Skip to main content

Full text of "Illinois Appellate Court Unpublished Opinions: first series"

See other formats





This Book 
Does Not 


Digitized by tine Internet Archive 

in 2010 with funding from 

CARL!: Consortium of Academic and Research Libraries in Illinois 

{■"'74.27^ '■) 

8T8 • 38110 

MZQtIASI. Fi M0BK1@8KT» i 

' /^ ^' -^ «^^* vi 


, - .1 

1 MUKl CX?AI. C3C'£!-f?T 

0. FMSE nriiCR, ' 

^ 01' OHICAOO, 

„^ Apitiijtt. 

' « 

Opinion filed Feb, 20, 1924. 

MR* rm^mm^> justice T^tim. delivered. 
i^« oplaloA of th« coi;irt« 

This l6 a first olass oa®« in tb«» l4imi«t9ilL 
Oouyt of CSbimi^^ tht amount ols^^isjftd by the pliaiiatlff» 
exolu«iv« of oost«, excscedln^ tl,0O0# All that we iK&re 
l>cfoT« MM is the common l«-ir record and tShe rules of tht 
Mu&ielp&l Court* Th« ooaaon !&« record shows an amsndtd 
«t»t(in«At of olain by the plaintiff, elsisiing dstm^gea la 
the SHB of §SSpO0, -and iatesrtst thereon fro» Septe^ibsr 11» 
1917. It J>l«o shows an affidarit of aerits, which sa<biite 
oortain adlsi^tions oontsined in the st^te^ent of el».ia« 
and deaies e@rtain others, and in the end deniss aaj i&» 
debtsdwess to the plaintiff, and &lltges ths-t the plsin- 
tiff la Indobtftd to tfes defc-ndajit. The record slao Bhows 
that on Wfeny 9# 1933, the parties to the catse bsing pre* 
s«Bt« and the oauss bttsing up In Its regular courss for 
trial, before the Court, without a jury, the trial thereof 
mis entered upon, and on May 11, ]^t23, the court found the 
issues against the plaintiff. It further shows that aotioiw 
for a new trial and in arrest of judgeasnt were «Rde in be« 
lialf of the plaintiff and orerrulsd, and that final jwlg* 

Mi 16 1£:9 




,-i^Sei ,@S .cTs'i belli- noxniqO 

:iR«oldD !:«. tftft^ 


axmt was then €nater«dl "that tbe plaintiff take nothing by 
fhl8 suit, and that the dsfendattt bare and reeover of s^nd 
fiwm th« pl&iatiff the ctosta by tfe« defftadaat herein •ie» 
P'ended, and that ««ecuti©a i»&u<st ther«f©3f»" fbie appeal 
if tx<m that Juil|^«nt« 

Th« cshi«f csomtmiti^a of th« plaintiff 1« ♦•that 

the affidavit of merit* »tat«8 tm defsaa© to appellant »0 
mvme of aetloa, sad V&e m«rtloa for i. new trial or in ay- 
reat of jud^aat should haT« be«!B »u®taiB«d, ^%4 a b«w trial 
gppaat«4 ©r th« judgaeut arT«st«=l«* It is urged in supisort 
of that ooatsBtiaa, that a® a jmclg3[.atat pr«dleat«d oa a atata* 
arant of olsiis uhlerh is so defaoti^ra that it doas aot atata 
a ^use of action, oannot stand, then the oonTerae ia trwat 
that a ;|\3Kl^0at for oo@ts for the dafendaat c»,nnot ba prttm 
dl<mtad ea an affidavit of merits tha.t states no dafensa, and 
that a motion la arrast of jtidgment ie ae valid whan baaed 
oa a defective plaa as ah«« baaad on a defective deolB.T»tioB« 

That arguaent is xiaaoimd* fhe plaintiff brought 
suit and was aakiag for reliaf« and the bmrd«a was upon his; 
to 9^k« out a eaaa. Having only i^& ^amoa lav reoord ba* 
fore aa« wa art cmtitlad to aaanaes that the trial jjndga aas 
9f the opiaion, after th^ €Tldeno« was put ia, that the plala* 
tiff had failed to tmke oisit his «maa. That being the law, 
it la ^omeoeeaary axid would be iiEqpropar to oonelder the onee* 
tion wheti»r» the affidavit of merita woisld have been goodi 
if challenged by a ar.otion to strike, Iteegaa. at al_ v. glnnfera* 
1S3 Jll. 23S. 

9e know of no ease in i^hich the partiovilar Matter 
liara iavolvad hae been considered* Hearing la miind, however. 





t^« e1bll«iitloai wtJloh tb« l&w lopoae* upon the plaintiff, both 
to «tAt« a »»• «tad eatabUah It by proof. It lo out opinion 
that where ft ooamon law record, sruoh as appears In thi» oa»«» 
contain* aowly the statomant of claim, af fldarlt of aeritai 

and the finding of the laauas, ant? ^uA^ent for the defen^tant, 
that ao arrox oan prop«rly h€? ».8s^l«a»d irhi€* is h&aad eolaly 
on th® olal« that tha affidavit of awrlta is dfif active, 
Tha judg;»®at will, th®r©ior«, be efftraed. 


©•oosiioa, ^., MiU wamoa, 3. CwMa^E* 





s corporation, ) f.f^fjx rmv 


a Corporation, 


C' T 

~ ' opinion filed Feb, 20, 1924o 

m. m&tnWQ *T3fcTI0E TaYIOR delivered th« Qpinim. 
of the court. 

on aarc^i 6, 1©30, tht U^trty o©r1 Cos^s^ny^ plelntiff , 
brought »itit in tfe© oircult Gourt again«t the Illinois 

Sttel aowj^sny for a oertatn balancft cl.^itt^d to be «u« for 
ooal «©ld to tli« defcnd«*nt. ffeerp ip?e» & trUl, wlthotit ?v 
iury, .«id ^udgsneat for th« a©f«iid,aut, Tfeie ap|>®al is 

on Oetobar lo, 1918, tb» plaintiff mA tilt 
defendant enterfid into b vritteia contract. The contract 
is iigntd ttnd^r tb<^ ord, *A©e«rt«d,« at follows, "lllinoig 

Steel oonpaay »y c. r. Collins, s, f, ,De»f£R« c»«.l 
Ooaspany, Jh*r.^hasing Agents By 1. r. Va««, pr®s,» The 
eontract provided it should e^spire on ^prll I, 1919. It 
cont^ina four other r.rovleloii«, which are s« followe; 
first, the plaintiff eelltr i^n^ agrreeft to ship «|>T;ro3ri«^tely 
18,0uD tons of oo&l (of a certain deeor irjtlon) fro» its 
miasms in Xtntucky, in vpisrojtliaatcly monthly 
inetaiBieiite, u|«,n inRtructioni furnished by the defefndant'? 
iwxrcbsainf ^fentej eeoond, the def<nd?int «.fre«^8 to pay. 


through Its T?urcha»lnf s|r«nt» n?>t Ister th»Ti th« 15th of 
the Bonth, for all eosl ««feipt5e«fl during th« preo««Jinfl: nronth; 
thir<3« all coal nhlpt>«»(3i tjndflir thle oontraot clia.ll bf at 
a Tiric« not in excoue of the »ine price allowed by 
th« govsrnment at the tliB« 8bip»«'ntB are aadej fifth, 
the !fcgree»ent la amde 6tJb;)ect to all ruling© of the 
QnltecS •itifttefi Fuel f\dnslniatr8,tlon, and it is to t3«> 
•«b»ltt«!3 to the ru«l AdBsinlstTiatlon f^x ftisprovril. 

In thf» pr«s«nc« of th» oowrt, by co^xnesl, e^rt^in 
f -ct?; were agreed wpoa. It ma«« ^i/fs^Teeil that tfe« ooml ^a» 
d«liv9red isnd received ani that th6 only ®att#r in oontxovtrfy 
nae till? diff^renoe in th« prle« of th« coal chipped bc- 
tvfttn th« *s*te» of fehruaxy let and April let, the 
plaintiff elftiwli^ a i>ri©« of 13.00 a ton, ^na the 
defendant clai»ini^ n. ptiQe of |S,5£ « to©.* 

nt th« tiroe, October 10, 1918, th® wf<x w».g- In 
progreeR, s,n-r5 th«fr<t was «>resiit<^d hy the PTf^elatnt, th# 
United Ststffs Fuel A<lK.lnietratl<»n. By reaton of Its 
jurisdiction sad authority oo».l Bsinlng cewoeBlee end 
purohasere wers glYen a fixed sitxiBittn price at which thty 
could 80 11 ani;? huy ooal. The awixiwim pric« fixed hy th« 
^a«lni«tr&ti©n whsn this contrast beca»« in force wan 
13.00 per t®n. In Jf^nu^ry 1919, the ^dteinistrstlon 
cancelled a® of February 1, 1919, all of its rnlit^ Kn6 
regul?^tions and pric«« sffectin^ the kinrt of ©osl covered 
by th?» contract here in rm«etion, so that, it is? clals?*!-! 
hy th© defendant, there regained no wor^ia in the contr*iOt 
which fixed the price per ton th?jt the d«fen«ant r^feo^jld 
pay. nuriiig Pebru«^ry and March Reneiderahlt coal v%a 



■.i.Z :-!--^r.' 

?;* ■» .ns',"; t- . 



«hlpT>ed for wMoh th« t>l?jlntlff ol?5iw« th» defendflint 
slaotsld p«y i3.CX> per ton, ^md for whloh tht d#fffnd*nt 

el.ains it should tJ--.y only tb« market price, Th(* 
d«f end'snt paid IfZ'.OO p«r ton for all ooal It reeelrtiS 
nad^r the oontrfsot up to Ftbruary let and the »arlc«t 
price for vhat it rec®ivp5 In KafcruaTy ^nd fcazch, 
feiia so Ineifits tbflt nothing retnalRB due the plaintiff. 
On the dth«r faaud, altboui;rh th© pl«ilntiff do«e not 
dispute tb« a«ouat (Sf coal it d«Ilv«!f«<^ w»-,b fw/ld for 
a% the parloee sstatud by th« defendant, it el?ii8» that 
It »as entitled t® #3,00 per ton for th© ooal iRihlpt»ed 
in Februery &Bd Mtxeh, whereae, it has cnly hfpn 
paid |2,5S p^T ton, s,na that th© defendant le etill 
liable for 45 ©ents 'o??x ton on ail costl shlppfltd bi*- 
tween -"cbruaTy 1 and the laat of March, m outgitlon 
is made about the *::^uallty or aajount of th'S csotl, 
nor about the warket prioe for Februaxy and March 

helng iS,6S per ton. It ■mn.» «tlpaJ..%t«»d th?»t in 
fiteruary i^ne. March the plaintiff shipped S, 775, 15 

tons, ana th^'t th<* defendant ha.» psld therefor 17,076, 6S, 

heing at |a,55 p*sT ton, s.nd that If th# plaintiff m.B 

entitled to fS.OO p«r ton, ther* isrould still r swain 

du«? i^t 4S ctntB per ton, the eur. of 11,348,00, Thit. 

suit la for the lattar num. 

Three contentions ar« 8®.ae hy cooneel for the 
plaintiff, First, th^t ae th<»r<? was no ezprf?r© price 
fixed in the ori^rinal contract, and as the oontract 
provided that the oo??! ^as to b? pal<! for ».t ©. price 
•*not in excess of ths s^lne prioe allowed \>y the 
f>overTi®«»nt at tho tlwi?? »hlpffi*nt® ^'er** s^ade,* that 


• ^* ?^s**^/ 


' flsilJfrsrlO 


l«ft th« t^rlcw to b« fiirea by tlsit iBiitu?il «srr(»*»B^nt of 
th« parties at anything trom tS.OC' p«r ton down, nnd as 
t1k« peTtlua proo«f!!3«a. to v'^% tlie ootstraot Into »ff«ct 
«t $3.0c^ p»r ton, that fixed the price for the whol*' of tl» 
oontraot, subject only to OoT^rnwetit "action, -econd, 
that, as the result of oertsin oorT«?!|»orj.(len©e, be^innliag' 
on Novismfea* 24, 1318, a yi«W' espfe^went was entered 
into, fhieJi r^ducftd the Quantity 'b©'af?:ht anrt sold, and 
e«t&bliahed th® price st |25,00 per ton; and third, that 
as the d«f©adi5!nt reofived sn<!j tj«%d all the co«,l shipped 
under the orlg-insl and the new agre^-^ent, and kn9^ at 
the tl»© that the plaintiff cjlalistd the c>rie« viaa 13.00 
per ton, and. ime paid at that r®,tt up to ISareh 25, 1^19, 
it ie no^ estopped, as s switt^r of la*, to claliB that it 
is only llsfele for $S,S5 p«r ton for ooal ©hipped after 
Fe'brimry 1, 1919, th«< d:st« the AdwlnlstxstioB rtijoired 
the coal r«»gn.l&tion8. 

:'fi to the first ©ontsntion l&aef?? on the fs.ot 
that no »peoifio prlot #®,s fixed in the orifinal cor- 
traot, the worae in the contract are, at a. price "not in 
exceee of the win© r-'rloe sllow^d by the C*overn!««nt.* 
The Government fixed the mexiwasa price, it is ae^uwted, 
1% |2.00 p^t ton. The Qevsmm^nt resist lon^, aef&,r ae 
th«y were pars«ooat, were cancelled on January 10, 1919, 
to he effective February 1, 1918, It l© oUiwed by 
ooTmsel for the defend'->nt, and not aenitd, that the 
original Otintr.^et ^<^^a eisrned by the Illinois ?:teel 
INttipany by 0, F. Oollins, in Ohieago, after It had 
been elgne^i by the plaintiff and the s*, i, Oeegsne aosl 
Soapany, Ptirchaelng Agtnte, &nd «o i?a» a oontract made in 





**#i>«f3r'jn»rr'*; iiisflij t'' ft-*'*©* it «%ii''; d«i* 


111 loo Is. ©ctlon 10 of th« Uniform S«le« Act of 
Illinois i« ap folio*'©: 

* ji'ljiey© tber€ 1b a contrsci to sell or a «!«1» ©f 

srooda at % pric« or on teriRsa to ^'S fixers by a, 
third T(«r»on and eucjb third »era>in, vltbout f't»lt 

of the Qftller ar tb.« t>^'sy*T, cannot o:f do*'* n?>t 
fix the price or terms?, the CTitTflCt or the 

• .;. .: • ©isle is therslsy avoided; ImI if th® ?roof?© or 
J,' ^.ay o'jTt thereof h*v^ berti i3ellv«r«!d to «nd 

ftp^roprl^;?t»^f by tfe«» buy*?r he rraast T^ay a 
resfonabl© prle© thftffftf^x." 

There is no doubt, ftn<S It is nft really dl6tnit6<3, that 

"Uio 13,00 pri««, ^hloh was th« B»xtifl«« f is:«*a. by th« 

Adffilnistrstlon, ifaft undtrsto^^d t^ be the flxtd price, 

Rt l«?»et *hil« the rul^s of th« Govern wirnt wer*?; In force, 

that iff >»p ta ?«tortt8Ty 1, 1919, G<5,un8«l for thfi defendant 

•tated to the Ooort "that during th9 fim<Jtic!nlK>? of th« 

Fuel ^ministration, p«Tti«t? ^trt not frere to s^ll eoal 

at sny prlc® they pleaes^l, but that the ^ovemaitnt 

♦ • • undertook to t^ll the alniuf oo^jjssnlf'e ^.n'$ th« 
purchfs.sft-tB wh?,t t'lioe thoy shoula pay, thit is, tfe«t 
'ttaxlM^ price. In other words, thoy (mt-RBij^ the 
Atoir^ietratlos) established fair rrloas, ae it was thon 
Oalled," Th© question th«n &rl$!^i, nFhat waf? th© prloe 
•ttader the orl3?:lnBl oostract for oosl thlpoe^ im February 
an<l M.arch 1919, sf ter ths Ooy#rnm®nt c^outr-^l of trlcee 
oas-»e>'^, fend there tr«s no 5!^v<».ma!»?nt-al "itlnf prioft** fixM, 
frld^ntly, that ^se a situation th« contracting' oartite 
he.d not expr®88ly t>roTldsd for. In such »>e, therefor*, 
it vor;i4 see* to b« n<!!c<i8s»ry to &pt>ly the prineiple thmt 
T?hen grooda are aO«©ptod and mrlce is not »ention«d, there 
in a liability to pay th«iir Tm&onBhX» Trorth, ?n4 that 

i-^ tfe» la^r ^B st^tfrd in Cectlon 10 (»n?>rB). 0nl%«», 
thei-efore, eowethlng »ae done e\ibse«n«nt to th*s mnkiim of 
tho original contract that ao^tfied its tgrws ae to T>rioe, 


'..s/ii . A £ 







v;X»a^'»5«.:a i^o» &v«:tf 

-'t XfiHi jf- , ^! wwoi #«:«;■ 


It? w 


th« plaintiff Of^Bfkot reo<»v«r* 

f ter »ASr.lni?, the oTiirinfti contract on 0«t«>l>«7 10, 1S18, 

ptow^ t&ftt th« dafeadaiit agr««<5 to pt.y i^3,oo |i»fT ton for 
tk% »o»l d«llT«T*>d Its f«torusry %»« l^arelv, 19X9T f-lxty 
four Iftt^y® «.n<l t*l«fr«»e €eGni»titu%« th« «?ori"'ei»jf!«!»«<?'9no«« 
©« 5j»v«s«fetf SI, 181i» aol\ la», at«iR% fi&r tin*? d^f #•»»««* at, 
wlrtd :S, g, 'r^e^fftRt e-^al -So. (1&97frln&ft«>r called 

Virginia, »ho elg^tis^ thai ori?totX eoBtmoi «..« *8tflr««i5>t«^,»* 

)s,ldaf with tlk^ lllimsis ii'%ml QmvMny^ tfe»t aia *lhi> «*^.^l;o* 

wente sf -all 009.1 all0cat#i5 to ut* frnt «-lll ct.»©«l 
«ttr os*«l«r« ^f 2!:«|>tiiwh#*- 7 tn«l Oetofetr at, and )K»k« 
no fvartber shlpKeats to «8i, "rfe.!® 4® In ?^«!eof4nt.]ao« 

&«klai!: if ths <itf»aa&at oqxiM li,anal«* tfee eo.f I •»!» ©tlf- 

mla«s time to pl»ee tlsttwh^re-,* tb»t oth«fT«^ieps it wcmldl 
foret thm to shut d©«R, oa «0T*mte©y 2S S<>llla» »lrpd 
l?e'?g''5ias, flfstwdiat pi'iirllieja't f©r »a# we^k, tad, fartlifty, 
•FlftAS* ship S.8 little tttnrm$9! «t» fs©aeiti^l« (^ftr tfeis 
fifrTiod sad thfta »t©p fehimtatis s.lti^^^thffjr %_t wf 
a»f 9©iM?:»»t«4 at tnia end,* C«a ir©r<^»fc««-ir Si n*-9g^n« wr!5»t« 
tli« pliilatlff tfeftt hi? ha<S «rir#v« it sa S«.*«Wib«r as t&*t 
d«fe»?lattt rf'fafe-^ t© ae©?pt stsipaw^ats esv^i Ja «!#lf* 
elfJiJPlat hdpp«r0{ thst fe«? «•«»» 8f'fi(51ajr i^l ts^a t© tTfel«jst« 
to Indttce ?S«f©a6»at to take oos.1 t© April I, ?5©C!efdlat 
t© tfe# coatrsfet, la that If^tt^r stf.g-s.aa »»,y«» *lt i« a^t 
«a tskMf matter to »«11 »la«» ri«k ©«aX tt 13, eo **!«?». plwntf 
of it le -':-«l8^ ofi>r«^ fr^p ioran Oovsaty st |.B,SO. Oa 



ioTCTsber 25 Uff^gans wrot*" th«» plaintiff thst 
dtfendattt had a«k«d that Its ord«r be Oftno«Xl.«d» *t5tit 
1a f£lriies<!? to you ve haTA> induced tbesi to accept 
aEliipi!«ntt for anothttar ifse^k @c> as to glv^ you tlw^ to 
plae« your ©o«,l »l9«*l:\«r «> , " And, further, "fltbouirh 
aoting »6 agents for tbs IXXlxiole at«el Co* in tills 
tranfiaotlon, w© f^fl tbat tfcwiy <mght to talt« thl« 
ooal dujPiRsr t&e ptrlod of th« oniitr»ctt and had our 
rppr<»s»nta.tlv«! eaXl on Kr, oollin« at Chicago, a f*w 
days ago »ith this *md in view. Bow«T(gr, tfe«y sfeeolut^ly 
dftclln^ to aoctpt furthtr sblpneots after Rf»*-a»te«r 29tli 
and It irlll be nnof^t^ttry for you to eueowR?? «fls.lp»(nsts on 
that dtte,* 

On I«ov*!Ob»r S7, 1918, tb« plslBtlff iprot» i?f!)pft«n« 
tha.t au tlie ooatract did mi% provide for e«>lf-ol*s.rinf 
hoppers. It would ecBtlnu*? to ship under the eontrsot x 

in «ny ears provided for It, On Sev^bf^r Bf, r^eeg^ne 
wired the plaintiff, *:ug!:ge»t thait ire do not reduce oontrsct 
price to Illinolss ivteul Coss-pany, feut #niS©avor to «<ill to 
eome other eustoser at narXet price and later ooHeot 
dlffer«^ne@ from Ste«l Co«5spany ♦ * • stosl Gowpa^y 
ehould be notlfl^ that we are relylaif oa coatraet i^lth 
thea.'* thla lett*?r from Peegane, who slji^ned the 
orlglagl oontrsot with the dtef ^ndsBt, smS ie»e th«»lr icwr- 
ehaslpf af^nt, le elgnlflejwit. It eugp«at8 that the 
pr loe of ^3,00 per ton, after the ««^rk«t h^d groa* dowa, 
oven though th« Adrclnietratlon rul*? irae still In effect, 
vae the obataola that w^.» bothering the dfSif^ndaat, 




On »ove«b«r 27» th* plaintiff vrot?? to De*gan« that 
it stood on the orlglnBl oontr^ct. »«« will st^nd on 
our contreot right to r^c^ive tli« waxlujum prloc fixed by 
the U. C. Fuel Admlaietratlon, ♦ ♦ • ^e oonrtru® oux 
oontr-^ct to be one that blnde ai oarti«e, and not on» that 
co»pel» us to «hlp only @e lon^ as it its oonrenient and 
|»ofltabU foT the purchaser to aoeept It or until th« 
price goee doim and en«bl?*8 It to purohase oh-f^p^sr 
else^^b re. Under thle b#ll*^f, w« will continue to 
consign our eo&l to you. hile the oo&l lehortor'? <^xietea 
' and after our oontract w^n m&6& ^e had eevernl oisportu- 
nltles to nake long tlaas contract® at very attraotlve 
pxiQBs, but, of Gour8«>« sJeolined to do so on aocotmt of 
our contract ohliga,tion to the Steel r^mpanyand you.* 

dn M&vmh&T m, the pl&intlff wired the deftndiant, 
that ivoegans hftd Infoxased it, the plaintiff, that the 
defendant decllnod to accept further shlp»ents of coal, and, 
eontlnued, •♦our contract with you of October loth, still 
In effsot and it« existence ha a preclud«d our making other 
a»d longer oontreets for our o-atput, ; hipw^ntB '^lll 
oontinue to bjovp to vou as h«r*-tofore un-Jer 5?3id contract 
and this is to ao advise you." On the ssme day Deeg:an« 
«pired the defendant that at its reousRt he bed notiflsd 
fl*lntiff to stop shlorlBg und r ite eontrset, but th<?t 
It had refused and in«i»tert on ehlppinff aeoordln^ to 
oontrrot to prpeerre Ite l^tral ri£?ht», 

v:" Onnov^mhtT 89, Seegrsns rrote to the plaintiff, snd 
ref «rrftd to % eontraot the defendant h^6 i^ith another 

:J !>-!=' *x*ir«- 


coal oompanjr, TU»t letter contained the follr>T!rlag, 
*ln th« esfi» of the : llchtti-n uperlor Ooal 0©,, h«ire-r»r, 
no form-sl contrr.ot vrta ?xeoat«(5, l5ut iwrcly a pwroteaB® by U.8 for &eooynt df XlUnol® Stf«l c;©,, sf 
ISfOOO tons to b« shlpr>«d to April l»t« in equal iBoimthly 
iBStallmonts* ■*!» b^'lieve jttu Hs.v* a b«!tt^x oafi« tfealsi the 
Elkbora "ttp^rleir Ooal «o, , s^nd vfell® ae you know, wt 9X« 
AOtlnf as a®;®ftte f©r th« Illluol® stetl 0o. In thin 
tr^^Atta^otloA* and net tfe« agent of the «lii»«, w# b*»l!ffve 
yott sJiowld eontiau« shlp»»iat« witil th« e©.».l Is reftt«f<', 
ftltbou^li I tfelB^ It i9®wla b<? bf.«t for you to get self- 
olft-rfiiRC Ii«i3r'«r» If ron mn -ponnihlf *» «o# »» t^l8 
nlgbit result In tfeeis taklutf; the ©o*»l tstp to April let ?sRd 
«void any .litlfntlor*, Pl#a®« rttnTti »y l.«tt»r» f>f 
Xovei^er 34tfe tad gStii for re??60iBs irtkioli 1 «snplali»«5 to you 
©T^r thB phon* ye8t«r<j0y, e.l«© r^et^rti t&i« litter al©ag 
with this ooT>y iaclos^a. I ^m exielosifJiBr ii,fK>th«y Ittter 
for your filsa '»hl<$h you saay rttalii,* On Otceisber ?,, 
t>E» 69f<stiMnt ^it^M beeg-trnt ^If you will s^e?» not to 
»hlp toanaf© la (9X0««« of wh&t you haT« dbft* oa or««er8 
111^ and 1211, yott »ey eoRtlimo ft that rate to April l«>t, 
1919. Adylae." Th« a«rt day, Oto^-mtx^r 3, Dftt^.g^ne i^lr«^<3 the 
d«f enfant ji '*iifinee agroe not to ehip tonn%fe In 0Eoe8@ of 
previous rate. an«3 ^111 coiitira*« until A,|>ril first.'' Om 
th«® 4&y £««ga«« wrote th« plaintiff, lKf®r»lirif It of 
thft defendant's ^ropotition FUd that ho had replied to 
the d«fe-nd?.nt Ree*»r:ti«f" it. In thr;t Iptt'^r 0«8f«.n» 
6«egested that th« plaintiff naSce an effort to ©1?tr,ln 
«elf-ol#erlng hop»$r@, thisris tFi?» th^fn corresmBdenco 
Ifeet^ega a«0g*n» r^nd ths defen-^ant to th(? effeot tH«t on 



ordiKT R, v., 1173, which w^» tli« ©nil on© pl»intlff »«<» 
Ittt«re0t9^ In, th« BhipB«»-tit from r^^e^jf,h9T 1, to 
dpfll i, 1S19, ahould be on* csr a d«y, or abowt l,2So 
tout a fflonth. It wap &<l«ltt©d that aollln* wms sutfeorlzed 
to aot for th« d«ftndsnt. On De^fnsber 3 .D*9*(rain» wrott the 
defendant, "Wa trtll ^ a.11 v<» ct.B to rst coal loaded only 
In 6 elf- clear ins: hopT^'rs as pet your req\»,e«t,'* on a«(5«!Bber 
6 SaegiinB ssrot© tc> tli« plaintiff Inforwlnf him of bis 
«greeia«at with tbe d»f endstnt for .?», reductd -awount 
Bjad asking fcr def«5nd»«t*8 vit^/s, ajsd referred to tb* 
difficulty of «elllng eoiftl st tbe {^Mrftrntt^nt prloe, 
"wlien tlscre ie euofe a large ^usntity of food ooal b-^lag: 
offered for lee®,* 3b t posteorlpt, h« s^kfi, «How 
ftlBout naming a minlmuiD r>rio«, «.nd then If wt can got 
■or^ -!?« will cJo so.* On reo««iber 9 tb® nlainilff tnrote 
5'»eg©nf that its lett«ir of Sov-smbfr 27 »tatf?^ Its view's 
%8 to tfeft contract, and, ftjjrtbf^r, of eotxrse, w® do not 
went to wairs any xirfete thfareunder.** It ooTnttinsd th© 
following, *W® r«ir©.rd our contr»ct srlth th^ St»f'l Comr-^ny 
ajs sn asset y»luafel« at this ti««! and ax© relying upon it, 
I lost no Bl#ep la reaohinff a eonolaslon on th« quoftlon 
wh«ther or not th* st»?.l "i^oxTsorstlon would r®lca«e tis 

in 0£?© the oontTaet tmrned ovjt f^Torabl* to it 

aad/ favorable to uc* 

On f>eceR5b(!?r 10, Ceefan* (tkroiiiPh one Va»«) wrote 
the plaintiff feS follows J 

ttm- -igL^"-^ 



7** •'■?; -^ 1 

■"1,r«T-+;tJ. ' 


that they would accept ®hlp»i<?ntK to April let, 

provid«<a r« would not <!>irev.9C th? r-?t? of 
prfTlous ehit)Bi*nts, J had In rair*?^ the f^ot that 
you. had t'een stilpt?lnp only ?bout one oar rer dfjy 

aii'l ^eewiwftd thst you "^ould pxpf »r contlnulTipr 
at tiiie rat^ «,n(J dispone of any ^^nxr-lwe yota 
might have, ©vptj at a leec r>rlot, to lltlg-otloti, 
which '5'i'srayg eat«iil® wore nr l^f?. «i)t^n«e, re~ 
jTj^rctleeft of th€ cuteosse, 00 I toolr It wron wyg^lf 
to T'lr®, th© Illinoia te*l Co,, thi»t thle would 
be agT#^abX<5, I, ©fcoult! h"!?.Yc ts.k^a this 
up ^ith yoti feefor?> doinff »o Ijtit did art, and 
believe that it would r«:%.i:!y be^r not to ex- 
c©?d to any gxa^t frtsBt tb>* rate of ebipmffnt& 
pi*firlou5ly Rsds on this coEtrsset, a3,thoiJ,r-h this will 
not, I know, tak«r ®8.jf» of th«» full toiraa,?'!?? covsTed 
hy the oontract, findly let aae fca,v« your irle^s Iti 
r©fi?iri. to this, 

For your infor^Btion I ^uote exehang'S of telt- 
gXaisB bets-tftB us a»« the lllinol« !"%«©! 0©«, on this 

*If you will ajnrei* not to ship tonn^sr*? in 
e-ROsse of is'he.t you hs.Ye d-sn* oa ord.'?J*fi 1173 ^aad 1511 
you stay contiTku« st that rat« to /* prll 1, 1219, 

'Tout six** "•-ini?!© aer*!* rtot to ehlp tonn:!p,ge in 
eieees of preTioui? rate and ??111 oontiuue to 
Apxll 1st,* 

If >ou do tsot arret with me in thl© w^ttf^r you 
Eip;ht taks It up ^Itb. the llliiioic! :,t»i©X vO.» 
at this tl»i« and St -.t* tfest T^ toolc it for 
granted this would to«» 9ttl8f<ict/^ry p.nd ^ir«d 
but that you ^lli exptct to Phlp the fuJl 
tonnsg?^ Oftllfid for. ^s a r„«;ttsr of fact, 
■feos-'sver, you irill not be atsl® to ©hip th« full 
tonnage of 18,00C' toyss, an^ th* other ailne 
hsvlsf a $i!8ilar ootttrs.ot with this co»»t>rmy a[srr#e« 
to their rjroposltlon not to n-xcn%^ previous rs»t? of 

Vie «ill try to dispose of any sutuIu^ you 
laay h?v^ if you will l*t us kpow shout what you think 
thiis "rill l^o. 

1 urn fi-ur^ it -sill l.-«' all right to ship on* ©sr n-^t 
day to th* Illinois 'it©'-*! Co., ^jri'? as f-xtrs. oax 
oocssalonaliy, will llk«»ly he aoceptsd.* 

On iR«ct«5te<»r 13, th« def^pndaat wrote f)o<?g«,ns oorjfiTT«5- 

Ing* ths latter»B letter of n«ce«b«r 5, e^yini!;, *It will 

tee Agreeable to us, if you will ship not to ea:8«#»d one car 

per da-y.** Ob Deceshsr 14, r)eega.ns wrote the plaintiff esyiar 

ihet the defendant In recues^tli^w- ehipraf^ntg not to #xe«»«d 

Tift ft 

Ue iffevioue rate, dicJ not limit plslntlff to any 
tpeclfi<?d fficuipffiont, «nd pr«!CujR«d it would tftlr« 
th« ooal in any kind of oar«, but tt«eg:on» 9xi|:g;est<e<3 
tkAt the plaintiff make a special #ffort to f,et «»lf« 
olftarinf hoppere for defi-ndanfu or dear. And, fxsTther, 
•1 wrote you a few aayii a|^, e3tpT««elng !»y vl«Tt in 
regard to previotts sbipst^Pts and, I ^m «tlll of 
tli« opinloii it will fe<* bett«r n-t to esroeed on-s oar 
pez day. Of oourse, if you ha-epea t© skip s d»y ana l©a^ 
ti^ ear® the followinf day, w® will report ob« oa ©n« 
day and on*-' on tfet ntxt, m m to ltee«f up the aT«raf», 
Thore ar<» t>ut v«ry f«w mlnee any»h©r« now th?it hav© 
»»ff iel@Rt orders ox 0ontr?!tct8 to i^srmit th«« runtnlng 
full tlwe and if you should find it n^oeBsary to ottrtail 
the production slightly you etrtainly tpould not be 
In sorst shape than other p«opl©»*» »o oth»r o.-irrf55»~ 
pon<lenes, »aT® an ieffiaterial l»tt«r of t?«oeM5b«r W, 
le shown bet«-«®n the osrtiee, until January Jl«, 1919> 
Wt« thers an 4gro«»«nt wade by tb® eorr«»r?or!d©nc« 
b«glnRlng Koirsmh®r 34 and ending on B«©c-Htb«r l4? ffee 
only srritlngs that aco«|5t thf d^fenant'e Ftooopltlor! 
to reduce th« quantity of eoal und^r the contract 9:t^ lr?y 
Deegans and the .tefendaut, At no tl?!B© did tho plaintiff, 
vhttft <3U<5ntlty »3S b@ing actually oon©ld«r©d, agree to 
aooept ;i re«j[uotioo. The plaintiff, in its letter of 
D«o®ai>«r S, afttr DtRgens hafi ftgre-^d ^itfe the 4ef s^ad^nt, 
referred nef^gsns to Ite letter cf Bovsisher 37, and 
tho& sala that It was relylnc: on Its eontract *ith the 
aef(?ndi^nt. Th<» t^rias of th« qusllfyluf arre^went. If 
It was »Ado, roduood the 18,OC>0 t<5ns, ?.« t<5 the tl»e 


.H'U*' Zi£-^ 

between Oeccafcer 1, 1918 sn<? April 1, 1919, 
to about &,000 to»«, a cancellation ^f »bout 5,800. 

8onsid«rinp the ^4ark^t t>rlo« to h.«*v*^ be#n throw^ thst 
period 45 oeBte per ton ieec than the aaxliBUiB (5oVerniB«nt 

price of t^.OC-, It Rjr-ant a satlnir of |?, 610.00 to th« 
def (ftsdant. Tbere ^sre, therefore, ©fcvlo\i« pecuniary 
reasona »by the defendant wa« Rcllclloui? of reduclnjr 
the contract cjti&ntlty. as to the Inaiptence thi^t tht 
plaintiff should ehlp only In etlf-ole-arln^ hopnere^ 
th«ra Ic no erldsace that the defend nt had any rliB-ht t9 
Bake that dtsssnd, Th« oontract b^lnf «ll**nt on that 
subject. It ^ould »«5es rb thouf«fe the defendant Interjected 
it without reason, p«rhaTP« as a subterfuge, as the ■price 
after the ArBBletiCft had ron© down. Certainly there w»m 
no justiflcatiofn for the announo eisent en fovtmb^pr 34 
that it would rpfufisft to aootpt »hl|»?^nts? in anything 
bui eelf-eleaxlng hopp«tfli. But ftubterfuf* and effort «!t 
evaelon d© not ne©<9ss&rily raake sn s-SFreaasent, It le 
true, howeTcr, that later, on April 15, 1919, th« plaintiff 
wrote to Lme.$&n%, that as the dswand for ©oiil d^oreased 
after the Arsletlce, the- defendant sowht to br^'^^ch Its 
contract and buy ite ooal for lees, s^nd notified the 
plaint iff that It would not take any j«or«' oo»l, »nd that 
a new arran«*«*«eat **« asa-^e whtfT^hy the defendant a^r«f*d to 
take plaintiff's ooal until April 1, 1910, In oonslderstlon 
of the c-fttr&et quantity b^in^^ r«?duoed by the plaintiff, 
la th&t letter ha aieo stated that the plaintiff underntood 
by th© nev arrsngpraent that ^at doubt there wgss ee to 
prioe waa oleared away and tbat t|ie defendant agrre^^d to 
talre coal at l^e reduced quantity until April 1 at 
I3.UQ per ton,- 


fltJT^t^- j^ 



Altliough coal w»e shlpced in a aredttotd ou«jntlty 

«ML* apparently, pureuaRt to % ii«r and i^usKllfylB^ agrensreent, 
these i» nowhere ahown a elnffl? w®r<i written or wired toy 
Ihe dtfendant, o£ ita ag©at, t)}at pror*)? th^»t tb» a«f©ndl8iit 
actually promleed or agresd tfeat, regsr<3!l«es of the words 
&« to prio? IR tbe arlfrlnal eomtraot, \% would r)«y |3.00 
■per ton for tli« rcduo«(5 tOGn»f:« trp to '-pr 11 1» 

TfelTfl, 0» Jsnttwxy ^8, 1919, oe^i^iBe wxot© to tht 
i«f«llfttnt that th« plslntiff had »i3^»reBt«d tfeat li wo«l<! fc« 
wlllinf to reduce the prloe, t?rovl(?.sd an incres.g0d tonnage 

fto oontract«-,5 f&r on ^ long tisj# ec-ntract, TiiIb wa» 
18 dj.ys a.flf^r tli«» ^^ImiBistratlon had ann^^uaoed « ©snoella- 
tlon of its rule® to talt® «fftet Ff?ferue.Ty 1. On J«.nniary 
So, th® <^f*naaat wrote to t)e#g@ns tbmt it would not ha 
inter eptf^d In euoh a proposition, -and ort P©fert:j@ry 1 t?i(«'ffl'?.n» 
««nt the d«f f^ndsnt's lett r of ,Janui?ry 30 to th« pl&lntiff. 
£o»© two ^eeke later, on Ftbruary 15, the defendant wrot^- 

to D«eg»;a« that fes It had betn of f'^rs^?. elisllsiy eo?! at a 
lower rsrlo®, '♦the p.rl©« ^feiofe we psid, you prior to 
FsbruftTy l«t la not justified after that dsite, -e now 
request thtit an under &t-)nfil»j?- be r«iioh«»d «lth T'sa:»T6 to 
price Rffeotlv« 5«J?ter Fftjruary 1st,"* On F»hru&ry 17, 
D»«g:an8 wrote the pl&lntif" ??h©t the dtf ^ndant had stat'^d 
In its letter of February 15, ?hle was the hejrlnnlnff of *i 
a«w controversy and, 'apparently, w^s pr?olt>ltat«^ a® the 
reeuit of the oanoeli^tioa of th* jkaBlslstratlot; rules. 
On J'"«?brtiary 34, the pl-intlff ^rrote to De^Kans, RSklaf: If an 
agre^aent could h« amde with the d«f *iid«nt to t-%lE?: tfee 
plaintiff's output for a period heyon^ A.prll 1, stating 

"Tit ■*";■' •.'f 



also, "and 1 tlil»V wt o<%n ftrr«» m» % r duct ion In 
price," th%t plaintiff pref frr^a to ▼ork amicably, 
•aad If the Illiaoie .t«pl cowp(?tiy -s-ill take tvo oar« 
l^r Ssy of our ooal fro» no'» until Juti* 1» 1919, *e 
will »ske the pJiee |S.50 p«r ton." On rebru*ry 27, tfe#^ 
defendant wrote tfe.».t it feaa msd© t«i!ri88 with sll other 
elilppfrs en s. |<.'.5^ tr^sie "and would expect you to a® 
invoice ohipffients to we. Otber^lee, iBtke ue no further 
8!ilpft,ent8 aft«r Maxoh let,*' On Meroh 7, l^efiane wrote the 
plfelntifi t^ttoting e telegraei of Mareh 6, from the deff»ndiiRt, 
thai If the plstintiff »^,© not wlllla?: to sell at :!-S,55 rer 
"tow, tfi<& def ecdaat «*Telll a.ceept no coal ehlpped after 
Feoxu&iy 28,* On Mereh 21, LJei^aiie vit^A the plaintiff « 
copy of 3 ttiegra.« of the e? d»te fro« the defendant, »8 
follo'*^«J *v:-ix e&re ehlt^tj^?* in Mtroh now \intim h«ld here 
mibj>i>Qt to yoxir «ftite«, a^ will not acoeft this eoal uiil<*ee 
pfioe of C2»&5 1b ffi&d» eovering their shlpasj-nte since 

F**rue.ry first,"- On i^&rch 22 the plaintiff «l»^d Deejjane, 

*you, se agent of K-t«el 0©»ps,ny mny steke whAt-^oTtr die- 

position of thle ooal you see fit, '*e »»111 ^ontlnae to ©hip 

until Anril f ii'st awad. hill f-:?©? st tferae toiler* per ton a« 

per oontract,** .f copy of that, t>eesxsis f*nt the R»se d'^y 

to the daefen^aat. And on the eeise d%y th?? <l0fendant wlr^^d 

jDe-egane, "'^^e %'lll not r»®y fHOT^ than I?, 55 for <?.ny eoal 

shipped*' by plaintiff •'after Febrttery let, fill hold thle 

ooal enbjeot to your dlffl^sltlon ^mlese yoti authoxlte 

payKsnt on beele i«ention*»d.* On the nnmf> di^y the nl«tintlff 

•rote tie^figijiett tbet he w».e the »|rent of th& def tsndsnt, and 
it, the plaintiff, vto'Jild oontinu© to ehlp uiitil Acarll let si 

$3.<K) PS? ton, aooo-Tding to the ooatraot, A nuRnber of other 


: tf! ;»*ttf .( 



; ST, 




tftl^grant and letters pa*««d between the oaxtleo, tut they do 
not te#ar on the Question In «w>ntror®r«y. (m ie«roh 2B, 
Deegftiia *lT«d plttSntiff, "Illinois steel Co, »ly*» th«y will 
refuse eMpnent eince Feferuaxy flret, excepting triew ^f 
|2,55 B*?t you and further this is final," In the letter of 
April 15, 1310, by the plaintiff to De«g:<j.n«, quoted in 
psrt above, ooours the folloiPingj 

••on f «bTu«try 1, 1919, the sroTernm^nt rewored all 
restrictions i^lth regard to co^l prices so far ee vf 
were concerned. The r.te«l O^mp^ny ifl»»ed lately 
bCR»n another eruwade upon ®ur little contract •ind 
a»eerted that *■« oust re<luce the tyrloe -^t they -'ould 
tfike no sore co«l. ^e refused ^csln, ee we hnd 
uniformly be^n doinsr before to »ak« any reduction 
(bell^Ting that if they oould, by n.n ex r»?»rte ot4i»T 
8#t & •oriee on oiir eo«l in di»r*f^mT6. of all tsrlor 
trades an<S sfreeiftntfe, thst they «oul(l t??ke It for 
nothing) «5n<3 we continu«»d to ehiri Its «? reduoed 
QU<?intlty, and iiivoioe It at 13. CX) •#.« heretofore,' 
The assents coTitlnu^d to receive the ckjsI at the 
point of reconelenan^nt s^n-i Move It to the t^«?l 
Company utitll J»^TQh SSth - about six d.^vys bef-^r--- the 
end of the contract p<?ri©d, ??e wert then notifi€'<3 
by the ftfents that they wotild not recorj^ig'n any 
wore of oui' ooel to their nrincingtl. If the 
■^. F, Qo»l Or>9!tsany wae ev??T th**' aff'^tit of 
the Illinois ;':teel Or,ms^.^j for the puriaoffie of hanflllRir 
otur oosl (tsnd we ure ^eeuB^iair th^^t *n rsfssncy ean be 
©rested by oontraot), thetn the a^aifnoy rtill pixieted 
when the coal was acceptej^ by the j.iMjgane CoiR??any ?-nd 
reoonpiirn*?-'' st Ruesel YtT6B to the ■'■■teel Oowisfny.* 

On April 30, 1919, the defendant ©.nswered tbat letter ms 
follows t 

' •*• sre unable to ai^ree ^Ith you in your int*r- 
pretstioTJ of thie eontraot, and csn only adhere to 
the position »hlch we have gt all tlnses tsken, 
A&nely, that *e would o«iy you for this co?^l at the 
rate of |2,55 per ton, which price wa» «t the 
ti»# 8hip«ents of coip-.l in oue»tion were ms^M, a 
reaeonstblo price therip'for, ana the ^f*lnp" «®rk'*t tiriae 
for ©osl of a eiKiler charaoter in the mm^ field. 
This i» all that we h«4Ye «ald othsr ('.e&lere Ir^ yoijr 
territory and w« will not be sble to nay you 
wore. "'« truet that you will f«>e your t^gy elmr to 
srrsnge for an &djuetB!ent of the wetter on this 

It will be seen frow the forei^r'^lng thst tlte second 
ootttroweray began on February 15, when the defendant rt<?ueRted 

t-t t»^' 




"tliat an understautdlnj? be re«sch©d with r«fard to prie« 
•ffectiTe aft«r February lst.« fh®r^ Is no doulst but that 
tbe plaintiff at all time* olalmed th® prloe was flxefl 
at $3,00 by th« contract ite^lf snd never ««» changed, i}Tfn 
after thif eanoellstlon of the Admlnietratlon tu1«8 on 
February 1, as w?f havp .already htld that the aariciit prlc« 
wist pr«Tall after February 1, unleste there i« ©viapnce 
of gome varying agreement, th» emestion arises whether the 
eorreepondenee ehowe that the defendant ?.0O#cvte^ nny ©oal 
after February 1 for whioh It r.oiraa its«lf to cay #3,00 per 
ton. There 8oe» to fee two letters by the Sefendi^mt whioh 
•how m intention to be boiin<S to pay |3.00 vex ton on ooal 
reoeired up to March 1, 1919, The letter of Fefeniary 27 
'begins, «Ref erring to o«r letter of the 15th relative to 
pticfi sxrangewent, *» and then stf^tes that it ©xpf?cta 
:: plaintiff's ooal to be invoiced at |3,55 per ton, *other- 
wlae,** that is, if the plaintiff atill ingiste on |S,00 
a ton, "Riake us no further ehlTarsents after irareh l8t.» 'nd, 
again, on fearch $, 1919, the daf«nd!int wired Deeirans, an4 
the latter seat It the next day to the plaintiff, "If not 
willing (that la the pl&lntlff) to bill at |3,55 ^er ton, 
f. 0. b. oars rsines, a«? v^r our letter Februsry 27th will 
accept no coal chipped after ;= ©bruary S8t.h,» Ae the 
plslntlff was inalBtingr all the tlwe on |3,00 per ton, 
and was refulerly ehlpping oral which w«« beln^ accept «^r' by 
th« deferttant, when the defendant In view of the eontrov^rpy 
says either lower the price or "will accept no coal shipped 
after February S8th,- and further, you ^.gr^.? to *5;,55 a ton. 

^•i>}.'m 3s,>U'!^r.. 

■"•"S'^ '".' 

t . .•.4«^ ■ 

'>f*^;-^. "^fJini-'trr 



"otherwise, make us no further shipments aft«?r March let,** 
It follows that there As an admitted liability to pay 
fS.OO per ton for what It received up to the first of 
March. What At received after February 28 has been 
paid for at th© market pric©, and that, we hold, is full 
payment for that period. 

The Judgrewat will be rerersed and the cause 
reaanded in order that proof may be made of the amount 
du«, at 45 cents per ton for the amount of coal shirped 
and delivered in February 1919; and that Judgment be 
entered therefor, 



I do not concur in the foregoing decision of 
thii ease. Ae I view it, the parties to the contract 
involved, modified its terms, with regard to the auantlty 
»f ©oal to be delivere'] under it, in December 1918, It 
may iK>t be said from the record that the ouestlon of price, 
in any way entered into the modification of the contract, 
ae to quantity. It does not appear that anything whatever 
was siid about prices in connection with this modification. 
It was doubtless the underet?iiding of the parties that the 
provisions of the contract, as to price, still held good and 
were to continue. 

The iffovisions of the contract with regard to the 
price to be paid for the coal contracted for were, not thet 
the price agreed upon between the parties at the beginning 

f^Hii --.sT' ^-V' -,,l^^p's 

§s.ff.-:!5 ■-.' 


f r\ , T + .■ 



#.«i1* tort ,93»t tc' 

of tlift oontyaot t>^irl95 iP9Jt«t to ftbtula throiisrhout tli« 
period, aa ths plaintiff contend*. The eontraet pro- 
▼l9ions were that all coal chipped under It *8hsll "be 
at a prio«» uot in excsse of the sjlne price allo^iifftd by the 
3oTeraTn«»nt at the ti»e ahipaente «m^ mad©.* Sothlng oould 
be plainer than thst th« price was eubject to change, 

Apnarsntly, the parties treated the price provi- 
slons of this onntr&ot ae aeaning that while the seller could 
not charge a pyloe "in esccees of the mine pxic^ allowed by 
the Govs^rnaeaat at the time ehipmetsts wer* aade," it oo'ijld 
charge a.« ifuch ar th^5.t, tja^, stcoorflingly, th© pxiea fixsd 
hy the Fuel A.<53ilul9tr«»tlon of the Crover?BB<mt, which *a» 
|3,5K) per ton, waK treated by the parties as the contract 
price, &n long: at that oontimiM to be the price fixed by the 
Oorernaieiit* Althotigh the World '^«r Armiatlee took islaoe in 
Sov^fflber ISIS, there ^nn nc ohenfe in the fuel 4daili\i«tra- 
tion'e regiulatlon, as to priot, isntii ©owe tiase after tht 
fartiea had made their mii>ple»efttel sigreement, &p to 
qvuiAtity, By saying that the partiee »».(!« a tuprlemental 
agreeffient, it is not aeant that tfctsy did eo formally. The 
Steel Coffiipany submitted its proposition in writing, throtigh i 

iti s?;ent, and ths Co»l Gompai^ aeculeeoed In it, by ehi|>> 
ping ^.t the reduced rate of s. carload a dey fros that 
tiffie on. ihen all reetrietione aa to rate sn4 price ^9T^ 
resioTed by the Goir-sraaent, as of february 1, by the anaounoe- 
ffient or publioation issued by the Qovernment early in 
January, this ooatraot beosme one for the sale and deliv'^ry, 
fros! the plaintiff to the defendant, of approxiajstely one 

sit I 

«li* t^ ife»?mi 



I «#»»«* 



oar e. d^iy, after f«bTvts»ry 1 Rni up to April 1, 
1919* at *\xoU price 9® the psrti«8 Klplit »|rT«e upon, 
or, la the abeenct of such af^etiMrnt, at th» roark^t 
price, for the cotstract they had tMiter*d into in no 
way eoTered ths situation vtolch Tifn.B preeent afttr 
February 1, 

Thfs plaintiff contends that th« (Jef?»ndl»Bt paid 
for *he coal xeoelred up to MaJreh 2S, at th® ratp at 
|3,00 per tcR, antS then held hRck r«>mittanefts so as to 
make the ag;grip».te fala after r«bru«?y 1, such f^ %o 
mate the price paid on all coal rectlTed |S,25 pnr ton, 
itbleh, it is a?rx«©d, wmg the rf?»Bons.hlt prlo« on th« 
market throughout that period. Thf?t Is Iffiposf^ible, in %Tm 
first pl&ce, heo?us!«( th# amotmt thufi retain'^*? on ehlTMuentF 
bet«»«*5n Karoh 26 and ^pril 1, oouia not «iqwal the differ pnoe 
b«tw»«n Is. 00 and |S,55, on the C015I shi|rps6, durlr^g 
Fehrusry ana taxch. In the nexrt ^l*c«, thers Is not a 
^ord of «vld»ne« In the x^oo'^d (b«t a fs^ s'^lf-8»rylnf state- 
ments contained in letterst of the plaintiff, r«e«lvfd by th« 
court ctth;J»ot to di?f«»nd3nt*e ob3«*?ctlon) parovifcg or t?ni?lng 
to prove that sny oofel ehlrped after Februsxy 1, »«« paid 
for at the rate of IS.OO p9T X-^m, 

the defendant further oonttnde that by aooeptin^ the 
eoal, after FebrxMiry 1, with knowledcre of the f9Ct tfcst the 
plaintiff 9n.9 ol»liBing the T>rlce of t%,00, fixed by the 
parties at the beginning of the contr?.et ©erlod, ^:^» to 
hold on throughout the period, the defendant beoame li?^ble 
to t5*y tht?t Tsrloe for «;11 cosl so reoelTed, In »y opinion, 
that position is not eotmd In Tie*- of all the cirou«iet«noee 
Inirolved, hen the ao^ernwant reetrlotion snd. resjul^tio^? 


f f *'^- 

:■ tt!*mrtik^-X'^ '' fl^-^' 

, . Ti|3^- 


• Kdi #*3iX?ia{ 

>l3if"*'«ST ■«« 

{*U '■ 

.'JtT-vf:*.- •V.*' sg>rT##.««» *i»>.<*-*-Tir* ttr^-'HC'.^'^*' 


v«¥« rftsiov«d, on February 1. tht qu^fttloa of prlee on 
futwr« 9hip«€»ntB on tlti» oont]rftot» b«oiuBt am open on«« 
eubjeot to the agrfsement of tbe parlilM* Appareatly, 
after this annowncement of the Tsasoval of the Ooveraaiwit 
r«gulatioiui na» «a4©, In •Jatniwt.rjr, the defendant took up 
irith the plaintiff the question of rettdjjuatment of the 
prloe on sblr^ente after Februsry 1. Under date of 
JsLmmry 28» tbe d@f«;B(lant*e agent cuSvlsed It that the 
plaintiff had au^ested that tbey al^^t^t toe willing to 
reduce the price, provided an a-rntngement ootid be made 
cove ring an Inereaeed tonn&ge» on s contra ot running beyond 
April X» when the eontraot here in queetion wae to expire. 
Vi^er date of January 30« the defend>snt replied that they 
veuld not be interested in ©ontraoting for any hearler ton- 
nage than wae called for by the existing oontreet. So far 
ae the record ehowe, no further negotiatiene ox ooaaafloilcatlane 
passed between the parties until th«* middle of Febraaryp when 
the defen ant, throu^ its agent, adwleed the plaintiff that 
It did not coneiler th« prices wtdoh had been paid the plali*- 
tiff, prior to February I, as Suetified on ehipaiente after 
that date* Contlnul]^ In that oo^ffiauaication the Aefeniaat 
salds »Wh«i the Jlnited States Fuel Ad« ini strati on »e regula- 
tions were oslled off, we beliered thle also oancelled our 
order with you. Hawlnf In mlnd^ however, the oontraet perisd^ 
and believing it was your intention to make us shipfflent over 
that period, we allowed the aiatter to go this ^ay, eiqpeoting 
to hear from you froa time to tlMS, with referenoe to prloes. 
Ve now request that an imdex standing be reached, with regard 
t« prices effective after February 1.* The plaintiff eon- 

?»»-.;:.^(V -'^L- ' - . « ■ .- 

tiWJ ^«>XJf^*Wfcl!»© '^'^-^ ^^'^'* ^■'^-' '"■^^ *-■ y-^'^ ^*fr.•^ «*-^w ■^r.. v^ 

tinned to tak« the pogltion that uniStsr its contxaot It w&a 
•atitled to tS.OO p«T ton, for nil coal shipped up to 
April 1, »nd the defenfJant ooiatlaued to take the position 
that it could not toe o.^arfctd more than I2.B5 * ton, whioli 
w*« the prlee of e^aX, of the kind iwroXved, on the dpen 
inurk*t» The xmrties never did eomm to am agreeia«nt on the 
priee to tee paid for eoal shipped after February 1, in m^ 
•pinion* the faot thmt the defendant eontinued to talce the 
ooal, i?ith knowledge of the fact that the plaintiff was going 
to daaaudd |3,00 a ton for it, does not, under the eircua- 
8tano<g8 anke It liable for th&t amount any more than the fact 
tfcat the plaintiff continued to d'^liver it, Tith k&oirledgt 
of the faot that the defendftnt urns going to resist any pay* 
■ent a^ir* |S«ss a t<m, would, of itself, establisli that as 
1^ ^ai» of liability, lor. In mf opinion, is the cjucatloi^ 
©f the defendant* 8 liability affeoted la any iray by the fact 
that lat« in February the defendant vrote & letter stating 
that if the plaintiff eould not see its way clear to accept 
^•S§, they eould discontinue shipping it altogether. I 
an tawible to ooaprehoad haw that can b« held to (^nstituto 
an adaission, on the pa,rt of the defendant, that up to that 
tia© it had taken the ooal at |5,00 per ton. 

Tho ooal whioh vas shipped by the plaintiff and 
taitttt 1>y the defend&nt, after February 1, vas sold and dellTsr* 
ed under a oontraoi, «1^ioh, to all intents and purposes, was 
tilent as to price, the prlee to fee paid, therefore, was 
open to the agreeaent •f the parties. It r<ia the subjsot 
of oorrespondenee between them througjhout those t^o months 
a«d they ntrer oaae to any agreeaent orsr it. The defen^'aat 






A to 


i^ifM^w •« «^c#&>*'4* 

«# «i&ii;^' ^i»i x^.i'^* •'-^>'> 



:a«i yttfi^ indicia ^'r^i^M^ «■ 

was, therefore, liable t» pay the plaintiff, for tlie ewa 
ahipped during those two aoatha, th* then preTalling a&xtet 
prioe. Th« tonnai;:* sblpped during those two sioathe It ad* 
mitted In the r©cor4« The nwjltta&noee t« the plaintiff 
from the defendant durlngr tli»t period are also admitted, 
then thoee remltt^noea are applied to the Qiumtity d«» 
Xirered it is found that they were baaed on a prie« per 
ton whieh, it ia further ad»itted« im» the aairket price, 
Tlieyefere, 1 an of the opinion that the trial court properly 
foimd the lesuee for the defendant, and that there wae no 
err©» in th*"? judgment airoeele.l from. 


317 - 28153 

t, C. PttBl, ) 

App«llAe, ) kfftkh rfto» 


HFimT D. DAVIS i^BKBPa C^l^vF-A^fT, ) OF CHIOaOO. 

Atpal.lant, ) 

Opinion filed Feb. 20, 1924, 

li ._. 1.. .-^.. u rf^ JL 

of th« v'ourt. 

tm »0ir®iBb«r 7, 1019, ^, •% Ffttfi, tht plsliattff 
brought suit 1r tht lunloip^Rl Crsvatt stg*A.nRt T3*iMy t^), f>avl« 

ittibeir vOS'-^anf, tii« defendant, t© rficovet |786,60 for eoiwRlselons 
on otrtftiu SKl«ffi of liaaft»«3?. a ^rlt of 8Lttscbi»^t tn aid *%» 
is«ued. against l*-"-rrl» Brotteerii o&m'sw, »» fs.mlsfeip'i*, on D«c««sb«T 
20, 131&, the d«f«»di»ttt fllftfS. its »pT»«sHT;«ac«, eiiid gr«v<5 b-'R(3, 
sjnd tlio attaofeiwfeBt «&« dissmWfd &n^ th«» iKtrml6ls.«»e dlsfcha^jpfe?!* 
On ^-pril 18 &«d 1^, 198S, tfe«»r« was a trial, wltbout t jury, and 
a 3adp6!^mt for tl»« ^Is^intiff in tb« bumr of t.78S,E©, fbl» m-pfn^X 
is ther«frijts# 

It Is »,Xl«isif»fi in tfe*» «»t>item<?rit of olwl^- tht^t iv tte€ 
f««r 1915 («ifterw6jrd« a«««<leiS to tsasS, 11^17), tfeo pli^lntiff 
♦iit«r«a Ittto & o»nt»«i8t with the ^.ft^n^vnt to t.fvl(;«! ordtrs? fta<5 
fi«ll lusst^** for tilt deff-UKJaat at a ooks»1»«1ot> t*f SO o*nte o«r 
thOttftaaA f ««t, s-nd SO p^r o«iit of any &«o«»t r»o®lv«d ovfr &n^ 
ftboY« the feaaie prio« luoteia by« dftf "nd'^at; ' that, purvu^nt 
to tbat ftgr«e««Bt, b*» t*)foc«r«fd ootitrsista 'jb folio??®: Ots D^otmv^x 
IX, 1918, with r, isr, aood»illle Co, ©f Gh5«»|ifo, IlUt»olft, a. 


saxss - '^IZ 



«ont]-&ot for B(K?,CKO f*«t of «{»ru«« donnftf^ff 4/4 In, to b« 

dry at nrio# of $89* VS ptr 1,000 f.*«t, tot l9««lo T>rlo« ^n ««nt 
biivlng li««» $38«7S r^tr 1,000 ftft; and ©a ilftiiu.<^.ry 8, lil9, « 
9oatr»et «itlt kaxvoil E>roB« of ahi««t{;o» Illli»ols, fox- 500,000 
f9t!t of «iinMo box IwBbw 4 In. «n« wld.#jr to fe# dry at nrloo of 
f34.S0 p^sr 1,000 f««t, ««t Ij'sslo firlci* on !?«»« hftvlnii b««fi 
|31,S9 i^r 1,000 ft«tj tfeat th«r« is «till dsio aR4 owing tfeo 
pl-i^iatlff 111 aecerAtwco wltfe the ttrws of telt oontyaot »ltb th« 
dtfoAdftnti .ri3p«%, on th« ooAtx'«iOt ofe%ftlii««S '^^Itfe tibf r?, M-* 
Geoiiirlllle Qo,, tb«i s'oir of $^i7.6^, ?iiid spoony, on tbo o^tntritot 
with KaxwoIX &X00, of OMot^o^ XI lnoi«, %h^ tua; of |3lia,46, vfeloh 
«m»» or any pait IJieT?*of, tb® duffnd^^.iit list* jrofwtod ana still 
rofuoee to pty ssM<i for wfeiefe eossfcijMfd miomiats t!#lni? I884-.©® 
t«g«1^#r vltfe Inter «*t from 4|Hfll 1&, 1^19, ttet pXslntiff l» 
indobtftd to him, 

<m>t»»b®r B2, ISKSO, tteio d«f«*R?lant fll«»<l ttt 
«ffld«Tit of »orit«, thftt wtt» «tyieitea, a.«!S am aiBO«d«<i isffiasvlt 
w*e filed. Tlie Istter «*»!%« th«t sjn ajmM&mfl^at va® »td* vitfc tla* 
iplftlRtiff, tettt thmt •ftay and til ©o«««l»«l<5ni? or 
oo9pftns&tlon.» of tho ftlslntlff itaaisr «j&!S fey vlrimo of th© s^i€ 
Agr««»«iit, w«f « to te«i paid to Him tey tte« def feodtsat o«ly on 
s^ifwratc aot^uilly mt.^ irnd in no #T«nt on ordtro o%ne»ll»d.*^ 
It a.ll«g«« t&at tho ytloe ©uott?5 tey th« 4ef®«asmt to tlio fjlulRtiff 
on tteio oontT« of tmoweh^t 11, 1918, with ,D. S. ©oodivllll® *a» 
#29. f® i^r 1,000 foot, R»« not |;^«T8; th^t only n port of tilt 
C^oodwiliio, and tho Majr»oll grotfcerft otd«r» rsa «hipi>«d, tfeo 
unohippttd 9)&rt of ooch luftviag hecH e^^n^Utd; <md that tht <!of «»- 
^.ant li!6,» isaic! all tfeo oe«B»l»»loae on tho order* a» f«r »» ti^oy •w«r« 
oirrlod Ottt. It rooitoo fttrtfeor tl^i1t,on. |»|»11 15, 191S, tlie 
dtfmdant t«!naf»ro4 to thr plaintiff, «adi th© lttt»r ftoe«pt«d, » 
oho^ in full eottlosicnt of hio ol^in. 



ti-xrr ;;:.<, .V- ;>;-:?■ 



^f;,j-Ji; ^. 

/,:'? i'*"/? * ® 


d :i:.&Atii.^-::::^ S^4^ 


T<» ••etftj*! *«!;«»,'■«!» 



s 4-?s>*«^«![»©«« •«»;?■*«/ ftsi# ; 




«4# «<» 

Tb« ohl-tf oontfimtlon of tli« dief ffufent !• thftt tlwi 
)m6gmim% is ol»arly n^glraift tfe*!- w«i|rht of tli« #Tl<J«neej to h» 
moxi» Dxpllcltf tlT; t tlje !ffld»n«)!5 p«»rt'?.lnl«ig; to th# Q*««tlen, ^hfntfe^r 
th» plaintiff ^^9 <^i]t-|ltXed to eomprl^^lon^ q« un«>lilpp«^ 07 
o^.no«lled oJfdcT*, «l©atly diil ©fii't ■i>xfp0n^^T%ill9 In f*i>Tor of th* 

plftiAtlff*f( Ol»i«). 

ruf! plalmtlff b-ad te««fi • Iwsfe** •«l««twi». for ever 
tlilrtir yfars. H# b*4 «w>l<^ luoibfr for t&« ■!S®f?n&»t, r.n Orefs^a 
ooriporation, -a d»fi,l«r in wli«iX«>e*lif XwiBfeer, fo^f « nmeh^t of ywsTi 
prit^r t«» ISIT, Kftd at flri?t f«#«lvftd fifty ctntsi a tSsD«»*ftS 
f%«t. H&vlnf *rltt«tt to thft .g«f #od*et fro* Gteioi&f© ■^at few wwal« 
«*11 «9oa thMB «t f©rtl«ad, Oregon, fa« trailed tfaa-ri^* at tftt^S'lr 
offle« on ?«bruary 1, iai7^ stttd as«t ©an lil«i?»,^^r, tfe» ir#«'»i?«-l 
,«^«asi^®r 0f tb(» !3«if^Tad&»t» tfef- f>laintlff ®*;Te julii^#r »«,,« tlai« 
only othtr p®r«©«. ftr«gi*»t li«i!^td©« hlmsi^lf, Bs^rt tfeit it».«!fr»e 
«t«n«^»f^r1a«r '^'s'lffi *way feadk 1b tkt ro'SBs." I^^rti? of m ftrsst s^nii! 
«e«oi}iS ^f petit Ion by i,it»€*r, a»?$, of a first »m.i 8t.«©M a,ffp<>«5ttioa 
fey 0110 Li^nnlaf., ricfs^ps-ecitft-Bt <>?' tte« d»f^ifid«.Rt# «■«?« ^t lit 
tTldftiio*, Xb their f iret afpoK-liii&iaife tfety say ttotfcinf «lfeot«t tte« 
o©ntra©t in qaff«-ttoe, US' It f»«rt%iB9d t© eaa®fl»ll%ti©«s, ©r 
tirli«tbttr stay o»ti ««« r.r<&»?mt »?*▼» t&© pl^lBtiff &ad. l.lia??.^r, 'feiat 
L-ft.aalng it). fel« a.-'ceail deceit Icn »%yf h% was t>r»i?,«^iit «it tb« 
o«nir«rea.tl9R, Tfee ^Hiotiff t««?tif i^ that h* t.<U%e^d with Lia^titr 
oi» Fefermry i aa«S 2, Itif, aiaa thst It ^J^r^^ft at%T#*^«l t^»t fe«, the 
plaintiff J, »ljottl«5 g«t fifty e«Rt-» a ttKstiwa.a'S f««»t, ana fifty 
fmr o«iit 9f the dlff»r«a«« feetspeip-is 9, flxtd ba»lo 5»riet and tfe» 
pries At i»htoh ttee ltsuii}«r w»j» «».ct«elly »ol«3. At th« «e-ttlia«« ©a 
*«fer\ujry 1 s»a S, 1917, tfe« pleistif" ^t.»e tk9 ^mfnin^^nt trairioa* 
orarre, wbioh lacludM ttet 3oo*»iXl.l«* a©?s?^atiy ^,ii«! i^%xii»ll frotfefr©. 
Th« pltlfttlff tsoatlsajsd fro» th«t timii until ^^m«».ry S» 191*^,, *^ 

... ^.^ 


turn In ord?»r« to the def*Bdlant, In blir B^a^yn^ dtiwtitlon, 

i,lnd#» stfkted that In th« convisretjtlen *lth tht pi^lfttlff 1b 

^ ebru&ry, 1917, the lattsr «al<J fee was not »ati»fi«»d «lth 

th« ajrrs>r»fc*»pnt <K»v»rlRf eoi5Wils»lon«, a. ad fh©tit'l#h# **>« 
*»tltl«(?. to m«ffttein|; Asorw- tl^^% h«f, i4RA*»r, tJi#n'tol<l bl» that 
th« d«f6n<2?--3Rt, «i? tff futurft fettK !»<«»«:«, '•s^ul^ ^mftt^ Mm prlett^ end 
i» addition to th<» r^f^iilftr ©oit^sststBlon ©f fifty ©«nte p*r 
tfeoucABd, it tpoulcf, piif hin ofee-half of whe-t ht ^'Ot 1» n-jresjig t^f 
the awoted fcrie«», all cs»»mie*lftne to te« -^sld aftt-r thi? first 
of «!scfe isotttb foilGVln*^ Ulie d*t« of ehlp»:(?Rt, er,€t oia'ly s»» 
»htiM»^te aettAAlly i«a.5u'5«,* in rm mtmt ©n 03ed^r« «sv»t«lle^i ttej^.t 
th« plfe.i-Rtiff that wo'^i^'. ti^- ffi«t,tlBfit.«t.«>ry, to ®oy|t o» thitt 
b-Eig; tivst th« pXatffltlff ©^Kt lisa^dl ■r,» f©y th** ^tfen-SfOit 
until April 'IB, 1919; that th« «$«f«?ndi»jmt lias psia tfeft wlalatlff 
his 0o«ssi»ivioa» oa sll shtpisf^iit* tiiiit it^TP mitiM, 

sa<i states tii&t he, LisnKiisf, w^«t pri^©^.Bt at the eo-jivs-rs^tiou in 
ffthruary, 1917, ?tsad that iin^sr tol^a th?> piali^tlff, the a*fpti!*,3int 
^o^uld pny tiXm only ©a »hi|9i(©At« actually magft and li» k© tf^T^iit 
vould pay sAy com»lc!6i&ii. 9» or^^re e%A'0«ll@(i« «.n«l that th$» 
pl&le^tlff »al4 thai «a« »stl«faetory to felR, 

Th©«« «iliiw»«#i^ t#9tift»4 ihftt 4h«f tnt^- tsaBlattf 
in 19ii, aod that he w*© th#ia vel^y fes-r^l ©f fe^s-rlrtg, Onft 
l^tE.ffer4 6?.y» L&nning usjod * he^jrii!*! tyww|>*»it #t t*l«fr>hoa*' ♦,fys=ns»» 
iiN»fiif ©r would PA% hie l9^ui4 ©vtT his ear# ^r. If o©« CBOlfcfp 
loudly, h« e&ulA iwJ!;T, Or.® Lae*r»Tt test If 1(54 ^«?-t otj aecoriRt ef 
i.&Rfii©^«« d«f<»«5tlv* hsTsi-lrtg, b«! titlEed t© l^-isi t^ougik »« 
iat«rf»eat#y; that i^&naisg: i2k»fKjl m».m kln^i »f tol«r.ho«e iRStruaeat. 
oa« j©a*5<9 t-tRtiflftja th»t fe« mfft Immixm in l^li?, sm^ th^t th» 
latt®? *«« ▼«!ry, veisy hiuP4 ©f haiirlng. 

i' r. 'I '? if : 


lie' «*»e3^« 




Tli« plaintiff off#r«^A In ♦«vi<ten«<f» s, PotTy of » <w«Bt)l«int 
fil»€ >>y t"fe« a^fi^fuStfit in a ctilt by It -srijlnftt th« pl*;iia$lff It* 
tlM Iatt«ip p^r% of 19S1, la tbf ^'ly«mlt CftUTt, MxiltiHriBiKlk cjotmty, 
Dr^tjioii* iii which, ufia^v tk* o*th of L^nnin^, Pr«»li!«nt of 
%h» di»f«a4attt. It i« »tet«4- tfey&t th« d«f <f*nd^'i»t ftfrr«»(S *t© sj*.f thi» 
^0f«iai(l«.at (»es.Jting Ffttrl) ». e©i»ji«sl®ft ©f £^ ceRtt por tfeousattd 
lidardl f«#t for all ordure e«ovtr^ &«^ liiii>rr tsolsS tey Sisid 
d«ftn«Bat (Fetfl) tot thtf tpUintlffi •tb&t it mnl6 aivid* any 

to tilt (ifff <»iidsiat. It te<»jlaf iuni^®T:»toosa tfeat th<!i ^«f«ti'6?mt w^s %^ 
»»<mr« th« b«t®t tijrloi* p©«f'lfelf? for sti^te lu8t<*«f amd ?««rti'V*> 9>««>- 
lislf ©f thic t,ii®y!at is«wrtd ©Vf?^» sad &b©v9 ^km qui»%e^ prle« to 
tkt d»feft««»t fey pUiatlff,* 

Tfc» «iyid«no« »fc©*e tVat t&t pl^lmtlff otet^p^lsftd far 
th» 4#f«»d*at In 1919 ,t» OT'Sei" fTo» M%jcw®ll ffxof*. ?>f Cfele^p* 
f©r SOu.Cioo f e«t of iua?bfr» for- ifMtch inxuptZl l^^?»8, tfref^S to 
pfcf 134. &u a tliouestint^ f««t; tfe,« fe^sle prie# cf '?bl<?k w-9.« 
|31»Se a tfeaufi^-acH f««tj *8d thj^t th^r* w^fiB Bhippme. S08,?f8 

f»«t, l«ai^i?iS!; •ai5»feipt5«d 195,323 fft??-!. It, also, sfeowfi tteat in 
ldl9, thv plAiEttlff ©bt?iiBea ao or^ty fi'»« f<» K, tJ©©dwllH» 
C©, for BO0»O-fXJ f»«t of la!jife©r, of wMicfe i?OS,i.01 fett w«r$ 
viklpptd, lee.^'ln.g im«lsi.lf!rp«d ^9t,6l9 fett, for wfeiofe d, v>, 
CrOodwlllle Do. &gT««d to pay #3-9.75 » thfl»w»aad f#*«t; tfe« teafie 
l^rioe of whleb »&• |S«,7S m th«a.3!5iiid f^«t, Tbe» •plaintiff •» 

•I%is! 10 for So eimtt * tfeo^ftistid fe«t «?.? etralrht 
eow»i»slon», ^nd 50 Q9ntf» a th<»ui?-«Bd fe»t «» iMVOAlle^ «T«rsf« 
oa tfci« utt»hi¥»f,ed 397,61» fe«t of th« 3o«<iwllll« Go, or^«r, 

ivhioh ttK,;;©a |{ sTi^ 60 ©ents: » tfeous&ad ff^t &« e©MBfti«i!8l?>»a, 

•:i #1.50 a tfeous.'vBd f««t as mver^'B @n tJie waetiiwfr^ l®3,?$r^ 
feet of th«fc ]^ftji*«li Srot, ©r^lfT, wiattf^ «5ltff« t*^te,48; te»iBf a 


'•>>if> *^i 

■«Tidt««« w»® lntr9'!»««««S t«^!s<8liiir to t^how ^f %h9> w!iol» 
of th« OTdsra obt&lBtfl ty tht plmintlff fT®ip isantwell ^ro», »nd 
tti« Qoodvinie CO, w«r« not filial, Tli« pUlatlff t»«tlfl«d tfe«t 

' !3n»tll i«o»» %h&.% ©trt^lB Ittiibtr tfe'^t buss b«<m »tel|)rp«i<S «?!>-« 

ffffue^a. bi?e)».tt«« It *a« srr««s siwd te«*ry, ^n>?, iroQuestlns; hi» to 
laTftStlgato, fe« w«flt *ltte -a«« M».jm«ll, tli» FT«»l^««nt of Eax»#ll 
Bx^oo.y to la»p»et the csJr?» »fid fotma tfewi f«li of lelelte &»A 
tb« Itta^or gre@o ^ft^ <B<&Ci7t »ii4 '<Ni>t sM frosoAj tfoa^t i>».]riir«lX 

to??. tO'>k no flsof« ftftuir that; tht,t tes! *1»® PK»«iii«4 l«»bi«»t 
«.&l^po^ to thf Cioodirllliii Co., «nd founi It la «. edisll&T ©ondltlco, 
■r4 tteat aoo4*llli« Oo« e«a«<»ll<*<!l tfati ^y^er aft*r that sfelpjtaat. 

latter 6&%*it& 8»foli 7» i919# o«»t \^f tfe« a«^^willlt ao«, «?»« 
introdtuotdt «fcieh roausst^fl tfe* ^ftBfeiit t«a oamo«tl th# te«il-».aeo 
of lt« order »«.» t&e «took is Buofe wo ofsiaiBot a@« It.* Tli« 
5l Intlff t^stiflofll tliat %ht ($»ft»d«at wlr«<l telii of tht eaee*!!!*- 
tl<m of 1^-oth oardere ibiS »t»k*«di tiifi to nwsotli It ov«r to tht ^ft«t 
of blfi ability. ?ts« *®f*adiRat lntrod«oo« n l#tt*«T dst«4 
ipril 17, 1918, fre» t«aan?«ll Erc*«, !^feleh rf»cTaey<ttil. « o^iso»llatlt?ft 
of thftir order on t6i« froioad that t&e Kea,t m<ski^m fet ^h0m 
V-nmtli Bros. iS5?f»ttff.otwri» ejciport e$^fi«»« *!»«▼«? oh«i.B.K«4l thflr 
sp«oiflcatloii« to co»for« with t&oott formf^rly uped ?fefer vr,* 

TUf! |>l«lntlff t«»«8tlfled that lit wsaa^* «i f^oroii *r.11b o« ¥at.xw#:ll 
fcroii. ».fiffr re^frlvla^ tb# t«'lefr%« fro« tfe« d^feadant *?» rfaau^ry 
2&, l$X9i tfeat ho exawlcw^d R©T«n ogrej that &a«?»#ll «si«S, lie 
oo»X4 not «tof *th« 4 - btUEsj* tliat ^« fe«a to u«s« th<v Cov»tia»««t 

to »top tfe»» obii^f^iaf, 60 fee «Rea a majt#rfii«;« »nd *rot«! tfe«*» that 
thff 3oy«ra»«?Rt woul<5 aot ifoc^i^t tb?t tin6 of l«»ib«r. Tte« ^aly 
OYidoaotl^vorliif tfao doft^adaat i» » letter dat«<2. F«feruary 3S, 1919, 

LiSm»»-' <<>■■'* 

Xft>.:i ^J!»> 



■f w*d 

«4 ^ti)-: 

.^'f-j ffM^.'^yi- 


..■f* '^M 

•Jii^l i^M^ \%: 

■itiii^ |t«is«fi>**s?ji!5Hli»ir* 

la wM©l» tk<» Oo^d»?llll«> Oo* r«KJu«Bt tli« < ffmdjsnt to hola <*11 fatuT*^ 

e3kli»n«atc of Ho* S mad Ho* S !Mf E'prttee 'mimt^iff; that tfeff Ktowptkixf 
it ■▼«ry Bin ok «.t tfe« |Hr«sffot tiM« $»« h*v« swjr* luiBfofsr ©a bsad thaa 
»• •«« ooavtnl^Rtly li«ndlet* ths:! «» »oon t.e It le in at p«i©Jtl©a 
to )i«i.BdI« eoir« it vill notify th$ ^feadbat* -vtileb tl^je, it tr^f^ta'^ 
will fe« fthortly* t|!tre«> wita«fa«»a, fs.85lli«r with th<?> lw»b«»r fett«ln««% 
t«ttifl«<S for tfe.« i>la;latlff con^ernlaf; t^t i*»«?» 'tja«l c«fitomR la t&at 
lBiwiia«»e In t»g:^w^ to, <»>»i>e»ffjistlQn eara^€ by ijr#jittr» la ^n»%«!M' to 

hypotlietie^X i^^a«®tl?>a» coftts.lait^ atttfcst&silntily ^Jstat tlit «vi^«aoo 
t«ait4 to «ho»* Petri h&d d9a« in imr»a%ii(3t« of lil« «ipr9«ii<sat *ith tb« 
(Sof^ndsnt, sad ««.db i&Vds it &« 1fel» oplaioa t&st, ■^'*? i>r«fl«re w«r» ©fo- 
talaod «ad tfe«rt ^jjit «. f&ilixr« ^t fvXfllXmmit ^win^ %<» th« luafeif not 
boiag mp to fsa-^^-.llty, m€ tli^rgf smu ao fault oa ttoo pmxt <»f thi ag^^at, or 
brok«r, tho ou&toa i« to iwiy th» broker * ©©«i«i&.'?toa on th% totai 
oraor.. ^eiao ovidtaioo "was off«r«a by tli«f ^«f^a«35i».t i» T^^r6 to 
th» pXfttntiff bsvlag reeolvojl » olifsok la fwill »f til ai« hir.# but 
ttO.|ioiat i» aMt4« ^f that la d«f<mdi!iat*ii t>ri«>f» 

Fr©» th« for«»fs:olaf sa^lyssl® of t&« J5?vid*«!i5c«?, it i^ imX%» 
olbriows tlMi.t th« ^dfreeat to aeft ol«i«trly «tf&la«t tfe© w'tls^t of t)it 

tbif dof^^adsiat dot* aot deay thatt % e^ntT%9t ««» «»4« *» 
«l«.iaod by th« f'ls.latlff , l»«t it ua<5«irt?!sk«» to umiati^la tfcat tli#f?^ 

W3» & 'qs'tt&lifiontloa to tins »ff*ot tbat ao ooawsisfii^n* or »©»-■ 
p«aontioa *?.& to fe« palA «a the ttn»hl.p9oi or o«»-ao«lX*»4 ?^or tiaras <&f 
all ord«r» <>btRln«d ^ tli» |>l«ilatiff» th« e^ldsnct of tb« dofsii*imat 
.ftg to tlio qitelifloatisia is* Ottito ififelf^a, «i?ltfeer ila##r a^sr iaanlng 

ia their flr«t .is|>o«iti©ae »my ^.aythla^^ a^^ut gneh a crasllfie^^tioa, 

'* --H It, it 4 M»'i h. 





to Ij* payable only on »hlp»fnt<» e^otw*!!!' is««!M», Tbtn, to©» tb« 
pl«lntlff tegtlf Utf tHat aiilf b» iifid Llader w«r«? present w&#n t)i«> 

fHr«ikeiit - »»fi» hft wa» px»»«nt 8.ii<j H«srd th# aKr»»«»nt «ad?!. vurther, 
l» %h9 o^'»mplalBt l« th« Cwr*g»n 0»>itrt, sw&rn to by L^nninf, In v'teiob 

&« imrport* t© ftftt up tfe* v«yy .aS!:ir«ni»iR«»t tte,# i?lalntiff l« li«T«f 
tmimr up©«# n« mtDtlon whiit»v«y l<s wftd* of «iiy lls8ltftl«(» o© 

f-*vor«.bXy l«t'.r««s'-«« *ltb the ©x edibility df thfi |»l9.lntiff, smd 
li«vt eonaXiadtd th-*,t there: w«ye ©uofe su^pioieiiii clr«m3B«tisnec« in 
%iid abomt the «vl4#a««i for tht «J«f»«A*nt» kiis ws« ©niy 3w.iftlfl»d 
la flndlai for tfe» ^lalatlff . 

It i» c^,iat«fiid«d tTsst th* tri«,l |iias?:« »rr«?<3 in 

a4»lttlng th« t«»ttiinny of exu^rie ir^ tfet ItaaPb*!' feTi*^i»«?'e® sn to 

t&« «««4|e «ai«i custom eom®fefttliig coi^lt8il0«» «n tMstlil|>r>^a s-yd^Tt, 

Bttt, ft« tfe* aj|jr<»©iB«»t t'^Mtiflf^. t* "fey th«f pltlntlff ^.?t pXl#mt 

oa tbftt dD^Jeot* It wae hie rl?:fet aftd«r tl»«J law, to pr^'s't th# 

'OUiti>«i* a«US- »©' elxow titst It w)*.r to b(» »'is»l«l«'re»t3 t« i?s.f t of tli# 

oo6tr«s«t. tl K»no grce^^ry :!<> , ▼, " to<!8ktfif 20?, Ill, BOS. fb» 

-2«iirt in th9 l.iitt«T o&»<s i»ti4> 

*fhl8 0fturt h«t« h^ld thBt ©eBtff'dt® Bis;f?^i» In tfet 
orcUnss.ry 04iiar»*^ ©f 5r<ugln'f»ii'.s '?lth©«t ^ay r?f,rtl€mlaT 
fitip»ttl«jtlc>n, t^spr^s^ or lr,rll«'d, sr# pT^^aurs^A t© t'* 
Made 'With r*»f <»rr^is,<5e t© '*-ay «»xl«?ti3j^* UMfd^ or custois 
ir«litlBg to sucfe tr?;:d«R,. »nd tteat It Is Rl'^fty* 
©<S5ip^t-?Mst to rs^ojrt to t^icli an-iin* to nw&^rt^in ^n4 
fix th«» tfr8»« of th<^ 0cntTa«5t, Thl» baSnr so, th*,i'e ©a» 
fet no t-u«ttlo« by th« ywi^-ht of atath-fji-lty, t^'st tte« 
t •tlii«fset nt to tfe«» (msto®.9 r*«fl tte«^#»* ©f tbe tr«5<!ft 

with r#f »r«»<3« t« euoii eoiylr^ot wtace. .properly h^-ld 

It S« 0Qnit«B4«id tbtt th« tTtsel JttiSfre ^crr^a 1» yefti«*l«f 

to t?'?TtBlt (itsfeiidaat** oowrtB«l to «?tt»!ftloR tfers pis.lRtiff in r»ir»?d 

te his .r^l&tloaa witfe tb« #«ffR'a*i«t prior t© 131T, The pUlntlff 

00 «fri>ft0«^x ^:«lafetlan tfiotifli^^ ths^% h|i «ttrt»(fi t© ««3rk for Hht 


■/f^ «J 


•«t# «iJ^ m ,. 

!; -.r t »?t»?J' -if 


... U 

Riidi r«c*lv«(S fifty eef>.«« a t&ot&e.'*»<3 f«»«t, en* w&e tJa«a a.»k®d Uow l-<!»»|t 
that rel^tlou«hlp «xli(t«<l, to t]^»t qutstlon Mvmii^l for t)i« 
)pl«lntiff obj»«t9d, oo U»« it^ound of |jiwit«>ri<iitlitir« ^a<? tli« 
et>]«otlos wae «u«t*ln«^, fe do not tbink tlaat conrtlt^t^^ ft^et^atlisl 
error* tfee pl*i.iRtiff *a cUlw, h«r«*. Is uptsn ??, sp«cls,l «!p'««**Bf»»t 
"UvW-de In ?iabra&ry rsi?, aa^ tt.« tuner, br fcsd i[>«?«r» w^rkltig --vb 1>»f®if« 
ii«r« TiRlfrjsortunt* At »9ttt» tt ««*» is t ft,a error that i^oultS ^uftttfy ?» 
reir«re^l .?f th«c }«dgin.«ftt« 

it t& «?tstfiatle*S '6*-:»t tfee trial ^iclj^*? *jtt«#. la 

t© r«i?«Jir<s »t ilj,® r-«t« i»f f4"V<^ (S) p(^T c^^^tm^ mt SiPxmm * * * 

<!«liKf f»f i»?.y«j*®% i» a is®tt«3r ^^f faO'^, mv^. 1te.tT.s tliii? t?l,'^.l 
^g« liflfl<?. tb&t tfej*»« ^.« pmi?-h dali^r, ?ht eis^tstisjis ts^f^rt «©* 
th»r»f9r.i», i» ?«^.«thcr thsstt. flifs^lr,! «r^« ol«#irly «iaii?.st t^9 

Xed Sll. ^s»p. CvS4, $?fesre plaint ff »tt»S f»r & te*i*a©« due 

for prc»fifi&«l#»&l gervisiec eis p&tasit »\U^ttLt:f», the otjwxt 
%llo*'9a lnt«r<:'#t^ 0tt tk« gr<mfta tJi«;t it app*.;jr«?4 tfe&t tfe« iroosS 

fi^ltk ©f ths d*»fftRda!4t l» r«fufilii« and r«»lfttiaf t^»y»«ftt, «a6 

^lsisrffd4t«4 »y tb« eTl(3«n.9«. ti»*r^ !« »o f 1»»4 ttta^sT^ *>y 

vrbloh uars?i«&n.%bl« feadi Ttscistloiaft 4«l*y 9^%j te« ^«t«rwl«*»iJ. '5«I«y 
of p^fm^nt i^l.'&m Is sot rexatloiMi. ^jiis^l^ ▼• Cli^rt^ 1^ li^f S44<i 
The di»lay is^st fe« Wtfe xiar*E',s«?«*.lBXi» .s^nij ▼«x.:;^t,l«m» - "'firtntl 's^. "ai^MM 
101 111. 138 ^ aaS ;^si«t HsTt arl««m a» tfe© r«8!«lt of tt>.« dortiietiss 
of the debtor. |yaeXl?r ?. sorth^^gtt^rB ^^Juty^^n ^ity. / 1@6 lU. t3S. 


If the «Tl<3enet shttws th&t tbe «(»»f «rR« - tfcotagfe wifnMMMi««M. - waf 
»»lnt«tln«d ast on© «*(!• In good faltb, thu* «t<!^tttt« <!»»« »ot a|»r^Tii 
as It wa» not Itatf^ndtd to p«n»litre a litigant for lste»t>o»lng what 
h« believed to bf. «.« hon«)«t dftf^?j®ft te an un^«t clsiia, -oh m»lIb?:tch ^r- 
^» ltot»ai^Jilln ilnm -0 « IDS I'll, ^.pp, 486. 

Th« Jmcig-Risnt her* in favor of tfeff plaintiff «»«9.n«i» by 
iRplleaticn, that tlie trial court fotind that ttec olslw of tbt 
dofottdsat not only Pft» »ot i^roron, Ifeut th»t it wing »:n©»J5 to its 
Oi''i't«!»«rs tU-st tJift «a«?f fB®e »«t «p wais false» or tls.K,t it 'Sfat 
lnt«rp©«od witbowt iroo^. f(t.i%h hmS swir^ly to aooomfli»b «, telf^y 
in p.».y««ftt of plaintiff ♦« elai«. w# ^ra ttst is s riositi^^n to »».y 
thnt tbis finding of ih# tri?s,l oowrt wbm si??%lB«t tk« ii»sBi.f©«t 
weight of tb.e *Ti<5«nG®» an<5f th-!ir*for««, r*? ar* obliged to liiliS 
tii&t th® plaintiff iPS!,« ontltlcd to Imttref-t fro® tfe« ti?!* tUe 
principal ^^cswe (*««•. o>t-le^go ▼.'fcgttg^ 104 t* *. It0# 

T1i$ 3tJidgw«mt, tte«rfffor«, ip. ».fftrwe<a. 

■ a 

333 - 38108 


KHRHEg M»'G« 00. « 


or (SiicAoo. 

Opinion filed Feb. 30, 1934 

MR. mMtmma smtios^ n^wn 4eiiv«y«ii the 

oplnian of the court* 

Hie plaintiff* t«rls 9»gtA, aeting ats ai^ lasur* 
ftAo« 0olloitor» got th«! defendant to t»]i:« out 9*7talit la-> 
8ia^nQ« tbxoug^ Wll«ya liSagill & ao^mson* lasur$<j3iee brok«r«« 
In Jim«, 1921, fii diBtmte having ajrleen betwten the s^laia^ 
tiff and Wiley,, «aglll & jQh&$fm, the in»uraaoe brokc^rs on 
the Qn9i h«iM, %n& the defen;*a.nt on the othex, »e to the debits 
an* eredlta of the aoooimt between the infl\iTaa©e hrokeri and 
the 4«fen(iant9 the pl&intiff, ti»gether vlth one Hog^let, the 
r«te oleik for the Ineurmnoe brokers, went to the flace of 
bnslnsse of the defen<3%nt, and, there, together with Kemea, 
of the defendstnt wjapanfn an<1 the oompsny's bookkeeper, 
went ©TtT the aeeount* As th« reeiilt of that meeting, t. etate* 
nent of debits tind er#dits ims mskde out, whlob im.s dtsted ^huse 
13, 1931, Tfhleh showed debits of |SS8«11, »nd oredlte to the 
defendant of $fO»15, leaving a balance due from the defendant 
to Wiley, Ma^flll tt Johnson of |488»9$« fliat purports to be a. 
typeerltten eopy of that statement was Made out by the inaur* 
anee brokers, and, after a waall ©orrection, nhowe a debit 

'^'' ' aoisJLfsO 


' iM':.'! 

by the defendamt of I548.91, and » credit of $77.55, leavla^ 
a toAlanee du.« from th« dtsftadent of f471,56. 

Up to Octobtr 1930^ the def«ad««t»8 place •! 
busiaeas **• at 466 Waat Huron £tr«©t, ^Img^, It waa 
tteen aovad to 814 R»«a Streret, Aftar th» removal of tb« bus- 
iaaaa ta !to«a ttreet, apparently, sossa q^wfetioas ^roae aa to 
a ahanga in tJj« rata of the dafondent's ineuraBce, 

Subaeouent to the saeettng on J\m» 13, 1921, the 
dafeadsnt. wade th« followlag payasanta: Oti Jwly 1?'. 13^1* 
|171»66$ Auifttat la, SIOO.OO; Septfimber 28, 1100.00; *ad 
Ootobar 1S,$100.CO, thoat four fjaymaata aggregatlag $471.56, 
balng tha aiaouiit which tha defeadwat elala» aaa agreed apoa 
aa the total aeiount due, at the aeatlag of June 17, 19S1. 
Soaetisae in Cotober, however, it wae <?l8covtrea according 
to Degan's teatlaony, that, instead of the bal*a©« of the 
account being 1471.56 - Whleh the defendstit paid - it ehsmlA 
bATa b«^ 1147 «orc. thia tuit I® for tba latter »ti«. 

At tba trial bafora the court, irithout a iwry» 
IvtdffMat waa given for the plaintiff in the sua of 1147.57, 
fhla appeal ia therefroa. 

If the evldanea ahotre that, with knowledge of all 
tba oircuwatanoee and items of aoooimt, the partiea, }m^ . „ agreed on June 13, 1931 upon a statement of the aoeount, 
it would follow that the plaintiff waa not entitled to re- 
ooTer in thie suit. Bat, it is oontended on his oehalf that 
what ima dona ou Jima 13, 1931, ms baaed on amtual ignorance 
of the rataa that ware properly flhargaabla for the inanrance 
which bad bean glran the de*f«nda«t. fh« plaintiff teatifled 

J^/ti-VJ^i ,£;',' 




7 .'. iFl i 

- ff t »•? yt«J 

v'.^i J^iiili i/ii Sj' t fcl,«t 


i'mvi?^ ai»$<5f i»«k1 4^ld9 


tlmt when %h» d«feadftiit naTftd froai 481 Buron atr«et to 8X3 
IUi«a Btrent^ he r6C4!>lY«d «.ll the plaintiff's pollelet, so 
that the stddr««.-ee mlg^t b« ohanged and a correotioa wRde 
In th« raitee; that he, the plaintiff, h^A the pollolee la 
hla poaaesRlon for three or 0our months uatil they were 
ohaaged, after whi«Sh he delivered them to Kemee, Preeideat 
of the defend^tat oowpa.!:^^, sutid th®t then; then appeaared upon 
(K&elione of those pollclea the correct suBOwat of debit and 

eredlt. He ftirther teatified that when ieraee asoTcd f»o« 
Huron to «««• atxeet, the tooard of Uaderwrltera i&ade a ala- 
take In the rate, "put the deoiiaal point la th« vrong place; * 
that auba^quently, «hen the Board of underrrltera foand o\it 
their alatake, it i?&s correetedi that &emes had crlalmed that 
the Board of Underwritera had charged his company, the defend- 
ant»too Bjaoh, ilaintlff farther teatified that K^mt^ went 
with the plaintiff »« rate slerk to the Board of Onderwritera 
aad had the rerlalon a«,d<? In the rate; that he talked w4th 
Kemea when he mowed in October 1920, nn6 iuring the aoath 
of Jaa\iary or Febmary, 1931, He further testified that the 
poliolea were delivered to the defendant prior to the ti-ae 
that the statement for ^471, &6 was made up, 

the plalntifi testified that after the meeting of 
June 13, 1981, Haiplet had a auuBarlaed statement which he made, 
that showed a b^lanor of $471 j that later "we found out thmt 
there waa a mistake in thie stateaent. The clerk, ^ho l» not 
our bookkeeT^*!"* ^^^ 3^«* ^*ie ®^®' *^* different bills ncl 
added thca up aa credit© and debits, and made one froa there, 
and he showed a 1471. balance, and on that Mr. larne^ paid, 
but ';jhen he omt mxr atateaent, this statefs^nt, we fotjnd 

SfS OS i^^^^i^i^ nmf-m *?5-> *v.rtl J^p-^-c?;- 

'.tjtrr ?<■: 

if-il'.ft'^ra. Vi.' .' ,* 


that ^r. K.«raes had ov;ed ua sor« than the ^471;" tbat is 

tl4?»00 »ore; th*t he talked rlth Kerne* In October 18S1, 

aiyi the latter told him to see kle, leraea* bookkeeper; 

that he did« and that th« bookkeeper pat hi« off; that 

It vaa always the same thing* be w&s too buey ftad he oould 

not go 0T*r the book*; that h«» the pl&intlff* told defend:* 

«nt*8 bookkeeper **lf he took his |K>lleie8 out» he vould 

find hie debits nnd oredlte on the polieies and he eould 

oheek up the eta-tenfflat ve «ent hla; that he* the plaintiff* 

offered to oheck It up any time with the bookkeeper; that 

a« to the $471* 30* there v^e ni» disf'ute* 

nines* the president of the defendsi^ mmprnKf^ 
testified that after *}un# 13* 19S1* he took out on August 
5, 1931, another poliey for |1*000, th<p prcaili» of which *as 
#21.70* «hioh the defendant paid on Seoember IS* 1931* and 
that the dispute between the defendsjat esnd the plaintiff as 
%• $471»56 not being the total indebtevlnees of the defendant 
for insurance, began souetisM &fter ii.tiguet 3* 132X« Kernes 
farther testified that, after October 13, ISBl* at whioh 
time the last payment on the |471*5@ was swide* the insurance 
brokers sent the defendant a *vr<»ig statement wlt^o-ut the 
dates* and they ooulda't looate the year. We dldaH know 
T*iat uns paying twlo« » » • foiti we asked the* kindly to 
point out to na whioh bill w« ©wed It. They couldn't show 
us wbieh bill we owed. They siroply said, this is on a trans- 
notion of business for a period of several years, anl we C3n»t 
tell exactly I4 which year it was* they said the balance showed 
that ifuoh. We asked theai to account what policies it «as - 
wMt bills were un^^id* what batlances th®y r«re. They said 
they couldn't tell us anything esrctpt the final aaount • 





that im« tl37«* He further tnttlfied* hovev«Tj» that after 
thtt $#71*56 was paid in full^ hia attention was e&lled T»f 
Skigsa to th« poXloiee enumerated in the atateiH«nt of elala; 
that he asked D«gen to eirplala vbioh poliolea re re unpaid and 
whioh were paid, but that Segen ooald not tell him. He fux- 
ther teatififid, "I told Ux, Degen any time he ajiked me where 
I owed hi:« money 1 would pay it*; and that Oegen told hln a 
ale take had heen mstde by the bookkeeper, or aonteone In charge 
of the booke, n,nd that r?3,s i^at vade ^e dlffftrence of |147«56« 
That was after the bill, evidently referring to the etatement 
attfltohed to the plaintiff*© steteaient of olaiK, wae rendered 
in Moweaber 19ax, . , 

thorn the for«gol|)ig. It will be »e«n that, aooording 
to the eirld«nee on the part of Oegen, the alleged agreeiiient 
of June IS, 1'3S1, wae aerely ae to the amount adaiittedXy due 
at that tine, but that the agreement did £iOt purport to be a 
final aettleaent of account between the parties, with knowl* 
edge at that tiae by eaeh as to all the polioies and ratee 
oharged* l^e are of the opinion, under the eirou«staBcea, eon* 
aiderlng particularly thst Uegen testified that on June 13, 
1931, wn agroegnfiatt wma made that the |471«S6 repr^eented all 
that the defendant owed, that it would not be reassonable for 
ifto, on the face of the record a« it ^^ppearo here to override 
the jIudgiBent of the trial Judge* 

Ths evidence ahowa th^it the plaintiff Degen, on 
torch 17, 192S, paid the aum of tl47,66 to Wiley, Maglll it 
Johnaott, end th«$ reeord shows th&t this suit was originally 
begvja in the naae of Lewie Degen, but that subsequently a& 
order was entered ae followej "It is ordered by the ceturt 



iMe »fi« sf^i^m-- 




^ > »«.. .-i - 

■>■■■■- rsi 9:^9 



*h»t Xtmy be and h»r«bf Is gmated the plaintiff to amend 
statevent of olaia on the face to read* * Wiley, i^g;lll It 
Johnson, for vtee of l.evi8 Degen**** 

Oonsidering th&t the pl«iatiff was an inauranoe 
solicitor and got th«» defencJant oosrpanjr to take out polieles 
of insurance through the inaxiranoe brokers Wiley, Magill & 
Johnaon, Jinrt was necessarily interested in the payment of 
pr«ai%tts toy the def^mlsnt to th« insurence bTOkeara, thex* is 
no doubt but that payasnt of the balanoe of |147.56 by the 
plaintiff to the iaswraao* brokers g»ve hi« such an interest 
•.B justified bringing suit in theix aaju® for hie use* It is 
oontended further , that, iB&sfiudb as ia^B atatement of claim 
«&• not physicsBlly altered on its face so as to read, "Wiley, 
Itagill A Johnson, for u@e of Levis JSegeB* no euoh amendment 
oan be oonaidered &e having been autds* The ord^r of June 14, 
19^, giving leave to aiRond the statement of ol&is on its 
faoo, contains, also, the finding of the court of the issues 
a^inst the defendant and assessing the plaintiff's damags 
in t^e sutt of tl47«S0« 

In aiB9^)-i;f,f ▼. Wimig f earning Co.. 874 111. 417, 
the oourt iB»nctloned the following language J 

■Where ther« is *!r! ordf»r ip^nting leave to 
amend and tbe subsequent prooa<»dln(^ in the eause 
axe based upon the asaumption th^t the aiaendnient 
lias been aade, the course is to consider the order 
^B standing for the amendment itself. Where a mO'* 
tion to ajsend has be«ra granted but no asiended plead- 
ing appears in the iudpient roll, it may he treated, 
on ap]>eal, as if ael'ttally «ade»,» 

Also in that oose the oouj't s&ldj 

^-ibaii timet 


JJfci-8« ;t'/r5;-. -wj:* *.;'*: 


*'To oonsider this amviidflBent on tbla 
record as aottmlly nadn In no auiner affeots 

th« wexitsi of this oau««, neither 1» it isigaiiatt 
•right and ju»tlo«»t* . 

Under the Glroxai8t»no€S|» w% are of the opinion that 
the Jud(pent wae properly entered in favor of Wiley^ ^fimgill 
A J:^hn80n« for uao of Lewis Segcn* 

■^ rinding no error in the record the Judf^ssent is 

o»coif«oa, J. AMD THonsoir, J. ccmcim,. 



35X - 38186 



Zoo X.rla '^ A^/^ 
- ' Opinion filed Feb. 20, 1924, 

1BI« PRISiaiilG au.$Tlcr«; TaTTLOE delivered tbe 
Opittlott of the ooujft. 

On Jwly 28, 193'-?, 4gBe« radlto, tli« plalBtlff, filed 
s ooaplaiat In forolM© duttainer in tfe« mmicljsal Qovatt a^inst 
•Ia)ui Wreesien* the dBfend&utt eta t lag that she, the plaintiff, 
vas entitled to the poesession of & •»tor« and room in rtnx 
sAd part of bAS^ent looated at 5605 W, ©rand Av«.,* Ohio&go» 
vaA that the d«f«niant vattlawfully withheld po«»«»sloa. On 
August 35, 19SS, the court * upon a trial i^ltbout a 3«ry# foiaad 
tbnt tb« defendant wa» guilty of . nlftwfully withholding, and 
that th« plaintiff had th« right to poaaeasion. Judgment waa 
aatered, aooorlingly, and thio appeal takan. 

the evidence tihora aulwitantially th« following: 
On Atsril 16, 1^0, one Staraar le«a«d, in siting, the pr»mla«» 
|A question to oaa Arehaaki froa April 16, 1930 until April 
18, 1935, for I^XOO.OO, payablo I3S.00 a month. On th« hs^ok of 
thft l«aa# a Viwaik "Aasignaiaat and Aocaptance* l« |»rtly filial 
OttH, eridently intended to b« sn aosignaent toy th*? les :a«, 
A^lkaoki* but it is not signed by hi*. And directly boloa, 
a^t purports to b« an "Acceptanoa,"* dated Jime 7, 1930, ia 
algnod by Storaer, the leasox. and ona Kxaaklwrlc*. Boloa 


r-^iW crl 


ill* aocMsrptanoe th«>rf Is a "Oonscnt to AsslgoMent^" to Ki^aklsn* 
leSf ftlso datfid June 7^ 1^0» signed by Stszmsr* Tbsn follows 
a »I««8Sot's Assignment*** dated June 7, 1930^ which reoites 
tbst the less^or, Stermer* for s eonsld^'riition* trajoisfers, assigns 
sftd sets over to Ksasklevles six Steitnsr'e interest in th« lesss 
said the rent secured thereby. That ie eigned by Sterwer. 0« 
a prints 1 blank fora* attached to tbeorigiaal lease* thf^r^ is 
what purports to be an * ha<sigamBit% and Aeoeptanoe*** dated 
April 13* 1921* and sifted by Kvaskiewies and wrseslen* the 
(lefen<iant« That reoltee this-t for yalue r^oeived the signers 
"Assign all my ri^xht, title and interest in an4 to the within 
loses unto John imssien<* his heirs and assigns*" andf further* 
an assi»q»tion of and agreement to pay the rent under the lease, 
Bslew that* on the e»me printed blank j^ appi^ro a "Oonsent ts 
Assignment** signed by @termer« ^bloh imdertakes to consent 
to an asslgvaent of the lease to »rseslen* on oondltlon that Sra- 
skievios reimins liable for the pro«pt payment of the rent* 
Sadli sigoatiirs* en the lease ttnA on the asei^nment* Is follow* 
ed by a seal* It was not recorded, A oertified copy of a 
{4uiV»olaiJS deed dated May 30* 19S0* trxm Stermer to Cssslaws 
i}osl>roiniki of the prei^ises in question* acknowledged on May 
30* 19S0* and rsooriUtd on Ootober S9* 19®0* vra^ offered and 
reoeiTed in eirideno«» A oontraot to pturohase* dated April &» 
1933* oonoeming the suae propearty* between Cssslawa Wind Ber* 
imrd Ooiibz««8ki* parties of the first part* and Agnes Kedlss 
(the plaintiff)* party of the seoond ]^rt* vbioh constituted 
en agreement to oonrey by warranty deed* |2*000,00 being paid 
tewm* an^i a balanoe of f3,000|00 to be paid in monthly install"* 

ments of |6S«00* was offered in eridenee. It reoite* that 
Agnss Iadls« wmm given imediats possession wi^ all the 


1 ■ - ? 


•■s-i*<-. • 


yi^ts of Ofwn«78lilp* 0& th9 bftA of it are cmdoraed four 
yajrmentflf for May, J\m; July atad jkugust^ 19?2, 9.ggTe£:atiBg 
i860* 00 of principal »nd #S8«03 of Interest* 

On May 15, 1923, on behalf of th« plaintiff, a 
writtea notion t& tezminata tbe defendant* a tenanoy was 
0<srTe4 on hin. It notified him that it would '"tSTminate 
•a the 15th d&y of July, ^, D* I9®3* and that he trould b« 
*TO{|ulred to mxrrvndeT posaessioa of said proolses** to ths 
plaiatiff on that day* Tho dc^fendant vas 1|^ posaossloa whtn tho 
notiot muD Bcrv%d on hin, and was la posseaslon at tbe time 
•f th« trial. On* tf^lca, former ettomey for the plaintiff, 
statad that h« had b««a eolleeting rent for ths preisiass for 
9T9r a yoaJT, and that th^ T»n% falls dua and is paid hy ths 
dsfendant oa th*? fifteenth of tbe month; "That is the first 
day of th« suoceedlng month* a jr«nt** Ths plaintiff sti*ted 
that whsa shs bou^t the prealaes «hs did not know that thers 
sma a Isass of th«« to the dcsfftndant, but that mht did knew 
he was in ^ssssslon and paying rent; that the rent was paid 
om ths fifts«a«h| that &a f ax as shs ^nsw it stj^rtsd on ths 

i^skisvios t«sitlfisd that ha ooouplsd ths 
prsnisas at oas tiiss; that he bought the> pl&es, idiieh was a 
soft drinl^ parlox, froa Arcbaoki; that h« asked Htsraer to 

aasiffA ths Isaae to hla; that, aft«r he bought the plaoa, 
h« paid rant to 3t<trsie7t than Oollas, and thvn Dmsbrowski, 
135*00 a fiionth; that he did not fememhsr when he sold the plaes 
to the defendant. His attention being called a|>p9rsntly to 
ths aiisaatursa, to th« l»lanX assiffnasnt and aooeptance of 
June 7, 1330, he testified that oais wis Ms ^nd the other 
that of Sterner* He further testified that he ??®nt to Stermer 




'S iMo. 

. -ex 


Tldeidl that It oould only l!>e aeelgRed in writing, by th« 
writttm ooii»oiit of th« lesnoir^ the tria.! judg« found that 
at th« tin* Sterner assented he Tmd p«.rted vlth Ms 1a» 
t«y«st In the property, «Rd «o wuld then girt no rlg:ht» 
to the defendant* 

Ott April 5, 19S3. ffhen the rl«iintift by the irrittwi 
contract puTehs\a«d the prpaiiies in question, she adaito that 
8h« Knew that th« d«fen;lant was la pe»if««»»ion «unid paying tent 
thorofor* Prior to thj^t tlmo he had been pftying rent to the 
i>Mibroir»klB« In talcing th<? premiaes as uhe did, and knoving 
at th« ti:K« that the def<??n:ls,nt was in po«ses«ioa* «nd thcro- 
aft«ir aeoeptlng rent from hlai, ish» is not now entitled to 
ohallongs hia rights ae a les®®*^ 'under th« !«&«• in cueaticn, 
Ki^^kitml&Mf who testified that ha te®«^bt the plaoa froa 
Arohaoki« had baen rightly in posseaaion stnd bad paid r^nt to 
Staraer, iht then ownar, and slao, subaec^u^ntly, to Qoabrowslcl, 
tlien when Kraslciewles aold hia Intsreat to the defenlant, the 
defendant went into poseaaeion and i^id rent to Oombrowaki, 
and then anib8«<ju«ntly to the present plaintiff. Obrlowsly^ 
the Aefeniant obtained all the rlig^ta In the preatieee that 
Kraaklewloa and kxelmoki had nader the original lease. It la 
txme that the plaintiff isay n^rttT have aasented In writing 
to a transfer of the lease to tbe defendant, bi^t ii^aaatuofe 
aa at the time «he bou^t the property fro;a the Oc»iibrov<alc:ia 
ska taitm the defendant tra.a in poaeeasioa • and ther^sfter 
aocepted rent from hla • she waa put on her guard and had 
notice that the defendant was in poseeasion and ol^elffiing 
to tee there uader the tefate of the original lease. And al- 
though the original leaae proTlded that It could only be 
assigned in writing by written ooneent of the lessor; yet» 
as that olauae le for the benefit of the lessor only, ^n^ 

■f.r,., - t^^f^iV'i^ 

»ffl# o^ 




and mm mh* •»» fit to Teoogal«« bi« poae««eioa toy ^ocepting 
y«at from tela, «he Muat b« considered »ft baring imlYftd &n 
a««lgnm«nt In writing. WfilfeStgr., ,€t ?1 v. H ( lc^oj>y. ft al » 104 
111, 160. 

It Is clalfflod that the faot that th® dofea<iaBt paid 
150.00 » aoath rent ie evldesos that he was aot in the pT«»l«et 
ao » tenant undex the oTiglnal l«a8«. But the evldeno# «how« 
that after the plaintiff had testified that ehe knew the de- 
fondant waa in paaae.slon of the preM«e», she wae asfced, -Row 
«i<jh r^nt wexe th«y pmylng/ and weweTOd, «|3S.OO/ and that 
It wao paid on the fifteenth of the oonth. IThy thi defe-ndant 
paid 150.00 a tBonth. a« ^own by certain reo^ipts for four 
months m the latter part of 1931, Is not enplalned. hut that 
fact alone do«« not prove that the d«f€natmt«8 rights under 
the orlglaal leaae were giv«a up and a new le*a« of «<^«e othrr 
](in4 .nade. 

' From the foregolngt 1* follow* that as the plaintiff 

failed by a preponderanoe of the eirldence to prove tbet the 
defendant was In the possession of the premises without rl^t. 
the iudgsent muit he r«w<?'Tsedii 

:■■ ^ \ '- REVSR3E0. 


HefesTlng to th« contention that the faet that 
Ifitterly the defendant was laying a rent of #60 a month and 
not #35» as oalled for In the lease, »hor« he was not hold- 
ing the prealsea In question under the lease, 1 wish to add 
that a reading of the slefendant's testimony shows that he 


i^. £L.^% -i.!-4»i 


. . !:)aMOHT 

went into postetfisioB of these pxMilsea under the vrlttwn 
l«a»e In •vldenoe and that whaterer right to possMalon 
h« now elalna is uadeT that lease. That h« «r«nt into 
posootaiofi imd«T that loftoo and continued In poeaoesion 
mo&^t it« X»0 in »7 opinion* established hy the ^ridenee 
In th« reoord. Tqt a time» at leasts he paid th« rent 
stipulated in the lease. The bare faet that hie rent van 
raised does not establish that hifi lease was terminated. 

The plaintiff a^its she Icmsv of bis possession* 
That she, herself, reoeived rent froa hin is olear. She 
said she did not Imov there v@,s a lease. Sut she testified 
that one ttyka was her lawyer* &t the timo she aequired the 
property, und represented hftr in that traneaotlon. The 
defendant testified that Mfka. Btm&ti^LQB eolleoted the rent. 
Apparently he had ^leo represented the prrrious owner, utb, 
DOBdnrowftkl. On one OG<mslon, the disfendeaUt testified, when 
Vyfat «naMl to oolleot the rent* (at a time when he was pay* 
inn |35 per month) he sade a claim for an allowance for 
8«Be okinor repairs he had taken tta.r« of and Hyka ashed if 
he had a leaee and he said he had and he exhibited it to him 
and Nyka, in rlew of the lease, m&de a deduction in the 
rent then due. Kylui testified la this oase that he had been 
oolleoting the rent on these promisee for orer a year. That 
he Wnew there was a leaee ^md that defendant olslsed possess* 
ion under it, he did not deny. That plaintiff auat be charged 
with knowledge of the leaee, seems clear*. 


'J V 


see - 38301 

iKXJAMia F, a* oaii.i» ) 


wmiQiui, Qcmt 

- ^ ^ O ^' ^ ^ ' ' 

,^ opinion filed Feb. 20^ 1924. 

m, ymmmm mmiQi. uthm dtiiYered tb« 

opinion of the eottrt* 

Ott }f0V«mbe» 89» 1930, the plaintiff, lary W. 
9^11ao«, broufi^it suit In tfee ^\mlol|)&l Goiirt ©gialnBt the 
defendant, Banjaain F. J, <M«11, wfeo wrb btr former attoi*- 
aay, cl aiming tVistt there ime due frossi hia the aun ©f 
|3,^98*09, being th« dlfferenoe t>etw«i«n #7,309.69, whi«^ 
liad ooiie into his hirnds fev h«y, ana |S,O11.&0, wbic^ it 
w«4i admitted h« ba4 pTot>erly diiatouraed for her. 

The d«fea<Ss,nt file.'l a.0 affia?3Tit of merits in 
i^l9h h« admitted th« rtdi^ipt of #7,300. §9, ^.nii stmtM that 
|3,S98«C® fOT wbl<5h the plaintiff siaed, 1«S3 oartiia small 
aaotuata, w>a applie<a by hi« on aoootsmt »f liis t^ttomey^a 

Yhtst vas m. trial toy thf^ csourt, with » ^ury, ~nd 
A verdict and a Judgiitat for the plaintiff in the sis8 of 
$BftQOO* ' this appeal is th«r€fro«i 

ttee plaintiff, asary a, Wallace, 's-ss at th«s ti;^e 
of tfeio trial 75 years of age, and had been «* reeident of 
@hio®^ ton aiore than forty year*. Sb« r^@ a widow ©f one 



l9li-ttakttT* By h«r tBarriag* wltb Whlttaker ahe had six 
obild3r«n« one of whon« K«rl»eTt ffhltt&k«T, (il#d in August* 
1918« l«&7lBg & vidov* Myrtle WMLttaker* vtio hereelf had 
no ohildfen. Herbert vihlttiOi-er left as his helre and &«xt 
•f IdLa five l^rothere &ad slatera, hie mother aad hie wlddw. 
Xb Jxine* 1318« the plaintiff Intermarried with One £dirard 
8» Wallace* 

The son, Herbert UliittaJLer vss In hie llfetine a 
eofttraotor »itd builder* ftom time to tiiiMs prior to his 
death he borrowed iraxious asiottorita of money fro» his KOther^ 
aiiouiitlxig in all to abowt |X4,00Ct About a year prior to 
his dsatli* the plaintiff rtoeivod froa hiia, as seourity for 
the aioaey which she had loaned to hiai, two notes, eadb for 
i5«000« aeoured by seocmd lien trust deeds on fourteen two* 
flat tmildingSf loo&ted on South Leavltt Str««^t, in Chioiigo. 
Saeli of the trust deeds oovered eev«n lota, laob of the 
fourteen lots* «lth flat buildings thereon, wf-re subject 
t« a first trust deed laetnsbrsjiee, eeouring the prlnoipH%l 
sun of $4*000, The first trust deed inoimbrs'iioes iiere owned 
©r represented by tke SouthiHist Trust * asviags M^ak, of 
Clhioago* Oute'temding against those properties ther« ws.» 
als« a flMM^&aaie*s lien for sbout $3»000 in favor of one 


Qb. ikugust 1918, the plaintiff nnd her teosl^ad 
sailed at iii\9 defendant's office aiad the p^-^ABtiff told 
him of the death of her son, ?<nd soae thing about her fis* 
anoial relations with hisi* The defendant requested that she 
bring in her papers, A few d&ys later she brou^.t In some 

papeam whloh he then examined, 3he told the defendant that 
h»w »oa hAd told her not to wwwy about the Moaey be had 






boTTOwod fro« b«r» that «he was protected by bex p»p€r»i 
tkat 3h® furthflx aRld btx son bM b«en eBtraaged froa hi» 
wlf« many laonthe prlox to his de*th, nn& lt«pt H« belongia«i 
at her, his atothcx'a. b£m««j tbjit he had otnaed fowrteen %w©- 
flat toulldlngiB on South Leavltt street^ rhlch wexc h«*Tlly 
a«rtgs.gtdj tbat he had rsoently dl«l Ib the hoaplt&l, and 
tli&t hex oth©T children wtrc offended that ah« ha-d 1 (Mined 
hex deeeesed son ao rauch of her ajoney. 

the defendant, whoa «he had xetmlnsd *» hex 
attorney, testified that they found mmg hex paper* Ua 
tS^OOO ««o©nd g«oxtg?fcgt note» signed by Herhext vshittafcex 
and Jlyxtle ?Jhittakex, hl« wife, together with elx ooatplete 
Interest ccmpone attaofeed to each note, purporting to be 
eeouxed by txuet «aedo, bat that the txuet deeds were n»t 
ajwmg the papexej that he, thereaf tex, from the etreei 
suttbexe la the amp deiiaxtment of the oity pxoouxed the 
legiaX d«a«riptlon of the pxo|^txty, and »&dt a eeaxch of 
the xeooxde In the Recorder •» Of flee, and then adrletd the 
plaintiff of th« condition of ti^inga mA hex xl?ht»$ th»t 
he investigated the caattexs in the Frobate Oourt in regard 
to the adfflinistxatian of hex eon'e eettte; had conferences 
and ooxxeapondenoe with her cono«;xning these aiatters and 
• othei pleoee of property and olaiaiB d^ to hex, and olai»fi 
c5u« to hex eon, and against her saon; th^t further legfel 
papers were brmigrht t© his office by the t>lalntiff, as well 
as the trust deeds abowe referred to, t>iid he gave them atten- 
tion; that the first minfexence tith her was two and a half 
hours, raid he epent three hours in the »ap d«part^ent in th# 
Reeord^r»s offlcei that when she brou#t the txnst deeds there 
inta a oonfexenoe at an feai^rf that ^e stated that she had m 




■:m-(^^^ r'^ 

:r*.tf- ••>flv -villi 


ftbstratet; tbat be tHei-efore made hU •*» "atostract ttearo^k" 
of the records, as they v«r« in th«« Becordex^a office j that 
h* BBide an CMcaalnRtlon suffioient to be able to tell her 
the condition of the title and whttber any lien «l«il«« bad 
iMen acted on whereby the title ws^» forfeited; tbat lie aeked 
her if ebc bad any evlAenoe of ber 9on»» Indebtedneee to berj 
that ebe th«i produced »©«« truat dced»J that be then told 
her that if they could pxoTe the amovnt of the indebtednete 
©wed by her eon to her, be rould edTlse a forecloeuxe} that 
she aeked whj^t the chsrgee would be, and be told her tbat 
they iroald be Teaeonablej that be bad a further conferenoe 
i^-ltfe ber, Jtnd then drafted a bill to foreclose, which be 
filed. He further t<^^i'tlfled that thers^ was eonsiderable diffi- 
culty at the otiteet in deter^Blning bov to ftot* the s^aount 
of the ind«5bte©nea« to ber frm ber eon} th&t be dl8(5us«ed the 
Better wit^ her ^nd touad, that her relations with her aon'e 
widow had been in a strained condition for soae time; that 
her eon had not llv^ with bis wife for aometime before hie 

After beginning foreoloeure proceediage, be eerved 
jiotloc on tbe widow of the plaintiff 'e eon, and the neart 
ttoxniag one Eoderiok^ an attorney, called him up 9.nA told 
hin that he repreeented her, the next aoraing he aiet H&dsr- 
lok before going to court, and M6<'t1lc1s. elaiaed that be had 
»0eurate knowledge ths.t the truet deede aiid notes h«^ been 
eigned by the wldew in order to get a collateral lo^n at 
the baiA, ^d for no other purpose, kt the trial, when tbe 
defendnat trndertook to state what waa eaid, ctuite a oolloqny 
oosmrred between the trial J^tdge and counsel for the defendant. 

•^ST^'' ' 

9m^rfi, - 



-t «f rf 


and til* oouTt ruled that euoh tastlaony «a» inoaflip«t«mt. 
Tbe defendant then testified that h* wa-cl« ftn agrcceient 
irltb Hod«rlok on th«?t i&tomlng that if he would •esuitat 
to the appoiiita«xit of a reoeiver h« would try to »«11 
th« propsrty; that th«t was done, &ad anothT cxttnsioa 
mi* made of that agreesjent later; that fco had two or three 
<sonfer«no©» rith ftoderiok after th:it In regard to certeia 
probate natters and in reference to the bank* a attituAt 
en th«ir cotes stad the poeitioa the b%.a]c ims goiag to 
tako and the defease it ^me goiag to aseert; that Koderick 
aaid that there was iat^rest i^et due oa aearly all of the 
l9aak'e first mortgagos. To that testiaaioay, ©oimsel for the 
plaintiff objeoted, on the gro^iad that the «^itne«s was re- 
citing 9. eomrersatioa, and the objeotioa was »uitained» 
That, of ootxrse, was error, as it was entirely proper for 
defeadctnt, tn view of his serrioes, to show actnally irtiat 
took place. I*egal servioes are »ade up of what the at tor- 
wsf says and writes, and all that he does properly pertaining 
to the natter iaTOlved. As iT^ns, in his notes to Pothier, 
quoted hy Wlg^rs oa Erideaoe, mtjB, imge 3^6S, "Spseoh is 
a AOds of aotloa*** It will bs obserred that the words hers 
were not used testliBOBially, but to ehow the d«fendant*s 
coaduot^^ his serrios* 

Ife further testified that he then arranged with 
Eoderi«Ac to go out rith hi® to the beak* lie further te<»tl« 
fied that oa sJepteabsr 9 he had an hour's ooafsrenec witb 
Mr. and Hrs, fallftcej also on Septn^ber 10, and oa the 
lattsr date slso had a ooaferenos with Hodsriok and did s«bss 
^^rk in the Reoord«r«s Offioej that hs eonf erred with the 
Wftllaoss on the 10th as to larhether or not there was a will 



♦©sr ;fei'.. 



''■iSii «4$' '««<tc^^ 


« a>ft'..t S' 

■..'? tf^f'O.l 


Itft l»y their eon* 

In glTlAg hlB fMtimmsr^ the AefenJant u»»d oertaU 
MMioiiuite trhi«fe h» lilM»«lf 1»ftd made la a book at the tlsi« pt 
th« ti«B«a«tlon» thftrftlB recittd. The defendant then uad»»» 
took to testify isonmming a n^oiber of lt«aii a« tfe«y ai>i>«a»td 
in hl« sianoxmndutt l^ok* 

Atta^ed to the pl&lntlfi't atstaaent of ola|« 
aa itemised ^lU, or etatcmeat of servloes, '^tch had bee» 
•«&t l»y th« defendant to the plaiatltf • A oopy of that 
•t*te«eat was ottered in evidence by the plaintiff, entitled, 
•nary w. W^aii^ee, to Benj, >% J. Odell, Or.* The first lte» 
tiftder date of hu«&a% 80, 19Xa, wae entitled, -Conference ooa- 
eeming ri#t9 under note* and aort^gte, tlS^OO." The last 
Item was dated October, 131S# entitled, *t«^l aarvieee ren- 
dered in TOrioue tetters, |^9,00.« The total Indetetednew 
i^oim by the plftiatiff to the defendant was |S,3«1.60. 

the defendsnt farther testified that he ha«S a &mr 
UT9m9 with the ^lailaoee on September 13, tind tlao m C«t« 
ober 16, =md with Roderick on October 18. in re^rd to the 
same matters, but n** pertaining to thff foreoloeure euitj that 
the eonfer«noe oti October IB with Hoderlok perttiitted to bom 
contention between the pUintiff ^n6 the widow of her soaj 
^at two days later he had a conference with Roderidt ooncexn- 
ln« the threat of the bank to forsclote the flret lien trwit 
deed*. The defendant then relate* in bi» furth^-r teetiaoay 
n great jaany meetings and oonferencee in regjard to the pro- 
pertiee, «md the bank's tnxst deeds therfoa, and the possibil- 
ity of a Mao of the premises, aaid about getting the oonsy 
to oatiafy the bank's lions, eo it sonlA not foreclose. 

: n^J 

am »!.' 


ikmiil sm 



Till* defendant further testified that the b&nii; 
vhioh had th« flTiit llim cm the properties severe.! 
prepaelt.onit, the first being that e&i^ lieai should be re* 
dueed from $4»0CK) to $S«000, v^nd the prenleea put la good eon* 
dltion; that subsequently another preposition WBJt n&de that 
$500 should be paid on eaeh lien %n«3 the interest paid vcp 
ta datai that later another propoeltlom was e^de, sine! finally 
an a^«e«ent was aade for a straight three-yeer loan at 7$, 
and aocordlngllyf ertensloa papers were drawn xxp, Inepeoted 
hf hl», and signed by the plaintiff and her huefeandj that 
at thiit tia» the property wus ^nder eontraot for sale^ 1350 
%aTlng been paid do«n by one Slnkiia mk August 14» 1919; that 
the plaintiff and her husbsnd had been saxious to have this 
property aold ©nd had urged hlan to try td eell the property; 
t^t Mr. Wallaea aeJted him if the reeelTer of the property 
wawld not be a ^od «an to sell it, and rsQueated him to 
#ffer the reoeiver a ocMtalsslon to sell It; thst, aocordlngly* 
lie tald the receirer, and within three or fo\jr i^feeks the re- 
ceiver sent Slaicus inj that he had six confer^noea with Slnkuei 
about the eontraet rhidii finally was ccnsumisated on August 14« 
1319. He further testified that from v^eeJt to week he had 
ecKnferenoes %ith the plaintiff and her husband ooneeralng the 
necessity of raising aoney to pay past due demands, t^nd to bring 
about an sxteEsian with the bank; th*t the property was sold 
to prevent the fateclosxtre; that he told the plaintiff that 
it would be neeesaary to hawa suff iolent aoney to pay off 
the aM»ehanie*8 lien* nearly |1,000, before they oould fewy 
the property at tbe sale; that at the plaintiff's reeoisw&ite- 
tioa« he tried to borrow the aoney from a Hrs* ^bau; ttgi 
the nEHMry wa» not raised; that he went over to see the attor- 



?^.-r«^»' . .^ a!!i# rfj- 

""'flPft^^^-i ,- iJBl #0C i-.-'f t»-P'OSi 

nf r(ipTe««ntlag the li«ii eXs^ionBt ooae^miag im extciMiiom 
et th« e&a», aua/l thsit thry uYf^d ttn agreement for protect** 
iftg tb« plaintiff *s Int^refftci tliat K« law the S^at«r 1« 
CSbABGefy eano«mlAg « oontlnw^Ace of th« »el«) tistmt tli^t 
ims sot bxou^t abovtt} tbat sl« tb« plel&tiff was voMtbli) to 
i^0« ttomry to pm;ir t&<!^ llcm« tbe p-r^pf^rty W9« sold at & 
Judloi&l sala) that he «tlll «nj^«iiTor«»a to raise seoaey for 
tl^s plaintiff » &ad vent to one or two b!ftBkS|» asd t&lked to 
s«T«x»l Of Kia ollcmts, s-nci sO-bo sont tbs platintlff to ©a« 
or two piao«s; tb&t tho saeohanio's li«B olitloMfit bought in 
tlio jMtopertyj that on the dtey of fhts o?*le, Slokuo w»,« Ir >?1», 
1*k« d€f«wSai!it*3, office thToe-fparths of the tlmoj that 
Slnkus finally p.gx«ed to pay |T3,S80 for the pTop«rtyi> and 
mm^«. a dopooit a® the agro^ff^eati that It wasf prowl cled tlwat 
separate tru@t deeds ^nd not«@ vevs to be eTeosuted on t^ 
wiurlous building; th«if« t>^e total mmbsr of notte dxawn aggre» 
0St«d 8G0; thAt shortly af tervsrds Slilkus took oao ^skey 1a 
wlth'.'ladisi that a« the jyropcrty wm« sosld oa thf: ia«t-Tai«eat 
plfiA to BickuSy It was neoessitry to ^ise sone ssore ?ftOBey« 
ftnd that was wl^ Hoslcey wats taken in by Slakus iMa<l glwea s 
half interest in the pwrc^ss. 

The wltnese then st&ted, *I prepared In acoordisjioe 
with th$ vsqulretteitts «b oplaioa of title, tiriorslisiig tht coadi* 
tlo® of the j)iropeTty, fmd i w®»t owet t© ti^»«» Reoor':i«r»s Office 
sad th« (Jhiea^ Title «• trust 6oa^:^uay «.aei prepared fr-oaa the 
xsoords sa opinlcm of title,* Upon obj«otloa, ^e court 
stn&alE taist owt, that was, oh«rlausly, error. He wne a»k«d» 
■Hist was 1*e ywrposs of your preparing an ©pinion of tltlot* 
to *hlcte he fuiflwstod* *The purpose ir«8 to get Roskey to ad» 
wanes suffioient soasy to take oars of th« ©xteneion and the 




■i3»© 'esarss'S^vj 




V.» f.i4- 


Uiter«at past Avm at th« bunk tuaOi pxmrnnt foreolo«UTe,' H« 
VAB then askedg *And for vhon ver« you working vhaa you pre* 
pa3r*d that opinion?" to which h« ftnsi<rtr«d« * 1 ims vrorking 
f«T aif ^ients*** That wrtji ebjeot«id to &n<i ttTicdcen oixt b^r 
th« oourt. He was th«n aak#d« ** After you prap&rod that opin* 
Ion of title what did you doT" lie anawered, * 1 vent over to 
the Title & Trust Oompimj with this attorney and afcowed hia 
OTer the records, abowed hla what ~ why I had imired eome of 
the objeotlons, in the opinion - ay reason for it • ^nd then 
he aak«>d for a goar^jtitee, and I gaye hiis the gwarantee^ » 
written agreement personally that ss a lawyer I would st^nd 
T^olE of th^t opinion of title. *♦ n?.at, upon otojection, wfia 
strioken out. fliat wss error, tigaiore on BYldenee, Sec. 1772. 
The anewer was rery definite eTld(?imo«, ap:(»arently, of very 
valuable aervlecg on the jmrt of the nlAintiff'e attorney, 
the defendant w&a then asked, *then what did ftra dot* to whicfe 
he 9,tmw6T9d0 "fhen Mr. eoakey did not raiee the laoney and I got 
hl« into my office, haoth he and Qinkne, and told hi« we hat t© 
hare the money.* An objection to thst was ewsttlned, the trial 
:}udge stating* "A lawyer don*t ©harge for what he aaya to 
people, he ohargee for his tioe that he apenda in thoae trans* 
aetiona and for resulte obtained," That ruling was erroneous. 
The testiaoair of the? defendant was siasply a statement of jart 
of what he did as attorneys for tbe plaintiff i& endeaToring te 
9tmm9Tf% hST interests in the property, wipriore, aupra. 

The defendant then testified that he went with 
Eoskey nsnd Binkns out ^ Rosksy'e bank in fttd^et to try to 
help aoskey get a loan, tlheii aake^S what was the pun>ose of 
the l^aii;^ be aneweredip. "The pur??o»e of the Imsi wme to take 
ears of the p&et due inter eat and exteneloa ohargea; for the 

.♦«tf?k©i ■■WJQ #«>Sj'£'i^J5i 

)it is«9m 




yu3rpot« of aTOldlng a for«olo»ur«, jeopardUlttg our client's 
lftl5sr»«t«,« All otojeetion %o tha-t V9M eu»tali»d. That wm 
•rror, as it was merely ft »tate»«mt ahowlng tb© nature ead 
omllty of oertMn services w^ loh be reudered for tHe plain- 
tiff. He me then aaked what he did cut at the b«Ak, and he 
luumexiid^ n talked with the hsuak and explained to then what 
the situation waa, I also eitplalned I had given an opinio^ 
to a. AaibToelua, who repreaented Mr. HoelceT ^^^ ^ explained 
how the money was to be dletrlhxited. sjad irhat eeou»lty bad 
to he glTan hla. 1 e3rr)li.ln0d to hlM we oou d «akt an eaorow 
«f the deede of %m defendaBta prooured soae weeJta prior 
to that day, so that there would h« no possibility of m re- 
denptlon. and we were willing to l«av« th® deede la escrow, 
and would f^rm la addition to t'hB.% the deeds from the hoya. 
80 that he woiild be protected or l» any ev^nt h« free fro« 
logs. He aaJted ae to draw up the papers and 1 drew ^, the 
papers.-* Uthouigri ootmael for dafeadent expl.^lned Tftry lucidly 
the ptirpoae of the testliaony, an ohjection to It was auatalned. 
That was error. 

" the defeadH* then testified that he prepared a 

deed and wimt over to plaintiff's hotise to ^t her and her 
husband to aign It. and that he escplalned It to the«. HS 
was then askad what explanation he ««de. to which he anet^ered. 
n made It to hoth Mr, mnd Mrs. Wallaee, the explanation that 
this Bioney was going to aare the day for us, and preTent fore- 
closure, and Slnlrus amd Roakey w^re raising the money for the 
iwirposs of paying th« bank up and the interest -» 

■ , :?gM|.defend&nt further t^^etlfled that Mr. Walla** 
told hi« that ha woul^ not sign unless he ^t |300 out of Itj 

0> % *ttn^ 

i^'jvrt ! 




»?»to''' f;>-!.f , ■ '-'.iit 


that he told WftllAM that would spell their pl&Ba« but 
Vkllaoe said It «%>uld have to be don*; th«^t bo atoppod 
out to the «^uto«u>bile ^nd. Qlakua «r&.a waiting; that ho 
told hiat thfi^t he would have to glTO 1st, W%llao« $300 
booKuse the tljfte im» »hortt f^^^ that he vao afTitld If 
that was not done* j^allaoo «oxr:d mt alga the deed, ao 
It wfts a^grtod that &all«fOo ohould got |300 prorided ho 
•igaed the de«>d; that the deed waa aigj&ed^ and then Iro 
wont to tlie bai^ mud olooed th« e&tter up* and fttm there 
to the Southwest Trust £ SUTlnga Bwasik and aoide axT'&ngeqgienta 
with thf»i^ glvlBg them |2300} that he then took Watllaco 
«jiO |300j ■ that at the tlae of the ©ale and after he h&d 
proeured «n iigroojfio&t with the EttoxBey repreaenting the 
aeohanlo*a lien clsimant to let the property ho bou^t 
1& the plaintiff *s naiao* ho himn^lf, the Sefendsmt* adv«iioed 
tl*06S of hl0 own sKmoy; that aa the plaintiff ha4 no ab-> 
etxftot to tjrie prop*rty»fee, the deffodentt acgotietod with 
the Clhim^ fltXo & Trust Oooipany« ^md finally got that 
QOMpany to give a guaxanty polioy for |500| tfest within 
three or four weeka after ordering lt« he got the opinioA 
of that eoa]^ny» vhioh wms made up of fire or six pagea of 
objeotlona; th»,t ho spent from twenty-fliro to thirty houra 
cleaning those up; that hie atat«a«it of aoo^mt whioh plain* 
tlft »t^cAied to her atateaent of olal« doea not m^^ot say 
ohsrgo for thoae aervloeaj that the plaintiff and her hwo- 
band oaae to hia office and 8% Id th^t they were not goifig 
to sell the prof>erty^ aa they had a buyer who wot^id jaiy more 
for it J that th»y were adrlaed not to eell at that prloe; 

that he later waa told by attorney WaldroA^ who represented 
BinlEiM and Beakoy that the naa who advlsod thou was attorney 

14^ iStM 'itili.C'^-j \^»iii^i:*»^ Ji ^rff£^,_ 

.■««£i a-v- 

'-z,^ iUi 




Boylan; th*t h«, the defendant, waa grftduellf gtttlxig 
thft prl<Mi lip when that tr<nabl« eaote; that h« had ait 
least fifteen or treaty ooiif«?TeB.ce» with Roderick over 
the eettleme&t of the matter; that the plstlatlff *« 
daughter»ln*Iaw "reRlly had title to the property that le» 
^raugh her htuih*and« ehe had a dower rl^t**^ that at flret 
the plaintiff's (3^Ut!;3it€r»lai»law wanted eeren of the !miia!» 
lags; that at the eoacluslon of mmerotia oonferenoes, ber 
attorney ji-greed on one tou:llding and a $S00 ftortg^ge on one 
of the oth<?r hulldlngn; that he pat in nhont 100 hours la 
oottfeTenoea with Eoderlok in negotlsttlng settlement with 
plaintiff's dattghter«ln«»law, mid ahout forty or fifty hours 
In negotiating the eale^ an^^ f ron 100 to 150 houre in aegot* 
latiftaia with the yssmk In preyentlng a foreelosure^ and in 
eonferenoes with plaintiff and her huahand, ever loo hourej 
that his ohargea were $6*00 an hour» with the except ion of 
the ee^rriece rendered In the foreclosure a^tter, rbere be 
took the amount of the fee which mm allowed the eoaiplaiiMmt 
under the provision of the trust deed; that hs put in approxi- 
«ately 100 honrs getting deeds from the ohildrea; thet he 
had difficulty getting the deeds; that he went to several 
banks to see If he oould gst tttoney on the oertifloates^ in 
order to buy the deeds; that he considered the jxoeelbiuty* 

and looked up the authorities* of filing a bill for partl- 
tloa; that hs examined the files In the Probate Oo\xrt in 
the aatter^ then had an Interview with the attorney for the 
Adaifilstrator to see whether the latter would cooperate la 
a i»rtltloa prooeedlng; that h« had a conference with aod* 
iai^ou8«j» of the Title & frust Company In regard to the 
isatter; that about that time the plaintiff with her husband 
ealled at his office every day; that he told theo that it 





Ijre*TS. ..■;^ 

adcf# Mo* 



W9.n getting lata for the d«*d»j that he flaall/ «ot all 
of them to sign that al^%; that they etarted out about 
9 p»a« anA got baok at one o •clock in the aiortting} that 
plaintiff Rnd her husband vcre tooth Aeli^ted and surprleed 
tfhat he hftdt pTOGured the deede* 

Re further testified thet he filed en attorney's 
Ilea »ln a hurry* y«m know, ©o they eowld r.ot oonTty the 
proi^rty away after they went otot to Boylftn*o» »ttd he had 
refused to ooae over to see ae <m ttuit Ilea • to protect «e - 
In my office;* that, «uba«<?uently, they found that they would 
have to clear up the record, "and they case orer and neget- 
iated with mm throu^out a period of thirty days* . that was 
objected to and the objection ©ustalaed. He alao testified 
that the nosey iras paid to hijs by Master in Chancery Humphrey; 
that after the negotiatloae he stipulated to diamlee hie attor- 
n«y«B lien; that at that time fee had In his poeaeeelon the 
3200 odd dollars, efeloh la what the plaintiff Is now suing 
for; that the money waa paid to hla by the ^ster In CSianeery 
*on account of Mr, and Kiw. wuLiiaoe." On cro3«*eraaiination 
he testified that he ^:ot from the iiaeter in Chancery |2,5©4, 
which he applied toward rarious accounts, and the balance to- 
ward his attorney's fees; that he, hliasslf, had adwanoed 
11,065; that he would not dlsalss hie lien laitil he was paid, 
that In filing the stipulation to diealas, the t^ords « Without 
prejudice* were put la at feie request, he says, "becauee I 
was not paid In full|« that his entire bill, including fore- 
closure, was #3,361,60; that he was willing to t?Jte $3,300 
in full settlement then; that what he got, figures approxiatately 
♦3»00; that holding off the first mortgagees frow foreclosure 


«&« not p»rt of his duty la foreoXotlng; that he thoiight 
it fTOd biASinesa to g«t rid of plaintiff •» dwigbt^r-in-lAw 
1»y ftOttlota®mt« 

0&« t&l<l»on, the lawyot iprho rOpr«»entod Sl*dro« 
amd Ronlcof, testified th&t he carried no negotiation* iflth 
the defend&nt aj^^gregp-tlag oeren or elfeiht houre; thstt he, 
the wltneee, rspreaented the lauyere on Janttary 8, 1920} 

that he deposited with the laeter t&e Jiaount oeoeeeary *• 
redeim the ^eter'e c«Ttlflcatej th&t he told the defendant 
he wa« going to iRftte redwaptlon aja<J hrlng In the Sfeettr** 
oertlflcatej that the defendfixit delivered to him ee.tlcfae» 
tlons of two judpiente »j^lR®t the pror-i-ertyj thet the ne^s^ 
tlatloxis took several hoursj that they had further negotla-' 
tlons in one Oooling's office, which took an hour and a half; 
that the jiaeter tamed the Moaey whlc^ he, the witness, gave 
lilm over to the defsndi&nt for the mater** €^rtlfioate« 

A hypothetical <|u»8tlon, pxsrportlftg to eoataln the 
•^atanoe of the evldenoe as to the defettdantVs sprvleea, waa 
propoiiAded to Wftldrom, la which the houre of eenrlce if«re 
fixed at 487, Riid In whleh It waa stated that a» a ree^at, 
or partlaX result of the effort* of the defentont, the plain- 
tiff obtained not only the ssioimt of the aortgaga, but |20,0«0 
In exoeae of that amount; that he waa aaked ifhat in his oi^laion 
wotild he the u^ujeiI ».nd oustoa»ry fee for the aerrleea rendered 
lay the defendant, and he aaerrcred ten dollare an hour» conalde^ 
lag »the oharaoter of the work, it all being of a character 
to oonaerra their rl^ta* their property rights, the fore- 
clesiire proeeedlngs, aaad the Prolate Caurt and aale of the 
property^* tm oroaaffiexa»l3»tlOB, he teetlfled that ha paid 

•,f ♦n»^ Vi 


ifss'^m^Ttt^^t x^ 

«a,S75 to th© M»0t»*, fl>.M thmt tfe« M»»tei tunwd the aoaftf 
•ver to the d«feiidantj tUstt the redemptioa wa« B»Ae of tli« 
natters pending b«for« both a*»t«T«, «md the def endaat stip- 
ulated to releae* hl8 attoimeyU lien. 

A BlKllar Uypotfcetloal c|ueatloa m&9 put to Jobft 
fiaiMiMk^ an attorney, and be fixed tia® r^aoaable Tal^e of 
8ttob eexvloe* at tlO.OO pey feom. Kle anewT wa«, *At leaet 
flO.OO pe* lM>^3P« a»i* **^«*^ ^'® ®**^ reputable lawyer* at 
the bar iifeo would eh»xge more tlian IIO.OO v^x howr, #10.00 
to lis* 00 an bour** 

Tb© t#»etl!aoiiy of tbe plaintiff and her hxmhmuA 
tft tflli wore or lea«, consistent irltfc the teetlBony of the 
defendant blmeelf, but does BOt reolte with the earn* detail 
the nature and ti»e of the ^arlonn eenrloes olalaed by the 
defendant to havo been rendered the plaintiff. The children 
Of tb« plaintiff tR»tlf led in repird to the deedo whleh they 
executed, and undertook to show ths.t Tory little tl«e wa« 
consumed by the defendant In obtalnlm? their deed*. FelgnT 
and Rlloy, lawyers. In answer to a hypothetic^ question, 
irtiloh did not set forth the nuaber of ho;ir*, but whloh re- 
cited m a general way the filing of the bills for fore- 
olosnre and. In a general way, work don* thereunder, both 
stated substantially that |1,000 would be a reasonable fee. 
Oonsldexlng the eirldenoe, howewer, as the reoord shows It. 
It Is qttit« o»Tloue that the qnallty and ^uimtlty of the 
somoes rendered by the defendant were not all oonslderfd 
by those two witnesses In glTlng their answers. 

our sMwalnatl^m ©f this record IssAs us definite- 






1/ to th« oonoltualon that the v*x<llot of the jury «&• a&al* 
f«»tl7 Against the freight ^f ftTlAcnace* 

6en«T&lX]r IB a jMrotT&ctfidl matter* being la lt« 
essenoe one of great d«t»il^ it is difficult to prove legal 
serrloea thp^t have TcMsen rendered in a coapli Gated matter 
extending over «. long period of time. It is rsasonable t» 
iafer« from the eTidenoe that was Introduced, that the 
defendant was instrumental 1^ hringing; order out <lf a very 
ehaotie sitOAtlon, and th&% his serrloes wers in stanf wstys 
of consider&l»le value, ai^rt f roM the oonTsntional senrioes 
rendered in the nomsd foreolosure of the two trust deeds. 
OVnoualy^ whem he heg&n his work thtr«; vais a great de&I 
t© be done before foreolosure oould be begun and then »ft«r* 
varda, there being prior Inoumbrmnees on the properties, &nd 
a mechanic's lien, and there being inauffiolent aoney obtssln- 
able to laake & suocessful bid. at the judioial sale, it ra* 
quired, neoess8irlly« a great dead of labor, InrolTlng %a.tters 
of bualBeai?, a.s well as of law, in order to bring the matter 
to a svocessful oonclusloa* The &®o\int ©f fees testified 
to by Felg^ aad Riley seem to be wholly inadequate eonpen* 
satlon for the serrloes, which ewes the plaintiff herself 
adaiits were rendered^ 

Our examlaation of the reoord leads us definitely 
to th« conclusion that, although errors w^re ooBssltted in 
xuling out eridenoe offered on behalf of the defendant, he 
sufficiently proTed that the legsl serwlces rendered by hla 
for the plaintiff in the aatters entrusted to him as attorney* 
w%ien diargad for at a fair* reasonable and custosRry nte. 


n-: \ 1- '-.i^.-ftii ktk'.'-v^ 

■ * r^ «• ,t^ 

^'^ Jrx^« vvrfj*" ^.stjst flOifjsE 


wv w^rth flior« than th» amount of (sonay vhAob he r«taln»d. 

The jud^ent vlll be rerereed a-nd jwSgaent entet-ed 
Iwre iii favor of thfe d»f§iad».Bt, rltfe a finding ©f fitot. 

mfHanEO WITH A riKDIBG OF ff.(rs. 

Ife find fttt a fact thst the defendant rendered 
legal eerriocs to the plaintiff whieh wer* of greater value 
than the amount of money ff^ii&h h* retained* 


405 - 38379 

ntOftJt XX H£L, SOOTT joumji^ ) 


Appellants* ) 

CITY or CS^iaACJO, « mualcipal 
eorpoxHitloxic £T AL* 



Qoot eoiiurr. 

Opinion filed Feb, 20, 1934, 

of th« OOlMPt* 

On «rim« 19* X^3» Seott Jovdaa asul Clifford Hall 
Jordan filed a petition la the Cltcult Court of Qoolt. Ooimty 
af^lnst th« City of C^ioagfr &ad cmarl«« Bostroa* Oosalesloncr 
of Buildingn, praying that a writ of maadftatta bo dlreetod to 
tbo City End tho Conal?>9lon«r oonsstndlng them to leaiuo a 
pomlt in ordor that the petitionee might have the rlg^t 
to eonatTuot a certain building in aooordsnoe with an aii|»lle»» 
tlon and plans which had already been submlttrnd to the Co*» 
■Isfiioaer of Buildings* 

On June 29, 1923, the lespondento, the Clity of 
Ohlcago and Boatroa, the Bailding Ooamieaioncr, filed a ^oint 
and oeveral aneirer in whieh they adaitted «o»« of tb« mattere 
«et up in the petition and denied othere. On July 10» 1983, 
oouneel for the petitiDnere notified the corporation counsel 
and attorney for the respondents that on July 11, 192S, they 

etmld a»ke a action that the petition for as&nd&AUs and ths 
answer be set for immediate hearing* On Jvdy 11, 1923, the 

,:' .del jfcalxl floinJtqO 



«>jfKir iiJ^i' 


,'M>!;;si-irtoiijuia 10 T««'- 


following <ixder w-t entered: 

<*Thl8 e»us« haYing oonc on to be btaird 
upon the Petition for fitit of Manditnus and AJtiawtr 

of xeapondcnte herein filed* and the Gourt baring 
heard the evidenoe and oridence and arguments of 
oounsel, and It atipeaxlng to tb« Ocnirt that the 
faote in eaid petition aet forth are true, and 
the dourt heing fully advised in the prsmites 

It is therGfare considered and ordered that 
a peremptory Writ of isandawus, i» ne forthwith in 
aooordanoe with the prayer of the Petition herein 
filed* aijreoted to the T«???pondent, Osarles Boetroa, 
Ooami«aione» of 8\jllding» of the Oit> of Gl^ioago, 
ooffiwanding hi« forthwith to accept th« tender of 
the ps.per«, doeum<'nt», plane and feee referred to in 
•aid Fetition» and cotaeianding bias to iasne a permit 
to Soott Jordan s>nd Clifford Hall Jordan, petitioner* 
) herein, to oonstriiot a building vpon tb«^ premieea re-» 
fevred to in f?aid petition and known aa 6301-13 Ken- 
aore aTenue, Ohio? go, Illinois, in aooordanet with 
the plan* In said petition referred to. 

And it is f-urtfeer ©oneidered a:nd ordered hy 
the oo^art that the petitioners have and r^soorer of 
and from the respoadenta their ooste in this behalf 
expended* ** 

An appeal was prayed to the Appellate Court, and the respondents 
glwen ten d&ys within whioh to file their Bill of Exoeptioas, 

On July 38, 19S3, pursuant, apparently, to «#*i«# 
served the toy before on the petitioners, on* Mf.rrlet M. 
llaooiBlhear (hereinafter called • intervenor" ) «ade a atotion to 
tmoat* and set a*id* the jud|ps*nt, and that sh*, the Intervenor, 
h* ande a party defendant to the petition for a iflfrit of isndaam* 

*r demur to th« petition for a Writ of Mandaamsl/Cheretofore 
Issued, in accordance with the Judgment and order, her recalled 
and qu*»h«d, and that the permit theretofore Issued by the 
Oo«ilesioner of Building*, pursuant to the Writ of Handaau* 
trtilGh was i»»u«d, be reTo):ed and esncelled, ivttached to 
th* aaotion th«re was what purports to be mi affidavit which 
wa* signed and sworn to by the husband of the Interwenor. 


«».fcto lsfiii'!f9SJ0t 

':R -y- ."■■Jl.t^ 


, is;^«?|I*>X"- 





On July 2»» the laterrenor filed an •mmwt eettlng 
wp, among other thing*, that the petitionex dceired peraleeion 
to er^if^ a tweatyfotir flat building at 6301-6315 Kenaore 
arenue, (»>ioago. without oomplylng with an ordlnanee of Mor- 
•mlMX SO. 1921, irhioh proTlded that It ehould he unlawful to 
•r«9t » building occupying aore than thirty-f ive per cent of 
the area of the lot on which It me to be txeoted in the 
neighborhood in Queatlon, wit>.out flret eeourlng written oon- 
eent of the ownere of a eeytaln portion of the frontager that 
the petltlonere had not properly eeoured written oonaeot of 
the ownere ae provided for in the ordlnancej that the erection 
9f auob a building for the purpoeee In queetion wot^ld Irrewo- 
oably injure oertaln premises owned by her, the Interrenor, 
and whl«* are contiguous to the premiaee omed by the pcti- 
Uonere themaelwa. In tbe affidavit whloh oont&lned in eub- 
staaee eimllar alletgatlone to those in her answer, it is 
stated, 'that none of the Uo%m hereinbefore set forth showing 
the rl^t and Interests of the undersigned in tbesubiect-«atter 
of this cause and the eharsoter and value of the property owned 
by the widersigned and the ^aracter and value of the laprove- 
ments situated upon the lots fronting upon Kswiore avenus in 
the blo<dt in idiloU the premisses of the relators are sltuatsd 
and ^s refusal of the owners of said lots to consent to the 
erection of the proposed apartment building by relators have 
heretofore In any way appeared in the record of this causs 
and each and all of ttjea vere unknown to the court and h«ve not 
iMSn ruled upon or pasaed upon by the court in this cause.* 

On July 3t. 1923# the petitioners filed a dsamrpeT 
to the aotlon of the Intervener, the grounds of dsmuryer were 
as followss (1) Tlie raotion does not seek to vacate the 




*t t:^ -y^* ; 2.: ^.-^ cr 

Otr Ar'i 


; Mvt •* a? r- f <c .'•■! i . ■ 

'i^f; ^•Ni 

«•!•.■ ff 

i ,^::.,»:^ 

'■>S -■;'? -» ^-ti' ■<Al ■-■s.;i-l'« 'i**<-ir ^ ."",.* ^t* -2 

, 4-_*I^-- <■-.. 

jvdgBMtt for any error of f&ot ande by the Oourt In tbe 
rendition of the jud^nent within the meaAlag of the Statute; 
(2) do«e aot t<»nd«r any fa-ots or i«»u«e irhioh vere not direot* 
If in ie;me «nd l>efo?e the Gout% at the tl^e the jiidg^ent 
nne rendered; (Z) tenders on^y faote and issues whloh wt^re 
direotly in issue and before the Oourt* »xi6^ «hi<di were paseed 
upon bjr. tlie Court at the tine said judgment wee rendered; itnd 
(4) thst the uotion and affiderlt in support theretf ire in 
•ther resiMets insufflei«nt«*' 

On July 29, 1932, an order vas entered reciting 
tbat the cause hsYing ooeie on to be heard uj^on the aot ion of 
Barriet tf. linoonboY to vneatt and set aside the judpient of 
July 11, 19BZ^ and for leaim to her to intervene in the 
yxeoeedings and beooae a party and to plead, and upon the 
dfHBurrers of petitioners to said asotlon, eaid deaurrere were 
•rerruled. The order further dreoited that as the petitioners 
sleeted to stand by their dewurrers, the Court finds "that the 
vatsrlaX alls ^ti one set forth in said motion are eonf eased as 
true, aad that errors in fact were ooiajaitted in tbie oause which* 
by %<» coaason lav, oould have been co rrected under the mrit of 
•rror ooaeaan nobi«» * in order was then entered that the order 
end Jud@aent entered on July 11, 1922 « directing that a writ 
•f aandnami be issn^d a^inst CSiarles BostroA, Ooaaissioner of 
aaiidlines of the Oity of Chioago, be yaoated and set aelde; that 
the writ of sjandaaua Issued upon said ^udgeient and order bs 
reonlled, annulled and guaahed, "th^t the ahove oeuse be and 
hereby is reinstated|i*' etc* This appeal is by the petitioners 
from that orde% 

Tton the foregoing, it vlll be seen that the sub» 
vtantlai question involTed is whether In a atandamw prooeeding. 


«. •■- ■•Ob (if) 

trT3«'iO.{..ri,.'.t- «▼» 





ftft«r final judgment emd tht explrRtlon of tbn t«ni» & third 
pftTty Mty upoa motion »nd affidarit be »lIoved to interreae 
«ad bave the judgneitt eet w-bXAb cm the ground tb»t at tbe 
trial that took pluoe there waa not presented oert&ia eridsnoe 
that may have pertained to the issues involyed and ohaaeed the 
dAtemination of the oourt* By seetion 89 of the Fraotioe Aot^ 
it is provided: 

»The writ of error jBoraa noteia is herel^y abolished, 
and all errors in f!aot« oosutitted in the prooeedingit 
of any court of record* and vhio^, by the oonaen lav, 
oould have b«<m oorreoted tnr said vrit, nay bo oor* 
rsoteNl by th9 court in which tht error was ooomitted, 
MpVA Motion in writing, oiaole at any time vithin fivs 
years after the rendition of luteal Judgment in the oase, 
upon reaeoaable notice.'* 

On July 38, Idas, after the expiration of the teza, 
at trhloh the original ;}\id^ent was entered, tbe lntS¥Tenor 
filed her written aotion, affidarit an^ answer, and the petl* 
tiottert their deaurrer thereto* That preeipitatod an issus ss 
to whether "errors In fael^ were oom^itted in the original 
proeeediag* *whioli by the oosffioa law, oould have been eor rooted* 
by the writ of error ooram ^toia. 

Are %i\e natters atet«»d by the Interrenor in her ««>- 
tion, affidavit and answoT, a recitation of audi "errors in faot* 
as are intended by Seetion 63 of the Preotioe Aot, and erhid^ 
oould have besa «»rrected by tbe oeimon law writ of erro» 

Iftift relief the petitiDners ©ought was the is? 
of a permit from the City, the Intervenor was not an origiaal 
party* There was a trial and tbe original order reoites that, 
^the Court having beard the evidence and tbe argvo&ente of 
oouasol, and it a rearing to the court that the facts in said 


®x« 9m-t 


................. .-, ...= ,-;,.. J-*;^ 

#««^ <?■•> 

i-sw «ril# t*' 

fHititlon fi«t forth are trutt^' it is ordered that & p«re«pt«Z7 
writ of fisftndasms is^iiA. That wa* ft fltiftl order at tbe close 
of the trial. Thore Is no bill of except ioiis, eo ve axe not 
informed a« to what evidenoe w » preaented to the ooiirt* 

The oontrntlon of oounsel for the Interreaor ia that 
tlio iaauo afkdt hj the pleadings In the original nandaiavui pro* 
••o41ngs did not roault in & disoloaure of the faot that the 
»ti|^lHisliood in queation ma of a r' aidc^ntial oharacter; no:r 
that the huildinga thtrson were uaed exoluaiYely for reei* 
deaoe purpoaeo and covered not in exoeas of thirty*fiT« p%T 
eent of the arciL of the reapeotlwo lots| nor that the aaid 
lota were auoh aa to render th» ordlnsjice of ^temlaer 30» 1921 
mvflioable} nor that ths Xntervenor had a aubatt^ntial interest 
in the !s%ndaa»xi prooeedingn. Counsel arguea that ^The petition 
for the writ of mandamua and the aiia^er of the original rea« 
pondenta* therefore, raised falae ieauea of faot# which result* 
•d in erroxa of faet»* ^actd that ''the eotirt decided the case 
waa tjpon a mlaooneeptioa of the faota appliosble th^^reto*** 
That attaolc, it will he aeen^ g<>ea directly to all the original 
jproeeedinga. It i»derlalt«a to utidersiine all that transpired 
in the origin&l auit* It doea not chariot that one of the parties 
w&B inooarpetent* being an infant* or insane* oy died befoi^e 
)i»ivaeat» or that there «ms a aiaoriaion of the clerk* or any 
one of the oonwentional errors of faot irtiioh ars generally 
understood to be covered bgr Seotion 89 of the Fraetioe Act. 
Hor ia frand alleged. It attacks the issue nads by the plead* 
ia^i* the suhsoquent proceedings of the oourt* and the final 
|iid|pe«At. the phnuM* in Seotioi| 89* *all errors in fact* 

sssnitted in the prooeediags of any cwurt of record" does not 
M«n that one who ie diaa&tiefied with ^e Jndf^ent of the eotn't 


■f'.' -<■,■ 


■■i^c.. ,- •^-„■^.• 


after a tTl&X of th« issues preasnted* sad a oonside ration of 
tbo svldenoe, nay by vrlttsn motion and affidarit^ after 
torn time, be entitled to have the Court again take juris* 
dietion of the rery aattem iarolred in the ori^nal proceed* 
ing» and retry the oaee* Judgt&ents, with very few exceptions* 
are inTlolable; they are flaaliliies. The oases of Fowell t* 

UmMjk. 214 ai. 47S; iimiksuy* aa^U 203 m, ses, -nd ^^^u 

T. ilgjn ^otor Co.. g09 111, App, 601, are not in point. In 
none of ithose eases doea it 9^^%^t that a motion was made 
after the expiration of the term at which Judgment was entered. 

la the recent case of JMf^lf ▼. Tt^9»P?fft P9gp^t»^»3C)9 
m. 147* Mr. JttStioe O^Enn need the following language: 

•The errors of fact which oould be taade the 
basis of euoh a writ and oan now be made the basis 
of a aotion were not errors upon eueh questions of 
faet as arose ui>on the pleadings in the ori|:inal 
ease* or quest ions of fstot averred in the plead- 
Ings upon which les'u« sight have be«n tsOcen* or 
su(^ Questions of faot as constituted the basis of 
the oause of action or defense upon the t&erite of 
the case or oJL^t have been pleaded as a def^^nee 
to the merits,' 

the Jud^ent will be reversed and the cause rensaHted 
with direetlone to reinstate the original judpient of July 11* 

O'OOIiBOH* 4. 4KD THOiiaOll* i, OOSCUEi, 

i,;-s mt xf^-^ 

h -.- .1 «■ ■ \ f. 


iSr J-!- 

■?^vs:fif^'-'s.iv: r.?\£* 

MO • 380W 

14UIWII FAiaOOl, doing business ) 
as ST«yfpM»«n Kiiitting liiills Go.« ^ 





OO T A ^^ 9.2 

Opinion filed Feb. 20, 1924. 

jffi. Jl3Snc^: 0*£Xanoa dsUversa tfe« opinion 
of th« ootxrl* 

Plftintlff iDsrou^t suit against the dsfencSs^nt ts 
reoovo? ^l«nee dus on aior<di^4idi8« whlQih tlie plaintiff sold 
and deXlTSred to the ddf«sdimtf The affiount of the olalM ims 
|1708«S0« fh0T9 vas a Yerdlot and ;}udgnient in farer of plain- 
tiff for the antoxmt It <^Uimed »nd the defenadjint pvoesoulwe 
tlals a|3>p«al» 

The record dlsoloses that plaintiff was engagsd 
in the imalasss of wdclng and selling sve^tex* In Kev Toilc 
and that, the defendant ims en^ged In selling sfreatCTS in 
CJhloago* That on Movomber 4« 1919 the defendimt celled on 
plaintiff at his plaoe of ^Itolness in tier loz^ Cit^ «Jcid 
entered Into a written oontraet, whereby plaintiff agreed 
to sell and tbe defendant agreed to buy m«n*a* beys and 
ladies* sweaters. The ooatraot was for 80 dosen sweaters 
known as styls »o. &09 at ^^vOO per dozen; 34 dii^en of style 
Vo, 403 at 143.00 per do»sn and 90 dosen of style Ko, 52 at 
#40.00 per dosen. It ae^ss to be oonoeded by both parties 


.^Sei tOS .6q1 bain rro ffrrrrO 



-Sii*»"*.i«f; .1 « .'c'.'.v- 'fj*?,* Ov*^^' 

HMfei pl&lmtlff dellTCTtd to the def«ndmt the 60 dOMn «iid 
Kite 34 cl»s«tt and delivered 4lAil/l3 doten of style Ho. 53^ 
•Ad thftt the 60 dosen and 24 dosen hare been pfelt for* 

l>l&iatlff etfttee In hie brief '*8efetida&t «M3oepted 
•tyXee «k>. 5(^ and 403 cmd paid plaintiff fox the e«UB«« This 
i« not disputed* The dlaimte or controTeref« in the trial 
eourt, ymM as to B$fl9 Uo, ^ only." «jid two page* later in 
lile brief he sets ii^^ an Itemised aitatet&^nt of wliat he elaiiw 
to be due and in this itet&lcation there ie mn iteai of $310.50 
for No. SOS eireaters and #189*00 for Ho. 4@S» &tid thie le la 
«e«erdanoe vlth plaintiff *8 0tmt«^ent of olaim* l^is ie 
Nearly ooiitr»riF to the statement Juet Quoted^ vis. that 
stylea So* S03 and 408 haire been p».i& for In full* 3ut 
•laee eeiupyeel for both 8ld«e proceed n:}3on the theory In the 
trial oourt and lil^ewlee in this oourt ths-t th»^' 1t»lance ehich 
plaintiff olaims to be due 1« for etyle fie* 53» ve ehall 
asstmi for the imrpoee of thie opijilon that thle la eorreot* 

fhe evldenoe i^owa that ahortly after the order wM 
t#in» plaintiff eent aoae oaisplee to the defendant* and during 
the nionthiof Jan\iary« Febrtmry end Mareh eent all of the sveatei 
tamm as Scm. 6f^ end 408; that during thie period he eest 
41»ll/l3 dos^ of etyle Ho. 1^; that on rebnsary 6« 198& 
defendant wrote a letter to plaintiff «« followet 

••Referring to order lib, 1128 « plaeed with 
fiyix Hot, 4th, •19, we hej*e1qr requeet ysu t© oan- 
oeX your ao. 5S, ae we find this number to be an 
exaot duplicate of one we pfwrohaeed froa a lew 
York Jobbing houae, at a audh leas q>u«»tation, and 
regret that we eaniiot laae two nuaibera alike in euoh 
extrwae large qpstimtity* 

Woiad greatly atpxeolate your reply by re» 
tarn aail, aefeiwel id^jsg reoelpt of the abore eaa- 
eeUatltmip and greatly oblige* 

Plaintiff contends that thle letter wji« not reeelved 

■ :d&i 


^ him« but that the flr«t he lettmed of it vas vh«n h« 
received a oarbon oopy of It enoloeed in « lette» mrittea 
to hlia bjr defendant* dated Miuroh let* Aftervsrde oorree* 
pOttdence pe«a«d between the j^rtiee. The defendant taJKlaig 
t^e poaitlon that the 41-lX/l2 dosea received of Uo, 53 
WRS held by defendant, eubjeot to plaintiff's order, and 
re^ueeting plaintiff to give hla ins«rMtioat as to whet 
to d© with th«»« The plaintiff throia^out the oorreepondenoe 
refused to permit defen^^mnt to retiani these eweatere, but 
agreed to creaeel the order for the Ho* S2 etyle ae t0 the 
^ftlanoe of the 90 dosen* On or about imM 26* 19ao defend* 
ant returned 40-s/l3 dozen of theee sweater* but plaintiff 
refused to eooept l^en end it is to reeover the imrohaee 
price of the 41*1 l/ia dosen that this suit is brought. 

Defendant in its affidavit of merite set up that 
•B Febm&ry 6« 1920 it oanoelltd the order for the Ko« S3* 
and that thia was before plaintiff had mstnufaotured any of 
the sweaters; that notwitlistanding this notice of oaneeiia- 
tlOB plaintiff prooeeddd to saanufaotare the sweaters ^nd 
forward them to defendent; that upon receipt of the sweaters* 
tlie defeni^ant forthwith returned them* On the trial of the 
oaso the dsfendant attempted to SlUnr that the written order 
i^ieh he gsrrs to plaintiff* provided that the sweaters should 
be taa.&B frcmi sephyr yam* but that as a matter of faet* tbey 
were mads, as testified by witnesses on behalf of defendant* 
of wors-ted yam and that the latter yam was not as giwd or 
eicxMtnsive as sophyr yam* This evidenoe was ob footed to oy 
plaintiff on the growad that It was not within defendant's 
idTfldavit of merits* but the objeetion was overruled and the 
evid^jnoe adssitted* we think that tShis evidence shovjld have 




be«n excluded* but it oaimot »&k« emy dlffereaoe li^ the 
dl«ol8ioii* b«oau8e plaiintlff r«oovtred all that hB olnitoed. 

Th« Qontraot «iit«r$d Into between th« parties 
viui for & eertaln quantity of three apecifie etjrlee of oveatera, 
It ivas an entire oontraot^ and the attendant oould not ao* 
eept tvo of thase styXee of mr9&tmr9 end r«;)e(rl the third 
•tyle. And elnee there is no oontention that If plaintiff 
Is entitled to reoover fo; style Ko. 5S the asuount of the 
judgaent le oo;Teot» the judgiaent of tfce Municipal Court 
Must he afflTmed* 

Vhat WB have said is suffioient ansirer to the 
contention «ade hy the d«f«n-riant that the Instruetioas glT«n 
were erroneous saad that the oourt erred la refusing to gire 
Ins truot ions offered Dy Itt 

fAtLOE« F,j. Awo ii i ipiik -it' m^im^ 


378 - 28113 
©• PRIOE, 






Opinion filed Feb. 30, 1924. 

m* ^mtl^ 0«CC«2I0H dUiIlT©rea the opialon of 
the eourt. 

0. Prio« brouitit an aotiosi &f forcible detalmer 
ftgalBttt Thooaa Piillea $md fhom^M havTenoe, olal^lAg thAt 
h« wma entltl«d to th« possession of a certain portion of 
the pr»-ail0e« kiaovn »9 Ho. 'SiSS South llMifLX'bO'Tn Str«»#t, Ohie&gOi, 
aokA that th« defenl^iota uroagfttlly withheld the poasession of 
tuoh presilftos froa hla. PulX«a siloiM v«a mrr^A* The 08.«o 
waa tTied tnefore a judge and & ;}ury» and a Terdicrt renderod 
at follows: **W«t the Jury- flad th€ defendants^ TheBa.e 
Fulleii and ThotSAe Lawrence, suilty of xmlawfully rithholdlng 
ixesA the plaintiff the poasessioa of th® preaiaee cSeaoribed 
in plaintiffs ooflq»^int heTeln, kne«m as 3nd floos xesr at 
•833 South Dearhoxa St., and that the right to the possess ion 
ef said pxealaes is in theplatntiff»* The Jefendant J»ulleia, 
proseoutes this apoeal* 

Plaintiff to substantia t« his rig^ht to the possess* 
Xtm ef the pxeadses in cmestion offered In evidenoe a written 
doouaient* addresired to hiai i4ad purported to be signed by one 
Kdwin S. Buell, Trustee of the Estate of John f. Jom, Bankrupt; 

.A:>Gr ,0S ,de% b^IiJ. noi; 



At vi'^wT -•••''»» ii^wi'v 


«C 5; *■<■,» 3 





ttaat dosaaent so fur M isaitarl&I !• &« follows) 

••Sutoieot to the order of any court of 
eotti>ttent JuTiBdlotion, you «,»• prlTilegsd by 
B«« ftff f ru0tee of th« ©state of Joha F. Jorn, 
iHuikruptj^ to occjxipy the rear !K,pe.rta«iit of oct- 
tiiffS on front of lot XoosAly^ described as 
3833 South Dearborn Streett wilcago, Illinois** 

We fuxtiier gather from the reeord, ailthou^ 
it la by no meiuaiB ole«7« that a part of the premises was 
occupied by defendi'.nt Itia lea and u part of it by cue ^gith. 
The evidQnoe fm'ther fends to shoe that ihillea elalned to 
be occupy lag the premise® t«ad*;r the authority of one Bern- 
stein, who olaimed to be the owner of the property. There 
is no proof in the record that the property in queetion 
belonged to the banlarapt estate of John F. Jom« nor Is 
there any erldenoe that Buell had any oonnectlon with it 
exMpt as the trustee of the Jorn estate. Before the 
plaintiff would be entitled to recover the posseaelon of 
these prejaieesj rren if thi« action of forcible detainer 
would lie, (whloh question we do not decide ^';hitehill v. 
Qcw>ke« 140 f 1.1 . *>t63<4 l>« would at least ht^ve to ehow that 
the property belonged to the banlcyupt estate of Jorn, and 
that Buell wa* authorised to rent it to hlm» There is no 
proof of this kind in the record, and tb€r«fore, the jwdgaen* 
oannot stand, as in auoh a proceeding, plaintiff suet show a 
right of ^x>e sees ion in biaiself and oannot rely npon the lack 
Of rlg^t m the defendant, ^cllwaln y. Karsffcen*. 1S2 IliaSS. 

The Judgment of ^e Munieipal Court of CSbioago Is 
renrersed and the <»i.u8e reaaadsd* 


^f'. -Jff'fl^J V ■ 

ilCDJ^/SiJ. ' ^3 J'i.r'^i^jJ^e'Ct #iu:?t 

• &> i ■>£,' 


>eir> ll;<<^^ f 

.V >rii^^^t, 

--:#,, r^* ^*i 

'*)!? f-m 

.- 'i^OiT'': Sii-K **!. .L■^^i 

,;/>t5<>oc'?:c' .;^ f^:^/ 

^^l3&ii *ti;«&-3:?: 

it iif; 



388 - 2812?- 



ft OOTP*« 



2 83 I. A, 6 2^ 

Opinion filed Feb. 20, 1924 

ME. ^tmtlOK 0«06irMOa A«liT«red tfe« oplaian 
of th« (Kiort* 

Plaintiff brought »,n aotloa ©f foreible dttalnsr 
figaiiuit th« defendant, Glftiming that ho w»,« entitled to the 
pooooeelon of a c^ertain piooo of re&l ostnto to Oblost^ and 
laiat the defendant wrongfully withhold the oaao fyo« it. The 
OROO wae tried hofore the court without a ^ury and thoro wa» 
a finding and judgaent la the plaintiff *• faYor and the do- 
fimdaat pxooooutes thia appeal. 

the ftioto i9hioh are tindisputed are; Thonae B. Shears 
vao the owner of a piooe of ir&eant real estate in t^ioaigo and 
OA May 27, l9Sn leaood tt to the defendant for tbe purpose of 
erecting and naintaining billbo»iTdB, advertising elg^, eigx^ 
hoards and hialletinhoardo thereon froli the first day of Juno, 
1321 to the tbirty-firat day of hjay, 1984, at a rental of 
$115* 00 pOT year, payable easi-anniaally. The written lease 
ooatalBOd tiie following pro-risiom 

*It is expressly agreed that the leesor raqr 
terminate this lease by giving the lessee thirty 
days' notice in writing and refunding to the Tessee, 
pro^rate, the rent paid in adT&noe, in case the lee* 


' noiiiiaO 


fe& ; 


SOT •ells the aald preml««« or improre* tli« 
saat by «r»otlng * penaanOTit building thereon 
reoyixiag the rnmrml of the leaseoa «ign«. 
billboard*. Bignboaxd* or bwdlsUln bo«rd«; 
p70Tid«4 tbAt in «a»« any proposed sale shall 
not oe coneuamated or proyioaed lBiproTea«nt« 
ii»dt within A re»aonabl« time after th« giT- 
lAK of sttob notice to the le8»©«, such notice 
ahSll not \>« offeotiTO aa a torminatlon of thlB 
Ioaa«» but the saae shall oontinu* In full forco 
fOT the t«TB» abore prorldod." 

AftOTwarda 5»4ttd ^11« the le&ft* w« In fnll 
force and of foot, tho 1«««>», TboMfto R. Sli«*r«r and hi« 
wifo, on thft first day of Anguot. 1?«*1, conveyed the pre- 
■isea ftH qnoation, by a Quit elal» do«d to are«n«1»«« Son« 
Bank * Truat Ooa^i^. Following this on Hcmmitovt 30» 19SI. 
Or»«n«baxtt Sona Bank * truat Ooapany. ont^rtd into a written 
laaaa with tho plaintiff Thoaaa Oaaaok * aosB|»a»y, a coriJOta- 
tioa. damiaing tha aaaa praaiaaa from the flrat day of 9ao- 
•iftax* 1921 to the first day of Baoeaibar* \9?A, at a irantal 
of 1600.00 par yaa». Ouaaofc & Ooaqpany were mitboriaad by 
tee lease to \jaa the preolaaa for araoting ^nd «alnt4laing 
adrartUlag «i«P». aiguiboarda and balletln board*, 

OS ISacembar 13, 1921, Cuaaok & coapany mervA 
a written notice on th« defendant, deaanding i«aiedi»ta 
poaaasaion of the pre«i.aa. December 33. 1931. plaintiff 
snxvod another notice on the def*m4ant. this notice wa« 
algned by the original landlord. Thoaas R, Shearer, ann noti- 
fied the d'.f^.ndiant that he had sold the vT«..ffrty snfl that 
in aeoordanoe with the teraa of the lease given the defendant. 
it waa notified to moata the pxa«isee and to remove all of Its 
property ther.from within tbi»»y days and tendering HCOO to 
the defendant. Tha notice atatlng«the name being the pro 
rata rent paid in admnoe under the ter«a of said lease.* 
tender of tha 140.00 was aade at that time to the defend- 

■^<Ci »K^? 

;:■ Xfix 


ant« but it r«fu8«(l to aooept th« noney ot to raoato the 
pr*«is««, After»rs.rl« on Janxiary 4, 1932, the Brnma notice 
wag eeircrsd on the def^mrlftnt aad the iKiney xgaic tendered 
and refused* And on februATy 6» 193a « the suit in question 
«&8 instituted* 

The feots not belttg in dispute* the o^mtrolllng 
onsstioa is the oonatruotion of l;he proTision of the lease 
abore quoted* % the terms of the lease it ims proTldsd* 
that the lessor in oass he sold the property* mi^^t termin* 
•is the le&se by giving tb© lessee thirty days* liotlee in 
writing and refunding to the lessee the pro rats rent p&ld 
in adranoe. It is olssr thst this provision of the lease 
was inserted for the benefit of the lessor so that he Might 
not be prevsaited fro8» selling the property in case the pros- 
peotivs purchaser would not taks it subject to the lesss* 
fh&t it nas aot neoeessry for bin to teralnnte the lease to 
effect the sale is shown by the faet that he conveyed the 
preaises to are«(neb&u» Sons a»nk & Tru«t Conpany on the first 
day of August. The fm,nk tk Trust oomimny peraitted the defend- 
ant to p€m^e«ably occupy the pre«ises* at least the reoord fails 
to show that the Bank ^ Trust OoBpany took any aotion* imtil 
Xeveoibsy SO, X^I* whieh was four laonths after it had purchased 
the property, when it then leased the property to the plains 
tiff for ^^00*00 p€X ymir* And it was not until December 33Td 
that the defendant was tendered the pro rata rent vhieh it had 
paid in advance* Under thS'S circuBastsnces, tb© original lessor, 
Tbottas R. Nearer, oould not terminate the le^pse nor eould the 
Chreenbaua Sons Bank ^ Trust Ooaimny do so, until it in turn 

••cured a purohasor. We gavs careful sons iteration to a similar 
qusstion in Gates v, Norton. Appellate c3ourt, first District, 

>«?.'■, -9 ^: 

fiiiin€ft jf.v ficf^ 


i** *rff ff^A 

JN!i* t^"^ 

aa4«£9« $4 «3t^' 


.-i.«»v f»cf oo.v.fdssi t<si flit 

roil iiiuv& ,twrj(S©rfG .H ajsJKftrrT 

Ho, 37944, oipiaion filed Fwbnmry 16, 1923, %n6. reached the 
oonolueion that a provision In the le&.tfie there, tfihloh authoriced 
the landlord, in the avufint of sale ^f the preatstiB, to terala* 
at* the Xeaee upon giTlng certain notice, did rtot authorlw the 
gfj^ntee of the landlord, afteT he had reoognised the teiuint 
for a n\ml>«r of nonths, to terminate tbt Icsuie until the 
grantee ahould in turn find a purofeaaer, ^e thexa digcusMd 
the authorities and are entirely satisfied with the oonelusion 
we then readied, and it ?fill therefore, he uaaeoeeasry to die- 
ouea the mithorltiea again. Froa what we have said, it follonre 
that neither Shearer, the original landlord, nor hia grantee, 
Qreisnehaum Sons Sank & frust Ckmpany, have the rig^t under the 
faets before ue to terwiiMite the defen^iant*© le?!iee. 

The judgment of the Municipal Court of Chicane Is 
wrong, and It is T9vej:mei^ and the cause reeianded with direction* 
to dia«l«8 the auitfs.' 




398 • 38133 

Appellee^ ) 


on aopeal of THOMAS MAOK, ) o Ot O, 


Opinion filed Feb. 20, 1934, 

MR, JUSflCl ©•OOSHOa dellT«v«a th« o^liUon 
•f tb« ®ourt« 

By thla i»p?>«a1 Thoawui M«.flk i««k» t© rcnr«r«e 
a dAoree of th« cirouit Ooiirt of Oook Goimty entered la 
a suit for partition. 

Tha reoordl di«oloa«« tliat «Joha Staphan dlad 
testa.ta« dlaiwelag of crrtaia real ©atate in Ohicago, 
Ha laft eurvlTlng his five obildxeia and a wldov. The 
vldov and one child l^ra alnoe di^d* It la not nectssaiy 
to a daoielon of the caaa at aet up In detail all of the 
faota* I3iat It la aufflelent to aajr that one of the helra 
of the daeaaaedf executed a trust deed or mortgiage on her 
undivided part of th» real estate In queatlon to eeoure 
an Indebtedneaa of |16«0C0*<X); that about the ease time a 
suit for partition of the premlsee v&a filed, «dbleh was 
later dlsalesed and the heirs of the deoeaaed entered 
into an aoiloable partlti >n whereby deeds vere passed oonveylag 
eertali^ of the real estate to the sereral heirs. These deeds 
were dated February 5, 1918. It seeaa that eorae of the lota 
were aore ralxiabla than others rn^? to equallae the dlfferenoe, 
one of the heirs, Christopher Stephaa, gave his note for 

.:i-.-.t.i .Oc, ,0^:. jZs .j.i ii.,j.i\ieO 


12,000*00 to his slater J«anl«» and to s«(mxe the payment 
of it» executed a trunt deed or mortgage on the lots vhioh 
on that date had been tzansfeTted to him* Thla note and 
trust deed was given by Jennie to tke defendant Thcofts MaOk« 
«ho had aoted as an attorney for all of the parties In the 
aaiofthle i^rtltlont ^^nd knew the olroumstanoes imder nrhloh 
the note ani trust deed were grlven to Jennie, »nd that no 
other consideration tms glvea for the note exeept to OQual- 
Ice the difference In the value of the lots, Afterwards a 
%lll was filed to foreclose the mort^^ge of |16*000,00 atoove 
aeationed* And In ti^t suit It waa daoreed that the aalaahla 
partltl^ w%a void and of asi effect beoause all of the parties 
latereated In the real eetate had not Joined in the agreement 
aad at Xaaat one of thea was a minor* 

flia d9eT%it in tl» instant eaaa finds mjdMitaatiaXly 
all tha l^ota and the defendant, thovas Maek Is ordered to 
drliYer W *^^ ^^^^ ^dr 1^,000* CK>, together with oertaln 
ooupona* The ooiirt finding that the only consideration gi-ren 
to CSirlstopbar Iby Jennie was to equalise the value of the 
lots deeded to then respeotlwely* And It was further decreed 
that the aaleable partition was null and wold, and that the 
deeds giT«a at that tlaa together with oaftaia notes aad la!» 
tereat eonpoaa and trust deeds were deolared void aad oanoellei* 
All of the parties se^s to he satisfied with the deeree ex* 
cept the defendant, Thoiaaa j^ek* 

The deoree was entered May 15« 19S3, and cm the 
day the defendant prayed for and wae allowed an appeal to this 
eourt, **ao far as saae ef foots the lati^reets of Thooaa Maele", 
apon filing hla bond within 30 daya* On Jmns a« 19^3, he filed 
his hoad eudd It was approwed on that data. June 

has ' if a^ 






■SWftt? <*'• 

' s«i£il aotita 


16, I9a3» the court entered im order nxof^ lyro tiono »» of 

May 15, 1923, which pttrport«d to amtmd the ord^r allovlng 
th9 apiMSkL 80 that the or^er would sbov tk%t tfat appeal 
was allonred from that portion of the decree which d«>cre(»d 
the not« held by feec*: b« 'iellvcrcd up and cancelled, TMa 
laat order was of no eff«ot beoau»» the court wa© without 
autborltr to enter it, ^ "'' ' ; - ■. 

Xt is tlb« gipUWal rule of procedure in this etatt 
that vhen an appeal bond l® filed amd aptsroved purausnt to 
an order allowing an appeal, the case la then oonsld®Ted 
pending in the court to tn^ich th«» ap9«ftl vae t^kea, and 
under such oonditione, it Is beyond th© power and jurie- 
diction of the trial court to enter any orders effecting 
the ri*T;bto of the parties. This rule is subject to the 
(palifl^tion that tJsR trial court ms^y during the term In 
idiioh the final Judgaent or decree is entertd, set aside 
the order approving the appeal bond and grant a new trial. 
Briggg ▼. mmne, 163 111. 36; Finkel stein v. feyoniij 350 
III. 37; ^aaon & Yrent Mroe . w. lff &l> 204 111. App. &58. 
BkH In kthe instant case, th6 trisil oovrt having am proved 
the appeal bond, it oould not afterrarde amend th« order 
allowing the appeal without first setting aside the ot6vt 
s^iproving the bond, and this not hsving been done, the ordenf 
entered 4une 16th was void. It o««ld not be aade valid by 
atteaptlng to enter it nufic pro t; une as of May 15, 1922, as 
th"Te was no basis to warrant such an order. 

Oonnsel for the def«»niant Macfe strenuously insists 
tlint the dsorss in me. instant ease t^kes a ^,0CD.00 n»ts 

♦??* ^- 

A'f . 


ni? ^®i/?«T 

trithout th« ahadow of an •xoftMse*'* He further eontends 
tliat Chrlfftopher atei^ian, ^o ex«mited &>Tid dtlivered th« 
note to J«xuii«« his «l0t«r» T«<i«iired a ooA8id«'.rfttlQn for it 
In that ho was woablod to oollootod a lar^^r a«oimt of 
rttnts than he oth«rwl/3o would beo^us® tho lot glTon to his 
lA tbo aaieablo ;m.rtition w&s c^oro valuable, tham the lot 
doeded to Jemile* this latter arguinffirkt orerlooka the faet 
that the 'leoree in the Instaat ease provides th«t there thall 
bo aa aeooynting of rente from February 5* 19I8» the Tezy date 
the ittie&ble partitioa la-ad note in ^leetion were made* 

It ia clear \mder th» cirmmstsjacee dlsoloeed by 
the record that ainoe Chrietopher »ade» executed end deliver* 
ed the ^^000»00 note in imeatlon is eonBidexati::^B of the feet 
that he received a raore vRl\iable pfieoe of property than 
Jeimle in the a3sd.eabXe partition* ^nd einee audb partition 
has been deoroed to be snll snd rold* that whrietoplter received 
no oonsiaeration for tfee note. It it obvlcme, therefore, 
that Jennie could uot wafer ce paynteut of the tiote. And sinoe 
the record dlsoloeee that the defendant, Maek, knew all of the 
faote in oooneetion with the vakiag and exeoutl<m of the note, 
he ie in no better position* It oert%4nly woixid be »o«t !»• 
•4|uitable tmder the ciroujastanoee to perwit Maedc to enforoe 
his |3,000«00 lien a^inat vlhriatopher when Ohrietopfeer received 
nothing for lt« 

The deoree of the Olrouit Oouxt of Oook County 
la affirmedi! 


,v:^«f» *«J;r Ifi a-: ^ bit* IgitM?^ v^^ f<#i^ or. ?st 

.i'^-»«111tjB iil 


S07 • 36143 






„ ri r^. Q. 

Opinion filed Feb. 20, 1924. 

m, jmnas. ^*mum% d«iiT«i-»«i tis© opiaioB of 

the eourt. 

Plaintiff brouf^.t an ROtion of forcible detainey 
agaiaat tbe dcfenilatit to oMftln poasossloa of a oertnln part 
of pTe^loeo known as Ho* 3335 0outt) Spauldlng a-9«aiuo» aM 
vbi^ w«re oooupl®d by the defendaiit, plaintiff claiming 
that tho defondant wrongfully withheld th© rsos sobs ton of uuoh 
pTeaioes frona hta. There tms a trial before the court without 
a i\3Xff and s finding and jiidgment In plaintiff's favor* 

The oottplalnt and mrnaaeamm deaerihod the pretBlsea 
as followai 

"th« groiaad floor oonaisting of store end 
four Hiring room and other iw>Ba» in the rear of 
aal'i St ^re, lot^ted in the two atory brlok build- 
lag known as ^Z2B So* Spaulding Avenue •** 

And plaintiff offered evid^^noe tending to show that 
)W vas the owner of the preai»«8 knotm as Ho, 2326 Bouth 
Spaiiltlng avenue* He also offered in evideaee a notion? given 
to the dafenisjit on the tbird day of January » 1922, trhereby 
the defendant was notified that plaintiff had elected to tenv* 
laate defendant *8 tenancy of the property described in the 
siBBBioiui and ooaplalnt, ad further notified defendant to <9(ult 


4*-STi.?S-':^ .^v- .:■ 


«nd d«llY«» Up th« po«««»alo» of the pywiUaa by the 3l«* 
day of MRTCfli, 1923, Plaintiff aUo oftersd In evldenc* 
a written document olgiwd by the d«sfcndant. In whiA tht 
dofondaat otatod that be bad rootlvod tfe« notio«, dtted 
Jaauary 30, 1«B8 to vaoato the pr««l»«« Maxeh 31, 1932. 
thia doottftent al«o contained the following: 

•And in oonci deration of extenelon of Thirty 
(5G) days tlo*. I hereby waive all nv rl^t, claim 
and mtereat whaterer I my bavo as tenant in the 
aooT« described pieiiieOB and further agree to quit 
and deliver up poaeeealon of aald premlaea not later 
than Ai»il 30, 1933.« 

the avldenoe furthe» ahowa th&t the defendant w»» 
atlll oooTipytag the preBiaaa at the tlase of the tiial; and 
that at the time of the beginning of the euit and tmtil the 
nig^t before the trial was begun, the raiaber aotually attached 
to 1*e budldlng was m* S333 South SpnuLdlng avenue • 

The defendant eontenda, aa we uaderatand fro« 
his MgBBMmt filed, that the judgwent la wrong beoauae the 
naaaimT physioally attached to the balldlng at the ti«« of 
the b«glania« of the suit until the day prevloua to the 
trial waa »o. 3323 Bouth Spaulding avenua, while the oo«- 
plaittt !md msmmiM deaeribed the prumiaei aa fio. «38& South 
Spaiildlttg avenua, and that this conatlt«tee aueh a wayianoe 
as to warrant a reversal of the jud^aent. There is no aerlt 
in this contention. The evidence sbcwa without dispute that 
defen^*nt waa pUlntiff's tenant, oooupylng certain epeiified 
preMiaea. and it i» to recover these pre«iae» th^t the suit 
waa brou^t and the fact that a wrong number had been pbyalc 
ally attached to the prtaiiaea «an in no way effect the ^erlta 
of the eaaa.^^ ^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^ ii^ioipal Court of Chica^ la 



•©iat^c -!!jtft-#d ?^i»«; tr^iftiiww r 

S90 • 28155 



kFPlukh iHOJi 


COOK cr^nmr. 

Appellant. ) (% Q ^ '^ ^\ fK^i 

^ ^ ^ i.. a i: 1 ;* "O hul J 

Opinion filed Feb. 20, 1924, 

mu iVmim O'COSKOE deliT«rcd tfe« opiai n 
of tlsa court. 

Plaintiff brou#it ewit agslBS't the Oity of 
Ghioag^ to reooTwr <&ii^goa for personial injurlee olaimed 
to have Ta«en austaliiftd "by him by r«»sison of ble fftllinc 
frgpsB an \mft:i*B.ird^ sidervalk o»to the adjoining lot, which 
im« soMi eight to fiftftea f««t loir«r th*ii the sidewalk, 
jfsssultimg in % fraeture of th« )itit«txus» fharc w%a a ve»diet 
and judgneat in plaintiff's favor for 13,000.00, to revereo 
whioh tho City of Ohicago proaecutfto this appoal. 

The evid^^nae t«nds to «how that about oa« o'olocA: 
in the sioming of i>ece«b«r 3S, 19S0, plaintiff w&b imlking 
north on the vost sidewalk of BaltiiaoT« aT«tme beti^een 9l9t 
and 92nd atreeta in tht^ iJity of CJhioago, the night was dark 
and th*^re w«r» no lights »longtthe sid«simlk at the plaof in 
question. There was a strong wind blowing and It had bewi 
raining and sleeting so that the aideralk was slii^ery. The 
lota iaaediatcly adjoining th« sidewalk on the wsst were 
▼iaoant «nd the surfaes was f io« eight %o fifteen feet below 
thst of the sidewalk. *©oden posts were erected e-long: the 
vest side of the sidewnlk, t which two boards rtinning 

.^ze: ,0' beliJ. abiiiL<0 


p«tratll«l to th« sidmnilk were nailed forming a orud« fence. 
Plaintiff w»« walking north on th9 aidftw^lk, liol«5ing on to 
the boaxdfl to k»«p from being tolown 9ft by the high wind, 
•o«e of the boards were broken and when plaintiff yeaohed 
this place, he fell off the •lde'fir%ilk onto the grotmd below. 
It appeaam that thl» onide fenoe had been In such defective 
oondltioa for a oonBid(»rable period of tiae prloT to the date 
in Queetion. h9 a roa^alt of ths f».ll plaintiff received a 
fracture of the upper end of the hisaerue whlcJj extended into 
the ehouider Joint ant ••«»» to have caused a shortenini^ of 
plaintiff's ana. The ehoulder I® atlff and he has difficulty 
in putting on hie coat &xid vest. Ther^^ is «j180 evidence 
thatf as a result of the injury, thtrc is a pennanent limita- 
tion of motion of the «^oulder« The am waa still sore at 
the time of the trial* nth! oh trae held April 10, 1932 • 

fhe defenvlant contends, (1) that the evidence 
discloses that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negll- 
geno«{ kMd (3) thait the ;judgaent is excessive. 

Of (^aurse, it is the law that to warritjit a recovery 
plaintiff arast show timt he m@.B In the exerolse of due os^rm 
and esiution for his own SRfety,- that he w^ snot guilty of ooi*» 
tributory negligence. The defendant argues that since the 
evidence shows that plaintiff worked about a block froa the 
plaee where he was in;)ured and lived about twe blocks froai 
the plaoe, and had paseed on Balitmore avenue frequently, 
be knew of the condition of the sidewalk, ajad the hole in 
the fenoe throu^ which he fell* the evidence does show that 
plaintiff had been working for a number of months as a bar* 
tsnde* at a place located abo it a block froa tVie place where 

f ri;,^li:;i 





Ito was injured, ani that h» llT«d about ti^o Mook» ttom that 
]^ao«« It l8 not very elaar uli ether he observed the hole la 
the fenoe prior to the tiae he ime iaj^ired, tmleae this al^t 
be inferred from %he imet that eooketlMee he paseed ftlong this 
•treet* 9at the evidenoe tends to show th&t he generally 
went fron his pl&oe of enxsines^; to where he lired on other 
oooasions by tmversing other streets* But even if we might 
asmtme th&t he did Icnov of the hole in the fenoe, yet ws 
think that, oonsid«tlng all th« eYidenoe in the oase «» thnt 
the sidewalk was slippery; that it was very dark; that the 
wind WHS blowing at a gr«at gals and that the plaintiff was 
•ndeavorlng to pas® along iSh^ eiaewalk by holding onto the 
fenoe; all nmsonable ninds would not reaoh the conclusion 
thftt plaintiff was not in the srereise of dn« oars anrl caution 
fdr his own safety. In these oireueaistanoes the «)iie8tion w%s 
one for the jury to determine. Libby. MeS^elll & Ubhy v . Oook. 

2m iii« ace, 

Ser oan we say that the judpsient Is so exceselvs as 
to warrnat us in disturbing it. The evldenae shows that plain* 
tiff tras preeipitated head for«»ost onto the snrfaee of the lots 
adjoining the hole isi the fenoe, and that the hvaasrus was 
fraotured; "ttie fracture extending praotically to the shoulder 
joint; that he w a in the hospitRl three weeks; that he was 
Mrmiag |S0«00 per week at the tiaui he ira.s injured; &nd paid 
|1?»00 per week while he was there as well as eoiae small eictras; 
that hie ara was plaoed in a splint by the surgeon; that this 
was removed aaA another splint put on; that he wa4i laid up 
sad unable to work froa the tiaae he was Injured until ^y 6, 
19JJ1; that a reas^iable charge for the services rendered by 
the sui'gMm wa» |lOO»po. Of oouree, he suffered great pain 

• 4; 6/1" ijfict^ic hmsf 




•vj-frj-i tf . .(, r 

!iL:rr jids^siiv 

•ad 19 p«7amii«ntl]r injured* In these oixemaistajBieet vt 
think It clear that the jtuignent 1» not exe«»»lTe. 

fbe jud^ent of the m^erlor Oonrt of Oook 
Covmty Ifl aJrflni«d« 



'?)s«»iv»§t5 el i)j 


t^'r-K-- i. 

357 • 28198 

Appelle«« ) 

00! s GGvnn. 

JOi. .... and OlIiUSTOPHia 

ORO,..., „.. „,vsal of JOSKPH 

Opinion filed Feb. SO, 1924. 
MR. JUSTICE 0»C!OirnOli delivered the apiaion of 
the oouYt. 

Plaintiff j)roui.;l&t »uit agalnet the deftiKJaata to 
r8G0T«7 <Sa«ag«8 for |»3f»oa&l In^uxlea* Thert -rinf a v«Tdlet 
and judgjeent In bex fatpor a^lnst both defendants for ta^OOO.OO 
and th« dofendtmt tturtln prosecmtea this appeal. 

T&« record disoioBM th&t about noon on SoT«ab«v 
16« ISIS^ plaintiff* % ir<s«R».n about fortyfi'onc ye&ra old« ims 
standing at the ®out)iir«i9t corner of Avere and Fullertoa .avenue, 
Cfltiloago* k^r9TB avenuo la a north and iioutb street and Fullerton 
•▼•HIM «B «aat aad vast etxaet. the roadvajr of Arera aTenuis 
ig about 30 faat irida aikd at tita tisM la ^aatloa «aa pantd 
wltli f^as]^• The ro&d«lf^f of Fullerton avenua, «hleh is a 
iMuiiaaaa atreet» is aoout 60 f«@t wlda» paved irith brick a^nd 
la oooupled by a double line of atreet oar traeke* It had be«n 
raining prior to th© aeeldent 9m6 the pavemente were vet sad 
filippery. The defaad&nt, JNi&rtln, was drivlai; hie automobile 
south la Avers avenue end the defendaat Groen, e«s driving 
his auto»obile west la Fullerton avenue bstreen the north 
street oar traok and the 0ux%« l?hen it becaae apparent to 

»^&G£ ^05 .de'-: .bslil aoiaiqO 

t^^ — 




'nsr ■s tJij. j^';;i; 


"IH'^ ■iiu" f* ■ 

to both defendants tbitt a oolllsion V9.» iHsfJumt^ the defend.* 
8At Groeti turned hie oar tow&Td the southwtet nxiA paseed la 
fTont of Martin's oar ithioh e&iee to a stop near the north 
mil of the weatlbo'und etreet ear tn^ck* As Croen*s auto* 
Mobile iMUised In front of M&rtln*e» he turned to the north-- 
veet to avoid striking the curb ftt the aouthnrest Goraer of 
the street intertteotlon* Hla mx »lcld^®d, struolt the plain- 
tiff and serercly In^tired her. k% the mmB tlae; n Ere. Oleon, 
an old iBi&f, WR» BtavUding n«ar the plaintiff, 3Sr«. l*«ter&on« 
The defendi^nt, Ovoen*® oar struck i^rn, Olson and she diet 
Ml a result of the injury received^ 

fho tulainistTator of lire. Olson* « estate brou^^t 
•idtf and that oa«e and the Instsmt ease rer@ ooneolldated 
for trial* There was a Tordlct for the plaintiff in each of 
thoae eaeea* hat the verdict w&s not in regular forn %nd a 
ftov trial urae granted. Afterwaxcle tb.« oaae brought by the 
»teinietrator ©f Mr». OlBon*B eatate *- a tried and a Terdlot 
renderftd for tl,O0C,CX) a^inst both detent? ant© and on app«al . 
by ISartln to thia court, the judgment wa« affirmed. Forea«a 
^yoa. .Banking Oq.> Ada, v. firoen> et al. Appellate Sourt, 
Firet Dlstriet, no. 37786, not yet published. 

The instant oaae was tried before a jury s«A a 
Terdlot rendered in plaintiff* favor against both defendant* 
as at«>vo stated. So that it appears that three jmries have 
passed t^on the faeta in the ease. The erlde^aoe in the Foreaian 
oa^aio and in the instant ease 10 substmntially the same. Ae Is 
generallj the oase In suits of t>^l8 kind, th® testimony of 
the several oo urreno* witnesses varies oonsiderably as to the 
late of speed each car was traveling at prior to the tiae 





1 *^ 1 " firj'j rt 


la question* as w»Xl mm &n other oattere of tletail as to 
how the aoeident oocurred. 

The deferadt/nt Kiartln oon tends that the lORnlfest 
veigbt of the evidenee shovs that he vas guilty of no aeg* 
ligeaee; that he ime rmmlng his automobile at a oareful and 
aoderate rate of speed and was la no wmy to blame for the ua;* 
fortuaate accident. Of oouTse, there vas erideace that liartla 
was drivlag his oar ao faster th^a the law var-mated aad that 
lio utoppeA his autciaobile a oonsi<lerahle dlstanoe north of 
the north rail of the westbound street car trael;:* And It 
la argued that the defendant Oroen oo\Jld have imjiaed iafely 
la front of hla without injuring plaintiff had he not been 
eareXees and vroeklteo. Oa the other hand there was erldenoe 
that the defend?int GrocaEi'e <mar ems not traveling at an exceaslTO 
sate of speed but that lfetrtla*8 was. 

It would serve no useful purpose of anatyvo the 
evidfnoe in detail, but we think It sufficient to say that 
after oareful oonaldfiration of it, we are ©learly of the »T>la!» 
ion that whether Martin was free frosi aegllgenoe, wms a o^^^tlon 
of faet for the Jury. It is oertaia that all reasonable ainds 
would not rea(A the oonclusioa that mrtla wae free fro« aeg- 
ligsaee. In theso olrousaatanoes the ouestioa tt^^refore wae 
«ae for the ;}ury, L^bby. ^oHelll A Jibby v. Coo,lc^ 222 111. 206, 
Mor oan we say that the finding of the jury to the effect that 
liartla was guilty of aoglig^noe is ag^^tlast the aanifeat weight 
of the evidence, WO woulA not, therefore, lie warranted in dis- 
tisrbiag tb© verdiot oti the ground of the iasufficienoy of the 
evldenoe to support lt%, 






Th* ddfeud^nt fwrther contends that tven If it 
•liouia TW found that Mart la waa guilty of nftgligeaoa, y% 
■uoh a«gllg«BO<o vtiu not the proximate eftuse df th« iajuries 
reoaired by plaintiff » b«o»u«© th« «irld««noe showa tbst after 
tbe d«f«tt<Ssmt Qroen^sRV there «ovJd b« a oollisloa and »ft<ir 
)Mi «av tbet Martla»a oar h».d (stopped aortfe of th« wastboxmd 
«t»««t oar track, he coatinuod to drlvo his c»r st an «»• 
ees<3iTe fftte of epeed aiad operated it so oareleesly that 
plaintiff WJ'.s iajared in th« altidiing of the ear. Aad 
oouneel earnestly contend that the evideaot Bhors there 
tme ao oaaaaX i*elatloa between aay aegligeaoe of «fhioh 
ilartia ad^t be guilty aad th© Injurieo received by plela- 
tiff, but that oa tli« ooatrary, the evidence show* that 
plaiatlff w?i» iajured «e ft reaait of the iade|M?n4eat aegll- 
geace of the def^aciaat Sroea. Of ©oiaree. If iartla»« negll» 
geaee was aot the proxloate o&aeet of plaintiff •s lajurlee, 
he would aot !»• liable, but whether la a givea case the aeg» 
lig9A0C of a defeadant la t^®proxlawate cause of the iajtoriee 
for whioh plaiatiff euee 1« often diffieult of eolatioa. 
la oases lav Ivlng <?uite elssllar faeta, the oourta have 
avrlvfld ftt-'oppoeite eoaolusioae. He it lag v. p* 3» I, & P« 
^y. Co> 3S3 111* 466; p^lJR T, q. ^ VU U h, n, Qsl * , 
Appellate Court, Flret District, uq* B5039; same oaae af- 
firmed (atylia v. C. & W, I. E. E. Oo,. . :?97 111. 184, la 
the Beltiafe- cage, tbe court aald» pp. 473 aad 474} "JTo two 
eaeee are preoiaely allhe. In caaea iavolvia^ cjuite alailar 
fkets oourta have arrived at opposite ooaclusiaaa* TJ^e 
<|\Matioa for oar deteraiaatloa la wh«^tber tfeere was aay evi- 
deaoe retmirlag the subwrittioa of the Questl^aa of proximate 
oaaae to a jury, and If tti€ faota are euoh that oea of ordla- 

....... :£. b^fntn V'f 


ATf judgai«nt nay arriY* «t different oonoluslons a» to vbtther 
•r not A fence irould prol»&t>If h»T« preTentcd tbe aoc|di«nt« 
tben th« condition i»me ouoh &« rci;rulred th« sulsoiiaslon of the 
oase to the jury.*^ In the laetant ease the queetlon tot our 
delMimlnntlon ie^ mk» there OTidienoe retmlx'liig the euhmleelon 
Of tbe question of proxlnate oetuse to the ^ryt If the 
faots are suoh that at«n «f oydlnary jiidgment would arTiirt 
at different oonoluelon* as to whether plaintiff woiild haw* 
been injured had the deffaiaat Martin not operated bl» <iair 
a« he dld» then the Question w®js o»« for the Jury. In our 
opinion the srldeace was auefe that saon of ordinary judgaent 
Blf^t reaaonably arriro at different oonelualona and euoh 
'^eing the faet* the question w«j,e a proper oao for the jury. 
It followo that the oontontlon of the defendant, Martin, 
lo tetenablo* 

The Judgment of the Suporloi? Court of Cook county 
la aff Ixaod* 

fXYLORt, f.J, A8D TilOM^H, J. OOBCim. 

Tw* *»t nciH^'y- 


*T^vt ':>^y 



ivjsmo «0i*?*(|i7i^ «>#;.#■ %& tfMtfi'gsbi^'i ^c't 

♦J3w!«?!«i:tt*« «i 

♦ SmII *.£■■', 

SW • 38331 

oiaouit cooat. 

App«na.ntffl, ) ^ o t l\ * 6 i^ '"■''' 

Opinion filed Feb. 20, 1924, 

an, JtJStlOE 0»OOHSOB delivflred the opinion of 
1^6 oourt. 

By thla appeal the if«»pondeats seek to t»r«rB« 
mil order of the Olroiilt Ceurt of Qoot Ooujity, striking fro« 
t)i« return of r^tapondent* to the ipetition for a writ of o«r- 
tior&rl o«rtiiiln ?»ag#a denying the respondents* motion t» 
qnn«h the writ «yad miat»lnlng th® p©tltionor»« a»tlon to 
qnnfth the proeoodlng9» befo?« the Olril ierrlot Commission* 
vfaisrehy the petitioner wn» dlsflliargod froio the police foxoe 
•f Ohloago. 

Kl^urioo O'Oomell filed his petition, oettlng np 
that for Gowy year* ho had l>een In thf employ of the 01 ty 
of Ohloa^ wi » patrolman In th© olAOslfled olvil serrlcej 
tlUbt the r«8pond«nt« who were the GlTll Senrloe GowBloalonom 
of (Jhleago, without any Jurisdiction of the petitioner or the 
ouhjeot-ra&tter, entered an order hln from the 
offloe or position of pntrAlsBUU And It was avorrod that 
ttttoh order wwi foid heoaime the Oownlaelon was without juris- 
dlotlon. A writ of certiorari wis Issued &» pr«yed for and 
as a return to the writ, the yesponaRUts set u|i, aai^ttf other 
thlngjt, «11 of the proceeding* t>i*t took pl&oe bofore the 
OlTll Serrloe Oooumissloa, showing th&t ohargw w«^re filed 

CiGx j>Jci 



■■'f^?4^ ^v 

.'"** Tf^fi*- 


> ■'-j'M.JwetAtlif lo 

• t''''^i*'r-flr 


againat the pttit loner and th&t upon a. hearlnc* ht ««• 
fomd guilty and diaobarged. Upon thlu return being filed, 
Vk% petitiontr taored that oert&ln part* of th« return, ••• 
IMol&ll/ that whioh Inoluded the triE^nsaTlpt of tb« evidenee 
taktn and h««ird before th«i Olrll Servlee Oo^atnieeionera on 
the be&Tlng ef the ekargfts agaiiist the petitioner, be 
strloken; olaljaing It was not in existence at the time e 
of the filing of the petition, nor <&t the tlsse the writ 
of eertiorarl was sorrod, but that it vae afterw^rdo ''■ado 
up*. In support of thi» motion, an afft*iTit wa« filed, 
fitiioh t<Mid«d to support petitionerfa ooatsmtioa, ^'m<^ a eounte* 
affid&Tit ims filed on behalf of tho reeponttentif to the effeet 
that the evidence taken before the CiTil Eerno« Ooamlsfiion 
oa the bearing of th« oharges ai^lnst the petitioner, was 
taken down in shorthand and the shorthand notes filed with 
the oeoret&ry of the oc^missioa, and so rezsained a part of tho 
record of that body, and that after the service of the writ 
of certiorari in the instant e&ao, tho <K>urt reporter traae- 
oribed his notes and sudti transeript w&s set up as a part of 
the return to the writ. Tho oourt s\istalB«d the petiticm«r*s 
notion, and in this we think there ims error* 

So authority is eited to the effect that the method 
df preserrlng the evidenoe as followed by the Olril gorrleo 
Ctora^r^sslon la apilnst ^e lav, atid wo h».wo been u»».ble t® 
find any* Wo think the sTldenoe alght prolxibly bo pr^serred 
liy the ClTil Serwioo OGi»Bission« a* was done in th4» proceeding 
before It* 

Ckjunsel for the petitioner further oont#nd that 
eren If the aotion of ths airoult Court of Cook Catmty ia 


^r'yit srf.t fB sc>n3tcix#» 





suatalBlns plaintiff** notion in striltlag the eridenee from 
tht retuTxi wfts vrong* Ite aetloa in doing bo, ostnnot be r«* 
Yi«w«<t lNic»u»« ao »uch error is AJisig^aiftd bjr the rtspoadents. 
Onft of tho a89ig!B»ent« is "Said Oirouit Court erred in quksIi* 
iag the prooeildlngs of ths Qivll Serrioe Oosmlsslon ss set fe 
in the return of rcsj^ondents to tb« writ of oertiorarit* m 
think this as^igBment was suffloicnt* beo^uae it its oertaia 
t]»t the prooe^dinpi b«foi€ ttoe Oirll isnrloo Coamlssion 
«»uld not haTS been quashed hmd the court not strioken ths 
OTld'^aoo taken before the ooffij^lssisa from respondents' re» 
turn to the irrit. Oas^e almost identlG&l with the on« before 
mt are it<y(^rthT ▼. ae«ry> «t al. Appellate Court, Firet Olst* 
riot, !59, 38S39 and g^tt later v. Geg.ry> ct al. Appellate Courts 
First Diotrlot, No. 28330, deoided by other diTisions of 
this oourt» nher® tha sajjie ruling waa «ade» 

The 00 art further erred in overruling the reepoaieii 
■atioa to qwk&h the writ. The 0xftmT of the Oireuit <^itrt of 
Ck>ok County vlll, therefore, be reversed and the eanse reaaadt 
with directions to overrule the petitioner's taotion to c^insli 
the proceedings before the ooa.niesloa. 



'K-Xm^-'^Aji^^iiiA' ^i 

403 - S8342 






9 ^5^I.a* t> ^•^. 

Opinion filed Feb, 30, 1924. 

MR. JUSTICS O'dOSSOR d©U,TeT«4 tbt opi«loa ©f 
th« ooupt, 

Plaintiffs sn aoti^n of forcible detainer 
to reeover poascsaion of the store, kitobea sii^ «b©d upon 
the pr«aleea known a» S603 South H«s»ltag® avenue, Ohio©.g©. 
There was a Jury trial and a verdiot and JudgKOnt la plain- 
tiff's faTor. 

The record diaolose© that plaintiffs ^ointlr o«n«d 
th* pvemUm and. llwd at So. S60S Soiitfe Semitag* avenue, 
thf preaises In question; th« dcfen<i?^nt llTlng in the taa»»« 
nent, ooaupylng tb© store, kitcboa and ebed In tb« rear. 
Defendant h&d oocupled a part of tbe preals©« slnoe about 
MaToh, 1921, tmder a month to month tenancy. On the thirtieth 
day of Jxme, 19atk plaintiff aorred a notio* on the defendant* 
deiaandlng posseaeion of the premlaaa by Septcaber 1, 1932. 
on the day following the oervlco of this notice, ▼!«. ^^4y 
1. 1933, the defendant paid a month** rent and received the 
following reoelpt fron Marie Woriauth! 

^■s\iXV-:\ '^''I' 

•July l«t, 1332. 

R«o«iT«d of llT«. Pl«*li Twenty four oollart foi 

H«nt of 8tor« No. &603 n»rciita|;« fitreet for 
July ittvinth ending 31« 1924 • 

I34.00 Mir. «i|«HK«lu*> 

Th« erid ne« on boh».lf of %h« idef«n4ant Is to th« 
«ff«ot tbat at the time 8h« pftl^ thct rent and was given the 
re««lpt, pl&intiff , ife^rit foTsauth* told h«r »h« could »tny 
f©r two y<»ura iaor«, aa«:i tb«r®upon th« reoeipt was wxltt«n 

out by Ux»* j'jonauth and glv«9a to the deffenasint. ' Mref. ^i^oiatetb 
d«ni«s that th«r€ «%» uny suoh (XWOtTerftatlan. &he itlae denlM 
that th© «xot» ••1924* Ufjxin the r«oelpt. Aad it tWA olalttwd 

th&t it waa ohang«d ^y th« «i®feiii^4it 8Jft«r fbti delivery of 
the receipt to hox* 

The defend«tat eo»t«fnds that thli yeeoipt io « 
eufflolent aoMoranchai In writing to prevent the oontr#cjt 
from helng void on acooimt of the Statute of fr»ud«« Th#t 
statute requires that oontraets ooneeming an Interest in 
l«ad» for a longer t«r» than ©neyear shall he In frrltlng, 
or that there shRll he &om& wenoxmnduuii thareof » signed hy the 
party to be charged, or ssoae person authOTized by hi» in irrit* 
ing. It is porfeotly oles^r, that oven if plaintiff executed 
the reoelpt* It would not be aucto a ajoaoranduffl in writing 
ns would obviate the Statute of Fraudfi. 3oth plaintiffs owm 
the premises jointly* The r^oeipt is not signed by Mrs. 
worsRith. And there is so evidence that Mr, wonauth authorise* 
his wife in writing to sign his name to it. Bot is the receipt 
auff ioiwst eTtdonce in itself to warrant the inference that 
def ond&nt was eiuthorised to ^emipy the premises for a period 
of two years, ending Jxily 31« 1934. Tbo words of the reeelpt 
do not indieato this at allf r 

«| l-^rf*'- 


Z ,*ij. 



r.lSfed SgM?^ 

♦ }f?iL»^7:«* 

*• thiaik it i« tmneoeasary to disous* the ea»« 
further l3«oauft« it 1« erldent tnat tb«r€ la no merit in 
this apical* 

the judgment of tho Mtmioipal Ocftirt of Chio«.g» 
it %tfiTm»A» 

TAYLOE, P.J. knn TiiOmOM, J. coacuR. 

317 • 38053 


CQLOHUX. Taue? & 3AVI)iQ8 




Opinion filed Feb. 20, 1924. 
MR, auSTK^ momQU d«IiT»3red tHe opinion of 

the court* 

Bjr tbifl &pfp«al tlid aowpUfkimutt BMisoB 8««ka to 
r«T«n»« ft d«er«e of the Circuit Court of Qook Q&ve&tf dimnita* 
lag his orcdltorU blll« filed ag^lsAt the ci^feMaat Bttnk, for 
muAt of •qiilty* 

One Sturterva&t reoevered a judgneat against tlie 
rr«e»»ttt Power & Lig^t Coapaay, an Ohio corpora tion. In tfee 
Otroult Oourt of Oook Co\mty» Iilinoia. this jtid|p«nt me for 
|i9«77t« and «»s reoorered in Deeeisber, 1911. £iteoution mm 
le^ued on this jud^aeat and returned i^ulla boa»» Afeoiat three 
««^to after the judgnent mui reoovered it ime aeelgned to the 
ompXainent Hudeon. In Jvme I9ia* Hudson oofHaeneed ^aimlshment 
prooeedin^ agsiinot the defendunt Bank suad these proceedings 
were later traneferred to the equity aide of the court, under 
the proriaions of the statute, and heo&aja the suit now hefore 
this oourt on this «iijpeal. 

»f its assvas, t^ defenaaat Wmek. adaitted that it 
held a fund aao\aitlng to $23,885«76, a« Trustee, iz*d the 
reoord shoes thle fund to have ooioe iat© the Bank's hsada. 


. afi belli .lOxniqO 




.^MS.'lii Ms'iTiU'.ri^jS 3&M34I! taat'^jp 


5 i^«nrlL « J^X»d( 

inowtUMt to the t«l«t of a <l#eT«« •nter«d by the Court of 
OtaMoa ploas of Saadusky Ooimty, Ohio* It appears fro« 
the TeooTd that early la May, 19I1» eae Jllag laetltuted 
l»ro0««dlngB against the Freemont l^ower & Llg^t Ooapany, In 
0aa<dbisky Oounty* seeking to foTeelose a meoh?inle*a lien. 
the Colcmlal Tntat A Sarlngs 8&nk.« an Trustee^ interveneA 
ia ^at c».«e, and filed a orose petition seeking to fore- 
oloss a fruat i)eed« which had been executed by the Freeaont 
Power A Lli^t Oompany in Sept«aber, 1909, ooaireylne; all 
its property to the Sank, as ¥rti8tee« to aeoure a bond 
tBwm amounting to $750#O0O* In May 1913, the oourt of 
OoHmon Pleas, la Ohio, entered a decree in the m.»ti referred 
to, finding that the Frecweat Pover & Ll#2t Oomiaay were la 
default for want of tm answoir to the eross-pstltloa of the 
isak| that the Fover 1^ Light Company had. In 1909, authorised 
«a Issue of bonds In the sua of $750,000, thmt it had executed 
its trust deed to secure said bonds, conveying tracts of land 
which were specified and deserlbed in the deotse, that s^ld 
bonds, to the extant of 1300,000 had been sold to Ic^aa fids 
holders; that default had be«a aade la the p^jf^ent of interest 
on thess bonds. In liaroh, 1911 and the fruetee had deelared 
the principal due; that there was due oa said bonds la prin- 
ei^al and laterest» $319,630, and that the Trustee had la* 
ourred expimuees to the extent of 13,116*30} and that the Bojok^ 
as Trusts*, ms entitled to rcooirex froa the Power & Ll^t 
Oottpaay, taie sua of $338,934. 14, It was then*^ ordered, adjudged 
and dsoreed, by OBnsent of the Freeaoat l^owax A Light Soapsay," 
that unless the Ooapaay paid the ataouat found due, to the 
Trustee within three d&ya* the preaises should be sold and 
that *all liens shall attaoh to the proceeds of said sals and 


1^ $fSi- 


>«^ $^! 

■iTg iJum&I^ «<flf 




'1,^ sS'O.^i- \ 

.-w-»a«!s» S'fi^ 'O* »i^^fti5j 

tsmr '»«! e-: ... 


'.«s£^ isiaim 




:-fti? t&v-si' «^i 

i . 

. ■ 


J. ^t 







la the MUB* Mmner as they would bar* attaohed to the 
property itself had it aot been sold.* Pureuant to the 
tenai of tiile decree the sheriff eold the various traete 
referred to In the decree, for $26,700 and on June 10, 
1913, the Ohio court entered aa order approving the 
sale and finding the trust deed a first lisn on all the 
pro?K5rty (exoent one tract) and dlreotin^ that the proceeds 
of the sale to the extent of t23,88S«76 he turned over to the 
Bank, as Trustee, whioh wa» done, Very shortly thereafter, 
the Bank having removed the proceeds of the ssle In Ohio, 
tc this jurlediotloa, the ooaplainant^ Hudson, instituted 
the proee^din^ at hear* 

In support of his appeal, the coaiplainant eon* 
tends* (1) that the defendant Bank never ooaplled with the 
reQulrements of the statutes of Ohio rei^rdlng ¥ruet Qompa»^ 
Iss; that it oould therefore not le^llj act as Trustee, %nd 
ooasequently the trust deed securing the hond issue, iras 
void; (S) that, under the lairs of Ohio, the trust deed was 
aot a lie» on any of the property of the Freeaont Fover & 
Lic^t Qomptuaef, vhich it aoquired after tSie date <m irhich 
the trust deed was reoorded; that a aua^er of the tracts 
owered hy the decree and sold pursuant to the tems thereof, 
vers ae<julr6d l>y the OoaqMuqr after that date; th%t this cfti^es* 
tiea was not imlsed in the Ohio case and was not passed upon 
Vy that court; (3) that th«> decree of the Ohio Oourt was 
pro<aired throu^ oollueioa of the parties and can therefore 
1»e at ta (died oollaterally wherever and whenever it conflicts 
with the interest of anyone who has been defrauded, and the 
Ohio decree oannot hind the coaplaiennt In the proceedings 
at bar because he was not a. party in the Ohle ease, and (4) 

-iKW fix-: 


i%^rfn':'J »««•**♦ m;*^ ?>* »?s*ji*('3Wir' feXa© f*. 

.'IVt, Ad^. S1«l 


iW^i^iJlf f«^ Br'» |«*9tf 


^m^'^ s:^ t« 

that 'by filing his t»llX In the prooeftdinet at bar« th« 
eoMpIalnant aoconplished an equitttbla levy on the funds 
in tha possession of the defendant Bank* 

In OUT opinion there i» nothing in the reeerd, 
showing OT tending to ehow, any fsand or colltision in the 
Ohio prooeedinge. So far a» the eirid«>nee showa, the oxiginal 
petitioner in the Ohio eaee. King, had a valid and bona fide 
elaiffl sjgJilnet the Power & LigJ\t Company foir labor and eej^ 
▼ioes for aore than f 1,000 snd the honde ifi^ued hy th»t 
Cospany were sold to \)ona fide pUTcb&seTS for a g«»od, 9.n& 
▼almble oonalderatlon and a default in the payment of la- 
tereet on the bo3|d« outatajadlng, haying oecurred, the Bank, 
as Trustee, decl-ired the ehole aaiount due and Interrened in 
the proceedings instituted by King, and foreolosed. The 
«nly faots apparently relied upon by ooatplalnant In support 
©f hia oontention that the proeeedings In Ohio wera eollus* 
lYtt and ixaudulent are that the jPover ft Light Oomyany defaiat* 
•d and. aocording to the reoltatlon in the decree entered In 
that €»s«, oonsented to the enterinii; of the decree. Certainly, 
without more, those faote, do not proTe eollusion or fr<^txd, 
affeotlag the Jurlsdiotlon of the Ohio oourt* For all that 
appears that amy have been quite the proper thing to do, muS^et 
the elreimstanees* 

th9 fact that Hudson was not a party to the Ohio pr©- 
eeedlngtt,doe8 not give hla the rl^t to attaok those pro«ee4» 
Ings, as he Is attesptlng to here. He mts neither a neoes8ax7 
aor a proper party to the Ohio prooeedlnga, as he was an wct» 
sectored sreditor, wit; out any lion aj^inat any of the property 
soui^t to be foreolosed In those preoeedings* So far as any* 

?^f«i:it ipj t«»*^ 

^-M**4f t*' 

i^t «'33^.i;i>' 

■:,n««v «>^'-.J mtKMaijfi 


■,*a' ^ fci,'' n^-'^v /*fc;- 


thlng in, this record shows* the Otoio eovirt hsd jurisdiction 
of ths psrtiss and of the sub^eoV^&tter InTolvsd in that 
suit sad its deorse is s v&lld and binding dssrss and nay 
not >• stta<d:ed ot nullified in sud^ a mannsr as has tossa 
attSMtptsd by the oompXalnant in the proceedings at har. Tl>at 
being the situation, the other titattera raised by ths oo»» 
plainant are i^olly iMUitsrial and may neither be inquired 
into nor p&ase«l upon hert . Qmahs. & gt« liOulg Hy, Oo> ▼. O'Kiell. 
81 la, 463; mmM ▼• fftT^frfSf ^ ^',* Hy, s?Ot< 108 fi.Y. 340} 
yorrsst ▼• fey. 218 ill. 16Sj aarrl^ ▼. |^f>3pylaw.. 307 111. 
hpp, 474, Althoni^ the issues Involved In the oases oitsA 
were not those involred here, the principles involved in 
those eases are applieable to the sitTJation presented in ^bs 
suit at bar, there is w»thing '!i?h»itev«r in this record !»• 
dimtting any fraud in the proceeding in the Ooim&on Pleas 
Court in Ohio, involving ths Jurisdiction of that oourt over 
the parties, that the court had Jurisdiction of the subjeot* 
Better there involvsd,^ is not denied nor ouestioned* Its 
findings, therefore, that the trust deed was a valid lien 
against all the property eovered by the d^orse, cannot he ool- 
laterally attaoked, as oowplainant atteapte to do here, indr the 
proeeeds of the sale of ths property be disturbed, nor the 
trustee prevmted from distui^lftg t^iose fujkds as provided by 
the terewi of that decreSf 

for the rpAsona stated, the decree of the Oirouit 
Court is aff iraed, 


TAItOR, P,J, and ©•(X;»SOR, J* OsUGtm, 


:;«;i-.-.; i-i:^i fe.-a'.iiji 

\ j'.-li 

^^•i;j54jri?: ";j.^tt^ 


263 • 38P98 



fuiLaoAD oojspAinr, on *, , ^ ^ ,^ , 

of 'IliLlAMi WALLACE UoCALLUM, J ^. ,0 '^ 



V^. RAiLaoAp ooMPAinr,___oii *pp«»i } r?^ q ^, ji ^R* '^ 

Opinion filed Feb, 2C, 1924, 
t. jrtmtlOi: THOKSOI fti^llTcred tbt oplnioa of 

tli# oourt, 

Th« plaintiff iHiXs, toroug?st 'm action against 
th« defendant, Ohlo&eo A Hortfewtatera Railroad Gompamy, 
to reoover (Sasi&ges resulting from porsonel injuries received 
^y hla *s a result of the aile^d negligeac* of ttse si^id 
dofoadaat. the petltioaer Wllliasi iSallao* Mocallu*, an 
attorney, filed his intervening TiMJtition in that caao, 
•eeklag to enforo© an attorney* » lien, claiming that th« 
plaintiff had entered into a contract in October, ItSl, 
•aploying hi« to reprea«»t him. in th« proe«outio$ of hie 
©lata for daaages; that te« was not discharged by the plain- 
tiff until soaetijM in the following February; ana that he had. 
In the maaatittt, renlerod valuable Berrioas, for which he iraa 
entitled to be paid. In toehalf of the reajjondent JPula, it 
was urged (1) that no contract aaa ev«r entered into hetween 
hla anA the petit ioneyj^hat if ther^^ had be«n aueb a ooatJ^ct, 
the petitioner eaa notlfiad, within a few daya after it la 
alleged to have bean «x€oixted,tlwit his aervleea were not 
deeired and he was r«<!m«8ted to take no notion regarding ree» 
pondent*8 claia, and at this time he had rendered no aervioes; 



{q) that the alleged oentTaet tnui prooured by one jRoe* A, 
MoOallua, r l>yoth«r »f tli« ^tltlon«r» ak% an attorney, 
through the soIloitatiiMi of a lire* Splen« by neaas of 
false representations; that Je^mee A. MoOallnaij^ thou^ not 
aa attorney. Is a »ember of the firm of MeOallta A MeOalliw, 
the othex ueoalliw being the petitioner, end that Jaaee A. 
MoOallm Imd an interest in all the biMtinese of that fira, 
eontribtttlng to its earpeases and sharing Its profits, <m^ 
that as sueh partner, he has an Interest, with bie brother, 
in the fees aougjtit to be reoovered here^j that the arrange* 
neat referred to Is contrary to the statutes and the public 
polioy of the State of Illinois; that a prooeeding to en* 
foroe an attorney's li«n is equitable in its nature and that 
the petitioner is not in court with eleaa hands; that in 
Tiew of the oircimstanees the aotlon of the tria.1 oovrt 
la dismissing the petition, should be affirmed* 

la owr opinion, the {satters referred to In the 
last of the three points urged by the reeroadent, are ds* 
cialye of the ismies InvolTed on this appeal* The eridence 
is to the effeot that the ttm of loOaXli&n A MoOallxui asain* 
tains a law offiee in the Oity of Q1iio%go* The aembere of 
that fira are the petitioner, «ho is an attorney, and his 
brother «raae8 A* MoOallt», 1^0 is not an attorney* At the 
time the alleged oontraot with l*uls was proeured the petl* 
tioner ims oonflaod in the Presbyterian hospital by lllnese. 
Fuls was oonfiaod, as a result of the injuries he had re-» 
oelved, in St. Luke's Hospital* 

Jai&es A* Mo<3alluB testified that* on the da.y the 
alleged ooatraet was smtered into, he answered a telephoao 

y«!i nK<: 


•^j» B^i 

.-'i/ .•/,:..^.7' JiU?;ivA;',' f4 :;a>:>.is» ^'f**V. 




*CR»ri-?si«?iJ- « »>,•»»»»««.« 

■ar g-^fi^'J/wje i»<fJ(«Xjr>t 

•all at the office, whioh irorad to he from F*ula; that the 
latter stated he had besn iajiured irtille working for the 
Horthwestcm Railroad aitl »»t«J fee w&nted the petitioner to 
ooftM out to the Hospital to see his; that the witneee ex* 
plained that hie brother «»« ill; that he then vent otat to 
the hoepltal and «»« i>ul« who said the petitioner h%d been 
reeoaaended to his by otany people; that Pule etated that 
•jtulge l^Tlae, who was an aatsiiatsint judge in the Proh&te 
Court, had reooseiended us very higtily^; that he 9Q-al& not 
have gent out to St. Luke's Eoepital that day exoept for the 
faet tha.t his brother was 9i^ ^uxtA It was for Mr. Pule en* 
tMatlea orer the *phone that I went there before X vent to 
tii« l*r«sbyteri«A Hospital to see «y brother*** 

On Qros8«#xaaination, this vitnese testified that 
he had ki»amA Mrs. dplera ** since the time ve took her husband *s 
oase't f>^^^ two miA a half years before; that during that time 
"I presuas we have paid her $ZW or $400"; thst if any of 
the people in her neighborhood get hurt* *%h.t first thing she 
doss Is to reooaaend Mr. W. », MoCallum, and we feel kindly to 
her for it end soaetiass we a&ke her a present"; th«i.t Mrs. 
Spisrs had not told the vitnesi anything about Puis; that tht 
telephone number of Mrs. Spiers was lawndnle S3 and she muM 
be reached there* 

It is entirely clear froa the testimony of jKJtitioner*i 
•WA witnessiM that ilr. Osvine van aot oonsulted about the peti« 
tloaer* ^ the respondent or in his behalf » until after the 
alleged oontraot had been procured by Jaaee A. lioC^Iiui and 
that the respondent did not kuov Devine and oovid have had no 

reeoiKseadatioa froa hla as to petitioner at that ti^KtS* Oevine, 
(Niklled by the petitioner, testified that fee vas consulted over 


■y<i- ii'jA. 


■PAI :'i;r 

r« &i^il' 

%li« i#l«plio»t. oa behalf of the r«spond«nt, with r«f«Teno« 
%o the petitlonerj that b© wa» first oonaultwl toy one Frank, 
wbe i»e employed et the ease pleee ee « brother of the ree- 
poadsBt, Klaer Pule, frank, mleo called by petitioner, 
testified thftt he and Elaer l»ule were employed at the ea«e 
place and that laaer aeked hla about the petltlonerj that 
this wae after •!!*• BtoOaXlmJe l»d a contract with injie"} that 
the witness, at that tiue, took steps to ascertain the nuall- 
nestlons of the petltionerj that in the eomrersatlon ift vhioh 
Klaer Puis told the witness of the exlatenei of the alleged 
Gontraet, *^. Bevlne'a nna* wSiS aeBtlooed i^« to Ir. McCallua's 
harlng tried soae eases before hla[* } that the witness thereafter 
oalled lip Bevlne and wade Incfulrlea about the petitioner. 
On eross-exmalaatlon, this witness testified that Elmer Puis 
mforaed him his brother hftti algaed a eontr&st et&ploylng the 
petitioner and »lie immted »e to find out what kind of a leea 
MoCallum was. He said that MoOall«s had told him hs had 
tried a noaber of oases before Jud^e Derlne. It was after 
that oonversatloa that I oalled up ^r, Oevine'e office. 
Prior to that tlat X had not oalled hi . up. uefor® that ti^ae 
iioaalluaH name had not been dlseussed between ae «nd Ful«.« 

The testljaony of 6;1««» ^^» ^8 *« ^^* •*** •^*®<^*« 
8s testified that two days after the alleged contract was 
signed, hs talked with Frank aad told hla he had taifcsd with 
the lawyer and that the latter had mentioned Oevlnc's name 
and Frank said hs would call Oewlne up and set' what he had 
to say about Mov^llua, and he th«ft did s«. 

this witness, as well as Ms siother and another 
relatlYS, m^ testljaony tending to show that the employment 
•f MoOallnii m this oase, was solicited by Mre. Spiers. 



l-?i 3>ttr 


;if«r Mi" 


t 'r ^ <; ': ■,■:■ ii\ ;j- ■^' 

t •!■ i-'-»ij.j * v 


K4w»rd Pult denied havlnif called \sp MeCallua, 
•mylAg that he dXd not knov where hie offiee wae or whet 
his telephone number wee. He eald the one who telephoned 
end asked Jieaee MeCalluii to oome to the hoeplt&l vne Mre, 
Spiere* W* W. UoOalliua teetlfled that he never authorized 
lire. Spiers to sollolt or otherwlee atteaipt to ohtsla the 
o<mtraet fron Puis. 

It ia appeirent froa the testlaosgr in the record 
that the f Im of Sjo(3allini 4 MeOalXtin Is & pertneTshlp pux»> 
porting to enge-e* la th« practice of the law, it consists 
of the petitioner, «. s, «leOall\ji», who 1» ii lawyer, and 
James A. McOallun, bla brother, i$)o Is not % Htwyer* The 
letter testified that he was not Adsiitted to the bar - 
"not yet", • althou^^ he had heen engaged fin the law htiel- 
neas, off amd on, atootit twenty years.* He also teatlfled 
that he was oonneoted with his brother "la the law huslnesa^; 
that **! hawe c^^rge of the Inreatli^tidtt of m,»en, oharge of 
the help, and oourt eallo and anything pertaining to the gen* 
oral business * • • I a« the aianager of the offioe**! that 
in the course of a wook he would make out, eoaetliBee one and 
soaetlskos fifteen or twenty suc^ oontraets as Puis had signed. 
In thie oontraot, the partnership does not aptear as a party 
hut it purports to be a eoatraot with W. V. MoO&lluK, the 
ai«aber of the firoi who has hem adnltted to ttio bar, and Is 
witnessed by Janee A* MoOallua, the othtr member. This ledt** 
aess further testified, **%• have had a lot of businees out 
of there*; referring to St. Luke's Hospital; that he signs 
up as isany as twenty five or thirty eontraets in that hospital 
la a year,- '*raiybe aore • iten eoae fro® flaoonsln,- people 
froa different states, people we hawe represented tell the« 
to oome to MoCallum & MOCS^luii* When they are in bed, th«y 

..< ■ < .^.■- ..;vi c^ t^?t ' ""■' ■ . 


ft.r ^.f■.•y. 


oui*t eoM* oTer to us sjid ym hmf to go ofr and ••• th«a,<' 
Aftor this witness had refuse c^ to answer •erer&I quostlomt 
M to what salary or oompimaatlon he xeoelwod for hie serrloca, 
it was brought out th»t hit was on a p«ro«ntage! basis; that hs 
liad "a perosntags of «y«rything in th« offio*** Bjxd that hs 
would he entitled (uiu!«r hla partnership arraageaent with 
his brother) to a pero«titag« of this olala, on whloh the pstl- 
tloner w-s proceeding sigstinst the drf ^ndant railroad; that hs 
•harad In all the profits of th® fira and paid his shars of 
tks sxpsxisi^* 

It thus wsry olearXy appears frow his own tsstl* 
monjr, that 4&mea A, ucOsillmn. Is not a olsrk nor o«sploys<<! of 
IUm broth«r*o« but a partner with hla In th© praotic© of the 
IftWf with his shars of responsibility for all the expsnsss 
©f the fira e«i';5 his right to participate In all Its profits, 
Bs is thus praotioing law within ths assaing of chapter 14 of 
ths Btatutfts of Illinola* and in plain violation of the px-o* 
▼Isions of that statuts. Contracts between suoh allsgeol 
partnsrs hairs bssn rspeatedly oondsaned. Langdoa v . Sf;>nliai. 
€7 I«b. 343; i^LfiSSa ▼• Usala 86 Oal. 78, 

Butt here ws hars a ooatraot bstwsen that 3;«9ib«r of 
ths flra* «ho is lieenssd to praotiec law» &nd a.noth$!r, contaa^pla- 
ting attomsy's serwloss by the party to the contractii accord* 
lag to Its terns* S^% the other §:»,Ttnsr has just the saas 
interest in the oontr^.ct as if it were i^ith the partnership in 
naas« as well aa In faot. ¥hat faot that th@ fir» of MoCallua 
A MsOalltsi is not naaed in the oontraot ie not iaportant. ths 
naming only of the iMt.rtner ^ho is ths licensed aieaber of the 
bar, l8 aexely a subterfuge, in reality, the oontraot is ^ith 




. ■ :•;' '.: rr ■■■■.:■ 4il i^QisS^ A 

th« p«ztn«rship« This proceeding to enforoe an attorney 'a 
lien la equitabla la Ita nature. In our opinion* the peti- 
tlonar la not In court with clean hands* He and bla torothey^ 
who botb h^rm an Interest in thla elleged olaloi* are oarrylng 
on tb© practioe of the la-w, iaproperljr and unlawfully, accord* 
ing to tbe evidence in thia record. That la aufflcient reason, 
la lt»«lf, foT a denial of the relief aought in the petition, 

fe are further of the opinion that the evidence 
abov;3 juat aa olMtxly that Pula' oLa-is agninat the vallroad 
waa solicited, in belmlf of thia tanXaiwful partnerahip, by 
Utm, Spiers, who appears t» have been in the habit of aolloit- 
lag litigation sf thia oharaoter, and who further appear* to 
have rooeived '•preaeata* for her aervicea. The evidene* of her 
atotlvltlea in bahnlf of this partnerahipp and hex solioit&tion 
of the Puis* olaia ia trueh as to furnish another reaaott why 
the petitioner aho^ild not be given the l»enafit of %n attorney's 
lien, ouite apart fro» th© question of whether he was dlacharged 
ma the respondent olalswi, or when he *as discharged, if at all, 
fhs aannsr in which this olitln w&e aoXieited, is> in our opin« 
lOA, IneonsisteBt with and contrary to the ethics of the pro- 
fesaloA and the public po) icy of the Stats, and in such m.»e 
attorney's fses »ay not be recovered, Ingersoll «1 Ji ▼• Oo»l 
Creelc OoaX Go,, 117 Tenn, 26Sj Yhe People v. Bersgnialc. 29S HI. 

In Ma reply brief, counael for petitioner miam$ 
"Aasuas that there ie an agreement botwsea %a. fallaoe MoOallua 
and his brother, which ie a^inat public policy, what intereat 
has D, K. Tone in tbat fact, or in what jsanner does that fact 
beeme ii^^ortant in defending a suit by W«. i^allaee McC^llwa 

% * 'f ftif^A* ;? 


* ? :' .- i ^f»a -ii-i.-i 


*MiM^sa *^ M: 


tor feaaf** It beoom* most important indeed. In the iMrti 
«•,»• 01 ted, our Supreme Court »aid, in referring to the 
Tennessee oaae^ thstt "no ooixrt should recognise for a aHMwnt 
their (the laeyeTe*) right to recover feae under euch oir» 
euBMtanoee.'* In o^r opini a the ci rouaiatgincee involved in the 
proeeedinge at bar, differ from those in the emee referred t©, 
only In degree* It l« not iaport»nt to detert&ine what. 
If aay. Interest Mr. tone, who finally represented ?ul« in 
his elaln a^inet the railroftd^i i»iy have iist the f&ets eur* 
rounding either the si^nner in which iieC^lum $■ MoC^llus con- 
duct their hueineos or the asanner In whlet; this els in ^».a eolleit- 
«d in their behalf* In refusing to enforce ©uoh & contract or 
lien ae that involved here, \m€%T all th* oircuastKiaoes di»» 
olosed toy the evidence, the court doee not act for the benttflt 

of either respondent ox oouaaei, "but in the snainten&noe of 

Its own dignity, the public good and/lawa of the State,* 

Ilia^l-T. ^?¥<f^Hy. 168 111. 865 Sritohfield v. Beramdeg Fa.vine Oo.. 

174 111, 466t rieteoh V. n f%^p% 245 111. 484j, 

For the reaeoae stated, the order appealed fron 
is afflraed, 

i^mm AFFXRM£D, 


\a i;-r^ '; 1? '4.iii >>■« ">'; -^^ ■- 
iXtam't 'Sdt %^: i&:? *-«? ■ *v,*^ i ,^.'TH:'-t.j; 

■^S&..l&lX;§i^ ..-? -i'V, .:;'.:ii, ^^^^J. 

*h»(itriltJR fii 

•ii J'i) iiC" 

381 - 28116 

Uknn rXXBMAI, Administrator of 
th« I«tat« 9t Minnie Friediaaa, 




Opinion filed Feb. 20, 1924 

MH. JUSTICE rmmot elellvsrtd the oplaioR 
•f the court, 

J^ thl« mfipmtX the defendant »eeiL8 to reverse §, 
Judgment f©r #1000,00, reooT*>red !>y tfee plaintiff, adMlnla- 
trator, la the Oiroult Oourt of Oook ommty. This action 
wae brought by the plaintiff to reooTear taamages oeoasloaed 
toy the 'teath of «innle Friedaan, hie mother, which was 
alleged to have been the reeult of injuriee received iihen 
Bh« vae $tru<^ fey a half ton tm* operated by a yo\mg mia, 
18 years of age, in the defendant's employ. It ia the 
plaintiff's contention that hie mother wag in the ererelae 
of due oare, at th# tiae of the oecurrenoe, and that the 
driver of the truck me gailty of negligence. The deeeased 
erne a wooan 61 yeare of age, and ia good health. Prior 
to her death ahe had been living with her son, the plain- 
tiff, he aeeting the expenses of the home «jad bie aaother 
acting as «ie houaekeeper, At the ti»e of her death she 
ems in posaeasion of a bank aocoost fasotmting to #1300,00, 

In support of his ap eal the !X9fen6.n.n% oontends 
that the verdict of the jury, finding the issues for the plain- 
tiff, is a^lnet the sanifeat i^i^t of the evideooe, in that 


<! bQllx aolalcO 




■ ^tif- jwfc ? f-ff: 

'm-' "^9: 


n^f? !j^. 

'.1^ &^ ^flti^lfcjrc^ 


lUt S^iBt&h' 

29 ^yfM-y ':fi 

thtt «Tld«aoe In tbe record (a) fall* to show that the 
«mpIoye«, aoo<3teMm» wfeo ira« driving tb« tTu(^« wmi aiitfcor- 
lt«d to do «o or was acting vithln th« aeop* of bis Ruth* 
pjttf in so doing; (b) shovs tliet the deoeaissd was not in 
tlis sxsrels* of due oart; (o) shofrs that Goodoan vas in 
ths oxsTttlss of duo oaro; and (d) shows tbat tb« tTu<dc 
wasnot boiag driTsn at sudh a rato of sp#sd as to amoimt 
to nogligeno«» Further, the ilefetidant ooat^ds that ths 
trial oourt trrod in th« giving ©f Inatruotlons, and that 
tlM d«JBag«8 ars sxeosslTO* 

fhs fevid<nmft in the record is sxceedingS^y 
1% is afflpl«« howersr, to prort elearly that aeod»aa im» 
£.uthorissd to drive this truok on th« oocaaion In <?uestion 
and also that In bo doing h« was aetiag within the soopt of 
hi* aathorlty. He testified that at the ti®» lin Question 
lis wss on his way to gat a stook of gaods, ^loh his employ- 
«r» the defendant, had pnrebassd. Upon balng anked who dlrsot- 
•d hi« to do this, h« first replied that be not bis direotion* 
from the defendant hlaself, and later he testified that the 
defendant •» wife was the one who told him to go and get these 
goods* The ^ury were entirely wa.rr*tnt«d, fron the uvldenee in 
the record, in oonoluding that Uoodmaa was en^ged in an errand 
at the direotlon of the defendant. Z>ut beycmd that, ??.ltho\i#i 
the defendant testified that £3ood«an was a olerk and it was not 
a part of HI 8 duty to drive this truck, it Is irery apparent 
from the evidence in the record that such was not the case, 
aoodaan testified that he had never driv«n an autoaioblie or 
truck prior to his employwent fey the defendant, but that he, 
had dri^n this track during the period of bis eaployment, 
and he further testified that he was given instructions as to 
h«« to drive this very truck, by an eaployee of the defendant;, 



i tm.t!s 

■s>*T »«r: 



vbo prc«»«d#d tola tla®xe# By pleading only the il^ t. c 
g«n*T&l immvm the defendant Impliedly conceded th«t the 
truofe In <?u««ttoa vas hlii and that th« iTlrey of t^e truek 
WMI hl8 esTYant. KoMuIta ▼• ]b<i^9^^<tef» 1^7 111. 27C; 
rmMY\*^nf* QQ«^nv V. (^f^yi>|^. 330 111. 438; <^,^ff^t^ 
l^ofi Tr&otion go. Y> iftjdyb S37 111. 95. 

Although there l» not nuoh evldetnee In th« 
record on th* q|U««tloa of the eir«iral8« of due oRr« on the 
putt of the d<»oea«ed, w are of the opinion that ther« ia 
suffioiant to aupporl this veMlot and iud^ant. The d«» 
oaaaad »»« etTuck at the Intaraaetloa of Taylor street and 
Paulina ttroot^ In the City of Chle^go. Thoaa atretta 1»- 
taraaot at ri#it ana^aa* TayloT street ruimiag aaat and 
v«s1; and Faulijm street running north and &outh, Mra. 
rri«(&wMk wan walking north* on tha woat side of Paulina 
atreet* Aa aha wao paasing OTor the ©roag-i^lk and waa 
orosaing the woatbound tracAt of thft doiibla etreet 
Tallvay, loes^ted in Taylor street, she waa ©truck by the 
tiuoii* Trtiloh waa heiaiE driven by Goodaiaa, in a westerly 
direotion in Tmylor street* Tbert 'rare only two oe<n»xrenoe 
vltMaaaa for the plaintiff,- the proprietor of a V»ot-hU€^ 
atand, located on the aouthwast eomer of the intaiaaotlonj 
and one of hla e»pl«jraea, their teetimony ma to the effeet 
that they flrat »aw the truok nhen It waa a hlook or leae to 
the aaat of Paulina street. One of the witneaaoa aaid It ima 
ootting "pretty faat** The other testified that it w&e oomlng 
at a speed of "35 allca an hour,« However, the latter is 
shown to have known little or nothing ahout the question of 
speed. Ooodisan testified that he waa going 10 or 12 alias 
an hour, and that he eame to a full stop at the Taylor street 




-se ^r.til* t-4^ -t^c 

,X«J4/d £«« 


eroBSing andthen prooe«d«d west* vouading his born all tlie 
my over the orossing. l'l«,latlff *0 vitncsses said tbat tbe> 
b«ard no horn* There is no testlfaony la th» record to !»> 
dl<»Lte that there irsc «By vebiole In the street^ other than 
the truoit la qiiestlon. aoodit«&n testified that he hiid » fiill 
Tiov to the wost* He also t«etlfled that the dteoeased <*o»»e 
to me all of a stiddoa*'' Ttte OTldenoe show0 that the trucdt 
oamo to a full stop within % very tew feet after the deoeaeed 
WAS atruei:, and none of the vixeels p&u^edi oirer her body* 
She was thrown to the stroet by the la^ct and suffered a skull 
fracture which resulted la her death. If Goodmaa oa«e to a 
full stop at the Taylor «tre«t crossing, as he aald he did, 
Mrs* I'rledBan doubtless th^u^t she had aisple tXmn to pass 
OY«r the wost orosswalk on f^ulina street, in safety, and It 
would he Issposslble to say from the eridenoe In this reoord, 
that she was not fully Justified In such a belief. ETsn 
though it be aasuaed that 0»%dnaB mtM not pTOoe-dlng over 
the Interaootlon at a dajQ^rous spe<*d. It by no ae-rms follows 
that he was free froaj negllgenoe. Ec testified that he ha'iJ 
a full wiev to the wost and he saentiona nothing as obstniotlag 
that wiefw in any way. Although fee testified that the deoeased 
oatte upon hla "all of a su d«a* he giwes no explanation of his 
apparent failure to notice her or seo her b<&fore he atuok her. 
The driver of a vehiele 8»y of oaurse ba guilty of neglig^saoe, 
area to an oxoesslTs degree, without bslng sl^iown to have bf en 
driving at an excesalve r»te of speed. Ther^' is no intimation 
la the record that this woawin aade an uneacpected aove or jumped 
baek into the path of his truolt, or anything of that kind* The 
larjr found that Goodman was negligent in >5i» driring of the 
truck and we ara unable to say, froa the evidence In the re- 
oord, that their finding in that regard was *i.:;alnst the asaai* 

,f.^v-.iy- ;v, ■'■•*• 

: a .*«><« «.'fei .;,.<■'* ■«■ tL 



tmnt w«l«?,bt of th« ctldenoe* 

Ag to the lzuitruotlono» tht defni^nt contendls 
that the trial court erred in r®f*5rTlng to t? c provleion* 
of the statute as to the rate of apeed of a ^sotor driTea 
vehicle •wh«'.re the sane pa««e9 throu^ b. oloeely built up 
portion of an incorporated 01ty» town ox ▼illage", by reason 
of th« fact that thr re wee no evldenee in the record to ehow 
tliat the plaeo Of this ooou.rrf'nce Wc\a loeated in Chicago or 
aajr othe» oity» The evidence in the reoon^ Is to the effect 
that for a lilock in each direction fro« t^.e interoection in- 
TolvoA« the area waa a buaineas R.rea, andi cmmsel for the 
defendant » himself » while quest ioning Gk>odmiua aeked hln if 
he '•rememhered thio accident that happened, near the InteiP* 
aeotion of Taylor and JPauIina etrette, in Ohicago*** Further 
OQKKplaint 10 B^uie of an ia$i tract ionn heo^^use it was an abstract 
proposition of lav and not li&oed on any evidence in the record, 
inaoaueh ao the evidence f ailed to ehow that Ooodi^n was the 
agmt of the defeniant, or his employee, or that he vae in the 
pursuit of the buslnean of hie ersployer on the occaeion in 
qrueatioA* $• have already indicated that in our opinion the 
evidence is auffieient to nhov bfttti of these ele^tiente to 
have heen present In thle case. The defendant aleo complains 
of the refuaaX of the trial oourt to glvo %9o inntructiono 
that vere automltted l>y hln* As to this alleged error it is 
euffioient to «ay that other instructiona w>;ioh irere sulfesBitted 
^ the defendant and whl<^ «€rc given, fully covered the »ub- 
jeot-matter of th« reft»ed instructions* 

The contention that the damagss are excessive, is 
rather surprieing, in view of %ll the eircuaistances. le are 

.tsroct ®»il.^ ^ti^i . .fin? :i| i^sg^rrJ" i'l}^6 hVi-i 

iaellned to tti* opinion that tb« deftndaai should ooa* 
sldf^r bluclf fortunat* that th«y were not larger* 

Wa find n& erroT in the record and therefov* 
th« Jud0s«nt of the Girouit Oourt la »ffir»ed« 

tkjWB,^p*i,mQ o9Qomm%, j. ooncnst. 

«•«*::•• ?-'.!\- 

, .-"V ?'*"'■»' .'• > ,3^ft'-'< ^ ff-tT^t'C •^•'s ^■' r*"«.w ?•'!? *;"{j 

.i/'iK-. .•'>^t^ 

391 • smm 



U. S, riaihlft Ik GUARAKTI CO., 

Appellaat. J ^ ^' '*^ 

o e 

or QHlOAiJO, 

-,- ffi /^ ri "^ 


Opinion filed Feb. 20, 1924. 
MR. JU3Tia£ TiiOMSOS delivered the opinion of 

the eo\xrt« 

fli« plaintiff Lary brougbt this action to recover 
dte«ftg«« suff^xsd as « r?milt of two burglmrlea, which ht 
ol&laed w«Te oov«r«d by poliai«« lseu«d by th« dftfen^iant 
9M|pa4ay« At tbe olo«« of all tihe «?vld&^no(» thf court, on 
ffiotion of the plalatlff, dlTsotod tha iury to find the issuea 
In bl» favor. A ▼eraiot was retuinod accordingly, following 
which, jiidpidat was entered against th« d«ff»hl^nt for #1131«76, 
to r«T«rsc whloh the dafoadant ha« par footed thia appeal* 

The plaintiff wsi« a druggist. The gooda stolan 
on the oeoaaloa of th««« burglarlea «a« whlakey* % Its 
affidavit of narlts the ief««ndant interposed defenses to the 
affect (a) that th^re was no burglary, as alleged In the state- 
ment of claim; (b) th^t th» plaintiff did not take all reason- 
abls preoautickss as rsQulred by the po loyj (e) that the plain* 
tiff was guilty of an atteapt to defraud the defenAaat; sad 
(d) that the plaintiff did not suffer a loss to the extent 
alleged in the at-xtsisent of olala. 

The sole oont ntloa of the defan^.>?.nt in support of 

pC^-:J:;n^ ~io 

' ■' 1 o 

■3'^ h'iLL'.i XiOiXiirrC 

dexfe« • mt. 

.Tvxi mi^^ii. 


^J© s ¥^ 



i.;« t-» ? .». ;. -viV 

. r»'- .•;-.-;♦ • t. ^ 4 . 

At "?«j-» */N/« Vj 

• V.-T-^ A.-,'V3,if, ^,fjr .^,,_, 

|•^.t .v.*rtJ 

.^jn69 tii 


Its app««l }t».a to do i?lth the defexuies urged^ to tlie 
effeet l^at therA ims no Imrglairy &nd th&t tb« plain* 
tiff w%s attesiptlag to <l«fxa.iui tb« defendant* It is 
t^« coatentlon tbat th« tvldenc® IntroftuoftiA l>y the a©- 
f«Bdaiat tended to Oftst maplolon on tbe rXalntlff and 
that the Inferences Tclled upon by the def&n'nnt In 
mipport of Its contentions sbould h&ve be(»n irei^^^ed and 
passed upon bjr the jury anl that it w*» thRrefore error 
for the trial court to instruct the Jury to find the ia ue« 
for the plaintiff, 

Ae the defendant itself urges in Its brief filed in this 
oourt« firaud ie nerer aasunied but muet he affirms^tirely 
proTen. The presumption, if any, ii in favor of ianooence 
eind the toiarden falls on hia trho asserts fraud, whether he be 
tits plaintiff or the defenisnt, to establiah it by proving 
the fraud alleged, by a preponderanoe of the evidence, 30 
Oyo. 108; ^oodrow v. Ouaid. 393 III. 37, Dnlees, therefore, 
it asay be said that the defeniant aubsaitted eoaie evidence, 
shoeing 9t tending to ehov that there had bean m> burglary 
and that ttie plaintiff wae attempting to defraud the defend- 
ant, the stotion of the trl^^l court, in directing the jury to 
find the issues for the plaintiff, we.s not error. 

The nlaintiff testified to the effect that the 
burglaries in question h=«.d taJrea place, o.nd that the main 
burglary involved had occurred on Msy 11, 19S0. In testify- 
ing, the plaintiff deeoribed the eonditlon of his drxtg store, 
when he reached it that jsomlag about ei^t otcloolc* Me 
described the windew throu^ih iatei<* the entrance iras apparent- 
ly ^Ined, stating that the sorews which had fastened the irln- 

**?!, i 

«oiiMx*;ffi «t>/t 

■'•i^ ®? 5C'*r :Jc?;r? f?iv:r; '?5' ?i^?r!}f ?iIv^^i?:'>'i 

hsjii J^L';ti. 

i^ ?■ ■:: -sj^ 

» f3.'*i 

^4^a©.Mr«:' *»»o^, ^-B^tlm 

X«rj(rj.t*.i ojr jgaxj 


i.? ?j5'.-^mj r. 

/ft* II?' 

j.smx»X^ »ri# 

. toe «<f? , > . 

:.-•• 1 . • V ■■ ' »■ 


dov look \k%A been pulled out and said tbat there «&• an 
lopression of a Jiany on tlif sill und«x th«3 window frame. 
In tbeee iMttters* the plaintiff i«a corroborated toy a oan 
who liTed In Uienel jtiborhood^ »nd who «ntme into the etore 
that aoraing, shortly after the plaintiff's orrival, to sake 
a puro&ass; and also by a boy who was in the plaintiff's 
•aploy about the store* and who entered the store with the 
plaintiff that ssomlng* 

For the defends nt, a polios officer testified 
tfes-t on the morning of toy 11, 19S0, the rei^orfe osae into 
^9 station of the burglary of the plaintiff's drug store, 
and the witness was sent ower to InvestigJBite it* He test!* 
fled that xipon arriiri ig at the store he foiind the plaintiff* 
Be dessribed th« cnsndltions |>res€nt, in subst&noe as the plain- 
tiff kad 4saorlbed in his testiioony, inoluding the presence of 
a fmtk of a ^Imsiy under the window* This t^itness further 
testified that upon talking with the plaintiff, the latter 
told vhim that he suspeoted two aen, whose naises were Weixiberg 
and Album, of eooaitting l^e burglary; thet they had be«n 
In the store recently to buy whiskey; that they worked with a 
brother of the plaintiff in the United states Brewery; that 
when these aien had beeii in the store, seeking to buy whiskey 
fro« the plaintiff, they had stiggested framing a bxirglsry. He 
also testified that the plaintiff told him that another aKtn, a 
drug salesoan, had recently been in th«» drug store saiking the 
mme sort of a prooosition and that the plaintiff had refteed 
to accept the suggestions* It fui'ther appears from the evidence 
of this witnes.^ that the plaintiff eigjaed a ooarplaint a^inst 
ieiaberg snd Album, smd the witness took them into custody 
and looked thea up; that they were diarged with this burglary 
♦nd were afterwards tried on that charge* 



C",t;;?.t ?'.*.":?■ tf*i'C7**^ 



" 5f5(f;*<^'i('f 

9«lnl>«rg« b«lng oalled %s a wltna»8 for tbe 
4S«feniant» tGetlfieel that he was in the ivholasale fXoxa 
bwsinea®, but had previ ?u«ly b«e« in tbe IlqtxoT buelneas} 
tliat he liad fcuoTm th« plaintiff about three ye«.r« aiad that 
tba wi^a»8« liail been in the plaintiff's @tor« aerera^l 
tlaea; that ha was in there a vaek or eo b«ifora the atora 
vaa bvurglariaed* in m^ir 1^0* ni%h hi» l>rothaswiii*lair, 
ona i^aiaaaaiif that thay atopped in th« dxtig store to bif 
a elgiax{ l^biat on this oaoaaiom the plaintiff told thaai ha 
had somathiag Ilka §0 eaaaa of n^.lalcty* msk6 he aakcd the 
witness and hi® brotlt«fr»iiJ-law If thay 'Bre.ated to buy it# 
and the wltnaaa aaked hi« bin prloe and he aald llOO.OO 
a eas#» a»d that the Mtitaaa replied to the effaot that he 
was not int created} that the plaiatiff arnggeatad that the 
vitnaas oould take it out <^Tittg the day a»d leave the 
reet to hioi; and that after it mat go«ie he wowld report 
a burglary! that he and hi® brother*ln-la>w did aot "d© 
any bualnaaB* with the plaiatlff, nn6. the aeitt tisse he 
saw the plaiatiff waa la the police atation after the wit* 
neas had been arreat#<!l* On <nr9«e*Mi3^minatio]i he teatified 
that at the tl^^e he waa working for the Dnited statea Brew» 
e>y» peddling bottled beev. He denied he 1mA brought w 
the etibjeet of the wtilakey with the plaintiff or offered 
to buy it« 

Frank htrf, a brother of the plaintiff, testified 
for the defendant that he w?.« formerly employed by the United 
Statea Brewery Corapany, dellTering near beer| that he knew 
Album* «ho aleo m>rked for the brewery; that he h*d a talk 
with Albnzn prior to my 10, 1930, * about eclling whiskey 
for ay brother*; that thia talk did not take plaoe in hi» 
brother*® preaenoe. From the evidence aa it api^eawi in the 

^*i^ &ti4 «». « . . 


x«cord, it would asem that la this latter convcrtation 
Alburn was -lalkiag ^th rirank. heyf. rmther thsm Irank 
L«i»y talking with Alburn^ - that la, the aoYiag spirit 
in the oonTArsatloa vtkB Album rather thaa Levy. 

la rebuttal, the plaintiff took the staad aad 
testified to th© oooasion wtitn %«inberg «!.Bd v i© brother-in*lA« 
▼Ifllted th« plaiatlff»3 drag •tor©. H« testified that oa 
♦hie eeoaeloa Welaberg said h« imderetoed the plalatiff had 
SO oaeas of llcruor he wanted to sell aad the plaintiff ra» 
plied that he wo? Id like to s«ll the llqaor, but ecu Id not 
da ea ualoa; preseriptlona were prsseateds that Weinberg 
replied that this wo -Id not !»« B«o«««ary, thst he woiild 
furaieh teirrele and take the whtekey omt in b«arr«la# with 
a trucdt iJjioh had no license nuasber, aad that the plaiatlff 
replied, '♦iothing doing. I have been in the drug business 
so aany years with a elear record that I don't want to go 
to iail la ay old days*; that this ims all the ooawersation. 
Cto eros8*exa^laatlon h© testified that after the burglary he 
told the polloe who fee thow^t It was who wa« looking for 
the liquor; that In addition to Weinberg, Album and the 
drug salesaaa,. v^.ose m.m» he (^uid not recall, had sitteaepted 
to laiy 1% 

Urn are of the opiaioa that the defendant did not 

svteBlt say ovld*?noe tending to establish the affirmative -*e* 
f ease of fratid so as to warrant the court in subaittlag that 
iaii^us to the jury. There was no direot testlaioay to the off eel; 
that the burglaries inrolired in the plaintiff's olftims had 
not occurred or were fraudulent* The moet that oan be said to 
have been inwolwed in the evidence autmltte-i by th«? fttfendi- 
aa*, was a susploioa to *« effect that they al^t have bssn 


.irrrii-yffiTsraMWi 3»ifif IXst «*•■■ .; Vi^sfc .fcio -^^ isl Ii.'.-L «>*" 

Urn bib 9ae:. ■ ' 



fxauduleatf wnA, in our oplttlon, m^Te susploion Is not 
«Mmg^ to immuit tulMilttiag an ifl«u« t« th« jury. 

te find no arror in tht record and, theT??fore, 
the jud^Bttit of the Municipal Ooturt ie afflra^dt 






301 - 88136 

J. £A?LAlf^ Kf AL doing busiaess ' 


L« H. RUfiHIi A CO., XKO., 
ft ooxp.f 




-„. ^ ^r:^' 9 K 

Opinion filed Feb, 20, 1934, 
m, JUSTICE THOJieOI d«llv«red the oplniatt of 

the court. 

Plaintiffs bxouglit this suit agRitiat the deffendas* 
to Te&ortij th« purohase prloe of 7^ doxen sweaters at #90*00 
a doso&« making the amount of the plaintiff's olai« #675, 00, 
The defendant filed a plsa of the gonsral Issue , togsther 
with a special plea with an sffidavlt of defenss* to the effect 
that the plaintiffs had agreed to deliyer nsrc^andiss in assort- 
ed oolors, aztd« at the time of the delirery of the goods in 
question, all the goods delivered were of one color* and that 
the defendaxit had refuse:! to accept then beeauss of the fail* 
urs of the plaintiffs to send a8:^orted colors* and that the 
goods had, therefore, been returned to the plaintiff* The 
ffTldenoe was sutwiitted to a jury, after ^ioh a verdict was 
returned in favor of the plaintiffs In the wvm of |759«7B, to 
reverse vhioh the defendant has perfected this appsal* 

In support of the «pfp««l the defendant contends that 
the verdict and judgsent are Ri^sxinst the jaanifest weight of the 
evidence, and also that the trial oourt erred in giving an is» 
struotien siibaitted toy the plaintiffs* 

■t>^liU-^ ^C'^-M 


^?9r ,^ 


...-. 4»Tivi.-...- frnttm^^-'- *.j-i.'« ■-■ 

'^"r ; .[■ .. f. ... ;■ . ^- V-* 


?•<.«/? ■; .■•fyjEW 

■.<'ir/''N^ i-A^f* 

^«?# af«5»t/i- 




Th« evidence submitted in behalf of the plaintiifa 
vms to th« effect that on J&nuary 88» 1330« one rreundlloh* 
Ml ft aanufaoturer*a agent repr«>eenting the plaintiff 8» called 
at the defendaint*« place of t>u8ine«e|> in Ohioago, and on that 
ooeasion the defendant ^re him an order for aweatera of aasort* 
«d colore and aixea; 9^ doten maroon, 6|r doxen aeal brovn; 7^ 
d»B«n iMwoook and 7|^ doaan iUaerioan Baauty, all at $90*00 a 
(to*«B,. the order vaa »ada out in writing in duplicate* one 
copy being left with the defendant and the other being foraard- 
ad to the plaintiffa* The order read in |>art as follovat 
•Taraui -«- Shipping Date — Whan Ready — 8hip via — I'rei^t." 
fha 7^ dosan aveaters of the color Icnown as Aneriosm 3eau1y« 
vera up and shipped and Inroioe covering that ahipment 
vaa forwarded to the defendant. A copy of the invoice is 
attati^ed to the declaration and the data appearing theTeon ia 
MarcAi 11, 1930« Under data of Maroli 13, 1930, the defendjmt 
vrote the piaintlff eaylng, ^l^ease cancel the balance of 
aur order for Lot Ho, StS?." The number appearing on the 
original order ia .^27* iFreenmably the ntnbar appearing in 
the conatE^loation of mr^ 13, is a typographical error, 
fh^t oonianmi cation «^s offered In evidence as referring to this 
order, without objection, and there is no intimation that it 
did BOt refer to the order of Janiaury S8, 19S0. tinder data 
of April 3, 1930, the defend?^nt wrote the plaintiff aaying, 
"Wa ara today returning the awaatera #3937 — 7\ doaan ae par 
your invoice #354, which ia enclosed** The nuiaber of the 
invoice, copy of which ia attached to the plaintiff 'a declara- 
tion, la #334. The 7^ dsaaa awaatara of the color known aa 
Aiaeriffm Baauty were ehipped by the defendant bacA: to the 
plaintiffa in Brooklyn, where the latter declined to receive 

.Ay^ii:.'^. ^r^^-^^ill?'';; 

'.^ !i:ji> *;^ )■ i'lfffc 

h^,h.'X ::-^S^ 

a j^,ii*i...'. <■- 

r ... "i^ ... .- 

t-''?\' ■f^'l f- 

thta &ad they were placed In a imrehoua* by the transportation 
oonpany and apparently are there ytt* The teetinony aubadtted 
in behalf of the plaintiffs v&0 to the effect that no «wcat«n 
were shipped beyond the 7^ dosen Aaerioan Bsauty by reasoA of 
the defendant** oanoellation of March 13. One of the plaintiffs 
testified that If they got an order for five or six different 
colors, they would aanufaoture the swsat^rs of one color first 
and then another and so on. FreTjmdlioh teatlfisd about getting 
the order fro* the defendant and on re»dlrect exa>mlnation he 
mia asked. "Where orders are giren for different oolor« and 
ahipmentB are to be jmde when ready, is it cm«to«ary in the 
trade to assort th« colors In eadbi shipping lmst&llment» or 
la it existoiaary to ship one eolor «hen it is ready and then 
another color?* He replied in part saying that "If he (the 
ouatOBier) wants the goods shipped when ready » the mills wh«a 
they get one color or one sl<e finished, will paok it up «nd 
•hip it*" On re«>eroS8'^xamlnation he was asked whether it 
was not the fact in thl» oase that he was told to have the 
goods shlppsd In assortment and he said it was not. Two wit-» 
nesses testified for the defendant * L. H. Ruehl and Hoy Btaehl* 
L. H. Rushl testified that at the tlms the ord^r was glren 
to Freundlioh, Its told the latter that he aiust have them 
iwiedlatmljr and that they were to be used for spring busl- 
n«ss» therefore were for spring dellTsry* and t^at meant froai 
lba.roh 1, on* Se also testified* in effeet, that the plaintiffs 
•agreed to deliver assorted colors aand didn't delivsr them.* 

Roy Rushl testified to the effect thit in buying 
swttaters the otistom was always to buy in assorted colors and 
sizes* It is quite apparent that at the time the defendant 
sent its letter of Maroh IS, concerning the "balance* of its 

,-::tC-.i:' (- 

"'?i'''»x^-^ r''>:\i. 

\\i^.' ii\l-j 

-.M'-.t-i Ct i. 




mi,-t\ ■tt:ts'jv ■ ^ ■ ■:. ^^siity 


^TtdeT, it hed teonired the Invoice of l^fir<m 11, ooTsring 
the 7|r dosen American Beauty sveatera. By the tarme of that 
inroloe the defend^^jsit ««8 adrisei! that the 7f dotea were all 
of one oolOT and yet irtien It sent a osncellation of the bal» 
aaoe of the order, on U^roh. 13, no complaint waa made of that 
la^T irae any indloation giren that the shipment covered hy the 
invoice was not aooept*ble« In our opinion, therr is suffi- 
cient evidfflaee in the record to support the ooncluaion of the 
jury to the effect that there was no direction given to Freund- 
IXvSk at the time this order was delivered to him, to the effect 
that each ehipacnt waa to be in aesorted colore, and that in 
the ahoenoe of ewoh direction* it iraui cuistoliary for thd mille 
en reeeiving an ordev 1*1 i oh was to be delivered "when ready* 
to ehip each lot by eoloy a« it waa turned out* At least the 
•vidin^li as we find it in the record la not e^ch aa to warrant 
this court in aayimg that the finding of the Jury on tha| issue 
Is agadnat the isanifest weight of the evidence • When the de- 
fendant w&a adviaed by the invoice of March 11, of tbe ship- 
ment of 7|- dosen Aaa^rioan Beauty aweatera, bein|^ the last one 
of four items of the order, and imaediately it sent a oaneella- 
tion of the ** balance* of the order and made bo oomplaint of 
the fact that the shi|»aeat was not of assorted 0B2.ors, and when* 
upon receipt of -feat shipment about the first of April, they 
rettimed it» imdey date of April 5, giving no reason therefor, 
we are of the opinion that the ^wcj was justified in concluding 
that the defense set forth in the defendant's affi^.vit of 
defenso, was 9Ji aft ex-thought* 

TUc instruction eomplained of by the defendant was 
to the effect that if the ;Jury believed fross the evidence that 
there was a eustott|^. among the sianufacturera Of )cnitted wool 

■■^'(ti: '}" 










Xi-v ' i''*-} St itxJ. i* »• 


l^x««Bt«» aanufftoturing gaaments to be deliirered, on reoelTlag 
an order for iissorted colors, to mar.ufaeture all the ^nicnts 
©f on9 color in th« order, and then *11 those of another color, 
that It *rould be presumed that the defendant entered into this 
oontraot with tb«t custom in view, whether it aotuallj knew of 
it or not* In our opinion, thle instruotion vas wrong ».nd it 
•hoiad not hairs been given, for it ignores the issue vhiola Has 
raised, on the question of whether, at the tims the order ims 
giren it v&a agreed that the deliveries were to be nads in 
assorted colors, as the defendant contends* while that isstte 
eould be raised under the e^amon counts and the general iSBue, 
the evidenoe on it is very meagre. The plaintiff's tfitness, 
Fretindlich, did testify flatly that nothing was said on this 
propositicai at the tiat the order wslb given. The only evidence 
on this point suteaitted in behalf of the defendants was when 
h* H. Rushl was asked the question already quoted, rtamely, 
"They agreed to deliver assorted colors and didn't deliver 
theaT* The answer to that question was «ao«" While etriotly 
speaking, that question and answsr mean little or nothing, be^ 
cause the question really involves two questions, to both of 
whicdi the answer of the witness oould not eomsietently apply, 
ws will assiuie that what the witness meant ^slb an affinitive 
answer to the first part of the question, and a ne@d.tivs to the 
last part, naiaely that the plaintiffs did eo agree "hut that they 
did not deliver assorted oolore« However, we tire further of 
tile opinion that such error as there may have been In giving 
the instruction referred to, would not yarr^nt this cooirt in 
disturb!:^ the ^udgjaent appealed froa. There is no evidence 
whatever, in the record, showing or tending to show the period 
of tiae within which all deliveries should have been aoade under 
this contract. The defendant insists that the f^ods were in- 

I -jy M .-* •:» v< "• 

H Ji^A-TCVv' 


'^t'} {'.:■' ■ 







•Ml m< 


•■*.'■ ■■>.:■ em «j«f«<-: 

tended f©» ''•pcrlng ymninemn* ana that thl« meiuui •spring 
dcllTery" uncJ that spring delivery meana *'from >iar€to the 
let on*" Bat, the evidence doee not state ivhether spring 
delirery means by April first or May first or Just what the 
limit of tine is in the trade in question* Within two veeks 
after the period of spving delivery indicated began^ the 
defendant reoeired the Inroioe containing the adrioe that the 
entire qviantity of the sveaters of one of the oolors ordered 
«as being shipped, la^aedisitely^ the defendant oanoelled the 
balance of the order, and, as we have already pointed out, 
•aid nothing to indicate that the shipment, covered by this 
invoice, was not according to its understanding tf the teras 
of the contract, nor that such shipment was unsatisfactory, 
nor that It would refuse to receive it» 

After <»a.r«fully considering the evidence in this 
Record, of which there is, unfortunately, very little, we have 
oosie to the oonolusion that the defendants have not shown suf* 
fi6i«Bt reason to justify a reversal of the judjg^eat of the 
County Ctourt and, therefore^ the judgse&t is af firmed. 




■t^M 1E«.«TXX.Ai» Sfii^ 

1* .b»v. 


r«l' hftfea»t 





' vifd' IE 4*8 

a-^.^i. ^-.A -v-i:-^,>;v ... 

.,'.iL J^«,,-. ' ^^ J. .>...>: 

»vtsji wot ,«I*^.U 

^ ■^: .i.ii-.. . iMfi^ii4?tiS:' ' . "' * 

-V^s cwo?(* tK4* ..- 

Q.*«t«5l5.r-tr«fe ^' - ■ . WVJS.-5., 

J'.-.V >;•,.; ij a-j^i-.- 

■,^ ,• r i.LKfV) 

.;.,.:«■-' ••■<'. :>--3.;-.- •. - 

.- f v-'-r* ■"■ - 

313 •» ^8X48 

mLLlAM RIPbiTSIIf, at »l, 

mhm MAj<m, ^t ai« 


^ Q T a ^, 9 ^ 


p3 t-> 

opinion filed Feb. 30, 1924» 

Ma* JUStlCi^; filOllSOl deli ire red tbe Ofpinioa of 
the o<s\jyt, 

ffy this ajspf*,! th« eomplaltt^sntfl, Mpstf^ln ^.utd 
oth«»i, a«ek to r«v«r»«. a d«or«st of t*i« uircult Oouft ©f 
0o«k <3d\mt7» diaatftfliag tbelr bill of eoaplp.lnt for w«at 
of equity* 

fte« Mil file4 by go-«|dfeitmiaita 2r«0tt«d that tht 
oostplatiiftnt mpotttin Wi-d t^mn m. m.l&iask iceepcr ;?ad that Ills 
saloom «%« looat9<^ Im & Imildisif oim«d li^y one Anna 0. B«hrend* 
Bofortt th» fillag of th« Mil in the ®uit at toiMf, Mam, C, 
BeBr«ntl died, Intwstato. All th® ©oaplaisaotsi herein, other 
than Hip8tei», ar« h«T hslrs at 1&«. Tht bill reelt«d ftut- 
thoY tb%t the def«ndsat« H«I«m MR^^OFi^nd m&tIoa^ h«r daug^<t«T, 
broT3ig:?it «uit »g»in9t Ripetein imil aaother a&loon koe^er ns«ed 
Sllv«x, vanA^f th€ Orswa Shop &ot, for la^ury to tfc#lr »es»iia 
Of support^ lMi0inLg the motion on tfeo %ll«ged sale of iatoxi- 
oatiag liquor* toy the defendant* r^ip»t«lii *~nrf Silver, to FrajiJt 
mitoft the hughsad of Holen Major* SllT«r wbm later dl»»l»«»«d 
<mt of that oaoo* The c<>«pl«lnaat« further alleged la their 
l»iU thAt In thQ sotion at law, rofftrrtd to, auajaoaa w»« duly 
i»3U*d and roturned to th« #ff«et that it h?d b®«n serred on 

'~--X , JK,: . v., J 




■■,^.'ft ''P; 



•' ■•; ..ifa?!? 

9if«t9iil« by tb« d«liT«ring of » e«py tlk^reof to Mm o« 
Junft 30, 1917 • Thlo r«t^lnl wt^o a(«40 by * ^opwty nharltt 

BA««d B^^uftj* iiUpstfitln fabil«d to &prim.T ia the l&v evilt 
and bo vaa defaulted for imnt of mi app««t.ra«ioo» ^v^ 9hen 
tbo oaoo iraui^ed for trial in dm« ooitrse the plmlatiff* 
px'«8«nted their evldonoe- to » Jiuey ^nd .% ▼eTdlot wsmi returned 

fladlag %hM losmoo for ssid plaiatlff» aaril laa^OBSing; tfeelx 
djM&fOO at $SO0O»O0, Kftd Jwdg!i«jjit w«.« accordingly tmXf^ftd.^ 

Tbo bill of eoaplaittt oilagod furthtr tbat aipstein 
w%» novor oervod vltb stMmoisA la the Iftw oult &g«ia«t hlM ^sjid 
)aio» nothlag; about «jiy »uoh suit vmtll about aix soatho sftor 
tho jud^ont tm.9 tm%eT9A^ -xhen he lt«,rR«d about it for tho 
flrot tia«| that he kn«w no mitsh iMrRoa as Fs»ak H&^or vaad 
did ROt Ymm oomplals^ntaj that i%;|or fn&» never oerved aay 
latoxloa>tlag liquor la ble saloon* sad that hm n«!ror reoeivod 
aay aotio* or waraiaj^ aot to ooll tmoh llQ\ior to ^«jor. 

Xt Is further allegod la thit bill of ooairli^iat, 
that IB «a.y 191t, th« defea^'Siaats herfda, filed ^ bill st^kiag 
to «ak« th9lr judpteat &galaot Elprfceia a lien upon th« prftslsct 
la vhlob be bad ooaduoted his osiloaa* wbloh wer« o«aed by Aana 
0. Bohread; tbat sufltaoais mfto Issuod la that oquity suit and duly 
•orrod on Mro. a«hr«ad Aad p dooioe *r&» duly faatsxed in that 
suit la J\>ae 1319» by v^hioh th« JiulipBoat aoeured by th« Majors 
ai^iaat Rlpatoim vas dooroed to be a lioa agsilaat Mra. a«br«ad*s 
property* It «ma alleged further that Mra. Behrm*^ waa aged aad 
feeble aad *laaapable of aisJtlag aay defense* to the equity suit, 
sad that she «ae without kaoirledge of th« faet that the judg» 
aeat agalaat Hipsteia wae told sand iiaeaforeeable, a levy waa 
duly aade agalxuit the praaleea is f^ivsatloa %ad proper reoord 

';«9V. tim #8.^ «M# 




ther«Dof wk» md« in th« H«0Qy<3«r't Offlo« of (HK>k (bounty, 
prurouxTnt to tlit« frnm of the de«ar<M of th« Otroiiit Court 

in til® eaiuity suit l»iK>iu^.t against I£t«. SofertrntdU 

By tl>©lr bill, filed in th« suit at bai», th« ©«»- 
plAixuu&t? prayed th&t t-e Jud|p«ni pxooursid by the Maijorv 
agalAst iUpsteln in tht &oti0ii ».t Xirnr, mi rbt b« vmcmtod sad 
••t a«idlo and that the di«or«« procmred li^ ti^ie iiftjom mpLiast 
Mxm, .B«'hr<md al#t lilEi«nrl8« be v^oi^tod ^nd &9% ^-side; ttiAt 
tii« tt&^oys aiid their attorneys Rnd stents mig^^t be restirain^d 
fxoa CAkianf any ftarth«r levy, f Itliiir isaid«r tbn Jmd^eat ot 
%ht'd«<siw« wbiclti tfe«y had proe«sr®4, aiiiSi teat tfeisy an-d th« 
fthsriff »l#tt bf^ T©«tT&ln««2 frcss selling at taking aay stepi 
to soil tb«r property referred to. 

the lsi.suf»3 involTed 1wr« aulaaitted to a Sftiater la 
^aaoery and aftex' a hearlag he «ttl»ltt«d hie report* f Ittdln^ 
iB p«.rt» thfs.t th®rR had b®«n net aervlo^ of »iaKm»oaa la th« 
Mnitia at law agalnet Hipateifi and reoc^iuReadlBg th«kt the 
parayer of th« ©Mrplainants &• 8«t forth in their hill of oo»f 
]p^alnt* be granted* 

l^oepticmsy whleJi werft filedl by the def©ndi!.nt»» He! 
iiajor and mTio^ Major, t© th«? report of the K-aeter, were «u9* 
t%lned hy the ohsnoellor and a decree wa» «?ntered diaaBl«fesing 
the hill of oo«pli%lnsnt» for want of equity* Aa preri^ualy 
«fitated« th« ooapXainants ee k to rev^fMi thi&t d$oree, by tbit 

ta supnort of their apf<ml, the <»a^laln?mt« oont" 
that the oXear preponderinee of the erldenoe ehows that ther 
mM BO eemoe of etMmonii on Eipeteia, in the aotlon &t lav, 
and that the Xatter had a aerltorioue d^f enae to that aetlon 


4..i;»;A4;apv!;*t«| ^ii? 

■ « ^-S^si?*** S»«iif 



mU ^' -i^*;- 



\,SAX<|««fi» *^. 


«9 foixad bjr the !ita«t«r. Aft«7 k oar«ffiA •xaainatlou of 
ti>« evldenoe In tb« r«90Td w« Are ef the opinion th»t tlie 
ilMno«llor «»« elenTljr 7if>jht In mMtelning def«ad%nt«* 
•xoeptloiM to tbe 'Ja^eter'e finding* that there hed been 
00 eerriee of the amumtte «a !tipflit«ln« witlle (iue weight 
ghouXa te glTen to & ameter** findings* vrhere he bee aeeft 
the vltneeees and he^^rd th«« teetif^* rather tfe.En merely 
read tfa«>iaF testl«ony» e3t@epti&n« to imoh findings shoul^^ X>% 
•ustained* If the ifrvldemoe !• »uah %• to coxrrlnOe the ohea* 
eellor* to vhooi the Disieter'e report is «ubmitt«d« thftt euoh 
findings are trrong* 

the law ie well settled that to ^tmtXff ». ooort 
of oqvity in eottlng sAide & Judip^ent* becmufie of a finding 
of no serwiee of eua^soas, contrary to the ret^tm of the of» 
floeir* the proof nust be eie%r and oouvlnoing* STory i^ro* 
sumption is in favor of the return of the prooess* %na it 
will not he set aside solely upon t>ie unoorrohsrated t«ati«» 
3tox^ of th« party upon who* senrioe ie olaiaid to havs heem 
WMle. goohlngm r. p'ileii;!, . 003 111, 110, 

Bipetein t#atifiedl that the summons in ^estion 
was nsrer ssrred upon hl«; that on J\m« 30, 19lf , he left 
hosM ahout six o*oloQlL in th«f morning with aeorge Behrend* 
going to the Korthwestem depot in Ohiesgo, wher? he took 
& tr^m leetTlng tvetween e^ran and eigjjt o'clodt for B&rringp 
ton, Illinois; that he went to visit one Freusd, st spring 
X.Aks; thnt upon srrlwing there be resmined until the follow- 
ing afternoon, r« turning then t© CJhfcoagsj that dmr^ Bohrend 
left hla on tbe soming of the 80th at the Morthweetem depot 
in Ohi«:^go, as he hnd to go to wa Awgr recruiting offioo^ 
esoTgs Behrend t^etlfied that he h&<5 hsea on ths Aray retired 


> Allfti^*^ 



r^?r- ■•■-'? 


list and that he ree«iT»<l an o»de» to report to a r«- 
erultlng station^ in Chicago^ for aotlva service^ oa 
ixsae 30, 1917; that ht v«nt to the reoTuitlng office that 
daqr, 7esohlng there ot seven or seTen thirty &A the norn* 
Ingj that before going there he took Rlpeteln to the 
iTorthireeteni depot and the latter took a train to Barring- 
ton, leaving ahout seven o'olodkt ^^^ ^^ n<>3ct sav him In 
CEhlcago OQ the evening of the following day; that he (the 
^tness) vae enppooed to go to Barrlngton that day alao 
but that amc "the day I ima supposed to report hack to the 
Aray and I notified thesi 1 could not oooe." T^ e order 
on which Behrend testified he rfjported back to the Array 
for service was Introtooed In evidence and Behrend testi- 
fied he received it June 19; that he fene^ it arrived on 
the 19th and not on ithe SOth because he had to report oa 
the 30th; that **lt wis passed by Congress* MB.y 18th» I 
believe, and It ihad plenty of ti^ae to re§oh me* I decided 
from the way it reads that X must report thensxt day* X 
went to report the 30tbo It saya the 80th day of June»* 

Freund testified that in 1917 he was living 
at Spring Lake; that Rlpsteln visited hia a nuaber of tl«e% 
one of which was In June 1917; that on the latter oooasion 
he was expecting Oeorge Behrend also but he did not come^ 
and upon asking Ripstein why Behrend had not coae he was 
told the latter "went to the Aray," He testified be 
thought the date was June 20, and that Eipetein reaained 
until the following day. On croae-exaiaination he said 
the only way he knew this visit occurred on JPuac 20, 
net that Ripsteln told hia Behrend had to go to the Army. 
Mrs. Freund testified that liipatein visited her boae in 

»<iit fti' aiJt04vii(iiM ^ta^ ^d ^^-vrid" ^.cc.| 4Mr«j59€i ?f.-iU {:st^ 

«ifti« t**^ ^•*' 

i*&ti& ® -"T *,9i5rao .tnf 

erf feffiH: 

•& #x»*(srf5 #ncc 


v*<rM[ e^ #ii(iwr 

3>'f ?»/tT-; rfft: 

■ .!*■ ;i -»-/», •<• + ,> ■ 

^.•'9 ^ff' 



J\m« 1917; that ha said George Behread v&a XonrlAg for 
th0 Aray; tbat nip«teiii r«tum»d to Cl^im^^ <m th« &ft«r» 
iwoa of th« day following hXa Arritml* 

0oisplainant*8 Kschlblt 1« wut a copy of SpoeliCL 
•rd«r 140 l«»uod l3y the fmr t)#part»«nit« datod at UttsblBg* 
ton, JiuMi 19» 1917. It recited th«t nndtr the protl»lan« 
of am Aot of Cott^«sfi appvovod May ie» 1917, oortaln namod, 
r«tlred, onllatsd men, in<»ludlng B«hr«ad« ^%rt aoitlgaad to 
aotlTO duty in tbelr grad«o» to tako eff«ot J>mo 30» 1917, 
aad will report to the ststlotui lndioat«d foy aotti^numt to 
reeruitlng duty«^ 

The d«f ^adJ-^nto introduoo* an affld^Tit oxooutod 
)qr CNsorg^ Behrond, In c»»an«totloa with a notloA to Taoato 
thft jttd^fiimt la the aotii>ii at lav a^l&st RlfKitelii, la 
i»hl<^ he ««t forth the arraiig<^«^nta he ma Ift to take the 
trip to Sinrlng l^ke with Rlpetela oa ijune 30, hut that he 
wts prewented froH dolag eo heo^^faae of the order aboTe re* 
f erred ta. In thin affidavit no sientl£»n la wsid^ of the 
faot BOW elmleied* thitit Sehread reported at the r&orultlng 
off loe on the 80th smd gjot leave to report later heop>%i«e 
of hie deeire to arrange %i» affairs In preparation of an 
extended ahoeaoe* Ihle aff idatrlt teas executed In January 

The def«jii'i%nt» furth«rr introdaeed an ex«tptifi«<l 
oopy of the record in the Adju^ust Oeaeral's Of floe In the 
«ar Oepartaieat shoving that Behread * joined J\me 35, 1917.» 
Thle exearpllfled oopy of the Par Departaeat reoord wae filed 
fehrtiary 14, 1930, tn ooaneotloa »lth the hearing of the 
aotloa to vaoate the jitdi^aeat la the aotloa at law. Cadev 
date of February 2ft» 1930, Behread executed another rffl- 

I©* ^^ 



* fltr'f''. '< 




ri^ ^jair 



?s*f'^ f r >«s»T«!fi i'lj? ^mt^,t'>m.$^. %mU^t?'i i»$w^" 



iVfit mtPiiM ttatlAg that ht roporttd at tt)« Araf rf>oTult« 
liiij offio© on Jim« 20, 1917 ,> *»» |Mr thp ap^eelal order 
afUKlxer 140" ^nd then, ap^vently to explatin the dRt« of 
June 2S* 1917, ftppMtrlxm; la th^ ftx«iRplifled r«oord of tH^o 
War l}0|i^rtnieiit, whioh had b««fi filed alneo the filing of 
his first a.ffid^.7lt, )mi proce^dod to set forth in this 
so«»iid affidavit, thsit upoe^ rei;>ortlng on .?un« 30, 1917, 
ho aoltod to b« r«lieT<3d for a fov d«iy« in order thss^t he 
■igjht prepar* his priim.ts affairs, usid that hs might not 
IMI assig^kSd to active duty at onoe; that Ghptaia Ketunsy, 
to i«boa this request was direated, granted it and thi^t 
thersafter he wae asaigned to motive duty &n June 3&, 1917* 
The rtoord of the far lls|mrt£«e»,t« of vhich an exempli fied 
oopy v&s filed in oo&nectiott with the motion to vaoate the 
Judgment in the action mt lav against Hipstela and n^hioh 
was introduced as an exhibit in the suit at tMir, «as a 
reeord of the llnstsr noil of the Hsovuiting party of the 
Jkwa^t over vMd^ Oaptain Kenney m^ in oo«ttand at the re* 
GTuiting office in CSNio^go, to letiieh Behrend reported. It 
is oertiflid as eorreot hy aaptain Kenney* In owr opinion, 
if the faets eurro\jndln« the reporting of Sehrend »^r^ as 
testified to by him and set fortli in thm second affi4»Tit 
filed in the aetion at law they would b»*re been set down 
to the effect by hia ooMianding officer on the duster Boll* 
But the sJuater »30il record rea4s, *assg, to aotlvs duty 3aad 
detailed for general recruiting service this district per 
8,0, 140 W,D, Jime 1S^17» Joined June S5/l7«*» In our opinp 
ion, the tsstiaeoay of Sshrmd is not consistent with that 

«lien vltnssssa are called U3pon to give the 

'•5^-T J^ij^ afo* «# 

.; ^^r-S!?"^ j;0 XtliltTJ: ^^:^cJ vV»^> <jiH>i 

date of Koiwi oecvurxonoe whioh tooic pla.ce long preTlously^ 
it is difficult if not i«p09eibl« td do ao, except as they 
■ay relate tbe ooour:reaoe 1a cmeetlon to ao<te other event 
of ni^ieU ther« «ay be a reeoxil* or to tone other definite* 
Xf k:no«B day or date^ such as a holld&y or tbe like* Here^ 
a* vltaeee pretende to eay %hn% ^ipatein took hi» triii» to 
Spring Uike on «}une 30, WVf^ the date appearing on the 
date of the awsaione* showing service on hla in Oook Coimty 
on that day, except by r«f^ren©e to the faet that Sehrend 
reported to the Amy on tlJ^at day^ and tbe Isitter event* 
so far ae ita a«tt« la oon<^med» is related in turn ta the 
AzMy Order 14o» But thierft is nothing about that order to 
su|i9ort any bul^ relation. It merely recited that certain 
nen are aseipied to active duty ''to take effect June ao» 
lai?." Xinaediateiy following those word* the ordftx pro- 
Tides that ttieaen named "will reisort at th€ etations in- 
dicfited for asaignaent to reeruitlng dnty* but it does not 
say they vill report on June 30* or any other specified 

•Rre evldenee shews furt^^er that the offi^ssy wtio 
mda the return on the euemons in ciueetlon was dead* lis 
addition to the return on th«> euamons, the defendants in- 
troduced in evidence his dally report lander date of Jtjae 
30« ldl7* Indicating ssrvlee of siiauions in the «ajor caee* 
on aipstein on tb«t day «t 1800 Belaont avenws, ^Ich ?rf*s 
the adnltted loeation of his saloon* 

there was fuirther, veiy aaterlal testirseny hy a 
witness, apparently entirely disinterested, t^is witness, 
one Watts, in 1917, wns an adjuster for an Insurance CoMpeny 
wlii^ ssbds a business of insiirlng saloon keepers and owners 






• •f ■aleoA pTop^Tty a^liit* iMl»ii mdfer^A a« tt>« x^ettlt 
of 8U<i^ lav sulta as th« on* in«titut««l by^ thd ^jorc 
m|^ln«t Mpttem &n<l SUt«7. Watts testified that in 
1917« h« aad« an Inv^Btij^fttlon for hie eompasy* with 
refercnoe to tbat o»ii«» the liiTcatigfttioii Ixavlng been 
«&d« on beh&Xf of Bilreir; that In connect ion wit*? thnt 
Invostl fiction ho had two oonvoro^tlonse with Hipotela* 
iMth in his saloon at 1800 B«la<mt av«mu»; th«.t he told 
Hipstsin %e h^d h9!^n sutd mwH talked to hist siHott pitting 
s Iftsyeri that this first oonTors&tion oootwrred in the luttsr 
pwrt of ttsy-l (th« aotioa at law by tfes i^Jors Against 
Rlpstein and Silvsr was ^epm on May SI, 1917) j that 
aiitstein repliod, *l (ten»t *sb1i a lavysr. i don't Iemw 
aaytlilng ahout it. You are one of t&e« hot air istiys, 3 
think*! that the wltnoss roplisd, »W«11, yi>« &t* ausd", 
•toorsttpon Hipatoiii aald, "That is all Imnk;'' that th# wlV 
Wf»9 then pToduood l^e oo|qr of the snamoiuiy nihioh h&.6. boon 
•srrsd on Bilwx and adiowed it to aipstoin* fhissltnoso 
testifiod that his tt#o(md oonversatlon with ^Upst^ln oomaar- 
3r«d in July; that his ohjeet in seeing Mm again «%« an 
attsapt to looate Ma;joy} that Hipst«ln said h« knew who 
9a^ lias snd told his about whore h« liwedj that in this 
ooKver»Jitl'>n Ripstoin said hs had besn sorrsd with am m M t m 
find the ultnosfi told hla hs om^t to got a lawysY, whsrsupwi 
Ripstsin replied, ♦'»©, 1 oion't cars a dsaoi* I idn»t got 
xothing as^r^tow and thsy oan»t got anything out of ?Be,» 

talcing all the foregoing mrldenos into oonAldsj* 
atitm an already statsd* we ars of ths Dpini<m that ths 
<ihano«ll©» was ol«arly right in snstalning ths sxoeptions 
to th« finding of the Mastsr to ths effeot tfcat thsr« l»d 

<># ttOt^lf h&^i, 



? I'lf <; . 

b — a no scrrioa of n\aam9iam on Hlptteia, tiudh belac our 
Titir of that part of tbe ease^ It b«e««ie« uma09BBa»Yf 
to oomttnt on the allowing wido by oo«: iTs^lnAnto oa th« 
quostioB of « ••rltorlo\Hi defi^mto tolheaotloa at law, 
10 Blight add* ho««vttT» that v« %«&▼• txamlftod tbat «▼!«• 
dOA90 aadi in our oplnlcA the eonpXalnanta failed to aako 
out a priiaa faoio oaao ^>n that i«6u«« 

For th« rtMHnw «t®t«d t^e iaoroo of t^« Olrowlt 
Oourt is afflrawd^ 

f»^Ti.«ii« p.j.MB ©•«x>ifsioii, ^. mvimH* 

•""i'f? fiL?:.* ^'trci 


tiiit»«ii8 «.<1^. %<^ <$' 

•j.'-^ ' T^-^- tT'-t 

r; r5a'?'r5J 

*]h*«^.i-l-^i<-. SE^ fc- 

330 - 38165 

Appall an t^ 


AjpFSAii moil 

coor coiiitY. 


Opinion filed Feb, 20, 1924, 
MR. JUSTlOi: tHOia^S d^Xlver«<S the opinion of 

the ossurt. 

The plaintiff « Vera Z^^aan, tarougk^t this motion 
OB the c%«e ik^lnet %hB defendant* WllXlaia ToaeaT* seeking 
to re coyer daijsitgee dite to en aeseult and l»fttteT7« ^Aeh ehe 
olnlaaed the defendant had oc^u&ltted agrs^inet her. The teeti* 
mmij w&tt heard by a ^Mxy auac; they retrum & verdict, finding 
the Iseuee for the defeiidsait, to reveree which th« plaintiff 
has perfeotod tht« ftT)r>eml, s4Rd In support thereof, «he oon» 
t«nde that the verdict of the jtary is agatnet the manifest 
weight of the evidence. 

The defendant nae the proprietor of a sam-ll grocery 
store looated on the eouth^tst corner of iLildare avenue and 
30th streot In the Olty of ohlcago. The plaintifl: lived en 
the e^^et ^Id* of Kildare avenue, in the sane block with the 
defeM3Knt*e store, and soae distance souths of it. A Mrs. Roeske 
wsui the plaintiff's next door nei^'rhbor, Thsy apparently ^^-re 
not on good terms. Th« oooiirronoe of which th« plaintiff 
o(mpl&lns, is alleged to have ooeurrsd about Mlf past nine 
on the evening of June 10, 1913* The defendant's stor s faeed 
north, so that the woat side of the store extended along the 


,^Sei tOJ5 .ds- 


fT»o®«s ■^■tfc' ■ '««4»ix 

sieeoH .mU ^o-^iuoa 





Mi«t aid** of £114ar« uTeau* tram tbe oomer of 30tb 
ttr««t, aouth a dlstanoe of about 7S feet. Tbere it a 
e^eent eideimlk iaaedlateXj to tbe weart of tbe stom 
with som paTknay epaoe betveen iSke sidewalk and the 
Hldare a^renue curb. This parkeay epaee oontaliied a 
mmber of trees^ and oum^undlng the ei>%o« irae «.n irtm 
milling* The eoatranee to the atore vae at the oorae:r« 
and not fa7 from that entrsnoe* on the evening In c{iie0« 
tloa trais a bratliy appaxentlir etanding on the eldevalk^ 
along side of the Iron falling wbloh suTTOunded the 
paxkvay. Bra. Eoecke was sitting on thle ben4ti» together 
with the wife and dau^ter of the defendant, and a« they 
mA these they w^^ye faeing eaet toward the grocery »tore« 

Mrs. ZmamA testified that she oafie along fre« 
the north on the east side of KlKsure awenae, ^nd that ae 
she reaped this corner* the three wonen referred to, '^ere 
sitting ^1 the ben(^ and the defendant was standing beside 
the entrance to his store* and that as she passed hln, the 
defendant hit her on the side, wheretii^on., she stopped and 
oalled, *'H«lp*» and then started to run* and he pnehed her 
99 as to throw her down* fiM she agelm ealled for help, 
wheTeapoa,the defendant kl^ed her •m oouple of tlses*. 
She added that 9h9 did not Itnov what l^ppened after that 
*beoau«e X was taken to asy feo»e,* There Is an eleotrle 
«ye street lig^t at the oorse* on wfeleh the defendant's 
store was located, which the plaintiff testified was lifted 
at the tlsts she estte along and she said that the ll^ta 
In the store were also lighted. She testified that the 
next thing she knew she was in her kitchen; that her aouth 
1^8 out cm the laelds) that her faoe was blaek and blue* 
and that she was attended ^ a Or. aohde. Cm cross-exaaslaa- 



•■■>■■■■ ■■^' ..,.,-^., ^^!»!?jJ^.,4«| f .:• . . ,<t%if^ ■'■■ 

t««^ i. .l' 

■'t^ 94# 



■■i<i» •• «i«s i- 



tlcm sh« teatlfi«dth»t she did not ««« the def9nr^«nt*a sob 
alMmt at tbe tl%* of the ooouxirmtM ooatplftlatd of; tbat as 
ah« pft«B«d the lef«zid%nt sh« vme about two pao«9 mwfty froa 
him* and that he took about tivo paoos folloiring her up^ be- 
fore he stxueSc her^ and thvt idie irate then about nir ox eevea 
feet aeay ft<m the benoh on el^loh the ^!siiMie& were sitting* 
*n^ a little to the south of the b«QJdih« She ale© t<?»tifi«d 
that eho hftil had an argument with the defenrlant the dijr be- 
fore this happened, coiijiael for tbft defendsnt asked her 
what the arf«s«at was about, b«t objetrtloa t^ this line of 
Inouiry wae mi stained* 

4 Mrs. tdera testified that ohe kept a butdier 
shop on the northwest oomer of lildlare avoniSL® ?md ^th 
street, and at the tl'.£« of the oocurrence she was standing 
in th« doorwtty of her shop; that she eaw the deftndant atand- 
iag beside the doorway 9t hia store at the time the plaintiff 
passed, and that when she passed by hiss "he knocked her down 
and shelfell and he kioker her*; that she «&« the defendant's 
trife and daug^tey «md Mm* lUKHske sitting on the benoh; ths-t 
wlMB the defendant kaooked the plaintiff down and kloked her 
"he ran in to oloae the door**; that the store had been li^^t* 
ed VEp to that time; that *then he elosed the store and m^de 
the light out, and I saw '•irs. Se^san lafini^ there, and she 
soreaaedi she dian*t sereaat right avmy but a little %fter^; 
that her huebnnd ran up from bis ^ouse anr! helped her hoaui, 
which was about three doors fro« the eorner. On orose-ewMK 
iB&tion this witness testified that she bed p&t the lights 
out in her store; that she knew it w&e half past nine at the 
tine of the ooeurrenee sroaplained of, beoause she was looking 
at the eloift: In the store. She also testified that the defend- 


-ii.i:;i« jSa ;t^s;5.s; 





■^<*t?t^*^?? «^<?t r-o -^©fls 


■■«*'f ■6*-' 

«at*« son vas not ftbout «t th« tls«« 

A Mrs. Kotwits te^stlfittd that she llT«d at 3009 
Klldare avenue^ v^Moh wn.9 on thtt «&»• slae of tb« street at 
tli« defendant •» ator©, and ft f«w doors south of It, the 1»- 
tsrreniag property losing Taoaatj that »he was standing In ths 
bay window of her ho«s« whiob w&s about six fe«t haelc fros ths 
lot lins; that h«T daughter ws.g out and sh® ipaa vatohing for 
hsr, after pr«p&ring to retires that «h« saw a woman appro%oh» 
Ing and as she pasasd the dsfendaut, who* was standing by th« 
littX« door» by the «rindo«r In the store**, the defendant, ♦•felt 
hsr and she laid down but I don't know whether it was the 
first tiiae or the se«ond tlaje. Then 1 opeot^d the window und 
I saw Mrs* Toasar and % woman I didn't know; it ^«s Mrs* (U^seke, 
and ! heard this voice when she wms soreaming'.'* This witness 
then testified that she thea pa% oti her stockings and her dress 
and ran down the stairs and •Mrs, Zeman was there, anf! then I 
heard the soreaming"; %nd that she did. not know who it w%s 
until she got down there. On oross<»exa)»inmtiQn tbie witness 
testified that she saw the woman approaching the defendant's 
oomer and that she saw her »?hen she was on the opposite side 
of the street. The plaintiff bed testified that she had walked 
down Kildare awetm* from 36th street* Kr». Kotwitt further 
testified on 9ro83*exaainatloa that althou^ she ^in not know 
who the woman was, ^en the defendant tlirew her down, she knew 
It was the defendant bem.t;u»e she saw hiat p««tsh her, ano shs 
testified further that the door of the defenlant's store was 

A lirftj* Mary Klecka testified that she liwed on the 
west side of Kildare avenue, sererel doors south of 30th 
street, nnti that she ims standing in front of her feous* at tSiS 






l^v "iK.^ i'i iv;.ii.i?w -^T ; 

■u, -* /.*« 

•:T,-':5.r'i'^: ;■ •l.vtif -'ilP-i 


tla« of th« aJll«g«d oocurrenoe; tliat ehe saw the defendant* 
"aitv.lBg in front of biu hou9«, and 1 think a couple of 
sMibeTs of ' ;le family v«r€» tlier# Yfith hiK« and a jroung 
Ifkdy sitting th«r««, X tbink she v»» sitting b«tva«A thM^; 
tluit aho th«n »a:v the plaintiff aerosa tht strttet, mnd tho 
latter walked ores tows-xd the defentiant %.i«i wfee» ah« got 
within two te^t of bim, tfeo d«f«ndssnt " JuMpod up and atruok 
liOT and. abe then yelled.** Apparently this wltn<!^e8 vas teeti* 
fying throvti^ an interpreter, and e<»lM queetion area* a« to 
Just what her answer had heea and the interpreter acid* '*li« 
pm^p*A at her, struck, her and knocked her down and she yelled*" 
She then teatififtd that the defendant then klAed the plain- 
tiff and th«ai *all of them who were oiatside th«re raa in the 
store arid oloeed the door ^»d put the lli^te out**; tb&t she, 
the witness* ran aeross the atxeet where the plaintiff was, 
aad when she got there the plaintiff »a huatend arriwed end 
picked her up «md took her ho»e« On erofts-examination this 
tritneae testified that her home ooeupied the seventh lot from 
th© comer; that she first notiecd the pl&latlff when she was 
on the north »ide of 30th atreet. 

On hohalf of the defendant, his daubster testified 
that the hosic of the witness, IIts. ICotwits, was located on 
the fourth lot south fro» the <»mer, and that she liwed on 
«ie seoond floor; that the front of the building was sosie dis- 
tsftoo baA fro« the lot llnaj that the lots betweffin that pr^ 
porty aad mne def <fniant*s property were vacant ^nd that they 
oont.ained some oherry trees and poplar trees aho\'t 18 feet 
ht^f poaelhly 40; the bnoiohes ooaing down to withia four 
feet of the grounds^ She alao testified that the trees located 
in the parkway to the west of her father** store, oast a shadow 

^jrrfr-***^ '!''■" 

* ta.r .'''t;r 


^:^ rtt-^tiiit 

\LmiiiK} sC:? 

n^ bsi& 4i'i.<»Kfiw: 

•=*isv<» ii »llii fcVct »'■«"■;? titid <;r' 

vfjS'i p.i i--<«iJ3.« ft1»*- 

di«gon%lly aoroaa the eldevalk, btcau«« of the eleetrlc 
street lamp* looa.t«d at th« oomer; that this light owtde 
tb« front part of ths stMr« light, and b«glaning on© or 
two f«et south from the oom«i*« It v&s shftdod by the 
tToes. 3hs further testified that at the tlJB0 of the 
allsgod oocurrenoe, she and her mothey and Mr. iftoeske 
were sitting on the ben€^ and her brothex ««$ etandine 
ttosx it( fbAt hey father's store vas olosea at the time 
and that the ll|i^te *cr© out* She testified that about 
9 ••elo<* her father had oose owt from the store and bid 
tlkea all good ni^t and then went inside to go to bed« 
The defendant's store was a one etory ImiXding, and the 
liwlag qtarters of the family wer« at the rear of the 
•tore. This witness testified th&t her father had bid 
thea good night and ^me into the liwlag quarters, half 
an hour 1»«fore the plaintiff appeared, and that so far 
as she lcn9v, he was in bed euad asleep at %he time of the 
nocurrenoe of which the plaintiff oosiplaias. She t^»tl» 
fled that »h$ heyself bad put the lig^ta out in the store, 
a f«w NliKutes )»efore nine o*eloe]c, and h%d thtn go»e out* 
side as she usually did, to get a breath of air before 
retiring; th&t her otiother sad !^rs, Roeslce were sitting 
•n the b«n(^ out on tb«^ sidewalk and th»t she also sat 
donn; that shortly thereafter she notioed the plfflntlff 
appro9.ohing, and she sug;:ested to her mother that they go 
Inside, but Uts. Hoeske said, '*£tay with ate outside vtatil 
she passtse, >ou are on your own property,** whft.reu.pon they 
Tea»ined and kept is i lent *A« sbe paas*d and she ceilled 
seweral nanes*; that "she did net get any answer frwi us, 
and she turned around to see how we were taking it, then 

,'■«}• »rr 

•h« fell and hollered, "Help, ^6lp> mxirder*,- nn^ got frigjit- 
ened and know that aho *as lookiim for troubl«, and we ran 
iA and closed the doo7« ax^ dit"! not pay SAf attention to 
hex*" Thi» wltdftssi furthOT t@fitlfl<3d tha.t the plftlmtlff 
fell to the ftideiralk^ and as 8h« did so her ohln hit th« 
railing; that Bhm did not kmoie wh&t happoa«d aftftr th&t^ 
Iwcause they went right 1»| that sh€s did a©t know where 
Ure. Ro«8ke went* but she thought she went 1io«e« On «ros««* 
•xajniSAtion this wltneest stated that the reason they went 
iaaide the store was th&t they wers afr&id of th© plsiatlff 
ajoid that the r«?«t,8t>ii the)' had z^ot gome ineide when she e&w 
the plaintiff «ipT?re»a0felng was "heoause Mrs, Ho««lc© said we 
were sitting on otit own prov^rtf, and it ^ou.'d be an insult 
to her to Tiin attd Xeawe her floaty ^leaiuse ehe was afraid «f 
her teo*" 

the defendant's eon, Joseph, about 20 years of 
ag«# testified aho-t the phyE-loal surroundings iMaediately 
adjacent to the store, giving the location of the railing 
surrounding the parlcway &ad the trees, ancl M' stated th&t the 
building in «^»loh Mra. Xotwit* lived was fifteen feet baek 
fioM the lot line. He also testified thftt on tht evening 
In question, his mother and sister and llrs* Bossks were nit- 
ting on th^ bench andhe was on the sidewalk^ skipping a rope; 
that his fa the* had gone in about nine ©•cloek and that It 
was twenty or twenty-five minutes later that the plaintiff 
oams along froaa the north and that as she pase-ed the ben^ 
the witness stopped skipping rops^ to get out of her way, 
stsrpping over toward the railing; that thf! plaintiff i»isa«d 
ttee woven about two feet away froa them and called tbesn names. 

'if' .■?..'■' : ' ■)»i' 



t jja 

*. •: .frj.'-itwl 

■►»■) Xati. .1 ; .V i 

'"•OO* tt^«f 


**andl looked aiifcuiuji to 8«« hov tb«y would t8Jc« it» I go««a» 
MXLd as she looked aToimd «h« slipped and fell down cm the 
eldewftlk, and the left Bld^ of her face hit the railing and 
tthe yelled* *Help, help, murdeyS" He testified that he did 
not know Trhi&t »he did theiEn beoauee they trent into the house* 
Be also testified that the west side of the atore &nd the 
▼a«uit lots to the eoath were in a ehcdev east by the trees 
along th«» parkway* Trhich were ia full bliK>ai et this tl«e» 
On eroee-MixeuBinatioa he was asked as to whether he p&ld any 
particular attention *• to where his father was, he said all 
he knew was, his father said he wks going to bed. 

litrs* Eoeske testified thet she lived next door 
to the plaintiff li that rii« was sitting on a benoh outside 
of the def«nriant*s store* with his wife and i3aug^ter on the 
ewenias ia fuestion* and that ths defendant's son* was near 
y»f jtsaiplag a rope; that the d«fen<Sant was not present whea 
tlie plaintiff oaae along* but that IS or 20 nimites prior 
thereto* %t about nine o'clock, he had eoffie out of the store 
sand said he was very tired* aad he Md the® g^d night* and 
tiimed out the lights in the store and that wss the last she 
saw of hiai} that the plaintiff approaohed then frocs the north 
sad as she passed the witnees and her friends aad hmd prooeed* 
•d severe steps beyoad thea* <*she turned and «ade a nasty re- 
mark to se. I didn't aaswer her. 1 thought she ha a. white 
slippers <a aad hi^ heels and her left shoe eawed ia and she 
fell ♦ * • forward and hit the iron rail oa the lawn and struck 
hsr on thi^ shoulder or the. aeolc and when she was lying down she 
hollered 'Help, help* aurdex'*; that she picked hefself up 
aad her husband «aas as she was partly standing aad holding 
oa to the iron rail* and her husband took hold of h«r aad took 


iy: .a 

'?cn* ^X"^^T ^v^'^JV 

r r,-;rf 

b«r to the home of a nelghbey netutbft and that tbe «lta««« 
then proeeeded to her o«i!i heme. Kt8» Ro««kt ftirtlter teatl- 
fi«<& that soaetlraa In Jtm«, prrrlcms to the trial, irhleh vat 
«lMmt two yaftrs after th«i oo<mrreno« in CTve«ti&n» the 
tiff had a oonrersatlon with the tritness, in vt>ioh she told 
the wltn«3« she ought to be aahaned of herself If she teetlfled 
against her, and she aslced the witness if she was g^oing to 
testifir, and the latter st%ted that she h^b going to the 
trial and would tell all she knev| th&t a few days later 
•he oalled the wltnest^ out to th@ fenoe and s&id» "^s» 
l^i«0ke, if you (SO with th«ai« yov> en^t to get kicked; X will 
(!▼• you #100 to stay ho««**; that "after that she t\m ae off 
maA aeeused me sirweral tlmts," saying, "^she would break sjr 
neok*^ On oroB0«»eacaaination thia vritnees testified that when 
the defendant came out of the store about nine o'clock, he 
•aid he had been up sinoe four o'olook and was tired And 
WBM going to bed, and he bid thea good ni#it tittd diaappeared; 
that the store had oeen lighted \sp previous to that tiae, and 
eontinued to be for •ewersl minuter® after the dcfeadant went 
ia| that us the plaintiff approached, sometirae later, the 
defendant's wife saw ber, and said that she was going inside, 
irMereupoa« the witness told her she was sitting in front 
•f her own property and that it would not be niee for her to 
fO away and leave the witness sitting there all alone. At 
this point in her testistony the witness ima aaked if she was 
afraid of the plaintiff and she said she was not, "but It was 
w^ry tmple&Mtnt" • She was aeked if she knew why the defendant* 
vlf* asd ^mf^t9r ran inside and she replied that they were 

afraid the plaintiff woutd E:et them into trouble* 

j.«Ci,' K*v-,i, -.'jfii.': ■ 'i-'im-H 

» - if- 


•j '■'■'■■ 

hit?. «.vv 

■rj if<«ui.« 


The d€ff:ncis.iL% Uidiiiied tbat en tLe sTeclii^ in 
qfueetion he retired at adn© o'clodi r.j5d tiiat the Kiere t^.s 
op«» at that tisie and liglited; Xh&.'i he di<i not e«« Hr«. 
ZeciSii oa that ereaing and I'lsat ieaxB«d thivt ther« h&d been 
SOTO cfHffizo'bloB in front of hid pr6«i;isefs« on th,e foXlovlng 
fi:oxalBg wheo hi« sou uold kiji fe.U»u^« it* Vhe ofily oroBt^ 
«sa»i]Viktion ot this ritri©»s hat! it? «io with hia property » 
a.Bd apparently an effort was a&,d'- by counsel for th.e* 
tiff to ahow th&t he h&4 put wh5*t im hfcd iE lue wifc'e rv&tae 
pT«muB&bly to ceroid any ^luiipeBt tlmt BSight be entered &g&lii8t 
bim in this Q&m^ He testlfltd th&t be h&d traasftrrs<^ hl« 
property to his wife la 1916, which was thsfee y©ar» befcre 
%^e alleged oocaTTeno« on «^hlch t>is aoti^an wiie bae^vi. 

Xsr* rel^uttal, on* Josit McA^jper testified, tltet ehe 
liTed at SOSI i. Kil<3tofcy« aveime aad that ehe p&«s«d th€. def^md- 
?viit»s pysffilsss en the e^5?aing In queetioa* llpoB \>elBg asked 
iftiRt ti»e she ps:S8st^, ahe replied^ '♦I osm&ot s&y - afeout 9:30 - 
X dcn*v reos^&ber just istiiit tiye it vstM"; tlu^t &s she passed she 
spekii to th^ d€f^:iir;&nt*8 daughter; th4it she anw the defeadaat 
therf) asd hie T?lfe and Mrs. Koeake; th&t the defend^^t vaa 
standing ia front ©f hie store t'etircea the d^or and the win* 
fjiof;; that tlia witness and s, f?iend who w©,e with hex, walked 
QTi beyoad the defead^nt'a utoTS and "le ^uet «i-bout got to 
the alley an.-I @h© ^ust passed** It i1oe« aot appear who the 
witti«3« seaat Tby "she" b|rt pr#«vaBal»ly it w%» the plaintiff, 
She thea taitified that w>\ea they got ^ the alley *♦! heatrd 
•imh eerflwalng «id I ttumed o\iidcly *nd ran be-cfit and then 
I «aw U?« ZeB«a pi,ck her up». She farther t<*«tified ttot 
aa atae paaaed the stor« it w&a all lifted vq? and when ehe 






hm.Mk. nftei hearing the ffQTeftming, It w&8 all dark, Oa 
0TO89->«xanl]i&tl€m the witness testified that tbc ynm not 
«ur« vh«n it ««« tltat irti* first talk«d vi^ the d«fenA8j:it*« 
dau<,;ht«r thftt eveiiiBg; tb&t the did net know «ixaLetl]r the 
hova: and did iivot look at the ti£B«« 

«» haY« her* two tntiiroly differ«nt etorits about 
•hat oomirred in front of the dtfendant*® store on the i^TCfnlng 
in Quostlon; on* glren hy tht plaintiff and her witnesses «nd 

ths other giwen by tb« dcfendfant and his ritnes; «ra. It is 
diffiouXt* If not iaposaitols to understand ho* th« wltneas. 
Krs. Sotwits, oould possibly hmrm ssan all sht tsstified to» 
as it would s«<?-« froiB the tft«tl«ony in th« record that the 
plaos whSTO th« plaintiff fell to the eldewstlk, or w-^s 
knook«d down sts afee olaias, by the defendant, mist have been 
outside of tb® range of Yialon of this witness. Certainly 
the witness oouid bave 1»s«n la no position to testify as she 
§iA^ that at the tims in <|uestion the door of the deft^ndant's 
store was open* There are other siinor inconsisteneies in the 
testimony of the plaintiff *s witnesses. 

%ai%e apart from any inoonsisteneles that may h&we 
been in t3ie testimony given by either side, the witnesses all 
appeared before the Jury and told their totally different 

stories of what ocowrred. The J^xry bad every ©ppr^rtunity 
to observe these f?itnesseo on ths; stsind @&d ooate to a conclusion 
as to their bias or laok of bias; their respective opportunities 
for seeing what thej- elaimed to have s«en» snd esi^eoially valu- 
able w&a the op?>oTtunity the Jury had of seeing the plaintiff 

and the defendant as they told their stories. If such an un(» 



s^ Iv;?© 

^!* ■■ , ;«'r ■*^'^0.n"3? 


provoked ussault^ an th« plaintiff desorlbcd, took pl»e«f 
the def»Kui^nt noat Kave poeseaeed tb<» »oTt 9t a eharaoter 
and nattiT© which would b« «itber dAfflcult to hide from 
the soTutlnixing gft«e of tbe jury. In otber vords« a 
man of the oharaoter vho vould make stioh a Tlclotis aad 
yaoallod for aooaralt upon a wos&ii« vo\2ld« in ovr oplaioa^ 
toTO a xathor difficult tlrciO taking tlte witness stand and . 
fooling twelve jurors into bellerlBg that hff was la bed 
«ad a*lei^ at tbe tl»e. Tbe jury bavlng fo\md, after list* 
eaiag to Me testlaoay, as veil as tbe plaintiff *&« and 
to th$ testiaoay of tbe other witnesees, that be was 1b bed» 
ve are of the opinioli that be arust have ntade eueb an latpreii* 
sloa on tbe jury as to ocmvlaoe %h®m he was not the tfp$ 
of aan to deliberately kxu}^ a woman down &wi them prooeed 
to klo^ ber about. Oertalaly^ from a readlzsii; of tbe testi* 
mmf In tbe record. It would toe iajpoealble for thie cotirt 
to say that the verdlot of the Jury was eo&trary to the »3nl« 
feet weight of the evldmoe, and, therefore* we would aot be 
justified in disturbing it« 

For the reasons stated, th© judgseent of tbe Cl»» 
suit Court is affirmed. 





....... ,.^ » A. .. -.-.^ #50» f?*;^-* .?»«»e»*MS<*«Fr -'^--■^ •**«» S?'.je- -''^-.' :T(l[f# 


.■<; mriSf 

\Uli:^'i% .: :iiiyi^ ^'ii^i--i9" 



**■.£< •• if»<»CBS'' ' «&«*«#«« ftfl-ft<»J 


339 - 38174 

P. H. R££0, «t al« 



hismt r« wn^mm. 






opinion filed Feb. 20, 1924c 

MH. JUSTICE TH0I4S0S dcXlTcred th« oplaioa of 

til* court* 

By thift ap^M^al the defendimt s««k» to rrr*r«« a 
^gttcnt for $1500«QO« reoovered in the Municipal Court of 
<&leage by the plaintiffs* The latter feroug^t axiit agmlnst 
th« defead^ant* alleging that h« owed thte I1500.00 as a oo»» 
•isoioa« wMob they alleged be had promlaed to pay in oaae 
the plaintiffs terouglit aboiit tfee sale of the Valkyrie Hotel, 
in the city of Chioa^« of which tb# defendant im@ th«? owner 
and proprietor, the plalntiffe alleged that after baving 
«a-ie the a^gxeement reff^rred to, with the defendant, they 
pro©ur«?d a k?r«. Ourry, who w»» r«*ady, able and billing to 
buy the property, on the defendant *« terse, but that the 
def'sniant refused to earry out the eale* The la:mes were 
autaaltted to a jtiry reenltiag in a verdiet for the plalstiffa» 
finding their danagea at the asiount elftlmed* 

The plaintiff. Reed, testified that Ija March 1918, 
the defendant gave hi* all the details IttTOlTcd in hie hotel 

property, ao that they ai^t ^e suhaiitted to proepectiire pur- 
dhaeera; that fr«« time to tiae thereafter the plaintiffs 

i,V iiii> « i^^?: 

••^Sei jOS .dg-'I balri noiiriqO 

'■j.'fj .t ■? W ;1 * ^? it * 

Mt .t-«:-^ 




;' -Ci tviq 

'ft.U^ic^- aelj TCvj^'te-:-* -'•:»r;T */fi: 


••nt p«opl« to look at th« hotel a&d at diff^^ritTit tlaes Xh% 
-TTltnesa diftousaed these people vltk the defenciant* Be further 
teetlfled that the deal 1a (lueetlon InTolTed the eale of the 
furniture of the hotel, on i?bioh the defendant put a prloe 
•f |149000« and eubsequently Inoreaaed It to |15»000, aet to 
hlHii and It alao Unrolved a ten year lease on the hotel pro* 
party, at a rental of IS&O.OO a noatli* In October 1919, the 
plaintiffs procured Mre^ C^urry as a prospeotive purchaser and 
at their request she went olit to look the property over* On 
this Tiait to the hotel she saw the def<^ndant, vho showed 
ker about. R»«d testified that Mrs, Gurry retunied to his 
offioe aad made an offer which was less than that irhiob the 
defead&at had aaaed, aad he submitted the figure to the d«f end-> 
amt, ^t the latter refused it, saying that, he would not take 
less than $15,000»CX} net o&sh to hist on the ftumiture and a 
Isass for ten years at |550*00 a ^onth. Apparently ne^tlations 
were o&rried on with ilr*, Curry for several days, following 
her wisit to the hotel. Reed testified that at or about the 
titto Mrs, Ourry looked the property ower, he got aoaie further 
data froai the defendant, saying that he wanted the Info rsAt ion 
so he oould draw a oontraot which he would try to hare Kr». 
Curry sign, and alao that he would endeavor to e:et her to 
ttake a deposit, the next day Hrs. Ourry oalled at the offioe 
of the plaintiffs, and she was told by Heed that the best pro- 
position they <K»uld sake was one involving a «M»«id«Tstion of 
|16«500,00, for the hotel furnishings, of which she would have 
to pay |13t600, Reedl Miying that he woiild put up the difference 
and take a mortgaigs 1» secure hisself . They finally cloeed the 
deal on that basis and drew up the oontraot, which Hr«. furry 
signed, aiaklng a dei^oait of #1,000, The laintiffs executed 

^^''J; .<!>*, ^ f* j'. fyi'j 


"^.^J'* ,"?: 

^TO'wfMf ,• 



«^^ ??'ff'S ^fS*'.'^* 

'B ^rf^ 








tk« oontraot in \»«)uilf of the di«f«n<iHnt« 

Th« e¥ld^*no« »h&w9 that on the follcwlng Momdajr 
aomlng the defendant oetllad n-p Uar. He«<l and a«.dUi *&»§ In- 
ciulxy about t])« luROunt 9f mmm4msii«ni)^ they «r«r« Qb&rglngf a»,p» 
liBig that li0 understood it wovld b« flirii p«r o«nt «mii not 
tlSCK3«00» Reed teattfied tbat tbe defendant had agreed that 
tktt pl&ijAtltfs were to have^i ae their e<mnl3®ion» ^HmtrreY 
a^cmsat th«y wftTu »ble to seeux* from a pwxchaeer* ab«we 
fl8»000,00« lie further testified tfeat he explained tbe elt* 
tflitio» to the defendaat dutlag the t«Xep!io»« oonTerete^tlon 
sfeoTs referT«d to, and that the <5.ef®m<'.,!mt staid that *lt tmc 
ah3.-3lutel; eatiafwototy to hi®.* Mr«. Qnrty h^k^ left eeveTstl 
referenoee wit?^ the plaiatiffs, fr©is who« the letter aade In- 
quiry, and tht» rep^len to these iaquiTlee In irrltimg* were 
tmken out to the defendant, afjeording t© t>i<p teetlmony ©f 
lUNid* and the def^indant mm e»tlsfi«(3 with thea ttn<5 eaid th^y 
were fine* shortly thereafter the def^ndaut told the platin- 
tlffe that if he wa« to g©- ahi«d and ©oasplete tit® di&fel lie 
would have ta have #600 .C^ a asonth rent ae he imderet^JOd the 
taxee wei* goinc ** '^ hl^iher. the rlaintiffe e.yplmined tbat 
the deal had heen eloeed &n a ¥a«ls of |l^50»00 a oionth ^md that 
the eontiact oould not he ehanged* Defendant theretipon reftteed 
to o^rry out the oontmot on th£t hasls Ineietiag on ^(00*00 
a month, on aoooimt of the Inoreaee In taxee, anil h& also »»-id 
his vlfe lid not ant to give op her ho«e« The defendant and 
his rife oeceupied an apartment in the hotel* 

On oroae^exarainatioB Heed testified that during the 
negotlatlona with Kre, Ourry, he told the defendant that ehe 
would probably not be able to pay all o&eh and that he. Heed* 

•■'jr ! ■-• vfl 


-'-* ^?^1e^-.^V^.V: 'SM -; ...V,..-..- . ^ .,,^ 


would parotoatoly !»▼« to advitno* some mon«y Bnd mrrf a 
»ort|;a£«f whloh tlie defen«!aat »ald would Iw fell rlj^it, 

UTS . Onrry te8tlfi«4, 1b eoriroboipatloii of the 
testimony given by Reed, stating that th« defendant and 
hl» ^Ift showed h«r c»Ter the hot«l ©n th« oecft«ion ©f her 
TlBlt thfr«, tmd the defendant explained the condition* 
of the deal, telling be* that the rental was to he #560,00 
p»r month* and a tm year lease with the priwllege of an 
•xtension of five y6«,.ira. El^© further testified that ehe 
was willing and ready to m.rtf out the coatrset which she 
entered into; that she Iwid about |18»OC>Q.OO In oaoh in the 
^ank but thi»-t ehe did not wa-nt to nm It all, by paying 
the full oontraot price in cash, ao she wished to retain 
•o««' money a« working ©apital* Bh© testified ahe w»» 
worth approxiaately |37,600,00 at th« tiaae ahe made the 
contraot# . 

fhe defendant te«tified(by deposition) that in 
October 1919, h« told Heed that he would sell hie hot«l, 
if ho seoured »9 tenant that was oatisfactory to hiiaj that 
hia tenai were |i5,00C not to hin for the furniture, and 
a ten year leaae at a rental of #550.00 a aontfe %n6 that 
if a tenant eould be procured on fehoee ter»«, who was satie- 
faotory to hi«» he wo^ Id mke a lease. Be testified that 
after this oonweraation Peed sent Mrs. Curry and her hus- 
band to the hotel to look it over, bat that he did aot leaee 
the property to them beoauae they w?'re aot aatisfaotory t© 
hia. The defendant further testified that Mrs. Curry after* 
ward* oaae out to the hotel alone and stated that she and 
her husband ^re hawing so^e trotible about aoney Katt«W 


» t 

*«.*:»^C' «««■<■>. ;jt' 

trie f, .*■> f >' * '-■'•■^ *'>.; H»* ,,•.!.'';*«. 4 V «•■» J" -tf ft r '..•-t4,,» .1 fl-.' 

■■■/....■- .-v*.' ■ r9f,>n f^J•jsf<5"4' fl^ fa»l» ^»«IS itj"^*- 


•Md th&t b« had vith)d»nm froK tli« d«al; tlk&t R«ed <»&llttd 

tap and he told hlat that h« did not c%r« to lftaa« the pto» 
p«Tty to Mr«. Oiirry alone. He teistlfled that Mr. and Urs. 
Oarxy w-r« satisfactory to hia h& tflinants» out that b« would 
not rsat to a woman alone. Ko isilao testified that f^eed 
want<?d to hare a mortgags on the poreonal property and he 
refused to agree to that. The defendant denied telling 
Reed that the plaintiffs* ooaMiasion vaa to be any aaiount 
they «l^t procure froa a pmr chaser, over #X5,000» He also 
denied telling Reed that he wot Id not rent to Mrs. Ourry «t 
ISSO.OO tout »ould rent It for 1600. OOj that he refused to 
«&k« t^ Ami nth the 0urrys l»«oause he iound that Mr. 
Curry tiad wltMrawA frosa the deal on acoeunt of flnanolal 
troxiible. There were no witnesses for the defen^tant other 
than the defeadsnt hiaself . 

lliile testifying on the dlreet case, Mrs. Curry 
stated on oros8<»exas«ireatlon that hmr husbtnd m^n not plalN> 
nlng to go into 1*ls deal with ht»| that there werft no flai* 
anolal diffleulties In wl^ioli either she or her hushand t?ere 
lavolTedj that there was no diaagressient with refereno© to 
the pur(^hase of the furniture and lease of the hotel; that 
on the oocaslon of hef Tlsit to tl:e hotel the defendant seen* 
ed perfectly satisfied with her as a tenant and did not state 
that he did not wish to rent to a mtraan alone. Mrs. Ourry 
wae also sailed Ir; rebuttal and testified again ahoiit the 
defendant showing her ower the hotel and introdueiag her to 
different tenants. 3he again testified that on this oocaslon 
the defendant said he was perfectly satisfied «rith her} and 
told her about ad Itltsnal eharges to he aade, for eoal» linen, 
and soa© books, and also about the feature of the prospeotlve 
deal, whloh InvolTod an ejctsnglon of flTS years beyond the 

£;'!>i«»?«r9 ^im ^ *ne$ im-ttit^mi uim»^'^^*^' ^^9si^mi tm^4kttth 


.»/' , 

;. ..,,. ,. •., ■-■.:^^,^-^ 

.^r?^ ' 

■V -*|^ 


■S*S^. ■■..,, ^^jj^ .^, 

11 : -^i-. -.A-- ivJiC.iJ 

■■■'■■ '■'''' ''•• ff>i:«infi 

* ?•». 

< T' i,,!:;- u< - 

' > ; V. 

■•• iititir *■■ 

tem of ten years. Reed was also oetlled la rebuttal, end 
testified th&t no one bad ever mentioned any financial 
trouble bstwsen ifr, and Mrst Ourry; that he li«(.d elglit or 
ten oanTsreations with the defendant and tbe latter ne^er 
said or even Intlnated tliat Mrs, Ourry was not satiefaoto/y; 
tl»t after the oontraot with its. Owrry was exseuted and 
she made her deposit of 11,000,00, he turned one copy of 
the QoatTsot orer to her and took two other ooplee out to 
the d«f snddant; that the defendant looked over one of ths«i 
while the witness read the other aloud, and that the defend* 
ant said It was satiifaetory. Me furthe* testified that 
at the time the defen^^ant ptTe hla the da.ta, tc use In 
drawing: up the ooatract, he wtthorised the witness to ac- 
cept a deposit* Vb» o©ntraot as It was exeeuted by ?.:ts. 
Ourry oalled for a consideration of |16,S00, of whlc^ 
tl3,S00 w^as to be paid in eash, and the balance of |3,000 
in laonthly payaents, to be secured by a chattel mort^gs* 
4tftsr the contract was exseuted and when Reed submitted it to 
the defftn^lant, he testified that he told the defen«lsnt that 
hs, pcrsonKLlly was <mrrying th© asortgage, and that in the 
event of a foreolosuxe, he would want t,o transfer the leaee 
to one Ida H» Stebbins, ^nd that the defendant said that would 
be all rij^t as he knew Mrs. fitebbins as .^ woaan in the hotel 
business in whom he had aonfidsnoe. 

The plaintiffs offered on© Moran as a witness, by 
who* they offered to show that the dsfenA^nt had subsequently 
executed a lease of the hotel on a basis of a monthly rental 
of 1800.00, Objection was sustained to this testiuony, howerer, 
and it v-^& act admitted* 



Jt»^- .'V. ^^aidcJ©:; ««f 

vijp|>« tea V 

In support of bis &pp«ftl the dsfeni^int ooat«nds 
tlMtt he nftS justified in rafusing to Isass Ms hotsl to 
Mrs. Quxtj, l>«oftus«« uader Ms agr««««iiit vlth the plaintiffs 
hs *fi« to b« the aol» judgss of whethoT any prospeotiv® ten» 
ant aad purchaser of the hotel propsrtjr »»» SAtisfctotor^r to 
him, and ^rs* Oirrjr ims not, -fht testlaoay «« to ths l«tt«r 
point la flsitly ooatrftdl,0t«4 by both R^ed and wrs. Cuny. 
If the jury bolisire'l their t^stisaany, and there l« nothing 
la th« recsord to IndK^ite why tfeoy shou^'d not do so, they 
wero entirely Justified In oonoludiag that Mrs. C^xpy waa 
satisfactory to the defen^lant, bnt that t'he roaUL r««.»on vhy 
h« oonoluded not to oarry out. th« deal with her, w».9 th*t 
bs had foimd out h« was going to have «©»« laoT«ase In his 
taxes and, thereforSg h# wiant#d a hlghor rental. Tb« d«» 
fendant further apimrently oont«iM3s that the plaintiffs 
failed to make out that they had proeured a porohaser who 
w&s 7«ady, willing and eOile to oloee the deal for the hotel, 
at the d#feftd»nt»B teraBS. In ous oplalon, the ^rldenoei, the 
sufeatsnee of wbloh we hare set forth above, wotild wmrr&at 
the jury in believing the o<mtra»y. It is also eeatended 
that the authority from the df? fendant to the plaintiffs was 
to sell the furniture for eash, i*tlle the eontrsct they o©i^ 
eluded with Mrs. Garry *^s fe^r p*tt «at»h sjaui a ofeattel s»or^ 
gagt t«r iseoure the balanoe. The erldeaoe Ik our opinion. Is 
sufficient to show, and to warrant the ^ury In helleYlng, 
that the terme put upon th^ deal by the defendsmt werf' th«t 
he was to reoelwe #1S,000 net. In ©ash for the furniture, and 
the plaintiffs wexe to reoelve whatever they could get over 
that amount* as their ooMrolssloa. Re d testified that h» told 
the defeniant, la dlaeu«?8lng t ' © prospeetlve deal ^it^ Mra. 


V 1 i v .\ w . 

.. -I J. ^ 1 - ..* 

v'T jjp!:'^' 





Ourry* that if she oonid not pat up enou^ money 00 that tbe 
d«fendA2it vouXd gtt flB^OOO net objA, he would (td-vtiiiee the 
aaoimt iieo«99ary to laalce that p*.y«ent to the d«f<?BA%nt, nnd 
«»uld s9oure hJLaweXf by a €^atttl ;»OTtgftg«» and that the diet* 
ftndAat said that the arraagtwaient w&s satiBfaotoiry. He further 
t««tifled that after be had o^acluded the ©ontimot *?lth My©, 
Cfarry and wh«n he talked it over trith the defsmlant he erplaiaed 
to the latter that in advatnoing tbe meaey »eo®sas.ry to tmke a 
paymeat of ?|15,000, to the ^fffodaat, he» Re^d* wae a©t getting 
aay eaeh out of the d&tkl as he i!?8,» carry lag the sort gage, and. 
he th@n aaked the defendstat whether h» would eons«iat to the 
tranefer of the l^aae to Mts. Stehbtas, if th#r<? 8ho«l«5 bo & 
foreole«iiro» and he replied., "ceTtaialy, we kno^m her a 
]p>od many yeaxe; we wd-*jld ■&« protected lia every way," 

Vo aT« usable to say that in ooaoluding th*t the 
defendant had authorised the sailing of euoh temaa ae were in* 
eluded in this oontretet, the ;)ury decided the issues ag^inot 
the naalfeet woight of the eTidenoe* 

'-■•''".'■''' The ;. defendant ooi^lldna of the offer of the plain- 
tiffs to proTO by the witness ll02%n that the defendant had 
Xsftsed his hotel property on a basis of #600*00 a months 
the oosplaxnt being that althou^ the oourt euetained the 
defendant's objjeetion, the daoage was^ nerertheless^ daas« 
beoauss the jury heard the statement of oounsel for tthe 
plaintiffs as to ehat he offered to prows by thie wltoess. 
In our opinion, tbe evldtnoe wr.g oofflpetPat and should h«Te been 
admitted, as tending to corroborate the testiiaiony of Reed to 
the effect that when the defendant refused to go on «ith the 
deal wl^ Mrs* Ol^rry he gsws as his reason that he wanted 



liOOfOO A ailith rent and %1«9 that hie vlf« did not w«nt 
to glTtt 13^ h«7 boM« s^nd that lie «& d at the tim that h« 
eould gtt |600«00 a nonth. 

W« fiad 3a© error Ik th** record aad, tb«refor«, 
the iudfi«3ient of the Municipal Court 1» a^fflrmed. 

TAILOR, P^J* aad O'SOEtOH,, J, 0OliOIJ% 




348 - 39189 

Appall e« 



miizmnitim or aji^rioa, an 
Onlaoorpor&tttdl Interlnmirftnoe 

COOK conm. 

1- « ' "■ ■' 

Opinion filed feb, 20, 1924<, 


Mft. JOSTIOJ TROiSSOB delivertfd th« opittion of 
the oo\xrt« 

The plaintiff ^iotorsian brought this aotiaa 
ftj^last the defendnnta, ae<^kiag to recoTer the value of Ms 
&ut9aobll9 whloh had been 9tol«n. ?hfi aotloa w»s based on 
a poXioy of iiusurfiiftoe l«?.iaed by tfe« def«Maats to the plefctt- 
tiff, ooverlBg los« of the autojaobil.® by tfeeft. Tb© d<?f radi- 
ants f4il»d to file tbeir Rpp«ar«'iio« by reason of which they 
were defaulted. In due tiise tiae »&tt«r wms sisbwiitted to a 
J«ry, reaultiag in a rerdiot aa<S 3«d|pa®nt for the plaintiff 
In thTS SIM of t3,0G0, ThdTmftBT, on motion of tho defend- 
ants, tb« ^wi^snt was vaoated and tteft defendants Trcre given 
loaire to pl«ad« At the tlai© thi» vaa done the parliloa eatftT<i!td 
iato a ert^.^lfttlon to tb© «fffJot thftt# *1^« Jtidg»«nt being 
"▼s-oated, th« defent'^aats were to b« peirmltted to eentest only 
th« T&lue of the property l»iroiT#d, snd also to ii^terpose the 
defense thut the property wae lost or stolen irith the kno^ledgt 
and eonnlYanoe of the plaintiff. The deftndteJits inter poaed 
appropriate pleas, pursuant to the teryss of t p stipulation, and 
on the Issues thus tedde up th'-re was a hessriag and a verdlet 

,.:^Ser ,0S ,(iQV^ tQin noInigO 

mr^^z «. fi^z 


^!^ sfe. 





f«r the plaintiff « and lilt dftmitg«« »«r« Mi8«i««d At the 
tnm of |3l749*59* Ob thsit rerdlet Jud0a«nt was duly entered 
for %h« plaintiff, to rererot «hlah the '^foadaato havo 
pyooooutOfS this appiMkl. 

In saupport of tfoelr Ris-poal, thts d«f»Bdant« contend 
that the deelartttion fails to state « c«us« of action, in thot 
it fails tt> state uriiat the defan^^^antw proiaised, . in and by the 
policy of insuraaoe declared on. The declaration did not. set 
the policy forth ir> b&ec v»3g1»&. nor did it state the subetanoe 
•f the policy, k oopy of the policy is attached to the declara- 
tion and it i» stated that the defendatita had proa Is ed the 
plaintiff, in the teraa of eaild policy, "as will m^xB fully 
appear from said poliey vfhm& produced in oourt and a true 
and oorreet oopy of the aane vfiioh la hereto annexed e.nd 
flourked "Exhibit A" aM iaoomorated with and made a part of 
this deolaration** A oopy of & writing upon which a suit 
is brought, la no part of a deelaratloa* p^yy ▼• aoar^> 374 
111. 333, Howeweir, the defendiate are not in a po@itioa t» 
auUtc any auoh oontentioa in thie oase* When they subaiitted 
their motion la the trial oourt, to Taeate the judgment whioli 
Ittd bees entered by default, they subsitteA an affidavit to 
the effect that a suit had been brou#t ag&in«t then '*on aa 
iaauraaee poliey ienued by the defendants to the t>laintlff, 
iasruriag plaiatiff against loss of hie autostobile by theft.* 
When the default judgaemt was vacated, the def «ftnd«.nts stipulated 
that they were to cKanteat not the ineufflcienoy of the pl*a*» 
Inga but aerely the value of the automobile %^d the Queetloa 
of whether It had really been stolen aa the plaintiff contended. 
Furtheraore* ia «i,e pXeae filed by the defcadanto after the 


♦i:-^>*^iy ,»■£■> 


ift«fault jud^Btnt b&d been 8«t a.»ld«« the defendants pleaded 
^that the plaintiff ou^t not to bare his aforesaid aotion 
against thea beoause they say tbat ia and by said polloy 
of Insuranoe it is proTldsd that t&e defendants shall 9^j 
1>s liabls to the extent of the Talue of the property insured 
thereby, at ths tii» of loss*" the defenaanta «ay not mm 
¥• heard to isay that the deolarati^i failed to properly 
plead the s^ibstasoe of the oontraot of insurance, l»oth be- 
sauss they ^ &ived any defects th^re isay haTS been in the 
pleadings by their stipulation (ihitehoua^^ ▼. plated. 90 111, 
9S) and bsoauss, by the pleas filed, the defendants thenselTSS 
supplied the eubetanoe of the contract eued tipsn. f^ubens ▼• 
Hill. 31S 111. 523). 

the defffndants further urge that the verdict 
Itod ^ud^ent arc contn&ry to the evidence, in that no policy 
©f insuranoe as described in the declaration was introduced 
in evidence, fhe declaration slleged that the defendants 
had executed and delivered their policy of insurance to the 
plaintiff "heretofore, to ^t: ©n the 13th day of cotober, 
A. Q. 1931," and that the autoaioblle Insured had been stolen 
on September 27, 1931. The policy of insurance introduced 
in evidence by the plaintiff was dated Octobs* 13, 1320, and 
covered the period from that iats to September 30, 1921. 
f|M& this polioy was off «;red in evidence no point of variance 
sas «»d8 by counsel for the defendants, but, on the con«r3»ry» 
hs stated that there was no &^|eetion to the offering of the 
policy in evidence. In that state of the record, the defend* 
eats uety not now argue ths point, «nd they say not do so for the 
further reason that no such defense is included by the defend* 
ants in the atipulati<m above referred to. 


^ ,1 a:jr-. ',. 

/it t^OJiff^l^ 



.. ".i .1? ,f 

ftlo .'■■■ 

.. ■ jO^ T^fr'' ■"-'■' ^£jdi JBOi.v . '-^-fy-r-Vi^ 


flaaXIy, the d^fenctants contend that the atRownt 
of the judgm«&t ap)p<Ma«d froa is e3ro«B"iT«, aii(1 eontmtry 
to the w»ig?it of the rrldence, as to the t&Iuk of plalA* 
tiff » a autoaoMl«« at the time it wa* stolen. Shortly 
bofore th« plaintiff lost his a\ttot»obll«« and In eontempla* 
tlon of the «arly expiration of the polloy undar vhloh this 
suit was Drought, the plaintiff bad procured another polloy-g 
from th« sstme defendants, 00Y«ring a period Iwglnnlng at 

th« time of the exflratloa of the first polloy* By the 

te»BS of the poliojytaJfesn out, tb© autoiaobile w©i Inaured 

for theft up to the extent of tl,500« In the polloy sued on« 
it was Insured for theft up to |33O0«0C« In both pollelea 
the cost of the auto»obile t© the plaintiff was given as 
|S500,00« In the poXloy sued on its "present ▼Elue*' was 
given as i|S500«00 and in the nmi po: ley tai^en mtt Just prior 
to the theft, nothing was stated as to its present value. 
Witnesses for the plaintiff, who, from their testiatosy, were 
well qualified to testify on ths subjeot of values, stistted that 
in their opinion such a oar as th® plaintiff had lost would 
hAve a value of |S«CK>0,00, On the other hstnd, one witness 
for the defendants said he thought its fair csaeh value would 
bo |900%00; another said it would be fre»B $7&0*00 to 1950.00$ 
and another put it at |650«00» The ooupany which i&anufaotured 
the car 1ft question had dlseontinued the model but were ®an«- 
faoturlag a»dther, t^hlch one witness desoribed as ^praotioally 
the aaoe oar, only different else body, sme taotor* re&x axel 
and eon^truotion all the way througjh.** It Tma sealing for 
I298&.00. fhls w (8 in 1931 and the plaintiff 'is oar was a 1319 
aodel* The plaintiff's ear was a Haynes touring c®.r. It con- 
tained five wire wheels with Q4««ond Ctord tires, the fotsr 
tiros la tts« on the plaintiff's ear when it was stolen bad b«< 

..■■... -.VA ...... „.^.._.,^Jj,^ 


Tua about 4CK)0 miX*«* It &i>pcit¥« from t>^« testiatoay of oa« 
of tbe plaintiff's vitn«8a>«s« wbo imn a w«>ohi.]ii8t and auto-* 
iMbllo Tftpairoy of »oa« twenty yeaTo's Kxporienoo^ that ho 
had overhauled the plaintiff* a oav, which w^^e of the eeYen 
paoeoagoT* fix eylinder type* in April 1931« and that at that 
time** the oaglBe* me<^anU«i and Qhaesie vere all in @ood ooftt- 

While the Tordiet ®nd judgnent appealed from would 
see« to l9e Illpe7&l« ire are not in a position to e&y, fro|i all 
the erideno® in the record^ on the ia^^ue of daasagee* that they 
ave ezoesaiTe. 

y^T the foregoing roaeone the jtid^eent of the Cireuit 
Court ie aff irned. 


'■■» «un: 

3S0 - a8X9S 

OSORCK J. HAMBSB, doing bu«i]ie«0 ) 

oKmax s. i^sMx, 

A5>pellant.^ Q O T ^^ 

Opinion filed Feb. 30, 1924, 

tli« ijoiftrt* 

Bjr thia appeal the def<mdan.t setks to reverfte 
% |iidgn«ii% f©i $19i5,00, r«0overe<? agslast him by tfc« 
plaintiff « HabereXf in tbfi ^rvmioipaJl C!©urt of Cbioago. 
fh» aotion ima hrou^% against %h» defend^ict by th® plali^ 
tiff to reooT«r $X5OCi00 i^iob he oIaiai«d h« nms entltltd 
to as a ooaatlsaioiiL on the aale of a plaoe of property for 
the clfffafidunt* rhe i»!}u©« ir«r« dmbmittsd to the court 
without a jury* Th« eoxjrt found theissties for th« plaintiff 
and* in aasftsslng d&magoa* inoluded inteTsat on the &«ount oX&la- 
•d« vmd&T the ».lX«gRtion in th« plaintiff's a«teiaded ^t&teieient 
of olaioif to th« effect that there had b««n unreaconablt sadl 
vexatiotts ddlay* on the part of the defendant,^ In tho nattox 
of the payaifint of hit aeoount* 

fho period of the astute of il itRtlona o^ thin 
olalB «3:pirod shortly after plaintiff be^n thl» action* The 
plaintiff's first 8tat«m<mt of olo^im wa« basod on the sale of 

a CMnrtaia place of prop^^rty, which h'*»d belonged to the defend** 
ant, to a party «bo wbs naaed *Hisch", in the stateaent of 






elAlM^ but It d«T«lo|M»d, In the taking of th<% testinony* 
that tbs name ©f the party In question was *litleeb*. There- 
upon* over defendant** objeetion* leave w%e glYen to the 
appellant to amend his stateaient of elaia on ite faoe* 
fhe point wn« then* ^d is nov made that the eteteoient of 
elelK, ae eo aawoded* set up a new enuse of action and wae 
etitoject to the plea of the Statute of Limltatlane, whioh the 
defendant autoeQiumtXy filed. In our opinion* there is no 
M^lt to thRt oontentlon* ^ - • 

The def»nci&at further oontende that the original 
etatdment of elaitt did n<»t eet forth a eause of motion* la 
that It did not inolude allegations^ as to o«rt»ln faets 
essential to a oause of aetion hased cm a ela^lis for real 
estate ooisnaisslons* resulting fron a sale of the defendant's 
property by the plaintiff « as a real tetste agent. An 
assnded statcnent of olain, ^Ich use filed by the plaintiff 
in the eeurss of the trial* Inoluded these allei^tio!U» whioh 
the defendwat cwintends irere a necessary part of the origiisal 
statement of olalm^ in ord«(7 to have it set forth a good 
assise of action* The defen<lant pleaded the Statute of Llmi* 
tatlons to the amended statwaent of olaia and oontenda that 
the trial oourt errs!'? in not eustainiaf it* In our Opinion* 
it «ay not be said ^biat the original statement of elai« was 
bftssd <m an «xprees agreement* irhile the amended statement 
of olaia is on the theory of <!Hf^twat meruit. Both statsvents 
of claiB are oleariy ImscMi on the latter theory* In the affi* 
darit of »erit8 Interposed by tha aeffindajitD ta the original 
statmaent of ol«in* as well as In tSie sdrtidarlt vhlch he inter* 

pOMtS to the amended statement of oM n* t|M» defendant nads 
direst denial of the existenee of those eleatcnte ixhloh he now 


fey- ft :i'::a'-i\ 


'vr "irf?- 


^a <Nf ,ij 

claiiwi tlt« plaintiff ahould hav« Iftclude* in hl» original 
•tftt9a«nt of elftlA, aad for %he l«ak of wl>ieh, ttoe d^feniant 
now contend* tb© orlgliial »tftt«a«nt of claim wae dcftctlvo, 
Ivta if it b« ftstWMd that the plaintiff* » original gt&teaent 
of claia was defeotiro, for m.nt of »<me ewa^ntl^l allega- 
tions (a question which wo do laot Th^t^ dftoldo) the defend* 
aat wmf noli file an affiiaTlt of «fTite, Isaeing hlo defenec 
ap«oifioall|r ypon an expreas denial of the very element*, 
whioBt the plulntlff aaiy Mre failed to allege, and proofed 
to trial of tiie eaee on its merita« on th# iesuee tbus joined, 
and thereafto* be heard to contend that tlj® plaintiff** original 
etatenent of oJaim did not set up a (m^use of motion. Lrons 
▼• MMii^£j» ^3® ^^^« '^« 

tm o%ir ooialoft, after a defendant, ^y «n affidavit 
of ttoriten has thus joined immna on tl^t; original statement of 
olai«, if ttie plaintiff* after the period of tfee Statute of 
Liaii1»ition8 has r\m, filee an anended atatesient of ola.i»^ 
■akll^^ essential speolfio allegations of f%ct» which were 
vantlng la bis original etateisfmt of olai«« % plea of the 
etAtute of liaitatlons lAterposed hy tOiie defendant* to the 
aoMfndsd etatiment of elain» ehoijild not he euatftined** the 
defendant in his original affidavit of aerite* baring denied 
the exietenoe of the faeta wbioh« in support of his plm of 
the Statute of l>ifflitations, he contends th$ plaintiff failed 
to allege in his original stateaent of olain, thus staking 
the latter defective. 

In other words, assisaing the plaintiff omits what 
■ay be held to be ssfisntial elements of a statement of a e?»ed 
causs of aotion, the defcnritant m&y not join isitue on such a 
pleading of the plaintiff's Hid dsny the elemfntssot epeeifioally 


.r.iari?5-i :••?■ 



allttged by the pl&intiff ^ approprlatt allegfttions In his 
pl«adiag» and latex aueeeffsfully plead the statute of lij&it* 
atlcms to an a«eixd«d pleading fileA by the i»laiatiff after 
the period of the Statute hae nm^ in whieli aaModed pleadiAg* 
the plaintiff inoludee the eTements i» Queetion, 

I» the trial of %he ca«© at har, after both eidee 
bad olo««d their proofe, the def»ia«?aat cade the polfit that 
im ehoviBg had been aKi,c?e as to the umxal and euetooary oom* 
mleaidsi, in th« City of (Baieago* on euoh salee as the oa« 
inrolved, and the trial court peraitted the plaintiff to re» 
open hie oaee and Bul»it eueh proof* Such a ooure« v^a irlth* 
ia the eound dleeretion of th© eourt» and. In our opinion, 
H fias properly exeroieed, to pessait the plaintiff to »ub» 
sit the proof ia ^ueetion* Moreover, it is our opinion th£t 
tbe eTldenoe t'hlch w^s submitted «aa euffielent to eho^ not 
merely that the Chi cage lUMkl Sstate Board vate of oow&ieeioa 
on suoh sales vas 8|^» as the defendant ooat«nde« but that 
mtili mis the usual and ouetoMkry rste ohaJFgsd by real estate 
brokers in Ohioags, vttli^ inae the proof neoeseary to \mJt« 
out the plaintiff's case, Xd ordǤr to sake out hie ease, it 
mi.s inmai^nt upon the plaintiff to introduoe eTldenoe of 
stt^ faots as voxild shov or tend to show, an e^ploy«ent by 
the defendant to sell his property, or & pvoniss on the part 
of the defendant to pay a eeeB3iesi<m in oaee a sale vas sade, 
suad also that suoh a sals «as 0€»uraaraiated and that the plain* 
tiff was the preeurUag oause of the sale* 

the defendMit irtie tb« 'proprietor of t shoe store, 
loeatsd ea property in the City of <aiicag» which fee owned, 
and it is a sals of thia p3roperty ^ioh is involTed here. 
In submitting his proof the plaintiff Ailed the def endl^nt 


td %%• staadf vmAmt Seotioa 3S of th* Municipal Court Aat« 
and the defeni&nt testified that ths |irox>«rty In gutstioii 
mui »old on April 17, 1916, to on« W«ilj that about a year 
prior to that ti»« the plaintiff first talked witb him about 
selling this property} that the plaintiff *u»ed to oome Ia 
the »tor«" and t&llte to -ttse deftniimt about the property sud 
th« defendant told the plaintiff that, if be brought hi« » 
l9uy«x who would pay 160,000^ he would sell the property,- 
that $60,000 wskB hie prioe for the property} that the eale 
whioh was affeoted to well was on the haeie of #80, OCX) and 
a six fEonth'e lease on the store, rent free. He further 
testified that hie sule to ^sil was elosed in the office of 
a lawyer naasd, Fritsksif| that on the following morning he 
noted an item referring to his transfer to Weil, in one of 
the newspapers, %ad at that tleis wtx another item noting a 
transfer of the property from '^eil to Ksrwan n, Miseh} that 
sltlNbt tia* he had sever ttSt Misi^, ^t thsit be met hist, for 
the first tius, soiss six weske after the mXe t& Well w«is 
aouis. At this poiat plaintiff introduoed in evidence, over 
defendant's ohjeotion to the eff@ot that it was »ot th« hcst 
eridenoe, a oertifisd oopy sf the deM to the property la 
question, froa the defendant to l^ell« In our opinion, the oIh» 
Jsotion by the defendant was a valid one »,nd it should have been 
sustaiAed* Ho showing was a&de to account for the absenoe of 
the original deed, suoh as is provided for in Sections 56, 
37 and 3© of Ch, 34 of the Illinois Statutes. Some statement 
was wadff to the effect that the defendsjoit had ^^ftn iiotifi<»d to 
produce the original, of the deed but lat«>r oouneel for the plain- 
tiff said %« withdre* the noties. Of oourss, any such notioe, 
if given, would not bring the plaintiff within the provisions 
of the ^apter of our Statutes on Ckanveyancee, sbovs referred to« 


^';v-^ <>: •-#.: --.ilO.' ,^:^-^(^ 



It Kould not b« exp^^ted thAt tbe oylglaftl of tb« dined 
wMftld 1M in the d«f«ndant*« pO0e«0slQa. 

Th« plaintiff t««tlfi»<l tfc»t h9 fijtBt arl 
th« defendant In 1913 and ftt th».t tis^ he asked the 
defendant whiit he w&uTd take for the prot- eirty in quee* 
tion« and he said he ouj^^t to have |3S»000 for it; that 
ftome .^oRtto later he eavr the def^^dsnt at hlsi store and 
oailled his attention to sons ohanges that had taken pla-oe 
in the &ei^lK»rhood and asked hln what he w-is then asking 
for his property^ and he said he ou^^t to get |S0«000, and 
the plaintiff said he wottld see vhat he oould do on a sale; 
that he snlMiitted the property to several parties, ^mX ^.ii 
ae^ get a buyer at that tii&e. He tt^tifie^d that again in 
^e fall of 1915 he talked with 1*ie defendant at his store 
and told him he thou#t n. sale ooiild be amde at |&0»000» 
and the defendant then $m.M he ffo^ld not sell for that 
sttonnt hut wanted |60,000; that he asked the defi^nl^nt if 
he woiild pay the regular ftSM&l E«t»te Board OToHsifeion if t*i« 
sale was effected, and he said he wsnid sad: th« plaintiff 
said he iwjuld see frhat he could do «?ith it; that he ©fftred 
the prop«rtfy to different parties and every few days would 
etep in and aes the defendant. He testified that he first 
talked with Miseil alsout the property early in isCaroh 1S16; 
that he talked with the defirndstnt at his store and told hi» 
he had talked with Mleoh, who wtis the owner of property adjoin?- 
lag that of tt^e defendant, and that Miseh wanted the defend- 
ant's corner, and said he woiild hwy It if the defendant would 
sake hia prioe ri^^t, and the defend«yat repeated that kis priee 
was $60,000; that the plaintiff told tbe defendant at this 
time, that the beet offer Mietfh would make was ^l»,000, m.4. the 


tR gfir^f-irtj?? --f. •*<«*>% ^ «,♦ 

sUf felt: ..->^,Y'>t n-*?^ << fet!?ii:i»* *-^ *.s?fj 

-■■ • ■'■■ ■'"■ ■ , 'tj»« 

^^^■•*w b/Mtm i$ti»$^ t«1te |-^'»tf »iff 

defeni&iit said that Ml0ob oovld luit have it fox* that prio«» 
but vould bAV« to pftf 160,000; that tbe d«fen<1ant told tb« 
piftlntlff to 1»« pAtldint wlt'r-.- iii«ol» and h« would pirsbably 
bui'; that tb« plaintiff a»ked the dcrfftndant vhcthev ba would 
"bt protected on hia ctomiiaaion If th© sale via* ffladt to K'lsoh 
and the d«fendant smld th«t If Kie©h bou#t the prorerty the 
plaintiff would g«t the regular «H»iittl«sloa; that the plaintiff 
told the disfeTidant that he wotild go sad 5«t i»!lffeh and tell him 
t&ftt lki« offer of ^,000 mm not aoo«pti%hl«} that h« aav tlie 
dafendimt thr^e or four days lat«r and told bin h@ had again 
»»«ii Mlao^ and that tht latter had reftiaicd to ral«« his offer 
and stated that tht plaintiff waa workin^r: too ^aiaeh for tha 
dafftnlaat^a interssta; that on ttxB 6th of April th« plaintiff 
mm the defendant a^^in and told him h« had a««ii. Miaeh twlo® 
In the iaeantlffifi hut had been unable to ^t hl» to Inoroaae 
hlg of far. The plaintiff introduoad in eTidenoe a letter which 
ha wrote the dafendant undur 4Rt6 of ,4firll I0« 19I6» mjtm^ 
yarn was writing to let th« defendant know he had not forgotten 
his property; that he had not heard Aeflniteljr "froa Mr. JL9eh 
nor Mr* Miech* but hare told hlv that hie offer of t8t»0(}0 
would not be aooepted and that he has! beet a»^e an offer that 
fill oottt nearer to yovat |6©,000 prlee, Kndoubtedlf you will 
find sooMibedy In the near future that mn «ee the real walue 
•f your property* Hoping to sake a deal for you, 1 a«," snd 
«o on« th© plaintiff further testified that he a^ain oallcd 
on the defendant on the 13th of April » and reported that he 
had seen lilaoh a^in anl also another mu^ aaaed Steinenthal, 
and he nsked the defendant whether he would consider anything 

under |8©,000, and he said he would not and told the plaintiff 
to keep on going and he would get that prioe« and the plain* 

ttXiai ■ 



^0^4c . lii^ 


tiff TftpXlftd* «A1X Ti0\\, 1 will do th« iMst I omn^i th&t 
th« next thing he knev about the property imm that he eftw 
the aevapaper item referriaf to the trsmsfere of the pro<» 
perty froa the de fondant to i^ell aiKi fvcta feil to ui»4^ 
after whiab« he sent the dtfeadgint a bill for hie oooimlBtion, 
end that thereafter he ha4 no eonvereatioae with the defend* 
ant* The plaintiff ^en Introduoed in erldenoe, over the 
defejwiant'e objection, & oertifled copy of tlMi deed froi 
Hell to Mieeh* In otir oplAloa^ this deed «a« material hut 
the ©opy W9M iaeQapete»>t« in thf^ abaeaoe of a proper oboe* 
ing* for the aaat reason ve hare giwea shore with referenoe 
to the other deed introduoed by the plaintiff. On eroas* 
oxaaiination the plaintiff testified tteatt he talked with the 
defendant about this property "tm and off, ewery wetk or two* 
during the two years prior to the sals; that he talked with 
Kisoh about the property as sarly as 1914} that the defendant 
raised his prise to |SO«OOC^ in th<$ fall of 191S and told the 
plaintiff to try to find a buyer for it* He was then asked 
whether he erer produced a buyoTt for #30*0C}C« and he answers^ 
**! protforeA Mr* Mlsoh as a buyer* whatever he paid for it«^ 
Hs was then asked whether he ewer did procure a buyer for 
160,000 and he said he did* He d^^mied that he hs4 told 
the defendant that he oould not get a purohassr at that price 
and that the defendant ffiigHt as well forget it» sjad he farther 
denied that after he sent th«< defendant his letter of April 
10, he dropped the sale of the property* C>n redirect exaotlna* 
tion he testified that in the fall of 1915, the defendant 
wittted to knov who he was figuring with and he gave hin tbm 
assies of a nvnbsr of people, one of which was liisoh, and that 
the defendant ebserred that Misoh was "a likely buyer*} that 
during the tirA*e he was woAing with feis^ re^rdirig this pro- 








perty* he bad at least fifty ooavsrsationa with the d«fendftat* 

Mir, Pa!lt«k:©r» tfce lawy*?^ oalXtrt by the plaiu- 
tiff» ti'Stifled that h« h«id b«»n the Bttom»y f»r yindls for 
aAay years; tlnsj the sale froa the defendant to Weil wssm oloeed, 
And th« deed paesed from the defead^at to fe'eil, ansi the pur* 
efetese price from '!?ell to the 4efen<?ant» Sflti April IT, 1916« 
in the office of tbe wltneee; that the neeting betveea the 
defeni^touat and 5?eil, at Ma offioe, wae i5;rraag«d at the re* 
<;uest of Misoh, and that it wn.» mt th® latter* s Teq&»»t that 
the witness had exaalned thr- abstraet* The witness im.n asked 
whether he knew of any of f'^r ter this property hy Miech to 
the plaintiff, and he said he thought Msela told him of his 
offer of tS3,000« the ritnes^ stated thstt he thought the 
abstract ha.d. been left «ri%}^ him by one ^tasley, prob&bly a 
week or tea days prior to April 17; that the aaaae of tr. -s^isoh 
WB,M iiot aeatloaed b,% th« tlae of the eoa«\i«ai8.tioii of the sale, 
on the latter dstft; that itsisfl^ had told the witness not to 
mention his naae; that well paid the defendant the pnrchaee 
price of the pro ■.* rty^, uhiefe was an aaotjnt s^ns^l to #S0,D(K^ 
les^ the aoTtg».ge, and that MiSii^ g».Te Weil the eeaey to trnte 
the purohase; that he exsmined the abstract at thf direction of 

ill. 'iii|lfei*i<)iiBi1tt>om this witn«^@@ te^tlfi^d that 
SB the day this tranaaotlon ima cMHspleted in hie office* 
Viseh yma present in anothef roo« of the suite of offlees occu- 
pied by the witness. IIS was asked whether th@r© was any 
reason "for Hr. Misoh not ^mnting to see Mr* Lens**, a!»l he 
answered, "Yes, the reason was st&ted*** He was then asked to 
state the reason but objection was a&de tBd sustained, apr-ar» 
ently on the groimd that it w«^.ld n»t fee binding on the plain* 


'AiUi' ^ii- 

I* J. 






..f -.;f.; '** -^^ 


*5- f*£:«* 


tiff* In otur opinion* thl» ruling: iras •rroT. Of oours«* 
in erosa«>«KRminAtion or in patting in tela proof, the defend- 
ant 1« not limited as to the !aas,t«rlallt3r of his evid«rjee» to 
twtib. as vill nece»saril|r be binding on tb© plaintiff. The 
Question objected to w&e proper ero0a*«x&»lniktioa. Tho pl&ift- 
tiff»» oaso here waa to the effect that the defendant had mold 
hl« property, in fact, to :;;i«eh, and, ae be put it In his at&te-» 
Ment of olaia, that the defen^^nt ha.d *by circumvention endeavor- 
ed to eonoe&l his »&id sale of said pro^if^rty to e?,id ?aseh, and 
oon8Uiiaaa.ted and closed said emle in fraud of th« rights of the 
plaintiff and th® cwatom-s of the real estete business," The 
testimony subaltted by th© plftintiff disclosed m situation tend» 
ing to sttpjx^rt that theory, although even theplaintiff •« stI- 
dence does not show directly, but only by inference, thst Len^r 
knew «^en he wag transferring bl« property to Weil thet the 
sale was, in f?".ct, & sale to Mischt ffe«rt ?aay have been, i» 
f&oi!, no knowkedge on the part ©f the defendant that each was 
the case, sjEtd he any not have known of the presence of Misob 
in thet offices referred to, en the day of the sale, fhers sAy 
have been a proper re&son why »iiec^ did not rant to have the 
defendant ltnownth«.t he was In the transaction, and If the fact 
was that such m. reason AiA exist, we are of the opiaioa that it 
vsts aiaterial and. thst evidence on that o^««*lo» ^s» competent 
and, therefor©^ should have been adiaitted. «r. Prltsker fur* 
ther testified on orosa-ezaaiination that the defendant never s«i 
the deed froa ffeil to uiaoh* 

; (feilled in his onm behalf, the ri&f^nd^.n.'t gave the aub" 
stsAoe of the testitaoiiy he h&d previously given as » witness 
lor the plaintiff^ imdcr Section 3S, He testified that he v^s 

not aiurftou* to BOll hl« property and that the plaintiff 
kept aft«r hi*, and h« finally pwt ft price on It. H« 
d<?nl«* th<> teatiMony of the plaintiff, to the effect 
that be said he would pay the latter a cousmLssl m If Mleeh 
iMmi^t the property. The defeads^nt identified the contract 
vhloh h?s.d been executed toetveea hi'®, and leil o» the sale of 
this property, and sa»o a leaee of the same property, froai 
foil to the defendant, for a period of eix nonths, and a 
eertalA meadtandua of agreement, hstTlng to do with the 
contract of sale and the lease. The def(»nd».nt testified 
that the pl&lntlff had nerer presented '^leoh »m » proepeotiYe 
buyer, * except In that one letter that 1 got,* • apijareatly 
referring to plaintiff's letter of April 10, 1917. The 
defendant waa aaked If he paid anyone any co»ffii8sion on the 
aale of this property. Otojeotlom to this efuesttlon was 8u»- 
talAed. la our opinion tfeie rwling waa error. If he did at 
he allegea he did. In hie affidavit of aerita, it wa.« a fact 
at least tending to shot? thst someone other than the plain* 
tiff wa» the proouriag oauae of the salt which the defendant 
oonsukmasa^ted. The defendant testified that he did not see 
Itlsolii in Prltxker's of floe ©n the &Kf of the sale, and he waa 
asked iFhetber h« knew ^Isoh had aay ooBseetlon vlth that deal. 
Objeeiiion to the latter ou^stlon was also austalned, Thla 
objection should have to«>en overruled. Without regard to 
tbe weight of the testloony or to ita probRblllty, or the lack 
of It, the B^3ibj0ot«watt©r of thia qyeatlon ims material and 
oottpetent and the defenf^jstnt should b«re been permitted to 
anaver it. On oro9s-^x*'iBinatlon the defendant testified 
that he had the abetraet of the property and he thou^t fee 
turn<?d It over to Stanley, or the «an i^o had the mortgage 
9& the property, telling the® to have it brought doim to 



'•■•'Iff,**^© Tjr^-- 



•»j-ry:-;?«^ >!*;<•; .ff0 .fc "t ^ ^ ' V^j^yr r 

.p.-.-.-* -f-»* 



..'i^ ^ Je^-:- !▼!»?- ''-a^ ^ii{a iJ* vw«*.#» 


not aaatlotw t© ••!! bin property and that the plaintiff 
kept after hl»« and he finally put e price on It. He 
(lenieA the testisiony of the pluintlff, to the effect 
thAt he eeid he would pey the latter & ooan?. iisel on if Mlseh 
nought the property. The defeadsant lAentlfietf the eontreot 
ehloh had been exeoiited between hl% an<s Well em the sale of 
this property* and sdeo e leeee of the same property* frow 
fell to the dief*5ndant# for a period of sir aonths* and ft 
eertain Aevorendutt of agreement, having to do vlth the 
contract of e^ale and tbe lease. The defendant t©«tifieil 
that the plaintiff had never presented !':<l»oh a« a proe|>eotlTe 
buyer* "except In that one letter that 1 got** - apparently 
referring to plaintiff's letter of ftprll 10, 1917. Thp 
defendant eae asked if he paid st^yone any eommlesiion on the 
sale of this property. Otejtction to this oueetion was sua- 
tained. la o«r opinion thle railing eae error. If he did as 
he alleges he did* in his affidavit of »erit«* it was a faot 
at least tending to sho® that someone Other tbA& the plain* 
tiff was the proeuring oause of the sale whtoh the defendant 
oonsumsated. The defendant testified that he did not see 
Misoh in P^ritsker's of floe on thf Say of the sale, and he was 
asked whether he knew ^^Iseh had &ny oosneetion vith that dsaX. 
Objection to the latter ou^stion v&a also sustained. This 
objeoticm should have b*?ftn overruled. ^Slthout regard to 
the weight of the teetiotony or to its probability, or the laek 
©f it, the Btibjeot-naatter of this qfieation ims Bssteriel and 
oovpetent and the defendant shonia h«ve been penaitted to 
answer lt« On oro8«3«-exaainstiQn the defendant testified 
that he had the abstract of the property tnd he thow^t fee 
turnf»d it over to Stanley* or the man iH^o had the aortgage 
•a the property, telling the« to have it brought down to - 

.X9& &^ %tn:i$£xmi& tens 

•>ry^t*);$«4f«#TF . •; *ft*»jfl 

< .. .. > , 

(Bf |5«*,f^«' . -.{5' -J ttys^^^^C"^ 


ibkt9 l)eQiUS« the property ^d hmen sold to '^ell for |60«000t 
He Also testified thftt vsivll agreed to buy* the property m% 
tluit price, about the first of April, 1917, Re w»« asked 
whether he »aid anything to the plaintiff, about liairliig 
elosed « d««.l with ^ell, at th« tli® plaiatiff rrote 
hiai ft.8 he ai<3 ©a April 10, 1917, fmd he answered, «fhf should 
It" and added that If the pl&intiff hed t§.lked wit^ him after 
the late of the letter he would i»Te told hi« the property 
Iwd been sold* 

Xle(^ testified fot the def<mdant to the effect thai; 
he nerer net him tmtll %m> or three Months after this deal 
ims aade; that the plaintiff had wbmitted v».ria«e pieeee of 
property to the witness, ssRd a^o-og tfeea the property of the 
defendant, s^nd that he ^ve the witness « price on that pro- 
perty and the witness laade a oownte'r offer ftnd "his Rnswer* 
ime, there was nothing doing, and he says, ycu can't get lt» 
and we droi^ped It,* The witness then proceeded to state 
that the real estate man, StataXey bad cose to see hlA; »nd, 
at ttiie point he was interrupted with an objleotion ?and the 
objection wss sxietained* Urn was asi^ed whether the visit of 
Stanley had to do with the property inwolwed and he said it 
had not. He was further asked whether he was in the suite of 
offices oooupied by Pritsker at the ti;ne of th<? defendant's 
deal with well was oonerausmated, and he said he was* He tRts 
then asked what he was doing thsre. Objeotioa to this was 
sustained* This, in uur opinion^ was also error, for the 
rMkSOftS we have alrea^ stated* On oross-er^iainatton Mis eh 
testified that l»wll wae %he father-in-law of hie son, and that 
Well had purohased the property at the request of Misch, and 
he hnd hia go to Fri taker's office on April 17, to olose the 



?;?f"t ■'=f>^ 




deal, glvlag him th« inoiicty to mak« the puroh&8«« and h* 
ftdd«d, "If you a«k mc tbe rtason why, 1*11 .7fn«ir«r«* a>3uiui«l 
for plaintiff, who wag CTO«««^xamlnlng, did not ask hlai to 
ttatt th« re^soa but on r^iMttreot exftwinatlon oouasel for 
the def«ad&at asksd him why he had t«il Iwy thii proof rty 
for hitts to which oto Ejection wa« jsmde %»d euetained, for the 
reaeose et&ted itbOTe, In conne cation with what we haY* said 
<Hi a eiiBllar ruling, we are ©f the oplBiom that th® wltneee 
ehould have been permitted to atiawrey, 

Ux, Stanley, a real estate %a», wae ostlXed ae a 
vitaese by the ciefendsat mid he wae aaked whether the defend** 
ant had^rer placed the property ia cjttesttefn with hi» for aale. 
Objeotion to this ^eatios im« also sustained. IMs eridenos 
«as naterial and ooarpetent and the ob^jeetion ehsmld havs been 
orerruledii The witness i?«s asked what* if anything, he h%d 
done toe^rd oaking a sale of this property for the defendf* 
ant» 9Jad he said he talked tritb Mise^ about the property. He 
was th«» asked if he had received a aQmrnlBBi^m frosa t^e defend* 
wa,%, ae a result of the sale to feil* Objeotian to the gnes- 
tion was euBtained. In our opinion, it eho^ald have been over- 
ruled. He testified that hs offerf'd the -property to Miseb. 

The defendant then offered iis evidence hie oomtraot 
of sale with Weil and an aoooift|«»yis^ aemoiundua of agreesaent 
and the leass of the premises fxoa ?seil to the defendant* for 
a period of 6i% aonths. Objection to these doeuaents was sus* 
taiaed* In our opinion, they were all oompetent and should 
have bem admitted* The oontr&ot refers te Stanley St Cospany 
and provides that the oontraet bsx^ earnest noney oal led fer 
by its teras, are to be held by Stanley 1 Oompany for the 
benefit of the parties to the eontraot* 

j.'^ timi' 





■M^f ^ »&•▼<*■' 


Th« evldeno« Butwiitted by th* plaintiff made out ft 
pTlssa faolfi oaae. Aoo rdiag to &!• testlmoay, the plaintiff 
was «Rtitl«d to a oowiisslan on this 8i!il«» irltidK vas & 0al«» 
la fact, to .^Iftiili and not to l«il, provided the plaintiff wa« 
tbe proflwring caws© of bringing that «s»l« about. From all 
tbe t^atlsaoay aubaiitted by th* plalatiff, a wurt ot a, Jury 
tti^t rosidonftbly oonolud® that tk® plaintiff irns* In f%ct« 
tli« prooujring eauae of tb« sale. The ol3'Oi3»8t&no«8 involved 
in the testlfoony subattted by tbe plaintiff i?»re 8ufflcie»t 
to justify 8u^ a oonolusioa* 

But» the plaintiff does not olrtii.-- to b.©.vei had an 
oxolualvt agenoy on tbla pT&pmttf, If tbe defendant had placed 
tb« propofty in tbe tends of mows otber real ««tiiit« «g«nt, auoh 
ao Stanley, he had a right to ahow lt» And «^en if the defend- 
ant bad Icmnm that hin oale to leil vas, in faet, a sal« to 
ttl8Cb« he would not be liable to pay s oomaslaslon to the plain* 
tiff if* as a iiatter of faot, 3t%nl0y ttnd not ^r plaintiff, was 
the oa« who really brought about tbe sale« It is not the 
'b70k:air who first refers property to a purohaeer, but It is 
the one who is the proourlng eauae of the sale who la entitled 
to a oofflfmisslon. B«yrmWI v, Tt.n. F iygt Swedish BmildlMag & h^^m 
^ssn* of Chicago. 169 111, kpp, 329. The defendsnt should 
hvm been ponsitted to introduce &ny ooapetent evldenee^ shoir* 
ing or tending to show that his s&.le to Well, even thov|^, in 
faot, it was a sale to ^iedh, was not oonsuauaated by reason 
of any efforts of the plaintiff, although be had >a]^parently 
been working on Mis<di for soate time; but that it hatd been 
brou^t about throng the efforts of Stanley. As already 

stated* the defendant wade a number of ©ffexe of teatisiongr of 
tbAt character and in our opinion the trial oourt erred in 


fe-Srv.t©Vjftl ^ftivltSr 

^^i j « U/. 



:Jt /^st^w ttiifiwj l«lxil *.<<^ 

I-??* S^i 

■:>#S<^ *<i* 



suet.'iinlng the plaiBtiff *8 o^JeotionfB to the offers of 
tbat t98tl3ion7« 

Uro find no evidence in the record., OTon attnuiliig 
that the plaintiff was entitled to the ooamission cl&iaed« 
viiioh would fmrraat ttoe tri&I oourt In ainiTdlag the plain* 
tiff anf interest on tbe asotrnt of bis oottDi^^sion;* though 
siioh night haye been the <».«• if the defendant had been 
l^rwitted to put in all the oaai|>et«at stnd material evidenoe 
ho oulMittodf and the evid'^^noe then tsiktm, ao a vholo vao 
suffioient to ^iwitify a finding that theial* of the clefendm&t'e 
property ««» aot» in faot« broix^t about by Stanley but by 
the efforts of the plaintiff* and tb&t the defendant had 
sadsavored to oonoeal the facts sitrrotsnding the sale of his 
property* so as to b«at the plaintiff's efforts to oolleot 
his ooasaisslon* l^t, before any euoh oonolxision is reached 
in this C8iLSS« the defendant a»2St hare an opportunity to sub* 
mit all tbe proper evideaee he has* and, thsrsfore* for the 
reasons vs bars statod, the ;}tidpient of the Municipal Court 
is reversed and the oause is reminded to that court for 
a ns« trial. 

tAYhOK, P.J. AHO 0»OOilSOE, 4* (KSQim. 

h9^ in- '■■■9 1»rf?^ ft'W^^.Kl i*v.K.i" ^«%i;a J.5f,il* 


S79 - 38314 

B* r. J* oueLi«» 


ROA» COMPAMT, a oorp.. 




2221 A 

Opinion filed Feb, 30, 1924, 

m, JUBTICS. tKOMSOfi dellrered the opinion of 
the oourt, 

tb« plaintiff Odell broTight tisis action agjalttst 
the defeadi^xit Hall road aeit«p«a.7 to reeoTeT damagen 13.1 eged 
to have b«en oausiKi by the negligence of the eervanta of 
tbe defendant. In oonneotlon with a ehlpasent of g3r&pe«, at 
Deoatur, Miohigen, destined for the Ohieago siarket. I» 
oompliance with dlreotloas frota tbe plaintiff, the defend- 
aat had placed a refrlgeimtor oar, for loAdlng, on the 
eide txuolc at iieoRtur, In ahipplag th««e gr«pe», they 
were brought Into town toy ttmokc and were loadjed on the 
can by plaintiff • 3 «er»?»nts. The loading of the 8hi|!«B«»at 
inyolved here begpan on the afteTnooa of September 9, whl<* 
waa Friday. There wa« soae further loading done on Setua?- 
day, bttt the ear aaa not ocwipleted. On the following Mon- 
day, September 12, the loading waa reaaaied, \mt before It 
vaa ooaploted, and apparently in the abaenee of the plain- 
tiff and hla employcea, eoae additional osra were awltohed 
In on th« side track, and to make room for the«, the car 
whloh the plaintiff leaa loading waa aored on <3own the elde 
traok aereral hundred fset. it Is claimed by the plaintiff 

o'il beLil noiflicfO 

-C/.'-r {*■-<;■: 



■.iHmkJii-: ■ r^ra© it>^&ici 

%'b».\ At this tlo* til* sioiritmeat of the oar« ^ tb« tttployods 
of tbe defendant Hailroad Gomptrnf^ upoot 07 knooked over 
tlie teokoto of fpnapes that iniro In the oar* ir«oultlag la 
tho d&a&go 8u«d t&T, The losuoa pT»80]it«d vere tmlDaltted 
to a 3ury, resulting in a finding fox tine plaintiff and fix- 
lag his daa&goa at tlia amount olalaed* whioh vas |118*&0« 
#iul0Acnt for that amoimt irmo entered on the TeTdiot, to 
TOTorao which the defendant has porffnettd tbla «|ip«al, 

A« already atated tts«i loadinf; of this oair vaa 
belsjs done fey the plaintiff throu*?* hi» amployooa. &Fpai?» 
ently the aovowent of tte© mat ot awltohlng oparatlon, wbicb 
vas alleged to have been negligent* took pl&a« during the 
aooa hour, when neither the plaintiff nor bla esployeea were 
preaent. The iMidlag of the ear had not b««n ofitiipleted* 
(tee of the witaeaaea for the def«rndant teatlfled that the 
door of the oar was ahut hut h« did not reissriabeT whether It 
was looked* He teatlfled further that It vaa the plain* 
tlff*e oufitoa to keep his eare looked with a p«^*«&* fhis 
testlfflony was not oontradlcted* Under the elrounetaneee 
w* are of t^ opialon that the defendsjat's liability may net 
exti»»d beyond that of a «nftrehoue«uanc ** ^^^ loading being 
aa operation by the plaintiff* and not having been eomplet^d* 
and there being no oo«plete delivery to the defendant aa a 
oarrleT. £lliott on Hallroads^ 3rd Ed. Tol«4 * seotlone 
311B - 312X inclttJsiTej 111* Pent, Ry. Oo. v. tanreer 1^ Oo*. 
38 111, 554} The at. h,A. t, Y.H. H.E. Co. v. .:>ntgo«ery, S9 
Ul, 336; Fuller ▼, 111. Qent, R,R. Qo.> lS4 111. App. 384. 

We bare ooane to the conclusion that the judgment 
14 this oa»e oannot stand. 41thou^ the evldanff! on the 



'«iMl»: *!:-!* 

point is not clwut, it vouXd ••«« tltttt ftHL the danagc In* 
▼olv«d in the pXalntlff "u olRi» ym.9 alleged to bare ooourred 
at 0«eatiur« Tb« daiiagftft raoovi^red were tea«d on tbe claim 
that the plaintiff suffered a total laas of ^5 %atlceta of 
grai>ae and a partial loss, with respeot to lOo other baskata* 
Bnt we are imabla to find any eatiafaotorjr proof in the 
record ahowlag that th« awitohlng operation oonplalned of 
resulted in icnooking <S^wn a-iid Managing IBS Inaketa of gmpea* 
The only witneaa for the plaintiff, in hie etaaa In ohief» 
was the plaintiff* himself. Ht first testified that *B pt 
6 or 10 lMMiketa» I do not remeaiber which now, w«r« daatagtd 
there,* (Oeoatur). He then testified that when the car 
reaohed Ohleago and was ufipaok«d« ther€ wart StS baskets 
oomplet«l|r destrOTOd stad 100 Imskets so badly damv«(gad that 
they had to be salvaged* On oros»»e3Qus)ineition« the plain* 
tiff was asked upon what he based his knowledge of bis state* 
ment to the effect that a certain nximber of baskets were 
daaaged when thisy re«,<rifted C^^io^go and he ana^^ered, **liell* 
t wmm tlMM ^Uusagvd before they left Oeoattur * * *«• He 
was asked fttrtheip on oroes-examiaatioii, whethtr he Know :f 
anything of hi?» own knowledgs* as to th» eondltloa of the 
gxa]>ss lift en they were imloaded in Chio^go^ sind he answered^ 
that there was nothing ^ except the report they nade to ns 
«Ad vf own inspeotiott, I wsm then, howewer, before they left 
9oenttt» aad I saw the ooadition they were in. it looked 
to oe aa if tlte whola oar had been eseuihed, fro» the ob* 
serration I sade at the time*" We find no teettaiony, either 
giwen by the plaintiff or h^s only other witness* §nitli« wl^ 
testified in rebuttal, a^rranting the ooaolusion that 125 
basksts w^re disturbed and d»aaged by the switching operation. 


,%- -^Tti?.!^ 0^ *©5 e«-^i«f '^Xlia^^ suit 


,i£ci#«:.: *:*» <^rfi* '?<'^ ^' ^ ft»«?t'. 

Xf tti« Taaiiitlff*s elal«9 either tn vholt or 
in fNBtrt^ «a« bafled oa d^u^&ge ulleg^d to have been oaus^d 
to M« ahifMBeat of gn^oo vtiilo is oourst of trftiitfportatloii 
froffi Deoatiir to ChleagOt ihia reoorerjr would bo properly 
baood on terns of the bill of Issdlag, wtiioli the record 
•liovs van ioouod on tMe isliipm^^nt. l^t, tlae plaintiff 
apparentXy did not !»&»• his oXaim on tbe 1»111 of ladings 
aor attoia|i»t to is&ke ^ny obowlag vt&Atnf it* If the plaint* 
tiff's olAlm la for daata(sos ^ittused to this ahipsMmt of 
g;r&p«o» ftt &eoatur» as soianat to h^ the oa»e, and tlie Xla* 
blllty of the def^ndsmt wSkH that of a varelumistoaRii^ It 
m.9 inemiSieat yx^n ttee plaintiff to »Tmm, by a preijonder- 
«ftoo of the eTidano»» not oaly t!mt the tvltc^iai^ operas 
tioa oaused tfee daaitgft to his ^r^^pao* but th@,t ffueh opera* 
tloi6 wae performed ia a negligent mt*rmer. Applying the 
theory of res ipsa IpOOttltur to this oa»e, it ai#t be oonclud- 
ed that the upsetting of th<B baelceta of grapes, dur tag the 
loading operation at Oe<»ttur« vtme oaueed by the aioTemeat of 
the <mr, in the abaeaoe of the plaintiff or hi« employeea. 
The queoticm of whether or not these grapea were properly 
loaded* 80 ae to prevent aay ^apeetting ia the oaee of & 
ewitohiag operation before the loadlAg ^»^o eonspleted, wm« 
the eubjeot of coafliotlag testiraDay, The jury apparently 
conoluded that the grape* were properly loaded* We would 
mot be disposed to ciuestloa that finding* Applylag the 
doetrias of rea ipsa lociultxtr a^la, we would oonolude 
froa the faot that the grapee were pror-'erly loaded, and 
that after the <«ir had been aowed eoae of them were kaoe^ed 
oTer, that this was eaased by the noTemeat of the €^r, and that 
the ffoweaeat was not oaref\aiy done* The only evideaoe to 

vv:' »la/IV' .: 


^m^ tl 



=aE^3*» %* ,%<;r»t. 


''aft »frj; 

i'BlSt -i' 



i-#l!»»"7? Ot Iti^BC 

the oontrary vttd that giTon lay % wita««s for the defend* 
antf wh« mte the only eye nrltaees 0f the ewit0hliig« and 
that teetlooair irae to the effect that the eirltehiiig vae a 
ttenal operation^ and If ths-t deeorlptlon wae oorirecrt* the 
d%f9ndsMt mku not aegLlg<mt* Oa thle l8«;u« also we irould 
not b« dlepoeed to dlstvurb the ooaelueloa reaehed hy the 
jury* Out, as already etated, we are of the opinioii that 
there Is not sufficient eatlsfaetory eridenoe In the reeoard 
to support a recorery by the plaintiff » Iwtsed on daiae.ges 
to 12S haskets of grapes^ as a result of that svitohlag 

llio ^t^lgntsat of the Ifunlelp&l Q'mT% is reTorsed 
aad tho cause Is riBnanded to that oourt for » n@w trial. 

TA¥Loa, jp.j. Am) o*ami^m^ #• 



$-mii^^^^% aaH" 

♦ / i. ^, :i i w««t B -Wt #«£?«• 

S90 • 3833S 




Appellant. ) r^ <ryn J h p; . . 

Opinion filed Feb. 20, 1924, 
JUSTIOE TKDM80K deliwrtd tfe* oplaion of 

th« 09i3r%« 

Til* plaintiff, Julia Of0sm«k« brou^st lua aetion 
In th« Municipal aattrt of Chicago ailltgiag thtt »!»« ba<a 
Icwaed the defeBdant )»6ii«y to the exttnt of t?00,00» irltloh 
he h&d pTOnlaod to repa-y* aad h&d failed to do so* The 
evldsnoe w ;« heaxd by tt*** eotixt wlthoiit a jury, reewltlng 
la a flsdliig for the plAiatif r, and jud^ent for the amoimt 
olaimed, to r«Ter«© ndliloh the defftndent fete ^Tfeeted thie 
ttppoal* The only ground for the retrertftl of the jiidgaent» 
whloh Is uvged* le tb;&t the jiidgraent is agalnat the sani* 
feat velj^t of the eTldenee* 

The plaintiff testified that she had been eetployod 
ll^ the defeadp.nt, ?rho w^e the proprietor ©f a reateurant from 
a<Mtetl«« la 1317, to the euumaor of 1931,-» first ae * diefeeaehex, 
th«i *8 fta Mislstftut oook, &nd latex* ae oook; that during the 
•ttsBnar of 1930 ahe loaaed hia tS00«0O, «.% his re^aeet* whloh 
amount ahe had sared c-mt of hey weekly oaraia^ as hia employee, 
and that aoaetiae dmriag the aisaiaer of 19S1, ©ho loaaed hia 
$400*00 »ere, all of rhich he proolaed to repay elth &% later- 

,^£SJ ^OS ,d3'i beii'i .ciniv^O 

{I *?£t'S *"ffS- 


r-^ jytj^ClA"* 



■sM **»n 

#«t; ttimt eh« hal. iiot t&ken any Bot« ot other n«aor&iidiiai« 
becaust she reli«d on bis promlete} thi^t 'Ha was like a 
terotheT to ia» or a father to «e and he «ald, 'You don*t 
B««td to toe »fyai(l, I will glv* yoi; b»ok,«" la her original 
statwuaat of ol&la she «ll«g«id that the loan was In 1317. 
ITuxlag hsr oro»s«»«xa)nlniitloa It derelopsd that this allsgpit* 
tlOA was an srror* «nd she stated that she h&d advano«>d 
|300*00 in 1920 and |400.00 In X32I» «her«>upon theste^taaent 
of olal« ««.s ftffiendod on Its face to oo^fom rltb the proofs 
without oie»jeotlon. 

One Louis Gordon, called by tfe«^ plaintiff, tf>3tlfl«4 
that ho was a sal««jaiH»; that he knew both the parties to this 
aetlon and thsit dHuMng the snauier preceding the trial of the 
case, he was in the defendant's place of business «jad hssiit! 
a ooaversatlon between the plaintiff and the defendant^ and on 
that oecaslon he heard the d»fend*»,nt say to the pls-intlff, 
•fhe money that 1 owi yoti, I will giwt you in thirty or sixty 
6^y9''i that the only person present at th«Jt tlaie was a girl 
naaed tilllaa« who was then employed by the dtfendmnt* 

the defendant admitted that the plaintiff had been 
<M|ploysd by hia, in the oapaeities already referred to* but he 
denied that he had ever r^Togflwed any money fro» her, or that 
sbs had ever loaned hia any money. He teatifled that the 
plaintiff had been friendly with his younger brother, and on 
several oo«««ioiMi she had told the defendant that she haj is&de 
leans to this brother and that he, the defeaac^jst, had tepeetedf* 
ly told hej^fo do so, warning her that she would have a hard 
time getting it baok, whereupon she referred to the fact that 
he mm the defendant's brother^ ^d^ the aefen^l^wit reasinde* he* 
that he had told her before^ that he would not repay anything 



'3s:-i^ ''Ui; 


i^.i'fCfi . 





t w# 


aba gRT« hit brothtr tm h« was not raapoiiflibl* for l»i»* 
mad «h« ropliad, «H« I0 your l3Toth«» anyTmy," and he aald 
tbat If hl8 brother owad the plaintiff anything aha ou^t 
to aua hlia for it. The defftndtsoBit ftiTtfeer testified that 
ha kn«« Gordon, who mbbiI to ootaa lute hit reataur^ttnt to 
aae the girX Lllllanj md that ha h&d naYar had any talk with 
tha pl&lntlff, in bla pl^oe of tmalnaaa whan Qordon ims pra* 
sent, and that ha had never seen Crordon in his 'plaoe of lnuai* 
naaa with the plaintiff* ll» denied th%t ha hikd vrtti: told tha 
plaintiff tl^t he aguld pay her the $700«00, in thirty or 
aixty daya* or maJca any raaaarlc to that «ffeot« 

One, May Brady, aaid that aha knew botl; the i^rtiea 
and had i^rlcad in the defendant *a restaurant with the plaintiff^ 
that pravioua to the tioii the pla.iatiff left the def^naant'a 
eaiploy, ahe had talked with her "in regarda to trtoney that had 
been owing to here ^"^ I aaked her»ima it HaxI, and ahe anawerad 
that hla brother owed her the money.* Thia witneae further 
aaid that aha aaked the plaintiff what *ha* had t© say about 
it and aha aaid that the only thing he had to eay waa that 
aha waa foolish to glwe him any money, becauae ahe would never 
l^t it bade* The tfltnesc further atated th9.t the plaintiff 
had nrv^ aaid that the defendant owed her any noaey; that 
they had aerer eonwersed about the defendant at »11» and ahe 
teatifled that ahe had neve? aeen Oordon i» the defendant" a 
pl&oe of tmsiiiftMif 

l»eter Tulii^a«, the defendant's brother, heretofore 
Teferred to, testified that he and the plaintiff uaed to be 
fTiaads and that ahe had newer elaiined that Paul owad her any 
a»aey; that he newer had any talk with ber about J»aul. 

«aii? ^x^i 

8# "PiS' 

%$ %ttii 






■■■•'• ■' ■ " "'jfy 

V *•! s&'-V *£lA -d*?® 0# 



yue t»^ ttrnfie lu^^^. i^.dt fo«?»UXa 

One Karlasy tc^stlfitd tb*t In 1931« he waa eKpIoxtd 
fcy the defendant^ -» working aighta • and that dUirlng the 
mamBT of 19334 he waa thevt %rery alghtj that during that 
period he had aeea the plaintiff 1a the stoa^ but he had 
never eeea Oord^s vltb her|that he had never eeen them there 

' Thie eowart ie not In a poeltloato any, on the 
foregoing evidence, that it» maaifeat wei^t l« contrary 
to the finding of the trial oourt. There were «ore witneaaea 
for the defendant than for the plaintiff. Some of their 
teatiiBO]!^ vae purely ne^tiTe in oharaoter* fhe testimony 
•f the parties directly in interest* wae flatly contradictory. 
the evidence th«y gave, as well aa that submitted by the other 
vimeeefta, anotanted to a^^ething nore than we o«n ^t in this 
oourt by reading the typewritten page* of the record. If 
the trial oourt, after ohcerring the aianner in «hioh the wit* 
neaisea testified, and their apx^arent truthf\:lnee<- or lack of it, 
aa they ^ve their teatiaoay oa the vitneos atand, (mine to 
the eonoluaion that the plaintiff was telling the truth and 
tl^t the defendant «aa not, ve are not in a position to aay^ 
fren a reading of the record, that he «ae not, j^etif led In 
eo doing. Certainly, this court could fiot eay that the |Gtdg» 
stent of the trial court ia againat the inaaifeat veig-ht of the 

For the reaaoaa atated the jiudi^aent of the Mijnicipal 
Court ie affirmed. 

TAiLoa, ?.j, AMD o«ooHscii, J. ccacyat 


^.i'S ««*'•■»•■■■< '•*■«'' 

■-» '*^'-V9_Sk 

.? 3^iVT£if>«C: 





404 • 28844 


]>AUL ?• Ei^Blllin and iillibC S. 


COOK ooum. 

•T ^Hh '"^Si^ 

Opinion filed Feb. 20, 1924, 

m» <ru&fis£ fH&ttaofi delivered t^e «f1a1ob ef 

tbe court* 

thin was a bill in equity filed by tl"® ooaplaiaaot, 
£Xsle K* ?aul»ea, asking %ho oourt to decree that » oert&lR 
v'-TTo&tf deed, which had be«?n exeomted ®Jid drli^cred by bey 
and her husband to the defendint8|» Wiw, In fact» m mortgage* 
and that th®y b© directed to r®<»nir«y the property to her upotd 
ber payment of such sta as nii^t b« found to b« equitably du« 
on a proper aoo6unting« 

tb9 bill slleg«d th?it on 9«G«mb«r 16, 1916, the oo»» 
plainant w&a indebted on not«@ mggrtgating $1880»00, e«Mi« of 
tbe« then past due, irhioh «®r<» secured by a second mortage 
on the property In cfueotion, ani that on that date the property 
was oon'veyed to the defends-nts by warranty deed; thsi.t th« de» 
fendants were then engaged mn co^pertners in the real estate 
businese and that they then entered into an agreement with 
her, in wrltftne, whiob was signed b/ the defend^snt, ?aul F# 
Bernett, in wbioh they aoknowled^d ree*^ipt of the warranty 
deed aboTs ref«»rred to and set forth that it was tusiderstoed 
tbat they were to bold title to the preaisee until all the 


.~i^% bBlil noiijiqO 





ladebtettBess due thereon waft p»id, amd that In the ftrent tbey 
did aot r«oclT« th« money that might b« dx**, "on aooount of 
holding title to eald property, on ox teefore June 1, 1917* 
then they were to have the rlgjNt to eell the property with- 
out notice of any kind, or obll^tioa of any kind to the 
plaintiff end her husband. The eoaplainant further alleged 
in her bill that the defendante hsit4 paid out approstlmetfly 
|1S80«00 on acootint of thi» eeoond mortgage &nd that they 
lutd paid the taxes and epeelal aasestsments etooe the exeetition 
of the iw.i?»anty dosd and had been In poaaeeelon of the property 
and eolleeted the rente therefrom, the »«ovnt of #hleh she 
did not know. She further alleged that ehe had demanded an 
aocouating from the defen^iants, offering to reinbs^ree them 
for euelt expenditures as they had on aoooi^mt of the pro* 
perty, and they had refused an aecotjntlng, claiming the pro- 
perty ae their own, irtien the fact was that the warrenty <ieBA 
had been given as a sseurity for n then eitisting Indebtedasss, 
sad that there had never been any other or further agre«®ent» 
between the parties, with regard to the property* It w-ae fur» 
ther alleged that one ifijMrman and wife were In possession of 
ths property, olalming some interest In it, but that whatever 
iatereet they might have was subject to the interest of 
the eomplalnant. 

By their simswers, tb« d« fends nts, FanI f* and Searlo 
t« JEkirnett atSbaittsd the ocaking, exeouting aatS d<^livering of the 
warranty deed in question and tt-e i^yment by them of the secsnd 
mortgago taxes and asset: stents, payable sinoe the giving of the 
disod* Thsy further adtoltte^d th^t a l!f^©aM^raTld^*m of ngr^'^ffient 
was made a»5 executed subsociuently, as set forth in th« bill 
of ©oaiplaint, but they denied that the warranty dee* was delivsjp- 



^tiT- am 

•d In aoQordano« with the texvs of their «gr€eaie&t« and 
thejr alleged that %ht itgreeiaent imt later abandoned «nd 
wae not in effect at th?? time the warrmnty deed irae dpllver^ 
0d« A»d they farther elaimed that the deed wae aotually 
delivered \mder a different imderet'anding or agr-fieffient* 
which Made it, in faot, aa ateeolute eonveyaaoe to the«, 
aad not a cjotx-eeynnoe in the aatuiTe of a aiortga^ge. 

After bearing the cvldenoe and ^^TPvmBnts of coynsel, 
the ehaimcellor entexed a deeree grmntlng the prayer of the 

eenplainant^ aad ordering an ac»o«ntiag. To r#verae that 
deeree the defendsmte hare perfected thie *:ppeiil, and as the 
only ground for ruc*« r«tY®raal, they urge that, the e^id^nse 
not halting been j>tB»^Tf9(i by a bill of exeeptione, the decree 
•hould be revarsed beoa.use it deee not contain a siiffioient 
finding of faote to fiupi«>rt it, 

B>' the deeree eatered* the chanoellor foitnd that 
on the date above referred to« the Barnette were oo»|»artnere 
la the real estate and loan buainese and that, te amch^ they 
held notea, eeouxed by eeo^nd mortage, upon the real estate 
deeoribed in the bill of eomplaint; that on that date the 
covplaix^ant vae the owner of the e^ity of redemption in 
•aid property that ehe wae in arreare in the pa yannts due ' 
under the seoond sKtrt^ge a&d that being eO in arrears ji and 
la order to better eeeure the liametts* she and her husband 
on said date oonveyed the property by warranty deed to the 
defendant Pawl ?• 3arnett« and tJiet the defendants entered 
into posseasion of the property and have so .-nanagsd the sctiBe« 
colleoting the rents* paying the taxes and Interest on the 
iammbranoe* \mtil they, in turn, on March IS, 1^0, conveyed 


,'!t$«'<» «' 

::^ 93it 

.<&» «?gc' 

■:j:%£4itud Tftcf Jfc^- 



■ji'S«j4. ili 

it94 oi Z's::^^^ ml 

the props 3rty to AaMZWia and vlf«« By tlte decree enter ed* 
the ohanoellor furfeheT found that the varr&nty deed executed 
hf tke e fttpIainGLnt and her husteuidt va.e» in fact* a eoxnrejr* 
aAoe In the nature of si aiortg^g^e and that the iuBemuEe had 
notice that sueh was the faet and that the latter were, 
thtrefore, not Innocent purohaser* of the property. Ko 
contention Is made in the brief filed hy the defeniants, that 
ecmplalnant had loet any right«» by re&eon of the lapae ot 
tlsae. We are of the ssptnion that the decree apoJp&le^ from' 
oontalns euffloleat findings of faot to bring It witbln the 
requirements of the rule lai<3 down in FrtB<f>fe v. Frenelt. 302 
111. 15S and the oth«r <mi««« to whloh defenfiant* hare esi&lled 
our attention, nnd that »uoh findings are aaaple and isuffldeat 
to flMpport the d«eree, «^ltliout the preservation of the evl* 
denoe « 

For the reaaona etat«d« the decree appealed fr^i 
ie aff i:med« 

TATLOE, P.J, AMQ O'JOKiiOa, J, «r;ll0OR, 

150 - 28802 

▼• I Qimtnt oofimt. 


gSSl./i. •£} 

Opinion filed Feb. SO, 1924, 
MR. jmriQl fMOWSOM dellver«d the opiaion of 

tlifi oourt« 

Tbe plaiatiff» M111«t« brought thift eotlon of 
fOTOi^ls entry and d«talii«r a^Uuit the tlefendantt In « 
Jitatiee Court In th« Tillage of wiln«tt«» County of Cook* 
irhcr« be 8«cmred a jad^ent for poateesBion. The d©fen4)» 
iKAts p«rf«ot«<i an appeal to the Olrwilt «ouirt of Oook 
Ctounty, where judgnent In favor of tb« plftiatiff, for 
posssasion, was ag».in ent«rM« to r^Ttree the lattvr 
jiiul|Sai«ftt» tb« Aefeadiiato ha'To i>«rfeeted th« pr«t«nt Appoal* 

la support of tbulr appeal the dftfend&nts coat and 
tiMtt tbe suiftaions »9.r9Bi3i on them m^a e@ao(9llod by order of 
the }u«tio« of the p««.ot snd preeuscthly thereafter the ;}iietlc« 

wmM irlttK>ut ^iiriedlctlon to try the oaee. It ii further ooo-» 
tended that no shoving v&e «ade to the effeet that A. M. Sharp, 
who elgBftd the orlg;inal ooaplalnt before the justice of the 
^•ace WW the duly authorised agent of the plaintiff* snd 
finally the d«fencl&nts eontend that the plaintiff failed to 
prevt th«it he had aade written degjand for poeseesion* ?ind be- 
oaiuo of this failure* the oourt errel in refusing to diaaies 



^£v-. ,f j«f > ■% ^^ jp ^^$.f r 



OT ^** I ■ 

the pToo«edings unci ent«7 judgvCttt in f^ror of th« def«»nd» 

We hftve nethlag before u« but the oosiaon law 
reootrd* Whether proof was yade that 3h&rp waa the plaintiff's 
daly qtaillfied aigeat or that the notlee referred to ime gifen 
oould oaljr appear by bill of exoeptlona aad there is no bill 
of exceptions. In the reeord# 

We will Guerre further however, that in the traine- 
oript of the proceeding! before the luetic® of tfee peace, it 
id reoited that the eonplftlat ^f« filed by k. u. Sharp, "dily 
authorised agent of J. M. Hiller, plaintiff." It further 
appears from thi» trexm^ript that the nmrnQtm whioh vaa 
iseued by the ^uetloe of the peaee i$ma duly eerred, returof* 
able Deoeffiber 33, 19S3, mt eight o'olocdc in the morning* 
The next itea appearing in the t»uaaorlpt is under date 
of «Oeoember 33, 1933, ei^t A.M.* the time at which the 
•^■ooaii was returnable* The neart vorda in the tTanaeript 
ar«» ^c^kaoelled by adS, oontinued to JTenuary S, 1933, 8 A«M«* 
tJKider the latter date, it appears that the oane vac oontinued 
to Januftry 13, at the saae hour, and under that dete there 
appears to h»Te bacn another continnanee to January 30, th^ same 
hour, and under the latter dats it appears there vas another 
eontinuaAoe to January 2&, at the same bour* We would not 
oonolude from this st^te of tbe record that the eiaKBons vas 
eanoellsd, a» contended, Xm the resord appears, there is 
nothing whatSTer to indicate wlmt "eancelled** refsrs to. 
Xven if ve assu«e the cuataons was cancelled, the defendssnts 
vaiTSd it, for it appears that mt the last date mentioned the 
eass was called and the tilaintiff wae represented by A. ?4. 



Sharp, and the trtuasorlpl! Is to tha *ff«<rt tbat both d«fencb» 
«Bta &pp«ar«df the d«f9ndant A. 0« Tlfldell« Appearing in |>«r<- 
BOA, vit&esses ««re presented and ewom and the ease prooaM* 
•d to ft hearing* The defendaiits having thwe eia^ltted the 
mftTltB of the m^ae to the eourk* must be held to have walTed 
defects la the aerrloe of the STMKaons, If there wi?re any stieli 
defects* The only other point nrg*d hae to do vlth e els^iv 
th&t the plaintiff failed to make an eesexitlal element of 
proof* without the bill of eroeptlime we ujus* meeume the 

An exasalnation of the record would eeesi to demoaf* 
atrat* that the defense in this <^ee has bet^B carried on 
vlth the Tie* that en tiltian.te decision oould not be reaehed 
for 8om0 appreciable period of tU^ and that the defendants 
might at least retain poBSSsslon ©f the premieee InTolYed 
throughout that period* Having reoeired that iiepreeeion^ 
froa our exa^luation of the reoord, we were snoTed to allow 
the motion which iia« submitted to this court by the plains 
tiff, aalLing that the ^mee be adranoed for an early hearing* 

The ju4^ent of the 01rouit aourt, appealed froa, 
it affirmed* 

;i:«t? ??.•;-• •■»?? iij-t'-nife 


i-lSjii} B >,i>i 

7% #«iff* *« ^'«.ix*%aa'-aiJ5 



knmh tmu ■ 

swFf>um 1 




o OQ - 

11, /^ 



^ o '^^ 

Opinion filed Feb, 





Court in f^,v©ir of %fee plaintiff, li^org® J, ;?0©lE« ^ 
iifm|n»st tfee aef«na»at rtM lilltt fy^winf '::t»Bi5a«|r in llie 
»w» of t@,374.®#» 

plaintiff &n a«a« 13, ISlf, ISOc fetxr®!.® ®f l&»«r *t 
|14.-0C« a fearrti* to 1>« ^flivg^ffd nt tfe« ^laitttiff»» 

T&lamt »md t© bt tsal^ f©Jf i^e^tly @m d«»l4vi!»ry# th.^t ^e 

^»f «o<gp»t «ttee^ t© «it!>ply tli« ii«©»s!!5%ry ooopt^^sf* tm 

stnd wllli»r t® fttttiitfe 4a€ temaeT^iS, froas ,!«»# It, 1919, 
to RtttI Inducting Jt»i# SO, 1919, 9:»iid 'fe**!^, end rttme'Stt^ 
tfeait ^^ffudiant «0ci»ist »«g, ©ay for It; th.?t th^ s?#f«ii€«.at 
ft©o«l»tt:S all ©f It, e^ve 743| b««ry«lfi for vfeleb thM 
atff'Mant r».fiM!«fd to ?i#.y, t© tl»«t ^teji^g* of tTfto ^la4ntlff 
iB tii« sw«i Of 130,000,00* 

Tb® ftoeoad e©u»t waft RlssilaT to t!fe» first, fay» 
tfeat it charged tbat Aft<ii" ^«ly 1, 1919, <*i«lnsr t^ th» 
on^etmeKit ©f & pufelle statutft an<l a tsy®«i^^e-^tia.l 

i 1 atir -t) . 


|irocla»*itian tjxobivitltif the «slt of fe*** on iia4 

th<» tfeilrd count ^&n a «iabBt«tj:»tla.l .imalf^atetion 
«f the ofearfffB In tht fl»«t «nd e(»<K>»« «o«»t», ^ut eet 

«p Ifeat t!b» d«f«a<3lant; o*#^ for b« m?l§^ ^m.i& #,(»Hvffr«4 
sad fey It se©*pt«(^-, »8« for Irt^r »nlA »»« »-i>t t»*««, 
Wftking' allowA,iae««« f9t f»veftt»tmt t®y'#», a «§t balaB©« of 
ift,444,00. Tilt d.*f«n49J(lt flltd t l?l»t. <>f tfeff g«?Wj?»T,al iBr-ut, 
and aa affidnvit of di®ftms». tJ-y the X.tttey It okarfe*! ttmt 
the olfiiatlff frilled to «©»i>Iy with tht t^rms of th* enatfaot 
1» fslii^ to '^liv«y l>e«y of a »ercfesitttil;l!& qu^sUtf. 

th.««r« W.S.8 i»f fi!ST*t la #vl4«n©t th« t^Xlo^iti^ ooistraet, 
*Fred Miller ittwlBg i^mtm'&fi Qf^ntitming o«»tBir«>rsatl<ss with 
y®«r M», "-with audi l&t«r ^'Ith yoer wii , y&'lh%rt, ■^fi ^mm to 
eell yoy 1^500 berr-^la ®f 'fe««r for your 0hiomft> »-*,rlt#t, 
'A5il«S fc-'ft 1« to %» at tb« i^rliMi of 1X4, fX) p«y t>a.rr#l at ©«* 
plant. It is f5l«o a«Te«?! t.»a wft45.«r«too<(lt tMt you sr*? to 
furttli^h ttft ^Ith th« ««oees*ry O'^otJfti'a.^fi aaj thit the »iitli?« 
>»®t!mt ©f be#» Is t& !)•# tst-fn ii>iit l»«for® Jwly 1, I©U. 
F^jrwp-ntjt for §svl(l 'bs«r «r^ to bt m^&.e w«»#l:ly.*' Tl^ist d.©cms«^nt 
*■»-« «l^n«d by tfe#. ipltlyitiff , afi<3 m%n slprtt#.'l fey th« «fff*-ft(S«iiit 8-.t 
foll^irtt «''oe«>t>t«a thl«t IStfe <5«y of ii}«m«, ltl9. P»edl wlllty 
0T#'«iftf So^f^ay* hy s»ll r. ii?-ll3»f, l*r<^el<S.«f!lt,'* 

Im th® <S«f««feB:t's i!t»t«»*"ttt <^f tbt «%»« fh® f<jllewl»iK 
Is «€>t forth; *^mfmii %\in «j?r««?«it«t 5?»f m^fit 35 h&wpluC t-itrTol* 



fesfy^lt, APr.«tJ.«.«t «(i«t 1%« tftf^r^ f»nf i«»f, *ith %t^ 

«f the o^s«, tfi, vii#tlier ©r ist©t tilt "fe^tir wl*l&fe ve.® r«fw.®e4 v%» 
««rolit,a%atel«T ©» tfeat »i^|*©l tlsr «?ltii^«»f* t«*t$f l«« f^y i&« 
plaintiff «,»# ftittn f©y tfet #^iM!t#»e%, *a^ tli€ ^eftn^fiaut eowt^'ftdt 
thA% tli« y«Tii«t fof t&» Tjlsifttieff, tfe« e«««!# h^Tlu^ i5««m trU^ 
l»tf«r« ©©«»15 «iu» |ttt7f l» afmiast tfe« »ftRlfe«?t »f>lfht of tlii« 

fM ^Tia^tif?* tfe©w* tisii'l til tfe# ^t^y i« 'f^««ti#t» ««.« 
brffip#d -siii^ l» v«t« ?*rlair t© :t*e«iKte«a' I, X^1S» «t whl«li tl«fr, 
0««k!^, tfe« ^y««ta««t of *1i» ©Isistlff* t#«ilf i«4, hr^^im ws 
»t©t»©!i»^ hy tit4ft 0f tii# lhp##l^«nt. It, n\9ti, sli^wt t*«t ^tfoirt 
thn «5ontj^5?«»t tr«t »i«piii»a# tfe« «l#f*a««»t twRt « «b«ii t© t««t the 
^f»T, li.Rd that h© rti»«»ri«»^ 1% *«,« «!ll rlsrbt, %jjid tb*t, si %!» 
»«««*? St «>f tl!t« 4ef "'tt^isRt, SfS l&8Tr^l« *»f^ ttoe« i»««t by tlwi 
Blaintitf t4» tM 4«f<^t*da»t t« %t «a«»>l»«» 55ii<!l tliftt t!i« aef#tiiS««t 
r»e«iv«« tna s»«eti*s#d tfee Is^tT am of »atl«f««t<>ry ♦malltyj *ii4 
fth^rtly t1i#r«5'%ft«i', tlt# «se«trmet li#,r«» »«#?! wi^ii w«l!I m.%^«. It 
w%« Btlt««a t*i!?t t1i« 4«f «admst to-^lr ^««r .frow tbe fX^.i!^tlff 


16 li*lf l?bl»j J^ttt 14, IBlt, SO tebla, »«i(! IS h»lf febU; Jim* l^i 
1919, 8T t'blf . ia« 40 1*5^ If fcbl«; J«»e 17» Hat, lO?. fe^lt, .«*»<5 
:3 fc'ilf >ili»l«; *r\ia« IS, 1«1^, !SS fe^is. »n<! 31 lialf bM«; Jvm« IS 
1919, 19 fc^lis, ?»iad li«,lf WUi Jt3»« BO, tS19^ 46 teblR. «M ::*6 

hs;lf blils; Jim« 21, 191©, 21 l?l?1:«, smd S ft<alf tstelaj J«ase 33i, 
V^IS, ?0 ^felp. .%»« IS lalf ^V:lri| *f\m« 5?4, itl^^ 3C» 'tefclA, a»d 4 
aalf btelsj a«n# 2?5, 1919, ?S l9l&lf s.tta. lo tealf *>l?ls{ ^umx t$, 11 
SO feblsj ^ust 37, Itl^K ^ %fel«. m«<S. to fesilf %'bls. It vnBf al» 

f©lloi»-«-j JufM» 13, #9t|§ far s3ttipK#ist® -^f ^nrst T «»?! ^im* Uj 
,viin« S4, $S,©f« fo? »fel'p»i8'-ntt frnvt 4m«« 14 t© 1,9, 1««» lHjj 

afttr aJ5»nt J«Ba« IS, Isr ir;wtt€ vol^mlBWis. It sr^^ildi mrv^ ta© 
U9«»ful t?w-fp0nt to set f®Tife s iff'ffi^sst f'f t*.. 1% 1« 8nffi0i»rat t< 

ssy tbst %ht «i'ld«6«!« ©lii&wt a dlt-tct eoafliet eg».n««»^ni]ef wtt^tlifJ 
$t w?s.8 ioei-oh^atulslft, »«« that mmisf *itWMs«tft^, «al(9»aiii-»i:««*i»e'jps ».» 
©th^tJi, t*?stlfl*tl, |s«r|3e3PtiJig' to ri^« th«t3P «»5i*s«Tlfia©# vith It, 
It p»««?lpltn,t«^^ just «»©fc ®, essmfltet ^.s m-fmmii,XlY M??.p! «i«<ni tte 
:.?terffislBatl®n ^f ©«^«!ibllity. eo«k#»e etoiff «© t© t%« fer«»tiMpc 
©f ths b««r, Its! eoa<2itl<sn, tfe^p- ?e^y lift ^M^h i% m^ isr«»ffir#4, 
t^« hlftoTj of the aondJtlan of th* brrfwry d.tirlai? t1^# tlsst its 
taestlon, l« 8tT»i<!^fetfor'W;^t€ a6<S f>1su«lbl«, ima **» ^irld^ntiy 
b«14«Ye<l toy %h9t Jwry. Of <*o«r»«, St 1» h%ri| to r»e®««ilt tbe 
ttatliPOKy of '/©lte*rt, th« a«f-s?isd.'^-»t»i» ablea^i?© SBa«'&jsr«.r, and th*? 
otber witn«»8t(ii w^.o supftert^'jS fei^ ©te.fert«i as t© th# ua»«»fOfe^».t®« 
>iiltf ©f th# btsr, *itb t&ivt «>f o&oJce aJBwf hin wlttif»80*r©« Eat, - 
in vusii a east, '^het'i tf^«irt#'« wllsnrst«ti ttstlfy, euit* <>bfl©a 


a«vnia«I f©!" t&« ^f «^»«!®.»t In ^s ▼*ry Blolis fctltf fe»-"f» nimlyttd. tli» 
•vid«B6«» l&ttt It «11 a?»«« In tM end to irfenw tfe»t an tfe« tariml, 
it wa« a sltnatlaci wlst^re th* ^«(!iii».«t ifI«M»(rot w».a tii« er •<!«««« 
$• ^« ifivaa til?* variojj* »lta«»ft#«'» Th«-r«s' ■'^t* aw^irsii di«CT«|>iitt«l9«! 
lM»t« *»d tfe#r«, tfci(»t iRay flv« t'i«ft to »WL«i»i«iaim«, ?»mf!l. ffi:rir«i*'iit 
way l»« iiftd* ■^''a bcstb el<5®»# feut, or tfctt wlMftl®, *ft«» esstr^fully 
«$%ttdytR(r all th% sTld«)6©«, v© a© aat fe*«l J»«tlf i«»^ la hoiaiJ^ 
tfeAt tilt »»rai6t wfe« siaialf tstly 8sftl««t tiit wtJght 0f tfet «tl«if.e«M»*. 

it i« ©»nt*fta«€ t&®t tfef trial Ju^# «ipT«sa la fi^lttlnir 

l» »'rld«ii«e ft l#tt<^» of t&» ijiiS'iistlffi^ ^%n4 .Iwnit S3^ lilt» asJ 
vhloh w»» t«at t«i^ tfet d«f«ftj!lant. It 1» «l#.liB##. thtt It wm 
l»a.a»i!B«lfcl« t.s bel«g t?slf*«trvlmf« t%# tl?i«tlff ©ff*?*^. In 
evldtnet *. lett«f of tfet 4«f<s»#siit %9 it» dttt^ 4iia» ^0^^ 191S, 
%lt.l6)i oontal»«rd tfef f«ll0«flRg;, ***:« vlElttd mmm of ottf 0'hii«*fir» 
trade t«5*.l» yeBt«3f«i»y w&o baft Tr«'^"tlT«a Cw5ttt»© la#»j' ,r#«#i5tly, 

iiAd tlwreft msna esll at dlff tTtnt i&lastt an4. tl4» ir^wrt titty ■ar?^ 
waking tihiiXSkt t&e TBf«y l« T^iy 4ie«0«xt^«liig'. ie iit.'V^f aatlfled 
you Isefs^y* ttoat ya«r t>««r Is not »i^yoh^Bt.4l&l» »a«». *« fe«ift*lt!i 
fe«rTe aotlce tfett w« ©sBasst e#wtlfflat ttgiliftf iro«T f©«»t« i«5l«SR tlit 
Qttsility ©f y««it' %««f* |)«-®© e&l«»felff,, ^9 €td li©t «ta'?s at 
©r t«e lnire»tlg*ti«9ft». «« fei«f.T« tiiff lel«»t <ifirl^»ne#i »f onur 
olal«.* Iltiret dsy« l^st?** tbe iplaintlff ans^^ir^d tfe®t l«tt«r at 
th« ■*©f«.-iid«jit a« f»ll0we{ »1». y«p1.y t® yoer® ^.f tli# 20tto Insft,, 
tlw hM9r «« aJf« ••lUag y®» l« tfet epiB« b«eT «e «ol^■"r yw». froas 
tUft T^^ry liii^lttEilai* Im fact, it Is til frem l«#t Uori?*^*^, »# 
w« hsTe not bttwtdi may fin^ 9f b«et !ili*«» that tl»«, t9VT w^.a 

fortvlerat l^tt^T^ InforvNKt u» lis w«ii flaii. Any fl'^tfttrt whm 

jmm! tlM oh^rsetftr af out l&e»f iit eannot efeaaf f . '^htii your 
ler. i'lBltli W9.8 hftirt h» t«if»04 th« !»•«»* »»d y«mr Cost^^ny toot 
out 3S %tl». to %rf it ^pfore irtrDltis' th* eontrsiol:. It w^9 tii« 
»«»• be«r tk«» St It if new, «a<3. there Ir »othi»f we o»n. *» 

fflj£>ut It. y"®wffv«r, if tfetfs* is »«y as«tfeo«J ywiaer bTfW!Ra,«t«r ooitld 

ws will rl^'^ly fC'll©«- &.1k- lft«ty««ii«?>..« f<!>y f^ur b«»fT, fe^at »« 

wlao, ■*€ asffux« yom# ate th<^J©>fe^fely sat-lsfltA, wc= feaTl»f 7«0«iv«4l 

th« contPOT«rsfry *»«! 0« «» t# t^« fftx-^iktBtat^illtf ©t tli«? fe^fir, 

for it - miid«?r tfe# «=r'»tra«J"l . O-e *l^mt l?4, %h.^ if'»f#«'^tiit ^»rT©-|« a 
lett«r to th^ pln^iniiff In ^fei<sfe it ■»»,» ttffii;«6^» ^*Th« «oer'«Ti8t<(? 
1« not ».% fftuXt,* &«€ #» .h»8t iS tfet 4«fg»«i^a?st dirt's tfe« 
i^Xslatiff, "cm* tr9t4« xtffueti. to ««*» «iisy ^^.?3f &f yiswf t>.t9m-e% 
%y r««tftoii of »*»$■ not b*l«|: ?*?rcb..B»t»fcl.e« f%.em^:0 »»*» atfe^y 
di«jpOfiltlo% of «hftt Ife l#ft te«fo»»^ ^wly let.* mt^. thsn ©« 
^naio as wlrtd farther, »>ill swfof* t& you-' tcsjroa^iot tfcot rtroh^atubli 
«o you botter iSl«po«€ of 1&flfe«e«,* tfews, 1% *lll fe® «««« a,ii 
ilK»«fir lttt«yc si»d telftgra««,f t«>^« tog-ftfetr, aeastltv-te-d *,«r- 
9sros»loRs of %kP s-otuol «ttitm«5« «*efe n^s* tsklag tow^^i'dis tke 
«tfe«»T, 9>hti« fe«f?T w»o 'teulRf r-ftofivei Vy the iSef^^Ttdmat. Tfeey 
wort «Hioh t&« espo ^s^e tboii^ tfe« ^.rtie» bad !B#t «?teille t&« 
O0iitr®et iB«^t te^ias: f«Iflll#dl# snd. Is «1*1j&iu# forme &r4 ^tttrtd 
te «R©tn ot&ty %h» ff^Tf ■mt^t. of tfe^ l«tt«T8 o.»ij t§l<?~ 
Iwra-fMi, 0«ytaiBly, if thos^ i^fa» feAil: telw?® of fort*^ r» haviag 
talcoB f!»lsoo in ife« forw of «©«T«rsiJationo »hile tfa« eotjtraot 


tli9U' 9,<5i*l»«'l0ft » ^g>yrt» V. _Jii»i_e£0ift, JIOS 111, 87-1 fortloirl, 

thersforWi feeing ^rltt-'a, mud, to, bt'.ijf; oone7St«» liidleptttfl\M« 
•vid^net »r th^? aetwal words \uie«5.» aiad !?<plitiar tsertlsftBt to th« 
eonXT&rsTBf, aftd written *liil<!^ th« ooRtitRet tte btlng ¥»-«rforii«d, 

^. .^niljrb^-Jrgr Co > v, rfa»ty.i-r> 1S3 ill, ^..i^, 3MI0J T«arl'Kf r, 

Ittisy of «uR« So, »ii#w« tiiit it ^14 aet nM, pTM-6%lmLllt, to 

utatft-S »©.»« 9lml»8, fe«t iij. ftticti t. ^ay ttessi tlsey «^%»ld mt, if 
tiii^®ltt«&?S to tfei® Jwrr, ti«rsd tcv ssi^Iaa-i it. tfe* el^iir.e iii?.t«d 

i^u^stloB did stst® ®^.® iaf Inltt f,a©t, sta4 t&^t i*ji.s, II «**.« tfe^s 
««»« te«®r S.S tfe«.t fr^m t^jssJeb tSi^ <l£ t>srr«li5 ii?tr?? t».k«R, iihi©Ji 
w«r^» ttsea. a» a. taaioliii, gut tliat fmot W9.« t«»tlfl^ t« ¥y 
O'^'^tn, s.nS^ if ft®t apfli^jifiosilly «:'8»mti'st,iil9t«#, 

«fltb. the «fTidtBC«; tfe^t t^t i^lxlmtiff »?;..«- 'STatiti«^- *!ii5i«r 
t* it« tall «Jl^i5c «Sir :s<5 tl&li^-. it i? tris^ ilt%t t1^* siviaf^aait 
tfejra -l^ft.t fas: 5Rf«?i#sitt fmll«^- t^s ^«y f^r ?4:l.J &ii:t?^l», 

ktt tfe« v«i-ti©t wa» »li|ffetly If'Sg tfesft tba i^jRfk'imt «lw«» 
»«simln^ tli-At tfe» b«ftr w^,» «*yefe?5fi%s^le, wf ^ ngft tfe-i'ftic 
that tk© d«f«iaiil«.at te «atltl«^ to c^asplsin,, ?h# ^iff^s-f^a^s* 

id oaljf a »fead«* nv^y 1%, f"^-^t, *« ttikl^lt^ ce?B»t- within tht 
rule jls, lE^nJytp »oj9 otiTat Ijg^^, In esufelfei af ito,e es»«« clt«.j3l 

by c<5ua«el fe.r thit fifif 'gRfjETs't , the ^Iffpr^no* ^ftiif^eft tti« 

It 1« ©©nitraded that It »a.® ®ry©r ?iskt to ■a^^rssit 
djefeadsint %u tko* ISO'S.' Bsueli ©f tbe cmfltml tteclt ©f thm pl-^intiff 
e©»iMt»3r 9®o)lc« ©»i4»d, It bare cm tte# quest io« ®f li$» 
latfeffst %.iid. tliftJ'efto*^ his sr«;«lifeiilty. ^i^olte feai»%4y 
tt»tifl»d tfei^t Si© l!i&4 b#«R is tfee brtwiig^' fctt*lm#«sf 8lm«f« lt05j 
tlut &« »a« %h9 Srf>-s^n€ frftifteratiam i-*f ^it f»sily ttet w-ae In tHist 
cttjiisaesft, and tteat 13# ir*t wtfl^snit &f th^ plmltm^itf ee-T'^eim* 
tioii* FX'^m b-it i«?sti*'>tsy, tli«fj^<t »a® M 4<N&'I gife#mt fel« 
latej^jutj !*..ini ftlt'iiom^ft, it jnl^t mr» fetfife i^r^fser t© <sii«w 
the SJKjiiSt of ttodk to* fe^lgj w« «SiB ftot taifik tM ec'%tt*t 
tutvim^l »• sufestftatlal trroi-, E«s w^ tk« &l«.i«itiff' s eftief 
«itii««« »»{J tbs |iai3Py sms-t haT«! tft^lisiNi )sl« isterstt. 

It is »»!5te.lMI«€ i!feat '^t vtrit^t »t.f liiitefOfMRT- 
te«0;i*«ise s® 9re4St *«tsi ??lT«a t© ffee <3i,.rf ^u^fjet f«>JF t'M» ^-^-IclS 
•*.y feavi^ te««« t#e«lv#s^ f©» ^^#ml«<»^lisf*)(l %f#r» %iit -^t tS'* 
wltji^«« 'y'jditt' t?'atifl«4 th;a-t i \' <?«►«* *tfe.Tf« -^.f f.^wf tlmts 
as im9h f^BB-y ts ttt**t^t to ^»le$ii9ll?t tlt« l$««r aa^i? stU. It" 
Qt9 «m.» gettsii i^«t of It, th<» co-istflsmti^mi, i»« tJilnV, Is tatjit^as^lt. 

1% 1» Stoat fi84«»«S tfe*t t&e pls»tntlff f«ll«!aS t«i !fjT6»Jue« 
ita 7«odr'd» fr*» «ai«A it eoiiia ht.T« "fe-jwa t««?«y«.tely iJtter«in«d 
«li«tber « ffoflt wi« ».<%«» on betr tfe*.t v^b «lt»,Ie®!s-sll««d «ftd 
»e>X4. iNit tk« 7««s0t4 «^^« tk^t t&,« 'b^<^ltf ^^T^ ^r«aui^«d.« 



9.»iii«d about then, t&e coatjmtloi? »»d« l» wnttiift^'lt. 

Aft«» t)i« v«y-3ict, «*o»««<?l for the ##f®»»3.ftiit T'l'fiSi^iito?* 
eljc affidavit* Im sttpioft «f Its notion f&w a ti«w trl»X. In tb» 

»>»l«f for the «?#»f »a«5'iat -m ewfc«t«ntlsl ssrsnaastftt lit wa-^i* <>» the 
T^ointy s.ltto©i3fh It I0 »«'ntleni.«4. in <>oB,,|t»Bcti0fi wltl* th« ootitjsw- 
tloa that the v«ar?3t©t 1« ol«airly ftgssimat th« welfht ®f th« 
•fldame*. s^e fe^-ft- «xa»lB»d tfet aff i(ii!jTlt« ftMiH. Rnt ©f* th« 
«f)lnieii thml th«f tia B©t »«k« »ui^ a thowin^' ?sb wttli |»stify 
««»elwdi«c that tht ttial |il4f« errtd la refaflair t« s^tat » 

Th« yfflor^ »fcoiP« tfe-«t th^rt! ■»!« «, t^ir ttlnl and 
that &9 «ufe«t*ntlal %Tmt «r*» e^fl^lttwa. fh* 3mi*f»fm-t» tfo,«T!»- 
for«, will fef afflr»«a* 

o»^>«»cMi, a. a»tj rw&mmt, 4* « 

inJJs -^ 

287 • B8063 

mtSiS f, U3KA. cmardilRn of the K o Q T '\ . O 

Setate of Joha Llska, a minor« I^ O ^^ -^*" 

CHiOACiO f»Aii.wAfs mm^mi^ tt ai.. 

osoK ooiisrr. 

opinion filed Feb. 27, 1924 
Sit* amticm 0<@D»l^m miirUT^^ ^h.e opiniom of 

Shortly a>f teir noon, on M9Te#»oir ^0, 19'40, Jo2m 
l»i»l»« & ohlM 3 yoax's mkd S ^o»th« of ag« wa» struek and 
s«ireii«ly injuTftd l»y a noxtbt^oumd striiet o&x lis s:«dsle ave* 
aim b«t7fian SSth and S6tl) str«et. Suit w^9 brou^t by bia 
giiaifdiimilgstlniit tho 3tr«rt ia^lXimy Ooa|)iu&l9i$ to r^fs&wBT 
dtoHA^o fox* thii ln|U3^&«s attataiiied. fhtte wm$ a trial 
^fors tine owtrt <md a 4ury, aad a T«rMct la favor of 
plaiatiff toy #35»000.oa. h nsjtittltuar of f$,O0C.OO waa 
xec^uiTed %nd Judj^tnt ent«<r«d om the vtrdlot for |X7«00vt00« 

Plaintiff *s theory of tli^^ oaoo ime that ao th« 
child WW crosalng Kedtle sv«nu«, a north aa<3 oowth street 
in CSh-io^go »t ft point botw®#s SStfe aad ^6th ttre^t** tb« 
BMtOfaaa negligtmtly operated the atr««t oar» &» a result of 
which the ehildi was injiared. On the eth^r bffal, tb« coaten- 
tian of th« defendants X& thut there vsia no negligsnee in 
th« operation of tljs street oar, but that the ohild t»a» 
injured heoftuae he ran froa the ourte toward the emt-:i9» 

^V£I i 






•u4d«nly tbcit th* ttotdYnaa wmm ifli»bl« to prftveat the oar 
•tTikittg hijii« 

fh« dcelitrmtloo imn la fo^T «o\iat«« fh» flTst 
«aii&fgftd t1»ii.t tha ^i*?«T**a.a1s« aisgligemtly <»p«a:ated th« 
«tr««t ear. the »«mmd tMt Ihtf. m^&t&tma^n in ©fc*rg« of the 
ear f&iX«d to 1c«e|) 6 proper l€^k«>otJit* flie ti'vlrd aad fourth 
oiu]ita» ofeiwpf5«d a fallur«r to ring & Iswll or to glirt any otfeur 
wumiAg. To th« ^«oiarst:<^^Ci thm d<?f«adK,nt9 flt«d t)»« g«xttf«X 

fhm «Tldfno« t^B'-s t® jafeo*' that t'fet ohild lived 
with hi« |^ar«fit« o» the worth »i^ ©t 35th «tT#«'t, a^hout IOC' 
fft«t «««t of Kftdsitf «▼«!£»»; that i^l^ut t«fi ninutes btfor« h« 
im» injured h« left hl« hOffl«, trnkaawa to !sls another, and 
ir«At %9 & «mac^ store loc^.t«d o« th« toist eld« of isdzle 
&T!»wa«t '^ ^•«* oowth of 36tte «tr««t5 that &ft«r leaving 
th@ at<»rc he ^viiXkod north mmA maet tmmn nttmx the eur1» sorth 
•f th« store nM^ oouth of ^Sth otTir^t opc-oottt^ n trae!im.t lot» 
whioh oxtondod froat 1^« store to SStb »tr#i&t{ that hot then 
rttn Itt ft iwsatorly or aorthsptstorly ^ir^'Oticm toward the 
northbotsttd street oar tr&ok* Flslntiff *» wlto«09«o testl"* 
flftd t)amt hts ranched a p&in% cmt9r«ini the ti^ reilo or stear 
thi? woat rail of the northboimd trmok, «tof'p«d mid then 
turned &roimd« smd wae «t«i}c^ by the ear wisioii ho ims nm-t 
the OAOt rail* tho siiotortt$e.a testified for th« ^efendsjit 
to the effect ths^t thft ohlXd never rea.0h»d thf? oaet rail 
of the tr«ii0k« hat thmt he x^m into th^ northvftot oomer of 
the etreet oor* The oar «m« trarelisg ehout 12 isllee T>er 
lM»ur when the ohild left the o^rli* Ther« le no oh^rge of 
oxeeselTO sp«edl« Seven witnesses testified In refsreneif to 


■- ■, i*; V ! ' 

!^' ,;'<•*! 

' -iLiJ": 

»CiiSi„>'tCAi t!v; tl.i'*:::4'i' 

^9 o«G\iTtf(no9t three of them *<*?» p«i«»tag*»» riding on 
th«> front pl&tfom of the street ottTt two urert riding in 
na ««*iMM»l»iI«,, whiolt «&« being dxiven south in K»dfti« 
nviNM* on tb# inMi tide of th« street | «i2sdi the eth«r tv« 
veT« th« oendtaoter And motofiufca of th«r osir* Vf throo 
^nnsongovi mn^ th« t«9 in tbe nutomo^ilo w«Fe «!iil«d by 
tlio plnintii'f} WR4. tlix« j^torsaftn wam eondvotor by the 

IbEHury Ito.t'baAnt an tleotrioi^^n^ t«!9tifie^ th»-t be 
witaeeaHMI tbe aooldiinti tba^t be tme driving bswe from ^is 
woi^ in ^ie autottbobile soutb in xedeie n-rtieie; tbnt vben be 
-«n« about 15G feft iu»rtb of 35tfe etreet, be ^©tleed tbe 
little boy atmndlng at tb« e^-et is^otilNitone of Kedsie ar«m:» 
about 3S feet ;varth of tbe eandy fttore; tbat tbe bejr then 
•ts-xifed fitoxoee Ked2i« ^venme &M ibat at tb«.t ti»e ihti etrert 
nee about 133 ftot eoutb of tbe beyj tb^t h.^ m.w tbe boy 
*ki»4 of aope stlong aoroee tbe etre^^t* J[uet a little g&it 
aeroee the etreet * * «^ tb-^t be «ould eell bie calt » toddle* 
n little bit of a etride* » little fester tbiua n vs^ik. fbat 
be van {going ^mostly eeet» kind &f noftbwest &nd eas (sloneN*"* 
Tbet vben tbe boy r««.(^ed ebout tbe veet i%il of tbe nortb* 
boiand txn4le« be etopped for % eeeond| tbat a.t tb«t tiert tbe 
«it»eet ens nbout oroffslng ^Stb etreet and be blee bi?. hom^ 
to j^t on his brekee to etop; tb^t the little boy t^me^l «trt9\md 
end etnrted l^ok teenrd tbe eeat curb Atone* ^jx<^- v^htn be ^t 
ne f«r &« tbe «&et mil of tbe nortbbound tr»ck« tht o%r bit 
bin on tb« front of bis bend «nd knocked bin doea smfi be rolled 
under tbe «ayj tb^t tbe fritneee stot>|54»d bie tmw tkr erouad 
tbe re»jr eod of tb^ etreet ear i^n^ tmsfA tbe little felloe 
bad ^net ernvXed froiR imdevnentb ^e etreet oer. Me i»ioktd 

hla up aad took him to tb« Kofiplt&l. That h« did snot 
iHMtT » belX at fttty tl»«j thmt fe« dl'? m>t notl©* wlj«>tbeT 
tlk« f«cMl<^ir Oft th* atrt' t ear ar#i>v-<«d{ that h« waa looklmg 
ril^t at tbe frottt a^d of tlia »trt«t oar vfetn it @tr\}OliL tha 
littla hofTi that »|}«n th« str««t ear at«|»|>ed it w%« IS er 
30 faet sou til of 36 th atra<!$t| th4t thfs^ mm waa ahialiikC aad 
tha atraat m&n drifj that th&T« wata k^o othar traffic In the 
«tT#et,- 1» furfchar t«»»tift#4 ttet the 'my was a'boiit 35 
faat aoutli of 25th'atr«(»t whtfxt b.a wfta etruek aa^iti tl»t itTe«t 
«av »«&% ah0ut 15 faet ^tar atrilclBf: tha ttoyj that whan tha 
ImI7 atoppad betve^n th« fail9 of tbe aorthb&imd traeic* tha 
fi^&nt <aad of tha «tya«t amy irma &h®\At 30 t® tb ftet fr©w 

«illla» mm» t«««ine4 for %h« plaintiff I tl»t 

h« i>aa riaiag with fiathaiaa in th® l%ttar*8 %uto«^biXa aomth 
la K«<isia avenua; that «fif» ha first mm tha little ^i* ha 
was otiming out of th« mn^j at&ra ob the aaat aida af Sadf* 
zia aT«»6Mi| thiRt tha hoy at^ppad itt tha enttb foT a aaodad 
and thtm st&rtad to oroaa the atratf « At thitt ti«« tha 
bay WMi )Bi»oiut tha a«ntar af the ira<mBt lot* north of the 
•tor«» ftai tlia atre^t oar wtut about 1S& or ISO foot ao^th 
of tha boji thRt tha littlt boy ia oroaaiag the atraat 
*«Bl)cad* toddiod* liJfca « y^ua^tar voul^l iralk*| that ahta 
ho rOt about the e«fiit«r of the northbotiad tradk* ^f boy 
atopp«4, tiartt««t €tad aaw tfe« street oar eosing* At that tima 
tha atraat oar anaa about 38 or 40 feat f roa hia %adi he ttaxn- 
ad aod started ba^ %m^. jttat as ha ^;ot to tha oast rail the 
m-w straok hia m.a l£Bd<dcod hia "aort of aorthaaot*} th«t whaa 
tha oar struclc tha boy, th« autoasobilo aaa 9?it!iitt t*o or 
thy«« feat iwarth of tli« front fnd of thf etye*t oar; that 

*(& '■ 


'■V:J *itl 


:fl'«r .^JT-J!- 

RatteMn VL9m tb« &uto«i<i»bll* bdm; tli»t &ft«r tht boy wft« 
«tru(di t1s« ftutomobllt ir»« ttopr «^ ^uivl HatboAa ireat to hla 
ttjrotmd tht r«aT of th« ear, t<» th@ ««t»t »i<ie, i^lclcKd tht 
eiilld ttp oixd th«]r took hln to th« bo« pitta i& tlw %utoittobll4i} 
tl»t th«y pic^od tito l3oy tip abo«t tfet otat«T of tli« 8l«l« of 
tbo atrofrt mil'} th%% tlm «uti«»sobll« ir%« bolog drliroii ;it nbout 
XS to 30 nlloo p«r bour jtuit trior to t}i« «cK}i^»»ts on oiro«t» 
•saumlafttioA he testified tkat irbeit th« Uttlo boy l«ft tb« 
Ofloidty atOTOf tb^ stTO^t os^r irao abO«it 7S to 100 f#«t »outb 
Of tho atos^o; tbat the "ooy trftvelod nortbwoat f jpoh tfe« srt07«| 
tbat be wont about 40 fe»t ©a tfee Ridorretlk, walklmg *« little 
tod(^lo«* Ko wa4i ^t imlkiag lifeo a litilt <feil«l would nan, 
•oirt of toddlo*} tb»t h« nmu not rerf m^&h of » Judge of 
0|»o«d in »ilofi puT boux, but tbat bt tbougjht tb«» little boy 
wmm going fron 6 to $ alloo per beisir, wbieli api^Yoxi {si.t«Iy 
mui bfklf tbo spoftA of th« otT«^t mti tbat vhm. thB littlo 
boy ro&Qb«d tbo oui^b bo b«eit»t«^ « fmetiem of « t«coM, 
just to otop ^«n off tbs ousb atoBo; tbmt vbon be got doim 
fro» the oiMfb »toB« lato tbo ot*«et, tbe «t?«tt m^t w%» ateottt 
SS%fo«t mvith of biai tl»Rt tbo oai* dULf) not slov mwa, tmtil 
it imo «l^nit 10 or ItS foet frost tiMs boy I tb# «b<m tb« eAr 
etruob blia it kneokoa^ bl« b«i«i; i^rthe««t; tb»t i^on tbo 
b#y mui kao<^«4 <dio««t« tbn «itae«s oould o«o bin laying 
ooot of tb<« rail} tbat tfeo atttomobllo wa« B%opp9d and bo 
Sknd RatboftA jui^pod out, xai» arouosHl tbo titMt oxtdl of th^ ttrt^t 
oav and wb«ei tbey ptt tbere tbo boy «a« et&iiidiiiig on sine log 
witb tbo otbor log hftnglBg} tbat tfet l>oy v«« throe-guartcro 
b«tic fre« tb« front bua^;>or oa tb® e^ot eido of th« ms» Mo 
ftartb^r tOotified tbat ^4m tbe boy got to tli« voet rail and 
tiumod aroumS* tbo &^t «as i».bo\itt 50 foet aoutil of bin* 




:> ^# ^ftHr^wNE t<x'' 


E(i«rsxd Aiu&«rffoa for thw |i^Iaiatlff t#stifl«d fbmk 
h0 «&s % obKUffftiur nxid «%&«( rid lag oa th« front platfoTs of 
thB 9tr»«t o»xi thi&t h« vftft utetivtixig & little tethlM tm^ t«> 

1^« l#ft of tb« «iotoi«mis ^^ti ^«ist !)« flTxit » tb* boy* 
b« ««« be%«r««ii the first v^il asa4 tlb« cnurb stOQ^^, eT«@«lng 
the atr««?t *U« w»« a little toadlimg - llttlt f«ll0v| that &t 

ttUkt tiiee th« (itT-efst ^mr wMt n.m\it opposite tt>« <i«Bter of tlit 
<»M!i^ «t«»7« and tb« ^y %i&<mt the opt^slto tl».« o«nteir of tbo 
▼ft«itnt lot - &l»out 4S f#«t fyo« the otroot ««r|* tlsat %h» feoj 
tJi«» »aa out tmd s1M>©d in tfe* o«nttf of tfe« t«© Tail* iwidi 
ot«p9«d[ tlitit the vitn$«« thorn a«w am &utomobll« earning «oiit1it$ 
tliat iiftor t^« boy ffitoppod ^tw«<m Hht- t^m rtllo tbt sotoTOMi 
shut off tJbo po«ti7 ».»di. fe^en th« str&ot €m.v win alsiout 10 oir 
IS f««t frofii th« boy }%« ot&rted fo i^t (sai tlit %t3iili««| that 
liftoir t>ie %ooid«»t tbo witnose got out of tM^ cmr mad tito 
littlo \mf mk» %%k(m tenAf^ tH&t h® €ld »ot »»« Mai| t%t«tt !io 
ROtioed th@ feiulor iv»jt up; tfeat ti^ea. lit got out of tlt« Oft.:r* 
tSkO front Ofid Koo &boist 40 f4»«t frcm thm «outb oici^ of 3ith 
StTOet. On Of©««5r-«3tS«4«attO« %9! t««tlfl«<l that fef «»ti«s*t«d 
tliftt tho oonlly otoT« «^« al^mit T& ftet ooutl; of Mth tttrettl 
tlsm.% "d^tm. he flvot mm Id^e l»oy Itt w&a ^feoijit 40 to 4& feot 
fr<«B the ofoiiidy »tor«, g«>in« 1» a vontorly dlreotiott toward 
th« St root oaer tsadfc} %% ttiat tlaui %]%0 freisit en4, of t^» 
stToet «ft3r vf.s fxon 50 to SS f««t fros tbf i^y «1bo «ao then 
Rboiat tht of th© «a«t To»aifay, ^tiire«m tist etart> sM 
th« 70.11 toddling along ** going fattor tli»& o oblld'a vrnlt* 
klRd of a trot;* tiiat the sf^otorasai otood up In fromt and 
oo fRjp a« the witB*?flf( oo«l<l »«e, h« *pi2oa»«d to loo looking 
•at of tho wla^w. K« *»« thou mmk«A y>y mwmel tot defen4i» 
«is%n» if ho appoftTo^ to too «tt«ading to bis tsuoino® n »o fiwr 
as yo« oowlA «««• m an8®»Ted tbat bo di^ net Botlce tli« 




wmtonmn tAlklai; to wixnj^im^ or doing ftartblsf thxxt ht thouldi 
■tot doj tli»t wtjfm t}i« Isoy »t«pp*!S l»to th« trmtk, tb» iBOtox* 
Hta tiumNI off %km pow'f^ri that be mn^ld fft«l tho «>tOT«i« 
apply tii« ftir irhoB b« mi» %)M>ut 10 vr 16 f©»t f»oai tht boy 
ft»d oouiKtei Ms gong} ttiml tli« o&y ar«tn l& to 30 feat af tor 
otTlklAg the boy; that «^«a It stoppeil tfe« fjHaat of the mt 
wtkM aboiut 40 foot ooutli of SSt^ sttoet* 

jhroak CSiifioii oalledl o^ b«^«lf of tbe pl&latlff 
t«atiflod tttAt ho wortEod fca & ^oohlst© «ho|^ of on olaotrie&l 
ooaqioiiy} that oAmm ho mo oittlag oa liio l«ft hxm& sido of 
the fToitt plmtfotw of the c»ifj tJuit two othor »»a vero tit- 
ting with hlM on tho oootj tfeat i?!i^ feo flrot «aw tho littlo 
boy« ho wm »tnn6.Li^ stilly faol^ Biorth«o«t la the ttiiddXo 
of the »^rthho\md tmdE( t)mt tfce eor tmo th«o ohout 10 ©» 
IS fo^t fr©» th« boy; thot ho j^ot ha.pp«fii#4 to 1©€* tip ot 
the tl&o Ho oao the chlld| ho ftlt the Rppllcmtion of th« 
hrakoo^ Vnn.t &t obomt thr tiawrt^o iesir hit t*« ohlld tht ssotoz^ 
ooa 9»T0 & BOTiayB aad tht» stoppod tht m>:s: in «)»ovt thft e»r*» 
lOiOfthi th».t tho wlloiooo giOt off tho ear sond tho frost t^tai. 
of It T?a« th«» sttootit 10 foot eout^ of tSth otriHSt. Oo oxooo* 
cxoiHinfttioii ho tftatlf iedi that he c^ttl^S aot «oo th<s ohild hit 
<MA oi^oiAt of 1^0 dteoM)Oord ohotrucitlmg hio Tioo* 

AadTOv OhiooB t«otif lod for tho pl&latlff thmt ho 
wio olttlBg with hlo i>rothor« f rank cailo<m, ^ th« ooot «x%«ma- 
liig alosg tho «09t oido of ths irootihulo of tho « troeit oor; 
thottio firot thing h« inotloedl w&t wfeon th© aotomuaua hollorod 
Olid trlod lo otop the «»r{ ttwat he dl3 sot oo« tho littlo boy 
hoforo ho ooo «tru<dcs that irhe& tho e&r otoppo^ ho got off 
th« froat OftA of tho otreot ^t ooo tfeoa aboiit 10 foot 



south 0f SSth street* Of, oro»ft-'!^xa«4witiomt b« •tflittd that 
IM di 1 >iot h«Ajr th« r^ngi&g of $«>> gimc by ttie motmrMMu 

ftre. Anim Li »);»,. th« eMldi*Eit m«tl»«T» t^»ilfl«4 that 
«lto llT#d IB the r««r hmt»» of l^o* S448 «)• 3&th atr^t* ^liioh 
»«s fttMsmt IM^ t»«f% ttom K«<S«i$ «.-viiiiiaft| thmt «« th« d&y in <ivt««<» 
tioa she »&» •iBrub&ing and tb»t about t«Q miimtcNi bef«»si> the 
little bojr VA9 lB|iiaT««d« «th« »ftw him In th« hQutm pla^ fling 
ft««V(nd« and %hM next thing ahe ka«« abo^t l^ft li^^ wft« «lueB t«NM 
««« t^ld h«ar thut h« hit^d be«n iajur«^* On oreas^vimmiftatlc'S 
•1M> t&id that tis« hmuM ««.«i ftbotut X0«> f««t vwt of l^<Ssie 
*v«iut; tb»t idi«t ^d ast giim tM eh ltd » peigiiy t& hu|r ecia^ 
ovftr at th« «t«i»| th^t hST husbsad <;$«• sot m% httwn ftt the 
tiiMi; that b« w»s wdrtt'lagj^ dirlvla^ r>. tx^ek. 

Jol® f. Etgsm te^tlfltd: for tht 4«fea<aamt8| ths* 
lut mui th0 mdtoxtniiei bf th'e ostr in <^\9t®fitioa »M h«i«l a. repilar 
rtm oa K»tl»l« »▼«»«« «a4 va* f8i®iii*r vlth ti« strttt si»<* h»4 
bH»i3i f07 It g»e4 vhlle; th^t thtr 3tT«»«rt ear wauii 48 to SO f$*t 
Xo^y Si regular pii3r»*ii«yoii-^fit«r oar, wolghiag mbovs-t 18 to 
SO toni$ thtit th« &.^K$id«nt happened %t ins 08 BQdn. Tho Xaat 
•top h« Mid© prififT to, the seelfieiit »«•» ©» th«* to^th «t^t of 
SBtb 8t7««t; t^mt the diatanoff from the « mtrb of Kodi^o 
o^nnto to the 9^Mt rail wmM nbo^t 13 or 13 f@«t| that tho 
»tr««t «ao p«iT«^ that th© blook froat 26th to >)eth atieeto 
Oft* fros 80D to 900 foot loagi thftt ftftor leo^rlag SNIth stroot 
ho wont about 4 mlXso jjor howr ifeS<l tti^co foA «i littXo aoro 
"99999 » imd Inoro&Md tho opood. 7hor« v%8 thro^ wiadoffo ia 
froat of th« "rootlbulo sad ho nao op^^pooit* the ooatcr <hi»| 
that ^o t^r was oloaar eoRd bri^t; that h« vs« ^iag about 13 
«ilf# |)i# hour i^a ho ««« abo^t t^o mator of th« bXo«lL| t^t 





ti ^ii" 

:?;^*r 95i 

.v'f-^ -^^f gf'.^ift 

h« iTRtv the Ic oat 1cm of tht osnAdjr tt»xi»} ttot It wm* «Mut 
iO fe«t •outh of SSth ott-eet; that ti« wao fsolttg noyth irM 
doing xiotlii^ but watofelag ^« »tyefitj th»t h* did »ot twm 
airouad} ttet h«( tiftd s ol<»«r ^«v «li«a4 of hini that tl^^re ir»f 
no tmfflo la tfe« otroot} tl»t i?>5«« ht^ fitnt »*»? tbe littlo 
lioy h« fwo la th« gutter »t tfce «&»t ©urbatone "btmssfeoA doisa* 
pls.yla^ *lth lowethlag oa ti';*? osMit «urfe«t©n«j ebowt % f ««rt 
Borlli of tho T^r%% wall of t)t)» oaaiy otoref thaM tbs boy^ was 
r%olag tht »l^««iill!:| tte«t at tfe^t tlmo ttee ©tT-e«t ear w®« 
a^«iiit tlio ttl^41o of the block; thmt sttl of s $M^«a th* 
littlo ^ fot *u5p off bi» fovtro audi mat &o«t>s«, tiAsmodt 
ayoimd, shot rigfet »o»&»»* iw8«t aboiiJt $ «il#« for tiottfi tlirt 
nbOB t^bfl) boy stiml^toaot ^ ^m^ Rtaf*to4 to rm w«#t tl(« ffoat 
•»d of t}i« mx mm $i^i%t i& f«et from ki«| ai^i %t tli&t tin* 
h« »».« about i foot muth of tlur* so'estls wall of tfe« Ooa^ 
otoiro| %h&t whmk th$ ti&f otaxtod to oirosi t!ho otrett bo 
»mmM4 tfe© goag, tfeiTOw off tfc« poweTt ^-^-^ l''^ ^ii tlj« *!» 
br^ko %]Sbci omad; that ho %m4 & i^^ ]f%ll| titat th« littlo 
t»oy ' iwiX bnapoA up *i|?»la»t tfe® fyoat poot oa tfe# rigkt b&ad 
f:r«mt <^raox- of th« oftv « the itoirt^osot ooraor** Th<^tblM> 
»•▼»» iOt a« f&x fto tiso r».il at 4ll| tMt th# ftii.d«T dt.TOp.-^'Odj 
%im% just mo t%f« boy wmo ots^ok ^e osr «^%o p>lag about 6 
»il«« por bourj t&&t-*ft«3^ hlttlag tfee boy# li# stopp^o^ tJio 
imip la abomt tB foot; ^>»>.t froa tho tl%o bo !et%irt9«il to otoft 
the oajr %iatll It «mo »topp«4» It riia ^brn^t 40 foot > tlt^^t a-Xl 
of tb» oa» &|»|tllaao«!9 wfTO la good woTfela^ 0t4mT', that »ft»» 
the mr oto^pod, lio got off tbe frost |»latfo«a» *^* fe« *1<J 
f^t kaea whopo th« &oy waMi| thoy tfeea told hla ooaioae pioised 
hia t^p» sa4 took blm i^v&y la mn is,^to«>bilo; that htitnm tbo 
a.oold«at bo ooa tbo aatooobllo ofsilaf oou^ oa S^odislo Kfmm} 

^&.ti ? "-*.t 

«r':^ t 

■ '^^■^KhI 


that tbo drlTtr bX«ir » h^ra; tfoat b« rcLAg hie ^Q&g «ii«ii tlt« 

boy 0%ftrt«<l to nm Keroafi «ht utrcd:^ th«t tfee boy did m% 

At any tlaM gtt b«t««<i« %h» rftll* and «t»]p» ot turn arouiiA 

«nd start to §0 bacAi t«> tb« «««t« C|^ 9:rosft-^xa^.iiifttloii 1i« 

t»»tlf l«4 t!»5.t wl:ie» tlM boy 8t»trt«<l from tbfi' ou«% tioross tlitslreet, 
/,titr«at oar im« ftboi>it § f««t 00'utli of t%t« emuHty atore. 

boy 5 ittot north of it; that after be ^it tli« boy* tht e&r 
van 3ibout 35 Xe«t| timt ho «%• la sbout %h» mM>il9 of tbft 
blo^ vfhm h» flTot »m« the bey, %bOtit $00 f«6t aoutb of tlt« 

o&a% »tor«, l$« w»M m-img «febowt 12 ®ilt« p©? feow.ri tb«t tl^e 
oarbstane »h.«r^' tho boy a^o, wsis ab-out Ma« laeb*» felgbj 
that ht did ifeot ««e tlio boy got dowa frans fho 9i(Soiialk{ 
tbat ho did i^t thlx^ %lii»t tM boy »iig1$t inia cmt aaiS did 
aot olow w ^'^^ throw off tko 'pow^ir i^ssa b* firot ««w him| 
tfeftt b« bad bof^a a ssotoi^aua 1 y<^r «»«?. 4 ms>nth« b®fOTO tl» 
aeoiditttt and lisid b^<Bo runalag oa K.edaio &irf»i»j8 six or sev«a 
isoaiho; ^%t bo 4i<i not tbrow off hi« pooor or oo%9ad a (^ag; 
lantil ho wao about 9 f«f«t ooutfc of tbo flsadsr- »tor«', aad. thio 
waa whoa th« iittio boy »t*rt«d toiwMNl the tJ^<iil$ tTmt tb« 
boy faa otraight voot whea ho loft tho «mrb. 

The ooni3tAQtor» Fred l«aa|pMr tootifi®^ th&t tb* 
Ijult ttop g»std« by tho oar boforo tlio aocidoat fas oa tbo 
ooutb aido of <3eth stTs^ot, wl^idte wao a orotatown liao; that 
ho tl»>ught tbf blo4^ botwo^a 3Sth ai^ Sfith etroets wao 600 
foot loi^ ^at bo «r%a cm th« roar f^latfora; th^t It oas a 
aioo dUny; tb&t tho o^r «ao SbiAfi: abot^t 12 or IS »ile« por 
hoar whoa it toaobod tbs ooat«r of tho bloe*, ffe* first 
tbian bo know* tho o%7 %es« a otaidoa otop^; fraw tho tiao ho 
felt feho air brsJcoo th« oar r«a abouit SO foot, tht ^ta«y 
otoro i» abovit 90 foot oovth of S@th stroot^ that tfhoa tho 


(RHy •tOt7!»«d th« TWIT «»d 0f It *«« ll#t tTtO Flth tfc« dOOT 

•f lh« 0Kftd^ «tor«} tbat th« r«t3r !?lfttfoni was «x^«Ni«d with 
pA»ft0lig«r«, ^>n<4 ^« ftoon fts tbe eftr 0tdp;:>«4* li« looke<l out* 
Mv i^iMilieil^ flaking the ehlld up ^Vi-i t%lclag M« away la &n 

a%i%OM^ll«| tbat th« »tr««)t ima p«Ted sizid tbe rail drf{ thi&t 
h« took aroflU! aaa«s ka^ gavt tl}«ai t<» t]^« i>olie« offioeT* f%« 
•vi4^?a9e nbows that It «&fl about IS f»«t froa t.h€ curb to 
tht estat rmll of tb« aorthlxmaa ^raoic:* 

fhe ffvld*-'ao« fwrtfeex? sfeora tli.&t %ht littlo feoy »» 
rl^tt log was OTuali«d botveea tbe kaoo aad the saklt lijr 
boiag rtm ovoy by tk«5 i»he«X« ^f tht »t?««t oar» ao th«t it 
«aa aoooaaafy to mB,vnt».%e %h» Irg ml:>out iiildim.y botw««ii t!^« 
aaklo %ad l^te kao«« k surgeoa t^^tifltd tb^^t %h^ 9t^smp 
aao aot paddod* but tt«roljr oo^P^red vltti akia mA the auMioloo 
bad xntsaoted ao tMt th^ «iad of %M boa^o jp>7<(3trud€»d$ tl^t 
about ti la^®«> of th« be«« wata tsaprotaott^j tb«t- tfels «h«fuldi 
bo raaovod ia ovSer to permit tha ust of aa artificial l(P|g 
tlwtt if this wo»o doaa« tbowe aosild b« «aaufh atxaq? to p«t» 
alt the tteo of a «^«11 imAe s^rllfiolaX foot* Tha boy'v father 
t^otifiod that froa the tiaa th« child wae iajxixed tbt atiaip 
tod navor hiMiled| that th-rro vaa a hola there now tnm irhlefe 
there wmt & disohsjrgt at the tiiMi of th« trial; mad th»t 
thoro ha4 bo«a a diaobi^rg^ froa the wo%>i^ for ala« or tea 

A plat wa» intro<tuoe4 in avld«aee showlag thm* 1Si« 
dlstaaoo froa ?5th to S6th «tT«et i^a 8W feet. 

tb# d«f#ad»at oontsa^is th*t the- «vid«aoe ia lai» 
saftlfileari to warr&at a finding of li&billty; that ^a m» 
vorsion of tha evid#ai>«# it ap .«arad that the boy raa fr^m the 




mxtb to tlM tl»ilE fltiid ME* l«in«dtmt«l]r ntrviek • thstt th« 
l»«rll ajiMt* Ml •udctcmly that Xhs molwraui luid no «p^poi<» 
tisnlty to avoid th« «0Ql^<^t« oopui&til further ooat«iid 
thftt cm tb« otber v«rslofi^ fr1ii«d) t>)^<<; srvidfnoe %«n<l«d to 
ffhcrw, th« boy crtarted t^ ma ao9e«« the trmok vh«n %h* 
e»T wft« IOC to XaS fi««t awRfj tfe«t t*i« boy would! ?»»,▼• 
ei^ooaod ttt« tTft(8k long b«fore tl^# oai* mould rctaioih his Xiao 
of troTOl} tbmt it w«« loot %ntil tbe boy turned ArovjiA *mA 
Te-«atoyod tfa« oouroo of tbo mt w^oa it ir^^s 30 to 3& foot 
am^y tlmt th« oaoygoao|r axi»«o* ^«d that %hm. It «as too 
lat* to avoid tht ao«i*l«at« ?be que«tloa w1bk«th«r a tUfea** 
aat la a paraoaft^I injury oaso is guilty of a«gllj|«aoo it 
ordinarily a Quoatloa of f«©t for1li«» jury and oaly booo««a 
a quootioa of law wh^m fToa the faota a^aitt-td ©t oo»- 
oluelvoly pyovaa ♦•th'^T« Ib bo r$aa«»ukblo els^aoe of diffet* 
mkX roaaoassblo aind* rwac^iag dlfferoat oonoluaiona. l.C^ 

In tlio taataat oaa«« «« %r« of tbe oplaian that 
all jreasajaktele aiadio woultl not «•«*«&. th® oonei^ial^n thst tbeT« 
aaa no »ag^ii«tio« la tlse opeFatl^i of tbt st^rstt oar, Tho 
aetoraaft taatifiad tliat wfe«n I10 ftrat mm tbf. little s»oy At 
tho outb» tl»» ofroot oar wab afeoi^t SOO f ««t oo^th of th« oandy 
•tore, and t^tat the boy n^» th«n abo-it & f«®t north of the 
oamdy store. the 0tor« w s aort than 30 ftet irido. It« 
tlioroforo. appa&ra that ahoa tlMt aotoraaa first saw tho hoy. 
bo was about 338 foot south of tho boy^ ^nd that ho saw tha 
boy fr^m that tlaa until the mje atruok him. All of th« 
eoourronoe vltneosos. axe^pt the aotozaaia. t<^atifl«4 that 
tho boy loft tho oarb at a polat f roa 30 to 30 fsot furthor 
aorth thfft that t'stlfiod to by ^e aotorasn} that «b«a 
10M bflv left th« 9ttYl». ho tad lad out la % vaatorly di root! on 






1m a pol£ilb«tw««n th« rail* of the noTtlitK>uAd tra><dc» tb«ri 
WMii«fttarll|r stwpx'C^f tusnwd axttOidi «a<3 «t«rt«d tovnrd %hn 
test, Th« oh lid was tmt S f«ftr» ftA^ S tMHitltt old and 
M^oddlftdo »cr«»«« th« 8tye«t a little f«i.«ter itum ht eoFuid 
imXk* iuci4 «9*l(il<» <Hui v|iaifr»e cfttlcMitcd thtt the olalld was 
ti^vftllng »t front 6 to 6 »iies pw h&vm^ i% im oimou* that 
thl9 1» iB90rr»«% t&T It 1* <MfflmoB ltm»vl«d|s* '^^^^ * *^B 
t»i.T«liiif ftt m brtftk w^Ik 9^ ib^Meo tout 4 mlX»a iter %<»ur 9jid» 
of oouTOOn th« ofelld oould aot 1^ «» fftot* If thf^ir if«y» 
•icffi 1» to be taken a« true* and th«^te wnr^ fmiv mutSi vlt* 
ttoeees,, tli«m •• thlidc It {»»i»t l^e s«tid« %e a natter &t Ism^ 
iSbAt all r««»0!mble mind* vmul'i -mneh %h.'& oonolueloa tb&t th^tre 
mrnB no »eglige»oe in t%^ op#r%ti<m of tb« stx-ei^t ®ar« Sor 
•Mi «• mf ^at tfe«« f lading of ti^e jury to tli# effeot tbat 
tbe ear «%« aogligieatlf operated ie a^iaet the a^alftet veigistt 
of the e^dwnoe. la yomrBaaa t, ff, g. Py. -Cie^, S4a 1,1. 278, 
tlie etre^t ear ooiij^jRjr waa held lia^lt for as i»J\»rjr to a boy 4 
yeaxBQX ftgB^ n^Q ««» ^tniok 1»y o«« of its oare *feilo be waa 
atteaptiag to oros«i the atre«t« In th»t aaeo tite oourt 
«ald (p.276) «^ln tlt« fowltr <^e.^ «^;&ga. it eae eaid (p»416}t 
'l^en a ymmii ohild is dii»oov«ir«d ap^romohlim tht o^r tT%<k 
vitb tbe apmrfttLt intention of oroatin^ in frost of a aoring 
m>tt, or ie dlaoornred on this txmedi, it ia o^^rttinlj the dtutjr 
of the gri|«an or notortaam to ea®rel«e a teifh degree of dill* 
genoe in order to prevent lA;3nry to %h9 eh lid** And in the 
aaran eaae, (f •479) the following extraet f roa Sfee^nnsan ?5nd 
Reel field on the Lav of Ke^igenoe (Tol* 1« eeo^ M» 4th ed») 
naa qtioted with approval: «lt la not aeooeearjr that the df« 
fondant abotdd aetnally kneir of th« danger to vhleh plain* 
tiff ia expoaed* It la i^oogh If he has auff leieat notloe or 
¥oliof to put n prudent aaa on th« alert anti he doea talse aueh 



I iX 

yr#«itttloM a0 ft prwAicut amn vould %ttk« under «iG&il«ir 
netio« or bAllAf**" Of oour««« a* vat a^ld la the Ptymi 
aft««. If th« ohlXd suddenly started t« erosa tbft tr«.dka 
in front of tb« tmr at suoli » ffbort distaacNi tMt tlie aM»1»»v» 
■na «%« \miibl« to nirgM striking hloi^ no r«eoTtry ootiid bo 
jh»d« but ir« tbiak thlft qfUftotion uad^r tho eTld«aoo ons ono 
to bo dotezKlaod bjr th« jiur|r« 

. t* th« iSefeadaat ftloo ooat«ad« tb^st the court 
orrod in giving plaintiff •« i^sti-uction® mq* S mad i. Tfco 
flftlL instrufttloa w&m ao follot^si 

*tho e^urt iastruoto t?t« |iary ttet tbe plain- 
tiff b8.« alleir*^ la th» seo®!^ eox^nt of >-Im d.«ol«ya- 
ticai ti&*t at the time and pim^ in ^iie»tlon» the d?-«» 
f«a-iAat«* by tfeeir »otor«aB, in dh^t^ and control 
tbsr«of, w^rt propelling, ^parsttlng »n<i saint®. Inin^ 
on*» of thfsir stirtet oars tstpoa 31M. along ICtdKie airo- 
nue, at aasJ near to the iai#raeotiott of Twtntjr»-flftb 
otre^it; tb&t the plaint if f»» ward# wbo «*« a aiaor 
of tb«! skgo of ^re«r yoAm, «as tb<m i^nd tlierf ifMMiMft 
Vi^otkf aorooo ai^d over KedBl«» airtnut^ and tiftf as sail 
•troet on? approaohed tM plmm aforee^ld* it wea the 
dut|r of tl^e »oto»i^a» in obsurge and eoatii^ol thereof^ 
to cxoroloo oTdii^ry mt* to keep a propor lookotxt 
for the oafety of peraoan, iaeludlac obildrea who 
mi^t lawfully mtt«apt to oroa^ tbe tJPack u|^a ^^nd 
alimg i»bi<^ aali street oar vas apfproa^last ^»^ t^"* 
tbe defend^ntK, by tbeir aotornaa^ aforeeaid* tti^^n and 
tbsre failed to exorolso eueh earo# and tbat his fail- 
mro to do m ima ne^llgeaoe and that as a proxlaate 
roovlt of suoh aegligftnee, said 8tJ-e«t oar ttj-m and 
tbtere tan ^jpaa, a«&inst and over plaintiff *s vard« 
aberfels^ plalijtlff 's "1^x4. w»a injured and austalaed 

•And If joy find froa » f*rffpoader«nc«? of tbe 
ovld^aoe, vsader tlie inistructions of th« court, that 
plaintiff ba» proven nig oase, c^s ?ill.epd ia If5i« oo»r% 
then yov (jOuiuld find the defendants guilty*^ 

lastruetlon fo«T vas substantially to tfee saoe Sfffeot, but 
set up the allei|Rtlo»» of th« first oo\mt ia the declaratloa, 
irbloh abar^d i^aeral negllgeaoe ia tbe ©i>«iraitlea of the ear 
aiad the delendmt* aargno that tfceso iastrwctioaaf wert wrong 

■ ?.:*.v»t:i 

b*«ftu»« tli« i\xrf would pyi>lMiblf lAtww that tt;« oourt v»s glv» 
lag hi« <:)|}imoit tui to what t^ fmota nex-c imd not tb»t k« w«a 
MiraXy »tatl&g tbfi ftllepitloas of tb« de<sl%rftti3n« In 

l^lm^ l^y? ^t , v> Mrtitffyt ^^ liU4»» tht ©o^rt ontlelsiwl 
ftxi ig^tTuctlan t» tbe •ff«et tbat if %h* pxry i3«li«T«t fTon 
the e!vl<i«»n0« th€ A^ftmUmni wtk» igadXtf »« »lle!gi»d in tli« d»» 
©l«r0tl >ii, th»y tli^uidi fia4 for tfe« pl«Liatlff, ^t tfe«T« iaid • 
*md th^» iA»tructloiUi 09|»1*4 tlb€ »ll«^tioi» so oli»j«otioa cotild 
teTtt t»««a urged to titea.* l|| th« iitirtjtmt pate s»o ooi^l^nt U 
aado tbi^t thA oooatt w«t« la &»$ wsty d«f«etliro end the liii* 
ttruotloaa «la$pl|r ooi»i«{3^ th« «il«Kfttlo«» «.nd to whl«^ ifco objto* 
tloa oah be »ad«, «« »t«.t«« in %M Baamijittg .^«»« S»«ili of 
tiMiMk lii9tTUOtl^»»0 tdX^ tliig i^mj tliat tli# pitt.latlff lis-^ nado 
oertain ol Xegfttloiift^ totting tMm £orth» mtd it tho» t«id tlto 
Jury tMt if thi?y ftmnd froo a |$rtip®fi?5,<' r»iio«! of tls® evia^nec 
imdftx the lAstTttotioiiis of tfe* ootitt» tb&t plaintiff )wid pfoYon 
his 9A«« a» tfeuB ai'Ogod, tiso d#fe»^»t ii>to»il?l b» fmmd guilty. 
f« tbii^ t^e iii»tTUotltm« uro not oub4«ot to tM ol»jeoti<^ 
maio* mdl tlwt ^M»]r otat^d ttie Xmr ooffOotXy* Soi^ M-^^ v« 

m\mm~ gllfy |y> Pfft,», s«* m* S48j a!ii«^at> oitv fv. e&. t, 

O'DQaaeXX, S08 111. 26», 

QMqptX&iftt is aX«!e J^a4« of th$s« lA^tni^tloas bo-* 
e&»»« tbey told the jufy ths^t if tho niotoxo&n by tl^c tipiiroioo 
of ordLiiHunr os3ro« .<K^>il<^ h»T« ktsomn tbat tho oMXd vao obout 
to eroso tb» «troet« «to« and by lAfttfUOtion fiTO tbatt It imo 
tbe duty of %h» mi%&$mK^ to oxoroiao oMl»akiqr <^y« ^tid fcooj^ » 
lool&-»oittt foT ehtXdyta yh o.Mi^-^ XaofxjlXy atttaipt to erooo tho 
txoolc. Tbe arpaMsut ie a« to th« l^rop^^r v»t of the i^orda 
"♦ sQ-^ld* and '^l^yitil,* tbese laots'u^tioas «ert oa tb« aoyo po««« 

ibility of the fflotowan w^liSlxig; tht f*cold«nt by ua* of hl« 
facmXtl(«s» %«f think tb« os^itiaita Wkd* 1« too rftflaed* Th* 
J^ucy in otur opinion voitld not Iw misled, a •MMWluit tinilar 
•b;2»otieai ^m^mi held \mt«a»bl« bjr anotb«!r dlYlvlon of XfiiB oouTt 

in th« ea«o of M,.n^yf r. ft|?fia^ ,j^,y^ ,^,i, S24 ni, A.pp. 468c 

A ois^lar orltiolsa is e^de t^ Inotructlons 8 »nd 
11 glf«n^ tm behalf of plaintiff, inatruotlon 8 told tb« ^wtj 
tbnt a iTiOtoxiisa wbo Is op«yfttlim « otreet onv aloftg ni iM>llo 
biij^vay Is required to •:s«roi8« ordlnaxf o&yo for tb« oafot^ 
of potoono* inolttdiBK ohildr«iiy «1io stigbt lawfully attoaijjt to 
orot& tbe at root «tioBg whiofa tb«^ e^x* an* appro^^ohingy %Mi it 
tbon defined oMiaarf oajMi* B^ i^ixnuotion 11 th« jury v^ro 
told that if tteajr b«li«v«d froiB % prepondtimnet of tbe «nri- 
donoo suEMt und[«r the iaatrMOti0£i of t^e os*ert tbut tbo aotor* 
SAIL ^f \i9iag bio f amative «ltb ordlaarir %ndt r«^«0Babl« oaro* 
in laoklng out for (ifcneor» o^ali bar* avoldM tbe adci^lisnt* 
&nd tbat b« no|p.igoatl]r fallod to ^ 90» anti tbat auob ae§P" 
llgonoo <m bis part* if a«qr« a« aboan by tb# «)Tiaanoa« ana 
the proKisate <mu»^ of the in Jtury* ^^^^ ^^« defi^nd^snts ali^ld 
be found g^ltf^ provided auob no^iganoe w^a alleged in tb« 
dec^^r^tion or o©ae o^nt tb^r«^of aa aatplsined in tb« iar 
strtiotiona aiwl f^xoTim by « pr«'jjon^er«».ao« of tbe evidtmoe* 
Hbat «« hare a&id ooneeming tba ob^eotion iu^4lj» to In^truo* 
tioaa 4 and 5, w« tbink Is aufficient to ifeow that the dafcafi- 
mnt ana mat pr«|udload bi* the* fivitm of tbeaa inatruotions* 

9« '^easr^laint la alao wade tbat tba oonri ofVli 
in refvoing to gl^o d»feadanta* igatruotlon on* an^ the givlac 
of i»l&intiff»a in«tTuotian Uo* $• lasti-uotioa 9, gireo on be- 
half of the plaintiff, told tbe July tbat if they fonad froa a 




p»%p«mAtmi3X9e of %h% «irl(ifiiQ«* vaiA«iT tl^t lastruetion* of th« 
omirt, th^t ih® olilld h9.d «e«»»ip«<i from ?;.it h&»» «»ni isSMxt ^m 
vmthi&r m.m ittlltjr ^f aegllgtiioe 1» i>9X!sitttng %!» to do to « 
•r ia not tefciag pifop^r o?ir« of hta, thit »uoh negllgoaoo. 
If »ay, on h«r jmrt, ooml^ aot bo &im.t^'i. ag®-i!i»t th« ehild* 
i«f)i»«d liietraotioa ©»©, if®.«i to tilto «ff«s3t tSia.t If tfe« jwff 
iHilloTod fTm, th« f vi«i«»off tl^mt tho ^il<l at t^«; tiato %nA 
pX^&^ of ttv.® aoeldsmt «*».» to© ymmf aM liwaEpoTiifnood to bo 
out nptm thm ©ttireot, without oOttO- aldoj^ |»«if««» Sv-o^;^®aip»,nyiaf 
Ula* ana tMt if hl« IN^iisi; iiii»oo«Mi^Maki«& «a» ttie^ ooXt pxoxi* 
Nftto ^\)80 Of hlo iajwry, tlt®a tli«<ir ftMlot olwaia >• foy 
the d«f«msts.nt# It i® mt% ^mtm^m^ ft« wo imi<!r»tfli»i» ttoot 
lisMstruotian 9 mm tiot «a?ifT®ot b#es>^»8« t^-t mgii^mm of tbo 
yeivoat ia not t«|mt«4- t^ tfet eJillt. ^Amm. ^ty ly. Oo. ▼* 
UlSmjL iSS 111, 37C^} i^llRfitffffif Y. ^^e^l^ Cl^y ^y^,,(2^^, SSt 
III. 4Jig, lilt tfeo dof®-iGHi*jit»a mt^imunt is that tlio os^yt 
i.»»tru©t«4 %hM pkty os SsohElf of tfjo plaintiff tlmt tlse atgli* 
goiioo of Xkm motlto7 in por^ittlaig tl» ohll^ to «oo%i»o vms »^ 
dofonoo »»€ WfKf hod m f i^t to hmvw iik^ $utf inRtruotfid ttmt 
it %k(& tm'i0.l:0aBi9($ of t%o im^h^t «m» flit oalo px'oximi.ts mxt»e of 
ts^is ^ia^ i»^u3P«d« no ^oovo«:)r oould %»« bs^d* fo thiiak ihs 
iiwti^otioii wftB pT^pei^f r«fiio«d» fetooaizso it sti^iht »i»le%d 
the jwyy. ttioy w^-yo told, ia tt^^xmX ijasfrmetttafB* tfc«t a© rt^mv^fy 
0omX€ ^9 ii&d tatdiMi^ the dofrna^^at imo proToit g^lty by a. pi-9» 
fMu&tsiMdilM of t^« tiria#ao« ao oUogoS ia tb« ^eols.¥»ti<m* &aa 
t&flit if tfto Jioy belioYod tMt th« inltay "»a« a result of mi 
«oci4«&t witJtowt ®.ay aofligeaeo of tb« dsf«r,«d?riat# tBo ve^aiet 
•iMiald lie not gallty* ?^« oolo gisostloa of XiaMlity w»s par©- 
dloatod tji^on tl^» noiEjligonoo of the drfffadauto* Ib tlicoo ot»" 
«na»t«iioe»# «i tliiifc tim la^trucrtioi^ vaa pYor^^rly ir«ftM>od» 



'iTSX'iH '^t^ 


4»Th« d«f«ad&&1(« Also eomtend tbat no liability 
oould b« predlo&teti cm oounts S an^ 4, Thloh oli^rg^d t%t 
def enfant ^1%% failing to riag « b«Il* s^uiui » goftg or to 
glv« 9th€tT «aming» lM»«s^tu»« s 9%iM of mioh t«MttT >«a7«t 

of th« pwrpo»« of »m3k iriTmlBf %o \md«Tsttjad Ita «lg»itloMno«* 
fhla ««• hold to be tht lUtw ^ a»0'%fe«r dlTiiiio» ©t tiia «ourl 
la tilt <mm of i^|„>ey t. m,mm, m¥i g?n ^^* H^» 46»» 
T!»« defendAata a3rg;ao tliat tfe€ liml>lXji.ty of tfe« d«*feaAant» fto 
atllog«d 1^ tlit»o ti»> oo^oaits «e.@ «ulMltt«di to the iuTf ^ny tltc 
6oiuft in T>l»latlff •« la»tr^eti©j3» 3, $, sad 11, lust motion 
S told tJ» i\itf that wfeile *» is> ■i»tt«i' of law tte« birrdoa of 
piroof waa o» t^« i»laiatiff for fela to pyoTt hit e««i by «. 
prepoAdtTanoo of the eTldimo^, fttlll If thoy b«li«?T«d tMt 
tb« STidsaoe iMMurlBg upon th® pleiatlff »« emao pir«^iidftrat«« 
la hie fairor, althoix^ but all^tly* It *otaM b« fwftioiont 
to find thft loauo® la j^laintiff *s f%r0t stud agalaot t)i« 
doftaditats. And by la8tTu,otloa 3, tfee luxy vtiis told tb** 
a« ft. aottoY of law plAlatlff «&# sot r«i|iil7ftd to pvoTO bit 
f!»80 boyond ci rci&soaabljr dNmbt« but oaly xeqtdx'fd to proym 
it by a i»r«poiulo»ftaee of th« •Tid^naos* liMititiotloa 11 »%o 
to tbo effoot 1Aiv*att If tb« $vrf foimd froa a p3^i»oadi»T%a(3« 
of the evidence, aadtr tte« lastruotloao of tbe oou7t« o«Tt*la 
SAttera th«7#la oauaeratod* tboa iboy obould flad df-f)^i^d«^at» 
guilty* *proTided mwoii aogllgomoe Is allsptd la the deol^^ra* 
tloa or noae oovEat th«7«^^of aa ojnitlalaod la thtoo laotrvoiloiui 
9M pxovuMi by a pre^oadozaaoo of tbe e^dtaeet* 

Tho giYlas of ia^t^uotloae olaUaT to lastruotloao 
i aad SNivo b««a xopoatodly held aot to be roT«rsible error 


«ilN»^lag tb« aubeti!«noe of tb« alltsmtloa of th« ocuat 

Ol^TgiAg the f«ilUJ« to rlBg » iMtll* la tl!^« iROtlilBt o»tt« 

iiA r«feif«]i«ie ie ixad® la tb« ifustTUotiont t« th« ootmts* 
barging the f&iXtire t« vlsg a b«ll •? to scnmd a |^»«* but 
wpmciilo iaetruetloxis irei?« giT«» to th« iai«|9e^ti«»« ®f i»tt{ft» 
eomits. Tl}«7« i« DDti^lAg to «hov tli^t the jwry kn«« «f 
tlt« ooiiiata la tfe« d«©*tloB wM«fe all«g*€ tbe falltt,?* t« 
riag a tmXl 9t mnM a igaiig. AJ^d la ti^^sft ftlr«iw8taa««« it 
la olaar that t.bel» retiiet *aa M»«»^ ea th% ©oxintii the al~ 
legations of vhioli wer* »at fortli la tfe« ii«itTa9ti3ji9, la 
tll« 0aa« ©f ifiMlM^v. ,l^3:,^1?.te,y„„iffli^m, ^06 I\\, 548, coaHSS-l^tlftt 
was siade tfe*t tJie e©?irt ffl3nw«S is ?«iru«lag t© glir« aa iaatiito* 
ticm r«f|ii@at6d ^ th« d«>f«a<ldata mbieh ««t out la full a «««• 
tiea of a statatm whlolj foftoists a irallway mmpmmy trmi ©to- 
atniQtiag a publle l^li^iKay for moxm tliaa t«m %lK«te9« 8^i 
irtiidk fto-ught to toll the jaty tti%t a o«!rtala OT!li««m^«« aat 
fOTtk ia th« t©\art!i co\;>.nt of th« iaelsirsitloa »a« void* fho 
eot^nrt iMild d^ptSSt^i^SSg) *It ia arpt«d that tit Jar^r w«r« 
r«f«Tra4 to t^« doolarmtif^ l»$r o«rt£(la laatruotloas* ma^dl 
tiatt tbla ordlaaaoa «aa l» oa« eo^tat of tittp a«01&ratl<m, 
aad that tlno j^Y]r*« vardlet aay havo l»««ni l«a«4 oa thla 
void ox^lasmoe. Thert la s^thlag la tli« x-«eord to akov 
titett the Jury '^▼©y «** *^« dfolat«ti®a or ttam that tl^a oirdl* 
xu&aoa «aa »«t forth la Its fo-orth oouat* the oou:rt «1io»l4 
aot potait tba ploadiags la elTil eaaea to bo takaa hj %h» 
iwtf wfe?^a tli«y r«tter« to ooaald^^r their iFairfUet aod »« amat 
aaavM timt ti^a ooiiTt did Ita <l&t]r jin this ragari »M 4lld 
aot dallvor tb® ?iocU,jifetioa to tbe jury," SaraioT ▼ > j, ,lIlaoif 

"r© afici. t«s9X 


Oentml a. li. QQ,.ya« Ul,464,«lr* th« Inatant oaa« although 
tHe eotmts (barging th« ;1^11ut« to tin$ » b«ll or «outn<S s 
goag v« r« BOt wltkdxmm »nA «t«q If no liability oould b« 
pr«dia«^ted upon thmm, jrftt «« think thrre tr«Ls SkO «77or in 
I^TlBg the instruetiffiim 9o«3^i&la«di «f% 

$• OaMplaifit i« idlft0 »ft«t« thmt t>!« judpient 9f 

|17,©00»00 is e3tof!8"®i've« ODn«id«?ri«g tli«r wsfturs ©f thm 
Qhtl&*» in^uTie9, the teMi»ftft «^7f not »&1»jt0t to leatfe^iRftti^l 
eai^>utatioa. lo the o&»« of P;^b^ v. ^.0!-4oa.|^ j^^ilwayg oo., 
331 ill. &pp. 341» we Vftid (pp*S&€»S&&) "Thft <la«mg*9 ftiHtrd^d 
liy th.« J[uTjr ittajr tM limri^n' th^fk would 1ms.v« b««ia ««yiitaia«4 & 
jfev y««?s a^^ ftivi »a %kB. <iu««itiem of tbt fts«msl tii« «akrli«r 
dl<Nsisi«m» of thiff Stato «^v# of little a8si»t%Qe«« w« maaot» 
hoir&TGr» be tmatiadful of tbe faot tlbt^t «oaey T%Xue of lift 
and hfialttei is a|»pi"©oiating '*ad th# purofeptinf powi"? -of aottoy 
<l»|iro9i««ti}Vg during reoetit y«iiys, without deciding irfcctli^JP 
%ll« iMMinpit io luirger tlt^a w« would hitTe ftw^&Med liadt tbe 
responeibillty bo^n Quro, «« thii^ it id aot to tJco^ttsiTO 
&• to ro^tiiro iatorf«r«B0«i oa out p&yt. , De Filiit^^i ir# St^rloa 

Y&^ify ^^gj^ ^^<?ft> soa iiu Ap?). gj.; Wy^fn^ ▼» •'^■^mtii* 210 
Ui, App,331{ $^r<l»w8 T. ?i^a :£tt«n. 2U lii. Aw* SSS. la 
▼low of tho ^maaoiit iajurifto oufftrod fey tbe obild* wo tbii^ 
wo would iK>t be w&rr%at«d in distuTbiag tb« JudgKoat oa tbo 
gro««d tbat It w»a oxoessiro. 

^^lipMBt Of tbe iii|»ori9t OouTt of Oook Ooiaaty !• 


TA1U5R, !»,#», Si-'EOIALLY OOSClDKl^lim* 

la such » ©68« a« thlo it lo »5raP€dla«ly diffieolt 

to d«t«»»ia« «feat amy ooaatituto n«gXig«i©« oa tfe» |»rt of t»o 


♦ •■••a 


tJUif*i . 



MiA* la tfe© ©OBV#nti0n&l ®«mi», wi»«Y« the «»t eMrgitd 
vi%k a»^ig®»««« asKS %ii« p«T«©ia l»3tif«d %m both oa^tiyt am 

(S«M»«tio]i ttTi»«» »a to ©rdlaftsry ©art 011 %!»« payt ©f t'M 
<]^ild« aad ^ the mlf ^m%im !»» &i€ tl%® m%f^9mmt ed»» 

»|i$Tittf »11 tfe« eiirmiaHi%aii^«» «icty«i»« ©rtiaayy «».T»t 
As » g^aeml tt»l« i>f .0@iito0t, it ^.&i^ld m^ma t© %« fmix to 
•«y tfemt wlsftT» tfe^ <mv«r of ffet »*t««t «y ©3? fflat0r ir#&l<i3» 
««es m €(hU«l tf tim^tr y«raijr« mh»M of liiar ©ff %b* di^iffwaX* 
in tiie »tTe«tt« the ai^T«r as t^« T®aru}.t t»r ^tiiaftiry mwrnm 
memm i« «i|jeot<8^(l to r®8tli«i tfe&t ®if,<^ * ^hiM any »Md«iil|r 
«tfe«'t ®ff in Mlf 4if€-®tl03a, «&ii4» li«,tt,iif thkt lai»wl«di», Ss.f 
1« in duty boim<3 to 3l»te&B as Qui<^Xr as It i« «#«ltattie&lXy 
l>m«ti9abXe imsh o©at»©l #f tih® «a^i»s® fe« 1« €irivt»g m t© 
1M? 3pft»%, if ftirtiiEl d«ag«f 0f imjiiarliif nm ©feilA itrl»«». 


'^'^-- -'C ■■4l#al^^r .^f^t&':^. 

378 - 5f85tl3 

I&ffAHD M. tlutJiR. giMTdiAa Of the ) 
••tate of FRASCKS TABOR, a minor, ) 


Appellant • 



(SAW fROi 


ClKSIJiT <iOmit, 



OT^inion filed Feb. 27, 1924. 

Kn, J^USTICF. ©•■iXJJiuOa aellT«r«d fht opiJiton of 
the OQnr%» 

Jk% ttb<mt servsai o'elocsk in th« tvtnl&g of ni^toh 
3, 1920, ail auto«QblX« txuok bflonglBg to th» d^fendtmt 
ftnd operated toy one of it« tetrvststs etruck and lojtar©<i 
FnMao«» Ta.boT, a girl about seven, year® of a.g«, the rear 
«lt««l of th« tTuok i»«)8iag OT«r tb« ohtld*» l«g sad fr^^ctuar- 
lag tfee ^QOWB »bOfVf! the ksiM* th« injured ofeild's g«ardiRB 
bitm^t thi» 01^1 1 to reooTer tSMwmggiM fox* ano^^^ injuries md 
tliero WW a vvrdiot sad jvdgneat in favor of tfct plaintiff 
for |7000,00» 

Th« rtcwrd dlsolos«9 ttiat TmAi^m Tft1)eT lived 
with ^er pft7<mt8 on the ««8t ciioie of Leoaiifi atteet, % a&rt)) 
*ad aouth Btr«et in Oble&u©, & few doors aortb of 19tb 
streets aa e&at tmd went stroet; t%at she wa* simt on an 
«rranA ^ioh took h«r te a etor« loe!?t»d Qn the we«t »id« 
of Looiiia «tr««t and a f€?w doors south of 19tfe atrett, and 
as sh« was returning to her ho»s and erossiag Ittli «tT«»t» 
aaar thtt w»«t orosawalk, an autoaoblls truok wbich wae b*iag 
drtv«a w«ttt ia 19th streftt by one of defendant's servants, 
struck the child Jtnd ia;}iired h«r as abova statad. It waa 


6&Jk at the tX&» and! %h«T^ ««• loe Ml tb« »tT«et and 
aidevrllui CO th&t tbey v^'re «llpp«X7. ir>ie roadimy of 
•atrial atr«ft1i at the plaoe In Cfueatloa mtMi 36 f»et wide. 

Flalntlff *9 version of th« aatter U th&t the 
truoic v&s l»«lng dylTon vost on tbe^ south side of 19tli 
•ty««t at tTo« 80 to a& alios pe; bouar nnd tbftt but one of 
tho bwuUl^to muM Irumiagi that beforo the ofelld 8t«pi>«il 
iato tbe TOsAwakff »bo lookcKl but did not »«« tJjiK trucdc; 
that «h« vas about 6 foot from the south oux^ near tht 
vast erosflwalk of the intcrBeotloa* the left haj&A front 
feadsr of the truek wtru^aJj her, t\»mlng her aroiaid eo 
that eh« fell mad thsieft rm^t vheel pasfod. over her 
leg just above the knee; that she did not see the truoic 
mtiX it aae a't»out six inehea fr^a her* Th«T« was also 
eyld#no-a tending to «ho» that no horn was sounded, .-Hnd 
tdMit after the child vas stnifli;: the tru<^ ran f roa IdO 
to 140 feet before it a«ui stopped* Tetitisoiqr to this 
effeet vas giv«k on bel«lf of the plaintiff, althou^ 
varilag soasslmt in detail, by Joserph Sluk^ «. bof about 
flfte4» years of ags, at the time of the aeeideait «ho 
vas <m tbe sidewalk at l^e e<»%thve«t oomer of the inter* 
ssotidtt, faoing north| by John Sohuls, a boy of etbout the 
•a«e age, who mm at the northFoat eotner of tht iat?>r» 
aeotion; by Anna Hsdved, whs was walking west stnd vho 
ims near t*e southeast (»>mer of the interseotKm* Fr^noas 
Tabor, the little girl who was iajiared and Qraes «lkea who 
wae «ith her and who was also about seven years of ege, 
also testified for the plaintiff, but their testiaiony was 
not yrery clear, apparently ©a at^oitnt of theix age* 

Xij.' t^K« 


fhB dof«tnisnt*« T«ralon wis as testified Toy 
th» chauffetup who *a« drlirixig the true*; tb«t fee wnj drlt^ 
lag w««t in IQth street noirtls on the ecintcr of th« ro«.d» 
«»y «.t sttoout 9 to 10 ailfts p«r hour; that th« traok wmn 
loaded with abowt SO sa.oka of »u^r, veighlni; about S^| 
toiMi; tbi'.t tthftn h« v&s ^boxit 13$ f^et oaftt of Loonit 9tr««!t* 
ho «aw odtto ohildrm, throe or f&ujr playlag around the 
ooutbvoat oomer of tho iBteroeotioa, itliailisig: on the isi4«» 
umlls. and in the etreiet| thftt when he ir&o about 30 f^'fft 
oast of Loo«ia street he. sounded tbo whiotlo or feom; that 
tk« witness Joeoph 31tj^, v&a imliing north aoross 19th 
otToet tamt tho voot oroBarmtlki t>^t «h«n he oaao to 
within n few feet of where tho trucfc would pass la front 
of hia, he 8top|>«d apparontly to potiiit the timck to |»a«»; 
tha-t vhm. th« trudc was about op ooito hi»« the llttlo 
l^rl Frenooo Tahor ran north aeroea the int^raootion #nd 
Jnot oast of Sliyilcn; that SlulEn gpmhbod hor and thftt oho 
fell and «llppod undomeath th« truokj that bo di6 not 
know ho had nm otot th« little g:irl*!S log; th»t he »topp»d 
tho truok in ahout 43 feot and v^ent b«^^ to soe if s^o wao 
in;Jttrod) that ho found that oho w«b injnrod and took hor 
to a 'lootor'o offlo» in th*? vicinity. 

Other uvldenco on behalf of tho def«a<Jjant t«mf1«4 
to show that the <ih«.nff«ixr in ohargc of the tru^ wao an 
oxporienood driwor; that th#r« was a goremer on th<^ sn^ohiao 
and it i»as oo regulator that the tnaofc oj uld not naa at a 
greater «peftd th&n 15 aileo par hour; that thlo g^rroraor 
vao en tho aaohino wb#n it ff&o bought, which wao jEOjee iBonfcha 
prior to tho aoeidsot an«i than it waa in good oonditlon. 



. rue: '^■•. ... ^,,,.. .,: ... ., . ; i^'«4f.<&.i:*-^»1t 0<ii »JW j*| f:a* 

TH« «irlil«EiG« further tboirvd that after the injury the 
oliild wm tmkfBn to tb« hospital wh^re »h6 T«t8tain«d for 
■ore than three aontha; that ther« ««« a fraottir« of the 
thigh ynxM about four luehes aboYt tht kn««; th*t th® 
fraetur® had not hmen prmmtty rM«o«dj thmt the thlgUi 
%cm« W&8 oiit of allgamexit ftt an ftngle of about 3S (3«gre««s 
that ther*^ waa a 8hort«niiif 6f «.toout two inohes of th» 
X«||^ that th«re im* a larg» «lcmghlB|p on th<r 8\irf4iLe« oa 
th« iiksia« of the lowor part of the thigh} that »t the 
tlao of thf trlid th«f log w«.» amalXftr thsa th« oft« i^hieh 
was aot in^urod «jri<S thsit the Injury was |»«r«aa«nt« 

the «ief«fiid'i«t eontftnds that (1) titee f2*emt*r 
weight of eviaf?Tio« ahows that th« driver of the truek 
was not <i:uilty of th« ^tgllgenoe alXoged in mxxatu one 
aad four of tha deolar»,ti©n» (3) fhat tht lm;}ured ohlld 
wae gallty of ooatrlbutory &egllgi»iMe as a asiatter of I&w, 
(3) Th«t ther«f was no evldetic© to susts-la the ■tllf'gationii 
of the third count fead (4) That the coi^rt erred lii aot 
•ttste.liilBg appellant *s motiom to vlttatdraw % Juror. 

1. The tlret oaimt (Charged ^aer&l negllgeBCft 
i& t'he «^eratloa of thie o&r« The »«&&&& <sotmt wae ^rith* 
drawn* The third count oharged ik^i th« truok w»« ©-p-erattd 
through a oloeely huilt up huslftees portion of the elty 
at a ■m.t* of sp««d of 10 «tle» t»r hour ©ontrtry to the 
statute. The foiTrth cK>unt ohsirged that the automobile irae 
operated In mxoenn of 15 mll«8 per hour In «i r«^eld»ntial 
portion of th« City of Chloago, eontrary t© th# prorlslone 
of the elfeitute. If tb& Jury belleTftd froe the erldenoe 
that the autoaohlle trupJfc waatrareling ao to 35 ailes p*T 
hour or4 th« wrong aide of the street, with only obw» headUght* 

« l « ft — 




■■iif amis- »x«R 

J 5^* 



♦.*!!> «i 

^dtcatwso «i*w 


■Aftf tl^' 


•Hi* j»t T«**«tr? 


4ft«wr «. 

Xs9l^.rr9!i- ; 



■ mltim 


. '-^ 

"vij**'; f: 

:«rj8T*&«w ±imt ■:^S ifSamvirj 


, i*«C 





■ ■:■ '» ■ - " 

Mid tfi(^ drlT«T of the tju^dc &<S2ttittl]ig ths.t he aaw oliiiar«ft 

plsiyimg at the southwest oorner ^f tbt li&t«rtt«otloii wHiea 
h« w&s A ocmsidcrable distano« «a«t df te»<mia atT««t and 
ooimisl^Tlng the fhcst tfeat th? atraet nod sidewalk. w«r» ley 
and »llpp«Ty} and that it irai® <3l«i*, all of v^iob th« «▼!• 
deitoe tended to sbow, mlthoagh plaintiff's cfesmffewr teeti- 
fltd th^t he w®* trffliVtRlittg &n t)^t north «id:t of th^ »tre«t# 
not faatcT than nine or ten ail ©a p9T hour aadl th^t tbe 
little girl r«.n Into the tide of tb«! fiiec*ilB«,- Ir th^ne oiy- 
crunetftaoenKy ire would net be w^yTtatedi in dtsrturblBg the veir- 
diet of the $wry* Bor do we thlaac th^t it osa ^ eatld «• ft 
auittei^ of lAw &t e« a ^R.tteir of fitot, in rim of the ▼€?• 
dlot of the jury, thset the f ln«linf of tfe« jf'aTy t© the eff e«?t 
tl»at the Injured ohild was In th«^ exerolire of that degree 
of ears vhioh the law reqMred of her for hiftr own e&fety, 
is nLi/^im^% the semlfeet «#l^t of the evldenoe* The ques* 
tioB i^ether the tru<^ wst,e operstted negligently and whether 
the child wss in the exeroiee of that degree of oa,re wMofe 
the law reouirea, we think w«re hoth pfroper oueatione for 
the Jttry» 

fho defend?mt conteade th«»t tht oourt should have 
gzttated lt« aotlon for ^ directed- werdl^rt as to the third 
count » het^usi aui we understand oemnsel, the eTidence fails 
to ihow that the place in m*«8tlon wr« a eloeely huilt up 
portion of the eity« w« thiaJt ther^ 1» a© merit in thie 
point beo&use it wne ftgreipd that the place in <qiueetioB w&e 
•eoupted "hy etoree, flat* unr! houeee. moreover, even if th^^ar*? 
w»e any error in thle rfispect, it would not warrant a rev«rtwl» 
lMio%aae tfamnr were other i;ood oouati^ in the deol^ration whidli 


—*r--\ -f 


•tt^t.' ^' M »*'.'■ 

ty^tf t'iTf-- ?r.;5S. * s,S 

i^^ml kiimM $if^' 

f mm^' 

:^ -fHf 

4 ,{ ©g'f '?".•■ 


;.*■'. f»3^<;,»' ?>*<; 

wm hu-rti lii«ld w«t« aufttftinft)! by tb* «vid«nce» Soi^tt t# pari in & 
(^yffl>^9yff QOt,, 245 111, 460, 

It i« furthffir o<»nt«nded tliat t"h«r« wm nrrer 
in the rulln?^ of the owirt in overruling the defendant *« 
notion to withdm* a juror !sax^i cdntlmL« the o&iis** b«* 
o»xa»it oouaseX for plaintiff in ex&mlfilng one Sorea»«s on 

hla voir dim, asked suoh que«tlon0 as would let It t>o 
kaoim that th« d»f«nda^nt wa« ©orerod. by a liability in- 
suranoc. Thia oont«ntion is not borne ov.t by tfes rfscord. 
t1i«r« l8 nothing to ladloa^tc ttet tb^ defendant w«.« pro- 
tooted by liability lneuTan#t. tbc reoord <!.lsclo««« that 
Boronoon In r«ply to ctuostlona put to bin by oounatl for 
tlio plaintiff oal*? tb&t ho w^o «oor©t»ry of a furaltwr® 
ecaipany; thsit hlo oonoftrn uoed aiato»^bll» truoko for the 
dalivery of Itn «#roban(li8i«. H« was t'ben a»li:«<!i. If bio 
oootpaay had ever boen ouod for deiaaigos oa\x8«<^ by the op«r» 
atloa of lt$ wKtOMOblle tru<^si. Mo ftnoworod* ''Kot dlroett 
tboy j^y (K>isponoation in^uranoe*** the TPltn»o» tbon oald 
tli*t thoy bad liability Inauraaoe; tbat they bad on« or t*» 
oaaeos but bl» a&mpmtsf b&<l not bfen ouod direct, but that 
tborfi bad b««n a«oidento ol?^.laod to bavo occurred tbrougfc 
the nogligoaoo of thslr drlToro of tb« truoko. Of ©ouroo, 
tbore 18 n*thinc In thlo that woi Id indloato In the romot- 
•ot d«gr«c that the def«n<il&nt in tbo inotaat ea«« cssirried 
liability iBsuTaneii* 

The Jud^ottt of the Qireult Oourt of ^ook Oounty 
Is a f f ir«»d. 



& nilTJ8'=S 


83ft * aaon 


Y QO T ft, 6 

Opinion filed Feb. 27, 1924 

m, JWrim THOMSOI d«llir«red tb.«i opinlcn of 
tbff oourfe, 

Tfcl« w»» a Mil la (sfisncery ft\«d l»jr tite oo«plal»- 
JSMit liUdartaeir ajpiliuit thus d«f«?ndrmt i:em» ia fbe Su|k«yioy 
OofWFX of C^ok Cotinty. Btotb, of tb® p8.rtl<R» aT« €>afRf«d in fhe 
real estatt b\ielae8»* ffte bill ie % bill tor fm Skecouatlng^ 
im whieli the oooplftimnt olains a one^half Ifttexest is the 
profits* growing out of th« pturc^se sad B9le of oert^tin 
real estate Kmomn aa tb« B* W. KezB Subdivision, it vas the 
positicm of the defendisint that th© ooaplain&nt hi.*1 bo inter- 
est whatever in sany share of tb« profits with hl« groi^'lng out 
of this subdivision* The istsues presented by tb« bill and 
saswsr wsre eonsideretjl by the ohnnoellor in o^^^s oourt nnd 
ftfter hssiring etll the testltsonf & <S«orse v&s entered* finding 
that the co«iplaln»at was entltle'1 to an aocowating &ja»3 that 
the oofupl&iiMiat w&s sntitled to ©ne-hslf tSr^e profits. If any, 
and liaise for ons-half the loss* if iiny, srising from the 
trsasnotion involving the pttrohsee, subdivision* and sale of 
the vsrlous p«&re«<ls of real estate oo»pri»ing the Ism Swb- 
•iivlsion and also arising fro« two other transs-etions, obs 
involving the pur<rtis«e snci sale of a pareel of rral eetste, 
known as the sssec^rtasy ft©-Snb<Si vision, and the oth«r invalv- 


. ^ mt 


ly M /t^'- 


v" ^'*1 



SAg tbe ftiKjxtlflition bf tb« parties of the eireluelT* oontTaot 
for th9 sale of 45 lota knovrn ad tb« l^utell lots. In the 
Btl^lN>:^ood of the two suMlTlaione I'^iforre^ to, these 
latter trsuasaotlane growing out of the wmin transaotlon In* 
▼olTOd* rh« <l»0T«>e further found that as to tbe lorn Bw1>» 
dlTlsioa a&d th« Mooartnsy Eo-^^uMlvlslon, tlhie firrttftge«<mt botveea 
tlie parties wsis tbat Kerm loas to «4tvaaoe the noney it«?eded to 
yurobass, su)>divide» adrertlss and ssll the proporties* xnd 
Kseartiioi' vms to furnish his experience and stttend to the 
BuuMftttsettt of the subdiirltiloiis ^mi tb@ sale of th« lots; and 
tlio flioasjr s^Allsed fron the Sf los of the various lots ir^s 
to be applied toward th« payment of all Xsgiti«isit« ex:|»e£uBes 
and the ropayme^nt to I'em of all th€! money he hs^^J s^dv^inc^d, 
and the lt>&la.noes« if tjay, w&m to be divided betfo-m r.era and 
liooartnoy OQUi^lly* ^nd la thi? event of a los«« the parties 
should each pay ono-half of It* tTfee d«er«« farther found 
tbat |^os.ytasy had oarried ent Ms imrt of the joint enter* 
prisSy and, as already etated,f was entitled t# ons-hulf of 
the profits, if any, or if there was a loss he me liable for 
ons-H^alf of it» The decree further referrod the omuae to a 
ttsster la CQiaiioery for the toiJLlag of an aocountlng betwecA 
the parties and It provided that if lem did »ot ^y any 
aaio\mt th^at ni(g^t hf found due to the oc«splalnant, on the 
taking of the aocotmt, then oertaln lots and parcels of 
r«»l eetats, wMoh were involTed in the joint venture and 
vhioh still rei»!ilnsd unsold, the title being la Kern, <rer6 
to oe sold at judlei&l sal*» and the proceeds brou^^t Into 
eourt for distribution. 

The !l«or«e, as arlgittii.l,ly entered, was 8ubs«^ent« 
%f im^t*d aaa6 a new deo e«? entered, imtXnf. so«e alterations 
froai its original provisions, the last paragraph of 4h« decree 

"J <'^ fpfi^x:' ^vi»\rf"k'»'» •j^r** ye- *»-n.\ ;" f^^f^ii^^r^-rnt** -"i^* SfSi 

'yi-?'» j,.,.'. :. ....j: ;gi0:l-:i ')!'.rif :j:is ,r:f. ojv.:' h«ii J i-A^^.-f 'iTJiJiiii^ /f-^sij^r 

♦«i* IW ii'Y: -i^i HKOTt 


9M finally ent«r«dy in ftoeunrliftt ««U)iKuou«« bvt It vcmld 
9%mtL fjon an oxsuninatloa of the original die<ore« as v«Il 
a» the flAftl decT«©, that the luat fmr&gtapli of the d«OT««, 
&s fln?iily entf»rtyd» w^^s iatendttd by the 0haao«llOT to pro^ 
▼1^0, and TWi will eonsidiftr It a« prorldiog, that tht eourt 
rotftin Juyiadictioa of the o^tuue, for th« purpose of d«or««» 
l&C to Mooartney or Kern euoh p&rt of th# tiet oash prefitt^ 
or loss if .-Hay* arising out of the e^ntire Joint &<|yonture 
9M stay mppeajr to b« lixm to eithrr of thea aft«r the account 
hfto b««a t%k«n* 

- 1^0 only coatentiom wuli is thi« oourt "by tho 
dafendant in support of M» api»©mXt i» *^s^* ***« fia4ia|3i 
of the «^siao©ll0r f^Mi tfeo doere® tat©red# art agslast the 
■talfest woijd^t of th« «Yid.eBee« Thuw the only ts^miseti^a 
jPToaeatetS to thi« eoiurt on this app«&l is immi of fmot. 
t)icr€ axo 80a« ele^scntd preaented in thi$ reoord vhioh w^ke ft 
doeislon of that qu«atioa in this e»a«, oat vtieh is not at 
10.1 fx»« froa dUffiouIty* 

Th« im^Qtaaoe of th«s ttstlssony of the ooisplaiaant, 
Soc^.rtaey, wa« to the «ff«ot that he sad tb? deffta^^.aat Ktm 
ted Won fUAqfOAiat^d for thirty y«aro B.n& that they bRd Md 
■uiy toualaoaa d«aliago» iaoluding »CY»ral tranaaotloa* whi«*i 
tlioy hati go^o iato together* Kexa pitting up the a^iey and 
lltoartaey doing aoet of the ^ork «n<1 e^<^ of them tilrlag 
one-half of the profit* of the deal» Suoh of th««e Joint 
tnmoitotlonB ao wex« opeoifioslly r<*ferre<!! to la the evtdsaee, 
were profitable. He further testified th*t la Dareli or April 
of 1913, he learned of ». pieoeof property which ima in the 
■ftxicet at iri^at he ooaaidered an attraotlTe pirleo and Kera 
^▼iag shortly before told hiji of eoae oaeh he expeoted to 



tifihU «ft®.-.t©«««E*^it# t*^a'«V5>-& ^aii*w»X«Ai mmi»XiM^> a«^*!A*5?j^ Y.»f«» 
;.'t»,a 'scs!j«£.EF mU -^^fii' ■■igdfism .c«:«2 ,'?i65i^&'* '^ft* tt^^. tti:: 

haT» availAbl* h«, Meoartiuiy* t»lk.ed to Kern «J>out the b4t1«* 
ability of buying the proptrty H%d subdiTlding it» otad tbat 
%ki» l«d to th« purohiMMi ott)« property by £.«xm* and that it 

WA0 understood suid agr»«d betwecai tht^ th^it it vas to b« a 

Joint ▼entiUf©, K«m to j»ut \»p the aoney and tajclns tfee title, 

a&d M«oaTta«y glTiaip hia nurwio^m in aocoapllfihing tb« aisb* 

dlTlaian jmd re-sal« of th« imrioue parofle into rlbiofe it va» 

to b« lifidAd. »ei^rtii«y in tb« <»»ut«« of his testlnoa^ v«nt 

iatft ajany detail* iswslTed in tbe puroMs© of thia property 

irbioli mtmn t» b« known $^8 %k9 K«tn BMbdlTision, t.nd relating 

to Ita auMiTisloA and ro-^alt„ ^iob. it wiXl/be nec«!saary to 

Tafer to here in detail* In tha coursa of hi« ta@ti»ra|r h« 

stated that h« and Ham bad had oo^saaion to Tisit tha offioa 

ttf £:a7n*s lavyer* Mr. Oaorga t« 3roim« ral&ting to ataps 

that beeama neoasftary to olasr up tha titl0» tmd that en fteill 

oooaaiaa Brovn aakad Earn ghat Maoartaay'a int«r«at «%-• ia tha 

propearty ai»i that laxa'a answer «&« to th« effaot that it «aa a 

jbalf Itttareat in th« prnfita* Maoi^rtnay also want into aoa* 

aid«rable detail aa to tht aarTloaa be rendered^ partloularly 

In relation to the sellljig of tha lota into vbieh tbf pro* 

party wna aubdividad* Tha property vas in a naigbborbood 

Whioh ««.s InhAbitad Xargtly* if not eatirely* by faailiaa of 

forelg;n birth* and to acoonpliah aalaa* It i«aa daairmble to 

evpley ^anta of the amtm nationality aa tha proapectlrt 

ouatosers^ ami thia aaa dona* and ^eo&rtnay dasorilMd hia 

relations with thaaa vi^rioiia agcnta. It appeara further front 

th« testioony of lem as veil h.b that of s^eoartney that short* 

ly after Vi» Kam StibdiTiaion tranaaGtion iras bagwa. Macartney's 

attentim ims eallad to aoiBe property referred to in tht reoord 

aa the Rlehnond Lota (ithioh oc^e to tht tfaoartaey ne->Sii3>diTlalon) 

lAiioh were in the nalgbborh^od of the item StebdiTlaioa, and 

"^f: Evi?- 

lC»o»rtB«7 testified ^^ oall«d this property to the Attention 
of K«m and told hln thuX th« lots oould b« aoqulred at & 
good prieo* and whll« ihey itert' not oalOAbX* as they then 
•tood* tb«y could bo «o xeaubdlTldod &» to jesal-o tbem oo« 
aad tb« pArtlfto <waoluded and ttgroed to ftOQuire tl}«K aind 
oarry tbom aloag, on th« 8sj«tt baslo as they «er« oaxrylag 
the %9vn SubdiTlQioa i?ropoyty« and they did thlt« ILexm &g^la 
putting up ^« noeossary funds, ntsloh wrxc' |3»000* Tbe funds 
nAiloli turn put up In tb« aogulsltion of tb« Koxa St^i^dlvtsion 
yoroporty vexe ftpproxlmatoly $12»ooo« 

doM mimtlitt lnt«x, «$«onf1»uiy t««tifl«d tm mXX^A 
Kftfn*# atttntlmi to a tr&ot ooa|i7i«ing 45 lots adjioining tlts 
KaiA &id»diTiBion« wkiob wot«- in the bandit of oastexn own«T«« 
vltb a looal repxeo^ntatlTO wboso naa« tRfas Sttatoll* and 
Mtoaxtney tastlfled be s\j|f|[^0tod that* tbroug^ Suotcll tboy 
oould aoQiilxe an oxoIusIto ai^enoy to sell tb«80 lots; tbat 
as they then stood tbey were coaipeting vltb tbe Xem 0iil»divl«* 
•loa lots* and he sugigested that an exeluslvo agen<i^ on tbe 
JE^etall lots be aoqulred* "to protect owr lots, aa tb©y were 
^lAg offered ciieaper tban tbe prlo<» we put on ours (In tbe 
Cexn Subdivision and ^eoartney &ia>divlsion} ^nd. I oould get 
a eowai8»i^n for the sale of tbe« and wb would hare tb« oo&» 
tr»l of tbea.* He fnrtber teatified that Kern approved of tbe 
ldea« and as a result of tbls be aeoxiired fro» Austell an ex- 
clusive agency for the sale of tbe lots; that a^in be and 
£»m agraed that tbey would sell th«»# lot* of 3Jnetell»stferou# 
the aaise agenolea they were eiEploylng In oonneetlan witt; their 
attempts to sell tbe other lots and that tbey would divids 

•finally all oosBsissians earned in connect i cm with tbe sale of 
these Euetell lotsj that tbeee lots were all sold except tbiei. 

mv ? ..-;•: 


^ a^^JSS^*"' 






t.irrs^ .tin Vi. 

tb« oo»mi«8lo«Mi «aio«»tlng to 1X600,00 0» flSOO.OOj thAt IfOT* 
ooatrlbutAd nothing in the «ay of s«rrl<» In thu aelllng of 
th»— lotn| that be 314 tmy tb» l*«t three lot* and nn<N» 
a pToflt on tb«att« It would »««« fro« the «yiai«»o« in tli« 
j«ooxd tlM-t one-lwlf of the oowmi««l3B« reallwNl firom the 
8&I« of these Siietell lot* ime turned oyer to Kem, The 
Xftttey fedntte ree«?lTlng something OT#r fTOO.OO in oa»li as 
a diTiBicoi of the ooissleslone on the emle of theee lote ?md 
ke further »d«it« thet he did. ivc>tltlng in the ia.y ©f assiet- 
lag in theiT e&le e«o«pt ne hi© purofcate of three of th«« 
aig^t 1»e oonsiaered n» mu^ nsei»t>!inoe* 

On eT©«^»«»mlnatioa Mecartoty te^tifi*^ that he 
turners all of the aoney he e^llec^ed on the enle of the lote 
in the Kent Si][b<iiTi0iaa aver to £em, not retaining any of 
it as hie ehare of the profits, hie explanation helng that 
they had agreed not to hare a eettleaeiit wntil all these 
lote had been disposed of* 

Cfeae Petrlslelt, the man *ho ©illed i^eot rtney'e 
attention to the prot>«rty which sas purchased andi vhieh 
oaae to he the Kem SuMlrlalon, and who later had a good deal 
do with the aetuaX sale of the lots of the Suhdiviaion, test** 
fied to o3aleren«es he had with Mee&rtney and Kern together, 
aad he stated that in referring to the SaMivision the £!«• 
fendant Kern always naed the proaoua •***• im also testi-* 
fied as to Meoartney^s activities in cK>nn«otion rith the 
aaaageaeat of the guSxiivision. 

The st;^tiia«e of the testiastty of the defendant 

Kem imsr flatly o^ntradiotory of yeo%rtnejr*s, in ssl^r ^res* 
peots, \m% in MRny othe« it was autoetanti^lly the saae as 

■^ WxUii 


a &^ X!j>-?w i;'ia?n.,v; fe^i- 

^*-"'" " ■-■--■■ 






«{;; ^:l!i;,,.. 


lt««artii«y*o t*stl«<^a]r« On &11 Tltftl polata* (^lAg to the 
<{u«stioii of «ih«th0T theri^ bad been ttrng joint sMSrenture b«« 
t«««ft th«m« involTing the Ki^xn igiiMiTlfdoA* it ims flatly 
coftivndiotory, H« admitted, boveT«r, t&at tfet M«cfertnfy 
^bdlTlalon v»« » <!«ftl en rhioli %h#y luid entc^red on 9, b&Mis 
9f taoh MTlng m owt^lamlf inter«9t and that tb« «as« w»« 
tTiai with regard to tt5« aal* ©f th« ;?^xi«t«ll lets, but ttiwt 
when tb« !C«Tn Snljdl'vlsloB d««l wctn tnttr«d Into be told 
M«(3artRi9' that it Inrolfind suob sin na»otmt of monry na nKd» It 
n»o«»aary# if M«oaTtn«y w»nt«d to coae In on mn iKiwiaLl i8JSji.T«^ 
that he contribute on«f«»h©lf tl?« mon«y ne^dod to eoapltt* the 
d'^&l, vttioh «a« ftpproxlaately $6000. (K>« 

(hansel tor the defendant, Mr. 8ro«fn, took the 
irlta««« stand and flatly eontradioted the t©sti»oay of 
Veo^irtney to the effect tliat the latter had ooae to l^le offlee 
with Kern* witb regard to th« title of th« Kem Subdivision^ 
and tbdt at that tlise Uxovn had asked £em v1m% Meoartney*s 
intereat In the deal 9m.0 fsuja, tiiat tht lattpr htd.etated that 
it ime a one-half liit«re»t» aroTm's teetiataay wae to the 
effeot that no euoli oocurrenct •▼er to>k plaoe; tb&t ^ecart* 
tOff and Kem had nerrr ooew to his of floe &t any tlste 9.n& 
that ^ieeartney had nrver even 'been in ble off lot vhen fee. 
Brown, was th^ere. Sotie eritioiew is n».<1e In the 1»Tief of 
oeunsel for the plaintiff, relating to tb« motion of m, 
growtt in taking th» vitaeee etand. In oxa opinion the faete 
Ao not ;Ju8tify any critifismi in tbs&t regard* The plmintiff 
hating testified ae to ttee oonveveatlon between hi» 9n& the 
defendant, and histvlng further teetlfied that it t&ok plaoe 
in oounael'a preaenoe. In hie office, oouneel baa a rlg^ and 
a (bity, if tbie poaition tm» to the contrary, to take the stand 
and iay e^.* 




^>lPf ^i. 

«&«( X^' 

AStmr a artful oonsldfratlcm of ftll the evidaiiMi 
«• !»▼« oottA to the oonoluslon tb».t ve rould not b« ;|\istitled 
la disturbliig this deey««« lf« hav* ooaui to tl^le <Mmolu8iaa 
iB aplt<^ ef tbe fact that w« bava erai?y oonfldesoe in the in* 
%9$pti\f of i^. Brorra and in tl^e truthfulnaasi of bis t®«tlffioay« 
ira do Bot dou!y| that the obaaoallor wbo antarad tlia deoxee 
kad aa fei^ a 7«e^r<l fox M:r, Qrowa aad «.a blis^ aa «pj5r€cia» 
tlea of bia teatiaony aa this coiirt baas tout that tba ebanoalloy 
alao a»s lad, la spite of that faot, to ent«x a deoraa for the 
©cwaplainaiit, on all the evldenee presentad. 

la foal oMlgad to afflxn the ai«0M» b«o?.uaa of %!&« 
faot timt th«r« aara a ntml^r of 3«ttar» wliieb are vitbotJt emt- 
t»»dictlo« ^nd a nioibax' of otfears i»%lo!h aa*« not aaTloutly ©cwa- 
troTfiiitael, trfelc^i aptiaay to w« t« ba antlrely eoatsletant altb tb« 
oontention of tb« ooaplalnaiit tbat tha Kara ^ttMlTlsiotj %rmm^ 
aotloa aaa a Joint advaature b^tvaan tbaae partlaa am a baala 
«f aa 9tsasl ahaxa la tb« pyoflta, and, *a tba othar baad, theea 
aattoTa to wblob «a refer ara utterly laooael^teaft wltb tba 
eoateation of tba d@f@ad.'nt» to tbe c^trary* 

In tb€ firat plao«, theaa t^fo partlaa, botb real 
aatata mmt^ lodl baen aaqaalatad altb one anotbar for aut^y 
, yaara and bad admittedly bean easKgad la aerer«l ;|alat Taaf- 
tujraa oa wbat la referred to la tbe reoord a» a«*50 - SO 
Vaala," and these had beea protl^tible. A|^la, tbeTc la 
no eoatradlotloa of the faet tbat this w»a the baaie oa 
irttleb these two partlaa irant lato the isaoartney SubdlTlaioa 
traaaaotioa, fera fumiahing the money, «a« tbls ^a» slaa 
the baala ea wbleb they acmalred the axcUislTa asla of the 
jBuateil lota and the mmrtMf SiibdlTleloa traaaaotloa m.» 
•atered Into vary Portly after tba tBm 8ia»dinaiom pv^p^r^ 




■■"^i ^.ijm m.lm 

A^ . 

iV^ft r%&4ri 


*iWi»- «^, !.?■»» 


ini^f ti^iiu h»' 

mm aoqulred* wna th« trsiumction larolTlng th« «hI« of tb« 
2tt«1(«ll lots w&n uiiciert!*^ken only - f«ir »Qntl>0 latere and 
both th« U»mTttk«f Sulxll vision proptrty and the s^-c^alled 
Su«t#ll pi^pertjr w^re ooBtlguioua to or very ccar the liertt 
SubdlTisio&« and th«lr b«ing en the isarket would al»oat 
e®rt»lnlf hav* soa^i i»ff«ot on tk«s »al« of the Kesyn S\tMlTl9ion 
lots* Xt isoffiHB Torjr n&tur&l t):)&t ^e par tie» shornld tnter Ifto 
thftae oth«7 tvo deals In th« stsnner d$^fiorlb«d by tli® oo«pl«.lB* 
ant» «iii(^ i]lde«^d 1« not denlod toy the dofendant^ and it 
sseas eqimlly oI&».r and nat«JC«l th&t 0u<^ i& oouirss should 
follow an xmdertaklng of the p&rtits, lavaliring tko lem 
Sttbdivisiioa^ in the mantter de«orib«d by ti»# oo«pl*liiiSfcnt« 

It mppisars from tb« reooyd that la the oottxse ©f 
tb« handling of th^; fxn ©ubdiTision mttex, Kttm. vent to 
his Imnk and opon«d « n«v meiM\mt whioh w^s knovn &e the 
•H.f. Ksm Subdivision Aooeunt* and Tcoeipts« th« «&!• 
of lots* fTcm thff isxn 9i;d»diilsion« vsnt into that ftooomrt 
iAStsa4 of £svii*s psrsonal isocount • in our opinion the mje» 
l4sayStioa v^ioh Ksm gives of this inoident is not very !«• 
pr«ssiv«* That sxplfinntion is to the eff«et that ht was ob» 
ll0it«dl to the extent of llG^OOOttOO en a aiortgsge cover iaf 
this S«d»divi8ion sad he was obliged to asks piiys»nt« eveiry 
now and ^ea on this »oTt$Rtee« mnd he tried to do this fei 

s««s tins ttcm hie oim &ooount^ but things 0St aixM n^ and 
he was seaetimss overdrawn, »o he thotsght he *oul.(!l »t%rt 
another acoo\a3t for the purpose of gpttlng this saaney to- 
gether for the Fttri?o8e of paying this jsortgagt* Me testifies 
that be did not deposit *11 the asoaey rc^ceived froa the f«b» 
division in that ftoeo«nt tizd that he p^iA so«e of his owa 
personal bills out of the ftoooimt, Xt is rather diffletilt 

lOf t 


*■ "*;^^'^: 


>/:ff ^ S^f?V-' 


■'f •^>'<JJ 


■:ffif' T(S* 

-IX-P #!«»*■ 


to a^pTCol&te why It »ae aee^stary t© op«a an aceenmt In the 
bank, knoim &« th«$ 8ii]»dlTlaloa aeoouiit» in or<l«r to lcc«p bis 
l>ajnt«Bt« on th« aiOTigRge atirmlglit, fftp^oitilljr if ht a»td It, 
i& pSkTtg Aa & prlvmtA aooount* 

fh0T9 Oftn to« no iftoubt irtiAt«T»r, froa th« reooydt 
ttot UttrniTtiMf did ft iforjr TOitsl^Serable amotrnt of work la «jo»» 
neotloB with V la 8\%MlTlslon« Wa viil not ooasB«et *b it la 
datallf but it ^as oon£!idl«jubl«, ft»a aooordimf to the thaovy 
and th« testimony of Kem, this waa all done for nothing,- 
Haoartney neTar aakad to b« p&ld for it i(M. smrar aubwlttad 
any bill for It. m w&» isMiagltMi «oai« flftt )mildia^ balon^^ 
lag to Koxn* and ooll^otlag rants and ree^ivixig oonRlt alcana 
foT thatp «attd »ppaip«tttly It la th© def«»dant»a thmrf thitt 
all of the aemem of Moonrtaoy, m oojuseoticm with th« 
•ubdivlsion« which, aa wa ha.T« iil»«atdy atatad, wera eonaidexw 
abla, ?!^erp done for nothings thi» Bveam ^ite imr&aAonabI* 
and utterly o^it of all h^tmem^ id,th*!*t •haptp«aad, according to 
the def«ni?vnt*« ova ndtai9aioBa« in oonnaetion «itt:^ tha Mooarl* 
nay Ottbdivlaion and tha iSu»ttll Lota da<&lB« both of tham ooa^ 
lag at the vavy ti^a of or ahortly folloirlng the landsyt^klaf 
of the tern Siibdivlaion da&l* 

Ifihe aala of the lota la th# lera ilNbdinalon b«- 
eaat laposaiblo la th<t sia^avx of 1913, owing to tha fnot that 
n dafeot vna dlsoorarad in the title and it vna not imtil the 
fall of that yaar, &f tOT the aalllng se&eon was otst« that tha 
tltla wkB olaavod wp, Salaa »«re further »le»«d up by reaaoa 
of the fttot that Hi»ay of tha poopXa aorlag iato thia aubdlvl- 
aloa were affaotisd by tha •»» and the real eats^ta narkat in 
that nali^borhood waua ftppaiTantly at m at^ndatlll* ^oat of tha 
•aloa thtst mT& ainda ware in 1916 md liie* On ero8a-e:«;B«ia»- 


•^« i?r.?. JflONJC 







, . -d.t 


> ^J 



* .f^ h 


i ;^«j.flfO 



'Jv'jE ;* at 

i^JCA «;' 

•T©V t.fc' 


il«A MaoasrlBMr wav atttd vliy li« Imd «&it»4 uAtll 1921 t« 
inctitixt* this pToe«ftdi.AS» if he thOKi^ h« had « ^alii 
«fi.lii«i Kextt for on«-hftlf of the profits «n tlie Kern Sub*» 

dlTisiCKii pTop^riy* awI h« ttMvertd th&t he hmd tak«B the 
Wiktt«T up 7«|>«&i«<^f wil^ K«XB, tjcidl that K:«m liad mever 
at ftay tli»« talcea ttte poaitioa thi^t h$ did not bs^va a. half 
intnteat in tii&t pTorHSTty* imt b^tt fwit tli« oosrpliiiiiiant off 
with the asuggestion %lm% %h&y sticmld not 8«ttle th«i7 aecounts 
"^tll tht9 tots bad &11 b««n sold* and on o«rv«ral ooe^sions 
UmA piixt him off «i^ t^e 8t<%t«m<mt tbmt bo ««« ohoirt of 
f«aid«* l^«!i tho dtf«»diant «m« on the s>%9,nj&. tkM imo l3«li&g 
«3»iiiftOd in ohiof b|r hio oouAisfl* ho wsik aoko^f. whot^^oir ho 
ttod oiror t{)ld tho 00iN|>lal]3a,iit **tMt fou had not any m&mif 
OA hand to aocoimt** nnd h» said he didl«* thmt ''he oaae 
•rtr «s;d asade a. demand ono tl«.o» so sue ti«o &^* mid i m-ld 
I hftd »o itoa^»* In ey^t opimioa* o&o who «»• asking th« o^sx* 
tsBtloao lAiioh the dl9f«ndrmt isafeos noir« wo^ild not m^% m 
dttwui^ fo7 an ftooetrntlBg in thmt wsf* But* farther* it 
09^«n fron the rooord« trithout oontrsdletioii^ timt under 
datt of May BB^ 19B1« «hloh «o« nearly «ix mmtho before 
this suit o&s started* the oom|5laln»ut wrote thi& defendaat 
SI letter omying* "Kaoloood herewith* X h&ttd you a. stateaeat 
of our s^ibdiviftioas, Thio statement i« ahoyt bow the aooo«»t 
stood «h««i «e lost chookAd op the oontraots oaA yo^r )»0Olc»* 
Of oourso th^YO are other iteno n^i^ are no doial^t shovm hy 
yotir hooka and rewalpted liills. * * • fould you kiadly oheok 
«pror thoso lto«» aad let me knmf what the ^ascmuts «r«» th* 
■attesr has he«i ruiuilag eo long that I think we should mm 
Aoae it up Tjy diTidias the asaets or liabilities* wimterer 
the fi»i ststoaeat will show.* F:aeloaed with this letter 





^' KI^WT,^ «« 0«X fttfr aftli't.* *-iv'.l te>v<» 

i«-.5r<f*^i 5?.i,. ■ '^maU' ■ . ■ ■ .tuiiit cast 


wmit \w& •t&t«»«nt8, a rather brief one h«ftd«d *J« C. ^emrt* 
a«7*s Sub<UTl9lon'* and & aiueh loni^r 09« ^ ftad«d <*'X«xtt*s B\£b» 
dirXaion%* the latter Is apparently aa Itemlsedl et&teaent of 
lota, by imntber, the aaotnite fer «^lob they were 80ld» tbe 
intereat pttyaei&te n&de in oonneotion ^ith thea, the ooioatle* 
sioBA paid on the aalee, «a6 tb« @.mouiita paid out in eonaee* 
tion ?rith the aoqulaition of th*» property ae a whole. The 
defendant adiBlta that he reeeired thia eoaieimi cation aM be 
further adaite tbn% he n»r^T replied to it ^nA that be paid 
ne attention to it* It seeaoi improbable that tint defendant 
iiiou'ld receive a letter frona the oa»plai»ant« inclosing 
vltot the ©(mplainant ^alls In the letter a ©ts-tetaent of the 
adeount of how *o«r stMirisione" stood on the defeadant'e 
books, at the tine the ec^xplainant and the defendant laat 
cheeked thoae books over, thie letter containing an itemised 
aooount referring to the Kern ^ubdiTieion ae well as an ite»i«* 
•4 accoiHJt referring to the I4e©«rti»y Subdivialon* which the 
def«adant adaUlta the parties »«ra interested in on the baaia 
contended for by the complainant, and that he ahoi^dd regain 
ailent after reoeiTing such a eoanainicmtipn, and yet that 
it should be true|> ae the defendant now eont«»naa, that the 
ooa^lainanl; in fact hftd no interest in the profits vhich ai^t 
Tssult froa tbe Kern SubdiTlsion* 

It is such unoontroTerted matters as these wl^leh 
••cs to ^ to be so utterly inoensistent with the defendant's 
position that have led us to the conelusion that the ehsai- 
«ellor»8 decree must be affirmed, in spite of our ionfidenee 
and belief in the truth end oorreotness of *ir. Brown's teati- 
ouany, on the points on ifei<^ he and th® oo«plaixHmt are in 





There »,r« soate other fflfttt#3Pfl 111 •MifLiet* invelTlxig 
eospl a i Rant's testimofiy* vhXefo ere strongly urged a« further 
reaaons why the decree should not be upheld^ but we do not 
dsett them of BVtfflQLent Import« to varrtmt such a course. 
Some of tb«B had ts do with details on which the eomplalaant 
wstj have he en mistakstt, 6.n6 others do not oontaia* 1& o\ir 
^(gment, th« elements of ooafllot ^Ith the ffeots vhlob are coa* 
tended for. For ©s^ample. It Is entirely elesjr from the reoord 
that vc^ien tte property irhlofe came to be kaoisn as the Ksim Sub* 
dlTieion ir*>8 beinjj tnirokaeed and negotiations w«>r<» heing la* 
etituted for the issuance of ^ title guaranty polloy by the 
Chicago fltle * trust Ooajwrny,, Mr, .Sxoism* represent lag the 
defend;5!nt, conferred witt; the representatlres of that Oomixitty 
»nd he made a formal application for sueh a r»olloy and signed 
that applieatlo$« It is contended that the complaiimnt testis 
fled that £em signsd that ap|li(mtioR« He dees tsstlfy to 
that effeet, but almost immediately , in the eourse of his 
testinsony^ he shours t!mt he is not eertain sihout it end exprsssss 
doubt whether he erer mxm the applleatlon. He dis also appar* 
entXy either oonfnssd or mistaken about the question of the 
opinion of title which dieolosed the defeot« which neeessitated 
some litigisttiott in order that i% aiii^>t be oXesred up« the oom* 
plainant haTing the iaipreseian that the opinion wss one frws 
the Chicago Title &. Yrusit Oompaay^ i!i!terca«« it i& clemr from 
the teooTd that It «as en opinion submitted to Kern by Mr* Broim* 

^e defendfa.nt has submitted erose errors^ contending 
that the ootirt erred In -ncating the deeree as originally entsx^ 
e4 and mailcing the ohanges to vhioh some reference was made at the 
bsginain^ of this opinion* Ke bsllsre the dsoree as entered 


..i-y 'izv 






•|KJi^«»iX. •• 



0.1 -O. 



appiix«ntlr» fey Inad^cTteooe, o«itt«jd thtce lises la«©dlat«ly 
before the titml pawigrjaph deaigimted as (a) ;%nl that It is el«a» 

that the ooxsrt int^ntl^d th&t paTsgrjSi]^ to tee |>reoed»d by th« 
words, "aad it is h^sreby ordertd that tfel» ooizrt «hall %n6 hern- 
"by doe® retain Jurtwdlotlon of thla <ss-is« for the following puj- 
poees** But even vithout those foimal ?rord8« it, seeme ole&T 
that the decree 1« to tfee effect that the ©aaplaiaaal; la en- 
titled to an aoootmtl»g on tb». klBtn Siabdl^Jlslon %rs.ii8aotion 
and the ts^anettotloius involviag tlm seoartaey SsjibdiTiigloa nad 
the Suetell lota» ifuid if the aocoi«iti»g oii these tranas-ctloae 
shows » profit, th® lots resaainiiig tiaaold being oosaeldered 
in the aooouatlng at a T«aeej3i«itol« v%l«iBtlon» th® defendsat 
ebull p&f the ooaijrlaiaamt one-half of eutfh aaoBtnt, 'hn^. if he 
falls to <to so, then the lots reaainlng unsold eh&ll be acid 
at Judleial sale f^.nd the ptooe'^ds brought into caiirt, nnd the 
«nurk retains jwriBdiotlon fOT the purpose of 'jseking eiaeh 
deoree ae oay then apjxmjf to a« aiSft®8aj:;.ry» That being the 
very erideat aesning of the decree, it giyee tha sromplainAnt 
an Interest in one-half of the profit* on the entire venture 
Inolullng the Meoartney S«bdlvi®lon and the >:em S\ibdiviaioa 
sad the Suetftll lots; uni this inoludes both % helf interest 
lA whatever oasli proflte my be developed on an accounting, 
ae well as a o^|«»haIf interest la the lots ^^hloh still ars 

JrQt the r«»soffl» etei,tsd the dseree of the Sn^srior 
Court Is sf flr«ed» 

• •• m^tt Arrimna. 

TAYLOR, P. J, ASD 0«00M2OR, J» COIOrjUi,, 


;i-J.O i 3>!li j,, r« 

^ it'', vi ■■■• » A^. ■ 

*. ';:,^^'4* •s-'i '-i J* 


k fmu 

fiBPKIiXOR OO0l?t» 




T A. 


309 - 28X04 
MXfliflXS PSRS&^I, 


A|9f90XlM9i't9« i 

Opinion filed Fet. 37, 1924o 

HR, «iy^fia^ mc^asoii deiiv«r9d i^« opinion of 

fht plAititlff, ilfai* f«Y8ftoa» bTougtit thl« 
ftetioH against the cl«f&ii(S€«it« to w^&sirmj^ deyauigts for per* 
aoBAl lii^url«« isrhloln wf>r« aXleget^l to have l»««ii »u@t.<«iAed 
as a result 9f the ii«glig®ao« of tim def^ad^nts* termatt* 
in oa»Jie0tloa with the operation of «m« of tli«lr »tr««t 
oisra* at a tlxa vhea tfe« plaintiff f»«» alighting frots & car, 
Tht «svid ao« wa« Butaaltt^A to a ;Jury» rt suiting In s finding 
for the plaintiff and a»8«a«iing her 4bKatagoa at th« nvm of 
f3&00«00« A judfROnt for that o^oimt vsl^! <tolf entered on 
the TOKSiot* fro« wfjl«ai ;|i2d^ent tke defeadanta h&iro p«r» 
footed tbis appeal. 

A waa^t of omtters ure urged Inr the defen^nta* 
in eup^ort of their oontention that th« judgneat ohould tMi 
reYeraod* After a oarefuX conaide ration of sill the cTideftO& 
in the 3reeord9 »e have ooaae to the oonolualon that the oom- 
tentisA of the defendtnta, to the cffeot that the rerdiot 
and Judgtt«Bt are againet the sanifeet woigbt of the erldenee^ 
la aup^rted hy the racerd, end it »111 therefore not be nto- 



99»a,Tf for \m to T«rim the other enPOTS refcTT«d to la 
the bri«fs. 

The plaintiff was a eowui tilmvit tiftf t«» y««iw 
of age. The ooourrenoe happ«nfld ttstvefn nlA* and ten 
e'oloclt OR th« eresiiiig of ^Hasaiufy SO, 1931 • the pl&iritlff 
WMi a pfte^enger on wa eastboimd Irrlag Farlii: Bou^rmrd oar. 
When e^ boarded the oar she aelced the ooaduotor to let her 
know when she r«&ehed HaJeliB aremiie, ae ehe wfuated to gei 
off at that st:pest. Ae th« e»r ap*^r'Q«tohed Haatlln aTenue, 
the oonduotor oalXed out the mm* of the street and ^v* 
the aotoSftRsfi the bell to stop the oar. It Is the plalft* 
tiff *e theory that after the miv had eoae to a full stop 
she prooe^^ded to all^t, hold tag oa to <me of tb.? ha«d 
smlllsgs* and Juet as she ^t one foot on the groujida the 
oar snde a suddea start foreard aad thTSv her doum; aad 
that l« «oa9«^enoe of this alleged segligeaee <m the part 
»f thos« i^o were in ohargs of the oi^r, she Buffered the 
iiijurlee oosrpl&liied of. 0,^ the other haad, the theory 
•f the defendants is that the i^lalntlfl oaae out onto t&e 
rear platfors, as th« mt- wa« slowing down aM after 
the s^eed had been reduoed t© sojeethlng lear* th*n the speed 
of fta aTsrage walk, she suddenly striked down on the step 
and then to the groia^d, the e&T ooming to » full stop ap» 
proxlsaately 8 feet beyond the point wher*^ ahe ali^ed| 
that when she stfpiped to tlte groimd, she wae faeing baole* 
wa3rd« and that this fact, together wlt^ the faet that ^e 
ear was still in motion, resulted in fcer being throim orer 
on her Wei:«< 





'■m x»o 

Yh«r«> weY« no oorroboratiag vlta«»stts to th« 
ftooount of th« oo0urr«aeef &• giT<m liy the pl&intlff h«i*» 
••If, The plaintiff t#»tlfl«d tbat tlw conductor annowneedl 
Kaatlln mreau* as the oar apnToaohed tbittetr««t anA »!)• 
st«pp»d to the platfosm &« tbt eer was slmrlng do«ii; that 
the ear stopf^ed at the regvdlaY stoppliiig place at thftt atreet» 
aad that after it stopped site attewpted to %ll#)t« Aa the 
oar eaa l^iiog east* fhm plaintiff would be feeing eouth^ 
in lookinit teiKar4 the «idei»alk« Bh% tea ti fled tbat in 
stepping down on thm p^t^meni she faoed 9»Mt tenard the 
front of tbe oear and Just ae she was »t«pp$ng ^r& on the 
^▼ement* with her right foot« keeping h$l«l of tbe opri^t 
Biand rail with her ri^t hand^ tlif ms etarte^^ iritis a Jerlc 
and cvimg her doim and she fell on her tMi^ek, ifith Iter heii 
to the west and her f@«t to the ^st. fhe ^Tid^noe in ths 
re-oord is all to the tffeot' that as she aXigJttet, tht hand 
rail she kept hold of with her rl#t hana was the perpendicu* 
lav rod looated along the outsit edge of the platfom about 
at^Nneiy f rcn th<» body of tho &Rr to the rear of the platfors* 
tfes plaintiff further testified that she was imoonseious un- 
til tlM»f pi deed her w^ tfatt she ^r« the o^nduotor her some* 
andfin reaponss to a qu«ietion fr^^ hin* stated that she oould 
gtt hoae alonsi tliat she sorted for horns and *wsnt pretty 
good at first and then I ^gin to stagieer and wriggie and I 
leaned agaiinst a tree imd then X walked on a|^in«* On eroas 
exBainatiott site Stated ^%t sthe did not know how long it 
took her to get h^aie hut that it ims r^t wery long; that she 
rested thxee or four tiaies on the ^ny and that she sta^sred 
as she walked along^ that aolaody orertook her on the way ho«s 
or offered her any aid| that she walked aoross the grass plot 
to reaOli soae trees ai^ leaned up agsiinst th@i* and that she 


did this •ernxiiiX tln«« in tii« imjr hoae,* sh« eould net 
jMtiMimber wh«th«r It v&s two «r threo ot four tints • t^nA 
ttat% ftt one point oa her vray boB« sht took hold of a rail* 
lag to h«lp hsrself. along* She fiixtlt^r t«atlfi«d« on orots* 
«x»«lnmtioa» tliat the mx stopped *vh«rt t%Q stopping plass 
is* J that sftsr it stopped tlit:r« it )et1c«d forward, and 
t]»»t sft«r shs «as tbrsim dsnm it istoppsd agFdn at Isast 
00 feiit lE>«yond vlieTS it had stot^p«d the first tias, and 
tlkftt stter the aeooad st*i» th» osr »S8 still cm ths ssst 
sidfi of HaaliA svsmis* Shs stated that ahs kii#« r^oaitlTsly 
tliat th^rs ir^.e no cms on tlso ^ok platform^ sther than the 
oonduot<^:« In giving hsr possitioa at th« tims th® ^»x* 
if th« fialatiff stated that her left foot vas on 

step and her ?i|^t foot «*s jtist toui^ing th« groti»d end she 

holding the center upright_;<rlth her right hsnd, with her 

left hand free, and that after she «»s thrown down her 
pointed toimrd th« west snd her feet in the direetitsn of the 
oar. This ^is the s%s.tetaJies of ft.ll the testimony of the 

plaintiff, relflktinif to the 0oo«rs-®aoe» 

the defendants presented three oeotiryeae* witaeeses 
other thsA the oonduetor &nd aiotoie^eam. While the motornan 
did not witness the aoGidp»nt Itself, his tsstiaoai' strongly 
oorrohorstes that givsa toy the other ooeurrence witnesees of 
the defendants, so far as it had to do witSi the msureiients of 
the ear at th€ tiffi.e in «|ueetion« His testisROiQr w^e thut he 
fst the 1^11 to stop th« oar at lisalia aws«a« an^ t:b&t he 
mBa» his re^ar stop at ths^t point, with the front end of 
the oar a3»»ut even wit^ the orosasaik on the wsst aide of 
l^UBlin avenuAi that after he e topped he t?aited, aooordiag to 
his judgeeat, a1io«* ten seooads, whioh he oonsldersd rather 

■z9t bi'j 


s^rt? t€) ifir: 

, mm&VA. 

-'; a^ivi 

ma uauanial wait, **vail««8 quite a. tern patamag^TS 9T« getting 
oii*i that BttXex VAitlng ftpproxlaattXy %M% lengtb of tine, 

!!• opeiie4 tbe door of tto© front platforai and lookied O'ut 
mm! daw t)i« oondnetor tsDcing ^itli & inmsiji, and h« got 

off and vslked b»ok ajxd aiked wluitt tk^ trouble «%a; ttet 
)ie aeked t^e plaintiff If aM wsva hixrt and «%« jBiiia tlie 
wta not. He fur the? testified tbsit the car a«>d« only one 
Btvp at title point, sad tfeat It had rot aoTed betw«sa the 

tlflie he t»7^u.^t the ei!i7 to a etop tnd tlnf* time "he optn.«!d 

tl»e door «nd eaw tfes» «ond-u«tto» talking to tl»e plalKtif !• 
TSe usual mocideat report eo-^^Tlng tlie osourxen^e in «?ue»» 
tioa was Hfiftde toy tfe® ^apl^iyaee of felj.« defsn&^ats at tfee 
tiise« aafJ Ifcia report ooat?t.ia»d % ''Motor^an*® Itateaent* 
vki^ wewB iatrodueed in e-s'idcnoe. fble statteai^at wa« apspar- 
ently written out by the aotormiaa under a (caption dii-ecting 
hisi to atate ban the aocldent happened. la tMe stateiReat 
the motoi?aan eet fort^ that his <5omdu0tor ^Te him th« uemal 
etop toell and he atolp^ped, aaiS: thm waited for t^o belle, 
wlki(^ be difl not get| that he Xoolced out &ad saw th€ eo»« 
dueter talking to a w»iaMta$ l^at be asltced the conductor ^hat 
the troutae van aad he said the woaien etepped off the oar 
before it stopped, thla etateaeat wae introduoe^d in evidenoe 
without ohjeotioa. 

The oondaotor t^etlfled that etiea the plaintiff 
boarded the ear ths^t ni^.^it ehe aeked Kin to let her off at 
Hamlin awenxte; that he ealled out the naase of tb»t street 
ae the ear approaehed it, ^n^? g»Te the eotemaa the bell to 
etopi and a« the o&r aeared Haailln aweaTi* the |>aalntif f oa»e 
out on the platform sad took hold of the Mid:*le bar with 
her rlt^t haad| th^t h« waa etaa^iag ahcrait three feet froai 

^•r in his umiAl poftlti»ii« snS th«t »• the eax g»t near 
til* stopolAg place, the plaintiff »tftpt«d doim off th« 
•t«|>{ that tb« «Fltii«»fi of^utl^med h«T to imlt imtll th« 

tmx stopped and as she ftt«pp«d down hci mtt€iispt«<) to re&<^ 
lft«y but did not gtt hol4 of her; n>M **sh« ktpt right on 
golttg, hitting the pawatemt.* H* t*^stifl«d futthtr that 
ft* th« plaintiff 8t«|»j>«d ((So«m» »h» «»» feeing irtst^ naaisly, 
h&ekt<?«ird« and th« ms was eomlng to & utap «&<! movicig t«x7 
slowly J that as htr foot touched thi» gyo\jnd »h# f«ll Ims<*~ 
v»T^» irith h«r homd to %ht e&st and hst fe«t to tht vast} 
«n<d th&t the o&ar nolml a^o'ut 8 fo«i aftor «h« touohtd tli« 
grotmd. this placilag fe«*r hmtd at>out oven with the r«a» 
dashtooaif^ of tht o»r wh«n It oaae to a stoipi that this 
vaa tho only 8tO|> th« mt okadt and that it w^as in the r»» 
gnLur stopping pXaoo. fts further t€:atifi«d that %ft$r h« 
liad asslstotl the pl^intif' to hox feet« ha aalt«a h«r if 
sho was hurt &n<! isho ft&.14 aha was not nnd that aht vas ahle 
to go to htr ho«« alono; that ho aaaiatad her 0T«r to th« 
north aid© of Irving Park Sowlavard} that as th«y were atan^ 
Ing by 1&# ear, Jttst afttr ho h%d h«l|>ad hfx up, a polioa 
of floor Who ipaa going to boar* tha mx at this foint, «teppo4 
np; th«t he was la plain clothes ana as he eam« up he statad 
that ho was aa offioer. Th« wltaoas th^ft 9tate<1 th'^.t his oo»" 
▼aroation with th« pl&intlff waa hart la the of floor's pr<^seia©e. 
On oroaa-ax&slnatlon, the eanductor ©aid h* was positifo 
th« plaintiff ima- not carry ing an Bahr«ltiB wnder her arsi; 
that as she was going to stsp <3oan to the platforsa step he 
eautionod h«rj that the «?ar had alsiost stoppod, at the ti«« 
she stopped off, and It was not aoving as fast e» an ordinary 
son aaliui{ that the plaintiff hosltatad a few aononts wiien oho 
first osae out on the pX$<%t9xm^ and tO^m M%9pm^ ^'^^ sM ^ 




fxji ^$aii'<s% 

■^: r/*"/ 


T9&ch»d for hBTi tliAt ^ere was on* pft«8«Ag«r on the rear 

fh© report »uto«ltt«<3, to the d*feMant«, oovering 
tMa aooldlent, witioh oositaln^d the ttateaant of th« »oioT<» 
van* whlofe ha« alre^uty b««ii r«fcTy«d t©» alao co&taineA a 
a%at«isi«nt l»y th^ oonduetoi', t*l<sh r«a4 a« follows: "l^ls 
voauoi asked a« to atop the ea? at llaalla Rvsimo* and ju9t 
a« tfe« ear tma ooalag to a atop 1 »ait<B<J bar to wait until 
It did and before i JcaaVj^ aha st®p|»«!t off, f&lliBg to tbe 
paTtaemt* I got ©If smcl fealpud bay on her feat and ault^ 
her If she waa byjrt »md a^i® amid tfeat «fe« wasj ®l'l ilg$Jt «ftd 
that she oouldi get hmm irltfeoiit a^ &a«l»taa#a, gat- 
tlAg hOT naitte and ad^raaa*^ fba atat<^«aat« of ^th of 
th«ae ftsployeaa ooainoides with tfee teatlsoajr thay gaira 
on the trial, aath atattauata aeya not anly introduead 
la «Tid^no« without any oto;Jeotloa, on th# p3.rt of the plala- 
tiff • a oounael, tout fear oo^anaal callad on ooun»«l fOT tlie 
d©f ea-ianta to produce tliea, f TeeediI^g; tl^ev «%at»»ent8 of tha 
eonduotor and wotoimt^ whiofc feaT© baaa t^uoteda thcy« wera 
aoaa thljrty diTfavant printed laertiiriao oalling for inform!" 
tion vhioh ware to be filled la by tbt esaployaee raferred 
t«* and the ireport ahai«« all tbeae c^nestione anawarad* fol<-> 
lavad by the eignaturee of the o^aduotor and motonssn* 
Qounael for tbe plaintiff points ^ut tb&t some of t^e inforiMij* 
tion^ given in rtaponaa to tbeae qwamti&tka, dooa not aonineida 
in all its dotails with tba anawere ie»da by theee aitneseaa 
to quaaticma put to tbes wban tbey were testifying on the 
trial of this oasa* ror exaspla, the oondufjtor isfaa asked, 
aa a ^^itaaaa, how aany pa^a<=?engara ware on the ear at the tli^e of 





iM ^m 

-■xfm %is!v 


'Hjsm- *lri«; "ri "f^ 

hm mi»ii %»€ 

;^Jf^B iifiST 


the aooldeat In Questida, aad bit said h« tbo^ia>)t th^orc «•«• 
RtK)ut 15. In t^e wTltteti report r Bt»ttt85«iit irais made to 
the ©ffeot that there wht* 40 ssaftaengiprs on th« car, Further, 
the wTltttn report jgtv«e the platntiff •» tt®.ss« a« '•Pl«»o««'. 
Thie lod 9QUI1061 for tli« pltiiatlff to go 90 far ae to la* 
tlt.-ate that the aoeidc^sit whieb this mot&rmam. sjid ooaduotor 
0&V, &i&d vMoh they told &bout on th& witness etaiid «%• 
protobly »GiB(s oth<§r ftooident, although the addr««» of th« 
•ttr». Pi«ro««* r»f«rTOd to la the rritt^a report Is glir«» 
aa 4331 Eamlln avoRu*, «inS i^hlle she w&s testifying on tbe 
stand t?te plaintiff emtd ths-t at thf tij»e of the aooid^ntf. 
8h« «as llTlng &t 4^^331 ismlin &T#mitt» 

0&« ilawer, an lneuT£nc«» aalesn^n^^ ^ years of 
agty taafifled tbat he ha<^ ^«M^rded th® oar on wM<^ tisie 
plaintiff w&a a |>as8enger« n&out five %»lo6^e vest of Ha»ll& 
arenue aa!i 'Phen tfee c«-t yeaola^'i tii&t sstrfet !h« *».a etstndlng 
on tlie rear platform on "tb© blind side*; tbat e.s th« ear 
ims Qoming to a atop, he aair tut; pl£.intlff oG^e out of the 
oa* to thM platformj tMt abt* at«pp'^ do»n on tfee firat 
atep with ber Isft foot, and tb#n, before tfee oar Md stopped, 
she stepped dotm to the street and fell, striking tka Ijaok 
of her hm4{ that ehe stepped doms to ths. platfora step with 
her left foot and then bre\i#tt the ri^t foot do«n to the atep 
and then stepped to the street with Jn«r left foot} that «he 
ooatinued to keep hold of the vcitTi^'i bar|. that a« she stepped 
dovn she «aa facing west in a l^oksrard position, t.nd >¥hen she 
fell her hoad ws.a to the east and she fell on her h&elcj thmt 
the o«s.r ssored aho'st sir or ei|pbt f««t after she fell, stop- 
ping "flusli with the «treet at iiaaBtlin areniiO,- tfce usual stop" 
that the au? aade no other MOTWimt, fro« the time it 

to lt« first stop tmtil after th'^ooadluotOT ret\iTaed to th« 
OMT, On orosa-examiTmtiotIi tfeia i»ltn«»« t«8tifl«d that 
hs reoftiasd an ths pXatfota thri^ughout the ooimTr«mo«; that 
tk9 oar was atoTlxig "siuoh alowsr than a asaa^ wo^ld. milk* 
at the tia« the plaintiff st«pTMs«S off, 

fha pollO€; 0ffle«»ir aaantlotusd by tbt tmcmduotoT 
In his t^stlmoBf, ¥m» a amtootlva strgaaat la i^lain oXothsts* 
aattad Eowaa* 2t af^f>«a»R ftmt. tb« tastlasoiiijr in th« rseord 
th&t i^oimn aad his irlfa ted baexi &t'teiiidlag a motloa pieties 
tha«.tr«, with their t*o €!fellAr<m» agt4 se-Tea aaa. aiaa jmsit. 
Oft Irriag paxk Ite^lairaTi* soae l^looks to the wsat of iaailln 
avsnuaj that H0«i%b imB to report at the Mu«!!«9a a-raaiift poliaa 
station far Auty that aig^t abomt 11 a'clooJtj that after 
XsaTlng th« thfm.tra #te Rovaas vallcad aaat @a th.c* s^uth 
«id4$ df Irriitg l^rie Boulairard* ftoi^aa lateadlng' ta talcs 
aa Sftst lK»\}aii aaf wh«a one «&«« along 'lad Mrs. Mo^ma «&d 
th« ahlldrei^ isitsadiag to g^ ta thtir Mw»» ^R^iah i?»a scvtral 
blaoka to the north af inring Fark Boala-'vard. the «mr ©a 
which ths pXalatiff waa a passaager <^mB along as ths Row«aa 
were aaarlajs H^lla wfvmm, aad as tht aar slawad da«a» to 
sttlca the stop at Hamlin aveaus* It paassd th« Howaaa a ad 
Ravaa 1>ld his fsallsr good aight aavi startsd to ran aftsr 
the G%r« Itttsndlng to board it at Hawlla av«a^» f&w^n 
testified to thssa facts* saying that tlie oar ftasetd hia, 
*'soffia little dlsti^aea from iiftatlia awenaa*^, &M he ssld 
good«by« to his faallf aarl follovad ths ear m& % trot* 
Hs testified that Just before th« aar oaaa to a stop* he 
saw ths plalatiff step to ths strset, with hsr faoa toieard 
hi«» aad fall owsr on hsr ba<d&; that h« proe«edsd la the 


1+ gfinfnh. 

fi3«> -W,i-. • «« 


>l.i? . vf* Xt 

dl?eotlofi of tlHi plaintiff iind tbe m9 and re«e)ii»d %%t mftAT 
tlM eonduotor did. »nd tl^stt his s«mo9y ims, that ^ tha tittt 
:b« TaaohfHA the plaintiff the eonduotor had a««ict«d heir pai- 
tialli' to hftir f««t; that he told th« plaintiff he v&« a police 
offlesr aad asked her if shs vae huirt and she replied that 
she vmm not and »he et&ted she did not live very far awaf 
and eould get hoae all rig^t; that the conductor took the 
plaintiff's BfMse and then, thking her hf the ar», isalked 
with her over t© the north side of Irriag Park Boulevard; 
that th« witness got on th<! oar nm6 went on his f^ay* Ho 
further testified ttet at th« tliae tfes plaintiff fell the 
oar had not stopped but was ooHalng to a stop and going wery 
slowly} that after tihe |»liaintiff f»ll» tfe«^ m:x wowed eig^t 
m ton feet befox^t it mm9 to a »toi>| that the plaintiff 
fel). with her head to the mmt t.s^ her feet to. the west, 
hor hoad heing 3 or 4 feet frost tbe haok of the ear at the 
point wherf'it stopped} that tht m^^t stopiS'ed at the regular 
stopping pisee. He testified that he i^ws his name to tlM» 
oonduotor, but that he hlnself a»Mle t^ pirli(»i rgf t tp t of the 
oeourreaoe; that It was oustoisary for polioc off loess to tura 
14 reports of adsy accidents they observed, if th^^re were any 
injuries to anyone, "imt that it was aot oustosiary to »ake 
any reports ixnless sowao^t ints InJurM, and that he snLde no 
report of this aooident heowuse it wes bis understand lag 
that the i^jtintiff had not bees injured. 

Krs. Hoeaa, the wife of the last witness referred 

to, testified as her hushsstnd hadj^ oonoeming the moweaents 
of herself and her faaily, up to the tiao they reached the 
place of tho ooourreno% in e»uestion# She further testified 
that as the oar on whioh the plaintiff w?,» a passenger api^eoaeli- 



•<lf her !3u«l>&nd ran for It* fiJtA i(fli«a ib« aecldtent bi&ppttnod 
•'we vere just a little west freui the pXftos Ffaere it did 
liaf>pen«* She testified tbat iAssa abe first s&w the plftltt* 
tiff she was en the platfom; that the ear wmm noTlai; and 
slowing downi thait th® plaintiff ^t off th» oftr bookward 
while it warn atovlng sad ^fore it had stopped and thmt 
she fell flat on her baok as she stepped to the etreet* 
with her head to the eftst* &nd that after she fell* the * 
oar moved a1»e%it 9 or 10 feet eo that her head vae ahout 3 
feet iMtok of the c«ar, this ^ritnesa further t#etlfltd that 
after her htieband ^t on the «at and the oar had proceeded 
viL9%, She and her children oroesed orer Irrtng Mrk Boulerar* 
at Hamlin aventte, and in prooeeding towiard her hoiae they 
toolt the sane route wfiieh ims tnken by the plaintiff as 
the latter prooe^^ded to h^r home. Mrs. Rowaa testified 
that she and the ohildrea were walking about SO fe<^t behind 
the plaintiff isntil the latter reached her hoatsj that the 
plaintiff imlked along strai^t without any indication of 
needing any as^letanoe; that she did not st&gp»r or stop ^nd 
rent anywhere and that she did not see her lean up agpt^lnst 
any tree« or take bold of anything to aid her flong; that 
the plaintiff's ho«Mft was a little atore thru two blooks north 
of the plaoe of the aooident ^nd that ae she walked to her 
Ii0a»« she walked along at about the satte paoe as the if^itne^is 
and her €*iildren, sad thmt tfcr ritncee did not aotioe any- 
thing nsnsn&X about the plaintiff as she ^smlked along* On 
ores s-exaainat ion this witness t#»tified that the street 
i»r was still aoTiag when her hnsband left her and ran for the 
oar; that she did not notio© whether the plaintiff was oarry 
ing anything in her bsjadj that s!^ did sot offsr the plain* 

■ i ..-...-.lief 

tf; ^taay 


tiff any aaftl«luBJBio« to«#»iiftt froa vhat tht M.ld «^« •««««<! w«ll 
•ttoug^ to go l»y h«T««lf ; thftt she Sid not appear to toe duxed; 
that when the vltnctse and her (djlldrea reaobed the nortlieiMit 
oomer of Irrlng Park Bouleraxd and Ha&Iin »T«nao« the pXaii^ 
tiff had re&obed & point on thi« east olde of URmlln evenwi 
and about fifty feet ahead of the wltuftea, and $^ the witaese 
a||d her ohildrea pxooe^ded on toward her hone the pl&latlff 
kept ahout this diet^mce ahead of her, up to the point vhere 
the plaintiff turned In to hex ho»e a little over two hloaks 
avray, ■'**^- ■ 

|tt oouree* a^ eotmeel for the plaintiff m^f la their 
brief, it ii^ir ^^t lt»€> said that tlr^is T®rdiot @nd j|udf|B«B.t axe 
againet Idio MAlfeet weight of th$ esiridenoe tsiMplf beo^uae 
a greater ni:«iber of witneosiee testified for th« f&rty agplnot 
m^oa the judgiaont wmi ent<@red> tAit« in o^r oplmioB* thtre io 
mvLch laore tavolTod iat the foregoing etateaent of tts« eubstaaoe 
of the teetlJtaoBir of the witnee^ea, relating to the fa eta of 
the ooourrenooi^ thaa the aore aatter of the relative nual>«r 
of vitaeeeoa. io havo given oaareful oonei^!«r%tlon to the 
aaalyale of the teatlooiij preoented by eotmsfl for the plain- 
tiff, in their brief, b\jt It would l^erf9 no ptirpoee to refer 
to it he?c in any detail* In any deaerlptloa of aut;^ an 
oocttrrenoe aa thia, by a group of wltneeseo, slight discrep* 
anolea or diffc^renoee or oonts^dietione, are alooat always 
preeent, aasuo&ing every witness %q have givim an honest snd 
truthful aoeoimt of all that he or sho ©an reoall of rhst they 
saw or heard. The fa#t that suoh minor iaooaolEtenoies or die- 
orepaaoieo are present, is an indieatloa of the trwthfi^lness 
of the witnesses, rather than the eontrary. 



How it eould poflsibif be t&ll tb&t on the foTc- 
Ipyiag teBtlnonjr* the plaintiff h^?! est&bliabed, by » pre- 
p9nAmTKSiWif of th# eTidenoe^ ths* she bftd been Injured be- 
eauett of the Attf^llgenee of the defeacSant** eerrajiite, wbo 
were In charge of th# oaT^i ie diffle»lt t« eee. In owt 
opinion it ie entixelj^ @X^mr that the Jud^ent an<S[ rer^ict 
for the plaintiff »re sigt^lnet tbt manifest weight of the 
•▼id«aG«*« aftti fOT tb»t re&eony tfee judgBtnt of tbe Superior 
QovtTt ie retreraed with e finding of faot. 

■ i-^- ' mmSMW IITE A FXS'DISO Of fAOt. 

rmoi»a of rActj 

We find ae a fact thet tfee Injuries recciroA 
l»y tbe plaintiff, upon tfet ©oourrenoe in ^ttjeetion, imre tbe 
reeult of her own negligenoe ani wer* not csittaeed by any n»|{- 
ligeaee on tbe pa^rt of tfee «ervBnt» of tbe def^n<Santa« 

TAILOR, P.J. CO«a0HS| ^''''^l '■-■ / , 

o»coNMoa, J. ais^siiTrso* 

I na of the opinion tbat the juAfiMait diMilji 
¥• revemed and tbe c^uee yemaniSecl for » ntsw trial, on acoount 
of tbe error in glTing plaintiff's instruetloa IS, By tbat 
Imetraotlon the j\Lry vere tolA that wtutre vitisbeeaee testify 
directly opposite to e&ofe other on a (ftaterial point, tbey 
were not boiind to oonsider tbe point not p^rorea; tbat tbey 
had the rlg^t to oonsider ell the surrounding clrot»atan«tes as 
sbova by tb« evidence, tbe instruction then e«mtintied, *So, 
in thia oas«, althou^ the plaintiff, upon the question rhetber 
she fell froffl tbe oar on tbe street, say tsetify one way, nt^ 
the <^ndN&otor und pelioeanuft siay s««ar tbe otber way*, the jury 
are not bound to oonelder tbe point prorwa. fbis instruction 

U ^fiMi 

V&8 hl^^ly ni«I«a.dlftg» b«OQu»« ths plaintiff &l<m« teetl* 

fl«d thst th© ear atapped e.Md then as slae «•.» filli^^ttlng 
th^r^frcMiU 1^ staTt«cI up ag&la e»iu«lBg her to f«.Il. On 
th« other hand, th« ooaduotoir snd the polleeman nentlonf^^ In 
%%* i4«tTuotloa, te!»^1ilfl«»dl that tbe oar lm.d not stopped when 
plaintiff ali-^ntdd from it. Thl« ira« alto the «ffeot of 
the teattlKtonjT of the paaoeni^r on tine rear platfor«# th« 
]poli«N»ttan*B wife and tbe^ atotomaa of tl»« e%r« Bjr tk« in* 
st7uotloA« th« ptxf »l#t understand that the &<rax% was of 
tfee opinion th*t plaintiff's T^Tsion of the a«tt«r was oo»» 
tradictod alon« by the polieansA and oon<J-uetor. 

9$ »»8sn 

9x r©l Tb« araad Jury, «te,, 

Otf «ftdftttt JLa Irror, 


Cai.«18AL <iCVWtt 

Opinion filed Feb. 37, 1934. 

tlte oourt. 

^y tfela «»lt of iriTTOT tlic pl&iatlft is «fT97 fi#^k» 
t« T«T«*«i« a judpMiat ©f tfefs aTli&iaal Oouri of Cook Oowaty, 
•«atenolni; him to iopxlaoameat la t)t# C<»itaty Jail tor » 
period of" nla«ty ^yo, for & oontempt of c^mitt, (tuoh C4)»» 
to»p1i» ooasistias in bit refu««l to «»««•* ooTtaia ^ostioas 
ipvopouaded to hia by tb« Sr&ad Jrnry* 

Tkio OTaad Jury ianrc»lT«d Ii#t«, vma tteo rtgular &txgatt« 
W8» Cls^ad J«]fy of Oook County* wl^iiok is the »«»• Qyt^ad 
jriary irtjteh mo laTolvod ia the e»oe of Ifrf fw^ln ▼• i»3rft^laiB» 
9X0 III* 473* Xa thiR oa«« oit«€l« BTaatlgai^ «)iilo «. tritaooo 
iMfOTO ^Mit juxy« at a tisftt outiaoQafat to %im Mifost, 19t3 
torn, rofuood to aaavoT cwrt^ia ^uootioas whi«^ woro p&t ^ 
Ilia, «b«rciipoa the ooutt adjudgod hia guilty of eonte.^t of 
ooatt aad ooatoaood &i^ to iapriooiwofit la tbo Ooimty ila^il 
for tQxit aobtbs. On writ of error, tfef> Supraat 3ourt h«X4 
tlwt tfto Oraad Jury IwrolTOd, HaTlag boea eoatlauod bcyoad 
tho tora of «mrt for a^i«ai it aao osllod, by aa order of 
oomft «titorod 's^lthout ooapliaaoo vith th« statutory method 



l£l tVQ .de'*! Jb&Ix'I , ciaiq-O 

•f tnuBiioaliig a tpttoial grand ivxf, had no j^ facto txlateoet 

iMyond thft t*»r« for rhioh 4% wa* oytginallf oall«cl, tbff* 
iMlng la aitlitenoA after thdt taxii and at the t«nt at irhldh 
tha plaintiff in arr«ir «%a adjud|;»c} gttllty of oont^sspt of 
o^ttrtft aaotbar gmm& Jmry j||. ;^iirg porfoinaiog tbe dutiet of 
suoh %>o<^9 It *a» ftartfewr held In tlsAt o&ao tfeat a irltatfto 
auqr aot be pmiahod for ooat^apt in r^fuaiag to im«»OT ^«»»- 
tioMi during an oxaealnatloa bofos^ eu«^ tOM^utKorlvod granit 
pOYi tliftt tbft <i\ioatlQNB of t)ie r^nt of jurl$dlGtl»a oould 
not ^ naliNNl Imt «i|^t }m a^^orfcod kt any tliso* 

£zi tke woo at 1m.t* Oooltrsjio Mto aHtS;}^!^^^ guilty 
of 60]it«m'pt of w%it% at i> t«iifii «%il^oq[««iiit to %h& ^uguat» 
tSUB^g torn* for raftioaX to amsw^r Qi^^asitlans b^foro tha saaui 
grsuid jury. % ap Foprlato aotlfosiotit of ©rror* tfee quoa- 
tion of Juriedlctiofi h^.« boon raiood and by aupploasant^l 
rooorifli flXod ptrouaat to Icava ^iuly granted by thla oourt^ 
It la sfbown that at t^c toaw at wfeiefe ^« plaiatiff i« orror. 
In the oaao at bar, rafwood to aasmer <5iit«tl3n*B b#f ort tlslo 
grand |tiry and aao adji«d|sodl ginilty of oont^m-pt of ooitrt,- 
tb€'T« wao ano titer gmm& jwry ,^ Jttrg -poTforiting tb« riutlea 
of a gsftiid Jury In Ootok county. It fedftlior appoaro^ a« 
la thfi araixtlgfta oa«o» tbat tbo gran^ ivatf, bafore ahi«^ 
plaintiff In error ima a witness* liad boon oontinuo4 boy(mA 
tl)« term for Ts^slob It ws't oaliacl, by an order of wjiirt an- 
tared with out ae>splla»oo witli tb# atatutery method of aaaajon* 
Ing a spaolal grand Jtury. Ae abovo atatod* It «a« th# aaao 
jury as «aa InroXTod In thfl oasa r^farrad to* 

Following %h0 authority of tba |>, yaatlg»a 
«« are ebllgod to itold that tbo grand jtiry in cmaetloa bad no 



AL f^<3to exi»t««0« «&<! that plaintiff in 0rr«7 e«t»l(4 net Im 
yuaiahe^ fox eontMsipt «f court In refuAittg t* aasveY qiMn* 
tion« pat to him b«fOT« th&t o^dty* 

rwp the reaMHui stAt^^d^ the |tt<I^Mttt m.^p%*lmA fx^a 

is 7«Ttr8«<l* 

fiwYLoa, ^.j* Ani) o*aQiiii;9«« s^ 

aao - 38077 (^ ||»^^,.^ ^xJ„^ <^^-^ C^ vtA.*^ 

TK^ K'^THi^^ TRUST COMi'i^HT, «.« 'K 
Trust9« uiuier thr l^at '>.ill and 
7«ata«en1l* »nd «odleU thereto* 
of Bldba«y A, K«]|t» OM««««d« 

^ Appellee 


APrEAL r?.«oM 
w / 1 oiR^'iT a)tmt. 

ii£L£A t.. MAS;^:X8AT, et t4 


'^ T S. _ f^: ... ^ 

*^ App©ll&at# 

Xei^*^ ^ 

Opinion filed Feb. 27, 1924, 


IRfels ease tme Ov>a»o Undated for hearing in thla \ '; 

\ i 
oourt with (muB n\m\n»t 38878, Both o^isee inrolrt appe»le \ 

froa the esMo decree eatered in the Cirouit Court of Cook ], 

Oounty. The otfeey etMie ime &sl &pc«al hy Helsn yaft®enat, 

while thle c&se le an appea.1 hy gldaey Kent Le^re* m / 

h&re set forth the Hltu&tl on presented and the pertite is 

iatareet* in the opinio^i filed la ease Suaher 38878* »,aa 

It will not hi« neeeeeary to repeat th^m here. 

The appeal perfected tqr Sidney lent Leg&re, ia- 
Yolvee the qruesti^m of th» proper interpretatioa and ooa-» 
struetion of the laet «enteBc« foxmd la the third paragraph 
of lte« n«^t of th© Codioll to the Will of the teet»tor, 
Sidney A, Ke^t* 7fm.% paimgrstph ree4» ea folXowe: 

■If one daughter dine lenring deeceadante and 
lentil^ the other dsur^hter Burriflng* oae-half of the 
lAMMe frow t>>ft truet fxind (less five thowasad doll&x* 

31 bsliJ. fjocaiaO 


(t5,0< 0) per %nniaa ».b0.w proirid«d to be p«ld to tb« 
budDKaad if he «urvlT««) shall hB puid quarterly to 
tbe vurrlTlng d«.ught«r, ajtid out of th* ot.h*^y half 
th© Trustee nball paijr id or f»T tbe i»fa«flt of the 
desecndants of tbe d«cH»«8ed d&u<2;ht«r suob ass^ounta 
froa time to tlat« am th« TTuteteo •hall ooneidAr to 
b« for th« best lBt«r««r1i and v«lfjB.r« of suob Ae»^ 
— " o^ttdaatii r^ispeetlvttljr, and thw tKiiiAllty or Intciuality 
of stt<di payi»«ntB out of the IncKMifr sjad tb« ii»4in»T of 
tbtir upplioation shall rest in tbe sol* dlseretloa 
of tb^ tinasttt«, Aay uasxpeaded Ineoxc shall ae at^lded 
to tbe prlnoipal,* 

In oubailttlni^ tbe eufsstion of tht proper iat«T«» 
pretatio« and ooastruotlon of tbe last •esiteaoe of that 
p«iT&gniplL« to th« \tiAl court. It wa» tb« oontenttion of 
tl^e a^ipellaat, Sidney tmi% l«|» tbst the tine wbesi InotmMg 
uiMncpeaded in bie int«r«£st ox turned orer to bin by the 
TTti8te«« should be added to principal, wn» tbe time et 
fiblch tbe prinol|sal would be flletributed «t tbe end of th* 
trtAftt period. It ?»»» his oontentl^n further, tfeat pendlMg 
the time «rhen eueh lanaaeiMmiled ine^tte irould thus be Added 
to prlnel^HLl «»d distributed e« such. It shoulil be kept 
by the Trustee in e aeparete fxmd and ebouid be eonsidered 
ftiratllable to be paid to hla by th@ Trustee, sva^^eot to its 
discretion, ns iaooae, at any time, up to tbe tl^e of tbe 
end of the t:rust, or up to the tlise of bis (Sidney Kent 
l.<lgaTe*s)de:%th, if he died before tbe end of the trust. 
On tbe other band, it ims tbe contention of tbe other peirtles 
in int<?^re8t, who haT* taken fvert in this llti^^tlnn^ that 
su^ part of the IncottS from the trust fund, aa was b«<iu«»thed 
to the Truetee for the use of th«> dH^nd^nts of th* deoessed 
dau^ter^ or, in other eords, for Sidney Kent Legjar*, for tbe 
period In qu«atlon, as was unexpeaded, afcauXd be a<!^«d to the 
prlnoipal fro« ti»e to tiw*, »»il thet, although the will and 
oodleil did not provide any tia» or tin** for so doing, it 



■i.-d. i£5 -^J 

*."*jiifi» '.: . 

wnm T«£ksonfcbl6 and logical t» »<ld th« untzpendsd lncoa« r«- 
ftrmd to, to tfee prlnelpal mf th* trttst f\m<! at annual rtsts. 

Oa thlft point tb« A»oT«f «iit«r»^ tof tli« olM^BOtllor 
Xn tht 3i79uit 09urt px<i>Yl49<It 

"That »fti<!! proTlaioa of o&id oodloll r^c^uirlag 
tlULt SLiqr unexpeailftd Income 1sb0.ll be added, to prli^ 
oip»X MMms and iff^iuls-es thstt &t oonrw&Hunt pkrlodm 
any swrpXus of IncKme li^ioh suob d««eeiidsuat8 ^ould* 
l)Tit for tb« »xeT<Ji«« of tto« dl»or«tlon of tli* Truetoo 
In withholdijftg tfe© »siaMi« b« emtltled to r«oelv«, ahull 
l»e added to and tMseomie a pRi't of tho pylncipal trust 
fusBd of 9.%ld estsito ultlfia^sttoly s^^j^ot to dlstirlbu* 
tlon upon tb«5 teimlaatlon of tht tsroat ©state, that 
the ittvlod of <mG year la the period for tihe d«t«z%ti»ft» 
• titan of ^at. If say, of aiutH-s ourpluit »fcall be r*;;:ife4 
to pTlnoipal, ts&& »uQh MU^wtl d«tojn»iaatltm ehall b« 
■ftd* oa tbft aimiY^Tsarioo of the detsi^th of Stella Alberts. 
L9ffam, viM»0 3ulf 39tli of e%€^ yoax* ^M It is bereby 
deieTAlttOd that la oaoo more than Oft* y«&x hn-o olApood 
ftinoe th« dtftth of Stella ^b«rt& L«!g^.3re at th« tlmo 
of onti^ of tl?«i» deoTfiC, tfc« Tru©t®«? atb,all fortii^itfe 
otolto suoli pi.yn«ziit8 to »&id aidaey Kent L«fE7« ae It 
9h&Ii <K>m8idftT for hl« is^est ifteront and relfiftirei for 
aay ywir or yo»ra oir i«irt of a yoat 8l»oe July 2l» 
I3?.3, and shrill trfimsfex* th® 'b^lasiofi^ of tl^.e 1aoo»«« If 
any, foi* said ol&pood yoam or p&rt of » f»».T to t^ 
prlRoip&l of the trust f%md, a» p«.rl tfeerfiof." 

In our oplBlouifit Is ttotlrely ole«r timt it in&o 

not tlte intoatlon of tbo testator tt^t the taftexpond^d lnooM 

r«f erred to In the Inst eentflinof^ of the tbird p&n.igr&p'h of 

lUm Eig^t of the Codloll, sltotxld t»e kept eopRrmte by l^e 

Truiiteo and eoaeiderod m» ar&llnblo to bo pftid to the deo* 

ocndABta of a deoosood <SRU(^ter at emy tl«Mi in tbe fut\zr€», 

dmrlng: their liree itnd prior to the end of tk« tr»st* It is 

true tk»t no tine is expressed «ben ad lit ions of unexpended 

in«K»se nro to bo aisde to tbe prlnoipnl, but it ee^ms to -m. that 

it i» to bo el early inferred fron the Isaguss* found W pam^ 

graph in Question* that aw oh additions sire to be !aade"fTom 

time to tioift** "nje test&tor providoe in tbis paragraph that 

•the Trtistee shal 1 ]Mt|r to or for the benefit of the desoeaA- 

^<:y* ',.,■.■»■> 

<«fiSS .A,rj •: :. *^J• 


- vf;. 

■''ijt #.«.v'>ai 


ants of tht d90i»«ed daugttter, t\ioh Miounts fr^m tin* Ko tl««, 
at th« rru9t«« shall ooaslder to be for tb«! l>t«t iatiT^reiit 
ft&d wolf&ro of auoh cleocendAmt* r^apeotlvoljr,* mud th«n It Is 
proTldod that *mxxf unoxpended inooao •hsill be adde<3 to i>rixi-> 
olpal** It «eea8 entirely reeeonabXe to oonolude th&t it 
vae tht i&tentloa that this uleo should toe done **from tliise 
to tine*" - not neoee^erlljr at %ht saae times tMt peyinents 
of inooae are aotde toy tl-« Trustee to desoenfSaiits* but at 
suGh periods* "fTOia tiiiie to time" as art c<:»nfii stent vith 
sownd inveetwent jireotloe. It will furtber tee noted that 
when tb« testator provides for the latl^atte dlstrlbwtion 
of the prinoip^l of t^he trwst fund* In tls« last isarag-rai* 
Of Itea Sight, he ref«?rs to it as th« tnjst fond *wlth any 
aeousttlatlone and adJitions** AecimutXatl an^, i^pXy addl* 
tiOBS to the trust fund^froa tine to tii««^ tmd not at the 
end of the tr\ist* In our opinion the protrieions of the 
deeree to the effect "that the period of one year la the per* 
iod for the deteralnation of vhat|» if any« of ettoh surplns 
(inooae) shall toe added to priaoi|iaX»» an<3 firing the time 
of suoh anmiaX detexminatioas as the anniversaries of the 
dwkth of th@ testator's widow, were propet^ 

It It were the intention of the testator to pro* 

Tide that» unexpended inoone ehouid aoouocnXate* and stilX 

retain the oharaoter of Ineooe. and be subjeot to toe paid 

ottt aa sueh toy the Tniatee, at any satoseouent tlae prior 

to the end of t^e trust* he would hawe used sotts Xaagaags 

other than that found in this paragraph. CertainXy* after 

dlreeting the Trustee to pay the IneoaetD the dMioenlants* 

or for their benefit* •from time to tins** the very next 

directlwa* to the effect that » 

• «»y nftsxpeaded Ineone stoaXX 

i 1o 

mtt I* 

>5M4# t«-^ b&l 

* . ; '(» % 

^mo&Gi ^M^^-^m.-smtr 

^ added to prlaelpal*" ft3rp¥6«««s no tbeu^t &t suj^gi^diaL 
of dlT«otlas t))« TiustM to witbliold the «nexp«Bd«<l IntoM 
and to oantlnue to treat It ms iXMx»«e» vubjtt<>t to b« tmiA 
ent to or for the benefit of ouoh dftseendmnto, at ttio 
<rruatee*8 ddaoretloft^ ao loBf ae the tvuet lasts. The in-* 
tentloa oeeata oX^atIjt to be ttse oontrajry* 

Furtbffimore tbe oo&stniotloii feer<? cs>nt««ded for 
iBf tbm apiJ«XX&sit would lead to a d.l8trlbutlcisi of iaoome oo»» 
trary to the expreea direotlone of lasie ient&tott as eoatailnod 
i^ the fifth pax&grapli of 2 tea Elg^t of ths Oodiell, l^ tbat 
paragrai^ it is directed that, after tbe deatlt of bot)} dau^^ 
ton* aad uatil the tlate arriyaa for the distribution of 
tb« pr iaclpei.l« the Trustee shall apply the inooiet of the 
trust fund* or so »uoh thereof as it ssay dee» aii^ieable, to 
sad for the l»eiieflt of the desoeadaats of the testator *s 
daughters, •irrespectito of all questloas of representatioa 
as iMtvoen stitSi desoendiuits*'' If unerpended inooae is to 
be held by the trustee and treated as inoons subject to bo 
paid to or for the b«ti#fit of the doneendants of the dau^iter 
d^lng first, vmtil th«$ end of the trust, it vo^^ld beoowe i»* 
IM»8aiblo, iA ease the desoendants of the dau^ter dyiiif first, 
stsrelTod the other datM^ter, for the Trustee to fulfill the 
direotion ia the fifth p^vfigj^ph to the effeot that the dis- 
tribution bot«o«a the desoendaats of the daughters, after the of both of theat, shall be «ade " IrrespsotiTO of i^ll 
QueetiosM of r^resentatlon as between suoh desoesidants*** 

For the rsaeosLS givem^the deoree of the aireuit 
Osurt is mffiraied. 




-^ 4«si^ 

I ^■^'i:gSt!^ 

U4 ^t^ii^mai.i'wMi^ m- 

,i*»)j,*6!^-'£^ -i,^ 


n-3^i'^\i ia^ HhJf 

■&»■ Ti» 



95 - 28369 

AABL fiSKR and iiKBiiCCA K>:AR, ) 

▼•• i 

1 01? CHICAOG, 


This 1b an appeal by the d«i!f©ni!»nt from the jud^'pEent 
In favor of th« *)lalntiff« #nt«re<l upon t>ie f Inkling of th« court. 
The plaintiffs ail»if« in their statftment of claim that th<?y wer* 
oim«r» of one pair of dliuaond e%r 9c:r«^r« .at the vala© of IE, oc>uj 
that theoo wore pie-iged with tii** d»f<7fi'i? , a p'iwa "broker of the 
city of Chicago ae otoxirlty for a loan on or about February 31, 
19 20; txial deaand -sr&e aia^e of the a«fen<5arit for th« return of 
the ear aorfnre, with an offer to pay the jfiEiOunt l>orroweA, ^th 
iatereat, "but th© defendant refused to laaJca return, 

the affidavit of »erlti aet up by vay of 'Jaf©ri»e that 
OR October 7, 19^0, dof^ndiant aold and aeelgne*! hie bTuaineae to one 
^ oob KJLeln; that the prop«rty aentionfl;! In the plaiutiffs' atate- 
uiRnt of claiav li'aa, under eaid asslgnKient an;1 Q%Xe, delivored to the 
eaid 2Ci«in, an<3 that ftvery protect ion taJfen "by ntmn *bi^kt»» in the 
city of ChioafO waa taken by aald Jacob Klein to t>rotoot the proia- 
erty; that Klein waa at the* tl»e an^^. place aforeaai'l engaged In th© 
pa»o broking bvainoas Bn<! «rae a aan in good at^wiling an?! financi- 
ally able to asatme all the obllg'stlona of the defen4ar<t, Orosaaan; 
that the olaee of bueineae of the aaid i^«in Trae robbed and with 
other property that mentionsd in the plain ti if •' etat<?j «at of claitt 
«a« removed. The affidavit further alleged that, under thi» sale to 

leln, the only interest conveyed waa that of th«? defewdant in the 
property pledged; that the defendsasit waa not guilty of aufjiy negll» 

>riS f^t} 


>xj j'HJLaH 


-i «f(»»-. 

•vi:J4 hill 

.■ SftJ© 

genoe axi'X th&t ha used all poeeiblA oar« and oautlon to orot^ot the 
property. In hi« brl«f defrtn'lant •tHt«»: •Th# content Ian of «p« 
l»«ll«Ant turria upon a question of Ihw which was dftt'^mined ad- 
▼«ro«ly to our contention T>y tMo court In JtucpT&^ ^g ^ v. G^aSLSJaaai 
22S ApD«llat«, 649, general nusaber 27S0S, 0|»lnion flle<A ^ay 1, 
192S, Thla court granted a oertiflcat© of liaportanee arA that 
case Is nov pwn^.ing in the iiupreme Court %nd tlte JudissRont in the 
instant oase will be dttexwined by the i*ctlon of the ^upreae Court*** 

0inoe the brief in this case v^o filed, the £Htpre»e 
Court iii Jaoobe ▼. Groagaan ^ 310 Illinoia, 247, haa decided the 
points argued by the ci»fendtuit here adversely to hie contention. 
It therefore only resftlne for ua under ':he auti-'-ority of thatt o^sMie 
to affirm thie ja5ixmeat, 

!ll«8urely j\n«l Johnaton, TT. ^ concur. 

f%^i Htm fK*i. 


,.1 <i&M. h»Xl1 nciitt^ft ,'-iJA?JtS ■%»^\snn ijs^fjm- 


. /T'*^ "?. ■ 

, 3J6/VCS «l eri fe 

■cm lime: 





189 - 33465 

A Cor!>oration, 





ag^bivsms!) Till oi>iiiioi of the ooukt. 

tl&la to SUB appeal hy the SdwaH itin«» iniffib«y Coiapany,, 
a m<?ch«nic»9 li«n claimant in the trial ooart, from a •deore© *hic3rt, 
•uetalnsd «xa»ptioc8 of th« d«fei:».4wit t0 the repoTt of a Master in 
Ciiaax:«ry to ^hoBi the caue* hM b««B referred » swd aisEiisistd oom- 
-^Iftln/mt's bill lor vsai of equity. 

The >. aster Cmixi^ tJhat «n Kay 15, 1919, Hattl« U, 
EellowB was the ©wner af certAia descrlbftf! p-r«M9<?»; that oa that 
•date afe« westered Into a contract on« 0, T. Ba-^son to alter, 
rapalr a«^ eonatrtiet s«rtaia uortloaa of the fewlldiwg then on 
pr«!»le«a ome*! hy herj that Sanson thereafter m%d© a oontract ^ith 
thfe oojaplaiiaaMt I jmhor coiapany for the ©lurchaae cf certain liii&her 
and ©thRr material iae«»<i!ed; that the ItjuEber tmA material were de» 
llverejl to th said preiisisea; that on Jiily 3^1, 1919, GOfMiJliilnasrat 
caused a notice of lien to he &nrr9A on th-i o'wner in form as pr©- 
aorihtd hy law; that the first delivary of thp i& itorial was on 
iaLay IS, 1919, and the l%>.0t taatf;rial vas delivered cm June ;S4, 
IP 19; that thera ■^ixn due the complainant the B\m of #470.82, and 
that the oompliUnast was «£ititlad to and haa a valid moohanie** 
lien attaching in favor of the Bdward KiJiea Lumher Gotapany; that 
Satrsoa had hreaehed tbla .contract 'sith Bellove and ^aa not entitled 
to any lien or elai» against i) of en i ant Bellows; that th« material 
allegations of the complaint were proved and srustained hy evidence. 

'ji ' (ti A ^'^ ' 


fla&es * 961 

^.Q^ t"^^ 


■"Sfli^* ' .'i. .idi'l 

The particular «xcepti©H apan which thfl* defendant re- 
liei ia that th« iAaoter held that the failure of Dawson to obtain 
A llc(&ria« as a iLasoja eojntractor did not prevent a TaXid &«ohanio*ft 
lien attaching in favor of the coKplain&nt, &ad that the i^astsr 
failed to hol'il that th«! oontr&ct h«tw<s«n X)aw»on and Bellows was 
illegal and void for that reason mt-i oould not form the hasis of 
any valid lion in favor of the coaplainant. The cemplaln*mt has 
argued here the Insufflci'sncy of the evidonot tending, to eh-ow that 
Davson di^^ not hnv*> a licen^«, "hut in vi«^w of the fact that he nade 
no ohjfictton to th« fln-llng ©f the E-iSter in tide regar^?* w« think 
it is hardly in a pooltlon to no argue in this eowrt, ^,a^^,th,igfy.| v, 
Wteitethorn. ^ 230 111., Se; J^nes v, Grstry . '4M 111,, ?.6. It b»«k« 
to be the law that & valid. contr««t i»lth the o'Trn^r of tb^. lan-l to 
1»9 iaBprov<ffl is necosRsry In order that a elain im:i«ry the ©'^ehatfiie'ss 
lien law by a thir^!!!, party may too based thereon, t^ R:^l.,,^',<ffi j'i.q ,\;i, ^ £ J; 
i^Ti^je e Qom^mi X ^» ffl. s ' ll^tr . raC i$-;uctloP 9.WP3^^» ^^ 111., 619 j 
Von i"latt«n v. 'i?int^rt^0 4.1iai. 2<^3 xii., i^a. The coatrollinu ques- 
tion in the case therefore ir.voiveu a coisetruetiori of th© sjitatute, 
requiring a xcascn contractor to procure a licmi&e. That statuta 
provides (see Hurd's Illinois Kevi«ed Statutes, WX'i, chapter 43, 
sections 91 to 97) that in all ©ities of this statR of 150,000 
inhabit^tfits vt over, evetry laaeon contritetor or '^mglf^yind aasim 
shall be required to obtain an annual licanse therefor, fhe see- 
OMtS -nrovidfts: "Ivery T)«rson fleslrlne to engage in th« buBin«»a of 
Bi)*eon contractor or SMploytng mason shtiLl Kaice application to a 
board sf examiners, ^^tc." Prcas a rea'!lng of ihr aeveral «jootione 
of this aet we think it aopoars thai it v^aa the Iniey^iion of the 
legislature that only those deeirizie* '*to isng^a^e in the hrnfiiness* 
should be required to ta)&e out sudh lloense. 

The evidence takwa tftfore the Master flails, w« think, 
to ©stabiish the necessary fact that D&wson was engaged in suah 
business. It does not ap]^ear therefro® ^at he had ever undertaJren 


ssusixf^ --^ ^ajiS sat^tlff'i: 



ir Alt 

..iiex jJ;^- ■ 

may otber contract InToltring isaoonry «5on at ruction. In aija3.ogou» 
c^Bft's It has T5««n h«ld that a ©In^l's tr^insftotioQ 'to«a not eon«ti- 
tttt« doini:^ "bu9ln<^«a within t>n» neanlng of th«» at«itut«, CrtXly v. 

Y0T3}«g;, 152 ill. Ax)^,, 7S; 0*t?#Ul v. a lnolftlr . 153 1X1,, mf>. Th« 
^urd«n of proof vae upon th^^ d^^fen^mnt, Bello-vs, to entnbllsh the 
<l«fen»«s est up, BnH we think the «"vii©no« lntrofluce<J by h«?r fell 
ahort In t'him reapeot an=l thst th« flnaing of tlie Mfiater wae tber«- 
for« iustiflad. It appeare from tha defendant* a t«stifiaony tfeat 
Bftwaon w»8 ongagad in Baking oftrtain repairs upon tba duelling 
houaa altjated upon her prestiilaea (largely midnr her i>«r»onal ^l» 
r«otion^ and tbat the plan for th®«« rft|>alr» 'sra« chauag^id frtm. 
tiaip to iiaa. iha ea>'S *Th.e aun parlor was to have « ooncr«(ta 
floor. The work that J£r. Dawson did required the brick© that war« 
taken out of the bo\«ne to fca ralatd m^d th« at^ps v«.v@ to b© masonry 
work, Thera was no other taaeonry work in oonatctlsn with the ©lan 
parlor, but in cutting I'hi^ tfla^ow th««y had to have a nason coia# and 
do tba *orl£, Th«i mason rv -.york nmn part of Mr, TSa's^eon'® oontraet." 
'It dof»e not ftTjp«ar that aiiy of thft ataterlal ■•I'^ilch w«a furnlshad hy 
the complainant 'waa raade usft of In connection -rith this eiassonry 

THa court err©4 in ausialnlng this «xcaT>t Ion to th« 
Kaator's rwport, und for tb«t terror ih« Hccrae la rnvflraed and the 
eause remanded with direotiona to enter a decree in conformity with 
the report of the Maater, —- 

EeSurely and Johnatoa, JJ, , ccneur. 


•.!, .-■jlt>M..V 



•■■ -.■ «T 1 -* " ••■, r( t 

198 - 23474 


JAit38 9KtSL •% ft!.. 


ps f-N rs -r % r» o A 

/^ O i> -^ *<^'4« Sm^ O i/ 

s^tv?j:«D rm oftkioh of ths cctrnT. 

Thlt is ssun iw??j!?«l ^y certain duf^nf^etnto froK a 4gror«e 
•f \h» Superior adairt« ^e e%u@« wa« h^ar^ ui><»n obj •tot ions fil«4 
to the r«riort «f 4 Master, wfeicb o1».1«ctl©n9 *ere toy or<ii«r of tJit 
court 9er:.''4tted to 9iaA4 a« «KGapti«»tie. 'ifht oesspl mint vao ft 
creditor'* blli 1ft the tt»ui*i iToJna, baaed «ip«a « Ju!S«3»«»»t i>*«r«tofOMB 
obt&la«4 i>a 5uo« 20, 19 21, f^isr an imdebt^diisis coxitraot eidl 1» D«<WM»- 
l»«r» 1930. 

1!he juc!|!^«mt i«&8 ffntare4 i& th« Municipal oourt of 
Gfeiengo againftt J«u»f>fl JIfriel aad ^argar^t Catty for -11473 and costs* 
'Hid Ipill prayod a 4i«dOV«ry «iid fiUEi«fr«r tm^or oath, the a^polntx&fisat 
of a reo<»lv«r, ftn4 %r. inJuiietlttB. Tbft 4tf<«id4»ts ana-'^ered un-lar 
oath, florying the eeiuity of the Mil. 3?«mdii3i« litlf:«tion, a r«* 
Offlvtr wft« apTJcintf^d l« tho preatMiiig for tli« ^^roserty and effects 
of ^«»fts Friel* 

Tbo rt«f«n>1aRts h#r« oom^ladn of tfe© '5f>orec ii. t^so res- 
l^tets, <in« of tbeso l« th&t Jsaeo S'lynu was or»i«r«id to pt&y to th« 
raesivep th«r«toforo •Ai^poiBt"?^, ■s'itbia thr«« days, tht aim of 
'^1118.40 with i»t«r«st therften from Maroh 21, 1922, telng tho sasount 
rocrolvo^ )>y klm fr^m tho iittiuitable Lift Insurcunco .^ooiety of tfeie 
llnited £>t&t«o, ajad thai tho cosiplalnast was d«ors9d to haYO a li«n 
upon said fund. -iioooniS, th« iof^mtl^nt Chis Tctnaris vss or<)«rod and 
dir»ctea to i»ay to the rocelvoT witiiin three ^aya tiie sua of ^l,0(i>0, 
•8d tb« dooreo urovldc^ that unless the said stoa was ao r>ald tho 


■% ti f^. 


r«««lT«r «hot3iI<{ within flft«an ^9^9 thorftaftsr a«ll » 0«rtAln soft 
4rliik parlor eitu9it«<l la th« city ef ^letti^t inoludinig «n «l«i«trt« 
l^laao, $Xae»i7ars, stcTe, oiksli regl8i9r« X(t«««hol4 «Bd food <»111 of 
tbft buoiaeoa to tha hli^h«»t "bldfleif. 

It in tb« contetiilon of the d4if«mdm:tt« «^to itpptgiaX %h%% 
t)3.e 4««rett in t)-).e«« tir<» re0p«@ts in ti«£ itu^ported \>y th«i «vi4<sn««. 
Xt ia not art'ti«<l tH«t tlsft flHllB.g'» of fact if tyi»« iir«iul4 oot support 
th<> (^ftcroft. thwfflff fkHUz-igs by this U^ttmr haf* 'fe««n ai»F>i!t>ir«4 'by th« 
Ch»no«ll9r »ail t^-^i^ court stay jsot disturb than unle«9 a» e£at&inatlon 
«f th« r«oord showE?, thrx^t tb« <^<ii^t of ih« «ivid«in8<» Is o^xSed^b^^dPS^ 

ifltla yef'.rcae* t© tlR« »®ft Irtia'fc par:l«i» eea:plaia«Bt*i 
l»tll alli&go<! thai Sw&nv frt«l hii4 thitr^tfsf i^t» 'ht^mst. tng'^e^ i«! tii» 
brislnott 8ia^ vai» *to «'!!?i^«!tr of ntm^i of tk« property thmrm ®f eoBRl«!«.r» 
al»l« vaJluft, whleh ls.0 h^A titustferrM tr. @ia.« Oa« fomaria ■sritho'at eon- 
•idieration, that the trajoefer wan te«3r«i,j e»i©ralsl«, .iU'i -with a ritm 
•f iplniolag the property IteyoM ih«i roaoh of OGiB|}l.^l».aiat *« judginoat* 
Tho fltDBVorof Jd^os J' rial adt^ltt(&4 thmt h« at^nliutttci^l th« bufsln^ms, \M 
«Xl04s»d tj&ai durin«; th« m«inib of BoTe&biir« 19.%, h% »&Xd smd. trana* 
forrod it to foBsariOjwad doiiieii tfe.»t tfao ty-sosftr «■»» witboiat ©«»• 
oideratiea but on the: «o»t'r«ury ^X«»^tt^ it wi^st 0<a4o i» goo4 faith. 
f4Httari« ifi hia anstror stat««t. that h« bought thia Vatslfi^oa In th« 
aoath of 2>eee}»>«7, 1.9%, tk»4 ikgi's^^'^ ^<» fay th«r«for tho oom of 
lH,OffO pra'vldiit^: tho orohlliition i«w« aal ih« SoR»tlt},it.lott ©f th« 
ItBitod Stftteo tr«r« BO oitt«5i»1o<? aitfS ch«sjg«4 &b to mafe* it l-as^fiU. for 
hill to tmtkk light wineo imH 1i««r in emmt^Qti&n witl» th«» 'bti»lii«S8, 
an?! that if thl« ovftut 4i;1 aot taJc* plskso h# woali aot htt y-«<|ttir«4 
to -pay. fhe «Tl!:!«^':»e taknit wpoa ihn htiurlng v« t})i&3i: sstiily 8iio» 
tain«4 tho flji41iig« of tho B.5i»t«r sm?!. of iho doero© in this r«»?)«ct. 
It aT»3?oMr«A that T^aario h»it«l w^r^M for f'riol fox- 8<svijr»I y«ar8 )4t 
hia plaoo of bTiolaeos, that bo writtMi eontract •»»• ma^lo at tho 

th»t «»lj|f Toffiaxla and iss^e* trtel wsr* prsvast »t that time. Toja&ris 

«ayM that at that tii9a« th^re wiMi taotnini; eaid About li^i «rin«8 «iA 
1»««r ©©iffilag "baek, alth?»ush h« «ixp«ot«4 thM to|>s>en, hut th«t at 
» l»t.#r aatft h« ha^ a e<»aYer«i&t ion ^rith Jl'riel sund f rlnl »alA 19 

feiiB, "Trftu aticlt, i«i<^. If b**?* 9oa«»t "bwak y«u ©v» at a tho^tafl'i 4ol- 

ifvrs; i-f t."h«y 'lf.m't, y«ti -^on't ewt m® a c«)at,* At th« tlm« of th« 
hoaring Tostaris «ra« still eoaduoting th« bx}slK«!!ae at that nlaca. 
Ha wae !B^ifei?o«K;m«d ie ferlug in ih« 9«t»«rt» e«i»tTaotss, t^ooJ^i of a«* 
ecwit, ««te. , but .fail»<! to 4^ 80, aayl»g tS^at there were none. It 
a^.peaara frosi the «vi<J«B.ce that h« lyae taitliiif ia lis? ©r 115 a dayj 
that nSts^v taking |i>as9e»aion of tlie ^ttaln^-aisi^ ht 8«our«i:l {m^ths'ir 
l«a«« u^on the pr«6iiftft«; ilsat J^xial waot ^ItB hi» t$ eeeyr« th« 
l«a«e aiJ4 lo f&«i gaarmBt»€d tt, *kt tfes flss-airatioiB of that leaea 
a si?w l«rase was e^tat»«!4, StIs^ »<gaia gitar@^t«eiag th« rmt^t, ^hielh 
wtm #SC)6 a me-atli. 1« «&.v't? that 8om^tlm.«9 he taiii^a in ae klg^ an 
#26 a day, bat hsui aat figwra^ what tht fersefatags ^f |»rsfit Is, 
While tbc'. fi«:t«r«e g#i2erally belong to th« MT«mlng 0<a8si«my, it 
appears that ther* is a plane, a «asih rtg.l«t«j' mi4 glass^sntre ^hi^ 
ttR^ottbtft'fly are tha proiJ^rty of ttefe lud^ffct delator, friel, Thm 
iraltt« af th»»a I« alwnt ISOO, ^« tMmk th« i»a«1i»?5tit«<S ftvlrJ-sjiea 
•bo'irs tkat th« ^««re<t la thiss r»9ti'9ct «a» J aat. A «oyrt "wwld tee 
is4«#4 ©r»?^ul©«» to ac:««pt disfendaat frt^l** soBte^tload la ▼!«» 
©f tlia andi8puto<5 f.%et»» 

With roffr«MO« to th« «9i4«wBs««t liasMr«MS#e policy, t,h# 
bill alleged that tJhe 4ud^^«at <l«bt©r, frlel, h*d a, pslley of Ufa 
lfi«uranea In th.» .Sqaitablu X.if« lasmr«a«a ^glety «f the mitmiSi 
©t(fete» in the Muouat af |2,eiJ©, '•t>ielt had a c«.«fc 6tirr«ad8r Talua 
aad «hi«di vaa la the i»os8e»sloa of th« <l«fan4ar<t, Jam^e Jflynn, or 
th« defetvioat Julls^ Fri«l, rife ol" th« ^«d«^aGit d«bt6r, un^er aa 
«aii||ps»««t fr©» th« dafepdant » but eharged that if th«ra rrae s'ueh »a 

UiOn 31DT\' 


property im& effects of frlftl a»d pl«k«in« %h«m )>eyon4 th« r«««h of 

th« isoBapiuiR .Hilt's jadp4.«Mt. Tto« suHi»w«r of ili« «l«fet)t<laBt Jtaia 
Ir&el ftdsrdtted th&i thortXy After ithm j&mJtvittA Jaastes frl«l h« haul 
•ttoh ttn ^nddwra^at volley, which (litcn nu) to Ms brother, Mwaxift 
Jfriel; that tJie ijollcy ?raa «jh!6«igp«S »0 that «*!•, Jtilift, w»» sa^o th® 

•(il« l&©K«flclttTy th«r«-©fj thftt aht estririM tli« 5>«ll©y ,«.'! fai^l tli« 
InstaJLlJBftflt® t,)i«»r«on fnm that tims det® t© thra tl«i« •wHasn ah© tujm«d 
It dY«r to h«r oewsin, J^«Mae» Hymij th&t av)»©\»t «ix a-enthB orior t© 
th« tl«ie of btr aaew^jr she 3ltajnei«4 that lii«i» haslmni va» inT«lY«d In 
lltljjatlenj tteat he c«8« to feeii' itt»oiat the first <lay of March, 11JS?3, 
roq«««tinc h«r to iur« tiy^w tho jooliey to .H» m that Js^ could <So» 
llv«r th« s«aB« to ^wdgo Ei e>:t%yfi««» ip tl».« l-wti4«'^f«l ««jwrt of Cbi* 
c»«®, TTtileh a*t« al>»©ltttely r«f«s««4 i® ioj tlimt on J)«\i*iry 11, x«>5?l, 
tlio owod tfao d«f«fm4a«it ^«i«t«« :flyBi3 al^®«t #KKi of 'toorre««Hi neaey; 
that »Hi! iia4 Isiorrowod oifeor Bo«i«ys fr^m him^ makiu^ « total aiaoimt 
of about 11250; that o« tJi»t 4»ie Hor livialaaua at hwr r«<i«e«i «i3^ 
«t tbo ro<iju«»t of Jaiaes iriyaii «x»out«<i j»aS doXi-verod to Sm&^B i'lytm 
a jttdpaoiit i»ot«s for that oeiount to saottro %k® isonoy alr«io4y leeiiaod 
1^4 other iso»«ys to b« th#r*?«fi«r lammA to ktr; that ^« aaed tbio 
Bieney to pay houaoholi «t%'p§m9n$, ^©otera' Mll», ®to»; that t^vm hor 
httsbskn<^ »slc«i^ hor for tSio polli^ shi» tol4 him ii^# o^od Jstm^o i^'lynn 
thlo .'^cwBt of tjnoaoy sW'l that if ?%&y"bf5dy got thj*t policy it wooia 
^0 J«tfs»8 Flynnj thiit Rh*? thnriruil^oii ha4 «t ooaf^r©rio« -rith tJno dofen^- 
ndtii J'«ia«»s Tlyziii iui<1 lj»r hy»hana an^ aft*TWii.rlf» 9.»«lfjn«d the s«4.d 
policy to Flyam &» the sol« h«a0f toi&ryt t!-'at SHyns aft^rwar.lo took 
the t>eliey to tha Inour«no« Co®|»5iny im4 aiarr«>is4«r«d th-« «aai« ®«<| 
re-c«iTod iwh&ttror »oaoy was lue on tho aolioy oa^ ik»t»li#4 tfe« mm» 
to th« paycifiBt of tho iud4f5»«siit aota for #1SS©, S3i«f«»*iaiit Jasioo 
l^lyuB in his sfflsver a«ts «9 tho ox«o^tio& of tho xtoto for I1S50 to 
sooujro %h^ xao£tys ovlsg to Mai %y tho J'riola, alli^^gee that thanwaftor 
Jwlia rmd Jamea IJriol, at hie roqusat, ftaaige^:^ to hla the ^oliey mA 
th»t ho, ■fl.jF]&&, too^ the aaao aftojT It MiM ¥««isi ditXy ^sdoreod ov<^r 



to hiih 1»y J«si«« frlel, nxn^ BUTr«R««r«4 tbd fl««s&<* to th« Kqtiitiifels 
Life ioaarsuccft C<Mapa»y of iiefr York and y«o«lv«>(l in ipayiiafisnt th»r«» 
for the Sim of |1115»40, 7h« polloy was produced upon th« he^V'- 
inc )>9fora th« ^as^tr aR4 ie Ifi th« r<8«ojrt!. It was iosuftd «b 
liajf £^8« 1912, to th« d«f^^i3At Jim^s .^ri«I,) wnji what I0 ki^aiMQ aui 
n 15-y«Ar lift iBaiirftiie© ©i-jflawtisat i^oli«f for t3aa »ii» ©f iSt.OOO. 
K« »t all ili<8«« Iti'jd andi .petai3S»st ilic fl^tt ©f ruYocatloa ia 00 

It io ;irgtt<i4 >j«jr« in behalf of Jylla J/rl»X that th© 
•Tl<l«»R«e 9lj©*s that s>s9 bfiil «3ati?« fl^jstrol of th.% jjoUny «ad the 

|i«»8e»8iloia ©f it, an-.i tfiat sh® fdif ®»v»ral y!9.arw fai^ th« py«RsltBs«« 
t>>#r«©a. tha evi'leTHos i» i>as*?'?fiat iHd«f.li3lt« in tfels r«iiS|>@ot, and 
WIS thluk tfe« "biiraeu w.^as ««. H^'^x ts t«ta.Mif3fe tbesa fiinatt, %e 
t«iiitlfie<S, iia a g»«(9Tml way to tkt pa|»m«i3t ef a iiftTt «>f the prami- 
«ai« Vttt dl<l a©t »tat* ti^w e^met s»a«Tiu:it, Kor -54^ ^afe^. «9t»^li«h 
th« tact tha^t th^«e ipre:Rii\iei» w«r« pai-J owi ei" >ssr o"*m ar»&r«t« 
fand«. 2t aJfflriii«tiY«ly «Ks?|je«JP6 fj©^ tfc.«s evldftiiote tfeat lier ^u«- 
tiuad^ durlui^ th&t tiiaft« pmid ast- &3.1ow&i3.c<& ti$ h<»r« 

«7a»i«» i»"jri«l «'»» net i«*slebt»d to Jfikaj«» Hyrni sand ^ullft 
Irlel co»8«iit<»<5 t'i tb,« isurrmid*!?' ©f tM© policy "and the &a.e«pt.»n©« 
from ih9 »5«Bagpaay of it» m^t^muleir iralu^^ ®'':i t'nliik thla ca«!h «u3> 
ir#Bd«r -valu* wnder th« <*v,l^l«ne« ffis^f48t,Hut«d ao. A«»«t of tHft hua* 
'baad** tatate 'whleH wotiXtS fiA«a t© the i^ecftiver. In r#» Jliiyduff . 
iOe Pud. 184; Ifi r«. kgrtt^ e. 131 P«4. ^73; Talcott v. flgld. 34 
Bi«^r. 61,1; TlUi^m v. 5trag. 119 Wis,, g02j Illfitet ^» HSBJ. MIlS 
lmMMiS&^*» 131 M.&«a., S19, 

S#lag of th« o'pi»l€«i tJiat tka:?* va© n«s '..cjrrwy lJ£5 t>i«s 
eauttfirw fell#g«ia ar4 urgii^d "by th« daf«fl^»at« ia thl« eaurt » tSi« 
d««re« mtst lis taff Irsmd* 


»f^4 - ^.8530 

S..H. A. KU»2H1. ) 

AT»p«XIee, ) 

2, 3S i-«^* '^ ^ 

Thi» is am '^p&bJl hj tl)« d«tf&.mlsiXii tram & $wS.0tmBit 

ftetioa on itt# o^de f«r Btalielotm frosfi^ijti^ll, motiontit ftir a a«m 


The cauiMs w«ni to ib« Jmry a» tke first ©otmt, 

«9P«iir9tl l>«for« tfe« g^r«ft<l jary of Ce^fe Cfiunty *ii^ pro4rar«4 an 
ladietm^Bt »€idaet jjlaintlfl" tor l«re««y by bj&il«« au's «Rafe«a3rle» 
»mt, causiag his lc^ri«osaB«Qti ih&t tli« ^roe««dini£ii -«r^:^r• t«rsil* 
natftd ty AD MBqmltila Bee««b«r ^, It 19, Ie the tirtsalttaa ooart 
•f Co©^ eovMSty; tfeat th«i!e proot#4i«#» w«r« brought Tsy 4«f«o4«W!it 
Maliciously, l&i<a%<!ljie, to inj«r«» the i^l^listiff. To tble dtoeXa* 
r«ti9B tho d«f«adftni i:'il«\'l a pl^& or th« gsaffral iaeua. At the 
^oaa of ^laiBtiff ^« «Yl<3«fiea ai3<$ aga^in gi^t tb« oloft« of all ih« 
•Tl^enoa, t.hs d«f «i!iidar«t a%0T«4 the o»urt for «. ^Ureieted ▼erdict 
lis lt» be'-.alf, which tiSbetioB ^at «t«Bl®<4. It is argrtt«4 h«re th»t 
tMa *aa trror aS'l 1« tb« Ti«» wes t{«k« of thf> oa-ae this la t1a« 

Th« ground of th« motlou waa, an4 th« ^efexidant ;!^ 
a^?>i»«llant ijs thla oeuri, «Mga.lii eoRt«a<1a, tfe«t there »»>» na «▼!• 
^ene« tending tft aha* th9^t tk# ag;<mt ©f tlaa dafeTilagat, -wh* i&m 

•tltut«^ t)5« criminal ■proem^^lM^B «q?©ii nMe^ th« malt foif wftll- 
«t<»ii« i^pot^mitioa it b».»ta, ls=%^ any »ttit--f«riiy trem IJbiii vitfeu^^jmi 
to bring euffl^ ^rootMlcg*. It 1» noi e««t«n*9i«dl thAt tfe* «Ti'l«nc« 
Id the csmiv dlacloii«s 9icpr«t99 41r»«tlo» fross <i)«f6tn<f:«fat to it» »4;ffi3t 
t<» l»«giB th« !!>ro«ecutlon, aor ratlficatifiiii of att«*i iwettpa »ft«r It 
n^s iMUgua, tevit th« plaintiff comttad®, &» Si© «it«««»*i*lly isti«t» fh*t 
t%ii«r<» ane f<a.ct» 4i»elo,8«i* in the «Yi4ene« fr^is wiiicfe .a jury alght 
ru«i»oxiably oencludo thcit the a^«mt» of dctfarulMtt iilio parti oipat«d 
•bOte^ within %im aoop« of Hi^ir m;^XQy^mii iu to doiag, l^ftyt it 
fiTa«tieally co eBO-fllct Ir tii« ®Trid««««, 

Th« 4«f«.nfl,iW3it l« a eorpoTsttian ©f t>i« «tat<s «r B<jw 
YorJt, Its i^rineiT9«l affle» it ts Ktw t<?>rlt City, ^«sr« It ^W 
lithet tl»« isfi^stssine kiio^vja at *H®t«rlal Sciri'W,* It wnt at tte« 
tlm«s in qM#«ti0is alao m maxmi^&twrBT 'm«% «ftll®r ef -Irftat '^»tt#w$». 
lit 0ffle«ra, dirt«tor« an^ OKe^yti^®* :r«sl^«4 In tJio alty «f ^tw 
toric afid th«?r« erontsrol.l®d tm<& eoB<Suat«fl, t>*« aetlvltlst of tht mtt* 
porsktlon butlnest. Tbm eersgoTatloH »akimt»ln*»4 loe«l offi©«» in 
Chicago noi^ in other iplaeot, 4t th«f ttssfl In i«'»«ii®» it ha4 in tli« 
tity ©f Chia«ige thrts sstparatft lao&X ^ffieet ana ^aeh ftn® ©f thett 
offlett bad its o-^m local 2Ra7J»s«r» M a»«» of ih«fi« offie«» 4e* 
foitdftnt co»duct«d an a^Tertisliag 'buslntse, '<%t tm&th^r itis ft^tttrn 
ba»«««, and in etlll smother th« "feutlRes® of tolioitlas Bufeaseriiif- 
tiost for th« m%gA£ln« io !|ii.'?«tioii ^md colieoting tns fsrd«««4a 
thereof* Oat Seauitlln h'&S, ehargt of tho loe^O. »ah9«jripti<aa offlee 
at the titift iB qu&stiofi* He -ii^ sot hmv®, to far i»8 tho trtd^net 
4[i«selo»«e» a»y cGiuiection with or %utn©rlty ertr tlt« othtr loetil 
©ffiijtt* Be hm^ ftvcpttwri Bi^m ovor tislictttrs "wteo iook 3ub«er*ptioiii 
in o.«rtalfi ttrrltory for the mai;aslR« saa-l th« eolX^^ctdrt &t »ah- 
toTlTJtion fteeotoats s»d «r««r aa^aig^ra in th» territerj Attelgnc^'S to 
hi«, ^«»hioh included tht »tat« of Wiee^agin. Soaatlln hirsdi tolloi* 
tort Bti^. colltotort. T>,o»<i r«-sort«4 th«ir work to hin and ho r«» 
9ort«4 to a 4394urt8iftBt of tho AofswAtst eor^^rtitlon iii the alty 


of iiflw Itork, wiilch »«.» 1» oharg« of one ^iacAlmion, gflowral m8u;;.«^«r 
•ad a dlrffetoy «X the ^ftf^ji'l^Ant eor^or^tlon* Th« •ii.ljttaript Ion coq« 
tr^&tetti wer« »<«it to JS«w York f«r «pj>i«eTakl, wai^ th«re »cc«pt«'il or r®- 

i«ct«^. Th® laagraJBloe it»«lf w%« fuMi»h«Ml Ib li«w ITork juoii »«4l«»d 
to ita »ub«cribs?re. 0e«ntliii had «ia cwcount ifi hi» 0«n »$!»« In «i 
<%ieago "bsmk In whl«h wsub plafl«d mf^fty wliioh hnd b«flari a4vatf3c«d to 
hl« 1^:?' thfi ,<lof #n4»ttt , Th» receints fap9» a«sffm4aat'a ■bw»lne«« w«vo 
1»y hla dopo0lt«i4 in this »ft«ai«»t aari dltbura** thfrafFma iby hio 
'^•Tsenal ch«ok* So atat ws^kiy fo^ort* tai»4 ««s>ffl»«« &«««untii am-^ 
r«£slttana*« to th« AmfoK^aRt tn ]K®w torJc City, «Ri i»b®re tho «»«uiit 
of oa:p«B<1.liuP»» oace®-®!*®^ th® «'a«!«lft« i^ais r«liab\ia-»«KS. \>y iR^ftiri^ajrit *■ 
tth«elc, H« irao p.8il4 » aiilary sm^ ammX^stitin, 'Wjmi a.ot, mi ©ff Icor, 
direetor oi" g«m«paX macagor $f th,® dtrsMid-ftWi cor'»«rati€aB»« R« had 
»©▼♦», 00 far ?v8 ih© »iri<!«Geo iii««?l0s©«, T&oijDua T«y «ult«j for iS«- 
f«e.4«ilt or proo«ediaf.» uitii^r eivii ©r» She l^gal baol* 
aesi of d«f<im4f»nt "^^b hd.a4Xe4l t>y it» g^u<S)X»X rnvkuneiX at tho Ji«s« 
toj-k offl««. 

Tho »ii%»fGr.iptlais solicitors v«r« i»«[ii4 :& ecMmlaolon 
for their ierriesa, «Fhleh ossnuiaitd at oanTfiSslag from lio^so to 
hoaao* Thoy use4 tiro 9r:tnt«4! fos-mo of mthsari^tloa Man.ka. Oao 
of thoao rmqMlrfi^ a oatoh i^'^ss^nt of ^Sjsf »Ji4l flft***!! iBoatinly |>«fcy- 
»02}t« of 25 j^ oao-bj tho other, % sauRh pmya«nt of %C'0 «ia4, oovon 
»o.«t?^ly i?aya«at» of 5e<f !?.»<di. fio»;'9t isaeo gita1s>»fir.lher» wotiid imy tho 
ontire jseooQUt of th« euhoori'stioG to tho nolLiatitor aii^i tho oolleltojrt 
«ollfrCto4 tho oetlro amoant if it ^«.« p«5asih3.s» to ^« »o. Tho oolid* 
tors woi-irlng a glToa torritory w^^r^f de»igK.*i*d jao a ©row s!as4 oadfe 
of theoo er««8 wao in cihargo of a or«w i&SMaas«r, '^6@« d-aty it «a« 
to «ttp«nrloo their i^orJc, v«rlfy algaatureo to swhsorisJiioBo, =yi4 
rooelvo fros tho ealiolt&rs tho mau^jt^ e€»llooto4, vhioh ho in turn 
i«o«ld rtta:it trith tho suhftoriptioAo to tho Xo<saX ;&aB«gor» ^'caetliat 
«i Chloago* 




In 191$ th« :i?laint*lff was atiploytd "by il«f9C4aEit »« «ii 
•olielior. H« be^^iufi work In ooiol»«r mid fuit !» .T)«Qe;>i)'b?r. In 
ftljruary, l?l^i# he t»gaia «nt«jr«d defan^lant^c mscpityTneni us a «r«» 

ftla point «. ii« -was hlrasl l&y ae*ntliri, H« had aiglat ^)oy« working 
under hla solicit liiag ©•«"b«cir:l?»tl®ae iu tfc«s« fin^^^mdn ^©Inta, ?»n<l 
v»« roo«ivlag a sAlary of |^ » tr««k i^X^s i% aisi«ssiii!»si«»n qT IQff on 
rrsyy wulssexiiit Icm ove» Sk^O «i -wfafe i^jfoaar^td Ijy bis cir«ii?. A »9ttl«- 
»«nt of hia aoeouTits wao b«^3^« oa May S*li aaa t5a«rsi%ft«ir up t© !«'»y 
X9tli, •vhleh •wfte fhfi latft of Hie ai'-j'^it, ls« f©TwaTa«<I n«ith«r re- 
ports BOT r«ri?.tt.t,ano9», May l?th Seaaatlla was laf^jr.-'td ^y «m» of 

fhffi ts;f» «Tftr long -^iati^K^f* ♦■<!>>»9®« ttatfe %hm 1§<sy» -wfr® at a li?3t«l 

In Or^'an Be^y, 'l^i»oox!«l», «trir*^«'S, tim/thn ■pls.lnti ff liM yjae«»B4«4, 

«jbJ that they 'li^J a©t Jr'Jiew ^I'.ipr® la* )ia4 g^siat. iesaaitlin -«eRt t« 
0'r«WQ B?*,y, wlj^fi fe« wa« iisforssied "by tb# to ye t3r.,at |>l»lxjtlff )tM l«fl 
t«o -iaya "bcfsre, thaX fee fead set fald thea, t&etr eamiaiatislona t-adi 
th»t tln^y <^.i4 not kB©v wlh'itrft k@ ^^.d {^oasj t^at tfeey fe»i| tttitja*! evasp 
t» him 25C' «ii"b»cyi ■^■t:loiJ» lie tH« t0» iMy« 'bef«r« fete Irsving, qtilt« 
« OTacber of which were p^i<$. i» fuil| sasa t&at «11 tsatfti coii«eti«>n« 
fe»^ "h^en turttftdS orer to hisi, «Bi!>ujEitiJEgj »« tli#y caia, to ^.bout 
i|8CC. Tho l5<5y» had »o ns^jj^f ssjsa «i het«l "fetll of ©Tear $1D0 luMl 
•ccmeil ng^tnet thesi, t*<jarjit.,\i«i ioo^ wlfh hiia ot*« MoBlv^y, •» eol» 
lector 9B-:?>loy«4 Iby <3,s'f©iac3«jit, ?h« oslltator rvpurteA by t©X«?5li«ne 
tfeat >il« l»v»atlgatto»« dl8Qlo»«'*l la al^oat «vsr:f aas« that ^lala- 
tiff lijyj eollftOt«^4 on tfep eoRtr»et tnii hi9^0i »&t a%rl£«s'! the «aaotint 
«ioll«ot«tS« that in ©fi® <*ay ho had dl ««o-y«r«Nj fSS of uny»p,oTto4 
e^llAotloBtt, E«lilir«3r "»^at qv«t the »riiire t«rjrito»y trh.l«*t, h&A %^m. 
«ofer«4 "ky -^Istintiff aad r«i>ort«d a sho.rt.ftg* is «x,a«»« of llOO, 
Tht Btftt««e»t of th€ "hoyw to Seaatlla *&« thai, "pliy-ntiff k«d 
•kincea oat tme. l«ft th«». * ScantXin t®ie^haas4 to ths Dlalatiff*» 
h9iB« la Fona 4a Lao, ^locuiialii, l>ut wae auafcle to loc^&to tho plain- 
tiff mn^ was iirifoBa«d Iqr plaintiff** fathor that he dii not toMWr 


la i^r.Qi 'i^ 


•»rt-;cr« tha pliilntiff vaft. Thar«u|»OB -SoeiOtlin t«l«?9hMird to tm9 
KaasKiy, A t>p^>Wt«!!«??ifir f©T tV;« ^l^fen-^aRt In ChioAigo, to a«R^ hl» 
mtn»y t© g«t. tb* >:o3rt ©wt of thp hote-l, aw4 lzi«tiruet«r4 ls.aj»»ey to 
>!»▼«> the plftictlff a>rr»«t«r:d JUa eaac fc« appeared, 

Shcrtly th0r««ift«r plaintiff csati* Intc th© ciaicftiis© 
office >4in!. «fa.« arrfsste^ by a poXlce «jffic!«r, s-t the rsqu'^et of 
Kikseej, «aDi<? takw-n tc the CI ark stres%t poXioft sfrtfition. it wa» 
dl»cleB'?d whan plaintiff wae takfos ts lh» »i*itioc he 1;,bu5 no 
money -'•ith J'ia,« ifcatitlin e«iBif bfiele t© Gfeleag© th's foliov^lng Amy 
(M<!f. w»» infor»M tj ka»«®y of the s^rr^st -©f j^laletlff , ^aod tim 
Iidlloe ofj'i er who aadt tii© »rr©ft isf©«s€<S. iScaBtlla th»t th« jjlskiu 
tiff h»^. afl»iltt*{l iliat he waa ftfeort in Jils aej^^^antt wsdi hrs^, n© moisi 
i»lil> him, WB^. Mus-sfty r«|>ort«4 tliai Ji.t fc«i4 ahm^k^^ 8v®r the acaouaat 
aaa<l f^u^ts^ tt a^ort«s«« SowtliB th^n %^li^pfmn&d to ii^r* HeokaisijW, «n 
6tt!?fn«y ^emplej^A In tJ^e «jfflc« ©f Baksy is Haider, ref^ueatiag Ma t 
ge to tl^.«» t»©lle« »tttil©n w»i«)r«, it se^is, tK« flatKiiff !i&d ^••m 
hel^ <n?"?r ntg:>!t wtthp^at «!uay fersial ©eJspXalat Ihtirlng 1:'©ffia stgned. 
Se*Rtll» teetiflee ths.t h« relats^J is thXts attornoy tto,« f&ets &« 
■fete knew tfcejii nod ^^sms advised t© »««s>ir to &■ sosiialm.:nt-, -sljiislh he dll4, 
charging: that the islaiiatlff had tKlbttsssle-^ thM s-^m of 'J2d«5,ll, It 
a?»p«<Mr» that Scaatiia (21 d »et at a«3y tigjt oomsaiiaalcftte «'it.h ®r r«* 
c«1t« luBtiPuetioxi fpca any «'.«p-»ri«3: «f ih«.nd«feBdaE»t e««vpsttay, asd 
thftt tJbt« £«« tork off iG« of the aef^^dlBJctt was not at iwy tiffi« ix^ 
foresL^^ of this proc««dinj|. So«titIlii »i24 Maaeey v«ir« tjbii ocXy <h&» 
pioye«« «f th« <S«feiEida»t ■^19 had .333^ sos&eotica -slth th« jii4s,tt«r or 
oew«j«r»ic-ttt«4 «flth H«ckioB&n i» regard to it. Thn isew Tor^i offion of 
4i«for.i3»fit ii»iti3«» otnt 00 r to calved rxxsy ttOt?^\ii&io&tt.oa ii|t »ja> ti»« 
froas tithe? ^fieaatlln or t-h« attorooys -with r^?f«re.R©« to the laatttr, 
Tiio ^iRiiitiff f aye "b«dl » «»'3 uT^ea >^i» fc^jwing walTOd «x«a;ifiation jmb 
TT&i Tsoaad oTOJr, ft jud^e of th« Mimlelfal eotirt flaJiag that tiiero w 
"OTolssi^-l c Ofttiso to 'bellfl*T« th« nl'^iiitiff gitllty. 


The tri&l ©f iplalntlff took |»1a«« )L» %h« Criainal 
to«rt INioflBa1»er Xa, 1919, »adl h« «a» f:ranai net ^lullty by th« jury. 
Th« ^«f«3<1mnt wa« n«t rtft^irftttanted by a^ty «p4ttel«l eou»««l at that 
trlftl. Scemtlin, wlao in t>ii igaftntliee had quit the d«f«n4!U3t*» 
•ffiployisent (»i<! raoved wstky frosc i;}ilo«^Oi x^tuimtxjl sta % wlt£i««s, 
•omlfig t« Chi (81^0 at hie r.«iQ e3K|>«n»ft for that purT^o@«i9« im<1 h« -vm 
not r«l»t»ur«ed tb«r«for by t>ie «l:ffif«*3.JM»t» Maastty al»« t«»tlfi«id 
"but It .-So** »«t «9f>«iwp tb«t It waMi by t1i:« ?!«(fe.n4«at *» r»qufl«t, 

Th« »Tl«!««e« of t*i« t!»la.l»tiff «h«nr« that 3«ftntlin 
took eharg* of <ief«»'!s«t *« offie* «b&iat Sfciyi»tw««, 191S, t^at 
plelntlff , Scaotlin, iverten ^md. tiffefforii.^ t%^ l^titt ^f tb« &"««r 
Ytrk offlc«, ««>r« fr«9«jEit} tfeat ^©Hon iifiti'®«««M St»fforsl suid 

flo»,* A lett»r of tii# ^ftf'«ii4s5uat ®ss^|>aiBjf »lg»©4 Ik it« nasi® 
by liJtaffor^ t© tfee tjlalBtirf «i«i ^^t©a A^ril SI, I^IS , is ki evU 
a.«r«e«* St «tat«« •%« li»©e«slii t^jrritory i« la th« oTiiic«i5o <ii»»{ tliftr«for« soy ou'fe»eart?)tioii «»tei>®d i»to tA« fictoyi^ H@» 
rimr Co, in thi* tftrritory ^11 'h*fe to b@ jaadie with «wr braiittb 
»aB&g«r, i&r. ^eawtXla, t^jad I as stir* yi»a ih»t Mr» ss««ntlto h»« th« 
ftuti'ority ta pay you ?sn<R ytmr feey» %# Muafc «o«i«y %9 fou eould g«t 
frcfii th« Boa* off;i<i«, la a4^itioa, h® l« loaatfsfS n«>!Mr you »nd 
can cji^« yoti th® "bftut pgastlbl* sarvtea in, r^gar'l t» 9t«>'>ll««, ^nei 
ii5 ritjj:«,r« t« paying yetir »«n, #iii,* 3oai:t-2lKt*9 t^atlmsiny i« to 
th« Off foot th«t h^ MJd Jittsaay *4i4 all th<a ^?ork t>!!»ra wa« to 4«, 
lo-'>i!«<T sifter tfea mo»«y of ib« ftospaRy, hti'^ii ma^. aieoha..?^«<!? «®li» 
eltdr«, -p^iA. mm«y t® »ollalt©-r«, r«eeiYedl jJioo«y Croja tfeiw." 
343«ntlin ale© te«tlfl«a &« fella'wat 

•%• I'or iFlMWtt wera you aotlisg;? 

A. #all, i^osalbly act lag: im tka l»t#7«8ts Qf tha ,iM«pl99r,Ml I 
aaw it. 

^» Yaa wtra n&t aotiisg in your iat^r^tt, wart you? 

A. Wall, I po««ll>ly ira« at that tisse too, j"fe» whol*? ti.'tng if 
X thoufciit I ©TFal iftiil to ih^ «^ftp««y, I fell that ha «aa 
ftb«ol«t«ly guilty a»4 <&u^bt to be piiaish«d. * 

It ift tSia iM»2&taatie» ef tl:t« plaintiff that ttio oauart 

ir*» jfa»tlfl»^« In ©ii^jiffllttlng to thm $uvy sa^ th« Jury la flij^ing 
ftfflrmatiY«ly frmi t^l« «Trl'5«rtic« fhat th« »«ti««ii» 0f aosintlla tuad 
M«»fi«y TTftr* T^lOila th« 9«s«i»« «if their <Rr;q>loy5i<siit or of th« «Bj)ldy- 
n«Kit of an^ of thens, tadn-l thitt, .'i^t h^s been tAi<l, lit, in otur 9i;ii»l«m, 
the o«BtrolXlBfS ^tioBtio» in the ««»«. Wla«th«»7 ». o ^^■^;>orftiloa i« 
Xi»bX0 foj- a %atli(iioi>8 proeftoutloB b«|£tm b^r lt« a|i;«iit, mufti la 
Q&eh ea»« (l«%»(»Bi3 tii»oii i?]b«th«r th« 9r9««e'i(tlo» vau vlt^.lia tl3« ftoo|M 
of iJbts fltgtdt^e trapXeysiotit* Xf, for «3e»^^pX«, i!'i# »^«Rt 1« mxploy%A 
&• A poXlee of floor aci4 it la «i, i»&ri api'i^itiintlXy of his ^iuiy to 
A*el^o tAvntber so nrrtot ohaXI or shall laoi l»« m.-ad«, tha oorporo*- 
tlou la, ic saoh Cisse, wtradlQ^bte^lsf ll^Mo for Mo a«tii« ^o 1 waging 
Oitcoo «© hoXdiag aro gsi£^ v, (|ir.f^,| I.9Xlli®ia IX* iiS.* » 3 ^-l^' * ^» » 
672, K) 3..?.^UB,, 14aj %4y<lj?^ V. ftl4X,g^i iX. M' . »• ^'» ^« H. B. . 
SttiJ 6 ii, B, Sl-y,, '^S?, It 1« aloo h^lA la imoth^T Xiao ©f «aooo 
■'imt «*\ero «. T»t^««o*itlo» i« %®mB& ^tfe tKo vlsw to rooovoy ttoe 
■rep«rty of tl»« &geat*« jijfi?act|!ifil or to pr^ttot his ■te^^tslae^oo or 
^ro'Ptrty, t^jn prlnelpol »ay "bo XlafeX^. This 'h^^trimis fe»» 'botn 
statod la AlXea y, h^nim ^ ^S' xJhJ^Bs^* ^» ^* ^» ^« '^* *"*» '**^«3p# 
it Is aald *tliejp« le a jaarkcia 41atiiietl©a "betareou a« ;9tet #o«e for 
tlio pvtrpooo of 9rot««t-t»g th« |ij!^|)««rty toy |»mr«atlBg foIXo-srlnis; or 
reeovoriag it 'baok, or sm &et 4aao for tlio p»rt»o»« of puaisihing 
effendor for t.fe»t whl^ hM alrtMy lEtoftn iSono* I^««i thio j^rUici^lo 
thoro in », eXoaur diotlnetioa 'b#t«o@{^ aa arrant brought About sto o, 
s!if»ro la«i4«finl to a, ouit for tli# rooor^ry of |ir«'i?orty or « ooit b»« 
em by oa|)i%o to froGuro the p^ys&^xit of a dobt, and thooo oaooo 
«-Koro tb« prooocutioa of t^o oays-soood! offen^or co«a.?i h»f« ao otfeor 
lf;e«3i^ offsot ihoa th« utaslfi^aaeat of tfe® guilty* In tho laot Tams*4L 
olsioa of eftooo tho «8»ploy«r of th« j*g«Rt io aot liabX«« 1%» »«r« 
faot tfeiit tbe offftnoo whioh wiub ooramitt»4 w»« onain^t the prooorty 
of tbo Tpfrlnai:i^!»X o7^«r, tSs« furtteer faot that the >igcf»t la tJio owb- 
mlesioa of tho tortaouo act »tti3T>o«»4 that Ms tot »a8 for tho b«a^fit 
of hlo oeiployor, la not ottfflclsot,* I*i tb<? «»&« of ^all^ v, totatg . 


3 111. ^Pf» 39* A |}I«laiiff »u€'3 for maliGlou* proaaeutloa th9 
a«aing:toa 3«wtn^ "^aeyilao Ce»ap.iii;y, jjelMlag one X^sit hroi», ^f^f> '^f&* tl»« 
feoer&l ntc^Mit «f the^ oo&^any »t Chicago, a»4 on« Daily^ a eul»* 
imont at BlootftluftOR. T>i« d««lsrftti®» a"r«TT0*!J that BaHy, on b«» 

hifltlf of an4 at th« InB-tlgatl^u of tfc« d^ftnAant* Liithrsrp MCtd tht 
E«M»]hi»« e©>!is!pa»y» «harg#a tb« plaintiff with mi^«i»»lmrAim% ^m^ in 
Mk9 trial court th« i>Isiliitlff %*aMd |^a:r:!m«nt. It was r«ver»«'«l aM4 
the cH&nse re£^iu3««iJ, t3i« <s©iart saji^iag, *Xt l» ina» i,&t5^r«iii van th« 
g»a«iral iGig«»t of the coatfiaaj' at 4MeJ$ijg9» «a4 th»i ^stlly wmm a sub* 
ftgent ftt BlQcoitlugioa, and su'b^^^^ t« Viie Jujrie^let ioa la all »%i-# 
ters oerticdrUag to tht t^tieiasffs dl" tktss es^^sti^yt but ihin cir<m»» 
staadc of its^slf ^o'^Xi u«% s&.^« Miia lia«4« £&» a «iriAia«a 'pr^seou* 
tioa coss»esci®®d %'/ BalXy «ltli6«tt feis te«j(Wi«a,^;t ©y aoaasKnt. '^«r« 
fiflft a^eat ia»titutt9 a Kaliei^ua i^xoftftisuti^a ®f Me oim Ixead, mod 
ultJiOwi tB« JattigAiiott or dir*ietlGri of toi« ,pr.taici|>»l, tJb* latter 
will not "b© llalJlt for ti^.'-sarae unless Ji« stdopt« mxii c©nti)au«s« th« 
pane with taaes^ieslge ©f all the Gir©ya»t%ne«», IJ M€i»&n «n Torfea, 

lana C0« , ■ I vX* ^'o >i ^-Si ^v ^» i** 2i.., 3I>1." 

111» A,pT>»» K*®! oa« S.aaAfiSt«, trh« -wae fclh*«5 ag^Kt t« eoli«<Jt of tli« 
4of<i-ri4arit eo:^«un7, 1»«gaa crlwtljcial proo«'»4lag8 si;%in«t tho d«Mor, 
who ouej for aallelotui i»ros«iautioa iuM Ivad ^wU^^^^t wliloh wao ui^oa 
«^9««1 r*r«TUis4., the court statlAgs ^'#« i^o not 9ro:909« t£» notioo 
parti culiaurly the isoi&y oa««s olt^il li^ eotinsol* In 0«m<» th« a^t 
•f the ageat wa» cloaxly ratified, a» la fjgalm ^. H^J^ li^^Jaft 
^•, 9 i'lilla* , 1^. la ottoert It tat of thd |»r€i«d«« ^soGrlptioa 
•j^rtssljr aatbii^xiKea to be pei'fojmtd la a profsr «iaa« i^4 maimer » 
»• i« Jg!,^*^^^f,y?.?^MAa iaa. ▼. IM'^,fiU» l<>^ i»^« . iSa, and iM.t»aMS& i^JUt 
lX« £Sl» '"^» ^-<^<^vQ>Mi . 103 111,, 433; but wo fiadi ooao aaiataluiag tho 
liability upoa th« elisor groimd of i^li«4 wattiOrity that ssay not "bo 

:u esiBe 

, «,((Ii' J^imX 

■^•■Jj' ■ >(i%r^ 

<Sii««lahe<!, on j»i*lii«li>l«, firoa iht oa« «t fear, thiiff »h©"w thmt *■<> 

tli» act or ?troee*<1lja|j mtist !)«!=: ©f it»@,if »«c«««&ry, ueual or «Kr>.pro<» 
fri»i» t© t>i« i)Kirforstsj3i09 of a duty or the aoeompli«hi2<:«it of an oad 
of th« Iclna «is|»r«Baly ooatesaplatod %y the aontraet oi" :»ig«j:iey, or 
ttouallsr perforastd or aoocsiiJllahM "fey agnails ©f t^ liito or o©.ry«sapi3nai- 
lug dxar-'ictsr, ojr to a««t sseaat «xig«3oy »«turaH.y arising In ih« 
ordinary coureis of th« biaaia^ss iatrustsd to Mm, for tfe« protee- 
tlofi, pr-saerv^fAtion ©r jro«o-«'«Ty of «oa«» f*r4?|i«rty or right ie his 
<^Arge ao agfflst.* The Swi^m^nt wii« reY*r»««4[ ««!>! the c,<,u8« r«i%wa4«4« 

i9l), , !5©?i, tlt« jjlai»tlff BiaofS fof !Si»ltti©u« pr0a««nitl©» aa*i lisid 4tt'*S'' 

IMIBit, Cm* l«il^'?*i», tlh«? «^«*it of tll#' tOl^'OlNltloa (whlels rrs* a foK^ 

olgu o««) teal atji'-ority to cs»;:!«et Its fe-^is^ira^oo i« Chioa^o, to ooll 

foodSo, Bs-ak® soBtractt, aurl ool2<^«t nsmny due, Tlfia t*tRt biosiy t<^nd6Nl 

to tho^ that Baldwin h^A at ©»® ti»o "fer^agiit a ®uit on "fe-^^i.alf of the 

wxi^mtft but t53©r« 'wao no eTrivl^aao t^at Ihe oi»«g»!Sflfty Smow of It ox 

had giT(wa him any authority to Ibrliag sMit». tiftto co^jtrt throwgh 

Clf«ry» Jf., atatoaj '^at if i&«y h4a4 gi-»«» 8«oh jsaafherity, h,® wowtld 

not bo tJieroby awtnoriajod to ohmrfe ifei® «o3re©r«tlo» with >si» oim 

m«tlloloue ^oto i» setting in es^tioia iMo orlmiua^. proood^iro of th« 

Siatft, froa osy legit iiasito result of ■^dah the oorpomtiott oouli 

dorlYO no 'bfcsfit, AXkA if lila saotlvo v^» to tlerivo to tJis eerporaiK. 

tlen a tets-oof It freci the abuse of tfefe preeeao, th«j corporatioc i« 

not th«>ro1>y cbarc««i» "^c aot ■»»» net within tlje s«o|»e of Ms 4i«;efiey. 

Tteo o^ot iB »ot 4litlii0ii8^>jsl>lo fnm S^,?^i,ia,|;f JL<^^l,d 1,.. .^%,^,T_a.,,g,^. v. iJSSmt 

t» III. Apis,, i©6, om this ^oi»t,* Th© oourt !» that oaao hmA ia-» 


otrwot**? t>!« ,ftjTy thmt, if B«X«|wt» was %h9 «kg«nt 1» Shleago, tJ^a^tho 

'^uelsteoR of tli« oomo rftt i on sn4 th« pros«e%ttl©ii ^»« iu tho lija« of 

hl« iSuty as ho «ii?<«roto'?tJ It, for iho 'pvkT^^m of h«5n*sfit t© tho 
♦onjorifttlon ^mf!. SM|t fer «03r o'bj«»ot |(«r?iiMtAi to htp,»^lf, tht f#.rj»o»ifc« 



tiotn wtta lla'ble for h,l« «iot». fte« jui^iim^Rt w»» r»vft.rt«4 «»n4 ih« 

la HatigQoic T, M£^£^;,il2af£. Co., 174 III,, SO^i, th« 
pXalatlff »itt«fl t!?» -i«f^-4.Hi«t o®'!af^«my fox aualieiati* f rc-a^^uiiiwa. 
It «9i?Cf^r«(i U'^®« %h« trial thsA tht s»lai»iirf b.a« lb9«a atrrestftft 
upon «i. warrf*Rt »w«>.?ts t© ^y 3B«i 'X*y«f»t«mt wlaio ol*lm»€ to fe«^ aa atg^aat 

f th? <?ffe^n'ifAnt cmm^Jiy, fh*^^ amrpl^int gk%rgei! that 'olftintlff 
imii gyillt3if ®f ffidtel^afi «lat®M«f 1» taking it|S«rt ass^ iftjmriug a 
«!«wlRg m-achla©, tilt pr&p^.*r%f ®f th« Stagisr .^-ifg. w». Ti^« l»la,liiilif 
-■•id jii4.,Tr:iHE»t in the> trial osisiyt. i»hi,(?>x -mim r^nr^tn^A fey tla* 4pi>*tll«tt 
OAwrl •'flih a firidiai; «f f®.st tkat l*y«!»t®ia '?»'»« not. t%m ai«st «»f mtMl 
hiw! B© «mii>-«nfit3^ t(^ ai>©t f«>r tte,« S^isfijai; lfi®Mm,«< f«.fM»y for ih^t 

»A6pi«t2 ©r ratiflM Jii« &©ij bat a» ®.o©ia a,a i&,4vlf«4 ©f it, ft&mptly 
^iu^flrssM It J that ^reataxi w»« tfe-tf »#«©•% «ff ikt Qinger Go., bwt 
hit aatherity w-a« eis^»r«ss4ly ©©iifli3#d t© th«> selling md leasing ef 
»«wiuf ia«©riiiej« smA thti c©ll«eti©« «f momoj th«»irerf©r, f5a« £wpr«K« 
.'?urt siTirRtd the A^ststllftte C^urt, ©aylEgi "If the iift^er ^fi:. 
So. <*.14 n©t e-awse tMe arr<i»t ef ai3'|?f?ll^3t, 129 &rgi«5«^nt 1« tt«©d«d 
to €$ta>ll«!h the ■^I'sp-esitles that It cawl'S n^t 'fet bsJLA lialbl© t» 
r*^«rii\e»^ is fftMRa!;:** feir t>»e myrtat, TIj© only way Ir •wMtsh it wfea 
mew^ht te IjoIS tl?« eomnimj .ll®.t:l« wa>» that Fr«f«ton, isfh© nr*» ?«! 
ageat of tbt it»««*' Saaafg, Sosaia-BJij, ««us#4 tfe« arrest. l«t th« 
ikpp#llat« €©art fotta4 ?T«et®a wa» a©t th« «^9«t of t>if caHi^rmy vsa4 
fe&« «© awthorlty to aet as »a«^ is e?*a»tfig lb«f arrest, as h^ '#•»§ 
net, t>3sr«fope, tfe« ag^rmt , M» jsattf «»al'*l aot bs feiO'liKg oie ife« 
e9aril»«»y \ml«>«a ri»tifl#4, whi«* «*» n«t tJi® ciu»e,* 

B«0l8lGR9 ©f otber states teH'^Us^i to »«fe-taia th« can- 
tent i®o «if fcJiR d«-fe»,4iant ar« »« follows: hs$.T9^p^ ^ y. Fidelit y Ma|,. 
l«_Aj8MsU»jt ^1 Mima,, lei; Bu«9»ll ▼. Paa<BntlB# Ins. £0. (Mss.), 
63 So. B«p., 644; Medlega , t. Eillsr, e^ a. W. 6?, (ia-3c.)i v^Qlff t, 
tlaUc4 Sr^ C5.. 12© JE, 1, 130 (£. Y,)j Ebymrsicl-. v. MIM£.^'t 








im J'. Y. 3tti»p, 488; ^fT»m^y, leva Iff , Co.j- 1119 A1hi,> 550, 

f« ttiB««r»t«&n'! thu Aoctrlne ««iii>:li8ij«<J toy tho««f» «}%««• 

t® fe<» that a «S*fe«aiwit, wh«is« m^mnt HiaHolously «Mit« Ib iRotlou th« 
•TlR!in«a proo««« is» wot ll*bl« for its agejrit*ii .wstiott ual^^n, first, 

it oxr^f^aaiy 4ir««ted itj or, aecwsifl, with knoTl«(!4|e M..i5r«roT«d a»i 
ratifted; ox, third, i»&rtlol-s>i*,i©d l» tJi« :i»ro8«cuti©n; or, fourth, 
unless tJi« nature of the a^aut'* eKfldjs-aie.nt le «-a,c,h tbftt authority 
to »«i le -j;otlo» erialaal, jproeess ws-uia is»o«»»arily ^e tejpiliad 

Ther« ws^a so ovi'<I®Es.«« iie t;Hl« 0a«« i«B/Sliig to «!8«w, 
or froa ^-lilch tho Jwry eaald rtta-o^nalily fla^, tfeat any ag<mi ««► 
i&getito of tb» «Sef*^r44yyat *-mi« wltfelii eitlssr of ttees® «jl-*ft«»«« or 
bawS. 9ucb autltorlty a« above #H^rs«6r«t«^. 

It fellers tfeftt ifee jjja4i««r*t «if thfs trial mvkrt. tms% 

»«3ttr»l3r an« ^oljii»t©a, JJ« , ee«o«r. 




'protftcytion of th« erlmlnaX actidH Q«t »seo!jnt of 'wklch the ^l&in* 
tiff sn^-^a thft ageutft ef the deteniswit, -sho 9a3fti<3i|»«it«td ia mieli 

proeesution, w«r<s without a»y &athoritjr, «3qjr«»« or ijsflti*4, to do 
•• in a®ri%nd«i<t 'e bf^^r^faf , m^'i that sti.<a^ ^ft»6«eifti«m wikfli withotit 
Authority, aiiit ttat th« «wpr.-oae4 &g€»t» ©f <l«f eudartt who insti- 
tuted tht pr«o«cytioja were liot it« ame»t« fer tfcat pun^oo* or in 
that re©p»ot. 


279 - :'^a555 

MATlinS K, Khl, iwdsi'x, etc.. 



Ai>j?KAi, mm suPKRioii coimr 

Oi^ coos OCi-.'STY. 



froEi a jwdgssstnt in th*? i?r;,m of f 44, 800, '^ntar^rt unen t.h« v^rdiet of 
a jury, wMo'h was dir-^iftt-?^ ^y th?» cowrt(^n motion of the nlaintiff 

It is the QOBtfttailon of ths ?5«f an'lant » '^ho is at»p ?^l.l '*nt 
here, that ths ccurt f^rro'l In refusing to a^llow dafendarjt to file a 
X>lea ia abateraant , t^^rs^ler^'l by him, in f^ir«»otiWf? th« veyvUc;t, ynd 
ijQ refusings to &a£r-lt In fivld@nce tbs 'Jrills ef 'Hchar'i feicha'slis, 
*alt«r K, i-.icha«iie:, aria Cl&ra MlcHa^lie, 

The salt «i8 orlfeiJial3.y brou(.^t ^'ae In ass\JiiS|>sit by 
Clarix >Jiche.ellB, plaintiff, ae «xeo«trix aar? trusts© ufi ler the last 
wili and testaiieut of Klc)mrd MlsSiaslis, 

The basis of the suit ^ae a proiaiasory note executttd 
fey the fSeferidant, BraKd, on the 16th dav of August, 191.1, payable 
*to the order of Clara *i-lcha«liB, executrix and tru«t«« \mder the 
la«t will and teatatBent of Blchar-l ^iehaelia. * The declaration 
contaififjri th*5t consolidated awuiimi eoimto ^aad «i spfcial ooiuat. The 
d«f«ndRrjt filed the g««i<*ral is? sue an^ c«»rtaln «fp©<ulal -ol^as, aHtin; 
vep fraud furil Girctaav«tjtlo«i, fnilMV9 ©f Qor.»id«jration, and ont plea 
denylnf? the right of the plttinti:^f to sm*> aa «3r.«cytrt3t, etc, "bft- 
oaua«, a« aileg.-d, hf^-r interest in th« not* -^frAS aoquired in har 
own right. 



3«pt«aJb«r 27, 1923, the d&i^U: of the plaintiff ^;ats 
aug^^estedt <md by ord«r of tlto eourt katllda a. jiLay, adQiini»* 

tratrix die bonlj nga "with th« lylll iau9X9d, wae 8ub0titut«4 and 
•he wae authorlae-l to proaaoute th« action* On iiov«abar 25, 
19 22, thereafter, the defandant mov«d for l^ar^ to file a pl«a 
in abatesent, -vyhlch prayed judp9.ent of the wrrlt axitX deelara* 
tlon "because the snid Hieliard ^ioha«li8 died ^rll 13, 1900, 
XDavlng a will in isrhi«^ he nominated Clara Mlchaella, H^dfrlg 
Boiman, I'alt^r Riehard tflcha^lis and Helane LaKflw««r ax«j©utora 
thereof! that Sfay 25, 1909, 'Talt'^r Hlehard Miohaclis, Hftdwlg 
lotman and H«lene Landwasr filed tls«ir rwiunelation, dftollning 
to 8erv« aa ««<jh, and iiay 25, 1909, th« said Clara Eiehawlls 
<|uallfi«d in thi Probat«:» eourt of C©ok County as noX'% «x#cutrtx 
of said l?af5t will imd toatasittiit, t33x4 that letter* tsstasacnt^iry 
were Issued to her on ©all dat*; that August 16, 1911, said 
OXara Miohealia, «xe<)utrix uirider «ald la@t will anl t^^'OtasQ.ant of 
Richard ^lohaelia, dc«e«*aed, 0old,a8aift;n«d and trayasf^rrad and set 
over to th« defendarH, Brand, certain peraonal property an;! chat* 
tela and aa part |»a^«)nt therefor th@ defendant, Brand, executed 
and delivered to the »aid Clara Micihaeiis, execTntrix a» aforesaid, 
hia promisaory net© dated A^aguat 15, 1911, for |40,000, upon which 
note this eult is brought; that on ji'ehruary 17, 192^, while thia 
ault wae atill penvling, th@ said Clara i*lchaelie ',lio<3, leaving 
her laet vlll and t«8ti3Ba»nt, in and by which sihe no.minated suid 
atinointed the Reverend Alfred S, Meyor *»xeeutor of her last -will 
and tQatRai«?nt, and t>iat letters tsataaentary ^ere i^ausd to hia 
i^ril 4, 1922, ?md that ho i^ still acting as such exacutor; that 
Septesiber 27, 1922, by order "^nt^rO'S in the 3«p?jrior court of 
Cook county, one Matilde a, «^y» adisinicstratrix de bonis noa ■^ith 
will annexed of the eetatn of Bial^ard Miohaglin;, deeea^ed, ^aa 
aubatitutetd aa plaintiff in the aald cauae. ^erefore," etc. 

Thia plea aa preaented aet up B^g^ttera srhich were not 


.Sv'? 1g«r-s5 

tvso t^'!^ 

mn «'-^*' 

of r«oord In th« suit anA t1n©r«for*! conai^lerftd as » pliia in abut*- 
«<jnt It *foul 1 \jo neceasary unHer th« provision of section 1 of 
th« Abatersfltnt act, Calilll'o Revised StatutftH, 19'>3, p. 61, that 
th* «w»« iihotil*! be *Torifl»(S by th» affii^avit of th« p«r«»n of- 
ftring the naiste or of »omf* othar p'*r»on for him,*' H ^aa not to 
T«rlflfid, ^n\ wo therefore think th« ©ourt ^lld not i»rr In re- 
ftt«lng to it to b« filed, ®ven if It ahowl^l bQ mncBdtiA 
(ft»a«tt«r on whloh lare do ftot t).-^»8) thrit th« pl«fi wa8 fil"-^ in apt 
time, Thf? oourt dlel not err, therefore, Ik this reepect. 

Of course, irroapective of any plea ^hloh might have 
been fllod, it r^nn nectsssary that the plaintiff ahoultl prove that 
•he was the o'wner of th© note. The not« pro.lue«d by th« pi«ilntlff 
proved this noceeaary fact and th«xr« ■»&» no evl-Senee ia the record 
n*r evi'lexioe offered froK whieh a Jury oould havft foiuad that the 
plaintiff -s^a© not the owner of the note, fhts bwiog the case, th« 
court properly directed a verdiot for the plaintiff a» to the 
ftaotmt '^n^i thereon. 

The plaintiff hat jsade a Eaotlon in thin court that 
<aa»Rg(»B h<» s^eeeftenl against the dtfenflant for th»* rfj^eon, as «1« 
leg©/^, that the apnea! ij? taken for the purno'se of ielay. It is 
a clo«e qu<^etlon ao to wh«th«ir euoh daiiagee shoul:! not, un'^ftr the 
olrdUBetanees be allotred; ytt , \gp<in th^ ^rhole rf^cor.l, we are lis- 
pos«'i to i.ive the appellant the benefit of the doubt 4m.! deny the 
BOtion, : — 

Thtt judgjaent i» affirmed. The siotion to asieees 
ftttMkSts is .lenled. 

M«Surely 8uif! J'ohnston, JT, , concwr. 

34 • 26663 

APF.'^<AL iRdiC atiKictPia comt 



BlLlY»Bf:1> r&t OBIMXQM & I'M S©tJET. 

j»«ot entered !» f^ivar of the def endaist « andl si^galRet the plaintiff 

after the »t&t«£aeKt of olals on mutio» of ^«feai«u«ta hmS. ]»««& 
•txieic^ii frosa tfe« fii@a. Tbe siotioK wa» m&t preserved toy a bill 
«f except io«i« aaa tlie 4efe«4»nte eoftt^R.,! that wader the rule laidi 
io«n ia i^.ijg^i ▼. ImSi 5^63 Xii ., 3^4., the aetioa of the oo\irtJLs 
not flpen to review here. Thia-t ca»e feae be*}© diistiu^juiehed by tlie 
'^•prpise Court In iHe later oaee ©f E§|B2a ^» iiSbSMlMi* ^8^ *3-i« ®9' 
Ib thli5 latt«*r eaee th« rtilte of the iiunlci-^nl Court wsr® liioors>orat«( 
la the r^aesT^^ T^Uoh ^ms not trTi« of the. ¥ aim e^aae 3Mi4 Is not 
iru<» of thie ooe, a»i the 4ef®«d«.nta »rgiti« Tslfta«it>ly that. r,hl» 
caee i» contrelled "by fean-ja v. Browa . «mISi» s'at^^J' t>5aa tey I'aruaa a . ' 
T, Call ahaK^« We prefer, he'^ever, to r>lao« our ^eoiaioia upoa ot>5»y 

She Btricken at-ate^ent ©f claim aileggri thstt fh© <ie« 
fendafits exeoutf>«d au» ^peal tend, U|»ea axt &t)S>^eJ> tisucen to the Ap- 
pellate Coart ©f lllinoie from a itidg»i«r,t «»t®r«*4 la the llaniei|>aa, 
Oeart of ahlciiti;o in f*»>v?>r of tbe ::»lalntlff , for the peaesselon of ^ 
certain real ^stinite; that the ^ud^eiai was reversed by the Ap- 
pell&ie fiottrt escj the cause re<iiaiid«4 to the trial court, irh«r« 
iu4l||»eist for poaaesgloti ^i*s a^,aia reii4ar«d iju fmyor of th«s plain* 
tlff» The hreaeh of tb® condition of the hois4 wan claimed to T?e 

\f'' .■- >. 

th»t no rent was paM to the plaintiff by the defftn-^ants after the 

r«ndltion of the flr»t jul4;»«rit for ?©8fl«»B«icn. Th« atystxftct doec 

not coJ5t»in tfcft oapy of thu toon's whioh wa« attache-l to th« fttatsEi^nt 

•f el sin. It aifpearn, howe-r«>r, to h&y htmi In the usu&I form and 

it« ceij'Ution *a« at follo'israj 

"Kow, tb^'refore, if eatd ie3war4 Brow shall 4wly pr<»8«ctJt« 
hie ««il.<1. apioral with «f f «*0t , «t«4, R4or«over i^ay m11 rent now '.Itt© 
or that may lj«c©»?» -!«• 'bfifor^ tb® flB«*l '^#tftrssl!risxtion ©f tht» 
awlt, fmS 5vl9o all ■'!8«mf:**'8 an-4 los® which th«» plaintiff has wue- 
tfttnei *sr may awjUain "by r«»8aeon of t^-t wityihal'Ung of th« »>r«Tr.l»«8 
in oci3trof«r0y, »ii4 'by T9%.»&n of any iujury ■•^oaft or to he :l.?>Re 
tb«ret© durinp. Raid <*tthhol<iilng until the r»«tliutlon of tht 
poP6o«slon thor«*of to the nl-ilntiff, ts>t?»th©r Tlth all oostn 
acon^«!ll or that way aocrti* Ir ease ©svlA iu^j^faftnt is mffirm-l or 
sttid apoeal dls»i88«-'i» th«n the ^sbov^ obllgati***^- t«D h« Yo4<i, 
othenrise to r«5,i%tri in f«li foro^ 'vci-'l '^ff^et,* 

It is th« ccKt«ntl0,n of the plaintiff in thiw QO«rt that 
an appeal bond may oorital.n •evcral 0Qv®)E5«itt or ©ondtitlooB, eaeh of 
whlah la Bftverahle frmt. the other. SSMI '«'• £sasis» "^^ ill., 335; 
®aal£& V. mBEMMSSi. 25 III. A|>p, eSOj lEJklMM v. ^SSJOA, ^^ ^1. 
45d« f'ha pl&lutiff fiirthftr oo»t«nds th&t the condition of this ho»d 
le aueh that the coirer.ax3t for th« psjffiisut of rent pan tin ^5 the a,t>p«rftl 
la -iiatlfiot from t>m oth«r coy^nanta aiid is ^not oondltioned troois th« 
mnim^r in which tht «^p«al 9h«>ul4 h* terKiaatM, yfail , i, |j , v, i*£a^» 
39 III., aS6j ImMl V. laliia:* 1« Wle., 149; Ct^^ ^g v. 5«^,;f^\^i'%.. S3 
Wi»., 443, iir« eito«!) aa oaa^a te»^li»g to sustain thia cost struct ion* 
Th« plnlntiff cone«a«8 that th» atatftiaem of Ju«»tlc« KAfjrtMwr 1» th« 
oaaa of HqJte v. Halv« ;y.oi?n. 197 ini., 37^, la to th« contrary, htat 
urgaa that th« «tat©i-.«rRt ih«r« naA9 i« '*t>«r«»ly 0M.ISS ii-SiS.. " "he 
oo\irt th<?re 8*li, •Jlor oan It hs said that thwr© i«i stnv dlffer«r<o« in 
prinolpla hetwean tba afflrK;at^o« sf a money ^uAi^«nt «tnd th« affirm»ji3ee 
of a .ludf.aant for reiatl tutioa, »o far as liaMlitles of obligors in 
th« app«*al hoja?! are cono®rn«d. Thert »yat h« aa affiriBanca of th« 
judfe^ent , or m ditimlBisal of the appp&l, t© eusta-in a a\iit on tha bond." 
The tttifetosient there mada va», hoi»aT«r, ha.8«MS VLpQn the law a» prftvioualy 
laid <!?©wji "by tha S^raaa Court in the oaaa of Xtf^^gitt v. ^anach «^ ^. 
141 111,, S9B, affirming thla coaxt le tha sa»« eaaa, mA that caae 


M i^- 

oaKnot b« diatingulslift^l frois th® oaie now li»for« ua. I« thut oas« 

th« trial court Bustainoil & 'tatTurrer to the «5«olar&tl©n brenytJit 
up©n & bond giv«i3 on ntpp^al frosa tli« ^u<l»«i»t in forolbl** d«tairj- 

er, baoAUBt it ai« adt alXeg« 9itl!i«» that ik® judgpiflnt from whlcte 
tltt ii^p«al WA« taikftii iiad "bafan aff irm«d Oi' th« a»pe«a <U«Tai<!»«d. 
the Supi-ame Court »aid: "TJjft «v«rffier4 th*t ♦on May 26, lasc, 
sftid suit ■*»» **lr4aiiy tdarfcinated Iby or<!«T of »s*l<t Ctroult Court 
tii«ii d^ly «iiter#4 of record,' is mafilfe-ttly l«8iaifflclent to fix 
the lialDillty of a|>t>«l.l«««, 'because tb«i or«l«r 6» r©r*?S«red hj.^ 
h»v«? tieen la farcr of th« »pi?®lX©»»j Wt Iby lh*5 tfirrcs of the boBd 
tlMsy ar© liable ordy i« th<^^ ^Yent that .tli« ' ju?ilj*ijae«t from wlhlofe 
tte« a-Bpoal i3f&» tftK:«^n «h»uld b« affirstuM or tifee anijcal dltsslf^'aad. ** 
TteR rul© ther« attt^otiineftd '•^a© Imt^r f©11Low«<ai, "fey thlrs eomrtlr* th-» 
«^»«i ©f Kjffisa ""^« ItU^llilm* S'5'' ^^^2.» Aft»», 126 » 

l'h«8© casftfe %r« s^waral;/ in point mrnS. oomp^l an 
affir-ar.o« of the ^1»4^(7HflfBt. 


iioSurely im4 ^otoatw-, JfJ.» ooisomr. 

74 • sa7a4 

jPlalntlff In irroVt 

i mjsim TO nusicipo. corns 

mm HOTSL CO., ) 

fiiis i® an M'P^aul l&y ike plaintiff ^«io'« frwi a. ju^^i* 
lB«nt In f»iror ef tb» d«f a.^^dar.t , imt®r»d u^oa the fia.-Uag of th© 

fh« «t&t«i«i.«iit 45if ^l&im, Wi'iieh *■*.& i'ilad S^wfeiraajfy 14, 

6I»« rating tii» ii&rrin&a Mot«l iim4i jQsi^zt Oyst^^y l-dt}**; t)ta,t plain- 
tiff on OotoTSer 15, 1915, «ntsr«d tnt® a coatriftc}: ^ith th« ^mtm^d-" 
.vmt to prcilaee ai fcutla^jl S«nm« almllfiir to one whiai. :plmJi,rittff wa« 
at tfeat tl»« i!»r!»4wcl»s fer 4«fffiaiStMRt HS3f?«r a t*rior c-outract; that 
thl« production waj» to "bsgio Oet©l»©r 31at «r..'-3i co.Rti»t»« for a p«rio4 
of twenty wowlni, for w^dc)^ the Iftf^aant, sM?r««d to pay th« ^isilstiff 
th« «t»i of 1900 a •anskf ^%h a gwsjpaiaty ef twf*ttty weeka* WRga^ifl^eRt} 
.that plalBtiff <mt«ra4 wo« his ^\»jti»8 siwa frodiuaad a mualejO, »h©i» 
aa ©ailed for tu^dor th« ooBtra*st; tJiat d»f«n4aat ^ft &r^>%T^M ar«qij«®tei 
a ©oilfloatiea of tha ««ntraot iaa th« mattor of i>rifi«, ?aii that on 
Baces^ter 3, 1015, i^ialBtiff aotifiad tha dafaudaat %y tdlagram that 
he w&«14 pla^f out tho axistiHi^ oontraot for $775 tre«J:ly, be^^Uiritn^ 
Hwmm&ttv 5; that dlaffl&da:at ropllOiA that h« would be wlliine to oon» 
ti»ti« th« shoi* for $700, bat ooald not afforl to pay okora; that 
tfeereafter on Baceafecr 4, 191S, platBtlff stmt a telagrass to tha 
Aaf amiaBt , atatings "Will giya yam pr«i«eat obow i?ithoat iaoVsQr far 
aavac teaan<i!r«fl not or idth hor for saTaa hun;!ro4 forty a^t, ye« 

f«nA%n% r#T»ii(»4 i»y t«lp«graT)h «a fello'sri: *tlll A^&mpt 8«Ttn liij®» 
d[r«4 40llRiar pro»oaltlo« •««.-! In-g chicle t^alght for «o«ttMa«» will 

4l«liY«r tr«ui»?mrtatl®-« to iii«w V©irl: for »fltl«« taxi. M«v«y ee attest* 
lauat ^« h«r« iciitht'' thmt on Jaausypy iO, Wifl, 4«f«Kidarjt l>y l«it«jr 
r«qn«at«»d[ a fujrib«r rtdueti^B aad tfent ©a Jaau.*yy 12, I9lft, plain- 
t4S*f eotirl«fd t'n« sSefen^aust thut tli.i» iprsiJOJsitlon -was iia,i»oi9elbie; 
th^i on JaKuaxy 14 the ^itt nnMlm^t ^ tli.r««fi^ Its ae-w^M , »«Bt the 
follewlBg teXegrnEa} '»S«Eirt«t 8.«e®|>t ^yQf08itli»« 1 hnrwlsy giv« you 
%WBt w«ek» nctie« for the *«tir© si'itm,* ««&»-siiig thereby that t3a« 
4[«f«Bdiait at th« «»«4 of t-wo wwftlss -®aal4 l»r««Ulc. or r«f«,«« t® oontiuu* 
tJi«» eentraet; tbat ©n vT«Kitt»ry lf# XflS, Wvi plaintiff r<i»>llBd: •Btf 
%e aATi«i« you t>i,at ay eoKtraet with y®u ie |r4*«».ar«iiiii»#.4 ffty tipwi-iy 
»#.®1t« 'ftisKf th)»t thtr« it »g tiy® 'wnftkii elmws* or .«sj e0s«j«!lia.tlo» 
ela^»« 'fl*at«vor l*'. It SYtry ^©ira» girl aiS'l frinoif^al in t>i« «eic- 
fa»y 1» u»4«r «ontr«€st to a© »*:'r»<5s«ai;/; nrhll* 1 de im% «2p«et tr 
^^««ir« troubl«^ wttl'i yen, jut4 .gwn %l»?«ye T8»a,,y t© »««t ycm lt»elf w<iy, 
I «6^«et yo« to 11-^9 vip to t,la« t«f»» flf y«mr e«,Biraet«'* 'fh« atat*- 
tumx 0f claim furth«r ttll«jf«« **tk»t t}s« 4«f e*ia*sitl aft«r Xaaasiry 
14, 1016, r«fu8eil tc aad did aot «<ar*y ©ut tine t«rai» of ih« ror»«oli!g 
eouiraett a»<! tJs« «tf«adaot tfe«» sossl tb®re »ali<ji,t«4 all tli« ««ij* 
fl03r««5Q ©f thl» j»l«tJiittJ?f , '«M«h «te|4X»yt«j» w<8r« giriiig th« tfe«»t:ri- 
fX •p»rfot%9Xntm 4s.i th« M©fTl«®«i fe«t«l aoa %h« l©»to» oy»t#r Hatim« 
to T&r«ak th«lr fiWBtjraets ©f wtplo^'meiit wltte tM« pi^dntitf, «m4 tit* 
4«f«e^aBt tfc«m i*»i th®r« cau««d tJie a.-iifi «»j>loy««» of thia plaintiff 
t« br«*k their ewtraets 'wlththis plaintiff j mA th» tUtmt'imt thflMa 
aad tfe«r« hiw4 all ef sai^ai «»ploy«€« to w«tr5f for it, the d«fft»4Mit, 
unci fh* 4«f«r<4aMt tJj«a aae** fhey* 9r<»««*^«<^. to ^R'-J '?lrt ^;tT« aniJ 1« 
aoiff srtr!i»45 iho »aRjo tliOfttria«3. pftj-fortssyB^o without necffxmting or 
i|9ayia«; to tlil» pialotlff la any way «%iatsoev«r for the siuao,* Th« 
ioelftTatloR elftlBi*! total daw.s^o* ijfi th« »!jsa of ;?T,9oo. 

f1«f®HB® wajB atatad to be th«*t *oft Jaistti^ry 1.4, 1916, th« |>l«Aatlff 
^hoXly f«ll#ii to odmply with the t«]n&ii «»f ilia <mntr!jkei th«n axie.tlii^ 
1»«!tw«en the ^Xalaatlff aul tl£« <S.«f«d»ftt, »ttd d[14 Bot r«n5«r Miy tar* 
Yl0ii« nor p^-gf&tm^ ©r caw«« to b« f e-rfo'irm«d ai'jy «f th« teraui of tlit 
ceistract nfter JTagmaarj 14, 2.91 6. * th* affidat-vit fiirtSitr air®Tr»<i 
thjfct d«f»«'3ar*l hsd |ial<» mil tl^*t t¥*« t!«e an4 owie^ t® ^lailntlff at 
tbt tiTO« 0f th» Isroaeh «f th« eontraat <m SmmiXf 14, 1916, .Mid 
-SftRl**! ih«t It wa« tn siny w,«,3r liafcl'e* i» ilnffl ipl^ljailff in fmy svm 
wto»t©T«r» Lft-aifw *ft» Jiftewaylt glT«ii t© ^eftulssait to fll© m. 
additional afftdiarit of m«rit«, i?hich it -^id, «i%tlBg as » f«rtliin» 
d«f«K«i« t« ih« euit that, ipiiiee th« la«tlti»tiofi tl5er«*©f, iJhie |)3krfci«» 
la e-ofi ff I <te ration of entering irat^ a n<9w contract ^«J3^ a »«wf »>?«"» bad 
ag.«i*i tKat the a«it sboistld fee ^isml^ead sm4 that t£»ere ahoult? b« 
no f-drthftx elalto mmd« hy tls« plaintiff agaiiaot th« d«f eRdsant hy 

!rK«r« hat lf«®« ceftlfiffid to iJais c«art a« a 30 art ©f 
th« r««ora in this oaao ttoe rvjlee of t]h« M«iii«iflna eourt ©f cihlaag.©, 
la wfciejih th« oauiie **>» triod, l^uio 15 tfetr«of ^-mvl-doo a« followsj 
♦•(k) Ivery «ll««?%.tlo»i of fact in any ^l«aaiss^, exsept «a.i#g«t4«»»« of 
ujill<;ttid&t«d ^iffiia|ft<Sffi, if aot ^Mui$:4 »j>#elf leally or tjy nee'»%minxy 
IffiullcatioR In th« T»lesk<1tng ©f tiio opseoit* party, ahali 'bm i&kmi 
to be n»lT5ltt«^, «xc»?)t at ar^irl'fotl %y MnX» 19. {«) ^x?>r®o» «Mi!b»i8* 
»lon» aad lilonlaXs must I&0 «!lr«ct Msd srpp-elflo, not ar«i!:«0BeRtati'5ro. 
(0} It shall BOt Ibe oufficlewt t© ^Sor^y g«!r4«rally the ^roa«ift for 
r«lt«f allffig^d In tteo »tfttt!S»Kt ©f alMm, ««(t-ofr ©r corniterelaim, 
■fcut oach party leuot fleal ssi^ sat ft CAlly «fith e»^h iall««ati©fi of fst«t 
of ^^loh he itoao aot aAKlt the tanith,* 

fto« |»l&lntiff itpoa tteo hearing lntra4«co<l ovidoneo 
t«tnjiBg to euat^in tho ollogmtiono of hie 6tat«m«Bt« Wt th« do* 
fondsnt oontends lnors th^t tho stAtstf^te^i^t of elaim does not dieelooo 
a oouott of action, beeauao thero w*« no ouffieiont gaiog&tioa of 


• f 

ptrf^n&tiXi&it or »xcu»« fcir n^n^^^Tiormmeit by tJlsiintiff of hi a con- 
tr«.ct >»itln t>i» (3»fendiwit, )»n<! l3««flMiii« th«r«t ^mrn no iji^per »ll«gii» 
tlonu aJi to th« oeount or K!«a«'ui*« of ^lai^wgew, Thn trl«il ejourt.ap- 
p«x«fitXy upoit th«t thftory that th« «"»if!«ine« off'^rftd l&y th* T)Xal»- 
ilff «»« inaitaf fi si«nt In th«»« rftS'ii'teia, &i%<l<» a fln'Mia^ for th* 
d«f«ndaBt, The tfcflKsry of$ ■ditfeiidstnt »««a» to fe« tfeat asstjiaing 
tla» a«f«nd5i»t»« teA«gra,t. of li«iu«*y 14, X9X6, to be & r«Rwtaiati«ii 
and r«fy;»»l ob tfe« ^SkJrt of ih« ;*«!'««.'* aiit to pffrforro hi 8 contract, 
plaifitlff v&te ther«upon |>\it to bis ®X«ctloa; that b« )»%M (l) 
treat th« e©«traot iia feaa«a aa-3 »u© for dsy!.u*g«8; ( s) treat the 
e9Bira«t a« r«»clRil«4j or ( 3) »i#st, &l»e% to iteap tli« c®»tra«t 
la «xl8tPBa« for th« I^Siiofit «jf feeth 9.mTti<^«, eiittat I_.». .i»,..& M., f. 

StUoh £e^€£ 2£.» » ^■■^^ I1X.» «l®€s, J5»f«a-!JMSt ^rg®« Uasit tlj« itat*-' 
a).«nt of -slalm arrows ms eieotloB ta k#«j» thm »Mtr««t aJ*lT<» aii4 
t3t®t liQ «ucb ease it -w^e n©c«fls0ary titat ^^IsUtatlff «hottX4 al.l^g« aod 
|troY« a rta'Uitsfltts, wiiiiiaiijiitttss ■wbjS ability t?> ti^-rfojrai oo bis psjct 
eaa<3 s ti»iid»?*r of such pfffQm-mi&iti* tsi^rila^ v. £a_MA^-l;ks-^£A-i!X« 

836* It ie uyg(»4 that ther* wae iR«ith«r eiseh a^fsrsaert uer ^ru^f , 

that tl*« irwlfs of laur ^ith r«epect t® ooBtraKats 1« 
g«ner» at «tat«d, isay l?e G?&ia««4»d, ©«t t^«r« rftr*^ f's^cts ,%!• 
Xeg^^d in thie et^ts^eut «yad xiot d«'i%iM ( a£ici wMoli u&^cr tl%« 
rule ©f tha BanloipaX court SKtt»t th«r«fer« be c;oasi!iere<i |>r©v«<!) 
wklcto taJte t>-tis cas« owt ©f this g«neraX raie. T&a Xav doee not 
requlr* a party to ^o a u«el8e« ti^iag, &.nd a c^irefuX raa-'SiB^ ef 
tlie c®.»e8 ©» «?>iioh the aefssEtd&nt reli»ii i«-Uc»te«i t>;at ctrauis«taKOt» 
wmy favy Ih^ rule a» et».t<»d» 

f te3n» e»« psarty to a coKtr&et ta*.i given notice to tfeo 
other that he 4oft« not lat«B4 to fu,rthor i^«rforai, th* oth«fr party 
>5%« ft riel'.t to tr«»t tM« aotioo as a lr«»oh, wia '^Jx^tm, at h«r«, 
it iH aX<Bg«<l aiEi<l, >>y r««KOfi of t}%# rul* of eegrt, praotlcaXXy 

tiro ,* 

ftdnttted that the def^r^^tMit ^j(/iiri»g^ «|^ gamintiffe perfenMir* 

8uul« It i£S]!}OBftlbl«i for hlia to «&rr^ out thw eoDtr&«t, w« think it 

10 uiua«e«eaAry f«r th« i:»l$&i»tlff t« aTor and pror* his ik3»ility 

and will to carry It out. In l^ a yj ; |g|A MMil iSifijE ^» '^- V,l<fl 

j^tpr Cab ^ft.. 174 ill. App., 'SO, tkit coart aaidi: "It i» alto 

the Ism that wh(»r« «»n<» contraetlng p^tf earn iihov that tho othor 

pr«TOiit<«<S hla p^rfonfianoo of tho contraot. It I® tc> l>o tAJ«;«B .as 
arlBsy t f aoift tru« Ut%t h« wosld h»vft 8«o0t5*5>llift-V;«fl It if he hM Hot 

i , y^^^^i% l^jsksi iS-. 149 lii* A^iH 333; iiu.m. Si Im^miX ^» 

3^.^„fjXdf. a? 111. AfiT?, ISO J l^ull ▼. §m-tX' iS^ ^l'3l. iiUiJ. SC>9. Vo 
think, t>':©r«f«»T«, fh» ooixjrt «rr«4 in f;lir;il»g for th« 4«f««iSant. 

fhe I»l3».iatlff ttsig«« thmi ht 1« «tltlo«l t«> » revereaa, 
vlth ju*««!ftt for th« 4am.tii«f8 »« mll«?sg«Nl in h.i« «tattm«Rt ojf aialm. 
th8 a«f«3n4«mt, howeTor, i« «Matlll«l. to i«iro4w<j« oiridsaaee on that 
an<S oth«r l0»>.^e» in th# eaao. If it m deslroo. 

Th® .j|a<t^«iii 1« rovoraod austJ th© oauis« timm\4e>$ for a 
a«« trl^. 

mmMw^m mx) msmmwm. 




81 - 28732 



Dofendaxit in Krror, 


mmot^ TO CRmxnAi. coimr 


JPlaintiff In j^rror. ) , , r^ . /^ ^> 


Th« ^«fen1«r!t, ixt error wa« fuvm^ gulity l^ % jury 
wndtiT the aooond count of tm tadiotsfient whleh oharged thAt on the 
."^iRt day cf Ooteber, 19 21, In Cook County, h« kept &,t\A maintained 
a eoMnoB gaming 'hou»« *»n(l in eai^l gassing hou»ii -^i 1 thtm tmd th«r« 
unlawfully oau90 anrt 9r©o«r« Rivera idle lua^l <rvil dlmooaed Pearsons 
to th«n and there fre^tient and to th«»n hc^ th«r« eoin« topj«t.h«r to 
play tog«ther at a certain tinlawfxil gaaae thtr; :ian1 there called 
^ice." Motions fer a naw trial and in arrest of ^ud^^mffint w«r« 
•verr'jlea and a fin* iiapo8«d upon pl&lntlff in error. SxaK.ination 
of th« evidenoe indicates that it is a dcu))tful question 'i«h«thftr 
the conviction can sstand* 

(me of the polioe officers testified that he arretted 
defenletnt with othert in a pool room on Treaty second street; that 
he went in at the front door of tho pool room afii wet^t to the rear 
where there vae a crowd of v&nn arcimi th® tjooI table; that ho ruohed 
to the table, reaolJ«d over the crowd m\i got some money, 41 oe, ssoid a 
•tick. Ho eaye, "I hrok* the etiok, m cane they wee to rake wp 
dice. Th0 cane was in ^illisBti FoBter'fl hand. Foster la the man 
with eruteh?:6, I found tone moiiey on th# ta>jl*» -srid in a hag. The 
bag wae on the t?ihle in front of Foatar. Ji»o'bo«1y hiiA the 4ice when 
I got there. Thny hmd all ecatt^red for 'Different *lQor». I got 
the iiee, Fostftr was standing at the tabl«, ■■"ne ^iice ?r'ia on the 




■ itt^ti%i: 


Sgmth'f^T oi'fic«r t#itifi«sd that at th« tijiie of the ar- 
r#»i h^ huA a talk with ctne Arisaa, another clefen-:**riLnt5 that iiriaan 
«ra« outelle and knoo)cQd on th«t door; tbat ^itxxtiun aaked what h« 

waiat«(i, to w' icflfe ths «alf? Kriaan jreplled that hs) t/ant'^/l to talk 

with hi© partn«r, ^i^ that. th« witn«»« »al<S, *If j^u ar« ©nis of th« 

Owr5»T«, you cairi oo®« In,** tmA than Iflt hl» ln» TM « -^itii^aas »ay» 

that h« doffis not rwjamal&ar »««lng foster at that tim«, V/tjt thinks 

ho wa« in the rear; that at the tlsio Irisan kxiooked on the 4oor 

another defendant nam«a Levis said to lijjs, *He'» s»ll ri.-jht, iH 

hlia la.* The wltn«»» furt'ner saii that h-s nsvar saw any of tho 

dofondanta at that place before. 

We thinis tbia #iri?te«Ge hardly s-uff latent, to ftustain, 

tho Oharg« a« »pt©lfi«<S ift tise »e©o»4 couBt of th© in^-li^tja^fit. 

laoreovor, th@ defoftdMit r«qu©st«-4 tM® folXowiji^^ iastniotiott, '^iitoh 

was refused fey the court: 

*%© defenaant In this case had a right to j^o upon tho ^il* 
nesa fttaisd to t*.«»tlfy In hie owi, behalf, if he> ohose' to do ao, 
Th© 1-iW, ho^ev^r, expressly provides that no presuwiptioB ad» 
v<^ra« to hisi is to arise from the mere f -iot thsit ho '}o&& Bot 
place hii>:'5elf uoon th« 'vitneas stai'sd. 3o iis thio o^a»« U-;® 
m«r« fact th&t this 4etm-AstXi% has not avail ®d hiynsMif of the 
prlvll«>(go w'Meh the law gives hia, ahoulf! not ha 'luermltted by 
you ta ?>r«,<udle« htr; In as-iy way. It should net la*?- oonBl'iortd. 
aa ertdenco either of hiss ijtiilt or ianetsiBfic®, Th« failure of 
th« dof«nf^.rtnl to testify In not ey^sn a cir«''.;i5 0t&t*o« a^'alnst him, 
m\d no pru^Bup-ption of sf.ailt can h# indule^t*d in hy th® JTi,iry on 
account of »uch falluro on hie part,* 

In Tiow ©f tho xancortisdn ohaTHcter of tho ovidcnoa 
and tha fact that plaictiff in arror -lit not teetify, ^^^ think tbi« 
instrtjotion should havo heoxi gl^on. 

for th« reaaons Indicatad tho J[u*1 i»ient will "ba roYerstd 
aad tho oauae rerianded.. 

J&aSurely and lohneton, JJ,, eon cur. 

X&o ■ 


?t©trtiv 5«S<>-' 

, C'i ;:; /lil ;;; :,*; ^ ,/' ^. ^ a i; ; 

9% - 2mAB 
Alio.! A m^mAMt 


m^Mm* mm 
miZMfmM^ mm mtmm m tm mm^» 

fids is mi sEtpf^fcl l)r/ tli® fi^iti'y.m*®!' tnm ma m^mr 

def«siii3U';at aiisuM^ pay to ^li^ ««a^i.4aa»t i4«' f#r Piele as* alijsiSHor 
f«r» «li# miip®rt ©f tfe© ®a^:l«43sajst i&Rci. t&^ir mi:sm isliili* Aytlntr* 

iSBLtter wag libsfewr^ ti^^Dil |ir«i.«e»|i5-t4,©ii to tfe© <»<mrfc ©f & writ tea 
6Up»i3Uiti9K }sy ilwj Sferti0.;8, i» ^*csr4^il9® with isiiissli it w^.m t®^%»& 

at 1-40? «Mi es^om«»> ®M did iieit. desire t© r&®..riif«k &m^ iurtJmr 

4«4eifmi.5a»t LhrnilA nat timr^m£%titv h® h^uM W 'tins ^^i^ ^.ae3?«« tee tl» 
9^jm^Bt ef sXiiscH^ either s&v ^tmpl'^'Xn^nX «.r tia.® cMl'^^ said llteit 

edju^^d fiMii d^Hii^i^eA that tla« o.ri^ii3@l Amr^m &lidt^^ ^ ed aseSifiedA 



'" ' Mavtih 1* %S2^t ^e cms3^9itmtti filed har T^^ttHsm 

S&$ X9lJ^, *i^ wt.» ©k rrie4 to aa© Peterson 'wltit ^*t««s i&lw 1$ aow 

ms.« twsl'V® y®i5gp» ©M aM ,te4 li®«aB MUlf .^criliig £mm. ISiCaiiti.:. ^ ,,r* 

that «h« tod a<) m&f^mB er i«©«M5(|» t® f sty '^^^ **i« »Siii3«>l tlmt ^i« 
d«f imdMttt ej.>.i«ed |6S |>©r «©.ir3c|. th.-'-t he Bad m#®et4s4 ®ii<l r«l%«©«l 

pr»vlBl©a M^M tee ®«tde f©.r t&e smpfort .iM fifci.iiit®iiii«0€ asd profser 

fixe def©Msai aiis«i!«rf5!4» &amittiiig t&® l'i:;.ata as to 
the j53E:!.tters af ap©osj?<|. i» e©mrt# 8$&tl.«kg tfea-t* fesf "«li*t«|je ©f tfee 
decr«« ftf M&xmmw M, 19(|J|» fee M^i© f»i»3s««d i© Tlait Ma clsdUUi 

»a3se pt\yK^ts em r«tmii*€s4 ^ lli« i^fit^ee 1^ fee lestfeew^^jfy S» 3.013} 

I3ae tilitt pjLtiMblt^ti Ik^ tii® statat® ntStm^ m d©eir^« of tiiT©!^*; ihat 

tfeeai ^«T«ai 3ri»aafs of a^ and liviasg -^'.t tlte hfsm ol' wtoi© S'et^reaUt 
"but nsedUjd t&s ivttentloari ©f this d^^mikmi, M» ft.tlier, end th^it 
fee v«*« dstsiroue of haTtag Mb ohAld in M& ©-■^la h<3«Be ^lere It© co^sld 

glire it proper ear* aaii #..luo.stl^a in &. Kafe cuad, proper awrix'^iTOsj-mt* 

fho anstrer itauf^ief d«aai4®a tfee Juriadlctton of tii® »oi«?i« (^ li«jf^ 
£3'i lyiig^f ths d^^ki*®*^ 0f tTuiie 2^ ltl3» was clmngiei as^. Befil.#i(^ ^ 
aa t© i^T&rici^ ^at tlie d«(f<isml«s»;t ^oiald mw t^ t^iiaarilaiaaiit fes* Ui* 
iKpp^rt 5s«a sjaititetfe;?^© of m& eMld* .^yptlwr *it<slsiiami» the fjm& &f 
#5 per w®«5Jt^ m& i'irsft ps^jBReat to !»e ta&ae »a M^^rcli 2S, X9S3» mid |® 
*&ek week tlassr rafter imtil tiua fajft&sr ord^r «f the eeurt, sadl tliat^ 



Vtj j^*,j-y.i 

t ( 

'at^ ? •'V''- 

f-t !!i;<.s 


liit tm 


.r :i£&s^ J^&< 

til® d«f«*itdiiat to be dllmH tt Ti«tit m^s cHiXd eaoja vHHdiajr tl»«re«' 
^t«r tmtiX furtfeisi' ord^v* of the oouri* 

n^tUlKs; 119 IJR dtts^il aw>ra» ^dirf^rei^eis »it& f »t«r®.©!i iti y» different 
■.3@3Bji>ieiii^mt ^ii©w®ar««a Hits i^iaUaii a^ Hit* <to«Mrt» j&l'teir 

tomm ©M«ir »r d^.«r8® vMaii fed tet«. «iMt:®r«fc4 Ijsr i't4,p«il*a.ti« of 
ih« peirtAfliS. 1% i^ »*sit t3teat su^ a d*#i^®«t i» iss &« iii4i«» «^f 

e^m^t b«s &i5;3iigii©d» siting % , ^,^fy. V',„^jggg|> tH Ml,, 4Mt 

sta.t«, wM^ T«s©ts flail p«iw«jp nM. ^uWrn^'itf iM ^^ stmrt, mm, at 
isitk re£ipTOfe te the ^a.*jswii«r td te ipaid Ijr aosiO^^^n^ ifii^ tile qXt* 
oa^. mtird»» XUiiiftls s^Tlsed :..;tet«n@a, If S3, «!s«s ^«^r &© t© a» 'uaa«r 

m m. 349} i^m^tov. jMi^ ^^^ x^^- ^^i ,i;^mjlLj. 

«BteiP^ ^ tlic «^art ?;g?^ tii<»- ^Ufial^itA^ ©f tJi® parti©-©, tai^s court 
% Tirttt« 0f this atatat* has* lotiaaori^ t^ '-'Msmm i^ ^'^^ *^ ««a* 



oX that ^uty ■|>y yUpalutlow. BHSCtt '^•-jBa&IL* ^'^^^ ^^^* ''^P* 2.70. 
Cl^«Wltt eiu'iSaQl,tt«!4 id the c^ort sa^ 4w.Ufit!! ii^i' mtiEf of ilHl 
ftJtrli«t#idl Tsdih lxrf.v«tiXe pr^iOjfgits t)M In need of n^-'jJU^^ att@ii<» 

h^ ih« dtdore^?* ^iiomld tlie sitn&tiost in th^-.- fttttiKr® <;aiDj|jg«», 'Hut 
trial aoiurt «ili set M ■vi%htm% ^^^P^^^^^tifja t© make mi^ -imt^hmf 

-mh »ti^ 

X14 - 287G6 

Btfoiidaat in SrtQX, ) 

) %moR fo amicTPajL* court 

V0. ) 


Plaintiff In ^rror, ) 




313.1 VSSSB TKS 0?n?IOM OF fWI eOTBT, 

Plaintiff in ?»rror upoa trial by th«? cotirt was TomA 
guilty "In mann<?ir ars'l for<:'. as charged In the inforNiatieii*" Thla 
InferiiiSitlon filesA on Jur^ 16, l'^''>^, chmxg'^.'d Ihat rslalrst iff in 
trror "on th« 14 th ds^y of lune, 4, o. 1915, at. t,h«j City o.f i-'kioago 
In isaid St?!it'» of IlliKoia aforesai*!, t^en ssnd ths^ro feeing, dif3. th*Rn 
ftCid there with a certain Instrursent cmwQXily called an Automobile, 
said AutOffloHlt l)«ing & «isu3g©roms si«4 ieally weapon, T«riihout a^.y 
considerable /srisvoealion whateTfsr, aa3 tmrlsr clrciiea8ti»nc«t ahewlng 
•isa ab&R';icn«?<3 and mallgnfajt heart, unlstwf -aiy, wilfully «infl »ali- 
clsmsly maJk**; an aaKa-olt In ;-mfi upon onis Clarenc* Arnla *lth iiitent 
than ?»nd tht?re to Irjfllct \xp&n the person of aaid Clar'-mce Arpln 
a "beilly in^^ry* oentrary to tba Stat«tst In euch sage miide and 
preYi'i!«<J, »n<?l against the Poao© aB(1 Dignity of th« Psopl© of thn 
Ststft of Illlfjole** 

The infttnaatlon ^ae sliirn^d ty Clar«n«« A.r?»in and 
attseh«(^ thereto Is a purported affidavit aig,!:***! by hla, w-lclt, 
be-^STer, in wot eT!'?>m to, ficctlon S7, s^iunict'sal Court Act ( Jonwa 
& Addinston*! Annotated Statutes, chapter 27, ssictien 53*9^ pro- 
Tides that, in a ess« ftf this e^iaraetor, wh*^n *4n l?jforf»<atio« is 
pr®8ect@d by any person other than Attorney Q^u^ifrTiX or wtate's 
Attorney *lt shall "be verified by affidavit of such j>«r8on that 
the saiie is true as he is infenasd and b«ll«ves, ■*** In J':«,^ v. 
2ilotnlclcin 246 111., 185, a oase v^bore in ansonded Infonaatlon was 



was not verified a» re<julrftd "by thts statmt<^, Ihs; 3wipr«i»« Court aai'4: 

**Th® plaintiff in errcr vaa n^t b'-uc--^ "by law to nxi^Mer a 
ehargR so present «?l urt3.<»88 verlfl«^ by the affl<^Rirlt of t^.'• pi«r- 
son preaeiUliiK it, ^jK''. ih^ mfttion to (}a<i»b th© air.on^.'ftd icforjaa^ 
tlon n>ioul<' hn,v« ■be<»jn oitstalne;^. It Is inaiftted ih.%t th« record 

niO'-^s not rihow thp.t th» flnJatiff In error o>j,1(?ct f?'l to thf> action 
of th* court in ovem;«ling hlfi isotlon to qiaaah. It Is waBwntial 
to auBtain a eanviciion th?it tto« record coiilrilii si Kafflci«ynit In- 
formation - on© whic)- ih© ief en^^sa-it lo boiani to 'tJiwter. It an- 
p©arK on th« fticft of the r«sor4 that thl© Inforfi'-Btioii Isi pre- 
aentetl by ajr)o*l-«r tA'sm the .'jtatiP*« -■»ttor»iRy sui'-J ia r«ot v«ririffd 
iiy affidavit. An «»x.c«»r'.ti0n it im»ac«s*«ury to israsent what 
•l7«a4y ittppoara of r^'cor:?,'* 

Ott^er cae«i» holding atao.h :^i info nnat ion liisuff Icient 
wher« motions in the &rre;St ^rre iaad«» ar<j |;«0;Plf ^ v, 5 i o fia Jc ® g^ 381 
111., 295, 2$fe, a»»«i £e2Ei^ "V. Sl^fJI . SSO 111., 16^j. The liroec^dlngs, 
hovever, wer« further nrrsfrieouif ifi tfe»t the iRforffiation upon ita 
fnos sjfoowed ti-iat the aliejiefS SilsdiKSfisaaor 'S'aB "barrad. fey tha Statute 
of JulMitations* ii«e Joiaei® -^ Ad^liSigtaa's ^Uijaotat^v*. Statut^iS, toI. 2, 
cfeapter 38, efetion 4wll, 

Th^ -Sef endsjit ir*, error eont^n.-Js that the defensft of 
th« iitatiit® of 3- imitation* must be raised "by th« plea or it is 
waive'!, SacH is not th« lisw as w« tm4s9rsstaKl it in criminal oae^e, in 
which, unlike eirl.l Ofis<»«, th^ i»l«Mer mint stllagt statutory «3Ee<iT>- 
tlons, if «iny exist, which -iTOwle! pr®Y®fit the rmming of th» stattita. 
garrison, v. th^ f*«ogI^ . 87 111., 9S; l^aaVlp ir. T^ £«2IlMt ^^ ^'■^■l' 
5<^1; Chur<^i V. thg Peottle. IC 111. App. 222. It Kay w^ll be 
doubt«^d whetbrar, notwith3t»:C"Jf1ing a pl@a of 5;.iilty by a d<5fein4ant 
ts an IndletiT^tit ouch as this, the ju^^rsnt woul'T be rev«?rsed. 
^;i„fty.l^^ M ai. ▼. IM ?.£SPJ^. ^-18 111.. 4-91, 

For the rs&eons itt4iuat«d the jxiitx-i-ait ^^ilX 'be re- 
versed and the c-:iu«e rov-ismdedi, 

HeSuxely an^ Johnston, JJ, , eoneur. 




/fyf <3 O -^ a. ■."!»■ O iL> '=•■:' 

joHJr A. liirr^r. 

01? GHla.vilO, 


2f-ayt?iimB m^ mtmm m mas rnrns!* 

the emtrt* 

&mi O0ftr«« :g» ..:"4«Wt t^'.^cii^ %i44t t^ttr#ics 1^ «je'r&atjr ^&^ «9» 

dUited Ma.rafe X» '%m,^» «lil«2, . aaa Fofbiu^xafy 2S, 1916. . lis® 

■ase^fltJiJ^ rc^tsil i:^s«rv©d ilterfeta wf« |iO* ;vfi<jr th*? te«£l»iti<m 

:\'3 mmih of iNam$ t^'i, j^tJL^ & rvintt^piX «f ^i^ pidit:^:' x^niM cmo. th@(X'9» 

i'4is»fta»i &, new .i©«wB« JCor a %&sm of flTt jr^c^© bu^jliiiilag 0«t©l»e:r 

th^jit at th0 yja0 thin Xm>u€ {i^i^eh ^mtsi ^Ips^'ii lir Adi.aa) ^^n t@2M@T#d 
t« bin Im ii,sxi«dl it in t3s« ^r«a4.«9i«i» 9f ..a^ssn* Ob i^^ 2^, lt-^-3» 

)m %iiefsim.t'4d m Urn 3i»t di^ m' Jv3^$ i^^.S# tht ei>atr?>lllng 
^pft»ii«a before tSier tdLnl ^oa.rt im.« ^afe^ther .tha^ d-.t'saaadv-jrt la&d ill ^ 

ceiilrruiXii-i,,, r;:,.- ,.itl©» ill. thle GOtt.vt Is ^Sftlwr tHj® fladlr^i-j <»f 
t:m9 typl<.»3, imurt oa. tii'^i i»£fa«» «f fact i» iiX^i'-rXy esuX mmiii'>ai3^ 
ttgedii&'t 1iii« ''V^i^t (»f t3i« QTid^aaitte* l^c tmrav^a. ot proof - 
tl2<i 93.«it$.tiff • Vti» cvid'4id«£ or tiM wil3i@.a»®»i is in dijr^et a«^xi~ 
lli.oi» timt 9t Adajo t^ialj^ %^ i^w '^mft di:"f«Il«liyi,t did mti te«5€^t 
til« Ififtjiftt ti|uN% «f dc:t4^l!d:<;»t |3ba:it h«^ <lid ixc<'.«»pt it* Mt^ «'j'e 

'e4«oX4Mies« ii.ii9iUltar@®tM# fMIe tli« t^f «^ttv:.»i is Yds^ ,3SKg»|i i»i«)i!w 

t% appmwn srit&oiit «aa,t3ra4i«tisii. ite.-| fm mm^lj tlki*©# 
t3^s ps^Simssit Qf i»is3it. fit© 4«f«d;;a9tt. mmXd im% ^mmm *^5« iisf®** 

■. are Must «ili,1l«l W n&i^ tlfe4 tji© fiadill^ 0^ tSm ^oUA't i» ©l^v^jpl^ 

11^ 4u4pi£<e^ $,& timjti^t&i?^ isyfriis^d* 

^:Mirel^ i^mi ^FfOim&tem^ ^J*« ^^sotirt 

ausY . 

A:^p«a.ifa#, ) mm^i^^ mm 


;;5««jr©i<l# Jmi!S®ii%@il1^ SS'fe'ditiKrt imd tlifs g...-.jrai&hM®ii aiie^rs&jrtd «rT,a.l^ 

h^ Tm^n. i^^pmiit^ with >ila i'o.r thfs :^r^ilif>*&^# »f tfesis tj«i«ift! ^ ■■^--s^r^ss, » 

ittS "barely ta&d Jah»(\*MMt. .t.t . . ic..«M«»~ 

190 . ?d@4« 

• €«rpos-»tton, ]Sx«Gutor of thu ) 

A{>9«11««» ) AFfliAL JmOK SitJRICTPAL COURT 

o. o o T a 6 3 

■'•18. mK&iQma si-mtm MAfoxmrs 

Tti.i» is an is^pfAl hy the a«f«iidsuit6 tTunj. a jud^oi^st 
in faTor «f th« plaiailff i« a» ««tl&£i «f f©y«tfele 4«taii5«», Th« 
Ju«ftifpent wa» ectar** «i»«b %hn ravM&t v^tiirn^d fey & juary iryic^ 
tb« cftu»«» a »»tl<j« r^^ % aew t,.ifi«X. la behalf tf a«fta«.li*Jwit« h*ifl,»g 
%««! ©v«y3r?jl«4. It 1» urg^ci hsrt that tis»*t«ri(M «-vi{!.«a«« Hat ?^<l- 
»iite4 «ad tfe»t A ii«v trl%l c^houli h^re fe»«xi gTjar«t«4 %«eiAt«« th« 
▼<f»rdlct wa» asanlffffttly mi «l»«rly agatutt tlh« ■wfft.frht »f tti« «irl-. 

tlff introduced a ««rtifl«d ooj»y of <m ordstr ©f ih« Prsbat* o©«i^ 
«iithorl«l&s th» iJlalBtlff t« aot «• trttst<?e of the «»tat« ef Otto 
Pvrtsdb. aad a i«a»« frtm l»«jPt«oh to 4«f^r4R.iit ^ars»3r«t i.. Sti«ss^«r« 
tt«4« oa ^mlr 1» 19^. this l«a«« tlftmi^eS to h&v th« pr«e$la«9 a«»- 
orifeed m» "Hat* 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 aa^ «, ie th*s imil=ii«g kti©im »• 3831 
and 34a3 Grand l5oul«TArd in Ih© olty of «hi«jflkgo, to te ooewpiod mm 
a dwolling at:id apartJ&act hotel sia^^ for »o oLhtir jsurg'Oe* «rliat«^«*,* 
The Iftaso 1>j its own tent* ftxitlrei on Jtme 30, 19 as. By tho toTss 
of thie l^B.n9 the l€i«8«« ooircnarito she Vlll not &IXoir th« ««id 
pre3ato«» to 1»» usetS for any purpose* that will incroaso tho rat« of 

writ fa oonoimt of iM^ nart? grf th« fjro^ ^ SiMk* * 

Ttit plaintiff aloe put In <rri(!en«e an Inlflntwro mmde 


July IS, 19^5, l>^tw«<!ai E* I*, ^^-ma^et* a« i».*Tty of %h» tirwii i>art, 
l«»aor, imA Lttthar All«n, -party «f the atcond istnri t l«e0««, Ti»h«r«ln 
ft l?art of th««« i»r«yala«» va« d«K5l»«<l to sftid Alleis en :^uly IS, 1<3SS, 
«ntll th» 3C/th ,1«y of J»u«, 1934. 

^, L, Ohaial&^aMi, tht 4«f«a<t»«i, im» e»ll»#! imi «. wltn«s« 
ty the piaiistlff aa<3 t»»tifl«-4 that a?fe« li.%« !«»»«<* th« nat to Luihor 
AXltoi foir eXftiroa saoothii mx^l a half tstt 1X50 « month, :m4 thAt «h« 
w*ft the party «ho«« na«« ■««« »lgK«4 to tlit 3.««i»o. Af tajrwarda, ao 
ft wlt£>e9» Uk her ovfi ^#jb«af , »h« t«astifi«4 th»t ad!\« auMsi atpxurt* 
»«»t« a» a iB^aCxft of liveitbo&dj ihftt 8h« hs4 »lx 8«iren rosna fiatnj 
that »he linrftji on tht flrot fl««r and iNBiiit®4 th® s'«at of tho 
Imllding 6dB^ r<»itft4 any »iz9 mf mp».wtwi«n% ^^utixm^t thmt &@r houtft* 
h©X4 coi5siat«4 0.f h«?r m>t)ft«)r, h^r 'ia»5«.l# 'ma4 hnr^^^Xf; tfea;t sfs-e hai 
ilT^d on th« ?ir®ml«(g8 fox- thre*^ y©«rs X%»t |>att smii hM jilwayo mub- 
r«3t«-4 tliii fXait»« 

tMo©ntr»aict«4 «irid«s8« 9t?«i-w«4 ft Tlol-jitlois ©f th« iE»r«- 
▼lalont of tho X«??iki}© -wltlti r«<gar6 t© sublet ting. It ie l?isliBt«^ 
' thftt tho oourt orrea ia fi^fmittinis a st©,tsja«!9r5t to u© iaa «irl4«n«« 
thftt the a^«iet of tlio teull^log h-aJ liear^ colored i?«s->(;»l« i»»3ro asoir* 
lag into it, w'hlXe an elstjeotioo on oroo«i<»«x^k^laatio» wft9 9u8t»lH«4 
to tJaa nt&tmient ttoat tJio |srot»«!rty i»a.» in » coiored nslgh'bortiood. 
fhoro is a»t5:5ln^ la tlio rooor-l frsm »Mote we ceoi «let (srstsin* i»l>«th«.r 
thtt«« ruling* were ^roJudlslaX, l3ut in Ti«fW of th« faot that tfeo 
ttfioontraidietftd •vi4«rico <ftieoloa«d ft vi®3.»tio& of tb« oXa.uet ia the 
Iftftftft prob.i^itlii£ atibXettlng or th« presiilsoft or wny it>«Hion th«r«» 
or i?lih mt th« wrlttwa ooaaeiJt of tfea loe«»or, A«f»j~idayat» weTO not 
injured therety, 

&n tho «neontrii4.let»4 s^t^OK^t ikt ver^iet of tSstO' 
Jury eotilfl aat hmre "b«er. oiherw^iiiO. tb9) Amf^tn^nnta «ui5g«»t thftt 
tl»« el9k«oft In tho Xooittt f^oh l»r«ivi*i»« that t>i^ 4<isal3««i i»r«j:'.i»«ft 
ir«r# "to 1>« oeettpieA for » *»«lliBg a»4 A?it. Hot«X,* aaiounto to 
ft 9«n>is8len to oublot, no^ that «tiio« tM© a^naarft In wrltlni^ 

, v; cfe 1 5 if J- X) s -m I a i 

GOAtrol. ve do xtot eo»atru® this fdirae* aa ihevln^^ it to h* th.« 
lAteatiofi of the pi^rtlti^B th«kt » »ablea»« might Vft at^t, 
fl»« Jtt4fja«Bit will tfe«p«for« to« ftffi3roi«d« 


RARKY B1..0CiL, ) 

V8, ) 

) coimT OF COOK coijSTy, 

J mm H, HooFM, ) 

20 O T A /COO 
eJ t-^ -i. & -"i * '■'<j !Q ^ 


This Is Tui appeal by tht tHftiidaut from im IntRr* 

e«Ttmin suit a ia forcible d»taia«^r in the ]«unici»4i.l court af 
Cfeioago, from tranefwrring th@ title aluiued by hiiB in certaia 
r9»l ©state anrl from ict«rf eriisg with t3a« i^oas^aaion of oompiaiiic 
ant and hi® tenant ?., 

fh«» orler reoit«8 that for #ao4 eaas« sshoiKo tfe« ln» 
j-unetlon abould issu0 witi^ewt notice* Mid thfit d®f«B<S.afit lurguss 
•her* (oitliig a larga nuiaber af ca»e®) tfeat it to*?© inot a$jp@ar 
froja the bill or affidaTlt attached thereto that thf; cojvtpl^iiaaat 
woul^ hare ba«n in^tared by s^srvlng Rolloo, iUJd. Ibat it was tbere- 
fore srronoous to m-tmr the ord^ir ^ltb.o jt giving notice. Chri. st^^it jrj. 
▼• ££SE3JL» 2^® 111., S44; T'h:ur at??A v. Cb.gttt . SS ill, Amu, 943; 
.^SLklilkSH Con i? t r^ict, ip n C^ap firv x v, ^.^asi£t ''^ 111. Adp. 394, The 
c&9e0 cit'»<* hold that, In a, Oise lixe t> is, it mtist be wade to ap- 
pear to the court, Rol 'ia the conclweion of the pleader, but as a 
n^eessary Inference from th« facte stated, that the rij^hte ef the 
coffiplB-iziant ^ill be prsjudiced by giving notice. The afftdavit 
which was attaeba'l to tha appeal stated that, if notice wae served, 
the defendisat «ouid convey the preotlsee, and the defendsait aaye 
that injury in this reap«*ct Is precluded by the provisions of 
■ection 57 of chapter 22 of the ntut,te, Krfeich provide* ia sub- 
»t»r.oe that ev^^ry suit ir* equity affecting or involving real 


aSfi":;;* .i'•^«^«»1ff. 'i.^ i ftf (tf t 

.?Ali^i^ •" riy.?^;'^v; .!till?T?J"T'ji?*:* 

TjrGi»«rty shall, freis the tlia<r» of filing t3s« Mil of eoRiplaint, be 
censtrtjetive notice to every j^eraon sulbso^u'witly aaquiricg An ln» 
t«ria«t in or lien on th© Tarop^vty affected fcn^relcy, mid that every 
»uch psrooia 8li?ill, for the* jvurrjoae© of lb® act, lb« ae«aaed a tubse- 
q^ent purchaser i^tH ishall 'b® fe^-ucid Isy th® proceeding© t<v tha same 
extent iisrl in th.ft saiu® isaoner .ii« if he ?''&» a party theret©. 

Both th-a appeal '.aid tb« affidavit aay be eoaaiderod 
in deter&iGijig wlsther the chsr/lyitg: was eufficl©Rt, acd while tb« 
Affidavit stated oiiXy t^iat the injury vrouid TtmvXt frafc a canvey- 
aR<j« ©f th«^ pr«aiii;ea, tba Mil,?.'hioh dsj it® fa©« 3«ts up a, vary 
ffi.«!ritoriotia ease, shows thai th?,? trial of the suits at law ^©r« 
ii35r(iri<--nt rniv^ thai th* def®a4s*at was iist^^rf «riag witk t!ie tei:*sti!itB 
of com|slts.inisint. ^^*s think too, riotwitkaiaiidinh th« etatutsa^ tjhat 
a coiav*yai>oe of tit* preimlses ta a third pairty mlgM ^©11 have r«-> 
Kult«<*., ir. nr«judio© to coiaplfiiamiBt *« rljTr-ta, 

W0 hol4 ths C'^urt 'lid aot -irr in ls9ui»ig the inj\jn«tim 
without notie« uoojj the aViO-sfiag miade by tha bill jaad, affidavit at- 
ta.i3h^d tV^ereto, 4«3it1 th(? or4«r it ill "be affirxiicd. 

h^tf^h "? ti^^' 

M *M* 



99 - 28S75 



2331'^^- dS^ 

MB, Juuticii sman'soM DM.iviim^ the oi»iiiiojs oir tu^ couRy, 

This le ac fstpfieal by ilarl a, Sarumrlne, defendant, 
fr«e ft Jvidi^Lent in the ttvm of l3,uOO again «i hi& kmd Paul 
Tertioohle la ao aetlon broui^t lay Johanna LxaadlslmA^ l>lal»tiff , 
to rfteoirer ^IwasMjtt for Ixj^urlss reeeivad 1« a oollii&ieK of fch« 
aotoiaobilftt ©f Ert»iine ^md V«rtleo>tl©, all«gM t» >t4V« !»««» 

Th» plaintiff wnd har •©«, Irlo S, LimdMadi, w^ira 
ridlni; In En!»rla**« autoBio'bHa ftt Krtjarlne's Invltsttton, Thert 
i»^x^ 8ev«m patoeKigftrB 1« the ayftosiol^ile t^f Vnrtic&hio, The col- 
lision ©ccurrad in GhloAgo fti the Inisrsactlon of As l-*]ttd «Y«sm« 
and S&l»©ral mv««u(6, lietvetn t«n and ^lf^«a o'clock at night. 
AtrOLacd aT«nu« le a north and south 9tre»t and MtOPieral ».T6a»u« «& 
east ao4 we»fc 8tr««t* The »ei^,i.borhood Is a r««l.ler.c« dlrtriet. 
KxuffiritttU ftutk^obile was gol»g aouih is Aafa*ii<a a,Y«nu« and 
V«rtlcchio>c aatociObll« wsus going «att iu B«a»oral av««uft. Thtirc 
ir«»« foxir i9«3r»ott« n««r the •eeiie of the accidiRr.t, who wei* »y«« 
wltaoe»ea of the collision. Their tcatlaony is la sons regp«ote 

Frtwik ^, Vogt, Qalled PkU a wltB»«» for the plaintiff, 
was on«? of the ey<»«witn9»se8, V& is an ««s^lneftp a».1 oh«uff«%ir 
fof the Plre Department of the City of Chicago. He testified that 
be was sitting on the platfonsi of the engine house in a chair 
faeing north, about 5 feet from the hull^lng line on Ashlanfl avenue; 


f «rf fve, L. 

that h.t had beofi out thiare off a»(l ©i» all th« aft«rBoon ?«nd ttlght; 
that i^iQ engine h0u»« is 021 t)!te s»ot9;thw«>st t^f^mer %t the lnt«r««e* 
tioa of B^moiral s^d Atl^afid »T9nu«8 and fronts «ft,tt on 4«}3l«nd 
«v«nti«; that it in a>>©«t 7 .fett fro© tl^e sia®walk line o« Icotfe 
frOBt aRd #ld«; tl^at ht flrwt bum &jmmriK«*8 auts^oMlt i?h«m It 
wma iftb«ttt & bloaJc to a %l,0oi£ mui a half * ribenut 45'^ f«»«i; t}:-.i&t h« 
vaifthftdi It for %h% »ntire l)l©c2fe ;&» It eauae fro« tlhft niartb on Ash-. 
ls»di »▼«««« J t>5at it was going at tii« Tai« ©f about 15 ?;dl«« aas 
hour; that hs- first b«w ^ertioofelo'* aut«wK«>'feil«( tm BaliAoral »Teiiue, 
wh«sn it was a.'bout 15? f««t fc».©k fr®m tl5« ©idi«!walk lin<^ oa 4«hlsurid 
ftTftnu«)! that it ^3^8 a'feottt 24 f««t frosJ th« •'r^at eurla iin« ®f Aah- 
laxid avonue; that it was geiag abeut 8 to 10 ®il«» an hourj that 
a« near as Ji,€! eould ^udgft iljr«mriii«*« autoaobiXft r®ach.«'1 the nortb 
tti&mtt^lk iiue ©f A»hl*ti{| av^ria© at tb.« »aEE.® %im& taat ?©,*« 
■mtoitobilt r«*eh«4i the w«ait gldtwallc liufls ©f Aslhland avtriusj that 
JLraaarlJie *at«pp«d &n th« gas aa<! out Ms oar eattr-eorner^d*' afid 
t»»nt 0V«r to th© east jsI'1« of the atreei ta %v<.)i4 V#sjrttQeh.i©'« cjar, 
«n4 *©p«<S ui» frona tlsat ©rc>»»tag \mtil ^li^^r® it was bitj* tfejit 
V«rtic(Shi0*8 autOi?;«^ii« struck tfe« ylgjit r«ap mid of Ejn8!iirii»« '^ » 
»uia®dfeile; that ILruaariafi** aatoajolsil* turn«ifl aroimrt aft»r it 
Vfts strueJc sind w*» f'%eiMg on a northw^tt »« lying oa its «sid« 
BftMT tl3« »tmih«a«t cmmttT «o th« crosftiag «if th« atre«t *ab«ut a 
ciup leairth* frtsa i#nfy« the colltcion doottrr«4t that V«rti««Mo*« 
aut-oKohile WA8 over on a la^^n east of 4ahl!4P..d aY««u© wa-l ^bout 
80 or 75 f««t from th« plao* wh«?r« the acei^eat h?A|»f»fin«d; that the 
la«n ha4 b«fm 8pa<Sft4 ui)* »odSa(t imd ii««deiS doim, und that the 
i»h««l8 of Verticchio*« «ut t^asol; ii « w^rst <1©wri iato the soft groimd 
doop enough to loaro a %rt&^ along tho pariewajr; that th« eolXi»ion 
oecurrod *a llttlo to the oa«t of the ce«t«r*' of Aohland aTonus; that 
i^rumrino'ft auto^^hlle was goin^ ahout Id ^.ilee an hour at th« tiwa of 
tho collision; that it was ftOing fa»t<9r than wher. it -was further up 
th« hlock; that it di^'t slour 'Aown hefare it cswao t® the inttrBSO" 


tlon; that Verticohlo»» atttowolstle BMilntala<*d «\»ovit th« wast* rfttti tdf 
•^••4 • 9 to XO mlX<9fi on hour * ^ntll th« «olllBlon oo';urr«<l, 

tla« plaintiff, 9am th» acel'lent at th« il»« be ajnd another jsaa 
w«r« sitting on the d«or«t9p i» front «f thft hovi«« ^h«r« Vj®, Blnk, 
lives at S3 57 >S>iortl» Aahliswsdi avamue. H«, Blnfe, ■».»» a"bout 3C* f#«t 
south of BftlMoral aT«iiu«. Btjok furtb«r t«»tlfl««i aa follo'wst flxiAt 
h« wa» looking io a northerly Ureetioo; that h« first »aw Kri8®rln«»i 
auiosiobilo wheii it vojb about 100 or 150 feet fro^ th« north ouirh of 
Balmoral avorme; th&% he also saw tM« automolrllo of Vertiochio ubout 
100 feat west of As^iland a'<F«nu»! thnt ho aav Isath aut£}»obile« at once; 
that ILnOTriae'o autoajobile 'ivaa going »t tho rat« of "psrhsjija** twenty 
wiles an hour; t>hat Vortlccbio 'fs ^uteisobilo was feCiliig at a"bout th« 
««m« rate of sueeiJ; tbaf it apo-fe&rs^ to bi« th&t >^®tli «%r» "ae^olffiratfed 
tholr 8pt«d in a way lEauftdiataly looforo t>j« aeeidewt.'* 

Charl«« Kooli , «* witn^aa for th* plaintiff, irr^a m\ *'^y'=?- 
wltnoBB of tho »eeitl««t. Ha is a "const i-jct Ion r«!^ort«>r«'* Tho i>erti« 
nont part of his tootlmony i» as follo'^raj B« wae ^jal'klog oouth on 
tho TToot 8i(?o of A«hl«aid avenua about 79 foot north ©f B;ilm©r»l ava- 
QUO, ??h«a ho first "pai.-i special attention* to KruEarin®*8 aatoKio*bile 
it was half way across JBstlJsoral avenuo, about four or finro foot from 
whero tho aoeidont happ<!no4. It had pa«6«4 him ^Rsomswher© along 
thoro" but ho "didn't pay any spooisl attorition to it,* '^«g h« 
first saw Vertioohio's autoaobils '*lt must have boon about I@ or SIO 
foot west of iht ourb lino of Aa>il'Ufid ar^nue on Balmoral aTenuo,*' 
and approxi£:<atoly ton or twolvo foot fron tho point of collision* 
Eo waui iinatelft to 93tl!».iit«? th© spoo^ of tho autoasoblles btcanso ho 
*,Just saw thfiffi a f«^ aomonts b#foro tho aeei;lent itaelf ha^jpsnod • 
p^rbaus a socon^i or a seeond «n4 a half," It "n^^m^ as thoo^" 
Voytle«hlo*s autf»aobil«! was >^oinig frssstssr ty<tm ltr».aarin«'8 • ^^ilaest 
two to ono fs-ster. " 


.4«oth«r «jy?»»wltn/?ei» of the aooldortt, (»all«d "bjr tla« 
plaintiff, WAS ChiirX«B i^«tiicbe, Jr. H0 t«aUfle4 eubstara ially 
tliat he fkBd his "wife wtrrt walkini; boic* on th« went nide of Ashland 
ftY«auft; that the;^ iitart«<) e»at &«ro0S Athlon! 4T«nu« to Clark 
itr««i j«n4 Balaoria KYctuui^ t<;? a driag ator«: t>mt they orossodi th« 
street euad were on the sout^iesuit comer of Ashltiiid avenue imA 
Belffloral arenue; that he firet asM Krunriae** aut:aiol^lle iwhexi it 
was 1CXI> feet from Balmoral «£ireri«« aad Al»otit 40 fett fTom "wli.ere the 
aocli<rrnt occurred; ih^t It was on thfs rif^ht h.'mi side ©f the 
•treet; that It wa« going about eight or t^n milea sua ho^r; that 
he eronsedi the street In front ©f it a)i(i hadi "plenty of tlae t© 
aaJce it;* that he wal.kft4 "In a hurry a»a his wif« ran;* ihat hie 
attention wae first called t© V#5rtlcehle*s aufcoaio&Jle hy the pounc- 
ing of the ^sriie;in» whloh "aouadled as th<3ug,h, it was going a pretty 
good ealt;" that Vertloehio'e autosiotslle vae aho^it 135 feet fr«B 
the west aicte of Ashli^md aveime when hi a attention waa first oalled 
to It, an4 that It travelled about I3w feet to Xhsi pl:^e of the 
eoXlieion; that it was going between ti^enty-five mid thirty miles 
aa hour; that there '♦iJidnH »e<3B to fe« any chaii^e In- oiih«r ^glne* 
la refer«snee t« alterlag or ehan^^lajl the rat's ef speed hefore the 

' IBifie 0, Lun^hlftidl, a eon of ttoe plaintiff, t«?atified 
In "babalf of th« plalMtlff on the »at«rlal f^ota as follows; Ximt 
he w^s ri«Jlng in the front enat ef iLn»9rin«?*s automobile; that the 
autn^ohilo was going aheut twenty- five sailer an hour In the hleek 
Iwme'llately north of the seem of the aocl-rlmit; that f»heji he first 
saw Verti«chio*8 auty®otile, KrtJ^rlae'e lAutoEsobile was ateout 100 
feet from the north exxrhetone of 3alamr»l aveeaue tvaA was on the 
right siae ef Ashland aveeue; that Vertieehio'e autcaofcile was about 
100 feet fro» the ^est eur% ©f Ashland avenue about the oaae dlata*tc 
*we were from Baliftoral av^snue," an<1 was goin,^ about the easts rate ef 

vp99d (ui iiTiWirlne'* »utomolile; th&t '»fe«n ht firat t hw 1?«rtloGhio •» 
automobUft he told &nwrliie to "irftiob out for that maohlnt, wait;*^ 
that liruarino *took hla foot off the aoselerator for a flai^, or a 
second or «o, and started to put hlji foot on th« "brisilc©; that iCrun^ 
riHB "evi'^oritlly chjiwig^d hla Bilnfl for some r«a»on or oth«r and i?ut 
hio foot b^ok on th« accislerator and gscvo it mor« juloo^ flhoatlng 
th« oar ahet0 fa»t«!T than wo had boon going 'bisfor*;'' that hetv^ma 
tho tiEs*» nhen Kni»rlBe took t^ia fnot off tho aoceloirator and put it 
ha«v, Krtaarl»«'« aut'=sso"bilo *alght h«T0 traY«?ll«d prohevbly 25 or 30 
fo«t aore;" that ''Inatoad of going «tralg5-;t aneai! on th« right «ld« 
of tho roa4, iTuarin© o«t ov«r towards the left - In oth«r wcrdo, 
towards the aoathoast oomer • kind of rtamlng a^^ay fro® the oihor 

Xho plaintiff corrotoratefl hey oon's t^titimoay that h» 
vamtd iTuoarlae of the approach of Verticchlo'a a\it<»i;johll«. 3ht 
tsotlflod that h<sy oon issiia, *Look. out, B.r«^, there's a i .achlii* 
coming, otopj* and that after that }^wssirixi&*» autocobllo "went a 
Xlttlo fuater." This lis all that sho k&owe about tho aeoideut. 

Vertlcohlo testified that h« first mm Krasirino'e auto- 
Molill® wh«n It was about 125 feat north, -md whesi h«?, Viurtici^io, 
was about 7S feat froja the west curb lis© of Aonlard aronua; that he 
haa no Idea hew f mat Kjrwarlne'a automobile was gc.lng; that he, Ver« 
tlcehle, was irelng 10 or IS miles an hour, anl that he 8low«d dowa 
t© 8 rallies an hour when ho ^as i?ithl» about in feet of th#^ weat 
eurb IIko of Ashland avenue; that Kr^aarlne's autofaoTblle at that time 
waa abOQt 40 feet or ao north of the curb line of Balmoral av®riue; 
that KruEirlno kept on ©off.lng in an easterly dlreotioii a®d. that h«, 
Vertloehio, keut ob going; that he, Vertiochlo, did not ijicreaae the 
sp>e«d of his autameblle; that he belleToa that Krianrine'a autoaoblla 
^'aa about 20 feat north vh«n he, Vertlcfihlo, sta-rt^d to cross Ash- 
land aTeuuo; that he, Vertlcchlo, was expecting that lUraaarlne** 
automobile would atop beeauea he, Vtrtloei^lo, hud th@ right of ~^ay; 

■"^atri'-t^ istihi 

. i-a Ifii', 

SKUr^ k9WS:: 



i.^. imn 

,^mi4 *d- 

, .,^;,i«iiji: 

'.^^Jk'if%^ ■ 

:.-Xi.iU%^ kfH^lSV 


> lOi 

that he, Verilcohio, appli<?(3 hie brak« and wrunt;. la « northerly rU- 
ritotion; that «h«iR he saw that h« w»« ifoiag to hit Kniarln«'« a*- 
tttstsbiie he took his foot off th«i ga« an4 put it on th« "brftkA, 

Krmrlne t«8tiflej! that ^hen h^ flrtt »«n» Vertleohlo's 
•Ht«mohll« ht, Xrusirlne, waa 'Sxaetly 79 fe«t from th» oyr'b lin«i 
that h« jasasurftd th« <f[l«t%nc« and knevi it b0©aij»« h^j »ir» V«jrticchl«»» 
tiutosio^il® at »oon ss he, KrvaariBs, oarapr out from behind tbt huiXd- 
lng« north of the vf»cant lot; an^5 that Vertiochio*8 aatojaobH* ««« 
•t th« allay haoJc of the engine hQU0«, about 160 fsst frora AohlaiuS 
akvenue] that all that ^ric i^undhlad »ai4 In r«f®reno« to V(srtiochio*» 
automobile w&B, *K.ryBi, do you oee that oar?" an(3 that he, liriiearine, 
said, "Yes" and took hia foot off of the accslftrator and put it on 
the brakf*: that irlc Lundhlad did, jaot say "i-ook out* or "^^t;* that 
ho, HrvoarlKe, wsui probably travelling 20 miles mi hour at th« tiia«; 
that ho probably »lov?iid «iowa to B or 10 milot an hour; that Im th« 
ae«UQtlA« Vorticchio't aut 011*0 Trilo a owod «3o«n *«rhen X w&o about 100 
f««t -west of Afshlnnd aT«naej* that when h» tow Vorticohio'i attt?»-Ao- 
hile Plow A.omi, h« coiiol«4e«f that h^, Krusarlne, "had tho right of 
i#ay ©.n-! otOTpfs*! on It;" that he took hla foot off of th« hrdfec ?«nd 
put It on th« «ocelcrator again; that Yortiochio'a c%.r anoarently 
fttartd to spood rxp after slo'^inc; 4oim; th«,t he, Kr-aaarln©, fr&ytf 
hie i».ut.?mol5ll« "k,!! th« gfto it isoitl^ taJ^t - everything it had - '^^ 
out over to the l'?ft si^M of the street,'' 

IhroQ witaeaeo* who 'y/ers pa«a«n^«!r« in Vorticohio's 
e*r teetified, hut thoir teetis-oiiy is not ;iiaterial. They aetw 
iSklraoBt nothing of tiui accident* 

One of the principal groundt on wbich coined for the 
defoTidtuat ftok for & rovoraal of tho JutU»«sni ie that th«r« is a 
•groat prOTJondorance^of the ovi-ifnce in f^vor of the defendaHt. 
V>at iiB not a prt'oieo otateKOiit of the forja of the quoetioa for 
ue to consiier on the «rvidonee. Although t»ben w« wfcigh th« #Ti- 
A«aM wo nooeosarily cossider the luostion of propoitdoraneo, yoi 

.j^-iu *,vj>»)tj 

■■T& ii-Uivi'sftXu Tfe^ti- «;x/ Ijt:.t'-q[5 -vj ;*-:?^-i£?J< 

th« «XAOt foria •■f the inquiry 'rhic'h this sourt -puraut^B In reiff»r4 
to t^** ©▼Idenc*' l» generally «xpr(»»«#4 la th« torwaX* whtthftT thi» 
▼•rdlet of th® ^ury l» jpaar;lf«>«tly agalnat th« *«ljjtot of th« #»Ti1«Be«, 

CouriH«l for t>^e lefwudant, Srusiriin», hair* )©%*« a Ttry 
thoroug}) ftnd c&roful analysis of the airJld«nco. Ani they h3V3 arfi;u«4l 
their interpretation of the- OYl.-loiieo with a great ^eal of falrnoso and 
foreo. ^e 4© not doem it naee»»m.r;y to review all of their argument 
la 4et»il« Xt is aufficifflRt to say that th« aubatsuiod of th«ir eoR- 
tention, aB the^-- have atated it» is Uiie: "That th«s dofond^Tit, 
iirunrine^ had «!Jple roaaon to ihiok hi? 1^14 the r,la,ht*of-Tay MJd ^&t 
h« vaa not Begiii,:«nt in startiiig" to orasa th# atrstatj er, ae^ they 
have «3Jpresa«<l it i« s«©th<i?r l'©n»» "^rxaarino was juatlfiaa in )*e»i»siing 
e'h«a the other (Vertloohio 'a) ear Bio'-*«d down that ha had. the right- 
of-way*, an<i that "he was, therefore, not bouu'l to give* Vertictefelo 
tht rliht*©f»'s-«y, '•?« do not un'-JerssissJK! ecwiael for ^^f(^n4'Ai^t ^ 

Krijmrlne, aa e<>nt«B4mj.,; that Kriimrine priioa-rlly h&i th« ri/iht»of-w»y, 
Aa we readi their argwaent, they iasplloffly ©onoode thjat ticker tho 
atatttto in IXlinoia es "i'otor ¥«hiole»,* oiaoe Yerticohlo i-ae approach- 
ing front tJie right, he hiid the right»ef»wiiy in th«» first Inst 'usee. 
The atatuta providea ms folloiPJis 

"AIX vehiolea traveliiiij m^qu pu'iale hi,.}xma'ja ^hixXl ^,ivft the 
rifoht-of-^ay to other vshlelea miipros-tihitiii: along ititftroectiajg 
highwaya froBi Ih® rifc^t, and aJiall have tha«af-ti?ay over 
those approachlii^ frmi th-^ left,* Cahill'e lillnola ,H<?vie©a 
iltatutea, X921, ohap. 95a, aec. 34. 

In the ©aae of yartr44>;^ v, ^^MJLBXmMl, S^S 111. Afp, 

t09, 213, in which the opinion waa <5ellv«red by ,-..r. Justiee >;-.c« 

Stirely, the etatuto waa helA to mean {p, 815); "Tlsat a vehicle ia 

approaohing aa Interaeetlon frois the tij^^it, vlthia the mearslnf; of 

the atatuto, an^ ^atitled to th** riiHA of way ».'h«n, on its I'^ft, 

on ma interaeetlag etrfret, ««5ot>-.'?r Vf»t'i<jle ia appro inching t»hoae 

<!rtver, in the exerciee of dJue care, -^oxjl $ or sho«l<^ a«« that t}rnle«i 

• ---. i>._ -* ~v,#_ftf.„av th4s v«hicloa mlsirht or would oollivle.^ 






.-•Si's ,*e 



Ob thiti eonfltruetl«n of th« stfttutis cou/itMil for 4ef«»idaBt, Krueurlce, 
contend that as itrumrins h^^ fairly «nt«r«(l xipen the orodolng; and 
*Wfts alnoBt «ntir«l7 a«ros« Bnlai«ra3. mrmnu^t,^ mxS a« ¥«rtl®chi« 
hflKl »lo^«<3 down, in<!ieatln.$; that hoi mmkHi yleldi th« right-of-way, 
Ijru»rlnc beoauaa entitled to the right-of-way, la rsjieripg th« 
conoluftlon thi*t KrtHBTlne wa« entitled to th« right-of-way, it 1» 
obTloud that eounsel have ftasui!i«d that th« <i»Yidond« Jwoitfioo the 
following InferencoiJ That Kruerlnift fairly sat^r^d upon tho oro«ft- 
lag; that be was almaet entirely tioroas B^lmor^l ^v«'i»ue-; that 
Vortloehlo slowed do-mn &» he epproa,c^.ed the lnt@r««ctldn. 

the evideKce, hoTever, rolatin^; to these qaestions of 
fact is eonf ilctlng. the verdict ©f the .liary ietsTKiiiaed tho <^n^m» 
lions adversely to th« rlof ^stdauit , JiTi»arlii«, an4 lajleas w« oan say 
that the TSTdiot Is marilfoatly ag&lnst tli» ir«iglxt of the (svld«nee 
the fer^ict should not be ^ietur'bftd. 

The ral» 1® % faj^lll&r one, and ttk» heen armotmced In 
Taany eases, "that '«ht»re th«r« ia ji contrariety of eyi iwice and the 
testltsony hy fair and reasona^ile intenfiiaemt "«rlll .at»th«ri«e the 
▼«r<1lot, even tho^ig^ It may ho s^alnat thia ajs-parent ^fl'iir^it of the 
eTl^-?enee, a r^riewlng ootirt ffill net set it ael-le,* ^sM^SSX ^» 
gJieedY . 396 111*, 78, 83. It is also the rule that a Yerdlet 

will not bo llsturbiwl werely fceeause the evld^nae Is douhtful. 
JUJLiTiSiA ejsntTsi MUjCSM <Lommj ▼• £SHij§JL. 32 111.. 116, 121 { 
Oei^oras^ ▼• Oder . 42 111., 5qc, SOI. 

flietn the teatijsawriy of the dsfenaant Kr«rairirae is con* 
sldered, It wUl ha perceived that he narrows the ^^u«?atlon whether 
he h.^ the ri^ht-of-way to the ii^seue n^ether Verticehlo slo^red down 
f^m. h«, Verticcbio, was aheat lt*0 feet west of Ashland avenue. 
ILrtttBrlne tsetifl-ftd as follows! *I should ~ay he was about, Biaybe, 
100 feet west of Ashland. When 1 eaw tJje other eair ( V«rtlc<shlo*8) 
slow down I concluded I had the right-of-way.* To justify that 

ScfsT' ^nlrmn 

^y Y****5 

".m ^if.„ 




Hw^ff^.'j.^ . ■'^1^i^■%c.• 

eenclualoB th»5 (!nrl-i«n«« shrui i a>»ov Urectly i>»at V«Ttlochlo*» 
automobllft M4 alow doim -^tm It wa« atout 100 f««t w^^t of 
4»>il«na a-vftnue, Tf t>>i« faet ealj arp^ari lay r^aaona.'blfl liif-trr«ao«j, 
and If anot,h«T foot contrary to It also msiy tio lnf«rr«d r^asona'tely 
fr«u th« »vtd«J!c« with oqual c«rt!!»,lnty, ther« woiil«! be no rjoattivo 
l»a9l« for ikrijmrlne •» aonaltjsten, Ca , a4ofi v. ii,ato|2a|jlM» '^-'^ ■^'-^» 
226, 239, S30j kmsfTfi. v, Thf j^oaij., SS4 1X1., 170, 175. Cr, to 
•atproto th«i rul« in aaotb^'^r form, if th4* ffAot relied on by Kruja- 
rlia« to supnort his eoacluoioE tViat he had the rl-^Jjt-of-way is 
OOi»iiroTert«?<!, and tvo «nttally certain lafsrfinofto 1» ri!fr»<^ct to it 
«imf Ts*? drawn fro» the »yl*l«jaee, Krtssirliie has not ^astaT&llahM tho 
fa«t wpon which klfi conclusion la predicatod. Is ti:!e qii^stioii 
whtther'Verticolilo '» a?Jitom©bll« nlenet^ dowa when It 'wa» about IvO 
f«et w*siit of AeblJan^S, aw»nv»4? ai v5«Btr©v«rt^.4 qsueistloini of faetv fh« 
»at*rl8l «Tl4f?nc0 in this rea-s^ot la as follovsi 

Lf»t«a>)ft, on* of tbe ®y«-is?it»«»g!«B, t'*«tifi<»'1 that 
neit:h«r Kr^flarlno nor Vcrtlcoht© *«*jffls*»a to alt^r*' tb« rate of sipesA 
of th?)ilr a«tosiobll«« Tsefore thn oolllelon, Vo^, »wioth©r «y«?~*ritK «»,«», 
tottlficd tKftt Krusirine •'^.if^ not slo-w do^sB ts^fore hp came to llj,e 
lBt*>r»««tl0n, and that he tteo«ght tliat 'V«iytl©ohi© '« jsutsKobiX*«dn»a arOttt tho ssan^ rate of speed of v^ to 10 mil<?s an Taour 
tt&til tho aecldont happened, Blak, also aw 43y«?*wltn<?60, t.?atifiea 
that *it fltppoar^td to tiim tl>.at 'both oars accaleratei th«ir spoed izi- 
medisitely "beforo fho accldorjt,* &och, th« other eys-wltcot*©, did 
not teetify wh«th«r olther of tho aatoraobiles alo'^ed down. He only 
•aw tho «utc£iobll9» a "uteond er a aecon-^ and a half* h«fore tho 
Aooldimt, He was of the opinio® that Yertloehlo'o autoijiot-ile was 
*tr«iWOlllng almost two to one fa«t"r thaa** KrTi^rine'a, Vartieohio 
tOBtlflftd that h(» al»w«4 -Jown to '^l^it asll^s an hour ■^hcn ha wa« 19 
fset nf the w«at ciirh lino of Ashlnud arwixje; that at that time 
EjrtBBrlno ^■'as ihout 40 f«et air »o north of tho cirh line of Baljaoral 
ttTOTJU?; that KTwarlne keut on oomlng and that ho, Vertlcohlo, 3c«rpt 


AOtJi's^-Si; x;C2/ 

J:ay Iv^c 

* ':'.iin^ti:i'9 

■.'.!*.": ?±dfl 

»<»l,v^v L 

' m IT assni i#i rit ; s « t ■• *■ 


oa going. 

On the qu«?8tion whether Vertiechio slo^red dowa Tfhen h« 
wac ftbout lU; foet wcat of Ashland avewue, t/n thiak that tiier« is a 
aontrov«rt«<3 ls8u« of f »ct » and that the inftsrmtide that V«rticciiio ■» 
«utoffiO\>lIe dl«? not alow down, wh«B it wa» about 100 f«at west of 
AthlawiA av«nu«, Ik at l<ja»t Q^aalXy &» e«rtaln ixa ti:i« ini'trmm^ thwfc 
it ■!!<!. •■'•'« ar« not, howi^?sr, resting our decision on thi© ainglt, 
iaelQt«<! fact, '^i9 have aarely iliftoussed thia .asR!)«ct of th« «vi<5.«ne« 
to slho'y fV!«it on the dftftsntlant KniiRrlne*9 o*wj th<«»ory of th* o^te we 
would not bt w?im>ntflv't in dl«twrbing th<« vsr'Jlct of the jury. 

On a cenei4«ration of all tJh« •▼ia^nesv, *« ^^r^ @l''*i»rly 

of th© opinion tlmt the T<^rdict ©f th« Jury i» net suMilfestly against 

th« w«iij^ht of th« e-yid^nee, Tht «irid«j.i5i«« thowe that both c^rtleckio 

and ILrtwrlnc realized that on« or th« otfc'^r -wciil-i kav«-. to yi«:ld the 

ri^t-of-'^ay in ordsr to a'voia a c<^lllsion, Th<j i|«f®ndaw£t, l^rvmria% 

coBclwd«d from th« r«l£&tiv« positions of thf- two autai&obilea, as 

th>isy approskCbiftd the croeoing, that h© waa ««titi*d to the right-or- 

Tay. It ■»»« for the jury to d««ia«s whether his cortciusisn in th« 

■ reiaasta«a«« ttae that of »n ordinsurily pytj4fiflst ami oarefyi iean. 

:r,he jwry deciiitd this ??usetion Mv^raely to the <i«f«/{4ant, iiTw&rina-, 

«jnd we think the «vti«ric<» i» iaa©ly 8«fflGi^*xit to sustain th« ver^iot* 

Thft jwry also 4ooiA«d that th© aollision resulted from the joint 

n»j?ligpnoe of >c*th Vertioohi© »r4 Kraiar1.n*f«, In our xitm there is 

pttfficl*fint «iri4^ne« to snatiain th« "rerdict in this r^^^spoot* 

Counsel for ths def eii4ai!it , Krysurin^, oo»t«i4 that the 

trlftl ootijrt oofiuaittftd r«T«r»lbl*! error in the giving; oX/ini^t'-ruoti^jn 

for thft o»-def enfant, V'srtiochio, whi®b eounssl aaaert h^^-l a prsi^luilli- 

ctaX ftff ©ot ae to the d«f«nda.vt, Krwerine, Counaei for th« plaintiff 

rafstintadn that if ^jiy error wa« ooamltttd in tn« girint.: of the in» 

straction for the oo— iefenlaxjt, Verttoehio, which they <l€tuy, tae 

tixT^T «ttRB«t )>• «<»&plain«d of by the def endaiit , &riiEarln$, On the 




JT; J Zl&'lL 

■XL •i.jmri 

; il'xani JM«r 



*uth©rlty of MfteDon^ll ▼. Chicaigo City £2. ££, , 38« Hi., ^39, 241- 
246, v« &r« of th« opinion th&t tha «rTor aasln^rasd on the instrue* 
tion by caufieel for tbe defendant r;ay "be ooneld^rad. 

Two otjisotiona are -ur^'eA T&y counstel for th« <:!«f»n^dini 
la coBECctloa with tlio in»triictlon, First, tfeat tb« instruction 
la, iu tieelf, erron«ou«; said, eocontl, th^i tbe in ct ruction "illreotljr 
contr&dicta* a& iaatructioa givors for the ^«fo»3aRt, ilrumrin«, Th« 
iautruction bivan for tiie co-dsfer^lant, V^rtlccJfcilo, i« tin follows: 
"Ifou »r«t Instructed that it is provilod T&y th« laws of this statu 
that All vehioles traveling tipon publio highways 8ha.ll ?;?'i¥e th« 
right-of-t?ay to othwr Yfl(hicl«« approaching along intercooting hi^* 
ways fr oru the rljiiht an;! wholl h&f« th« rl,ght»of-?^?iy Q^tr those ap- 
proaching froja the left,*' Thi» inetrwatie-tt Is in th« langtia.go of 
ectlon 35 of the "^iaotor Vehicles Aot," 

ftoe infjtruiction eiT«n for thw rlofewlant, Krtitarin®, is 

as follows : 

"inao oourt ittstmcts the J wry that if you b«li«trft from th© 
©▼I'^fiBCft that th<? aittom)hlle of th® ^^ef ^n-i^^tnt i's..rl 'I, IC'ruoirinA 
hvA fairly ojjt«r»4 upon th© crossing tr ^ufiBtion brsforc- th« fui- 
toBJohile ^riv«n hy doforuIi&Bt Paiil V«»rticohlo, in flaln view ot 
him reaor-.jifd srdd crossing, and if you further find frosi th« 
svideriO's that he eontinue^ over the ervi«E?ia^ wr.lch h«» h%^ so 
«nt'?rod upon, with all dwe cara .an-l oaution for the safety of 
others rightfully th«rt, if you ao find froas the «tvlie..c©, that 
he h:«4 fairly rsnt«*rftd upon aai<t oraoaini^ hsfor* th« Vftrticchlo 
oakT r^fiachsd! said cross Ltig, th©n yon ahoul4 find <?efftn;tant Earl 
G, Erxfiurlne not ^\ility. * 

CoiiXisel for the def©K,i;int csontand tbat ulthaugh the 

ifcatructlon which was givwi for V<9rti«chio is in the laiigwage of 

the statute, it do-^a not state the "law applicablp wn&iiT ths speoial 

irouaiat!*oo«a of thlB CHse;" that the law h.ik« htsen modifi«4 by 

judicial ooiiet ruction; thai the *a,ot-lfiuation is im essential and 

ceoftssary part of tha l#w,** and Bhould have ^een Inuerted in the 

Itietruction, Coanael for the d^fendsait ape«lflc«tlly atato that 

t!h*i instr^jctlon 9he^X4 haf« h««B siolifis^ by std^ling ths follo"«'ing 

el»«s«: *provid«d hoth vshielss arrivs at ths lnters»stlois at 

ai^proxim^atsly th« saffi« tiste,* 

itafi V 


■ . .'■■ ;u>^ir r,t'.. 

'- l-orv ^ ^.^-t 


It in asi'^erted by counsel for the dtfendsmt that *th« 
eonrtt haT9 n«»arly always criticised inctruotiona ;; Iven in the wsrdt 
of a statute, for th« reason thut they ore ii«»rly ai^-ays nbstrAot 
Mid niftleading." «^ft do not understaridi tbat to To^. tJ!i« rule. Qa 
the ooBtJ-ary, ordinarily *wh©r« san tostruotlon la glveo in th« 
laBguage of tho st&tuto it siu»t be r«:gar(?.«d '&a sufficient, toiseauot 
Iftjln^ d«-wn tho Ittw in th« wfurda of tfe« laur Iteelf owght not to bo 
laronounooa to b« orror.* U.^Tt^n,n v. ■ik\ii,t>ig,rti, Coal, Co^iift^aa:.. ??38 

111,. 84w, 551: Mitoliie cji„3i 9mt.mi ^. illnias. ^^7 in., sie. 

»S«5 Bonjg. li:^^. C£.y, 1 Cokq. C^« ir. Fgtjgli, l^t> ill., 41. 43, 44; 

*li. <iU2ii SMi iisaa^ia: -^^ ^4<mftoMi:» t^^^ ni., S38. 543. to 

i]^« oaeie of foot are th« oasos of ysr , ^ v. HansUJi^. 2J?0 HI.. 66. 
68, asi'i X^ F»».OPl<^ V. EfilSJtofli. 24S til,, 60a, m.56. 

In approving A» ijs. struct ion ia tfe® lang-uag® oi" tho 
•Motor Vehieloa Act,'* tho llii^iols Appsllato <3ottrt of th« J*oiirth 
91 strict, in th© oa&o of a , o»atttgit^<^g|jr v, Oomey: . 222 111. Arj-p. 417, 
•aid (p. 4ai)i ''In oftsso whero the i&otor Vohiole Act wao vtndor 
eoosi'ior&tlos, it has been hold that an instntction vrhioh lays 
down A rule of law in the words of the law itself ie good." 

IMless thor« is aam^^^ ir* gai ijastruction ciaculatod 
to nlsload the Jury in th« a|iplioatioi» of the law to th«s paartiet.i> 
lar oaso. no error will b« ceR;8»ttt«sd in giving the tontnxciion 
In the language of tho stattite. th ^ Feoole y. Mf lBtoa|aif 3ME&* 

In th« oase at bar wo do not think that thf»r« io any- 
thing in the inetr\iOtion oaloulatod to mlal^a-l tho ,fury. There 
is nothing obsoure in the phrase *ri#it-of»w^,* It >ia« a well 
tmdorstood saeianing. The jury undoubtedly know ^hat it junsaJt. 
The Century IHotlonory deflnna the phraoe ia« folioTrs: "The rigfct 
to paee over a path or way, to the teKporary excliision ©f otbersj^ 
a« jm eacprose train hao the right-of-wety as afe-alust a freight train, " 
(Century Dlotionojry ». v, *Way,*) The phrase *grant the right- 
«f<»wajr* in conneotioa with a statute relating to "a oroeslng 


i^C^'V ^et- 

: ■I.--J.X 

. <'ri'' ■ -■ \- 

^asKil ttiltj. X^ Ui^ I 


rule rtth a ri,7ht.of-viqr» lim« *««o held to m«»iiB •tb*t at such a 
©ro«slT!fr %h9 driT«r of on« t«Mc1« >ia« wn afflnaatlv* tluty to 
ktep out of th« othrr's Tray.- MkMMs^SZ '• Sliai. i?* ^* '^* 
Supp., S8t?, 287. 

The eti«e. of ilMilliliSli "*• £»>iLOJslia» ^-Mm* ^x^XflsaM 
the construction that th« or(!ins*rily intelligent aan wo\jld givt! 
te the $?tat«te, Thi*. ststut* i» n©t amlbiguotifii* In roiadlnf: th« 
iRfttnjQtian thft jury tmdmilstRdly unrter»too4 that th«i i>hxa«ft "shall 
giir« the rt rht-of-'way" sKtisnt, as we.«) hf!l«! Ik the cas© ©f X^a3rtri(ifcij> 
▼• g'bgrstelp.. c ut>rj |. that ths rlprht-of-^iray ahoal-l "fe® yt<9X«*.«fl whea 
It was reasonably apparent that "the Yiahlolet mlj-ht or "s^oul^ 
©oil lie.* 

It is ftsrt.ber cimtr-nde^ "by coisnoei for th<^ def eMatit , 
itmmrine, that "the jury o^uXd hav« h«iid KrwB»rl«ie aeglieent \snd«r 
the Jjoatruotlon as given, if VtTtieehlo h<^ b««ri in eight, although 
thre« hundred feet away fr^ja the eroeisiog 'when KT\mTin9 jre#ch(»d it." 
■^'e do not think that the jury rsasansibly woulfl haT© plaeed may 
Buoh cojistruetien on the irtatruotlon, C©!j^i8s<I for ^^fesfHant, 
ICn»»rine» Insiei that the ihstruoilon should have b««a Mo«2tfied 
euhwtantlally a« they have indicated. ■?« are of the OTiinion that 
Be modification was aeoessapyj that wlfh-r^^t .-wiy ;;;©<Stification the 
,t«ry i^ould have underetod the t»hya8« "shall giv« the right»of» 
-^^y" to «©an auh«tantially what it wae s.ald to mean In the oaae Of 

Counsel for the def^jf^iaiat saalataln that the inatriie* 
tio« "rSireetly oontradlets th*! instruction" giren for the tiof«:n4'«-it , 
Krumrlne. Ithiny argue that "if the ^ury followed w? i9a» alleged 
te be the law at laid down in the i«©truetioo* giv«33 fer the ee- 
Atfendaat, Verticchie, "they could not have found that* Krumrine 
*was fairly upon the erocsing and in the exsrcdee of 4a9 oars, 
lieoause thoui^ Verticehio waa one hundred feet "icafay, he was ap- 
vroaehlBg froR the ri^ght &n6, under thi© atateassnt of the law had 


v«4' «*,^ '"-^isvv. 


ijJ'^Ji ■ 

si,0kitmn$'Bm<i^ »)^4 

r*^X, %n 

■rjt* fiiss* 



tttXJtXfe* «l»lt 

rtl a^l;^4i«i;e 


th« rigfct*or»wf.ty; •♦ thftt "£.n,jmrlne's d©f<?nco, thftref'jr«, was t'hro'wn 
int© the (^i»card; ' *fi«l that t.h« inetrijctlon giT«n for V«rtioahlo 
"wa* incoi2aiRt©nt and oppose?! to d«f«n<1flint Kru?sirln*»'« instmotlon. " 

Wr^m th» ▼l«wt that we hav«i exnre»»«4 In regara to th« 
•Ijjectiou to the instructioa glv«n for th*» co-^«f endsu^t, V«rtlccKlo, 
it folloi*» thai we muit hold that tli« r>r«a<«nt eoatantlon of ccmgiol 
for %h0 -iefendtMit, Kjpuaari«e, i« uasoimd. If w« are correct in our 
ooaclusion that tha In 0t motion gir^r. fer Verticofel© wae ;> roper, 
ih.9ii the defsndaj;:'t» lixuBirtnf*, eamiot comnlaijj ©f eji ino,;»slst.eBcy 
©r c&jntradiatiou cau»«dl "by tJie inatraetion gir^n at his own r«» 
fl'ueet. ^'urtheratorc, tte© Instrisctioii glvan for th^* def «frx<ft&ftt, 
Kruintrin6, coniain^dl a mor« faYorisibli! »tttt®;:«st of th« I \m than h« 
iraa strictly entitled to. Th« Inrtrtietlon l«va«l#d the province of 
tha Jury. It siBglf^d out a at^tt® of facts wiiich b-*''&r directly oa 
tfee question "VlKJthar Krumrine hti-4 tfe« rigbl-af-way, sm.'* told the 
Jury that if t>i©y 'fe*»li«T«d thou® facte, th«« tJ^ey ehoiil4 fini the 
ieferdant, Krumriaa, not fuilty. 

Th© i^u««tion w'"bi> h-^.d th« rlght-of-ir*y w«.s on«s of 
faet for fha Jary, andl tha hi'^ should Jiavs 'feaon left fT^& to 
iftataritdna tfciat faet frow all of ifefli svideneu, Barfcri,^^ v. iiawM* 
202 111., 334, 342, 343; f «mn i^yl vnn.1. a ('oaip r^.^^ v . jfc.gC^ ii'frtyY- J'-'''''^ 
111., 169, 175, 176. It waa not the provlrjoa of tb® co^irt to tall 
tha jury psra^ptorily aa a aatiar of la??, rh.%t f.'*oi£!, if Tsellsw©-^, 
would or ??ould not d»t«rjniri<s tfee question of the riKhl-of-'sray. 

&sjge,l,8 V. Kut;igQhall.f §34; 111., 462, 468; FtAmaloaay v. tak-^s- . 231 
11.1., 276, SfH, It wag error to hare given the InstrtiOtioK, "b-at as 
the error was in favor of the (5«fo,adaj:it, Kn»arin«j, he eattnot com- 
©laic, ixi hni iry v, 3t€wrart . 1S5 111., 443, tb© coart uaid (p.453)J 
•Tte? court grav<» two i»@truotioBS at th© Infitarioe of tha defendant 
"??Mofe were r^ry fai^orablw to erucH d«sf®«'laMt, an'i -^idfi ootjKBel saya 
ejinuot hm hnr-fintzed wit]- the ana aboTO «|«oted, giv«n for the 

;jftiv*af.f'ai.ftvv ,. ■.*:jaf',cr* 

^fi.0 X^i 

-.^» fcflW" Tift »«triTc.-. '."G-fi «^?!'' 



plaltttirf. The d»fewdsvnt oouXd aat oh^ttet to thos4 jsrlvta nt hit 
ir.«tame«, Wid If he i« Bot abl« to harmoci»« thans ^vttfc tha corr««t 
Infiirvetloa gl^ta for the plaintiff it Is not ground for i^veraal." 

To th« »affi« «ffe«t i« the c«»« of BftMSl ▼• 2!iSliLki. 1^6 Ui. Aj»p. 
•^15, fV17. 

It la eareeotiy ooiateade^ by oo^lnaol tor th« c!«f«wia« 
ant, Kruiorirse, that a rsiiisjrite m*4e Ijy tfee plaint Iff « froai -^^hlodi It 
'»ou3.<l he Inferrod hy tho jury thext ths? def lenlsw^t, Krymrln*--, wa» 
^ret^ctffl^l. against lose by l»»«ra3s«28p i.m« prejltidlcial to the 40- 
fendart, Krimrlno, and con«iit)it»s rev«r«.lhle error, Th«» resBcirk 
wa« this; "Mr. I^nja fleets IxiSMriSunco c-y^mmny fts^nt tjyt ?v j«.:m» to yi*--* 
ITin rmy^auriE wag, uaade wbtwa the plalatlff w»« h«lBg exaBiln^?! hy c ur.»«l 
for the ^efoKv'lant as a -aitnoBfi on "behalf of th® def^idMii. The «3:» 
amlnatlon related to a writ.t^ri »ta.t<^®r»t ooaoorriing th« «.eel4«nt 
whloh a r«pr«Be«tatiy« of th« aefendaat oaajod Twyman h.^ pV9n«nted 
to th« plaintiff aad »'>ilch ^ft h»4 »l«ii«d, Part of the exatiwation 
la as follows: 

"aoufisei f^T the dofejadwitJ '^, Shortly .lifter yf>tt w«r* 
injured did a gentlftfeaa eossa© owt to seo you ar^.l sho-^ you a 
■pB.oer that I.T, KrwaTlne. had, algnad? 

Couneel ioT Iho piuUiiiff: ¥&it a aiiiQute, please. I 
v»Bi to Ql»^eot to thia. Flo hao ®ad« her hi» o^n Mrltnese, 
It*ft a loading qtiffstion, 

CoujniiAl for the dsfen^Sact: Can't I crooB-ftxai'dne her as 
isy own Triineoa^ 

Coynsel for the ulalDiiffs Ko, I ohjeet on tho ground 
y^« &r« croe»-oxaaslrilRg your o'wr -sritness," 

■ Tho -uanirv r«?«e1 th'^t Xh€ ^lu^iiXicr ^".^uld hf; <^4?;,«wex«d< 
the ©stttqalnatioa tR®o cor lieu ed: 

*'Oouia«ci for tho defendant i 01?! Mr. !h<ryra«B cojao out to 
«e© yoia and ah^w y©xi o. w»iE»er th&t *?e tel4!. ys^s Mr. K-rtisarino 
hiid signed? 

Coti/i^:*'! for thft T'la-i-stiff J That** ohjeot^'d t«, 

Tl'>?' Os'url.j Bh*f- pvay &ns9«r. 

5«HKap* for the- r>ia.mtlff i B^see^tlon. 

I*>r! Court: !^-i> ;f«>w .Imov* <-r, ?vrpiaii»? 

Counsel fcr the defeud?:«tJ ^«11, did asy ,?«»Ktl«B'ji5— 
ths i'ltu^se: jy^, gxajmrtfco * g AMMMiM e^ttoacy i.«fSi% 9^ 
a »aa tc »••>« 

Couii8«l for the ?l©fsnd«uQt: liow. If the court pleaoo, 1 ask— 
fhe Court: Strike it out. Just anowar the question. 


tfOt !»•« 


> >t. 


Counsel for ih« d«fer4;i»nt} I will ik«k tb« court, pl«a«e, 
that a Juror bp M.thdr^wn. 

'i"h«» Court: iJo. 

C0Mn<5«l for thti ■i'jfenisi.nt: 5ixo«ptlon. 

Th« Court! Just emmrer tk(P. qaot»ti«)n, pl^f'* iJtrlke 

woun<»«l f»r the d«f®«icUtnt; Exception to th« oourt'ii 
ruling OB my motion to h&Tt ss. Jlwror withdrawn a*nj tij«i g»«« 

•T>^ i'lf^r-rt? All rl^ht. '^^'S .'Jiijcr.d. 

tiottr.ts«l for the SC'r^^nt^jTotit} Mr«i« X^^mdMsS, M& % £.«xitl«siitti 
eeifttt to set you ana. tftll you, s«i«t sJ-iow you & l»ap«r that ]ia« «aid 
Mr* ILruaudno h^ algttedt 

6($ufle«l for the 4«3f i»«i&jitl Aga.iB I r«G«« tay motion*'* 

Th« rulft l8 *«11 »ottl*v4 that t1a« jury ahottld not feo 

laforaoA diroctly or ialtrfi'etly that tht aef^n-Sawt is T»roteot«d 

)Mi;%l£iet loes l>7 Inauranee. X$ut «t«» a»stsiulng tliat th<» only f«lr 

iaf<irftn«e ftrew tJj.'S r«j«aark of tfe« |}l«,l?itiff is that tii« €eif@3a.4«iat 

Krumrlii« was Inaure^ against losSf -mm ^ro of t)»« ofiiiiKm that ao 

j»r«iu<lleiial orror waa oosmitted. 

It la ootttBUrflftd by oouJiaisd for th* 4«*ft^n4aj3t thst 

althoug^l the resark waa ssa4« la ariswer to a ^uefition put Ijy counsel 

for the defoisfiaiitf it was still prajudi&i^al -urror. Cou&sftX argua 

fitB follows: *lh# rul.* t)tiii>t if^.vi^.m tKls i^Ie-gi ^«ts. ti? the jiar,y, &$ 

aiatt«r how it g^to th«>re, it ai^u^ts to T^yf^rnfUX'^ #rror, is 

t©© well »«ttie4 to U9oea«it&i<!* furtis®r axgiaag-at,** We think that 

this is too hroa4 a «tatG»ffint of the rul©, Casos iiaay ari^ag in 

which r«j->iark8 la r<?gard to th« ii«f*js4&i3t feeing liaaurad arts iiiot 

«ao*s«arily always growad for roverial, Q}^ a^ SM.^,^^^ ^» ^Sllsa. 

^27 iii,, BSfi, Se-j, £*!>; S^,^^^ V. ^y;HMv.^,Sl ^^^^^^?i1i <^^ff^i,^X* ^^^ 

III., 396, 404; Wftinlandor v. Vt^ltetsqa. . 153 III. App, , 137, 139. 

If, for «xflut;tjl(s, tho li3 f o rjaat Ion ahoulil ha tatentionsilly broa^jht 

out "by tR«( dftfiftfi',! • It. ia dl&fi? tt^at ?.h« trrtji- oaiinai "be corn- 

Xt ie t&.:crt'5-:«, hy sesjau^iel for the dofsBdant that tha 
atKfWijr of pXalatlff saa sot iunocwtly ma,1e, ^u^ -s-ia r«.»d« ^Ith 

Ihsrata an4 "^raaaftaitataA** Intant ta ififluanca tha jury. '^& A© 



rsrt X <i f^iij \<t^ 

feift i^^; y^ » i 4»' #». ., 



not thiiUc that ih« plftlQtlff ha4 tu^ idea of the legal «ff«ot of 
her remark. If 8on« oit& from th« Insitranoe coKtptaiy lo «hi«h the 
4efen^&nt, Krvusx-iiiQ, vui la»ur«<l, hatA b««n to boo h«r io roi^ord to 

tho aocla«^nt, It was n&turatl for hftr to aieritlon the faot wb^aa oho 

wao aokod "by ootuisol for th« r!of ©itdl?«nit i»ti;frtho» ft »s«jn ©«»*» oat to 
0^0 h«r lit rof«r<sjft«<* to '•a p'v^fsv th»t h<» sstli Mr. Krysariu's had 
oignod," 7h« faot that oh^ 3r«Y»««toa th« rotaarlt in RRswey to ft 
•ooon*'. ol il^r question put tjy e©«a»«l for the dofondiwtt would 
•oofs to i«<Sie»to thftt she fU4 sot tm^orstan ? tho naturo of tho 
object loG to tho reiaarlt nvhm firot raa4«, nor the pwr?»03« of the 
oourt'a dirtotioA that tho romark ohotil^a he otrlokon out. ^ttrthorw 
tmrtf iih«) .«»&y haTO ho an coa.fu»ed ^ th^ a^^^^sticwos ^m4 list«yjr«l>tioai 
thftt occurrod durinfe; thio part of hor oxaffiiaatioja. 48 w« hairo stato* 
intli&atlcne suad referoaoea whl**. iisply that ft 4ofona*st io ine^trod 
ftgaiaot llahility a© not aiwiiys eaaotitute rororsibif?* error. I» 
P.l%X St g^^^^^,,?. ^. .SiLflSa Qm^mif nmm$ 1«3 ovtirrjAllag sr. objoctioa 
thftt qaootioao had h««B maJKod "fey «o\m»ol f<jr th© \rilsdutltf implykni^ 
th&t th«j dftS-'UB^iisTd; irftB ioe;;rs!a, the ctart said (pp. r59^'»P9fi) j "aittto 
the ▼•^rdlet -wao rather holoip tho usual ri«oijr»t awar^^od r^ere tho ln» 
jury hfSto heon »w8t»iB4r4 ouo'a a« tho ot1<Jo««« ah^^s I? ore, sand, tho 
00.00 it roaotmuhly olear oii the faoto, there is no r'inaoa. to ouopoot 
tliftt the jury vore acttasitod fey projiJ*Uco or paoaion," 

^» MS&X ▼. iMSMiM S^mt fiesaaai. Smm* the ooart 
kola (p. 404) that ■*! ^istto ijuTiro'-xsjE- Ui ^in-iHX-fn iJreiJi^pctlTO j=ir©y» 
fts to ^©thor they Icoov agents of a oortais inouronco cofapsoiy, but 
that •toiiittg into c»«i*idor«tioa '^6- f-fitire rooord,* ih.% error ^rwi 
«©t reTeroife3.o orjror. 

lii t'&o o^^o skt 'o&r, from «» oonoid'^ration of tho entire 
raofiri^, Ao «r« ©i- tho »oiai&ii '-HiAt %h& fordiot is cloarly warranto* 
hy %h* «^ld««s«t, «sd. wf y^ro r«.tiso«&tely ©tirtain that th« jury woro 

^V iti'l<> , 

fi;fVi iti V^S^'S*-' 

'■•^^ HlfJil r* ** iS ■ 


:5l '^gto fe«i4 \*i. "M-fi tjaisiij 'ItA.l&.X tiSf% 

■■•■• *j1# 

j! V- 


iii''^i .t"4J^'>ii&*!i^w ^•■ifikA'ih^UiUii. l!^*&-^ 

>.'£«, \©i.'.J ay .••«;' ^i1* til IM 

ii'ti^-**v 4(« 


«ot in/ltie&oftd "by Lh9 resittrit, ^'e do not thlxuc, thajrei'ore, that 
the rcHvark oonstituted r«Y9r8lble error. 

For the ruaeoR* atatssd the ju4. m«nt l« «,ffir8j«<i, 

Mate'Jiett, F. J., and 2i«Sijr«ljf, 4,, oonexir. 


273 - 2BM9 

a CorporAtlon, ) 

AppeXl««, ) 


M aol^^etftln Jirothert, ) O Q Q T 6. H 

MB. 3xmi& sommcm mi^ivEims tm oi»xhioji oy tks cx^yax. 

Mvrt of tb« City of Chica^ "by tha iplaintlff , Karshall JPloXd ^ 

Cosptmy, againet th« <!«l"en'^ant®, Jacofe GeldBteIn Mi4 I5avl4 OoXd* 
Bteln, doiflg >ju»iJi«»« ais Ool.d«t«t£i It^fbero, to r@€!iov«:r ?3S?«19 
for m«rolia»dl8e ai.lf^gc?-1 to hanre b«esn s*;;!-! and, dtXi'vt^fj'^d to tlie 
aofeodarits, ITio trial oaurt found for tls« f»lalntlff. Thw f^o» 
fondaisto pr© scout e-l this appeal » 

Tho only iiueation InyolTOd is a dispute of f<aot 
^etiior the ^efor.deuato authorised tfeo purehaoe of the m«Tohandl«« 
from tho pXalntiff • im tstsployoo of tko defesadabsto naauid i>o%er« 
purehsM^d the m<>iroliandi so froia tho pXaiistiff. He »igaod a vritton 
ordor in the aaiui of ^oXdstein Brothoro dirootin^:^ th« plaintiff to 
doXiyer tte« aaerohandiii* to •TseflfcToyj*' tk« ©rdor wao *0.lL, »d* l&y tho 
aoeietstnt to the ^i«f ealeseesaB of the plaintiff ; and the merehandlB « 
wae deXi vered to ^KffAttrn, The defendant e dei^y that Soiuora trae au* 
tborlsed to Oign the order or to Tfturchaee the se»(!ftiauri.il8«; 5md further- 
deny that they rrer r«celT«d the ssorchandlee, 

Recording to the teetitsony of the plaintiff, MumiSNt 
had boon oomiag to the deoartsient frfm whieh the good* v«re pur- 
ohaaed for two or three montha and getting aoB^l^s of different 
fahrico. He gare hl« card to a eaXeerosua in the d<ro!urt.-r.ent, and 

the card stated that Seiners Tru,a a saXeassan fro^ the defen'lants. 

■ ;l 7i 

c*j*«? - Era 

.O^i.^^'i'iKj.'i.V^ .« 


■.■**-&*» ' 


^3«?»,i«f*> 'iuft "^ijr- 

rv;v;ii.;yv Tvr 



: *i.-xi>u. 

« /■!<'^ ;-jrf':^rt- 


On th« occaelon Ir n^uonilofi Bomert om&a in with sat^plca, ordered 
ths morohandisc, atnd it was delivsred to him* A bill v«a aeint to 
tha d«fe»<!laBtB hxuI t}i<» def^mtaatft r«fu6«4 to pay, stating that 
thay did not r«««iY« th« merehaaditt«« ^J-ul^eaquieatly th« a8«iBt4Ant 
to the olilef MHl^miMXi of the plaintiff h»A a eomrereat ion with 
Jacob uoldatein, one of th« dt^fanawitsj, in -w/sieh, aceordiag to 
the t<*»timcnty «f the ealeaffism, <lQldat«lB a«ke-ai to n«t th« orilcr 

OB Which the meroh&ndiaa wae «i6llver«d, and taid, sfhea the ord«r 
waa e>i©-wn to hlw, that he raoognlaed the hism^lvritlng ao that of 
an «Bple>3r«« of hla wbo had atithority t© i8ST;ift cuch ordcrR aail get 
iMSTOhitti^ifte; that Goldateia alia© stated that on thf* dsjr the ©«r» 
chaw^Sioe iraa 9«rchaa«(d the mspXoyBH came in and laiTi the bill ea 
hla desk, httt hefor« he had tl»« to a^k the flswployee what he h,ad 
done with the m«roh.ausdiBe the i»BS|»loy«« m^nt owtaide to a waiting 
autosiobiXe; that Ooldatein ta^id that aii orders wer*?! si^jned as 
the one in Qu«$Btion and that the order "was » legitit.ate order to 
got Bterohandise on.** 

The oredlt sanrsger of the plaintiff teatified that h«9 
had a oonveraation with Jaooh <N»ldotein in regard to the transact* 
tios} that Ooldatein *had repudlatod the oorr^etnese of oisx* Mil 
and had called en us at our solicitation tv pay the hills'* that 
Goldftteia "aokaowledf^od that th« |!>arty aignin^ ttoie ord«r hfid au- 
thority to slgri orders for merchan?Use for tht^r firm;* that he 
took Goldstein to the head credit ma», told thp latter the elro^m- 
atanoes, %l»©*told hla that Mr» Goldrteia did not ^leisute the ftor- 
reotnees of the eignaturo or the autlority of the signature, *• a/id 
that the head credit man then told Qoldsttin *w« nhould e^mect him 
to oay the hill*" 

M assletant credit Jsaa of the plaintiff testified 
that h© had a conYexsation »lth "the defendant, lS.r* Goldstein, " in 
w .leli Uoldstein said that the order Sras their order all ri^tj* 

••■/«■ C • -f ■! .J ^fi.v S 

r ;.;/.■ 

- <--•.■ "*!« Villi's- .f<*T tj.j- fi^ ;:**«." iS 5- r<.'>?' , ; :■■-,'_,? 

tVi«t it *|iiM# 'tmm tkelr )3oua«; that It -wan not hl» writing, but 
that fee }cR«w whone It was," 

Jaool) aol4etetn t<?8tifl»d that Soiaiare ha<i no sunt' orlty 
to purohaae »er©h«/idi«« for fchs firm ©f aol4«t«in Broth«T«; that 
he, Ooldeteia^ dirt not, nor did rmf ©mei for ao1.<!«t«in Br9th«r», 
•end SckE^ere to the plaiotlff to purchaac the m«rohsui«a iae In que»» 
tion; that Soldstein Brothers ^id net reecive the a«reh£ua<iite. 
JAOob aold«t«in furthar teetifltd that he did not «t©t« to ihtt 
credit mmngcT of the plaintiff Ror t© *wiy of tb.« persons ifijo 
hsid testlfiod*' for the pl«klfltlff'» that the order 'Vas writt«»i tj 
eossftooe -who h«M5 authorltyj* th&t isiien th« or^er was «tlio^i?Ti to him 
he eald "It didn't go out ©f my h^une;* thsit he aald h$ di<VnH 
know who &a4t out the ordejr h\it that it waa *©n our Xtsttfrheadi* 
that he neT«r B«cir the »«siistsmt cretUt man or the ^saletant to 
th<^ ehitf essaeaeiiua of plaintiff *'uRtil now;" that h<» HiS not tsll 
then th&t tm inToloe vae l«ft on hie ienk hy^ 3G@sere« an-^ thi&t he 
(Hd not have « ohanee to talk to {NM^ersj th».t Bem&TH waa not work* 
ing for ciol<ii©ieln Brother* wh^n he goi th« merchandise. 

I)Avt4 Sol4»teiii teetifi©4 that he di4 a»t authorint 
luhyono to sign hie n^osio; th»t he talkea to the saJtes^^istn, :m<^ to 
the aesletant credit »«© of the jiiaintlff, hut th*t ha diii not 
tell either of thesa that the or4er was si^ijaed hy efjjsiehody who was 
author! xed to eign it. 

C^vtneel for the d^.tmxdant contends that a fraud wat 
cos)Bitie4 hy Sesaiere, asnd that "when one of tw© innooent p*r»on» 
muot ettf f€sr hy the fraud of a third, it smst t« th@ one ^ho plaeee 
It in the power of aueh tf-^rd person to ooaBiit the frsa*:** that 
the iJlalntlff aade it poseihle for the fraud to he eocsjiitt^d hy 
falling to make the inquiry, whioh er4laary pru'i<?nee retjxiired in 
the olroyo^ietencee, as to Soaere* auf^ority. '^e f^n^etloa preeented 
hy eDURsel for the defendant doet not. In our opinion, arise on the 

?l«.^ &4I4 

^:5 UA' 

.vi!j!?ff^>^**rr; * :a;C* XS?-; 

, :i:t<;:i£Ov. '^J -vC:; 

■f v'?a;fA: 


JJ ir '• »J W ( 


■■ h^ ■• m 







'- Ji:^jr txi'l loi." 

record. 'fh« i>rtcl«« queatlon, na w« vi«tr thm record, l» on« of 
fact whetrcr, after th« a« rah arid! c« h%4. 1U(»<m olDtaiucfd l&y iStomors, 
th« d*f«nc]fti3t8 a0laaowl«dg«d in oonYeri^ations wltli ti^^e rej»r«a«iita* 
tlTtt* of tb« plaintiff I that Sobers vaa autborixftd to aign the 
order for the i;>iircha«« o? th« Bierahaicidiso, Cai thl« qu«Btioo tho 
tostlKony ie <11r©etly eoiifllciing, I« «rw«h «i aiu>« tho flriding of 
tbff court should net 1)« «et «aid« if th« t«atitaony by fislr and 
r«»«0B«i>)le int«n1im«mt will autVxortase tli© f i»4in$. g %rp(fia n v, 
Shtft^x* ^^ 111., 73, 83, 

In our opinion tho finding of the tri«»l oourt i» not 
MKBlfofitly (vgainst the woigbt of tho ovido^oo, and tke Jud$^<Knt 
•iMUld 1»« afflx^od. 


ttatehott, P« J. , 8ttd EeSuroly, J.^ oono^r. 

ttii&Si^Ji^ ■''^^■'^ *^^ 



X39 • 28415 

^XULlAii E£2«B^HS0i, 


) Bill, 


% j Croas-Mll. 




MK, j^i3?ia« U9'3invn.r ^^hirmr.Ti rm QTJTMm or m^ oomt, 

This ie Aa ap^iwal >jy th® ©rpafiV<j©japXaijai!mt, '^illiaa 
i^a-3ftr»o2i» Xroift a 4<»er@d aiiataiwing exo«r«ti©ii« to tb*^ report of 
)y),tuli.r i« i-i^iaficery ^Jraak Uwalin, sm6 fisdiUif: that seitiier party 
ie «iiiiil©d in aquiity to afflr:aativt r^li^f, sar! or4«riog that 
th« bilA c3^d aXi. imtitxid^anti} ther«ta, ^md the c'r«90-'bill oxiA all 
tiie 4*aj«ndm««t8 tiiv^reto, 'fee disraiaded. '^e are of ike opinioJa that 
he di53r«i%i order ^*8 justified on th« grounS of laeheo. 

A doaafid ■will he barred ty l&oh,«8 ■s'hire the party 
ABsertiiig It ha8» by negl»«i tc proa«eute it f^r • loag ijftriod 
or ihi^Q^ alioved it t« "b-soeEiG stale» It 2au«it b® a«i!«rt«d within 
a r€>fta',.>i&tl<?; s>er.l«»tj )of ti»«. But lHGh«« is not^Xik« limitntion, 
u. ifficrs aa^ttr &f tlm©, but principally a ^uwstien of the luequity 
Pf perlttlag the clatas t© "h* »Bfor««d, «« iB*>qulty fmmdcdl ui?o» 
amao cbang* In eondltiens or p-Mrti«a ©r in th« nature of the dl»» 
a%ad »siB«rt«d, fiailfagr ir . gjMlwll . 145 U. 3, 3S9; ^^hlX,__ 
Ha^yhuora^ . iS7 IXi. App. 4S8, and oft«eii th»re oited. 40433 

*© ar'bitraj'y rule ejciats for d^tem'.triing whfi; si d«iaa»4 


u.xi^&H « 9CX 

...wtfi-J- .• 

^•c^Bsesi i»tQl« «fi4 t.fe« qu©»tlo» of laobea nust tsw ie«tl l©d upon th« 
partlcuXa.r eircusiittajaee* of «»oh oas^, uarsASoifaibl* delay nloB« 


vlll often opcrftte »» & It'^r to r-fl'iifjf. '^yijLio .xoJft ▼» •rfllpoyo p.. 19C 
Ill.^x 244. lf«ffXlg«(n!5« in th® i>TOffleotit*on of a. auit after Its 
comtaeneeKtini wnty ^nr rollftf. BQWfi..r.y v. Outltl!; . 165 ^{*8a. 441. Th« 
general n)ittjr«» of tl»« ujroc«^<!ing le In Itnelf a cirouasats^oe to "be 
««H«lim»^ and with lapR<>» of tt«« 1» «. controlllrtg ffll!?;53*^nl. 16 Cyc.j 
«-/•:*. 1!H>»1S4, aa-* ca.a«8 el ted. 

--- 5."->i« r®oor(\ shot*® -sst^ un«xi»lal»«4 neglsot tmd, delay in 
fnro««<5uting the -Sesjand of th« oro»»5-eos5|>ls*lM*mt H#xid«sr8on for an 
«Br©«k»onafcle ti»«, TSi« ooaplf^lnante, Joaepli ^. flgusajitai aad '^illlaaa 
-,. Ji«de«iwef, partiigrB «» J^l^a^^aB and Bi^lou'A^eg, fllei ttoelr Ibill 
ef eompifilat Jiyaiuary 11, 1^98. it »eu#it th« tea:Tsi«»tti©n suci-J ciaa- 
ctXIatioa of a oontr%ot l>tttir««B HouacldX'voa aad UieKiseX-vres whieh 
»e«ii*#d to call for w«}«^iiiy p«.:sFm«^t»te 1*y th^ja.. to hte ox a royalty 
during the life of e^rtalB patent e, B«xjd«r»on ^»» ?.^uly earrod and 
filed aTi eiiswer, axsd ap]>are«tly, io liS>8, the eaua* -afaa referred t© 
E&at^y in Chano«ry Eirott JSstr'ber. Jaiiaary 5, 1^0, Hociersoa filed 
hi« cro89»bill <*«kiftg fdr an accoaatlag <wad. payaeot of the aaoymt 
found to b« dm® for reyAlti<»fl undor tb« oontrmet. Ataow^r to tbt 
eroBS-felll w«B fil-sd "by th6 cor-it*! alii ant » ^JTanusirjr 12, 1^?^, a)n<I 
ai>par*mtly thin also waji roferr«^ t© Itaotiar Barber. Considerable 

e-vldonee «&« tiijt.«in before tbe ma^sterg but at somc^ time i» li 
er 1899( thie hearing was suap«a<ied. Cos!.T>l^ins.nt»' counstel ?»Rsert» 
that after Hendereon had; testified in part he etid-ienly ;3a4 iffithogt 
Botiee left the iuriedictien ef the oeurt. 4043T 

We next riad a ke,port filed Deceasber 13» 16 21, by 
kj&cter in Ghsmeery Iranlc HasBlin, although we <ta not fXixt In the 
recerd a»y order ef referenes to hltt. ^aeter iu^jzain states in hie 
repert that a period of aspproxijuately twenty yeare interrened be* 
tureen the he&ringe before fcastar Barber hr^i those before hi»aelf , 



■■:■*:. .'iB^'J"' 

Jti«i!l \d»; 


irriMfHid^t  tYmi n vftry larg« nuul)«r of wadiiliitss itttrcrtwcod heforfi Barli«r 
are lo»t, XHe f!ecjrs»?» Tfaa eotersd January 5, 1923, or twenty-liv« 
ycara after tb« flllrn; of th« till. During AMoh th.«i l&rger part 
ef thit time nothing "Vwe dOKC In the caac, r«adtr% tKe lltiu;atioii 
«c« of tiie compiaiKuuts, Bl«%danf'Og, dledf ^^«»«t«r H*iiaiiQ l» also 
4««<5, audi, idaet-sr I»arber oeaee-l to "be aWsster in ^anuticerjr ia 1911. 

U»<!«r ouch eiye»tK''!»tiiino©a a aotzrt of «qiilty ■aIII mat 
l«n^ lt« '-^Idf in tha enforc«Bj«M of a ftenand so »tal« unless th«rtt 
is so«ft oogeztt ani wfilghty reasaa prsserited wbjr It has bsdm p«r^ 
mltt^d to \3i-'»3ome so, *3oo4 fttith, coixacicnca tsni r«a80i»at)i« 4111- 
gr?u©© of the party «»ekiii,S its rsli«f ar« th« «l«ii«Bt« that call a 
court or «Quity int© aetivit;^. In th« absencft of ih^ss ®lmt.m\tn^'^ 
the- coixrt rm^ AistB paeaiv* ?a5<?. declines to ext«n5 its r'Sllef or al(3,« 
It haa altyayn baen th« t^olicy to disootmtejQases Isichsg and. Bagleei." 
KcDo»mo»^ V. BujaBhaa. isa iii.j^ 56. v:;:;^iO 

Tbe lapee of time toijethsr isi th th« general nat^rs of 
this procs!G(?.i»g t>ars rolief* 

i^rlor to 1333 Moadoraon had 'besia an,^^:f?d. in gl^ise work 
ao.J pat3i3t«d a aetl-ioc reli*tiB.» to »«}tal strips la 9?hic'J'! ars h«14 
pi9oea ol art glase used In thiS oo£i»truotion of art or eolorsiS 
win<Sow9. Tho W«ll» Glasa Coiiiip(¥iy of Chicago coiomeiicsd to matsittfae* 
tur« art glass, usls^^ l^eadersos's dtTlco, and ha coauu^ncod suit 
in tho IJbitod States Ciirouit Court to frevaxtt tho alleged lafrixkgo* 
ment of his oat«uta, whioh wero BwaL-'»T«djr#st?-''.ctliroly 41S751 auad ^' [ 
4Sv51v. J'laofigaja aad liradarj'rae vishe4 to u^e thaoo dovices and ^ -^♦^ 
e«t«?r«d into th« ooBtraot in gxif^stloB iM^rll 1, 1S91* this ctwatraot 
Tef«rr«d to the EfiR^terson patouts by their respeoti"?® n\»afeers and to 
the oontroY^rsy over th^ss pending in th« Ctolted atatea Clrouit Court. 
It ■was also recited that il end exsoa had msdo stpalicatione for throe 
laoro lett#r« fatont relating to "Window sash hars, «?tc.; that Fian'igaai 
and £ied«»xiv«f^ Tishod to auahufaotuT* witidoir sacto tiars ttsder the 

/:■ mess's: *X*:r rt^-^^'>3*!>«»1f^ RliS? 
■ i-iM4 HiSUf6 ^^ftV' ' i" 

p&tentt already l«9u«<S an(fi <^nniTf!A to \i% t>T«9^«ot«<^ 'hf ¥t,im^»Tnnn In 

vBlng those anfl aray otlitrs ti« aii#it «fterward» proourft Iw tia*! aaa« 

Iln« of lnv«ntion, W«nderoo» <!jr«.ntc^ to tbwia ths 'jxelniilvs right 

In oertadn si»t«« to avuiuf actura and •«»I1 «ald «pi»liano«8 ^m-? to 

tt«« tb9 patented proeeaftee und«r th* letters pat«rit alreaf^y i«>* 

•u«d or »u"b««Quently proourftd; in oonsiaeraitloa «t)«*;r«f0r tkoy 

agro^il to pAy Hondernoa ^&0 & ^^ek frcuu i}i« dat<t of tho eontraot 

untilL liljaety da^a alter th« date of the final decree of tho IMltftd 

St&toa Circuit uourt in the veils (Jlt^os Compuiiy o»Be» and If tha 

dtaree *9,» fftTorarle to HtKideraon he would tisareafter b#> •;^.»14 llOO 

a meek ao r-syaity. I'her© i*a» » furthor proTlaloa for ttie patymffaat 

©f 150 & we«k ^endifig «iBy »?>p©)al "by tM. t'«ll» CompsBy. 

The rftoord s5?ows tSiat 'wfetl© :H«ii;4ers03Ci 1a%<s & r&vorsble 

docislon in tlao Oircult Court, oa «p|5e4iil Isis *rae d«f*;;at«f|, ih# 

Oirouit Court of Aipttsnl* b©14lBg* tfe»t one of t>in» 9».t«4t« wae void 

-sn^J Oiftt tliere iwa® no infrln(>;«iise«t of th& ot>-er. It wau th^ eon- 

t«ntiott of tfes eoia?)l aidants in their "bill that "by tfeis decision 

iK validating: tlie HoP-deraon patent, X'hn coriSlfl«ratiori for t^.« oon- 

traot failed, and ilmt an* tliey i?ot sotbiMg wndf^r the contrakot, 

their ©"blig-^tioR to pssy roy«>ltie« t«r5sinMt5'd. A» ag&injit tl-.l®, tlt« 

croB»'|^eoia^lain*!s©t loa^jJoraon ooutsri-iad thatt th« ooatr&ot contasTxpiatad 

the &ppilcatio« Ijy Ma for k^w Isttora patent eoveriisg the saia^ lioe 

of iJRveMion, sOiS tbmt JPl^oigan aa^ 2i«d8a*iv©g if^re c"bl.lga.tsi5 to pay 

hia r©yt0.ti«s«f dtirin^c tH« llf« of othsr jjatenta wiitah hs proc«r®4, ^^^ 

. _ .. - — ' '■<■-■■ ■ 

■^fhat ii'^ tha c&ntruot prevido i« tha wveiitfef a flnai 

d«or«t a4v«ra':5 to R<*ai«r»oa's,.cl alias for bis allagod i^ataata? fhe , 

olauat tottcbin^ tJiia reaAa: 40439 ->x 

•'^^"It is fyirtJ»,or a^re«*4 by ««i-d l&©twe«r» tb« parties herato ttuk%'\l 
in tfe« OToat ©f aaa adverae deeisSoaa to aaid K«>Kder6on in tha 
Uwited States Glrt^-»lt; Coui-t in th^ n^i'X liti^^'-t ion tui'^raln no* 
ponding, that then ?yad in that «Tent, If n&tr X^ttmru patent \ 

,'i'^ nil cat ion 8 for --rhlc^^ In 'bRhair of aaid IlanoierBon ar« noi* i 

o*>in!ilng, or for 'W'hioh >t# amy muke apDlieation, sluall "be ies-aod j 
to hla, n«^ actions «h«,ll Tao coKMEenooi^ "by ssdd H^ndersoa under 
aaid new lettera pat<»nt, qtesdnst t>508e ^o m«iy >>« tfewa «Bgag«d i»^ 
iBfrlri*?iEg opon th^ asaao, to the ftuA that &sdd parti e« of ite« 

:.B'-:: :>.<■ ^■''r:^^-!-? ■'*y}<'^'.';: Rtrr-s 

eecoad pnrt may "bt by «uets »wlt» -^irotecti-d ag to fj-l Ih-s-lr con- ;'"^-~i^ 

/^ 'H'.ia i?» not ;3ftflnlt« aa t« 4'oy4ltlea, elth>*>r aa to ajqr 
obllgatloa for, or n®ount» or iimn, Th ? ©oatract in %t l«!»»t «iji9i^ 

Ij'ucvjio on ihla poixit *nt1 li oould sot easily Tjt* o&^istr-aad to iis:po»« 
mT>on riiimag^tm aoi! Bied»aweg weekly xs%ymeatfj to Ben^&rton during th« 
lif« of fliay an'3 all jiat^tntai b«i wlgiit preawNt wvtlsntet^nimt to those 
9p tie it itstXly aeiritioBed in the !}o»tr%«it «n.S upea "sfeich the oootra«i 
WPS prliSHrlly tia«e^?l. The oontraci indLcat®* c©oi°i<3eno« in the 
valli^ity «>f the patents ialready i9®««d,&ii tht pj-oTiiisiowa for royai- 
tics csmUtioned th«reo» arp (i©.fiEit» suud explleit, aftfi their deft»at 
•eewa to hsT« beec ao little aotieij^sted that wha,teT«r obligations 
ft6 to royftltl«?8 would ajrl«« in that ev9Et ax© atetcwrely #3«|>r«6fl«f|» 
iincert&iB, ^ijod can oRXy 'bt cloul>tfwlly ijaferrod or Isapligsd. 

lyitHoiit att^jfeijiiap t© eonstn^e th«* contract in this 
79^c^T^., it I J! 8\}.ffiai«nt to ®ay that ^ith this waeertmifity, it 
■wewll "b« ^nJMHt, <ift*T th« gT«at la¥>8« of tim© diarinH- 'wnieh. Hand^rsoi 
*5T)!aiN»Titly ha^ «t»Ra4o»(«4. hie <}l«j,iK!, for % court of «q*iity noir t© is»* 
tjeae csn the eth«r i^ftyti«s or th€lr ss-uco«8!5or« a saoRey ju-dA-»«*it not 
"baasd on .nny hf»e*sfit r«eeiYtfi "fey tJi««. throuf^ th© Gcatraot , feat 
hs.a*4 «ol5sly upon th« t>«8®»g«i of tlK®, 40441) 

It in sugg^flted th«iit as ths arif:tnal hXXl was filed 
"by I'lan.^gatt and Bled«n«e(5, the n^fc;i?»ot to |>roc««!4 with the cause 
waa th«lr« as muoii a« B®«der80fi*a. Bat they were «sai:i,jg.g only to 
tffnz^ijjftts: their eontraot, whlls Headersaii wa« u&i^kixi^ a J[«d4ji©«»t 
for money, the acpparent ahaadoumsnt of the litigatioa was in linfe 
v*.,th th« relief »o\i^t by the oo^fjlaia suits, -^h© are not tu-eatloiiiais: 
the diandasal of their hill. Ilpoii Henderson wa& the oblii^iat ioxai te 
9roe«e4 dillg«»tly to hnvi* the oontraot construed a« h« no-w clalwi 
it ehould he. nx%^ to obtain the pnyvk^smtv dei^t&sded. 

It is Buggeiated th»t no ©xceptions to the )«r'» 


report are ril«?(l, bat tia« deore® i-eferi? to thfum an-l tre will ansuft* 
they TT«r« fil-.i, esn'^oi.a.lly ae wa hays only a ar&ft.qijpg r^v^orl 'before 

2S$ • 2QQ$2 

In Re l^etition of J. JAJHUCuowaiCI , ) 
ZaaoXroiit Oelntdr* On Aupoftl of ) 


01* 000£ COUNTY. 

MR. ^0aTI<SI Ke^UH'SLY 13^I¥SKS» 'fHl 01»IS10*i Of 'fHl' mmt* 

ThiB Is ari appeal frcjB ao ord«r 5e«yiag • (5.1fieh»rg« 
un4«r seetlofi 5 ©f th,« Ifiaolveast i>«M«3P« ivct» cba^tsr 'f2^ llllntln 
iitfttut« (GaMll). ^ua ?«ppcta frois a eliiiilar order WfcEuatadlag th« 
luaol'B'ettt debtor, Ja,riuC'^';0"^8kl , tcf th- cudto^tjir ©*' %%9 ste^rlff Saa* 
-her«to.ler« feeen Ijg this cpurt ajc.d all trtft facta ay.p^aJ' iJi tb« 
•plaion filed Uaocmter ii, i9 22, it. oaae csptiber t776ii, 228 111, 
iMpp. 611, ^t th«n rsvlttvftfS tte© »vl«leaea uT^^tt wMcii a. jury fotaai 
th« p^tltiojaer guilty of fi'au^ saad Jiei4 iii»X Jfr^ud i«fa.i! amply 
l>r<»v©n» sini tb» 5*4d£;m83[it of th* votmty eMurt i»a« &i*firJSk?i^ aaatA tiiii 
©«««■« wnB y«a«twad#4 t© thmt court, ludw filija^ tiie .ai:*ii4at« of tM» 
eotirt , Jfi«itJ0l^-<«^8ki tr&« ^s&in y<3J!ian4ad t® tfee miatcdy ©f tli« sheriff. 

Wiftheiit givliig notice to cr<»^it<^r» a» p®tiulr«d fey 
«*o-tioH 5 of tlie lasol-v^nt S^atstors iwai, h'j filM «. 8e«oja«S p«ft-itien 
ftiti^ «oh«^nl«. 7t%it «««irt. refused t© disehargw hi* ani fwgai» reEi?aKd©A 
lil« tc the ciaeto^y of ike Bhcriff, sudI he at»T>«ala frea that or^er. 

The t>oi^t «ov »s%d!«! »«<H8e to fess that, althouf^ frau4 
wftB ^ro-ven ae ih« clr^t of ths £*etioa, this ie nqt the etoa® $k>8 
Valine ♦* ^'hlc>'5, -uJS'Jftr ««9tloa 9, jsuet las the giat ©f the aetlan 
to iwstlfy imprt8onB«nt, This stat^ta ha» h9<m coaetraod to mauB 
that »alle« is th« int«ntioaal peypetratioa ef 4yri iajury or wroja« 
to aaaother, and that *h<5re tr&v^ Is proTCOi a.e the gist of th« action, 
it is aalieiou0 in th« atmtutory ««a»«, t^ rs^. iLaJ^LailSii ^SSlS '^« 

»di ^i^.: 


, jfl*ili4»sif 

sefies - dsc 


BaSl^SlLi l^'l ^H» ^1* "^^ t»rm •malice* ae uB«d h^^r* ar>«5iifle t» 
tb» clawp of wronea that are ijal'ilottA irltto an «t11 int«at or 
purpose. It impli«« ttmt the guilisy liarty wa« aeturitafl Tsy !«• 
propf?r or dl«hoiJ««t nuotlvvt, T« «iRtltl« % «l€rf«ri«?,Tint tft bo •dis- 
charged fro» IsapriaorxKifmt It Ruat a^p#»r that th?* wron^; for which 
the ftciioc w&« brought -wan n«t of thmi eharaoteir. U^on thtt flr»t 
JfeBuchcwfiicl ' a petition the iesue w<mj £i<aA« as to ^h^thar tJbe aet 
ciiarged was fraud -.Neatly d.0B«, aiid It was so foun<l« Tlmt malice 
w»» ti3« feist of tfct actioa Is now res ^^^Ajep^tj^, ISEM v. _^Ais&L 
293 III., 206, la in point. 

the Jud..pant of the County eo^urt la right yja4 i« 
sff Intied. 

Hatchetl, r. .T,, rmd Johnstcn, ,F, , concur. 

270 - 2854* 




KH* ^03TXCS M#3m^Y mLlVBIta© tm OFIIilOl OF THS CatJHf , 

This lf> «,» !wt>pal from a. judssm^nt RgalKwt iSef«ndaat, 

air set , UUea^o, ttnder a l'^*««». firo® plat»ttff d!at«»4 Jjoiiiary 23, 

1.9 ^)» for a fftri©-! frew M*)i,y 1, 1©20, t© April 3ii, 1927. A ntsulNiai' 

of ^uGntiosm of fact arfi |ir*J3«xjt. e>A ii!Stee>''iBg &® lai^^ed. I'iailup* 

of Vf.9 d.^f»ndtm%» to deposit disipjLleattf tax reo«ii9t» with th« 

lesssor a« ri*q\ilr^d by tht iwaet, the allsged failiiir® of tls« «!«» 

i'Widaate to k&ep th« preexiass iBaiirefl, aa<l »oB-|3i.4;m«?v:t of rcat 

for the ((W'isiitr eera^oBclag Sov«Eit>9r 1, 193,'?« Soaie, if not all, 

df t>ift8« p«iBt» slgJit hay© ^9«» smbffiittwl to th® jury, but f©ip 

araetber rfasen Mr© ar?* ®f t!h« 0T>lnl©o that th© T><9r»fsuTJtory !«• 

•tr*jctlea t© find fer tiia plaintiff wa« pro«>«r. Tlfiis 1& that the 

lessee Ztik ▼lols.tft^ tli« !©««»» w>ii«h forM*?* a& «fc«iBl^pas»er!t ©f tM 


e&ffii' r',»<' tb0 oceapsjiey of !>'.« r)r«nis«« t!y_y ot>?«>r p«rfo» "^Itfcoiit 

©"btainicf tho wrlti«» ceceent of the losaor, 

Th# (fefendttjst her* as not prapajp^d hie aijatract wo 
as to tihQ-9 the facte rela,tln(^ to tills point, altiiougl it is of 
vital l3Bportaflo«, Hit abstraoi rof^^rs to the olctu^t? in the l«aM 
Tolsktlniy; to afiolgtmoBts »b tiie *usu^ ol.%u6« r«a'^i'<iis|[ ueni^tm&At 
imd Ottblettlng." Refwrrln^- to the reoord <?« find a dofinite 
mgrtivamskt by t^io lessoe not to persJlt tho proKises to be oceupled 
"by njiy other person nor the l**sia« aatignod irithout * obtaining thd 


vfrltt««j n»0n% of the party of the flr«t tis^rt," B<»vomihor 20^ 

19 S2, Zak mA4« ara aftslgnmcnat to C« B, i^ol^fti* as trtist.!«f> for thm 
^©r.Qflt oi* cr«?4itor» and thl» loouraaat of an8li«ttn;<mt its #© *!$• 
•tr«.c:te4 %• to a^Ufi^ It a»pear that It ejcef^t>t«i th« lease to ths 

prwBsiass in qiuestlcn. Uow«ver, rsferriag ftgsviia t« th« rnaoril, we 
fis4l the dofliiite Xauftuttgtt wh^^rslsy 2aJc *a0lfi;:ned to »s)ld truatse 
"all l^etiicrits -jr.tter said lense asi all moaajn to l^ecoise due there- 
uod^r to ae,ld trusifte." idH^^iesrs dw* tJi«reuad«r rtf erred to oertaln 

!ra« aYldenoe nJ-io^s that ptireyprit to the aBBl^rrjmeBi 
?ol4cx taoi pesee;»sioEt of th« pr^aiisnas s«i,d oo«ixple«!, th« pas^e «aad raa 
the lru«ilneB& of the defendant th^.M as -trusts© f©r th** €T9<1,ltors. 
Th« liuste feaj&in®»e laaai** w»8 ir«t«la«d aail f!,ef«n-1'irjt Znk r^taainedia 
cnarge of the baslneae. 

A trust «j» feaa rsas-ajiable Hue in «*ion to alsret whether 
hB i?tli aiopt a iemse as "being for the h«^»efit of crf-aitore, bttt aust 
r;o this \?iUiiii a r«aaonalsl,« time a«^ caKROt taJtee inaor.al8t*3at peel* 
ttona, MiMl ^. «40£Maa. i^^ ^^lI. 76. 

The lesieee here cia.JjB-ie that he ha« aiade no asalg^iseat of 
the lesise iiliheyLgh he has assigced all th« 'bejs@fit« th®r«frt»B and 
has el-Vfia poseeealoii of the premises to anotrey. '«'«rc this raild, 
any Xesaec ur^dor aucOi & lease oould give p©8«e83l0B to 6**netber with 
sill the Tbeiafifits aiid Incoiae therefttua irlthout the wri tten eooaeat 
of th® lensoi* aa<! the prohiMtoyy proYi&iesi urt^^nlA be iii vain. The 
law .ill jiot aouatttHsivee the avoldaaoe of a clear contra«stual ohliga* 
tlott by Midh aa laatareot a«tho4. The oirosuaBtanoes imQxmt^il to a 
Tiol^«.ti6R of an tBtport«»t o<wif««i»jit of the lease arid the "brcaoh juati- 
flt^d la forfeiture by the leBaor. The fjoreaptory Instructtoaa to find 
for plaintiff was prop«jr, ^ysd the iud,i<Bi«r.t thdreon is affiraod, 

S^tehett, F, J*., 3n4 Johnst';r4, J.^ concur. 

'IS's '• L..T— 

M. ^iml " * 


$!!;:■ ail. 


. •^.••^■••^w<- 

t70 - 3aS4tf 

Jacob iiAysas, ) 


, OS OHICAflO. ^ 

CHAFELSS J, SAK, ) ,- C ^\ 

Appellant, ) O 3o -^•^'^'' ^ 

In hi ft petition for rche«rimg defendant c&lled our 
attention to a rider to the leaae which purports to t ive permiasicm 
to 5ut«l»i th« preuiiseft. This ri.ler appears in th« r«eord totit not in 
the abstraot, where it shoijld have been to receive consideration by 

The rider girea the landlord** perxmleaion to one atth* 
letting ©f a -^crt of the premleee. The recorft shows that thia waa 
'•nn<^t henoe th--? ri^?ht of the lessee waa eachauarfee^ an-i he <1id not 
hare the right to ataJce other aesignments ©r aub-leaaee to other 
»ereons. Ha^rtfor-; i r?et)0 8it Co. v. Rpgentl-ial . 1P2 111, Ann., 2il; 
Key V, Tralnor . 150 111., 150, Ttte ri|!;ht to sul-.a*?t a xj.-^ixt of the 
premiaea do-^s not giv^e the right to auTolet other parts of the 
building. Werthofcaoy v. Girouit Jud«e . @3 Mich,, SS; i'ldelity Tr^^^j 
^« ^« M^» 27 Pa. Sup, Court, 374; O^d ,^ v. yarley ^ 58 K, "ST, Sap. 

Defendant re-arguea the point as to the efffiot et the 
aaal^ameBt to the truetee, "but we aee no reason to ehange our forsaer 
opinion. While def en -ant claims that he did not aesign the lease or 
sublet the premioea to the trustee, he did put the trustee in poaaestt' 
ion. Both the lacguae*? of the aaeignrrient conveying *all benefita 
under aaid lease and all noneys to booome flue thereunder to saiA 
trustee," and the ooiiduct of the parties ahow either aa aSBipmBent 
of the lease or a pernilssion to a third party to occupy the pre-leea 

j^Mis^ - <yv'2 

Mi. J*^5 ■ 

without oT&taliiicg thv written consent of tha lessor, this was a 
'brcash of the lea«a and gj^ye th« landlord a right to dadara a 
forfaitura, M§iina|L ISSBiS. §&• ▼• Surrey - 162 111., 441; jfettjj^ 
▼. goQCtema. 149 111., 75. 

Th« judgiaant la saf firmed, 

KatcliHt, P. J., and Jo>in8ton, J,, concur. 





41&"- S8674 

thrpue>» SOB mi B, CRO-^, 3taia'« 
Attotn«v, for ttoe weo of HCJ^vilT 
and lyontnm M(SL&. nttintitrn. 


liSi-LlB ISJSGLiS, tfOiO^ ?♦ SLUaiaS, 

/ D«f«mdiant«. 

I III U* » «i « M «l» 

Jima.ZS Jii^l^, (Petitioner). 


OP COOK eousTY. 



im, jrusncas EosmiaY .i»aivim*i5 tkx oi>isiqk of tHs coimr. 

tm<ler th« ©tatut«i ©aCrsiuperB, ijfi whicVi it wsia orflnred "fey th« 

"Cownty cowrt that J©©®iph !*♦ CTi<^le» a gr«n<1f«at>>»r, jslh-i l»«lll« 

1Sngl«, & grand«ot"h»r, «ach pay i lv« iolIar» « «reQk for th« sup- 

1>ort of oertaln jalnor gran Achil ires, Ho'ts^rt Bngle and Uorothy 

Sngl9. Upon p«tlti©n of B«lHe JSngX« this ooari isauM tfea writ 

©f cartiorari aujrt t>i9 record has l;e«n lbrou,i0t to tni© (soart for 

review. ^ 

' "The only of flee of the oo-ssiSion-ldur writ of certiorari 
ia to bring before th« court the record of tlfie proceed Inge 
of an inferior tribuinal for ixuipecti ;n, 3«1 th** only ju^^rmftnt 

to "be rends«rei l»^ that tJri© i^rit tsd- ^.■x&y.^A or th<it the record 
of the proceedl/iga toe qua»h«d. ^Cikiifi^ .Mi ilffiS^^ ^^^i^ 
■«SM'iia» ▼. tSKk* 22 Iil.>^ 353; ^eo?.l^ v. littdbloai.. 132 i*^ ^^^^ 
S41)i4_ The trial upon a raturxi nade in otsidleiic* to a writ of ' 
OQrtior 'ftrl la upon the record, iiloae, as dlsoloaed by the re- 
turn, and not upon any all^jiation of the p«tltlori nor !a»y 
iseue of fact. ^( iveamaJijfi v. Oit^' y.f Uhica^^Q . 222 Hi.* 63." 
^ <fftffi. jr^ Suacafi . 260 111.^ 228 - a3u, ^ 

^T' The eiatitte on '^eKpere,Achs^jer 107, seot:.^.©^ It 

provide* that every poor pfsreou wbo shall !»« un'*He to earn » 

livelihood in sonseQusnee of any hodlly Inflrit-lty, idiocy, 

I«nacy« or other uRavoldabl® cauee, shall he eupported by certain 

rftlativee, 40475 


. - .Jrfsfejfl&'^B 


-. A 


By sQotion 2 tfee or(l«*r In whloh relatiT«8 shall ha 
«&llod }xpoT> t<j 8wi>i)f>rt «wch poor p«r«on Is «tated* Flrist the 
chlldrer< to BuT>^'?ort -par^fttB; n*xt parent • of exicb pQor person 

sfeaXl Tdo oallftd on if thsiy tje of aufflcilisist ability; "wn-i If 
th«r« be no eijch parent* or ohllrtreo, ilh«u th#! brothers or sla- 
ters of auoto poor -peraon shall n«rt be calle-^, on, If they be 
of sufficient ability; "tut. If th««re 1>« no such Ijrothers or 
aloterv the grandchildren shall "be next calledl ©n, an.l n-sxt 
the gjratfid.'Arente, if they !>« of auffloient ability. 

Section 3 provides that upon failiire of such relatlwsa 
to ©upuort eueh ^oox pafnon, the 3tat«s*e ^tiorney may mafere complaint 
thereof to the Xp^*^'^3'' court ai5«klrs»t all the relative* of »u«h pauper 
Xlatle to hie support, 

Tha prasont la^tlti^n Is filed under thl® section. Xt 
allegsss that Holsflrt nn-^ Dorothy Engle are 4e»ei3de«.t chlldr«n auod 
Wjaa'fele to ear/i »* llveiUioa^ in cfjneequ^nc© oT ag© said bodily In- 
flr^etty; »J s^s that Sellie ?trigle, grai^dcoth-sr, ^oaenlj l\ Ingle, 
graiS'-tfather, Arma Courtcey, gr&r.-ljRether, m^. Arb«. lEagle, mot>jflr, 
»ajS Stanley .KjEj^le, fath»»p, ?3tn(! Patrlclc C-'^ttrtsieT, gramlfatber, 
"aye persona of aufflctoBt ability to crovi^s for •'^ri.l mr)Port e»14 
granrJobiidr^^a." Th'Z' «T.l-,if>ii©«» sho^fs thn'*. the ntother, Aan« Kngle, 
is supportliife the ohil<!ren, Tbs order of tho oowrt tnvkee ao ab- 
judication that the cliil^lrec are paupers, n^x d^ce it fin4 that 
either the father or saother aro paupers or unabl's to sup»Jort the»« 
shlldrea* i'here l» iuat the sliapl© ordier th|tt the grianAfather, 
Joseph ?, Kngle, pay five iollKre a wqbjc, -md the gr afi <!/;«» t her, 
iJeXll© itijgle, pay a like «E&o;jnt for the frao">ort of th^ chillren. 
This 9«eu!3 to he "braisedl itpoB the f.heory that the oourt had juria- 
Sletlon to or«3^r any relative to sw^rort the depeiifSewt chll-lrsB 
without regard to the poverty or otherwloe of the ohll<!ren or the 
nihility of the parents to provide for thoi r sni'?>Port. As Te mM 
the statute, eerocteially aeetion ??, the»<» f -acts Muet h** a4!,5w<5 teats'? 


$"&. .in S <-\&M» « >•> 



b«roro the court has jtirlfSlctlon to ordtr th« (jrand?mr«nt9 to 

vn^-rtdTt the c>^il'^r«j, 

yurtherrcort, the coffiol<»lnt miet i>roce<*4 against "all 
th« r«lativ«« of auch pauxser in this otatc, liabl!> to his aupjoxt." 
In thle ce.«e the mothfir, father- ssn«! JBat^^Tmal grandfather ^ere not 
■•rre^ -rritl^ proc«sii. It i® prlm^iriXy thn duty of th« fathor nad 
«oth«r to support th^ir children. JiSfiil-.Y.v .Sfel iSMll» S3 Hi- 
App, 186; and this duty dOTolT«« pria^arily ubo» the fi&thep and 
tben upon the su>the]r. igatete r ▼. PXaafter , 47 111. v 290* !!^ People 
jir^__ _Baifegr . 232 111, App, 4S1. Th« order sjitered herein by tho eourt 
Ignores ttoOBO prlsftsTy oMl^jatlona tm^ arbitrarily imposeo th9 ob- 
ligation of support upon twc of the graridparentis. 

We are of th© opinion that th© court ^as ^^ithout juris- 
d lot ion to «jst®r suois order, aiid it is rev ©r sod m-} the eause r#» 
aanaedi with ^U root ions to quash th® ord«r ani the vtiet-r^. of pro- 
oetdings in the Wunty court. 

Vatabett, P. <?•» Jina JohnatiMi| !♦, oeoaour. 


, ja -I-,. • -,; J. ~-<j^^ ^i 

h -i i-ijT} 

• 287C4 

mO¥LZ or TA^ i'XATlS ii» IlAIiiOlS, ) 

Bi>fefi4a»t in Irrer, 



iaaintiff la Error. ) 

mmu. TO umiemM. comr 

Q O T /-^ ,^ 

h'A, JUSTICS «tBTJlfm.Y SilLJ-Vl^SS THE ©I»XII0I* OF TUB Gomn", 

Dsf ©ntltmt "fey iia.f»ra.ati©a »»« <jh,argM with haTi»4 drmn 

ti* 414 Rot haife ayifflsleai funds, ir* tis€ fesarilc to fay th^? «««&«, .and 
wpoa trill lay the oourt •*»» found gtillty »n-i 8mi%imv,®A to th« Bou»* 
of O«rr<&ctio» for alx month n mi'^ to paj? a tine sf l800« H® s®a.]£it 
to fc^v© this r«v®ra«d* 

Prior to t'M trar.9&,eti©n in i?yj«8iios Hefmid^at, '^eat^r- 
tlaia, h.a4 $»urcls^fis*«l fre» tfe« f'lwrtoiray Motoy ©al«s Q^m^^^j w^ automo- 
bile wbioh «®,s »©t smtltfaoteyy i© Ma mid fe« had Tfeyought emit 
agsfcinat satd eoiup&jtiy, a0«kiJ4,|j aa£aa<|;«5 for lUi ,vili«stje4 l»reaoh of 
warrftbiity eii acooyat «f tide »aiis. 'Xh© p«urti«» ogre ad to »ettie this 
eentToversy tm^ to tfcis mid, iiovejal>«r 4, l«aa, 't@8t©rdiiia m& '^iXlim. 
Kaudeou, tfe® agtxit f«r tfeu .Pi&riPfray f^otor Sslfts Cosapaiiy, ejst*rtd i«to 
«B agroajKent wher«%by ibu e«M|>atny Hold to Wfteterdj^OJl » Haa»on autoiso- 
btl« for IX93a,sa, a»4 w«8t#rdahi »g;r«ed to %nru in his old antmnetm. 
■ Sj Tsrhic>5 fee dild, y«oiilTJjag t>!«r«fer & er«dii of 51,000 towaMs fifee 
pyiireh.%«« i»rlet of tte« Ku4»e»i &ut«iRo"btle. The b&lari0« of the purebaoft 
■rlc« h« p»ia "by giving M» oheok for I938,«2, whieh wsmi 4at«4 So-v-wsber 
6» 19^2, arawQ oa the ri©B<»0r Stato ^aaviri^a Bank asj« p^tyabl© ts the 
order of tlio j^arkway Motor Sales Coispany» /*l»o ?te s^art of thie agr«©» 
s«nt, tteo defeivfjjmt «x«crutea a release to th« i^ark^ay ^.otor 3ale» 
aosi93>ny and WiilioBi Knuds^n oi' all clidklseo agiikiiist tfeoa ^^rhioh W«8t«r* 
dalCl algtit h&vft lay jrosaoa ©f th« a^ft of tJi© first autc®«>)ailo. Thin 


release r«olt«<l th« t«r«» ef thp o«ttlewrflint an4 that 19.32,32 was 
to "b* paid in oaalj by "isBterdahl to the .farirway jyiotor 8al»« Com- 
pauy, "which sua ha* thitj day b««tt paid." -iinudsojo testified 
th«it ^^aa th<i cheok was given him W^oater^ahX Inforueii hlo that he 
h«Ml just aade a loaa of f4,000, andi that th« noney wa« on deposit 
to Mb or^atiit, ond that the eh«jok '»as fcood. Tliia is dwiiad by 
AofendfiUit. Within & day or two defen^taxit laort^aged his ndv au- 
to«o"bile. Xh« check was sot aeaosiitod until U^vmnb^r 12 or 13, 
amd was returned unpaid fau! sttjaped, '*i«0t »ufficlent fxaids.* 
Bofenaarit testified that h« r«q\i^eted i^ojudscn to h&tt^ the o>seo2c 
for awhilo ae h^ ha,sl a jolj of "?rark -wlich Ksfowl-I gi"*i''<» >il» ecn«l(3erable 
c?on0y, I'hla in ■3«»ni#«4 "fey ]l«iid«on, tsrho aaja thai defendant tol«»- 
phoned hiffl MoKilay i^aorrjljag to hQl4 the alitok, 'isni '??,aa tol'^. t.hat he» 
couli.? net do so. i!ii*t?>r tH.-si chtet was y^ttrtstieifl osKc^id, ivnudeon 
y«0«st*'dly »ew d«f«n-^aritj ^ho prosii^®.''! to |iay it 'bni navsr did.eo. 
Defond^jRt feAaita that h« n*%vty jmia ih« cbnek. 

The «vl4©iK:« l*m^B to ih^ aonoini^ioxi. tlmt d€»fer.':!ai'it di4 
'not Inteiid to fay this chaek irh®^^ h.© deXivoresti. it to the Parkway 
kotor Sales CowpHnyj and that his as^otive was thereby to laaJcft good 
to hisisoir the Aar^a^e« -whtcb h« aiaiaed to h.4i;e suffered in the 
purchase oi th'j liret aatORofcile. lh.e ch«c4' was olsarlj delivered 
to the Dales Ceispi*ay with the intention of defraudinj^ It, 

The Info rK'.at ton vas substantially in th« worda of the 
stattite, 'M^ish la :y,i that ia requirof! in charging a statutory 
Offence. HcC3r,«^Qk'.^|| v. i>ftog.l,j| . 209 111., SIS; gcoolfi v. CoHaa* 
350 111., :?38. Th« st^tut«!, auction 1S4 of the Criaaixial Go^..e, 
pToti^mn that any person ^sfifh the Intent to d<»fra;il 'wh© 5?h.all <!r«iir 
a ohtoS; tkpi<ui any "bai^lc, thereby ohiaLnlng fT<m any p«»r3 :n v»*»riional 
prop«^srty» kcsowiag- at the time of auch. atiiciHif. that th® js'ik'^r of 
th« oheok * not sufflclsnt funds in or arttiit ?-ith such hank 
or other detjoeitary for tha payesisKt of &noh ch#ek, draft or or^ler 
in full vtpoja its i>reset:itatioKi, shall be guilty of a sii44s&eaaor. '^ 

•.WBrii.iW i.'^b 

■ » .> .,».-• * 

Thff Aojwn'led oo?«plalnt flli'l follo'^s the lini-niagc- of ■^hls st%tut« 
•x««9t ibf%t It omlt« thf* wordo, "in fxill ui>en lt» firesentation.* 
th« gift of the offfttjse is drnwin^ sind dftlivcring; a Gh^aV: loaowlng 

tber* aye not safflelent ftmis to pay It, ;m:l th'^ worfia ''In full 
utjon its prasftnt^tion" ?4r« aufjcrf luona , neltb«r ad^inK nor in- 

traetln^ from the matftrlal allegation, Bart o/* v. Feoj^Ij, irss 111. 
406. T>i« p:«J0*5tral rul« is tbat If tJbs inror;-:.atioii ia so ®p»teifie 
that th« d«f«rids«4t i& notified, th«r«by of th«j oinarge wtoicb h«i is t> 
OLset aad is stbl?' to preparip hi« <l»fe««« and the offenso may "be 
ft»8ily underitood "by t>ie court or tli© Jury, th« »mie i« surficieat. 
^iPyS^r V. ^M2ljg.. ^^4 111.. 170; Psfialil ^» ^£MSa» '^^1 -^'il., U', 
ZSSMk^ '^» h&3L^t 310 ill., 558- 567. The? .^^ondiCNl cospl'^int -aas 
a-afficiertt In ail rsspeetii, 

Th© oo\irt found t.b.e defeiidant guilty la jaa^iixfitr (swad 
fona »,« charged in th« Infort.ation, and it© Jwd^^at '^as eist««freA 
"on »al*1 fln'^lng ©f fruilty, '* this is jisll tlio rteital that la 
i5<sce«B«ry ami is T>rop«!ir, 

ThP! ©vif^«nc« Justified tfee fl«'5lKg, an*? <:.(« t>^«re is 
no errt^r In the roeor^ th« jiiigjawnt Is afflnr.ei^. 

lUtchtHt , i'. J., ?uad Johnston, J",, concur. 


02 • aano 


Appall (^t« 



o o r-'- "^ /I /Q, 


This ie »Q appeal by {tefrnvimit fron % deore« axrairding 
hi© |315,a© to Ij® r«oov®r«d froK %he aose^lsilcaiiats ?md giving hitt a 
li«n ott oortAlri real eBtat^ fox th« saia«, 

Coi»piaiB4iiitB filad te«ir bill alls^eii-^ji; t.^** th«y w#y« 
ovttii'ra of certain ii&proved real estate ia CliieaM^o -and xhaX, reiyltm 
ou th« f&L»« i9t.4t©ii.«r*t« of (|«f«»daiit t30ijcarn,iiig tlid iti®««s8itjr for 
tka l£t&taJLlatio<i of » &«« boil«r tkerein^ ih«y la^a^e & oootraot with 
him for tbisj that deftisdaiit ir»8tGa.le«l th« nmf boiler o«rel«8«ly audi 
iaproDerly »o that It >rould not ^ork« tiaat thoy paid iiisa etrtaio 
Konoy OS the oo&traot; that h« reriov«d and !%ppropri%t«d the old 
hoiliir to his o^ti ua«, fyud that coa^a«ijaaiit», hoe»ua« oX' tho 1b» 
•ufficif^t hoating syet^a inat%lX«J \yy dafanlaitt, lost tmanta ac4 
woro o"blig:e<1 to l-^m ssort ooal; that thsy wBr« ooKpssllM to loatall 
another boiler at a ooat of l-SOO nsa6 def^irs^aRt tOf>k tesMjk th® OB<a ho 
had in9t%ll®<!j that thoy 8p«!»t other monoyt iia »tt«£aptltte; to laake Hi* 
bo41«r Installod hy defoiidiirAt work, but irithout saccosBj that the 
dofoniant had filed a olain for a)«!Ohaui«*8 lioa which imo oXale^id to 
Ve a olottd on eotsplalcaats' title; tho prayer was that thl» lien h« 
d«J0lar6d null imd void iuid tlmt dofe&dant h« decr«sed to pay «!hatenrox^ 
amotmi h« found duo to eoEftpIal£i£aitft« Bof «mda.2^t *« onowor adodttod a 
ooxitraot uad ao@ertftd thai tho n<m boiler wsui inot^ai^d proporly and 
wao oufftoifiOt to hottt tho buildiOfoj tlmt all the work y»a» dona in 
aceordttfice with th© contract, A lien wao clalEi«d for a halarico duo 
of #243. $0 with interoet. 

itr ij> 


•^^•^l.-l..' 'ViS- 

0XT61; « 2$ 

iiij-i-s &; 



:*««*5|^ t« 

flMi M»tt«r was r*jf®jrr«i to a zaastor in chiwioory to 
takft «Ti(^«riCR and r«port, i£«itb«r tho ffYldnno* nor th» £aa8t«r*t 

r« 'ort it ii< th« record Isafor© us. 

The court ctntored a d«cree fiadin^j th«t aefen-lant was 
«ntltl«d to a Ilea for sui iUROimt which, after ajiUiliif oartain al- 
lowance* '«Jd er«dit«, he iix«d at ^215.69, >)ut tfc© lief ew^isjit , not 
Batiofled «lth this, has appealed to this court • 

Coffiplal»t ia wade becauso tis« court awardfid eo^ipl fsda- 
anta credit for |4U for repairing, a«d. cleaning the lieiler r«yji6T«*3, 
Defeii-ilaMt had charged, t.hi» it^Re to the complrAln-mtis 'but as the 
boiler 'beenaie the property of defendaftt aftsr it wa« reaovod, we 
■ee no eoaitabl^* reaeon -why cowplftinaete ehould pay for repairing 
It an'^ clsantng it, sxt4 th<?r« i« nothiag in the contraot authoriaing 
euoh « charge against the OQisplatn^yriite, "^^e ©.aifmol amy ©ri the fjiote 
anpoarine in the flecree thi'^t tf^« chsuncellor impropsyiy foimd that the 
cossplain.'ir te should atan4 tbi« ©xpsiose. 

Criticism ismade also of an allowance of ?>§0 charged 
a^jalnst defe-rdant for rwKiovlniK a tiartition froai th«^ ohi^ey. The 
(Seoree, ho^?®ver, jjartioul^rly otiitt<P8 that this >M6«tait is allow«4 an<l 
«wart!.ed hy the etifmlatioa wa^ agree^sant of the parties laode in open 
court. Sefer.aaat eanaet now he hftard to owaaplain ahout it« 

JRhe epecial point ol «!efea4aiat 'e coat ««! ion in that hy 
th<5 Ai^cT&ft the court ordered th« coete of the suit, iriCluding the 
master 'a fees, to he taxed one-half aigainat eacb party, mi that 
any p«*rty paying; any part of the cost should he credited «ith ouch 
pajment in eatisfying the decree. The court cnf^red uv order ad- 
justini? th*? raeounts ae to thts costo fnxi the a»ount foiasd aue to 
def «Ri?,arit , >DXi'\ thf* balance irae paid in ta th<^ clerk of tha court 
and tbo <a6or«e satiafieA, 

It is aai^ that thore i?ere 143^ P»g«« of evidenoe 
takcm hofore the maot-sr in ohaacery. Coaai-fl'^frlngr the comparatively 
sffiaXl amount of money Involved 8uc>^ a volume of t<»!atlsj0ny would 



••ttia to b« wholly uaueoessary and auat Iiht* be«n produced by hos- 
tility Vet%'e«n the parties* The ohaiicellor wa» erldlaatly of tht 
opinion that both parties w»r« equally to liliiuae Tor Incurring; so 
nuoh expense, mi^ so divided ihe aoet»» Dlstrlbutioa of the oo»to 
in a ehaxiocry case prooeadlng it largely a ntatter of discretion of 
tho trial court, «n<l a court of re-vi«« will not Interfore vnloss 
such <S,l8eretloB hae 'boon »lb«aod. 'aSi^ ^» MMifiKLSSu HolAoiy B^ .iw .Cft*. 
S24 111., 76; Carroi:^, v. IMLiESaH* ^'S ill., S^a. In the aijs^inco of 
tho ttastor's report jtnrl th« oviiitwco takon -^9 o»miOt aasujro« to pass 
upon the aotlon of the ohancolior N»lth rof^ar^nao to costs, »md his 
order will not "b^ disturhad, 

Dofoiidai^t oontonds that oomplalneuitis 8h{>ul4 haT« aasulo a 
tender of tbts aaount iue» Jiut aoiaplaicaats olaiifc.«»=i in tl:«jir bill 
to have hoen vlaumgod hy tho defoii'-latut a»d &aknd tbsvt he he ordered 
to pay i'or thie. Dofondai. i, on the other h>t. d, ol Aijii«?v1: & li<m for 
a certain suju* fh« deoree foun^! thsit comply in idit was not fs^ititlod 
to dsaaages an' that deferi'iant was not entitl<if4 to a li«n for tho 
•iMunt toe clalGaed, We know of no rulo whioh requires the comxslain- 
snts, under saeh oiroomi^tAnoos, to i&ukB a tonder of p«>«i^nt to 

Tht ordinary rule thsit in soeitlng to reiTiOve a oloud 
frnffi ft title a tenfler muot lie eiad'?, onllnarily rwlat^'o to the r<9* 
BiovftX of a oloud in the n^tyre of a tax de^cd. 'fhe onses cited hy 
deferideuxt on this point are of this kind. Ilie general rule is that 
equity will not deny relief to a coanolainant fceoause he will not 
do soaething to ^ioh defeadax;t la not entitled, aantomaq h t, 
3tudt> 840 111., 464. 

»<e do not ae« ti>e force of tho critiolsia of th© way 
the chanoellor ooo^putad tltie interest. As shown by tho decree » 
the ch&nosiler found the usaount due th» def»nd£knt after adjuatiug 
the acooiint suid gave def Aidant interest thereon at the rate of 6>t 
pf!r annua, in aooordarjoe with the terms of the oontr&ot* Befendant 


-:iif». ,:*sS'vj- 

■ ^« -i .-> ;■;. :. r iiavia 

_ r* r r T ^ r. ft 


,; ftiji i.;w ■' -"X^J >i'i; ; c «i 

u -xftftasi 

JtiB'- ... 

>v; tix (. ':;*;-';■! a fe -j 

Mfmmu to cl&iss that he Is entltlei to Intorcvat on the Itins of HO 
an-'! #50 h«retofor« ref«rr«d to, Ther« ^oul'i 1b« no reason for al- 
lowing jSefexidant lntflri»»t upon josaounto to whloh the (laerfte bolds 
he Tt^m not «ntltle(i. 

Me ao@ no reiieoii to cllatujf^ th© decxtte, ';?« are in- 
clined to a^jreft with th« »us«j«Tt@tion in th® "brief that this liti- 
gation should not haY« invuivej Buoli larg« «3tp«r.aai>. The cost 
of this appeal alone ie narUfostXy larger tha« the a«ao\iat Involved* 

The litlg«*ilon ahowld >»« t«r»ina,t«d, a«d tl-ie decree 
1b affirsied. 

Matohiott, P. J» , -sind Jo>m»t«-r., J,, ooiicar. 

i.i.ii i^i.%: 

.- iill & i-.: 

■ r.:',:uj'-i 

,'\T,' *,i^' -•^■s; 

(•■Vj .X'JK'.'lSi t.^S^' 

69 - 28719 

^ftndant in ^>rror. ) 

OF COOK Qomrt, 

oo 1 ©He t: ' 

ttH* J&sf£c^ liASimK!.? i^iLXimiB^ 7KB ofziixos 0^ $ifi &mmt, 

■«»Hsg to r«c0rtr di«e!ag*» for alls««4 iw>«%la«. ^on trlaJ. 

ife« ectwjrt «x«lud«d ««7ttiijn evl^^ame* aof ai^paTisyBily fe«lag of th» 

to »u)):;.lt to th« Jury, air«ot»4 * v«rdiH for 4«fS'ja.4«ani, ^'lalatlfl* 
•«e]ut a reT«r«^ of the juil|£^:i<^t, 

An we arfi ©f. tk» ©ptnleti that ther« Miat b« « a«ir trial, 
»• rfff«t oia^ hritttly to tte® ©Yi4esJe«« PXatBtlff (slaim^d that la 

vat a deniiat praatielng his profaaalos at Blu« X«lairic!« D^ftari^^at 
»9Tiaed that tb® itXaljatiff^o a««&n<| i!iieX;%r Qa«d«i^ fiXli-£ig and of* 
faraa to 4o tiiia smd eth^r troidk for a flxad ^fieo, ^wfel-ei* wiw »e» 
e«l»teS. 9<i!f@adant i>ro«®«do4 to ttim% the tootle iii»4 plaintiff ciaJUao 
tfeat tli« 0Tl4«ne« t«t3i4fi te au^i^ort his aXle^sttlott that dofendafit m 
imairiXfttlly^ »«|Ellg«niXy «utt^ Sjstrofiorly troat«is«l th« tooth that 
aorloua 4as5«M?e r««ult«s4, 

PXalRtlff att^sq^ted to oaroort tt»le tS\&ve9 by th« t««« 
tii^ony of »r. iflXlar^ t«»fclfyliig a« an aac^f^rt* A 8«rl«a of ^««»tloii« 
w«r« aaleo^ to olleit art ot»into» a» to ^«th«r a dmtlat #x«r«i8t»g 
ordia&ry sare mnA skill wotad, ixx fivilUng a »9QQa4 aol-Ajr tei >th> 
rtipturo th« Icferior Cental art«ry. The qa««ti«» waa asi:<5td IH a 
Tariaty of way*?, but eb^ectlona to waah of th«« woro «u»tain»4 hy 
tho oottrt* 

^XtBS - ?, 

The grounds of th« objections «»wa ttt fe« (1) th^t 
th®r« was n«s eTid«no« that th« iafarior 4«ntal artnry in ♦bits oaM 
wm» »ttptur«(fl; (a) that th« hyi>otl^«iie«l ^uestl^nn dia a^t cental* 
ftXI th« f^ts; (and (3) th*t tl^e aKis««7« t« th« QUtiatlox&tt would in* 
tr4« th« prGYiaco ©f" iJit« ^xiry ?4» detiersalitiitig; tfc« ultiss&te fiict of 

There w&e n»n« efid«ii<it« tsiu^liig t« «he-^ ihmt t>te la* 
f ffrlor d«nttt.l turtnry was m'ptur«d, ^y 4«f«»da«it ^»fi®ja ^-Mlling t.h« 
sseend «90l)»r tooth. A dimtlst wh# «^8\s«»«?u«!*'itly treated i»ialntlff 
st*t«^'5 in »wlsijt^m«« thmi th» cowditl^na ©f th® t««th m« Ji© foaii4 
thssR Xta >)la! to ftftstms th«t tl** urtftry v«s «!»«tp«y€!«; tlii;at -wJiwi 
i» treat i«g -j^JalKtiff he extracted tff^lh s»4 4«»a, lb©o« ae blood 
flowsd froK this art?^iry,, rliic^ rouli oecur uB3,?!«tr s^rfna-t #«ntj'.1ltl»a», 
Th«r© was »th«r svldttm*, »«i©)*i fiH t>ie protraei^i "fele^Mng te th« 
first instacos, wjjieh tenditd to pro"r« tbl& f;5.«t. If tk«iF» ii?*s at»y 
•Yl<9eJiC« tsn-'Slog t« (rt?©-* this, os-oaa^l h&d ih« r4#it ta as®'JB»« th« 
sxisten.ot of the fiaot iia tfe.« tiypi>th<?tl6aa ^u<»«ti«m. Betwii aia '»'• 
AilfO^,4. 113 111, iiup,, 193; £^. .^... .,4 I ^ p^,, v, VT%, U(4i «Sj,, SOS 111, 

Ths oibjeotloas to ik« qu«6tlQiis on tb« trlsl w«r« 
gsasria sjsd ftot mc^oc tk« groiand that thsy dl4 est eoiitai» all ths 
facts. Cbjootions *tiould «i>©eiflc«Hy ^olnt o«t ths all«gei| faois 
tJist ftr« elalaoa t» fe« oiaitted. qt^lg af^ XSMlkH ££• ^« ^W^^^\&- ^* 
111., 430; C.a. ^. l.:^y.Qo. yr laiiME* SSi2 XU,,i^, Kowwor, as- 
STjsataj^ that th« lnff»rlor cUctsl »rt»ry wfts m-ot«r«^,t>'.«»r« wer« no 
oth«r faets 1» «▼! 1»tic« '«1^t<^ woul<l 1»»y*? any jttitt#irt«l "boArin^ it?*©ii 
th« Quffstioa whothor %hm n»nnX oay^tul ssna Bkillfal treatis^nt iffould 
o«.us« thlR. ©ofandnEt ooatrftdlcta th« fj^st of tte® nj;pttfr« «aa4 diots 
Kot claim that the «Tlil»n©«i dtiiolo«s« eir«siaaeta»i«o» ae;^ ooaditioui 
^lA W!»tjl4 aooount for this on grounds oon8iat<wit with skillful 
trooimoxtt. It la net nooeesary la a h^npothatleal nu^stioc to in- 
eludo evory fast ir OTidenee wholly unrelat^i! to the parti ctilar 

•> K. 

9oint to l5« iS«t«'r»ln»<l, 

yrovlnott of tJi« Jury, which, laon* harl the right to d!«old« i»!5«thtr 
^i»f9tnAKnt wa» jjullty «if n«£;IlKMao« or «uilprmctio«t "??<& ih»14 that 
th«y did aot, l>«f«n;i8kRi inttjlioily coBtrac!t«a to* tr«At pifsilntiff 
vltfe th« o&r9 and ftkiXl n.9viisl stm^i <su9%&&nTy in th« dlfitrlet <«l^v«?>ii 
h« prAoileiNi, an<S it '»&« th» praviuuft of ti\« Jury to a«t«ruin« If 
this contraat hAd beima br«»a«b«4 a&a, if «o, to fJUc ^^mipiknM^iorj 
dfti&ag««. Th« medioal «3^«rt «ro«14 teiftlfy touo^^iisg' tJTiff f^ietors of 
e&m aR«l sJcU.]L In tli« tr«am«nt» wMcli ^eitld 1»« «iriieri©« ^n ©»« of 
the fa«t« in the eerie* of facte t© fee coaslderftd %y th© jury ia 
axTiviag at sn oXtliitnite fi^j&oliiaiott, fb« «vid«i£ie« of sm ejcport i» 
like any othnr eifi?l®««« ©f a fact, ^vfcether realised ©■fej««tiv«ly by 
the wltR«»i er roetlnf o« opinion. It 1» « eo«m«s^l,&oe ia trial* 
to re««iTt oplnio» «Tl4e»fi« ms to ^^ietaaaoft, ^ft&tb^ar, sp««di« ^tad 
oth«r Biatttn, to 'fee e©a«14«r«4 "by th« jury a« «lft'.v«sit« «Rt<^ring 
lKt« fluadi fttitaiii^ isuB altiw®.ie co»cXw«l®a« tht ristl^iiT* ta|»©rta»«« 
or wftlght ©f «fiini4»a •▼iaeis-®* (l®#» aast aff«ot its atolnsiTblllty, 

It Is alsc ««lf»«¥l4«iit and ssita>fli»>Jt1 by s^ l»n« 
lia« of dftoleidfls that »irtA«W3io« r«ljfttiBg t© prof#«siois«X or w?fr^i<ai3L 
«»r« and slclXJL laitttt "fee glv«B fey «3ip®ri», l.*yflier. .mT« ln0ft3Rip«t«nt to 
testify upon th« ««fei»et ma?? tlio ojnfiiaary Juroro are ©sjually unln* 
fonB«tf, 3o fro» tim Tr<»ry n«$9««iti«0 of tfeo «%«« 9l»lntiff .oould 
0Bi,y prove ih« «ax«!gcitj.on« of hi a d««laruti©tt touoiilsg tko treat* 
m«nt Vy tfc.« t«J«tisM>iJy of «:ss5inrt«. i'^ih-x^, v, C. 0.. Ky* Oo .. 239 111. 

B48j ejuLxv. SiilsE. 2^ iu.» 871; c^jsgjiaa^, iMm ZxM^J^m ^* v. 

iiol?grt y. SJ^ ill., 481. 

th« quc^tioao pr«pour*die<J in tlii» c&o« referred to 
dentloto sK'i oaoet ge^ser-nlly, oa«t the o^lritona eallf?^ for wore 
oot ^jiR-^.lng ttTJOB the S^rf \ut «er«.ly atiTlaory, Lafay^ttg Bridgf 

£2* ^« ^£aa» ^'i' ^« ^^» '-• ^« ^'i 3^''» 

Ulie ^tKistloes 4o not e«iem to "h^ve %««» eli^eote^ to on 


fT®.m thfj Jury* It •»»» s^ e«»« wtitar* %hm f^ttifeunttsf ©f »i3 ax?9t»Pt 
ffiy ■^« ftirrftin a"b#ri» .tail emir's tfe© JujS«,i?3«mt i® r«s» 

*;.at©hatt, !'• J», ;m«l J©b«et!aR, J,, ©tjiscaf. 

fl • 28727 


71CT0a PAXJiiiJJiST, 

Plaintiff in Srrar. 


O Q T /\ , z''' Q K 
ti O Jl ®rx'® O ^ t[]^ 

MR. JiraTics ■M©8yim.Y mui^mRiTf fWM mx^im m thi e©ii??f • 

Flfiklutlif , OJB ittforwiitica ©hargta^ hlia with driYtng «q 
ftutoBMiMl* upoa a public hljjhwajr, whli« itttoxieated, ia Ti^lation 
of the law, »ociio» 41, chapter 121, Illinol* statute, wicyed & 
flda of gulitj^ a£id -^ae assatsnae^ %9 tha H^use of Cerreotioa for 
thirty da^rs smd fine^ 1 50 and constat. 

fh@ xmiitA '10B» sot a:i®w thait d®f«J!'4it«uat was wajwa^d or 
»dl»0«iah«d of th«' «©£i»*i!QU'^t*tiioe« ®f th« ploa of ^"jilty, %s r#quir«d 
by 9«etloK 4, ^i^iaioa 15, of th« Criiftiaal Cod«. 

At l« a 'wsli «»ts!sl3li«^«fd lul® that 3h?!-r« t><«3f ■r«Gord 

fail 8 tc «h©w thtit the Qourt fully tj^l-'aija^-i to ih« «.co«»i^d th« 

«(5r3a«qti«ne«B /©f «ait**ring a pl(»a of gulltir >«forfi ts«eh pX«h* l» r«» 

■fliilrffid and rfteorde^,, th« jw Aipt«Mat/t'h ®y«on ©imnot st-'%a4. 3g''!t«& , ^?|, g, t, 

^«,gol# V, IsaaaX* ^'2* ^il» App., 51 5 1 Sec. 4, Biir. 1.5 of CrUainai 
wode (J. & A#) Axmo. 3tatut«, vol. 2, see, 4121. 

tfor the fiaiure Indicated th« Jwd^pfsiftat is rev«ra*d 
lu&d the eaust la rejUi^adttd. 

■^atehett, F« J., and Johnetojr;;, J., oQ&eur. 

m " 



MR. jv^n<3 lipsm^xar mMf^m.:' 

O r> y /t^, ^^, 

^ t 

ft Qsmmai &smiJOB hmnn^* ihft*m&'^M% nritlni&mii i^&se^t&iM ii3Uii.m®tiQn@ 

is ia^tract«d» 

1^^«:) time lions &Kfi-! to t)® eim£ii4@'r«d a.c> a ^^lioX^* tt sJtX 
inijtrweti«a» p.i'opei^.l.y or?t fftryi the 3,«w ^idfei la S5=pf>lle.eM,«f to th© 
e&.&e th« O0urt ^IX net single out >:'-j|y p-:^.rti«mlar iti4-!tjm0t4L@tt «sitA 
rsTv-i-iie the o .6« b^oaus® oX eei^ *.41^t ©fi^r thisTeia. In tJw 
ei'bf.unaiii fftm th« eJ»et«%vui of ethar siT«^ ijS'^^ txtio tioii«» ^^^ ^\l Sbumsim 
.tlwit tlwgr <mar« a^y 908ai%(l« »l««ridBr®tr.»dij|g ^^ ^rvwe im tJisa* si"risi« 

t^m l»dlotia«3iit efe-rgiM t^«t u-feadsiUtt l^a.^mXlt t&^eVxcx 
with titxwe 0t]M:r@ nmm&t **di^ keep «t.isd j^^at^ds^^d a O'^jrtain Qisti^j^s&n 
gi'isljig hottfio*** From ar^ ex^js^^itieofi oi' ttie <^tidafli8e w& L;^.r« &r tlt« 
©pinlen th.-:~t It is iidt snUTilci^t t« ssipimi't tJic r^u'oi^t s>f t^-uiltiy 

est llt« ai^mo^m or ^'{^b'm-^'.ry i?» i€sa.« %}m polios swliii 
» »&lo(30 at masSa^s 4iM iouyi Hiils:t«>d ^tsi^e^t* in the ro^m ^«is 

:3 ^^ 


tiCiii-. ^ 




twmd R rm»le>tt0 ^satael m^ ©titer ^^riAmam imiQ-^tim tl»'.t the 
plA^ m^ » K«nlas l»mis«« th« ojrfl««i* fomtj tJi«jp<;? &i«mt Brr-;«*ty 
#r ttl^ty Jaoa. a mmiimt df iN^rsoas, ijacattdla^ x«aweii, v/er* 

aX««?ii» »«ar tito r{iuX<^tt« tfdtoc^. On© oXfleer t^s-UUl^id tla^it li« 

Afi3H»d I.©<2w4*Xl '•■IsBw t&ttjr «^r© doing au^ h® r^pli®ti, *Moi wi^ gi^oi.*'* 

All tia,# is ifa-:u»aalily a©m;«ji»tQ»t wi^ %km |Hrea«j««« «f l*«?.tw?,JLl 
iJa«rfl iiu & b^stKadtKB' -'^mi it i® B»t s»f -,i6i«s»i t« i^i0i» tlfe^t .il« ^a.a 
«li« ic««p«.r Qi, or a»0|listeiii»«l"«3P «JL<l«d» ab«.ti@d ^r ^nalutfi^ %n imia- 
ti'Ojilag til© p3Us» aa 1^ @<iiat&iig hmtm. a g^mi^TsX in 
oik v$9 «w Via ^^<^ JBi^ Imi ycigajPided as & Jtesslji^sjp. jjj ^s ^fiiy^a y . .f^dpljs* 
«7 III. mi» K ^gmim^l^r is not a kets:per, vtdiiSEs feMtUug stM 
a«aiotilig £ir® «iiTii3iBt.:.tiir© aets *%isd imiat Ih> p,rOT^i. i^-^f ¥« :M'm'Q^ , M 

81 111. S33t j^ r.MmM» ^«s xn. 73j -^^^ ^% v. f'^fi^iaa. xa^ 

Jwmise or tl%d iimcf riel«ii^ ef tim ©viii®»« tit® 4u%-. 
iKni is T0v^x^&d iiM^ the easts® is v&maAmAn 




«s --*trw — " 


(u^ vy 

ME, mBfim utmmsLt tm.i'^mm mz <^mxm oi* tm cmsm. 

Thin l» mi ^^cstl fvfm m |ia<»«iat f«r tk« d«f«nfis»t» 
«i»tfty«A u|>».o * trial toy tfet tQwH in a ssttlt t&roug'ht te rtcei¥«r 

Ohiett^o« smd c3«fan<}Sb(J^iti under t)i<i nsM^ et Boigi «L»rt«r doskl Cm&» 
fsuiy» operate «oiti- ai««« aeasjr c*i»«m»boro , I.«fnta<jisy. feny, 1VS2, 
pl.alJitirf w*« buying «©»! from defRmdanta »» iw* »f«a iii«ao\tfjt, 
Ibui ii&-7 ^ i^«y aatertd lato a osiitract «fi>otiir» Juri« 1, wiierelbjr 
Itlski&tiff «greM te aeXI all @f the eoji»l pro^uoed a^t ita iai»eil 
(irlth ao aniwportJiiRt exespties) f«sr & psrlod fr©m Jtioe 1, 19 22, 
t« F«lfe3ruary 10, 19 tS, D«fi&n4?wit0 E|><«foifl«s«til^ aigre^Td not t© ®«11 
ft»y of the ceal produc**! t® «ay ©tteer |»«,rt>% Plaintiff ^xeieA 
to iaark«i aad soil thf^ »m^& cb a otusmifsitloB 'b&sii^ of Qt <m all 
eo^ »eld l5y It. It altMj waa prcvvid«<$ tbat TitLadntlff afeoul«S rt^mit 
to d«fen*i«Rta en '5Ph\j»'«<liigf ©f «a«ta we** T6:l ®f th« aiSic^t 4»i« for 
all coal ^shippsd asni^ eold siiii tlbft t>Al#i!:e« te b^ ^^1<! on the ^Sth 
ef «*da Bieist^i for «fllil|m««it« f^r tKe prf««<3..tng moKtSi, plJiintiff 
<S«duetlag its e€Rag3l«si9ii fytoi T«»ittaxie^e. tia» wa» i»ia<d« th« 
«s»«R«« of tJio contrRCt, 40480 

June 1, 1933« w»8 oa Thursday, sik) ^«fen/i«a3te sia4« 
•bipaeaats in aeeoraaae* Tsritii tfea dentraet up to Jxme 12 imA tb«B 

a« %hmy 6l«il»ff(l that t»l*intiff 4«f«alt»4 lu th« |»a|»«nt. lue 


Plfidntifr olalBBLS that tt pf^rforsiud It a ^i^Ti of th« 
contract bat that d«f«mi«nt« l).r«ached ih.% B!ia« fey ib»111ij(?: t«s ©thur 
oastoR&Gm oftar June li?, ani Uia suit wan fer©u«ht to r«eov«r th« 

e«mQ(leeionfi •j'bloh plaiatiff ©ay* It ^ouuLd h.i,ife ui£i4e if defendant* 
had coatinuK*2 to ssjfcke ehlpsa«A-t» wntil the ejtpir*ticm of th<» can" 

J\ir«e d plalatltf mad* » remit tacoe to &9fmiismt» of 
11,000, and il'uat 15 » ]r«idttatiQ« of 1 547. It* She ^oaovfiat of thesfl 
I'fjtlttwjBce*, $X,34?*X9, rei»r«8ent«?4 «x®MJtly the "bal?Ms«« 4.'m frmm 
pX$kXn%ift on the }l%y <ap«n ^e^^^uat, imdi d«f<iiidsint« *a,^0Xifiid thea* 
rimittAnJS«« to erttliKg thut toaiaKo*, JPlalatiff «laim« that tfe« 
balsme* on th.« i&ny 0|}«& aoooidUiit '^&q i30t tlut unit]. th« 0!lih of 
tb^ f&lle-Hji^ S8©nth, w>nl5>'h ^sal''!, 'b« ^\m«( tJS, ®is4 3%» iJlaiiitlff AiA 
not 4ir»«t th<ft !jp»licmtt«)is of th««« r«mittaae«» th« law in that 
th* ©r«^it©r »m»t apply tt to & A«fM that ie ^^u«!, ■^hidfi tic tfeie 
o%M9 wctili h<t tho 715^ fiw^ »^u»« 9, ^n1«»y ihn t^sx^a of th«i ocHtract. 

Thflfr« Are two BuffleieRt »»»»«(?« to %h%%i (X) The 
ft?>pllcatlon of th««t reffiiit«o.e®s to tfe« M-my epon aeoouat wa* !»• 
tfuadftd hy i^laintlffj aa<S { S) It was sot »uffiel«r.tly prcvon that 
th« May attoou»t ««• aot <^ae uiitll ,Tt4u« g9. 

A K%ateitt«nt wa« ma^e aad y«ad«r€d hy jilaljitlff to 4e*» 
feisdaAtt, ahenflfig th« eoniltlon of th« ^ay account, this 8Jte^« 
thai th« rei«lttano« m Jsm& @» lSi;'2, of th« 11,000 was to b® ajj- 
pXl<?4 on this a«eow«it a«d that th* r«Bilttsttie« of 1 347. 19, msfje 
Jun* 15, paid th« halano* in f«ll. a1»®, th© r«i»ittsHie« «©tie« 
-»«»ada hy th© plaintiff WU'S ««nt to d«f«Hdi*Rt« June 15 cofetaina 
th« ear iiueih«r» of th« May aoootmt, th^ hftlnno* .-in^ thf^Tmn, -'^^'^-^ 
Il,347a9, ?il«o a Botatioa that 11,000 wa» i»ai4 th«i?eoB Ju»« 8 on 
aeoowBt, laavin^ a halanca of $347.1©, 'sbloh trat therewith paid. 
It U el«ar that plaintiff lBtend«r? th««« raralttanofii* to h« &q^ 
«lUd on th» iiay aceo«ntj *ra it oam;ot noit h« fe«ard to «liii® that 

fso fSir^otiomii w«r« ,glv«n for tlbi^r st^Tjll'Sftt, loa, 

^,^^ — -(^^ft i,9»ertl©» that t)5<i baiajaeti ^m« on tli« Maty aiocaont 
^^1 oot ^tt« ttniil Jtint 25 I0 toasts upon wfcat Is aXaija^d to be pTd^T 

©f a euiutme to effect. >' s^iy cua* witB«'«t atteiipt*!(4 t» i::.It« 
«»y t^etiiKony that tilsjpft »&« wijr sueih «suatca • the irlc«4iJre9i.iiifltit 
of plaint ifr' 8 e«fflipfflua>% Mr. JSathan iilclEeti&M^. It '^mm h^X^. lu 
"^ llsa§^\_?j!_^lWlt ^3 111.^ 517, Ifemt t>ift t^attoi^ny %t «r« *iiB«(t» 

low«4! la 4ii^.a3.xaafla_ v. Cteica^o_ k^ M<Mf^j^-»«titam H;y> ^», 153 111. A-pp, 
169; KalXy v« C-^rroII , 2?3 XXI, Apu. SOS, Xa tkis*^' i^«yi« It 
wi&e «»id: "It (tke ewsstsw) skoiild fee «8taljli0h«4 fej tii«s t^stiaicHtty 
et sirs-er*!. sritoeBsta, ^4 if it Jsi a •wsl.X-est^felish^^S ^jsf3»g« or 
taet^m, it ©«^M set to \a diffleali ®f jiiNaof t>y a i«ifet><&.x of , wit- 

■lir«B if this r«M|i^»iMiint #!.o«l^ 1>« r«l®.xi«a is li«st«r 
<ltol9ioiJ» in other ^>iri9aieti<ias tt !« ^mife:mly tJi« 1^0 tl-*i*i «▼!?»■ 
d«no« JBmtti «»tiii3li8h e3.«arly «o«l, e«ii5Tiiis«i« i. utstjga *» «!tta. fairly 
V« l>r«maa«d ^ havo «fiteir«4 iato tb« iatftettoaii of the partieo. V«gti« 

JUiokoiTKan t«»\^lfi««l that "oa tjho a§tti of tJi# follo^^lo^l ^^Sit^. for aai 
•Mf^«iat« 0^9140 tiio prKYi&uo man%h o« al'i or^ioro i$) the |»A;^«nt of 
opon account. That 1« cuoto^^ary la th« oo«a l>uelne««,'* a&d that this. 
»«• th« lEiraGtlo* la doiRg ^^oiaaoji la fihlo&go iari th« y«?aar 19 1?:. Thlo 
4o«sa sot moot tho roquir^sa&ent tl^at ^t^o tau^it lo^* ohown to b^ «o ujai* 
for§6ly well e^taiaiofeoi sad g«a«r* &o^uioae«d In m.A tto «?«li .ktiowe 
iMi to inauieo tho TB»H«f tha.t smrtlso ooatnaotwA Mth jpofsy^r^eo to it, 
if nothing- is atatttf^ to tho ^cootrisurs', .^^ thmt th^ f?i..ll«re to oonform 
te it ^euld "be an sxeojation. gH.>C,>^C^ ^^ ^3t, ,,.]■.» Sy,.,^C_o^ . t. ;?f»Xia,g. J^jaSH* 

i^laintiff wao in dofault in falXlieg to roisiit ob tfc« 
cocttraot on ThuToday, S\m9 S^ ^snd a party -^ho is in dofault tm<i*r 
• . '. ■ , 40482 


ft contract cannot mJAiataln an a^tioD for dai^a^jet for Itti br^ftoh 
^y th« oth«r psrty. CM^sga IMiSl SfiA .Sa.i-V5_i3lil£«ll, -78 

trsIeujB gfi«. ?I0 til. Apt;. A 330, Halttiiff «u.6t first ©rave lt« 
«R»n a^iT^liano« with th« e©ntract» «siif? If >::^oth parties are? alikii 
in '^efjMiJ.t R«itb«r o«c aalntatn an aetioe on t>»0 eoatraet for its 

J 5li.tSM8- ^»ttxg4 €?^ftl Co, V. fhite^ftf ,^. ^?7a 111.^ 623. 

JuA.iSinrit of tb€! tri%l tt^wrt vas rl;?ht wtaa, it 1» 



Matoh«tt, ?. J,, itfi4 Jo-«8t©fi, .J«, eoncir. 


13a - ?a79o 

■".mm nxmmmcK, 

M*w./^ mem coiPJTi coimy of 

gSoi'A^* o 

^,. ^-% ^•'^ 

iv *\ r^ 

Sfc-R, JUSTiai St«Si1iSlL.Y uai*IVB3l?.U TEl OFlJii'XOM W TEi SOW^T, 

him for *37 «jitered upon ihAs v«r4i»t of a ^axy. the acttojs wsui 
brought, to recover for df3*2*i«;-s to pliiirjtiff *« autoifeobil* Etr«ck l»y 
d[«l"«»daRt '8 aatoifeobllo truok, aillufg^jd t© "b© i5agli|:5»Kt1ty driven by 
hia. JLiaMlity ia not q«^8tioa«4 h'j^rts, but tt Is claiaia^ th.a,t th« 
'UnuS'm^i^ ^ero not proven. 

It Is 1« ftiri'lS'iitca tb&t def ««iftant *s iryek ^as goisg 
ftlsftut tt-.irty Stilus mi hour whei-i It ctrucfe plalaiiff *® 'jord in the 
d«nte7, knookiag- It »aKi« .foet avay, ■feT^afelng or '1«ntUig Ita si4e 
3is=S breaking er#oki?« ais^ Imo^klag off t>!^ battery. 

Flaiatiff Jjfj4 hl» «.itto?s«l>llt T«p-5l?«4 -ia^l his »eil 
'3iitlfi«4 th».l h(? »a*r th® r^stjalr "bill paid,, A|>i>artntly two Mils 
•fl-®r« r6n<f«yad, on« for -Isisi.^* *b^ on« for |M,7S. 'ttiis witu^sis 
■ <*»tlf led that th« bill for raipaiyiB mvioh he aaw pni 1 r#i4«i to r«» 
!3i*ir 4.-k^'aH«» to piaiiitlff '» atao.>M>l5ile r«coiy9'i3 ia t>!^ ^eoii^JBt in 


2«f «ti!.iuftt *3 srt£U£s-3ui la that t^i^sre ^tt4» ao pyoof »« ta 

tiie r«3.9owalil« cost of tJisBe r»tHi.irs, Im T^ax^ '^* ^MBSM&B.* ^^ 

111,, &19 f th® court aal4: 

"In or^iiXtiTj buuir*««» trtxtisaet LiJiiOj ndthiiig appearing t® 
«5a»t auspi!;;ioa ©n the f'&s thcyeof, good, faitb i» ■pr«Bvjfc,§<5, 
aei the evi<3f>j^iG« of i»h«t oa© H?i3 aoiu&ily p«u<l for RGceasary 
repaulra i» adaisaiblft to e>50W «hut this r«ii0onai>l« ooat of su^ 

Thlst wais cited iFith s^proval In Pie»bo4, ; y v. Lyct.^ . Id4 

111. App, 78. tfce tn^ttknt cast in one for tb® a|)|)llca.tioa •f ib4» 
rul«. Thi? falmees and goo?? fsith of th« bill is not quentione^U 
3ef«n<!ant i&t ro<)u cvf»4 ao •▼Idrans* toxzo-la^g; thm »&att'». As tJj» Jury 
ftllo^e^' t e pla-laatlff only -$iit,. wlier'>&» tfe® bllle v«r« for atsoh 
more, it -«ul,;i h^ xanjuat to jrnqiair* auaother trial becauBS of «oia« 
failurf* to Intradue© al.l tit© «Yid«i;sc« is-blcfo might bav© I»ii«hi pro- 
4uc«di. Th*r« w<a8 »jifflel«jst isjiroducad to rais« a 9r<>«uBaptioa 
•f reason %bl(»«nf»« mn'^ th« Jlw^jE^tmi In affirms^. 



•^ptaim$ } _ mmu, mm 

'^- * • mfm ooijBrrY* 

ijji »> X 9 - A- © .. ;o' <.^ X-»-' 

»»• m^rxm wm^m.--M:i m^mmmm tm mnmm m fm^ mmm, 

m'Sety 4fi?^ait fe»3c ir*sB$«4 fi-eaa dsgsf tM«at ^^licrift e^^nad aM op«r«tt«4 
taf^-^ a«|s©,a4t i^asllK 4» -Hi© .M^as^BBl© f ^e^cs- imlXil4% in CM,m'*^.* 

i»9»i@ ^i^'li»M»{| %im ami rm,t^ %^ p^i^mtii'f ^^^nd m^B &.m^' MMi 

did silt ei^3r@ig# #£*«I4)^>'10^ #v^im !«ti^ (li.3.i#i^(t«# t$ $C0«!^ taf€^ tli9 

i^t2« ^va&^mii -^m^mm ti^im^iih^t i^m^K* 

mk% -mm flr^t as8!»«in»@d lagr ^m ^^mmm, Wed ^xs^srinixm '^Isian ma& 
l«»i»iR»l^i.:^f»^.^ijf, ^lljitt^ ^S'i$aii» %i%;^rd ^eltte:r« '^uir3>je%) &E^«a» ^ 

nevti fm^ X^am ^&e grmx^eak &d smem. p%m3Lmtitt*& nmm m m to 

3W^£?4 Si« It mm et-^oidis* **^taiew20 ^iRsm 1^.4 a-^iifrt«*re aaia© ^n^^Ly/iqj 


• 2« 

B0u«iTol<mt BoQi^ty^ & GO rao ration," th* jsoin'^ft of th« trustees 
b<»lng striok«ia« 

It 1» argiie<l th*t there le ao evldwice of a l«g»l 
tr«nsf«r of th^ proiB>«»rty or the orl^;ln«l society to this corporation 
•nd tfe«t a© It wao th<s ioclftty wbleh originally rent*s4 tV»«» etrtSftf 
doiitosit T:>03t, thflt contonto still 'bflkloBg to this society ;tn=i not to 
plaintiff, the corporation. 

Tlaorf? are twc fluff id «»t anir««rs to thi». Tb<5!r« 
is «0E« evtdOEoo tOTj'ling to ©how that tha ©Tlginal aoaloty and 
th» pr«8«iit corporation are one suid th'j, 9,?m® org«nljitatlon. one 
of the witii©»9«», Carl ltas«l, t^Btiri©?! thai he waa owe of t>i© 
tPwst#»^'9 ft^ thr G-onsaa E©d Carriers Uwloa f-as4, l'<ii;iefT®l«5«t Sociipty 
an! bad bssn fo.i twonty-sevsn y^are, ^ffhloh -wauld l^e a ptrio^ 
'befors And lifter tfe« In aoxpo ratios. It is oottclusivt fro*» Ms 
tsstlfflooy tbat hm wfis acting -Suring this period for th*» one ©rgaci- 
aatioa under th« ^lfrer«»t w^ffiss. This witness also testified 
t>»at tl^.ls organisatlo© roxit^fi a feox froa dof^m-iajrit for tw«nty» 
««ven yGfSk-rn* 1'hl® b^x was latt«rly toown "by thoj?e e^Koems^.^ 
ln«!lu<iiAg aef«M?Mat*» ««»pl©y««, as 1^« %o-3i of tli« Chicago O^wian 
H©4 Carriers tMlon and B®ri«vol«mt Society, th« eor'^orate nswa*, 
Thsr* was ot*>«r sri^StsKiot tsallMft" to show that this oor'^orattoa 
▼as origiKally the voltintary ©rg»nl«ati©a ^hlch first rent«^rt th© 

*ox. 40497 

Ths ©tfe^jr «aiw«r to this poiet of varlanss In tho 
identity of piatBtlff Ib that after plaintiff hid closed Its oas« 
ana a motion was nado "by ^i«.f ©Ji'<!fiiit to diroot a verdict in its 
favor on tho groujnd of varlwioo, ani >1#ril.'*'5 t>y th« court, fief^RcJ- 
atjtt prooewdod to iKtro-luce t^ati^soisy in <lefeiiB» itn.d iSifl. «ot renew 
ths polxit of variaccs or Its iisotion for ^ directed vertJlot at the 
ooneluslon of th« evidftr.oo, IJofeulant thereby waivod ita rl#st 
to assign as error the allegi^^S variauos ^m^l as it therefore ioes 

««e t 

^. n '^ ^ "I Ip 

x^«f<«d7:«i*i« mmX%% wjTf ia site "br&mmnt &t th« ■ 
li« Tasapa.® ia CM^tr*^! ^ey »©*»« w^eWL i«P.t ^dth «t««'I lifii«li 

^^«r. rented %#' «i«ii6;t«»!»®irf5;j tJi«fS«0 l» ma <e3.,s4m nf mit^i^Wi^ ia 

<rt5f mm 4» oii^iii^ ®f 't^a f-^^uit^j &m #f ^li«ii, ^sn0:#i '.i'«iteff» wim 
in »jfc^-r^0 <sf Wm dfeult ©ut,'^^^* ^ffi lwaw» 0,hm% ^^l^m m »lti*» 
o%J,®9Jfe ^m& mm iiat#.r«i4 .?*»€ «^sl6«i> '^ftH'^i? if tSisj ssjiad, r^i a. 'mm 

^«> <sa^ ©j: iii«s T&i^^ #j-«iii!i*ag msgi tte «»y, ~lW« «^*^ »» mt M 
%Mt-*-$ sUw. ii» ©r tut Mnn f«i.x©a t*aBffi m imi^& mi^ ^ ^a mUM 
sm %i^4 1^, Cvttar«»*3ijr ^« :r©'l^r# IJi-m i^tat ^^wfe imt^ j-dasatci® 

.aj?t#iit©* \i^ms "i^um h^mu 'W^Jma ^^m mM v^^kbe^. w&« ^^ms^. siss^ir 

.#« tei. ■«fid3!!*ls«4 fiSi' site €isf «i^®«j,i ®fa^;s«aa3r ;t'w i-i-'beiit 
fi*v® sis»tl2to l^i^«ap t«> llifc tiMm m^ hmd a»W3? feasted »s a \«^fedtem 

i»' 1a^.4 t» m mtii t© r«snt tia© m^m, ^ Sa^id i<s$ ^isaaj m^ -Mm h& 
i^tfm^ the m&n $j^mdmi to ■:-.^«si^ eat )m ^&«*st i« egsw® m.^ ^&%f$ 
T^«ai «i^«gr nt^ad m i^ ^ii^ tiae ^piae ^ikI Uh>^. mt &».,e& to ti» fetijpa.** 

Wm s^jRB ^ -tt».aa3? e^*»* %»&m tmi m^^^m im Mfc^ mil m ^m^ of 


d' e'- 

iM ^M» dasffi^^t 'mnm mat htm^ Mmt <iif ism':it -m^.^m miM^- %m mm 
«m duty ai i»i,i^t, mm 9i t^MWi ^% Ut« ^as*;.,. -saaa. «#f*&i^e.atl^ 

tiws 4.m^m& 9i ^ixm mqmkwma 9i ^ mi^w ^m^^i>t <mi^Am is 

■Xo 3S/ 

Jiysy «^ta4 iar(>p««3Ljr fim that tiiii .l»«ie mis #s««a4 iT I3te XslsS: ®f 


this timi t&ay d;^«ffilie<i #S,©eo Im eiSuAi ij» pl,':Aatil'f »» 'box; 
||,.»@0@ Ll'bertj .Stiifei!,)^^ 0X90 $1»006 in w.'^r a%8tjp»« j»a»iS. b^^ntic boalEe 

♦ I'. 




X93 • aaase 

A*"'i?:?,Ai. FROM Mtn-acjPAi. comt 

tmik Xt£OIS ^m U£i^AM , Cop &rt»ert , ) 

trading A» UvOTB uniaAao aWTO J 

O JL ©ii-oi 

Ha, j?jisnc» M«srMi^Y uM-itHBirs rm mmtm m nm Qmmt. 

flaiKiiff In hin »t»i«mm.t of elaiiR mlltf^is thKt h« 
g»v« f!«f»n«SAnt IBS ^tifl & ,f©xv£l trueJe, ait ^SG<;i ©s tBt |jareha«« prio« 
of a BuiolE truck wM«Vj d«rf®na.54»ti ^yeed to d«»llY«r to |*l«i4'niiff; 
tht&t defen.-Jaitta fmil«fd to 4ellv«r llt# Bttl«jfc tr»jsk, otjltitlng 
istlatatlff to hiT« ©»« at as 4i:s:|.»«si8« of Il71j tli,Skt ^ef®/i4^mt» hia<S 
ffstalijftd tli« ^2^ ««.i re,fu»«^ <^© f^ ^30€ f«.p tSa«i f'©i?d ttii0Jk ««<i 
the e««t of hiring &ne, oaltlag » totijil. 4l«®ag,« to .flaictlff of 
#49S. 9«f©Bij8U5t8 filed m%- ».ilti4MVit of j»«rit« am^ oXai^ of »«t« 
off, elalatiag |li!l for atora^^^ti of pialatiff '« «a^ in d.®fmj43J-.t«* 
garago. The fiourt fetjad agaliast tha s«t*-off -laaa fsr ulaiKtiff , 

C05»n=5«2 for «0f«flc!«ftt« in hi® brief has so f*r de- 
parted! irm. iih% rtil^s of thi» «!©mrt (Ku. 19) as to a&ko iho 
points arge^ for ir«T«r»al eoaowhat «i1»ftou.r«, 

the ea»© «e«ii« to %ilEge vepon t5i© er®'tl*'tlity of the 
wit»«e*ff«. FlalBtiff to«tifi«4 t>!at ©a Aagust 14, !<????, ho had 
<l««Jllng8 *ltte 2E, R» MJOKfleXd, & salssauBert for <^»«f «B-.Jaats, i» 'ffeleh 
It w^s a.,5;r©«4 thstt h<?j wsulfS tr^<3o la hin Ford o-ar for Isoc «tt»<3. pay 
|SS oxtra for & Btiiek track to Ije di«ItTer«4 S«pt.<^5l&?»r 14, aaail t>5ai 
A written agroejKioBt to tbio s-ff eet ^a« maido. Thio -o-^^or i« in ovi- 
4«i3teo» »igBo4i "by H. J. li^jj^eon, oalos mAHT^^&jr for diofoiKt-aiita. It 
tOEdo to oaf port plaiBtiff '• story. At the a«t&« tlto« i>lalnttff 


YAH il,Xf9M m writtiia receipt »e-Jio«^«4giiig thti (iteXlftry to Amf^i^m 
ante of ths Mtrd truek to 1»e £ipi>ll6<; on tiie rt«v Bulcic truiaic **&« 
9«r bie ordAV to us (S»t«<l 4ugU9t 14, 1922, *> rhin v»a «l(p)*4 by 
tta« South Qhieafio Auto 3aX#«, l>y k, J. ^aii»en. i^Iaintiff «a.s« 
i«atifl>>!d thttt he «x«out«d a bill of &«a.« oojotveylng th« ii'Drdi 
truek io d«fe.niiiaAt8 an;'^ tbsit Iw this ^l&in%i ft «a.« (!ft«<iri'b®4 an 
vt«dor an-l 4«fftn.-?^*ftt» as Teis^**** T^i^rtui^^ii pluixitlfl"** I'ord 
iruek vaa d«ltv«r«4 to «J«f f-nf^antf .siiA iplafl(»4 la t>*«lr gnrmgn* 
n?j<m th«» trlfil vlof^nl-sint* wwfft I3©tlfl«?^ to pT^^MO* n©t ©ely a 
«o|»y of thm ©ra«r of Mgiist 14, but aluo t.h« bill of coa'ift, but 
••tt«a«l r«fi50«4 to ^r»Hlao« fh« bill- 9f asd« but .ii-l pre^l-aoe a 
•<»97 of the orf3«r« Th# Btdelfc tn»0-^ *»« R«t d«X.lT«r#4 ©a 3i»pt«ai« 
*«* 14. J'laijitiff t«atifiei8 th»t tmtil I'suayary 2, lfillS3, h<s «iaA« 
Ili8ier«u» reqiUiest.® sm-i aftj&imAe of 4effii-Asuat» for tSi«i •a^livftry of 
tli« tnjoJt bat tli« d«fe!ix:ii9yrAt« f%Al«di t$ 4«»liip«y it, th®r»i«foa 
ylftjntlff n^jtlflcd 4«itx3dmitn tlmt he «50«14 a®t wait Xoagssr and 
l»ttro"ns&»«d «iiothflfr txm&ls. ioatl comi^is««4 tMs »i«it, 

i*l%,l)Eitiff '• ©to 17 le 0up:i^^0Jt«4 by tha testlsajny of 
"both JiiftxfiAlfl &rA Higufi««£i, H.%nsi«» testif yinjg th«»t at th^ tias« ii« 
»lg««4 it& order of Ajuguet 14, U&rwf 'teintiasa, oe® of tii« ■•3«f«ft<3» 
antt, -vpftf py©»ent rand i«&tr«ot«d th« wltnoas, HssuaaiJi-,, to ^im 
tfe« oM«»j that tb?j ■t.iill of sssl« eatftc^t^-^ by pl&lRtlff «onv«yiiig 
t!h« for4 tTttok t© d«f«j4aRt8 wa« fiX«d ia dof^aa^Sarstn* «af«| that 
li« bad told Ms^rry *®lB»ffiiafi of thie bill of 3.!a<s ilrr-ctly it wa« 
na4« ottt* 

As o'^*)o»oi to this*, Harry Wglsesian mi<i Morri« ■■^aisfs- 
ASH, d«f«t*49£it», t©»tiri©d i» »wbflrtM*«« tb»t pimiRtlff *«! i'^orv^ truck 
*»« put 1b tVielr garage for f?-&le; that tfe«y j^iii laot ai.uth®rl«» 
EaneoB to slge tb« ora«r; tiisit 1© lioT«®b«r pi«il»tiff took oiaii fei« 
truck, sayijag t>?.at if $^ij oo^ytld net b« r«?ali»«d on It h*? woul4 
taJfee it Mi^ »«»« it J that llar.asfi aovor mftiUioned iht pa;;^sKt of 
|38, ^nd that plaSUetlff udver tt©k«d far tfee r«tnm of thia e«©i. 

i^ *o4l ^MSi »»»«»/sl*sr •/ii ftXlif* ,'iU*«i«i.p «iii> amdJ t9£lt»t 
«|^oo» 'lot mlAJt v»<* *«' 








I I .-- • 


otxac coiiSTt. 



/C^ C^ tP* 

;'i © ''U'' 

<£j O 

MK, J(ji>¥iaj MftSuiigXT WAXmrn^ tm. o^miois of* the couht, 

Tbii is ftn %|>9«Al firman wa ii3t«ifI«outory iuju»ctien 

r«»traiidiig defeii'laata l>o«i |>r©a@catlag c«rtaln euits in forciTsl* 

d4italn.«r ana far tnn\. in the i^wsiclpal court, &n«5 frc?-5 ooIlBctinig 
any '* 

©r rec«lvln^rej'>t« from the t8n.«iJt« sf the ^rop^irty in eontrovaray 

until the furtl:««r ©raer of the <Ciyeuit court, 

Ciws^lainsutita a©r<s ta dissjlsst ih^ a^^«al my th« iproaB*! 
tb*t th« a©i>«%i >?©»'! iraa ii:»t fll«4 t« thl» Appellate eowrt within 
thirty day« frem th« entry of tb« ord«r apstalaa fro«, ^sjad aa3«i*t 
that in i^ioCarthy v. City of Chioage . 197 111, Apw. 564, it was 
deoi'JAd th&t th«% atatttte ob int«rloctAt©ry )ifueal8 required this 
t© "b® (3©ne, iSven a qasuaJL reading of tuie opiuloo ©Iso^© that it 
did not 80 hold. The point wa© ii©t irr/olv©d, towt, as flictuffl, th© 
o^iKi©n ©orr©etly a^id, with r«f«r«nc© to th« etatut©: *It ha© 
been ixniforialy held that ufiier this provision the stpocliaiit ayst 
fii© a feoBd in the court ©nteriii** th« ©r4tr or ?l«or««, saia bond 
to %© «|)|>r©T©4 t>y the clerk of ©aid eottrt," In th« ifif?taRt ca«e 
th© %^n<\ wa« |>roperXy a!>5?rov«54 aad flladl. tm.'\ the mot inn t© ^^.t&.ia© 
i« denied. ' 40503 

Tlie i>rl™.ary put ©9© ol tae bill i» to resiov©, a© a 
©loud ©« 1>M* tltl*, % contract for th* as^lp of certalo improvad 
r©al «?©tate, Complainsint© all^g© that they \re the 0^*0 pt© of tb© 
^remis©© iKTsrovei "with ©tore© ^u.l flats; tlnat the ©©aolaiwant 
C©lia Bilk©© ae«ruir©a tit]?? toy a «i««d dat»4 iJsnuHry ^3, 19J?5, froai 



Stanl«y Cholfiwtnakl smd hi* ■^ntt , which d««f<S vatj rwcoriefl iiay 17, 

19^; that nrior thereto, lo Aorll, 1933, Cholewlnsl-.l m^\An a con- 

truct with Wa«yl BlcUo, one of thflf d«f©ndaxitB, whor«by Chttlawinski 

agreed to oonvoy to J^ioico mtA.A (>r«mle«B upon BioJee i^aylng a o«rtaln 
MMunt in Buonthly icfttal^v^flaritt, iidiI »e0u»ii}g cflrtaln mort>:At<:a«, pa;y^ 
lag the Interest thoreon; that the eoutract provided that no rl^ht, 
tlti« or Intcsrest in th« pretftiaen should v«ist la McJfcS ontU « 
A«ed wa« deli'v«r«d aund that lac-lther the contract aor *ii«y copy 
th«r«Qf Rhouli l3o r«oor'5«d, ;ind, if reeord^ii, the cotttract, %t th« 
option of CholevlnRkl, ahould b^cosvo ttb«olat<»ly null and void; that 
in oa»« of failure to suaisc th« fayments provided by the contract, 
at the oiptlon of Cholewliiski, the sontraei ihoulrl bfs declared for- 
falted aa«? •l«st«r)S.lis«d a»/! h« thould hav® th« right to r©-f%nt«r and 
tak<9 possesision, '_..^,.: ':'_:.:_. .',„_; , "' 

Th«» 1111 furt>i«r alle'g«<i d#f*itilt« on thi» |>«irt|of 
DiolcS in hi«» monthly payaoKts on th«» oontrnot and hi a fa.llur« to 
Tjay Interest on th» prior mortf;'i9ige» an agreed upon, aloo that he 
filed a duplicate of hi a contract in the !Vi;«>oorder*8 office of Cook 
^ounty, and l&y\reaBon of all these things Cholewlnakl elected and 
declared the contraet forfeited and d»t©r?>9lned; and coiasjlain-sBts 

say thjit thereby the oontraot hec^ii^e null ;:«.«'? void and _v <«ioud 

40 DO"* 
OB the title, 

tlie bill allt^es that said def eri-lantt )9i«ir» eozam«ito«(| 
atticns in fcreible detainer ani for rent against oertain ten'^nts 
of the p realises and ^re desanding rent from the tenauts and other- 
wise interfering with th« ri hts of cosaplaintmts* CobiplaiiiJ-wtfl isit 
that th« aforesaid contract fee deoreed to be null isn<5 void, a cloud 
an the title, •anc' to h« lulivered ms to be caneelA»?d, and that the 
jtt^ipsent for po»s«8»'.in 1b th« f.^rclhle t!etMn«r suit obtaln'Sd by 
def endaj!ts in the ktinlcipal court be '^eolared nail and void, and 
that they bts restrained from proseoirtlng suits against the tenants 
and freat eolleoting and receiving rsr^ts from the bvtildlng. 

|y5/?e i::^^-- 

. - . '(J 

;«j»^/ «v 

, '' Ti J •'" " ' 

•;*sp7;gTff?» yt^tn: 





5)wi>fj<H^«(. ; 



:■!})!»•«: fas 

.«1; hfl« 

Th« Mil giv«» mif fi ;l»nt juntlfl cation for lh« inters 
locutory Injunatioa. It a prlsaary purpoee, as we bav© aala, wa« to 
Bulili'y Dioko*!) coBtrukct ^uad to rtt&oro tho stats «» as a oloud on tho 
tttl0, fh© GOYirt having properly ao<|uir«<l juri«<1ict ion for th« 

purpoae of dotaralnlag whether o®j8p.l,a.laa»t» w«3r« ©ntltlM,.!.©- tte.» 
rollef sought, mid the bill on it* fae« havlog m%4e » janJaa f^^oif 
ease oiritltling ooisplaiifiai'ita to r«licf , It •<?&« ©at l,r«ly 'prober to 
roBtrala (iaf «fc-ourjt» fro» Interfering with th«» t*8naiit» toy att«»Dtliig 

to «»x.«rclee rights! of o''«m«?r«hlp «fi4 posoosslon. T'Utlng th« Alle- 
gations of fB,ct in thfif 'teflll a« tna<i, aB tla« chancellor m««t ut^on 
th® motion for an tBterlocuiory lo^'Jiy^oti^n* <!«f«MH'anta h/«l no ri^t 
to ptiriy« th.m tenaBtt «it.b^-r for |>o«0«oaior3 or foir rwnt, or Ic aiiy 

way, ?Wf! tha t«SG!porary ln,ttinetlOR.%l ord«r r^etr^ining thim. from 
doing this wain <?nriroly ijropor. 

ft are oatproaaing lio 0|>ljai®ii a» to th« «lilmat« r««ttlt 

of tho Offitse, Se« i4;r f... & 'S , 1.. |i y. Co. v_»jn,m^^, ''S9Q 111,% 4^8; 

i;«i^ ▼.ASfiilaS l£^£& ^^^SM Il^a Ss^' . 104 III. .^,p. 4Sa! lajBte«y%. 

it wa« not M©c«®8&ry to ail«5'ge iM&olrnn^y of the flef«fa» 
antd. llt@ir suits for pot^seseion and rent oueid thair aotlone in 
0t.h»rv^lse t»terf»?rliag with the toaants would work irrfip-trafele b-itrm 
to the pre&3i»e«. It was w«sll ^?ithln th© aiooretlon of tfe« c>ifikr.c«llor, 

r«gardl08S of ib© fact of the 8oXvtsr:.oy or inaolvoncy of th«? (itfesad- 
«»t»» to iBalntain the al9;L^i& ."^M ^^ ^-^'^ sisbject-BiAtter of tho liti- 

%«i>^^^-n* LiMMEl_i._J^iSi2Lmf JiiiEja* 40505 

Th">re is no !!&f?rit In th<?. criticlion of the rerif ieatlon 
«f th« hill in which the fif flaunt at?«ars that *he h*s read th® abore 
and forftgolnif? felll ©f co.iEfplmirjt and knoiifsj the contents tfecrelK, aad 
that th«« !»-aaje Is tru«,* By th*' wor4s, *thg s-t^j^f? is tr-u«,'* affiant 
clearly means th« blli ©f eorapialnt and not nxxy one "contsnt" th«rei«. 
the interlocutory icjuKction was propprly issi4.<i?'fi and it ia si^ 

(f Mat ohstt, 3?» ^'♦j jaaad Johastoa, J., concur. 




■.■fyM-'^^m.--.- tV^f^ 


'.e.tilarffc- >*»^^.'rA 

40 - 2a«?i 

a cor pe ration. 

Appellant , ) aPFUAL ?aoil 





GUaHASITY COlfcPAMY, R corporation, ) ■ V' Q O J A /^ O •» 

AppellJe. )-.'^ tiO ±«il« 1) J 6 

I.i thia Cfiso the Circuit Court auistsined defendant'a 
generu^X dcamrrer to the e^oend faaendftd tiil of compXnint, and 
dimissed the bill at coapiriinant's aoatSt laad thia appeal 

In a«id a)n<}n>ied biil, oo»plnlnant, a ISew J<»r»«y cor- 
poration* • lie«nsed to do ^maines^s in Illinois, nl.leg«a in »ub« 
Btanco that "prior to i^eptoaabtfsr 1, 1921, the «xaot dat« being 
unknovm to your orator,** d«f<?nclf4nt, for r vajUiabl<3 considerntion, 
executed an<i delirered tn complainant its bond, whts^reby it Hitpreed 
to reiKburee complp>in»nt to the extc^nt of 410 ,000 for aiQr money 
or property thnt one imTDOnn, lie employee, '»ottld OHibezsle ot 
Qthervise convert to hio own use «feile in ite employ; thRt com- 
plainant doe® not know the exsot tenae of the bond «» the anme io 
now in defend«mt*B poit«&eH9ion; thsit Ti»'ion8, during* the yefwre 
Idas and 1921, stole eilfera Btssia of money and property from it; 
that 'faring an exnaiiV'tion of complainant* b booke in ^^pril, 19?Ji, 
by ft eertifled public ae^^ountasnt, tlw latt<?r info me-6. ooMplHinftnt 
that TiWRona hwd Mt.«len variouaj n\ma n^.s^regwiting $2,724.91; thrtt 
oo»plain«nt relied on Urn n«count«nt»9 rnport nni believed it whs. 
correct and complete, and, und«r that belief, notified d^ffndunt, 
in i^ugust, 19i?l, of eaid dafiaoutione *t« the extent of SK-id fore- 
going euai only,* and delivered to defendant a true copy of tho 




• 2» 

IteniiMd list of itnid def alatitlonn prepured iBy aald Accountant; 

that, ihQr«upon, def«nclant, relying upon ««id Hat rujd belie Ting 

It t« l5« eorrect and oonplete. on or abmit ^eptealMtr 1, 19^1, 

PRl'i to oowplRlnimt aaid «um, and oosaplwinHnt dc^llvorcd up the 

bond to doTundt^Jit, who '•thcirwupon ounncllod it;" that dof«?ndnnt 

•«w the records that contninad till thit «»lM»8£l«m«int«, Irat ''ovor* 

looked undl soloyjd and pA iitional dofaloationn that oxisterd At 

the tlaso," and "agreed with y mr or«i.t©r that the total f.m\» zzlmment 

of TiwnonB giaount<«d to ^3,7;J4«ai;* that on or about f^prll 1» 192V'., 

m genor&l audit of ooRploinRnt't) books w^a **c««nBjene«d," and com- 

plKinaat learned that both it and defend tint were •'watually »la- 

tftkea" In deening said sua to be the total smmat th?^t Timraons 

had etolen; that c<aaplainnnt« iam^'Liiatcly upon aso@rt^ning aaid 

'^BUtual miatiako,'' notified flef«n'1ant thereof, and, daring *auch 

Additional exemimKtion,* on June V, 1929, further notified rfefcnd- 

a»t that it (e(Mipl«inant) ^rescinded the releaHt aettlement" of 

i^ept«Hber 1, 19S1, nnd r^t the mmB tine tendered back to chsfendant 

the BUB of 1^?, 724, 81, find demanded ««id bond, but defendaat failed 

to deliver it or to inJ'orK eomplainiint of the terms thereof; and 

that said additional exroaination was cmapleted nbout July 1, 19.'?, 

end diaoloaed thnt 'timmms h««i atolen, in addition to the »^2, 724.81, 

diTcra 9uaa» that *had bean ovnrloo3c«sd through the jbIs calculation 

and BUtual aiatake* of cflmplainant and defendant at tho tine of the 

aettlement of -itepterfibor 1, 19^1, n@ fnlleve: 

"July, 1920, Check of Continental »Juppiy Co., iat. i.«ulB, Mo, #1,142,20 
£$«9t.,1920. Check of «• ''\ O'Mtilley, K&na&B City, Ko., 3,8r>9,75 

1930, ^aieck of fcorris & Co., Chiow^o, 111. 363. 

1920-1921, Cihecke unknoim a;? to identity, but sipecifienlly 
edaitt^d hy fimmnn to have been flonYerted 
by hia ^50. 

1930-1931, Checks received end poaajbly diverted by Tiiairiona ^,63S .17* 

laiat on July 7, 192h, ccwplainant r»tifi«*d defendant by a sworn 

sta tenant of owid additional defaloations ami "dea.naded that the 

defend<^4it reeoind n?>,id «fittie»cnt of ^.eptoffiber 1, 1921, boRsuse of 

aaid arotual wi«tate3 of fact,* and reiAbarse c<wplainaat for aaid 

Itfi^^nS n- » '^^ri.iif 

!■*<. C>«'j'*< ; ^ «;;!•> icr 

o.'.; ■» i-.i.-.'-v fv.*5,.'~.\ t^a,\i^ -.»-.. -.«..-. i ^ •" ' ' '•"»' f 

»d<iltioii«l »ion<i»y »• atfilnn, Vfoth nf «liiti)i «*©«an4n d#fafidr»nt re- 

The prayar of tlte 'oiXl la thnt the ecttlewant nt 
i^mptemher i, 10?,1, \s« Teecinded and held te be binding only t» 
th« «xtcnt of |:3*7?«4»81; that the ori;^inul bond b«» rtoewr-d to be in 
full force and effect; and that ocwpl«,lnHnt nifty obtain n. monwy deerot 
Agalnat defendsjat, to tlie extent of thn bond, for thfi «mtirc amount 
of money so stolen by Tlmroono* 

The rtfllef prayod for ia prediccttod on the theory of r 
Biutttal ml^tako of fact at the tlmo the alXeg«>d oett.lenent of 
•^eptenbor 1« 19^21, wi e mndc an'i the bond surrendered and cancelled* 
The bill ia noticeable for the fact that neither a oopy of the bond 
l& eet forth* nor its ittipulation^ ^jnd conditions nlloKed under <4idiieh 
defendcjint ^ould be liable for d<«falc«$tionA Isy Timmonfi* ;lthou^ it 
is alleged th»t the «x«ct teraa of the bond, for the r»®..a0n Mteted, 
mrt unlmown to coasplainiant, y*it it in not ali«ifod thet » copy, Bhow* 
ing what were those t'^npa, w is not laYailable to oomplMin«afit. Bven 
the tine of the exficiation of t)if liond ia not ctaitcd more definitely 
'than that it was "prior to oepteBibur 1, IQiil," the day said alleged 
settlmoent wa» aiade. In portion ®f tho bill referrinft to 
flHimone* additlonml dsf alcationB (otstefS to havffl bwwn discovsTfvd 
during the rmking by coajplainent of » gen^srel audit of its books, 
eomrrenood about ««.'ven months Hi' tor said e^tilessent was »Rde) three 
•f said defalontionet ajro s^llegod to h&Te occurred in 19ao, but it is 
not all^gad thnt the l»nd waa then in foree. /iS to the fifth it«m 
of the edditional defalcations, alleged to havfl happened in "1930- 
19Si,'' »nd being "for checks r«c«iif»d and poasibly diverted hy 
tiasBOne," no facts are stated shoving that, even if said oftttlentent 
had not besn mad© and the lond not cancellad, diifendont ^«uld be 
liable therefor to the extent of th-j nlieged penalty of the bond, 
And In our opinion, tho bill 'o«>i not ?aiege facto euffioienUy 


»«njt; ( 

• 4. 

shoving th&t ioiid aettlenant of Uopt<qnber 1, 19^1, nms ande under 
sueh "Mutual* jRi;jtftk« of fact aa -vowld ontltle oonplfiinant to 
re«oindi apld scttlei»»»ni and haire r«ot«red to it tb« orl<;inRl 
1b«nd which wnjj then 8urr«nd©red jmd oancolled. ( Duff v, Hutch lntio |i. 
10 S. f, Supp, 857, 8S9; brooks v. Ha IX . 36 Kan. 697, 6©?;.) It 
rather appears from th« bili thnt the mistaJte® was alone complriinnnt*** 
or that of the aooountant oiflploy«d by it, in CKrelessly chtnokinc up 
tfafi <£»lalo{%tioni» of Tistmono prior to tho eettleiient. ..nA it ie the 
l«w th»i relief will not he grantor in oiuity on the ground of a 
miistAke of tucX to m party ^her«! thJ4t wi^tsiko vfass induced ©r c^'Uised 
by Mo f>Mn car«l«00n«so or neg^li^nce. {It Corpus Juris, p. 3B5, 
^«c. &lj Bambwajfin r. Johnl ti]nt|; > 7J5 H# ?. 0^, 64; Stglroacyer v. 
aohroo ppel. a26 111. 9, 13,) 

In our opinion the oeurt p^as fully ir.^rrantert in QUstaisSMi 
th« sJ«Bflttrr*k*' to complfjinrmt'e seoond ^^cnd^d ^^ill and in dianiosini; 
the bill, and» accordingly, the locree is affin»ed. 

Fitch »nd Barnes, J,T., oon<mr« 

' fr?.r,?. £* '*sri r-,f 


K f* jy.j_# ^ ;- ! ; «^-., '^ ft «?'?7^.C "*???. ?vt.T': "^•'■■"'tft 

■;»! -sjff f Ai: 

(•■fr/f-a^-fft • . ^&ei'«.:»i£ brt:^ d»H'i 


!^0 - 20698 

) JUf^MAL FEQlt 


Appellant. I ^ O e^* -i- ® -'-^ » O «3 w 


Th« ooaplcinnnt, »aynar4 0. riaiikln. by Mb fiia«n4ed bill 
iiUtd in the Clrouit Cnurt of c©ok County, naked the court ta act 
aalde and reaave as a oloud upon hie title to oertiSifln r«al eetnto 
a eon tract fnr the conv^yanoo of tht* enrae by hl« to the defenrtantt 
Cbarlee A. ;iit«wart» upon the performanet by the p»rt4«» of the 
eonjiltlons preoerihed in ths contraet. ivfter aef«nda«t hiwl Bwowered 
the ^wendad bill there vthb a hesMrlnn before the ohanc^lior, at which 
eomplalnant intradiu«(?d oviienoe, »nd finally a decree w?is entered 
in compl«in»iit»» faror on Jnnuary 3, 19ZZ^ In &ccor»<anc« with the 
'prayer of the bill. Oef enfant miu »llo««d an appeal to the 3iipr«at 
Court on the ground that a freehold vaa inTolTed* whieh appeal was 
dttly porfeotei. on June 2t)» 1923, the ^^preme Court (dt/8 111. 596} 
adjudged that the «»«»»© h id been wrongfully ap{)ealpd to thfit inurt 
and ordered that t)^ record be iransferrefl to this api^ellate court, 
whieh was done and the oeuae here dooleeted. 

The orif^inal bill ^0^0 filed on Dpoember 20, 1930^ ati4 
Stewart's dfjir,urr«r thereto V/oin/r uuatained, an emended bill wnn 
filed on Uar<^ 39, l9ai. In the asended bill* to which ^itevart 
filed his aaid anewer, it in alleged th^t the oomplHinant la the 
owner in fee simple of thi? pr»«Bi8«a in queetion (being about 40 
aoree of land In Conic Oounty); £h» t he deriT«<5 title thereto by 
a »a8ter»a deed, duly r««ordod. ^,Xren in pureuanoe of a decree 



,ft&^KiO«>v^ :*T*r 


of said Circuit Court entored on Ootober 20, 1911; thj>t er^r 
since h« obtained said deed he has l)een, and is now, in poeseasion 
of th« land; and that Xho Hime has been, »»nd is now, vacant «nd 
unoccupied. The contTHCt in que^tion^ Bigned and sealed "by the 
parties fftiA dated lay 17, 1916, ia then set out in full* By it 
the reoeipt of *100 from Utewart is aeknovTledged by eenplalnant "as 
p«rt payment tov^Brds th« purchase of the follo^ng real estate* 
(describing it) "whiah is hereTiy towrgained and sold* to i^tewHrt 
"for ,^2, ICO, — $400, more or leas^ to "be paid on th« df?liTery of a 
good and aufleient warranty deed of convejnnoe for the 8»«e within 
30 flays from thia date, or h» aooa thereafter an the deed is ready 
for delivery, after the title has been exaained and found good, and 
the balance to be paid asj follows: ^1^600 on or befor® May 17, 1917» 
to be secured by trust deed and note or mortgage on the property.* 
The eontrnot further provided that should the title not pro"»« good 
the ^100 was to hn refunded to i;>tewai*t, but that in the event iitewsrt 
should fail to perform the contract on his part "proaptly at the tine 
and in the manner above specified ♦ * then the above ilOC shall be 
forfeited by nln as liqfLiidRted damages, and the above contract shell 
be and become null and void," It is further alleged in the bill that 
complainant furnished an abstract of title to -tewart, and subsequently 
tendered to him a good nnd sufficient warranty deed of conveyance and 
demanded th^t ht accept the umaf. and perform his pert of the contract, 
but that titewart failed to do so; that, in the interimf Stewart 
caused a copy of the contract to be recorded in the recorder's 
office of Cook County and th«t by reason thereof there is s cloud 
upon eomplainant's title; and thrit the contract should be declared 
null and void and removed ho a cloud and the #100 should be de- 
clared forfeited to complainant* 

All of the above allegations are sufficiently entablished 
by complainant* 3 evidence, we think, rith two exceptions. Com- 


■f ■ :■--.■ 3 1?; . )j 



JF :-:\^3ry:'% <i,\J.-'i 


» ' *>^K'.; .,"*'V •■■ ^l-'*^ 


, " ;v^i** »'irS?. X*^'.. '.'C -r 


^'.-U'iiUEs^ ««£'-4'tf 

• 'J I'ImM j&i-' 


pl&inant fulled, probf*bly Inrvdyertently, to lntroduo« any testl* 
many ehowlng either tJiut wwplainaiit wna in pi>!i ;e0«ion of the 
l6Xi<i or thttt it vna TR^rmt or unoecupied. It nppaars fro« » copy 
of (Mt opinion of title which was rendored to UtowRrt by the 
Chioogo Title & Trust Company on '«uguc t 36, 1916, tht.t title In the 
Isnd WB8 stated to be In complalnent, bat subject, t«eT«th€r Tirith 
other property, to a ffif>rtgH«e of <^3,884; that this laortgage nnz re- 
lo&sed la ;iuguat, 19ia; th^t Bubuequtmtly, about ^'UguBt, 1980, com- 
plainant's agente oailed on itewart and first tendered bp.<rk to hiis 
the $100, originally paid! by sstewari when the contrnct was flifjoed^ 
fluad reciuested a eancellation of the contract; th«it Stewart refused 
%0 r««eive the money or to oaneei the oontrr\ctj that thereupon asld 
agents Infonaed iHewart thj-.t tlie mortgage hsjsi '^'veen rftlew>*ed and 
tendered to hlai a warriinty 4«®fl far the preasifieia and d<?mjinded that 
he cniEply ■■•vith the towa of the oontrjRCt} that .yte??»rt t?xs»?ine'3. the 
tendered deed, and aaid it wjis '*ftll right** and tJh^-t toe wmiid **go 
through '-irith the deal* on tfe.e. following Eonday; b«t thct he failed 
thereafter to ausaept the detsd or to c^aplr «?ith the contr«&ct on his 

At the cenelusion of o<niplnin«mt*3 evidence, dcff endant's 
•ollttitor stated that he desired to "deraur to th« evidence," fvnd 
asked for a disBslssal of the bill, upon the grnund, as stated, that 
■the bill 8«ys this property is vsscant tmd uno coupled mid they hitTe 
aot jj^oved the title from the United itatea aovernnent doim, a they 
are requirtsd to do." Mo evidence was offered on behalf of defendant, 
exoept the copy of said opinion of title, which was offered and 
reoeiYftd In evidrnce ua defendant* is exhibit 1, <lurin«5 the hearing 
of eomplalnfint'R eTidenoe, 

T)i« «fmrt in tlie drtarea found in Bubatanee that the 
property in qu^Btion is ysi^r-int y-nd unimproved; that defendant naid 
eampiainant |10G Tdion the aontraot was alsned and -^lOfiordins t« 


fei»i>y r^xi. 





s/s.; . (ti: ^^T^ 

its terms, but has r«fua«<i td nfikm any further 5>»:yia'iint thereundey 
And withmit tasy Talid (»:»auE$e; tliat wh«n in XSiJO ho wno tendered. » 
good »nd Bufficlent deed h« refustsrt to acs^pt it rtr to comply i»ith 
the «ontr/iCt on hi» paort, whioh ho hiad o«a«edl to be rftoord^d, and 
th»t he hne lo^t and forfftit«d aXI rights vrhieh he may haT« hod 
under 8«iid oontr»ct« 

The main oontonttion here mh'^m hy couneaX for d^fomdaat 
lis that the ddaotrrer to thf? <?vidimo« should hjp,''r« feeen »ttatained 
and the bill diamlssed beoijuBC oora^lainant failed to prov<j either 
thAt he WA8 in jmecession of tlio prewi8«B or that thnj sR^rtu vacant 
and unMOox»pi«d. (Citing OJLoa v, ggt^iSl'?^* 3.75 111, SO, 22j Gltt ji 
▼• Kemi), l^a id. 72, 73; Blgber ▼« iiort!?IU. ^"^^ ^^* ®^^'» ^"^"^^ '*'-'*<^ 
other csKea.) >fe do not think ai^??r ^tm fa«ta laad circumatnnoea 
disciosfed, that tM o&nt«5Rtion ha© ■an:T merit. In Hi .g o, v. K3s3£, 
22S 111. 414, 4-21, it is »aid: ■■%«r« lamioB ox"* f.act in a ohanc«ry 
ease are tried by the shancstJXlor, Vr.^ p?^tiets not b«in|j cntitle<l to 
a trial by 4«ry «a a matter of right, b rt^^murrtr to cnmpl?iin«,nt*o 
evidence is ano7r,alO'd« to the prttctice. * * The dQwarrer of thct 
, chfiTBCter interpoaed in thia oiaae ahrsuid nn t have received the con- 
sideration of the omirt.* And the gr<f»und stated for B«id deraurr^r 
to the «Yld©rtce in the present aiBe, ▼!«., that corsplainant had 
not proved his title to the prisniseo frew the ^loT^smment do-sra, is 
of no force bceawse the title t« the prewsisee -vmn not put in 
issue by the pleadinijs l3«t waa adasitted to be In ctfitaplRinsnt, as 
stated in the opinion of the -Juprorae Gmir\ (308 111. fitJS, ^99), 
yurthermore, counsel's preaent contention is YtBre rsiaed for the 
first time. The oertifiofete of eiridaace does not dir^losc thjct 
defendant, ^% tho hearing, mfide eny point before the <?ntry of the 
decree t^«t ocanplainant had failed to prove posa^aaion of the 
preaises in hi« or thnt the Iwnd *©s vacant and anocoupiei, and 
aueh being the ci^se the present contention mua% be deened to have 




b«8n walTod. (&> tOttt T. ^8okg_ 4i 111, 447, 44S; Packer ▼. 
^tansfeerry . 349 Id. 48V, 491 j imitji v. Lovc > 386 id. 570, ti78; 
Hart V. Oliver , '196 Id, 209, 214.) in Uw X^ftokgr catse, myjr*, 
it Ib eeid '*«fhile it is aonionded th^^t this bill will net lie 
to romoYe w. eleud, liy rw 'Son ©f th« fact that tl» land was not 
vacant or the oomplninrmt was n«t iB posaeseion of the UmH at 
til© tiae ha fiXad hi* bill, thoae lueetionji do not aeeat to hare 
baen raisefi in the trial eourt, ao Uiey will tl-wsrefere "be rteymed 
to have been waived and will not 'm can&idBff^d by this mmrt,* 

iijid, anlar the? t6!%8 ef the coatx'uct end tJu^ facta 
diiclosed, w® do not think that the f»et that dliaring th© h&aarlnjj 
complainant did not again tendor back to dsifendant th« $100 p«id 
by <l«f?nds»at wh«n the contract way ci^jned, wM'rRnte a rtjversel 
or any nodific^ktion at* the deoraci. 

For the ramtiona indiOHted the d<?er«e of tha tiiraiit 
Comrt io afiimad, 

Fiteh And Barnas, jrj«, oancur 

Rr«is'ai -^j 





60 • 28706 

GOH^H A« EUmuy, adKinlatr&tAr 
of tb« sstato of HdUaJffa llMiJ, 





AppBllaat. ) 

CJOfVK a<imTY. 

33IJL 6 3'^ 

MR. FHj$ai2)iBG jtJjTiCp; «Rii>i*s;y ;)mjYm«0 TK* »...-a.'*iyK o:!'' -rms coimT, 

By ttiie oppttal the d«fi:nd»nt« Doninlc l!!tacchi»l,, a««k» 
to vvirfSTue a 4"^^^^'>^^ agfiinat him for ifi,OCO, rornJared i%f%er ver- 
dlot by tho !MperLtir Court of Cook County, in an action for 
daaagoo for negligently nmi&ing tJsie death of Hennlng Hard* 
pX«.intlff*o lat«Btato» on Si^va&rf 2&* 1919, The $)teold®nt 
occurred about 5:30 o*olooli ><.• %i. nt or near the aouthwegt corner 
of Aohlond OTomo, o north and eontlai street* and Karquette road« 
on oust &33d ««ot 8t70<?t. in the oi^ of t!hlooa^>« Zt appeeiro thfit 
Martjuette road la a bnaleT^rd t^nd la *roolly 67th Jitroet,* 
b«lB£ one bloQk oouth of A6thi otreet* 

Hord, a pedeotrian, m^A attoBpting to orosa AohXand 

}&reTOxe frow weet to «««t and was etruek Iqr r frowth-bound ««to- 

tniok* owned by defendant eind operated b^ hie son and eaployee* 

and roceived ee-rere in,3urlea fro whieh ho died on tiie e«9Be day. 

He left Him. aurTiving » wido^ and six children, four of «€© and 

ttro undnr »go. He we* 53 yenre old, wfto eieployed In a fowndry 

and was la excellent health. Ilie eyeslf>|ht and hearing were good, 

ond he •worked Bteady«* lie hed shortly b«fore left hi© home, 

dressed in hie lurking clothes, and wae on his w»y to/wrork, ne 

usual, when the nooident happenod, X»aim hod not come end it 

wsB very dark* 

l^lointiff*e deciftrntien eonsioted of fiye couate* to 

t/.rf^il^K .n^i'TJ 


■f Hih 

' liTTS"? .« 

• 3» 

whidh (l«»ftndnnt pX«?atledi tl» general lif»u«* I'Mring the trial 
tliurc« ©f the oountffl were dlioilascd. In •n« of ths rfnaainlng 
ooonta general n«gligaaQ« in Hm operation of the «otor Tehiolo 
io charged; in the other th«i negligent Ti^il&tion of the at«tato 
in falling *to o«rry on hio motor Tshldo tuo lightod Itmpa 
shoving ohito lighto Tioihlo at loaat WQ foot in Iha direction 
tovardi whioh said motor vehlolo who pmeeodlni;'* is ah^rged. In 
both counts plaintiff allegistl Utat Hard, in th« act of erooAlng 
Aohlond ©TftHue, a pvi^jlio hijthwajrt nt M^rrtjuetto road, w&s then and 
thore in th« exeroia« of duo oaxo for hie own laafety, 

js'lifcintiff oallod onlv ftne witn«a«» August H* £aro««§ 
ip to the accident, and ho (i£ftroB0}did not ooe lii\rd immedieitely 
bofore or at the rmry tiia© he was ssti-uck "by the jtuto-trtjck. fw6 
vitnosoo» to^tified for d<fjJ'®n'i»at, Yi»: Quataf I'uschal, *..Wf end- 
eat' o son, 2f years of as«# r»nd ompioyeri hy tho lattor tie the <lriyor 
of th« truok at the tiao ©f th« sjc-jidcnt »nd for nix yHiXG prior 
thoreto, aad Arthur U»y» employed \fy dofendnni &t th« tine aa a 
holpor on the truck to aoalst the drivor in making early Bsoming 
doli'r«ri«a of bajcery goode, 

Karoos tos)tifi<sd in suhsianoe thi^it ho lived at 66G5 
J^Btine street* ea»t of Ashland stYonue; that shortly hofore 
S;30 o^olock on the morning! sitmtionsd he vsa standing in front 
of a hs^k^ry store « on tl&e o.-^st «&d« of Ashload avenue &nd itie 
second atore north of Mar^potto rowd, waiting for it to oponj 
that by th» lid of the lif^t which cyae froa c«rtisin « tore 8 on 
the oost »ide of 'Ushlanot ntemt» he saw a% autmsobile* ^without 
any lights on," going south on th« west aide of A^hlais^ /*Y(^nue 
at about 18 or 30 «ile» p^ir hour; thmt 14 did not atop st the 
bomloTard, fe'cr<|u«tto roftJl» but continued south oroos it ft 
the aaa« rate of spood; thr^t there w»e a boulevard li^ht burning 



•^HSHi'f^^SS. %t': 



. -^tm^^m 


■ .1 *•«««*# 






■-* 1» 

, v-^^Ti»l» 





fi&i,t{««rfi[ ^Mliyt'. 

^.ijjttrBf tifsii bt»^tilm 


»Wiit 10 •r 1» fe«t frtm the corner; th«t about i^rn the outo- 
laobile had reached th« aouth orossovalk over Aehland Hvenue* he 
h«Ard aon«bedT yell '♦oh*.*; thnt he at»rt«4 to run towards tha 
•onthw««t eom«r of th<4 lnter«rction an^ aa be was ruimix!ii; ho 
notiood that the t^iutonoMle continued ic^oing in ii 80uth-e>flit^t4frly 
diroctien* oroa<so(i the street car tr^oko and stopped alongside 
of the oiiBt oaro of Aehland aTentte, about ICO feet eoath of the 
bottlOYbrd; th^it he found Hard lying unconBtJioua in the «treet, 

ftbout , three t o fJYO fgeA..*"-^.iy3L.,,^X,J!ii4<*,,.fi£fi.'^g »«l,k and between the 

vest <3ttrb of Ashlund ATonuo and tlie street aar trncke; th^t the 
driver of the (aitomoi:)ile c«»e back «nd the witnetia help« 5 to pick 
up Hard And plitee }iln on the uidevrnXk; that the iritnee^ Hi^ked the 
ArlTor, "'^laer© are your lifi:hta?'*j and the latter r^^plle^l, "thie 
Moa Mttst beiTe kn^>cke4 th«aa out." and l^ereupon recpe»ted t^Mt wit* 
utoi *aot to go hard on his;*' that the wltneoo ran for « ph^j»ifii&n« 
i^i» esne end adMinistered first aid; and th&t subee^entl:^ a polioe 
smHilanee arriTed and Hard was taken to m hnspitiil. Earoos did not 
•t the tiae gtre the polioe hi« nnme and did WBt testify before the 
eoroner. The I'irot he hetird about the present law suit «d,n etneetime 
in 19^!!, about tv& yetars before the trial, vihen llro. Hard oplled on 
hia and aeked about the »ecident. Urn, Hard testified that ehe 
leamad Karoos* none nnd nddrooa on making inquiries at @aid bakery 

.the tesitlffiony of d^^fendunt'a witnesBes i« to th0 effect 
that, Skii the auto-truok lipproarthed nad sroosed Marquette rosd mcid 
fct the tlae it struck Hard tmd thereafter. Its he'idlights «?«re 
burning; that Juist nn it re^vchod »art?uette road the driver brought 
it to & full stop and then iBuaediately at&rtod it agpin »nd pro- 
pellod it at a speed not to exceed 13 ailoa p«r hour; thut the 
accident did not happen at th« aouth eroaa-walk of 5Snr<tuette rood, 
iRit ♦'forty or fifty feet south of the boulsTr^d* in Aehland «veme. 


.mid* A tc 4^U'. 

nm «t«'J-»i< .■•:^J!{ »JM«£ mb& mil-' 

St ft *«jCl*a?. f^s-': 


'^n tf^f. *?'i 


wh«n the truoJc wa^ tr»V(»lllii£; nmttto at snid npend nbout thr*« 
/««t 0&et of th« iroat curbs that iinrdi <:«<«« fron behind a tred 
or po«t and 3t«]^p«d into th«> street in front of th« iRAvlng truck; 
thnt the driver Instantly put on the Tsrakea and turned th« tmok 
nlOMXply to th« right, hut nit over th© ourb, and the "left front 
f«n<i«r atruak txim in %he leg rmd he fell faoin^ nerthe«i>»t;* nni 
th»t the truck wtiu brnugiit to a utop, sOiongaide of tyve vm»% curb* 
witliin *« fmt nnd a half «r two f««t after striking th« asnn,* 
and remained sitandin,!; th©r« until the polio« Ksr^bu^anee csi«c, when 
it (the truck) was driven to the opposite s^ide of the street "to 
Bttke ro«« for th« anbulanoa*'' On oro«8<»exjiminf^.tion VCasohfel* the 
driver 6t the truck, teatified: «»« wat* struck at Va.9 firet iron 
p»et opposite the bouleYard; ihnt po@t ie just inside of where the 
two aidewslke interaect at 67th and j^ahlimd on the »outha:^Ht 
fforner; • ♦ X nuat hare been about two feet frcm hia» when I firet 
•ftw hi» ^n'i. he waw tibout two etepe away frflss th^* sarbj * » 
an object like aji mitosiolille without fmy lights oould not be seen 
at that time," Both ©f defendimt'a ^tnes^ee denied th^^t plain- 
• tiff*e witness* KAro9e« waa preaent $n the eeene i^ter the aeoiAent* 
•r that they ha<Ji eyer aeen hiis or talked with hia. 

It is contended by couni^el for defendsat that the 
jttd^ent should be reyereed beoim«»e the verdict ie naniftetly 
asainet the evidenoo on the ^estion of the negligenoe of the 
driver of the truck. 'M do not think so* 

It is further eontend-d that plaintiff did not 
sufficiently prove the nece»H&ary ailegRtione contained in e?ich 
count of the deolivration th^^t Hard, at and is^ec^ately before 
the time of the aocident* wa» in the exercise of due* cai"® fo' 
his own safetgr* It la argued that due eare on his part cannot 
be presumed from th« happening of the aeoident, the negligence of 
defondaiit and a «on«ideration of the iaaian instinct of self- 



preserYHtlon. ©reral deoiai^na ttf our Jupr«m« Court Bm oitcd» 
wherein It if? held in »u^>>tanoe thi^t, wer« there nr^ no eyer/itnessos 
to the ooourrenee aad th« ntacaaary allegtition® of due cmrvi on tho 
pert of i)laintlff*s IntraBtnte annnot fee |>rovc!n l>y w,nisr <3,ireQt 
t«otl«onyt it still diivolTeM upon plisintiff to OBtAblish the exoroise 
of ordlnnry c j*« on the p«rt of sisid intestate by th« hSgheRt proof 
of v;hich thfe" Crts?© is capable, (ilee HowoXl v. CXoToland* et c. ■{» Co., 
g«X 111. RCrjj S08, f5Ticl c«Hen there eit«d«) Ml this i« not a chb« 
where there were no eyewitnewoee to this ocowrrenoe. In >:e_ t rp r% 
Hinep, 299 111. 5?36, 23tt, it is H»iis *vm«re there is an ejrewitneeo 
1*1© saw the infliction of the injury, the ^-Jury auet then det«ir»ino 
frMB the tes5»ti»iony of 'thli® *«•$%««»«■» and from the f^etss and cirrim- 
atftnoe* «ur rounding the injjury whether tleaefiBed isaa cftrt^ful ©r neg- 
ligent, anfi in sutdi CKse oTidence of tha hahite of dece&Kas? a« to 
e»r« ftnd prudenoe is not wtsai ea ihle ♦ '* (citing Ghiqag o H» 1« fe P ^ ^ 
R> R» Co . ▼. ai»rlc > 108 111, lis.) Both of defendant' © ndtneesefl 
saw the i.otiidtmt an4 tesitificd eonctmiBg: lit iR»<t plmintiff 'a rit- 
sees, Ksiroee, «klthmtgh he 410.. not see th«i deeeatsed «totu&lly etmolc, 
testified au to oertuin happenings and oonditiona both iajKeciiRtely 
1»efere and i»BMniiately ftfter the nceident* the orfldiliility of the 
teatloMiny of ^ixdn of tji«jse witne»ae8, taken in connection witli oth«=r 
fftete and cir<»iiBatanceH in ^vi»1enee, Wf.js for the jury, im wee also 
the i^eetien '??hether, und«r all the facta and cirouiastsineeis* the de» 
eeisiBed. w*a guilty of rjontributory nciglig^nce, Kjiroae* tisstiBJORy 
flatly c©ntradict«'i that of Uef end^nt'iJ witnesoee »e te the sp»e<J 
of thf truck, vahether it atappeil s^^t the Toulevard, whether its 
he»dilighte were> 'burning, and art to tiu? plnm) -.shert- the dece&aed ijirato 
rnhMtn otmck, Karosa* testimony, together with the fact dier^loeed 
that dece«eed was on the ^sray to his work, tended, to show ihi X de» 
eeeeed was struck on the smith orooa w«JLk while atteaptiag to 
eroae xsehlanJ tiTemie when it w«.b yery dark, the Jury ©Yidently 
helieYe^ IDaroes' te Hi«ony «,» against thnt of the defendJttit*» 

Wt i 

•* fi-T.-iiti- ■ 

fV «,'** ' 

t .,;.-(' A - 


« H , ^:,.- » ?! «^ 

i.u-»^i;i'a»j> ,«■ 

.l.v; t !5.S:Vl*-fn^ .■.. 

■ iSW ! o f»i 

:*> r 

witii«ie6«B on the quesitlon where d«oe«ke«d vh» wimn fitraok and whetheT 
the headlighte on the autimoVjile were buj-nlng, and* to l»eli«»vinf, ^ ' 
think thstt th*»y were warranted in concluding that the d«eeaB«d vab 
not guilty of c«mtrir>utory nesl3|r«n©»« on th» theory that th« dao^aeed 
hsd a rlsfhi to aastune i;hfj.t, nt Urn tiwa h« att««pt«d to crow* th« 
• t]r««t, nn automobile would not laippro&ch aairt cross walk fr^m th* 
north withmt it« hoatillfjhta burning* in violation of th« statute* 
the driwr of the truok tewtififi-d that "sn o1>^ecit liko an Autoaobile 
without ^ny iijilitu could not be a^mn h% th£*t time,** "^Ul© it m&y 
h« that, if deceased had ait©pg®d and liMt«»ned. h«fo« stepping off 
th« sidftWiulk, he Jsight have heaJPd, the approaching automobile, yet 
*it cannot he «nid, an a Riatter of Inw, thfs,t « p^nreon is in f»i$ilt in 
failing' to lo k end listen if ai»led without hi® fault oi- wher^ th& 
surroundings may exous® smeh failure •*• (Chi,oc^o ^ Alton U». Cct^p t» 
?ear80i| . 184 111. 306, 3«1,) And in- ^ilgli^ns v.' .ioArorat^ J> j^ C. , i U 
Cg*., a«3 III, 266, a72, it is said! "In ©rd«if to hold th«st, as n 
Batter of law, th© A&auimeA was giiilty of oontrivitjtory negllgeno^ it 
■ust appear thfit there wan no f^vidence fairly tending to prove that 
he tras in the exercise of »uoh e»r«* and oaution f^r hie ovm safety 
as a forson of ordinary pnidenoe ^t&mXd exfereiae under the asamo cir- 
eunstanees." iUid in achaffncr v. lassey C^ ,., 270 111, 30t, ai4» it 
is said: '*P^ilo th@ harden of proving the deceased wn^» in tht?' exer- 
eise af due care for his omi safety «as on th« defendant in error, that 
fact need not be ostahlished by dXt'^^t i^nd poisitive te^^tissony, but may 
be infcred from all the fnets and oirei»Bstanc€t» shown ta «>ciat prior 
to and at the tla« of tha ini^ury.** On the evid«noe C!ontain«d in the 
present record we are unable to 9^.y that due of^re on the part of the 
deoeased for his own sufety was not sufficiently proved* 

j^or the reauono intiioated vm think that the judgnent of tibuB 
^perier Court should be ^iiffirm^d* and it is no ordered. 

V4 f.<«h flM<) Itc 

««»«<**«i» - 



■ SOB 

■' '' - ' ■ ' ■ • . ^ _ --- ■ 

•s=-l >.? 

tl - 28721 

z. eerporstion^ ) 





a oirpor^uan. )t^ Q f? T li . ^ ^ '^ 

i cj & 

On May 2, 1923. the piAintif f oorpori^tion fileel in the 
Hunloipal Court af Chl«$ai;o a o<»npInint In foreible deteiner* 
Alleging that it is entitled to the imaoAeeion of premises in th* 
City of Chieti^o, rizi tho '•▼*o«,nt property, ft96i«63 and 0001-17 
BrttAdway, having a frontRge of 3a5 feet on Broadway and Tseinft 830 
feet de«p,** uSiioh fS<?f«n<ltmt unl^*viirfully withholde, BefendRnt was 
duly eenred, lout did not file nn afx^idnTit of merits or ple».* the 
esse not being required, Thor« waetitt trial before tht sourt with- 
•at 9. jury, the finding and Juds^ent t»re in faror of di<'f <mdant, 
and thia appeal followed. 

It appears thnt the owner of the premises* Bandel G» 
Ifarlcs* ''by 3. J. Hiohman, his attorney,* oa Jammry 24, 19^3, 
•xeoutBy and deliyered to defendimt a written lease of the praRises 
for a term of three y^nrei, expirinf^ J'^nunry 24. lOgb, at s rental 
of 11300 per ye«r, payable in monthly instalJiients in adT«noe at 
Hiehmaa*s office, in Chloago, *for the iwrpose of erecting and 
maintaining bill boards, adrertising signs, sign boards and bulletin 
boards ttiereon;" that defendant took postuesnion and was in poBsession 
of the premisoB at iiie time of the filing of the eomplaint. It 
further appears th&t on January 16, 1933, Marks inftividually 
•Jteouted smd deliTored to plaintiff a similar i«ritten lease of 





.. .- ..^ .,. ... — 1 ^ '»'''* '■ s^aeijKiMi? n,„.,.. .^ 


the pre»iso«« mnA for Xhn ntxni& purpoitOi, fox' li t«»rtt of t«o y«t»riii« 
f ran JaiMfiry 2». 19'i2» to J«nttJ*??y aJi, 19JJS, wt o rcrntal of .^^3,0ti0 
F«r yoar* pitsy«i.l>l«! in atonihly inniAllji&nts* On rcb^mtry 20^ 19^3« 
MoTko eaus«di to bo wervod on 'ieff!n(lJ4^Jlt la, •ix:t]r Anyv notdoe in writing 
notifying it thjit itd tendency un4«sr %he first nontionAd lonso i«ould 
tonsinati^ on .pril ZA^ l^Xi, Had or4«^ring it to vnonttt th»^niHes 
on th.r-t date. 

Fl»itttiff oi%lL«d Riohmtin las » witnoae mnd ho identified 
tho signotCTe of Marks on s*«i<l l«*t a«ntion»sd lo»ae« iund plaintiff 
inti-oimxii the si«« in .':vi4t?ne«, tn Grooa*e3«itmim.tion 'd«3^iui w»o 
aho'wn tii<5 fl rat i«ention«*d !«.>«« tB di©fen4«int, «nd h© te«tifi«d thai 
h« h&d oxeeuted ond d«liv«r<rj(i it i"<»r K^rke und«;r ttwe letter* » v^irbel. 
authority; that unrlf r tit*? le^^iae 4«fendarat ha^ pskii*< to hia all 
o.oottio'a rente to and insludiniK ^prii :15, X9;^3; ?>nfi ttet h« in tarn 
h^d prtid a«i4 rent« to M«Tka, who hm& wc-:«pttd them, i'lfointiff aloe 
introduo«Kl in «vi'lenoo »»id 60 dwya notice of February ij?:, 10!i3» 
lAiion }i»d boon Sfjrvod on defendant* On bohia^if of d@f«nd»nt the firot 
mentionoi loaae to it ^^a introt^oed in eridafmttf, and thereupon 
^iaintiff»» attorney otntod in aubatanc® this»t Itee .-l#»8irort to i^Ioad 
tho Statute Of Fr»ud» thor«^to, on the ground that F{ichsian» ^o h^d 
exe<3ut«d ttnd delivered it to d^f endfxnt for Marks, h«Ml no adLlSSB. 
authority from Karka to t-o do; thnt bocmiso of thio d©r«mi«nt'8 
tonnnoy ontnintod to one fross month to month onlyg uri^oh hod boon 
legally ter»in«lcd by st^id notio«;« and that under th« law j'lodntiff 
wso *ntitlofi to pOfl»«^a6ion nf the prtaslo^a, 

i««Qtion a of our ..>tfttat<" of Frauds --^nd j^'orjtiirlos (<'^Ahill*« 
iat»t.« 192;;i» Chap. 5«) provides: "Ho ncti?>n ahali bo br*??jght t© 
charge any poroon upon «ny oontraot for the »al» of iandP, tenoaento 
or h«r«dit-«ia«mtM or any lnt»;r«wt in or consf^ming th«»B5, for » longer 
t<i9r« than one yettr, unloss suoii contract or aiast »fe«»r«ndu« or not* 
thoreof 3ih»li bo In ^itin*;, and iSignod by th« party to b« charged 




«f,> tijfc- 



tta«rewith, or tost« otlsKir porsoti thereunto 1>y him lawfully authorized 
In writing, si ,;ned Tiy tmoh purtjr«* JPrior to 1869 the statute did 
not require the autJwrlty of tm fi^ent to lie in writing, "but that 
raquireiT^ent "vf»is then added, (Kollv v, Fle ohffr , ad3 111* 184» 187.) 
Onder the pr^eent »t&tatQ It ie necesttisry* not only that the eon- 
trnct made "by ikU R|?ont by vlrlaic of his Mathoritjr shall he in '.wlt» 
ing, but the authority of tho ngsnt stupt aloo bs in writing. ( Ke 1^ 
▼ • Hi.B.^r, i^j»r»5 ^?!t*?,'*^,.^l!^£ "*• 'SJS^l&IHJlMx '^^'^^ 111* ^&4» fj59; jKejner 
"'^ Mieeoi^. 'JJ'^i^ 111, 330, 324.) oad it ha« tee«n held that, in legal 
ecate»platloa, a lyasiehMld in "an intev-eet in or aonofrning'* lR3nd«j 
and th«i.t, in suite hetwe«n l»rK!lor«3 said tenant, th« atatutc Inoludes 
leaoes of tei^s for more than « year. {i^iiJlMf,.^*J^A?i#-?SJ-_2£» '*'• 
Oev^s oenlng; '/.achine ,Cq.. 14^, III. 171, 180; ^tSM. '^^ M£S££« ^'^'^ 3[1^« 
App. 351, ^6.) ^md it haft folao be^m held thnt a oo^tra^it within 
the condesanation of the atatute *'<s»nnot be made th<* ground of a 
AnftnBe, any »©re than of a dcm^md.* Cj:^,Sl.§r ^« AVait-cfmthal. 78 
Xll. 124, 126; koa^nnl» v. jfernandeg. 126 III. 2i?S, 239.) It io 
the 1»* that a tenant, «nt«ring into poeseawion and paying rent 
nonthly under b l(»aBO, which la voidftble und??r the Atatute of frisudo 
and la fif terwjurdo oiught to le treated a«? void by the lajrxJlord. l» a 
tenant fror aonth to month iind entitled tn th« Btatutory notice to 
<!»it. ( So r th,m a>ern Vniru .raj t^ v. itoj^M.. 183 111, App. ;.%36j 
La Belle v, grand Cent ral ,Mf*.. ckHt Cp . , 173 111. 4pp. f>8a, ?>66; 
Warner ?. Hale . GS 111. .:59r>, S9(>.) It appears thrtt ouoh notice 
wae tfiven in the present onwe. It i§ well settled the part ppr* 
form&nce of the contract or lease, auoh as the payment of tha stip • 
Xated monthly rent for a timo, will not, in an aotlon mt law, avoid 
the statute. ( vheeler y. ^rankcnthal . 78 111. I'M, 1?.7; Crplghton 
▼• i^aade re, 89 111. $43, 544; Marr ▼. Hay.. ISl 111. 340, 344; 
Morthwe etern UniTerajty v, Hui^heg. trnpra^J %ile it hae been held 
thtot a otr?vng«r to tlis TOidsble contract aannot object to the par- 
ties being bound by it and that the ^tatnte ean only be relied 


'C »»;•■ '-^ l-mvr%&£i>i 

-^ S«iv 

£.1 t'* 


'M^m"**^ «»«(' 



■'>?«;^i>^'^ t/Tf 

upain yry the parties thereto or their prirlea (Chicago i^ock 0, r, 
Ki,nzi^> 49 111 2B9, 293j KlUjf ▼• Kendall. 118 111. 65C, 664j 
pR»f3Uay V, ilSJLiffliai* -^'S 111, 48, ^/7)j yet an4er th© f^ets 418- 
aloaed we do not think that plaintiff in this forcible d«<teiner 
9roc««<£ing cftn be oonalderttd as such a otranger. ftr h.s not boini!: 
in ©uffioient privity with Unvk&, «;? prfeYKnta hiw frm& ''l^iming 
tho benefit of Uir iitntute. ( Geor ge J, CQ< ^lce Co » v, KAlaer, 163 
Hi. App. ^10, Zl'A; BejiJ v, Bar^, 44 111. App. 634j aruniJ^iK 
^* SSlSa* "li- 113.. App. PAX); F olg&th v. ^,l;*iln, 145 ill. Ap». 
434.) In the ICajger oaso, jgjjj^i, «n ttetion of forcible detainer wms 
oosftrnenced on Kay 3, 19(ifi, by pliaintiff to recover tm possoBelon of 
» etore rm6. baaffjaent, i^ich -mm then in the pos^esnlon of the Bent 
Brewing: Co, (through Kaliger, its »ub-t«rtant) under » Ifi^eir? from one 
Qodenriath. o«mer cf ttw? premises, expiring >^prtl 3tt, 1*509 • Cm &Li*ro)i 
ao, 1900, aodenrath «x«<3uted m lipase of "Qa® premises to the plaintiff 
for the term of on® yemr beginninfi Umy 1« 1900. Falser «nd the Boot 
Brewing Co, (^laimod tJiHt by a v«5rbal eontrant, laade prior to the 
execution c* plaintiffs leano, Oodenrath had agreed to extemS their 
le»«e for anothsr yoar frffl» May 1, 19C9. they beine etill in i^ooeeeaion 
on May 1* 1909, plaintiff a«»rTed on th«aa a draiand for imm.edijftte poseea- 
aion* and, they not ylolding po»«ie«»lon, plaintiff cewuBehO^d the 
forcible de Winer proaeedlnij. On the trial withf*ut » jury ;Jud|sm«nt 
for posaeasion of tlie pri»ji»«»s mu* rendered in f«vor ©f plaintiff. 
In the appellate enurt it *raa <!''»nt©nd«d that plaintiff wp,e p atrasnger 
to the rerbal oontrisict of Qodenrath, extending the time of the lease 
of the B«3t ]3re«^ins Oo., that aueh verbal oontract was onlj*^ voidable, 
that no one except the p»rtlea to it eould avoid it, an^l that plain- 
tiff could not successfully olead the uttttata of Frwuda to it. But 
the reviewing cmvt hejkd, uvtmrnimr that the claimed verbal oontrsot 
had in f :5i5t been made, th»t the trial amtrt did not err in entering 
tho Ja-^gR^nt, 3s? plaintiff had «n ^<^»1 right «ltli Godenrath to 
elaiat the benefit of tho ii^atute. 

M?^- *1^ ! ' 





tr. *^' 

-f*'idf« -^^ 

M.t '■■■ •'^i^smfW- 

^i***'^ ;^<' 


rfff^^:(ti " o'\ is .<»/.': i 

In vi«w of the i*«r*?gfilng <le<iit3ioni«» mnCi t.h« fiict% In 
«viA«n«« In th« yreaent onsr, we «« of th«f ©pinion tliat the 
tria.1 court. «^iould >^aTQ »nt«refl r Jud^ant for peseQasicn in 
faTor of plaintiff, Antl w« cannot aiprRc tfith the contention of 
defendant '« counaol as to th« application to this c...'se of the 
prineipl® that thfi titiSktute of WttnuAa, pasHeci to pr«vt'nt fraudsg 
otannot l!>« resorted t*> for th# purpose of y«xs>etrating u. f rttud, 
(SojMthwej3tern trniT/?rBitj y, nxghaf^ sttpra^,) Accordlnftly, tht 
fmcta not "S»i»infr diaputiul, the ja<lg»«nt of the Ji^unicipal Court 
will be r«?vera«ti f»r error of law. And ^iad|p(tent will h« «nter«d 
h«r« in fmrtijf of plain tiff for the pe>n^90»inn of the pr^aloett. 
;. . »JS?:s»^Si?9 ,&B1> ^ftJIKa{/i»t H^8a# 

fltsh and B@ni«o» JJ«» oonour* 


ea - 38733 

CRA<Ll5;j QOlu), doing 'buslncns ) 

&0 Fullerton i'lurabing Jt ) AP1*SAI. ^iOh? 

Heating Co,« 


BATID JiAUi. KLAFTISH. ) Z Oi3 ^■®^^'* U .O 4 

Appellant. ) 

KB* »«gSlDI»0 JUSTXCiS GTUIXUY DSMHiaiffB TK8 01*181011 Of THS COURT, 

Plaintiff «ued d©fen<lant to recover for certain plvrnMng 
repair • »mA& «t defendant* e request* the reaaoneble prices of whfcch 
repairs, it ie alleged, aramintc^d to the tot»a »\m of |18d,2a. 
Plaintiff further alleged that »aid prloes were figured at the 
actual ooet to hiai, and that he w»h entitled, in sui'iition, to ^f^ 
of said eum for OTerhead expeneeo, profit, etc., Malcinp « total 
olaia of |239.r(7. The esiain defense was that after th« '^ork had l>oen 
done a dispute arose "betwesn the parties with reti;pect to the labor 
and Baterialf and the amount and chio'noter thereof, perfoimed and 
furnished, smd that It was agreed th»«it defendant should pay, and 
plaintiff ?«»uld reseive, |100 foi* the work. iJ'lalntiff denied that 
any a^reewent for a settlement of hi a claim was made, fln.«re. was a 
trial heforo the court without a Jury, at which each party testified, 
resulting in a finding and judgment for plaintiff in the mim of 

Plaintiff has not asai^pied any crooe-errors. Counsel 
for defendant urg<«ij that the finding is against the ©videnet , and 
that the oourt should have found for the plaintiff only in the sun 
•# #100, After readin^i thi conflicting eridenoe, ao a)u)wn in the 
ohs tract, we are unable to say that th« finding is not sufficdently 
sustained hy the evidence, or that the Juagaent should be dieturbed, 
Aocordingly, the ^Ju'l^ent will be affirmed, 

fitoh and Barnes, JJ., ooneur. 

^ ■■■:.llmi.i- 

.4 it: 

znfs>z » sa 

l-'l IZs- 



hiui 'Atsikni 

ufsfee <.r?W .Ti viae lilijrntisiq »rf# n«1t 0«Riie)% »Tjwi bluosi 


• iti^nar «.^^ «ir«iiT^£: bfus Aei t% 


108 - 28753 

0%LXA LAmAS hnd ) 

MARIS LAiafAS. ) A??SAL mm 


▼•• I ^*^^ COUJfTY, 

JOasm COHIfSLL and j 2 33 IcA. 6 37 

Ki. ^nLmiDim jtriTricj geiblst jjiairm'SD tms oj?ikiok o? thk court. 

In an H-etion of d«»bt on « foreign ^uagment, eorowenoed 
in the Cirouit C'lurt of i.'o!ik Jvounty on April 4, 10^'^, and trie* 
before the eourt without n Jury, there irais a finding and Jjudg- 
ment in fe.f&r of d€«fen<iij«ta, and plaiatlffw »pp«feled. 

In th« deolHjratlon plaintiffs alleg»<S tfe«t or? i\«y 30» 
1919, in the iiuperior Court fer the utate of Ws^shington, for King 
County, being » court of general Jiarisdietlon oreRtPd and orgs^niaKd 
under the iawa of BEild i»t«te, Wway r«coverftd a JudigBaent ag^inot 
£tefend«mt8« in on action of fraud and deoelt, for ;?S,oco, and 
ooBts, taxed at f584«65, as ^111 more fully appear hy the r sord 
©f the judgment which still stands in full fore©, end th.^t there 
ie etill due to plaintiffs the amount tliereof and oosta^ and 
interest thereon, whi«h dt;f«fndnnta h«ve refused to pay* 

i>efendanta filed » pleo. illogliifj thut neither defendant 
wee servpd 'sdth preeess in the t:uit in 'aehinfrton, or .-j-ppeHred 
therein in pernon or Tfty attoiiey, or wjiss « resident of the v^'tate 
or within the JurleJietion of the Washington riourt durin#r the 
peniency of ©aid suit. Plt^intiff » filed » repllc ticn r^lleging 
that defendants had appeared "by attorney, whioh a#pea^&a«« ^i^'^d 
heen preriouely suthorlsed or »ubaeTuently ratified by the«. 

On the trial plnintiffe introduced in eYiclt^nce a coj>y 





or tranBori'pt ©f th& ^"udgjuent and of the «tx«eution 'ioctajt e'ntry, 
•xompllf led in the usual manner, of the Waahlnt^t'^n '-ovrt, entitled 
In thfl 0!rm««, "Golla unfmnn and Mark« Lsoman. her husband, i'lii-in- 
tiff«# TBI Jos«ph Connell and ..If red«n, Trvateco, nnd Calhoun, 
Dcaaj & S'«rlng, ii corporation, dofendantsj, Ho, 131»f)87,* and r»«t«d 
tlMir ca)«e« 

Th« trenscrlpt «f th« Ju^ipaont !«Qlt«B that the cau»« 
h«Tlng oorae on for h«?^ring on K®y 28, 1910, and the df;fendant fi 
ajp y e fcr i n ^, b y .^ . th i^ 1 r $» ^t j to , rnc ;ys , %n«.i » ^ury hnTinj^ "been impaneled 
and evidBno* reo«iT«jd, ants the Jury having returned « verdict for 
plaintiffs an4 nguinat »11 dof cnrtsntsi in th« svm fif ,i8,C0C, r-md 
the dftfeTvi^^nto ?snd fi'nih nf thera hairing fil«f' motions for ^udfjJiftnt 
notwitS-tatauJing th« vercUet, and the exjrt hairing denie'* the siotione 
•xoept th.-.t of 4«f€?ndftnt, Cal/itmn, Benny ?•; .lfwin.?T, «;hich ws-,© granted, 
it is 0Rmm)Sj3 and M33fTriXJi® t>i«it judi^-ent be entered ^ig^inst de- 
fendants, Joseph Connell and Alfr«d Fatten. TruetceF, in th« «u» 
of ■'gi8,C00 3sd co«ts esnd diffbursf^ent?! to be ta.x<?4, and thfvt the 
catttst b« diattiased as «^©inet C«lhoun* Bennj! «Si IJwinn* "^ha »1ud<5- 
n«nt ©rder is 8i^«d by "Clfty Allan, Jud^.* The tr&nnoript of 
the execution dookst entry oho^e %hf^t the eost^ wei'«? t^v^ed in the 
warn of 1384.65. then follow* th«usual «ertif ie«tes of tho clerlr 
and th« ;Judge of t^e court, all d»t«d Ureember 1, 1930, wnd to 
which io annexed th« seal of eaid iJiiperior Court. The certificate 
•f the Judge i« »ign@d V. T, Honald, Judge.* 

Joseph Connell, called in his orm behalf un^ that of 
his cfli-d«f«>nd»nt, t«atifi«d im direet exAi»ins%tion thf^t both had 
Kmsb residents oi" Cook County, Illinois, for msny yearfi paat; 
that neither wero ©Y«r ro»identiJ of viniahinston; thnt neither had 
been pen^onally Bsrved ^tith prosets© in said auit in th» ^'f.&hington 
Court, but th*it he had reoRiTfed n notloe in Ohic^so of the pendency 
ffciereof J a*d that the defendant In s^Aid auit, Calhoun, >©nny «nd 


■ Hi 


ri ■.•>(V<y^ 

IK. ^'-^ i' 


Swlngf WS.8 n repsldwitt of '<1^n«hlni?ton and ha<S l3*«»n sierTe4 with 
procmss thctreia* Cm i3i*oaM-«x ^ninntlon he rrae shown the origin«JL 
mxiB'wr of I'ftttea Mtut hlniiielf . as tru»teea« «ntltl9d and filed in 

• aid «?rt8hingtoB suit* and* h« testified thr.t the si.^^nnturea tn 
tho Affidavit thereto wero his and l'att«ii*fl ulgnatureo* 

In rdtettAl plaintiffs introduo«>^d ttaid original nin^jw^r* 
It 9«tB forth the dsfenae of stild d@f«nd«intfi ir:i the 4ii,shin«rrton 
suit and la signed hj' th« ottornoys for the "'ans^wring defend- 
ttnt8«<* and, following the algnnture ia said «if idaYlt, av»m to 
beforo a notary pulsllo in Cook County* IXllnoia* Thft doeuicent 
la oxoBpliflad in th« umtal ciannor - th« e art if ice, tea being datod 
i^obru^^ry d« 1923(| «nd e^nncxod i« tha aeal of a^^d c^uparlor Court« 
Tho certificate of the ^rtdge its oignsd '*Oti» 4, Brinter, ^uAgo.** 
Xn the first cl»>pk'a Offptlfiiento it i« Ktfited th»t the snwexod 
.ond foregoing la the ori/^lnaX soi^ftr^^.te ?mpi»r«r o/ mM 4«fendaat«, 
Connall and Pf?tt^n, Tru8t«esg In aaid csuae. Mo. iai,S87, *ao 
tho «««a appears on file und^r date of F^^^bruary 21, 1916, end 

• r.ier«d by thia court wlthdri^wn Utia day,* 

At the oonelusion of tha hearing of the for«jping 
tvidenoo plwintiffa* motion for a finding in th»r?ir f iivor wae 
Aeniad, but dwfendnnta' elwilftr siotion wbs alioared, ani^ tho 
entry of the Jud^ent appealed from foliowod. Ho proponltiona 
Of Xrw i»ere aubmlttefi to tho Cfjurt, nor wsre any of the et&tute 
lava of tho State of -Washington, fepplleHhle to the caae , reisui 
In evidence. 

tn ^loh V, bykee. A Gil». 197, 199, it la »s4ds 

•Unde» the oontttitution of the United >tatee and 
th© lf-%'& of <-''on(iX'('Bii Kp«ie in fMJrf^i««c® thereof, the 
jud^rmenta In p«^rBonaw of the various atfttea pre |>laoed 
on the footing of domestic Judgm«%nt»sj awi they nre to 
r«-3eiT« th<5 warae orifdit and effect, vhen thought to be 
enforced in diff'sr^mt atatosJ, «- ih«!y by law or usr.cge 
have in th? pnrtioul^^r » to tea wh^-re rendered, 'v judr:- 
ra«3nt, fairly : nd duly ©"btjiined in one .nate, is oon- 
eluaive botween tlta p^rtlea when imed on in r.noth8r 

:P!«« ItSJPSiSji; 

*ibis«i**fe- laixI'srwrsjEf*!?*' <mJj 

t«'=*.:»&Ji^'P^- *rt'5: « • 

■»»:^.&afA: ♦TS'^f?-* 




■<>># a:' 4?.? 

'/» ait 

13 5<',f0fflft : 


»t4itff. Th« ^«fffniifj»t Kuy ssiww, in "b .r of .ya action 
on tlie record of a ^ud<5o«nt of another >1att«, that 
the Juc%annt w*..^ fi'nuaulftn*!:; oTsti^^i/n^id, or t.hnt tlie 
oourt pronoun cijtfi; it had neither Jurjludietion of hi« 
p«r»on lior of xiu: oubj*'at B.',tt«r of the action. If 
he succeed in O'^tttWifthiug nny on« oi thPfcic d0f«rj8««, 
ili« Jud^cnt la i:;ntitl«.i to no crsilit, aiKi tfc« plnin* 
tiff l»j drivt^n to Mb ©uit oa the ori^jini'l o«u«e of 
action, Bi»ei^«g y. ^fiaraon. 4 ;.>cm. 5^6. nnd the 5;',we» 
there olted, ^i© ^iaf nutmt nay afStnit tJie ftxlat*?n«« 
of thu record, aad act up Jsy epeelatl ple« aj^ of th©»« 
Mtttt^^ra of defena*^ in nfoidaaoo of th« juclgei^nt* * « 
The plain tiff may truvnrse th^j alisg^tioms of the plea, 
or rnpl^T new m^tor in ttvoidanoe. Th® r^^ord of the 
judgment i^^ to bo used a* oYidence In the triftl of tlie 
i«kme: and, -rrhon introduood, j*f fords conolu«ive <*Yid«nc« 
of tht> facta atnttj^i in it, * 'f If the record otate** tli^'it 
tll« 'i€'fon<i»nt *4|>i*«re«i hy »*ttoriM?y» it is conrilusi'vie proof 
that the fit torn©:/ siP)?«are;i for hisi. Taut only grima f^*a;Le 
eTliiv.ace r,f the mi tlxo ri ty of th«? att.orncy to^ar, i-nA 
whioh i Hit tar ft. at 'Umi <lOA'«?)n<iftnt ii» fjt fwii liberty to 

la the presfi'ttt cr^se tJ';«?: plsa of 'i'fefendrsjjta ^&a t» th« 
effeet that thr< -^aahin^r^on ooui*t h».^ vwron^rfuHy enteresd t3»e judg- 
ment l)ec!aua«f of l&sk of ^Ui*i;i;liction of ths? persons of ^lefendvAntiv 
Tc thin plea plaintiffs jCv? plied lafiat vtcfr.ndnnte h*(.4. «pp#iRred hy 
»ttom«yB, On th*? trial, thf; rtujori of th^ yt^shinpton jwd^^^nt. 
ictro'^lttced by plaintiff u, dia^logad the recitai therein that de« 
fenrUnte had apj>oar«<i by attomfciys, and thie reeital ns»v. yr ^iia a^ 
^aeie evid(?nce of thn? jajthority of the ^tt^omeyE^ to so «ppe!«ir» 
••defendant* introduof^d ttet evid«a«c ^^ue^stioniag that rmthority, and« 
furthersjors, dcfendanto* ori^:^nttl ansae r in Hald ffaahini;-ton suit 
ele»-*rly showed thu^^t thoir nppearAnoe fey nttoraeys w««a RuU>©ria«.d» 
After rerlewing the r«30rd we are of the oi^inion thft the Circuit 
Court erred in entering » ^w^lgment for d&fendantss, and should 
hare enteral « itxdfpa^nt fnv plaintiff e t«v the amount ©f f^aid 
Vaahington J|udf5«c?nt, inclMdin,r intsreet fta<3 emid oo«t«« 

%ao main cont-mtlon relied uF'»n ^'' couB«el for i<^fend?^ntR 
for tin nffirmsnce of the jU'igH^mt, le that the deolf^rsd public 
]^liey of Illinois is ogposod to th^^ snforcew'^nt of the Washington 
judffnent in thla dtatc, aottOBel citei: in support of the eonten- 





.••;^mr«!t »if .^^-*rttot•«• 

««i.v,,.'f> .;:^Jfc.•«* bRA ^w-jnEftl'.ar*. »«,|h 



tion ««etlon 6 ftf th« Illinoia Practi©* /lOt, witiedi proTiAcs: 

"It »h«ll not \nt Iwisrful for any plaintiff to vue any 
defendant out of th«» oonnty vhere t3a« X»tter reeides or 
Hay l»e found, axwspt in local 'Actionn, «>n'*. except thftt 
in every "3*>eci©; of pergonal MCtiona in law where there 
la «ar8 than one drfemilant, the plaintiff cojiMenaing hia 
»ctlOB whara oithor of th«« roaii^eH, Kay hare hiss writ 
or write io u«d 'ilfeet«fj to any cmanfey or ciuntiee wliare 
the other defi-ndnnt, or pitlwr of them^ nyy hfl found: 
• ' ^ryTid'B d « thot if a Vfirdiot alml* not h<* found or Judi^* 
nent r9»(l«r#,d against tho d'-rfendr'-nt or df^fenflunts, reeideet 
in the oounty w^iere the aotion is oowitiencsd, ^uAg^ent ahall 
not "be renviwrod. a^ninat t}uisc d^fend^ntB wJio ^o not r««id« 
in the county, unices they appear and defcmd th« action, 
nar then if th« .fiction in disRtiaaed nia to th<e rls^fend&nt or 
daf«nd»nt8 r#Bident in th« i^ttnty*" 

this aoetion of th« i^ri*.otle« AOt haa l>e«ii recently aoni- 
atrued \if our -■u^)rfflne Court in th« e^sa of lllMHaida ▼. Brawarton. 
906 Ilia 36S, whorain it wa^ hald in aultattmoe thai nlh^Tm &, defend* 
flU(it» a non-re«id*int of tho countr' in which th« <mit is penfiing, is 
Joined with defendanta reaidims in said county in mn action on the 
esiaa far personal in^luriea, th<* giviiMS of » per^Mjp tory ims traction 
to fin* all th® ,ro«id«»nt defendants not i-milty is, witJiln th® wean- 
ing of Bald auction* am oh a dia»i»siRl of th© »»« a» deprlyes the 
aourt of Jf?tadioti*>n to s»roe««d agrinst «aid non-re»id«nt def«?nd» 
ant OB th« original proc^sas. .uad oounsfsl arguea, inas»^eh a© It 
aj>paajra that Conn«ll and f'l^tten, both ra^idantti of Illinois <and 
mat 8«rv«d with proo«»» in //Islington in aai* Waahing^ton suit, were 
Joined 0.B par ties defendftnt with Caliiotin, Tteni^ and Swing, (which 
«fta a rasideitt of Wii»hin«|t6» imd uerred «rith proceas in th«it atwte) 
AAd Vafere JudgKent snid uuit «ma dieniaaed a^a to Calhoun, ^^«nny 
mU JSviBC notsithatfin^ini? the v^nrdiet, that the Wiiahington JudgsBcnt 
•gainst aaid Connell and i?fttt<?n oiiowld not h« anforoad in llIinoiB 
eourta hecauso of th« doclKrad publie policy of this ut&te aa di»- 
oloaed ^y aaid atatute mnd docision. «e do not think ttint thare 
ia any laorit in the oontontion or ar^ment, «e f^l to a«« that 
the atfttttte or deoiaion hm any applie'tion t^ the present ceoe. 
Apparently the atatata ttpi>Uea only to ^ctiona commenced *ithin 


A^: ■ 

■ :'»*E»«iitifi ,si!S»i?j|r3f.» l»i;m>iHiH^ |»&. /i!;^ *,««i^i;ii«- ?»ji# jtto -*«w 

««»afi» *A;»!^ 3f.n4rf.* .roe .Jiroisgiood «?«* »^ai*M^. 

tills i3tat«, and h»,0 no b^arln^ upon fh;;? credit to T3« Giv«;« to 
A Judjg^ent rendered In an action eoBfm«n«ed in a foreign atato 
against <i©ft»nd^nt», wlio, thnugh non»r«Ri<t«ntfl of the foreign 
&tat« »n4 not there aerYed with proc«8B, voXunterily «nt«r«d 
th«ir a!?p«»r«n«« isy «.ttomoy in said aetlAn* 

D«fen<tAnt«* counsel nl»o oontonda thnt the declr^ration 

io fHtaily dofectiTO in that it fniled to Hll9g9 eerrlo^ of prw- 


0000 OB d«fendsintOt or their aj?poareno«, in the WMshiniUon ai»it# 
iKioh an aliflgi^tion w»tB nnneo^aBkiry, In ''3 Cyc. 1567 it is aaid^ 
•In sitting on a judsaent from another ?>t»te, if th« doelamtion 
•hows that the ci«rt rendering it wwe a court of T«ssord or a ootjirt 
of genern&l ^uriBdiotion* it is not neooea^ury to myor in tamo that 
tke oourt he'i juridi^tion of ih« parties or th© sulaj^eot matter, or 
to sot out the fi&et® (jonferring ^wrlMietion, nn this 'Wlli he we^ 
««BBO<ft until aiaproTed," (;do«, ftlao, R«.o v, MllffUU ^'^ I^^» ^''^'t 
577 J Dttnt>r? T. lifiiiaai^ ^^-^ il^« 3L60. 170.) 

i>«ft>nd«sat»* eounael fu:rth«r e(^nt«nd« that pl©intif ?:'«• 
fallHi^ to introduce* in evidnnoo th« law^ of Washington* on th«> 
((neation 'he they under th<»»« laws the W«»hii^ton oourt lia<! Jluria- 
dietlon of the persons of the a*^fendant« h^joansa of the filing of 
their s?;onEi aaawsr to the merits Vy th«ir Httomeya, warran tod 
the JttdgBtfiint in flavor of d«$fffad«ints« #e do not think so. the 
only qiUQistien r>&ised hy the |^l«$(%4inf;s waia i^other the MaehlniRton 
court had j^equired ^urisdietion of defeudAats by thdr sc^id 
appearanoe and ^nn-nev. The proof »hnwed that defendants* appear* 
anee and the filing of their finmnar vi\n authorised by them, and 
was their voluntary »ot» Under Illinois laws mch acts would con- 
fer Juriadietion upon their pereons. ( Ahbott v. uowgle » ; rj m, 
1©7, 108; Flnah y. ^>nith ?ama>oe Co .. 2 .fi 111, 586, mi; i^aopK 
▼ , ghietigo Title ^ l^ruat Jo .. ?fil 111, 5«?>. ^96 •) '^n^* altlwugh 



: :>>i 

I3<WJ; • '-T S»rtf ^ k^UlSit fi<5W «>»*}' ?:i«o 

no oourt 1*1 XI tnlnt j'udirjial notlae of th(& IsMI if & for<»lgn Q<nifitr7 

or iJtate Taut th« stm.0 nsuat b« prov«d *&s fs^ots ( iJhnnnf>^ v, 3JL£» ITS 
111. 885 » 2«0), yt»t it ia t« be presu»ed In the ab»enc<« Of a ooii* 
tr»ry shoving eithar th»t the a<yamon law o^btciinii in taohlnRton or 
el8« that tli« laws of that iitate ure similar to the law* ^hleh pre- 
vail in this ^^tate. ( JulUg,rd k Co . v. intuff i;SO 111. 87, «7.) 

i>ef«ndanto' oounael finally contends that the r«!C©rd of 
the #<ishln/?ton ju'lsment va» not propei-ly awthentioftort. It lo 
provided in the tatutea of Vhq tinited iitatoo ("/©I. 1, U, 5i, Coap» 
Siiit* 1901, v^eo. 905},$ 

•""he reoorde and lu.'icial pro <3e*j dings of lit® courts 

of nnj -itoto or territory * * «hall "be proved or adaiittefl 
in nny o«ier cc"ii-t ^'illiia Ih*- Unltod .jtates, Isy the 
%tteatstion of the ril^rtli., and th*? 9e«.l of the oo^rt fi.Bine%ed, 
if there "bei % a«al« togettior -alth the o«;rt4ficat« of the 
iuAs^t eMtaf justice* or pre aiding magiotrate, 'thf^t th® said 
attostritlon i« in due form. And this m^-id tef.<i^y^d& and JwdicSal 
proooedings, ao sutlM>ntiariied, sh«.ll have tmch fiilth and oredit 
giTon to th«am in nrr-vy env-rt «*ithin Uic-. t>Bit«d. ii»tat«» ---s^ th«y 
hoTO hy law or ua::.g« in th« sourts of th.® Sttut® fros!!. li-iMch 
th«y ®.r€ taken ♦* 

Counsel* 6 argument > h& we understand it, i® thf-t it 

oertificato of "the ^dge, ehi«f ^^Kstics, ©r preciding aagintrate" 

(cortifying that th® attestation of the ol's.rk is in due fttvm) is 

re«iiiired "by the etiittttoj that f^ns^^se i^e^ ia mind oourts in ^'^hich 

only one j^d^e sits, and also Oimrte ooatposod of seTcral judges 

pr««id«d ov«r "hy a ohiof Jutotioe or presiding; magistmto^ in -/chleh 

lotter ea«« the c«trtif4oate HU^t h® made by the chief Justice 

or presiding RngistiRte; thnt the eertificj-tion, datad i>«o«wb€r 1, 

19^, of the Judi^a as to said Washington 4udgn»;nt Is made %y 

••J. T, Honalft, Judga,* wheroas it appoars thut oald judgsaernt order, 

ontored Uny 5S8, 1919, is signed "Clay ^JLion, Judge, ♦* ario it fwrthor 

appoora thr*. tlxe eerUriO'stion to the mnwfiT of connell and i^ptten, 

filod m fiftid W5ishin«ton «uit, is made l>y «OUs ^.. drinker, * M 

"•Judge* of s,.^ld :;ttpcrior oourt, and in dated fe^rttiTy 5, 1923; 

thjit it is to he inferred froa this thf.t said awperlor Court is 






tX. ^X*«tg«-- 


ooins»08f!4 ftf more timn on« jxicige; Mud th(Rt, hfenc«, it foliowr 
thAt 8;4d o«rtlficnt« to the r^tt^stt^tlon of tH« olerk «» t« 
Sfitld i^avhln^^ton Judipntintt net( purportli^ to be that pf tbt 
chief justice or pre< Idlng mjif,?ifJtrat«» ia faulty, Hud there t/a» 
no proper sttth»mtioation of th« ^udgjR«nt« *« do not think 
either th&t saunnel'o inference is correct or thi*t hi© con- 
cluftion f o?lowa. In Tiew of the uncertainty of lifo, no in- 
foroneo can properly he dravfOg from th« f* ot th* t three Juices 
presided orc-r aaid a»j>t? rlor Cowrt t\-% diff©r«-nt ti««© during m 
period of four yenra, thst sftid court i» cfi«po6«rt of mow thnn 
one Judge. In addition to tho oertificnte of Judge ^^neHA 
etftting thet ho mio tha judge of the court oa Dpcera^er X» lO^v^ 
there ie also the oerti.ficute of the slerk to th&t ©ffect. 

(nir conclusion is that the Ciroait Court Bh/mld have 
rendered jiad«ia©nt ugfiinat def«iidH>nt3 foi* tb« niaownt of the 
taohingten jua^^cnt, :|8»000, and »«id eosste, ^mA.Bf^t together 
with interest at the i«?gal rut© on the amoimt of siaid jud^isent 
from th«? date ©f it^ rendition. M«y 20# lOlt, As the a^uee T^na 
tried with'^ut » Jury >»« can her« rsBd^r such a Judgment ^va the 
Circuit C-mrt ahould havo rendered, lln proof w^s nf^lB in the 
Circuit Court «,s to w^iat W'S the legal rato of interest on 
Judi»o«t8 ia the Citato «f Washington* the leg?%l r«^te on Judg« 
seats ia Illim»ia is fj per c^mt per B.nmm (CfthiU'e ;: tat. 
Chop, 74, ^^ec, ^), ijtid in the »h«enee of proof »y to th«? l^^t^l 
rato of judgments in the utate of faahington thr interna t may 
lie computed at tha Xljiinois rate, ( glohe Xndjga/ i ity Co , v. 
Koaner, a03 111. A99, 405,) Interest at the ri^te Of B per 
oent per annus on ;^,<J00 for four yeare and nine wonthiii is 
gX,»CO. Mdiag this mm, together with aaid oosto, $ie4.6rj. 


te th« MBOUMt of aald Waahingtoa jadgment* nakets tlie total 
•Uffi ol' $XG0 234.6 5, *ocardingXy, the JuoLgnent of th« Circuit 
Court in roTersed with « flndiog; of ttiotm and Judgment it 
entered here a^i^in^t ntiXd dttfondanta* Joaeph Connull and 
Alfred ji?<ittea, llruateee, for the sum of |10»234«65. 

RmBHmn AiiD juijotuetit hirj^. 

Jiteli »ad Jsumee, ^J«t oonour* 


t n-- 

( "i *:) "ill h. ii : 


103 . 1^753 

Wte find A0 fnata In thi» oii.3« that, in anXA 
■ttit In the Superior Court o" the iitate of tEshington 
for King county ^alnat the d^feniinnta and in wMeh 
suit said iiuperior Court efit«r©d JucJ^ent a^uinst thim« 
the general app^arnnee of »(tidl d^fendsmts was *»nter«d|i 
and tiialr fintwer ta the merita waa fileri, lay %ttot«ey« 
with defonAants* oona^nt and r^titority* 


c^rw. - SOX 

Xll - f»8*^3 

Appellee. ) aPFHaI. mm 



App«llrxnt« ) 

liJt, BiiSiiifliHo jnr^Tios artiDi.;^ 0i:ijnrsmM» this o^ikics of tHs court. 

I$y thla ftppoal defendant B«4>k8 %» rev6i«g»e a JittA0n«nt 
for $7,073.50, entered tigninst him >s»y th«s l^unieipal Court «f 
ca(ii«a«o on M&reh 31, 1923. upon a jilrocted verdict in plaintiff's 
faror. in &n action on a proRieaory m)t« for #6.000, dfit@d Ifaroh 
6. 1020. signed Ijy rtefcnftHiit f^nd pa;fa1»ltt on deainnd tft the order 
of C* W« ^Mte ^i'Ui intBrsat tst 6?^ p«r fsnnua. Hie not© b©r«7 tho 
•ndor8«wj«n* of i56iid s^itc, nnd plaintiff olained in hi» j?tate« 
mont of claim, filed May M. 19.'^.1, that the sasount of th<? note 
•nd aecraad interest mm duo hin. ae «ndor8«r« of the not® 'b<i?for« 
demand made upon df»fendant« ^nd tvhidbi demand , h« further cXaisted. 
Wtts aa4e en IJay -^^^v 192i,>. and refused. 

In ^ef«nd«nt»fi ««oond aatended affidavit of Moritfi 
i«Ter«Z dofenaoa ?ire a<?t forth. vi»: (1) thnt plaintiff -vfin not 
» heldnr in due courso of the note; (2) that thero was jru> conald- 
orHtion for tJie note; anO (3) thjit this nota h»d boen "fully paid 
and diaehergftd* by the delivery by defendnnt of a certain men- 
tioned d««d. In thtit portion of th« s^ffidavit relating to the 
third defense, and whioh also bears upon the oocond. it ia 
allttgod is aubstnnee that the note was delivered by lefendsint to 
White at th« latter' o roqueet bat was not given for any present 
considnrHtion; that *hito and defsmlant were >5©th intereotort in 
a pioeo of property Bituated on th« northcaist corner of Slat 



^nins'ia. .'i f 

PP ■•■■ 


»'t«lA*A .-?<»?,<%<»'• 



dntxi'-i. M#J»i> »Ouu,d 

Tft? '-•^•:A• ■ •••^ ^^ 

Sit? sj-sc-;^' .m-yy-T: 

't!Ri3i« *« 

■||«i-»«lst«fc H«Kffl 

atreet and Harper avenue, ChlcniSO, the title t© whidi v^hb in 
defendfint; that viftiit*; re'^ueetod tliat defendRnt deliver to hi« 
(Hhite) the note In question for the reueon that defendant Ki/^t 
Aie before said propertjr w«*b diepoeed of and the note csould bo 
uaed to protect White's interest in the property; th' t sifter the 
delivery of the note the prop© rty, on ..prll 6, 19'ax, et ^ite'o 
reiuoot* wna tranoferred by det*d of defendimt and wife t© the 
-*ta,te Bank or Chicago, as trustee; that s*iid transfer «r»is made te 
close Si deal wade between ahite fsnd Ljickner, fnitz St Cn,; that 
when eaid ♦'•ansfer was made, through *^ite, the latter stated to 
defendant th«t he *^ulfi rotarn the note in (fusstion to iefendnnt 
but he n&ver di.t so; tht t plaintiff had knowledge of all tht> facts 
and cirouB3taneeQ ooBCsrning the transactions betwef^n dei^endant 
and «^itet aJ^d kne*® that 'Qiite had no interest whritoTer in the 
»oie after said transfer; an-l thj-^t the note h?'^ bo en fully paid and 
diB charged by the d«liT«?ry by defendant of said deed* 

On the trial plaintiff introdticed the not© in evidence 
and rested hio I3ef»ndant» to euc^tain his defenses as pleaded* 
called -i^rHnoio h* Lackner and J. M. Hammer ae witneaeoo and they 
teotified, ;>efs>ndant also tewtified in hie own behalf and he 
wfis croos-exasBiined «*t length, Certain docuiaentary svidenoc wao 
introduced, but the caurt refused to adn^t in evidenoe v^hite's 
written r-eo^ipt (given to L ckner, l)ut;? & Oo. in January, 1922, 
several months after the present suit wns comrnenoed) for a ecrtaia 
worranty deed, and also refuaed to nd«it in evidence i?hite*s 
partifilly unpaid not* for #5,000, dated ^pril 15, 19^ (delivered 
after the giving of the note sued upon) »nd psyabie *in demand to 
the order of d«3fendant, At the conclusion of defendant's evidence 
the court, on plaintiff's notion, directed the Jury to return a 
verdiet for plaintiff for 47,q72.5g, being the face of the note, 
|$*0<^« «ad acczued interest of <^1073.50. Uuoh a verdict was 

.',?■"»' ?.?i»'t ''ic. vj ■• ■ 

*" £5 ^ ^'' -t r ri*^T^ *r 

^:.,i;\.'f? f-? 

• 3. 

rotttrnad and the ,5udiaji<«nt i'nllo^w'cl, 

i^ong the pointa urgod toy couna*;'! fur dtiff^ndnnt f«r 
a reTer»<il of the Judgisent are (1) thj^t the ctturt ©rr^cl in 
dlreotiag ft verdlet for plainUff, and (g) in refuaing to .iriailt 
in erlAftBett Whlte'R aald *»ritt«n r«cfjlpt and v^hite^o isaid $5,000 
note to defend ;mt» 

jr<.f ter a c ruful «x.ui»in«tion of tJif« f vid'nce w© >!»▼« 
r«»ched the eonoluelott thftt the ^owrt srreA In tllrfictlng a rerdltft 
for piaintirf r?,nd UiRt the ;)udgBifiBt shrvuid lie r*/vora«d an4 tha 
ciMiM remanded, Xnaeniu^ na th^e ctb^u^se anifit bft i'^ilinitted to anothor 
Jary *« 'arlll n»t Winter into » full c31t?m»««ion of th« (?vldenee. 
It oufflciently appeitre, -ww think, thnt d«f«ndant»8 «vi3«nc9 tended 
to show that plsalntlff waa not « holder in <iue courae of the note. 
And that ti*4 <|U«i;ttlon ia whathar there 's'ss Jiny evl'Jenoe tending 
to proTO defeniaat*a |il«& of no eonalderation for th«i note, We 
thinlc thffr« w«a Bdiae rtvidi<?n<j« af no 'SonaiderBtlon s^nd thnt the 
«ourt iih<vu3bd have fillos»«ci the e v»© to go to th© Jury on thipt ioeuo. 
In frnssfr ▼• Howe, 106 111, 563, r>73. It is saidj *lf there io 
no evldenco hofore the Jury, on a material iBstuo. in f«,Tor of tho 
party holding the affismatlve of thrt issue, on »*iioh tbe Jury 
eould, is th« oy« of IJie law, reo.!50nahly find in hia favor, the 
court may «BXfllade tim irfidtmcet or direct the jury to find r.gainst 
th« party ao holdings tJoo affisastiTe; httt «hen there is such evi» 
doneo "before the Jury, It smst h« I«ft to then to detenaiao its 
w«ii^t imd effsfot,'* In Bech^fl v, llarahall ^ iS3 111. -lafi, 490, 
it la said: *?he court, in :iving the in^truetioa as to tht^ ver- 
dict, probably eonsiiaretl that th« Tidenoe in question w&« nr^t 

ocaap'wtent, Imt it -^nn not utrioken out, and with thr.t evidence 

ft till in/re o«>M hi^fore the Jury \io do not think the crajrt, under 

tlio decisions in thia .it&te, ^■■■s ttuthoriaR<i to direct a t«r<iiot 

for th<i ylaintiff. this court hee Sfeid thf*t th«^ fast thnt the 


x^^ e-' 








al * ^ffJix-n'- '. :. ..-f> -xMtoc' 



• 4* 

court, upon veighing all tk«) «viden«4}« si«3r Im ttf the •pinion 
that ft ▼'.rdict agt».in&t th« plaintiff >roald hart to be oet unido 
if r« turned, does not Juntify the fiir<»ctlH5 of m Y«rdict for 
tim plnintlff if th?»re ia any evidenoo tending to aupport tht 
dofondant'ft contentionA wltti rt)ft«r«>no« to the dontroTe jrted 
<|U08tiono of faot material ♦.o ths ri^t of r©cov<5sy,* (Citing 
3ail(ny V. RohjBon ^ 333 111. 614.) 

AS to Qounoflla* s«cond point* whlX^ w« think tlsat Vliiti** 
written recf-^ipt for said deed was properly refuoed adnioeion in 

• Tideneo aa h»vine: no beHrini? upon thn isuue of no conaid^'ration 
for the note tiu«d upon, -im tire inclinefl to think ih»t^ in view of 
dsfend<uit*b testimony and othor «vld«nee, tJie fact that ^i^te kbto 
his demand note for ifS.OOO to defenditnt, for money loaned, at s 
dftto snbse'^ent to th«» naking of dufendant's rm%« oued upon, hod 
•omo "bearing upon the tttoation at iaoae,, and th^it said ^Chite not« 
flhould h*Ye bo^n adraitted in rvidonce. It seexia sonewhist istritng€« 
^it« having in hia pos^easion defentUmt*® de»R.nd note for i^e.OOO, 
Bov claimed to bo >% v»lid note, thi^t ^h«n i^iite borrowed ^&,0<:>0 
froB dcf flndiirsnt, he did not credit dfefendiint with |J).OOC as a pay- 
Mont «» defeniiant*ri »ald note rwther tlton give his demand note for 
|5aOOO« It ie of courao possible th.nt there was n roaoon for thi« 
••mewhat unuoual notion, whieh the present record does not disclOBO 
•nd which can be Km\^ to appear on the new trinl* 

?or the reneone indicated the Judgment of tlu» l^nicipal 
Court io reversed and X)m amn^ re««nd«d* 

fit oh And Bsrnoy, JJ«, concur. 

• f 4. 

-f«IT««f< J« 

.;;-"•• n-?!'.- „. HnfiX 

iM- - mrfB 

BC .TOS S, mXMC££, 



xi^mm mm 


/W ?J> o J.'- ® -r^ -s O o v-r 
Jl«ijr» IteSf tli % .f«r scr«srsl 3n?c^#» f^jrifar t-# *!»« fiiti^ «!' ^t^a? bill 

«;*-rri«t4 im tls© ;:;%at»' 9^ f^sms it «w» fwiiii® frinaot ^lii©' mm mtilX. 
Xirinit. ^Km m^t-t^rmmS. tram t&m^tsikmm^. at t3a<a %l3w -sf tls© &^tu@fey 

Mil* 6.mXmi ilJbs.t M® ted fimr l»s.@» m..iJs*3ie€ to Fajmi.?9 Fi'Hiiee. 0& 
tkfc t7?e issmesi tiifitr® ^na a «®sMi-dbi,a* pj»traet«4. festal '^tmt<^ a • 
4'ii^* re^axting im tSte r-'-tttra of v^-ritlet© fiMi^ng A&tm^-Mt guilty 
01* a4tii3.t4i»iey as o3»t*.i:^©t iR '&© Mil, sat s.^!®© fli5.disig ^smpl^^tasait 
is©t guilty «t@ (s&i.i'g^a ia t&e «:riO!»i»*l»ili. ■'.4't«r ^cf-^di^t^^s ia9ti««i 
/©» a ii©\? trial fei&tl l>©«)m «?T«y2m3.^d Ifee vjeurtt «fflt Jus© IS, Jlt^'3, 


im& for awTersl ymimi p5Pi«r tiier«to» aompiiiij»„:.iit w^m iim pafjto* 
of a ca,l«i3ceiE: Ba|>ti8t cJawrch &» U&viJtx LeaTitt stfer««tt t>a»i8'.go, 
rmti Urn o«h»reiep«m£^^'Xit ^:au th€>^ ehjair»a», q£ mhut lioa-rd df tmo'te^s 

til© IBSdm potHtl largOiii '^ 04«|»l«l«i f©r ^^jTu'RSl.-JRt i« 

th«.t t}i$ ▼®rai«ts mni iUer©^' sup© iBfenifei^tl^r t^^taiast ^m '^■<»l^t at 
th® s^vi^e^©®. fm <l« aot tJalnJt ee. At to ila® vti«r^49t «<s»eerttl»g 
<S«sf«.^iii.'.,«t*® i2lX<8g<54 4i4iati5-iqr '■s's ■UiiJtk ttotiit tlt,« ©i^iwi -was las^lj 
Mys)%«>>ia«ti ^r the 0irid#iicm ajad tit^-a^i csflas^leiia^ist w^j;.@ ^Mtiyi^gd it 

oro60*l?lll tKa.t. lifeeaa the p<«*ti^« w®i^ l»-;.'.r3?t*i, at l®v^^2-t, Ke«tu«3«y, 

'ui8 do S0i thtnk ^Mt^% ■tk'& «s&a.3S5pt »i6 i{ml"ficUi.s!St3»y «3ti4-K#'i by tlJ* 

«3, jr. 3?ylisee" vi-c-s* asjit^f^'d ia. s^4.rrl^e t«k ^at F^aaais ■mi-yi km 

of ©aid 'iJmadalupe usimty, ©:» F«wiii<g Irin©*, m lt«r :|K?itti0« ftl®4 

oo^rt of iJaas&XeiB ommty^ testis, 1^49 *»l®nJsiRl3i I» i^riii^#* f41«il M^ 

j(«'ftitl€ai for tJie j^iiiimlw^iit «/ Mia BSari«i«si®i8 ''*9B ^aim^^ry 10, 1902* 

Ucm«»d ptstition vaa aisaiisaea %-t plaJUsMtfe s#!i*ti9. B»t it ■r.i.© not 
ehs^n eltli'^^r that tls* •*!. J. ItIk©©" ©r ^e fJfejs^amta J. 4?si.a0«5t'* 
metaUfta^ti ia maid prec®?:{ii}^:ss, «&2t the ;2i.i«M» .ffts^^as i'.® tiMS «roi«|iiaill&»i. 

It i» «iXm ixm®^ ^-^^^ ^^ e^-m't ei*x'#^ni in r«.>-fMiiiyi;:; to 
al.ios' deXsadta»t t© i® tity t© oi'^iHNda :uiai8oi«a@ si.4iiaKj<i to Havs 

tliiftir e«i£i&^t .' tio» eonssesujUlg oeaEq^l.-!vlfii>jtt*0 ^ll^^'^t.. piei^&t ^^x^jfiag*. 

■'i'lai® xnaii^ wa,« Hade afi@r d^faas^-isat li-^d giv«sii &5jr i#Ktiwoinv d^^laig 


■ },'■ /. -■«*-! 

p-rlor SHfiX'jrjU^ to 8^'4^ 1'aa«i« --Mlih, ©a^. fc*i»>l. »Si« w«.6 frstlll living 
r49ta unsiirorcei whan the .':::satu«3!lcy ®i/a:'idag© mm p&ri^n&i&'A, ^ 

In laT«r <>f lt« valiilty, jwiii tJfifc© i^or^^jia ait.® «psfa lie..- to asho^^ it» 
inVi-liAlt^ by "jou^etaut pTt>^' of eawi^latBisat ' s; pplor Jeiarrtci^ to 
Fa^aaio i^i^tli aad HhtAt m@ X&tt®.r was liiriai iaci it»tlTor«*^d fr«B 
CKja^li-ia^aat tfii^ia tjb* Kv^ats^olc^ B!trir.ifi.&g# was p©.rf©'rBi#d. {sctoaJ Bi^^^nr 
^« %&ty ^,^> x^"? xu. SKJt si4j .Jili^ ▼' . ^km*' ^^ 3:u. s^s, 

600.) M saia priar a-^rrls^® was sis^4r#i t# 'lie firet ei^^....raLy ^sn^ 

%0 ^tsfSf m^^mim. &X^<.Sjm4 %& }mm "^^m m^Am % ^(m^o!,$,m^&% %^. t# 
©aid' ws^rriaisK ®r ^xu t© #«i.,d 1|5«^# li^iii "^iag li'fisfej ifia4 tMdiT«kx*«0<i 

»*^* ^^t ^ISJ^ ▼• ISSJ^yu 3.^^ ^3.1» 4#6, 4^$ Ms^T. ia^i^a^a. 
*^9 XIX* ^l@5f tT9«) I» QUT QpinXexi W^ ft#!irt cUlcl aot oeis^ait @i^ 

|»3P«4^^*>®^*^ e?r-0i^ isi tSmi ruling ai3s^,laljie?d ^. 

itta it is »8 o?t«#td« 

I'itah BXtS. ^.imtBt J3i,f Q&wmr* 

i^t: '.J^ 


I i.iiK;S! 

I KBm^ mm 

In aa .'action f«ap 44ma#Bt« t« pi «il.n tiff's wj»teiis©l)H@t ©acasieaisia ^ 

©f iikm &i'<sm^^ den^ t© plaiatiff »s mm w&m »©fe ^ «lisi«it». i^l^ntlff 

trial, aad «5irid.^i«® was la^sjf'i Ib^ a 4^^ ««* F@lii3?u;:-^ 6, 10aJ» re* 

q^ ill© 4t«lg3^3irt^ mp'p&nil&d frmk* 

flim ms^y pQtni m^& ®ad argued 1^ ^ef©asl«',»i*i8 K^ms^ml 
is iim.t ife® eviii:ii«© cls^-riy i^otvi^. aafAh eontriumtorsr »:&gXi^«»0e 
on tka |»ark «r plai«ti:ef ia thv„ d^Yiai:j ef Ms «&r at a»d tj®f«r© 
th« tlree ©f t&fe eolUsion i^:& ters a«y ipe^eT^sy f«a? %h^ ^^mx&m daae 

«fce^4<fi!nt. Pl.-iuUff im» a -^ittrnm. ia Ms ©^ssa Iseiiall' s»4 lii» tec>timo«y 

V 'A 

- V V 

.ai-- i 

def&natmt'&i o«(j*» aad .-. .' f ^i^a^^jit ^md M,^ two yowsg^r iMIMi iwnyt 
.'laiiitirf te«stiri«?a in m.hutm^& th^^t h» ifeai driTiasi Ms ««*r in 
»p««4. not ©xc(8t©€4jiiii IS mil©® pei? Iiott^'j th.?*t *:■>.» He appffo.&«iw«ll 

defeadaat'si ear a jih«ri i4#t«uftcii« imrlSk Qi the imttrt&aeUoa ©J9«d 

»i#iEt «3f wtejr (*/ie lit Hsmd), Im^ a:tt«tla*i*d fc.lMsi.g «5a®t mmi «8»#»a 

eoiziMim %uir t^^iisi^gii;' ^^itlcicl^' wm-AM^ ^^ &@mt^*. Imi w<&t iti»^X« t@ 
(l» »©j «a«l t&*t th« t-»i» ear® *sl4«s)ig|,|>@a , « »3P e«i:Mi4c'4, *e«i iM^ 

Kt. «©t end i_-©u^ «f ya^ fcjou^ cr«t«% «f !kkm^imm^ $t,w^^m.€* XX of 

cart is^(.t-,4i-...,i.*ly Sr©ll0iis3^j fefeie isK^-vUt, -s«ialie<a Aefeinat^t's ®ar 
aojswaws l^^rth l^fe^rltt street su^l to tli@ 5>owtJtea0t o0Fiiej|?# aXtJasiagh 

laovla^ somth ©n tfe-e vfm}% side of ^aar'Kbt .Ij^czritt a^fc3r®^3t j tli^t ^hm 

tike weist, "just c©4i0lN>«l« mst^ aer^as sa^t-iisfoo^ «v"r®im€«j t2i-*t ttfmu 
rir©| noticed jsioiatirif**! «a*, th«34 .^fe<mt %& ffm% &m^ o&A aetlug 

»tje©«sti», :.t6,33Eaidd*s. j^liiiiitll'f »-<5 witiDt^s, t&eitkSi^4. in rsslwitUX that 

" & wre &&im nortli ««i teoulOij 1 smH hmt^ t# -'.top f©!* :„j«yoiw 

In ififw ©,f til® f^ep-figKijag t#i:sU»»a^'" wt aE'e i^saa^.® to 
msy tJsi^tt tut m-f^'diet 4.«t ssmL%t^n%^ i^aSmkl %« ««l^til ©f m® «f?ri- 
d«i3i«« oa m*? qm^-i5t4«m, ^.f f^^ ■9iiB^m^ j^t&imtiff ^m. guilty ©f oen- 

heii««, we «^# net disp«-0#a %& M^Wl^ t^« v^rijtet «md. jm<%^»-)ai. 
V. %^!^sa^# . S60 111, 4^9, 4.S.3.) .Iji. %lia ^^^'@«i mm, 'wmm mm 

at tl>&i p9im%, am tJB^ ^BSmUt m^sM- »©t hm^ mm. Ma ««:!? imo 


63 • S871S 

MTWRk 0Xes«W8ki, his next friend, 
X>«f eudaat in Irror, 


KICK iLirAa]«i]i£V3ia and mM.xm 

3JAVIDAITIS, Bwfendantt. - J 


Plaintiff la Mrror, ) 

0» COOK COim^PY, 

3 ^ T A ^ 

Plaiaiiff la error waii ©m® of two ^ef en slants fotmd 
jointly llalolc In sb aotlen on the ©aae for injttries suatalned by 
plaintiff, a alnor, from oellislow tdth an atitorziofeil* at tJaa int«r- 
aeetion of Ashland avesime nnd 17tb @tre®t, Cliieago.. 

The aatamobilt wa» af th€! type calltfS a listousine ear, 
having cloced doora, glaas wladows.aud tiiree seats. It wjas being 
dxlTan ttoutb on the *«8t side of Aohliwi avenue by Mick iSwaaniewBici, 
the other dofendant, Bavldaltis, plalRtlff ia error, and his irtf© 
■were riding in the back asat, sihe at hit rij-ht, aad a witneas for 
hlsi in tho laiddle seat. Tha boy, about nln« years old, was going 
waat on th« south orooolng of 17th «tr«ei with two other boya about 
the 8a»# age, There were double street oar tracks on Ashland ave* 
nue. The evldenoe tende to show that ae the boy« sqsproached the 
ear tracks a street ear and a luwber %^am ahead of it were going 
north, that the boye israited for theR. to pass, that plaintiff** 
eosipanlons stopped for the automobile also t© paepj, but that plain- 
tiff ran ahead and ewae into colli alon with the autoieoblle near the 
southwest comer of the intersection. 

The declaration ia in lour counts, the first charging 
general negligeno« in pro]^elling, operating and maintaining the au* 
tofflobile; the second, wilful and w«>nton negligence in so propelling, 
etc., and the third and fourth, a violation of the statute with 

respect to grpAed* 

2swdi «5«fendant pl««ta«d the general iasu« jusd specially 
denied ownerBhlp and operation of the oar. 

It i» not qu«8ticm«d tliat -Mick was hired to drlT« 
DaTidaitis on th© trip when the accid«ait h«,pp<5ned. While th« te»« 
ticiony is conflicting as to wbother the oar helonge^ to th« fo mer 
©r the latter, w« think therft i© a clear preponderance of eTridenc* 
that it ■belonged to the forcier and that h« wao ap®ci«Xly hired to 
driT« his own c«r on the o««aaion in question. On that stat^ of 
f«ots tho r«i3*tion hetwoMS the drivtr and plaintiff in error not 
"bolng that of maoter and servant, there was no liability of plain- 
tiff in error tinder tho doctrine of reii?ond«at 8ut>.p;,rlf r,. There iB» 
thorefore, no hasio for the <iharge of negligence ng^mst him tmleaci 
the i»vi4enee shows he ■was chargeable with the -hity of warning the 
dTlTor against an apparent dagger or an tanreasonahle and daaiijerouo 
rate of speed in viev of the time, t>ia«® «nd cireasiataneee, 'fhere 
was no evidenco tending to dlaolo«« a dangerous situation to plain- 
tiff in error exoept as t© «pmtii4 of the car, ThAt testimony was 
fragile. While one of the Ijoya »aid the a«toiiBobil«j was going "fast,* 
yot ho also aaid that he did not toe it heforc it struck plaintiff. 
<^ly one other witneos for plaintiff testified ta the spe^ed of the 
car, ?Mad he ^ae not in a good position to judge of it. He was at- 
tending to huainess in a vacant lot at the aouthweat eomer of the 
interoectlon, staniing ahoat twenty-five f<*et «o«th of the south 
line and ahout ten feet weet of the west line of the irjtereection 
if each line were ©•^terj-Jed. He teetlfied that he ©aw an atitomoMlo 
coaing froBi the north, an-l so alnoet directly toward him, at a speed 
of t-^enty to twenty- five miles an hour, and ?»l60 that it elo'S'ed down 
a little. Ilhero waa aleo a eSiscrepancy in the teatiajony aa to how 
far the a«toH:o"blle r^a aftsr the ecllieion, meet of the teettifflony 
iMilng to the effect that it ran only a few feet. The three men In 
the autoKohile also testified to cirouEStanceo which caused the 

AUtcraoMIe to atop in th<* interssetlon (%rA that it proceeded slovly 
aoro«8 th« Ptr#et thereafter, While plaintiff b aaid wltn««« 
failed to notice thet »tre«t o«r or !h.or»« scad wiagon, one of the boys 
testifying for plaintiff maid that they waited for a street ear to 
pass from the ao\ith, and laoih defendant ■ testified th»at there was a 
street car cominc from the aoutiv, and that in froat of it were a 
horse and a wagofi loaded t<rith lomher, which turned to the west 
iB the intersect ioQ across the %yest car tracers aa<l then baeic into 
them. Owing to this moveiaent the automotll© stopped, the driver 
testifying that fee was uncez^ain whether the horse and wagon were 
to continue going west. The three mer. in the autoaohile testified 
to its etopTiing for a wsigon to c©t out of the way, ant that it 
then went sjlo^y aeroas the interseot ion, an;? that tJt^ hoy cfiae 
rtmning froK the east. Jsearly all of th«? wilnesaes t«?etifi«?d to 
his running, saxd plaintiff's said witness ana %11 four of the 
laaates of the aatomoblle raaid he ran into the left side or fender 
of the car. Only one witness, ¥hG was gjlng south on the west side 
of Ashland avenue a«d was "behind the autoaobil©, testified othsrwiae. 

We think the testiiaony tended gtrongly to ohow that 
when the automohile passed the wagon it was about half way across 
the Interaeetion, and that Whil« the oth^r two 1;>oys stopped for it 
to pass, plaintiff ran quiojcly ahead of thetn imd into the aut^^mobllo 
just as it reached the south side of the croselng, and that ivhile 
the driver sovtnded his horn the isoiaent the hoy was visi^jle, and 
turned his car to the curb, it was too late to !4void the acoident. 
Whether or not there was any negllgeneo on the part of the dyiver, 
who does not seek a review of the Judcjaent, there is s clear pre- 
ponderance of evidence against negli^'^nce »n the part of plaintiff 
In error. Ke was not only sitting in the back seat, in no pORition 
to direct ©r oontrol the driver on a moment's notice, bxit under the 
circumstances and the prerjonderant evidence as to the eueed of the 
car, he had no occasion to caution the rirtver. It is highly improbsfcj^ 




that i& the dlatano« froa where the oar stopped to the point of 
collision the car attained a speed of twenty to twenty-flye mllet 
an hour, as the ovideuce doe© not support liability on the part of 
»avldaiti«, jmd the judisiaient i« M,gainat feoth defendants, heing a 
imit, and erroxieous as to ouq, it icuKt he revei-eed as to "both. 
( Valle y y. Ullnoie , Xunne}, 0%.^ 173 111, App, 33S, S96, and oasee 
there cited*) 

Seftadant in error says thus quoatioa of joint liability 
oan not be raised heoauee no i»9x>e was forsaed tHer«!on. But as xo 
said in Purinf:t on>£iiahs^ l Bri ek vQ » if. -'^<^toaB . 103 111. App, 183, 
an error alleging joint negligeric© in the declaration can be reached 
neither by <3e.;iurrer nor by nlea in ab-^fcteyn^nt. The tntli or falsity 
©f the allegation »u8t be detenained "by the f.:i.cta shown on the 
trial, snd the proper plea for those not guilty is the general leeue, 
the reason baing that a tort may be treated as Joint or nviy^rnl, A» 
we understand it, a defendant in a tort case unconnected --yith a con- 
tract dot'B not admit joint liability by not spool ally plaading laia- 
joinder. ishere torts aay be ao;-Mitted by aev.rral it i«? faailar law 
that they may bo aued jointly or aev«*r»lly, an^i that judi-Taent may be 
taken against on® or isore, but that the proof Kuet su^tfiin the chajrg* 
as to -thoe.® found guiity. lYon wh^re notice of misjoinder ia required 
te be given "by statute, it has been held th«t th© pl-^lntlff ie not 
entitled te a verdict against all defendant a, unless such ve^rdict ie 
warrsjrjtcd by the evidence, but only against eucb as are proved to be 
liable. (Patterson v, Lough bridfee. 42 i,. J. 1. 21.) 

RS¥i5Ha33D Ami milMimD , 
Grldley, P. J,, and ^itch, J., concur. 


^; • i'- 


'SI uJa &t: 

«-,^?ii Jiii-. 

*4 Vtit-: tvsa. 

■ i ■<• w )^ **>. * p»» ir —^ ifi v^ ' ' s^ "* ^ ■ 

ia-^.^;;, i-^^iOt^ 

0S • 33736 

• 'OB, 



©J eEiuAOc, 

MB. JIT3TI0H BAf^mS BILIV, „„,..„ 


Piiilotlff »tt«?(3, to r«o©Y«jr for storaga of <!,ef endant '» 
»«tot53«>jlle fr»m Ociol?®!', 19S1, t« AfrlX, 19i3f ,, lnoIu8lT#, and for 
twiipH*fe aadi X«l!>er f'ar3f»l®h«»d in repairs of th® !»as5«, Itmsixing 
tael) (thtMrga an^ the erodlta in hi« »tat€Higi^r}t of claim* From a 
Jttdj^ent for lias. 50, tb« ■biil-aRee qf tJbi» «a«u»t so cl.alK®d[, 4«* 
f«Macit «pp®al». Deti^ndmit deiiied g«)B«ra3.1y atiy indefct«dne«», 
cl&iiiJlng a eet-off of |X50, The affl<iiivit .^so acts forth that 
dafondaxst paid all eli^sirgoo !» full for tho monihe of Qotoli^er, 
19S1, to ?®tiruary, 19 %2, i«olu«li»«, asd that the oar fras not in 
plaintiff ♦» garag* during ttoo ffioiitho of i*arch aaaid A^pril, suad only 
for a fefw day* during 0©tolb«r, 19 81. 

A nonthly ofeargo of |50 for atorlns tho oar wa» not 
diopiitod. Sor irero any of tho itojso for roTsaire ftcd supjylioo ao 
oat fortb la th« utat^wisnt of olalB, -msi in likt aannor in pltalis- 
tiff *8 le'igor, by whieh chargoo so<« to fe%v« "beon oottlod, dis- 
puted or Qu*8tlened, Tho only tJoints at i»sae ir»rc ^^othor thoro 
ohould bo any ehargo for storage iv.rlng tho Months of KarcJn and 
Aprils and for joore thon olght day* in October, and Tb<ftthor do- 
fondant wao «itltled to a oot-off, tlio proof ©n thooo point* ■»*» 
mor« OT loBs unoatiofaetory, plaintiff* president t notifying 
that thore waa an agroeoient for #50 a jaonth for otorage, w^lthout 
•tating whan otorago be^gian, and that be merely agrood to oond for 
plaintiff* oar and aell it for him, but neTor agrood to buy it. 

^'^t f./iAc-.^ 

and defWi'^ant t ratifying thai th - ««r wa» In ttora^sa ©nly (rIjjM A%y 
in ©etoTser e^rA not at lai In ]&«roh sm\ Ajprll, ani that plaintiff 
*gr«ed to "buy M» «•» at tK« price of llS<). It appearf^d, how«Y«T, 
that plaintiff Bmit for th« oar "bttt that the p«5oi!Jl« at tho gara^o 
i»»ier« it -wa* atoreA r«f«««a to «urr«nd9T it, ulaijaing that thors 
waa a oharge against It. It does not a^p^ar tltai dofimdant eror 
delivorod or Aade a I»gal tender of delivery of tii« car to the 
plaintiff, a«<i that upoffl his omi theory of th« ssale be had nertr 
earried out hlo ptiPt of th«? ftxeeutory oontraot. Timr^, e^eaits to he 
BO Talid h«kBla for the dato of aet-off. fhere w&a, on the other 
hand, no specific proof that the oar *a8 In storage iongor thaa 
eight daye is Oetoher or during the itjonthe of Mareh imd April. 
RovoTer, it «.pp«!vi,r» thore were undiarjuted charges for repaire jsuide 
in March and A^ril, im& the proof with r*$i&r<S to them had some 
tendency to oho^r that the car waa fttll kept in the gTi>.rag® during 
t>>©'»!e i3ont>t«. On euaih evidewce y^e are wot eatirfitd to affirm 
the jul^ejst or to render a new one. Accord in gl.y the jadgmssot 
will be reveraed and th« cauoe remimded for a nmi triiCL and the 
preaentation of aatlafaotorjr proof vmnn theae dlBputS'd points. 

Oridley, 1^. J*, tmd Ifiteh, J., cojaeur. 

Ift6 - «6766 

hm lais'^, ) 

Plaintiff in J^rror, ) 

) mmH. TO 


f COOK comrTT, 

B, C. BAT C0II3?AKY, J ^ ^ ^-^ 

ft oorparationt I ^ Q ^ '■'■' '-' 

D«f«nd<mt IB -'Crror. J ^ u^ O i-c^^® 

IJhiB T»rit brings for r«?vlenf the dltsmlneftl of a bill 
in e<^lty filed by plaintiff in error for an aocounting, b»v»«d 
upon & contract vehBtrnTof^ he vtuu to sell upon eoeBj^dasion piano 
playert nanufais tared by defendant in emar. 

The only item in controyersy la for a eoannioiaion of 
bIx per s^-rflt cXfeiaied bj*- O'smplRinant as 4«e hiai for th« b«-1« of 
1941 playero to iwdolph A»rllt»«r M Gompsny of Cincinnati • Th« 
nastor to n^ium the eauae w%» r&'f^rred fo^md tht^t there was due 
hill as eonrai salon for sueh s&les $19,365«90t and reoommended h 
deeree therefor with intwroat fr<» \prll 1» 19X9« when the con- 
tract by its terms expired ♦ Th<? ehanoellor eusstained d«fen<3«nt*» 
exceptions to the roport and disalaeed the bill f®r <^nn% of equity 
except «o to m wnall aontmnt not in contttjveray, 

the eontrmot between the pttrtieM -mR in writing and 
entered into Vfsrch aO, 1M7. Its provialons, so tar m pertinent 
to the matters in controTersji are that eo»plninant was to market 
the entire product of the lefen^Aant compancf. derote hie entire 
tine thereto, turn ovr to dwfondyjit ds*ily all orders for approval 
and all money, notwa or lertaea roceired by him, and wm to re- 
ceiire six per cent of the groas ^Mount of the accepted orders. 
He was to pay ««rt»\in «xpRnsca, «nd d«f«ndftnt office rent and 
oertain other expenaes. 7h& ngree&ien^ wp»s to run for two years 
from April 1, 1917, unless otherwise mutually agreed upon. 

ddr. - ^>il 

ffi i1i;5-fti«ii 


'"^*?'^?5'T* '^T'' 

1:7* its* *» K«g0 

a * ^ ,: ■ ■■? *:».> s s?* 'xei jr. t • •. 

„. 1...... , K,} ^^0-^3 J. ^^,^,,^^^, ^^';.,r.-j'.ol 


Ko troubles ««QBis to hftTe arlaon prior to X918* 
Early in th^^t yo'-r 'l^^fendant noeded monoy* mnA oomplainaat who 
h^^d sold (i few players to the »ftarlit;s»r Compmny sugr:««»tod th»t 
hi Might obtain » loan from tha latter conpRny (Uftd soil them 
■or* ylnyera* which he undertook to do* Go in/7 to CincinntF^ti he 
o^tninel fnm oaid oonpftny on Knrch 2%^ 1918, an order for PXiQQ 
of defwnflfmt'a playere, iiubjeot to eanoollBtion on or before 
April 1^ 19ia» but no arranffowent for a loan of money wh« cnn^ 
ifunaatod. On (.^aroh ^ tho ^^rlit»er Company teleicr&phrd itn 
oaneellcition of the ikn.T9«m9nX m«d« on i^nroh Sit but Qnyin^ it 
vaa willing to ronow th^ Rissm with oanoellation clf«ui»c f^xtended 
to July 1. Compiainftnt elalaed« and defendant's prt^^idcnt, H, 
C* Bay. ftxproosly deniod, thr.t utich «xt«noiOB tfmo given, th&rtt 
was BO other evideniM* than th«?ir verbal «t«t«»ont« pertaining 
to the m«tt«r« eiiBply the nmv(\ of one againet th«i ©ttier, A f«ir 
d©y» lator My went to Cincinnati and negotiated a now oontra«$t 
in writing th« aurliti^er ^:(mpmn^ on April 10. 19ia. providing 
for a loan to defendant of |7!^,000, and giving an option on part 
•f dofendant'si stoox, in conoideration of ^idi ftefendont *4;,reed 
to jBamf roture sn'\ asll to th© ^rlitanr Cfimpnny any number of 
player pianos that company »io;ht order up to ITS fr««tt month to 
■onth during th« torn of th® contraot, ^.t-tn. c«rtain prio^- for 
th« first thousand ajid a different prioe for the f«<?cond« Other 
toma of tho eoutraot noed not be stated in detail* 

Complainant not luving received pay for all th« t 
«as due hi» hold back the delivery to defendant of iShecke for 
over #12»000* tJtUit had com** into his hands after April 1, 
A«««rtaining th^t f '■.ct ^bout thi* >.!&% of April defend ??ni. B&nt out 
letters to its ematoaera to lenrtt if they had siade reBittfrncea, 
and «e a result a confereooe who had between oeraplainant ».nd Bay 
respecting the matter on /pril 29, when ooaplain«nt refused to 
turn over th« checka in his po»3'J»aio» witha«t a oottlement. 

/ ^ 'iSSii.^cj^ isXiti io 

jiLAiv-'v^i ,.:.i 

«hl«h waa then iikAq upon a atat«ii«iit su1}nltt«d 1»7 mMplainimt 
■faowliig 16, 065,76 aa due hi* for eomninaXotm on aII tihipnenta 
us to thnt time, aivl thfiit nmouBt wns agretd to and paid on that 
data partly in <su«»h and }>artiy in noten that bftT« »in09 Iwen 
yftid. j\t th« toot of the »it«Jteaent la tho following: "Recf-lTod 
•Qttlaittrnt as ststenent itubjset to ro-checking nnd ehango. 4*P,0*le.'* 
{31gn«dl) "Low KXiA«.«* 

Ih; fondant in fsrmr olaiao thnt «ms a eoitlonent in 
full sttbjedt to a raoheoking on the books as to the aceuraoy of 
tha atatasBflnt of «ot?ount, nnd Rxcwpt as to orders not then on 
the booka bat aftarwo,rd« flll«rt, with wapact to %hioh thasra ia 
BO eontroTeray, Incluied in tha atatument wera cmmi&nifinti far 
tha aala af r59 playara delivered on cjomplalnant*© contract »*ith 
tha idXTllimv Coiapan^ir b«ifore it irajs e«BcelXed, ttma l«r^ving 1941 
playera upon which ha elains a c€iib'ria«»ion» &»d whidh <U<fendfmt 
in arror dellvared under its now contract with the larlitzar 
Coapaay aftar the a«ttlai&rmt« 

the taetiaionjr of def«ndant*B py«»id«mt, H, C, Boy, 
and two of ita essplayais, prauismt trhen the srttlew^nt m^s had, 
«a« that CfM&plnini^nt mtXd ha mis going to quit, rjid that the oan* 
Teraation betwaan ofMnplain^ait ajKl Bay w^i^ to tha affeot that tha 
aettla»«nt waa in full, anU th<air testimony ©n thJit sub^f-ct ia 
net dirt^ctly refutad by caaiplainiisisit, and does not CGntracii<nt 
or Tary tha written atjjtt®»<mt or receipt. 

Attendant oireuwstsinoaB, too, support ilafandnnt'fi 
▼araien of tha traiiaaction *md th t there w»a an under stmding 
and int«intian of the particH to tivi-ainate the axiating contract. 
It was agraad that dt? mm no langer to pay eampls^in'^nt^a 
office rent or other e;^penaaa« and that complainant was privileged 
to repre»ent other coneerna. He imm dintelif procead«d to 
negotiate 'Hth. anothftr ccwpany and inatetid of ^aing buaineee 
tharaaf tar under the niane of Bellman i*lRyer iri&no Coapai^t by 

► * - 

ftmttkAf^!^^^ ^ '^'^t^ kf<''-J'^ .tni#jflip44-«.*ll » tl''i>%ff »fca« «S££* S*:H? itf«jdW 



,»nJ!:Jf'S rrv' 

»■«:>:• ' , ■ ■ . fxlr.l^\-m:^ Sf-^i SAW 

:. 'ys»ltiP!i 

i-nEl:. I,:.'; ^til? i •« 

whi(^ he ]Rad pmvlouiily done buulnesB ttii4<>r the eentruot* he 
did Imsinesfi under th« naBie of ]U»i Kline i'lnno ^-trnpn-ny^ paying 
kie o^m rent and exp^naea* and witliln a rthftrt tine eloeed « 
©ontrect vdtti th*! Eroeger i'i«n« oomp^ny ef -iteififeird^ Conn.* to 
eell its proctuets. fhile Bay enld ecmplalnant mi^t eell a 
limited number of pXayore monthly for dt?fend«nt, if profitabXe 
to defendant, at a oertnin prioa, tind Gomplalnant clalme he under* 
toek to obtain ordera but that d©f«ndant "^nder out* htm on Btilee, 
no further aalee wire ninde through oomplBimmt; and it appenre 
fram « letter written in June to a ouatemer th*>,t he wrs urging 
the purehmse of Kroeger playere instead of Bellauan players. Mot 
until after h« filed hia bill did he oomminic^nte with defendrnt 
»• to « commiBflion on deliyerioB to the "'urlitser Comppjiy made 
after the eeftlementf when Bay told him he had nothing to do ^th 
them • . . 

It ia cl«!*r from thfjse eiraum!i;>t«noea &ixA other 
testimony of complainant nimoelf thet hie oentraot r&B not in force 
•t the time of filing his bill in BoTeabor, 191B, -^s alleged there- 
in* and that letven he m.»de the eettlemi^nt of April 29, he regarded 
it as tsnainnting hie sontraot and aa an accord and sntief action* 
;hile complainant was guilty of » bwe^oh of hie con- 
tract in wjthhol^^ins eheaks ■mntTn.r^ to an expreee provision ©f 
the contract, and there ia little, if any, evidence to support the 
maBter*8 finding of a prior brwach of the contract by defendant 
in not paying ooBplainant all that was due him, yet there «r»sK rio 
proof of a refusal of aucfti pay»«nt, and no epeciflo ti»e for pay- 
ment 'iitiZ agre-'d to. But r**gardlees of i?hieh party first breucSxed 
the contrast ire think the «Tidenee ehoare that the contraet of 
March ai with the Wurlitaer Coiftpeny »&« terminiited on imrch 30 » 
»9A t^at plaintiff did not iimt>t«in the \mrden of showing thnt it 
was kept allTO after th^it date, and thst \»*inteyer claim complainant 
may hare had to oemi^ieaioaa under the ^rlitoer deals, the aattle- 

:; .... ,--,i Cit ia«* 

^\'JL ■■ if *-.'l 

-ii'' l-'i" '"W^i":'- - ' •«•'-•> "'■''■^ *** 

■'-■^' •"•■ ' ' * — ■'- --;■ ■ •• ^t«Ja*«j 

■•/■•, i<*a ml 

Meat on April 39 -vkhb intandiid as sak accord nni iaf?iief motion. 

Kar do v.e tWlnk th# t<iBtlKoiiy ewffioicnt to support 
tho allegation of tix^. bill that th« contrDCt of April 10 wcie 
tntered into for tlie parpooe of chfatlnK un^ <Sefraudlng co«- 
plalii;«nt out of his comrfslidslons. Jkit vmra it otherwino. It doos 
not »pp«ar tfe^-'t he whi*- l{jnor--i,nt of it» oxl-'t«noe tit thr ti»e of 
the aesttl^ment. H« ftdttittin! that wh^n hfc) «wl:TOltt«d hia statomcnt 
on i^prll S9 on which the a«ttl5»msnt m%9 had, h« said nothing sthaut 
lt« Inela Un«; GOxaBBlsslono on e»rdarfi not then shipped, and thr^t h« 
iBad« no inquiriae or cicaBumds respecting: shlrwentc oiwler the con- 
tFAot of April XO until wftor h«? fil,»d hlB bill, knotting, ni^ ho 
■ait, that mony oMpmonto urnat hnmi hoen laado h®fore tJiat timt. 
If , a« tho i3i)tiaiony tends to ohotv, he lnt«»nded «>n Api°ll <^^ to 
qpttit defendant** eBa;>lo^M«nt and twnainate his contract, mm^ ?i»l£ed 
for a a«ttl«iaent in full with knovd«dg« of th« oontract of .iprll 
10, h« iB apparently la no possitlon t»o assort a elaisi of fr«udi 
islth r®gard thereto, aurid If ha did not rogsrd tlie eettlomont nn 
Including »11 that he mm 'mtltled to under the* ^rllt?er d^al, 
it la Btrango that h« w»e silant roapeeting tx ratter InvolTlng 
BO much fsor'^y, 

H©no<? m? think the smtire tesstiMony »«pport8 iSHIt: 
theory of a mutaial ogroemsnt to t^rminat® the written contract 
hetwoen th« parties »rtd *i 8ottlem«nt in ikll of all obligi<.ition® 
undar it on April 29, oxoeyt a« to *i. fow ou'>o«qu«nt nhlpmt^nta on 
l^rerlouB orders tliat were not *^e»tlon®d and for -BhlGh a drore«^ 
v&H «nte?red, 

"**' In this vi«w of the oaso we de«« it unnooosafOTr to 

diocusB other groun<l» upon jidiiah tJ^i* chimcellor laay hirre austtalned 
tho exceptions and dlGrmis^od the hill« 

Grldley, i, J,, and Fitch, J,, eenour« 

d*tc . .aid. 

dt ill i) atilf>A^»CU i6i 

'l<y?Efl<^ 9M t»^ f^''^' *• 

• -^er^jqiiifa- ■■■?.* ^fVim 

:;j««^ftXv>ss® K'l'iiyiiir 

, ■ ur 


O o T /■ z'- O 

Tex'dlot i^o-t i^l4>0,9? in jfaTor ©f plalatiff in &l a^ctioa to r©- 

eoTer ^taws^c^e to ills autcnoobiXe froBi <a eoXllsion :4tk cli^ifmid* 

aikt*9 not^r iirweJc a.t «. ©tsB^^t iBt«rBs-cti.<iii ia 'Jlii0(.,^0. liwife 

fi©iBtif,f*» ©fir W5AB g&iag tts»rtli an 'Hie e&Bt aid® 
of Miciiii;>&.n aTeime* and dei'©sii4.^Jit*s triae^te «asi oa Wm somth 
•intet «ay txucSi of 71«t etre^t. Flaiutiff's car ras lato 
4«f«ii^5yat's truck » JistrlldL«g i% feboui sAx ca- aaveM tBc^t froia it® 
jfrwit. 32ie oolllv^on took pli-vc® ©e®i aiiH ixp'^k*mi^lt^ hqvl^U oJ* 
the c;^ittt<ar &X tSie lat^rsectiQil Tes&^i l^.e fromt *f iJjft ti'mc:k w^.» 
Y/ltotUn c;ix to t©n feet of tfae #fisi oiirlj of la^Mgan s.vx50ue. 

IlMatiff a«liaJltt®d tJfcit im dia Kuot i0«tt (l,er?8niJ,«3J&t's 
truok until ^w^t l>efar& the ia^ci^t co^ lee^t geriag i:.'t7«4^t «lii!&4^'.d 
im& BKide no effart to tuar» atsfay fram tiie truclc, whicli itr.* dri"vejr, 

-ptiraittly to aTOld tlj* colli si on, t»mad to the acortii JttJit b?sfore 
tho iJE^ct. One Y&vbell* vlio m^n Tiiiim oB tlia aeut ■^tU pl&i.n^ 
tiff, 0£iA<l tiU't ^.sa b© ilr^i saw ISmb truck it mi» about "t^ai 
feet at tJawAt tiae 0f \ielm <iir®«tA^' is ^^i^wat ©f uis.*' J^liiintiff 
iiiid t-s,rb8dl 05;4i.d th4.i.t tli@ imt ca»o^iXe f,l0?/«M| to^ii to aWut el^Sit 
Kile© an hour a a it cttm© to tli© i»%er®eetion. Dofcaidaat'e 
driver, and Ms mn wiio i»a« witOa him oe tiie tni<3^, aiiti a po-dtiler, 




nAt} hud »io:;rp@d Mts hi^rnm axiA mag<m im-m tlbm «!&st limt of 'Mlolitgcdi 

stTflaaruo ws^ting for iht two ears to p9M&$ m4.ii tki.t :::4i8iatif.f did 

not elm dcnm Mit c;oii$ii*m«d %& driT« Ets^;:lsht fAlxea*!, tli«: peddler 

saylna t the rate of iis© to 50 ladLlet; as hour. .3jile de,f«»d«.r3t»e 

driv^r/th.-t 11%^ h« x-e.-ched tbe iatersactlon plj?JLntiff 'a car wc9 

tujout loo feet ;.-outia of it, goin^: 18 td,X^u em hoar, v^doJi the 

.plaifttifi ■...<3«itt«.td» aad th® j^-f'Xi viler tlt'^t tlie traek m..© a^^out IS 

f^cst aw»3y fro® th« laterseoti^ wJiieast plaijatiff was? about /^ -e?t 

frsaa it, ypt r«g.-.rdle»» of tiis pr«f©4Me dist^sjKN^es, it 1» ole&r fr«R 

all the tsk^iiaoBy tlifat d»jrei»d<.;«t rtmefeed i^e iiiter««9Ctlo» vaiisa 

plaintiff ^r34i tt@a0 dist^mce sreuth of it, for thow^-^ thffs s|>«'©«'. of 

thft truolc w&js c.pp&rfeRtiy less tii£i» tli;t of the sstttOKistbil^, the 

sttlli^ion wa© oaat of SJie center ©f the iJttereeetioB, tix^ |:>lai«- 

iiff*s ©eir ran iato defemt-Jjat*©. 

It 1&? eTidcBt, to»» frite 'I2i0i3? Oiats t®sti;iis«»iu, tlUft 
rieith<sr plaiatiff nor M» ooj^a«l:«iii t.@?i1fe aa;y fl©t,ie«! of tfee- aj^-i-jpojKih- 
iai^' trttci: tmtll Juat afeout Mac tlMj of tU^. iafa^t. Ift^/.;:^ «tt«rh eir» 
cuaatsnces w© do is&t think pXeilatiff #.x«wsi0@d[ r&i-^.ciGfni%bXe Qur& to 
.■.■oVold OR fioeidesnt. '1th th<s aadutifl^? &©mclitlon«"j of »,taK»s]^er© m&. 
H^ttt • both e?rfjr© e.^.riyiag li.^i«d 1«b^js, {jjiKi ther© iwinci ©a «3ro 
laiBif -it the Ji&rthea8t soitier • ai*d with »o Jmilclirafi.;; ».t th« dOi»tl'Avs®iit 
o«xiior, as tht rrid-.^ue* sh«wid, pliaiatiff w?;ii?Llld hsv©' »o<m d€tf©Bd.-..«Kt's 
tvmk had ha looked vm&% aa h« eippjpo«ch@d th« c.POssiMf;;, as he iihould 
h«T0 done. It is cl&i&r th t he dia aot l©a3c imUl too late. M.t 
if ho hiid B%<m tJa« truck, a»d m-u goiag* as he cl£iijs», at eii^t milfe'O 
ea& ho&r« he shoiild hare he^M a1»l« t@ igtop his ot^^r and aroid e 
ooill^ion hral ho looke^a ia tluo. 

'Ehoro is no aXidm th^xt th© tmok m;.a tioii^ ^.-.t unuaiml 
®p««4., lgt,t if it traa, plai»tiff»e -feaat of eaar« jsreT'SjntB his recovery, 

:^im itfet refusal of itm%rm%i<in&^ sjutsaitted hy defcndaat 
the aoiiijrt aipioa^iPdntiy jeeg^^xdad th#- ea»© a.® <jiie ishstr^ Uie plaiutiff 
hr.'..d the ri^t of way sini^ly bee«>ix,^ he ^is s^l«r®o.oMai,T from the risht 

'^ .- 

.»; *.v * '■ >.»j«,i.. 


■*'• Qf^ 

wad d^imAimt from tUm left. Wbdl© isat«ty o^xiBila elrcius-Bttaaoes 
a di^irtagsoM uf a pur'fcy*« x-igbt of m^gr at£*w'" eoatjrol la tl.xiu^ r®- 
spoaai'bili !.y for a ooLUsion, yst it Is uait-vXJLy os^^ out factor 
ija ttetewsiniUi; i^ queaUi^ai of jn,(gi|^li^(3a6e. th» Bere fact tiiat 
pliiiatiiT hst.d t&fci rigiit af w^y xmdxr tb® statute lUd not T*:A^-:im 
.Isu r^'OHi tbt: xittty ©f «3J:0j?ci.!rJbQe OH© earsj »at to i»Jisur-a otSl^STs 
eroualjiii tJto laWraectlm* (.M^gl. r, iUsiaai, 227 XXl. a^. asfii 

rl-.trict* d0ei;t«a Miirah i3* 3,923.) mi'= datsj of ilu^ii 0^3?® to avoid 
colli alottiB ...t str©3it ;:ro«;das^® is r©ei^ra«j;4. {% y v. ^32^5^39^ 
196 ..Ug. 1I.'» 72 >:io» 16.) 5^La osfi lii© Imn Ishti H^%- of "iv.^ Is 
not ^mijU;d.«a 4a asecrtifl^ij- it vMm, ii« ©i*»<irfia|, ««* in tJia ©ss^rcii^? 
..<r ©-r^rijvry a«tr© sitoulA ol>«®rfls» t^s.i 'ilitr*: wiXl W d:;si3^«r of & 
colli i^ififfl, '1^ £M5 ^'iag. (s«t® mmnM a^«irt q^-ei^i «%3iS la.r;*jr &n 
utcsao'bll©-;^,, s.a©.»* $53 ♦ ii4S») 

^© *jaiir« 0Yl4«iit« c&is^ws the cmttrnx^^, sbcI tlitref&j;'© li^ e^mais^t 

(Jriai«3r» 3?. J.» @iid S'ltoJii,, J,*»©a«a^* 

XX6 • umm 

«ar« to ©raid the tt«i.ilsl©n in !|t»«8tioi! k«A to.» guilty c^ 

X39 - tmim, 


nf the Oaited .>'tijtfc}n mtdwr 
wilKiiTlaitai {a) of svotioa 

Act tsuSMstitutv'ii Tor JoJm ^ij-toii 
B«i|We| air$ct©T a^iWoral for 

Oonag^axiy (^- coirp*)* >iii(i the 

mmsm ^mmt^ 

£>. IT 


m. jRff.tnaK Mj^ma jm^ivi^a^ Hi enjs^ o? ms ^^ 

Heliility •■«t f'^r injax-iea r^caiviad vM^Xm pliiiistiff w^^e fissipleyed 

ia interstate e^siipKjr©© 0a ys« 3?^l3»iylv.'::jai«* jpcdllroad th«m «i*fle3P 
ooatrol of tli® dtreetiw? g-«m®ral ©f r®41r©i8s4»# 

l?3.«iijttlff mm injmred i*tiX« Ixji^&a te ii^.t a lali^ 
i» or b«ac^ of tli® oupols^ of ^ aaJ^ose «si' itd^Lah lass w;.-,j9 thiis rossX' 
&y^«»itOt AWB Bdta th® fr«»t ^msMmmAt @m^ m^ 'Uui'^iy U*^ coa-> 
i)^tdr« oix Qf ^(Mi. w«r« in tl^ mMami-^ v.t t^« tXm&t 

1% wm a f>,3rt of QmSt^B ^mU®©^ kh 3P«i*i«* h^f^mtHk 
to t&3c« ear® oX' taae r^rup XLi^^ta #f til® ea]N>o&« iae.'bJidijssg ®»« 

<a»r I9«x ftt ih« l^&^k of it. 

Hi.0 di^^jLar^tifEU iaX@g;sK> tltg^t in Mii-^tim^ th& Xmip 

it lieciyoE^ ae«iiss34.viy t^r J-iiiB to ®t«jj(d @ii m e©rtai» sm,pi;jOTt» ^siii<aa 
««(.» ne^i^n^X^ pemdtt^A to ^ @«*rejr«S with sHiinmryt preacQT 8^ 
oll^r »u5»!Bt«>j*«e«i, «d»& tljiit ^ aiip^d fvmt ss&ld ia«.9'.p©3?li and w&jb 
iisjured. fhsi t^B©ri^ti«m ©f tii« inteari^r mimiUnQUm> of tike 



o«ill^»«« em& ii£ ^^it-mmmfs^ in ^i.l«& plaintiff 'jm©©iv«t4 Uw inSuxy 

record -HiieiaKas? tJHe polat ia-.4« l^ ;ci@f^ad£iaHi.tlL^%it pX^-lnlttS si^mmmb^k 
iihn rluk t» y-'«13. tuJcen er nott Jio «llji«it40a» oi' tli€ esx m?<i ^iT«ii 
6aA tJsbB i^el^tiT^ pos>iti«ais »t yr-.Timm ^n.r1ts of tji« ear r<sf«rreA 

t« i» tl»« tei.^tiSHffiqr tM$O0»« 300$^ £l»r I«#@ a fitter .of CM»RJ0CtlUC«* 

Hwjy ?i-'m quite gjpa|&fci©t:iXa^ e35fl®ilis:#<l ii^. t^ iMPi^f.i 'ijnat «»t in 

i2p to a 1#4||E@ tlt^tt va£i jSJSMgsat titr^e f«@t i@3^ jimd smB leni.:tliiid.&e 

^i4e} y^'-vt '^t»«»«a& tSic tiai» £»lialf%£} i« m Sistaiieia oi" tk'e^i® t&^t or 

sa»4 lit fs^i^ i«jd.a@ the «£al»0O.$«l> B^^ftl'iliillg. '^^ '.ov,ij@idgD»i Jte s^ali: 
"In st&rtiag -^ li-^l tile ^#«s3te Xi^t I fa««4 life®! !r®«iap #f lit 

ab^ar^ foia* f«i&t frmk iM flmm!' mt ^sm. ems- ^»d ®Mimt s^m i&dSm» 

wit® r>M %^-mnt^ ImimB Xomt *3ii-,t ^m h^ got ^ titers to ll^t 
191 siatult im^ rmj^^^!^ f^r ^« H«^% ht t@«lc «t, "iiObi^.di'V^t*' ^I^SsiX^ 

0ticlci»t^ imtj tjteafe ^fe«aa 3te gdt ^m W% X*^im J*^» ^»«»* ^^-^^' ^^'^ ^^«^ 
Ii0 i8»ii* *ri^t 0^©r,*» • «slipp<t4 ^i"!* ^@ i#%©.* 

Oft «reas «xr<«€at M ©^-4d t^c^ em^oXa is ateore tl^ 
floor of the ear* --bout tii<5 iiai.a.di,© ef ^^m car from tJft© i^roBt ^aekj 

ui3d«r»©f:-tls th«a» or ia fSfast ©f ©a© ®f ^ai» i» «i, oil iKs:^.} tli«st 

*"** ifi i-rmvk of tli® oil ^x is 1^ 3?i4#s ©r let^ej ilfet ^m 0il te«« 

oil t*uak a«r*i?ly m. a l^JVel ^th it i® tlit le<i^. !Bj0s« d©®«Tiptioi» 
of liie Interior sa* 1^« oajf are «i> a<^a^*«M!A»sg ^l^ wmept&SM tfe^-^t it 
1a iiiffiauli t© g©t as. ail(&qui£i.*« pietar© Qf ^« iateriarr ef t&e 


di&r a»*l tJSw i?t©3lfttiir« prntllioma of tfe« part® a«si-;cri^«'i , . .ao'tiJiajp 
vdt»i«8Ei <9aiil: "the £'3kOor of Vm catiioo»^ le (Kii3.y a little pXj;%ce 
to stand. •*■ But the erltltmesj do«a not ©iili^slitcfin. u» a» to ito 

dliia«]|k.i»i3.»« &T its }:udi£;2it fr«£i the oar fl«<:«r, q2£> It^ di»t«?iJiiOQ 
frepB ti»€ top o.t tlie cmpola., or vu^'iotixer It i» lil^^er ©r lower than 
til® l&A$mi» wt vh&ihi&r Hkm lis^&ss are dixi^ctly op:;^©fei.t<* the mipola, 
or i^sib-it tliedr diii'-.tam^e Xr&m it. <^till« pliaii3.ti:ri' »/jld tb® dlut^^oc 
ti^terff'p^ the s^i^Tn^i qx l(e4g«@ i$ tS9Lr«@€t f«st fSkr imT%, it- tm^it 'IM 
conisldi-r-My jaoar® ii' tk^ ar© oalj' aix ifH"s3»e?* wlcUi,«Wba ^igMa&it the 
&ido8 af tlkif oar, iuiX^in^ frosn the uimf?! wid:t}-i «f «. «syr. -ysefiaito 

p«»ltloi3 in liglitix^- th« Isaes^ smd rM&\^ h&ia hm g9% m ^ narroir X&if^ 
£mut fe<.'t Ijii.^ «iu*a «iiM «ilMPU Bten^iii^: tli«.»,r®<?« i*#a^ ^ X^Bg^ ^■^■ok 
of tls@ ®ii^p<^la* 

I!l4« gist Of i^i&iiatiff *0 e^is® isi tli^^t %his^T& ^^.b nm^m- 
liS«ne« in p^;riaittiia® ipr^a®® to lb® on tfcn» S,«'*dg«« A@r© pl,a4»tiJtl' 
atooft* i-.iad tJjtit iiio sl4|>plag tii^roe© mm Vim projaai^.*® ^^^.s® of 
the iji4u4ry. 1*0 pT©ve tiio ©xistoiaro ^f 3«®la gac©&j««, ^ s&ll©4 
l^Min isSw toirftlfiod thi.^t k0 »0^ %lf.:.«^ grm^zm (tigiit or tea iacli^e 
long aj»l li^l' an inoh tMeJte osi th^ l«%e^ of Urn &i,d& ^mis'& iSm 
i^& ^3c Wi^-i^f oM tlx&t }m UiM l^r^l^ al^mit it -^md 'i^ri^'- p-uid* 
**I iaiow.*' uMlo MttrpJiy sstiti tkut iSata did mi s^o eall lii® atteK*. 
ti«n to oil or <syoayo on o«« oC tiic leijljgei/?, it do®ti aot doi'luitoly 
aj>pe«.y ttL'>t plaintiff utood oa th& l<--'d|fe aiSicr© tJia gjr^&i;® ws,g s;e»1^ 
to l>e. Beitfoer Baia 1192* Miurp^ii^ @.vV Ma at-'.Muliw, 0m 'tl^^ l^^^dgo or 
jfssll thererr-«m» ««id plsijitil'i' jtiiiasoll" s^Jld tJi"-t li® did not loaow 
«&etJSier i»o WB,« on tiae refrlgtETss-tor «t4o or the oil aids, l^laiatiff 
mt» f<jaill=i.3» vTiih tine ffe\8t tJfcit bjmk^Bieii fill«a tlioijr laD^s fro© tHo 
oil t«Rk eaid in bo doiJBg plaood tfcio Isap sitel mcp eaa tfe® 1-dg-. If, 
tiler ef ore, &i? ;ilipped, on oil i»dULlo E-t&nai»(;'j oa the led^e -diere 
t'le oil t-Jik ^&.3 trifeiccro io wuoh gryuad for lArgisg th^-t iaa assxiEh^td 

'»».t*i^.»A :;'Vi.t 

%i'^ in 



tile wiisk* tlie:r« im ^tmn^ 0ri^^:.m»ia %&ni.lx^; to diwfw t3x.-t im etood 
on 'iMsit iA4m$ imr in i^Xim^ ^ stuvidlc: & Asemsmv on th«» ap-oait« 
«»i^» mtd tit® '^^ri.^&iMKft %^^& to #i«w th® iir£i«ni»ri« ws>xt em th« 
A^cfriiceitrator sid« «!Mf til® «a3p. Jf, th^f-jr- f «3P«» thm gr®at.e #r oil 
vdiioli BsiiA ii&w w&^ not «»« tim Xe^ge tsilieirc? pIedB%iiT »1u»oa» • «ubMI 
tbi0r« mi® ad .iir»«i proQt titbit it if*i« • it is a. »®il<jua )|W«aU<wi 

tlie g3r«a^ &s£ ail te9tii*l®il "i« by 'i3aal» isk*» oa tii« rfefrlg»r&t<«p 
s!»td« «f tlie 0*^r» s^feMgr^ tife« djpmir«n*© w»:rtf *a!i«l pXai»tiff fall i??cro»» 
U5» eay bM strufltk *t toi-sroy lfe.^t it i.@ afpsjf^nt tkat piaii8tifi'*e 
t)a©o£-y oX tlfe® Cfais« of ihe .'.-.9®i4<g«i is ii»t .dW5?porte«i '&y ^^g O'Tidean©©* 

01 tJsuB Injurj* ©r -cjketlifflr ijiaii^^ tli» dt®crilfe»®d ®0as,iltiaii« plaiatiff 
did «ar did sot atfis«»i!j ths risirite, sU4 yegar-aing fclns f.Tlii-€afe«# aet 

Ju40M«itt li(9|f#, @itlt«r' i^i^'iinGixig m r&^mr^tMg m f^m%M$ 1»^ ^Muk t%t# 

QFt&l^t i'» S*, cm. ?i,taJi* J,, ^iKmr. 

\sMcm JAMK u--' .sas ..SO, ) 

i^^mmAL mum 
msMUUJkL mm.w 
o o o T' r, ^ O -V] 
}i OO S-o^'^o O O '^ 

fim fl«4aUff in tliis ^um te<p#it from f|^f«3»i&^^i 

ii2 ^^uk^t X^%^$ e£ ^3m ^mis^xmt%mi «if ll^C)^ ii^£.^eJ^, ilsl^cili: pX«yU3<» 
tirr ^ieeed -.itii the Peelef^^iS, B^&crr® Bs^ek «f Claicsif© f#y 

tins ^««i^ l^y w«i3r«i flt^l^aa l*fx» Ji|ja.» ikm 'Mm&ml te«& f|.3,«4 

4l«f«K& 11^ Qi'^m in its 9tm n@«i@ wm fmiim^v suisg idji foT tlit- 

iwyp Y£\a.»« «f th« ©«rti3Cl«&te.« v^tk in%mmM% "bmf^re til© d@i©y*- 

^ijtotiaa or tfe© bill &£ i3ai%»rpijm:-^Jkme ^fe&at ii® |40f«milAiit) m^tXA 
-i^eia^irtf© tl»9 pi-«datifi' tor «3.1 eo^sM i:^ it ©ii|wmde4. imXusiiilg' 

imetmtii:^ in kXX to |S6a.«»l* 

ii?feilfift4 *3ai^^t lui lasld def e«^bs»t the Jeasx^l Beservt? ^iefesJc }ai^ 
»tfer%#i. H imit, t&at hill ba«k 3fete4 ie il«f «®| it-t SBtl tfc,-:5i tlifty© 
«i9Sl.4 ^ Q«ii£iidtiriil»le issitJLs^ for 'i^^ it %mtU hold ckct^^andfOXt 
2pefip<Masi^«» f^ifcS t33u-,i.t tftf^iidi^t said »faJL rislit.« 2^.t©» ^ 



1:1x1%- ti» mX^t »»s tkit ^(dkm Mm ttadllE r«««i'V«d'ii0U«ii tih^^t 

ealdt **r«tU3m la^ the ^eriifiamt^^s aii4 % ^11 wafce tJtitw coodn* 

Tt^% v^:^ ^1 h& fusmM rmmmiS&^T m.^4. ^ either p&risy* 

ll^ef ©ad&at d,«siai«4 there ngi^^^ etjiy u^j^jjj «0iiT^'i'saM<8R 043 
%li« first «ne ^«d^#I■Jl^«d to» «m4 a^dt l>Ji«f aal^ C4»»v©r&':ttioa */it1la, 

would €?ii= '.jesdat^t tkhsi 03?;p0i*0® sf a mA% ia ^i'^siif tli^^ps vK:iss m»t 

ti^i jO.alri'feii'f Imnk fetid %« awi«|Rirs« Ife® i%4«i?&I R'a@®rr« .fSaisik 
and d©i"<g»<i-;i«t s«si.A i*© wauM i*»t fK*j i^ialfas V»9 'bnnk 3feii4 Hi© mjrli* 

oeif tif ietvt«s45 , sand tfe.xt 4©l'"«B^iJ4lfe 'msaM Im-r® tt staad tJtie «g3f«^ii:®«, 
to 'sliicti defeadi^^isi 3f«s>3Lioi^, ^1 mxppm^ s»|* t&ni tMs -^-ts ISf^fsr* 
a^y eruit wii» l»pa«@^t« ^t d-fesadsiit d®al#<i naming "J ^ppoe© 

Imo^ ^t.i tk« «Nsy«4yri0Ht«» w(tm nt^lm^ told d':j:r«aii.'4Bt im s^aXd 
haTG to p^, )m m^SfX im muXd m»t$ smd tkat ti-j© toeOc wuM n^t 

3^.ire t© pAjr f©r ^e e©rti.ft(3&t®ii :^» it mi.® a ^a®^„li^ pur^as<5a? 
iNf th<sBt fejaifi Uiftt tlie aashisr *jaat#4i to 3eB«iw if h« lanfed »^aagc^ &&.m 
&n It,*" aiKt M «^»i3fir£i lilm ^m0 Illitiois #ms«G to t&'&t «ff©,et. 
!» ar« nf the o-nlni«ns tlj^it ti».€s presf as to tSs^ 
pro^ifci© -reiioa yxj^n i9 Texy imU-ftait« rM van. ti&i Qtcery m^& 

faTor. . -c ;-or4ija^3^ tfe© ^vkd^smnt wii;i ^ rsT®.r«^-:i ^^ith a rintilaig 


aridlsyj P. J,, and Fitch, J., concur. 


.i0onoo,.T. ^doiil .bus ».X .<! g^veXJil^; 


IBS • mim 

thfi stat«Bt>^^ sf aX'^J^t ^^^ <^^^ »^ t'2f«iKii:'^@ i« pet^ Intejr^i&t 

I sap Him COUHX, 

mm^ 'smmE, and Loirxs ifOfRBi, 2 3t> 1 a/L 8 

IMa is a biXl for «m aeoouatiii^^s 'tm-n^A oa tlie tii.eoiy 

tha.% defeujAi^jati^ wei-e tjm»t©d ag©Bti« f©r soiE^»3.4'ii3M»t® ia €i real 
eatate tri&afSifcOtioB in -B^iiaSi iri«iy fr«»;Klal«5iii3Ly made & ^jue^jt pi-ofiti 

the; a«eree «»j@ in G««E^a;ilaaai©.* fairo^. It ie .«cma©4«id t^iat if tl*» 
«^«sa<^ iSftliegod exlat^Jd and tlis ©ami9nB is c«igiJtiss4il>lti In mivdt^ tb© 
decree is ric^i. 'iSie pr4-£i©ipsd cimtstiifiai^ i®» iifeetk««3' #4<^ eTi4®3ae« 
BUS tolas the cJb-iaotiilor's fiMi^® as t© feli© tast of a^«»«y. 

on ^©st Karth airexme, ^^hic^^-^o, in th® Ticinity ©i' Ihet real estate 
iavol'ved 'siiere the fs.tJi«r of oorist^Xailsaats eosK^mated a busiacsm. 
their fiijailies wsr® acqtiaiBt«d siiid os fifieadly t^zmu^ for msjjjr 
years. Ctt t^ math df tfealr fali^teBr 0^5@pl«»i,aaats l>©c^a® 8ei»ed 
as tenaats ia oomien ©f ■oiJrt^sl.ii fare«rX« «f' real estate, iaclijasliisa 
tiU2 oi»@ tn qtteetioa. Megfotlationa we're hsid fr^ja time to ti«ie iftlt^ 
d«f ©adepts thi»sa5to Loa.1© forpfi ^lih r««o?e«t to tikj e^^oe fr^sm i^iteh 
cemplalaasto claim there »ro0« a relation of trust sa:^ coBdtlde^se« 
in defondaatft. ©is si&t<!>x'if,-l faete o.s f-etrnd biy tlie «lu5ao«lXor 
are rse; folidWBS 

On m^r^ J19, 1921, l.otti» f^rp® v&j^mu&iktBil to t*ro oi* 
cfltrnploAKtaat® i^it lie had a ©a,^ ISayer f&r tli« Hortli eereanae 
pro^rl^ azid wtmiad t9 looisw th<» l^last t^&y '«s'0uld tsiice £m- it* 
starting \vlth tfea price o.f #20,000 thejr fl^lXy a^oed to taJee 




IX.S^OOO* Two d^:'.3ra Xat<sT Xoui^ tosp^st oli^^md th>«m a <$ontvact for 
the sale of th& property to Qwrn PemX Staawsk, an mtploye of 
def^adflffii'te, Tor |1S»0©0 and said d,®f«md<.m*6 oould BiOt g*«t laore. 
' : ojscplslnaatB fiimiiy .:-,gr«Gd t© »ell foi* latteilJ. aruw If the pmroh^^eey 
;.ould paiy defesdj^ts* cc»a^0£ii,o.n. Kie cc»nt3r.-iC!t uuiJ^ilttsu parcyvldflA 
t&at otiiaplaiiiaats* s:;>hould psty til® O(Ki»i»l&»l0fi* lllu; chtrnge was 
« and on the m3t% i.rky it ma? oif^^gd %- aois^laiimikisf and pur- 
SBnaat iinereto tlia pr€3ai,0«B ^^mre con-rssyetl to itaisa^k t^n days 
Jletor faa" |1§^000 l®fc5& aaa ^t©««l3£i"'aiie« im the pr&pert^T. At th« 
ti««s IjOt*!© fori^® utaae gsue&. 3e®^#a€ati;i-'li0iii! M» '»ltli<mt 'Umi 3snms'l«f«ig» 
«f oiwa®tlaJ.iia33ts» wa.s alrto^ ia«|f<Jti»tJLl»i;?: fer ©at® of tJae property 

t© kl3© his wll2.iBe»dss t0 pifcr#isvs«. It fm |I.B#t<», «5sd ftafdiy 
««3r©ed tQ pn^ |aO,©CK3 th0ir^fos'. (ft also a:^|p«a3f® t&'iit h® m.& i»~ 
daced Isy .Louie fsasr^e, set krJ©-&"lKjg iil® issB'tlTat » seoing th@ ssaaesaity 
ther©-for» to haTs tte€ title tiilc<m iJit th® 3a«ie! of ©a©tli®r.) ISbese 
negotia titans w<©3?o kajit ope® 'til*b Ji»®3J.«T ism til tli© c?a,?it:rt.fcet %lth 
*taas©k wa,& si^^aeU,, wi^ t&r«© day® lat^a? a« i^re«im€ist w<\a ^srmm mA 
yiga<84 for the »«!© of tli« prep®rty % ^iim&mik to Mo^^ller, pur» 
ouant to ii^di.. m d<»ed wae ®xe<mteti cm Ifey 6tli foli-Of-d^; eatd cie^feBd^yattt 
r«*G©tT«i4 iJ?om ^^ller |S©|000 l^as said @aciambr«aae© . a{»jp3,ains»ts 
wear* ignorfmt tmtil lat© t» If^^ ©f thfe n€#©ti;..vttCBtt© with li0©ll©r, 
m^ of th® siSioBBSt h© paid for tise |^rojw>rty, msd ol* -th® faet t^.t 
■"t^.-BStk WEK! sm ^!jplay«; of d^ftadaitts arid a diaw^'/ in tSi« tr6ais^--otian 
aiKi not a 'mxm , fid§ purch&asar. 

On dis30v®i^ of thes© f -Aeta the Mil wa.s fildiS daBaading 
at) accetmtine as aforesaid for 'tiai© 0S0ret pi-ofits Eiade l&gr dsfendaafeB 
out of the tr^Nn^uB.cti(m« imti upon thmt the cJi£mc<@1103? fo^otd thi^t 
d«sf endj^t© ahaat^d ajad d©f»®3sd©d ewBpl&infflrats of th^ difist'^aoo 
b«t«o@n ish& two jxrloae iaad th^.t thoy held the svaao aF> trustees for 
0oa©lain-aa8ti8 sua! w®:r© bo-MUd t© aeootmt for tha jgaiete, a »tifiilati<MSI 

i:*airao';'i tf-- 

j'lrinis b©efl ett%©r««l taio 1iiSitwe«il tJt© pm:%i&& «t«s to the ®ja6\aiit 
aoa^lr.;l»©33itB vmvd^ 1*® eiltltXed to reoo(V«r# If <.ii33;Uiiiiv;, it becaaM» 
uanecesa&iry to r^fi-^jr liiJi® <?at»8e t© a »;-?^'t0r to stJAt:Ss tli® iA»c®imt 
b«twiea tke pi;.;..j:'-ti®a, stud th© decree waa ^mt'sr-si. fct,-' tlia ag,S"e®^ 

»«» «f #4|762.S4 with iialM®.Tia0t fro® i^w, .^^ii© 0f tfae teor©®, 

vtiil® tliii ^3Tid©ii*«i.e ig( eemn-ictljagi tsn &ome pointsj, 
«» entertain lt»& tl@ml»t of its «ufflci«iiic3r to mxp}^&rt tto chan- 
cellor*© flEdiS5^s aad tlaeree. W®: tJadisilg it I0 t#0 ©i^^loos tor 

rogiiipd his tlim as thcitir i^e«t 1» Wl® tri^jjisa^tlen elssa h© %'fiiiild 

oasBsisssiesit i^md titbit .}i© m>.@ bowid frois tlx# isfu^jst aM n^ia£i&.mmi& 
arising trm& tife® r#3.&tifi^ #£ |>riii:«i|ml smd ^^iat| t© disalose -tJa.© 
tanw «tat© oi' fact®. Ae s&id iaa. I ^pyiy y. 3^'y , @l » ai-S Xil. 54f# 

"^e ueliition of |Kria0i;pal mt^ ^sgtsst is ©i® of 
trust aM c€a3fi<SeKe@, ^lad w!i«tre tm<sk oosfitiferiee 1© 
r^porJ©^; slid tU?^ r«lati|»JEl ® S^i^tB it 3Wi,;>t 1» ;^a.itlil"mll^ 

or ^sasill tiifi cosBslssioii |^*i^ B©3r 1*^i ax '^tietl^iSP the 
a^'6iii.t its a m«r«5 rolimteer ^^^t a noislJBal ceusideratiim*^ 

^t»ssh rBlaiiOjasihip and th® fraud tJto» ,pys4ti©®4 % 0«u,rt ©f et^isity 
Jaad 4uri?sili«3tii^ to e«Ha^«3. an a«e©ui»ti.3Eig. (S ^r t. ^M^ilL^ 


^., 195 III, iMprp., 56"?} Biae t. Wa3LX^.# . 190 id., 493 j /"'U <J« ' 

L. ^2j Pc«a@y«y's Sqaity Jti3?i8|tnMes»c«, 4t^ ©d., sec. X45a.) 

In pi-lncipXe lh& oks© is 33© t unlike i^ imma&n o£ |?^ , ^ y. \^a^la^e« 

til., ?A9l o@l0b a3:y v« j^££, 133 111. §06.) 

Hfiere wais ®uffici?mt eTidenee t© WAjprt^t 'the co«rt 
itt rinding tfeat [.>tsr»s©3c*ai n^sie m.*:. E«*de us© ©I" f©r I3i© |?«rposje 
of c03EK5@«liii^ i'r«a etaaHpli'iiraisaaiu ^e ft-^ot tlis^t defeadaat® wijwi 
BfcOEiag a pr©fitt aaa^ ^» «ai4. ia t^ l» «e.©« eit#d, i^e^« tlWBP© 


W&a also a dusm;^/ puroli^sifM^r, ^ ooao^alsnent would not h^re b&isii 
reaoyted to i/T lihtzti h^^d not to®«a «i j'«l.i.tlon ot tnwit- ajuU ©©H"* 
ft deuce ^tw®en th« parties. 

tlie faot ti3u.!it tilt "d«5cr®« i» e, m«u;«y junigaeat oriily« 
f!o«3 not ou>--t the court of luxlw^ lotion 1» vis%' of tiie fA«t 
tliat tii® court acquired ^.urlMiotioa on. ttons gi^oundji ^sl^ove 9t;;-ted* 
Bo authorities ws&d Im ai%m-^ on tlii& pitvpmi%ltin* 

v;# ftad »o r©TeyElM*j er:i?©r ««si tMitS: it 'umXfl siuV 
s^xve no ui^i«:ii^l |iU3ep©&« io om^^^^rm oM ^-^(mMm the. QfmXlX^Um 
thcoTloB fi.8 t© tlio erideaajo, for afi«i' & e&refttl rf^^iw oJT tije 
mm» tmi. tJie groy^ds?- of oip^oir yeli®^ "tj^oJt wss flstti ko lus^tlfleatioa 
for di^iturMnfs ife© ahB.'m&tt^T^B flJu^iBsgs naat^J deor^e. 

0ri<lley, S'. J.» aaiil fitoii, J., coticur. 


UMa ®^s?|>©al 4 s i'rom en order griWRting a uonfAiit 
aSt&v a triai befar® the court witl»i3m,t a 4^^» ^^ trial was 

had la Jujoe, IfSS, and tli# oas^ wais ic<a£@ja tmder a.dTis€iWttfe imtiX 

decision and Qm-X ttnAing for dsf ia»3l£iiat , aaa gaf® plalatlff lea^ 
to ButsBilt speclflo findings of I'act* 

Bi© r©i$*3a!?d shjG«-m no bill ©f ©xeeptiism® fr®©«a*iitBg 
w&at ihea to^lc pl.s,€« or vS)^ ©I'tsil? of eomri fe«tw®«ai the oBe ©f 
Jun^ 30, 1022, coatlSEUli:^ th® li^arliiig^ aad ^ne of M&roh 14, 1925 « 

OTerrultaa: defeadaiit*s »otl@m for ju<lp£<im.t oia flndliig»su,Eiaimj^ 
plaintiff's skJtloa fox insmall. aad ©jxteriag jtidg^ORt agaiii^t 
plaintiff tOT costs. 

tk& bill w£ exoqptloiiB s^03er«rlt}4l th(@ procec^dlag^ 
had at the lasrl dat© aad aftoi-w-ards fllad a?ecltes that the parti® i 
appeared before the oourt on Maroh 14, purfiUi:^nt to notioit fey 
vafeadjmt of & laotion to &ek. for Judgmont on f Inklings of th© 
court, and th£.;t |>lalntlff thon aorod foar, ^^<^ ^^-i^^ gr^^t^d, the 

Aside fro» shO'Eslng these faote, it shows nothing 
but a oollocmy b0tw©«*n oounsiel and the court respecting tlieir 
recolleotlon^ of ?fhat took place In the j^jc'E^oedie^ Mormtmr* 


0£ cour8«, the fact whether Um court then ©tatei 
its findings or any otiisr t&at tin t %h«m took plajce aould not be 
proserrecl in tlicit w^^y a»d, therefor©, it ii»«ld be fruitlees to 
disciuss thoir rei^ectlTe contentions ^th regard to thoiso facts* 
llfeat th€ai took pl&ce oould only bo presartfifd^ l»y a bill of excep- 
tions duly allorsred at that tijao or ladthln thirty 4*.ys thereaftori 
- th:t beia^:; the period #iioh mumBTu to a term of th® Jiaaioipal 
.^oiirt, f^eOBle y« Ma y. S70 111. 5321 I^&qv^^ v*_.jtT<mcih» 347 id. 
2^20; Pinch & :;o , v. .^enith Pumaoe Cp. , 245 id. 586 j ViXla^ e 
o f l^iniain I-.ay l£ v. Fraril^lini 3S8 id. 591.) 

Ab» therefore, tiiere ie no . ©cor^ to gpufpori 
'-'P«li«nt»r^ contention iiuxt th® eoiirt aotaally Btated its findinG 
ijefor® the siotion for nonsuit ^m isad® the Judlgment will h®. 

Oridley^ ^^. J,, and Titoh, .J., conour. 

57 - 28705 


t>0 l.«ri» 6 -1^ 

By thiH appeal the d«f eridsyfit «#eks5 to r«ireyBe & 
jtjia/iwent ai.alnet him for $2SC» fcr BerrlciBii of the plaintiff in 
procuring a t«sto«4nt for dafimdisR t • « property, Befeisdanit 0Qnt*>aiA9 
i'h.'i.t tbp all'*g»d a^reeiK^nt to pay for Bueh nervleea is t«^ vafmo 
A&d iMic«rtid.jR to con«ttt?it« a oontraet, an ^ that In any <?.T«ixt the 
flBilne of the court l« not ©wpo©rt<«sd ^y the ©Tl'^'Siice. ?h« plain- 
tiff t«»tifi0f? In i0«b»tanc© that »h.9 sccuplad foar at thi^ six: flata 
ia (lefen??,ant •» apHrtiamt Isutldlng %n a roomirj^ hou8«; that aaveyaO. 
MOHth* feefoare Ji«r leaee* expired dsf eftsiatit t^l<3. h®r that h®. wanted 
to l^assft th© whole bulldiagt to one terivaat aK4 a».«ieed hsr if »h« 
would •sell ©ut,* so tltat lie ooula "oirry it throu^,* to wMob 8h« 
r«pli«d, *If it ie worth wfcil©;* tli&t dei'efidaiai theia »ai.?! fcfe&t If 
»k« -rould beXp hiia h<? wauld "taJce care" of h«r aad "ssee that she ma 
SOAC i!2on«yj* th&t she? th«n adTartised har fl»ife for sal*, ajrid la ^^ 
that way fouiKi, a t«nant for th« whole building wha agrwed to 
Tiuy her furniture; that eha introduced ih« furohas«r to iofe«4ant, 
who -^ocaptisd hirr* aa a tan^arit and l«aa$d the '^tola ■biiiil4iagv t© hiJB 
for t>!r«« ysara. If fhlu was trti?', the Itrng-a^giS uaer? ^.^b eruffiel«SB 
to eonatltutft a cnutract for th«' p».ym«nt of th« reaso«si1ale valye of 
her 8«?rTiQ«« in ^nd ahont procuring u^ioh a t^iiant» "I'll© (ilefendant 
did not deny that plaintiff introlueed the t«nnnt to him, nor that 
he aooepted ©uoh tenotnt 9Jid .nsade th« nim ieaae to him; but h« de- 
nied Buxking tha alleged promiea stgid olalm@d that plaintiff aaka4 
his perrsiiiJsion to eell h«»r flata, beeaas© she wa» in tho ciillirsery 

buaieeBs s-nl ccul'^I not tsUcw care of that buslneos jmd htr fxirnl8h4l4 
rooiCB a! thfi 3.?ifi!5^^ tljae, aiaT^ that d«fsn4aBt tran«f erred th« l«ai«04i 
n«r«ly as a faT«r to hor, fe hare rea^ the trawjicript «f th« evi- 
<S»n«e nn-l flrf^ no <Slr«et corroboration of «itk«v of th*«« wit,nfl»a«» 
UT»©n the Question of the auHegad promise. Both of th«aa ara inter'sstad 
parties. We do not flnA that plaintiff's atory io any l»ii« roa»onahl« 
or profea"bl«? than the defendajnt *»* The trlsil Jwlga saw a»(S hftar'J tha 
vltnesaoB, aa^ we tiaA cottilag ia th« record that -wotild justify ua 
in •iiatur'biag hi^ oaQoXudloia« «^a oertal£ily camiot say it waa Biani» 
f 9«tly wrDxig. 

Pl's.lnliff 'a counaal has aasiigned orose-errora to tha 
affect that thpi court f&ilod to aiiow '4M much for plaintiff's 
servioen aa the ©videnoa requires, fiie oiaXy witness who teistifiod 
to the vpJLue of plaintiff »s servieea fixed sych. v&l«« at oBs-half 
thffl atr.Dimt that a real estate broJeer weizld cuetomarlly cliajJge for 
the 93i»*j,ft services, or ons-iKAlf of eight per cewt on th« amotixst of 
rantsOL f6r on® year. Ob that ha«i« th« plalatiff *© asrvlcea wora 
worth le«8 t^an the nmoyaat allowed h#r 'by th© trial aourt. Be- 
f«!^«1ant off«rodl ao ayiattnoe as to th« valua of e^soh sarvioea, and 
UTSon the »Tl4«Bce above a«ntioBed, ^e Vsinlc Ihs court -Mil not, err 
in not allowing more than h« -lis* 

drldloy, P. J., imd Barnee, J., aoaour. 


s 1l«i 

66 • 88tl5 

S)«feiidimt In >^ror» ) WtmM to 


jplalntlff in ^rror, ) /^ O O 1. ©i".-:^^ Q •_r 

wi. jftrjiTias FITCH 0V£LXfBHi-aj imM opiiriois of tick court. 

yj this isrrit ©f ermi- defendant s«ttke te j^verse & 
jttdi^ent r«iid«red aitatinat hjba in \km ..iuperior CItmH in «<n at- 
tAe}3ai«nt a«iit* ^e attaohKent writ wn?^ levied upon t^'^X «@tat« 
tf III* <ief«n(i«Mit «.nd 1ms w«» peraonnlly «^rf«4 nfi-^ a c^py ©f 
tlui writ, Imt filed no app«)nrimee or ple<% in the ^^uperior Court* 
In due eraatton* hi« (i'?f«a3lt wats taki^n and entered of T^mvA^ end 
a nontb later the Judgment in ^lueffitlon m^n entered. It reoitea 
that the defendant havit^ been theretofore defstuited* the oourt. 
nftor hearing tine *pr»af8 subwiitted ^ th« plaintiff, * * * 
sustains th« attacteftfirnt iasraeB,** and aetsesues the plsdntiff *s 
daai«g«B at #7896 • ^en followo a ^udgnent fi^ainot t^e defendant 
in th« usual fairm of a lannsjr Judgment in a««}umpsiit for tlse 
amount af 8U<!^ d»«ma(E^0ii smd doat0» with an ard«fr for u. general 
and apftcial execution. th»r« is no bill of esceeptlons in the 
rocord. flhe errors assigned question th« sufficiency of the 
«tta«$nioat affidavit and of the deelaration. 

The affidarit 3t?^t«9 thr^t defendant and nnother 
(aho wraa not served) are indeljtod to pluintiff in th« r^us of 
17438 for sioney lQun*£d« end givoe five of the statutory grounde 
for fflttechaaent, not including non-r«sid«nce. It doer not 
state the pl&ce of roaidence of the defendant*, nor state that 


».:"rr««0 •?»,! 

• * t" 

"in r'r- 

their ru&idenen itt vmtafwiwn, and that '*apon ailigeat inquiry the 
affiant has not t»#en ttbl« to j»w«art»in thir aeese,* ne re<)uiree 
by ttfsetion 2 of the .ttaohwent Aot. S^or thia reason, th« affidarit 
if und^nlel^ly dofootive. the proTislons of th«f statute ara 
clear* and it» |»OMitiTe terrrsa itmat h« cflaapliefl with. ( Kteta t, 
Th« -Paqgla , 77 IH. 5i8.) 

d«fendant*8 oouBseil aontand ^ii.% h««effl»« of thiadde- 
faet in the fiffidayit, th« «tt^db«<iat writ and all auhsequant 
9roe«<i^ding8 are void* and that thft eourt uras without jurisdiction 
to onter tha judgetent* Xt ie ar/med th«t the ^iiffidt^vit ia the 
only haaia for the jitta>4Aaa»nt writ* end that sine^ the affidaTlt 
oaits one of tho |>o8itlYe r®f^irom®nto of tho atstut®, the writ 
iaoued thereon is void, and the court acquired no juriadiction 
of tha perBon of th« dnfendant Tsy the s^errioe of ?. TOi<?, writ. 
There are ttio answeriB to thin sirRina^nt* fha f ir«it is. thai the 
writ la not void, Itwt i» voidahla onl:!f2 «^n<* the seoond is, th«t 
regardlessi of an.'/ defeat in the attaohnent affidavit or «?ritt 
tho eourt had ^uriadietion* tapon p^raonal aerriee of »iaah writ* 
to ontor a peraona.! ^udgBient cigainat th« dafend^mt. Both the 
affidavit and tho «rit ivero «m«nd»hlo \fy aeetion 9M of Ihe 
Attachnent Aot; and an^jr legal fioetment thr^t may lawfully be 
aaanded ia not a nullity. In >iOffl te v. C orhlt . 1*6 111, S4C> the 
•asM defect existad in the affidnTit for att&ohmont as in i^iia 
eaao, and it was thare urged *Jm% %hB writ was -void. The court 
hold tim eontrury, aaylng (p, 544) s *Th« ▼lilldlty of the writ 
dopandod upon the raiidity of the affidavit, and the affidavit 
bolng aicendsihle, was voidahlo Berely and iwt void, ( i^aaoctt r, 
Bratton , 86 111. 182,) The affidsYit. tho writ, and the levy 
of thwt wrjt gave the cfiurt ^uriadiotion over the auhjeet mfttter 
of the rittactaacnt. A thing ^hat is voidable h«u foroR nnd eff isct* 
but in oonoft^enoe of eo»e inherent quality or defeet it la 

^ zrs^: i. 

> ▼ ■?i..» 

* ,v i ■ A^SPa**: ^^ 

y-: :-:f i. - 


f?af5'fI««D l<':'JAU<iV ,;*5Ili;n;, 

' brtntna 




ii <i' 

Z^linUfi #ij©T<s 

i&9lt S f;; 

ll«toU, u.pon propter a toys hainf, t«l«»n, %» he l<fgnlly Hunull** 
or «Toide4 « * « "by iti»fma at n rtir«ot att»ok upon it,* In 
£MM ▼• g^tteraon. 191 Xii. .U6, nfeer® Kit a'b^eetiois of a atollia* 
fi]uir«ct«r WR1S under «on«i<l'?rfitioii, tii« ««ttPt »ftid: •"This writ 
had all the fomal rvtiaiaitee r«qulped by the (statute, was duly 
•tt«Bt9d, but w»» Insufflcl&tttt vmAat tlM statute, beoauae by the 
oaissiftn of part ©f it« substanoe It «»« not ^ubstftntially in th« 
t9rm pt««crlb«fl; but it wrb clejiriy a««n««.ble under eectlon 38 
of th« stot. the atti^ehnent pr(»c«e4ixtfl;8 wer« therefore erronoeua, 
bat not void, ami th* Qmxrt ira» not without ^uriawiiotion.'' 

To tho extent* therefore, thet the Jfwdipont In this 
eaoo 'austalni th« attfiohasont iusue" it is not void, bat it ie 
•rroneoua; and if there ha4 \^<e^n no peraonal serriOT upon tho 
defendant, the only order or jud^jjcnt the trial onu?t efiuld h&re 
•at«r«d, iri th.^^x t error, woiild ha^e "boen an »r<aer spaishiw-; the 
ottschment writ and r«leflMiing tho levy on the property Attached, 
Hero, how®T«r, ther© mmn |i6raon«l oerrioo upon IJhie defenfi^nt, and 
th«r« was therefore nothing to prevent the court, upon hi a de- 
fault, froffi r^niering a p^irsonal j^^^piont againat nim for the 
ftiBount shown to be due, pr'^$oia«ly ats it could imve done und^tr 
•eotion ^ of tho Attn<dim@nt Aot if he h£td dpi^eared and hftd th« 
Rttficlment quaahod. ( B|aoh|Hfitq r* X>ii>d4 , .^ ,* 6 111. j^pp. 29.) 

Zt ift next dont@nd)ed that tii« declaration ie in- 
eufficiont to stupA^ort the Juslflja^nt, It i^' m%ici that "the d«« 
elaration contains » fat»l aisjoindfer of eounts,* and that the 
sooond count states no ciaine of -««tion su^ ^a would support tJie 
judgeent. There are two counts In the declwation. The argu* 
seat as to misjoinder proceede upon the Rsmiaption that the first 
count ia a count in dtsbt, and the seoond is an nestion oa tho 
ease for deceit, the decl<?rf.tion begins by s?tottmi that the 
plaintiff, by hia attomays, com:?lKine of the dsfendants "of a 
9le» of debt." This formal osptlon applies to both count© of 

.*;.ijXi.u;«Em ^^aX' 



'r£i:«L|* ««*£.' 








ilia deolar»tii»n. ]^oliovrlns thl» oinpUon, tb<s flmt count bo^^ina: 
•JTar th«t wherca**** nto,, ftnd th« second oount bogino: •And where- 
as ftlso,* titc. At tlie aon'>lualon of >»«th eoMiito !• & fqna«l 
coneXuiBion i*p lyin« to both, rs follows s *Y«t the defondant* 
though oft'-n reimestAci, * « « hae not paid the plaintiff t;h« 
ooTttral SUMS of money In anld sf^Teral ooantn ahow specified, to* 
i;«thar amounting to ikw aun of #7t000, or any part thereof « « « 
Wt wholly r*fUB«s to pay the «»»iBe," eto« ?xo«pt for the ft«ptioni 
tho first count Is in th« usual fors of &. count in ai^r^uinni^it upon 
& prcnaissory not«; and this, vrith tho addition of the caption* is 
tho reoogniacd form of « Tount in debt on a proaiiBHory note, 
(Puterbaugh J?l. At Fr« 330,) Th(i sodond count state o tht^t the 
defendants were Indebtod to the plaintiff in the ouns of |5000 
•for money loaned and delivered Tjy tho plaintiff to the (tef end- 
ante nt their reqaeat." fhla lan^tago is substantially the fom 
of a of a money oouat for mon^y lent* eanrton to both assimpsit 
and debt, ifollo^iog this Inn'^ia^se is «& atatenent of the alleged 
manner in iihich said #5,000 oaae to be loaned by the plaintiff 
'to the defendants, ari<(ffly, this <*tat«Hient is tliat the money twau 
loaned to defendants on their repreaentationB thsit they were 
offioers and directors of a mining ccsipany which was a disly or- 
ganized and existing eorporotion, f»nd which had sold enough of 
its 3 to ok to reslizo over :^40,00(i In cash, all of which had been 
used in buying valuable mining property in Colorado; th^t ^5,CK>0 
ISO re wae required, and would bo used t« pay wnrlaaen for ooaploting 
an unfinished tuniiel "leading to valuable ore depocltB,* and that 
the loan would be repaid by tha corporation witliin & r«aannable 
time, or if, after inveetifintioA by the plaintiff, he ^s satis- 
fied to irvest said ^,000 in wtoclc of tho company, th^ cor- 
poris tion wmld issue stoek for th»t anount "instoad of having 
same repaid.* It id Mien oykiTg^^A thist all of these repreaentntions 

•et arfv, 


■ Lia:^^^^.^ oiij 




aj-M' Xitaaas. 




9ini»i-iJAj^a»ti^iq,m. usiw.-. 

« i)jt»^% 

V«y« falstt Bjnd known by d«f ttiidsuits to b* fml9« -rrhsn mad«, aad 
to (l«e«iT« and defraud th« plaintiff; that in fact th« eorporatlon 
KaA •« asacta vhaterftr; that the aaount loaned by pl>iintlff waa not 
used to dig tuJfmela, but »^8 uB«dl to pay «ffic«ra' aalariea • jaost 
of It to the dafendant Gehrer - suid that Xatar on th#! oortjonation 
ahandon«d Its work and Its property wa« lavlftd urjon to pay wj^ga 
ol»lmR to the nmount af I300C, Aea-ufflitng that theae a-v«»rsaenta wera 
lneart.M in th« eecond count for th« |>urt}Oiiie of aho^fing that the 
iBoaay all«!!ged t© have hean lojmed Jj. 4«^ , ^tiAm%^ v%n obtftined "by 
falae amd fraud\a«nt reprwsostationie, it ia a faaiiliar i>rlnolpla 
that th« peraon dafrauded aay waiva tha tort fmd sua in asauiapsit 
to rsoo-^er th« monay paid {M,i^ v, M aoonto y:a8eXl.i3chaf^, 211 111. 
310; Mmjm ^» £!l£&fiisl» ^16 111,, 629, 648); and ??h«r«, m here, 
the aiaount ao paid la & dsflr^ite mxd S|)«olfi«d aiaei, no reakson la 
pereaived why th« ptraon who bo parted with his BM»n«y may not sue 
in debt, as well aa in aaeuHq^ait, to recovar the jaonoy thus paid. 
It w&a squarely ao hald in ig sbrook v, Hathaway . 3 -dneed (Tenn.) 
454; acd, in affeot, haa baec ao hold in thlB Stato. *3>ebt lies 
ttpon si!ai»le eontraota whare^ar indebitatus^ aaauia^ait will lie, and 
ia a concurrant rtmedy therawith, Vnit e d St?At„? „ g > v, Colt . 1 Peters 
C. C, R. 14R; Smit^ T. hSZSU.t ^ ^^el^' !''»•'* (Bedell v. J^ann«^i. 
4 oilman, 195.) The aame li^guaga la re'p^aied in lf.}i,pim] ^ r» 
Caroentar. 70 111,, 549. 3>abt liaa to reooTBr Money l«nt, paid, 
had and reeaivad, an aie^ple oontrassta and l^gal liabilities. 
(1 Chltty n,, 9th M». 3id. 109). 

S?roa what haa baen ©aid it ^111 anpear that we art 
of the opinion that thora ia no mi a joinder of counts, but that th« 
whole deolaration la a daelar&tion in debt, containing two counta, 
tha firat upon a pirosjisaory nota for ^2000, and intereat, and tha 
aaoond for $S00<3 saonay loaned, or money hs%d isnd reeaivad by daf and- 
ante for the us« of the plaintiff, aiid Interest, 

•fcn Sim 

r/^ :M M 

:^ Xi^l 

-htim't»L .eami C lao^g 


it Id finally urged that. th« ja^lgment i« for an aaowit 
XakTsi^r than in o3.alm«idf and that the form ftf th« jtidpsKunt Is not 
the correct fona of a Jud^ja^tnt Ija debt, Th« first of these alleged 
errors is ▼«!! assl^sd. By no posslbls method ef oomputatloQ osn 
iht lusount of the alXttged debt »a4 dwaiflMK«« be as ;Kueh. as th« amount 
»s8«sssd as dsBUBi««s. The ad datantt f i fixes the amount of plaintiff's 
olalB at #7436^ and the dsfault ^udignient should not have l^ecin fpr 
aors than th«t tmoimt, The second of these alleged Mirrors is net, 
of lt««lf, sufficient to re-verse the Judgjaeat |E» E. I.,.. & a»^ L. 
B. R, Co. V. Si««le, «9 111. 253) althotaish urior to 187? it might 
Ka-ve he«n rererslble err©r, ( Earch v. iJEJLii^* 3L4 111. 248.) 

For the «rror» in A 1 oat e;?, tb««» juii^ent of the 3ttpi»rior 
ccurt is reversed and th« oay«e res»,ande<1 for further proceedings 
net lnoonaist<mt with the views herein expresaed. 

dridley, P. J., luad Barnes, J., concur. 

*^ ' ^-4Jm«m«4^t». 



?• - 2«729 


i^^'^Ai^ mm 


fl« A. JtAi'iiLfci, ) r^ O) O "^' A (f® /? 

In 19^ each of thit pt^tlea tn this mil «iqi«d half 
•f %h« capital ^toitk of na IXXltMiv eor|H}]*Htlon, and in Deeonljer 
of thMt y«ar tlie plftlntiff noId and deXivtred his uy»ck to tbe 
defendrmt for an ttiisiunt then puid to tho pXia^intiff ect@t;^l to one«> 
b«Xf of the dlffereaoe betw»«n the XiabiXltiofi ®liown on the 
1»ookK «f the eorpor«»tif»n im^i the hnolK vuXue r)f the a«eeti}« 
excXueiTe of outatmiding aQ-munts and biXXs r«toeiYahX«» ifiih 
the ttiKl^^rstandilBg that d^ff^ndaiit QhouXd ooXXeot thc» {^.coounta 
and biXXn rftQ«iTn1»X« and pay enn^haXf of the t&ims to th« plain* 
tiff, irttean ool.\«ctod« a yenr Xator tho pXalntiff brought thlo 
auit, cissiBiia?; th^it defendnnt h«d coXleoted ceftain «p€^etfifed 
•ecmints ^nd naUin and rafuoed to pay tho piaintiff hie oharo 
ther«<»f , Rs Figr«cd, w^mmting to ^769.08 • ISae d«f«ttd«sflt fiXed 
an affidavit of merito. /asftaittlnis thu sollfction of «»«<i« of 
the iteifts apeeifiod in the pXaintiff^e ntr^teaent of cXnts, and 
ot'^ting thut h« had x^tained the nnounta eo ooXlected to pf^y 
ouadry XiabiXities of th«» oorport^tion, for «npnid taxeoo With 
this ftf fid^rrit of meritn* the dtsf . ndant aX»o fiXed a &t«.t«isGat 
of 30t«off , in which, aft^r ctatinj? the terae of the agreewant 
for the auXe of jXaintiffa i>ta«k, aubatantiaXXy as ?4b«Te in- 
dicated, he aXioged that pluintiff icept th« booke of tho aor« 
porstion and repreaeniod to defondaat that »1X the <«»rporato 


v'SJi^iyo v^x k-^^;t^.; 


^^-i *£!&<{-<;; 


• 3« 

lia1»iJLitie9 jmrm ihoim oa th« booJca» and that defendant lulled 
on that repreaentj^tion t^en h« pnid th© plaintiff, for hie stock, 
ono-half of the exee«a in vniue of the oorporat« aeoet« over th« 
liahilities shown on the booka; but that defendant there«ftsr 
di8eoTer«d that the eor]M»rotian owed ahout ^a«000 for income ami 
other taxen, and * corporation fee»»* not ehown on the Itooks; ?md 
further, that as the ruailt of un alleged false and fraudulent 
inee»e tax return made hy the plaintiff, on behalf of the corporation, 
for the year 1918, the oorpow^tion ''has hec«^e liahle far* $600 
attorney's fees, fhe set-off thus ol;iim«d, «ifter deducting the 
iteB« adMitted hy defendant's fiXfiflaTlt of nerits to he due to 
plaintiff, «niimat» to ^35,I8. 

The record shove that en the Btm» &e^ 'Ihe affldnvit 
of Bierite *"id the cl»i» of get-off were filed an order was entered 
eiiieh states that "on motion of the plaintiff the time t© file 
an sffia^Yit of merita to the eat-off *i8 extended ten flays," 
Fourteen days thereafter, an order was entered ©tJ^iting thiit plain- 
tiff waa *defttulted for want of affidavit of merits to defendant's 
eet-off a" the reaord of tliis order does not state upon ^nhose 
Motion this order was entered, nor who, if synyone, wa@ present 
when such default was entered. Mo judgment was entered on this 
def£9ilt, nor any other pro oe dings talcen, for orer a yesr there- 

The record next shown thai on April 12, 191S3, ^e 
ease was reached in its rogular course for trial, and that in 
the ahsenoe of defendant, the plaintiff sulsaitted his evidence 
to a ^ury, viha returned a verdict "sgainKt the defendfrnt" for 
the aamunt of plaintiff's claia, and Judgsent was entered on 
the verdict. There is no r«ferenee, in the record of this 
judgrosnt, to the prior default of the plaintiff, or to the olaiB 
of set-off on file. 

':tt<' ?im:-n 


iWi«*F«T if 

Jjv-i t?!^" 

' -dies** toalA 




orfe Myers's »ii? 





» 'X^t« 





Cn May 9, It) 23, on motion of th« defendant, the 
Jud^«nt ao entered «a« VMCntitci, and i» «e«k Inter the onne esii« 
on 8K8iin In re^l ar oouru^e fer trial ^«for« th« eourt v^ithiut 
a jury, ». Jury b«lni^ wnlveiU The record shovs that at th« close 
of thftt trinl, & finding B^nd Judf^snt for $4C5,63 ''a^^innt t^« 
plaintiff* «er« enterod, Jfren %iiim Judipiont the plaintiff 

The et«Mlgr«9bie report of the proc««<dingfi^ h&d on the 
sceend trial shove that no <*vid»ttett what«^er was nemrd by the 
eourt, iMtt that the trial eoneitfted solely «f » diacusBion between 
counsel «r3 to the affect of the order defaulting the plaintiff for 
wsnt of nn affidaYit of morita to the set-off. It appears that 
efter sone arg^sent, tJie plaintiff « attorney nelted the c-rrart t© 
set sside the default orsler, and prdtt^ni^d and auked le»ve to file 
effidafits tending to prove th&t the order "extending^t-tlKe time 
to file an ei'fidavlt of ia^i'it« to dof^ndant's eat^off wua not 
entered "on motion of the plaintiff,** bot tl«*t in ft>ct neittier 
plaintiff nor fmj^ne reprewentinK him. was present in court irihien 
|het order wns entere<^, and thnt neither plaintiff « nor his counsel 
had sny knowledge or notice thfit either thnt order, or the defc^lt 
order, had b«»n entered, until ths jufigsient in plaintiff's fe,Tor 
WAS VRCrtted, at -whieh tii»«s fXSiunael for plaintiff ttnd«?rstood that 
the default of the plaintiff ahnuld be also »et nelde. It further 
appears frssi a certified copy of the rules of the Bunioipal Court 
included in the transcript of the jfeaord, tliat there is no rule 
of the Municipal Court requiring rm affidaTit of aierita to be filed 
to a Htfltessent of a dsfendrint»« <3lai» of set-off, nor fixing a time 
when an an-^wr of smy kind siust b<a filerf to sush elnin of set-off. 
Mule 19 of th49:t oourt provideM that *in All aaaea except «^«r« » 
party is in d^fraalt, new matter alleged in the ple&dinf. filed 


iMT,? no 

iailtrc CVS ei 't'-sift? ^jf-fc^ . ^ cvifXaj 

>v-X»i^^ -^^.^M'A^^ •idi 

last in ordnr ♦ « « aiUiXX to« 4c<?««rt d«!Bio<l l>y ttie opooalt© p<; '^ty,* 
Under this rule, in tla«? aT>«©nca of any gen«pral rul« rec^iring a 
yrltten denial to W filod to n olaln of H«t««ff , the pX»intiff 
could not bo defaulted for failure? to filo a writton d^rtiftl, or 
jiin sffidBTit of meritu, without notice nnd is special rxilti on hi» 
to do BO within a 3p<$ reified tine* Ho such netic«% •vm'.a givt^n or 
rule «<!ntered in this CHeon olid ihorefore tho dofoult ord«r wris 
orronooualy entered, and ishould hmte "been vacated on plaintiff •« 
notion. Instead of doing that, th«5 trial cjourt deolinsd to hear 
plaintiff's motion to vacate the defitilt, upon the ground that 
he Gould not eat «Bid6 an ordor »ad« hy another judg« of the a^me 
court. In this, %?<? thlnlc, there ^as manifeat firror. Glejarly, 
the action of one ^udge of tiie Munioipml Court in entering » de- 
fault for ""^nt of Jii pleading is not so -sinUing upon another judge 
before whom tht fS»o« ia re.|al,irly calXed fUtf trial, O'Tfjr » year 
later, f>.» to pn3V';3nt the li,»tier fro« v^'iOatlng mtSi defaoalt upon a 
proper showinK. On tbo contrary it is the :luty of the trial Judge 
to entertain and po^o upon fmy motion of that charect«ir preoioely 
AS if he had ©ntered the d-?f®SBlt, and if he findss th^:it th« foaner 
order mis inproperly made or ent^redji to corrt'ct the ijsme* ( ijutfter 
▼• fe^thlo . 211 111, App. 596.) To p©r»it r Judgment of tM© 
kind to stand, where it appaaro thnt tlie party aijoinst who® the 
Jttd^Bient -sma rendered wns in court at the ti»« reuAy with his QTi« 
denoe to meet the claim of hi« oppioaent, and w^b prevented froia 
presenting; his evidenoe only b«e*uts« an order defaulting him had 
been erroneously entor«»d 'without hie Imowledge more than & ytnr 
Vefore by another jwdge of the s me court, would be giving «or© 
eff est to form tlian to nabotanoe* 

Jfor th« rertsono stated, th© Judgiasont of th«f i*uniclpal 
Court is r eve rued nnl the cjiuee remanded with dire ot ions to thfit 

.., r^ 9J 


■'^-;-'ns%'' ^ : - ■ • • ■ •■ '. ■• - -., ■"-■I . 

■ 7 

cdurt to Yaoaie the defs^ttlt fmA try the oae« »n th« »eirit». 

Orldley* F, J,, and Bamets, J., oonaur. 

:C* V1^ 

flHir^-yf? «ri^ «*«»»v «-^ ■r'iO.'? 

-. t_- • ; IV r 


loQ • mrm. 

m'^m nia^'.t 

^'fl^'iAatif f in iijn?or# 


u ^sficK txfcffl Diai?iiw> tm ©Hiicm Of f» oomn*. 

la t«i^t, Glaiwliii; tb.vt li» Md. ^0ll»ct^, ISO© ns&iA isfcsj dise Mr 
f«jr tiw^er^vijy ailmoa^ fjia fed stp-pjf®pri4ieil tl»i s«?j(a® to bie atm 

thm piBi,n%ii'( hm a flttit fur ti^piasfi^t® jai^it$r^t3i^v.»»»<» ^^^ndiisif; in ^m 

other iv.0llolt©rs 'isis^ Ife'id fiiea t^i® feiil in U&t 1fe»«(half . .ai« 
teeti£l94 tlSbCit siw paid, dafead^at- «- retainer tf .|a.©0 ^..nd tlv.i.t &»' 
th^m told li^i- tSi,:.t iolwi *«e^«i »«% ife'^ Ilia eiss^ mtm 'l^Ci^iee ]^« 

»ejld &t il3-....t tiiw is3 tfe&t plaiaiirf ^44 ^^^.r Mabojail wt;.® n mm. 
9£ laeaas, ajMt (^^ ^1^ vm&'-trBte&d it, tl3^ e©urt v^mld ailosr 
^olioitor^a fees «.t tiio tija© csf t^ 4ia|t©sit.i^a of tJia caaej 

mwii p4Aid# Ij^r first a«licit»arjs «itj3.6i^w fare^i tile ^-^iss® *uaA def«eiid» 
!m% w^». sabstituteA aa her isolieitor* , 

Hue. pa;^';':iit t« &sr 0i: #:vi^ «. wms^ Ski,im$tn^* f>ef>^mi.imt o^^uedd a 
petition im '&# fia.»d In h&ir WlisOLX" i*©r gya i»i$»«aik:e at tU imon^ 
aad for a» alXoi8?aBC« of soXicitar'a Stses. ISfee peUtlsfi mv» 


J kii^ 


ircsUa^ til® feffib^M to p^ tor #400 fm lt®r ^lieit«r»s f«Mi^ii. 

«if X'eoUiijS fe ©#ttl.i«^t ©i" tli® Mja«3r ^m«ieti«ii» iarrolYM ill life© 
tmn, u&le2», iMffer fe© imWttt«4. i^ tkm plui^UiT, bttt g^ r«.AM»»4 

m Im clstoad, ^t 1400. s^itH IMii Mil Imi mm & X«tt» mylm't 

.^■.^a;A«us« ^^- »»««i«&d «ai. ©f it to :»s^ '^er mi2r$r«at s^eaisa^fsj md m 
sew d*^3f£i la%#r, 1^ ^ret& m^^» ^--lim ^^-'-^ ^^^ ^^ X^mtmd i'^m^. 

t^iao th9 l?t& »f «&eh sMwath, s^d asiciag ^ef tisad^-tat to mm .ter *^ 

y»a md mt* Mm ^m^mt my ai^t" ^® tijo^lit lae m.s 4u«tti*i«d la 
k«-s|rij^ ti4^ ^lecjlE f@r #300 aad ia iAfild.3as fesr for tfe« y^^ainilvv^ of 

m® MIX. Mn MtUr <^&m€ m telUwm n£ ^m are not mU^ 



, *1 




fled >lth tMii 4irrc^i|ptiiMt« t imv<?. m objeatton to your )pl;;.ein^ 

the 4«ar «i3rt«r r<^<}®iTi»t5 ta»is lettex, pi&intii'f 
«a.«8®d tmotlMir l«.'«gr«y t« »«.nr^ noti®* «» ii«if«siid,^ia'i Ui^-^t h& v«^d 
&fJc to bo aaliafci tilted &b plitlatiff*® colicitor ia th« ii«ipa?»,5.te 

9lijiJet«a ^ th« gj^-^und tjai.^« £^> h^-^d not y«t isy^^n ^sdd f^r M.» 
mTvi.m»» th^ i^^^ &%&tiDd thm^ 'im twad m^t m.%@&' t&« s.-rfejr «>3? 

tuM fmr nmf^ mlisiitm a|^p<tei3f««d fe^iw© th« sii^ja© Jma^e .Mid tsl4 tiM 

}-S0 imd ©©lifi^Jt&'d r^pfflm tli«8' jslsaiiRtii'f ♦« jB*.©tey»i for mlist^aii^ri #iJ!?';r«- 

«4i8ttt«4 ««. mm |3rifci4 ffeAt tW^.» w<i» tarn®. Mf^adc^t HieuI »4 s.t 
Xhtxt %tm «^-^U»:i m» tsu8i d«i,3l®0i#i tt Mss O^iis fox M^^mtm^, Imi 
did 09 ^<Ki im Xm^m^& iM^it thi$ mh^Utntlm Mm^ mm m^m m 13m 

tli0 «Mn»8Js Mil f^ar iliirtjfe® h^ hmm feri«4. Ili^:^t trial remX-t-^i^ 

iaaiatil'f »sa ©#war.*a imim% m.,% t3te law is mtU^^ 
thi.t tmd^Jf no oi2^^9ia»t4i«®s 3mi» a, seiieitos' th.^^ rigilt t© r^tm-ia 
r»r f«e» any mmmT mli^^%&<i. W "i» s^» t^s^or-t^ ^i»«^iy, g^«:aj 
0«ea» to be tfe^ mX& in Mm r&tl&, ^Mrt ikm H#w igi t^^im «^t 

Sto IXlliioit) e&ii-© has ©$e» ait»d ^ifeiefe d#3ide(i tliie ouestiea* £a 
tbtifi ^'.taie ti^ xiglit of «$& attorney t© vr^t^d^ poMmm-t&at until 
Me, afe...t-i|®© ur© -paid, of preperta?" ^^ottging to Msi ^Imt ^M^ 




^&amu 4at© lii© j^j»lsj wltMn -Urn B^mm of Ma «apl«yia««ftt - «T.4l8d 

«©ll«©t«<i ^ ti»<s. ^..i to may ora Ij^h^Jf of M« ^li«iit. tlg^^feia^"» 
Dlicitor .BW^ i&.8««SPt ^adls ri^t, ©If li#ri» tiixm mmrnw es-^^i^A to 
iis A <|»«sti^ft 'eai^k 1» »<ii m»c<»aMa«i3*^ imt^Jimm in tills ea»©, ssad 

tJw plain tiff hi^^ g4frji liiSi* eesasitsat llissi It s^wiM lae ©e a§>:pM#4« 
«j tMnM ii^'*« ««ajmot ^ 'iwswrd .*t tlils i4i» *# fc# t&:&t «to ii«i mt 

&3r t&e iafial. si? art) ®f feesr p3r«#«^ ^it-oitm* tt^-^t, an 'Iwj&^lf «rf 
the plainiiif a^ la &«sr |^sf«eelaee•* M- p^mcU'^'mi nm oj'<l#r fn^ Jm^® 

ing til® ideati^^sl mm ©f I8«i9«!sr '^M^jJi ie ta c^oittrarr^ss^j^ in liisi® aiit# 

to t^ ^« tt«!» «ff ISO «.iaiia«Ki % tiaa p:i®ia:ti;rf » it 
iiSPira&r» ^%% piianUff p»i<i tli.^A.t sBtSiiiit 1>® a ©omrt 2?^!^irlar. -f#r a 

til© defeffeiv'jii f^s' ^af® kfmpimit- ^i^m.t after diei'-f.sjafejBt ted Ji^i^a ^up^* 
»«d«d «u» Jaejp e«eiieQ^el ia th.© EmMs^r a^T© ii»?iiei.,i®d, Uie o9*jirt 3^t>« 

!->rt«r 0«i3li«4 &% 4^:.i'asaaBt*» office ^3^ ytQ-aftetei^ p€3C«ilSf«?i#s t© tiOca 
it fer tilt pyixp^m^ »f JwOelag & q^^, t^t fi^ferid^ai's ei^sife «ai«y/ed 

ftt,6«4 t« r.tajm II 14 Use p^Uiatit'f ti^B©«j tfe® 4«»:tw?«- of fe«r l>-r#sefai 
5a&:i4ait©r, ^i«B t^#re3Uipi>t3i iemMIu tik® r«]^orter $14 to g«?t i*» 

1$ jr«««m la Blietm *l^ tih« pa..-.iBtli'f i-oulfi not ImvB 

in a »itt#r fer nftiioll t^« dofeadant ie not r©®]p©«i«lbl«. 

tfidXayi 1^ J., sdsd Bi9L3mi(»«i* J'»t ^oitour* 



i:stASJ* <miPF3, 



) : 

m. ^mia:;- ^^if<« ,ii^^«^^ fm mmim m wm &m^4 

thft {S*ijs»®&© feo tla® plaiatifs^'is tiUtuaB^Ml*^ resttXtdsg firings &, 
<i«>lXigdeypi 'I'iiH em of 4Uf«gadJ^t*& ir^^ias at a. ^3?ti0isi»ii «m ICMlth 
«iar®®%.* ■%& tli« ti'^ e^ c^iamg®. 'Sm a.t^»<9ir» 3e®ii4»4 «'p0» arm lljat 

Jbaii brnmu filed i;pi tM« e^m't mi h^bMli &t t&e plid.R-til'f » MHs^ 
i-vM f^^ ifev^-t 3r®fe«i-iii3( it «411 «isi fee «f^««.isa,x*y'' t# fi#|ti^;i:f^ ^# 

>iX&rtm «ifid ivi'eiir^ e'^lc-c^lf «»t isigM. t% w?i.« fe**^- smsi fe-d been 
@%r«^i ruis» east sM w&i'tii ^i^ at % TS^iMt haXt m 'atmik m^st &t 
tr^e3£s« stmiiliig tuoxUk isM iv@mth. Oa tins isi^t in f^ae@tl<»s# 
t^j^«;.«0 t^mmlm. ttea traiJB ^im®! «*©<!. «£ en «mgJUi© aea^ XI v» or «tx 


of XQAt^ &trtip.t ^im ^n%&e ftf tii© t,ruclcB rttrnts ^maimlX:^^ mtiiX Xt 

&i3^'«|r» :'.'t<i'PP<3^ t>^i&^3fi>« «miieli^ iim im^Xxm t® ^m v^rjt a£ tim 

ti'*>ia» i>M &%!',viM. ti> t^ttssDi la&i© "JU^di®* &»»n ar©»!& 10ft th street 

the aoCLt*TO slsi^ i?a tJa« d&rlm©s^a ai^r® 'lii^ tsraiii, '^dfciiclj. r?<HJl4 be 
wmm &t iiwj ICHt^ <jtjpfe^t ©roasing, '&® ©©minuter ef the t3mXu 

litis Isatersqi, ^ «liioh 1^ *?4ai^li^©€-K» y<=fFli#A 1^ tt® M^s^sts • ®f Ms 

li;Tht®d anl^- "fej ffjrj @J.«0tJ?te IX^% o«i fee 39^-rlli side) «9sf 2.04t^ 
oro»ftii?g;t Mt'^ gt.t^^ irert iif» m^-, life* f:f$*»»«e aisowt, w«i^ 
fr«Bi 'Ike «Ti^d«jaB-*?, l^f^y* i».« 119 i:?>ii©3M£^ or gmt^mm at ite er«isi»- 

tait^ffimt. ar«mi0t. 4«iTe arimad tl?.l« earre isto lC4t|j 

tift t«?'ytifl,«ti tii^'it ^th.?U^ Im ioaked a©rt^ ®EKl asu'Ul "for 
trains'' iie did la^t sfi« tiis ir&le, tM^jn alad^ist 4ir«53tli^ la fr€»t 

.Jk> trft;' 

t0m% f^ffSKi ti»e ^,3?.Qmim:» t3a©», im 8?:.d4, "Warn X ssaw i^igit \»*sj g^ilug 
t® lisstpp«R# I i:^mrre^ U tJ&fi m&r^ tm^ tried %« li«-:t tm ^m^ixm 
to iit «Mr &e«J^ from having ?a. ««irs® accident tl;*a» 1 Jteifj.* Oa 
Qst&&^.&xBM,mitt&n, h& tmi'Mti^^ "yx&v.'l 3x® t.i'ieiS i# run i«io tlte gate 
33<»at Mit jais-e^^d it, l^m trm% mi Mi» ©&^ wm st«.«sfe 'l^^' ttie .i»y4ii^ 
train t>m mt^^^ to en® »1.4#, l^^^ult^^ tesi^^i. tlelatllT fAl*© 
t©Htififfl«i tfeit Jm wm gtijis A^mtt t'«!«aft siii®» im jsqh^, .?»m ^4 
not »e« t^ g.l«um fi^m tte *|^as1®s** »®i^ ##0 ss^WBS ws-fti^ m laili* 

tmifi aaUjl m# #*lii44«a ss«*m®, asd ttiat plfnijsMti mm »t iri^.^ 

nm fim ^f tte. ,ps.i$^^Rf,®r»» iiiK)tt#t im tl»j Wf© in?* 
«i.d« tiM« «l®.®ipil a&lb. wfA© ms^-m ©3? ,5^##0 «ftei«i.«:t««i# 1^ plai,iitil"f »» 

Ti«W» i«>:*^^T«3f» IRill net ©fetttltlStM. Mm 0®I| W«.j48 & 1 lSS»&ill«f. » Ifp^ 

^ttofei?® Iw tuit* ®«#ft ftr ti» f3^a« i4a»'t ^nlpldiii, trm%* m^ fn:i^ 
sm Vm «Tidfa©« ^mm t&&j» «isi m#tStiii^ Wm.%&V'& t@ ]^^uw««t lOia 
tutfm m®$m tim mwrn^^^^^^tm ti^sdmt ^- ^«- 0^3W»t« afeii3ii.8^ « 

Jttet ^fcfOT^e t^€ tr^ia iit«.*"tta BWtfet a ©t3?€«#t ■#c;.r $&i^m «^>^* Jls!^^ 
Qf»@e to mm mm ^m ^£ ihit. <smm'.imi m Xm^m ®tjf©«t» mi. ^%Qm$, 
yser® at Wm tiis^ af ^i« a«oi«ssat wdltii!^ f«ir -^^ tamia to :^)ii, , 
aoth %3^ m»%9mm &m t^ Qtsmmtm ^£ tliat st^e^sat ©ewr tustii-tM 
tli^t tla«ar i^w t^ tsr^ia aa%i tfeftj .gii«r# fttes t^ «i.;i^i#®i«* ^ !;»© 
«<8id«ot#r »f tli^ ti'idii »tK.adiag @xi ^^ ©rissjaiatJ i^iwgtag Mg 2,i^- 
taam. II t&^ <j©ia4 ■t.-iasj di4 ««# ^®s0 t^inf®, no ^^&mm. ^p4m.m 

i&m Im&x thmkt eKe«g?t hXi^ mm aoi^^^tmmm^* It m^m «-l@&r £i 
®3ll tii^ ©¥idi«i©« tfaftt l3» li©e41#®sa^ d^oft Mb m^ imm «t ]^&o® 
0i' aangor' a«4 men, ®»s Tm t^etifiM, ti?ic^ t© ^a^,.:.t t^ t^Pisijt 

i^riMssB nfii 4 fim>m4 OF mat. 


10& • 

nmtm m f ACf . 

just fe^i'or© t*MSf ti»e oX UiJ© ttooldejat in. qtMSbiien, tim plaintiff 
did 110% «i?e€»ye.if.*i ardlajsy oar# tn dri^liB^ mfeii sfe^ni3t|^ng M« 

aiit«iaotdle, «Sil 'tii-rfi ®tt<lsfe. l--.<sk df ©rdijiiry ft^a^e #« M» part 

U9 - ^T71 

£^m^ mm 

m uHmg^ WiSi'-da, Qi€ htm &tmtr^w% 0f m^ti^^mitt ^Uiaiii^^ iltat 

® trial h&£^» ■^bm umstt -wUhmki n S'o^> '^ T&i&^^iwxfni. & 4m^'- 
m&ttt tew IS^^^^^SO* fxmk tdtiidbi tMw. cs^pmikX m>.fi p^rfQ&ls^, 

13sa (svldsise© afeov.-® ilmt piaiJitiff ^tojci^d $m line 

©I Xt^* At Hie tiiei ^ i«!a.s fi^i'^t issiipliipiii, 1^ tijasni ^sa^ 
^mifiitioni^ «r :bl.R '«»i^lc^^mi».t tMor^^ -pat Int^ tiM fo^m of a X«^til#.r 

«1!iis foUo'^iag iiig«fflis0itt l?«jtw©«Jii yott aa^ tl|e 
He«Q ■•Bvelojip^ acaap: ja^ win o<m^ i,itto ©f feet fexoh 
!• X33J, unUl #febrtt..rj 3S, i90i. 

3toy jfoar antrHo^® ia m^m^W ^^ js^-viea iSKyrteg^r, sua. 

to 'ist^th ^ou aatt tJte HksoQ '-n^t'ldi^ vaRi|i^«»BQr« 

^B&iag wadt5rsta»a ^/t ais ^«XX as Bfyfja,iiiag 'tlast 
ft&Xe© d«fs,t..rtEMa»t it ^dLli fe® gr.-/iicf:;«tc.f^ to yea to 
attsiKl to thi- det&iX£> oC csji^r Gfitntr: ,«ts tli. t ssiay 
arise ?.M#i i«iX^ jpetjUlri* yo^r -^^ttsiiUfiaa i^il^r im or 

^tt of '^C*s--g'©«* 

Ob S.-'Ot'^w^ &• xr<€.> i^ ama^gX i«»#tii^ it lit 
bot^ffi^ i«r ^.r>eet9y« of the d&i*€asd«mi aarp^-'.-Usm im© Is^Xi. iMil 



19[|# '^*4ji»xm ol tile d«^fe£t4--<jntt $rOTid.<^ tllnt tSl^i 
Idsrsta i»::laalJie,i: the Tioe-p^^euideiat, eluiXl ^ «l«!Gt®d, % %3m 

a» py«j^®r4¥«il ia th® l^-Xiswat ara ta pe,tfoi3M all tits ciwtA^ji of 
and «tft®r J^saDUi^s^' 1, i^^Ot i*l&l,iitii: f p^rX'©x»©4 alX tha m^rtio^a 

» y*^' T.*i@^ %o J^Mmm:f X# XSSO, «ai .*i t^? i^a.te ©f |e,ooo per 

ytaj? l"?.-®® 4lK?.t fet© mattl tli« .•^afctappii^' pf-s^e^iia^t B@^ 6» !§!©•■ 

to ! uit, e^.vyia^i *il! d« swftt Wisiit jm^t uaT^i&eM in tliir. es^^nsy 
euay saere uijsJ **/ou ?vill h^@ to get out ©f liisrts .:;..» so^oaa .-® j^m 
e«ft»^ iaad, rijig Ma a tils© cite at tiii« ^sn© tij»«^ for M,8 la«ft w«-t5k*s 

aMMJfe-sptis^ fefee- ©fil«» ol!' iric««ps'ei5id«nfc -ti &s i^»r€ui-isd gsl-iaqr for 
Uio year jf©ll0i:;-iiig the annoai aB«B::':U3Sg» pladliitlfi-' entered intQ a 

th« direeter© to r«»ev«g rids;^' <jl"fle«3? &t «ssy ii«u5!i tifett '^t^ *^3* a^ 
the iMT'tiiidtjWi^ in B>&mssi.m ^ ■,>i&©hii.rg® t^e plaintitf , i^si tu>"t t,he 
B«t oX th«/ ^rtiK'yr'd of 41r©0iars. fdi^ t^er^i'oj?® tls« plsiatli'f *^»3 ii«t^y 


d©f«9a4ant'«5 aoum-;*! tij;*i the ®l#cti«a of tiw iJlaAtttlfi* %p- tJs© 
at MS tJ&S're.a.8i«4 «%3l.a^' frim, miul r*l*t«T i3"i;!tii«KJj:^ 1,* l#tO» and M» 

or a m^-iifie-.ti^^m ^f %M^ 0M m^* .% tlw t«««® of tM-» »i?it ^©31-. 

one year li*g^gi«nii9g 5'kjGK^:«^ I, iti©^# 

Hireo dlf titers, of -Ajoa tfe.^ ir© si teat w&s^ &m» A^-p^s^tmiX^- Im xm& 

Hi© ;4at is yj^^t r#ny«§l Wits ■^Tla.^»iU,j Jasovas t# ^«i ■a'fe«r 4ix'i*^tar« 

<B«»«(, et.4 2.«i^iKt» •&cit 'fe&«|f (@6«f«|ul.#0®et in sad ej^pr&r^i M,n a©-t« 
Tiife^r®'fe^ his -r.-et was yatifie^* f'urtli«»sa6r«s> tli© v-^^mA laho^^ timt 

pilUBdatiff WM dijjekaii'gtsd ©a Bft|r €» ii:20| i^ai/S. ©.a it is ^ztammii&i, fejfea-t 
Ms 7:«rk t^ to tfeat tijaw ns&s f'yiXly -p^irf&m^tt tjo<s-&T(i§mg to Mu gob- 
trtwet* ^td as M«i «jiasrfeB%iet did a«>t ^.i^ixt naatiJ. aig^t imm^M tls/^r^*' 
«ft*^r, it i'&l,.va**a %k&.% ^isiliitlff Md, net veltmi^irilj-- mh^md&n Mn 
eastyi^t, but tsJie.*; thsi &OM%sri^^% -wtxs^ w3?eBas,-;.full3r I*r@k6m 'W d&t^mdimi* 

'■ It is oontea4s4 ^^t tMs ecwrt tajSHOt reiriea? t3»3 
action of tJjii triiiii aaurt ti:^» tSs.©©^ fuisy tioas in %im, <.-^.fea«»e« of 
any 3?T»^-sitione &t i-.w M^^s^le^il ='&Xd« er «li®fu®@4'' ^ t2i@ tsl^ 




£;?, .^.«, J ,^l^ kr^M^^M* ^» il^;t^?.,ila'< ^<> ^l^* i««* 

i«o lfe.irg« ?m r^ouut. wa tj*ijsi« lOxifc'/ isf tn*» Itnii a»t for tSMs 
d«3i«« tfeiit p.l.'idatii'.f wxu iwAA .fro® .JanttfAisf 3.* 19m- » %& &h-&wi 

t«> lit ass. $S ♦ net t3#T».^© • aa #fe«'k^©£! f«r d«#«5a4aitt ' 8S ferfta^ 
tlfr ®e&s fit t« «Q «im?is it* If, ■%h0m€m^i. wlfiilia ten, di^jo Irott- 

tfeiB- iws.ffi:i:m.t idil b®- iw'f'®^*^^ *3a4 %k« ©SUM'®' r-^isKsifei.M fer a tmm 

%ei43.^p >'• J,>, ^^M iaim#3, .^*« 


%mik u^mMii» 



) Amm% mm 

or CHiCAOO, 

Opinion filed March /- , 192|. 


^«8««ti<m ^f a Tmicmm Umtm^ la tls,^ city of i^laago. TUf 

aat. md« 8uo©#ediftg Iftase^, for torn® 8liit««a year*. Tb.e 

thm |ruat«e« of %i»« l«ta%« ©f Oamiel I3elaii«y. Ttii» w*» it 
le^se for tb« period ^#gimlBg my X, It^^, and eMiag Ftbw 
»3ry 38, 193S. tfe.« pMl^tifi* Moar,® th.- O'^ners of tiie pxtaiia^H, 
by war^nty deefi, .ir««ted by tfe« aforesaid tn.«t^«. tmder l.t. 
of F0l»nia»y 20, l^BS. Mr«. ti«Tami«y Hatd be«« P*yiRg tS©*^^ * 
..oatli aa Tent tiad^x l^^tr ls»t Imm. satly la iat^b tfee plain- 
tiff e, i^Ttm^ %hB%T »is«Bt, Bmt Mrs. oewimey oapi«a of a 
ft«« l«at#, fos' tfet p.«^iM of one y^r at ibe B^^m tt^taX Imt 
with tfe# provlaloB «mt th. pay the mter t«xe» om tke prt^^uts 
a»di al^o in til. a pxoTislos of tl^t temimtian of th^ !#*»« on 
SO ^y«» notloe. Mra. i^maaey never «T«cuted thes« lt*a9»«. 
Sb* p«ld |50,00 t^ the rXaintiff»« ^R:*i^t. a. rm% for tbe month 
of Msrch. l.tei.,tb« pXa^mtiff. ^tttmpted to g^t po«s«e«lan of 
tb* pTe.^l«*« ^t .tt^^mt mocm.. m.-r.uvon tlae prtsent pro- 

noijsM tslil aoiaiqO 





,«re pr««ntea to^the oo«rt and . J»ry. « th^ olo.. of 
«U th« «TtOeB=. ». o<mrt «i«ete« a «>rdt<rt foi tha plain- 
tiff. Jud»«.«t for p<.««.n<« followd. f. «».«. that 
J»«g).««t the def«»a«Bt hM perfeeted this i.t«««l. 

m m.,>port of tfe« RPpesl the a.fenfaot oont««4» thst 
.M wa. a teaant f.« y"^' to re.T. »d th.t .h. th.refoxo 
oovxa «.t be dlai««.*.9sod ««P* '" '"^T ^'^** """"^ ** 
th« MNlMtlon of any T«r. »««» •»•« ^'•*'"" '«"'*™^' *"'* 
a out, day.' »otl«. «.!<* »• ••''•a "» *■« ''^ *"•' ''^*'°" 
tiff u *«•«■* 1*«« ia M-^oh, -n. n»t within the p»n»le.M af 
t,,, .tatat. ». to »otloe. *»«a oo«W.rl»g ho. » o *«»«* 

aoarly the dsf^naaat ■»» net » teia»t f»«« >«*« 

to ,«« t»t fro- «o«*l» » >«»«• «• 1*** ^o'*"- "*"' ""*" 
wbloh .h. hold po.,.e.i™. Of th. pr«a.*» «• *or a ton. loo. 

thM o«. 7«»- "•-IT. *«- "^y ^' ^*'^' *" "^""'' '*• ^^^' 
At .hout th. tlao of «>e «Kplr«tlon of thot 1..... th. o^ei- 
,hlp of tb. pioportT .*«ne«* ^^d. «ad the defendant xetelMd 
p,«,.«10« pe»dil«« »rx.»8«ent, fox . f«th.r l..« of th. 
preal.... -hloh .wrng«.««t» w..e n.T«r a»d.. Seoti"" « 
of our otetuto. on l«.<»loTa «id •!*»«» (ni. at.. ». 80, ooo. 
6) proTlMs ttet "in «n •»»-»« "^ *«"*'«^ *" *** ^'"'*'' *"■ 
fo, M.y other t.r» le.« tha. ,«. yeor. «h.r. th« t.i»»t hold. 
„^ ,itho>.t Bpeoi.l agre«,.nt. the landlord .hall the 
right to tewlmt. the te»»noy by elxty da,.' aotlce 1= wrltxof 
(until Ml 1. 192S, ^nd thereaftor hy thirty day.' notlo. x« 
„ltlu6) «>d to maintain an ootlon fo, foreihl. entry and 



11; is equally olear that the sixty days* -aotioe 
•fsrvvd on the a«f«ndant \mdMx dB.te of imirofe a9« IB2Z, more tbaa 
sixty dstya prior to tiae inatitutiom of th«i»9 p»Teo«ediiigs» vbioli 

v«3r* e«Miat«ftoed im ^« t&anth of July* Ia)>23« wat. a proper notioe 

aad oa« whiofe ©iiw^lied witfe tfee T«^ir«s«8«»t« of tbt Atatuto 
oad tliftt it ¥».« 8<srr«dl $is th« et»tut« ?9QuiXN»»« fbe notios 
wtm i;^dfe««««l to tfe«r deff'n«S.«it at tliO' pyemiseo iwrolw^A 'ft-Bd 
■by it sh« irsfeo tiotifit^ th«t bey ttaamoy *of tl»»f foXloriag 
py«»i»«i8, to Krit! tfe« feriafe ^brtilllng feaoim and ,.lo4^t«A »t 
Ko, lt80 Wafliiiiigtoti Boulnrard* aitimtft in t^e Oity of sasioafo, 
ta tb» <feiMty of Oook.siid Statft of Illiaoiii,*' would torsaina^to 
«ft May 31t XS^S, ^M toy th&t BOtioe tfeii d»feia«la.iat wa« rt^^irodl 
to aiATiroador posa»8««i#B of tfce presiii«s at tfeat tia«« On tl^« 
r«nr«rt8« lid® of tfeft notio® was tJie »,ffidavlt of serrieo, «xfs-. 
outo-d by &n» FilSktg as agfftit of tfet piaistlf i«« flto affitevit 
«a« in (feio fotm *ncl properly twbsoribtt!, mB4 an^ii^ia to iwifott 
a not&i^ |mli»ll0« It vm^ m9 folloinill 

aad 6«.ys tftat <an the 30tfe Jay ox t^arcb, 1923, he setved 
tfe« tfltbin noticf! on th% witbla aisiii«d Jwra !:)«vaaii«y, 
fey dellvoriag «.. oapy tfeereof to Otti© Jolm Soo, residing 
on aad in oli.a.yg« of said, pi-fssis^o, maA up^n^tiM of the 
ag« of twolve r©«iif««* 

ffeo fiTst critioiiB ©f the notioe aiad affidavit 
of 8<?rrioo 9M it ^m9 intro^oed. ia tvid«»ao« i® to tlje «ff«ot 
t!»it thA affidavit iraus defeotivo ia tfeat it states that it 
ir&o aexTod on Jolm 2Nmi» ia ^ai*g» of ^ssid premiso«t* rithoat 
stating »!i&t pr«ai80«» io aaovey aec:d fe« eaai3.e to suofe a Hypoi^ 
oritioaX ©oatention. Ttso presaises aro twio« yeffTrod to an tli» 
fao« of th® i^tiott na^ the ooatontioa i» not iiado tba-t they 
ar« not property aad Jg^oourateXy referred, to ia both pls.cto. 
Tlio aext oritloiam of tho ROtiec i« to tbe effect tfeat it ia 



dMf99%lv9 In th&t the ftffl davit of ««yt1o« ststtes th«.t at 
90pf mis left vritb "John Doo** • fh« argim«at is that at iMfft 
%li« notion and affidavit of aerTlo»« aa Introduoed toy the 
plaintiffff* irsLfi merely x>rl»& facie rvldtnoa of nvioh notlo« a&d 
tbat the TUlfaa ^aoie proof thua wada vaa broken down baoauaa 
whan f iXaff the agonti^ of the plaintiffs, vm on tl^e stand 
)i« admlttad, on eT08a«>ftxamlnatioa« that be did not knov any«» 
b«<3y by tha naae of John mm, and thfr !i«f«n<ianti ttatlfiad that 
«h(» knaw no ona by tl^t naaso* and tbat tl^CTt nevtr was any 
l^raon o» or about th« pr««laa«^ by that nauMt. This objection 
la Quite as hyperoritloal a« the first one* The i^itnass Filar 
teatifiad tfeat «*«n ba want to th® fremligsffl to a^rve his noticiB 
b« ira.8 uwiLbla to find tba dafandatnt thersj bwt tbst ht did find 
on tfea pramiaea a aan aijpaarlng to bn about forty yeara of 
ag*« i9h'0, the witnasa t«stifl«dt be knaw to bs a boardaar, and 
he further testlfiad that at the tlwi ha aervad the notice ha 
did not know thia sftn*8 n«uMi« but th^t on a later oocaaioa* 
when the defendstnt'a aoa cMsae ©irar to a garafu irtsieh wisa o^ar- 
ated by tha plaintiff, Mathews, «ippareatly to aiaka a tandar 
•f rant* thla aaaa waa was with tha dafsgadant^a son amd he 
ba«rd tha I^sr Introduoa th« m%n to the plaintiff, H&thawa, 
imdar the naaaa of Murf^y, but tha vitnass tet'tifiad* as al* 
randy alwted, that at tha tiaa ha mexr*^ tha notice ha did 
not knov the im.n*» nmM vaa Murphy* It is argued by tha 
dafandant that tha duastlon of the good faith of the agent 
Filar, in msdcing his affidavit of arriea to this aotice 
should bars baaa laft to tha jnry, or, in other vorda, that 
tha Jnry should hara bean paralttad to deolda "whather or 
not John 9o« was la poaseaalon or raaldiug on the pra«i««B in 
quftstic)n* at thf? tl«« the not lot ana serrad. 1% was nowbara 

.•4 -ffCttXA 


««mi«dl ta the evi,di«n^ toy tbc defendimt, or any other ^lta«»!s, 
th&t & aian aaats-eriag the d««OTlptioa of th«s «lta«&» ril&y, 
wamd Msflppliy, ■»&« in f&ct a 1»oard«T la th^ d:«f«iBda.iit«» humtt 
at the ti»« ril&r 8«rred th® B0tl6« in quest loiu 

On tbta recOTci the tti^l ©owrt ras fully Justified 
la r«fui5ing to dlreot $. v«>r<llct for th« acsfeu'lsiit at tht close 
0f tlii« plAlatiff •» evidence and lia allow! ag the motion of the 
l»Xsiintiffa for a dir«ot«M5 v«j"di0t in th«it teefealf at the 
oloae' ef all tli« evldeno®* 

Th© 5u<ig3a#ftt of t\in ■^TiBlcliml Oourt aTS-aeal/gd frea 
f4fL0E» F.J. itM 0« 03113011, J. 

' jrp#i3U*"^t 

vmiemmsm lem^m^ tiiat tn© ^ui^r fi^rt iMfbe^ t^; om^^iMimm^ 
«ild 4<tt|f«fii^''ii!it ©mtidrtiu into a i?^iiiisB ^iiilP'^^.'^'t ^^ms-^^ eoe^sd-smtit 

t^ «M«. £mi^»$MBk and mufiimmtiixpi& mM mk %i^4^ -t^m Qom -iii-aimi 
pili. to d@i'{«s^.j^ii^ mm. Xr ot^^r m-ism ml msiiXX ^m ;tM&A (^ t^ 


l^£urti«£^ @atr^r^«i into atii>|li@jir dU^lsye" witt^m e0i!itar.^«ot '«4tai tlM» 

it m ma0,9m^ti^ witiiotat x«ty .am;? m* 4,it£mm>% m^Tm&isimmt im ^I#^«d 
in i^ biUt «®5' d«i®ij that «i»i^ 3?iWPI8al m® I8»d« «t««miig ^m 

in f^rtm ii^mmit^r, &v tkii-t o^aa^i^aiaii mm im. -^ti^m: .pi*r« 
of hio <^ti.«f.5 m^.vs' that oontra^i ^ ^s^ smmmt l^m^^ 

1^ iss^' w&im&. W ^^ ^^rtimmtii s»f Ui^ UU m 
tM» p^iwt, md the a^aoial Hitrtcr % W^. m^mr, in tte <i^ii» 
tJPd-XUi^ 0i#atl-^ in tfe# #»<», t# i^«li tl» «*f^ima s»#tti«» to 
t&« 14&et«Jf*» rei^^rt .yp* di3f«et@?l, 

mm mtmk^ijmt mm^mtiB tfet th« cesaj^Xfiljiaiiit fsilail. 
i« e-.t^i.S3li.^ Jfaota s^Tifieitait to ^^l rs^j? t&© inte^rpoi-ilticsii «sr 
a ea»rt of ©fiiiity, and tiua 3tie amy iRsell '^ l*^ft 'Sio T«t-^a»j M.^. 
Tm&^ .t lasf. 

tim &vi^mm t^iX& %9 ^nt^misk «4t3toaf a 114^04.^^7 
relt:4ti«m^^ 0r ^n 0i«a»«m* ©f fi-^sat* Ii*a@e4, it in mt olato»4 
tlii^t iimm «ammai%B wm iM ^n mm ims^ $m tnax c^Mm ^«i tfej» 
aTid«ani« t@iid to 00tia^eili -^Imt 0»^ it ^»m Um»9 0#sad ©aaJO^ 


httvo lamsk ^mm vm^ **» lui.v.rl«g) t3^^;% «h«3re w-s. msf si&mUxXt^ 
•f aaeoua^o )M»t^0li ttu» p^^^^e^ m»^ a^ <it juxy fm£k& tUiA i% 

t% ms^t f^ tM)stk» mil M 4i>idy|e4 K^-t^r a bill in 

•Qiilty 0411 1M i9iil]i««d»ftd -Rdthia tl:is r«a®e st£4|@>i ia l^m^ f • 

lief,ilBffl^ 1-S0 111. te, and ]^^^ ^ "T^^MmMuM *^M Ul. 68* 

msjr«0E5s*d4i|fi tJtis painty lsi»wwrt*» we pf«f«s^ %& 'pX&m 
our <l«<3ii3iQn n^pua ^^ grots^ llmt ^<te $te «atiiw«@ '<|ti@&Uw tf£ 
fm% mt&mm nm m% Swwm p«^l»tte^ mt %& «# atrriei^ni i© «mi3r«» 

Shell <i«#sUaa «r f.4©t t& ^im^Smr tJte wriitsa omtamet 
romv^d far Hia 3?©^<^ l>®-oi«?l»s 90t^« 1# ls?3l$i «ia 

d««i9d, l»y Mm* 

t^iieili ^p««ijm la t^@ m^m* 

fk» ^usimii^m% edrp#m-ti:«m in mmm'^ ^ ^^ '«MiH^^..^Ql 
and mX^ of ftiNi& felllli^^;<iMl naa &^&. tmsse^^n msFpU^^* <^t^« £^ 
liae ft liniiKs&t offioa in «i« ^^^ of iMe^^g^ «3aqi staiKtasia XU Imai* 
»&ii» 1ib«r9 ssa^ is eoati^uysiiet t@jri:itci^* It ftrft <«^s|a«|P&d ^^ 

A£ it neone wm it« ^mn^ id«iigtc8»» 4^^^E^L^t 

i&to a w^itt€» ^^€ml3?;:^0t Qm<^^s^a^ tNi %ji^i» «f <iigi^^ir»mt*« 




fM^o^Swnt. tftjtll aJ*ot»t 3'im«> 191f, iBiflar def^i3*iant*» direction, 

co!aQ?ljf:i.mdftt wished ia the tei^eitory ac\j|acent t© lndimmp«*Xls> 
Indl&Kux^ i^a WiJ-ss tho« tjmmisferx'eid to the Ghlei^go offlae o»d 

afisitsn©^ to a teirltory Jcao«» ru;? Ui» nor'th eld«, ^Ich ln.cilus:ied 
o^rtalxi ^;ulatxbs of' ^::^tt€i4S0* 

a^- tl3« toTBta of Ills GoatrM.ot-» oisa^-jdrwrnt r^oolved 

^90 a mimth i^d v4tlt ^^IX df»f|j^4 <i;!!ie«!i|>tl'(ma« & 0O9Eai»i^i&l<»a of 

S««il>a3r SO, 1913 » t2ie iA'ritteii esastTfi.^ w*s W5t rtmewed* jSii» 
cme »ufrioi«iit s«aii«m tsliiali sfP5je^4>-a?«j l?a tli« re«©rd w?*^^ tSi;.:.t coa- 
plcJ.&aRt*8 li<»al.tli hi.^A \m»(mm iii$£»air«3£d to eudb. 3& extent as to 
ayc« It ci.oul}t£lal if Iks ^?ould l^ .;&liX$ to contiim® in the 0ervi»© 
oX tl»e deffesad&at. Ei» sigilit s«&ia lwB®a8Biiisi^ ii^gKisiamd %■ eataxwsliS 
'«3iloii unfcKptuimtsl^' i'o^mad osi fo©tk Siiii tsnt®. XI* .vpp-f.sapod tli£2-t 
aa «gp«3?ttti«n. w#«H ^ »i«at«iSiax3r» i^ti Is^ "b^^mmmt «■ t3i^ eijidsjae® 
(^Naws «S a TcxT p@Mlisl.'jtij3 @tiit@ ^ winf^» 

a<i ^0«j£ not d^wsy tl'» t^ttimcui^ of a t^Xl&xr ««gl©;yie«t 
idM» 8£s2ni> tiCMplaiiKmt teXd .Tiim tli&t lis 4id tmt "kmrn tSmit i^ oos^ 
pt^ ^uXA do ^ith him s»ft&r Octo^^ I* 

^e Ksmage^r &i df»f©fgl4mt*8 C3!3d.ef,^0J® '»rsa«^ ^xftio's wa© 

piiysioaX c<3aa/ai ti«a, aitd #Mi S9©«»® t@ Ijussr^ tsreated oaEtplaimmi 
witli Mich coii.&,ratis3»# «^?T®® ©tiitisae to Mis fSa^it !i©t Ol'rim;, %'s-o-ald 


Jt 1.8 a«t alspatad th--,'..t, -Jiil© -aste wiitt^n cont^past 
missf net r<^«Xi@oiit®d, tb« s^sae solsi-y wea J^d to eias^lalasfflitt 

notwltJistj-tidii^ Ms disability v&iliHk %.B fujfl^r ij»lioat«#d Ijgr lOie 
f.iot tJkxt, duriag til© 0Jitlr«3 f.^!! »ir ^^^t f«sar, aowsieQl^ms 
(%Mali dc»£'€i}d^vi&.t eiXm paid t9 ^dm ^^t t^l.^ friiiii^ ri^t» «k® a^reYicwial^) 
amounted oiOy td |3€.e6. 

C« i%e«i&e3r l.a» 191S, s«»^lalifeatt wAt to a 

ik.' iiU. 



1919 • and i^> ifeft of)ri,c« of th« d«f»Ji<S«!ijrit about January 27, 1919, 

M« 41i m«t Ag^aln iaikt mp ihn cluti«« '«Mah had t)^er«t.9fere )>«•» In 
ftt«t l»»rfox%«»4 'hy hli». «lilx0U|^., a* )i3li» a^eswiKtl foljtiie out, ih* 

tr««t h0 nigVii hav« iMtMi 4ir«et#4 to p^rfi^tm %y hiB m^ployet at 
its diiBorstUa* 

MIr ©wa stat«8a»nt is to '?h« «ff«sst that, up to some 
tl»e ia y©bra.sir::*', >»,« w%« ii«t *fcl« t© 4o his ^ti^aial work. 

Cm fe%n»ary ®aA h**- moi&^f a trii* t*> t©w«t wltb «»n« of 
4«f«H4-?wat*g •&!#««&«», r«iwniliig SmVrvLaiJi-j l-iih, an-! Oi f^r-afior »«4« 
•a»th«»' irljj to I*i4i«iK.iEt|i©lis, ^*s»Mt Mayefe IMfe h^ •■sfas -mt in 
ehargt ®f a »«* cfgs>jal«at.i©is kn^sfsm -*.© tb« Fr.u;it ®pd Syra^ Sijitai, • 
a d«ireloiP>sa«at ©f del'sBdajat *» 'fcaslfitss w^-ilgfe was tj^sj^rlaeerital ia 

y> to tfet isojai!^ #f Umy ,h« ws!,» |i%ii tlifi mmn tsilary »• 
th»t ©f this oreviews year, nas^tly, 1150 * ^-ont^. At fcla »oiielta- 
tle» iB fr.ay fei« aaiary «'a» j".*lii«!,i t© |17§ « smtth, mid in Mgy»t, 
^Ithomt »olioltatlGR 00 hie i^^-t ,. fete salfify w®,e aagaiia ls2creH»e«l 
to laOO a iscnth. i<a iov«©'b«r l^th he wim glv«ia a Tsryltttaa econtriwit 
for the year l>«giGiilng oetobsr 1, 1§19, iui4 «»4UBg Sei>t(K9b«r tC, 
1950, and R «al«cry «f |3K)0 % ssonth -witlioat «e«idasi©n at m.;^ kUi4, 

C9iK|»lfti»aat mSmi%t^4 on th« hearlag tbat all «»lary ha4 
fe««n pftlfl. to Msi Ib fmll. H« c<>Btia«^4 to '»0rk tusr «S«if«M(3stfJt until 

Co»^laiB«mt *B «J4»e Is ba««*<! »po» t)?® theory that a n««r 
eontr««t for th« p*"rl&d 1b tnetitioii smst n«ee«8arily fe«? iftf«ifT«4 
fr®xa th© f?5,ct thsnt , aXt«ir ti»« ftasiulratioa of his vritt<m <j«(ntj"»ct 
«ya<2 up to April 1, 4«fen^a8i GOiiti«ue€ to pay the 9Sffi« e&lajcy as 
iSttrlng th« preirloue year, notKfitiistaetilag Aiifo/idsMGt '» Usability, 
aad fartJier g^Berouiiiy paid th« coat;^«ratlv«ly aeiaii a^sowat of aosa- 
mittgiosi CAxaod* I'ho rul«E of l»w ^ea wijleit e»iSis»laiaiW»t reiio* ha,« 


-ii ^.j'i.i^ii.'i^'.- • iw^iiifc..' -il-ifj^i: m 


It is an<!ott>>t«dly th4» iav thAf. &n» wrho Is uiii^«r « oon* 

tiT'Mit f©r A ^i9«oifl«^ tl»i» in tfe« «sfiploy»«4Jl of ffl«oth«r sfl'J irh» 
o«iit}na«s ^ftftr lh# Axolraitoc of th** tftna nm&mi^. i© the ooniraat, 

will, In thf a1»»«rie« ©f fmet* shoving- a caratrary lni«ntinn, 1>« 

iHt 0W»«»ia principle, us a ^ol4lil|; ermr "by a. t««ant,who is> ao4«r 
ft ei>«olfiftd ee&trftot. If he ^ol■^» oYer hft win It© coji«if!iir»4 »» 
l^<ildi«4' ov«r tib« firet eontx'j'WBt, if oo eh*iag8> ia sjJiowr, « 

MmaL» i*s iii«. 125J MUbm .fa^i isssasjix ^. i^aailit i? -m. a^?>. s74, 

A« th« i3©f<sxiiiMit point® tJwt, tln^ rttl« amumiice^ in 
t>i»«« oa««s Is l>%8<!»d tii»»» a pr#(!i':3a«}tlo>i. lu th«» l^iG^t zm^^ilyels the 
Acelsion df ih(& question laust 4«p«^4 nn '^at the «irid«n«@ sl-^ovs v«» 
t>i# niituftl latent tea of lii® pwiiee, I« ili« mloa^ncviis oi' »oia« qualify- 
lug slrexiiottsajcea, ^n intent i9» to ©oMtlnae tlh« 8s?si« citrntr^^ot a|n>n 
ttoft earn* t«r»j| will uja-ileii'bt^-'ily b« iaf ntrm-i from ih^: facts of a 
e^atinulug •Iftllwp ••rvlc« witla the -pvymmni of a aliailair oaisp©-©**^ 
tl^n, Tfe«i»« m5r»»apl»g, tij® e©iai>l«i©ant arftj«<? th»t tfe® ^mr'Jim of 
fr(»«f is shifted to aef«*i3i^»i»t t« «8t«,>!li«fe th# qiaalifylrig <Klre«»- 
9t&6Q«8. This may "fee ee»i3ed»d. It^wever, it Is ai>p&y#)et fr&n tii« 
•Yi'lands lis this case that ceiiR?ji»lM5iiat wa,» eat willing t© r!*st his 
tan* »n tbess grounds, but assuaie^l th« affinkativKi, &tt«sa^tiBg to 
•h#w orai «!onY«r«i3.tltitt9 amount iajj t® ^m «xpr«»9 »gr««sisnt, Thas* 
w«r« Ifi »ul>8i»n<Ml denl9A ( althoi^^l} aoi, irith t£« s|)eeifie c^rtaizity 
•fttisfflkotojry t« 0a£epl%intiRtt ^e ooub^^I), «n<) two ether vit»«esee 
is*tlfl«€ -^Ith mor« or less e«rt&lnty to supi^oscd adx^ scions of coss* 
9lslB<ilit -sfltileh were :UiCQn3ljs.tei3i ■witfc tli« t^stiiaony gtlfftK toy hisi. It 
is aot n«©«seary to w^igh thi® c«ntr«4istory eTt'leiiee ^iih t}le«ty* 

««^W tii-'i'^ih 




'. i: S» 


7\iti imilsr',mt«d facts of <3«B8»liilO'*i3t '« impaired) ^hysicni i^on^ltlan^ 
ths ohvag^- In the kind of ft«rrl<i« d«Ks«n«l#4 ^ hiu <Ms^l«ky»r, th» 
9ii<8Q*««iTO iner«ia.8et in thm wmwit of tli« m&lnx-y l»<»i4 |)^r montlh, 
th« f'!»et t>?«it ttpott th« whol«» rooord thifi"# Ir & fi8Lllur« to «hov 
)im«h r«qu«sta %9 vould ( !» hi^ X'nmi fixt^uai^ial o^nditloia) in all 
hwum pr^^Hbility hav* 1b««« nm4« l»y eompi^stiasastt r«>r » paysiwnt of 
pt fl4Ta»ao« upon «iOB^lat».t<*a|i, huA imrn fe®»«i ^ eaatr*ei for th« 
9ii3ni<mt of th« saese, »itb tfe© furtJi** uB4i wp«t «?<! f^ici Umt he 
at t>i<f ^nd of the year Ace«ft»<dl ( a^^^reutly without prot.««t) m 
unritttta ©of»tr»«t for & sligiiily a4¥»jac«-a ».xLf»3ty t^ltteout sai^ ref- 
♦rflEBoft ^,at®T«jr th«r«iH to @iOfmia»i^n», u&k% it liffipoiiB»ibl« for 
tt» t«> nfi^ tlhat th« Ch»»8«ll®Jr eTr«a In ©©jafir&lnjg tfes ft»<iin0 ©f 
ih9 M%*ii»y, *h|cli, whtl« it *l.qft8 not fei&T« th« weight ©f the irQr- 
•iiet 9f a j^ry* ie at l^^-ast ««3titl«!?1 to c©»«sl4«Tahl© <?'»-n si -^i* ra- 
tten. I^aygon v, ©lajgl, :?3?5 111,, 8M, 

'»■« arf satisfied tl^sit e®^|>laiisimt *s ^aia*® t»fdB th« 
faetff l» wltheut m«rlt awnS f-lsat the Mil was isrofj^^rlj/ 4ii3iai5ie«<l 
t^t *wat ©f •Qulty, 

tbe i««r«f? is tlbtreferw affirsi©:!, ■ 

he^t9lj wad Jotmsioa, 4f«T. , C9&eur« 


104 • Sa755 

VM. vml» EvBtiCT TTUim ?r'S,JJSH 



'\_^'' cJ^ 

Im Ifee trial o«iurt 3^aym»Xl% 1« le«e ©f fch« oJLiy ^i«id 

'*'«3.<S.«T iLoms, ft ^hild niisft ^jfears af ag# sm-i^ h^r atepi®4 soii, '^roa 
r««tr»i»®<l «C M«^ llteerty by It* flJsetM*?. Iisfmst Aa^ltaa of 
Sliitfta^n, miteisis, Ci«rtry£!e M., .Btaly, mmi. «5!t,fe«r«. ^ai«r prayttd 
tlEi«t s writ af fejiSjgSjl .t£l^ia «fe®*»3l^- fe« -llr^atad feo the»«, as.'l ^ 
oydl«r vfaft «!rit«*r«4 'tlr©e;tiwf that i>'5# writ lgau«. 

It ls»5*u»«! «>« A«S'»»t 1, 1<JI?S, SOS'? was r#'l'i.tyn.ftt^l« <S^igu«t 14, 
192?!« 1*feii r«»#«iit!«»«t. ©urtr^^ft u, lltnly »fta« y«taft3i, >ii»ti:/lag that 
»h« ha4 tK« emrts^y, ip©«««r st-var, ©r ftisntsfts^gis^n of tfe<» fi^Ul^a* T>it 
Aayliaa fflada return tb«,t »4*t-;l ohili w»» d«ia,iK»'3 by wt^i wnn»y lt» 
frotftotlea is tfc« eity «f Cl^loa^o, C-is»tj ©f iJooJt aiM -Stat« of 
llli»$t», for th« i^urj*'a».« ®f feslag «tiuiC!at(S»4 »a4 a*^lx4ta.lno<i "by it 
«« la»f «1 fuajrdlaa, tli«t 4»yli«B r«i-rth-^s' set up In it® retuiia that 
It was a l«^Rily or^aniatii sarfsemtlsm 'jri^1,«y ibs l^s^-a »f the fit^t« 
ef Xllinsls fejr the |!Purj»oa*, »#.t>ag ©fi'sftr®, 4»f isotafellsb-iiig ^mA 
maltit!&ini&^ »r a«syi.!it» or h©aa« t© r«fflelv« th«r«iK fouii<i.lia|!« a»* 

roar, -prcttct sM »rovl<l« homes for the aaasie. It aet up i» At» 
r«tuiaj th« e«Ttifle%tf» ef it« iJs«en>Grtttloa, ©srtlfle^ l»y tJi* 

Bfter«t%ry of ^iM'K^^ Ahdwln^ that this «a» Utn parti «ul&r t»usii»««» 

©y ob4o«t for *bi«h th«» eo;r^«»r»ti»» w&» fusiKittd, 

The r«tttrsi farther cvt «|p ctiftpt«!r 5d of xhn Xlilij^ols 

lit stitaisKQ© wro^wiilttfl that, ^iirtomi niiiy «hli<S. !«. tbla iit&i« «md«r th« 
fMK« ef «UM«? y<sar mball fet? HJ-fwlXy ailf!»«iiitAja««!l fey its ?ax«*»t» «jitl 
»5ijsai %« iait«ai ««4 (Sair«4 for "tej easy <3hftrltaV*I« iit»tit,sti«n In tJii» 

«t&t«», infj«rr!>orat*fa or «th»rwlea, ii«®b fftr©»i« jft\ail ihecoofortls 

tlfef »««3!,<? »h.»ll„ tli«y«ttj5(oa b««8^8i» f^iRtmd in thm 'Imntii-Mtitm, fhi« 
r«gt*t>a,tl«ot fwri*5#r &ts»4« r«tvjr» th%i %'hn «^1X?! *as «kn4 for as»r« 
thaja t^ja .a©ntlfeii th«is laet !?«t«t l«ad fe«fl(«. •i^lsgtci*^ i^ .«. pTtVE*t« boKte 
«a<l v&« fsrepfrrly maiat%iji«?;i\ .«b4 ear^il. far awl 5irtml4 "b* p2ia^«««<l 
%y th® rtapfwacitBt. &« ih» towrt alght di?^«tt, 

JPwrther, that oa «ru»« 2, 1912* tMa ©aia ©Ihtlii w,««, 

fiha^atyd a® ^gtX»* HckCB«« «f J'«kllst» Xliiii«ii»^ by ijjt 3tst«r» «f St» 
J?Tw»el»f, Jfcflu wa» 4«llv#r«.4 ««» resiwudant , ^Jniofe as>5-m«»*l th.« ear«, 
'e«-»tosSy •aifi'i eoatrol of th® QhSId f&.r lh« pMrpo^s*^ ©f e<3yeation auad 
»aiBtsK»i4e« uK4«r saed \fy Tlrta« ©I" ttef authority gnwitfifdi Ivy tij« 
State of Illlsol»t thftt th8% Sam* Ea^^rt WiiHwn I8'«14er w»® elvsn t» 
it, futL.i tlifet b^>th t^« ^attrsfittif aa4 m*t«rir4ty fi>f tfe« ©wi^ «fell4 l» 

Tii«9 r«tu«i fiirtbftr j^lluifts! t>jRt on <Ttm,« ^, 1912, %h» 
««r<s of tfe* «»ld «bil^ "•rao £li^«K t© oo® S%mn9 ^MiA nn^. lth@l Haa^, 
his -wlffr, uKtll »w®^ tira® a« re««9B;f«!gat ^ae satiaftesS that %h^y 
w«y« sAj1«? to «rrpvii« a prtm^r «ffl'^ »«.t^*^i« kcai?.© f^r iii& ©hilf!, 
-tipfe^n tlse rG8p0JB'.!«i5t ^©ul4 glir* the n««««»arj' aon««iat tfi^ fh« ^i^^p- 
tto& of th9 «hili£, II b(sist{( tlmsi im€ th«r« txf^re^eXl^ t^j-lorfft^iO^A 
^y »nd "between t}t« r«iei»e»44mt an?! tfe« (i-%id l9>m Mar^d ««»di Ithtl, 
his trlf«, that th« l«g*l sm«to4y a«4 cotttrel of th« s.aid «M14 
lilitouia r«t&«ia ia th« refltpeaat^t y«tiX lt« #49pti@ii. If t1b« 




i»'«i ia#; 


'.ifurth^'T, that ®a 3ft^fi.«Jj^r 10, 1,913, ii iwatt itiforM!.«a. 
l>y fc?3» «*S,*? ^«>« E.wft4 tliftt Ki» ^Ife, '>H>!fll ltMJi4, !»«.<? ft.'8ia»^^af»«4 
their h0i&«f taklKj^' ffeis sa.l<;! «M14 lei^h K^f, ««*« -»<*« v^uHu^j^l^tUng 

tuna fc>:» cM14 t'S ifcs Beu© ^f r<«apvi«4'3*it, ««i^^r«!Tb/ aiaia ]Eth«l, «wr« 

tiSft tad!! I«i« Mfeoi nm«J Ethel Ewtd lbavli*|; *?«©««»« rf«i*i3«iil«d wuad 

t^at t^* .;jtt;r« of ©1111-3 Bfe^'fld ^e r'5ft«rc'i3 is? tis^ia, ais.'* tl\xt 

OB 3«<ji!«l5sr 0$, 1??13, li3S,?fesiiat<sl|' aftay Uis cafe af tk« oi.-;ili§ «a< 
tyjv« r*^t ':'?©'% ■i:'^,'h«'X 'J^ai;-^,, i*lMi$'*it »ay |i#2'«E.i©si*s ojr ^ijassfm.^ of 
rflfpcr«r|#i:it., li:i<3J9»|i?^«i* tSi« cMld i^4 loft l.1a« city -af CMaafio for 

::f «iSi®l H«»'l .'^a'l m^ mU <s.hiX^, asjtil sa^n^t T^p IS, If ^.'1, ifhos 
»« f "^unrfsits .Hile7, -rlMi 'mn Wnm tl»<* h'ais'fomsi*^, ©f :3th tl Jtaact, ittfarsai*^ 

aui sl.l«ig-'»fl Jdifo-ptit^jftj that t5s«3P'®?ai|>» r«8|5©m4-S!3t, tt.f'-v^t&^'.i its. ^gi^t, 
fh^ %jC^W:Tii^v mutX iM X%% st^ts of S-&llf©rni®., l» asa, f^x th^. Qity 

of th^t «ult 3#rfejpu.5« M» Umlj iirifu-K,i'%d .i.r. asd l;;itri5. llamn Umt 
re8pon;?,^>t was tl>t Iwitul gu&yi!l«m of t>5*? chlx>:?» tiKl th-at It 4i^ 
Rot at tmy itme mtw><fm% tt> it© swloptiem nor 'lift It bc-v-a su^ lletlu« 
ttoc^«fef ; r^ia thai »»id Bih«l S»m4 ^m® net th« .l-rarfea 4;uar£i<a5 ef 
tii* chil?!, teot had liS4i^^f»<?*d Hi v»t;f>ir«'«jMwa l.^5># gasd Ire. Kca« 
voiles tartly 'ferr-ai^fet tfet chll^. to tJ*» r»llr©?v5 sli:itl6» &^«l ««f-> 
y«E-,€eT*d Its csasifdy to Ir^rlrH^t a^* HesO-y, aa th* a^«»i &f 


rtt«»o^fid«Qi, «ua4 for the jpiurpo»« of having it r«tiirntt4 to th* r«»pozv» 
dMRt* ^iesjHiBdtmi further m^« return tMai th^ ntd'i i:^%heX Una€ vms 
not A% iu)y ti%« t|}« l«irfua jStt«jrii«urt of th* «)itld, «o%aA sot i^iv* h«r 
ooA^Mit to its &ditiptio£i|^ ftnd th«it th<! all«g;ft4 A^f?ptiQR la California 
VII0 o1»tal»«Kl hy frftu<$» a.^} to tUc' ooni$«nt ol' th« gtia.X'dlaa e«6e»8«ry 
t« tNja »<l93?ti(&«, aa-l tha-t ihn »t4t^ «owrt w»« with<mt jurlMlotlon t© 
«ni«r i))« «tXl)»£,'^d 4««r94^ «f «^o^tlo» tm'^S vnid d«!&r««! <»aii «^4 ie 
wltlwut -lu^ ^r«o«ii« ©I* il)*« Xtm asid l« sail jaaa vald sa^l 1?» nc ror«« 
«r *ff*et w>!imt«nr«3f. 

TJs© rtt^Ta fuytto®» ?»iI<»iS«A tbs*t, the M!!!'i$o»4«wt »»« th« 
lti?:al gM».rsl,l«)i!j »f t.h« ©hilA «Hi^ S>r-.sptrl|- eKtitl^a to i%n «■«»», etm- 

414 iR«t *t »»y tl«i» »*• fl«A«« ooisiBftKl «.« ti»« *llfl»®e4 %d0ptl©n ef 
th« #sll<S «• p»^aty«d 'lj|r law, «»ithisr Vy th« «»ai4 lltfe^l H(«(j<l ©y 
sfti^ i'araifeXia S» Bo»a ©y WlXiisai k. IW?»8, ser 4W ii hair« awy ao- 
tie* «f imah sHXti^M »4o|»il@m. 

Siiat»r iii^9h&«l« i^r#iiid#iii, 

th« court « ^t«r fctariaji tb« ©Titienc© ®i' ti>® rffi«p»ctive 
9&rtl«», t9im& ih« l»^ia«» «lj.«ilfi8t th« r^latar «»Eti far tfee JN»«p©n» 

Ju/SgsB«Bit »ii th« fiin-Hafi ^j^-'t (iiffl»ftit««d ih« ^etlile«, 

fll«t« Bh&j^iy ea tm^) iii»i?<?e of f^«t. First, n.9 to ^«sth«*i', si 
th« tlf8« tJbe ddslld. In '|a«!iitioB ■»»« tSelivtrt^ t© ^©hia l«is4. a?j^1 .:^t)3«iCL 
Hand, it -wan i5eliv«r*<!, i»|»on tli« ^soaiaitiois tfesti it i8h»i«14 "bw th«?r«* 
«itft«» ftde]^i«;4 wttfe the e«iie«at »f -H» '*"i»©4S»t*« ^^yl^aE* g«d sooon'^, 
«fe«ther t'fee sarrenrtftr of t1i« «thll-i ici (fu^.Qtlon t© ^©rtrafl© Healy «« 
ihd ftcf^t of t^9 A«yluK ftt •^«& ;i''jr{iii:iel«-eet California, -^^s oM'^i»«<l 
'by fai«« r<$i|irfe«<mt&tl.»]i». 


#i«n# «f fitaoptirm w%«i @iii@]r«d« v«re XogiiJL im<l binding. 

iij vi^ie of ih« ©oBolu»i©n tt> wM«>i W« h*Y« c©i-i«. It 
viXl cot be nff«i6»9i«Mry to axpT^sm mi opifiioa -ai^on thett qu«stlo«« 
or any oih«r t^^an tb« «lX«i;<94 eirr^r of t^e ««iix'% in «auslttdliais <(nri«» 

7li« 9«tiiiQA@rf ii'«tim«li* I^. HoflfS, km th«i 9lf« of 
Vtilittft &.. Sows, «^i«» i» aisd for thirty yne.y» fe^^ii b««« «, iM«'«ge«i:*t 

•f fKoXiot at Ban fjcwRcieecf', CmXlfsjWRia, Th«ir <|i»}:t^l^t «ir # Mh^X 1., 
van sswtTJrlt*;? ie «»« ?i&lia H«u-i*1, sad tlb« m^ttiskf,^ wa» eHU«si.?*a», sir, 

tlS!« ©oujsty l>'«iilil«k|f« Tte.e eteil« Ijb (^B«f|ti®tt w^jftso a hM\-^g oii» day 
eli w«» fami^ Iylii« at tfe© d^^ar &f tli» iSms-ril s*a AiigiiXs' S«me in 
J'dllAt, tlllii«i«| s«id oa %h» nnist 4.ay C^m® '3, I'&Xn) ta» a«ml; fey 
t1ii» M«a« t.0 St» 'i?iiae««t*<i Imfai-iEt A»^Xmi* A 4ay ©r iwi» tl^«r«&jrt«r 

Xih«i Umd* fh9 ^iiXt} 'mws> thmi ia hmS, flhy8i««l e!$m?^lti9)n jsm^i 
w«l€3feit« ©tidy four j^ vudii. At ife« tims (sf talcifi*; tJj® ethiia to iSssiar 
hoi&« tb« BaoKlii tfn^Iei'td i». i»urs« &>^'A- 4o«t»r «JSit4 t%« fhit'bii® wa.» gi7«» 
%• w^iSftjrfitaevi th»t tkm e^siid, kai %««« ¥o3m Ifjta . tlj.<sir :':-<»«* Tfe«ir« 
ttt no e.ritl«ii!W ©f titie c.«.r« wteieh wm» glyei^ oe tlitlr psirt. Afe©iit 
•il^kteftn BSftOih© tlh«rtaftair dlQ»ji«tl« iro«'fei« casse ioio tfe« .hoga* of 
tli« S»a<lii »»'J! Mr«, M»b4 *m» ab«»ui t« fil« -:« 1*111 ifar ■!!.tf^^i*«« 
myalls »t "hmt h««b>*B4, Mr, H)ft«*3. *«nt tn Si«t»y ?U|>l5fitel, i»h© is th« 

<ju'*'Sst«(4 h<?r to a©ia© lo i:fe« Aayitm. M.r«. Him':! w.©at th^tr*, tatiag 
th-« ehlld wit>i )l*r. ^« t?»stifl«« {«m4 Ij^r t«»tt8s«Ry t« »«t d®- 
&i«^ liy th« ^i»t«r«1 t>«at wHll« Sister Ksiphaflfl ■^a» talMng to h«r 
Sl»t«JP K«|fi«« g.ra^.b»^ tJtft fcaby amny fr^m hnri '^-^f^^- »^«* theao ^ent 
t© Ml** HMid, vfe0 weui ^Ith her t© iiat«r i^ph&eX «a4 be^ed that 
tk« dhild oiglit T»« giY«» fe&®k-« fh© ll»«4e tteen tal3E«4 «>v«r th^ir 
4«»««iie tr«ubl#» ^jsa &..r@, Hi^na i^^i^resfJ tlmt »>5«^ weuid try aad r«* 
(MBflidcr fe«r 46el6i®a t« le^^vt h^r hii.tth&si--X, ^*9r««i&«aja thf: @bild 




l^idUZ .*#i.i:?>i 

£twi r». 

Mt»* H«i»<I*« ftttoitJdiy la ih« 4iiror«i# pr©c«*«!lBe« was 
Ut% O'Dwwell, i-.r», K»i?.d, t««» (Imt ]l»#r t#»iii«ony It flatly 
•a«nl«<l: hy c •l>©aii'»li) thsit he a^vle^d hor t« g«t tlno child, \mk tmi 
!©»▼« th« Jujri^i'ilailcMi, ef th« iHato instil »ac>!i tla-^ »a »h« mi^^ht 
<!«el<S» *^»tJ70r «h« wo«l^ go 'baeJs to h«ir .hmnlNuadt. At. suoy ratte, 
©n th« «vi»nlfig 0f l>ie«*a>«r 19, lt*%^, 8i3« l«ft ©a a t3»«ki« for O-iklU 
totuim, tafcias. thB ehili witlft it#r« tJi« <tMld remained io a*a J?*r«»- 
«l««o Ixi iii« tfay« aiid eu»t©4y of Mr«, U.miS «id <ir h«r moth**', i».r», 
l(»ee, uistil @a or mtoout Aa^tJAt 6, 19ai« 

^Jttly 31,1914,, -5StJ5©l Him^ fil«<l a p«tltJt»K ia tim 
Gcujaiy eowri ®f S«olt G#5,iiaty f©r tfe« as*®>i»tA««i ®f tk« ehlli. St» 
Vincent's An-yliM flltA lit »f>i?«*r«wei«, r«i>ll#j| to tl»,^ ^ttltisB »fidl 

li««lt>fliKi<*, wiixifiK M-,, 1*r«!mil»t i^r«>«»#|ln^)9 t© tli« tf«ii4 thn.% t3bt' «1all4 
aill^t "b* n.Aapte'i^, «»4 » ^^wor^t to that #ff<»«t »»,«( «4»t*»y«<ll Ijy thus 
©©■art of California, %wt St» VlraeeRt*» 4iiylWR im« sn^t w«»tifl«d[ aa^ 

in th* CaO-ifsniiM «0art, tli« efeiM mm 4fillyf^t^i t« .Miss Hftaly Iby 
Ut, suBd Mr*. Be»», &r», a©«» «%,¥« wiife tlam a»v|®:rf!t8urirfiiQ^ i^m it 
wat» to fe« brstt^^t to aki«ag>s for msdioal tr«*tm«gat ^m^l t© 1&<? ,^ftey* 
waydt jretamM,, "but tSaio Id 4«m1«4 fey »1»« fcoaly. 

It is admit ta4 th*t the Koko f&Tdly h/-iV« eaqjeaadM 
%« »itt&h as $10,&Cj# in giving !)%« ^hiltl n««4«4 msi^liuftl i&&T% »it4 «6t<» 
ter.tlonj thait th«y -vx-tt -w^ll oit;i*t9<S f Ittaueiiilly, vyjBi4 «iapiii mfel« t© 
«jM h.%v« <?4v«ii tteo ^.iifi ciyrljag tJfct« r^l^iit «r &ifi^ year© it t^^as* iJ3 
th*tr c»rp au'^ «!tt«t&(«y, a h&sk^ such i^s ili«y ^ffi^ul^ fi^vl4« tor onfi 
of th«lr o'wn aXiil'^r«n, Thu *^14«»r8« alaws t«flds to fho^ tl'.At Mr»» 
!^»fl h-a* a r««i.l aff««t*o» f«r th?» ehild, 's'hl©'': la reei^^rseAtsw! by 
bte, ii;T8. Aoss le, ae tb« r«eor4 b^Owo, » «o»flti»t«Rt ssiifKi^or ef 

In th-ai chwrcJi a. fmf ^n^fHt laftep jr«o«lviog it fv^m thm A»yi««,. >i»4 
tl9«]r« do^ii aot »««*'■ to be a«y «>b,1©etlo« i© the Bo»» fsKi/lly 'by 

»«ii«on ©f f«Xl,gi©«« affiliation* Kruf IIUBft «D<»n th« >»«*«rlnff of* 
f«r«<l ( Ifs e«i«« t1tt« <scttrt •'h«ulfS 'fcf? of ib« opinlea t,>mt tii« ehild 

Uriac *^« pifoi?«J' iiro0«<>dtnf.t i© th«.t ®»d, 'S%^ :r«©©.r«l -loisn not 

m&4 the cG^rt ctxol^iv^ittd tsXl «vl4#»se tt&»4ifii;. t>& fii-itJO^ *¥hat th« rmd 
«itujit>ti<dii wim in %h»% ir«»;^«;0t* Thl» lis asMg^n^d Am firr&Ti. 

Q&WBmmX f&v this puist i4ioii«r ljis«ist«d *t tfe« fetj^ianlag 
&f tb© tri^I tisat tls.& fl*sil€ •fev^id bis prii»due«4 i»s. <30uTt. ia«fitio» 
113»f th« Isjltsafi, ifJLEaiS ^^'^» ®*^® Cah.Ul*f I,.IXI«©1» Ji«iri««4 iH.*twt*», 

ittTO ahali at th« ««is;ff ti«t Vjrifig tfe« fe^^ly 0f ife© itJarty, if la 
his ci«st<*dy ©r i^^wtr i>r •aRl.wr hi» pe«tr«tli»t, ^o^or^aiBg t© the 
wnmtJVSKf 9t tfet writ wfiltna f .retftitvt#4 ^f »ialm®«8S ®r iwftinwity of 
ihm -pjirty,* 

tl».« f«®u««t ©f «sona:n»#l ■«?&», fe«!i''S'«v«r« '!^.nt^*'j, tJit trlai 
3ll4^® »tatl3agj "tli,»s»« will %« jao sis^olai ,*di,Ya».t«ig«» l« 'feyiu^xla^ n 
«*!iX<i ©J' t>!«t m* i« «ta«rt, «i<!«T«a« I Tar®til-4j!jH f>ay «yay »ittati©B 
to iht wi«iJTi»« «f tl2« «!5itll4, ^u% if it- i!«ir«Ia»<!i!« 913 th« b<«? lairing 
itesfct it 1» *i«e«»a&ry to flroi.Kt«« tti« eiilicl» 2 will h*v» th« SfSttlfl 

Otl»«r r«qa*f8t» fliiirAKi^, th?s .h«ta,rtn#: fv^r the |>r©v^u»tii^ 
«f th« bo^r la person w©r« 4«»«l#d "fey tfe« a»«rt, aa wa>8 al^ -a ?«?-» 
(||u«»t %'n^% l3« bs Isronagfat i© ?».« a trltaese* 

'While w« ar* BOt 4i»?»oe's3 t4S( a@^ that Ike i'H«&tet« 
y«^ulrtB In wvttr^ c&kh liSr.® this tfeat th«* ba^Sy »f tfes <»lilld wuat 
1>« pro^eflift «E|»«fii tile hearleg» -j^hi^ir* aot pr«v««i'a4 1»y 8ickae«« or 
ioflJTialty, "'« dd fealfl th»t this r««ora f^-Xs t® sJio?? any Bufflcitat 
y«a»oR 'wJjle'fe iwf>^i«i @xcy»e rfrftnonrroaji from ^f^9d«ei3NS tli« dftiid. A 


^:j^^ ;■ t?' 

f-.-.-:.;;f>Tft r yo 



■y.,-' »■/'*?■* * ' 

this e«ui« hlB tr.«timmy would ahiwl »H«h light upoo th« whoi^ t>r«nft* 


W« think it wa« «rror for tli« ©emrt to ^eiiy th« |i«ti* 

tiott«ir*« asotloA la tteio r»»^«5-ot. t« think th« ««mrt M»« -aJTrad is 

tlj« «x«lttals3» of !>th«3P «t9)!»9<?t««.t sa*d px^-p^r «vi^#«e« off®r««l. 

iftl»» H»«3ly t©8t.lfl»« fliia itt rwly t© 4 i^a.*8tion 8t»t«4 

tlaat 9 o«»mmie*tl€Hi by k«r i© ■Mrs* lUjaa wtt4ftiF da.te of C'et^"b«r S§, 
1^"^!, at-a-ilRg Ifi wutsstjsno* %h&t th« e>s,iXd w«« h»nj>y *lth 'his oim 
ip»©l>jL<> w.R''! In »^l«««il'! |j«%ltl?, t^5*t fls«.r« van e« r^sftnon wby h« 
•>i«wX«1 n«»t writ* «^««»t t*!-Skt >i® ««««#fl to haT« f«r®0ti«« liu Mai 
1i«^1»tia«BB; tViat felt f«r©nt» »al'1 hn a/tver tAlkesI «ii1j©i3t fiaIlfor«l»t „ 

^«th«r hi» 9ar«iJt» w«rr* lfe«K livlsg, •vh«tlis.,r «h<s fnth^r aa4 ■]a«»tiJ«» 
w«re isBikjisiim, wlittfeej* ih^ aiiil<l wr#t® ti» My©, li©®s(jj wli^re he tli«n 
w&B, *;■ «« thp, irlt«asa Jtad la»t ««®B Mfe, 'wJltihrr tfe» ^Itu^sis fc.*4 atny 
lii%ftr«»t l*» th« «*tt«r ©r «ya,ir«r«# feeltag; ®? frl««'X«feif for or 
ft^Siiast tls« |>a,rtJe». t© ©*«ii: «f t&aiMi tw,08ti?si5i8 ®*jf(&ttoja» i?«r« 
laterpotted ixt %)«bja.f of tl3@ r«S09£id«&t mnA r4«!tali»«S % th« oovirt. 

lir«»i tfeffi rlfbt» ®f a aat'aral paarsiitj -^s t*i>» «»««» shmr, 
awflt St tiffl;«i yl*?!^ tc> the ittt.*iP»i»t ©f th^ ftliiidl '^be®® tifM%M ®a«S^j-sfBt the .:4i:it« &« ;|i;H3M, MiJi;,E «iii st ^i li^*aajp-3.« 5»Tot«<Jt« 

Hi* «Ti-l9B!j« fy«ja Wjhl@h thi® oflt,r»»owJtt ^'a«»tlo:n slight 
"be ?fet'frs!>l»»!?4 was ea©l«i«4 .tn thi» e.^s«, ?%a4 for that tinper tfe« 
Jii'1gm«Bt of ih« trial ©oturt Ib r«Ter«ed aJU'^. %hi» «»M«t» f»!ssi94«iS for 
oaeth^r tri^» 


14 a - S?88i/0 

O J:.- o r^ e O '^ /W 

Thia 1p am &9^®*1 ¥y ttee |»l»ir.tlff frois a 4uAig©ent in 

tll0 9vm ©f #144.^3, isster«i 1« jTavor ©f i.ii« lef^ii-iHajat 'And aMttinat 

l^laintlff, upoa a (Si,«ut« «f eff»®«t auadl «ii this ftii4iii« of <.ha court. 

tb« plaintiff «u«d f©r th« uo^aid pyri^h&»« ^riat of « 

•1^ el' lu»bor ««lci «ii«fa iHliif#r«d, imi it i«e siot di«tpu%fti thAt th« 

»Wi ©f -liSS.M tr«« 4u^ to plttlst-ill* »» tfcftt aeoioujrit . Eo'Wftver, toy 

w»y ©f ©fjr-aet, th« f|«f«M^ajE»t elaimjjKi ageiioat ^laimtilT for it« 

f»iXani to d^llter ©eveK ©t.K«r @»r» ®f lTBE8»l»«r as *a;r«?i.d» Th« 

cwurt fevrnd »l(ssia4^«» iri fnYt^r of ^litmkAimt ob thla date ±3Cx^aL 
as alleged, 

»t»t««?, «!ii<1 i^n%fsT9A Jtt^iment ih@r«foy, 

Kl»i»tlff in a fi»mi#r In arid majBuf ;aet^i>iy®r ®-f I'j^.feer 

»BMgo. Jfuly ii, 1921, at yfeiaag;©, Ullaolfi, ths-oai^ i, L* i.a»« & 

f«r tight eurs of Itasb^r of «i«rtSiin 4«»arlbed kinds ^scl a,t ^rlect 
th«r«lfi B«83e4« Th« 6r4«r 0tat«4 that %kl th© itjtBib«r «h©uli be 
*^»1 Jugtii©," whiuh it 1» a^jrted :*<?««« *U»ual i-engtas." 

The or^er »tat«4, ••aMp ^rafflptly," On July 3<^, 1931, 
Iplatntlff •hlpp«'d ©a© ear of Xwafe«3r ©a Unl© ©ider. Mn July S2, 
WSl, dafertdafit teleg;raph«d ?>l»latiff, cajriGfillng tJx« order, «««$ 
©a tb© ft«s* d»y wrcjte, ■'«.'© h^^a «?ir«d today oaacell :s.tioB «r<J«r 

of vhleii had t}««C[ J4djtt0t«<l)» d«f«a'I«ia% olxilt&iKH lhm% ^ii^.'^t wats oot 
due until Cttobttr X* 

IOff»; **» h&v« .00 lavwic* of th« asi?v«a cat* »illl iu* us upaa or» 

d«r £o« d^^ cff J, ^. i,An.Q /« Cii^f jM3«3«l>t«»4 lay you 1^97 arrniitg«ki«nt» 
viih jTOur fttt&rc«ty 1*07 abl]K&6jat i« !}« otai&ijil^ti&d Ixy •»oi»ie«di»«y atth, 
*e ar« tr^jntlfi^i, ^ow*v«r, thstt itii«i»« sart axe ali loadled in »ccor€« 
tu3C« with tliisbt arr&ugtfj&dflit gtfi^ thai ill.** a»d l^Yoleaa )a'« lia thtt 

nail to lis. it ie Y6?ry lisjjo'f'tafit thai *e bsiT* the»« if£»i«4ii*tely 

r«g«eat®«1 fer tbo c«» 3d2-«a4y tt>»liir«r««l) ^«f«ii'l*wit vret^i ■*'■«« f4r« 
vit>i?at rftuly to oyr l#it«r'ol' S^plffimfetjr S?th y« IbalsiWits* of i»«"»«» 
eara 'iu« upoa tH# 0rd«r a>r ^S, L» i*AS« I. Co»| ^^, 603;^ 4iti<j «n?v'«pt«S 
"by yevi p«y a3PX8uigaEi«iit wit)a attonjniy C»r shl^«<3J-'i to fca e«»^iet«d 
fejr yt>u fey S^ptasil?©]? 37il),, Pla»«0 l^t as 'Jiaar isyfsa^-lUtely aii»«a»rning 

tiff; *W» kiiJdiy r«f «r yau ta uar l*?ttar» oi* S^jj^t^ebtx S'/tb aadl 
O^tolser $TPd eoitoeralng tho l|iaim'ia$ af IU9 arder "vhlch Siioald feave 

Bittnt ■sd.tfe y©ur Jtett©re®y. Hav© ^ou «i«y SiiggesiicMrk to Wttit^t T«u, 
•f o<^ur»€, realize tit^t th<^re i s i* l©a» i© u9 for «ob «bip«smit of 

v.-cfeober 13, iVti> plfklntirf "W3rat« 4«jP*!ea.»it, r^eitiog 
n&»« ©i tla« facts froa i)lJBtl»tJLff ♦• »tafi:ts>oi»sit» «*4{4 T«C|Uffssiing a 
e!r.#^i i»y r<»tttxn lasll coirsria;? ttm 8hi^m«»,t bM«. Flfjtintiff furthisy 
»tatt«M8,j *Teur Ei<?ifco'i», t« ?.a/ the I<jftBt, ar« «>4-«Keful, -aii^ yots 
»*««d not «xp««t «« to u%k.e i..>rth?ir sliipitUiAte on ^ur ©T'd^f. At the 
tlia« yott v^tre4 us ih« eoll&©t telegram to earicsi tKc ordftr we hai4 
»to«k all r^a4y for idilpsseut , Tmt w« h®v*> r.ot got the «toqit now 
audi y«« cotild not expeet «» ts >rnll tiie la®l>er aiactjr Xajb until th« 
markot lmprov«a s© y©« oaa raiiistAta t*i« ©pd«r» rloaaa 1st us 



sixty eighty sent jroa fey 3* L, Laii* & Coiapimy. Sorry to In^truat,* 
Th® 9vi<3.cce« t«ndK to srow that th«: allcgtd reaaoii for t;hl« oaa» 
«ttllation 9ae a oI.';«lm of 4«f:indunt that the Xiualstiir In the car 
•ht'pp**? '^ae not In faot of the U'ju?!l length* -within the Mermlnff tf 
thai t9Tn a* usoi* iR the trad,*. vThilc plaintiff •■?!(?. not concept 
thlB WkP the c?iii9, It aftjustftd th® claim u^iSM ©ii that aooouiit by 
M »ll«wano« of |!l,C'0 ■per thoti«afi<! «n th« i^tar«h*ia« |»rle«. August 
4, 1921, plaintiff wirot* ieffndemts *Tbfer«s ajris »f?v«n cars iriort 
due y«i'- on this er^Si^r !&»<:? tliia Is to .^lirlsEt that ihe «toc>v le 
3P«ady to h« load«d <in<! w€f l^isiict that you adrls* \\n hy r«?turii aail 
whether or notyow «!Xpeot to y^etpt th® bnli^-.oe of th«i or-s^er," 
A«gyet 10 » 19 il, pi&iBtlff again ^'mtn 6.efen^,(mti *Jf*l«aie s«s« our 
letter of th# 4th inst., *in<-'i let vin hav® reply, fhpr® '>re i>©y«n 
««fcr9 rsor"* du*j y©u on thl!^ ?jMf5r ar*?'. *i»'0 ©,*.':?> -^ct you to +<*i:;.^ this lum^ 
"feer. Pl^aoft l«t ne know At ones «?beth9r or a©t you «J5p«et to %c» 
c»]?t thla halai^?#. i'lease l?»t us hear from yon at one©." -<Vg-%ija 
013 ^gi'St 1.'^, 19*^, T»lf\lBtlff errata th^ d.^f0ndimt'. *^i^ &^^! a«k 
yea that yotj plfiae* let us h.%^e n r?»ply to our 1 ratter*, and li^t uo 
Imo^ ^tieth«r or not you «3cp««t to aecfitJt th« bal.«ie« of s«vtn oay» 
dtt« on your oM«r. P1©a3« let us h«!0.r frora yo^J prottiatly. " 

August 17, 1931, <1«f»r«^ant r«pllf«i to th^pe l©ttor» 
as follova: *Y-ttr letter oonc«rmln^ or^^er .^^o. 6080 &<$nt you hy 
5', L, Lane & Co., suid "wMeh you Insist upo» makleg shl?>n«iat ssuf^ 
demurrlag to our cancellation, reo«ived. All right, ^« ^111 with- 
drsxr our earieelljatlan as roquftssted, hy you, cm<! you enn sjcc-rriiete 
shipment of aniso "by S«ptamh«r first , ao E*^t hu«y and hustle It out 
aad see that cars iare fairly woll loa<i«d anU In lerigths l^'^^^yy to 
!$• 14«» IS foot, a«<i If it Ir. Bay a4vJM-itag« t© you to \ob4 ears 
with SO thousand f«fit or Iftas, ^e ifiii grant you that prlTll#g;e. 
This to ooflaplete the or<1»r. * Shortly theresifter a nontr«T<?rsy 
aroae hetireen olaintlff and defendant se to the tij«« at whlflte iiagr«» 
aeiat should he msMlft for the car of lyaabor alreaily shipped Cthe prie« 

1# *.'^ '*<"» 

fyfifeX »<er 0.? x^Ae*!!; 



!&«*« %hm o'nttfik T&y rcttitJa msill co"»«fiRg the cars aVdppoa, »o that 
vft oiaaa ©i«e« y^war a«o©a»t o.ii our "becke. • 

An exiwif.fiff^S ««rir »p«iR<l«*i<»« f©llo««d, the rewH*! of 
which would wtdaly HXirni-l IMb opinl^a* It i« aot i^ripjitd on >>«• 
half of ttee i^IaiBitifr th>tt the f«».llwjr» to p^y for 1.h« first our 

mente, Itis <sont«iJti®si aetsie to teft that the l«tttr «f Aui^ast 17, 
It 21, w«» B»t im ui3ooi'j«llti«jiaaX Tsritli^irawid af fch® iB:»ti««! sf' ©aii- 
«*ii.akiloi» iJj*^r«toi;or«5 gi¥@3u, feat tfciai It ■«»« »jfi ©atirely tuvar 9ff«r 
idsitth ««uld r««jtti3tr« tm accai»iajQ©« vs4 a rtsw m®®tlng of th« i!iiij«i» 
6jr tfee f«jrtl«ii ija ®id«r to reTivQ t,lt<s •triglKtafel tiw&Mira^fttt i.-*lai»*. 
tiff «ayf that th@r« la »o «vl-i«tae© in tJie ri»©exha s«ywhf;r« that 
it ft^r««»d to thn '«rltMrs0ral of ih«j O4ki3i0^1X^tioxi ^^m Bxpw^nmi^ in 
<l«f«Bd(a?it '» iett^tr of Auguat 17, I'^^H. 'f$ 40 act aa?«« irith this 
e«ii8tr..}6tiea ol tit« o«>rr®«0aiia©)ra©« 'fi©t'w««B the 'j^artift^, it ia aj»- 
pMT'iUt fr&n plsi,lniltf*» l«tier« &f Au^at 4t.^j, lOth aii4 13ih, as 
he!r«tf>f©T« p»©H«4, that nlsintlflf was ii;sif»ttiig that d«f«w,daint 
ha4 a© rlffet to eano^l Ito arder «fid thai tte<5' ss3t« sh^ald "be 
tarried tmt as m-^9, Having ■r«^t)«tt«(0..3r taJseu tfelg pQnition, th« 
4«f «'nds,Rt , m® it h,*4 » ri|t^,t to vl^tt, nm^nntn^,. -■ &t-^lsi:4 t>i%t it 
wottlS withriraw Ita eismcfiil^ti^ja a« p«>itt©st«d« T:fe<? further state- 
jttMLt that ■^l&>lntiit 9<iuXA s«w| tM« afeipffieist \jf -iJept^K'fear 1 Iss 
dn B9 way iaoowaiatimt. tSi« 3r«^ia®8t to *'get busy arid ha8tl«'* syad 
•#• that the cart •*«?« fairly w«Il l0ai.»d mwni fef, r«g?trd«A «i»»ply 
as r«<5a»8ti8 wliich are ir* so way sead© s uoaditioii ©f th« r^ittatatft* 
auBfit* '3« thijiii tJhi« fax-tk^r r@<]a«»t aa to ths i®«®ths ©f thsft luts- 
b«r ffiusi '«>« regarded irs th® s.m.c T»ay, a prtpawissraaoe 0f tia« 
ftiri^ftisee, howev«r, indicmtca tfcat this r«qa«5fflt aa ta Im-.^th^ wai 
n©t iccoi3iBl6t««t *1 th "feui equlTaXisnt to fh« pr«visioas ©T the 
©rlglnstl ord«» lo that r«at>eet, 

file plalBtiff e©ntwBi(S« that e#ptaiR fi-rldiisio* tak«» 
%f tf-.^posiitioiisi CMS tbia wolnt ^Mc!-! »a« railed out fey tlR«» e^urt 

«rTor In lhl« r««r??«set. The mimni>T» ?ir« in tJje r«<w»rd Wi-;! ^v*tt if 

for ^lc>i fh* plaint iff* eo«t«ii<1a. In the iim'!«rou» l^-Htera vhlah 
f»l\oip«d i8»K*«!^ lately (Softer tb« rin-»l Teftjisal of ^laiutiff io ■^^s- 
liT»r th«» jc^icalnlor of ihis ltm"t>^r, th^ t.h©^®bt ^S©*^* net. &ee« t« 

issp^nn^ BMj nmr t«im« as a e«ii.jtitl©® fre9«'i«'«t to «i ^'ItMr^-ssrai ©f 

iS, Xf2"i, whsB -tjlfelBtlff wrote! *U©©a «sxsifiiiBaii®ri jmi will <»fe- 
»«rr« that you €14 aet asi; y,s to reiait^at* th« orti;ii,a«3. ar<ler but 
vswrt^"? as t« ship owt th« «if«a eax-s TPitJt »i?S5alfi<^4 l«wBKti5#» making 

The ^l»t»ti'ff f'ji-rtM#r ®©at«04» t'li&t tlJt« ©©art errcid ia 
snteriBg jyi4{PitRt In .favor of 4«fei's-a^si oa lt.s ««t*4iff, fot tb« 

>'Ttn9.&^ T?*^lefe -^l-^-imli ff 8ay«, If it o<;ciirr34 at %U., mist h^re (»«• 
p«yr<!«! c» a€ttc«i&«r If 1921, lay r«ae©« of th* «tjtf7g®»ti«a of a«- 
fftciant ia lt» l«tt«r «>f A^gnat 11*, Iftl, tttat Utr. shlpKi^-ai »h©ul(J 
1>« c©is-plet0<3 Sit that tljc«. ffe^sr© i® ^o si^^rii IM this co«t«ffitloB» 
Proof of th« sttrliet price of th« Iwrnbex" in qu®«tio» •?m8 »iM« a« of 
'•n^sottt'* $*cto1J«r 1, 1923.. the <S«f«a<l«B.t Ma4e r«pt?ateijl requtestt fer 
ttet »bi-5JR«iit «sf th« li.aR^er aii4 ^ii^^, »oi rteelvft a f trusa rsfuSisOL yr«tll 
Ciclo\>«r 15, 1931 • 1'li3 4«f©r»4«iCLt ia«t3 si i*i#it to ■r.aiTe th^ ^yavlaiea 
in re^-'^d to tlss tija« of 8hl|j«»e.ot , if it watw tit so to ^3.c»♦ SJj® evi- 
4«nc« lRHca.t«a that tha iss.rit'tt inrtos of th* l-.aalfeQr ^'^as *«Sya.uciog, 
ai3'1 It is prafeafel* that, it th« raoye/atmt h34 "been la t}k-^ oib^r Ai* 
r«Qt 1.013, th-syf -WGul'J hav« ^een n« r^fassai to 4ellv«ir the Xx&her, 



xu » tomi 

ttmujo.^ mxhm^ am'^^^, 

»'f^, m^mtm smmmm 'murmMp mm mmim- ©t rm mnm^ 

3-liSf.4«liaP(i ai«iti4»tr»t(&r ©f tit® taitnit »f H«»i7' Maa^ltlift*, «|,«««a«®4, 
alJL'sg454 is tiair« iMmn caused fcy th® B-«gi4feig«,©« «tf il3i# 4.»S*^da«i4. 

str«®i la %h« 04iy ®f SJiivtag^s ©is Oet-«fefty J^i, 3k® tO, at a'teflnat »ii3.- 
©f th» d«f©iifiaiiB.t lat«j"»««t air**! ■%% ** ig3Pj»4«i ertfttis^- in the 

tkw^ Qt %h» »»iiiA-tm% thii ^««i«>«9{| «a»4 four ««j«^.^«iy&it9^s! wisr« r«tiitr»^ 


tte« drlTtT «f tlj» «Bit®aa«feile, ii« *ra.ii »«&%«<! In the r«ar teat of 
the fti3ia«a.c»V^iI«. Uwf<orml of th® m«e. in the %ttt':s^«bll« we-ns inuiai- 
«1«B« im4 h»4 )}««a |»X«j^aQig Ij^ 4m c»x>#i«>«^t3na mi t-^e party, thoy 

lk«d thi^ir »tu»lo»X ijfl»-tJFW3»»i» la tli« ai!ito;j:\o^iUe with thmm* fh« 
liiBtrwsr.wKitg c©nsl©t«d of * toa»» dnsBst, t«o *s©ii a hadf ©» thr«« feet 

of iJi« ■p'iMPty in. fhe attt©mofei3.«, %it^ mtit&m^'b.iX^' vmM driven north qu 
1f««t«jti »v«rm«> te Siftt »tr««t. It ttiywM «a»t e«i Slttt i»tr««t %»4 
w«aBt «« ffiir a» t:he ©r«nt»liftg at tb«i traulER ©f Ite,** ^1tf*»i5<?ajrit, ^h*»r# 
it "w*8 «t,rtjck» Tfe,« <?.«!ei^*»®d, E<<mrj tirid«Xa3r, ws,® ^killdMl, llis body 
was fowrsfl fitbout lOC? f««t «oiith ©f t|j« ©:r«it@ii.l»f. After th« a-wtfssjd-. 
\fltr ^mn »trtie^- it. w*© f©um^ )%fc®iit 3®© f* aw fttrfc soatti of 51 «t 
street. 11fe« train, sw3@0r4.i11g t© tliit t«»ti5i«*iy of thft l0«o3aotlv» 
«B^lB»«y, ran about S2S f«#t '^©I'ore it ®«ial.<l Ise tereiiiitilst to ^ »t©|i. 
ilfti^ of th« fseta ]»efikrl£tg tm ist^t^rial i^sntti mp'^ in dl»p'!sit«« tl^h-ft 
fact* vill fc* more pt^rtlealrAflar atiit»4 vmdttr th® i>lbj<»«tiaia» of 
«eikna«l far the def^isdant reiatiaii, i® tfee «irid®iie«, 

file <i«el!!^r%ti@iiis 0f th# pl«i.oiiff «^.3n tains sevtral 
eountt. it ^li^g^Sp in ev«'&0t;m&«, thftt th*^ -i^feiri/ismt «$ar(i2.«««l7 
wBd a#ii.lift^«Ktly oj^eratti* tii« trii,iKj that ttee a«.f«a-":sMat iriif«liy 
sai4 wftfiiaBiy ©|»#r«t<^j| tfc® trai.ii-; tfeftt tli^ d<if.®i54eynt fmila*? t& ©@£-» 
isljr with er<JiBaw-c«« ^r«Ti<1.lag for th« #re«ii©itt msa^ umiMt^nsncu &f 
fa,te«, sifpsai ^eX.l8, an4 otb«r «af«t,7 ai^'igli •*»««»» at 8tr«et eroiss* 
in^s; t>at tlis ^wfeaaiMtt f*».t%««3 i© <>0»^lj i*itfei mn Qrdimmn^e pro- 
Tibiae riifeftt fl;i^<!m R|i««tl!! b« «t'.^tl«>.ii«s*i nt str«<rt er'ssslnge to 
signal "all p«r«oii« ©f l.h'S api^rtjae^i ®f tr,-Aliaji} thtt tit.* ^®f«fndaint 
fial-*t»«!l «B or?tiJii«»«te ia r»s»pRat of tti« ratR of »^?««?4 of trains. 

Oo« of th« priccipad oTajeeti^ns of couneffil for tho 
4«fsir:i^tl«uQt is thstt the orliicik^&os ifi respoet @^ tKe «r«otio&'a8d 
aiAiat <^iii»no« of ga.t.*!S, slt'/rtf*! bells, ^ti4 ©ti>&r aafsty ^pXis^oos at 

vm^ ,ltlAii. 





otrfttt erosslngtt worn ifsi&rep*'.TX'^ Mu4tt«i la «Tlii«ii«e; «nsJ that If 
the ordlnsstK««i liad !»••» flf3rci««5«'?, as th«y »bduld have 'bo«tn, there 

failurt of th» d«f««^«wt*t to cKi»©ly «ith the ©T»3in>itfia«t »»» t>i« 
|iT«xijs«.t» ««tt»t of th« iil«at^^ of t>i<s a«o«a»«d, Xo^av^lng to th« «vi 

d«ii«« t>ii« first or;UttattC« was patsed ifi ih© ys^Ay 1397 an* 1« <le«tg« 
a&t«4 ai s#oti«tn X750, yji« ®rdli5a^«« frovia«9, la »uls«t^ic«, for 
the «r«Qii(ii> of giatl>«. ttign.^ l^tXlBt '^^ 9th9T »%fety »»:>li%rio«« 
•'^tratM froA t©wer» er by oth»r ««iiaisl« m#aa»s, «»at,i(»f aotory to 
tb« i^ayor afid C«iB»l«3i slower of F^Mls ^fsrJts, %% &11 mtoh £itr«@t« 3in4 
9tt)»Il« «r«j88ia«» Tsrlthla th« city *m BiS M ilSMsiialli ^ IM »»Jrtty 

»« R«etioa X9&4« tl:-« ia1:jcv<3 or4i»?iR«« wa» suibfttMitially r»»ftrxact«4 
with tb# esx»0»ttan tSiat, iHRttasS <»f tli« fir«¥i«l««k %&y "b© de»igB«it»a 
fey the ntiyer ^-ft ce«ffli^is;« toner of -ijafeiis ■work*,'* the fVi owtagf ^.roYl- 
•il<»B w»« la«».rt«4J *.ffiay "feo <dt»«l|^B-mt®4. %^y th@ <!lty Coui»oil.* la 
1911 in ««i ©y<?li»isJQe« a0»lgna,t«4 a» s«eti<9« '^l^S, t^e ©.r<1lRaiOo« d«^»- 
lg:Kat<p4 a© seatioa lf$4 wa» «wfeaifmti« ff«f«*«ia*.ote€. In 1911 tm 
•e74iiaaao« ii«»lgB«.t©d ae »«eti«ii tl98 T^r0Vl484, Ih «-ab«t--!jaa©, tkftt 
tl$kig»<m, 'Bh«R« dttiy It abail fe« te »lga«>l «11 ¥!««"•«>«» of '^-^^e «?►« 
pro&<^ ©f irai«»» ahall b© Ic^i aad aaai»talmft?4 at RMcih aro0«i»g« 
BXi'd *at «w«^ hamrft «» tfe« City ©©«paoil may frw. tla*5 t# ti»'« s»r««» 

On tfee «aii'''«rity of the «iyie of O^rray s, v, igx«.fL-SA^Jju 
a. R> go. . 289 111., Ill, aa>w«»«l f»r t}a« 4«f aafid,'»nt cojitwad that non% 
of the skbove er^injmtntu b«eai£« op^esifatlTO aa to tbo ^efmiri^tfit until 
tljo dofec^aRt 'Kiskn *»©tifto4[ l>y th® pfapar aath©rill«» n«iis®4 in t3a« 
varlrtti or<JlaiMac«8, and t>ef9r« tfe« 4at@ of iKi? acciilftM ija Qu«?eti<aB 
wJb«» m\ wh«?r«? to »t?it low flsMsjei^i said «^«sa «oJ wh^r« t« coiistruet 
gatee, * Wt %r^ of t:h«» oi»ljriieHa t>iat tbo @oate»tion of o-.-«as»*tl Toir 
th« d^f^n4f\sit ii e©rr»ot. Cottfis^l f©r tho Plaintiff aaintain tJsat 
isro^sf of Botleo to tho defewlant l» sbown \»y the follo«dng «i?i4«nc«: 



Oet0b«sr 22, 1900, th<!» city iJounoii <jf th« iUty of Cbloai^c pw.«i9«4 aa 

©rder Mt foll©w»: "fhr^t tlae 0«iaiBl»ai©B«r of Fubllc w©rMe 'b« »n4 
he if! her«by «lr««8;t«!3 to erd«r th« Calwatt Tatrsaima Eailiaray Coap*nay 
mfkti %ht *". C. & St, Juomtu to «.1»»«« wat<Dim«r= and «ejfjsirtt«t gf^tea «.i 
tk« ii5ter»«oti6n ©f Slet istr<»«t» la tfe« ISfOih war*** 'i'hf* «vi4«i3i<i!« 
iJiowB that j\t tfc« ti«^ o-f tfc« pae»4gft ©t %lit ©T(S«r "th* lnfe«5r»«©tioo*' 
©f the d«f^Jid-»nt "at Sl«t itrtftt sok^ Lf^avltt ■**« wa© i» th« Wth 
wwrd.* On Oet©lJ«i* 3^, 10?x>, tJi© failowisg l<MJt«r was «nritt«n by 
il9i« Oesrtaitttiofior of I'ubilo f6ir3r«$ 

©iil<«s«t. fmr^innl Eallro^i €'aiES|i5Wy, 
C3^i©«MgtJ, Illiiioiss, 

01 ty C«uncil 0f OaietbiftT SS, 19 CC., ^tn Jire h^T^^^sy tj^tifi^s,^ to 
pi aid « a '^attate-syi itfiti ctosstrwei gat@» »«it tlfit 4fJi«tr«®<}tiGa of 

t1»« City nt Qhi&fm^f 

t&vtseM twmp ®«t fully , 
1.* >£* U.i^tmn, 

31 111, 3t«el Co., 

John J" &1 tlio rsj , lii<3 ♦ , 

§«iaa««l far tbt dtfeiadsuat «9ist«aii "thut it watt *isisiiKa- 
b«it o« piaiutiff t«» shs'w whi«li ijr>^ia^ie«i w«,® ®ff««tlv» at tJs« tliaft 
«f tfe« *eel«l®nt, «s«4 to i>r^ir« » uetle^r i»i5ti«y fh«st «rdi».ai«o«, ©r at 
let&8t a Rotle« \i«4«.r an 0jr(<!lMf.jB-e® ir» «ff«sst at the t:iraft snl4 notletd 
W«« glviHa,'* 7« agree vrilh feh« ^aaat^auticm «f 0?-ttr'i»«l, In quy o^in* 
l0B tl»« «®ti«i« i^lir«R by tb^ |sl'ii,lntiff wpXim9 mXy to tJi«t »rdinaij«« 
■p9.»[»«<l in th* y«f%r lit? 'im^ d^slipfKitt-frff as aflatiosa 17S0, Tb« ©tlmr 
»r?!.iasaft»«» Id reRstrd to th« ftrt^tlsis of |j.%t«9, «« far .^s ib« «a»0 
at bar is ©©neerfi^^, 'wtr© n&t Qpnv^tirn -^aid ^stffeetiv* r«? t© tfeft '!«- 
f«n-liuii, Th« r«*«»«Mjt«iB8aat , Jiow«fver, of t.ii« >fdff.^rt-nt 9rfllB«n««« 
iproTi4i»^. fer tfeft er«feti@ji of gat««, diS. Ji®t **aff«ct the obllgfctiOB 
of d^fenaani to arect imi »®i.ot«ln ^.tfct»» but tlmt obligatloa w»i 

I'i i: .?Hioi»;«. 


It 1« /«ifil^«r *»>>!#« ti»<| %y «#t«w»:«l f<»r ib» «ief ^?v|»»»t fla&t 

t1i« ©riStr ©f tii« ©i*f <wits5©U* mi ■Hi w*t »<ii5s!f «jii ij!}4«??«»5^«at 4««» 

letter It ^^ul-1: fc« |>#e®yssM th»t tlie 0©aBi6il»»i««i«?r &f 'fvihliii W»y3£« 
•it^j®* s&M« mi ini®ifmi4m.t t«»ijiHm%i®ri, ®,r €l« inttuutefl imb >sla ©urn 

ttosi &t ail. t3i« Istt^jp jys4i«»,t#» i^umm %m ^m%m w^s*© m M <aoia«» 
C«w»««?l fmr tfe** ;*«-fw4^.i fmrt'fe^if @%J«5H^t that »%li«r« 

w«» Jisia 4s fteait »iiMl« «fsMi, tfe.i*i lat «*#sii^*«t tij. i8!MiJBaim««s .f»rovi?li«i85; 

«fe&i'g'->4 wlUi ia«tl®« ®f tfee ora«3r ©f lfe« Mt|- a©ws»«a r«f#rre4. to in 
the iet>t<*r ^f tl»« 0i»aafel»»i«»ii«r ©I" ?«Mle f^y&t, Ibut miJe-^tt **m«* t3b« 


city of Cl»l<Mig0** Tli« deXftfi^aKt t*mr« i!f»« «>iari»4 ^tto. iioilo« of ih« 

ImmI «it'j>r«»B <j©tia« ei" th« t^rder thr;'W#3 yaw X«tt'ar th,® «S«!f'«rn48aat 
r«(i«tve^ fn>« iis© (J««B»iaE,ioB«T »f Public ''Soriiis. w« t>jlBit ifeat the 
(Il94*-®*i«**i® «^ «o"uri»«X for tb«s tli«.f«felM3it »© fi*jp urg<?d to th® sti.ri'*i» 

fu.rthejr ©"^^^aiiiaK. to t%^ aairf.l«ieticj el iha bo tie*, 
«Ottii««X S&T Urn det^ik4:mit mBt^n-l iks»i ili« flaitttiff has not pyov^i 

to r«ndl«r tit* lett«r nt^s-^atlfel-Ji fe» ^satsiMielH th® faet p^^p,\mpti-^mly 
that th# 4i»f«ii-5*kat r«eeivM ik« i^sft®!' ®lih»y l&jr mjidl or sj'y*t*?3iwis«<ij 

C&tjBis*! i^ey t;fe« <l®f *aa4t*»t «©at«»-4 tls<*i tk?? ea.®© oT li^LJjll v» xi.,-Il« 
W> I. li. H» O'ti*., at^i'm,, 4« m>t «*eo«iii8iv« «»l' ilm m^^&ti&n* -w^jur.©^ 
»alt^.tftiiQ tlu&t thj&t ;;&»« fti;;;.!)!^ t^aXdii thmt &u^i. latt^^rs sls th^ ona In 
i%»<$»ti@<i. *^f^ t^t ^ri'^nki^ mvT<&^^»m'i^&&^^iti hut rsi^te t« ptAi^llc &&%& 
and d$»4u^ «f ths ^kmmiuB^^&&i'»T i»i f^^Xi^ t&rks, Ma;| Ui^r^^fere a«B 
tt«t >»« 4e^sd .priirir»t<t pm^rn o^ seXi'^a^rsrlugj in ^ihi^T '»oTd« suaisi 
l9tt«9r« forsi «» «iiKe«spil;,;jRi t© t>i» Itniafcrs^*^ ml.«»** ^'ha «^'3J»e o^ £l^ltt 
^« C« JS; f ^ I» 1, H» C©,j|»uim, aot « h*l«i mm tsousjsel for the ilfl»» 




f«Kdant contend, >iui ^ImQ held ihsit «uo^ l^tt^rt iiro evi^fatiet that 
thoy wura »ftiX«(4 or forward «f? ta the party t© vhnm th,«y artt «4» 
dV'tt^aiod* the court ti".u» «tt*t«d tli« quf'tttloa ljaiFol^f««j in ttoe e^ft« 

o^ Carl.lw v« V. ^1e. ^. I. H«.. a« Cg.^,,. .g.^ar%. (:?>• 1S7); "Uff<mdant 
««mt*n4« th.9it It vnm not *bll(^tvte4 to <5?»«^Xy •»!%>: th« «'«qulrni(fi<mt8 
♦f th'S 9rAiR.iWsa« HistU ti hmS. lue^' aotlflt^d to 4o «»&, w=^ that th«r« 
wan ao proof of notice having 1>ee« ftl"v«n« f« ■^srovn ti^ticd plal»* 
tiff ©fferotj iRtter-pr-ftss «®,ple« of l«tteri aii-t A©c\3ai©Ri«, whlcb 
ir«r« r«celve«l l« evidence o"V©r «sfe^»otlo» by ^efaati'lawt.'* I« paeailB 
OS tVie quf*i8iloa the eaurt said (:pp. X^, 190); 

*B<ifaa*dftfct ear*t«iid» tfeat all tb,»- foreigoiRi^ vvl^-leno* 
van lucciapetant and sbould act ]a&y« ^ie^n »dMtt.«d. It i« strgufid 
that no prarnitiT foun^ati^^n w^e i»id for fh* ijatrssAaatioja of the 
iett«r»pre«» e«pl«« ai»if! c«>»^s*iG»ti«««j ihmt It wae iM>t i^^im that 
the l**!!©?!! Tipr© aeiu-ftlly direct ad to dfifesRi-^.sii'4, or tfe«t they »®r« 
«ifelX«d or f«-rwar*e.1 to it, th« l«f'tter»pr<is« Mpiea a«5d 4o©ute»»tt 
iNire iprs^deetd by e 'vituisj^a whe t««tifl@d ht. h:»A b»«n «Bploy«A iia 
th« difparti^ent of p-al^lic *©rJcffl of t'r;« city of C>iio&{)to for sn&rn tMao 
t'W8J3it5'»BEi« years ao'^ 'fwriug that fusrlo^ J?.*s4 charge »nd a««tod.y of 
t>.« :r'seor<l8 ^w^i ©ffictal e9rre»**«tn«i»f>C!© of tht de^mrt^^t of pwMlc 
TrerJro, Th'9 lr»ttctwpr^«e »o*>i«s mni. 4eosc?ent» ^-wr* fre««rve4 tis 
■fei^ttad roliKset d«slgBat«4 t»y ms^bers, they were Irs n« nsrsee private 
wrrci!9pciii:t«Ji0« 'but relat*^ '«fheXly to tfee fiti'telle shotn <*«.•* 0»n.d:uet of 
the «KJiffl®.i«s«lori«jr f>i n'ltjXia wor:K» .foa^ urerfSi t^.© rtsc!i*di* of S'.so'h &«t« 
iaad eonduort ef the off lot a« were sao««»r*ry t© "tee kfjft, Ttoey eould 
Ixt ao 6«nae be deemed, .isrivatft f*ftj>»?r» ar aelf-asrviji^, Thty were 
properly sid?nitted la ft^t^etioe.'* Ce«nfii#j, for the d«f«nf!a»t eay tiJ»t 
•there la neti-iiang Ib the Carilu 053k»e *»' t» the effect that zuth 
Xettere ar© e'vldleaef of laore th*« thej* e^Btaln,** '#e do not under- 
etisad that ejtiiasel for tls« *>l&intlff u-m cent er**} lag that the letter 
4» the eaee at har te evifltjnce of ak»yt?l«ig that it io^n not eoataia* 
Clearly the letter la only f^iimic^ of wimt Ite c.0iit««t« imQvt. 


Bat trtiat <5oi?8 t^« letter *coir«tftiii" miA -rh&t do i%t o«nt#nti» Import? 
It oofttftiwe thffi nms« f>f an in1--*rf»8ee#, nn'^ n. ef.«ti«!i.reffBt I*! foll.0«fa» 
*li3 Aeoord&ncA witb the attaph**? ord«r -p^wt*!!? t>y t>i« City Council 
C-ototeoT S«, l^Ofv, y<ia ijir© luermy.j notlft*»i^ to »^X^*c» <» w».i<ihm:m aa.1 
oonatruet g!»t«« at t>».«f Intwrisftctioitt «f Sl^t 8t.r-«»t ^pirt your tt-arakii 
ar« located in the Both tsuf^ of Osleag©," Aeaoy-itag tc ffee ca»© o:f 
JsSirJla. ^' lt^JU^M.JLs^Jliu.JS.t.%x..JSMm-* *^® wt«s.t«Ba«ist, *ymi nr© h<:»r«l8y 
iiotifiad" a«8t b*? hsld pr©s»mijtiir«ly to iaiport t}\%l th# a4c1r«ei8e« 
wai, in fact, Motifi«iJ, ■Wh«8t..h«r tlsts le-ttor ■»%« r«e'5i"vii4 tfert>uigh tht 
eall or ii& »om« oth«r ^amxi^r is iaaiat'^rliiil. JIk tht caa** of fitiii* J5?a 
1ft f « T, Hefferny j i * ^43 Mo*, 44ig, wbie>i wa,« eit#d Mth ?.*|>i?rovia in tfe« 
ca»« of Carliii ▼. .g ^_./£ ,, W y ,^ I ^^ , E,^,„ .-§j^...U^-i,«. ,.- , «g«affi*. ***» eoisirt s&i4 (f .4f>5)s 
•Vhsr© recor«lai w?« :kept of atantelfsl a«t« »»i^ »ri»ce«-d.la4*8, the Jaw is 

of j^^ f'iSyi XilSAlSJl! ''**^'' 1^ *®ttl4 »«e»: te t>t a nxle- il»i*t when ;«o 

CoiJiRe«l for th» (Sef««^1a«t «rge «til2 an©th«y object Ion 
to the «»«fflei«Bey ©f thiJ notic«. Ths obj««it.t«»K in h^.^Bi. on th« 
folloving fa«t«i: fh«.t tfe« Shleagra T<jy».li5»l Traa«fti»r 'Sallromd Oom|>«bny 
and iwt thft '♦GaluEa^t T«r«?ii.nal Railre*sS S®ia|>«»ny/ th*» otmpajrr^ G*^#a isa 
tht latter of th« CcsaEils^ioaiSr ^f I'aMia ^ayfea, wa« tb«» owner of 
lh«t traeks aad right ©f wagr at th@ strexst orossiag «it 51st sitr®«t 
at th« tta® that the l«tt©r i»a» s^siit; -abiA th*t J^fcn Faithom wj*^ not 
the g»a©ral m«usi*ger of the *©!jl*ajsii«t T®nain»l J*©ak4 i:>0mpim.jf'* 'but 
vaft th« saattrail landa^iggr of thn OMeskgo T?rmixi;icd. Transfer H«a,lroad 
Coaipafiy, Counsel for the d,«f«Rd?Wit argtsis that a'vssn tho^Ji^h It should 
h?^ oo«sed«tl that the let,t«r w*« r^eei^M hy ".JohB Faith^sm, Sue., 
©€«• M^r,,'* in TPhoee e»^l^ the l«ttey ^a© ?.eM, y«t slaoe Miiith&tn 
mmB incorrectly (l»»»lgm»vt*i! »» the gensraX; Jf-aii«gcp &f the "Calumet 
Tersalnsl E»llroiMl Goa^^iy,* lust ^^a^l of h«ing de«ignat«4 ae the Chicrngt 
furKiBal trarinffiT 8»llroa4 CositjfiMy, the Xett*^r of the GosKl«al'>a9T ef 

ti&« Oi'iicftf^ f*>?reul»al Triuaof^y lt«dlro3d aompan^,'* It is ckduiit^A 
^y ttouiiisel for th9 4of ■^nia^nt that Uics U)alu]&«t T*jf&iiiB»i *tailroa4 
6«flB#aB^v wa» * pre4«o<:n»or In t-ltl<$ oX tk« def e&<l!«iui, fintu ovi- 
dvnott «how«, hv-w^vfly, that the OaluXii»t XeiWidoal Hailrsai^ ttomnaay 
nayev wae tfe« cinm»y «if the tr«ipk« an4 r^gfel ef way at t!i« cross- 
inff at Bltt street. Th«r ^lef^idsnt R.«<?iX»lr«'t tiile to thfe truckii 
«a<^. Vl^>^t ©r Tr«ar eit t^^"^ ar!»«alsig at 51,»t 9tr«et froist th* CMcftgo 
T«rsaln»l Traci»f«r Jtallro»«i C9iS|>a»y on April 1, 1910, iiftprr *or«- 
oi0»ur« p3ro«««AlKgt» hftiS bftiBft 1>«gtiBl a^-5in«t tH« latter com^^my, 
f]^« C«slw««t fftjrxateml.. aallars^l Qmstp^tJ ^^iB^r^T^fH all ^f its pTC3«3ft(r 
t« tfe« 0hiea|so & ^'«rtb«r« i'etcifle ilftilrojatS Onm^miy »rior t© 1'391. 
"Slfte iJtilcjfMSO T«rmiRaJl. T3mia,»fey Cesifaiiy e.a^islr«'3 iitl«^ t© th« 9ro^» 
«rty 01* the HhiuAfo k Mortjhcrr. i^»cifie Kallit?^ Co?a|>«jy in forss^ 
ai&sure prooe^dlng* 1»i»gufi gi@s.ij:i9t th« latt«*r caai^y-.suj .lis IS^l. tio 
July 1, lii©?, t^e OBle^go T^jT^loal trsjRsf«y K&llroM Ct^as-pftny «oic;i- 
a«ite<»d o^uratldn ^m^ (^i^ntlnut^ t^ ®|kara,t« m^jilj soffi^ttm* In 1906, 
wben -iht f0r»elo»mr« |>roo«e^lng* "w«rt \ii!i.gxe&. m^Mnwt it. Jo^k ^. 
Yidthena *«« ftf»elKt«d re«i»iir«X' i^ ths for#ol.©«ur« 3ri9««*'Uafy« 'iaa 
©pejrai*?^ th» read until A-uxil 1, 1910, nhmi, 6».i» w? have nt.«>.tfli<j!, it 
«Mi aequir«4 fey th^ i3«f«nd»nt , Befor* thu* f a y^clo «urit nro«««di2ii0» 
j0>iA S» jfaithem wne at er,f* tia« fiG«»pra»iil#at.. guQ't l-<tt^r jinMii*. 
dl«nt ©f th* Ohl<^ft|E» Tersilntl Tr®i5sf«r Eail-no«a C«m>?»ny« ?!# ' 
e<Min»«t«»d wltb tlimt c«jtEf.3itiy 4«riBt it« *ntir# «,xl«strn <::?«. He di4 ' 
not » hovfrT^r, 'hair*! nmy official GO.ii»eoti<»£i i!?lth tls« Qi^ixmmt T'^r-isi- 
aftl aallafoad S^miiany, 

Wh^B th« letter ©f the C#ss»isol6ri«r ©f l^ataic '^orka 
wan vrltt«n on Qetobt^r S©^ 1904*, Jfaiihejw a«i« pr«8l^««jt or vlso- 
l»reiii<!«nt ©f th« Chicago T<»je»lnal TrariSBf©* Com»,'s*iy, vtfi^ at that 
tltt« that saaijiany w»b th® ©wtter sf th« traoke *»■■! di?!:'?^ of vn.y at 
tii® cr&fealng at 51st jstreet. It is ofeifl^aa, ilj«reirar«, that -ife^a 
l^aithore reeslved the letter he knmr that it <9«9 i2>t«i%4ed «» « 


notlc!* to th<* 0Mc«i|j« ?B.Tmlni»i TraxiSif^r QoKi|>;aiy, jmI'1 not to th« 
6fitlT»n«»-t Twrrln®! "■^jallrosuS C:mp(iJiy, it lo iru« thAt the Galiomtt 
T«rwlniU. R'»llr«?«1 Coawsiny^ as 'Wft li-^v* »t*te<S^ 4>«T<ir o»ii»»f} tfe* 
property In questlos %x.4 had, ^«Ar8 b*/«>r« th* l.^ttey <?,;. the C«i»» 
iiiiasion«ir of l*ttbXl8 "lories wsus rrlttfti*, aoavoyo'S viXl o.f tb.»? prop* 
•rty t'n%t It rfid ©■?« to tfe« -Shlcafea & ii}ortfi*-i.xis i^'^ciflie .Hfelliro*4 
Co»i»|9«uky. But. th« lvitt«?r iu mjijr esvcjat W)@?-b au'fficlttnt to kipo3« 
tla« jJulj? <wa F«lth^m of m.'xkJjBij; i^iq^wisry sist io ■who th« l-rfct</.'r w:»» 

ti«w ©f ih» f»«t th^ ih^ Chicago teri£iB«»l iTaRsfer Q&^mty, of 
which o©.f»99«iy ■FftitborR '"^-sa ay^aldaat ^nA *t <»u» tl»i« vi«l««»i}iy<8Slvi«r.i t, 
owoi^a the tri^QSca rm^ rtg^t ©f way at tJi* cjpaastiuc; 4e:«l,fH«st«4 t>y th« 
lett-^r, Jf^tn^yn -^aa cot ,«<l i® "wtiftXly ^■ier^c^^^tin^ tJi« Xst- 
tf>r vfi(»vr0ly 1)«e^"mt«»''!« 1* enkf^fi a &JL3ttikm iM tte^t B^dsstd* of %}'m QviR'^^trnf* 
But o@«i!i»«l f'jy ths ^iisf «<l.«tj3i ^ripi# fhist th«r« tw .no ■®'¥'i:!<ma« tijat 
•^oim yaithojm, Qmi* 5%r* 9f t>i0 Sml.t»»t T-«rssi«ai ilailrwad Cowai'ioy,* 
is "oB«» tas-a t>!s psksfip pf^rwoR," &*» *S^hn/Bf^di-}^0rQ, mi oCfi««y of fh« 
6hi««Att Tersilnasl I'masfwr H-ailroaa UampnM-^x'* thM ■*tl;i« iaf^jrsticie that 
.tlj«y wor« th« 9aa:« )><sr80K la pur^lf *iii«*oiilat,iv«, ?sJsa tli« -^fotart raagr 
not thuK bridge? tl>«» e«^ "bet«f^«sfi «vi^(me« .-vo4 eowjeot tils'* »'* It iis a 
woii ostal^iah^d r«l« t>tat t&« i^«aiity ©f Vft!« la |>,r i ,^!j,t I^;|A J, 
«tia<we« of tfew l^imtity of thm p#r«©ii, asasd th^i It dtvol'yias -ui^eii 
ih«»o wHo deiiiy th« idoiitlty t© ofero^atiss ti^© |i,a'»'5«s«»ptiaja bjf prow^X. 
3«|rh , t^ V, fetaaford ^ 5S K.ajHK«^©» 44&, 4^. tlie cases eupportlKii ^ii« 
rul« <4r« to© mistercus to sJlte* Ma«y of U'i«ia may fee fQxm^ G&lle«t«d 
ia tho tollo'^ing arsj'iot. nitons «an.d. t^xt ^oa^c: 17 l^,ii,'\,^ p. S24„; 
Al>l>ott'« iProof of F,!ist» (3rd ©4.) ^, 95#; tfeift *BX«« Bo^St* of EyI- 
denco, IJonea* CosssinninriB© on BtI ?^3e«) » val. 1, s«c. lOO, |i»i>, 
431-.4-S4; ae^oa<f»' trial. Bvia,e8ia«, p. 1?3, ?lis? m\rt'*.orl'fei?^« >,eld 
that In a4!?itioa io f.b«p i4<sKtity of th# nm:i^, s^l3 f«.ctB @ni olrci£isj- 
etaijeeo whiete "betjc ee tiJC nusettofi of idf»tity ar^ a*aissitel« eiXh'Kp 


♦• ftntm t>i« lAmiiitj «r to reliut tht pr««umptl0A »rl8ln« tnm th« 
iaentity* la th* c>i»« %t h»3P th« fawit tbat th« C»lum«t TeTsaiaal 
Railr»)MI d^mftsatty ««a a 9r«d«e««««>r in tit.X« (»f th« ^lo^go T«r%sliitt2i 
7r»ni^t«v RaLiXroa4 Coiapfiyay ««'i^ cf th« ^ftfrwadant, jr»«io thoygja th« 
Cali3»«t T«rsi.isaX flaiXraiitS Coapaay ($14 BiOt own the tra«ik» im4 ri^t 
of vtijr «t th« erotislng fti !llflt »tr«et, ia « oiroinftQtMtefi to b« co»* 
4riLd«r«<!l In Idftntlf/ing th« ffULthorB. nsttftd in th« l«tt«r ef tli* (3«n» 
«t80loiQ«r «3f r^ltli^s ^ork« 9,8 th« 8<iia«r Ws^ithaxn vho waft a» offlelal 
oozm«et«(l with iHfi Chi^agt f«ir!Hln«tX tTim»fnt M»lIro8i4 C«i»|>May. 
Oth«r f%«tt« whleh. itxsft. r<E)l«Y'9iat <ur« that th« Chioftgo 7«T»iixia3, 
Tjrsi.nefer Railroad G^t-ffany 8''^ii?»4 th© traeka *m.5 rtijifet ©f way «t tli« 
•rosficg- «t Slvt »tr«at at th^ iia« tMfti th« I«tt*?'r of ih& Qmmda^ 

•r ▼lc«»|»r««tf?,«fti ef ' tl!«t ©essiJiway «t %h%t tlia#; -r^ii© tThat t>»«i hmmb 
yfi,tt>'«rR Is r«th«r an ia«iu»usJ. k^tj«, immmBssaia^mmmt^^^^^S ^^^' ■-=^ 

•» SJTi<J«ii<Jt), «»«ti©a nm^ p. 48g. Th« f:*«t that tte« inittia *»* 

in th« niwiv© of Fait.l^oris in &mltt<Hl i® tht l»tt«r of th« Coiffi&iawioijiKr 
-of Nubile t'orka siay to sotttui frxi^ni w^«ik«® the ■pTf^mmiptieu of IsScmti* 
ty, but It ^Qftfi Skot (se»@Xu3lTel.^ r«biiit th« |»]r«a«j«^t l0]s • 

It le OUT s»plnta» that the .f&itlioxa, who wa» pjr«ai* 
dojBt or vio®-preali09at of the Chi«ja®o feireilBal Traneftr HaiXroo4 
&Oj»]p«By at th« tiias tlio letter of tha C&m&i»ai9B^r of <^u^lte Works 
was wrltt«85, laiv?», or si)hi8ul4 h»5V« tojow,,, that tl»o noti&« oonialnM 
in th« iotter 'was latewdta to «p,ply to tfe.* Chicago Tenminail f-raktsafear 
iKftilremI CoRipfaay, 51ji8 isaf«roiiea is spool filly 4«»tified in vlfifw of 
the faat iJiat tlio CSiica^© T«»railaal fTminf^r Ksdlr^ai ^mkp>-my w»» 
charge^ with not lea of the «xl0te«<5« of the ordietusoe of tho y«ar 
1997, «S««li^i&tei «» e«cttoe 17fiO, to «rlii«^ -syo ^-avi^ *i*3.^ that t.l»a 
notlca waa apolle&fele. la othor wor«lt, st inr- time fhat tha letter 
of tha CosmlaaleiSfiT of labile Works ra» wpittm^ »aFif»ly, Oot©l»«y 30, 
leCX-, the Chica^s TeyielRal TynnKsftr Batlro»a ComtjiVij, ihm ■pf&^enewmT 

^*t?.! tv- 



'i iCi'i,^i4^ l£'% iiiL 





"La. JMinfM^H. 



viii^ Hi^iO^- QlUat tit 

1 '•?^ 


in title of t-b« dlftf»«'l?w»t., wa« ch»x^«A with .knowing that thl« Qr41« 
tt«iic« rtlrftctqif! tltt«t mllresd <aoflspmnle» iji th« City of Chlfl«Mx» 
8ih9iil<) •r«ot €uxd maJUsiAia g;ai«« at much •tr««t eroAsinjse as *)!i«uXA 

1>« Atslgnattd ^y the .wjifcjror att<^ C«aimi8a.loii«» of PuWlc tojri£«. ^atd 
ili« Chlci&go Tej^lKal Tyai:i»f«r Ballr©»d Co^ji&ny wa» ssh^rgisa with thi» 
]aB0«2«d£e <$▼«» thoui^h tli# oirdliijimaft ««» ttot optra,tiY« ^md ftfrftotlv*. 
B«iai; «thaitg«4 nflth ih« kQo«*'l$«i^,e of tl3:# «3cl»t«fioe ef l)i« 0r<ilti«mQ«i« 
th* Chle«4^ tejBalnal tjrais^** BalljHBfad Q4>mpmj r^asoirmbly whoaXd 
)UKir« •.X9«ist«4 that ft notieii ii«<}t8)iary to ^mtt il»^» !^x^.lB^e« in opttrar 
tl©« w<»ull be iilirffla, Whea,, theTQf'»r9^ taltfc»«» |?««j«iir®d the l«tt«» 
«f the Cefs»i®»lon«r «f l»«,bli« ^■f»ri«, «ir«ia tho«i^ tfe« ««»« of th« 
mllfQMl '9'»i» lj»O0rr«Qtl|r stnt*!'!!, 1?.f? imra at I'-'aat pnt i^n int^uiryr to 
••««rt«.lB w^sy th« l«tt.«r wad tt^4r«?'at«ii t« hiss, in vi*3'«r of t'.e f-aot 
th«t he )a««««0Arily smst hi»ir«i «mtlcii^atQ4 tisal @, n^ti^n of sueth & 
«ibm3ra©t«» wowia %« te©«i to th« G.hi««^-T-9i»iaaX frsuasfer aailToad 

We &ra of th# oplM.i»B that th«!' <»-vi?!-i?«ie® latffO'i^aieftd \sy 
t}j« Pl»,iiatirf «*« tuff ieletti to malt* at itaei a M-P^M £mIS C'S'St'S 
tkat a«t4e« was givea t© the ««f®ri/tia»':;t ia »tth8tigu'itl,%l ©osipli.^Rc© 
with tta.« ]^]»»vi0iQ»ii «f tlhtt ttr^ia^us^o i»hi<islt was i»&8£Ii«S ii» 1^7 a2)4 

•|>«r&tiir« and erfdotlvo ais to ih« ^«f tu^^a^it. 

Cow^ael fot tiae 3ftf«isiajat aainteda that the argiaairmt 
•f eouHsal for th9 plftJUitlff 'b».»«»4 on th« GMiinmum^ @>^mlti«'.l i» 
•rli@Rc« ■»*« l»i»r09«r aiii) sre^wifU^lal to the 4ef«!Hdani, ^© argti* 
Kent ol».1ftctftj to l« 8t?ite4 hy eouiistl for th© ^ef«BiAaat aa fall»w»x 
•f'v^inty y«sr« wit^.out o-txumXyiik^ islth tte« l^w ©r ot'iers ©f th-?* elty 
eetmc-il.. fhlak ©f ll, |J«ntl^J!?d«tt.♦ ^aqsosias th««; all tb»»« 
yft«r© t© this ';i«Ms®«r, this g:r««t 4)Ki£«r. i^o*, I «a;y ta yeu, in thi« 
e&ft« w« h»v« tm ©y«B ti«flafi«e ©f th» law; m-. ^mi <t<sflarttt« of tho 
low p«.»go<i for th® saf#ty of the j^ahiie ^9 has gra«t«ia thio yail* 
T»Ad thl« franchise tu ruK o^mjt th*i r streets, S^or t'»*»©ty y@«r» 

Mi^i^'-^'i ^> sx,.;u^v-:4'9'v -.;-?-* 

;&«^ .•«!?•« '•it 

^■iu:i<-i'*i. ii^'i'^. 


■ ' r;-'», if -.:m^ .AUStfa?**-*--* Tcr . • 

v!xa u v 





th ty hmv* 1»««b exp©e«i1 te a grfta,t a«»<f aerlouc i5a«|R«r, *» If It 
w^r* B©i for ih« failure to fir»«t th«»« gait«« irn! ?r&ul^, isftt l3t h«r« 

today; this «Mjeid<int n»v«T woal^ INry* oeswrr^il. If thlc lair is of 

»• ▼ulue, if we oftiifiat '■mf^ro* it, if iht. d«f«m<lmrit c«a» Yl«»Xat« 
with l^tinliy, then nfc nlgbt ».& ■wttl.l w.lp« th.t»« Imwe off th.« 
tmoicB.* &in-«« w« h-tty« h«ld that nwffioisat ii©tie« w«.« g,iv«a t© 

t&« tlftfifadaiat t® reii(l«r th« or^lixeoiet «5.f th.« y*»^r la©?,»lii:oat®id 
&• »«etlc»ii 17S</, opttriktlve ^nd affective, ii follo?^© that cotuagftl 
foy ife« plaintiff feadi tfce rlgfet t« vll»aii»t Uiat o:r4leitr*e« aa-i to 
Arew" all i3EUr®r«iaciS8 tr^n it tlmt "»0iyL<? Tsik J«!®ti'rie<?i «a th® svi- 
*«iic«, H«( fead Uu? rli-M to ar^w* i« r«e-!5«ot of t>s? nrdiiimioa ©o. 
«ay reasi^m&bl*. t1f3,«ory ©f tla.« ea»«. ^t ^o n&% thlstk that l^iis ar^iu* 
mem\ wan ♦.eir«8U5©a*M.». Th«! <&tftt«r ©r'51sati5e®» ir* irejfs^aM to tli« 
«y»%etlo» !%«<i1 «8ii!tints«anc« of gate* ««T« au1>»t?*.ntl?&11y re»««.i».et-f;m-5ta 
«f tl5« or^iiisijm©* ©f ihti y®&r i®®7, dssigimt^'j^ a« ut^tiao ITSO, w« 
do BOt tbtnk tfcait tb.i?.r# in aiayt i''.i»^ In t>i« arr^«»t of ^emiael for 
%h% 9;i%tsitlff vhl^h tro^i'? o©iR,«tttut« r«Y«r.tl1&]l© «rror« 

■G«aJ3©«l for tS»« Sfifen^s&at eowt#«4 tfeat tfe« ^Sto^ass^ 
«&s guilty of «ioiitril£>Ht«>]ry aoglig^^t rntd th.3.t Ms m,&s%lg,miQe wjmi 
tfe« 8®1« ]prox .nat« oa^ao of tfes aeetdotit, th^y jaaiataiu that on 
the «vidoi!t0« tiss aood&eed «r%ft guilty of «<$jp.ige^««, l^oth %e & msitt« 
of 1»« Slid on th# weight of th« eTld<»iie«. On g^cor&e of isiii.t«riaL 
i«»u@« €iif fact tli« ®vlile©«s'S i« o^Kflietin^. Wfe.etfccy t]rv.«y« «&.® m 
flLa0£»a »t th« oroseing t^ith % XmitBta. im Hi ft hv^iS -i^s tli« a«jit9233$« 

on the ir»it^ trAok ^teh to s«ai.<s s.iit«s»t olr»e^af®<! tfe« Ti<?w 02* iho 
tiTAlB from tfa» »uti>iso>>ll.«| vbafia^r ifee lecojaotlvt sagisi^ssr raag 
hl» 'feell or "bl«?w 'bis w^Jietloj i«?s®tfe«r tkc; atitg»oVilfJ n^ao ifoing 
fast 01" slow - *i..r© a^a» of tho f\mtm lis tSi«i>'«tto, ■">«« fatet, -wJil^li 
io tiB41i^ttt«d «»?5 wliloh to liaportaBt -Btieis ooesd "i^Jpftd in ooimoetien 
with th« x*fttfl ©f «!»«o4 at wbieti th» aut^&o'^ile ^^as g«»l»*?, i« *>>at 
Blot «tr«ot w«k« Ue Tsa^ cendltloB* Th-ar* ic » strssft ear ll«ie e« 


^ «yjR 

M.-i «*;... .mmt^ 



51tt 8ti-#«i, A«eoy#log t« ihtt t#-atlia©ny of Arthtjr Beuk«, n yfitnmtm 
on ls«to*lf ©f th« plalBtiff , «a «iii<»b »ld«! «jf th.« tracks t>i«r« 1» a 
1»rl«k: |>aTe»««it, but in ih« mla?Sl.« of th« tTstoko ib&r«! ta no p&T<«»««t 
m% %XX; thskt Ifi th« «ii 4-^10 of the ttneka Ihtm are •rail© anti 
lbtiBrs»«*'* The »tr0«t o«r line tm^n «kbo\it li^O f«a.t frorc; th« v%llrd«4 
«]roi»lfig. I'pom th« point Claris the straot ear lltws t?5(rKi«^,it«», to 
tfeo railroad cr©»8i»« thft atront 1» uh^aTrBd* th)§ fl«igma» at the 
•ro»i>ing, sm ^i^loy®a of th«: ^«f owd-SMtit , who teatifi«fd oa fe^bsO-f 
or itoe 4ef«f»4«nit, oiato4 that oatolde of tJs® »tre«t o«r traoJfeo th«f» 
wao 100 f>enr«»«nt; that the otroot la&t-w<»«ii tli« «aai! of %hM 9treot c»r 
trao1t« jajB-1 tlie r^^lXroaia «r©®»lfjig *i« jaothiit^ mt Airt ^i^ith "felg hoi«« 
In It;* titAt ttoe otroot w«,« ^iilXI ho3l»o in tfc« ^»T«jte*ni# as*** hoieo;* 
tb*t thero "V^ro 'loi» of h^loo ihsr*;* that iht hoieo w«i'ro "atoout 
f©ttr ?>r «ix Inofceo d««|»;* that th® eoa"ilitlo« #f %'hm s«tre#t '*i© tlso 
»«w&e al^ng tls©^« tw© blocks',* 

0. witaooo for tlio 4«f«ri'^ai'ii, t«*t«it,fl#i;J t^jat th#re woro *lt»ig halea*' 
ta th« strflot; that Ij-eyojat th« fR<l of t3i:« street oar 11b« ih^re ay« 
a "Xot of "big belooj* «««! tfea-t "Ifttfosro tli,o otire^t ear tr^^o^o «n4, 
for alb©«t «k hsdf a feloolc, tlharo io »o ,p^akire«4aat "tortwe^ja t>io ®tro«t 
00^ tr&ek»j* tfeat "ther© iw ja^tMjag Isjut 41rt m.^ tJriat is full of 

Zn ropard to %!!«■ 8|»««4 o>t "tvhioin tli« ».tit<^i;j0bil« was 
going a» it 9^|sro«teb.«4 tfeo oroeaiBg, tJfe^o t««ti«oii,y for th« pla.ltttiff 
T»ri«« fross ««Tea is tw^To alle® itw Bo«r. A«|gu»t aiwielaf, a 
brother of the doo^asprf, trfeo ,i!Piui In th@ autoffiiobil'ft wfeioS?-. wao fol- 
lowing th« aatoi^voteiio tJjjtt wa« otmeis, t«*»tifi#4 oi» 'fe®hjiflf of th« 
l>l»intlff that tfe» iawit&mebilit' that *m« struoiE *apts0are<l to lio 
^olof sXovl^' aoro«8 tho traoks,* T^« t^atlRony fo^ tho defendant 
va« to t>ie «ff«?0t that th^ autcr.o'bllo wai gelftg *if«ry fa-ot;" at a 
•jjrreat r«£te of opOBd;" "a^fal f^otj* "ao f«ist a» tb«y could go** 
Ao far ao wo cau ^laeo-ver th-? .f%t« of si^o«dl wao not «8tl»at«4 lu 



•tft' r r 




hour* p«r oilHi hy aajr o£ ih« vita«t3»«s f«r the defenifliai^t, a oljr* 

««• golne *ir@ry fast" or «t » "^groat rate ol^ tqpAvtd*' is thAt son« 
of the oeeititisatM oC th« viwi<»^0biX« ti.<»d thciir atanicaX, IsistruiBiont* 
in th« suto^obilo with titan, nn4 • f%»i. Tut*i of .nrpa^t^ evor th« 
•tr««t in itfi t^ ooii<itlii,«n lir^uad 1»« Il.ii:«l;r to Itxjuro th<i Inotxu* 

Jto.oag t'h«» wit.B©»B«8 for %h<s pla.iiit.lff wbor tff»tl,fl<i»4 
tls&t t^-iero wwro Iwx csiro ^r; tinso switch tir»o3te M^«tr th« er^i»«»lii« and 
on th« aortli oii* of the oyo»»la|Et ^■•^'rft 't"^ pi«ll«««a«*a «ho wwjit to 
tho ooe»« of thft »«el^«nt afttr ihft. mllinixin, Mmil ^ilstowatey^a 
rolati-v* of 00® of tJaife »«ni In tJi* ai*t&tai«>Mle^ teeilft^d thait ifhe« ho 
woat i© tii« »o«B« of tfe« «fc«eM«a8t t^^$ dingr ?ftf'ii»r tfe^i »e6i«S«itt to look 
f®p a violin, b» fti«r box. c*r» ^fnimiiiKkg oa th© ui^rth sti4» ©f Slat 
St root** Two wit»«»»«» for tlao nilftiatiJTf wh@ -w^r* prtosmt i6i tho 
aeoideiitt, t«»tii:i.«!i4 tb«ftt tHioy #«w b^B e^irs ju®t n«>^tb oif th« er««e» 

th9 yards-fABster of t.he ^of'erid^Uit t«»tifl';-r.'l on b<si-iaif of 
tlio 4«f©a.ia«t i>si»t th<Siiro woipo no feoat «air« eia the awiteh traidK; 1»#- 
twoen 51»t Ktrott (in4 &0tfe !^3.©<e«} thait li.t hM. ehargw ©f j>l»eing 
Oftro on th« mrltc^; ttiat fe« was not ftt the »o^k-«! of the aoeii«»nt 
Ibat ih^aH of it %hi» a#aKt coming, ttj« flagsii^ aa^ tht toworiaan 
tootlfi^di »r» t>«hsLlf of t.h.«f 4«f«is4««t i>>ai tJioro *<jr© no hti% eskvm 
on t1h« ovltdN trft<tk.« Tho ieeosBcstl'Tii «st-,;:in««jr, «« «mploy»« ©f t>i« 
4«f«n^'«nit «J*3i^ tb« firoK>*a, al»© >»« ssasloyw.** of tht 4«f ^aii&Rt , *''er« 
not i^'u«>8tton<;M3 o^out %!$« 'b^x «mre. 

C«k tho !»«»« Mother tb« flsMgrn^i «»» stt iho er^oslng 
wltfe a Ia»t»m in hi» han4 an tlio aai^ij-o'^llo ajsT>ysaeb«d th« eri»«»» 
i»s» two •R-ltneoooo teetified for tfc« i9l=4l«iiiff, Oia« «ii« Arthur 
Booke, who v»s in iJio auto«^bli^ with tfe# deooias»€4; th<? ©thoT 
vnn d«oe&8«d*e brother, Aw^wst s>i«4elar, wh© t^ao ir* an »atoj;»obllo 






Istl'-vliii t^fet A'ttiosBo'fciJ* Ik iiHtelcIh the (Sce«a«i«*i w*» rldlag, 'B9ih of 
ihsse vlttt«»f}e« tR«tiri©4 that t.ti«y di-"* iJ.ot ««« ««y fljagK^ao ot 
w*i«siifiiajai ttt th© cy«ffi«lj3g with % ll^^tt, J$culs« %(it9titl's>4. th«,t h« 
l,0&M«cl OR b©th aidiBB iim^l didi n0t »c« »jajr)»o47 on the «ro«»lBg» }!« 

eleo stskt<id Ihisi th« eii»tds.ofe;tl« cijjuietd «,l th* orowslng ««d th*t 
ih« driver lth.k,fi4 Iri feotb lir«oiia»»* i»a.t«pr hi^ etat.*4 thj^t h« 
di4 sot to©w wi-ifttbftr th«t iikut«itsol>il» »t&n-^&4. t>r not; that h« 414 
B«t p«ffi.««iste«jr, iUMtlrwr t^st.lf'iftd t^at he did not ««« »nyimet on 

Hi© tlm&ttmk tmtlfi«(^ ©jt >»*«H!iaf ©f thft <'3«f#ad«mt that 

■feil^ t»iia«^ tow^rig hii» aix-3 h^ tfeoiiEfct it f^a« g»irtg %& rvm Qvnw hia; 
that wh«:« tfe« trairf htt t.^« ayit«3ia«fe*ll« bt *BlpLf|si3d.** Th« t^wflfjmaa 
t«itifl«4 o« fo«? &if «f tfee vi®.f«Xi.S«ii4t ifeat al ek«* ii»e of tJs«» colli* 
sion ih» flagsjaii was * right OJs. ife« C3f©«i.l.ijg \r^tw^<&n %h«! B. 4 <i, «uad 
th« i?aisl3JiR41« on tto« east •lie ef tltem ®..iri^«tljig» th* east »i&.e &t tfeo 
JS>. & 0, tratBiag;** tiiat his •*?»« im tfee i^««i«!r ©f i-h« etreel, >j»d haiA 
ft whit® XaKtern lis his fcaiid* Ti&e l©fl'<a«4«>tlt« -sii^ljaesr t«r8tlfi«d ©a 
b«}ifjaf af tJse def^tidiaiiit i^&t fe« saiwr it, whit® ll.r<iht» t>mt %p»e»r^»4 to 
%e atfttlojsary, *t thw ©roaslttg;, aa?^ h« »Bf>^e»«d «?».»« flag* 
fii«B« jfii* flr®ia.«i» t^atlflsi-^. fi^r t"h« aef«!«d»Bt that be «aMr tt»# 
flaMpsi«» a«4 t>5© lantwpjaj ifessti tfe« «r»gia« feadi a y^«ry Iferlght ftlsctyt« 
k«»adll4i;^t tJnit Xl«ht€5(3 vcp tfe« ««itl3re «i*#»nlBfj thftt '*'^'i w>«l'^ ?!ls» 

ai.^^r»SEiiESv»t?^ly V*© IslocJg*.'* The fiv^mim sslso tc«ti f i^d tJtat th^s. 
Xant^Xtt 8^9e*r«»4 to V® Bt-atioB.iry, i-.atfsjr hft t.s'a^flsjA th« flapaan 
*»• '•flaij.ging f&jT ijs ** - not t^r tJi«w te ?it-«t hut to "uretset* thflm 
at th« eros'slng:. c© er©a0-!*x«,3BJUi?iiia» tits fif^msm ■^&b %9ke6. it h« 
dl<S aot t»»tiry »t til* e©r0«er*» iR<?ye»t la aaaawer to th« g«<»»ti©R 
*JMtd ys'tt ao^tle* « waiotmaia ©a th« ©jrtjusstagt* ttoftt ii«"»a» » li«iit*TO 


'=^^i^ i' 


def«ndfijRt an^ cotUiS«l for ihe i!>IiU.ntiff ihtt testli^ny <9f th« tif-aum 
in '"the eih«r trlaX," in r«>^»rd to th« fXm&t9ia w%tt r«4»4 l^to Ui« 
r««©rsJ ROC*. ti& ft« foXlows: 

*^, i5id you notice a watsi'utuMi o» tli« «iroo»lng? A, I 
»«w a mtem ther«, i «!o»*t ,«jrii>w, 

4, You t0»ttfiaa to, t.tlci you »ot¥ 

*♦ /(je. hi th« iBQMi^at t ^uat »ml(* I aaiF a lant*»m, 

1 »*en*t r«i8«i5ls«3r tfee waietwiaafs, 'hut tliio® th« iH^ueat I foym& 

W« thlilk It imnsc«©p.aTy tc: sftt owt In ^#t«ill tTsa t«atl*» 

fflocy rwlatloiiE to the rl.B,.:rtUig ©f %he feall ao^i this &laf»iBi of tin* 
v}^i»tl0. it i» ©xstficlcaat to statt that tlse witr{«B««s aa >>eha.lf of 
the ^la-lntlff t©atifl«4 tifta^t tiaft/ Jtesur^ «© b^ll @r wMsil«, .«n41 
that th« witri«»e«ss I'«t tfee defeK^aat t«iiitlfi©.4 th^^t ih« isfeifttl* w*s 
fcldwa ;»»4 tfeat the Isell wast rlu../liig» 'iih© eYl4ssr*<j« ah«>^» tha^t th« 
auto&Qbiltt Isad '*1»l^,%rl^l'-.t lights laui^ sak6 th».% th« ^jii^ilne h»4 a 
fcrllllsint «»li!'tetrl« Ji«*.iatl3.l^ -wbiyh tte« tn^iiiKOfti' isiatfi^) «s-!il^ etja'M* 
. Oft« t« •dilseern & )nj»» o» tfe» traoic* ®.l9©tit a th®v>«srin4 f«i«t ahead,; sja4 
th&t th«» raye of the ke«tdlii-jht ^etjlil ^spx^niA o-^er metm thmi th« 
tr^iek" • thmi tto#y ^©ul-:! ®a;t<*n4 west, ^f t-b© ''B, * 0, n&in litt* track 
at 51st atrtftt;* ' that ke '^wan uie&fci© to say ho^ir ss?Mfjy foet," tj5« 
«Ti4««e« gi'nQ-»if« that th« trs-ie ^ra« ^«i»|? at th« rat*" of al>$at S5 OT 

th«» »tatemfi»i ©f tte-«t eTl^^^nsa th#re i» one it©K to «t5ieh attsntlcsa 
»hovil4 1&# dtr«et«j?l., HB-? that le ©« all#^|«4 (i@fiir$7'$ai ion b«tt»««» t"ne 
fla^an nn4 the? towftrwan ms the aat«m0t4.X« wa» a.t»!>r#aebl»!g tl*!* erosa- 
iiilf. Tb<* flafj&sua t«(«tlfief1. that ^l^mm M^ first saw tli« aot©«o'blle in 
vhlch tlici d«eea8e<l was rl4in^, na^ tfe« atitoBobila 'b^ico it» the ^U' 
t::>«©¥il»» wert 5it w^etens aveiiiae tarnlag issto Slst !str®«st • a llttl* 
moxNK tfc«a two l>i©eAc« wway • j^botit St'k o^r 2 i/S ©f a. ^loek; that fe« 
•all«4 to tte<? trvaiaun a&ii »alds *f!b@r« tEiey oo»s ag^la. aad it leoka 





to mo they l>oth. will .?R«!'?tjtto« ir«tU3. a« '' thw awtouiot^ii«e wlii »««t{^ 
that th« toirtrjviako dl'ii aot j»»jwr«ri tU<? aot. way «. vori^. At that tlai» 
th« tralB wan ttoT«e wisttll bleaks aw'ay; th« mute!K»bll# <%1»eut tfm 
■blocks mrmyi tisat tJi« ««to]»ot'li«!» w«.r« "gftiftir «• f»9t st.« tn»y eould 
$» f" "but that to« liaidl «« idea h«w f;;4©t that mi^^t "bftj that k« h^4 je>« 
Idea how statoisao'bilet o«sttl4 go; thnt vh^m tJaey r«a«ii«.i Oakley 

golaf, tram -i^^^tvTR aveisus' io Uakley «va/»«e he did «©t do JMrj^tbirig; 
that he stoc>4 dtill oil the ti23i«« 

a. o©«v«»r«j*ti0ii to«^ s>Xfj.e« in tifit a i ret* &t »«©««, fteat ifet fXagjaari 
iB««j9t 'J#:<*r» >jt' said *T>j€.|r® ih«;r <?«i!8« agala'* t» ais «i54g;s.s. Wfeo '♦thfty* 
wffir«^ <!o>:^® not aD:^«aur. 'fag t-b* ©a|jr«!»«i«Mtt 4«t*«i«lea t© r<&f€r ta th«- 

'tr©v« f»^«r the cro««iag? '^y tit« fl^jfrssai »al4^ '*i>]ity** %r« ©owiag 
•aH»,4.lii* l» not flttatpim-lned. The isp^llcmttoH i« that ffe'^ 8asa# aui©xSO» 

saiaft «ir»i3liag: or at «<5^>t ©th«r time, fj5«t« is B#ttei»g in tfe» r«oord, 
k»vf«v«sr, to cle«ir w^ tfe® wltuati©©. furtfc«»»or®, tb.« a«a4«et ®f tht 
fxaipi&aa «ee«r^iBg to bi® eim t^stimoRj i» ise«jfii^reh«ai«iM«. If h« 
SMkW th»i aatoooliils* over tw© bleck* ft^sray, (sad beii«v«!5l that a «@13.1«> 
alo» ita* 09 iJE.<.itt*Eit tfea.i fe# eifcii^d tb* tow«r5naia'8 atte»ti0» ta th* 
»l«««!t cftrtaiu 4iu.g«»8r, why >il4 he mat t&ait* 9^.!sBanfc eriert in pynyeut 
the eat.r^8troj>:h« ot>;«<r thai;! gtawrnliRg «tiH. aa^ji Jua^iag i)s.a lMit®r» 
St arffi's i^figtb? ffie t©^«rE«a teetlfisdl ia r«s|;^?et of th« slieg«^ 
coaYeraatloa, fc«i his tsstiisoHy i« 'OBSfttiafitetory aad ««lf»e®ntra':U«- 
tt>ry, find in eemte |>»rtl0'alar» It Is cactrajry t« tht; testteany of the 
flagmjass, Xjn ©n« p«.rt of >'.l8 t««tte«>By lis* «tAte4 that ^fe«r« h« fir«t 
«sw t]h« •♦»utoa}^>ll»«* tJ-Kiy ^ffr« .;ib©«t tw© 'feleckft ss^&y, Xjq th« part 
©f his te8tt?s«ny rsXattSK lo th« allei:»*a cooTe^rsatt©© he 9tat«4 tm- 








to m« th«y >>oth wlil ,!&*s'?tjth« tr»i» ao:^ th«» aat©iaobil«» will wa**;** 
thut th« towtr^waua sUdi aot *n»ir«r5 'St<'! net »w/ a w©jra. M, tbjj,t tlm« 
the irftlB wm« tii-r«e m&Bll blocks away; th® nuteim^hiltt atT&oat t^Bt» 
Mocks fikwrny; ttsait. Ife« iiwtoi»ot-tisRi» wwrt *g©li:i<:j fu» f»»i a» th#y ooiAli 
go,* IfUt tJT*! h«> Mad «® iele» Jwiir f.4®t i.lia.t mi^nt h&i that fe« had jm 
idea how f *ift aiatoauoijile* O0ttl.<S g#j i9t><^ tlaey r««ii.«!he'i Oakley 
avenu«, * Islocit »«ay, Jan^ l>at tt|> fei« 3i.aat»Tjaj thai whil® they i9f*t« 
iiol»j.; from Xfesjtflfm aY««U!!? to Uakley ^raiiue h« 'ild «©t do swrs^t^ifig; 
that he stoa4, etill all th© tiis#. 

a. fsettv«r«i».ti©i!i to^it pX-aat la this «ire:»®tsiaa««» -^lit tfee fla^insati 
]B««jat Ti»it«HR >i«« ®«Li<S **'n'i«j'« th«:,r «?'2«s« «icai«»'* is ?m mii^'^^. Who '*th«>y* 
«»r« doei not an^^ear. t9i« tb.# ©.-i^iPfetftissHa iwismdea t© r^fcr to th^ 
?>airtlsular ©00Ti|»«a»t9 «if tfeft ?*ate«0bil« ?!>r to <^«r«&)Bt g««©r«J.l,Y wis© 
drsv* o^«r the oro®aiii@t "^y tlht« flagx^ja© »mi4_ "t^ity* %r«5! TOmiag 
•aiJAln'* In a©t iapi»ine<8» Th# is8|(iieatisB t® t^iat ffe<» 8ism# autejao* 
^•11«», or tbn saia«» «>-«ei*|»&rst« ®f tk« s^t?sm!!»'te'U®«, #ir b4>lh tlia saa* 
»ttt«iffl^ibU»» 5JJB4 t>»<? saffle oceti^aui* lisMi ll&«i»r^ th«sr«!> l3(®fo.p« tlt]h«r tits 
same «T»i5liag or at ««a&t et*!.«r tiM«. ffeei^* Is Ki«tttei»£ In tfee y««or4, 
3a«'K«ver, to cle?&r «9 tb« sltaatio®, furihexKior®, th& aojR4««t 9f tht 
CXoiPK^ii ac«ar(slli»g to hi» ©•«« t^stlmoiiy i» ifi©o^i|»r«h<m«l'bl«, Xf h« 
saw ih« aatcawt-ilaa ever two bl&ej^a m^ruy, a»d beil<?v«fi that a o©lli- 
aiioB w««i But im-.'lii»jut ffia-i is** caUi^d ttoa tow^annas^i att®riti«m to tli* 
!»Xm^mt cftrt&iu ^av^g<8r, why <si4 fe® not imaii,* aoia* •flort t^» py«sv«nt 
the eataetroph* wth^r thsw* stirf-Hllug «tiii ai*^ kol^iBg tfc« l«uit«?m 
St arr^'s If^fit^tte? fh© t6^«r£ t®stifi*s^ ifi 2r«ep^'?et of tfe« slle^®!^ 
cfta-veraatlea, fcut hie t^stisiOifiy is «uB».E^ti«faetory .aasd. «#X.f»©®Kt3rMi«- 
iory, find i» ecH8« l^artleui&re It Is esistrary t«i the tosilKowy of tJ-s* 
fl©035S!», In ©B<} 9«iirt «f ^.Is t«i9tte^»y te« «t«te4 that ^*i»r* h« firdt 
««RV tkft *ma-o.?55-^"hll««* t?i«y wsr« .aijout tw© teleckus %way« Ijb th« p«Mf^ 
0f hl« testt®©Ry relatiUir; t» tb« allegi^a soB'r«?rsj%t l®m he 9tat«a tiR*> 




- Sj 




i^Iledljr %hm% At il2« tim« of th<» coiiver«ati<»)» th« *si-ato>^4i>Ale'' «»• 
skbout a IdoeJe mtny* il« teBtlfl®*! th&t Ji© ^aa ib»r. In ,hl,« tow«r, 
which *ji» '*<)ui.t« l^liii-i,* but ti« eowl<S ftot itty wJ-t#th«r It w»» 12 or 
X& f««t high. ii« t6Btlfl«d thoX his ^ttfsniion vas drswo to th« 
fttato»ii>)>ll<»» ty 1)30 flAjj^aa v^ eulXei up to liia to l«>t bin know 
th«y w#r« eosilng; timt th« flaipBiaiS «atdt, *Tte.«3r art «oaliig x>r«tty 
fa«t aB'?' th«y iaur« ^oi»g ta- $^t oatch-ftd;* tfe«at h« iid ft©t kaow 
wteutJter ""thwy* h%6. hnrnt tiasr® fc«f»ir»i tfea-t fe® h** a t>ell in th« 
t«tr«f>{ that whea fe* ••» tb« autoas'feile* tesia® h.« <lid i3®t ylug th« 
btll, K« «l«o t«iti,ft«4 tteat 'tfet «iittfMKS#.|5il« that «?»« «tnj«i: did 
not tar» tewajrl th« fla4pRs«| fM^% ife« riHgiaajB /lid not ttin ^Away; 
tJmt h« 8®w ihf flapesn all of tM« tl»s«. "fii^ t^w^r^aiasi a4©itt«^ 
ttiat h** t«?«tifl«d at t>?^ ofs}rtsn!.®r*«i lB?|ut8t 1» r«£'ai"«1 to th® alX-^e4 

0» eroie*'e%MViB':^tl«isi tM ti«{ij»ii«i»;*'s ».itig)rtti»e; was (!i* 
r«ate«J ta part® ©f Ms t^BtlBiouy at tii« &®reumr*ii iwtiu^Bt Ib r«g?*r4 
t© tbe aliffiigs'tj soiaT«r«at ioft Isotw*^® fetlm aa4 tte« .flagsjau jaad s»l»o t« 
•thftr re.«iwfi;» fe^twoftfii thea, mid th® tewiirmaB wa« tte«tt ^atk«4 •wfe^tbty 
h« hjid taWHilJat* a^t th« in^usat. H« r«»iie=5 that ha lt«w4 T&ut that he 
"coul^'t »ay* wljatbar it waa tirasj ifcLat fea gtiaaaad. it wa« traa* 'ilia 
to'«'fire--swi'» atteuiloa iraa th.«K ealled t© tb« following ii|>«#i,fi© 'naea- 
tloii® .njsd tjsswsrs r#ferrii<l t« a» pmft ©I* Ma aatasstlemtloK «nt tfea 
aoy©u9r*« iB^u^at la yafisrisisea t® tl)t# alltgt^ cBnav«r«atlao -fsltfe %h% 
flRg5a%nj *:M<I "ha »i>eak t«» yau^ A»»«rarj Ha <ll«'!ti*t w&«Sik t® jeb«; 

tbera wa« bo ttjaa, ^« That waa tra» ih^H waa It?* I7se tewaaRfiaa 
rft^li»4, '*Y«a, sir," Th«» followlfif; <|iasiitioB «a« then laiyt to hiss: 
•$o what you 8%id about ?«i» sa:yliig *-?hay aye oomin^j fa«t, rs^^i tii«y 
mr* going ta K«t aatche^A,' all ©f that ia »ot true, in It^* ^h« 
t©wairt5',an aagnfered, *y««, tfeat is t3ni« too,** Ttoe fiarthar c?a«J8tion 
wa.« sakad! *Tliat i« your Idaa ®1" ^rteat i« tru® * footte. ef thaae s*t-?.t»- 
ment8» le Itt" to tJrsia qaeatiae the tawer^aa -114 aat raply, Th® 
tower an teatiflM that about two 4«ya after his tesstijijojay ^% tha 

»i9'S***k«« ■■: _rMit^ 


t^St.'T * '-' ' '"^^'i' 

<tr*-^,;.r* : 


fi«a«%<4, '*ns! %iis«jsi»g f©r the 8ai;« of trgwiweot that his t«8tlva««y 

•©rrc^orAtcff th.« flagsaii, w® <lo?jbt *v- Either t.h« coi3v«iTaation >;««• 
t»««i tht two men to4»k plJ*««. If It (■i"^„ ifet qw«8ti©a naturally 
ftrls«« why the fiiaij^as 4iA not siAke auch «ffortfl to avsjrt the 

©©lllsiori a« tr«r« pirojiortloBatft t© the danger lo4ieat«4 ^y th« 
conT®r««it ioB . !rii« to-weifisiiflai, ®» hi a -'*'« ^,^®tt«e®ny, 414 iso thing. 
Tfe« finnan, &08Qr<IlB|fc to hla teatieaoay, as-sr^sly »too<! sk th« 
«y9«««l«^ aad h«ld his* lusjttrri .a^t .^ana*® length, th« fcow«rR^» 
Odttld h&ire rang hl« b«Il, f%^ fact th^t th© tow^rs-mn •«?»« in the 
twplcy of aK9th»r BaSlr<9ad cei^ipany smd un4®r a© lRg«d 4uiy to act 
la fetshadf ©f the* 4,«,f«>rt<,l3J9t i.« lisa^aleirlal^ W^ arps n&t att^sj^ptiog 
tfi sh*rg«» the 6.«fnnS.^nt with n0gllg«is«j« ley r*«,aoB of ih® aot of 
tho toff#r:Kss« to »!•« mer^iy cs©^,|»«dpla® th« eor*4uet af the tovtytBaia 
vlth <m«t«8sary &»»4w<gt to (|<ii«ysila® t!te« K^ig^t mt4 6r«4ibiHty of 
hl» tfatSsimRy. The fXajtsmwj «oal.<S h.<*v* fto«« h*»y©n4 the traoks to-. 
waT'l, th« &p-0rosit«hlia®, a«t«5»©ijll« &b4 flst^god th** aattwofeiia with 
hlo l«.ete?».« 'fhs' fii*i«'ffiaa «*.?al4 teavt ^-lse« ihio ©otwlthts^.JMj.iteg the 
fsRot th»i the «iflii«««» for th« dJiofftuttsf^AKt «how«4 that th« tlm0^»m, 
had aaly obo foot, tli* jury wouJIkd fei*-r@ «;e«i jMi8tifi««3 i» h#.ll'5^v- 
l»g that the conir><(rfti&tio3a «?ld aot taite pla,eo ar^d t;&«gf isay hwvft 
lisXltYOfl so» Sueh a ooaclaiiioii ■woulil aot "b^ liseonsist^at lieeoo- 
fiariiy with tho jtary** ftudtag, la tmrnrtt to th« sp^oiai Intorro- 
gatoyy euhi^4tto4 by tla«s ^ofoadafat »» t© 'whethor tht j's^ry hwiieved 
th« naj^a-.atti va,* 4i;ul.lty of aegllfi^aroe®, that the fXapiau wa« not 
B#glig-erjft. f1i» SuTj might H^to h®li«*Y«*l the fl&gai?4«*« tootlsjoey, 
uhlah v&s oepr»hf?rat*d Ifty oth«!if vlt&«as98 for the (JofcRdant, th%t 
lip iiraiiTsi4»4 tho *»-?>r©aehiaj? atitni{-.o^il« 1»y hfvl^tnir hta Ijintom at 
a'jra*« l««,gth, 'Ma^ the .jtiry might h-a^?** e©B0i?l«r*«| issuoh waj^ilra^ 

aai i^" 

3?.B *;<--'. 

»ttfflel«nt to ®3ee«i» th«? flsk^mum frarn atglles-RO*, in a»n8l'i.»rlng 
ib» adl«g«4 conT«rfi»tloa ti<it«r««i» the fls^l^^an «ta4 ibe ioir«r»i«ii, w« 
ar« not •x«i»;f:in.g th« eonTereatlon with ih« id«a th-t,t ne^lii^ime* 
«oi2l<-] !»• pr«4icat«d skgalnut tiiiii d»f^i'iant b@«aus« th« fJLttfjMwa 

failed t« iv.nk* uucb ef forts to aT^:xfc th^ &oill»ioii, >%,» tho «:%i{^en» 
ei«» of the oitafittion ir«uXd hnrtt reqtiired &n tha theory that tho 
eoDTeraation wao trtio. *• are oaXy end ft^iro ring to A«t«3ri;i.tti« tho 

tmt^ or foloity of lh« coavsraatlois %» 'fofeiMrliig on the qw^-atloK 
of thft AlXftgf^d contributory nogXiganiso of tho (loooaeod » ».<3^.eiyy 
«h<^thor tho driver of tho suitee^fell-© ^m^?- the :««o<^aa«*i -were ^ailty 
of »wch r«okl®s« cwfi!i«et e« wewld ho iBi|*li«''3 If the conrv^ira&tioti 
WHO truo* ^® hays roftohed tbisr e^i^el-uelon thatt ih«. jury r^asoriafcly 
ooial^ h<sT« -fStohellrvM tho tfi«tiig©ay In tm^m4 to th© eorii?erij»tl.oB , 
hooana© of t>io inhereaat isBprehsil'iltty ef ths- teotiK-oi^* #Oia ,Qv»pH^ ,l v, 
3^.ocf,f. 186 III., 84t'. 84$. 

froa »(. eojaelfiorifetl©® of all of th« «rwl*3«rie« w« aro 
oleaxly ot th«i ©ijinion that th« 4e««as«d w^« »©t gsiilty of aoetrlbu* 
tory Bogllgonoo ao a a«tt«?r of Isiw. *as a g«?n»ral i»r<^s»0»ltlen, tli© 
^uoatior. of &o&trii>utory it«^Xig«a«« i« or« of f&st for tho Jury ««4»3P 
all tho f%ote ioi^ cirooBistsajKooo »hotm hy tho oirid^nco, { h ^ M "?• Vhi^ g^- 
iffi. Juf'9tiojtt Bfel.Iwa^ Cg^. , £5® 111., 476), hat ©aooo oecaoionaliy arioo 
which a is^Tson in so ear*?l«8« ©r his o«ii4tjot eo Tiol&tiTO of all ri&iii5.aatl 
otandar^o oi' oofiflttci a®9iic».fel« to 9«r«a»9 lis i* li^e »it«4att«jB that 
the court oa» say, s» a aaittr ©f l««f, that xu» ratlo^nal w^ro^n woul«l 
havp !^et«4 a« h0> ^1<! an^ reinlosr Ju<l|^«nt for the dof <wrn3[siint«* Kf^ l j ^ 

^0 thinlt that It la ohvloas that th« es.8« rtt hni^ ^oeo 
not oofflft wlthlB the elase of r«««« def iKidd i» ijOwlsX "*• ^.iSMS. iiiluS 

Ccuasel for tho 4«f«ss4a^t mailstalo that ih«'- «iri?l«no» f^o«Jt 
mot «ho« that tho. ^oeoiAOoifi Xenk^^A mud liet^Aod as the aut€iis.ohll« ail* 
fvoaoho4 the iracJka, 90 that he gottld wai« tho drivor* a failaro to 


? .!,■ T*!*! 


looit aul liaiwa i-^ aot of ttsclf Hegllijcisc* -ii! » ia-a.ttey of lMr» 

j^enc* l» r&lllfif i© look and llrat^R far t>»« ^tiPTWfi* of eautlontHK 
%h* {Jrlvtr 1» a ^t4<*«ilon of f.'ict t.o !;« :'i»t#>rjalifte4l "by t^« jiity on * 

coBwi^ftrftt, tor* of all of tht* €rl<3ei5t.ce, H':inr; !|i V, ijitCC k iat. L. Ef« 

<leac« tbai Uie •,i«««aa«!d sxerelaed «J«* ear« ««A wa» n©t guilty of 
oi>ntrih\t%ery JtaegllBWCKlf '^*e s4r# ^f %hM ©'9tj3l©» Iteat tlxa ver4lct of 
th« Jary or* tliia trasstt^ii i« mot essaaif^estly *g}*ii4f»i t};;«f '««igi-vt »f 
th.« ©vlvieii®*, it li co«Joed«t3 by cotjtns®! for th« d«f SJi.ifaet , a« It 
JKuat fed, ila*% tii« ii«|£ll^-0(iso«, If acty, of th® tr;lv®y of tim »nx<5iao'bile 

w)a©thor tli« d,e«tfc««^ ft3eTe.l»«<l. ti-i® c&rn that «s ©MlBiyrlliy ■oru<'««t 
l»er»om voKld tiaYr «3t«irc !,»«<$ Ik t^«* s?lre«««tajae«,i, I's'iCt© in iiaai-ftr©u« 
oa&s?j» 3aiiY» baea elt«d 1?y b©tJs o«>ims«X for t.he i«f«tt-3®i;it mni ootuasel 
for th« i>laintlff illastratlvn pf tla« g^ttersil, ir^iic* Ha-sr^y^r, a« t>.er« 
is »«fu:'ly til^'aya a mat'^rial T---ir 1 ■%* Vera of th« fsctw ir? t>i» -liff^sr^t 
ea«^?s, »i»e>» e.inja am*t "b*? «l«t^iTsilo«jtl lmrg,0ly ««. Ita i3'w« r.-ictft, li;i tho 
ea«a> at tar ^l t^at th** .4«ea4-:-fld &&MiX(i 33»¥« '.ton® In the «x*»rel«R^ of 

a«t.oi5H>l?iI« of «M3y !5*Js«ajr th*it was .r*aiset«-i*¥ly m§^ihJMnt» Mu^/lhmv^ sny 
ye&aaa.a^iy sijpp#r«»t dimig^r irhi«h «®uld haya b««ii ob(9i«rrs4 if the 4@« 
a«juB©d had Xos^M sjb^I l:l«t«»0ilt On th« tsst-lmoay ©f iiJ« 4«fe«>^!a«st, 
ai'i^ouTtJtedly tli«ijr« «f»». C««i tb^ t^stmony of the pialnilff th'sro wa« 
ii©t, -■» the t^«tl«^oJiy for thi» <5.ef ejid^it , if a«iaai4«r«4 j&lee®, tH« 
drl-ver, ihs doeft»««4 "asd all %h» oer.iii&fit« of th« a^togisMlir. «er« 
guilty of ifet gyenseat i5«f:iigt;j3©e, t»® tfei^f if^atiwsny ©f the ?»lisiljRtif f, 
if eoiiei4eJr«t! &i@?J#, ueiiiie-r thtt dvlrmT^ i&© ^^c&tme-A, nor &tij cf th« 
sjee-u^mnta c.f lb? .a,«t. '-■?»» pX1« was guilty of ttftgll^eise*. ft mak«» th^tf 
d¥»»rr»ti©H» w^srely to «sif^»»is« tte« f?fcot that ttes t®»ii»«By ef tte» 





ityidf tie-'Vi- 



irafljsonabXy catj«e>t "b* >iatrfcioiiig5«d. tlie only wajr ia «iit«li tlie 

aa<! to aecepi fhe ts-.»!;iK&iay !>f thai dtft-adast o» vits>».« ia«tu®«. On 
a oojielderatitja ©f ai:i the ssvl^ciia©*, «@ d« xmi thivtk tteat '•??« 'Would 

hm W9i-rrtai%i!'4 In Ssiais; ib»t« 

w» df} net ^^e» It n^e®«{feary t« 4iee«£« iis 4^1*11 ill 
frf tl!i« )arg;i.jj8r.?*rsta urged hj oo-uir.s9l for ite pl&intirf swid co-o^na*! ffw 
|lt« a«f«is1,s»t f>E the ®Yl4cir(Cf» It t> .ts:;S: ih.*t %« b.^Airis 8tf,t«d euf- 
fl©l-^)nt i'g'et '»0rt3? tc ti^w* tfe« asuiflttt of tli^ ^3vi-^»iEie0. 'fe ^111 
JBOitae, 'he'w^Ttr, fHt e«is-t ftv; i; t#]a «ff esUftiS^l f^r tfe* ief^sifiaajKt to %h» 
©ff«at tt^at if tt 0h©.«l1 l;« o®ai,«.e,4e''l that thf;r« stivr« fe©3£ car« aw th® 
•witeh triksk -^sfhlslt t»'?«^ to #%!t®i3T# tk«s vissioij la the Aif^etl^ii 
fy©m ifhioh t^.o traia. -ira® «>.?:>p,r®©^|jlr.g, ^euish iffe^traetiz^g aar«, tjs- 
»tt«ta <?f »TrjaiRg' f^he 4.®c«fe«^d frsaa l^^klag «4 li#^t*iaiiig sad. ©attr- 
#i»l»S a»*r#, ■B'i9r« jp.iaj>a1al* «©iie# iis Mm ©f 4iU«g®r swad a atait^ing 
»£''36alt less ta '.4ff8 e.«iy® i««<| pr«cmjil©i$. * Hu^h ajs tafersafte* i*iid»ubtfs41y 
cevl**. ^£ drawm, Imi *ije «|ia?'tti€JB fef tli« esi»trli>utor>- lui^ig^a'icfe ©f 
tfce dcfeta©*^ aftitsuld eot %% d<jiei^i«5,«i ©k that isif ©rsace a1#ii«. Itiat 
liiffr«^r:©t, to«ift«^'T rith six tht ^thujt lef sren.cea that uoaI4 Ije 
legit ijRRitlir lif-ifaetd frsm t>;« >'-Tldi«fjc«, r^xCLt?. h».v« ic be coBstderftd 
la !ltcl'*ijftg wl5fltfet;T %h^ d«e«-s«d w&s 4;uUi^ of atgiifesuc*. S:v«ij if 
tfee- *»,«c««.p«d 'h&.S rf«i; t>S€ Lf^x cavsi, 9?o-ul':5 t^ai f^-.ct &lo«« haf® hmm. 
safficinst t0 esK^#.l Ma to ea-atUa tli«i drivtr ©r to attempt t« 
g»t t^>'-: -frl-^f^r *® «l®pt A c^BRiilfjrifetiou of all the aTpl't^no* •'?oul4 
h^ n«o«afe»T7 to ili»t 4,r-.f.lj|,'? tlss q^jssstiea. It i$ f-ais- to as*-.5»t« that 
tlic iRfer!»iie« »ttga*8t«d "by cstjiisstl f»r tise. 4®i*'3»d;se$t wa« sargu.«A t« 
^»^ j'jry- 'md "i»-3i.?? -trsa?? .tiered 'by f^asa. Tki I'&ei-lii syad ctirsiSRst.-iUcai 
.ia m^ry <>aa«f 'Ho^eYe.r* 1o not. alwayt reis«ir«j, .«© a issitter o^C 4tt« 
♦«ittt0B '^ad O5ii»0, that a 4^®»t i« ?aa 3at«a©L-il« afiioul^ att^wpt to 
•to? %hn Ariyev ©r to ^'-i'^-J ^^tja direstiowa. i<^ da »o in mamm situa- 





wh«r« lnt*rfer?me» with tlse 4Piv«r wotiliJ c«nfu9« hija hbI iacr«aa« 
the 'lauigfsp, la »o».« «^««» th« -'-^uty to vurn ihd dyivtr jal^^ht "be Ibm? 
j^erative* Ir? «it>i©r», ih« luty isljKht few to ressain in^jctive *n4 n«t 

tft iwt^rf*]?*! '^Itlh th# f!rlY«r. Ib tb«^' eaaw at '^ar v^e thins that th* 
^'tti^tttioQ ©f eojstrlbwtory ae^ilg^nc® •w»b ^^n^ ef fact for the jury, 
Mi^ w« do ««t thlJRk that th« 'f^T'^ict «if t>i# jury la iffiol'^ixig the 

^ut^dtloA »dTr»T«»^l5» to tht^ d#f«».'!»'mt Ij^ sj^JBlfis^atly i^gaiaat th« •**»lght 
ftf th« «Ti<5<pna«, W« Rxsf «Xe«? of tfe© opl.«it«sa th^t th« tfiT'liat of th« 
Jaary in fladiag tli» «Siif«an.i>mt guilty of ,n«g,ii^.;«!isj«e ia not 4s.«3snlf»stly 

ag^jetfit th<» w«Agi^t o- tJie ®Tifl©r»e«, Tb,© ryle is a f^clliar «»ne» sMBd 
h«&« t>0«B a»ii0aiic«ii ttt .jsaoy eases, **tk«i.t ^^%i^i"« tte@r« ie a contrariety 
•f «vl4»me« and th« t«8ttai©ii^ "bSf fssir sad rf*«,8©»a^3,« iati^^jfidjvtssot ^a-lll 
atuthortxe tise? venUot, f>,ir#i3 tkouj^ it «say fee ag^ljnst th* ^-■c,v>mrmt 
vtiglht »f thr- e:^iAmiCi}, a rfsurl^wiaii; e^urt will not ^^t it afiide.* 
C»f;figy V, i^£2jJt» ^'^ Xli,, ?a, 33* It la sa^a the. j;-y[l« timt ft 
T«raiiet ^lli «oi tj«! di%tiarfe««l a«?y«ly fc^eauf-e the ««vi.-i!rK*sa In Acufet* 

Conns*! fo»' th® («a4sst eo«t©G'<» that cownspl for tbe , 
l»l%iftll;f jsa4e Imssrop^^r remarl© to t>ie jwry in Mp %TgMn<mt* The 
r«@»ay3ce oomulalE<!*«1 of «.y# statM %y e0taii««l f»r t'n^i d«sfsa^5a»t a« 
foliowaj "Th* tewers&im stSJtH* th<»r«, M« saee thie iivtoaio"bli«, L« 
la waj«i*i-4 by til® flstg:sfta tli«r« is g^ia^ to 'ot a oolXissiom; ri^jht at 
hl» T«ry ltj»«d la a "feell, th^r« for that purwo*®, to 's'jam th« ^w'b- 
Xi#* I/O y«tt tJiinJk thos« are tho action* of a nssiaonsifol e , ret- 
bloedea iaan^ if yoa were ia )il8 ssiiie® aad yo^i saw th*t dauiger, 
iisiid »aw ifoe ^sllieioR 's^aB ImpesidiB^, aas'J yots o»,tt of natural, huwan 
i»«tinet warii^'d to ete-f it, woul-^H ynu ring yotj-r b®!!?* 

Cosnsel for tbe defecdaat argae th&t th« rees^urJcs ww* 
i»S>r®^9i" 'b»6fi»se lfe« Eaiiroad coaj|saigr, af -wiRiC'-; ti5« tow«r;.^fm '?a8 
fta «^ifty©«, is "riQt a o!i.rij c?.9f ^JsdaKt to thia eaae '.*k.A n© n«glig€ne« 


\ ft/. 



wa« chargi^. ttgalitot 9^«l4 aompmiy or ita towttrsaBSi,** the tow«Tiu«i 
VA« ft witntse iti t5a« ea»« at lbd,r, ws'i ao«»i««l for thft? pl;%iifttiff , 
•f eottts®, had tlstt rig»>t to ditteute hia t<is«tlM«»!y, t^« eouiext of 
tli« arfi«a«at ©f eotwi«el f«r th«? gl^Aictiff fro»s; Whl«JK iht tx^orpt i» 
tak«R, Is jfiot Bet out ifj th« l^riof or ial»©iy&at of ootmaaX fer tbo 
dtJfo&ftiant, 16) ut we aj"« referred by ©tj-uiisiel for fcfe® d«f ©Bfs^aat to tbo 
r««ord, Oft ftB iiiefefttiori ©f tfe« r«!e®.rd "*« flji4 that towforo comioal 
for th« :plal«tiCf afeMo tM« rffe'.arJc» objset.(?-d to.„ h« h.H4 \nnm 'tis- 
onasiiig at ooeiife X«ai£t& ik«» qiuiis^tiori t&f tlt« «tr«4il>lilt;f of tha ttra. 
timoa^ of tbe fiagmatfj aji4 tfea towaamisft, B« sfjife not i»jrguii»g; that 
tht tow«r»:-.«m waa gailt^' of iiiifllg«»e«, Just tsam^^liHt-BJly ore«6<5ing 
tJaa ai>>ova «3to«rft froM tht f^gxmmit of eoti»Ml f«r tk« ipliiti»ttff, 
«0»ft»al for tk« ^Istiwitiff hm4. feeasj ^rg'aljag ita .fall^wsj *'J1i« fla;;^ 
»«» »ay8 ikat 1i» t^TM«d aT8M»4 «ri«S mm ssswmy %>#f0ipt ths a.€t^Ml eol- 
llaies« ws^ <i.l4iiH «#« tls® e®lil»l#«, 'biat tr^'suf^ ■<! feh.©t, au^ tvxw9s<a 
ajrotiBd a«<l tlxat was the s-ollial^B, The t#ir«ip»«j ts«^« tteo fla^s^.an 
stood his gyowfl'i, rl^ht lfeor«, a»4 nnrmr isovM. %iiin, ia It true 
tkt tow«i?maa Btar.'a« tl3«J^ot h»u^i&4 tfeeir «t®ry is tnj«,* T^tmi fol- 
low the Dtsaio'ka ®bj«et«d to fey eoa»6«l for t:hfe-4«f<sii4«fjt, t« thixtk 
that th« part of tho axftiMEeisi of ooubssI for th® )^l«iieiiff , whteh 
•otmael £%r the defondant oompliSilfi of, ^hmi^ aoii.iil3«r«i ta ooiRn»e«* 
tion ^flth tteo conta:st of ilie ajrgaas^rst, wa» eiatlrefly »rop>@r. 

Gouas^X for iba «t#f*r*4M5ii »«iiiitaiia that tls« trial oottri 
•rroA lo last rwct lag ih% jury. fli« Iwotruoti^ias ^^osspLaiiisea of ara 
tlie Inatrssotloaa girea «it tli« r«^uis»t of tfe.e i? I air* tiff, nttsnt^er^^ 
5, 6, 12, 8, 9, II » 13 suRd 14. TK« ®t>J«otioii of snmi^^^l for the 
4af«n-'aDt ti> tb« iBstrviOtloaa x3!«Ei?5b«p#<l 5, §, aiid 1"^., is t' fhPry 
au'fealt tho <QTa^ati.on ^©tlr'«*r the t>l*liatlff wai g'ullty of aontri"bu» 
t«ry nogil^g-once t.o th« jf»r.y, an-l t>5at tl*®i?« i» n& «i»ifi^«»noe i»a '*'Kl(!aj 
t« baae saoh a*i ls«««. t> .'5c not t^ilnk tte« oourt f^vr^'i in ^^^^^g 
the iaatruetion. In our view tha (iwaatlon ©f es^tritoytory negli* 
gaaoo wae aot a matter of i«w, ^n% waa o«c ef fa«t for tfe« ^ury. 



u*'--' if;"' "5 j i ii 


J?iirt.teer!»«r«, «0«Ei»el f«»r- ih« (l«f«w^,ftnt ewwot a«elj£ii #n?«r on the In* 
»t»yotio«Ji In C!u«>8tioB, ;;,» th« lnau» of coKiributory n«gll%'©ttce wbmb 
•ulsmltte'l to tl5« jury In th<s Inatraetioiis g^lven at the r«qus«t of 
til* .4«f eo,'3aut , Rtim\iftr»4, 5, f » 10, 11, It an^ i:»l, Bjr^njLo v, Beld<fm 
li^matfjfg . Cg.'* ^^^ ^^^'t 5.1, 13, 

fT»-« inatr\3«tlons givffn %t thii y«<fa«*»t of th« plaintiff, 
«w»>>«r«<l 11 aasi 14, are ©l)^«ioted tt» tiy ©ot»jR»«l far tJi« «!«f««'lDuat on 
tli« groaiiiS %h»,% tl»«y la at met tfee Jiiry an the ihisory tfcat t'n« orrii- 

Appll2»ne<i« at flro9aiug« are &to.i»iii^l« isi ®Ti<!i«no«, A,s *o have held 

that the ordlii.»«ic«« w«r€|»«ti-iy ^teitt«<i In m^iimicvt, th« o)5J<e«f» 
tion is ©YiBrrulM, 

flaiutlff '« la0trueii©a« aii28l5tr*di fi sypid lil, o^mplaioed 
ef 'by eoun»«l f»r th« dsftridiuit, ar© Aupiieatai, th« iJf&rtiGul&r part 
©f lbs* lfistr«0il®Be ©b5«*Qt«4 fe«i i» a-« fssllnt'wa.i ^ixi artie? to cJtarge 
pl&iatlff »a i»t<!!»t»t© i«dth th© a.«t,:y ef ^sftrnliii,*; tli® f|,rlver ©f the au- 
toKobilft in ?3ue0tion, fJi^ e(V.lrl««(s« must uhu-w tlia.t t,b«!( «iTey?««t^ie«« 
w«T« £?•««>! that plaintiff** liit««st«te )sa4 tlist Wi^ i^'^povtMnit^* to 
■^«e«H»« eo®»«slo«« l>y ths e-3F#r©iis« ©f witMm-^Tf oar^^ ®f tht f.?set(» g:ivl»^ 
rl»« t© iB^e^i duty a*»4 tl».» ri«a80BJ*bl« e-p-f»ortMnlty to i^^^rfon:* if,'* ';n&« 
er«>ii>Ei^ of tlh« ©1i;J««t.lG« ©f ccunael f@r th* <1ef«!^^>?%nt, i« ttiat "tb© 
Irur^en tras ©r; tl5« plaiatlff to tj-ww fey |tr«T>^m.^..«rajrj«« of tfe» ©vW 
<i«jsc« tbat tij« d«««A»«i was !« tlt« eactrciw® ©f ar^iisajry *3aT^ sma 
preeftutloia at all ti««8 ^rloar t© tii« aecid^iit,* i-K otar opinion the 
l»»truetlo&s fto i3idt p^r^ort t«> r«.li€ir« th« i»l%ii$tlff 0f tiim isturden 
©jT jirwjf. fhe jury ^j?e »ejr«ly tJul^l 'what *tfe« «vi:i«ac«« Bi^aiit ®h®w, * 
1« thfe fir»t part of ttae lB8tru©ti«m» tlie Jury w«»r<t tolf tlwfet their 
fierllag 2cnt»t fee b»««<a ©n "a frtfe;3&J2i4eraii<?« or tb«i evidence, ander th« 
lnstructi«ms sf fh*^ c^^urtj* saad th^ jwry T«ir« explicitly tei4 in 
•tber lustjcactloBa th^^t ilia b-kapd«ss »f vrn^t wsts ©a tjj© plalfitlff . 

ffe« 1» strict low auwlfe^sred 8, giveifi f0t tha flaiatiff, it 
•^J«i«t«d t# fey e«i»B©«I for th« >i«f®sidaiBt f&r tfee r^^taoja tiiat it feuW 



»l1itM tbe «|is^etl<:Ma <&f c««tjrlt>«t©ry a®glig«»B«e« t« the jury, aKi4 
for th« farther iwaii©© ihi«.t it in»tru«t»d %h» Jfury iia ,reit*r-l to 
ihi^ ea>r«? tii«.t eba^fi be «x«rol»«d 1&j the 4rlv«r ®>f thft •titosiobtla 

lii the optratl^tt of th«* atJics?«©ivii«5, «# h.%^% j^x-tt^riouwiy fe«l4 that 
tlMi Q«wtl©a of aeu.tri'btttory n^llgtjir©® was |>ir®i»«^rly »uWlt*«4 t« 
tfe« JIury* t35« afe^isatiott to tfee otiier ,ff*irl ©r il5«t In ut Paction ia 
ii»t ar£w.«4 fey e©«23B«l for tli# d«l"««t4i?s»t , 1s?tt th« ot&jeotloia la oaly 

»t&t««a «t f©ll©i«si **it will %«. r«*a#-ily n^mn that th« flr«t 'para- 
grak^lft ©f VilB 4uBiru«?tlois feat mo appli«atiisis to tfee^ f---,cts or isw 
tBvol"v«sd In this e>ii»#,* B«jo«j.d tlil» stat-^sfiiKt ih€r« is oo further 
4i»ef,i«i»l©.i3 ©f ih9 ofejeeiiooi s>0 s«t''.orit,i«s ar^ cit®i<!. In our 
e)^l»iQR ii^e ©Jijurt -ii4 at«ti @©isKdt isfr-or iri giving tbe; i>mrt af fclx« 
iraalraatloa ssi^laiis^s*! of. It in m,&r^ly sdtis^i»vj* It '*©$» not 
•wiswit th« si[t«««ti®li «f this '■?riv#r*t Ra#lig«a«« tf> the Jury *9 js» 
Issat trt Ih^ «i!u»e. Tht Jwry r«'aa®is-afel.y e^ml-i. n«8t Ira-^ji/mi al *m ? into 
"l»«ll«Yiiif t>iat thB .i«o«a»«4 wmt emmim«4 frmm %h& 0fellri'*ti®» ®f 
«iE«releiiS(g; ear** if tfet jiar-j fetli®tf«(g. tkmt the ■lflf»r stpf»rat'%d tli« 
a^t^^malallft ■with i5t3.« aitr^, ft^v tlift ■rta-aoB tfeat ip tlm «a«fe« iioatruQ* 
tion tfe« Suty 5iir® t««l"J, th&t ttee im^mm^ti. w^g un*t@r th« <!wty of 
«3Ei»r«l®lag ^r<$i»ary care i^ex- Ma ©'w.a ssaJ'^tj, 

Iti ©"bjtsatiag to th« ijaairuotisn givaaa for th« plala*. 
tlff« «tiBi'fe«r«d 9, 0ouji8i@l for tfe© 4«f@i'i'5su»t as^froly «tat4s4 tlieif ©fe- 
j«otioia iBlt^.Ottt j&rgw«eiit, ce,ii f®li©w»: •!▼!!! (tn«« tOK^ing to efco* 
ordinary caro on the part ct th^ d,#e&:*a«5;l both before »|?'i? roach ing 
th^ cr^s^elBg '?«;1 ;-ift«ir r^aa-fleg the awitefe traelt, ^h®r« tm/ler aay 
▼tstr t!ik<m of tfes ^-^idei^se tise »ppro«fc0.biag trai» «i»«l»i hmr& bftflas 
ttm^n^ iu eutifcXy laokiag. * te tliinjlc ^v^^t tbe olsjeetiori ia *lt>iOttt 

Sb our ©|)l«ion tho trial si«»ri H4. tmt oo«'wit r«T«r»i» 

■bl« «»rr©r in giving aisy of t*(e iisetr^jietions ©ooi^Iai