7s@i;4Hi@4i«i^ th«rft i» ao e«];>trt!u»t
■until ttet wrltt*?sk ^yaft 1» ftrr^lty islfjwfra, ^''"^ Ci^-u-jistftnaftt
wMeJi hssir« t3e<m ittiii^?»t«d a« b^inu helpful i» itettt^mialrMr. lb*
i«t«?iti#f» «(f th« ^r^jarti**, m,T^^ ^imth^T the «ontr8»«it le or«
usKi&Xl?/- pwt l« wrltir;*:, ^tth-'jr th^ra suf^ f«w ox t^*(E(y «le-
talle^ wl?»tte«S' thif asaourt J*swlv«d. 4i» l%rt^«> or a<asJ1i, , vhet^ar
it Ttt^iiiree St fo«aal fryiiin^ ^©y a full «i:^r«0»l©H ©r tJ5«
CGTe7-m«t« si,M. p3r<3«tlsfe«, jm't^^ «-ii'«t;.ih©T th« p#f*f>tt&tl<»ti« thertseilvM
it!dieate^ tti^t m ^3*itt«»si &w^% Xu g^nt«::^lHi(»d »» thm iinaX esn-
eXMgjf.®a ©f the a»@»tJ.at! <»»»♦*
^« tfejj*; tJi« eirc'imBtR.fte«« fe«"?»# l.fj-^t^at© t!Ni 1;Wi«ntl©ii
tf tM ]^«i4rtl«« ilmt tfe«! ©ral «3f?Ter»ati0a »« fsll»ye<? by th«
ffitttfi listtftf i*j««ls« eeR«tit^:4te R e©«t3P«et, a»j*3 that ttee Gtmrt
iheref©r» 4t^ w&t «rr In l^stn^totlnr tfeft lujy to t>''-vi effect,
»."b1.« £« »»«i?y ?^«.rtitrtj3ajre frt>m th© facts Ijr tbitc «&««, yrs'S. rsally
t9r»e4 «!»«» tfe« ^fs»t*9« ©f tl»« lJir0k«rr»«i mitM(!>vity to ■:3aa3!f« ili«
«ow,tr»«t* ^« 4© )R©t ytgmr* it ai ^^lleelXs fc.«r«»
W« think* i»«d«3r i3a« ■eiri4«Be«»t-b« quest i©» of wh»t>x«3P a
««)fiitx-aei la fssct «xi»t«d »« te tfeia order ''^o, S303, wa« for th«
ftourt su^ nat ihn Jiuwyi aas4 «« thtidc th« court did a»t •rr in
^^is^'f^%%A^^iiilf' '^k'i'iKJf -i H> *■ i-i^-'-
^^i:?j,i.ftW ^..♦.-■,
for* th© 4»*y ^J^** t^« anh>u»t Qf <iaaa^®a wb,l«k iUxtintlfX "^yaa «n»
iiile<i to r«9dv«r.
Sut it i« also eontend«4 ^f mf^f^lXant, thnt th% a<mri
«m^ in this WQiRt, teeeauae, it sa.y«, as t® o-y4«.3?« '^',ri9, 5056 and
8©57 tSm trti® is«aewr« of Aa»sa^eff., if i%xi^, »«.» the rtiff^r^n©* 'be-
twe«ii th« 0@ntrset prtct of th« lu«t>«r ajs^ tfc« oeet market prie*
«f t3a« a«m*. th«3r«ifore» It la ewld, th^ cmirt erwM, In -irfniitt lag
was higher t^»n ttef of Awgwst, tli« rrll^.rep *wf'?8 to t^hi^v tte.«t
th# pladtstiiff p.ay«toja»»4 tb« lumber «««id»d ¥y It derl»g ih« jB^Btii
4tf. ^xx^si, ^nd delf@i3tl»n.:t «»:y® that «v«n if li«l»l«» thm ^iff «?»»«•
"b^twetfi. tl-i« eostrewit f3Pt©« a.M ilie »i4%Tlc«t f^ie« :?'*l^ i«^ /*ugu»i fey
plaintiff' It ill® iim« »ii»it«i»,r« &t 48E®^#a, s-a-s tfejs* ife« U»e«ate«.T
AjJ[3el5ast <ja.li.« «««• aitt«?9.4.ioR to the lott^iSr ef the
pXalBtiff »«id;
^tmt flavor of llth in«t, «,t laesn.'t, -stsd, 'wej dnolr* ic atat*
Umt *e aye wllliag to ace^'pt am psr^iiost tit* f«ill«>'iflng: We
tion *iiat is ay« us gk c/vtr orvlstj** Ht>*: ymajr-rosa othttr «»'.mrc«»,
altiami^ is«i *®r® e«»gip«ll6!d to pn,j ««sBM4«ratoi« ii? adiraae^« ©▼«»
tfee P'rl©« «tt »ur ora^-ra -^ith y-^a, fliia liemb^r ^i'U 'le )^tpp*«A
te u» in due ©ow^ia ui*d l«iK;«MSiiat®ly, tmd w& 4en»l3r« t® »tat« if
the Re«t (Bixtjr 4a^,»,*« will aeeejst it tmA w«iT« eay clals &t
4i*ltycna« isa |>rlc« 'ViS^i««t you. Ii/J'«:'f#a'«r, '-■'' j-^j .. ^^..il to :?e-
liT«r or elii|> «»id luBafeer iiitM» ite® -^©rittf? ©f tisMi mtnti»n«i4
tn y«iijp Ifeit.^y we %'ill th«», HoX/l y^u limbic /or tfee -llf/erene*
in pxii^m w« laare l»tte& eitsn^nllm t& psi^ aB<?. the purcitiiBe pria«
W« iiav^ t-kle entix* tsfetter Int^mt a« to tho $>ur&]ni«-&««, snA
ws ar# %uit© %4^;r«<sai-l-" to af»«u7M^ tiie lost oura+'l'ter i! yuM trill
•«4«8tv©r t© sM|» lae tha Xua^»«7 la ^ve»ti»a. How«TeT, yetir f«Jli»
«.T« t€r 4e »a will tts'»ik«? It Meesfary to 'jiold you Evcof?UKt&bl« fer
tfe% lU f f ereijsfft la prlc». *•/« rsuusist 6f ^mi ■.*« l3!rti;«s<ilat« r«gjM>nae
|>3f isgdU apem jr#oeipt of this l^ttar,*
Whil« or^lasurily the rale of Xmr as to the .*««««eK5ftnt
of 4<m»g:e« wnml4 fee »« 4ef endftnt eei»t«fi4s bM f»s it «itQ'S nargr
euies to su^$t«* tlie e9XT««|>a&<i«»e« l>«twt«n ttee sairtiee diselQa«d a
-4$ Htm «'«»«« li »iW>3i(«'»«ii> t^ 9r>
v/i- .'^r--* *»i«wi fhtit ^m lasuS'
XI
mi%U9Xien In whiel* we thljik thAt ral« i.» j«>t i6^aplli{fJib.le. It »siioW»
el«arXy an si^rmimmtt Xt^t^m^u the parfei^R loy wMcSi th«» da1,« of <3«-
llY«ry was v».lv««t In e0n»i4ftr*ti(9:R ©f a new ysfcmioe toy d©f«!rri?!iaj»t
io ^elireT at a later A&te^ aat5 tfeat date «•&» f4r}<-.\lly fixed, -^ In
'i3«e«E.'ifefjr, ^e tr-e3r«l'er« thiisk th«- 4sm3.s^«» of ,»l<>intlff iffarft ooir»
7««'tlj eossp-uted t£|»«n thxt «Hfl'«ir«iie« Wturft^tn %h» ccntr^iwt pxictt and
th« fair «a»h market value ©f siiall^kr luerbor in that, jaai-jtui in »«•
aeujfew* ««idi ika-t •vld«c«« wsmi pi»0|?&rl3f ip®eei'¥«d ta ^b<rw ^kat that
%ax'k«t prien was.
11»« defendant ir«£iu«at®i, %hn ^tiwasl te i^ivif th« foil©*-
in^ lnmtrufi%l&ni
*ffee souj-t iH»tnj«ttB %im juyy tJiatr if y&u 1»«.i1#y« frsm the
©irW«?5«« that th« pliilRtiff In Uie mf^T-stli »f ^0,'«®t, 1^'V:), p^r*
©fcasM on tii« o,p«» asssorket ISMsfe^r ef tfei? (^.ajitity, »l»e &n&
<fu«tlity «»f that epc^iCied la Ita ©ydersi »f i^l^ S4thj 19Vi^,
th«»«1»y filliiig Bald oxhU^ts ©f Uajf' iMtii, i,h«n y®u 4r« is*-
airttetM ttoftt ih« plalBtiff is UKSfe antiilsidl to r«eeov®ar £»•
di«fis«ig«fi f©jp f'&ilur* OR ilsfl! payi ®f a:#f«»455«(t to fill said or-
d-#3rs, a© re tiia» the dlffereBse betw^ea tlm cotttraui ^riee of
•MS Im^ibesr a»^ t&e fsl.7 ji^^yr^tt -v^lue ti^^'eof &@ it wa» in
%b« aM»nth (si'l' ^^st, It if.**
fhe eottrt yefu$M t© give tfcia lfi«tamctl«ii,|'b«t on the
ftSBtapaary liistsu©t®d tls« |u*f ae follewej
•Ttee eettirt lH»truct» ymt %hmi i& ^r&mt toy %h» piaitttiff
jllis^ute iSouXiisg C«a.#a»sy t© .reeiS-Ter In tMs caee, li *a« n-®t
KkteeBBQjry for the plaintiff %0 havfc gsfie out ©n tfee Esarket at
ttee time es* tisie© wh^a tlm lamlamT r^farretl tt* In fchis oa»e
ettg^t to ijave. Ijeein 4@'livttre4, ©r at ti'ie tiia« &f the refusal of
tlie 4«feM«iit te deliver tl?e b®1.4 liyssfee*, if jrsjxA fiwiS freia iJfeie
•Tideiioe timt the Aefejadamt <Ud rei^0® t© 4«.li-sfer tM naiA IMmm
■fees' sifcd to hare i9u.3f«li«M»e«l t,h# eiaia ittsl^er, fhiR «ia«a,«c«« wr-iefe
tSae pla.i«tiff ba^e asAetalneH'Ui^" a^^* i» thia e&»«, »r« »et t-e 1b«
detejrrtinefi hj wH«th«r s>:r iset tim plrtlntiff -^©fit out cm thm is.**ric»t
ttiS ]^r«ii&»ed ih«4 said lumber?, but arti to lie detertaia®^ fey tlie
(iiffeteaee ^^tireen tlm mg.t^^4. priee mid th® m«iirk©t prioe si tfee
tl»e tmd plaee wh^n ih§ jsai^ luminsr »heul4 huv© 'been delivered
liy t&e defes^j^ant, er at th«a tl:a<s ©f tlte rafueal of the aefesn^ant
te deliirey, tf yen Ijeiiaire fye® the rvidenee tfe,at the (3«fenc!aat
Aid r»fu»# to deliver 34ii.4 Itt@l»er« **
Fer tlie jwasene heareiafeefttre intSleated we tfeispc th®
eeurt Aii mt err i» rei^ieia^ t^ ene iiuitruetiea ©y ia giviitg
tto« ©ifeer,
the iKfwl%\9n «erreif|>on4«nee ia tihie eaee, which «» hmf
u
»»•' iill*aS*-W* V Vji*i'i^'
%M
«MiLr«fullj/ eoii>id«r«4, is ^cmt rolling; and «« ihlide ••tal>Xiah«« !;>«»•
jroM d«mbt tlmt tb« luaBl>«i' pur«h&««4 by pliant Iff v«» not tf«-
llTffT*^ b®««kuse »ii«h l«»^«r wajB bigtbty in prism «t Hfj^ti^a*)- of
dellres^ than m% th* tist<i» ih« »r<!«*» verm fciv«ft,
th«t ^4<piNmt will %>» scffiTaM.
;jty, "f» <l,p «md M«i.t®h«tt, aJ», «en»ir.
;-■■'/
^^y»^ #^ss
if,%Mim'^Jf^ ^f'
394 • 37843
next friend*
AfptlX«et
vii.
^pseiiimt./
y -
;,w O
COOK CUUKTY.
MR, ;ni;.iTic:^ BATCK)ftt f3=.^i?imisis fHJS oi'i&-|©B Of rm mum*
This is Ml ap3al by %he def«n<^&at below fr«n »
4u40Boiit for plaintiff in th« turn of $3,500 f^eterec! upon thtt
verdict of » ^tiry in aa etlon oa tlMs e««e for personal
injuri«a, ftftar B>oti«BS for e naw trift^I and in »rre«t ftf
ju4|^(Hii h«d b««a overjfttled*
ftefi noltion grew out of injurios recei-v«4 b^ pltkiii*
tiff* • $irX fift«3«n y«risjrs of «Mie» ^httn^ f^s tli«' eTi<!i«aoo
4a her b«he.lf t«R4ecl to shiE»'«» &n t^tOKobilo in Fhioh. she ym»
riiliag was jstru^k by &n ice WAffoa to whieh a %«(m of horaea
»«a ett^ohed. «ai£i tfrlvea by a e^rroiit of the d^feniinat* Hit
ftcoidofit oeenrrod July 23« 19Xa» at the interaoetion of
t^iehigim aT«ime« » publio hi^«»y extondlag nortJa aad 001a th*
with 30th «tre«t» t*|ii4^ i» » ^"blio highway extondiatf f>&»t
•a4 ««»%•
th» firet «llog'?4 «rfor Mrguwd iu that the oourt,
ov^r the obj^stion of 4ctf<^at:Sianta ]^«!rmitt^'4 ||<»rge>jret feoi^aa*
the Boxi friead of the pialatiff, to rewtkia in the cour troo*
ot the triai, elihottgh a wititeoe for pl4EilBtiff , tmti » gemral
Or ier oxcl>.^4ing 'tritn^'gsee hm4 ther-etofore be»n entered* "hio
yoint is (irgued «t length, aad «p.pe]LlBnt in eub«tfcttoe, onyo,
(eitiag gaefc ▼• M» d<iJBCk ,6? 2il, App, 466, and I. c, , ^ v .
>oter. il9 Ui, A99> 231) that ^o aojtt friend is in no s^eo
e.5is.fT*i: » '&B'
m :l.
%». *;v.v"t«?.v fii tort I,4lti. tt*Mt /it t*! »tt'».4»f ■
mi^fW'i^^
i 'iiiiS*;: .\»i
»i S^m
« P^rtjr to the ouit, sxn^ that sh«« therefor* » »h«uld have bcca
9xclaJ«4 with th» other «ltn«8»efi* The eikssit eit«4 rto not
mtetfiia JSi>i>9ll(»nt*B cx^nt^niion* It ie holA in thftc« ens!s«« thnt
•ih« suit, »lthmtgh attended by a noxt friend. In this ;ruit of
th« infiuit," mnA "eho la t»% a p»rtst to thi« ^It in »ueh o ••«»•
th»t b«r %«lRl«aloiio or d«>el%ratl0nfii out of court ohoulA 1m
fi? <3t lT*4 , " The nojtt frien4 In th«r« sfeid to he "« tesmqptr or
flOMftuotor of the suit," and t>xl8 y^uXd 8ec» to Inoljr t&at tho
pre««no9 of ;, n«xt friend whllo « o«««« &r heing trlecS, «ii|;ht
Ij© proter and dfalr^lslo. ■© think th^ imlinM *" s within tl»
41ser«tiott of tho co-at't is® i« the^ ?*olft js^ttor of th# serration
Of «?itneei*e« un«i<5r ottoh clrr*j»etaneeB, ^riU'msis v. / ^ riaaatan .
S5 lil. 'llf ; taTPr V. Coo . 49 ill, /^pp. 486,
It Is aleo ttrge4 th^t the coart ?rr@d in ^'tviag to
thif jury fst the r«faest of tho plsslnfelff, the following
ins true ti«n«
•tho c<mrt lastTmete tho j«rjr «» a matter of lair»
thsst trVoi Qogligenoa ^if the driver of an j^taoioblle,
cannot "»« ^Bs.:?uto>i to n ^e^^t rl'-^ing *i*l!. hi», whilA
personially in th© exereiao of or binary c«r« for his or
h^^r gr^fcty, «h-'!rt tHf» dri-«'':';r i© not tho sgisnt of or
und<>r the eontrol of th« pn»(s«nger. ?h« eoort further
i»9t?uete the j«ry tb.-t If they fln4 froaj the «via«.'nc»
in this 3:u»« that the pl<9int.if'f -^rn a »»98?*n«er in tho
<m1^»9l>ll» »f on« -.rovo, an4 ih:-<t she '•■ v- ri^>lng ?.'»
hi 3 gu»2«t, aft'^i titeit th« 8?' 14 Frovo we« Bat the ?%g«nt of
or «n*5r tho enntral nf thft plnlntlff sni if jrva furthor
find th^t the plaintiff w&e in th« exsrelae <»f much ©are
tind eautioa aa somXil re ^^onahly b*' «xp6f:t?i of « psraon
of her age, intelllg^noo, e<%{i'i«iiy, ^^Suoation and
«xpsri«?nce and«r the Sfjjse or similar circtt«8t«!fte©», thon
SA4 in «ush as «Y®nt, y^J ftr« inKti-uct«d thf? ? tho
ncgHgaao^ of the uei4 ^rovo. If any, cannot he laput^d
to tho plaintiff."
4ppoll.%nt eritioi!i»o« thla in^truetlon in t^wo rsepecte* It »uf
th4t the tnstmetion ispXl^B thnt If pXelatiff had been InYlto^d
to ride in the oar ae (tnty rested npon silftlati/f to endeaTor to
4ireet lusd eontrol the driver in Rvoldaaoo of ?. ^im^mr^ aaloes
the o«nRr of the ^utoioebllo hHd e3tprt£>ffly r^ithorised ttm i»lala-
tiff to tftlce sttcO) steps, when the !?<« le that her helng in tho
mmnt. M Mm M. iA^^ -^^ #' '■■■■ '■■ ■ •^^''' -&»•
««»> t»g*«a:Aie ** ^ «^ *»*'»« »«-»st* »i - •■ *ic..v«*v ->
IH:^!* ,^'iJilJj' a*^«iHl «l ->.•:..■. .;^iv^:.,^ ^.,^.v. J-.,-* rv^-
!;i't >»<MSiy f) '»8'^»i
'^^isi, 4ii #ii-s;
-3.
etx un4er aueh olrtmnBt- ne«e, n»d« It h«r dutj to t^^ke th*n«
{<tep«. la tli« Micend plao« Dw instmotion ie crittoia«4 >«e»uM,
fi^ It is auid, it A«iJ!)m«j> a pro{iHr»0ition utterly ineonflist«Mit r'lth
thit Ittw, ritt, ttutt plaintiff amiid be in the «7if»rois:« of ordinary
9mr9 t9T h«r own «Mfnt]r» ovoit thr>ugh ehe did not do ^^nytJbiing to
wrrn ^o driT«?r of iiustlnent Hnni^er*
As to tlse f iJ*0t <rl tlciem, m> ^ not ttnd«r0t)"n<l thnt»
»• s ittattor of Xaw« it m*n the Juty of the plaintiff to f^ttoaipt
to direct sxid octntrol ikat <irlY«r, hf^t her duty »!l?»ht be In that
reep«*@t would n«ce«Htsariiy 4i»$ftnd apnn th« psxrtlowlfiLir f**<itfl of
Ute et»««« "^:e acde .astound th& rule t« bo that » ^«»t riding in
»n anton^Mlo awst «xereia«! orrtlmtry e»re» »nd if ©r''-in-»ry «s»re
«lioa&0i require m ^t,fnXm,% to the tirlTsr, then it is the auty of
the gdoet to give it. Appellant esXXB^ ^s^ au&t^inini^ its isonten*
tiott the ofcae of 02£ v. i^rjwr, i?.t4 ill, S3g, whare »n inJitructlon
w«6 eritiei«ed «fai«7h told th® Jury th.st if they beliOTefl fro» a
IprepoBder^neo of the «videaee that the plaintiff « e e gueet in
^e m»to«ateile ifi.t tee tia« of the «*.<j«ident ^t the invitation of
the omter* without authority to direet or in nay mimner eontrol
the eonduet of t^ driver of the uuta«i»bil«, u.bA thsst before nad
et the tioo of thi!» nesi^ent ahe wms in the exercine of oniaary
«»re for her e«is eafaty, then the ne^sXigei^o of the (^rirer of the
aQtoj^bil«« if afly« aould i*ot be i»pute4 to her. But the ootirt
in that e&3e held thio ins t motion to %«• erroneous ''in view of
the evideneot" and ths «ireu!8.»taneei« there* were not ett all siaiiXnr
to tho^e ehiedi ^pp^&r hero, the oourt difl not 9^ in the <gp.p
SH&e %hi\ the inetruetlon 4id not eerreotly et&te the Xp.w* and
t» eir«UBt»t«noea eKi»t in this @(fe suoh ss led the enurt th«>ro
to hoid thfit th© plaintiff hskd & pniticular duty to perform in
tli« ««gp of i^rrning the oriver.
Hereover, in thii» o»xe the aameroae instruetions
given by the e^urt eit the rc<iaeot of the defeadeat «ore oroa nor*
V'.? Vi^tt^-^ffl^ ,«&-,-ltMI .feift »JEf* ff??'-'
0i. I'- -
J'^^'
* .1"* •■■ .[. ?• >
M mM $€
•4*
faTer«lal« t« tiio d«f«nd«uat thon thn 1»« wnrmatcd. By tli*
eighth Instrustioa th« ^ury *.>»a tol4 tjy tht o«tjrt thct a r'feon
riding 8& « gH«8t ar *y iavlt?ti€»» wlih the •wi»r i»ii<3 (♦river
of a Tshicle, s.lttaoQ^ he heuA oo mithority owr «aoh otmer •?
driver in tJi« os«rati©n ©f th« Tchiele, *«» Rtill rsTuired to
«xerci{ie re}j^:^n«bl« eftr« for the enm^a ftftfety* nnd tltr t hiB 01^
ber failure tft ^ »«, in eaamon with the ne|i;li)r<rnee af Hw iriv«r
or owner, if obntwi by the e^tl'^noe , ^w»u1l4 p^^T^tit n. recovery,
end tht t if the ^urj belioTcd frnm fh.t »»Yi4ffn«« th^t the plain-
tiff eottld h«T« foreseen the :«C3ldeBt in qnxes»tion in ti«e % hftvo
ts-sme« aueh owa«r or driver, iao th^st •'«1'^ ^'.oeident 'jouM hnve
heipn avoided, tmd thnt she failed In ^hat ref^f^T'l^ »n«* t.hs»t each
failure oa her p&rX, cen«itl«3rAng her Rgt, ifst«lllffe,»ee, eatperieaeo
ffi^^ e^pii^elty* coatrifmte^ to the injury in ^eotlon* she mmH not
reoovor*
By %3m tenth ia^^trwetion flven «t the ree«e»t of th«
defea4{4nt. the eoart further tol<J tl9« ^nry th^t s gfaiest, pft»8«ng«»
or ocGup«9»t of a vehicle, ps well n» tlie <Sriver, ie >>ouf!«l to
ex€ireia« due o»ro «]id cmttion, laa^ that if the nogligenee of tho
pereoa riding with driver a« eiaoh gueat, t^^ssei^ger or oeeupont*
ceatric^tes in any w^y proxijaatelj to the inccident, no recovery
can he h&4 for injury reimltiag therefrew, nn6 ^«st if 1^« plain-
tiff, consid«ri»i5 l»r s^e, eto, cowid feave prereateri the ^keold^nt
in <^efitioa, &Ad th^t »he fji»lXea ia tiM exerei»e thereof, sad
thi^t sueh f^iilttre on her part «:E«)itril:«te^ to her It^^vry, then oho
eottld not rceover*
i\Bd %y the twelfth '1«?f»?nr5f>nt*a inattuctior, the e**--ir%
told the Jury thnt if they bfllleved from the ♦vjf^enoe thpt t\m
driver of the vehiolo la «hi3h the plaintiff »r;e. ridlCf: n% the
tine of th« ^^llege^ 'iQeident, vr^s negligent ia the epemtion
en^ Iriviag of u^zi^ vehicle, n% the ti«e r^d pleoe in ftaestion,
wad th^t «B«h aeglicenoo wase the sole oeaee of plaintiff*©
'?:«tW5> Ins t**^
^atf «i^ m»tf 0i dol^f^nvj^. i)ii '-i !&&,.»& i^'^gt. m^-^ ^4«^v
>s«
injury, then Uiey alieuiid fiad dsfen^Sant not guiity*
!>«f©n4aiit*3,% iB»trttCtl©n »«>• 13- t,«lS th« Jury thu-t
s-feil.® ii i« « j|{«n«raA tuIs »3f 1«lw, thct -whsre ». ^reon is riding
sa«r«Xy as » pik»ae3^g:«r in « vehieltt *;Moh ia driv^B Toy mntt%h0r
tuad where Quoh ^aasetiser bisi; ii« thing to do iiith it» »«.{»:|^«ment
$r e«atrr»i, r» ia ©sut of m hit^& T«M«la, »uoh «® « ©»l» »r
o^rriKge* th« n«ieligifa«« of the Srtvwr 4»f saeh T«hie3.« o«fiii«t
fe« lwpwte«t to ««e}i ««r« jiRst*engerj tout if %h» jftirjr b«Xi«ir«4 frfla
tli« ^f^-riSeaoA in ihin eeiSG, sitd. URdtsr th« inetrtt@ti«ne @f tli«
««urt, that tfe« plAtatiff fit xh& tiBM wasS fl*t<3« ia speetion,
f?hiXe riding ia tim puttmohiXe in fai^»tii»t!i« in ». swj therly
^ir^cUAn 49im MiehieaA £^Ten»4ga » mrtmin ftt>»Xi<? Mif<:h«iis^|r in iJb,e
Citar- Af Chieaga, said a^ssr«»&oM-i^ S0t>3i »tr«©t, si esptfita mt)mr
PAblie highwrty, itit<sr8e«tiiig s^d l^iehigan myftme^t @(<« tb«i tesm
BR4. ye«:oa in 'rpesti^n, «r«e^^itt@ &mM tiehig&n nvtaai* at b«14
SOtli »iii»«!t in ft T!»«8t<?rJ.y dir«oti©n» »M tto-it eii* »e« ^.nd k»ew
that tfei^ ^j'iT«>r of 6«Ul«* sttt««©bile ws.© e1»i>ut to atmiljm^ in »ai<J
south«rXy dijs-ection snd »».it te»» sad i»ag«R is » Twssteyly ctiroctioa,
ai^d sft^ di^n^er of ealXi^ion of staeh autnaidbiift wi^ %- ici t«a?t. «nd
vft^a if «?^^id i^tQttoi?il« contin«n<S its cmirse, sn^ tJtet the plain*
tiff ^id net giw tli« 4riv«r «f said snxtmem'ifXXM mny wrniac *f
siicSk 4aag«r, mM mwi.e ao «tt««pt to do any^ia^t i^r her ow» (E&fetjr
idfta protection; thea in such c«tje tho ^w^ were insstruct«6 tJi»t if
ttey t>olittTO<l f roK the ^vidoaoo iiui% t^e diid so fail to giTO ouok
w^^FBiagf «^ad did »o fi^il t4 do aay^Mag for hor ows eRfst^ aad
9roteoti«B» aa^ tti^.t mt^ ff»llur« on her i^nrt, if they b«li«T«d froa
Uu» «Ti«ieatte th# t ohe di'J »e fail, w « a«glig«neo oa her p«trt, tohieh
tended proxlwotely to cissa»e the p.celdfAt ®a«i injury to hereelf,
t^ian into eoaisid^retifta hier e^e, latelliseaee, osif^cdty oad
oxferieaoe* tliea a%ui cmtiA mat r«eoir«r, end the Jury should find
tlie defendfoit not guilty*
mfs0^ te» 9?«« »^«r ^.-ssi^r ib!t^ ,s!l®jfe#»r»:«l> ^ftBtle**-
8>#s fmii» M^h Mivt niii*.mi^^» ^0^ '^» ««„... ...i,. .
■^;j'im^ mv ■^»M, 't&t -^Ic, . ^ <*f ?4?5^'
^i #-i5.i&?' Hi^tsni^-sM mum Xr^
By^ in»tnteiiOfi ]So. 1? th« ^vkty w^^e told tJsat if th«
ariT«r of ttio ««ito«obll« i» which tho j^i»intlff w^ » riding, b«v
or tey t)i« oxorolee of or4lnt«ry e»re, oouli^ hare eeen tho vohlclo
aod ftm of tho defsndMst cro»«lRg lt^i<^i«(m ftTRmxo in Uaw to
haTO &ioppo4 hie ;Mit.(mobiX0« c»nd tliat it «!> k n«g^g:«5BOo on hla
psT% not to Botci tJ» te?sB RBti ▼9hieltt of tbo rt'fssndnnt woro upon
tlio s«l«l hig}»i^ at tho int4» refaction is ^tt<3etion« nnd to atop
tho »&i^ sutfSBObiXo in time to oreid th«$ ssnid injury in qu(>«tion*
thoa tho Teir<iie% »hoitI4 teo for th« 4ef«ndisBt«
•«© think ihs-*t tho»« inctrtactioas. wKleb pr-'^ctiei^lXy
told tho Jwry Xhat it w>« the duty of i* f ifte«n year old girl,
holiSinf a five ye«!iy old child in h«r l^p »nd sitting in the roar
B^nt of s*s ^«»tO!a«t)ile» to warn tho drivar of t>i« aut09Robil« of
tho approaeh of mn l<n? wagon fr«M an int«,nr®aia|^ iBt':T»oction,
^.tloh th« driver ooul4 ^l«tinly oo«* «« w€lx- ^» sim, vum^ to si&y
tho leoet, »^ tuM&ra\tl® to th*? d«f8rnd«vat s»b the law roetmiro^S.*
r%ppell^nt &l90 in^ieti^ thi^t tho j^Xtssintiff «r,(g guil^
of ©ontriVtetory noglxgenoe uv- m »ett«r of Isw, sn«i thlo on tho
theory th«t it wrs? h«r <luty to wj^rn the driT<sr ftC «mr ap^^ro»oli
of tho ie« wagon ond the %*»»», whi^ the isvidoneo tondod to
shew ooBM galloping frmi th« em&t towetrds tho intt^r««>otieR. Xt
«».a tho duty of the driver of tho t«ia» t© «t«jp at tho bottXeTarA
heforo prottoeding' noroo®, «.nd ■»*> ^ink plaintiff had » right to
pre»xms thiRt tbot legol 4uty ^eould ho porforasod* '&% auty add
that wo Tsry maoh d^ubt the 6xity of & fift«?i«jn yotsr ol<dl girl,
£»itting In tho rofiir &»at, nxi& hol(Sisg » ohild in h»r lap, a
firl, '9^0 oo f&r 68 tho evidonoo »ho«s, ho4 noTor heraolf drivon
an ^itottolsilo, to ott«NB9t to giTO 4iroetion» to oa4 exoreioo
^sontrol of on e3E|>«rien©©(i driver.
^pp^linnt »1»9 «»r,guo» u% length th.^:<.t tho v«r«iict i«
«!Ontr«i.ry to tho ovitoneie ond against ito maynifoet weight* w'o hftv*
gono oorofttlly ovnr the «?vlti«»noo as pr^eeeniod in tho ahotrnct.
r,
»lnMm &€* nm% <SPrjM' tiS&m «J?»ft»- ir*«'«»lft'««» "*«■ •a->^.^-■". — • •■..•
®&^' awi^ al *mm» mm^iM %mm»m »m^mt«» nH^ ''«' *•■
««r i^*»jt«f ia«»«ri&^lw mM -Mitm^- .iimi»f' '^$ hm f^^-.
Mifi t«2S «^ -*l»aara«1;i;,(*^ -.ii^ hSmm i^^fe l^«X #«il3 i■i.i^i *.-«./..*>-.:
•7.
Tli«r« km » siireet eoni Xiet wa to thm »t*nner In vfhich th« »«,oci*«iit
<»e<mTr«ci, t>;Bt for the pluiBtifj tendinc to shOT? that th^ pol«
of th* io« wa^n i^truok th«t nutOMObile In vhlfl^ 0li« was riding
with oueh foroci 1.9 to turn it, round nnA t^jfivo it agcinet «noth«r
«ut«woHl«» whiit ttoe evlden<» for defendant tenets to »hOw that
the drir«r of the t«»n tipjsvin^j tho iet V'»g,«n tamwd tow<rrtR tbo
Bouth afid thus atroided atrikitig tht aut«»^bile, Ojie or th* other
froftp of %itaM»»a«B is not t<»llln«; %}m tinth* tewt t»« Jury h««
passed upon th«ir ere libiiity, »nd m ar« not aisles fo fltt^ any-
thiBg is the r«<s«rd «hioh vould justify us In m'-yiM^ that tite
for-Siot io m^nif^stiy a^gsalnst th® ^ight of thft 8»ldeno«» the
dtfiM&KOs are not «$xeesT'iir«, as A]^pell«ait eont«!tidd» nnci th«
Judgment Ik effim^d*
ll«;^r«]^, I", i^.^ end l)N»y«r« J,, eoneur*
\ .'" O O- •'* T '^ i*^ O O
m* jysts€^ MAs^ic^w m:uivj;K'iU tks wtmm oi? m^i^ t:o«Ht.
jr«T»yt« « ,Jtttpa«Mt for |1,£«^ sntsyM o« t!5« Tax'^iet ©i" c Jury,
prc8««utlf>n ®^ til* i»X.^tt»*.1ff Ts7 th« ^9..fe?r'l-a.nl. far th# vl^lutft^n
•thirty •^,^6 i>j#y«aft9T tlwt d«f*ifa4»mt f ile.1 a .»«t4tlr»a tiskltj^ thuli
t3i« 3^-*®*«1^ ^6 TRC'Atftd. Tfe.e ^r«grejr ^f the p-<»titi©n 'ta^ a^'filt^d,
«^o»r««tl2r ttpois t>i« ihg«!»ry tfe«tt it wan lrtaufflfti*tnt, ^ as tH«
3?il«klBt.lff w&s TWjfct rilefl t^s? mnmmr It., "''I** ts^tltl^rt irssws fl.lml
«n^«T «t«tioa 21 «ff i>ie MiJ^letT»«Ji Ow.rt .set, whl^r in (ftw')i'f>l«w^««
Pt«y14«« tbjfkt «j:i©l5 » |5«t.itt«j« ffiuat sMft faiij^ i;r'nm*s for T»atlng,
WPV i^t »a« i(t«e.i'5«d i?ii X>o:/3. <? v. X^iMES* ^'7 'i^^- *J'» ^i *j*d U.
b«c b**!? tesld tJ^at "it fiu'^at 'b« af f iywat ively =ih0wn i« «vi«^ j>«il-
ii«n that tfe« Jttsi^^«r?-t w«a not only lReQ\.iiabl(» md tha ir«f»i4lt »f
iw« to sigr B«gli|t««e« on th« psrt of thw ^»>»'l{i©tTi«r." ^^.fiy ,j|.a fy a
MSfili £E» ▼• 1JJUS,» ^" ^3.1. A|»p. 2€4j Kola«E ^» ^trt»wft>». £G4
889 ,A.I3SS
M t©
':uii^.-^
fm
i^mU* fi-:
thet p«?titli>« af th® 4«f«r»4aHt In tnl» uai»« net up IhAt
8u»Bit&nd w».» awrwhJ «»n h»T B^%m.^».t 1.0, 19 iK); thsai, .!aH> i)^.«i«fltr«d[ Itt
jp«»p«»«« th«3Wto, having with h«r a*}. it»t«jrpy«ter ^w et»wl<S trsusaljatw
«.i^«V<il«o^} tta»t aii« ©5M»lil n^lthftr writ* tjox- r«!i4; tJs^t v^hwa al«i
8k^^<&re4 9h« ira« to 14 by th« Ju4g*i t'hi^t fsh« * .ul4 fe« st&tif i«4
later, ajftd iiw list«r5(]r«$.<ir tv*M h^y to ^|o hmm^ tha.t nhe isfflwld
)Ml »otif«4i irlw&R te '^lasif %««*; tliat aSift krt«w nothing Jurt3-;«jr abimt
tli9 i»K%t9]r an-m ?)0iiri#4 % teir liusb^»d i.h^% h« hM m^% Irt^ulrle*
sa»(3 t)mt tb« el«-xlt: 43 f t)i« 9«mTt h&4. ttsM hin tlt^^ th9 i$m9 h«)d
iMi^Q «r«gip«4, ;ife« rartK^T all0g«« th»t sSi^j^ <3i4 m&t l.«>*3m of th«
tft*! ©r ^4,5gB«tt*. uaiil ai*t«sr y^irty d^ys ih^fi^fr©,,-,, asd ^ftftf skb
hsiaas &f ft 4«jPBty bai.liff »f tJ»# Mm«iiei'jp«l. ofj^^rtj th%% &sJLi «j«pjty
bailiff 4«liTr«rifa & c«?y i© i.fe» p«tliii©^«3f o« MsiJNih Ji^, ISiSI, ii44«
d«ftl®« tlsu&t ali«! i»5»« indttet^ te tl?« ,j:«lAiRt.lff Is awjy ii^, aad •!*»
i«g«M8 tJmt ©li« b^« a goe4 «Bb4 T&li4 4«fs^9®« 1© fh® s?vv4t; a«rr?l«ss tj«lt
»h# fe5*« !*♦«» ^u-llti- 9f aiQr i«*c'^i««f0«« ia»d 4«lay, mid 4;^ <«ij»t.h«T af*.
fida'Tit s«tiB uf !« a«ta.tl f?af.s '^Meh if t,f^-& ai^ir %h%% th« jw-a^*
^«nt is ii^ll;|r «mju«t*
iriiM trivtail In. #>4ar&e|.a3p, amd ife.s sammint or tJi« JI\»dj^«Fit i« «aeajply
«3ii««»8iiir«, te tIMbalc t)b» ©ttart, 1b the «»&rei»»« «C it.» at»«iNstUn,
•feflfiiM It4tsst0 ,ra^ir<Nl 4«f9?^*lftut t$ mam^f ih® petit Itm. mtj'S If ve^n
th« lt.»«L»iii^ tSwB f -.sfti* w*ip« 0ttet«tia®a, shouM h*if« »«t miik* tfe«
.M'-
*«isj^w ,^^^ iimm «4w #it>Tr r-^-
it© ■
302 - 27260
A
i;p«5liVnt, )j
6 3
Sit, .?a0fiaf? M^^a^eisi-f 3i:.Li¥)iii?»n3 im on:Hioi oi* •m"'. uotrt,
this is an app^Al l>v th« diesf^Rtfsmt fno® euri or3«»
dttEjying hie ^etieii to »«t aaido a ,fudpe<iiiit theretoft»3*« ptntcrM ©n
tii« ver4ictt of a J«aE*yi in «» aeiion ©b th« o;a«0 for aX,l«3g«'d
ftlai,id«y, Ths evidsnce "*-a&« h«»3r4, th« fsrslet r«twrr.«<?, atsfl tfe*
<|«f«nd»«t ami. his eaunsftl.
Two 4aiy» tb«r«&fi«r ««>ti@« «»» gtv«n of tfee ^a-u^tioia t©
fi^aTits ^er« fll«d. C«rt&la affi«3?8irit« in «;pp««ltion t© t*i«
Botloa also iir«7« Bee^ived so^l reeid smd In «« f&r aa th«»d t^l&t«d
td t]b« iserits of the (?SMI«|, shouM nert h^ir@ %>««fi eonsl^erei.
fti« a^fllavits it) »up::>Qrt ©f iho siotloR t«nd«4 to
•h©'»? IfeE^Bc a gofid d®f©a»« upon th** esprit s, s&s th« <:i«f«rt*las7t In
hia affidavit iRp«@lfle%ily d«rde4l t)mt H@ hoi at sm^ tiii3« ut»
By way ttf •«<«*»« for his a>j8««c« at VU« trial, tb«
•Ai4»»Bliqf f&T tha diKPsaHant »ad« ©ath tfeii while the cvjise was on
ttett e»ii fe« ii^^e&r«4 i^mt «Mar^une«4 tJs&t tfe« .d»f«»«s<l«ujt ■vtm r««4y,
^t tli# plaiiitlff md.4 Uiat his aitwrtie:? ^-aa «!a<|-:H.i«''5, In thip
txiia,! «f % @««« in th« U, i« Bintriat a«urt, ^tsid ibat it tms
in^ottsi^lcE to >1«t«iz%i2is «3cak6tly ^9n th« SAid attcm«y would b«
OQSVS - SOS
8 fed ...A.TBSS
XXX X
ft'ble to try tb« o»»«; that it vas (»«ir«ral tlvG^e e»ntlriu«<i "hy
agjr«««8«»t <m aoeount of th« •ng«(.e:;«r'i«nt of plaint if I *s att^:>m(ty,
and was finally call ad for either ShurtAay, l<;ov«t.4b«r 11, 19 So,
•r Friday, Hovftsibcr 12, 1030; that aiich ii»« it wae atatcd that
pX&intir£*« »,1,ion)«y w uld noon ^ ready to take ^p thm trial;
^tti that ih« attorney for th« dsfeniant than etat,«'» to the eourt
thai ha ijst»n<i«d t© try a c»»« In th« ", s, BiBtrlel c««irt for
tk« Hartliarn M-strlct of XlllTml* ®n I'tiawday, :^*ev«fistjdr IS, 19:IG,
cm4 hy ai:^9«»i!aeiit the oaae was tb-m cmtiifutti to W«<tn««-1.3y, '^trttja*
li«r It, 19 ao; t>iat «n Sov«^:b«r IS, 1&20, fea ««t attonisoy for
tJia plaintiff is th« U. 3, BlKtrlet C!®urt, wad th«r® ^»s<* a «<>is<"
v«r»»t.io« with fcifn, ^h.lcb la sru"b9ta-!^« ^a» that attoiroey for 'id*
ttm&^nt then t&M attorney for plv^lutiff th?it h^ ws^alt'l he au-
gstged in that oirari ou th« fellawltt^ aay, t& ^hl-o^ a^fiaett
r««5;>fl>»d«a tJxat h«. did ast wlah t© talcfi a4vaRtapi, feut 4l<i not
llk« iha ld»s of app»arirag ©Vftry -a*^ 4ust to have ih» ca8« eorx*
tliaiedj that attoraey f#r filalntiff then »ai4j» "iftll, I will tall
yaw *1iat S wUi do; X ■will hava th« easa wataliM a^d ha-fe it oor-
tiisuM SB i!4e«f<mst of sBy *sn^-'%i,,:m&&nt m thui y^w will net htwa 1^
||.0th«r vlth ii,* Sim tM aTfiajat aaid la r®.ol^ that that ^ouldl
h« fi»©, a«?' that h# «h«uid he iiiS'esinad a Aay ak«fi4 so th.«i,t h«
»h»ml^ gat hi® witK«s«»« t«j thskt on ta^itseday, ■Huvsajber 17,
W^f th« affiant K^-pa^rsd hefora asnother J«dg0 ©i" tha Uirciiit
«'-mrt, ^her* he sj«t im« S'leckela, who -Brae taking car* af . th<3> 6f<va«
f©r the i^latntiff *» attora«y, aM iufoi'iaed I?le«k«l9 of tha eoiv
T^rsation, to rlilofe lleoiCiel« r«pH^4 that ha isai»*r -about it an4
»a**l4 irat^h the eaae and ^ould ksap tha affiant Infcnsad and
•Ki^tlfy %h» & day in s»iir«it$«, Tha affidavit further ntfetes that,
raiving apoii thsaa prsral^ea, h« dl^ aet att«ndi to th® G»ee, aa
h« fe^ 1^ iSletriE, hut was ?*t all tlma® ready far trial, and vaa
«iw|tly «iralfciia4| natiea fr«sj© the &tt©m«y for th« plstintiff ; that
vrf 'f -Sk- imdi j^auK"
l»iil#|« %iS'% if
&.', />«^ ,w^s»al.,.iB§l.t*^
»»•*'.
h« did not kaofV that th« ca»« vas on trial until inquirar lat th*
ccittJrt SoT«a:bey aa, 1820, h«i «*» Infon^ed tlmt an •» aattif Judli£ta«iit
had b««n i*k«B oa the day previous.
tJae affldsfctit of Glwl* Fil«k, th« youn<j lady la
ttha3rg« ef the tel«phtt»« l» t}i« of I" left of ttee attorney i'or <!«•
feridlfi^nt, stM-©* timt ateout elevtfu o'«?-oclc », (^. on ..'.onaioy, Sif?»
▼esafeer 3£» 10 SO, se®e o»e «>,*ll.©d up on tli« t«I*si>l.!on« Vwt d.l4
Biit gtT« anf i.ume ats^ dlii n®t aat for i'r, T«l,l?!!r, dfif^ndaRt'*
atiortt«yi( but start *4 t>'> t:U.k ahout a "^itroja cAse;" tJiat laB «h«
iEit««t B4itliiKfi about It she tali th« p^ytjr t© va5.t a »ilYiute, sisdd
eh« weald gst .gi»«>-t.33L®r attorney 1« th& ej,fflc«» and! aaket? tii©
«alls3f ta hold th« wirt; that a* aootj &8 »h« eo«l!? g®t ?=?r, j-.a»h»
1»a\iai, the ©tlier atiQjm«y, «ha et!>3tJi««t«(J tl3« ««!i.ll 'srit-'h hiiss, la»t
feisnd ttoai %hm pa^ty who iijsv*. «all®i «f hafi already «48ct>n««cted,
'im% hM glT«R a© a^finite infom^&tieK ifes tsj tli« cisiet.
Illftie BeJiur, also in char^in of the ©wttehVojiarf!.,
wakits affidswli tii&t sshe dia a»t re^siv* imsr i8e«»as» fn^ l>lai»»
tiff** attonssy os- frags any ot«» si^«at ifeft «a«e, •«<! that »h»
f^sd (Slstla ]?ll«k 'arer® t^^ onl/ persfjns **>» t«ok is^awagew »vttr
tJaa *|^feoi» a» feiauiay, ISo-irembar 23, 19 SO,
A« to tJ3ft e6nv«r88,ti3s. |j«t:^ffi«si t>»« »tt©meya f«r
^l&lBtitf aae^S defsifciaat Ik i>ie :F»^.®r»l C@-iupt, fJ«f«r.4»jr!t a».s1>©ltt»4,
ia aMiti&n t& tls« affidlavlt ©f tte« aitsrafty M(S8«lf » the «ffl»
davit ef lsra«l Gowiifi, a prs«titl©n<?r at ih« Chioago B»r for
oTey thirty ye«r»» wfeo sssys tJiat he «ts9 prsfiewt and ruaard tli«
««»Yer8ati«r» in 8ufeatano« sui 6tat«d ^ M.3t* t«ller, wMle tfc«
•ffi^sarii as to th« GonTertsation -^iik Flaekela is mtp^ort^d fey »a
liffidavit of a»«i ows i-ViSik, ^/Ko tsays tbat bs wae iireoent sad
teats^ it. ■
Th» aitomey for flialnttff (9«ni«|i that he pT'(mi9%€
t© eif«t »s« 4ay*8 fiotia* ©f t>v8 tisa« -vhe^i t*i« ea«i would b«
"•}■" ?,*^* '^y^-.*?'?'*
,-j^.;f ||)K. Si^Mitf '%»'
«;h 1^ '■:m *i .
iWil.led;e«4rii that he had no ssor* Tneaunv of Icnotrtn^ wh«ii tlmt q«4Mi
««iail<$ ho ©ailttd for ti^»l than any oth«ap p@r»oB; thuv ii ■«*»»
7«jMh«»d on Kondiijr* t?ov«sh«r ^^d, » t99 ®lnut«0 l}«l'itr« elirvva
a« m,, h«infi last en th« «ft.IX of ahmit l"lii«eiit to itr^nty osts**;
thai It v»9 then psuis«d. until two Q*oloo3ci that l6tt»edlat«ly
there&fter h« ««tll«d tt]> the offiea ©f i«^r, a'eller voiA lnfor»«4
th« person ^ho im»w«r«S the aaI3. th«t this case wo«14 h« h«')iurd
at tW0 o'olottk p. »•♦ th«pe hHng r» «»»« in th« w«gf of a hear*
ing; that the peraen who .answered the tolepi-icna at-'sitsftsi, as h«
URd«retGod it, thfiit «h« vould adirls« ^sr* Ha^tsans. This affi*
dttTlt l« 0©rTobor»t»d hj that «f #l«.ftjt«l»# *^,0 aag-tif too was ;>2r«s««t
&t the tisae th» attojmey for pil,«it»tiff telephoiMed to th« ofti««
ei' the «ttorii«y for the defendant*
The r&Xes at isar api^lieahlt t« e!».ft«8 ©i* this &l»d
are w«H settled. A ??*©iU>« llk« t!ilft- la atd^ytasM i© th« sound
disoY«tl»n ©f the eoart, nxiA ^XX aot h« reviewed fsxoe^t in ei^sft
©f »^«« of <liser«tio», and, th» ©avijag i^ajrty saiat sjsow that he
a«t«d with da« dllte®»e« t© 3?yot9«t his right* aun.-i t?mt, he i^as «
««rit©riims defense. Hlfilgfee v, iij.t^^, 9/ Hhkamp^, wm 111. S^J.
It Is, howeYer, also tru« that ths l©ag «mr4 *«ll »«ttl©d pr»etle«
of th« eoujrte «.f this tstatt show* Uhsraliiy In setting ftsid« d«-
f milts ifct ths teHBj 1b «*iab thsjr wsxe snt^rsd, whsrs It «M,>p«a.r»
thftt j^stloft «rlll h« pramotsd thft]rs%gr« This doctrine v«ui statsA
•But «h«x« it appears hy afridavlt that the iii^rty h'ts ft
dsfenss tQ the aerlts, either to ihs wls^le or » watsrlal p%x%
ef tht e@us« af ^tiea. it h*s h««ii usual to set aside the
d«f»uli. If a reB^aanahls ex«uti« Is sJ'icrvn for set h -^vlnt; mid*
the d«f«®oe. It h^is also be@n the praetioe t© i-mpQWi r:e»oni»
aibX« *«?«» mpon th« dof <»n(iiiT$t as a o«r^41tioii to allowing his
motion, isueh s^ that h* pl^iad to the aterits, tliat he pay the
eoste or th«t h« comply with smtSSi other roaBonable texms sm
ms^ h® ls^}«sed« In eu«h o»s«s the ohjeet is th^t ^uatloe he
done hetween the tartlos, »nd M»t to uerrait tme paarty to ehtala
and r^tsEla an unjust adv»iitage,»
&
i,ijrf-V ■--«.
J9«f ##il.i? w»»ti8 ^«i[m le^-w*!
Hoffstan . IS Hi. App. »73; l^ftla^g ^« »r»^;ofy. U il-UAp^-. 60\j
Wo «3P« di8p«s«d t© 'hold, trs Yie«r of all tiite {■i.ct»
©mm* to fe«.ir tritd lapfts Its sieritfi. Yo tte^it ©.Rd tSi« iutlfe^eni iff
MeSursXy, F, J*, awd Dever, ,t», eoneusr.
G?^-. :. .. :, ....... .„ ■■■, . ,.„ .,M»iS ^S^'
<ttmjm- <•■■''
.y
S84 - 27512
KSSET KBMJSK, ": ) / 2 2 6 T A f^ ^
cL.-
MR, 5tJfJTt0« ¥41^H5IOT MLIVITMU fm^ OHllOiT Of fW- nwm,
this is an ag»j>esi,l Trom a jUfigMimt rend«r«d in fu-vor
of plnintiff in th« mm oX |8<)C, wpoB tJi« vera lot of « .fury* Tb»
aotlon was iw «&»•• Tli©r« J).mir'<s 'bftcfflt two tri-alt, In the first af
frhio^i th« jury dl»ai^jp««4, Orlgimiliy tlier* '»er« sjljt octunt* In
tktt deel^ration, bwt two, ba6«4 up&n tha *^i©eu|»at Itonj*! J5i««a»«»
Act," »«!« aisixsiasftti "feejf©i"# the ea«,®« m&» aalmiti'^ %& th% Jury.
Tto« other ©©untie ali*g« In sjufeiitafises tSiat M&jreh .^, 19i<$, and
pflor th®ar«to, ilef eMayat wst.a ©aga^tdi la iaajfiMi/««tus-iiag in th«
city of fibioags^ fmd that itlain^irf mmM ia dsfendr^jrit *8 8«xvio«;
tli)»t in tl%« froa«93 of nafrnf^etorliig def^M'dant operaifs^ » ia^rge
wmBlbmr Qi ma&ey or griniiRg i»h«el», whlah w«re u»««l in th« grind-
i»^ «f lr©ii, "feraws^ »t®©l, ^mA 9tfee.r Bjetal»; that plaintiff in
tk« perforfflanee ef hl« datl<s.« was requii-ed t© ®«»2»k at une of
ili«S€ flEsery wfe<a«l»; tliat in t1i« proeess ©f grlMlos^ the ss^ftals on
tliS wheel ;i>artiolsa of met si -&ml otfesr duat were tiirotm off and
ip«3KB«»te«3 the air; ifeat th«rft -was th«n in fore* md sffeet a
statute wMoh -rs^uiiNid aaay ^.^rsen operating & factory or worlcahop
wU»r-8 sueh i^h««ls were us«4, to prx>vlde the esoae wltto l>l©^ers or
similar appcrsklus, '^Mcb »]^ouM bo so pl^^iesd as to prat«mt the
peinsoa using the idisela frs&i ths p*rticl«8 of Aumt pio<Ji»es<l, jjjmI
t« e«Mrry awefc iast away aj^ omtsiA* th« touildlag* of to oojas rs-
•sr^taels se placed »s t« reoeive a»a oonfine it; that ersspy sueh
wheel, siteuld l»« fitted vlth a e»m% irea hood er hepp«r ot sui^
feins msd so ^iplieS tliet the iitet er refuee vmildi fly far;^ tKie
"89 ,ft.l9S
O ^
u'^-% ajB» ^- .
-'*»'* iiis' '*?i
trhQ«;X or h9 tYiT&nn into a hood or hopper by ocntrifugal force «nd
«arri4i4 off fey tJia «urr©nt of t^ir into a auction pipe attached
to the hoed or hopper; that e*«h o«i<J erery auoh wh««l sljc inches
or lean is diameter should loe pruridod axkl ooimected *7iih nucih
pipes, and should ntii at th« rate of ep«34 ssit^oitler) in tho
stfttttie*
The deolaratlon further uiiax'i.jed Uiat tho -l^teMMit
oftreleesly and ne^llgantly f»il(»4 to aoaply ^ith th« prori* oiae
of the ataiute, and that the plaintiff, In the ejti^rciss of «!u©
earOf wa« required ia the p<sirfor©Anc« of his 4wty ts votk in t?ie
dt»st eftU84i»d hy this exa^r^ whoel,, and to itihiklu ihe s^^^^.-e^ s^ timt
he ihftreby oontriacted the 4i«e»ii« of ttthtsrettioals.
Ths riefetn^asnt pl9afic«S i,h» g@ner&X iaaue. At the oXocC
•f aXl ih« evldemo^ d^fenS&jtit jsMe a mttion ins m Aitii&tvi^. ^tuTiiat,
irhloh waui donied^ aaa-d tht denial ©f thi« i^otli^ii in th«^ principal
•rror assigsed and aj^uetl, A^^ell^mt alao o«Bte»*S« tl^AL the Y«r»
diet i9 eostrary to the nadiifeet weig^ht o.t" th9 «>ri<i«nod, ml &sks
tlMit "the .Itid^ent of the trial tsour't toe rev^r«e4 witi»-out T«tf".5.n5,tn£:,
«a»l »*ys that if the 4efe3?dAnt»8 positloa ©» th« sulb&teyatiTC issut
pTemtMmA ie not suetaino^, it doojt mot ft#oire a retrial of the
oane.'but would in mjoh eyent, prefer to have it s^firEiad, 'ihera
1ft preustioally 15® oonir»atetion in th« exi4©na« exee^^t in the
stat^Eiente of the exjiorte,
Th® plat»t.5.ff, ll«jsry Krauisa, was at the iii&e oi" the
trial 4ffl «j^arrl0di issn *hottt thirty y««re of ag*. n« be4;»ri to
t^rlc for th^ defe;idit^ in 1900, em4 in Septtea'ber, 1913, eoa^«ne»4
marking, n-pnn gri??iiiig «n«tt«r« used ia nilling m&chlnea, anA con*
ti»ttt4 4otB^s sueh ■work ^ntil Beoesaher, 1918. Hie rrii^cioe t«r.ded
to efeow that h» work^ pr»ctie%3.1y continuously at thle grin.iini;
4\txHnc that p«rio4, hut evidevxse sBibaitted hy defendant teniod
to 8h«« th^t the gysater ^orii««^ of hi« ti»o va» upmnt in eottiag
.»j!^ei$|/l««
i| ■■fti
,u,1it7;tii.??!
tool*, an4) that h» wor'kHi mt tMrtaal grla(.Ui$e ooiy a);out t^o »nd
» h^iXf iioura to thrcK^ beurt in any onvi day, an;:! th»t sawo diys )&«
did cwt grind at all*
Th« f»«!r.y sij*j*»«1i« upon which Xrauac v©rk^ '*ey':» t?/i)th«
of «« Inch i» tiiiokne»8, « inohfts In di^wMttar ^^-n ki«w, ^wH wer«
Itept in tt»« until t}i<^ w«»« «roan«t devm to a fUaseetar »:f frara
S^ to 3 indte."!. Th® curjcr^to? «at st rl-^-jbt «i»(jl»8 *© tjb,« pl^i^n* ia
wMe>\ the mkBTy t^hesl rtsyn\r«4, Milling «\»tt«i»B w9T9 hm'i^ ir a
holder, and tha o?er«tor eauld twm tbla s^rssHnd imA 9li4«s thu
•ttsts l>a«k ^sd forth wnd-^sr th«i ^^^^ry •srtse^sl. 11-^*» took' in i»hl<s"h
•plaintiff tyoj^ied i»*b abetat IfK) fe«t l?*as an^ f^' f®-"-* -fide, w'.tTi .%
e<»lliia|f 13 f^et hig^ «»d «tti4ow« «n ■<»lt>!<9r g<-1'* of th© ireim,
myttltiO'l' «»i!i«1.iti«5iiif i*)adar whlcli |\XRif?rt$,ff vffarkf^ w-rc, af ^-o T««tt-
latieo aad li#^%, f«9d, f>*«r« w%» a ^h^tp eopfllct Jn the «?Tl<l«ao«
«» to -wliistlier i« ?Hi3fy gi'tn^'^ttsg &m ^vr? tm-fry ■^'•'-««1 irach ns the cfii« jMt;
^ieh plaintiff i»urk%-0.^ «wst Tfjnil?? ^e tfera^sr, ;ln t]fe?5 grla^tr**
fad»« til© t«stimafBj far ulalatiff t<»T9d<K to «ho-r t>i-.at troch tfaat
*fiia ar««tM and ^-eali ^«! iaafe^a^fd 'fey ^ilai^tiff ; nhdle tsatlrsar*^ for
dtfarvJ-Sftt lndie*1;«>^t thaii Xittl« ^.ttat w^^ ai:*de» aM wj,jgh as »*»;& ift«MUl
w:as nftt tl»r4j*s li* h,i« fa««, Imt aw^t.^^ frtin it. th^ «Yi4«n«« -aXm
tfiBdied t?> s:ad'.^ ifea* i>l»lntlff k;id aerer "bn^n «!«'? ©r In ill fe«)«atH
"tetf^re fe.® «^rk©d fer th« dftfei^ant co^ai;^,
FlaiBtlff *a «viden«e is poDitire, lie say«: "-'^iftr
I etartss-d gris^-liH® cuttflm S vorli.ei at it ecjr.tinuouisly, ^^-^^ I
work«i! ther« Biaay t-lisea pretty we.^r all day. 'iffc« dust j^ct Insid*
»e,- it «Ji©lfcad ©# jsany iiisd*," tha «?ideis<39 iils© aJw^/a tliut s.ft«r
f Ifttmtiff fe«gsaBi «©r^ia« oa tfa« -wheala k« siartav^ i.9 «<mgfe ii«id
«R<^®»#j tiiat, is Mareh, i&l4, li« r.oti©»d th»t Ma v«»l^t dftwraa^oftd;
iliat h« did a»t Isiiiit'r* Jin a^ppetlte sm^i x tit tired; Ui»i in th« l4.tt«y
■ST'.'' .*■ jy^lf s» XS.^T mfftTT'-'^.'^'!^ *.K■•':^Ovfe .1f^ frff:5#?'^''^ **.'^ fJ
|:^# -WfffiSt'
•tfeftel
p»ri of ^14 «r 'bAitlnnini;; af 1915, he JTItsI notlewd t>mi h« in'oa
»iek, "Wd def«nJl»f5t o«©;q9?«T3r*a doctor attended iitwj Umt lat that
tiffi* h«i h4Ml broisi^iitift* «mtXd ceu^ wuri ral«« aputust: th&.t h« got
werM, a»4 In yettruajry, 191A, W9nt %gi9dtt to th« doctor; that fe*
tt«a|>latnM to th« doctor «)mi attftjide-d tilai ^urirK^ tiit» atta«lc of
1»r«iK»hiti.« thttt hn wm« ytailesiaf n^rr^us nndt ujrui'ble te «1«<»|>,
fted In t9»p^m»9 ta ^cstloae fr^-^ ilte dootor ms to )^4s hj«bita
9l«dRtlff »ai<! that kl» feotjr® ®f ri&st »*»i* lrr«fi»l'ir; that h»
ia^t iaie h4)ur«; that ha woul^ j^o two or ttoeo tlm#.» tx isrisck to ■
eour«e witb Itttr tltr«« <&ir f«mr tlm«9 lis ^ptlok «ue«:«@BiQnt t-hat
til® T*tysic-ias Mvl»©<l hi* t« ehsjige hi» hafclta; thst OY«r iia<lulg«M»i
woe lowering!b.i» iwnwers ®f r#«i»t-a)K®«{ tn^i h» aftj«if«ar4« told th«
ho^Ts, ^mA Btn&plng ^xai .y«-«tt»^ feet tear.
mkreh 9, WX^t •plaintiff *?smi t«ik«n with ■«! s««t;«t« at-
tafixv of «jilll« .S.M f «▼©?•, rmA "»)&» »««t h.««o l»j «llr«eitGfi of tn«
iS«ei«r Sn ol^«rg« ftf 4ef em^Mamt * s m^Ai^stl 4«part?a«»i* IIIb f»::ily
l^sl$ia»» Br. Yewrjg, ife^n took ©i»axg« of the ^aee atvl dia^vie««a. it
fts purulejjt 1»;ron<sMti(i, in tha fsllewijag msath rm nxsm'^ijmtlen ©f
ih« ■piatttw ftli^wedtubercular feueilXi, Mt&r a t^v wuekm plnintift
W9n% t© tfee eenwtrjf aM hie oomlitioa agipareatly i^ra-^Hii, In
August, 1^16, h* vetnt to the SSi4ai«lp&l 'i^%«iimlQsia ;»«nit&irlu»i,
wfeere he 3?«Bsaia«4 m^til tin© fsll of 1317, when h« w«i» M aelsargftS.
B* yasM tfe«8 ®if>l©y»4 fer al>9ut » year ms ^a«& on tha Mortfeseatojra
«l«Tes*«a r&ll^^, fsnd afie«rar<lis went to l^inQoln P-sujit, #imr« tec hjui
«iBo« ^♦«a GKg|»loy^d $a gar^«n«3P, fh«i«« a^-^eiar in evideiwt -H^ray
pietar^g of th« pX&kntitf*tt «fegat !a«d lu3?g« taic«ft AttKtist 3, 191«,
A^ril % iei§, %M JTelsr^ar^ 13, 1920,
^« »n«©ntri»diet*4 •TM«nc« of the pky»loiism» bu»«d
il|l»» th*(»« |>I%t«9 is thsA th« tubewmlajr preQ«a8 ia th« plain-
tit*
,...<. !...y«r f#r- -"^-■- ^'
J^i,'. ■. .1 tl VJ t' .
-<>A.^-^ >ii
ijalWOTSCfift
tiffs lui<tg» h^ oontl)rtu«A for stojss thm^ sua thM th« XtA^r pin^
tures «hov «a l«^rov«si«3it. i^Xalntlff *s notual weight vas e^at
X45 pouad»i tJiat this wisighi wti© at on*; tJufsto re'lueOfJ to 1^7 3/4
|^«unds* It >rae eb^wn that ika floor «^ the fi»0£ft in ^rHioh h«
IMRIiUtiLly»Iepi prior to hia ilIiie«o wwt &b<mt ? f«ttt "by XI?. fe«t« and
|[3i« floor wa» ^bout sfc -foot ir^m t?i» giwtaTBa; th® r«<Ma hujl oao «indo«
«^icb opened, ^ti the esaoi »i4« of the hoT4.se, !»j)d it wad d^out fltre
f««t from ttoe sAioinin^ haumt whl^h «a« tiir«t :mii ^n^^Ui&lS »t9H9i»
Mgi-i, f:s}i« wsn»m WBWB us^d a« m »le®tJtHi^ v&*wi by jtlitiiatiff » tw« of
hts brotktwf* ^Rig. » alitor. It «»« «osB«i*i»«t dark *nd little Buaehine
]p>#it»tr«it^4 In*
the ttUMovtiraMSicted nrl<i«»$«£ i.« ilmt the e-cnery "wtie'sl
at «feiefe plalatiff ■smtk^^ wiw in im^ oot «j|u1;.^©^ with &, fa« sue-
tlofi a»d a tel©w#ip, &M r«^4r«4 fey tfe® st®.tMit«.,*i*^ «o *tt^f;spt ■»»«
aaile to e«^ly wltiv. th« Inw In t.feia rf«ep«ot, lBd«efi, oae of tJie
^lta»9«e» wh« t«®tif"i«!i4, tl4«t i%& duet w&t tJsrsiwiH fey askM m«shine»
■5fa» « die^ty faotory ii*«j)e«tor «!^ioy<^ fe^ the St^.te. B«faK;,dasrt»«
^Insat k^ lt«g» rwa mjider tli# e^ast g«»®ral eoaAitlsuse tm to thle
feri-!!i<li»g warJk for ^ perioa sf gg y«ta3p», aa av*ra(|« el* ec^ «r' I'D
«ea h^ 1s«<*a eagagod doiag grlMAng of thie klM, i»itd ti» d«f «»€<->
aat'a phyoleijSR statiHi that 8© fao* a» JSo !£««», a© ether wortoaea
b!s4 ever eentrsot^d tm%ftre«.l»»l» wl^ile «s»|?l©yfi4 ia that (\«psi,r%.mrii ,
the erMetiee &lm »hj&ma isftthowt ooatrMictioH tlmt tim
plm.in%i£f lly^ at hmm with toie father, wh»© ie 63 y®«ir» ©M, wim
Iiii4 ««T«r had ift owMffi. or treatol« with Ms laisgej thi»t the i^oiher,
•el^ «*» fl@ yearn ©14, fe.aA nmrw had oonausptioB or angr trouljle
wttis, Sv®r t.lsroat or limgAj ami five efe(ili^r«B ^ere >jora to theae
parent », aB4 that sXl «f t&dss weire liTiag sad ?* «««, tout aea*
m*M£ m
■WiiJeSri* *S(»S- 'V
*i©»MSw-
m^
r*j»i-ia »«
fhm nt<tdio«JL testiisiony Is Goiifliuting. "Or* Yotiiig^i
aiten(3e<i Ui« plaintiff, testified ihtit ho first tv,%^ hla aSb^u%
M«i>«li 29 1916; that he foan^t hits in l>sd at hmm; thsit Ms t«>s;>«r»-
tujra v«« 1081- fir 103 d«(^«as; llriAi >)« h,<:Mi a XM^iid pul»«, » p«rttl«tont
ootti^ ivJi^lelx ^rettght forth a aittC!Q*puml«£it sacp^atoir^kiloii, >N'hieh v«yi
3r«ll»wi«sh m^ alatttti gr8«ni«h «md at tl«8s Vleo«!»tttr<s^0<l: th&t h«
was 8««fttlng profusely smd aoBiplalneNl of tt«vewi ^aln In tise c?««tt
thftt h* found eaat« dullaeea on p«r«assloii; t>mt h« fouiuL tlm ususa
nalattned and TsHife^ly ral#e orer pra^tic-aJLly ©Y^ry poi'tloa of tbs
lungs; 'Ua.m.t plaintiff s««m(i»| to tx? v«r> maeh «a3suMisted. 1» r«-
»pona« to a teyi^othetloal qu««tiott %iub«4 ai^&n tb«i testlsMsn^, but
vhiek esdit«a aatter* an t« hi» living c©n«itifm», sejaial indul-
««»!€«, «ie., witwfwss y«flie4 that it wa.s his o|iinlo» t!i«t *^»«
ftfaaisieal -^Sirti©!*** laljaled w<s«lt ««»»« smff iel«at irsritnatioa of
t&e IttSf an^- tli© brojs^lii to l©T»«r ap^sistarw*, moiA th«ar»fey result
io further inf aeti©B fey tfe« tub*r«l®-lj&@iH»«, • He furtJiex •3C«>
ll?ye«8«d fcfe« opiiiios that th# tubsroular e«Mitif?» whlcfe .k« r^>u»d
tn list! |»ati#nt A» umally c©&si^«r«4l p«jmsa»n4. K« las44 jwai, hcrw-
«ir»r« spasiallscsd is tM ii »««.«« «f tab«i!-eulo»i», 9t m-'^^nt &i^
s,p®elal »t«4y ©f t>ie «ff®©t of aast* H« »ay© that asyti-ila^ th^t
%«tsds to lba*«alc a«F«m th!e r^aiist-^na« a^«s t}i« inaivitual »sf* sus*
ft«ptil>lt t» the 4«ir«lopi3«nt of tuto®r«uleal», euci» a^» inauffieient
rood, t?f#r®pe3r olotMng, loa^j houirs ©f *©ri?:, »le«pins in » poorly
ir»«til,»t0a w«>Bi, .alc«h»llw, X9n» ©f »l«qi> ai»l •xe«B.»iire o«mial
lBtere©«r»«; tJiat aXl tfaewB al«»tmt» sh&ull h<& taken tnt© eonaijlsr*-
ti»n in d«tnr«lnlng the possible cmiM sf the developmstnt of tul^er-
«ulosifi; ftt]ftft«T, that ^st m«]rt«B «3£a£nin^lio»« shot? that ipracti-
««lly «v«ry imaiTiftaai has ha4 st^s tu%>«reular process in his lungs
s«j©®tiffi« 4urin4' his lif©. H# teetified that theirs is only one or-
gaslsai that oiE»ft«Mi tttbereul^als; tlmt strnptoooeitus or mlx*€ in-
fsetioa h&s & pretUiipsaing i nf ltt«JKoe tewAr^s ths d«rr«l»9SM»Bt ef «
r
,'.,..i,iA, ^r''
laii^'i S'i:,is%l-
liktmnt tulienRiliix parao***; that i!$9X->£lj3£ in tBtti«l ausi, st*«l •v
emtyy dust has an tgdTfvct en thft «eiuain£ oi' Isrorieliitin; that th«
r«imrr«fice of l>ronokitl« vouXc:; c&a«e » eon^iiiiien >^i<:tb or^nild b«
f«riiXe for th« loo&tloa ©f & tu^esrewlar gox'St} that it j>r«dl»«
1^««<ML towards tbe loeatian ol »u@!h & genu*
tlitt j»Xal»tiff In April, 19X^, -^jv:? -UJ^t at Ui<f? U»« plaintiff had
tul>«reuloal«; tkat it ^aia aot in »} ibOtiv« <»i>iiai t Ioa» oltlmii^
ibttre were oluroidie e'is'^at'sts* 'ih« %d.tn«si3 aaiS vh^»t th-r;r« w&ji^
in his epixdort, e»«n^aii0» ts«tw»©B t1ft« eeatJition oiT bro-aahitia
sjsfi tbis XoeatiOQ Qf tub6raulo»ls in the XangAi %h»i ifuet fTtm
cart Hii lag B«t8l,» ok «Kieafy wfe#«*i» irksjNi »t«&i ^^ad «m©ary dust is
j^rtjasaat is sh«,r9 a^d e^ttii^ ajad Iwpiiate© ^h« liMi?^ ©f tfe.«
tu1»«8 it@d th« IlBifig of tM T«>aiil«s »mi^tkm&», SiH Qi&t it is
a veipy p«t«»t €au6« ©J" luposeMiim asiKl iuisg (iis«sst»i tj^iat «x-
m n»M to have 1b.roneto.iii«, "mit it ia%M fe« dttaplffl«rtit<ti aSfx fee
«»• si«3c,
Ifaie «Tl4«Ba«, %h& witjj«8» 6t«te4 tlmt tfeere ^ouia fee ai;«si«ti:iag in
th« hy^theBin "thxkt: itoiiX4. fe« a m^^ «*n<i Htt.ffieleni 9s»i»© f©r t*i«
MttiB^' «^ #^ tufe«riml£>ai«,c-iM tk»t wcuid Icmb tl»8 ittfl«s*«4 iii«g«,
aad tfeft eims« ia tii# h^etMesie for tfae iBfl«ssi®4 lun^» 1« Uj«
«mi«y iiSftS ia«tai tost • »«i»eor» gyin4«ar'e oonsw^jytioii.* H«
agir«e» ikat txiere is only ©a« &«am»9 »f tub^rouloeis - iul>«r@\iX«r
b&eilli; that all ^®@pl« at »'JBj« tisw in life «lM«»ubt®dly fereatlj*
tJj«»«} that all ^ttop^ies show tuberexaaar s&ajr* an tteo lung* ia
a4ttlte| that ttisn per se t, ©f pe«ipi« di© of Uib@jr<mlo»i»j that
t« «»p^air®ntlj n» 111 <iffeefc8 with otbvr*, is that ^sltb moat
9e«9l#i, wm9t 9f tht time, tbslr ataesu* «e.'vl)]rftB«e ^re raos^sal
less ixtwor t« dlmlciwh the vit^lty af th« iui»«raui«jr gexK, ao ih^t
th« i$«x}s« de isitt' tltxi r««dy l04giitK Sdtd a ^^lae« to grtw in; tiiat in
Oth<Hr 903rA», th* iHMtd i« »o«m upoa ii^ooy ««iil In im»t indirldualSi
btit Ix* th4 ^fjll hti,ppeni» to 1>« ^o<>d, tU« s«<34 «'ill la&ke root an.«l gvov*
K« zai*%i "^a ar<t breaihlog |^r.<as nil th«i time. IQi<»n tlie> oarfftO*
is <mt, tJj© ig*r;rt» «111 go ijft ana lRfi««tt« tJtm ptxr%* iiiraarjr is pretty
n«ai*Xy a» »ha3?|» iiui dia'-^sat dust, '3it&,»» i« a p<»i»««su» du«t; it
«4«i« a j^oifion &b t<»£> <&^ ^ sliaxp}i«-uwi.<'
V^iCiiXua i^ tli'e o^djT tliiiBii; tlmt «v«3r «icas«9 tttb-srouXoKis; It is
ft ■••il known,, d«fl««4 g«rffli,'* ILe Bay^e ii'i&l t-feis tu1s':s-reula.r gena is
l^r^bablji' ©,wnlipreB«Pt . !« respsn©* to v* Jiayif»6tfeBti0al qiu«i»tl9n«
wkiofc, h©w*nr«T, ©®itte4 liYiag eeiiAltloR*, swsd tite ms^tte* »f
••au&i iu^lg»itc«, fe« s&.i4t *l Iitt3fi%ttte the tttljfij-ttaiosl* In thl*
fey^oth«tittal p«r9oa to tlie tufe«iii*fisaio*ia g»3r!*, :>iT«ryl»®<3ly raay breath*
it iiti« I attxi^te Its loeeaiaiis^ mt& «r««tlo^ t^ lung tireuM* to
tfe© grava posailJ.iiity »* &He ioi«#:T«€ r»»4at»«*fea «f tli«i lung, th«
isrpaiyftd ©r iar#«-rt3Pl.0Ji©d aondltioa oS 6.lr«ry(Xatlu» 'fereiag ]^or; leeaJL
iMaesiid," H.« aays tlmt a maii ©x th*? iag« el* |>iiiii,ttiiiT, in soaoaA
pfeysiospL h^silth, si^-^t Ij^i^aitba In ** ialjeswiilsor gtj^, sM thai if
tte«i"© 1|s&» aoi ^s^s«nt ar^ i»n.r«atl©a %n fel« Itings lS»y resaion »f
irrli««tieB «r etsttitig hy mA&ry puwdeT oj? »t«»«l ^uat, t>x* anything
like t^iHt, m^^.t teresttJi* in tln« geacjB m^. ivm&T h&r* tubwruuiewl*;
l«4t if fee h-a4 awwte, iyritatiOR hn would. 1»« gjeetitl^ pi-etiiepoaefi to
tt. B® e»y3 tbiat if s psrsoss bM »* tuber«uli^X eon^itien, hm t&ls^t
fcay© smT*- «MsasBial detetj?* )3«t a«aEU,sa int«itiyttr]S« w-*mld net ha'v©
ARytH.;^ to €n witfe esssfetlBii a field fer tttl»er«ttife«lfi,
2y, W&^Xc£c, 0n« of ib« d^fendstat ©oasp&ay** |ihysicljAn«
at tiie ttae piainiiff work«4 for dafendant, t«stif4e4 tfea* plain-
tiff ii^« a e<»i9iet« X'eaffvairy fresj the attack of "br uaehitis, aoA
,«Si:';j/"':^Vl'>;
fu:s?u ,f''-i
■^(■^^fff
n'l S.t
th*t OS Aj>ril S0« I9ld, ike ^.riineaa «::samlise4 th« spuium sittd rouund
tJtiai it £tno'.-jr04 pnwama^GoX, s«tr«i;t090col r^oy^ tul>Qr«v.\ar b<$i0illit
%^A% Ji« i^iiJced it 0Y«er wiUi iJr. HajPTfty awS that Or* Fijnray then
•ailed «9 3t* "iOMtiQ ana teold i In the faete. Ho fi>xjld f &t, Aoi enly
Ai«8 s«2EUftl. int«r9our8e, but orerything t)i«t ,^t)<»s M-th It • Xoss
ol" aieap, late himrt, nmoke Iad«n atnosphextt, Aiittly V%llra«)r»« •
^Y« aa eflect in reducing tti« jkhyaleal r@el«taj}Q« ^.bich wo»tld
favei* tfatt gjsr^wth of tisb«3?«uX«ur ^ermfl» Ms eXso »o^s ;hat 'bronchi*
ti« 1ft a e^tn ljafeotlea«.%M th&t eT«r3f%o4j^' breatiies in %hnn9 g=»r3ts
io «os« esi^dnt; Uiat dust or xiiflai»s&Kti02X ©f t>i« 'l»rt>nchlal tul^e*
does ]i$»t ne&esnarlljT isase i(»vered 2«9l0tiaK$ft» >mt mt^y »c«»ttlta«ftj
that iS yoia Ji^v© soa aoute stts^ein; of Ifer^twihltis arid g«t into your
»y«i«»i a tubercular g«wa, y-.m have s& f«3rti,l« fielij fei" a tubercu-
i«qr 4g»ra to ij®©at«. l-;.e e)*ya tk&t t35« !>%»§;■*?»? pjwrticlss of .-luat
'1»r«ath@4 itt ar® filtered ©ttt Isy tJhc yibiliBsa in the no**, and that
h« doe® not tMeJE tjfeiat tb«y •woul4 laei»rat« oy ■^ound tla« tlsaw* ©f
tli« iift»gs tiii«sseslf«aj tiiat tlj«r« is .s diff^j-imoe in itntividuiaa
aod «feai is «3soe9Sl.<r9 sajmal intereauuMi for o»« is aoi tor other*.
Or. L«OowKt, a aedioal ©xti«|rt, t««tiryiBg for <Jlef«a<lant»
miiA tliat tufeeTftular scayai on tlia lwir»g« ^r« vn^y com^^jon; that s«»»
light ia awptas^d to haai tulKsroMlo^is ^sacl i© nbi® to :feill tho
gtiim', that it «»6>sl to "b* reaHonod that en« in avery »«ir^n pex'Boua
die4 of tub«xtmiooi«« ^t it is prtiih<^ly ©tt* In a^out oyntry tan wwr;
tlaat tfco diaaaaa ie tsridespread aM attack* all sorta of p«<^le; that
tuberoulosia ia usually transmittal faft»n a person or frees soi anlsal
to a p9rmn; tJJ»t it is aoattorad Iby the airtutd drop lot* of iwiature
that o«mo out of tfeis isir i&as«ases of one pea^sa J*iid are T&re^tJie^d i»
by arwjtiiear; that the aoisturs i» eollecied tsn dttot p&xtiaX&i^ i» the
a&ir$ tJiat there are a mm'bsr of factors that ea^Xatn wtey eoioe p«T*om
mmsr l^esre tul^oroulajr @es»a in tbair luni^a witl«at e^pctrently mtSt'^t*
injg any Hi effaetli, wMl9 in othera tJ^e germ ^Uvreloipes dieeasa
'-*s<*-i i^« sm^mi'- ' ^^w». f»»mi4v m^i..
%m;i
^^'l^'f *'^H">
-■,^>*'> .*»««".
' ( 1 '■' ■:■ .ft. .:.•.<;»■•'•».
vhlch m>t infrequently yeauJtf in df:is.th, i4« 8«>y& that thftr* is »
the
tli« r««i8tane* €f^ individual ''*y ll"*^t3ti£ in pcox aurjpoyne^ !«««,,
IstronoMtla Is « (^^rs^. ;>!««■»««!; ti-.at ??l«e:3?s}j;.: in a dar.i » dp.'-aj? l5%<i*
x<N»m teoae to l&'^er resiet'^Bef ; tiM5i It ^oelst «ot bs^ c-carxuitr*d
«iihsr »fe,alte.ry ©r hyfjrlaat© frr x"'>ttP ^f^^^lc tc 3ie«r) iji » ro&»
? fs«t ty It fef»t, ^Hh erstt wtr'-'CT. "yw' with i?r&©tlcaJ.iy n© e^in-
jl^oint, tl«fct tto« gri.«tt«i#j ^t»ie>s tMa rana JI14, .:^i§ a^%«^r fe«4, ■turiag
ill* 3?©3r.t«d fraa S«^«s5?fc«r, VSl'^, t© .'3#t«s^«*, lt#l§, i» BuSftnlmst
»Ri(i th«f>« wa* a isoacUtiofl, ia Jf?:'.ri *et fortUt iji th« hy/j«t^ti«iai
vae that Vatug* Wfes t'a» in« mtta^it im tie Sf.jfisg aad. a;i^thai» fe.tt.aok.
©f ««4it« iKf<5re4l&« in Beon^j^er, 1914, ar»d 9?i« In 'Maarch, 1916} tbut
these a«ui« iB»>«Jti«»« ©f ttte? rt»pir*toiry Qv^mfM ar« kn«r»n tit
Bit«l»i»g ft«na4iil<»a» ^eare not »o ifsptortsuist »s vit« infect i©B«; th«$.
du«t *3pai« st^HTi® ©? jsetals W9ttl4 ferlfjg st?«rttt ^^oar tii»asat», -md if
Bear maea* BHTr$ytr»ii^ tlie ttifesrcalar ?»Tgse«9», tij« r^«ult 1« tt«
l0@slls.''%'tl@m« ^ad Ift&t thi« is what @oiiLBtitut«v arr^^^^tsd tu1?«r«u«
l9el«s«
plaintiff ®iat lay 3, 1913, &n<& fottsd^ tu'beahBulofti* »0!l«rat«l3r tad*
l.v
11
iiaA •JswGined i»i»i.ntlx"i giiunLinXy sx tlm«8 » y*»r, -x?!.-:; thew
haA lM»«n a aia^j' ^iiA gi-a-liife.! l^^rofe-i^aeni. H*t nnXi that ?t«
aoii.t« attack ©f brofl«>.l;.ifcl« witij. M-JiesJ. infect ioK, utr^toooua
an4 PR«U£^e&ecu«» ««wl.:i V«»iu t^^ prcduse !*. oor'.<15.tJ..'n In the
Iwngs fsTor&tol^i vt? t,ti© (&ioVCi©j^«.sa\ of tu>:'ero«i?vOsi£5; th&.i,- thsre
is no spf^oifle i|;ei*t eauslng 'br»ii»iiiti»; that nreryon© "bs-s-tfced
e«3ra», and tha «»:pianail(,A,o» %ity it* Svise caafce IJi^y oisuso-l dlR-
«a»« and }M>t in 9th«3r«, ts.« vj-oulu ««sy '^as i-Jae lowereA 3P««i st-
ance, th« e»n«tltut.ioiHai eoiiditiaia ©i" Ui ; 9&tl«nt,
-jis?, Heb^rt iiSkjf«», «jE«sslKln^ .ihymivtiafi for ilJ«* t^tl»
e*g© feRicifal 'ilibeycrulo^le iiikflitax-iiiKi, i®«iiTi«il for ^ef^rr^*
ant that he -rir»t «3s;aj5ln«4 |a,«Jt«tift tn ^^f, 191S* life sa^sf
tlif*t iub®riasil©tti£ is a !!iij«&»« tjbiit tiitsieke e-Jll ei{*»»«fe; t.hat-
fiterosla is really sear tife«»«; tlmi wherever t'h.iire hste %©<&» fM
•inis of %h.m fojrasatl^n oi" ilbireusf tisaaes; that pr»ii-5H» ^«fe©
havs had » tubercular pi*o«e«© iifK-qumilX^ live to tti^i «|jo and
•^perienee little ili eflects; tkut ttol^a ar» in fact intery-ilt-
tenfc iuf«etlei5» that aim diae i» fea«t#3?i». g«tti«^ ict^ ih^ tia»
»U6« of ttoe fe©^; tl3:at e@ld« aye ti-aufeattit^^ Tsi^ e»Eii«i4it, ^M
that, there is & sisailari-fey ^?lto fei-fft *s^ tttfeai-ttuiowts ia traaa^-
mitte"^.; t^at th« «:x$Xsaatien i^y tul^srwulaar g«r.ti» >a^pajp«i*tly
te^Te B© «ff8«t moa« .Individual wiiaji i«tryduo*4 lata tfea
»yet«a» aM liaT« ^st aerlotts el'i'e«t» on «iacUiar,ls th« pQ-^:-vt
i^f th® tlssises of th« body to j>ro4iic« ia*ii«ity toward tfcat l&ae*
teriaj tJ»»t it i6 * a»tt«r of dels»t« wfe,y certain in^iiriciweli
will feaT« tfei» isssmnlty ^hil« ©tfetftr* will -aot; that saae p-eeripie
»y« n*tujrslly immn9 ta aiay 4l8»«yMi; that low«r«d yeelstsrsce
maiE»» tlbA ti^s'a** «u0e«|>tll»l« %^ 4i»eas«j that there are mrn^
thing* tta«.t %^wA %9 li^mm y«»iatasR««y s@me oi' Xhm aoat e<»R!r^ft
i.f
u
b9lne inter<mrr«nt ir«fe«lio»i«, fre«iu«snt i-atmttiunUf «j3q>o»ur« to
the iiXeiflontt, is?jii*r« air, 1»«mI IItIu^ conaittona, axtrcG-^* esair-
cia«», produolnt^ oonst^ii fatigu«, Xong hours ;ut4 over»lnciuXg«n««:
th»t if a 3aa» twenty»flYe or t*eTity»»lac yoai'a of <kg@ h»& »«»&al
lntereowr»« t.hr«« oj- four ttss** in rajpiid »uc«eaal«ri t^o r>T tkr«e
Rigi^it« & ^B«k,p Ik VimXd to«.T€ th.« «fXe«t of .low«rln4i ivl« rcisiat-
aneft. Iri ana^sr to tiis hypothetieal qu«»«Uon prop©uarfied to iJr.
«tft5i4^oint tfeivi the grinding titat tJii« nsm ilXil, aa d«ft«x-lbttd,
turlng the p«ri©4 free Sj^pte'nljar, J.tI3, to '^ftocHsber, 191S» o-a*
•ufficient, i<s aeesjussit ior tha d-rT^lopJssj-tt of tuberoulosiltt in thl«
jB«is. * Hie reass©a« a» stat^id «r*re tiiat iltt man h.s*4 b«eB «t>s)X»y«d
»f t}s,« h(»t,ir» ,^® wm» <wp1L9y«4;, tteiat tiit «3sv4 «>«a33(^nt and, esnrtltions
unde^ w*Aiig,h fe« »aE4st«f<l th» r«»i ©f tlie t-»-snty»l"«>ar feoiirc woul<S
3i»ir« a sr«»t 4®al Bore to 4o wltk the i».^«r«ttl.ar oon^ition «f>iioh
drrtlo^ed ti^aa asiy fona of late©ir tfemt fe«i fiii^sht e&rry on. th9 ?yit*
»e»is ®ai4 feb.at; thn thitm& xlmt ^p«ar «H>at oroudnent in tK© teypo-
tli«tiesl qu«sti©B fT^ik a. ,!ag4ie'a3. st®isb%©ist, %m feeing Bttfficieirfj
i« aoflsoust fer tfe« d«v«ilttpM«rnt o* tub«freul9ei«, w«?rst the gsucieraJ,
fe»tt«inii ec(a#.itioa8, tJis matter »f faiiip,©, ©.l^apisQ^f «pia:H«r», hi«
liirta^ o«>iR4it.ie©« ami faiigu© froes ©xsrtien. 'ili* xaMleai feistoxy
*• ciT#n in Misgr, i9X4» »iiow#^ tfeat piaiaUsff hstA ,p3polo»sg«4 i»f«e*
tlon aasJ. Ij^snahitla; tkiit agiJiln, iiMsia® «f a y«.«ijr aaA a haif fjoa
,l>«ce?sft>«r, 1014^ fc« 3iis4 astothftr Intityeiirrsfat infeotior. tkat oawsed
Mira to 1#9« weigEfcit,aa4 lt« »ufl>r«(i fro/a *r«5nflhttia for ae-veral
wtelta; that X% i& tu^m |»r©lo»s:»d a«6d i>r»trsMjt9d lttt«3r«i!?reiit
iaf««ti#iii» tfeia* gx^iattally lar^ka Ao'sm th<i tissiue aand Xed vt^' to
tta'l»®reti3t«*' iRf#et4©a, Th^ isttaes® »«ii<a that h& had »r?*vffr fenowa
ilia irsfeaiiRg &t M&t to pr«M^o« th« fersBcl;.iti«; that ^aiy iBfl«ts©4
ii»sus si«aaa« t&p^:jmA reslotanoe to the part tii«t tlssfua is a par-
eel of.
^m-&^m-
,'io 1 90
19
In Ik 4UMsuMt roduce^ 1?y ths tul>«ral« baelXlus; Uiat sunlight
will kill this ba«illtui; timt. tlie 'b.'scil.lu* groura t««t in thfe
darJs:; that ill© g®i^r&lly a8«e|>1#d oi?inio» Is that ^Tactically
*Y«rybody beoofites Infftoted with th« tub©r»l« bacillus; that the
ftatplanation siS to \ihy nearly ftvexyow* at wcaae t^e «i' oth.tjr pi eke
laP' %h» ^mrm. of tub@r0iilof»l)l «md it »««i»:A io k^ve ne effect on
«s«}«, but pr<jdua«» sucb »«ri6u» r«»alt« iw »they», "*is t.iuit th«
MoM of ail Of tti will de»taroy «, l|j.^ited nuBuhar of tul>«rcl«
baelllit s«w^ i^ fl«i>ssna» aasscfwhat «.|M!>» tli« nil!* of the 4ea« sa**
tt|i9ii th« eonditittn ©f our bl©®A w}:>eth«p w® be«on« M««aa«d by
It J* that fr&m an eses^tiwwiioii of th© plaotogir«(©h» ef tli« home in
i^i«fh |»lai»tlff 11?^,, Hffli weml4 .'my tlfesat th» living eo«i4lti®na
lNi*« bad} that t'o'ciy p^oplft in ^ jmsm m^uXd hatve mi injujrtcius
effect «iif@ii th« stts!iai«|jh©3r«, &i^ wowld l9w«r ti*« vitality of sll
four #f ttimii thai laek ©I" staff lei feist f©.M, la«9k ®f r^et, fsml
seental worary ^wro ir«3ry bsid. fnnXnt^» in x^e^ueing the .resisfitaiswa© of
liwJiTidttalBi t}mi tubereuloala ator© frequently ioH«>w« infections
than oth#f $ll»®.®.8«i»j that feroashitis with a mi'x»4 infection of
et7eptoe&«.@ue v^ncl p»€%u$ococaus is one of thfi ?riiit;i|>jal eaascs of
l.9««r<»d vitality "R^eh i^x%iit« tuberGulo»i9 t@ ^inr«lop«; that hft
theught ee3m..al int^reoti.j't®, a® <iea«yi"b®4, Wiimld, h&ir« 'the e&ffect
«f lo^reria^ ^Itiintiff *8 TiiaJ-itys thftt the X-xAy pi©tur«» iniil-
ttatiNt tl'-.akt the tub$r$ul08is wiiuB of in]>th«r long istiitn^in^, by
wtoieh h« ssaBt 8«T«r»l ye«*i, Me said that the inoi<i@noe of tu-
bvremlociiB is ^uito Mg^ astesg tailors; that the further w«i g«i
along with m.T studies as to the relation betw««n th« brdathing of
li»rga.Jiti« du»t nsvA th« derelosRsjeKt of tub®r«uIoaiH, th® further
m g«t «vi^ fr(»a the idea th&t 4u8t has very smeVt influence, be-
eae»fe it it fmin4 that the existence of tuh^reuloaie ie greatest
&£
^ij:
;;^>'^'1.W5g^
u
vh«7« tha Ilvlag oondltions ht9 'bad, <mA In umav ^^ ^'^^^ j>l:i«««
ivhojre dusty ooottpitiona prrraiX, th» living ocniiltionu ■-.rt tln^
MEtreaieXsr ^»A; "thfti w« are gradually getting svay from the l(l*a
tli&t V* pxVTlously b«Id ih&t dttftt hjt^ na isaieh iKflMenct;** that
ifttt0t» w«r« orgADio ftnd. liier£«i.nlCi: tiiJSkl llTnestone duftt ioMe t.o
9yeai»t« fibrosis In th« liuag, whioU 1« the h.ealln«i i»rce««» in
tuber«uIo«la and ret:»rds rath«r than a^graratfts It; that imxw
light, fresh & r« good foQd aad rest fkWB i^ood Rlogscs Ir pr9*
YSntiag tuberouloiiis, b®esui0« they teproT® th® vitality. In
rssponss to th« feypettaetieal q««8tloa i^\saltt«d to i>r» X^eCdvint
this witi»8» B«d4: "I tblnk frcm a aiedical standpoint, that the
eridliy; that tills man did frera SerpteaTa^r, 19 13, to S«c€8»bey, 191B,
la not sufflolent to soc©u«t for tb* ^&T9l&p^^Tit of tuberculosis
Is this sum fe»««u«e i.k« ©t'h#r factors mmitionfs^, tfc.o Infeotlons
and tke li-rii^ conditions, «oul«t b® Inf lnt®ly jaoro likely to
©aukggeratfij waA pr^aots tbe derelo-paent af tubereulools. The
Infeotions is«i3tion«54 ars, in ay ©piRien» from » is^dieea standpoint,
Siiff ielent to sooeuat for tub«rmilosis in thlr. is«Mi«* This writ-
noss said th&t tbe biousing «o»iitlons woalfi not tiocount for the
XocaliftiRg ii) 4 the tubdsrol© baeilll, but would ag,-raTate the oon-
ditions ai^ sai:* tb« j^atient susesptible to tbo d»T©le|!aient of
taborele baeilltj that tust -^11 Irritate the bronohleO. tubas;
tbAt the goims proluos InflasBssation find that i^roduoed branchltis,
Ke said tb»t dust wotad s^rre «» » raft to earry germs ttp; that
tbe gonss were so sauax tiiey do not n.o»t In the air, but floatt
OB all ^st pr.jrticle8, ^md If you inHsiXo the dust th*t eontelns
infectious orgmnlKss y«tt get infect lonj that if the mmbe; of
gems Is Yery great, our bXaod sells are ©bilged to destroy thes«
1»y i^roduoing l3£mm« bodies, and tht^rs is s Xlslt to whldti lm^>uns
bodies tarn b© rodueed. In o<?ns«<iuen6e of that, if we get an
OTeawfcnliRii^ nuabsr of geims in the luaifs, r^siot&ace is lowered.
u
|;«^f' '^-r#%i^^l%iil'il»ii^ tei: ##«fl^ isiCf .MM i^it^#lm'''- ,
(j^H^iiiii^X-'
■ ■« Mj^iit
.:■ !,<i rf :'•";. i-f: ' ji'>J
'* '\''S <\.v.^.i ■«««:
M;iSii?f
dilis;
IS
b««atts«. following that, tl:er« ie h n«riod of exl^tAUntion, and
during Umt 9«>riod of «3chauJ9tloa no anti»boales lavc produssd
aisainat th« tttlB«r«Ie ^Gbollll, •»p«ulally an lnfe«!ii ;n like pn«u-
Monia or like !?i«a«lcte, that er«ai«s a great dmuHOd for anti»bodi«».
If » sitm has the gen?^ to cause brmohltls «m<l inhales «k let of
duet that makett hir. cough, h« s»i^t drive out a lot of tbeee
l^nee sxaA irritation in the li>ronebial t.ul?ee; th^t if the gtraa
are eisiply lodged on tJhe surface of the bronchial memhrane, it
»ii^t m^« hia eough and drive out enough of the genste «o that
be s&i^t easily t^e caxe of tho rest, im-.} in that w^y the ittlialr«>
tioa of dust CL^uId b® henefieial,
I'he appellant cont«»de that th& vax«-Uct of t'.e $uxy
was haeed ■■:-n a ajere guese or conjecture that the tuhereuloels frota
vhloh pl»klntiff tnif fered was» e«ueed hy the negligeuoe alleged in
the deeUyration; itsd it fartBer eontende that a gerys dieeas^ is
not the rsjjult of aa iajury, altho»#i the injury aay have eaueed a
Levered reeiata»oe as^ ihues xmi^eit the injured j»i^reon %»r« sus-
eeptihlis to the diset&se. If the verdlot of the Jury i« h^eed on
jtere guess or eonjscture, it oanaet ets^od, Weither court e ner
Juries have a right to guees away defendant *« m<m«y. The hurdes
ef pTQ^f is at all tiroes upon the plaiatiff, and he sauet show
^y a )^ reload ©ranee of the evidotiee a iiwt.y s^etisg upon defendant,
whieh duty was owing to the jplsO-otiff ; that the defendant negleeted
te |»erfora th® ^luty, awd that Sfusah ne^jleet wae th« pTffxLn&tm
•aaee of the injury for "smieh plaintiff 8u««e. la this e^ee the
duty ie Mstaitted. the aegligiSBt failure to c amply with the
provi«io»a of the statute aare alee 5idft!itt«^, and the injury,
viz, the deveiepsient of the tuhereulosis, ie eetabliaiied heyond
a reaeeeahXe deuht.
t% mxut he canoeded, we think, to h« ;» roved a« a
wcf!i 'ii,.|a«.95lAaK*.«l'i»^ ftfl^ aiMr#/|>*-»lwt;»«« ^« feK•«S:•i»^^'
dM Sa^ ^%^%t'
%$
fact t>iat th6 mmstxj wh*al» upon which jjladntlff worked pro<luo94
duat, rhloj^i hy r^aMQti of defendant** ii9gl«ttt to oosiDly ^th ih9
statutft t3fa« mat blown away, but on th« oontrary fQ««3 its way
Into plaifttiffa isoutb and nostrils, ■'■•'hila tbero w»» a »h«Mrsi
Donfllet in ih«i «Ti<t<»no« 9b tbio |>olnt, it auet b« rag:ii.r<$«4 as
8«i(ied ia pi*lniiff '» faror fey tii® veMiet «f th« $nyy,
fh® »©!« y«Ki»lning (^uestloa io wli^tber tl!*© negllgeuee
tBtafeliB"he4 ■*^® tlxe psroXiKiat« oauso of thm injury, Bof eM^Jsmt ft«ky8
that » geiK dt8«a8« 1« not th« result of an iji4**y?» alihoM.^h thm
injarsr may h&fe liyaught a.'bout a lowered real starve© mM t?wi« re«»
4iar«d the inJuJNid f«7»on tssoro suseepti^le te tlut «}i8««»«. We do
lS9i wad«r»iand mi&h to fe*? tJii» law or ttetii State. In s®v«.ral ea»««
It hsMi Ittien feeld tlmt ®« l«ii1«ry wKii©i>, i«ak®« fo®«i¥l« a «i,feseqw«j5t
diseaft® tej X0W«rlag t3h.« ^plstiatlff *8 pdwejpn ©f 3ns«i«taiie« aa^y, if
tht jury sae find«, fe« ttie iks^xirasito 8«ius# of tke dis»®.««. In
ftadd:
*fii« t««ti-SJ«Ky thmt the tmhtr^nXur as^wlitinn pr©»erit«d
itself ©c long sitfJT ike &€c;td«tit, 80«is.8 to r^lee a iou'fet ».«
to it« feel«g » result t-.er»efj Mit tei%d ^ i\ibc»r«3ul&r OGmdiilon
apseared skortly aft&r f.h€ «:*coi<f«nt, woy^ia net ««»:« ieulit &lfiN»
arise iui is it» "b^ia^ ai&w.»«d t««j*eljyf *■*• 1« view of tis« rui«
gr«ra-ilin|-; in tM® 3ts.l.e t.lmi it ts ?\ qu^eti^n df f%ct for thft
. jiury, &na iakioi; ttito eonsist«ratio» all th?? elreujaati^ac^e ef
tfe® e%©«, tncIu^.iQg tj5« r®.Tsitlltyr, 'w© &r« &ot lacli.ne'a ta
AlatuTb th® v^jrdlci, ancJ feho Jttdgaie»t will fe© affiKa«d.*
^ ^^i%6£2. MIX lz«£a» ▼• I^ia* 213 in., g?4, &
e-&3« i» -whie'h it w^a clsJl^ed that mn InS^ry h^ r«9ult«d in
tttltJ^reuleaift, th« eeurt si^iilt
*If, hernvfTf it 'b« eonoaded that the had tubKroulosis in
!i«r eyst^s, ssjsd that th« swae wa» ICTelofsd isa tii« knee fey
raaaoxi ef ifet i«4»ry tSjarato, er frow the troaljseni «Ji« ra-
oei-vsd Ib tJ3,0 ®nd«aYc»r8 made to «ff*!8t a e^ra af th-ai fra«-
twar* of tM xmt^a of tJba f««ur, we t«ii^ it eam.not la« s&id
ijtemt tkf disastfifsd t^a»dltion or t.he Imae wasi r^% a o--::?n»t§QUfcrti?«
wklalj ]a»tar»iay and ^v^mofilf aii^t follow oa » i^isult of
th» iajmry of apisi»ll,«o, eaoaeadi ¥y ths s«glig«nt mt of «^j-
^allaat. »
th^ ooiiTt furthar aaiAt
•©ijjs;^:^^^!!.^^ »5i«r\ ^t«ill«Nfl^ i»«ji'l»«(is|» s«-|j«Aii««i»t *.?*». <i-^
till 10 *mi^mih '^m i^t' iti'Miw^wikm'i^^ -hm.'--'
$-!imF^'"*
^'i&A
tf
"thm Queetion whether or not th« in4uri,e« of the Ap«ell««
w«rtt th« r«»«li «f the ae^jlig^encft of appellant or reettlts*
tT^m dlMsv* or 6^ %9nA»nity to dlteasft, ^&0 a question of fn^t,
aaA »a th«jr« wa« «vl4«»a« In t.h« rc«orA which, fairly t»ndft<! to
«hov that iiae in^urlna wtxich, th« nnpfilXu'^ ^^a* aufiarlnfe- fsrom
w«2^ the reault of her bein^ thrown Ctqu ;A|5r>e.ll:v»»1, 'a ear^ "are
ajp® ©f tH« opifiijvn that the trial cowrt 4.ifi not »rr In rteol.tn-
Isg to fcaka l;J^« cium from tKe jury, t-van tho-wgh iha injuries
of th«? jjpp^lle® wer* agi^r«.'»-f4.te^ 'fey th« f a«t that sb© haad iw
h«r systfta un orgmiie t«nd'6»ncy to tubtsroulosi*, -^rhJloh 7a«
4«vel9f«<l by the injury or ih« tr«**tia6«nt api>ll«4 to th« in-
jttxy %y tb,« |»hy«ioi-<&oii» aoil wkLeih r«iiar&«4 «j? px-e-v<K.nieid a
9®;m[^l@i« reeoY^ry.*
fk^s 9as«« tt|)on whidhi ^^p^llant r«li«a «cr» dlati«^
gKifthaM* ^^f ih® fffiMjrt that tn® diseatMsd ooRdltiom was j!M»t oen-
n»«t«d \t9 leitli t*i« in^ujy by em^«t«»t a«sileal testljaony, »» it
Jiaa b«ea. ber«. ApijeXlEwat «it«« tyi^ y. Chie.J^o.^„f^.„l,„^^;«, i-iy , , C^^^ ,.,
148 M, W,, 505, iMi4 <iuot«» frees tS^ 0|»in.iQB r«n^«3r«(a by tb* 'M»
frem« Coitirt ef ^iaeoRsiii ifi that o%»«j teui, a« a faaiter of f&cjt,
the tj-omrt ^lo??^ ija tJml «&«« a reoovsr,; f®r tHbflsrmsl©«l», mt^
in th«!! e@ur««) of the oplrdoxt it aaiti:
*j&r, ^;, «r, BoaaJitte, wlj© tr««te4 ^X-alBtiff f«jr hi® itj^uri^e
fron the day of thta acciaent in Jaai4*ry, 191.1, -UBtll soiao tisa*
in ^ril fol-0wii3i|!;, isgad g:av« tilsj a tri^rougJi ]^y«iOAl «»a»ii!rt«*
iioRt ***« testified illr«otly as fsllow^s 'iSucli =4)fs Iniury a«
tht ©««' fee SustaAm®*! i^ould e-'aiua® tub'TirmilGSi*; it would d«-
«:rfta«ft tli« r«»iaiiag f©ree», t«nd lo«;i.:iY«! & ehan«»« for infec-
ti^Mf satti giT« it a t5_^aBee to locsa i,^>; ia othsr '»©rd«, thi»
gftWi tiiftt i«? doxaiemt ®y iaactiv*, '^s-oulti ox ©sat be«o»9 aotiv®.
tn lajy spiai^n the tu'bemulivr eow-^itioa tkat I fouyj^ Is ;h«
jroswlt of this injury. »-*■*< '*© are «i(mt*le to saj that iMs
t«sii{»9ny Ifs bgyoad the |>.ro|»8r seope ©f ©xra«rt '©^w:?!©.*! t^e-
U^eay, anri unless «« «a,a »^ that. It ft«i«^8 ««rtain that wt
•armot h©14 tfeat a fiB^Ung tViat thm tMboroulosIa oondition
»ata oauftM by the aeeid@nt*i» i^urel,. oon^eotwral,"
fh««» ar© only a few of the ea»©» eit#d in the brl»f«,
■whioii 90 'tioM*
Ap,p®llaijt * e c«*nt®nti©n 8««sia» te b«i baee<i ow tte.«
tMeeary that ther« eould b« only oae preaAsate oatiae ®f plaintiff*
di84MMM». If tfeat w«re tru©, tfe« arg^sienft adYaneed would b« a
plausible oust but w« de net unaerstaad tKst It traa nee^ssaary for
plsiailff to proY« tliai th« a«glig««ce ef th« <l«f»nda»t va» the
•ole mni only e«»s« ef ipflalrotiff *« tubereul&r @Qnditl&n* Ob tb«
eeatrary, w« wjj«|erTit«.a«l tiMit it w«i oaly a«««)isjKry t© »h»w that.
f t
««;*■
fvi ^t;' lai' Tx2J\l , r-
;?» fiC!? *fi.J
'MtSii-i!^
It
it VAS ovHi of th« effleient caiusen tending ti» |»ro4u«s« that r«->
It is established withaut 6«!ntX'a4i«tlon that plaintiff
«a« fx>«e fron tMs dlss&se %t the tl^Hi he began to ^^ark on th«
«a«ry wheel. Tliere are two caaaaes "by ^ftitch, under the jtaodlcal
teeti^onj in this reeorti, Umi tubereular ooAtiltleii nay h^re heen
hrtKMght a1$9iit. These tvo oaiuieee are the duet iahaled and i»laJ.i>»
tiff *» a©de of living, i'or tho ooo cimee the defendant v<mld Imi
liable; for the other. It rsiiild ru)t. That this wae the ritm af
the jury i«» we thirds, e^piwrent fr®^ the ^moujat of the irerdiet*
Ths prcj>OBitian tbat the proxisnat© eei^ise is not noceesarily the
©aly esu^Mi, is, ^s thlss^i;, Qstsibli^M by ^ large isMaber of osteee,
^« IlS^ 319 111., 5^; "^m^^ % V, ^9X1^ Qp^ egi,, .345 ill. eiS|
^K, ,4t.A,f^^,yif, g&« •«^. iijjis». ^i? -til.. ^^.
t« eajsnot say thai the Tsrdlct ol the Surf i@ a^*slnst
^e maalfsat weight of the (|pfi4®fie«, ajRd the $u&m^nt is therefer*
atf filmed.
rely, I*. 7., ss»6 2>eY«r, ^, , concair.
* A^4j'*'
M9 • 873
f
1/ 226 I. A. 63 8
01? CHU^AOO,
V
\
\
\ //
m. lusficai MAfcis^ff i^livkssb rm opmiov of 'm^i scturr.
fM» ia & ei&ii^ -^hrm .oXi-kintUft who a]^p»^.i*l», suea w$
htun tt&imjf OS skii toflursine* peXl&f i«c««d fey 4tsf«zt£Unt« Plait*-
tiff *« fttat^ieat of eloim aX.l«|E«c th« ei«kts«es aa^ «ufe»«qu«ni
d«ath of tJt* insured C^«jP liivBls^isd) e»s luii« 13, Sl»21j thut due
»©tiee &3»ai ^esaaa»4 had "b«#a laada o« thi» 4«f«R.demt f«jy ttess «l«ath
1»«a«flt ^ird'S'i^fta hy iha t«liey, but tirM- 4«^e!Hdiant »«fu««<i to pay,
Klainttff^a affidavit attn-ehed tc %h^ st4iej?i«.mt oi' elaia 8i*te»
tliat tfe.« «ai® ©f .104 la au«. ffe.® o«us« w«« tiri«€l V *^ ©eurt and.
tJi« fljBdljfiif «&» Sfeg«tiiat tha plaiatift, .i^sKi J^iifJ.^^«i«nt for «©»t0
»IE&ljR»t ij-ey mn.» ©ntsfrM «b th® fiatittig, ffe« ftoXiay uiH>.n whi«(li
•ult wat %»reiH4isbt ;)roTl4«ti *«w*-*«M» b<&n«sf.it» will V« paid f«r
»iekne«s «y «eatfe ^e©vati»g w>,*©liy ©r tn ps^rt, dtr^etly or isK
d-ljp«etl^, f r??si i&wy venereal 4i«MfajMi '-^ *'^» « , *
Aft^r tli« i«»tli 0f h»3r >msbjjaf^ plalstiff |jroeuy»d a
l^lank trmt ibe 4.&fenAAnt ©«^iaaQr» '*»il aubmltt«d »«T«ral aoct»ia«nt«
tlfleat© of 4««ith, lliis wa« eff«.r»S l» eyifS»n«« by the plaintiff,
«l.U>8iat r«»«3nratA«in ®f mijf MMi Xt i« U^nrnd by Ui© attending
Idftjrftlel^jK, 0. S, .^rle:te»ojflt, am^ is »w»am to fey hisa. It siMo© that
%hm eause of de^th ftiv«u on t>ai d«gtth eftjrtifle&tt, tra» ]4i^ti«
In response to the questions, "was the direct or
^1 AJOS&
n-i^ I-
.<^*f iti «MNl«:l«Jfi ,im^lm»'~h-
■ j, jitj-
/liO'iiaiiiiiV
»iC^'- ift** »i::'
7c cS-os-xiib arid asW ^enci^aewp edi oi esnoqesi xil
•ontributory emuM «hjranl«lf* the annvttr «r»» •Ya*,* "*VMV«roult»ar^'*
A«i«««x, "Bo,* •V«iwir«alt* Answer, *y«a,* In Uie olaJbaani**
eeriifioats of de&th. In v^.npona^ to « qu«tttl(>ii &e ho the c«ttis«
of (l««th» ;>lainiiff r«i)Ile4, ''l-ufttle Traaettl^M aqrM&rdit***
M eth«r «rld«nee m«* offer**! "by th« pla.ljtt.tfl' teua.-
iag to alww the ontts* of 4ttath. l>«f«ndia,T}t offer»d In enrldeuc© h«
R«Aleal e«rtif lcat« of d«ath, »lisn«d by th« if^latrmx of VAt«l
St&tl«tie«, t0g«th^3r TSith eftrtain heftltit. erSltm»fteii «»f tbn City
Qf Chle«^o, by 'whlah the Eitaati:t &4»p».rt,»«nt of tha i>lty of Uhio«|BB
WftA osta^llehed, iiJA effi®« of Cojagssisisioneir of Health ftrtt&t«d, Mid
j>©ir«ar giv»n to a^^'^^^int &«alatSiat» (m(i sm^ley&B^ inuludlng; » simgia-.
tray ^ irii^ @-<taii0tiott« m^- Qtatlng hi« duti«», lffi<sXudiu^^ thirt
af kf»e|jt«g A r««©3rd ^f l&inh* m^<^ daatijig, yjiis was th« oaly «Ti»
d@n(»4t submit t«d by ib« d«fenjtejst. en this control 2. iag; Issue of f ■•&«;*
a« t« the c«tt9« ©f t&e death of pl^ntSff *a imatestud,
Fl«db*tiff ©bi««t«l to tfo« intr&d«ioti<»n sf tla.« gi«<iloal
«eariifi«at«, a&t oBly os th^.^ytmsd that It w«u» not eojspifteBt «Ti-
d$a«9, htt& £a.fm t^^im tl&« gx^^usfl ih&'i it wah s^t oertifi^^S &» proTl*
4«d by law, 'j*&«a« ^b4«etio».» tr«re ©ireKwiulad, ?iiid ®ii-p«*ll«uit ftjrgu«»
hBtm tdtli »ttfth «aiii»»@ti^0« that ih« atmxi «3rr»d la thia ruliRig.
4« th« eaus® wag tried by the sourt, ^tliout a Jury, th«! tullng,
•fTt« if «arT#^ie«u», would net «0»«titut« 3p«T«T»thl® «.rror if th«y»
viMi «th«ar «vl4«mj® In ih« Jf«a#rt3. suffieleRt to 6tt»t;sia th« flnd^
flit saly d«f«ssjNi h»3P« int<8iri»«»«d T»a« that th« d««th of
tfeo insured w%6 di3?»«tly er iwSlroetly, l» whol© ®r In p»rt, duo to
Tefi«r#al 41s«tase, tind that tsi«p«}rtant issv* sf fiict a««afl to lie
certificate of the
oettled atgaJLu^t uppellaat*!^ eosttentiotji, ir- «(»'-)®etiv«( of the/
Eogistrar of Vital ^tatistie*. by th« proof e of d@«tth su1te»itt«d
to tho dofon-rlaat ©(^i-jspany by the bensfictary, <»i7d by her off «red
ifi OTid«Sj@«»
, r 'i! fc"^! ?"*.;. I a I.
,J.\tJ' ><: HA
In the rto«nt oaii* af ^j>M ▼• US^SSSBL Woodae^ fi£ ^^^y»,ftft»
221 Ill<, Ap^i., 3dS, thtt «9urt •tat«« Uut Xaw «HppllotoVl« imb follttwai
eourta of t-is i't«t«, the •taie:s>$n); of a banefieiaxy under «.
benefit certlileate ot i»rara«ce policy, xmX vil«o the ietiit*r,«5Ht
of th« phyalei^m ao a pttrt of tla« proofs of dc^tli, (uro onmpetent
eridenee la a suit toroviuht toy the banefloisolee to reoarer on
me policy.*
33«, ftfflr63lne t% 111. A^p. 439; Ccy^X^ey t. Tr^yeler ,-^. £JLBlS3%iJM.
MMMMJiS&» 1*4 m. App., 258; Hffi3jr.l,g; v. -l^aik^A ^kCS ig«- -s^* fi£
B. Y., 130 1*. ¥,, 331,
Plaintiff '» Sim eriieaeo, *« t iniL» therefore al^tovs
t]&«t the osuee ef de^th ^9M Lueiie fre^&Texee i^yelltie, »nd there*
fere th&t the eause, aireciXy or isdlreetly, «aa Yeu«raX dlaeekae*
Appellant says that tre eaee^t take Judielakl netlce of the aaaolRs
of the phraM Leetle ?ran2Wer»a Myelitis, stml that, an there la no
eTl4enee before the o^urt s^ to the ?»jeaninji of that tern, the find*
lag idsould hsYe been fer th® plsvietiff . Tha otnrt wikl alweye take
Jttdiei 4a B«tice ef ttis lasaKiBi,' at eritiiiiarj ^orde arid phraeee w iidi
have b«'a6es»s a part of the language, aur^ mt ear Ism^^age is e lirine,
growing ese, this n^eessarily »«aas th&t Ui« JuMeial tierlaon, an
«el.l as that ef the eoKmoa ]^e«np»le, la aosetxiritiy widening. v»ee
§tutg y. lie. P*^, Sj^, 0a..,31g ^,, $5d, A ■wer** or phraae which
ha« a definite nvA established Ke^uiiag in the Bn^liah In^tvuei^ will
be ladicially netioe^. MS^i^ 1* Sa» ^» §a»ette P^ C^., 35 ye4.
S70j ata.tc ▼• Ba-l-tyl^^ S3 iUs.«, 1, litt&tle ieaewui ay^hllitle.
Hie lad^eitt ie aff irsted.
Xe^rely, F, vT., iMi leyc-r, J.,con«ur,
?«w«l
\
37© - 2733T \
^!,
\ /' y' r /^' fl ^^ 'A
CH^uii^S A, CAiOiS^, ./■) '^ '^- ^ JL<,rA« O O ^'
) MifXAL 7R0M
/
imX% HDCgg
/
OF CMiCAOO,
)
!«• jruBTics MATCHstt YmA^'mm rm ©jpiaxo* of ths cot;ht.
This ia ttsi »ppe)il by th(» deftsndaat fr<Hn « Ju^gnsnt
for plftlntiff in th^^ twai of ^338,63 «citt{?redi mpon th« vardlct
•f n Jury, motions Hy a«f<»B4.^at for a new vetnX »Rd In »jrp««t
of 4ai3gBWAt haTing boen 0Yer>Tttl«4«
^3lsiatiff*s slateffi«>nt of claim alleged VnaX on
<«isu«t 15, 1917, ho w»» driving his ^i^tWAOl^ile on fiortii avsnuo
and Orehard otrot^t, in tho City of Chlej^o, County of Co^le smd
Stato of Illinois* ant;} thf» aefendiKnt thon ei^ thero open&tod
anothsr siutoeuibilfi iio negligently find ec'reles^ly, in viel^ttion
of the eity ordinenoeet and etu^tutsu^, that m% «l result thereof ^
l>lftiatiff*8 iiiu toffio bile »as hrokea and 4j»aged« To this ett$te>
■ent of elsi^isL, defendimt filed m jplttb of net guilty.
As Oi^se for rev«!r«al appellant contends that there
ia no proper evirtenee ia the rctr^rd uj^en which to haae the e»ount
of the judgnenta hec^tve* hs ?«iyB» the evidenee of one HosJcino,
«ho testified to the cost of neking repairs upon the 4t«iaged
•Mitoaobile, « e inadaisisihlo* the evideaco ehoved th^t Hoskiao
hftd iam-ediate supervision <if the work whioh wes doae uad of the
repaire nu^^m upo > the sm tome bile* and hi% evideneo v >» therefore
e^Bpetent and adnissihle* £ riBi^eio Petihody x* Xjyach et &! >, 184
111. App. 78.
A|;«iin ttppelleat eaye th^ct there le no «»Yi4ene« in the
record t»n«iiag to «ho« that the i^ccideat h«tp);>eaed in the i^tate
of lliiaols, th^t tJusre ie no preouaptioa thctt it haj^peaed ia
• 2.
thrnt itntAt fiUA t.h«t iadtnietions uppl^ln^ th» tstut* hum of
llliftola td th« facie ttf the «n»9 v«r« therefore Frron«^QfU««
7hil« th«r« «^$ no 4ir«?ct ^Tifiene* that thif^ i^ccolAeiit hap^ned
la th« ;it«t« of Illinois, ww think ihnre 1» proof whidi doe»
not IsATd u«( in igno rRne« in this peapnot* The (.Tidene* shav*
thst tlie «=.cold«nt acewrrad ist th© Int^rs'otlftn of Orchard str*«t
and ^erth «T&inic» and one witness titHtoo: * i« otmio through
JLlneola ^ark and then <s>««ni «eat on Horth nvenuo*" '« can t&k*
Jttdleiftl notl<s« of ths f^et th»t Lincoln F^rk Is iocm.t«ti in Cook
Coaati^ «nd la tho ^tste of IXlinole aM th« «Tideraee tthowit tho
i?ct!id«nt «fe« n««^r Lincoln fark and in » closely 'built up portion
of the city.
It le @lso urig0d that one of th« lfu> t-ti<;tlonB f:iT@n
..it the roqaeot of tho pl&iBtlff lo ^^rroaeouo la th«t it pri&eeato
in & negf-tlT« ««aRor the ilvtty of the plain tiff to uif.«» ordim'i.ry earo.
whilff m do net think the IntitJ'uetiOB jaatlv auhjc ct to the
oriticism* it ftjftpesrs th^t m @i»ilar i»^ i ruotioa ^s'.p given to the
Jury tit the rea^est of th« defenAtent, and defendaat, tl5«rfefore,
cetttnet he htKird t« cr>]8|»l»in an this i^rrtund.
Appolittnt alao s-.y^ ths-t the pXaintiff *su! guilty of
ooatPibutory neglig^enoe, a-ad th^t the irftrdlct of th^ .IwJTT f'*'-**
iBsnif» lastly ^gainet the wnl^ht of th£» $-7i<ieneo. Th<9 «vid«noc
tend® to »ho» ^fet the aut»»o%ile of pltklntiff vub injured wtkoa
Btrttok hy d«feadMat*8 %utoiaobile s>.t the intt^roeetioa of Crohojrd
jstre«i £ini Morth &Tttinie» neiur LiaQoln I'f^.rk* i'4&«£ti8t 12'» 1017.
Oreh&rd etreet ie & |^>?lle highway* extending north &nd amtht
Sorth i^voaue is a smblic highway extending east end veet*
Flaiatlff mma driving hio eutOMObile in an « -tfterly <Ur.^5tion oa
the south al<Je of - rth stvenao. 4ten be reehhed Orohord etreet
he tamed north into It, at ihf r ntcr of the street. -'NBf f^ndtskBt'e
fsutoBsioMle wn» then golat weet in th« »hr trs.ck on Sorth «kYeattO»
^^mmmt'tis »Ti«'sw'\-»iW #«»»■»«** «Me& 'I; *!#■ *# «tl«»ftiii:£
iijpM:i*l 9iiw«> ©i" •"■'•• •'■. ■••■■•■*^-- •■'--<- -•• ■ --"—-' -.<»...-.> '-...
3Sc«i> «1 fe«i*«»#i mJElC^^f nlticAJt^ tad^'fWt :«•«>'■' t* ■«>.-' ..
fi»Mtm ms'flim^' ^itmMH 'A ssl l»te»mt*i^' aS»^ahX ir-n^c.
t« V'^^'^ ^^^^ ii'Usttmi^ 90 <$i^^ w%Mix- ««i'
#*«^#i!e btrjfSlfC^ !ti1»Hj!bni»% mi |l^4»*- , S- .;r»lft .r?.f
• 3«
«nd ut A spe«!<t whieh witn«0««s lor tb« plniatiff «»tlaiPt«<;^ »t
frwB thirty to forty 8!il«s *a tiour; defendant* » rv«tomobllo
etruek th« front side of plaintiff's K^chlae. :r,s l^;{linet tlUia
evldcaeo for tb« plaintiff, tief^itdnnt 9V« «Ti(i«ne« tea^lla^ X»
cb»« that as l4feBtiHnt*8 Our »ppro#oH««l on KOrth ht«iiu«» ple^in-
tiff*» aachlno sttddenly lehot forwuur^l in front of It «M viko
»tniiok«
^o tiiink t)%e qao«tlott» ks to the alleged nogllgenoo
of tto« on«« mnA th« ftll«go<l contributory negligeneo of th«
ether, vers* ander the^o cireuBi8tj%no«a, for the jury, tmti -m
csjsnot 9».y th"t the vwrdiet ie o^ninet tta« mnnit^at %eiskt
of tho evldeneo. Tfe® .luAptent i« ther«for« affir»e<!.
U0'Mr9ly^ «• <jl.» #»n<i 2}#v«3r, J«» eoncuro
■r- mM n'V^jt^ <Nll' YAH «««»'a|ll»#«H»^"
39:) • 373«>1
.1?
AF?C8 BLAll. I /
liii» is iMi appeal by Uw 4fif*sn<Sf>iit fy«« * ^ud^rosmt
in tba cms sf §4^7 #ntere«i ttpon the Vf^i-^i^t of s Jury* efter
motions for « lurw trial an^ in «»rr«yst tti' judgn^nt hiR^d ib«€A
ov*rrttl«d. til* ;>Xjftintiff*» "^dfa ^poisifle" stAt««eiit of elala
»i:t.9t^d tk^^'t )»o %&se n pointer* tiind t3^.i.i his el«^i» «r.»;/<sc rt»iji
Ipftintifig* f^^iwring ajs^} isal^telniiig is^rt isMeti he di^ for the
4i'f«n«^jatj ttei/--t th« work ^a^ cflM«:tM»it«i««t ^^a* l?, i9l5, jmd
riBieh«d ^pril l^* 19}l(5« H«^ «i«iiR«d «i bsletneA due on e^.ceouat
of th« thr«e bmiidings, whiafa be ha4 fc^jpe®'^ t» is»»int at the
prie« of $2S& a bailaioi;, m;ountlng to $3^${ end n l»a3.a£i«« »f
i^X64,8& ««e elftijRe^ foir 9i%\x«i imrk edl«g64 t-'*' ho.v« b«ea dtw*,
sikd «3itJr* »*t9r4»l, et«,, fttrni«h«d to tfee defendant*
• 1Sb» affidavit 01' mcTlta ««■* wf Isry w»y Of Antttmm
th«t tlw islftiUltirf al>ft»4«»e«l ^% work «fe.i«h ho j&i^po«^4 t«> do;
t3a»t <aij(f«a4fitit *«,?• cfiii»p«fll«<5 t» 0oHir.lot« tht es»e »t eoii8l<l«
»rR\»lo «xip$8»«; th^t thtt d«f<9f»d(iat voa t]£i« oetK^r of ttet
ortioles MeatioBOii in plaintiff *i4 more si^oclfie et«t«ti«nt of
«2.oi»; tK«(t iho plftiatif- did not do iB<mo of th<i! ttxXru oork
ftgr wlilQiSi he eXftiiMd o6i^enHt?jition» ^q@ ^« tir> othor parts of it.
Ifto fe«4 ^tm folly paid. l>efen«JRjit ii««i«si thfet ho w?s iii'i«?t»t«<5
to tai« ^Iftiatiff iR feoy €!«« wk&tovor,
i^roys ift«ai«iie«» e^td «)jreao4 Aro tisK^t the r^rdiot wot
jtt^koiot fero ogfe^iaat tho *eigjtt of tj»« evi n^noo, o»«i thnt tluft
mm" :'
;:? m imXi
-■M^* -sck'i M*! ««f Ifait** /-. . ..;....
^M.i J' ;> i a: .- ■ ' ■
• 2»
f»ur% admitt«;d IneompetAat •irid«ne« ttvvr the •b4«cti0n of tfeM
^mplAino, vr.fi \hjiX t«niiin£^ to ishov tsh^t th« usual «nd ou:<(t«H«T7
wftges for pst.iAt<sr» ond deo«»rntorii ««rtt in Chioiixso* i& th9 yo^^rs
193^^ And 19X6. It w>^s a'bjected At the trial tm4 is b«« ttrg9^
t}i»t this s'Vltjoneft la iai^iaicslbX«» h«c»tt»» plaintiff's suit
was en » contract for an agrtf^d priee, eltin^ ilSftfiSll-JtiJaftfiilX
.C» A« Cn . v» Sa£E9J5» ^'^^ ■^•^-'■« *3» Ap-xwrftntXy, how^T^r, rfurinf
the first part «f tl»« trial, the d«.f«ndnnt did a«t Rd»lt th*
exiatene« ef mh •>cpr«s» eontret nad* B9r«0Ter, '^ part of the
defense *«v?i that the work h«i4 heen ahcmdonedt and ^e defendant
haA heea olsllge<l t« hire nadiher «srr>r}anan te fioieh it* thie
evideitee wtte therefoz« ^icdnieBlhle tipcin thnt imlitt, even if it
shtnild be eoneeded that it wb» net adinissihlr f«r ax^ ether
purpoee.
A8 te the ultimate f nete in ieeae, ««; think th«re ^uu
eTideaes frew whidfe the jury ee«ld re isnwftfeljr f iad thjt sa to
the th3«e baildiage, there %r « «n express eentract heturaea the
Parties, i^ad &s to the other it«iH«, th'^t there -?«; a, ?sa t« aoiie
ef the:^, «m e<preed, ead to ethers, an ieiplif^d prnm^Lsie io pay*
tke defendsat testified. He did aet aeay thst the extr» work
elained for, vns doae .%t hie reqaestt with the t^xootption of oac
ite» for m^rbliaff cert»ia daJl^oee* The plaintiff elaiaied for thie
iteie the eua of $iiZ, u-hlch the ^ury pr<>f.>«»rly disallowed*
Oa the ieeae «f fnet ns to wheUier the pleiatiff
atbimdoaeU the in»rk, the 'iT«!reh«lniai$ prepoad' r»noe of the
•Tideaee eheivs that he did aot fthMadoa it» hut, ea the oeatr«ry«
th%tt he mua vrroa^fttll,? drxvea 9tf the Jeh« defeadimt etrifciafi
hin &l the ti»e %nd caliiag hin a foul ame*
»4m
ijr<J'HJ5C^.
-3-
l^Tldeaoa w:^8 introdaeed "hj th* (tof«ndr.3it, t#n<liA(t to
eh«« th«t 99mm of the vmrk had b«r^n d«ae lnpro]^«rly, httt oth«r
ftTid«ne« tendeti t« shew th9 oontrnrjr* RJiti )«e i»r« not «M« to
sajr thrsit th« jury w&c n»t JjUMitlf JL«a in findinig for tht plaintiff
on th'it peir^t.
fh« ro^l qpestlen on the merits ooeMifl to te wliether
plftintiff or d^tfendiioit ia^^ pAiH for th<H neterljil tte»(3 in ^oii^c
th« vork. (Yhfi <?Ti4ettco on this point immi oonflictinf •) It w?'«
foirly put up to th« jury* an<i ««» aee no reifus'm for dicturhlnir
tto Tordiet. In^^scd, ire think it -very xloahtftaii , whether reao
of ^e evl-l€B<Mr iBtrof*.u Qe«l on 4«f«nsiant'iB heh«lf ph^nld htirit
ho»n fw&raiitte<S to g« to the i^ry*
Tho ju«J|piicnt is r.ffir««4«
Xe^uroiy* P. J.« gmA Der^r, J*, concur*
«?i,«
408 - 27966
/
\ / \
/ ) 0? CHIG/80.
A eerpori.t4on«
r
.*
{
«R. fUhJlCn MATCHiTT BaJV'.sRSD THl? O^ZNXOII OF TH^ OC«HT,
?hl8 is an AS)p«»l by tha ififendnnt f ros e Ju«^gsii«nt
in the arm of :397..'>9, entered upon a finnini?: by th# court.
The stat«Beat of elaim elleged %h«tt on June .tO» 1920, plfilntiff
purofe^teed from fiefendwut e water cooltjr and filter with f»ue^t
att?icbed thereto* «hlota »o» by sgnr'^aieiit to bo in8tttll®4 by the
4efendant In tb«! presiisee of plaintiff , end ttmt defendant so
eerolessly* a«fglig«ntly imd ixj^roperly inetsHed the e?4iw, and
that, tshea insttULled, it vh» an duttintiro in ito «»imff'eture,
eonatruotion 6nd in£»t»l lotion, Ui* t the %ime leaked; th^ t irr««t
f^antitiee of water ei^eaped th«refro« in the nighttine up9n the
floor of th«* prrmieeo, anrf ran riowa an<^ upon the floor of
poreono lee«ted «nd«r and beneath the plain tiff*s offiee,
Injuring proptrty belnn,:la«; to them, for which daatage plaintiff
«^8 oblicat«d to and di^ j?ay« Thn defendant filed an emended
affidavit of iRurita, in frhish it ad»itted the |wreh&«e and
infttalletion, bnt denied tht^^t th& e^iee «?:& improperly inatalled;
denied thut the filter and cooler fr%s d^f active in ito manu-
f^ctnre, oonstruotlon or intsttalXatien; denied thr«t it leaked or
thut the tveter escaped end injured the pro;.erty of others »»
alleged • It also denied th^t plaintiff h&d ]»aid damage ae
fiJLleged, lund denied fka t any diaaageo eaatalned by plaintiff
««r« th* re milt of def ond«at*o nogligoneo*
this affida-fit alao o&id th^t the wnter cooler traa
Q
.2.
AOld And iniit^llad e?lth full in^truotl«aE> to th« plaintiff a.m
t« the op«r&iin(g %n<! cl«»Hnins of it; that plftintiff w«ft to «iTt
n report in writing immoAi^Xuly ih«r«*>ft«r if ouoh flltenAwuld
not rtiv« (9atlr# sati of action, nn-'i th .t if » sTitt»>n report of
thi* kind itma. aot reo«iT«<l« it should 1»« t..lison th^^t the filttr
Mad cooler «t)» entirely eatlaf eiorjr* 9tirth«r, th..?t d^fendaat
wus to rep&lr and replace itll »eoh«mio«l <lef«ict», «rhen notified
%f the plaintiff, T»«t wfis not to be held r«»pon»il>le f - r AimrifpfB
beo^^UM of leakage or %irf;j»k».ge <^ec«eioRed hyr u&e or disuse. A
copy of the Alleged contract wma Rtt!^cli«<?l t» the nssended
effidaTli,
Fr«» the ~yid«Bee tai-on wc think the ^finart o^.nild
pr»>p«?rly find that d«fsn<i«nt 9ti^» » aiswjf s^oturer and Tendor of a
e^rrtain water filter «ad cooler; that on June 50, 1920» plain-
tiff, through an rasployo, purijhassed from defendiiat one of these
Rrtioles whioh wna installed by Amt»n4tij%t* 'S is^rvante in th® office
of plaintiff; thi>t the of; ice w? » loo^teS on thm fourth floor «.*
« lailding aitajated i^l 16 est J. ckeon fttre^t* CMo/^g^o; that the
cooler w » ordered hy 'phon* im^ m-.a Inet&lled July 0th there*
ftfter; that oa that date the ipialntiff' ^ e»ploy« eigned r rr<;eipt
^Ich stated thftt it aekno'«l«dged th« 4€liir«.'ry ^nd «r<'iief ctory
inet»ll3ttion, »ith othf?F eonditions h» set up in the af rid«vit of
■erite; that on the 6th d^^y of ^«ugast »ft#r its infitrllation,
plaintiff psid the full purchf^ue prioo thsrefor; ths.t h few duye
thereafter, upon openlnii: the office in the morning, plaintiff •«
«*«plo3re® found thsit the cooler h»d overfloe'edj th t t>ie irfiole
floor «, e covered with i»fiter, ^n^ thut the wsti^r ir©9 running ia
on the third floor*
It is stipulated the>t the oecupant of the third floor
mfiii d^Biiiged to the »aount of the ^igneat, ftnd the anoentradieted
eTfidence thows that plaintiff p«il to hl« thst fsrount, -^fendoAt**
offioo ^esi Oi^lled \Kf *phiif^t send i»tifi«^ of the overflow, and »
j&»iti;>'*-^ a«,«l* «,fle«t»*' lM^o42?««liEJ'»® JU*'i»^^ -'-.■4,. •.■**:-. .:.... yi,$f-
A- ....... ;. 'IS* »«» 't*? fci««S«i -. ................ ■>, ..„.,-..„ ,,, •:.
«al#lt •Mfl -«0S »j||i^ .at #Aifl. itu.X'SKfta. iM'f- iU^'i^^!
ik,0;-.^mM$ |»t»«>4ffSI ;,«*s|»i6t:i ,«»«,,8fs
ff:AXi f«itailiaj> «iUii tlm 9<tn»%rae\i«n of th« coo],(.*r «k;s eat ts
plttlatiff'e of loe, this *.^s «a i>&t*r^ay, Oa th* foXlo«4>ag HftMrnf
tua»thtsr ^xpXtift w-^u »«i»t, »!» <;;x4Miiae<.i th& ferticl^ «md towk it
•t«rt« The flrift eeploye madt « report to a«f»fl4i)At Iwit ^ £^ not
9r«duee4 &« »itB«t»» ct tiMi triAl. 'Th& mmtiA tautlfled. ^v |>iotur«
ftf th« filter jtfid cooi«'? ?&pj;e«jf"o in wvitiftuce. It apjiesrs to 1»«
co&fit.<^«!te4 in the fom of a e<iarire« It hnn tw» oh^mt'^rs »)afporte<)
Itjr w tvittll* one «)f t£xft ah»Kl»«r8 !«.< a«&t for io«, tb« ethi^r is filled
«ltli w&tfeJf KhioH it i« 4«eir€d to e«->^l, Tfe® twe c^»«aBb«r« h«ve a
e<»&BvQii e«v«r, «»d the »ml,X b«t^#ss dofta not oxten^ quite to the top*
tlste cooler ».4^ j*ttft<ds©4 t© the wi%t/e»r mmiti trtm ^rhli^ m^tnv fio«r«di into
th« ret^r chtfSKb«r, ?h« eoaler *;-s j;o fton®trttot*'4 that thia wttar
»&B K«Saiitt«a or cut Off Ijy ft« »jle«ftti« r^1mt*aff er fXcat vtviT«?«
if tiK v^t» fttlieS to murk *ut overfls*?- of tfes ws^tf-r icts tfce
ict chsi^'ber wfc« sure t« r«8Aiilt, /. buoltet ?jt 13!» tic»: in tJC.««tloB
K6» pXs««d under tht ceo lev to ewtete «my imch everflei?, cM nfter
thc» «,e^4<i@at» def©m<i#jat iBtsiiaie^l £ dri^J) ^l|>e ^liieh wiulr oatoli
Miy «ueh ®v«!rf low i5b4 oiy?ry it te the ftenmr or era Uiitii tmiXCln^,
A» the eooior w*iis «rlgla«%lly iautBlierJ,t.lw preTertioe of tm over-
flow fi«p4*nd«d ©ntirely upr^n i*etSser the «mtcaB*.«tio c*Jait-off ahouW
proi>«triy ^©rforst its? eeuig-nte^ fuBction, r.-nd ther« wre ^-viacnee
fross -tfiiit^ tho sourt siiglit W^pfirXj fi»4 tli?"-t fM«rc. wn* n a^^ffict
in it« ei" Qonstruet^id «.n^ lisstAlle€*
Ts^tliHony •»&« glvon t«» the effect t*i^t w|!«» «'x«ria»il
%gt 4of i&isdeot * a e»i>l«|«* it imi» ftm«d to be •wtack*'* >An^ tUm %
of tor the workn^oa h<t4 aasore««d isndi lo«)S«n«i!} it» it funeti»ned
grsiisrly. tbero i. »«»« eostirii^ietion in the oTideaos on thia
i^oint, ^t 99 o»mi5t a*y tli%t the finding of the «3owrt in thit
renpoet is «ig%iA^t th« sanifest ft^ei^rht of the ovidcncfi.
A9^11»at hao pr«9«)3to<l a brief of joints eovsring
taflsaty-tim pfi^oa in suf^ort of w5»ieh it ?r«»cat« nn affu»«nt of
fiTs ^ai^a. Jixay of the points raI* mr« BOt, iw think, s^plicahl*
i^##!&: ;^£m#^ iS^i^ '^jil ■'X^^^^ A -kmiSsimi- 'M'M'^;
to the faeXM of the ouii«» tind thaM not istrgrued, )?r«, un<ii^r a
fasllit^r rula, presumed to hAve b««;n i^^iunAoned. Th« flA«« i«'iB
brtntght in the £<unioip»2. Court* «a<l tb« form of e^:<rtion 1» tr^iere
iMMiteriftl. It matt«r« m»t »h*th»r Vnei «/?tion la rt»g'»rd<^<l "«?
ont in o«atr*«t or in tort. MM.li ▼• yoolo y. f .„Co.. 176 111.
App. 93; HifiJa^ T. T«j|h«r« i*'* m» ^'P5?« 436; MT.n& '• v'he>e*
WRJcgj p. 112 lii, App, 'i1»o. hethei*. If th« pUintitf h«td wide
s proper notion th« »t»it«iRent sight have h«>«» 8tri<jk«n* b«c^i»«
at ite double sapeot. it i« not necofeKary for U9 to flecido,
K« no auoh motion ^?pb mjsdej hut wliether we fjonsider th« «lR^im /*»
h&aod on »a isjpli^d witrrwnty th»t th® ;»rtlele $tol^, w*?® ▼•Oftagniihly
fit for Hi^ uu« for whieh it w«?« 4nt«n4*»l# or *». ftlauple «nse of
neglif.%ei3ce» we think the aaurt might pmr^erly undfr tho eylleace
en either thtfory* tiad the d@f@nd«»nt liable •
The 8«*le ^&.j6 mml^ hy ♦'^bone sn^ not hy © ^s^lttta e<jntrgket»
the ofi^loye of the plaintiff dl«ttinctly i»ts>t«!4 at tfe* tj«e of tho
garGh&ust thivt iiajnHint «oul4 he aiMe la e^eh r gather th«ii in
iB6ttti)ae»tSf for wtJlah the aBfpoe«<S ^^rltten »gre«nR«nt |HroTi5.tta»
After the artlele wae installec) thlo e«pl«;j^ signed fi y©«»el:?t without
r*Ad4ag it, »»<! this reeslpt eontained proTlnlono ^-Ith r^-(i^vd to
the 'terse of th« baIo, en which d«f#ndaBt no^* rtillea. ^e do not t&ink
th^it aad^r th» «34rewm8t«iie«» tl» ploiailff Is bound th©r*»^y. It
clearly w«« not Uie Intention of both pi^rtto© that thl« r<^r«ipt
ehouldi oon»ti1%ite a written oontr^ot. ieption l?^ of Th« t^nlftrm
.;iales Actt* C&.hlll*« Illinola l^@Tle«(i w^tntetee, l^EI, piige 50?^8,
j^rOTidOJi in Btt^stenoe th it where the hayer expreaely or by l»pliaRtl«ii
eeJces known to the seller the partiouler ■mrptte^^ tor rhieh the
go@a« were re<}ttire4, oad it tkp^-^&rn th^t tJ^te buyer roli^e on the
seller's skill or ,-fu4|psent (whether he be the gjrower or 8i«tnuf aettnrer
or not) there 1« lan implied warranty th»t the gioede ehall M
reneooftbly fit for jstt^ purpoi^e. ther? ««Mld he no dnwbt her©
thsit th» seller wao infom«frf and ktte« the «»?• to «hiaSi the
Kiilfi' jfs. ^■'■gii «.;* «*M- *,«<?♦
>!^
fejTttcle bought wfis to bn |n*t, >md tlit>i th«r« •>»«, tli«refor«,
»« iApli«d wwrraaty that th*^ thing »oW wfe« r«. i>«nAit>lv fit fw
tlM f*urp«oe for «hi<^ It wju; to be u»e«J» It •'<^.»s not r^^iSonHbly
fit Tor ttoftt aa«, aiod wo thinlf thf 4«foa<i»iit w/ « th«r«»f«ro
iialkXo OB its wt'..rT(kmty*
tim defendant oontoado tyi«i^^t nt mny rut« its n8«;lifr«net
is not tho prOKittttto ef«»« of tho 4i»a«r«* Thi^t eiaeh Afjh^^
would probably rosult fro» tho flef set »»•▼«<* by the i^t*«»«»«o*»,
w« tbiialc M»y ro^^&onebly ]»rtt4«nt »«r»on si^t hnve fo^^^seen.
Tli«s« aMb^«fl »«ro th» tt^tsirid nad |>ro1»sblo effect of »ti«h
«ief«»ot, is^nd ih« d^fest wkiis th^r(?foro the proximftt« et'tQ««*
,i«fen?iant »i»« nrfca&s i^JiJ^it i^Aolatlff ■».■.» n*>f'Xl<j«nt
in tn,-:% it aliotwjd the water to flow to tho lowor fle^^r, ^«ft.
thor* io ao proof of way n®tli||«moe' on tbs |»Si«rt of the plt-^in-
tiff« ajt.copt i^uGh ^a it Sisy have been Xij&)»J.« for to %h(t
oecuj^aynt of the third floor, Isy r^^i^t^on of t^eft^Rdae^.'s 1?reH<!;b
of ltd oarr&jity obU aoKligoaoo. The Jttd|f7m«^Rt will therefore
bo &ffiisg»d«
]Kc*Ji»r»ly, ^•. J,, mnr! D^Y«?r, J., oonotir*
ri?i>.$^"fi"
\ /
▼«. \ ) /
M, fi:wftm jiAJsresiiTt ssx*Wism» ?® ©,irt«t:^ o*? tki coajr?,
t&i,» la an mii^^&l hj ^et^-M^nt froct a lii!i^:Kant i«
til* i^M®« «i? tfe« y»ttty?i ?*f his ■•B«««sf, 'Ytut tbai ■Isfer-iaiat bmt
failed t<* <^n either*,
ehae^ the jrubXen ftjF few^^late :*!«ll^rerr ^mA <!enl!e4 t^»t fXala*
tiff hod mi'i4» ft«»aaT«'li| ftn s-ltac*!*, "b^^it fs;t®te;4 IK*© fm^tif tft ?>':;! tfeai
a^en* far tfee pii3ppose of fyir^;jiMli»g t,©f<9 r^Jbl^^s t« T%n9t
M©'rssl?,ewi«K Sogaas at ;i0aleiir», liuealft; thai at th«s tiisis plaintiff
pmii iiadd aiei3«y sand 2r«iu.«3i?3r4 tJj« d«f«s4*t»t fco aoi &» bia d^*Gt,
l^lalutlff &a.d dsf «nd^yat ent<sr»'J into ?i iryi^i^u i^ra^ei^at, h K«py
©f irhieh i« ?mt vip»
tfe» Su4^m«ttt mit!?r«4 t« 33.1a f avoff. ^n Js^wq »iftVflKrtJ:icI»»» «stBii6isi«>« the
•▼id©K««i ©®y«ftilly, a«,t t):.tfi.fc the a«*ittewti<^n *.lif4l tl».* judr'asOTt i»
'^ S,TB5?--
!i%:i .h..:ai-:hk;'^ sf -r^^i'l <'!'i*.&?*:--«'5'
^.H.r
«r*!' *«.^f ^
mast \>9 »ast.«ina<3. t)<i« JudM^ni t« i}:^st«fox« r«v07tt«d m&il th«
MeSarely, r% J.» and l)«v©r, -.T',, eos^mr.
\
435 • 2T398'
/ 226IcAc 64
)
\ /
\
\ /
\ /
ilR. JtfwTlC^ MATCjnrST P'lhim^m tM35 OFTJSICK 0? THE COUat,
'i'hia itt fia apj^ftl by the dsfendant from a JudgRent
in the 8u» 01* ^5{W, «nt«r«4 apen the finding, of the court*
•Hie fAOts (for th« «o»t part ettipulRted) P^r* ^ri^^ctlonlly e-s
follows. Tli^ d(ifi:n«;^fiiat f appellant in this court) i(« fl'« omier
of o«rtRin proaiaea sJLtH«t«di in the City of Cliio&go, icnown hs
Io« 1618 ^^at 18th stroet. Jan« 24« 19ia, ho «»d« a l«cso
in t-^rlting by Which he demle^^ th«»« preKlooe to ono (hie
MerealiB* for a tena ftndia^ June 3G« 19S:3« The premiK^Q ^re
d^oipiod for use aa « theatre* ai^ the l««*i60 includod certain
proporty in the "ouiliUng 0i two, toy ther«<m, which ws8 s«it»hlo
for that purpose. T>ie rent r^^isrrmi wc |1^ a nonth %nd tbo
leaae jarovidtKl that to InJiar? t^i« faithful perf ft.iB?Jttce of nil
th« oovenftnts ana totwe thereof "th« pnrty of ihe oeoond pert
ogroBO th>t tte two C'lfeGtrie sonvini; ?citur« B»«'5hineB to ho
installed in a&Xd j^vtmi»9A l»y tUiiS! pArty of the ocoond part*
»httlJL be S'^'Jurity, and c^snot ho removed froR «»^id praotioeo
•rithfiut permission of th« p^rty of the firat p«rt»*
Jn July 2^0 101B« on« John a. Vouavftkie turch&aed
fir«B the i^nterpriso Optieel Manaf^.o taring Conpany tvo aotia{tr»ph
naohines with oo tor* etc., nni the atace wore deliverod to hi»
•t thtt j&hovo aontieaod prcniaeo. He paid pnrt of tho price in
e«.ah ikn6 oxsetttati k ohtittel »ort||;»se si^ouring tiie holanoo.
Thio aortgsige «^b never roeordod.
^ "
■-Ca.® jl.^ %j ^ ^
* :./«,»->. w^* fiW"
AyriX 2, 1910, th^refift«r« VouMTalcis paid the >»blanoe
dQ« on the purshase price of th«fi«} st^aKlnoB; Vt.roh aa, iel^«
VouaiTaJbcit aold to the plaintiff* frank Ondmeek, the oonttnto
of th« operftting ronm of Xha isatlon piotur« ttt«atr«, located at
thi» place. The th«».tr« was kn«v>xx nn. the "vhlte bgle Theotre."
The oonTeyanoe 09v«re<l '*»11 tods, im plowente, t«o BOtiograph
a&Qhi&es. outsida electric e<|uip(nent« and all other peruphernttlla
belcnging th^r^io. in ihe one-story brick i^uilding «t 161S -'oet
leth street, Cijiewgo, ll.linciw, in-rludinR the good will of sttid
Vuaine&R.*
Cndraoek paid Younvaki* .^I.IOO therefor, aitd took a
bill of eele eevering the pro^«t*,y. An «]aaii«aR*iit license hud
htea isint^-^ to Veusiv«kit} by the City of Chicago JanuMry 27, 1919,
«toioh license gare bin the privilege of oonlucting a theatre on
the pre«i£e!i. fhie licensse yf^'B to expire Jmie 3<^( 1919. Cn
thbt d&y tho plaintiff Ondraoek i?ent into poa&eeeioa of theaa
prenieee and projierty, Tswt to^k no aeci^nffient of the written
la«t»e. Althftttfh it wus in dispute, w think, as a mutter of f»Qt,
the court »*f.v ^ujtifig^ ir, findiuj^ thvt Cc^r&eok paid to the
defendant, and defendant r*»eeiT«<l fr©» ),isi, rent for the prewiaea
at the T^t'Z of 112© B- iaonth, during tH« wontSiB of A^^ril, .'^fer Bind
June, IH^* June M, 191$, th^ defendant task Judgment R«^ainst
Xsreulie r©r the euis of $150, Isein,? the rent st $130 a ason^
for the BsonUi of June, 1919, and #20 attorneys* fe^ 8. /in
•xe<3utidn ia»i«ed on 3xmm S7th there^e^f ter, and on July 5, tha
bailiff of the S^unielpiil Court levied on the f^oda and ch&ttela
in ©ontrOYensy, beinff tho mme propflrty purchased by Voamirakla,
and on /.aguat 7, 1^1^, aold the ntone to the ^efendtint for $200.
June 50 th tho i«!f «n(l«nt took poaeession of th* gnvSa end chattels
involred, 4ir«oted the silaiatiff to Icate the premiaea, said looked
the door, pi >^ing a po^dloek thereon. Plaintiff h% thr^t tlaa
resMiaetrated cAd de«aad«d poasaeaioa of the gooda, which w a t^»
©'■ ■i^'t «>tiB* :*?t**>? -^m^--
^■siiji&tmi!.(i ■'^ -■%9% ^sifn tmiii -
fussd, an<J en July 1, tbrouiih his nttdreeya )» Agnin denandod
ifi writing tr.te rtJturn of Um goorte, which w: e ^ffAill rffuMd,
It in BtlDulRted that the vitltt4» of the good* in cwntroYarity on
JfUne 50, 1911-, t?f.B {7fir;v Pli.intlff tt!ftr»r.fter !nji«»d out a writ
of replcYin for tji«» £oo<ii?, wnd the OFinie net h&Tlng h««a recov-
ered on the writ, filed a count in trovr.r.
The defendttnt r«que«t«d the court to hold an propositiona
of l&v that defend^snt came into poasesnion of th« property lawfully,
and thftt a deauand *s>b neatysntir^ b^r^ee plaintiff oould i?!aintain an
eetioB in replevin or trover t&r the goods; th«t plaintiff tae not
ft tenant of th© d«f <sndaat. and tiittt plaintiff wui% in Ir.w estopped
f rOBJ asserting his rights to the property lJ«SfMK« he did not givo
notion to t):.e officer nt the timt of th© levy of hia clsiaa to
ownership of the goode.
We think the coart diit na^ nrr tn refurajng *}0 hold th«dO
fropositloaa of ls.w. Cefendant tooJc the propfsrty *ith full notice
of plaintiff ♦« rights, and drove plaintiff Rway from the pr«»U««
prior to the levy, there is no proof that plaintiff hi&d notice of
the 1?atliff»8 sule or prior knowledge of it, there wes, therefore,
ws %a8le for an estop jel. the finding Of the court wrs oerreot
and the judgment la sfi'irmea,
Kcfjurely, t, J,, un-i Bftver, J«, concur.
ji rat-
' t^Mi W» -.
<'.a.ff :
1ft ml:-
-•J^.'S--
iii ,?fS*fi«Lfe}.I
463 - 27420 \ /
■| / ) CJEHtiUlT OOnuT OF
/ )
V
MR, JUSTICE K^TaafTT DM,lVf?l*gI5 fHS OflllOU OF THS GO^SCT.
iM fATor «f tii« iicf «n4«:?»ijij> ®ttt«r#4 upon thw v«rt.'let ©f «, ^Iwry.
which vefdiet the esurt, oa ssotioi^ of ief endaiitis , iaBtr«ot©d th»
JttiTf t© retarm* ttee ^jcli&n wae la oase. Tli«re a,r« thr««
««feB4eJite« ».iirt th« de'Clj^r^iloa In rj;«'rex'&l <:Qunt& ^llftged tku^t
d«f«Bd«aat« with M^liett sjul withrmt i!ir@W%l.6 eBeast«i« prAoar«d n
w^^rrsnt* ehf^^rging t)i^ gilalntiff aiKl «ith«rs srlife een^plr tey to
•xtert Koney froai <»a« HH>re«-3r; tknt ttiMsiii th« hi^r.ria^, tike d«f®naS«iit
tiwi** (yXftiaiil'f Hisrtt) mn.% ^li^ehf ir^sed. ¥li@ d«?el»r «tl.on aXso
Rll*l^di tkai j'J€>f9n4aRt Bark», 'sAte wr^^ n police <»ff|c«>r of th«
Ctty «f Chior*iC9t ftcVd %ithEf>lioe «sa<l •xpottt«<» tl» w».rr*«t
in ftn ttan^eeaiifiskrily Oj^^i-re^^lve manner. Th« dcf€nda.nt8 eneh
fil»4 :p]Ui»8 of Vm g^rnetrisl i»'/^«« T.b« ^b^irs^^i le nttitt
^eficieat. »B«i ttw» i>f the =:Sef nndantu have not 8««b fit to unpssr
in title court ia support of tlwi ^iidgBiJ-nt ent«r«d In tlwlr fefora
tlL« «rr»r urg^^ i« tha giving of tk« in^irttctioii to
t^« Jvry to fia<i for t3i« 'l^fendtMito*
the «^vlftiine« *f idie plAintiff t«i*l«^ t« tStiMem th»t )ho
vfts Ml ^ttorsey «t 1)^ in tHi» 4tAt«* «n4 hi>^ 1)««n pr-cticing
l»w is th« City af Oriesiigo f«r twenty y«»{iir«; that \m h»*d an
office in Chies^o, tmt his h09i« «n$) in :v»iistea; thf-t hs wt'S
wtli s«<3u»lnt#d with «i«fsn<i«nt» Hi#Tii«y fdftd JPlaamer; tfeftt J^lwRBter
is »i«« an f*tt«r»«y .^t l»iff, fraetletni? In thl« s^nt*; th«t
-2»
thfet iiium^j «^9 r«put«(i to b« h rtte»b«r of m firm intum aa Mpraojr
3reth9r»0 who «er« cagitg9d i« tlie eoBUBiaision buoinetfti in th«
Citjr of Chlea^; Uutt oertMia tnrmturik ^l«|iB«d Hnm<»]r Sroo. sold
bay 1»eloafi;lni; to the ftinB^'ra oa a aotti«iB6ion« ondi r«oeiv«('' th«
frooosdo thar«of» hut r^tftiord to pKf iho feursKsro for the ha/ .
reoelTOd nnd sold; ihc>t. throe Hr-Tn^f hrft thora» lacladiag tho
defendant, oeeupi«r! ih« 9tmt» buildlla^, onti tht^^t the oaly a^ao
on th« donr of th« efrioe tatA on tho 4oor«i (.lown«t^ftm wn« "M raigr
Brothora;** th^t tho l»latlff re|ii*«»ent«'d iv« »a esttoxwoy* wcforol
of th«80 fnraiors, w^o leaile cl»,i»e agf.lnist HRraoy 'B^poo, «,n<l thtat,
»? tholir tiomoy, ho bfought suit «g»»la»t HBra»y Bro«. •« thooo
el8^»; thfi* ono of tho pmrXitts, who oIsiMod to h»T« b»«»w thus
<l«fri9»4ed o»t of hio hjgiy Isy H?*.rB«y Broa, eftRswlt^K* I'lalntlff,
Tiho told hie th'-'t ho, jjtiRintlff , hafi sdrisff* urith tho ^;t«t«*»
uttoriM^y of Cook Couaty* who h«%4 tol4 hi» th.%t the f^cto dono hy
the so peo^lfi ^mre la tho nature of a coafidABcw ^»»«; thitt thii
p&rty thoreairtin wont hofore & J\t^g«! of ih« l^ualQlpal Court, enfi
a*dio A c«»plj3i.iRt, tsheireuipon tho ^u<$g« l»3tto<l w'^'XTf^at*; th^t tho
defend?§«to ia thst ca*» tb«a w^m before Ju<lge Bjsrsao, rhe entered
an ordfr luftshlag tho i?nrr».ato^ th&t th«r«wpojj, upoa e«m.pl^int
mmd*t -^'-.-rr-wntn ■v<et9 ioauc^d hy ^dgo IRrnvrnttk for tho i^lAlatlff oadi
othoro on thts ^ru-ge of cjnsjfir:*^ to oxtitrt moaey frow Ihom.-** .^»
flftrnoy; tksit ulthoagh the plolatirf w. « »t hio offleo «s.ch «isy
theremftoTa tho aef ^adantc J««ui« H, Barko. who it a f-aliee 9ffi4>62f
•f Qhiof^m* e^^-o to the hmi^^e of plolntiff in >!^eBf'tOB» ac^oafmalod
%y aa .^^^natoa oollce««in* "t »h(»»t ton o*olook ?^t ai^Jbt* »r4 oerved
tho i»arr«at oa plRtatlffj thet plointlff ^jspl^s^tno:! to thlo polieo
officwt that hie wife ^'*» ill and »^«€, &n6 thtt »h» *v-s shocked
hy thi» oe^rroaeo; thet tho ^vsaetea jpolloo offlcor* rf^fueod ta
hove ^aythiAi:: to do with tho «rreot» hat tlivt dsfsadrfct l»«rke b,v^
superior feroe oati ;^«or e«NBi»elledi tho i»laiatiff ta ooko aloag ^i^
hjja* oad to<$h him to the eoatrol eti»tlaB ta Cbioafa» vhoro ho woa
s«c.^- ■ «•«*» let* «•:
. t^tt 'fttiRJ
IftflKBt^l
;fe^^-i-^»:
^ll«4«
^i^ji c'*: ^-tfa- ^ ^ ^52^ «a;'''
v^ ■ do
-'-- .,?^^^v
■il-rif'-S'/rv
;i»-«SK»'^ 't#*ef
;olT«^r
iMtld aaiil h« n^cvkrmi m bond; thnt »i«f<.;n«cni Kurke dcaMifttrd of
the lt}ekupkr<'«>^r to put tlw pl^^iin^lff in « e»ll» Imt th«
l6akupk:«'«9«r . >ld "So, sir, 2 wiXX not h«iw hlar. ynt In «> f^ll***
fund furthor «<5ia, "Toa tnlw »n «ld nitii lites th't «n<J brini; hla
hers, i will ^c r«n|>oBiiil>lQ for him. ^^^tt dorm h/sre until r^nr
l3«nd is a9P)rev«)ci,*< i^l«lntiff »«(ys th^^t he r««t<%in««i thcr« until
tiPO e*elook next mornin^« «ih«a he » e rol«aA«<i on bond, and gpX
hack to hl« house iah<»ut thr«ft o'elock the n«xt asominc; thft,t
jRft«r •©Yorftl hO'-. rings he wr.« tlischrrgsd toy jB<le« Hryt«,
T(»ho s*id: *Th«r« ie not a ■swrd «f evidttnc* Against tvi^m,"
Flatlnttff anyp thait his j»,rr«Pi v . g pul?li9h@d in oil
th« city ns ap«per», »nd «11 his fri«B«ie Ika«« aVoxst it, j-ixi mftigr
of thCTBS g|>ok3 to HiM ahont it.
Wo think the w'sridenoo for plaintiff i8r4o s ^lyjUB^ f»^oif ,
cea*, wbich Khmild h«T« Wsn suTaaittv^d to the jwry, end th t it
«-?» error for tho cm^rt to <lir«crt & yer<Jiet in f»TOr of Um
(*ef »»4aiaats« fh« Judgacnt will thorefor© ho rsverood RBd tho
o»as€' raaim<}e{l«
i?v :■-:■::' a r~i^^'•
i''
«4w
/
\ /
\ / \
2GI.A. 640
MR. 3ismim yjsmwn m^vmmD Tm wmm o^" tics earKf .
l*X»intifJ", ae iiatainlatrator ef lh« Satiitte of a, it,
S«ott, Bu»d tfe© di9f«3atl«uJiii upon five proiaisBwry noteB fcr th«
8x&» «f $200 »mh, dated C'tttuber 3<>, 1916, at I'hllMelphlA, and
pa3ra.bl«s to th# ordfir of U^s d«ee^sfld \x0&n %hst Aatnv iiajri«id in thtt
r«8p«s«tiv» !R0t©», with intt'^rftiit at ^er a»m'» t*®r nmmm* Th«
d«clar»ti»» f ll«d ir*8 th« ©«33,8©Ii<latt«d eoisjjiftn counts, ^he d«»
fendants fil.«d m» ssftldavit ©f jaarit»t «fcl®^i waa jstrieisftij fy««
til® flX««» tfh0s^up#a wa asaenrJed affldArit w»® fll»d wMci^i s»t up
that tlJ« «0t«8 hs4 b»eii fttlly taid to A. M, Scott; that 3oott
sii4 IM^w«r «at83Nid l39to ft TerUial agjr^«f3i®»t that if »ald E. w, !>«•
Bowftf imtild d«liv«jr tc S«&tt S$,0^ par vsilu^s of th.« d<&jS!im» isiteak
of %ha U.m^ &rlY« fractsr Cfosparsy , S«ett spottM eft£u»«l eun-j »ujr»
in$ t© th«i &g}r»ei^««it, ^•■iX iiiat S««iiitt» althougte, ,r«{ju«»te<l so to
d0« did Slot ei^aeti and; smrr«n4er the m>ies.
the eauam 'sraa trt«d \ty tim eoart without a 4^27, aitdl
tk« eourt fattJBd Ui® iasueo fQT the giliilBtilf , 5iasje»««d plaintiff**
4«mi&g^(i at t^ »tHi of |I127?.S0, atsd ent@s«<l ^^d^ijaent tto«r«for.
fl^@ d«fitnd&ntc jtsifed the e&tart to heX4L tut a j^repoai*
tlon &f law that if plaintiff ♦• iRt#8tat« had isad* tfe« a*jr««®eat
»» iill«ejg«d» a«4 B«S<rv»r ^ave atM 4«i'iiir«x>«d to i^ott thft shojr^ft
»f st9<»k ^]r4»«!4 u^B, plaintiff was lu^t imtitl«>d to r«esv9r In
tl3;« eaM, er^n if Sdott aeslftet«d er failed to eftnotrl the notes
iSs *\
«:air^€*a &iffv
MItf mitv^nii^r \.hem to B«B«««r« ths court rofvisc;^ %^ hold this
]»r<>pt)ttitie» nt Xws* We think it nhould 2i&ir« eo h«ld, }sm% this
ruling b«oess«s i£!aaat«rl»l if %im tiiMt» in rvid^a^* fwiX U» vu**
tain tl» |>r9|>o«ltlon »« stated*
Tfcft contrftlliiig quoatieii In th« oa»« th«r#f©i-« is,
HlMlliMlX' th« Ju4g^«fii is £jismif««tly ^.t^^inet Ux« prepondertme® of
th« «pfld®Ke«, ikpp«llaHt '4Tgu«« ifeat it i«,
tb« «vld©no« jfufemlttsidi ^a l&®h&lf ef th« plaintiff
ooBsiete^ of tit© unsaaotlleS nfiti^s, whiofa were in th« tjoeanaeicrtt
of th« MiistBietrator, w«ya T»rod«a«d by hlw anS offer«d swtd r«-
Ooiv«d ia CTldsno*, Is oMer to ©astain the fl«fen«5! ejs pl«!»4ed,
tke *«f#a-A«.f!t» %h»n jproiueod aa a witn»e« 6»« CSlen C, Bull, who
t«stlfl«4 tb»t Jj« i£n«w pXainUff *« isteatat* in J«in#, 1917, «aA
«R« ]?r«»ont at a eisirr«r»fttioii fe«tw««a tko Isntoaiatt ao^ S* *'. r#«-
Bcmaf at i>aB0trer*8 {iffico 1b, Cbitrago, in ^ui»«, 1^1?; h«( ira« u»«
ftlkltt to flat th« oasiiat a«to. B« sayss tAat My. Soott t^nnw in a«A
»ai<a h« had b#OR ttelititiwii ever th« i.iaa Srlir« f raetor, *tnd irao
Tory jaaioh ttiter$8te^ iii II;, wad ^xmM lilcft to incireaso hit iiold*
ingo, aj34 said, '*T).'©8« JiHStoo* • Of *»ote of 11,000 that I bairo of
ymtxti sn*d Mr. Morrlo' in tho outgrowth gf th® R48jnis©asol« a-ffalr* •
in i^lofe t&o thrt« mftn iwro Joitttly i0ter«st«S in i*hll8td«lphla •
ttia-t fe« wsttld ltk« to mirroitdor tl^o »ot«» to :^r« :!>«Bowor fttT
t^,Oim ©oasi^on ot&ok in iho iAne l>vlrn ijraetor. K« fwrthor t««-
tifiod that l^iBowor utkXii hm wcmld thiak it over a,««^ lot hi® kuow
in a f««r days. T>ia fdtn«8« also tesiifi«4 t>tai ho wao pr<«oofit oit
a Itko o«e«ui4e», mt w>>lch Ky» ao»tt a^mlsi brou«i&t the pra^oaitioitt
mi, $t3^ t^iiBmf&w nt^^t^d that h.o waa Imculia^d to aeo^t it; thai
lie irtml4 hard t^o Bio@k eortificatos m^« out, ^i^d ho ord#r«A
Mi«a 0r«aasK, Ma aoaret&ry, to mako t:h«w out. Th» 'wltaeoo
alao aa$^s thai tho e«rtiris^t<»9 vere siMo out and deliverodi to
TSbfm 3<«tt, ana that Soott atatad that tho notoa iroro aot «?ail»
J^i-^-'f *-*JJ;
"iUf #«i««flr»i»«f.#r#'««? »M ' |at»»t#.«?A ^:ti» ■
t\.l
-«*'
Jim'' ■«? x«$ t'»««^^
«,bX«f limt w«ir« in th» aafety 4ei>0»it ^a^ or n£ti»9 pi ««« «hitr« h«
eoiildl n«t g«t ih«n; th«t hft mrould fi«i th«» smA s^vid U\bj& ot*7
t« Mv, X>«&ov«r« This vitB««ii ala« t&«tiri«d timt D«^o««r ln»
quire4 abeut tbe notes tvo ox* thTtt« ti^ssA, %nd fln;vlly bee«t!«
impaiieRt «n<l ioXd S«ott tlmi the wteeic h&d b««n dftllyer»4 i«
hiai; Uiat "h® wastsfl tb<i iioi«s, ami tliat ^icoit told :D«|iow«r that
h« *w«.«l4 get th®s all rifilit, h« did »ot n««d to worry about thoaj
or «Cf«iethii»g Ills:® thjat#* Th« Kitn«Ra was u.nai-lft to rtKsesib^r how
nsaiif &iiwr9T»^%i&nm tH«re w®r« abowt t5j« x}Ct«#, bat si&ys that on
•tt« oee&oion Tdtios I>eBow<8r had »ad9 a d«:r.aM for th« not«)a th«jr«
was » little frietiOB b«tt»®«R 3«Bow«r anA Soett, and that Scott
mad* ft 8'l»t«mi@itt to th(» wltneeei thskt las would ^ult uitiil h»
wa« fi^o4 ^E^ reaiy to tnxn ihm mstes eysr, or womHihing to that
•ffoot.*^ 'iiitiimm» le^ys th«t Mlee iSramiOB w».@ nctt ^jt^biohI «t this
tlBMi, but tlk%t th* statiarj^nt w&R aaats to ti-i« %'1..tiie»o la th« hall
«ad in o^nftdenos. fho i^ltnsss «&id he hnA nm«ti taXkril to Miss
Gx^^mos QT saybi^ay *x«.tpt My, Arnd, t}x« attorney, tO^o^t his" tes-
tltfiOBy in the oa««»
Mm t^T^nrnQn ale© testified for 4«f#K<!st»t tJiat aho
r«ca.i.l«d a. ©©iff^rs^stios haviag taJk-er/ |j1»o« iit ^Mt*, Mil?, but
w«is ^se ttKS*bl9 to fix th« «x?)tet dais. S-Svi? esys that ''ic-«tt,
Mrt ;§ttH a®4 ^» B«^wer w«n» prsasnt at th«t tlss; tlmt wJais
diseassJjBg ©thar sssitiers 0o?»tt jgot to talking Jibowt soae a&tss,
sm4. »sl4 to M.r* BsB^iPsr, "WsLl, I ^euld liks ta g«t sow;* jsors
ilao Srlvs Ti^^tor stedt, Jisjrbe rs e*n isoko ft dsal o& nesm i.iBS
»riTs S^jneietoy «to«k.» isjr, 2>«iEowor «ald» ••li^yfe* «« owi ao thstt,*
»»#, &mkm ^at eesit thought wcaildl be s go^ doal, "}?.« sugg^siii^
% b«lieTe» it wifes S?;> sh&ros of »to4l6 s^t » pajp valuo of ilOO p9T
shars, 15,900, aad M*« l*«B»ws» «8d4 th&t ^»» too wueh,* ^e
•aye h» stat^^ fwiftfeisT he ^tmliS givs it eonsl5«r&tioa, aod that
Ofi ansthsi* <l«y ileoti earns b»«3c aoKl askadl Mr* ^«£ev«7 if he hsuft
■^:i mM:^* f5Sr:^J:«; -m^:: *r3 -rn?! $■'
& t t^»mipM&ii gsm»d hmi
given any t»t»ytt ihoug^t t« t)u» ciioei£ m»it«X', ^»(1 :i:>«£«'««ji' wtkld
ht )inAf and "1 gueast I «11I tsik* you up eu thai,** T^'ilb wlta«»«
ttito Mftyti t;^t ahA was 9T'6»»nt viv&ti ih« siocX %as tuiT^s^d i;v«r t«
Sir* &«oti: that B«l>oir»r tius-n Si«ii«d -ao<5ftt for thft tiot««; a««tt
7*pll«& tkat Ui«y w«.3-« in. Me, vawlt, imd t:ha.t he would aive thMi
te MjRt scmft ot>k«y tlfi;«» Qii^ furthev sayiii tlmt &n two or iiir««
oaea»lons l^eBovftr ^sk^ li^ctt fer ih« scttue r,jiil thsit «eMli \i&»
1»«ttaia4i s««tf le prlTat^ »««x«tta-|r; timi g^oifs tiffiec »djoln»<i
l^f^jgower'^'a office, 243^ tbat @h«^ ««ji p:i^-e&<!;£it c^n u (;i.>upl<$ oV ti>octt«
• i#ns wli«B B«i0o«'ttx> »ai«o in %q ak»M. tm' t'k%& i^oies s^u^ tlmt t>iaoti
iBTari»l>ly ra8i?eiad«il tiistt ifcey ^ser© Ik th« v»uit sms theit his
wottld g»t tfe«3 i» ft fmf t«ij». ^kft &I»o says iks4t &n <jn« t^o-
#MsttfR, %ft#a? XSfti-e-w&y -sc-jpit &«i» siesti tur»8wl tti Mx" isuli and
*ftl^ that tee 'mjuld »«# ,h«v tlie st&e-k iuTjaed e-ut Irefei* hft tu-jttstd
10fei« j^lslsstiff nairaiiBtistyait®-* tfe'StlftiiS that \i» had f
suMie » at»3^ %hs^\^Pt 3««)ii^e p.it|»«iyi^ iu oxd&v to S@l6}%3la« th«
jKaoixnt ©f th* a9»<!tat •Jsd. iisat th« onlj Liw* Britr« Vrstotor ato**
t^Ai la» 4i««®iro3f^ war© a«rUfi«at«« Jfax 2S, 5 and IwO i»h«u*«»»
©f &i0«lE 3?e8>?»afclv«l^. Slie e^rtificat^:.. for ^ aha^fes is dated
iet-tifi^^ Umi 4^.« aMrtifi^utft for tke 50 8h&x«i» siT »ti/vk in
ili&i ifee3f« ■^-$iM s«. r«pili<s3p at^ek Iseok} Umt tb«re «ti« a »tub ia
t^«» t»«»k» uM t)sat atati fillM &ui the! tjtmib* t2&.ii 4id m^t jsl»6V
«h«i3fe ih.© 'bodk «»» at th« tiss® ®f thw trial, 'but tAtom-.&y for
i.isf^M.imt Etate4 th»t it wes tjs :.uilW5t*ij£«e,
:^?fj
^ It appears that th« Hn* Brlv* TraQt^t ^^a^^iy irent
Into ihtt hwida 9f ft r«o«iv«r» Tli« oauav was coritinuc'U tu ^«t
this isapGrtant •Ti^snoft, but the stuoiii: (jooJc; maui n^9T xou^nd.
Th.» siocji: lt;de«y «■«>•« ;/jr»duc«4, h«>w«rv«r, fcy tltc fittonic-.y for
the deferidants, wfeo 8tat«d to the oottrtt
••the «t©«it X^d^ar io©» laot iJi»alo»& an ««ntry oi ih«
tranpftar ©f tbe Btock lit au«isil@ii, iw ©rttrte© feiYlAi,; toftn
9ts4« after 'Tuly 1?, 19X7. the tJlgl-i^tt csartlfi-aat© uuj^ifefir
W« find la the J«^<;f«r is Xftasf tAaa SC-O. W« fiHd hore, ar.ong
th« lc;o»« ©ertitiuates «^i»t or, o«i?iif~loates 304, 306, iio
ewa 330 not RT»tey«d« B« It «l«arly aKpp^ars that the entries
in this r«i<jys:4, thla stock Ictitip.r, «r«r«i €».irii^ ©arilsu ui- to
^ly 17, 191?; w« staT^iSJ^^ at that tim^, K«d a© «nt.rlc.» of
a-ny eufcaoqxiaiii ©ttsijiE fcrurmf'srs wer© &i&ii.«; so X *«»y th© iitwcit
led|T«r thr©vii iri^ry JJlttl© llifht «» th© auestioa far ^l-iloh
w© 4«»ir«4,'*
fhc eourt, OTsr t}3« a)»J«eil&n uf th4» dttfamst^ite,
ree«i?&4 Ib «irJl^©sije© th« feils-wiafi l«tt«pt
•* ■*»*»»•«*■
July
ifift^fey.th
mm
Mr*. A« M4 3#3tt»
s/© ^em«7ie»s trstst & a««urity c©«
CMoagci, Ills.
My u««<r liT* a«ott,
I mi Xastyita^ this t^&nXti^ £&t <^«a"il©«a, s»» D* whey©
I will pr©lf.'=?thly b® I'er th® B«36:t 'Wwck ©r t©« A«y».
i.'w»g&..rdla& t*-.£ »«ttl«*^<,ent 1 eh*ii saj at^t.iirjg fm-Ui«r
i&« t^ whiit the un4erst%rK*tii^ -was vt'hieh has h©e» eh5u>g©a tvie©*
Wtt TT.'ll 0Teri5>ei£ this, har,-?«v<sy, m-vi. A3-.:iWia» thf> iCj^sU. at-cao,
irT«0^®<jtlr© «f all tson'.Httons .^nA. cireui^stm}©«s.
X feaTis this mi^*^^%Li>n i^ ?&i*ii«, ^r. .ic»i.i., •^;-ich ^
trust will aMi©t with f&ur «^pr©Yal, I waulil turn over t© y©u
at Qi^t© yl,c<XJ af th« etaeic 0' tJ-ja Kati-ana:! .^iv« ■ituck Jo.,
aftd th« iloo or wh«tcir©r th« intorsst ^^Bjounts to, '^hieh I
Sflttia ta^s esUFS of ^ithijsj i-ha aext w#9ic, X a)a trying ii*ra
t<5 g«t ©n i«?y f 9et» 2 aa t^Qr&lsg d«^ -in^ ni»iht.
I 'jrixi s* «ilat^ ttf ii&T^i you Oi>jaa iip to ulm it^iJiiu ?h<«a
I r«t«rn fresa Bakoia^ asuS femr© you sptsniL tJi© w©^;; ensl ^th
uut ■^n.4 wiix &« pl@us-34 t.0 tall y^tt at th^t iXi&& U'oat I aei
^eing ?m4 h©w I ©is gsttiag alon^.*
»«f©¥^§mts ax^M© that this l«tt©r «h»ul<a not haw©
la«ftfi r«©«i'r«4 lis ©YliSKoa, hsasm®^ it is oat st.^« to a^t>«ftr thai
it refers to th« 'petrtiftular trtmsaotltja involv©*! in th« suit,
Ko imthoriti©© aar« 6itft4 ia subpart of this proposition* W«
thiair th« latter waa sdssisslhl© «*i5 that, carefully read, it
>. "?«»:?»'■
i»antaln«>4 «tatem«>nta tivM^ tmA rmty ttrvngly to dl»i»rov« the
th»9xy of thM «iUMl ttpott whleh d«JPendla.ir:ta r«^ly, Vhis le not a
l«tt«sir whlck »»ttld hm^«i "iMJttB wrltt«tt l>y d«f«r3»fia.«t to ft aian w>«»^
h6s4 Rot lc«ipt toi« «3s^r««» iSkgr©ew«wt t« turn ovsir n«»t0i» vriioh. had
lB««a p«4d la full. On th© esntrary. It «i*owa an. iwi<i^t«M5n«a»
fifOSB :&«B»w«r to iiftott, ttn4 lnt!ftr«»t d^ic th«sr«on, wJ-JLch should !)•
j-ust rAlteut tlif! seaotmi »»tim0&, on thi^s^ not®®*
Vm tafi&I 6#tirt l3is4 the advwttisgti et ageing th«
,iiQjs« r«si^««t« e#ntri»diet©ry. Xlaa i»a«»«i«»aioin of the notti» in very
•iarsisi; «Ti^-«ia«« tssit iU« srns^ to4 «w»t be«m j>al^, fsri^ iw vi«w oi"
that fiSfirt taad tM« l^tttr^wd ay© n«>l afei« to »«y tJmt tlJ-« fin-ling
©I* tl5« &fmvi la ^sda»t tl5« i8at-al-ir«*t weight of tfe« ^irideric*.
■■■-M «wr
fft«
Jlit^^r'-'^'SA
'i^lhft
\
27842 \
26IoA..,
"Ik
FiWm CI'HfailT COURT,
COOK COUMTTf.
latSHMAl lOHAL UMIOI OF 3?KAK "
AMD QPrnKXim :?IIGl!J«Ma et «1.,
\ Ai»jMtIIiiats*
\ ..■■'
It io sought by this sps^aX te r^Ter^e an or<ier of the
Circuit Court of Cook '^unty, entered M»^roh li5, Ifa*!, evsrruling
R BotioB ts diiai^olTe 3 preHsinrtry injlunction* »hlch w^s on
Jonuary 16, If 2?, grsated ^itgnin^ t aaid d.ef emianta, lBt<&riitttional
Union of x^tesa unA Op«?ratiag inglne&rB, a Yoluatary nsi^oel ^ tioii«
and rthur M, Bud^iell and others, indiTi<iti.^lly nad aa offioero
tend Bseffibers of enld Union*
Tho injunction w^s is^med without notice and without
bond upon the filing of co«plain/«nt*@ bill in iiccerdanoo with
tho proyer thereof. Htaean U, Co«erfor<l w'sa tho Oensral
^eeretr^y-Treasurer of eaid Union, hAYing boc^n elected to th^t
Office for a ttsvm of two y&uT»t expiring T'9ef.t&hev 91, 19S2,
and the defendant* and eueh of th«ffl w««r« rfstrainc*^ fro»
4«olr5ring tho of rico of O^nerfel f.er«tory-Treainirer Yae&at and
fro» taking po» «8!eion of th« sjaao, from int«!rfering with or
pn2V«ntiBg the eompli^lnant from diaoiterging the dutifes of his
S&id office, fr«B ke^^piag hin from «s!c«88 to his office or the
records of the Union* and froaa dioing &ny act thrit in r^nywise
would interfere with hiA in th«f^ di- jshi^rge of his duties ottd
ebligatiOBS aa feueh officer, until the further order Of tfew
etnirtt
On Jaiaary 31, 1932, th«f defendants filed their motion
to diooolT* 1^ injuaotioa on the gro«ad of the ianaf rioieney of
ii:^::['o
■»itA
SfiOs- t
"m^t^'^i
HlfJ* •»«! MJh * *M J»tr* -V ^ J»lf« <««• f lA .« AT. -
•3*
e«ii&iil»iAt*tt bill, Xa pff irii««Tlt» vftm pros«Bt«<S, Cn VetHrtmrf
ttih arguineiittB on th« motioa «r<»r» hi»d t>«>f(»r« ih«' hnoccXlar nnd
et bis ang, «ati»n written brlafs ^vtirt! th«r« after aubnittcd by tha
Te&p«ctit9 aelloitars. Re hald the mnttar und^r adfi^^^ettftnt ttatil
Meroh li»t» .:t whieh tin? ea or;i«4r «.>;» ffnt«r»4 aust^inin^ dutfend*
Mit*a motion ttnd dismlatsing cnmpl^inMnt*^ bill for wnjit af t<iaity*
CflOBpleiiaaat iiuss^dl^tely prayed! an stp:>«n>l and tha ai»ai« vma Allowed*
eaaditiansd uipaa filiiu^ bond within ^0 dsifts, Cn Harah l^^th* befora
aaid Appeal had, haen p<?rf^'5t«f4 and -^urlag th* isewe terw of tha
Court, the aoliclterit df the r««p«GtiTe p»*rt-l«» ^ere b(«fora tha
asBe Chenoffillor roTgulai? the spesttioa of tJaw propriety of gr^^atiag
aa InjuBctidn tt^uniast 4<efs«-^aate jmrettimt t*s the pmyt-r of another
«4ft^ «.«p)ar?*tc lbill# filod hy <M!i«9.pl»in«>Bt*sft ii«>li?7itor but on beheXf
of four or flvo mmRb^rn af the def «nditiit uaion, ¥»h®Teup«n tha
Ch&n9«ll«iT , of hi ft own motion, c^tetoA tilistt ho <>«til4 ▼ee«te tha
oaid or^er In the proatmt orjao of Korch l«t, wherwiB the injunction
•m»B tiioeol'Tod &n<S. cca»pl«9laant*e bilJi di8«iea«»«!)« and roiantoto tha
ea«a, An<l tho ossttrt thoroapon «tiit«r«d »u<ith on or^i^r, aad furttmr
ordored th«3t the frelialB&ry injumstl^in grantoa R.feia»t thooo
d^f»»d«?«t« be •rovlvffd* tm& b« in fall foree »Bd •ffect, tmA that
dofeadanta* enid sotion to diet^olrt th« eraw bo ovorruled* It
spisoi^ro thst !?t this tiwo tha c«urt w?<s aAxtetd "by ok id eolicitora
thist, shortly sfter the oMer of U^'-rtih. lot had boon entored dlo:iolTLag
tho injunction and- ^iejEisaiWj; <s«a»plain.'^nt*« bill, eonplr^insnt on
eho.rgOB pT«f®rred hud boon reiB»v«sd by the 0«n«r«l ^xocatiiro Board
of tho di<*fend«uRt l^Bioa ond» mxbeet^ontly t^oA before riarch l.'^th, hio
attecofl^or had boon e|>>«iBted. Upoa th« entry of ss'.id order of Wr.rch
I5th «Sisf«B4aate prsgrs^ Rfid perf ';*<5t<?!d the ?re««<tat appo«l.
The c»?«o pr«rit«Bts thti 5?oBe«(iiw.t ttauouol procedure of a
os^urt of e<?«ity dig^^olvioi; on in^anctioa, thereby allowtag the
defendaat* to ©ceompiish tha mjitterw «nA things f03*bi<5iioB by fhc
InjuaetioB, and then, sJ'ter tbe lapse Of ooTorol days, daring
■^.fs^<<:.»
-y |f#4iWlr>t»» ■ h»>%«j
»)S":1
vhieli tia» the!?* matters ani tJilitge were no camp 11 shed, surid aft^r
iins sourt hjsui betrn advic*!* to th it effect, r«lnnU>.tinp: the
injunction tiWd 9Y«rrttlln.:: th« motion to difiuol^e, ^nth^ut *i^y
•ujjples'jnt/a Mil h^rlttf, >»e?n filer) KetUnr? Out the chimifed
atfetuss of the o^wpiainant*
•ounoRl for ofaipliilnitnt here atftkB to «u tsin th«
action of the court on tha theory that Q«implalniiAt*9 r«?»ovftl
ira» ttnlsi^fttl »nj n Qontinuing Injury to him. Counsel orgucs
thjit eojHplninant* haTlng laoen «l«ctert to th« offlo* of O^nerftl
i?<3er«t!3r3fw?r«0surer of th« dj>fendisnt I'nlon for a ttro ynnrm
period, ending Dscejsfeer 31, 192'::, ?in<i st n fisfcd «Rlf*ry of i60C0
3^«r year, has a pro port?/ right to the offic©, sua th.-^t hie
unle>«ful feoiov^l lo a oontlnuing da^rlT^tion of th. l right ^hlob
ft eourt of «<|ulty ohoulfi pr^fvent.
Couoool for d,ef»ndanta coot^nd th^^t, the rem^^Sy >jy
isjunetieo l>6ine a preventive one, *.h<? writ cannot, he ajade to
»per»te so a« to rRater«' cnimipl««iBB«t to hi« offie*' whcm, nt tho
tlm# of hlsi rcjaoTal, thi^re «r«» no in^jun^tlon In force restraining
«»«as r«»6T^l, -'e think thftt thert is seerit In th*? contention.
Ir. Fiehgr v. Boar d of Trs££, 6C' Hi. 65, IPlaher, after hnvlni;:
boon expellect as a mensher of thf Benrd of frado of Chicago,
«elai4 for an injunction "reBtrpininf tbt> Board, its a^jorctsry
and boar*', of directorB, fron Int^rforlnf; vith hiaa in nnj mimntr
in thf full cn,10!,'ffie'Bt of hlo rights, j»ri?il»R®B and franohluoa^
tti^ in hl^ right in corasion with other rcsaiherB of the Bofird of
oRterin*! the roemr. ueedi by the BcRTd, «nd fr©» remaining ia
atWndftnce ; s a leeasber on the aooi^lono of th« Bo»r<l, and to
trft«»aet Iwainosji therein ttn»oleHt*?d,« tho court ssld (p. 87):
•this court, in ^wnffolln v. soe. 50 111. 489, ©aid «a injunction
vao a preirentlTe remedy merely, and can not be so frsB«d «» U>
s»ift»an<J a party to undo what h« has don*. The vory teraa of tt»
. ^$S4.,V:
■m9% i'&t-
writ iiidieat« its jMirp0s$9 • restrtilnt. ntripp«4 of its
reaundHinoi«.), the pri^ytr of tli«» biXl !•« in effect, to rftstare
epfiftliant to bis position s a t. .Temlstr ef the tot,rd of trt^tflo,
no thing leest. It nuct be appareat » onurt of ohAneeiry can not
4e thin. The cctlon of the Voarrt i« final and ooapXcte, and if
it has^ err«<i in that motion* either on th« n«rits or has aotod
in ft uifso «iithout harine ^url;jrtiction, ohanoory cuannt Bfforil a
re«cdy.* In Ch4>B8>i;Oq v. Hewifah^n . 128 111. App, 587, the prnyor
of tho hill «&» to the eff<iot thet the di^frndftnto h« roetridnod
froa pu\9liKhin^^« in the off i Rial org@^ of the Brothei'hood of
Loco»otiTe Fireren, (nli>e a rolunt^ry ussocii'tion) the nasieo of
and
tho eomplai»Knts« or of the lo<^e(& to «rhich they belongc-d,^tho
f bot tn^^t ecwplalnants bed boc>n exp^liod or susp&nded from said
Brotherhood t.T\t\ were no longer srsil^ferg thereof, and fr«« exfmnginc
from th« fsomhsrship lisst the nases cf er«Rpla.lnante« »nd froa
depriving them of the h?a>'flt8 wnd privileges of momhorfihip in
8«id Irotherhootl, etc, fha a«art S'lid (p» 408): *lt seems cXcar«
thon, thst in th« 1&b% analysis th«! roal objoot of ^be hill i» to
roiistori^ ^Pfrtelvaata to Ksinberithip* 2n this nk^'s of th« bill tfeo
court did not hew JuriEsdiotion. a. oaurt of ec^uitgr wiii not do
^is, cTen if thtiy ^eve unli««d'ull/ &xp«ii:j.ed« An in^unotion is
• pri9»tre/'itiv« r^-^fi'^y meroly, wid «&nuot o« bo frasit*.! ; jj \a coKiaaad
a party to unii« ^»t hfi h«j8 eoao,* (.ee, also, Btixter ▼• Boftrd
laf Tr&as . ^25 Hi. 146, 147; Bosteao v. Bo , .&re of T r a ^e, iiii7 111*
«0, Olj .m-t»l V. ^ Hi 9)1 . ;2S8 111. 98, 102.)
i^Yon ii', St th« tirai? the Circuit court entored tho
order appewled frora, noaiplainaat hati not ^otaally b««n reaioTod
fro« H48 of^i-** as 0'?n«ral Secretary- Traamirer, we do not think
that the injunction sho^jld hnire hcen granted. Tne allegations
Of the hill dlfseloasd thr^t cjasplalnant's remedy wr-c n% l«w, under
repeated decieione of the courts of reriew of this t&to.
»Si^ Aft.'SiftJ.;
{x*i-XES£ ^* M9.^i* Si. TraMc , «f Hi, 441* 4*?-; !> eli it>twntjf v,
^jraer, 7 5 lli, ltJ8, 18f»j .. llft B v. fhle.-.^o Uni*crtejoirn ..fe^i.oc l-'.tlo aj,
2S2 Hi, -(jsa, 463; hni^l y. /.r^U'h. P?58 Xli* <»8, iO'.) !»o hirrt
no such property right te his offio«, or to th« /■■nX-xy in-^i.^.rat
thereto, as Wi?rr8.nte4 the lnt<?'nr''atinrt oi' ** o«i.;-t of «iquit,jr,
(aa 'Uling C&Rp liRW, p. 5aB, Bwf>, -^l?; 4>Piri^!ht*f V, £ountX Of ' J,^l .'. «
100 111, «4, 104; i^eftglc ▼• Barrett, «0? Ill, 99. 109; O Xmo^
▼• iiS»12^» 396 111. 4ia, iflQ^)
Our ccnolusion lu thnt the oru'nr of tliw ^irouit ■>-H!rt
oferruliAg dafendants' ssotion to dl3;^olTa the injunction «ihould
b« njveraedl axtd tho ctrasc r^mmnCGA to tiie? Clrflult '.onjrt with
4irc»ctlon« t» diaadire th« Injunction, rnd it i« »o orderofl.
Bftrsee sitd Merrill, JJ,, aonciar«
188 . 37109 \ /^^ ^' '^ T /\ a^ 1
||*aOAH/5T U. M0CA-4THY, / )
flOOK COUli'lT.
MB. JUUTICK BAIl««3 aJ?l,IVJi1l«D TBI OJPIBIO* OF THK COURT,
Thic i« an Appeal fron a d«eree for ;»«parat«
K a in tenancy . A prior decree adrerae to coMfdainaiit (appelloo
OA thi» ap^^eal) was r«t«raod 1^ this court and the eeaee re-
manded vith dlreetions to h«si* ftTidanoe »$> to a prnprr anount
td be &lIoa«d ompIaiBant for her eeparate maintenane« • and
for oalioiti»r8* fees and eoate* and for ether procerdinge net
inoenaiatent vith our opinion* (219 111* A^p. 569.) the
nerite ef the ease having; been disposed of in that opinion,
only ^eeiions l«-:f t for further adjudication on the re»andRent
are now open for our cone Idert^t ion*
Both partiee have assigned istf^rn, «ippell#int to the
alJLo^Nanee of ^liBrtony and soliQitora* feee as exoeseiTOa and
appellee to the allowaneee for pemanent «liiBony MiA for the
tao minor children of the parties, nvt inade^ate and in-
euffioieat*
The deeree now appe«iled fr<» all owe $320 per month
for alimony in arreara from the; dote of filing the pf^tition
for temporary alisiony to Fetoniary 20, 1920, the date of the
de&th of &ppeliant*B father, iinA #600 per month fr^im the latter
date to the dste of the entry of the decree, a|?.^eg«tin{it $17*600
for alimony in arreara, |4S0 per isonth for alimony from June 30*
1921, the date of the decree* and §150 per month from that time
a V, ^.,:
\J W^ '^'''■
ti^sy"
?ai^'
« i'j'
for tho support, e«re »ad eduontien ftf thf» tm nliMr ehildrea
•f said purti«0, ^7,5()0 for solleitors* fees, and ;^^,rV65,36
for wl«o«Iloneoua expensep, Maklne n total, after crediting
$4,870, Of t3t^.,79!>.36,
tt dttoa r« d9 tailed An^lysie of the ^vidtineo bouriag
on XYjit ubillty of dof«ndftnt to pay the anount of allmnny so
•«»rd«d no ttnn«jcees^^ry« It la «uff lolont to Btny tbr^^t it dio*
elosos thr.t at the tia« of the eepArntion of the pnTtios in
X917, sn<3 for aome tise prior thereto, and up to th() de(?.th of
Mb f aiher» appellant *e inotm^ w> s R^nut 1^X0,000, nnd that upon
hie fatlier*8 det<jth he inherited sm estate RRK^untinj^ to ;|283,41G.50»
•fide up of e«)8h sod valuable securities, froia ti'hich his net inoone
wtx9 ever $14,400 per year*
The evideneo alee diaoiM»e'& that i^rior to hie father's
death he liired in a style whleh required etsTeral thousand doll2>rB
ft year nore than is Ineesse. But heeeTer he net au«h expenses,
i^ether thrmigh the generosity of hie father or net« is is»i&iRrial«
for the allov&nee n&de for nlinony in srreejirs of t^SC per month
prior to hia father»8 desth is haeed upon hi si then ineose of
$10,000 a yemr, snd» therefore, cannot under all the eircuM*
atenees he denned excessive, Her In view of his large inheritance
sad inooase therefrMS oan we deem exoessive an Kllornnoe of |6GC
per Moath efter the fat.>ier*o deai^ fi»r pemaaent &lim»ay sad
support, care nad educetien of tlte t«0 chiiarea, ^o have reeled
aa age whea, it is conceded, expenees for a mere Xiheral edu cation
will be properly iaonrred. Bnaed, ks these alloeances nay eel I
have 'been, upon a conceded incomes, to which under all the oireum-
Rtaaeefi they sr*? not unre? eonalbly disproportionate, there is ao
oecsaioa to roTlei)? eYidenee relating to othor disptted soareee of
iaeemc.
Sor esa «« ftgree with ap?)eliee*B contention that
theso alloeranoes are inadeqEuat*. Should the allevaaeos made
J|V
■' viimii,»Mm
if.;- 's"* :v.p»;i '. r. f
■;«iJ:f^^
ma»kJhf» mmkifsi^
fer ih« futttrs pr^ir* not ranoona^}!* <»r prnv^r th« court h«lAiv
hMi ample povtr to miter U)em« (i^cetlon 18, HiTorea \et.)
Appellant urg«d that th» <3ourt iapropttrly r*llov«<l
Aa Ites for suit money cui<l i7S0fj for «*>llci tors' f«ft9, .n it«m
of $l5o;. for miiSRellAAeouB «xp«n3«» Includott about $7(0 for
oxpsndl tkiro in r trip to Atlantic Qity. H. J*, for the purpoco
of tciking d«po«itions t!ift«r thit cauoe vne r«iinand<id« It T<iao
8tiiRilP!.tod thet the evi^fsnoe ahrtuld he mater ii^l to the aiuee,
otherwise the depoaitiono «ero to be without expense to sppelljuit*
7h« record disoloa@« that the e^idc-noe tnten related alaoBt
entirely to the cmuse of nntlon, the wertto of »>!^leh hf rt alre»dy
been ad^udiOAted. It t^leo related to nnttere ^trlalniT iifter the
filing of the original bill although there w^^e no a«ppleaftntnl
bill. The eiridenee h*id no ?8sjteri»l bearing on «ps»ellant*»
finanelAl re»euroes« with respect to which it mn& etipuluted
the depositions w«r« to be ti^Jton* appellee seeke to ^^notifgr
axioh expense en ih^ ground that n bank mt Atlfmtie City» whero
the depositions were tf^^kertc hmi cf>s^hed a oheck of sererftl thousand
dollars for appellant* The ehf^ek w@.s dratm on a Chicago
iastitation* The t9e% it was etiahed in Atlantic City en
Appellant •» endoreonent afforded no r«sfi8onttble ground for tz-iking
so. eh depositions »s to his finaneial resmirees and charglnf; ttio
•xpense of the fruitless unrt«rtaklng to hias* Henee an nllewaneo
for expenses ^nd solicitors* fen^s in tttklng them, w»s improper.
It may be inferred fr4»r» testimony on the subject that em allewenee
•f f790 mt the r«te Of ITB per day for ten deys' time, taken by
eomplainant*s solicitoif^s in the matter, i^ included in the item
ai $7,&0€, fiod the ^700 in the item of miscellaneous exponsos.
It is urged on Uue ground of u failure to glYO
nppsliftnt's eounsel proper notice of their taking, the depoaitions
•ho«14 h«ve been suppressed on Appellant's motion. :^Siether thsy
»%»
^ri^:-iS'tSfiS t^
,;f0a5i.i
r,; t-^ If:
hitu xmam Ha--- -
*iji---.i. .\f ■ »"u..-. ■■■i't:i:: ^'^m
imtmi^^iM -m^ mn0i.
. 1saC'r.-"«;si"
•.■;i
-! ii -•<\tvi;*¥ ■ ■•■'»■"••-
■* 9(f fjli. «( *»«,•* •:-.<■»- --.tiiv. o .-.....:;
4W(^:|^ *?.,
ehonltf h«f« "been sttpi>r«Bsed or n»t, a» they contained no f^Tidenoe
■aterl^il to the (ftitctlonB for ds tern In at ion on tho r«iiundBi9nt of
the Ofsuee* they ehould \nt hove been recelvof' in * vid/»noe, their
•aXy effect, h«ti»Ter, w^9 Vnm improper Incluslen of euch expenrei
and •olioitore* fees ?»r h Rh-)»rge against npyelitiitt, kfhlch cnri t«
eXiffiinttted from thf» dperess.
It appear* tJh«t there »'*re Kererftl ?iittomey« f-mployeci l»y
eoapXalnent in tbe cnxirBe of Uic- conduct of the tsuit* und it is
urged ths t th^lr «ffnria«3 ve^^fj tt> poiro extent (duplicated, and that
the eourt R&de a toe liheral eXXowanee therefor* OouneeX f aiXe to
point out either la the ^bsXriact or reottrd the (srvidentre reXntlng
to thia cu'b;Jeet. m esnrsot yte «ypt?cted to luarch thr-jjgh the
reeord asd fiad it. ",?« fio, howertr, find In t)^^ RlsBtrsot that
•ppeXiant's cou&seX testified that a reaeonAl»X« eh^Tstt for the
XegaX eerTicee of the eoXicltor wh<» ^wat t<j AtXantic -Uty «aa
fro» |50 to tTS a day, and it appenra ha was ,'*=^ne from Chicago
is that natter ahout ten daya, tn the ahaanee of other reference
to te itifltoay on soXlcltore* f e^»? w«? wnist aasuwe th?.t there wa«
sttffieient ©rifisose t« justify the aXXowsjaoe of |7»S00 ther»for«
•tth^eet, h«»wetrer, to a deduction of #750 for aerrlcee rendered in
taking fJeposltione in ,-tX%ntic City, 'i^wlijleot, therefore, to
auidif iQatlon hy deducting? 1.7&0 for anXicitorg* senriccB, and S7C0
for unwarranted expensee from the tat«)l of fS2,796.38, decreeA
»» the ettti du9 to appeXXee at the d»te of tiic decree « tlw <<eo2^ee
wiXi be afflrfflod, Ae ao aodlfied the decree wlXX he affimed for
GridXey« F. J,, and MorriXl. i», con<mr»
t-ss '!«» h'!
.'^^Kl^ff
k. ■*?■';
•4«
I'l iMRj
.S^«^f«i#
L is-.^r
3X9 - 27277 \
I
Thi» la ctn i^ppeia from an «rder Appointiits » r«eciTer
ttjKia a oreditor'a biXl« tuid the unsumr th«r@to. Afi«r first
setting out Is general iKHgucme the exits tene* of tmch 6tat«a of
facts mis under t«otion 46 ©f ths ChaRO<fry AOt warranto e bill
to eonpol dioeor^^ry of any property or thin^ in jFsctlOR belonging
to th« Ju^ipsent debtor %}» bill eeta forth th«t the d'.-fen«i»nt lo
the own<»r of e«rtein ^Htec^e ondi bondis* «nil thitt pirou^mt to on
«^re«a»eat vlth hi» oo»4.ef»n«Jf.siit, Lawoao s« jJrlght* th«y w«ro
d€!poaitod in a e«rt«ln biuik to ho dlspooefi of, or tht^lr avsillo
to bo Siof^oaod of, ftceording to on ©aerow «i;r««ment» Thweo
specif io avet^eato oore not <t«nlea, d3fi^n<iaat Hoovon, the judgwont
dobtor, oonf miag hinoolf in hia »»o«irer to dfinittio of the <on«ral
«1 legations.
In anpport of hio contention thr^t tho Appointotont of •
r«c«iY«r w:,a nnwirrnntOJ »j>pollent oltoR the oe«» of yirai^ hRtionoJl
Mnk of .■iottx , City «t »1 « ▼. (toiro ot al *. 79 III, 3C7, *here » bill
to diaeovsr inRoota ^^hs hold good an a bill of disoov«ry bttt did not
warrant tho sppointnoat of m ronoi^or. Tho court thoro o«iid thoro
ig&» no n<%ooe»ity aho^n by tho bill for tho appoiatmont of a
roe«)ivor booaaoo thoro «ao no dir^tlnet ehiurge of fraud nor thiit
d«fendanto had any portienlar pmp«rty or thinga in -action in
thoir iMiaooo^ioa. In the oaao nt bar, ho«eT«<r, l^or4>> nro euoh
a-'
.« %^ 4m
M' ■ (.' V 14*9^ ''^%'ii'i ii'viit4,iii <w «».*.«
-2«
epooifio allegatlens, KJka pre»uia»bly liccou^o of th* soaw aad tit*
failure of dnf«ndunt Ho Ten to d«ny the? th« ohH.neRll«r gnmt«<j
tlu drd«r, ftod th«refor« w« do not think he nlmaed the discretion
^leh the &ot concerning: the appolntiiQnt of receivers, ftpprored
Kay is, X9C3, In force July 1, 190S, [iJh, V.'?., pare. ft5, 56,
C«hilX*s !>tats«} Teeta in hln.
It la nrsed th^t at defendeoat offered to give u bond,
iriBleh under said set the oourt may acaept in lieu of the appointment
of a recelTor, the court ahused it« discretion in ftnterlng the
order. ?hl» point ssli^t h»ye been urged with more force if the
answer hiad lueen ».»« full as onntSHRplated by ece, ^.i of the .'h-mcery
AOt. Hut «s it se<^]3ed to eVf^de m dlsolosux^ rt^spr cting the speclfle
allegations referred to "^ cannot say that tiu) eoart abused lie
disoretlon In the M&tter.
Ao<sor«f^imgly the order will b« affimed«
drldley, f. J., and Morrill. J*, concur*
J,nf * %■ .-"l <► -
,;«-"fe f,r--* ,•:•'.?? rri-
*-« X**
ir^l^ntftX :
rw »f#'%:
',ifvi«e '>
s?;?:?-s!iS mi iU *seif i'■1;i'si■
;01;>7'fM !*:«..
\
416 . 273^^
A eorps ration.
S. -A
CHIC/U3C rTI*-^ tAOTL iXttfcPAMY, / ^ ^ \) loAs w'^^
A eorps ration. \ )
#
07 CHICaOO*
f, s, VRiaiiirtu)?,
\ \App«l^attt.
f
\ /
in. j\}li7lC^ MAfiSm B'^UVl^D TliS 0£*IHZO{i 07 TKS C0UH7.
The atatftiseiit ftf clftim In thia e&»e eli^^rgas th»t th«
defendant nogligently droir«; hts slutoroobile so sn to nollidie vith
th« eeut«3ino1l>iI« of plaintiff, doisiis^iii^ the mmm in the eus «f
$1S&*50« On a hearing Mthout & Jury the emirt found the isvue*
for plaintiff luidt asseesed hia drmragas at the o«k clnlacd i^« ttteh.
Apt'ellant ealls attnnti«n to Iho fsct th&t there wne no
inroef to ahev that he either ownitd or sperateoi th« autaaobile which
ta alleged to haTO ooXlided with appellee* a. Appellee eontentfa
th«tt heetxuse the e^m^rehip and ep«»r&ti«>u of the ear wen net denied
they Kust 1»e deseed adaiitt@d« Appellee jsIbo contends thi»t h.f» thia
was a fourth el»»B caee no plec^dinii: w^» required of defenHeiit*
The two positione i»re In^wnaintent. The record showa no plettding
^ defendibBt* and if we »«y aB-nine th? t none *jx8 reciuired, yet
in the i^hsenee fr<» the rttoerd of any mlea of the o<>iurt to the
eontrtiiry, the 'burden of proTlag «*»t wee alleged in ite etateaent
of claitt Qould not he diepaneed «lth. Hence, there toeing no
yroof that appellant oimed or ftperatcd the oar which ia alleged
to h«Te done the d^isis^, or of nil«c of court diapenaing with
auch proof, the Judgaieat cannot <5t»nd»
Bat sesusiag appellant owned the ear m <iueetion the
olreimstaneea of the accident diseleae that appellee wrr quite
aji Btueh at f.^aili for the collision ae appellant. The aeeldeat
•■ t^, Q P
i„>' Wt f*^
9i?iBf i«5 wrnnx^i'
.imm tNtt i« »'«s
■ ^t #«&
»^.«*.*^«» ssiII^WI'di^ *#*^*JEX»<i^ ;^,fir
k^mH^i* ^^' il»:8^:'
: n*'^ ;•-*>
■^»S. «....,-iv.
:*«
•8*
took Pino* ttt the interar lien of JhorideA drive, «;hich runii
north end Mouth, »Bd Oak etreet, which ruas cant (tnt! «oot« in
the VilliJtge of ^ inne tk*. It wa& dark imd reinlne* There were w
Vtreet light* at the intersection. The oar alleged to Ve defcnd*
ent'e whs » truek heing driven anuth on thft former street, and
plaintiff's AntoMobiXe« «b touring ear, northward f^n the ei^M
Street until it reached Qak etreet* when it turned «eet on the
latter street. The teotiatony for pl&tlntiff vns th<s,i ite teurinf
car vsiB being: driven northwsrd on Sheridan drive vith the
intention of tttmlnis west on Oak street at the rate of fifteen
to twenty miles an hour; thut the ear w«ie slowed down to about
• ig^t or ten miles an hour; th@t tJ»e driver gave a eij;nal to make
the turn, »n6 not until he ta&de it did he eee the truek, then
only a few feet north of him; thi^t the truck woe not lighted and
gave no signal,
3ueh testimony htirdly tended to shew negligence in
driving the eouthbound eur t9nlee«; the ahaenoe of such light or
ef such eijgnal eoastituted negli^nee. The testimony for plain-
tiff 8«pplc?rented hy that for defwndsnt olesrly indieetos, wo
think, thi t tjhe driv«r of plaintiff *• ««r wb» guilty of
eentrltajtory neglig«.'noe. 7h« driver of the truck testified that
iM «»8 driving nt abmtt fifteen miles an hnur; thnt when he
appreaelttd the point of oollision hr saw the other ear ahout 19
feet south ef the south side ef Oak street, travelinc about the
•arae 9p<isi^A as hl» truek; that when plftlntit'f 'b oar re'^ched abnut
half-way aoroae Oak atreet th« 4rlver seun^ it aharply to the
meet; that no signal ^'^s given >5fffore the tsirn; that ho
ijs?i!«?a lately a«t hie brakes, wHtoh enused hie ear to skid on the
wet pavement and hie rear left ttdieel or fender to collide with
the front w^eel of the taurine ear; that he h^id a lighted lantern
on tlMs east eide of his truck. It thus ^ppnakTo th»t both were
'i-ifEr'; SK'.^i-"-- fVf^i^h I3t;**?i* w<i- ■ ■■•* :\'.!:..
m «^mF vrm^ •. ■■ -'?-'^t#'« *«« ti'tfi*-- -«^ -' ......
*Mt»\>''- ./ o J. '^^^s* till? *.,-:_-.: .... .;ni
mU m* **"** »^'?«r'»*f* ■fil' HUM** , :
v'^©** l>5we^e . «JWr lt«M>, .*ri? ;
^9m. tmyf Hht ■
•»M n0 h^% ««# •?«» viisi b-sr
«iTs»9 mm ■? uo
»u
driTlag Mt ftbtat th« num* VBtt of ap«od, and ihAt neither •««
»«r li«er4 any signal froa th« otii«r. According to UKtlBony
for pXalntiff ite ear "in KOln^ i^round the oomer" vttv running;
eight ta ten »ile« an Hour, e rRt« of »peifn& which, under a^ Atien
22 Of the Motor Vehicle Law of I^IQ. eonstitutea pr iwa f ftcle
eTidenoe of operating «)t a rate of epeed greater than it
reaeenable undnr the oircanstaneea of the ti«o and plnce* The
drirer of the track had good re»»9n to heliere until the taurine
ear turned veatward that driving at such a rate of apeed it
would continue northwajrd and not turn Aicreoa hie path, and
taking the entire «>videnoe together we think the plaintiff tms
guilty of centrllsatory n<?gligenc««
Aeeordin^ly %hs ^Judgnent irIII he rerersed «rith »
findini: of fact,
iwr^asis;© WITH A FiKDifo oy Fact.
Or idlest ^* S** <^nd Kcirrill« J«, eoneuro
»f «
• €•
4U - ?7374
FIIDIBU Oy i?.^.CT»
W» find thftt ftfSM»lle«» Chioagft L^tntil Tank Company,
m corporation* was i^ilty of aeslig«n<Mi oentributlng to the
injury In iUQ«tlon»
429 . 27383
iS. IE. tOUCAJr«
SXBOS BAS^X.
Apu«ll.«0
AppsXXant,
>KAJL FHOll
MUBICIi-'AL Ct.TiftT
Oy CHICAGO,
MR. J0jTIC1« flAraiiJ;i 0!?.I,IV«3Jli) tK8 OFIMIOM OJ? THK COmtT,
V
s. U
\
thi« wag sst foroll3il« fietainer c:*«« and sras? conaolidHted
for he&rinu with Mo. 37389, r;. "^. ?o3jRan v, Albert 3oM3fi . The
tw> c?-.a©8 lnvolT« the «;«»© legnl 'ijueHtioas arieing upon identical
leaiseB, mn& like steps ha<l b^isn tnktm fey t)i«t 3L]i«Adlor«!l th<ir««injd«>r*
Heaoe is^at we h«Te i»aid in the opinion flX«d in the latter onase
on thi£f dt^te is apt: liettblo to the eu-u^ n^t bur an<2 a<HOiaivo of
its nerito.
ACfiordingly for %h» refi«one tht^rein st^ited tht
judgm^mt 1b «ffinied.
Gridley^ f • J., and SCorrilx* J., ottnmirm
/
427 • J»73a5
AJ»IM|.11«««
fKAHK J. UCUUL21, \
'^/^G jL»Ac o 4 1
MOHICtPAL COURT
Off CHICAGO,
this VKS ft forcibl* A0t8ia«r «««»• «n<i «»« eonaolldated
for haarim; with Mo, 87369, 1^ ^. ::, Yplnjao ▼• felTtte rt Ber4 en , Th»
i«9 «»»«• inrolTe th« sswA l«er<l ciu«6t:r>m' ^.rising upon id«ntioal
le»se«, aiid like ist«pa he4 b«tm ia>i:«n by tb«! l^ntiliord th«r«und€tr«
H^noe «b«t «@ hav« ei^ld in the epjinidn filed In the letter d».B«
oa this date is «t|>plio&bla to thut o;»,se nt b;?? lund ti9ei9lT« of
its eerlto.
ac ©rdlagly for tile r@r4»ono ther«iB »trai«d tlao
judgn<eiit is affizsod*
Oridloy, F. J.« «ad Sorrill, J., oon«ur«
Sig:
,-xmu UiM'i'sttm fir-'
428 - 27386 '^
226I.A, 64l
A
▼ft.
/ i Oy CHICAGO.
AppelXont,!,.'
y'
this m.i& &- for«lbi«» -ieitfeinor e^ne »tnd was oonsiolldtited
t9T hearing «ith oi»tse Ho. 37393, k» ;'« Tojlm a n v. ^Ib^rt Borden .
t!}i« t«t» ea@t«a In^rolve the 9$.^;mc legal (|ue»tiena &rislag upon
identios^l l9a««t', eknd like @t«j»8 hm4 b«s«n tnJcen hy the landlord
1lh«r««n«ier. Henee vrhat w? hBVfe imi«S in the opinion filed in
the l»tt©r Q«i.8« on this d-^te is s.j?pli«ablft to the cune at bar
Mid dacisive of its merits.
Aceordingiy Isr the reseens ihereTiB Kt^ited the
judgnent is afflrnsed.
aridley« F. J*. »nd iaorrill, J., eoacMr*
■k' O
O, Q O
> m
B^h
^ruct:
442 - 37400
I'
.#
MAX «Bf»itAlili lit ai., \ /' >} ^/ (A. \j
eopartxwrs doing bueifacae / VW /w O ^. -
SB KM WnfilKAVH AJfD ^Ofiii, / ) Ai'PKAl. FHOK
\ / i
▼8. I / ) COOK ca'jrTY.
-42
aUFSiUOH COXitlT,
)
Si, B, MYICK 4k coiCPAJnr, ^nc,./ }
^p«Mtint. )
MH. JUST2CS BAriMS^ iiiiUVKHJgi) THE Ol^X^lOli 0? TUB COUHT.
Thia Is tm Appeal frfim r Judgm«nt entered on the
T«rdiet of a ^ury for |14l^,63 in favAr of the plaintiffs in
an sction of nssunpeit. for labor and materiMl furnished in
a&kinjc; certain office furnitur«, including certain oaMnots,
which def eniact cleined were not Bi{i4e in m. wo r lOBftnlike mnnnAr«
vhereby it vrasi ooatpclXed to hsiTe the s^se e(aipl«ted at an expense
of fI3S6. i^ile T3,riou& errors are essignc^ «e xn^^it consider
only one* nam@ly, error in giving plaintiffs* int^truciion Ho. !3,
t^ieh reads as followS|:
•The court instructs you that even though you
nay believe fren the eridenee that the plaintiff
did not eonplete nil the i«rork tki^t the defendant
desired s&id plaintiff to complete, yrt said
plaintiff ie entitled to recover for the reticionatolo
value of the aersices and the siaterial so furnished
by the plaintiff and used by the defendant."
This is ft aandatory instruction to the effect that upon
the one condition stated plaintiffs were entitled to recover r for
wxtta serriees and material, re^Drdlees of proof precentt^d to the
jury upon issues going to the defendant's right of recoupoKynt*
It therefore ignored the defenso t):R& erroneously directed a
verdict without »^ reference to such iRaues, (tardridge v.
Cutler . 168 111, 504; Mooncy v . City of Chicago. 239 111, 414,
432* ) It ie eleaentary that an instruction directing a verdict
cannot bo euppleaented or cured by any other, (Cant^eli v. Hard in g>
^
-#-i
k.^- .. i-
1 a JL U C^ ^'
,f!i'!}^lmt(i
,S ««E ««i*©irr*&«t,:
• S*"*^ o^
24» 111, 364, 357; Krtegor ▼. a. y, it 0. :u .1. Co .. 242 ill.
S44« 651.)
A dlscuBsiftn of the other errerr. Hsalgn^rd will he
of no sp«?oial thIuo upon « now trial thus rendered nee«oonry»
Orldl«y« P. J»« &nd Uorrill, J., concur o
« I.X% S*S , »»-^t.
« Y'S y« ««»":* '■■"■
.%■'•;,■>: -3 -(zivfo '.fr.j so n.v
ti.'lt.'»t.-
\
457 - 27415 \ #
KiajAKIH ?. A»3U3, \ / S 2 fi ^^ oA^o '^ "^ ^
ir». \ / ) MirsiciPAL ecu Jit
\ / ) OJ? chicaoo,
LOUIS Tl. SfA'irji, \ i )
V
This ia an apptsl fros^ a Judgment agaln»t. lof a^ndant
in B foreibl« d@taln«r suit. The points made Iby av^ll^nt
8jr« that the notice to ter^lnBtti th« le^w© wos inaufi icient,
ecd thr,t tfeers u«» inadequfit« $>re'rf of its a^^rrles ©n hl».
ApFellaBt hei-1 tJi« prealKes, a flat In :;iil«aeo»
under a l«^«.6s to hljE fro« ^ne Mltcheli, for -wh'w the re«i
• »tat9 fiarai of flows % ^hitejen %-3t«A »3 fejjents in oolXectlng
the Tvjnt aal ra-leaalng th« preaisas to plaintiff «m^a for
a 9«rlo4 of o«« year f foift Hay 1, 1921, the le-iae t» sPyuHftnt,
«hi<3h ran to April 30, 1931, eontainsjd the fol loving pr*»yieloi
for its t^rminntloa:
•ProYiasd sixty daya* written aetiac ia given
lesBor Isy leesee of ieasew'a intention to tenainat*
this le&ae on sflitl lasst istentlonf*d date, oth'^rwlea
this leaue shfcll continue frojH year to year until
tanainatoi by likt? no tics In umt^ ensuing year.
Laaser i^ entitled to te»^inet@ thia le&aa upon
like notice to lasree hX like dates.*
The leaaa alao proyidiad that its corenanta would ba
binding and iiaaF& to the respectiTe aasigna of the parties thereto,
aad th«t ■»€& eorananta aiig^t ba exereioed by hie or their txttomay
or agent.
Ob yabruary 23, 1921, a registered letter wrb siailed
to defendant addreai^ed to tJ:e preBsieee in ;^estion, where he
resided, notifying hi» that hla tenantry of the aime would expire
at widnight, April 30, l»ai. It was signed "Eowe & i-hitman, .^gta."
S -^ S „A. I c^ «? §
'M'^m s«i&5i- : .»''f
«*^.-..( :j.--v.*A. »*a« iai«ir««i««'
a «.« f, 1^ p. N f»<f ^ {
*»ii;
• 2-
There vae proof thi.it the letter »<>» duly m^Liled and th>.t a rcoslpt
of Its dellT9Py» ai^nad "H-^rry I., Murki* {% noKe tty which defend uit
•as known) jbab received at the office of cs dd \om k ^hitnan on tho
27th or ZBih of JFe"brttary, 1921, ITfirks te&*.iflod fhiit he was oat of
Chicago ftotf. Te^bruRry 24th until some timo in Karch* 192i; thet ho
did not receiT« the letter in question ciuring the montl;. of 7«bniiary
^t that it «a3 h«n{*»<i to ''il» hy hit wife sfams tiae in Ji'aroh, tk'beut
the 8th or 9th, when he r«sturn9i» There wae soaie r^ridenoe tending
to shoy thsst he sns in the city on ?fthrw"»ry ;'-ftth, "but m need not
discuss the ae^e in view of the e^plielt end unimpe^ched evideneo
that ap5>«ll&ist dia ntt in fs-ct rseQiv« the notic? until sjome time
ia March ftnd« therefore, «fid not res^iTe sixty f'^yt?* rsotic* of the
tenaiar.tion of fWi laasjc, o.s rn'^ilT<pfi hyr mjch j>rovi.ftiQn. '^ilt
the aailia^ cf the aotlca wsis griir^ f.=aoie eTldsnce th^t it tras r«-
c<jived by th* jj^iTty ^•i^rcRre-' yst tb** pr-^anm^tlfln ^h^v^^r-ym t.%y "bz
rebutted. (X23Sii v. Cla|>f , 147 III. 176, IfO; Hj!j3F?J1 ^» 5£5]*5j. 1^*
111. ^74, 586: K^ T. 3»rl«M 3^..tl\fl ££•» ^'3^ m« ^P^ • S'S,)
iad irhil«, n.8 Sit?*te4 in th« Isst two Gsses, thfl wi^illng of euoh
notion u^'lsr nuoh .-:trcumat«tncea prefeRntsd s sfu^etion of f eot for
the jury to .1*tsr!ai»a, y t flrtiea thsre i« iw^^itir* end «redible
eTidenee that tha notice mi3 not rsoeiT^d hjr th« <1ef^ndant pereonoklly,
end merely triieao* th«it hi?, si^t haY-? r«c«5lf«a it in r-steottal, and
thftt the r(9?«lpt of the rairisterod letter v«a aigned by noiMf one else
in his &b*tno®, *« tfeiBk the pre3usi>ti0B that he r»celT»i! personal
service before the rsgii^tered letter wnn .».ctuslly bonded to hi« wae
overdose,
Hor do we think the notice ime sufficient. There «&s
nothing in it to indie&te for -mhom Row* * Shitmen nr^re ^ctlni; »s
(!ig@nts. The feats testified to that they ^ere pgents* of the building
in Queetiott and had eomplete charge of the giaae. Made lettsea.
oolleeted rents, paid taxes, and look«»d after repsilrs for Mitchell,
S«tl* ?>'J ■
mi^ \'
utm ■
•^ift nm^ .' ■
'"»«»*? .lY^
■»rf -^se-r w"
"^ j^^r.
wiR*;! -.j.^P;
{,?*?!■ -
ik' :
«®1l tttsl 1»
«i«l^«d^ »
■jXriflf-rsfis
mi-
A-Att/^'sail ^s^^r
^^ »i«*#)»f,^
£^ «fl« ^»«i»ti« ^
l^9>ii.^^.
l>Umn^*^'?„ %/?TiS»1l>*'g' «I< lAiU
♦«9? m''
. -' . " - . -
;&«l'«#«f»<t$ «ttt«|;«;»Sl^»r»'
J.|jl>*,J*iV,*i. t!(l'
&pp«lXani*s leriBor* did not e>iit»)9l4&h th«ir nuthori ty or power fii,
e^ente to temla&te tny l«F.«e thoir principal, «r they in his
behalft hn^A exeouted. Hor did tbe ffict that th«y itxeouted a l«aae
freiR Mitchell ta /vngua* in the ^ibonnce of v^ny »vicJ«no« of tho
extent or liaitntion of ihelr authority, »uthoria« thew to
terminate th« prc^vioua Ims*^ to ftppollsjit Marks. £0 writ ton
authority of an^ jktad was offered in evidence «n<3 heneo mo l«{;sl
proof of thfe right of suoh Hgent& even to ijatje the jnremiaes to
the plaintiff .sngus. Sal««s SSitehell gave Ho^s & ^hitKcn nut'nority
in writing to leaJts auch & lease Mitchell i^i^^t ripmild® it«
( K^ftll.y Y, ii'ttehftr. 2«3 111. 184.) ^JoA without he g«Tt' wuch
s^uthority to ersid agent» to tenainate hi« leuee to M&ri.is, !uif th©
lAtter seted tjpon tbe ao-iuBsi tlon af their authori'i^ »nr\ vftcatfed
the premises he would have done »o st hla peril«
t3m ftQ4Wttnt of the insuff icienoy of tite notiee «nd of the
proof of Itflf cervte® in tiae, a© Tequira'i uailar th« le.-^e, the
juAmmnt will he s'STersed with a finding of fact.
Tm7nm-& -nm #11. :?!»'•; Oi' f.-v:^,
Oridley. ]^. J., ^ndi Morrill* J.« conour.
mnssi .a trPSm9'Xfi^ Xf>^ '^^^ 4«i«t »^* feife %«M .-':jf.«m>:'; .;.. x', , '.ji.,^:vi3«r
S,^^ai£ Iter 9j»««^ iia*, »»a*&4?«» «i fe»st»tS«i «.*-?-■ ' f^*
^4«* »i»3l «rt iu^^iv Imk i.A^ez .lis 6 . i^;*i;«t^
b^^.it>H¥ !Ht» "^ttstMtm t«l*88l-l* .a»l*^:«i!afr.ait »gi» mmi-
jjcy- *&<? felted mUmt i6M tn i5ft«®i«»i t^*<»al ^^ Itft tmmi»%.t no
,'Sfi»iaSB ,#^ ,XXi«Oa tee • ,-'^.1^1%^
-4-
457 - a7US
'M find thy.t '»p,p(9llaat, H. h, tie^rka^ aia not
recfiVfe »ixl3r ^^nfn* ns»»iaffl of tb» tarrolmt titin of the i«3=i»*
l«a • 27106
sjcowmc tsfseiALtY cdnPAirr,
I /
MR. J^i TXCS MOHHXii fiSMTPHaS THS OJPl^IOK OF TH« COtJHT.
ttpvm a Terdiet in the ^nioiiinl Court of Qhttm^n for fl4,4S0«
idii«h !• ths 8«<mat allesed t« te duis fr«KK dei^'udant es
royRltioe ttp<ia the R«tauf entare £Uid s^e ftf (wrtaln ;$rti«2La«
MVeiNitl by letttfrR patent owaed Isy fiaintiff , there *»» »iX«o
tt B9«ei«X fiadiag b7 th^ jury to th(» eff«et that there «e.» an
•gvt<mi6nt iMtwen the parties isheroby ddfeadi^nt wn» giren the
«xelttsiT« right to nwnaf^oture and ee>ll under plaintiff *iB
letters p^t^at, for n period e«iiTr«ncing ORtoher 1, 1917, sxA
ending with th« expirrtion ef s.^id lett«rs patent, for the
ttiui of 1850 p«r month On ring «^id period, h r^Ytsrsal i» sotight
upon th« ground thai the Judgsnent is contrary t*> the li« and
the eYidenee; thft thp special finding i« ngsinet the evidisnct
and that the trial judg9 erred in his rulings wpen quettiona of
evidence nn6 in Kivin;? and r^fveins instruetione*
Plaintiff's «i»nded sitotcnent ef clftiis alleged in
Kihst&nee th?it an October l* 1917 , it wa» the o^mcr ©f nine
letters patent of the Xlniiert itatee coT<^rln« eertain srticlee
trtiieh had been »anttf ^^etu^d and eeld by defendant tdinder a
lftee«8e agreawent 1A t teneiaated ueptenber se, 1917 j th«t on
Oetober 1, 1917, r^efendaat aeqwtirf^'i froi» plaintiff the excluoiYe
rii^i to manttf ^e ture sad mX\ oaid firtielee for the uRexyirod
• 8-
period of tttiiA patentB, In conslderntiea of the psyinent toy
tfef«nde:nt to plaintiff of tho sub of |860 per month; thst thero-
sftor a written meaorandvw dateri uetohor 1« 1917, •»>>erf3rlnfc tho
toraiK of »£ild agr«t-seiit «ar> prepetred and sulwltted to plaintiff
aad jscoeptsd toy It 1m t th t defendant felloe? and rcfuoert to
sign tho Sfune; th t defendant on and ^ftor Octotoor 1* 191?, «on»
tlfltt«4 to Bi»sufHctar« and soil n^ld .^rtlelea purouant to tho
outhorltjr »u%d privilege grantod toy a&ld ogrsefltent; that dtf nndaat
paid to plaintiff the am of tdSO for the privileges granted for
the aionthe of October, KoT««i>>er end DeseTber, 1917, and Janunry
and I'ebru&ry, 1918, tout th? t slaee Feto?i»»ry, X91B, It hRS rc^fuoed
to pay esny sia» whateYer fait »«id prlTllHigeB; Ih^t |850 per aonth
1« a rensonatole value of the privileges granted toy said oentract
that
and^here 1« due fram defendant to plaintiff for eald privileges
exerels(}d }>y It from Me>roh 1, 191S, to the dste of the com' Rnoeaioat
of tho rotlon the mm of #14,450. iJeffrndent's »f'ld^,Ylt of «eritt
denied all of the nl legations of the gtatonent of elnls, except
thet plAlatlff WHS the e^^m^r of the nine patunte; that defendant
had fflaiaif ctured by virtue of 11 em^? agre^menie under thooe patents
ending i..epte«to«r 30, 191?, and thstt defendant h^sd paid $69© per month
for the flTo months ending Fetoruary, 1918. The «f Idavlt of merlU
fttr*her »t«ted th*t ttm slleged oQHtrest wcntloned in the Btatoment
•f olela wso tofesed upon certain promisee alleged to hare toeen made
toy on« Olaf i» Oloson, president of defendant corpor- tlon, «ho at
the oiwe time wae president aad director of plaintiff corpor' tlon.
It expressly vienlei tho pajfrnant of pay mon«y In purauanoe of the
contract alleged toy plaintiff to hare toeen made Octotoer 1, 1917,
The evidenee Bhowe that on Getotoer 10, 1917, the hour*
of iijlreetorB of plaintiff corport^tion, con»i8tine <»f three
memtoere, me t in ai>«cl(a wee ting «+. the >aitomobll« clnto in Chicago
to discus the question of s new contract toeteeen the pertieo,
the righto of defendant to menufseturo and sell the ortioleo
"t:"? ■ ■''.,*■ m^tkmii ---imw^^. -■■m»^i^ feijas
6.1 4*? i#-^ ;
4'1|#«K#^ villi . ,-at«®ft#tt:A
jiwjs %^ M^ mm. ^0 .*«'■■'
••v«re4 V th» i^A tents lurTiiVs «xpirtd[ i«pt«ni)>«r 30, 19X7; tb t
•aid Olssoa vac pr^sildant Mtd director n.nd the l^AT^cst etock>toldtr
»f plaintiff odrik»r«tion nnd wv-e aleo tbe pre. ident, dilr.'ctor,
iren«ral naaiacer and a aiBorlty st^ctchold^r of d^firndaiit eorjpor: tlon
at th» time the ae«tlB|i^ oecrurr^dj th*it no ©tliur reprem'nti.My* of
def endiMit cT>i-po ration «*&« present ut the «o«>tla««
It is undispotGd ths^t Olceoa owned orcr tnlrty>eix per
eest of the s;te«k of plaintiff ctwiituay irvnd leee than steftin per
eent of the stock of si(>f«n<lnnt eoapsny. t this tiae plaintiff
had five etoskholders, thr»e of vlvm were dir^itotors, and defendant
fesd orer forty storslcholdero. The ainutes if thio meeting eboe
th«t action iras taken by the directors 9f plaintiff cflnioany In-
etraoting its »«eret&ry to notify dcfendpjat thnt the leaae on said
patents had expired Octohcr I, 191'?, anci thrst If rtpfend^at wiohed
to continue the ueo of s^ild petento It e'wald hATft ih«t privilege
for a period of »iKty daytJ froa Ocl:«h«r 1, 1917, st » rental of
1^760 for said period, payt^bi© in t«ro inetalaiftnta of 6830 et»nh,
^nd thf^t if def««df»int wished to cuter into c, nsw Icrtwe for opld
patents the &mA9 a-ould l^fr granted }yy plain tiff for thp entire un»
expired time of e^iid patents it a r«tnteX of ■I^QSO per iiont>h« These
texno «aro »oeepi©d hy c;'l*»6on on "behalf 9t .1(ff end/mt. The
proposition for » tea).mrr-ry extoasioa of the agreement for a sixty
day period p'^n'.in*? negotlntione lor » new licf^nse v k ?:cc«'pt«»d hy
defendant, vhish p*iid the required royal^ for the months of
Oetoher and ]jeavenber» 1917, hy vouoher ehiaekn, tfee lsf?t of whioh
speeified that the ps;^ent if&e made under the eixty day aeroeMoni
&M pending negotistiono for a eontr&et. On iJecessber 4, 1W7,
eoun»el for plaintiff »«nt to counsjel for defendant a draft of the
oontraet "between the parties covwring the propoaed uje of the
patent* fro« Oetoher X, 1»17, to Jtine 8, 1026, ths fJate of the
expiration of the pBtenta. This ftgreeaent gave to defendent the
«j:ola8iv« right to otaimrHOtiare end sell the ^rticlOR corered hy
^ 0';%^m't'!ii^ &&X j^^":-'^- ''■iZ:U- r^fkri mm-i: re ^''■•- vf ^xst*? isr;"- --^tiS
Mii'i m ■^- ■ - .. .:.m't^ksi^mt^ih- i(l%fft>.--, -,. ,„ ,.,. ...^
^m'tfv^irn^ 0if^. ifpil^. Mmm »i ^m»Pm>':
►?«%sei»'*rtr:.-
■>«irf-- ii'w^li^^^-
kyaw
Vlt hrm'ff^4^^'>ri^':■ »A,jf«.#>.
%h» patent* f<tr •nid period in cOBk>l<ier«itioo of ih* payMent of
^50 por KOBth* nnd among other things rt-citt<d ita oxeoulion
par ou Hint to »uthorlty given by the bo-r'i of direotorss of the t«o
eonp&ajkess Tliio propOBe':^ >i^e«i»«nt «r.K noTor cK#tnte<i try th«
p&rtl«», but OB tho ofJBtrftry, two of ths iti et* 'lir<«etera of
defondsjat corporation tftatifisd explicitly tli^it. in conTPrB,<tlo«B
with dlr«otora aal officers of plaintiff eorporotlon, they hH4
8t«kio4 tliet tlio tenna proposed wero una tlof Qctory »nd would not
^ oo<;e9ied« "^foBclfint cmitlntt<*d to use th« patents for tho
aiOBtbo of DesosiWr, 1911', and January and Fel»rti«ry, 1913, paylnc
thorefor th« euBt of ?950 per aonth. Tfe^ra payffisnto i»trc recelvo*
liy plaintiff in full Hntlof .action of itr ol^ime for those nontho,
Thore i« «videaeo »hoiring th st the nfgoti ^ ttonu c^ontinwfd l30t>io«B
XM pt>.rti«a up to Fe^^msTjr 8, ItlB, on wblisli de.te th© wcerctary
of defendant wrote to pls.lnUff*s ^ecrietfiry fiSYiaiag tht Inti-.cr,
in subBtaBoe, of th« receipt of thk ;>ropo3ltion for h n^v> lic»noo
»gro«»«at frwB plaintiff to defend ©at «pon tho tti-es eovered Tsy
tho propose<i contraet «ind tJsrt tifter confiifie ration ilie botrd of
direetore of u.«?fead«Bt declined to t ct*«<pt the proposition; that
defeadhBt offered t© poy for thr xtm of thr pstentp 'Mring tho
unexpired t*^i» thereof $mo per ipocth, pr07l<5-«d 5efr'Bd^nt \m
given Ml option to purela »«« ««»ld patent* for thr «ua of |?5,C0C
RBd notifying plaintiff th»t unlee* t.lii« off^r "*!is •'jnoptod o»
or 1»^fore iCebruRry 15, 191ft, dcf9»<lj«it traull discontinue th* ubo
ftf ^B& patents in c^ueistion a»d pey no further myaltis« iStti^r
th&t dsto. Th&t tli« pArtlea trare negotiating for a no^ lirseaso
B|tro«BOBt during the Montiie of I*eo«iTPr>or» 1917* sbc January, 1910,
ie furta*»r showt by a lr>tt<?r <5f^t<^d Daceintjor 29, 1917, fr«» Oleaoa
to the oeearetf<jry of plaintiff coiipany, in which h« referred t*
the fi^ct til t he had pjpo»i«e=! sn ofliocr of platnti'f eojapeay
^ftt ^ would try U get tteo titfendant acanpany to reach a c-mj-
elusion 1»y the first af the felleving year and thut defendant
3»i^ij(n«n»T»«s »4 #4|pl# %ltk9kl^xm h'».ltU^^. iu»M.>4%«Kn^&» .;£kMv«i«'tal»
^^tisn^w mmlf it-et its|«|;« fail ta ii«>i'#fta'-"iftlt^« iiwt al 'y'U&aia.--^ v,-.
»Cr #JJ«S*-«i3:i#.^ .&*j||Trin^' »^afSK/!E.Sf5 ®^': ■^■Sf^ifSt.ftllll
«»«*!:» arf- '• , '•■'^r. .itS,.<»«s^--
e4Mip»ny, of vhieh )i« ««« ]»r«»ld«nt nad coa«ral naattirtr. wMald
unqueatiotiR^l^ pnjr the rvy^alty nti. it had there tofor* dem and
io further shown by the orsl tt^^iiaMiiiy of fUr«otor» of lK»th
conpsniea* Th@re it no f>Tid<f>oc« of the oxletonee of «jay contract
between the pr.rtlos coTivrlng th«i use of the patents nfter Cotobnr
Xt 1917, <^xoept the sixty dtiy tmroonfmt hereinbit^fore mAntioaeci,
uring tho p«!rlod la«t«««n the oulAiitt^tion of thl«« &gre«>Btent
end Uht^ I, 19&», def^ndnnt, with th« e.o<|aleee«ne« of plaintiff*
p»ld the ray<y in ouestlon |»«rndin^ the negotintlane for « now
lieea^e agreement, -which i<ft^r«i df.finit^ly tensiinate d by defendftat*s
lottor of r«bru5«ry 6, 191S.
flBintiff*iB el&ifli th(i>t an ni^.re^m&nt exlsited betneen the
l^artifo eOTeriag thi« ssitter appears to bo b^^iv#d upon thfi proceed*
lags t&kea at ths »«eting of the directors of K>lftintiff eorporatiea
held at the .^tottobile Club October 10* 191?. ^fendant iaeiete
that BO eontri^t -w." & agreed upon at th?-',t tiae tmd that Olesoa we.*
laeospoteat to represent d@f«nd«mt .«t thet mooting oa account of
his peeaair.ry iat^reet in plaintiff oottpsay; the^t this latere* t
«fts rec9gai»ed by Olesoa* «hone onnTersation iadic^ted th<t ho
ttoeodoA to the proposed royalty of $&^ a noath largely b«e«>«i««e ho
would r<?eeiTO hio share of thnt sua nn n ^stoeKholder ia plaintiff
eonpi&ay« this is ahoim by th@ t«»tlflieay of the other directors of
pl&lntiff coacpaoy. olet»oa*B rel^^tioas to ^th onapMBies were of suAi
a fidaeimry chi^f^^eter thut traiis««tionfl betweea them aas^t bo
JealOttsly scmti»i3s«d« Oleson «na a commoa dirt^otor la both
eoap«^le^ mnd txmS. a doaia/Hting iaflu^snee ia their corporate
MCtioas* Ged^des ▼• mmc^nAn Copper tgiaiag Co ., -■■»4 U. :i. SPC;
Charte r a?a» i agjae Co « v, ^h»3rter > 47 111. App. 36; ypjrwell r.
3*yle»g&tioi|»l Cfi.. ^13 id. 4«e; Qilmaa v. KeU.y . 7? 111. 426,
Hie oral aceeptaJftoe of the Utum of the proposed agreeseat itne
not bia4ilMI nwm iefeBdaai (7 a. C. L. p, 462), which expressly
r«pa4iatc(i hiii actios*
It ie ttBdi»pttt«<l th«^t th« trrlttftn CAtttrMet (nribodySae
tli« plan jprojpesed at this met ting W!:s n«T«r «xf;c«ted bj tlM
partlea. The «vl<iiene« ithow«» th; t the plan w s d-flnltelj' re-
jected by the b«iRr<J of ^<ir«ectoro of defvndKnt sjurt thort is no
protease tlifel it ^be erer gu^ittetl to the eiockholder* of
defendant nmupmay* 'ounsel for plitlntiff ooatoiKS thnt this
ylan vns ratified by d«f endojit through lt» suboenacnt p»yB»nt«
of royolty for th« nonths of Dece^bor, 1917, «nii 3u.tU(*ry ond
7«bru«sry. 1913* but this eonolueion ie «ntir«ly ttn««trr«atod by
tho eridenoo, whifdi shown clearly thmt daring tbo yorled is
(laestion the nf^goti»tiono betwoen the pi3rtios were ttili eon*
tiBtting* KsA that dofeadftiit B«v©r aeeeFtfed the proposed Kgrte*
no&t*
It i« also co«teii4e«i by plaintiff th*?t cfttriag tho
entire period bo two en $areh 1, 191B, and Jely 85, 1919, defsnd*
tak% ooatinued to nssflttf >otttre end »ell the articles covered by
the l*tt#ro pff.tent ia t^weation nn-S the*.t th»Si« oftlee i^BOunted
to ^i% sua of I2&5.66 <tari»is thie period of ffil:Ktos>n nontho.
the record coat&iao «*vlSdn«o tending to mav th*«t ^rin^ thio
|»eriod defendant sold a few srtiales ©f a ohir*r.iCtor einil^^.r to
thooo oovarod by the lettero patent, thetso l^rttero petent ro-
l«tod to pii^e" fittings, vslToo, vinioae and oth^r applisaeon
of o BlBil^ eh&7Beter. It »«y be true thst defpodpat sold
ftrtlelOK of thie eharioter, bnt it i* a matter of etaeniOn
baowledgft that 04»i:^lisneo8 of thla kind »ight be «Mnttf'> stared
and ©old wiiich wore not ooverod by plaintiff •« patento. Tho
moll eaouat of the sales eialMOd to h«T« boen shown by the
«\'id©neo Kfoul^l indie»t« th«t defend»at oe?js«d to aajsaf nctwro
«aid sell ttmder tho patent* on M»rch 1, 1913# as it ossorto, and
^et if !»ay oueh articles were sold, they h^d been naaaf ectured
prior to Serah It 191^5. ^« fiad bo ooapotent (•▼ideneo in tho
fsk hAift»t •^^ St«J'^i2^> r„ii« xi-yUi-aiz ^■m^i li'-i^:--- ^i'S^^-- ' '
- • wi.wiM ^ ■'mi-i% $»-'■■
.«»fisia» ,»3ryl,«r ,S3|>
■js&^wcm*
•7.
re-^Mrd ehavlng that defendant vhu s;:ailtj mf nnjt lafringtnMMt
of th« p»t0nts after ttaat <lnt«. The record ehetrai thf t ttaer*
w»s na Af^rveaiffnt, «xpr«He or implied, b«tw»«n %h» partito
eoToriag the us* or th« pAt«at$ y/y d«>fencSHnt «ube«quent to
October 1, 191'^, except the twporpry figr««»ment hort^lnbeforo
aentioa^d p(;mittlag the maumf iiOtttro and :snl« of tbeso
ortieleo pondiiiii the nego ti tions for & nr» lieeoao ngrovaent*
tho ^u^flBOB^ 9t th« Munitiipul Court in r<»T«r««d with
8 fiadiag of fsots.
tmr^m^t} nrn wimnm o? f/icts.
:i:^'mi!>
^^09 it:
« *.' r* 'f s -.ft m :
hvi\;i'ii'Mt^
*s?t;
•«•
1*3 - ^.7106
Tke QmnrX finds a ultln«t«! ff^eta in tlxe eR8< tliat
tlt4»r« VBJi n« nfsrttmenX 'bttvcten th« {K^rtier^ to thic mtt i:iTliig
defeadaat lh« ^xciu»iv« right to » r^nuf : 'jture «nfl uoli vntter
3,6tt«rs ipatent >)«loiiKlni* to plaintiff for thft period oora''*«jiiif
Octel>er i, X®i7, snd «ndi«p with the *xplrstl»>n of naid Itttfer*
fK%«nt« and tl3i»t def«nrJ«Bit A1«S not stssinutf K<;tttr« i9,b4 sell the
«rtiel«8 «M»ver«4 by Btiid petp»t« after ¥*rcli I, l?>lSo
6/- ■
**# li
m "ii -^
;-J tt*^ «#«s
/
153 • S71X2 /
\
/
aiABts iMmvvi% )/ Q o ^ T A f^ 4 ^
▼•. - \ n
CHICASK)- HA04^fAyJi a^ia*.^VJ^, / ) '
CHlGAao CITY EaII^J*^ GGUP^inf, / )
CCflSASt and th« !;i«4)rtllIRJ5 i?TiOTf )
BAH.*' AY wOia»»ysX, aorisoP«t.lo»|i. )
ApffiiSll©©, wfc.0 i^a-ss plaintiff in lis* fSuaielpal court,
i'«eo'V»rM Judfej'^tnt ag^teat spp^Ilfoste far |l,Ov>0 as da^-isj^o* i"or
isiaraoaal iajuyis;* alleged fca s-m^e "bt^tn suatiaiwad fey her la^nd re-
sulting froifl iin aooidtat gsauassd by apfJ^H-i^wta* »esltr:®«.c« in turn
oparsition ©f ©nc; of th«tff sar^, is wMeh appall®® was s. pas.senijftr.
fh® statflBaeni ©i' Ql%im iali®g«4 thst wMlss* pl^ikniift wa,s ali^ihting
fro5a th® ear at tim tntersftsttoB of 0ivi-3l»^« 0ty«««si. -yvi Qakl«y
"boulevard An Chlea^o, whsjr® the a«a* ■^■^ et^v.-aiiBg ©till, it holtig
a, uau'i.1 pluee far tJi« 4lseh8»j|g« of pAs©«ng®r», ?iiuJ wliile «b*.' vsra*
In ttee «3?«jp«jii8« of ':?u« <sar« ;4-j3d "sr^jts ix\ tim sm% of atepplistg t© th^
g3fimnd, th« oaJf Wia« a^detily «i?jil ne-ijiigtratiy started faapward,
e*».8l»g fflainii.-ff to "bft t.hT@sm t© tfe« grounti. rh«6 affi^aTit of
Kiejrite leKie-i tJ^mt 'laftManfii* w<s»6 ^ilty of t,fe« n'Sf;ligeno«
ob-arg^d aM .^ill-c^^^d that the eop tp®8 not £»t«.ried forwsir«i '.^hils
plsdBtiff wauB alljiii-itii^ tfearefyeiii, ,v*nil that th« injurieo of which
pltti»tlff eos^lainsd we»« a,u« »«l&ly to bey osrn -i-ant; of care and
negili^enee. A r«irera«l is »ottji;lit upon ib.« isr^awi that the v»sr^iot
and Jtiti^^^eni «er« «OBtr&r>- to th» aianifeift v^eigJ^t of th.« 8Vid«»-e«
fOKi tl%%i thig oourt err*d Ijq glvitig certain in^truotlsnst to i.h«
^ury i:s t» the 4«gr«« of care trhioh <J«f e?5dant« were re«|ulre<l t©
'iwA W^
Plaintiff *ii te»t l.aony ia th« only evidence offered in
her laehalf ae to tho clreusiiutanoee imder vhlci) the (iccident oo*
eurrecf. fib« testified that «s th« oar» wJiieh was K^^inii voet on
DiTleion etreet, appre»oh»4 Oakley boulevard, nho aroaa froKi rmr
seat, vffal^ed to the dwor o.t the oar iij-nl requeeted the cgniSuu-ior
to stoi? the ear Jit Oakley bciAleTard* althoutih atatirug, in aute-
etanoe, thAt the ear al«a^» ste-';3ped »t feh^t pl'tee witl'ioui euoh a
request; tii%t she started to .;*li^,^it viml wtdle h«r loft foot, wiae
oa the step of th® e-ur idwd her right on th« grouni, the cjix g.>ive a
sudden jerk, wMe5'. caused her to fall to the pavouient, 53he h«4
no further r@osllf»«ition aa to l>j-e iSi««iAe.sj.t,
Oa Ibefealf of defasu'iAiMie the con-luetr^r of the car tes-
tified tlmt ^i-Jien the ear ^&s <i -Miag tc it» reguinr atop at <,Jakley
feeulevard tfee pilmintiff suddeBly ateppffid off the car» h^jidliifc- the
hstntUe •s'lti? ber ri|f.ht h3,md, m\4 stiepplag ibwekwarda; that he tcW
her t@ wait arjtil ttoe eiMP stepped and e»4eavored te keep h©r froia
skttimptin^ to eili^i 'i?k€in the <£ar ^j»e in motion; that at the tWe
pXi&iniiff step;>ed tttm tbe d&r it i«r&e ae^tin^ t© a ato]^ )r;.iv$ sored
8«T«r»l feet atfter ah« fell* 'The conduaX^r is eerroborated by
aaeth^r witBesa, --aIssi in the esEEploj of defencUiKte ^^ie a conduoter,
irho ^a« €dff tuty at thi^t tii^e ajrul wbo h^pened te be ri4iag on the
1% in ^puT^Tit that the evldenoe ae ts the operatien
0f tJie oar tain the sireusstfmeee m^ler trhiota tlte aool<J«nt occurred
^»,s eonfiietiag, tbsrefey r«R(l«rin«i it eeeential thst the jwry be
instmetsid »e«urateiy as to the l;m. At plaintiff* requ*tet the
fellot^isg iiistruetieja ^sma given to ?ke jvry:
•fhc court ittstructo yow that it wae the mty ol the
defe Mania' ©lapleyee la @haxt^& of operating; th« oar, t© u»e the
fetgheet j3r«.<jtieal de/^ree of eare unler all the «sxistinc eirouK-
fttajiees for the safety- of passeri^ars «;a<5. th«lr protection .•^vlnst
aM»eidetttal tnjuriea sarising fr\>« the operation of the car. Arid
if yea believe frc^ tite erl-ience in this cuee that they rsfigiffioted
so to d@ estd that the s^la.intiff while in the exereise of due and
«^1 iS
?Ji' i?)-»,;,:t«ssii yf
?!:««
J»
ortlin&ry <c&t^ for her otm irrjffjty In 3t«>jv>lni( o/f the oar wa» thrown
40VII iftftd hurt *ai the'reV-'y mifCoTWd Injurlee "by rftaacu'. of rrnoh nof,-
ligenee* then th« <i«f«ii.da3ii, i& t<f be h<sl4 r«6?»on«l*>Jlf i'er all ps-
ouzii.uJry darwi^^B, if Ruoy, <llrectly c(AUB«d ta thw pliiintlrf by nwoh
ir»nt of cur«, if miy, or? th« puTt of ll»« <l®f end&nt ' b mt^l^y^B,"
this last 3ru at Ion ia ^fchout Ii»dt'-^tlon aa to the d.iKgr»«
tlf car« r®^uir«<5 ey tiefanda/tts nvii ah<»ul4 haT« wta-tafj thiit tb.« (Jftg.r«e
©f cure reqiAijrtd ©f j|«fer>d5«st« i« auois a» i» eonsiBt.-nt with th«
••pr&ctieal oparati^u of U,% rQad." failure c/ kun ia<>ti*uetioii to
r«ssuir« Xh»% th« 4«gree 01^ care a»4 vi«ilan«S(9 ©wirsi; bjf {& cutH^t to a
l>a»3eng©y tse *ooasist«tst ^tth tiie itifjsetisial ©perattion of the roftd"
SIO III. ^p. SSIf. Fa«e iu«lnsatloi^: ■>;?»» jslao aul<Je€t tt? eritioiom
in that it 4ia aat iteit IJie .^Isintiff ♦» rifeM of rcoo«'«ry to
ia4'»rie« resultiisg fafii« ths ^^ts &i »«gii,fsr<c« 6liarg©d iw tij*
st^t9m©r*t of eiaia» ^ut sBithoila-sd a r^ccnrsyy for any Begli;;j«no«
«f iri5i«fe tlie ittty iSiigM Is8iir# eaR«ld«.r«d th« d«l'®nd:i»nt$ ii:uilty.
prior 4<rei©i0R» apj^ this i»«fej««t, .:««d isuat revsrss the judtjasnt
s^d r®»art^ tli« 3ad««
ari<filey, '■'» .T. , ?*nsl Earrxfts, J,,, csntJujc,
1?<S - 27X31
\
/
\
i26T.A. 64
/
^'' o:i?' CHIUAaQ.
\ /
ypon .** trial fey jiury Is* th« iSURieipitl court of
Cfeieafe app6ll®«- ifmi^r^it^t a jm-d®s«4st. asa.is»t appcH«s,nt 5oy
$7Sxi cl«lia«d t© fef 'Jut liim im twajsiasissti* 1», acyta'actieii vHi-. tbe
t-0 jmrciJii**© the j»r«'^#yty at ti|« iSk|j2f««l pjri©© of $2S,00t>, but
urgse as rgr%ijnB6 for ?* T^T^.TimX i\hM.% hmfa'sn a real «tst.;it3 l>yok«!tr
mAOt to* «s#@ut84 Isy tins jsajriisffi, a«d fuytk«r, tliat, th« pro'fjio8«(!
e©ntra!«t sf ssalo l8iV0lv«ik-l hcfr«i.ri wsM v-slii for w^.uit fti" sa4iu:Allty.
T&« ®vi?S®ae8 eliowe %}mt plaintiff i» a d^jly lle«ifi»«4.
r«al fe»t'-?kt<s fe3r«ik»r in feh© sity of Shi-.,ago; that -vith ths c&nf-'^nt
«f ttee o^ner ho a«rf«rt©ok la find & pur*Jh«i»«r for the real eatMt^
9W«e4 fey <j8f@jsdaRt a.i the prle* «f |5?-9,000, -^hieh d<*f«»ndai)<r am^vn^A
te afee«|jt, a estttrast «®l»o4yin£- th« tersis of Iha »&.l^, to vjfc,i«h
th« «wK*jr fa;** ▼®rlj>a.J.ly agr««4, was p3re.t>»ir*tl ^ad mtbrdtt'^d to the
OWii«x> !si»-:i to hi© attorneys, «li® aug:(-;e-st«-l certain c]ir>ft.tt^«» U:«ir«in«
fliftrsup^a & jaiiw dxaft *&X tfes e^ntract was !a'i4* in a fd3»8 aatla-
|^t»'fy to th« own«r ^m<i Ma att^m«ty. 'ims rwltjftS cowtract ««&»
«3E»0ut»d Isy tfe« p-u2t>S»st»ejp* anrj tk« saiaj of $^Aj «ra» 4esr«8ited .--aS
«a3P{x^»t imtm^j iu tte«arda»at^ iriUi its; e«indlticm»« lliereaftf^x- the
e^
omMr reftiftad to sign tt@ contract >*.■&<". tnalfifcth'l tlmt ho woul;' not
sign unXftdK »Ti akdaiiioAal m^ of MfK-O «r8»e liepottitf^d mi 6.-sLm«»t
smney, il^el&rim: thsit h© Jsad n«V":r aiire«<! to ojtfircut«:' the oantrmoi
upon !» d«|^oait of $5(i0 beia^/ KiawJe, 11i» pr*pen4«i'ttny« of t.H«
•▼iatfseifi la to ttoe tioatrajry, imA fairly sro^s that tho orn«r h..4
agreed to th« prop©fe«?i terms of walw -is «6Bife«i-5.ted Irs th© contr«ot.
It hae biseti hel4 rep«%t»dly i"hat a real ©atsiic broktir
wh© has found a puroliaaer at the j>yl0« f ix»d "by th« o^fmer who 1 s
rcitd^, abl« 46»d. -will i»^, to pu)pebaa« tlnm pr&p$ttf mA to psay ihm
p\iTti'hij,»9 jjrlce, md* earned tn^ ae,K^<sii.a*«,ti.o0 sgy^jssd to lie ps^.id. to
hi®, «v«n tisasi^r- t-titi asali**' ssi'tftrwsypda r«Xu?-;<?B to preec^cl witiu th*
traKsa«tl0n, MgMES ^^ M&* ^^^ lil,, 13«| i^<i|| v. jfejisa, IBS
Id, 304 J &MB&MMM ^» ill£*SSJt» i^'^ '^l^* ^r>» iS?c-j a^O^^^ v. ii^l^X.
ca»e -vtaM thi*«« ]^«r <3«mt af th« s*g,r@e4 ptii?eh&s« pjriaiR, ahieh Is th«
«»t89u.at of %ii« ^u^^sBt. we hwt^ e?ir«fully a:s»5ais®a tiie s»KK«rott«
«eit>j©3?ltJL«» eii«4 1^' as»f «l.la^t iis support of i^ts s©at©ntloR tliat a
ccH^daeioa i« »ei gti&^i?»'tXe Ui"U#8e a eontiriShOl 1.5#t-w«s«irj tiv«? ^arti«« la
actusdly »ar.©«wie4» ffe«»« mi,t;r.-«riti»» aanialn, lootfciia^:; C0titi:a,ry to
tfe« ^*li *sstabli8isM rul© sbeirt «tat«4. la fi%«t, ii«Yexa.l ©t tii«m
a o?ift,|-r&et hM a^etu&ily fesien ex»«utM. f , f. as; v, %ti^jfj^ ,. 240 111., ^ft;
INl flad K« ®«irit in appellrint •« aoat^ntion tfe&it. th*
'pv<sp^&^4 ©etntrstot of ©ale Troyiia Hume b««n void fsr wajni of isutaailtF •
With ©a€ «3ce«pti0n the sssitJ.eritl^s* <5it«d by aj5»pell)4nt Ik support of
tM» fri^pessltlea ar© oa8«<a relating to apmniSto perrforss.-mea ai«S deal
with tJb# •«i»e«itiaJL 3re%a4sit«« s^ a i;sfit.r*at upon ^hi<s.r.. %h%% i-tsi-edy
will 'te» allowed, -lbi» i» not a lill f©r »|»®«sl,i'iB pi?rf&3Ra4iSJ^«
I3&» jud|4a»*rji ftl tK« i^x'jiclp&l cuart in imels.in^'?! fully
Iff. the lAW and the evi^fej'i*, -mii ^111 thartferti fct 'An'.lr-:«;d,
mT» tiitimt 'tm
ii^ltiitVg 146 ■ ^\'?» ife<ii*'*-,(St'*' A«
JviltrW MV^V^"*^'
li >:«f:-ir Ci".^ ,i .■ « -fvr
K'-*i*:?SuK; r
X70 • )?7131
(Jlhieag© iSP53elI»9 y«eoY«jr9t! ,% ^U':^i^«5:it aiiain«t jj:pss«llant. for
If So ala.li-seS to fc& tesf hia «»8 ^twmi a»i<??»,» Ib coiW:i'»«ftl»B. vritx.' the
]?r<»p©«»A asil© ef «^ertaln r«i*l e-ata.iti Ik C%io«ttOe Appellant con-
fw»l t»t«ite aM fefe-ut tl«»» p«r8?(ae ?*-iSi» r^^dl^, able an4 -wilAlne
iiurs<»6 sun res^ao-Bs fo^r »a r«»T«r».ai that, 'baf^jre a r«ial «at*ta binokor
Jp«faa.y, willing aad ?^feli* to "fetif, l«i -i Vfilld ootiixnei of ti-^'lo
gR^et "b^ «a»«Eut«di ty ife« ^sytiots, -^M Cw3^lv«r, that th« pS'Ofjon-ttd
««»st]Pft8t oi" «i^ls i«v«lvM liereirt isaa v>:fld for w^iint o^ .ssjatu.ilttjr.
PM^ «»t::iit« i>ir5?^i»?y in th^ city ©f Slsi-«tj©j that ^itJ'* ihts c»nw«rt
tf t3fe« 9«'n«r h® w»-.?«rtool£ to it««J s |(uy«JnMi'sr for the roal. offlt*.te
«tw««d fey 4af enilftBt at ttxe pri«« of .i2§,t>{>0> which 4«jf«n4i^at ajgr^td
te se4S«^t« A o^ittiTiMrt ^^bo^yioi: ih« t«r^)« al* iha »ale» to vhi«sh
Vtmmit sajsd t© hi4» aiiowie^vs, ^e^fb© su^,-5?ste^5 cftrlaln 0j»»rigtjn» thsr^iia.
V&%timp^n » ti«sw djTiskft «>i" the e<3ntr»ct i^iie sjad« in a fttim eailft-
fiietery t@ ife© otrntyr &»4 fela %t43t3Fn«y« 'ihis r«vi»«l <!9niJ'&ct -rae
MW«ai«4 Ifey iS» pa3r0bi*»«3f« a»fl th* susa «»f ^S*jO was d«poalte<j ;iS
«&ar^«»t ^a£i«|' ia aa«orda»<ie vitJs its aottdition»« Xlieres.fi«?r ihe
OT^ner r«rfua«d to ^-ign th© eontract '.<aA inalfltod thai .h.5> 'iroul' not
«lgn ur1««« an i*4aitloiu«l «w;2 of S4S*ljO w&s 4»5)Ottlt6(3 tui «arT!«?at
sweney, 4«oleiri.ni:' tii^tt li«t fcid ;Ci«rff..;ir }ti.;r«fe>d to «x.e<iut,*f tho aontr^ct
upon a de»>o«it oi" |S^Xi Isi&in^ js;'s4e. !)■»(? j!ir«!|>»sii.l«Taj'.it« ©f *Jb<r
•▼l*3«se9 la ie «Jh« a^atrayy^ --i^m fnlTly nr.-Q-^s tii&t t!tie> o-icnvr h<4
agreed ty tb.« ^rcpoeM i«3?Ja« ef Bisla »» ssafeodiiBd lis the eontriiot.
It hM» t^tii\ h«M iP8st>'#fAt)»diy tliat a real f»wtai« bruJE«r
■wise hA.« iftuad « ?>Hjfo)m«<iy a* %h& t>ylce fix©* by lii« e'-m«>r *?he ie
r««d^, «*tel« «nsd wlliiug to ^T0fe«« th« px&^^ri^ imi. to pssy th«
puir«h**» ^rle«, h4Mi «si.rtt©d tu& «!>«3fi@ag^ikioiJ &iir®-e-d to X:-e o»ii-'^ to
hlw, «v«n th4m# th«^ »«ll«-y ai'idr»%i£^« rifef&s«e t© pr<<c«««S. vith ihm
14, 3«>4j Qsm^MM ''• lltttSJ::* 134 U). 4|5::u 5?oj Je^^,^|1 v. ll»l!laL#
40 i4# ®L4j« xSi® es*i.-:|Sfer.»a.ti««i a^««.ii«S tc fee pal*? %tos t*jgent i» ti:ii»
«&»« Wdwi liuf«« p^r e#»t ©f tii« s»^-jpe*4 ^uf«"»a*« psrlse, vj-jr.!©' is th«
«m€)tmt cf tl%# Jttds;^®flt« W« iia'S'a ejajrefii.lljf (s;i«K5ia«hl th* mmnxrivk*
a«t)5«rlti«» ^lt®4 by as>|>«ilai»t in apafiJ^fi »f feia oaiiteniien t,h»t a
e©aaTlaai©ti is feiSt p&yafei® ual»@* s oo»iyai«t l5>«rt«'«ffiji t"n« ©aji^ta* 1»
©etsially ®x«#ttiM» Th^g^t »iiii.!0rlt..i.«® eentalia «©thtji*j sfwutrary t«
t>.e «*f*ll esiabliafae^. ?ul« ifiboT* ^tSitiU, I« f^&ct, ?i«nF«rmI of th<»?.
•xpap««sl;f e«»talB tld« Jfule, altJfeim^ taaiiniii. Tit>i esuMts in wtiloJi
W« fiad SM9 te^jfit in ajipollr*»t ♦« contention tbat the
tafegiesM eestnwst &t &aI& -^mtM liscr« fc««a Tttld fer want of mitusiilty •
With «»« «a^9piion th« fi6it>i«ritiea .^it«d by ai>5>«ilfimt in isupport of
tMa |»3r©|j©«iiiaa *re eas^fli y«ila,tlsy: to i^ooifls p'^rtonnjirtat a»<J dftsl
■wlih tlfee ««&«n,ti&l ii'®{iui8.it«« oi ^ if^nirimt ttp«a ipliiisn ihat r«Bi«s?ly
K^ll fee all©««!t, TMs la not a Taill fer Sjtt««lfie s»ei'fc?rfcvane#,
Igf %h» l»» «id i^« etri^^nes, :isd ^ill ihar^forvs fee ^.f^in-aetS,
188 - 27143
Appftll««^^ } A^EAL FROH
22oI„A, 643
T8.
\
ARTHUR f. DICKIKSOir.
\ ) / COUUTSr COURT,
COOK COTHTY,
App«iiAnt« / }
KK, JU3TICI M0RRI3-L DSLlVma© THS OPIRIOi> Of THS COUKT.
This is nn action of ttituuBpait brought by opiollee to
reooYcr eeBursioelons clalmod to be dtuo hin for socuring cuvtonoro
for the purchase of certain real estate beIonc;lng to oppellant*
Th« dsel&ration indicates thett plaintiff's claim waa bnpod
originally upon aevernl transactions* only one of whieh la
involTod in thla appeal, which ia fron a Judgment upon a Terdlct
for $480 in favey ©f plaintiff. Ap;«llant urges a reversal for
the reason thi^t the ^udi^^ent ie contrary to the law and the
•▼Idenoe and on arcount of o,lleg«d errors of the tritil court in
glYlng »nd refusing iastmctionfi* an«i in rulings upon evidence.
The evldenee »h09S th^t appellant nvna the Iruilder
and owner of several hnusea in the village of silaiettea one of
which he sold to appellee In i;%reh, 19:^* On or »bni)t the dnte
nf thla sale there were several conv^re^itionB between the ptirties
with reference to the »ale of the r<nEnaining houses sjid enlisting
tte aervioes of ap:>elloe in obtaining; nusitomers therefor, as a
result of these negotiritiona appellee referred ftp^«llnnt to one
Gu»tav» C, K'irtin hs ei poaeible purchaser. Thereafter appellant
entered into a "written agreonent with U«rtin for the sale ta him
of one of the houses. It is rtdsiltted that aprellant w&a brought
into oeataet with Kartin thrmtgh the efforts of appellee, who had
«andry interviews vith Kartin and wi-Ui appellant upon the subject
r^
N •*>.
LMT>:.i,
i i. is l(^;jr.;
prior to the execution of th« agreuaent. The agreement in 'lueation
was prepared by appellee. It vmm dntcd Uiny 2X, 19P0, and in sub-
• t&nce provif]ed for the eale hj Appellnat to Un^rtin of a certain
bouee in -vtlmette for the sum of $16,000. Appei:^ant a--^yK. t.h^^t the
prlM was reduced to that finrure from $16,500 by reuson of the
aoBuranto given by ntp{3«llee that. lUrartin would pay for the eaire In
eaah. There wsa an existing cnoujnbr?ince upon th«f previses of
I6S0C, whloh the puroh^i^er agreed to assumo Ha paxt of the puroh&ae
price* The oontraot recited that the purchaser h»d paid 35,0OC
ae eazTieat money to be applied on the purchase vhen coneunrated^
*nd agreed to ^>ay vlthin five daye after the title hnd been examined
maA found goot or aceeptftd by him the further sua of $46oc after the
eempletien of tbe premiaoB and upon delivery of a good and aufficient
general wsrrenty deed eonirey&nR to the purchwser good title to the
premiaee, Xt appears from the further r«oital8 of the contract
that cnadry work on the buildini; remained to be done by the Tender
before the vendee would be required to mate the further payment of
|4»ee«
The record further shove that Kartin at «»li timeo oontem*
plated the payment of the purch^ne price, with the exception of t>)e
mortgage assumed, by the delivery to apT'^llant of certain oil stock
at the pF-r v»lue thereof of |9 per ahare. He tef^tifiea that hi
acquired this understanding by reason of repreaentations made to
him by appellee. Xt is apparent that there were ewae negotirtiono
regarding this meth&d of payment, un appellant ..ccepted th« stock
in satisfaction of the first pn^^ent of @5,000 mentioned in the
contract relying, ao he aaaeris, upon the assuranctt of appellee that
ho would aelithe »toek for appellant within a fcx dnya. The con-
tract contains no mention ^^hiitever of the proposed e^tisf action of
ui - •:■- «lf^ ««1- '%m hSmm ^l$l^''t :^-i^vf ^?i;.
*•■■! ■
II
ite tcnRii Ijy the trRnof^r of stOBk to "ppeHaat, »«*inrhn\jr*n
ayparvntly BAde soba fuUlo efforts to sell the »took in qi^ftctlon
f&t «9p«llfti}t. At fii iRtcr period «pi>«ilnf3t n^jtifi.'r* VnrtlR tbtiit
b« would not accept atook in .!ir-.ti»f ifctien of fh« pnynnvf of f4SC0
mentioned in the contri^et tund th(Rt it wwe neoopBtuy f^r hta to
h»v« this ajnauEt in o»sh «» prorided hy th« contr&ot- ?''!»r^.in
ihtn eti^t«d explicitly thnt he wee unAble and umrillln?? tn j>ry in
CR«h • ..'1 cklaeon rcportc^d %hX% uitufttlon to jf«infihMi««r. mad thot
Martin WR« un«>Fll3.tn,-? ts go ur ■•'itto th« eon tract if h* roul*? net
»«.ke hl« payisenta in oil rtotsj?, ..ecovfiing to ;JiokiB&on»« t#!»t.t«ony,
h« then reminS^'d i:,pr?cl2.<?e tte.G'f co eii istetste sffts to "bt ji<io©pto<J Yr«7oa4
that if^ieh YmA been rsceiTSfi in a 'tiBf&otion of the first r«p.y«R»nt
of |5«000, and thsi th© r^ainini; payaient Wf^s to lie »ft4«f in c^»h«
He flftjro that ho st&ted to Melatshss««en- that h« wst* inclined to *i»ia
li«rtia to his contrwot but w®^» disfjuad^d fv^j dntn^ ««> b:y !?«tlnahmi9«n,
lAio edirioed him not to get Into »» law suit abowt tM B«n*.t«r «n.1 th-it
ho hftd better forget the trsmsaction, return th© yteck to Martin hi»4
eall the contract off. Appelloe sstated th».t he wa** ^-illin^ th«-.t
thio <»nir&« ehowld bo pursued; th;«t h« woftid rnthpr h«r«! it don**^ then
to inonr any trouble about the metter. Thew* f'tot-sjerts, v»do by
appellsnt, *re not explicitly denied by ajipelioe, anii the- onrtr<!0t
imm there^tar ca*-»-a.?li«!4 rmd ths i-toci returned,
Cpon thi« »tfite of facte, eippolloe clftiae thst h* \n
entitled to his ooamsioaion* on accmint of the propope'i "vulr to
Ifsrtin for the reason tli t h« aecumd a ouatoner who -n-s •rilliB.'?,
fioi^y end able to purehaee on the terwo made Tty the prlnotpRl w«!
with vhOB the principal hwd entered into « vhII**, enff^rM-'Lc
oontruot for the sale of the preniEtei*, uninfluenced by mlsrep^
reeentntlon by aprelXoe« thereby Rcsfptin^ the f?uptfl9!«r so r'srrSyj,
willing (Bjad able to purchase upon the terae of Xh*> oontroft; thit
hf oeourlni; thi© oui^tower he had sEo^ned his ecataloeion* of whieh
**#-^*r M#»r. *=■■
-4-
Ktm!m^,^min^ .*«ai.|««?«f« «it iii' ta'i!«sflw»^# mdt '^ «,'
:!<»Jt#R««r
uK^ &m^l
-4-
h« OAnnot Im d«9riy«d by the mabsflnfuent fnilur* of th<^ custaaer
to oerry out th« oontr=^et, 7h« general propoaltiea for irtiioh
•ppol.lo* contendB Is uu stained by nuntcrouis deoislons in this steto
( ypx V. Ry»n , ^40 Hi. 391; r;ilfron r. B ason , 168 id. .504; Carr
^» ^t*iS£35SLlL^» '^^'^ III, Apn, 14), RTid must b« occ«ptert ne b
correct otateiacnt of tli^ Irtv? sovornin^? tho i>a3rK«nt of commiaolons
on tb« sale of r«<al (?«tatn«
T]^ sale t|uo«tion tnv det«r«in»tion in thio qhso i«,
i^ether or not tha clreunxtancas snrroymiinff th« trnns&ctlan
botveen Jiitirtln s.a4 Pickln^on *?re wach %«» to render the rul«
inapplicAbie. /.ppell»nt oontende th»t ri»i»tiff w^ib not «ntitl*d
to fe eesiisiBsion bee^nse there v&n no me r ting of winds betiieon
Tondor 8n«i vendee ri* to XhP t-srwa of pjiy^^nt for the rcfil eBtaic,
»n(i that the contr: «t wan exewnted by the parties under s.
lEisisjsprehenuiQiQ inapirftd by «?ppelJ.€;f=>'fi rej>res«nt«itionK tc sip elXant
th«t the purchinse would be for cs^ah, end that if he accepted oil
stock in lieu of e^ah, the eiMM coul^ be ^old speedily mnd to fcartin
that the p&yisentc i3ould be Ba4e in oil s-toek, Appellfint relied
upon the eontr- ct &nd believed hinRi&elf entitletl to the riayeent of
#460© in <m8h, aad ¥mrti« r«lied ut>«»n the repressntationa made by
appellee that tiie payments mii^t bo ®«'l© in oil atook, ^vhioh eeened
to bo aupportei by the faict ♦*h'»t >ioktnaon had Roaeptcd *iuch stock
in lieu of a cash ^a^msent of f15,000 upon execution of the oontreot.
The esse at bar differ* fro« the oaee of Tfo x v. '^yan ,
Bttpra « in Ts^iich it was hel«^ th»«t where the T«ndor had accepted a
pttrohaear by enterintT into a oonlr-et e*" brI*? to hi», the Tender
eeanet defeat the broker's cOBttsisaiona upon the ground t^ut the
puroh^ser w«a not able to buy the properly. In th&l caee tlu«re *«,«
no profif that the failure of the purchaser to cnasply with hia oon-
trset was due to financial inability, 'which is not the situation
in the CRse at bar, au Martin fie<?lared thfit he wpo unable and
unvilling to make the payment nf iifiOO in oai^. There is a further
.^i^MMT jdte.iife' ,^#*'^ n^t ■■■
'll^«a
• 9-
dlwHn-tion x.fi fc* B«if)« IjfttiW^n. th% «'ta«tf. In thnt la th» Vox oc^mi
th« r(9a«Jor retslne'l tH*? lullif^tl ptyweat of $f;,OOC and cunc«Il.«rt
tl»e coiatruit of 9UJ-ch..i.6 unlnflutrnocti lary th« financial aVjiHty,
or fiTwyence Ihereiof , of thm pu rch^ t.tjr to pay tliti y;alHnci'», while
In t.be ca8<? i fe b«y the paysssnt v/as rfstumea by th« vendor with
the Vnowlodg? tiuci t««clt, if not exprees, approTal of ttpiHslle^*
Thi£ vctlen »««?>&« to indlo&tff u belief <»n the psirt of both
I^lekinson &£d Meinehau««n thr^t Martin had executed the contract
unior n, nslftapprslienaioB bb to tho teinB» of pft:^9nt and thMt it
would r»ot ':«■■ :? civ is fills 'to ft-ttii^ffipt t© enforce th« centr^^nt agftinot
biBJi or to kolo \ii9 Sniti&l fnyatnt Hb li s^ni&r^Afi d«<!r'feg«»ft huA use
tha sejre in <!efrp»ylng tJ»« T«nfior*B exfen@ofs« ia<tla4ing %h» pftynoat
of c<>0(si»oion9«
fhc 0IS.6*- ftf .jliton -? . Mi uon* -.uTjrft, hclrip that «i broker
y.&u e»*rBrfi hX?; ooisrinsion t»hefi he huu pvocliiC<'«l e purchai;«rr rti-fly^
trilling; cna i«%le to otimpl^ste ♦..he porchj^e.fe «c |)repc«(«d» &b» that
lt«» c.->!;r}o*. h^ fj^'nrivt*^ «?f bit nc«)Esibf:lon throu^th th« tn«*l>41i*y of
th« renc^ov tf» Kfilm r» f^eod tltlG. It .^ns seid in th'ct cfi«e that
If *h« venupr r"j^.«>t.a th* jmrchfiiier bi proouoEd, the broker is
bottatf 'fi Rltoff fliist tho i^ypbMser vs*? wiliiRfr, rt/tvciy ftoa &bl« to
perforr ihe --"^ntrret toc^^'iRi; ta 'J-.© proposnd tersais. .liilo ttoo
jiiaiEtlff in the r.r«»i-ai«t n»_^(k x,- -. uot. & brniftv.^ ji%ik ,|..^j3 |ie rf ormlng
the funptionp <yf p \>Tn}ifir, »j»d «rben l»for«?i.1 «f the pursh; fjer'w
ia tJMj ftpftrplisitioB of tJje eontrciet Rttd the rft-irn of t»5f» flrot
payn'SRt. Ctl".**?- »«itb«»riiie& «4^tpd by »pp«ilpc srei di«tin.t;Jiubebl«
fro« *>* r5''^«ert c^'^ft tn ^-rirun frrvU'rm, v.'nJr'b .♦« 1^ not eoaeider
It necesw-^ry *« s«»t forth in ir.tail.
'^.•? r«^'7<!i?»? f-ij the n;i?tp >^ bsr alitowe tht t tiie p»iroh,'c»r
tf9.6 not 4r«ady, villlng &n<S ruble to complfite the oontrnet uprvn tb«
tezssfs preposf^tbttt tbst en the other ban<^ , he *»• both >jn&bl0 HBtS
nawilliag to mal^ a cash payment of $4900, us r«<tttired by tte
*!2»
3*»rJ"i^s.
■i,"... .«?,
'* ■■«# ii
tarmu o! the ct>Atr»».ct. fhc oonrlunion In un.'.Toi 't.ble xh: \, pl-vin*
tiff did jfiot comply with th« conrtlticin» i^-}>oq*!d by th- nti« upcu
vhiob he r«iie», l>oesiu»« him propcser' cus^tomer ^e: not .ve.,Uy,
ncquicficed in thie oonnlusion f.nd pir.rffr nn effort *.c t.ji.rrt or
provo th« ability of fiJ^rtin to Cfn»TtJws>t<» the c(«trr.nt. Pnr thi«
recsoa wo Kust hela t.h#t AppoUoe io not tntltlwd to r< covr.loaioa
upon tho propooed rale, which war? not mndo owiii!^ to the fact that
tho gwrohi-eer i»un sot r«i»«iy, «*lllitt^ KBtf cble to pfjrfcrm hie p«rt
of the coBti'i ct fts to the terms of ps-jneent, s ths r? -.ori". fail*
to £ho« that appolloe h&o versed and le ^Btitiod ta his <iO(B7larioa«
it »iH b« uonecess^ry for us to coaaidier the othsr groundo for
Tsvescziil urged bv dpp«lleint,
Tho ,1udg!HQnt of ths Cotmty Court i« rsvivr»«ri «ith n
finding af fa^t*
3ridl03r« £'. J.« ana Bam«»f J«, concur o
-HiA -
•?;;<■■ St:,;;: .'1,5 7lH!f#e
iTi iSt^» hftit Kirs'* »l f%m«i^ i^isfi'^
4'SXt9<109.
•7-
^e rind na <mi ultlsafott' i;"ao'' -i.n f^.i^ v>tR<* ^rv t
plai:at.iff div* not, aacraro f» <».st«i|if<f va.^A}:^ -win.lnt^ mA
sbl© to pur3h.%3e the Tv»al astsits iw riu«!J5ti!inn tti»^n t>i« r'^rni
p>r<9p«DdA *j>y th© vendor.
>u
2€1 - 272X9
ADJ«3 AJSD £iSlMa Ocj«?AtfY. /2 2 fi ■ A 6 4 3
A9P«ll«q« / } APIfiSAX m<M
\ /
» eorpor^ tion* /
) COCK COUSTT.
i
MR, josTica sroHRiM. ma*vrmm tm o^taiou or tm couivr,
Fl&lnttff« «he is app«llc«s h«r«« brought «ctlon In
ft9«oaipslt to reeerer th« ba'ijiiie« all«9»4 to \m dne upon an optn
nccount for paiat soXd nnd delivered by plaintiff to AtitvnAmt
«ad u««d by tteB lL<att*»r <luriitg tJj« y«ar X9i8 In doing thi puJLntiftg
w^rk upon » tiailding thftn Ijoln^ constructed in Cbic^go, Thoro
v»» ft Jury trial r^eultlng la » ;}u4g!BeBt for $2,334.21 in f»Yor
©f plaintiff* from rbich this ftppe«l hfi» boen prose «u ted. Ho
<|aottiOtt io preaoatoci *;a to tii© price, quantity or delivery of
tbo paint in auodtion, tl»« d^fenK* to the Kction b9>ing baoeei
BOloly npfiU on atliegedi expreeo wnrrnnty as to o»« of the peinto
kttovn «» *»ill wHlte »nd«rcoater* ftad t^« Isreeeli thereof lay
plftintiff . A reYeroed i» Bought upon the grouwS that the ivAg*
ment ie eontr*ary to the Ihw mtA the evidence uiaSi for the further
reaeone that the tri&l ^udge erred in hie rulinse upon riuebtione
of evldenee wad in giving ««<! refusing to si to eundry inetruotionn
to the jury and that the argtwentB to the jury en hehelf of plain-
tiff contained violent, a^witiYe nnd inf lewaie tory lenguege which
wae oaloulated to orente In the »inde of the Jurero peeelon end
px^ejudioe e^ntnisX def@nd^jit*
fhe @videnoe shove th^t defendant wse the oontractor
81^9 J^ T^gg
■ Yvj.'
«|| , ^ **«««?» cut «»»tf « '5 rf ^.-.^' ■■"^* ''"• M'« r«-.- .'... ^....*.^,i:
ita^#^ljr^7<i!^# till ibis« #»^Jb|*-« ^# IN«e ■
*^ii .i:/5«t ait's
for the pAlntlng v«rk upon thit building in question undtr « written
contJrRCt* vhieh re<|uir«d that the vork should bt don* and tho
«&t«riala used aHouXd b« in oonfomity with the architect's pXaaa
and 8|^9cif ieetiODS. These speolfi actions directed thnt rai
awteriftla used should be ^ib manuf 'j^etured by plaintiff and thut
where ^Adellte hrand* la mentioned, the st^ote shall he ntt naau-
f AOtured by plaintiff or of an equal gv»ii9 approved hy the
arehiteQi, The contract wnn dated JUly 1% 1913* Prior to this
date nnd while defendant tt»B preparing to mibait its hir)t one of
its estlaatora had an int^nriew with h ealetr««« in t>te employ of
plaintiff as to the materials required • The ostiaRtor teatifieA
that &t t^is interview tiVR Bnlefmo,n atat«;:d th^t one gallon of
plaintiff *s mill ^Ite undercoater would cover three or four
Sfittaros of surfaoe, a aijuwre being one hundred stjunre fe«t, sand
tofit plaintiff's undercOMter "w^s equal to other mill whites of
tlie ssase eh»raet«r for the si^ne use and the sane price ;" also that
later in July and after the contract had been award e<^ to defen<»8nt»
there was another interriew hetrsreen the seme pftrtiee ct t^ich the
anount of materlsl required for th*^ j|ob was dlKcueeed and an order
was given for such number of gallons a» th« saloaaan thought would
he fittffioient for the entire Job, It appears elaeii^ere in the
evldenoe tht>t this order was for five hundred gallons and that
the surfaoe to be paintO'l oontainod approximately 2800 eqwaroo.
Eeneo we oonelude that it was not contemplate r? hy d«fend»«t thet
the iattial ortHer of firo hun<.lred gallons Included all of tkM
undereoater re<^irea for tue Job, eren upon the theory thnt one
gallon would sorer from three to four ariuareo, :;ef «nd{ nt contends
th»t the 8t®t<^ents iMide by the sAlosman at those two interriewt
eonetitttte an sxpreea w rrsnty to the effect that ono gallon of
plaintiff's undereoater would eover from 300 to 400 sciaare feet
%j3!«*': '£3 »tft0 -^mm' MWtf .'%^m'»&t'»M«ll» »#l£lw Xlist a* "I'tl^m^aliii
■^ «3f.K*f ij,i«'-'f»i^« •<&# i««r..' 'ntiuMiq urn
of surface »ad thnt it wax e<tttal to other alll white uniloroeatoro
Of the aMBO ohAr^etor und priot* This ia the only teatiwkny
tending to snntaln defeniaat*^ thaorsr of the om»«.
Plaintiff's salesman, Louie Am%>ler» te^tific^d th'<it hie
first and only oonvcrs^tion with defendant** estisiator v«ib on
Satarday, July 27, 1919, which wifis after the eontrt^ot had been
awarded to defend.^t, Mw denied explicitly the etaieiMnt
ftttribttted to hin that one gallon of plaintiff *« mill «hit«
under center w<mld cover from three to fear soMaros and the
further statement to the effect th^t plaintiff's mill white
andercoater wnts e<pal to other under coa tore of the aome eharaeter
•ad yrin* He stated that the order for 50Cj gallons wr« given at
that time $md ^nfend»nt*s estimator then etnted th^t a&id order
V£B only preliminary and th»t a>d.1ition6l motcE-rial would ho re*
<iaired «« the J oh advanoed*
The rridenoo further ehows that early in oiguat a
•fiotplo of plaintiff's underooe^ter w s obtained end s satisfactory
test of it vns made. This was hefoiN» axQP paint wivs applied to
the building. Ho claim i@ made thift the paint fUrniahed was not
•<|ttal to the qnmple, the paint ws@ delivered «&rly in ;^>eptcBiber«
1918, fs,nA upon being used, war> found to cover en an nvr^rego a
little more th&n two sttuaroe of Kurf&oo to the gallon. No
eost^laint was made on th-.t (recount. So recpiest W6e ever made of
the arohit<(st to permit the use of a different kind of peint«
3ubse(|uently defendant ordered frem rlaintiff fuid received and
aoed 10 3i gallons of the s»<ime paint. IPartial payments were made
\j defendant to plaintiff on account of the material fthmished
on this job of 11100 November 37, 191&, and |180( OeeeBd>er
2S, ItlS. In connection with the lusst pajwient, defendant requoetoA
plaintiff to execute r lion w?iiver, which was done by plaintiff
as a matter of accommodation to defendant, and to enable the
(i'&^MiS^-tMihseM »tMw ILkSi 'iSiSUP ©i l^m-^
.....:. . -. ,*-;^lJ^ "t-^a^lrftefc «1«^'' •' \''''•'•"^'''f■--
t#firf|t.tf.^.
^i^«.t«Xiy
latter to obtftiB a partial poyaent on account of tho oontrcvct*
fh«M faots Xoni to show thmt the paint vas si^tiaf untory and
that defendant hM no thought of elulming damagoo for tlio
breach of any warranty regarding it*
Ve think the Jury tvaa oorreot in ito conclusion
that thoro was no cxpresa wtirrnnty of the paint, a» contended
by eiefend&nt* axii thtit even if thOre existed outth a varrt^nty
tko breach of it htcd been 'waiTod by d«>fend«nt*e action in
placing aiditional ordero for the paint i^fter te^tinc ite
q^ui^lity by ueing the first 50G gallons thereof and its ttae of
the material* without c(»9plaint »nd wlti^^nit nny attenpt to
obtain the irchitect'a penaia^^ion to tt«« any different kind of
paint* l?;Yan> ▼• gotwll . ail 111, 8&; a»,rtford IMPoait Co. t.
ijaijciaa. lee id. i04.
The evldenoe further showe thai the eoverring c<»p^ciigr
of paint depoj^s largely upon the char^^cter of the ^rfaee to
vhieh it if applied «nd th« Banner of ito applioation. Conao*
^lently, even if it bo adiiitt«'3 that plaintiff *s ealesnan aado
tho statesonte attrilTutad to hitt* they did not amount to a
warranty thai tho paint in TEueation would oov<»r three or four
•qttares of aurfaoe under »ny and all eiroumstanooa, the ot&to-
ment w^^ss general ia its ohar^iCte*', and so tsr na the record
ohows may hare boen true, even if the paint ao applied by
defendant to ^ia pertioulax' imilding failed to ahow tho
eoTering c»pi>city stated*
It is urged by defendent that the trial eourt shonlA
h*TO pomitted defendant to introduce eyidonoo a* to the dorer*
ing eap&eity of other siail^ir paints, m io not think that
tho trial judge erred in this reepect, as it does not appear
that any toat of tho oov«rin^ cap;^city of oUier paints had bocn
:,.. .,^.„, -_ ^oaiTt^ 8»j* Wrf* yf't ^r;lfr;
•J.w<?;t Tfi SMiRMi* itSfirfi* MaWfiB ff«i#«»J^- rsA 7{Vi- .. *?« i- ^ -j.-' v„ ^--^ -x^s?
^<m k*i;f, 'ii#»i*<i'- *im&i- ■ ^/U'!f5»v«t
•ftdc under c«ndiUons vlKilAr to those under wMch plaintiff's
paint mt^a used in connection with thlo purtlculfr Jot. Ko otfir
Wft* MAdc to show th« jVBUlt of ' ny coaparattiT* tej*t» ni to tho
eoverlns: OAgaclty of othbr pi.inta usad under sisxilr conditions,
V9 »».re of th« opinion thtt there wsta so rcir*r»ibXe «rror in tho
rulings of ih« trial court upon qu^utionB of evldencw rnii Vnr-t
the inr-tntetionB i^iv««n by the court fairly stated to the Jjury
tho law eppli cable to thf- Qri<<@«
It la also urged on feshalf of -l^f^f^ndiBt thct vtrfjaKenta
"behalf of
to the jury »a^e on^pl?»i»tiff wrrc far the purpos'S of ' rou; Ing
the prejudices or pus^ione of the Jury or to insult or 'ihute
vltnosHOB or parties %Md Hi *% th« Isosguage used -i^** of euch
violent* sbu«ive »nd Inllasiom^tGry charr.otsr .is 1^ be preju'^ioiol
to defendant • Aihils «e do not approve of mRcy of the «£pre;eslons
ttsed l»y eouasel fcr plaintiff in hig ■ rgumrnt, yet ?-« cnnrot sagr
that under prior c:ecisiuBB of the ctiarto Ol thi« ttrte tbty
wurraot h reTerenl. it aofefc not appeur Iro* the record thtt
defendant aeksd for or obtalno:! i.iuy ru5,ing fro» the trl>-l oourt
basod upon the«e ofXtnelve utteranoes. Uefendsct pre serve d no
exception to mxiy rulin^g th«rt>on« for this r^i-^inm \w <»re iif>t
at liberty to eonsidwr duftafiwat' t ootitentione In t>hi.t respect*
City of ;_;^g.lejj| V. :;etigtf»|> 19'2 131, :369; ■ t uronO ^p r. Mor rlo ,
177 111. App. 514.
fhe Judgrceat WivS not contrary to the riHnif«^?«t vpi^jht.
of the Rviience, eml finding no nvoraibla ^rror in Ihu t'^jcord.
It is aifiraed,
6rl<lley, >'. ^., «kbd U*ipA<&ii, J»« conouro
:fX$&. si.
.4 ~'.- »• a
^ XMi
,M#0s«'"; «;*:t liJ^ lOtTf
/
428
- 27380 /
V /
2261
fom
\ Wi^ML ri\cm
\ /■
\ / 1
1 MUIICIPAL CCIIRT
1 Of CKICaGO,
x/
KB. JtJUtZQR KQHHlitL I>ia.I«'ai«-S TH8 OFtSIOJI C? TR» CODHT.
This i« an action of f«>rditolft detainer to rceovor
pe»8esai»B of ft four etory brick &nd otone ^i^iilding knoisa sm
MO. 21 <«'t!!st ^^-uperior i»tr««t in th@. City- of Ohlnafo. The ault
w«» 0(!jj8irfiene«<i J«tj« 16 » l^^U, ;-,t tla-it tii»e defend«!.nt wt*« in
poa e»»icn holding over «ft«r the expiration of a Xe^eti froai
the 0wtiern dnt«d Vay 1» 1918. for ft torn onmsieDcin^/ on that
date and ejqpiring lay 1, 1921. Plaintiff el»in«d nm) proT«4
hiR right to pooseesiin undar & ie»se f ro» the e«n<ir«« daVd
April n^, 1931, for a t?»r» eamn-en^^ing Uny 1» 1921, «nd onding
April 30, 1<?34, ?.* is nantonrtod >>y appellant th»t h« «i«
entltl<^d to rr^'^ia in ptssaeec ion of tiue pr@B^ee» by TirtMO of
the f aet tV-t. h*? h?"^ rw-s^iTod «n un^signod notiee frwn tho
ownor cdTlBiag hi« of the ftxplration of his lee»« on April 90,
19^1, and t3si».\ a^pelji&nt would ho r«(niired to aarrondor poooosoion
of th$ df^is^d isrs«9i%6s f>n thi^t dsto,
Tho statute proTidoo in enli«t«riee th^t tho action of
for<3ibl<9 detsinar li«8 when c leoooe holds p0 8«O6wlon after tho
det«rj«riB«*tlor. of ^« iRase or tentuaoy hy ito own limitation.
J?&r. 4, s«5C. 2, ei:»p. S7 R. ii. It h»8 boon held rop«Btedl|f
that under thiu st^^tatc «i ^«Bwnd for posB«»»ion boforo bringinc
on ftctlon of forcible dietsiner »^i»inat a tenont holding over
is not n«e«»«ery. Cand o n v. Broglco ivy, 15? 111. W;>j Tr RT le v.
Ooii^r, tl'^i 111. App. 461. Tho delivery of the nnsigned notice
li if c).. P^-
f>- ^
■■• ■^;.^* - .4,-; 44iS«.
'':?Ai>*» ... . ■ „ .-m^
.2.
t« the t«nant w»» tte«le«Jii imd unnoccssKry, and th« ocurl u'za right
in r«:fu8livt t» rmntii'f'B the »<«« in «)Yid«noe. £o d«fenfi« to t)i«
ftotion was «ho^m upon tb9 trlitl*
Th« judgjnent ^f th« >?unieipal Court i« affimetl.
Oridley« ?• J., »n<i Barnes, J., ooncur*
»im!~
463 - 27421 \ /
▼«. \ /) CIRCUIT COURT OF
COOK COUNXY.
\
C, BASHOR^ COCK, \ / )
V
B«. JU'.TIC"^ HOHiilU- i)'l.IV?'v«.?« TKR OPIJIIOS OF -^HI COOW.
An nutom«3bil« l}«lon<7inLg t.e plain iiff w--., t-ein^ drlrsn
by bia ch.iaffeui' In u aouth^rly direction oa tht? w»ot olde of
jUdson nTcnue, a north and snuth »tre«t la the City •f 'rnnstona
and def«^nd»nt wi s drivinK his ^utottobilc in is westerly direction
«n the north aid* of i>airl» «tr#et, an e^nt anS west Rtreot in
•aid «ity. th» Of^rs c<illl4ed r?.% f+lwnjt thss ctrsnter ef th» int«r-
seetion ef the two otri»et». Pla ntlff suetl for dtSRages to hl«
car and ©btnlned e ^ud^cnt f»r i?176,S0, Appellent nrckn a
rcveiroal upon the grouncJ th' t the verdict ^ae anntnry to the
weight ef the svide^nce. both en thr question of ihe exercise of
due eare Ijy lain tiff and negligene^ by deiendent. The «.coldiont
0ceurr(»d «t about live o*cleek in %hn {jfternoon of iDeeemb^r 6,
IS19. the surface of the strew t« w-j; alippery, bein^ coverod
with ie« and enow*
Cn the date of the? ©eeldent there *?< « no »tf>tttte in
foree la thle state giving to either of the parties the right of
way at the ^roeslnR; therefore neither of the» had the right of
*»y to ih'' exsluelon of the other. Both were bound to proceed
with due care so b.k to avoid a eollioion. Th«ir righto were
eorreij live. ^Illton v. laeK»n . 212 111. pp. ^^5^. Thf driver
of an RUtoKobila upon o elty street 1« t>oun«i to use refcoonftbl*
and «rdln*i,ry e%re to have his cnr and*"? such Gontr«l r» to <«n34ble
him to wTOid a eollieion. iullivnn v, Ohlhsvrr, ?.91 111, 359.
^9 .MdSS
10 THUQO TIUQHIO
•Y'SIIUOO 3000
ll«»*v .
-■.'Xf'S i,«
•«•
W« hare ecirvrully rsTiewed thf? (fvldenoe in the oao«
and find t.h?; t there is >mt little conflict in th'' t« ti«ony •f
the T«rioaa «itrt«i3e«a* I'lAlntiff*8 chauffeur w»s the only v^itnass
t«9tifying on behalf of plaintlt'/ «.e to th« cirouastKneeo under
which th« «ccl<I«nt ocmtrred, lie stated that when h# t*n& ofriring
his exployer'* o«J!> in a isoutherly direction nn Judson arenue nt
a speed of f^bont ei,'/hte<m mil^« per hour* he saw defendant
approaching from the e«st nt a distance of «bout i?SO feet. The
chauffeur driving plaintiff** enr ssftde no att^eipt to rlneken hie
speed ee he sppx«<^<3ihed the etre^si eroe^lnf^a &nd continued, without
any apparent effort to avoid a eollision, i etv about half a block
aoath of the street intf rsf otioa. Hie »t©t«»«nt In that respect
is corroboretod by the throe witnesfsei vhn tes?tif ied on behalf of
defendant, i^laintlff 'a Tsitneae also et»t<»d %kB% he thr^ught
defendant* Si c&r wsje beinj- driven at ^. sp^^d ef about thirty-five
miles on h'jur, Imt he adnitted on croe» ex/iiBination th«it his
eetiiaate of the speed wae rery unoertiiia. Be »lso testified that
defend!i(nt*s c&r »traok the car th« f im was drlTin^ on Its laft
hand aide, CMUoing the dfanages for which plaintiff recovered in
the eonrt below. There l« n?» dispute h.s to the aaanunt of
doBages Ut plaintiff's oar.
l»efendi»nt testified 1» his own behalf that he was
drivli^ his Car westerly on Davis »t^»^^et at a speed not exceeding
ei^teen ailes an hour; thrt it w a impnssible for hi» to have
attained a greater apecd bcceMr.e be had coBie to a full ctop in
turning to Bavis street frcaa Korent avenue, which is only one «hort
block eat ©f dfadson nvenue, and that in «?;oiBfi frca Foreat avenue
to Jtidson avenue the rond is up a elljs^ht incline. i)«f f«nd<;nt*B
eonolueion «« to the rate of speed «t which he w -5 trftvelinv- Heems
to be re;;&onablo. He fur^er testified th»t rm he Hppro-^ched
JudBoa avenue and mn.8 about fifty fe^tt euat therefrois* he 0aw
plaintiff's autoiBobile prooeoding down Judeon avenue north of the
3&'yi1»'i5,.'
i-.* «--»,» <,- « ♦'4'S »
-3-
atrtci iat r««ctlOB; l^ut ha ttt once iipplied hla brtikea end brought
his Oar to a 3tand«tlXl 'it th« middle of the ctreet int«tr«ectlon,
*t wM«h polBt It vft.?- alruoit hy plalnttfi ♦» cor. ef '-nfl'tnt'a c»r
*»» turn«i co»pi<?tely «roun<^ ttilc^; lay the fore« of th« oolllBion
Bt'd tlirown s{;Alnf9t a Iwup posit* cf$ndtint*a 9t<tt*mcnt a& to th«
circuiB stances un4«>r which the :.ccid«^nt occurred end hin effort to
«TOid a. oollieion nnd that hiu eer «Hi^i atAticilng a till at the tiat
of th« aocident. is corroborut«rd by two die interest ted witn0i»««(t,
vhe a'VK thj? accident* J3«th of th«B teKtifind th.^t defendrmt
ftpplied his brakes as htt approached Jud»on ATonue and br^naght hi*
ear to H stop &t the middle of th« atroet lntera«^ction and th/^^t
defendant's car m»a iQtHoding Htili when it «?86 *:trttck by plaintiff'*
e»r, which Goi5tliiue4 ©a its cou rae for« distanoo of about hrilf a
block aftfjT the Rccideiit.
it «eesas 0>>Yi«u8 thut plaintiff's chauffetir aade no
effort whatever to aTOid a colxision; th^t h« did not uttempt to
alacken the »p«€d of the cor he wns fsrlYiag b he ppro'cShed the
iator section and fJ?r t ho die not haTe his oar und r aueh control
as to «ni; blc hiss to @Toid the eolllaion, tfhi<:h be might have done
easily. ^« arp of tlw opinion thot h« waa guilty of negligenoo
in operating his ear, -shieh oontribatod to the hftPpfninK Of the
accident in queation. Under th »e oiroun stance a, lalntif f ia
precluded froK & reeor«;iTr. The rerdict and judgKont were eontrsry
to the m&nifest ^s«ight of Use ©virienee.
fhe Jude»ent of the Circttlt Court la reTero«d with a
finding of feict.
RW.9JiSKD rflTH PlJIDniO OF fACT.
Gridloy, F. J,, and Samoa, J** oonoaro
■*awsm'm9 B^ifti
»l&. jii;.
■■^ :i::-
«.tS8»«ft.
-4-
46» - 27401
?• find ».@ as ultlm»^t« ff^ot in thin ee^if that
plftiRtiff ^As guilty of neglig«n«o whlcdi oontribut«d to
the ttappenlng af th# oecidt'ut in quoBtion*
x&^vs *
4S - »«»86. / CV }. /-, ■ \
S)
) k J ) ^
ye
LEE wnnmk. /\ 2231
\ /
WZLLUM BARF.If^o'i? fillACi:,fT»
JL c ■
ERROR TO
CIRCUIT COURT
OF COOK COUKTT.
OPINICH FILED JDITE «S,1922<,
Mr.^RESIDllfO JCi=?TICf TKOMGOlf li.aivej-^d th« opiaion
Of tlu^ eourt.
The (i,'Oi!i^l{Ui2«A%» Wts^m, ti'i.<s&. M« \tXVL in t;'r).«
eizeuit Odurt of 0<K>]t, O^utity, sil^giag th&t '2)i# «>&» «-:: a&atrc^crtiBg
p2«aib«t{ that t^<e d«f«adant ':mj@ the «»s^r df «ttrt»i& a.^^ci'ibfta
A 0<ss33aQ,y -sFj^.ire the det^nd^sat*)^ 6^<»£t.ta ^iAd a.£i s^ueh, ijiutli«}i'i»ed
to KaJfcd cofltraotH e>o»o<$ rtiitxg the pi'opefty in '4u«0fei;mi that;
B»id &g«atQ .■■ijafi t-iiu toftiifit h«4 6ij|iii««i to tfe« wa«^Ae.l«aat for
oett&lR x&b«f )^.a<l tt;it«ri&X« iairolvea i» th«^ iu^.t&il«tion &f »
flitMMii boilar, ana a«z-t&in Qthm thi»g$v wrj.:L&|i ji«d4 aot b« &«t
f^rth ia detail. Ttie e<;^pM,ij'tis,ttt .furtli«r aiisg^dt t^^t the otk
•ftfi <losi<$ afid \^ix% It wa^a aGOi|$%««l &ac( cn^oy^d 'by the t?riaAt
ftjEid d»l(i i^eatttj that the oosypl&ianiat 1ms. been paid |T6.30
ba aotSQtixit, ic^visg {»jn u.ap^i<l Mlc^ncQ du« hin of |i^l8.x^0» for
whiek htt fil«(i cv $»i«ii& fat a tt«eh&iii9*«3 ii«a» in the officio of .
the cl«r^ of the Oirmiit GciUft of Co»k County, tm Ju«© ^&, 1919.
ffee d«feadant fiX&! ^n ftattw«r« danjria^'; that K&rfoot A Cu»pfiay
#«!?« £iie >«g(«fita fo »JsAjr puii>Ofi!« oth^r th&n t^e jrentii^ of th«
property in <|u«Btioa -.xna %tn^ colXeotioa m Jtreata; %ad tb&t !»•
bii4 a& iEao«lift4g<t ^^ to faethur the cuvpl-iiiiwiat, t»&0 furaisbed
hhr^ A V ^^-- €? Q
i^, W»
.sssGi.«a sHOi. aaji'a UDiui^ia
%• b«i riit^ in ihs at Has oi tke oles-ic «/Ji^ uht^ Cl^u^ii^. C^Mrt of
ticftifi^ like o^imeelloi' ^J^iit at t&at tlfli«i th«> '^owplfeinu-nt said bl»
G'OjtttraotoK, by «ftrttt® i»f .se {i^re«»#at ojr w©iaisv..-.ot ftatesed iiata
icitb Kef foot A C«i>it|)«,ajr« th<$ dulf HiiJitnafria«a /^li^a-vat* of %.h» d«->
f«Bddja%> who ««a«» bii«) onm^sr ^f %h@ j^resiii^^i}! xa ^u^ut^ooj uJ^a f^iiicU
1^ ^fx% xh^x0 mtm <lue t-h« c^oa^l&iaaAt tlite »u% of |:>1@,X5» ,^l%h
intMXmtit %het&mkp u.% fiv« per nwat piett simttm., tiam JkagM^t Hv%
1919| ii.aa &le9« th^ ^fta^^® pfo&«d4ge(f, t« #»-<|.".r ii^s» l.»i»i>€ai<2« »f
& Sitftii'lai^tc of lcid*btit9«la«&« f&f tJt^JH' t»«,mnoe au« %&@ co8|?l»ii»mt»
* »s«h»ai««t* llsa, T<s tsvere-e this Aaate* %hQ 4&tQB^^at &»«
&ua(i out ikis Mirlt of ftfiTQar.
Xb ^upy«irt OS tb« writ «f cirror ths aal^i^Hut first
«oat«Ml» ttmt %h^ Qi»9plgk%rffmt ^XA aot pt&rvi the HijL@g&t&«a of
m^ hiXlf »»- to ilie r'^eacjr 9f t«rf9ot A Cotcp^my) aor d%A It*
ttute^t 0viaea^ to pxm» tii«it l&a had fii4»<i & claia fox* Mielut.aio*«
lies* a« «^ll$0o<& la ni» bill* 9r tk&t i ufiili^rmad th« lv;.bdr
ayni Materials a*: a.ii«g«d, Th« ooiiplatxi^rit ma ths,- o«Ay -rita***,
fo* <mly ^ae a» »wici«i»c« iiitredttosA oa tefth^lf of tfec: (l«f«B(iiaat bwt
so •£»£. mm» in ootsj^t f^rfii»«atlfi^ hlM^ aad a« (^jjtetioas 3$3r««
^ •tl>.-^f>(.J»,;.g^jg>:>>f,i ^Wif j Jt * <•*' fifiYi «J :
%«»# -VK^MilK*-*
:i «4 4?$
^« ^tl y^
-■!■>. *ft- 4;>--i^ '»- 4|.
w* K>?rsS;-. >!.; ^ :>'i'i' r-^V *? -«>ts;-::'v^r'
^..^v ':|itj»;ji..,~|(j«jtj*|" ^^ i^/^*'«|^1| s^'^. .^>«i,jl»f,.:
,.* ■». I ^^^(/^USf^ .
Ooi^any wftrd in oha-ige ©t the pifc^«rty in iu«s«ior. wt the tiac
tb« u^ie ai«nt *itfe tbe aoa^l*iim*jit '^a^tA tiBt..«i<.Hi iato Anal tie zn
*They were th« Ai^dats, <* Thl'% ttttttiffu/uy ul.tii Uave hn«i. Bubjeot
to ^Jeetion If oa« k»4 l»««n iai<ixpOt3«4« t>u^ iimsauoi &» tb:t ^m,*)
not U-te o«».eer, tbe frricivjfiCfi st&iixia la ths rscord "^Itnout objeoticn
aad mujfit tw eoa»i^&i'«v ^uJfficl^at t« mr;^.!:^ uut $t loant a prisa
faci« ija.via, on the i&i«u9 of ageaey«
th<Nr«< i^ «ti4rtiols£it evi^tKaee la tba fooxA oa th«
^ii«atl<;«a of th@ a<^lag 01 t^ii^v v^oa'k «.art ta^g fur&iuhiai^- ot tb«
later and iKit«irial« involved, !--d mf>,kn out: .-. pjrl.»:>- faciv c-^se
oa ttict p«4at,
Ai xliii sloi^s of hi., ivstitsony^ tn.? oojBpi;-^liv-..nt
offejf«<i ia evi.,ienc6 >% *?teit«8K«at wMolri w»,i? »siyk«d, •Co%iifan.-
£Zttie Ex&iiait 1,* wtt^cii smm.si t:& l^v« aea«i&tttd af tne cl&itt
fer ii«R, filed by o€»«plaia.'s«t X& %he oftio^ &t tts« ciork of
the Cix-ciult 0«^rt <»f Qu&k Csuaty, to ■•ih.i^b v!se.t'« afctaca«4 o«rt«txa
et&tttSMti^ts wcfa aiiirkiid a» Inhibits A. to h, laclM&ifv, Thts
copy ©I" this eialm for il.«a» g.ppea.! j.Jij«; ia the Mil of •x©«ption«,
<io«» fii^t ueatfeija «ay file Bayfe ia«ilOi>.tiiam tiiat it s&« fiied oi
i*h«r» It Wa.& fii^idl. Ko^f^JVeir, it i- «jiti.t..«4, *ln Xha OtSXcet of
tbe Ci«i'K of th.s Circuit Cott2t of Ce«fe C-JUty". T^'tn f oli»»fc tb«
tltit^ «>f tbia oa^ie »ud th« headii^s *0ij9iBi ^or Ll«a*. Tb«
firi^t |M&ira^rt&jp»b. x<ia4.e ; "Tltee oi^j.iaa,at, L«« A. Sayctiir of Cbioc»ji'9»
la the Couaty 9f Ocok» aa<i Sta%4» (»X' Zliin le, hex^«l>y files % ci^ia
f©r li«ja sg:a*.la@t Williaa B?tr.ri««?a Bx-^dl^y* of Fairfi«id County,
Caaaeetieut," Ifei t«.t«9ffi&ot ttaviag teeaa riv eiveo ia •vici-^no©
l>jr th® or&a<5aUax, without obj«ctioa, »« d«ea it ^uffioieat pritm
■ ;.i* ■■. ^y.;- .1 v':^- ^-ti^l; ^f tMH: Mt^
-0 «»^' -''-■■■" , ■ ■ ■ ■- - ■
i;j SLiXtl® «i?^? ^^1* .l^^-
-4-
faoi* proof 3f t'h^ tfiCt th-.vt it ^s-a.^ vrh»t it tt&toR it ia« >. cluin
for iion fii»«i in tbft office of the Cie^K uf tfie Ci:roult Court
of Cook County.
1« fifid ao orrot iu the) teootii v.ad« thstafQcte, %km
di&oree of tb« Circuit Qt^xirt U^ «tffirined«
DscHirfi AFT mum ^
0*OOnfOR» ^. and UTIOB, J. ooncui.
'fMm^ #..*»»«it:;
''?W *«■*«
, . i:,' ■• £i-i'^v^v|j..
a^fll'TiA !ism>«ci
.t>/;-:. • "' ,l^^i«l500»€
15« - 7iiO.
Qurna^ I, HAioHT.v
/
UBA BStl.«
j|}ip«il&at.
MUNICIPAL COURT
or cMCAao,
OPIKICN FILED JUNE 28, 1922,
m, WRmWim J^PTIOI TROMSOK acUTared tiJtt opinion
ittatatir, l&rottglit toy tfes plaiuliff O^org^s I, Hal^ht, ag^ioat
iua#iS'?iit f©y p©i»»©««i<^, the ?l©fea>ift.fit fes-1^^ j>«3rf«i>t««l this svp,ip««i.X
0hi©feU®# lio ©»» 1. F« B^li, %h^ Imash^jxii »f tins a«.ft>a4«ki*1t, Tise
tit April ^Q^ l-MX, e-iJuci fsiSR y^s&f t» y^ms tritfeejft** ujat-ii tSi«
8«*>»9Sl3*«at ys&r, by either jp^arty gi-'rj.rig the ctu«r not ioa* th&n
uiMtf A<iy^i «stiee ia •writing, ©t auoh ts-tmlafttioa. Tlie i»&««
further p£miAa4 %h^% A'dii^ie Might ht ^ivma i>y dl«'llv«ririi{ »■
e%y t<5r th0 A«a«««. ilk p»jf»«B, or by atAiiia^ ^i o*py to <i^i*3 l«s»ii#
f
Mesi.ce ot" tli« t«rfttnaiioa o-' t.h'# l0tt9« »»■:> i:^ . ,. .-c
HAdtl'. %h9 pfovi^loii^ $ii!t s«t f«ftn in the i4^«9s» iv to tka tt^OR^t
la ^i(^ e^eh a^tise mkij^lSi'^ &« «$iY«ii but in tbft k ..nniix p^ovltldd
by tilts ^-^t^t^, Qa r«^vmt£f m, imig tiv« $^aA.\9t at t^^
i^ p
.ssei ,ps 5:ifUT, afrjif wimmo
.iiiA «jj8>. 'fS^o^ft ttiSmli^-^
:X1?. « ^.-ji
tJJM Ar«4
•>;>»
A lA4y ouxB® to thn d'&at ^^Ud the 4**oi-**'*' '■i«'''^*S ^^'i" '*-«. fl«Ai
aad ^« 0«>14 %}^>t Ei'iii. B^ II »»(>• uo^ iiv* Hs!' %h«u hnn^.-.d tba JLndy
&. ootia«t itk 'ixO.iia^t «ilAjr«ate.-i *>.' ?r. f. Beli, infoiriibXftfe^ Mas that
Ttitd J«^£»ltot «.«!iltd^a rtift Ifi^dy h«»i' imfl« tmi 4sh<t di^ not >^iv<^ it, buu
toi4 Ili« >^»2v€ «ould give tn« a.oti«9«r tt» Vi^.^, 'B^IX» Tt«f jaiutor
fe«f j>&-:1 fei.'si iiUiSYs^r v^&et »1®4)£®| p:t<M»rhlf i* Ksaatli,"
Aci|, ^.m »h» t»i»tiiies5 "feli^^t «',^i# »&«* tist atfejadwat j-.^atf- t&a ^ife
of f, F. B^ilj thn% ^h& a^tJ» »#i tfe«» livi4^ !»"4tfc hor Jiu»fe»ad
fea4 fe»d a«t b««s. siawe rslifmiapy l»sO$ tfe^si^fe sh«^ ijaid x-«ttt to
Mr, Oats<m «f Ir, H?U^*^'i offisfsj tte* *!%.« a«r»r iu»U.U«&
ItVl&i Ifi i&« &jp«yrt%«&t. Slit «l^&i®t1i i&at ^« t»»di «V€i3^ ir«ceiv«(l
t««iijri(s4 ih&t ii« ba.4 a O0fi<r«.r8«^t;i<m viltli .Ibr^^. Biill @fi Kai-ob ^<;^»
ihiit ihi§ wotti4 !»# lb« l».st JToat eh« -^ouid. p&jrj th/n h«t had
s«iBftxki» »«*« 4eai«a fey Mx--?. B«iX. f^.« piaiatiff teatiflejl tbat
y«M64«l ih« native tn^2.<^
&«•»■'■?**'*» '^f-*?*' '^S** vif.i'lFiS *?--*! i*5 "^.f?
■?'i.s
0.i
lsli« 8iul»«WjQ0ft of ;»?r oonva»*»tion •villi 0:.J»oftj, ■...€ tewtifisA to
reo«lf«rt tti© aoilo* af Ft-brttftiry ^'i*?, snii aaT«k.r knew Ajaytuing
plaintiff in gei/twab©* i«r;0, »JMi «<.n;Oiibe,f In th-s Jtprin^ of Ud';!,
ith&a h» iQlA tlm pl»%.&%l:tt thm% Mr^ » fi&li dealir''r<1l t.o tent %b&
pt&mi'4<»& ti^t ^-uGthm f^Bje or two^ 9a!i4 tie tm-ia !»« ;?cruid nut i.«ni it»
"lA iri^w af ilid psigie«n% ooMltioAS oX rant bK^lu^ tusked*} th^t
h«ii 4id nei @«.3re tQ jr«£tt the jt-^ngiKt^eo to 'ti«jr Imt ht tuuil % fri«nd to
In r«^tt.ul» t^iti^ plaXntitt t«&tlfi^ th^^t in M«
faasAijr »«fcr4«c la* i&t isay r-r4o«, f*a4 fehivt ia bit s«oatt4 coa-
Hilltg %he tie i*«mtejat »v^«! on ttoe •*&i«i imdsT cximo»
mWKMtM itin, ^0 %»»ti£t^^ t&^.r^ wej^t^- ^^|k»ut siiftv$» pevr;I« living
ia lk»r Kpairti^at, ia r4aitioa t<o Marswil", oa f%brua*y ^g, l»2i,
gli« '»<fe.g ii»*#0 «i(*.Qthet tfe»y sTiSjfe tttt'O^sriJ ©f Ji#-fT r^wiiy ©r baaTd«r«
hare b^su ov»r-r«X«l.» ss.-« tfe<4 r^U6«ti^3ci «»» ^ati^'ely propci-,
lii the fi^*3t pla<^, *€ cjrife i^ji the c^-inion th«.t tfe«
plaiattfc ^'a.«a iSutitilsKii to p9&>:fm&^io& ttf t&^ pr9iBl«»e» &'« u^«^ia«t
tho aftfafV'taAtt atlMmt t)^e mexvic^ &t any riOtio«« a;^ bar huet^ .aft*
tto« led»«<t, fei\t: «k.bftA<l<me«l tM- i>re«ift«ft ia y«)»rwiry, 1930, ^Jitfli.
awrl^ the tfutejMi juseut ooei^ajiQ^ ©f *h»5 pr««irte» Hf the defttmlfii.nt.
^f(i.^«^ ^"jsafi^^i^i) «ir|$ ^M^jitii^^ -mm mSr
'i:£i rj.: ja:
i:if nt r-'-^t !fe«-**i*«: ?nr^ -^^^ ^i;«^f^i^*«: m
:13 A«^l<t.
■^ 4«f
.1*^ ^v^ -
"^^n-Hn
pia&« aJld ttoAt tJj® d«f©r*> .^iv. •.,. , ,....j-«( .»' > ^ -■ -v^ > • v >-. - flue
to ««ls&bll,i»ii lti,<£ pr<i|p4r v^dirvice of -i A<»tioa uM<2r tbQ statute,
Kis^-uiKia^ thi^t on« w((«$ r«-vuir«»«i te t«fffiin&to tl^« t«i!t&.a«»f on
Apfll 1^* Id/il. fk» t«i^tltt4Mty 4-'' suffi&l«nt tc m^ke oat «»
IHTilMi ffeoitt QtiBH to the «ffe9t tb&t th<< p«raoii ^uth i^rho* tfee
aotltfft ««■« left »«•« « mm»ik b«t«««»A t^ttttty -^ind thirty fa^xi- ^i
«§• jJiM «aa» f^% th&% tia«» r<s6i^ing 0» i^c prcsal^aa.
W« flntt mo 9rt<»M in %n>i& reoora. a.«u;« thi»xaf&r« th«
9*0Gffiron* J. a«a tAn^oi, 3. ^mm^
iM»mmt
.■*
44-3 SW«4. .. /
r C\ C^. /^ ~r h ''■ "''
■ /■ 1
/ )
\ ,./^ OPINION PILED JUNE E8, 1922,
W?U JUSTICK O'COSMOi* 4eiiv«r^cl th* «i#inio« of
ds.«j*^«a for i.'«ra«>a«t'l lnjutl»» ol.al»iit:d to hurc V>es3tt 'm.%fttljEipn
i© (l*f4R-1«!iit'9 pisnt, Ifctea s«ii.eijtis»« uot teeing psroj^-'^ifly |?tt-'>ri1rtdl
IMs -writ ©t ««f6X,
the l.©«ejf l&Ps5, asof-'id »p*flur4 -.m^ the l«pr«i»?Ji©n *'!^8 a-sylft ©n %hti
fc^« isaefeiiift tsisi^ ®ji-!jF!ito»- -"(fovii": 1*1^ ia froat «/ It on .v liisiiJ
m" t^'^
.ss^x ,«a wm. aarjif vLoinmo
CiU»rt<ST* l«ah«» «ide c;4Si-t £/©« vlx t© ^i||t** in-5&i*s in i«n«'tb. In
lpla*«s»si. The sh.slS' s*tt*R4*t«l s*sr««s?. ?t*» mwohiii« .-Nnsi a'?!* afccut .jIa
fey » I'jvisr, ©r^ftSTS't*--:^ ^y *fe« i«-:f^ feM^a, isfenjilir ifekeri^w^r .'Hfiu th^J
t6*'trtt«4««ii Vitmilf fey » i'*|-r««£«fi'$'fLtiiire ®1 fla.® aafffittAaisit saa
lie .^:- i4Mjtally phm^'-^ V^^- W® »l J^l^ isft *o©% 1ft *&« 'i-i©* <aii5
s^.« lih« fii«B{^6r a>nJ*.« #«*». hX&. t0^ «•?.» yluel^adj tifeiit i» hi* ««.-
auRt k!!i4L thai plisiifitii' -r oUi«ad fele %«© «'S« ^-Jcafc^ In ta-; *let »*.;:•
In jsubiBt.M.o* tliafc %hvi miGk-in^^ hh^ ,&■?>* pi^r .t'iyi oilrit, that tU<>
alt Ujf[;<Gi!^« All df 1ih@it« <;«unta a««m to &ii.t& hui^u P<ita»Hlj
*© s«# tba-t the m^stMltskg^ m-%ja&i»»» sMaJi aa«8 |ie*«J3f ^■U■*iyc«, i*a»
f®ar4iag, te«i^4M>#, ;fehaffl»|r jysid ;fif--«J»asi«, ail ©f ^iildft it «»■»
ef ®.ii du ©jft*# ^im€ e«*»tioa i"4>r feis O'^n ^xi^ty, <iad «'feli«i .•■.-.irii-
tog VLp&n %k<» m»4h\nat CBm^, l& xitoiimit "with $'>H. iiM>«lr>i( p»rt«
tfei»!fe ftiiio* it ^urtfeer ak^tf^s^ fsUl»x# *© jjrotset tin* d*u««', <iJOi3^«,
*ll*t :^la.J.Bi«lff»s f«ot »4MS pla«ft*^l la fche slot hf th* piung«|r,;
tfe« «vSsi«i«« te:'»(3ijftg: to she* that fslss in til' .»,'•« foot -s^i* plii«fe«<3
tub,* i«®i»r~5»<ii-0ft ?i»4, thcif &i&fH, i.fe« jufigaeat &h«!ali? bs e«« ^.«.id«.
mt l?«%
iii£itiit 'la<^|# k- rhtt.-^^*:,i.iiiM,.
'.8^&4sm ■•«'
ifi-*«tt 1
-4-
QOi Xhe: trl^^l wu«ft «vlv>i^<i«i mau 9ff r&'.i iv>ijdltt« %o
Siki>^ too* |ii*t.lfttiff «s*.# lajtki«'<?4 n& ©J^jKOtioB *<>»« si.-x-i^ qoA/w^m lAcr*
Miy «tt£j|j.*«t4»i» *«i%t S4i* •«Yia:«iriee .*t!Uf iM>l *sr. ant-f-4 b'' itntn fs- i i. <<?■.* ti oh r
i;.fi»«<t at tfee ^:#©©f ofi.^ta*, but tta %ai» aefttr&i-y it j<i.f irwaiW-aly
«,|?t>#«dr» 1-a.a* .i«ir?.-aA«Jttt ©jTj.'iSf^v^ *r4-iJ&«>»3« t-^jRrjSng to f.hi»» tii** it, «•»«
i«[>M»««iibl«» f©r ri-'^'in'^S^t' 40 hiiffm 'ik<*.n feiss t«fr. jiittajoM In tb«, »»M.nfivr
e«ttt«ii4i^, .0«f,*«d.sife^5'* t^itU-^r »fi'»t&4. (fe»4.il*B.a« la«-li».{?- tt«& »ihf3* tftt^t
t&« t©» «s^:i.0 ms% ^% ai'l i»^ttf«d., silAaw »© isi«^w|iki%lfit; i»ss>fi! wrvia to %ii«
siibaitterd l^y tm pl&m%itt ^mil •^x%is,mk% .%&y eRai^:.-;',s8«'fci««i ti»Ai, iti :Ud not
488% 1® ii.0t in 4 jUitiUlea s»«w ^ «jrg« %&'& min% ^;.jjf© for ».Ji<! .?lr»%
gaarS ilit »Hi«fei4»« «iii p«©'ri^:3g.i tey t^® gta^ty^fenil sMal the aaoir«l»e wa«
*feli® i& th^ tst^i'ftisiB! sf tiij,! liiif^ ami's i',©4 '«'iy.%i0« f©?' iiifi ovm
»afftt%f, <?4&?>e inM 5i«mt;j^t »tt*i tls.« «©iriiif i-^f*^ v>i it, *b4 w.*«
aiif&% hair* fe»im #1iVlate# fey «ij»«mil.»^a», Tk* Trft-ri^'*i!t«j« »a« ft©t 9v«a
fe# ^Mi!t'£*lw«4. I« fmift^***' •*^-*,UPtl itmi t&feis *'iSe*r>ri tlsafe Sfela aa** *-i»
«?s« *^,i.|%:~4 %y «3«>iRi;r.«i f0r ^fe«f s»Sm^i-^*i% tfeafc $:&# firs* t.tljti «*e
«Rter^4, «:r>:S il ■»r>.^' furtfesr »-438iiit*4A nt tii.^i t^lsi* W4*« feji© ^iiain*
tyiffil hm g#jst^4^d ^M<it feiit ^&w *44a |4.ifi«fe#4 In tht* clct** Trai^ %nif>
%% la siwv* t*fea% tls« ^iS!f«3a44W2li .««>ijla a®t &&ir« V»«39 taiL«sft ^ tra/'i^i'iss-e
H^ft^^vlMit f^iirtk )!<)%' aQ«it4i»d» thiA.% this a<!«r»« ia »-lt^«uC
f©r ^i*iRliff t& fe3»» fe*4 Ml» %«« s^in«fee<i fey t^be pXuinff:<ir in tfe*
HS *<'v:r-V*.f^;XV '-. ^-s
:m n^.
ii«t. "*■« l4at» as?i»lav?';l lih« photog*«^.i>,bss «,«;.? t^-atiaony l<i this
9«fe.y upoxs » ao»»i4.sf.5t.tid» of ^11, tfa* evl;t8Ace .-•.»« an c;if^»lB«,tlc
»ftfe« *i;i«fifeiR« t'tm.% Ui© liRdiag ^f. tibs jury in />»er at fd^inti
io Against tfetft «»fiifs-»t **lght of tb« syldL-jia*. In t,ti«iB« -■,1*'-
iSl.«KM^i^kna«s» CtT ao'ttiir&d^ is« a>^&n«^ vsitttn^irb the -vinf ^ict. It
|^jr«ts©t^ vejpf »i;>.»SA^ ^9 -m ?-© r«j»d«jr i* l*j;>©»9ifeie tot rit^fnom^
t»i*«jr»i«ti®ii e» fefefeal/ »f |>i»..t»lif !• Tfeat iKsesuetiicrn solii the
;Jury %h'A% if tii#y fe«i.ie'r#£l tmm t&s' »vl^1<!!JBtt» that th^ pio^laat*
«!»<3l0se er .vaaaM ta« ».;-iCfaift«i ii.ti'i %h8i.ii «,JBii» *a« a vioX-stton of
rrois tJi!^ *ywUi&n^s fc^«*.% it ■'ja-ii ^fsfe^tlcafeie w ^*n<ilo«e or i?,:u*,iwl
*'&©fui4 fefliva feec-K laffe t© tksr jwvy, Tfes in ;lijew.otJon ■•id w©*
««r# aoi «i»a.ll.«i|>le «« it. laetiuotiOR <J f-lvw* at ^Jse re* tu*et
la t&««« cir^u«@te>iru^&a» »«; tJEtinli Uir^t Ijq. tinker, 1 en 4 )s .«) j^ot
iatf-rofv-ajf^ ^ijja c«rtt''.iftiy it ownriftt ^'S s>ai>a stutt it Inj^rloa^fily
«ft<?«tect5khe^*5if«fe.iax»t on &li« tci-il si!m««« tb-a jury .?er . toW at
I^»,af4iaj| 0f duly .2f««Ji maeblaea .^ts «&*■« d#kAg-:jr©u& l& employ ■^*>'»,
®»-d lfe<'it l^' they tosii*T®a i'«'©Bs ^hi'. atvi^ienot tUat i;h« muohlo*
iB aueifttlon *«« «ot di.&«f«i^Ott©, sben thA- i«.w 'liri not !^0.-iulr« It
t« 1»« giis;.jpd,6'ti, F/6m tWfo is i« cift^T tfvi^i Ui'j Jury •.■■sre
«j^««ilt«ialJiy i»6t«a0t^l tl»*t tiay jRi«j*t f4»d f i <^ feii.N «-yiJ.-.'iii«e
afty» ia jpiaintlf f» « Inatruafltjn i.
It Ig furt&ar »2©j8tftKds-4 that tii* eotjrs sifr^d In
iaatttietlftn*. It %■& Qit^imM %htt.% %h'Sf vsusi-a ie4i<*r'aajv*bi« te *>■
lp>ro|?e»lf ]^t©»e»fe«it3io3a ©,f th# «^i58# -50 th« jjiary. It is act ,t;olnt«d
»e.««fflt «i*s t© 4fe.0 &ff#«t feJi^At if tti® 3u.?y 'ls*>;lJe¥^d froas tfets
«yl:a*»o« tfe».t pl-aifittf f»8 f»e>» «»i«i fe©% all|: ©i* g^t into fch<*
gtvta, ffeil?* l« ^^dyi.d fesifo ba«n. wo^e lis ak«««^d wiife the
«:¥i4«iis0 H Uie se:r4, *«.rs3-#&*^* lisw* fesaa. ««.ltt.te4, y«fc <■*« thlafe
41 ii^««ild fesiVS l^e^a i^iir^sa 1» tfae fdi'^ sufea&iltetS, hao'Xit^* It i£»
trat, a.9 ti0t^n4mi% feff^as, tta.4*« the «vid.%r»oe in Shis cine
1$ Ijg ^Xmkt that* pllaintiff QOU14 not re^evi^t uBle(%» ]^i» to«
get tn%p Sli»? stl»i6 u«<3ef %iie tvl«iit-8J', T&i^s ia tbe *h©.t« %tt«oiry
lJi»ix''i4«'lt©R, ««- »feJ«k it olsaf %Jiiit !%he def <ma»nt -<i,8 in no .-ay
i»|itt3r«4 toy lli« a0UJPt»B »«»f«i»*l *© 'I0 ««» fe«eAu*« ttp«« * ti-rtiUo.c
0i this mntXr^ x-»i»otd it Hkf^^^^s^m wit&iaHiit ■4u^rj&&iea t(&&.t %ibi&
ft;f <*if#?;»,n'^§.- -ife|-- ff i^tft'^^t
i:»|:j»4 *1 ,^i^;4f
^f ^«^#E ■ 'm%m'
edi' b 9
-7-
tfeat «Vtijrsr |»»rt ©1 tfea i&)*C!hii} cj tlt»t c«ui.d foe ^^u'dcsi »;.« ^r.rdal
B-s.«&iR« «s«i.r'k*'<s ,i>r0>v :jrly» ajts^. tli® ^•ai.f Q!omi5>l».lat ©a b^^rhaK of
iilia ;?l»itttli'f i»^4»- tte* tlfe'8 *sl®t o©iAi.;t fesiir«j bev^a «;»«lijr t^rotseatasS
s« %iiM» said '^'i^fe raf«r«ft*3-ii s« %hXm iBs%y-u©tio6 «e TfeDi«>t «<ou.ld
f«sx!ijiMil .flaailf aoBtafi4« tb.,.«; tft* ^ucij-T^tint
¥«%»^#|j «j«im»#i for ili« ijlaiattf-f ami the trial ^tt'ltfc* >'** th^<>
feJie it!0a*jp©»!5i'®y »««» ^cmtssm^d ^i»4 ^rH^rs the safttajp >via fi»&Hy
»tf«=lf&t«m.e<l ©ut. fist^ piiftie® %hiSii ca®* Jttt« tijfeia ecttr* ^oe®
ias&ti tfee tjpi&l j%4g« «%si,feitd to tli.5 jury ?b&ti ha fe'id b«i^s»- la
■' ??# t'
K|'*.i|i»ijs,(v, tf,^A |j^di^«9^.o..^ ?j.
^;>i2« an ajTfOlo^cy ttj 4hs jury. Te hwvts; .r«ji.i th^^^ nntlre r/icovii
wafraat » rev*r»a.l ©i tiifs^ J'a'igHaajRti, Wo iuoasf iM-ia* ft..';.** ».*v.<i« by
aewna^l fasf Islisi-a ^ef A«a.Mit t© .'inytifelag %M-4<i *R<r'k j>l;-.a«>, 9&n43o
«^ we «,n*fe>ie to »©« ais4 aluefe*. o<»m»«ii Tor ciftfc-iidajit h.iB f;«.li:t<i
*© ji--®tnt o'ut in %,feat m-js^nn^r li« a-«8 j;«'«J|tt<iils«iJi toy tb?. ittoi^^m^,
in %rhi^ o9UJrt*
Tlii«? 3w^P-».sBt of feliS Btt|5,(~)Fi<jy eow-vt of Cook Covin ty
I ^M vmi^hlif-- i& aoaauJf lift sh^ >'<J^•eJ¥9iBl,g •;5«c:isioa
&f- '%h.t^ «''*«». Ijj isy oplision it %;<« r«V6»fi-ibl« ttTSi' on ttio
first ti$^ %hit4 -of ih««© lB3«i^«tldS5i atif0 c©n©c?rEi<j!4, ttofir«
■^11 #^4s jt'jFftpsJr ima «il4»u.l4 IWrVa !»««» fi^sa, but* it W'.'-«s not i^uah
■fc® *ik«i v«ry ha».-r% ©jf %h» piaitttlff* a. 0!--.»« isvad ths ^lu^stnjaao <&t
it ii^ mil ^ l># X&13U&4 I.A ffeiiy ox tt).<s giy$n ineti*U(;tt.i{»»«, Tli«/e
ar* It .ftttasfe-;** ©r ra*i„s<Msa «Jsy Ui« dsfftadimt 'iiujui;! liw.ir» fertdl «&«
^^S'*?3flli of this 4s©tra«ti©B. fk« pi*lnsiff li%S ifliffairwd a.
s«Tt*8 t»;Ju**y • tfed h^&» ©f iii» elgfe* fe^jitd - asd the Injury h-tct
»t*%ut» ar^tiwlEiifcf (i4U'j.gs>ro*i« ffl*w:>j>iftxjey t© ?:>» p'O's^-'/yiy jiruarfitfi*,
»h.«r«v«*^ 5lm| i«t f*©<ss=S.fe.l«r ia i%?j p»mtiii-\l o-j-vf»tlei», Haft
*M«li pl^^iatiff*© toad »,•;■.■:» 0?'M»ftir;tii» bwt i% i» <.o»e'?4vV>i %ij^it li
%g ft«t ,:,i0aelfel« life g^«vyd tW^t mtt fei tl^* nfi-aofcln© a,nil ttilil
lAtQ %'^« ]^r®i4« i'k^t^ x% %-m s^fiasUiHl. Ife i» tso fe#. Bot«i4 th.>%
feausd «m t&li««^i«« fe»vlag aet^lftf 'slbtat^vsr %« dn* *Jfe»i ta^t ^iot
feiid j'lttBfftr r.©l«j"-it<i %.'&, i-..»d -mp^i. iferol^iissg his feet in .'say »»:*y,
84^44 ig(l«%ie %© *ii,« ite;<.-y» le si «i Is .'**;;«!©», itki^jfe ir»s5» though %Ji.«
]^i«4»*li't fiiiJ m^Hm- the ^s^ishtn^ e.f hi a h-i.tt<^ in th«.? pf-<«ai? vt ::»
re^e^^^r 4«ui^^#<^ <!,fcga-lpiiif t&# i$mf^u4mi% In thl« d<!iii$« uAl-tr^ie ttmt
im$yktf »«« te^fc«Tat i&t^^u* fey tfe«s fiwsi ts^&t :fe« €i?i ijst hi« fo-?*
iii%« Ms* i*iet ia •^tt.tststieji, «Jft«*- Iftat hl» f»«!t *>*-..» j&inei»©r* by %h«
S.&wS:ti<
i'Sviife'
■£»>K fcjsvjiM;
i«««,cB.. \ /226I,A» 6
\ / )
~Vsi«- \ / ) !f!iwp®jfioif Court,
\ / )
THO«iP A, ■•J?J*TT»OC»riA 'H jia,, | C-iok County.
;Pi&Ua*ni'i' in &i-^«^ )
MF. JllfrtlC^ 0»CO^:iOR *v.*iivetfwd *be ©j^lttiow of
Opinion filed June 28, 1922,
August QUatti6i?«&aM.l ui)t4 Hi-m^sA Quattyo^ttl, d©l»g y^iainams ag
pmmm»:X l&j"iifc'l(:38 «A;!i.is*ii 'fe® fc^ve b-*-JMS, su^taiftrHii tey ij^r ti^y rj»>vRon
*<> a«<l ©ipp^»1t#a &y d«l«3avisi.is|®, l)i,ii'i«g till® iJtiagrr «.-:,,« ©f ihr tri.a.,1
9feil ©f th« d#t«Ma?tt« s-'^fis aiteiiiiiS^a frsiies th^ tpi-*9 SA^apt Tony A,
s:.».jve#« '«ti'» .'sii.l *K«?!aiis4 te skm^ thi« ffic^. At tb.«« ;3l«»«e of
»©tioa «&9 d^jaiftdi, t^fet^jr impels th« Qajs« ^aa iSittlssmi^i^i to th^- jury
S?OC;0,00|, t© ris?»ii»*« Mf-M«M fii««%« A. >Q«i«ttir®ekl f.r«8««ut»>a tills
writ ojf «i*r«jif,
f|jt« a«<}la.£'&t»l9n e« «b.iah tfae «*««• »«?jt to i3i« 3«jy
e«a©l»te4 ©r *ii5&''^ o«e»t® *'h4<Jfe cfe-iiT^od Uiat oa M.'siy SfS, 1519,
l^la^iJBtiff »*» lajijw^* »feiie si!i« «i,s or©«*%lLOg ir«is-^*«h Av«;intt« In
C&i«imft^j tfe?it sitee *■■:,.* fftm-ak ,%n.#. SwwokaS 'i©*«fli ^f «.o suto^cbils
1 ,o
kkn .A„I9S--
.SSeX ,8S 9ni?T, boin rtoiniqO
dtteset In the e*.9X'al<sB! of dua- a;-'r« ^ui.t o».utli»a £uf hv^r own efti'dty,
she -«*« et)fucl5., thro^^n to i-iJri f^rouii^A, 'f.n<i .?ever«ly injui-e,:«, 3iiace
ao p«iint 1« jwade In r^farenc* to tte*. !'iil(9g».i5ion.f of %h<a .^evafril
counts It i;s wnnsPseasiAry '^o st:att* afiytiiinj? furth^sr In rftgsrj to
ftteii O' <ada%afoll«i4 tk.'j attfeoweteiifi on t.U'O oo«a ..'iott in ,u«^!i(tlon.
Daf eaaeoit* © position i© (l) tJiiA<» t\i *,.« leatitlfcti
t9 a d.4P«^et«4 ver«iiot te®©5tu»<5j \m^;l,^it- she .pi.a?jts-. th& imf4^& wa« oji
tii« plaintiff to prove t.l:»afc tht ..i^fosatie^nt owm^d, o««s3ra*e>4 •■r.nci
•e© Riri:-'"«ri'i.:-« t$»rHng to *fea« tkmt at i6ii«& tisj© in queati«a fsIi-iinfellT
A>%*i in tfe* «A«,i?eis« of ©riijsary cmr© J'or feer ©s^it sj.a.fety, ot that
It iM ^x.p»stmilf «ta.6«d fey %si« disfisnd^-rit titiat eo
«i-aiwi isi !»,*dR tiiat tljs 4affisf4f«a ar-« ©.s.assj'^iv® if %li«i pl?4ifttii*f i«
«atiitls»4 %& i?*-;-c;o-«fvir. Xt »ili> tls«'«r©.4'e, be unK&o«s8u?y f«»v us
to «t«.t© the naiiura ©t' [f.ia.lBtil'.f* © iaj^fi«e «s;A«apt t«> »ffl.y tih.H.%
%ins,f ffiffn of a q^c^t sftrie-uss aaiS |?{si*».a»«ai «ifei-;iz:aot*r, 'ind c«r-
t?tiaiy no rS-rgiajKfat aould r«@.»oa-:iWf Isf* »;;,»4«i tli«it x>fae v«x'5 4ct o£
tfee Jjttry s«.'i.s a:it«»e>siV€ it" tka dffif8ad>*R% sss ii*bie, ThOirs i.J! n©
^<»«pi«fciafe m^d& ^.^ to i&&@ <iii$$«ils»aldn o^ @iolu@ioin of 4tvi -aaao, inor
%& %h» ia«^«i*eti©as, balj defsnasuit's poiji 'f^ioa i® coafiawd «oi#Xf
■%© %h9 *siro jMSJiRti} ?irfe©V« ^*Ji«iORed. It rHi, th«.ys.foi'a, bo
]i|iM#tt««K¥f for ua to 'als«iit»» iiom«-<^li%'b 1^ d@1ta.il ths «yid«noe
off*r®4 by %hs plaiatiff. Pl^iutiifl' ^^s.^* injured on tl\« mo rains'
of Hay '-'a, 191S, sJuji'tiy bf::foL'$ f'.ii-ht q* alook, S*«'^xvws.« about .SI
y«*.*si of »>g-@ .fet tls« tiffl^® ^s.®4. •«**» 1« goofl li^<te. Het ay«aigfeii
a%4 hsariaf ««sre feetli foc^. Sks «a» aoing «i«ffi«aX c*oiP3i' 5*t th«
■ififl'i
Boste.n Store, lo«s*t«t( x,* a(.!.ai«on •\na f?l;.4«.« sfej^aetK, Qh\<yn\o,
The RSOi-ninjr ^-^w fcylt^Ut and f:ar, Ek-r^ Xlvei dis ^^'.aot <.i34fi Pl..*c.?,
5md, R« ««» ln^it* 'T^^%im, sliv^ b©ajr<"i<Hi « Sorth nttite f5t.r ;Mt oar
to g© to ijv'ir filfittw of e!5ipl.oym<5ftt. Fhaii tl'vc* «,^4f hu« r«iicli«£l
S«v«}.^th «trQ8t tlisrs -'*a® 4 biaolK.4.d(ii o.f th« a-ij-js on ■Je-iiount of
fs fip« oj- »©i?R otiuif clsfttsmutldTi ia tJxe .io^.ntov.fe district.
PliJiintiff alliilt«ita frofis tile Ststt« eXv-z^t QftT t\i lutoa ■■«:,( to vo
%0 fesr -s-offk by -^ay ©f '^fe??;!*!* Avenue, r^hSah .1.; oita S»l©ck ejist ©f
Stftit«, She «uife#A aa;st on &h* aortfe -sSaiswaik of gr^v^nth Stir.sck
Tfe© gl/iSfe&to»^ £.nd Y, s-ii. C, 1, rH-stsi,!* "i«.c« iM the viajkaity. In
fatp-'iafe ivimu'S Shete ijf; & ieubl* linn ox" street a-?.,^ tffit.*j'..s,
Im««(3.1afe«ly 91-1.9^ tit W-f-feasfis IrajMs on %h& aawtli t^iiie «ff Se^Vvrfish
.»««li©» 0f ^ii.bfiuh Jiv#Bte;s is-ad Seirefttii Strejafe, W&m. plaintiff
«alk i^eroKS? t^-J'-atsk kv-immi^ &ft. fetie nortrs o/0(ii«-s?&i«., B«ft^ir« ^oin^
sj© sht li&©ktJ4 I© ■shfe a©i!'t;fe -in'S *^a,«i- a.;H reaa-hiag- toi-'ai'd bwr a
i©^k«sfl t« 1iJi» ^©Btli 'ma ©a tli® giit»isti oi'- aot'tlkbeund. track ti-o
atJe»el ©arsi «:^r& ap tested lag, Jh& sar cwsmAng g^outh p.a.3»ffid. by faei*,
*« di^ the Jirat one eowiag ne^rttj. "^^n t&e$sa t»^o oaj;:» fa'td pa»s«al
®hs et«r •:»<?. int© t)i<? f©i*dway e3f fab '.-.ah Avi^^nae w^ilKlng fflaat aoj-o^ft
jfirstt sstr- s% osaJp fcjf?A^k «be again locked to s^.-ie ^hat traf/ic tJiore
fe«fe;p® sts, • lag lot© t)a« i-oigdarfiy, cowieg north on thw 6ra«3V>v&unit.
tr3.sk, wa.^ nfcout a fealf bi^^jok aoutfc ©f gfiTSSith strast, an* th;*t
th^- ssondaio t€»ji? *a.« ««(l.®&"rorii5:g fee ^{yuet -h*) troliffy i-oi« -hiofe had
g®t%«a eft %&s vfijre, sno lliai t>0f5.j* e.f she cabs .--it th© i*«ut<aa:-^at
-4-
ooi'Rtjr of tli« iiat«*a0®tlo» vitura moving .-vtoofut, Bhft than tti^ouKhii
»iie ha-A plenty ftl' ii9i« t© »»Ik ,serosi« th-R b a.-.*.flO« of i-h.'-.' »t.f>-.'»t
aftd pF0-ce6*a®'d, Wb©n '.%he **» aos>.«fe-ft«re i'j.feout th^ «)fi.9li or north-
glt&^&^g5^ shn tsatified t3s%« »h@t «?*.« aot -%t; th« tlw* rcft.l«red
tta«onai3i«Uis, ^© tlia noi -a^^s '^fec* auWfjpobiic sruck nor did wbo
Sm@» «ka6 struo'Sf hnt^ &hv «Bfi<?s v©r<?{i t» ixst up but !<»« uft«5ilti *c
stto «e H,® OB# «^t haf isfa «%65 lra©tuij?<-j.<4, Sb,<j vas tafean by «©?«is
«ti!6pl6y;^«8 ef tlia eily t© B%» Lake's Hos^^itsa, cvfe^jpe iiiiss rft-tiiii:.iaa(3
foj? isavera-X sKoafefa^ ^'iB4 «yad«if#«r4t ^iwsiss ^tJir@itct o?r'??ifatiOttsi, Her
iajirflee s^r® v-rvry **ev0ire &ftd ■pi<:xes.'Mi.'Sin%» thin- i* tht^ «ttb«t;».j»oe
A Irs. tle€air»iia fe«stls!i«d fesr pla-iatsl;f'f ta».t on tli«
S-soi's at Sti&is ?*»si ?&& io-fess ^aPd^tt®, «la,©i'« iaJi^ «*:>.» eapiey^dj
9m»% aiiiswalk Of Wsitestiili ikv^^ud !&»<! s-^out 78 fstss north «*f Sevawttt
ft*a©t wh«n #li« aaaw t&©««»OR® ««sa4: ©.f- ssfeowt, ^m-i 3h,« turn** aad
JMn»3k«^ is tii# d.U'^%isHft fr«»a 'ahlafe tii«$ s^ua.;! oaajei th«4.6 ««b«
look«d t©ward lh<& «®usJ9.^ii(st s*a* mm plmSMtitf fi©tt,»d<^rJ.ag i& th*
street afB4*a^©«i)ag So get iaf;s -fefafe Vfe*t .|ia.ui»ti;ff *<».o u»%ble to -io
»©. At th-at tlm-a «&*; «»« a S'ii»<^o» ssotof iruttU >i^©ut 25 f ex uotfn
of «J3Kjr« th« «ltn®«»& »st^ staft'ling, -^fel^h would to« /»j)oat iOO feat
uostfe ©f ©tir^jstii gt^selj tfe&t lt» front «&«.-i«i wera turned to ttaj
©ortfii»««t aiKl »«J®.? tlie a^mtstt of tfci« .s!tr««Jt, but tiiss,t tfc« <*JtP«s6
*>s.« ttftfeteXe to &%^t4f »Met}5sJf tiv© traak waa stofv®** ©*" »ovlftr^ at the
timei ih^t she tha». ta«tje<i aaal w«at to in&r pXj^e« o.f frtRrloywetttj
that !Sh« j^lil ac% kao*-- jsXaimti f f or aajrona &onn<s<otM ^ttJi the oaao*
Imt t&*.t {S©i!8« w&,-tes s.ffe&s^mM the »itB.«*»*» <*t*wi^fct«9r, who '^''a.«
Sk-to^ttt 15 y^akSn of atge# »-ft@ iil *a=tt »rig tateeffi to Bt. LwKa'a Hospital.
tltat »J»« «aa pl^e«S!l Xn «. »axd ^sitifai ^ifers^isf oi fou;r oeb*;r i'-'-raon*,
©«« of »h«3i *<5!>3 tli« p-i4isi.iii.ri' J thf^i, la ijp«!a;.ing -te fcht' i.'-luin"
tiff ^tiis» i*itji««fs, -#»;&* Info^MK^d fey fcls« plaintiff tl»»fc she 'h:.,& 1»!,u;n
iSi«n seated a&e fesv-l aeea *h« aeaiasn*, ?i<,jinfcl3fl' a'lpo ci^-imJ
August OttJi-itfe^ki, i^ftd at t.h»!« tiie-'j «Bi3 atiii & dj.f«»tJ*iftt( in tsiis
case, H® t,«»tifi«{i tljat o» ife.e <i««,t« ©i tii« BrmX, which '*:■».«
wi6B stffiplisyad by feh-s d^fsrsdiJSiLSJt, TheiE** A. Q:uatttocjki, kl» bi-csthar,
4« djfiire y*ffi l»,t%i>r«fi }?3.tfi;©w tAiisg^j %kn.% hf.-: -»a,& a.r luring feklsi
truiffk 1» Msity, ifiSj that It •■■•^*>.s j*. ©ne -ys^ &Bti&--quss.rt'»# t©a t-rueki
dl.mt« ©f &^a a^aidoiitj tl»4,t ©u Sh*> ■:'J-«.t«J ©I' feke a©«Jdf.n>t; fee s&t
drlnfittf tlie tfttck fsj' iil# fe(i?®tsfe*.» fe« Ssatli fe!.%s'r Sts©-.)t §e gst »
oa ^fe^ah Av«Erti® o» tii# !8©rj|iiag «>.f ?^ay S;', I^IS, whs^B ther« vtas
!*a atjeiaant Is 1*^1 ^-sfe fehS;? i^'^iy wfe© alts bJS4!k h^.e'ffi (r-^lntlag to
la4y) »a.i® ia^alirsat A, B© 1 U!3.-St»rii€jsa4, y<*.si all', t» ^ttt tl4s«.li
t^uiaik i^% Ui-%% timt hrtV«: r.i iitsa*^?**? A» Tasi, Q.. Wfe&t *aa tdfie
mMR.'bey ©f lt» A. 1 ''^^ net; r^^iaetHbsr tea lio«Ba«, ttt« hespital
f«?^rtft ^£^tr« that,* 'Sh mXtn-^ikfs »c^« net otG»'^-eJi,sa&Xn<rM<S. toy
in Hay,. Iiil9, * * * * j s!®ploy lay brotiifsr Au^st u« &
e&atifl'aui' foi* tfe® ©'peratioft @f t&.»t t.ruiOit. So ofehsr r-^faea hJ*d
st»y li»1(9^««t la th« Iwiaiaeasii w&icfe I tjf©»w%i« :■ l%f, U^IQ, er
ia %fe» ©^sy-atloa ©f the tjfwek.* Tiii© sitaesis • iiis not cir©^?*-
•Afeaiae?! by «n»«n««i jfoje 'tM 4«f©a.iaii-t. Ttio;'i ?.r, P, Sh©.3rtiaii, a
#i.%ae«» for the pXalatiff, -s-ftsi* qu«tilfyiog ^te *a QAj-.irt i» tlm
in vacation, tsytiCioii ^h^% ■■'=, »ii«ilio.r ojcuok with p:ooci brsl-.eai ^oti
going j&l th» rt^te »t lo miles t^-6.r hour coulci ha abof- c4 .-vithin
IC f«i»t, atii that If it w;=«f goiiigiatt S^4a tvi-lie of lb KtiXoa par
iMy'ur It eeuidf l^ia »tO'p;. ^#4 es^itlaiu 15 fsi'jtj tfiat the er<S'«t'*f tsha
3P*t« of sp«9i!l «ls« ^r§»ti*r ssetiidi b^4 the diataac« i«-:;uir»(S •'^itlJitt
%-ud«ti©n teQlng ir«ii-se'4 lo ref«reaa<s to tii* a-mounfc of siift var -r.^t
Rep to the t«&tii!9®ny glVftSia by tk* d«>«to,ffa,
^e tfeimk feh-s siri:^^^®^^ olsajfiy isafs^ei -outs « ^yj.^^
la^ttjr*^ the ^lalsifiil'f sad tfea-* i^ waa b«i,«g, ■ojx^atsatS fey -eii!? ti.af«n-
l<i.i«; t© easy, Ufl.'l«jp Hfe-is^ a-iifixf'S«,&® 5*..%«fir'» «?.at ffertl-s, %i*Ji,t i:iM,ia*iX'f
feM not «et tb« fett£'d'®« iiape^&d ttfi-^os. ,b.er ^y re?4.s«i0i ©I yjss ^^I'^al^l
plis«i. But -i^efftiHtdaati 4.«« l«, m.© p«»iti©i* t* W'gtJ® tWs j;«iRt ii.«r8
fe«e«)tt«s tfe© 0m.&% ^.n■1!^^ ^\> hi«> .r«i'p«®t, liiatruations *hlo2j ii4«?u»««l
ftfejitt t1&i« tj«»0lr i%% %Jk tte^ i« .;itt@{?.tioa »a» 0'«i»'!;d and «fp«,fAtsdi by
st©t m©* to® aiii>«f^<l %© sfeift teiiia p»aiu©a ir* s. o«^u«'t o^ iravi^sw.
Hiss (seiii't &S s^«s jf« iuais»t« t>i d#f*«t4jaB.$, f^f »■? tim juiry tris folio-Aing
__i.&istmeti<&tt.«: (i) "Tow .v,i-s iBatructsti tilsi.at Augijist Qttiiktijpooki, 6h«
drlTissr of iiiai« veliici^e tm feli« ©<:o;4sion In 'iuastion, «•« B©t r«-
^liiA'r'sA tey la* t<i ex«rQi»« toe hig&«Kt A«jfir§« ©f cai-ie p«aaii5&.:i«^ <i«
\mm.mi 413Llg:©»«s» to avoi-ti tii# iifcoal4aat, fe^t «mei or.ly ^©■jwlr.'iil *o
«j£«S'eisa 6s;eAia»i..j-y s^j^e o.c cmfth a^^i'is r*.» ie ©i'diBarily e*ex«ls««d. by
?i P®.'i»®»ably fsmtsmt psrsei* ■sm-iar the -mm^ or p1ssH?!.t til ^'cuwat'-wMjes
aa #li©*;a tey ifee «vldsne«: aox" did *fe« l%w rflfViuJj:« Ju^rwst
S^att*®<3fei t© #.»t«raisi,© -my kigfe^sr £i»j^r»© ©.f ca.re ttat Sh» plal«tiff
■^ »^«ft»i-
,t^-iii>*i
By ancth'^f iadruGtion tho ju/'y .ot^e tolti that on tho
OCO**i©a iB .iU!s*tsi©R th« 1'*ji jj?i not rs-july© u.v. i ifisri.-i iju
t© sfttioipat* or ^jMTvi nxf^awftii aaiB!-:«r8 not i-e*<sottM>iy to b«
ajtp«sot«d, ajiti im.:it ix the juxy b-vHaved frow tha eicJeno©
that ttii<s fltsoid Rfc ia Lueation w-xa unusu^^X rsd noti fco ta
r«&a0ftiably jmtlclpated by tbe dufandsmt in the «xeroJ !?« of
oxdirtftry cai*«, th**n the FiaiHtif f aoul.:"!! not reooNf^r, It
»iil tea sfiim fcJiat tJses© inatnietiena m<S)>iiu«« fchat t.h« ▼ofelfilfr
th&t stru-ak plaiRtilf beioftgfid t« t-ha daf «a'i»».t, but t.^^i-fc h-s
»aii ael r«Kiiaix>;d to ■sJtcrslssa tJae hi^iiest ^eg*a« of o.:i:ce to
avoid ijo^uriftg the piaiRti-tf ,. aor wis H«! r«!i,tulrc!d fee fjw-nrd
thl&k defsn^a^t os*.tt.o<»l 'easfi^ btf h«iir4 ^o sontand tii<*t the
«yi)S^viic« TSid aot ®liow tba* ds}f#n;';ii*nt ©wnftd ??.»;; oontyolied the
a»ioi»ebil«i 3t thiT tiwa in -^ueation, ^«oaua« teotu these In-
fjilunaalJi^^fi.'s ^as-'faat xh& aaautsptien Bbs.t he aid, Mocsoy>=jj:,
if th« 4«f«iaidaat *&© n&% tbs ©wnfsr or ia iSQUtrol of ths t^oiak
th*t stj?u«3k plaiaisiff, ttoi« a©uia a^v b«jrin eaeiif «fao*tt by
tJi« *«f«adAat and hi* «itw9s*<ss, h^--»U:?« Aujrust Q.u*ttro«Sii
tesftifiesS hfs ^^.8 ArSvia^t th-s tmak in WH.i-.(*4a}i Avaaws ?»t th»*
»©* «ie» *e tl^lnk it ««.« b« jmooeHfL^fully oottt«Bi<Jd
t&%t &.li X'^&jisoa.m^ie s&inJ« ^euXd raaoh tb^ conclusion th%t
j'laiBtiff was guilty of seasfifewtory o«i¥ii^"cttG« -jn^i, tber*-
iore, fesr'rad fross reeovi^^ry. In these •.jii'o\jfflgt«,na««, of
course®, ttfec^ <iv:'«ti0fi wfAl* i^tep'^s 'or tha ''iet-ir»siii., tion of tn»*
i^MVf, Plalotiff»« t»«tiisony ?*& fco t^hat she aidi <iit itid i riox
%© tha tiasia iB luc-ation indio&teg. ttia,* aht' ^<h looking- out
.for h«r ©'.%u fs-jfetyj t&at bafoi-e ii>hi^ ate •oss! l»to thw re,j4^
"Rtiy of ir**liajBfe AvaiBue «.fe« look^Mi t« tiia nortj^ ajjtii to tha '^ioiati)
-8-
imd s»ei» hAt traiii« th<a.i'& Vi'if. in tua atiro«t) ihnt %rt«r the
ea^ Irojm %h.& u^tith :'-dEiii !!:)« oiaif ftoss «li<g ;>outh li^d p^.'»e«di
h^x ©he steriod 1b to th«j ro«*<i«•:i^y f;yttd whftn »ae f»uob«d a
;olnt »o«e^'Ji«r8 «'-te6ut the ot^a* ear trault «he again looked
blooi tfOtttfe &i B&imiXh B^st'^a^t, >*a$- »'fi« thtsn rjt5!.>u!a<.-<i that sh6
wix« off %h'& «-lJ«i} ikst hear s!.tt<5?jti0n »aj* divart«!(i la vatoUlng
tha tJ?tt!0li *a« g:elac -^.t ?»» ^m^mfiXfii: *at® of ajj'sea, »«0aii'£e
»|»9 '^^s-s s'|*a<at!'. And »<fei»is '^0 iH»nm^.i&t %h& u»-:U»put«!;l svlSsr.we
that % timok 4ra.v«Iifif IC te IS ®ii«!>« p^sr hwitr mtm b« ;tstop:-«4
ftitfcklis. 10 tt£ IS f^«t, *fe« Jujry Bslg-Jit weii b* ««ti'??*jftte*S in
fiasilBg %timt %h0 ts-iAak «»a.6 g»i«|| »t a- grsawitejf rats of ei-dadi
Aa4 tfe#sr »i#i* Sfciso wail &air« aoRaldyiracf tJi<g atat« of tfe^
traffle awft4 »h».% pl&i.n%iti' Isatlfitssl »te« iildl smd Ioua^ *li*ti
isii* '*ija la t^iji 9X^rele«i of sr^lnairy aA3f« ?©«■ h..rt ©«a aafesty,
tn IJ^«»«0 alj?^<(£mtttii.me«», of a^ufffi^f tk^ H^u<astloa aiu^-st b^ ^ub*
Hitted %0 tii© jtti'-y ;.•-.& fe^a-a -i©a^ l>y tk'i tirl^l ^U:-?!^-©, We think
this, i'&s&x^ ls» e^S'Sptlifrftaiiy f3?»-3 5'rcia errof, ^^d fehe
JULcJp6«jnt &f ^a« ^ap^^iiit Cour* e-i' Cook Covtnty la af iilrsn-ad.
AFFIfiMEB.
ids "8®*'
75 - 2754«
On Appeal of CliA;.ru'.s3 BO:i#OK, ._^i
the Qitj of ahie^iigo, | /
C-^
7.
' •'(., ,/
,4, 644
com cotmTY,
fhie i» » »uit -m wrltth -petit iCjRwyt a»/k fwr a writ ©f
@hi«iii@e to isau« ti» i^«tlti<m«:rs % imildl^ p&fMi f<»r the ^rtto*
tton of a eaz'tain an&rta^sit buildiag: in Cbic^i^o* Cl^-n(»xi»l »ad
which
oMey«d a»d ad,fttdg»d tfessnt ilb« writ ef siaa548<?.:aa» ^e istmed, ryoa/order
tteia ftttit is gavsrjxed by istesfct l» b<»i4 1« i^tit . o-f^Ig, t,
Ujjif SiS ill., 11. XI «»» th&x^ h«14 thai ^«f9^ra th«' ^«tiiloii«3r«
etistuM ii&i»^ru3,l^ ez^st t^e l3ull<lij|g tb« ox^infiutuNi mist be 9l»»d«d «he«^
ia^ a i«gaX i^^iuty on t)}« p&xt of (l«femAfimt ia i«su« the building 9«r»
%it, <%Ad tbtt petitieR satst Aia» stait* fa«t« ajijowing Qflm|!>iiajMt« wltii
ali 9f thm v%q^t»mmvi%9 of )«tt^« &rdln%jrm«. in «xtl«r to »i.i«r)r « el«tar
rlglTt «n th« i^oYt of ftppeliant t& 4«9«Bd oaJLd ^ttr.ritj that ^lei;«*
tlon» that potltion jrs imye «i«a9ii«d witJa t^o ordiiutjieo «ur« aMnrs
kXtfendant ft»»ttrt8 tho f«4iXur« of th^ petition in Ui« in*
stj^nt ««t« id aXl<^» tho f>orf$xis;;^ne« of a fiu£ib*ay (Mt ]^y«r»<|ttiaitfts
in i)fe« feuiWing. e»dir>>3SEW« n®«E«s8ary le «iutitl« peti'».iott®r« to a p***
h T
i aii.i
■ii« *ni« 8»»t lirtport'Sint of th^stt i« ih« fAlluM of the potltlonert
to eonpXy vlth ««otion 23^ 9f th« iJuiXdlcM^ vrdinunt^A, irhloh in tui
ffflXOVtt
"8ll^ «^>^?1 leant ah«idl ^r&dxx&m cnrld«n«<i that h«^ hns filMl
with fkUd ha4 (A9prov«d by tlift Uonmla&ioner of i?ublJle ^<irjts of
ih« Oitjr sw iadtssnifyliV; band prot^tioii thm aity a^«.inst argr
cuftii all ditma^^ tbi^t sisajr i%ri«# to ih« »tr««)tr> or ulleiy* upon
li^iiioh an^eb bttildli^ sbuts, >iid to th«i city, nrvi to -^ny pftraon
la 09ii»«i^uonfi« or by r«asou of any 9b«tvuciion or occuputlon
9f any st7««t or 3i<i«wAlk in ^im& ab«ttt aaid op«r»tienM.*
1%lt i« esrtainly material, but )HititlQfi«r« in t)rj.a
«cm.rt eakd no »ag^0n%i<tin txiouiilag ti3i«lr fatilure t0 iai«ig« p^rSvrmm
•BOtt of ihlc r«({ulrw3ent . A»«tb«r fadLIur* as»«rt«a l9 th« or^isi^ioii
of «i@ aiUsipftt loB Bbovl»g oofflpll^Lnet «'ith sAetlen )S313 of tii« Imild-
Ins e7dl»»»e« x^qQlriiitg that ih9 CotixFsiBiiioner of imildtngs, ^^e a
«o«ditl«n io * pftjmlt, sh«a3l<S l^ave e-?i4«ao0 tbat th« applleimsts
vill 9ay for oity w&t«r u««d In th« odnsipucrtloa of tbo bit lid ng
or foy^&tar a^ter as!«a8«Hi^ the mmt* The OKi«»l©n of alloga*
iiosse of p^rfQr^tm&* of ib»8« r«^ut)?«if«nt« mxq in tium»9Xr%» f»tal.
to th« rlghl of |ietitlon«7« to thn writ of ^@in4A>JtiO.
X>«f«r^ania assort a sur<}bef> of othov p%rtiouIar» in
«hl4B^ It it said tl-io petit ion«7S havs fmlled to »h»v o»cB9)li«uioo
vlib t&e bttllding ordlnaaeoo, £}om« of theoo may bi» oYOzwtochnlesl,
^«t no good r«««0a is |»ro»oiit«»d to ^Tnam «)3iy pstltlonors should net
h&f tt«>t those ob^oetions« It oatnxrs to us that as tho tim:urTa:T
■wm» si^oolal, ]»3tliionor« sheuM laxts sm^nAmA their ptotitjon so %s to
«os^ly vlth th««i« ::^:itiers of i'orm>. If, howovor, thoy have in fast
fftilsd to eoa^ly with thm substittttial provislotui of the building
•iNlllls^iHAOe referred to, no «s»end@dnts oould «are sueh otaisslons,
Fet it loners hiring f&ilM to ehe^ h uleaar right to
the «rrii, the triel eonrt eheulrd haT« sust^kinotl the ^srairrers.
The iudr^ffint in favor ef the petitions la therefore 7«Yereed a>M
the eatttse r«a«mded fer further proeeedlngs not intjonalate^nt trith
this of»inien«
Sever fm& uateJxstt, JJ., eonsur.
iSf.'tf.f^ ^Sk
«■* «"r:
t Hi
/
140 - 2?«X» \ /
\ /
\ / 9 ^ .^ T A ^v A K
OTTO K. Vi--fAS-5>, \ /) ^ /w U lchj.o O --t i>
f J AJ r'.t;AI. ffHOM CIHUUIT OOWW
^•» \ / )
VemSL /U CtiBTR^luL, \ / )
plaintiff in ti xnttlsvia suit.
Th# (»^^«r0liii]^ «f |jro|>#i1ty in plaintiff i» t^t 4« ^#»»»
th^ «r9id-iM«e t«jii9 to eh^w tiJat j)>laintiff, atfisT the
4*i^h «f his wlf«, jdi»v#4 some stf his la:£mi^ft»]i»X<3 ts>f£«eXm, including
ill* preitfirty in qiuastiefi, i^ it>i« hwae of <asf«iniiAnt, wiser* he I^OJ^i^Ad;
th»t b;* «»» t&k«m iiX and i^ertt to ft hoa^itaX; ih&t "^hlX* ih«r« d«*
tmmAmsA p«rs»uid«4 i5>lti..tntiff t« »isn » »Tlt4.ag dAt«<3 S©v«n;'ib«r»i9iK>,
wliloh 6t»t«d th&t tbe 4«f cndant oouXd ii^'ve th« us«t of his h«^ie«hold
§90^9 at ii«ir feosi* *fey t»« ynaa;^, amf5lB^ X0S9,* t^lJsequeniXy plain
tiff »ad« ^ ^mmM. f9T tho 3r«tu3*A ^-f iJm g<>od», whi«'h wokS r«fu3«<i vaA
tliis r«pX«vie &etida fi»lld^«d.
As tlie 1»«IX3n«nt «»« mx'atuiioua, ^I^Xntifl' h<iA the riifht
t© terBsin-its it «»t ?jBSy tlise, ^«mt<t% t v, w *;feri^Q . 37 111., ^u,
fl&lnilft «»s e«iiitX&^i te> the rftium of hie gte^.4« ttp«n dteattod* It
f©llo^», tbersfar*, Umt th« ju<^^ita^nt in favor ©f d«f«at1»iwt w»a #r»
roseola, %n^ it is reTejr»ftd isxid th« eau«* r«t!uandc»d*
IS'ev^jp and M*teh«ti, .T.t,, «oncwr.
34» • staof
WTiW — «6 f »JW f
\
JOHM BBOVV.
CAaL SDVARD.
\
lUUlCIPAL COUKT
Of C1UCA00,
\-^
MB. JPltKSlDlJia JUoTICS BAHKSa
OSLIYiSESD THE Cf Xl^ZOS 07 TFI^ COUFtT*
Appellants brought atttt f«r a lM»l«jAtt« of dl40Q
elained to 1>e due th«n for sftrrioee rendered appellee ae
i^ttor&eye tn a certain euit entitled My^4 v» O'ttonrlfy ,.
>'.n attaclaient v»s nlsd sued e«it« On both iosuee the Terdiet
vae for i4ipelle«r» and the appeal is froit the jud^cnt entered
thereon.
AppelXeo vae a minority etook holder of & corporation
organised by him* one Olson end sif^id 0*Ronrbe« The latter,
having obtained Clson*« etoek, secured control nt a «toek
holders meeting and ouuted Mvard fron his position a«
treasurer of said oorporation* Claisiing unlavrful use of the
soneys of the corporation to obtain euoh is took and centre 1,
M«»ard ooDsulted aps»ellant Norton, «ho with appellant Broen
beeaae his legal »^dTiaere in the natter and instituted proceed*
inge in equity for Mdward and ae^ociete etook holders. It «bs
for B€rTioe8 rendered in that euit for ndiieh this suit »ns
brought. The vmlae of such seryicee and whether there was ai^
ffigr««!«ent »p to the ^aount ef fees Bdward was to pay were the
c9RtPOYarte<1 (luestions.
The etatenent of elai« w»e bneed also on an aoceunt
•tated« hut our attention its not fiireeted to sTidonoe that
?»^j;/
'? h "> ^ "^ Pi^ 9
%$ A' ■ ; --' \J \^ fe."
■sf^R® '-Jlf""^' ■|*5'?*tf''
.t;jU:^;-^SJ!J iif^ j»»
,'.Vif!4>-y
tb-^o '%* rs!
-2-
trouXd auctsiiii a count ther«for«
Appclinnts* BsAin sontontlORs nr« that th« T«rdlet
w»» against th« weight of th« 6Tiden««» and that the Jury witji
prejudiced hjr irreI«T»nt nAtt«rs af a pirejudicial nAtur«
brought Vjf«rt It by counsel for appellsf in the gouts* of
the trial.
7h« auit in ^ich the s*?rrioe8 were rendered «aa
brougiat in equity for am ncoounting and injuttctional relief.
After hearings before the m ster » settloMient whs effected,
with appal iRjate* assent, through an «ut«idp attorney, end the
cauod dltmlased, ^ieh. »«; ';hewn hy testinony inproperly
etrieJEen we think, rseulted in a r*!ieov^ry of about 15^0
for appellee after dedluctin^ all ?.xpe>n«e& of the trial.
Apnellante were paid fllOC for their awrrioee, e»d elaia $1400
sore, from » reriew of the cTidenee pointed out and ahstri&eted
«e can net aay that the verdict w«s nanift^i tlj ags^inet the weight
of the eTidonee, which wo should se ?!ihle to do to Justify a
roTersal. A rsTiew of the ^videaoo b<»»iring \ip&n th*> yrIuo
of appellants* acrrlcea i^onld require «? t*>diou8 narration of
deteila and eerre no hencfiolal purpose.
fhe renainln^^T ?pestion argued i» whether it cen ho
oaid thst the Jury wbs unduly prejudiced hy reference Sn one
way or another to expenaea incurred by appellee in the trial.
The erjurt ruled that auflh mattero were not rcleTaat to the
iaaues imd Infetrueted the Jury to disregard »»ny r*'ferenc«
thereto* ;^hlla e<mnr.el»8 method of atteapting to bring sueh
aattero into the rsah© f*fier adYerae rulings thereoa io
subject to eritieim, neTertheloaa there was aoaio Justification
for offering such avldease in tlw testteiony of hia client that
•9»
•Xj^atts vtre tht suVjsct of eonTore&tion with akPpellMit
Brows is eoon^ctinn witb ettoj^ey'fl facB, and is Ti«w of tho
ins truet ions »nd th« obar «cter of liio <gvld«no<« t»e do not
think it app'jrent tb/Jt the Jury Wi^a oo projjadioed l>y such
procedure sh to ^iflregard tho m(;rit« of the c«a«, tind w^ ire
r1»o eenetrained to peadi, this rts^ult b^cimae of the f aot
thio was the third trial ia which the Teraiot ««» sgainnt
ftppells^nt*. Tho rctoord 4.oem not dii^closo upoB whi^t ^r&undo
the retrialo were grejited, hot we cannot afesmno that, th«y
mmm allowed heosaise of similar prej\idici»l conduet on tho
port of &ppiellee'8 couasol, f!-& elftlme4 in apjp«lX&nta*
brief.
Accordingly' thft jud^ent will ho <3ffirstc6.«
Morrill and aridlejr, j;r«« oonenr*
^^. f :,..;.• ■■ :•??;-•. ^/si ■».>•:/ ,...V
, ■!•/;»» nr-'
47a - 3743«
C(»CPAinr, a eor]»erFtion| jQ _ ^. _
\ <v?JP«llt«« / ) APfSAL 70011
▼••
) KUMZCIPAL COCTHT
) Oy CHICAGO,
JOHS MOVlaHAlf*
K-
ira, FHWiSlDIHG JTISTICS BaKMSS
This ia « suit brought 1»y «i>p«ll«« for sor-rioaa
Xfttor« A f lading attd Ju client th«reon by tha oMrt w«r« for
#774. (59, of wliich itMi« for grading to the asount of $54S.7S
are in dis|mto«
The »Ain eontrovsrsy is tthothor the aorYioos included
in auoh itoifta mrre r$ndsr«<i au «xtr^ »ork ttn«Sleir the writton con-
treet, as claimod by afp«llftnt« or undar a new verbal contrHCt*
as claimed by plaintiff. The eourt erret! in taking the latter**
Tieir of the (jontroTeroy.
Under the written agreesent plaiatiff m&& to provide
all ssate rials and perfena all the work montioneiS in the
epeoifi est ions for the c«eent flo«»r over thf» entire floor area
of defendant* a building then in prooees of eonetruotion* The
speeifiontiona required it to Ua^ solid the entire floor area
and rograd^ vith filling added »n tmy be re<|itired« Under the
agreeawat preliaim^ry work «a to be done in gr^^ir^. t^apiag
and Biaking siolid the ground surfaee. This vas done by another
contrt-^etor "approximately to the proper grade," aa required in
the specifications* irlrtls;*iff eanplaine '^ that it was not
brought to the pr<»per grade, boin^ higher in ooim places and
lower in others* end vas authorised by def^ndeat to regrsdo*
iHbieiai, tttt-verth«le3», the »peoif iof-tioae required him to do*
M-^ '
:^:x) Jilt "m mn'^w
'*-*•..
fl '! t i- i'-'-^ie l«i ■' mmSii.:, 3d..
••at^sj ,.s
/j;«#=«i.
^^amkmll^^n. i-R»«t»»«3^
•8*
and th« itCBS in queatlta eoTer the «ork e« perfomed.
In urging t!iat this m^& n ntv eeatr.vct ttpptllae oitea
ocrt&in CF:&e6 whioh haT« Mppliofitlon to chftag** or fiilterrtlens
aubstoiuently nade In th« plans or s]Meoif lo;^t|»n« or vdier^ ths
cxtTH work constituted a ne« kind of work not inoidental to that
contr looted for* ^e think they baro no Application to th« undis*
putod fncts of this osa«« th«r« tna no changft or alternation of
plana o^ 8peeifie»tionB, and the work m».B incidental to that
contr&cted for* if not expreseljr included in the tenaa of the
specif leKtiona requiring the contractor **to thoroughly water and
taap solid the entire flonr area and reg^ade ^ith filling added
aa May Ve required*^
Xt a.si unqpefttionable that furthei* r«gT»din^ was
necessary after the prelijBin.<«try work performed by another
eontr»ctor who v; @ to bring the entire floor sree, and lerel
it off* approximately to the proper grading* Apparently hia
work «»8 not entirely statisf actory* and neeeeaitated sore re*
grr^ding by plaintiff t^a contemplated in the contract* fiat
if so« it was work of the same kind, and ineideatal to that
contracted for by hia. Consequently w«? think it should be
regarded a« extra work clone undrr the oAntrBOtt end plaintiff
seeais te hawe taken the nkme Tiew«
vjrtiele III of the agreement provided thr t the owner
should have the right to make any alterrtions in the work under
tto ceatr-st but only on the written order of the arohitee^,
that tibe value of thw tmrk a4iled should be computed by tha
architect, thtit the aaouat so (»eoertaiB<?d should be added ta
the oontr«^ct grioe, that if he wuo unable to coflapute the priao
in advanee the work should proeeed under his order, thnt ha
cMRpate its value i^s eooa aa pr^^oti cable « and in ease of
disaeat from hia avard by either party the value tion of the
m^-
in# s.'.t!*«f!^ •!© »ni«*v^.-«l:lJ:»»«a *««» «K»«X<3f. ©fife? «i* «?i«* '<«»J!:*?t«sw»#»4f*F^
-ttifcGEB ^{(J a^ 001^4© ii«^.« «i.o «V*!^ i¥^.U 5fe4V-'
'3l,tC»,«*«<| «:•*;. at>*^
work should be referred t« i rbiir; tlon, f-M proTiard In rtiel*
ZX of the n^r«eiient« th« latter ^rtlole provided thst in cns*
of «. dispute &« to the vslue of e^xtra work cith€>r peirty nieht
mpp9mX trtm *ii« «rehitnot*» dtci»lon to arbltr tlon* cnA
provided for th« nannor of proc^^ding in euoh « okbo*
Apparently recojinixlng th.'it th' «e»rk of r<»(?rading
VA* extra «ork und^r the oontr^^ct plaintiff re«|ueeted i3n9
archlteet to eoionowledge in ivriting its arraag^a«nt with the
owner for such extre wr>rk, i.mk t© melco «n e-jtlmate of its
Tftlae. eor re opoad«?aoe b«t«reen t>)@ifi ensued* In snaoh oorrc*
spondenee plaintiff Atat;;^ Vant Wfore arlsitration should he
resorted to the nrchltedt ^hovild etste In his JuOcnent "irtuit
w»» the velastion of the so-collo'i s»xtr& work tJi^t vws hj've
done,* and aa cithor party was entitled to »rbitr©tion only in
C£tse of dlsisent fro« the arehit«ot*a awMrd and the arehiteot
hed «t no tl«e stated the ▼al»e of the eo-oalied extra work,
plulntiff r»m«st^d him to m^iss- his* ftwsrd &ooording to the terns
of /article 111 bt^forc 6trtitr&tion r.oulA be eaked for. The
s^rohiteet i» .written reply oteted thtt in his Judi^eat "lOO
hours labor o^iiTole&t to twelve pnd one-half work d^s. is
sufficient tine within which th? mork you (plaintiff) ohargeA
f»r ad'iltioiwa greding can b« done and I mm wllllBg to settle
ypur bill on this bHsis.** vhllo th« «Tidc»ee discloses a
dispute e«5 to Juat h«v rsaeh regr acting mm neoesaary It is not
of sudh a ehsr-eter hr to diaolosie how mxeh lint and labor
were ne©e«aary therefor, nor Hiu pricn at which such serTieos
should be eeaputed. JPlaifltiff auiaaitte.l a fcili to 4etendtJttt
for 506i hours of labor »it th« rate of one dollar an hour,
and 29 hours for the forenaa at #l.2« an hour. a«t eeneedlBC
for the gnke of -^rfrument that such an sasaunt «f tisie wna spent
in such work, yet therr w «« no proof 6i an »«reeKent to pay
ft,j<j ■.■s^».s4«isp»^ i">ii:iul-i'l<i $f!k-'.m&m. m.
■i ^i^miyi i&*s*iiMii>f
ima
8uah pricMia or that th« work tran re»'<ioiiA'bly worth the prieo
ohnrg<?Ml th«r«f(ir« >liile upon no phoeo of tho eeao do m> flaA
that plaintiff ^ms ontitXed to a JudlipBont for suOh An naountu
«nd it ia conoedod th^it it ia "^atitled to aoaethlng, kv oiin not«
in tho obaonee of «4<»qtt»t« proof on the dubjoet dctonRino tho
amottnt thereof*
Jlolthor pmrty Reewa to hwro oompliod »ith the agroo-
ment* Tho Brehitoot did not oanpute tho -veltte. as roquirod
to do and@r the oentraet. "hf a«r«^ly tstj^ting the nonher of h^ri
of l«hor required for tho «ork withaut stating *h'«t M)uXd bo
ft ro«)aeinnhlo ooapene <^ tlon for it* '^'e think piftiatiff waa
entitled to a rehs^onahle eoKpenoation for suoh work* and mio-
eonoeirod its; e«»o hy failure to iR&ke proof thereof* But
defendant «a« not entitled to a JuJ^^nt en the theory that
the "irehitect had o««plied irlth the a^reem«tnt tif f iKiag tho
To-ltto of the work, ond ^at the next stop irao one for
Qirbitrstion und^r the contract* Accordingly 9g think tho
JttdgjBont should be reversed, and a« there is not suff ioient
OTldenoe from uSiich w«? ean fix %hit r«'»son«ble oonpenoation for
oaoh vork, tiae o«ii£>« ishould be reminded for another tri&l*
axiA3LtyjpcJUxX}LjpcjuiJLatAX)axijpc2:&l^s«au^^
Morrill and Gridley, J J . , concur.
, -»v «♦«> > * -
^1•|^ss3J^>»(
199 • 2718« \
▼••
J'
VDHXOXl'Al. CCfUT
\ f Of CHIC ,100.
In jKauory 19ai. plaintiff (appcllMit} brougM milt
la the M.ualel]p«l Csurt •€ Chle.-iii^o, ftl«i9ila^ a bi»l«A«* vf
1:^9 .44 ^t on e e«rtcila trade of s(0UHMbllc8n«(te ttn Deeeabor
24» 1930* Flaintlff Alleged in bl«( («tend@«l &tHt«a«nt of claln
tbet •» that d^jr d«f9iidaRt far<iih:n«ifid «f h.im an i«984 01d«n«»l»ll«
cur at the agreed prle^ of tlOSH; that In part pttymant thert-
fer plaintiff received |3Se»$)6 In OA»h Had an tta«d Fard ^«AHn
ear at the agraed prloe af I^BM; itnA that 4l«f«ndfVBt pnmlMd
ta pay B,iitl<i Imlanae «^l«h h« fnlXed t« 4a. rMit^vAiAnt, fdao
wfe» a mlnoY »f 18 ye©r» of as«» ent®r«'i hi» «p?>«j rftae« \j
attorney, sn£ Etu1»&$ fluently Xd«> ;otaia» mothar of (LefondF/nt*
appe«!$red i»a hlo next frln^nd an<l f Had mt »fri<$4iiirlt ef marita
and a etat^WQnt of elaln of »«-t-eff • In the laitiar d«f9nd»ntc
¥y 8«^ia naxt frl«a4« 8s«t arth the ffe$t of his halng a minor
•ad furthar all«g»a In wubdtanea that on d«o«Tn'fl«r f?4* 1920,
Ht the tiai« of «0l4 trade, plaintiff praitlttied nad a«[r«ed thi^t
Ahnuld hlo Oldemohlla oar prova ttaw^^tlnfr otory to defendaat
wlt^la 30 days after trial and «««, and u|>oa def«»nd»at returainif
Bi«sld o»r ta plaintiff within Ui»t time, he (plaintiff) would
ratura to defend sat »mXd oash oub and said Ford ear; ^int
d«fend»nt, confi«ilag In piaintiffe f>r«wBia*!, delivered aftid
<!(&eh otMB «^d j^ald f&i'd o&r to plaintiff, la f^xchaaco for
^"ttS;
:Yi^'i ■.V'*'
-2»
plftlBtiff** 01dnu»Ml« car; that plaintiff** oat mt^r not In th«
eoBdltlen &• r«pro s«nt«<i nnd w»a tend«r«d ana returned to plain*
tiff within 24 hears hot r«ftto©d 1^ hl«; aad thftt plaint iff « not
r«g«rdlag hi* proaloo* hAS not^ although often reqn«st«d» r^Uimod
to deft-ndnitt said Ferd enr* of the THlue of ^JOUt^ or snid cnah
eufli» or any pj»rt thertiof , Intt ht&o r<}foa<^d, end »till rcfuoeo* so
to do* i'l&lntiff • in his affldfiTit of meritn to SRld olela of
•«t-off denlod the ciir.ority of d<'ffadftBt, the vulue of the lord
ear in cxeeas of >1&!^, isaklng anse wf^rr^nty to <3«fend0nt n» to
the tildaaobile e&Tt or ti.ny in(i«bte'ines« to def^ndnnt* The oniase
WC6 tried hefor© the court without a Jury. At the concluoion
of all the i^ridenoe j&nd before th» court hwi iudiojeted the findinf«
pla-iatiff moved that the salt h^ diranis&ed« which motion wae
denied* The eoart found the iofmee against ^Inintlff on his
statement of eleiA, tmi in favor of d@fe>BdsAt on hifl olaia of
oot-ol'f and ae^oaned {)«?f endAnt*g< (} >Biug<is at the eim of ^1&*^6,
nrhlch is thd. total satount of 8:iid «?r>flh turn end the agreed toIuo
of the yord oftp. After notions for a nev trl&l and in earept
of Jttdooent Yore ot«rrttled, judipient was entered acoiact plain*
tiff in s«^ld e&m of #81^^*56, and he fepi^oelad*
After rairiewins the eyi<l*»noe «» »ro arAtlofioA that
on the merits of the ea,a« the finding and Judgnont «er« right
and should not he disturhed*
Countfol for plAlntlff m».)a & nusih^r of teehnieal
points as groui^s for a reveraal of tlw Judgnent* «^i<A we have
eonsidered end a^em to he without merit* The court did not «rr
in r«fttslnc plaintiff 'b action to diaaiias the tmlt ut the close
of all the oTidenoe, d«?fendr«nt having int»?rpo»«d a plea of set-
off. (Prsjetloe Aot. Ohap. 110, oee. 48, Cahill's 6tat., 19:31) •
The defendant did not eoaaent to the Motion. So good e««ce who
ehovn for Ottoh diaalooal. (c^t X o^ -^ ■'''■^% ^ ^« Louis ▼. T>MiR»la
lOS 111* 4$3)2 and no alDttse of the eourt*B discretion in the
.t^i>tMM 1^ mm ^ ^m^^^i* ' ■
S: <,}- ■. v» ;•.>»..--
' 3^
KAtter «pp«Ar«, ( ftnUoy ▼ aoriielijL . 146 Hi. v7«^). counsel
eont«ad*( tbat tliB fnct tJiiitt 4e.t«nd.&nt» » nioor, ikpp«;iir«4 tgr
«»tt«rii«3r la aweh wrrer »''» w; rronte « rcwrBel ©f the Judgment.
^iBiilm it is tnac) ^et h* did ee appeajr, his mAthnr afterwurdis
•9peair«d ns^ hie nejct frien^^ laiUl f iX«a an ikffiilaTlt ef merits
&aA ab nffiasvit of elstm ef fD^t-oft in Isia I6«balf. ^.hc ceuid
properly do thia without eny pretviouo apptviataent by th« onurt*
(Uhap, 64, o«to, 18, Utthill*ia at^t, IV^il). **iile it does not
of pear thot •hft, hs a«*3tt friend, ent^rr^C iat* m bond for costs*
no reqtt«et of htr to fllo ono wat' ffis<ie, iPJJd »uch filing is not
e. juri3dlotion«il requir«Bi*rnt, (|I l ioof,jB jSSB,S1SA 4* £2.» ▼•
iaiiwjr., 1^ 111, l€Sj leltteore %. ..fchjo ^..^ »» h^ go, t. legjjj,
X8S 111* 40^}* Ai^ if tjhi«r« mm 01^ ir-"e^leritgr it vfts «i;iT«d
by plaintiff pX^'adisK to th« trerito of the elai» of »et-off •
furthexiBore, In our ^ti^tnte of *^MR«eti«s@nt» uad JI&ofr>il8*
(C^»f. 7, <^oc, 6, CaMll*8 .>tot, I9ai) it is in part provided:
"Jud^ent 0lu?.ll not be nrresited or ati^yed
after verdi<!t« nor eJirll nny <wdg»ent Mpttn T^rdtet
or finding hy the omsj't, * ' bo i?evere«»d, l]ii9itiir««d«
or in &ay «isy ef fasted, hj r^osif»n of s^ny of the
follQwiBjst ijaperf ectionu, oaii^aions, 'iisfects. Matters
or tilings in the ^roeei?*, glerjiiaage, pro«««dingo or
records, sisaiely: * *
j^ifechth . For the I'oafson thrt th« pers^a is
^ose favor the rerviiet or ^i«dig»e«t is r^n^srod io
w& inffitnt, i.«d ftppfefired ^ nitomey,*
The ^udpsont of the Sttniolpal Caurt is ofiinROd*
B«i2n«o« t. J*» and Xorrill, J,, eoaoar*
.■'•'ft Ittintr
^.%i>>!rfti*2tf, ^It
i»"'V j'.n' ft
2M •
?71«
Levies »omjUi}mu And
-if
t) r
645
CIHCUIT coua?,
COCK, CCOJSfTY.
\/
On Kajf 36« l^Sfl, In sm «etioR brought 1»y o«*ip3.A iBiMits
(«pp«ll««i«) against Julia F. Burtiiek and fathers to foreelose «.
trust 4«e4 oa @«i't«Llii preftiHei5« %im @lr«tttt Cm>rt ftf Cook Cf^unty
ontertd * dsersa Af •»!«, finding th t ^«r« «« si due e«»s))S>l«inaats
th« ffu« of |3.1«g74*46« nlso |600 »s reM$«n&>lo iiolleitoir*f foes
sad eertaia en«t«« and dirft^tiag thf^t, ttal««» thd oaid naettata
««r$ pciid withla 3 dRjra* t)M pr««ise» b« »ol(t« <^to« on Juno S«
19^1, Hrs. ^rdiok filed her nwora |»ct&iioa in ^hioh* «ift«r
making eertaia all^gntionst she i^n^yed for tk* viacHtion of oaid
sS«er«e sad thi t e<»pli»iin»nt» Imi r«niaired t© scceft fro» hiar tho
ojBouat found du® th^e ia a |>riftr iieeroe enterod ^sf thie court ia
■f^id e3U&« on Mj«.rota 31» 19ai* No an^^wor to »ei<ii pc^titiea sf^^no
to haro fesen f ll«4, Imt oa tla© sisme day an t^ffidatYlt of
noffipXAinsunte* »oliQitor «na filod, in vkioh ho alleged that
certain ototOBtoate ia Mm poiitioa. ia rofore-aoo to petiiionor'o
(SoaT«rs!^tioa with rin oa Ray 20, 1921, were aot true la oertaia
pertieulBTO. m certifieato of sTidenoo ^iag eontaia«td ia tho
present reoord, the alcove fe^tsta ws. to said p^titioa aad effidttrit
are taken from V» ei«>rk*B transeript. Oa the ««»« day, Juao
?d, the eottrt» aftor a he^^riag iiartioipatod ia hy oouaael for
th« reap«!CtiT« partiea, oatorod aa order deayin^ the prayer of
the petition, ©ad on Juae ll'th, oa iBotion of the selieitoro
*4f ifer
r\ ^"i' C*^
^•J:
•2«
for Krs. Bttrdiak, #nt«r«d Dm f«Il««iii<7 trtfaj^
*JM tkpp^tkl 1« prajrtd froi the deewe: of »«.!•
h«ir«'tof«r« «at<^r«d in this enu8« on Vmy ;?6, 19S1,
•Ad froB ths Ardc^r of the court ontered h«r«in on
Jttxt* 2« 19^1, <ii?nying the pruyor of the petition*
fil«<l Jano lit 1931, » * ti.nA said app«»l is hereby
allowed tt|>on the aef«ndnAt giving bond in th« sus)
of |5,00<l within a; <i*ys I'rom thiis dnte, eertifiexto
of evidence is ZO dstys,*
On Jtino £^Oth, within the time elletMid, Krs. Bardiek
filed her ftppeel bond in »»ftd Clreuit Court end the e«jM wue
npparoTod. From th« bond it Appe(».re that her appeal wns only taJcia
froai eaftd decree of liny 26, 19ai, And an exisxlnatlon of tjM
errors ftKstgnod 1»y htr vn t\9 triMieeript do ftot dis«loi»e th^t
any error i» s>«^iiigned «*» to ©orrectneoe of the deoree* The te*
aasimnaeontB ar« in eu^etaneo (l) error of the court in net
lyxtending the %imp for her to pay the temtmnt provided for in the
decree, and (2) the f^lMr# of the court so to do under her
petition of Svtne ^d \»tis ''an aUiee of diseretien,"
On October 14, 1931, iitt&r the 0'«»e hnd been dookoted
in this apoellato ^nirt, the ei^apl&inanta (appellees) filed a
irritien notion to dianiaa the «pye*l or t« sffina the &9Wm«t
supporting %im siotioa with aug^j-estione. Counter oaggeKtiona were
filed ms. tho motion w? « rmnifT^efi to the hOArlng,
It is the ralo ttuit affidavits, reed in conm ctlon with
• motion to !»et ^side a doeroo and eopied into the record liy the
elerk eonnot be eonei^ored hy « reviewing oourt where not made «
part of the record hy a oertirie<ate of evidence. (Lafuee v. £ezer«
195 III, 420; Bel lin|c«r ▼. BHrnos , 225 III. lai, 134.) A» heforo
stated there it no certificate of evldene* in Uxe preeent
tr&nOertpt*
It is also the mlo that no tiTr%m will bo considered
by a reviewing cowrt bnt &xich »« fcre »SKie9»ed upon the rtcord.
(Oit^ V. aennott, 116 III. a»S, 291.) % find no aesignnent of
«3«
error e&lXiag in question the propriety or Ju«tnoee of th« said
Aooroe, It io only urged th&t i.h& f>?iXurc of tho enurt to oxtund
the tise for Kro. Biirdiek to poj tho fiaiount of th« isoroc «««
sn »^eo of tho aaurt*e disoretion. >i'o hftre* HewcTor, oxwoinod
tho Tar ion » pleadings end ord«ro in th« er..Mc« th« prior d^eroo
sontioneiil* Urn, 9urdlek*fi petition asd tho ftff idarite In relation
to th« ss«e« sa contained in t^o ol^rk*o troaoeript, «ad hoTO
ftloo roftd tho priAt«rii luriofs t&nd i^rgwsents of re«p<*etiyn ceunsola
and «e &re ua»blo to see vh«r«la th«! e<>urt was guilty of any
aluae of disoretion stst eoat«n4«d« The decroe oheuld 1ft« siffinoed
;iisd it io 80 ordered*
»raes, P. J., and Morrill^ J», ooneax^*
84> • 2780d
)
\
/ ) OF CHICAGO,
this ie an »pp«al froM » Ju^^ant, r«ntler<Rd July 13*
19S1, 1»7 t)i« Maniolpitl Court of Chi«>'3^o» thut piftinli/T r«6*T«r
tram 4f>feadiaat« M:p«. K. 8* ;4iit)i, tl^ p««»«»8iett «f eertAln
presisee kndwn «8 Apart»«nt «^ an %h« Zv4 fl<»«r »t Be. 644S
/illi* AT«att«» CMe^^t «w«l tli»t • writ ftf restitution iesue
ther«for. Tliw «rai^« w*s CQB}96cn«e<2' #b Jaae 9* l@21.« Ijy th«
filing of ft ismaplwiftt Ui for«ll»i« (letalm'r» hoA »e» tried
before tho g^htX wlth^mt • J»ry, r««ttltl»ff in the eourt findiinf
d«feadaat guil^ of ttolAwfully nrithhoXdiag fren plaintiff tfeto
posceossieii of th« itresiuoB Hnd thf^t th« ri^t to ^ueh po«o««sion
«ri»» in him.
On Felsmary HO. 193^, « Brrlttoa l«5»«« of tl>t
proiBiooo w»9 oxftt^ite^! l»y IaIo liJilltjr, "lay !S« ". n»8o«lX A Co.,
»m5to»,* m8 l«-?!8or, »i»d fey 4«f«ndKnt, »hb ie»»ioe. The proaioon
wwi'e iftecrifeo* t)i«tr«iR »» *'Ap»Tt«iont 3 on tti<? 3r4 floor of
building koovm «s 644a -?Ui« Avonao in anid City of CJ-io^^^,
to be oesenpiod aol«ly &s s private ditwllinfr.* It Ofs preTi<l«d
Uu^i the looooe «$8 to l»ov« «n4 to hold tbe priwiiaoo *fro» the
i»t ^«i.y of Say, 1920, nntil the ^t)th dey of April, 1«J^1. on*
fr©« ye?itr to yo*r there«if ter. until this l^a«e eholl bo
torninateA at the enS of the firoi or of «ny euhoetfieat yeer
by either party giving to %h« other not less than sixty (<IC)
Irist •fftfki'
*u
days prmrimin B«ti9<!r In t^ritlng tif nmeh UminsUeR.* Ott Cctiiber
$• X92^), La4«t %13il«^r« le£$s(»r» 'ais^i^^e'd in ^rltln^ am th« l»»ek of
th« l«t<its« All of hl« inieir«8t In th« Xe«r!r>g aitd ia ih« rents
sBOureit thereby to %te pialntiff , JniM ^ust&nich, c^n #«T5ru«ry
10# 19S1, tli« <S«?fs?i4fmi ws-a pevMormXly served- with tli« folloving
written RAiico: by »n etepioyej' of the r««l iHBtBt* flsw of
*To Mr«* is:. }('• Jmttht LeiMmeii
Jmk »r« toer«t>y notified thnt the le^ee, dflts*
Febniary S84 193C', nf the prejaie«« known anri 4@!^cribftd
ft« foli«wBj 3rd flaor, «445'- Kilts »v«*aia, l»etween
lisla Killer f(e»l®a«*l to J»*i» Ja^tinich a» lesser f^nd
yi»ure«Xf rs l««ss«e, wad ycmr inter«»t thei*^i» &»
).es»««, will t^'jsBinRt® on the .^tfei ©f April I9'il.
'Slii* n«ti€« is giTen parstt^nt t& tfe» tr^vinien f*r ft
elxty d«y {^tie« la said 1*'*'.*:© eoat»lii«d Rad j^ell
B»t ofKf^rste as s natver by lessmr «f sny ©tlier iird'vlelon
th«?reln a«ntain«4l«
Itetea thlJi Slat toy ©f jRjittary, 1921,
(iiigflft-d) By '■'. '■'• .i*8s«li as Gf», (i-ifrnea) Jehn Justinieh,
i*ily ri»tjj©rl«®4 Ag«ttt. L«iiisor»*
It »3pi|«ar« frcaa titss >^ill &t esoeptleas that d^f^endr-nt**
att®r»«y ©^4^*^^^ *® *^® 4Btr»ittett9« ef tfel® *y'itt«»n noti««»,
»t«tlag ia »abetit»e« (1) tJif?.t it i* 4«fftctiv« tn th; t it feils t«
mufflsi^ntly de^Grib« %h0 pr^vi^erty ^et out in tJ*i l«?)*i?e or in th«
e«»,pl»int, BHsrely ststinir "3rd fa,«<5r, «448 gllia fet^nH*** end not
st&tiae th« city or pise*, «aid (8) tlif»t tiSH? giving of such a
notice to terminate ift tlie oxeroioe »f » fowsr «nd«r luai option
given to either j^^rty lay tho torso of tJio l«ase, »«d that stt«to
fower jsast be «xereis«d ia «ritia|E "tey the p®rty» or ^ l»l« agoat
in writing of tor Jmfiag ^©n daly mjtfeoriaod Jja writing Vy ■«•>»
j^arty* the eourt Ba»itt«!^d tho notice In irvidenoo*
It »?m»r« fr«B the tes'ttoonj that f*,. C. i^ttoooll A Co.
wero th« KUth©ri8<jd renting fi«<^nto of tho ©iiortaent building »t
6443 SlllB QToimft, 0blc*ig« huA "hondlod" e^ll iwtioes for ploin-
tiff, tho e«a«ir; th^t during tht; nonth of J»nB««ry, 1921* plain-
tiff ▼©rl&olly notified ^, C» *i»3«ll to tormiRitto oil lcs4»oo;
?),/ ■• . f\^fM.ni '
■^^mi'^oX.u. i i*s^
•3-
that tk« ntmeB ap]^«rln« on »»ld noUee, *jr«hn Jlistinich* I«»««x>*
f>n(i *i» "• >^ft««Il A Oft., [ittly authorixcid vcantt" «c^rt 0laiiBd Iqr
« ytmng mmmn rnnploye^ laRdvr iht? ln»tructlQB» of said H« C«
;^«s«Xl; tht^t ht no t&M« did i^lftintiff , ..s leefcor* Kl<re sair
Mithflrity j^g wriiin/t to rtsy oaf> to »ign said notice; And thAt
defendant, ^.t th* tine of %he trif^X ■nt.i^ (;till in ]^B«oo«ien of
the proaiioeft.
7h(^ two points B«'ic by ii^f «n«^sint' « eeun»<sl on the
triftl <iiro hsrc a^:aia pj'^Hf^Ai^d ^md r,rpi«d !^t» grounds for a
rerersal of the jtidj^eat. tja^sr tHe fmcts ai»«;lo««sd and nndnr
tisto Xn» V9 dflon th«rn io ^<? i^ith<«it laerit*
A» to this firs^t i^int* «hll(i it i% tm«f t^«t in the
notiOA, sftsr t>» disaoription of the pr«ai»»s ,%8 •-Si*d floor »
6442 Jillie Ar^nMe," the ^mrd "GhiOiRgo* do^a not ft|»p«&r# y^X
«'&ntion is mi^m of the i?"®»«, th** ^-ute tto«reof, the ij^rtioo
thereto mad diif^n'U\nt*» interest therein &«> l«sf^oe« In tiao
l^aee the i^artisttljsr agreement le«s«-d ie rtfe«;orilM''0 *;,9 being
in CHloago* In S fc ^ ^F»i>«»l.itii!n| .Met ijjde M^X* ^^y« Ce « v, ££2«£ti£»
199 III. Ap9« 451. it i9 a«C'i«!r.d ths^t a no tie«! to terminate a
Icfcse is &uffici4^tit if the le&ee ie prcipvrXy designated eten
thotsrJi the pr«»*»f« ere not »a«BcriWd, ¥e think xhut the notieo
in eneoties* ^en ro»d is eoonf^etion ^th ^th* le&»«« de»«riWd
the pr«mie<^e with «*ch «trt«iiafcy thst defen^iRnt could not ^o
aisled tM vs-is. eaffleient, {?.A Syo. 1^33.)
Ac to ttk<i seeonJ point* c<mn^«ei roliea on the 2nd
esction of our •Tratidi! and :^*rJ|urio«" Aet (S Jonee *. Add, i^iUkt*
p* 317&« S'ee, !&d68} -'-«1ti^ reads i^ts follows^:
*lt action ehiilX "be brought to ehiijrgs finy pereon
mi^n any eontrrict for the »nie of lands « tenements or
he»««Jtts^ent« or !*aj int'^rest in or eonoeminK them,
for e lonffsr t«r» thaua one yoFir, unlesse euoh eontraet
or »o»« «»«:««>»• an<suf» or not»i thereof sh-ll 19»» in *sriiiin«,
and (Signed \if the piurty to be ehargod therewith, or eoiw
other pereon thereunto hy him la^ully «Mthori2«d in
vritingf silfmeS >=y snch party. « « ••
\. V ■ ■
,P ^.ff jfci -; "1« an^vIi^J'
T**"
•4-
flAB •%atni« f)r«rl4ea unci<^r what eireai3tane«o an
ftgent*B liUthopity »tt»t b« in writing In ora^r to bind hi« vrinoi^Al,
nmLftlyt wiiere it is laouftlit by .♦»Gii©n to ch«rg« thr- prlnrlpa?, ♦Jip«n
c- cdBtjract .for th« nnXfs of lnn;)a* ten«isient« ftr h(«r«iilt*iir.:<»at& iir aay
interest in ©r eane^jmlRi^ th«m, for « lon««r t#rw thMj omi yfux,
•Meh la not tt» q-^ra here, Th« '^^fuiiisttion her<$ i»: Could pleia*
tiff T«rbjai7 siUhAria* hi a agents, 'u C, Huosoll & Co., to r.lgw
•ad merre on d»f«»n4«uait a 60 di>y»* notioe of tbe t«mln.<!>Uon of
h»v iensttcy? ^«« think h« oottia. In ^'hitg ■-■affl» Lauyl» |;,,Cp . ▼.
Slowlt * 296 III. «40, 243, It Is ssid: **1i«t«Tor a f p-rtf »»jr 4«
In hill o^m 9rd|«r j^erson he sey, in g^nsrifol. <io by »a Agent
lawfully a?{*oiB%ed sad »n Rgfcnt »ey be RppOlBt*;^ by parti to do
anythlniir tahieh ^ooe not v#^ir« th«r exocmtlen of ^ <^es<i for h&o
Iprincipel. H« »»y "be aatlaori»«§« by parol to utAt and «lf» contracta
in writing, - eroa fsontra^ts ^ich ar« not binding npon hia
principal anl««s In writing sai^ned by hiai.* in m^nton r. tokoo .
109 Kd, 117, thero uroe « 1 mbo u&d«x seal t?ith tho right ia ^litlwr
p®rty to termiai^tfi it «t tHo «nA of stay ter« *by giving at le«»t
60 days proTloao aoUc« tla«r»of ia writing." as bera, oneh wrlttoa
no ties of terminatioa ■m^n givoa ^ thts lisndlerd's sgont in vritiag*
aador Itia verbftl a«d not 3ai» irrittoa imtliority* fcnd the netlce
«r»8 %»XA sttf fie lent*
for tho r«i%8oaa incise t«d the judgnont of tte
ItaBieipal C^rt is affirmed*
Baraos, P. J., and Eorrlll, J,» 9oncur»
\l!ti-> ■'■-'
■tr V- ; ,-.,, v^-r r.r.
^Stt^ %«
iiS*aimi'
352 - 272X0
\
ALBXKT K, Si«OHl.SDin|,
AppvXleec
\^ / ) appbal prom
TB. \ / ) MUKiciPAi. cooar
\
On ttareh ac', ItSl, plaintiff, the In'lorftee and holder
of a pronisaory not<^, ciiUB«d ft judgB«nt tejr ooKPesaien to Is*
eBter«d on it ia the KanicipaX Court of Cbieagft agalnat thfi
defendant* the maker, for |XC^&«5a* The note i» dsted Janaarjr
27, X9SX« aad hy its terms the d^f^'fi^^uit, ^igniiif^: hie nane as
•J«o Aronfion,* jrrosileed to :^y to tho order of B^ihert a,
i'ottlagar. 60 days aftor dato, the svus of 1X000, for vaXue
reo«lT«d, with Intersst at tfi par mxram after Maturity. Ahora
defendant* e »i]?!:natur« wa* a oXfl«isa atttharising a»y attornoy of
any court af reoord to appaiur for defendant, at any time after
aatarity, and ooi^ess judgment for such fsrount as mi^t appear
unpaid thereon, together «ith e«)sts and $2S uttorney*B foes*
On the back of the note sppeR-rs the eignature of the pejree,
aohert A. irot linger, and ahOTe this signature ere sesie printed
words of gUfiran^, "but no words limiting or quaXifying the
«f feet of thst signature as an indo »««ient. : ubBequentXy, the
^udgsent wwa r»pen*<l and defend^^nt gixon X« v*? to file an
affidsTit of defense, the Judi^ient in the mf)i»ntim« io stand
as seeurity* on JuXy ^5, X92I, the OMuae was triad hefore thft
court without a jury, resulting in the court finding that at
the date of tJie rendition of the juigment ^ oonfeesion there
was dtto froen ti^ defendant t» the plaintiff the eald eusi of
S3S
^^B' ,A.I d
,mA^tm> •?■■'
j;>'S^i^j;,
1« firm? fei*i« ««a 'm^ia^AM *&«fe a^i^ «a'«^-
-3-
$1025. 3S, and eat«riag Judgnent that seld Jud«Bent by oanf«s«iien
stitnd eoaflTBied as of Uie date of Ita rendition. Befendsat
ap;;>eel«d«
Qn tha trial plaintiff offered th« aot« in avid»ne«
ftnd rottted. fhs defendant did not dispute %h« faet« thst dofendant
h«,d ai{;n«d th« notfi fis i»i«k<:^r kn4 h»d dellvared it to the pny««,
fottinger; th«t JPottinger»8 aij^aturw wjae on the baok of the note;
or that at the iiae ^udgKont wae eonfeseed plaintiff «hs the
holder of the note for value.
The defense in Bubt»tonee «»»« and the point ie here
again urged « th»t the printed ^ttrAs above the payee *8 (.iignatuure
en the bask of the note negatived the effect of that eignatare
ae an indorseneRt to paes title upon delivery to the plaintiff.
There is no si«rlt in the point. In seotione 50 acui il of the
negotiable In»trumente Aot of thie utate. in forae July 1« 19C7
(Cahill*s atat, l'^^. Chap. 93, sees. »C and »!} it is provided:
^An in3trui«i«int i<» msgotiated ishen it is transferred
fron one pereen to another in axioh manner as to oonotitato
the transff?ree the holder thereof; if payable to bearer,
it i» negotiated by delivery; if psyable to ordpr* it is
negotiated by the indoraottent of the holder, completed
by dellVKry,"
*'flM indorseaient flmet be nrritten on tiw instrvsnent
itself or ttpon a paper attached thereto. The oignaturo
of the in^ioreer, with-sut »d litional words, is »
sufficient inaorsewent and th« addition of words of
aai^igianent or ef guaranty uh&li not negative the
additional effect of the eignfeture n.e an indor«e»ent
unless otherwise expressly otated.*
The Judgneat is affinsed,
Barnes, I*. J,« aai Kerrlll. J., ooneur*
*H^
7 ^^f'H'i; « «.?•!*
a73 • 37331
/
/
*»P.ii... t$'6IA. 646
ir»,
TOM S/aUHTOfO0L0i», f., r^ABK, ^/ ) OF CHICaOO,
/!
WiiT UARAM?O«)«L0il, CMRY ,.
f AISH mnA UOWilti HQM, daing / )
Imsinena as B, fHAMK & CO., / )
Thia is an appeal \)y defen<l«Bta frcM • judipgieBt
r«uderftd agt^iiiBt th«»s on April 38, If 21, 1^ ^« Kunicipal
Court of Chictigo* upon a dir«fit»d verHict In faTsr of ^lftln~
tiff in a forcitol^ dstftUMir motion wherein plaintiff sought
to reoov<»r the poseesaiea of <:«rtain preaisee in Chlea^
de8erl1»ed in th« e^iplftint t>.6 tbe *2itor«« b«a«B«nt 4Uid
second floor of preniees loe«te<i ut 910 eet lAndoljph atroot**
tlw T^raiet, H9 dlraoted after a trinl npon the serita. vaa
that dafendtints vortg guilty of unlawfully withholding tho
IpoaaeaaioA of th« pr«Kia«a frcai jplsilntiff and th t tha right
to ^< i^08»«8s:i0B thereof wi&a in her* and the ^udfptent <rtiioh
followed «&a in the usual fom.
On J&mxnrj 1« X9^, plaintiff hy isritten instrument
les^eed the preniaea to Tom iSarcuntepouloa fr<wi th>t date to
April 3C, 192S, at a uonthly rental of |2ac for the firat four
montha of ^e tern and thoreafter &t J225 per auinth, to toe
9e<!Upied for a "oonmLaaion Imalaeae* Mdae rmd fruit.* The
leasee took po)»@eaaiott at the ^maeneoaent of the tena. la
the fourth elsiuae of the lease he eoTonanted that he would
not sub- let the preaiaes, or any part thereof, or aaeign «w
lease wlthaat the written oonaent of the lesaor toeing firat
h«A« iPlftiatiff elateed on the trial that the Icaaee Tiolated
.i^%
»:;» 3-.- ,4^' J?.':
*i»
this «0Tcm«Bt bjf Ancigning tlM» lonoc to eth«r partiaii without
hsr written eonsMOt* Tha «Ti<leiie« diaelosvd thnt »te«it
tf«roh 1» 1931, Ton j-ar»ntopoul(»a turned oT«r th« letiHir to
his brsthcr, (Hist. ii»r&nte]»oulo»( nnA to £• VrtMk, Cttrry
Velsb And Morris H«»e, duing ^ains«$8 a» '.• Vraak A Ce.«
•ad that thoy then ««nt into possession of* end thereafter
eondueted e Itusinese in« i»h» premises. On M" reh Bth, plein-
tiff oansed a written notioe^ addreseed to Tmi anrentopoulos
nt 910 #• Fiiandolph street* ChlOAgOa to be serred hy her
husband, George rsinouli», npon Carry 4'alsh ptsreenally, oho
eras then in the treatises snd &p^nrentlf in chf-rge thereof*
In this notiee attention wes 4i}-«eted to SKid fourth clanse
of the lenso end to the feet ths 1 a«Utd leseee h»d hre««hea
that eoTOfiftnt, and ehove pl«inttff*a eien&ture to the notioe
it wos stated thet she hsd "ele-itc^ to dett^rmine your lease,
SAd y«*u ore notified to niuit tmd deliif<sr up pfisneaaion,* et«.
to her •within tea dsys of this date." the noUce en its
fnoo W8« dated "this 7th day of March, /*. B. 1931. • On If&roh
2Srd plaintiff erased a written notioe tn ht serred hy her
said hushend upon Oust i:orKBto|«>ttlos3, '• FrMik, Carry i*»lsh
and Morris Koee, per«oii*lly, in which she demanded tho
lausediato p08ses«ion of the prt^i»»os (deanribing theai), and
on Mar^ 26th she oomBisneed the present action.
It further appears froan the eyidenee that on
Itareh 3rd the defendants, other than To« aarantopoulos* eausoA
a eheok for #S3S, signed hy Carry ^alsh and auet Sarantopeuloa
and drawn on a hank in which they hed funds, to he »ent In a
reglEtered letter addreeeed to plaintiff, in payment of tho
rent of tho prewisee for the »onth of Mereh, 1921, whioh
eheok, thota^b n^rer eaehed by plaintiff, has not been
reeeiTod baeh by said defendants, and that George irsisioulis.
sis-
§M l»mS^»^::
»0 im-
;'s«^' flfJ^;!^-
/^frghSEJOC
■^m^mmsi ^M m
^ ''*: .iA ^ J-' i*ii..U.Jb i
-s-
InabAnd of plaiRtiff, at all Ua»B aoUd as hvr agent in
drafting laaaae, ••lleoting tha nonthlv r«i»tB and managing th«
property* According to the testlanny of Carry Vnlah and other
of defsndento* wlfenesaas Q^org% FaijMuilie Tiaited ttie premiaoa
on M^Toh 4th» saw the elgn "S. Vrtaxk % Co,*, inquired what it
n««ait and alao str.t«(! th^it hla wife hnd recoivati eald ch«ek
Of $235 by reglst«red letter; thj't he wbb infonsed that eald
defeadaatSa other than Ton bbrantopoulo»a had taken eT@r the
latter *a leasee, and th^t thereupon iPeivoulla atated thfit he
had no objeetion to then an tenaato* as it made no <Jifferenoe
to hia whether they or Tom paid the rent ae long --.a he recelTed
it hy the 5th of eooh month; ihs't f'siaeuliB thereafter aaa one
or more of said def endantK every doy until Maroh ZZr^t when
he aerred aeid d^siand notiee upon then; and th^At said notiee
w»8 the 1 irat intlasttlon th«y had rsaeirfd th»<t the poaaeaeion
of the pr@aisea hy them w&3 not ao^eptahle to plaintiff*
taineulia denied making the atttt«Bant on UhTtih ith, or et any
other time, to the affect, as testified hy defend ante, th^t he
cckneented to the tr&nsf«5r of the lease to defendanta and tJieir
heing in posses >ton and paying the rent in the future.
It la contended by aounael for fiefc-ndanta that the
Ittd^aent ahould ^t reversed hecrmae the leasee, T«« Uarantopouloe*
vae not given 10 dsye previoua notiee of the teminntion of the
tenancy, as reiuired by section 9 of -h« Landlord aad tenant Act.
The arguseat ia^ aa wo und^-ratond it, th«t a«id notiee vn» dated
on •fcareh 7th* &nd gald lessee wua notified to quit and deliver
up poeBeeaion *«ithia teu Aaya frcjB thia date," th«t the no tie*
wfis not actually aerved until Uurch 8th, and thsrefare only nine
di^ya notiee 9nQ aotually given, Ther* is no nerit in the
ooatention, "aie leasee wcs given wore then ten daya notiee; the
action «r^ e not eoaimenoed until Maroh ^6th.
ife5»Vi
r-'^l-Hf.lAZn ^0 ^u'i^fftM
't.»#fe«H»ltij»t' la
; «?*■©■ «»*
iH'.t.:
Mi imt-
• 4-
It Is further eoat<^fid«d tiiet under th« cttBfXietiag
•▼iden«t« i>.H to whciber Dw oImusc in th« laaas ftf^nintt anjr
assicpmenl. without tbm lf>atior*8 written ooaftent had b«en
«RiT«(S, the trial eourt erred in diroctiHK » Terdiet for tlM
pXslatiff at the oleee ef aXi the eviacnee* « are af the
epiiQlon, after n eeaHi'i«r»tlon of the drldenee-, thf t the eri^usa
ehnuld hare been pns/>ed upon hy f^ ^ury tinder appropriate
in^truetions and th^t the eourt wns not w^^rrenied in dlr«ctiag
the JTJiry to retwrn a verdict in favor of s>lftintiff. It is the
law of this state that a olattse in a X«a»e th»t the a&Me ahall
not be c^&igned without the written asisent of the XemeoT is for
the benefit of the lee»«r only* thet euoh an iisBignnent other*
frlse miKle is not obs4Iateljr void, but TOld^bie only ut the
option of the lei}i»or or hit repree^BtatiTe* and nay be waived;
»nd thttt any aot done by the 1 (milord » or by his duly auitierised
agentt kaowing of aaeh eause or forfeiture by the tenant*
affiraiag the existenee of the Xen&e smA reoegnisiag sucda
assignee as his tenant, is a vraiver of suoh forfeiture*
( Webster v, giehol e, 104 ill. 160; KTTKWm^J* ^^^^^ft^Aa
17» 111. App. 585. ode.)
the jud^ent of the Munlelyal Court is reversed
sad the e»use reaanded*
Barnes « I'. J., end Mo rr 11 i.« J«, concur o
■:^rf«
*1C9i^« l'^^^^i'««A^^ fiJUi' ||»«N» ioM ^%kik^
ist>ssi^r9*#s» %i&i^ (114 td' «« ,fc«*«wt,^«f^£ •fell? xc ■'■:iss am^
*ii»sp; •:•.-*■--- -- ■ •- ■-- ^ ••"■■- "^r '-aa^fsix* #«[a' 'js.t.mi;'*'*.*?
*-?.i.-S!nv. ;. , .: it'vt^ Jl^m
J-)i5.>r7
800 • 27250
atTTTOJI WO, CO.,
a corporation,
App«llot»
)
▼•<
MAI«ir-.C?tJHllia CO., I
a eori^r»ti«n« ^i
Appoliaati. /'
/i
09 CHICAOO,
Ml, WifXCS OiifiUL^ DSWVmsgB tm Oi»XHIOK Cf tHS COtJOT.
On valgus t 1Q» 1931, in th© ^Isovo entitled ot^uoe, an
ordor wi».a entered la tho Mtinioipal Court of Chiee^go etrikin^
fr«n the filoa on th@ grnund of its ln««iffioien(^ '6:^fen'H&t*a
wmtnAed idTidarit of morite to plftlntlfl *8 statement of elAis*
«Ad entering 4a<l|pRent »«ain«t defendant l»y d«'fa»lt for <»fm% i^f
«B «ffi4»Tit of werita or Sefonso in th« &vm of $l||128«10a tiio
«BOiiBt el&iaed l»y plaintiff* The eol« qp«stion InTolved in
tfeiio appoal io «heti3«r si»id ^^ffidftrit states eueh a good «aA
fluff ioisnt d«f«nse to plaintiff *» olaiA »» varriinto » tri«Jl
on tks neritt* Plaintiff has not appeiired »nd filed ^ny briof
and arguasoat is this appellmto caurt*
Tlio action* whioh io one of the flrftt cleoe in
eontraot, was eommenood on Mny ^5, 1931« Froa plain tifl*e
•tatonont it ap o^crs that its clekim is for Ikalaaeo du« on
aeeount of certain M«r<diHBdlso or ohenioal cnspounde, o^lled
*^t-llot»* sold and delivered to defendant at it« requost
•n tlfco dates oi^itified in Bxliibit A, att&ehed to plaintiff**
statement and aiade a part thereof, Msonntin^ to H054.60,
and eioertted Interest froa ii«ce»ber 15, 191^. -r-id Bxhiblt k
disoloses Tariaus dellTerios of the merchandise fro* Oetoher
a a T ?i <! <?
(-5^ ,<?I,
i
,.^}Jilii^^
I5X
^©•^.OMtsQ *aa-i.'; -3BiJi*;iusu;i.sfe* ajw^iius-t 4,4'{™M.3£.'ii
•2«
Xl« 1913« t» P«^e«K^«r I5« lOlv to ritefomdnnt and T«^rl«us payBi«Mt«
a^de I17 fiefend^nt nnd the balfzn««', to i«hi(ih is tidiftd th« aua of
#73.50 for interest* A a romp any Ing th« fitstomeat of eltilai is the
sffidaTit of plaintiff** ngont lAat tho tot^X wm <itt* audi unpaid
i« #lX2d.iO,
tJ«f«n4»»t «^rii«rP(t its a]pp«.ir«UEifi« «n(i <lensiiia«d a Jury
trial* end. on Jtea« I60 192X, filed ite «iffidAVit of oierits l)]r
its president, faltor K. ^arl«, wMefe gffidsidt wris 1»y order of
OQurt etrickea from tH« filos an SvtXy 15th« and ^^fendant givvn
Ici^-re to filo »n N»«nd@d ci^ffidatrit of merit«», whlob it oubactfuontly
Aid bjr its president*
Xn the «Ri«adod affid^rit of leeritm d«f«'ndant admits
tho puroh&so of thu "ttot-Btet* »t the various datoa n^ntionod* \Mt
«T«rs that plaintiff »« «tetem«B«t of «l»te ^0<f8 bp" ^SfeJS* show
retttms of eertaia of th« n«rohimdis« to plfiintin for 9ihioh
defendoat shield hfcfo reooi^od er«dit. It is t en ayerred in wal*-
«tane« thet on or sb^ut < sto>»er 1, 19ia, aefencient «sr.t«red liite «
contra oi with plaintiff to tet e» «» exatesiYe salos ftgeat ond
dietri^tor of *i;Jttt»ii«t* thr*^ug:h«ttt tho 'Jnit«?d ^t«t«» for BO
years, andtr the t«n8» of wtilch <i©fend©Bt «ndePt«olt to advcrtiao
»nd develop setles wt Ito exp«>n«e, while plaintiff on its psrt
«gr«ed to deliv««r s«id «€raha.ftdi80 of uniform grode osA qiu-^lity to
fill orders ofet»ined \gj defendant; th^it d@fend»at «xp«nd«?d largo
mt»e la sdrertieiasa hirln,- saletieten, ote,, in the promotion of
sales » ftnd aa a result th«reof »nd hy its efforts a nritional
di&trilnution wes offect^d and orders 0lfe>taiB«fi within three montho
to an i»nrtuat «xe«j®<tin^ @A^,vOOi thet lay the substitution of
inferior materialo platnUff delivered o l«rge supply of the
fflerohandise of inferior qtt@4ity end ?5^:fond.>nt reoeirod ee«pl»ints,
and mfsny "repeat orders* were oancelled by its oustMierB and ma^
shipment* refused bee«ns« the ^(URlity of the merchandise wse not
■mH 9Mi
V *IS^»« +i*'i'ti*iBii.
i- %";
3D13Ss
-jsTira' si
^ijsa
d^ ■'
»«S^<'««t'"
•:■» !Hl*«
'i MilMNIiAA'
• «•
«f the 889* QTuA* ne that first furnlfkhed; ttusi plaintiff flnftSgr
edMitted that it heia H6d« iubstltotion of inferior satftrialo
ana replaeod s. portion of th« n«re)utadise so ritumod; thxi^t by
re«!.son of au(^ aultBtitutiono and replAOoisonte 'i«fe!nd«ats oxpenoeo
voro inerea^iod by ro-pr^ckinK* losoof pnekAgos, X^.b*!::, etc,
»nd ^500 boxes of the nerehandiso woro r«tnrn«d by piarobaeoro
upoQ which def9ndant suffered Asmugtui to th« «xt<nt of '^1^» of
triaiioih if260 w<r.8 in the narohnndiae, #150 in Xoss on boxoo* X«beXs«
labor, ete., $9,p3 in cssuRistdona e.nd $8C in frsiglit wiA ocirt«c«s
ths^t defendant «Xbo Xoat profits in »n unliquidHt«d aaoiant on
8«X«s deTeXoped through th« expend iture of $4864 for MdYertisiag
end »isXosBien*fi ostXarios^ ^^767; th-t dif "eronoos of opinion «•
to the running of the businost; :^d as to d«>f«nd ant's eXalnn
resuXtlng frcm said substitution of inf<?rior asti^riaXs aroeo
.«nd reat^ined uneettX(*4 on June X^» 19310', that on thrt dnto plain-
tiff eX&imed »n ind«>btedno8s to it frtos defendant of approxlaiatoXy
^XOC'O snd d«nanded p»y»o»t th«r«of » vhiXo defendfent eXaiaod an
intiebtednoBS trmt plaintiff in exoeos of said sun* for th« rettsons
abore stated; that defendant surrendered its enid eentract with
plaintiff in si^stnnnt of aXX eXaias and 8f>ttXemf!nt of aXX
contrQT«r3ios nrising between the patios <» ancouat of the ffsots
as abovo sot forth* i»nd on Jtine 2B, X9;M}« tho p^^tios «nt«r«4
into a written ai?ro«!ffi«int of tho antuaX x-oXeaso and di&chr^rgo of
aiX contracts b«t«oen th«« nnd "oi>Xig tions thoroundf^r; * (thio
a«roe»8nt is sot forth in full) and th?'t by rcRSon of tho foiro-
going defendant is not ind<»bted to 'plaintiff in nny m»,
^^o »3t9 of tho opinion thst def«nd«iint*8 KMcaded
af fidftTit of Ri^rits eh<»aXd not hoTS been etrieksa froa tl^io
f iX«8, or the jndjpsont «tttor«d without a h«>«iring on tho
reeritfi. th« affidarit ats-tee e good defense by way of
rseottVMcnt to the e^tont oi >iX Xo«st t8X5, It aXao state*
%'•' ■ ■
i3isf&»,i ««!W«M# a«fs ....">- -.- ^-■.•..-,- « - -
K<^ .^ ft is we-
W,;^ "ii^ li-?;;!'>'v- ,lt§©||,.^^^ fi'?;
• 4»
that tHc eoB^aet aadt Wt«««n th« parties on or &lBimt October
1, X01ci« &ad tinder whlob the eontroT«rl«» ;ir«Bfi Hits outlin«d«
was sttrr«ii<ler«d ^ otrfenfJant, and th»>t tbt po^rtie^ <<Bt«Ped late
ft written ftgr«3B«nt «f nutttal, r«leJii8C aii^ liiBctowrgft of all
contracts l>«fvw«$an tit«» ^nd 'obligtitians tfeioronnct(>!r*'* '''^.liather
said written r«ic«i*®, of it«!«if» <J©« 1»« eoB«trttt>d j-je b. rel«'uc«
of the clsia ^»«di en» uad^r the fucta sili«ged, is quostiortj^ble,
yet such evii«atly is -'iiiffentiajat'e riovj uiind the relei**© Is
pl««id«d &ad &otici« giT^Q Of ncx&.% ^ofoiw^, and ouoh foc^ts nay %e
discJLoscid ttD^OB the trial %£i to tmrrfifit tho onnrt in n<t»itting
extrlneio ^Tiasace t» sho-w the £urrott»4Sjig aircuffir^tanoee nnA
th« n&ture of the trans «ctioffl® to issihieh it wa« Intentk-d to
apviy. (54 Oy«. 1096.; ^ , iIXer v. i=M3!l» 3LS1 ill. 4pp. 930.)
HoDOTor this ney l»o, d^fottdtuit ehnuldi h« all09?«4 tb» opi^rt^unity
of proTlag« if it 9%a, its right of roeoupment ns »lleg©<S«
tho ju4|9Bont of ths fittnioli^ol Camrt is r«Ters«d
and th« eauso r^as^ndod for r trial upon the merits.
Bismo«« F. J«, tm«l Korrill, J«, conoair*
»«(0a
OB
h'^S'?* "■
?v??^i*^;
.tS7p
5«7 • 373S8
THs WBLibHmy »mQSt & ^ (\ 1 A ^^
ireMICIJ»AL COUB?
OP CHICAGO,
S^fendsnt liy thin a^i|»e»I stelui to r«Tere« it JudgseBt
for 190 renaisred against 4t by the M^aieipil Csurt of Chiongo
on Sarch IS, 1921, aft«r r trl#l befer® th« court without m
jury, resultiag in th« mutt finding the Issfuess jigfeinet
defendi^nt tm4 9tM.mnaing piaiatiff 's €.$mB^mu ©t 8»id sum*
the {action wssa c«iteff.ene»t? en Ms,rch 7, 1921, hy ih«
filing of G. «t»t«noat of clain, ae(»m^ftni«d hy an affidarit of
elai3S asforn to by plaintiff H agent. In the atetoisont it ie
alleged th»t defendant is intiiohted to plaintiff in the stan of
:^C for conpaaition isrorlt doa« find fwmiahed hy plaintiff to
defendant at it» revest, and thfct »al<l aasmmt la the nsnnl and
«ust«HB&ry oh.',.rgee for th« imrk »t the tlMO «hen done, the
traneoript of the record di@(;loB<?is th t r aumnseae ««»• iooued oa
I'eroh 7th retum;?hle V^fore aic^id oourt at 9.S0 a.n. en K«roh
I'^th folloving; th«%t a<3oordlng to the return of the bailiff
on the back of th« writ th«? dcf «»ndRBt w«a ewrred oa Uioroh Bth
by dsllveriag a eo|>y of the writ, ot^teiaent of cloiai adad
affiv-iavlt atUiChedj t© Jht^oI"^ Lillmrdf »gent of defendeat
oorporntion, in the '-'ity of Chicwgo, ant? «i the oeao tiao
infozvlag her of the eoatente of the pa|>«re, and th«^t the
preeideat. ete., or any ether agent, of defs^ndaat wac not found
ia said eity; th^t th© Hj^rties a^foarod oa llareli isth; aad that
■f li\ /^j h
VM.
•t^v
■W ''l^^ ^'iTt
■''l^ \i»'^
lei i&t^;
'«ft^*>*?;i
j4«1«-
t«s»i*f»^.s*«( A tp nails 1
1. >...,.,■,-. I . ^. *
^ntj*?'!
>Sl(#
•-»"r'*f|???l
wi
«3*
on Xhit i&f the enus« cans on for iriftl in re^li r o(rars« vithout
a jttxya mnd •▼ideno* v«a h«furd, njid th« fitt(iinK i«a<l Ja(lgM«nt as
fttOTA re«ntlono4 whs ffnt«r«d« '^^hs^% trMiwplrcd en the trtftl is nftt
diseloB^d ^y the bill of exeei^tions. It d««t» not KpiTcur thot
dsfendtmtt b9for« «i trial nn tlie nterita we hcid, in any aanner
^•e tinned the Talidity of the »^?nrle« «n it ar the Juriediotion
ef the eourt to try the omiee* The bill of exRcptiene only
dieolofi^'S thet on V«jrch ?,f th the respective p&rtieu spi^eered hy
ftttoi'ney^, th-t d*?f«n«l»int wive'S to ▼aeate the Ju<%»<mt, supporting
itsBotion hy written 8ugge'<!tionn« Mt<l th&t the oourt denied tht
■etion* this Appeal followed* YkHi sttgge&tienfi were not MtpportoA
hy any affidaTlt fes to the tmth of &ny of th« f wctH therein
alleged. Ihey were to titts effect ih^t Leola Lilltu*<^, to vhon iA»»
writ and other papers were delivered, t>}i& not an agent of defend-
ant but only a e te nog r cipher; thi^t the statement of cledM did not
cuff ieicntly »t«te a esuae of sction; an«5 th* t the &iiid«vit
thereto «aa defeptive in that the affiant failed to aiiegp that
he had Imoirledge of the facto stated in the »t**t«wcnt of olais.
mi respired hy *?ul<* 16 of the Muni^lpnl Court* Inaffinuoh »» the
record diacloaeB thnt the ense is one of the fourth elasa sund
that both pertle* r?:?«»wp*»a. *iBd thi^t a trial waa had on the merite,
all these dafe<tta, if »Jty tJherr were, ««re cured ty euch mppear-
anoo and trial or by the finding and judgment, (j^ix v. ijeo^le.*
106 Ul, 42», 4S9; Clinto n Co. t. .vtilea , 197 111* App. 5v6s
mnt ▼« Keeting * 201 111* App. 507.) There ia no aerlt in the
appeal and th« judg»ent ia siffimed.
B{^rne«» i". J*, and Korrill. J*, eenour*
tf:fi.MnlhM*ml, mi^ "x© #i «« e*« ;■
419 . 2?377
FORJat,Uf jmOS* BAJIKIBG CO.,
A4sinistrnt«r of tlur eatwit*
•f Bdith • Ji»n*«« dto«i^«d«
\
▼»<
\
tnsMMi J, uoinmn'^ and \
and iselnemejr Bros, ruto «
X.iT«ry Conpftoya a e«>rp«r <^tl<is« /
ua, sxnitlCK wamiM. mia.*im:i>^
A..
(,
"I f
CIRCUIT UWHT,
S 0^1 M«» OF THS CODHt,
&•▼• appealed froan « Judgment ©f tl»« Circait Cmirt of Cook
Countj ovordiiig df^sgos to the «i»ouitt of |7!y c to plaintiff
for 9«r8oaol injurioo wx^tk-in«^ by Its tnt«vat»t«» esuoiag hair
deiath* u» the roBult of ah ^^coldii'&i ^Xla^^A to .h«vo boon duo
to tho Rogli^noo of d^f«»nd«inte* enplofoo In o^rating an
sutoRoblltt boloagins t^ them.
Tko oacidoBt oacarrctd at tho intiraection of
Thirty fifth and stato Rtro<ets, Chien^o, at vk^mX % P. M..
icpt«iB%or 10, 1913* B«)th of th«»«r i? treats itro buoy ihornugh-
faroo» haring tl'^nblo at roe t car tr^eka on thoai. ^lolntifl*a
inteatate, «dto whs ab>^ut aoven jm»ru old, «bil« crosfin^ froa
tea ««et 1» tha e&«;t aid*' of ^tato atra«t ob tha oorth eroaavalk
of Thirty-fifth atroet, wrb atrticlt by <ief e^aJonta* a»t©»obilo
just bffiforo aha resehed th^ aaat <mrb of ^tata atraet. Tha
iajttrias rec^ssiTo^i ratiultad in her denth ta« ^isaya latar* In
ereasiBg the atrot^t aha had pas^sed in front of a reuthbouBi
a treat ear on i'tata atraat, ahtch had atoppaei ."t the a treat
intcraeetlon, thereby pamitting her paasBgo in ef*fety orar
th« want half of the atreet, ;>«;fciiid*iato' autoaiobila a&a
%" ia^' C"^
•2*
traveling B«rth •n th« aast «id« af Jt«t« Bir««i, i>0T«riuL
witneafft* testified that it« «p««d w«ub about twenty nilcii an
hour* whiob wttn nf>t slaeken«d n» it ftpproaehcd tlM street
iat«Fa»eti«n. The attt«Mol3il^ etme int« th« ▼!«« of the two
e«ci9ani«ns of the lateRtnta ^sdieit it «aa ahout forty or fifty
feet emith ef ?hirty>-f ifth street i»fter it h>A pasited » nerthbimatf
ear on ^tate street* It passed this ear on the right hand nide.
Jfast prior to tht tiste the ear to »o»o extent prerented persons
standing in the niddXu of the street inters'Rtien frea seeing
the eutoBMhiXe.
Counsel for appellants 4o not eontfr<nd thiitt the driver
of Hut Cftr was fres tr<m negligenoea Imt seek a rer^renl upon
the ground thii^t the nwgXigont oonduet of plaintiff's inteotHto
oontributed to tibc »ooident* This was a fpestion for the Jury
to decide* oAd the verdiot wae not «!ontrary to the Sttnifeet
wei^t of Uio evidenoo* i^tnok »• f a & t^ , ti t . l. m i i o .„ k^ ;-::Uhu.rbiu|
MZ» ^-t ^4* ^l-'" ^®t yonii»r V. atjiaata^s . 163 1X1. ^vpp,
147. The ^ury vn» Justified in heXievisg th^t defendants'
driver »hould have ehs«rv»d plaintiff's Intctstat* on the eroos*
vFftXk aad th-^t the proxisiate ceuee of the aeci^^ent was the
negXtgenoo of the driver, Th« uesident m\il6. have l»«<en avoided
by tise exercise of ordinary oare on his part*
It la &l80 urged that the eourt ooaoKltted rev«rsibXo
error in not striking out a st»tasi«»nt of one of pXaiatiff *•
«itnes&«9 to the effect th«t the driver Juut after the ficeiden*
said, in wjbetanee, th«t he ^as in n hurry &t the ti«e of the
acoideot, iueh a doeiarstion »ay fairXy be regarded t.e part
of the r9B geatao . qaincy H. K. k G« Oo . v. Swuse ^ IVt 111,
364; itaren C^ k I. ^0 , v. fitojsU, 2X7 id, X9©. o find no
reversible error In tliis or other rulingc of the trial court
upon <itt©«tion« of svideaeo.
li>%mm :.*:t^r^*~ ^:if,^tl%9 i^M'ft'i^-'M^
<«>I»^IS JW^ fill's IMSI' «« KfMI alil# A»»~^.^
v^9fi&(G»lv'
•5«. ■ ,
>3*
It ill aIbo elNi»«d %y ii.pp«ll»nt« thnt th« A»mm§!»m
«cr« fio cxoeeslre »a %• indloRt« thnt the juiy «d» influvnovd
hj synpcethya passion or preju^^io** ^^ ^^^ %«en h«liil repeatedly
titot in case of « destli of n person of tender srcnro Kind unformrd
hablt6« t^ t^uestlon of dswi&gQii in loft entirely to tho dis-
cretion of ttas Jury and th&t no rerdiet in ouoh n oroo within
^ t^e statutory liMit» Ofim Iw hold oxoeai^iTO y»j a r«Tic«ing oourt*
Qhioago City Ryo, Co . y. liofiliok , X3» 111. ^pp. 160; ^woo t.
Strong . 129 id. 611j 6w<^ v. Bob ton .atoro * 191 id« 84« Thtso
And niAny other deniniena of KiwLlt^r import preyent o rcTwrool
in this o«BO on recount of exo^esive daaiftgoo, thore >)«inf; no
eloijB that Vri& jurors wore influeneod by improper insiractionB
• r by inflwftKRtory apF'«f*l'? to thsir BywpfttJjioe, passiono or
1
yrejttdioso*
tho ju^iftont ojt^ tl*« Giroait Court is Affintod.
Bamos, ?. J., imd Sridley, j., eonottr*
%*■■
^^.....,^.. « .*«-^»-T^ #-««^M -uaimit \$ iw«it«*i^s^?'' •s,*)!!^.*^ ii«««
,*s&Kr«r.
445 - 87403 \
\
BLACKJJTOMS SHOP, & Corporation, y^ ^ O ± „/i,„ ^ 4- ^
APF.-^Ai. FHOii HaCUlT COURT
\ I) OF C(X>K COUNT); .
£I.in£*3, INC., A Corporation,
SB, JU8TIC8 MDRBILL SI83.rVSHieB THK Oi^IHIOl iiS IITS CCfUKT.
This l» «m appeaO. frcas a d9or»« of the Clreult court
of Cook Couaty Ofiterod 3mXj 15, 19«1, aip?>roviag the report of tbo
Bttoiftr in ehancory to '^ms, tho oaoo had boon referred iixifi. si^rsoiting
• penaaKent injunction restraining defenicinta, who sxe apijellanto
here, froa interfering *itt tho inetallation apon the pr«K?!i»e» at
«atS«6;K> aeuth Michigaa avoituo of tho ajppIiaKOOs, eanslstiag of
wires, coaduits, swltehoo a«4 metora noeosisftry to enablo oo?3»
pX»i»ant to obtain elootrio curront from tho Oemrf^nvealth S4ison
CoKpany. Ihia ia4unotion %m ouh»ianii.^ly the only rt-liof j>ray«4
by tho bill.
The reeorti ohowo thitt for aoao oifjht years prior to
the filing of the bill costplaln<:snt h«i boon in tho potsaosaion, undor
loMoa tTcm the foisior ovaor, of a oonaider»bl# portion of tho firot
Mid »«eaitd floom ond baoosaont ©f t,h« bulirUng icnown as no, 62G-6.K»
Soath Mtehigan »to«uo, flieoo leasos »<are for torwo oxpiriog April
»0, 19 2S, SttriHjg tJie ste^aor of 19 If dofondiwit liliin*B, Inc., pur»
•hasod th* buildiuj^ eokiA on liay 20, 1919, oxoouted a leas* lo ccaa-
ylaiaast for tho pa»t of the buil<ai»e thon oooapiad by oojsplainaoit
s»3 acme additional Bpaea ors the a®co»d floor for a term of tan
yoara begimiinir ^^ 1, 192^. lioth eociplai»ant aa4 4af onAant BlWB*a,
Inc., sure engT*it,a^ In tha business of soiling ladios* woarlng ap-
parol at retail. Baferidant B1h» owns a controlllne Intorost in
Bl\ai*B, Ino., wbA alao oiras tho Vogua *^op, vrhieh is ongJiS®^ i«
V
O v^, w„
leoAtod in th« Congress Hot«l Umildlni;, whieh !• al)«ttt one bleolc
distant fxtnsa the hviiliiinti In qae»ti<»n« All thj*«« of thes» ooncorn*
&r« 1>u8inesi» «ot;qi>etitor«.
The pretnis«» occuip •<! l>y oonp lain. tut -«er4» v^ulppad vith
•leetrio light flxtur««, ttiid until October, 1920, th« «l*otrl«
ourrtnt required "by eoK^lalnant was fumlahod by the Cowmonwealth
24ifton Qompsmy^ a public 8«!rvi<3« eorpomtion, 'by ni<«£mB of virea
»nd conduits Xoe&tttA in psc^m of th0 hii.»«tm>m.t used jointly by the
tenants of the fe^llillng bmA throutjtJ u. ;s«ter Ioe«.to4 on the north
vail of the basement. Coi»[|»l.ftlnai3t paid the Cosssoifvoalth Edison
C^i^&ny for Its eleoirie ©»rT®«t fvm» tins® to tii?ie as bills w«r«
rendered. Thtn arrmi(g<Kaent had exiated eontlnuou»ly during com»
pl&in&nt'B oeeu|i^ik^ of the |»r«8fti»«» 'wit ^ the full Jcnowled^ ojod
«l>proY«l of defeadumte.
la May, Id^, defendi&Rta established in the huilditHs
»ork rooms and offieee i'Gs th^ir business wMch was conducted in
the Cengreae Hotel building is eonjpetitien with tio^I^inunt imA
used for thftt purpose :9^«000 square set oi apaice, •e^Iiioh could h^ve
been lighted by ciXsotrlelty fumlkhed by the Cooisonvealth iSdLson
Cosi]iany in the sasiA »suaii«x' as sueti current t»s surppli^ to other
occupants of the building. Instead of adopting this plan d«fend-
&nt BluB*s, ins. 9 decided to xt^ore the various trritohes and riOters
used by the other tenants, Inoluciing eoaqi>lsJ.niUit» and to ins i all
similar ^Fli^i^e** upon its own premises with » Tiew to selling nt
retail to its tenants the eleotrie eurrent obt&inod frost the
Ceeissneealth > dison Ce^^aegr tt:pon a vbelesale b.'jisis. This olaa was
aade known to eoi^lalnant by a letter from Blui3*s, Inc., dated June
3l, 19 2G, irtiiloh notified eompXain/dOit that the proposed arrangeK'.ent
haA been coHr|»l«ted 's'lth the {}eaffii«nse4^1th Sdisen OoTr^any. Cestplainant
irepliod to this letter axA stated explieitly that eei!q|»lainaat was
HSkd'^ . .■^afymM&Ur:
BOt lnt«r«Bt«d In th« preposition asvJ i'l4 not wlah to ecntrocl jfiih
ftai4 Aef«n4a«t tor el^ctrle light 9«inrlea aM da^rewaly directing
tlmt tib0 ss«ter ajod %*lring u@«fil by o&tnplalriiint )>e alXoT?«d to rvwatn
intact ai^- that noue of eaaplain ait*« firing 1j« Attaohod to defend*
fti}t*8 is«t«r, Tlwreaftsr, In tlio fall of 1920, defendant*, without
the Jcnevledge or conaeint of oo^pliiitaant and rogardleee of tho Xat*
ter'» objection to tfe« i^lajR, rsKOV^d oofspliilrifstnt •• Ei«t«r and ewltiAi
and eut tho wiring ^ad conduits use^l by oonrplainant «o that It
•euld no 34i8fl[«r r«eoiv« elootric currant direct froca the CoaBsienweaiih
ldiao& Co^aay. 48 a rosult of this mtmm&m&^nt ti;® light ine r&tos
yald liy oo]^Xaim«^nt were iaoraasad som«»ffhat wtsd Blum's, Jjnc, ^as
l»lao«d in aJb»«late control of th« SEwitsh^e and Ejetora througJ-s which
aleetrie lij^t ras f-uraiahed to coi3plaiR.%rjt, Gossplainant In a Itstter
4ate4 leveiaber 17, l§fS&, |>r0t«»t®d agtainst thla «*jTaagffiB9«nt, requested
that the t^rmmv syatem of wiring aud llghtilBif fca r«'8torod and stated
that ©©mplaiuaai had no interstton of purfehastiag el«otric current fr«n
said defendant. fb«re iras eojesa further cojnrfei!®tonden.e« unon the
ewbjeet whleh it ie uitneeee^axy to slate in detail.
The l«as«g to eom|»I».lna.nt contained a provieion to the
IKffeet that the lessor way etiter the derviised preisisae at all t lines
•fer the pux^oe^e of sstoiag »tu«ife repairs And alt«r»iioa8 therein ae
the lessor m&^ deem necessary for the safety, prc^servation or i^^^.*
|provee.ent of said prts^iises or said ^uildin^; or «$>pu>t*riance8 thnre*
of.* On the hPtDk of the leass oertai» rales Mid regulMions vers
i>rint»d, irhioh, hy the tersas of the inetrtuaent. »ere my4e a part
thejreof. tha partioular rule vliieh i« alleged to he applluahle to
the present situatlos provides that the tenant ehall not, rithout
the lessor's written oonsent. uss anything eaespt electricity for
yswer and eleotrlcity or gsts for illuminating purpoess, "and that
only ivvm (s^ush etm^^uy or ^Qjes^Axii^s as leeeor atoy hnTe contracted
•iJjiiVX
£.vi?-y^''
.msrsSt 'i!^:ll#»#£i» UstU--
wltl:^ to fumieh aueh attrvlc«,*^ Dcf«n<lanta rely upon t}i««« proYlnloat
to jtiotlfy their aotlon. They urge In aupnort of thetr tiont«ntion
that in c^natraing words a«i<! jphraeea O0ntaiii(%d in m'>- inatstanent,
•ffftct attst be j^xiten to their plain smX ordin«iry jaeaniruj, isut fftil
to ehev that thie well «9ta>)li& ed proposition hau» been Violated In
smy r«sp>«6t by the decree in-voiced herein. Defondi^ote u*lao cite the
fttstili'ir !aa:xia that "Be wfuo eeeks equity mint do equity,** and or^^e
th&i it voiilci be inei3uiiabl«» to oozap^l defendants to Inour the ex»
persse of reetoring the former eleotrio ^irin<A ayatoje without joiy
benefit foeiiiij 4«(rived th@refro«» by os»mplalnant, the record dlo«e
r.ot ilieel6»e smy inequitable conduct on the part o£ c<mpli^in«i.nt,
80 that the jaaxi® has no application tv the pr*;»erit ea«e. It ahxi
not be a,»8Ufffl«4. that ttie restoration of the olfictrie vfirlng, Goyiiiults,
s^itohes and aaster wouXd be without benefit to eoi^ipliarmnt , in view
of ihet faot «h©irn by the record that 6om|)ly,initint *» eacpenaee for elec-
trie lit^Ming have been increased un^er defendant's plan, Coaslal ri-
ant is justiflsd in objeeting to & pi^m wader which an rsotire buai*
neea eeeipetitor i« glir«a praotlesJL oontrol of Ita >3l«ctrlc liftiht and
po^cr, it apjjeaiying fro» the raeoxd that the- switchboard, {controlling
the els^etrie current u«ed by ecHi^Xalnant is lo<»ted in a part of the
building to whieu ootp^l/jiinant baa no acoeea and over whieh it ean
exerolae no mitrmxity wh&tever.
B«th the isaster*« report maA the dearer found th^t
effiUj^SLaioant is ontltled to enjoy the pTomiQmm dev-^ieed to it during
the tera of the leasee a* the oreittiaee were wh«n copiplilmnt took
poaa«Baion thereof, ineluding the fa®anB iin4 netitod of obtaining
el^etrie eurrent »» the;/ existed at that time, u»1 tha-t Ofwnjlain mt
was <9ntitled to purehaae ita eleetric current fros the CoRtrtonwealth
Mison Com]^any« there being nothing to the contrary expreseed in
said leases, whioh t^nstttuted tlie ealy oontrftot between the parties.
The ohang«8 mmi* by A«fftndi^tc in tho cleetrle lighting »rran6t';^«ni«
of th« |>r«ais©» oc«3«yi»4 "by complainant cannot 1>« onnei<Se3r«d ©i th«r
(*8 a r«p«i.r or an altoratloa Sot tho aafaty, pr««orvatlon oy Im-
9T0T«acnt i]b«rttol'« It w«s alao foun^t Vy the <idor«i'& tliat deioniant
BIiiN*», X3io., had n» ofe^rtcr powor to sell electricity, having ba«n
laeoi^>«jrate4 for th« isoXft pHr|K>8« of "werohandloing in ladias' f*p«
patxeX," which 414 not glvo it th^ ri^ht to «S«al In « Iwctriclty,
This tiwlimi 1» iiBsateriaX, for th« rtti^son that thore i» no Gontr<«ct
■fei^twoon sesepliiiuant and d^f^tMiaoit Bltira**, X«;e», providing for the
fumiaving of «ilff<stri« ourrent by aaid d,ef«»iant t© coi^ipli^Lnant.
It is th«r«for« ttxineoea^ftry to discuisis tho validity of such a con-
tract.
the 4[*cr«s of th® Cliwiyslt ooiirt ie full^ 3ti.etainod
by the law aad the eriflenee aud 1© therefore affirmed.
Sarr.es^ ?♦ J,, ajBd 8jrlsiiey, J., cottcwr.
^9^h V^ M->.
, **? ift^di 4 ti'^himit Wi- i'
.,i
4?2 - 2?430
Appell®**, -^o was ■Sf"i,fi.intil''f Uelow, yi&cov*jr«<i & judgm^rtt
in the ?%Bic5l^aI 'J*>e.rt o? ::^'h.tc(»g& foir ;)195 against dvjfrjndRnt, vho
!>p«ral©« a hotel tm^. rooeifig hou»# containing flftyt'Tfi towub sX
180 Ittgeal* J?iTe«t, Chicago. Tti« ol'^tsa wa« iGr th« value of oertatn
wsRrtBg *ppay«l allfisged t« Jiwye 1»««n Etolsa *fun*j gQ, i'J21, from &
rooa rentdd tjy pl)44«tiff fr&m. defsMant.
Plaintiff rersied tJi« rocus In jjuestion i^ay 1»^» 1J>21,
paying |7 a vteifk tJierefor. At that ti.'ae he was aaoured Vy tJb«
lat5^1or<3 tisat t>.«r«? was no <»ac&slom to fsar aay lose toy roljiery
*fl^ that tit® landlord! and his wife opsratsd the p5ace ansJ ©verythlag
«6ul4 1)# all rl^ht. Flaiatlf f oeeuple^l th« jpoosj until June 20, IfiSl,
On thai latss h© found tipon retumiixg to iiltt rocsa that It Itad Tsaan
tljoreughly spanaaek®^ aud hl» clsthiRg stolft«, B« reportad the fjiet
to the landlord, wim atMt®4, ia euTsstanee, that he f«.nd hi» ^fvifa had
taen it^sant during th« entira iftemoqn, leaving araploywea in ch^rga
of tJse botol, and tixat a aawlter of t}>®ft« kad b©an e«>raisiltt<sci. Ha
3tat«srl that a col^rM raan jsasd his -srlfa in tfee «jsaj»loy ox the la-idlord
^srere j^ilty of thsae aeta, i'laintiff *• teat • many a« to the«« ad«
si»slon« y-'f tba landlord was uorraboirated by anotbar 9itn«sii.
Th» llftblllty of def«ndaRt ia de?iied apen the ground
that plaintiff tras a reoeaer and defendant a lodging house keeper
and that the relation l>etwee« thatsa *ae f:ot, that of a i^ueet i»nd an
irnikeeper: that a lodging house keisper is nndor iw dut? to oare for
vm^.r
v# &««
i-i-
%Tem prai^rty af a mo&^r left in the rocia fJxxrlnfr hie abaeMo«,
siting ^IMXSJS^ V. BMl2J±, 1**S Ti:!, Apn. ?^7; V^^^f^yitl y. niaJ-sm.
140 t<5. 644 J ijiti^ V. SSaMl isSSI. ?iai3i» 1'*^ i^» • ^'<-'4- ''•J^s oontati-
tlon that piainlliT wai- a uore room^^it is baa«<a woon t-he fr^tot thskt
h# baA contracted for an indefinite* etay lit a fixed price p«x
ir«ej£, thereby est&lDliohing his ntsAxia as that of ^^t roois«r Inatead
«f a guest. The eaees cit»d 'by appeHaait eu^taiu the propoei-
tios for whieii h^ oottteiids, Vat Xat«r teololonip teive e0taMiBh«d a
different rulu. '£h& Isv^ a^plicalA^ to sucii a eauef waK fully riie-
oueeed in dr^&a v« ^£.&it3&a .sBSSmStlSli SSlti I. E* Sfil- » i?^ ^li» -^««
160, a»d th,e ruie as» establisteM in £li|XSii;^ '^* M.?^gLEl» gytPM'
waa repudiated, tli© fc«?»Tt iioldija^ tKat a- 'jreekly rat* and a l©ngt):y
stay at a hotel tiaes ^t tak© away froEi a paraon th« statua of a
hotel gtteet, sitisig aava^o.<?4, v. MMt ^-'* ■''• ""^^^ 1^* ^^^ Mfi^S ▼•
Xaiii^li, 147 ill. %p. 333.
Plaintiff Bad no eOBtrasSt ^Ith hie Ifindlord itidioatliuj
a persanieiit r^aldsnce at the hotel. He h?i.4 »ot l!«;CORie a \>t>arder
&nd lost hi® et&rjiiiKg as & guset, %^ wthn net ^r^T^ntod hy ««y oo»»
traet ehlijy^atiftii frass d@j^ariin^ at hie pleaeure e^it! taJcing up hie
residenee eleewhtere, Seferidant was clearly neKll|.};0nt in learing
the e8tabli8>\ment unifcr the ofearge of irre»j»on8i>Jle holp» with
whoa h« had but slif^it ao^airJ,a»6«, lie >ilA not exercis'-? the
erd^inary eare required far ihe j> rot sot tan, of i)Xaintlff*a property*
I'he Jttdi^ejst of Ui* jauwielpal oeurt ia not oentr&ry to th« saanifeet
weii^M of the eTi<lenee er ag&inet the law appliQa'bl<^ to the ctvee.
fhe judfc^KeTit of the Municipal cewrt is affi«sed,
AFPIHKSD.
Baiw«B, I», 3,t and ©rldley, J,, ee&eur.
87t6? » ^
2^1 A. 6
\ / ) aPPSAL JPHtB
/ >
▼!• / j iiUPKHlOB CCOHT,
^/ ) COOK COOMTY.
KW.. JU.iTlGS WjailILL mLir^^fSQ 7HS OPlSlOU CF tHS COURT,
Tilis i» aa aipp«al frMi an int^rlcietttory er<i«r of
tl» Superior Court of Gook County •fntorfljt Miigrie, iOSS, oT«r»
ruling, th«) sotloa of defendant, ^ho is appellant here, to
dloeolTe s prelimlwiary iojunetion grc>nto<l U»y '''', 19S/^» upon
the bill of emeplaint i»hich h»d t»eeR filed on the preceding
day.
The bill pro^ for mi OrOeoeniiag iMrttwea the portloo
as to Utelr trane^ctione under ». eerteln eontr^ot hetveen thca
dated febru^'-rgr Zh, 1931, whleh conetitated the t>afsiB of the
controversy ftnd for other relief iBoideat«A thereto* This
eoQtr%ct| in eubHtanee, proTided the,t complainant should eeaicn
to d«f eadaat oertain of its aocounts froB reputable debtor*
for ehi<^ defea^aat asroed to fny a euat actual to eighty per
eent of the faee nuw^uat thereof but not exo«?oding $1SO,000(
and that the ce«£>lainiat shall met ae defendant** agoat ia
eollectiag the acoount]&» transferriai; all reaittnAoea to
defendant ia their original font, Coiopiainaat gunraateed
the PEiyaent of the geeeuata @t K«turity« and ia e^^ee of
failure of the debtor to pay the fall aaoant, thnt it Muld
pay 8uoh snouat to defendanta y^i» w^ld thereupon reaasiga
the eecouat to eoapl»iaRat, the centraet furthor proTided
that defead@at should be entitled to ooatpenoatioa for oerteia
'T^!I
S.l^
services t6 1»« pcrfonMd \>y hia thersin sitecifled* Ths proYlslem
dsfittlBg these senriess reoEUlr«<l defendant t« pl.-tee his oelleotisn
depeiTtatent >«t the disposal of (omplsinAjnt* to haye his i!«tditors
exaaine eomplainsnt's teoks and ^nceunts eTety sixty dsjrs and
report the renalt or Bueh exaainntien with ins true tions to
cMtplainent &s to the best nethod of keeping books « recorde and
acoountr>; titiat defendant should pay the expense of suoh audits^
plaee his oredit department it the diapeeal of coaplainantu pay
isxs for all oredit investigations of aoriounts purohated or
offered for purchase «nde«r the eontraot; that ecwplRinant should
have the right to eeasult defend«mt*8 ceuneel for adTioe and
legal opinions as te r<ny of its contrs&cta; that derendant eliould
ohtain and hare on hand euf' icient fande to make pronpt pK^BEient
to complainant for all approTed i&e counts and supply all forms
ond stationery proper for the oiile and assignment of accounts
under tho contract. The oontraet then provided that for these
serriees defendant should h9 paid a sun e<^ivalent to five per
cent 'it the faoe amount of accounts asaiji^ed for the period of
eixty days or any fraotion th«peof , and thoreafter a sum ecfuiralent
to two and one-half per cent for ^Pich thirty days or fraction
thereof th^t said ac;eounts r^^nained unpsiii; that defendant should
hare the rij^ht to examine the hooks and records of oomplaiBaat
relating to its aeeounts and that when defendaat had heea ropaiA
the ^liount @f its ^dTancos and the amounts due it for serriees
AS specifiei^ in the contract* and all diRhuraements made or
liabilities incurred for exchange or for attorney's fees or other
expenses, he shall reassign to complainant nil accounts then
uncollected*
tt will not bo Boeesaary to set forth the allegations
of tho bill of complaint in great detail, as the merits of tho
easo are not before us under tlw present appeal. The bill
•*fl«
n;«rf#«»
.■»-'•<; ss
-3«
Alleged In nubHt«no« the nftking of the cAntrnet a^ov« K«ntion«d«
setting forth tlM tckisa ther«ef* a.ttA ohnrged thot the aaouKta
ftUranoea b/ oefcnaaat to complainant conetltutod lesne Reoured
by the accounts assigned ^ but th^^t in ttrder t« oencenl th» fHOt
tli«.t thfioe leuto vor« mado in pursuanoo of an unlawful* oorrupt
and uvarioua itgr«^«ient« it v»o proTidod in the ftfcroewent that
defendant vkb to rooeiTO oeapenetien for pretended oerTices. »8
abOTe stated, to be rendered by hia» ^^ile rse a matter of fact
all of the alleged af^rrioea were merely for the purpose of giving
defendant t\ full snntrel OT«r the flolX«etion of the ftocounto
asfiigned by ofleplalnant* and thijt bo dueh oerYieea vere in fnot
rendered to conpl»in»nt or w^re ^ver int«n<?ed to be «« rendered;
that all of the for»B suppli«<1 or intended to bo awpplled to
ooBplainaat by defoadant were the forua neceeeartly uaed in the
aaaigoneat of the aocounta in qpeatien. The bill farther alleged
nuBieroua trana&ctions between the ^esrties between Febiunry 25,
1921, end March 31, 1922« vhereby def eadaat had loaned to plain-
tiff an segregate amount of $373, 110.44, and th»;t Qonplainant
hud paid to defendant in return for said loan t.h« mm of 43a8, 470,29,
idiieh waa largely in oxeona of the amounts loaned and lawful
intereot thereon; that defendant had done nothing under aaid agroe>
neat except to make loans to oonplsinant to the )»Ottnt of eighty
per e«at of Vi» face T>».lue of the aQeounts «hioh had been aaeigned
t« dofendftnt ,-48 security theroforj thf^t asid agre<paent had alwaja
been tre»ted by the p»srtlea r.n an ngvnemsnt for leans of aM>n^;
that defendant now nolds asalgwaenta of nuaeroua accounts,
approximately one hundred in mtaber, ^aaounting t« an aggrogete of
f 57, 827, and that defendfljBt had noTer rendered any Btatement to
eomplainaat and no final settlement of the trananctiona between
the partiea had ever been Rade; th?*.t ciwpXalnant h»rt paid to
defendant over and ebove what was justly dae to defendant on
'■mm !W»C«; $'mii%!iaQ--
^:'<7m*^'&Sm »ff*'l?»J(l# t®3tSs«i^r> ^.-.in ., ;;:'W3 --^iw st.t--w -j.^u^s iU w i fiM.:^--^r:
#^«iwf«s ,Xiif1:TOe,|aiiir {M t# ' it«^l«iMllN^\Rit ftlisua fttw 9imii£ imml'' .'.-jf^
.)r(t»«fta»
• 4«
e.eoouat of said loana and thA int^r(?»t th«r«ona th« aum of
#13,433.4ai tli»t d'^fsndaat nov oliiijui that h« ia vntltleU to
reoeire froaa aonarlr inaat unclGr aaid contract ovor ^i5,000 on
aooount of interest on th« rieney ao letm«d and h»s inforaed
QtRaplainsAt thf.t if 8»ld aoartunt is not p»id, det'cndamt vlll
notify the persona noiD«(3 in aaid £;.csoounts of th« fact of tiio
assignment t» <l«»f»?ndant of thr rfrpeotiro eocouutsi* and It la
ah^^rged thn^t defead'^At will ao notify aaid p«raoafl unleas
reB trained Iby tm orti«r of c«}urt; that the yercona o^^lng aaid
fac(^uats ore vd^elv oG^^ttero^ throughout the country; th;.t if
notice 1« 3arTt>d upon ihxm ^ defendant to the effect th^ t aaid
acemxnts h»Te haea aaotgBt^d, the ?*;*.id pcirfsoisc ftill reiuij* to
pay thf ttctsounta rttvA great wnoet'teiinty will Hris« In th«ir minds
as to 9hext Uie sasm shfiuld l>€i paid, r^oalting In cu l^jrgfl muaber
of msite. great oxpensn In litigation and uneei-tBinty of
collectloa. that isRny of »uoh nocoenta, beeau«« of the dcl»jy
that »1H neco!;aRrll7 resmlt from the sorvis** of auoh notice.
Bey beoOEirj niffittult or Irapospihle te cjlliict awi th' t tfcje good
Trill Of th» 1»naln«3i3 astskbli^hfid hy oompleLinsnt will be dctstrryod
if notiacr of suo^ »iiHg^a»^n%B i» glytrnt all of u^hich will
rsEult la ^rf': t »iid irrepsmble lose tmd Uama^io; thut (i^^iandant
clRlfflS to owiJ 3ela aecoT*nta by r*Hean of 8«ifi RaaigttBftntc tusut.
Clair s to h»T« the riisht to sell the eaart >*«d tfl roske any &iui
all kinds r,f sRttleniants wnd jisiju*t«ent» which tee ai»<y destro
T-lth say of the pcvrtlea owia^ th® ece^untfe ^fJd chfTgea that
uclef^s ':ief end ;..at tt> reit'trfoiaed from oo doing, he' will £.9ll»
dispose, ti&^i^ or c^wproffiise a».iv2 accounts to ocffitvlninifcat'a
doiraKe. The prsyor ef the bill is la the uaual forn for hb
secountlaj? between the pmrtiss sad for a c^neell^tloa of the
agrseffifnt, the re^jsislgiweat of the «,ocountB to oompl^nsat
RBd thst »n Injunction b<9 grRBtod rsstraiaing dsf -sadaat froa
•jtt^^i M
«.«,.Cii94»«^f "tS^^O jj|.0..«-^«i«9® i»iiaijl: '^•Iey«l #»?*'•■■■ ■?'■■— ••'
i>n
V!5'^.T>.d'^
.fSSi»i)EJIUiliii?«8#i^ ■ .mam a,-
iftid'aawf,.
■«,«»
-5.
Mtifyin^j tli8 arsons na»(*d in »ftld accottnte «f th» aei^ignMat*
thereof aai. trem InterferlB^ in nny wny with th« eolleotion by
eomplaioajit of said aee«unts and for general r«li«f • The bill
VPS Terified by the M^ffidaTlt of the prenldeat of <MniiplRiaHnt
eorporotion, trhich i» in senforHity with the re(|uireBient« of the
statute relating to pri»liain«ry injunetiOBs granted without
notioe*
The iajunntion orner of May 2^ 193?, reetrnined
defendeat in accordKnce with the vrnyer of the bill, fro« notify-
ing the persons asn«d in the acoounte eesigaed by conplnlnAnt to
defendsjit of the f %c of s»id «e igaaiont. and fron interfering
in eny way vith the collection of said accounts for a pe^riod of
fifteen days trmt ct«.te, an4 required an in;}unctioa >r«nd of $7S0G
for the proteQtioa of deffi^ndant. On May t>, 19Z2, defeadaat filed
its aasver, ^.(teitiing naay of the material allegntlens of the
bill Imt denying thnt tho transactions oi^nteatplated hy the agroe«
meat of Februsry 2&« 1921, were loans ea^. alleging thut the eoa*
trstet wms a eerrioe ooatraet under whioh fij^etplainant agreed to
pay, as therein epseified, for fl«rTio«e to be rendered to it by
defende^nt, and d(^nied those allegations of the bill of eenplaint
vhieh were based upon ?taiplain«at*e eoBstrnctiftn of tho eontr«set»
The anever further adnitted nuaiorotts trtmenetioaa betireen tho
parties aad ^^t there had boon no general settlement, althouf^
allegins th(^t title asj^igxaaent of eneh at-'Go«iat ima a separate
transaction «hieh 2iad been fully settled upon the payment of
the particali*.r n<33euat sM th«t it had rendered repeated state*
Koats to eewplainant. the annm^r further stated thnt in the
sbse&oe of a detailed) audit, it would be iBpossible for defendant
to sho9 the precise asMttnt of money pai^ to him by coiplainoat
for aceounts receiTablo aoslssert under the tenss of the agroe-
meat, aad that ao general settlement or. determination or state-
ment of the account between the parties eould bo made without
*x'5'-i.?#a! WHIST'S: ^x.xi^^ «y^ t«'iE^?i|».i{f ,^p!lt;..#--i«!*^ '*«M«t«.s^^ ,' '.wftsattft?'
»0 iSi^- tMdf *»*«#%•; tt^J^-JWt «:^-:"n.- s.-*^ '*««fs
>6-
{>uch ciadito
Thereafter, on Kay le, 192S, dffeadjmt leevptl to
diesolTc the liiJunotlOR« r^^lying upon tto» Aliee^^itlens «f ita
answer to support said aetion. This stotlon was OTftrrulod hj
th» eourt, and 4t r: a ordf>rcrt th t tht injunction continue in
full force and effect to and including Kajr 17. 192?.. The present
appeal 1» from the ord«>r of Kay 16, 192S*
Appellant contends thet thsr injunction zhould te
die^olred beoeuse ap;^llee» «iiich is nn tllineis cerporr tlen.
is precluded l»y the fteneral eerporotlon eat of l^lv from setting
up the elaiiB of usury; thnt the onler denying tke motion to
diosolTe n&R erronoeuM beceuac the cottrt had nothing before it
except th« bill and the s«erm answer irherein ^11 of th(? alXsrgdtlsns
of the bill were denied; th* t tJie original >.ill of coaplaint ess
not pr<!)perly verified t»ad did not warrant » pr«li«ia«ry Injunetion:
thst suhstantiully the id<3ntieal csntr^ct hetwoen the parties
herein hss heen sueteined 1»y the >upre»» Court of the United itotoo
in the Cftse of HouaJl^ton *▼. aurdyn . sas ti, a, lei.
It is true t^«t ttnd«r the oorpors^tion act of ldl9 a
oorporKition organised undr>r the laws of this state is mthorised
to borrow soney «t euoh r»ite of interest «s th« corporation Tiny
detemine« regftrdless of statutes upon the ftuhject of usury, and
th&t hy reason of this enactwent, gb well as tlw proTlsions of the
atfttttte relating to interest* e eorporr.tion is precluded froa
interposing the defense of uoury in sny action, but we do not
understand thet these statutory provisioee in any way preyent
eoaple«in&nt herein frost filing and aalnt&lnini; a t>ili for «a
aooountlng as to its tranoAfttlono with defendaont. Union M tienal
Sank y, h, H, ■< h Ca Ry. Co ,. 145 111, 208. ilfiether or not
coiBplalnant h»>^ a^ meritorious eauae of faction eaa he detenslned
onlv after e full hevirlng of the stvidenee nni not upon a motion
to dia.^olye a prelimlnnry in^unetien.
a«Jt#ti.4wqr t«sa- ;i|^^|«4' .#|>«t'S#«M»t l««sJM"ipkr- ■; ■ " ■
^ "faaiJIftl* s:«SBW!t«-««> -*«^:'^.# ••/^.^.is.Vi' vjitt*3.9fS o;?-
£i»*s tf» 'tmMM^ , ..,> -* »"€% *^ ij «.i-' »1 »1 *'^ .^-^^^
jra*l^!!i*« *i *«*f*f ,t««S &•«[. flK.'f
.?•
Zt l8 urged Xhiit when the strorn &ns««ir fully »n&
un«(|uiroeally cl<?nl«a all th« Mate rial sllegrftions of the bill
upon vhloh cnnpli$infmt*s «(fBitiei8 reat* an injuaction will h*
di»»olr«d« This rul* is not ap llealilo to the aituntion In*
TOlved in the Oksc at bar for the re 4»on th t d«>fendaat*a anoner
not only doe?, not dmy nunQrottB leaterial allegrttions Rontolned
in th« bill of onoiislRint, but en tho oontr/^ry «^4nilta then. 7h«
eentreTersjr beti^^n the parties! relatoe to the conBtmotion to
be gi-ven to the prnTlsiono of th« contract above notftd, tho
eoxplninont contending thRt it provides for a aerios of lonns
froK defendant to cfsnplainant and 4f>fe»dant oontendine; tbnt tho
contr»o% naist be eons trued air an agrofwont on tho i^nrt of
complainant to 9»y for eortain iservic^s to he renderod to it by
defendant. It soena obviousr thftt » propor eonotnietioa of tho
eontrsct o«n only be dcteralned after thorO has been a hfinriag
upon the merits of the ntiBm and the transactions betivoes) the
parties have bo«n shown to %h» oourt, the intention of the
p.Hrtiee io to b^ gc$e@rtaine^ from the i^olo traasactiont «hloh
involves a conolderstion of the eon<iuot of the parttoo a« well
as -yioir written ap-raci^ent, Ke re fftttilo Tr u* t Co . t. KfigtojTa
373 111. 533, Tho Injunction involTft^J herein wee granted for
the purpose of preaarvlng the atatus of effaire pending the
final adjudlontion af th*» Issueo bet-w?fn the parties,
a find BO laespit in appellant* s contention thrt the
ia^ttnction should be disssolvod on aoeeunt of an alleged in*
sufficiency in the s^ffiderlt attached to ^c original hill of
complaint. The ineuf ricieney of the af iderit is mot f.ppnrent,
but in nny erent, »a ob^eetion of this hind is waived by e
general sppeff<rance» iiaswer and motion fer dls«ol«tieB of the
injunetloa. »^ wettlan to diSBolTo op^trates.ao a waiver of
,f*
^n•f^ v*f>;'f t^m'nr ?n;s''?« '^■d-y amh,
^' aa*s;
'flj^vax^v «x'
•8*
irr«ff«iXaritl«a. ftlllimg ▼• g^lg.ip,ig!L Sxhlbitio p Cowpmy . 188
111, 19; Or and , >>ge ra ^ Hou up, v , iU ylyj , 166 111. App. 170,
Upon t)M 8 tut* of f 'Ctg ith4»«n to Xh« ohsaic^llur \)j ^^
allegation* of th« Mil and anawor, w« think th»t ho was
justified In ovf^rruling th« motten to diaeolre th« injunction.
The order of the v.up«ri©r O^urt is affir«ftd,
Baraoot ?• 3,, imd Grid ley* J«, ooncufft
.atitlTj/
8J»W a/ J, i;-i4# .A««4"
' ' 9
4,ti(sm'
.■.^ifejt^a fe«^j
2786S
^2<^
.^ Ji\ iiTs
i IfiTKHLOCUTOKT AfFBAjL
i WUm iiUJPK <10R COOiT,
COOK COUHTY.
MK. JUiJTICS UORnXU. TiU^l^mW TK» gPIHIOS OF THE OOUHT.
This is an app«al frnn im Qr4«'r of the Superior Court «f
Cook County eniored May 17, 1923* providing: for the oontinuAno«»
until the further order of the omirt* of an injunction previously
gran tod in tbit e»9e. Zt hss boon consolidated for hearing with
No* 27867, In jihioh en opinion hetn this day heen filed* wherein
ite sffirned the ord^r of the ::«perior Cmtrt overruling the notion
to diseolve the injunction, which, by its terms, expired k»y 17«
19S'% The eraar from ^hieh the present appoel is prayed continued
this injunction in fores until the further ord*»r of court and re-
quired oeraplalnant to give a further Injunction ^ond in the penal
sua of |56,GQ0, ehieh amount is enple for the protection of de»
fendsnt^s interests*
Counsel hare f41ed in thla appeal the B»ae briefs that
«sre consi<lered In Ko« 278ri?« and ns i«e have reached the conclusion
that no error was ccBsailtted hy tho trial omirt In refusing to dis-
solve the original injunetlon* there is no neceeseity to dieouss
the propriety of fiontinulng the injunction* The remsons ehloh vere
held euffieient to auiftoin the court's aotion in refusing to
dissolve the injunction are equally applicahle in the present
«|^peal«
the order of the .>«perler Court is effirasd*
Bi^rnest ^« 3»9 and 0r Idley. J«, concur*
,p 5^ ^ T *:\ f^ ^
tH V* >'■ '■"^•'
I;* ' .: • "^..'f ;•/
•ifVfvi-'w"? iJif? .rS'H>:
:i«>M-am^^.
9 iJ-^firii^tfi :
• ,j6« Wi>vi^iij*'
.Ki;4 ^«j:i
.!.««
,9d0Tt;'
#7000 / yvCy ^ ^i^ .^ \
2261
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
64:
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fourth day of October,
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and
twenty-one, within and for the Second District of the State
of 111 inois :
Present--The Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Pres id ing Jus t i ce .
Hon. NORMAN L. JONES, Justice.
Hon. AUGUSTUS A. PARTLOW, Justice.
JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk.
CURT S. AYERS, Sheriff.
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on
the opinion of the Court was filed in the
Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
,r
;o. 7000. r.gend'-:
Viilliaui C. ;":clton, st ul.
'\. '^4-^
)
vs. ) ■, o.oeui fro;,, ii^nccck.
)
lilury J. Bolton and i^.J. achnelder, )
adn^ini^tratorr. o.f the i^Iotate of )
iileiander iolton, deceased , and )
ifcary J« Iolton, )
ajtiellanto, )
PAH^LOVv, J.
<t.ppelliints, :-ary J. .jolton and \. J. ; chneidor, ai3 idmin-
istr&tcrt; of thG estate of Qextindsr Bolton, deceaood, filed
their fim.l reaort an suuh adainiet rotors in th*- county court of
Hancock county, in Khioh. they did not charpe theiiiselveo with &
note of V 11, 598. 00 3eft by the .ieceased. liotice of fina] s-sttl-v-
niexit v/us given and anieilces, who are the heir^ of tie deoeaaed,
filed ohjections to th.e re icrt, wMch. oljeotions wore suitained
v.nd the court hold that ^lary J* Iolton v.t.-: entitled to one-half
of the oroueeds of the note and the e«itatQ vvu:-j outitlo i to the
other half, ^n a^ipeal w-iS orcBecutel to th-:; circuit court v/here
it w.a held that the iidiTlniatx-ators iihc;;il churge theraolves with
the entire proceeds of the not^, and thti.t the prcoeeda ahci;id h-.
distributed one-third to the viic./ and two-thirdi. to the hsire.
yroE that order this t^'Waal wut jrOLiocu te i., and it. was agreed
that tho a:*iJeal ahculci be to this court and not to the A, spells;. te
Court of the i'hird Disti'iot.
ilexander Bolt...n, the dece.- tied, for rsany years, ±toxx lived
on h. farti near i'Jauvoo, in liaiicock.Ocuj'iti'. -ie ht,d been narried
tv.ioe but all of hia children woro b;^- his firi^t 'Vife, who was i.
aii'ter of Charles k. Cle.rk. On October 14, 191^, he cvaa .'ri^rried
to his second wife, one of the a. >pGllantc horein, who was a
dauFhter of Charlea ... Clarl. t that ticx; he w.:- ubout seventy-
five years old und his wife w..a about forty-five yearo old.
A short time before his second marriage he acciuired title to
IS .oil i?fijfS©SA
.OOOV .
p: .TV -,' l\ ^.
,:too.^a.Ji cucnt Xsegq..
i
( to «*a*aa $ff.;J- to :.-••,'"-- - - >
fi ilitjfcw eevleaaiftrf* e^iario ton fcife ^odf rfoiriw at .■v;.lKxroo jCooaasfi
-5l?;?&a Diffil to ©o.t*oK .fi©Bij«o»i. wit ■%<? n«I OO.atfS^JClt lo <»#<ia
,.6e8«s89i)--ori:* to cil&fC srfJ sx-jv odw , a««£JI«(j<^'a -Aiia 'jseTi-ji saw -#^sa
l'£jSrf-®no o;S l)£)I4'Jite& Si>3r iio;?I©a •& -f^iiiisi; iffidi' bled #xCo© »j(# fcn..,
,.:;..; .if sd* o* fib'sidf-o^.f Mm woi-Jt'« eii* oH irclrf^-ono lietJUj'Ini'sJt};
^■■i otiiiii.il jfciidT 9ri# to ^TiXfOO
A©v.t.j: asxisg^J ,aidJ3i4 Y^aa ■aot ,k&ss&^&ii &tit ,aiitloS. t&iiaBXAi
:i 0.BW orfw ,etiw Jfa-Kit sM ^<l st&w /r®*sjbXi.io aii2 to XXa #srdr aOii?#
&s? £':i:-x,a:i: asiv orf ,yxex ,.:&I tecfoi-oO aC ,iii3lU .A aaXiariO to '%9t»f.B
.3 3BW orfw ,nlsiaii a tiSjaXX ©<!'<;■« eifJ-- to ono ,©ti«' Iujoowb alri oi
-%irx{tv»i^ ;t0O(l.» riM'-K nd .®g!.i* l«iift'#.r ■ ..iisX^v ./ aoXisdiO t© leJrftiWM"
.iXo aiJEssTj; ©Tit"'^*iot S'srotfjis e.e'« »tlw eld J&a» i»Xo sijbv
oit oXtif iioiiupos €Mi o:5«liX5sai l;fTv)O0a aiii aiotsii omit t-sorta i>
several tracts of Janx in Caliiornia- In i'olDrur.r;- , li>14, .■'oiti-'
und vife wer.t to Oaliforrii;:. tc the hcii.s oi hia duuphter, ;.elle
B. BalEor, ivho lived isear Looci • in that stuto. i hile ther-o
i-'olton sold to Jhriat -.c;t;rr.U8aen and iolino .-aa^uyaen, hie. v,ife,
aevertil of theae ti'acto of Ct^lifomia lana for .-Ij, 000.00. .-f
this .amoimt • ..,000.00 wac paid in caah and .1. ,000.00 ivaii o& id
by a note which is: in worda Lnd figwrea iollowinp:-
"$1£,000.00 ' FetJTUary ith, 1-.14.
On or tefcie six years after date, .. ithcut grace, ,vo .iro-
Eise to pay to the order of Aie.;af.der -.olton or wife, l.i. J.bclton,
Twelve iihoueand and no/lOO doll;'io, for valuj received, with i.n-
tereat frcni date at the rate of five o r i.ent oev amiur.. until
paid. j.rinci'Vil and interest oayable in I'. J. Ool t coin at
Nauvoc, Illincis, and in cawo suit is inatituteti to collect this
note, or any portion thereof, we :>roffiise to lay ouch addition-:.3
8u/r. as the court irisy adjudge reasonable as attorney's fees in
said stJit.
Christ -.-i^smuaaen
LxB. boiine .vaanusaen
Belle iv. iJaluier. "
This note was dsliver.^d to Bolton and at hia death .^as found
in hiti safety deposit box in tne .jtate Hanfe of liaiivoo. .rior to
his death three payments had bonn ::.iAiQ on tho note, one of
11,000,00 on Aup.jtit 11, 1^14, one of i-ldOO.OO on oepten.her 1^,1^*14,
and on iJecemuer 31, 1914, the i;.iterest /.-as paid tc Johruaxy i', I'jIo.
These payments ftera aad© hy drafts, at ieai:t two of which w-^re i>ai -
able to Alexander loltcn or wife, i-ary J. Bolton. They were aent
to bolton and the money was creiitod to '^oltcn'a account, subse-
quent to lioltcn's death the halance of 'the note, anxuntinp to
■11,5^8,00 was oai.i to l.J. oohneider, who v.ae ths cashier of tho
bank and alt^o one of the adminisstrfitora cf the estate, a/'.d ..ac de-
•losited in the hani: where it ncvv ia held pending- thie aooeal.
0i©.nl* ©£ti!S .a^iSiJa ,tB,r£* ai -.^Itaoo^I ajiait fieviX ortw ."ssMalisa .f{
,0lj^vj tiirf .neaBWiija-sH oaiXo3 ^'Sa asaa*ra&ij>i J'siarfO o* Aloe -■ ■'
10 .00.000,.?!$ -ial i;.a»X fciirr«&tJtX^O ^0 a^es-x^ &a^i to iv... .....
.&iec a«s9 00*000, .^I.> .SiTB f(ai8o /xi i)I«q saw dO.dOa.vf? ^Tajjoiaa ai^*
.Utl ,i{t? rt'i0a(fei ' OO.0Qn,::X§"
-• ~ d'fi ,^&&tti , ,*jf«j& 'isii'la 3'i»«»'^ xlB' «>io1:»t* 'io >>-
-ri^ jUI;? .A^vti^^jB-x *?^Xw ♦rol- ^irii^Xo.6 OOX\pa l^i^a fcndS«o4'i: «vX.«»wT
li^xtw jii^aaus •2««i #,;.!. rfiX 3fO ©Jai erf? 4« &iMi) sacal iittt^&t
#» nlou tXor! .£.13, xxl 6X(i/4>4j»q 5'«»T6^i:ii ois« X^riioaluii
alii iJi ;}rt« ixc^xod o? ii&.%pvi.^aJa. &mi f^ioxk aJtri'i
jf^-lI^X, ■; . •: 00»00dl*. io _#-ia ».*I«X ,XX l^jw^uA no QO,OOQ,Xti;
-'?;;■ «.-.,.„'poo*ii &'. ...-■• ot iJSklXiiff'xo e«w. ■^•iso« 6>df />«« xio*^-'- ^''*
Alexander Bolton died . opt'iij'bej.' 2^^ I'^ly, lcu\inp- Jiu-vi. ij-,g
hin; hi':? wldc\ , ll&rj J* 'olton, ;mV.1 V*illia^. :. l^oltcn, ^igar A.
Eolton, "iary .•^. ."ollin, lielle li. Lalnier ii-i; i .-aggio -.ollin, his
childron, and Kcitherine Ij. J'.oltcn, I^wrorice ;;<• -Oltoa, .auru ;■.
Bolton, a/il ..iarti n L. Bolter., children of a d-C6iif;ed aoL, i.nd
S&rl A. Boltcn and iiyrna J« I-olton, children of fr-nother deceased
son, as hi;< only heira at la.v* ..^ry A. : ollin, a daughter, died
subsequently to her father and John T. uollin and ••dg&r .'.cltcn
are executors under her last will and tedtariant.
Mary J* iiolton, the '.vlaov;, and .i. ..' . iohneider ,vere <u v)0ix,tej
edffilniatratcrsa of the estate of Alexander bolton. Ihe note in
'luestion wae included in the inxentov^ of the estt'te, to^vether
with a stater;cmt by -.lary .''. Bolton, the v.iio.., that the swto v;eib
in the lOBaesaion of the ..ttite rank of liuuvoo sad vvais cluiiied hy
her and that it was d.3s;crihea ir; the in, entcry aolely for the
]mr:>03e of griring all ;)eri;onG interested notice of itu e:"iBtence
and that it was no iifxrt of the estate but belong-ed to xlary J.
Bolton indivi dually. In the fjfTal account the adiiinifctrators
do not charg-e theniselvee '.vith the proceeds of tho note, cut
stated that it v..>:3 claii?:!cd by :.^o.rj J. i-olton. The 'Jersonal estate
of -lexander Bclton, exoluc-ive f this instni'-ent, ani0untS4. to
over ;J23,646.57, Of thi.5 aic&unt liar;/ J. r-olt-.n rooeiver? her
widow's award of ^i 1500.00 and v5i:50.00 in facney and h.a,nk i^tock,
and il760»00 in cash, ana. the heirs h.^iva recoived their distribu-
tive sliarea as shown by two i'e Krtii of the aooeilanta. Th<;' sole
question upon t is ?..ppeal is as tc the ovsnerahi-) cf the ;>roceefls
of this note.
In ilrwin ve. Felter, 283 111. 35, ■i.:ily 0. r.usk obtained
froro the bank four ^ertif icateii of deposit, each vj&y&tlo to her-
self or urG. l^artha J. rlrwin, or the survivor of either, ^"ho
certificates were left ..ith the bank and receipts v.ere delivered
to -ra. .^uak, each of which recited th«at *i certificate cf deict^it
had been delivered to the bank, payable to -rs. HliLily C. .lusk or
>£arthH D. iSrwin, or the survivor, and in the event of the death
aid ,i'.liIo-i oi?j;a«i'-- -^^ ''■•■* •sasaXad - .xilllofi .A -i{ii.i
i)n6 ,£i;oa i)©!««©o j^ a lo riax&XJtiio ,. ,
MC-.a. , isJii^iTai? fi ,0.1X103. .A xroM ,i»a£ *j» aaieii -liao aid a& ,«cu
i-io;fXsa: ijasisl'i haa nlXXou. /r ixdQf^ £aa %».i^JS.Y -i&ti oi ^X*«6ffp»«tf$f§
♦ ;txitt.!i6*as^ boM XX Iw *&aX led lalsoff \i'i&ia&»x^ ©!«
^iaw ©if Of- s-rfi*" cti»4^ ,wol>Jb» «xl;t ,
.. ,,"i>'.-: .3d!' ^6;S|j:(0.:.f» J J '.j-.> f;j;^,;..;r: eJj ..■..; j i. !;m.: vju ■■..<..;; ^i ...
-T .B*R«XX»((3fr« «f^# to
vi ,T:eriti9 to tc^Yt-rxtm
:y'-:-irr-:.\&b ©leis 8t<' ■ aX ®i»w
i-|s:c *Boni.1 .-©JJtOQ'S do.'.
of I'^ily 0. -vusk, liefore the death of ..artha .0. Brwin, tho hnr^i
was authorized by ^ra. ..usk to f)6.,'; the amounts due to .arthi; i).
lirwin. — rs. r.uak died a/id the .moition \vt'.a ds- to the .-nei'shia ol"
these four certif icatea. The . UtU-o::*G Court he la tht^t the;/ were
the ^iroperty of -:.artha jj. iSrv/in, the daughter. Tho facts in that
CfciSe tire not e^actlji like the case at biir but certain nilow of luw
v/ere announced which are applicable hero. It was hoix thc;t a
joint tenancy ia not confined to real estato Lut may sxiat in
peraonal .vro >erty. The caother find daufrhter wero hold to bo eqxially
entltlei to withdraw the entire de >ocit. :iaoh hold durinff their
joint lived cuLjoct to thii:; rii-;ht in the other, and uoon tjie deuth
of either, the other held by the sar.e title under tho iuatru^j^ent
creating a joint tenancy. The rifj-ht of each tc receive payu-ent
from the bank w&2 the sar;ja, and vested at the timy tiae bank isausd
the certificj':teii. ihe t^ertif icatea were not rift<; in the n.:i.ture
of teataiEontary did oofJitiont; or' oroporty and aid not C' nutitute
gifts to take effect aftor t' e donor's death. It was also held
that the rule that the xeponit of money in a bscak bv one ,>erscn
in the naJiie of another and the retention oi tho evidence of the
deooait by the ooraon in whooh naras the .ie;)cylt v/aa icade, dooB
not apply in cases like thit;. The bank vvf.3 authorired to ;?ay
ilrs. Srwin not riieroly ao the ug' nt of .rry. riuak, Lut au a pftyee
of the certificates and In purtjuaace of thia cc.atract the bank for
yeara xjaid the interest to --.ra. ji-T/in. Vhe <,?rit iii^-ii oonstituted
a contract between the partieu and on the ^eath of ^rs. -.usk the
entira fund vested in i.rs. iJnf/in.
i'e think thiti case ic concluiiive of the quefiticii hero ')re-
aented* In that ease the instruments under consideration were cer-
tificates of de 10.. it and ocntuinod *vordii of survivorship, \Yhilo tins
inatruEient in question in thlb cuae ia a note ..ithcut any provi-
sion as to curvivorahip* In th«r ree 'eota the intstruoients , and
the law applicable thereto, ar- identical. A aertificf^te of de-
posit Jiiay be considered as a pron.it;sory note. i'elford vs. 'atton
lo qiirta-iocfvo arfdr oJ- -as e^iw flOl5'a»j5rp e/l* fca~ x.-izi :SBffi-: .a^iM .ainS
SI©?-; \fs>M ^sd$ il^d ttfSQ<^ ats®ir£i jjf^ ' ©jjlf ♦©©IsoJfliS':!©© -xxrol; ©8»xi>
ill ^.itjfi' hlod aaw *I •ft'xerf ©IrfaoiXcfqis &•%.» rfoirfw fieoniroxma ©•Jcew
'':ZLii!isp& 0d oS" i^£@d ©lew letd^mM J)aa, ,i«5rf^p» od'X' »'i{;tf"i«<jQ'xc Xanoa'xsq;
rid'a^ji:; 94it aCfcra taa ^t^tito ©d* ni tdT^lt 3,ldi o* tf'Oif*^ 'JTtya 8®7lX teioj;
• :.t to o»£j©AlY«! ©f£J to i«}iifis®#0^ »xi* J&iw 'xeiiircjBjai lo 9E2an ©jiiJt 4I
wef^issj ja Q.a *.5fti ,3t8JTH *e*jii.1:d *ii«^a odt bo '^l^tmi toa
iu(a^ 2ltiw!i .e-xi.! I'o ii^&&L &.A'Ji stQ hrm e- : .>.'- is>^w»rj©rf d'o.tr.. ,'
*jESX«r.!-, ««-;:..; ill Itsa'SdV JteUt tri xjaJS.
<-«!(.. arxarf noitsd»p erf* IG »vl«iiIe»isoo si »8«o al££* Itiial* ©W
&iS oXMw ,t5lrfaiOTi'n08 to afeio** lieaie;^fioo iijDt«t #l;;<o<Te;. - Lit
.■'■':.:'■'■'■■'■■ i ^ '
144 111. 611. The jiyfin ots© i.^ bind in;- on thie court and aettlt'3
conoluaively that there can I; u joint tenanc^ in personal oro-
nerty and that Alexander Bolton and vifo >vyi? joint ter.iaiits ol
thia tiot©; alac thtit each, during the joint Jivea, held a\ibjoct
to the rights iVi thu othor^ and u.oon the leath of c^ithor the
other held by the same title; that tho rig-ht of oach to receive
paynient wati the same; th.>--t tho jiote v/as not a pi ft in the ruiture
of a teytanientary device h-ad did not ccnatitute a f^i £t to take
effect after ths doner's death; that the rule of law tivjli cable
to oaeea where a de.jocit of aociey ia ra .do in a bani: h;; one i^erson
in the naa;e of ajiother dcee not ap;ily in thi^; ease.
It is contended \>y ao')elianta that tm decision annoimcod
in the rwin oaae is not in accord witii tho weight of authority.
Kven if it be conceded thut tlie '~rwin case ia not in accord with
the woight of authority, it vsculd be biniiricr on thi:: court and cov!-
trollin^ in thii: case. However, we think thtit case it: in accord
with the weight of authority. In .-:yhner vs. .^eickart, 'v. 111. •
3l£| it wat; held thut the deliver;,/ of a note to one of tv/c or
more ptirtisa will o lerate as & deJilvery to all of tbeni. In Ourr
vs. Bauer, 61 Hi. .1t>. 509, the note ;vas I'JS.y&ble to Thomas Bauer
or wife, and it was held tho-t ari iiistruBient of this iLiad is evi-
dence of a joint contr'act and tht-t both :">arties are entitled to
8ue jointly thereon, .i-lso that the reascnal-le intendment lu thut
the note was given to Bauer ana ivife and, aa they h;;cd jointlj--
asserted their rights to sue, it is doing no violonce to tho in-
tent of the instrament to hold that "or" means und'', and in
fcjupport of this holding, the follov,' nf cases are cite-.: marker vs.
Carscn, o4 If. Car. 563; Knight v;-!. Jones ,-1 ilich. lEly iestf'ate
va, Healy, 4 :-..!. 521; illoui^hb^ vs. illou^^hby, 5 .I.E. 161.
And, in addition tc these authorities ije.y be cited Ycunr vs. Vard,
21 111. t.£i5; ■jsgood vs. ^.'iearson, 4 Gray, 455. In i-'rorer vs.
Hawley, 64 111. i. ip. 446, it was held that the Jossession of a
note by one shown on tho face of the note to be a joint payee
('
fsiaJ o* *1ti% i «i*j»#ltiaabo ifoa jt=i& Jicii saiteifc i^istixsiHatiaet « lo
5iI<ftj0.l:X<j<ja v&i to 'a£jn: »a| i'V^-fi •■':;>;v-,r. a'sdixoi ©ft* le^l-^n",'^'^?*
i-!-:m.«<. o^-'-o ^:ff ^'.j5a 3 ,ai e^tja' s-.i „, jluoqki a' Slav/
.. o slrf'* isi\l«i^« toil a#bJb -s'ftdi-Oisa 1
'!:iOQ i)..., . .- - :- -
ii-!.ootvj -0.1 isi 98as> ^«xf* -ii:^l£i •» ^tst^w'^H
■ .1X1 iJ$ ,^:s;^i©i©>i ,&v i&wi\ , tXioxftira 1:0 ^'it^giev
TtiEsO aX ' .ai©rf* ^e llM ol ic^wlrefe's ejs dtai'eqo XX Iv.
-iv-s el jfcxxll sJtdi Yq famstiBni ti& S&dS M®rf a*:
-iU &di oi ©arxoXolv oil ^filoy&'bl' .? •
,av a-- ;■ : 3'ii} aeaso ^n;wbXXox Aii.7 ,^IJ&Xoxi i-iiis- xo J
* £61 .'-'■■ ~- , : ■'ri^sjiioXXiW .sV 'i(;d"iS^irOtXl!Jt'f '{I-*"'
B lo i:i'jl<^u«&£;0'.^ =vrf;t i-.^i*' 5:t5;af "&..isi^' *X ,S*i' •
can V-e rofcui-ded only .: a prima faoie evidence of IJic title thore
dieoloeed. In .Lemen va. .>tate of i?rcte, aOo 111. ;i.),o. oO, the
oertific&te of dextait wiis in the xmsae of tho hut}bf.ind anl wife,
payable to tha ord-ir of either, boforo or after tiio death of the
other, and it .vaw held that tho funds iverr: held in cqutil sharaa
by tha husband and /a fa and thtit the husband impliedly tade a
gift to the vvife of one-hiilf oi" t>ie aro^eeda of said certificated
and, lioti^'itliatandln,!^ the fact that it si&y have bean thoir intci--
tion th>.t tho furida should be h^-ld jointly „ith right of eurvivcr-
shi), tho funds would at. 11 bo held in coirsnon and t>.e ri|?ht of
survivorship would not obt&in. In JoriEan V3« xiulliatiu, 93 iian.
792, (145 -'uc. 8ie) the deceuBed loiinyd his money ami took a
proEiisaory note, payable to the order of his^sclf, or in oase of
hie. death, to hi.-^ wife, arid it wan hold in iitigatiOiX between
his adffiinititrator und hi«5 yddoiv that tho widOvV waB entitled to
the wholo of the proceeds of thin licte. In Colyer vo. Cook l8
Ind. £72, ( 62 W.ii. 6B5) a huat'crid in payjaent for loncl conveyed
by hia acoe )ted notea payable to himself or his wife, tina tiis
mortgage was uaie to hias alone ;>ecjuring the noteij, which varo found
among hia effects after his death. nla .vife survive.^ hir;. arid,
in a contest over tno ^JrcceedB of the notes, it was held that the
wife was t/e owner of one-half of tho nctoB, In Suoter en i^ego~
tiuble InstrKifienta, cfcige 49, i«ote 4, it is statod that a rote pay-
able to tsvo or nioro peraono iar»ortu preuuJiiptiYely ji joint and
oc~equ.l interest, but thi. doea not preclude proof that the con-
sideration liX'ved Iroia the.;, inseoarate and unequal auiounta. In
Spitier vs. Xalding, 153 Gal. 500 (66 i-ao. 1040) it w&y held thtt
the act of u fsither in loaning hlci money &ndi taking a note and
aiortgago in the m^iiie of hia d&u hter was prima fiicio er-. ience of
a f<ift to the di^uPhter, sven if the father lce,.>t posaesaion of
tba note and liiOrtgagQ*
«
From rll theae uuthoxitisa w© hold that the note was owned
Jointly by ^^lexajider iiclton un.i. ---iary J. iolton, hia wife, and
exit ,0S •«l<iii 'ill soil ,»#0'2f© '^: a«iu»tl al .J&»«o£oei:Jb
as^Ms IiMfj^e Hi Med ^t^v e^Mtft i^t SMdi MssC ^.^v. «-x«x(to
lo M^'it oiidr ijfl^ floa^aoo fli Aix^itt #a Xtij« iiXwaw aiujift <m$^ ,(%iii<»
•.; :j(oo;f toj6 %«a.oai sM i;wi*»ii i,s>.»„ca3ii <siii^ 18X8 •oaS 3*1) , seT
^0 acMJ© aX 10 ,tIoa*atil to ■xsJito orf* of »ld&\B- ' ;o-£m
Bv;; '.-' •■ lqO ul *s>'iiiU MhU'i& ^^.'.r-^y^-.^At -•>•* ■'•• :• •-.-.-. .«|^
l»©'<;evw.v .-..^,. ...>l; #fi:06iTi;«fj al bsmdusai.m (&dd ».. -« .^w . ,>.,- -j&al
edrt iisa ,&1tlm alii to tXemiiJ o^J^ ©Xcfis^^jq adtr^r: r^«.+f »i'>o« asiri ^cf
mit tMif i>Is4 saw *J! ,'St)to.?s' o>^ to ®lri9#Bon;q ©ill "s&ro 31 c ■
fAft^- M^l ©®w tl 4 0^01 .*o#% ad) OOi «XsO St.i , leXtJttfi
»«11w Biff,, ,ikio.; ■-.■■■ ti&hjmx
that upon hia doath one-half of tho n'oceoda loion/- to his
estate and the other half balon^-od to hia widov. , ..^ry J. f-oltcn.
Appellees contend that the- ■. videnca ahov.s th.it the consid-
eration for th.-3 note wa..: furnlBhed entirely by '.clton; th t the
lund sold hy I:olton v^hioh furi.lohei tho convjiicraticn v/aa hie
separate property and hia .vife had no interost therein; thut
the note was ti^en in the na-te of hoth i'or the our .ittee of con-
venience in ordor that either liiipht reooive pu'jijoxit thereon;
th.it isoltcn hiid no intention and ©xpresaea no into.iticu, to
give hi-3 Vvife the nots or t5ie :)roceeds thei'aof, and aa he h^-d
possession of tho note up to the tis^e of hio death., it ia con-
tended that thoso f . eta take thiw case out of the operution of
the rule of lav. above announced. . great deal of toatimony
was taken as to the source from wj^ich the proceeds of t?;i8 note
cariiO. thirii: such an inquiry wa.i entirely iiiiEi;..teriall The
deceased htid en abac lute right to have the note luade as it v/as
mado, and uoon ita delivery to hia, it becaj^ie efiectivo and the
title waB vested jointly in him and her.
V«e also think the evidanoe sui: tains ti^e ocatention of the
appellant thc^t it w i.^ the intention of .•.lexandGr Icltcn to p-ive
one-half of thia note to hia wiire. In a conversation ut the
"breakfast table ut the home of .ra. Char .lea d. Clark in -hie.-..;?':- ,
the second day after hia u.arriafe, c-.laxander olton state' that
it 'ffaa his intention to give his Gaj if orxiia land to .Ira ..Molten,
appellants offered to prove th:;t ..lexander Boltcn had stated in
another -Onveraation, a abort tias before his /.arriago, that v/ter
he and -ars. iJolton were carried he intended to give her hia
Cailforiiia land, rhis eviience v>'a8 objected, to by the a vjellees
and th'i objection was austainei, and v/e are of the opinion that
Such evidonce shoul; ha-ve been admitted, iiiexaader loiton went
to California in lSi4, to the hQtiie of hi. daufhter, -:-ia. Z;al:i.er,
and at the time the land was cold to the -vasiaissens, iS'- and
iirs. .uoitcn, i^ra* ;-i.lc:er and iir. and ->irB. ..assziussen v;?2re present.
{•
eld Oil: ;-/.mi.Gtt wi'i'.vs.3fj,i-uT «f£!j- io tSM.-'miO ^imlb %lsi siQiisr t^!^
•jnotl'foa *1 ipiais >,»ol!iw .«1;4: 'Wt -I>4tisiaoI»tf' tX.a^ lad'Jo ait# luui, ■:■■■ ■^:;--
-120® to ©iii<8ti"SjErq exit tot rf#<5<i to «sb^ e^;f ixX aeiai^ s«w ©J-.
SiiC^-xati* ^fiisE-^g «!vX®o6"s Mj^ics 'iMfi© ^;^fi;f 'XoDno. j»X jooctdiaeT
•^aoa .11: 1.1 ,rl^afi& .&if{ %<i m.lt »dt. g^ qs ^ioa usii to ixo ia<s»9:soq
to nolj^ja-isr^a &d# to 4h3r« «»&& al^c&t 9:<alao* ^.to/il: »:&miii. t^dt .Jbuhmi
.^!»it £iiU3 cstiii ^il \Litmtol l)si-e'3? 8«w »xslj
©tris «# KoifXO'iS f€>ifea«;i£©X.A - Ito aoMaalni *£lt -a aw-, ti -^M*/ t£t«IX®«r«f*
»Ki^lo^.»utli oi iiaal Mian&tXLA'^ Bid ttrJt^ &$ aolisi&iMl »Xii &em tt
aJt M^^ie bed iso^Xelt lahnaxaiA tsiAi ®-soi^ o* J6ri»lct« a;rflL8lI«w5.e^
®M T«iii a-v'lg d# '.,&@ili5»eiJi?tl ■i&jdJAoinE.effi -«tt«w is©tX»S'«»'siiii ijiia ©^
a00XXs<5<?J5 odtj ^d 0* i>«to©,t«f© 8S'« ®ass»isi:ve aliif ♦J&ii&siX jUtaiolXititw
^T^&LmS. .ei« ,i#^il^j,j«J5 mM 5-0 ofi'Pii' Oil;* o^ ,Mti .'ollXfiO o#
Mt& «ix.-. ,iSi:i®88i7iiia&a tsiCii' o;?J&X©a asw tool ^di ealJ 'ad? *pi f*m^
The parties T.et at the home of Mrs. Palsrer an.l tv.e dae J wag
delivered and the not?, was rre-areJ. It waa written by «ra.
Balner. She made It ps^yuble to Aiexanier Colter or xLe.
It wae tea. 3 alouci, and Alexander Bolton male r.o objeotion to
the foroj of tne note or to t'ue faot t'-'at hi a wife's naT.e was
written In t .e note ao a payee. T:;ere wag evi ience t^at it was
me.de payable to both for aonvenienoe, but this evilenoe waa
slaply the oonolusion of the wltneeaee. Even if such testimony
wa.8 not tlie conclusions of the witn aseg, but were str-teffienta
of fact, auoh statefi'ents were ncl sufficisnt to overcome the
evidence tending to ahow an inler.tioi; oi' Bolton to veat in his
wife an interest in th© note. Convsnieno© ooul i well prompt in
him such an intention. Appellnnts offered to prove that -jslten
certain payments were Ji>y.le t'-;at Bolton p5.id a part of t- e pro-
oeeda of this notei to hi.- wiff.but tMt evi ienoe wae excluded,
ani we think improperly bo. T ;ers ia also evidence in the
record tending to Qroys t'^at the drafts! with wMc'; the '^oney
was ps,id were made payabis to Aiexanisr Bolton or »iiife.
The circuit court was in error in holding that the entire
proceeds of the note belonged to tr?? est'-t-*, anl t ;6 county court
wae correct in it a holding th^,t the estate was t^.e owner of one-
half of t le proceeds of the note and tbat the other half wae the
property of Mary J. Bolton » and the ^uigr.ent of the cirouit
court «iil be T'^vereed ana ii.e c&use reiBanded with directions
to enter a final order in aocordance with the vie»e herein
•xpreased.
Reversed a.ni reT^nded with direotiona.
"^1 t
1^''
/ w -L
2 2^6-I-r4»~a.4 f
zL-.k^
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun" and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fourth day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine
hundred and twenty-two, within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois :
Present— The Plon, NORMAN L. JONES, Presiding Justice.
%^
Hon. AUGUSTUS A. PARTLOW, Justice.
Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Justice.
JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk.
CURT S. AYERS, Sheriff.
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on AUGd ^^2l the opinion of
the Court was filed in the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures following, to-wit :
General i-o. 6979 47
The eoplQ of tho -jtate of
Illinolo,
'jefarid&Kta in >ror,
vs. firror to Lake
3aci oalk and Uharlea Pappengea,
Plaintiffs ir. Srror,
Jones, J*
The plaintiffs in ei'ror, ^tiz. iiali: and Chtirloe xBpaangea were
oonvicted in the Oounty ^^ourt of J^ke County upon an information
containing aix count a. The fix-at count oh&rgod xjH illegal inur chase
of intoxioatiiig liquors. The trdrd count chargod unla»vful troiis-
sortation of intoxicating liquors and tho fifth oomxt charged tiiat
the defendants did unlawfully c.:us9 Intczioatirig liqiiors tc be
transported.
Before entering upon tha trial, a action was ;ijado t^ the
plaintiffs in error to quash the Tanir© for a Jury on the grcfund
that it was not isujuaoned as provided in Section 110 of the"Court8"
.4.ct» The record shov® that the County Court of Lake i^ounty conven-
ed for the April Tok;, 19S1, on the- 11th day of .pr il. The venire
was ordered issued on ths 28th da^r of .pril. The Inforrcation in
this case, howovsr, was not filed until :.lsy 7, 1921. xhe defendants
were arraigned and pleaded not guilty. Upon th.' call of the case
for trial on ilay 10th, tha court ordered a special venire to fill
tho panel directed to the sheriff of tho cotinty. Section 110 of
the said Act provides that juries in the County ^ourt shi-ill be drawn
and swoaioned in the same cianiier as provided for the drawirig- and
BUEQiiiOnlng of juries in the circuit court, unless otherwise ordered
by tho court. Tl^t section also proviies that on the firat duy of
the term, if nc jury has been drassn In the Efeinner provided for
drawing juries in the circuit court .the oouit shall call the docl:ot
to ascertain what oiiaea are for tri^^l hy jury and order a jury
suiEiBOned. As noted above the jury in this case was drawn in the
?ik evy<i .01 la-.-
r A <^ C^
''8;t^jEfoO"©iJ;J' to Oil aolSQ&B nl k^hl^oiq as fefwioiaiaaa Son Sisw il tutCt
iu'Xlcj.ov sd2 *i.f r;i- 1:0 ^4^ dSll r->dS sm ,XS»X .jsieT Xi-XQA eri* ^o'^ fi»
'j#i!MlwiolQ& DiS'I •ISei ,T ^isl. Xa^fiS ^eXil *Ofl saw ^•ssvQWod ,©8ao aid*
tf> fiXX aoitooc- »Y.^awo3 oil* lo ^tliede ©ify oi bi^tceilh l&am. ^^
:t^'B':S> 5;dr ID'ida ^"xi/oO ^airoO &d;t nl s^iisfl ^aifsT S9iJi70iQ *oa bt&B od:^
ij-ats^ij-xo- ^8ii?^«*-d^© KiSalas* j^-ssoo tiipsil© ofsit ss.1 B&tif3% ^o s;3:li3.©s3'G0a
-50^ 6© diva 1% "seaaaai ad-t ^iJt i.<m^h iw&tf Sjasi \,ijyt o« ti ,arx«4" od*
latter manner. It is oontended that since the information in
this case was not filed until 1/iay 7th neither of the parties could
have called for a jury on the first day of the term nor could they
have done so on April 28th and that unless one of the parties call-
ed for a jury the panel was not legally ordered. It is also contend-
ed that the venire ought to have been quashed on defendants' motion
"because a part of the jurors were summoned "by the sheriff who was a
witness on "behalf of the People. Unon hearing the motion the court
overruled it but announced that any juror stunmoned "by the sheriff
would "be excused at the instance of the defendants, if challenged.
Plaintiffs in error did not avail themselves of such offer nor
make any effort to do so, "but proceeded to the selection of a jury
from the empaneled jurors. They can not now complain of the pre-
judice or interest of the sheriff.
If there was a necessity for a jury at the ..pril term, the
jurors should have "beeri obtained under the provisions of Section
110 of the act entitled "Courts". When it appeared that no jurors
had been drawn from the box the court should have ascertained on
the first day of the term if there were any cases for jury trial
and if there were any, a venire should have thereupon been ordered.
When a panel is thus obtained it may be retained for the trial of
all oases at that term. If any vacancies shall occur in the panel
the court may order the sheriff to fill the same with talesmen.
In this case the court did not on the first day of the term order
a venire to issue but did so on a later day. This was irregular
it
"but is not such a departure that/will render the venire invalid
when challenged. The court had an undoubted right to subsequently
order talesmen summoned to fill vacancies.
The evidence in this ease shov/s that the plaintiffs in error
and three other men v/ere with a big motor truck on the night of
May 6th, 1921 about three miles from Grays Lake in Lake County,
Illinois. The truck was unable to move because the rear end was
off the hard road and into a ditch. There was in the truck and
along the road beside it 124 cases of liquor, a portion of which
ai iioxd'i'Jtrcolci: edi eortla i'acid' JbsJbae^^.aoo ax JI .lenneni 'Xd^d'sl
^x;9riJ isijjoo "xoa caiei ed^ io ^Jfe ta^cil e£[,t xso lij^'ij;;^ ^ "^o^ JieXXao eyed
-±l30 a©i;fi3q edt lo sno aaslxm .tBrfi" irts ii*83 XiiqA iio oa exioJe ©vjsri
.onavtcToo osla ei il .Seieljio -^XIbsqI ^oa axsw Xoj^jsq; eii:^ -^ijjt a t:o!1: b&
noltooi '' ■ai£<L&S>£i0leb ao beda&ss^ rtsed &rsd oi J-dgifo oiiaev edi d-erit Jb6
llxrcedB edi xd henoasiviSTa toisit xcm iadi^ LoocsoasLQ tjjrcr is. jjelimevo
..oeg.asIlBflO 1.1: ,3*xisJo.ciol9Jb ©xi* lo soius^aai; 9H* -v^r:, '.c3.;;o,xe ©cF Hjtow
Toa 1913:0 doura l:o aevIsp.aisriJ Ilsva *6fi filJj . 8lt^i:trtij?I1
nxj^ & Id 0OWOOI98 ed* o3- b^be^ooiq &ud ,oa 06 o* tiollo -vjaa
--©ig eiiC^ aO xii«I(iJ5!oo won *0i3 wm xedf .Bicrc^t J98ieiiaq;£He eiit fliorrl
.ITtliexis »dt to ieeiQtsil to eotbai
sdt .ffi'xst Jiinq^k sdt tB xissl b 10I itiBBeo»ti e 8sw eieri- 11
xiotuosg 1:c snoIaJtTCiff &df 'xs&rxr 5sxx.tstd"o rieecf evaii LLsod^
etO'iJT^ on taxi;?" JbexeeqqB tl aed'-" ."at'xifoO^' I)eIJJ:i"n© tos Bdt lo Oil
rxo ij^xitsi-isosg svsxi ^.Isoxfe ;J'ii?oc ©xii' xc<f odt laoiS xswancJi xieerf l»sd
l3iid- Hitirt 'io^ s©a«o -^iis e^ew e7.ex{;t 11 ar-xed" edj lo ^aB i'gnijt edit
,iJ3i9£no need" tiocjxreioi^* ©va£C J&Iffoile ©ilnov 48 ^^s ©i©w eiexit Ix
lo isiri;!' sdt Tol Iisaiai-e:! ©rf ^aca Jx Jbeixis^cfo sxjfW ei Leaj^ a a&d^
lenaq. Bdi ai •rxj'ooo Slade BelaajBOar "^a 11 .airret *BxIt ^js aeeao XXe
♦ laemesXjstf d'^lp; saK^e exli" IXJtl ot lliieila eri* leiio -zssa ^rwoo aif*
•seMo nr.si- ^dt ,'±0 ^j^ ^J-atxl exit xio ;fou bib jixroo ©riii' eaao ald^ nl
i^Xi'se"?:'!;! saw alr{l* ."<jsJb i©asl s no oa J6iJ& tad esrasl o;f e-sineT s
MXfiTSi: oiinsY ejxI;!' "reBnet IIxw\tsxi;J'. QisxtiBaBb a doae toa e± tsd
rStnQugesdss^ ot &d-^£t b&tdxsc&ns js.a b&d, ^tsfob odT .JbesneXXsilo nexJw
, as i: c xte oa V XX 11 o* JB oaomEiirs fiaina o X ? *■ '■ '-^ -f
cco^te III alli-tolfiXq &dt &&d^ awoda ©e^o sxri* xii ©octeMTe .--^
'±0 iTisixi sxl* HO loxnt 'ro;fotn sXjT a xi^lw ©lew iisxn nexlto e<>ti{# i&xis
,'£txL0oO el&I si Bisvl a-^orS atoil eeXiffi eetcx^* JiJotfa XS^eX ,il*d -^sM
3£« i)fie rrssi exio saxcsoetf eToce ©;!■ eXefacur aaw ioxnt eHT .alojc;-
tjxa losjxd- ed* at aew ©isrlT .£iad-ll> ,9 o-^al bsse b.. Qdt llo
ift)xilw ^0 xjoitioq B ,xojjp±X lb aea^sd i»SX *± yifJtaetf Jbaoi ad* ^oXa
was afterwards analyzed by a ohemist and tested 3.02 per cent
alcohol by volume. An officer came along and arrested the de-
fendants and took possession of the liquor. The evidence farther
sh07/s that the plaintiff in error, Salk, adciitted to certain wit-
nesses that he was "the boss of the stuff" and that he v/as the
owner thereof. At the time the officer came to where the truck
was located as above described, I'appengea and another man were
sitting in the seat of the truck and the witiiess, Attridge testi-
fied that Pappengea told him the liquor was good beer. One of the
defendants at the time the officer came upon them stated in the
presence of the others that they v/ere taking the load to Fox Lake.
Pappengea was found guilty by the j'ury under the third coujit
which charged unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquors and
judgment was entered against him th; t he pay a fine of t-lOO and be
confined in the county jail for twenty days. We believe the evi-
dence in the ease warranted the finding of the jury and the judgment
of the cotirt as to Pappengea.
Plaintiff in error, Salk, was found guilty by the jury under
the first count, charging an unlawful purchase of intoxicating
liquors and also under the fifth count charging that he unlawfully
caused intoxicating liquors to be transported. There is not a
particle of evidence in the record tending to show that say of the
liquor was purchased by Salk or anyone else. Ifo effort was made
to show a purchase. We express no opinion as to how he obtained
it or how he came into possession of it or whether or not he was
the owner of it. Outside of fch alleged admission claimed to have
been made by him there is no proof that he was the owner of it.
In this case the first count should not have been submitted to the
jury because there was no evidence in the case tending to show the
guilt of any of the defendants under that count.
Inasmuch as the judgment of conviction entered against Salk
was under the first count as well as the fifth, the entire judgment
against him must be reversed. The Supreme Court of this State in
People vs. Gaul, S33 111. 630, has said that "The judgment of the
county court, although based upon different coujits of the inforii^ation
•rsiit-xxft soxiefiivs ©dT .TOjjpil ©xl* lo floxss©sao9[ loos' Mjb aifiatosl
ed;t- 8SW sri #&ri# £j3b "^tlia^a eri* lo eaocf ad*" aaw ed iadi aeeeen
ioiTf* sd* eaedw 0* ejseo ic©o.tllo ed* sooEi:* ed* *A .leered* aejowo
613 w n&a tedtoixs iina 303x1 eqqjgii. ,i}acriaoee£> eroda sm bt>t&ool asw
-2*30* egliii**! t6aan*iw sd* x)«a iojis* ©d* lo *J366 ©d* ai ^i**le
ad* lo O£i0 .T:06d" 1)003 s^iw lojtfpll ©d* aiid J5Io* .eegjKeqqsl *sd* ieil
Gd* fl± As*B*a ffisd* coqij sfsiao ■xeolllo ed* eicjt* ed* *e s*C6Jbfl9teJc
.saiSil s»-l 0* J&BOx ©d* 3jC£±2[a* ©lew ^©d* *j8d* e-xad*© od* lo ©octeBe^Cf
*-50oo J&ild* sd* 'xoiiass x'^^t ©^^ 'i^" x^llijg Jbmfol sbw segnegqs^L
fcxis BiojTplI afii*iioi:xo*ixi lo nolJjsdioqensi* IxawBlxixf JSogiBdo doldw
ea' Sae OOXf lo anil s "i^bq ®d *;jd* mid *8i£i:s3JB' J6et!:e*Ji© aaw *a9iiisl»ifE
"XYS en* evexlsd oW ,a^s&si) ■!c*iiew* 10I Xiat 1^*11000 ed* ai J&euxlxsoo
tsiB'^s^hfj!;, 6ii* Ma xxss^ sd* lo galiiiiil ©d* ^®*asTisw esBO ©d* aJt eoneXi
•ssgaoQCLjafl o* as *iiToo ed* lo
•tBbais \rsjl, ad* ''^d ^^*Iif73 jbmrol aaw ,iI&S ^loi-xa -xti lli:*fiij8is:
3iix*soixo*ni lo QaBd^iirq: lixlwsIiXff as sal3'isd3 «*xojo» *8ii:l ed*
-'■^Ssil^i^iiss ed *Bd* ^.axsisdo *riijoo dJlJtl sd* 't&Ma oale Joaa biob^II
s io£L ex e-xedT .i>@*ioc8a«^* ©d o* STidiyplI 3a:Jt*JB0lxo*££l ^qqj^so
ed* lo \,i3H *iid* woda o* ^ni^as* .&*5:oo6a ©d* ni sons^iv© lo slctttAq,
&b&ii ssiW *aoll6 oa .eals sKO-^gcsa lo ll^B %<i ^eaadoiffq asw loaplX
i)eaiai<So ed wod o* as i^o.txxl:qo oxx aa©ic£xe sW .eBadoiirg & woda 0*
Sjs-sr 6d *oi2: TO nsd*sdw to ti lo floieeeaaosj; o*si eeias sd wed to *i
oyed o* ^sfHlsIo xcoxaaiaxJbe M-gQll& dA lo ©JbiatsO ♦*! lo teirwo ©d*
.*i: lo 'Sen. wo srI* saw ©d *j3d* loors?. oxi al eied* isM -^tf eb&is. xreecf
sd* 0* i)©.t*liaci0e xieecT avad *on cXwoda *m3-oo *BaH sd* ©8430 ein
Oil* node 0* 'gax^xs®* eass ©d* at ©ojisMv© oxt saw e^sd* ©affeoed" xtal
«*ji£roD *i8d* isJtoE- a*aeJ&n©leJ& ed* lo ;^e lo *Xij3a
IXfiv *50..t^« i>siait&© riOi:*oi:vrxoo lo *jaefflsJ5i2rt ®d* aa doOTieaxiI
r^iem-ghal 6iJt*iTa od* .<d*li:l &d* ajs I£©w s& *mj'oo *atll ©d* leJbxii/ b»w
i-r, ©*.a*2 aid* lo *xiroO oEQ^iqj^B edf .fieaiovai erf tawte oiid *siii£Sja
r-cLt Ic .J-ju^ui8isr£ ©xf^" *j3d* Bias asd ,0®S .XXI SSS ,tXxffi>0 .av ©X::'
>ic ■ !; 3ii* lo a*iiffOo *0e'x©llxi' ' . ' \ '' ' , ' ■■
is 30 far a unit that it should t© either reversed in whole or
affirmed in whole." See also People vs. ii'owers, 200 111. Aoo. 536;
People vs. Goldburg, 210 111. App. 422.
Inasmuch as the judgment against Salt must te reversed for
the reasons atiove stated and remanded to the county court for a
new trial, we express no opinion as to his guilt or innocence,
under said fifth countp of the information.
The judgment against plaintiff in error, Pappengea is affiraed
and the judgment against the Plaintiff in error, Salk, is reversed
and remanded.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
;dS6 .qgA .£11 OOS \a^o\iK/'i .8T elqoel oala ©©8 "♦elodw ai ieiffxilrlB
.as^ .q,4A «XII OXS ,5|ixrdSloa .av ©Iqce-i
,3orcf^nrn-;T- -.-c cfi'o-g al.d ott BB nolniqo Qo. aeeiqxa ew ,IsJhc# wen
fpsB-xQTst£ 6i ^3LLs8 .lei's:© isi l^itaisll edi ^bsxIb-^a iaeais^ssl eAt bus
.i)eJQxxB0e^ baa
STATE OF ILLINOIS, |
SECOND DISTRICT. \ '^'^- I, JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court.
in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keei)er 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 Testimon\/\Vhereof. I hereunto set my hand arid affix the seal of
Co ^^0\ _aav of
said Ap
Court., at Ottawa, this
in the \ear of our Lord one thousand
nine hundred and t\vent^■
Curk/of the Appelktit Court.
i!936— 200— 7-22) igg l U
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURTV-
' ,#
egun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fourth day of April, in the ye^^ of our Lord one thousand nine
i hundred and twenty-two, within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois:
I .;
'resent— The Hon. NORMAN L. JONES, Presiding Justice. /
Hon AUGUSTUS A. PARTLOW. Justice. /
/
Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Justice. g'
JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk. #
CURT S. AYERS, Sheriff. #
k
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on .-\UG ^^*^' the opmion of
the Court was tiled in the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures following, to-wit:
■;^,
Oi a^ a T R. 1^ 4 ^
General ilo. 7024
Charles Samuels on,
appellant, - O .L
vs. ^-ppoal from Winnebago
Hocfcford Chamber of Commerce,
et al. ,
appellees ,
Jones, J.
The appellant, Samaelson, who was the ylainuiff below, sued the
Hockford Chamber of Commerce and others in assumpsit under a written
contract of leasing of 193 acres of land to be used by the United
States Government in building Gamp Grant. The declaration avers
that the defendants agreed to pay for damages to the crops of the
plaintiff by the United States Government. There were tv/o instru-
ments, set up in the declaration and introduced in evidence, alleged
to be papers relating to a sir^le contract. The first of them known
as "Plaintiff's Exhibit 1" provides for a leasing of the premises
by the plaintiff to C. A. Dickinson, trustee for the Rockford Chamber
•
of Commerce or his assignee to be used for a training camp or can-
tonment purposes with the right to reinove buildings and improvements.
It further provides, "Second party to pay an annual rent of $£0.00
per acre payable semi-annually beginning Jan. 1, 1918 amd every six
months thereafter (|5.00 per acre per year for tbe first year shall
be deducted from said first year's rent and placed in the hands of
3» K. Burpee and applied to crop damages as per aeoarate contract
with the Hock ford Chamber of Commerce) such rent shall be consider-
ed as beginning to run on Llaroh 1, 191^, and the rental year shall
terminate with IJarch 1st of each succeeding year". The second in-
strument known as "Plaintiff's Exhibit 3" is dated June 23, 1917
and is as follows.
"In consideration of the Hockford Chamber of Commerce of Hock-
ford, Illinois subscribing and paying the sum of t.26,000o00 for dam-
ages to crops of the undersigned, the undersigned hereby agrees to
rent their respective tracts of land as provided in the lease, sub-
^20 V .oli Iai9ii6-D
.R ,|^. Pi a J ^0€
.1. jBenoI.
cd* £>sj;s .v/oled i^iS'xiiiilq oAi a«v/ oiiw ,xioal9xraije& ^tanli&c^fis, sdT
-BTtaai OTfrJ" e-xeis! e-xeriT .d"iiQKiin:evoiS seJiixtS issd-inU eri* "^cf md-xixalq
S98.bi9'xq yxid^ io ■gnlSBel s toI: ae^lYoiq "X d'icfiriTvS a'l^xtcijal'i" se.
.8;l"n©aeTouc[ini £xi£ sgriiXJllM svcxes'x od- isi'^ii edi ditd eeeoqixrq d-necinod-
00,03f io d-jiGT iBJ/aafi ixis \&<i oj -^^laq jBjEcooeS" ,ael>iv(n;q ledd-uxl ol
xxs TTisvs liitis 8I8X ,1 ♦r^.sL saxrcxriaerf -^iCsiCxas-iaiee eldfi-sj^sq eio-s "req
Xliiiis xsa'^ iBiH sdd- 'loi "SBS^ i:sq si03 tc©q 00. S|) "xeJ^fiSiOfitt adiJTtocT
to sX)jcJ3d ciid' ai ceoaXq iise d"nei s''xse^.i S^aij:^ JE»i«e uio:tl fjst&iil)©!* ecf
do,!.ii's:j0oo ed'B-SBoea ^oq se SfigaaaA qoTio od- fisxXqqjs fins esqiB€ .3 ♦£
-iSlilsriioo sd XXsrie d-noi rJoxrs (eoiexainoO io leafoifldO j&iol iooH eriJ iid-Jtw
IXadB xaeY, -Cad-aei ©rid' .Sua ,"X§X ,X iaoi-aM ao rxu-i oct gnlxmiiS ecf Sij Jbe
-ixx Si.ioos3 sriT .''liie-j grrxfjeaooxre .dose lo teX doiJsM ii*xw ed'aaifflrrsd-
VXeX ,SS oxtjjL iisd-iife ai "S d-icfxds2 e'^lxd'fiijsX*!'' a« iiwoiKl d-xrsmjnts
.awcXXol a*, ax /^na
-;Iooa lo syxeiiitaoO lo -xecfiaiSiiC* ^lolaCooH &At lo nold'sisiiBiioo nl"
-jEaB lol 00»000»BSo| lo iOffs ed^ §r:l^jEjq i)ae igalcfxioacfi/s aJtoniXXI ,i>io1:
Q.-t a©ei§i5 ^jcfe^^exi J&eu3xsi©x)£i0 erid" ,J&9ii8xsi"©^mr edd" lo aqoio od" aeg^
-Jjj^ ,ssj2eX 9.dd" n:x SeJbJtYO "xj; as isofiX lo sd'oaid' ovid-oeqaa:! ■xxsrid' d-nsi
JGct to C3i*tain olujigoa required lay then., to the? Unitod otates
Govemnient fcr tha sum of ^16«00 per tjore, the first j?ear and.
'20.00 tile following .year, ^^5.00 deducteci fro:; the ront tho first
year are to be applied for dom^gea to the croi>s in ooiiiiection
with tho $25,000.
Changos atov© iuautior;cd to te u^uAe in tho laaae ore that tho
owueru of tha farica ar^- to get rent frot.i I-aroh 1, 1917, und notioe
of teniiiGation of tha tcmancy of any year is to bo given theii the
first day of July jjrecedinp the first day of arch of the year tho
tenancy ia to he ended.
The Ch&'iifcer of CoiDmeroe hereby agreas to (n-y the sur^ of
t25,000 in aocordanoe with the atove agrecsiont'' .
iibchibit 3 is net an original contract but is a cojiy cf the
body of one which v?aa' signed by the dockford Ohairher ol wOicusrca .^nd
the other defendarxts in the cas&, and also by oertuin farcers.
The sjchibit contains the typewritten nanaft of the defendtinta but
not those of the fares rs.
Tha plaintiff testified that at no ti:-.e aid h: eTor see tha
originfil of iichitit 3; that hs never sifrned the origiiial and that
rJxhibit 3 waa handed to hlai at tho tiiae he signed .ichibit 1.
^hibit 1 was dated Jxinu 30, 1917 but v?as mot executed until ^eoteu;-
ber 4 or 5. lixhibit '6 was dated Juiia ii3, 191V, 'Ihoro in no proof
that it was delivered to hi^i oy any of the cofimdants or by anyone
authorised by thei.j to deliver it. Jxhibit 1, tho Oxily paper signed
by the plaintiff, contaii*5d an sxpr^am provision titit all the
promisee not u^ed by the United otataE Oovemnent or the '«ar
Department th«?roof are reserved until tha growing cro ^« ncvs? thereon
are cut and harvested. t the time this inetrurjeat was exoeuted the
farm was largely devoted to corn, potatoes and other aropa* 'Bio
plaintiff was required by the OoverjiinDnt to leave the buildings in
September and he teid a sale of all of his personal propertj' on the
l£.th of that EGonth. He was not allowed to go aljout tho buildings
after the 18th but he was not in any way jir evented from teadinf^ the
corn and potatoes and nobody laolostad him. Eo testified that a
written demaiid for possession was given hiic by an offioor; that he
- " '.;;•;. i,.e-3'L>it cdt o^ ,BmiU ^d Amlap^'i 8«§rjw<o Jil-e#^©0 ot toe
xuui ■XBU'iS, itBii^ sa* ^e-rac T:©q 00«dl| 1« ia*fs -odi 'lot #iicr ^- :"
s-el^Joff tea ,VX§f ,1 ile-xaM ^o'A *nea ;f»3 , to^I: ©d:^ !to e-jara^o
fefii' i^sjl^ iiwTi^ e«f oJ ei i«©)^ \0e 'xo vsaaat** eilar to aolSasiisaaf lo
eri*- 'xjjei; ci^- to jIoi/j?.^ ;tc ^afe -Jaiil: ©iff srt.tfcasa'Stt ^i?» to -^afe tm.tt
*b9tst« ©d" o# »1 vofjaii©^
1:0 im& &dt xsyf, oi eeeij^ ^cferjod aaTcefflsaeO to ■xerfcv-
hisi-. eo^SiiSBQii Ic itadiaai^D l»i35:j(«oii od^- '^d bangle 'sbw nel^'' eco
feriy see -jtsTsi ttfi Aii; ijmH Oil *« tf^iii^ t.dilitast ^?:i;Jjitii;
"■..,.- ''jzsi Ije^xwex© ^J-ocT a&vi tu<S "■' " ^ fASXst^ jh®.taw, t^& X
- ai OT»iiS .?I«I ,§S sa»^ xi^,S'i<: -Ami h ix ^ ' ■" '.-.;
ekt II& tad^ oeialvo^q ae^uqas? xss b&ipLOimi^ , - .^., .... <,...s.. ....... ......
f i*di e roO oil* ^Q* ^«'3:iwj^ aiiW i;
, 1
was unatle to state whether it was for a part or all of the preicises.
He offered teatimon?/ to show that there v/as an excellent crop of
corn on 58 acres of the land and that it stood in the field u:itil
December. He did not harvest any of the crops and thf purpose of
his suit is to recover the value thereof from tha Charrber of Commerce.
At th3 close of the plaintiff's case the defendants moved the court
to insti-uot the jury to find for the defendants and tendered a per-
emptory instruction therefor which motion was denied. The court in-
dicated that there was no evidence that the plaintiff had been pre-
vented by the (government from harvesting his corn, potatoes and some
grass but that there was some evidence tending to show that the plain-
tiff was deprived by the G-ovemment of the "benefit of the crop on a
small piece of land near the buildings. TJoon motion the oourt ex-
cluded all evidence relating to other damages from the jury and
limited the plaintiff's right of recovery to $7 5,00, being the anount
of damages the plaintiff himself h;ad fixed for the loss of tho crops
on the small piece of land near the buildings.
When the trial court had indicated its views of the case under
the evidence in the latter part of the day, the plaintiff reqfuested
the court to grant him until the next morning to produce witnesses
to prove that the govei'nment had taken possession of the entire
farm on or about September 15, 1917 and that plaintiff was not
thereafter permitted to go on it or to remove anything therefrom
and asked the court to adjourn until the next morning. He also
offered to prove that some committee had appraised his damsges at
f 1,845. 00 and had tendered him a check for that amount which he had
refused. This tender was not made by the defendants or any of them
ajid was apparently made under the supposition that the plaintiff
himself was a paity to the original of iibchibit 3. The court, in
the exercise of its discretion, refused the plaintiff's request
to postpone the trial until the next morning to enable plaintiff
to secure additional evidence. The defendants offered no eviaence. -
The jury returned a verdict fixing the plaintiff's damages at
|'75.00 and the cotu-t entered judgment on the verdict after over-
K^''
^0 Qoio d-DBlIsor© JESS 8J8W ©tsxi* '*si£* wodB 0* -^ncaaJc^fes^r fi.sis^lo
I.cdxifc- ilei^ odd- nx Jbooi^e ^i *ad* ibae hSL&t $Ht 'io seaoB 8S uo ;i ■:•:.«
lo eaoqiirq- sri^t Jbrcs eg 01© 9/l.t *fco \;;«a d-Bsvisri tfoit fix: . ■ . c;v.
©yrreasEcoO !ro TednsjcfO eat do-vt IroeiodiT e^Iav sd^ levoos^ o;J- ai: ilm -ia
-©•xq creed Bar! *tiitnljBlq erii" •^a.AH eonaJblv© on asv? ©i8ii;t *£xl^ iejisoiis
osjoa Ms a0Qt£;^oq ,u1go aid '^ioasTijad oioi^ tnefflausvoS eslt ^rf 69*nev
n>3lq Q/i* terf* worfs o;^ gniJixis* eoacsMTe offioa eew ©led* ia&i txrtf eesrrg
-xe trcijoo 6£<u noi*©m aoqU .e^nJ:KliKf' eddf isea ficsl lo eseiq Ilsfae
.asniblxi/cf sdd* laen Mai !» eot^.L
'to&xxf eeao eri* ^o ewoJtv B^i i>6*i5Si:Jbiii fisri #Utfoo iBltcd" ©fl^ xieriW
eassoni'lw eouJboiq ot Tjxixaiofli #x©n sH* Ii*mr ralil ;f£ii3'S3 od' #1060 oclj
six^riQ oriii- lo iioxsasaaoc: n©:^j8# ^«(l JjfneaajttTevos ®rfj #
Jon SBW !t1:itoifilq *Bri* J»as V£^X V^X •£9(Jai©tq®a >iiocf.;
.t.B ee^aaBi aid iiesis^iqqe j&jsd setJlESBSoo ©sios ilsfl* ©TO'iti o^ ^d-xelAO
ojd# lo 'pts 'xo '&imhsL^\eh ©d* '^d" ©J&.fi^ *qcc a&w ■ - r • ' .ieBjslei
iiiitiixalff erf* t&6.t f£0.E#i3bqq.flS ©dt "xsAJau ©iisffi 'liid^ceisciqa saw £xib
rtBc.noe" s'i^iitniaXq ©dd" ifeeaat©*! ^coiifs'soal:!* s^i 1© ©eio'iei© er?i
lixTOXiaXq ©Xdaae ot sf^ifiioffi *x©« ©d* Xiitou XbXt:* '©it* enoqJaoc; 0+
.eorr&EXvs on Iterrello efeatos^sfi sd2 .©onefclvs Xanoid'ifeAjs ©•xc-oefci c ;!■
%& 8©SBcB8l) a'1:5:i*£ixBXq eriJ T*ui;;s;n"ij-cxL^ov a i©xi-i:xf*9's: >s"iiJt o!-
~^©vo ae^lB d-oUi-xGY ed* no . :■ :i;oo ©d* fins 'bO'.5"V|
ruling the plaintiff's motiori for a nev/ trial in supnort of v/hich
the plaintiff filed numiserotis affidavits setti:.g up the additional
evidence he would offer in case a new trial be awarded.
It is the contention of the appellant, Samuelscn, that "lixhihit
3 should he deec-ed a part of his ccntriict and read into it. '^'e
■are uiiahle to agree with this contention. It is evidanci' fj.'oui the
record that the so-called Hockford Chamher of CJororaerce, a civic
body of the City of Sockford, was, through enterprise and public
spirit, endeavoring to obtain a site for the cantonment known as
Camp Grant which wats afterwards located there. Ae a means to
securing the necessary leases from farmers, meetings were held be-
tween them and certain members of the Rockford Chamber of Co!nir.erce,
as a result of which a fund was created. To this fund the Ghaicber
of Commerce contributed the sudi of t25»000 to toe used in paying
crop damages to the owners of farms who signed the original agree-
ment, a copy of which, (except that it omits the nr-mes of the
farmers vi?ho signed) is known in this case ys "Exhibit 3". .\r- exam-
ination of this Exhibit vvill disclose that none of the fund created
under the terms of the agreement was tc be paid to anyone except to
the owners of land who signed the. agreement. The original agreement
was not offered in evidence but it is admitted by appellant that
he did not sign it. 3uch being the case, he was net a p^rty to
it and could claim no benefit under it. neither ctu^ he rightfully
contend that it should be read into and made a p?irt of hi3 lease.
The fact that |5.00 per acre was taken from his first year's rental
v; as
and placed in the fund which/created under"Exhibit 3", does not
convince us that he should be entitled to any benefits from that
fund. Under the plain terms of his lease, the rental he was to
receive was fixed and definite. The means axid methods employed by
the Chanier of Commerce in creating the fund tc secure leases from
others, is of no concern to appellant. Unless "Exhibit 3" osr. be
made a part of the contract between the aopellant and the Rockford
Chamber of Commerce and those acting for it, appellant can claim
nothirjg from appellees because of the alleged conversion and
destruction of his crops.
dox'-M '5:0 itioqqjara ax Liilti ^ea e "xo^ aoltosx a'ilitnlelq ed* -^tli^
iBKOid-iX/^B Qdt qss ■s^-itttea si x^b^ klfs , Baoxetisissa MelllTAliaisiLfi edt
edv icoi^ "^ojcieBxv^ el *! .xioltn&cf'tcoo , a^ri^ d#iw aeicsa oi Qldisaa erta
ojTvio & .soiaiunoU io letfomdO MotiooS £eXXao-OB erirf' ^sd* Moaa-x
Q3 nv^oxil ia?itmoiaao Qdi loJ. 9&iB b alatdo o& snii 0-7^ ©fine .Ji-siqe
o« an^B^ a ak ,@r&ii^ b^t&ool istbia^'XQi'i.a aais doldv iaaiQ qcusO
-■>©(/ &.C94 ©"lew S3£cid'©9ia ,8'50M'3:al SJO^iS: aeajBsI Tfiaeaeoeja ©d# gaiiijooB
J eoiefiiiiioO lo iscfffi^O J&toli«pS erit io stecfiaefli nie^neo JbcB flxexi* aQ&v^
isdiasdO adtJ-^jtiwi aiii* oT .Jbe^tseio aav basft a doiriw lo tloBei a ea
■Qat\&Q ax 1)9 30 .sd" od" OOO^dSf 2» nura ed* ^e^jfrrfiid-fips ootiacaiao
-aei'ga Ian jrgiio sd*. fceisgls odw suaTBjfc lo eiieirwo &dt oi ae^amsl) goTCo
-maxs afi. ."S txcfidscS" ae eeao eir:: )ixil ai: (^sa^la odw B'searaaa:
J&etB&ao Dii5A sd* lo.enoxi rf-sdiJ" sapXoai^ XXiw tidXsiM- aidt lo noi^axiX
05i- iqso^ SJMOT^B od- 5x^ sd o^ Bsw d'neflies'X^^ edt lo afflis* adit neixitf
jijrjiviosig^ IsnX3i:io ad'i! .d-nssassasa ©d^ hea^lB odw imsl io eianiH© &it
Mdt iaaLl&qsia z^. betiimpa b^ ^l tssd sonsldYe nx ^s^xeiio toa saw
ot x^izq. & (foil 8SW fd ...saa© sd* i^iecf doj/o .j-l rrgxt; i-oxi bl-
.essel Sid to Jtrzq, a^ehmi Ma oinJt ha^x sd" ^Xj3t3d8 tl It&dt x;::fu;io;;
Zsi&riGi. e'l^BX ia-xft aid mo-xl H'M&t asw eioa xeg po*8| t£^& toal: oxlT
tpa aeoJb ,"S tXdJ:di^'''5©J&iiEr £9d'a6'xo\doidw Jbaifl: &di jaJt. JbeoaXq: x>iis
#ied* snoi% &^ ll&ifscf ^a od' MXtt^as sd ilxrode ad *ad;? bb eoalvaoo
, o? a&w, ed J^isip% edt .©aaeX sid io aaneS- iiiaXq. sd^ leJoxiU .j&iijji
xd SiQxpI^^e mhodtem hua fBissesa ©dT .«d-i:n±i«JB l)xia Aexii a«w ©yieesT:
.aOTi 8©8ssX ^■a.cpQesi pd' Jsacri ,,edt ^fii*a©i,a xii ©©lecranoO io i^^fyisdO' sdj-
ad /190 "S. ;l"lrfid3^*'. BSeXalf ,t^sXX©qg'6 Ait: fl'see^
J3ioi5t&oS sd* -fcxia *xifiXI eq: cts ©dt £t©»w^©d *0A'id"-iC0 sc'J 10 * '^.su jz, 0X16:2
inxsle ri/iO *xi3XXsq,(|JB ,*± loi, gcid'os eeodt Ms eoieciflioO io ledmadO
: :■:& MOlareYnoo b&%dila ©d^ - ^ed e^sXXeqqfi r..
But aside from all of this, evor. if ^"•S^^hibit 3" shouli bo
read into end n^de a x-.i^t of "Exhioit 1'', Qppo?.lant. oufrht r;ot to
rGCCTer 'Ar^; greate:-" 37i.-n than the aiicuiit of hir. ^udgr:ont ii: thie
Ciiso. His los,se g^vo him the ri^rht to enter osA harvest bia cropu.
This right r«>cos8aril;7 oarried with it the right to roLiOve th'^a
whon h:s:.r7e9t9d. Ths trial court properly fouiid that thcsro waa no
ovidsnco tandixig to show tk.t aovjellant was not oociiltted l)y the
Govanijnont to go on tho oortio:- of the proniaea upon which the
crops -.vara iy:i6L to hp.rT«st and r^JTr^ovs thosi. It la qult-^ auparent
that fee thought, ??ithout any pood reasOii thf5refor, ho could avell
hiisself of the "borefita of the so-oallecL crop agroen>>r!t; and
because thereof ho vob fillinf to abandon his ore )S to tho Oc-Jam-
t-ent i'-ncL locK for cot::>ensetj o;, to th;^ djiaiiiged crop fand« I?ie 3cri-
viuot clear i^- indlcatea tpooh an ettituds on his port. Jt it? ^uite
cortain tbi t s^diso of those ^lotin?- for the ^iookford Gliaraber of
OOi^uioroe wore of the i.mpresaion thut ;;aaaelson hud aijned the
original of "J::xhibit 3". .t tho tiro? they wsrs apprs.i'sing ths crop
daaiage of othsr far-i^rs, they oaased aa apoiaisal to ho 'isade of
dax;age to a?p3llar>t's cropo. This eit'oation hcs^ovr?r doos not
effect ths rights cf either of the aarti-^s, and can not ^'ive
Sippeilant the right to (&ny portion cf ths fund vsrhioh zin erefited
Uiider fHX ©zproSE agr^-^eciont for the brii.;fit of other farn; ovmevB
thjiii an:>e3l£?it»
Appellsuit &S0i?med error "beasuse of the court'B rulinp- in
axoluding all nf ths testiriony in the case in rgfere/'oe tc dii^.fip^
to crops other thj.n to tSiose on & par^^el of lfc.n4 containinf about
three iiora.?. U d<3r our view of the o&ee the coui-t oommltted nc
eri'or In this rog^rd. He also oomplaina of tho court's rnrusal
to ro-Gpea thri Cfj.3e ?f he had raqpeated and to th.?n adjourn court
until the i.ext day in ord.er to permit apijellent to produce further
evidence. Quostions of this icijid rest very largely ir th(5 dia-
er«tion of the trial court* ..jpellato ecui'ts '.vii:; not ravi-^w
dociaions o:* trial eourta \n buc}i raattors unless it is quite evi-
dent there has been mi al;uee of disorf^tioii, :.e can not se<^ that
.-. ,... .^_. . . .lX-8S-oa 4>nt !lro a^-Jtlv ... .f
Iv -'■■..t,' erf' o# ; : J&eKjiist tisjt^O' - :;
;u ' ii'.r:. . - - '■ 'gfifX'XB ■
■Ir
•iTc 'ji-tM ^ ■372S!.D:fJ '0 an'Mcldfi-
ti^fit fjfse tft'-; n:f.v. ,.,.->:
there has lieen an abuse of discretion in this case. The trial judge
knor.s better than anyone else the condition of his docket, the
exigencies of the sixuation, the necet^sity for the eX;ieditious
haiidliug of business, the ;)rcpri9ty of coitiimJ itg or I'ostooning
cases and of Biaxiy other uattors and things coiuiected vlth the pro-
gress and detexv.ination cf litigation. In the case et bar it inay
have appeared to the trial judge and no doubt did appear to him
that appellant should have had v/itnesses present in apt tli^ to
prove sush sin important and Ln.terial fact in the case as that the
GfOyarjiffient had taken possession of appellant's fsriu aiod the crops
gro'vvino; thereon. To close his case without making such proof, and
thijn to asl: the court to re -open it and pextnit him t^ have the case
postponed until the nest day, in order to produce witnesses, was to
laalce a request Uiider oircuinstances vViiioh the trisl court might
very reasonably refuse,
'J'he motion for a new trial v;a& properly denied becaiise there
Y/as no material error in the trial and because the matters v/hich
appellent claimed he could prove en another trial were not nev/ly
discovered evidence but were the things which causeA appellant
to request the court to postpone the case until he eoTild produce
the proof of them.
The appellees have assig^'ned cross-error becaiise the court enter-
ed judgtaent for |'75,00 against theii. Under our vieiv of the case,
appellant had no right cf recovery against appellees. But irasioich
as appellees state in their brief tha.t they do not ask the cape to
"be revsrsed becai^se of such cross-error and that they orefer to
pay the judgiXsnt rather than to have the litigation extended, the
judgment is, therefore, afiimiod.
Judgsem; affirmed.
sdi ,d-eioo.r> el'd Ic aoxd'lijxioo siii' eaXa eno-^^a^ iisdJ- nstd-ad" a-AOix;y:
exroiJx&oqx© ©rid- lot 's^^iaaepen ©risf .noi^jBary-xa sii# io aeicxiegixa
gxxxfioq^faocf 10 a«tiri:ii:.tn-oo lo '^tsi'sqo-Hi exi* ,8eexixeijrcf lo giilUbiifexi
-OTxj Qiij d;!-]:^;^' ^o^oexmoo agniil^ bas Btettmi issiio ifnaa io J&xia ssaao
■^£Gi a iscT *s easo erf* nl *£iOt.tJ^-Qt&tX Xo aolt&aina^t^ itaa aae-x^
mirf oiJ isaqqe i)xi> tdsjoh oa bast ©gMt ■^1'^^ ®^* o* £»9Xbsc[(ij8 svetC
erf- effli* tqa Hi ^isesoiq sesesnJiw b&ii evtui Mjjoxie tajsllsqqe tarit
sii* J-jfxd* Sij ©SjSO eii:f xix Josl Isi^iei' sea; Aob i'ajB;fxGq.aiJt . iiB 49^? -
agoio srfJ iiafi u^nel a ' drcalX ©aqjs lo xsoiaaesaog ix^^ieit i^ri taaoiraevoC
hao. ,looiq dous gni^ba txroxiJiw gbbq aid q&oLo oT .xtoeisiit ■^i^io'x-^
easo eiii' svaisC it mxii ^fxiffieq; J&ius cM a©q;o-9'x oi insoo Qdi Ifc^ pi" i.: it
oS" saw .aeessHJlw eOiiio-xq oJ le^io cil ,^^£1) Jxsn exit Li:op.is iieiioqtsGq
tdgijEt t'ixroo i£elit erit rfoxiiw aeoastenijtr&iio "xsJ&xiur ieese^et a eolsc:
s-ierft sausoed fielnei; •^It6qoi<j ana I&rii wen a 'xol aoiiom odT
jJoMw aiettata 3ji* eawaascT Ma Icjnt oilt xil lo-xi© XjaxieJag or
Xlnea. ton strew laJfcat lediosxs no evoiq^ ^Xuoo aii besaX&S^p txoilociCia
tnalleqqaiaaijjso rioidw agflidt adt aiew fjcfof eoiiej&lve JbaisTOoaiii
eoufjo-iq, hDsoo ed Iitms es«o ©dt eaoq[t3f~ ■* t-- - ,'■*■ taawpe'i ol-
•■^etne tixioo exit eatj.aoscf toiie-asoio iiongJtssjs avjsii aaelleqqa sdT
dcAffis/irii, tcG. .aeelleqqs taali^a -^isscoei lo trigii on Jbiaii tnj3ll9qq;a
ot esse eilt 2[as ton oi> ^eiicf tMt leinrf n.iedi- ni ©tsts aasXIeqqc s:^
ot Tsieiq \Qdi isdt biiB rse'sie-aae^o doas "lo ee.rraoe'? J&eai&nr^ .
fjiit ,i2ei5n'5tx9 aoXtBsitxlI exit evsd ct nedt leiio - .^Sj^t sxlt -^aq
.^oraxxt%3 Jneas^XTt
STATE OF ILLINOIS, \
SECOND DISTRICT. C '^''- 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 \\yiereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of
said App&H|^ Court, at Ottawa, this (&"7v^ _day of
in the vear of our Lord one thousand
nine hundred and t\ient\
\^<A.-^t/Cc4^
c/erkvftAf Appellate Court.
i^93e— 200— 7-22)
7 o rf ^' -
226 1, A. 648
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT, /
/
egun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fourth day of April, in the year^^'f our Lord one thousand nine
hundred and twenty-two, within and for the Second District of the Sta,te of Illinois:
resent— The Hon. NORIMAN L. JONES, Presiding Justice. ^^
/
Hon. AUGUSTUS A. PARTLOW, Justice. r
/
Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Justice. ^^
JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk. ,/
CURT S. AYERS, Sheriff. #
/
\ /
IIP • ' T '" '"■ n
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on nUb J I'n: r the opinion of
he Court was filed in the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures following, to-wit :
<r.
Gen. No. 7029 68
William Kavanatigh, Appellant, *'^- ? ^* "^^ A a 6 4 O
vs. Appeal from Will
Mary A. Kahler, Appellee,
Jones, J.
The appellant, Williao Kavanaugh, instituted this suit in
assumpsit against the appellee, Mary A. Kahler, to recover |)5,000
paid to her "by him under a real estate contract between there.
The cause was heard by the court without a jury, the jury hairing
teen waived hy agreement of i.jarties. The court found the issues
in favor of the defendant and this appeal is from a judgment of
the trial court upon such findings. Kavanaugh was a tenant farmer
and on August 26th, 1919, he entered into a written agreement with
Mary -i. Xahler whereby, he agreed to buy and she agreed to sell
two adjoining farms v/ith separate improvements, for the sum of
$50,000. Zavanaugh made a cash piyment of |5,000 and was to pay
the "balance of |45,000 on March 1st, 1920. Upon which date Mrs.
Eahler was to convey the farms to him b^ warranty deed in fee
simple, clear of all encumbrances.
The contract contained the following provision:- "Said party
of the first part farther covenants and c.grees that she will ivithin
forty days of this date deliver to the jarty of the second part an
abstract of title, showing merchantable title in the party of the \
first part or in the party of the first part and her various childr
ren. Said party of the second part shall be allowed fifteen days
after receipt of said abstract within which to have said abstract
examined and in the event that any material objections are made
to the title as aforesaid; the said party of the first part
covenants and agrees that she will without an^^ unnecessary delay,
take such steps as may be necessary to remove said objections."
The contract also contains the following provision:- "And incase
of failure of said party of the second part to make either of the
payments of any part thereof, or perform any covenants on hia part
(t_
8S eSOV .Oil .JC93
,68XI&qCiA .-isXdaX .A ^isJ.!
gfii^r«d x^.n\, i>di tX^issl, & -issosSitfi -tissoo edi \(S Jbtaed 8£W sacso QdT
asxToSi: erto iiixro't itixroo eriT .seld-i£(i lo titeiaesisa xd iiovxB-.y xieao'
3:0 itGcfi^^irt « aioit sx Xaeqqa aids' fioe toa^ixel©3 edt lo -JOVfil ni
iesni£,'± iasae^i e aaw rigiTftcavs'i . BgnxLiril doiss noqxr ;hsjxoo Xaiu^ ed^
d^iw tneinsfei^s a"e:^d"iaw ,e o^xix isisi'-Hs eri ,8XeX ^d^tOS isis^ssl no ^as
XX©3 ot bset-gB, eda hvas, xssdi od" X>eeT3ij ari -(^cfensdVi) I'sXitaS .A ^laM
iO coiTB &rf:f -sol jatnemsvoigcai: si^a-seqee xitiw anjs^jl sxiicixotf*^ ow4"
•^aj o# SfiTv' Ms 000,2^ to txisiir^q j^Ieao 6 ebasa xi^jj^siisTeS .000, Oof
.siiil 93- Bi) rioidvv' rioqU .(SSX .iJ-aX doiiM no OOO^QJ^I lo Qottnl&d sdt
sel ill x)Beb ^Jseiisw ^,cf aiid oi" RaoniBl: exit -^evnoo ot sats; leXdsJSC
.SQOiiBidiPtiraa© XX.s lo -xseXo .slqaxla
-•itisq ^.tsS" - :i:oi.axvo'xq: saiwoXXol sa^ i>©jCfljstiioo toBid'ixoo edT
aidSl'u iltfr sjSs d-^aiii- ssexgo fca stoariovoo ledtTjai t-isq taixS; sdi lo
Hs ^ififf jbnooea erlt lo -^t'ijaq, srfj oj levxXeJQ 9*s£ e±xi* lo ey^b x^rio't
odi lo ^^130 &si^ isl eim old&ta&do-zoai ^aXwoiia .eXd-J:;*- lo toa'xte:da
-f-Lxdo eiiO i'XBT %-id M& iiaq ts'xi't axic lo ^tiaq edi xix rto *iBq i^sill
e^,.sJb useful AswoXXb ed XXj^xia li^isq Moose exiJ lo ^'v-ssq £±b8 .nei
J'o.3i:Jed's ble-'o ©Vijcf 0;^" xfolxiw nxxld-irTv tositeoB ^i^se lo d"qleoei le^lja
ebam sts, Baol^oeldo ZAxie^mi ^e tadd' Jxieve ejtSJ xil Jbrxs heatmaxQ
ii-uq. Je-xil erf^ lo "^ju'iac; joints erfj- jj& iaao^ols sb oXd'x.t oxJit od"
,/3Xei) %7iBaBS0 9ai;ur •v;n4e ^sodiiyi IXxw axis ^f-adt seerrsa bee atttsxievoo
" . aio itoe Q cfo ijiss evaue-i od* •^flsaocexi scf -vjecs sb sqsjfs do^ eiLsif
eafionx iixsA" -txioxslvoig gaiwoXXol ed* an iB;^ xioo oaXj3 io&t&uoo edT
od& lo "n 3d tie eiaaz o& ti&q ^xtooes exld" lo -^Ji^q i)xisa lo 9*3yyX14^\.lo
here"by nad© and entoreil into, this contrfict shall, ... t thi* option
of the party of the first part, be forfeitod and detonsined, and
the >arty of the aecond part ohall forfeit all imymenta :;>'.dG- b.y
hin on this contract, and such i-nxyv-hmte Bhc.ll ho retained by tho
said party of tho first pai*t in full a.-tisftoticii and in liquidu-
tion of all damages by her eutstaineci."
i:?urin£- tho Fall of 1919, upiXjllfrnt went upon the pror-.ieeH und
did some plowing- and othor \vork. Tho abstract of title was not
prepared and dolivored to him v/ithin tho forty days specified \ij
the contract, but on October c3, 191t it waa delivered by the
abstractor to the atto may who had drawn tho cortract for the
parties. The uttomoy testified thi.t socie days afterward ho
notified Kavanau^ that the abetraot was at hia office arid was
InfonSiOd by K&vanaugh that he would let him knov.' l;jter what to do
with it. Kavanauph did not give th- natter further attenticn until
he rocsiTed notice from lirs. Kahler that he should have the abstract
examins d so that if there were an^; ob^sctio.ns sho would have aiiple
tifiiS to cure them. Kavansug^h got the distract froa her about
ohrietiKiS 1919 and made no objections whtitever tc the fact that it
was not delivered to hia within forty days fron the dato of the
contract. Hae seems to hay© -.ittach.d veiy littlo importaice to the
abstract, . He was not at all certain at: to whom hs ?/ould take it
for exairdnatlon. Ho aeemod inclined to tako it to a jiistice of
the |)oaoe. Afterwards, howevvr, h .^ tooi: it to a firm of attorneys
who oxaMned it and pointed out soffie ob sections including the
existence of three unreleaaed Kiortgagos. 'mo of the ifiOrtfBfres were
valid liens pn the prendseB and the third Wus probably barred hy
the Statute of Limitations Ecarjy years ago. These i:.ortf?ages were
aftersyards released of record uoA such releases were shown by an
extension to the j batraet dated February 17th, 19L0. I'o forrwil
list of objections to the title wer ever ijiven to appellee or to
any one for her but on February 20th, 1920, just ai?ht days before
the final payment vvoiild become due, appellant called on appellee
and returned the abstract to her. 3he inquire i of him wh5:Lt wjis
f^:
oxf* ^i5 Jb&aJU^&i ad JCTiSCta alaer^it^isq. rfoae baa ^to^itnoo hldt ixo eM
-■iiJhtapll at Sum aeWaAjt^Usie IIol aJt trsq tain oM lo xiieq btisi
iiia aeaiae^ ©ii* i3:<>q0 #n©w l^-'""- -^ .:> ,(?X«X >© lag's eri# 3aiii/«
ioii saw 9lii> "io toAit&dfi . , iTow Tco«I>d M« "gftlwoXq ^ojob /jjtjfe
,// ^siiifMsqa s^&si ^10^ oM ald^lSw eM ot fiatevlXoi Ana iio'ifiqe'iq
Oj& Qi im^ le^aX woxti «M #©X £>£trawf ad tadi rfgn^aaavaa \rtr j&cfflriolatl
|-i?0(fj3 1 6^ oicyxl 'itiOxiMM, a&i t6r% d^w&m-vdl *ai€d§ ertu o# 'Wit
^1 tarft #oal ©d* ot leva^r^ifes eaoWaetrfo on eJbAsa ins ^X^/ e£a#9l^£(&
sdi "io &^a£j ©d# aoU &r^&& '^i"sot JHJLril^Jtis atjtrf bt berterlleii ;toit s.a^
*1 QASi Mtfo^ 9d £iOi(iv o* a* iti«#T.oo XJDs 1. -terfa
a^(!*irxo;tfc lo cbiIS: jb o;^ Jjt Ir od ,aJt * i
\;'! ^c>'-.Ai'i ^Xrf&tfOTiQ e«w -&aXdt sdt^ ias aeei . * " v
e^&« a©3a;>s*io:3 &ai&dl .ctga ei^ie^ ■sp.ssa eaou yt' / ^ r
©'fols'j . . •,,,. . .. ,, -;'JSX jiftfOS Tftfljn-tf&'S no ^ircf *■ -"
Gf)XXoeqa flo fieXIeo ^aiaXXaQQ;.. ,•-. it /i^oostf JGiXtfOW ^1:;;
asT l^.(!ffi' miff to tf.iixfpntJt: - X ;J'a-jQn*g:rA5 of!* -
the matter and he replied in substance th&t he did not know and
that he was advised "by his lav/yers not to talk. Mrs. Kahler testi-
fied that she never inew until the time of the trial what object-
ions v;ere isade to the title "by Kavansagh.
On February 26th, 1920, Mrs. Kahler notified Xavanaugh in
writing that she would leave for him at the Joliet Trust & Savings
Bank of Joliet, Illinois, on ioarch 1st, 1920, a warranty deed
oonveying to him the farms in question with instmctions to the
hank to deliver the deed to him upon receipt of |45,000 in cash.
The notice further stated that thereupon Zavanaugh Ljight have
immediate possession of the premises. On Jehruary 28th, Kavanaugh
wrote to Mrs. Kahler stating that the abstract dated October 4th,
1919, purporting to show the title to the property described in the
contract, does not comply with the terms of said contract and that,
therefore, he demanded the return of the sunj of ^5,000 which he had
paid thereunder and further that he claimed the right to cultivate,
harvest and sell the wheat planted by him on said oreaises.
Kavanaugh did not call at the Bank for the deed nor did he iiay
the balance due on the purchase price or any part thereof. On
March 15, 1920, Mrs. Kahler notified Kavanaugh in y/riting that
"because of his failure to make such p^^msnt she had elected to for-
feit and determine the contract and to retain the payment of the
sum of |5,000 made by Kavanaugh thereunder. She further stated
in aaid letter to Kavanaugh that she was re^dy to remedy any
material objection to the title to the premises, if an;>' there be,
and she also offered to sell to him either of the two farms at
approximately the same price per acre as the original contract,
called for. It does not appear from the evidence that Kavanaugh
ever mad« any reply to said notice and proposition. ■ i
Prior to the date appellant returned the abstract to appellee,
he had endeavored to borrow from various individuals enough money
to pay the balance due under the contract. His efforts were un-
successful. Depression in the financial situation had set in
after the war. Money was more difficult to obtain and it is
evidenc^ from the facts disclosed by the record in this case that
rr,-
Jb.dfi \voa:h ioa bi:& afl ^jidi eQa^t&dssa ai heliqei eri baa leJtau edt
-irJ-Bst -xsIjEisS .soM .allB^f ot toa a-xe-^issl aid y*!^ JJeaiYj&s b&w ed *sa*
-d-OQQd'o Jsriw lal^it ©di" xO e£3i.t m$ Xxtnjj wenx Ttevsn eda ^fari-J- ij®!!
..dg^i3fiBV-sl -^cf 9l;J'Jt* edi" o* &&mi qiqw artoi
ni rigxfsasvfil Jbeili^oa xeldsS .s'xM ,OS©X j,d5^d3^ ^'isirrds^ riO
agaxvjsS * ^ajotf texloli sdd- ^a .TiJtd ^ol ©v^el Mirow sda ;rsdt sai^Miw
^eefi ^tjia-sxew s ,OSS£ ^tei doisM no ^aioai-III «*©lIol-^o -^isS.
edi oi aaoltosntasii, d*lw xioxtse/irp id: bihibI: &sit oiM o;f gaiisevaoo
♦ daao ra 000^3^ la tqleoe'i iioq.jar mid o* J&©e£. ad* .i:eiriX«J&r©t iKstf
8Y^ td^lja daissiSEYsS ixo«g[flraf£0dxl- :f-B£i;f ie*B#S(. isdjixjl eoi.;J-OH adT
dsijri3£[£.v«X ,d*8a '^;t*jin:tf©1 xiO .seeiaserq ssit lo sxox&B^aBoq eiatheiml
,ji1=5> 'retfotoO ^s^jb* tosi^sds ©d* *j3d* 'giixit«s''a "seXdaX tardi o^ a^-oiw
edj iii betStiaeeh ^*"ieqo*jq, ed* o* ©X*it «»d* wpda of 3ajt;*aociTifq ^QXei
.i'.sdJJ" ^xis toentooo JbX-sa to ansis^ Qd:f d*iw ^Xqaioo i^ofl aeoJ& f^aa'xd^jsoo
Jiad 9d doidw 000, 3| lo mm ed& lo nijrf-e-x edi" ^®JE.adiBaj& sd ,eio3:©r£e4d'
,et^yItXi3s o;f- ^il^l-x ©d* b^ilalo sd ^add" ^sdtTjal- Jto;^, le^tfl&tLed* jUag^^
.aeaime-iq ijies no mid -^tf JbeJxieXq tsedw ed* XX168 J&fiB *t
-^£i. sjcI i.ii> ion l>89A .©d* "xoi disisa ©d* *4§, XXss i'Qo; JbUfe. dgjyBnevjBS
iiO »1:o©?6dd" d-s:.©c[ ■^ji^id ro eoi'sq, e&ssAprmi edt no ©jb*' f&oasXad sd*
tjsdd- gnxrf-iiw ui dBXTBiiavaFv bel%ito£i xeM^^ .ardS, ^qsex_j,ax ilotfiM
-lot od- fie^esls Lad eda ;^^9ar^q dsxra plaia o* q-xuLI&X ai4 !k<5 s»aj?aoe(f
bot&iB ledtrLsJl edS .lej&xxffe^sd^- ri^JsaBVjja: ^4 ©J&aa 000^^ lo atffS
T^xip Tjiieaie'x o^ ^J9#9'3: eew ©ds *Bdd" d^iraasT«3 o# a«#t9X_6Jt&e afc.
.ad" Sled* ^a ti ^ aeaJteie-xq; ^t ot 9lilt^dt Q^ aotto&ldlQ l3ix9^&&
^B Bisi%&± owt ed,* lo^edt*«i miid ot IX^a of ie-xel^io osXfi ©da i>iss
iS^OB-x^fnoo CsiT-xglio ©d* as pi9B "xsq soiiq ©H»a ©4^ "^XpiamfeOTqq..'?
d3J3^3£t3TaS i'add' aexxeM-^a ©d* aioit -Ts^aoffl #©£[ a©pj& fl
.floMlaoqcT-q; bssB eoxton iiisa o* ^Xgai: ^xie »J5s;'
^a^Xlsqqjs o# *0J8T*5ds ©df JSi&isxjoiJ'e'ic ^ixaXXeffC[jB ©;fj3* 0.
/ Tpfeiioic dg^oa© 6Xfi!f.rJ&lTifei; 80OI1ST §ao«£l woi^cod o3" b&%ovm.b
- -: aiew sit^tol:!© sll .S'OjB'xJnoc ©di" rseJboir eirJ6 fpiial-yc; odd" \
ai: ;}-es .&«d 0:oiti5^4-i:« X«ls>iiSH±5: edi* iii aotaaenqeQ; iXjcft^aejjoifG
s.t *i jbnjB aifitdo ot ;^Xi?^i1:lif^ s^iom saw ^©xiof
rVAri:.+ fiHRD «i-Ari- rf f- IiTOom's '.di- vd" &esoIo3i'-B ed'Oi'jt 9d;|- fflO'?:'i- "i-'o rtsP) Hr©
appellant was unalle to raise the Eciiey i^ecessary for hia to comply
with tho teriiis of his oontr&ot.
Comiaai for apjoellitnt clai.s th-it under tho contraot it v^as
tha duty of tho appellee to deliver to appellant -a.ii abstract of
title showing a cerch-'^ntahlo title t tho tiEo of its d.liYer;^'.
Thoy contoud that the abstract did not shov; a .--erohantab] o title
at thvit time or in faot at .my time, 'bocause of the objeotiona
which were shown on the trial. They aloo contend tk t inasiruch
as a merchantable title was not shov.n by the afcetract, appellee
did not comply ^ith her ptjrt of the contract and. therefore she
had no right to retain tho s&id auii; of v=5,000« The erovioion of
t} 9 contract relative to the i'amihirj^ of t-.n abstract and to the
making' and curing of ob^ectioiuci thoretc is very aiitilar to that
generally employed in contracts for tha sale of real estate,
proper and cocanonl^. accented interpret at io.n of such provision
ia that the vendor tih.-ill have a giv'ui tiree in «diich to procure an
abstract and to deliver it to the vendee; cuid the veMso shall hive
a specified time in y/hich he may have tho abstract exaajined. He
shall then famish the vendor v/ith i.: complete list of obiections
if tLjxy there bo. Tht^reafter the vordor sh.-ll have s3uoh time as ie
specified by t;.e contract in viiich to re cove such ob;5 actions or
if no specific time is provided by tha contract, thoA he shall have
a reasonable tinse in \'^ich to ro:/i0ve theia. In this cai^e althou^
the abstract was not delivered to tho vendue within the time pro-
vided for by the contract, he accepted it without objection. He
retained possession of it Alraost two months and then I'rf.thin about
a week of the time when ho should ii^ake the final paycioiit, he
returned it to tho appellee without speoifyiiag what, if any,
objections there were to the title, vdth the Ejere coni>ent thi;,t he
had been advised by hia lawyers not to talk. On the last duy before
the day set for final uaycent, ho notified i'ra. Kahlar that the
acatraot did not comply with the terras of their contract and thf.t
ha, therefore, demanded a return of the ujoney pj.iid by him. Iven
Inthls notice he failed to submit his objections, without pointing
c^>
^;£qjio«j oi aid lol x'5£saeo«ii v, •># eXdatwr asw
SiiW ;ti *Oin;tfloo i:>d:# ^etosr isd^- iol leer:".-': -
.'^xe-vlZ^b eil lo ©sal* edf i^ Qliii &x<i&4ixmiG'iisia a ^aiwoxiB eltli'
:,-•■-» 1*0 ft ii do od* to eajEtaaorf ,t><3l# v^i #is i"©i;<' +.^5
0DlI&r^q,ii tioa*iis,!i& &sit x'^ atsode ton aaw &lilt sldBin.'.aoz o'A b ga
,BtBt&® Isers. to oXbs ©4* -sol Btoaiisioo al Be-^olqae \,„ ,
.rx.fi. fjitfjo-iq o^ doit^ al. emit a&ri^ ■ . ■daev W# *.^!jt' ti
&1S M IL&dB eeleov s^* iai** ;seJ^fl(*T ei!* o^ #1 -x^vir©^ o* l(£Ui Ja
ax ':. • ossl* dsicrs SYjaif XX^jiis ^oBitoT e4t^o^j9»'5coff2 -»rf died* ^a \l
evs^ X-Cs4e erf i?s>d^ ,Jto«^aa« erf* 'fr^ &a6I :i
-aiq sfiil* sijci* xil4^i«r ^oAnsv €»4J|' o* ftjjit^vlXiib ^oa «i|« fs^js .?
®H . GO 1#^ ^ tfo itsjroxi^iw #1 ^e*^© «r«»a erf . , Jo^-i *ao© ffliJ
*0O^!S clitj-lii!? /js4^ teja ip4^iiOffli ow* ^ftoniLI i^l ^o ^oletfteeeoi, u
,^s 11 ^iTarfw.^^l^^tlce^a tsoiiltfw 8©XXw^^*i jH^^ o|- _fl l>&riii-|*'i
04 ia&t is&wif^^^tm. ^ 4dlf ,sXtl^ $4t o^ e»i:eH e7e4if 8a<^l«^oet^o
?it^t^^ X^h, i&Bt i&sii £tO f^-sf. of *9A 6:£&'%wjsX »14 ^tf jtos':
i.54^ J&aa d'os^Jaop 'Xi94t.^P Siansj^ «;4# 4*lw
.".tlrf.^rf liipq^,, ^ar!"- ■'' '"- ;-*■-
out to hei' the speoifio ot Sections it would "be im^joseible for
appellee to remove them. Under the contract she had a ripht to
know what they vera a d to hive reasonahle opportunity to ciu-e them.
appellant
It was the duty of mppw iii Ht K under the contract to oake knov.n his
objections and he had no right to terminate the contract aad demand
the return of his payment ujitil he had mads them knovm and had
given sufficient time to the appellee in which she might remove them.
The evidence shows conclusively that appellee offered to comply with
vrerj condition of the contract imposed upon her and thixt if she
had "been given a reasonahip. opportanity by the appellant to dc so,
she would have fiilly complied with its terms. It further shows
that the appellant, hecause of his inability to procure the money
with which to complete his purchase, could not comply with the
terms* of the contract which were imposed upon him. Therefore,
under the express agreement of the parties to the contract, appellee
had a right to declare the contract forfeited and to retain the
money paid to her. The judgment of the trial court is therefore
affinned.
■xol sldisBoqasI ©cf iXtrow it moXtoe\,dio olItOQq.B Bdt ted o& ijtSJo
.irieri;)' 0100 ot x^iass^&zociqo eldaaoeeea ev^ 0* Jbta etcew ■^©ild' i-sil® woiri
i!riii£Gej& AxxB ^fisiJnoo sdi" ©;*-.saias^9t 0* trigii on Jfeeil sd j5xls aao,td"o«t'i^o
bad f/HJB x«70ci OiOdd" sbaw. £.6ii ad Ix^ojar d'lietn^sg aid lo xixs/te'x ed*
.iSGdt evoin:9-x ^d^iia eds doli::?2? ni eellsqqa ©rid' of emi* tosioiliins isoTig
iitb^- xLq,r^oo od" isiallo 6sII©Qq^ ^adi v^LeviasloixQO awoda ©a^eiJXTr© ©dT
9da 1:1 tBad- iicis 13d xidiir heaoqml ^obiJuoo ed;f lo ii6j:^ifinoo -^©t'S'
, oa of> 0? ta&LZ&qqja 6d* ^Q ^tlajjtioqqo ^Icfaaoaasi s iievi:^ nsod i«d
awoda isd^nsfX tl .sm-ef atl d*iv^ issllqaioo -^Ilxft ©vsd ^Ijtow sda
\esiom sdi ©-sxrooxq ot ■^tjtlidsxsi aid lo setraoed , tiTfiIIs<iQ:s ©dd" tsrit
ad-t ds-xw Tjlcgifoo ^S-on £Ii»oo ^easdoxaq s±d eieXqatoo ot doldw dtJtw
jSiole-xedS '>bj.M rtoqxr J&©soq;£ax ^te-K doxdw tajj-XaXioo sdt lo skaiffist
osXIsgqa ^toBitooo sdt ot aextiBq edt lo toecifeiSB aeeiqxa edt leMu
©dtl- ftj:st$i ot jfeis J^etislio?: tos'xtfloo edt exsIo«6 ot td^Jtt e J&^
9'3:o^®'J9dt ai t^jxoo laiit ©dt I0 txiecnsfeir^ ed!l? .led ot Meq; ^eaojox
STATE OF ILLINOIS. )
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 foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in
the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In Testinionv Whereof. I hereimto set my hand and affix the seal of
said AppgMte Court, at Ottawa, this C? ?C^ .day of
/ ^^■^^—"/^'^ . in the vear of our Lord one thousani
nine hundred and lTi;entv-
('lerkjjf thi^ AjypelWe Court.
',^936—200—7-22)
..^,„,«SJ«««^*
■~<.,0 rn^L
226TAv649
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
\
egun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fourth day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine
I hundred and twenty-two, within and for the Second District of the State of IIHnoi?':
/
resent— The Hon. NORMAN L. JONES, Presiding Justice. /
/
Hon. AUGUSTUS A. PARTLOW, Justice. ^'
' /
Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Justice. #
/
JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk. /
/
CURT S. AYERS, Sheriff. /
A:JG 5 1^2.
no
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on ;*.:'•'-' 'J '■•■■■-.'- the opinion of
kit Court was filed in the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures following, to-wit ;
-"f
Gon. !'©• 7036 59
Ulysses owift. Appellee, 226 T ^ -^ ^^ - -
▼»• xippoal from . iiiiwbagc
B» C. -isatwood and > C
Jtokburgor,
-ppallants,
Jones, J.
This is an aijpeal frosi a doorae of the circuit court of
¥;ijme'bago GoiLity in fcivor of & \)elleG and tigainot aoiiellanta who
aro real ostato agents or ■brt)kera, for i 300,00 and coata of suit.
The original bill alleged that appellee, .iwift viaa in joasession
of certain real estate in the City of r.oekford, under uxi ugreeEent
to purohiiSo ths amao; that iio listed the proTwrty for sale on a
h&slB of .1:4 700.00 net to hini; that the appellants had procured a
pfarchasar for the preriiisas aiid that in making: aettlemont with
appellee a Baitual rrdstaks was r:;ad© Jigainst j^ppelleo in the suij
of f^SOO.OOo Jhe bill prayed for cxa account in^r and for a. money
decree fcr whatevor idrht be fouiid to be due appellee. The
testlEony of appGlloe unquestionably indio&tea thut fiOpollants
settled with him on a baaiii of HSOO.OO net, whereas, appellee
olaicis that undar the original agresEient ho was to have (4700.00
net. The bill was afterwards amended. It then alleged that
appellants while acting as agents for appellee bad sold the
premisea for F5000.00 and bad failed to accouiit to i.-.pp©llee for
five ImBdrod dollars less a reasonable coEciission to uppall^^ints
for inukinf; the s&lo,
The iippe Hants by their answer filleged th«,-t the property w-.-a
listed vTith thoii at |:4500»00 not to the O'.rner v/ith an undorotandxng
that they werj to receive s3 th-jir couaaiasions all of the pui'chise
price they procured in excess of th-. t amoiuit and further that they
had a right to become the purchasers themselves and thi.xt thay did
in fact purchase the preniaef; froE appelloe for :;4500«00«
'i'r
Ic
n'%&4^&m,lii iKcnl- Ifcacc^/;
to tiiijoa iix/o^io ^t lo oe-xoeJfe b .soil: la^g^ cib ai sift**'
ja ao &X3S 10I: ^^loqoic? 9d5' fco*elI ad inA^ jOiOisa off* oaiiiidijiq q»
'^acofii s tol Jbijs ^ci.t^iiif0osa isa 10I ^©-^uiq. XXlrf eri? .00*0031 lo
a^f .ssXXeqgs saf' erf Oc JEiaffO'2; ©(f *xf3l2i "xeTst-saw uoi ©otooc
s-4iiuIlGqniS ^^ii!t3' eet^olltol i^XdJsxiOii'ae^pjaa' fteXXatiqiJ ^ '^ocil^eeJ
&feIXe<iq« , sac's: 0fi«,' ,;tsiy. OG.OOS^'f to i:iaarf « co mM d^iw J&eX;r^68
*£ii# i>93sXXis ixe/iJ 4"! .^oiinsas si^ii'-'jaeils a-iw XXicf orfl* .*©£
Drft IrXoa /jiS^ cr;.CXfi»q«3iS ^ol: a*rje^ sa ^Jt^oa oXMw 8#aifiXXfXfq[fi
'sot ®©IIe-qaa o;t itoxro«o^- o# ieXisI: issd l»as 0G»0003| aol aeai;iTo-jw
.2#ra;Xl8q.qA.5 oi" nolesiasioo eXcfBUossoTt « eeoX a-xaXXofe XisilMUtai ©vll
«oXaa e^# •giJiaEisia i;o2:
iSitiibj3a*a's®5aif oa it*iw aeawo Qii3 oJ :^0ii 00»003l''^* #a iSHil^t clJh'i l>9*3lX
saidoi.trq &Ai to II* snoiasiossoo '^iori* &b evisjosi o* eiew ■'{;©rfv* *i>rfJ
The court found thtit Swift listed the property with appellants
at a net sun. to hirn of ijv4500o00 Tout that while appellants were
acting as agents for Swift they sold the premises to V.alter Hall
for |;5000,00 and had accounted to appellee on a "basis of C'4500«00;
that they should liave accounted for the full sum cf -^SOOOoOO less
a reasonably comiEis si on v-hich the court fixed at C:200.i'G, leaving
a balance of t>300»00 still due to Swift.
It is a well dettled rale of law thtit an (X.rer cf i-et-T estate
may employ brokers under an agreement that the owner is to receive
a certain amount- net for his property and that the brokers may
have as their compensation whatever they may realize over and
above the net price to the owner. (Carter vs. Love, 205 111. 310;
O'Neil vs. Sinclair, 54 111. xi.pp. 278.) But unless the agreement
provides that the brokers may retain all they receive in exesss of
the price fixed by the owner, they must account to the owner for
such excess and then look to their reasonable commissions for
compensation. (Curfoot vs. Heiman, 62 111. 512; Carter vs. Love,
Supra.) It therefore is necessary for us to scrutinize the facts
in this case in order to determine the questions involved.
The chancellor was unquestionably right in his finding that
the owner had listed his property with the appellants at a price
of $4500.00 net to him. Then if there was no agreement between
the parties in reference to the excess of sale price over •■4500.00,
the brokers must account for such excess. If it was the agreement
that they should receive such excess as their commissions, then
they are entitled to the same.
The testimony offered on behalf of the appellants tends
strongly to show that Swift had said he did not care how much
appellants realized for the place over the net price to him and
appellee does not deny that he made such a statement. The proof
further shoi'.'S that after the property had been listed for sale
with appellants, Stokburger v/eiit to see Swift 'where the latter
was employed and asked for a ten days exclusive agency. Swift
■rJ'r
9i9v; s;fnsll3qq3 olxriw d'.srid" twcf OO^OOd:^^ ^o tnxjrf oi .ujj-a ^-an ^j d^s
XIaH iscMe"/ ols sseimeiq edd- .bloa ^iodJ iti^Z lol at £193.8 aa gnxtos
;OO.OC6^?5 lo axead" s ac ssllsqqs oJ' Jjsd-xiXTOooB f)ijd £»ns OO.OOOSf 10I
8831 00,0003|! lo airs Ili/i e.dj' lol; ^od^niroooa evsri iilfJOria ■^Je^{c^ tericf
gnrrsol ,OO.OOSv t-s j&sxxI: ;J"i'xroo edt rCoxrlw no raax.ctmioos^Id'B.ciosse'x s
,*1:xw2 oi- Quh Ilid-s 00,00S?| lo soxislacf s
e;ti*d'88 lijo'i lo 'xsiiv/o us d'Brft \7j3I xo alLa hBLi^BB. IIsw s ex d"I
e-ylsosi oJ 8x loxcwo ex£d' d-srid" d"n9in0sn3fi ccs leJbnu srrsioTd -^co-Cc[^e Xsssi
Y.-sffi ai'33ioicf ©rid" i&dt Jbn& y,i'ioqoiq aid lol tea ■d'niroats rcxed"i9o e
^113 TSTO 9sxl*59'£ 's^tsffi "^edd" 1 srsd^jaflw noid'sansqiuoo ixadd s& eYisrl
;OIS .III 60S. jsvoj .av •xed'iBO) ,aenv70 sdj od" soiiq d"9a srit svocfa
tneaxgsiBs exid' sselrixf j-jxa (.SV^ .qqA .III :^3 .TxalonxS ,av IxsH'O
lo 8386X9 nt &v he OB'S, ^add" lie xixfid'ei v&ra 8ie:5[o'xd odJ d-sd* eeJ&xvoiq
•xol: 'SSiiViro edd' od' d'nifooo.e d-ajym- '^9dd' ,i8Cwo edd' "^d be%it eoxiq edd'
10X aaoxeexcuEoo eId,aao8a9i -xxedJ od tool aedi baB s8©oxe dgise
,evoJ .sv led-ifiO ; SX2 .III S5 ,J5emi9H. .av cTool'iijO) .noxd'aaneqaioo
8:fosl ©ricf ssxnldxnoa od" ex/ 'xol- ■s^'ieaesogn ax STolsagd* d"I ( ♦jB'xqirfi
.Xjevlovnx arcoxd-asxrp add" aalaasiob ot isfiio n.1 ©sbo sxdd xix
d-cdd" ^nxJjnll axd nx d'dgx'x '^Idsxioid'asifpnjj a^aw ToIIeortJSrio 9dT
eorio; a Sb ad-ajslleqqs edi rid^lw -v:,d-ieqoiq aid b&iell bs^l aenwo sdj
xisewd'ed dr{9ineei3B on sj^w s'xorid' ^x risdT .mid od- d-en OO.OOfi^ lo
« 00.003:^1 aevo eox-xq 6l^a lo saeoxe add- od" saxiersgls-s at asxd-iijq sdd-
^aei3eQ'fg& ed& c.aw ti II .3390x9 do.ys lol to^oocje d-emi aie^Ioid gdd"
rcedj- , anoxeaximsoo ixsd* as eaeox© dof;e evlsosT: I'lirorie Tigdd" ^adt
.erfi-sa edd od' ijelJ-xdris ei.s ^e^d"
eJbned' adrtelleqqx^ eild- "±o JSBded ao X)eieil"o •^jaornxd'sed' edT
dowai wod ©i-so d-oc Jdxx) ©d £i.i:B8 fi^d d^lxwS d-sdd- wode od" Tjl3Xiond"e
&n£, mid od" ooi'xq d^ea sdd" -xsvo 90ijlq exid- lol .6esxlB9i 8d"flLGXXeqqe
loo'iQ sdT .d"ci9ffl9d"Bd"a s doua Q&sca eri d"i:dd" ^^xxe£ d"on. seoJb s©Il9qqB
sliia -xol" Jb9d-axl iT99cr b&d x^-xeqotq. sxld" -sgd-lB d"£dd" swoda a-9dd-ix;l
i9d"d"Bl edd" o'ledvj d"llwii 99e od" drtgw 'X93tiixtf2i;od"o ,ad"£[aIX9qqj3 dd"xw
d"lrA"S .-^oriegis evxsij-Icxe e^ab agd" xi 'xol beilss bn^ iig-^olqins a^wr
declined to give it whereupon otokbnrger offered Swift a check
for C'200#00 and told him he would take the place himself and asked
Swift to sign a contract, owift declined to accept the check or
to sign the contract hut, met Stokhurger that iiight at the office
of Swift's attorney, H. J. Camiell. Here Swift told Cannell that
he had sold the premises to Stokhui-ger and he then assigned his
agreement to piirchase to Stokhurger in hlank. He also accepted
Stoktiurger' 3 check for $200o00 and afterwards cashed the same.
At the same time Cannell iLade a memorandum showing the amount of
indehtedness against the premises and deducted it from the sum
of $4500»00e There was also deducted sr20.00 as rent which was
allowed to Stokhurger because Swift desired to retain possession
of the premises for thirty days after that time. One or two other
very small items were also deducted leaving a balance of $1751.26,
From this sum was deducted the v200e00 which had been paid by
Stokburger to Swift through the aforesaid check, thus making a
net balance due to Swift of $1551.26. This memorandum was pinned
to the agreement to purchase which had been signed in blajik by
Swift and v;as then kept by Cannell. This meeting at Cannell 's
office was on May 18th, 1920.
Two or three days prior to June 26th, 1920, Stokburger called
the attention of Vvalter Hall to the premises. Hall had never
knov/n of them before. A deal was then made between Stokburger
and Hall whereby the latter purchased the premises from Stokburger
for $5000oOO on June 26th, 1920. On the same day Stokburger went
to the office of Cannell and there paid to hira as attorney for
Swift the said sum of |1561.26 and took up the contract., Hall's
name was inserted in the blank left for the name of the assignee
in Swift's agreement to purchase and Hall did in fact become
the purchaser of the premises.
There is very little controversy about any of the facts above
set forth. They lead us to the conclusion that the appellants
"became the purchasers of Sv.lft's interest in the premises for
themselves on May 18th, 1920 at a net price fixed by Svdft; that
<r
.692fafl iifis lloaffliri eosia eri^t s:fej J&Ijj-ow 9d miri hloi hsis, OO^OOSf toI
'xo Jloerio exIJ ^qeoo^s ot Benllosl! cMivcc. , j-Oji-xirioo a xraiBr o*, ^liwS
ecil'io edd" d-^ odgM rf"£xij leg-mcfsfotS ;J"sffl ducf Joaatooo srij rrgis oj
•i&&i IleimBO i)lcj- d-lxv;C sieE .XIsiixibO ♦I^,^ ,H .^-^^efrxoi-Ji. a'cflxwa lo
exri £»903X83B rtarit ori i)fiB ■xe^iwcfiod'S od" Beaiaie'rq arfi^^ftloa i)Bi{ 9x£
Xts^fqeooB oal^ eH .jlrmlcT nx •iegiircfioi'G od" saBrioijjq oJ" ^Jrisoi© 9^:33
.stilus 9^I:^ iisrfsso aLiBvrxeJ'lB Lna OOoOOS^- 'aol ^loexio a 'iesaircf2[od"S
lo jiixroms oxf* gnxwojia icij-^fiaiofflsixt a s^iaai IlerxxisC eraxJ sroBa sricf tA
inxra arid" laoit d-x i)©Joxf6©£ ^ns ssexins'iQ: eti* ^tsnifiga 8a9XiJciei'cfei)ni:
BBw xioxriw *n9i sa 00.0S| £©*ox;i)©I) . oals sbw ©leriT ♦00+005^ lo
Goxaseeaoq rxi:ed"si oi j&gixagfi d-^xwS ga^^soecf igBiucTioi'S oi Jbev/oIlB
isxij-o owj 10 ©nO .sfflxJ ^J^i^n* "isd-lt;. a^sf) '\j^x£li' lol esaxmgiq ©rid" lo
.dS,IdVl| lo ©onelttcf e gaxvasl £»9oojj\&9X> oals oiew amsi-x Ilsaia -^Tisy
■\jcr f>xjsq fi99cf JoBCl iioxriw OO^OOSs^ grid" fisd'OJJi;9i3 aew rnxxa axriid" Dioni
B 3nxlan axi/id- ,:S[oedo fjxsesiole orfd' i{sx;oifW j-lxv/S od leg-xxrcfio^S
XiSiaTiq a^w rayiiriBiofflgm axriT .3S.X6d.C$ lo d"ixwS oi' :-6uJp aonslad j-en
Y.cf A^iisld nx I)9a§xa aeocT fisri xioxriw ©aedoiwq od" j'n9fH99's:sB.'644' .oJ
a'lIgonfiO j-b gnxtsgrn airiT .IlsriixaO \^ d"q&:i rigrfd eew Lne ^Ijfcv/S
.OSSI ,r{t8I -'^sM no asw ©oxlio
XfoIlBO 'les'XiJd'Jiotcl ,OSei ^rfJoS an^Ii od' lOl'xq a-^sJb eexrid- 10 ov/T
isvgri Bsri IIbK .ssalfflgiq 5xld od' IIjbH tB'iL&R xO XiOxtxx©**,^ ©lit
•X9Sij:;cf3iod'c; rissviid-gcr oJbsin nerid aaw I^sS A .sTolgcf ioild lo mvoxnl
tegixfcf2fod"3 mo-xl essiiriQ'xq odd ^©BBiloijjq leddal arid- ^jcf9ieriv< II*jE Jbxia
driew -igsTMsEod-a ^^s£ ©rnsa sxid- nO .OSeX .ritda enifT; no OO.OOOd^ 'lol
^oi ■\jofiiod"d"B as rrfxd od" £)xsq ei9rid l>xis II&aaBO lo ©oxl'io arid od
s'lisH euDBi.tnoo ©rid qir ioot Me fiS,I65lf \o mue ibi&s ©rid- dlxwS
oengxsa^ edd lo aiiiaa arid 10I dlsl Jinslcf ©rid- nx Jbsdieanx asw ©aiJ3Ja
saiooecf io&\ lxI bib LLsE br.s QB&do'xssti od" drsefflQS'XS-s a'dlxwS ii±
,^ ..^., , ♦asaxmeiq end lo i88axioix;q ©dd"
evocTs atosi edi' lo ^xis twode -^sievond^iioo ©Id^dil ^isy ai ©leriT
ad"fijsIX©qqj8 erid' d^edd r:ol8x;Ioaoo ©dd" od ax; ^sel Y«9dT .dd-xol- doa
aol aesineiq f^dt ai d-a9i9dnx a'd-5:xvjc lo aisaedoixiq edt ^iaaoed
d-arld ,-dlJ3v8 xd Jbsyxl: ©oiiq d-sn b d-B 02.Q1 ,dd8I •^■Q^l no a9Vj:©8m©rid-
they afterwards sold to Hall for an advanced price and as a matter
of course they were entitled to whatever profits were realized
from the transaction. However, even if appellants did not be-
come the purchaser of Sv/ift's intexest in the premises, we think
that under their agreement with Swift they were entitled to retain
all they received over S::4500.00. Vr'e "believe this conclusion is
irresistible from the facts v/hich took place at Cannel's office.
Every circumstance which occurred there indicates an intention
upon Swift's part to permit appelli.nts to retain all they received
in escess of the net price.
In view of what we have said vie find that under the terms of
thj contract between appellee and appellants, the latter were to
receive as their .commission for selling the interest of Swift in
the premises in question all they might receive in excess of $4500;
that under such contract they had a right to become the purchasers
of such interest; that they did purchase the saine on Ivlay 18, 1920;
that they have paid to appellee all that is due to him arising
from the sale of his interest in said premises; that appellants
are not equitably bound to account to appellee for any sum arising
from the sale of said interest; that appellants were not guilty
of any fraud in their transactions and dealings with appellee.
The decree of the circuit court is therefore reversed and
this cause is remanded with directions to the chancellor to
dismiss the bill as amended for want of equity.
fieversed and Remanded with directions.
'<^r
letii&isx s as ixjB eoi-iq ieoflfiT&s aa loi ILsE ot JbXoa s^riawieilB TSad^
^esxlaex eia.w stilcncq; 'xevetaifw o* J&eI;J•it^ae ©new x^di eaiaroo io
,-0cr d-ojcc JbiJ& etiiallattOL'S ^liasTe ^leTswoE .rjoJtJoaairai:* exii' aioii
Xriiddi 6w ..,asai:issT(i ©jEii- fil *a9i©Jiii s'^liwfi to i©a8r{o'sxr<i ©rit eoioo
xiiBi-sg oi JbeX^itne ©Tiew ^©d^ tliwB ilrf'xw iasffloertgfi rrjcexl* i;sl>0£r Jadd-
ax iioiajcrlenoo ai;xl* avexlacf eW .00,003^^^ rrevo ^©viese^ ijod* lia
.90.|;Ho a'loatiBO ts s.osla sfoof rioMw B#o.el edt ffioal 9Xrfld"eiB0T:il
.©oIt:^ ten «rf# 5:© eaeoxe a'x.
QiJ" saew •i©;ft.sl ed* .e^iueXIeQCi ■ - XleqqjB xieewtecT d"OBCi^xioo txii'
iii, t1:i:w3, lo *a©i6*ni erii^ ^nlllea io3: noleexramoo ileri;t Ea stIsost:
;0S8X ,3X i^iil^ co.smaa 94*, e 6i,& ^sd* tarit j^tseis^r . :o
gais^ia mid ot eat el ^sd;t XIb esIX.sgqf „ 0*. . -Sif ? e it
aitea£Xeq:qB^j3d;f ;BS8ips^^ Jssafj-jaX 8±d to «is3 ©dt aiorcl
siiisiaa iiGirs ;^£ifi 105: .©©XX^iqs 0^ jfnxfoooe o;f iixrflorf ^XcfaJlJffp© d'Ojct o-Jta
•^^•1x33 d-oxf slew e^J-neXXsMJS Jijrij jitseaeJixt jsJUs %o aXae ed* ffloil
,«#eXX,e{jQ:« d^lvi Q-^iLsi^h haa .8HoJ:*oaaiiai* icx©d|t xti J&jjs^l '^te ^o
.Bxvs feeaievsg; et£otei©d* sii •tixrpo i tsioti.^ f^,^ 1q ao'xooX) edl
,oif .'xoXXgojasdp qM, ot e5Qj:j|'©6t<;jU& di'iiw JSeJ&oefiK©^ ai eqjKBO exdit
. v*i;-'?jc^6 3:9 _^AJ5W T ol , IseJaiiem* ,b,jb IX id ©dt BeimeUi
. aia;ai:;ii>e.%i:J| 4S^.^w 6©JBi(X3fasS ^J&xtB. fisSTSTeE
STATE OF ILLINOIS, I
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 .Vppellate Court in
the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof. I hereunto set m_\- hand and affix the seal of
said'P^f^ellate Court, at Ottawa, this » '^^ day of
(Q -^t^^>r • in the \ear of our Lord one thousand
nine hundred and t\vent\- ^^y^^-'^-'^J
( / Clerk <y(/tht AiqyfAkUe Court..
<r-
)
2936—200—7-22)
d.«^
7 0-7. a
) J
,-M«»«^
226llV649
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
/
/
egun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fourth day of April, in the year of ojjit Lord one thousand nine
hundred and twenty-two, within and for the Second District of the State of Hlinois:
'resent— The Hon. NORMAN L. JONES, Presiding Justice.
Hon. AUGUSTUS A. PARTLOW, Justice.
Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Justice.
JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk.
CURT S. AYERS, Sheriff.
/
AUG
1099
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on .MUV7 ■; ":' ' the opinion of
he Court was filed in the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures following, to-wit :
tr
Go:i, no. 70C7.
George E. x-&oe^\
vs.
Eloct & KvhIJ. Coiitptaai',
... 2>pe lj.fi nt.
226 I. L
o-^ ;^
■-p .Gj;.l frcrii Jouaty Court
of -oorja*
. ppellee, Oeoj-ge U. ^'i*cey, began &i; acticx; of r.s?iiL.psit In
the county court of lecria county n'srinHt 4ipi.>s3.1ti!2t , ilooi. -:; Xuhl
CoKpany, a corporation, for ocmniseion alleged to fro di-e. il'bare
WS8 a trial by a jtiry, verdict for $64lA*75^ c rorr.ittitiir of
t^.85» iudgLJont for the hslaixje coid tbis ap)?ef^.''. v;::s .irceeaxted.
i-poelltiiit operates e large depart ::!.ent 3tora Ir. tho city of
Peoria. In iieptejiiter , 1915, aipellee entered th3 eunlcy of
appellant as a fxiinlt-cse salasui^ixi. He wae to recci\-© v"C»35 ner
weeir and a coau2i.ssior of 4.|-i^I on his net sales, less the dECant
which he received as s weekly salary. The net s&li.eE were the
total sales loss the amount of merciVindise soj.d vi/.O. l&tQr return-
ed; or, if exeijanged, less tho differQiice in the exchanga vaaua
of the goods returnod and the oods^ orig-inally sold. .pi;'j3l5di
worked froa jeptoiiiher 1916 to -.9pte;itier 1920. In Jiiimsry, 1917,
he received a coEtiission for tho tirue ha v/orkod in 1916. On
January 1, 1919, the weakly salary was in^reassd to *35.00.
In January of each yeax" up to January 1, 1920, ho rsoei/ed
GOffifiiission for each previous year. In January, 1^20, a new
contract way entered into, tho temiB of which ere in dis >ute.
Appellant contends that at that time appellee wes aiaked hoiiv ruch
laeroh&ndia© he thought he could sell durl ne; the year 1920, and
he replied that ha thought he could sell about ^60,000.00 v/orth.
..ppel?lynt olaime that appellee ?/us then told that, 11 h^ cculd
sell that er,ount, he would be t.hle to make a nice honu£, ar_d
that his salary for the ^,ear would be f35»0C per week, together
with a aoBEoission of 4|^ on all of the icorchandise sold by him
.'5-.
.TOOT .qV> .uoO
■ ,v u^ iooia ^^rfjelloq^* tfini.ss§.3 '^tjawoo si^-os'i to ^lao© '^^UKc^C' osi;r
I0 ■'^.olg.^'9 ©d^ b&r3iae ^eXIeqq^ ,3XSX , iscFiaatq^si iil . .siiooS
l.■^;;^.•i la^AjX -t.'^s J[)£o2 91 ; ic 'io tnsojs.£ &iit seeX solee iBtoi
,f:irjB ^jXIarjJ^lio ai-- rms feoirsfR^s** 8^003 ad* to
•CO. V isiil a«if y^aIss iflieew od* ,§Xex ,X -^aKaau
.,M'£o\i OO.GOO^Oa: Cloa /sLaoo erf ^ilgjjorf^ ©ii :texf* b®lX^9% ftil
durina- the year in excess of ;40,444.00« .ppellee claiasi that
he vjas told ty «3^p'-vDllj.nt t:i .t hi-j salsjry wotila be ;;3o,00 po r weei:
t»n.d that hia cor.iriasioij V70uld be 4^/;; on his not Sidos, iesa
his weekly salary, tvad that aothing was said about the emoloyoujiit
being for « year, or about tha commission being only on the net
sales ?iboT9 f40,444.0C. foth parties admit tho.t in ti.ia oon/er-
aation there was ssome talk &bout ci written contract, but it is
agreed tiuit no written contract was execaited. In Jepte:j.ber, iu20,
appellee inforii^d appellant that he was gcinp into bualneaa for
himself and he wanted to Pive two v/eeks' notioa of hia intention
to quit the ^tcplcynent of appellant. Ho waa infonced by iip;)el-
Imt that If hn fttit before tho end of the year 1920 he would
be entitled to no coimaission. ..jpellee thereupon left the cm-
ployKjent of appellant, and on ircveisber 16, 1020, began this suit
for coiamiasions which he claims wei^e due from January 1, ltȣ0, to
September 8, 3 920.
In support of appellee's claiir- a even 6:g.hibits, numbered
frcE 1 to 7, were adinitted in evidence. I'hoso exhibits v/ere
c&rda upon which appellee kept account of hia net daily ssilcs.
The evidence shows thut each night appellee turned in to the
office of appellant an iridex card which was ruled horizontally
and vertically, -ilaoh line vifith its corresponding nurubers showed
a Pale. In case goods v/ore returned, a credit jnecioriinduni was
laade cut by appellee am turned over to apiJellant. Kaoh night
a quota card was also turned in to appellant, showing the groaa
aojount of daily sales and credits for goods returned or exchanged.
Per his own com'eniKnce b-ppsllee, each night, entered on a ourd,
a btjl.nce of net selea eoRfJuted from the index and quota, car is ,
and at the end of the month ho added up th^se daily umounts so
as to ascertain hie total net sales for each nonth. Tho seven
exhibits objected to were these seTi-en cwnthly cards kept by
appellee from January to ..ugust inclusive, except the card for
April which only showed a total for pril and not th^ net daily
f^.
isiew: -scest 00,2£| ©rf M«ow ^'xaXae yid i..islt tadIX ©<; q-9 ■ 'i^cf AIo.t esw siS
seel ,89Xj&8 *6fl aii( ao ^il^ ©d Jblffow aolsaJtinra^o elrf #jBd* fcxra
ii'isaE-^oIoase edt ^Jtrocfa iilau saw gnliiio.a ij^iit &jK£ ^x^&L&b -^Xieew etd
-■xo-yxico Birf^ al Jtfii* JJtm&B a©i;fr,ac( ri^oa .OO.Is^^fO^I svocf^ eo£«a
10% QB&s.l'&ad oi&t ^ftlc^ 8«« 91I ^jsii:^ taaCIeqqa £eaiTol»jt »tt£XeQq«(
uoiiiie^xii BliS le ©eii-Oint 'aioaw ow# sv^g oi^ J^a^^rasw ©rf Ana llefiussllC
biaos 9d OSeX t-eS'-i ad* to 1>£S orfJ oioltecT d-ifji Rd li cfad* *iibX
-MO ©4^ 4t»l aoqa&i&d^ o«X>: .aoiseiEssnoo on ot AeX#jttji« atf
*ixfs BXd^ ae^&d ,03QX ,ax ri© .0 i),aa .tasXIe^l* lo *neer^o.u
o# ,03t?I ,X ^iianust laoil ex/ft ©tew aeilaXs ed daJtdw enotwaian-
e:oXa3 ^XJaJ& *9xs aid 'to ^aisooos ^sot »®XI ;dw cioqir sMiO
^IX*;#fiOsi"soif i^aXin aaw ju;^iii^ I'i-^s xeMJt xss ^ixaXXeqq© lo
feowodc u :sai6aoq8s'siQ» s*i dtiw 9£iiX <fo«£ .^XXsolttie/ 2'Hij
aaft' .aiix>.. -MOia&sE Jiisrca 3 .jfesjcijcr*©-! ©lew &bo&^ eB»t> «! ••Xas &
, &d-%ln duBH .^aaXXcKici^ 0* 'te'fQ h®tctai Ms eeXXeqqs ^ttf tffo alt^ai
,^'s^£t a no bmi&ia^ ^isiydts. doa© .BeXXs^q^s ison'jiasvnoo awa sirt ■10'^
, a&^«3 A^offjp i>n£ s«i>rti «d* jboiI A«*Bqa!Oo aeXsa #ea \» ©ox-
ssbYOBi ddl' *dtitosi das9 -xot aeXaa #«»a X^o# aid nl^tTcoos,
Xtl tcaS[ efc-xao vJUS^aisxii iitsflrsa ©sod* ©*£€»« o# Ae^eefrTo B^Mldx®
■sot hiUAO sAt Sii^&xe .fe-vlaffXoal ja x^osioiat; iXe^qa
^IfiJb #ett 6jdUr *oc JBjxa XlsqA <^t Xat«# a £ew(>da ^iXxio doldw iJtmA
sales. These seven ci.rds did not show the gross daily sales
or oredits, but contained onljr the net sclo?. It is contended
by a;>pellant that thase Ci-.rde ware not hocks of cccouat and wore
improperly admitted in evidonce. We thini: no eri'or was ccirjnitted
in admitting these ozhilitE;. The evidence shows that they were
made in the -asual course of husiness, wore in the htindv/riting of
appellee ana were tzTie and correct. He had arlg-ht to keep hooks
or records for hir^aelf, and the f-ct that appellant had the same
/tecord more in detail did not denive appellee of the right to
keep books for hinself, or prevent the hooks .ho kept "by him from
being admitted in evidenco. Chishclm v-, Eearaan IGO 111. 101. The
fact that theso er-hihits did not show total daily sales and
credito, hut only net daily salee, did n't render them incomoo-
tent. Andersen v. Crane, 1^3 111. A;op. 21. The evidence showed
that the original Ci<rds uiade hy appellee a^Td turned over to aroel-
lant, shcvi^ing gross daily sales, had "been destroyed, while the
cards oado by hisi sho-.7ing daily credj.ts were still in the poss-
ession of appellant. By reason of the destruction of these daily
sale cards exhibits 1. to 7 were the only originc.l net sale
cards in existence.
We are of the opinion that these e^-diihit^. were pro^rly
admitted in evidence for the farther reas n that the statement of
the total sales and credits of t-ppellee furnished to appellant
each day was in the nature of an aocount stated, there one per-
son has a charge against :-^.nother person and fui'nishes a statement
of account and no objections are inade to the statements within a
reasonable ti-iie , they become accounts stated, and tend to estab-
lish an admj.ssion by the debtor of the correctness of the account.
Anderson v. Crane, supra. Copies of exhibits 1 to 7, but iiiore
in detail, having been delivered to aopellant , that fact was
competent to go to the jury in connection v/ith exhibits 1 to 7 .
Eren if these seven exhibits were not books of original
entiy and were improperly admitted in evidence, appellant was not
injured by their admission for the reason that appellant's own
a9.teE \Lt&b SBOis edf wods ion. Lib abico jusvea ©ssriT ,3QL&a
bebaeiaoo ai il «eoIs^ tea Qd* ^liio b&ml&taoo tndt ,&ttb@rs:t 10
Slew Jbaa tkssoiiOB Tt.o eilood' ton- siei?; sfinao ©aeiS^ tMt i!iSiil9qi& td"
jie^jiaimob asw toit® on iytoix{# aW .©oneBlve iii l)©;*'*likB^^Xts%6-x(iffii
©■ssw -^eri;!- tsdt awoiia soxrsAlva e/lT .atiidiiixo eB^dt ^a'ittlMia al
"±0 -^ixli tsvahos^d edt cl eiew .assisleutf lo oaiiioo Isirejy edt bI eb&sn
aloocf qeel oj W^iis £ed ©H .tosTiioo ftna eint e*iew Me oelleqqfi
eaiiss od# J5jbi1 d-rtDlIoqqa *Bri* ^toelt ©rft f)n3 .irsaa'ixi tdi abtooei 10
ot tdstr 5rf* ^0 self ©(TcrB (svlifisfi Jon htb liB&Qb ai e^om i^^:ooe^^
ijioi^ wlif -^df i'qe:^ o&; s:iooff ells' txieve.'rq «> jlrleattlii 'loir 8:foo«f qeel
exi? .lOX .III 061 rrataaea *T MorfftirfO .eoaeiiiv© £fl J&et*lM>49^ ■^fflJcecf
-DitB eelaa -^IiBfi Ij8*ot worf« *ojh Jbii> eJ^xtfirix& ©g©r{# iaAt toi^J.
-sqaK^onx medS" "selmeT: toa bUi .eelse ^flaB tail -^Ico d--va'" .ojxfie'so
bQistods BoaebiYs QtVS .IS .crcrA -III 5??I ,9Kfi"xO .V rf66tei>aA .drie*
-leqcifi oi^ 'isvo iexirxirt" JEsne eelXegciB -^cf Bbism abt&o La£it%i7.o edt ^adt
Bdf. S)£'^yf. Ji^t'^'ttBBb pie ed bad .eeXea ^Jii&b ^Bot^ ■gtiimd0 .^taj^
-aaoq edi xxi IIiu& eie'i^ KtiJ&oio ^jrix^i) 3xix\voda ciM ^' &b£ta '-hI^ibo
xLlBb esQdt lo- noxd-ocri-^feei) e-ri# 5o noes©-! -^ja .^nBXXeQqjiJ ^o noJtsae
sXae ton Xaisx^ino ^Xiso erft slow V 0* .X G^idJiitse aJSieo eXj&e
♦ eone^'exxs b1 abi&o
•^Xiec-ioiQ stsfi a^laiiixe sBou^' ijbdt aoli3l<iO iadt la «a;jB eW
lo *rteafsts*s 9ri* JatftI' itoeBST: •riBif*«fjsft ©ri*^ rot sonefirre ni £c*;tiisfije
JnsXXsgqfidt .6 ail eim:^ ©&XX!9q:cfa lo atlbero b£%& a6.Esg Xbj-o^ Qdi
-leq; ©JHO sisrfW .betBf'S txisr09si.g na lo eixr^an exit flX sew Tgxs^ lio^©
teeinst;S*a b esrialnrarift bcus aoB't&q i»ri*oxss ifertJtjs^a esisrf© & asd HQS
s aMJiw a;?£ierne3-!s*a edi o^ s^aia eij^; anoltoa^do on .ba& tmsoooB to
-ds^es oJ J&fT83- bn& .AeteJs a^faxrooos ©£no3®rf "^ad* .aritid" sXcUcoq^st:
. tej;rooos ©nd" lo B&eaioei'ioo ed:i lo 'xojJ'd'si) orft '^cf xiolaslia^B its riaiX
e-rcai tirtf ,Y oi I ai-icftiixe lo 89i<joO ..siqjya ^saaiO .v iiosaoJbnA
. Y o::! I ai- i ut/lx© - dtiw jso t^o ©rm 00 lik -^c^t ^ ^ ^^ '^ int taoieqms^o
Ltias^tto to B:i(3od toa' stew s&ididx.9 aevsa saarft li xtovlK
rj-ocL .aBW tsta£leqq& .©oaoJ&ivs al JbaiiisabB TjXisqoiqml eiew Jbxis \?ctoo
rtwo s'^-naXXeOT^js tisci* xioe^e'i ^* 10I xioxaeinLfiis liexit %^tf I'eixrt^ti
books admitted in evidence as exhildts 98 tc 110, showed the
gross sal 33, aruj the credit cards made by aooellae and offered
in evidejice by aopellc.iit ohOvV all prooer deductions from the
gross daily sales and no variance is pointed out between
appeilajit's exhiLlts 9G to 110 and aopellae's e-ihihits 1 tc 7.
If there had been any v:a-iance appellant v/as in a position
to have pointed it out and, not having done ho, we ossuKe there
v«a3 no variance. If there was no variance then appellant v/as rot
injured by the admission of appellee's exiiibits 1 to 7 even tho-ogh
they were not booiie of original entry and were improperly ad-
roit ted in evidence.
It is next ecntended that the court improperly restricted
the adrcission of appellant's exhibits 98 to 110 for the r'.uri>ose
of showing gross sales only. These exhibits were the boots show-
ing ap'.^llse's gros? sales and credits as kept by appellant during
the ein.)loyinerit , and were iDade up fron: the cards showing gross
sales and credits and turned in to appellant by appellee. It is
claimed that they were fully identified as books of original
entry and should have been admitted for all purposes without re-
striction, and that by so restricting their admission, apoelLant
was precluded froir questioning appellee's e s ti :f:::,t e of the amount
of merchandise which had been returned and which should have been
charged against his gross sales; tliat appellant attonpted to raake
a special showing of the amotint of merchandise returned by
offering a nuicber of exhibits of credit raemcronda for the return
of goods sold by appellees, but the coitrt roused to aduiit them
because they were not in the handwriting of appellee. \le do not
see how apoellant was in any way injured by this limitation.
Exhibits 98 to 110 were adn:itted to show the gross sales, and
exhibits 1 to 7 were offered by appellee tc sho^.' the net sales.
The credit c :rdc , showing the creaits, were offered in evidence
by appellant. Thus the total sales and credits v.'ere fully proven
by proper evidence. As far as credits were concerned, eshibits
98 to 110 were nere repetitions of the original credits admitted
©rf* iaovA QtiOltpssheS, i©qo±q II\s wods 4a3li-^iq:& x^ eoneJ&lire ai
itoi-^.taoQ; js ts.s. esvy tflfil'Ieffqs ©tiaeiisv ■^/se .aeed iijiJ sied* 1:1
tonr Sfivi; ttnjsllsqqs nsil;^ ©Siisi:^sv on aew sisrfd' 11 .eoxifilrrBr oil baW
xlSffori* aoT9 V 0* I a^idirix© e*9®ZI&(q_& 1o iioiselCib* oil* ^^tf Ijeii'tJil'''
-JbB "^Itsciotijffii: ©tdw Jbiss ^^fl© Xfini^gi": ' *^ ' irtoorf joxx ©aew -^exli^"
■ ■ • .cicneiiT© rti J36;'r*x.Ti
Jc©tolid'35t -^ItegoiqiBl #iijOs eili tad* fie^xieJftod txen' 8± *I
&Bo<rim' edi lot Gil oi^ 86 stfMidics e 'ctaalXsQ^iB to aoisaim&s ed^
-wods saoocf edi' e^xew B^l^idx^ ©asdT .Tjlisd Beles bbois ^rilvyorfa lo
3l jfl- .selleqgc -^.rf ^iiillacTq:© ot nt b^arai bnBa&lb&to BtiB a^Xaa
Xfifll^i-iO ±0 ariotidr aJB .&eill4'Ji9J&-c ^XXu^ staw -^eri^' tad* JiatfieXs
-e-i ^0cxld"r:!; aeBOc-Tuq XXb i'ol l>*;5-*lfld&e neerf -eTBii iXitoda Jbne x^IjSs
isissileqv.s .ncissicd&jB tierft grtitolTteei cb \(} tsA^ bna ,aoii6itiB
taxroffiii eiC^ lo o^satiJao e'se.' aixtoxteexrp mon*± fieJbsrXeeia aaw
need e^rM ttsode doldfi bos heti^SJt&i need Sjeii rfoxHw eaiJciflsMoi^M ic
e:ia& 6t fiet<i£2e*;|-je i}"afiXX6<T<iB i^si^* jseXee esoTg alM tferfiEa^ Jbesiarie
ii^jjj'0'i: ©i£^ lol s/ioeTOftism tifee're ler e.ttdXx&e to x&dlaim' -js' si2rll:©%4o
fflsil* titafca 0* .feeexftsi^ttm)© sit 't.i?cf .eeeXXeccqe -^t^ JbXoe' ejbeoa to
t6a Ob sW .e&XXofiqfi %© snlti'r^feasd edt cl *oa ©«9V? 'sjerft ©Bfffioetf
.aolJ:s*iiSiXX aM* Yd" lQ'*i4J3:-t ■^jfe'ss' t^ jrij: saw ^Jri^XXei^d© worf es^fe
Ijjcis ,i*3i^S aEoi3 Silt woria bt jfeettim&a «5©w OXX o* 8€ BiicflifiriE.
,a©X.sa Jeis eiJ^'woj^fei o^J- eeXie<j§e '^d' l^eie^rto ©isw t -et X si^irfliix:©
©OiieJ&itJ-© iii Se'jollo ©-a-sw V'stifcsio ' erft ■gnxwb^e vs^i^o tlfieiS' ©i|T
rr3Y0:tq- igXXiul: ©lew eti6©'xo' Ma S©Xbb X-,kh3t &d:f asrtf? .d-nsXXeggfl ^fcT
a^idJcriks .Jbeirasonoo ©rx'sW 8*i£6ic s#^^ el .Boxiaii^© lecroTCi" x^
bQtftt[^& ad-i6©io XBrtlsiid ©dt|- to ax^old-ld-sq^a ©-ism err© w OX X ©:;*• 8$
in 3vicL3noe which wsre in tLo huiicLv;ritirig of appellee, c.i.6. for
this rea-jcn no in-Ui^'y waL 'ji„cauicuc-, J. "u„v liaiiting e::hiblts t8 to
110 to the gi"C3£- sales.
The praocipe, oumnioiie aud declaration claiiued daixiages in
+ he &un of $500. OJ, the judgi-;ent was Icr |570.72 aiid it ib in-
sisted hy appellant that the jXidj2''J0ut , Leiug in cxceLJS of the
ad daiiamm cannot be sustained. Tlie abstract ^i/l record filed
t'-'7 appellant shewed no ai- cnd^'.ent cf the ad damnLUii, but an addi-
tional roccrd and abstract filed by appcillee suowb that on March
12, 1921, appellee made a itotiou tc increaoe the ad daaxiuaj in
the declaration tc -f 700. 00. The motion vjas allowed and the
am^ndr^ent 7/a£ v.,:,de. The iudgnjent does not exceed the ad damnum
in the ieolaration as amended, i.'o specific objection ?; as asade
to any variance bet'veor the amoun-t, of dauagas ^!.b alleged iii the
declaration and the :unoiint set forth in, the praecipe and sc. Jiiraons .
llo S'oecific error hr^ving beon assigned oii that poiuL, it io now
too late for appell&i:t to talcs advantage of any 8i'-.ch_ error, if
any existed, utter -. J-ffray £; Co. 114 111. 470. The
Metropolitan .^cciOent AsEccictior v. Proiland, IGl 111. 30.
Prairie Strte Xoan c; Building Asfcoiatior. v. Gl-crrie , 1G7 111. 414.
Leathe v. Thomas, 210 111. 246.
:_t the close of the evidence, appellant uiade a motion to
direct a verdict in its fa^'or, the motion was overruled and this
ruling is assigned ss error. It ir. also contended that the ver-
dict is contrary to the weight of the e^ridence. The n.otioa to
direct a verdict w-^s based on the clairn of rppellant thut the
suit was irematurely brought for the reason that the emplO'.r-.ient
of appell.ee tycs for a ye^r and that no coninission v/as due until
the end of the year, whereas the siiit was oorrffi^nced en TToveniber
16, 1920. The ccnterticn that the verdict is contrary to the
evidence is based upon the seine ground/ There is a sharp con-
flict in the evidence as tc the teris of the employxent . The
evidence offered by appellant tends to show that the e.Tiploynent
was for a year, but the evidence offered by appellee is to the
• .- • ^^ ."saljBa SHoig Dxft o* Oil
-nx ai c*-.j: ^rijB SV.OVc| uol sjsw t:£iQS^hssi sid- ,OG»0OB| lo jnira ©a;t
islll fi'ioosi baa ^os'id'scfs ©rIT ^ijajsIjad'airB scT J-onaso laffmsm* ba
'Obbii jDcs d'ircl , iiiiJxi£flBJ5 i>& exi? ic d-iiQiuLne-is oxx iswoila txiijliecnis^cr
ill mssaa^b £jb a/i-J" d&js&naai ot ixoltois a sjbaci eelloqcfs ,X2§I ^Slf
edt JbiiB J&e'AoIIji ajsw floitcm ©xJT .OO.OOVf -o* rEoiJ^isJCosfi srft
. summ&b ii& exJ[:t iteeox© ion ssoB ;trtafa:s^'^t '®rf'i' ' .eijern Sew ^iifidfircfeine
eoBC 8«w ifoiuoe^do oll±oog8 oil .fisIinsrajB as noi^iSTsIoeJb edt tat
, ajDfoeufi rj8 hkisi aqxossTq ells', nl rttio^ d'ee taoojae erf rf' fine noltBiBldei)
ed'2 .OV:^^ .III ^IX. vdO' *^ : ■^ai^iat- .t t©t*TJ .Jbetsixs Vii.
,0S ,1X1 101 ,Ii£iiiliox%\-'f noi^atoo3^2i: ici&l'iook nattldtio's^eM.
-6&S' .III SIS ,eaeiotf5? -.-t BMse\L
ot iLQltoia .E Dfisa Jnall scKiS ,eba©6>T© &ri;f' ^o ©«-6ro ©rit i^
S-crfd' has t&LxrzxBYO ssw col^osi stfi' ,iots^ eti ni folbiev b toeiiJE)
-•lev ^sfM- J-jari;J- Jbafcssd'Sbo oete si #1 «5:d*rT:6 es Bemgiaee 8x gnil^x
<55? aoi^Ois. mif ,9oa:©JDiV6. 94* %o J^xfgiew- sfC* o;?- T^'ssititof) aJt toil
ode? sf-ari^ d-ixsllsqqx: lo MiSBto ©xlt fio feearf e.9w JslMor s i'oo':ij:i?
Ixdrijo- 80.5 aj^^WaoiealGiEOo olx ri&dt bm 'tBs% s'^cii bbvi eQlS.e(iq& lb
■iecfm0TO^4 -ao J&eoussaaoo aaw tty/a ofit aae^arfw ,'Xj33''^ ail^ ^o ba.9 si¥
.giua'.t OCT ijTjsitirco et tolM&i- 9£it i^di nolfmf'not odV .03tl ',51
-Hco cf'x^ria s St Sled's \basO'£-% BsiaaSdt aoqabss&d b1 eoaebtVe
#i59er^0.I<iiss e.if^.tl'jed* wofia o* afin.©* toBlIsqcJa ^rf JBeisllcf eoneBiv.a
©ii* 0* ei o 0ll ©qcfs "^tf £©T:etlo sonQj&i-'irig s^t^std \t3ei' s ^df± sW
contrary. So good purpose i&oula be served in octtir^jf out thia
erJic-r-ce ii: detail. Tiisre was a'.':i-3 til:., tstv/asri :h:- ^M-tiea i^t
ta-3 ti;.<e the coutrt.ot »&s ii.^do of puttiiij,- tae- contract i^iti^
writing:, but this appellee refused to do . ?h.v f nrd "y^^ir "
was usod during the nsgctit^ticna •..rid at Irjast c-ia v/itiios.-.; for
appellant testified th: t ths s:iiplcyiient 'A-a^ for a year. .ir/.sl-
liX-t offered ovidejice to chov* e. ouatoix. of appc^'lliint tc pay ? 13
cOEiDiiesions at the ©/icl of the year. It has Iveer, held tf..at -m
agreenient for a certain act.: per .yatr, nc teiKi ci' cervice teintf
agreed upon, inerely goveme the rr.tc of corn .onstitJ on sir.d «ct
neoesssrily the length of tJie term of the e m ox <"';>•: ..on t* i-fiuid v.
Zirun-ierBian, £9 111. 269/ Chad^lck v* J.orris Cc. 170 111, ■::>-i.5t9.
iiarquaJTi t. JJc;:.efcitio Pinpinecrinj? Co,, J^iU 113- ;-■■>. 337. ■ hn)- the
ternjs of a contract ar<3 not rs^Titigaous, a oi^ctoir cannot l-^ invokod
to overcome the positive tar;;:G of v; contract. Cor.sclidAtec! vator
Power Co* V. Lov.lsvllls Herald Co., £11 111. on. 569. Jt 3«
not sufxici'.ent to prove isoj.r.tei lvst:^T.cos of n cirsto.T.^ tvt
the transaction cai^t ts )ocitiTsly RSt.'iOlished as a f«ict ^nd not
left es ft a tter of inferor.cs froc T-arioviS trT^ajv.cticni? « ."^oKes
& Co. T. Bow!r.an Dairy Co., i©^ 111. Apr* 579. Vhather «?, .olvon
custoir. doss or dcos aiot exist is a ^usstl "?n. of fv-ot for e iv.r^.
Chica£fO iPacking: & Proviaion Oo. vs. lilton^ C7 111. 547, .):3re
thero is no s :>eGifiOiitiO£i. of a.rr^ p^.rticvildr tlE? oi service
agreed upon b.y contx-act, th&z-d Is no hir1:og for nn:^ fixed period.
Gdell Y. Chicago i; Graat ftestsra -^Elii-oji^^ CoK.^ariy, 2ii3 Til, . go,
816. vhat the terias of ths contract were bst^-eou appellant arid
appellee; shethor the eaployiaent Wc„a for oue :jee.T; whetiier ta
ooiaifiisaion was not lue until the and oi the ysfir; and v.'h3th-^r
apiJelloQ violated ths ~3vxz£'- of the contract, y?-3C3 all q^:i:^stions
of fact for tha jury and tr:is court will not diaturh t.'ie r^^rdict
unlasa it is clearly t)^ iust the waig'rit of tho Dvilanoe. V.e nave
exeniined the evidence *vith oonsiderabl? oa--=i und we ctuinoi; aay
that th^ ^'erdict was against th«j weight of the evidence, i il vvc
do not, think th^it the court coiianitted any error in refusing to
.■.,:: c.a^ .., „ . SSeOlifiJi^osjt .,..-.-:-, ......
'li; J-.:'^i t:;:^^ ^^f'f "-rl JI •!; :tja 8iao.^
.^;:■ .CI 071 *yo sr- '.oiw&arfa Veaa .ixi ss .n.
ei II .3o CXI XXS ,»oO l)X87.©H sIXtTelimJ ♦•? ••oO Tcewo'I
tors Ans. toaS a a« &<5d3iX«fs4as^XQVJtilsao, ©d #sars aoitassaft*^ aii^
■^•s^a .III VO .iiOtXll! .av iOL .iOitslT.o^'i * ^.a.iiOii-^ o^BOXrfO
i-0i.7'iee to cjitt -jfeltmi^iisa: ;tJtu to riOi^eoitXosra oa; yl oisd*
♦ qQ'. ,XII .ai'S ^^aqwoO f 5<nXjt.3>i £ia&^a9>* ^^steIS ;& ogaoirfO »t XXeJaO
■THld-eiSw i>2U3 ;i»^% -rft "c ^is« orfj Xl*mr »afc JToa e4w aoJt&aiicaioo
eno .c;}*!? ojrp. X|,J8 Q'sev . :s -.-i.-fj ,lo '.ao^c.'' f?.rl^ ^©;J;aXoiv ^XXaci*^/*
direct a rcrdiot for appollant.
Coi:v->lr.,i2it i;:r r.;;::lo c:? certai-j. recij^rks to the jw-y '■\- de in
the arguriier.t "b^' 0!.:u:i£.£l for iio-^ellee. It v/ilH not "be nocot-sary
to set oi:t those rGi;-.ari<::;' in full i'or the rei-.:cn tha~, fror.. on.r
exairdnation of the;ia, ive do not ooncidtr tli«^: ccnstitiited rever-
sible eirrcT.
f!e find no- era-or &nd tlio ;i"-adg.;i3nt \/ill be afiirned.
Jiidgnent af f J i\'i''-o 'I .
•^leaeBoen scf ^oa ZIxw ;M .esXIaqqa 'lol Isaxixfoo ■id' l.-.:ojcx)igxs odd"
•:a.fo :nom± ,tjEsrft noass'x 0/{4' "xot Llift £ii eiisnas-i saodd" J0O tee oi
.rorcTCs eld is
STATE OF ILLINOIS. I
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 sea! of
said Appelate Court, at Ottawa, this W^^^tLxlay of
/^ ^-i-^y e-^ « _ _in the year of our Lord one thousand
nine hundred and twenty
C'(e//c- of the Ajyjiellate Court.
f
fWSe— 200— 7-22)
V.«^
■7
.,*«*'
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
egtm and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fourth day of April, in the yea/ of our Lord one thousand nine
hundred and twenty-two, within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois:
resent— The Hon. NORAIAN L. JONES, Presiding Justice. /
Hon. AUGUSTUS A. PARTLOW, Justice.
Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Justice.
JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk. /
/
CURT S. AYERS, Sheriff. ,. /
\ /
% J
j BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on A\)K) ■._■ the opinion of
he Court was filed in the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures following, to-wit :
7027
George A. Lyon, Trustee in Bankniptcy
of the estate of Josiah L. Hobinscn,
Appellant, ^ ... „■ _^/la ^ ^ «^
Josiah L. Sotinson, .ida Stone Rot ins on. Appeal from
Mutual Wheel Company, a corporation,
Fred J. Kraft, L. (J. Willis, as Trustee Rock Island
in Bankruptcy of the estate of
Robinson-Miller Company, a corporation,
William E. Fry, Trustee in Bankruptcy
of the estate of Robinson Manufacturing
Company, a corporation, H. G. McGee,
exedutor of the estate of Frank H. Keys,
deceased, Gary R. Crawford, and George
McMaster,
Appellees.
Part low, J.
On December 24, 1909, appellant, George k. Lyon, as trustee
in bankruptcy of Josiah L. Robinson, filed his bill in the circuit
court of Rock Island county against appellees, Josiah L. Robinson;
Ada Stone Robinson; the Mutual Wheel Company, a corporation; L. G.
Willis, as trustee in bankruptcy of the Robinson-Miller Company, a
corporation; William E. Fry, trustee in bankruptcy of the Robinson
Manufacturing Company, a corporation; H. G. McGee, executor of the
estate of Frank H. Keys, deceased; Fred J. Kraft; Gary R. Crawford;
and George McMaster, in which appellant sought to set aside certain
transfers of stock by Robinson alleged to have been in fraud of
creditors. The cause was removed to the United States Court, was
subsequently sent back to the State court, and amended and supple-
mental bills were filed. There were demurrers to the bill, fiimlly
issue was joined and the cause was referred to a master to take the
evidence and report his conclusions. The rxister recommended a
decree setting aside a part of the transfers, and holding that other
transfers were valid. Exceptions to the master's report were sustained,
the bill was dismissed for want of equity, and this appeal was pro-
secuted.
The evidence shows that Josiah L. Robinson, in 1875, in the
3 YSOV
.noanxdoH .1 rtsiaoli 'to &tsi&e ©rit lo
.av
i-jo'xl iBQqqA jHoanicfog ©iioi'S aliA (,xioanlcroJi .1 rialaoli
,aoi:d"B'xoq'3:oo e .■^nsqmoO XesrliV Isc^aM
jnold-^rtoq-xoo & ^\imqsioO •xelllM-nosnlcfoH
,e9SoM .5 .H , no J:^fi"xo<;ii 00 a .-s^xjaqnioO
Q^'xoeS SiOB, ,i)iolwsiO .H ^^ibD ,i)9Sfieo0J5
,"2©tsaMoM
.5 sell 6tiC;.A
Qed"Sviid" as .xio'^a -A og-xoe© , d"£ix!.CX©qq.s ,€061 ,^S I'ddffieosC. f-
t.Urcs: CO Bdi as. £1M Bid Jbeia ,Ci08aMoPj. .1 dalaoG lo ^jod"qxrx3iiisci al
;xio8Xixd'ofl .J xljaxaob , assIIeQ.ii.3 ;;l'aclB^ x-J^nssoo Smslal iooR lo itssoo
.1) .J. J^oic^JB•2:oq1oo s ,^sQmoC lasilW lajcj^xiSi eiid" jxcosxticfoH ©110*8 sbk
a ,«,i3sqcoO loIIlM-ncexiid'oa edt lo -sfotqwiiascf ni ©ed-eij-s:* aa ,ai:IIiW
i'iCanirfoS Slid' 1:0 ^jj^qcTilasd xii ©e*sin:^ t'^'x'tt .S mBxIIlW jiioits'xoq'xoo
9Xit lo lo^ifo&xe ,©G'SoM .X? .H ;xioi;J's'xoo:'3:oo s jT£r£3q.jnoO :§nJ:iJT;}'osluaBM
;x.'.Tolwi3tO .S 'St^BC it'ks-xl .1 he%% :5®33©oo5 , a^s^ .E :^b%% lo sd-jefae
ctxBcJ-iso ei)ia3 ites oi- j-xf^-aoja JiiaIIsq.qs iioxx«w al ,iota.eMoM 93109© Jone
lo .bixeil flx iieecf 6Tgi! od' fte^slis noanlcfoH •7;cf ^lood'a to Bio^Basnt
saw ,0x000 se^BtS h&tlaU eri« oi- J&SYOcje's asw saaao exfT .aiod-llieio
-y.Cy.crf;a I>jis £9i»n©raB i)fxs .cfiiroo s^f^d'S sxiu^ c^ :io&d taee. \Lineiipesdss8.
'^iLZsm.l^ fI£M sdi 0^ B'xetismeij si©?/ eisxil! .bellJ: ei&w alXxcf lAtxieai
0xij Qfist o^- *cotasai s o^ ijoiielei sew eass^o Bdi bna fieniOQ a£w oxxsel
is beSjsx5im:iooQ's. loJaeca 8x12 , sao iaxxloxioo aXxI cJ'ioqe^ iixiB eoxxe^Jtv©
•xsrii^o .taxi;}' ■gdti'ilod i;xsa , aielsxxsti* ©dd- lo &^s.&i a eSi.ta& -gatttsB ©erxoelt
.feri.cci'sjja e'xsw tooqei: a'-xe^Bfioj erid- 0* Baoliqec:& *it±Ij3V eiew Bielsxian* •
-o-xQ axiiv? lEeqqB si'xiJ mB «7;d'ixrp& So d'iia'w lo?: X>Oi.eJ:aiai:i) esw Ilicf exf,:^
oxitl- r.jt ,3V8I xti ,Xi:oaaio"oH .1 dsisoL itsxi* Bworfa eoneJ&lv© axi^
city of Freeport, formed a co-partnership knouii as Kobinscn i
Company, for the maxnifacture of vehicles. The Tiu.siness was success-
ful, and in 1890 was incorporated under the nan© of the Hobinson
Iilanufacturing Company. Two adjunct corporations v.'ere organized to
take care of the output of the Rohinson Manufacti!.ring- Company",
namely, the Robins on-Liiller Company, of Llinneapolis, !,:in:iesota,,
incorporated in 1891 to look after the business in the northv/est,
and the Consolidated Implement Gorapan:/, of Kansas City, Missouri,
to look after the business of the southvk'est. ."' " . was the lead-
ing spirit in all of these corporations. In 1891 or 1892, a number
of persons engaged in the manufacture of vehicles and requiring
wheels iu large quantities, incorporated the Mutual Wheel Company,
with headquarters in the city of Moline , Illinois. The object of
this corporation was to manufacture wheels, supply the members of
the corporation at advantageous prices, and not to let sjiy of the
stock get into the hands of outsiders. This last corporation was
prosperous, paid large dividends and increased its capital stock
from tiiiie to time.
Fred J. Ilraf t , in 1889, entered the emploj- of the Robinson
Manufacturing Company as a traveling salesman, and continued in
that position until December, 1900. Hobinson and Kraft went to a
health resort in ^Ima, Michigan, where Robinson met Ada Stone, a
bookkeepe*".. She was born in V/ashington, D. C, she taught school
at $21o00 a month, and had been employed for about five years in the
government departments at from $60*00 to v75.00 per month, also at
Alma, Michigan, for two years and a half at v30»00 a month, and
her room, board and washing. She had saved about f;1800.00. She
accepted Robinson's offer of employment, and in 1898 v/ent to Free-
port and entered the employ of the Robinson Manufacturing Company.
She took with her the 1^1800.00 she had saved from her former employ-
ment, and testified that she placed it in an envelope in the
company's safe, where it remained with other small accumulations.
She became a member of the Robinson family, and their relations
-sasoocjs 8£w saenx&frcT sdT .eslolrfev to eiM&o&lisjmnu &di :tol .TjcueqaioO
noanxcfoH edi lo eai^n erf;r. •X9l)m/ x)6c}-Bioq':f.oonx aaw 0681 ni Jbxis .Ix/i
03- i>©:jin3§io ei8W enoi^si-oqioo ioasjlbe 07»rT .^lusqincO 8jcxx'a:.cfci-o.Blj:rnjeI.I
,^5rj:3q(noC sxixixii-oalxrir^il noaxixcfoH erW lo ^xfqtjjo edi to eiBO e:^&i
,^2-oasnxi.L-M .alloqesaxixM lo.^neqmoO lallxM-noBnxcfofi erf* , Tjloraan
,;S-8B\yrf*ion ed:} ai aeenxaxrcf sdcJ- •x©;r5:e 3fooI oi IQBI ftx is^B-soqiooxix
,x-3:xjoaaxM .^itlO sbbhsU to ^\£i&qiaoO taemQlqal JbetsblLoaaoO edi b£SB
-bae£ od^ e&w noBcxaoa . jeewxij-wos orf:f lo aaenxaxrcr,- ed* 'xecTlfi jIooI o;t
7.e (k:.:ji-i & ,Se8I <xo 1981 iil . anolJoiioqioo seerii- !to IXe at txiiqa i^cx
gaxixifpar J:iis asloxnev lo e^-nd-OBlxJcan ed;}- ax be-s&sne srioeisq lo
,\^ii6gffloO leeriW Isxt^xtM erft fietaToq-xoonx , aelj-ioxisxj-p sgial ax alosriv/
lo cfoeQrfo 6dT .sxoxillll , sniloM lo ycTxo sri;f ni a-xscTiiiirpiBsrl xl^fxw
lo arscrcieflT edi- ^iioqira ,el98£[w e-Xirf-oelx/xiBin od" saw noi^sioq-xoo elrf*-
srivt lo Y.-'^e •^el o:)- d-ori X)n^ .ssoxiq Siiroe-§B:^iiBvb& &b noljBioqioo en';t
saw Goxd-Bioq-^oo ;f&Bl sxriT .aie^bxa^iio ^o ebsiBd ed* otox j-eg iooi-e
xooc^3 Iii.txc;BO a:J-i i)&83e'xor!:x bm abaebi'Tlb eg-xsl i>XBq , axroisqeoiq
.stnxd" o& emit mo:cl
£s:oai.ix'Jofi sri^f 'to ^olqais eri;^ beie&ae ,e88I xsx , JIbiS .L jest's
tix i)6i/nx*rroo bns .naaieslBa snilevBtif b bb ^BquioO ■ssxltis&OBtsssi&M.
B OCT .tfisw &t&iy, hue noanxcToH .0061 ,ied'ffl909a Ixd-nx;' nox*x2oq>Bil;f
B .erio.lc BX)A torn ao&aldoE e-Jerlw ■.iisgiriotll .boiIL fix d-ioaei xi;5-j:B9r{
loorfoa JrigxTBt eda ,.0 .G .no^J-gnMesW nx a-xocf bbw exIS .-ssqssliooa'
edJ nx a IB 8^^ evxx ^-crocfB -rol r^s^olqins need" bsd bm ,d&aotn b OOoisf ts
tB oals ,ild-rfOin leq OO.SV'S o* 00.05$ motel cTb act-nsmd-iBqsi) jfnemxrisvos
iiaa ,rIdTiom s 00,0S$ jB I-Xbt! b bas sib©-^ owt lol ..osairioxM \BmlA
aria .00.008X1 j-jj-qcTb i)9VB8 .barf exic; .snxriaBW i)xxB JbiBOd' ^01001 lexi
-991^ oi- d-fisw seex ax XixiB .tn^iTtoIqms 'to -i9l:^o a'noerfxcfoH Jbej-qgooB
.^^jxiBqcsoD giixiirt-OB^wiisM noanx-ioH odt lo \iOlqccs sricf- f.ea-9.t09 bus tioc
-■%olqmo 'X9arsol: yod morxl isevBS LbxJ ©xrs O0.OC0X$ edi ted dit^j lo'6* exiS
9iij XTX 9qol9TXX9 xts .cxx ox ieofilq 9xla j-Bxfcf i;&x'±x;feot ^xis , trceui
. 8noxtsX.fXffl.uco£ IX»:i.a3 isxiJ-o rUxw f.9nxeffi9'x tx e-xgriv^r ,91bb a'txiBqmoo
snoi*BX9i 'x.i:od& ba& t^Iiiant xiosnxcfoS grid" lo leda^ia b eniBoecJ 9xi6
"became ver;^ close and confidential. Her salary at the Robinson
Manufacturing Company at first was :|i;i£.50 a week, which was later
increased to $1000.00 per year. Robinson in 190£ made gifts
and transfers of money and other property to Ada otone. s.hen
Robinson's mother died she left an estate of about C^VOOoGO,
which was given to -^da Stone. From 190£ to 1904 three insurance
policies on Robinson's life matured, and these amounts were paid to
her; one was $760.00, a second was C'EOOO.OO, and the third was
fl550,00o Robinson's wife died in Noveraber, 1903, leaving no estate,
£ind in the following year Robinson made a gift of his home and its
furnishings to Ada Stone, which property was afterjvards sold for
$8000.00. It is claimed that all of these gifts to Ada Stone were
returned to Robinson by her to be held by him in trust for her,
and they v/ere allowed to accumulate for fu.ture investments. In
August, 1905, Robinson and .;^da Stone were married; and the evidence
shows that the fund in the envelope in the safe had increased* to
about $3000 o 00.
Robinson o'^ned 270 shares of stock of the Mutual whieel Company,
with a par val\ie of ;^£7,000.00, and on March 7, 1906, he made a
gift to his wife of 180 oif these shares, and certificate Ko. 87
was issued to her. This certificate was afterwards divided into
two certificates, Nos. 113 and 114, and for 90 shares each, issued
to Mrs. Robinson. The remaining 90 sh-res of the £70 standing in
the name of Robinson, it is claimed, were owned by the Robinson
Manufacturing Company, and held by Robinson as trustee. In the fall
of 1906, a stock dividend of 100 per cent was declared, whereby
the number of shares of Mrs. Robinson v/as doubled, making her the
owner of 360 shares of the Mutual V^'heel Company stock. The 90 shares
which Robinson claims he held in tnist participated in the stock
dividend, and these 180 shares were subsequently hyoothieated to
the First National Bank of Freeport to secure a debt of the Robinson
Manufacturing Company. Later this pledge was divided, the bank
taking in pledge 110 shares, and a certificate for 70 shares,
numbered 11£ , was later issued to Ilraft on July £, 1908.
noBnicfoS exld" r^a xS'^.s.Laa leE .Lziinekllaoo Jbxis ©aolo yjev qoiboscT
'atli-% obsm 3091 rsx iiosaldoU .'iBe\; 'leq 00.000f| od" Joeasoioni
,00,00V:&'| toocTs lo stsd-ae kb HsL eria x>exi)- lerid'orn s'noanitToS
eonaix/an-l: ©sixld- -^0(?I od- SOSI raoi'i .enoja eM o:^ nevxs bbv/ rioxriw
od" ixaq, ©isw s-tn^oraB essriJ" x)nB .Jbeiexd-iim exxl 8 'fliosnxcfofl no eeioxlqq
a^vr I)ixfIo'- Slid- bnB ,00.000S| bbv; Bnooea b ,O0.Gd7$ asw 9no j-ssri
.od-fitee on gnlvaei' ,5091 .tecfmevoTI nl JbexJj eliw e'lioanicfofi ,C0.03SI|
acM Las emori sxri lo d-^xg s eLsm nosnicfoK i£S9^ gniiwollol srij as. bns
lo'i Mos BfiaBWieJ^iB s&v! \ti&qoiq_ rioxrfw ,9nou2 s£A od" B3ni:rfsxiiiwl
eiow ecod-S sM Oj ad-^x-g eeedi '±o lis d-snd- Xeoixalo al d-I .00.0008$
,ien' -J ol d-airxd- n.1: miri "^icf bled &d oi isa ^^d aoanldoh ot bea'aitei
nl .ad-nsiird-asTni eiu&ut lol ed-,eIjraixroG£ od" Jbsv/oIXs siew Tjerid- Ma
eoneixve srid- bnB j^sxiisra sisw snoJ-S sJbA f)££B nosxixcfofl ,5081 ^-iBisgxsi^
oi 'besseioDil b^d el&a erld- ax oaoIsYXf-e srf* rii iixiui -erid" tizdt avrorife
.00.00051 d-nous
.^rneciiioO Isorfvi Isxfd-xftvl 9xl.t lo riood-a '±o seisria OVS ^exiwo noaaxcrofi
ji obsm ed ,bOQL ,V dotiihl no briQ ^OO.OOO^VSl to oi/Isv rcao^ & iri^iw
V8 .031 9d-soixl-ti9c x)rt£ ^aaiBris easrid- lo 0(i£ Ic slxv; exri oi itt-g
od-rti i)e£xvxX/ afjievi-^ed-la sew ed-B&xlicfieo axilT .Texf od- besjBai asw
xisxraax .rloxja aeixifia Oe rol ms\MI Jbns SIX .sol .aed-^oxlxd-ieo owd"
nx gn-xMsd-a OVa eild" lo 89Ti:xia 06 ■gnlniamQi sxiT .noanicfofi .aiM od"
noswxcfoH grid' ■;id' i)9nvi'o eiew .fteatxBlo ax Jx <iioenxcfoJi ?:o emsa edd"
Ils't odd- nl •esd-eirxd' as nosrixcfoS xd xleri bas .'^nsqrnoO ■gnliutoaJ.nnsM
"^aeieriw ,£i91qI091) asw d-aeo isq 001 xo f»n9^xvxJb ^lood-a s ,6061 lo
end- -xeri a-i-i^^^3ffl ,beIdssob aaw noenxd"oii .aiM lo eeiBrie lo TiedinuJi edd"
ee-iiids 09 sriT .2lood-a ^xmqcioO IserW IsjaifiM edf to ae-xarfa OdS Ic lenwo
xood'3 exld- ai Lsd'iiqxoxd'iisq d'Sjrad' ax bled' ed amlclo noanxcTofi riolxlw
od- bel^Bcldtoc'^d \£tiieispeQdaB eiav/ aeixsxla 081 eaerld- bns ^bnebivlb
noaxixcfoS oxfd- lo d-cTel) b e-xxxoea od" d-ioqes-s'i lo IdBfi iBnoid'Bll d-a-rl'S erid-
liiBcT exid- ,£>e£.tvi:jb aaw ©gielq al-r{d- led-Bl .^saBcrnoO ^Ki-xud-OBlxriiBM
,ao":cBrl8 OT -lox ed-Boxiid-ieo b i)n3 .ae'iBxis Oil Q'gbeLq xii SflMfid-
.80SI a vLsjL ao d-laiX od- bessaal -letaL asw ,SfI fieietfcma
In 1907 Robinson "began to have financial difficulties.
The bants refused to loan his corporation any more money and demand-
ed payment on the notes which were at that time due. Robinson
carried the paper of these corporations to a large amount on which
he could not realize. V/hen confronted with these difficulties
Robinson and his wife determined to invest the trust fund, which
Robinson held for his wife, in the stock of the Mutual V^heel Company.
The Robinson-Miller Company claimed to hold, through Robinson, as
trustee, 90 shares of this stock, being certificate Ho. 89, and '
Robinson and wife went to Minneapolis, and, on August 6, 1907, pro-
cured a trstnsfer of this certiflc te to Mrs. Robinson, as certificate
Ifo. 106. Most of the purchase price for this stock, it is derived,
was paid in checks by Robinson from the trust fand, which appeared,
however, merely as a credit to him on the books of the Robinson-
Miller CompanylJ To make up the balance Mrso Robinson drew on the
$3000.00 envelope in the safe of the Robinson lilanufacturing Company.
It is claimed by Robinson that this purchase was in faci'made early
in July, 1907, and on account of the absence of the secretary/- the
new certificate v/as not issued until ..ugT;!St, but the appellant con-
tends that this was merely a subterfuge to avoid the four months
provision of the Bankruptcy Act. In writing out the assignment of
certificate IJo. 89, the secretary inserted the name of J. L. Robin-
son, but his attention was called to that fact, and it was corrected
by adding to the assignment the statement that the shc^res were issued
to Ada S. Robinson.
On October 31, 1907, Robinson ordered certificates Nos. 70
and 88 cancelled, and certificate Uo. 107 for 90 shares, and Ho. 108
for 70 shares, were issued in their place to Mrs. Robinson. Thus,
on October 31, 1907, on the eve of the insolvency of Robinson, his
wife became the owner of 610 shares of the stock of the Mutual
Wheel Company and its value was $125.00 a sh-.re.
On the afternoon of October 31, 1907, Robinson left Preeport
to join Mrs. Robinson in Kansas City. He took with him all of the
available funds of these corporations, amounting to about ^4500. 00.
xioanicfoS .9ix& ©ejid" *^* ^£ 67©t3 doxriw aai-on vrf* no Tfaejo^sQ is
rioidw £iO ta.«yane SB:ieI a ot enoltjsioqioo eeeri^f lo tceqsq erit ieiiiao
BOid'XiJoiilx^ eecii* xit±» ijetiSo-sSnao narfW .6s1Ib6t ton fiXixcc oi{
££oxj£lw ,&asA tfiint-9dt ta&rsxl ot bQSiXmi&te.b ©l±v/ eiri J&na nosaicfoS
♦ Y,xie(iJ2iaO I©«jiiW lAtr^xrM sdd- 5o ioovta edi al ,ellvi airi 'xoi filed noaiilcfpS
SB jXioeflirfoa d^sToruii ^bZod o& t&mlslo -^jK^ffloC iBlLM^aosaldoS. 6rIT
♦ &fi3 ,58 .oH eia<tti&0 solecf , Soots alil* IQ Be'isila Oe ,&©*ajnt
-Tiq ,VOGX ,0 tacr^xfA no ,£nB , alloqasiiriiM o.t tnew siiw fciia noaiilcfoii
$,T.«oJ:!t 1^*180 as ,nosa±do£ .axM o;^ ©t.silxtTea aldt lo Telsxienct « josiuo
/ -- ';;;Xo tU Jx ,loota !iildi lot soJtiq seadonxftj 9rf* lo teoM .30X .ol
, .v-..seqqi; doiiivi ,JbasA. iBxrit edt ao-sl ccoanxtfoS \;cf sloeilo itl J5Ij6q; Bijw
-ncartlcfoH £?dt "io ailoorf exit no eiid ot t±Jb©io a sb T^Xsism ,i©T9w6xI
9xlt iio weoi) aoeaidoE ♦eiM ©oxiaXecf eift go ^iem oT iJ^iiagmoO rteXXlM
.vm^-MioO §£si/i^oaliEtti3M; iiOQaldoZ &dt '±o elsa ©dt al ©(joXsvxis OO.OOOSt
^XiB6 Ql)B[a'~^03± ni savs ©Siidorixrfi aldt tjerit noenlcfofl -^d" H'etalu: > I
edj vtatoTiOoa sdt lo ©oneada ©dtto JniroooB no fins ^"Pdex j-^Xj^L ni
-f£0o ta&LLeqfiB &d& &sfd ,tetr§xr<-- X±*nif Jbeirsal ton bbw etsoiiitiso wen
adtiioia -isso% eM hJLovB ot. ©siilaetc£«s s -ijXeTcefli esw atdi iadt a£net
!i:o tnemfcgifees edt iso yxltlim is! .t©A '^e-J-qjBT::fcaa ©d* ^o noialvcici
-iixJoS .J >u !to laaan exit iist'seani: ■^^teloes edt ,68 .oH 9*aol^iti9o
ietosiioo ej?K ti J&iis .tosl tadt o* AeXXco saw noltnQJta eld tja-d^^noe
isaci^si; ©'J9v? asnijds ©dt tsdt taeiaetijtB ©dt tn©ffln§±8aj8 edt ot giil&j&a -^d
.noaHlcfofl .£ .aJ&A o^
GV .aQll E©.tsoi:l:iti©o J&enefiTO noanitfoE ,YOex , XS -secfotoO 'nO
801 .,Q}i _Ii£m ^s&xMa QQ x6± ?0X *o'4; ©tsoxilttr©© Ma' \,i&J^X©onBO 88 JbssB
, ssfdl! .jioanirfoS • .a-sM of ©QaX^j ilsdt ni: l>ei;aeJt ©icew ,B©ifids OV -ro^
aid jnoisnldofl lo i^orsEvIomJ: edif ^o ©t© ©dt no ,TOeX ,X5 i©cfotoO no
L^sstsM edt lo iloots ©dt ^o seiada 6X3 lo Tienwb ©di^ ©siBoed ©iiw
■ .©rtada a OO.SSXf esisr exfXsY atl Jbna ^aqaioO X©edW
ri-iocrb&'-xl. tleX noafiidoH » TO4X ,X5 xedotoO lo noonietla ©dj nO'
6.dt 1-0 IXi3 arid dtiw :Sti-ot ©fi .■<gtlO aeaneS nl noanicfoS .eiM nio^ ot
,00.008:^1^ .txroa's . ot §0i:#axfoai.a ,siioltB^oqT:oo ©asdt ^o eSnl^ ©XdaXlava
jie testified that of this amou-jt , he paid ^1)530. 00 on a note due
from the Robinson Llariufacturing Company to lirs. Laura :itcne, the
mother of i-irs. Robinson, and $£400o00 of the amount was turned over
to i'lrs. Rohinson, and Robinson kept the remaining ;,'j1600.00. In
llovember, 19C7 , Robinson and Vidfe, in Los Jlngeles, California,
met Zraft , who had severed his conneotion with the Robinson l.Ianu-
facturing Company about 1900, and had located in Los Angeles, where
he was in the carpenter business, Vvhile in the employ of the
Robinson Itonufacturing Company he received a salary of from |]75o00
to ^125,00 a month, and it is claimed that he acquired certain stock
of the corporation, and that wheal he left its employ it owed him
back salary and borrov/ed money amountii-ig to f;7300.00, and the
company's note was issued to him for this amount, but his stock
was left in the possession of the company. It is apparent from
the evidence that Eraft knew very little, if anything, about this
!|7300«00 note or his stock in the company. He left everything to
Robinson, who looked after the matter for him, and received the
interest. Robinson and wife had the Ilraft note of v7300.00 with
them in Los ^Ingeles, and Mrs. Robinson claims she took up this note
by giving her own note to Ilraft and leaving with him as collateral
security certificate 108 for 70 shares of stock. On July 2, 1908,
Mrs. Robinson, took up her note to liraft by transferring to him the
70 shares of the V.Tieel Company's stock, being certificate 112.
On ^pril 10, 1908, Robinson was adjudged a barikrupt in the
United States*Court of Minnesota, and George A. Lyon v;as appointed
as trustee. Robinsoi-i was discharged in bankruptcy, on x^ugust 4,
1911, over the objections of the Fidelity Trast Company, a creditor.
On March 2, 1908, the Robinson-Miller Company was adjudged a bank-
rupt in the sajne court, and L, G. V.illis v/as appointed trustee. On
February 8, 1908, the Robinson Ivlanufacturing Company was adjudged
a bankrupt in the United States District Court for the V/estem
Division of the northern District of Illinois, and V/illiam 'iC. Fry
was appointed trustee. On July 1, 1908, a bill was filed in the
District Court of the United States for the northern Divisioxi of
e.uf) 9 Jon B no OO.CSd| bisq. ed , j- jrj-oms axrirf- lo i&di iellxtesd' eH
erfcl- jSno^C sissbJ. .aiM o^t ■p;n£i0ioO :s0xiird'OB3:imai:ft nosnicfoH erfi'- moil
levo ^on':ij:j'd" bbv/ tnssoi:^ edt lo 00,00:^2$ Bns ,no8r£xcro£ .erd-i xO 'isritom
nl .00.0061* gnifiificnei eni o-qe:jf .aoarfidoH Ms ,£iosnxcfoH .e-xM o;}-
.bxhtoIxIbO .asIegnA soJ mi: ,9'±xw Ms noBnidofl ^YOGI .I'scfmevoK
-xraeM qosnlcfoH Mt ritiw noi^oennoo sxrf bereaves fjsri orfw , j-IbiX Jem
s-Teriv; .eelegnA 80d nx fied-.-iOoI i)jQd Mb ,00SI iisods, '<;0.£,qffloO gnxii/d'OBi:
srfcf '±0 \;oIqfflQ Qd^ .at slxcfv/ .sseniaisdi letneqi&o ed^ ax saw ed
OO.gVI Q[toi:'± lo ^lalae £ be-vleoo'i $d vyisqaioO •gni'ix/i'oeixrriBM xioanicToH
iCooJa tiiBinQO beilsspo& ed iudf bemlaLo al &i. bns, .rid'aoffi e 00,QSl|i oi
Olid X)ev/o c^i: volqfne aJx o"ieI ea nerlw j-sriJ £nB .aoxd'Biogioo srit lo
sric!" JbnB , 00. OOSVl oj i5nxt£C0Oaxs ■^©xiojn fjev/oi's.ocf ina ijialfia tIobcT
2food-a axxl cfxicf .JrHronus sxrit lol mid ott" ioi/aax ssw oton s'-^jxiBqcaoo
flioi^- d'nsxeqqii ex d"! .vriaqmoo edJ To aolsseseoq srlc!' ai j-lel saw
axfiJ isjodii ,gnxxid"^nB ^x ^eld"*!! -^ev wexcl JlaxS t^rid' 9orfeI)xve Qfid
ot -^nid.ixrLeve d'^sl ©H .-^njsqffioo erfd" rii xood'e axrl lo-sd-on 00»OOSV<|
orft berteoei bas ,[aM "xot leii&ai edt 'sed'^a f)92iooI oriw ^nosnicfoH
.ritiiw OCOOSVt- xO ed-or: cUs-xa edi b&d sliw Me fiOBuxcrofi .d-gstiedni
sJon aifid' q.a- lood" erJa emissLo iioBsxldoh. .aiM i»n£ ,esIs§ixL eol aicnedi
ibietelloo SB rnlrf ricflw ■gnlv^.el. Jbna d'ljeiX od" sd-on nv/o led gnxvxg ^cf
,8081 ,S xlssZ aO .:iood-s "to aeisris OV lol 801 sd-iioxlid-'ieo xil-zsjoes
odi iiitd od' •§nli'xe"±ai«T:d' ■^cf d'tiSiX od' ed"on ^.-eri c.u zioci' ncanxcfoS .B'lM
.SIX ed"jsox'ixd"'x©o ^axod ,:{ood"s e'^-ajsqcnoO leerfvv exid' lo t-o-xjeilB OT
Slid' n.1 d'qjn'^taecf b £e3JE'jjr;£is sav/ nosflxdoH ^SOei ^01 Ixiqii nO
i'eoaxocqB 3.ow nci.! .^. ssioeC bna ^si'oaennlM to d'TXfoO .asd'&d'c; Bad'xnU
,1^ tossgiiJ:. no ,-^od'qjj'si.aed nx bs'g's.sdoBxb sbw lioanicfoH .ssd'exTid' sa
.loiLbBio a ,^-^^9^00 d"SinT \;d'i:Is.&x'3: odt ±o anoxd'oeGcfo erld' levo ^LLQl
-itoijd" ^ f)ss!.&x;f;i)£ af-v; \;xifoqaioO 'ieXIiM-xxoanxcfoS erid" «605I ,S xioiaM xiO
aO .eed'axAd' iodTiXoqqis asw eiLL]:^^ .-O .I jbrxB .d-xxjoo e::ii5S srid- nx tqjTi
x)ssX)irr£s 3i;w ■!<;aBqraoO gnxiifd'OBljjnfiJ/I noanxcfofi ©rid" ,30^1 ,8 ^tmnQQ'i
£ii9d"BsvV sxid" lo?: d'txfoO toiid'SxCL eed'jsd'a fisd^xxiU srid" nx d^qxri^Iiisd" js
■^^I'i .5^ tnsillxV/ jjnxi .aioxrllll to d-oxid-axCE xiiexCd-^olI erfd- to nolaxvxG
Slid' iix i;elxx aisv7 IIxcT s ,8091 ,1 Y,Ixfb jsG .ee^asn^ betnioqqs asw
1-0 XTOiaxvia xnsxid-'soll edi lol aad-sd-a i)9d-ixiU erft lo d-'xwoO d-oxid-BiCI
the Southern District of Illinois, by George .v* Lyon, trustee of
Robinson, ag-inst Rob-inson and his wife and. the Mutual '..heel
Company, Zraft, Willis and i'ry, as trustees, v/hich bill alleged
the ownership of the 610 shares of the Mutual heo^l Company stock
by Hobinson, the transfer to iirs. Hobinson, the pledge of the 70
shares to Kraft, and alleged that all of these transactions were
fraudulent as to creditors of Robinson, and prayed that the saiie
be vacated and the stock subjected to the payment of Robinson's
debts. On October 2, 1908, notice was served on the Mutual Wheel
Company, notifying it of the filing of the bill in the United
States Court and waiting it not to pay dividends to either Robin-
son or wife, or to Kraft, on the stock in question. On llovember
23, 1908, Pry, as trustee, filed a cross-bill inaking, in substance,
the same charges as in the original bill, and on October 20, 1909,
the bill and cross-bill were dismissed.
On December 24, 1909, appellant, as trustee, filed the bill
in this Ccse in the circuit court of Rock Island county against
the parties to this suit, Loaking the same charges as alleged in the
bill filed in the United otates Court, and asking the same relief.
On May 2, 1910, iiobinson and wife and Kraft ht.d the cause removed
to the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois, where the suit was subsequently dismissed, was afterwards
reinstated, anci the cause was finally remanded to the circuit court
of Hock Island county. On November 6, 1911, an amended and supple-
mental bill was filed making Frank H. Keys , Cary R. Crawford and
George MoMaster defendants,, and alleging trarisfers of stock to
them subsequent to the filing of the bill. Keys lived in Iowa,
Crawford in Missouri, and IiIeMaster in Illinois. Upon issue biing
joined in the circuit court of Rook Island county, the cause was
referred to the master to take the evidence and report his con-
clusions.
The master found that the transfer of the 180 shares of
stock in I&rch, 1906, was a gift made under such circumstances as
to be unassailable, and therefore it and its increase to 360 shares
%;'
OT.aiit to ©gieXq: 9ii* ,noi3ii.cd'oH: .alM o* ■se^fcecta-xi' sd* ,jiosflMo2 ^^cf
9-3:e^ ano 1*0438X16^* as srit lo I Jis^^sili" ,663*113 lixss .(f'istS o;? ae'XBde
a'isosaidFoH lo ;fxiQai^q; sd* od" ^ ©d" o 3|; dire fooit 8 &df bas /jsJbojsv ©cf
CesjiSW L&isisM edt ao b&vi&a b&v eQl^os ,80&X ,3 i^dotoQ e.Q' imt^^h
-aicfoJa -•xsdti© oif. a^ii9lixviJ& yj^I o* tOii *1 'giStiifxaw M* *^o^ a®*fi*S
xedaisvoTX nO . ,fioj:;J'8effp fsl jloo^a odt ito , *isiS od* ?fo ,s3:iw to nos
,eOt?I ^OS ^scfotoO no bna ,lS.Xi l^sal'^ito Bdt al a« ' BegrE^iio ^^a ©idtit.
. ..^©fc&lfflBi:& ©19W IX-M-BSGid toa -XXlcT ©tit
XXld^ 9:rf# \6©Xi!!: ..©etesn:*- a« ,txi3XXeqqa tGOeX ,i^ mediae o ett tiO -
vBaljs:^ -^^tajToo' aaaXsI ^ooS ^o t^ijoo tiiJOTio edt ii-t sbbx> sli&t ut
edt tit be-g&llA es eegisdo emjss ejd:t gxii&jfti ^fiisa aMt of s.Qt't^i^ exit
.5:©±Xe'i 8u4ea edt -^l^&a Ma jtifl-oO «et«tx3 JSetxiiU' exit ni ^©XiS: XXJrdf
^evxeiea 98j;aso oidt bsd ^b'x^ bsiA 9^im Las noaaldoA ,OX€X ,S ^j^dt liO
lo to.tttaiC5: aieiitsroS sdt loS tiwoO tolstsKI s«tst8 fjetifiU' ©lit ot
ais'XBWtetis esw ,^aelfli8i^ i^Xtrxesfpsetfije saw tljaa ©rCt sisrf-w iBlocxiil
d-xuoo tioo'ii^j 6ilt ct l)di££saf9T ^XXsixil: asw aesj&vr exit ferb (fcetstaaiei
-olcq.cs jE)iii3 £oto0jfls-£ijs ,XX&X ,,S ^€{ffa&vo"3^a0-'- .tt«^op':-6fleXa1J'-So^fefi "4^
ica i'Solvis'sO ^a -^bO , a^©S .H xna^it gax3£^i bell^ e&w lltd Istaem
Od loots lo a-xelJaaiB'st gaJt^eXXja Jbae ^etiiKJ&nslef) "sstBiiMoM egioe-0
'^^-wGl ££ x J&s vil 8X02 -.Xiler «dt "io sxsiXilr silt' ottisejarpestJire m&di
gcxsdr eiJSBi noqiJ *alGja:iXXI xix T:staiS.Ms:M J&rxs ^iTCjtoaelM xri J&iotbBrjS'xC
ssw &BJ3&& 9£tt t-^tairoo MeXal 3£oog io tixroo tiJaoitlo ©ilt al b&nloX
■^-noe sixi trtoq^'s: Ms ©oasliiT© ^edt olet 6t leteain' edt ot b&ii^tht
.aiiOiBfl-Xo
%c e.s'isdB 08X exit lo lolansat edt tsdt jbnsso'i •^.et&sxa edT
aa asomstBiti^oixo xioxre i&J&nir sfijam tti^ s aaw ;80§X .Jrto^jSM nl afeota
as's.'^ifle Qd^ of QBBQ'wsi B&t bix& ti eT0l:©i©dt Baa , eXiifBltBiSBfixia' sd" 6t
in October, 1906, were out of the case; that the transfer of £50
shares in August and October, 1907, wore iJaid for hy rvohinson,
were transferred to j.itrs. Rohinson without consideration in order
to place them out of the reach of his creditors, and were not paid
for out of any trust fund belonging to I»irs. Hobinson; that the
transfers to Eeys, Crawford and McMaster were in good faith, the
doctrine of lis pendens did not apply to them, they did not have
any notice and were not charged with knowledge of any improper
intent in the transfer, and the bill was disridssed as to them.
On June 10, 1909, the master overruled the objections to this report,
except those referring to the prayer for an accounting from ivirs.
fiobinson, and as to these objections the m ster modified his report
and found that the appellant was entitled, under the bill, to an
accoujiting from Jilrs. Sob ins on.
On the hearing of exceptions to the Ulster's report, the
exceotions were sustained and the court found that Crawford, Keys,
and Mcilaster were bona fide purchasers and tha bill should be
dismissed as to them; that no decree for an accounting could be
entered against Hobinson, his wife or Kraft, for the reason that
all of them were served by publication, and the court v/as without
jurisdiction to render a personal decree against them; that the
appellant was not a judg/nent creditor of Robinson, with execution
unsatisfied, and was not entitled to a discovery of property in
the hands of a third person; that the cause could not be retained
against the Mutual Wheel Company and Crawford, Zeys and Mcltoaster,
and the ^11 was dismissed for want of equity. v
The contention of the appellant is th, t the gift in March,
1906, was colorable only, sjad. Eobinson continued thereafter to have
control and a beneficial interest in the stock; that the transfer
of August, 1907, by Eobinson-Miller Company, was paid for by Robinson
and vested the equitable and legal title in him, and the stock was
re-issued to his wife without consideration for the purpose of
delaying and defrauding creditors; th&t tie transfer In October,
1907, was without consideration and void as to creditors, and
Vr
•xeAio Jix ao.t;tjris£iarAOO i'ifoxl;fiw ao^atdoU .»tM o;f IssTselacijai^ eisw
9xS;jf '<fyzdt jnoarcxdoJi ►aiM ot gxci^noled JbJiijrtt tai/s^ >2i3Ea ±0 tsio xol
©Yiui *Oii JolD \iidt .aieiit 0* "^Iqcra d-oxi hlh e^^&Imoq ell ^o enxii-oc^)
•zoqoiqmi xas lo ©glfelwonjif ild'iiw \&«3x»ila *oji stew firiB eoiioa -^is
.m©il* o* sa i)SseiaiglXi aaw IIM ©iff J&fljg ^letgiiBi;!- ©li* nl JI^Hotsi
^if-j^oofj'x atdi of snoites&rfc erics' Xtelu'riavo le^sjeas ©d* ,^061 ,01 eiixfu uO
tioqQ-x Bid hetllhom i&tti.m edt &aoi^oel^o eaedt 0* ae ba& .noarsMoH
.fioajaxoToE .stM oro^l 3Cf±*iio-<xooa
sdj- ,tzoqei a'led'e^sB saj oj c:!iuj:*g©QX9 lo ^txi'iBed &dt nO
,e%Q3. .bto'tw-B-tO tsdi JbasroS i'xssoa adt irne fisateJexre eisw enoid-qeoxs
edr bLi.md& Illcf ©il^ Bas aisaiarifiXErq «JSri:l sisxod aiew i:o*aaMdM J&iib
Q<i blsjov grrxtoirooos as -xol aeaooB on i&Ai ^siedi o* bs fisEeimeii)
t&di xioasei exJt -lol ,*3:£xS lo elxw eld ^aoaxiicfoa ^arcxegs bexeiaid
^siod&lw eaw tiiioo i^ri* \5jHj3 ,iiQl^&&t£da(i\d feeTiea ©-ssw msxltt- 330 Ifa
©ii;t *^# ;£ii6xld ^Bflii.?^ ©e'ts6Jb^ Isxiostsff £ lel-it&'s ot rtoxtolJbaln^g
jraoi^ifoese ritiw ,iioa£ixd"o£ to ToJxSeso tissfiSgMt a Jon sew dTiBlXsqtB
fll ^'locfoiq. lo ^©Yooali) .s o* J&el*i*ii9 *on aaw Ana .iellsx^saim
JieA'lJs^©^ ©C toil -SXiJoo ©ajjBO ©iliJ- ^Bd^ ;aoB'xeq. Mld^ a to aJ&naiS ©iid'
,'iQia&-MsM. has a^eS .ijioiw^-if) I),cb -^asgcttoO: IsfijlW IsxntffM ed* ifanl^a
.'i<;3'li3'p® to ^riBW 'io3: issaalaiaiJb saw Ilils silj ins
>i!o'2.Qffi jcii *lx3 edi' isdi ax ^-iXiillegqs ©ri* I'O x£0 xtxie^xioe sdT
©Tsd 6^ 'x«;^3:s9i:©rfd- Jbei«il<faoo noanxcfoS baa ^'^IflO eltfAioIoo as?? ,&OtI
•telsjxs'xj- odt d-silt ;:^oo3'8 od^ h1 .ta&'isd-xil Ijraoi:1:©a-ecr « fina loo^jcopo
fioaaitfoS -gd TOt IsJtsq: e*'® ,^ri£tffittoD 5oIIiM~iio8jHx«fo£ ->id jTO©! .d-BapgjJA lo
BBW xood's erid' M& ^■sld nl oL< less-L ba& sIcTstii/ps sdi' istsev bxts
±0 eaoti^xKI ©ri;? lol jttoi^aieilaaoo ixroiJtlw sttw aid ot liewBai-e-y
,i©dotoO al Telens^dt' aii* t&A4 y&^JOf ib&'s^ ' ■^tbsx&it'^b'^ ba& ■^xi.x&leb
.bX23 ,€no&}-be's:o ct SB iilov biis coxtft ' o Jwodtiw Sisv/ , ?Oei
whatever interest the Robinson Maraifacturing Company had was
extinguished by that transfer; th- 1 Keys, Crawford and iJcilaster
were not innocent purchasers, hut, if they were held to be innocent
purchasers, Ltrs. Robinson raust account from the shares retained
by her for all shares transferred by her to them, there being no
identity in the shcires of stock; and if there were no shares re-
tained by her, then she nmst account for their value.
The contention of a jpellee is that the appellant had no
legal right to institute the suit, and it waa commenced without
any lien, judgnient or execution; that the appellant is estooioed
by the objections of the Fidelity Trust Coinpany before the bank-
ruptcy court, to the discharge of Rcbinscn, and the question of the
alleged fraud is res judicata; that appellant cannot have a decree
.in personam against Mrs. Robinson; that the Fidelity Trust Company
was the only creditor and was not a creditor of Robinson at the
time of the transfer of the stock, ,and therefore appellant is in
no position to attack the transfers; that the appellant cannot h ve
a decree in rem because the res never was within the jurisdiction
of the court, or if it ever was, it oassed to boiij. fide holders
for value; that as there was no transfer of the stock within four
months of the adjudication in bankruptcy, the appellant can have
no relief for the reason that the stock transferred passed into
the hands of innocent holders for value, and by the terms of the
Bankruptcy .^ct these purchasers 6 re protected; that the bill was to
remove clouds and set aside transfers of personal property, and a
court of equity was vd.thout jurisdiction, b\it the remedy was at law;
that the court never had jurisdiction either of the res, or the
person of Mrs. Robinson; that a transfer to be avoided by creditors
must be made at a time when the trt.ndferor was indebted to the
creditors; that a gift inter vivos by a husband to a wife is valid
against creditors if the husband is solvent when he made the gift,
and no creditor can avoid such a gift unless he v/as a creditor at
the time of the gift, unless the gift was made in antic ipationof
the debts.
C"
tceoonnl ed o* Blsd ©tew '^dift li .tsrcf , eieajSjCorjuq tneooani ton eiew
fiexttsitai ssiada exit ffioi'4 ;f^oo©B d'som ffOanxtfoH .btM ,aii9aj3rfo'ijyq
oci gax0<f eredt ,m&cii od- lefi '^tf J&e-xie^raciett asisrlB Ilfi lol Ted -^d
-ei ssoiBila OH a-iaw ei«5dt ±1 j&iis ;3foc*a lo a6ijcd:a eri* ni xtitnebl.
isOAtlM £oo0©iaiK0« «a* *i baa .ila& edt et&tttJBttii ot td'^ltlB^el
sr^d" ^0 aoioaeia^p ©xl^ bsis ',iioBiii.doii to eginxfoaiS exfj- ot .^ixroo ■^orf'qioT
oeiopjb a ev-exi Joiaifib ^issi!£©<|q.s i&dt istaoibni Bet bI&sss'X^ bo-gel £&
\azq_aioO d-ajyxT T£;5'ila£i:'5 odi tadt iSioenldoSL .B'HS.'^Bala-^ jEaaoaieq Hi.
Qdi i& ^QBittdoS. lo lottbero & toft -asw iyaa totlJye'Vi x^o ©rf* asw
ni at Jnalleofis ©ao^sTadc}- Jbxis, ,iood-e sxlt^o neltsosnt 6Xft Iro siaiif
BY. A ioaciso iaif.££fq_qa Qdi- t^& jSTsiartsit edt :iOBt&e oi aotltlB&q^ &ti
<aotioj:I}Bl-xss{, &dt aldH^ ajsw levari eei ex!* eaiBoscf xafea Mil ©©io«i» A'
aieMoxC sJ&i"i ^nocf oi beQQaq it , saw lavs tJt li -io ,d"iixo{) erft ^6
•sjyol jHxri^i-w diooJa efl# io lalrsnaTt on asm eiexfJ as i"jBxl;t ;Qisl&r tol
svsd iiso ^xi£XXsq;qs exid- ,-^otqjyT3fiiJ5^ ixi xioid-^oXAjytJ&a ©d* ^0 edtaQm
Q^al fi®83aq Iroirr&^acs^d- ioo^e ^d"!^ ^&di aossei edt io"i IsIXqt on
&dt la sflneJ e^* ^rf J5n£ .sffXev lol eTsMoxJ^aoooriEfi ^o- abaad edt
ot Bmj Llxd edt t&dt ibetoetoiq exB eiT.&3Mo^sxq eaedt to^., \otqjTi:£m^
3 3ii£i ,^tie(iotq IjBflosieg '50 etetafis^ij' &bt&s teB Sxits SJbJErciio svomei
;wiX tB 3j3V7 ^^£effi©i edt tisd tHottoibBixal tnodtt^i esw \thTpQ Io tiiroo
Qifd- 'xo ^8©i edt to ieil#is xiol;?ol.&aiti0& SjsxI levsxx tix/oo edt ttidt
s^aM-&9'xo va Sei^ioT^s eo' o* te^sa^'it & -tadt jaoexiXcfoH .eiia lo floateq
od* o3* Aeja'afinJc ;&&vi tro'SelfcxisTC* add" aoxiw eciii^' b tB sf^sra adT tawa
bIXby ai ©Itiw s o* ba&dassd & \jd eovXv letoi: *tl3 s ^tsd"* je-iotlSsTO
.i'ilg ©if? ebmi ©xf ri©ilw S^xiev-Xoa ai bksdBad edt TlX aiotlbeiQ tMisiB-^B
#B T.ot.tb&'to B SBW ©xf eesXuxr ^l-g & xI©j3b filov^s xiso lot tSiQio orx j6xib
loxxoitjsqioltiis iii ebmi fiav tti-^ Bdt seeltsss ,t±l-s^ edt lo mitt &dt
beotlon 67 E, of the Bankruptoy .-.ct of 1898, provides that
all transfers with intent to hinder or delay creditors \,ithin four
months prior to the filing of the hankruptoy petition, shall he
void, aiid thet all property so transferred shall pass to the
trustee, and it shall be the duty of the trustee to recover the
same hy legal proceedings, section 70 ^, provides that the trustee
may avoid any transfer which aiiy creditor might have avoided, and
may recover the property so transferred. Loveland on Bankruptcy,
3rd edition, 126y-1272. The right and duty of the trustee, with-
out prior leave of court, to bring an action for such recovery
has been recognized, loveitnd on Bankruptcy, 3rd edition, 424,
Under these sections it was not only the right but it v/as
the duty of the appellant, as trustee of Kobinson, to file the
bill in this c se for the mrpose of subjecting the property! of
the bankrupt to the payrflent of his debts, and le^ive of court was
not necessary before such suit was filed. The bill was filed, not
for the benefit of the Fidelity Trust Company alone, but it was
filed for the benefit of all creditors, and it made no difference
that the Fidelity Trust Company, employed attorneys to assist in
the prosecution of the case, and 2ms been more active than other
creditors in pushing the case to a conclusion. The ff.ct remains
that the Fidelity Trust Company is not the real and sole complain-
ant, but the suit was brought for the benefit of all creditors,
and they share in the result of the suit according to the amount
of their claims.
Keither is it true, as claimed by appellee, that because
the Fidelity Trust Company filed objections to the final discharge
in bankruptcy of Robinson on substantially the same grounds as are
alleged in the bill, and the United States Court denied the ob-
jections and discharged Hobinson, that the alleged fraud of Hobin-
son in transferring the stock is res judicata. The most of
appellees' argument on this point, as it is on several other
points in this oee, is that the Fidelity Trust Company was the
only creditor of the bankrupt. We do not think the evidence
tad^ SefilToicr ,8661 ^o t^A \^<isn:isi&3. edi to ^S Vt> aoi-J-ost.
ecf II d>.d& .iioii^itsq -^od-g^irsiSriBcr arf^- !to gnili^t silt ot loiiq a4i"«sia
exit •sevooo'x otS8*8irr# edt lo •^t.yJB 0d;f ©<f Il^da tl iaiE:. ,8©#pxn:#
.XO^qja^insH no \6£isI©vo^ .b^^tBt^a&ti oa -^JseciOiDij exC;!" *ssvoo«*i -sjaie
-i'd-xw ,os*BX3-i:t 9ri;f lo ^^of) i)xa3 td-^'rx siiT .,SVSX?-e6SI .noxtiJb© A^S
\t^-^CiQQ's. dQssB tot ijoluoe aa 3xiiT:cf ot ^ttisoo lo evael Tcolaq .|iro
.i^iJ:^ jiioitilje £>*xS .■^od-qifriiisS fto JbcalQVOiI ..l)8ax£c&oo©'y fie©«r a^ri
eew d-x tx;cf tjclgl-x edt- \I.tio ton ajsw ti: saox^oea eeed* lafccU
oil* slit Gj- ,uoan.tcfofl lo estsuit 8& .tasXXaqqa erijf , 1:p; -^J^irfi- f^^
1-0 x^'^^^.otq. Qdi snid-oetrfj^ lo eso<)|*xxfg od* 'xol ea..50 9,idt: Skl SrlM
Sijtw t-xjroo 3:o-..0T.a«X Jana ,.st<fe^ ©M^Q ^jsefflTjgij «d* oiJ' fq[i?x:Sn^d' ^^#-
toil ,JB9iri BfiW Hid" exi^ .J&dXil .ajg-w *lira liaiBB o-xolerf li'saBe©©©^ .i!;Qxi
saw is. i-Ddf .exiols T^naqmoO teitfS \tkiQht% sri* lo *i;l8£C#(f ,6^ ;^^^
Q0£iQiQ\1Ui on ©Jomt Ji: i>as ,Siotlf>9io ILb lo Jllened" eiJ* •sol fisXll
Six d-axaaa ot a-^eina^ts A©-^oIcjai© -.^iatBQaioa *Bxri!P ■%i:tl6bl%,Mit t^*
ieii;to j-ii.5ri;J' evltos eiom ueecT asd i)xie ,e8JB0 6flt lo rtoij-aroeaoxq eili'
aniBiue'r .toBl srf? .xioxaxrlojioo b o3- easo erft sniHexfq iix aio^iis-xo
"XixalofHOu &X08 has Lbbi ed* ^^on ai ^rxsciHoO d-airaT ^jilsi)^! 94* *ailc^
^Qioii£)9To lis 16 'J-iieiietf exit lol tfigxro'xcr sew itsis edi iud ,tnB
tmrooaa exit ot gnxbiooop t frrs er-M 'to dTi^aa'i ynd- a.1 s'laiis -^^eilt iios
.asHislp Tlsat lo
SBJTspscf t~sdt ,e9ll©qqs^tf -fesfiix^Xo sa .ejrst tx ex 'isxftiel ;; • .
0SX3x{08iJ&' Xisnxl 64t ot Bifoitosttfo f><l. %aBq.moO tawtf iittiXf>Alt ssrit
ei« aje sbasjo't^ ©fffisa ©rft -^xXiSitfxstacfxrs iio nosxiicoH lo ^gotqitmiBatf Jii
-<jo feiit Jeijiefi tij:foO eotatS S-etlctU ©rit ice jXXid sdt xti i»e§©XX^
-aidoS lo ;fcxrsil itsssXXa exit tsxJt .ioejaxcToH fie8T:axlo6t& £ni: anolto^^
lo teoffl 9xiT .Bt-30l£isiJ eet al ioota ©xlt ^ai-nelexxsi^vfit^ s^e
-rsxfto XalOTea no- ei tl 83 .tsloy airlt 120 tnafflas'xa ^a@QlL&qq^
edt %m Y^fiCiwoO tamit i;tlXeiit ©xft tjsiit ax ,©b^o ai4t ;M.«t£tXoc^
» C _«( . 4<.^..^>-^~_ .r _^-4- !»■» •>-/-,-» iC^jMsr a. •»r*rr>
10
sustains this contention. The bankruptoy proueeoLings show that
five claims were proven ag inst the estate of Rohinscn, three ty
the petitioning creditors, one by the vestem Trust and Savings
Bank of Chicago, and one hy the Third National Bank: of Hockford,
Illinois. It has "been held in many cases that the discharge of
a "bankrupt is personal to him and does not effect a suit for
the recovery of fraudulently transferred assets. Moyer vs. D^jwoy,
103 U.S. 301; In re rierce, 103 Fed. 64; In re Burton, £9 F-ed. 637.
x'he reason for this rule is that otherwise one creditor, by object-
ing to the discharge of the baiaianipt, could defeat the claims of the
trustee, though the latter was not a party to the contest over the
discharge, and one creditor might defeat the claims of all other
creditors, regardless of the merits of the controversy. In this
case all of the creditors did aot file objections to the discharge,
and the trustee took no part in the proceedings, and therefore the
order of the United States Court v/as not res judicata as against the
trustee.
There is no merit in the contention of the appellees that
the Fidelity Trust Company was not a creditor of Robinson at the
time of the transfer of the stock, and that appellant cannot attack
the transfer, or that appellant c&nnot recover because ha had no
judgment against Hobinson, u ^on which an execution could be issued
and returned no property found. 160 shares of the stock were
transferred ta Mrs. Hobinson on October 31, 1907, after the Fidelity
Trust Company became a creditor; and before all of the transfers of
1907, the Third National Bank and the Union ITational Bank were
creditors and had been creditors for considerable time. This con-
tention of the appellees cannot be sustained for another reason.
This is not a creditors' bill filed by a judgment creditor to sub-
ject the real estate to the lien of his judgment, out it is a bill
by a trustee in bankruptcy for the mrpose of reducing to possession
the assets of the bankrupt. It is not a prerequisite to the filing
of such a bill that an execution should have been issued upon a
judgment secured by the creditor of the bankrupt. After the
ox
•^cf e©"xfij jiXoealdoH lo ©i^jBi'Ss. sdt tsjijt-gjs xievo-xq ©19W afflialO evil
,1)101:^0051 '±0 iaaS Isnoid-sM ^tirrlT sj^;?- \^ b&o ha& .oga-oirfO 'io-ittsS
1o &%tJ&doelIi ©li* i^arii" asai^o ^jaas ni b£&d no&d sbi? ^I .eioxiiXII
.\''c;d .f.9^1, ea ,no;5-nx)ra 6-r xil ;.£>d .l>el SOI .aoiel^ el nl jIOS .8.0 501
sd* leyo tse^noo sdt o* rjrm. &tosi saw latftsl ed^ d-gs&dt , ostajon*
isd^i-o lis 4o BfflleXo Qxit taets^ *.dsis» lod-IJ&sTEo eao tos' ,«3iarioBi^
, aSiBrioaxf) sri* o* enoid'oetd'o eltt ton h}:b ^totlhm^ ©rl* io Ilfi ea«o
©ii,? -©•so1:.@i:©d^ has iB'^lbeaooiq edf d ^sca oc loo^ selsirt* eri;^ lias
^d;^ ^anlagB 83 ^taolirut est ion qqw fxadO 8©*»#S J&esJ-lnff efi# Id >t«l>%:6
■ :■ , _^ ., ■ ■ .;■-.■ y :'. .©ei^eiriS'
*JBll;^ esel'Isqgs edt Ito iiol#«etooo sri;^ fii ^fl'isK oxx esI eaerf'i'
:Aoet&B toaS.i30 TUBlIeqqs iad^ has ^ioots edt to TE©lsxiSTc<f"ed[* lo ©ml*
Oft ibad 6ii sssTjooed" idvooei. toaaac ^a^I&crqs jj"arf* io .'xe'iafijgiij' ©ri;}'
.beiJESi: scT Mjjco aoitui>'&-si6 tie jSoIxIw -lOf ir ,i3[08£iid'oH d"sa±a5js tnem^Jbifj,
lo e.-sel-axi^iS' oiJt lo lie siolscT /,xjs itottbeio a emsoerf ^iseqmoO ^J'sjnl'
3i©w sDsbS IfitnoxiJ-jsl aoixsU sd* Bus Insff Ijsnoi^slil li^ldf exi;)' ,Y06I
-aoo aiiif .emit ©XcfisisMBndo -co5: sioJ-iiiQao ceed iad Aub eioiS-listo
-cfi5-a c:f 'iotiJ5©'io iaesssg&M^' a ^d ^eLlI Hid 'Bioti:6©'io & ton ai aldf
Xlxd JB ai iM tm ^ija.m<r$bsft aM^o aoll Mf ©# e^B^fie Xa«i£ ed:|- i-o©t
nioi-aaeaaoq o* gaioixibei Id ©aoqiuv; ad* lol: f^o^qinctlaiscr nl eetaifiS" a it^
■%ai:I.tt &d;? ot s^iaiirpeioriq b toa b1 tl .^zsrr^BfS &dt ^o aieBBa ^Si
s xroqiy So0aai: need svsri i;Xi;/oda noid^eax:© fji8 iadt XXicf e rioi/a "lo
11
adjudication of the "bankrupt nc creditor jould reduce his claim
to jiidg;-ient, nor would he be permitted to sue cut au execution
and levy the same upon any part of the estate of the bankrupt.
For these reasons, the ordinarjr rule vv'ith reference to the
issuance of an execution before the filing of a creditors' bill
does not apply in this cr^se. McKey vs. finazmal, 263 111. 276.
The transfers which the master lound should be set aside were
made within four months of the bankruptcy proceeding aiid under the
statute were void if made to defraud creditors.
The next question ie with reference to the jurisdiction
which the court acquired over lirs. iioblnson. Hobinson and wife,
Kraft, Crawford and iCe^s were all residents of foreign States,
and the service on each was tj publication. There was peraon^sl
service as to McMaster. Robinson and Eraft did not appear, but
all of the other defendants filed demurrers and answers. Mrs.
Robinson entered a special aopearance and filed a plea to the
jurisdiction, which plea was overruled, and all of the defendatits
¥;ere ruled to answer. Thereupon, her solicitor xox-mally entered
an appearance "in pursuance of the rule and order of the court"
and "for the ;ourpose of making such ansv/er as may be necessary
under such rule". On the same day she filed a general demurrer
which was filed "only in oursucince of the rule". Thereafter an
amended bill was filed and she filed a general demurrer "only in
pursuance of the rule". .^ second amended bill was filed arid she
again demurred, and later filed an answer to the merits, putting
in issue substantially all of the allegations of the bill. The
cause was referred to -a master, exhaustive hearing were held,
depositions were taken in many places, and ilrs. Robinson appeared
by attorney and took part in the proceedings. The merits of the
case were presented, argued on both sides, and submitted tc the
court and to the master. It has been held in n-any cases that ,
under the circumstances here presented, a defendant submits herself
to the complete jurisdiction of the court for all .purposes the same
as if she had been regularly served with summons as provided by law.
©fl^ 0^ ©oc©is1:ei d*jtw elin: '^jaaiiio ©rfj .,&aoaje»*i ©aedt aof.
.3Va .III SoS tXsj/ia^cSi .av -^©SaM .eSi-iiO alfl;t' lii '^iQCfB ^osx £c -i-
an:*\v ©£ies tee ecf iJlii-o4a ^ixzroS: ^oJbjbjk ©rlt xioiiiw etielexiai*. erlS
.eliw lit!® cosatcfoH ,£t08aicfo£ .s'i&l neyo ItefsxjErpoB ^"11x09 ©ri^ jsto^idw
laiiGSteq aa^ii' 9ied^£ ^acltaxiiLdffq. xd b&v do&e xso soiv^ea edt .^;.:
.a-iM ♦a-xewaxiB ££ys ale's: liaaaS J^IIS etojsi>asiej& ^od^o adl" i© £Ia
©da oo ;s9le[ a iieJIii Aiie soxxaiBeQ.oa laleatfa « Jjei^Jja© floaxrlLfor'
etiBl).OLS'?:®-& 6d^ 'io lis l>na .Jbelinievo a^iw jsslq iioiriw (JEteite-tS^j-aut
ioisuise Y.I£Bfli"j:Oj: ■s.ot.io.LLo& i&d ,ao4Jj-si«ilT ^'lewaxuB 0? belsn ezew
"^Tixfoc 94d- !S:o tf^h'io xiue eXjin e4* io Quasii^a'xsq al" «oas"£a9C[qB as
'^efcaeoQcc fy<S -^s^ b& ig^bsib /loira gcislaffi io ©aoqixjq ©rf# sot" Xiii.
le'XTjfiss^ laisix^ a J&©Iil b^b ^.^b eoiea Qxi* nO ."©Xirx il«j3^a xe^ixu*
fie lotlss'isil'i! ."oXsn: ©jdt 4© eoxjjixraiirg. xii ^Xiso" fieXl^ aav/ aoxdw
ni ^^Irxo" ^isi'iKae^ Is'sexj®s a^elil ©xIb Jdxur i^eXit sjsw L<.
' siie hci& Jofrlxl: saj^ XXxo' ii9^09ia« ^xtoosa ii. *"&Lsri edt losonaxre-i:,*.;
gniri-i-ifq; ,adxi63i exii- 0* lewsHfi Ea fceXii le^sX J&ffs ,Jb92i:fliR9J& fllsga
eiii' ,IXM ©dJ lo axioxi-aaoUs ©rid", io XXs T^XXBi^flB^esIffa sj^reex r_£
,^l6ii s-xew ?^r5.±ia9xl o7J:;*exrBrf:i© ^reiami &• ot h&TX&%'QX, eaw ©sxr^iL!
oxid" ^0 8^x1^. Sits .sgniX<«s&o^g ©d* al jJ-lscl 3too* J&fla -^exnoi-^^a - j
,t&dt &Qa&o \;iistt XIX .&X©il aeocf sad tl .ss^ajdas siii" o# J&us S^'. - - -
IXeoifjii athndiss iaa6ii©loi) s ,J5si'iisS6'xq s^rsil eeoaaieamoilo ed^ leJaoxr
sniss ad* aeaoqx^Ci XXa •xol d-xxrp© ®^.1,Q 4o4;4'olJ&,aiajj4 .©^e-CQcioo ®^^ -^
.'f/ML vtf ^»iii:vo'ic e£ sifOsHiiiiies dtiri ceviea "v?:!:. , . i eda 3^1 ex,
1£
Lahner vs. xlertzog, 23 111. App. 308; Hosentleet vs. Roaonblaot,
122 111. App. 408. In Nicholas vs. The i'eople, 165 II]. 502, on
page 503 it was said: "Tho notice published was so dafectivo that
the court acquired no jurisdiction by virtue of it, since the land
dould not "be identified from the description, (Pickering vs. Lomax,
120 111. 289) , ax^vi if appellant did not submit to the jurisdiction
of the court, such jurisdiction would not be acquired by an a.nend-
ment of the notice. The case of .^eople vs. Green, 158 111. 594,
was where there was a general appearance by the defendants, and the
court had jurisdiction. Appellant had a right to appear specially
and question the sufficiency of the notice to confer jurisdiction,-
and if he went no further the court would have no right to reader
a judgment. But a defendant may enter his appearance in a tax ease
as well as in a personal action ag: inst him, and if the appearance
of appellant ¥;as general, it made no differencs whether the notice
published was defective or not. ( i-'eople vs. oherraan , 83 111. 165;
Hale vs. People, 87 id. 72; Mix vs. People, 106 id. 425; 'People vs.
Dragstran, 100 id. 285.) A special appearance aiuat be for the lur-
pose of UE^ng jurisdictional objections only, and it mast be con-
fined to a denial of jurisdiction, ^^i appearance for any other mr-
pose than to question the jurisdiction of the court is general.
(2 Ency. of PI. and Pr. 632, .:.bbott vs. Semple, 25 111. 107; Kcl^ab
vs. Bennett, 66 id. 157; Crull vs. Keener, 18 id. 65.) In Crull vs.
^eener, supra, it was said (p. 66): 'There are cases where the de-
fendant may make a quasi appearance for the puriose of objecting
to the manner in which he is brought before the court, and in fact
to show that he is not legally there at all, but if he ever appears
tq the merits he submits himself completely to the jurisdiction of
the court and must abide the consequences.' If he appears to the
t merits no statement that he does not will av il him, and if he ciakes
U ■
'% a defense which can only be sustained by an exercise of jurisdiction,
the appearance is general, whether it is in ternis limited to a
'} special purpose or not. 2 Ency. of rl. and Pr. 625." To the same
|| effect is People vs. Smith, 281 111. 638. We hold that under the
SI
, tosIcfiiesoS .av deeiifneeofl ;805 -qqA .1X1 es ,80si-a©il .sv lemisJ
ao ,S03 .III sax ,9lQ0©S: edl? .av ssXojiollH al .80f> .qgA .XXI SSX
^ijrfd- 9Vx;J'09^sJ& 08 asw J&erCaJtXcfitq ©old-ou erfT" :filsa esw tJ: SOS egsq
bLS&£ siit soaia ,cM !to en^iiv ^cT ctol^oJtlsei'xxft on Aetclapoa drrxroo erU
,xetaoj; .ev -gxixieioi^I) ,noi*ql;'X8a8j& exit moTc'S: l>©i;litnsJ&J: ©d toa ILnsoit
aox&oljjBtixxl ^d& o# thadum too. bib *naXX©qqjtj tk has , (688 .XXI 031
-ijiisciB US \<S fisitirpos ©cf i-oc bLscm noi^^iialiuj doija ,*^iroo ed* lo
(i^SS .III 881 ,0seiiD .bt sXqoe''^.' lo ©aeo ©iiT ^qoHgo. ©xi* lo Jneis
^;^ .6e£ ,ad'.a£J!!a6l©Jb ©rid" vcf ©oajstussciqa X-eieces & bsw eierit ©isriw asw
^Ilaloec/a -x^secrqa o;}- arf^Ii s J&ad d-jocBlXeqqA .aoiitelAelajjJ; JbBil Jiffoo
• ,^oiJ■oi&aila■^ letooo ot ©oitoa ©rf* io ^joxioioxlltire ©x{# xiol^freuD Lras
leiiCfeT: ot ^xigi-a: oa ©vjBii Mifow tisso9 &Ai i^dttsH. on #n«w ^r j ,b
©aao xet B JsJt ©oittt'xaQqqB aid »i:8iete ^aa *fl;afua[©!t©X> « tsrfi , JxiefligJ&jjt a
©oixsaseqqB ©rit !tl J&as ,fliiii ^aixiage fiolvJ-oa Xsfloeisq « iii ae XXew <&&
©oi'torr &.df ledcfsdw aonsi©^:!!^ oa eJ&aai il ^XertexieS saw d'CBXIeqqs lo
^odl .rxi 28 ,nsca'x©jt!S .sy aXqoeS ) .^oa ^© ®vi*09l:©j6 asw J&©xIaiXrfi3q
.8v ©Iqoe-i" ;aa^ .J5J: SOX ,sIqosS: .av xiM jST - ,©Xqo9U .. ,3
-a 01- ©jd^f lol ©df taaa eonaiseqqa laioeqa A (.d8S *kt 001 ^asx^egBTCd
-noo scf tBsm it ba.& .-^Xno axxol;ro9tcfo Xanoii-ai^aiTixrt %^-i^' ^o ©aoq
.laisiiag si itsioo oAt to aoktoibBinss^ ©rit noitaeap 1
cTijiiQM ;VOX .1X1 3S ,©Xq£H©S .av tiodi^k ,aS3 .i5 £iae . .uit a)
.£v IIj^O slI (.5d .i)J: 81 ,i©£i©©X .EV XXinO ;Vai .JlJt dd ,;J8':.
•••©J& edd" eisdw aesiso ©la ©^©ri^E' :(dd »q) bt&Q saw ;^1 .a^qjBS , i&xxs*©^
:§.KiL*'es^(fo lo ©aoqijjq ©dt aol S0£is:ta9qq« Ise^p a ©laf-:' ,^ t '.-jXinei
*oa2: nx J&xxs .^ixroo edt ©lolsd tA-%ssot4 al ©d doidw xsl 'xeniijsui ©dJ od-
s-xeer^B -seYo sd Iti d-jarf ,XXs #s ©-tsd* ajXIsss-C *«n 8i ©d *ad# woda o*
to nox^oI^BJrixr^ ©d* od' ^X©t©Xqffioo tXeemid a^imcfxra ©d 8*jt*r©fli ©d* o#
6d* 0^ siB©qqi3 ©d 1:1 ' .aaoxiafl-peaxioo ©d* e^lcfa d-arai Bxu8 d*iJK)o ©ri*
a©iaii ©d ts. bus, ,flild Il.-va XXiw ioa. a©ol> ©d ^add- tiiera©i-a*a oxi sd-J-rR
aox-J-oiiiSjtrixr^ :io eeioiax© as ^jtf fisaiataua ©cf -^liio aao doidw ©artsi
a 0* i>©*x£alX BoxiQt ni e± #1: ^©di'edw jXa'x©n©3 ai eonaoasqqa ©dd
©fliaa ©dtf 02 ".SS9 *:cS. ha& *£i \o .^oxiS S .^on -r© ©eoqiirq laxo©^''
©rid- ^©iinij ;J'ad* Mod ©W .863 .ill X8S ,d*.a ...
IS
f eta here presonted the court had complete juiisdiotiorj over rs.
iiofcinsoM the sa.ua an if aho h d "b-jen poraonall.y sorvod 7/ith process
uS provided by lav/, Vfith lull power and ^uriadiction, if justified
uadsr tha pleadings and proof, to set osid..' the triuiafora, t; re-
quire har to aocouat, to render a .oerscnal ^udgr;.Qnt >..gaij:i8t her,
or to do aay otnar thing ueo0SBu.r.v to bo doxi« "b., a oourt of equitjr
under the pleadings and avidenoo oresanted.
It is conteiidad by the apoellaes th^.t ra. Ivohinsoii could
not be oor^jpelled to account, oeoausd there V7aa no such relief
prayed for in tho "cill. Ihe prayGr of tha bill, ascnp other thiiiRS,
was "Shat the defendant a he di rooted to hold such cf the stock
ii'nove sot out as has oeo.'i traaafarred to each, in trust for your
orator, and be ordered and required to acoouiit for and turn over
said stocJ: to your orator, together with all dividends r.nd profits
received by then therefrom". Under thxv prayor an accounting could
be required, if neoeasarj/.
There is another reason why the dis is8al as to -Ira. Robinson
vas erroneous, even if a iJeraonal judg;rsiit could not be rendered
against her. The record shoi^a there was standing in hor n, .^3 dt
the time the bill v/as filed, stook in the i^ituJ. ..heel GoEjJany
which was the aubjeot of the liti iition. ptrt hrtd l-een trans-
ferred to Crawford, ileys and .j^.-astsr, but a part vvai atill hold b^^
h»T, The situs of this stoo}£ was in Illincib. Fahrir vs. Milwaukee
und Chicag-u Breweries, 113 111. ^ipp. 5E6. ahie otook y/us the basis
of the original sorvice b,- sTublicaticn, and that service alone,
re^rdleas of any aP'pe>*r^DC©, grvo the court jurisdiction to hold
and dispose of the stock in uny w?jy justified b;, the jleadinga ^yid
the evidence. 3o Iciig as uixy of that etock reiijained subject to the
jurisdiction of the court the bill should uot b ve bean dismissed.
The master found the 1906 tranafar iia.a not subject to attack, and
that the 1907 transfers were fraudulent. nder this holding, IJrs.
Hobinson, in Bcveabor, 1907, held 360 shares of stock belongirip- to
her, and E50 ah res fruudulently transferred to her i;: her husbiind.
Any transfer froiii her will be presBUJisd to ba froxii her cwn stook and
^i&^abiBti Atlis bBTtQU t^^Hoaia^ .asscf l^'.J- ©file *i"»d'6..,
-fii of .B'sslanls^i' iSji*' ©J&liB,k #9a oar . -.sfeKsr
t&ilpi dam oa saw l&'xiai^ilf if^iaao^a' ,*tt«r
.egjcfiif* ^«jd*© aadala ,xii<f eiiiil' " o ^rfl! . ^
XiXjtao 3i:xI^iii7doo£( im te^ir ■'-'.* -'•*•'•" , -< .^..«'-. .,-.*^ •-'•'■:* •-■' ^■-
14
not from the stock held ixaii^r a constru tive trust for the lienefit
of creditors. Pyfer vs. V.'f.les, 36 111. Aip. A46 ; Cletiraer vs.
Drovers' National Larik, 157 111. 206. "Lven though the certificates
for the 310 chares transferred to Crawford, I'lejs and 'oMaster
included all of the stock issued to -ars. Eobinson in 1907, never-
theless the lav; does not recognize the identity of shares, hut,
on the ocntrary, treats the transfer a.3 covering the stoci. right-
fully oivned.
As to the transfer of stock, the evidence shows that Robinson
was the organizer of all of these corooiuticns. He was a man of
ability and foresight. He was the moving spirit in each of
these corporations. As a result of their prosperity, Robinson
■became wealthy. Apparently there was no financial difficulty
until 1907, when all of the corporations exceot the Mutual T.heel
Company became financially embarrassed. To save them froEi bank-
ruptcy Robinson pledged his financial credit. This act of Eobinson
did not avert the crash. Robinson saw that the corporations were
doomed and he attempted to save a part of his property. In .Larch,
1906^ he owned S70 shares of the Mutual v.heel Company, and in
that month he transferred 180 of these shares to his mfe. The
roaster found this tr nsfer was not' in fraud of creditors, and we
think this finding is supported by the evidence. In the first
place, it was not mede within four months of the bankruptcy of
Robinson, and therefore does not come within section 67 E of the
Bankniptcy .it. The evidence fails to shov? that on the date of
the transfer Robinson was insolveiit,, but on the contrar;^ it tends
very strongly to show that he was in fact solvent, but that con-
ditions h£.d arisen which might place the corporations in financial
difficulty. It is apparent this transfer was a gift to his wife
and was made without aay consideration. If Robinson was solvent
at the date of the transfer, and it was not made in fraud of
creditors, then Robinson was at liberty to sell and dispose of his
property in any manner he might see fit, and no one could comlain.
*I
d-l^one<J exit tot taint evli.sni aaoo a xehaa iiiod ioo^a edt moii &011
.BY lem.TielO jdM -aqA .HI fiS .ealaW .rtv •xei-^'s; *8T:o*iJ&e'ro lo
te;J-8fiMoM ine a-^aS ^fiiolwB'xO 0* he'xie%3aB'xt aeiaAe OXS ©ri* r.o1
-Teven ,'fO§I ai iioealcfoS .a-iM 0* JfeejjaBl ieota eri* lo IX« J&eJbJxIojCii:
, J-iTcf ,a6*ierfe to xtltaobl ^dt osixi^ooei *oxs seoo V7/-I er!:!' &,ac.Icr{t
froau-tdoE tadt ewoxia sojieJbiTe ©d* ,:Coote xo ttelianBii- ©i[j -■
^0 xtem 8 8J8W ©H .axsoli-jKEdrioo ©eedrf" ^o IXa to ■xeslnsjto Bdt aaw
^0 doj3© nl tlitqB ^nlTom erii' esw ©E .td-g- iji'il jtcfe
noBni:<foS ^-^ifJtTeqeonq ilsd* ^0 tZaaei b aA .anolta^oq^oo ©Bsrit
^^Jlxroillifc Leionanlt oa b«w eierit ^X^xieTiagqA .y;d*Is&v
leedW lAiTi"flM orit Jqsox© acoitsToqioo ©d* 1 , :: .l '
■As.z(f mart axedt evsa oT «J&©aaeitcslfeis -^IX^ :
aoaxixdioE ±0 *os aldT *t IbQ'to XeloaanH airf l)©sJ&sXq xiOBGxtfoK
eiew arioi^aioqioo ©fill tedit w«e noafiXtfoH .^ae^o 34:'
.rloT^l nl ,^d"ieqoiq aid ^o d-iaq js ©vaa ©* J6©tq;aieS'#» stx
nl tsm ,xafi?a^o3 XeerCW XaJy;^JaM ©4# io a©'3a4e OVS fiexi
erfT .stiw aijf 0* aenarie sr OBX Seiieleiusii' exi xii^f;
ew Jbna ,s'xo*i^©'3:o 5:o ^xra'cl lU 'soc. £iflw ^©tsii.o'x* aid J- j&fl^ro'i
^•aiil edt ctl .oajisJ&iv© ©rit -^jrf jB«;hcoiigj38 el ^IJ&nit ales' vLaxiis
to \otq_is%:^a3d odt to adtaosi taoJ. rtldtiw ©Jb^sin ' '- -^'. , lalg
edJ lo S V6 fl©id"e©8 nld*lw ©aio© tofs a©oJ& ©^toi&joaiv , a-iXioS
1:0 ^isb &dt no *sd* woda 0* aXIfflt eois©J&iTQ ©x?'? - ^ < f'-'-i^toBa
sBfisd- tl ^laitooo ©d^ xio ^sxf ,,;?ia©?-Xc««i saw ijosi. .- .- _ — ■<:t
-jsoo *add- ;}-jffd' .^iserXoe ^o«1: ax aaw ©d Ji.i'i' wode ot ,X-''.r;o'
Isioriaxil'i nl Weltano^rto© sd* eoaXg i-dglLU :. . 'ifc
e^lw aid: od- ills & eer *rs*i"aa43i4' sMt l-nerri
rf"xt6rXfia as'?r n'^errid'aH i;f6*?''©&i5«ior htb
lo £;:^. , - ■ .
aiil ^6 aaoqalA bn& XXe; arflX *-b ^;ti6eio
15
He cot>.ldL sell or give it to his wife and she would acqiiire the
absolute title thereto, ochubsrth vs. bchillc, 177 111. 346;
Vietor vs. Swisky, £00 111. £57; Torrey vs. Dickinson, 213 111. 36;
Riggin vs. ' eck, 20o 111* App, 87. For these reasons, v/e agree
with the lu; ster tJifct the evidence was not sufficient to set aside
the transfer in 1906.
On Augu.st 20, 1907, the Sobiiison-Milier Company endorsed a
certificiite of yo shares to r.ofcinscn. He at once endorsed it to
hifa wife and the certificate was re-issued tc her. On October 31,
1907, 160 shares standing ilobinson's name were assigned tc ldi*s.
Hobinson. -..bout J^Ioveuiber i, 1507, Robinson and vTife left for
California, taking v/ith theia certificates for 610 shares, and
practically all of the available cash of the Robinson Manufacturing
Company. On November 26, 1907, a petition in bankruptcy was filed
against Bobinson, resulting in an adjudication. The tastiniony of
Robinson was that the stock transferred in .ugast, 1907, was the
property of the Robinson-Miller Company; that it was purchased
prior to J^ly 26, 1907, by Robinson for his .vife, and paid for
by a credit accunnilated in his account V7ith that company out of
the trust fund held by Robinson fcr hio v;ife, with the addition
of about $3000.00 paid into the account by her from aa envelope
kept in the sacie. The account shovved several credits in June
and July, and a charge of $9000.00 against it which was identified
as the alleged varment. The 160 shares transferred in October,
1907, it is elaiiued by Robinson, belonged to the Robinson Manu-
facturing Comoany until the suiumer of 1907, nd that it was held
in the naiae of Robinson because the corporation could not hold
stock in ai'^-Other cor ^oration, and that 90 shares of this stock
were transferred to I£rs. Robinson and paid for by a credit
q,ccuniulation in Robinson's account out of the tnjst fund. j.fter
considering all of this evidence we are of the opinion that the
contention of Robinson that this stock did not belong to him but
belonged to the corporation is not suotLiined by the evidence, but
cl
Si£;^ 9-ixiJpo6 Llxrow. erfa bns €>^iw aid oi" ^1 s'^l'B 10 Ilea bissoo eH
;c)^S ,S:L1 ?TX ,ollirioe .ay di-iedMoe *ot@iBdt ©Icf.EJ' eJaroBrfjg
;a^. ,XII SIS ,iioaixi:2foia: .st 'ise'iXQf. ;V§S.. .Ill OQS ^^jteiwb . r. .1^.2,
Geig^ 9v ,Kaoeii9T: sssri* lo'S .78 .qqA *III £03 ^lo^TI ,8T nl^glii
eMaa tea oi ^aQloxlisse ton aew sojneJDJtva ©d* *£xlj i33"8i5M ed* ilifiw
.dp^I £ti: lelaajsTE* &d;f
£. Ires*ioJ2Xio ^iueqiaoO leXXiM-xioaxxJtcfoii dd;>- ,VO€,I ,0S iem^fsk joO
ot &1' hQe-xobfjQ ooiio ^^ eH ,.aoaiiicfo-H ot aa'iisila 06 10 ed'BoJrlriat^'xeo
,IS ncetfo^oO aO .isri o* i>ox;88l-9i qsw etjseiliJieo erid" Jons sliw sxri
.s'ljil oj- Iseitalsajs st:9W sxosia: a'noanicfpS gallinaJa aeiada OdX , Voex
lol ;5-l9X etiw i>jn« xioaniicroa ,yOSX »I ledicSToH txrorfA .xioKiicfofi
iixia .esiBils QX3 loi a8;J-«aJ:5:itfiso lasrf* iiitiw §nJ::4st , ©lirtotiXeO
guittirJ-os'i^jcsaM aoaaXdfoH ©dt io daeo oXdTfiXlaTS Sii^' 5© XI4 ^XlBOitoeTii
?:o .^pr^l^aei' .exST . no l;f«oXJbirtl>a aa |rX ^nitXi^e-x ,aoaGclifo£ t6fixii8*$
e-dt BBW jVOeX «d"8irgJia Hi feei'xelaasti'. :S80^g '' dt e«w rtoani. Tof:
lot^xBQ. XiXJs ,e'±hi aid loJ. noanxcfoS -^a ,Y06X ,dS Vi.^j!s^ ^^ ic.r > ^
lo -^ao %£i&qm.Qo tadt tfd-Xw d'xisroooa mid ai bet&lsmaoQe tiLeto a \(j
iiolflfobsiodt dtiis .elxw eld 10I xxoanicfofi -^cf Mori Jbxiult ietrtt f-\dt
eqoXeYrts lis inoil Tsxi v;cf *iKjro®Ofi eii|*' bS'lii JbxjftfJ OO.QOOS0 tirotfi^ xo
QOjjX, ax 3;}-xi)9'io leieyae j&9iirojd[e JnjaroeOB ©ilf .emBB exit £i:i: tq,6'&
f-^eiiiiSiQbi aaw rioiiiw tX cfaxiifigB 00«000t| !fco ©gisdo i3 Jbrts ,^Xct. l)xis
.^tSf/otoO xii |)9a^s1:BitB^;t- seajsda OdX aril' .Jfieci-^sq JSegeXIa dri* b&
-ssa^m aoBaidoS. adtoi.iii>i^^ol^iS ,£ioeaJ:doii xd i>mtslp ax ft ^TOSX
-5X0X1,66% ti tsd^ lixiti ,?OfX lo. T:«jniajiJ8 edit Xxd'xm -^aqmoO gclictoe^
i)Xoii *oa £'Iijoo xipld's'ioq.ios a4* earrsosd" xroanicfoa io ea&a. edt si
:loo$B aidi lo- esij^da 06 *i2a* £ajB ,£iox*etioqioo -xodic :.oja
#xi3sa:o s -^icf rtol Biag! Is© laoaald'pE •S'siM: o* J&eiielaixa'sd' 9i©w
!ce.JiA, ., .^xiij'i ^mtt edt ±0 ijm ijasfoiaoB a'coaiilrfoH ai xioltsXiiBixroof
Qd'i d-Bjrfrf- noXixXqo edt ±p 8is sw ©ofleitre eMt Ip XI3 a££ixsJ&l«fio«
**rcf flixd 0* S-Holecf iojs Jblb Soota axri* i&dt noanlcfoH 5:0 noXteetooo
^•00' .eoasAxve sri* ^i«f 69flijii*bx;B tois; ei iioi^^aioqicoo ed* o* J&cgctoXetf
16
on the other hand the evidence aiiiply But.taint? tha contention that
all of this etock transferred in .^ugi^ist and October, 1907, yvas the
property of RoT3lr_son and was ccnveyed for the purpcse of defraud-
ing his creditors. Counsel for LJrs. Hohinson urge, with consider-
able earnestness, that these tvrc transfers vere legitimate; that
they were "based upon a valuable considers,tion and were rot in fraud
of creditors. In support of this contention thsy recite the
evidence relative to the trust fund in the hands of FLOhinson he- ■
longing to his wife which had been accurjiul ted throughout all the
years by the various gifts above recited from Solinson to his ..ife,
also the acciumilation of the fur.d in the stfe which was started
with the $1800.00 v/hich she brought with her from Ilichigan, and
which had gradually increased until it aiiiounted to about $3000.00
in 1907. 'Ve are unable to shure counsel's confidence ia this
contention, but on the contrary we are inclined to believe that
this story strongly tends to support the contention of appellant
that the transfers of 1907 were fraudulent. Ho good purpose would
be served in expressing, in detail, our views on this feature of
the case, but we deea it sufficient to say that the accuEulbtion
of these two funds was so unusual and so contrary to ordinarjf
business rcethods that is ism hard to believe they were actually
accumulated as appellees contend. On the whole v;o think the evL-
denoe shows that Robinson's companies , except the Mutual ^.heel
Company, were getting into straightened circuiastances as early
as the spring of 1907, and the conditions gradually grew worse
until they culminated in the disaster of the late fall, and dur-
ing all of this time Robinson transferred practically all of his
assets to his wife without any consideration; that after the
transfers to his vife, Hobinson continued to control and maniige
the stock transferred, and received the dividends thereon as late
as the spring of 1908. For these reasons, the transfers of August
and October, 1907, were fraudulent as to creditors, and the master
was correct in so finding.
dl
■3dt a^MR ,V08I .-xorfoi-oO hssa tfiHSB-A xxi jbairtslaiasTtd- loots Bldt to !£«
-I).iris':c'S:afc 3:o s^o&jissq erf* '3;oJ:^J&^9-^£ev-lSoo e^^ Ms iio.ctccMoE lo ^tieqoiq
-'xoJ&lsrfoo fiitiw ^agxcr iiosiaxJtrloK .a°!M xo^ I©.ac^O . B-xo^ifie.io aj^il^ol;
Lu^il: at ton eiew t-a& aotts^ie&isiioo eX<f,e«XBT ^ jttoffjcr J&sa&cf e':.:£>w y,®^*
9X1^ sitiosT v.9ii* coiJjctetnoo slxl* ^o *T:oqqira £tl ,Btotibeto io
• -9cf no8ii>'cfoa %o sl)iieri 9£l;f ni JBCxii texn* srii- od' ftYtd-^Iei oonefiive
015;?. lis JireH^^iro'iri* fis;}- XflmsoaB riesrf isri ifoixfw s3:i:w eld ot ^igaol
.oxivv sxrl oJ- noanidoS taotl sotios-x evocfa 34^13 ajioiiBv Qdi -yjcf ©iBei£
iriB .nxi^MoBl Hioi't t&rC rid-iw #il'§j[jO'xef srfa rfcirfw 00.0081^ erJ;!' d&lvi
3J:rl* iti: sonoiiilaoo s'Is'aritroo alAiis 0* eirfsrur 91b ©Vi .VOei iXJt
j^'^-if STsilsd' o:}- hsdilottl BT^ ©w \^:£*££oo s4# 40 *iartf ,nox*ne*aoo
hlisQ-N eeoq'rjrq ^003 ol .txi^Iofeaail -©-sew VCStl lo eisleii^a* Bdt iadi
lo oT0tJ'set exri* £jo awelv Tiro ,Ii3#ai sx^ .axtlBseigsi-e nl J&sviee ©cf
rtoxJBlif'iiifoos silrf' *^* -Niies oS" txie lollies tl fflsei ew d^wcf ,©afio ©il*
■!£^i5jaiMo oi' ■v;'xs'x*xioo os Jons Isiiaffmi' oe esw sMjt* "owi^ eseri* to
T.IlBnrd'03 a-sQW vsrfdr eTsiXecf o^ b^&d aefe ai ;terft aJ&od;f9ffl sBenlaxfif
-rfs 9.a'rf- :inii# ©vv slodw ©jIj fsO iJbx3:©rf"j:ioo sselXeqqa &e i)©d"£Xi3rasxrooje
leedii' leard-iM ©Ht d"CiS03:e .asiiaaqaoa e'lioaniefoH tsdif awo;l8 eoxtefi
"-mbhCB .LLs'i &tzl ^dt '±0 retB&slb 'od^ iii: Letanisilxsc ^exl* lid-nir
GXii lo lis -^XIsoitosTq: I»8ii9l:axrfii:d' xiosaidoS soiit sM* lo lEa ^aX
eild" •ssd'^i; fad* j{!gDxtJ'fi'i9-&.iaii03 -isns i-jrori^tiw elxw exri o;t stsasa
93.3x1^13 M,e XoiEtooo od^ .6©j3-«M\aeo siOBaldoE \etiyv Qldot aislsw^id-
9*6X aa •xioeiefCi' siinadBJhri^ ©if* BstIsoqi Mjs ,J&©i^staiifix* ioo^-a edt
d-acfgii/i 1:0 s-xs^raixa-s* oid" .exiosa©^ ©aaxJd- rcl .80@X lo '^aittqa ©dt aa
letBsm orl* .^na ,a-xo#tfe©ia o* m &neLsjbssi.t stew , VOeX .ledotoO Jbiis
.^ntJtai^ 08 iti #06110 84&W
17
•ATiexi Robinson and wife arilved in Calil'orni.. thoy huid in
their posseseion 610 ch X3S of the B'vOck of the ijatual v,b.eel
Coinpan;;-. In November, iy07 , ilrs. Ho-cinson assigned 70 shares to
Kraft. In July, 1906, a new certific^ite was issued to him, and
in J'ulj'^, 1909, he aseigned thit. oertifioate to Koys and it v/as
transferred to the Istter. In -lay, 1910, lors • l^.obinson transferred
80 shares to Ze^'^B and 160 shares tc Crawford. Crawford later gave
an. option for 60 of these chareci to i.iCiiaster, v/hich option was
eser isfed hy McMaster in December, 1910, immediately after the
dismissal of the case in the United dtates Court lut before it v/es
reinstated. This made a total of 310 shares transferred by iirs.
Robinson, and loft her as the ov/ner of 500 shares. Kraft v/aa
served by publication, fie did not appear, no personal decree
oould be entered against hi:.i, and his stocli had oeen traiisferred
to Keys and nothing remained in his hande. Meys and Crawford
were served with publication, and appeared and answered the bill.
The master f otind "that the trandfers to Zeim , ..IcMaster and Crav/ford
were not made lis pendens, but were made for a valuable considera-
tion, and were not fraudulent. This finding of the a^aster is not
seriously controverted as to Siejs and Crawford, but it is contro-
verted as to LIcMaster. The evidence shows tjoat Keys and ^civiaster
wero directors of the eomparjy, and IJcJaster ivas the secretary.
Moon, who v/as Crav/ford's business associate, was also a director
of the company. There v/as evidence tending to shov/ that all three
of these appellees were friends of -.cbinscn, h- d oeen closely asso-
oiated with him in business, knew of the various transfers of stock,
and of the suits wnich had been filed for the purpose of setting
aside some of these transfers. There are sus )iciou£ circumstances
in evidence with reference tc the transfers of this stock tc these
three appellees, but the njost that can be said under the evidence is
that Keys, Crawford and ;icl.:aster were iXirchasarG froiL one holding
under a fraudulent transfer. .. purchaser from a person holding
under a fraudulent conveyance is not affacted by such fraud unless
he had notice of the fraud. Section 5, chapter 59, of the statute;
TI
LeeM LsatsS& exit to aCec^s oxid- 16 se-iu^da ©Id xioiaeeseoq- Tiori*
&!.!; ^cii;xC 0* b&imtx saw Qfeoilluieo wsa s , j80gX ,i;I.tf^ £tl ..ttsTS
saw ct-j; s-xolscf txfd ^TtxroO a©*s*S J&e^iiiU oiI# fli esjso eii^ ^o laaetaatb
eew Rial's .aeiacla OOE "to 'sesi'dQ edt bb lerf *l€tl -6xxs ,no6ai:tf^£
jje-xielanjs'x* xxsacf LM iooj-e 6i4 J&££« i».fnlrf taalajga ^©letns . erf Mtr(?o
.Xlxcf exld- .SsTewartB M^ i>e2B9qqa^m ,.fioxd'£59.tX€fJXi rfd'iw J&sviea: $TeTi?
-BtQbiQiiQQ QldjsisiaY & lot &i>,^i eiQm tsjfS , snefiiiet ell #fiai -^«^0?m7
isfaaiioki Jbixe a-^eX ^axidf swoile a©xi^Mv"& i©x£T - .1:9*8 sMsM o;f a« ^ott^T
lo.joa'il^ j8 oqLb aaw .e^isxooeas sesiixiiffcf a'JbaqtwaiO a^w Oiiw^HoeM
90'xrf3- 11.4 ^fixiJ woxia oi- giiiijia;®* QsxssJ&ivs ®sw 9:i0riT .^Bqjaog ©44" Jto
,:-iOQt8 iO ais^gxitjT:^- esjoitj&r axl* IS© wsirf ,'ae©ni:g.Bcf ax mxri £id"xw l>9*a±o
gai^t^os io seori'i.titjsirf^'xol: BaC.il n^scf Ji^ riolrtw ektlsB &dt to bim
^xJbXod sciQ ao':s:3: aT0©j3rioixRi Q^ew le^aaJw^oM to^ iiolwa'xO ^S'^aE.'^sd^
eacXxcxr bssBii dotsQ \(S Jbstos*!^ text al. eoasxQrcioo iae.TMbfmt'i & lehxiss
; ed-j-j;t-.e.t5 t r- ^^ lo .gci '£©!lq\Gilo '3 xioi^ose . . idi lo eoLion. bad srl
18
Spicer vs. Robinson, 73 111. 519; Gavagan vs. Bryant, 83 111.
376; Bradley vs. Luc a, 99 111, 234; /lick vs. G-uabert, 142
111. 154. To justify a court in setting aside a transfer for
fraud there must ben an attempt lD;y' "both parties tc the trans-
action to practice the fraud. There is no proof in tliis record
of this essential element. Shin vs. ohin, 91 111, 477; Ifott vs.
I3hutts, 87 111, :^pp. 341. These parties testified positively that
they pail full value fci this stock, and that they did not purchase
it for the purpose of defrauding creditors of xiohinson. The
evidence sho?/s that these tiiree appellees were interested in tht»
Kutual Wheel CompaiTy before the bankruptcy proceedings, and for
that reason they probably would want to buy the stock and keep it
In their own hands. If the stock ¥/as really the property of lirs.
Hobinson, there is no reason appcrent, fron; tke evidence, wh^ she
v/ould part irith it to these tliree appellees unless they did pay
full value for it. \?e think the evidence fails to justify holding
them liable for the stock obtained by theti. Counsel for appellees
very earnestly insist that the traiiE^fer from wlrs. Robinson tc Kraft
was for a valuable consideration and was not fraudulent. Tie ;;.re
not ittipressed witjj. appellees position on this question. V.e :.re
more inclined to think the evidence sustains the contention of
appellant jsbA that such transfer was in f rau i of creditors.
We are of the opinion that the chancellor was in error in
sustaining the exceptions to the master's report and dismissing
'the bill for want of equity. Therefore, the decree will be re-
versed and the cause will be remanded with directions to over-rule
the exceptions to the roaster's report, to enter a decree in con-
formity with the master's report, and to refer the cause to the
master, if necessary, to state an account, charging ilrs. Hobiiison
with the value of the property which she received as the result
of the transfers of ^Ugast and October, 1907, as found by the
master.
Heversed and remanded with directions.
V"
.111 S8 ,triE\raa .BY xxs3*3veO {§15 .III 5V ^noaxiidofi ,av Tsoige
SM j*i9d©xj5 .av lolii i^^S, ,1X1 §6 ^eoal .sv -^elJoBi-l 46YS
-aaaii edi of e&ttiBq, d^Q<i \d itia&tta an nsd iasm etedt iij^ertl
I1T00S1 Qidi at looig on ax ©lexlT .Isjasil 30 eox&Q&iq,, ot aolioa
.8T i-^oll j^V^ .III le ,nld8 .,3Y aids .j-namele IsUxisee© eM^ 5:o
tsdi -v^XeTrij-laoq i)e.{:li-jJ-B©;}- eei^xscf »S6riT ,1: .1X1 VS ,ai^iali&.
sa/iiio'iirc; toa fixJb ^oxl* uaxlJ .6jia ,2£op;J-a aid* lol ©xiX^v XX^ £,i;«i5, ,lg©4^,
atiT .noaaiicfoS '±0 eiorf'jLt&'xo gfiiiiraa'iej& io ©soq-XBg; s4#= 10^ ^l
edS at Joe^fae^ceJofc ©lew 8©oIX©(iqs se'xrfd' ©aexii' d'^d!'' awode ©Ofl&J&iv©
io5: 13 na ^agjsJJieeoo'icx \oiqu'x::ki&d edt eio'ied' ^KqaioO XsedW I&si^sM,
Ji qesl i)iXB jfoots edi ^y^cf 0^ i'jcuaw ^Xirow^Xd'Bcronq, ]i,©rid- noseei iadt
.cxM *io ^^iDCDiq 9xi-J- ilLse's aaw iooj-e erfrf- II . a6iis4 jawo ^ied;^ iii
6ii3 i^w , soxieJbivs adt aio-x^ , tiioi atsqi^ jCioageeT ou'eX at&di ^fiogfiidoS
\;j3q Joifi "^jsilS- aasXiiiJ- se&IXaqqfi eex^lt &SQdi oi- .M: rfl'l'i? $%&(i |».X^ow,
3a£.bIod 7,5:i^airt, od" aXXsi ©one-^xve erit aCaldd" •" - I tol ©jyXjay XXift
a0©IX9q;q\3 10I XsacicroO ,medt x^ b osilQi do toof a odt. %ot Qldall med^
t'tstjl of noauxcfofl .eiM moil iQ^aasit edif *J3ri^ ^alaxii ■^jX^faaaijie ^giov
9T3 eW .tneXii»ixa's5: rf"ois asw icts floi^^iefilaaoo eXdaaXaT a lolt sew
©:££ eV/ -Kol^ssijp sXil* no noitleoq; aeeXXeqga 4^J^w ■&saaa'iQffi.';
io noxtrre^J^xioo edt aalatBua eone^iVs eii* sla.M;}- ot i>eaiXonX ?iq»|ii
at '■xorie ni sbw lolLaoaado edt fsdi cotiiiqo ©dd" ^o eia ©W
■MflxasxaiBxI) Bn^j i"ioqe^ e'lataijai &dt o& B£ioXiqeox& Qdi ^tIi.latsss^
-01 od XXlw aeioel) edj ,exo'5:ei8id'I* .x^xm^Q to *iijsw 10$ XXi
oline-xovc ot srxoi^osixf) dcMw J&ef»itaffl©i ©d XXXw ©sxrao ^4? i)xifl Aeaxsv
"Xioo Hi e©-so©S s i©^xx6 oi" j^aoq©*?; e'led'aBra. ©il* pJ afx.oiSq9(iX» &4t ;
!}di ot ©6030 ©d* isle's ot Baa ,tioqsi a'lejfaani ©dd" d*i:w ijtXanot
noeitidoH .aiM gnigisdo .tnjffooos aa e^'jsd'e oJ ,;^i68a©s,©fl li ^iq^b&io.
;MaB9i odd" se l>6vi:8.o©i ©da doldw -^^leqoiq; &di to ©bXjsv ©d* dtXw
edt '^cf £mrol bb ."TOSX jisdod'oO Brse tsx^M lo eislenei* ©|i^ So
. axioitosiif) d^Jtw fiaX-n-srasi £xf.?^ r,9P,TMv«fl
STATE OF ILLINOIS. I
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 foreo-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 f fie Appellnte (Jourt.
;936— 200— 7-22)
■■>) I / f
2 261, A., 649
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COUR/,
/
l-gun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fourth day of April, in the >/ar of our Lord one thousand nine
11 hundred and twenty-two, within and for the Second District of the ^^ate of Illinois:
1-esent— The Hon. NORMAN L. JONES, Presiding Justice.
Hon. AUGUSTUS A. PARTLOW, Justice.
Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Justice.
JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk.
CURT S. AYERS, Sheriff.
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on AUb P 19'^2 the opinion of
le Court was filed in the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures following, to-wit :
7063 Agenda EO
G. E. Entloom,
226 I. A. G'iU
Appellant ,
vs. Appeal from Zjtioz
H. A. Btillock, et al,
Appellees ,
Part low, J.
On November 13, 1915, appellant, C. E. Enbloom, obtained a
Judgment in the circuit court of Znox cotmty for 1932.19 against
the ^i. Boyer Broom Company, a corporation, for brooi! corn sold to
the corporation in 1914 and 1915. On January 23, 1917, a writ of
fieri facias was issued and placed in the hands of the sheriff of
Knox county and a levy was made upon certain real estate alleged to
"belong to the corporation, -.t the Fe'biruary term, 1917, of the
circuit court of Knox ccfunty, appellant filed a bill against H.A.
Bullock, Prank E» Johnson, Gust W» Rodelle, David Ramp, E.D. Aiken,
Ora GTinningham, A. Boyer Broom Company, a corporation, Mechanics
Homestead said Loan Association, a corporation, and Fidelity Savings
and Loan Society, a corporation, wherein appellant sought to have
the real estate levied upon decreed tc be the property cf the cor-
poration and subject to the pajmient of appellant's judgjuent. The
bill was later dismissed as to Aiken, the Mechanics Homestead and
Loan Association, and the Fidelity Savings and Loan Society. Upon
issue being joined, the cause was referred to the master to take the
evidence and report his conclusions. The master found the issues
in favor of the appellees and recommended that the bill be dismissed
for want of equity at the appellant's costs. Objections were filed
to the master's report which were overruled, and upon a hearing
"before the chancellor, exceptions to the report were overruled and
the bill was dismissed for want of equity, and from that decree
this appeal was prosecuted.
OS sLaasA
S60Y
^ 'O" « in. e JL. \-' w^ >a»^-'
jCiooicfiaa .a .0
. ev
<Ie oo jloolla-fi ,A .H
, aeellaqqii.
6 i)eai:sd'cro ,fliooIcrn:S[ .S ,0 ,JrisIIeqqs ,3X61 , SI -re'dJEevoil nO
rj-ani.e33 ei.SSe|i lol ^.tXHroo xociS Tiro jij-foc ;J-ij::oilo &di six ttios^bssi,-
oi Moe JI10Q raooicf io5: .Hoid'sioqioo s ^\a&qaioO aiooiti ns^oG .ii, exicf
lo txtv.!- g ,Vi;>r ^ ss yjs.&ss£i£At fiO .dl(?l I)nB :MSI ni rxoiii'ai-oqioo sjd*
io liiieria Olid' lo sijitod eiitf' ai isoalq i)cts Jasxresi: saw bbIobI xiell
o-^ Ji>93 ©IIb ed^Btes Xsei sii&i's.&o noqxr eiijc bbw ^yoI a baa \taaot> xoxiS
arfi' lo , VI§I jGTist ^ijjnds'd: edt ti. .noi;^B1oq10o erf* ot scoled
• A.E jBnxjBgs IIM js Jielil *n.BlIeq.c:B ^'i^iiiyoa xonX lo itssot S'ixroiio
,fi6Al:A .a.S jQcafil £xtbCI ,ell9i)0ff. -W d-eir*) ,0oafidoT, 'S Ixieil ,SooIIirS
aoiKjBxioeJ.'i ,xioid"ij'xoqioo s ,^BqcioO fflooiff -leTjoS .A , losilsnxjaairO biO
Ej^nxvsS •(^d'ilf ?•''•■ / "s ,££Old"e'jcoq'ioo b »iSOid"Bi:ooaaA ixsou. ijxis i>B6d"a9moH
&v&d od" jV;,_ :. -. .„;.iIXeqqjB nleisrfw ^noiifBTOq'ioo b ,^t9Xoo8 nBOl Ans
-100 Bdt lo ■\^d"X9qoig ©xld" ©cf oi £©etoeJ& rtoqjj .BelveX ©tB^ee Xesi sri*
sri'j) .;f'£ieiT=s^.crt s'd-jiBXIsqnB io ttrfeiaijsq edi- o* d'os^cfirB ba& aoltstOG
isxiB iJiiataeGioH eoixisdoeM edd" ,rtei:iii o? 8b £eeaimeJtl) i8;)"3l asw Illcf
/.■;cH IT .Y,#sJ:ooa asoO: Bcb a§£tiVB8 ■^JlXoBl'i sxf* Mb ,Jiox4"BjtooaaA nBOI
30JJB8X sfid' linjjol 'X9d'3i3ffl oit'l! .300 1801 oiioo alii ^'loqei bssi ooneMve
.&sasi:fliBx£ ea Ilxd' oAt i&di i)sl)ixefmnoooi Ms BeellsqqB edi lo iovbI ni:
-&&Xil Slew Bnoi;J"09tc'0 .aJsoo a 'd-nslleqqfi ef£:!' *£. '>c^i:xrp9 1g triBW lol
gnxiserf B noqxr fsna .IjaJlxra-xeTO atsw rfoiilw d^oqei s'lstsaoi erii o*
hsia BeIxn'1^-0 e:s:ew itioqei Qdi oi axioi;l"qeosis , lolleoxssiio eriJ e'loled
seioo.& ct-sii* moil JixiA; ^xtta^Q lo drtsw -xoi JbeealinalJb aaw XIxcT exf*
.ied-ij^osaoiq 8bw XBsq:qs sLdt
This is, strictly speaking, nor a creditor's till, but is a
"bill in aid of an execution, and seeks to have the real estate de-
creed to he the property of the corporation aM subject to its
debts. The contention of appellant is that the appellees were
stockholders, directors and officers of the corporation and, for
that reason, occupied a fiduciary relation to the oorporeition and
its creditors; that while the real estate was transferred to them a
individuals, that under the law, they held it in tinst for the cor-
poration; and it was in fact the property of the corporation and
liable for its debts.
There can be veiy little controversy as to the law applicable
to thid case. Officers and directors of a eoraoration occupy a
fiduciary relation to the corporation and to its creditors. Chetlain
vs. Republic Life Insurance Co. 86 111, 220. The directors of a
corporation are chargeable with knowledge of all the facts concern-
ing the financial condition of the corporation, and they canaot
acquire the property of the corporation for their ovm. use. Moody
vs. Chicago Title & Tmst Co. 126 111. App. 68; Yoorhees vs. Mason
245 111. 256. Property subject to a tinxst may be reclaimed by the
owner wherever it may be found, without regard to any change which
Eoay have been made in its fomi or condition. Wobbe vs, Schaub,
143 111. App. 361; Rice vs. Dougherty, 148 111. App. 368; Union
National Bank vs. Goetz, 138 111. 127; Maher ts. -.Idrich, 206 111.
242.
The master and the chancellor found that the appellant had
failed to prove his cse by a preponderance of the evidence, sc the
question presented for review is not a question of law, but is
purely a question of fact, namely, whether the evidence supports
the allegatioios of the bill so as tc entitle appellant to the re-
lief sought.
The evidence shows that on March 20, 1902, the A. Boyer Broom
Company, a corporation, was engaged in the maruifacture of brooms
in the city of Galesburg, Knox county, and occupied a building
- fC'
■aft oi toQldiSB M^ aolisioqnqo sat lo jir^Tsqo-jq ©xi* 3cf 0.1- be&th
e'X9W aoelleggs ©ri* *fi^it si cfiiBlIeqqs lo Hox^nerfrtoo sxfT .aJcTofi
-'ioo ori* 'xo^ ^Bjjii' Hi tl filori ^erit ,wsl sdd" lebnu ^adt ^sl&a&trlMt
£as nox;l'5troq'ioo e4*^o -^ij'ieqpiq ,,e/i* ff-o^st ai 5Jaw Ji oas ;aoi*sioq
^, ,;^,'- *aJ-Jsl» eJ-i: -sol alcfail
elcfaoiXqoa wbX e4* pi a& ■%&%e^Q's4aoo qL&HI \;'xsv ed aso ©ledG)
j8 /^jqiitjoo xioi*B'-xoqio<? ,a ip aao*oetlJ6 fms 8ts0i5:5:0 . ssso sidd- ci
aiBXteAO »e'iod'i;X>9'xo, a.tx ot tes aotiaxQqiott &d.t ot noii'slsi "^"'xjaiaxr^il:
B 3:0 e^oJ-oeixii erf? .OSS ,XII 98 .oO eoasstmnl ©ItiJ oiXrfJ»g:oa *sv
-ni60xioo sd-ofi^ Gilt 11.^^ 5:0 ©^elworcS fitiv/ oltfsas^srio e-xa noltaaecrioo
tomi&t) .^edt ims ,n.ox&a'xpq%09:»sii Iq ssoltibssoo I^toxrxuii^ edtsal
■%h(yoM .eair awo 'ix&dd' -lOi mi&^toqto^ ©4* lo -^itrceqoiq edrf ailfl-pea
rioajsM .ar »©8ii^o<?¥ ;8^ »qqA .1X1 dSI .oO JsinS t& eX*Jt!E- <®soxriO .st
ejd* ^£cf hamioloQi Q(i -^rjsai ^'sja-c;!^ s ©;}■ d:os(,4J!^8 ij^tecroil .d8S .XXI 3:&3
dsixiW s^xmrio za& o* ijxagsi teoifcriv? ^Ijmroi ®cf ^^sa dti tSYe'XQdw leauro
,rfjJi3iioa ,BT 6irfd"0* ,aOliii)riOO lO mot 8*X fli S^Bffl £»«^d QVBll ■^©ffl
uoxaU |8as ..qq^ :.XXI 8^X ^'^ttesi-%.'aoa .bv ©oiS jXaS .qqA .XXI SM
,111 aoa .rioi'sMA .©T 'lejcisM j'i'aX .XII 8SX ,S!tecHD .sy ixvgS XertoltsTl
Joed tiijBXIegqs add- *£-xft lamo't %o£S.eon&do <^M Lfls, -xe^eaai @dT
edt OB .eoxiej&iy© adJ io GonjBTL©l)Xi;.oqeiq b -^tf eaj.*) aid; evoiq ot JbsXxjBl
hi tjxcf ,waX lo HOitseap a ton «i woxva-:: roH. beicLQeBTSi noltaejrp
Bt'xoqqjs-a ©oaeX>£v© &si^ ^isritedw ^-^Xeect^ia .oo-^il lo coiteexTp a •^Xsiirq
-©•s «iit OJJ" t«»XX(?qq6 eltJ^isx&.ot BQ oe XXitf orft lo arroxtsgeXlB edt
.j"d^.u"Co lexX
Kooifi 'x©^£0S *i eiit ^S<?€X ,-OS dpiaM. ao texft av/ods eox^elsivo sdl
eciooid' lo eixnfoBliiKSfli odi al be-ga^ae saw ^aoiitB'xoqi.oD a^Y^sQiso*^
^~ii;.bl±xrd" & £Giq0ooo has , -^td-ixc-oc xosxS. , gTuda aX^-3 lo Tttio ©rit a.1
located, on the real estate in question, which real estate was the
property of x. Beyer. On thj.t date Boyer entered into a written
contract with the officers of the cor oor.tion, hy the terms of
which, he contracted to deed the real estate to the cor oration
for |7000.00, payable $150.00 cash, and the halance at the rate of
|50,00 per month. Si ortly afterwards, Bullock beoace the oresi-
dent of the corporation, and Johnson, liodelle, .^iken and iiamp
became the directors, and Ora Gumiinghauj v/as the secretary. The
payments, as provided in the contract, were iiade out of the funds
of the corporation frcm 1902 to 1907, when Beyer died, and after
his death some few payments were made, but shortly after his death
defatilt was made in these payments. It is claimed by appellant
that this default was purposely uade by the appellees so as to get
the title to the property in their own name to the injury of the
corporation, but we think this contention is not sustained by the
evidence. On the contrary the evidence sho^vs that at that time
the corporation was not successful, but v/as in financial distress,
and unable to make the payments on the contract. ^.Ibert J. Perry,
as executor mider the will of Boyer, at the February term, 1908,
of the circuit court of KnOx county, began suit to forfeit the con-
tract. Ilo defense was made to the suit and a judgment was entered
for possession of the premises. On February 19, 1908, the direct-
ors of the corporation passed a resolution waiving the issuing of
a writ of possession, and they surrendered possession of the
property to the executor. Subsequently an attem.it was made to
raise the bal nee of the amount due on the contract and to redeem
the property. To that end, application was made by the corporation
to the Mechanics Homestead and loan Association, of (Jalesburg, for
a loan of |2500.00, but the application of the corporation was re-
fused unless the premises were deeded to the individual directors
of the corporation and the loan was made to them ae individuals.
On April 7, 1908, the executor made a deed for the premises to
Bullock, Johnson, Hodelle, Ramp and Ailien, which deed included,
not only the real estate, but all the engines, boilers, machinery.
mit&ioq't09 edi q-^ ei&iee Lae"! ©iii" hQoSi ot Ii&ioa%iaoo &d ,4o-i^w
±0 e^B's. Qd& is soiXEl*?cr 9dt JboB ^d&ao OO.C&lf ©Icfa-^sq ^00«000Y|; aol
qajaS iiss fl©:^iA ,eIlQi)Oii ^.aoaflrioli l)ne .nold'sioqioo edi t:o i^ns^
■.. ; idril .■^J5#9'3:083 eii;f saw maxisaiiaiiffO siO Jbiis , el:oc^o6■xi£ ©lii^iHsoea'"
atoift 9di %q ixso eJ&^ci sisw ,ioB'xiaoa sd* jdlI ^eiiivo^q; , ejB ^Bitxiefli^eg
■setlB Aixs ,-&©ir-) lo^oa 09rfvv ,TOei o^S- SCei aatt ifoi;fsioqaoo ©di J?:©
flujssS sM iQttB \LiiodQ ixid ,9i)aii ©lew eiue^^s^sD^ wsjl ©moa xl;3"sa6 eM
^n^Ieqq^ \d bssalBLQ at il ^siasm^q. dsed^ iii aJsam sew ^jQrdteJ^
;J-0g q;J 83 03 8©eIieg.(iB ©dd" '^a' ^^aa ■^Xesogtrjaij aj^)sr. iJLa&'t&h ^^dt i0ii
edt to xfsrlal edt oi BtE&a,w«o stedi ai ijttjeccoiq^* p* ©J^^fiJ edt
- &di ^d J&eaied-sxja ion &l a<$iiss.&iaoo airft 3ii3;M^. sw *jjrf ,jCjf:Qi:jt'-STOgaoo
,6aeT*ai;|) Xsloiisallt ai saw j:jrjrd',«lflia8 0090a *pxi saw noi;l"jB:E©qTC05> ©df
fX'xiai^^X, *?©j(fIA .fes-x^xoo §iS# iio a^f^efltrj^q edi Biam ft ^Id&sin bap
f.BOQL fisn&t -%'!.& pt del odi, iu ^le^oS.tq llJaw Mi ■sebas %liiaf9X& <&&
~:iQQ ^edi ^letioS: od- Hub aa^Qd t-%imsop ,3X>aX ^0 i'moQ itsa-xii^ edi lo
b&teiae a&vr 4siesr^Jbsl, s. ba&,itm esii oi ptum s&v eatielBh ol/L ^ioaii
■-iofbtth edi ^QOQl t 21 ^fi^ifxo's'H; xxO .ssajsss'xci e4*. ItQ xipiaesaaoq v;,l
, 4o gaiireei ©cd" s^^ivi^w Jsoid-uXoeea b j&eaasq aoli&^oq,toQ odt Xq ja-ie
edi lo KOieasasoq £3iolii3:e'i"tu3 -^sd* .ferKs ^aoieasasoq to itiw s
od- sfijsm 8isw i(iSEj»it& a& ;^LiaQj^eeid3S^ .^ZQ^poexp fdif.q.i 'pneq.o'xq
mQebei. oi isxis ioisximoQ edi ao swJo tturam^i edd" lo eoiti;44s?i' wi*, esiss
nold-aipqaos edi \d_&&jm :&&v aoli&oiLqfi& .Jbise Jails' 0$ ,#^aoq;<?|Xt^^
'TO* ^stia-deelaS lo ^aoiS-jSjtooasA jxeol Ma ^©^t-aeaioH. apiciBjloeM edd- od-
-63. 8«w itoid-eiOQ^oo fixi* Jt© jopJE^fiO-^^Xctq.* ®j4f j *4i?;} #Op»OOSa| , 3:9 moX j^
etoioeiHb lenJbiTxJbni ed* o^ S>QbBeI> eiew seelir.eiq ed* eaelrur fieairl
. aIsif^xri:■&^l eas rsori* pt eb&SL,&^^ a^ol, efii Xias floii^^oqtcQO /«d* lo
ot a&aisne'iq edi lol X>6ei) & aJ&aa toisjoexQ ed^ ^,80€X ,V XiaqA, 0O
.Y-'^xerx.tdo^a .ateliodT ^eortisna sdcf Xle i^XTd" ,eiaiBe Laei odi -^Ino Jon
fixtxires, tools and apparatus contained in the building used as a
factory, whether the same were permanently attached to the building
or not. .fter this deed was executed, the five grantees executed
a mortgage to the Mechanics Homestead and Loan Association for
$2500«00« The monthly dues and interest on this loan were $25. 00.
The corporation continued to occupy the premises after this loan
was made and, to a certain extent, operated its business and paid
the $25,00 monthly dues and interest togdther with the taxes, from
1908 until 1915, when default v/as made hy it in the payment of the
dues and interest. There is a conflict in the evidence as to these
payments. Appellant contends that they were made out of the fuzids
of the corporation and were evidence of its ownership of the pro-
perty, while appellees claim that appellees were the real owners
of the property and these payments were made merely as rent while
the corporation occupied the premises. In January, 1915, the cor-
poration ceased to pay the dues, interest and taxes, and shortly
thereafter it quit doing business, and its personal property v/as
sold and*the proceeds were applied to the payment of its debts.
The building remained empty until 1919, when a^vpellees sold and
conveyed it to C. T. Childers.
The indebtedness of the corporation to appellant was for
broom corn sold b^ him to the corporation, the first delivery
being in March, 1914, and the last delivery being on January 25,
1915. Payment was made to appellant for this broom corn by notes,
which were the basis of appellant's judgment. Appellant testified
that, at the tiioB the ¥room corn was delivered, he was told by
Bullock, the preisdent, and Ora Cunningham, the secretary, that the
premises in question were the property of the corporation, but
this is denied by both the ore^dent and the secretary.
These are substantially the facts as they appear in the evi-
dence, and the question for determination is whether these facts
were sufficient to establish appellant's case and entitle him to
the relief sought. We have given to this evidence the careftil con-
sideration which it deserves and have reached the same conclusion
.i>eiiToc-XB Eoocrixs'13 €>rxl ed:f \&Qt sso&:kq aew liaeJj axrij letli' '.ton: 10
>00.83| eisw neol alHt sxo i-eaioitai' J&ns 'eei* -^Xxi^xioai edl ' .6o«CK)92|
xitsq hoB seenxaxrcf a#i ^e^^iaqo ,^K9d"xs iiisJisb « 0* ,iiris ©Jbjaaa asvi'
mo'xl ,aexBd" erli^ x^txr? ledtJb-got d'se'xe-J-ax 5ns aojjjj ^ljl*no£a 00.3S$ Bdt
Qdt ^o Jxiean^isg eri;? £ii il xd'&&&ri asw ^Ijjb^©^ H©ifw ,6X61 Ix^jxff 80^1
easa* o^J- as doxieBiv© erf* nl ts^Xlccoo .s ai ensdSf .iaeied-jcii i>rte aexfJj
a^mrl exid- l:o tjjo ©£an e*rew ijeri^ d^add" a^aetaoo tnallegqA »e;fflear^Bq;
-o-xq od-J' io qlriBrisrrwo sJi *to eoaaBlVe s^sw ina ja:oi:*3iocico edi I0
ETeawo Xjbsi sd^ etew sssXXeqqs ^fsdd- fsifilo eosXXsqqa eXidw ti^iTteq
6£tdy{ iaet QB T^Xettaa ©iiatn ©"tew ad'ctelfli^q eseri* £xxa icJleqd'tq od^ ^0
-100 ed* ,5Xei fY'^^'StfnaU al .aesMeiq ©dd" ^©Iqs'ooo iiol^aid'qlOo ©ritf
e.c>w -^^lencsq Xjaaoeteq sd-1 i>n;s , sssnl&irrf gnJtoli ^iiSp ^i 'ied'lsetQdd"
.ac)'ci'9J& atx 10 J-asan^Bq edt ot belZqqs, ertew aio^ooaq edi^itaa J&Xoa
i}£m Mob BsellsoQa jcsdw ,§xei Xi^rrxr "^^qra© S)eal&m.or ^alJbXlJOd ^d2
• a-jeljXMO .f .0 ot *i ieternco
loi asw tfijsXXsqqa 6f noifsioq^oo ©d^ lo SBenJ&ei'ds&il Qd'i
•'^evlIaS d-sii^t sdd' ,X3:6l;f6l6qrs:66 sd* bt!" r^ld xd JbXbe nioo mooid
^SS ^'oaiToeli. no grxisd" -^•seviXafe d'saX edJ ^xis ,MSX ,doT:aM xtt snidtf
jSstoxi -^cf X1100 oiooid aid* loi i-xieXXaqqa otf eJ&j^ sbW ^taeflr^^l .axex
ijeriid-8©t ifTxsXIeqqA .txreats^irt s'^xxsXXaqqs to alSscf fed* 8^9* do Xdw
v:d' Mot ssw 9d ,£9T;^tiX©J6 ^a* Js^od fitob^ ^d* <asi* ed;|- fa ,*i^d-
tifd ,aoid'fiT:oqiot) ed^ lo ^t^qoiJi" adt' 619W fiolfBeirp al aoeiisenq
-Ire edi at ajS^qt^jB '^©dd' 8b sihOBl sdj xIX&tttt.B&sds& QiB^eB&dT
ad-osi! ©aedi? rieri^adw si ii6tts£iim'XQiQS> rol aoita^sp edt J&iijb ,©0£i©£
oit fflid el^ltaiB ifta^aaa B'lfnjsXXeqqs dsiXrfe^ae ©^ tjaeiomEra ©lew
-iioe' Xitts'SfiO 6d* eonej&lT© sldtJ- ojf usvi^ ©V£d ©W i^d^ixoe lelXetr ©di^
annoxinced ty the xasator jind the charicallcr. uur attention is not
called tc any pljice in the evidence which ahov.a tho actu^.l value of
this real estate. The evidence shows thiit the i:.achinory of the
corporation was of verj- little valiie and vc ■ 1g noney was
realized from its stly. Over twenty yea:s:s c^to , the proiilaos were
contracted for a^la on the basis of ;|7000,00, but there is nothing
to show whether the oreraises wore really v/orth thut anioimt ut th: t
tiiaa. Only ClSO.OO v/as i>aid in cash and tha halaiioe <^t '50.00 per
month, which was probably not ciore than what the rent vvould be.
x'ayBents were isade from 11/02 to 1907, the exact dates not .^lipouring.
Daring that tinie, if all paysneiits .ere i^&de for the full five years,
they would only aiiiOunt to 03000.00, in addition to the cash ptiy-
ment of ^150»00« Of this sISloO.OO, posaibly the greater part
would naturally be applied on interest, and the balance on the
principal of the debt. .ppellont contendy that when the deed was
made by the SKecutor to the five appellees tho debt was reduced
to f2§00,00, and consequently -^4600. 00 KSist hftve been paid by the
corooration on the contract, but this contention is not sustained
by the evidence. It is true tho loan to the Mechanics Horsestead
and Loan .asocivition was for ;:E500.00, but hov; this bai;:^rioe T?as
determined ^a cannot say, but apparently it was not because of
$4500»00 having been imid on the Boyer ccntract. Vihon the trunii-
fer was irade by the executor to the five appellees, it waa apparent-
ly neceaaary so to dc. The corporation hiid nade defioilt xuader the
Boyer contract, and the irlechanics Honiestead and Loan Aaeociation
would not rn&ke a loan tc the corporation, which v/ae in financial
distress and without credit* It was only by reason of tho fact
that the appellees pledged their individu.^-! credit that the
presjises did not, at that time, become the absolute pro;)erty of the
Boyer estate. It certainly cannot be sucoessfally oonte^ded that
this transfer rsade in 1908, alinost seven years before iprjellant's
indebtedness was incurred, wae lasde for the ajnoee of defrauding
appellant and depriving him of the Boney due him from the cor-
poration. Considerable stress is laid by appellant on tho fact
saw ->^isf*%^ ;.»I4'.^iX v^ev Jn-s: wi4f :sXtf ;|X ^*T,._t«:>9^ir.adi4«at©Ej'SQS
.e«/ i)X»acf d'xsft'i ; »d[* *4Wlw Jtt^iS* exooi iQa x^^^^^M mwA&tA9 4tii:iJ0&
» ^clx^e^e:.. ^oa a»^*;,fc^a«x« ©lU ,TO^X o^ S©fil seo^ si&sai ^^sw aicoa^sU
^'j-xmx f^wXt llist &a|-- •xdt~»|iafa..»l|0vv .8^ist»flf(£«f Xi:.© tst-jUdjilJ- *axf t ■ S'^ltM
-ij««» fte©& fel* a«.i^ ,*M3- sl5ae5rjaaa.-fflu6sXX®t5i.t:'i#rf«i' ad^ ^o Xfi^lfiffi'Sff
od^ 'Srf tti^ G®&if ©Vflsf tK.afi QG,008*# ^^;Xt/iej»<)«sao© *C3 ,Oefc<M38Sif d*
&5fii3!fQ.£rs taa 31 aoiti^astees aid* -tirtf, tea's ^coe ©ifi^ iso £0fi#d<io^toe
ajss?eoajaIad' sMJ wed *;,id ,C0.0OgS^ iftt'sfew jss>i;#.«ls««iii. iufefel bmi
t^ sias^&ed ton ^iim ti igXd6©!Lef^*3 *»tf .t^^e tditiiiS* »w leffii'irx«#6£
t«il2? l!©j&xs»#i5'^- %XXal:8<§i9aei« ■■M'-'-'#<>asjaov^Xflia#^®« •■#! *«i-B#!ad' 'a:4itO'ft
that eifter the loan vjus made to the Meohanics Homestead and Loan
Association that the $25400 .per month, together with the taxes,
were paid hy the corporation, but during all this time the cor-
poration occupied the premises and appellees claim these payments
were in the nature of rent. We cannot say this contention is not
vonsistent with all the facts in the case. Bullock testified
that the corporation paid the dues and taxes on the real estate
as long as it had the money so to do, and it only ceased to pay
them "because it did not have the fands . He also testified that
when default was made, the Mechanics Homestead and Loan association
instituted suit, and the appellees were compelled to pay the dues
and interest from iiim that time on. He testified he paid about
$1300.00 as his share of the debts of the corporation, and after
January, 1916, he and his associates paid the taxes, dues, inter-
est, and other amounts due, from 1915 to 1919. -HJven if it be con-
ceded, for the saice of argument, that the title was held in trust
for the corporation, appellant would not be entitled to a first
lien ahead of the appellees vvho had caid out various sujiis on the
debts of the corporation before appellant became a creditor.
On October 3, 1906, the corporation conveyed to Aiken a
part of the real estate described in the bill as Lot 15 in Beyer's
Subdivision, for a stated consideration of f 1600. 00, and on Novem-
"ber S4, 1909, a second deed was executed by the corporation to
Aiken for the same property, the second deed being made for the
purpose of correcting a mistake in the first deed, the considera-
tion being omitted from that instriunent. The bill alleged that
thes'e deods were fraudulent and void, were made v/ithout considera-
tion, and that Aiken now holds the property in trust for the bene-
fit of the corporation. The only evidence in the record as to
,4.heSe conveyances shows that Lot 15 v;as purchased for the corpora-
tion "by Aiken without authority of the directors; that Lot 15
never in fact belonged to the corporation, and afterwards the
directors required Aiken to take the property, and the conveyance
r
^GBx^-i BsS^ dixvK -XBiitrnM .d&aom 'xsq, .00»dS# eii* isidt .cioi^aieossA
■~\ot> Qiit ©acid' Bidt LLsi> ^liirfe i'xrcF ,noi;}'aioc[ioo ©rid' ^o' Jbisq 9'j:6W
6t£i:9ic^B<j e«6£fd" iJii:.e.Xfj ssslleqqa M« aesjtoieiq ©d* i)©J:Q0Ooo fioiuetoq
stB^as Ijss^ ©ii^ £f.o BeiXjid" hxxQ aexst erfj isiaq xioJ:j3'iogioo edt ^sdi
tadif *0x^icJ't30d' oaLs eH »aMiit ©d* ©T^^a Jac WL ti ©SiTsoeo'' £aerit
ssj/i> &jd:)- ^G[ o^ feell sqnioo sisw eaallaqcii:; e^dt Aixa ^tlssB beisstJtiasil
tsToas i>JtJ3C[ orf X)ortlJa©J oH ,rio ©sji:^ ;t£Xi* se^ 'no'rt iasie^aJ: lica
*i6d-ta J&rt.^ ...rjai^fl'xaqioo a^t !io^ a*?feJ& ©4# to e-saxfa i?i4 Sj^ 00*OOSl|
-iQ^cii ,39jjJ5 »S3X9* grJ* iil&i ae;t*?.iooaBs aid J5aa @jii i9JCi?X^^^aimsi
-fios ©<f S-i ii ja^'vtL ,SXei o* <iX6X xagtI ^sjx£) aiasiotaa iqA^o Me^^ae
*6il^ B oj- £el*i:tae ©dF Jon |)Ixrow iJ-ix«Xl8ffq« ^soii'arto^'ipp fi|t# -acol
exio" CO emjja e^oi'ssv oiro liijKi Jcaxi odw BseXXsqqs adsf to fisexia 0eiX
,:tetx6eia e esaaoscf ;fjaeXX«qq,6 e^oletf xroitsioqioo ©dt lo aJ-rfsl)
s rrsiiA o;f £e"^eTiioo aoiiJ'iJ'joq'xo© &dt ^..QOQL ,'€■ aecfod'sO iiO
s'-xe^oS: £ix oX #©J. as XXirf edt at itBdHt^mb e^ta^se Ij^eu e^i t^ it^
-lasTGl xio i>i33 jecooaxi lo ii©l*.s:ieM«saoo fietata a toI ^aolfjtyJJidrffS
gO" nox<ra*xoq:EOO erii" •^cT J&stuoexe saw £©6^ liixopsa a^eOUX ^ife-S 'Xdd"
-aieBiaaoo erlt ,j&oaJ& tsii?: ©xSt jkX ©la^aiK a grxi^'oei'soe 3:o ©Boqiirg
~a'i©£l8£xoo t»0il#xs( QbmL s-xow ./jIot &ixa ta.QlsjiiXi&i^ ©ttaw aJBosJ& «««
-snsd" Slit -xol d-ajxrd- ax ^j^aeqo-iq sxiiJ- sJ&Xoxi won riellA- #jad^ ixiA tJES<M^
o# 3a J*xoo35 941 ixl sone^JtTf .-^Xho fdT .Hox^a'xoqaoo @dt lo it^S ^
-a-socxioo &M aol Beeaiioxtfc; aaw.SX *0il *£jdt ewoda Beons-^evxioo B^tdi^
©jli' Bj&-£awie#Sa ^rts ^aoi^t'aiOQioo orfit oif iJegxioXesf voal ni ttevffi:
oona-^evxios eiSd- baa .-^t^oqoiq erf?}- esLs* o^J' xxei^jLfe iis-xl-jjpsT aio^oeairi
was made to Mm for that purpose. The ut ster found that the cor-
poration was never henef ioially seized of Lot 15, and that these
conveyances were wholly immaterial in this litigation. Prom our
examination of the evidence we hold that the master was fully
justified in this finding.
The hill is based upon the fiduciary relation of these
appellees to the corporation, and alleged that the acts of the
appellees were fraudulent and void, and were for the par pose of
converting the property to tho use of the a.ppellees to the injury
of appellant and the creditors. The most of the evidence consists
of documents and the testimony of Bullock and Ora Cunningham.
Praud is not to he presumed. Something wore than a mere suspicion
is required to prove an allegation of fraud. The evidence must be
clear and cogent and must leave the mind satisfied that the charge
is true. Where an act mey be traced to an honest intent as well
as to a corrupt on;, the former is to be preferred* In order to
avoid a deed for fraud both the vendor and the vendee must be
shown to have intended to commit the fraud. They must both be
gQilty of the connivance and the intent, .^ultman & Ts{7lor Co. vs.
Weir, 84 111. ^i-pp. 615; Berkey ob Gray Furniture Co. vs. Thein,
89 111. App. 207; Hatch vs. Jordon, 74 111. 414; Dickerson vs.
^ans, 84 111. 451; Dexter vs. liCcJfee, 163 111. 508. \,e are of
the opinion that the evidence fails to sustain the allegations
of the bill; that it fails to show that aopellees were guilty of
the fraud charged agaiiB t them; that it fails to show that the
real estate in question is the property of the corporation and
subject to the payment of appellant's judginent. J'or these
reasons the bill was properly dismissed for vmnt of equity.
There is another reason why the bill was proiperly dismissed.
The deed from the executor of Bo^er v/as to Bullock, .-.iken, Johnson,
Rodelle and Hamp, and all of them v;ere made parties defendant to
the bill, which was filed to the February term, 1917. Aiken died
'f
'too sd* iBd& hwaot xefasm. ©d2) .eeoqiirq t&dt lol: taM ot ebam e«w
eaedrf" tsdi biie, ,SI Jol 3to i)©sl©a •^IXaloilexiecf lavaxi saw noiJaioq
^xro flioiiC .Goi:*Bsld".fcX airft iii LaliBtamii. -^Xlodw ©lew eeoxrs-^evnoo
^Ilffi saw neteaoi sxl* Jsd* Jblod ©w eojisfiive erid- lo noltsniiaBxe
-■■■' ----- ■ ■ •.; ■■;/■• ■ •:. :' ■■ . ; . • - -v- t4j<{j
edit 5:0 8*03 erfJ- ta£f# ftegsJlTe toa jnoi^Biogioo eri^f o* Beelleqqa
3:0 esoqixjq. sjilt lol: eiew JBnfi ,iilov Arts tnelffJ&jjsi-S ©new eselleqqa
^ja-^ni ec£* od^ assllaqqii gxfj- to eaji ©rid" o* it^isqoaq edt ^attr&vaoo
e^ajcsnoo eoc8J5ivs sri* lo taon siiT .aiod"liieio edi ba& tsialLeqqe lo
. saBagniarujO aiO i>xia iooXlJS^ lo xaoaiitBei edt Lrr^. staemioob lo
aoxoiqsxra si em s nBrl* ©lOia -gatdiesioQ .betassSQiq cTon ai fixrerrl
©G •J-ajjd soifsi^lYe ©riT .fiirs'sS lo noli-agelle na evo-iq o# bettspai i.x
©gTisdo srfd- ;fari* jbeilaxi^aa iJn:i:iB ad* ©Tael *ai3DEa f)jcia tae^oo bsa laelo
••■■■■■-■-"'• -■",-'- ■■■' --■'■;. ■ -■■•<i, iV'i{"g /;.i,;. ■\'ix^<
II 9W SB *a:9*0l i'aejDLod a& ot bes&it ecT ^^em to» om sTddf „9srti al
o* Te^io £11 .iieiieloiq sd o* el lemiol: ed* ,eiio tqirscsoo a o# sa
acf taxrai ©©AxiaT ed* £fia loixxev ed* dJod' ba&Tit lol Aeeii a Axova
0(f d*od *8xnE ^£6d'iJ .ftira'xt edt tlfflmoo o# £eBxie*nJ: evad ©# xiwoda
.av ,oQ lOlTpT * jciem^lji^ .*£i©*£ti sxl* Axia ©onaTximoo ad# io T5*I1xjs
,nxedS .ev .oO ei0*Jxiixj^ ^aaS sS ^©itteS'jSId .qqA ♦III ^B ,il8W
.ST rtoatsioM j:^!:^ .Ill :l^7 ^siohioTt .st doi-aH ;TOS .qqA •III 9B
'±0 e-xa eW .808 .III Sdl ,9elAeM .8t -xstxea jI3^ . IXI \^8 ' , arta^
a£i0i:*B3&IXa edJ nie^sxrs ot alial eoneBiTO eri* #£d* xxoJtxiiqo edt
3:0 -Nt*Xli3S ©'lew aosXXsciqe tad* woda o* eXla!k il tadi ;IX±d" edt lo
sdt tadt woda ot sXi-el ti tadt ;ffl6dt taxiBSS bQ-gtMo basil edt
£na nolta-xouioo edt lo Tgtnsqotcq edt 8± noitaessp al statas lae'S
©aedt loS .trxefiig^B'^ a'txiaXXeqqa lo tjaeflnjaq 9di ot to9tdi3"a
♦V^txupe lo tasw lol JbesaxBEalJb xlt&ioxq aew XXltf edt Eaosjpei
.AoaaimsxS •^Iieqoiq aaw XXxtf edt ^dw aosaaa aedtona al etsfd^
,iioandoI. ,ixe2lxA ^iooXIirS ot aaw le^bS lo lotx/oex© sdt molii Iiesi ed^
ot tnaJ&jaolsl) eeltiaq eJ&iSm 8i©w aedt lo lis J5xia tqasafi bae ellofiofi
l?6i£ ne2lJfcA . VXeX ..meet \£'iaxn:cf©^ edt ot .fceXll aaw doidw .XXxcT bdt
in 1910, "before the bill w&s filed, oiid the bill was subsequently
dismissed as to him. Bamp died in 1911, before the bill was filed,
but the bill was not dismissed as to him. Kcne of the heirs of
either Aiken or Hamp were made parties defendant. Affirmative re-
lief was prayed against both ..iken and iiamp. Both of them, if
they were living or their heirs if they were dead, v/ere neeessary
parties to the bill. These parties were entitled to their day in
court, and a decree could not be entered against their interests
without a hearing. This real estate could not be subjected to
the payment of appellant's debt without a finding by the court
that the conveyance to -.iLen and Ramp was in trust for the cor-
poration. Because of a lack of necessaiy parties, the court was
without jurisdiction to grant the entire relief prayed for in the
bill, even though the evidence amply sustained the allegations
of the bill.
For the reaons indicated, the decree will be affirmed.
Decree affirmed.
^ild-fiQxrpsadins qjsw XXxrf Bdi Jbxss .lielll a&v ZI.t<S edi ©noleef ,0X61 al
.^sXil 8J5W IIlcT Qdi o'lo^ierf ^XISX ai J&sii) qmsSi ,mLd ot as JbasaJtoalb
to stl^d Qdi 1Q eitol .mM o* ea Joeaaisiei^ *oe bbw Illtf ait #M
-SI ©vi ;J-3HiT:J:li»i. .tojsfixss^eJb a©i*xj8q ©iijat e^sw qjsbE 10 uealiA ^©xi^ls
-risBaeesa 9iew ,feseji errsw %9dt tl saioii i±ojd;f rto saiTiX •isw^exl^
Hi -^jfiJb 'xied* oj' beliltsm ei©w 8©l*isc[ eeeril* .Xlirf Bdi oi setti&q
a^seietni; tcJeiJd- tanlBg^ jDetis^xts ©d *0£i AXiroe ©e-xoeS s- baa ^t-xsroo
ot Ise^oe^iira ed" *oa J&Xjyoo e#atee L&&S. 8ix£2I «30iiaerf a #0ori#iw
J-'iiioo arid- ^.d 3o;i:i>xiJ:t a tMod&t^ tdeJb a ' tiialXaq:?* lo tnsat^jB? edi
-•icoo 8il;f' Tol taxTx* al esw qmefi Jbnjs neliii o^ 6otiQj,eYaoc edt tedi
3BW ti«oc eri* ,e©xi''tsq Tjpcfiaasoen ^o lojaX jb lo ©auBOoS .xioiifa'ioq
Qd& at 10I i)e'^3T:Q lens's etltae edt ta&'s% pi sxotiotSiBlrsl tijodiiTi
saoli&^eLlB sd& J&siiisjairs ^Xqaaa eojxeJblve edt dgifodt nevs ,XXlcf
.XXiQ' odt io
.J&«}fGims erf Xliw 0©a©eJ& erid- ^JSsitaoliixil Bxioes's: eri* lO'S
STATE OF ILLINOIS. I
SECOND DISTRICT. \ ''*'• I. JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Lourt.
in and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and keeper of the Records and Seal thereof,
do hereby certify that the foreooing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court m
the above entitled cause, of record in my office.
In TestimoiP(<AVhereof. I hereunto set mv hand and affix the seal of
said Ji^:^nA\ate Court, at Ottawa, this fa ''^"^^ <lay ot
^^i^-J-^y^^r" . in the vear of our Lord one thousand
nine hundred and twenty- /■^U'tyUf'^
/,*-l<^^^^t-'i<
Clerlijrf the Appelkile Courb.
vf
I
;936— 200— 7-22)
f
■^ffr'' I o^
>:j .?
\
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
2 2 ^-ki-G t
"■1
;gun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fourth day of April, in the year qif our Lord one thousand nine
hundred and twentj'-two, within and for the Second District of the State'of Illinois:
resent— The Hon. NORMAN L. JONES, Presiding Justice.
Hon. AUGUSTUS A. PARTLOW, Justice.
Hon. DORRANCE DIBELL, Justice.
JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk.
CURT S. AYERS, Sheriff.
m 5 ^92'
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: on -^w • - . the opinion of
le Court was filed in the Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures following, to-wit :
^f<
7073 gondii 26
226T.A_, 65
jPeojJle of the State of Illinois,
Dofendtxnt in Jrror,
vs. :;rror to county court
Stanley Bishop » of Late
laalntiff ia ;:rror,
PartlovK, J«
The plaintiff ia error, Stanley liahop, was found guilty t^
& ^ury in the- county court of Laice aount:/ under th-3 3o7onth,
eighth, iiinth and tenth oounts of an Infornjation oharging the
violation of the prohibition \ct. -fter the vordiot, the 3i?hth
and tenth counts were nollied by tlie State's .ttox'nay, and the
plaintiff in error was aontenoed under the aovanth count, which
charged an unlawful attempt to cianafacture intascicutiag; liquor,
and under the ninth oount, which ohargod the unli:.wfal operation of
a still. To review the judgment x'OKdored upon the Tordiot, a writ
oi error has heen prosecuted froii tlois court.
It ia urged that tho evidence does not sustain the verdict.
The evidanae shows th^-t on oeptea'oor 8, 19£1, the plaintiff in error
lived at 1409 Victcriu street, ilorth Ohicago, Lake county. On thut
date C. A. Brone, a eonstahle, and K. A. '.ealo, with a BOarch
warrant for the precdaea, which were owned by the plaintiff in
error, went to the house of the plaintiff in errox' axid found hii;.
standing on the front poreh. When ha saw the officers hi ?;ent into
the houae and rim w^ay. The officers went into the building, nisde
a search and found a coffee pot containing v/hiskey, and in the
haseisent they found a gaa stove x?ith a copper atiil on it. There
was a barrel of com laash, several large nsilk ooris fall of liquor,
a rubber hose and similar articles. In the basenant they found u
Ban by the naiio of Tony ?eiza. The officers testified th.;.t the
plaintiff in orror, at the tiae they arrested him, admitted that
he was trying to i:^zaifacture intoxicating liquor. They also
dS Bhn&^
s?c?
rx "*! ■*'%
&:ijBl to
/icj ^.^IliTi Itflffo'i Si3w .qoriexd -stsidiEsa-e ^loitia iil m^al&IXi edT
Qrfj i^l-^nMo HQlS^issno'lsi]: ass !to Btniroo Aiti&t bn^ dtuin. tdtdic^te
ftoli'C^ ^tnaoo dta&rQS &AS tehnu bBoaataQH BSf.vi lotrta at Ti:lia.i.&lq
to fiol^^^i'iX-cfO lulw^IitiT a£lt l)@^'i-srfo rfoirf^. ,f£rs/ot> jiinlii &d$ r&hcm Mm
»;^'2i;joo aids' aio'xlk fie^ju'oeaoiq ixeccT aad norxie lo
TO^xiy rii i'Sl^iXJLfi.Xq. oii:;?' , IS€I ,8 'ssxSiimtfi&S' CO ^isxi^ awo4e ©©jxe^iv© ©rff
/xaes B jftfiw ,0Xii9W .A .G Jjtta ,i?X<>i**aftoo & ^scjana .A •0 ©*«J»
,:xoijv)lI 1q lls^ eime ll.te ©g-s^X Xaieves ,deiss( is^oa lo Xe^-^^rf a »«'*
testified that when thoy first B;ivy hits he had a grunito coffeo pot
in his hand, and he threw the ocntento of the ciot ovor the ,)oroh
rail acd Trent intc a store nc::t doci* to hia houee ai'id suid to tho
storalceeper thi.t he was again arreated, or wordu to thtit effect.
The witnoaeeo for the Stnte testified that they tasted the oon-
tentsi of thoso exhibits toad that they oonteJ.}iod intoxiottir^ liquor.
Tona Pasa wac called .'^s a witneas for the pliiintiff in error, and
testified thi^t he wss tho ownor of the still, and that ho Wi^e m/ai:-
ing liqtior for his own use on the precieoe of the plaintiff in
error, who had no knowlodgo of thit fact, xhe plaintiff in eri-or
teatified that ho did not p^rtioiorto in the manufacture of the
liquoi', and did not know that Paaa was iaanuft^eturing liquor in
hia residence. The otorsiceo^xsr next door, in rebuttal, testified
that v?hile the officora \7t5re ssai'ching tho preaiaes, the plaintiff
in error came into the store con:ftiaed and excited said excl&iriiod
"Tliey got cao, they got rae" .
It is insisted by the plaintiff in error th.it thin evidence
was not sufficient to prove, beyond a. reasonable doubt, th-t he was
operating a still, or that he was attempting to roanufacture in-
toxicating liquor, but, on the contrary, the evidence shovi?a that
it was Ijeing :nannfactured by another isan v.'ithout hie knowledge .uid
consent. iJicaply becauae the witneoseB for the defend<-nt in error
testified to ona state of fa,eta and tho witnesses for the ;>l^xin-
tiff in error testified to another state of facts entirely differ-
ent therefrom, it does not necessarily follow that the defendant
in error failed to EJ&ke out u case beyond a reasonable doubt. It
is the speci&l proTinoe of the Jury to weigh the evidence ixi the
light of i*!! the f&ets and cinniKStanoee and determine where the
truth is. After a Jury has thus detarffiined where the tmth is,
the verdict will not be sat aside unless the court can say that
it is plainly against the weight of the evidence. People vs.
Conners, ii46 Jll. 9; r'eople vs. iicott, £61 111. 165; i'eople vs.
Csssidy, 283 111. 398. Under the fucts ap}»aring in evidence.
S-oq aello© eiimn-^ i.-. nua .mi uiM Wi:a Jeii'S: \j;ea# ceriw taHit f, ■'^'- +
x£oaoq fid* tero i^oq ad;? to s^aectaoe sdt is^xd^T od Jbiua ,!>»«« >. . >i:
sarft ol ifijaig km &mo$yeild 1^ -sool* *3C9a OTOta a ofxil ^isstf J[»fflB Zi^/x
nJt t^l^JriisXq. ©d* lo «&aii'a»'sq sa/i* ao 9 air awo ulri ^o% T:c%pir' ^1
£d^ lo 6'iflr;tQ3%iai£^ &ii^ fiJt d#«i!qioliih££(S ioa bib ed iadt bollifHet
al t&ttj^ll ^attuio^^fsium s«jw jsaa'i iedt <»ou2i '^oa £ii ''jboa \ 'tOfiplX
; i iaXos^© 5as8 J&«^l3xs toe feeariineo etoin Bd^ oiai eaao^^rvie al
3iiw 0rf ;fiifii' ,3-dixo.& ©IrfaflO0S05 ^ &io-^erf .©vers? o# ^aeloiUxrF
-iii &'ts3tQBtati£m 0* :9iii:^£a©^il'ij saw ad ^adi ^6 ^XXltB » -gfili^-iLoqo
**:o:s:ri,Q rxi tuis^fsulo^ ed* 10% a&aaestitiw arft setraosd -^X<£fii£ ^taeeaiou
"'ZQ'^tih \£siUm &io&\ to «4'Bira 'z^tona. oi b&l^ltB&t rtnie at Ykly
^iiit^sxsteJb &M',^&di w^HoIl %ltr£^%^^Q^is. ioa rn^ob tl ,$5»t5:»Toift #11©
0^4" al eOiisMye ed* i^lew ot ^lir^ s4* lo saairotq laloens erf;!' ai
,aX dtmi 9d& m.Bsim btalsa&i^ uedi &&d x^b^ © -s©*! . . : i$m^
c- •i-J' p-is as© tisjoo aa* saeXmr sJiSd #68 B<i ^on 'JtXlw "#©iJWw' "exlct
the ;Jury had a right to determine that it was highly imorohaltle
that the manufacture of liquor was "being carried on in the plain-
tiff in error's ho-ase, on such a large scale, v/ithout his knov;-
ledga and consent ty ?aza, v;ho did not live there, and merely went
there, as he testified, so ho could use the gas stove. If the
jury "believed the witnesses for the defendant in error rather than
the evidence on hehalf of plaintiff in error, which they had a
right to do. they were justified in finding the plaintiff in error
guilty under the seventh and ninth counts. vVe think: the guilt of
the plaintiff in error Wi.3 properly estalilished hy the evidence.
A search warrant, which was in the possession of the officers
when they v^rent to the plaintiff in error's house, was offered in
evidence by the defendant in error. The plaintiff In error
objected to it on the ground that there was no proof of the filing
of a sworn complaint before the warrant v»a3 issued, and that the
warrant was not in the form provided by the statute. The objection
was overruled and the warrant v/as admitted. Later on the question
again arose relative to this warrant, and counsel for plaintiff in
error objected to it because it did not prove anything, and was
misleading to the jury, whereupon it was withdravvn by the defendant
in error, and the court annoxinced that the question relative to the
search warrant v/ould be covered by an instruction to the jury, but
no instmction was given. Plaintiff in error insists that the
v/arrant was defective; was improperly adrratted in evidence; that
its v/ithdrawal did not cure the error; and that exhibits improperly
secured tinder it by the witnesses for the defendant in error were
introduced in evidence.
The difficulty with this contention is that there is nothing
in the record to sustain the a^ntention, except that a search
warrant was admitted in evidence and afterwards withdrawn. The
warrant is not in the record so we can inspect it and determine
whether or not it was defective, or was improperly admitted in
evidence. The evidence shows that at the time the officers went
to the plaintiff in error's house they had a search v/arrant.
e
GLdadoiqmi x^d^td saw if. Jarf* eniacts*©!) ot j-rCgix a bad ^ciixt ©dtf
-ffielq e4t xri no Jbeinaa saj^etf 8sw loxrpi:!" ^o o-XixtOBtaciafli edt d-aiicj-
-^orcS. Bid *0ori-txw ^eX4»9& as'^^-C « doina iao .esifori e':to^^e rxi im
;J"£:9w ^i,Xe•i©aI iiae ^eied^ eyil ;fQxi Jblb ojdw ,ase1 -sjcf i-noacoo j&£iJB egliol
erii' tl .eyo^a asg edt qbss Jblxroo sii oe ,fioilJ:.teet ea && ,er.exl;t
« J&fid y,edi dold^ ,io*jie. xii ^li^talfiXq lo iXadecf uo eoiteilva &xl*
^o *Ii-.^i-5 sxi* rial rid" ,©.W .ajxixmo riJcciiT J&xie dcfasveB sdi leMif xtLlss^
.©one£iv9 9ri;f ^cf J&si(a±I(f6ta» •^iTeqo'jqL eair -xpaie iii Miijjiislq ©fid-
3i90i1t5:o ©rit to jaoiaaeaaoq ©di" al qfiw jJo^txiw , Jnaiiaw 4oxa©a /
at isiello 8BW .©Bxiod s'toii© xii. ilitoijslq ©4* ot txiew x^i^ij J^^^'^w
lOTi© nl mtalaX*! s4f .aoi-ie ni ^xififift©!!:©^ ©d* -^cT aoxiefiiv©
gctili^ 9Xi*.lo ^0.0 iq oa asw e^tetli- tfirf* Jbxujois edt s.0 il o* JbaJo©{;rfo
edt t&dt ban ^bBua&i. 8«w tiiBiis^ sd& erdX&d iai^lfimoo ixiowa s lo
Koi#oeJ;do ©41' .etjjd"B*Q <3ri:f ^cf bebtroiq anol &di at ioa asw iji&iievr
r'.oiJ-esxrp ©xl;f no 'xstsi »betitsit£. saw tixai^vY ©ri:f Jbxse i»«ljn:ievo asw
jxi I'iituxBlq, 'loi Isaoiroo J&cte ^ta&i'tais sldt Qt erl^sXei ©aot;* nio^js
saw ItiB ,3niiitijn3 ©TOiq *oa M£ #1 eBxreoea' i^l ot fietoetrfo "iprin©
i^iabneleb edi ^d nwjBiiilJ-iw aaw tl aozsfrt&dw tX^al edt oi gfitbb&LBlia
od^ 6* ©TxtsXei xioli-asirp sd* isidt bpo£SJSO£sci& ii^o ©4^ J&njs, ^(,9:0119 r:x
tssd ,^iirt orit o^ aojfcd'ojnd'axii xi^ Tja .fee'jevoo ©jif JX-i?OT ^-os^-sw xio!id«e
©rit tsii* '8:^31801 loi?© xii ^ItlJfxiJtttX? .j^erxs aaw flDi:i}"oirxsrBXx; :.
isdi ;90ii©£iV9 nl Xie^tlcaJ&a •^jX-iocjo'Kiiai eaw ;©Ti*09lei esvsr tsi^iiavi
"55X7.950 iqmi sd-itflite© d'aiid' iixa ;iQirr9 ed^ eiuo toa bib £&WB'3ibdi i^ etl
©lew iota© ni: txxsixie5©£ 64* "xOi. e©a8ea;f|w ©4* %tf *i, 'i^.bxsjy lisnjjosa
.©oaQ^Jty© xsi fi^ojffJboT^j-iii
giiiid^on Bi ©ienj ^a4# ai rcoi^nstxiqo airi* 4iflw ■^*Xjjroxlj:iii ©42
4oi\B©a e ;f£43i" d-qsoxe ^noi^neteoo sd* rus^eya od- Jixooei ad;}- xix
©42 ..xOTBiirii-iw 3£iiiwi9*lB l)iiB ©oileilTs Hi fie^d-lxafca s,ew ;;fja4:xi-sftf
©nxfliietJ'el) baa tl d^oaqaal njss «!« o^ A'loosrx .©44: ixi ;t,ort el t^osa^ew
xii iset^ifiifca xX'^sq°rrqiai aew tco ,8V±d"oei©Ja bjsw J^l J-oc 10 T©4*oxiw
;fnsv/ eiooxi^o ari^f ofaii- &dt ta tadt em^odapoii&btre ed'2 ,soaeblve
• tesiisw xioisQB a bad -jed* osuod b'-xoi'x© al tm^ri&Lc: eriJ- od"
The warrant was not read to the jury and we cannot see how its
admission end siib sequent withdrav;al injured the plaintiff in error.
It is nowhere pointed out in what respect it did not comply with
the statute, oections 30 and 21 of the "x'rohibition Act, chapter 43,
do not provide that the conijlaint, affidavit and v.'arrant shall con-
sist of one instrument, i'he complaint and affidavit are filed with
the court issuing the warrant, while the warrant is delivered to the
officer charged li^th its execution. If the complaint and affidavit
were not filed as provided hy the statute, and the vi-arrant »vas
issued without a sm'om complaint htiving heei filed, that fact should
have heen shown* If the dafendazit in error did not see fit to prove
it, then the plaintiff in error had the right to do so. The mere
statement of the plaintiff in error that the warrant was defective,
without the record so showing, was not sufficient to raise the
question in this court of its sufficiency. I'ot only ie the record
silent on this point, hut there is no showing in the record that
any injury was sustained by the plaintiff in error, even if the
warrant was improperly issued. Several exhihits, including the
still, gas stove, harrel of mash, mills: cans, and liquor, were
admitted in evidence. The abstract shows that th^'were all
offered together as exhibits 1 to 10, inclusive, except exhibit S,
which was the warrant. The fahstraot show's that a general object-
ion was made to all of these exhibits. There ?/as no special ob-
jection on the ground that some or all of them v/ere improperly se-
cured under the search warrant. Some of the exhibits may have been
admissible and others may not have he.en. The general objection v;as
not sufficient to preserve the point now sought to be raised. There
should have been a spscial objection so that the court could ha-ve
ruled specifically on the point and so the defendant in error
could, if necessary, have introduced other evidence to cover the
objection. The record is in such a condition that the question
novi/ sought to be raised was not preserved for review in this court.
If the plaintiff in error desired to have that question covered by
stx wod 0©e d-ocnao ew fida -^Trrt 9M oit Hae^ iHtr o&ft fakfrair (td'i
ild-xv/ ^Iqmoo ton S)iS) 'ii df©eqge:c jfjeriw j& &ao heiaxoq dioriwdif al itl
,5.:^ iQjq.sxio , d^oA fldii-icfMoi'l' eiC^ '±d IS jBxia'OS aao it oeQ' .©*J3tBd'6 M*
-xico IXjsdB ^nsi'is'iv bud iirsi/illts ^^ai^qal66 &di' ^&dii: Qblfo'xq, tdrt'di
jcit.cw belli: ei& tlrBblTts to« jriialqmoo erfT ' .;frisaijrxd'6itx Mo ifcd #eiil
ed;}- o* boie^iLeb at tii^iiew eri* elxriw ji'msi'tew siit'gnlxjeei *iif«56 ed^
tlY&bi'±'±s Ms d-niBlqiHOO eiti '3bl .nox*0O«x© |#i tili^BagtJBiXo^ -^^
.5.Liroiia :fosi ±3£ft ,J&elil xserf gairari ^iiislqaioo mowa a ^sorii'l* 'Jsexrasi
8T01Q od" ^Ji 69a ton iiJ& lOTiei ai toeMslreJo sfld- il .iswb^B flaetf evaxl
9ri:t eela'£ o& ta&JLoillssa tost B£v\yiiir6M 6@ Jti^o&i elsf i'ir^kt!!*
fj7.0€9i: erf* si. -^ao ^oHl .-^ojaeioi'Sljae" a^t'i io' inad^'Bidf at flbltfes&l^
tsdi h'xQoei exiil- ml sniworia on' ai e-ieriJ *M ,tix'i6q 6liif^^'n^
■edt li aeT® .ioit© nl Ultuislq sdi" -^tf j&eflia^ania" bj^ ■^^xrtfll t^a
e-iew ,'roxi$lL baa ,e£i&& ^CIjkh eXfaast lo leiiatf « ©vb^'s ' i^fe-g" » xilj'^
XIs sasw-^jd^ t&di awode i'oa'xtafa edCE' .©dneJ&xve n! JBsJf M1)b
jii txdidxB iqsoxQ .sviasfXoiSi ^OX o;! I eticfiiixe as i&riJegot JSeieiio
-*oo'£do Xeiex£©3 B ^exi^ swo^a toattBd^i eM " .tfiieitTcsw elt' esw ifbxiiw
~d"o Xaiosqs on saw ©lerill . a Ji cf i-dxe' ©a ©H* 1:6 iXa of ©j&acr aaw\a«l
-98 -^Iieqoiqaii eiew ffleii}- 'io XXa rro aPHoa i-adi" Mr/oi® oxft ii© ii6l*oet
xxeecT svad %sm BtMlstg.^ erfif lo' eoioB .'feaa^aw IdUyi&es edt -xebda berlif&
aaw aoXd-oetrfo Xaisjceg. eiS .xs^erf sved Ibn'itaia aiexid'o £/ta eXcfiaairaJba
QieaS .ijesxai 00 ocJ- Mgsroa woxt trslOG edt avisastcq: b;*^" #Xi.elbl1^jra "ton
m&d blmQ t%iS0Q ©dt *aiit oa aoitti®ldo JLml&miB'"'a 'deW€ &t
loiie xij: iJxEsijDisi'eJa adt^' ba J&aa laibq «ic# iio TjXXeoillooqa joaXirc
eilt 1SV00 ot sone^iTe tedto bsoabo^tni srsri .^laBaaosii xi ,fjXjjoo
noitaewp 0H;i^' tad^ xxojt^lMo^ a loiria 'i^^^^ £^bsat' ' ©ifT *no±*o9t'rf&
.jii;oo aid# xii wslWi abl" JSevtceSa'tq' i-oa'aaw^'JBaa^ Jd^ijoa won"
%d Xo-sevoo aoXJsbxfp *a.rf;f byb^ o* JBbiiaeB' •kottab ni ^lltxixaXq ads'" II
aJi instruction as indioated "by thg court at the tice the search
warraat v/as v/ithdrawn, such an instruction should have been offer-
ed by the plaintiff in error, which he did not do, and for that
reason he cannot now complain of his own oniission.
On the examination of Ira otevens , as a ^^ror, he stated
that, in a liquor case, he woiild not requiro s.s convincing- proof
to find the defendant guilty as he would in a ciurder case; that he
did not consider the tf/o cases of equal importance, and that he
might he more easil.y convinced in a liquor case than in a cmrder
case. The plaintiff in error then challsng-ed the ^uror for cause,
and in response to a question from the court tho juror said that
he felt that he could render a fair and impartial verdict in the
case, and that he would follow/ the law and the evidence. The court
then overruled the challenge and the plaintiff in error excu.sed
the Juror peremptorily. In his place Charles W. Brockway was call-
ed, and the plaintiff in error challenged him on the ground that
Stevens should have teaa excused for cause, hut this challenge
was also overiU-led. The plaintiff iii error contends that because
of these rulings he was imprc^erly compelled to he tried by Brock-
way, who v/as a hostile juror. There are several reasons ,, these
alleged errors cannot he sustained. The first one is that the
answers of Stevens, taken as a whole, showed that he was a com-
petent Juror. Eg merely/ said that he did not consider a liquor
case and a murder case to he of equal importance, tut he altjo said
that he could and would give the plaintiff in error a fair and
impartial trial, and would he governed hy the lav/ and the evidence.
These answers were sufficient to Justify the court in overruling
the challenge for- cause. The nest reason is tliat when Stevens
was excused and Brockivay called, the latter was challenged on the
ground that Stevens should hs,ve been exciised. The ruling as to
Stevens was no ground, in the absence of other reasons, for the
challenge of Brockway. The examination of Brock^.-ay doss not
appear in the abstract, emd he rjay have teen in every respect
iio-seea 0ii# ©Slid' eil'^ ^b i%noo Btii \d S^&t&aibal en jLOiiGini&£it m
?sii;|- lo't ios ,oJ& ton Mfi ©d: doMw; j-xoiie ajt iLtijJ-iix^Iq ©di' ^rf ij©
^looiq "^gnloaivfloo sjs csiypei io!x j5fx?ow erf ,s8bo xoffpil b ax ^tadi
eii^jBii5r jonfe , soiled loqcii il£rjp© to sssijo ov/ij" er{;f "isJBxano^ ^«is .&i^
isiiflin & iix. iiBiit 0800 loxfpll s nl beoniyn^o %SlGe9 e*r©iH ©cf i-^^ijn
Jifjeo. erfT .soiisfiivs orid- i)n* ^tbI oiit wollol Jsl^ow &d tsdi baa .©aso
f»e8jyox© 101X0 al t'itta.x.slq sdt ^xis espi^IIsrio sd* f>©Iir?39T0 a,e?£#
vt.ad^ l)ii.(ro?3 sdf m atiii iJS^aeXIijilo 101^:3 ai %Xlt£itsJlq„ ptit , bm ,bs
©giiellarfp aid* iJ'ircT ,9a.i/as 10^ Jisaj^oxe mscf avijd i>Jusro4e BfiC9v^|;S
-lioo-xS '^cf lieliJ scf oJ pelLeq&oo ^^leeoTCLml ^aew eri asulld -eBprfi^ %Q
9eerfd'^s££caeei I sieves 0*14 si ©iff .loiiJt sXiteoiI 4s b,sw oxiw tX^W
Bdt t&dt si sxsp t^tlt eiPS, ^hesiiBt^SQ piS itoiias© aipxi© J&e-ssXXj|s
-moo B aaw srl j-sfit Jb&wofis ^©X.ojeIvj^s 3js n©:is# „ snev^jJ'cJ ^0 ai©w8sa
lOjjpiX e 'loMafsgo i"Oii bj.& ©xf :^J5ri;}• J&xiee, Ijlsieffi .sH . .10x0^ ^aetoq
hi£^B oeLa 9d JireT -,eo£tstioq£si: Isxjp© 50 ©cf pt eB«o le^iojn & Xixxs eaao
J^iiB ixsi s lei.T© iXt ^li^nialet ©dJ &y±8 Miro'5 iia& blBOo ^d ^&di
.0©xi©i)iT:© ed* f»ii© wsX edf xd ^0i5i©voQ ed i>X«QW. j&cs.. .^Xeii;^ I^i4"i3q.ffl-e
^iXjrx-XBv-o jEsf itiii^t) ©rit Tg'iiJasr^ o* teeio.|3:l,i38: ©isew ast^wfisf ■ i©a®4f
eaeTstS ceiiw ^sii^ ^;.;ao8^8i ^zes ©riT ,.e§j3so. -aoS ©spellBrio ©£j|-
©ni^ flo f>©sGsXI«rfo esw: i©;titBX :0;^t- ,J&«IlBO.:^wipoig tejs j&es-uox© r^w
o? 8s ^XXsTi.e^S' i^eeirox© fzeed" eyari I>X^o4e. ^f!;«v6jS t^rit fiiinois
^K^ loi ', acoe^eei led*© 'St© ©o/jaad'ja sd# xii ^j&jEgtro^:gi on a^w aixovatfi
; ;^0ja a©:pl>':^3V'.'iooiS;lip jsoit.sii,!:^?:? e^f •\,»T{jaw^ooi:C:.|CO:-#®H©XXa4©
quc-lified for servic in the c t;e.
In rebutt j- , the man who ke )t .u store next door acuth
of the oremises of )1. intiff in error was called taid iestiiied
tobertain remarks of the )laiijtiff in error in the store at
the time of his arrest. The plaintiff in error insists that
this evidence was improperly adinitted because the naiue of this
witness had not been furnished to the plaintiff in error orior
to the trial, oeetion 1, subdiTrisicn 13, chaoter 38, of the
statutes provided thut in all felony cases the defendant shall
be furnished with a list of the witnesses, and in all other
cases he shall, at his request, be furnished with a list of the
witnesses. The charge against the olaintiff in error was not
a felony, but was a misdemeanor. He had, hov/ever, requested a
list of the witnesses and it had been furnished. The furnish-
ing of a list of witnesses, even in felony cases, does not
preclude the calling of witnesses whose names hci.Ye not been
furnished to the defendant. It had been held in a long line
of cases that the right to call v/itnesses whose names are not
on the list furnished is a matter of discretion v/ith the
trial court, even in felony cases, i^eoole vs. 6teinhsuser,
248 111. 46, and the same rule is applicable to misdeafflanors.
It
t^-
■ " ■■ " ' '^■d:..o &ni .<\i -■orr-jpi:: lox jbsiiiiBirp
iituQB tot)i> f^k' ©-roJa s tq^H. ddw a&Si' ©xl'iJ'^ , £ : j;J-ir^©%' ' xtf '
b&ri t taet \5na.* Jbe'IlBo- 3sw toiie rfi llxd-rii^Iq l:b 6)Saliiis'^cr ' 'ed* lo
iad^ a^eleai rtortis ai t^rid-jaxslq »iIT ^.taeniif Bid 16 sralt «ijSj
sxxit lo scaaa erit esi/soed .5«*txffifij&^£'ieqoT:qral' sJjW' ©OiisJblve e^^i^
toxlff idi"Xd flii 1:1i*nisi«5^ ©rfd" ot fia^ain^jjl aeerfloxi tsif'ssB^^
ejcfd- io ,6s ied-qsrio ,SI istolaiirxMifa «I fcoid-oeB .iBltd- eH* o*
lisdi txxjs^neleii edt as8«o "isnolet lis xit iMi Bsbtroiq BeJijd-sJa
"rsrft© lis al Mb tSsaasiiJir erit !t^ Jail s ^i-Jtw isilaJtinfxri s^ef
5rfy to 3811 ji dtlw "i>3ilain"ixj-1 erf ^d-aairpbi BiA tB\Llj&sie && ee^ab
*oii 8SW 10 tig n.t !t5:itiixelq ©dt tsKisss Q-g^sdb Qd!S '»a'e8i8»S"Jl%
tos asoi> ,a98B0 ^xxol©! al ^ts \,8S3&eii*fw 16 i-i^H A '^ib |jcx
assd ti-on ©rsif eetoBa 980jc£w B9i3S9a:fiw lo ■^htildo hdi eixrIo%%4
tOH,6-rB setssK ©eoxfw asseoHo^i'^ L£;b6 o& td^ii Qd& tsdi Bebs^-^t
-..?■■ gi-d;!- 5f,tiw Goid'sioeil) lo isttaffla js el bsdeinrxfi:'' tBxL &il&' tih
,"x©B0sdjK.t©.tS .ST ©Iq 0-6^ vasffso ijaoXel fil jRqv© jtiiroo I^ltJ
. 2Ton6ffiS9^8 iffi oi- ©IfisoilcfOB el 9 101 err ■ -^ ■ -" -*• J&iua '^'^ % ill 8i>S
has also been held tliat this section of the statute aoes net apply-
to witiiesses called in rebuttal. The oourt did not coumit error
in permitting the witneas to testify in rebuttal*
Complaint is ^ade of the twelfth, fifteenth and tv/enty-first
instractions given on behiilf of defendant in error, and of the
refusal of the ccui-t to give seven instructicns offered by the
plaintiff in orior. The twelfth instruction Vi/as vdth reference to
the 7/eight to be given to the evidence of the defendant, and
announced the c-.rrect rul3 of law, and waa substantially the sarr;e
as the thirteenth instruction offered by the plaintiff in error
and refused. The fifteenth instruction merely recited the various
sections of the Prohibition ^ct under which the prosecution was
"based, and our attention is not called to any restject in ^^hich the
provisions of the lav/ ivere not properly araiiounced in the instruct-
ion. The twenty-first instruction defined the term reasonable
doubt as approved on jmanj' occasions, aiid for that reason it was
not necessary to give the first instiniction refused, v/hich was on
the t;aiDe subj'ect. The other five instructions refused on behalf of
the plaintiff in error were covered by other instructions given.
From our examination of the instruotionB we are of the opinion they
fully covered all propositions of law necessary for the informa-
tion of the Jui-y in deteimining the gTiilt or innocence of the
plaintiff in error.
The seventh count of the information charged the plaintiff
in error with an unlawfiil attempt to manufacture into2:ioating
liquor, and the court sentenced the plaintiff in error to paty a
fine of two hundred dollars and to be imprisoned in the county
jail for sixty days. The Prohibition Act provides no punishment
for an attempt to inanufaoture intoxicating liquor, so the punish-
ment v;as controlled by tho provisions of section 610, chapter 38,
Cahill's stat'ate, page 1275, which provides that where an attempt
is made to couinlt an offense prohibited by law and no punishment
is otherwise provided, the offender, upon conviction, where the
offense is not a felony, shall be by fine not exceeding three
c
\l(l(l*i ioa iiooxi 'c-jiTj&ia exi;?- 'to aot-iosu sldt vjsrit iiXari jseecf oal^ e&d
9nisa exitf :^Il£l*iije;f8(fXia ksw M3 ,wjsX lo 8Xx;:c Jostioq erf* Jeeocj^oisaB
Bsvf noi^-ooesoiq erii^ dolffw i:a6xux iok a.GmtSldio's.% stdi^.ie saoitopa
erfi' doxjsfw Hi: ^oeqeeT: \m ot i>©XlBO tea ai aoxiaetis tjjo Jtoe , ,Jb68§fir
-d-om^sui sri^ ££l jjeorixrofiajs -^Iieqcxii toa siev/ wal sxi# 'io exioxajhro'jig
eX d^^ixpa^oi oriedr 94* jb 9«i"3t© |i 110 |4:iJi{i!l:Sfl'l ..*^'^i!tr/^#n<^T!if|; &d| : ,, ♦fiO.|
.'lo ai4Vv iioiiiw ,Xieaa^&"i xioxtsexJeni ^aixl ©rit stxb o* .■^"s«b80o®£c ton
■;:o iXfiiiad no ^eeir^stc saoltQint&nX evil aodd'o 8x12 ,iJ'oe(;'tfjye eism^^fd^^
.rt^Yig eaoxyoira^BiiJ: 'ledjo ;j{rf Jaa'isvoo saew iQ-stj© ui; Hi*«xj»X<i ©rit
^^££14^ nolniGO esit lo &%& ew eeox*«>in:;^e.ax exl;? 'io ftoiif^xixiaBaj© xtfO^^oil
"jsm^olni Silt 10^ -^'£sas>eo6sjS wal to a^pX^'laoqo'xg XXb J»«i:©voo ^jlljrt
Qdi ^s ©ofxepomu .10 d"Iii3^ eil^ gixixiiarxsi*©!) at -^sil Q^it lo jaoit
tlxrxii^Xc Qii# fiesTisxlo no It eastotsJ: Qdf Ic Jixtroe ii^nsvse sdT
^-t^fsolxod'ni «iir3'o,s5.5ja:e£a od" c^g£asi' ij-ja Sjf±v!s£ms xia xJitiw 10110 ni
3 ^Jaq od" 10TC1& xix ilSitoisIq ©nj ijeoissJciea Jii/oo srij- !bn.B ^lou^ll
Y.ta!ffOO edt lit JBeaosiiqiai ecT o« ibiiB- eiaXXoi; ^sifexiinl owd' lo snl!t
trteajfexiHTQ o.a Gefixvo^q tok aolii6xdo'x''i erfT .a-^jjab Ai*xie -jot X Ib^
-xfeXrixrq exit ca .lOja-piX gxixd'soxxotfii eisstozlimsia o^ dximei'^fi lib 10^
,86 led'q.iixio jOId xioi^oea lo sxioxsxvoaq exi;?' ajo ieXXoiitxioo SBiV i'neai
*nin©#o'"s ns eteidvi isdi soJbiTonq lioxxivt- ,fiVSX sg^sq ,eissi&te a'XXitiaO
i)"n©irjlsx-"CJkfo; on Xixsb wsX ^idr £.3^xdxxfoiq saxisllo xis J-xiaDioo oi ehsssi si
erit siorfw .noXd-oivaoo jcioaxf .isMello ed* , fc&ii xvoia aalwisxiJo s±
hundred dollars, or imprisonment in the coxmty jail not e>ceed-
ing six months. This statute does not provide for both fine and
imprisonment. 'Ihe xiinth comit charged plaintiff in error with
Tinlawfully operating a still, and on this count he was fined three
hundred dollars and sentenced to the county ^ail for sixty days.
Section E7 of the Prohicition Act, for the operation of a still,
provides a iienalty of not luoxe than tv/o hundred dollars, or im-
prisonment n 
Open Library
