Skip to main content

Full text of "Illinois Appellate Court Unpublished Opinions: first series"

See other formats

'■).<>'! n 



s?>0 i 

IS"- ^' 

y --^ 

tlVED ...... 

JAN 16 I960 



General No. 7325 


Agenda No. 40 

\ April Term 192V 
M"ilo Wheeler, ApjJellee 

Cyrus iO. Lovele^, Appellant 
Appeal from Cqunty _^urt Macoupin County. 


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 





Digitized by tine Internet Arciiive 

in 2010 witii funding from 

CARLI: Consortium of Academic and Researcii Libraries in Illinois 

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- 

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 



General No. 7329 Ag^da No. 43 

\ April Term 1921 
William Hartlipp, Appepi^e 


George Wiemer, Appellant 

Appeal frora^Logan. 



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 

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- 





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:^ 





General No. 7.^42 

Agenda No. 55 

April Term 1951 
Adolph Oberle, Appellee 

Louis Lessman, Appellant 

Appeal from Montgomery. 


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 



^ ^j 6 I • A« 

9 s 

■^-.o'bi ^' 


' l':':yi 

appellee was that it was a partnership matter involving 
only one car of corn; that is, the Raymond car, and that 

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 




1 / 

/ /] 

/ f 


( ' 





General No, 7345 /" Agenda No. 10 '^hSi 

Floyd J. Hutson, and Williaoff H. Nicholson, 
\ Defendants iiT^Error 
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 

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 Li A fyi 

General No. 7347 Agenda No. 58 

April Term 1921 

Hoveland, Sardeson, McColm Company, Appellant 


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 

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^ 


; 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 

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- 

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 

The giving of these instructions was reversible er- 
ror. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded. 

sJj rjiiij v-si 




4L ..i 


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 

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 


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 

The decree of the circuit court is therefore affirm- 

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 

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 


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 ' 


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 / 


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 


(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- 

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- 

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 



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% 


-* % 

( 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 



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 ~\ 


/ o 

'" <^ "Tf 

^ y Kj k.$> 

Agenda No. 31 

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 

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 


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 



2261 k. <i^ 

General No. 7390 Agenda No. 37 

October Term 1921 

Swift & Company, a corporation, Plaintiff in Error 


Normal State Bank, Defendant in Error 

Error to McLean County Circuit Court 


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- 

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 

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 



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 


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 


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''' 


:■'■■ .,;';! ^-: r 


:<( .-:,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 

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. 



^ . 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 


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- 

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 

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- 


Page 5 

• Ji'Vv's:? ruj.i. 

+ * 




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. 


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 

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. 

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. 


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 


Agenda No. 44 


J. H. Augtin, Appfellant 
Appeal \ f rony^ord. 


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 




SY: -i-ri'>:;A 

[■37^ iff,.'; if:' T."1 a':i;.;firf(a3i) 'Usvo'.ifyi. 

;.i J'toOiiSt: ff/: ' - 
■9- uH* ii;dj ,v- 



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. 


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 





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 

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- 

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. 


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. 


^ 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 

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 


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 

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. 



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> 


'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'!! 






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 



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 
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. 

Page 3 





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. 


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 


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. 

For the errors indicated the judgment is reversed 
and the cause remanded. 

Reversed and remanded. 

Page 2 


r;;; -d; 

,T) %^ 




^ 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. 

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. 

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 

note in question was for $26,500.00; by its terms no in- 
terest was due thereon or payable until after the note 


■ "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 


■(■■> !'--:.:^ 

3di 'fjv: 










> ^^^- i£GI.A«629 

General No. 7374 Agenda No. 23 

October Term 1921 ,' 

Fred Baber, Trustee, Appellee 


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- 

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- 

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- 

Page 5 

vIt :v.-i- 

T .r:^-;?'^V--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. : 


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:!; .-;(' 


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 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 


t 1 / / 7 ' \ 

i ' n n 


^ f^ 'O 

General No. 7395 /Agenda No. 4i 

October Term 1921 

Henry Horner & Co., Appellee 


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 

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 


," 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 -iahm: 

.y;in!j::T'vi osfi' 

X A 


J \j J. o rl s '^ *-^ ^ 

General No. 741^ /genda No. 6S 

V)ctober Term 1921 " .^ 

First National B\ink of Morrisonvirie, 111., Appellee 



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 


.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- 

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 

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^^^A^^ 

Qtn, Uq. 7313. 



' / 7 ^-^ V 







— *^-__ ^-^^ 



^.....---it^Jjda Ko. :^8. 

Al>riZ J^ra, 19;U. 

Boland E. Stafford an-:! > / """^^-u ' ^^ 

Sarfi C, BroahjL partner*, «to., ^ / --^ -' "^^ 

\ App«ll«9S» 


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 


■^■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 

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. 





A I ' f ' 

No. 7332. 

October npirin, 1931. 

J. G. Chambers, \ 

PlaintifA in Error, 


nda No. 13. 

A. T. Thompson, etkl.,Com- ) 
Missioners, etca. 

Errcr^^o Circuit Court 

Louglas County. 

Defendant in\ Error, J 


Graves, ?. J. 


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- 


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;.:;. :; 


^:;.'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 

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'-. 




■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- 


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^. 


:^::i: ::OCi Ln^ ,^;.&S^q: 

;i "\ .. :.:!iii^:Lo '^o "~c:ctET, 

■ycv :tt.ds -.:.■- fi:l- 

,iS-o = ;iCi:i 


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 

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 


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':."":^' ;: 


.^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-;; 



- 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 :* 


/ ,■-■■' 

.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 

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 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 


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 


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 





-,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, 


'\J «•* 


S59 - ^6433. 


OlOROi: K. S?OOR» I 

i; /^ 

**R. Justice TAYLOR d«iiv«reji t&e opi^loo of th« 


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^,-^^.' 

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, 



r^r^st .t<<2s^. cfu^'xaon -"m 


n • 

CAUL S. JPO.t%«cM, 



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»':> ^? 


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;^; 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 


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 


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 '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 *%, *^'^ 


.,?* i-Kft*.- 

:>m> 's'fts 


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 




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& ^ 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 


1« S*«ift.- wet *^' 


'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&lt, 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!( '^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 


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 



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 


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 


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 

ml i(«kii^»>«o«i>tanc«»* ami tiiJit Aofendant ha<3 puld th« i>aia« at isi«turliy' 

Tk^ <?»f«elsmt 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 

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 ?» t^at Ir* tlmi it a(|sp® 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» 


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, 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 


*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. 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 


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 '.!.•<, \ 


49 • 2S@ap 


3om J, JmA"^Y» 0ns of th« iiurvi) 





CATHiBfcoB, ^Amf. CAtmmmiTi ) 

Fifeintlfl* in :. rarer. ) 


Sy this ^f.rl.t ®t ©rrar to tJi.« <««.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* 


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 %*©^ 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(» %;■■ 


.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 


i-'i^i^j:.:^ ^.•.,^i,i,'^ 

f^:%j J--;.:,, 


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. 



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. 


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 

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*E»«>»y with tho 

3««6iiir«Xy» P» J.jtMEKi SUt^liOtfc, J., a«f«mttjr. 

mi ^< iiK6Hi4 

ciacASc ammu cosa^w, ) 



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. 

®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 |) 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 



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< ^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. 



^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^[»» 

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 


]^»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-' 


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'» 


"^^'■"^'ZUxX \ / ^'^f^i.A 


GdaAR £• BHO&SS, 

I 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 


At «;.'l 





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 


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#€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 


'^ 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 


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« 


: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 


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«®« »«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. ^^,»<?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. 



>7 - 3«47i^ 








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;«, 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»^eiRg; that 

tJt« pimm,ln9»t 'fcwt :had otoami^neA tJi© attes^t t© ^ak@ a feurglrtri- 
m4» entry a.« &«eouat ®f ife« p&lt©® 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&, 

*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^ 




\J jL 9 rs. © 



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?--*-^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 ^«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 

*«*•■> » » 

^^- ^*^' 


mii»^ . .::'m^m& 


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 





/ -■ 



Appellant. / ) 


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. 


ef«ndanti, Ijr' a^J*ror. ) 


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 


O k3> 

:T'%:Ay'- "mi 

l\f.i !;^M :MO^ •»!»-' 


»» r^ 


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: 


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 




is-lif «liil«;. 

'.SA'-o- .,i „/.1-.»?. ■■ *<: 

firjB.r^f ■<** r:-^^--.-t:!"-. 



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 


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 

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.' 


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« 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 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» 

•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* 


«*.«*# r 



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*** *-■ 


* \ 

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 


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<» ■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^«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. 


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 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 


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:** 


%'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&lttd«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 


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« < 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«« 
®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 


h^t^ndnnt ig^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 


f% «" 

T fS. 

did -*5.'^' 

sn-miMi 4^i»#*«»'. rmm^' 


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 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 *©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-\ 




%iyi-.««i;i»^«(f||ll »l«l 


• iVi'i.V. 


• 4- 

th« merits, io th® wJkiIb or « portion of ti» plaintitC^s d^msvnfl, 


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 
«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 




304 » ^7163. 

TMMiS B0lt2», 

\ > 2^6l,Ae636 

\ ) /' or micmQ, 



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 


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 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 


<««& •^^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»« . 


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* ■"* ■' ' 


-ffl^Hiii' t# 


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 



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«« 


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<» 



<!«««# 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 



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»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. 


T A 


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* 


<S> ^Oi .''^e 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 

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« 


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 
» 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 

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 

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 ■: 


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 

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' '««-. 



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>)|;& 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\ 


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 ?!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^ >^ 


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, 


^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 «,^ 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» 


?)(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' 



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 

m»ffm- !#.' ^ '^# 

.,.:■ ::,-..,-^ j,:^;,^^ ^-..jjf.jjfa i(s4i?s;.« 0^, ^Ss^: fet«falJE## 'I 

t^ 83N»w l^y o«i9|>«i«iiit «>vi4e«<t« 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 


ft&r«d«h tt $utt s* »»oi3 5*» w* p-osKibly o«m,* •*»# will m^e>* 

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^ 


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»@»! <»»»♦* 

^« tfejj*; tJi« eirc'imBtR.fte«« fe«"?»#^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 <« «««• 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 .. ^^ 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' 


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 


»»•' iill*aS*-W* V Vji*i'i^' 


«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* 




y - 

;,w O 


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 «]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 ■ 


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; 


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 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'- - 


* .1"* •■■ .[. ?• > 

M mM $€ 


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 

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 


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. 


»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 *.-«./..*>-.: 


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' 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© 



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« 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« 


*«isj^w ,^^^ iimm «4w #it>Tr r-^- 

it© ■ 

302 - 27260 


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« 


8 fed ...A.TBSS 


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»»« 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- <•■■'' 


S84 - 27512 

KSSET KBMJSK, ": ) / 2 2 6 T A f^ ^ 


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 

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 


i| ■■fti 


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> 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««y 

■ST'.'' .*■ jy^lf s» XS.^T mfftTT'-'^.'^'!^ *.K■•':^Ovfe .1f^ frff:5#?'^''^ **.'^ fJ 

|:^# -WfffiSt' 


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- 


,...<. !...y«r f#r- -"^-■- ^' 

J^i,'. ■. .1 tl VJ t' . 

-<>A.^-^ >ii 


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, !»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£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 



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 « 


,'.,..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««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«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 


fu:s?u ,f''-i 


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.. 


^^'l^'f *'^H"> 

-■,^>*'> .*»««". 

' ( 1 '■' ■:■ .ft. .:.•.<;»■•'•». 

vhlch m>t infrequently yeauJtf in, i4« 8«>y& that thftr* is » 

tli« r««i8tane* €f^ individual ''*y ll"*^t3ti£ in pcox aurjpoyne^ !«««,, 

IstronoMtla Is « (^^rs^. ;>!««■»««!; ??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» 
©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« 


plaintiff ®iat lay 3, 1913, &n<& fottsd^ tu'beahBulofti* »0!l«rat«l3r tad* 



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 



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»««« 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« 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; 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«>©« 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. 


,'io 1 90 


In Ik 4UMsuMt roduce^ 1?y ths tul>«ral« baelXlus; Uiat sunlight 
will kill this ba«illtui; timt. tlie 'b.'* 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 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 





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. 


|;«^f' '^-r#%i^^l%iil'il»ii^ tei: ##«fl^ isiCf .MM i^it^#lm'''- , 


■ ■« Mj^iit 

.:■ !,<i rf :'•";. i-f: ' ji'>J 

'* '\''S <\.v.^.i ■«««: 




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 


*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»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'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.'--' 




"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 
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 



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 


1/ 226 I. A. 63 8 

01? CHU^AOO, 




\ // 
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«» 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- 


»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& £ 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 ▼• 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, 



37© - 2733T \ 


\ /' y' r /^' fl ^^ 'A 

CH^uii^S A, CAiOiS^, ./■) '^ '^- ^ JL<,rA« O O ^' 

) MifXAL 7R0M 


imX% HDCgg 




!«• 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 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 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 

^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 


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, \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 

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* 




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* 


408 - 27966 


\ / \ 

/ ) 0? CHIG/80. 

A eerpori.t4on« 





?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 



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 

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. ▼• 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* 


\ / 

▼«. \ ) / 

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' 


«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 

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:- 


iii ,?fS*fi«Lfe}.I 

463 - 27420 \ / 

■| / ) CJEHtiUlT OOnuT OF 

/ ) 



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 


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<$g« l»3tto<l w'^'XTf^at*; th^t tho 
defend?§«to ia thst ca*» tb«a w^m before Ju<lge Bjsrsao, rhe entered 
an ordfr luftshlag tho i?nrr».ato^ th&t th«r«wpojj, upoa e«^int 
mmd*t -^'-.-rr-wntn ■v<et9 ioauc^d hy ^dgo IRrnvrnttk for tho i^lAlatlff oadi 
othoro on thts ^ru-ge of cjnsjfir:*^ to oxtitrt moaey frow Ihom.-** .^» 
flftrnoy; tksit ulthoagh the plolatirf w. « »t hio offleo « «isy 
theremftoTa tho aef ^adantc J««ui« H, Barko. who it a f-aliee 9ffi4>62f 
•f Qhiof^m* e^^-o to the hmi^^e of plolntiff in >!^eBf'tOB» ac^oafmalod 
%y aa .^^^natoa oollce««in* "t »h(»»t ton o*olook ?^t ai^Jbt* »r4 oerved 
tho i»arr«at oa plRtatlffj thet plointlff ^jspl^s^tno:! to thlo polieo 
officwt that hie wife ^'*» ill and »^«€, &n6 thtt »h» *v-s shocked 
hy thi» oe^rroaeo; thet tho ^vsaetea jpolloo offlcor* rf^fueod ta 
hove ^aythiAi:: to do with tho «rreot» hat tlivt dsfsadrfct l»«rke b,v^ 
superior feroe oati ;^«or e«NBi»elledi tho i»laiatiff ta ooko aloag ^i^ 
hjja* oad to<$h him to the eoatrol eti»tlaB ta Cbioafa» vhoro ho woa 

s«c.^- ■ «•«*» let* «•: 

. t^tt 'fttiRJ 




^i^ji c'*: ^-tfa- ^ ^ ^52^ «a;''' 

v^ ■ do 

-'-- .,?^^^v 


;i»-«SK»'^ 't#*ef 


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^^'• 




\ / 

\ / \ 

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 $200 »mh, dated C'tttuber 3<>, 1916, at I'hllMelphlA, and«s to th# ordfir of U^s d«ee^sfld \x0&n %hst Aatnv iiajri«id in thtt 
r«8p«s«tiv» !R0t©», with intt'^rftiit at ^er a»m'» t*®r nmmm* Th« 
d«clar»ti»» f ll«d ir*8 th« ©«33,8©Ii<latt«d eoisjjiftn counts, ^he d«» 
fendants fil.«d m» ssftldavit ©f jaarit»t «fcl®^i waa jstrieisftij fy«« 
til® flX««» tfh0s^up#a wa asaenrJed affldArit w»® fll»d wMci^i s»t up 
that tlJ« «0t«8 hs4 b»eii fttlly taid to A. M, Scott; that 3oott 
sii4 IM^w«r «at83Nid l39to ft TerUial agjr^«f3i®»t that if »ald E. w, !>«• 
Bowftf imtild d«liv«jr tc S«&tt S$,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» ■ 



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|»«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, 


^ 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, 
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 

•* ■*»*»»•«*■ 



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« 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 





27842 \ 



FiWm CI'HfailT COURT, 

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«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 

On Jaiaary 31, 1932, th«f defendants filed their motion 
to diooolT* 1^ injuaotioa on the gro«ad of the ianaf rioieney of 



SfiOs- t 


HlfJ* •»«! MJh * *M J»tr* -V ^ J»lf« <««• f lA .« AT. - 


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«»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 


-y |f#4iWlr>t»» ■ h»>%«j 


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 

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. 


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- 

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^ '^'''■ 



« 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 


Sor esa «« ftgree with ap?)eliee*B contention that 
theso alloeranoes are inadeqEuat*. Should the allevaaeos made 


■' viimii,»Mm 

if.;- 's"* :v.p»;i '. r. 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^ 


r,; t-^ If: 

hitu xmam Ha--- - 

*iji---.i. .\f ■ »"u..-. ■■■i't:i:: ^'^m 

imtmi^^iM -m^ mn0i. 

. 1saC'r.-"«;si" 


-! 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'! 


k. ■*?■'; 


I'l iMRj 


L is-.^r 

3X9 - 27277 \ 


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 


.« %^ 4m 

M' ■ (.' V 14*9^ ''^%'ii'i ii'viit4,iii <w «».*.« 


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. 


\ / 
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. 



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 


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« 






MR. J0jTIC1« flAraiiJ;i 0!?.I,IV«3Jli) tK8 OFIMIOM OJ? THK COmtT, 


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 


fKAHK J. UCUUL21, \ 

'^/^G jL»Ac o 4 1 


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« 


,-xmu UiM'i'sttm fir-' 

428 - 27386 '^ 

226I.A, 64l 


/ i Oy CHICAGO. 



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 



442 - 37400 



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. 




Si, B, MYICK 4k coiCPAJnr, ^nc,./ } 

^p«Mtint. ) 


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> 



k.^- .. i- 

1 a JL U C^ ^' 


,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 



457 - 27415 \ # 

KiajAKIH ?. A»3U3, \ / S 2 fi ^^ oA^o '^ "^ ^ 

ir». \ / ) MirsiciPAL ecu Jit 

\ / ) OJ? chicaoo, 

LOUIS Tl. SfA'irji, \ i ) 


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 ^ { 


• 2- 

There vae proof 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^\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 

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^ » 



A-Att/^'sail ^s^^r 

^^ »i«*#)»f,^ 

£^ «fl« ^»«i»ti« ^ 


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&, !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%^ 


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 / 


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 

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>': 


■>«irf-- ii'w^li^^^- 


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, 
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&lty 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* 

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|> 



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. 


^^09 it: 

« *.' r* 'f s -.ft m : 




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««, 

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| 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 



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.»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> 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>^«» 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 


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« 
«» 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 «^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^'?! 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 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»««?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«' 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'®{«« 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 






App«iiAnt« / } 


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 


N •*>. 


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 


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;. 
*•■■! ■ 


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«>,-? 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. *=■■ 


Ktm!m^,^min^ .*«ai.|««?«f« «it iii' ta'i!«sflw»^# mdt '^ «,' 


uK^ &m^l 


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 ■■■ 


• 9- 

dlwHn-tion 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 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 



■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'^ 



^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. 


2€1 - 272X9 

ADJ«3 AJSD £iSlMa Ocj«?AtfY. /2 2 fi ■ A 6 4 3 

A9P«ll«q« / } APIfiSAX m<M 

\ / 
» eorpor^ tion* / 



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■-- 



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 



- 27380 / 

V / 



\ Wi^ML ri\cm 

\ /■ 
\ / 1 

1 Of CKICaGO, 



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^ 


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* 


463 - 27421 \ / 




C, BASHOR^ COCK, \ / ) 


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 

•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 


i-.* «--»,» <,- « ♦'4'S » 


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. 


Gridloy, F. J,, and Samoa, J** oonoaro 

■*awsm'm9 B^ifti 

»l&. jii;. 

■■^ :i::- 



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 }. /-, ■ \ 


) k J ) ^ 


LEE wnnmk. /\ 2231 

\ / 

WZLLUM BARF.If^o'i? fillACi:,fT» 

JL c ■ 



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 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^^- 


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« 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.« 



or cMCAao, 


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> 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# 


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? 



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^ - 


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^ 



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»»»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 


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»*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«'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 


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;!» 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'>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<^ 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« 



■£»>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;!*ii 'fe® fc^ve b-*-JMS, su^taiftrHii tey ij^r ti^y rj»>vRon 

*<> a«<l ©ipp^»1t#a &y d«l«|®, 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^ 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^&ltte. Het ay«aigfeii 
a%4 hsariaf ««sre feetli foc^. Sks «a» aoing «i«ffi«aX c*oiP3i' 5*t th« 


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., 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 


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<^ 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« ©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!?«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. , ^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 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 ^©■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 ttat Sh» plal«tiff 

■^ »^«ft»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) 


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?^<(£«», 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. 


ids "8®*' 

75 - 2754« 

On Appeal of CliA;.ru'.s3 BO:i#OK, ._^i 
the Qitj of ahie^iigo, | / 



' •'(., ,/ 

,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 

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 

"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> 

^•» \ / ) 

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 » » 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 





Of C1UCA00, 



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 

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 


'? h "> ^ "^ Pi^ 9 

%$ A' ■ ; --' \J \^ fe." 

■sf^R® '-Jlf""^' ■|*5'?*tf'' 

.t;jU:^;-^SJ!J iif^ j»» 


tb-^o '%* rs! 


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 


•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* 

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 






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 


^^amkmll^^n. i-R»«t»»«3^ 


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 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 


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, 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 


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* 


Morrill and Gridley, J J . , concur. 

, -»v «♦«> > * - 


199 • 2718« \ 




\ 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 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 


:Yi^'i ■.V'*' 


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 • 


Levies »omjUi}mu And 


t) r 


CIHCUIT coua?, 


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*^ 



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 


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 


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 




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' 


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\^ ' 

■^^mi'^oX.u. i i*s^ 


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' 



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^ %« 


352 - 272X0 


ALBXKT K, Si«OHl.SDin|, 


\^ / ) 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 


^^B' ,A.I d 

,mA^tm> •?■■' 


1« firm? fei*i« ««a 'm^ia^AM *&«fe a^i^ «a'«^- 


$1025. 3S, and eat«riag Judgnent that seld Jud«Bent by oanf«s«iien 
stitnd eoaflTBied as of Uie date of Ita rendition. Befendsat 

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* 


7 ^^f'H'i; « «.?•!* 

a73 • 37331 



*»P.ii... t$'6IA. 646 


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 


»:;» 3-.- ,4^' J?.': 


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. 


§M l»mS^»^:: 

»0 im- 

;'s«^' flfJ^;!^- 


■^m^mmsi ^M m 

^ ''*: .iA ^ J-' i*ii..U.Jb i 


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. 


r-'^l-Hf.lAZn ^0 ^u'i^fftM 

't.»#fe«H»ltij»t' la 

; «?*■©■ «»* 


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 


*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 


800 • 27250 

a corporation, 




MAI«ir-.C?tJHllia CO., I 

a eori^r»ti«n« ^i 

Appoliaati. /' 



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, 




^©•^.OMtsQ *aa-i.'; -3BiJi*;iusu;i.sfe* ajw^iius-t 4,4'{™M.3£.'ii 


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- %"; 


-jsTira' si 


d^ ■' 


•:■» !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* 



h'^S'?* "■ 



5«7 • 373S8 

THs WBLibHmy »mQSt & ^ (\ 1 A ^^ 



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 



■W ''l^^ ^'iTt 

■''l^ \i»'^ 

lei i&t^; 



t«s»i*f»^.s*«( A tp nails 1 

1. >...,.,■,-. I . ^. * 






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 

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>^ 



"I f 


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"^ 


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»»~^.^ 


•5«. ■ , 


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 


tho ju^iftont ojt^ tl*« Giroait Court is Affintod. 
Bamos, ?. J., imd Sridley, j., eonottr* 


^^.....,^.. « .*«-^»-T^ #-««^M -uaimit \$ iw«it«*i^s^?'' •s,*)!!^.*^ ii««« 


445 - 87403 \ 


BLACKJJTOMS SHOP, & Corporation, y^ ^ O ± „/i,„ ^ 4- ^ 


\ I) OF C(X>K COUNT); . 

££*3, INC., A Corporation, 


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« 


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 



.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- 

the 4[*cr«s of th® Cliwiyslt ooiirt ie full^ 3ti.etainod 
by the law aad the eriflenee aud 1© therefore affirmed.^ ?♦ J,, ajBd 8jrlsiiey, J., cottcwr. 

^9^h V^ M->. 

, **? ift^di 4 ti'^himit Wi- 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? ::^'»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 


v# &«« 


%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, 


Baiw«B, I», 3,t and ©rldley, J,, ee&eur. 

87t6? » ^ 

2^1 A. 6 

\ / ) aPPSAL JPHtB 

/ > 

▼!• / j iiUPKHlOB CCOHT, 



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 

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 



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 

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 



.■»-'•<; ss 


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> ^ ., ;;:'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^ 


• 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 ; 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 #»?*'•■■■ ■?'■■— ••' 



.fSSi»i)EJIUiliii?«8#i^ ■ .mam a,- 




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 

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 


{>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^ a waiver of 


^n•f^ v*f>;'f t^m'nr ?n;s''?« '^■d-y amh, 

^' aa*s; 

'flj^vax^v «x' 


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 


8J»W a/ J, i;-i4# .A««4" 

' ' 9 


.■.^ifejt^a fe«^j 



.^ Ji\ iiTs 

i WUm iiUJPK <10R COOiT, 


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 


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>: 


9 iJ-^firii^tfi : 

• ,j6« Wi>vi^iij*' 

.Ki;4 ^«j:i 



#7000 / yvCy ^ ^i^ .^ \ 




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. 
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: 


;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, ) 


<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.. 


( 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 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®* 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 ths cashier of tho 
bank and alt^o one of the adminisstrfitora cf the estate, a/'.d 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 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;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' ,' 

*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 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; 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;, 
and at the time the land was cold to the -vasiaissens, iS'- and 
iirs. .uoitcn, i^ra* ; 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 »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 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 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 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 

Reversed reT^nded with direotiona. 

"^1 t 


/ w -L 

2 2^6-I-r4»~a.4 f 



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. 


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 

'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 

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 

"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 ^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 


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 


' ,# 

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' 


CURT S. AYERS, Sheriff. # 


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 

*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- 


^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 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 ■ 

•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« 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 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 


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\ 


c/erkvftAf Appellate Court. 

i^93e— 200— 7-22) 

7 o rf ^' - 

226 1, A. 648 



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. ^^ 


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 : 


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 


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 


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 


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 


^;£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 \,„ , 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. 

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 


■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 


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. 



■~<.,0 rn^L 



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. # 


CURT S. AYERS, Sheriff. / 

A:JG 5 1^2. 


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 ; 


Gon. !'©• 7036 59 

Ulysses owift. Appellee, 226 T ^ -^ ^^ - - 

▼»• xippoal from . iiiiwbagc 

B» C. -isatwood and > C 


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« 



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 


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' 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& 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 


.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 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. 


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©; 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 


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.. 





7 0-7. a 

) J 






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. 
CURT S. AYERS, Sheriff. 




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 : 


Go:i, no. 70C7. 

George E. x-&oe^\ 

Eloct & KvhIJ. Coiitptaai', 
... 2>pe 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 


.TOOT .qV> .uoO 

■ ,v u^ iooia ^^rfjelloq^*§.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 


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© 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 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 -m 
agreenient for a certain act.: per .yatr, nc teiKi ci' cervice teintf 
agreed upon, inerely goveme the 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! 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" 
• :nom± ,tjEsrft noass'x 0/{4' "xot Llift £ii eiisnas-i saodd" J0O tee oi 

.rorcTCs eld is 


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. 


fWSe— 200— 7-22) 





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. / 



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 : 


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 



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- 

The evidence shows that Josiah L. Robinson, in 1875, in the 


.noanxdoH .1 rtsiaoli 'to &tsi&e ©rit lo 


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 

.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 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 

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&lttti&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- 

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* ,'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 

%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 


•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 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&lt 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. 


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>&ltl. %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> 


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 

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 


•^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^ 

■ &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 


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: ■ 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, 


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 


, 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 ... 


f eta here presonted the court had complete juiisdiotiorj over rs. 
iiofcinsoM the 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 ■'-'.* -'•*•'•" , -< .^..«'-. .,-.*^ •-'•'■:* •-■' ^■- 


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. 


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 


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 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 


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 


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. 


■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^ 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 


•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; 


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;^ £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: 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 


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 
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 

Heversed and remanded with directions. 


.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 


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 



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. 
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 


^ '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. 

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 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 


^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 


'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 \£'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 


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'^ 


Clerlijrf the Appelkile Courb. 



;936— 200— 7-22) 


■^ffr'' I o^ 

>:j .? 



2 2 ^-ki-G t 


;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. 
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 : 


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&^ 


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 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 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. 


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 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?£#^ 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. 


■ " ■■ " ' '^■d:..o &ni .<\i -■orr-jpi:: lox jbsiiiiBirp 

iituQB tot)i> f^k' ©-roJa s tq^H. ddw a&Si' ©