Digitized by tine Internet Arcliive
in 2010 witli funding from
CARLI: Consortium of Academic and Researcli Libraries in
linois
littpV/www.arcliiv^.brg/
ils/illinoisappellat252illi
:QUN0-
^ ,:, X
fggig
/ / / / /
*t.rRiD 80D0 soHwuirJsaaso «n<i )
LvM'ISE 3GH!^'^,TrS '35.ro, ) OF QHIOaGO,
Appellants. )
Opinion filed Feb. 37, 1929
KK. PHISiaiKO JUSSTIOK HOI^OOM delivered the opinion
of th« court.
This is % fourth class action in the Municipal O'ourt
brought by the plaintiff against the defentJants to recover a
oo^aission of 5460 for negotiating a a?.ie of renl estate owned
by the defendants. There ia no aist>ute in regard to plaintiff
being a duly licensed real estate agent of Chici!^» at the
time of the transaction* and there is further ao ilspxite th^t
the contract of ssle was entered Into by the defendanta to
sell the property to the person whom plaintiff produced as a
pnrty able and nililng to purchftse the same at the price agreed
upon; snd th'it in th« oontrsot of s^le the nwount of the
com:^is3ion w«s made n. :>^rt of the contrnct ^nd fixed r.X the
sua of 1460*
Tb«r« was & trial before court and Jury, vrhlc?^ resultii
in the oourt's (Allowing the fflotlon of plaintiff to instruct r ,
▼erdlot in his f^wor for the amount of the commission ^460. /^
The verdict "fas instructed against the objection of aefcndf-nts^
Defend^inta' oiotions for p. new trial end in arrest of ;judegBient
were aaade and overrxiied, and the defendants bring the record
here for our review by appeal.
.9 '■'^J
3CGX ^7S .cf9'? b9l,cl aoiniqO
« 3 -
Th*r« Is Ijut one question <\Tgu«d for rcTerotil, irhloh
Is thiit the court erTftd in instructing n verdict. th« oontmot
negotiated toy plaintiff w'^s offered -inrt receired in evidence,
and in puT«u»»no« of the Agreement of the defftndante the amount
of the oomiaiasion to be puid plaintiff was evidenced liy the
fligreeaient in these words: "to the payraent of vendor's broker
of a ooai;3is«<lon of '460 to Mathan Snnpson", being the
plaintiff in this suit.
The contract evidencea that t>i» pro^i^erty wmt '?old
through the instrxment'^lity of plaintiff a.s f? real eat«te
broker for the 8u« of $17,000, and th?*t the oomiaisaion thereon,
la accord with the rules of the Chicago Heal ''Estate ik>«rd, w^a
three per cent, of the purohsae price, which ^ould aif-ke V510.
Defendants objected to pay the board rstt© and thereupon >460
vaa s.greed uTX)n as the aaount which defend:%nt8 vould : ay plain-
tiff na his real estate oommlsslon, and this agreeEoent was
evidenced by the provision in the oontraot above quoted.
Defendants contend that the court should not hnve
instructed a verdict because in the then condition of the
proofs there *ere ouestiona of fact for the jury, not of law
for the court* *nd ohaaiengs the ruling of the court in
refusing to perait the defendsnt, Alfred 3odo Sohveiasberg,
to give evidenoe In contradiction of the fict regarding th«
amount of the comajiasion Inserted In the oontraot of sale,
and the offer to prove by th«t defends^nt that at the time of
the signing of the contract there vbb r conversation betireen
the plaintiff and defendants thj't no coanilssion was to be x'.nli
unless the sale vas conauounatedf This tritness had testified
at the instance of plaintiff|, undej section 33 of the MuniciTsl
Court Act, that the contract 'p&a executed by the parties? in his
^Oi?S::. »v
fftitrrtr
■■i*««it«v
- 3 -
pr«eene« %nd that th« contract 1« in th« ar^me oondltioa ae It
vma irh«n MlgaaA, and that the oontr<^ot was in his posflcaeioB
from the dj»jr It *r»8 signed, and th^t no ohting«« F«r* eonds in
It, and that pls.intifi iaade s dF^mnnd on hia for 1f460, th«
aaount of th* ooarniiBSion in ths oontr««.ot, vhleh he hnd never
paid.
O^fand^nts insist that plaintiff was not s» party
to the eontr«».ot. Therefore the parol evlr!«noe rule Ices not
Rpoly ind they should hav? been mllov^ed to introduce arol
erldenoe to v^ry the written terass of the oontr?»ot <%g regards
plsiatiff's ooaaslsaion. This, hov-erer, is not the rule which
controls. The rule ^^o ol early st^.ted by this oourt in
Merohants Loan & Yrtist Coatnafiy t, i/naaoh. 338 HI. App. 67,
iFhere the court saidj
"A great aany ^uthorltifs sirs cited ^here it is
stftted that the rule prohibiting the admission of
parol evidence to vi^ry the terms of a written oontr5).ot
does not ^pply ''h^re the auit is brought by one not a
party to the contract, but ia «?pplioqble only in suits
lMti?«ea the parties to the instrsuaent. 'tut upon a
oareful exaalimtion of ?iil the authorities, w« think
this ststement is not acctirate. ^Inere a third ierson,
aot a psrty to the f^ontraot b^ses hie onse upon it,
aiui seeks to enforce it, the p^xol evidence rule applies,"
furthermore the defendinta -iid not set up such n
defense in their ••ffld'sTlt of afrits. Neither did th«y deny
the exeoutlon of the co»tr?ict, but on the witness atand
admitted the execution of the same with the ooven^^nt to pay
in* oomBisslon therein. In virosaflttd & Hoe Co. v. Jurxker C!o.^.
•08 111. ^pp• 337, It was said: /
H» ^.v."*^ 4«fcnd^nt in the ?Junioip-l -ourt is confined I
by the rules of that court to the defen.ee m.de in Mg
affldaTit of merits."
lii '■■$' '«i.
i^i^ ***rtt-'.#»;»^i-)
t^l
<m 6t««<^«t«i^ «*f;'
- 4 -
And in Kudiaon ▼. l'ortvn» troa. OrcylnR vO, . 163 Iblfl. :?76t
"In the Municipal Court ill defenaea the nature
of ifhloh %Tt not set up in th« jtffid'Vit ar« w«?lved md
are unavailable on the trial,"
In Isbltg ▼. Cihloafco City By, Co. . 193 ibid, 488, it i^ _ xli
'here an j'ffidaTlt of msrita is filed
apacifying the nature of the dafenae rslied on,
all iefenaca the nntura of which are not sat
out in tha fiffldavlt ttc conaidered w-Rirad,"
*.t the time the d«fend»nt« rested their enae «nd
the motion w^a aade for an instructed verdict, the oueations
on the evidence reaolved tbeaaelvaa into onas of l%v ^nA
not of faot, ^nd ther<'fore the oourt did not evt in Instruotlng
tha verdiet.
So valid reason apoe's.ring In the record vnrritnting
the rev«r3^l of the judganent of the Municipril Jourt, it is
affiraed.
j'»'?T? ,f>*cf? iti ^,^J^,.Mi:^M-.,^:^^SMl.■.MMiM:i '^ SBJ^IMZ ^■■^- fe**^
;,i.v -■:-' j.'ii •*■: .4-* .
:jMf a«
32S48
/
lUX STUULFAUf ,
Appall ce^
App«i4<t,nt.
1 1
FROM /
/TT"- .-=«-«,.:^ ..plOlPAJU 'COURT
) o|:, cfucAoo,
2_
35
Opinion filed Feb. 27, 1939
MR. PRKSIOISO ,raSTl0.ie HOLDOM delivered the ov/inlon
of tb« omirt,
Thli aotlon Teault^ froa *» oollleion ?..t the inter-
aaotion of iiontrose and Jr-^nolsco ATonuea in the City of
Chioago, t}fltw««n the care of the plaintiff and defendant, being
driTen at the time by the parties to this suit on Janunry 30»
I926« at About the hour of elx o'clock in the evening.
The cause was by agreement of the i^axtiea aubiHitted
to the court for trial (trial by Jury being wsived). There
was a finding la favor of plaintiff and an assessment of
damages in the sia of ;^37&. hsotions for a new trial and in
arrest of Jud^ent were oade by the defendant and overruled,
and the defendant brings the record here for our review by
Ths asftount of the damages assessed ie not in dispute.
If they were properly asseesable.
Defendant argues for reversil that there we a a
previous tAJudia-^tion, and that the doctrine of res adjudie-^ta
is invokable as a defense, and th^it defendant had the right
of way, and that the plaintiff was guilty of negligence.
r
m^ fim-' , »i:^: 0,-m$^ii^;>0 ■
i^H fif<^mf''^f^-: i&m ^^K^
r.:t fkm^li
'■•i^ :'0t. ,^mi' $%m»m.-isfM wgat^-stf mis!fm^'i:m' mi
m #1 &mm»»'a f^m'^ij^
--•«..•■? J ^ff,i"f* ?>«.>•<...'!
- 3 -
»
Ab to the attempt to InTok* tta« doctrine of res
^dJuAloata It la sufficient to 8*,jr that he did not make ouch
defense In his iiffidavlt of aierlts, ind that defense ( nor
any other for that matter) cmnnot be raised in this coiurt
for the first time.
In aonsoll dated Coftl Co. ▼. FtevB, 166 111. 361, it
was said:
"It is claimed by appellees in tthelr brief thnt
the question nt issue in this e^use vrr^o adjudiO'^ted
In some former litigation between the parties to
this suit, -"nd that the matter here nt issue is
yes judioatfi. There are no «llegntlone in the
deolaration showing a former adjudio^tion in respect
to the questions or ssatters •jubmitted in thle suit
for the decision of the court, nor Is there ^ny
repliorttioa of rep ;)udioata,. n«d so the nftcees'^ry
a4BOlu!»ion cBust be th^.t no question of res judioata
is rniaed by the record."
In Haftn ▼. Hitter. 13 ibid. 80, the rule applicable
was laid down in the following teroa:
"It is a general rule in relation to »*otiona for
torts, that matters in diochnrge or justification of
the action, must be apscirslly pleaded, «nd o^nnot be
given in evidenoe under the general issue. A former
adjudie^'tion of the s-=ae cause of action, fslis
directly within this prinoiple. It is diatinotly held
in the iotion of trespass, that « foraer r«^ooTery mxist
be specially pleaded, nnd cannot be insisted upon
under the plen of not guilty. I Ohitty's. Fl, 10th ku,
Ed. 506; C?olef ▼. QRr^er. 6 Coren, SjJI." > eople ▼,
O^^.kridtge Jemetery 2otx>, 328 111. &3.
Therefore the qusBtion of res adjudlcgt,'? is not before
this court for rewiew,
A reading of the ewidenoe irapels us to the conclusion
that the trial judge might hawe rea80n«^bly found therafrom that
defendant j^n.a at fault »ind that his conduct in the -irlTing
and aaaagersftnt of his car at or before the time of the
Si »j
'3E ^j^^i^y^''^^" *i
■i&
•*i?-,:v/'
,J*^j^., *10»
T --ifiW a^'
;■?!";
iKeli»tf ^-is^ «U
l^^syJuLShiL '^ .aiiliii
£ltM .S^ ^® ,«^-''
*tiitir«Ki «Mdr
«!•
nsM- %» «iftl# ftn^ / m'<»%ii«^ 'm i'» tm -t^M ttf '$^mmm»iixm itm
- 3 -
Aooldftnt ««a the proxiiwite oeu«« of the oollleion. It is
quite true, ne st«te'l by plnintiff in hie brief, thsst it is
not disputed thnt ''fter t^e accident plaintiff • a anohine
stopped at the southed! st oomer of the mtereeotion of
Montrose and rrtncisoo Avenues, and that the defendant's oar
continued in aotion after the oollision over '% parkv>iy,
over a sidewalk *nd into % drivewpy on the : reaileea of -s.
filling 8t?ition situated at the southeast corner of the
foregoing intereeotion, and that in Its progress it knocked
over two posts on the premises of th*- filling station, sind
that defendant "stepped on the gns* !<?nd "out in front" of
plaintiff *3 oar rhen the t'^o o^rs rers distant fro« each
other about thirty feet, sjttd that plaintiff started to mwke
the turn rhen defendant was ^tbout ten feet ivest of Franoiaoo
Avenue, ind that defendant first saw plaintiff's oar 'hen
It turned to the south; that defendant ande no effort to
stop hAs oar when he sav plaintiff's oar turning, ^nl «t the
tiae of the accident kontrose Avenue was poorly lighted west
of Franolseo Avenue, although the int9^r«ection ms vrell
lighted, and that the aeoldent ooourred about six o'olook in
the evening.
from plaintiff's testimony it appeared thst he
looked T^eet before starting to turn nnd did not see defendant's
automobile coming from the west, 'tnd that the visibility vi^a
about half ti blook.
If the trial Jttdge« as his finding indicates, oon-
eluded that the preponderance of the evidence regarding the
occurrence was with the plaintiff, and that defendant had
failed to overcome the same by ooaipetent evidence, ?*n4 that
#«» it?:^^ ifi^4'
- 4 -
ill* situation of the onrs nftcr the vcoldent wa,a a strong
faotor» demonstrating th«t the n<«g^Iig«noe of defendant wnt the
pTimHTf oauae of the damnge to plaintiff 'a oar» thnt mis
suffiolent to justify the court's finding In faror of plaintiff,
la reg»rd to the contention of defend,i>nt that he had
the right of way* we vould reiterate what Is »f.lA In yreen r»
a^ Orlatof&ro (Jen. So, 388S7, in an opinion filed oolnol tently
irlth this one, "that the atotor Tehiole aot vti9 never intended
to glTS the party olalalng the right of way under its proTielons,
the right to proceed In h reokleae or oareleas auftnner in
driving a onr through an intersection* i^aoh of the parties
so driving aust proceed with due elroumspeotion and care, and
i^hat is due oare and olroumspeotlon auet be adjudged froa the
evidence of tv.e situation and the conditions confronting
the parties at and laffledlately preceding the ncoldent. In
other vords, the act, supra « does not relieve a driver at
any time fro« the exercise of due oare in the oper<^tlon of his
«»»• Heidi er v. 'Silaon, 343 III, App, 89} Sal^son v. .nigon,
327 Ibid. 386.-
rinding no reversible error in the record, the
Jud^ent of the uunlclpal Court is affiraed.
iflliSOIt A RYtncR, JJ., UOSCUR.
•k' **
:0^0n s^:^^!^,fm^^m^-m0 9^.'
fMf.».i»:Bi::t%:1!i0M ^«i»..:§^ra»,!::, >ii-^^^r^
Mr
m-S^ ^Uit^mt. M'lf jtti to^-sa «,
.C- ''■•'T>
vmsf
wsmna 4. aiucn»
Appall •«,
rRASK DI aRlSTOFAHO,
Appellant.
Opinion filed Feb. S7, 1929
MR. FHSSIOISO JUSTIOS HOLDOM d«llTer©d th« opinion
of th« court.
Thia litlg:^tlon Arises from >& collision bct'reen t^o
autoaobiles at the interseotion of Gladys avenue nnd liookwood
Strset, In th« City of Jhio^igo. t£aoh party jbrought rt suit
against ths other for diuaages in the Municipal Court. These
suits were oonsolidAted for trial imdsr the agretment thr-t
if plaintiff 99,9 entitled to recover* his daaage should he
Assessed %t $700, and if defendant was entitled to reooyer
in his suit, his damage ws.b agreed to be the aun of vl50.
The onae vn» submitted to the aourt for trial and
tlitvc was a finding in t^ror of the pl-^intlff and tn ^vard
of dAfflftges of the aua of ^700, and the finding in defendant's
auit «&a age-inat hi«. upon plaintiff's oliim there vas a
Jwdgsieat for 1700 and defendant brings the raoord here by
appeal for our reTleir.
Defendant argues for reveranl that plaintiff's Tersion
of the occurrence was iaT>osiSible, that the flndlnfr of the court
was agpinat the amjiifest weit^t of the eTidanoe, and th»t
plaintiff is harred fro» reoovery on account of contributory
negligeno* iaputable to hi««
/x.,.
w
!ll-l «•*«'''
/t"^
"^".
.<•"
.OiJ^AO^BO SiO
esei t7S .era's Ijem noxnxqO
49miM^<ii&
Ifet'
£@i&i«i^'' i^M-
■;.o1t «*!<*.«> tilt iWlii&^e
ianmv^ .«» ;'■
- 3 -
Ott the first proposition «• nre. not n^l* to ftgy««
with def sntJUtnt * a obar«ot«rlz»tioB of paftlntlff»B proof.
?laintiff*9 OTldenoffi la a oonneoted and » lMiIleT«ul« story,
supported toy thft teetlmony of three vitnesnefl. It app«3ir8
thnt pl&lntlff'a OAr was proosedlng at n reasonable rate
of speed noross the intersection of iil»dys Avenue and iiookvood
Street, and had nearly orosssd rhen defendant's oar, drlTsn
at a high rate of speed, struck plaintiff's Of^r In the rear,
▼irtually deaollghlng It. This theory is supported by the
testinony of the son of the plaintiff, irho was drlYlng the
oar, and the vltneeses, Fr-noie and J?.«es O'Brien, who were
riding In the car at the tlae of the aooldent.
&a to the 8et3ond point, we <jrc not in accord i?ith
defendant's contention that the finding of the trial judge is
against the mnifest weight of the eirldenoc, for if the
trial court belieired plaintiff's uritnesaea and §^Te credence
to their teetifflony regarding the collision *» more dependable
and of acre orobstlve force than that of defend3.nt and his
vitnessee, rhioh the trial court had ^ perfect right to do if
he o^me to such a conclusion, such tentlaony la aaply sufficient
to sustain the finding of the court*
There was a contradiction in the teat loony of the
parties in regard to the speed at iphioh the respective oars
wsrs being driven, iliat was a aatter for the trial judge to
decide froa all the evidence, and as shown by the court's
conclusions, we aust ^^ssums that the court found fro« the
evidence th^t there was not sufficient proof to charges plaintiff
with bein,s guilty of any negligence contributing to the
accident, ^o sustain the contention of defendant thit rslain-
tiff was guilty of contributory negligence, he Invokes Section
si 'if l(e|.$<l$»»^«INQ«( ' «^>tjR'^&^
■•■:^.i;•ct3e■
82 of the Motor Vehiolo /.ot, which proTld««, inter al^;
•that if th» THt« of speed of any motor vehlcla • •
op«rsted on nny public hiph^my m thla tate outaid*
th« olO0«ly built up buaineas >ortion9 fnd the
resldonoe portions irlthln any Inoorpontod city,
toim or TllLage, exceeds 30 milps "n hour * " ®uoh
rates of speed shall be ^-rinaa f'^ole cvidenoe thnt the
peraon operating auch eotor vehiole * " its runnifiig
at a rate of speed greater thnn is reaeon!*.ble '^nd
proper, having regard to the tr»ffic and the use
of the mtif or so as to endanger the life or liaib
or injure the pTVf^Ttf of any person*"
fhe seotlon of the Motor Vehicle Aot iaToked by
defendant was nerer intended to t^ive the party olaiaiinfe the
right of way under its proTieione, the right to proceed in
a reckless or os^relees aanner in driving » oar through an
intersection. Kw^ch of the parties so driving oust proceed
K'ith due olrcximspAotion and Oftre« and T-hat is due onre and
ciroui&speotion mxnt be adjudged from the evidence of the
situiation and the oonditions confronting the parties «it %nd
iawediately preoeeding the stooident, In other vorde, the
act, aupra. does not relieve s driver •tt %ny time from the
exeroiae of due es,re in the operation of his o^t, Hejdley v,
f 11 son. 343 111. kpp, 89; aalwon v. .il«on. ^?7 Ibid, 286.
It ia true th».t in the Salaaon ease, aupr^ . the court
held that unlawful speed is prima f'loip evidence of negligence.
from the evidence of pl&intiff the oourt sight reason^ibiy
conclude, if he believed suoh evidence in preferesce to the
evidence of defendvint on the sa«e subject, that the plaintiff's
ear mt the tiae of the collision was not going at a rate of
speed in sxeese of that of the stj'.tute, su^ira,. and th&t the
statute was ii6t violated by plaintiff. Therefore he did not
offend »igain8t it s.nd was not guilty of contributory negligence.
The trial judge was warranted in believing the evidenoe of
^:li£ii ^MM. .^wfeit^^w^ i|ft,^-^,*f«i#,fil|Rii^ *if* t« St
.V
- 4 -
plaintiff that hit fair wi»,« being drivea »t n tp^td of ttrsnty
■il«« an hour wh«n approaohing th« oro«9in($ »t South Lookvood
Street, »nd slowed down at the oroasing, and the tantinony of
the wltneae, Franols O'Brien thut the oar stopped before
eroMing South Lookwood I'treet. The trial judge eTidently
gare oredenoc to the teatimony of thene trltneeses reg!<rding
the speed of the oar, whloh ima sufficient. If believed, to
absolve plaintiff of any charge of oontributory negligence.
From a scrutiny of the erldenoe we find that there
was sufficient evidence from whioh the trial jxidge Might
reasonably coae to the oonolusioa that Y»I^i»tiff sustained his
olaia, and. such evidence is sufficient, in our opiulou, for
that purpose, As held in Foater v, Swansgn, 183 111. App, 344,
this court, where conflicting evidence is nropcrly submitted
to the Jury, rill not disturb th« verdiot beoi^use gxe^-ter
credence and ^?#ight might have been given to the evidence in
favor of one party than that in fnvor of the other, and the
weight that thie court will give to the verdict of a jury will
be the same as that accorded to the finding of the trial judge,
where the trial is before the court without the intervention
of the jury.
For the foregoing rensons the judgment of the
Municipal CJourt is affirmed,
RTMKR, J,, Oonoure,
WILSOM, J., Specially Oonomring:
I eenour in the conclueion arrived at in the opinion,
but not for all the rensona stated therein. Under the facts ms
read by me In the testinony, the plaintiff h».d the right-of-w»»y
under the Statute at the intersection where the accident occurred,
to .. ..■ «»«#•
^•M . ,.._.- ''**
-v. ;■ ■ mt
- 6 -
Th« Kiotlon of th« Statut* relied upon by the d«fend».nt hta
no appllostlon to Interseotiona. Th«re la no evldenoc in the
record showing whether the plnoe where the Ktooident happened
waa a residential distriot or a closely built up business
portion, nor any evidenoe on behalf of the defend vnt ^.a to the
character of the place which aight bring it within the
Statute, There is nothing in the abstr^iot to show the
Aooldent hfippened In an Incorpor'^ted town other thsm that
it ms tried in the Municipal Court of Chioigo.
In Tier of the fact that the tri>sl oourt heard th«
evidence and tnw the vitneasee and ms in a better poaltioa
to na.88 upon the queetion of negligence, I believe the
judgment of that court ahoitld be affirmed on the facts.
;> . i^^ d.^Mtii mmi^ M0' "t^ -^i^-^&s^M^
5*^*3#* ■«* 'SSB.*^«#'««if »i"^<nlf \m$sff»$^,
33029 /
JOhM BAtKOAjmiES, \ )
CIHOni? COURT,
COOK CQimn,
STSrU KR2TZAJC,
Appellaat.
5 .: . 5
Opinion filed Feb. 27, 1929
MR, PRESIDItO JU-^ICK HOtnoH dallrered the
•pinloa of the court*
Th« iBitlBl proceeding la thie cas« wa« « judgnnt
by confee^lon ui^er a poorer *« ooafes* & judgjeaat o& the note
In suit.
On BOtlcn of <tef«ndpnt hs vae let in to plead, the
Jvdgseat to stand a« secnirlty until e trlftl ves had. There
vae a trial before eotu-t and jury end the rettirn of s verdiet
for plaintiff. On soti n ©f defendant the trial Judge
granted a nev trial. Such new trial w&e had and resulted the
■as© a« the prevloue trial in favor of plaintiff by the yerdiot
of the jury aseesning plaintiff's daaages at tha e^joi of
$1023»66. Uefimd^nt again aoTod for a nev trial and In arreet
of Judgment, which on plaintiff** remitting $59,66 from the
aatount of the rerdiet, both BK>tione were d^mled, and a Judg«
•ent entered on the verdict, leee the aaouat of the resittitur,
for $186Z, and it was ordered that the judgiaent by oonfeaeion
stand in full force and effect a« of its date, fro* which
jud^aent defendant prosecutee this appeal.
The oaaee of action eprings frotr. what i« coBsnonly
referred to as a judgnent note made by dsf^ni'^nt, payable
to the order of David Hersog pnd by Hersog endorse^i and del-
vs.
r"^:
i^s«»ie*>j ,^jt-if&<si
\mp^M^m 'mtttt'
f
.IPS-
9Sei tVc .n'-'i £)9lll: noinxqO
,t&SfS^ tsssf^.
mi«i<^«
rm*--
i %e mmm ^«^ N^ -^0^, ^mt i-mm ^:^^b^»s .l^-xf m. mm
-2«
irared to plnintlff. JudgB^nt by co.nfevsi >n« found In tha
record, was antered, Dafend^nt filed sRTerRl plaaa^ anong
which wera want of eonaldaratlon, that plaintiff la not a bona
flda holder la good faith of tha note, ate. Dafmidsat aitto
filed an affidarlt of maritorloua 6eff:neB, In which he mr€»^9
that the note la a forgery. Tha def rfnaa of forgery vaa the
principal lB.«tui of fact bafora the jury. Both plaintiff and
defendant teatlfiad regarding tha note and tha algnature of
defend nt thereon, &nd gave their aeTeral veraloaa of tha wholt
transaction leading up to the aakiag of tha note. B^xpert
witneaeea on haadwrltlng taatifia^ for e&oh of the parties,
and Harseg, the payee «tid endoraar of the note, vita eleo
a witnaas for plaintiff, vbo teetlflad that he was present
vhan the note was drawn and aaw tha dafendsct irign tha eame»
Rttd Identlflad the aignature of defendant on the note. The
plea of a want of conaiaen^'.tion of the note, in effect, ad-
aits tha warities of the note, but Glsina a want of consid«r-
atloB for its execution ?>ttd '^'<='llTery, In vis* of the fact
that tha lasuas hare been imsef^d tipoa by two jurlea, both of
which by their ▼erdlet rejected the plea of forgery, wa Hold
that defendant la precluded by these werdiota frcw a^in liti-
gating the facta paaesd upon by toth jurlee contrary to hia
oontention. Ib the nature of thlnga there a«iat b« a liiclta-
tioa to trials, thay oaonot proceed inteneinably. Every
psreon is entitled to a fair trial and when ha has had two.
In whioh the ward lets have been againat his, his right to
further proceed haa bean exhausted. An examination of tha
evidence In the record oonvlnoea this court th«t the evidence
warraata the verdicts. Oonaaquently It would be iaq)rudent
and a waate of ti»e to ord-r another trial. Defend?^nt hee
twice preaented hia daf'^naaa to a jury who found against hii
eontantions. However uapleaalng the rseult aay be to him.
n ©iB#3^ii^ fjf^- tei; »^«.s a^ -"ipi^ii^lft? &S'it|*K^";l' S'«-9^s«»l»&
«lKail^^^-ie^ 1^ Hornet s#t l^ltlJ'aaH^ .^S^.^|i£3«^«^ si^ at««i^a^4«
sf^ 3^i£.^ga^^^#^ #sr 11^$ iaisi !»»#«£> tsn?' '«f^ «j^ isiiiiiEiif
? <^: ;■ ;? .
£11^
th6 lav s«ya that ha la not antl'led to be ftirther heard.
In Olty of Chicago t. fccHRlly. 188 111. App. 375,
it was held thrt ffhare two Juries hare passed upon r caea
and found the nnmm way aii error to rererse met be clear
end palpable. And in Barkiewicg ▼. '^aobowskl, 198 ibid 214,
it «s« held that when two juries as veil as two trial judges
have eoncluded that the plaintiff e clalsi ip Kerltorioue
sad th<ire ie no subetantial or prejudlclBl esror apparent
in the record, the sppellate court will not disturb the
judgjaeat ap ealed fron.
«e find no arroro in procedure.
It is aaei^ed for error @nd argued that the
hypothetical guestiona were erroneous, but no vhere in defend*
aat*s brief does he refer to z hypothetlcrJ. <|L<eetion. pa
exaainatioB of the teetiaony of th« experts abstracted fails
to disclose a hypotbetlosl question put to ?Jtiy of the expert
witnesses. Their testiaony ie abstracted in nairratiY** for»
and as tyipiesi of such is the testiaony of J^aea I. Ennia,
an expert witness on hand writing. This testiBK}ny is aet
out in nnrrative fora and in the nbatmet no hypothetical
(question apimars to hare been put to hia, and as often ruled
by this court we will not go to the record to find satter
for rerersnl* There are a few questions appearing in the
abatraet which are neither objectionable in fora or eubstnnoe*
the saae reasarks are equally apilic^ble to the testiaony af
Rounds, an expert exaeiner of forgery and disputed hand
writing, <nd what is said recording the experts Lnnis wd
Rounds is likewise applicable to that of the witness ttoods*
-'^4^ ^m^ ,J^ ^. ^^^^^ •' :JtMM ^-
»*sfeKi-'Jfe|«St^¥t »iii:l^# •SSI's ■ f iS«)S«' fSJ{# &X«^' *^ ifl
S« find no error In th« adatlsslon or rejection of
erldenoe by th« trl^J. judge,
\s to the Instructions, defendant objects to the
following Inetruotlon ^Ten At the Instnnoe of the plaintiff,
"If you b«llrf# froa the evidence thnt the
defendnnt lid execute nnd dcilTer the not© in fjues-
tion SB alleged, =^nd you further find from the
eridence th?it the dalntiff purch<*sed the eaae
before a*turlty in the usu<5l ooursff of busiEeae,
and for s raluRble conni deration, without knowledge
of any ficts rhich /alght Iffipeaoh its validity as
bet^e*?n the ««id Stefj^n Rrsyy^k -ni the per3on to
yhoffl the note w«« glren, then the pltilntiff is
entitled to reeover, although you aay belieYe froai
the evidence that the aaid Stefan frzyrak never
received tuiy oonalderatlon for s^id note,"
&nd argues that the instruction is erroneous because It aixea
up the <;pjeetlon of execution ^Ith that of v%at of consideration
without pointing out the difference In proof between the t*o
I>lea8, ,*e think this objection is act well t^ken. The court
stated a correct principle of lav applicable to the proofs. It
was not neoessnry for the court to point out the difference in
th* Instruction between the pl«is denying the execution of
th« note and the one pleading «ant of cons 1 deration*
Defend'int objects to the follov^lng instruction given
&t the instance of plaintiff:
"You are instructed th^t the testiaony of nn
expert is not given to you as a atateissent of ftsot,
but jBsrsly aa the opinion of the '-'itness in the nature
of evidence, -md it ahould be received and considered
'^ith other evidence in the onse* Tou ^re not bound to
accept it as true, nnd, in detenaining ■s'hat weight «
if jmy, you should give to it, you ahould apply it
to your own knowledge and judgsi&nt in connection - ith
the testlKony in regard to the evidence in the 02 se.
4 4^5^
Jut . .>r-
- 6 -
and you should acocpt such part <%b to you aejr,
from all the faots and olroxxmstances in the o^ee,
•€•■ reasonable and truHtr^orthj* Tou tre !!it
liberty to reject -ill of such testimony. If in
your judgajent, it is unrenson^tble -jud uni?orthy
of belief,*
1« think this instruction under the erldenoe was
not objectionable. It applied ec[U».lly to plaintiff ^«ad
defeBd,^at« as each of the parties had proffered expert
vitnesses, 9e see no legal objection to thie instruction.
The record deaonstrntes that the parties were
aoeorded a fair trial and that all of defendant's rights
under the law were duly protected, nnd there being no
re-reraible error found in the record, the judgment of the
Circuit Ooxurt Is affirmed.
«lI.SOa AID RYSKM, JJ., GGMGUR.
- 1-'
»5«i:^'3a t&
9"^^
■15;-' ''[y-'i'^J.
V?
33978
PAiniUS r, B. KorniQ,
) SUPKRIOR COURT,
) UOOK OOtiNTT.
S0'»ARi3 G. CAR'INOTOK, ) \
.pp.li.... 1 2 5 £ I .A. 6 3 6
opinion filed Feb, 37, 1929
UK, JOBTIOE RtisitP dellTered the opinion of the
court*
Tb« plaintiff renderttd servloes to the defend^^mt in
th« oapaoity of an attoTney, Ro ?idva,noe agye«fflent w*v« made
%9 to the aaouat of the fees to be ehari^ed. The pRrtlea
falling to agree »e to the value of the aervloes, aftar they
had been rendered, the plsintiff brought swlt In the iJuperlor
Court of Coolt CJounty, He obtained 5l jury Terdlot In his fs-ror
and, upon the verdiot, reooYer<?d a judgment In the sum of
19,000,00, The defendant hue ripre'sled and »?»y8 th^it the
••rvloes rendered v«re not wojrth in exeees of the sum of !^3,000,OC,i.
The defendant, Oarrlngton, Is ^lao n lawyer «!nd »
■an of ooneiderable flnnnolra .iieRns. He pr«otloed Ma nro-
feseion In .terylnnd for a niiaber of years and then In Hew York,
He finally beoaae InvolTed In dotaeatlo dlfilcultlca of a very
unaaTory type and in 1934 he caae to Chioago, Hia «^lf# haTine
refuaed to follow him to hia nev' plaoa of residence, he filed
a bill for divorce in October, 1936, cherging her with deaer-
tlon. He employed ?. young attorney, nMied Uaddan, to represent
his in the proceeding*
On the evening of Oeoember 2, 1336, John J, uoui^.nua,
a He» York ?tttorney y/ho had represented the defendant for «
,x*.
r
't^
eseX t^S .cfsl bs.Xii noin.cqO
,s mMK-
^m
«C'
!•-?«!
«ia^«ii«(ii9lnlr -Asif
til il«B
■■■awjlsx
. -it
:'l mX.d
^num•^■
- a -
number of yeRra, ttadd«ii» OATTlngton and ». business nssoolat*
of the lntt«T, Horaoe L. Hnywood, net at th« CongTAaa liot'^l
la Qhloago. An applloatlon for temporary alimony and solio-
itor*a f«e« rma to ba made on behalf of lira. C«»rrlngton the
next morning. The queation of employing -unother Chiongo
attorney iraa diaouaaad and itlAddan reoonntended th»t th« plain-
tiff be retained, the plaintiff wma called into the conference
and employed. No arrange-Bent nbout faea «%8 made except that
ttadden, out of the rresenoe of the plaintiff, told the defend^tnt
that he thought the plaintiff would be glad to resist the
motion for temporary alimony *md eolloitor's fees for ft fee
of 0100.00. The finnnoea and income of the defendant were
diaouaaed. The plaintiff seya that he wna at the meeting from
8 o'clock in the erenlng until about midnight.
The motion which vna aet for the next morning wae
heurd one veek later, lira. Oarrington petitioned the court
for an Allor«noe of 110,000.00 solloi tor's feaa, f 600,00 per
waak Simony and la, 500.00 expense ^oney. 3he va.8 allowed
11,000.00 for solicitor's fees, .1100.00 «i week alimony and
^750.00 for expenses. At the oonelusi m of the hearing on thla
motion, the defendant left for le«r York.
The plaintiff testified th?»t at the meeting of
Daeember S, 19:36, he learned from the defendant and hia attorney
HeMaoms, the biatory of the relationship betwem the defendant
and his wife prior to their marriffigm and alao the relationship
batvaen aurs. aarrington and tht^ defendant's brother, Oampbell
Oarrington. He B«.id that the defendant stated that he siet
Mrs. Oarrington in rhiiadelphia whan she was the wife of a
tir. 3nyder; that he took her into his apartment in Nev York and
lived with her; that her mother c^ime to live rith them; that two
'<»■ M
m
"^ /.l&iiili-': .
.'■"i&,^j^tj4i£'
•ftt!?
#?S/.ft
■#t f^M^^ili^i
fif^s ^
Is&ff^O''.
car «i^; ftttjfc
- 3 -
of h«r dftu^ters o»di« into hi« hone to p^rtak* of bis ho9T)l->
talLtx and that finAlXy he lenrnod of fncts whioh led hla to
beliera that* at the a-iae time* he ins oontrlbutlng to the
support of Wr, Qaydajr. Hlo broth«r was aleo <•» aeaber of the
household, but ws.8 aelf-anapporting, i'>ota tending to ehow
It reli&tlonehlp of an intimate nnture between Campbell
Carrington and the defend«5.nt»o wife w«re dlecuesed, The
plaintiff fiirther teatlfled that he adviaed the defendant
that the f^ota were not sttfllolent to sustain a bill for
dlTorce on the grounds of adultery but that they would support
a suit lor ftliemition of stffeetione. He aiao said thst he
expressed the opinion that Mrs. Qarrington waa guilty of
adultery an-l that evldenoe could be discovered sr/hich rould
sustain the oharge but thmt the defendant resented the suggestion.
this testimony stands uneontr^ dieted.
it this meeting, acoo»dlag to the pls-intiff, the
defendant stated that the divorce oase w*s only n. seoondary
issue; that his prinoipnl objeot r-xn to sever bis business oon-
neotlons with his brother who was trying to ruin hia finnn-
elally through lirs. O^trrlngton ^nd that he believed th^^t if
an adjustment of his business nf fairs could bo aoooaiTjiisbed
he and his wife would beooae reoonciled. This ymu. denied by
the defendant and, Motianus. fk>th of these »itness9s also test!-*
fled that it was understood that the plaintiff was eajployed
for the sole purpose of handling the divorce oase p^nd that the
Mew York lawyers were to take oare of the defendant's financisl
■atters.
Mrs. Carrington filed ?. cross-bill ohar^ng oruelty,
liSter th« oross-bill was stmended so as to include a charge of
adultery on the part of the defendant. The defendant then
* t *
•pi... a
t^ea.
^|IE^iauw-^»K ..■■■ %^^ ©ft*-. *«s<l»» d'
»J»«rt»» WS'l^..-. .•<;..■£/• « S :-t ':iliT<*'
m>*lstK»# 9«i«fT
?,?-t)f(3
Jjgiv -^ liAiW «►#■ «»*»* i'JJ%f'i*f.(-
il^lJ
Mii
- 4 -
filed an amended bill idleglng thj&t hla wife had dcaerted hla
and thnt she was guilty of adultery*
The eauae came on for trial on April 6, 1937. After
talcing teetiaony and reading depoeitione for & period of elx
or seren daye a settlement was effeoted. < second amended
crosa-bili vr^e filed on behalf of are. (Jarrlngton In vhioh the
only charge made ir&s that of cruelty. She was gr^tnted a
decree of diYoroe. The sua of 1^5,000 wRe paid to her In full
eettleaent of all claiae for jmlimony, 8oilcltor*« fees, io^er
rights and other olaiioa. ^be vnn.s also given the household
furniture upon whloh, according to one of the sritncsnes, the
defendant placed a Talae of $15,0>3,00, or 30,000.00. as a
part of the settlement sereral peneliiiig lawsuits in ?rhich the
defendant was involTed ^ere disisissed. a sever@>jaoe of all
business relationships belrveen hiaself and his brother ^%b
aooonplished by a sale of the defendbjQt*8 holdings of stock
In J. ti. Lyon Company for a oonsi deration of I4OO0OOO.OO.
In the proceeding resulting in the Judgaent appe?iled
froa, there Traa introdueed in erldencc on behalf of the plain-
tiff a memorr^ndum a«de by hia, Indioftting in general teras the
tiae spent and the ohsracter of the senrieee rendered for the
defendant. The details of the Tarious items irere supplied by
the testiaoay of the plaintiff and other witnesses*
It appears, without substantial contradiction, that
from the evening of Oeoeaber 3, 1936, until the thirteenth of
the saae aonth, the plaintiff was continuously engaged In
preparation to resist the application for aliaony, solicitor* a
fees and expense aoney, in attendance in court, ?jnd in frequent
oonfereaoes with the defendant and others, ''^^^f ®^ *^*
mM.i^^^pm^-^:..0M:.^'^ ^^'W
^s^f* ..... -isrs..) taaM *^
mr
mite*^!**
y/rsrrmoD-rtb'^J .S v^■: «.f
.., ^ .- ,., . ^, ,.r --«
^<*i*
•■"Sfl^W
'•Of
- 5 -
oonfereno«« •xt«nd«d Into 1ih« Ia.te houx-g of the sight. hioaX,
if not nil of th««, r«qulr«d the pi&lntiff to go to n pla.o«
Of aeetlng outside of his office vhere the defendant vould
be seoure froa the serTlee of court prooees* FBrtlouI&rly,
the defendant ims desirous of thwarting nsxy attempt of urn,
CsTTlngton to hsTe s erred \ipon hla the writ of ne e»e>t»
The plHitttlffa at the Inntanoe of the defendf«nt»
■ade three trips to Kew York, eaeh oonsuailng four or flTe
daye tlaie. The first trip was gestde nto^nt the middle of
JmSMinTy, IdSif, and iwts for the ourpoee of conferring ylth the
defendant, his New York lawyers imd Inveatl gators, la refereno*
to newly dleoovered evldenoe of tdxiltery on the tasrt of ^irs,
Q^irrlngtoB and me to aaen'^ilag the bill of oomplslTit to Include
that ohmrge. on the other tvo trips the plaintiff conferred
with the defendant, and his Uew York lawyers, and stttended
before ooaaissl oners taking de^sitlons.
There is muoh dleouselon in the briefs ^toout the
role played by the plaintiff m the ttiklng of depositions.
They were taken in various oitlea in the stntit of Kew York, la
Washington, 0, C, in Atlantic 01 ty, and In Florida. The
plaintiff attended only those taken in Hew York City. He
declined to interrogate any of the i^ltneasea and gave as a
reason for his refusal that he considered that the defendant
was eabnrklng ujion a fishing expedition, that the witnesses
were hostile and untru8ti*orthy, and that, if he was to try the
ease, he did not wish to rlaoe hlaself In the embarrHsainiS
position of being obliged to vouch for the dependability of
the testlMony glwen by the*. He says that he aat in on the
oooasions in c^estion for the purpose of obserring the demeRnor
of the witnesses and rendering himself faalllar «rith the
- 6 -
testitAony n.s it 9aa« froa th« lips of the wltnosvet. Tfei*
d«f«nd«nt ndait* that h« d«sir«d th« pr«8«ne« of the plaintiff
for these Durposes. Motianus, although obftraoterlring the
position t«iten by the plaintiff as being lllojjloml, oonduoted
the exAslnatlon of the iirltnesses. on the finnl he'irlng
Hoiistnua read taost of the depositions but othervlse the triea
was eonduoted by the plaintiff, MoHanus wis nreaent and amde
euggeations about questions to be put to the witnesses*
ttadden reaaiined as one of the Aolioitors for the
defend>«.nt from the time of the fillag of the original bill of
oomplaint until the entry of the final deoxee. He wme «
young attorney of only a few years experienoe and testified
th%t he did not regard hiaaelf qualified to, nlone, conduct
the trial f)f sin important oontestod divorce c«tee. This 'rss
the renson for his suggestion that the pl'iintiff be fl'-nrloyed.,
Aooordlng to his testiaony he vorlted ylth and under the direction
and BuoerTision of the plaintiff, Th«y attended to sli the
routine witters, su^ as the serring of notices of sotions »Ad
for the issuance of the oowaissions to taJte depositions, exaain-
ing of notiees and prooessea served r^nd issued for the taking
of depositions on behalf of Sirs, uarring-ton and appearing in
court on uiotions to advanoe and motions to postpone the day
of trial.
Tho plaintiff testified that he fririe directed by hit
olient to conduct an extensiTs publloity o-.mijalgn and that he
devoted a oonsider^ble aaount of time in t^tlking to newspaper
reporters. The defendant admitted that he g^ve some epfioiflo
Instructions to th«!t effect «nd thnt when he telegraphed to
the plaintiff to aaiend the bill of cow:^lsint so t.a to include the
ohATge of adultery on the pert of his -"^ife he ptrm instructions
•'t
- 7 -
to glTe th« Matter the fullest putolloltjr irhen the pleading
vts filed.
It la undisputed th;st uj:- until the trial of the c-^ae
frequent oowiunl oat lone p&ssed bettreen thd p«irtie«. Atout
fifty telegrams and timlre or fifteen letters vere exohftn^'ed*
There vere aleo tventy to twenty-five long dlstanoe telephone
conversntions,
«^hen the plaintiff was in Sew York he urae in confer-
ence practloally every diiy fTo« early in the aorning until
after asidnight except when In attendance upon the t^^Alng of
depositions. This vma not directly denied by the defendant,
and UoUp..nua admitted that on one of the ttew York trips he
saw the plaintiff every day and every night.
The defendant and HcUmnwi, vith several vltnesees,
arrived in (Jhiongo on April 1, 1927. trom that date until
the beginning of the triwl five dnys later, the plaintiff
spent long hours in attendinj? oonfer«?noe9 and in the exnwln-
ation of ifitneases.
Upon the trial of the case, tooording to the plsiin-
tiff, about thirty-two witnessee vers called to the stand
and 3ipuroxi»!^tely t%o hundred exhibits vere offered in evidence.
UoMmus testified that only six or seven ^itnesaes were examined
and thit the rest of the teetiaony was presented by depositions.
The plaintiff testified that he devoted n totjsil of
eighty dnys to the defendant's affairs. Sixty-nine d«\y8 were
consumed in office work, oonaultations sml trips to New York.
Eleven days were spent in attending Oourt, The three trips
ttt Mew York recuired hin to be absent fro« Chicago for fifteen
*jp;- . .ft
- 8 -
days. The defendant did not undertoke to deny this teotiiBony
«nd offered no teatinony ae to the value of the aerrloee
rendered. The principal point of oontroverty Ib nbout the
plaintiff's oonneotlon vlth the aettieraent of eertaln liti-
gation and business affaire of the defend<»nt not dlreotly
involYed In the laauee presented in the divoroe proceedinjica*
For convflnlenoe and to avoid confusion, thft different m^AteTs
adjusted and diapoaed of under the settlement agraeaient Fill
be treated separately.
yhi^ Saljt of i)«f emiji.n^ * s ^^tooit in J»i», U^on Oomp-^.jnjf.
The defendant held twenty-two per cent of the stock
In thla company and hie brother, Campbell Oarrlngton, owned n
like nmount. They were both offioers of the coarmny. The
defendant refused to attend 'uay aseetinga at rhich hla brother
was present. The defendnnt took this ettitude after the
dlacoTery of a ao-oalled "Darling* letter written by hia brother
to Wrs, O-^rriagton, As part of the settlement the defend«int*8
stock wna sold for the sum of t400,000,(X), Me and aoMpnua
teatifled thnt the plaintiff wbb not employed to neijotiftte «
a«le of the $took, but th%t this setter wna hnndled exelualTely
by the fiev fork lavyera who had hem. for sever' I yenra attempting
to wake a snle.
The defendant further testified thnt on one occasion,
in liev York, the plaintiff aaid that ha would only try the
divoroe c%ae, «hen the record «s.e asade up and thnt he t^rould
hstve nothing to do with &ny aettleoenta, The plaintiff deniea
thla And ft^ya that from the very inception of hia employment
the defendant told him that the settlement of hia buaineaa
affairs was of paramount iaportanoe; that on several oocasions
- 9 -
ha diaouasfd with tha attorney for ttra. aarrlngton, Yrho wna
alao acting for Chal^bell O^.rrington* the crioa «Mob tha
latter wovild ba willing to pay for the atook; that tha first
offer itfiu to pay |a00,000«30 whioh was Inereiaaed hy degrees
until it renehed the fig^iira at whieb it «as finally sold; that
on sarer^l ooojisions ha reported tbe aettlement oTertures of
his brother's attorney to the defend'^ntj thst seTer^l tlaes
irhlle be was in Sei? York he conferred with tha defend-.nt and
bis Mew York l?.*y«y« ^tbout selling the stock; ^xiA that the
defendsat adhered to the position th^t the divoroe Gtise oould
never be settled i;>^ithout adjustment of his businesis relrttionship
with his brother, t^eorge 1*. Schein, the attorney for bts,
Oarringtoa «md Oa«pb«ll Qarrlngton says that he had a conference
in Hew York ^ith the defendant the plaintiff and MeManus, and
it was decided that they oould not aoooapliah a settlement
exoept by tsmking it a oompiete one ^n to both business nnd
doaestie affairs* Hohein says that the .meeting was at the
City Club. MetfanuB says he attended a aettting at the S'loic
plaoSf (and that there mis a talk rith Sohein about a settlement
but th«t the plaintiff did not participate in it.
Daring the pendenoy of the livoroe proceeding Eleanor
Snyder, n dnu^fhter of 5^re, C'.rrlngton by a former SKirriage
brought suit in the Superior (Jourt of Oook County ftjwlnst the
defendant. She claiaied that the defendant had struck her
while he was engaged in an alterontion with UTn» Oarrington and
olaiaed daoages in the sua of $35,000.00. The plaintiff
exaained the declaration and prepared and filed a plea, as s
part of the general settlement the @9it was, l!^ stipulation,
disaissed without costs to either p%rty.
, ::^i:.r;' ^'
va»
- 10 -
Th« dafendnnt h^d been plnotd under probntioa for n
period of one ye^ir, by an order entered in the Olty Uaifl8tr9te*a
ooiirt of the 01 ty of Kev York. Tble had been done upon the
oomplnlnt of hia brother^ C&mpbell Oarrlngton^ who had eh%rged
the defend<\nt vlth haTlng usisaulted hla with a oane* 0%»]r>bell
Oarrlngtoa and his nttomey Sohein, in the eettlement a^eement^
Agreed to u«e their best efforts to obt-^ln s TaiO^ttlon of the
order. There is no cowplalnt made thHt they failed to fiilfill
the proMlse or that they failed to euoct^ed.
AS a part of the settlement th« defendant agreed to
disttiss two pending eults Instituted in the State of siev York
agKinst his brother* aampbell Jarrlngton* one oharging alleaa*
tloa of the affections of his wife and the other asking for
an accounting*
There is much disousnlon in the briefs as to hov a
eettleaent happened to be affeoted* Apparently swaething
developed during the tri^l of the cause *hioh operated to out
the Qordian knot and thus serer the relations of the defendant
with hig »lfe and also with his brother. It aaay well be, as
suggested in one of the briefs, that both parties had oosie to
a realisation th^t there was, at le?»Bt, a ooBsibllity th^t
neither the aasiended bill of oomplnlnt nor the aaended cross-bill
co\ad be sustained, HoSanue, "sl though insisting thst the tsatter
of the disposition of the defendant's interests in the Uyon
OoMpany had been exolusirely handled by the Heir York l^sryers
for sereral years, admitted that nothing had been aoooaplished
up to the tiae of the trial of the dlToroe case.
'M:.^j^^.
- 11 -
MOMABU0 p«ral«te<l in his ctontention that the plain-
tiff had nothing to do iiith th« settlement of s.ny of the liti-
gfttioB pending in Nev York, yet he oona«d«d th%t the plaintiff
aotlTely parti ol pa ted in the settlement oonferenoe, Ts^hioh
lasted from early in the eTening until tvo or three o'oloolc of the
next aoming; that he t??.Iked, by long (iist73,noe telephone to
HelCensie in Mew fork mthout the propoBGd adjustment of the
natters not direotly involved in the divorce proceeding; and
that he advised uoKeaKie thnt the proposed settlement be
oonsu&tia<tted. The defendant testified that the plaintiff in-
sisted upon playing the role of a field sa^reh^ll in the «>rnqr.
Perhaps he lid. But the defend^^nt erpreased no dieantief^iotion
as to the results obtained an^ ssdatitted th'st after the settle-
ment had been effected he tele^aiphed his daughter that he
had won & vietory.
The plaintiff testified that, when the trial of the
ease had proceeded to a point ^^here certain wltneasea were
testifying to facts indicating an act of adultery o& the part
of the defendant, the latter said to the pl.-^intiff, *'Do you
think you o^.n renei? these iiegotiations for settlement?" and »hcn
the plaintiff replied, "i believe ao,^' the defendant snid, "for
God's sake try it at noon." '>?hereupon the plaintiff told
Sohein that he vould be glad to oonelder the cuestion of
settlement If the Inst offer wws increased. Sohein says that
tbe plaintiff was the one to moke the overture. The defendant
denies that he suggested further negotiations for settlenent
and both he and Uo^nnus say that Scheln wns the moving rwrty in
suggesting a rsneval of the negotiatioxis.
Although the parties never c&me to any agreement
about the amount of plaintiff's fees there is evidence that
■•* II "
:«^«ilf #.<**, tiWj# »'-
1*
■•' A. til J
ftj'i-/!?*''! »*i3i' «*
- •'• ■■-■" to
- la -
o«rtaln figures v«rc <il0eusa«d both before and ?fter th« trlvi«
Th« plfilntiff te«tlfl«d th«t, orlor to the txl?*!, ho «»4yl8ed
tb« d«f«ndvat tlMit he »otd«i not do the tTl&l work for less
than ^&»000.00 and the defendant aade no reply. Mad'on g^tn
testimonjr to the s^ae effect. The defendant denied that «ny
euoh oonversntion took piaoe. The plaintiff further testified
th%t About threft months after the entry of the decree he told
the defendant that his fee «oiad be ^1&,D00«00 and that the
defendant ssiid th^t he oonsidered the figure to be s little
high, the defendant says thM he told the plaintiff th^t
this suROUoit vas sll out of bounds i»nd preposterous*
In hla mffl^Ylt of aerlts the defond««nt st'^t«d that
the plaintiff ♦» fee should not be in ©xoese of 11,500,00, In
his letter of July 8, 19^7, he liald th«t be considered *f3,S00.00
to be A reesonabilt i,mount« His tittomeys no«r a»y th?t tb«
aervioee vere not worth in exoess of |3,000»00, It w»y be
of peesing interest to note that the oourt refiorter rms t^aIA
^2,100«00 for the servioes fumishtd by him.
ffhexi the parties first aet, they did not, by ^ny
written or spoken words, ^tteapt to fix, y-lth pATtioularity,
the scops of the pl%intiff*8 eeployment. The thing then uppers
•oat in the aind of the defendant w^^a to h«.ve ooapetent ooimsel
to sprear in court the next aoming in reapone to the petition
of Mrs. O&rrlngton for large alloi»iioes of teaoorary aliKoay
ind soliotitor*8 fees. ^h«t the plsiintlff mta thereafter
authorized to do aust be implied frcns the oonduot of the parties
ia view of all of the facts and 0irc\astanoes. i^hether he was
inatroiaental in bringing about a gener^Ol settlement of '^ll of
the defendant's nff-^irs, and, if sof whether hia aotiwities
In this resoect were expressly authorized, approwed, or ratified*
»i*^
-ft
.•5T»
•«>»
,'vT?r'
*■!!*«
5,iS(;>j:*, fr::
Iv'itf^li.;
;w'!-«'f:, ;v^f.:
- 13 -
pr«B«at«d qu«atloit« of f&ot for tbe ooneldoTfttion of the jury*
If th«y found tho facta to too in aooord with th« plaintlff*t
oont«ntion«, thore was aaplo cTidoneo boforo thOK to Tarrrtnt
thea in oo doing.
Tbe plRlntlfl, after giving a narmtlve of the time
expended and sexvieea rendered by hi«, ims aeked by his oounael
if he kneir tbe fair. rea.aon&bXe, usual and cuaton^ry fee charged
by lawyere nt tbe Ohioago bar for aervioea auoh 9 a he had
rendered. He replied in the affirm^tlYe. i remieet for hie
opinion H9 to euoh a fee elloited the anaver, "At leaat $15,000.a0%
Upon objection and aiotlon the a^nawer wsa atrioken. Counsel for
the defendsmt then eaid, * There is no oustowsry charge, if yo\ir
Honor please, for a oase - " . At this point he mta interrupted
by the trial judge, who aaid, "tes, I get your point on that.
I think the ohjirges are generally a»de by the hour or the day,*
Tbis was followed up with the ooaersent that he did not think
that % Xva^ aiss oould be reoognlaed aa a usuiU. ^nd ouetosmry
fte» althouglh it might -^Bwunt to that. The court fwPtber stated
that he thought th9.t proof should be mde of the usual cbmrges
for oourt work and office work »t home and %way from hoae.
Oovuaeel for the plaintiff then expressed his opinion that there
was vs cuatotaary charge for that class of serrioe, but no
custoaiary charge for ether kinds of service. The court, addree fl-
ing oouluieil for the defend'^tnt, then aaid, **That ia the point I
think you are making." Oounael for the defendant e.'iid nothing.
Perhaps he owed no duty to speak, but his silence may well bnve
induced the oourt to believe that he had stnted the law in aooord
with the contention of counsel.
' ly'rlff 'ijv^J? '''lift 'fe'?i ■■ • 'sift "Tst J'. fe®if«©sf;il*jrq-
¥
% '
.1**
•?&r;f<5u;t 3"i-
- 14 -
Thervupoa th« •ugg«9tlona of thf< oourt w«t« adopted
and th« plaintiff, orcr g«ner»il ot>j«otlon, tftstlfled th«t th«
usual and cuatomary charge for trial work in alallar aas«»
At th« Chicago bar wm« *<5^50»00 to fSOO.OO por d«iy; that for
•eTTloea out of oourt «ueb •« fo« vaa f/!0.00 to tSO.OO p«r hour
and for out-of-totm ■•rrlo«s ^35.00 to ?<50,00 por hour.
Uloyd U. Hoth, % Chioago lawyer of fifteen ye»ra
•zperlenoe tss oiUled ae an oxpert In behalf of tho plaintiff.
Ho was askod Id hypothetical question vhleb «i^e Identloal with
the bill of partlouLftre, filed with the deolar&tlon. He was
thtn ftslced If ho had an opinion as to what was the usual «
reasMbablo ajsd ouetosmry fee for euoh serrloes at the Chle^go
Bar, He answered that he had. Oouneel for the defendant thttn
Interposed seTeral objections. Bomo of then were so generzil
that the trial oourt was not obliged to fi»« thea consideration,
l^lT^rton Ooal Oo. ▼, Shepherd. ?07 111. 395. Tbe particular
objeotlotts were that:
I* The (^[ueatlon assumed thsit the defendant was a
flnaneler.
3, It assused that the plaintiff was employed to
take charge of the prooeedlnge, whereas It
appeared that he vt^kB ret''.lned a« one of
seyerU. lawyers to assist in them.
5. It also aosuaed that there was a conspiracy
between isrs. Oarrlngton and his brother to
ruin the defendant flnsnolally.
4. It further assumed that the plaintiff rendered
throe hundred and forty-sewen hours of aotual
serwloe outside of court.
5* It also essuaed that thirty-'two witnesses
testified upon the tried of the case.
The oourt then proo.eeded to oonoiient upon the objeo-*
tlons. His first suggestion was that the oueatlon ontltted the
' i'l"^- *'^"~y'^' f>i'.T<^ '^^Tf'^'t^'f^ '^^ftf '^^''^'^ ?'.'*tS6^/F'
- 16 -
faet that tht plaintiff iia« •nipIoy«<l as aasool%t« counsel,
H« thsn stated that aooording to his Teoollsotlon there w?«.8
no sTldenos th^t thirty-two wltn««ssa rare hsaird on the trial*
In this he was alstR^ken. The plaintiff testified thnt this
nuaber of witnesses ims called.
The court further suggestedl thnt an ianort^nt eleiscnt
oanltted from the question was the length and ohi^^racter of the
ex!>erlenoe of the plaintlfl In the practice of the law and
that the oorreot pr:%etloe in a.*.king proof of the v-ilue of
sttorney's fees v%s to chow the usual and ouatonary fee ob^rged
par dies for court %nd offioe ^ork. On the latter point the
court finally s-^id:
* I think, however, the -^oet serious cfuestlon
is that, &8 I uudaratand it, there can be no usual
and custOiftary fees oh?.rged in a iuap eus for an
entire service, running over four or five months,"
and a^ln,
*But 1 think It would throw no light on the
aubjeot at r11, either to this jury, and oertsinly
not to this court, for ^^ny iMmp sua to be given here,
and for thnt reason 1 suatstia the objection,"
Counsel for the plaintiff »»ld that ha would like to
olte law upon the propoaitlon mnd defendant's counsel reioained
allent. Both ouat have known that the court wns in error in
hia at<?iteacnt of the correct praetioa to be followed la making
proof of the vs^lue, of an attorney's service not of « usujsl or
ouatovt^ry kind. They, ho^-ever, oade little, if any effort, to
put the court ari|^t«
If there could be no uauisl or custon^iry aggregate or
Iuap fee for legal aervloes of an unuaual n&ture, such as those
anvuserated in the hypothetical question, then, beyond question
there could be no usual oi oustomary ,;er dies ch.-^rge for such
aervloes. It la a dtreot oontradiotion in teras *• •^y *^**
- u^
■'^^
■■■:ivt urn
- 16 -
thas* oan i>« a uaual or ouatoiaary ch%rg« per dle« or hour for
••nrlo«a of «a uatuiual obarftotar.
The ouootiOB ««• (UlendOd. in th« presenoe of the
jury* to oonform to the suggestioiui atiid rulings of the oourt.
The ol>Jeotion8 of the def«nd«?^nt, j rerlouely made, were renewed,
Oounael eiade the speolflo objeotlon "that there is no euoh
thing as the question :;ut to the i>ltneas now as a usual n.nd
custoMsry oh«,rge. In those n^ords. In the Chioago bar for the
partleular cervleea In aiqr partloular ease."
The witaee* gave as his opinion thnt the usual »
oustoanry and reasonable charge for tri^ work of the oH'srweter
speolf led In the oueetion wi%a 3S50.00 &er djty, For the office
work he considered ^'15.00 per hour to be a proper ohnrge and
150.00 per hour for of floe work at nights or on !^^und«y8. He
thought *J300.00 per day would be a proper allownnce for the
tlae spent on the three trips to Jiev Tork. This teetlsony
waa all reoeircd over objeotlon*
SlttSY if, Itseasan testified th.^t he had praotloed
law at the Ohieago bar continuously since 1909; that he bad read
the hypothetical question put to the nvltness Keth and that he waa
f^alliar "^ith its contents. Objections were Intc^rposed on
behj^lf of the defendant, one being that* "There is no such thing
M «i usual and oustooiary eharge for serrleea In any osirtloular
oaaa at the Cblaago bar. It la an Istproper question.*
*Iow, as I understand the rule, anything an expert
oan testify to» if he knows, is the usual and oustoanry ohargea
per day In a eertaln olass of litigation ths^t h5»e be^n oerwltted."
the court then said:
<»#■:
)i^tii*i^*iS, ii:-i^-*- B^'if^l
uslf;
, ii 4.iC/.M;,> -,:?.i.^v»'
'1 «}«(»# .sm.
m*^
- IV -
"I und«rstAiid Mr. H««l]r*« Qu«*tlon pr&otioitlly stat««
that. That is. In O'laes of this oh&raot«r. That 1h, the class
of oases*"
Ths reply of ootmael for dsfsndant was:
"I would lik.« to haYe ay objsotloa to ths quostloa
stand*"
Ths vltnoss anewsrsd, gitilag subetantially the smm
figures RS those giTsn by the witness aeth*
The sstae question, i^ith mdditionol ^sssiised f«iots «ts
to the plaintiff's experleaoe njs s InvjBT, f?nd the elimination
of the %88Ujttption that the defendtmt's 9took in J.B. l*yon
Oosipstny was vorth ^>lSiOO,000*00 In Deoeaber, 1386, wms 93ked
of tro other attorneys* One of thea, John F, Barnes, geTt as
his opinion th^t the usual crustooary and reaeonRbXe charge la
Obioago for siailir servioeis '(f s 300*00 p0x day for tTl«l
work and the s&oie »»ount for work mtt of court* Me oormldered
that for work after business hours and while in Siew York the
plaintiff should reoelwe from twenty-five to thirty per cent more*
Sohein, iirbo was the attorney for Urs* Carrlngton and
C&flipbell SarrinK^on, in axMv&t to the sane question fixed the
ttsunl ^nd ouatomary fee for iserwioes In trinl voik of & siallAr
nature at ^400.00 ~or #500.'30 psr day, tSOO.OO to I2EO.0":) for
serrloes rsndersd out of eourt during reguli^r hours %nd 150.00
per hour for work at nights and on Ound^ys*
Xt is oontended on behalf of the defendant tho^t %any
things were included in the essuaption of facts contained in
ths hypothetloal qusatiou «hiob were not supported by any ewidenee
WMi tiBiq
- 19 -
•r v*re of auoh m. prejudioi^il natur* -^a to warrsuit this oouxt
in holding th<&t the &«ount of foes sLilovod bj the verdlot and
Judgaumt <rnii oxoossiT*. ''^hon tb« ouastion w«ii put to the
fir«t tiro export witaosses it contained nn aaauaption th«t the
defendant in DeoeAber, 13a(» ralued hit stook holdings in J* B.
Lyon QonpiUSf at $300,000.00. Upon objection being pressed for
« ruling by the court this item ^t&s eliminated fro* the queation
vhen asked of the other experts. There was no evidenoe tha.t
the defendant ralued the etook '•t that figure but the plaintiff
did testify that the defendant »ia.id thnt ^200,000.00 was its
book Talue, The defen<^nt testified before the oourt on the
first hearing on the petition for tiatporary alimony and
solicitor's fees that the stook was worth :300,0(X).00 if he
oould get th^t stnount for it. It is S!iid that the question,
before it wns fta«ndsd as sboTS Indiorjted, tended to give the
jury the Impression thit the plaintiff had re«lized n profit
of ^200,000,00 from the sale of his atook and thnt, -^Ith the
anendaent oade, it beo.%ae % mere >natter of speculation, &s to
irhat, if 3iny, profit was realized. Counsel say th:^t the Question
as originally framed assuiaed facte suflioient to r<».ise the
infereaoe that the defendant iras a fiaanoier* This element vmg
IsmediAtely slimin<^.ted. In addition to this, the defendant on
eross-exaaination v^is, without objection disclosed by the «tbstr^ot,
RSksd if he was a financier^ He answered thst it depended on
vtot oonstitutea a financier and that he did not know whether
he was ane or not. Finally he sugK^s^ed that the question be
left to the jury.
It is argued that these mttera had the sffeot of
tending to lead the jury to beliere th^t the defendant was a
nan of gre^rt weiilth and for that reason shoxald be required to
■•^.jj* ^9»iss»ir f .ii«i<» icffit: sm» MMmv tmt^'la mm
- 19 -
pKf cxoetslTe fe«8, Th« fnots ots to the t»Tas of the aettleiaeBt
lUid the ooayeraittion of the )«trties were iHifore the Jury, it.nd
properly so. In fr?.ot ao ooapl^ilnt !• nade on this soore* These
f>tets 7r»T9i ooapetent, not for the ^rpoee of showing profits
AS thofgg^ the plaintiff ima entitled to reoower upon 9. ooai-
mission basis* tnut to show the extent and IraportsLnoe of the
Interests InwolTed.
The oorreot rule Ap;>ears to be th*t a party litigant,
i^ere the facta are controverted, may incorporate in a hypothe-
tloal question, within the limits of the testimony, any sts.tt
of f£>ots whioh he may fairly contend are supported by the
ewldenoe. The defeots, if any, in the queatlon wmy be Buprlied
by cruestlons asked upon oxoes-exaalnstlon. Chio«g0 Qity ky. OQi
▼« gundjf . 310 HI, 39, In that oase thfs oourt a^ld:
"Objection is also msde to some of the hyrothetioi^l
<9ue3tlon8 put to phyalcl.'^.na -^ho testified on behalf of
mp'^llee. These objeotions, m??d« In the trial court,
were .not suffioiently speoific to sust-iin the 9r^pct»l
ebieetion here sought to be raised. In other words, the
attempt is to rsiae a specific '»^jeation for the first
time in this court. Counsel hnre a riiht to assume,
within the limits of the testimony, any stnte of ficts
which they claim to be Justified by the evidence, ^nd to
have the opinions of experts ur^oa the fiaota ao assumed.
The qiueatlon msty embrace such facts as are claimed to be
established by the evidence, und if the other aide does
not think all of the relevant f^eta are included in such
ciueations it may include them in oueations pro5>ounded on
orosa-examinsLtion."
Again in the case of The i^eoplif v, vicaryft 397 ill,
&08, the Supreme Court stated the rule as folloirs:
*A party is not bound to assume the exlstenoe of a
fmot concerning which testimony has been given if the
fact la controverted and to b« subiutted to the Jury for
determination but tmy select such frets as he claims to
exist, and the Jury are to determine whether they hr^ve
been proved. To require n party to submit m hypothe-
tical question assuming facte which he does not admit
■so*
i:(ii>i«««#'
- 30 -
but whlob <)re in disunite* rould ooapsl the oourl to
usurp the funotlona of th« jwTy. (uoytrd ▼. People^
186 111. 552.) If the erldencft is in oonfliet th«
hypothetiopl question may, fiici should, embrace only
the f^ots tending to support the clT.im of the r»*rty
prorvosing the question, but n question ^hich f<»il«
to include sdl the f^ote a« oLelraed and r^roved by
the i-ai-ty himself would only tend to alslead th« |ury
by oaueing thea to adopt «« optnlon without rcg^Td to
the ttiOtB on which it i« b-sed* **
The opinion Ln the o»ee further dlaeloses that the
hypothetical question there involred vas propounded by th«
defendant. The court affirmed the trial court in euet^ining
ftB objeotion to the question, giving ^a a reason therefor th»t
the Queatioa did not contain «11 of the eseentlsil facts proved
by the party aslcing the question.
what freight the expert r-it&eseea gave to th« supi»oaed
objectionable elements contained in the hypothetical cuestion,
la expressing their opinions, did not concern the jury. Ooimsel
for the plaintiff h«d the right to aseuine in the question all
•f the facta, vhieh the evidence fairly tended to support,
tbA\ he considered ee«entl%l or proper in getting before the
witnesses the f^ets (Baterlal in presenting his theory or version
of the issues. It 'n-^n for the witnesses to determine «hftt f&ets
wore pertinent in ^^iding them to foz« an opinion. It vr°,ts for
the jury to deteraine whether the evidence est^.blished the
mSBumed facts and whnt. If any irelght should be given to the
•l^lniona of the vltnesses.
The jury vers instructed, at the instance of the
defendant, thnt, in determining the fair and reasonable ooapen-
sntlon to be allowed to the plaintiff, they should not consider
the defendant's Income or property and that his financial
condition w&a not anterlal And all reference thereto In the
evidence or la the remarks of counsel should be 4isreg?>rded.
' #i-l^« r^" «i' "If t "s#hl/fe ''fiM'
'.leiis^ctr***-
sr#c5
j > •*■ <;: '. i\;'?:* l.n'''
■ nsp^ i»40 *%*«w^#««fft
:', «»«*tl«tja«» s^««fefe''l» ftjflt^aseaite^lrfo
■v iKJt
s»'i
1f«
i&ii
fiw
^ ^©
■•• l*"«y
L;|i5S»JN^
^^^r
.^'«ffl '^IKi' t|. «#^«'' <&«!«' iMNm^ hmtm^^
4«[®
■:3M8.9
- 81 -
Tht d«f«ndant« a lawyer, Indicnted hi a vilLlngavaa to hftv* the
jury pas* on the quevtion whether he vne m fliiAneler by oooup«-
tion «• well «• « lairyeT by profeaslon. In this oonnf)Otion»
a&d apparently without objection, h« te«tifl<i»d that he w<ia
prlnoipally engaged aa n lawyer In oorporrtlon work In New York
and Chioi^go la lajrge natters, soiaetlmen running into nllLLona
of doll are. The remainder of the fs(>ot« aa to his fin'».nol<»l
eonditloB were indidentsdiy deTeloped In conneotioa rith proof
of the price reoelwed for his a took in J. 3. Lyen Oosrp^ny %a
a result of the aettleaent. v>onsldering all of the ewidenoe,
the iaauea inwolved, and the Instruetlona given by the court, it
appaara that no pre judicial ham reaulted to the defendant by
the aaauaptlona in the hypotbetloal question oonoeming his
financial K'orth.
One of the objeotlona to the question put to the
•Xpert witneasea wsa that it oontaiaed the masuaption thftt Mrs.
Qarrington ^nd Oaaipbell Oarrington had entered into a eonapiraoy
to ruin the defendant finanoially. *he plaintiff testified
that the defendant told hi« at the 'very outaet that his brother
waa trying to aoooaplish hia flnaiioial ruin through Hra.
Oarrington. The wife snd hia brother rtere both rppreaented by
the aajie attorney. She wanted ®> large ^jillaony »»How«nce and
he deaired to force the defendant to releaae hia holdings of
stock at a low figure, i'here nay not have been a oonspirEcy
■"^ithin the teohlioal mft?)jaing of the word n.B used in legal pro«
eeedlnga, but it doea not appear that the jury oould have been
alaled or prejudiced beonuae the oueation ohr^rssioterixed the
concerted plan and notion of Mrs. Carrlngton %nd the defendi^nt's
brother as a oonaplr%oy.
Mi' v^m'm''''mitsm^ ■ •■*-' -^ '" "-' ^ -'■' "''-" ' .~^— ■ '• -' , -"-••'^mtim »0!
- 83 -
There is no denial that. the plaintiff was eaployed
to render Legal aerTioea, th%t he performed svteh serrioea,
and that he Is entitled to rensonable oonpensptlon ao his
reward. All of the oontentione iM.de on bshalf of the defend>i^nt
are ad^itnoed in supi-ort of the boIp* purpose of demonstrating
that the allow^noe for fees taade by the jxiry and approved by
the court is excessive. (Sne point atrenuously urged is th%t
the oourt aiaconoeived the proper praotice to be oursrued in
proTlng the value of leg»l aervloea of a^n unueual nnture.
Counsel for the pltsintiff. In effect, concede this, but s»*y
the error ma provoMed by the oonduot of ooxmsel for the
defendant '^nd that therefore the defendant orjanot be heard la
this oourt to oomplaln of a self-lnfiloted wrong suffered in
the trial court. On behalf of the defendant it Is eontended
that the ruling of the oourt was highly prejudioial beonuse
undue stress waa given to the eleisent of tine. Plaintiff*:?
ooxmsel reply that the matter of the time expended t^s neoessary
to be considered as an Important f'lotor in determining the value
of the servioes r-?ndered«
On this point both sides seek onsolatlon in the c»iee
of h.^ t>. A. A a. Ry. Oo. V. ^-^llaoe. 136 III. 67. In that
oase the Supreme Gourt of thla Btate^^ speaking throu|^ Mr. Justiot
jlagruder, said:
*^ere the professional serviee Is of imeh ««. ohar-
ftoter, that it has bPcom© uavnl "^n-} oustom-^ry to «^vke
a eertaln charge for ita rerfomanoe, evidence should be
given of the amount of such u«u«il ^n<i owetoaisry oh- r(7;e.
What is a usual and oustoaary charge for a t>?frtlo\ilar
service Is a question of f^ct; -nd, '"here a T^ltness stmtes
what it ie, ev*>n though he has learned it from hie pro-
fessiounl experience, he le testifying to a .■astter of
fact, and not altogether as an expert. 8ut, as to much
of the leg?il yifOTi, i?hlch le done for their clients by
attorneys at law, there is no customary or established
■t|jji^^, <P«
- 2» -
obnrgc, •8p«oiaIl]r vhcre, »a in this Bt^te* legal fe^s,
except In sjideMil>le partition suits, ^t9 not the subject
of statutory taxation. The vdue of i«g?vl servioes
will often times depend npon a v&rlety of cons 1 derations,
such t^s the skill jvnd standing of the person cmploye.'l,
the nr>ture of the oontroveray, the oh*!iTaoter of the
questions at issue, the amount ox i«port<\noe of the
8ubjeet-«ittt<*r of the suit, the degree of responsiblLity
inrolTed in the aanagement of the 0'«use, the tine "nd
Lnbor bestowed, ^or suoh services ther«* on.n be no
•■tablished aaxket prios, there is no fixed st'^nd^rd
by which their Ttlue c-\xi be determined. They »?».nifestly
ooffls within the mnj exoeptions to the general rule,
that the opinions of Fitnesses are not evidence. (1
Groenl. on rt, see. 440). hat is n fair and ressoniible
oo«pen8»tion for the professional serTloee of w lawyer
o^nnot. In aany, if not in most o%ses, b« otherwise
Ascertained than by the opinions of sneaibere of the b^r,
who hnve beeoae ftusHi^r, by experience 7»nd ur^^otloe,
with the obar=!toter of such services, 'irsotioing
lawyers occupy the r>o9ition of experts '^.» to ruestloae
of this n-iture,' (Allis v. i>ay, 14 Minn, 516)."
See aJ.so, Mane^tv v. .-teele. 113 111. kpiu 19, nhere the s?im«
rule was applied.
So case hat been os^lled to our <%ttention in which
therw wae a departure from the rule pronounced and applied in
these oases. Counsel for the platlntiff »hotJld have ;?.8ked the
expert witnessed for their opinions as to th*; re-^s^onaWie value
of the services ^issuaed In the brpothetleal question to h^.ve
been perfomed by the plaintiff. Thia he did not do. The court
repeatedly ruled thnt the correct and only reoogniaied practice
was to subiflit proof of the usual, cu8toa«ry «nd reasonable
fees v-er diem for legal Bervicea rendered in court and out of
court, o'ouaael for the plaintiff indio?*ted of record his
desire to present authorities thfit opinions as to a reasonable
aggregate fee were competent but, nevertheless, aecinlesced in
the rulltti;- of the oourt. Two questions arise. One la whether
the error of the triil oourt wb of suoh a serious nature as
to ordinarily warrant a reversal of its judgaent. the other
Is whether ooxmsel for the defendant provoked the error or by
«<^-
m'^
■y<0Jti4
- 34 -
hl8 oonduot I«d tbe triil Judge to belleTe thnt he was
foXlpwlng th« praotiee itdToeated bjr oounsvl*
In th«lT reply brl«f oounael for th« dofwndint Bay:
"It is ptprfeotly clear that the titpert
witnesses had some lump 8u» in their alnds
find divided thmt by the nvunber of dnye -^nd
housa thit ?p elle« (plaintiff) claimed to hare
worked, :md thus arrived at the r*te per dny
and o«r h*vr."
If this be true, th«n their opinions were b^tsed upon a solid
foundation under the rule laid down in L». B.A. A Q. ;^ So.
T, Ball&os, aupra.« and the defendant auffered no harm by
▼irtue of the court's erroneous ruling. An examination of
the testimony of the witnesses, Adduced upon oross-exaj&i nation,
shows that there is strong support for eounsel's deduction.
Ws hare abowe, in connection with the oonaider^tion
of the opinions of the ivitnsssse testifying «.e to the vnlue
of plaintiff's services, aet out the oont»oiiing faots pertinent
to the determination of the responsibility of defend?int's
coxinsel for the ruling in question. The objection w»s repe<!».tedly
m^.de that there was no usual or oustoaary charge for legal
serwioes rendered in luiy particular case. But, at no time
during the trial of th« ease, did oounsel advise the court th^t
the objection was based upon the f».ct that the services rendered
were of such an unusual nature that there co\dd be no usxul or
oustoamry charge or that in such oases it uras proper to permit
the witnesses to give their opinions as to h reasonable luap
fee. How they say in this court that,
*The opinions of th? expert witnesses na to the
proper luap s\u) alloi? noe for all t e services
rendered by iioenig should have been allowed to
go to the jury."
■ Xl&t
rfic
^^*#*^^^#i■)^tf , :^« ■ ^pp • ^am^- .■vm'' ..-■♦♦♦I-
, -x*'^ ir.iitf 5,f
- ?5 -
^iat, whan the trial judge- on u^rnv^l oooaaiona 8t<^t«d
a mle of pra^otloe to tha oontraxy, ooxinsel stood mute.
Seveml times the oourt stfited that he vinderstood the vlene
of oounsel j^nd then prooeeded to rewtate and elaborate upon
thea. In hie own Innguage. ^ounsoX a^^de no i^ttenpt to
adTlee the oourt thut he f»:e In error. Tie experts v^ere
oro83->examlned at leni^h but no questions were asked them
which vould Ciill for their orlnlona ns to what was ft rejsonable
Xuap sua oharge for plaintiff's servloes. Ko Instruotlon w»8
tendered on behalf of the defendant vrhioh would ^^^dvlse the
Jury of the proper fsethod to be adopted in deterainlng the
amoxint of the fees. The record is wholly free froa *ny
suggestloa to the court by counsel for either litigant of the
applicability of the arule laid down in L,.^ ji, A. & 0. Ay, Oo,
▼• Wallace, supr^.
At the instance of the plnlntiff, the jury were
instructed th^t the opinions of the attorneys as to the "f^^ir^
usual, reasionable and customary ooa^ensation for suoh services'*
as the erldenee disclosed were competent for their oonaideration
and that in nrriving at the »iaount of fees to be allowed it
was proper for then to oonsider what vms the 'fair, usual,
reasonable and oustomary oharges of attorneys at the vhloago
Bar for slnilnr eerTlces*' There is no complaint made in the
briefs of the action of the oourt in so instructing the jury.
At ths request of the defendant the jury were inatruoted that
they were not bound by the opinions of the experts and that
they might even wholly dlsreg^ird them if they were of the
opinion that they were unreasonable in rler of all of the facts
and oircuastanoes in evldenoe.
'■9T?*xa EjH^>4s,ss2t;'v J!.i
Bm^^ '
%m^ ^^■^•■'
#
ff«*
. iiii»^ 1^^
>M^''
mmf'-'mm^imm'-
■;-;s*©t^^ *^''*» *t«^^ iiftJMs?©-;r««» irtt^? *i<f«A:e»iif
tii^# .Mat ft#«««p«' ^>M'W %m^M^4'W$ %<i bmi»^ ' i^tx ■mm-''^^''
- 36 -
la th« (Mse of ft?t^^MK< PgiW^fg^on^Jfy ▼• '9P\%J^^K^
OoMi««ionT» 311 111. 328, the Supreme Oourt of this 3tate
h«ld that wh«r« ft ptt^xXj inalsts upon n oertr!ln line of motion
toy the trl<jl oourt he onnnot be hesrdl upon rd. c^l to siy that
the oourt erred in adopting his Tiewe, The oourt in its opinion
•aid:
''It ia next oontonded th^t the court erred In
pemitting the witnesses of ap ellee to st^te the
&iB0\mt of benefits, in ^rosa, reoeiTed by spneiiant
from the enlargement ''nd ertenaion of sriid main ditoh
and o«tiet» The theory of spoelleo ^as, th?.t sr>pell?int
hewing oonneoted its ditohea -'ith eaid wnlarged ditch
or outlet, it should pay such proportion of the oost
of the construotion thereof as the benefits to the
lands lying exclusively in its district and outside of
the l^nds lying in both diatriots be^r to ti.e entire
cost of the constn^otion of said enlarged ditch or
outlet, nnd sought upon the trial to prove the benefits
which i^oiild accrue to each tract of land lyin^: exclusive-
ly in district Ho. 3. To this «jeth®d of proof the
appellant objected, nnd insisted the ^itnetses should
be required to state the benefits in h gross sum irhi ih
the appellftnt, as a diatriot, w)uld receive by the
oonstruotion of said oaftn ditch or outlet i^s enlarged
if its ditches were connected therewith, ihe trif^l oourt
agreed with appellant sund adopted its view, and appellee '
thereupon intf!rrog:it0d its witnesses in accordance i^rith
the view insisted ur-on by appellant !^.nd adapted by the
court* The appellant having Insisted upon that view
upon the trial and having procured & ruling from the
court in s^ooord-v-noe 'Ith its view, ennnot now insist
that the action of the oourt in that particular was wrong,
but la bound by the action of the tris?! court In that regard."
WO think the rule there adopted is applioable to the
instant oase. It may be true thnt oounsel for the defend^snt
did not expressly insist that the trial judge rule ns he lid, but
ths same result followed from his silence when the court, several
times, expressed himself as adopting counsel's views ^^s to
ths propsx praotios*
It is contended thnt the first instruct ion giv<!>n at
ths request of the plaintiff was erroneous be0!i.use It lid not
tsll the jury that the test of the proper compensation for <>»n
attorney's servioes ia the amount that would be reasonably agreed
msln
il«-5i
awi
L<ft1»^»« ^jht^
i»»v^a Xijimi<i*»J('--
- a? -
upon for auoh «errio«s loetween parties competent to oontract.
rh« point Is not supports! by th« authorities olted. Ihs
•assa* referrsd to, hold that the question Is not what Is
reasanable. Just and proper for the attorney In the particular
oase« but vh^ct is the usual charge between parties competent
to contraot. ftbere there is no express agreement between
•ttornejr nnd client there nrlses an Implied oblig>itlon to
pay for legal serrloes rendered. If the serrloes are of suoh
a nature that there is a usual or oustoaary ohnrge for the
doing of them then the implied obligation la to pay such usual
or customary. oharge. If the rork is of such an unuauil nature
that It cannot be aali thssst there ia p.ny u'sual or cu8tosi?ry
fee, then the ollent becomes bound to rt^y a rea3on?\ble oos^en-
satlon according to the value of the aervleea rendered. It
goes without saying that if there is a usu'U. tnd ouetomary
fss it must be one usual and oustoseiry between parties oompetent
to contract, ^eee paid or contracted for by inooap« tents
would, of course, furnish no criterion. <^ie feel quite certain
that neither the experts nor ths Jury ia oondidtrlng the amount
of ths foes gave any consideration to transactions between
parties where either one was incoapetent to enter into a
binding contract*
Oomplftlnt is also m?tde of the second instruction
glTen at the instance of the plaintiff that the Jury would easily
receive the Imprss^ion that the plaintiff was entitled to
receive oospensation for benefits resulting to his client by
virtue of servioes rendered by the defendnnt's Wew York lawyers.
The instruction is not susoeptible of such a construction and
the jiiry oould not have been aisled in the manner suggested.
«il-u^-i
im
im% ««fir
• t,- « ■■
s««-*
^.»t»«»:p|JOT -XSSifflfis^i. :;•»#, ,.i# .'J»ifpl|»,it*«| >«-'-»■
- at -
we are not Ittpressed with thft contention thnX the
laok of expeTi«noe on the part of the plaintiff deftonBtr?.t«e
that an execaslTe |tet vaa iillo^ed. He was admitted to the
bajr of thla state In 1 31 6. ffhile it does not appear that
he had tried any oase of great laportanoe. It did appear
that as olerk or otherwise he had been assoolated with lawyers
of hi^ standing sjiA long ex-perienoe tt the Ohicago bar.
There is no coaplaint ibout the chsiraot«^r of the serTloes
rendered <ind tha defendant at the coneluelon of the dlToroe
OKse proQl aimed that he had won a oae^teundred r.er cent
▼lotory. It has been our ob8erTr;<»tlon th^.t viany young lawyers^
aotlng in the rubeervlent cipaolty of l%^ clerks, hsTe in a
few years time aoqulred skill and a knoHedge of the l?*w
sufficient to make theis tiforthy of the 9te«?l of the nv«Tr\gtt
retemn lawyer.
It is also urged that the fees received by Madden
and Seheln bear further evidenoe supporting the contention
that the Jury awarded an exoeselwe fee. This contention is
also untenable, Eadden was iw,ld 11,000. 00, He testified
that he considered that he w^^a entitled to at least ^3,000.00*
but accepted what he got. At the tlaie he testified he atlll
represented the defendant In eeTeTt>il natters and had been
expressly warned by hia not to play the role of pe«oeiaaker
because It was a dangerous one. I'he court allowed Sobela
|5,000.00, This avm oame out of the pocket of the defend>nt.
What »rs. O^rrlngton paid. In addition, out of the 125,000.00
she reoelwed ^T^PS not disoloaed. T>« trl»I court refused to
uermit any inquiry into th«.t subject.
{Si0*'"°5'#"^-S'''.'
®x» t«
•* rfTre;' ., ,1r?»fV?''*?
■>«f
^t
sift i«
■ ^<flr
■M" ;{v«^J:'
4;Sitti:u;;i3;S>«
.. -. ;. „
''■-5 S'SkSa
., ■>:«?*«>*¥
>->
■■t«i#»*
^
. 'V<i
.^yf K**'^^ y <•> .•t.ft^«■ -AtlftHj.
- 39 -
Th« ikIlo«<inoe oAd* by the Jury ^ind oonflrmed by
th« tri-il oourt wm« liberal. If the Jury founi th-nt the
plaintiff WV.B not 9atitl»d to ^iny oomrsenontlon for serTioes
rendered in effecting ox sub8t«iatli^lly aiding in the effecting
of the (senen&l eettlefflent, the aaount aXloved rouLd ?«ppear
to be exoeesive. If, howeTor, they foxind that he itas
entitled to remunaration beoauae of hie aotlTitiee in
bringing about the settlement, we remoh a different oonolusion*
This was an issue to be deternlned by the Jury.
we are of the opinion th^at the rulings of the
triial court, under all of the circujsstancea, were not of
auoh «3 pre judicial natiire as to warrant a reTsrsal of the
Judgment.
lor the foregoing reasons th© Judgment of the
Superior Court of Oook "^ovaty is affiraedt
0lt
*T£>'t ''^v
::^.Hiii-d
2'aB-'i*'%Si^'«S»»P>f.:n';:^^.J-;TI« ^ Wl# ■ ®(8t J^3^ 'llSi^ t"txi0:> MJ's;!
52984
XSTHKA JOY,
Plaintiff - App«ll6^,
CITT Cif JhlGAGO, aritunlolpal
Oorpors^tlon*
D«fondant - Appellant.
t
o u
Opinion filed Feb. 27, 1929
MR. JUSTICE mUSCH dellY^red the opinion of th«
oourt.
]B»th«r Joy, plaintiff, brought a suit sgalnat the
City of Jhio%go for personal injuries sust^ilned by re«!9on of
a fsai while ir«lklag upon Soutb Ashland /iTcnu* In th« Olty
of Chicago, on or about October 14, 1933, The f«ction tna
based upon the negligence of defcndqjat, city of vhloago, by
reason of Its failure to keep and aaintin 5 sidewalk st the
place where the aooldent happened In a reaaonably asife
condition for the use of the plaintiff and the public gener^^^lly.
The trial restated in a Terdlot in favor of the pl'^intiff for
the sua of 115, OCX:), 00, aind judgment was entered upon the
Terdict, from which Judgment this appeal la perfected.
The defendant has argued three grounds for reversal:
First, that the notice served upon the City did not contnin
the naaes of two physioiajis who attended the plaintiff bX or
about the tlae of the injury and shortly thereafter; second,
that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory neglieenoe and
that there was no evidence in the record shoirin^? that the
dsf£'nd<^nt was guilty of negligence; third, that the daaages
are exoessive.
>f ■^'"';
m^m
fet.
l«s «;
•fcf ,. ^ *'>*.«
ft';. ■ •■
;Si
'■V^! .4aW*W
>'^i^''2f ';^iime£tt hmn^^ii '^«(i !itmim»t^^ tuPi
- 3 -
Th« facts in the ovl»« trhow th».t the plaintiff on or
About the X4th d*y of October, 1983, wae imllcing orex ftnd
upon the oideimlk on 3oxith Aahland avenue, near the premises
knovn hs nuaber 6532, between the hours of 8 and 9 o'olook
in the evening; that she was returning fro« a drug store
loo^ited upon said street to her hose at the tiae of the aooident.
It «as ditrk and she iras oarrying a pan of ioe in her hand and
tripped oTsr a protu1»«r.ince or projection in the sidewalk. It
appears that the plaintiff was proceeding along this eidev?illc
up to the point in question where there was a sudden, sharp,
well-aoo^ntuated rise in the side¥*'dk by reason of the fact
that it was not properly Joined together at that point,
creating a sudden sharp rise of two or threp inches, well
defined, as shoim by the photographs attached and made exhibits
in the o'lse. There is testiaiony to the effect tbat the lights
were po«r and that the plaintiff had not been over this partic-
ular stretch prior to the accident. The plaintiff tripped
OTST the sidewalk at this particular point and was aselited
to her hoae by Fred Qoodhelm, a witness in the case, she
swononed .ir. Holses, who testified that he saw her on or '»bout
October 15, and found a swelling extending over the knee to
the foot and that the leg was red, and the patient coiitnlaining
of pain. He testified that he treated her until on or about
October 37th, and kept the liab olew^tited by keeping It on a
chair alongside dBT the couch on which she was resting and
adainistered aspirin to relieve the pain.
Or. O'OonnoT, a witness called on behalf of the
plaintiff, testified that on or about October 18, 1^33, he
ttade an exaadnation of the plaintiff and found the left knee
■ueh swollen and discolored and painful on aoveaent snd tre'^ted
■ ■■■■m tl
•» 3 -
h«r for about tvo wveice* Auriag vhloh tin* h« had h«r at th«
M«roy Hospital for obserTatioa.
Or. Blaok, os.llcd •• a v^ltness on behslf of the
plaintiff, testified that the flrat tlae h« saw th« pittlatlff,
she wua at hex hoae and ho trcT^ted her during J-^tnuarjr and until
about th« 13th of Hebrtary, 1934. ho testified further that
he found n. oontr<iotlon of the leg bAOkvard ftt a rnther aoute
angle, that she was suffering continuous pain and that he ad-
ministered ether for the tmrpose of o«.uslng relaxation of the
ll«b and plaoed It in a cast, where it «ras kept for about 14
days &nd then oassaged. that vhlle she vms undsr the Influence
of the Riiassthetle he straightened the llato and aanlpulated
the joint and had hex under his o%re and saw her oontlnuously
during the time th»t he treated her.
Plaintiff testified that the ]^ln 'ras constant for
the next tvo ye^.rs following the aooldent %nd th»>t she a^ssiaged
It dally and oould only get around on orutohea; that she then
oalled In Drs. Lerlntbal and Jaoobs who began a oourse of
tre<3ttiaentB; that the leg was anJcylosed and at an angle of froa
50 to 60 degrees. A slight svelling was in evldenoe at the
tine of the trial as irell as the ankyloeed condition. She had
to take sedatives to relieve the pain.
Or. Adn«S testified on behalf of the plaintiff that
the knee nas nearly aiikylosed, »ith slight atotlon, and that
the articular end of the thigh bone had been reaioTed as «ell
as the articular end or joint surface of the tibia, resulting
In a shortening of approxlnately one inch of the leg and that
there was a wasting of the calf and some of the thl^ auscles.
- 4 -
On Ji&nuary 35« 1934, a o«7taln notloe wsia fll«4
with th« proper oftlclaLa of the Oitf of Chloago* et-^.tlng the
place and the tine of the ln;)ur]r nn(\ giTlng the n^iae of the
attt^nding phyaloiin aa Ur. Jcry s:. Black, 83S5 South lahltund
ATenue, Ohlciigo, Ullnola. It appeara froa the evldenoe th»t
at the time of the filing of this notice Or. Blaok ws, in
fnot, the attending phyaioian and had been for aererjil daya
prior thereto <^nd continued to be for nany days thereafter*
The names of 'Jr, O'Connor and Dr. Holmes were not oontfvined
in the notioe ^nd it is insiated that the failure to include
the naaea of theae two phyaioiana* vrho had attended the plain-
tiff prior to the tiae of the giving of the notioe* ims not
a eoaplianoe with the 8tatut««
Chapter 70, i^t, 7, OshlU's 111, State., provides
aa follows;
*Par. 7, floncs: OF suit to m ni^KD ntnu
SIX V-OntUS,) I 3, 4ny ?>er8on v»ho la about to bring
any notion or suit at law In any oourt ^.gilnst nny
incorporated city. Tillage or town for d-itcageB on
aooount of any oersonsl ln;3ury shall, within six
aontha from the date of in5xiry» or when the o^.uae
of aotion accrued, either by himself, mcent or
attorney, file in the office of the city attorney
(if there la a city attorney, n.nd also In the offio«
of the city clert) n stsatement An writing, signed by
auoh person, his agent or attorney, giving the nnae
of the person to whoa such o^^LUae of action has
accrued, the name and residence of person Injured,
the date and about the hour of the aocident, the
place or location wherp such ftooldent ooourre', rmd
the n>ime end address of the attending phyaioian
(If any), • • • "
It is evident that this aeotion of the Injuries Aot la a
statute of llaltatlona and th%t the provision in reg?%rd to the
filing of notice is In derogation of the coaaon law and there-
fore Ita meaning should not be extended, k\ the tlMi of the
^ ^ -^
«fiMro«<? » .lft^«#« sill; ■»«: |4M^^' >*?; . ,*«4!^.- «^ . W»f «J(,4S^w
4Ji?
a.
^^i^
.iV
- 5 -
•erring of the notice in question, Dt« BlAOk, whose nnae is
oonttined in the notice* wds the attending :>hyeician* It is
true that the other tro physioinna had attended the plaintiff
prior to the serving of the notice, but were not in attendance
upon the plaintiff at the time thst the notice was given and
we see no reason for ertendinjc the meaning of the statute so
as to include them rithin its scope and intention, the purpose
of the requiring of the serving of notice, as provided for in
the statute, was to enable the city or municipality to have
an early opportunity of investigating the facte surrounding
the accident, as well as the facts concerning the condition
of the party claimed to be injured, ^ith the name of the
attending physician in its possession, and with reasonable
diligence, the defendant could without difficulty have ascer-
tained and discovered the aedical history of the o^ae, in-
cluding the nsmes of previous attending phyBiolane. The
Supreme v'ourt of this State in ooraiienting upon this section
of the Injuries A.ot in the case of McGomb v. City of Jhioai^p.
263 111, 510, in its opinion ssysj
** It will be obeeirved the notice stated the injury
received by plaintiff was 'at or near the corner of
Thirty-ninth street nud G?impbell avenue, • It does not
•peoifioally state which corner, and '^ppeil.nnt insists
the notice is too uncertain r<nd in-lefinlte as to the
place of the accident to be a aubst^ntisl compliance
with the statute* It must be ^'daltted th^t in this
respect the notice was crudely su'l oarelessly prepared,
but if, considering the Thole notice together, it Rives
sufficient irtfomrition to the city -^^lutborities to enable
them, by the exeroise of reasonable intelligence and
diligence, to locate the plnoe of tie injury snd ascertain
the conditions alleged to hnve existed whioh caused it,
it is sufficient, according to the weight of the author-
ities, to aerve the purpose for which it w^s required
by the statute to be given. Uo particular form of notice
is required by the statute, statutes similar to ours
are in force in msny states of the Union, and the suffi-
oiency of notices given under such statutes as to the
plaoe of the injury has frequently been passed upon by
jet--- - ■■:5
«w^:fflL£jLii&k-Ji£..,S^-iii •"'■-Jj&JKrjittK -•
^frlnx •; . '.iw M
•«i
. ...r ©^ «* «»;?•;.;• i' Ms ifioi-''
- 6 -
the eourta of oth«r StaWi. In £llif ▼. qity of Sgg.ttle.
92 Pao. Hep, 4 31, thu notioe •t^ited the injury oocurTed
by plaintiff driving In a hol« on ♦**• ^-e«t aide of r.
•trcet. The proof showed the holt wn-u on the ciet side
of the street. The etrcet »«« forty-six feet wide, and
the offioiils of the oity testified they h«id no knowledge
of any defective condition of the east side of the street
at the tlEC of the injury. The court held the recuire-
aents of the notice should receive a 1 Iberinl construc-
tion; that the ymrpose of It was to enable the officers
of the oity to locate the place of the injury with a
view of prepfliring a defense if It ^aa thought a defense
shovild be siade, and tlmt if the notice directed the
flittentlon of the officers with retqaonalft* certainty
to the pls.ce of the nccident the raculrements of the
statute were ajet. The oourt said: 'It r9.e not intended
that the teraa of the notioe should be used >>e a stumb-
ling block or v?itfall to prevent reoovery by neritori-
oua olaiffi»ints. • "
Our attention is directed by counsel for the defend-
ant to the o^se of Jole ▼. City of ij^nat St. uouia. 1&8 111,
App, 494, mit we find nothing therein contained In conflict
with our interpretation of this statute. The oourt in its
opinion in that oaee expresaly snldj
"The statute only requires the notice to contHln
tho asjso of the ^ttendtog ph/Biolan at the time the
notioe was served."
Counsel also relies upon the Cise of urahfji v, Jity
pf '!?ookford. 338 111. ^4, but the court does not in that
e^se directly pass upon this question, and it was not before
it for deoision.
ib>r«over, 931 ersalnation of the reoord discloses no
objection was made to either of the two medicnl witnesses,
Qrs. O'Connor snd HolKes, when they were called as witneeaes.
for the plaintiff, and the objection to the notice iti^elf
appears to have been biased on the sufficiency of the proof of
the facts set forth in the notioe and th^nt it, the notioe,
wae not properly and sufficiently set forth in the deolar<%tion*
*" § «-
*4bt<.
.iw
:>««i;i'c« «if.t hi dS'i.h^ jm-: isii^/t «i/*
- 7 -
This last objQOtion was passed upon by this court oa appSAl
by the defendant from »t judgacr t of the trl^l court aust'^lnlng
a dsamrrer to the deoliimtlon .^nd found in the oase of Joy
T. OitT of abic.'jgo. 243 in. App. 610. In that onse it vas
lield that the allegations oontniued In the deolarstlon l»
reg-^rd to the notloe were sufflolent. "'« find In the record
no direct objection to the notloe on the ground that It failed
to contain the n^ijies of the tvo physioians who had previously
attended the plaintiff.
Under the eonatruetion irhloh we hare placed upon
this particular seetlon of the injuries Act in regwrd to the
notloe required to be served upon the city, it w^9 not meiim-
bent upon the clnintiff to give the nn^ies of any physiel^.n
other than the one ■attending her at the time of the giving
of the notice,
fro* our exa&ln».tlon of the evidence re find no
contributory negligence on the part of the olaintiff and we
further find that there w?)8 aaple evidence to sustain the
verdiot of the Jury and the judgment of the trial ooxirt.
The history of the injury, froa the time of the
accident to the day of the trial, indicates n permanent
loipalriBent of the use of the l«?g. It may be that the present
condition was ivggravated by the fact that there vrere strepto-
coccic germs ladea with infection oontitined in the body of
the plaintiff, and that the condition of the j4.alntlff w»»s
not solely ittributnble to the 'iceldent, btxt, it Is a ^^ell
known f^.ot that in the c^se of trauT55», such gerwe vill «tt?»ck
M> ^ a,
^ If i>JB9rf
- 8 -
th« injured pmrX <iBd e>^us« s«riou« oompll options, nthout
the Injury they amy h^ve lain doraiant aad rewained neutral.
There w;»a 8ufllol«nt evidenoe up«n wbioh the jury aoald
»rrlre at the opinion thn.t the present condition of the
plaintiff wH,« the direct result of the injury; or, xn other
vord8« that the Injury wae the diroot oi%use of her present
condition. An exasinstion of the mediosd history of the osae,
aa ehoim by the eTidence^Xeade to the opinion that the d^amagee
were not exoessitre.
H'or the reasons st's.ted in this opinion the judgjnent
of the Superior Court la affirmed,
.nJXKSNT AFFIRKSD.
aOLOOM, i\J, Alio RYffiER, Jt. UOSQUR,
K-'l
>«!^'*
v«.'x/«.. vt*s*;, ,,ji*»' ■ ^«s^<ity»i
■■''■■• VI''''"''' ■■■-*.'"--i'', :-M«'*^ ■>:«!(/ tjsrt
83019
Appellant^
ITCTRO
rOLITAS STATE BANK, )
tlon. Oar
mimioiFhh Gotmx
OF aMIOAQO.
5
ft Oorporatlon, Oamlahes, ) q p^ <-» -tr
Opinion filed Feb. 37, 1929
im. JT,?STia^ WIWOM <lellveT»d th« opinion of the
court.
Th« plaintiff Anton M. Butchmt, obt)i?^in«d «? judgmemt
lay oottfe««ion apilnBt fmnk h, S^rlCkmn, defendant, for
$1821.00 and costs, atptII 18, 1938. £y«0utisn upoin. this
judgtacnt was retum«d, "«o property fo\md stn^ no p%irt astlafied.*
kn affidavit asking for garalsbee Buaanona ag'^inst th«
Metropolitan State 8snk, a corpoTs.tlon, w?*? fil»d A rll 18,
1938, and returnable April 30, 1928. Oi*iTniBh«e suMmons Issued
and wi5,8 returned endorsed as ««rT«d on th« JActropolitan 3ts>.te
a*?.nk by delivering p.. oopy thereof, togetber ^Ith n oopy of
irxltt^n Interrogatorieft filed In aald suit. tht» intsrrogatorie*
referred to were on n blajtit form oontalnlng only the title to
the oau8« and the interrog«!torle« theaEiaelTes were bltuik, 8«
that as a aratter of f?itot there »er© no Interrog'-.torlea on
file to be nnsvered. The >s»tropolit^n st^te BRok, by Itt
counsel, filed Its appearsnce snd, on the Tftum day named
la the Tfrlt ^srhioh was sfay 8, 1928, sppec^red and the oase being
called for the purpose of listing it for tri^l, it fas, upon
I aim;
i\ . T
i-;*'
esei «VS .da'? bslxl noxfiiqO
.y'i't.joe
- 3 -
■otion of th« garnishee, Metrooalltan f?t«it« M^nk, ilamissed
for -"ant of interrogitoTlcs ani th« g»rniah«e iAls«l«9«d out
of th« nroo««dlng, 9ub«eqvt«ntljr, a aotlon *«i« wide by the
plsulntlff to Taoat* th« orrt«r of May 8th, dieohari^lng th«
gurnishee, ^hloh notion ira.a orerrxiled. Ho appeal was takea
fToa thla order by the pl-olntlff, a subaequ«nt motion to
T^oata the order of Mny 8th nnn entered on June 6, 1936, "inA
continued to Jvme 8th »nd on June 9th an additional order ir%a
entered continuing the action to June 11 tb, at ^hlob time sn
order f«»8 entered orerrullng thi» taotlon of pl^iintlff to
▼seate the order of M^y 8th, from which last order this appesOL
«».• perfected to thia oourt.
It is tirged ».« a ground for reversal th».t \ind«r the
rules of the Munlolnflil Court, the only iuty dtrolvlng upon the
Judge aeslpied to the o»?IIing of ostsee upon return dny, v^s
to take defaults and enter jud^nents where pf^rtles t^ere
entitled thereto and thst sdl other o^ses r-rhioh vttxt then n.%
issue should be placed upon the trlml calendar or set for
trial, and thit the court hs.d no right nor power to *ntert%ln
», motion to dlaiaisa on the return diy of the obtuse t-hicb. In
this esse, happened to fsdl upon M«y 8th. Clounsel further
urges that, under the rules of the Munloipnl -^ourt, notice
of nil motions Must be in writing s^nd serred upon the opposite
party, stating the tlae and olnce of hearing of seid motions
•sAd deslgnrtting the Jud^ before whoa the aotlon «9S to be »ade,
la the osse at bar, there being no written interrogn-
tories as provided by lanf, it »s8 proper to dlsaiss the garnishee
and we see no reason why this oould not be done upon the r«tum
day vhere It was brought to the aittentloB of the trl'tl oourt
t^iSmm
iK it?'^
.,->r...... .. y-{ ,f ... ,,,., ^.y
X#'ff"
(<* «*«l»«T
■i&i\ g';l;.?it)T.
#«l^^
-«S;---
— 3 —
that ther« rna nothing for the ginrnishee to anewwr '*nd,
consequently, nothlnj? to be set for >j(»*iring, Jioreover, the
action to TfJCRte the order was he*rd on l«ny 34th, and over-
ruled. So fixoeptlon appears to h'i.rn been titken to this order
and no biii of exoeptlona Dreservei. It neoeea-^rlly follow*
that this court has nothing b?for«^ it to show upon what evidence,
written or oral, the oourt bssed Ita finding. *he Bisi|niequent
ffiotlons aade by the plnlntiff were not motlonis to v^oate the
order of U.&f 24th, but were aiotions to vacate the order of
May 8th, vhieh had already been p«i8«ed upon. 3t neeeaaarlly
follow* that the court having hesrd and eonaidensd the aotion
OB May 24th, wae not again required to consider It on June ilth.
If the motion of June Ilth had be@n a anotlon to v^ojute the
order of May 24th, denying the aotloo to vsoate the order of
May 8th, It might h«.ve considered auoh a motion upon «. proper
•bowing to th<^ effect th<5t there 'jrers addition^ facts unknoim
to the plaintiff which were not in his possseasion i^.t the time
the first motion v^a denied sinl this would be li^rgely n iswtter
of judiciiU. dlaoretioa, there being no bill of exoeptione
preserved oontnlning the evidence oresented wtt the time of the
hearing of the motion on M»y 34th, isnd no ?5pp««l having been
taken froa that order, ther*» if nothing for our consider ti on
upon the pr^-aent appertl and for that reason the judgaent of
the IfUBloipal Oouxt is aftirrjied*
JUOGMSST k¥nmim.
'*<"
xaM^'Xw
■!!^JOM
33084
▼.
BAM buowh.
Appellee,
(i
)
AppellBnt. }
■4pm Ah rROM..,,,.,,.,.--'-""^
COOK ROTTHTY.
Opinion filed Feb. 37, 1929
MR. JUaTICR WliBOB delivered the oplBioB of
the court.
The plaintiff Jacob Aehkeaa«y filed his »\iit In
the fJuperlor Ootirt a(;?f>in9t Sms? Bro*», defen3f=snt, for mslicloue
proBeoutlon pnrf obtained a Jtjdgment iii the atna of 4l,SO0.00,
from whloh Judgmeat this Appeal vae ti^iKea, T>ie orlgiaftl
bill of exopptlone In the cawse r<»m*lne la the files of
the auperiox Court end e copy Ir incorporated In the record
filed in thli cottrt.
Deo«»raber 33, 19?8, L, A. Sherwin, counsel for
the plaintiff, filed e- motion on hehi^lf of hie client for
leare to euuply a oorreot copy of stn exhibit contsinsd in
the record before thin court SAd, in mirport of his motion,
filed fta affid&Ylt charging ostuisei for the def^ndant with
having fraudulently placed In the record an exhibit which
wee false and incorrect.
December 28, 1938, counsel for def«ndpnt filed
his moti a to reverse and remind, supported by affidavits,
charging that 'sherwln had f»lsely and fraudulently changed
and altered the bill of exceptions in reg^ard to material
Matters and procured the certificate of the court to eeid
bill of exceptions without the knowledge of the court or
XI
(
* - t
esei tTS .o'9'i 69 1x1 iioiniqO
♦ ^»««> «^iSt
■■..ifj-'-; ■'ut
r«,"Sft'-«tt- i^ar.'rw ■yyfy-%'^.
-8-
of ooiinsel for r>l9liitlff thttt aald ob«ng«a hm6 b««n made 1&
the bil of •zoeptlonc.
Fto» the variouB motions, countRr«Bie^loa« and
«ffldnrit0 before ua. It appears that the trial oofurt atlll
baa before It the question a» to whether or not the bill of
•xeeptlona had been falalfled.
December 84, 19S8, appellee, by hie counsel, fil«M3
an additlnal absftrset ©f record ,
Jftmi?ry 7, 1929, def «^n 'ant filed a motion, by his
oouneel, to strike the ariditlonEX abptract of rsoord from
the fllee on the groxmd that the eddltlonsl mbetrRct m\&
falea in ststerlal stattere an<^ contained statsinents therein
which were not, in f»et, either in the bill of exeeptlonai or
th« record.
January ?, 19S9, eotm«>el for d«f«iififf;nt entered
hlB motion for « rule a^lnst Sherwln, counsel for plsintlff,
to show cause nrhy he should not be held In contempt of this
court by reason of hist filing; a false adilti nal abstract of
record.
J^noary 10, 1939, counsel for plaintiff obtained
lesTe to file an adiltlonal and ^supplemental abstract of
record which was j^ranted pna which upon exaaiinatlon shows
an elimination of nuaerons matters set out In the first
additional abetraot. It also oontainp certain stateissnte
and aysrsMnts, partloularly as to the isatters eontaineO in the
ajMaded declaration which are not. In fact, borne out by the
record. The question as to whether or not the amended declara-
tion, upon which the trial was had, was sufficient to support
the rerdlct, was a matter of lii^portanoe upon consideration
,'^m^ ii«i^ iiM' wit
ji,tli:(!?«i£«X«} "s^T: Z®«ij6»t?a« ,«i;»«««fS ^tffi/i&^ft ftiisH « tc' .«:;>;:* j^irf
•'"'•"■::iQjE)f|i Gi itm«^i»l.l\m '^&w ^bm »jw istrt r-'-^ ■'•-•■ - <•#
-3-
of tha appeal.
A raadlng of the (siotl >&?, oouDter«Q)totloii8 wnd
affidavits fllad In thl<» ccnirt, dlseloaeB chRrK«0 by both
•Idas of fraud, olrcuiiTantlon p.nd tinathleal practlca In tha
proouriae; and raf^klng up of tha ri*:oT4 now before ua. »a
hava not before ua the orli^lnal biljt of excaptione end,
therefore, oan not oonslder the charged material ohAnpiae
■ade therein aa they do not appear upon the faea of tha oopy
of tha bill of ejoeptlons oontjulnad In this record.
ttedfir tha clirctmatanoas, we ere of the opinion
that. It T»o Id be iBpof^sible to arrive st s cerT«ct ocnclualon
In th« caaa by reason of tha sltxiatlon oreatad hy eounfial,
and that It is la the inter f^at of jxtatloa that the «ntlre
matter should be re-heard, and »lth proper sefeguarda, for
the obtaining of a correct record for tha eonsl'^dratlon of
this oourt In tha event of a future appeal.
For the reaaona etotad in this opinion, the judg«-
■ant of the ^parior Court Is reversed Bcd the cause ranandad
for a new trial.
jmnaiKifT R^vmsKo asb gauss h^mahded*
HOLUOM, p. J. ANH HTMlvR, J. CONCUH,
«IIIIE*''
m'^ms^ 'im^iit^^ h^^^^^ ^# %(N&iit«Q3s^ i^m tsm Ai>r9\»'i9iii
' wit. . . ^(fii^-^t 9^S Mi
0'%i^.
33047
B/0 SAKDVIQH SH0PS«I8C., \
a corporatioB»
Appellant »
▼•
4, a. PRICS, (Solnp: tmr^ln^es ae
Frioe r;rug Coapf^ny, pnd/or )
A. P. orug Co., J^nd/or Price )
Cartage Co., and LOtJlS iiCaRIS, )
dolbg buRlnees as t^m Morris )
Floral Shop, J
Appellees. )
SsUHICIFAL CCttRT
Of CHICAGO.
37
Opinion filed Feb, 27, 1939
MR. JWTIOS VrlLSOl dtaivered the opiaion of
the <x>-art«
The plaintiff, B/G f5«nd«ich ^)K>p8, Inc., a
oorporation, brought its sctlon in forcible entry and
detfilnsr a^iaet the dsft^ndaiit, A. R, Price, doing
bucineae as Price Brug Qo, aad others to recorer pooaeesioa
of certain pr^alses situated at 59 £«sst ^nR Buran street
la the City of Chic?;go, The iM^tion was predicated on a
So day notice, hased on the elais of the plaintiff that
the defendant, Price, vss a tenant fros uo&th to stonth
aad that the tenancy hed been tensin&ted nader the notice
»s of April 30, 1826« Price defended on the ground th»t
h* was in possession under a three year leas* and that the
BOtioe was not sufficient.
It appears that, with reference to the leasing
of the previses between the plaintiff ^^ defeadsnt, thres
ssts of leases ««rs prepared end it is clelaied on behalf of
the df^fendant thrt the last lease was sifmed 9ctk6 delivered
to hl«, but that he had lost it. He was onable to refaewber
the d?ite of the lease, nor w«s he oertRin who signed It on
r\
I
¥^
fi
/
\
tfOSS
^^\</
9SSI TF .cJ'5''i b'^lt't ncinx-rrO
■ ?iff-f"yti£'
as*
iMii
^*1
"ass'SQ «:
1»«b&lf of th« plalatlff. He relisd upon a letter dcted
Hftroh 17, 1927, Rddressed to th« A. P. Drug Co., Atheaa«\ai
Building, 59 lilaet Vg,a Btiren street, Ohlosgo, Iilinola. Th*
oonnmicetioa vaa as follows:
'Oeatleaea:
^e enclope herewith, duly executed,
yoriT copy of le&s« on Roon 100 of the Atbenaevu
Buxlding, for a tern oo«menclng Pebruary 1, 1927,
end ending April 29, 1930,
Th&nking you for the favor, we nrs
Youxe fry truly,
Wiiiouphby « Co."
The elgaature, willoughby s^ Ck>., «&b written by
hand, but there Is no proof «e to vrho vrote it, and ons
efiadohy, an agent of t^moughby A Co., vho hnd charge of
the previous negotlatlone with regard to the :feental of the
pr<»i8ee on behalf of the B/G Sandwich Shops, Inc., testified
tluit no lease had eret be«i entered into and th&t from an
•zaalnatioa of the letter It was laposslble to tell who, if
anybody, in the eeploy of ^llloughby A Oo. had dictated or
sent mioh a letter.
There was no proof offered on behalf of ths
defend? nt other than the introduction of the letter In
eridence itself, eonneotlng the letter with any person
in the enploy of winous^hby & Go, or 9dth the pleiatlff.
A witanst Porbes teetif led that he was in ch.irge of the
plaintiff ooeqpaay, as secretary, snd fcnew the defendant.
Price, and produced the copiee of the unsigned lessee whieh
he testified were all that were prepared for the purpose of
having the defendant sign, but th»t no one of these was
signed and that there was no Isass at any time executed of
the preaises in question by the parties. The dsfencent
appears to have been unable to 8t»te what the terns of tbe
agreement were end in view of the fftct that the execution
•*
' 0m l^m itt tftmm «mS» o# as, 't^-:- ■ ■ t STea^* #iiwf »&h«*s
1© l«#«^3i' y:«Jf^^.ai" ta i^^p^.l«fe si «t 'assies
-3-
of th« l«a««, if at all, iras stibortly before the filing of
this suit, it in difficult to undarstand the laability of
tka defendant to locate it.
April 8, 1927, orer a month prior to the
beginning of the suit in Question, and after the alleged
execution of the leas«, the plaintiff by Forbee, its
aeoretary, vrote Price a letter stating thi^.t a laaae was
prsp«red, aweltmg his signature. Befendsnt appears to
haT« made uc reply to this coisiBunicstlon to the effect
that he already hsri a lease* It 5?0" if! heve been natural
for him upon receipt of euoh s GorsTTanlcation to hrsrm
Immediately corrected the mistake contsiaed in the 0(»»sRinioa«»
iioB of April 8th.
The burden of prc^f was upon the defand»nt, rolyta^
na he did upon a special vtitten instrument as a defense.
From an «zn4sination of the record in this oe.se, we are of
the opinion that thle has not been done* The trial court
erred in holding aa it -^ic? sad, in our opinion, the finding
of the trial court le contrary to the weight of the eridence
and for that reason the Jud^ent will be rarer ^ed and Jud@&ent
will be entered hare for the plaintiff, finding the right
to poeaesfiion to the pree^iaeis described as Hooa IOC <sn6 base*
meat apaoe thereunder in the building known as S9 Saat
Ti^ Bttren atreetj Chicago, in the plaintiff.
JUlKSilCST RKTKRSK5 AUG JOIXm^^IT H^rRS FOR
POS8K8310S IS FAVOR OF THK FX.AIST1FF.
HoiDoi, P.J. .*!in murn^ j. coscrm,.
l&MugtfJWS' «8*« §^srf ^rraesf #t rf»e««^ « ?ssg tfe*^^I« ««[ *a^*
waul W »<sf#e!>*ii^«^'** « ^iwij* t® ti^jf*®®* jBtot^ trJfii iE«f^^
32890
JULLERTOJi n^Ui^filliG ft HKAf ISS )
CO., a Corv«oration, )
DAfnndant in Hrror, )
AmnA 10 iiWi^.hlOR COUKX
KLX UMtCOVr and L£SLII L, UiSCii¥.
) Ot COOJt COUit'lT,
252_, . 63'?^
ELI itiiTOOJH?, ) ^** ^ z^'
Vlointilf in iirror.
»1.IVEHKI3 XHi; OPlJ»lCli 0» THS CGUMt.
By thle writ oi error dftfdfi-iai.t, iSll i..*tcon", B«<<'k«
to rft-vem* a deer«« ngtu^inst hin in a ueckacic'e lie^n Droc««ding.
rh€ record dl«cilo««s thmt on April <^S« ^9<e4, oom-
plainiint and d«X'«i^^ant, k.«tcolT, «£it«?r«() iat6 u written si.^reeffient
vhereby coapl«iAnftOt &£r««d to install the pliuabini^ in a tvo*
ftp«urtm($st building tU«i4 bvlng erected ut 2141 iki«rIov aveaue,
Qiicago, i^d Auetcofi* «4,ir«ftd tc pay it^%t fox tii(t »ni»«. wO!uplaiAt3>nt
b«ga£ to install tnc pluailijiiig laid <*bout ^uly i , X9'M, it vae paid
|500 on acoouiit. A »i:u>rt tife« tk«reart«r coi&pl h^inariit , tali^^iiaf. ih*
peeition that it had coi&pl«t*d all the «rosk, d4»<iaiided payi&ent of
th« balnnen, i*kiai<. wait refused, E«tooiT ccntftbdiht^ that th« work
hsA not been uoii» in a good and «;orJ^anllk« aanrier a» provided in
th© writt«B oontraet. April 10, 1925, coc:.plainar4t filed its bill
for a K>«tihfluiie's lien ir« th« auriioipol court of Caioaso* It Also
filed a suit to T&tiof^iT a balu&o« of $4S0 claimed to ha due ii.
.^o far as we ar« advieed, tiiat ouit was not diepOB«f> of.
After the ieeues were aade up thf; cause was rei> rred
to a iwaoter in Qicmoery who bt>gari taking proofs on Oocobcsr l.T),
1929. Xh« laet evideuue was offered b«for« hta, Uay 21 » 19^7.
There ar< about 470 pagee in the record. Xhci kaeier aXIo^ved the
def^nditnt three it«;.e of credit - one for #15 for replacing ,ilH3t«r
l-^
J^ c^., \
'■^mSf.
^i^m^ ^
^
yg
«)!|'-1%il##i^;?.
lfeQft/iW«'&.J&< . '/.
9n».-
pH |i##it,it8i»>
"txojalqs'i
in the <t«iliDe And vmlla which ha4 \»««a r«aoT«d and out oat hj com*
pialnant In connection vitii aliiiUtiiniS ta* gas pipe coimeotions vhieh
eoBtplainaAt had iwproperly installed* AnoU^er ites sf $10 w&e »1*
lowed for rop%iring another opening B«4l« in the bascmMit whleh should
hsTe been lone by eot&plainant; and one iteiii of «)& to r«:»la^e« a
"bui'falo box" in conn«totlon wita tint shut*off valYO whioh eospl:»ln«nt
also fiUled to do, miiking a total of i5c* This left a bultuaee due
oonplainiMQt as foonl by the Kt^ater of ^4S0« the Bftster's fees wers
taxed at 9450.
Pefendant ooatends thjitt eoi&plalfiaRt was not entitled
to any lien en the preKisee in question beesujtae it <tie3 not inntall
the plumbing?, in acoordanoe with the ten!i!i& of tii« contract, ^but that
in any ewent the oeurt awarded the lien for too larg«» e^ euR; th«tt
defendant ^as entitled to a eretfit ef $21$. 40 rhioh the evi^l^&nce
shows was the amount h« would l>« repaired to expend to plvwee the
plunbing in & good and wertoiimlike eomlitioa as th6 contract rsouired.
An exat^ in ttt i on of th<s record dise^osss th^ fact that there was a
great deal of p«rsonal fseling between th« p^urties, ooaplainsnt in*
eisting that he had properly inotslled the plumbing; and tliat ie*
fendant was merely er.deaworintiv to k^ep it out of it« Koney. On the
other hand, defendant's position was timt the work had been improperly
done and had not been ocjapleted, therefore he shoulrj not be required
to pay for it.
Vc think we ought to eay that After the parties had in-
troduced soKC evidence on the Mrst <)iay of the hearinig before the
Aaster, the hearinii was continued, the t&aster suggesting that the
parties endeewor to settle the uontroY«r8y. vre will not «nter into
a detailed discussion of the ewidei^ee in the record, but ar« of the
opinion that it is clear that oonplainsnt did net install the pluab-
in£ in a good and workOLanlike manner. While it in th« main subetMo-
tlally complied with the contract, there were a number of particulars
•■•'STCS
irh«r« th« rvldttnc* Hhovr* thla htid not bsvn I^nc. It apotiVB fnu. tim
•Tidenot ta«r« w«r« two tcuairits living.. In tiit Wo »i)«a>tf!iientt >!iJ't«r
th« work wa« «}r>n«; th«t tho tenant on tUo !'irst floor «ae using («•
p(il<S I'er )>y th* ttnaot living on th« s«oon1 I'loor, rhich va» ^u« to
gae
th« dtfeotlvo -roTk of compl ^inant In oroo« oonneetln^r tii<i/r>ipeo,
and thAt tht tentuit ooinpla4,n*4 of inla nai it va« eorr«ot*<l )?y
oevplslnont. Tho contr»et etaivd for sn "Xnternatiocal llet w%t«r
a«alor<* »n4 tun "Intertiatlonal Laundry i;io«iter" wao inetnllsd, alttio«|||i
tho orldoneo further ohove that th««e two heftier* while uet oxftctly
&ra BulxitiwtlaXly th<» i«me. It further »r,i>eajr« thiit a •buffalo
l9ox" w»B rofliOTOl by cofiplAintsnt &Xi4 that It failed to r*lBetall
lt» ttnd there vaa ovlditrico to tha effeet that the sink *ra« dofeo*
tlT« In that th9 onsciel ]pe«l«^ off; that the faucota w«r« net
proi>«rly eonneotod. On« of vU« tenftnta t^atified that the "faueata
pulled out about on<^ and one^balf Indrtae aT«ry tiete tho w&t«>r vaa
turn ltd on,"
The eontraot oalla^!! for a stone cover or the catoh
1»a«ia, ^il« tha arridarica «how8 a aooereto oov($r ^ae used, but ««
think the ooritraoi w»,s mibBtauitlally ecaapiied with In this latter
resuect,
Upori a earrful coneldaratlon of all tho 4»Tld«nca in
t\\m r«ccrd, we are of thp' opltiiorj tnat eoaplalnant was not frnn
fro« llsjae and that A«f«3iiarit was in ao»« re«p*cta Justified In
rafuaing to pay tha bal?»r>ca of the contraet prle«. Undar thaae
elraunetbncea , v» think all of the cesta ahoul/i not have b«an
taxi-d a^ainat defendant* W« tnlnk the oosta ahould hara baan
•(jually divided between ooffip^'-l'>B^t and daf exidant.
Contautlona are advanced by daff^n/iant as ta whether
the decree should be revaraed or moiiriad, ^'9 have oarefvaiy
oonsldered these eontentiona» but are of the opinion the eeurt
waa warranted it> ottering a daorae award Iniij, a IImei but that
i{< I^di9.f$%«^ j»ii!''i!' 9k j^m> «> '-o^wi^^l^^Moft tf««i«s9<«^ writ #)M<il lUlHt
. , .... ,..-.-. ...... .. .^ f:i8ii* *fl(J»ha»''teJ5> #«^' ijISU: i,i ■ „:;:5aTiE
-a.y4^^aJtJ«'|^e«-: '4)^«|!«l«>4nir |p|i>«i^'' 'YJifi»JI1^«
ooKplnlnHnt •h.oul4 1»« required to piny on«->half the uoota incurred
In the trial court an^ in thla court.
The decree of the Circuit oourt ei' Ceok oounty will
thi»refore iDe mo4ifle<l bo as to require the ooste to b» dlviied
«• above etated, and so ttodll'led it ii alTlrKed.
Jio3urel]r and &atehett, JJ. , eoaour.
«,i(<«iill«» «ii.^ 4<r#««l»'#«% i^m ti^»'ti^%tMti
*-i-- .'d^^t^
339 79
EUtBlHI 4. mOiR,
App«llf«,
▼ •.
HicHAHD s. scatiim, HU&a u^ a,
QmrsBS Mad s^.\r d. Iiariu,
A;'PV,/a. imOk CIKCUIT COURT
0? COOK cou&rY.
teP. PRSSIDlliQ JUJincs o»cow»o«
98l.IVKR3T> fa» OFWIOJB 0? THE COUBT.
H«rb*rt A. IHirr filnd hi* bill for iin ticeounting and
•fter a h9arlni< th» court found tn«r« «»« ^uc hln ;^6C ,C24.7a, to-
g«th<ur with co«ts. a deer«>« w%« <»nt9r«<l thstt d*f«R'l)xrit« pay the
■Mount withia thirty days, uii th« d«l'«r.diaiitB proKttoute this ap-
peal.
The record <il»cl08^» tUat ijei"0ri':^*nt8 were -architects
•ngag*d in th» rH«tlQ« of their profeesloia in Chlcftgo, doing
baBin«as under the lir&i mva* ef Kiehard ^-^ 3oliml(tt, harden and
Mart 1a; that aostpl^lnaiit* who w&s a consulting; «sgiiiiR«)r, v^ae ««•
ployad by thpa In 19v,6 aUfi a6Etlnu«?i in their "jsploy uritil April
26 f 1919, w&«n he va« diaehar^ed. He r«e«iv«d a sulary of t!S6
a wa«k in 1906; tbla «aa inor«a««d Traits ti^ie to ticae and for
eoB« time b«for« ho was disolxargod he was r«ealving a aalaxy of
^60 a we«k;. Th9 «Tldcno« furth«r «riO<nre that i^oaetiuc) in tho year
1917 comni uinant coDfarrad with tu« defandajst Johmidt to ascertain
whathar h« woul'1 be p«>rsitted to aolicit job* for 'laff^ndants and
in eaoa h* w»s suecaaaful wr.ethar h« would reoeiva a certain part
of th« fa« «am<><l by th«M* Seh»idt auid it would be «ntir«ly
prop*r for oo«plnln»rt t<j rto thlt ajsti tttat for any work he
brought to def*ndwita* firm h<^ woul) be paid a ooj;^1 salon or a
certain part of thi» fee. it furt»ier app««»ra that thereafter
ooBolalnnnt eolicited buelAcsu aril wae eucOMaaful in ebtaiaing
aijc Jobs, in all of which he wao paid a pext of the fe«a ^leh
xv-onijii mm JU'/^'M c
^ <,<- ^ *<''/
'^ <,rj^<Xi »^s«o ««
£, ^ 'A* p Q i
««kt
miit^ .^M'ii^W'i^^Mifi i^m m.m ^md^ i^aimli imtn i^ ^t»»«!f ,4
d«f«n()ajnts r«e«iTe<! lor doing th« vork. Iii taost oi that hi> vas
paid 2/5 or 4c p«r cant oi the r««. i'h« »vi<1er.«« i'urthar ahova
that on« or th« jobs ebtiklned \>y ttac eonolHinttnt va« tht oonstruc-
tlon of tho building vhieh is de»lsriat«d iti th« record aa tha
Stirling v^ufaeturart Building; that coicplHlnar^t RjDt«r«d Into
nogutlatlcna vith tha Plaaa Cen«truotion Coup»uiy, a corporation
•nsa£«d in tha oonatruotlon of buliilnga in C:iica{(o lutt^ with tha
evaara of th» i>re<.!l»aa, ismd thai aa ». result oi t^uoh n«gotiationa
a «ntt«n contract waa ant^rad lnt< -'rh^re1;>y Uj« Plcaa Conetruetlon
Coaipany vaa to cocatruot tha buil'itng for tha owc«rB for a ©paci-
fied prle«. 1« thi9 written ccntraot, which la a prlRte^? fora wllh
eartaln apaoat Iftft blank, tb« defandas^ta' n»iu«a vare prlntad aa
tha arctiltaeta of tha building. th*y ^id the arehitaotural ^ork
on the Job sknd warn |»ald thair fae by th« I'laaa Con»tructloB Cok-
pany, the ecntraetor having Inciudad in th« contract a auib suffl-
elant to coYer tha Jiro^iltaota' fee. In coniieetion •s'lth th* eon-
■truotion of th* aMe« building, Durr, thp aomvl'kiniix.t, p:x>@ared
the execution of three other oontraets - cr.« ler the InstsJLlatlon
of the plui^liing between a plu%blni; oonoarn and th« orner of the
prentaea; another for the In at aO.! at! or. of thf» aeatlng pl^^nt; and
another for inatallln,; tha eleotrieal equlpffient; eacii of th^aa
oontracte was between the o^sner of the pr«wiaea i^ni a heating
and an electrical coap^ny and ware on tha tuih^ printed fons of
contract as that uaad for the contstructlor. of th* bulliing. The
•widenca further shows that when i^rr, the coaipl»id.nant, solicited
the four contracts In connection vit. the Sterling i^ftnufaeturart
Building, he obtiiilntd i'rom. r%9h of the four contraaters the twnount
of their bids, but before subf<tlng the bids to the o^nrrs re»
4}ulred each one to ad^ sometxlng to the bid 00 that caC'-. sf the
four contractors' bids was euba^itted to the owner with the ad '^ed
aaount, and required that In ease they were avardad tha contract
. A::t
if%mt)i:&<^-'tmt&SA. '0i^Jk'K»Mim0:, i:>*|^:.s^i^i»»||8^;; a,*., esr-jintJ^ro..
th«y vould pay hln the iUKouiii th«y Jind ftdiAd to th<9ir bids. Xhis
was agrted to iuid th« evidcutc* ahowii thut aaoh oi' tha Tour eon-
tr»etors, after the work waa ion*, and paid for loy tha ovnar,
cava tlia axoaaa vooh had raoaivod ovar and abova tha uaouct ol'
the ori)e;i2ial bids, to the oompltinuit. And th«re is arldeuo*
tending to shew that Durr I'ollovad the tumm* t&^ttiQi in at least
ona ol' th« othar jobs obtained by hlK and that h« vaa paid 40 per
eant or the faaa raealvad by dal'aiii^axita on ull jobs ha procured
for the ririQ. hone oi th« dei'Aitdants kuaw that cor^olnlnant vas
*pad(^in£* Ui« eontraotora* bids or that h« obtaln«d the amcunt of
the ^pad-llng" as abova aet iorth, uwtii a few days before April
7, 1919* when defendant £sehmidt le«rr»«;d of th*» m(»tjiod pursued by
t>urr ia obtaining some ol' th(» contracts in rei'fti'tuion to the
"paddinu:'' of the bids, ^d at that tlsis he stpoJee to coitap-ialnmnt
and rer;.u(»sted Uiax coup «<,inant go to 8«« 4«f <i»Ad'int»* eou£t««l,
which eoar>l'^iniMit did ancl dlseuaeed vrith <mQii counsel th«^ fact
that he h;td been "padding" his bills tuad tae t&r^itiiod puraued by
uim, Xhftr«upon eouii^sel auij^js^stieted that coiupL'^naiat uaJKe a written
statement of the Blatter, whic^^ h<!< »gre(»d ts. A typewritten raai.^'-
nent kua then prepared by counsel and subfcitt«d to couplainant,
who axauclned it <iRd «ppHr«uktly took it away i'miu t.;« office to go
over it juore oar<5fuliy raid, probaWl> tht, nwi^t day, returned with
the i!ta':e;.jent, ^hm^ it was revised, reduced to typewriting and
sign<!<d by ao&pl»lnant« I'his was on <ipril 7, 1919* In this »tate-
MSBt coaplsi^inMit saye that in tu« spring of 191 a def ^uttants ha4
under oonalOeration an arrangement with the i'leae Conatruction
Cottpany by vhioh that uoa<pany would stake bids V^r th<& uonetruotion
of reicroroed eionoreta buiXdinigs aecording to pltuus designed by
the defendant areii^it^ets «':i(^ ahouXd provide a luxap sue for the
eoastruetion of the building b«! paid by the own(»r to %iiw Pieaa
Conatruction CoiKipstn,/ wnioh would inclada an auount saffioient to
pay the rjrchitects; that about iiiie \katt coi^ipl ^ in'int learn'jd froa
-■■ w , .- „ . ., •- ■■ >im *>*wi:«^. 9l#i ■■%'•
another 9mfiloy of d*f#nf«mtit, vUo Xka<)« •!> AgroMBMOt with tJD«
?!•»■ ConatruQtlon Comnar.y ir coniivctlon with their bl<!<^in£; for
th« oonatruetion of k huilAins 'hereby the Uon true t Ion woitpAny
•i-'ort ooRethlng tc th" contract r>rlc« find paid ouoh «xc««8 to
th«» othiMT *mploj9, Aiottally; th^t Viu Joho <?tot3do«<!l by coB!f>lalf.'unt
ho eonfnrrod with th« dof andant Schsiidt ab to th" sAount of tht?
arohltftets' f«*» of *ach job an'J Uiat It wsib »gr«c"3 that compl iiniait
would hftTO 3/5 of sucit fft«{ that coffi^lnltii&ri I ther: wnterod into an
tt^i'^^^Mit with th© Plefco Conr-truotion Coffpatiy -thereby It would add
to the ««©uet of lt« foo a eortaiir; siaa wlilah t}i«*y vould p5Ay to
ooplainant wh«n thoy had tten pai-! bj th« o«a«r for whom the
Conetructlon edsq^Huy *»,» er«eting a toullding. The atfetes.,«»nt furthor
■«t« up that no ai«?-'ber of the dof endssir. t flnta knew anything al>out
•ueb "pad'Hngj" that on two of «uch jo1»« coaplHinaiU waa paid by
tho Float Construction C'.i*p.*ny b*t*«fen |10,0O0 and 112,000 which
wao the extent oi' the "pt^dllng" of tlat l*l«a« Construction Coiipany^
bid*.
The »Ti4?!t.c« f ur to.«^r ano-ss that for more thaxi & yssar
prior to th<» tl»« coraplslntnt wr« discharged he had X'««ii witVftavor-
Ing to secure th« saii^loyiient oM dof*-Ajnnt« aa arcJiltfcts for &
l»rge plant that Bunt«? Brother* "«*♦?« conteiuplatlng; that h^ had a
number of oonferonceo with re!>rete«t -ttlvoo of Bunte lirothors and
aonelderahlc corrcrt>o»d«nce ooneeminfi the ia«tt«r, and hid froai
time to tlao advlgftd def andtsjits* of what he wsto doln«; Ik connoo-
tlon ^Ith the aattsr; ;hat at one tlmo iiunte Brothers advisod eon«
pl'dnant that the Batter be h«»H in abeyance, '^Ic'- was done, raid
that la January , Wl'' , the matter «»• rovlwed «nd tito pro«p*^at•
appear-d brljjht fer A^tRjlnln^ tlie job for the 'tefpndanto as arohl-
teeta, «»nd that ftt tVu»t time, about Jcinu'iry 17, .1919, 3c&pl«^lnant
took the Batter up with the deieudant Solualdt, adYieed riisa of the
prospects and aeliM Shhr.idt if he, coKplalntiAt, would reeelre the
^W'
«flLmft p«rftcntAe« of th<» fee in o«t« defendanta Wttrs «9iploy«4 &•
arehlt«ots on th« Job u* he had thereto l'er« b«en r«eelving, nt*aiely,
2/Bths. And oomi>l>xln»nt t««tlfl«d tbiit Sohmlilt r«)pli«d that com>
plalDact would r«o«iTe i!/Btht of th« fee In caae defendioDts ol)tain>
•d th« worJc, «.« ha had th)?retofore be«n paid. t^c^midt testified
and ftdi&itB the ccnTersftt ion but does not adult that he agreed to
p»y coBiplHinsifit 2/5the of th*' fe«. ih© muster, howsTer, who took
the <>Tid««)oe &nd s&de up hl$ report, fouuad as a faot that ahout
bar oh 19« 191 d, there vaa an oral »greesi<Hat hatween coc&ol^lnact
and ths leff^ndant firsi wh«r«by cooiplaina&t was to reseiva 2/&tha
of th» fees r?oelTe4 by defrndjunta for Jobs obtnln^d by eojaplnlnant
for def«cdant«» and further finds that ^oimiit «,bout Jinnu^ry 17,
1919, ^rosBlsed to p sy to coic.pl aln^uit '4/6tha oi the areUit^cts* fees
in case Ui*y were ^Mspioyed on th* ii-,;nte job.
Itiff wvldecoe fart'-ier aSioipR tha,t d^f'siidsuit Soimidt
about April 9, 1316, kneiF oi' the -rritten tstataiasarjt or oonfession
aiade by coaiplalJaant on April 7th, fiitov« r*5f .ri«d to. ~>G)iifflidt
teetlfiffd to this fact aoi- the eYidesje?; mxovs mat froKr Uiat tlac
oa until thft Bunte £ros. contract "^as a«;4.rd«d to defendssnts, ^hieh
was about May &, 1919* frequsnt nt^gotivMitlona w«r«> e&rried on be-
tween eceiplalnaot i»nd £.int« Bros., looking; to the 6onsuBiz;.&tiei4 of
the d«al, soi'I that SehEoidt and doferidtunt Gr^txden were asdlstin^^ in
thesa negotiations, during this time c mplaintjiut called freu^riitly
on I^unte Brcs., urid on one occasion was tol:! to have members of
ths def ntxdant firm hold th«^aelves in readiness to s&e«t the board
of Ureotora of Bunts £ros» Coibpii^nHnt ^sked defisridants :!>ohmidt
and Qardan if they would nold th<^«olYes in r adiness to attend
the Besting oni they agreed to do se. Durr teetified that about
the Ri !ile of April he was called into So'^Lttidt'e offioa and Oarden
was also oalled in{ that Sohsiiiit than aeked ooKtilulnant if he would
aacept l/fi as his fee for the ^unt« Irc-s, proJ«et; that eosipl'iin int
. ■■^
.«^E *«:4?JM>v *«l* t«nt, ft^'i oU4t «.i ^\4 Ja6»»«
■tat*d he ««• nurprlt^d, tibat he huA understood h« whs to b«t i>Ald
on th« r*gul2&r b^sia el* 2/5ths att ha h%d b««n 9tti<l OKt th« otht^r
job*; that uoh&idt s-^id it tstc » I'^rfec^ Job «nd that thjl* job hod
n«T«r ontfTod into the dincusaion about tho dlvialon oi' the fee;
that £ici:midt ofi>r*d hia 1/6 th oi the l'«« but uomfilaifiiMRt r«i\i8«d,
stating that on J'rinuary 17, 1919, rt' had b«en rroiaiood i8/&th of
the feo.
Th« dofwndant diarden t«!itifl«d that he ■wmtt ^reaetat at
the oonvoroation b«t«««n Sotasidit nnd comiiluinuut, which he plaood
at being ju»t a ahort tln« b«roro th6 dir actors' mi^ntlng of ^utito
Bros, on April ^3; that Uohnidt aaiod tho vitn@Bs to coane to his
ot'fieOi that eow d xlnjijnt vant<*d to talk nout tiid oofiupenaatlou in
eaao th« I^^ntt job was obtain»d; t.;at aosspliUufait fits&te.'S he thought
hi* COST.? An sat ion ahoul^t b« the a»i»« s&s 9n other »«rli he hiid brought
into th« oi'i'io«; that ^chiiaidt sjd'i it would not 'ina t>oa»ible beoau**
thp Job wa* of a aifJ ssrent chariOt^r frosa tiie i'orsn^v Job* titat
oompliilns^t h<»4 obtained, va* nueh lart£»r ;^d Sioro ooKplicsitod:
that it cost dof f^^.'-lajfitft, a« »how» by thfcir book*, i'rosi 50 to 75
9«r e«M. oJ' th» fo«f8 thoy obtaitiftd to *o th« v!5=ork sun;?, thorofore
they could not pay 2/5th* of tme 4<roe» fst* lo coaplftinant. 'iho
Vltneao further tvstifl^'l that ho stated he ^lfs<s Ui';d b««n Inatru*
Bontal in bringing in the Bunte job; that i^oh^idt th«n matted IJurr
if hf would aocept l/9th of the fee, ani furtuer Uiat Siarr did not
then »taf« that h# waa aarwrljsied jaui uri/5«»r«too!l he was to giet 2/5tha
of the fee.
ctebffiidt teatirie»d that h« r^owll*'-! u oonverastion with
oomplalnfint April 33rd, »^* o^i r t defeJidarjt warden wae present ; that
thia ccnyeraatlon follow ^ixi^ of tii» director* of iJur.te i»roa.
Company or. the aaMO aftemoonj tiiat the aeetint^ wa« he^d in the
vitnes** off lee and that eoiaplainant &8k«d, "Aim 1 tioing to rooeiTo
2/&th* of the fee on the Bunte xiuLiilng," j^i t^at the witueaa re-
tri[|ju-d^ /«■ tttiife. d^ «J{#- «fdt •**■■
ftjf.C -^fcfe ** ^#t «st«f% jX^,' lei sjr-. "
tt.tt<a fe*si;«^ &i!iM 'i!^k.m^^ «*i# j#$r%'»#«8iBa *ii# jfti • ' "■•■'■
pXi«i, *£»," that h« did not know whAt th«y oould nif ooaiplsdntmt
b^eouto ho did not know oneujef^ nbout what work dofoudantt would bo
roqulroii to -io; that th«y had takeii th* neohanloal work at an ox*
treciely low poroontago an<i that thoy did Oot know the Oxtont of th«
arehltoetural work; that he vould net agro^ to paying oomplalnant
noro than Oardon and kartln would roooiro «• th«lr obaro; that
Martin wao roooivlug l/LOth of tho n«rt profits and Gardon l/Bth;
that thoy did net reaoh any a^reoaont at that lino, &nd that ho
did net ask eoKplalnant if he vuuld aocopt X/6tu of tho fee if the
Bunto job was obtaluod.
Iho ovidcnoo furtuor ssnows that on April 2:5rA Bunto
Bros* ro<^u9Stod eomploinont and soano oi the d«f«:)d«u2te to attend
tho aeotlng of tho board of directors <i?lth a t1«w to prosontlng
dofondonts' propooltion to tho boarl; that I>urr at once told tiftrdon
of the natter but was unat)l«> to find ^t» £ichmldt atid that he and
&ard«n went to tho novtlng of Bunto Bros. * f^ircotors and subi<tod
the a:ittor; that aftnr Uarden and ho l«ft Ui«f »:«cting he ws^o ad*
Yiaod by Bunts Bros, that tho contract ht^d boon («warded to defend*
ants and roqusst^d complainant to propare a draft of tho contract ;
tliat the next day hs took the n^^ttor up with Ht, Scheldt « the lat-
tor prepared a draft of tho contract nnd submitted It to eoffipl&in^til
for ou££estions, whloii wore mado. the oTldeiioo furtaer siiows, ms
testified to by Sohaldt, that about the next day, April 20th« he,
Sehaldt, o&llod up Sunte JSros. j«nd Inquired wiiether it would wake
any differ en oo to ivunte Bros, fit to the obtain in;; oi' the contract
by dofondants if defendants (discharged Durr, onij that h.» was ad*
Tised that it «ould n'*ke no difl'^ronoe; thut on April 26th he
eadoaworod to see oomplainant but was unable to do eo and there*
uoon wroto oonplain&nt a letter diecnarglng hin. % this letter
It is stated: "In Yiow of the fd.ot titiat, wittiout the knowledge
of «ny somber of thie fire, you hawe taken oom&iseione or profits
out of contracts betwoen this first and Its clients .ind, by your
««i'' li^««« <Ni tl 4rflUl«ik«i«it&»«li AAA }»«! tll^
tt^ijttKtoS »%ii bsiit d# -^Humi t&if urn jiiis=:& ^m -o
attltud*, hikve preolBlB«4 that y«u ooii>i<I«r this within yux eod«
•f )}u«in«»« momiLlii, w« wiah to tenbiuttt*, wad do hereby t«mlzt%t«f
your efliployBi«at with us." A eheok for j^240 v&« enclosod paying
eoapl ain&zit ' • va^oi Tour vft«k» in advanco* althougi^i it «»« fttntodl
thty did not «xp»ot any lUrther serried* to be rondored by hiu.
Th« oaoe «*■ rol'orrod to a «kAvt«T ixx cthsuQoory to tako
proofs and nako up his roport, A great doal. oi' evlderioe wao in-
troduced, line &aot«r found the facta eubRttiritlally aa »bov<9 net
forth. He aleo found the ttmoufit of fee* earned and received by
4efeK!ftnte for ^ob* obtained by eo«i;»Iain»nt and the anount which
defendajTits paid oonplaicant on aoeount or euoii fee*. He further
found the enount of the "padiSing* of the billa by the QO!£.pl&in»nt
aa aboTO stated anil the ^isiounte that coiepl«iinant had reaeived on
aeooijnt of «uch •padding* froft* the oonr.ractcrt who constructed the
buildings or installed soiiie of th^ v^oxk in th« buildings; that
defendants reoeived ^113,399«S9 for th«ir f««s as aifccalteeta on
the £\uate projeot and 2/5ta8 or 4C per csnt of thut is 145(309. 33;
that, «lth ugh the dfffeu'i&.nts did soiu«»t.Utti£, to^'&rda obtaining the
Bunte job, oompl^iiinMnt, X>urr, was lustrusi^ntal in obtaining this
job for defsndaiiits and ffntitl^d to 2/Sths of the fee; that cos>«
pl;U>n»nt ahoold h»Yc reeelYed no fees froa those jobs in which he
had caused the bids to be ^padi^ed" and chaxged sums ligainst oom*
plainant ' where he found such bids had been "padded." CexEtplainaknt
was olaliilnK there was a balruiee due hits on most of the jobs ob-
tained by hlB, 7he naster disallowed all except the £ante job
and an itea of ^857, 04 « plus #7&.34 interest thereon, isakinie a
total of ^932.38, whloi^ he found was a bt^lanee due costplainant
on the Twin Tube and liubber ootn^pany Job. Ihe finding of the
■ut,8ter was approwed by the eheneeller.
V« think the it«s of <^33S.3d above mentioned ou^t
not to have been allo'^^'Od. Uosplainant ir^ hie bill substantially
enumerated the joba on which he ol-iiffied there was a balance due
^&oA Xif\r
'$llfttftf.
v^ t
*Jt^
xti^^W
^«iS£!!' &(^'
^a ^t'^n
t%i%X
it&.m' .. "
. ;v,.^,=/:-%» a«-v .
:^S!5* %ii.. ■
,. t*r*«f!va(^t ;^2fliU»ii..-
*aM>j»Jfc«i', ;^«t«'«i|(^#ar' *iS«#li-i* 4«»-m k*s?.
Ilteiarti th« Tirin Tube Job «ai not a«ntlooed.
Dofendeknts eoutond th«.t eirtge the eyidc2)o<i aho«o, and
th« mB»t«r «nd ehauaoollor found that Ui« couplalniuit, Durr, was
dlahcn«flt lu ootuneotlon with lilft «CEipIo;yzaaut i?ltu dcf«4^idtactt3» h« -«»•
not mtitlod uador th« law to any oottpesneationt tor ths r^oison that
whero an aecni oouaiito a fraud on hla miployttv he forfeita all
oompacaatlon, and furthar tliat «lno« iixe ooiuplainimt viae right-
fully diaohargad by dar«xi1&Kta on acaouut of i^la lalaeoaduct, h«
la not MUltlftd to raooTer oou.p«tie^tioD ^ich aocrued aftar th«
data of hla dlaeharga, A nusiber of j)mtiiox^iti«s ar« eltvd and -^ia*
ouaaad in support of theae t«o cont(£-i~^tions, Isut w^ thlnJc it would
sarTO no useful purpoac to rafer to thmx htre. On th.? oth^r Uttnd,
•oaplaiaant *a oounael in th«ir brief contand thi&t oo&:plainaat
pradleatea hia right upon the theory that th« ii^reement bc^it'^een
hi& and the daf^ndAnta was in the nature of & joint venture and that
it ie not baaed upon » contract of !»£«r«cy or c;apIoysient: that In
any erent, eoKplainant la efititlwd Ufider the law to recover hie
•hare of »jdl fft€!» r<»oeived by defeiivittXite on ail jobs procured by
him ae to vhidx Joba there «ae no sssieeondact, even if complaln&nt
May be ooneidered the ^tgfuit ef defendant* in obtaining Siuch Jobe;
and further, that the cyiden«;e fails to ehov ^xiy mieconduot on
the part of th<? coKpl»<.in*ait because irhat he did ila obts^ininjj; the
Qontraeta "Ka* no iiff erect fro£i the acta hm did in procuring thr
Tvin Tube and liubter Cocpoziy Job, '•vh«re there was esx expreae
agree&ent between hist und defeiidaiita by "nhlojix they akg;x&'i<\ to add
to their fee a ausi auffleient to cover vfh&t they ^ere to p&y cosa-
pl&inant for obto.lt;ing the Job. And in cour>eel*3 brief for ^on*
pladnant, authoritiea cited and dlBOuaeed tenrj to uustsln conten-
tione made by then; but «• are of the opinion it would be of no
aervtee to eomnmt upon thle phaee of the oaee, because in the in»
•tant eae* the deeree entered settled the amount between eosplaln*
m a» i-- ■•«<»
mi i^M^ •ms^mf t-
>-im •«
o u..
■ A O :; ':i
'-' .
vr il .-jff^iv, „,i<; *■•?*
t-fedi' iW»^ -Q*/'
.i>*jb«a»*...
►» + -< ,«^
iifwSi &tte »<i^
■■-.it
10
•at and <l«f«nAant» ttxovpt as to two item*, vis., th« Twin T^b*
j«l» and the> Bunt* Job, (Uid no cotaplaint i« i&ade by oonpl«iniknt to
the r«;}ort or to the dooroo. And fflnee v<i ellwlnat* th« Itcoa
allowed for th« Xwin Tube Job, the only matter roa..alning Ik the
fee obtained from th« l>unt<^ Job, While It is true that tu) Aijent
who ha* been 4ioiionest with hia oesployor rorfeXts all his compen-
sation, yet «e think that rule ie not aoT>lioHbl4( in the instant
ease so far tt.s the i^tuite Job is couc<irned, booaune the unoontra-
diotsd eridenoe shows that def^dointa, about April 7, 1919, bel'ors
the Bunie Job was obtaln«>d, were apprised of all of the j&ota of
complainant in reforenoe to the "padrllng* of the Ijids of Which
they BOW cocoialn, yet, notwitiiatandiag this fact, by their acts
and deeds they in^uoed eoosplsklnant to oontiaue hia nt^getiintlono
with the iamte Broe.* reproeentatlves i»i &n andeiavor to obtain the
Job and led hici to b«!li4»v« h« woul^ be pr«id in casi« h<> obt&in«d
the Job. Tiitf uncontradicted eridcne* shows t,tot »rt«r defatidoute
were adYleed of the ttisoonduot of eoiaoLiilniUit they held n(m«rous
oonf«renoss with him; th&l at held a great mmxy conf«>reneea with
the Jaunts Bros* * r«>;:^>re8etitatiwss and finally isuoce'^ded in obtain^
ing the Job, as th« master and ohancellor found, whic'i finding we
think is sustained by the evidenoe. the only di»put« on this
phase of the siatter is as to "Whether it was a^rtcA that eomplain-
ant was to r«ooiTe 2/&ths of the fee or whether the amount of
his co»p4»D«atioe had not been agreed upon as ths def eri:?£tnts tes-
tify* On this oontrowsrted t^uewtiea of faot the xaster found in
fawor of e©»r>lr»lnant, his finding was confirawd by the ehancftllor,
and we think wo woul^J not be warranted in disturbiR{( th«* fin.nng
because ws are unaile te say that suea finding ie ti^cainst the
maniff^st weight of the evidence. It io obwious that def fondants
did cot let the dishonesty of oo&plfi^luant interfere with his
getting the £unte Job, they ccnsiderad it of no p,o»cnt in the
m'
-0 .-. xj *jfe»s^i .■ ^itt| 0'P^ ♦^* *>«* '^^t
X.V.J ' \kx~:'rf./',!-.r.^'. ■:': lii-.^ . , ;-. ■:;,,.,;,;:
1i« OjSfiSjS
«*•
»<iC.?
«*5*ati?>flt'.
»s *«aUF ^•
sim«.«^
vj^aif ic'
jls
■m^ - *j
..i
T.IM fj£^^
«» j^tt^riii's
i.^^XfP' ^>\m!<»t 's.*.}
u
Bintt«r. Of court* thit aetloii of dwJTendaatd would not and Aid not
prwTont them frost dlaohar^ing him lor his dloi;i(in«i»ty, but they
ought net now be heerd to e^y that he ie not (»Ultl«d to bn pulA
for obteinlBg the IKinte Job.
The naeter found* al*t«r Including;, tiid iteas of ^?.32.3d
for the Twin Tube job above ssi#Jutlone4, there wab «» baluKce due
oompl'Tilnaat from (defendants e» Jsjitil 22, 1^26, of v!H»0£5.&n. The
itea of ^^5.'^2.3S ehoul*. b« deducted from thle loiter aiuu, laavlng
a balanoe 4ue en the day l«&at n^entloned of ^53,6cl3.17. int-c'rest
i^oul-^. bft fifz^ired on Uiia eus at 5 p@)f cont from April 3'^, 1926.
the <l!ite ^f the Master'* report, to July 14, 19 a^, the date of the
entering of the deetree, &aicinft as a^^regat« nam of $5®«662,S7 due
OMftpl&ln^nt. The deeree of the Circuit court of Uouk county le
raodlfied (t» aboYe stated and as eo iaodifted it ie affirtfiwtl,
MoSurely and liatehett, JJ* , conmir.
, :54**'*''''^' ^<i**
¥'.)■
.« .«•!>!» li»«£r
i'vx v/ix^, i^» ■)?.(>*».• «7.
#*«»lJi>**
.>S«iv«:' 3,ii:'.^' :.:5.|:p ^^^'td i:';i/4
330«0
AfiTOKIO BALSAKO, )
App«ll9«, )
▼ •• )
)
CBdARS KUlUil, i^UTno VKHZAKI, )
saRA»ii>Q Bzxai. :£uiJuxo kiabi )
mad OUISIPP^ ClPOLLlUl, )
Appollanta. )
37
i
Dm.irsnm ths opiiiKjiN oy tks court,
Pl«iBtiff ^roui^it suit to r^^eoYcr $31d «»lon he
el8.1n«A to ttt 4u« :1k on aocouDt gf a <!«po8it iKMe ujcd«r a vrittfiti
contract. Xh« oa«« w«i« trlff^l tefor« tue court wit,;^out » Jury,
thor* was a finding an<t jttdgnant In pXaintiif *« I'uvor 2'or the
aaiount oT his claln, '.oi^* dl«rer>4iu^tt appeal,
ni« raeor4 dlccloets that Canning C?)hW|)itello o^ma4
and Gonductsd a b;A»ry wia on July 1&, 1925, entered into a writton
oentraet witc* plaintiff «)aer«by he «itir««(j to nvsli and pImlntliT
a|:re«di to Iniy frou 500 te aoo peurici^a of bread d.%il]r covering a
perlc} ei* thirteen isonths. 'Ihe eontract st>itee that BalsaaiO* the
pl&lntlff, to Ifisure the earr^'lng out ot t^e oontraet on his part
deoealted with Ga&.pi telle 1300, and ti:e contract provided that in
eaee Baleaso earrled out the teniae of the oontraot the $300 would
be returned to him wltii interest thereori at the rate of 6^ per
annum.
It further appw^re that by nutual »gre«j»ent the period
eoYered by tUe contraet wae extended for a p«rlod of one year.
VhiXe this contract «raa in foree Ganpitello eold his bakery to
defecdente, the sole being evidebcttd by a written agre«t!ii«nt en-
tered into by the psLrtles on October 1, 1926. Xt is stetted in t ^at
eontraet that the ealo of the b>»icery ras Kii^de subject to the oon-
r
^/
\\"\
osce?
i^ *iH,-es8;o
61.
fi.ISSS
tract «:Klsting between CsuDpitello and B&lBauo and that AeftnAtkntm
asBumod and «kgr««<^ to carry out that oontri&ot. It I'urtlxer appsart
that Balaaso oarrl«(l out th« oontraot by pureUaeing the bread froA
C«>plt«Ilo 'xn^, lit«r froiM <l*f«»diuata, ajal tiias h« domanded the re-
turn of the $3uC' from del'endaxita, vhie » dtnawiii was rerueed.
Dofendante contend th^t they are not liable beeauee
they are not & party to the eoatraot et^twred Into by CaBpltello and
Balaame, but there 1b no aerlt i» this eoiatentlon b^osuiat 'K'hen
CaApltello Rol:) the b^Jirery to defej^'.^si^ts the written agreement
exTiressly ctat«d the •&!« was MMx&n »ubj«ot to the contract bet^s^een
Campltello and lialeaaio, whloh oontraet deleruStu^ta affioumed and
agreed to carry out. Under the law deJ'w^dairjte 'were Xl^bXe to re-
ftuid the #300 to plaintii'l*. JPeewi r, l^adker. 107 IXl. e4.>.
A further content Ir^is 1» a.ude t^at sltie« thA erid^nee
•hewc that CoBpitello, Hi tiie tJjaa h« sold the bakery to dofendante,
did not turn ever to theia the |3W> depoelt, tiiey ure not liat-l* in
the ir.etatit case. What we have smlii dispoess of tuis contentioa
advereely to def*!nd-ant«. Obviously, «« ar® not j^aensine upon tlio
Bierlte of any oontroverey tnat may enjtiet between Cs.©pltello and
def endanta with reference to the. 1300.
The Jud^^eivt of ta« &uj;*io;j>al court of Chloajgo It
affirmed.
ArsCIBKKB.
MoSureiy arid i^atehett, JJ. , eonoar.
jjassj-s . -ijirtf S*e» »& ^* fe*l«*«» «upiJ»X #«^
. ... . .^. 'i ,, . .. ^ ... / ar.A ♦ f ... , <v:?
..i0" \>tiify
■' ■"■v.; ■-■■•'■' ^■"-" v'swfcSr^ sMi'iW «»xS/
38191
B. y. AKSRSWS, Dolnc £ualn««s
*• £• y. Andx««a flAd Company,
T8,
Appall aa.
or CKICAOO.
2 F^ '"■: ^ '■ 5 3 7
?lftlntifr, the pay«» of a proailssory not* <tat«d H-my 9«
X027, >}rour>t suit e>«;alni*t del'«ui&nt, Jasc* JLoTett, th« niiksr of
th« note, to r«ooT«r the Maount due a« •hown by the fao« of the fiot
vhieh waa ^37S with int«r«at. The suit vac ril«<| luareh 2S, 192s,
•n4 th« au^eona lasuad r<»turriabl« k-Ktoh 29ih. The baillif aartad
tho auajflion* on dafandont karch '!5rd and oc fcorcu aath defendant
anterad hia ao9«ar»nca. On thr return day, March 29%h^ a« ord«r
waa antarad oc »otion oX' d«i>i} ia»t ai^tetiding tlia tiiaa vithin irhleh
ha Klf;ht I'ile hia alTldarit of werita tan d«yn i r<»:^ th&t date.
Tha affidavit o) le^rita waa not filed within th^ t«o a&ya but waa
filad April 11 th, which waa thrc« daya too lata, April 12tlii an
ordar vaa ahterad defaulting defendant for "sait of »n affidavit of
merits. Juna 7th following, or; motlisr of def«nd«uit the default
waa aat ^aida auad July lith the reoord nt^tea thai tin? cuuae oaaa
on for hc>aring "in reijular couraa for trial," defendant not ap-
pearini^; that the oourt h«ar<5 the avidenee tiuad ar^uiaent of ecur«eel,
founi the iBsurta in favor of the oliiiUitiff -Uid .ues^saed hia danagei
at 1283.24.
Aug^at 16th, which waa mors Ui«tn thirty day* the>raaft«i
defendant filed hia petition praying tinj^^ the juiitjaent of July lltli
be oet aside &nd v-Aeatal. 'i'h9 pr;«yer of the petition waa allowed
and tn# ju i.,,»ent vacated, ifr^m tuia order plaintiff appaala, ac
the only tiaeatioB ia the aufficiency of tha petitioB, whiou it ia
c^ \
X€l««
.'Srtr'it-^ii^ '}1^.'^ ,»«^J«4.
'ii.:«-jL,,w> i^.^^.
"4 0 i'
j|s«TS»^
rfX
j^i;iS^ ,,. -Sift a» U-l^i
i»jf'taftt»tf* «'«»fe x^-' = a^ftw ««w ifcaiiftr ,j|»W iiu^a^
^^o-o.i-- «i)i([f'l» •5B«r'^*« *IJSJ ,fe»*/s©«T ,5»« »t>X«iS •**• «rf
-P« :•<.<» :f-.^i'
• t«t«4 v«8 fil«(l u&d«r ••etloct ''-1 ol' th« Munlcipad Court act.
Ih* potition 8<!^t up lli^t *thti aboYt «ntltl«d csAua*
vat tot ler hearing at a ti»o oth«r thar. th*" r«i;>:ulAr iLme i'or the
•attlng ol' a aa«« oi' this sort I'or trlr^i, niwie.ly, the return day
for Merita, ej&ii ixiHt no notiee waa efcr stivan. to thie al't'iaat or
to hia attornay that aald oaaa had b««»n net ior trial." 7h« pe*
tltioa further aet up tbat the Judgw^^nt waa «nt«re<l by ^1efault on
July 11th; that the attowieya for th* pl&intlff *hclii up the axa-
outioB for a period Bui'iici$ct to ^lov the alapaa of 3o daya te-
fore the ju<«i^ent debtor woul^l be aotij'ied of aald jud^^ent 1& th«
ordinary courae.** Thlo petition is si£ti«d in thf> timao of the de*
fondant hy his oounsal and nmora to by oounael. Ob-viously the
petition did not author iise tho oourt to v>4c&t« the ^uigicent. It
docta not enow that defendar^t h%d imy mwrltoriciua d«fen«e and thia
la al^aya a prerequisite tn t.h«s op«iKi.ing up of the Judg^exnt.
She petition wa« fui tiiar defective in that it ooBtra-
dieted the r^oord. It aet up that the cause waa &et I'ar iiearing
at a ti»« ottier tn«jQ ta» regular ii»#» wkioh wa» "thf^ return day
for Merita.* *« do not know ■wh.at thie asona, but the record of
July llth ahova that the o<wae caiaa on in re^lar course for trial
and this oannot be oontradlcted in thti aetuod atteeipted h-^r^iF.
The court wae without ttut.:<5rity to opftn up the Judg-
icent Skn ? the order appealed frora is rcvfiraad,
OBIKR RSV8RaST5.
ItoSurely and katehett , J>r. , concur.
f
«x; v^Mi> ^»ii » *» ^tMJi'X»9M ^$ft tM| tdi«
^n »<s^ *'ni£Hf m9if MH mM^ bUm imM ^^em^^tm nM t
„„,„.. . ««!»«*« S'iyBS* *isaflr *i«j«ai 4^ ^1 " ojy^« 'i»'s
•-Sj»«a0S ;,.(;t e4^4l^«$^dt*& i»v dM
S306?
▼•.
MUTUAL C01i£iTH'JCTZ011 COkPAKY,
a Corporation, ot al*
/ -:> 2
Cl>blJTY.
Appeal of CHOWS BROS, »
Appftlltuat,
«». JUST Id KeSU"R»i,Y DKi.IVF,KB3> 'mi OPUSlOiK 0^ TBr; COUHT.
Plalntirf, AC Iftosoe, ocoupi^d pr»«ila«ft «t numbor 46
iK»«t Superior otroet, Chloa^o, &• a x-ooialrjg houso* Xh« cmoir oi*
tha ikd joining lot on the «aot undertook to exeavata and drill
pllits for tho purpoea of erecting a l>ull(lln«i thereon. JPl^intiff
olalme that in doing tl^lo the pr •raises oooupied hy her wore dan*
ag«d. !%• broUit;:lit suit against varitnin eontraotoxv and upon trial
tha jury found all tne defenriaiita not guilty except defendanta
John V, Crowo vid Albert J. Crowe, oopartnera A<jin^ buaineEs as
Crowe £>ro0., who were found guiltjr a£d plai.iutlff *b datcajges were
assessed at $X5oo. Crowe Bros. iipp«al from the jav^iSient on tUe
▼erdict.
The preiaises occupied by plaintiff unior l«aae «?:-
pirlng April 30, 1926, was a briek an^ stona two story and b%sa-
■lant building, about S5 foot -«)lde by 60 feat long, ti^era was also
a two-story eeiTnt;« on the rear of the lot. A nuisber of witne««es
testified tnat before the work on the adjoining; lot tjie building
was in a good, solid and subetAStial condition; there iras no sag*
ging or oraelca in the walls, floors or ceiling and the plumbing
was in goad eonditlon. In 192S the owner of tha adjoining lot
en tha east made a contract ««ith the Mutual Constmetion Ganipaoy
for the er«etien of a building oi> the lot, whlcVt included wraeicing
tha buil'Jing thsB ^tandln^f thereoB and excavating an area approxi-
atataly 9C x 175 feet to a depth of X4 }>et b^iow th« aidewAiJc
I'*'^*»»»,
i ^
\ I
V ^- ^
oil.
•*^ ' ' .'■'"'f^' ' '■
fnm,&
^m^ii .s Eipa^
.■»>#■
-f.V «,« VK- /t .. U**
1«T«1. Plaljatlif *• bttlldlBri bkd a fouAdatlon of rubbl* nton* to a
depth of iIto or alx I'oot bolow tht $touuA aurfao*. Th» i^utuol
Construction Compiuty flsployod otrtialn oi* tii« >lof«zidant« to flo tho
•xcaratlnK. Oo Juntt 1, without «uay notice to plaintiff or oono«nt
fron hur, one of th« dof en !ar>ts ooi>!«>«nc«d oxcavatln^ with a iit*«M
•hovol, finlohlng About Jane 16. Wh«n th« excavator completod
th« work b« left a nhouldor or bMnk of ciurth «xtet> ilng out at tbo
bottom IC foot frora the <«%st w«ai of pliULutlff *• building.
On or about Kay SO Crowe Bros. «ut«»red into a verbal
contract with pi aintif I'a leitcer to u&4«r^iA or support the luild*
ing oeevtpied by plaintiff^ ;wd on J<me 9 had anotht^r Terbal &£;ree>
meat with pl&intlff '• leB«or to extend the footlni^s under the
littlldinjEi down to the new exeaYation leireX and to tiold up fund ohor^
the *ast wall of eald building, Juno 6 Crowe Bros, adso made a
oontraot wlta the Mutual Conetruotioo Coi&pany for supporting the
building on the %«»t lot line of %h.<^ Site wh«re the proposed new
structure w«e to be erected, and Crowe Bros* ^raisd to furr>isi4 all
material and labor n«o«SBary to oou>pl«te sheet in^.^ ani shoring of
the adjoining propojrty on the wffst ir; a 8«oar«! rjtnd satlafaetory
maniier, ^1 eabaiikiaents to be seourcdy braced £Uid held in pl-:^««
wltiutut fiOTSHient at all tiaee and uontinuously to guard aeuinst
the loss of alley or street ptves&cnt or adjoining lot line
property. A. J. Crowe, one of the defendai:;te, teetifipd that the
soil br^n^ath plaintiff's building wae of a daiigerous aUaraoter.
the first 8 feet balow the surfaae being «aud aB<^ below that a
fine gray sand or silt, ithlcr^ the «ito«8a oU%r»eterized as quick,
sand.
That plaintiff's buildin,i was Injured iurlng the
process of la*: work seeets to be conceded, tout tne defendants Crowe
Broe. , eamesily argu« th^t tnere ¥»as no oTldenee taat the injuries
were caused by any ne^:li4$enee on their part and Uiat the ewidenoe
'■•i1^1;'v
rather shews that they war* eausatf by the pile drlvlns and •xea'r»tiae
tii9 witness Crowe tcstitled that the proper way to
underpin pl&intlff 's buildiu^ was to reweve sections of 5 ar 6
feet ef earth b^xieath the rouiidatlOK oi' th«> (^aet wall and put In
veoden braoes under auoh seotione and then extend the concrete
Toundatlon i'rots. the bottom, of the old foundation to & point b«low
the ezeavation i&ude for Uie new building and fey the u»e of ^aeke
and levels froaa day to day* %e th« work proecftd«df th« level of
plaintiff's wall eculd b« sBaintalned, There "kab t«8tli&ony tending
t« Sttiiport dafer.dante' claim that the work «ras properly done In
this m%nt:>er. Uowe'ver, thv-re were a nuc..b«r 03 ■»'ltn«'«ee» who t<jetl»
fi«4 to th'!> contrary; ii'iat whan Crowe Bros, removed the shoulder of
•«rth left by the exaavatcrs, they did not do amy underpinning or
br^eln^ for srme di*ys; that when the |>ile driver was operating
Crowe Brcs. ha4 j>l»ieed no JiOlcs under the w«ai of plaintiff's
bulldlBK* 'hen the excavators worlsed Ir: the fr-»ct of tne lot
the front yard of j^lalntiff'a preetisea oi»ved its to the -sxcavation,
as thi*re ^^ere no j^kOke or ahorlng along tlie east eide of the
buililng line at that time; an a result of this the e»et wall of
plaintiff's building bMoicled and cracked. The floor shifted sooie
6 inches and the 'a^alX of the bedroaisr< ocoupied by plaintiff on the
first floor fell * leaving a li^rge iiole. There was t<»8tl&Qny that
the worluuen expressed apprehension thut the house was F^olnti: to fall.
There was evldenoe froa wiiic , the Jury could prcpwrly oonolude that
Uie doiGiage to plaintiff's wall occurred after th? «xo<^vator had
quit and was caused by the absence of any e):^ring under th(^ east
vail of plaintiff's house; that the oraeke oai^e ii. tiic^ waile and
building while Crowe Bros, were putting jicks under the house and
rennovlng the shoulder, and th&l the building was three we^ks -^itnout
jf.eks ;u3d that tho underpinning was not done utuil th« l»>tter part
of June. 3«w«r water aocumul^ted it^ the exoavition and raii into
iai#«ws»»:» km, pillv-Jhife mSHifii %iS*^ %4 m^mtit: (»imm/pi^ jf^m m^»0» «»jt«l/?'i
;i>ciO;^ '!:^n;? V ■ xji'iiir ^»S)«-lLiS ;:\»n-;;7-si
y ■ ' ■ ■
Ji ^;:NV. ■■ "til C^^i:'l
8-. ' - ■
vj.^rii* ■••.■err;.-;
pl«LLntiff *■ pr«tal«ea to a depth of oTcr a foot ov«tr h«r floors.
Th« ll«>ita and th« toll«t pip«« bnoiiia* dlaoormooted And th« toilett
•ottld net be us«d. A n«nt«X rtxii rir«olaa« in th« front rooei foil
down* Tu« houto b«ftan to Itimx to the •••!. Thar* vat no •ixorine
is the front yard and all thft rooa: walls Mr«rfli orucJ£«yd. Tn«rs vas
•Tldones tsKilng to sliow that b«eau«e oi' th« oraokd^d walls fths ^
plastering ani osUing fell, :>XirT the t«u«uute moved out. Tiisre was
also damage to farulture.
Plaintiff gairs no oon»<»nt to the altersitton of the
garage In the rear, but Crowe Bros* rmsoTed the <»aftt«rii i^all en<*
tirely. It was sought to Justify tj^is upon tUe aB««rtiofl th&t
thie vail was partially st.wding on th« lot on th» a&st.
Thie is rot & ease oi one sae^iiQ^; to re'Cov«tr daa.a<,:es
bcoause of th* withdrawal of thi? lateral supports of tiae rmtigubor-
Intf soil. Plaintiff B««ks tc recover d«^ii.geo beo^u^e^ th« tratk
whisix Crows Bros, did in protecting her vail wa» doc is in so osire-
less and negligent a atj^ner as tc cuuse injury to Vi«r or^iises.
Undsr such circusastancss, tu«« rii.;iit ©J « lessee for injur." in his
possession has been establisiied. 3«« C^t.v , of /^^(jttnojf r, ^orsfrs,,^ 76
111. S31; Conitltw v. Seyag^^ 378 111, 30; and the I'lt^r e&e« of
Best Manfp. Co. t. Crsana^ry v?^.. 307 111. 2Sa, See also Csjjnfis^,^
Kubbcgr Co^ V. l9%rj^ 09 Conn. 40; payie.Tp. ,,i;ujg;«.<^rftel4.151 i*, C.
36JJ; gildersleeve t, Hagaaond, 109 liioh. 431.
Iho jury was fully Justified In ftttdin*, that the de-
fondants Crows Sros. so negligently did th^ir ^ork that plsdn*
tiff suffered dasa/^es.
¥s cannot say that the JMnoant of the verdict was ex-
esssive. K-ridenso was introduood as to th<>' apecific filt^^ents of
damogo unA as to the less of ineot&e oaused by nl 'iutiff's rooeers
lenTln i the building.
The burdof. of defsnd'sints' brief se«Ks to be that the
1091. ■'■■■ %vt.'^;,.'!I '-^^
»4-
V-s^'fe^,
s- J ?i*-
.Jtt'
■'■■-SI'/ «^.ML«r.;aaj i
S)^^^ •MX
v«r« eAii»«4 l>y the «x«avetor» mi-* th« pll« /^rlTtfr* ntnd not
1»7 Cro«* BroA.t but It is ebTlou* tirunt Crewe Bros, andertook to
jiretffet piaintiff '• r^rop^rty Trr'if auoft (l8tm«««a and they perform*^
this worii 90 a«glifc;«ntl7 that plalBtirf wan ds«a»«»A, and for this
th«y are llnbl**
l*P0B the *pi3tlr«5 r«oord w« finl no ju»tll'io«tlon for
reTerial, and tiun Jttd^i;t&«Htit ie %rriiraift<i.
O'Connor, i'. J., ^»n4 iiattfiawtt, J,, coticur.
^.^Ir "Is t,**|S»;#*...v; «i-«l_ ^*t :^% 0SI^M■r,ii■.f'
wi; .*!*.:■;?';■ <:■
m^k:
?!;?.*■;• :*i;.i; '»::«?:' '^'^' ;:f ^ ^ii'^i. '^'^^ ^^^^
33151 ,/*^^
WRAMK »IXTX>SPISL , )/ ^, " ~
Dtfandant la Jtrror, }/ 'j
W f-.RhOK l^.icr: -JbH COURT
OAXiCXJIlJUC lilKDCaPISCL et «1., ) ^ c\
I'lftlntllT In Srror, ) I
MR. JUSTlCa KoaURgJlY DELIVSRSP TMS OPIisIOK OF TH^ COURT.
By tM» writ oi error Catherine Aledopl*! (hero'sl'ter
oallcd d«fe»(1aiit) ••«)£• th* r«Y«rsal of & (}««r«« «iat«rtd in a <U-
Toree prooe^dinc. Th« bill char^^cd Adultery ^md th* d*er«* Ic
ttoic rcapeot Ic not Queatiooed by tti« defendant. Co£iplaln<iint s%d«
the i^releva Jadvl^a BuildiBg & Loan AflsoolatloR a cvod«rm.dant
with hie wife, alle«;i&e thet ooi!!ipX$).ia»nt uttd d«f@rid««Jit had * Joint
aeeount with this Ao(!«ci».tio«i In the a\m of %pproxljrvi»t«sly |2,oo&;
that ^11 of eald Keneye belonged te ooififlainaiGt ^tnd v^rs hie 8ole
funds and wcr« plaoed in sl JolBt acoount b«eau»e of eosipl^inact 'a
relianee on the fidelity and faithfulneae of hi» file. The bill
aaked that the funda en de^oeit wltu the Building Aaiioelation be
dftoreed to be the IXtnda of o&^plainant an j that aaid Buildinc
Aasoeiation be deore»d to pay said aoney to oomplfciinant.
SerYiee wae had on the wife by pxiblioatioa. ^he
filed her appearanee and anewer. The Aeooclatioh waa served vith
aUBmona, 1»ut never appearing nor filing ita answer, vae defaulted.
The wife did not appear at tu« trial, smtl coa^plainant *a hilegations
aa to hnr yisoonduet were not cuntoeted.
The aeeretary of the Aasoeiation teetified that on May
18, 1987, whleh waa more than five sentha aft«r it had been serred
with oucsi&ona, he p^id to J^ra. iiiedeeplel all the noney coeiniiii to
her and her huaband Jointly. The attorney for the Aseoeiatioa
waa alao the attorney for itre. Jhliadosplel, bot^i in the trial court
and in thia court, an'* the money in the Joint account «aa paid
to her at the requeot and upon the advice of thia attorney.
L _ .
— \ V
Q.
mm?.
^
io ^luiuH^
4im«fS*M2 rd:««fe%^ )A;.xxa'.t,
»jE»jris;,#<nirik«S; l'f)^ktti^^%'!-t^ »».^^«^is{'^;si.u «!r«*««!^ t<f ,fl*w »Mi t^
m>if^im>»94^ ■»*?*' «»"i •i5»:.«sRiEa(*#* «^' »ig-Mvxi«||i«»«»wi '%»d km t^sl
D«f«nctarit :^«ft h*r hutbcund to IIyq with «noth«r AMii, taking th«
«hlld bom ol tlie zaarrlag* «b^^ «kl>o |1200 of coi«pluin«nt *• nonwy
whleh h« w«« keeping In & trunk In their hoae, iS3A9 B*nt h«r
husband a latter to this cD'oat that eh« did not ask unytaing storo
from hlffi than th« xtonoy she had t&if^ea, vhicu «h« eatifl she had
taken 0s that she would net starTO before »h« ;..ot a .job.
Counsel I'oc the defendant a»ks this oourt to deeido
whether It is l^wl'al to eonflso^te a wlt'e'e pn-cnurty solely upea
proof oi' h«r adultery, but we do liot consider this r^ueetioB
releTuht or i&<^teirial upon tUA ir<Ktiirit record. lh« Assuolatlon
has alr«ady paid the aonourit oi the Joint acoount to Iho defend-
ant. She has al«o taken tha 11:800 whioh ooeip l Hlnazit was saving.
Ve oan dlsoem no grounds «4iMtev«r for the defendant to quc^etion
the &m9f«,
the Aseoeiation »ight have some ri«jht to oowplain,
but, althou|0 served yiia suroinons* it did net see I'lt to »pp^.sx
in the oasSf was not pretsent «tt th<i» trial ^an.l pr^^yod no aipip^al
fros the dooree nor aaed out a writ of i^^rror. Inspection of th<^
record in this court shows that it was serred with ouemons froe^
this QQurt ord«riag it to appear and ^ein in the proaeeution of
this writ of error, but it dij not aee fit to do so, so th&t an
order of sevoranos has been ent«rsd forever bttrrini^ it from
questioning or imoeaa^lng the <S«or«« of the Superior court.
/©r the r<^asons lndlo&t«5d the Ju'^^ent is afflrned,
0*Connor, F. J., and Matohett, J., ooncur.
^■^^s* ^li» *';!£**» Av-. .,.■.>-.. .--..-.- ...i.. ....^,..4 $»'i9li!tmy:9^- 0: m»i:if»t 4t ■^■um!i»usi
>».fMW«!>«f< »iil^.-^4S0> gi0^mitM fxlhil ^d» 'ijii $:imnm» »i^ blMet t^»^^^^- ^>^
%»«.c,':i??s» «* ^ii. *a» *«««, &J.& M- 4«tt»35*««j« iS-^i^ fe»rM» -!.•-«...■.„*-■. ,j..v.
.»v\'t ,N ; •i)j.jgi*i-«*!<i- ««wpi«»'l '**«»*«» «i!«c»4.'-(iS«C-1W>«a«'X»^5««« li< t^i&ico
♦ iw*«w" ■■.;!;.'.«» an* »,>i< ►•.! 4 tif^iaasjjv* ■/
assvo
fSLX Jl« aU»K9» «disiali»%r*ior
of tli« •siat* of Minnie OlattB*
COIfflf » COv(lt ':;OUHTY#
'ialJBilff iB rror»
]«• jiJsTicfi KosaRJSLT JCELtvsiuiJi tHS oPiiTicar ay tm ix>mt*
In ifuii«f X^U€$ nfc nbai&t li^Uft p» mm, i^lnni^ Oleen^
lMr«Aft«r eiilJL«<t plaintiff » whils rltiitti^ on isi oircuXur xailm^
•allsd tht **Bob«* iH d«f*Bd%iit*« eM2»«atettt 9&rk» «;j^» thrown or
fell t^refroB tUHS r«ci&lv«d Injur i«fi xtieululafe in iMr «2e%th«
Key •daiaitfitrater broui^ht tmit aad aiMnt trial by tb« jury a
Tcrdiot «8ss r«twm«d fiadins drf«frnd>mt not 4?aiity» Flaintiff
••Qk« bjr tbis writ «r error %1M r«T«rwtl of tb« Judgpeut <m th«
Terdiot*
PlisilA%lft*« deelar«iiion« tstfter de»oribiiis; la general
texae the rHilwAjr txad o«i^r» aeaatliuting the dtTlc«« alleged tiiftt
plAiatlff bocniKt ft pia.«ti»««i|I«r titerc'oa for hire »mA %h&% «hll«
Ticia^ on ih» 9nxt In the exaroise of ordinary e«r« for her wm
•>);f«i}r» beoaUKe the rallwey a«r and Its appXianeee wore negligently
and onakilf ully construeted > ii£aint@inttd »md operated « «%a thrown
violently from th« oar euataialttg injurl«d. ^IsUitiir flrat
arsaoe thnt the clear prepoadcraaoe of the «vld>;aBOo alioao that
defendant wne guilty of the negllsoaoe oharged la tho deolsLratSon*
Tho '*Bob8'* la a oiroulnr railway about X*^i fC6t l«Ag«
*7Pkii:
M'-mni mum ^itm:^^<^
Uftt
-8«
Zt atRrts friM a pXatfora at the ««iit •n6 of the •truotur« at a
height of apyroxlmateljr 66 feet frm the ground atttd rune up and
dova with about 9 oharp Incline e and around laaay reT«r»o ourroo
until it raturas ta the starting point* The trains are hauled up
the first incline by an endlesc chain and thereafter run hy graTity*
S oh train conoiete of 11 o<ir« coupled togethor and e^oh ear oon-
taino a oincXe ooat oapahlo of oon^ting two adiiXto. They run oa
a narrow gau^e track of rails of about 28 iaehes apart* At tho
curves one r&il is pitohod his^er than the other* &nd when ths oava
pass orer this eurre one elds Is about 9 inches higher than the other*
Tho speed at the bottoa of the inclines is about i'6 or 40 miles an
hour*
i^aeh oar is eqtilpped with a handle bar t^xtending ths width
of the oar which oan bo pushec forward and backward « hen people
are entering the ear this bar is pushed forward} when passengers
are seated the bar is pushed bnek^ard and downward towards theai sad
when it is pulled back an far as it will gOt it is about 4 or 5
inches above the knees of a norsaal person sitting oa the seat of ths
ear and about ^^14 inches from the waistoline of a nomal person*
Sfioh handle bar is equippec ?!ith a look whleh is oelow the footboard)
when the bar is pulled backward and do^saward towards the passeagsr
as far as it will t'^o* it looks autoBU tieally and when thus locked
it oaanot bo unlocked or aoved backward and forward until the oax
aakss ths trip on the railway and finally returns to the loading
platfom* ' s the t rains approach ths lo«ding platf om on their
return tripa» a block which thsy pass over autoaatlosilly usloeks
all the hnadle bars of the train* There is ao device for locking
all ths haadls bars at oaost but snoh is indepeadaot of the other
.». #,»» «'si*^H^& ^^ *^ ■ ^^
t»^ «>*:S '^0('k,
«'4«iii3'# ®*5'
m» sm^mt^ .^«««» ^ *»»^* ^**'' "***
§»#rf«- ^s? »|JN^« 1^«> *«*«* *^*^ **'^**' *
, •.-. &m *rtm '"•"* "■*'^* ''^^
i>:«*j:tsa<s.. 2*^ '^ 0g(4^^''-
KMi ■^{li'Silf fVi
J» r^vii-^t^*
'if««^.
^I£»lg4-^ »«£« %»'
. ••^te^'* w*.-^
I;;|t^:i5. ^5' J -^•i-
Sf««|- «.^j»^ ^^* ^*»-i-- •t'i«'««^ «^-'
.f
ears* DefttBtfant BJAiBtaincd sun.n.s to oXob« aitti lock th«a« bare
after tiu paBB«Bc«r» luUl ontoreci th«n« Th« i>««8«iig«r« tkinoolToa
could look the liara by pullln:^ thea back to the propor poeltioa
but defoiK^enfc e«re Ito guax^e orrom to oeo that all the handlo
bars wer«» eloeod and looketi before tbo train* war* peulttea to
loaTO the platform*
There ^rere two largo privted uigttK on the platfora vith
iheeo werdoi '*Hold Y»ur Hato - fi<m*t s%tmA Op** and on th« back of
OAoh oar In plaia ▼l«v of the person sitting In tho seat behind wae
a painted sign ae follows t ")Do»*t f^tand Up - :p«1i Baek Handle Bar
Until looked* " .'"lAiatlff (lueetioas the preeenes of this latter
sign at the tlae of the «eoldent» but this ■«&» sufficiently es-
tablished*
On the day of the accident eitiaens of Chicago of 1-sinish
birth held a picnic on the grounds iaautdiately adjacent to the
defendant's p^rk and undar an a rrangenent they «ere penAtiBd to
enter the psrk grounds* I'laintiff and her husband and sAae of their
friends e.tt<mded the picnic a^td used soem of <Jefe3»dant* s aantsesMnt
devieesii Flaintiff vas about 5 feet & inches in height and <»eighed
api>roxii8ately 20C pouiule* This «&e her stconc ride of th($ day on
th« ^^Bebe* and she had also had two other rides tm another dvyioe
of a sinilar typo*
At the time of the ocourreneo ^-sdouel Larson occupied th«
•ar with plaintiff* she sitting on his left aide, thoy were about
the middle of the train* l.Ars«i testified th^t whan they got in
they pulled the handle bar back until it was as close to plaintiff's
body as it would go| thr.t ho her.rd ncme of the guards (*ay anything
about it and none of then touehod it* ^'Inintiff had hold of tho
Hi"*
>iimf-^. ■■■ ^»«»i««"S9« »*fe^ i$mif£Hmtp Wt$-0kml^ ■■'v,M»*.».<!j liAKV
j^'^b f^.i m..»M% Umimm' %<i^Mim mtM *m^^mfiti <s^\'%i'»ijisiUL'»iA'im»
&.1 te^ leiff^'S umiv i^, kmii^t^-9t mm^Bi^-' -j^^itt ^^ to ».rir?£iie^- ?^^u^
iMix with her left hmnd, a&ci la her right hitdud ah* •«rri«d a pocket
book* lAreon deaorlbed the aocideat &s follevsl
"i^hea we started to go up the third inellae It
boimeed up a little lo the OF«.r« ^^'e botraded up*
Then we got Into m carre . The oar cave a fe^ Jerks*
H<>r seat went up a little &nd alar neat dewa aad threw
her out* It threw her out on the right elde ever m«»
betweea tka* har and ae* he went on my side and vont
de»n< '^8 she mm» helng pltoheo out the har vns f«rw!urd»
opened up* The bar opened up ami oho fell out* The
har wna ahout a foot la frcmt of ub »j3c ahe paeeed
between the b&r aad a« vtfiX my lege* fter she was
?ttohed out* I pulled the bar baok* I started to grab
or her* I bad no ohaaoot ehe went out so faet* r>ha
weat right OTer ajr lap end out***
Plaintiff ttrguos that the prepoaderaaee of i:he erldeaoe
poroTSs th^t the handle bar wriia not locked txad thnt thla was negli»
genee on the p^vt of defeadnat which oaused plaintiff to be thrown
fros the ear* Thle is pr.rtly baaed oa Larson's sitsteaent th^t the
"bar opened up* when ehe fell out* Hot»eTer» hie teetlaoay at tlM
trial was> weakeaed by his adsdaslon th?t within a half hour after
th ae(7ldeat he gaTO a atateneat to oae of <iefeiKl;3tat*s SLttoraojra
la whloh he said *tke handle that fooe across your waist was olosod
whsn we started oat* aad wns still closed when w« oaBK» la* and >t
the cor<Mner*s Int^ueat he teutiflec th t when they got Into the seeitt
"I pulled It (the handle bar) baok and closed it*
(<• Are you sure you closed it? a* i*o far as I
know* I don* t think you could close It nay better*
«^* But you nre sure it wre locked? A* Yes* it was
looked when we started off«*
Two of the dcfendi^nt's eapl<qrees who were ohf^rged -tilth the duty of
locking the bars testified, that it was looked before the train started*
But eouBsel for plaintiff tamet;tly argues that it was
phyeleuUy laposnlble for plfilatlf i to be thro^m from the oar if
the bar was looked* soom five witnoseos - t«o of thea plaintiff's
wltaesaes - testified to the effect that a paasoager wuLut hold oa
"^■.Ssf* ROiH^'f '©« !»•»«► «<«6J« 5i»»*
the baxo or h« tm.y bfi thro'sai out myen with lim 1»tir locked. One
vltnets ■&!« It was Becesa;«Ty to hold onto the burs with botb
h&B4e aad ttont a peraen etnading up or Att«a,i.<tlji« to rise on hia
foot while the ear wne geing and not holcla^ on ooulc not b«f pro*
▼Ottiod from beisf; thrown outi that thla vn» true of a le.r«(e or a
oanll person I "that sren If the bar wore eloso to the \>9ij$ there
la nothing to prerent you from c^^f^iag WP If y«» ^oJttt to get up.*
The witneoii who n "iw the ooourreaee aoet elearly w«ie Lara Ble^von»
wh» was with plaintiff** pautyf h« wea fitting in the eeat directly
baek of the ear oooupled by plaintiff aad Larson. He aaya thrat
plaintiff loot her balance going dvim the second Incline *«nd It
out
Just threw her over and aho Moseii to tly/tv9m the seat* Poll out*
I tried to BtaBd op In the seat and tried to stop her.*" This wiinewi
•aid he aaw tlie nan riding vlth plaintiff f eaten the brr of their
oar before they started. He further sAldi
"^Iwn we got up on the a^ocaa hill there I believe
she was kind of high between tho bar and the seat.
: ho kind of sot up* •
(i, straightened up on her feet«
A. Too*
(^« Raised up abore the seat*
A. Yes* she very liksly didn't - i^aen* t prtipared
for it cotfting* tTtnd eJie got kind of bdcrh* bm^. it
Just threw her off* when she was about halfway
down the second hill* haXfwaj do-^m the s^coml hill
she Just ilew out Jui^t lik^' th&tf on the right hand
eide. I saw her when she fell. There was abaoluteljr
BO way I could grab hex bec&usd it inat saened like
she JuBt juMped out the seat and flew right over. I
notioed when we oaae to a step th'.t the bur was in
its proper position*"
The witness further aaid tlvit lui saw plaintiff holding onto t^ bar
vith her loft hand and holding her peeket book with her rigHt hand*
I
Tit::
«f4 «,ij;^- '^-.iC m^, S'fm- «•«'* ^ ■•«•:* :■-:
- ■ 'i'-" •••4. '"■
In view of thla «Tld«no«( tiile oourt oaanttt B&y that
the Jury «&> not Juntifled la bollevlng that tb* luuidl* bar was
iMked before tho car In «h.ialx plaintiff ^.-)fi riding had etartod*
The oridenoe dl<! not QUf :: lolentljr proT« any Inporfeotlon
or vroBg on tha caret rails or traok* An inspector for tba oltj
of Chlo%«;9 te;.tlflod that ho fenad nothinc wron® with ths darloo
at tho plRco of tho Kccldont nor found »jiythlng vreng ivlth tho oaro*
thlc wltnoob tdetlfleci th«it "freu tosto he U & nadtL- tfa&t th« ears
aro oooigned to girm tho groatoot d«>groQ of »(^ety that It la htOMAly
j^»alble to glT« In n ride of this kind*** Tho Jury could proporly
find th&t the defendant van guilty of no negligonee with ref«r«noo
to the construotion* tsalatenanoe nnd oper tlon of the mllwnyt car
and ito nppll«»noos«
It is perhaps unnoeeesary to determine whether or not the
accident wno oeoAsloned by the contrit>utory neglli^oaoo of plaintiff*
Tho Moot plausible explanation is that she attempted to tt^lem her*
self front the seat with an insufriclent grip on tho handle bar* ?hSB
pcrsoas ooatrftct for a ride on these derloes, BU«h as are eonusonly
la our aaasea'snt parks* they do se with ths knowledge th»t there Is
more or los^ danger In the experience* That is one of the seuxees
of attrnetlos> hen one dees eubult to such an experlenoo» he soaet
adept th^t conduct which uxidt^r thi$ oircuia«tanees a^ama less likely
to result in hara* i^a*s own oar«lee»nees added to the Inherent
danger ef the dewlee Is alnort certain to result la an itccidant*
hat this court has said In i^urphy ▼• ".^hlts .;^lty /^.Muswient Op** 242
111* App* 56t with eases there elted» is applicable to the present
altu<%tlon*
Complaint is Made of the court's rullngo on In^truotlons*
The orlticlsms aade are of a Tory technical nature and suggest points
tt'i... ■:^>a<^t? ti^.1 ,i8if &«^^T.r^^».•^»t■■
imitA sitd ^<»mi^lmw^ m.iS^m ^^ iiMf^^ limb »mBi mai
frhloh vould not be likoly to occur to a lajnMui* 7* oaii ace no thine
In the instruotlon* flTon wteloli vould haTo a tondQBoy to adaloai
tho Jury in RrrlTlng at its rerdiot* The Instruotloi effernH! hj
plaintiff and srofnaod to tho offoot that plaintiff rv&s not bound
to proTO His oaee beyond a rttaooAablo doubt but mourvly to j>roY« it
by a proponf^eranoo of eriuetnoet night ptoperly ht*.v« b««u ^iveiif
(ConeolidRted Tynet^qy ^o* ▼• .-■ohritt<?j|r« 223, Xll« :i€4 ,) although
it has b««n hold in S,,,J^^ ft g« ay» C(<^. t* Xawlo^a 829 HI* eai| *.hat
an anum:tmtion of tho thia^^e vfhlch ths 1b.-v d*oo net roqaire i« in tte
natttro cf an ; r£us«nt to the jury and of doubtful proinrietyt Tho
ninth instruction friron on behalf of tho defendant jtroi^erly told tho
jury that plaintiff ^ae roquired to or;tabliah hia ear« by a pr«pond«<nuu»t
or groat«T \^ight of tho (rridenco* hfta on© Instruotlon cor«T8 th»
give
ground f it ia not fvrror to refuse to^axiotbar itietruetion coveri«£f th«
ground, laubfty.h^ v» The £rf^,k» notel Co», g45 111. vpp, 1^99 »
Upon tho ontir« r^^oord "t^o o^waot nay that the T«irdiot
v&a ole&rly against ths iv«,i^t of the ?Tid«meo and tho Juci^aat ia
thorefore aff irmoL •
0* Connor* .'« J*t an<l Uftteh«tt.» J. > otmour*
■„ ■ m^'- mt- .*l ■ rv/*i«iis>«, :■#*«;■ ■«^*. ''W^*. '^f^'' 'SfeNliifis^ itaaaa*' '*a«i» '1» mU»tms&BB hm
«ai# i«^.«v«K^ m>i#«»^«t«(M m& misi^ *mmhkt^ ««?#'1* ■■t*j§l*-*w »#»««?si3|| »•
*d:#i!!?«$ipe;A
32964
OYXRIA BARRUQI^R, ludlvldutilly aA6
as Admlulttratrlx. of ti»e Estate/ot
PHlJuLIP fiAKKlhOKit, D«o«as«d,
^laiutifr in isyroj
fkTlilC^ J, GOLLlUa, iiARY J. CuLLlAfii,
THOUAa :. HYAU, Kdnilnl^trmter of the
£fttatt of iUitls li>. iinrrls, i)aceased,
and J. a. PKliAUaOX,
Scftndants in r.rrer.
/
RKOR TO CIHCUIT COURT OV
COOK. COUI.TY.
H
SR. JUSTICE liASCklSTt I>3J.IVKRi-:» iUl£, OPI£IOiS 0^ IB2 COURT.
Plain tll'l' In error wms coutpl '^insirit *ni croB»«d^I>r.rlrAnt
In A 9roo««diBg In ch«nc«ry vhioh involved a controT«r«y bntveen
th* hwira «f Phillip Earringer and itatis Harris Barringf*r with
ref«r«>nc« to certain roal «i«itate in Cook county, Illlnoia.
The eoBidlainant ix, hf^r aai«i;ided bill alleged that
Fhllllp Barringrr ir. hie lifetime van a joint purchaser -with Kntie
Harris of certain of this real eatute; that up to the ti»e of his
death ililllip Barrint^er paid half of the p.<jiyi:.ei;ta on tu« purchase
price suai that suhse:;)U{«it pay^eiite -^9X9 )E&<tde fro® the income de*
rived from tlse property purchased, the till pr,->y«d for an ae*
eountiag and adjustiacnt oi th« ri,;i.ts of the? parties oni partition
of the prtuitises. Sefendaunts ^tntwered, denying the equity of the
1)11 and filed u ero8S>bill prayiaii that comtjlainitnt shoulr^ t" de-
creed to have no interest vbatsoever in this real est&te.
The caue<<> vas put at issue and rf'f erred to a aaeter.
Pending the prooe*iings before the tft^ster an order »as <°!nt«red
that oosiplaioant deposit |30C< vi in the clerk of the court to seoure
payeeut of tho coete of referenoe. Cottplvtiniint did net cosply with
the order, and a further order was thereafter entered that she
should be bc;rred fn>m offering any evidenes before the Blaster.
The uaeter r<>ported, fin:Un£; that Hiillip £arring«r
did not pay any of t.'ie puroliase Aoney agreed to he? paid onder the
c
«o ta««p. m^^^ ^^
8 8^&'jA
.ff
U9^l
'imSt
t*rt;.a oi' tU« oontraot; that ii« :lll not p«rfori. or kf>«-p any of the
•0Y«7i))U)t8 or l^(r««lL^en^• prcvldtd in !u;<l 1»y th" contract, >ai<) that
aa a natter of faet all of th« Aoii«y ffhlch was paid on aceount of
■aid i>uroh«s« and under said contract «a« paid by Katie f-. fli^rrla,
d«c«a«cdi; that at th« time of the; fl«ath of fottlc £. Harrla aha had
paid to i^atriek J. and M.ary Collina, the vandora of tha real eatata
in quaetion, tha bus of ^45'-X) prlnoipal tmA $X60Q interaat, on
account of the ouroh.^as of th-^sa pr«ifflie«a. llie avatar i\irth«r
rapartffd that ooakplainaiit, Indivliuaily »nd aa adsiiniatratrix,
and tlia unknown ^elre of Phillip £&rrlngt)r had n« ri|^ht» title
or intereat in or to Ui* prooiiaea or in or to the contract dfa-
oribed. 7he master reeeKui^andle j cUat Uie tiil of con:iplalnt
■hauld b« diaaicaad at ccnpliuiiaant's ooita for ^mnt of equity, ^md
found that all th« material ttliegatlone of the erosH-llll hsr^ baan
proTad, and that the aquiti^a wer* with th* crosn- complain ant.
Cospl^nifint filad objections to tJtw report which were oir«r-rul«d
by th* »Hftter, but nc «xceptioJi« were filed before the c4i«ne«3ior,
Co»pl«*int l8 JKide oj the order barring cojapl-^lnant
fro« offering avidence on aeeoont of h<sr failure to cob ly with
the proTlouB order, "^Tiieh r«Ciuir)»d her to deposit coata with tha
el«rK of th«> court. So far :ts the rooerd rtioira, sh« lid not ob*
jaoi at th« tlwa thia ordisr was e»it*r«,}, but no« contcade that
tha statute under whio > th^ chancellor proceeded ( aae Ceetion 34,
chapter 53 of the 111. Her. &t&ta.) is uriccaatitut ond. If ccn*
plainant deaire] to ruiaa a conatitutlonal ciueation, her wrli of
error ahoul.4 not have be«>n au<<>d out in this court.
It is also urged that the 'ecre«'» is not warranted by
tha eridenoe, tut ae t.here are no exoeptiona to the iji-i»t*^r'B repcrt,
these qunatlone of faet cannot be r'^i«e4 for th^ first tiiae in this
eourt. Foster y. Van Ostern. !?■ 111. App, 307; Jo-'naQP ▼. Youdrie.
s
^;.;
= ■i<!Sia^';*'»* U}^M'iif^^' /«!|:i««it^;xt,. A.jnv^^-v^/4*. iiaws^^, ;>*
233 111. App. 573; M«rbl» ▼. Xl-4>raai». 17>5 111. 640.
JTor the reanon* lrtiica.te4 Hm dffor«e of th« trial
court Is itffirm<td.
AFFIKMKD.
O'Connor, ?. J., and rici»ur«3y, J., concur.
^-ittiwa^a I**. tif-'siRMeo^ tsw* ^^^ •■*» :,«««&»t;»i>
33166
/ i/T^ I//.
ARTHUH G. iUIHJl, ) / / f \
D«f«n4«ct In Krror, ) / y^ { ]
) SHROR ttf CUnC^MMP-^CCUBT OF
▼•. )
) COOK COUi'iT.
yAKi^ZE HARRIS «t al., ) V
Plaictilf* In Error, ) _ ^ \
£^
MS. JUBTXCS KATCHfitT DKL1VKM13 THjS OPtKlCJI OF THE COUHJ.
Ih« A«f«HrtiWit« »««Jt tc r©Tffri»« certain ord«r» and «
d«or«e crit^rcdi in proe*«dlC£t broutgiit ic cJrianc;«ry to I'or^elone ft
trust deed given on Mmy 21, X&26, to secure 30 notes ol' V%ajii« and
SftTid ^iarria for th.« ai^^ro^nkte nus of |S£»,^CHJ« 'lu<f> bill ^^as fiji«i3
Oeto'ber 38, 1926. Xh<» rooord is por pr««sip« ^uaa includi** only
the )»ill of coapl»lrit, »i> Qt^vt appoitiiing & rftoelvar «nt«red
Oetober 3i<, 1'3'26, a d9or«« of 8«bl« «nt«re<i June 7, 1927, a»> order
s^provlng a macter'a report of «al« aus:? «mterlBg a defloiejcioy .IwSg-
aent for 1425.51 i%g*,ir)«t faroilft and D&vid li&rrla in faTor of
Arthur Cr* Hatbja, conplainant, ;vr't^ a furtaer or^er efiit«>r«d th»
aaaie d»y upon » report of a i&teter, f ir: Jin«^ an ln>l«bt«idrieaa
ttVB. Jtttxin^m and Jl^avid Harris to Clara Gruha in thto ausi of
#13,394; to Uflnry r>oiieror in th* Svajs of #1065; to Kose i-ox In
the 9U&1 of |4r?6; to J. L. Si^drlt in the euK of $532.30; «aid «b«
taring i\i.'.h7^«t\% ir, ffiiror of the r«apeotire parties *«d against
fannio and Dari-t Harris for the aiaounta so foofi^ due.
The bill, of oofapl&int vaa in titie unuol form m^) al-
leged the execution of the notes and trust dlef?d on kay -U, 19,:i6,
upon ^ioh for«eloeure v^s 80u^;ht, def aol t thereunder, aa4 tha
execution by Jfannia and David darria of a subsequent deed to
secure the payaent of an indebtediieas in the eua of $14, 5U rep*
reaented hy 3C priLoioal not«B, ihe bill alleged the or4»<&isea
were issproved by a builiing consisting of 5 stores, 7 ^parunonta
\
a1*
'2^11^.-
■.A.1SS§,
m iM6> «:!#«) %4^ 4^j»4<S£»» ASIC'S V«T fMr Jil'^'O^ «r#ii«p£M»#1lKft ^mS?
buin »m) ....V. ....«* ,,.o^»:,8^|;M,j8iafi »#»ii»'*a3M» ***** 'w^ ti-n^a. Mv»«
•Ad a public ^armga i'or the ^torat^e ol »utouol-iI«t; that th<rr« ««•
a prior aortgaKa li«n upou th« prajaises superior to that of oou-
plalnant's, upon vhicii tnor* vaa an uxipalci bai«nee of $90,000,
and that th« acuity In tha prc^arty ^aa maagar aacurit^ for tha
payaant of the Indattadneas soUi.^lit to ba fortoloaad. Th« c^nara
and holdara of the junior aortgac^e aad thair trustee vtiv BAda
dafendanta, as «all aa the tru»t»« im the deed cou«,:;ht to b« fore-
olosad and the unlurtovn owners. Xha bill prayeil iilB aecouot al^^ht
ba taican, a reoelvar appolitit^') anl a decree of foreol&sara en-
tered.
The deerep of sale reoltea tlaat the oauae e&aiH on to
be ho'Hird upon tha bill taken a« eonfeeified by the umkric^n fivtitr cr
ewn^^ra oi ti:ie notee, and other def endejita,( the answer of atlll
othera),VipoD a oro8«*blll file4 b|r i^dward '^. and Amelia Hcut«r In
which Clara Cruhn was eubeeQu^xjttly substituted ae oroaa^^eofiipl'^lriiiiat,
the eev««ral ftnswars of eroas-dafendante Arthur G. Kathja» Cecar
Horaea ar>d X-ottis toi&alk, «nd upota proofs >s>nd exhibit* and the
report of the isHeter in chancery to vhoU' the u%uaa had been re*
f erred, vrhlch report and avldenoa heard by s^uid ea^tar were filed
therein, and "Sipen proofs heard In open court:** and It appearing
to the {;ourt that th*» p(}trtl«%8 were properly before th«? aoMTt and
that the oourt had jurladletion of the subject m»tier imd tha
partlf^a, the report oi the m3*ct«r waa approve'! and a deore^ of
forecleaura entered In accordance ^ilii its reeoiamendationa*
JBo brief* hnre been iMl»!d in b<::asj.f of the defend-
•Bte in «rr&r«
Upon thle leeagar roeord tlie defendante contend,
firat, that the order of July 2, 19S7, air*>ctlnji the receirwr tc
oontinue In poa»<»eeion of tne p:-<»t^,i8^!<o, coll<:'ot th«! r<«2ts, i»'<ue8
and proflte of th? builHng and to dc «kll thingc n<>e<i!&Bary for tha
oonsarratlon of the presils<>8, including the payneni of t&xas and
8
^'osta. m^'« ^^^»ift^ "iMiii &»» f''^:»i^wi tHmtX 9M tt ntvfsitm htm
,;}^u;%^ ' {|a«ri» %l^f»M$»9^m ««« ttiSU'tiJ} At«XO ifSrIll*
'u^Xl^ #«» ^ i[|t(.'»»l£ «»^liiti« «fS^ Ji!^«(«^»« tmMtn th»'S%«'i
ft* iWflUi*** swi* 3»*)fi;ik><»v4«> »-<P*^J:^ ^Si t^^ "Sit mf>< ••■ill
tax rorf«itur«s, "int«r«st Mid principal upon % i'irut and prior en*
eu«l}r»i!io«* on t.^zfr prerjl*«ii, !■ arrouAous beoausc, th«y aay, the
purohnatr at a foreeXosurc caIs tak«« title with all lit Iniinal*
tl«s and biird«ria, ecai tjaat a receiver haa no ri^Erht to apply the
ronto and prol'lta accruing <iurin«; the period of redenption in order
to reciOTO tUeae lnfirmir.i«« and burdena for the benefit of the pur-
ehaeer. In oupport of thie proposition defer-lar.te cite ^^teven* Vj,
H<^afU3l<l^ 90 111. App. 408; t>aTi» Y. Pale. 15- 111. 23« ; at even a v.
SiAOjii. 76 111. App. A2Qi 3t«a;diBfa v. fcaegfoVff. 225 111. 500.
There ia no question al&out the g«i>«ral rule as laid
devn lu thaae o»aea. fhe order aontitjUlng the raceiver, aowerer,
waa purely interlooutory. It do^ra not direct ^s^yutrnt of any monttj
in the hands of the rt>eeiver to any p^irticular p«^rsoc, and If any
taeh order to -lietrlbute funds is stade In ate future defeti^ar^ta i^lll
be entitled te present %ni&it ob,1eotiona and eeoure a fiual decree
of the court in that regard* ttoreoirer, neither the evid<»ne« whleh
the reoord aff ir&u.tively eiio«« waa taken i&nd file) by tixa Kaftt«r»
aor the ]Sii9ter*e report are in tn«> r^oord. These ivould ^n^m to b«
neeeeeary to an adju^jioation of thie contention in tiiie court. In
the abeenoa of thsiae* the preauaption is of course in favor oi the
order.
It is n^xt ccntccied that the court erred in rendering
a deor««» it: favor of Seherer, if'ojc and liadeic, who, th« brief avera,
did not aeek affir.T.ative r«iii><f. &eith«r the erooR-bill nor the
report of the abater waa &a4« a part of the record, in tliia atatta
•f the reoorA w«, of cc^urae, cannot aoeartaia whether there ia any
baaia for the alleged error.
Ihe aaae r^aaon nakee it imposaible to suetaia the
third point for which defer.<^ante contend « naBiely, that, the court waa
without juriadiction to enter a auppl«a«mtal decree.
It ia furtr.er contended tiukl the decree' of eale waa voil
wm 'sr©-i«<j.
.iL„
,%»hiie
'bffeaus* it burdened th« r«ad Qviat* with aii •noumbrftnoc In tha
fons of » lous* whieh ii«8 •xceut^d aubsaqueot to the truot deed
fer»oloauros. The record, heweTar, afflr^ ailTcly a^xowa tbat
tlia ownera ol' th« equity uenacnted to this leaac and th«t it w»a
•xacut«<t At their r«<^u?at, Xb^y cannot ba heard to argua error
upon an ordar B»da at their ovn rpr,u«at. Xh« other defe^idanta
bava DO 9 tiding to oo«ipl»iii»
Tha mm&^^r record suba.ltted h&rdly indicates an
axpeetation that the aa&iivjnis^ elite ol' error (whicb are not attAoned
to tha record} ahould be takejs nerioualy.
Thit decree ie therarore affirsed.
AJfnSJi.li.li,
O'CoACior, i'. J., fenfl KoSur«ly, J., concur.
,,f*5:«-:*-.
0«'
&««»'
if t***^''
."/>
».'44,«-s^&lMi
33174
SAROLIirS SSZDIL •% ad.,
D«f«udaAta in &rror, )
)
▼«.
lUBOiJUSZ HOLCOhB at ai.» )/ ^~ ""y """""*** ^
i»l»inUfr« in Error. )
252 I.A. 639
MH. JUSTICE kAlCilKIT DELIVBRKD TilS OPIfilOK OK TBK COURT.
This oaue« was oonai4«r«d by this oourt upon a fomar
writ oJ* «rror, and tha opinion of the oourt is reported ir; Milti
V. iloIooKb. 246 1X1. App. 10. Jsy that writ ©1 «srror Eargarflt and
L99 Holcctnli :uad Charlea '^. Kolu&d aeorured the rereraal of a 4«ox««
of foraoloeurc eiitsrad in favor of i^urollfio aeldeX and daroldt A.
JTaln, Indlviduttlly ani aa trustee.
Tat trust d«ad upon whioii %h9 proee«di/i|ga are baaod
vaa axeouted by M<irgt»r«t soi^ i.ea Holcosib oa A^^y XI, 1$:^&, to
•eoure an iud^btednnaa in tto» sum of $18,'i^K>, evld^noad by S3
notea, lies. 1 to 56 inaXueivo, for $1CX) a&oa, payable Kiont^iiy;
not* nuttbvr 57 for |iS,000 uni note nuaa'ber S3 for $10,600, p.iyatla
ft7 ana S8 montha <*.ft»r date wltn liiteraat at six per cent per
MonuA.
Tha bill to foreoloae W4.a filed on Jurie 18, 1935, s
little Kore thsm one nontli a^fter the execution and delivery of tiae
aotea %Qd trust doad. It was alleged 1^0.1 .i^^i^ra had been dafaulta
in the ptiyaient of preffiiuiaa for fire insurance, in the psiyment of
iBtareat whieh had matured on >i prior •^cumbrttnoe and in the payment
of noto number 1 wiiiou fell due on June 11, 1925, > seven daye be-
fore tha bill was Jiiled. On uceouut of theaa defaulta, tAe bill
ttverrad, the cuKplKdn^>ta axarciead tii^ir option to deGl»re the
entiro iadettedneaa «nd the int<^reat thereon lue (ind pay^iao.
Tha raoord there viisolosad that A.aroline oeidel, oo&i*
plainant, was not the own«r of the wr;cle but of only & purt ol the
c
cn r
tiff} '-■:':■
.■life', l|fl##S!i®»<# ^1^ i«MJi •1I«'
vi'i/iSfti8;«©- «*tllfe' '^v/.tife &*%^^^ .■.■..'-2
■-'■■''■ ^mM:'%9 'itfttoft*'*! «d •■*'-■ ?■■'■ '■'
,i.i. '-.'3 *;;■'
lnd«bt«dneas seourod by tha trust (i««»d, «n4 b«r right aa th« owner
of only a purt to aeoalarata tha maturity of tVi« «hol« Indebta^naaa
\)j electing to d^olnura it lua vaa challenged. Th« opinion oi' this
court quot«<1 v«rl>&tlai the prcTision of thif truat daed with reference
to an aocalcratlon of tho Katurit;y of tha Ladebtednesa «UQd, oon»
8 truing tho aaata, euld:
*niis court la of the opinion that the power hera graritcd is to
tha holder of th« whole of the indebtedncae tc lue excxusion of
tha owner of atij part thereof > find ainoa the undinputed eridenoe
aho'^a thmt i^.irollna btidal la not the o«n(?r of Ui« wnole tut, on
the contrary, the owner of only a •:>w£'t of the in iettedneea, the
finiing; of the aaater'a report an-i the decree that eiie rightfully
declared the whole anount due la not austsilned by the eTldence."
Ihe raoord now before ua lUaolon^s a deoret* in which tha
aaount found to be due iUrollne Haldol, coKolaijiar^t, indio&tea tha
theory of th* Ctroult court ie that the order of thie court should b«
oonatru«d to s^msn th&t Caroline 3eid«l« although the owner of only a
part of tho Indebtednenn, h4^» th« right to elect to accelerate the
9ayn«nt of that part of the whole indrt-tedn^aa which la owned by her.
It l^f dlfxvioult to t><^reelva how tha languatje of this court could be
thue conittrued. It la distinctly stated in our forsser opinion U\»t
the power granted to aooelerat* Ir to the holder of the whole to the
exclusion of th<> owner of any part of the indefctcdneas. This court,
aa numerous cases cited by defendants in trror s.iu'<!?, ia bound by Ita
foroier decision, waion is ^j^ ^d^ucjipatift aa between these partiea,
Maayiiracturinf: Co. t. Wjrg Jy'enc*; wft. . 119 Hi. 30; 'i'heo logical beKJnary
T. People. las 111. 43fi; 'Jorj^fQ* t. Bhe(j|/}. 202 111. 49;J; liala^^in y,t
lUJSft, 819 111. 310; C. & a. I. A. K. Co. v. Peoola. 219 111. 403;
Prantioe t. t^rang. 24'j 111. 250; Villa^:e> of C&k Psg-k v. Swi^art. 26d
111. 60; itu)ake v. fauhlka. 235 111. 326; People y. aoanlan. £94 111,
64; ifeople t. DaYounig. 29a 111. Sao.
Aa the decree of the Circuit court is not in conft»r2i.ity
with the views expraeited In the l'or»er opinion of uitia court. It is
rf
■«*■.,■,,
. ,■ i^m ^Mi„^k ^-r^ ■■■■:o:r;S*
t4 ■'
■■.,df
r%r«Tn9A and tht cause reB.&n<t«d with direetlone to (mter a deor««
oonrornln^ to the ▼!•«« «xpr«ii«A(1 iu this axid the former opinion
or thie court.
P.2VSRSSD ABO R'AtAJiEBD
•filXH DlRECIlOiiS.
O'Connor, P, J., and WoSurely, J., concur.
■fi^
''i?*;'.iji^v,j-.ii '*.-
33X05
KUIBL kALLXCiL,
I}«l'*nd«nt in £rror.
/
ILUSICIPAL CCUH7
0^ CHICAGO
as HiiigcrmaD Coa»truotion Ciisipsaky^ )
jPlAlntiff in ijixror. ) O C: Q
«N*' O <</
3
- o,
WR. JUSHCB MATCilBTX OalVSRSD nm vPIfilOK Oi? tKii: COUHT,
MsdlloiL, pliilntm', broui^it suit o& a promieaory
not* dat«d Maroh 16, lf^'17, jue ninety Amya of tor d&te to his own
erdsr l*or tli^' sues of ^2,5(^^0. 7h« staxwKiezit &lle|;<»d tii«t th« nets
was £iiv«n Tor £ioQey loi«ned. the ai°I'l«Sa.vlt of Si^^rlts denied th«
plalntllT Xo^oiad dofsndant #2,5&0 or gavd othar oonsidsratloc; for
the not«, and denied dftS^r^dant i&aids and dalivercd th« not« as al-
Xsged, or tuat a»y sutu ^&s du«.
Ths cause was trl«d by the court without a :fury, ILers
was tt riiicUng I'OT piaitntirr in tlie suk. oJ* $26&3.75 -ptiui 4u ,jft.wt
thsrcon.
Upon tae triai th.« del'eadaut ofi'ered evidence tending
to show that be «xeout«d aR6 d« liver «'l *M«. note to u w^ii. csuued
TouiifS for the purpose of h^^viUe, it negotiated at tke Triongla
State £<uik; th.at »« i"ir»st execatti and dolivsrei to Young thr na^e
of Uifi payee was left 'blai'Ui; that Your<^ l$roug2it the note )ia.ok some
tia* ti'iervafter and toll def ^^jadatit to i£i&ert tlio n.^me of pialnti:<'f
as paye**, whicii def «»Xi.'lBr. t did, and j^aixi delivered the note to
Young.
Plaintiff t«etlfled that <*ii hie negotiations with
reference to the note were with one L« L. I.ane; that at J^aue's
reo.uest plaintiff went to his own batik stnd pledged 1:^^^ wortl'i of
securities, tliereby obtaining the su& of %'d,2:5(j, whici; he turned
over to i ane for the note,
Neither Young nor Lane testified on th« trial, and the
-c
\' ■■■' \
: n'ViiSr £ti !ti
O p. a ■" ^ 'nnai
\» C? O «Xl« J.. ;.;^, -^f W\
_ ^^ts, %m: ,:.^ t» 4itMl «lti' ilOl TfthTSO
'■*■ him ».l>jim itmt^m'f»h. It^im
•:<^^C**^^ . .. """'^ttKJ Aitt tot B.T{;eT
f«d;* .ft.:.
rallng* oi' ih« court on propoaitione oT law indieat* that the
eoart did net 1»«llttT« dsfandant** etory that ho did not h'ty
knowledge of LBfi«*« action, ani^l oonffldcrod Lana a« in fact defend-
ant *b a«i;ent. We cannot e:^ that th<^ court was clftarly and jztanlo
festly wrong in ita finding «» thla issue ol' fuot. tto^^'orer, either
upon t!:« th«»ory tnat Lane was defendant's agent or upon the theory
that «h9re on<3 of two innocent pf^rties must suffer lose by reason
of the wrongful ^ot of a third person, th<» an^ who nad« the loss
possible by his own neglitjenoe tsuat bear the neaae, the fin^ling and
Judipient of the oourt are in harsiony witir^ law and justioe. Uji"
faddeo ▼. Lyrm. 49 111. App. 166; Piitton v. Youiigf 233 Ul, App.
81?^; Bgrtlett Y. t'trst liatlonal moiit, 247 ill. 490.
jror the reasone In.'iicsted tae jud.iaent i& affirs-.«d.
O'Connor. P. J., and MoSarely, J.» concur.
c
, ,<««»«©« ; ,, »% . tl0»%^iiM,^ ^m^, « A . •■ , -scacoo* (
32196
CoBpIalnant
1,1 lye.
KARY MeSVATHTHILL. lirftArKTH UoBjUI
)
)
Oa A»y4kl of a.IlABi£TH Mol^ilKlH, UATTHKW )
MtBIAXV MBd ;.AHy li0B£AX^lLi., ,4;
Dtl'widants'' sund Appellants. f^
PSB CUHlAfcl: By h«r bill coBipla^intoit sought a partition of
e«rtaln r«»l cBtate eutid alao an ftccouriiiag. A decree was entorcHS in
th« Circuit oeurt, frot& t^Uioh certain dofendaxite appealed* The
eauot went to the Suprei&iii eourt, «li«r« it t?sis iiold Ui%t the appeal
did not affcot the rights of any of tU« partioa in or to the real
•■tftte in queetion, but related to matters of procedure and ''to
findings In the deeree with reference to mattert i^hlc^t do not uffeot
any freehold Interest." The cutuse was thea ordered traKefarred to
this eourt.
The only matters before an r«l«te to the accounting and the
question of solicitors' fees* but it. the deeree appctaled from the
aeeointing is resez-red by tue Circuit court for further order and
the apportionment of coets and charges, includini^ the question of
fees for couiplalnont 's eollcltors, was tilso re8<?rved by the court
for Its furtiier order. As tlxere has been no final adju iicatlon on
the aeeountlng or solicitors* fees it would seats that the present
appeal is preemture.
Defendants, however* aesert that, the decree lu.prup«rly con-
tains certain conclusions an<i findings which uffeot the rij^hts of
the defendante in the accounting and the apportionment of solicitors*/
fees. There sceciS to be merit In tnia claim; anong the findings
In the deeree properly subject to critlolsn are the findings that
the allegations in the bill of oonplaint as amended are true auf
^^?1SE
'iVil:&il ^V- aT;.4;W
t ^ Wiis
N
^.'Vii. t:-;'-:;',!".!
;#f!^w #■«#♦;«
^;f^;tw^««>'
xajrar^iMar o«'lh9)^4v«'
^ii'i.-i^.1ii, ii^<?^'' ^.^d'' Snl^rM^ i^.-:
i»-$^4, t.l.iai.i»iiitt x^*^
^^aNtt^-^ «.#^ 't«#:; «r«s«Ar >]^«': #i '«^ ^ti^
that th« lnt«r««t« of all l>i« p&rti«ii w«re oorritetly and truly
•«t forth In vmld bill of oonp aint a« asivniod aci thftt no sub*
•tantlal, noritoriouo or propor dofenao has baen lntnrpo««d and
that the dafAnaa Intarooood haa t«ndftd to unnaoosaiurlly dalay
•aid oauaa Iwd to Ineur unneeesaary coata tmd axpensea. Ii<eT«r«
th«lcaa, «• ar« '^iepoeed to adhera to the rule that a court of
ravlcw will not consider a case plceexrienl aa-i that we should
not deterr ine the controTeray until thare h&a been a final
decree both upon the aoeounting and the queation of ooate and
solioltora* feee.
^e ahall th«refcre order the appeal ■ilBtttlsaed, but
with thla Bugfr-eation - that the trial court in the accounting
consider not only the evidenec already taken but alao any addi-
tional eTidenea which nay b«» h«ard» disregarding ae Rurpluaage
any ffintilnga or eoneluaions either in the preaent aast^r'a
report or the present deorea affecting the aerite of the ac-
counting or the question of coeta ^md feee. -i-f tiie c&ne*
should again be before uc* we would consider it in thia manner.
The appeal is hereby diaiLieaed ae preeiatura without
costs.
DISMISSED WITHOUT COSTS.
'' ;• /'
35049
nmwrE Uh's.f ffr ttw*
SOWS BICIS^TTTS, gnxniiht^t
'APPEAL mOU klHflClPAI,
COURT OF OHIO no.
10
m* piiEsU'iHa j^GTirsK animjsY uKiiviiiif.:D tie onnim of the couut*
On Ocfeobcr 2At X927* a jadgnent by confeoftton an &
note or contmet was entered aglniiit ^-ttceznQ ^99 for #94 la
ttLrtn: of i>iorris FGldmaa imd others t trading a» M» ?«ld£si%n &.
8cBUi« Hft«r «Ktcutloa oa the jud^wttnt hat^ bjssa returned atuXXji
^<>Bafc the 7eldmui8» 1>)r Abraham J^eXdaaBt o» Tebrw-.ry 1£ » XQZUf
filed an affldarlt for the iaetiejiee of js. ga^rnlehee 8UEJje(ion»t re-
turaable F'abruary 27th» ag^&iaet meet niok^itts n.cd John ; l&k«ttg»
doing buBiaees aa Kleketts* Leetaurant* A4!<.or<^lag to the hxilitt*»
return* eerrice n^a hod upon Joim T<tekett» onljr* <)n the retiuni
day ke wae defatalted and a eondltional ,'luf^0mni for $S4 entered
against hia* lao gamiaheat and » v^rit of ^otre f&c-tft,a ordered to
iasue* .ThiB writ vaa neUle returnahXe on M^rch 15 th, and accorcliing
to tho bailiff* K return it »aa eerTod upon John Kieketta on Mnroh
12th* On the return dtty (JUaroh 16th)* he not appearing* final
4u(3giaent for v94 wae rendered &g»inHt hVa ae garniahee. Thereafter
exeoutioa a/^e eerred upon hin and on Kay 15 » 192S, he appeared »d
woved thi't both the conditional and the final judffasnt %• Tae&ted*
supporting his utotioa by a rerlfied petition* Ther*'- wae a hearing
upon tho noticm on Kay 24* 1928* Hicketta -^bb given leaTe to anead
hia petition on ite faoe* ^hieh he die by aakiag aa additional
1
tl»©«S
■dt*«JJ«« «;f**2Al^^S: «*"iltO'?A 'tXf teyf.9\
■ it «WW#*«, ft •"%t,tli .*<i ^Jd,-* Sid
,..,...,. ,. ..„ ,^„, Uv1«»ihj|lt»« »*» Ai!;-. *ya> J.ai»(feg.iw,<^
■:■/ ?.v:^t^ aft?' sit!«A' «ii4 «« >. ■.•;,;■«<»«*.«
-2-
allegntion* tM6, aft«r cTideaca had been introdueed hy Riekettn
nnd aftar the FaXdmuie* axotloa for lemre to anmrer the pttltloa
had ^aen Aenledi *;ho court ordered thr«t both the conditionRl and
final Judgawnte l>e ra^antad toA thnt rtekette he dlfechurged as
gamlahee. The JTeidaaae hATC rxppeaXed froa the order* Xo brief
has been filed la thia oppellate court by Hicketta*
la the petition &a suaeaided HiGkettn Alleged In substanoe
th t the flret kaowledge he h«id th' t floal Judgaffint had been reader-
ed ft£r.iBat him wae vhea he was aerred with ajs execution; that the
writ of acire fac^ap had not beea peraonully serrec upon hiaf that
the ooaditional and final judpaenta are void beenaae ugeae Lee la
a "sage earaer** employed by klm aad "is tim head of a f&uily llTlag
with the Bomat* and beoauee the statutory rec^ulre.ieate aiD to the
writtea wage demands t to be a«;rTed on »«)id Lea and af\i6 garalehee
n.e employer before the brinrlag of th« eultt v^ere not complied i^ith*
Theae allegatioaa were euetalaed by evldeno^ Introdueed by Rlcketts
on the hearing* Vo eontr&ry evidence ^^aa offered by the Feldmana*
From the written m4i« demand* dated Februr^ry 16, X92&, it doea net
Bufficlently mppear th&t it waa serred upon Lee* the wage 9&xn«itt
in eompllance vlth the provlsioaa of scctioa 14 of thu^ OarnlBhmeat
Aot (Cahill's >tat» 1927* chap* 62* p« 1360)* or within apt timet
mir deee it appear th'^t any eiioh demand «rvB properly tt^rr^il upon
' icketta* the employer* It vas not eerred personolly upon him> but
it (ippeara that the d mand waa lc;ft vith 'oaahier** nt Kickett's ueu&l
plaoe of busiaeset but vhe^ the cnahier wxu ie not mentioned* It la
provided in said amotion of the etatuts that "any Judgment rendered
^ithent aaid demand being aerred upon the employe* and ao proven
and filed nn n/oresfxtd ehall be void." -e oaaaet agree with the
eonteation of couaael for the 7eldmaiia tl^t the evidence (m the
*iM5'* «*«.-' . t. >v»^- .>»rii fe;!tif ^^la^L.j^-^y.^ag '^e Sitvr
aj; «M»d :. .: -; ■ •' ■' ''* i>itti JEl^HOiJIfejRWO mi-A
i,'i!»ssuxf 9fitim ^ifM « b»<n^ Ham tl indi %»t^'Si!^
«*( <« «e« «iiptc; «rfttl *#«#£ M'nit£i»i:
-5-
hc;<ring did not Bttf:leiently ehow tha^ X<«>e» tine ve.get enra«y«
reaid«<t xli.k his faikil^ir* Sox ohH ve tigr«» vith ooi«»el*B ftt7tli«T
oent«ntloa th»t the court err«(i rtftor riiok«tt*8 oridanet oa thm
henrlng it-ci been Introduced » in refusing to poatpoae the hoorlng
and give tlKi l^'eldaaas leaTei tc i(tn&wer i ickette' petition*
Our eonoludiou is t]te.t ths ueuxt's order appttalft<!t from,
TAC^tlng both tho conditional ai»S final judgnente »^,itttt .Icketta
and disctuf^rging him au gKrnisihoe» Trae proper* smei it ia afflriaed*
;>o«alMi 8Ad Baraesf JJ«> conour*
rim-". •" :^^%- ^^ .|»{^ ,f^ w^,,;%$^fm^9ti%'pi« „4P«ii ||i^' >-:
iraMStlSf?
fj««i:.*S;
%»'»o et:
■'•'i«ifii;««jcii?ijj ^j^si ^jS*.-i-.-.
*ii©t3:
^'*Jv' "jt-V***^
.^.*^)rf|!H^>.'V
K 'WW! »Xa.' V
«':?.«•» si&e
/ixa'I hmat jis^toxiO
33058
PSTXR 7.0XCA and
PEtRCarELLA ZOHCv,
JOHS JaBKOWSKZ*
Ayp
«« fUSD-ilHG J1I.^T1CS GimaJSY DEUYSRKD THE OPISIOS OF THS COlBlT.
On July 27 » 1927 a plalatlffa ooou^aoeii an cuotian ia case
iftgaioet defandijctty 3ltilBin,j; d«aa|;et ia iiint sua of |79v0. The
suuBoriK Wits !aad« returnable to tb» Soptenber tern of tlie superior
court* On Auguat :^ad» defendant* an att;«xaey>at-iaw» filed his
appcaraaeo* Plaintiffs did not file tliwlr d«$ol&ri»tl(n until
3eptea^or ;?3rd« fho n«gXi«s«n«« ch^xrgeti waa ia suaat^oaee that
c«fendf>abt retained as an attorney or aoXleitor to dAfeud plala«
tiffs in a chancery suit brought aiii:<£ia£it theat ia 19^1 » so earo-
leaslj and neglii^eutly aana^ed the euit th t a default decree vao
entered again ^t thea and they were obligett to pay out l^irge suaui
of money* ete* lefendant faiXe^J to file any plej& to plaintiff**
aeolaratioa by October 7* 1927* and on th<t d^iy plaintiffs* attorney
voluat&rily apptsared bt:fore Jiidge Lewis t *»a.B of the judges of tho
uperior eourtt «oad obtained aa order defaultiaa defeadaat for vaiOt
of a plea* Ob October 26th» within the uune tera of cettrt» defeadaA
s^ter notice filed a iaotion» 8Up>>orted by nffidaTlts* to eet aside
tho default and to bo alleveti to file pleas ipstaater* The oourt
(Jirilge I>«eis) grrxBted the motion t\nA r«fc^ad?^ait filed the pleas* oa
Jaau^'-ry 17 » 1938* the e-%use» being oa Judge Lnris* caleadar* aaa
V
^-mmm. m% m>^^i'm' TswesfS msxmt midi^m% *m.
'.Sl^lt^^ JXJt'MKt- .^:><^^.^4'» l&l»^^
aitjadc & aJt sill 4
-t*
c«llec! for trial t aaclt plalatlffa f«.illB« to i*ppo:>!r» tb« court
aiealosed it for mjat of prosecution on motioa of d«fettdAat*«
nttomoy*
After osrerrd. toxno had paosodt plmlntlffe by their
attorney on pril 25* I98S* under seetiOB 39 of the Pr»etle« AOtf
Rppoftred and move^ th»t the order of January 17* 1928, diivniniclBe
xhe onaee» te net aside. Aecoapruiylng the isotion w&« a pfttitioUf
svom to by their attorney* Morris K« LPTiReom* in whloh» after
tnaking eertaln alleg'-itiona* he prayed thr.t aaid order of diBmiaeal
be T*oated "beoattee of the error and niapriaion of the elerk of
said Judge Levlo' court**' Cubaetittestly the notion mt.& imtxTd by
Judge lewlst tmd during ths- hearing X>evia8oa« on behalf of pXain»
tiffe» filed an aB(H»ied petition to which defendant filed a rerifled
ple& or aasiffer. On Ua^ 26, 192a, the court (Judge X^wie) entered
a dr if t order in «hioh are rceitale th&t the uotioa was considered
upon plaintiff 8< ajB^nded petition, def eadioit' e anuwer thereto and
arguaentis Of eouBsell th«u it appe^Ts tkrt "this cause mn& r<^gttl&rly
HSdxgnec: on the priateti calender of this eourt to Judge £• L«
KoKinleyi'' and thst ^through en orzor*' the eauss "vsie plaeed on the
eall of th« «ndcrsl£^ed on Jnnu^vry 17, 1S2&, and <!iieMiseed for irant
of prosecution." nd the ooart ordered ttet "^soiid or^er of Jamuiry
17, 1929, dlfmiesias e«ild e««uee for s&JKt of proeceution be raoated
and eet t^eide and this cause is herelgr reassigned to 3\ufg9 M* I.,
HotOnley for trial."
FroB thia order, set^.lag; aside the disaissal order of
January 17, 1928» the pieecnt appeal is prosecutet'* In the bill
of exce^itiMis it is stated that* en the hearing of the notion,
nhile Judge Lenls eonaidered the allegntlMis contained in the asMndod
petition and la defendant* s answer theretot "no eTldeB«« was hoard
by the oourt,"
■«»lt*
•ai^;e«
k':%«iliili«#i.<^' «IM.
■tiSir.,i^|MlM!«J:,-.»t#:" ■
h'(^m^m i»J^0*& m^^l ^'^^
tf^.t.ipri ?t ■«. j^s^ig:, :_. iV:- KjflS^'' ^»ti
^■si
1« plalatlffB* aaoMed p«tlttoa, reriflttd by LavlnBon,
it is alleged tbat »]&«« tlw eaaa« nas ooanaiioed on July 37» 1927,
it *va» rcgoXarly ftsslgavd" t» Judge M. ^, KcKiaXey (aaotker jud«»
tf the -uperlor Mart) «ad appears o& the prlntec o^leadar of tha
elork af the court "aa CaJtaad&r Ifo* 9, Jud^a MciUalajt aa £:o. 773
thereof I" that oa OckoWar 7, 1927 "afflaat proetired tha fllaa hsrelii
from the olerk for tha purj^aa of eattsrlng d<£f andaat* « default |"
%hat "tteroaa the top of r.he flla wxAppar the clerk had plaead an
ink aotf&tlom* Tia»*Jlo*7»* aad affiant took th« files to Judgo Lawia*
«ho thRS and there iia« ealling o&leednr Ho» 7f sud afri&at pamt^tod
aaid order of default to ha entered »" whieh «:^@ thereetfter raented
en defendant* 8 motloni thui "it wau Mro.u>sh, af f Ifutt* ■» , err<|£ in failiac
to chaok up said printed calendar Bo* 9 with tha s'&ld Irik nark
not-'^tion oa ti^e file wrapper* which r«^ *$o* 7»* that iBdtto<i^
affiant to hare aaid df^faitlt oraar entered hot ore Judg^.- Lts^ia***
Tha petition than @«ta forth i ulo 2 of th« ^itttperior eonrt* wMoh
in part proTid«e th'vt 6ha olerk of tha eourt *'^ill» at tha olooa
•f eaoh dta/*a buainoest distribute in rotAti^i aaon^ the Judgeo*
who haTe eoouaan lavs oklandara* the cessaon law oaasaa bei^ua on suoh
day I * * and will place upon the wrapper of e@,(sh o« ee the tauxabar
eorreepondias to che ^uAgB to whan th€ sf^ms i» a£i<ign«d** It la
further allagod in the petition that in prll, 1923, *a« InYestlgatioa
wae made by affiant, who found that tha ease* though _»aMa_er|;o£» wn»
diasdt&ed b.^ Jud«f^ Lewia on January 17* 1928s** and that "tho oaso
waa* through •tx&r, placed upon the oall nt Judge X«owia awl J^
▼iolsition of the ruloa of the oourt.**
In e«rfenc2a«t;*a pies fat anawer» verified ^ his attaraoy*
siaer M* L«eemui» it ia alleged that "it la not t^he f&ct th»t the
oauao w&s aseiiined to Juago Lewis throu{^ any error or misprieioa
of the olerkt * * •r thnt aaid nuaber *7' appeared aoroaa tha top
^mmk^^ x^ uiU%m «4Bl*#*#iNt *e*iW»a» »«iittiia«f« t&
rti-.
--» •^«'
^fjlii^--..'
< •■/ Ai..., V
IMS'" f*''***?^ ?<-i
•:,;;, ff ->
,r.*
.•'-,:■
;<>c
%Xi..i
■iA-
-4-
of th« file «rapp«r by uiy errcKr or mlaprliijloa of the clerk > tout
this defenduat nv«r« tlmt r li nuaibar *7* w&b wrlttan th«raon by
the elark at the ti»« th« suit was s^artftc! «m July 27* 1927* and
in aocordane* with lul* 2 of thl» otfurk*" ttmt settlag forth
Btdd Hultt Z and also -Knla ^4 of the oourt* which proTldot la part
that "printed trial cal«ndara vlll ba awAe up f»r the 'iapteoadKir tent
eatth yar* lacludlacf all pendlag oatt«es»* It 1« further alleged
that "oald enaee wrs later asBlgaed to J«idg« MeKialey la aoeordane*
« 1th Rule 241* th»t mi ootober 7« 19£7» whea d« fend nut* is default
for «ant of en appe^'raaee wi\a «nterc(i by <rudge Lewie • oald Levlaswit
as plaintiffe* Dttoraey» iroluatnrlXy took th« flloe to Judge Lewie*
court and applied for B«xld dnfattltf thatt whea on wotobor 2S« 19a7»
Jiulge Lewie «et aelde the df^fault oa defendnat's motloa* Lerlnoon
wae present ftM requeeted that tho oau»« be ^et down on Jtidge Lewis*
trial ealead'tr for a day oertala» but that the Judge refue^c to do
ihla and told the attoraoyo* Including levlnsoa* that he 'would place
it "on his trial call to be reached la Its refcul-Ar turai" and that
thereafter defoadaat*s attorney* or hie nssletaats* watched I'roa dagr
to day the progroeo of Judge Lewie* caleadar aad* after tho eamae had
appeared for oereral days on the trial call* It fianlly w»8 re chad
for trial* and* on motloa of oae of the aoBlstaJXts of dt!>f@ad»Bt*e
sttoraey, neither plaintiffs aor their &ttoraey haTlag appenred» It
was disalesed by Judge Lewis for «rr,nt of prooeeutlon*
fter ooaslderlag what Is eentaiaed la tho preseat traasorlpt
we are elearly of the opinion that the oottrt*s order of ^ay 26* 1928t
appealed froa* wherein the order of Jsjm&xy 17» 1928 (diamisttlag tho
eaase for wnat of proseoutlea) was Yaoated aad sot aside* Is erroneous
aad allot be reTorsod*
la the rftceat oeoe of JaioCorcl ▼. Brlpco it TurlTas* SM9
111* vpp* S16* the flrot dlTlsioa of thlo appellate oetirtt after
rerlo^lag aaay decloloas of the Supreaio eourt of this wtate» salA
♦'WS-X •3-^ ■■■■'■■■:■<'■ -» ?!&*? ^#r^ $;U;. '^^ ■*!!(*„ ,,iliMMU'. ■
-6-
(p* 530)1 *'^9 t^nk thlf« reylew of i>ia(.ta9rltlce cilecl*e«B tluit
error* TrUlch oaa be oorreotoii by motion imtier oeetion H^ axe only
bui:h f.rTors aS fact ks g& to th£ oapcity of Uao pr'.rtJwy or Mie*
prlsion ef the oXerk of thie court Akicl^ lo not contrail i«t tho
rGcerd mnA which If kro»n tc the court uould hare prewtxivd tho entry
of the Jnagstcnt." e fail lu flail! in tJ^ preseikt e&si « euoh aa
error of f»ct» ox %cy nispriclOR ol <&»;»' clerk of tho ecurt* «•
varr>int«d th« ooujct'e ^xd<ix afp»&lA4. fvaaso In pl&iatifr's potitioM
it is eharfod th^tt "Iha ciiso «a;»» thv^gk (irror* plaoed upon tha
call of Judge Lewlo and ||>, ,▼ i o^ft t ion , ,<>/,_,> jog,., rwle js of . tfefe coprt»*
i^.Ton if tlUs be ao« it tme eoTeral tlatta boen d eolded t^i; t a Tiolatioa
of a. rule of court ie not ^uoix an error of ftuct as way be ronedled
uad<*r ocetlon 59 of the ?r&ctie« ct» but is an err^f of la«;«
(tic :ulty Y. hit ft > 248 111* A^p, 572, 578j Logw ir. Ivrattojje, a20
111* ZAAt 249 •) Fttrthenaore, it appeare. in tha present onee that
on October k'b, 1927> (when defeaditJit' s «i«f«4,ult, voluntfirily pro-
cured by plaintiffo* attorney, >»%a 99t aside) plalntlffe* utlQtn&y
VAo glYen notice by the ootirt th>.t the et^se soon would api^e/'ir fear
triel on Judge Lcuvis* trial call» xmd th-it hf* faile< to w&toh the
progress of that Judge* « oaleitdr'^r and wan not present when the o&s«
finally «ae re^^chod for trisil and the dismissal order »30 entered
on January 17 1 l^^iS< It hae frequently be<m decided that eection 89
of the j^'ractiee ^-jot ia not Inti^aaad t;) r£ll«Ye a p^^rt^ tram the
eonoequenoea of hia e«» negligenee or th.rf.t of hla ^'.ttomay• (l£cg)ilty
▼• 1>lto. 24» 111. j>p, ftra, 577 > Jaoobeoo v. Aahkin>«o> 2«9 Ill#
App, 479, 484r Crataer ▼* Corf&ityoiia Mjta^g Aao»a, 26u m^ 516, 521|
Lotw T> Kraueiae, 320 Txi. 244, 2S0«)
For therdA»,ma in;;id^i^tc>d the ords^r of Usy iSe, 19:^8,
settlag aside the disaiaeal order of J»jiuary 17, 1928, ie reTerced#
^-eaalaa and Bftraes, jrj., eeneur*
.r
, •, »a»
^*'' ^:M*» iiitl^^ *«ilM^' ■©?!:%;• '
'W :iiiiWte ^Mc^' . : ^m&m^ lit ' it' ' ''Himr. « -
' 'M «,ltJ5 ''tliiR ,0.-. -^ y;*3£
35076
App«l^aat
JOcSiPH JBRLTCpj, Jr.,
A£^^ ySOK CIRCUI'f COURT,
^*^ / COOK COUSTY. ^
MR* P«r:CIi;IHS JUBfICK OXllULSY l^SLIV^SKiSiJ fHS OPIiCaCBi OF THi; COOH?,
ds l»«o«ad»«r 31 • 1917, the pairiiesi, both rttBldntnts of
Oftk Park, Illinois, uaicred into a writioa agr«en»at to fora «
partnership for the purpose of cea(!uotlng a g«BAral real «?8tat«
business In Oak ii^ark, «hieh businesa vsis eofiduoted until JAmMsjr
23, 1920. On Jojitt'Asy 17 » 1923, ■ ehults filed an assnde^ ^111
•calaot Brie tow for aa aocountia^, ete* fter aaower fllod the
cause «r>8 reforred to a Buieter la ohaxioery to teke proofs and
r sport his ooaclueiona of law ami fact* Much evideaoa, oral and
<lO0iaaentary, ws^e latroduuec before the mixi'^ter* In hie final
report, flleU J'ebruary sa, lb«>?, after aaklng asny f Inclines aad
Bitting the account, he reported that iohalte was tadehtod to
Bristow in the aet «uai of ^'1329»93, »nd reetBamended t:fcb»t a decree
bo eBterer; aecordingly* To the report, »b originally drafted,
both p&rties filed objections* iOMe ^»«re siistaiaed and the original
dr-3Lft of the report changed accoruiagly, and all other ebjectioaa
were OTcrrul^d, vhieh, sttbaaviuently, were ordered to staad aa
excf>ptions before the court* JPter a ha- riae upon the exceptioae
the court, on June 2S, 1929, eatered the dcoree la queetiea* After
finding that the parties were eatitled to hare aa accountiag aad
th^t a fttll and eoaplete accounting had been had* the eourt adjudgod
C_- ■ " ■ - ^
!#«!,*; 1
'\
-2«
ihrxt All axeeptiona %o tJto atuiter'a r«]N>rt 1»t crv«]»rul«4» fcbnfc it 1»«
approT«d and conf Ixnad in all ro»p«ota «a4 tiis% Srlatov r«Q«v«r froa
B«teiXta the am of ^13:29 <93* TIm cxmrt alvo atSJudgaii irhttt nMotuita
of the ehr^rgtta of tha jaautar cuewS tita court r«»port«r should ba paid
by tlta rnapoctlva 9&rti««i* ^roiii this d«!or«« chulta 2ma »p>«al«il»
aai^igrnlAg fifta«a ayr«rs« Br^t^t^m Ha:^ ns^slgaec croeifQrroYa to tha
cffeot (a) th;at tluD value of oarifoin iniiuztaioe ronowal^ should liaT*
been eh«^rg«<5 ag.-^last ^chult^^ nnC (b) t.!3».b %h» v^aue of &h« ^ood will
of tha buoiaesv, vhich : ehult« Tftt'^^iiiod t>.ft«r the ps^x-tntrahip ended*
should be ncootmted fee*
In the agroeweat it »».« proTidefS i^^^f,^ ei^HM tltet tl» partie;
should beco»e pyrtnerSf unc!«S" th* ORjaw of rojjui.tt* & :fi(ri&t0<n» la the
bueiaess of teal estnte, loimot iiteur^ae^!* "bui^^ing tyrid 'v^rlling of
propertiesf renting p,»3 m:.tK\izing of prcrperties* <jtc*f that the baelaeei
(Should b* of>rrift<3 on la Oak Iftrk in tht ofcor*; tltoretofore occupied by
^ehttlte) that the ]>»rtaershi|> wue to ctsn^e&ee cm wanuar;^' Z, 1918 1
tind to contlau« for three ytarsi ttet Brifcit««B !m«; «^otttrtbttt*'if In Ilea
of ©R»h the r<.j»pllRRee» R»d etiUliasstafe of Me ©fflce on &--rii*.on street »
O&k: Ps^xkf together i!;lth the good ^111 t>f hl«» bi^f?iBeaa« freviottsly
aBalntftlaed us(Si;r the naae of Joe«>]^li 3ri£to« ^ Co.* tuo/ii. th&t ^>eh&ilte
h&d contrlbut<>td the lof s «« of ld.B ertid etore* M0 oflice ^ppliaaoeo
t^nd e<<ulpm@nt« and the good «111 of hie bueiaeecf all Of v;hich 'sm.*
eetia&ted by the yertiee "At the like nvm of t2tOCK)|* thnt the eepital
eo foraed v«s to be aeed for the support tuM awtn^gemaat of the a««
buelneeei t&jnt nt ell tiaee enok patty eheulc glTO nie fttteadeaee end
aee hie beat eadeavore to adT&ace the bijiBiness) tk; t sJUL oYorheed
an-£L laaniajs exptaaee (oth«x bhatt the xeat* lluhtiag sad he&tiatf af
the store or ofi'ioe to be paid by ohalte* iae^lTldually) ^should bo
borae equiilly by the p^rtieei th^ t nJll galaa fm& pr of ita should be
divided etublly aad all lossea bora:^ es.U)^lly| that fall and correet
M* •■■«*: '♦■^4^;«*'«E , .. .. >:r V*P»«^JH:,»g: «sr'-
-3-
hooks of account should Its kopt» to whlek osoh y^rty should haTO
accsoai thmt oaeo o joar^ ob :«oai1>sr 3lst» or of toner if n«c«SBar7»
an aeoountlns sliottld bo had and a settlonent boturoen the F'.rtiae
■add (uo6 th- t ;it ths end of tho Agrostf poriod of throo jef.ro $ or
sooner d«temin?.tlon of the partnerohipt there should ho a final
ixecounting and settloMont*
In his report the master found thr-t prior to tho signing
of the agreenont . oimlto «a.e the oirner of e nunJfter of &p»rtmont
buil.'insst frea ivhlch ho eellected rentot «>ad »ae also the owner of
much unistproYod real estate vhioh he pl"oed on the narket fren tiao
to tiawi tMt» prior to Jfomary 1> 191^i» ho ht&d sold smx^ pleoos of
propertyt on contr&eto on which monthly pegnsonts wore to he nade hy
the purohasero* and th^t hie Biont.hly receipts theref resit and fron
rents r£e«>iYed fron other property enme^ hy hia or hy clients fvr
•vhoai he ficttt^ ne collecting agent » anountec to a largo aggregate sumf
that the pi^rtnerohip husineas did not Actually co»;>enee until ahottt
irohroi^ry l* 1913 1 that about 7«brurizy 2, 19XSt ehialte left for
'California nad wxn niray fron Qak Park t9t ahout t%e montha during
ohieh tine dristow had exeluoire charge of the business awl kept the
books I th'^t before ebulto left he agreed to allow Brisitow «« salary
of :i2S a B(mtht that : ohttlto did not lialt the tiae durin^T whioh
this naount should be allowed to Bristovt thf^;t in the accounta^nta'
report* hereinafter mentioned* Bristow ia ch<srged back «ith 1 125 a
aonth frea January 1$ 1()19» up to l>eceaa>ar 31* 1919* whieh had boot
credited hia on the pnrtnership books ae a sularyt that ohulte* during
tho existence of the partnership* aleowae absent on his ovn bueinoso
frea J^^ausry 1* to Kay 23* r»^lb« and aleo during the months of July
»a& tt^ust* 1919* during vhieh tiaee Srietow alone conducted tho
businesei thnt during the entire exlateneo of tho p rtaership Brletofv
»$*•>
■^*'^'«*M iib»i« ^«**' ^** *^^^^ ^^^
■ . . ■ .. iL«ii»tr« atf Untie i""*"** ••*'
VfQf^wt^^
-4-
k«pt i)i« booka sad wna mmAe rasponsibl* for tbt proper handling of
all raoalpta «nd <liebur8«t«i«atB| thrt froM th« ooaMiiomaiit of Uia
btiaiBces (Februsbrjr 1* 1918) -elailta permitted all hla pera(m«a In*
oen* (fron raata* pftjaants on ooatraeia* at**) to be collvctad by
tha partn'?rahlp and put Inte Its funds and duly credited on Ita
booka to iiimt tlmt Hriatov had bo sueh peraoaal Inoone aeceuatt that
at the close of the buelneae for the flrat year» on leoember 31 » miO»
there vaa an accounting and aeti^lesent betvaen the parties and proper
balanoea onrrl'd forward on the booka at tho oonnienceaaent of the year,
1919| thr'it the buelnetsv continued all through thf t year* and up to
Jaattotry 25* 1920, when :>«hiilt« atated to Briatew thf<^t bee?.ane of
certain rotiona by Brlstow ho ( -ehulte) hKid decided to declare the
pArtnerehlp at an ond| that at the tlae of the beginning of the par^*
fterahlp JSrleto» v^e Instructed by ehuXto ae to the aanner the latter
dealred the booka to be kept and thcee lastrttctlonB wtr* follower |
thtt durlnfr the 7»rt, 1919, both parties handled Bonejss received a d
both »de diaburaementa In Cf^eh or by cheokl thsit shortly after tho
partserahlp wast ondod the parties nd their !>ittoii»eye had aereral
conferences leoklnj; to a final eettlenenti th t ovlag to the particular
ayaten or OBanner of ke(?plng the books It vm^ Isqposalbla to detemlao
therefrsat which of the partners o«ed »oney to the otheri thnt by
agreeaent a flrat of accountants w&a onc^ged to xtake an audit of the
booka and the i«ark subsequontly was dcme by one ''allaoe ^ olan} that
acoordlng to the accountants* report there wr?^e due and owing froa
Brlstow to the fim the Bum of $1378 •79, »nd th^^t eald flm owed
chulte the stas of ill38S.54| that both parties objected to tho report*
clo.lalag that It was Incorrect In nany p^irtleula s» and shortly
thereafter ohulto ooaui.eaeod tho j^esent i»ctlent and th-^t upon one
|ii.^J^ ICJi^fv).,'
of the h«iring0 b«fore the iaast^r tbc p^rtlcc a|pr«e<i that %h»
aecountaata* report* covuriBig the p«rl«cL froa vHJWAzar 1> I^IW* to
Jamiarj 23, 1920, uiglit to« reoeived in erideaao, not a« bind lag
upon elthsr pttrtf, but for the purpose of foraiag a baitls for aa
ftccouatlB^, end eubjcot to be ohaaged end moc Ifleer ne ehovn by eTld*>ne««
KroB the a&BS of oTltittneet oral and dooiaaentary* introduced
»% the heirla^s* the asster further fotme that th: t iwrtioa of tho
eocountantB* report (wherein It «^s elkted th&t there vae o^iai; froa
xrletov to the firm the saa of Iiri78«79, ami th^t the flra owed
Sehttlte the etae of $13ftS*S4} wae not 8tt8>taia«d by the preponderoaoa
of the eridrReei th t ecrt^in err ere ver& ooaaltted by the aocoti^itante
In not giving crmilt to Brl(tto« for eight ea«uerated Itcas, aggregating
;^2,eB1.60| th&t there *(\» mora thaa I.139£*&4 dn« f rent thM first to
!^ehalte, tIs, 967 tS? aere, making inn afg:regat« stoi of |S,32r^«9S
due to oholtet but thatt* ao against this ag^^regate sw£» ohulte
should properly be ch»rg«d with nine enuaer&ted ite^e, ftg^egatlag
V 2,686 •40* The aviator then etatee the ^^ccount In full between the
partlee *a« shown by all the Avideaeo stnd doouaents In the erase*'*
thle oorere three pagee of the abetrAct* JRd the foRnt^r then cwi-
cludes hie findings by sayiagt
"I, theriifore, find th^tt the complainant* ohultot
is Indebted .o the coj^Aftntsrsuip Xti (,h^ sua ei il7«W*04,
out of which sua Brls»tow la first to recelre the sun of
192^*33, being ersdit balanoe due ula, and i^he 6\m of
$ai4*.U (beiag the cifferenoe between ^1,737*04 and
^922 siS) should bo divided 8;iU?Hy between the parties*
la other words, ths eoxaplainant, 'Ohulte, is Indebted to
the defondaat, Bristonr, la th» sua of il329«93«''
After A oarefal review of the a£'.st«r*s report* the lengthy
briefs of oppoalag oouasel and auch of the orlct^nee as eontnlned In
the printed abstracts* we &Te of the epinlen that the dbaneeller did
not err in oonfiralng the a<i,i)ter' s report aad In eaterlag the de«r«e
appoalad fr«Bi* The ease InvolTss aaay <iuestioas of fast, as to «hieh
there was eooflletlag swldeaee. The stutlag of the account under the
. _ ^Q mm. m^. !S»X''
*■ .^f '!?»<' (».V'
:<:» i«w« •w'.i **^Sigti^&
<^$m9 amy
«i)a^E.(:j3io[]iStoo ?5
.>«.;;■■■ I .i'^ ■t^ »^i««?^
S«i#'MI.'t«KV3 ft.fl» sitae' ■
.6»
conflicting cvidea** v«« « diffioialt task* and v« are i^pr««M4
wltb the e«rt aati »tt«ntidn givsn by tli» nas^er to the vork and to
tho erldeaoo* «• think th^t liy tho dceroo eubataatial Juetieo has
been don« between the parties*
Oao of tho iteaa io the aocoimt whieh Wf>«t ollo^ed to
Brietov by the soaeter end confirmed by the court ^-k- thr. t of
$1995 •S2t •> ▼!•• n salary to JSristov from January It I91W, at the
rate of tl2S a month« The ^95*52 of this iteia is the proportionate
anooat of eueh salary for the portion of the month of Janur^ry* 1920»
that the i>artBerBhlp resiained in oxiatenoe* It Ir etrtmuously con*
tended by oonplaiaKat* s counsel that the sllowonce of this item was
erroneous. ^^o do not think so* It appears fron the prep ^ndartsaoo
of >^he cTid«»ae« th^t it we ajaproed by both p»^rtieB th t Brietow*9
aocottnt should bo erodited a&onthly with sueh a sal^xyt an<2 unde^r tta«
f^>.ots and cireusistanoos ia eviddaoe it was proper th^it ho should
receirc sueh a a&lary* >'ttrthera0r&t sueh a salsiiry was pai^> to hin
duriag the ytux 191d«
It ia also coatexided thrt the court* foliQ'«in£ the aaaster*
erred, (a) in allowing to the partnership a five per oeat oowsiseioa
for collecting rentals on a large apartment building* owned by oon-
plainant in the ye^^r 1^^19« and \»hich ooastio^iion wee paid to the
partnership by one ohoneberger in 1913 » when h« was the owner of the
buildinci (b) in oreciiting to the partnership certain profits (rather
than only eoamieelons) aade on anlea of certain preporties aade threugli
the efforts of the nentoers of tho fira but «hioh properties etood
in complainant's name before said salest (e) ia eredltiag to tho
partnership eoamissioBSt at the rate of 5 per cent on salee of
proportioB owaea by eomplainant in violation of a T«»rbal agre@Kentt
aa elalmed by oo^plaiaaatt tht^t said caauais^doa ch; rge should be only
a-l/a per oeat I (d) in not allowing a cr«<5it on caKpl&iaaat*s account
lOgSJE ^tt-^^W**^ %lp-'0mm ## .|» ll«4-3J«»«^ »!«#■■■«#* llStati^ ltt»»» ».- :v«w^«a«
ue^J^ftt) vit^m^i .Ji-^iv^s •;i:«;-:.'5<.xa-.'
■■•'^i ** am*'**--- ■ -- -' , •■• •
'■i-fe
"fiW&v# u "1-1
«^'Alj«Ji»&«-V [^''.?£;^.-^^l.'IS^9 lil^i if^^'^i^ A '^i^«ii'.-^ii' !!^Ua ^i'
with the partaership f^r his txp«iin«t on trips Bn.de toy hlK t«
Florida aaU M«ai«aut| {•) in not all ovine oartain oth«r oreriita
to oonplniniuit as oliilnod toy hist (f } in ehrirglng ooffiplalnaat
on his aooount with th« partnership for aortain nmsys vhioh h« had
ooll«oted, tot^longine *;« it* and iihich* S9 he cli9l&t»» h« h<s,6 proriously
turned in tout i»aB not giTsa «r«<Sit th^rofor on tb» books | (s) in
jv^akUig osrtaia other srroaoous oh^r rgoe fin ei«!;,inrt ooaiplaljcuiat on his
aoceuat vith tho ]^rtn«r»hip| and (h) in not ohorging Brisiaw^s
aosoimt with eertAin indetotednoscoo ovtod toy hia to tho partnership.
^0 haro coBsieierec thes's oontentloos and ero of th« opinion th t all
aro lacking in ffutost&ntial avrit*
/lad we i9 net think ther« is nny aerit In either of the
tT© eTO«v>-«rrora aerignflnJ toy BristoiSf sstooy?^ montloned*
7or the r« aono indie«t«»d the d^oroe of the eireuit ooartf
appealed fronif should toe «ffir«i«d» and it io so ordered*
Soaalan sad B«raeei JJ*» coneur*
^^'m^-''%'if^^ ^^ **% lliillftlsltiii:
£^ M Mm» ^'^mm t^Hm W'S* ^s' .--fswii©** &in m
■'■»ia8«»«^ii!f « *'U. ,**-«««,*« masi fiitaXitB*-
59085
V*
AL mOB MSVICIPAL
A. 6
MR. PR;.i;lUIira JUSTICE ORIULST DSUVEHED THK OPIFIOH 0? THE CCflBlT.
Zb Kxirehf 1926 • plftlntiff » «B«ae«d in buBlnesei ae an
uiu} or taker* •ue<i defendant to rteorar a balaBC* of |686«40«
claiaed to t)« du* for dlBburaeaiosta suute and oorTloes resdored
in uguot* 1925» la c«meetion with the fua«r«l and burial of
A«ia Korejtt daughter of defcndaat and wlfo of llllam Forejt*
Plaintiff* s total bill amoumted to ^117S«40t <m %hleh when rendered
ho had aXlowod a oredlt of ^92, and on whloh In Bor^mber* 1925* ho
»aa paid 1400 hy Wllllan For<^jt» ;^t the tl«« the l&tter reoelTod
■aid last oontloned bub from an Insurance aoolety of vhloh the
deooaood In her llfetino had been a somber* flalntlff alXoged In
hla statenent of claln that defendant pronlaed to pay tcx aaid dlo-
bureeaente and eerrleos* i^efendssxt, in his -ffldEivlt of merits*
denied th^t he w^d Indebted to plaintiff In any eun* and alleged that
he did not engage plaintiff's oervloee* or order the dlebttroonento
«hloh were nade* but tb»t Ms 3im-ln~laTr* Forojt* did* and that
Vorejt* only* vas liable therefor* On a trlaa without a Jury*
had in Kay* 1928* at whloh plaintiff vae his only witneoo end
defend-m^ and eereral vitnessos for hia testified* the eourt found
the isouos against plaintiff and ontored judgaont againot hia f«r
r-;
■r
moe.&
s M if-^ V
A.- ^.^<. %.3 V-
Al«KalJf«N?qA
^|tfin,!,.,«^j.' ■^J^,;A; *■*.?:■*** ^':^ ■^^i^T^^¥^-'--\. ,'i''^:>!~«^ ^^ M
■ife;
lt«^OM:
?3C»^«?4lW!M
>.a
Is^wsmv^''- - i ^, »:i»iimMmm i-Xiw !,«*** f^^-Tsi
^t)ii$ ,m». fiii^ :,^§%^i0^r»'m&mi,^m:ii 4M. iNitSi !ii^ t»i*ism «'%»« /i{»l.,'£'if
:;:«. .•;;i^,'f *!3l»*as^ *8j«ai®fe»i. fiBTSBa^^ Si»» K'tii!»«»t;«l«r .#«irat»3n» *(#tf^^'' ^ "*-^^*
-2-
•oats* ThiB appukl follaved*
Plaintiff* s main eontentiua la tint the finding maA Judg-
■tnt mx0 agftin»t th« manifffst weight of the OTldenoo. • onsnot
Agr«« with th« uontentlon* It vae shawn hy a prcpenderixtto* of
the teetiaony that ;?Ielntiff rendered the s&nrloea Mod Bade tlM
dlslmreeaients under orders from Forejt* and that plaintiff recog-
nized him and not dafendEuett as the debtor* defendant did not sign
anjr writing or autMarimdiai to the effoet that ho would ho reepoaeiblo
for &hy dieburseannto aade or aerrieee rendered by plaintiff*
Tho J|ud0kont ehouXd bo aff ixnwd and it la »o ordered*
£^oanlan end Brtmoo* tfJ** eonour*
Ki* 4>'
^iSi,
'.^*S^ :S;jlS.
^^. 4i«i #'|g)»S!i«»l5** *««» Ms! «I:j£C toeiit
^ :«s«X"! .5 ?a»-, JR^tljS.tt*.'
"-d^^^:?). ?^'W
S310e - 3310T
▼ •
TROY AKI a
a oorpor'xflMit
pp«lluit •
!• H* ldfli|tCHAKL»
Appall M t
-ppallant •
yHOM K0HICI1>AL COBRt
OS- CHIC 00.
25
r
MR. rHE^XIrHa JUr/flCi; (JKIi'LKY JJKLIVSRfa* THE CPXSIOK OT Sm: COURT.
<;n July 25 » 1927, the r«spsctlT« plaintiff a oommmtimd
8e.)arate first claae aotlene ia coatraot in th». Manielp«l court
of Chicf'^ifo ag^^iaat Troy ami Coopany* a oorporAtion* L« .7* Troy
and HiohaX !i. Morris* Keicham*? olftim wnffi $3429 and i^cMichael*a
,3600. By a ti pull' t ion the eaoas vore tried together before th«
court without a Jury in Jun«v V^^Bt ]Ne@r the oloae of the trinl*
on plnlntiffs* mot.ians» 6ach action v^e discontinued %» to the
inclTi&ual OcfendantBf Troy and Morrio, o'^eh plaintiff filoci an
aoienfiled aiateaant of claia* and the trial proceed«d as to th« re*
■wttlnlna: defoadf^-ntt Troy nnti Co. Oa June 15« 1928i the oourt asado
••para to findinge of the iaftueo aeaiact said dofeml'.ntt and assessed
AetcheB*e driBuiges »t ?3315, and MeSiiehael* s at <)52&9>S2» Judgnents
were entered upon the find Inge and eepsrste appeals were taken and
here coneolidnted for he-^rlag.
In Ketchem* a suaended statement of elaiai he «»lXesed that
on or alioai Fehruary It 1927* he entered into "aa arraac«Mat* witk
X
T^
r. .r \v ^ '^r>u.r
'ii^lSii
:'5
V
«^M^^'
i <46i'.X'3y-.ri^- V
it
...-^llf^ fj^v
l$g$0 •iffltwd*-
.2.
dtfvndAat «her9by b« vhb to glT« hie tlK« and ettentlen la d»lag
promotional work la loontlng ami proouriag option* on puolle utility
and olectrle light planto la %h» ut&tt of doorglat tliat he was to
be paid hi* traTclllag and hetol expoaaoa* oto*! thai ha did th«
work and dlaburaed for aald expenaos daring th« porlod fron February
1 to Juno 30 » 1927 • %i» mm of HllKti that ho received 1700 froM
defendant o« iteeountt and th^^t the not balanee duo ie ^3426» The
alleg«itlonB of MoMlohael* a aannd<»<3 stateBient of Ql».la are to the
aaae effect except as to amounts*
In def6nd:^nt*e aaended affldaTlt of nerlts to Ketohaa'a
•tnteaoat It denied thnt :^t any time It entered Into any arrango-
aent or asreeonn'^ %0 alleged* or thnt Ketehoa Inourred the amount
of oxpenoea ns elftlaed« or th^^t defead^iAt le Indebted to lilm In any
stall uUeged th^t euoh arrctagenieat ae «a» entere<^ late was nado on
•r is^bout April Qt 1927» betveoa defendimt «ad "iCetehea and one «
H* lioMlehael iolatlyi* further nlle«ed that Ketohoa sS^ McMlohael*
and defendant » **vor« to oh!<)rg« their retieonablo expcneeit agr^lnot &
new operating owapfmy to be organised la vftileh Eetehmi attd SloMlehael
treuld haTO 51 per ot^nt of the ateek and defend Bt 49 p«r o^at under
certain oireuaetaneea which did not naterlaliaer without fsult on
the part of defendAntt** and further alleged th t eueh payaenta ae
were BKide by defendant were "adTaneee** nade to i^etohea and tfellioh&el
*a0 ten^orary loans** to be Rccoonted for by thea in the vdjuatnent
to be aacie when the utllltiee were procurer! bsA the new ooapMOOr
foraed* Pefendont'e ajiended affidavit of merits to MoMlohael'^s
atateaent la 8Ub8tRntl«0Lly the sasie*
Oa the trial Ketchea ^lad KolULohael testified and oertala
letters 9 telegrsLnst aceounte and other wrltinge were introduoed*
On defendant's behaXf L* J« Trey* ite preeldent* testified* as did
c
«a«
^ i^l^l^ l^i»«l9^'^ji:;^- MjIWKQtKao 1C %lMm is^^- < > ass? to9l:»i'« %Stsi
■**^^-'~'""
-3-
rtlohard '■• Morris* Its 8«crctr<r/ and trensmrsr* lllia« <)• Tuarrsll*
its liockkS€|»«r» sad rrimk Bl«ok» an attorasy. Psfswl&at aiss
introduced o«rt<!3^lB letters* telofsxr'jcs snd writln^ir**
Thv corpora t ion* Troy and Compemy, was •nggigtid la tte
InvestiKsat b&nklag buelneB» vith prlnoiiHa of floe in Oliio<-<go* h» J*
troy first net KetrlunB in *!oT«Bber» X929» at ^aXtoa* iC«stuoIqr» wlum
Troy purolL^sod ab olsotrical plant In which iCetoh«n wa» iaterestod*
In ]&%roh» 1924* i&t snothsr neetia^, Troy BUgs«&tee th^^t K«teh«B find
in tho south sXcetrienl plants thnt could bt purote^sed* sad thtsit*
if tho prop«rti9s proTSd e.: tisfactory* skrransea&ats profits^hlo to
both xkisht bo oado. In th« fall of 1926 » ^etohesi »et MeMieh&«I sad
was inforsMd thi!^t th«r« wore a Dunibor of sueh pliiats ia the 'tato of
Ooorgiftf sad thereof tor both iaspectod soon plant s» Serly in Jsaoory
Kotehoa sot Troy in defendant* o Chlongo office* tkXiAt aecordiag to
K«tohoB*s testimony* after Troy v; %e inf orator ?!» to the plants Tiaitod)
Troy said thir»t *if you notr have «tnouish aoaoy to .fiasnoc your,i|c;i>jr,08»
until you buy a plant la eac to«a or leako a alniaua of 1100*000* that
is laJLl tho iBoaoy you will aooii**" &ad furthor s&id that "vo (dofondnnt]
will rofund all oMmoy oxpoadod by you durins the proaecicHSsl work*
and* ia sdditioa* will give you a istook latoroat la th@ coKpjKny to
be formod* and ^hethor it is 49 p&r cent or 91 per oeat is isosaterial
to us*" Troy*s Torsioa of the interriew* &b dii&elosod fron his
tobtimony* is ia subotanoe th;«.t thoro w»s talk about the forsuation
of a omipKuy to talcs owor aad oaukgo suoh plants aa ai^ht bo pur-
ehasod* as to defeadsat fumishiag tho aonoy lor the neoossnry pay-
aonts and finding piareh&sers for bonds aad sseuritioe to bo aftor>
warde isaood* aad as to wh^it aaouat of stook of the aow covpaagr defoad
»at should haro aad what aswunt Ketehoa aad MoMiohaol should haYo*
hat that aothia^ was oald as to defoad.ttiu'llt. payiag* or agree lag to pay*
iiift
lm»
'ii&9M0'i»riil
•Wl.".
:-!"»#*(.'
,fe«#isl-!? 'iS-t^A-'
4<»tMi^: '»li»«ilili £ijiM^8^llfi$%. mm'm^i^: s:umm^»0Mt k:
the •xprnseo Incurred liy Ketoh«m and UoKlo)arM>l whil* «lica««d la
their praraatlonal work. Trey furtlwr Uetiflcd tlwit »t no tlae*
la aay sid>a«qu«at conTeritAtloaa had with «lth«r Kctchea or l&i[dtlohMl«
did ho eror njpf tlmt tholr oxpenooo Ineurred la prostotlon^^^l work
tfould )>« paid by defendrmt. Oa Ji r«h 12, 1927f dofendMit* bjr
Troy, trroto Stftohen to AtlAata, (rcorgla. In part «a follevo*
*T eplylag to your farer of i£?.roh 10th, oar worklag &^o«anit aao
thnt you w«r#! to secure an option or buyla^ ceatraot oa property,
subjoet to our ap^^roral* * * If wo are to buy propertloa horo»
wo naturally demand ttM oontrollln^ interest* If you, howerer,
take thfi repponslbillty of buying, we tmly to SvObmum t,hi9 fljuutc-ing,
wo are prepared to l«t you retain the control*" <» March 30, Ifg?,
the City of ^4«acheater, Georgia, entered into an agreeneat with
(letolum aad ^o^lolv-kOl, whereby it a8roe<? to eell to then, or their
aeeigaa, free and elear of indebte^neoe , ite eleotric light plant
for ^112, 500, The Rgre€:flM!at wae aubjret to o^rtiain eondUione, tuaong
whieh were th-- 1 Ketohea aad KeMleh^al should within 15 dt^iys deposit
In osorow with a han«d bank $5,000, to apply on th« eontrAuOt price,
and thnt. If such deposit were watie, the Ualaace of Vhc £Htrohfi9«
prloa should be paid <m or before June 3-J, 191^* The $5,:h)0 deposit
was paid about April llth by defeadant, but the l»a.l;iao« of the par-
ohr^o priee n«7er ««a p«i<^ nor the i^jpreeaent consuBioatw^ •
Shortly after the siisaiag of this ajpreoaeat, trty aad
dofaadaat^s attorney, ^Traak Blaek, wtiat to -tleLatr. end nu»t 'fttehea
aad ileUlohael. This w»a the first tiao thut I'roy had ewor soon
EcMicliacl* Troy weat to Maacheeter aad iaepocted the plaat, aad
expressed s^itief etioa as to it* -ithin a dwy or two all a«aia
net la tlanta aad there wee a protmetee oonfereaeo* It woo agprood
that a ioiaware corpor tlon, named Geersia Contral .'leotrlc uo«,
should be organized, whioh %ould take ewf r the title to tbo MAaehe«tor
»tl:s&<$
■?i'
.•lil9<Ji
.<#jj<f».%/
'f (■»«.> >•<«;'
°I i»»a>1
-5-
plant und suoh other plants aa might )i* puxehnaaiSv thrtt KctohMi
nheuld b« prcnldeat and MoMlohb«l &nA Troy Yitt«-preiL>ldsntSf and
that Kiotohoa and lieMlchAol jointly vhould hare 51 par oa-at of tha
•to«k« On prll 8thf £«tchsffl and KoMleliaol alKBad «Rd dcllTorad
to Troy a written jnenor^ndua* aoknovladcing th^^t "Troy and Coaipikigr
aro tho ovnera of 49 per oeat of the oontrnot of Maroh 30th, nado
for tho purchnao of tho olectrle»l propertied! of the vjlty of Maa*
eheator* Oa*, tand that you (Troy & Co>) are to haTO a 49 per cent
iatereat in such other ui^illty propertlea aa wo aay eontract to
purehaaOf prorided you epprore of suoh purehaao*" There vi^a talk
aa to who should pay the trarelllag expenses and other pronotlonal
diehuraeaienta of Ketehea and MoMichael and* according to the te&tlBHmar
of Troy and Blnok, It was t^sr^«6 that these expenses aao dlshurBO-
aM»ata« as well as the d Ishur se»«nt8 muiM and to he aukde hy defendant*
"were to he gotten out of the now eoagpa^r to be fomte^tt*^ and that
"both parties were to he paid their expenses 9ut.,.^,o|' the di^ft^ whwa
It was eoapleted**
On April 15th defead&at* by Xroy» v»70t<$ Xo f^tclti&% and
VteKiehael, informing him th;^t the work of org«ni%iag the new eoapany
wna about oenpleteci* and »nylng» "I am hoping th^t you will fulfill
your promise to me and purehstfte at least |8S0#000 worth of properties
within the next 20 daya*** bout this tiao Ketoheai was negotiatlnff
for tho purohase of ^xnother plant in the eiby of liloBacy Georgia*
On April ^3rd he wired to Troy in parti "ab in eztreao n«9ii of
$1»000» and will greatly appr elate it if you o^n wire mo that
aammt this aoralng as aa adwtaoe on exponaes** Troy, on pril
29tht wired in reply in part) "lie not wiah to adTanoo any ssoney
for expenses until additional propertiea avinilable* * * -hon in
Georsia you aseiured ao that you would elose for sono ether properties
.3-
^ •"' '^^ -ii^' %4» ll»^'^t®lf \E« /silver .^,4#«:«s<Jf , ^•»«^%%, Smi^mm^'. m» :«WM*»#^:< ' '
-6*
vithla a tr^ek*" On pril SOth« th* n»w e«iq^««3r> Georgia Central
hl«etrle Ce«t waa fully ttrcaBlatad and r^nAy to traaoaot \Miaia«as»
•ad on thut day '^tof, froii Chicago* vircd Ketohaa» at Mellao* •f
that faott and that *yott eon now taica contraeta In tha cowpiany**
najBt*** azMi tlvit "vliaii ready to taka ormx prop«rti«« and pay for
•aao you will ba obliged to cone hare and have all laattera nrrangad
here** n Kay 3rd an a^creeaeat whs signed by the city o^ UcHae
aad the Qee^rgla Central j^lectric wo»» "by I • 'J* £eto)ieB» purohaalag
agent t" vharein the oity agreed to sell ita eleetrie light plasty
eto*i to aaid eoapaiiy for llSO»0OOt and the cospaay agr*«d to deposit
in eserow with a named bank within 15 deye the aua of |S»0O0 la jiart
payaent* and further agre^ to pay the bal»noe of tha purehaae prioa
9B or before Auguat Z, 1927* It v&e atipulatad oA the trial that the
$S»000 deposit* was paid out of dofeadaat*a fuoida within the re<itiired
time* but that the balaaos of the ooat3^&ot prise newer ^aet paid aatf
that the mgwmnkt wae eaasellsd*
Shortly after the KfoHas agreeaeat was signed froy aet
Xttchea aad MoMiohael at tlaata aad all weat to MoRae* and tri^
Inspected the plant. lurlag the trip both Ktstohem aad i^cMichael
ssreral ttase aaked thr^t d(?f«iKl'^t or Iroy salts M?a^waentj| to thea
for their promotloaal trawelliag and hotel expsases* but 7roy re*
fused to ooaply with the requests aad a'lid in effect that thigr
anst wait« &«tohea went to ChiOMgo with Tr<^ and* ofi S^ay 14th(
while m def endtitnt* « office* told l£orris» defend^iat's treaeurer*
thftt hs "was pr^ctioally broke*" and at thsit tias Morris* aa a loan
^' sdwaiyKWWat froa defendant* gawe hia defendant's eheek for ifiOO.
Oa Itogr 24th* lfe}^lohael wired Troy la part' *^'suld appreciate as
adwaaes of tSOO repayable when deal is clssedi anted for expsBses
in trawelliag to purehaee ether j^eperties*" I^efeadaat wired the
#900 to KeMiohael at Atlanta on May SBth* aad sn the s aw Aay Troy
■f^ifi^'^'^ ^t^:^'^:: ^x^^^".y^ '*^-^?f ~^^ jrit^'?^ Jtic^^ s?a ■^^■^•av v^ farf:'?!
■'■.a-, iA.'.li - •V--.4,v» .. '/■••:\M' V(.>, .f«i.. »■■' .A,-.:;*-' '»/<• ■■■■■•' '<■• •;•/*.. » '.> ^- A«5 Y,AV
.v.-i.>l}: 'f-- ;•■ ... ..;■■■
»lred him In parii "sir^d ♦SOC to Ro1»«rt yMlton Hot«l, ^tlaata,
ptiirt p«jraent exp«na«s accrued pttrchaslac propartiea 1b (i«er(lat w«
>iaT« large Inrestjieat non In Georgia <^i&hout aeeae of liquidnting
until deal is olooed when full eetbleaent will be Kade." It alee
appears frosi the evidenee that Keteham receired two further advanoe-
nents or leans of t200 eaeh froei defendant during J)ane» 1927. raachea
tewtifled that out of these aaoiats he gave <!200 to UcKichael.
On Juno aSt 1927* Ketohem and MoMieha«l risited defend?utt*8
offioe in Chic go at Trey* e request. ?roy infonned then in effeet
that defendant ^ould net censttaeMte either the Manchester or MeBae
agreesMint* that it would forfeit the twe pnyKents it h&& aukde on
those agreeaentOf and that it **could not go throsgh with the deal***
X>ef endtmt* a books shotr thsrit it had dishursed as expenses on the
unconswamated deal the tot^ sua of 013»33S*S6» that these expenses
trere ohf>.rgedito an account with the new ooa^paayt c^eorgia Central
JSleotrie Co** epenedi in '^-g/xil, 1927« sad that in iacsaher, 1927»
eaid account was charged to profit and loaa* ohortlj before the
beginning of the present actions deaasds were aade upon Morrist
def end?\nt* s treasurer^ thf^t defendant pay plaintiffs* respectire
olaiasfor expeases* eto«» but the deaaads were refused*
Substantially three grounds for a rerersal of the tvo
judgments appealed from are urged by defendant's counself Tia»»
(a) that it appears from a ole-ar preponderance of the eTidenee that
there was no agreeaeat aade that defendat should pay or reiaburse
Ketehea md UcKiohael for their expenses* ete*f incurred in the
doing of the proaotlonal work ia questioat aad» henee* defeadaat is
not liable la these actions in any eumf (b) that there is a defect
of parties plaintiff* in that* aaaxaniag a liability on d<&feadsat*s
part for said expmses* euoh liability w;»& to Ketohea sad licKiehael*
Jointly and not aeTerallyi and (e) that BMst of their eharges f«r
^^9^9h ^£»:im »»#XiF^. i^wJJiriS 0^ mm mtir^ HthH at »i^ &»«iv
im''s^fV''.> ii&^'»m^ itm^&)^^ «i«ft.....*iiii.,-,4«?,i-: ^'.is(i.wA^A t'itj .j^vO*S's*«*ss{$ ■*t«i»
'4d'^^4 '«!': ■: ■ i^i^m. fit k^tiim- mx im^om bMMB
,Ai-i.-w:?M? »d^ o^-b:^: ^vi.;>, .ij3ai«aai^ wSS^fcli^ #l«»iwett(| JaW te sa^' ■*
•xpensest as contained In ihalr •epMrat* account • introdue«d in
erldenovt are not au^jtalnad by «Mip«t«nfc proof*
Aa to tho first eoat«ntloii» af tor a CMrcfitl rorlow of
tho oiridaneet we are of the opinion tlwt it is meriterionot tuoA
thftt defendABt is under no liability ae cln.laed* It appears that
the arraa.resiQnt or agroeaMnt was in sul)st(Uiioe that defaadeuit en
the one h&ndt and ^Cetehos and l^cdJtleliael, on tke otliorf should go
into a Joint ve^nturs or deal In which the pv%rti«;s ohouXd perfozn
different p&rtel th&t Ketohoa and KoMlchael should do promotional
work in tho endoavor to procure oentr&ots for tho puroht^.eo of oleotx
light plants in J^eorglai that defeadont should nrrsngre and pay for
tho inoorpor tloa of a nov company » in which tho p<txtios should tetro
certain agreed interests as shown and ho directors and offiooro
thereof* and which casip&ny ohould letter talee title to su«h plants
as were purchased and therer^fter operate the saatei and th».t defend-
ant iihould furnish the fundo to nako the neoess< ry pa^ruente for tho
purchase of ime or aors ttueh plantst and thereafter t after tho now
company had obtained title* neisotiate its bondst ete»t seoitrsd on
the plante* the proceeds froa snld bonds* «to«> to be tte<Kl as working
capital for the ner» caiapnny* It further appears thnt both parties
acted upon th« n^e^vent for a (lae| that i^etchea aad lioJbiiehael Tislt-
od and Inspected nuaeroue plnnts road di&hurfted t roa thoir personal
funds in trarelllnc exponees* etc** eonsid^r&hle sums of aon^yi that
through their efforts th«y procured eontracto for the s/xlo to thoa
or to ths now coapeny of two pltaato In Oeorgia« whloh dcfemi«yit*o
president thereafter inspectod ( that defendant caused tho now eeapany
to bo inoorporatod, with interests of the parties therein as agireod*
and paid tho expenses of the Incorpermtlfloii that dofeadfjit also paid
out of its funds tho necess'irjr "euraaat aoney*** aggregntlac ilO»000»
on said coatraets* and also auide oth«r disburseaents in prnsotiag
w^F^'
tSik^^,t» fi»is.i^%mr-f0'l' ;-^t' '.«|«;|%!#«i#., i»mmmft^': •ww^imi'js^^ m& ^^m^
IS;;;.^ *;.:
<;nflr*M
':5.'>S>cf,7>S ■^Mkt.t'^-':
•9-
ite« ▼•Biiir«t Ihfitf •u'b»«qu«»iitly» dwfviKlaiit «l««ld««l •lth<sr that li
oauld not or would not prooood an/ rurtJ&er with tixo Toacure or d«
and that It aoTor wrx» oonoiovsatod* Both il»toh«a and it^ioli&ol
te«tified th^t It W"» part of tho (i«ro«»ent thnt tteir osJLd juro*
aotimal ajcponoea suod for kouXcI b« paid hy Atttejg^^X* Z'^^^her than
out of th« futtds of the neiv ceupmny after its forns&tloa* Troy*o
totttlBony and that of eth«r vlinc«»«« for d«;fezuiv'int la to tho con-
trary ind i« ooTTOboratod by t«l«^<uaa ttnd etHor ATitinea and )aj
other facta nnd clrotamtanoos in eTideneo* 'Purth&rnore « tho otI-
deaoo oloinrly dlocleooa thnt mtch noneya »« «or<» paid lay def ond&at
to elthor KetchwB or l^oHichanX inere in tho miiturw of Ump&rmxj loam
or ndTanooaonta for oxpo&aoa and to r?Xl«To th^n fro» preaoat flnam
eabarraaBBoata • FlAlntiffa* claina are not for dnaa^SBM beoauao 9t
defondant*o failure or refua&l to finally co»«uaeiate the venture or
doal» 1»ttt aro 1»as«d upon d?f«ndajaw* » HgroeA«nt» ab they olaint that
it would rcisburH* thea fox all tholr traTtlliag s^ponaoat «te** in"
cttrrod la their snld pr«aotlanal work*
Theao holc^ineu riendor ttJiaoooai^ary oxy diacuaaloa «r doolalo
aa to d«f«RdRttt*a eotraeolts* other ttto e«nt<sntiona a%OTo montloned*
Tor th& rfiASona iatlo«>.ted the juagvumt of Jtma 15 » X^2B,
for 13313 » T'radcrod s^snltiBt defendant and in favor of :• C« M:etohoB
la r«Tera«d«
oanlwi and Bavaoot JJ*t e«neur«
■iJifSl^' ;ii9gRJt& ^««^# sat^; r^/f!^ IWN^' ^»*j ;.->•,
-10-
5^106 •
T« tioA ne ultlisatQ faots In ihXe »&«« thac def6ada.fit»
fro/ Mid OBs.Mut^t diti not nt nflj tiaM pranie« or agT«« with
jtlalatifft ^* ^« ^tchmDt th^t II roold r«ljtft}tijr»e him. for oueh
trnvvlliBi? •xpeitaetf «to«» a» ««re iiicitrred l»y him in tlu» prouotlon
of tho Joint Tenture or deeil In qitoestlffin* «£mJ thrt defendant is not
iad«bt«4i to h lis in any aun for ouoli oxpoaoos*
i:J siis',:a&:
Y fttt i 3"
'01-
53107
!• H. MeMIC
▼•
A oorporrition»
Appellant*
Of CHIC. 00*
i.
For th« reaBOBs lndleat«4 1b tb« opinion this day filod
la appojal ea6« no* 33106 ( consolic&ted for ho.vrlng %>itH this
appoal •&»•• K«* 33107) • the ^udgmat for |^S»2S9*82, roBdored
agalBat tlio defcBdaat* Tr«y and Gftapaay* ood in faTor of
s* R. MoUiehAel* in the Municipal ^ourt of Chle^go on June 16 »
lOaSf is rereroed*
ot^laa and Bamta* JJ«t ooaeur*
\
^\
9»i4®^%?'.
m m:
♦■fciMlfslKir;
t«/f/^ ,11
-2.
33107
YXSLDtG OF VAOTS*
¥• find ae ultlnat* facts In this o&&» that a&f«xulAnt>
Tr«y and Co^puiy, did not at tuay tljM proalea or agree with
plaintiff • • H* MoMichaclf that it would reimburse him for suoh
trarelling cxiMinsost eto** as were ineurre^^ l>y hijs ia tho promotion
of the Joint Teature or deal in question* and that defeadi:.nt is not
indebted to him in any sum f«r bu^ oxpeaooo*
*1**sja mil mi% •«««i iBi J8S*i* «>i^ ??f>^tf»J»a*
^Wfii^
53 US
\ } I I V \ '
A.pp«ll«]|t t
^^ * " "^^^^ ^'^^ CntCWT COURT,
COOK COUKHft -7
M. KRIOIS, } \ ^
In An action for A wb^^m tor personal Injurlea to plala-
tlff (a* v«Xl as far property dauftse) oattsed by defendant** auto-
»6bll« eolltdl&g vith plaintiff* B autonobile lAt es* south of» tte
intoraectlon of pauldlng nreaue ond Wlaxxxaoy straet, Chiaatse, on
tlM sfternooB of October 24 t 1936* the court, at the conclueion
of all the eTideaee, laatraeted the Jury t« rrtum a ▼t^rdiot find-
ing the liefendr.nt not c^uilty* Upon such rertiict beiac returned &a
any 8, 192dt the eourt entered Judgneat acainat plaintiff for
eoete and thla appeal followed.
lOaintiff'a declArr tlen eoneiBted of four eounie* - two
alleging; personal injuries reoelTod by hiai and twe alleging daiMg^
to his uutoBwbile. In the first and second coimts defend&nt is
oh.^rgi^ with general negligence in the uriTlne; of ^e autoMObile,
end In the third tind fourth counts with Urlviag it in a thickly
populated district Of a city at an exoecsiTe rate of speed in
violation of the sitatuto* To the deelarottimi defeadf>nt filed a
9le« ef the general ieatte nad a special plea*
On the trial it appoarod in substaaoe froa plaintiff's
testlaaonyt corroborated ia eoseatial particulars by «itnesa«s
called by him, th>r.t he vae driviag his aatoaobile south ia paulding
ATeaue on the west side of th;'t etroett appro: ching its later*
eeetloa with Jloara^ street, aa east and west street | thr.t as he
iim:
' «f ,1X®^<<
tmmm «)£
i«»t tt*#iiljkl«| ^^M^'s^- Susmm^^s^ .^'^^^^ smm^ »M ,fiBS«l «» vMi
fi@jj«*!l ^i^f$m'l'S» «** §si*B «it:Ji' if^ fe»*l-3*®'^ swI'SBt®^ lisaMwrsfj' saiaoljjs
.a.
eBt«red th« interseetioa niKi atnrted to^roaa it* goiag Ttt a •p««4
of About 10 vllOB an hour* ho netlood an autoaobilo (drlToa by
dofendaat) traTellln^ s>.t a rapid ruto of opood oaotorXy <m tho
»outti eld* of FlouxBoy etroot and then about laB,. foot ayiiij iTrop
tho In^eraoctlo^l Ih-^t ho oontinusd on» uroooln£ i^lourne/ otroot
and obt^enrlng as ho eroosod tho nearor approaeli to tho intoro^ctloi
of d«f endant* fl f^utotaoblXet that vhon ho hrid alJMBt erooood tlM lntor<
soetloa he notlood thnt <i<sf«nd':nt* • eutonobllo* c-ontUmlng on ito
eaotorXy oour«o at an oxoo«i<lTe mpeeC t had entored oar was about to
ontOT» tho intoroootion and plRlntlff inorcasod tho opood of hio
rutonobllo and tamed It ellehtlj' to the Xoftf th t after ho wfto
f^jput)^ of the south line of l^'loumoy street dof oBdant* i^ >t.utoaiobllo
▼lolently etruok a x^nr portion of pXaiatiff*o autOKobile* ea.uoiag
it to oyerturn* oouth of tho intsroootlon ond ao&r the eaejt <^urh
of opaulding aTosmof and thstt thereby plaintiff receiTi f permanent
iajurioo to one of bio anui* and hio autoaobilo wan so daaagod that
ho VRo obliged to oxpoul oror #490 in ropalro*
At tho elooo of mlaintiXf *g evid^noo tho eourt d«Blod
dofoadaat*o atotion for a directed verdict in hio faTor» and there*
upon defendant t the onner and drlTor of a%ld east-botmd autonobilo*
testified in hio ovtt behalf t^ad throe witnoooeo for him* TlMir
tostiBoay in eooential pLrtioulars vas eonovhat oontro^dictery to
plaintiff* 0 evidenoe as to the happening of the nooident«
^e think it elei^r th t the oo\trt erred* at ths close of
all the ericieBOOf in poreaQ)terily instructing t.he jury to find tho
dofemln^t not guilty and In anterinc tho judgaont appealed fro»
against plaintiff. Under all the eTidenco tho questions of defend-
ant* o negligeneo and plaintifr'e contributory negligonoe wore for
tho jury, and not the eourt» to decide. Plaintiff* e eTideaoOt
otaadiac alone • otroagly teadtsd to oho* gross noglieoaoo on defend-
ips(%l ^asaaj ^^3y^|L,ijfeiti m?i»4^ Pimi m»'imtim x<^mxi'»ttt9 a>M« dims
•«rst »"3;«M9' w»iiEW^^|^i*« '^♦^W^fi-rJ^ffl*^ «*^tfc#«l,ttXs ftlWt 9««»siXl*« li*SUM
1
-5-
ant*« p«iri A»d an a1iaen«« of eentrilmtory nttgllgenot on plaintiff's
ppj-t. (Litt^y. McSolll & Lltiby T. Coglc. 232 Hi. 206, 315.) Do-
fendaat'a ootansal here o(mt«ndo la subotaneo tlxit* Inacnuoh «• It
ap;:'«:ar8 tlt^^t «ho& pleiintlff** autoBObile «nter«rd tho latoroection
plaintiff saw d«fen(}fjit*% au'uomobllo approaching tho iatero«ctlon
from tho tj^shk* ^ ehould inaAcilatoly have 8topp«(i hla antoniobllo
cuiA allowed d«fondvnt*B to pass In front of hlm» and* not doing eOf
wdB gvllty of o<mtrlbutory nogllgoneo aa a imxtter of lav* V'O oftnnet
agroe with tbo oontontlon* Thorc being te^tiiaony b^r plaintiff aad
oeroral of hla wltnoasoa thr^t what plaintiff* @ Mxtfmohilta first
entered iho Intersection defendant's atttosioblle waa 1^S> feet or
aore away* It vas for tlie Jury to d«ciil« whethsr plaintiff ^aa t;uilty
of eontrlbtttory negllgenos la not yielding thA right of iraty to de>
fende«t*s autinobllet and la continuing to suAmntf^ further into «Ad
to oroae the Intersection. (Balaoa t» ''^il^<^^, 2Z7 Hi. pp. 286,
S»3» ■•aard ▼' iliBlit 232 H, Y. 1«6, 193.)
The JudfKsnt of the clroult eeurt is re<r<!;rs9d and the
e&vuBO reoanded*
BSYm$m AID RAmKi»£i •
i^oanlaa aad Bamea» JJ** oonoitr*
-'''■0$: a#««i*ft' ■ -i^^tVjJS
■,jsj; #(,..■: ''■■': •: .:- ■■■■■■■ • ■ •
33X26
KABi Y ABBAKS*
A9P«ll««»j
R, J. JMIYJKRt
App«Xl«aft«
lA. PRUClilKJ JOfeyiCS CKBIDUBY DEUVkTRSD THK OflKIOK 0V THE COlfftT,
1
la a 4th olaas aetloa In oontr&oit oa«aB«noed In fch*
Mtmlolpal oourt of Chici^go on M.<reh 15 » 192e» the court struck
froa the fiXos dtif end«iAt* s uwndod affidsrit of acrits nad
(tiefendoBt eXoetine te etnnd by the oaae) (^ofaultcd him for wint
of an aff 1< nrit of morito &n&9 on ApriX 50» X9St8» ontered Judg*
woat a4|aiast hia for |474» tho fuXl ainoimt of plaintiff *& clain*
This appoal foXlovod*
la pXaiatlff*a otatoaont of eXaia* aa aaoadod* h«
aXXogod tho reoorery by hla of a Juaaaoat a^-iast Uaa ' AjSaJLttt
for 4460 aad ooatB ia tho BtotiolpaX oourt oa February X4* 1928#
aad the Xevying of an oxeoutlon oa <wd tho taklag poaaoeelcm by
the belXlff of aXX Of ^i^hire' 8 persoaaX proporty at Ho* 3040
LineoXn areauo* Chleago* He fiurther allege<i that ho roXoABOtf the
lory ao woXl as the XI oa of the oxecutioa on »&i6 property* and
that he did 00 in ooaeider<* tion of d«f«nd'^t siitniag aad ddXlTerlag
oa lb ioh 3« X928« tho foXlovlng Xotter addroasod to pXaiatiff*a
attoraeyt
"Rot Harry braas t« Hax .aphiro*
This is to aotify you as attoraoy for Harry braaa
thnt I hare accepted an aasi^naoat froa U&x ai^re for
the benefit of ore iters*
As trustee of this estate* Z acroe to pay your
cXieat the eua of iifAftO, pXus oosts aad oxpoasos ia
oonneetion with a eertaia Judgasat* which eaid abraaa
reooTored acaimat Kax Sayhire* These faads to be paid
out of the preeoodo of the s^OLe of the Rseots of Uox
''"''^■.
^■f
X;
^=
ii,44
,Aw;
m
tm
•''- *<t^a'jSii"' <t»kuiu-ir.u uXo-.5-;..;.t.
»t
i$j.i.*-
a«llU.r«» vhleh imT« b«ea anuignctf to m» am tru0t*«
aadaire l90«t«d At S040 Llaooln ftT«va««
Thia ftgreoacat ia nada In ecaiaKertttloB
of and pronrlAad you wltMraii bailiff* who ia now
la poaBoaaloB of tte aaaato at 5040 JLlncoln aTanua.
It la untferatootf and (ssread that I do not
aaauaa any perroaal liability or obligation to pay
thla Judptant***
Flaiatlff furthar alleged th&t '^^efeadaat eold aaid
aanata of said 5aphlv»» ae naeigaed to hla> on M»reh 12, 1938 i
th«t ea 2^'areh IS* 1923 » d«f(s:nd,aat reeeirad &a the prooeeda of aald
aale a aun axcaediag IS900, by ran son whereof he beeaaa obligatwl
to pay to plaintiff out of u^id prseeede aaid stm of ^440, ooata*
eta* I and thst deaaad haa b««a mada 9n defendeiat that ha pay oaid
euBt" and l»ecaii«e of hie rafuaal ae to do thia eult ia brought.
In defendant's »aende<!i affidavit of laerlte he allagaa
in eubatanee that on Mareh It 192U» fox the benefit of eredltorat
Saphlre assigned in enriting all of hiig ijtock of jserolVAndl;?®* con*
eiatiag of boots and ahoest and flxturdg;, etc** at l<o« 5040 Lincoln
aTeaue* to defendant « aa truataot to aelJi &ad coxtvert stniA aereluiindiBet
ate* into eaah for the beet priee obtainable* and* after the payment
of coata aad expenaeat to divide tim proceede anong all exeditora
according lo their reepeotive ol4si»e) that defendant* aa aueh trustee
and not in hia Individual eap: city* yroKlaei? to pay to plaintiff
aaid BUB of ^460 out of the proceeds of the sale of spidasaata ai»S
did deliver to plaintiff asld letter of £irireh 3* 1926} rosd that at
the tiaa of Ita delivery it was exprea^ly agreed betAaeea the parties
that plaintiff a elniiB* if any* should s^tt&ch exclusively to the
proceeda of the aale of aaid oerohf-adiae* eta** and thf^t* should
aaid ass^ignsient to defendant fr<^ @aphlre be set naide for any eauae*
plaintiff* e claia should ae axclueively attach*
It will be notlaed that defend nt adaita tho sigalag and
delivery of tlM Ic^tter which ooussd the raleȣ,e of the prior Ilea
and levy upoa aaid aerchaadii^ey ate** stMi th t defeni-^at doea not
r
jMs««. M^-e M- ' i.M^> &»:s,m.» tmU'wt %ltt$.ttii»Jti'
il"-^.!'^
ocl
;»»ihl?«f*''?*l!:r.r
tf?«»#st*f ■|j«si «i#iiC«
"' T^ * ^- S
itl wmIit-s
i>s «iy«»fe ^tStmktfTtr'
,>.t>4^ ^''^ts kMant^^n^m bjtm fict(^ xt^i fy-
deny the aHe««tiion» contained in plaintiff's atatement of elala
to bhe effect that d<^fQndaBt» as trustee, sold aald aM}roh;^^ndlce»
cto*» on It'iroh 12 « 19'iB, and on the follcwiag day xocelTed there-
for a SUB cxo««diu£ tS90Gt nor does he den/ the farther allogsition
as to plaintiff's poseesslon of said sun or fund on lte.reh 15» 1929*
when tho proeent suit was eaosi<enced. Theat Blleg»ttlene auet he
ooBsldered &• admitted facts* ( f teddftjrd ▼• IjUinols larproreasBt
Co., 276 111. 199, 2041 Haalll T. 7/atts, 180 111, App. 279, 282.)
Citing the case of cchMBnaan«»Heink t« Folaoa, 328 111.
S21, 329, and two other Illinois decisions thRr«»ln aentloned, eeuneel
for defendant here contend that the court erred in atrlklog defend-
ant' a anended affidaTit froBi the files and entering the Judsnoat
appealed from, for tho roHaon that It appeara tfaJte defendant's salA
lettor of Mareh 3, 1928, (acted upon by plaintiff) that defendant
did not agree to aseuae any indlTldual liahlllty or obligation to
pay said judgment of i460, oosts, etc. In eaee plaintiff released
the lery of the execution mn/dn upon aald judgment* "ie cannot a(proe
with the contention. The action was properly brought against
defendant In his IndlTldual name, although plaintiff sought a re-
eoTory out of a fund In ditfeadnat's posseeelon as a trustee. In
Bqitltabls Trust Oo» ▼. Taylor, 330 111. 42, 46, It Is saldl "An
action agt^lnat a trustee In his repraeentatlre capacity Is unknown
to a court of l&w, for the law takes no oegalaaoee of the trust
relation, (^^ahl ▼. chmldt, 3U7 HI. 33l«) If a trustee makes
a contract In his own name for the benefit of the tntst estate he
Is liable on It personally and not In his reprei^entntlve oapf^clty,
whether he desorlhes himself »b trustee or net*" Beoauue of de-
fendant's letter of Maroh 3, 1923, plaintiff relenaed tb» llftn of
the execution on his judgpent ag. Inat Saphlre, and defenct^utt oaas
Into possession of Saphlre's asaeta, whloh he thereafter sold for
««r.,n ^-fl»-' ■ . ■■t:ii«*«!<® i^siit.t
•Mjj-^ >jj,.. •' ■■'"iilllf t*#^7>;{A.a (• •i.''":-.v.*i^.'ji-i :'.o Ss^' k?::: "jsU'vyq v;..i,-A.r,
a •«ni ia •Jt»mmn 9t ;^29O0« This •m 9x fvad «h« «<iMlti«dly in kls
tuuids vJMw th« ixreftcnt <^atloa ivks aMMa«iMed» and plaiailff » by hi*
««tle»» aovght to «<wp«l 4efe«A»afe to pay out of tt-iA fimtf tho
auraat of tiia judgaiant a^rinat Saphlre ami whloh aaovBt dcfandanty
for tho eoaeiderfition alunmt hr.d ei^procd t>o pajr to j^lalatlff • Wo
think that the oovrt properly otraek defendant* a a»nui«d affidarlt
of Boritti fron tlM filoa and yreperly outerod the judgMont appealed
frOBi afalaat defandaat-
Ao. ordlagly ttao J«dg»eai la effirmod.*
oaxilan and Snroes* JJ*» eonettr»
-.■^^Oi^mi^:^- i^mBim UAMtiii .riiii^ ^^:U£l%«@ MsiSi^m- Smmml^l mis ^ smmis
v-ait^m-
331S4
C. T* RAI3£H»
AppaU^*
▼•
TSLLER COKPORATIOt,
App«liaat •
EPIOB OOW'T,
COOK comrtT*
MB. PKZDJUim JUSTICE llRIIiLlKY JDiiLIVmSJJ fHS OPINION OF THK COiniT#
On May 27 1 1927* oMplKln^itti filad a bill la tht Cttp«rlor
owuxX maminut the Teller Corporation and otlier defendaate for an
iBjUBOtion and &n aoeonntins* /ijaswors vere filed t the oauae w&a
referred to a saster and siAaequeatly the bill wxa diaadaised for
wimt of equity aa to 8a.id other d&fendaata* On pril U&t 1928»
the oourtf approriag the iiiu>8ter*e report snve in ona p«>rtioul«>.rt
ffiotored a decree a«(iinat th£ Toller Corporation* finding that it
was indebted to eoBrplaiaaat in the sum of <i^3»265*0d> and adjudging
that it pay 8s.id eutt to Ma **ae and tor hia shAre of proi'ita (m
moaeya received for the rental of ep«iee in the ?umittir& H&rt Build-
ing* under the contrnot 'between said p<«rtie0 introduo<!^d in erldence*^
that all exo«ptiona to the Bux«>ter* b report be overruled and thi>t tho
Teller Corpor<<^ tion pny the ooatOt including tt(;i.&ter*s fees* The
proaont apj>eal ia from thia deeroe*
Con!plainaat*a bill ia ba^eed upoa aa acreeaent* dated
I'eocfld»or 10 » X92<« and aigaod by the Teller Corpor&tlon (by Jacob
Teller* ita preeideat) ns first p^rty* and eoniplainant aa ascend
P'^rty. After aetiiag forth th:?t the Teller Corp* ia now eaeaced
In leneiag and sub*leaeiBg ejchibition apaoea sad haa oontr&eted
with the ABieriean Fumlturs M-^rt Building ^erpor<v tion of Chiengo
.j::^
,\::
'^f ( ^'mlli*!(mM.
it9mSff» ^'^^t^ 9i ^ " %t. »0 0MU
-8*
for an option bo loaoo tlu opaooo or pi&rts theroof » Imown a* apoene
9 to 18* en the oeoend floor of ould Fumltura Mart BuilcilRg, and
that conpltslnant "Is X9rdj and vllllB^ to undertako tlie aab-Xe&aing
of ealA opaooa** ttio Teller vorp* giveo to complainant ''the solo
and oxcluolTo rle^ht for the t«3ra beginning i>ooaiibor 10* lt84» and
•ndlac Koy 1* 19:t5, to prooyre tenanto tvnd »qll losfoo for tutAA
8paeo6» S to ia» proTlded th^t all t®n«»ts and leeisoa ahall ho
aooeptahlo to flrat party (Tellor Corp*) and the msrioan rurnlttiro
Mnrt Building Corp* I** and complainant Hffroea thsit the Teller Corp*
"Is not ol)llgatGd * * to lease fron tho Anerlean Purnlturs Mart
Corp* any space or opaoeo Included in spaeos 5 to 18* except sueh
apace or spaoes or part thereof ae are »otiiU&.lly soldy and the leasoo
and tenants for said ep^ico or spa«eo are aeceptahle*" In clause 7
of the aereeaent it is provided that "'In full oonpensf'tion for the
serrloes* of complainant^ the Teller Corp* agrees to pajr* imd com-
plainant agree e to accept t '^f:,lfty per oog^t (50jS) of the net yrofltii
on axid arising out of aiiy and all leaaos signed under this agree*
■lent by the Teller Corp* with any omA all tenante for the said spaoes
& to IS*** In olauae S It is provided that "net profits shall ho
the dlffereneo hetwoen gross receipts and expenditures as herein'-
aftor defined*" In clauses 0 and 10 are stated what are to he
considered gross receipts » and wh^t oxpenditures* In subsequent
clauses proYlBlon ie made for the prepaxatimi by the Toller w'orp**
and subislsalon to oomylalnant* of "statenente of net profits on or
before the fifth dr«y after the tenant or tenants of the first
pnrty pay their rent*** and thnt upon acceptanoo of th« stateaents
the Teller Corp* shall pay to complainant the 50 per e&nt of eatd
net profits*
In ooaplainant* 6 blll» after setting forth the agreement «
•t*
r . : ,* aiirtia »:^|1W!^^ ijei-ijC*" ■.. ••.'*s©«iie fejii^a 1»
?<.)# t^
^liiit <£«!
vj-s
^^««ltti!K<)
. &-Xiv '^'
h» mll0g»d that ki i«%«r«i Uj^as hi<« dtttl«& theTetta4ey "wlbh ouoh
aucoeas that tb* r«at«l of said spifto* «A0 pructio&lly eoaplotod
1)y J<iJitt»<r7 26» 19;^5|'* tha.t on tk^t <lat« tlut ttgronaeat «aa BOdlfl«d
b/ a letttr wrltt«a liy hint marked " A«ce|)t«i)" by Jaoob Teller for
tli« Tsllcr Jory*» to tlie affoot thet OfNspla inant viottld aako no
further offoTio towards etcurln^ subot^naatB for said epaooo sftor
thill dntoi that iBuioT tho ngratHHwat ho (3«T0t»d hl« tiaM and atbantlon
to tho 0«lliag of locisoo for th« spaooef that l»y Jnjiaary 26* 19Si2S«
thoro woro oaeursd 38 ionaBtot « tho leosee rtmnln^ for raryiag
toz»e aad ooao proTlding for roiMmals or oxtenetona* optioa&l with
thft tonaatf that tho payment of rest was due e«iUl*aaBu&lly» • on
tiu» first A^ijB of Juno n^tiA lecoubori th^t ^•t^nAimt rented all ^
the spaoeo from e«^ld Aaarloao Furniture U&rt Corp* at a rata of
;ii:i«50 per oquaro foot per annm» and that ocaqi»laiiiiant secured le»,»oa
of certain portions at the rate of $2 por oquare foot per annmi
that tho dif'ereneo betvoen thooo aaotttto» after dttduotlac tho
neeeoo»L37 expend 1 tux ob» *vas the profit whleh» voider tho aipro^watt
vna to bo dlTlded e>,uaXly betvooK OOi^lalnaAt and ciefeaci%at|" that
on J&wxfiTj 26, 1929, complainant ree^-lred from def^adaat a atatonoat
of laoono ae to the leaaoo and a eh«ok for $2t471«12 aa hie dlstributlTt
ohere of the pxot'lto* and that he aoceptec ttee chsekf th>^>t en or about
July 1» 192Sf eompXalaaat reeolTe<i another »t&ten«3>it (laoerreot OrO
to reoelpto roKl oxpendlturoo} together with a eheeh for /, 195«dd»
ahloh atatoiMat and eh^^ek he r«?tttra«d| the^t thereafter tiefend^i&at
tendered for the anae six aentho period other otatesonto vhioh
eoaplalnaat refused to accept f that no other check* have boon
toaderedi that la eald etatementot and othero for subooquoiit periods*
defeadaat hae frauduloatly attempted to charge rarloua li^ropor
oxponeos* Includla^ a e»lary for Jaoob 7«lXer» and to ehlft» chaago
and T^ry some of tho lea«oe| that on Juno I, 1927, additional amouato
e
!)f,i'5S,.ti'..!.
»1l9^<;)'il.M.»w^9 '^»siit^1»1Hk
4»r -va^fiH^^ii,
-.ijMkjjiiJjjittAi';
If'-"
■jilM«»e^.*>
-4-
wlll b«eoB« du« VMAur optioae c«ataimecl in tho leaatte* and <iQf9iidaili
vlll «ndeaTor to elthnr oaneel snid Isnees mwI place nw t«)niaitt la
ponseenlon or transfer the Icese^s to dlffer«at qttnrt«rs» and to
nalntDln thnt eueh lonooo Are not thor« whioh wor< orlglnnllj tmAe
by «oai)lalBant( and will therftltj deprirn him of ctaounts dvm vaaA<^r
the i»{qrcoEUiat} and th^t 1»«!>c'iufte of thcao feiots an Injunotlon Rhould
b« lodttcd a^.>last defendant, a r.-oolTer apjiolateic • and an accottntiac
had*
la def«adaAt*a attsaar It denied th: t it hnd been guilty of
any «roBgdoia$r» or th»tt coapXalnant h^d perforaed his part of the
asreeaeat or vote entitled to any of th« relief «» pray«d« shortly
before the deerce was entered cJi^fendnntf by Icare of court* aaencied
its answer by ridding an allegation tha^tf at the tlBoe of the SMldLng
of the 9kgr0enent and of the perfera$mee of hla serTices the>r«under#
coaplsineat "*«» «ctln£ in the oap*sclty of a T^ryk^r and had not jara-
cured* and did aot hol<s t froa the Pep^rtnent of Itegletra tlon aja&
>:duoatlon of the ^tate of Illlnelo» a certificate of regieiir^tlent
aa required ^ Chapter 17a of the rerleed et&tutea of Illlaoia.*
On the he ring before the a^ster it aw.8 ©daitte that
neither at the tiae of the elding of the acreeaeat nor »t the
tiaoa of the perforaanoo of ooaplalnaat* n cserTloea thereunder* did
he haTe any auoh e^rclfloftte of refietratl<ai*
Ceuneel for d«fendratt contended In auibatance before the
chooieellor* and oontead here* th«t eea^lalnaat la not entitled to
recoTor uader hie bill beoaa»e« at the tiae the asreeaeat waa elgaad
and at the tlaes he perforaod his aerrloea thereunder* he ^n9 aatiag
aa a real estate broker wlthia the aesmla^? of the statate* and did
aot hold a eertifio^te of regiatratlon or a llceaee ae aueh aa prarided
by the etatuto* Caaaael farther contend thit la any event the aaoimt
^-i' ! 'j* «:» >r ■:»;*! all
• CM I'iS^ft Hi^j &tt« «ij«tw«
'^-■- *S!^&*»t!* '.^ ♦tf^tylliJllft^'if-
af tha dscrce is sauch too lArg«» ao apponro from a propoadfti-iOMO
01 tho oTldtnco* uounsol for ooapXalniuittt on ihs o6h«x Uand^
•ontoad that there la nothing la un^ic statute* |^ 1^ gxi^ft^aq wh«i
0.%ld agroeacBt was signed and -wliea oaaBplain«int*« aiexrieea voro
psrforaedt th'. t prevonte a r«o•T<^r3r by hia in ths pvoseat prosood-
lag* anu for tho reason thf^^t In perferalng «!Uoh sf^rrloos he v.a.8 not
a rosl ostnte lirokor within %h<s aetinlag: of tho Btatute and was a»t
rotittireitd. to hare aueh a oertifletite or lictsasef aad tboy further
contend) in aocordaaoo vith oertnia 07oe»«orrore asi^^igaed* tkat iim
omat errod la ororriiliai; Ofirtain oi co»plalnant*e exeeptioas ta
tbtt ttaster'a report aad that tho aaouat of the d«orwe against
defeadnat should haTe le»e@a t'I5»615*i2«
Xa Xd2l the JLogialtUure paseoA aa AQt ^mtitlcd **Aa Aot
la relation to the dsfinlsloa* r«glet3r»ti9n aad r9^;ul»tion of real
eetate brokers ^ittd f«al e^t^te «Ml$aaaa*'' ((Jahill*» ^tat* 1925 »
chap* 17a • p* s;.;?*) In utotlon 1 of the '^ot it is la part provid«rd«
That on asti after J fi,jtt%\ry ,, 1* If^py • it .ii^,j|(5ijll,. be.. mala/>y^ujjL^
for any person to aot as a realestate Broker or reaX estate
BnXiivmitn$ '' * v/ithout a cs?rlliic.->.ttk- of rcgiabru^ion iB:;;U-3a by
the l>epii.rt»snt of Kegistration aat;^ Kduo tlon* Prov i^.ed # that
notiiinp; in i.hls >^Qi doatrinoc £>,hx'»Xl p: ohioit the oo-opt<r><bion
of • or a tilTisloa of* casual 0 a lone between a duly regiBtera<l
broker of thia tate savl a non-roisld^jai; broker iiaviaij; no of ^ ice
in this rtato. » ♦ •
In seetlea 2 of the Aet it is in part providi^dt
^A real estate broker vithia the aeaniag of this '>et
is ai^ perccAf aesoclatiui* coi?r.r1;nersblp or oox'por%tlen» who
for a tsompennptip^pfX va,luabjt,e, c<;>n,gid-^r:::.ti;aijq eella or offers
for sale, '■:,\$ys:- or ott'-^m to ^uy. or iviA^oiilates Ih^ pucchaet
or sale or evchaago of real estate* or «ho leasast or offers
to lya>:et or rente or offtre for rent* any r<it&l «at.it.»f or
aeaotiatea l6«^y thereof or of the .iapr orgeats thereoa for
otherjj. ♦ * "
Said seetloa 2 was aaionded oa Jnly IX » 19^5 (C&MXX*s
Bta%« 1927* Chap. X7a, page 171) by the addition of the clause that
*the tera *real estate** ae used In this aet* she^ll laolude leace-
holds sad other iaterests less than a freehold*" Xa saotion 3 of
«|>?*s-<;i;< "T.-i, i£f;>«p|^, «>i^-;? a! *«iJSI, Ifi^* Jg«4t»f9SKf., » a.j?ttsy«[at 4«lSi3!tt Pirn's® IxaMJ
v1<.i; •, ;^|ft§#«. «W*i M^l^flW .t«w£'&««J ■**#*!» 4^
.f y*.irt«,^»
.6-
th« not It is Gtatetf how the ««rtiflaatat mentionsd la aoetion 1»
smy b« obtKlii«<)» la other •cctioas It lu at»te<l what fc«s ar« to
btt paid upon the isauaaoo of a osrtifloatet hew it oegr b* ronwwod
and how roTOkodt etc. la oeotioa 16 ar« pr«scribed hoavjr pcnnltiew
for any- Tiolatiun of the »ott and ia tteetioa 17 it ia stated that
ita retiUlrenoata shall be ja_ adfiitiofl to th08« coataiaed ia aagr
ordinnaoe of «^ city or yillagot liooaniae oad r«»guli^tlag real eatatt
brokers*
It is to be noted thtit by the proTiuions of the aot» as
originally pasaod ia 1921 aad vhioh was ia foroe when the agree*
nent beti'een the parties vraa exeeated (X ecessber 1- » 19^4) said whoa
coapl?iiaaat*s serrieea thereunder were renderea* it ie made '*unlaw
ful for oay person to aot as a real estate broker * * without a
eertifioste of regiRtratioat** thi»t aererc p^anltiea t^re prescribed
for aror vlol>tion of th« &ot» and thsit in bh« d fiaitioa of a "roal
estate broker" is iaoluded any person who* for a eaap«a»ntloa or
valuable oonsideration* 'negotiatea leases* of real estate '*or $£,
the laarovoaents thereo«| for others."*
We think it elear* froa the agroaa»at iatiroduo^d ia eri-
denoe» the alleg? tions of oeaplaiaaat* s bill and froa hia owa
tei><tiaoayt that hOt in procuriag fox defendant the 8Ub«leases msa-
tioaed* w>jte aetin£ as a real eistate broker withia the isetmiag of
the Btntttte* 3y the agreeaeat he wae to ^'procure tenants aad soil
lo'^sos" for certaia space ia the ^oraiture Mart building* whieh w.is
an iaproreaent upon real estate » aad he was to do this for Uefend-
mt for a eertaia agreed "oongpeniiiatiMi or T&luable consideration*"
Tis* "fifty por ceat (90^) of the aet profits*" as defiaed la the
agroeaeat* Ceaplalaattt testified before the aaeter that he was a
reeideat of chioagio* and th'^t after the agreeasat was oxeeated
« S8«5i,*S2> : ::;-v\ s.';u, r:J. jjfj: , !■-? ''SJj;^ JMf>v^-i »;,:■;-: ;;n:-:',>j' -'wivri..;; :,;^
"2 preo«ed«<l to rent tpaeet in aocord&ne* with th*
afreoMnt vlth tlw Teller Corporation i I aeoured an cl&toorat*
lint of prOBpeote for the sps'ce and I got In (.ouch vith thmf
■any of thea sent representatlTes to Chion^o with oose of whom
I eigaed leaisea{ other ouoh reprcuentatiToa reported to their
principals and often epaoe van rested through further
correepondenoe} at thle tiao X eatereci into 41 leasee under
this «greeaent| copies trere ande vhea the originals wore signedi
aad they irere entered into in each e&ae hetweea the Teller
Corporation and the party whoa I hnd seoured as iossoe**^
It is well settled law in this ^tate th^^t "whore the
stthjeet suitter of an asroemeat is prohihitod and aade unlawful
^y etatyte or by a nunicipal ordinaaoe» it cannot be enforced «
though the statute or erdinanoo merely infliets upon the
offender a penalty* and does not in tenas deelare the contract
void*** (Cuamjinitp ▼» foereter. £34 111* /pp« 630 » an unpublished
opinion of this appellate court* filed U&y Z1, 1924| 0*Bcill
V. .iaolair. 153 111. 629, 530| louthart t, pomsdon. 197
111* 349« 553*) iTurtheraore , it appears froK coa^ainant* e
testinony that his prooureasnt of the suo-leasea ciuria«i the
period tx(M l^eeember 10, 19^:24, until January 2tf» 1929, (whoa
said agreoaent was aedif lad ae shown} was not ths only work
he was doing as a brolcor) thstt after July, 1924, he seoured
other le^gee in another building f«Hr Jacob "i'elleri and that he
is £.till engaged generally in brokerage and proraotional work*
In view of tiie fHcts disclosed, the proTlsioas of the
statute and the aboTO deeisions, our oonclueloas are thiv.t oomplainaat
eannot reoorer any i&oaeye froa dcsfendsint la the present prooeediag
and thAt the chaaecllor should hawe dieaissed oomplalnant* s bill for
want of equity* Rla oouasol here argue, in substanee, beeixuse of the
aaondaeat of 1926 to seotioa 2 of the statute, ^\tox9in it Is etated
that the tera "real estate" as used ia the statute "shall iaolude
«f«
la*:i'Ua:j
«.aft
iiiih^t*'
..•.iAA.«.*<W
..;. Si 5<.u* lift ,ll?»lf Ww
;^ ^^_, ,.,,,,.., , „. ,. . ; ' vrsH^r
I«a0«hol4» and eth«r later«sts !••• ihmn a fruthold*** that coBpl«iii«at»
la procuring for <i«f«»daat the aub>l««Btts at tlmaa prior to th«
paaaaffo Of tlw aaaaAMmt* oannot )i« ooai«l(iere<l[ aa auoh a "real
•atatt* brekor at tliost tiaoo as r«<iulred him to ha.rti n oertifieat*
•r llcenoo. »'• do not chink the !\rguMOBt has any foros. Ths
doflnitloa of a roal estate brok«r» as contained in the ssctioa
boforo nnd after th«^i naendnont* laolttded "any person * * wlu> Idasoof
•r offers to lease* * * any real estate » or negotiates leasoo
thereof* <?y of tho_„lnijjtyovea«nts the?;ftop« for others*" The erl-
tfenoe dloolosed that the Xcrge Farolture Mart Building was an
InproTwaent on land In Chlen«;o» and thiit the Bub-le&oes nefliotiatoA
by oomplelnant iir«re for spaeea In tH?a building* of tvhleh leasts
defendMBt w&m the lonsor*
These heldlnirs reader unnooessary any dluoussioa of tho
further oontentloa of counsel for def»ttd<intt tIx* that the anount
of the dsoree appealed frost Is 9X09»i>ir« » or any dl»cUBii)loa of
the cross errors aat Ignod by oomplaintmt* '•e siay say* ho veTor«
th^^t our exaainatlon of the sTldoneo oomrlnoes us that the amount
Of the deoroe Is 9X0GssiTe» and th^t there Is no subotantial merit
In the orosa-errors*
7or the re(isons indicated i,he deoree of lh« superior
ooturt is rerersed and ths eauoe is reaauded to that court with
directions to disBiss oonplalnant* s bill for want of equity*
KKYEBaSD AJTD RSJI/JC4'I WITH ,. IJ< 'GTICES.
onalMB and Barnes * JJ • * ooaeur*
«■■ ■■'■'■■■ ■■'... ..: ' ■,•'.. , ... •> , - ,,
■'..«*« oil -ae
-.irseiii l>ix.& eieSjuiP
S3143
-^ ^:::^
AltAVLA rHDPiT(W, *^ /
]1ZCHA£L P. (POSJ^AL and
H« P. BUK»nraaAU« ae Trustect
of HOUE 3UILD£R3« ISVi.STKSin'
tKU:-.7 ind da.-jvi^iAJi FijfAircz
CORPOkATIOB,
Api>«ll«ata«
COaK GOOBTY*
t
le, FRKSII'IHO J0STICK ORIDLEY JiSUXngREI.' THiv UPlSlOii oF iJiii. ^:.^'>X'^i ,
In an aciloa in m>BU»pai1t« caacQeneed in the Superior
eeurt on July 13» 1927* ttaara waa a trial before a jury ia JuXjr«
1929* r«£?ultiag la a Yerdlct in faror of plaintiff a for #l,fKX5,
Judgnant for that anouat Vfts antored against dsefendantB imd thaj
appaaled •
Plalntiffa* deolaration coneiitted. of tlia cooaion oounto,
to which defendanto ttXnui. &n aaaended ploa of tha saneral ietsua*
Th« aff id«Tit accenpaaying the plaa la by Pexry 3* Brelin* oes of
tlialr attomayat ^ho ^tat«U th?.t the d^fonaa v&e that no aum of
aanay vna duo from dareodituita to plaintiffs* and that *tharo wore
certain bualnoBs trantmctiono Vatwacn plaintiffs ^ad ona Frank
0*Haillt «here\»y they purch^sad certain boneficial iyitereatp of tha
Heaa Buildara* InvoBta^nt Truat for a Talaahla eenaid«rtition frSS
MB IndiTtdual jyjqaer thera.p,!^***
Upon the trial i^^vin ?fauratai» ^na of tha plaintiffs »
vaa thair principal witnaaa* Tlisy also csJlaci as thair witnaao
Parry B« Br alia* defendant a* attornay* and iBtroduc«>d a nuad^ar of
iiiatr«M«ta and othar »ritlag8* ?our witnaaaaa tastifiod for
%^iu
) '''.■■J'''-' ft''. .■.ij-«"i'( ,/'. J f-', ■' " ■.■•,-iir v» &*,:■<. , • flvj>,t. ■,.r)i>K' 4'.' ■
-8-
(Sefendant** t1«»« fTKaoim • Hcgart oaohicr and bookke^iMir of tha
OuardliMi FliuuMt CerpArcition and of th« How Bullderii Inv«)8UMiit
Truatt Mlolui«l P* P»»(}nl» Bcorotary of the fonsert anii a triutaa
of the latter I Jsjsea H« :^. ^orrisQn* an aixohlteot* rotalaod aa auoh
by th« trueteea of the lareataMiit Xroat and in oharga of thm
architectural dcpr^rtaeBt of the '*H(Hae litUIJers of Aaierioa" iatlli.
another erganlsA t ion } » and alao a ▼lo«-pri7f)idftat ^mc n. diiectmf of
the rinanoe Oorporrtioni and etald Frank 0*Seill9 a "'aaXaaaan'*
employed hy the Flnanoe Corporation during the yoHjrs 19^4 1 1925 and
1926, «hoae dutiee were to "solicit a^rin^s aocounta fron people
who wanted to build hoAeSf*^ and to negotiate bulloing eontrficta
with euch people* the te»(,imeay di8eloee<f that durUig those yeara
the '-inanoe Corporation wna &j; Illinois corpomtiad with ;>rincipal
office la ChioD^oi th&t tJsuii Xnreotaiant truat wa« not inoorporated
but wae a ^purc truatt* tTm.% the **U«nte Buildera of nt^rioa** (another
trust) eontraeted to build and built hoaaaa for T»rioua people | that
Ihe inTestaent Truet ftdTanoad inoney to the "HtMia Builders of 'oaeriea*
for thut purpoco, roaoiTins ittrstttra uort^ge bond» oxeeuted by the
raaptotiTe owaara of the real estate upos ^^hlch the houses wer^ to
be built I that the ?ln«noe Corporation ncfOtiatad the sale of bonds
and eth«r securities for the Inrcetatent Txaet} and that the three
organizntione h&d &dJo^Bin^ offices in a dov^rntown building in uhio.'>^o
and thRi their x espeotiTo bu3ine»f>*a praotioally anouated to ona
businaas* It appeored thnt defendsnta were accustoited to Koliolt
people* desiriao to bulled ^ostie on their a^n real estate » to aaJca
■onthly deposits with defenSmtst on which interest ^ne paid* for the
intrpase of aoostnilatlni^ % fund of i^^ufflci^nf ai^e to warrant the
e«HBttn««>»aat of build in^* and that deftj-nciants nlae ware accuetosMd to
saliait the deposit 'iflth thaa of moneya in l^^rger anounts* or
fits! f?ft«jsa^«sp»«».* «>^«rv.#«M^:r«l«^ ^ym kimt^tiBvi "%«» $-mi'.^i^mm»t>
i
-3-
•eeurltles to b« eomr«rt«4 into aa«h» for alallar purpoaes* It
further app«ftr»d tku).t aarlj la 1925* plhlntlTfa were the owners of
a piece of laad in Oeok ounty upon which they ceelred to build a
hoBMi IbAt £Aiila Thursten'e eecupatlon ivae that of a mrltehMta f«x
a railroad eeaqpaiy la Chicago f and thnt in M^reh* 1925 « Thuretea
first aet O'HelU and thereafter • as the reuult of the letter's
BOllcltntlonsy hed huslaess dealings with defeadaats*
Aocordlxtg to rhuratoa*s teetlarayt 0*Beill at the first
eenrersatloa stated that* If plaintiffs lntsade«J to build a hqie
on their lotf it would pay thea to "join the Eoae Builders* of
Ajserloa and tsnre their aoney through the Hoom Builders* lOTestaeat
Trust." Shortly thereafter* on Maroh 17th, plaintiffs garo 0*Selll
1800 la cash* slsaod a so-callod "Original applloutlea* He. 3-3316***
addressed to the Flaance Corporation* and In a few days received aa
or6itt'>'ry deposit book In '«hieh the $2(XJ v^ais credited to thea. The
applies; tlon is quite a forald&hle lastruaent* printed on a form and
filled out in pencil writing. On the haok of it* in very fine print*
are aaay eo-oallod "ooadltime and iO'lTilegee*" all stated to he bind-
ing upon the applicaat. It states <m Its face that qpplioatioa Is
nade "through the Finanee Corporation" to the Trustees of th£ Hoao
tiuilders of mcriea "for th«? erection p.t itv eptl|^ of a 3uagalow
build Injr to cost approxlaately ^6500* imder the benefits aad prlyl-
lofoo** of a certain naaod plan* "which prorides that after I hsTe
oosQlled with all requirements for the purohat^e of bonds* ae set
forth in the table hereto attached (being on the back)* the cost of
such bulldiag shall be fiaaaoed and the bulldlag erected to ay order
OB tho basis of coat pirns flTO per oeat (9^)1" that applicatioa also
is aode "for the pntrehaae of llOOO of the p<^r value of bonds** belsog-
iag to the Trustees of said lareetaent Trust* '*^«hich bonds are to bo
six per seat {t%) gow bonds scoured by Junior aortgage upon specific
,^. 0m^$pi* # t4.j4»iCl',:tt'«^ j^M^»fKa»«f; a^i^^Siiutflslt, mtvm jt/^^ |««tii
■,. .*^. v.. .,:... f ^^ -^f iitef «15 isJiJd »# ,«,i?«#%&««4# £ff» W-"'-'" ■■■'■■■■ *'ysn
Ip-'* ^^ «9J^£llW3^ W9iS«^«if'^ «^!<!iJ»i<% ^-HfHa-^t tH-i-xi"
tt-^'*-^ ■ ,. ,r
-4-
r*al •at«t« in Xlliaois}** that "I hereby agr** to pureh^.se t«B
dellart ($10) of «aid b«»ds on th« 12th day of oaoh aonth horenftor*
and I also herewith tender you ««iOC> in cash* > it being agroed that*
frea oaid aBotmt of agr adcitional p«yaeata» twenty per oont (20^)
of the total oAOunt of bonds oo applied for shall be asod as «<3eurity
for the punotual porf oraaaoe of all the ooTonaate of this applio>^tloa*
and credited to the final purohaae of bonds ap^lier. for hereunder i"
and that "it is acreod th t I any use bonds 'shove applied for nn a
part of the pureh«>i^(i priee of the property hereinbefore referred to**
Thurston further testified that plaintiffe, aft«r the eiisnin^ nf
the fippllofttionf oontinued for a considerable period to deposit vith
the l^lnanoe Corpor-^tion 110 «rery nonth* which deposits «oro credited
in the book atsntioaod* and thst finally the sun to th@ir credit in
the partioitlAr aoooimt anonntcd to $387*
Thurston further tefjtified thf^t O'lfolll, after March, 1925,
oontimi«n to call upim pl&ln&iffa mn& urgo thoa to inrest more noney
with defendants towards the building of their hiMSef that in •Suae , 192S,
learning th&,t plaintiffs o«ned a tl,CXK) Apartment Bttildin® Bond which
pnid ooTen iJ^) per oent azmuetl interest, 0*irelll suggested that thoy
^leliTcr the bond to defendants who would pay p^x for it and credit
then with ^ 1,000 and thereafter »aj to then interest thereon nt the
rate of <iiff^,|^ per cent per annuM{ tht^.t 0*Kelll stated thn^t if his
suggestion v&b followed, when plaintiffs got rec.dy to eissBsenoo build-
ing their hone, defendants would *tum OTor" to pl&intiffe the ^1,000
and the < oorued interest I and that plaintiffs, relying upon C^Xeili's
st&t«Bimt, dGlirered the apartnont bond to defendants* o*2reill,
Aefendottte* witness, wae asked If during his conre rent Ions with plain*
tiffs in June, 1925, "anythinK ws^e said by yen or Mr* thurston about
his being able to get the stonoy back** and he replied t "Z oan*t just
rooall thati I doa*t thin^^ there w*o.» Ho further teotifiedj -I
tta^^vsimiA 44mm~Mm lm-W*.MM: ni^ m iiii«HMr Siim %« iji.m) maSJUOt
■;,,- -*-,.■,- Av^ <«^«ei8H^K»ibfi '-s^# ii* Ills' &mimiiii!^:Qtt'S^ Ij^^^amiit «j«j> «1t
■ . /v^-;iiis««i<i tn^t:- milium ■ti^'isi^'!'' 'i« «fe.w^«*f^ juarjfs »i«* a* s»*ife»««i kflui
told hln the Ufime DvULX<1«ra would flnane* his bulldine i^toA build
it for hlB awi bh«r« would bo bo oMrges for »«o»nd awrigaco uonoy*
* * X told lilM thisit from tins to tiJM peoplo "^^ctntad to tranator
tlialr 'boaeflolal Intsreots* and * * thnt th« H«m Bulldors oould
proeure thea tkrousk aonebody vho umaiad to tranafer tlumf * « X
told him wo arrar hara ajy for .PR^^-ta but tliat aoMetinaa *beii«flolal.
intarasta' wara traiiaf«rr«d from aooMbo^y ala« that wxnitedi to tranafeiT
^l.ialatlffa' «iTic3ene« further ahowe thnt TluratoB on Juaa
t&» I925» met 0*!S«111 in tha offieea of d^fendeinta* and fhtiratai
delivered aeld tip? rtn«mt bimd of $lrO<X) at th« winftow of Megar» oaa^
iar of thfi (hiardlivn 5'iBanee Corporation* jtad rect^lTod that ooapany'a
prlMted oftetoler*a receipt, dotted '*6/22/25»'* •!«»•* by aegar» as
follova* "HecelTod of /i^dwlB thuratoa one theusaad dollara* for
aoooottt of , , t to apply on Ban. Into." (Beneficial
tntereato)* On the snake 4ay 0*irelll oauaed Thttratou* en behalf of
himaalf and ^ifa» to alga aa InsttrtoieatB partly priat«<i and partly la
pencil
^^rltiag and addreeaad to o»lalll at dQf«r»daBta* offlee« wheroby tho
tmdersiened "deslgiaataa and Qonatlttttaa yo« (o'Keiil} as aiy agent
aad TOpreaentntlTe to procure x^or m« *?orty Beaeficial Xatereais from
the HoBM Bulldera XnTest;.Kaat Tnuit«* for which ^ hare paid la caeh
horawith th« e\m of |1»0Q0 to the Chtardlaa Flaanoa Corpora tlon* * «
2t le agreed aad underatood that you are acting aololy aa my agaat
in thla laatter nnd are reeponeible o|y.j',„.to^ th«^..exte|it^ of, prootur^lag
pr ojMBr tjra^ef ey of s»id Beaoi'ielal latere at a to aa at the priea and
on the teraa t&bove taontloa^d aad I afX^e to aceept aald Ben, lata*
aubjttct to the condltioaa thereof t** two daya aftervifirda fiairet<m
reoeired frooi the defeadiuitt Bumlaghaai .-mother rather reaiKrkable
iBr,truBent* A oaaaal slaaoe auggoata thftt It alght be a Taluabla
aeeurityt but exaalnn^tioa dlaolesoa it la stated therein to be aerely
a reoelpt. It la datee'i Jma U4» 192S* la algaed "Trttetooo of Hone
•%isttMmii4^^ ^■:j^0^^ .'^^«m mt^ #: li^-'^ smut d«d$ mid M&i
Hcd Yis4i- ' ■ -^^Jl^^ >*»««# .JPE^Siilt© isi* 9i$|fl,„iiM<f ., W*^ » I «f$a'»r94sit
.Hi .; S8e». .^i<||'S^ ■^4f:?Ht, ♦#«»«^ ^^
Ixonaq
-6-
Ball4«rs IiiTestaMnt Truat*** by iiavkiae and i*oadal «• offie«r«
thereof* koA b«ar« tl&» trvieftaea* maI* It has a colorad border*
It it p&rtXy prlnt«(S la neript and ]><vrtly la typevritlns* At th«
top is **]ruabor 711* and ^40 B«B«floial Xntorcsttt*** And th« truotooa
"hereby d«clar« thp^i f>:diria tcad Aouuida Ihuratoa are tha ownora of
forty of tha equal Benefioiftl Intor«atat of no axpraaaad par raluo
each* fully paid and aon-a.ss};e8e&ble» xmder and aubjaet to a I'eolarati
of Truat* dated June 30th« lOSlt or«»r,.tiag UCam 31IIL3HES* nrV;.371CBarr
rRUiT, and filed with the Dapositftry dealgaatad therewider* transfer*
able la aocordsuioa therewith, thia inetruMent ie intended to be* and
ehall be conatrued oaly aa f» recpipt f jt>y„ ffipney or, .proitortj paid to or
dellTered to the Truataea under and for the purpoeea set forth la
said D«olar**tioa of Truat to aid Coitrta of equity haTlng Juriadiotioa
OYor nattera inoideat to the adatiai stmt Ion of thia truat* and alao
the Truateaat lA idantifying persona interested thereint and to prote^
the truat oatate and safeguard the righta of Beaefici&riee* and is
iesued sni. held uader and aubjeet to the proTiaiena of aaid Daelarntlc
ot Truat*** <hare aald deelaratim ie filed » T«hat ia the pitrpoae
thereof* or nhat ia a "Beaefieial laterest*"' or ita Taltte aa a
Rwearity or otherwine* is not mentioned* T}ie insitruBent ahova upon
its faoot howereri that the InreetaMat Truat hare sueh "* interests*
to aell«
Thurston further teetified th. t shortly after June* 1923*
he informed defend&nta th;;t he deairad to sake arransaaenta to build
the propoaec! hone on plaintiff a* property in Clarenuon Hillaf that
he was introduced to defextdnnt* HaiclciBet that he explained to hia
the ehanoter aad generad plaa of a houae to ooet CdtS^'K)* approxi-
aatelyi thr^it Havkiaa aald that defeadaata would eo8ic:enoe iwncdiately
to draft plajia aad that aueh a house eeuld be btiilt for tl^t price
*«ith 9 per oeat Heae Buildera* profit* whleh would include free
%^#t:i;$ttl''* jSilK^- #t|^ l«gi^y «tt«!ii»$if^ir««rX m» »ff^\-ii^r<!!'mt' ,
^iM^i^ i^^t^^ *«**'fi^* ^aif»iA i« iii»i;< lJ6u»ffl»i8 ^ "'*-^ ■ "'■■ ""^^
-7-
arehit«ct*« serrlocal* that riuirstan then was Introduooa t« Morrlaen*
the ret&ined ajrehit*ot of dcfdndoatst and othttxs* and h* had aanjr
Intcrriaws with th«»( and a first •«! of plane ^a« dr&ftad and sub-
Blttad te hini ihni th«B« ware not aatlaf .otory umA others wara
drnftad and submlttad aacS chuages nadei that on I^eooobar 19* 1926»
ha raeelTed a lettcrt aigaed hy tha ''HoBie Mtldera of aterioa***
giving &B Itoniaad aetiaata of the cost of the prayoaed hauaa» vhlflli
totallad f8»944 "'not iaoluding a gsrcgaf or th& HwMt itulldara' t99
of 5%, or £LtMl. iMl^^SLtal axiwHttBagi"* tteit hfi CQ»plala«d to i=>oadakI»
Atgriag h« oeuld not afford to ptty suoh an ^laount and Poadal aiii^aated
■akiag other oiwagaa ivhioh would reduoa %)m ooatf that other Inter-
views wara had viith r-eadal nnd Morriaottt hut tiiat no plataa for a
hottae eaeting approxlaatoly 16*500 » ]>Iu» anid 5^ fee* were ^uhnittad*
and th^t finally la the sprla^ of 193«» at an lattiirTievf had with
Poadal and HorrlaoBt Thiirstoa 8r,ld tli^t he ''v/as dens*^ and "viaatod to
viaA up** Matters I that h» was lnfosm<sd ti^t he oweti Morrison £350
for drafting plans i th?^& ha protested ag- Inet this olalau^d lndel»ta4-
nesa* snylag that tha arraagaaaat wa.6 thfit h& ^ ^e to hnr« l^o,f
&rohlteot*s eerrloest thct nt. this tlae his hank deposit accoiaat
showed that he had a total oredit of ^;'^d7t thait a settleaant of tha
dlepttte* a»( to nrohltects* fees and aa reg«irde th« isusouat dtsf^ndiants
•wed hla oa en id hank deposit {exclualT«» of the #1*000 deposited
with defendants oa Jtme 22* 19.'&} f intslly w^ e arrlT«d «tt th?:<t la
Hay* 1926* he rooclTed and accepted In s<sttl(^Bi«int of sffi^ld hank deposit
of ;»587 oaly* a ohaek of tjno ' laaaoe Corporatlea of |20u* whloh ho
oaehadi aad that aoooBpanyiag aruld cheek of t20i. was tha foliowlag
Toaoheri "The Ouardlaa 71a«B0« Corpora tloa tenders you the att^ehad
eheek ia full payaeat of lavoloas herein eaaaerated* vis* 3alaa«a
•f Bend iOc*t* ia full* f3«7| Less Flaas* specif leatlotts aad salsa
,r
J|Si^^j0i> ^%P^^ 5«M»«f -^^ «f8l*^^ »*#^. ;''^ t*^ |1»«»*?-' ■ "•• ^^tMft^^^^
Jilt. !# ,Jl««(aK|i^t:«'« *.«^#*- iP^Sf, '^^ ^^^'m l&i94 *.JNi* :«*i .'**4* fe»»<MS®
•«Hiis«jioa» tl87| Balimoe f^o, Tim «ndoT»en«nt of this oheok
ft«laM«l<idg«B 8<tta.a;^ioat la full of th« within tuecount*" Ttmxnton
t«8tifl«d furthtr tliat ut these intdrvlcwa la Uay« 1926 1 and avb-
B«<iuanily« he aleo A«aHukl«d tint rstura of tlu $1»000« which he h»t
dep08ite<9i in June* 19SB« hut that these denaada vere refused* Tha
tc 'tiiBony of i'osd&l fuad Uorrlaen wa,8 to the effect th&fc fit the
lnterria«» vhea the aettleaeat of irlaintlffe* t3>87 hank aoeotat
waa arranged* rhuxetoa ftat«<S th^t he ^ould laetre eald HfOOO i»lth
defeadaata* aa he >;sat«d to retain the forty 'Bonefielal Xat«reota*
ac aa larc^tataBt. Tharsttoa dialed th"^t ha saade any audii sitRteBeat*
Flalutlffa* CTldenoe further tiigscloeed that th«r« were
aegatl«>tiona aad cerreoponaeaae in Jtme* 19S6* l>et«eeB plaint iff •*
sittomejr and aaid Brelln» reprceentlng def«n«lattte» as t« t]» retvon
ta plaintiffs of aaid 11*000 » daring vhloh ne^tl^^kiona plaintiff a*
attomext on thair l>«half« tendered the return of mi±6. o@rtifleat«
ar receipt* So* 7X1* d&ted Jane 24* 1925* i^oKl issued hy aaid
lareateent truet* lFo&hln«^ r6»ult«id frons the negotlr tioaa* liuriag
the trial plaintiff a again suuae feraual tender to defendanta of sevitf
oertlficate or receipt* but th<» tender ve» refaaa«i by defendant a*
Plaintiffs also latro4uoc>d in ericenee a oertifioate of the • eoratarjr
of -^tate of IXliaele* datad Jona S3* 10^6* eertilyini; in aubstanee
that the Heme Bulldera iBTeatnent "mat hud not filed in hie of flat
any atatsmenta ar doeuseata In om&plianoa vith the Illinois "ecuritlea
Law« Plalntlffa alao introduced in uvicenee two othsr esrtlfieatea
of a»ld Secretary of state* datec June 28* 1928* to the aaaa effeot
aa to the Quardlan flnanoe Corporation and the Hobm Bnlldere of
^■eriea* Plaintiffs alao introduced in eYldenco V«o lat^trta&ents*
p«>rtly >.riBted and p*'rtly in typevritlK; and be^'rlng the »lgnaturea
of B»wklna and BnminghaM aa yreeldent and eeoretary* rea^piitotlTely*
of the Zarestaieat Tnast* The instrvnaenta <kre reap^ctirely nu»bere<l
•i,*6
ii»«t«:TS««Bf.'
i» ;X4. ^iv»;f.,? '.Jiifi! ;..iis-j.-:;
ig«A««iB(*i'«iN^' 'Tfe»"'«^-^^^^^^^ i3.*a«tesi«J^#*s ^#ii!i«i''»el« alii-.:
m4^^t^tt%M^ %»mi^ " m^' i9yK»i^l##'^*i ■il(*«'JN«if*£l '*«1j» -fit's:* Jiisi«i ■
site wd« a!ai'ix5*j4 iiiMRt 3!«U.
&i»'l6»ffiHfKJt t^ittfiw^i^ilSji^li '^*ir,s=. '««i!!.WMB»^4«4SiiJt «pieiX ti»M%'l iiii^mim*tVtl* ^iSki '^
1639 and ^5374 antf datod Jua« let tuna ■•i;rpt«Mb«tr Ist* 1927* ftad vserc»
feeelred bx plainllffa throttffh the Kails about tte ila«« aa dateu*
^aeh is hMtAed **TniBt«««* Hon* liulldera imrastaMit Troai x^iYldeaA
•arraat*'* In th« first it is statMIt "'This varraat is Issuftd as
diTidoBd on bqnofioiajL intttrests aad boyid,y of iho Trusts** » declarod
•B Umj Slst» 1»27» and paywbX* on oy b*fi^irc June Xst« I9;ga> Tharsfor*
said Trust**s h*r«b3r airr** to ypgf to i^dwia and ^muoAm. Tburstoa at
tho offie* of the Trustors* 734 Korth ii«Ballo ^ tro«t» Cliio.'tco* llli>
B*i8» oo or before Jim* Xsti 1928» oxaotly tv)«ntyiwo (#2^) dolX«r&«
it b*ia£ understood tbrt this is At the rate of ^B0 per interest or
«Bit> This mrrant tmj be r«<jeem»d or used to apply on the poreh&s*
•f aaj prepcrty that the Tru*t*i»s stay from tin* to tia« have for
•a1*» or taay b« used nt the option of the Trtaatei!!* (>.a & oredlt tt|»a
aay aecomt dae and payabl* to the trusteeo* at th<» r&te of 50^* per
interest or unit*'* Is the seooad of these iastru»«at» the warding
is the a-iB* exoopt th^^t the diridead is sai(^ to be declare d ob
" ttffust 31st t 1927*'* and is ''pajrablo on or bai'ore ; epteadter lst»19^.*
Plaintiffs* oouaael contended upcm the trial > and hsro
eoateadB* th£i.t oadcr all the fi^ota and ciroataunt&aees la «TldeB««
plaintiffs are equitably entitled » in th* present letion of ass.ipffyjLt
with ccoBEiQa eonatst to reeover baek frms defendants the ^1»000»
paid to ciefondaat* on June 22» 1925 f antt thr t If it b« eontended
tbet s&id eertifioate or receipt of s^id iBrestBtent Trust » dated
inn* 24* 192S, suKJ referring to said "Forty Beneficial Interestst**
i* eTlr»'noe th^ t d feadante then sold to plaintiffst Ai^id Beneficial
Interests (!•*•# Boaw kind of si. security)* still plaintiff e are
entitlsd to reooT&r back the lltC^O in the preeent action* ai^ for
the reason th..t dsfendftnts In isc^lag <^nid oertifient* or receipt
•ad selling, eaid 3«iefioial Intoreste did eo in violritioa of th«
^"C
Ujmm>^SiM'^'^:^¥*^^'-f'^^^y^ ,^' *fc«i,tf«*«» '^^^ffi^r'-
^,ixi{&»^»#al> ,Mji:ajS^*»^ ;^^•£SJ^y^M* «tf ^^^^
-10-
IIllnolB >etturltltts L«w. The eontentions ot dwfeadanti* oounoil
ar« to the contrary. After ft •oaavhat oarefttl r«Tl«w of tho eri*
tf«ao«» MAd coasldorjjotf all the oircimstaaeoo dlHelosedy «o «.ro of
th« opinion that eoiiBaol'fi ooatttBtioao are iBorltorloas» that the
Tordlot of th« jurjr is tagply supported hy the eri *oaoo and tho lav
•ad that tho JudgMOsut «ntorod thorcitea a^Knlnst dafendaats for $1,000
ohould bo Affiraod*
Xa th« reeoat oasa of Batlonal Malleahlo Caatlnffo C^, r*
llSSMiP >^to«X RBd Iron Off,»» 333 lilt 383, our ujproaw u:ourt, in
dlitottooine th« octioB of a«iBu^poit» with the ooaaton couats, oo «
r«aaodj* roforred to the opiiilMt la Mefxmn^., p.'UHfJL»»i9!n«rf^ » • City ^jf
Blooaiag^ofl, 253 111* 164, tuad snid (p* 596)} **tt «%b there hold
that the aetl<m «a« oa ajppreprlato Ttmscy to aaforoe the equit&hle
obli^xtion arieiag from the rtteeipt of iBoney hy oas person which
boloage to ejiothsr «uiti .shieh in «i%uity said Justice Bhoul<l he r^-
turaed* 1 though the aietioa ie ia form ex coatra^cttty the etlleged
eoatjraet is i»urely fietltioue «ind the ri^t of reoov^ry ie goreraod
by principleo ot omd-uy tuaa so privity of rontmet is neoeasary*
The aetioa laay be aftiaWlaod ia all eases where oao perooa han re«
oelTod money or ite ftquivaleat uad<9r auoih circimsttxaeee th^t ia
et«uity aad good oonscienoe he ovuiht. not to rcttaln it ^ci whioh ,oy
l^oflao et >>op<^ belQi3£8 to another* Th«R right to reeorer ie i^oremed
by principle* of os^uity althou^ih tht Actioa ie .^t lav*" In CauLdv^ 01^1
^* C^lf • S^fi -^l^* tiOBf after referring to et^otlon 37 of the Illinoi*
eouritieo I««, it io eitid (p* !^G4)} '*Thie s«eti(Ma deol&res veKl
eytxry eule nede ia Tiolatim of say prorieioa of the lav* dr^rj ettoh
aale or eeatrfict for oele -^9 prohibited and ao righte wrero «OQ.uired
ttbder it* (i'.orrigon ▼. ?<cmers* Kl«y»tor Co», 31^ III. 372.) By
sueh a trAaeaetioa the piaroh'Ser ae^iUireti aothiB«^, aact whfiteTttr tho
•oUer receired ytma reeeired without ooBoider^.tl<»* i^ithout refaiA
to the atatato ho vas therefore liable to tho parcimeor» in &n action
Inr-iirr- *;-3;;.i^t;
"OX-
^■5 :^:%i^X>^p:^^M^r -'ti'^ '^'^^ znt^X-rfffry ■^i^nlllt
i.^itnij't.J,
;i^^ 4
.tc.'.
S'.?«Srx!»':=
.t»;f.H«lT<j Y«f
,^ iC$«i/1
^I^liS iSTX "vWS
'3 MSiLi^^fi!.^
9MSM '^-/^'JS^ trr,«a«»S''aBf^ aafit* o-* »ijttf«il eiei^ts:«sl#
f§rjmn*x hmd t^ yeoclT»4> f«r th* ■•ney paid ab thm purataata
yrlee of th* stock* The wox4s of tho statute addod nothlne to
iho liability ttMoh oxloted by rosmon of lh« rold ohar oior of
the oontrsot*** la paragraph 1 of onld tieotlon Zf of said -eoiirities
I/aw It io proTided th%t "eTory oalo and oontraet of sale aado in
Tiolntlon of any of th« proTlsloMo of thia *vot ohsxll be void at
tJio oleotioa of tho pttroluioer» and Ihm eellor of Ui« oeouritioo
80 soldt the offloora and directors of ttao a^llast «nd ef/.eh and
every oolloltort agent or broker of or for sueh eeller* who shall
hftvo knowingly porforaod «tiiy aet or In any «^y furthered ouch salOp
•h&ll bo Jointly and ooTemlly liable i in a» actios at law or in
equity* upon tender to the seller .pr. ip^ oja^rt, of the securitiea
soldi to the purehaeer for the axBOunt paXd» tho ocni^ la oration given
or the value thereof* together «ith hie rcaoonablo tktiomey^si foes
in tiXty action brought for auoh reoov^ry*** In paXi^i^r&ph S of eaid
eeotion 37 At io provided that *'in u^xff proeecuiion* action, suit or
prooeediag before any of thA sereral courts of this tate* ba»«4
\ upon or arising out of or «md«r the pxovisiims of this >^et» a
oertifioHto "^ * by the v-eeretary of : taa-tet shoving cenplianeo or
non*coB(pl lance ^srith the provlelone of the llllnoie ecuritiee Law*
* * shall constitute pyiaift facie ovititunoe of eueh emnplianoo or of
such mm-^ooplianoe 'With the provisions of this >eti as tlM ease
4ur bs» and shall bo Adjniaeible In evidence in any action at law
or in equity to enforee the provlsiono of this et." From th«
definitlans of the difforent elaseoe of seeurities as i»«ntiM)ed in
other soetions of the «t It io apparent tl^t s^nid "Beneficial
InterestSt" claiaed by defendants to bo aono kind of a iemcurity»
cam only be elassified as in the "h* class. In section 8 of tho
ooeuritiofl Lav» it is provided th-t ''all securities ether than
thoce fining within Class *a* » *^* «»d *C*, rodpectively, shall
S©.-. vyfiiiSttiaeif- .■-« ■■«'*45 «jjj#« .<# Sills'*, tW-^ ■
-12-
l>« knoim as aocurltlta In CIam *P*.* And in asotion V It la pro-
tolblteti that any anourlty la CXa,8a "I'*' ah&Xl ba aold or off«r«d for
»ala until carta in upaolflod atc'.taiuentt-' and dootoaents ahall hara baaa
filad in tha effloa of ths a«eratary of >>tata« <nA th« oartificatea
of th« ^ecrrcitnrx of ;>tat«S| introduoed in isri<:'cnQa» dlnoloaad that
nona of tha d»feiidaata had oeiapliad Kith tha provlaioaa of »»,id
aectlon 0 aa to tho filins with hiai of atteh atnteRcnta aad docunaata*
In tha present onaa it appa^^ra that vhen* in Maroh* 1929 1
upon c*Kalll*8 Bolicitatieat plaintiffs aada their first dapoalt of
$S00 with def andante for tha purpoaaa Rtantloae(i> thay aignad and
dalivarad a so-e&llad "original apiilio itiom. So* B-S^IS*** In our
opinion chia iastruaant* with tha Kaay "eoaditiona aani priTllOffaa**
aado a purt th«reoft la vary indnfinitti and unoertain* It is not
ttada ole&r wh; t plaintiffs yt^tve to set for the noney dapoQlted* or
for t2wir monthly dapoaits of moneys lo ba »ad«ii thereaf tar • A
siailAr application or contract w^s oonaiderecl in the eaea of Kopp
^» Guardian ^'inanoa Cprporfit^j^^omt So» 31024 » in whieh tha first dl-
Tision of thia appellate oourt af rimed a Judgnent against said oor*
por^tion* In the uapubliahed opinion in the Kop^ omv- , filed
Stovenbar 29» 19£e> the oourt snidt "In our opinion thfi allasad con-
tract ie on ita face so indofittite» uncertain and unintelliuibla
that it is inoapahla of baing «nforoed*"
Daf endaata* oouaaal further contend that tha trial eourt
c(mmitt<i<i error in r^fuein^; to r^dinlt oertftia offered evldeaoe of
defondsmta ^hlch tandisd to show th£it e&id ss^le of the Forty Banafieial
lateraats to pl&inuiffa w&a "axraqpt »8 uIasb B ateokt** under tha
proTl&ions of sectioa 6 of the veourities Law* i» that said sale was
•a "laolated" one by a bottR fide owner (lira* (»«otge Livinca) Of aald
Xateraata for har owa aocount* In our opinion tha oTfarad avideaoa
vC
:i-V
?«Kv,,r^-i.. „ ■••■., ^ :■-'■.■■■ ,^.,:-..w :...-...- . ' -1«0
<»«et#. ;i(|«ait:; .^^SNH^^SM^; .#«^;:
ttiU JHtl «ii<»i#««09
('QiJL$
.$1^J^«r S^iti^^
JUs^s^': *:v«^^, ]fti^;>f,:'., :fv»?, v> ^' i>if«iA&*£©l8»ft
mjW . »JU»» ,:.l^«||: #,01 fs^ «yf'^>.i_ v.'»^y(ii'«i(^& «ff^o-
-IS-
did not t«nd to prove nay such thing* '-urtheraeroy the rocelft
of defandanto* easliier (Hocitr) RiTOflt to s>lalntlffe for theilr $X»i'00t
oa June 22, 1925 1 »• woli as thr receipt or eertlfieato Isiiiiec! Iiy
Um IttToetnent Trust an to anXA Forty StBOfloial Iiit«r«atat shows
that th« a«o«y was r«eelT«d hy dqf«Bden|t|8 for ik'id Intorevto ud.
net hjr Mrs* LItIbc;**
Couaael furthor oont«n49 that tho eourt erred In adalttiac
oortaia OTldoaoo offered I17 plulatlffe* '• have coaoidered thit
sererol potato but do not think th^t s<uch errors vor» ooaBitted
ao «»rr4Uit a reTora&l of the jodgjaont*
For the re X sons Indicated tho judgnont of the '>uperiox'
court is affiraod*
^'OABlan aad Bnmoe* JJ** ooaeur*
*>dy
ii|^ i?*- ,-.: n' ■'A'-Ws^ ■m *«?> ■^ .^i ffiSW %SS »m?"& site
^j: ■ tk !&6^<sne» i>«iism stj^ ««E(t4i it^'jfift^^oe mii^'mt Imtm^''
:i*- ,• 3 -?; '^■J^.vjrfl':
SifOO
»%V'V^tSU^ « -.
-'-fsi'
-.i^:. ■ *■.
39046
J. B. ^AJ^SOJI,
'«, *J) ^ V X • rl • '>
MH. Jusi:iuii/»>*hiiJsa dkjuivskai; .i|(k opiiiioa o^* wk cuukt.
About 6:X5 p. a., JaxJUrAry 13, 19J?j, til'^er dark, d*-
fttt>dla&t*« autowoteilt while tioine re^t on Ciuri" etro«t, ciuic»fe;0| icwn
into plaintiff ♦« »utcM»i«bil« parjte':? oloee to tht north curb of e^id
street. ^t the iitr,* ©ther o.nr* T»r« t?»rk<»d Skiong tsai'^ curt In
front of 8*1.1 b&OA of piattjtlff '& car '\»d cU-ong tiie oiirb on th«
opposite »id<» oi tin* «ti;r««t. On aocount of the narrowTieae ef the
•tr««t pHtsslng autna)ob.lI<»s h-id to kf>.^p cloisse tc: ihf line of parked
ears on th« ald^ of the str^ot they were iriven,
?r^at m. luditTBent v^-'ilcBt -.iffi for ^286 «8««»sed a« dam-
Ages to the aut.jnaok>ile, for whioii thesuit wa» broUiiht, d'?feniant
has appealed.
I:iere was no OL^terlal eonillot in tae evldeftoe. It
was Biiff li:l<»st to maJvs % prij8|a» f §q y; cas^-^ of «eeAJ-iS«iO« at* -«e p^^rt
of defe«1;vit. Aotd* fstat Its suff lalaacy tha only poltit itado is
that tAe court should &%Ttt grsu^teA a eontinuariee under thff circum*
•tanoeo.
The trial wae befor* tii« court witnout a .lury. When
the ease was oaXlsd for trial defecd^Ant h&d not appeared in court.
Hie arrlvil ofliing ftxp»sct«d tho <j<»«« was o»LB«efl and 1 >tor in the
4laj called <*galn, vhen he not having crriTed his cr^uneel asV-fd for
a eontlnuaisee and hiwidpd aome affidaTite to the court. They are
net preserred lu the reoorH and w« cannot assum«> that they showed
sufficient ground for a conttnuiinee. Thereupon the court re^^rked:
•We will fo ai:ea4 and tr;, it as far )»s we can.* lo tiiic daf eudant
exoepte^l.
.:3 o
.?ji?tt;hti „
■!,J t:, ,:. ~>7a .£• -i, v:-1:v:v\
■'I
mi.
$n:
&■ s*:^- *;a4;*S«»' x&'i; tsiiidoistv ^
.»'»{>»«'#«
M*l;jilli*i
> J> *(■>"'>;.••»}
That tho court taid ii would no on -a« far as It oould
did not n««e«8arlly Imply an itit«ntlon to wait Ixidof Inlteiy for
dofond&nt'o atKlval or to tirant » contlnuat.oo If he aid not ftp|>«ar
in roasonfttle timt. &o l^gaX ground waa aho^n I'or a continuaneo,
and tho cirouE!sst!M^,c«8 -io not indic«>te an abu8#» ol th# ccurt'a iila-
aration In rciuetcg it.
Kono of the wltneaaee aaw the uocldent. But th« facto
•• atoTo otatod w«rft iR<»d« to appear by the toatinsony of plaintiff 'a
witnoosoa and also that th«^re icas a eo&l pil9 about 20 to 2S ff>ot
to th« r*ar of plaintiff ♦• car which esEtended frcj;; tli« parkway to
2 or 3 foet boyoni whe lino oT th« |>*rJc«-4 autoaofcllwa. Ho light
waa on tho pile of eo&L, on which two meti were ^oriiiog. Thoro was,
hewower, a atreet lamp nearby. Dafendact called one '^itnaas who
t««tifl«d tJaal tho ooal pilo waa 2:- to 5k; l«et from plaintiff 'a
oar. Xh» ourt thot* aokod def cndoJit'e cour.cel for ids theory of
tho oase. iio replied tHat owing to tiie parking of the oar« on tho
narrow atreet, ae al'oreaall, dei'endaut had to keep close to the
north line of p3«rk«d oar>^. »a poeelblo and while prcoeo^ding "at
•.bout 2C eilea an hour" hl» front wh««l8 struoi: the coal pilo
ajBd caused him to Icae control; that it ceased his foot to be
thrown froi« tho '0Tikii<- ^m the oar io awerwe a little oouch, and
that when the hind wheelo atrueJc the oo«.l pilo his ear swcrred to
tho north »nd ran into plaintiff *o. Thereupon the oourt exareaeed
the opinion that the statecaent did Bot oonatitate a good def«tnao.
The court may w**ll have found th*t. th«» adaitted apoed «ith which
dofendAnt*^ car wae driven aJ*ter dark throu^. ruen a narrow pae^^^ge
for moTinn ▼ehicloa wae negligouco fuxi the proxlicate oauae of the
injury.
Gridley, P. J., ijn^ Gcan^"^* •^•» concur.
33054
HKIRY H. KARCH,
Api<ell««,
mumy sghru:.
iifi. JUSTiCK B^vtBHS DtlLIVaREP tHS OPli i.i.
:saa^
Tli^ C'^Jl^X.
XhlB is mn iupeai I'roai a jud/<a«nt x'or ^aoc in f»vor of
ylatiiiti Ti' in na skciion to r«cov(ir u real estate ooBiinlcfiion.
Tlifl oASo ocjttPH te«foro u» a Re(?o«d tlaie, Or. th» foisj^r
»l>p9al from a XlJ^c 4^<^4^^«<>t «a 2i«ia In our opirilcn I'iled therein
April 3, 1923, t'liat th« Ter^ilct waa r^^alnst the weight ol' the f»Ti-
A«Bc«, But thi-rf* W6,r« aoKi* f icts ui^ clrcuciBvauticaB in that caaa
that <!o not appear In thia,
t>i» only undi«»T)utert J'^ot at, i«sue vae vh(»ther defend-
ant a^rsird to pay the dsulevlon. Hlu brother-in-law was vbe
ewnur of th« property axi^'. absenit in HollftnS at tixe tiiae defe^ndaiat
undortoolc to nftftciittt© a aala of the- property through plaintiff's
a^ant. The negcti4»l;ionB wero ▼^rbal -<kxi<i br^twewfi plaintiff ♦»
agaat e^r.<i *«f QCil.art mI th* lB;>n'M cf t.»>1c^. th« latter ■>?«» preeident
Wd hia son, Jolix;, vio<i:-(ii eeideia. It vaa aKr«s4 that plaintiff
as tald b^ant produoad u purc;ii&»er whc «aa r^aiy* able aiid willing
to buy tha property at iht. price sulaittdd, nsKaely, ^^16,000.
Subsa^r-i^ntly dafondfuit i£tfor»ii4 pla.ntiff ttutt tho lain') wasunot
for •»lf,
rialntiff '• anient who conduotad Ui« na^^otiuitions, &nd
a euBtosar ha ^r«ughl ^o dafendsnt both testified to (*n czprats
procdae on tha part of rt«fen'i.'*iit to pay ddOO as oo^Jiiiosion in oasa
of hie procuring a purohaasr ol the property for J16,tiu0. Dtm
fondant dor.l«d making; th«» pro«ifl« ani clais:.C'] that hia brother-
In-lav l»»ft thf? matter of tii# aal« of the property in tu« a«n4B
.,«s, u: v.
*l«!l'' .t*^-
i «»«'.•'•■■
«»#[*«)^sit
t>«X,»€*>'«^t<^',
'^«'(^««i$ii^ir,l4» .M» «{te«lr iiMiM't^^
iiijtmm»9'' «4i.j> i^'fHfi'
.§*##!;
,*r>:.^;t'**'s ©3 i!;isl2.'b& &ii 'jsI^ 7'1 i^j5sl«.le
ol" lil« said SUB JotuJ, wid th»t aald* frot referring plaintiff'*
agwnt to hla Bori he nad no Interest in th« transantlou. D«f«i)(i-
ant'« ROD «a« not eiklltd aa « 'iCitnAss and it do?» not appear that
any conl'er«n«« was had vitii nim. That derendant oonduotod all
negotlMtion* wltti nlftintiff •?» nj-isjiit la nnt. -l«/vi<»d, rmd ;i« adnlttfd
that h« tol'< plaintiff* a acent to try to gftt a buy»r and may haT«
addad, *ther« is a ooaiailtBlon, " i'latntin'»8 agent testified that
d*f«ndar.t said his brotnsr-in-lav had l<ftft with him an unraoordt^d
d««d by vhlen titla oould b« passed and that defendant had authority
in th« m^ittar. Viii? «Tjia not, dnAr.At Def snjiuiit 'a toatiwo-^iy «'a8
Biainly to the efi'eot tJiat he (3ld not proeiise personally to pay
the eenMniBffion.
I'here were ao 6iseimstar;cfts in tha case that had any
special tendency to support the teatituony of «lth«r nide «.» to
the alleged protlae. ^Vs su'b&iltt©:; to fchr v^uJfy en the single lecuo
of whether ther® was Bueh a pro»lie the ca»e ctood or. the testiiaony
of two witneeses e^alcet oBe, who, so 1 ir cord discloses,
are eciually reputable, txid thtre being no Inherent isiprob ability
in the testi&ony of either tide wc- will it. »uch & case recogrisft
the eup»rior ad^tj-'.a^i*: 4fee .jury had I'roa. hewrin^i and ctscrving
the wttnesees to deterieine the^ir eredibility smd 'srlii not diwturb
the verdict,
App«H=*nt contends our iorui«r opinion ic controlling
and tiiat tn« oourt shoulil, therefore, hiav© ent:?rad a juH^aont for
the leffn^ar.t noj^ gbi^t&jata vct^leto or in irrest of Judj^ent.
While there were f ^ets and eiroumstauoes testified to iu the
former trial which we thought had a tendency to supr^ort the
defense ani wnlcu arc not in thie reoord, yet where, as h<?re, the
o&se reducee Itself to deteralning merely the credibility of the
Witaee^as anrt a Jjur^^ has twice h;^d the opportunity of seeing and
hearing them sjid found a like Jud^-^ent both times we are not
»D«in«fli3
" .^i-'
•■•■f.i
•■ :■
••~- ,. ,-
i. ,^;j,t
•; \dj
.»Xi»^'
C^ ^T,J -BiK- 'i^i"^ 4fe -H
'11«pe««'l to dltfturls the )z&xt«. Courtc l-iiirwly grant n n«<v trliil
aift«iir two Ttrdlct* upon tii« J*;*cl8 iti f<4vur oi thf eiur.e party ttZ"
o«pt I'or errors of l«v. {Lotti«vVli» ■.■ t><»a;iLTi::|lt» K.H.Cp. v^
WooigQO. 134 li. 3. 604, 65>5. 14 Anoy, P.. and Pr. , 993; Jrovn t.
P»t»f.8r.T. Ptt.rci-jp<<r)t ■'"ftjpgr, ..Vft. » 6& ^. '. i., 474.)
Auttioriticd ar»< cited by appullant a* to the lltkbillty
•f an iM(«nt «a«n tie ccnc^als hiss prioclpal or where th« Tiuidor i«
put on Inquiry a« to hin iiukhonty. ^inta have co pHrticul-^r appli-
oatlon to tiio iaateuit stato ol' facta, thla ia not a ease vhf^rr the
dafociant la sourtht to Tbii^ avJII on tii<» tnwcry oi" oojJceallng hla
prlnolp&l but wh«r« ho nxprasaly prosilaatl tha piaintii'i' that ha
peracnaily woult' pay th© eomcilsaloK, Ir aueri a oaaa th« plaintiff
la aet oottp«il«(i to loak ti the priiicipal >-ut »ay hol^ the 'igant
OJa hla axprasft proibitca,
Grldlcy, i\ J., »ni^ oanltui, J., concur.
,,, : -i'""*''> vf«*lM|»t' a#<iMS&- ..**i^^
^^^^«ili#r:NN# «i«Miit iK»''i:4Sifi«al%« «:|4""*lJift^«i»ft •if.:.«t»i&V'^liit»Si^
/•^.**r?f:A' ■■'■ ■ '
33073
a corpora tl" -•"'"'"'•"- ■"'
)
COURT Off CHia^O*
f
' 2.5 2T,A, ' :
th4« Is an appeal from an ortSar of tue Municipal court
▼aesting a Judgaant a^alnsb the Equity printing & rypes«ttln«;
Company and dsnyliifi a motlMi to set aside the order of ▼ao&tion*
Soptember 13 » 1926» a $u6@tmnt, wn® entered by oon-
fooalon against s^ild company and Indus^trlal orkers of the <iorldt
an alleged oorporfitlon* on two jucigmant notoe of i»hlcli tiw forster
was the aaJcor* and tho latter an apparant endorser. > ecsaibcr 14t
1926* the latter filed a action* supported 1»y pJTf id«.Tit(?t to raoate
?.nd set aaiAe tha Judgaant a^^alnst it» olaiaing that it was an
asseoialion taoA not a eorpor;'tiofi and that it» e&id endoraoaent was
not authorised* sn order «aes entered the aimB day opening up the
judffBcnt a& to the Industrial orkore of thfe orld only* aa we eon-
fltrue Itt and to pemlt the sffinaTit in support of Ite motion to
stand ae its affidRTit of merlte*
l^eoealter 21, 1926* the property af the i^quity Printing &
Xypesettlntf CoBpaiiy was sold by the bailiff of the Uunloip&l court
under an execution issued on the day of the Judgment* and the pro-
ceeds of the B«>le» sunounting to n,^1422«30* wae «ipplied on account of
the Jud0Bent*
4v-s^xvX?r3
jv ^Y riy'
i^ f^t^'^i--^.:^'' -«, «^f^t-*-?: Y^, ■■■■
m iiitr«»l aoi
■■■(.? y .- -'vjk
*2-
])ee«irt>ar 22* 1986* one Vrank Klorlttt» olaimlag to b«
« er«dltor of tha "Equity Printing & Typtsettlng C«apaQx (r«f«rr«6
to horelaafter as d«feQctt.^at) filed nn Interreniafi; 9«titioa> and
lfttor» {unendaeats thereto* cleimiaf- to haw o, prior lion on tbo
property of dofoadaat*
The aobioB of the ladUi^trlAl orkers of the orld to
Taoate th« jadgaeat against it aad the petition of ?lorlte were
continued fron tlae to tise* and on JJeoember 29» 19S?» the
forwer v^s allowed and e&ld petition weic, on pl&iBtlff'e notioa*
•trickea from the fllo««
It appewra thnt ?iorite filed a eredltor'n bill a few
days l&ter la the Cireult court of CeoJc county uader vrhioh ttae
Chiengo Trust C«Mpa«y «&■ appointed receiver of defondant with
the mttttsil powers* the or<ser authorising r^.nd directing it to appear
la the iduaiolpal court la this cau»« to stove to vacate the Judg>
aeat against defend&att and on <prU. 21, l$iiS, purs;u«at to s\ioh
order the reoelver filed e petition to vaeate 8»id Judvaeat* tho
oae aov under ooneideratitm*
The ground a set up la support of the petition ar« that
siild Plor Ite purchased the property at the judicial sale »uhJoot
to disputed lieaai that tha iudgneat v {$ a disputed olaini that tha
aotes on which the judgiaaat was ooafeeaed lure not in truth and in
fact notee of defeadnati th^ b they were signed by peraoaa without
authority to eoceoute then and are null and TOid| that the aourt vaa
without Juriedletioa of cefeadant to eater antd judgmaati that the
▼aoatioa of the Judgiaeat on the ootioa of the Xaduntrial orkera of
the arid aperated to raoate the eat ire judyaaat*
The petitiea 1b filed tiader the proviaiem of section 21
-8-
»ii^ 6* :ptjUK4«itt 4«#ii«»i'i jtimit'tmm «di«X ,ss tei^jas-jua
fH^: :09^^-.0fM .^m^im. <* mt»^t>:^ w^fmitM %^i*%mt.^ 4i$nmi^x^jMm' *%i»it»i
^....»lii*;.##i6«:|^-lHl< liJ^^l^li^rjiWlil tm»-H -isMinfm imm^fiii «>r£#-*f««fc«v
''' 'M^ ttitf «ft' iiii<M»«^ ii(» l«)i» «'4wltf M #111(18 (sw'i"'^ '^t^ffsiJufta
'T---; .st,4.;'-:-i.i-:3 «i, :^n.!:,:. A1««|JtiJl»*t «9lMM» art* ^^■x'3■,.^^^ imnM 9sirf
•f thi* Uimlolpal Courfc A«i conferring •ti«iialil« pow«ra upon tlMt
omirt to Yaeat* and a«t a»ide a Judgment oa gxouacie tluit would
bo suffloleat to OAUae the bium to be Tao&tod and sot aaldo by
a bill in cquit/. Henee it must bo oonoldorod upon prlnelpleo
applloablo to ottoh a bill. It dooo not atton^t to diseloeo that
tho defendant mtr. not Indttbtod to pXaintlff to ib« nmount of th*
Judgment oonfooaec?. or tHiat dr^fendnnt iu6 rny Koritoxlous defenee
to the aetloa* or that there would be u tlffer«nt reuult on
•notber trial at lav* Xt ^aa oaid in Reetd t* K«^ Y>,^£xchango 3ll>:»
SaO lU* 501
"It is a well oottled rule of lav in tblo tate
tbyftt eourte of ec.uity «ill not interfere to prereat
tho oolitic tion of a Juc^sjcetit, ev&n thouiiih the ^udgaient
naa rendered viithout eerrice of proooos* ualeee a
neriterlous defence b? shovn. It would be tts{«les^ to
aet aeide a Jjudgnont at law unless it is ahovn that
there would bo a differsmt ipnult u|>on another trinl
at law."
Beaidoai if the judgsent was to Oe disturbed At all, the order should
hare boon to open up tho jwxgntent and not to Taor>te it on an m^
parto affid»Tit or petition*
HowoTor* if &s ia the of foot of the petition » it bo
admitted th»t defend/ nt whs indebted to plaintiff » then being purely
an equitable proooeding ond lacking the oaeential eleasat of a
•eritorioue defenae* tho other gromda of the petition need not be
eoaaidored* In H^ey r» Kfj.ufb>an« 134 111* :215, the oourt hold that
it voiild not relioTO a^ainot a Judgaont entered without authority
where it appeara thr.t the debtor ovoe the aaount of the juiiffaent*
and haa no defense* either loi^l or equitable • to the debt fwr
which the Judipient wtiu readered* (p* 226*) It aaidi
*Thia principle applies not only ?<here tho
applior>tion ^.o »et aeide the Judgnent ie nade by
the debtor* vrho claiaa th;\t he was not aerred with
prooeaet or gave no authority to ocnfess JudgiAeat»
bat also whf re jfuoh applicfition ia aade by a
oreditor or oth«r third persoa**
||g;ittf':j|(^: M «#:«<»a^ »^ iji^ li^ .-^^fViMK^^ ^xr little <»l is»£^ «rvj»^
■ff^'i^l&'sii i!;»(5s«iti? m-mim^ fimm^i *v*e«a«^ -inmi-iEft'Sf d«i» oij^'cw *1
'?*■>
;::sr iSsiS^'ft
«g# ^'llilife'^tl«# Un''is;mi'nn-» ^t^i^ml-zt a h^v-
It Matter* ii«tf th«ref«y«» wliethcr tho petition b*
eonslder«<s as oa« b/ th.9 d«f<.'nd&v:i: or by m) ilUrd persoa*
It la e«Bteadi«d by oounoal for appttlle« tlmt the Ju<ag*
aMnt being & unit tJie order setting it nslde aa to the Industrial
orkero of the orld opemt<%d to v^acate the entire judsKwit*
'^'hlle this ease doee not cose within th^ cxonptione to the rule
referred to In jto^ig t« uwurad .>eit»p Brriring Ooiapany* dS Hi.
Ayp* 345 V the eourt there saidt
"This 1b* ao a rule* true on otppe&l from error
alXefod as to the rex^^^rlng of the jud^tent Itself*
In an applianticHD to set aside a Judgment by
coBfeaeiooit am appotO. is natle to the equita-ble ^a
veil as lav powora of th« court • aiid the oourt pro-
eeedias upon equitable prinoipXeat tmy renore the
JudgnoBt as to some and alloii it to stand aa to
others a"^
But in the cj^e at bar no Juri&^letlon «ra6 aoquired of
defendant InduatriaX orkera of the orld» It die not sign the
power of ;it&ome7 und^^^t- «hich the court acc^ulrei^ Jurlodictios to
«BlOT Judgment AMjalnet the other d«feadftiit. The repudiated en-
deraement eren if yjilid did not carry with it th« right to ooa-
feas judgaeat under such power of «t^orney v<hieh i^fu binding only
en the jsaker of the noto*
^" ,^ylo.« ▼• y-JxiXoa a07 111. .pp. 112, the court aetittiroA
Jurlediotion of only one of t»o aaakerti of a prowietfory note on
^hich thiR action war, brought* a Jwd-y r-iariL both ^'^s entered
"but aubsequently vacated as to ea,eh« It was held ta be valid
a#Niiaat tho defendant of whOB the court had juriadicticn and ^ao
allowed to otand : e to him*
T^ think the court erred in veoatims the Jut^i^ent and in
refuain^ to set aeide the order* "^e order of vacation will be
rcreraod %tk& the eauee rea&adcd with directions to expunce tho
E£V£RSKi> AMD mSMAmiKli WITH DlHl^CtXQirs*
Oridloy, ?• J*» and ijoanlan* J*t ooneur*
■ Mim-^ ^i^ «^ ais^^''^«»iii!««^ ^# jWl##i;iir 'M809' .fen! «»»«# ««i»« tJUCt- ftrtiiW'
:.'■>:. .in*' . isaisi^iNf Jfeairi^ %mM."m^- t%um ■ M« ■ dtniAw init^iM X<s0^ • ■ . •.;:
•'flMNr »*} tfi^iis ^4** 4i dilw ic:t%m 4im'' ht^ llliw ill' III*'* «'ar5!w»**£dfe
IKi iVti* ^^^m,^f0^'iiM -^k^mmt «1- 3^T««>"*"58Ur#i»'' will MiM' 3
]pp«llaiit *
OP CHIC. 00.
in. JUGTICK gAfOiiin i^iXiVKBaa:. the opisiobt of the court.
This app«al 1» from a Judgnmit sgnlnnt defesdant for
ll»57B«&6 cntersd on tih« default of defendnat for wmt of an
affidATit of merit 0*
Tho plaintiff *• otaUmoat of claim is predicated on
an indebtednosa in soid otaB on two grotmdof (l) on the oalo
and ielirtTj of goods* varea and nerel^Madisc to defendant at
lit roqaost In the avm of $9*230.75, on whloh defendant was
credited vith #3»T02.19, leaTlng a baleaoe of $1»578*56» ae
particularly set forth In axt attaohed copy of the account | and
(S) on an account stated for said balaaoe*
lJefend%nt*s first affics&Tit of merits vao ntrickaa
and it wns ordered to file an nnended affldaTit of aerits* It
then denied the indebtedness &e set forth in said att.%ehed copy
•f aooount or la any em vhateYer» and &ny dcaaand* refusal or
neglect to pay ihe anme» or an iadebtedaess on an aooount stated
in the em of .l»S78«9tf* and alleged that it v» 0 indebted in tho
sun of the credits alloivod in tho etateasat of account and had
paid the same ma ther«!in stated*
On plaintiff* 8 motion tho aaondled ufiidaTit of nerlto
' - }■
Ml". •> im^t; ■■■■■:> {»fi»e?fi«X|
.•i,-nti? ■<•««•, .'4j'«\>/5..'.»' ■• ">,•■■ 4'-'* -.ml-- 4 „ «•;■■-> ..•.-/.■■> -,■ I- ^■,.'..^r^^-■. >'«• . .».*»■;.. -^-« ■(.■.•i^ *»■, ..-II.,
vati strlckest and defvndoat «l«ctiiig to BtnaaA by the mxaa. Judg-
ment In the CUM of 3»ld balance was entered* „t»*--.
Vlille 4Qle defendant fomally denied any lndel»tedneoe It
did not deny the eule and ciollvery of aerohrmdlpte on vihioh tiio
original indebtedaees In the aun of $S»280.7e le alleged to havo
arleon*
I'xie rules of the MunlolpiO. court are in the bill of
cxuejjtlona. Xne rules of pleaoiag 60 be obaerTed in OMid court
appear in rule 16. Paragraph (k) thexeof prorldes t»hat ''tvery
allegation of fact in any pleading* except allegr^tlons of un-
liquidated daangeat if not denied 8P«clfleally or by Rooeeaajrjr
Inplleation in the pleading of tl)« op >0Blte party» shall be taken
to bo adaltted* except ae prorlded }>y ride 19.** &9.iA rule 19
relates to the joinder of iaeuo after the filing of an afildaylt
of nerita and hac no application to the facts of thia ca&e. ?am-
graph (0) of aald rule 15 proYidest "It eMll not be sufficient to
deny generally the ^rouadis for r«!llef alleged in ths stateaent of
claim* cet-eff or omaiterolaiift« but each party tmsi. doul apeclf leally
v:lth each allegrxtion of fact of which he does not admit the truthf
but tfae court oAy grant leaTO* vhere it may toe 4uet> to plend a
general denial** ISe auoh leave was granted in thie caae. "ha
rule gooe on to proride that "in jE'lret rnd fourth-olasB cae^eB for
the recovery of aoney only* the defendant sUall* if he makee a
defenae. file an anever, which shall b« an ©li i davit aworn to by
hiaaelf , hie agent or attorney,** ano thet "euch uffld&vit shall
contain a concise otatesMnt of the ttltixoate facta conetitutlag the
defenee." Rule 18 providee thp-t the affidnvit of merlta shall be
filed in flrat-olABs crbob in lieu of pleaa provided for in the
hunlolpal Court Aot» aM that if defendant falls to file an affidavit
m mr» M«i» *'«$^ *£i«!Ss ^ ^blmn^ «JK «4%«ft»» «&«k#'^j-j$&ft ««r p.$
« i^-'j^-a^ j^ «4r«i:<^ mA vm ^i. #^«Nil«r «^%4i!#4 %jeqi|| ie«m ^ji<«ft «i# dc^
viil ' ■ ■■m '^m^miik- mt..^U% t^;:»m»^~
-3-
of nerltB suoh as i« r«c,aired by the rttl«« of said court tho
plaintiff shall be entitled to default and Jud^iaiit upon his
afflcieiTit of claim fllad in the onee* or upon such further
evldeBoe ae the court mmy require*
The sstriektjtn affldHTlt of aMrits luuiifeetly dees not
confoxa to these rules f and under the l:^»t mentioned rule the
court vas authorised to enter said judgment upon **he^«rlng the
evliUnce contained in the riTldnTlt of plalntif f * e el&im filed
herein** as ^ma recited in said order* It does not dcny^ a salo
and dellrerj of msrolUMidise to defesdetat "in the sum of «5»S80*75t**
thereby under the rules admitting a sale e.n£. dcllviiry thereof in
Bald SUB* nor does it Iqr thus admitting such sale and delivery set
forth the nature of any defomee defend^mt hae to the aiaount of
plaintiff* e olaim* It is in effoot merely a general denial of
indebtedness* nhieh i«> not BUfficleat imder the rulest and states
no defease whatever to the balanoe claimed for goods sold and
dellrored to defend^tat ni its special in^tenoe and request*
Qhder the practice of the iMtmlolpal court the affidavit
of merits was properly strieken*
AFFIPJCSl}.
Qridley* r« J.* and Oi^nlan* J*» ooneur*
f'
*'■• ■•1. isa jCft,
S3122
THSOr/OBE v-sua
▼• / ^^-^ { J) APi'SAl. PR«lUMWni;i*-AL COUPT
ft:pBBAL LIPt. IB-3DRAKCS J OF CHIC 00.
CQKPAiry, a oo/porn&lon, j
Ifi^. JO^iTICK SAFJriLE D'.LIVEHKL tHK OPIKIOH OF THE COURT*
Appellant 9«eke rerersal of a judgnent «sel]i»t It for
4'176 in an aotion on a h««iltii laataranoe policy lesueti Ijy It
against dlaeaae* The cl&in Is predicated upon a prorision for
IndeoRity for eontlnttous dlBability and nKceosr^ry ooBflnenant
in the bAUBO of not loss than eeven days or nore tToBn thirty weeks*
Th« statecsant of eX^<in ^aiegee that plaintiff »as oon-
tinuouely disabled and confined for a period of six weeks boglnning
"Deeeaber 20, 1927.** The onte olalaed ^t the trial k&q i^eoeaber 9«
The greater weight of the eyidenee ehowe th&t the true date was
Laoeaber 16 •
Tender the "atnndard provleiona" the policy provides that
written notice of elokneee on ?»hioh clsim iiiay be baeed wuet be glTen
to the conpany icithin ten days after the ooBsaenoeaMnt of disability
or cuoh sioknesao hut thrt failure to give auoh notice ehalX not in-
Talidate any olaia if it shall be ahowa net to have been reascmably
possible to glre such notice and that notioe wae given as soon as
was reassanbly possible*
iPlaiatiff gave notice of hie disability through a letter from
his wife dated January 9, 192S» saying that plaintiff "has been siok
'-•^tMoiKf'"''^'''^^^-
%.
"^■^
Is ir^ k^
?i^
'mm.X!i'^ ^mns
mut
■^^l'
^'mt
••-
•Uw* Daoanbtr 9th(> He la still under doctor's e&re*** and under-
took: to oetabliah tlmt date. But in hin final proof praaeated to
defandaai Jnnu; rjr 28* 1928 « and again in hi a proof prasaated to
another inisuranoe oonpany ^ebruf^rjr 3> 192a» for an accident olftlxaf
it wae stated both by plaintiff (undor oath) axuA his attending
phyeioiaa th^t plaintiff ivaa suffering fron traoaatio luobago
caused 1»7 an accident r^eoeaiber 16* 1027 » and tht\t that vxis the date
of the beginning of his illaeas and confineaent«
But it is ifimat«rial which date be accepted if plaintiff
eannot be exeueed froa fulfillment of his obligation to gire defend-
ant the notiee required by the policy* The only exottae offered by
hia for not giving auch notiee until twenty-four days froa lieoeaber
16* or thirty-one days frost J>eo@aber 9* -^rs thnt he «a& ill and
oould not leave the house* Bat It ee.nnot be eald that it was not
reasonably poeelble to give notice before January 9« aeroly be-
ORttce of oenf ineaent to his houae by eueh Illness* It does not
appear th»t he ceuld not v^rite or dictate a notie«; or n^nd it by
another* ^o imponsibility to prepare and tr&nsait a notice within
ten days froa the oocs&enceaent of the disability or as soon as
poseible thereafter <?aB disclosed*
One of the provlsitme of the poliey is th^t strlet
compllanoe on the part of the atsaured and beaef ic i^^ry with all its
tense and conditions is a condition preeedent to recover there-
under, and th^'t a failure in this respect will forfeit to the coapany
all rights to any Indejanlty. a said in Jgorwaysat v* Thuringia
Ins. Oo*i 204 111. 7>Mt 34S» "contracte of insurance arc to ba
construed like other contracts*" Under the teras of the poliey
defendant had the right to Insist on the notice required thereia
as a oonditi<m precedent to the right of recovery if renoonably
poosible to give it* In hiteside v. Horth i»irioan -ccicont
"S-
(ifl|*.r5i;» *J*;^'-'* '■ '■-■'^ •^-- .^'^■i'/ «^ t»'a«nE«*t ^«^i> J^IMRAtas/a ^Ofit;?0fl;«
V ' ■
.,i(«'il(^«! »it i«* t^'Jt;/;!*- ■;.ij'i,a*aw»« fait nwii ci^'d «9^
-3-
Inaurance Co«» 200 K* Y« 320, ths Insuruc wr.:? t&ken ill Hov«Bb«r
13 ( anci wr, a elok for th« period of a month* ^ urlni; the enrly psrt
of hie slekncaa ha vat, <iellrlous Hjad unable to renMaibor that h»
had a polio/ aji^. had fully lorgotteii it until about I^eoeaptoer 10»
when ho iaimcdi&toly gar* notic« to the company. The policy required
notice oi the die&bllity within ten dnye thereafter rind ruoh notiee
wae a condition pr(!!ce(::ent to recorery. the court held that under
such ciroumat'^inecB he would not he relieved fron fulfillment of th«
en^igeaent which ne had voluntarily undertakent citing froai Kerr
on InaursAoei p. 451» th&t "insurerisi have & right to Seei^natte the
tenu upon which they will becoise li&blo for n loss» * * * j\aA
when p&rtlee h&ve aade their own contrniot * * * and assented to
certain conciitions the courts cannot oh&np:e ttem and isust not periait
thea to be viola te<i or dieregnrded*** the court also 8$ id in that
CABO that the notiee might have been aeirved by another person if the
inaured h&b dlB»bled from personally ^o ciolng* there was a like
ruling in Jolms<» v. Mia nr^f^d C £ i?ufc 1 ty Cq * » 73 5. H» 289» and in
Unit eji Bene vplyp t oci c ty v. Freeam^.lll a«. 385.
It is true that the courts have held that the ineured;toxjtld
not be held to a strict cotaplianoe with the t«rai8 of a policy requirisig
notice under eirottOBtnueee aueh as when ^^iven by an adndnletrator of
the Ineuredf or where the injured has been unoonecioue or deraaged or
ineajie froa the effecte of an accident during the period vhen the
policy required notiee t but the oaee Rt bar does not eoae Tflthin that
olaee of caeea*
We think the jud^aent nttat 1»e TB'vera^d for non-oottplianot
vith the provision requiring notice i»ithin ten cjo-ys from plaintiff's
diaability in the absence of ai^ ahovlng th&t the notice was not given
thereafter (tte B0<m as was rei^eonably posGible* This concluaion
obTiatea any neceadity of considering other ^.llegcd grounds for reversal*
RfcVirunED WITH A VTSHISO OP FACT,
Oridley,p,j,, and Soenlan, J., eoaenr*
ijtij/
lO
J<i>4K
-4-
33122
FUTDnro of »aot«
Va find ikat the oomieneeaioat of ttpp8llt«*s oonfinemaat
And dlB&l)illt7 va« Deoeinbrr 16» 1927* and that hm failAd to glT«
notice to appellant of hia dle&blllty within ten digrH from tlM
comcenoement tiasreof or as soon as was re6sanftl>ly possiiible for
blB to do*
^r>.Ucr« ^
.■..-iff- A
hL-
"Itt *0*iP
;to«
.JiW^,
-."■«t«i<W:'
-4-
33122
FIHtlW} OF FACT.
Va find tliat tlM oooir.isttoeseBt of appellee's oonfineaMBt
and dlB&billtj vac Deoeaiber 16> 1927* and that h» fflilltd to girm
notloK to appellant of hia dieablllty within ten daye fron tb«
coaui:;enceBent thereof or -aua so^a as was ree sennlily poaalbla for
bia to do*
■.^:S^^
S31S1
S. a. OEIG
UAfi^XiKUUT mOTOP GO.,
• oorporafion«
CO0r>T OF OHICa'JO.
-!^' O >w X
A
643
MR* JOlitldv a.^^iK£S I^VXIVKBSX; THE OPIKIOB 0» THE CUOKT»
Th« stataflMDfc of olaln herein I0 fer reoevery of $6&0f
the value of «aie ledc^e atttotaouUe glren toy plaintiff to (iefendant
Xareh 31* 1926$ as ;»((rt.i(>iX pisyaent fdr a new Faekard auteoiotolle
whieh plaintiff «tj|7ee<j to purohase and defendant to sell and
(leliTer* The elals le preelvated on tt«fend>nt's failure awt neg-
lect to turn ovwr the Jt^okard automobile nMtL Its: refueel to return
the I>odse autonoblle*
defendant adMltt«c the agreesient and arsrred that it
tendered delivery of the Faoat' rd autoaoblXe anc vhat plaintiff re-
fuaed to noi^'cpt It* and th t it la «itill sf'f.dy e.n& willing "to
eeoore en i;t.utoaaoile of «uoh style an<i type for plaintiff*" The
trial «aa without u Jury and the court found for pl&intilf and gnve
j)^gnent for $6S0« froat whleh defendant apjteala*
The acreeaent waa dated Mareh &!» 1()26. xJ«fendr4it bought
the Paekard autoMOblle April 50 froM a dealer in v^llnton^ Iowa*
Kay if aeeort^lng to defend«jit*e teetiJMie;/, or on June ao» according
to plaintiff *•• plaintiff oalled. at defendant's aaleerooai and saw
the ear* hlchever date It was* plaintiff olftlna thrt the epeedoaeter
Indies ted that It had been driven 314 mllee* and ^ t the tine the
^■•--■nN^---™^
■0mi>^' -'■''' ■ ■■■'
■'•r . j;^ps^:
,,- ,;■
mm^
i:tfsi$
« ^^-iL<.«ik^tti'«
->>>i
>3-
tirea eiiowed liaise of SOOO «il«8» 4tnc; ii^nt it l«olce<i Ilk* a momiA*
hand ear* On tIio»« grounaa he tii«n refueerd to aooopt th« oar*
Dofoi^ant lntrO(iueer> wltaeo^ea wte olaljaed to haTo ^«a prvoeiit at
th« ttaw and toetifled lli^% they did not Hoar plaintiff couplain of
the tiros* Tc ^s eonplal&t about tho <^l6taBoe it A)>peur«d to har*
bo«n drlTont aefQ)nd»at*B saloewan testified that he bold plaintiff
it vae euetoorry to drive in oora Tr<m the factory to e^re freight
ehz^rgea* Clinioa* lowti, ia ISO oiloa fron Chicago* There was no
proof how the c^r reraehed the dealer ia Clinton, iftfendant did not
undertake to proTC timt it had not be«n driven 314 miles or nore*
or that the tlrea had not reetsiTOd the wms* plaintiff olaiued. In
f&ott there ««ia no proof that it wm^anew ear hut merely that defend-
ant "understood'* it va& when purchasing it from the Iowa dealer*
June 26 plaintiff wrote def eiui^iint cancelling the eontraet
for failure to deliver the oar after the lapae of nearly 90 deyo
frm the dete of the oontraottaad dtmandod. $650 as the value of tlse
l^odge oar* tfhioh hetd homi jtreTioualy disposed of hy defendA>nt*
Replying Jtme 29* defendant atated that the ^aokard oer had 'Oen
ready for delirei^ for the past threes months and tmlce& pltiintiff
called ?t once and took it it v?ould cxnoel the eontr&ct» forfeit ttao
deposit and resell the oar* It appeara* however » ths^t defendant luujl
diopoaed of nnd delivered the Pr^ck ?d 0)»r to another ahout 6 or 7
vfoeka after May 3» «e teetiflec^ to hy the saleanan*
7ron a review of the evidenoe we are not ahle to aay that
the ceitrt waa not Justified in It;^ finding and Jud^nent* It tends
to ahow that defendant did not fulfill lie contract hy tendering a
new» nnuoed oar* enok aa the agreeaent aaaaifeetly eallod for* If it
wae net auoh a oar plaintiff wae not obliged to aocept it and had the
right to oanoel the centrrot and deaand haek the raluo of tho ^9d§9
M-dilM^^ » ««IAil limi^'mi $t l^t im^. «»9Xlm OMjSJ t© ^..ma »©wft«}K »mU
i«''''jipw^^ «'»f^ «wM «»!'- Mmli^i;^ Mn ^»^»adXw '^i»ss'm'%iia% Sm-h^9it»^
#^il# *«»!?-->fiWSf*- .,;-V4'ii5A*> i*it mloi^^ *^di M)!t»*«ni ^» «ifi# W9d' tooiq
' ■ 'Defet;- •' ^;« Misai*6*%: ii^ *^# B»f)«»ir« iffi«i6as»i-®a ««'l!" »«wi sattt^i^'^-
mm^^-'ft^' ti^fum^^ :*ius- t*l'.fers*t mH .ttS fe»l%is^«»t tea ;^ :■-.'■ :ftm^ '»ilj
4»|{^ fe^s«i: .ftt^r ;^t ^(i££^»»« i»$ Aifl^^i^li^ ««aa' Ciiiiir fits&Xxlti, tr.& » ^)ti» '^ibn t^jsti
vr
-5-
9mx whloli <$«f«a4tiat had disposod of*
But It Is ttzcod thr.t there was bo proof thn.t th« Dod^^
oar woo of tlM» valao of ^«50. At tbo b«glmiiii« of tho tri«^l tho
parties i^osd so uuai ol tiia f^cta* and amoac tlum tha( tho . odge
oar vft« turaod lu fov j^CSC, and d«f«<aaajdit** couaBel ttaon s»ld,
'that was tho acrood raluo**^ Fr«« the /^:cox<). it would ap,oar
that the o-.ia^ yts %rio(] upon uh6 iMiOXj tJa&t tho only mattoro la
dispute «roru» «hloh p^xrbjr iiina la delaaJLt nad whether tixo oar
dtiftfjBdHai »oii£ht to deXiTer vims a no-v> oai^ t^e vas Intoiuiod* Sofoad-
aat dlvi ao» deny in its ploaain^ that the a)o(Ago oar «as of tho Tula*
of ^dOO* but siaply thn.t it aid aot e.ie thit isua* Its v«autt» thoro*
fore» was adadtted by Ito plo&4iiag» if th«r« io &ay oouht, cibout tho
Intention of tho prirtle% t& agvee ac to its Taluo*
It lo argnod thfit bttcatt8«i tto eourt roaiurlcod that tho
ear «ae aot deliver od la a r^nsoRatole time tho jud^aeat was oatorod
09 an loeao not BRde by tho pXeadlacs* It Is io;ffiat«rlal vhnt vtere
the court** reBiF'..rko if tho finding and judgaont os vb«» issuou aado
by tho pleacdlags are Juctifiod by t.he rrideaoo*
ATVIHICSD*
QrldXoy* ?» J** aad ^:a&al«B, J*» eeaotcr*
./:sr-r.!^:
^^i^- '■ itiX
'^^£*&:«Wt"?^.* ^,^
33018
JOSEPH liATHY
Appal !«•«
1 *''' /
LOUIS PVAUltt wX$ /
R0VS05T KOMESTBAi'
AS OClATIOit a corp»«
Appal l«Bt*
Art-EAL JHOU SUPKPlOR
COW^IX, GOOIC COUKTT.
m* JUl^TICa StJABlAH 3>::>LiV3m^'.D THE OPISriOK 0? THE OOORT,
Tht eoas>lainiU3t, Joueph Mv.tiky* fll«(}, lit the Superior
Court of Cook Counfcy* his bill to forecloso & oextain tru«t oeed«
•nd aade Loula 4^«u» jopkia PfRU» Jhrf>jak B. SueslBt indlvi ually
aad aa truetae* Staphcs Sraobielakl* i oae arKebielskl* hia «lfe»
nnd uomoat rlaowaiaad A»aool?^tiont a oorporfjitlont ceiandanta*
Bua^iln did not flla an apporirnaoo or as an&trert and was defaulted.
Aftar anrvara fllod by the other defandimta th« ositteo was referral
to a naeter la ohaneeryt who fllad a report rindlBg the equitlea
«lth the eoMplalnant and ieee«aim9n&lae a d^eree In his faTor* The
chancellor euatalfled the report aad entered a deoree in ttc or(^!?.nee
therewith. ?he Kovneat HoaMatead asoelMtloii is tlM only dafeadant
that haa appealed*
The «Miided hill uUegae that on March 10, 1920* the
defendania Louia Pfau aati ephla i^faa, then owneru of the preniaea
in queetlon* exeouted and dcllTered a tintnt deed conveying the
pre^aea to the defend nt Frank B. Buasln* as trustee* In ccmelder-
atlon of the bum of llt^OOi th^.t on the mme date the Pf&ua axseutad
and delivered a note for -hl»000» payable flva ye&ra after data»
3,
'■^.j^'^-
Mctm
*mi& mt' m tftxtt^ mt mmtt^^^wasi^'''
■WOv>
tivnis*- *^ Mistt tllAilK #ii^i^ V ^^-^ '^{^
,«il>»|' x»ito «D!A*t «Vl;1. J?.i«tet»« «®9©iX#,1W% •*«?« .«S ?♦•»■« Wlistt' (W'-.j
t« th« ordvr •f thmmmnVf aaci by then intiOTmmdt eto*| tlwii b«fen
Bntarlty and f«r « Taluabl* eeB«ld<; ration • tho oonplalnaat jntr-
chA8«d th« note and is now tha holder and omor of tha aaao| ttubt
OB Oetoliar 19, 1929» the ^faiia ceaToyod the preaiaaa to tta*
arsoblalakls by wamtaity d«ttd» whlelt was raoordadt that tha dafand-
aat Frank B. BuasUif trttatee* in riolation of hie dutiaa na aaid
truataa axid in fraiiMl of oonplainaat* axecutad aM dcliTarad a
eartain relaaaa daod reXaaeiBK tha preaiaaa from the lien of tha
aaid trust daadf that aaid rolaasa waa giTaii without any oenaideratioa
aad vithmtt pmywiat of tl» aald notaf thftt esid ralciae waa ra-
cerdad on fior«Atae 9* 1924 1 that the sum of :;I*000, together with
iataraat froa Maroh X0« X934» has not baen paid to tha ocNnplainanti
or any part thereof. Tha bill prays for a foreclosure of the traat
daad and thivt the purported raleasa ha set aaide &« r cle»ct upon tha
title of tha eo&plainant*
Tha aasKor of tha KoMaatead aeocli^ticm arera thfit it is
a oorpor«^tion orgsoeiised under "AM <voi to enable aasooi felons of
paraona to haeoMa a body oorporate to raise fiaide to be loaned only
aaang tha menibars of such aae^ eiatieaflt" in force July l» 1879f and
asMtndments thereto* and ie new doing business under '^Aa Act in
relation to mituaX building » lotm and heaeetead as!$oointi<ms»'* in
foree July 1* lvl9| th»t on ;;jepteatber 11 » 1923* the defeadaata
l^taphea araebielakl and Hese <lraebielski beeove ataatoere of tha
AsaeeintioB and borrowed from it the r:;aii of $2»S00, and thKt ta
secure the loan they execute and daliTerc'd to tha A«cooi<9itioa their
acreeaent of the B?aae d«te» whareia they proaiscd to repay the loan
in weekly payments of $6»28»«ith interest at six per ceat per aaBua»
to
pagrahla aeathlyf thatZ^urther s&care the payaaat of the loan tha
GKrsabielsfcia executed and doliyered to the Asiioeiatioa a atortgac*
cmrreyiag the preaises in que^ti<m to it| that on October 5, 19£39
h'tu: lis ii«J;"Iel\ .._ , ../•t; Am '<:''" -'' ^li^-^ttf '^a^
(lg«'Sfe':>l.'6t^y.'5 -v^Wa .*/.t^^J :;:-^ iii.,a»l»t M«si iM^ imnh i■is^-mi tula*
.S.aiBai*.i.'..tas:'.5 sii.^ 'ift »Xil#
fe!R- ■ - , ■'■1 i^mmtt
-s-
th« Bsoclftt&on issued its oh«ek for ^2,900 to the Qra«bi«loJciB in
payacat ©f tlM loaai that on Oefcobttr 9, 1925, «l,u3d.56 of said Io«b
wao paid to Praalt B. Buo^ln, truotoe, la full payaoat anJ eatlaf action
of tho principal note for $l»ooo oxoeutod Maroh 10» 1920, by th«
Pfauflf and aa Interest note for $30 dao Sftptoiribor 10, 1924 1 tliat
Buasla, at the tliso of the pajfaeat, representod that toe w(?« the owner
of the principal note aatti that the eeae van temporarily mloleld,
bat that he wotUd prodaott eaae »s eeoa as found; that neither the
araebielekls nor the Ueeieetead Asgooiatien hs^< any notice prior to
the payaeat of &l,03a«5S that the otaqplainaat vK«i the oraer of the
note I that the e^ild p&yaeat wae aade in goo<^ ft<h upoa ''the clr-
ctvastanee tbrnt he Tsna thxs Truetee naaed In 8r*ld Trnet Deed, and i^oa
the further fact that os-id 3uezia wst.& is poee«e$^l0B of the caneeflled
interest notes aforesaid siod of the fire iKsuranoe p^f^fXlcy on the
inproveaents of s^ld real estat«< and of the ab»tract of title f" that
en KoYCttber 5, 1925* the said Bueein, as troste®, '^exeoutei and de<»
llvered to said <>.oeo«iatioB » Joint Hol«<vse I^esg of »&id Trust D«e4
and of a cesriein Traet re<9ci fron Hwary ?en&egraa and Alhertina
Paaaegraa. dated Karok 22, 191^• to secare; & principal note for
11,000, ehioh theretofore h'xH not h«en rel^eedt** Viat the defend-
aate, the drseblelskls and the Uaeeetead AsDOOiatioB, "having no
Botioe that aay other person was the owner smd holder of Br^iA
prinolpal and Interest notes new olalaed by the 8(ai^:)lainant , and
haTlag paid the snae, had the right to ci&aaad aad aoeept froa said
?raBk B* 3ussin, as Truetoe, the said Release Xeed***
The facts in the ease are olOAr^ In 1922 the oonrplainant
parohaood frea the defendant Buazin, a broker, the note of the Pfaus
for $1,000. 'vt the onae tlao he receivod an abstract of title aad
certain inearaaee polioies. the notes were payable at the offi?e
- 'I M%^ -m-rii^im^ i:>ii(hM "tat »t«i« X^jtj«slt^ aisTj 1i«
■ ^li^Si; .^a; if*, !'s«^:' ■•.«<■■ .':W!''
-4*
of BuaslAt or tuoh othsr pl««« &• tne holder night Appoint in
writlns* It vas the prnotieo of tho conplAln&nt to present to
Buosla the intorest oouposo e^bout; the tine they became duo and
to reociTO p&yn»nt of the sonw through .iiuosin* In Augiuii, 1923 1
th« i^auo ontorod into an aipreteisont to sell the preaiaos in question
to ttao GrxobielakiB* and on Septaa3»er lit 19^3 » thoy coureyed thorn
to the latter t hy warranty deed* vhllo the dO'.>d ia silent as to th«
incumbraneo of ^l»000t noTertheXooa* it i« plain that it was Urn
understanding that the conveyaneo wiise aade subjeot to it» Oao •
B* Tabola* a roal estate broker » representod the draebiolskls in the
transact ion. Tabola was also a oolloctor for the Howeetead A«aoei«
at ion* In ord«^r to conBuaatate the denl it was noceos! ry for tho
Gr^oblelaltis to mine noaey» and Tabola hisd then beeomo msoibtre of
the ABfiOoiation and they borrovod fron it $S»500 vith '«hich to pay
the principal and intorest then due on the |1»000 notc» and also to
pay a certKin aecunt that was due the Ffaus on the deal* At a
direotors* «««ting of th« Honeetead Asiseoiiitiont its check for ^^tSOO^
payable to thii C^rseMolBkist iras handed to Taloola. The xe&urA do«s
not show that the Sraebielskio vere present at that, noeting. T«iibdla
h^ the Ghrsobielskis ii^orso tho oheok and h« «>«po8lted tho nmao ia
hie bank aoeoxint* That oronlnt;* Tabelat alMiety wont to tho of floe
of Bttssia with his persenuO, eh»ck for ^'l»i)3#t nado payable to '^Frank
B. Baszin*** The Imtter told Tabola th;;it ho could not giT« his; "tho
papers at th«t tlsto* beo^uoe of the f&ot that he di<in*t keep tho
aortgagos eit hio plt^ee^ that he had then in tho o&fe deposit box in
the People's ; took Yards ftcto Bank« sind th^t ho could not get into
the box in tho evening*" To this statement Tabola ansrveredt "I
told hia that I t)OT4ld leave tho cheek and oall for the papers next
dsyi for whieh ho gaTO ■• a r9c«ipt» statinit OTc-rythlag wrs paid up»
lacludlBg the roloase foe and the interest to data*" Tabola thmi
sM^*"iltol^ ia**i^'' *^ f«^ **wSi* «v£©?r«f ^** *«>«*«X fir'-" .'-^.>..y.%(j!Si .8
i#^:' .t%i' -^iStrt' "^si»0^- -'jwf::-..t.a*^'' »«# «3ia(»C »<«.*«. iJfcw^T 3i:«w»*a - « • sjtti* »*i 9f»
^^u M»^ «»«!f» i?iRi#«*^«i«ip«»: sas.U4i» nHi»mi ».m*f!m M,Mf^ ^♦^^ *'?»*
•6.
handed th« ohnek to Bussln* Th«r«ceipt readt "liieoeiTSd. of a«
B« TaVola ;^>1>039*55 to take up the Pfmu, norteagc* i>ouuntttit aunber
67S9390, alM taklikg up the FanoegsrAU nort(;aee of i^lfOOO." Tabola
die net r«ceiTe the proKlsed pa]^er» tbct nftxt «i«y aatl he went to
Biteitiii*G office and the latter told hia th'.t he wne unabl* to ^et
then ae h» vto.u too busy to get do%n to the deposit box* Four or
fire te/s later Tabela vent to Buazin* st office and the following
oeourred: "hen I e^iaie in, and I rang the: Tjoll* he wc^b in the offiee
ttf hie hOKte* and he greeted »«» an£ nfikcd ae to coeie into hiK oflioet
and he told »« tfc. t he f ia.TiH>- i;et Uie paporn -rnS thnt thoy are all
ready for ne, oM he tuld ae to sit ccwn iuid I did » iuid he i^ent aad
eat dovn in hie chair* ancii ht: sih.i.<Xp here is tM relive i^c: deuuf and as
he did th.<^t I said, I want th«s dano^led patera aleo* the notee and
truet deed, and he aa.id* there they ajfo* and smuA^ a uotion ao though
he wae going to bcike then in hia haad* and tiien he e»«yB, they are net
here, I wonder wh-^t happened to then» I had th«n all raaay for you|
and when he e«xld that he started to leak i^rovmd and he had ^uite a
nuisbor of diffsrent papers or oocum^nta on hie table Oi- deflk, and
finally h* sfiys, after locking ihrou^h all of hie files, ar%l on the
tHble lUBong the pnp&x» om had there, eyen iboke^i into hie book «ase
and the files, and he S8tys, hy oUy th<3y ixtm »ot htsi^e, tiiey ha.r9
dieappeared, aad he oailled Mrs* 3ias2ln, his wife, and a«ked her if
she sav then, and sdus sai<£» ye&, I »"^^ those papers | he znyu, tiuty
were here, wh?-t. eould hare beeoae of uheav ^vad «h« « ys, I clteaaed
the wnote Vxekets this morning, probably I threw txiea in there, shs
SKjrs, * probably oast • I night express soreeXf , - he euys* on«> thing
that will 8%Te tt9, if we go down in the ba«eaent, probably she ciidnH
thr«« then ia the farnaoe or boiler i aad we WMit down there and I saw
the papers eeatcered around the furaaoe there* - aeae paper a she thrsv
ia there that aorala^, aad he aays, she auat hare thrown then in the
%^4iiii,m. ^si^m:^§il i^i'ig^s^'^m m'^'it^' ^ «^4tl »4 '9fS,*MS!^^-
^^,, ^^ ..,....,.. „ ^ ;^^ SKSlfi M«# ■■-■■-■ r —'*'■—• > -- *■'-',■ *■:■
^^i >iift S'S*!'*!} S ♦sfit^SffiU 'i iV" taws' «l)9d»'i' tsJ^isI srCiX& »viil
!»r«s^ it^afii .r9"f«« ' i«^»;fe - ■*il*i' erf* *<tr
:*.*«ii,'-« '"■■ •-■« ^ "Htm^^ *«» »tMr«9*«" <»*:aiit Me<6S ifsiditf tw^ftif :--'^'^
4*a^ti mil» %Mmi^'m:^i0»^mim^ tt «!S(/ ''^^"-'* ''Xi'& iesis
papers unsre bttmoid tlie dniy thin?; to do nould be to hIto tho build-
iaK »nd loan or no it >)on<l Indonnlfyliiif u« «9t\lAet loaa« Me &&id
ho xaul< £(tTe us a vereoaal oond any tijio we vaate^ it» thnt ho
«a« attro fh* papers A^erc (!>e«>ti*oyo<it stnd I tol(Ji hla ilt'tt I didn't
ihlxOe th« attoraoy for tho bullfila; and loan as)ao«i'>tlon woiald
accept a porsosal bond* 1»ut I told hla th%t X ttooujr.ht It wou^d bo
all ri^M If lie would glTO as & awrety eonpwny bon<5 , and he told
MO that ho Tould Inmed lately put in an applle?^tloa for auoh a bond*
* » ^ Rtt WMi* an appolntatoat with »e to got this bond* but noror
did so*" SMnzin, ho^^roTor, gart? Tabola a rolenso dood relo?;stas
the tnist dood iB nuostlott and T&bola dellTorsd this dood and ths
rcc<&lpt giran hia by Bub^Ib ts the Honestoad vsQeolatlon*
The HoniRsiosx! saeolatlon contends *^th&t the deoii»o
should be roTcrood and the bill dismissed for ^imt of a<^ulty» or«
at any rfito* that ths HomoBt H«Bi»8t««ad Association Kortgai^ nhould
bo deel«r«d a »us»erlor lion to the Ma thy trust de«d»**
Fo othes* ooaclunloKi can bo ro^aonably reaohod froK tho
OTldeiBee than that tlus AatiOQl tion xaado Ttiibola Its agont la tho
Matter af tbs p.^ynont of ths J^au noto* 7h« sesoltrcloa* frora tho
nature of Its buslneset w<?. ffmiXif>T ^^ith tr&nseotloas relating to
roal ostaic, and It is net probable that Its dirc^ctors gavo $2*600
of tho aM»ey cf the s&oolntion to ewe %rho ^na not its agent t fOtd
reliod upon hln to take oaro of tho Int^^rf^sts of tho Aosoolntlon
in Bueh an Inportast aattor* Tnbola was Its oellector* H« o»«a>od
tho Orsoblelskls to boooMO Bon^ors of tho sisoelptlan* Tho Bortgag<
to tho voisoolfttlon coTsrod onl;>' the Pfau property. Tho ehoek of
tho AsBOOlatloa «J0 handed to Tabola «^t a Booting of tho dlrooters
of tho AspoclatlsB And he h».d tho Oxsoblelskle Indorse lt»
MfciS¥ «si*^^^i-. .vi:£.ti;/i *.^j te'i; ^-i;-: : r
'\mibk t9m» "t/^f-tM iifi W' ifftix t<ii^.^i-'' '' 3<f
a^t ttl ^HS'-i ■^'sja »«l,'J.'l'fj'«S'8A ids' ii^i .ftsjli »»««!&,* vi?
th4r«>ifter thv lii((t<»r ap^raatly took no iM«ri in tlM transaction*
^^h«a troudl^; aros^ ^itlth Juasln, i'ubola daMiwdvct tivxt Buvsln gir*
th« Uano(ftt<9ad (}»oolr%ioja a aur^.-by jono tu lia^(jaui:{y i* «ii&ia«t
Xe«0# !Ui«l }v» <^tnt9d %Ht BuBsin t;h.it uh&. ottoraey far tlw --aaaelittlM
vooKl not B.cc«p^ a pcTKona:!. jonc. faboln tumu«s orox to Um
AaseciritloB the ruceipt rjtu^ t'>i<i r«X«fesi;« coed tiOfxX ha recei-r«^ fr«i
Bua^ein wart nlsw a letter frw, tha Icttar »ffcriati «► *coept iji&yvmnt
of the RotG in «uo6tiexL* T;xi»oia ahovetf plainly thnt he w^v trjrlas
to protect th« intex-oete of tjne ' s-ioci tldxtf oaljr* '^ earefuX «t«dy
of th« eridance offered by the sbooI tiun falXe to aieolo»« aagr
effort to prOTf tlif.t Ts^bola 'ima not acting as on iigant of tlM
AesoointlMi la the sajnont of tlie n^enay* T&1»ola, oalled by tlw
Aa80«i.^ti<»» WK^ not «7«i Inttrxogatfjd on tlnAt subject*
At th« tia« Tabola p&id Basain tlie noittty t^ note wae aot
&w for about two jrffiaro* sixvi %h» aaster and tb« chancellor foimd
that the dondu^t of TaVsla in hia d«alingo with Buoxia aioeuat^d to
gross caroleosnesot and in our Judipont the evldenoe would wnrrant
no other re stenable co£!clueion» •yen if it waro po»isiblef under
the factSf to hold thr^t tho a^^^oeittticm die sat maha i'abola ita
agaat In tht; atattar of ths payment » It eertisvinly truatod htaL» and
hla alone* to protect ita interest* and uad&r no prlneiplo of lav
or equity can hia neglig«/noe ba aa<f3d to the ban^fit of the ^•saoci'itioa
and the injury of th« innocent canplaijuuit* X« ita brief* tlui
Aasooiatlont is effcot, adjsita th« p^enej of tabola M»d hia Bae^i-
geneat vhen it at&teaf "Hare «e haT« a ons>tt vhara this ?xasaoi'^ti«B
has bean iiapotie. upon by an unaerupaloue trttatea*** If a lose nnat
fall vn 0B«; of two innooant y&rtiea by reat^on of the fraud of another^
it aai£<t fall en hia who put it in the paver of the «r«iediiar to
ooanit the frasad* (Connor v» ahli 530 in* 136*)
gmji^'^i^^ ;^ 'se^^ -^^Si,, .' ' i'i^.,.jNft«fl^ ^, i»i^i% ^ fe^ . « .'". f- '
,t»<««Sf(*p»,tt, Iittr«ss4 tMS^./Sts^ .»9|«M«fT 'sef *f.A***«,'i #«»«««»* ■^'- ■' '>■'■• =""" •-••■^ ■ ' ='*
In Itr* x'eyl^ }>Tiet the •coclntlon orguao thr<t *«lini
Tateola pAlc BuBaln, h« rni netlnc for th^. Pf&ue* in ord«r t« o/trrjr
iafce «ff«:ct their wr-n'tiivty*"' In f;upp«rt of tidim popltlon thm
-.•aooicticm rlt®i- tha fmot tlv^t th* «^«e<t fr©B» PfAU «n6 hl» wif« to
the (?rxQbl«X»Vi8 ea»T«y«e th« pTi^tniMa autojcot ealy to **&!}. taxst
lawfully l«nri©<! au'jsjb^uant to th« ymux 1922," tana tfet "wtwn Tal»ol*
paid ?uasln, Ii<9 w s !*<rtln« for tha Pfuwia, In order fco carry Int*
their
♦iff ootZ^r r^-unty." TM« position ic ne^ither warraniod T»y the aUMror
of tho ■•Hool'tloa nor )>y %he f^qto In th« o?!,«o. 'JHUe Aaower of
bAQ saooiition io bnaod vtston the thsory thfit the OraohlAlskio «»}
tha 'fsjpoclatlofi paid the netn la caostion sAd v.ore a]itltled« thora-
f ora* to d€«M»d 3pad T^c&ive fro» Bvipsiit the reI«i»o« doed oxoouted
by hltt. TEOioXa t«t$tifi«d th t la the nsi^tter of tho «%.l,e of th*
property hy the PfauB to th« SvsohleXakis he ropreoenied tha
3rs6hl«lskie» not the PfK«». It 1» onaisputod la th« ^vioenee
that the Qfrxcbislakie nnd 7a^ol4. %«d^r$;tood that tho property wno
bought stthject to thfi trust d««d la q^oetloBt nad the Orsohiolokio^
through Ttiboluf b&cas.e ftcmb^rs of the Homostenii^ sbocI tlon and
borrowed th«» ^2*500 fron it to p^ th« ll»aoo note sad with tho
balance pns' the -^faua whAt ys&n due: theoi uadt>r tha ^r«eaoat« The
mort£(ag6 glron by th<2 Srsoblelakis to the '<880ol;^tion oorered oaly
tho proporty sold by th« Pfaue to the Orsftblelaleia* The Hoaoatoad
Aaaoointioa had ao thing to ^o ^ith th«! i^t^vm* But evea If 7abol«
wore the ageat of the Pfaue* yri tnil to see hov hia nogXi|;eaoe eaft
be ch^rsed to the coatpl&laoat* The A«>$ooiHtioa aleo argaaa that
uador tho fe-cta «tid oirimBtetaaees fabol* ««ai>; warranted la adoiOBlng
thftt 3u«3k1b «s> the omMr of the aoto is quoetioa. '^o oaanot mtpf
with thia ooateatloB' Tho aeociatloa oalla Attentioa to tha fsot
thrvt the priaoipal ^vrtd latereat notes were payahla **ftt the offioa
of 'raak B. Btaasia* la Chioosa* Illiaei8« or la oaoh ether pl«^ee aa
^f.W
-..A:' ^■tiU-^.y,.
S.ifi - ■,%Mi vf^,
S>it7v
ttf
rlsrii
•^t^ws^
^U0 ^>ii ;J.i.,!^>'
«*f
:;4t.S &ft<i;-'
i:^;i rfti-.s'ssisr
fe^-
ih« Isgftl h»14er hsrcof nmy froat tljna to tina in writing appoint •'^
H la « ooaoaon pri^ctioo for roal e«t&to brokero to !»▼« innorted ia
lilce notoc « provision thr^t th«y aro payable &t the offioo of ttat
affont* authority to reoeivo payntnt or or of the int«r««t
tboroon is not authority to ri^oeir* payawat of sueh noCo before It
ie duo ( iXderiioail v» YiUlgar* 233 III. App, 614, C19), and OBpoclaOlj
la thio 00 where tho party cialaiag the authority to reo«lve pay-
ment failo to produce the note* "It le prtxctienlly the unirersal
eustom to take tap and eaaoel noteo «h«a thoy !&re paid» anil for one
who la autlserlsed to ooll«et» to hairo poooeaalon of the notes aad
be ablo to surrond&r th«B<> Adaao die not haTo posboboIob of theeo
netoot rjttd ^e think It hma uniformly been oonsiderec!* under like
clreuBsetnuooBt tta.'<t there is no app«araiie« of (authority to atake the
colleotien* where as attent has ptiB%«eslon of a note that is due*
it vmy be Inferred th!^i^t ho ha^s authority to recelro payment of lt»
but sttoh an aatherlty oould not be Inferred f rou thrX fact in a easo
like this* where ths paper was not duo* here & trustee releases a
truat deed and r&c*!iyms paynMnt of the debt iNiithout !^.ctual authority
and without producing the eseottrlties« the p^rty paying has notice of
the wajit of powor in the trustee* (Cooi^ey t. ■■'i^.jlard, 34 111* 6d|
gti,ge^ y» S£Jli* ^^ **• 52a») The infcrenoo of authority to re-
oelTO paysisnt arielng from the possession of the securities is founded
upon suoh pOBoeseion* and it dees not exist without possession* 1
As, (k Eag* Kaoy. of Law* (2d ed.) 1026*" ( ypr tupfi v* tocktyja, 182
111* 494, 4dl->2*} *la the abaenoe of actttsil authority, an a^i^enoy
to reeeirs paynont upon a note or Bceurity ocui be iMplitid only where the
one assuming suoh authority has possession of the ini^trument * and
eapaeity to deliver the eaoe upon payment * and this rule is pnrtio-
ttlarly applioable where the debt is not yet dtto*' (2 C. J* 624*)
f£u- .-.;,., <s j^ift »,{tJK» »M» •«««?/ ?'K2£ ««(« <^ASi>ii&*,-;^' • "' J5fcSilC4*^.
»«|#«i«)^ /«4' .<9ti|i9 «JN^ J^ .;,;,)|04»^M»
.10.
T)Mi Aumeolatlon cltoa al80» in cupport of it* preeeiit
contention* tbat the Pfaue testified th.ui they p«ld BuaKla* Ki hi*
ofrlo*f all of the ooupon notes betvoea March 10, 1920, and '"Soptttn-
her 11, 19^3, ami Xhtxi ho ^vouia inall th«a the coupons later. Bo
authority in Suoaln to oolloot the prlnoiiMU. cicbt oe cured «aa 1i«
ini'orred aoroly from th« fnot that poyitftnto of Intereet on the not*
ha4 boon aado to hiu hofore* (tiger ▼• Boa t , wi^SSLA* ^'■^ ^^* ^'^^»
538«} rho fAot that aa agent has exprene authority to oolloot
Intereat en a note la not auff Icient to show authority In tht; A.eat
to collect th« jinrlnoipal jfiieiffl]^, t> Halhort, 196 111* App. 601, fiOi),
ai^ eapeclnlly aheulc thla rulo prevail in a cane llleo the preaont
one, where the principal note waa not proiiuoed by Bua^ln »nd it vaa
not due for about tvo ye^irs* (See also v^aleh v. .Petaraon, &Q Hebr*
645» 630, and 9&Mi» oited therein} -a^tjj^ T*Jl|dd,, 68 If* Y. 150}
yynw t« Orawt* 1A6 S* C* 39, 49* ) Uoroover, tha l^aua testified
that they did not reoelTO the ooupene ^t the time they aade the
paynaata* and th^^t they should b« siailect to tlioia loiter « The .asoelAtion
alao cltea in aupport of ite present contention certain atfttementa of
SuB£in that it claim tend to support its contention thif?.t Busiiin
v>;eia the owner of the notoa in queation* Theae reprei>«atation8 of
BuBXin ne to hla o^merahip can haTe no foroe agslaat the eauplalnant
in the abcenee of acta of holding out by the complainant* Aa to the
olaia th»t Buaaia had poaaesaion of t^ia abstracts It la undiapttted
la thA record that when Tabola« aosM time before the paysent in
questiont went to Buazin to ohtain the altstrs^ety the latter wrote
to the ooaplainaat requesting the loan of it for a short tiate aad
that Buaaia thereaftor r>5ceiT«d it from the coavlalaant. Tabola
teatifiec that he waa coaip«lled to «nit fourtaea to eighteoa days
far the aba tract*
^a haro ••rcfully coaaidered all the facta aad oiroaa-
»4'X''"
iSe 4*,
u!:» bs:?
»^.v
cc .< 1'
itlu>p."
■ii®i4a*i^'«
!lSV:
j.?j'. i. ■ :. - Alt-
.;«*K i?«i<^ Stfc:*'' ■*■'"
f&«4S£i& »■■ *«-^''
Ma
:,Si4*
•11-
ataB««» la this «»«• and «« ar* aa*)il« to agf« vith th« ooattntiM
•f the HoaestMid AaavelRtitNi that Bussia wk« th« tnmtr of th« net*
in queetion* aiK) w« do not think th«t the crldonoe shova thnt tho
«OMplainfU)t» In nay wegr» hold out BuezlM aa the owner of tta« aoto*
It appears freit the rt<oor(l tloAt, Buoaln h»u been la the real oatato
huelnoeo la th« nelghhorho^d in queetlea for luuiy 7eara» aad up to
the tljM of the laetaat traasactioa he aatmt to haTe had a gooA
etan(aiBg» and Tobola* also a real oatate agerit - ppi">rent2jr
tieociretf hy atateaeata UMde to bin by Bu3;slaf and u>>ob which ho
rellod*
The '-ecoelntloa argues that "a o^^reful r«5 dia« of Mathy'a
ioetlatony atuec throw a auaploloa and doubt in lh« court* a mlnd»
whether h« was ro^uLly a hoft^ f ^o piirohaser of bher,e ?fau papers*
or vhethor ho ««l8 net a confederate of Suasia'o** The aaBter found
that tho oovlaiaaat hought the noto and trust deed is 19ii2 aB4
aaa the legal owner of the enitte at tho tiate of tho hearing, the
ehaaeelior hns sustaiaer' th%t fiadlag* e npprove of the action of
the laaater aad the oh»jiotsllor in th t regard. Buaslnt by hia de-
fault t adisltted th«;vt the couplainaBt wsio tho owner of the note and
tmat deed and th^t hia stct in exticatla^; and (iellverlag the relvr^se
det^d waa in -vlolntlen of his trust ai^ % fraud upon tho coaiplaijaant*
Zt la hard to helioTe th^.t if he oouXd hn'vo auadc ansr dcfeaeo to
tho aerioas oh;irgoa aado a^f^ia&t hia ho would have permitted hia-
oelf to be defaulted* tho asoolHtloa did wff, «<"« fit to c%)ll hia
although the t eoord ehaws that ho waa ia Ohio ^ga at the tiae of tha
hoarlag*
The deoree of tho ^vporiox ^oart of ^ook County is a Jast
oao aad It ia afilnM4«
aridley, P« J.» aad S>iraoo» J*i ooaour*
..: .^ ,^i*swit |i^#iif# «*''4iii^
^U.,*"'****"^''"~>4l-»^,,
wm%
a corpora tiOBt
L. J. LKOH KAJmyACT
vppelljait t
COURT OfF CHICaGO.
^
W* JUSTIGK SCAKJUI MLIVEBl^ ¥HB OJ^IITIOH 07 T»K COUIv?*
Thie le an appoal froM a Jjudganat of the Mtmiolpal
Court of Chi«-go» confiraia^ £i Judgment by oonfesssloB on a
«>ritt«ii len^Cf entered l^oc^jmber 51* 1925* In the &\sm of $437*ie«
Thla ea»« wao lU9r«tofor« in this court on an ap^^eal
froB an ord«r of tbs J^unlclpnl .ourt denying a motion of the
appollsjut to raeate and ep«!n ttp the judgnont* tt» firet
dlTlalon of this court on y^tthrur.ry V» i927» roTftroad and r«»andttd
tlw ea«« (So. 311'i^5) on the ground thstt the '^iffldavit supporting
th« said BMtion »ade out a Bl'iSft ft-,fiij?i, defensa* v^eaquontlyt
thora wae a trial by th« eourt on the merits and » fisdlag that
thara aae dua the pl4'^intiff (appelloe) froB the dc^food&at (a^pallant)
#437*I6t JMtd the JudgiBient entered .Deeeaber 3I» ie25» aae o<m-
firaod* This appeal follewcd*
Tha appe Ilantf L. J* Leon iianuf'>oturi]ie Oaapauyt a
Gorporatiod irae engaged in the oanuft^ctttre of bird oagos and eta&do*
BosMtiao prior to the a^id coafeeaion of Judgnentf the c^ppellaat
rented a certain Bpnce (No* 1410 ) in tha "^lierican Vurnitur® Mart
Buil<iing froa the Kart Building Corpor *»ioa» in vvhich it exhibited
ite wares* The appellee t Teller Corpor tloni lonioed ooneid arable
epaee in the said building and sublet the mme to others* On
p
OfOft/St
. f'*i<'S-..iiM>\^
.tl •fe4/i-'^V'iii.<Sj4 ^IvJi^a;,!;^ 'ivitSv^
^t«K£<ps il-'.
■ii'dd
j^il*^
2(i f' «
JD«o«alMir 6# 1924 « th« cvppalloe amA» n. l«aiu« to tke appellant of a
eortsla sptaiot in tlM lUrt Building for a term of liTo (5) yoars
*t an annual raatal of $-800 . payablo in soai -annual inetaljienta
of $400 oaeh* Thia loaac was oi^ed* oo far as tha appollaat la
conoeme()« "L. J. Leon M»nufac luring Cospaay by I* J* Lood* preeident***
f)M appellant conccdea thtib L* J* Loon was its proeidont*
but it contonde tbst ho was not authorlxed to execute the lease in
quefltiott. m ttl«el«y v. Maccuecn &• Co«, 321 lU. 124, the court er.idi
'*Tha general rule is ti^^t the president of a
corpor' tion, ae agent and reprcsentatiYe» haa power*
in the ordinary course of buainoB^* to execute oon-
trcvoto and Oind the oompany In so do trig. Heio lay
by virtue of his off lee recegniaed rt8 the businees
head of the conpan.y, and a^y emtrr ct peitainlng to
corporate affaire within the general powers of eueh
eorpor vtion« c* ;!;ectttod by the preeid<2nt on behalf of
the corporation, will, in the ^beenee of proof to the
contrary, be preeuauBd to have been d<Mi« by authority
of tha eorper'ttiOB*''
tha appellant introdueed in evXdenoe a by-law that the
president "shall exeeute all e«Btracte innci aereements authorised by
the Bostrd of Llrectors" and another one thj».t the secretary "ehall
sign with the president or a Tice-presldent, in the naaw of the
oorport tion, when authoriaed by the board of directors so to do,
all contr»oia and in strunents requiring the seal of the corporation
and sB&y affix thn r.eal thereto," and appellant* s» ^9 understand
Ite argiSBent, contoade tbf^t such proof rebutted and overc-^jne the
prfiFPi faole ease of appollee aa to the authority of Leon to sign
the leasa* >ltether th<? appellee, dcaliag with the appellant in g»o4
fnlth and on the fi^ith of L9on*e! ^ ppt^reBt powers and without notioe
of the by-laws of the appellsmt 3 can be bounct by the by-lfxwe of the
appellant* (aoe twater t. jserican j^xohama Banh, 162 111. 605,
620 1 yred &« Hipbie Co* V. Chae» iooghnan i-o»$ li^< HI* -^pp« 97,
100) la a question not neoeasary to decide in the tIok that wo
•at-
■■Ji
-■a
'55
?i;;,;<::(a.:c^,^i ,J<.i(vi;iX :;
i<>jf:*<rH(*r
a^jl i.: ■*■«»«? W
•**w
C '■UJ»ii,'M^A< *fc^
;.:'. i^m
:i?»^
-3-
Th« erldttno* ahows that th* aippcllAat aovad into th*
•yao* l«ae*d It by th« appcIlM and o«eu|>ied it frcm Lfsoamii^Tt
19'''A, to about lepteabsr It 1925. ^>ai^pl«e of itn waroo voro
given
tkcro «x]iibit«d* Two pudlio exliibitlana woro^in the Mart during
tkat period* one In Jsusuury and (m« in July« The appeliant paid
"by its otaoekB the t«o sewi-annual InetRl&eate of rent th t fell due
VBdor the lease in l^«!0«iiber and Juao) eaeh cheok was in the aswunt
•f tAOOf and H»e siigiieci not only by 7^&oa» na preaidf^nt* but by
^llmnenBaa* ac; tre^isurer. L^tm and '^leuwe ■»» wrc both directors
in the appellant oorpor tion* On lecoabiir 13* 1924» the appellee
vroto the appellant a letter r«c,uestin4t a oheok Cox |4UU en account
of the seai -annual rent and sl&o aekla^ a letter frcm the appellant
in referenoe to oertaln adTortieiag in a furniture- journal* This
letter also conti'ined the followinst
"If you denire a three-eoat paint job on the
floor - olive green - the building «ill do this for
$22 •09* It is poarlble th.st you prefer to use a
rug***
Tkls eoBmuBlc&ticai was aaswored on b«half of tho appellant by
**%'• 7* i.iataer«an> Yiee-pr«sld«nt»" the answer stat«K thst it '*irill
in turn rnsit for the rental' vhen the i%pp(3lloe send© the blank
autlMrisation for tlie appellant to sign*
It is olear from the eTideaoo tWit the appeUaat had no
thott^:ht of clainiag that the exeoutiw of the lease «».es not author-
ised until the .«eriO£Ui Fvumiture M«rt Building; Corporation notified
it on July 1» 1925, thit It had violated tho terns of its lenee
with that oorpor!!iti(HB by hr^Tiae two e^ibits in the M&rt anA re-
quested the appellant to resio-re its sao^los from "^spacs 1410" and
to return its lenae to the Hart Corporation tor oanoellation* frtna
a letter written by the Ftirniture Murt CorpArt^tion to appellant en
July 11» 192S* it is apparent that the appellant v^rote to the Mart
t'
»«•
tmxi9<m^
■-■•■ «i»««s5t|.?sS«J9Ul i«i8*IW»*A«l^^> ■"'•■■^-•'' *■'"-? •■■•■^:e» tiff's) a 51, ^<f
Oorpor&tioat after the rvoelpt of th» l«tt*x> of July I» a«ssrftix«
that p«r»ie&ion hr ibsfiu glT&n to It to exhibit in two epaoes*
Aftor the MDirt Corper^ttioa h.^d lasietod thnt appellant could not
lUtTO two 8pa««o la the Hart, the appellant T^rotc to the nppolloe
Widior dat« of July 50^ 1939 » as follows >'
"Having found out th^t it is agaiaet the rulon
of the :'ttraiture kl«.i't juil'jing to rtlspl&y in tvo
different epfioea in tH« n»uH«;lnf;', xe lun,v«. dvcidod to
g4ve up til© wpaoe we ure Icfi;>ing from you» and will
move our BGnplee within th« next t&T^ c.; ye. e will
aek >eut tbcrefore* r.o bo kind «Boti«^ to try t.o oub*
loaee tuc apace for ue tiB of iet^eoho}: let* Of courao
«e expect ^o l»e r«tiKibur»od for the Boney gaU out for
partitions • posts and deeign itttruoture*
"Glnoe »e have not been inforweo by your corportvtian
that it ia figs inc. t lh.r rulee of the building 5.0 h&re two
spaees* we expect you will make all efiortf; to s^ublOAee
the tpaeo for us* and vill aak you to a« kia& 3nou~h to
inf er« us if you are williag to do so*"
The appeli&nt also ?>rote tho Mart Oorporr.tion asiJdnt^ if
it would he S!^ti«f^»titory to that oorporation for the appellant to
aake arrungc»«nts with tho appellee in reference to the epnce in
question and thai corpora tioa answered th-^t it would he s? tlsfciictoxy
to it for the appollattt
"to ciake. ^hAteter Hrrt^aifeaionts you «'ish with thus fellor
fiorporatien that they aay he agreeshle to* ^ '* How
eTSTi ".his does not in any »ay r@leajjo you frtm any
liability to the Teller Corporntioh***
The ehsagod attitndo of tho oppellanti v^hen it disooverec! thsxt tho
Hart Corporatims would not allow it to hawe t«« spe^oeis n the Hart»
is thus ewidtinoed by the testinony of Mr* Leoa<
*<l» ^lUkt did you do whea Ur* '^i^ilson informt::d you
jrou oould not ht^ym tlio two 5jp»o<»8?
A« I dsoidod to keep the old spaee Ito* 1410 and
SiTt up the X slier Corporation lease*
%• After you reeciwod letter* you aiiiply chose to
ksop s^oe 1410 and give up Tf^ller spaoe?
A* Yes* apiscm 141^ w & more raluahle*'"
<
iimU*^%.i& ' ads ttot ^J ..,
It is p«rfe«tly fn-ppeut^mt trmn th« «irld«aee tlm& ths
appellant had the X«ae« In t^wiatlon in lis poim^m^ion eaui liL-t
it took aafi hald poafi«Balon of the pr<%mis&fl imdex* it ftnti paid
rent under the lens* for % p<^rlod of on the* Therefore »
•Ten thout^h L^ma h&d not thtei poiwer to auOce the le^tae sued otn*
uncer the hy*l&«e of the appellant oorporatioc* B«?«irthcle8a,
UBder the facte ea& oireuastimG«a of this ease the appellant xade
the leaae its own aot and wna hound by it» ( 'ee fred .'v^* ,^ig>i.o...;^gi*
▼• Ch&8« '"'tgghffiaja Cj]>,»» 8£(|ari|t and c-:e«i« citcid th.«r«lK#) ren If
the leaee vae unauthorized at thr. ti»« it v^ns e>>ctcut&ti t'aei aubeo'-
quent conduct of the {appellant ratified and confinaed St* ( u_ley;(n^to|;
S»,JL H* ('9* w« 8id<ll(e»Mj(irray, ,Hgjg* vo« « 15fi ill* /-.pp* *61j i4Uce ^^,»
«!* B,« }:> Co* ▼. Caraiofaa^elt 134 111* M8, 35g| felller arewlnit Co*
▼• HelXeiBao Brewina: Co«> 198 111* vpp, l7a*)
<je are a«itiefied after a ea.r«ful «umBdn& tion of tiia evl-
deaee In this oase that the pre&«nt ol^.is of tJhe appell«>jit thitt it
did net ratify the action of lie preoldenc in executing t.!^ lease
in quention ie an afterth^agiit and a Mere pr6tetts«f it^ithout ancr
saVetsatial haets in the eridtmoe and iaterjposed for th«^ sole pttr-
pose of evading its 4^'^'^ deht*
The JudgKont of the sioniclpal <>ourt should he ejoi
it is affiraed*
aridley» P* J«» and Baraee* J«f eoBour#
' > ^ . ^U " i s
*^«J^iMSl«i^&Mls^*«" **»^':^l£».:;#«< tifeiSa^^lMM'^»y 4i^L.>£iUI..^:l
:;.J1 ^Jr ' ■ •.••■1
iC^-:-
*'«fcM^««!(#;f*^4i#?^^ . rt^tblxi::
% iR$M^i&kii§f •.#i«.iw<{f*
J„,««'*^''*^'«-.>...^
33080
Jlk 01 KOtiA,
XSOk S3^.ITH,
App el Xiuit,
KR, JUiiTXCiJ 3(iAK|/y» Difri,IViSli;V,U TMii Of
Id th«» BiupRriox- dourt of Coo*: County iri an notion •»
th« o»««, Jim at Jfio«», pluiJBtiff , sued iaom timlth, def«ndant.
Th«r« wa« a trial b*ror« the Court, vita. & jury, an«i a verdict
rtturn^'i finding th© d«f©n»Sant brwilty fuad aoRoaelng th«> plaintiff '•
dMiftg«8 in th« sura of ;H500«0w. Ju'3gm«ct w&» entered on tht vevMct,
and thla ftw!»eal follow«d.
Th« reoord la unusually free ©f errors coiamonly aa-
tl(ggo«(l In ri e."iBe of thlo kind. Xhe ool© oonttntions of tRs dc»
f«Ddant nre: Flret, th*it there is no evidence in the record
"tandln*;: to •ho* that apocillse wa» In the ejcarclse of !iu« care
Mid caution for his o^m aafaty." Socond, "this evidence diBClo«s«s
that apr>«ll<=»« *R« isjullty of n<jgligwne« that contril;ut«?d to tiio
ferinffiof al)out of the injury of vhlcli h« ccBrai^idnB. ** I'uird, "tht
•videnoe falls* to shew tb«t th« appellsint was driving hie car at
a htf^h «jBd dangerott« r»te of speed, to-vit, 50 or 7C' zEiles p«>r
hour, and this oonoluaion ie l;om« out by th« phyoical faots."'
fourth, *The finilng ol the ^ury , under special interrogatoriei,
in f-ivor of the arjisellsint, cot only eliiainates the ©lesients of
vilfulineas wrA v»ntonns»BB . but reduce* the whole contention to
one of ordinary negligenet."
The following facts -ire undisputed; The plaintiff
•n 3eptee.her 4, 19 "^6, In eam^any witin hie eon ?md Jim Angarana,
were travelinji: in the plalutiff ♦• autojuotlle, in an easterly
direction on the Ihin^e sUghway in i'orter County, Indiana. The
^y«»'**^''«»i«!i
mit^t
\4
yisttAiiL^m^
■jm^.mm^y^ .'
«*" ii^m*tiitiisii {kite t^xi£ir% ;»JiKAiiet»ij<.^
^»£S)f9%«^tiSA.' «)it' lt;i«j» m!i« 9iM l$'7i^
.^' ,mmlkttl .,x^mm^ %^n^e% s^A ^w^i^X-i.
mh
J«
it*a IW* «XiJ -SO!^ ;to i r ■.;>■
■: ta«
■^- t*t*«m «*♦.**/'■■■■-"•
' " j?i
%,«! **l*t 'in ":vf ■
' tfJ
,'■ r?# "W*?f'r
fvi^.
wn}<
-2-
histhWAjr wa» 18 to SO r««t wld« amd tU«rc was aand on sash old* of
it. About 6:30 o*olool: a. ju. tii« plaintil'l', on aeeoimt oi' a Ittttk
In the car, <Srov« it partlalXy oJf the p&TOd portlor* oi the high-
way, 00 that the two rlffiit wheple oi" tha oar were from two to six
feet off the Bal<! naved portion, af^^ then etopped th« oat. After
working on the car lor about tweuty-flTe ninutee, it wae then found
ih*t the two wh.eela ou the ri^-iit side oi the ear n^d baoome so en*
Vedded in the sand th^t the pLslntiff was unaV)io to start nis oar.
He had juet sent hlR son and Ang<^rRn% to a. f.9ir» houst' for help,
and was stanilng close to th<» front of hie «3ajr, on tho l«ft*h9ind
side of it, rltii one foot on the rur.jjing "boara or i'en/^ifT, when the
defsndact's automobile, prooe«dlnt£ l^i «.r. ly .Urection, etruok
the i»laintiff an^ oaueed the injuries for wnic^ he gued, 'Jlie plain-
tiff *s car was in view of the fief «n.'?ant lor a ilstsutico of about four
city blocks.
Xhe plaintiff a3.8o introduced «-ridence to sustain the
foliewine theory of f>*ot: That Ui<^ deJ «jid?ii't, as he approached
and reached the pl^oe in question, was driving at a rate of apeed
between 50 nxid 70 siles p«r hour; tnat just before the &ecld«snt
the defendant passed ears that were bein^ driven between 5^^' and
65 Miles per hour; that ilb the defendant got close to the plain-
tiff's oar, he atteiiipted tc pass another automobile tnot was also
proceeding oaotward , and which iff as traveling at a Uigh rate of
spsed; that just then care aooroached froK; the ^-ast nat^. the de-
fendant suddenly turned or swerved hie oar to the right and struck
the plaintiff; that it was a clear corning tOid it had not been
raining*
The defendant introduced evidence to sustain the
following theory of fact: Tliat as he approached the plaoe where
the plaintiff's oar was stat^diug ne, *was going Just a little nors
than about thirty Kiles" per nour; taai he, "saw iur. Si Hosa's oar
parked p&rtly on the p^vestont;** taat ihe del onciint saw his "way
i&«<H»'S {x«i«;r «&«ir J A .'^ i-iy^xJU«» a«j'4*t-»iErm*J- #«<Mte iftt tms »«S3 »rs -iit *!;?•?-. -^
; a«ijif)»4 m»^i- * &i ^km%4&'s^if)*. f^m mt »H 'l^^^* f^v\^ :■
*4# ;«»jf6» «1^)*■.i^«'* t»,^fe^**f ^fkom^ «ir* «# ^jtdiill- ajp'
. r . , ■■ .... ._♦ I ...
^j||,^ , :.. * r,. ■■ '.VWi*! .V I. .i. ,J 1.4, m« * ;,; « i- ..
-3-
cle».r to £0 b/t" that Just as he reniched nbout tius v&x ead of tb*
plalatlff's «art "on th« l«ft-haiiid of ae wtsia euaether 90.1 oast-l^ouad
tryiAfi to p&M mi • 80 X tlirttw oa aiy brsikeo and sklctdodf and planod
hin b«tv««ii t)3e two fendorsf" ih?^t It hr.d rained tbjut night and UM
peyeaent van pretty slippery! thftt "the car thsifc got in front of at
w»e OB the let t-iiand side of lae on th© drlTevay Going weet * » ♦
the one ^TOing cast v-<s pretty eXose up to ua» this oar had gen*
around ae on th« left-hand side of the parenent* Sad I not stopped
I would haT« run Into hlsi* Ae soon as I aan the ear i put en ny
brakes isssed lately* nm ai»ou^ th^it olne the oraeb happened!" that
the ple.lntlff vrue etaadlnii; at the front end of hie owr» looking
Oriet with one foot «a the f«nd«r{ that th« dufisnd.nt noticed th*
plaintiff *« oar wh@» he wae ^1»«ut m block weet of it$ ».m that he
then oheekcd the epeed of his earj that the deftsnt^ .nt blew hie horn
when he ■'•■>f^B »till "far enough a way frcaa Mr. 'Ji uO»;?. to turn the oar
without hitting him."
tim Juxy by their vsr<<lot have found in f«i.Tor of the
plaintiff !f theory of factt 'sind "sfter a oari ful exMrnln?-- tlon of the
OTldnce* we approve of that flndinis*
Ae to the first contention of the defendant*
"The nueetioB of contributory negXlgenoe le ueu^i^lly a ^uee*
tlon for the Jury* It only heeoaee one of law for thie oourt ^^hen
the undisputed eria^nee i« so conoluaiT« thtit it le clerorly seen
th»t the accident resulted from the nesllgenee of the party In-
jured ^ni coulrt hoTC 'been avoi^ad by the Ui^e of r e sonable pre-
eaation* (Be idler ▼• Brayahnwn SOC 111* 4g9.) ^here reasonable
within t;>
noting within the lialts prescribed by law aight reaah
dlff4>rent conelut>ions» or different inferenoee eovad re sonably
be drawn fro» t,h<? acialttc-* or eataiiiliBhed fwctct the question
of eontrioutory negligenoe is for the jury. (Illinole Ce^tfja^
Eallro!7.d Co. t. -nd ere onj^^ 184 111* 204? 1 ?hornton tm :^e^llgenoe»
lO'sr.T* TlSteller V. Pheloe. 252 111* 630, 634.)
■•There le no rul« of Ipw which preaoribe^ any p«»rticttlar
act to be done or omittef" hy a person who finds iaeelf in a
pl&ce of d&nger. In the variety of clrouBwitanecB whioh con-
etantlv ariee It is iapo&slble i.© unnovmoe suoh a rule* The
only requirement of the low is that the conduct of the person
Involred ehall he oonslatent TUth ®hi^t a mwa of ordinary prudence
248 111. 308.)- (^tentav. Chic .a City Ry. c... ,3^ ^rT^^.^
m''^ 400^::'i^ 4^.-4:^$. *«»:-^«'* 4^-a«^ IW»f ^#4« -^t^* If "«« »«» #«^'«w*r.w
■■'■■ ^' ■-' ■■'-■■ -■-- ;■•/; >*i«ia{ laaM.^ ' .^"■
-4-
Aftar a «ar««l'ul «ixai&iu«tlon oT thi! r«£ord, wo are
■atieflad thmt it «»8 a queation ol' faot to b« aubsiitted to the
jury wliather the plalutii'i' was exereiaUii; ordinary vara at the
time or and Just prior to the aouident. The Jury hy their rcrdict
have found that he waa in tU« exi^rciae ci' ordinary eare» and under
the ftt.ota and the lair we do not think that we would he juatified in
diaturblng that finding. N^'hat we have aaid aa to defendant 'a firat
eontantion, of oourae, aiao itppliae to his aeoond contention. As
bearing on tne firat and aeoond oontentions, we note that the de*
fendant made no notion of any kind at the cloae of th<? plaintiff <a
•Tid^noe or at the oleee of all the evidence. It ia clear t'nat at
the time of the triaJ the oounael for the defendaxtt proeeeded on
the theory that thff plaintiff tusuitt out a prjuif fv:vciy caae* Aa to
his third ocntei'tion, we aeeutte that the defemdaut by it miana to
aaeert that at the tiB^e of and Just prior tc the «icoidexit, he waa
set guilty of negligenee. In our jud^jnent the findinj^ of the Juxy
that the defendant was ^^ilty of neglit^enoe is amply warrsunted by
the proof in the oaae. Tne i ourth contention of the defendant
requirea no apeoiaJi oonaideratlon.
The rceord ahews that the defendant has had a fair
and ii^pscrtial hearing. The Juigment of the Superior Court of
Ceok County eiioul:) b« wnd it ie affimed.
firidley, P. J., ^inl Barnea, J., concur.
•B^ix
'- ■'■'^ ■^■■'<r*s«>' ■^^^iitfc^ »Mi»iiN*** ' ijsw ^nilfliljii'^ »di x»tiSfni-:
•ti&ti^ 'State '■'«-*nE«s'T'^«M^ t« »«i*'**«# ftul' «i "«*v"«ii *4wi# Jfeftwc'r ■— --'
MlOO
:LlMU*SUSi tiiam, inc.
vpp«llant .
^iz:-^'
i
/ I / / /
Si* JOSTICE SCASLAH mLIVKKijlD ?HE OPIHIOIT OF THK eOUK?#
Ib iltc ^'unieipAl Court of UhloagOt X4t->Ml*l!rae Blgne, Inc.,
ft corpora ilon« pljulstlff » oil totiattc! » Jurigmen^ by confession
agaiBflt ^^«st•rB ?r«»luu Co»» a corperntiont defend^^oitt of
|4S5«09» upon ft judgneat proodo^'Ory note oxoottteti by tto
AetanAauit •oA aiMiio p«iyatil« te the plaintiff* if tor Judgmont
the defoadft»t M«T«d tbe eourt '^that th«t juti^ent resdorod herein
1»y eonfoosion bo raoattsd and sot aside" «Bd Intiroducod in support
of the motion an affitiavit of vlbort 'Uesel* pretildeat of tlio
defendant oorporatlim* The motion of the defendtmi, Tm.& denied
and thio appe&l followed t
Thtt pl.'^iatiff eontoadet and v^vh vmoh. forQ«* thiisit if
the <ief«adK»t haA Made a mot ion for le.ure to ples^d t the Judgneat
to stoBd &e security, neYf;rtheleea« the affidavit «ao inouffioieot
to warraat the trial oeurt in opening up the Judgment « hut in tte
▼t«« thsit v>9 hafc taken of thia appeal it «ill n<^t he neceesaxy
to detervlae thie c«atentioBt for eren if the iffldairit had nad«
out a priaft faolo defeaao to th^ action of the plaintiff, ae there
«aa so juriediotioaal quostion involYOd in the dttfend'^at'is BOtion»
the only thiar that the d&fend&nt rould haTo a rlftht to aak ia
i^iUU
jiL" ^^ "iy »A.
(•Onl .;
-f-^^*"ijiX' iti
#«.«•*;■'-» 5;^
' ?■ - "'■*MN!.'*«»* « t.«i^ miikn't m»H»'" ^h^Ia^
'• #*r:ft(^?.» l?'^ Sir'' .
-2-
aueh a o:a^e would be for le«tT<^ to pX«ad» while the Juiigmeat stood
ae eeottrliy* It did not aek ttny euoh relief » bui nought; to havt;
the trial court d«priTe the !>l«ilntiff of it a Juttgiaent on a nero
Motitm* eupported by »n iKrfida,Tlt« The defend .jofu notion thnt
the Judgoent be raoated ajid set aside was therefer« properly
denied. (See^aiiM.^* nint &•■ v^aUlng iitf^» ^jq.. X5a 111, pp.
S9«» 358«)
The Judgseat of the Mtmloipal -ourt of Chic r go i«
'tff imod*
Qridley* ?• J«» «nd Barnes » J*» concurs
'■-^'*W^''■■
-■#aP»PI?».^>««^ ,l«f<iNl *«»«♦$ ** 4t«**i'S2
.ffc-m-:
■ "lii-^'"^'''"~*<«K
3312t
PSQPL£ 09 T
•X r«I« JO
#* 9* VAIufVoaJiX, cosutilB«lo&«r of
build insB of the Toim of ieeroa
JAM£S J. mhl&JiS, iofrn oXerk of
th« Town of Cicero t sxtd TorK OS*
Cldf.hO, a nanlclpal eorpor tlon*
RespondentR*
0. F* wyiij)VOa£L. oMBBlselonox of
build Ingo of ths t«wa of (^■loero*
Af»p«ll«Ullt«
■'-»^
)
) Ai'>'¥Ja, STiOM
SIBI^RIOR Qomt,
COOK COUSfTf.
3ia« JUiltlCB SCAKUS DiXIVBHKi! fHS OPIHIOS OF THE CmSBt,
This vas a petition for Bmadanus* on the teXf^titm of
loha !>• Bluaer* agalaat a. !'• aldvogel* oiD»%l88loneir of buildlage
of the town of cioere* jR»e« J* PellkftUt tor^ olerk of the toim
•f Cioero* and Town of Ci««rot » wmlolpal eorporatlon* ?ho
petitioner dlealosod as to i*«llkan «aiA Town of cioero* the oivuim
irae tried by th« court « without a Jury, and the court found for
tho petitioner and entered tm ord^r for a peremptory writ of
B&ndaaHS against the respondent » aldTogel* cososandlag hliti that
he forthwith Isiue to the petitioner a p>3!rttlt for the eonetruetion*
of
erection and nalatenajioo/the DulMlns or utruoture doecribod in
the petition* This appeal followed* The petitioner hae net
filed an appoaraneo or a brief in this oourt*
The petition alleffee that the petitioner le the l«se««
•f eertaln preaisoo in %he town of ioerot and tbr,t he intends to
use the prcaieee for the |>urpQB«s; of emetine a rentaarant thereoni
that ho had purohsBOd a f! tincture • oomffionly known aa a dining o«r»
mi^ yxjimnk
o \^.i(sX -isjXi
m.im
«s»a©i5f?o?a9S
^■..■...■■..'-..j'i ..,t.'-. ".' » -f »©
,i;,«?0f)n a»t fo seitJW 3HT cr&^wi^^a iAJm»?* HOiT-rjr. .m
and thnt ihtt MdB« wac thttn In a railroad freight jrardf tlmt 1m
dosiraa to er«et and mulBtnin the said car aa a bxillding upon the
pr<QBlacs| that he has tmAa appXlotioa to the reepon<:]eatt aldToeel^
for a pemit to ereot the ei»x aa a t>uil<!ing upon the premiRee and
th^t ho hao suhmitted plane and drawings that cootply iuIXy with
the tema axtd prowl alone of the ordilnanoea of the or^ld to«a{ that
it waa the duty of th« aaid respondent* und^sr the ordlnaaoes of
said town* to Isbuo a building pcraiit to the petitioneri hut that
the respondent aldwogel arhitrarlly* and without renew* refuaoe
to iasttO the BRjae} «nd tho petitioner pr<'^ thnt aldwogel l>e oobi-
amnded to ia»tte to hia a permit for the coni^^tructieoi* erection aad
Btaintenance of the said ^uildlne*
The reapoodeait anaweredt Inte^., ffr^i^jH* ^^^^ ^^ premiaoe
in question were a part of the propeitjr of the Chiof-^o K^tpid Traaait
Co** and uaed by it ae its right of way through the s' id town* and
th t the snid proporty* under the tezva ?«ud prowieloaa of tho
ordinaneea of tho town of Vioero* is not peradtted to he ueed for
oonaerolal or buainoas purpoaoe and the respondent denied that the
plana and drawings subadtted hy the petitioner were in coafonaanee
with the ordinjA^noes of the said town} and farther denied that hia
aotion in refusing to issue to the petlti<»er a puxmlt to eonetruot
the proposer^ building on the prcaiaee In question Ht> arbitrary*
and without reason or oause*
The resp<mdeat eontenda th^t the trial eoort erred in deny*
Ing hia the ri^ht to hawe the iss^ues BUbmittod to a Jury* This
contention la a meritorious one« ?he answer of tho ref^poBd st
denied faota alleged in ths petition upon which the slaim of the
relator was foxuided and it appears that when tho onaao was reachod
for trial tho roeyoadent mowed thi%t the issues he au^aitted to a
It© Ji!(«18ffi.-'->^ ,;■- :•>,,'.. ■;i,.'y>«U!? t&mitr. f^" '" ' , ' - =■ - "'■" ^--r fi
jury* aoid thnt tli« court deniod thl« BMtloiii on th« srouBd that
tha r««|Mmd«Bt was not eiitltl«(! to a. jury trial la a prooecdlag
like the preaont ono* This rullBg wfia an erroneous one* The pro»
eeedlne was an actlea at 1&«» and the r«opond«nt hat &hc right to
have the iasuos of fact tried by a jury* (>^ee Puterhaugh Conmoa
Law Pleadins; 4 Practioo* 10th od** p* 738f Peopjlo t» Cju^oatovtioz.
298 111. Ill 143-JaL^* Pity 0^ Chlc-^gg* 212 111, App. 414, 416.)
SeotioM S of the Uaadaamo /et ele- rly contestplateo th&t a pnrty to
Buoh a proeeedlBg hea a rl^t to have the ieaueo of fact oubnlttoA
to a jury*
The reepoadsnt further conteade thot the petitioner frdled
to prore thf^t ho had complied «ith the building orctioanoeo of the
town of Cioero» and, after an oxeiainiitioB of ^hsi evicieinee, wo find
th<Jt thia eoatontion io also aeritorieuB*
The judgment of the . uperiox v;ourt of Cook ounty la
rereraed, and the oauee la renuaced «itH directions to the trial
court to allow the rettpoadeat r trial oj jury*
Oridloy* P» 3»$ and BtvraeR, J«* ooaeur*
■.■<»o *»!',. ■ to itsuBSs^hu% mi-
":;^|tv;-. ■ i-r:.:#J. *,;;■
SSI 40
JOSSPK J0ia.i}01l,
Appttl/ f »,
▼«.
ILalJK» J0LX8T Ail' ^A
RAILWAY COki'A^iy, u wtwrtc-i
Aorfcll
COCK COWTTfi
-V, Al'PKAi. FROi.:t;iTY CjlUrtT
) / OF CHICAGO HBIGHTa^ g ,>;
■*'*»^„„.._^«'-*'""
im. JUSTICS aCAULAii DtSl.IVifiRSD liOS (.,
844
In th« City Court of Ohlcatjo iUigjite, Cook County,
IlIlnoi», JoBOPb Joiiumoti^ plu.ii\tii'i' , sued th? Elgin, Joliet and
SaotoTB fiailway Ce«ii?«isy, a corpor«nioii, def^n^^ant, Ir, (in action
on th« oaoo. tlia o&bo was tried before thn court with a jury and
thoro trai a vordlct firming tho dofwidarit iiuiity and fixing the
plaintilT*a AKmsxgBn at tho »ua; oi' ^36,S&0. A motion for a nev
trial was ovorrulod, jud{i^«mt wiis e£itor«d oxn tho verdict ari'l this
mppoal followed.
Xh« dcelaration con6i6tt«<l of b«v<!'xi counts. Ihe
thoory oi' the first ei^ coanto is >* liability -.tnaer th« yedTal
teployort' liability Act, uni of tne BOvantn eo .;nt » llatility for
an allage4 Tioltttion of the i'ed«ral Joil«:r Ir^snection Act. 'rhe
first count allo^fis tu»t tr««i defendant c«gii|;ently oueratod a
•witoh «n^:.lno: the second, that th« dofendaxit fniiled to wa^m the
plaintiff "by boll, sit^nal, whlatlo or at/ier ^.-'aus of tiia pr«««no«
or approach of tiie «njv,iR«; th«! taird, tu«it ta« defenlaxtt negli*
gontly operati^d m\ «nt'ine without kooipln^ or jAaintalning a r<?>a8on-
ably safe or cart^ful lookout iii the diroetlon toward whioh tho
•ngino was boin^, drlvoo; the fourth, that ths d«fenv-}ant Tiolatod
a eustoft. to ring a b«l i or sound a whittle as th« •«jn4:ine in
qusstioB apr>roaohod ths plaeo wh«!r« tad pls.intiff was orossing;
tht fifth, that th« defendant violated a printed rule of the
Cenpany ar:id ooerated a ter.der in the nl^^ht time without hawing
any light thereon as provided by aaid rule; tne sixth, that th«
:,y ^.^.,'\
, ,.ac>e.MQ^ maw*
f
\
■ -ipftlnasp •- '-fit
'" ..»jd* **» «ij!fS' fett^'tjUt^^^viwii^tii^jAv-
«a-
d«f«nd»at f&llci to observe an ««t%bil0hed praetio* snxA ouBtoK of
bringing all it» «it«ln«« to a I'UlI atop bei'oro piiaalnik u oartain
signal or atop-light near th« point where the plalntll'l' was oross-
Inc tha tracks at the time el' tlic: accidaut; th* aeT«tith, tnat at
tha tlni« of tix9 aceliant tho ii«ad light on tbo r«ar oi th* tandar
which struolc tha plaint! ff was out o:' repair « urxligntod and dafac-
tWa. Tha daf-'tsdant filed » pl^u of th* ^pjiwral ieaue. <^t tha
olosa of all the airldanaa tha trial court, on e&ution ol tha da-
fend&nt» inetrueted the Jury to l'iQ:j the defeudatii uot t<uilty aa
to th*? aixth ^und seven Ui counts.
At tVis tii».e ol' lixtt aetident tha plaiifitilT had baan
In the r<iiiiro»d eervioa for Atout t*«arity»«i£Ut yKara, ir'or eight
years ha hstd vorked for the def enftijOit, first aa a firemmi and
aftarvarls »s ?*i> englcaer, ua th« nit^hi in qu«!;stion» he operated
his eQeine from £uf f iuj^toa, lu'^iana (>vhere .'le had been switerdng
eaurs in lnt«r««tei^te trafisDortation during the ai'ternoon) , to "iiirk
Yard," at Usxy, In^Uaca, and br&Uj^ht the «ii,-,iii«;; to a stoo on traolE
six, about fiitj or sixty feet *««t of a cinder fiii. At that
point the plaintilT left .ii« ©aijins sund wsQkea in « southeasterly
dlreotion for the purj/oae of so^>k- ^o ^he roundliouse sf^yeral
hunilrad fR«t away, wli«re h?r interidod to tttrr> ii. his report, i'iiera
vara three tracks «nt<^ring the pit fru^n the vest* i«uxab»r six was
the aoet northerly one; uucibcr four th<t ceriter on«» and numbar
three the southerly one« In the pit euipXoyaes of tua defendant
cleaned the en^nes of oiJ^iders. The plaintiff crossed traek
number four and was about to croee traek nusiber three vh»ii he was
struck by Uie tank of onn of defendant's switch engines nnd re-
eelred injuries ^hioh neeeseitated the aKput&tlon of hia left lag
at the ankle «nd his rigiit leg Khowt the knee. It was stipul:ited
en the trial taa.t the plalntl' loyi^ent broui^ht hi» «rithln
the provisions of the ifeder&l iuaployera' Liubllity Act and there*
-3-
for« th« plAlntlff *e tight te recover !■ not b&rrcd by eontrlbu*
tery nttgll^^anoc on his part.
Xhe d«fen jant ha,* aaalgnsd tuid arguod » number ol'
coat«ntion8, but in tii<» vloir tUmt w« l3,av« tak«n oT t'hl* appeal It
!• only n*«««»«ry lor u» to eoaslder on«. The def«i )ant oont«ndt
that *•▼«» tuou^^ it aheuli^l bet heltl iiiat a rsotlofi for a directed
Terdiot should not hav* been granted, the o-7«rwh«lming weigJit of
tha arldenoa tm* th* necessary cencluoiona wnich, munt b« drawn
tharafrom ar« much tl-iat tha vardlat ia contrary to * ' * the
•Tidensa and the ao&len for a n«w trial should h.av« bean grx'^tad."
In tali eaaa, in addition to elaborate brisfa, we have beau faYorad
wltii oral arguBiWitB. After a vsiry careful study and consideration
•f the «ntir« «Tid«nca» ttre hav(> reuohed the conclusion that tha
T«rdiot» on the isaue of the tai«e<?d negligence of th» dwfeii'kint,
la clearly and m>«nife*tly agslnftt tii,*> «eig>Jt of tho evl(5,<»nca and
that the trial court erred In dowying the motion for a new trial.
As this oasa may be trier; <»e refr&ifi froa analyjsing and
aeas^^entinij: on the evidence.
Wa find no nerit in ti^e contention of the def^tnJant
that the trial court erred in rejfuaing to give to the jury def^^nd-
ant'a instruotions nunbered three to six, iiaelueiva,
Xhe plaintiff has asaignwd croea-error based urion
the aotioii of the trial court in dir^etinj? a verdict for the de-
fendant upon the seventh count of the declaration. Ihis ootuat
eharged a violatior^ of the it'ederal Boiler Inepeotion Act. The
plaintiff contends th^it certain evidence introrluced in his behalf
nada out a ^r iaut^ f ae i/B ease unier count seven and that th6>refore
the trial eeurt erred in instructlnii the Jury to fin^ th« deffm.lant
Bat guilty under that count. Saoaueiie of the fnct that we have held
that tha verdict is luanifectly aijainst the weight of the <ivid«jice.
It is net neseseary for ua to paes upon thii; contention. Ve noti».
itm «# 4Nnrs»rf iwi&
>'««:«# '^iH^M-'U^'Xtls
fern's^ ^'^ ?«"'^ i$»ijSw tfise.i?.- ;..; *««»jt».i
-*-
howovtr, that the plalntil'l^ In support of hie contention, eitea
th« following evldsnoet The pl%intllT testified (in ohi«r) th»t
right afttr th« aooldent he B-Aid to B«ll» tti« «iij;ir.«er or the ewitch
engine that wtruck fiia; "Why didn't you harre your h«»dHfeht lit?*,
to which Bell repli»d; "I had the twltoh on, that uooiet waa out.*
Thle adfiiiseien oannet !»« u»od, ii> criier, a« prool' ol the alleged
dereet, alihougi It mli^ht bccoiae competent on rebuttal by way of
impeaetiment of the wltnvvs Bell.
Txm judgment oi th© Cit.y wouit ol" Ohicago Heifii-»i«
is roTeraed and the eause in reaiaifidad lor a r«% trial.
RSVKBaSD AJmD R"iJfeAfcDSD.
Grldley, ?. J., an: Barnea, J., concur.
^rt!«^--*=^
APPSAX. mOU HUBICIPAL
GGUnT 07 CHIC 'l ; .
HALLI.S SFURLUI,
Appellants*
UB. JUCTIOF. iGAHLAK KKLlTiiRia; THE Oi'IMIOH OF rKS C?OUHX,
44
V
Xa th« Mnaieipal Court of Chlo'«so» In on ftctlon of
forcible tfetainor* O'harle/ A. Kuf«tal» plaiatiff » obtalaod a
JttdCBttBt acalast £dvav4 C • .iyurlin aiMi iiallio >^purlin» tiefOMl-
ant«« Xh« defendant e* notion to Taoate th« JudgMost va« orer*
rttlod* yro» this order tlie defondsnts hare appealed* ?he
appoal ia baood upon tho oornnm 1^«? record*
couasel for the aefeikiaBts hae eeea fit to stete la
hie brief thEit the trial court denied the ciefendaats a change
of Tcaue aad refueec to sign a bill of exooptiona teudered by
the defeaiKtaats* iie hae aleo at^sted t;h: t one Meyers isade a elaim
thst ran oouater to tbitit of the plaintiff* As tills nppo&l is
baaed oa the coa«ioa lav record* suoh s^tatesentis ■■'■•:<■ un rrir^ated
and highly impropor and ve «oald be justified* under the circuis-
siHBOest la e triiciag the brief of the dnfendaats*
The defeRd£.nte contend that the judgmeat ia void for
the follewia^; reaeoae t ?iie euanoas and the ooaplaiat are
scaiast &d«axd 0. purlin and Hallie purlin and the Judgaeat
order naaes ^i^ward 0. .purlia and M.'i.ttie purlin ae the dtifendaats*
aad the defendaate coatend thr^t *Hallie** and "Hat tie" are dietinet
aad eeparato aaass aad tltst the doetriao of idea eonane does aot
V'*-w*\
-"$^v© SAW *«««ji&.. ■ .■■■•a.'ic
^ »#«.»ftS»i «a»Jfc#-^»ss-!i: a 'ifi i-'l-A-(^ 4» ft:,.: .. ::;
(l«J^ai1te»'S^ sii-tuHi^: »iJ££vU ba«« alXitu4ii-: .<;■ biiE*6w sei&rta •5:»fcnte
-a-
Apply asd tba.% %hm Ju4gaent (bsiae JolKt sttS mt ••▼eraX) 1» TOld.
rh« difl«Jr«ae« la the first nann of one of tho defend nnta
woiinta to aothing more than a variaaoo and euoh a vue8t,ioii eaiin«t
bo raised for the first tiao in & court of rvfiov* (ooo tho aMijr
ensos cited on this point in ^^uterbaugh' s Cosnon Law Plondiag sad
Fraotlee* 10th od.* p« 46*) Vrianoo anict be Bpeeiially poiatod oat
on tho trial. (i?«o u'Briep v« Chi<?'^vgo city Ry* 09,. > 220 111. App«
107 » 111.) For aufiht th t appears in this record t '^Hattio" aay ¥•
the oorreot first nwse of the defendnat in queatioBf and it has
boea froi^uently stated by our 'Uprraie ourt ihnt a rery broad md
liberal cwastruotioa of the auindBeat <^ot shaold be given in further-
aaoe of the iatention of the Legislature and it ima been repeatedly
held thnt in a oaqo like tho present one a plaintiff* way tine before
Jttdgnent* has a right to aakc ohstnges In the naoas of ih^s parties
to the Rttit* Bad the defendants eeea fit to point out the Tarianoo
<m the trial, ooubtless the plaintiff »(ould have made the necee(sar7
aaoadSMats* The iVuaicipal court had jarluctiotioa of the pv^rtiee
aad tho subjeot a»tt;ert and the Judgaoat in que et ion is not void*
The record shows that the Jury returaed the following
Tordioti
"1603219 Vo.
CHA^HUnr A. ¥3J»AML )
T* ) Foreible mtry bM Detainer*
SLIVAK^ 0. ra'UKJJS XSD ) 7indiag for laintiff
a\TTIE E?UH11» )
Wot the Jury find the defendant o • • guilty of
UBl^'^vfully ^withholding froa the plainciff • • • the
poseessiOB of the premises described in plaintiffs
eoaplaiat horeia aad th t the right to the possession
of said preaiiees is in the plnintiff • • •"
Bere follaved the aaiMs of the tvselTo Jurors, fhie defeadants owi-
toad that the Terdiot found coOy 'the defeadaati'' guilty* etc*» aad
that tliAo Tert^iot ma inauffleient to eu^t^ia the Jud|p&ont entered
■■■( kim x&q.it»
•fHflMIK 8«i^ «^Si), *«^i>' „.,.>..,. .. .„.,v ... ... ■■'■*'\ •■'-- ■-- • ----
vvanXfS&t-i
^l^swsa*!^*!* «# *4*»'.
.&i*-
»'S-
•Hd that tha noitlcMi Of tho court In (sntcrlBg JudgnMit mi aueh u
Terdict conetituted r«T«r8lble error* I» ,IttAXian« wioa g« ^ oloiqr
▼ . £S&S£* 1*^ ^^^* ^* ^^ ^^'^o ^^<i ^^^ ^^ authority reats in tho
eoitrt to put a Tereiot in forat where it is* on ite facet SOo<l la
Biibotanoe aad tlw authority dooa not Ae^nH upon the coaaemt or
knowledge of tho Jury» mad tho court quotoa vrith approT!%l frcai
Wlitptllto T» City, of Chioafo, «8 111* 372, fcho follofwla^i
"It hae been repeatchdly hold by tliia courtt
that it ia iamatorial ^shf-t th«« form of th^ rerdlot
loay bOt ao tJiat it has the subnti^noe of a proper
finding**
In Lax T. ^anXtajcy District. X97 III. 825, 586. it ia saldt
"The Jud^pB«nt« enterod by th« court, aa above set
forth. May be regardet^ a-s an aficndDent of tho ver<:ict»
or as a eonatruotioB of the Terdiot. iSsSX&Z '^* ^£S&»
68 Om* 260.) A Tordict a&y be a»8a<iefi by tne court or
ceastrued by reference to the pie dinge and the evideaoe
ia the record, and in bobui ln8tg«.noee fro3» the notes of
the jttdse, vhen the intention o-' the jury ie apparent
fross the ple*din«» pad the wvldetto®. Courts adhere
atriotly to the rule thpt 'when Urn intention of the jury
ia nanif^st, th* court will set rL^ht matter of form**
(Haryejr ▼. Head , aupynt Hawkof r. C rpy ton t 2 Borrowa, e^j
.^ctrie r* Hf-rnej, 3 :cnnT"6S9; Clark v«LaBb,. S -"iok. 415.)
*In oanHid(>rin{£ the verdict itistlf , wit,h a vie"?, to ite
suf iciency.the firet object Itf to .tisoi^rtaiA i^hat the
Jury intended to find) mi<i this in ta be cl<me by oosstruing
the rerdiet liberally, ^ith the sole view of aioert^iniae
tke meaaiaiE of the Jury, .%ac not under the t@ehnie'a. rules
of eenetruetiea, <!;hioh are applioable to pleadiaga. If
the aeaaiag of the Jury osii be aseertainec , "and a verdict
on the peiat in iesue esin be aat^e out, the court will izusuld
it into fora and make it ecrvo*" * *' Qiillgr v. ohaciqeforft.
4 i«ana, (J^f.) 271| aiaye v. Leyia. 4 Tex. 33;#"
(See also Katgon v« 'onnejly^, 24 111. 143 1 Hartford fire Ing. co. v»
Vanduaor. 49 111. 489, 498| city of I'ekin v. inkoA* 77 HI. 56.)
We think the court ^ae Justified under the la\f in entering
the Judgaent it did on the verdict, ospeeinlly ao there ia nothing in
thio record to ehow that the defendants, prior to the entry of Judg-
aeat» objected in aqy vay to the f oza or sUbBtaaee of the verdict or
to the eatry of ths Judpwat upon the verdict. So action for a
c
*'^''#;i<!jii#rj^^ m^'^i-^y^ 'm^ ^i '^ mU^ mi iMf tarn
*#<-«"|. «4?*S8& «3»ii-#Jl; #6S*>afer «<B«lil' ai#»4.!n*T J9 5«pqj -^^ if«ictte»
;jK-.i »i ii jf.s-i«*
«l #|.. n&m ^U'
'^- *.5iaSjfc«i£^*..^S^li8&..; »^ -fee «^
A i.
ytjd-4 J .,
* *!??<»«■
* «
-. .>ji ( .■;■.;
"J
•5:0 %■: ■
« -w^t m}.smi <vM »$^imm -k^ ffie$i» $mmm^»*tt «^ "%« iK!t^«»
Be« tri»l mp^xcra to hAT«i hmvn aundo and th« dafendniits did net
••• fit to interpose a motion in arrest of Judgnant*
Judgawnt was enter «d June 6t 1926* On Jime 11* 192Ct
the d«fdnd£int« aad« a liiotion wo araoate the Jud^neat and Incor*
9«ratdd In it a isiotioa f«r a new trial and in arreat df Ju4g-
ment* Vo affld^iTlt «»<.£ filed in support of the Kotion to vaoate*
Ve find BO jBorlt in this appoal and the Juci^^ent of
the :^unicipal -^ourt of Cblcngo is -affirasd*
ftridleyt P* J«» sxA Somes, J»» oottotcr*
C"
,i,^
«#■« itk$m^b.is'^-
■ kiim «4r
■■^$.^%^^
■'aim
«»A. aiii
txS
lA^p^l'idnt,
39I74
IRVUa BUSOK,
vs.
?0RTI8 hiiOni iiAX
a Co rr^o ratlin.
V. )
OF COOK uoufctsii ^^-^^'^
/
MH. PHSaiDIM- JUSTICE 0»CUii«OR
nsiUViSH-sD m« opiiiioi; oi? tms counr.
Pl»lntll'f hrouijiit HKi action of ftefeaujpBlt sKainei
d«l'«i:dM£>t to r*cov«;r d»rc<»4.«« al;.ilmfld to iiare bewi auBv^tined by
hltt by reason or tu* br*aeh of « TfiTlttfir. contract, ihe court
«UBt&ln<!>4 » deinurror to pl»intilY*8 a«coC(J (uiuwded dooinr&tlon.
PlaintiiT «IeQt«!d to at»xud by iiist second i»»;«nded deoiaration;
hla suit «&• did&losed At hie costs euidi h«) aptieala.
Th«r« ar© four count* in the deciaration; in «aola of
th«B th« written occtrgiet, tn« '^Xlvtged breach of ^hlo)".. Is th«
basis of th« suit, Is set up v«rb»tl]a. Th^ oontraot 1» iiat«d
^•bruary 1, 1912, and by Its tera* pluiutifr " /''d to
work %,% for«£Euua In d«?f sndant *b hf*t factory i «* ., w i. ..« i of flv»
yeiirs; his 8ori;p«n«ati o<: wns fixed at ;i75 a vrccJc »md IS oicnts a
dossQ en eertekin iciudff of h&ts t^^d 5 cents a doxen on other hnta
vhieh Bigi^t be smnufaetured at th(» d«!if«ndajnt*e f%etory while
plaintiff was aotlng $>,% its forctsaa. PHXajcrapb 3 of tbe oontraot
is as follows:
*Z* In the «T«nt of a strike being called in the factory of
the party of thi» 1*1 ret. pfift ( def ?r. ■'iar.t) th«; p-ATtj- of tJne
first pMrt agrees to p<sty tbe oo{iipi!>nsfttion b&rein provided for
to th* party of thr oeoor;;! r'trt (plaintiff) tizroutihout the
tcnfi of eaid strike und a itritie called by the ^tiion or
lock-out by first r)urr.v »aall not tu eoiiaidared ue a k,r«(*ch
of oontraot. -^ tine event 4iKe party of the first part seXis
its aforesttld buc'mfte or cftaaee - rlCe; ;U8inii»B or retires
from Lusineos during the period of tuis o^eeffiAUt , or ir the
event the party <?r th^ ;lro. p:u"t »i:ali breatsii cmIb contract
by di sonar feng the party of th<f second part before the
%^
■'S,'„^v.
HMim Baivai
-\imim
%&.M*:'
SiU;, .,•
icv
•is^ldjofltaiaxwi ^4 irfgiiK
jft44 ^tsi^f^ua 4iJ^<j ^»-:
i.
.i".
««»
«MW
- I'i
o^
'' i*'
.;!
vl
iv-^
t«rttlnatlon el' this M|r,raftwt«nt , thffr. Oi* party of th« flrat
part ««:r**a to puy to \.U9 p.^ty oi Un^ Beooci p;U't the sum
OJ" iliirty-riTe Hu/i 'j-a-J Doll jr« (#3800) a» liquldatc-rt flain-
»£•■ and not «• a penalty."
in caoh count it wa« lux-taar lU-iegt^l tha . pliiintlff
work«d for d«f«itdttnt undar tnc contruct uxtvll Ooiolaor 1» 1023,
when d«fen-1at)t violated tn« <A^.TO*n^mi\, by ceaoln// to eanufaotura
hato iQ Uhlua^so. Ift somi« o) tiio oounts it i« -ill-sged that tho
dofoA'Aaut c«ao«d to Siurtuf 'ioturo h.>»i9 in Chicii^o on^ laofod it*
factory to <>.loi:ii,j«ri City, in41(*ii)i*t s^<i x^^t unc}«r t2ic t«rr>« of
the contract it wae cont»>&plfo.ted by the parti «a tjiat plaintiff
wae to do bis work at th<> factory in waicag.c.
In «aon of tlie oouKta it i»aa further filieg<f?d that
dtfon'tont refuaod to ccKpenBut** the plalrttiff in acoor-'ano« ^witli
tho t'sraa of th« contracv, Vy rwason of which plaintiff waa dais*
agad to th» amount of -^9125 for "aalary wnioh he j?ou1'' hafa
aamad* during tha ra»M.lnd«r of the period coverad l>y th« con-
tract an^ tha further autc of #SB(0 for "boziusea aarned ani vhloli
vottXd haTC teaen aarnf^d "toy olalntiif under the ter-.e of the con-
tract, * and tha total daieagaa wara laid «t $12,000.
Plaintiff oontanda, ae wa uoderatand hio argument,
that tha daraa^ea apaeifi^d in tha wriitet: eontraot at I3S00 in
eaaa of a braaoh of it liy defandsjnt, altiioug'i stated in the con«
tract to be linuidKt<>d dastafea and Bot as a penalty, mf to h«
conaidvrad in tha natura of » penalty, and furtherrAora, that ha
la not pracludad from recovering hie actual damai^e, which ie much
more than tha $3RC0 - Ti«. m,625. tint law la wall Battled that
It i» conpetent for parties Ant'^rin^; upon a contract to uTold all
future ^ueationa ae to uhe nntount of da£i:xj;,ee «-nich sii^fit result
fre» viol'itlon of the contract, wuJ to ^gree on a 3efinite sun
as that whlct shlill \^ n^ild to th« p«urty who all«gea $ind eet&l}-
liehas « Tialitlnn of the agrens^ent; and in aucu cnee tha damngaa
80 fixed ar» t«»nr.ei1 liquiiat*'? or atipul'itpr? daci^geo. But ar^a
«.«M^ mt^^km ' '■.>*3«li#| ftltolXs^I M^>JH*^Ji 3'«fi*i-\..- u._ ... id
M0 imdi b%|^.Xl^: i!iiJ:';)fX ##IM»«>)» ^>iii^''t(|» «it«t«« ntl ,wm»'ti^ ml u'iiai
i9;v^a«.|i t»ff:r falls' tl»m »l hsm ifn-
"9^ IS
iVS $i
imtiiiil^t *«• lim^mtokHJSfil tmmmt wva Muci'l oe
vh«r« such a (;oar»« h&b bo«r. idoi»t«d, .llffioulty h.t* arloftn na to
vhtthAT th« aaouzit Bfta«d in the- ooatraot ahoold bw ciotiald«r<i)4 aa
liquldattd d«i£->Ag«a or aB a pani^lty, unci Li tuc lattlor, cJ oouraa
th» anount lair* In the contract ^tili nu ; V'»> «il*orc«d. If the cod-
traot may rea»an«i%^Iy btii <;onairu'^d so ta.-^ ount niai^C. ha*
l)«*n ai>i:r«(!d upon by th« Oi&rtios as tli«» ajsiuur'^ o^ diuiiif^aa in eaa«
of br#.>oh of th* contract, tU&r. i% will tm, c-iiforcftd as ttkf«4«.
Th# oaydlnal TMln ef eonwtr lOtion ie the awajiirig of the oontraot
ao written.
In the InutiuiT, cuoo i;i« contract provi'i«8 that if
defendant aolle ita bu(»ln<9«8, or oo&^ea ot^retir^c from t>uslnRa»
durlnft tho period coT«rodi l>y th*- contract, or ixi the ?v»nt thot
it ahould Htltonargo olstlntlff b«i'or« that tlseao, defcnd&nt should
pay to plaintiff 15500 as uls Il<;uid»t&d daK^uges. Wqd think this
proTlolon isnikea it clear thut.!. thti pttrtioc lnt@M«d th«sit in e&co
4«f entrant should oeaao to manufacture hv^ts, th^t'^ it ahould pay to
plaintiff $3500 and na eaora; and eveu if we should sonstxue tho
allogationt o: thft eountai to ttoaij that plaintiff ceased tc do
buainosa witliin the nt^aning of the oc&trnct by rasnoring Ita f iO-
tory to liiQhl(!^an City, it would avail plaintiff nothing, b«oau»«
h« eoul'' not reeovar xsore tbar» th« $3B'l', ^e are therefor© of tha
opinion that each count *aa -Iftsurrable. But wo rare further of th«
opinion that th«r* i» no prorialon of tae contract that would re-
quire plilntiff to continue the operation oi' ite factory In Chi-
cago, and that it would net breach ite contract by moving ita
plant a fa'w oill^o frot^- Qhicaeo to kiciiigan City.
The Judtpiont of the ^upftxior court of Cook oounty ia
affimed.
lioSorely and Jfcatohett, JJ., concur.
**A**lNr >s**'i»*-<s>at^ ■'**:**«*^^^ #■* >i;«ia- m ■■■"■ ' * ■ra^
..HMswWiSJ t«U* ,,^##^.^,#4«^ A^ X5i««a0»^
33228
AtT-'Jii KIKAi AXJKAB
r.M»«j.
i CuUUT 01'' ClilCAOC,
i:oJ>X ^ 345/
IIR. PRSSlDliiO JUSriCK O'COKKCK
WILIVBIIBD TH2i OPIisK. ^ -Ln GOUKT.
By this appeal tJh.« dai'eiidants tivcit. to revisrM9 an order
ol* th* Munielpul court oi' u^ilcogo, tUc^uyibj^ tholr »otlof. to vaoat« a
jttdg»«Qt oonf«8««d on a l«as« i'or failurtt to pay r^t.t.
Itie roc'jxd disdowtts tkiat an iiaroh IG , 19:i5, pliiintiffo,
as InncHords, eatarod Into ii i^lt.t&e l3&»<: wlU^ a«rendaute ;jis t«R>
ants d9G.i3ing t})« pr^t^ABrnfi in quf^ntlon I'roiA ^arch 1<!), X&2&, until
JUkToh 15, 193c « At a rental oT $5400, p^iyable Ir. atontiay install-
B9i:«T,o of i^90 eaoh, Itxo pro^^laea dei'^lsed arQ tlS^serilsed as 'Th^t «n-
tiro buiidiiig toi:«th»r with ga»r»tie and out-noaoe» located on th*
prenlaes eotturioaly known mo :>o. 1059 ^, 47th Il<«c«, <^aica«^o, Illi-
nois. The storo preciseo tc b« ua^d I'or grooar> an^X &a%t iurtrktft
buoineos taxi th« arvftral i'Ia'.m for living purpoKOs.'^ Th« laaso
aloo prcvidod that th« laiailordo sluiuld "cl^saju &£td decorate th«
firftt floor en or toeJ'oro kay 1* 1925. Iho o^qx^jiises to te l>orn«
by tho said first p&rtios. Xh6 p-.o-ti^a ox' th«i first piort also
a«;ree to roplaee any plats tj;l<t** tnat fst%j l)c brr.ken duiintj; tha
toritt of this leasd.** Xhtt t«i3.arAtB entered ii^to t^A «;C6upi«d tho
prsnlsfts uiitil July 7, 1G2B, tiaexi tixw^ vucatsd. v.n Feliruory ;^1 ,
1928, plaint if fB cautted a judj^ont by oonfsBslon to be «nt«rod
afiainst ths defsndtuHfl i'or remX i'or « if teen aays in Augus^: aiii
for tho months of .>«ptotab'2r, tctobcr, x.ovetw.b«r SLud .Oecosiber, 19S;7,
and January or:"^ Vel^uary, li>2&. Xnoluded In the Judr^««nt was $66
for attornoy's foos, ths Juiti«»i?nt b«ing for v63v'.
!?8SC€
bk: Q.^ . .
\
i ' ,i^tk
T«,w*i^«3* ■:>) is,^iiti;^,'- an.i.'y: ii3&m
IRftfel?©::,^, #i1IIP<Wf : &$.Mi
4k# .'J^^'
Cn August 8, 19 2d, tbi* defendants movad th* oourt to
T&o»te the Judt^vnt und J'or l'-«iy« to d«S'»ud, In support oV tho
ttotien the tti'fidavit of del'enaant Anton i^ik«lajuiius was I'lled. It
set up int, iT ttHjft ticwit d«feiidii«tu had no kno.iodtjo oT uU« trntry oi'
the jude^cnt uniiX Jul^ '70, 19^^); Uiai 1»y ti:io teri:;;a ol' the lease
plblntii'i's ugr«ei to '*olaatt aiid dleourat« the iiret I'loor on or "be*
fore the first of May, 19 35. Tats oxpeneee to be burns hy said
parties of the lirer, part, I'iis p^rtlofi oi' ta<f first part also sfirss
to replace any plate glass whieh i&ay ls« tiro^en duriut^ the term of
this lease," Zxic affidavit furvaer »«i up thi.X~ tiitt cleaning had
not been done although dcfeniar^te efteu r«qu«8i«i pltiiuUffs io <^
so; t;iat the «all« were alrty ajsa cr&8ke<>; taat on Jul;;^ 1, 19S7,
*'twe (2) largo front ylbt« i;;las£ winders, «a.t;a &t>lni£ auout «ight
(6) feet square, iffsr* brt-Jten put 3i" the fraxit of tas saivi prtii-ites,
by perecca ufji^nonXi to thesf! dei'eadoi'its; '* that aeft^iiiisuitu lioiirieci
plaintiffs cu tha'v day anU rtt.,a9el«d thesm ts replace the glues;
th'^rsRi'ter
thi^up to jja.-l ijacluding July 6, IS>;7, i&ey A&iiy xiOtified p..aiii»
tiffs and re(iue»t«>':. t:aek. to xe^XhJi* the gXs.s& tut tK&t thej^ refused
to do so; taat on acoouut o-i the ^l&se beins^ Droiten ac.i tha failure
of plaintii'fs to repliuie it, i,he i'rcifit ci trie stort? ir. ^^hiok def«t)d-
artts cocdueted their tusinesB «as exposed ^c Uit; weatuer ajud a l.?.rge
amount of stooit and food etulfs vere spoiled, ^md in order to saye
the remainder of tn^ir »tcck th«^ were foreed to ^&i«ur)don and vucr^te
the presblses on July 7th. iuad furtu«r, th« plaxntifl's had included
in the jui.;»«et confessed j>65 fox attorr;ey'& fees, t^hile t^e leass
specified the attorney *b ittf.a t;> be $Zij, Xh« court denied tne noo
tioc to vacai* and the defenii^^Mts appealed.
Plaintifis contend that the affidavit iu aupport of
dsfenlants' iiiotion was deficient In the Sionner of its ftxtrcutlon,
in fori and in substsuoe; tiuit the affidaYit «&b atrorn to before
a notary puMio who ■was counsel *'cr 4«f »i.dax»t8 :uiA therefore it T^as
s^-sz/li*?, Aiw ■..i>. ;-6>Ai:is? M*,*'«f *«wi!i3g mjiii '10 'i^^>i:i(ii.- n.
•uU«rly ToiiJ and worthlono.* ■»• think this cont«ntion is not
warr»nt«dl. In FUlUlg v. PJalllipp. 135 111. 629, it was h»ld
th«t It w»« not propor pruotiee for m\ attorney to »4K.inl»t«r
»n o«th to iai» ellent In a suit In nhXaa h« wa» «nploy«4, t<ut
that audi ▼•rlfioatlon was not a nullity,
A further point is tsa4« that the a^'fldavit was lc«
sufficient l>«c»u»« there waa no yenuo atatod in the tfl^intilng of
th« affidavit . Wc think thiis is a 2aieapnr«h<»n»ion. The V8nu» at
the boglnntHfj of the afiilaYlt is ijc proper form, via., "sitate of
Illinois, County of cook, Hii,"
It ia further oontsia.ied thitl the affidavit is defi-
cient in eul>Bt»rie« because it is '*v«^j,u«i cind evasive «" and a nua&ber
of teehnioal points ;%r« urg«)d a^^inat it, non@ of which we think
sub8tar. tlal* %hll« it niiiiit havn been drawn t^IUi greater care, we
think it is «uffiei««it« It seta up in eubstarioe that %h.fs plate
glass was broken on July 1, 1927; iha,t def«ndar;Lt» notified pl&ln«
tiffs oi that fact on the soasf* <iat« an:? that they notified them
daily thereafter to and including July 6tJi.
Upon ^M esiaeUnatlon of tae brii^.fe in the case, it
seeisB to b* concedei by plaintiffs Uiat d«f«n(5ant8 would be war-
ranted in Vacating th« or^sises unl«»B the bro^<m glass was re-
placed by plaintiffs within » r^^sonable time, but it is contended
that the affidavit falls to disclose f.^ots n^ich tend to show that
plaintiffs liad a reasonable t.l>.7;f» t?ltnln whlca to replace the ij^ass.
In support of this it le 9^*i the court would taJice jurildal
notice that July 1, 1927, was Iriday, tiiat July 2 was Saturday,
which Is a hxli holiJlay in Chicago, that July 3 was Sunday, aiid
keaday, July 4, was a holiday, stnd that therefore there were only
two day* • the 5th and 6th - within whleu nl^intiffs mi^t h;«vt
replaced the g^ass; tuad it ie contended that the failure to re-
place the glass on those two 4eiys would not warrant defendants
^**^ *#■• ^irMl^t ■'(!*■«*» iN*^^^^^ ■■ ; "i^lA t^:!^, b^^-
in moTltiK out 01 Ui« prcoietta. Tha afriilaTlt sixowa thikt th« jtlAst
was brokM on July lot on) that plalniirf* woro notlilod on that
d»t«. It lurther a^^penxo that dofendanto were oon^-tuctlng a otoro
in tho proittloos, ao th« !«&•• proTidod. In these olrcumatoneeo
ve think it wat a question of fuel whether the time that eX^sed
vas unreasonable.
We think the ju l^^snt ahoull have heen oponed up
and leave given the defendants to ores^nt ta«lr case on the snerita*
8omet)iing further is said hy plMintiJ'fs to the effeet
that even if the ft;l«es was not r«plac«d, and ij by r^mson of this
fact defendsuits ware authorised to V!».cat« th« sVore, thia iia not
warrant defert-Saxits vacating thus entire builting. We had oeoaeion
to consider a eiitilar question in Carl son y , L ey xn eor* . S23 111,
App«, 104, ittimrti we said the I&w had long been settled "that whrre
a lessee has been wrongfully evicted by his licm-ilord from a portion
of the dsiuieed pre&ises, he ie thertby exoused from the payj&«nt of
any rent, sOLtlxoug he eontinu£>t> to ocoupy th$ rsmainin^;; portion of
the premises to the end of the twrm. Hagyeyv. ^ith.^ 63 111. 430;
Lynch V. Baldwin. 69 111, 210; fMK^K.y» :^^^^ffT» '^^ ^11. S*l:
Leifemian v. Qat«^. l«7 111. »3; 2 Woo<J oe Landlord and Tenant,
1107.*
We are unable to undsrstand why the trial Judge did
not reduce the ^ud^^ent MS by reason of the f.^sujt that the lease
provided that in case of confession of judi.jaent, th<? plointiffs
mieht include |2c> for attorrioy's fees while in the Judgment |65
was included, ir. view of the fnot tnat this fact was h specified
allegation aade Iti the affidavit. Counsel for plaintiffs, hoinever,
has filed a reirlttitur in this court of $4^, but since the order
of the ikiuniolpal court suet be reversed for tho reasons herein-
before nentioned, this error /&ay be obviated on a trial of the
oase.
«->?•* f- JiS(4ttf** »»A^^»i9 «»»«» mol ^fe»*i «*i »rf* i>^*» •«' ftWfiv ,>0X < .«3^
Kaijtff^ # peal liioXSriwX «irf >ipf M^»lr» x^iii'iaaaw iwwrf aasC ♦•»««1 «
ki»m99m ^ **** ^^'^ -*<>^ *<?^ *»«^ •** >» *•** «^ ,*•&«!© n 4 «i85»'
Thvi »rd«r or th« MuuiolpAl court of Chieaeo !• x**-
Tera*4 »nd th« mattAr ronianddd with dlr«ctlon» to op«n up tho
jttdgmont and ^Wo leave to tiie l«f«n'iai,te to Interpose a de*
REVSR3KD AJSC RKiiAK5aD WITH nIRKCTIO«Q,
koS^rely and Uateh«tt, JJ. , cocour.
t'^
«iE«i#£t{Pi# ^^V^ J^$^0^i,^0..itm %Zm.ti^9M.
%■ i?^
/ ) / WS'aA I'ROM KfcfilCIP
MktrJMAL c.\iupy: ■: i^aJSY , ) "-^"^ / V
A Cor3or*tion^
lot. raSTfCI McOUKSlY l]i81,IVri86£I> lUK Ojl'li«lcjx< Oi? THs uOUhT.
Th« (l«I>ii4ant •«elcs tlie reveraal of a juUjtaent, iiaid
to b« Tor ^663,9a, «nt«r«d after trial by the court In an action
of tr«>pa»» on the caac. Dofeudant 's ^j.bstract aontaint only tho
bllJ. of «i(c«{>tionfi xui^ ito«>B not properly show us the naturo of
the aetlon or plaintiff's claiK nor the juie»ent oi the court.
Under the oirouB»»t*uneeB the reviewing court could properly affirm,
Howerer, we hav« estuainsd the record aai I'iia^ that
the eontroTftrsy aroee out of the colli eion of two trucks, one
owned and iriren by plaintiff an? the other ovmod by (i^fpi/dftnt
aad driven by C, A. £««>l»on,
Plaintiff teetified that he waa cocking -' * ■ - " rly
on iiCleton riwnue, in Chicago, rlth uie siopty track, .^ '
the other truok, loaded, 6'oing in the opposite iirectioxi, . .„w
the pavement there le about 30 feet '"ide. ^'lalntiff 8ay» that
he pulled hie two left wh«»ala off t: n«n l>el8on mude a
short swing which o^ueed th@ rear wheela of defendant's truck to
swerrs, etriking the left front saeel of plaintiff's true* and
inflicting oonsideralJle daoMt^**
Defendant 's story is that he was on the ri|0t edgfl
of the road and that plaintiff's truck was over tlxe center line
of the street and that it ran into the rear hub of defendant's
truck,
^e reepectivo stories are in rilrect conflict «jad it
was pseULl ATly for thp rial court who saw the witnesses to
C '.
*9:.:AJSS£;
,TMQ'^ fSt W HfJl>tl^© ?ilR
jcfjrit
t®Wt ,1
«M^;_0|M^ «.^ ^'m»X>l£»1;*& t.^ «-if »l^ 1^^!«»-£ $il!f#' J&4l«ttl»8 .<i»i<fw anj^-'-
«»iai ^fr4i««« *4i{^ is^v^f- mm 'Aas^i •"litl^aU^i^ 9.1111^ - iNas k/^&t tifis 'to
ilt 5>8»' »»l.n.^m ^»rfl«> «|-*«« tHiifti.'**
9i mn^imtlv fs.iiJi nwia «clw ^tMta*
({•t«nuLn« vhlcii «&» the truo one.
Cottplaint le il&4« of tho: ruling* oi tl^a trlia court
on til* «Tl<I«no« tund of the r«tk«9na (;U^ve)n I'or hie conclusiona.
Vt «ay not >kgT9^ with «ltaar the rulint^e or the riitf^aontt oi' th«
ocurt, but ii' w* ciuanot a&y that thtf coccIuqIoc «fta aimil'«stly
«£&in«t th« w«li/it oJ' the Av.i<r2.er.c«, it siust bf? ut'i'irt>.9d. «• do
net fool juetiried ixi dloturblng tho i iiidii}ii.e o)' the court ac to
vho oousftd the aeoidont.
W« are told tiiat t^. ._....(, of th« jui^jaent includoo
a ropair bill ol |3t^5.dii. I'hcre i» no t«Qtli:iony offerotf oontro-
T«rtlng th« qu^Htion 02' diu&i^;.i»e or ue to the reaaonabloneso ol*
tho ropftlr bill. I'lttintifi tectiiie.l that the d&ejfiif^ft raec vlonod
In tho bill vers oaueed by tho aooideint I'^nd th .11 the bill.
This »ado out a &ri,ava i'tifci^y case ol' the rfsaecnnbleneoe ol' th? eoot
or tho repair «. C^^yy ff ft. v «._13Lft5LUa » -'^l ^^.l, App. 1S3; apyroyed In
By aloe v. Jdatrieaon. 328 111. 26S.
Wo are adyieoij that tho Juagment li.clu <t nrol'it
of IS40 elaltaod tc have boon los^t by palntiii' throu^jh hie inability
to use the truck i»hil«; it was b&ln^ ropatirodt Xuis is on tiie
bttoio of ft pfoiit of #Sw & du^y for 12 d^ya. ihoro is no evidenoe
whateyor thftt plaintiff ;aade &iiy atteantjit to hire i»nother truck
or to Klninieo tho da^u^ea in $a\y way, nor is tLor« tmy eyiSeneo
that h« would hay« boon oonKtiustly «u»ploy&d at this rate of
profit during tho tiosft. ^ho lo»e of profita was not aufficl^ntly
proyon and ahouXd not h»yo boon alIo«od.
For tho roa»Qno in'!ileat«d th« i\idgii,tini la ri^veraod and
j«dg»«tnt will bf ontfred In tale court for the amount p»iid for
repair*, $3^3. 98, avialnst the defendant, coete In this court to
b* taxed againat tho dofsudant.
COURT FOB 1323,98,
O'Connor, P, J*, and Katoli<^tt, J., ocncur.
*.U'P
'"" '' '■"■ \ia^'kifim »di i>««w«« «?-■■*
«««• #<&$• % «»«i».i4iKii«««ki^ *# Iri© "sMus* XiiMil miM. « *»• •J^*'
■■"-^ ' •■ "-v*** .in tag ^mM^M»^.i,^.jui^am
i^iii2cf««Jt i»M djif^finiL 'S *»*ti mt»4 *vmi 9i i^^jxii^ 0.
■ '-»3iste> «.«!* -Ifjt l'9'. .;<iw st«i iXfw ffn.'^is-':,* ift
Si.. , . ;
.' :: ' ■ ■■■'■ ■■:'',>'^' ■ ' ty- *^V?'v'
13897
ApP«
COOK GJiamf.
^>
m, JUSTICE JAoJiUR&LY I/rvLIWJUiii XHE OPIHiOJf OP THE COURT.
Plaintiff brought suit und<it7 th« Dram <>hop Aot* ••otlon
80, chapter 45 « alleging thtib ahe vas Ittjured by rot^eon 9t defeat-
«!tit*8 eelliaa; h«r husbnnd intOKlo^^tlzig liquors* Upon trial 1^
the oourt defendant was tovaai j-ullty awid Ju<jgn»«nt for ¥150- wait
•nt«re<i agn-inst hlB» from v/hich he appeals.
TlM flrat p«lnt «m4« Is that thfi oallSren of ths plain-
tiff ATS not «ade peirtiss pl&lntirft but, as no daiaagss were
awarded to the children and the siiit ■va& brought xm behalf of the
«ife alone, they were not neceesssry pxirtles*
The o edi:uility of the plaintiff and her husband Is
questioned nith epeoial ref«renee to their imrria^e, but it ^ims
proyen by tiociaaesntAry eridenee thskt plaintiff vm.u anrried to
Vrits Pse June la. I92S.
The Btain point of att&ok is dix^ v .nlnst the conduct
of the judge upon the trial* iefendant;*8 brief charges th^t the
finding VRS due to '*the inpulolTO remarks, or&torlo&l efforts and
lectures by Judge Joikeph B. T^avid on the Prohibition Ij&s, laws of
our sister sttitee and othur Taried subjects** There arc anpls
greiuidB for this critieiesi, as the record atuytm* «»e bare else-
ehsxe said of slmilftr ctnw^ttct on the pnrt of a trial judge *" though
c
ajtls X ks:
\ »laa.i4*vi^,
4fsmsi:m '^m^- 1^ m&mvm assr mmri.
t la^fi MX^t
iOX
•iJS
.>; <•■ Si. 3 ,«A-<.
It MJn th* unekilful Imv^, cannot but hwJca the Jut^loious g;i«Ta"
•ad i« UBOAlly cttstly to tli« litigants awl to tho public. The Roy
iToroon Co. T. U. . Lloyd* 0, Ino»» 246 111. App. 628. Ho^oTor,
if tho jttdtfMttt is propor in a cj^se trieci ^without a jury* w« ohouXd
affirtt r«c!irai«o0 of the Ebullient fuXnlEuttiono of th« trial Judgo.
Ka«rfjlag from th« farrago of talk api)oar« the atory of
%hm plaintiff to the effoot that Ah« ■v=m living with hor huabaat
in Harroy* Cook bounty • XUinoiii* vhere ho ^ao oaployec ao an attt»-
nobilo a«ch»alc, race It ii^ an aver&go wisge of $60 a i>o«k» and wa«
also St 8p«oial poliee offio«r cm tho E rroy police force i th;^t oopo*
tlao pirior to Itoy* 19S7« her hu«hand begetjB the «xo4»s»iTe luie of
intoxic^iting liquoYi that bo purehf«»ed this liquor froan th« defend-
ant «ho conc^aetod a grooery store in Uar^rayi that on J^ay 17 oho
followed her hueband into defeneiAnt* s pl&ce of buaineo» an& retiuceted
him not to sell any nore IKuor to h«r husband b^eauee it vng making
himcrasyi that in reply to this request def^ndimt told her that ho
was aakiae his liriag th^x. we^y and «ottId »ell lic^uor to her husband
if ho vantod to* Defendant dixies thr«t he erer eold plaintiff's
husband liquor eusd plaintiff* s version of this conTers?<.tlon. Plain-
tiff's story is corroborated by the tefstimony of her husband and
also by another isitnes& who testified tl^t* on tho A&y following
the date of tiw reqaest of plaintiff to defend snt not to sell lienor
to her husband* the witness) went with l^oe to a fondant's place of
business and boug:ht two drinks of aioon&hine. Plaintiff aeye thet for
about a year prior to 1927* although he was eemin^T about |50 a week*
her husband contributed not over 1150 to the support of heraelf and
her children* Tho hasbo^nd teatifisd th!^t he spent tlO a week for
liquor and that cm liay Id he bouj.:ht li(;;uor from defendant and beoaas
intoxiostodi that while in that condition he wrecked an autenobilo
Vf^x^)^'^:. ''.^w 'gesAvM •«» «l« i«M tw»lt» '«*<* fe" ^'•'■■■' ■'-T.Lal!^ aif^
■:mm^^. lnimiK^^ son. «^ ,^m^i mum ,i&m.M»» -9^ fn»s «nt*^
•a*
belonging to hlii tnplegr«r omA had to pagr daoumeu to the uaouat of
liat. Ho waa dl6oluxrc«Ki by hie «i&plo7er Juno 2v., 1927. ?lalntlfr
vorkotf at Tajrious plao«» la Hr^rToy &nd naally Joia<ftc h«r haobai^
near thair olo hoaw in 7eiimesftt«t •<>i«re ttaoy w«ro living at tlui
tiaM of th« trial*
^o oannou B&y frtm the reottxd thnt th« cooolueictt that
dcifoidaat vaB Kttlltj as cW'Xfitd tms oleexly a{;«.last t)ic wolght of
th« erideaoo*
P«f«ndn.nt protests afftinst the *^»ount of the Ju4(pMni»
artruia^T thitt th« stmeant of «a»K^«e was aot proroa %xig. that tho
court had no right to aseors oxoBplery 4»jB!3go»» /.ctual dcjaagee.
were proyon nnA tlw statute «B«sr «hich the aetiooa ■»«« brought
peraite th« plalatiff "to reoorer nctual sund oxoKplsury tfaaasoo***
Tho «Ti<l«no« vnB conflicting but v c ccanot nny tho
court Ki«;ht not properly hare f ouad th in aocoroaaeo with
the contention of the plaintiff*
Tlut judgKoat is affirmed*
Maiehett* J* eoaouref
0*CoBnor« P« J*» dissoats*
The trial ^Nas not conducted in an orderly manner and
an examination of the record di=!cloBes tbe fact that it is
impossible to say that the court considered the evidence in
arriving at his decision.
«*&?*» ■asjsft^iJt i>i»*i* liiNW- *«*ft«f t3>»«»»is»t? fti twuMi -AJte lamA «««o
t:t«Ml«i»«|. «i[fif lf» ■#«*«««» «if# -fiAtan* »#»««•*« iNi»fc«»t»a
^1*1 wws.^^'m^^m «,l #l^fM»* ««*.# Same's: ^tM '%l,'«<«w;;a's:«| it^tf ittSi^v ^^-sji^ea
bns n'^'nnjatK x.Lieb'io a& as. baiouoaoo 3 on. si^,i X-:a,iJ adT
ex ui isdi ioBT: srii aep,oLofXb oiooai adi lo noi.i£aisiBx.3 as
«x 90fi9^iv3 3jl;t 69T;9£ii:sx;Qo 43jjoo 9ii;t isdi ■^sa o;t alcfjasoqiMX
• noiaxosf) sxri ;J« gniviiTB
33330
IRVIAIO I. COsi^li,
kR. JUSTICI*' McSUKELY
>"
;;:2:^7
/
RSB rm o?ii*iofi 0? Tile court.
D«l'«ndant by tUXo appeal s««)Jk& the rov»;r»al ol* a
|«4(pwat a^ttinat hiai for ^663. SO.
Hie jusjjioiciit Wfi» «Bit*»red ji\Ui;uBt JJa, i92fc), by aoa-
f«aslon vmd«r a pow«r eJ* attcruey in a Judii»«nt note. 3ub«««
qucntly, on Oetobflr 1.1, ISOa, der«iidaiit »ov«d to vacate the
jttd/^ttnt und filed tim arii<aayit In »up?Jort oi ula .sotioB, as-
••rttng that on or about July £3, 19^5, whlci'i is the ^at« of
th« D«t«, he T?** Itidftbted to plaintiif in ths aom of /^SCC. , but
in oTiMtr to fully e«;our« piaintlfr . iii*«^:'^ ij'^ait the de-
fondiant would i&Ji«(3ut« ta note ir. the aus; of t60€; t2;^at sab9e«
qu«ntly, Auguot ii', X^aa, plaintiff appeared ut <l»fer.<Sar,t •»
plaeo of bu9ln'*8« in Uouth Uav«c, i^laiiiitan, tuid agrae^^ to accept
anA d«ff>Adaat then laod there agresd to pay plaintiff #200 and
the IVrther »ujn of $1<X/ ae plaintiff 'e oos&XiiBeionB for making
the loan, ana that on that late hc' paid ^300 tc plaintiff vho
then »«(! there pro«iieed to o»xiccl the note nni zaail it to defend-
ant, all of whieh piaintiff failed to do; that defendant had no
kno^'lf-iiS* of :*ny judgment being entered ai^ainst hia. until October
I, 19 ?d; 119 x9ke^ that the jud^iBent be Tsioeted and set aside
•B<1 the cause eet dovr. for hearing.
The reoerd shows tnat the plaintiff's attorney ob-
jeoted to the motion on the ground that the defendact 's affidaTit
was "falae and perjuroue." ^"he court stated that in vi^w of the
faat that the affidavit iaiti;ht bo f il»e, he would permit the
/.;
v.'.'^S'J
.1 iviiTVKS
,ittm-.i.i'
:. rnxm^Ji-
;«■>,•,* 1' ■.". 9 *t vf ?» .V. "! CS « A *> «
•!;/.. r* iWj^
<lef«n4ar.t to »p!J«(Mr w»i1 <t«fMi<S only on condition thftt h« deposit
with th« elork th4» Moount ot th« ju.l«cn««t In oaah. D«f«ndatnt's
attorney ^tJtotiMl to th» coo'^ltlon, but tho Qourt peralsted In
holding that h- would B«t npl4« the Jurt^!Ta«nt only on the oondi-
tlon of a oa»h ^<»po«it, «i^ th« <JeJ>nd>wiiti refuwinf, to comply with
the oon^ltion the rnotion wae denied.
It le too well, awttlert to require oltrAtion of o«>«e
tlMt OB s, motion to *«»t aei^e a jucJirttent by conf«(S8ion the truth
or falsity of the srfl'^'avit is not iedslYft oi' the motion* Court*
exerclet equitable control of Ju(5t:iugnt» hy oonfeaaion and may 09«n
th«» anrt p^rjalt a rutftmn^. -rhf^re eQultstbl<« grountJe for «o lolnf
are preeer.ted.
Thl« g»n«ral ruls ee^rriS to h& a^lsjltted by courioel for
plaintiff who arji.u<^«, howerer, th&t the affidavit do»'8 not either
expreealy or by nece««ary i«iT?llcation e<iy that the note referred
to In the defendant '8 affidavit it« thf sorae r:ote on which Ju*g»<»nt
wae entared. In. view of th« rsoora showinj^ trvat th«* ,1ufij^«nt wa»
ecter<^d on the $&00 note axiA thai th« affidavit v^n filed in that
saatter, the refsrence In the affidavit to the ^6C0 note oould by
no potalbility ref«r to any othsr note tnsm t'nti on© on -which juiti-
a«Qt vaa entorea.
It l» .suggc«te!l that defend aJit • 8 affidavit in not in
acoordai^ee with certain rules of the Manlcipal court, Vut such
rule* are not bf»i"oro ut 9iu\ i tak«» Judioial nvTtio« of them,
ihe court hle<^. no oower lo rc^uira the defrniant to
nake a e.ah i<>poeit of th<! .uaount »f th? ,)ui^»ent as a eondition
precedent to tho cpeninti ai> of tna ja.lfo.iii<5nt, mwjulre v, Cfociabell .
98 111. App. 138; Pu^c v. Wallace. 37 ill. 84.
Th* affidavit prMeentf»d m euffioient defense and defendant**
SBfjtion eiieuld h<ive been allowed.
i^or the. reasons inriicat^'d the order denying defendant** ao-
tioa Is rrveree^ q? 1 tfc* cmuflr reiXifiOided for a tritO.,
O'Connor, P. J., »w^.d iiatchett, J., concur.
«s:
l(if«»*i,«f« ^.itdJlw »*!»■•
:^j Mr^mhiVti
mm
3«es7
VILOCO RAILWAY KiJlPkr;*!^'^;
a Cor^ermtion,
App«ll,Vit
OUXLYORD Q, TUHlfeH, ITRSD
ZlMKKHi^AK, T.Z HaIL^'AY &
CO., « Cor CO rat Ion f and
iilLlAL CO. , a Cofpo ratio:
Appnll
0*- cc(/iC c<>uij;i;YC'"
16
lA. JUSIICK MAXCJiSIT DBLIVKRSD THE OPISlOb 0? TlfS COURT.
t]ii» app«ai Is by th* coi*.pl;.iinHjr«t Troa. r* decr«f> v.lcb
dlniieiied its bill for want oi equity &nd dlsiiclvsd a tecuporary
injunction, the caus« was heard upon «xe«pticns tc the report of
• tt&stsr, ttbd tho d«or«« 0Y«r*ral«d th» «xe«ptlons.
The oosplainant i» a uorporatlon formerly kno^n %•
Harry Vioscrlng Coiapskny. ^or mors taan twelv« y»ar£j la-et p«st
it hat l>««u CfigTi{;;<e(3 in tii.9 >>ueinesB of ssllizifc r&ll^ray 8Uppll«s.
fhs <Sef an ^ants ^inraarsaii and I'urnsr are &tcckhol<1ers oi' th» coz^*
plsin^nt coicpsiny, un<} in the yaar 1926 v«r« m(t£3ib«rft of its ionri
of dlrsotors. Turtier '^ae tae president an! ZL ine s«ore«
tary. Xh« X*Z Railway ^^qaipBient Oofi>p«aiy i* an Illinois eornora-
tioe orfianixsd by dcfondants Siauasri^kan ana l'ume«r on Vsloruary
25, 19:37, for the purpose oi' carrying on th« «ase business in
vhioh eoxunlalnant is engaged. Its offioe has been located in th4>
buildin*^ in «rUioh for aany years owtplainant has conducted its
business. Xhc defendant Aurora aietal CoastpsiiBy fiianuf&stures an
article known as Crescent KkStallic i?uokin^:, whicn conaists of
orescent shaped seenents inten>-!ed to fit iround the piston rod
of loooxKotives, and while perisittlng proper ploy in the piston rod
prevents the lnaka(^^ of steam* This article was patented. The
original patent i^o. lSd06 was issued or. June 2, 190d, tmd the
Aurora ketal Coi;ipaQy had an exolusiTC license to manufacture, sell
Tf,aB«
»Ji^£.u-X&
'■"i iii,r,iii^%i
.«▼
ns'
^ I
:r£i^»!^ ^«ilit.,%& «ti^lJ!M^$iQ riitt mmmum fmsmiL^si. mtmi
t«
i$mi 'if-i;^*»:<* ■
S'amjsi*^.
lim ii^uM' 'H'mi»mi]t»s.
-)k-i^.i!iy.ii& .ei.isaxZXi 4*: s-^, .^M-iH^i^'^ »£eia^i-jj(»4 c^
i,i J*!BA!l\i .«.,
»»*?■■-:
Ic.
■:v'',.h; sisf^'Mui/r
sr^rt>--'tvi ;»:>,;:.'
.aS'-tttRvO"
Xj&»tt ,«%»i-^^iti.t«mtm m' ««j»»ij|<j;, ,ty^>(i «!.£«%»
and u»«. **or yaars prior to DeoeKiber 38, lyai, ooaplainunt
pur«haa«d thie Cr««o«nt M«t&lllo l^aoXln^ froiii the dsl'endttDt Aurora
M«tal Compnny and sold th« wwtne to lt» cuatoftosrs, or. that d.*te
tha Aurora eompany and cuMpiii.inant «nter«d Into a wrlttan aigr««-
nant wharaby tha Aurora oooiijiany undartook to grant to complsilnant
tha axoluBl-vff rltsht to acll Uxi« artlcia. A« tha rights ol' tha
ooBplalnant are bstaad upon ti^iifli writtan agreamcnt, vtt set It up
Terbatloi:
■kSifiORAivDiJi* 0^' A0a]S:Si;i4htT aa4« «nd anterad Into tnia 28th
day of D«eai^.bar» 1031, by ^nd batw««n tha Aurora k«tftX vcoap^ny,
a cornoraitlon having an ojl'lca at Aurora, Illinolo, aa lirat
party, nd ilarry VlBa«ring & Cotspony, a corooratioti having an
offioa 'it C.iicago, Xlllnola, n» second purty,
Vhercaa, tiie i'irat piirty is the eole &ad exolualva lleenaaa
for itself and asaiisns* to mKtnufactura, sell an!l use and to
grant to others the ri^jht to metrjuractura, »»li and usa certain
piston rod packing covared by United i>t?it«» Lntters X'atent Ra-
issua &io. in, 306, dated June S, IdO'S, and kt\o^>m as crcaoent
Uetallie HaoKlng.
*ow, th«r afore, for and in considoratioc of the aus of
Ona (H.OO) Dollikr, lawful mon«y by 9acui of the p)»rtiea h«reto
to the othwr Ir hand paid, the r9c«lpt ■'^fhereof is hereby ac»
lcno«l«dged, and for and in ccnsiderc^tion ol tho rautual proKisca
harain oontalnad, tha psirtlea herato do h«reby coveisfiiit and agraa
as follows:
1, Ihe sq.id first p;*rty loea horefcy grant to the said sso-
and p&rty the axclusiY* lie<:«!>8e and rl^^^ht to s^ll said vr«so«nt
Matallio Packing, and (Oil other articles made under said Letters
Putent, upon the terms ani conditions h^relnfifter set fc^rth.
2. Said licen&e shalJ ezicst for the terf^ of th« patent on
aald Qreaoent «ietalllc Pa.oi:inii, or any ron(>wal8 or re-i»sues
thereof, ^ut siiaill t«r;»inE»tr if said patent or any claisi thereof
or any renewals or re«-iBeue8 Uiereof , or the lioeuse of the first
party hereinbefore recited ifli declared void or invalid, but if
said license or rig^t shHll bo terrf^incxted, th« second party shall
be entitled to receive a oorui^lssion equal tc ten (10^'} per cent
of the gross T)rlc« of all sales si«d« luring the five years next
ejnsuing tftnr 8»id teraitr.fttton for the r«nl«oeiaent or repair of
packings previously sold by the second party, but said Ten (iCl)
per cent shall be payable only ori the moneys ocllected snd ra-
oeived by eaid i'irnt psi^rty, or its assies on said 8ul«8.
3. The SRld second party iu^reea to use its best endeavor to
prdiaote the sale of th« B^id urssoent ketallio >*aeking and are
not to take up th«? aale or be int*»r'^8t«d either directly or iii-
directly, in the sale of >»ny oth<»r packing, during the life of
this agreccisnt, siive and except, pacAiings for pur;>oses for which
the party of the first part will not furnish said Uresoent ynatf
inga prostptly and at a reuaon&Vle price, during the life oi this
agreeaient. Iliti said second party shall bear all expenses iuei*
dent to the oiaking of such sales and the oeilint^ price of the
paeking shsil bi? entirely optional wit., it. rii« first party
agrees to furnish at its ovn expenso re&o&niible «xp«rt services,
(in the way of a man) to look after the installation, care and
any trouble that occurs U, the service, or vith said paei^ings.
■ ■■-■■■« .TOiJ
*>;> v..^ft
«»w^
*t *#':
«•'
-■» «^>JUf«*»fei«!i«e» *ii, feaas wl , ^ «c«o'J*-
r? .
•* , l(gSt^%a?* f| «|i|#lijt;«i^ tfi*.ls#i%, «44 ;#'|f«^*«
Jit
4. All putoklne or prirts lurnlshed umjlcr thin Hgrvemont by
kh« aaia x"ir«t party to th* seoond p«rty Bhiall be sold on the
following t»rci», najKftly. Thirty dB,y»i net.
9. I'hf) t'irat party i« to b« known 1x3 tai ouses «• the
«anui'»etur«r of Cr«»cent Packing, rnd the fooond ip >rty the die-
tributor, whlcu ehadl b« plainly stated on all shlpplntf tag*,
e^talOftUei, iii.d adrcr 1 1 elng; literature which arc used in the
Creecent Ictiokinft bueinees.
«. W at any time durinjj; the life oT thie contract eaid
flret party enail .iesire to soli lie rltijkii to aianul'sioture, »ell
and uee and ite rl^iit to ferant to others the riiilt to manufac-
ture, eell and uee eald Creecent i.:etalHo i'acking, it ehall h«v«
the rl.ht to e«ll said rlj.ht» onl torfidnati? ihiB contract upon
giving i'infflty Bays written notice to «ald aecond party (Oid »n
the folloiring condltione:
i^Kid eecondl party Bi^ull hfc*v« th« firet option to purohaee
■aid richte for jm a»ount equal to the beet bona fide offer ob-
tainnble by aaH ilret party, ''^hicu option ehtkll exist for a
oerio-^ of alsty daya after notification of the ilrat ptirty'e
Intention to sell at a stated price, Failinj;: to oxexeise thia
option aaid aeoonl party ahall b*» entitled to r^^cpive Iwnnty-
fl-ee (25:!^) per cent ©J the purchase orlce recffilved for said
rlfthta, which said Iwenty-flye (25>) oer oent ehalL be payable
proportlor-ately aa payaente ar<» r«c<>ived by thn firet larty.
7. Xne Aurora i-etol Coftpauy agreea to protect and to keep
aafe and ufiprejuiiced the said iJarry Vlaeering & Cou.pany In
Ite unreatricted enJoya«;nt of th» rltOite grarited to it by tlieee
preaentfli, ofu-f t© aave it hrwnalsaa frorr, all pataot wal other
litigation, .Hjsi all. ooata, p^nsltie©, deaoagea, f««B Hn^ exp^noiea
on account thereof by reaaon of Its ' s*lfl of eoid Crijecent i'doklng
and a^raea that in the event of ita failure so to do or to auc*
oaesfully maintain or defend axiy pv»tent infringement suit or
auits broUrjLxt by or rxga-inet it or anyon-? r»l»« on account of
aaid Crttacent Packing, th<itn ;.ind in Uxsit event the aald Harry
Viaaering *. Cofiap^riy tsay, at its fti«ction, eltiier terminatt
thla a^««akent uaori elxty (60) daya' written notice to the
Aurora Metal Coa^pany, ar jaaintaiu in,5 defend auoh siuita at
its own expense, for 7?hici-j. purpose aiii^ thia pury^jsa only, the
Aurora i^atal CoKpany h^jraby oonatitutea Harry Viasericg & Con!i«
nany, aforeaaid, ita attorney with full powers to do everytjjlBg
neeeaaary or di^sirable iri the premiaea.
In witneas whereof, the r-sspffctlve partiea hereto have
hereunto Intf^rchangeabiy aet tliPtlr har.da and affixed their
•aalB, by thwlr duly autnorlxed officers, the day j^nd year
firat above written,"
Ttie bill alleg<«8 that in the autxinm of 1926 Tunier and
XlMaanean, while dlrectora <itnd officara of the cousplailnant earpor*-
tion, foraed the intention of wront^fully depriving complainant of
ita buslneae in Creaoent i^.tttnlllo Packing .%Rd purauiint to that
4«algn, While atill offioare and dlrectora, entered into negotl»>
tiona with the defendant Aurora Company, perauadintf it to violtite
ita contract and doaiat froia l\irniahing to ooapl.ilnant aupplica of
Creaoent Matallie Peeking. Iho bill avora, and the proof tanda to
•^^1$ s^^i
.',1 m^i ify '7
rrz"'-
<■>«'?(*,•?« KB
--!».di
... , -^n
■how, thAt fkl't«r nego tint ions with lumer and Ziismertnan . on
January 2C , 1927, th« Aurora Comptaiy notil'l«d eoffipl.ilnant that on
lUrth 1, 1927, It would dlscontlnu* selJiing Uroaoont iactallic Pack-
ing to th« oonplftinant , and th&t 11' the thraat had bean OHirlod out
it would haT« boon le<practioal for eotaploinant to I'uXflll its con-
tr&oto with its oui»toK.er» with rel'«reiic« to the oale ol «Aat prcduot,
Th» bill also ayoro, and th« prool' tends to ehov , that the dofond*
ant Aurora oo- pany know tlmt th«»« d«f«rid/wit» w«re directors ol* tho
complainant oorT>oration iriiiio nairo Hating; with Turr-csr and iiasaor-
The prayor of the bill is lor an injunction restrain-
lag Tumor, Sitemorntan and th« f-Z &».ll'w&y ii'qulpsient Cob^pany from
indttoint; tho Aurora Coatpany to U»contlDue furniaaing Crooeoct
Motalllo paeiting to co»*plstin»nt and reotrainlni^ the Aurora Company
froBL fumiohing Croooont iiotallio Packing to the other defondanto.
Iho contract provided that it eiiould exist i'or tho
term of tho patent "or any renowalo or re-iaoues tJioreof . " This
pattnt by its torms oxpirod on Juno 2, 1935. It wim not extended
or ro-iesuod, and th« Aurora ooaipajfiy oont«nd8 that bocaase oT the
expiration oi* tho patent tho eontraot by Itu ton.* expired and the
ooBtpl&innnt has no rights tht^rouiidor, It appcure, how©v«r, that
OB January 13, 1926, ihs Aurora Coivpany obtained a now pat*<it for
ar iiaprcivor:^9nt in Creseont ketallio Pao^irig; tnat aoat» tiKe thero-
after it began the nanufacture thsroof and rrom tlisii> lo tise fur*
nishod to the oompluinarst a sufficient supply to fill orders *hloh
tho complainant h»d recffivod. Thoro is corrosponionce in the r»ooi4
tondin^; to shew that ooapl -in»nt and the defendant Aurora Company
eo«09er»tod together i: the selling ©f thf pwcitlng and that both
parties soesed to r«oognise tha'v tho new article should b« sold
subject to all the ter:i>s and provisions ol the old contract, inters
is also oral >^idenoe froa waloh a renewal oi the licenss according
m
-Sim sf-j :
.■^'->
*r»»>«& I'gjf^
•'Ji; !?».
^ ■»t'>;*>' irf- 'ff^ «
•. .«j» ■utr.'- find K , t* ??«st ■;
.-aft
■■■■1
afc<*»6f-
»«
«^
r^:;'..* 5,?i^5>.|
-f'vfi *d3:if#^' «fi
j^^o <■,■■• r ,, A .
■V-ii.-(m««; ^»«98-*^«
tfet ^ft'Si'^:
,-;/ w'';i»; .i: "'••■. ;sr«jf;?
to th« t«nBii and provision* oi' tho old ooctraet could be inferred
Mid whien , if tru«, uiifjit tHao b« h«id to iti^oiUit to txl least nn
iapliftd and axolusiT* ttra-nt ol' a liocnsA to tae oowplciinur^t, al thouf^
tht finding of th« Ka»t««r io to tA« contrary. Howaver, vhethar
that finding la juwtiried w« rind unueoessitry to a deeioion of
the oaaa.
Xh«re l£ also ^ conflict in the svidotics with raferonea
to the «ai«g«d sbuaa of fiduciary rolatlona wiui the complainant
by the d«f«n<.>4nt« Xurnor and Zii^u^ieriiiuti. Xt< tu<: yeiu* 1QS6, whila
Turnor waa presi-ient of the oomptmy , Ch*trle* E, Lonj,» Jr.. «*» th«
owner of 260 chikres of ooiuplaintait 'a 500 Sihaiee of capital atock,
eontrollad aBii dominated t'a«t ocjsrpaiay. ak ciurly uo Jebru&ry, 1926 ,
there had been talkxiT dlspensiug vizu the servicca cf both Turner
and Ziawerman, suid ii*ft<!»rwar«ie tha owu« jsititt^ir ^ao discuQstd frou; tine
to tine* On Deoeiubcr Slat oi~ Uiat yuar Long nciii'i^d Turner that
hla aerYioee woult!! no loni^^r \>e ret^uirik^d but tiiut hia calary would
be pB-ld up to January, 1*97, it a^loo »pp?are that oii that day
Long a9eu]s«>(i th@ dutiea of preaidfijijt of iho eo}u];>i..»li';ai'it ac-£ipsuay
and eentinuQd to pexfor^iB the ,1atii^s of president thereof until
Janusxy IS, 1937, wher. he w«i» «leot,ed prarsidetit by th« boj*rd of
direotofa of the coi^p^iuay. ^ though the bo&rd of 'iir&otora t&et oa
Deoei&ber 31, 192$, luri-ar di<3l hot reaiish, atij tue board of diree-
tora lid not, as i'ong insisted they did, take any iiction at that
time toward hia removal, ^otvitiiats^iiling this, i^cn^: wrote letters
to nuaeroua euatciu^ra mi& ««&f>loy«dS of the aoibpHiny informing th«n
that Xarnor h»d been aupisraeded. AXiA Turner wrote denying th&t he
had tendered ;j<ny r<'/Bl«^natlon mi'l insisting that h« wf.ib still the
president. As a mutter cf fact, ha w^&6 paid and tLooepted hia
aalary for January, 19>.7, a&auntini^ to ^454. 17. On Janu%r>' 31,
1027, he alao turned in ar^ exDenee ticccunt saaou:-tln6i to nbout
446S, inoluling iteiaa of exptfnse Incurred prior to Deceftibpr SI,
i!fi-r%'t«^«it ■^€:kSiim. ,$&miam ;^^ ^(1^^ "im :4)imi»-ivi^'*9 ^m:-*m»$:^ »di^. «•<
/ «i(«^:i9^#.. Jf^^ .^^:^!e^fwt# ij^.tii^tif^m&i^'im^- %«, .«H»ie«»4d edit "t-o <x»mro
1926, and up to January 27, 1»27. On Deocnlser il, 1926, Long told
SlBUBcnaan that "he wbs & v«ry iiupudont <uid unappro«iatiYO young
nan.* iiotrrr«r, on JiMuuxy XQ, 1987, Zimunraum wua oloeted &
dlrootor, Tleooprceivlent an] scd'sttury ol the eoaplhinant oompany,
but haylnfi withdrawn ixis noma on January 25, 19?!7, when nominatod
at dlrooter of another ocaipaiiy controll«d by Jbon^;, he th«n Int'ormod
Long that hf had deeided to realgn but that he would roaain thirty
or 60 days in order th&t arrunigieiKont stight be jaad« to fill hi*
plaee* Long rsapondod Janu^&ry •?7th by a letter In i^hich he told
Zimaerttan that hi a relAtlona with thtt complainant company would
eeaat January 31»t. iiowev«r, oi» February 11, 19 27, 2liaa.©rsian wrote
LoRg and another stoekholder, iiollinfishead, reniindlng them that he
wa« at ill yice-prealdflot, lirector nud eeeratMry of the co»i)iilnant
ooKpany an^ that he ^nticipatfid receiving regular notices ae to
the dates of dlrestors* Aeetinga, €ic. At tma time Dr. ^'hurnauer
vas the secretary of tii« Aurora ketul i#0£i>.pany %nd on Janusdry 6,
19t'7, Turner op<indd up negotiations witu thumouer vitn refetrenee
to handling the uresoent uketallie Packing for the Aurora i^etal
Goirqpany. 'i\tr( er sixain talked with Dr, Xhwmauer about this matter
OR January 19th or SCth thereai ter, prior to thi^ organisation of
the 1*2 Railway Bqulp&>«nt Coi^^ptobny. On January 26th Xurner told
Thurnaucr that he had been Unci seed by cos&plainant and asked hloi
whether the Aurora coivpsmy would turn over the paeking business to
hl«. Thurnauer replied that hie would haT«; to tukke the matter up
vith his assooiates. On Januiiry IQth or 20th thurnauer told
Turner that the Aurora <»etal i^ou^pany had decided to eoYer its eon-
Bcetlons with the oocplainai^it and would airm hia the represen cation
for the Bi«tallie packing. On January 23, 1027, Xurner and Zitaaittrmmn
lsase4 offices in the sane building in which oon^pl^nont conducted
its business and which were occupied by the T*£ Hailw»y Squipcient
Cenpany after its incorporation on J'ebruary 23, 1927.
m
&X»ii^ ■ -^w^ « t^^I 4 M r£^smm<i • «»@f » f St M » "PS <<E^i6Mffi«itt^ . at <pr Saw , SS ei
' fef^«!«' ifi««-^^*' •*»«»«MI'^a»*» Bill *ed[# iSj»jjnt.#s««lS
«*■• iymMi^'^€ ■ -^itMei^s^' :s-is# ' iia»*<», in^^^ fciwtfs*-- \5««(%«4MSf ■ .t'tt^dasA. 9-di 'sts jf**fl>
'i *'- ''■■■•"-'• ''".«PS(& 'Visa xiSMt&ittM. «# sB&i<JiJt«h^i(<*»«l;: ***■' «!*t1S« ij:«4i<5ia(©U
The Ba«t«r did not make »ny npftcilic i'in^'iin^ tie to
th9 a«T«r«l dates upon whleh Turnsr nnd 2.1iaB«rnan tert&lnated their
olTielal r«l%tlon«hip with the cotanitivijriant comptuiy nor ae to the
respeetlT* tiaee at irhlch thnir ri<tuol^3r relationnhlp eeft«e4 it
•xitt.
Ihe legal rule wale dear««» that o Hi cere and dlreo-
iora atand In a fiduciary relationehlp to th« stoaklioldera whom
they reT>rea«nt lo well eatabllahed sjnd CRlu4ary. Xhey may net
while auc relatlenaiilp exlBta takf! adrantage of th«lr poaltlona
to wreat I'rosi the corporation buelnesi? or prlTileget whloh It Is
their duty to acquire, nreservs saii ]jrctect for the cort;oratlon.
Law and equity both recmlre the utsiost loy^ty la these reapeots.
^y»,«^n ▼! €}&&?;« ttti-^^<>l, .^.l?,^trl<t, >>a^UiJ.lL-SaA» »«? HI- 157, «nd
Cone'-uners vo. t, Puiri^t^r, 227 ill. ApT». ijfjg, are partlouiajr Inatanoes
of susny alicllar eaees wulch mij^iht be cit?>d as suwtatning this doo-
trine. Olffloult as It might be unisr tia« (srldenoe to determine
the pr*olse tl&e when these deferMisunts ceased to be obli^^^tei In a
fiduciary way, such a finding was necessary to a det«trftilcRtior of
th** rl^'hts ar^ duties oJ" the psrtl<»8. Iton^., of course, had no
rlj^ht to r««!ieve turner as pri^eirtent Bijr.>i3r because -i-oiiti '"fto a
majority stoekhol/^er. Turner protested, as he had a right to do,
that he was still prt-ntdent t>i the co&pyit.y , Long by his conduct
beeams ^resident 44 ilMiS.. ^"^ Turner was presl.'ient ds .1ur<?. It
seems no more than junt to hold that his duties did net oease cor
his obllgatio<> of loyalty to the corporation end wnile the eorpor*'
tion continue:) to pay his salary, lis had neither a aoral nor a
legal right to take eemplnlnant *b money while seeklnt^ to dsprivc^! it
of waauable business, and tnls whetaer he was an officer <j^ faQtji
•' M .fury, iie signt not rlgittfully Vetray the corporation whether
serwlng it li^ the one oapaeity or «the othfft, 7h« record leaves no
doubt that While offieers end directors they« Tuner and ^imiapman,
confederated totjfther for the purpose of depriTinij the oemplfttnant
«ft^»^ ^^ . ..-a ««t fM»*i9 «l *l!#fel«l .toJtiiW «••!»» "« •" Ji-r. rv'.W^ *t'?
of Ita txclucive right under Ita ooncraot with the Aurora l£.«tal
Con pan/.
All these things bein^f cono«d«<&, as yrtiXl -is the
furthsr oontontlon of aoir.plciin.uit ttuit it is without, -i i'ull, ^ide*
quato and cosaplotr rtvaitily at lav, there y«t retuains for oonftiilora-
tion th<> question of whether, ujs i«r the facts as vlisolosed in tht
Ibill, eoaplain.»nt in entitled to th« r^liof prayod for. The grant-
ing of a pnrman^nt is junction amount « to the giving of an extra-
ordinary rimtiyt and its <i.pplication le neo«enarily liuite4 to
eases frhere ths resssdy is approT>riat«> to the suh,1(!0t nutter. Xher«
are vrongs which oyen the s^tk of a acurt of equitjf lit uot long
•itough to reach* CoTr^plMlnant h«^re seeks in <*98euc«i to h&Te the
eourt frant arf'-^olflo perforiaanoe of its contract with the defendant
Aurora Jietal Co;rpany throug.i enjolr.lng that ootapiany from dealing
with another, and the courts of tliie state eeet?.' tc "be thoroughly
ooisRilttH to thA doctrine thiit in ^^eneral an injunction will not
Its granted in tach cass, exeei^t 'x'here specific parfora&ace ci the
oontr<Ji.et -^ould "be decrcod. Lancaster v. Aobert;j». 144 111. 213;
Winter T. Yrainor. 151 111. 191; W^lty v. Jii.coVi^. 171 111. 524;
Bau^r ▼. Luiaa>-hi Cioal Co.. XjS 111. 516; A^Jd3L^JULuJSl^SlS.^;LMlMr
1)0 ard Co.. 337 Hi, 55; Sark^-tr v. ilaufcerff. 326 ill. 545; Poffi«>roy*8
Squity Jurisorudenoe, vol. 6, boo. 769. Th<tee aut -oritios sees to
settle the pronoeltion ae i«tat«d in Winter v> Yrt^inoi^. suorg^;
"Unless a oontraet can be sp'^oif ically ei^ forced aa to all pnrties,
•quity will not interfere," So r<ir ae we are aware, thera are only
two exeeptlone to this rule, the one bslaK «itU rwfercnoe to con-
traots whlc call for jaereonal servioeB of a .Uetinguiahed pro-
fesolonol character, sue; *» the servicws of a great singer, iiind
the other, where a tew|>orary iniunctioi. is granted for the purposs
of preserving the status until Kuoh time aa the oourt m&y beooms
informed as to th* nerite of the controversy, Ihe facts of this
'^'W «« ,Jii«>&*it>«ti90 $|ti«»^ ISi^iiisU «t«Jl# Xl."i
i««fts « "l^ mint %iti mm Mi^ p^trx.
•*^%mx^i i^'-' ■'- urn ,^fe:s3siiiii,..A3i^^
aaa* art net brouniht vlthln clthar of th«a« «xo«oUons. Vh«re s
«OBtr«ot la eueh th«t m court oannot In the naturo ol' tulngs eonpol
lt« perforwanco, whcro th« perS'orm&nca of a oontr«et would be wort*
than lt« nonni^rfomitnee, irtiere th«r« le an ixtoapaolty to perforK
tho oontraot, whore th^ra hat be«(D • failure of the oonalderatlen,
where the ooatract le not mutuaJlly obligatory upon the partlee, or
wh^ra for any eauae it wouli be uKoqui table, unjuat or litpoealbla
to perforr the eeme, - equity will not decree apeolfio p*rfor»ana«
wither llreotly by a eo«»nnd to perfora or indirectly by an In-
junetlon «hiah forbida one of the parties froH dealing with ec«*
other peracn. Wh-n wp comf to look »t this oontract from thie
Btandpoint, wc notice in th© flret place tnat it is terminable at
the will of the defenaiwat Aurora Metal Corflp««y upon glTing £il»ety
ilaya notice. Therr la high authority to the effect that a court
of equity will not grant apeciflo performanoa whwre the power of
raTocation txleta ir the contract, ihry on Sp«toifio Performanoa,
p . 64 : JjQuthern K.-qsroae ir^ lyeeterrj .iaqr^.C.yalipa K.. 1.,, .C9. , 9i
U. S, 191 (25 L, R-l, 319). It would h«r«?ly »*« «ppropri»te to
graoat a deer«e ^ere the w^ole la^tt^r lai^oht %l*terwar ia be e«ttl«d
•ad the contract avoided by a nln®ty dstya notice. Such decree would
cbTiously b* ot* littl« or no b*T.«flt to th^ party in whose favor
it WQ« entered.
whan
k^9in^j/f>e co.a© to look at thin oentraet, w« find thatft
the right* of the p^irtlea thereunder are indefinite and uncertain,
Aa the iQ«»8ter oolnts out, it i'.'^pofles upon the coispl^iinftnt oractl*
eally only one eblijsation, nns^ely, to use Ite b<fet ^^.nleavora to
eell the packing upon ternia of thirty daya not. Thie obligation
la limited by the laxiguai^e of narasraph 3, which provides that the
aoBiplaic»nt nay sell other packing!; vh^u the Aurora ketal Company
•win not furnieii aald Ureacent Facklnga promptly and »t a r^aeon.
able price," lh« contract trisrefore leavea it wholly optional
4 ^im^ ■ •IMS«^'^:*«*WB;»! . «M»«^ M ^^^P -.^iMM ,fi0^i^_m :v|jf«|^-«F*
. . i$$m;ai<'' mn^H ■ X^mf^ ^M^ Ht^^ ,t«4|^A|;1 f Ji , .» '
X9
with th« Aurora M«ial Co«p*ny as to whej It will I'urnisrx the paek«
ing to tho eonipltilRant auad aa to fiha^i pricoa it ^ili ohart^o th«
ooaplainant for auei^i pMOiclng wh«n i\irnlsxi«<J, Xhor© in no prorl-
•ion •• to what tue prioea will be, ani the oontraet seta forth no
aothed by wliiieii auen prie* eould be datersainad. Atttlthar dcea taa
oontraet pro-vida any metuod toy whian it covad be d»termlned what
rani«>iy tho Aurora iiilLatal Coiapany would h&ve in cas9 tha ooxapl >ioant
failad to ttsa it» beat awdeavoro in sailing Uxla articla, UbTioualy
tiia only couraa open under tn« t«iri£ie oi' the contract woul<^ ba to
give notice oi' ita teraination as provided in article 6. if a ie*
oree were «iU red in th« oaae ir. favor of tho coBiplainant and coai-
plainent'a contention upheld upoii every point, the Aurora J^etel
CoBtpany might under the tvnzu oi thl9 contract give notice of ita
terelnAtion and the ieoree would at once beeoa^e a nullity. It can
lunrdly be eaid that a contract, ^A-hich impose* upon a. p&rt:y a ^^uty so
indefinite and uncertain that no one can tell exactly «rhat It is
and whion in ease of tne violation of tn»t duty »^viv«!e to the other
party no reaedy other tami. that of terBiinating th« oontraet, is
Mutually tinding, Because, therefore, cf ite ItiCi' of mutuality,
of ita uncertainty, .-^nd becauae by its tercia it gives to on« of the
partiea the power to terminate anri ti^ereby nullify any decree that
■ight be <!ntered In thie caae, it u^uet be h«ld that tiie contract
eannet be apeeifieally performed either aireetly ky a decree or
Indirectly by an injunction.
i»er tula re»aon the decree of the trial court mitft
be afflmed.
O'Connor, P. J., and it o surely, J., concur.
1^'
ox
,t-£9lW*^"
■}♦ 0
32V sa
A. V. Jxatmsi,
Apr>«Llantj|ytr )
▼•.
ALBIRT aROBBTft al . ,
/"
Oh CIRCUp COUhT
Wl. JUanCK MATCEKTT SSLlVBRgB THE OPIUIOfi 01? TUS. CCUHT.
This app«?.al is by ta« coi'»pliiinaiit fro:. -"-^ — ;• -^-
terad In » proceeding brouglit by aia. to l'er«olo«« «. .•* ^v^
Btohanio's 11 an. i'h« cau»« wa« heard upou exoeptlone to the
original andi vupploeantal r«^porta of th«; £::xi»t<ir to >'hom the oausa
had baan rafarrad. Certain axaeptloua of cartain <lerenaanta vera
auatalnad a&d a daorae altered*
J«Bseii, th« cot^ipl :%liim)t, la a lB^il«on oontraotor and
bulldar, defendant Albert Oroaby tiie o»M'*r oi' certalB pr<^.l«ea
agalnat vhloh the ll«n is clplstcd, ^nd tinte d<»i>n4ant ^ndlson &
Kedzle 3tat« Bank, the truatei? BRff;«4 In s^■ trust deed conveying
the tjreperty a» aecurity for a Iomo of Hi 5,000 negotiated by
the owner for the purpose of ec>3,plet.,lng a proponed building on
the preaiiaea. The bill of complaint wae filed October 30, 102S.
On Oacatsber 5, 19^4, the owner, Albert tireaby, entered
Inta a contract with Paul k, ^ehroter whereby ^chroter was to pro-
vide aaterlala r4is(!i labor neoeeeary for tha jaasci ry land carp<?nter
vork in the building to b« erected on the premises, for which the
•wner agr««d to pay 156,730,
On January 21, 1925, iiohroter sublet a portion of
this 'cgrk to th* eompl Jilntuit Jensen, Hgre*lng to pay the suis of
$23,000 to Jatiten for l&bor and m&taxiail doiiarib^d in the contract.
The contract provided tha^. the «ork shouldt be Jone to the n^tiattkO'
tian of the architect tmd superintendent, Charlie Llska; that a
paynent of 06 per eent of the estluiated Tulur of the taaia should
i '7^.
«.i^i)i»!t%«[' ii$iii4'iia» t-^.^m'Smi: vMiii^ ^^««nEi^ jnMMsfi:^ #iEi»'i»in«t(*i»& ..t^t-Mud
\f vwd* on •ertlflattt«it ol th« Bu^etrintendent an the work pro-
gr«Ba«d, <in4 It was agreed that IS p«r e«nt ahoulC bo ras«rvcd as
• •eurlty i*or the falthrul performance atr.d coa)pl«»tlon ol' the work
and sight be appli«t4 under the dirootion oi' the superlntnndent In
the liquidation oi any dajuagee, Jfti^aen further ?*«reea that whenerer
requ«et«d h« wouliU Jumleh a release from any llsn or right ef lien.
The truet deed tc th« defendant liadieon .'>i i£.edKie Jitate BarJt was
4ate4 Dece>ab*r 2, 1UK4, suud recorded Oeoeiaber 6, 19S4, In the r»-
corder's office of Cook eoimty.
The tt&eter's report found tiiat the owner and trustee
were not Inferred of the oontraot between Bohroter stnd the eomplaln-
ant ani that eonpXalnant dil the work aceorjln^r^ to pl-^tne and speel-
float Ions to the <ii%tlsfa«tion of this ^ixohlteet; that complainant
•onpleted ea»e on Auguet 4, 19 3S,
On January 21, 1925, Orotsby Hiad« an owner 'o affidavit
setting forth the n«Mit«s of th« oontractor:^ who had agreed to furnish
material, or perform worit or labor, Ui the oonotruetlon of the
bull ding, and delivered the a»m« to the truecee B-nak for the purpose
of pro our lag the prooei^s of the bonds. iiahrot<sr vas nuaed therein
as eontraetor for the isason &n4 oarpsnter work and the amount of
bis eontraet placed at |56,7SC* Oth«r secants shoved a tot«d.
MROunt due or to b*cc>jr.e luc to thf oontraotorB for the builiSing
amounting: to $107, 17S.
On JaxiUAvy 2Ji, 1925, Schroter delivered to the
trustee Bank a eontraetor *s affidavit »ixn 8t^s.teraent as reqiulred
by section 5 of the Her: lair» The statonent oontalnnd the n«u&«e
of all sub- eontr actors, the kind oi -^ork each vas to do, the ajaount
due and unpaid an'4 the aaount to beoo&e due thereafter. Upon this
statOKACt appeared the ntime of Jeneeri, th«! oomplalnant, a.e sub*
contractor for saisou work to be done for thn total amount of
183,000.
A;
■'-.ii^^im'i- ■ ^m^wsuism «ft.»wt«4. #«fii;tl»!»» *«W i# iiw»«s»l«!? /c^« *«i»w
i»i£;f 'in tmi.-i9i^Mm0 $iii>$:,ai'-..t%0tmS^- %»'A%»trm%^%'!mti t4» ^£aiii:»Sim
On March 20, 1925, the axchitect issued a certificate
stating that the Paul M. Schroter Company wa,s entitled to a paymeikt
ol $8,000 upon presentation and surrender of the certificate and
contractor's affidavit with a waiver of lien hy complainant. On
liarch 23rd complainant Jensen, as agent for Schroter, executed an
affidavit and statement which appear on the reverse aide of the
certificate, reciting in subBtance that the waivers of the lien
of contractor ana sub- contractors then presented and delivered by
affisuit to the trustee bank on the date thereof were true, correct
and genuine and signed by the respective contractor or sub- contractors
whose names appeared thereon; that each sxid every waiver was deliv-
ered to the affiant unccnditicnally by the respective contractor or
sub- contractors who signed the same; that the waivers were not ob-
tained by the affiant through any fraud, accident, mistaice or duress
nor delivered upon an3'- condition whatsoever, and that bhere was no
claim either legal or squitabla rrhich might be set up to defeat
the validity of these waivers. This affidavit also a-lated. there
was due and unpaid tc coEiplainant Jensen 19400 a.nd that there was
to become due him fcr unfinished work $13,600,
Jensen also delivered a waiver of lien, as follows:
"SfState of Illinois )
^_ County ) 33.
"uiaroh 20, 19 25.
To All Whom It May Cono-?rn;
Whereas, I, the undersigned. A, W. Jensen, ha been
em-nloyf^d by Paul H. Schroter Co, to f'ori.iBi. for the building
known as J>l,W,Cor. Crawford & Division Str
Kow thf^rej'ore , k]"or' ye, that I, the undersigned, for
and in consideration of One dollar, and other good and valuable
ccnaiderat ions , the receipt ^-hereof is hereby acknowled^'ed, do
hereby waive and release suiy and all lien, claim, or right of
lien on said above iescribed building and prenises under 'An
Act to Revise the Law in Relation to i-ecnanics' Liens, approved
May 18, 1903, and in force July 1, 1903, on account of labor
and materials, or both, furnished up to this date by the under-
sirned or to or on acccun: of the said Paul k. Bchi'cter Co. for
said building or premises.
Given under my hand and seal, this 20th day of karch,
1925.
A, W. Jensen (Seal.)"
hm »i^,,,..;,i.-XiS-o 9xlt '1,0, t|,l».n»-%'r*«s,,it-Hiis fflo,i^«itrf©,a8Tg uoix; 000, ' ',>
Its fihfci^ijo^^ «.*5e4orEi{9fi ic'i ia»:sfi «« ^a»<8i!iiist ^jB^oll,.. ^V"---- i>-££S dQtaM.
isi^M&^-'^i-^si #»a ^rf ^j%4k il^liltst sxcte3-j;,crfa %q X«g»l i^ricfis b^IjjIo
!»<»« s^teii* .A«*t^: AS^ QQ*^4J4 «o«f''^^ iasi^i^Xofttpp 0* Jfeijsqaw fcxjs si/Jb e«w
to" ,' "' ,)■ -iiiij ,0'Z VTo ' ' ," -o/l
■■%a t^B-iu 'io ,Eci«Xt> ,flEsiI, XI« l>xi(B -^m «8asXot ijofca striijw -v^deitsxi
riA* 'sa^fiu 'O.Q'BiXm^i.q baji :gi,albli:j':i ho'Siios^t sTot^f '• :-• '. •■to as?-!!
■XQd&l lo ^riwocoB no ,eOCX ,X ^rlvt- 't.-iy- '.-ii .?::;• , J-'X z^M
■^%9fy'rW9sMx(!iitJ$ii^.iMotyq:Hii&^i.U'i. , • , >^ i-ii;ijs,JC bos.
,iSl««|!M te t«5l> Jc!;*OS »ia^ jis«a ftros biiftif y-'« tQbnii nwviS '
Aprii 24, 1925, Paul M. Schroter made a contraotor's
afridaTit Btating tJaat the ianount due axiA unpaid to Jensen lor
work, labor and materiale furnished to that date was $1P,6(X<, and
the amount to become due to Jensen was *1,000. At the name time
Jenecn executed another waiver of lien under eeal, iu i'oT% the earn*
as the waiver of lien above recited. On the aaine day, April ?4,
1925, the architect insuad hie certificate to the ffff «ect that Paul
H, Sehroter CoBiwany was entitled to a payment of 312,812, upon
presentation and surrender of the certificate, together with the
contractor's affidavit, as ner the for.r on the reveree aide of the
certificate, and utjoh delivery therewith of a final or partial.
waiver of lien by Jensen, On this occasion Paul fc. Schroter is
sued the affidavit on the reverse side of the architect's certifi-
cate, Therein it was made to aopear ihez there 'vaa due anr* unriaid
to Jensen i^l2,600, and that there would become due to him the
further sum of t^l,O0O. these documents wers laresentfid to the
trustee banic, and by th-? iireovion of Paia fc, Schroter, the bank
at that time T>aid, fror.; the funds in ita hands as rrocceds of the
loan, to complainant ,^10,000 and to Paul k. Schroter >2,812,
The chancellor found that t)ie value of the unoo]nt>leted
work of Jensen under his contract was at that time |!1,000.
Sehroter rlld not complete his contract an'^. the owner
took over the balance of his work about June 1, 19?5. 'J!her*»after
paymcmts were made by the oTmer Grosby to the various sub- contractors
upon certificates issued by the architect. When the Schroter con-
tract was coroplated there was a balance due Schroter of $890.63.
August IS, 19 25, the coffiplain.HEit seized upon Grosby, on the trustee
and also on Liska, the architect, notice of o. sub-contr-ictor 's liea
•lalming a balojice of ^5,000 due to him.
The chaiicellor, sustaining an objj action to the report
rt!4<^. no*a/S»oo alii* aO ,«»jrB«t -^rf nai. .. .■/!«»
, "J.tiBS
ij»*«»X«ri«i5>*e;
'nuMitfoo!]^ «««f^ *CK;:
-rs.tr
s«i-U «'t«>t'
■s»i«,«ik ijiji^f:
dioq«'t mm\^^z.m^i^f^' .a|«t«#«i;ii ,^oii:»»<
of the master, fcu&d that eoraplalxituit ty hiu v;\tver oJ' Het 4«itted
March 5?0, 1928, and ^y the waiver dated /.prll 24, isas, ; «iUI
r«l9ftt«d iklX of hie Iter lind olaisi or rl||;lit qj' li«n iri .aid tc the
prM&i*«i up to th(> rosppctlve d&tos ol tn« wftLy«rs. lite oourk
further fcund thett "by virtue of the contractor *« affidavit dat«4
April 24, 1925, ta«r« waa yet tc fcccowa du« to coapliilnsuit Tor un-
finiohe'J work and aat^Tiai the tusi of 1^1,000; that Paul U, ichroter
wat pftroonally }labl« to oojEuplaln^it undor ths contract of J^muory
21, 19?ft, Ir th* Bura of &S,(;00 for iha l^alano* du«, together with
interest th«reoB fro» Auguat 4, 1925, »t the rate o»' five p«r cent
per nntivarit amountlii, to th« further eu«! ol* 5^756,11, Knsjclng a total
principal tunt of 16736*11, ^ikud decreed that Ucnroter should pay
ooBplainant 'b oo«tti, (uuountln^' to th« furtner Qom. of $555,176. Xhe
•haneelier Turtaar dacr««vd tu&t cofflpl^ansitnt had a limi . ,.yOO
with interna I at the rate oi i ivr, pffr c»«ct from ««g:uBt 4, 192&,
•BouatlBif to 1147.22, &ni ioi th-. ©ua of 117.^,13 ior cost», toeing
tfc.« •xcent aiwid ty coJoplaltiant ^)ver mi-i sibove on«-h!4ir of the
coste in th« oaut«>, ^u'Jd that thie eaic, of ^173.15 ehoul<3 b«t tax«d as
costs iigttinst d«f«!r.'.^ar.t8 Aibrjt urcelry, iegBis^ uroRty and the
iiadieon and i:>«dzi« -tstft Ji-Mik , ii.«-'ing a total »as£ of .H''i20,36, for
vhich com?>lHlnant was adjudjt^d to have a first sdnd prior lif»n upon
the rsal estata 5«no improveajente thereon. The dwcres (iir«cted ths
for»ol©»aro of th«! li«n -nnd sal* of the property In c«s« the d«-
orss vas not 6«.tiefi«d,
The co-tki-ilairi^iiit cont«>i:ids that the court srrsd in de>
ersein,. that the wuivera of lien were full and coK.T>lct«? wttlvcrs
up to their r<'»5)'sctlve f^.ates; that the trial oourt ooaanitted re-
versible error in not rtj-referriuj, the ecoise to tti« aaater for a
iBors sof'cifio sjni dei'luite J'inding as Lo the v^luft aV the uncom-
pleted work on April S4, 1925, lUi 1 ia apportioning tae costs of
ths rsspeetlvs parties.
. „ .. .*.,; ^,. ,i^,...,^ ,.^ .;.;,,, ^v^«^ £»*« -lift****!** **'^'»--^*'-'f
It la rurtu«r oont«iid<wJ that the finding of th«
4«er«« thftt th* v«klu« of th« anoompl«t«d work on April P.4, 19?&,
MMunted to only Xhv sun of #1,000, is cloarly and uanlfootly
agalnot th« weight of th« ovidAuet, smd taat »t any rat* th« oourt
•rr«d in falling to <l«or««i mat coaplulnant had a rli{ht of ll«a
ttndor th« moohanie'o lion «et on the money duo and to booono ^«
to Faul ii^. Sohrotor on thw cectraet bRtw««>n Oronlsy and £^ohrot«r,
•ineo th« walTor* did not purport to rifl«««o *ny lion or right of
lion on th« Konoy, but only upon tho building and promlsoa.
It la oont«id«d for the ootapliiinant that as ho eoat-
yloted hie contract :ajid has takMn tho neeessary etopo to perfoet
hio lion undor th« n«ohanlo'a 11 «a «ot, th« walvftra executed and
dellTorod by 2iiaa may be conoiderod a» valid only to the amount*
vhl^ ver« aotually paid ther«un« It la insisted that suoii vas the
purpose for which the walvore wero d^litfored and th»t thcao walvora
•xlat only insofar «» the partioa thsirato intended. It la said that
a «alTor of lioi aust «iria« froii- th<» consent ejcpreati or Impliod
of th« person «ho would oth«!r«lse be >Kntltl«>d to it, (13 Ruling Case
Law 9 62} and that th«» oourt should look to the extrinsio facts to
deter»in« the actual consideration (uid intention of the parties*
gau^BOE V. lk,yi„fke^ 136 HI. 72, te cited to thie point.
The facts i(> Uds case are not at all similar to tioee
vhioh appear in the Paulsim ease, it «a8 there proved that the
form of releaae was ^Iven only for a spaeifle purpose and in favor
•f m particular party, the purpose belnji to i^i-w a holder of a
aertain Berthage priority.
In Xmrnei^ v." Brenoi|;j,^f » 249 Hi. 394, our SupreauK oourt
•aid in subetanoa that wMle such an intention sliivtt, when dearly
•stablis>ied, libit the operation of a g^ieral waiver, still lAkim
there was nothing in the c&ntext to lUiow a contrary intention, the
court would enforce the ?'Kiv«r ae agreed upon by the parties.
J
All Ui« olrou&«tano*a her* lodloAte tho tnttntion of
th« p«jrtl*« thftt tli« walT»r« •hould be fuil ^mi uHoonlltional. At
any rato, as «t€<(iln»t th« trustee and own«r, eonplHlnntit la eetoppd
1}y bla r^pr^aetitatlon that he waa walYing i'or th» lull tuaount up
to th« r«ap«otiT« tiiBeGi th« volirara ware ^ivan,
iaoraorar, Ir. tJae raoant eaae of A._ G.^ Wolff Co. f.^.
gX322fi£» 346 111. App. ui6 , it wae daoldad that an ui.oonilitional
«alT«r of lian oould not be rapudlatad upon the ground of »iint of
eonaideratioo. If aueh a waivar may not b^ renudlHted upon tha
ground of total failure oi eonaidaration, it would saea to follov
that auo walYar oannot b« overcosi* by reason of a parti «1 failure
of tha eciaald«rmtion buo?' a» is urged.
Indeed, on tJkia f<»cta h«re aonMaring it is net naeaa*
•ary for ua to f,o an f:4r aa iii the: oourt iaera. »ii,rit decision
la to the nfl'eot that a valvar of a Bi«»otiariic*a li<*n uiridar saal
cannot b« repudiated for %-ant of oon9idar«»tion. Mere* the pay*
manta froir. the trustee* bank vbv a auft'ioiant eon aider at ioB.
Since it appware the payments were obtained through tho preaenta*
tioa of th« w»iYare, ooKpl&irifkjrU, we think, ia clearly eatopped
to queatlon tha validity ©f the waivara tnrou^ii tu« preaentution
of vhioh money waa obtained frorr. the trustee bank vhich waa
neither owner, nor p&rt., to the oontraot under whieh ooeiplainant
elai&a.
iior are w« able to find, aa ooraplulnv'Uit inaiate wa
aheuld, that the fin.linii^ that uncenpleted ^orJc on April 24, 1925,
waa of the value of about q^l.OOQ, la again at the clear prepondar*
anea of the evidence. The tAetitcony ie at l^ant conJliotine
(i*arney t. liamey. 5C 111, App. 295), and, laoraover, complainant
did net object to th<» lioMne. before the saetifr and th(»rafora oao
not raise tha quaatton here. (Jewel v, Hpoit. Hlvar J?apar C,<^.. ICl
111. 57.)
;09 9im>X9i'iiiii9 « utEVT jUtM
S;.- ..J'-
' ■# »iv.r
i: <C' ^. ;■ j , ■ {. ,
r n^-'v'
■ -. , .:.„. ..:
. ■Hj,,, ■
;.•'^» -xt-if-l^itini
»--^' 5j^«s^ji:f • SMS »&
It iB *l»o urg«d UiSkt th» wtiiTttrs Ud not r^lfatt th«
ll«n given by the statute on the aouey tue aitd to beooaft me to
Sohreter under hi a oontraet with the owner, ihe record, however ,
eh«ve th*t oomplainaut «?iv« no notice of hie olaiai for ll*>ri until
AMfeiUet 12, 192&. Th« fin<lin£ ot the utaetAr euid the finding of the
decree, which cannot be queetian«<^ h«re fox the reaeona already
explainod, ar« tc the fjffoct ihut <5«f«ndaiito ;U{1 not hare knowledge
of the oontraet bi^tween eoi&plalti4mt on^ Sehxoter prior to the nfT*
Yloe of notloe ?inl «t tho time Uia notice wa« oerved r>chrcter had
abanioned hie contract, i^rlor to tiie 8«}rvlce of tiiia r;otloe d«-
fendanta had a ri&ht to r«ly on the affidavit of th" contractor.
faiiekerbecx^r ice Co. v. llalaey Sroa. . 26? Ill, 241; Berkehire
Warehouee Co. v. Uiliier. 268 111. 463, .Section 01 of the Meohauiode
Litm act undoubtelly iv^ve* ^o « subcontractor, aa ai^ainst th« ere2i-
toroi aesignera end pereonal and legal r«t>resentatiy«8 of the ccn-
tr^^tor, a lien upon ssoneye or other consideraticne due or to h'»^
ooae due froK the ovmer under the orifeinai contract. Kftrth I'i^p
Saih & Poor Co. v. uoldetein. 210 Hi, App, 5?i!€, The saeiie eeotlon,
howerer, aleo providee:
"In ne caee, except as h€rf^inafter provided, eh&ll the owner
|i« Ocinpoil^d to pi!4y a gr skater sub for or on ucoount of the com*
yifttion of euoh house, fcutliUng or other iKprev<%«Rt than the
yrice or cuu etiv^ulated in eaid original contract or a)i?;T isfscit mt ^
ttnl)«ee p«yai«nt be bj ide to the contractor or to hi^ order, in
▼loi&tlon of the rigutii su<d intereeta ot thr, persons intended to
%e benefited by this ja-et."
A eintiliur pro vie I on in the act of IM9 was cone trued by
the Supreme court in fci^^^e v. Ulapp. 74 ill. 3.39. -^he court there
said that it was "evid^mt the fratcers of the act novt^r contessplnted
that th« owner Bh«uld be required to pay a single dollar to s sub*
oeotraetor when he hr^d exhaueted the original contract price in the
cwnpletion of the building." In Haneen V» Muldoofl. 210 111. App.
615, the Appellate oour I for thv Bscond district, oonetrulng this
section, held;
0
■^.xv ■'■, ^,;..^ tilt 9^
':r{S«4|#(>f :^ '4M^ .4|»f|^ <;(i^|^#tfli^-
p *Wh«r* a building, oontraotor abandoua th« contraot« but
I oea)pl«)to« th« hullilng undsr »n arraaftexbeut with the ovnar,
[ th« ljitt«r has tha rlij^ht to u»e any mcney ih»t rft.alna 1h hl«
f hands, whleh woulr^ have l)a«D <1u« j»k<1 pnyubla to th« oontraotor
' had h« cowplfft*'? the contract. Tor thcj puryioso of fin'sMrn;
th« Jr>», said a aaboon tractor uni9r the orlt ixial cootraat oan
»nly »Pquir« a lien to r»«ioh the tai UACfl that retains in th«
hafide of th« o^mtir after payln^ what is nooesiiary to exp«»d
in eomplttlag th« Job «iccording to the contract. "
In Uiia case thr. oourt i1«or«ed a lien In favor of the
•«flq»ialaBiit for thlK a£r.D\Uit.
It ift altto urged that th« oourt erred in dletributlng
the ooata among the p^urties. Oefwidanta Oroahy unA the truete*
at all ti&ea concaded to the oompl ainuxit a lien for $1,0C'C. W«
therefore think th0 oourt U.d not err ir. apportioning the aoett.
^ftljM .y.f. ^ff.r^^ ,>>ff<!3r4Aftn,.aa.l.JL^yafl^; ,<^o« , 26- 111. 322; Ka^ljsnjr.
S^teln. 329 111. 253.
For the reasons indicated th"* ieoret? ie afftnae^,
/vFPirajsi),
O'Connor, P, J,, Bn<1 )*«8ure.ly, J,, concur.
&*
'■•im »m
»jCar t^
« ^ ^1; a»^i; « isutaiAt^temt «^ o9 h)tk*t^)M«9 Bum
•ft «- i^ctrtk$'%i^%i^ si t^ ii(m AitJ» t<s«H»t!t
k&*'rt>Ykj8 fl(| ft»<s#»& 94,'
«'i »i4?
«iijtfft«f«»« «»t; ,1$
^•sS. :i%
■••'; :v'*:- ■i;.--,;.''^' ■!•■•!■" A-
WV;' '>
StOB4
GRSOOHt X. VAf Wai
of th« .{•tAl«|of U
a Corporatiof,
f COOK GOUk"xTf,
. 646
MB. JUariCB MAICHKTT XaJLIVERlD THE OPIi*lOi; OF tHB COURT.
This aiilt la by the administrator ir. tort for allofod
nogligone* resulting in tixe denth ol' liia intestate. At the eleae
of plaintllf '• •Tideuoe wad altenrardo at the c1oh« oJ" all the
•Tidenoe^ defendant »o"»«4 i'or an inetructed ▼erilct in its fsTor,
vhieh Botione «ere denied; the jury returned a verdiot I'or the
plaintiff in the mum of ^5,U00 nnd Ui« court, over-ruling Kotions
of defer.darit for a new trial and in arreet* ant^red Ju^l^rm^nt upon
the v««r:1ict.
On October 4, 19^3, the deceased while walking acrose
defendant's trsicke was etruclc by one of its trains and instantly
killed. The aocideni 'Oourred at or ne^ix the intersection of
W«tt 49th an<i South i-eavitt streets In Chioatie.
The oauee was tried upon three ccunta which, in
▼aried phrase, alleged neglitiexiee in the aaiia^geaient and operation
of defendant's train, in defendant *8 failure to maintain a lockout
and ia defenlant's failure to give proper warning*
Ihe defendaiit contends here that th«> proof fails to
shew that the intctstate ut th<! ilxti«> oi' his injury was in the
•xerelse of ^luc oarr. It is urg9d that th« Terdiot ie agiiinst the
maaifest neij^ht ol' ihn Kvidenee and rurthr<r that the motion for
a directs^ v^rlict showdt) have been grant ?'i beeauue the deoe&sed
at the ti. «• of hie injury was a treupaeser on defendant's right
y"
^ "r.:- ;. -^^ A 5K *', J. ;lx ,.7..:. - ■fe.'./iw 1 -y, F4/;, f « A
TJ-
tV-5«S<^
^t:
O eii
« X w« \^ *^
^; to
iS««E.W *<4*(lfe&«»i i**1l»#fi» .t***"!** in fe'«»* X»Jilt* W*A J<S«&Jt«i*l»h t»
of way, A 4««orl^ttlon of th« situation at the tis&tt una pl««« of
th« aooldcDt 'bi^^QOiuoa nec«tt»ary.
S'ortyoninUv street Is a publlo highway In ths eity
of Chloage •TttmAina sast »Xi<i v^st; at this tl«f» It was unpavsd.
Its sxaot width 1« not dlscIoe»d by the oTldsnoo. ApT>ar«ntly
about the niddle ot th«t «<tr«<?t vas a VKkk a^out 15 s>»t wtda con*
•tructAd of pXJuiks. South I.aavitt Btr««t ia a puV/Xic hli:hway
«xt«n11ng north :*Dd scuth, Intarseotlnt^' 41) th street; tt this
Intarseatloa 49tU 8tr««t is crossed by two tracks el' defendant's
railroad irtiloh extend in a general northerly an^ southffrly dlreo-
tioB, ourTini;: to tlie east about XOC feet south of 4&th street.
7vo tracks of the Penneylvajuia r&ilrsad also cross 49th street at
this Interseotien. At the norti:ieast cterner oi the int»<irseation
use
was a towsr in whieh & watehuistn was located, ■^h.Q ^ t-y Uk^oJ' 78
different levers, aparaled signaie nrhioh gsive notice of the ap-
proaoh of trains. Southwest of 49th street was ^ sh&tity occupied
by a na«»an who was aeoustomod to p»rforK the ueual "".utlwe belont^
ing to euoh a posltisn. as a m^tt«r of faet, there were two flag*
men who relieved eaon other of these (iuvies at fixed time'^, ::>outh
of 49th street about 30 i'^az froci the planking; was a dirt al«vation
extending east !«nd west. A briags «xten<!ln^ east r^nd west cronsed
the Tiaduet south of 49th street, and the traok» or the Orand Trunk
railway ran orer thin bridge above the viuduct, un<«er which defend-
ant's trains approacUed the or^ttring frox:: the south. The bridoO
was supported by posts ^shieii were cloeo together an! alongside tlis
orosslng. Xhe approach to the erossing froi^ th*~ wast on 4QtA
ttrset was also un;^or a -viaduct over wnioh trains ran. The traek
OTer this viaduct ran northeast }U«d sv-utuwest. between tho tracks
of the defendant railroad and under the viaduet by which the trains
approaehed frosi the south was an abutment about 40 feet long which
obstructed the vi^w or the ent^lneer. As one approached tho orosslng
■ ■■■■:■■ ■ fjjr» JJ ftw :;,^-}^ < *> ■■■ !,{■>: KW "l.j^^ ,fva^J>!f-
/:iHir*>0'i{*i Jb^*»Jil^'i ii'^?«f*^ -^ryt?** ftupfjTffa'j
,*<!»«« *»8»i*i» i5;&*Jl:1t *« -astiiiifi^^ sMit*4?^ *«« naji^o it«fi» §rrerfX«if. ©rf;*-'' jR^js
•n 4«t]3 atrctt fro» th« w*»t, th*» I'lmt or •outh point of <l«f«n4«>
■ct'a traoks was about 10 or X5 foot e«at of th« trastla^rork
under vhlo^i p0deatrlaua paaned. I.^* 'tlsl/ujo* l90tv»«n the north
•ad aouth boiuud irac> s wh« about 11 f«st. .'^•Ight i>hotographs r<*9*
r«(*«nting t)i« orssaiag froi& 'ill'i'artitnt points of vi«w arc In the
rooord by agr«(M5i«nt oi" tU« p'trtlet, but aoourat« nsasuroi&enta
whle4 would b« sucli nore us^fal in gettlni; at the aotual jthyolcal
•ituatlon, suro lacking.
Cn tiitf fjast alio of tint crcBS'lng wore two nignoosto,
on on*> of which werepalnt'?^ th® 'wordf, "Two Hullro&d Crosoingo
Dan^or," and on the othor th« nt^rd •Stop" In large letter*. Tele-
graph pole* su)d wire* were pli^eed .'ilon;,; tii«» uouth elde oi" tiu- -street,
There le conflict In the eyldenoe a» to rhcther ao
li9|M^«««hlnji train could b«! aeien at a dlsttnnoe by h p<^de«trlan walk*
lag eaet on -ISt street, but tn« description we h&ve j^lven indlcatee
that the elgn whici; warned jf 4i*xig«:r epok* the truth. Th*» prepeno*
•1* the watciman in the tower smd th« flai^aan in the stianty are aleo
•ignifleant fwets tatiAiai:. to show that everyone reftl.ijt»d the :«[;uiger
of tlirt situation.
The deoeiieed lived *t 5??63 '^outh Cjwfipbell ftv^nue,
•outhweet of the orusslng; h« ^fas a native of Ciseciio Slovakia,
and had been in the Unlt^4 '/ts&tiee a littl« ov«r a yt>{Ur ; hin faT;;ily
■till resided in his fisttivs o-juntry, >^^ 'iraa <>Ejployed at the City
Car Company plant located »t i7th atrdf . ^md hoyn« av^nuA, northeast
of the Interseotloa whiro th9 accident ooourred; h«? lived with a
fellow countryaien no^^ed Dorkut, :»nd thsy 'loy«d by the ■«&•
eoApany. Qja tlie iiuornlng of Ootober 4, 1023, DprJcut aa<1 deceased
were on t^isir «?av to vrork; thoy arriv(^d ^t this intersection a fomr
minutes before seven o'clock a. ff^..; it wae a fog^jy mondng; tr&ins
of oars were paeaint^ over t]v« bri.l^e on the ^l^'tvation south of i9th
•treet. irhile deoeased sind his coisipftnlon vrt-ro orosRing the track
4^,|;..«;^i|(^'^%»^'(Mlft $^0^ : «#«#$ XJL.mm^iSiM^m -n^'^mti i^mt^ii Mtfiaisi boat
>ttt«« 4iM''al 'ft«^rli.
d«f«ni1«nt*« trnlB of 11 car* appioaciied th* crossing »t a Bp««d
©f 16 to ao sfllfls ikn hour upon tho northbound track, "i'h* »o»t
aid* ojrlinilor of th« •nt^tn* struoit th« 4fte«a««d and he r«ecW«d
th« iB^urlMS from wUioft ho illod on the *ai&« day.
As the train (^pproaoheHi th« oros^intj; th« onKlnoor
sad th« i'lr«!nan e»t on th* »<»«.t box, thw ffinf/linyor on th* right
• id« land th# rir«BuuK en th» l««*t; th# mgin^^r ooulri not a«e •
porson on th» west «id* el th« tr⧀ hft feft8tlJ'l**d th« bell was
ringing oontlnvously us th« train api>ro»oh«d th<s oroBwlng, but
that th« ©nly whlstl* giT«« was wneii the train was 35 or 40 f««t
south of th« Tladuct; h« eould not $ay whether th<» nH*:^*" was
thsrs or not*
Th« ftr«isfiun t«Btlfl©d that If % man was on the w«Bt
•ld» of the track h<7 eoulvi have s?i«n him. i*art of hi» vrork a,* fir«-
man was to kcfp a lookout aii«ad a» they orossod th»s streets, £e-
for* this tr^iin csi®* to th« via^luct hf: was not looklnr:; ahead be-
cause h«> wi»^ looking up a% th« Grsmd Trunk train, Ijrt.iar the vi^,-
duot h« oouli not »«» ah^ad oT the train on aeoount of th«* abut-
Mont. M th* Qoroner's Inquest h© testlflM that he was "looking
uj) at tho Grand Trunk and I look&d down just in timo to 6o« ulm
fall."
i<yba, the fls^..<-m , teetiflt^d that h>:? vab th«r« and
that wh*»n th« train Ofwi© by he ^-lu right Ij^ the mlddls of the
strwiot flagi^ing; howaver, he fil? not »??« d<»oea»«d boforo h« was
hit. H« worked for th« S. & 0. and his tlsip to quit was at 6; SO
a. »., wnioh was b*}fnr« th« accident happtsaid. '!« eald hs stood
there and waltetJ for the ta&n who was to rellwve hira; h» said that
ho did not ■«« th« d«e«A8«d boonuss he did not tt«t time to look
en the south - 'It in a danjiorous hol$ th«rs,*
Under th*? ficla im ibove B«t forth, '#« think the qu«s>
tion of wh.«th«r def «ndar.t -ab U9^,,ii<ient as allog«d li: the three
i'Ai^l- ilji:«« «£( ^i)!K^ 4i»tni»li«% «# w^v »# «tti« M« ^<!t l;^»4rJt«i)r ft
t
••ttsts wft« for th« jury. Ihe jury h«t« ret urn «d its T«rdlet for
th« plaint ii'l* and ttm verdict haa been ttpproT«d by th* eourt,
V« eaanet umy ih»t iu«ire i* no evld«no« on waioh m verdiet ol'
n«glig«no« oouXd re»8ou.'ibly b« r«tux»ed or liiat Um v«rdlot Is m
aiaiiif«itly acalast th« ftvideuoft ^s to r«quire it to b« aet aaide.
A nor* asrioue quasiloci is raised by th« oontantlon
of defendant thAt d«oi?«ia«d «&« a trespasser on i1e:fe.«dan(*B right
of way at tlxe tiaic h# vaa killed, as we n&v .,1y r«oLt«d,
Dorkut, a felJo'r 'woriafc««», wua walking with i; ji* testified
that the aeoident happened "right in 49th street, rii^t vhero th&t
bridge eroeaea theae tr&<»ka. '* Dorintt aleo tiaid that the deeeased
VA« *thro«n i» ike awitoh trtnoka and w&« lying towcurde 47th atreet
rlir^t wh»re th&t aidewsax would be on the north aide of the street."
JLasio, a feiiQw workxtan of dee«i*«ed» sai^^ that after
tbe aeoident he a&w the body of Vauda. lying on the oroeeinft. "The
firat time X taw hi}ie Vanda that morninib; h« waa lyinj:; thero in the
atreet, ri«^t th«»r« in the orosaing, one foot across one track and
the head th« other vay." Oa oross^^'excujiirtation Laeo B»id that
Vanda'a body lay rifjat thare ii:; Hie arueeing, on«^ le^ on the rail
and head the other «»y. the witneaa wna anown a picture of the
aituation» plaintiff 'e exhibit ?« and he i^arked the end of the
jplaaking ae the r)laoe «h«re thi» body lay.
fcaly« th? i&»n in the tower, aalrj thut. «h«(. he saw the
d««e»aed he vaa about IB feet aoutu of 49th etreet tai6 that he was
about 19 or 30 feet eout.M of 4,'it'a etreet «he<^ he waa hit; timt the
planking: vaa about 20 feet iroot the viaduct; that he, the witness,
jnat glanced out oi th« « in 'ow as he did hie work -juid saw two men
walking eaat aoroae the trsioka; that it waa about five feet fron
the tr«etl« to the plr^oe where th<$ citw was hit - his Astlsifttc la
not nore than t«in feet; that the viaduct was about 40 feet fros
north to south and that he -didn't knew whether 49th etreet was
).•
:■■ „i%um »{^' t^' &i»*ri»«^' "*^tf tea^ ^itii*'«»:v «jl» ilwt, Ytks&ly. x^:? writ
jr>iKty lM«^6a^/iii^M'v**.#i^^ ifcf«* M-i^k^"*- imiHtrntM limbtvi»A »ii» t*^
d«'^«4^t«»lt' ^atl^ 4!^i'' ^t'tiHir' «i<»ij('' t-^'iit'®^ '" ^mnii'tg 9««i^j' «i<G>«Cft*i;a •Ji&^'ctf
^■j^ds him km^t mi^'4i^iSi(ai&iiviKm^-ii-&'Xi»- a&' ' »*t^V' 'tttMis*^'' hma ^it$
iMii- ««« 0t4£ ^t4^^' 44M&''' iM» ,'i«i(«i %M »i-sntm^M^^%£!kii'
just &• vld« alt the* rilanlclng.
7h« «uiiiln«er tcstiried thai th«) body di' Vimda lay
*alfltOtt I'lY^ or aix feet Bouta oJ' tix« croaaing plno* weal ot th«
traekt;* tiiat wheu th« train wae stopped it waa a ear l«ngth north
of the or oa Mint' and th« injured »ttjn was <U>out a car length bfthlnd
south of 49t.n stroet. Tho lirexsiaQ estimated tho body was about
t«i foet south oJ' the piauikinis, Xha coMduotor ssuid th« body vas
alaoat six or »lght foet south of tu« pianking xujder thw viaduct.
Xh« 1»raj(.eman ssdd that th« body was «iii^;t or twi feet south ©f tho
orosslnjs planking. Xh« ba«ia£.(mtai «aid thnt tb« body vas Just
••ttth of 49th Jttroot. Ths Jlagisaii on th« train said that it was
six to oii'^it fe«t souti': of th« crossirsii;, but on orossooxaiuijaation
sxplainwd that hs ;u«ant eotttn of thn pXftnlciiig,
Thsse rUstaii-iOS &ro only ««tim.atsd, rsas plaintiff
presented pri^ig?^l!^ f,>qi^,f, proof ©ufficleat to Bliott that the dooottsed
was atruek vhil« in ta« crossing, iikxaot s^easuresients at« not
produeod although easily av«kilabld. Mid none of Uio v/ituesssB
Qlaims to know tha oxaot width of 49 th street at this plac«. It
is ths theory of the dsfendant that th« dseeased and hie oompaitlon
valksd aerot'S a prairio to the right of vay of th« d«f«Fndant eoutli
of th« -viaduct, ihrou^ lirhioj:: the tr&in ap^roaeh^d; that liiey them
walked north on th« right of ?7«y tu the riirootion of 49th street,
turning to the east before tnoy reached the street, >ind that ths
dee«&ssd was struck whila atill walicinK upon defatidant's right
of way. If t^ds was an undisputed fact, a poroaptory instruotion
for tho dofdtidant should havo been «i,iTsn, because titer« was no
oount which charged, nor svideucs whie:'i tended to shew, that the
injury deoesiSed r«e«iv«d was wimtonly inflicted. There was a con-
fliet in tn« evidenee. Ihls question was also for the Jury, t>cd
ws think the ;1ury oould reasonably find froa the evidenee that the
injury occurred in the publie street.
M^'Om 0^MM '«*»■« <i*w *1 m^m'^'»-' «** ttM^s^S- •«t* 4»«8)f #«itt' * j«2ift«ts
■»i>isit*«iNfei *>»# S'^m '*«*&* i*' #fii»i^i'iTi*« iniNiMt^ i^.i|fe«'^ :&?fcl'Ss: '^'^sn^^^t^
tt '' ''ii«jii|' ''«i^^4»> ->j»«i^e j(l#^f %« tiihi;^ ^»aK» «;^;i» vrontf i»l" «^,UXft
DelVndaiit eontvnda, h«wev«r, (oDd thia !• the oontrolV
Ing question in thtt e*««) Uiat the kit'<ftv«i.tt waa ijuiity of contrl-
butex'y ncjllgenoa. It la oxguad (aaBiunlu^ that Vanda waa net a
treapaaaer and that h« approaohed the oroaainti froa the diagonal
Tladuet) that neoeeoajrlly Id sueti oaae he would reaoh the aouthboual
track of del* en (tan t b«>i'Qre coraiug to the northbound track • a dlataos •
et* about 32 feet. It la uri^ed that he tli**rert>re had an uiiobatruoted
▼ lev of thff approaeiitng train Tor a long dlatorioe, anr) It la argued
that the clear InlVrenee 1« either that deceaeed <ild not look and
therefore 'lli not aee or that h« di<l looif^ and aee-lufe; diaregarded
the approach oi del'en1ant*a train, <u>d tnat In either caae he was
guilty of noglit::enoe. Th« evidence la in conflict a« to '^'hetyier
the Tlear waa unobatrueted vheth^ dooeuaed approaohed the oroaaing
froKi the one lireetlon or Ux^ othf^r,
there Is no doubt of thti |j;im«ral ruin which obtaina ixi
thla atate with reftjrcnco to the* luty of persona approaching a rail>
road oroaaing. It i» a olaoe of ksiomi danger etn^^- one «ho is about
to croaa muat exftrclae that degree of car« which .an ordiin^rlly pru*
dent person would exerci8« to avoid injury, IXte care -will ordiMxrlly
rer^ulre that the person »boui to cross us« all hlR faeultiea. Ordl*
narily he antat atop, looic and listen wh«ii dati^er in made apoarent.
The eaaea ar* collffoted in B^rna v, C. fe A, K. Co.f.. 223 111, App.
439, and It Ib not nweeesary to repeat that reYle* of the eaaea.
Vh* lav vlll not tolerate the absurdity of alloi«ing a person to
teatlfy that he looked but did not see a train vhen the viev waa
unobatracted. a<|hlauder ▼, Uhlc^a^o i. ^.aouthgrn Xr!;»gtion ,wfl». 253
111. 154.
however, whsre the evidence is conflicting and reason-
able itlnda ait'^t differ as to the inf^reneoa neoeasarily dravn
th«refro&, the queatlos' le «awavfii for th^ Jury. fh« leiv doea not
require aui injured p ^rty to exercise before an aeoldent a degree of
'4£m^-m»' 40. #1 w$d^ hmi .'vtre^tdji ^uhim^m^ ■}&sihm\»&'
•%4'<iJ^» «itir «t» c»'ij-&«»^£& »uo 9Ai net)
Tsri»4t»>- *t '«iiiR'««H»^&iito^' iK»«»^ 'WmmA i9 t»»«i<^ « ni H ^mu^&yjt ham,
msmn't^'vsidhim.m 'Mte-iaftr- *«»<►■.*» -^oieai^ifv $«(S* mHt»Zi» stum nm^'w v^i
:*fmti«im-^M 'ia^, »**¥»'Jt #*«3!» iav,iS9% &'^ ^T«»«»»#ac ioa *i it bam ,««.*
ear* vhieh a Judge auay thluit prop<nr alter h« has heard all th« cYl-
d«nc* about th« aeoidant, o-^terqn^ & <fuyy;>^y Co. r. <ii\^\). i-, H. 6,
a. L. 494.
Wheij the «yld«noa auat b« tr^lglicd, it lu i'or tha jury.
Auetin. A<i»r.. Tt, i;>bllc ooryica uo,t, . 29v Hi, IIH. «to,ara raaaenabla
mlnda would not a^^reo to the contrary, Ux9 queatlon 1« i'or tha Jury,
jPftro. <%dWJ^' ,T» ^itih»J. 229^ Ili» 236. i? allure to look «nd liatoa 1«
not ae{ill««no« stSL MSL* QuJtayiiiP .Y. U.CC. & St. L, K.H^Qft., 237 111.
104. 7h* only requlroisiaiit of tae l<i«r is thut the conduct oi' a peroon
inyolTOd aiiall be oouai«t«BDt wi tti what a Si«m oi ordliinry prudiarioo
woul'l do uudar like elrout&otanoea. It oanuot "bm Raid us a natter of
lav that th« failure of a p^raon to look or lioton conatltutes n«gli»
gsnea or laek of -lue earn. Wj,itjj» j. ^CjjC^.Cj _ >, ij>„t.^ .I^... ii'tv. C9^t,,> 239 111,
132, Iter ttn4er aoma ciroui&stAiiOoa will & f«iilur« to look tviea its
tha a«ai« dliroction amount to contributory n«glig«iu<> an; u %%tter of
la». Ordlfi iry t.are oatmot b« arbitri»rily «i«fined. C^cyainaftkf «■ 0,
Ry. Co. V. ^va<I. 2» ^ad, ( 2n4 iiar.) 3S6.
The dafendatnt, however, roli«B on B»I.;t Xuior q & .0,.. H.
Co. y. Qoed—ft. 876 U, S, 66, cited by uU« eourt iu the reocut oaaa
of ttoodman ,y. Juica^p ^^ A* 1, H. Co.. S48 111, App. 123. Xhat waa a
«aa« ii^<dro the driver of »ri autos.ol!ila drove aerosa d«f«*ndarit *•
tracks and was killed, iU*ter atfjtticg the f;i.cts ';liis court etiid:
"Froas the foragciog ot*i«aeiit of facto, it cannot rv-aa-m^ibly
be controverted tiiat plaintiff coatlnuouely for, at If'stst, the
spaea of Iv'O fe»t alGn<ei kixiu street ai^at of the traok iit*6 a
clear (uii unobstructed view i'or auoh a 'liat<tnoe south aloni- the
track Uiat thf* slightest look in that ctireotion would have re-
▼aaled the aprroatUiing train in tiaie for nim to h»ve avoided
the aaoidant.'*
The court held that the plaintiff was guilty of n«£:ll|,^ee as a nato
tor of law, citing Baltiwore a. o. >.. tto. v, QoodRwa. gup^ra. and
quoting the 8taieKex.t of l^r. Justice .ielsies ix: that case that if a
driver could not otherwise b« sure whetht^r a train was dat)g«rouely
near, it was his duty to stop and m^t out of hia vehicle, although
"• ^Mm 'i^^^ 1 1' h-zMti^ sir«fif fid *»*t« •sewniftk^sr Hiitai' xmH »iSw»|; « itelcco irt»»
»^4' .',t'^ •Si?© it)
tt 1;j|;>«iid' «*««« ^«j£$ •ni M«l«& feil««it •%%!<» lixiM»i»i«»l'll^'%t»i»tf9»
•ttloualy h« woul4 aet oi't«B b» r^oulreit to do More th»n atop and
Xook; that iJ ho r«ll«d upon not hearing th« train uuud not ht^arlng
a algnal an<l took no further precaution, he did «o at hl» own rlak.
Th«ro waa a rind log of fact by tbla court tb»t pXalntliT vaa guilty
of B«t;lif,'«no«. Ur, Juatlo« u*Connor, 3p«olally f - r'-T -intt, Rts-tod
that In hii» o->tnlon the rul« laid down In JjiaXtj. cf i, -•. k. Ce. f,.
0ood»na. wont too far md wa» not In accorfl with the law of th«
•tato* Ho atatoA that a« he undorotood that caeo, th« rule laid
down »roul?5 bar recovery in <»vi»ry oaa« «a «. aiAttnr of lay wh*r« tho
contributory n(»ir.ll8«^e« ox' the Injurod or deoeasod person waa a do*
fonao^ sund that hit concolvor? thu true rulw to bp tiis laid down in
nwintlly V. Holairay & tiudson Co.. 385 U. ii. 597. A petition for
oortiorari ■»« filed in the 3upreG.«f court and denied. In tho lator
eaao of Uri^^yiwall v. J&al.tii4or« .& ,.0«, iU a* C9.. iiou, &e. 3270d, opln«
loB fllod May 1^, 198ci, not yet report»<i, tiils oourt aninaod tho
judgment of th« trial court in favor of the siofsiidaiit «nts>red upon
an inatructed verdict, thlo o&ae waa sne where tiie plaintiff brcuglit
an action to recowar dims^ges aa«t3i,ined en account of hi a autcoobilo
truck being atruek by on^ of d«f«n4auit,*8 tr&ina st a fttroet crossing
In (Jhlca«:o. Iho opinion of tnis court by itr, Justice 0*Camior &tateai
•In view of the hol^Slng of this court in thft r«?c<»nt cae-? of
O.o^dKan T. Cuioago e^ ^,l.Ky.vo. . 24tt 111. App. X8d, w« thiok that
the action of the trixL court lii Greeting a Tfirdlot uuot be au«>
talnod. In that cs.»« we huproved oJ tiie holdlnii oJ" tne iiupr«:i,e
ocurt of tho United .Hatoa iii S.-*l„tl4.!inre. 4^:^ o. ii.« .Co. ■». Gofed/. <^fl.
U« S, 72 L. i^d. 4a bup. tt. 24, ■^h^r* it T?as heJLd in HubetxTiiOO
that Tch^ro a p«»r8on att«»Kjpta to eroaa a rtnllroad track Ic tha
daytia*.* 9^i<^ is airuci<: ruid Injured, no rw-^overy caii b« had b^»
oauao plaintiff in »jc>. 4 o&ae i« j.ullty of n«^li«';eac« &a a mt^tter
of luw. in Uitf Inct^Uit caae pluintiff 'a truck was being driyan
acro»« th« -lofpnitui t'a railroad tr&cka it. tlio duytimo, and he vaa
th«refer« uuler the oj:iatlnii ci.rova:.&tai<ice>8, guilty of necflli^enot
aa a ia»tt«r of lotw attd oanixot rscoYor.**
A ipatition for a eertifloate of is^portanoe faa granted -'Uid tho
£Nt]pr«ffi« oourt afflraod tlva ju^,flsent of tho trial court in aroonwal^
W. B,, A 0. li. K, Co.. 332 111. 637. lh» court it. ita opinlou aald
In aubatsu^ea that one cronaing a railroad track suiut astproaeh It
'fj^t-_%i» Wil »«iy ■■.■ .laWiS .ai ........ '•• .jfeliB, t»t ^-^^i f-^mm ^
•■•''* JIT'S yi
£ - f 1* ■» ' ' • ^
l»
vlth eart «ouib«aaurat« witx; tho ksoim (i»n«»or, *utr! In tlriTlng m
T«hiel« upon & tr«oii he Mu«t us« due care to look in thn dlr«otlen
from whlob an npproaeiiin^ traiji night 1»« eoninK; Uint if h* h«4[ an
unobatrjotad vlaw he could cot rltjiitfully aaaun* that h ball nitiht
t* rang or a whlatlff eoucAad, ^uid i'uit.wtr, l&nt tho quoatioa of duo
oar a waa for tha Jury whan itiara waa ^Miy ovida&oa which, vith lagi*
tisato inf«rnrioaa that ;riic^tit b« Juaiiflably ir»mu th^rofron, vrould
tond to aiiov tha «xeroi9« o'' 'iu« ooro; hut it^ere the eYldenoo did
aet tand to ao show th« trial court waa Juatii'ied Ln iuetruoting
tha jury to raturo a Y«r1ict for tne del'^inittiRt, luc court eaid:
*Xh£ rule haa long ^^^t^ aattled in cuia :i>tate that it ia
tha -^uty of paraona about to oroae a, r^llroarl trae^ to look
ahout thOK and •«« if there in ^juagar, anct not to go raekloaaly
upon tha traek bvit to tak^ proper »recaattoB to iYoid accl'^ant.
It ia t^anarally raeoc^uisad tiit^t railro&d cr;;8eiRgB ore danj^nrouo
j>lao««, ^iv) one eroeijint!; th« »m^fi muet i^ppro^oh th« tr.ick HLth
th<p aucunt of eara ooi^i2^ansurat« vitth tha icnown clangor , <.ijni ych*m
a travalar oB m public hlfv'iway f%il» to use or-.iljn<iry praeautlon
while !rivlng oTor & rs»iIroa.d croaslctg, the* gf^neral knowladga
and axperif^nee of iKaxiklnd oonde:2«ia auca ctmduot &« nagli«;ena«."
Th« court fu! tuer saddi
*Aoo«ll!Mit eoapislua that tii* Ap:v^ell^ite court dlte-i ae con-
trolling authority tha qix»9 of iialtituora mfX Ohio Hall road Co.
T. QoodMan. 4a ^p. Ct* 24, mxi'A otiier oaaes , aa biriiUxij.; In tiiia
fasa, i^nd arguca that auca oaaaa io not atata tht^ rula obtaining
ia thio Stata, ihia oourt rovivfte tho juVis**nt oi' tha .-s-p-^fll s-ta
court ani not the rejooca glv^a tiaerafor, arid under the rule in
thia Stata, «a haraiobefora stated, v« are canvlr.cad that ap-
psllmt'a avl>lni.oa i!o-e not aaow ijui; c^xe oti the p&rt of hia
•arva&ts in croaalni?. tha traoke. ine auo-'rlor oourt therefore
did not «»rr i;. iuatructinti the ji^ry to return a verdict J'or the
defaniant ^ni^ the Annelit&te court rJid not err In afflrain*:; that
judtOsaDt,*
A majority of tiJia (iourt in tha O9 0 ds.an oaae (at l<?ast
thia ia tru^ of tna Tcriter of this opinion) :lid not understand tha
opinioii to lay down the extreme rule of lav as r>et aorth by Mr.
Justice O'Connor in the dianctntin^ opinion t^xere fil^d, nor under-
stand that in oiting the opii^'ion of ii>ir. Juetioe iiolaas with ap-
proTal, we were layin^: down a rula of law inoonsistant with the
rula as announced in previous daciaiona of the Supresie court of
this state* on the contrary, we considered that opinion oonal-tent
m
«l #* ^dsii^ *^a*^ aim laJ '- '" ' ..-.." f <« ■
"-d.i i*M«
u
with the rul* aa autinounead by th« hifrheat oourt oi* ttila stat« «nd
»■ laid 4ovn In tbc deelaion* or that oourt, which we hare h9r«to-
fore eited. Moat ol' the eaa«a ^o vhloh rcfarenoe la nade diaoloae
faeta a^io-^lnij a driver of a rehiole of aowa kind antaring upon a
oroanlng. The larigar of injury In eutth eaa«a ia too ohvioue to
require deaoriE>tion. It i» p«rr«otIy apparent, we think, that one
driving a vehicle might well heaitate to oroas under ciroujaatanoea
where a pedeatrian asde^t in the exeroiae of ordinary care proce<^d
to do ao; au'i th** apeelfio qu«Btlon te be decided h«re ia ^rtiether,
under all the oireumatdnoee nppearin^ in the? evidence, reaaonable
■en night differ aa to whether Vetrda would in the exerciae of ordi-
nary oare hav« proceeded aoroes the track at the tiu« h« waa in*
Jured. All the faota and oircumstartcea muat he conaidercd. The
ahaenoe of the flagman froa hie poet of ^uty (a matt'xr which we
have ftlrwady aaid to be for the detert&lnation of the Jury), the
eondition of the weather at the time in queation, the rapillty
with whloh the train moved, the fact that trains iait;ijt poeaibly he
approtjiching over aeveral traoka froc different directiona, and the
faet that for a. p^rt of the tia>« sit It; a at, whether he cupuroached
the eroaaing froa the aouth or tht: north, hie view of an approaching
train vaa obaoured, if not at tli&'^a i(!ipet:<!alble, • till th^se, as well
aa other eiroutPBtatioea whloh sit^ht b» pointed out, di»cloae a oaae
in which we think reaeonable nen aiiivht well differ aa to whether the
evidence tenda to ahew that the intestate waa in the exeroiae of
ordinary care. The queation beinp. for the jury and it a judijment
h:%vlnj£ been taken and found favorable to the plaintiff, we oaxmot
aay eituer that there ie no evidence tending to eustain the verdict
or that it la ac ol^arly and aonifeetly o^^alnet the preponderance of
the evidence that ve would be justified in eettintK; the jud^raent aaide*
Va reoogniae the oaae ie exceed in,, ly oloee, but UT>on the whole record
we decide that the juJty^&ent oust be affiriaed.
AFFIRMXD.
0*CoDcor, ^, J., eonoura.
keSurely, J., diaaenta.
.r'
u
■^:
-» j£»«%;» «iijr m»m.»m ti*%m»^<t ftfuA »iG«r«) ifiAii
■ m'^'&issm'wH -fail • t^^o/-* .
*i:r'".t!ii=^f>.;il^^' , ?'>*nMr©'Sf?^
^i■^j^^;««i■«^■ r***
fe1S4M3»'S *A-
>fc '-".■i-sMfi^fe :■.'■ ■': v v :,i:^ .J:ff ,
■VStum ^i' 9bmt •»fi^£»lT?»
...ri"
i^X-T**' iw ^>« •! i.*: i«i*,i 'te
33033
ILLXJJOISIm rmlj^.iJp, Kl
i-'i >\iu^i'i' in..<JError,
CITY OJr/chlCAaOJra kunicTpsa Corporttti
P^rtli^ COURT
16
^
UK, JuaiicK iiATCKSTX a?xiv?asD im oiniiioK oy tiis court.
On iiiy Id, 19^4, relator, Joiui P, i»lej.y, ii^ld the
pealtlon of ehl«f el«rk, grmde 7, lu th« liureau of Flnaric* of th«
tfcfcnrlant Beard of i^duoation in the cit> oi Uuloa^jo. lU enterod
tho eorvloA of the iioar'5. by takliii^ a ooixipctiUve «x(ut:lnatlon held
by th« provloions of th« Civil .>«rvL&d s^ot on July 21, 1902, and
r«n«ln«d contiBUoualy In tn« oervlc;!!) of the '-oard, beinp^ prciaaotod
frost tiiB«^ to tino until he attiU.n0<l this position.
Or Juno '?3, 1034, ho was auapeaiod. 0» July 2ZaA
thorwaftor h« was notified that written chargoK had been preferrod
a^alnat nia. A ootJEitt** ot the iioard of Education 'af*8 d«8l,4R*ted
to h«ar tho •▼ii«»ncc and r^nort, RelJitor waie ,;lv«n dm; notice,
aT>p«ar*d at th« trial tjfirsociall> sund by oeuna«l «nfl offero4 «▼!-
donoe i(> hi* own b«Ualf. Xh« corj&itte« rfiport^i/t, finding the re*
lator guilty and rwooiaetftniing his <Jiachari£«, and tho £oari1 of ^du>
oation, with only one ditij^ontin^: vote, su8t»ined th^ fin ling of
guilt an:< ordered hie 4ieoharg«».
The relator iiled a petition for a writ oi' certiorari
to review the order in the ti^uperior ocurt of Cook county, .^d the
writ isnuf>.l as prayed on Oec^sber SO, 1923. It wus saade returnable
J^ebmary 27, 1927. T>ie Jboard of iiu option i»ad« return of tu» rec-
ord, nnl a transoriot of thft evid<icj.ce taiceri by tno c upon
the hearing wae returned ae a part of x.h« rt^oord. The Supirrier
court, upon onneitjeration of this record, ^nti^red ea order that
"S^'S'i^k.l'.i. 'J^i'' '■'
j.',^ t# «M&•#?J^*^^f#^^SI»■(9^1S.8(« «ll# "J*! .^f '**B1SS' «i**s Jf* 'tftlfc'-
.'•:">0':'mM #i»»pitti9-- iiift'^rlW- #a^ Ife.'
>i^jj|t«w,^'*,*v^»Siifc;..;':ii.>i.\i^ .jiv/A'ijj*^'^ ■ 'jjif^j,
''"''#ia#> -^#i'>«:..« J!S!9 ■ki9it».4m 'iims»>»% «i#'.;t« 48|iR^^«'«O;^.ir«R0r>
j;«ouc
th« writ b* qua«h«d« the r*lfttor by this writ oi' error ••«i(s to
rovorso thAi order.
Xho ikoouoatlon aijalnot th« roltktor vtui nod* In writing
by tho buRln«s» nanaeer oi tho l>o»rd of oduc&tlo'i to th« preaidant.
It ttatoot
*I horoby prai'or ohar£:e» oi con.luct unbeooxi-lng an oupXeyt
of txi« iM>Hr'^ of KduoatlOB, aeainst ^>ir. Jimxi P. Jiloly, Cnitf
Cler:-:, Bu.r«au of yinanco, and Lr. Robort a, koitatuo'a, aaaginoor-
Cuotodian of the ^'llXard ;iichooI, and reoouiSiond that they be
•aopr>nded froa. their ocaitioua pending a hearing of the afore-
•aid ei^iargea.*
At relator 'e request « bilX of p^rtioulars vum filed
and he waa granted a hearing sepso'ate fro» M6i*«Huara. JiioiiaBiara
Qonf<>seed the eharges and teatifX^d vs&lns.X, r«l«tor.
The itat apiplloiible to % proeeedlng of vhle kind is
fully »et fortli in JfimJth^ttaT Y^ Uoffin. 30X 111. 257, Kvidenoc
la not h-sard. The trial ie upon Uie record only. The judgst«nt
rendered is either that the ^^rit ba tjuaahed or that the rscord of
the proeeedir.gB be quashed, the SupreiK^ court in that ease si so
said:
*T^cre is no presuaTitlon In fairor of a body fijterelslng a
Xlnltca or statutory Juri»diction, i»0%hin^ is ifx&^n by intond-
Bent In favor of such Juriedlcticn but the f xcts upon which ths
4urisdletior> is foar.ded must appear iu the record. *"* 'and the
record wust show tu;*t the board aated upon s*vid»nee .<u\d contain
the testiiiiony upon *fhlch th^i decision was bjiowd. In order tn^t
ths court »ay d«»teri;xin« whethnr th«re waa sur»y evidence fairly
tending to xvstain the order. *^
Xtos finding that the accused is <iullty is a »ere oon-
•luslon of la«, if it states no foot by which the court saay see
that th« conclusion is ~vru«. the Supreme court further 8%ld in
that oass. following IHftMiJLJLs-Mck , 21* 111. 98:
"A ftuasj^ ju'iiclal tribumU, of inferior Jurisdiction oust
rseite the facts, or preserve the f^icts thflaiaeives, upon whl^
its jurisdiction depends."
further
Wj/quote the words of the court:
*Ths holdings of thlo court are that the return to .-. oonMSB
lav writ of o£r^l£rarl aunt nhow by afflrsiative avidei.ce ths
Jurisdiction of the tribunal pastnlng upon & o^se r«!.'iovLng a
a'i
>: >
■.K-t*
person frtm ofl'ioc, sjid p^ust •(!«« by tbie fucta recited that th«
tribunal to aoting had jurls')lction ^^ni] aut ority *o to do*'
In the fotit c«s* ol- ^HypfeJf Tt ,to«iiftJB ,ftf At*. »»
111* App. 365, thin court oiald:
*Hi« r*aor<t1 ol' th« proe««dinga ol' the ao£mlsBlon appoara
fro& the return mad* and it may or may not include the vTlderioe
taken. It iiztay, in lieu ol' the evidenoe, rot urn (tuah I'inr^inga
aa vilX affirmativ«ly oetabliah ita Juri odlction to nake the
order rrrlewed, but when, a» hpre, the coi/4i;.l«3ioo return*
apeoii'lo (Irjdijriga .<i»«d 'aIw the *vidc:cce, the reviewing court
may exaitne loth, not lor th« purpose ol' v»«lgiiing th« eYid«r>ce
upon ««y aiatpriai iauue oJ' f&ct, but in order to deteri.ine
(1) whether th*^ ooi^jidseion had jurlBdiction; (2) wnetacr it
exce«d«'.! ito juriediotion; [7i) wiiether there vae aiuy 0vid!«ice
tnndlng to prove th« ehargea siade; and (4) «^teth<>r th« proceed**
ing »ae oon.^uoted aeccrdini.; to or In viol »tlon ol" the law.**
The report oi" th<s cv .:er.eral rinding
that Klely vaa guilty ol' th» chnrgea (1; ^iu that" he *inelTicicntly
managed th«^ al'fnlra and Imiproperly perl'oreif»d the dutica of the
poeition «ble]s he oooupied, sad bec&uese of hie failure to ni^ntain
proper aup^rvislon of the payrolla *** a practice- arcee of padrjljag
amid payrella thereby the iioerd of Education of the City of (;:hic»^o
waa defrauded;* (2) in '•that* to-tfit, «-« lihd while he wao in
practical charge of the aasignineats and appointuidnts of aubatituta
enginenr-custodianaj ** improperly diaerlminated in favor of
oertain peraona in the matter ot euoli aasighjc-onte <md appointA.enta,
a« that it beeame ^mA «aa a matter of eosi&on report ajsiong engineer*
euatedian* anc^ th«ir asaietiata that aeeli^ns^enta tmd pranotiona in
the eB£;ineering aervice vere not made on merit but aa a matter of
favoritlna from the aaid John P. I^iely, ^mi that during tha period
of time ootn&enciag with the year 1919 said continuing up to and in-
eluding the year 1924, on« jf^obert £. kciita^iarm, an «n,..lne«r*cuetodian
in the <!nploy of the BcsJrd ol j^^ducatioa of the City of Chicago and
to when: th*!) aaid John P, Eiely waa indebted becauae cf at: unaceured
loan of #900 made on or about October 13, 192G, by the aaid Robert
£. UcliaKara to the eaid John P. Kiely and iSSO of which retaained
unpaid up to the tlm<> of th9 i;iV98ti^:%tion which reaulted in the
*^l ^# i: ■ " ' ■ ■' " "^ ■/.»
■'-- ■ $
':)
■ft
' .fe<44i ?■■'
y:,^M-'^i& mM0^->9ai& ^mm^wm %j::'m^>-%,m& km wii^%%» *4* jMfcftjBiitRsa
filing of tli« aforfiaald chnr^,«u, vho also roorotented hlmsiwlf to
1»« an IntLnaiA frl^snd oi th«/ sold John i\ JU,«lyi. coli«ot«d ouna of
aoBoy I'reat Tarlouo persons tYeolrouo ei' prot&otlon or «ppointihcnt, &4-
Yiolng thOM thiit h -aoh colXwotlons in ord«r to ^iTButit \M
••mo to th« aal't John i*. iU.«ly, :^d that thof said John P. .K.i«ly did
ia fftot, 'iarinu tho parlod oi' ti»« ooin»i«r,oing with the year 1918 and
oontlnulng up to tm<i Including th^ year 1934, rcoalvo eertaln anall
•UB« pf money frca pwraonB a^o were d>?«iiroua of bi?int faYorcd In th«
matter of appolntcienta or promo t Ions to i>ositions aa englnoer-
ouatodlana %nd subailtuto ««« iG«er>euatedian6 in th« earvice of the
Soard of JCduontlon of the City of Qtlua^go, auc! th»t aa a result of
yaynanta of eucJa ch&raeter, the Raid John P. Ki«ly aid Is^iproperly
diBori»lnsitt in favor of certain intividuals in oornioction vith
appeintcenta and proiuotiona as «nglneer»euetoc1iano and substitut*
•nginoeroouatodlana In the aorvioo ai' the Bourd of Education of
ill* City of Oiloago.*
4s «« undcrratand the r«lator'8 ooaition, it is not con-
tended that th« Soard of Kduoation vae without juried lotion In this
Batter, or th^t it exceeded its Juriediction, or that rjxy of the
forms of 1b» wore -Uareg^rdcd iii th^^ prooeeding, Selther i« th^ro
•ny eontentlon that there ia no <»vl!ietJce iu the raeord froia which &
findings of unbacosins con luct ocul^^ b^ reasonably inferred, but
relator's contention is that as the i>oard of rt^ucation has fixed by
its fin Ung the f&etors const! tutini^ 4ku8«, this oourt oannot say
that another cause or one or saore c vuses loss than all would be
•ufficient bectUAse it voliild thereby substitute its own ju.i^ait
for that of the ^oard of Iducation; that the f in Une that relator
vas guilty of uobecomintf; conduct only states a conclusion; that the
Beard by iits fin'Ung of facts has di^tfined for itself and for this
eoort that which must be held unbeeosiing conduct, and that this un-
boeoffiinfi ouuduot eoneiets, net of any cn« or of any number less than
^M. . ■:i'9^ t« 9i»«%kM.1lth «««>»%««e mt9it£fV mt'V't "sf <».»«»
taeo
' C (ly-';:!--! 3 »J-i J^#' feilli ,«gi!i ■■" '"' .^' "■ ""'."'■ '■ ' -,<■■-'■■■ ■-•,-. * -, <>,■:<■
lX*»if«*l^' fell 'P»l'^ «' '-■ 'v. ...., , *„.«„>^,....
•> , ,-t;j..1 , . ....
.-'(J
fvfl ?'|M^*- iX« m^^ *««X a.*n.... ... ..., .0. »»«MS|» V*'.
all ©r th« factor* iaai««<t,Wt *li •! then; liiat all the factors
•nd th«^ TariouB ftl<>]n«nt« couponing these fuotors aca^ncd eonstl-
tut* « dl«l'in;tlen t>f tjta^. ^hloJ!) th« iJo.>ijrd of &duoation hoa d«*
•l«r«4 to bft un1>«oc)Rtlns conluct, Xhs i«lator saya that aa thua
dofinnd th« Tifocr^ does not auntAin the uonoiuaion oi' th« Bo*rd
that ralatwr ^«a i;uilty of unbteuminti conduct.
It la undoubte^lly true, »u rals*tor contends, that
^Ai&t ia cause for rercoTal 1» to he dettirmlaod by tha Boojrd
(iU— Min T. City of Cbiottiro. S32 111. 65) , and that in this rrs*
paot th« "luty of thla court ie to say -nhether the ouuaa as ds«
flnsd by tha trial board is legal (Btat«,ir. (ioaif^ Council p^
Oitv of i>uluth. 53 Minn. J>38; Aodreye y, Klnp, 77 ke. S39), but
it is not true, AS relator contends, that all oi th«^ itoms con«
tainad In the finding siuet b« sustained by STridancs, othenrias th«
rsoord should b« quash(>>d, X'hexe ssuat b« sona avidenoe to sxietain
saoh asvsntial alwRSf^at of the ultijsst*? finding, but th« preolsion
of ootecien law proesodlngs 1b hy no ise»ns r«quir»d ^ad it Ic not
nseaseary that unassontial otatters, &Lthoagr> ixlleged, be nroT«d.
^ l^ur;?hy ,Y. iiouatoiif auora. ws said:
"It was th« dsRiiif. of th« lefeieicituro in thn <*nrtctja«it of
thia pt'ituts to provide & siode of trial wnioh would as-^ure to
aoouasd •«rploy«'*s aubstiuitial juetice, not accordlnf- to the
tachnlcalitlna cf Via comon lior, t-ut according to right and
Justioe, irr#>»p«>cti'?a of l«^al teehniealitlos.**
Thfli rptum of tha Board of iiducatlon ahows that thera
«as a fin^Ufifr af guilt agrAinst th« relator in two particulars •
(1) Inafflolant Kcuimcoa^ct throu^^i^ failure to fialntain proper
superrision of the puyrolls, and (2) improperly disorlslnatlng in
faTor of certain persona in the matter of naking assi;^<^{K«nts and
appalntacvita. "ihe nscord dof-n not Inllcat*, as relator insists
we Btust hol-i, that it nan neoespary th;»t STldence should be
introdueed tendinis to suatain both charges in order to .fuatiiy a
finding that the relator was guilty of unbecoming conduct. The
mi^Wmrn £»<NISt<^^'!)«» Sieft^fttt^ »^ c'.«ipiiS!9;i ;^.
i^ m^ mti'- ^ A^ #jpr ji-^.
3^
till '#«|f!pi#^^ ^119 j^i)^ .
f lading of the Board i« to tlie effect th»t Mcly vaa «uliiy
(1) •in th»t,* following which %Te the facta loima t«r.dlng to
•UBtaia the flr«t paragraph of the report; (2) in "that***
further," folloving «alch la a recitation of f»ct» tenr^iag to
•uat»lri the •eeend allee&tion, aci it is apparently to exr^reao
the conclusion of the Bojurd that the t ilnga recltei In thle second
•peel ft eat Ion also constituted usbeco&ln^ conduct. Tue situation
is not unlike that «here, in a proceeding against a person aocuaed
at ooBSQon lav, the indlctjsent is laid In aoYor&I counts i&nd proof
of the material f-%ct8 alleged ix* any one of tiie counts iustifiao
a Snacral verdict of ^^uilty. Th/it this s^a t;ic taju|;ht oi' tho
Soard ia, •»« think, aoparsit froa ths- v^-ry fact that ths paragiraiAs
of the report were -listingaieh^d hy niu&ftrala. If ?re corroctly
interpret the report, the fall^toy of the objections s^ade by the
relator at once becomes apporerit. xie s^ye tnat there is no sri-
doncs OJ anything done by the relator between th« years 1912 and
1920, while the finding purports to cover these years. It ie ap«
parent, however, Jiat the precise d^tes of this conduct «ir« not
B&terial. turn relator aaks «rhat evidexico tiiere is of inefficient
BaBae:«iSBt diirinic the p«ritid frcKi 1912 up to 191B, and replies
that there Is absolutely none. Ta^x& ie abuntJiant erfidence in the
record tending to ^low inefficient and ia»roper mana^eisent during
later years and up to the tlcie that the relator was suspended.
It was net neeessary, we think, that proof of soae adsoonduct
during ewery hour and ewery day ox the years laid in the aocusatioa
should be produced. The allegation of tltae was not of Xhft ssi.ance
of the aeousation.
The relator says that paragraph 1 of the rinding re-
quires proof of two distinct iteras; that one of tnese itwss is
the ^srgs of inefficient ttanageeent and iasproper perforsianos of
duties and the other is the improper aupervision of the payrellf:
"%.! ./ Saiga's miliim\ »«.? s''U» -«?je.;:« j^3i«',^Xf*'l .*,tasu^. i^» it)
■3:£^ -s0^- #v_ , taas^sMfi^, ,^lai^ -—aft
• -mf»'^ ^10' mat ^mM»M^ ^^. HJi.^f^' $X8»>l^ 'SSMI
iiiMJ**"?
that th« ei3Jirf;« of lutnieiorit iumn^m&eai. has to do wlti^ » dilfervnt
period I'rott tbo ehui^ge of in>prop«r aup«x>Yi&loa. It is, ho«rver,
pori'eotly ftppax-ent frosu ibe l'uot« profod tJtuit the natuie oi the
rolater '• duiieo «&• sueh that improper mpervlnlon i»l»o conail-
iut*4 io«iTiei«ni aianagoKent, a^^d i£iere vas abundant proof of both
vithic the timott United by the j'liirilxtg.
It i%t how«T«r, urti«<) Xix^X uuv only evideuee tsbdiae
to support tite ^nrge of falling to isialntaUi proper euptu-rt alofi of
tbo payroll e 1» b»jiod uooa tiie Ineorrect Ui^cry that th« relator
«ao e)iari?:«abX« with thft aets ef hie eabordinates » with the anpoint-
Kent cf ^Tho« h- had Bothinij; «h&t«v«r to ao, Relator oayi? tbat he
io not ao llabXft, cttiag PftopX|B ,ex ,rf)Xv „9.''?8'ip,'feM-^ ^- ,C»Mpb<l,]^. 82
X. T* 847. In that ca8« the relator w&u rr^soTcd frG^v his po»it.lo»
ao ehierf en: Ino^r ef the Qrot&n s.{|ueduct bj the e»Ba&i»Bioner of
pttVlie worke !& the t,lt.v of lie* York, who hs4 appoloted hi«. ;ila
duties were to exerelso general BU'EjervisioE over all the work
earrled «b under the isissediate supervieiec cf the bureau of street
iaq^roTeBenta and he eertified to the correctseea ef vouchere for
the pajnent thereof, is all eontraote i'or work he wae ten&ed the
ehief eB#;ineer of the departBieet of public «orka. rhe City made a
•ontract vlth on^ Byron for the conetruction of »n areh of sasocry,
eT«r vhicn a roadway wae to p»s8. The eoetraot aatiiorized the
•auaiseioner to /appoint one or sore perscAS to inspect the sateriala
furnished and the work done. Ab icepeetor ef the work was apnointed
•by the cosaflieelener with directions to report any work done or
materials furnished not in aceord&nce with the contract nnd to re-
port the et«te of the work ones eacn week, fhe arch waa eooatructed
and thereafter fx portion of it r«ll. Xhe noi^-rti se ioner celled upon
the relator to report the oauec. Me reported that it wae bed work-
aanship, biid sorter an«f an licperfeotly laid epaadril. UT>on these
faets the oo^JBiasiener rei^oved relator. The «;ourt held that while
B*-5'«sNrt3S8^ »«w sji&^ »iJt .jfeo* .a©ii» #»4«Si stxe* «dfe> "■- ■-^■■••' - "-•■■■
JB£iAft LmIA it wtkM th« relator* a duty «• auperTUlAe ongia««r to
discoTvr Mad prcTsnt d«I'eet» the ordliwury rul« alcht b« Modified
1»7 the s««e««itie« of « great city or Xhtt preesure of a aaltltude
of lBq>ortai}t ejaterpriee*; that it waa plainly iBposBible for the
relator to vat«h personally the making of oTftry briok and the
eoQ^eeltien of the nertar dally prepared; that if b«f did •• at
«I1 it could only be ^ose through assistantc detail <^d to the
speeial dutiee; that where sueh engineer was aol« Baster wlthla
the ran^e of his appropriate duties rtcd a«leeted and appointed
hia assist ante he Hight be Justly h«lf3 responsible for erery
lAaffioi essay or iacapaeity^ but he was aot responsible where he
had BO power of appeiiit»«ct, whicu he ^id not have in that case.
The oourt held Ihut there was no avidenee tenJing to Justify his
raaowal. %e case, howewer, is clearly dietlnguiehnblc fros that
disclosed by the facta here where there is erlderice t<mdln^, to
show that th«nr«l<!itor persocisilly participated In tiue wrongdoing
sad aeeurad peoucifury benefit therefrom.
Upon the theory whici: ve have already held cannot
bo aastained, it is further argued that the ilrat paraerapk states
that the school board was defrauded of lurge suisa of Boney; that
this say h^wc been an essential «le!s:ent of the charge^ but the
record fsile to show that the board actually lost any Bocey
througdi the alleged practice cf padding. kereoTsr, it is urged
that one or two acta cannot be t<^rffi>ed as *a practice. " ^e do not
think an inf«rence th&t a board lost aoney where Ita payroll wae
padded can be said to be unjustifiable and witliout any evidence
to Sttoport it, nor Ho ve think it tiocessary to decide the nueber
of tiaes In which an :40t aast bs rer^eated in order to justify the
ttoo of th« word 'practice" with refercHiice to it. Proof th&t the
vroncdoing had been so often repeated as to aeuunt to a practice
la aot a necessary elesiei^t 61 the charge.
»id ^ti$c«| «>> uifJtf^asfi 99)^ti^nt «9 «!JS<^ «x*4:^^ i»sLi kl»a itn'^o t>iit
«» 3^^e»$ •»a»dt9i» si •■«»44 *«»<^ «%»ii fti^sMt (MdK# t^ li»r.9l»all>
3fisi«»^8^%«r ft^ si lhi^«^iftii!««^ ^Xsaoft%S{| S9^«X«lf>»i3i iJuM v&^e
V* Uilnk it urui«oe8s«ry to rollo* th« Argument of
th« relator in detail, i^oi^ts whioh we have not discuasod aro
•11 1)»««4 ozi th««ry siaoilur to tAat vhicK we have already die-
s^proTOd. It yfts not the d«ol^ in the enaotuient of eeetioD 12
of the Civil l^rrice act, providing t)iat ^nployeea should net be
re»4>ved iriti-iottt ei^se, to ivtrnish BAterlel for aietaphyeieal
dialeties. &il»«t«ntlal juatioe r&ther than tetiinieaXi ti e« of
the 1«« v&s the intecition of those vho fraused the statute. It
le not for ue to v^ei^ the evidence and it is not eontended
there is no ©vHence. ihe judj^ent of the trial court is
therefore affirmed,
0*Cennor, P. J., mid iic.i^ur«ly, i?., concur.
€
' , . ^-hf^ ^Tf .
33313
SMITH, HAiwT * :;cKi'.^»y,
a o^rporri^tioat
App«iiant
/ / /'
AP /SAL ?ECM MOriCIPAL
C08RT Oy CHIC .00«
1 25
^ 4 6
MR. jucna; matc^tt ssLifSEKi^ tbb opujios 0? rKE cs)ariT.
o
This appeal ia by the defenliKat froK a Judgnumt la
th» sua ttf t389«07 4mier<Ni upcai the finding of the court* The
dcfomiaat wkkes oaly o&b costsatiem %hloh is th.'i& the finding
and judgwmt of tjae coort «:& cl«:<irly and laanifeatly agalaat
the weight of the @videao«*
Thtre ia» howcTor* very little cGntrororsy as to
Material f»cte« Tlsese t^p^/snx to be tt^%t <m. ^u^^tist lh% I9^7t one
G* Ja Alnquiat was the oimer of IS shares of atoeJc in a oor*
por&tioa known as the ilill tate Bond t. iSortgage Ccwpaxor, fire
of these eh.nrea i^ere cTidenced hF (me oertlf ic&te &nu t<!m by
another certificate* M th&t date he ctcliTere^ the ocrtifieato
for tea sh-i-res of ^his &toek &o one Eobert P9ir.ell» talcing there-
for a receipt reciting*
*a/I3-19«i7* f^oeiT<.«c of (i« Je \lwiaiBt thm loan of
t<m shArse of Hill tate ^<mc t uortgaiEe ^oaprjuy stookt
to ho «ased e(« collatertil for vq benefit t &hs stock to be
retnraeti to 0* J* .iD^ulst within nin-ty d^gr^s from above
dnte. I fti^ree to give G« J» -iljaiuist five eir-ree of ?om
Servlos 'tation stock ^hen coDpan^ is organised* aa
OMQMne^tion for the %bove favor* I further bgree to let
AlBK^uiat have SISO.OC -^^ithin thi; ;;y c^iji^ free above date»*
This «ertifio%te of etook wns endorsed b? -laquist on the reverse
siAe before the delivery thereof to JPow^ell* Th(«rc vas s. fora of
s::\
''^.
■u.
f^i
«i» j^^il; »€i jNtfcpf'^ fis> ««i^i «tf •« «a«<;j?« i?-^?T ,2;t9«t j,-JT3iAtB
asMlgBMiBt «n tbe bnekf mnier vhlch the o^mer Jaquist wrote Ida
(^ ugttst ":6tli thArt&fter* l^obert Powell borrovod tho
sua of ^20r! frea the (^.efenciJBfc -altht Hirdy 4^ Cflnpany kxkI (Jepooited
vith defendant thle oortlfloste as collatsr&l oecuritj for this
porsoaal loan* Powell tolti nitht tito prsBldejKt of the dvfvttitmt
eo»p&ay» vith ^hoBt he dealt* tht\t ho didn't lik« to jiay the loss
but »oal«t r-ither 8*11 %i» oollatorKl. -slth testifios* * e X nmlA
all right* aad we foiflM a bugr«^ saci sold it* It was a loani h0
alxe^.djr had a loaii* 1'hls ie a chaairtt frtm a loan to a iml«» «r«
pvrohasod tho ateck froa Eooort Powell* e did not purclxico the
entire t«« staaroe* hat we h«^ an under at.'^iidiag th^t ho %as to navo
fiTO Bharee hack in (.he foras of a etrJSilght oertlflcsto.'* :m cross*
«xsimlaAti«a« teith oayot *'^'« 41dn*t &er«$^ te olsasg^ it froM a loaa
to a parohauso until wo hfui, an oatlet. and -^hsn he 410 Uiat* t^t
.s»a vhon the o^e ^.s hotv««n o^rselTos &nd t^vall ttH^s closed* It
w&g oloo«d hj vl£vtt«; oi Biirtnees oendif^^ in lii& order to huy fivo
On or ahottt Sept^adwr mx, 1927* a ros»res6at^i,iT« of
dcf«Mlant eellod tt^ plaintiff tM^ci toM isi^ thr»t the ^steanxsmt hsA
five sharoa of the lilll tafeo Boafi « Koxtipj^e Oatp-vny eteck in Ito
off loo for sale and ^uotec hiaa a price of sit£ for these ah^^roa*
Tho ^plaintiff aecojptod a»v seat to <3efEadr5nt his chsek to defend*
oat* a OTdsr for that aaount. This oh«o!e ^as onelosed in a letter
froa tho plaintiff to 6«fsn<i5«t under data of Sej^tonbox 21» 1927,
in «hioh hs g-^ids
•^Plsae* hoTO thssK shares trosaf erred te . ?•
Bttrtneofi* 4353 Sorth SJlehaioBd wtroet, Ghion^o* he. ore
ike firet of Octoher.*
KefeadoBt aekno* lodged xooeipt af ^^^» letter -nd ©heck on
soyUiribor 24 » 1927 » stntlngt
•tho etock should he dellrerec to yon rcry soon.*
:^
iiM$ »#a^^ i»^^&£A %»si!^ *iMi ^ioiils- ■tr.bms ^ts^d ^;i tee Smms^3»»
&fe i^swA* ««b»' s#4^bftj|: 4blsl»-li« *^«*»x ,=i»'jiij^ai.-«e«Es««: .saL-iassir^ia
-5«
Ob or before ^epteabor 26* 1927* plaintiff notifle<9i defondtviBt by
*phoBO» OAacelliag the yurohaae* aad on tlvt d&to dofenclfiiit wroto
plaintiff th:xr. the writer found a acKuru-nduM in r«fereaoe to tlM
• took "which we had purohciced for jrotur iccmm-. aati sent to tranafor to
your nase* * * Your check hud hoen deposited to our account aad
it undoubt«c4ly -arill bo a gooc check, as ^e v^ould not have e xe cut ed
the order for you anct sent stock to transfer if wo did not think
you wore re sponsible and & ann of yowr «ord«" Under d&te of
October 5, 1927t plaintiff diwaaded in ^ritinc re iis^bur soMont in tin
SUB of $575 covered by hi a chf^ck of Septcn^er 21 » stating that the
order h««! been cancellee: over the tolephono upott the morning of
Septeniber 2e» 1927*
AXter the receipt of plaintiff *e ehceka on Septoa^or 24 »
1927 f defei^Uueit eiast this certificate of etook to th£! Hill ::tat«
B<md i. Mort|p%so Coo^^aay* at. ting ih&t the oertific^.teB were sent
for trattafer* fire ahi«.ro8 to tho plaintiff and flTO shAres to
;>lidth» H&rdy & Company* T}i« letter further stated t
"The abore stock is h&2id«<i to you in trust for
transfer and »ur.t be return^sd to :^aith« H' rdy ft Co*
&t »bove sddresa* Ple-.se rush thie tr&nefer* 20>e'
reTeime stamps enclosed •*
The Hill State Bond & ttoztgage Qompamy refused to do ee* fias stock
hns never bean traK»ferred on the books of that c^s^sny ^r otherwiao
to the plain't^iff . lieither thrit certificate mtx &x^ other certifie&to
reprosenting the stock whion he bought has ever been In hie j^^«ioaI
pOBBBSsian* .xn a satusr of fact, uncier date of October 3, 1927*
defendant was inforaN^ by the Mortgage coagpnx^ tht theymere advised
that -Xnqnist had nover passed titlo to the stook nnd qcwted a letter
sreeeivod by the casg^pany froui hie attorney cauticMiins it again&t any
requast for the transfer of the etook upon tht: books* letter in
evidenec nnder date of October 7» 19:<i7» fron the w>rtgage coaipany to
•2«
ttf Stts^hma'^ii *©ttl*a» ^tlsntxXq, •fsei; ,*;> !,*.*««»* ^^v... ^i^jij.^ .. -f-
^*
«?SVX «d^ 1ld4lp»#4S*&
{rae&a. 'rv>: ji^*".-$4tiS?»»«» «ei -J^ssts i^i>^« *^|5s«^s«s-^' *5^>;S*'s»S * feja>S
--•• ■-■-'■- --.'.tl: !«» tltjitti«J4 a^ -d* tmua^ s^rXt ♦■ss^^sssi* act
...&*«#i tnsUm'i %»ii'»l «i^ •>5««#a©a d ^^i^. K .riJiHs:
•ftOiJCv t^^^s; t3ij-jrj3V3T
s^^^.i. -yfif-^^ -^'s ^f^- ■•■— ^U^T^© #fiti5 rs.ft;' — :j:iJSi-«.&4 3S«* OJ
•4*
(lefendnat la<llc».t«e that b«« c«rilflo&to« had bacn prepared mat
fomftjMed to tlM yrtaUant for his ai^outore AUd had b««a recelratf
tTom hla duly ex«ottt«d| but th;t ^be (iclWery was «ltiia«ld oa
adTiott of ita attorney* ^'urtlisr d^^xsJUun uf u^f«oduiit tte>^t ite
eertificniea ftboaloi b-f delivered wers unAVH^liag*
The def«iBCant eiiee X>rfcip r. LfeCTeagg -^tfite Bgiik. 303
Xll» 350 ( to ita«t proposition v;htv>. Tiit^re thft tiue ovtter aULous
another to ap^^nr to be tlui oikuer »it;a. i^ai power oi' dispouitioa
ftO tii&l an Ineteceat persoc i« led into deiCii^ with tlie u.|>pf<.reat
owa«r» ftC estoppel asuy ope rets abg::.izigt the txoe owner »hleh will
preclit£le hisa fr<m assertiag hi;?. tltl«. that prtspoi^itlon of law
ifi not s.p: llcahle to the faaie of tills «3.3e» JLio^iUiett t^e trno
owner* Is not & pnrtj to thlx suit*
It is orsect thst the delivesy of e. steok certiflctato
ie not @os«iitiol to the tyansfer of fj&i :^tooSc of the copperatlan.
CflUlsa ▼• MM}jm»,.SXJ^* » ^^ ^li. p:>. 4«€| illlea v. >ilUaia» et al>.
212 in. -^pp« 114 f t'Oii.fioe et js.^. t, Citiao^^aj • tate jjank et a.i..«
S!OS 111* ' pp* ?> are cited to this propceitlwt. It ia tru&f &s vheeo
e%808 hold, ih^t a ehr.^re of atook is the ri^t %hioh its own^x has
ia the ns3if> teismit , profits turn, mitiafste «»»«;€!t» of the corporation
&fter the payausnt of debts i th«t the o«rtific;ito is not the stock
it«ielf bat «Ujr erideneo of the osnerahip of ti^ etooJc* rhe titXo
to the stook i»t howoTox* created by regi^^try in tiix bojka •at the
oorpor«<.ti<«i« The ericenoe loerc fails to she^ th^-^t the shares of
etook bawe been is fact ra^cisterec in tiuf^ncaat^s nsfte. l^ereoTirirt
the evidsneet *e thii^ict el^^^^rly justifioe the inferesMie thut it vas
the intention of the pnrtioe th t defenc&nt should deliver to plaia«
tiff a oertifieate for five shares of this stook* -^^^efsndnnt did not
deliwer the oertifleato* It has not offered to dellTer the oertifioato*
Xt is apparent froK the cTidenoe th^^t it is unable to delirer itf
t^^t^'P' it^^'Srf hffi ^tiv'^^f.'iif^*'^ SIS!? ^"^^ '^^f^i^^t- it!?r?"-5*^'^"^*»
* i»-«-5rt *^-
t-.i^i
s*4*i^.;
m^ 3c
a^i;;:
,!*-.S:-*ai i*d««*S
-6-
and plalBtiff* not h&Tlag reeelT«(' irhut h« b««i5lit sftr aq/ tmu&ex
to hia of thftt whieh he bou^t* ie upon tbo plftln«at ^Idclplos
entitled to thfi r<r>tura of the oon»idar<ttA9a vhich h» paid - tkl«
wlttettt rofBird to otkor quoBtioac argued in this si!i@««
On the uBditq^ted faots» plaiatiff vao csailiXcc t«
rooevor aad the jodgBMit ia affirmed*
0*Ceoaior» p* J«» uad M«^ur«ly» J», conour*
!*.»•■»»■« ->4-V ■
.-»^,NCTJ. .-...■ f .:i.
« xose^'O *Q
>RAfiK UARRI3/l30«i& (JO., /nC!., )
"% 647'
Opinicn filed April 17, 1929
U PHSSIOiaa JUSTIOE afliiOU delivered the oplnioa
of the oourt*
Thle oauae was tried before the oourt \mder an
»gf««d •tn.teaent of faots stipulated }if the parties.
The oontention of plaintiff ie that h« eontrftcted
with defendimt to biilld a garr^ge for the agreed price of
$388.37* and that he paid on ^nooount thereof to defendfint the
sua of 11 65.
Defendant, on the other h».nd, oontende that the
oontr?!iet mt^B to sell specific aerch-«,n(iise ?t nn agreed pxlot
and to perform labor thereon At ?n Tigreed prioe In the er*sotion
of ft garage for plaintiff upon n piece of r«".l esv>te o^med
by him.
It le not oontToverted th«it defi?ndnjat aubet^ntiolly
built the gMT^. ts, »^hich a fire destroyed comrletely rithout
the fault or negll^j;enoc of «ltheT party to the sviit. In this
•nit plaintiff seeks to rwoover the tlCMI, paid by him to
defendant, and defs?nd»nt Interposea a aet-off for the bal^noe
due him, a» he olaiae* on the contract prioe. The trinl oourt
doolded the issue* by allowing the set-^ff 9nd rendered n
jwdgmoat in fivox of rtefenA-jnt, after giving plHintifl credit
for his p-ynsnt to defendant of ^165, and allowing a further
I \ <*S«! &. «v *i.
,-*i%^m ^i
- 2 -
or«(lit of ^10, ?rhioh it rn.9 stipulated im« a r«?f8onflbl0 ullon-
fuio* to defendant for neceaaary labor to oompl«t« th« Imildlnp,
had It not been d««tToy«rt by flro. In the sua of Wl3.^7, snd
plaintiff bring* the tvoord here for our reTleir by aprpeal.
A«ong the Admitted faota found in the etipul^tion
are the following:
That if the garage had been ooiapleted without being
destroyed by fire« plaintiff would have paid to defendant
^Xt8.27, «knd "that all goods, materials, hardware, vindowe,
l^aaa. eto* were delivered by defendant * * and that the Tslue
of all aaterlals together ^ith thf> labor necessary in the
ooiiplete ereotion of e^^ld garage, ^^uld eounl the sura €i
$338.37, and that i^l the work that was done by defendant w9.8
done in a good %nd workoanlike aanner.'*
The stipulation of faota in effec: that
defendant entered upon the nerforawace of the aontrnct bctFeea
the parties to build the garage snd thst It did «o until
near oompletion, ^•'hen it vaa unfortunately destroyed by fire.
How the fire occurred doe* not appe«r, except th«t it is agreed
that neither of the jiartlea were blaaable for it, *he parties
baTe by their aotlons plaoed their own oonstruotlon upon the
ooatraot from which it is inferable thst the agreeaent of defend-
ant was to oonsti-uct the garage which defendant prooerded to do,
uatll near oompletion, when fire destroyed it.
The dostruotion by fire of the nearly ooapleted
gange did not hawe the effect of jabsolvlng defendant froa its
obllgRtion to ooaiplete its construction.
». ^ i»
•;;:v-u;fe4''^ •■■■ '■■■
Ife swTfe' ■^i-r*' Ijs.wb* iiSmm ^^.^mmii &i^'% jswii'tfiM* ^*#»Xqa«>©
,#l^^^^ij«r ?iiap#i#^ ^ p!f#ife#««% - . ^oi** j!i|K«5* -s-is^ff
}f4m $M»^0tMi uti fit i^^i&p ?«;•■; t9mmp9
- 3 -
»• think the la« gOTcrnlng this situation la vrell
•tat«d la siee. 1964» 3 Williston on Oontmota, 3358, «i8 follo^rs:
•1b annj o««ca ■»h«rp ft builder ot oontrrotor hf*a
undertaken to erect n buiidinjr or i>ther structure, it
hfts been injured or destroyed uitbout f^ult of either
P'Xty while in ; recess of erection, it 1 3 uniformly
held that the builder or oantr-^otor still reHi"iina bound
toy his proniee, and rill be liable in d^nageo if he
fails to oosplete the sgrttotuLre* Whether the injury or
destruction was due to tea;.>est, fire, defectire soil.
Is iutaterlal,*
The leaned i&uthor points out the dis4im«tioB vhere
the contract is not to construct a building but to do oert&lA
wort thereon in these vords in the suoeeedlng section:
"Though one who contrsots to taiild is not tis'
ohafged froffi liability on his contmot because of the
destruction of his first or otb«r ?.tteaot8 to perform
th«! contract, the eituation le lifferent where the
oontr?ict 13 to do -work on «t building snd the building
is destxoyed. Here the parties assumed the continued
existence of the building upon '#hich the work ir5.a to
be done, -ind if this j^ssumption cesses to be true,
the obligation is disohnrged, iiven thou^ i^nother
slKilar building *ere erected, the contractor would
not be botuQd to work upon th%t. It «^ould b*" n different
bulldin£ ?ind n TnriAtion of hie contmct. The more
troublesose ^psstion v^hcther the builder cnn recover
eoapensntion for the ^ork <hlch he h^a done, is sub-
sequently considered,^
Baooa v. Oobb, 45. ni. 47; Adaas r, «iehol8> 19 dickering, 275;
Schirartz ▼• Saunders, 46 111. 18; auyett ▼, adison Jo,, 167 Ibid
233.
Xa Ada— ▼. Iioh<d.>- auprft, the court stilted the
goTeming principle. In which we concur, as follows;
• ffe Are, on the ^vhole, dearly of opinion, that
the unfortuBate casualty, irhioh occurred in this o^se,
■'' did not relfteve the defendant Hiehols fro» his obliga-
tion to perform the oontmot which he had deliberately
entered into.**
ff i-
-i.t« &r"7 9t?' ^j,lai
«»%«i$i: «l$i.t9s£lNa& <Mf# i^ltsfr 9#Ai«et 3«#JKe jMMflUi»4l »f^<
..... , M
- 4 -
These reaarks nre equally aorlia^ble to defendant In
the IttstHnt Case. The folloirlnfi obserrAtione awde by the court
iB ToMplciaj» T, Qudley, 35 h, Y. 372, are vvertinent to the
situation of defendant in this cise, vir.,
"A substSLntial ooaplianoe vlth the terse of the
oontxact will not nuiiswer irhen tie oontT-\otor, *fi in
this oase, admlta and oonoedes ih?.t the irorlc tr^.a in-
ooaplete; he w?ta still in posseat^lon engaged in its
coapletion.**
The responsibility of defendant is is st? ted .In the
following holdiixir by the aourt in Ah;i^en v. »alsh, 173 Qnl\t»27i
* He am«t stand the loos resulting froa the fire
x^Ad amst replace at his own erf ease the struotxire th-t
is destroyed* *hen be has done bo, he asy reoorex the
full contract price. He is not excused from completing
the c»erforssance of the contract Dy the f^ot tbi^t the fire
has destroyed the structure alre-idy sade* it is never-
theless possible for hia to begin agsin and rebuild the
entire building."
The instant ease does not fall ^rithin the ruling in
Slegel ▼. catOB & i^rinoe.^ i6B ELI. 550. The facte in en oh c?ise
are entirely dissiailar. There the eontraet -m-B not to build the
building, but to do worfc in « building, «hioh building w^-n 'Juring
the progress of the york destroyed by fire. There are aajay other
Oftses «?hioh al^t be cited, which uniforaly hold to « like effeot*
tinder the fleets in this record the oueetlon of
"lapoesibllity* is not ? f?iotor.
In ooaaonanoe with the foregoing o^oinion the judgment
of the khmioipal Oourt 1". reversed, and a judgaent entered here
in favor of plaintiff for |16i ^itb costs against defendgmt
here and below*
JUDGMSIST RKYfiaSSa AHD MEKK FOR
PLAiSTIFF fCB |16B, ?aTH 30ST3
BOUb 4MU B£mO^ kHAimr DEFESa^iJT.
«II40I km RT»SR, 4J., SOMCt}%
•56
a^ixs«
til i_
33961
AppAl9;/ J'
\iau
^ '■ r ^ ^ 47
pinion filed April 17, 1929
m. fllEdXDIMa JUSTICE HOLDOM DMLIV£;R£0 TH£ OPIIIOI
or THi oouat.
Ilalntiff brought tlila action in r^n effort to
recover fx reel eBt;te ooaiale»loR fro« defend nt, the o»m»r of
property at S338 and 6340 Fletcher Street, Ohloago, for
which id>ftlntlff cl«>lms to have prooured a purchaser at the
euK of ^1,800; the ooiKaission thereon ^aounted to M77*
^ev« «f%s a trial b«for« the ooxurt and a finding
aad judgment for one-half of the oosssiesion ca-ilaed, vi?,,
#238,&0, a-nd the oftuse ie here for our revie'? on defendant' ^
appeal.
The defend?int in his affidRVlt of merits smore that
he did not list the proi>erty with the plaintiff, but on
testifying as a wltnees in hie otm behalf admitted that he
did so list the property «ith plaintiff for «ale« It Be<»s
that the trini judge »ae csuoh iopreased «ith this contmdletory
ooBdaot of the defendant. The finding of the court nnd its
jadyseiit was based upon the theory th?^t the plaintiff sold
«M of the tvo houses to ri Ut, and tfre. Kinokle for the sua
af 15900. So far ix-.s the sale to the HinoUee is concerned,
there is evideaee in the reoord le^»lly adsiitted to support
ir
^ *X1.* X. its>, Vj» V'"-
*-^,»*jrJEs^.| -^ \
yf-'^^43iWK4i*iiiiSS-ri 4iW*;i)i'3
t$^sA^iiQ ii»is»Jbm0^ »iS» "Hi tSM^r^jm Witt fjss^i^t '^^^s
*1
^fif-fesr^Sftfe ^f-f
$X^q^iP^ t»t &(M»f ^&B^« 1(^X4^M ^^^^^^^ ^
the finding and judgaaent of the trl*i court, but n« to th«
seoond buildlBg, for i^ioh plaintiff olaiaod a oMwisaloa,
there is no ©Tidenee In the reoord to support the elal«,
thle !• not disputed, and there are no cross errors bringing
that aatter before this court for review.
Plaintiff in tniking the matter over with defendant
said tbjit he oiHKl hlB a eoo^isslon on the 9inlf, of one of the
building, and that if the other building was sold he did
not know who bought It. There is no dia ute «!bout the right
to a ooBAlesion. It was agreed in open court thnt each house
««« sold for $59(X)« and thnt the ooisiElsslon on e«,oh of the«
aa^uttted to t338,80. It appears In evidence *hat plaintiff
advertised defendant's property for sale after defendant
listed the property with plaintiff.
Dsfenda^t argues for reversal that plaintiff ^iras
not a duly licensed broker, de this as it ajay, the point wsa
net raised la the trial court, nnd it is therefore too late
to raise it here for the first ti»e. Xt vn-B si so nrgued for
Tsvsrsal that plaintiff did not prove the rmte of ooaaiseion
oharged by reial eetnte brokers in Jbicago. while thst is
true, it is unnecessary to mX& such r^roof in the light of
the adjaiisslon of defendant of the amount of the coaaiasion,
if recovered, kgnln, it is argued for reversal that the trial
judge erred in ndaitting iaproper evidence on behalf of the
plaintiff. AS before said* the finding and Judgaent are
supported by a preponderance of the adalseible evidence. This
doixrt will assume thnt the trial court in arriving n.% Its
finding, only took into consideration such evidenoe as was
leg^lj admissible^
.iS&i:mj^m '^ -^ii^g^ IMmi&it s^lMt^^^ -^^^Xht^ hilmm^t
.^^ J«^, #%iX ^?._Md la^iefsxi.^ d^s^ f^*^ d$; .i%js»fi®ts«iea» «1 iM ,f^'zl'
- ,-,»j^ s»* ^iwael^isr^ iS«*i» «!©i#«5*Me«®a ©#«* -^-oet tJto® ^jtiifcail
- 3 -
For the reasons stnted lo this opinion^ the
judgDieBt of the ttualolpnl Court is affirmed.
-5. %*%
:'*;"i!s*:^>v*
^4..
;'SA g^SJlW
^.&y '^li ^S
.:^«st§|.-:4f.<?.
33990
i. I. OHa|riM»
I ^
Appellant. /
^■>f<^*
^^■f'^''
;•..> % ^ -"■
Opinion filed -^pril 17, 1929
^
»t. PHlSlUiUG jysTieif H0I.i30M dellvftxed %h« opinion
of the court.
Thia is an action of sssuaipsit stsrtdd lay the
plaintiff 9g9.in»t defend'^nt In --n effort to reoorer the Qvm
«f ISOOO, the price of oert^la store fixtures bought by
defendnst froa plaintiff. Plaintiff filed «. one covmt docl^.r-
fttlon with ".n affidaYlt of ol^la. 9efend?«nt file?5 « r^lfis
of non aesuMpsitf and slso %n «f fidmvit of iserltorloue defense
in whlob ^iffidsTlt defendant denied that he pureh^sed the
fixtures ^nd »« greed to ps,|SOOO for the S;««», ^.nd deposed
that plaintiff gsTe defendant s quantity of store fixtures
that were praetloally ▼•i-luelees aa ooapensjition for their
reaoV'U. fro« the place In ^hich they were stored »<ttd the
expense of so doing.
There Mn» a tibial before oourt r..nd jury ylth s result-
ing Terdlet of S1750 in f».vor of plaintiff nnd against
dofendent. After oTermllng motions for a ner tri^i nnd Im
erreat of jud^ent there v»s a juilfosent on the verdict and
d«fend?.nt brlnti<;a the record here for re-rie^r by appeal.
Ho ouestlona ^rlse upon the plei^dlnga.
■'>»<..,
'■^^SSS
I $,22 I
■i^^iihmSfi »40 m»fig »ai«A mtiU*mm m
- 'I -
Th«r« was eTldenoe «upportlng th#» cont'ntlonB of
botb p«rtl«« »n<i the fnots thus <l«Tel^ped w«re f'llrly Pub-
■itted to the jury for their aoluticm.
d«f«n(lnnt j^salgna error f^ji.i -rgm^a for Tev«r«nl,
that th«T« yi^u error in the oourt'a ruling upon an iiBpe&ohing
questioB %dke4 plaintiff by d^fextdant; th^^t the judgaeat is
ooBtr:i<^ry to th« sanif«»t weight of the eYicienoe, '^nd that tli«
▼•Tdiot nnd ju<igB«&t are laoons latent ;?ith -my poasible theory
of th« o^.se.
On C.TOA8 exajBinationt plaintiff testiflsKi that the
fixtures »er« slightly dnanged. He ims then ask«d by counsel
for dttfendaat this question;
•Isa't it a f'^-Ot, Mr. CJfeiipin, thnt upon the
tri;U. of the 05 se of the rji^sii,^. v^tsrlng Ooapany
against the insur^jsce co^^p^ny, in SoYfabpr, 19^?,
la the Jity of tookford, before- Judge -fyiiolda
and 1 jury, you there testified th- t the fixtures
in the Oiaa« reet'^urnRt v^er? totally d<;stroycd
aad of no valu*^?"
An objection by counsel for plaintiff w^b austr^ined, ^nd he wab
then ««k&d:
"iHd you **t that tlse !^nA place testify that
the fixtures were totally destroyed and of no
T'^lueT"*
Aa objeotion m&de to that <?uestloB by plaintiff's couneel v&e
likewise sustained* Defendant aow argues that the rulings of
the court wer<* erroneoiis because it is the law that the
vitaess say glre the substiinoe of the vitness' TTevloue test!-
fliony« citing Brown ▼. O'^lumet elver lailyny Co. 135 111, 600,
where it is s^d th«t:
ST M^-ti^^l *4S' tail ' .J#JKStiSW'i«ii.fe t«f tf|-#3#*ii3 tJ»W&j& m^tf^^sfig^
(.sens s?r# 1©
-«#' 'MM f»l1l;Jt##*t %lj^@ii^^ a»i^«i^i&ex$ ftt^i^t} s&
^tmrn^''"^ *»3^' l^sir- ii^ ''legs' .fcfi®-^«esB t i*«Jl*'i»"' •*&» i^s-irtf :^;^ i t
ti^t' i&^i!i$e^ i^' 'IMS^e^^f^^^ *l^ffiiR*«s/s s«i«siii
- s -
*It Is objected hn% no proT>«r foundation im«
iRld foT thff Intro'iuotlon of this evidence, '«?«
think otherifiae. It r** only nrcesr.'»r]r to o^ll
Hro-^n's attention to th^ «ub!9t^ncf of his ?dmiasion
(ilSlS ▼• ^to^rer. 6" ill. ''PS) rtna tb-^t, in out
oplnionj, mL,9 fecr« eiiffioiently done,"
The dlfflswlty liee in tbe f^vot that th« v^itnMs
wmm not ssksd to give the subat'^nce of whst be bad prerlously
testified to, aor was the other sode of ?>eking -and impencbing
question indulged, rij?,, by asking the pyeoioe Question th^^t
tms Ask«d at the trial referred to and his nxtaver ther to.
Keith er did counsel preserre the point for reYiew by making
the offer to pro'va irh%t the witnesis ^sras alleged to h»»Te
testified to on the previous trial referred to.
the objections to the t?ro foregoing ofuestions in
the fom in irhioh they were propounded ^ere ole-trly aiibject
to the objections asnde.
«« are unable to eoneur in defendant's cont^fntlon
th&t the verdict is •'gainst the m^nifent «ei?ht of the
evidence, the contradictions in the testimony of the con-
tending parties »ss th« burden of the jury to solve, iwad if
the jury gpnve ^a^tfz credence to the proofs of plaintiff And
less to th^t of defpndnnt, so doing ims "flthin the jury's
pre»Tine«. a« examination of plaintiff's nroofs st-in ling un-
oontr^dioted ^arrajftts tbe oonclxislon to »rhioh the jury arrived.
this sonfoms to Isgnl requlremsat.
fhs fin<il contention thet the verdlot is inoonsis-
t«at on &ny r40S8ible theory of the ease falls flat in the
light of i«faiat we have mbove B}>iid, J'Airthersore defendant has
no just 0&U8S of ooapl9.int ^t the verdict beo?iu8s the jury
is''' i^'-^i:*;*;" ■■*■*<: ,,5;' ;. :f';J ^^iii^fcf;. -■ I ^T*
ssa' .tKinj&^«i»fe =Sf^««T«d::^i. -. .vi.-e. ^•-•„-,i. »T«d »» J^sAr 1*» ji^J^^I
- 4 -
«iniKlc«d defendant's liability. Plr^lntiff has the sole
right to Qomolftln and he atands content • '^'^▼en had he assigned
cross errors on the point. It does not follow th«t this
oourt would «.v%rd a new trif^l, ihe rule »pMlioable is
correctly *».nd well stated In -lltlerrp^n ▼. i'iXtn, '*9 111,
App. 416, in these vords:
"It does not follow that because thft verdiot
is for a sum less tbnt the rloe ol Aimed the jury
did not find th* oontrKOt *^b fulLy performed by
«,p= ellee, i laintlff might justly noasrlain If the
▼eriiot Is for less thsiii he wee entitled to
reoover, but if he ohose to 9\iet?in the loss r%ther
than to have the verdict eet ^aide ^nd incux the
expense -^.nd delay of ^inother tri«l be had the right
to do so and i>ught not to be deprived of the
benefit of hie Judgiaeut for the laaount of the
verdict rendered."
And AS SAid in Ra^,^ v. fl,eo|;. -43 Ibid. 396, so 8'»y »e here;
"The rule is n f?i.«iliar one thait 'where there
is R Gontrariety of evidenoe snd the testimony by
f«lr :?nd reasonable intendment tvili tuthori^e the
verdict even though it »ay be agj^lnat the apparent
weight of the evidence % reviewing oourt ^111 not
set it %side«,*
There ia no disoeriiable reversible error ^ppSiTent
iB the record before xie ^nd the jvtdt^ent of the Oirouit 3ourt
is »»f firmed.
r
-■ f # *
Blm «-!** »M ns-t^'^f^ .^itiStf'zr ?.*trT-^nftt«f; fc^sisKiJSlm
jg(i n^Si^s&kS^^^ extra 4y , ' . ^: Mtmt% '■ ^>'6«
^vS^TWfea®* ra*fcT©-v
t^.t-0 *'^ MSt^. ^^- ?'.^-«^* f^f' fcaA
•%^U% &yi^ :;i«:;i;,4:
SS044
ARWfJR H. {(■H'.HCy, HSWRY B. RAMOK,
T J '^^^^"^ \
^ — ■^' Opinio© filed April 17, 1339
MK. 'RSSlDIIiQ JUQTICjj: HOLUOM dellTVr^d the oplnloa
of the oouxt.
Thla aotlott involve* the right of d«f«ndant8 to
r«t<4ln th« earnest money paid und«7 a real eat^ite contract,
•xeouted by the olnintiff %n^ the purchasers, aad delivered
to defend<tnta, both contmot and «oney« to hold in esorow.
The ouTohasere refusing to carry out their oart of the contr^ict
by jpaying the balance of the puroh^sise .rioe, the plaintiff
brings thie? suit fugainst defendants to recover the 1^00.00
earnest Aoney.
The statement of olaia allpgee the execution of the
oontrciot, the deposit rith the defendant* of the enrneat aoney
of £300,00, the refus-^l of the purohasers to T^rooeed i»4th the
oontraot. the serrioe of ,«i deaand by plaintiff, and the
refus^il thereafter of the defendejits to pttf over the #300 .Oi?
deposit.
In dofendp.nts* Affidavit of 'merits they oh!irge that
under the contract uT>on forfeitvBO of the eaimest money, it
should be used first to pay brokers* ooauaiesion, and th^^t the
aoaey vas so applied. The oontmot in evidence disclosed
that if the purchasers failed to ^^erfora the contr«.et promptly.
^^l,
y^^ .^1 .
^^^^'yf^tm-
*l>0««
M^^ -»^' *
jDi;^:!;'
,a^^Jto-
'\%i<
w^^
?8 AJSgS
v..
esei tVI liaqA £.9li't abiniqO
llt©i,i3*M«i' Wil^
itt>nta6H» «*■'" ■' ■• ''" ■ '7.fc««?# J^Af "-. • <3# ^j»l«i«^<K£ «T*?'' ■■■■■'"■■"■•■ aifT
- 8 -
th« •amest mney should, at th« option of the pl^^latiff, b*
r«tained n.n Ilauldnted daautget. The nuToh^ssers defAtilted ^nd
by notice served by the Tendor, plaintiff, the contract im«
for f«it«d and the $^00. 00 «ameat money deposited wis ^lao
deoiared forfeited.
fbe foregoing fsote mre not in diamjte,
Tbe Question of the neoeeelty of producing ^
purohaser, rendy, willing and «ble to pureh?.8e the property, ■*^9
net presented to the trisl oourt, nor is It presented to this
oourt for d«el8ioa, beoauee the undisputed eridenoe is that
the parties, seller -^ari purchasers, entered into s contract
In vriting «^bieh wna of binding force on emoh party, when
a Tslid contract of ssle is entered into, which has been
accepted by the seller, as in the case at bar, without any fr^ud
intervening, the p-^yment of the agent's ooasaission ia not
contingent upon the actual eonsua^ntion of the sale, \fter
the oontrsist is sigaed he is entitled to hie ooaeslssion.
As asld in (iayr t, 3utter]fOTt|i.. ?19 111, ^vv* 1^»
"The Imw in this s'fete is T^ell settled th«t ^here
«n ouner lists bis resl est?iite with a broker for sale,
the broker has earned his oo^salsslon sphere the broker
produces a prosr>eot.iT€ rurob^sfiT ^hoa the o'pner, with-
out fmucl on the ^yurt of the broiti^r, Gco^pta, ?>nd »ltb
vhoa the o-rner enters into r ▼J»llvi, binding-, -xnd
enforceable oontmot for sf?l9, tnd in th«t cr?s«» it is
iaHaRteTial »b«tber the contrf^ct is csrrled out, or
fsils to be carried out by reason of the def=5Ult of the
prospsotlTe rmtohnB^r,* ^11 soft r. Uf-s^n^ 158 111.^^04.
la l2i ^« Hyan. 340 111. "91, following Wilson ▼,
||t)»oi^. supr^. the court laid dova the rul(» in the following
IsAfoagsi
-M$m^-' i^^m^'it^^i^'-^ *&*«^ IptNsr** *Ife$ -twit i^U"' ^ittt^ nl
^mi^-^M mM» ■ i«??0rl j&^-38^ji» ■ til" g-M« 1^ maiets^ hi im 3
"t'here the seller ncoepta the ;uroh-^a«r '.nd en-
ters Into n T^lld contract of sale with hia, the
broker's ooauelsslon la earned whether the purchrxser
Bubaeouently falls to perform his oontraot and anke
the pAyaa&ts agresd upon, or not."
A.t the time of the ooamenoeitent of the iBstnat suit
defend-mta had no money In their h?»jKifl belongiag to the plala-
tiff. Tbey had the right to retain the stoney 3?*id under the
oontriROt in mooordrtnee with the directions of the oontr-nct,
thmt it should be first •ifmlied to the payment of nny expense*
incurred for plaintiff by hie agsnt, and to the payment of
plsintiff*s broker's ewimiesion of #300. Onder the erprese
proTision of the oontr^^ot of r^urohase, executed by plaintiff,
th« agents <^ft«r the forfeiture by plaintiff, hnd the right
to aptily the e^.mest money tov«!rds the payment of their
LSSlOB«
fhe propositions of Im' suibmltted to the court, aerea
iB number, 'srhioh the court refused to hold as the la« applio-
able to the case, stated axiomsile principles of law for the
guld&aoe of the court in arriving at his decision upon the lai»
of the oese. It -^ae error to refuse to hold such propositions
as the law of the case. In so doing the trinl judge failed
to oorreotly direct himself ss to the la"?,
ks the cause ^v^g submitted to the court for trl?il
without a Jury by agreement of the parties, ire will do here
what we think the judge shoxilt have done, ^nd rererse the
Judgtaent with a finding in fawor of defesndnnt with costs
against the r)laintiff both here '♦ad below,
RE1?ERSSD %ITH FlwDlNS FOH ?5KFgHDABT
WITH COSTS kiuimr flaistiff m:m; .*so
B£X«OW.
9Zli80X AMD BS»m» JJ., UQNOUR,
""■ ' *,tss tc »SgK£H g^f^-t^c 8;?.;-
si# is^t ^•-':.l \^iS. a»i«4jE««ti5:s: .«^4|l«»JBfiXi- ':
■»»»» **?# to
C^OtTfCdd 9#
^»Xn
33059
Pli^lntlff - Aj»p«ii.-uit,
5LIUS HtlBU \$A MIRMAM
JCHUESSLSR, J^\,
API'SAL
■.. S
--^^
OF '.^lOAW,
18
Opinion filed April 17, 1339
MH. ransiolliG JUSTICE uuldom deliTer«d the oplnloa
of tli« oourt*
This appt«l iB not deftnd^d.
Th« action lnTolT«s a lease froa the plaintiff to the
d0feadA.nt8 of oartnln preaisea in Chles,go, Among; the covenants
in the lease there whb ?. .oweT of attorney authorizing the
tmtxf of n judgBest for any unpaid rent, auch a^ judgRent jmn
entered under the lenae In queetloa for unpaid rent S905 en
July LI, 1935. On M&roh S, 1336 on motion of the defendant
lenHui Schuessler Jr. the judga^nt wnm opened &nd he v^s let
In to plead* sAd on June 18, 19'^6, thi%t order ims TAcated and
on the additionfU. petition of defendant Julius "else leave
wae given both def'»ttdant8 to appear ^nd defend, the judgment
to stand as seourlty nnd execution stayed and th%t the petition
of June 4, 1936 stand as the affld&Tlt of aerlts of both defend-
oiBts* In aooord with the last order %nd on June 6, 1938, the
cmuse proceeded to trial before oourt and jury »rith the result-
Ing rerdict against the plaintiff and in favor of defendnnts.
Pl&lntlff aade jutotions for <i ne^r trial and in arrest of judgarnt,
which vere both denied, sad & judgnsat of nl^ c- pla;ji, and for
costs entered upon the verdict, and also imc&ting and setting
aside the judgfsent entered on July 11, 1335 for 12905, froa
frhloh latter judgment i^alntlff proseoutes this appeal.
esei tVI IxTcA tain noxnxqO
iammn
eif>^Ai-5>>ve« s-??#i|«ees*^ ii«S«»l*^" ??.? ^Sp-Ste^-^^c i*t*'f*^*? 1:?r r.frt**^■a&l«^
Ji?^i-.^J5f?t 'J'-^ ftSfiSTSE iw3^- '?'^-^ v.-^Tsr. !??oo «5Vi3 b-t
- 2 -
n«tintiff %«9igiia and argues for error th« r!.otlon of
th« trl«.l court in failing to grant the asotion of pl-^intiff to
•txlkc the p9titloa of (\«fe»dant8 on the ground that it sitta up
no d«fen8e; error* in »daiitting la^jroper evirtftnoe, ^^nd in
sustaining objections of defend<tnte to oompetent evidftnoe of
plaintiff; and in r^:fu8ing to atrlke out on Botion of plaintiff
iaproper eTideae* introduced by defendants; -nd thsit the Terdlct
»nd judgment *re against the velght of the competent erldence;
and error of the oourt in denying plaintiff's sootion for a new
trial •
Without diBousslng why the aotlon of the court in
opening the jud^ent bj confession *ae without error, »e irill
9»j that in the condition of the petitions presented to the
oourt on the notions to open such jud^snt there >rere sufficient
fsots in said petitions undenled to warrant the court's action.
The lease in evidence of plaintiff to defendint, was
©f the ptmieea 3S00 to ZQO^} ^naitsge irenue, Uhiosgo, etc.,
at » rental of 5360 per aonth froa June 1, 1933 to April 30,
1928» irith the nriTllege to the lessees of osncelling the s^me
as of April 30, 1925 on giving 90 dsys notice to plaintiff of
exercising »u«h privHege, The leasees, defendntnta, before
they «re permitted to sublet the . resiaes or %ay part thereof,
or to assign the le^se shall obtain the >?t-itten consent of the
plaintiff to such subletting or aesignaent, etc. There la nleo
a proTlsion th^ett if the defendants shall sbandon or ▼aots.te the
dealsed prealses, the saiae may be relet by the plaintiff landlord
for auoh rent and upon aueh tens as he sh^l see fit, and that
if a sufficient sua shall not be realized, after paying the
expenses of subletting and collecting, to satisfy the terse of
the lease, defendants agree to pay -^nd satisfy »ll deficiencies,
and there is a varm&t of attorney to confess judgsent for default
^mt t^^i- i^^^MsJMl® is»Qe5<sj»i inslfs^isBfe* ffil «««^efiSf j^cr^'-tsl^ c/y
^1^9 .f^«*j|i® ^*S«9irA 9g«ti»tA |#OeC ©J Ct^ «9Si«'--JS'^ »:r'J^ 1©
;**-##«f1F»'-
- 3 -
iB f«|««at of th« rent with attorney's fe«8« etc.
Th«re app«ara upon the said le»a« an asalgna^nt by
th« dafcadant, Jullua lelae* to i aul eiaa «i,nd Pattl KLs&k, wltli
a raeltation thi^^t in conaider^Uton of plaintiff 'a oonaftnting
to anid aaaign^nt, asld Jidiua Weiss guamnteea the parfonvmnoe
by the aaaignaea of nlU the oovenanta sentioned in the lenae,
Th»Tt ia A written oonsent toy plaintiff to the ^aaignment of
tha laaaa to PauI ^velaa and I^ul Hunk under the «xrir%mn
aonditioB that tha %8signor ahould resisiin liable for the proopt
paynent of the rant nnd the perforsBinca of all the coven^intB
and oonditlona on the part of defendants, the leaaeaa, in 8f»id
laaaa aentioned. Tha defendn^nt Bchuesslar did not at v>ny ti«e
«a4SB ^^* interest in the le13.se.
It i^paaxa thut the aeslgneaa abondoned the leased
preaises and thereupon plaintiff wade a leaae with George K,
Gassier oorering the renaiolng p'Ortlon of the term of the
lease sued upon, ''ha foregoing taots a.pp9»x without coatra-
dictlon. k'xvl ^elaa and i'-iXil %l?>.nk sent the Icsf to the demised
preolsee to plaintiff announcing thst they tfore through ias the
■ayor hsd olosed the niioe, -^nd thereafter plaintiff wade the
Xsssc to Ueorge K. osaaler.
i' It appears f?o« the foregoing ireoitsl thf?t vhlle
pi«ilntlff consented to the »88ignflGBBt of the leaae to Paul ^eiss
sAd Paul GL%ttk, that did not relanae the defendants froa their
liability to nay rent. Th^^t aa veil under the coTenanta of the
Isaae nnd the aasignaent thereof, they yrete held liable to pay
all Teat aocrulni^ under said lease notwithstanding the asalgnaent*
Tfasrs was naught in that aasigaaent ^hich tended to release
dsfaadants froa their reaponalbllity to obserre sll the corenants
of the 1 ass aa wsll after the assign^aeat as befors Including
»*C»lB£^i-
^'♦•S 1.1*^
- 4 -
tli« liability to paf rent noorulng thereunder. Th« contrsdt of
the pATtiee ««■ la writing, find there Is nothing In euoh oontreet
rA easing either of defendants fron their contmctual llabliltj
to P9.J xattt for the dealeed ^remises, the erldenoe failed to
eotablioh a release of the defend^^nts, or either of thea, froa
their obligation to nay rent under the lense. wkaa welss aad
KLaak abandoned the premises and the defendinte likewise. It
beoaae the duty of plaintiff to use his best efforts to aia-
laise the daaage resulting from such ^^ba^ndonment and non-pAyaeat
©f the rent as best he might. He thereupon prooweded to ayUce a
lease to George K. dessler, 5^8 hereinbefore reolted. As held la
last Side Auction Jq» ▼. i^onn. Ina, vp,. 186 111, 156s
■^Opon the abandonment of the ler^sed premises by
the tenant it was the right vnd the duty of the landlord
to take chATge of the urealsea, preserve them from Injury,
«5,nd. If it could, re-rcnt thea, thua reducing the dassages
f»» i?hioh the lessee i?a8 liable,"
Moreover by the second clause of the lease it «as eo provided.
The attempt of defendants to clala ?: surrender of the
pyfilaas, resting entirely in parol, is inadjsissible to change
or vary the contr-ct of the iTsrties in writing under seal,
Furtheraore suoh evidence iras not adaisslble under the ple.<tding8.
On abaadozuaeat by the tenant ^^ landlord talcing possession of
the d^slsed orealses under the cc^venn&ts of the lease such taking
poaaesslon rill not operate to release the lessees from the nsyaent
of subsequently accruing rent, Groaass v, St, P^ul Trust JOj^ 147
ibid* 634; darnes v, aorthem Trust Coa^-^ny. 169 ibid, 113,
Under the contract of tb vldrnced by the
Xaase ?ind its assignaent, plr^lntlf f aade suoh » T>nam, f^cif case
entitling hla to a Judgment for the >!iraount of the unpaid r»nt la
aooordenoe with the oovemuits of the leasa, -^hle prlmn f-^.cie oasa
vas neither met nor overooae by ^ny coap«tent evidence proffered
by def end^nt^K
♦«*if.5i>jRSli:§l> ftf
- 5 -
The record la full of errors In the court* a ruling* upon
the erideno*, and we think this wn« given expression by the trial
judge* d Tmuktkm, f'hen he said; "The trouble with thla case ie
«e have gone into a lot of extr.%neoue eiatters, I ^nnt to oleaa
It up." The rights of t^«^ ptirties ore goverendd by the ter«s
of the leaae and its aesignment on the conditions in such
nsslCMieat aaiaed, but inste^^d of adhex'lng to the re»l issues to
be tried the court permitted wide digressions tberefrm. The
eourt allowed oounsel to inqulfe as to the drinking habits of
soae of the swrtiea, 'the defendant iSoteessIer testified, ^^gainst
the objection of oounsel for pi»intlff, thnt plaintiff "got
real tough", and the saae witness ?K^in testified to aooie fighting
and th5at he knooked plaintiff to the floor, and that plaintiff
was int»xiorited n^'jrly sll the tlae from May 18^ 1933 to V-aj 35,
11^3, and that he ^»»«n»t sober after that; and again he testified
that plaintiff mtB sober enough to know «?h3,t he vras talking
ftbout. On re-direct e^^aiination defendant Schuessler was maked
If pljiintiff had ever told hia th«t he had t'rken treatment in na
Instttutioa for dnmkenness, and was asked on cross exaaination,
"?jere you ever seat to the psychopethlc hospital t" to which the
witness replied '♦I don*t see yhy 1 should an«w«* that question,"
Plaintiff's ooimsel objected, Itat his objection w^s overrt^Ied.
The witness asked the trlnl judge, " Do i have to answer th&t?"
On being ^dviaed thiit "The oourt says th»t you do*, he answered
■y«s".
It seewt th^t suoh t?8tlflK>ny, «?liclted in the w&j it
w»a, could hnre only been for the pwrpose of prejudicing the jury
«9U.ast the i;:>laintlff. These prooeeding^ tended to huaili^te the
plaintiff, and were entirely improper an«J uncalled for, and fro«
the jury's verdict it "ould f^ppear thct suoh iattaterisil ^nd la-
proper testiarany injected into the record, as before recited,
deprived the plaintiff of that fair trial *® "^^^^ ^* ^^^
5-«Y ^
- 6 -
•ntitled u«d«T the Inw, On r r«trlml the errors nbore pointed
out will not be repeated,
for the errors indicated the Judgaent of the i«unlcipal
Court IB reversed, and the osuse ia reamjided for » new trial
to be had In aooord rith this opinion.
tUEVERBEO k&O R£MAilD£i).
fflltSOM « RTHER* J J. OONCOH.
»• sSi •'*<-
Jut^i^tSiS?' a^ ^35 ??»a
'-iftMTliMi!.5'.--t-
S3073
Opindon filed April 17, xa29
«R, PRKBIOlsa JUSTI0E HOLDO^ dellTered the opinion of
the court.
This 0Rus« is here tar th© aeoond tl««, ^.nrl »»i^ dis-
posed of by this oourt In 'in opinion hr'tnded iown in c^ee
G«n, «o« 32013, ^47 111, Apr-. 6'-^5. The o*iu8e vns reversed
and reminded for a new trl^l beO)>>uSie the trial oourt iaproTi-
dently Inatruoted a verdloll in f:^vor of defcnds^nts. The
pleadings n.xe the eaae as when the c^st -jtis first before us,
t^ey nre recited in the opinion of tMs court ind so "tre the
mterial fiots given in evidenoe upon the fir^^t triRl. ^or
suoh ple«j4inge aind recitation of faots 're refer to the opinion
supra without agsin reciting then here.
There wia ^ trial before oourt pnd Jxury '^•ith a
resulting verdict in fnvor of olaintif f )»nd against def<snda,nt8,
with an sssessfuent of dsisages in the sum of .:5,030, Motions
for a n«v tTi«il And in arreat of judg'aent were onde '<nd denied,
end « judgment entered upon the verdlot for the ^/wount ther»>of,
and defendants aerial.
Oefendnnts assign ^n:i nrgue for revers'»l the dpni«l
•f dsfendanti* motion in arreet of Jud^ent on the ground th-^t
S^OES
in> »&iimit:.^
•i|l!#a»....i'»q-.
.^•^y^;;* »ti'5?
' '■ iM»«*i,««-r. 4^,, ^$tam *ti? .^i?^ •<?# ♦i.i:i fJM* ,8j!ftJSi; .©^a ,ii«»j)
'•Jt^' MBit' '<iM»' MlB' tKiMMl' «Aitt %« <tclr . '
,M|if««> .iM(£i' i^NK'' ''i#»» ' fjmmf' ■
.«o«»1-»o fcis.«
l^aintiffia d«qlnr^tion w^^a mt'jrially dcfeotlve. In th^t it did
Bet alleg* th»t plaintiff m^B ready, ntole ^nd wllilnp to r»erfor«
hia part of the Rg»«eaent; thnt it did not show that plaintiff
had been dajsagvd by the j^J.leg«d breftoh; th-^t th« oourt erred
la denying defendant's motion for «j,n Instructed verdict ou^e
at the (dose of the 9?.8«; that there is too ooarietent erldenoe
in the reoord of any daaage to the plaintiff; error in giving
Instruotion 3, 3 and 4 tamderad by plaintiff, and in refusing te
give inatruotione 1 %nA ?,, tendered by def end»>jat« ; error in
peraitting the Introduction of plaintiff's exhibit* s, 4, 5, «*nd
6, !ind in not reouiring pl«».i«tiff to ©le«t to proceed either
vndar the flret or seoond oount of the deelaratlon.
T^e first wyremeat of defendants upon entering Into the
triel now before ua ims their motion to reouire the plaintiff to
•leot to proceed under the first or seoond oount of the deolsr-
etioa. *he deolamtion is the snae as th«t under vhioh the
first trial «»» had. "^'e think after that trial '^nd nfter the
hearing la this court the motion CJ^ae too l:^te, The parties had
■«de no forwer objeotioa to either of the oounts of the declar-
ation, nor hftd a notion been »?de to require plaintiff to
elect »8 to ^hiob ooixnt he rould proceed under in the tri?il of
the ease. Ho aotioe ^ms ever given before the trial of the
intention of dofend^ints to tmke such ^ notion. The issues stood
in the instant trinl as they did upon the first trial. To ^low
or not to allov the motion rested In the sound dlsoretion of the
oourt, and we o»*nnot any under pII the oircvusst^noes thnt the
oourt abused such dlsoretion in denying the aotion. Moreover
tre are of the opinion th>^t both counts were gtMuuie to the issues
aa developed by the testimony; th»t both oount upon the tortious
»otlon8 of the defcnd?.nt8. Furtheraore, If it o»n be a»»ld th-»t
there was error in such ruling, t»e think auoh c>rror, if error it
• n »
1N» Jki%t tdi ISt *3{»*SBSf ■*!*««»«? fcJ&tWWF Hf. --., , .:i9
a©*f«p* »j((r,«# »m«e««34 s-TST »im<).:
m^*^9>i •at Mm.''-
Sum- blm n4 um il 'U »#«|W6^»'- > ii;ui>Aa-i',
- 31 -
b«» •*• <mr«d by the verfllct. It *«»» held in C. Ht k, n. h. Go^
▼. Wurphy. 198 HI, 463, thjit ^.Mle it U i«r>rop»T to Join in
th« «Mae d«ciHTntion for pereon.".! injuries % oount Rg^inst two
defendants n-lth ?. count !?e"»in«t •aob of the« ©•▼•rilly, still
undOT the fifth ol^juge of seotion six of the stwtvte of
AmondaontB .*ttd Jeofails aueh aiajolnder, b«^ing % "aiispleallng"
»• the toxw is used in the atfttute, i% not ground for a action
in arrest of Judgtte&t after verdict.
Krea were the ruling erroneous, it urns cured by the
Terdlot.
It was not neoeasnry to ch.'jrge in th!«^ deel'irwtion
plsintlff's re^dlneee, wiliinpiess nd ability to v>erfor« the
ooBtract on •-is pert. The action is for s. tort. The tort w^.s
alleged in the deolar^itioa and iDrov«n upon the trirJ. vith the
resulting Judgment, ihis oofrered every essentlil rec:ulre»ent,
7hev« is K& abuadi^noe of evldeaoe showing that Mniokie
represented defend??nts, for as sf^id in the fonaer oi:>inion of
this court:
"The STldenoe of ^, H. i-henclpy himself sho^s th^t
i^ackie was => saleswan for the iefendanta until late in
^ay, 1*34, »nd th^-'t aft'^r June 10, 19'^4, h© gnvft Mnok*e
the rrlTilege of staying there in the office ijuatil he
paid up certain aonfy th«t ^n, 'herpley, h?'d advanced
for hi«} that Maekie occupied an office with the defend-
nnta until sometime in 13S5, the ex&ct date of i»?hioh he
did not remember;"
end the eridenoe abund?!ntly shows that defendant &. H. Shenpley
took an noive part in the negotiations bet^Aeen M^iokle i»nd
pl^iintiff. ^, H. Sheppley expressed his willingness to hold
the title umtil Chapin paid the ooafedssion, and «^hen that was
done to reoonvey the property to pl'?inti#f, f, h. ahepplcy
held the deed and at that tiae plaintiff asked hiai where the
■$ **■
/ i .iJiri.Kau
. 4 ->
abatraot was. H« r«rai«d that It y,-,ua not her© bwt th-tt h«
ahould h»v« the abntr^ot, aad plaintiff left hla saying, "I
irlll be up m a fe*; dnyo ^nd you look it up," Thereof tex
pl&intiff rt^turned ^nd asked for the p.b»itrnrOt, j*.nd f. H. ^hepplejr
replied, "'Sell, you should have it, I r« p»ing to hold jrou
Teeponwible for it," The enle *«a cLoaed in Oheppley Bros*
office; that or the office dooT v:^» the name Sheppley Brother*
Realty Goapany, no other n on the door; plaintiff »rote
dova to rititta, Ohio, mnd got inform tion; thnt he vt^nt doim. to
Shtppley Srothera and •««? and t;<Ilced to both a. a, ntiA £, H.
at the eaoMi tine, aaid that thla pro;-erty h«d been oonveycd to
KBother perty ^^nd that there was s mortgage of ^2600 placed
oa it; thst he asked hor thnt came »b©ut, 5.nd he aaid, "se did
not knor siaything about that", ?*nd then said "ire will look into
the aiatter", and nothing further »?),« s^id, He .-.sked K, lu
8h«pplsy if the deed (Signed to OougLnst a, Qunn v^s reoorded,
and be e^id tb»»t he haid iiegLected to record it at the tiise,
n&intiff testified tb«t hie rooming house sold for ^?5,000,
th«it he WRS to get tSOOO for hie cciiity. The Plijvis., Ohio,
property w'i® at no tiaie oonveyed to hia, '•nd he 's^ae not paid n
penny of the $5000 by anybody.
There is ^n abund^snoe of admissible evidenoe whloh, if
the jury believed, is sufficient to support the verdict for the
plftintiff, Tb«tt ^*Rckie was the agent of defend.'^xnts was a
question of fact for the jury and the jury upon ooapetent evidenoe
found tb%t he v<9a. It is signifio.'^nt th%t defendants did not put
Ibtokie upon the witness stnnd to eontradiot the tesxinony of
l^aintiff regarding such ugency, Kvan from the testimony of the
dsfendsats It Asy be gathered that ^i^^okfte was their agent, beoAUse
It vas admitted that (^okie was in their office, that be was
' ^' §i ■'Urn' ■ . ■
|i' '■- #1 im'"
fftiiC^.-,.- , ^iMvi..; •(■:'" ■^'••■=- •^"•> *-""'^«'* fefiLb —
0i Mti»vn«i« m»4 k»A i|;ttWs««^ Wirf^ tfi^ iM«tt .t««Fl^ »sitA4i 9tfi' #j»
I' II «i^-
f>t>n^ktm- j^mimffm^ ■'mtf0'^flat% 'mt ibm^ ^tf^'^i^"*^'' ^^-^ ^* mt^tttx^p
- s -
irorklRg for thcan on oosmisaion, «tiid th<vt the ooaulssloaa were
dlTlded se-50, and the tranaaotlon in oueation w«8 one that
Mattkle brou^^ht Into the offioe. The evldenoe so est<Lbli8hed
IB the %«to triala in the ;juperlor Oourt, Yhie bring true. It
la IsBWteriaJL Aether the not of rai8l«fl,s'».noe, the j<r»Tft.«aan of
the suit, w^a cofuwitted by >i!%.okie, the ngcnt, ot by the defendnnta.
They are reaponaible In ©1th ei* event.
A ChronoloKlo?! state'^ipnt of the oventa oulmlnptlng In
plaintiff's belr.g defrauded by defendants la in brief ?i8 follora:
iB Maroh, 19554, pl-.tlntlff aought to purohaae h. rooalng
houae and In negotiations enrried on by hlai in the course of
•oapletlag aueh purchaae de«0.t with the defendants ;^nd their
agent, Cr^okle, the result of trhloh was that plaintiff purohfieed
ft rooaing house on Kenaore -Tenue, Chloago» In January, 1935,
ke returned to the defend.«tnta* office for the purpoee of hsYlng
tha» aell the rooiaing houee, .'*nd arranged with defBndints for
a aale by exchanging the rooming house for property in I'icua,
Mlaail County, Ohio, owned by Mra, 3«Tsh A. lioi^eeley. In these
negoti>%tloBa be dealt !»ith the defendanta and their ^xgent, iJmolcle,
Mra» MeNeeley o^ned % house and lot in loua, Ohio, >»herf( she
had formfirly lived; she inawcred n "blind ad" of defend^inta
and received a r«»ply from them the result of -^hioh tfua that it
vtia agreed by r>iaintlff to aocept froa "ira. iJeiiieeley her i icun
property aa an even axohwnge for hla Ohlo^go rooalng houae. At
the suggestion of the defendants, acting throu^ Heokle, their
agent, the title to the -(oSeeley riQu« pror>erty w^s titk^n in
the n»«e of one Dougl-!«8 0. Ounn, vho It wns ngr<?ed should hold
the title until plaintiff paid a 1300 coaaiianion for the S'».l« of
hla reoaing houae* Tbe deed vn» amde to Gunn s,nd left >rith the
agaat, M-HOkle, for the defendanta, and ai»ekle gnve the dtfiid to
* s «.
'§islai&«>'r « »«;»<*9Uj(#f fl># #<S|ii*.s -. '\f|<ft3)^ ,»«I?I 4rf<»t:«i* uX
ft«te *««mI(» ,*i;^ nm»:i^ mi i%i ' ■
«<*)*# „*:M«^«#: i^«?«k«i*jr- •IP***** '■ imKmiiiim'Wk-' «il#' ^- •ffl»-jfei»'»9®t«w- .^iwi?
- 6 -
the d«f«ndAnt S. H. 3heppl«7. It ors agr««d thmt ^btpt^feyy
•hovdd laaedla.tely record the deed, ioon ther«^aft«r WROkle
pr«a«nted the d«e4 to Mrs, voNevley '•nd her huebnd st^^tlng thst
th»re w*« error In the first de«d '^nd -procured the t^oHeeltya to
ex«out« a seoond deed to one viola Klauer. Tlhe seoond deed
to Ilcttor wns lm«edl«tely recorded and s mortgage plaeed upon
the property by Viola Klsuer to secure the stw of ^3500. All
of this WIS doae rlthotit the knowledge or consent of plaintiff.
Hie resulting daaage to plaintiff it?is the loos of ^;S,000 vfaioh
vao the rslue of the ?iqii«,, Ohio pror^rty.
Defendants nrgue thst there is no proof of daainge to
plaintiff, Kawerer, the daaage is the VJilue of the Plcrwi! property
irhioh tms utterly lost to plaintiff, and Mrs. MoXeeley* who
Qttsilifiod as 3 ^udge of ^^uee of Plq«a real estate, testified
tliftt the property was of the Ti^lue of tS.OOO, Mo further
OTldenoe of value was either preferred or reoelved.
C^ the Question of v^J-ue, the following occurred *fter
the oloee of sll the evidenoe.
"The Gourt; L#t the record show the ctise is re-
opened for the purpose of (out of bearing of jury)
allowing the testiw^ny of i^rs, ;4ciieeley -^s to the ir?>lue
of the Ofelo property to go to the jury.
••ar. Seeker: oefend'5nte, by their attorneys,
stipulate and p.lmit thr>t If ttrs, *<cMeeley ^ns cniestioned,
plaeed on the itnees st»nd, that she would testify thnt
in her opinion the Pinun, Ohio, property hsd -j vUue of
15,000,
*The Court: Is that the stipulation you tmnt la
this record?"
Ax, Uevy* counsel for plaintiff, aasvered "yes**.
In this state of the reoord there o%n be no flruestion
aWttt the TRlue of the Piqua property, «nd tb«*t vaue of t5,900
■a&'«<?»i«i 3|^:,J«» ^J6«(»SS^ *»^
-^^ «* or -'^) aff#
- 7 -
w«t th« extent of th« daoatge suffered by T>lftintlf^ by re^soa
of th« tortioua oonduot of ief«nd?*nt.
At th« o1q«« of thft proof* ther« «na •ridionoe warra&t-
iBg the oourt in submitting thf? o«.a« to the jury, and in deny-
ing dofeBd»tnt»» notion for an instructed TercUct in their fnvor,
*e find no revtralble error in the giving of instruo-
tlona ^, 3 and 4 at the request of plstlatlff. The aotlAa for a
n#w trial «aa in writing, and the objections were made to
instructions 3 and 4» Instruction nuiaber Z is not open to the
orltiolMi fflftdt «nd ^oes not constitute reversible error.
As to Aefendtnts* refused inatruotlons 1 iind Z, these
Instructions were aiesrly erroneous, Jjumber i Iwatnioted the
jury th»t the d»».aag«a sustained by plaintiff %s tb« result of the
breach of the ?j.gree!aent by defendmit^ in failinj^ to record the
deed axe too r^soto and isruoh a* could not reasonably have been
wlthlA the oont^plation of the osrtiea, and a\«5h as coitld not
h»Te been nntldpstted by th« artles in the uaujO. courae of
events, "then the defendnnte 'ire not liable". The defend mts
were liable to r4sintlff la dasaages not such as aight h'vve been
in oonteniJlatlon of the prtlea, but such as the I tr yrovild swjsrd
wader the proofs of fraud contv^ined in the reoord. Defendants
are liable for d^-jpages cxueed by their tortious acta. These
acts resulted in the olalntlff^s loalug lib© Piqua, Ohio, property,
vhisb was ladlsputedly of the value of ^5000«
Instruction nuaber 3 told the jury tbi^t unlesa plaintiff
proved that he had eoaplled with fUl the terms and conditions
of the alleged contraOt vlth mXa lefendants fund tendered the
Boney due to thea under the teras of the contract, olaintlff ooxild
not recover. The action ^ns for tort and not under any oontrsot.
- r» -
and for th^ dfiiaag* which irose froa th« tortlo. n the
defendant* In proowrlni? a 8urrend«T by fraudulent represent*^ tlona
of th» d9«d flTSt glT«n to the i iqua, Ohio, property, a^nd by tho
fraudulent repreaent9.tlon« securing «» second dep(i of the ronerty
to Tlola Klnuer, Turtheraore, the jury frero» in ; n
oth«r Inetruotions Riven, awffloi^ntly InsKtmoted upon the Inn
npnplieeble to every m«t«?rlsl phaae of the cnse.
The nsaln objection to plaintiff's ffxblMte 3, 4, 6 %nd
6, which eoneisted of certified oopiea of deeda oonveying tha
PiCfU*# Ohio, property, in that *ley ?re not origin-da, we think
in the oirouK«t'<taoea of thia o&sie the cartifled eopiea of the
deeda a?»de by thp recorder of riqu*, Ohio, were th« beat evidence
aTail^ible to plaintiff, ^n6 ^t might '.vasuae thet the originsls
n^T9, if not in the pwaaeaaion, within the^ oontrol of the
dofendinta, irho sight hare produced thoa aa the beat evidence,
AS aeoondary evidence theae exhibits vrepe uroperly admissible.
There m%9 no specific objection 'oade to these exhibits.
The objaotiona iKre gen«r».l. Clovry v, HQlmea. 170 Ul, App, 135,
Exhibit 5 w^a » oertifioate of the :^8oretary of sv^te
of Ohio, that the «xhi>^ita were orooerly and duly certified by th«
recoTdar, ^t w^9 an originnl document and roqulred no other
proof for Ita Indent ifiostl on. In UJll^eaTpie v, aillaar>ie. 159
111, 84, it is said;
•Objection ia i^da that the copy of the deed in
question should not have been i.dmlttea in evl enoe. It
it w*>.8 claimed, upon the heaJlnf;, that the nrorer found-
ation for the introduction of n toI evidence of the eon-
tents of the instrument hvd not been laid by proving th.-it
the original could not be found, then specific nbjeolton
ahould '^ave been a-^de, so th'^t the cros«-oompl?^inant
co^il'^ h-^ve h^d the opvortunlty to supply the ranting proof.
Mo 8\ioh objaotion T?aa amda,**
,ta*^ ^iH'lis'i,??? 9di- tj
- 9 -
furtb«rniOTe nil of the foTt^going exhibits 1o not
%ppeaT ia the bill of exoeptlons, nnd r».e tipld In ?<orth aide
Poor t a»»h y, «ohuet«. 189 111. App, 379, the euffieienoj
of the mieeinr dooumenta to justify tbp finding of the trl«»l
oourt vill be vTeeuiaed,
Fiadlni?: no rererslble errot oo««ltted hv the trial
court, the judgment of tho^oiperlor 'ourt 1« -^fflriied,
WIL80M A NO HYSER, JJ., Ooneur.
■ im ^f i«"?^ *^A «.lll i'Bi .Mi,g«&;
ivtrii.^.I'*"?
fSSt'' < »'^.t» I
(A wntXr^
4-^l&:^ M'v^: h'
33066
.-i^
Opinion filed April 17, 1939
MR. PR£SIDllia JU£TICJ£ MQI.80^ delivered the opinion
of the court.
This is an action upon a contysot of eatployaeat, d-ted
Jime 18, 1926, executed by piaintiff under se??! and by the
defendant by 3?i«iel c.. Bebulian, its president, wkereby plaintiff
was eaj>loyed n« ailee asaager for ^ v>«riod of one year. The
contr-^ot WAS terminable upon thirty cibye «rritten notice by
either party to the other before its expir?*tion by lialt of tlaie*
On July 26, 19^6 defendant ^re such % notice in writing to
plaintiff terali^ting his contract thirty d«ys after Ite (fete.
It *"?8 -sgree-i inter ml ia th^t plsintiff should d«vote
all of his time to th<^ bueincss of defendant as sstles ^^anager,
and during euch employment vae not to engnge in any other siailar
business; that plaintiff should have full control of the s^les
end of the business of defendant, and shoiald hire land discharge
SAlesflien and Derforai >)11 duties incidental to the ooeition of
sales isanager, ^t was agreed that plaintiff should receive as
ooapenssticM for -.11 s^lee brought in by hia and accepted by
dsfendatnt «. sum equivalent to 3;i= of the contr'act price due "^nd
payable when the lo«n is opened, ^.nd,on all transactions -shich
are secured by defendAnt, either through the efforts af salesmen
employed by plaintiff or obtained by defendant in the usual
''*H^.
iS(S^ ^m^XA
.^•imi
soe.^
esei »VI IxiqA csiil noxfliqO
tifi ^tliUc'iKj -IMS* «t :is*f^^^?-^;fI saltJifc 11:- ^'^c; ;
- 3 -
oours€ of business^ a 9\m •qulT)>ilent to lit of the contrniet -rice,
the eost of flAAttcing the trnmsAOtioa to be excluded rh«n eo»-
putlng th« WMBiisslon due <*nd p> yable to pl^lBtlffj thmt plaintiff
should hare « dnwiag aooouftt of ^ilOO * week, such moneys to be
deducted froa other moneys due under the cont3r*5Ct, «nd thit
plaintiff should not dmw say noaey unless^ the eottmlssiona enrned
are sufficient to oorer the auHS being wlthdr'Mm by his. It
was alao agreed t'^nt defendant should pay to t>l«»lntiff, ia
addition to th*? fon^goiag ooaaissioas, the sum of ^^000 on %
building being erected at datalpa %ad S|hiu1 ding. Streets, Obio%go*
&ad it wns further agreed th,«t p.ll aoneye tharetofore dr^wn by
plaintiff should be deducted froa the ooamisoions then or
thereafter to be e'<med. It was further agreed that If the
ooatract be temiaAted by either party before the expir^^.tlon
thereof, then plaintiff ahould reeelTe his coapenastlon on all
busineaa brought in, started or pending^ at the time of such
tamlnation and pnya^nt, and T>ay»ent should be sade la soeordanoe
with the terms stipulated %bove, and defendant agreed to render
a stateaeat to plaintiff from tlae to tiae showing trmna^otions
InTol^ed and eosnlssions due to his.
IB dafendant's sffidtvit of aerlts it was admitted
that the {»>ntr»ct between the turtles was eat«?red into, snd by
that affidATit it w»-s reel ted in happ vfrb^irndgita ?»lso thsit
defeads^at terminated the contrsiet by a 30 day notice given to
plaintiff on the 36th day of July, 1936, but denies th*it nt that
tiae there was due to plaintiff S685 or any other aiun. Defendant
sets out fifteen items, «^hieh it -alleges plaintiff drew ia
acoord^rnce with the contract nnd which totalled @1860, ^nd then
there is set out two items of earnings, being the HOOO paid Ml
ths Cataljia and Spaulding Building, and S200 !>aid on the filler
Iwlldlng, and alleges that plaintiff overdreip ^is account In
t'v... * « -
£ m 00^^11$ sans dj^ »fti8dlv?34t&tf«d |^«3«$'£q1 ailit &# «ei#th(te
..^..jMt w««l* -l!?^^ «wis*i i«9^n41;t«o a*«a
- 5 -
«xc««s of the oomis«ions due bla of t0CO, flittd el*l«« th«t plain-
tiff «fl8 indlebt«Hi to it in the latter sua.
There vne a trial before court ond ^ury ?\nd n ▼er<iiot
a«ee«9lag paal&tlff*e damages at the z\m of 7050. There is
BO recitation in the sito8tr<>ot that a aotion for h new trlisl or
la arrest of Judgaent was a^ade. It does show, however, that a
judgaent on the verdiot was entered, njid the tippeol no» before
us prayed snd parfeoted.
Defendant assigns and mrgues for reversal that the
court eoaaaitted rerersitole error in refusing to adalt Schulaan»3
testlaony tpndlng to prove on behalf of defendant th?it Schulaan
•a^ered into a contract i^ith plaintiff before the exeeution of
the oontrsot of aaployiaent, whereby y^lnintlff had agj^eed to
waive any ooaaisaloa on the McGoralck de-il if there waa any
loss to defend*int, and n rsfus^l to perait defendfiitt Schul»!\n
to show that there was a loss; nixi in refusing to r.dalt testi-
mony thit plaintiff was to secure his ooBKlsslons in the
Pleialiag de»l out of the second mortgage paper on the property,
aad that it -jrae impossible to nrocure a second siort^ge on the
property; aad ia admitting t*^stlaony to sho^ th^^t nfter the
Jones deal was entered into a aew arrangement wns made rhereby
lAaintlff was to receive 2^ instead of ij^ as provided in nis
contract; in the giving of instructions at the instamee of
plaintiff, and in refusing to give certain instructions offered
on behalf of defendant.
The material Question for solution by the jury ^^s tha
amoirnt due plaintiff under the contract bet^reen the parties,
about vhich contract aad its teraa all parties are in accord*
»sam 9^" mi
-.-«ei
«S5'.''"
- 4 -
The •Tid«no« of both parties demon8tr<)te8 that th«
G<Mip«aaatloa of plaintiff v»s fixed by the contract. In the
light of the coatraet the court did not •xt in oxoludlng pTo#f
of a verbal agreeaent between thQ >>^<irties made hefore the
execution of the ?^ritten contr?:ct, by which it 'tts sought to
prove that plaintiff agreed to w^lte any ooamiselon on the
so-'OjLlled ^oooraiok de I if tbt^re ir<a .^ ioes thereon to
defendant. The evidence does not aho» thisit defendant made Any
pAyaent to plaintiff epeelfying on what '♦.ocount auoh moneys
vere paid &• commissions* ^iuoh moneys ^rere paid under the
terms of the contraet giving plaintiff the right to draw on
account. The ecale of i>^yment of oosKuisaions to plaintiff
was fixed by the oontracty and it Is an axiomatic principle of
law that all verl«l agre?«ents »ade prior to the execution of
the contract eust be regarded as merged in the oontr«ct; and
as held in aroxhaa v. riarriaaton. 137 Xli. -pp. 454, a wtttten
contract executed between the parties a persedes all prior
negotiations, repreeentHtions and agreeisents upon the subject.
Xa Grubb v. 4tilaa. 243 111. 466, it *?*e held that In an action
apoa n written oontr^>ct it is Drcsxaied tht>t the oontrs^ot contains
the ^ole of the i^greasMRt and all specific oonveresitlons coa-
eeming the antter ax* merged ia the agrepaeat, --nd hence there
can be ao recovery of di-aages for % breach of the promise which
is aot n. rxurt of the contrnet.
The defendant under the contract kept the oooEaission
account between it and plaintiff, ?.nd therefore is presuaed to
have kept ^n accurate &c<»>ulift of the deals under the eontr«tot la
which plaintiff was entitled to be ^id n ooreaiission thereunder.
fks prcsideat of defendant, achiilsan, -saa called by plaintiff
under -Section SC'- of the ii^unicipal Jourt 'Ct, P-nd he testified la
much detail regarding the deals in ^ioh plaintiff was entitled.
- * -
■ t9i^m iN^; 9^^m »f»»@«> '^oi^i •«f«9issi£ie»Q9 ftj; i»i«|. t^t^n.
««1:9^ Xifk «al5*es»sr«if ' iftstt*^ ssii^ is?ii»w*acf l^t^sre^Jt* f&f^i'm>r>
'9miM^mt& f9:«ttm^ nki"$»M t^gs^-'i »
&■• -i* «*t Hi |j-
- s -
60(1 not entitled, to t>« pAld a commission under the ooutr?iot.
Tbia testlaony was suppleaented by vitneases Jl^aaer, i'aton,
plaintiff Ktrus, i^ialaaing, "unberg and ?f«ll* Againat tbia
defendaat oailed Pfell, plaintiff *8 T<!itaeaa« aa its i?itneaa,
OB* 3ehalla«.a and the president of defendant, f:aauel a.,
Schulaan. An exanin^tioa of the teutlnony of all these witneaees*
in OUT o inion* Resply aust^^lns the verdiot of the jury.
It vas n nueation of fnct for the jmy, and if they
belleTed plsintiff and his witnesses, c:nd g*re more weight to
their teatiatony than to th<«it of the ^i^itnessess for defendant,
vhioh we will aa3u»e they lid, the veriict has y.n a«ple four.d:?,tion
on whioh to reat» It was patent that the *?ltneBS Sohnlsnn,
preaident of defendant, ?<us not only a hostile witness, taut
tbat he waa greatly int created in the defendant oomr'^Lny, und
la teatlfylng claiaed that he and the company were one.
eohuIaaa*3 teatiseny bore evidence of his hostility to plaintiff,
which imdoubtedly the jury observed, as they had tx right to,
and to take auch hoatility into eonsid«r«tloa in weighing his
teatlKony ^nd in srriwlng at their verdlot, Schulaan testified
that he knew plaintiff's wltneas Sunbcrg by seeing hla on the
atreet ind "throwing hla out of the office", So reason ?^s
assigned for this hoetilc nction of Schulm^n, -^nd it smj be
that hla mdaltted violent conduct to 5i»x,at}f.yg gny have h«d the
effect of lapressing on the jury that he w^e hostile to the
plaintiff. ITiia was proper for the jury to t ke into consider-
ation In deterainlng what freight they would give Schulasn'e
teatlaony.
The court did not err In refusing to receive evidence
de hora the tenra of the contract of the parties.
The queation of omiiaiaslon under the i«<cGoralck de^
was goverened by the oontr&ct, and the court did not err in
^f^s^jg^ ^M'^^m mmi>^iBssn^ $:' M^ g^'W \MUk$s^ Jos Nte
. -;i#: ^s." ?i#: imm^ ^m^^-imt^ t® #a»ibi««Pt ' m4i 1^ w*® XX«j^2 *«©
■''Wm_^Ti,. ■';r..«dba»l«:" -i4;:iay'a;«t;J6.j: tiS'JW*^ IMfT *rf ^«d^
. -(10 ??:£■.?-* x«J®<l««^ '^■^j &0.s!t »fJ t&M b^iiH^ 5iaiXli?gs3* ai
^Hei^-*** «a«:iS«feS' •#9lJ&«i?' «t»^* ## :!iatvt ; .ic-tsi^ssJ
,al^?rert:4s?* fen* t^
refusing to p«»r«lt Sohulmnn to XrsXitj thnt be on bph^ilf of
d«f«adi.]nt entered into n contract «ith plaintiff befortt the ex-
«eutloB of the contr?»ot of eaployaient, wbereby plaintiff had
!^greed to walTC nnj oowalBDlon on th« UcCormlcli: d«?il if there
wa« p. lose to defendant, ana in refusing to peiwlt tBohular>ja to
testify that there w.s auoh a loss* Tbeae observations are
equally pertinent in reg!9.rd to the commissions under the so-
called i'lelndlng de<tl, %b all prior smd ooatewporaaeoiis ^^ei^ments
are la law goTerened by the written contract.
There ie nothing In the record to indicate that the
inetruetiona were givan eithi^r in writing or orally. In the
absence of »ucfe ewldence we aay assume under the «tuni0ip?il llkjurt
Act that the Instructions were given orjdiy, ^'.s by th^t act
peraitted. *he instructions so given stated clearly ?.nd suffic-
iently the law appllc?.ble to the facts before the Jury, Further-
■ore Ko specific o''>jeotlon was pointed out to any of the given
iBstructiona, Uonaecoently general objections otade jtre not
sufficient to preserve for our rpviesw the correctness of such
rulings, &a held in (loaeer itocfe Fowder gp^ v, mshburi^. 3(3.
in, App, 361, gcner-il objdctionB to the giving and refusing of
laatructions are not sufficient to preserve the correctness of
such ruLlnga thereon for review, Oefendf^nt's Tafueei Instruction,
whioh contains the recitation that ''the defendant ia a ooapetent
wltnasa" eras properly refused, if for no sther reason that thst
defendant being an siTtifieial person and existing only in
conteaplHtion of law^ cotild not t^^stlfy.
The record discloses no reversible error before ua for
review, and the judgment of the JSuBlciT«il i^ourt is therefore
aff iraed,
^iffiraed.
» 11*801 AMD RTKSH, JJ,, OOXOTIR.
^^.$^-:%fy0^,^mf:i^-:fa0 XtHh)0$ ^t 0jmSmif3l^ *^mf^:0- ^&t9i/t9%
: 1^^
-Sil*'^^
»^;*ii*«ft^i * ,
Tifcvc lJ^^<;-
^Oi-^OW:.
Olt -^'feOffl
,?-;;•?-:«:: t^;;>-> ^,;t^i#a»f r'-
?i^«S»pli< i- .
^O0f^«al
ifi^ise t« •jgaia^up-'-"'- •■'^ ■«'-'
•st^'^ 'ivrt^^i-,;
. • •,1'^'j --_.-,
..J^S- *^ti:^«m,- ^'^ • -.--..- -■-
jSit * ■*-.■■
^»¥Vi'¥; .:^=^w ■■■■
■':■ SI
XOAOK).
nion filed April 17, 1929
~M
m, i-mmiim Jmtiot HCuao« d«llTered the oplaion
of the oouxt*
This !• a Jiult of the fourth ol'sss in the Wunl9lp*»l
Courts brought to recover upon an insur&noe policy issued by
dofendsat %nd delivered, to pi?tintift', for a collialon beti^een
his sutemobllo aod that of another. In whiofe pl?ilntlff*3 5.uto-
mobilo was daoMgod, %tt<l for the alleged daatage to thp (-rnr-f-rty
of another oauaec; by the aotion of plaintiff, and estr
Inciurred by plaintiff in an aotion for daaages brought api,iaat
hia» the amount ol tiaed b«ing ^394•a&•
n«f«ndAnt filed its afiiid'^^vlt of merits in -j^hioh it
denied aubatHntisuLly all the averacata of plaintiff's statement
of olaia, the fourth v>8iragT«\ph of -^Mah, ol'^lraing thsit the suit
ine not oommenoed ifrtthln twelve aonths of the aoorulng of the
oaiuae of aotion, aa provided In the laeurance polloy, etc., w^b
atrioken by the court, To this action of the oourt the def<7ndant
oade no objection*
There w&a « subnlaalon of the ©«uae by agreement of the
P4.rtie8 with a finding of the issues In favor of plaintiff ^nd
an aaaeaament of daoagea at the aua of $294. 36. After over-
ruling defendant's motions for a new trinl and in arrest of
jud^eat there ir»a a judgment entered upon the finding and
!» ■■■«".
^ifi^Xlm^y
W iW -l^ IZ-: : ■ -r -.1 tJi_^ff:
esSi t?I Iz'igA f)9.:ii noiniaO
ni*L !■ it Jt»r .~. <w ,*■ 4 K*."* 1
J«afj«^ t?^trm«^ mi$mMi to.^ iyjs>.fetffl^ . , . h^mr^ni
tm^Sitr-
ggj^ '> »•. :?• M «lrfr «■ * -i- v.. .V
■r*»>>«,Wfl,f' *K;'
^m0tKtt^
■■■■J© #t»«'aj9 «; . . i%^ wwR .'i': -s^t »«®jr*'
- 3 -
aftd defendant bring* th« r«oor<l here for our reriih* by «<pn«ai,
la th« trinl of the case pX&lntiff offered in
•▼Idonot the policy of ineur&no* Issued by the defendant to
plaintiff* together with the riders thereon, Inoluding the
rider vhioh oovered the risk for which the judgment in this
osse «mB procured. Ii^fore the aoeident in question plaintiff
wrote to defendfvnt'a agint requesting additional coverage
sgHinst all risks of daAAgc to the oar exoeeding |50. It
vas stated in the letter thnt "1 am leaving for ay ▼«>on.tlon ^nd
trant to hare «aaie coTered from todny»" The broker to whoa the
letter VH9 addressed oosplied by :&%king endorsements attached
to the polioy reviously issued, which w^Tf. executed in ooapliaaoe
with the apolioation. It wiS also proren th.^tt the '-iremiuai raa
pro rated fron July ^, 193S, and covered the risk in acoordmnoe
with the applioation and froa the d.-jte hthereof«
It further appears from the evidence th'it iJ3;a€dlately
upon plaintiff's return to '^hioago he interviewed defendant's
agent and inforaed hia of the aocident, and said to bia, '*:'B3
X eovered or aa Z not ooircredT" , to Ki^hieh the &gent replied,
"Iverything will be all ri^t and the general office notified."
Proof of loss tpas made in due time in accord with the terms of
the polioy, and a staieaent of loaa was made and forwarded to
the defendant, i^ny conferenees isrere had in the Ohieeigo office
of defendant regarding the claim, exceeding a period of two
■oaths* Defendant by letter dated October 3, 1935, rejected
plaintiff's olala nnd gave as a reason therefor th^t the ol^ia
arose before notice of nover»>,ge '-^s received by its agents <*nd
on that aooount it denied its liability.
The reoord shows that defendant proffered no defense
V„,.,i - E «
»ll«»**vo»^ i«a«'i**fci«t, fir.it*««fei«i»«; *ii«3|.s s*-*a#^#t*& 4^. •*«»?»
»op.-f>t'.-;^o« fil iait »4i *>»it*rw© IWMI. >©*^i t- ifi^ «o«^ t^-^--n mc
■A:* «jaijii ®«f £>i«* M« ,*ii©|fe'i9fi^.« M# tit ^H 'hmtn'iu '.. ........
*',^h^-iXi^i.f^ ml}^ .imntm^ :^^^ ^^^ t-^ihr its erf XiJi* gyaifii^^Twrj *»
- 3 -
4«nying that the Aooldmt hfippea«(i »8 olalmftd or mad* ^'.nJ issue
upon th« payment of the aums expeniei by plaintiff as * Tpavat
of the aooldent, ^s eet forth In his 8t««te»eiit of oltiln. Btlther
Is It denied that the Insursnoc, as written* vrtaz aooepted bfy
th« iil&lntlff aad pAld for in aooord with the applloatlon. It
is further In proof that jilalntiff oald the premlua to
defendant*)} Agent for QOTera.g:e froa July 3rd, whioh it has
rctiilned and never offered to return to plaintiff, in other
words, defendant took no >\etian to restore the st'jtue quo
whloh existed before the payment of the ladditlonal preaixm suad
the ooourrenoe of the aoolient. Jjy reVilning the prealu« after
kaovledge of the accident ^.nd due notio© thereof given by
plaintiff, it Impliedly assimed the obllgstion for the «idditlon*l
coverage for r-hioh th^ premluai v^^s paid s>nd received,
Ths evidence of plaintiff fvdiy eustftlns hia clalai,
both as to the accident, thR tlase o^hcn It occurred, and the f^ct
that It did ooeuT after the defendant ooa'ipany had accepted
suoh additional risk tsnd evldeinced the awaie by ItB rider dnly
eaecutcd ^nd «ttAOhed to the origin;^! policy of insurance.
Oefondant proffered no evidence disproving the plain-
tiff's oontentioB and bis evidence 0upr>ortlng the same, that
his aoeldent la question oocurred July #, 193&, Xhe teatlmony
of plaintiff sustained his olalM as to the aHOuats disbursed by
hlM 18 a result of the accident, and there la no evidence
sueeessfully ohalleaging .>tny of auoh dlaburaeaenta.
Thia la an aotlon of the fourth class nxid Is what the
evidence a&kes it irlthout regard to the pleadings, Obermeyer
▼. Wisconsin '>ilry Co,. 311 111. App. 313. llje case was tried
upoa Its aerlts and every olalm of plaintiff was suoeesafully
sustained by competent evldanoe heard in support of hie claln.
- 4 -
Defendant tirgu«t upon the fal«« prcmlae that th«
Tidsr on th« policy vaa not •ffpotlve nt the time of the
Rooident. The proof not only ehowe to the oontrnry, but there
la nothing; in the reoord rhioh suet-^ins defendjmt's unsuoportod
contention, the euffioieney of the rider on the policy in
question in suit to cover the ioci<^ent for which oo«pen8»,tion
vns sougjit thereunder, ie sxsatw.ined in Cottinghaa ▼, «-'tiQn?4
Mutual Ine. So, 2C9 111. App. g67, 5Lf firmed ^90 1X1. 26,
The trlel being before the court without the intervention
of n jury, *« will assume th«t the findlnpfs of the oourt »?ire
iMLsed upon the adaiealble evidence found in the reoord, and
ws find an ^bxmdr-nce of evidence ^hioh ?3U3ttiuB auoh findinjjs,
Dofendnnt pyeaerved ao objection to the order striking
the fourth p*ragraph fro« its affidavit of serlts. Therefore
there was no error in the court's denying to defendant the
rlgjht to introduoe evidence of the facts therein stated.
There la neither merit in lav or fmot supporting
defendant's defens«i^ Neither la ther<!t uiiy error Justifying a
reversal of the judgtaent of the fiunlclprtl ^ourt. therefore
the judgment is afHrmed*
■■isUbi«!»l«&' ^St 'jjjil^wi^i »*sN;j^«© «rf:J''ai' *•««» *Mf asw &t:9dt
m.it, ,.«
.^
aH|^« ttt ^,t etc
/
l.u'4:|ii.;;< OuUWf,
cots G'OUKn.
Jp«ll«.Blt. # ) '
Opinion filed April 17, 1929
ilR. JUOTIOlb HT8BR delivered the orinion of the oourt.
The defendant, J^uses w, Stevenis, onied an undivided
oae-half Intereat In ?» v-iluable long-tera ie»5 8e of n building
and lot situiiated oa the we»t side of CIf»Tk street beti^^een s^sidieim
and Monroe streets in the 0ity of Ghiesgo, kno*^ ^..^ the
"• Arcade" property, -is aon, R'.ymoBd Stevens, snd 0. J. Arnold,
e resident of the ;ity pf 'linne'vpalis, filnnesots, e<?oh otmed
a one-quarter interest, the l«nd ^md Imildlng ftii;3oininK
lsmedlatJ»ly ar?on the west ^ere oimed by the KntionnX Uife
lASumnee Oommny« The defendant w?.s the chRirK^n of the board
of directors of the IXiiBois Life Insurance Oompany and hia son
had been identified iPltb hia for a long period of years in the
seAageaent of that ^omp»ny. Arnold ^s the president of the
Vorthwestem Matlon«l lulfe Xnstira.Boe CkMipaay.
The plaintiffs i?ere duly licensed real estate brolcers,
eT>ermtlng in the City of Uhioago* In the tramsaotion involved
in this ^ppes^l they vere represented by Fred J. 'fucker, ^hey
elftia thnt in the e?«rly part of the ye^r 13/?7, the defendant
agreed '•ith Tuoker to oell the roperty in question for n
eonslderetion of ^ 550,O'X),O0 oash nw\ to oi^y ?i coeeale^lon of
130,000*00 provl ied >ie could obtain the eoneent of his oo-0'»nerB;
tl»t the defendi^nt secured such oonssnt ".nd that Tueker, noting
for t^e pl)%intiffs, oroduoed s buyer ready, i^illing -^^nd ^ble
t« purob&ae in accordAince i^lth the ter»a agreed upon.
*,v
S©^i.l>^5? ff*»??#i8S. *^sMNj .a^*3^--S^ .^t^MNi- l5Mr* iwait- «» fe«sf«a^l» if oi hats
yi^^«i^li)!N|:'$ti^|^ J^% kii^9m^.I %^as> AWSm Mltii
- ? -
Tktok«r presented •% oontraot to the defenAr.nt executed
toy the proposed purotuiB4^r but the defendant ^ni hie oo-o«ner«
refused to sign the oontrnct or to p^y the cwutiaBlon. ihe
plaintiffs brought suit in the Superior Court of s^ook bounty,
vbsre % jury trial was h«d» resulting in a verdict in their
fsTor »ind judgment upon the verdict for the fuLL nisount of the
OMwissioa olaimed, The defendant took this appeal*
The defendant ineii^te thi^t the judf^ent should bs
reversed for the rsAsons that be nerer agreed to sell for a
oonsiderAtion of ?560,000.00; that at no tiase did he contmot to
p«y e ooa&lssion for « s«le nt thst prioe; that it t»^.s the express
understi'mding thst there ?«hould be no liability on his 'lart
except in the event thnt Arnold ?fouid oonsent to a a«ie rnd
join in IK convey=tnoe; that the plaintiff should be bsrred froai
recovery because their agent. Tucker, was fslse to his trust is
thatf IS broker for the defend-^nt, he ©onoe-led froas his pria-
elpal the f^et that the real prosrseotive purchaser was the
Sfttional [»ife Insurance Ooapany, nud thmt, i?ithottt dlecloslng
the fact, be eoted in the dual ospaoity of broker for both the
d«f«nd.%at a|id the proposed xmrehaeer.
Tuoksr tssiifisd th*t during a period of three or
four f ears iauesdl^itely prior to Jaau«ry, 1937, he t.^lked to
the defend?int vj«ny tiites about the ss.le of the le«tachold and ha.d
interested several different parties rs froai>ective purchasers;
thut on the thirteenth or fourteenth of Kebru^ry, 1327, he told
ths defendant thnt If he wna givea tT«> or three d^ys time he
thoui^t he could sell the property for 1350,000, wO,c»!tsh, to
whieh the difeadsnt replied th«t be vr>B ^-lliing to sell at that
pries but th»«t he would h»ve to tke the s:»tter up with his
, li^- 94nI: S -f^ $«»#«^- it^^ Sli«MBt^ ,^^[1^ if, Plains lu^r «l^^ ii^^ftssc*
fill «#Jtf* %^ if«t.*«» .*»«<«#. o* «i?^ l5i*-- .M tm «roi^g
- 3 -
a»800i!\t«s; tkftt the defendi^nt <Trr«ased[ his nfttiaf -motion with
a eoMaiaslon of :i>20, 000.00, but naked tucker not to s^y Ttnythlng
to the proyod purohjiaer until h«« tb« iefend'nt, had hadtiun
opportunity to confer "-Ith hia oo-o«ner«j that on the QT«:alRg
of the snae day or the next aornlng the defendant telcfhoned
hia th^t he oould proceed ^-ith the ftale as his associates had
egreed to eell at the nrio© of 1350,000,00; that the next
sornlng a oontraot signed by St^^oy (t, Mosser ns purcbTneer vaa
presented to the defendint who turned t^e contract over to his
4ittorney, Hu^ T. ^rtin, for exsuainstl on; that the latter
sug^sted oertnln changes which wrer© mnda; th?>t vhen the oontrsict
was rf>tumed to his the defend/^nt a^iid t^st it h^d ^11 of the
ear-narks of the 8s.tio»»»l Life Inaursnoe OoMrai^ beo^^uae
Moaser'a firm hsid sold ^n issue of bonds for that Oomrmny but
that i»hen he waa '^aked tshst th^it hnd to do rlth the matter he
replied thitt it had nothing to d© with it except th-^t it gust
happened to fit in; and that the defend'^^^nt telephoned his son
the inforafition *bout Mosaer and hla connect loa *-ith the
Batlon?il life Insurance Goatpaay,
At the close of this aMB<?tlng the defendant dellver*?d
the abstracts of title to the property to bis lawyer, Martin,
aad Tttcksr. He directed thea to go in his ftuto/aobile to the
offices of the Ohici^go litle aad trust >2oapftBy ^lad order a
continuation of the abstraots. He told Martin to put some
pressure on the ooflipti.ny to obtain ..Toapt fiction as he rented the
de?il closed by the first of the sonth. These instructions r^ere
oarrled out snd Martin signed n oontinuatloo order ^ith directions
that the abstracts, when ready, be delivered to the plaintiff a.
The •ontittuatioB vas ooapittted in three dnys.
inter in the same d»y the defendant ndvised ^ucker
'^--^ '-•tiS^tm M#i ^*£$Be^ ^RBSt &StiR ?»i*t:S' «|H*^i**® ft^.1ii& «»»i^'5fe«
t*?i;aA;.i j;-.;,^
- 4 -
that Antfid h^.d, by t'l«grjiph, r^Toluld his ,7ower of i»ttom«y
«vhleli he JTSTiotiely «nlled to the lefendr-nt, but T^hioh h«»d not
arrived, the pow«T of nttorn«y ^-b introduoed in STldeiaoe. It
bor« th« dAt<? February 15, 19^7, flind gsTe the def<»nd^nt full
pover to OQWtmy mnA to contract for a eonT«»ynnce of -^11 of
Arnold's Interest in the premises in ou'^stlon. Tucker s'^ys
that he ssked the defend tnt ho»» be pooouiited for \mold»s
ehsn^ of aind and that the defendant replied thj^t he an^v of
no OBUse unless his son hAd told A.rBold about dosser's conaeotion
»lth the ii%tlott«^ Life lasurntaoe Oo»;^By. The defend nt
denies thqit any suoh eonrers^tion took plnce, Xhe uncontra-
dicted eridenoe, however, diaoloses that =mold, before be
sent the telegnus of r^voontion, hsd a conversation ever the
telephone 'rith the defendant's lairyer and his son, H. w, sterens.
What Inforssation they ^ve Arnold does not nopenr. It sight
well be inferred thsit something wnz ssid fioout the National
Life Insur!',noe CJoamny b«e^A»ee Arnold, is his letter to R, w,
Stevens written nine dnys after the d«te of the telCirram, stated
titet he had jxist been looking oiver a stftt^-aent of th^t soarsny
sad had observed th^t it had "n^jde a gmia of 9 little over
Three Millions with l«8s than T«o Millions gnin In As;?et«,"
This WIS folloiir«d by th« Inoulry, "«fhst la th? n«*v9, if ?Ry,
In re ArosdeT"
The defend^mt testified thnt he never ^5 greed to sell
the leesehULd for IS&ljOCKHOO snd that he did not tell Tucker,
nt any tive, that he vas f^ivorable to a sale at that price. On
oross-exaointtion he BS«de the rather fine distinction between
saying that the nro^sM deal met with his favor and that it
looked f-.vorable. Ke sdaitted s'^ylng the latter. He further
stated Tuoker'a proposition y?>.9 thstt he vonld get a pureh'^ser to
ut^ a contract agreeing to pay (350*000.00 and deposit s 150,000.00
--^ -- ■ -c '-J'JOtI
M-i - . : - ■ ■ ■■■■■'■
«i»#»««fi a^^^Kf^ «i»felii^:^t*f «ftdf ftl*! liNHir («fcfrlIXI:« ^t^
.«;
- 5 -
oheok to bind the bRrg?«ln And I^y tlie oontr^ot ^nd oh<>!ok upon
the defendant's desk with the underetvnling that he, the
defendant oould "t^ke it or Lei^ve it* as he nleaaed.
ft. », SteTena testified 'h»it on one oco&sion hi*
henrd Tuoker a»ke this uro<.'>osition to thf» defend^^nt. Ramer eAld
that at one tlae Tuoker tokd hla that h«» had made a "t-xke it
or le^ire It" offer of ^'350,000.00, ^rrtln teetifled that Tucker
eeknofl edged, -^ft^r belr.g adhrlsed of .4rnold»8 r«?fu»=»l to aell
thiit he h«.d proposed to the defend=^nt to bring la a contr?»ot
ftad cheek for the letter to ^locett or reject.
Soth parties argue th?it their r«jsrectlve contentions
ar« supported by the eesan^ni cat ions which passed bet«wete^a the
owners of the nroperty. Oa febrwary 14, 1337, the defendant
nnd his son telegraphed ^mold as follows:
"Broker s^ys rendy to close on three fifty nnd deposit
fifty earnest aoney. ?'«mer s-ys ■^lii net you ?»bout
serenty onsh. '-^e f iTor de«l. Answer,
J. *. and Fi. s, S.*
Arnold replied by telegraa dated the next day;
"Dsal SAtlsf^.otory to ?d«, -^a *>sGuaing <-mer«si tii^re
of sbout serenty <»sh is »?fter dedfeetins^ Incoffl© tax
nn well as other ts.xes and coamis^lon.
c. J. ■•.mold,"
The defend-^nt testified that when he 5?ad his son sent
the telegr<;si to Arnold he iwis then In f^Tor of '5*?lling for
^50,000,00, but thftt the owners ^?«re talking »ao&g th easel res
and not for Tucker's benefll. The son Bn.xd he knew about the
telegm* and did not object to its being sent. »'.mold took
the witness st^nd snd, on cross examination, tidaltted tbpt trhcn
he sent his telegrsa In reply h*?, too, vf-ig willing to sell for
1350,000.00.
The only ctreot evidence of record «i8 to the reason for
Arnold changing his Bind is foimd in his letter of February 16,
■.^W-yasit «*t^«fc'^ SiSlia«is?.es j6* »««s -y^ t-*?-' ■
.;■- • V- .. '0 blasts f^
- 6 -
1937, to th« di*f«Bdnnt, where, aaoi^t othtr things, he aifld;
*I n*«(l not rpp««t sy Tie«s is to the T^lue of this
property, -vhlch, of course, have been strengthened
■%terl>illy by the reoent r- pld dereloprafnt In the
»-««t«?m ro^rt of the loop. I aa firmly oonTlnoed thi?t
re should not coneider nny rrioe unier »hr,t yr^ -:.j.Te«d
on b'»fore I left •..'hio'»jro. 3 r«!gret very suoh th-^t 1
onnnot be in '»c<'ord ^Ith you in this 'o-stt'^r, -^nd 'C
indicated abore, TTgret r130 th-t I rent to the pTt.(»nt
of •xeoT.tlng s power of attorney, »hjch on reflection
I hnd to TPToke, norft^v^r, I jsa still firmly conrinced,
that the T«»lue is th^re, I think *e ahoiild by -»ll
ae^ne w?it r> little lon^i:«fr, I «^ib coofidpnt -f onn ^et
the -xTiee v-e ^sgreed on, the f^et thst ov»t ''> yfiO'T
has elsir>«ed i^ithoxit <» tr-^de tlo«« no^ dlscoiirage ae.
"1 rt.m 'crfeotly willing to l«*t the y^ower of rttomey
stand, but rlth the under st-^ndi at; thut it *ill not be
used except at '^500,000 or better.**
H« Bays that he ?scted hastily but ^as principally
Influenced in ao doing by hie desire to do ifhat he thought libe
defendant probably tainted hla to do.
Before attempting to revoke the po*er of attorney he
kad talked over the telephone ?rith ft. i^', steveaa i^nd feirtin.
It vould hmTe been very natursl for hla to Inouire as to the
naae of the pror^sftd pmrohi^ser and for thetn to t«ll his it
appenred thnt the Sutlonsl ',lfe Instir^inee Sofavmay *«>s the real
pureh&ser. *hi« *ettld fully aooount for bis change of aind.
There »^8 saple evidence r^rodvioed to ^arr-tnt th^ jvry
in finding thst the defend-^nt oontr«iOted to sell the leasehold
for a consideration of S350,rK>0.00 ?.nd to my n broker's ooai-
■leaion of 30,000.00, conditioned upon his obtaining the consent
of his eon 3.nd Arnold to ti. snle upon these t^rae. It is not
disputed the^t he obtMued their consent, Likewise there wae
strong evidence to sustain ?>. finding tb^t thi© f-^ot iraa ooaBmmlcsted
\if the defendant to Tucker. If this y^ere not the fsct, vhy did
the defendant turn the contract over to his attorney for
examinAtlon ^.nd then (Slrreot that the continuation of the abstracts
' us*, -i iVi*" 1 J ■>--
W I
««# m »« «tla«sjai: " ^^»<f efV»«i 5li«r^ *I
- 7 -
W haatea«d and finally thrtt th« atHit7>4etB« when brougfht <levB
to date, ahould be dellrerei to the plaintiffs?
One of the p«inta in the brief of oouneel for the
defen'i.->at ie that *« r«w!l estate brok«r onnot collect oofl»-
■iesiona froii ^.n owner on %n uncompkhted snle vhich fnila beoAuae
of an ovtstntt'ling title kno^ to the broker ?n<1 not controlled
by the o^oner,** Thla point bega the «?uestion. ibere w-^e no
laflmity or defect in the title of the defendant to nn un-ilvided!
one'->»'»-lf interfiat in the prov«rty. He k?«h5 oompetent to Gontrf«ct,
ir IM '^fished to assuae the responsibility of leteraiBlnf for
hiaself thit the three owners f^mte *<^ill.ing to sell at the
price offered there wa.8 nothing to prevent him froan so doing.
The question it: Wh»t *»» tb<? b^vgaia he sy^del If it wxs sa
teatified to by Tucker then th^rc Is no reason 'rhy he should
be rplleved of the obligation of hla contract becauas Arnold
repudiated his ngre^aient.
km to the contention thnt tucker v«aa guilty of such
aiiaeonduot tKat the plaintiffs should be bmrred from recovery,
it is Tirtwilly conceded that the defendant and his son kne«
that the ifatioaal I»ife Innurnnce Ooai::mny ^sjj thn real isurchsaer
befor« the defendant directed the abatr-ete to be continued nnd
to be continued in time to close the deal before the firsst of
the next W9nth. *urther«ore the lefpndsnt sdvised Tucker th?it
the deal could not go through because Arnold had revoked hi a
power of sttomey. He sold nothing about nny infidelity on the
part of rucker, aeithsr doee it 5?pT5«»r that Arnold ever a«de
say aucb d^ia. In addition to this he '^^xs not a tJnrty to
the suit. ^h« plaintiffs had no contractuTil relatione, either
etpress or implied, i^th hl% They owed hia ao duty and they
Bou^t to establish no liHbility ^g»iBst hi«.
%dl ■^iattBHsiS^ii 1^« ^,li4i<U5HCi>i|.s»5 .6>ii4: mm-iiMA. &i. k€t4^i,it Mill
««JX3C S0S ti^ iNKts fa^smA^tk «<$# i<^t .^1b«««i68 t'^-^^^^'t? ai fit
■t4is^- t»sim%-J^mJef^^ |Ae^^:%«t£i..«i{# •x4»Erx«^'<;p0.. ^^&9»...pt9s^ ^d^
tail* isa-3 iiti«& #s »M b^^ vitdf »i»i4 tfti^ ,i^4ii5r«i s© asserrqx*
- 8 -
It !• flnmlijr urged th-xt the judgaent 'shoull to«
reserved be«aut« of «rron««fua rulings of the trial court In the
giving and rnfualng of lastTuotlons. /lalntiffft' gircn inatmc-
tiona nusbarad I lu&d & ware paremptory in form. I be objection to
thea raised by counael for tbe defendant is th^t they Ignored
twj 8ukat:?nti?a dcfeneea to the s^otioft, i.e., that tha plalntlffi
ware m fnot raprenantlng the proposed puroh^sars ?nd acting la
their interests and that Aniold'e concurrence i^s necesssiry to
a sale. There *i»a no evidence introduced by the dafend?.nt
showing or tending to show tbmt the tiiaintiffs were acting for
the purchasers In the sense of estHibllshing the relationship of
pTlnoipJil and broker, they neeess.^rliy had to de»l with the
purch?>.8er8 in the fttte«r>t to induce them to buy nnd in comsunl-
OAtlni; to the defend-^ nt thetr !3ec<?ptTn(?e of bis offajw we are
not inclined to give the title of eTidenee to 7njcker»s rcferenoes
to "the orlncipals* or "ay peopl?" or •my prlriclpsis** , in
spenjcing of the purchasers. In addition to this h^ ^^^s only
a witness upon the trlsl of the case '»nd his conclusions of
lav as to his relations -s-ith the puroh»,8ere -ould not u^ binding
vipoa the plaintiffs, ^bat has been previously snid in this
opinion disposes of the !>0lat th?«t Arnold's concurreDce in a
•ale was naoaaaary ^nd lUce^ise of the contestations that tbe
court erred in refusing to give defendant' e instructions
Ruabered 10 and 14.
Tha ^dgment of the Superior Court of Oook -owaty is
afflraad.
AFFIRMED,
H(^o(»i» P.J. and mhSQUf i, cojiaim.
.felWTltt*
4.--:s >';,
S3008
CHiCAOO rLixiai.M affAFT oo.,
a Oorporatioijll/
V.
MXTAl. i'OHolfcRS, m.'i'K%. A
•t 91,
filed April 17, 1929
App«3jLant0i
\_Opinic
iOI, JOSTICK aXSKR delivered tb« oplolon of th«
oourt*
Th« only question involT»a In this appeal is whether
the Superior -oiirt of Ooolt 'bounty erred in finding that the
respoBd«i|t8» John verlik %nd Leris Knaule, had violated the
tenui of & perjttanent injunotion Issued out of thnt court.
^'•mk and Xaaule were siemhers of the Metal Polishers I'nion. <m
Msy 3« 13S7, the Union o>„lled a strike of the employees of
the eoKpl9inj»nt, Cihlcago flexible Shaft Coaipany. The oompany
ira.8 engaged la the business of raanufaoturlng and dietributing
hardware apeelftltles. Among its eatployeea were fjjoxxt sixty
«et«l polishers, buffers and plsters. The strike ^wns the result
of a denial of an increase in wr^jT-g,
On M.Ry 6, 1^7j, oertnin arabere of th* Union, other
flMA werlik and ITn&ule, inetituted s system of picketing of
o<»pLLainant*a place of buitiness, Signs were displayed stating
that « strike ims in proti^ess and directing the publio not to
enter the rlaoe of business of complainant. Employees of com-
plainant and persons seeking eaployment were interoepted md
threatened with injury. Certain employees «ere beaten.
On June 38, 1937 complainant filed ita bill of oo«-
plaint in the Superior ^ourt of Cook Oounty against the Union
»ooss
4:':^i..
/f\ ■**? (Il
, n'if0&
^«i;j* ^m(i0» m^m . <me>'%«^iq0k^ ii<fc*''&.- , ^; *i#Isii;«»*ijs «T.^*>i:>x*if.
- 3 -
and •««• of its mAMbers, inoludlng tv«rlik and ii.n&uXe, pmylng
f#T the vrit of InJunatlOB. t^^o linyu Iat«r a teBiK)T>iry injuno-
tion was gr?>nt«»d. Oa Mnroh 14, I9S8, aft«r n full haarlng^
the oourt ent«r«d a d«or»« perpetually enjoining the defendants,
inoludlng «!erlik and JUwule.
1. from i»atToiilng or oongregjsting in front of,
or in th*! vioinity of, th« plstce of buainese of the
cOBplainant for the vurpose af r icketlng;
3, FroM eoliolting or inducing, or attempting
to induce or influence persons by threats or intia-
idntion not to nter into or continue in the- employmant
of the oo»plain>)nt;
3. Fro* R8i^>«ultiag, menacing, intiaidnting,
threatening or hantaalng persons employed Oy, or going
to and fro« the place of buainess of the coapl'<insntj
4. From following the employee of the complain-
ant to their home* or to other places, or from c-lllnK
upon auoh employee "i'.t thsir homes foi th« purroae of
inducing such employee to quit the efflploywBBt of the
oomplalaant, by jfienaclng moleeting or intimicVstiRfr auoh
employe* or their families;
5. From calling or addressing the f^mployes of
the compln:iniint sa •aoaba', ?t.nd from o-'.liing or
addreesiag other epith^te or offensiTe language to
the emi4>oyea of the complri.in«jat;
6. il'rom organi !? ing, engaging in, aaiiit«xiniag or
attempting to organire or sKiintain nny boycott against
the complainant by exhibiting; or displaying any sign,
placard or othsr rastter, o^: by any other (i^-'ne, or for
the purpose, or >s!fith the effect of causing the complain-
ant's eaployes to quit its «&ployment, and applicants
for employment not to make application with the com-
plainant for eaploya^ntj
7. from injuring or attempting to injur© the
business of the oompl'ulnant;
8. Trcwi adTialng, Rnooumging, or nasiating in
the lolng of any of the things whioh *Lre herein for-
bidden.*
On June 3, lane, the complainant filed its petition
praying for i rule upon erllk and Knaule to show oausf why
they should not be punished for contempt of court for violating
the injunction. Being ordered ao to do, the respondente 'jnswered
-■ - a ~
TCI .,'■ 'i* ^^ t
a;: SI* inn
- 2 -
th« pttltlon. A h«atlAg iifAB hftd stnd th«y vera found KUllty of
oontcfltpt. iorllk wa» oxdorcd to pay ?» fine of aeTonty-flre
ddll&ra and KnaulA a fine of fifty dollars. Faoh raa ordeTed
••duiitted to the Uounty JaU there to be confined until hia
fia* «a« paid. I'bcy prayed fox and were alloired thia Appeal,
lo Question i« ralaed in the brief of the re8pond*nt8
a^ut any ruling of the tria court on the adaission or exolusioA
of eTidence. The only point aade by oounsffil foi thea is that
they were engaged in peacefiil oleketlng,
Xn the conteapt proceedings the court found that both
reepondenta bad !cnoi?ledge of the entry of the deerer granting a
perpetual injimotion; ''that froa ?.'>iy 38, 1988, »»nd up to and
iaoluding June 9, 1938, more than one week after the entry of
•Hid rule to shOT? oa\ue (?lth th<? exoeption of Deoorotion i}*y.
May 20, 1938, and t^aturday, J-one Z, 1328), ftaoh of s id respondents
ploketed and Tjatrolled in frmit and alongside of the relator's
plaoe of buainese at Oentrql avenue and Roosevelt Road, ahioago.
Cook *'ounty, niiaoie, froa> shortly after 7S00 o»olook A, k, of
•aeh day until shortly lifter 5;00 o'olook P.i*. of enob day,
with the exoeptloB of Saturday, June 9, 1928, vhioh B^id picket-'
lag and p'^ trolling oeaaed at about 12:00 o'olook noon; that each
of aaid respondents carried and displayed « eign «.bout eighteen
inohea by thirty-six inches in size bearing the inscription:
•itKlAL roi,ISHERS on STRIKJ:»; * that there r-i.s not on May 28, 1928,
or there?ifter any strika against the ooaplainant in progress;
•that prior to May 38, 1328, when aaid picketing and patrolling,
and carrying and displaying of said signs vera reaumed, as afore-
aald, froa fifty to sixty persons apclied each week for eaployment
with the relator; that after the resumption of said picketing
aad patrolling, and carrying and displaying of said signs, less
< niU-tm ■
^■" • -^^i
. %;i'^il#0
'•.•««l|«»jt>
•«4-H V^'-*--^
'.';!ri:«weo
K»to v^^-'-V '>' •\*--
. ., .-, y *.
i^l»«r|«^ m. «*. .
dIf'iNf ##<■??:? .b»«iF€*
iOtJVt *%3K»^i5t..
'AOq»9«
- 4 -
tklim linlf that niui1>eT of T>«r8on» appllod for AaploymAnt with th«
T9ftl%Qt p«r woek; that i^rior to Way 38, 1938« from ten to twelve
pollah«r« nad buffers applied each veek for eaployment filth
the ridiitor during the two we«Jc» that e-tld oloketlng md o«trol-
llag nttd a^vrrylng %n& dieplayiai?; of said eigne oontinued, hut
elg^t polishers and buffers applied for employment with the
relator, six during the first week and two during the neoond
••ek, and of the six polishers r»nd Iniffers so applying for
eaploynient with the r<^lator luring said first week, 8«TeT?CL
refused to enter the eaployaent af the relator unless they
were furnished with guards for their protection" ; " th=it during
the strike a^lnst the relator and during the course of the
ploketlng of its plnoe of business la ^lay ^nd June, 1937,
certain acts of vloleaoe hmd been aoiffiBltted by certain of the
defendants in s^id c&use, as set forth in the bill of ooaplilnt
filed herein, and by reason of «juch vloleaoe the defend?? nt in
s*ld oause, including both of s'^id respondents, had forfeited
their right to ea^ge la peaceful ploketiagj ^nd that the
respondents 'Wilfully and deliberately rlolitAed the in junction,"
Oottns«l sentead that the statute of this state entitled,
"Aa Ast relatlxtg to disputes concerning teras $jQd aondltlons of
eaployment," In force July 1, 193S, has rendered ploketlng, im-
aocoapanied by threats or intimidation, lawful. It Is eaid that
the iajunetional decree should be read la the light of the statute.
*• are not Impressed '-Ith the ^^rgUMAt. The -sourt h^d jurls-
dletioa of the subject matter ^s^nd the persons aad there ms no
appeal from the deoree. In addition to t>-la, the banner la
question laaj hare appeared to be of aa innocent «nd pe-ioe?-:ttle
character to the disinterested msserby, but not so to the
employed or those seeking employ.sent. To the Intter it spoke
more effeotirely than -?ord of mouth, ihey ^ere told thst a
strike was oa, inwolwlng the complainant, there h^td been a
it^:t'fi« *.^«V *lltM Mm' %i:^'kttth t0*-v : • .^'iJ•^.r^fcJ-m>
- 5 -
•trik« in i<hioh ylolenoo ^n.a used, hroai th« tiae of the
laauADO* of the temporary reetraining order uatil the entry of
the fliuil decree all aotivltlea vere auapended. the renewal
•f picketing* together with the dlapl^^y of the word " Strike" in
front of the eo«alAin.«int*s premieea was veil oaloulnted to in-
spire in those seekifig eaployment the boiief that hostilities
hftd been r newed and t)iat they night «;eli expect that th«
■ethods at first adopted ^fould ^ out in force.
Counsel in h>8 brief says;
"The d#fen<tant« testified th<^t their ourpOR© In
oarrying the ^ign was to n*tify other tsembera of the
MstaL Polishers Union who might ^ah to apply for work
at the Jhicago Flexible Bhaft aoai,;fny that raet'^.l polish-
ers were on a strike, iesving it to their discretion
as to -vhether or not after kno'K^img the friota they
wished to aaks application for Rasployanicnt, Hn6 th«
sign indicated th- t eoMpl-^ilasmt nt^n imf^^lr or hnd it
directed employes to stity a»my froa coapiiinant's
plsoe of business it «aii^t be ««rgu«d th t th© sign wns
threatening and int laid-? ting* **
Rsfptrdless of the testimony of the respondents, th©
ebTlons purpose of the banner whs to notify everybody oonting
to the plaoe of business of the ooaplainant thnt a strike was
•a* I'here w»s nothing to indios.te to prospective employees
that It was net a strike of the oharaot^r orijf,inaiiy instituted
with its attendant threats and acta of Tiolenoe.
The order of the Superior Uourt of uook County finding
the respondents guilty of oonteapt of court and imposing fines
upon thea is sffimed.
HOLDCi;, P.J. ABO -nhBQM, J. ao&cus.
«^ ^- 'A' ■■■'
\^iii5 ■^il.'iv i;.feW'^'.«;' A ';>■•:« ("siv' .>&■'•,:; ::?:-j'; v' ''i;ii;^-;^.<^j?'5:j-?:^ ':':
.:,..... ...;,..,;■, ... ■,;.;.:;: J^tJ** ^A^tf fii^ «4 JsmfjEB-oC
•^» ■
mi.:
5«JNi»*®'^«N^» t*iliai--e# ■«##-'^im*4 «i##-ffe #l(«^««4; ciwlvafa
33033
Corpor<itl|on, >^'* j*^ v
Abpellti,
v»
RAXLROio JO>(iP/\^T, a, >
BorpoaBLtion,
Apite«li
,«.*«*■
■^"^
Opinion filed April 17, 1929
MH. JHSTias HTSKB delivered the opinion of the
court*
Thii ffipp«ftl is froHj a ju4^#nt of the Miaaiiolp^l Court
of iJhlongo, in fi*vor of the plaintiff, for the auaa of
Hi, 009, 48. The judgeaent was entered 4pon the rerdlot of ^ jury.
On AuRuet 1, 1333 the plaintiff filed its Btateaent
of KLaiiB in which it w»« stated that the plaintiff, on June 8,
1982, shipped froa Hoaer, Louisiana to f-wst Ohioogo, Indian.*.,
fire cara of gasoline, oonaigned to its mm order; that upon
arrival of the oars at their designated destination they irere,
vlthout order of the plaintiff, turned over by the defendant
to the iiartln Oil Refining Ooapany and that the defendant
failed and refused to r«tum to Isintiff the cars or to pay
for the gasoline.
On -iugust 13, 1923, the defendant filed its .affidavit
of aerlts In which it denied that the plaintiff i?^% the lawful
holdsr of the bills of lading covering the sMpsaent in oueetlon
and alleged that the ijartln Cll Refining Company was the owner.
Oa D«es«1>er 13, 1934, more than a year after filing
Its affidavit of aerlt3, the defendant filed an amended affidavit
of merits, in which it denied that the plaintiff rne. at ^iny time.
^, -i' »*
; »;&i.ii>i:KU&
esei t7I IlaqA I-) 3 111 noinxqO
^,i3 A
^V
iW/X»«;.
. ■■»«;>-
imt
m.
m^^.
' 'titter "i^ W iRni^
- 3 -
the lawful holdtr of the bliia of lading- for the tr?vnBi)ortitloni
of the sMpatant. It also cont^iined the allegation tb?).t the omre
of gaoolino wort eonalgiifd to the Martin Oil Heflning Jonprny
under oortain written oontraote bet^e^^n th^t oompany and plain-
tiff, dated June 13, 1933. Then followa paragraph 3 of the
&ffidaTit which reads:
"iJefendont further rdlegee that the o:^Ts 'aentioned
in plaintiff'e 'Jtstsaent of cl»lm were delivered to the
lartin Oil Heflning 'iomoxixy, the duly f»,uthoTl7;ed agent
of the ijell Gil £ iiaa aoa^any; that subacpuent to th*?
deilYary of as id c«.rs ^« ?5 forest! id^ the Inintiff
ratified and conflraad the delivery to the -^v^-rtin Oil
Heflning Jompany - nd undertook to malte acttleraent «ith
the U^rtin Oil K*fflnlng Oompnny .^ursu'jnt to the terms of
the oontrwets of June 13, 1333, !>a -^bove referred to."
The affldnvit eonoludea viith a denial th«»t the ^eollne
waa of -^ value of * 8,609, 44, that the oars oontaln«d 40,515
gallons of gasoline or that the plaintiff hnd ever aade deisind
for a return of the shipaent.
The contracts of June io, L923, referred to in the
aaeaded affidavit of aerlts, oonalst of two doouments, ©oth
IMar the a^xae date. One ie an aoknowledgisent toy the ^^artin
Oil Refining Ooap^wiy of an order from plaintiff to ship to the
Latter eighteen o«ra of blended gasoline st the orice of "* ,9025"
per gallon. It further orovlded th»t:
"It la understood and agreed by both T«*rtles to
this a.nle that iinrttn Oil Hef. Oo. ^r-* blending this
prodiiot for i*eil C;il A aaa iJo. from 11 Cfira of 45/47
gravity is'iphtha covered by our P. 0, 145 ^nd 7 o? rs
oaainghead covered by our P. C. 146 which cars they
now h*ve on trr»ok in Ohgo * v'hVch rill be diverted Into
our pla^ a the ijrice shown on our ?. 0. Aoknorledgment
represents ooat to thea t the blended T>rodnot la to be
turned b.-iok to the« at our refinery at thia prloe plus
.0364 x)^v g;al. frt. pluB ..01-^# ijer g-al. blkadlng oh^.rge;
Martin Oil -ief, Oo. 'a reaponaibiHty to aeBSP K-hen oara
are loaded & billed out, the purob^iser ^'^Juatin;, (51rect
sny olalBie of ?iny nsture ?.hlch may ?risp ^ftcr O'-.ra b«»ve
left our plant.
Accepted
Bell Oil & o^B Go,
Mark nnston,"
t '-'■„. J' * * •
ii^V Uv' ■■■■ l
■ aK*© r ■<;> o-? T-' ' -TBait a'.oi* .
"♦aojTsislt ahJissK
- 3 -
Th« other doounent id h. notice of tho oonal^meat by
tb« plaintiff to the d«f«ndAat of «leven o^.ra of naphtha and
■•Ten oars of gaaoline. Included in the eonelgnment wqtp' the
five on re of gasoline in controveray. Incorporated in the
notifio^tion vae the following;
•• It hne been -nutualiy ^agreed ^nd understood, that you qr«
to rr-ay ue ,13^# oer g'^llon for the Naphtha «i.nd ,?,lli per
gallon for the ra* a(»Qine:bead, lese l- flash to be jmld
upon r-^ceipt of Ir^dings In your ooeaesiUon.
tl in turn agree to buy fro;a your cancf^m (18) onrs of
&6->58 ssi, «. i.;«i,»ollne hairing ■xn end -olnt not to exceed 475,
proTiding our napthn o«!.ke8 same *».t a prio«» of ^0,14 per gal,
F. U. B, 3*?)et Ohioatjo, Indian?^. Terffls !/•< Qnah. upon
delivery of ladings.
It is also underttood an<l agreed th^^st the Kr>_pth% 'j.nd
Csislngheed Mentioned ibove, prices of rhioh -were ,13^
and .31^^ respeotively, rsre also F, ;), B, t:roup (S)' rate
of greight, ¥'« gu?i.rant©fi to stsnd all cSeffiurmge, re-
eonsigning and any expenses th.?t hare -loorued on the
Maptha an i 'Js,BOline wbioh v« are sending in to you,
"i» further agree to stand all outage on the a&ove
ahipAente,
Tour signature below will denote fxill aoceptanoe of
the above conditions and understandings.
Yours truly.
Bell Oil & Gas Joaipmy
aark 1? ins ton,'-
These dooTuaente clearly evidence purchase and s^e
trsAsaotions. They do not make the %rtin Oil aefining Company
either the agent or bailee of the plaintiff. They oall for cash
payment for the naptha and gsisoline by the Martin Oil Refining
C6«ipony upon reoeipt of the bills of lading. I^ikeviae the pl«»in-
tiff obligated itself to pay oesh for the blended v^roduct. In
faot thr defendant, upon the tri^il of the e-^se, recognised that
suoh is the correct oonatiuotion of the doouajenta. It offered to
proTe that Finston, vioe-president of plaintiff oou) any, told
Martin of the ^.^rtin Oil Hftfining Ooajpany, that he ^oanted the
latter to blend th« naptha and gasoline <ind would be ftrining to
pay one and one-half cents per gallon for the aerrlcc; that
Kartm accepted the propoaition; that Finston then sp.id, " I wish
this transaction to appear as a sale'; and that the two doou^&ents
# 8 «» -■
mf> w^ fms *'• .•'/if fttfij' I
1'-' • ■
4 ' ■'^X
#«•'- i* SMt%t tf?- •■■••«1
■Jill* I* 4&iiKe m^M .aa#<fitalt #-»s:- .-■:<■>:; -'^'O^ itt-Tt^jM
- 4 -
««T« then prepitre4 ia suoh fora at to enusf: it to ^pne&r that
thm txunaaotLon vn« a «•!••
An objection to this offer of proof was suat»lned, >nd
properly eo. In the original affldarlt of aerlts, the ngent of
the defendant, to whoM was entrusted the reaponalbility of
■aklng the affldarlt nnd ^ho tm9 'resuautbly fnmlllar vrith ^ll
of the facts pertinent to a defense, made the posltiTe st?%te«ent
that the iitrtiB OH ''efinlnK Comuany ^-^s the owner of the ship-
went. Over a year later in an ?xEfiend«d «,ffid*^sYlt of merits the
sftae agent stated that the ahipiaeut w^s ootislgned to the Martin
Oil refining GompiUKf by virtue of th« provisions of certain
oontr-«ota In rrltlng, dated June i;^, 193§, nnd tbst the g*!8ollne
ws delivered to this ooapany aa the duly «>uthorii!#d ^vgent of
the plaintiff, to farther rtooentuate the ftftlftlne: of defenses
the defendi^nt, without any supporting pleading ox affidavit of
nerlta, hsd the teaerity to asfc the court to rsoelve evidence
In support of a new contention that the tranaaotlon ^as one of
bailment for the sole purpose of enabling the Mr4.rtln Oil Refining
Ooapnny to blend the naphth>) «?nd gy.aoilne and deliver the blended
product to the plaintiff. It would have been n travesty upon
justice for the trial court to have favorably entertained this
offer of proof.
It is undisputed this«t the defendant delivered the
oars of gasoline to the a«rtln Oil Heflnlng Ooapany without
requiring the production T^nd surrender of th<» origln?»l bills of
lading. |o protect itself a^inst the oonssQuences of Its un •>
lavful act It procured froa the ^nrtln Oil defining Coapany an
lOileanlfylng bond. It b«»d no order from the plaintiff and no
right to make the difellvery. Its defense thnt no hara was done
by the v^rong because delivery of the shipment vas smde to the
party entitled to possession Is not supported by the evidence.
m. '$. m ''
^.. ,,JE|^, Jl#.|«' r.'itXl^.^^ t.A<*'SC/:'**T- SSfw erf* .fcWjS #l▼«^.■: i'iBfS
Wis i»ir%»ttm
- 5 -
It tdld about serious ;>rejudloe to th« rights of
the defendant beoause oounsel for the plaintiff in bis opening
•tateotent and his ^rgxioent to the jury stated thnt the defend;ant
had requixed, as s oondition precedent to the delivery of the
ears of gitsoiine, a bond to protect it and that the oourt allo«-sd
proof of the f&ot. That the bond iras given ?»«8 rroved and no
legioal reason is advanced to support the contention that this
fact should have been oonoetiled* it w s a T>art of the transaotion
in oonneotion with the delivery of the goods. It w*-s the aolf
reason given by an agent of the defendant to the vice-president
of plaintiff for the delivery of ths gnaollne without requiring
delivery of the bills of lading. Furthermore, the evidence was
coaoetent for the purpose of showing the character of th»?
divergent and inoonsletent defenses souj^t to be interposed, it
is evident that the frongfiil delivery was made not in reliance
upon the Martin Oil Refining CkHip&ny being the o^ner of the
gasoline, or that this ooapai^r ^&s the agent or b*.iief: of the
plaintifl, but solely upon the for««al assurance of indemnity
a^inst loss,
ths only other substantive defense interpo
that the plaintiff failed to establish that 1^ I
holder of the bills of lading covering the shipment in oueatlon.
The court acifflitted in evidence five doouaents aa Plaintiff's
Ixhibljs 1, 3j J, 4 and 5, They purport to be original bills of
lading. The data contained in tbe» correer^onds ^th the dates,
car numbers, quantities and other facts proved in oomiection
with the transaction in question.
The testiftony of ^, H, Quianer 'r^s taken by derosition.
He testified that in June, 19?3, he was suT>erlntendettt of the
Gillilend Oil ^'offipany. It was established by other testiaony
that this ooaipany sold the gasoline in controversy to the plaintiff.
:.. fi '" ^ "
tR,t:-} ' -lit |i«^' »# 0 $^mmfSi%if. Hid him. taasiMjisiu
1 ' . ■ iJ 10 1005-2
>':•*■' .*f,lf^v aoi;;e&ffnfio ill
.^^;«< $ii} u^;«>' "i^^gftitt^ kl^i .iAi&t tc x
- 6 -
H« waa shown plRlntlff'a ' xhllirlt* I, 3, 3, 4 anrt 5, and testi-
fied that thejr bore his slgmnture nt the bottoii and thnt he
received thea from aa »gent of the {<«tislaB» ^ Northwest
Ball road Ooapany. finally he vas asked:
"Do you no*- say, <ifter exajulnlng these bills of
lading, ilalntlff*8 sxhiblts 1 to 6, thet they and
•a oh of thCHi are the original bllla of lading for
the aatftri^'l aentloned therein, rtnd that the
statements in the sniA bills of lading PinA eaeh of
thea are oorreetT"
The witness answered: "I do.**
A general objection to the cruftetlon was aade u|>on the
trial, but there was no ruling «.nd It does not apttear that any
objection "-as aade upon the taking of the deposition. hen the
bills were offered in eifldenoe oounsel for the defendant
objected to their introduction until he had read the oross-exaa-
inatloa of the witness. At the oloee of the re-dlreot exaMlnatloa
counsel who represented the defendant In the taking of the
deposition, aade the objections that the at^itejaent of clala
alleged thht the ^aintlff o^de the shipaent, -whereas the
bills of lading offered shoved that the ^11 1 Hand Oil Ooajj^ny
was the shipper, that it did not appear that the plaintiff had
any Interest except as oonaignee nnA that he did not think the
bills had be(?n identified as the ones corerlng the os.rs in
question, "hen the reading of the deposition had been concluded
the trial attorney for the defendant aade substantially the
s%ae objections.
Finston, ▼Ice-preeidSn* of the plaintiff, testified
that he purchased the gasoline from the (Slilllaad Oil CJeapany
and gawe instructions to that coar^ny to ship the gasoline to
plaintiff at (Mist whleago, Indianaj that he recelTed plaintiff's
exhlbitalto 5 inclusive from the aillilaBd Oil Oompany sbout
June 10 or 11, 1932, and later placed thea »ith the »lret
latloaal Bank of Ohioago with a sight draft drawn on the Uartin
■ '■>■'> m «
,"\f*a r
■»t«- i '' limttm-Mi^ mm^iif^ .^t
oil Refining Cospany, rh« draft r«.B deposited ydth the b»ak for
oolleotlon but it waa never honored by the drn^ee.
The contentB of the bills of isdlng, admitted in
eYidence correspond in ercry detail with the faota proved con-
oeminj^r the tmaanctlon involTed In this apyenl, Sxiamer, super-
intendent of the aillilfind Oil Uompnny, reeelred the inatruaente
froB the initial o«tr^ler in conn<;otlon with the shipment of the
gBSoilne described in then. The plaintiff bought tho gnsoline
fro« the ttllllland Oil Company and g^re shipping instruotions.
The bills of lading were delivered by that co«pf».ny to the
plaintiff's reipveecntutlTe. He a?iro8ltl>d the* rith a --'hieRgo
bnnk to be delivered to the ilartin Oil - efinlng Ooaptoiy upon
its payment of a sight ds&ft for the oontrnet prioe. Faya»nt
was not made. The oourt did not err in admitting in evidence
plaintiff's exhibits 1 to 5, inclusive.
It is finally urged that there ima a mliterlid. vnrianoe
beoause the bills of lading show that the shipper w&s the
Qllllland Oil Oojapany and the plaintiff In it« statement of claim
says th<%t It (the lUalntlff) shipped the goods. This Is mere ldl«
talk. It appearo from the evidence, «nd without oontradiction,
that the plaintiff bougjit the ^soline and furnished the shipping
Instructions. The plaintiff vas, in frot, the ghiTjper.
Fr<» the foregoing we conclude that the defaadfuit should
be relegated to Its rights under the indemnifying bond «7hioh it
took* evidently in sntioipattfta of the happening of that irhich
did happen, I. e,, n suooessful proseo^itilon of «> suit by the
owner of the gasoline for daaiages due to the wrongful ->.et of th*?
defendant in not protecting the o ner's rights by requiring
the surr*»nder of thi? bills of lading before OHiking delivery of
the goods.
For the foregoing rdsona, the judgment of the «JunioipaI
Ooutt of Chicago Is affirmed*
4fn]U(XD.
HOLOOU. ?.J« Um f ILSOI, J. OOHCUR.
•* T •
■■'^mWi.&^'T t^' ^:ftt:iit'^*^i»d>''0 •■'■■,:■: _^i^ L.r ■■■■■:' V ^ ' : 'VU i-.! .:>! - ;;rt^;- -c^x-
t«r.v •r5:'«'^M»^fe ;■.:i5W^.?>.•?i fi-TTC'^liS'jf ^^i^tiff:*! ■J,*'- i»iliG' ■?:■>?;? lllj t'tfcm^TIi:;!)?. <*J^
R*. 33039
a Oorijbri'tlo
>^^
\9 f ^ ^
Opinion filed April 17, 1929
MR. JIWTIC? RYKTB delivered the o.jinlon of th«
The plauatUf , fro® May 4 to July 22, 19S7, eold
Mid dellTered to As&toni i^leminakl ; nd hie wife, the leftsege
of «« ai>arttteB.t building on XeitMorfJ Avenue In the City of
Ohlo^go, ooal OJf th« valu* of 11,021.38. 3oae ■ ysk^ntB
w«rs jwtdo on aooouat, leaving s. bal-noe due of if 0415. 32.
On rj«o«a»bcr 5, l»S7, the HieBil&skls fcftre dlBposaeSRCd
by their Ioasot, the delend^^at, i.etnti "x&ortgage and Security
ComoHny. Th» ooK'jany had ototained a judgsent for posaesalon
Rnd had f^l»o foreeiop^d *v oh?'t+-'?l mortgaj.*© on thd personal
prop«rty in the preiBlsea,
Tli« deXendant r^asiS^insd in post^aseio.'; ircis r«oa«b«r
6, 19^7 to JPBtiB-ry 18, IS^S. Kvidanoe was introduood tendinis
to ahow th«t during tbat period of tlae it uced atout flfty*fl-w»
tone of the coal for the p\Mrpose of h«»ting the building.
Iha trial court ooxrectly h«ild that ther i^'- no
liability iamoffad upon the de/endRnt to pay for tha coal
'^■^'^4 m^ii'» ^^ I'
'•s>mm ^m'
:iu
GSGI ^V^: Ix'iqA balit ncxnxqO
niM Im-'^miki
nt^bjjtafe mmrn mrfrnt^- im
. $-rMf^
liifefe-
!V?%J:S?;:;-*>'.:'^
coneuaed, mt.dn a finding: in its f vot, sind enter cd jud^neut
upon the finding.
The ooal hi-d b««n delivered and titl« h'^A p^ss.d to th«
Miaaiaalcla before tbe defendant took poeBesolon. The plaintiff
had parted vlth title and all right of lien. Tbe defendant
is not obligated to aooou^t to anybody but the Wieatin«kl8
for the value of the co«l used. The eases cited, involving
insolvent or b-nkrupt purohnsers of personal property, are
not applicable to the feicts in the instant CT.ae. Tbey apply
whar- goods purohased are in transit or prooersfj of delivery
but not aXter delivery has been s^de and acoepted.
The Jud^ipsent of the Municipal f-ouxt of Ohioago is
aooordingly affirned.
i.FFIPJtX.O.
ROLDOM, ?. J. AHD WILSOiS, J. 001J:im.
'■5 o)l(J<.
'H^OH
.^'^''
33074
FREDRIOK F. ftATSOl,
Qompl
OorpoMtioA,
Ml M. i^BCHKH,
)pinion filed -^pril 17, 1929
MR. JU5TICI RYKjKL^ delivered the opinioa of the
eoart.
This ap|>««l is the restat of » '*fri«n(lXy recisiTeTahip.*
At the inception of the litigation the attorneys representing
the parties here were friendly, now th«jr are Indiaging in the
exchange of epithete nni oh&rges of vmethie".! ^on^uot.
On »aroh e, 1923, Kredrick F. *stson filed his bill
of oompislnt in the Superior aourt of Oook County, in i?hich be
alleged, in eubstanoe, thnt be had heen employed by the
Ad-Photosoope Oosapany in the eepaeity of assists^nt business
saanAiPreT upon a corneal eaion ?Kn& sslary b'veie and th^it the
ooaipany ^^b indebted to his "for wages for the sua of $3, 100, 00";
that he owned three shares of stock in the ooapany; thsxt LeR
■i, Kirchen, nn employee of the coapany h%d obtained a judgseat
for ?6,0?7.30 against it «».n4 had execution lerled upon its
property; thnt ^. J. ieteraoa had levied <» landlord's listress
ws.rr"*nt for '1,066,00 on the Oo»r!?»ny»a property; that the
emipjiny, through its president, bnd ;jade a oon tract with
Brinner i fJumett to consolidate ^ith ^mother oosp^ny -?nd, pur-
suant to the agreeaent, Brtaner A Burnett "©re permitted to
obtain control of the directorate of the ooap^ny sn*? thereby
to sell to the <»>aipany oert^in asset-* for sn exhorbit-^nt
i^Og?
A i
[«» *^
-_ i ^ JL «. „
- 3 -
eontBld«ration; that the landlord* « dl8tT«s9 imrr«nt wpb the
result of «! Jtgre«««nt between hlaoeelf sn<i Brinn^r ?■ Burnett
to ewnble the latter to obtiin the ?.s«ete of the Oomonnyj th»t
ao aotloe wji.« glT»w to the staokholdexe oi the ch?»x»ge of
directors rind that gonae court of coapetent jjuriadiction should
protect the oompniij until a neetlng of Its stockholders
o«uLd be held.
The relief prxyed for was th-nt an aoeountlag be
had ^-ith Brlnner « Burnett ^.nd others; that a recelTer be
appointed; thut Klrchen be restrained froa further prooe*?iing
under her execution; that the directors selected by Brlnner
* dumett be restrained froa acting; nnd th».t the recilvcr
iMi inatirueted to 0*511 a sseotlng of the stockholdere for the
purpose of electing n n©^ Bo*»rd of 31 rectors, or to sell the
assets and 9lnd up -the nffatre of the ooao'^ny.
There ^^ms no ofearge in the bill of ooapl^ilnt that
the .*vd-Photo»cope ^earpnsy ^as insolrent >?Rr! It is jsprarent
that the p^rlaary objeet of the procesdlng tr^s to fre« the
company frots the control of Brinner l Burnett \nd p^XTBlt
It to continue doing buslaess under the management of a
directorate selected by the stockholiers.
The court appointed a receiver, ordered the call lag
of a HM!^tlng of the atackholdprs for the purpose of oonsiderlag
the ouea!tlon of levying nn assesaaent on the stock euf floiont
to pay the existing obi lotions of the oomp-^ny snd. enjofaed the
directors ispoolnted by Srinner A Burnett froa acting and
Klrobea «ind Feter<Ton froai proceeding further In the enforeeiieBt
of their respective clnias.
fe:---:.? ff--j
SMSl-
tjS^)lfeftSf«i&l-^ ■ ».rf^ «1 " tlHi^iiht»l g«ll»4»r.
- 3 -
The Ad'i'hotoBOope uoor-Any Answered the bill of
plaint. The wnewer w&e filed by Klrohen, repregcntlng herself
to be ^" duly 'juthorlzed officer incl -igent of the 8ompn.ny. it
mdaltted oertnln of ths :^lleg?tione of the oill r;ind o*-lled
for sitTiot proof of others, Among th» 'ill eg^t Ions »?hlch the
Answer reouired t^^e oomplain>.nt to sunport twlth strict proof
«&• that ohsrging that Klrohen had obtained n judgment agf'inst
the coac^any for 6,037, ao and «^s seeking to enforce It,
Ob Septeaber S4, 1923» the receiver filed n petition
wherein he recited thnt an order ha<i been entered authorising
hlB to sell all of the corporr'te assets to a coimsittee and
trustees representing the ^toofchoiders of +he ad-Fhotoacope
cJoaT^ny for the wak of f36,000,CK>; that the comaitte* hn.d :^id
110,000,00 on account of the parchAee orice but refused to pay
the bnlaaee until the »atf?o», Klroben ^nd I eteraon claims were
disposed of 3jid the assets freed from the recsiversblpj that
9steon*s olaiM was for ^,100,00 for rages and could be e<Mproa[-
iaed by the T>ay-?5ent of fl,100.00 in oish and §1,000,00 r&xth
of stock in. % corporation to be orgsjjlged by the purch&aing
ooaaiittee; that the > «t«rsou ol»li« for il8,l66,57 ooixld be
settled for ?4,000,O0 and th-st the Kirchen cltins for f?6,000,00
oofuld be oiMiproeeised and settled by t>te nay»ent of ?5,000,00,
Thrse days Ister the r>etltiott ^rss amended so thnt it sho-ed
thst the %%teoa ols>i« v%e to b^ p»id all in cash,
Ths attttter nma referred to a asaster in ohanccfy. He
reeoaaseaded the oo«t>romiBe of the daims ^e requested by the
yseelTsr, the Wfttson claia to be settled by the p«yaent of
i^,100,dO in cash nnd the b-^lanee in -stoon in j ne* ooryorfttion
BOW being orgnnijped," His report w^a confiraed «-nd on October S,
I***, the oourt diseoted the receiver to pay the aaounts to the
- « -
■■'■:;■■ '-IXSm^ttki-.^^ lit!-- : »t^ **%Sit
- 4 -
r*sp«otlTe el*iw«jite *• r»co«ffl#»\ded by the Waster except thnt
t>-» Twtfloa cItIb shoixld be tiaid nil in 09 ah*
On October 16, 19«3, the court referred itii ol«la« of
creditors which had not been jrllowed to % ;>i't«t«r in Chancery
to wmke proofs.
<M Unrob ?, 19?-7, Oharlea ii. ijitchell w«.« glren Is-nve
to file an IntfrreAtng petition in which It vr-rs recited that
the pl ending imo filed in hie ow-n b*?half find for "cert'^ln
unsecured creditor*. * *ho the eredltora i«?ere does not airoenr.
The petition oharged that Vincent a, Sallngher ?>oted as
•olioitor for the eo«pl.<iin^nt "^'s.teon *ind also for the defendant
Sircben, ^nd th^-it he oona-pirf^d with the receiver nnd Ma
attorneys to bare the eiaim of vsatson .<l loved s.s s preferred
wage olalji, whereas in f^-ot the olaija «rs for ar-.liKTy js,s
BSsletTint general aansger of the M-Fbotoseope Comimny and not
entitled to a srefer'^nae; and that the ■iiroben judgaient «ftvs the
result of •ollttsion *tnd that the receirer T-as reaiaa in hie
dntles in f«tilln<? to ooateet the elsias. rhe pjraytr of the
petition ims that the reoeirer beoauee of his alsconduot be
ordered to <!iccount for the tS,igo,00 i^ld to ??at8on, and to
refund the sua of #13,3S0»00 ^id to him as fees; th«t hie
sol ioi tors be rec'uired to refund the hvm of 1,003.00 mid to
theat ae fees nad th^t no ooa?jcn9ntloa what ^soever be 5>llo»fed to
the reeelTer for his serv^loce or those of his solicitors.
The T>etitlon was referred for hesrlng to -^ s-^ster
In Chancery. Ke found tH«9t the oh-%rges in the Intprrenln^
petition contained were trroundlees. T'le court, uuon the coalng
in of the taster's renort, sdlowed the reoeirer further conpen-
nation in the sua of ^850.00; refused to aake further sllotrance
for his sol ioi tors; nd lenled the prayer of ^Itohell's petition.
, sJM^: salt .Sl«i©»3tfetf4 e*iii^tV4 ^fi$ #-^# feftijE j«»^«ii>«;*5©«a ^ &i fcsX^i^BSS
.^- .^0(^i^v vm^tm if^ ^ fits?. #Q,@«s.s|; i* ««» ^&t fea»l*$
- 5 -
Froa thl« order both ssltohell find the r^ociirer appe-led,
laterreBing p«titloaer Mitchell »s first ^^aeli^naent
of ©rror is that the receiTcrsbip wna ooliuslve; th?t th«re'fore
th« receiver and his solicitors shoulcJ go ritbout o^aDensatioa
end that the ^,190.00 oaid to istfion should be rrstored to the
ftimda In the hi*nd.s of the court for the benefit of the geneml
creditors, if there wn« ooilusion in thtr institution of the
proceedings, Mitchell wss a party to it. iie had conferred «itfc
liAteon and Kirohen before the bill y/ae fil«i, He a^pproved
of it being filed and was in court ^^en the receiver mn «»t>:>olated.
He presided at a aeeting of the stockholfJers held rairsu«nt to
order of court, 'apparently the olan ^ns to oust lirinner & Bumett
frcMi control and effect t* reorganisation of the comrmny, it
fftilet!. Had it aticoeeded ther<? ^ould wnctoubtedly have been bo
ooBplaiat ?bout the sullownacs and r;*ay;aent of the Watson and
Kirohea elaias.
Much is said about tb«j canduot of (k«iilagher« He
represented ^^tson, ooaplainant, =^nd iLlrchea, defendant, iie
proo\ired an injuaction restraining his tmn client, iiirchen,
frwi proeeeatng to enforce her jadgssent agtiinst the coaspany, /?s
v« see the fs^ta, however, she was iriliing to be restr^^ined. Her
«I&la wes ooaproaised and tmid. Finally, neither S&taon nor
lirohea is here complaining ^bout the impropvlety of Gallagdher
representing both of then la the ease proceeding.
It is said that the court if<?.s iasposed upon by the
prooureaent of aa order to pav the ^tson olaia in full to the
prijudice of the general oreditora, ?i!itehell wws bound to kno»
fras the bill of ooapl^int that he iraa ns^erting a 'fsge claiM,
The Master in Ohenoery and the court found that he wms « wage
0l9.1aHint» 'that evidence 1^19 adduced la support of the cl%i«
,M**?Sf«?5e[« »JW wvjbwrtj.* »^* a»' ^t...:^ ^i c,-,*? ';■«*; -^^■
*^--?*^ ^^R»#«*f- Tswl#t*» *^ii«sjrf V ':J^tm -^^ f»»gi-iB<S9rir«c« ^taw j«JUJ»
- 6 -
do«8 not appctr. Mitchall objected to the Klrohen cI^Im on
thet ground that her judgment -mB unjuat nnd ibe product of a
oolluslTe t^freswent. In iebrxiary, 1924, h« withdrew hie objeotioB
to the olftla stating th«t eh^ h«d reoelved pnyaent by imf<tlr
■cthode but that she wa« Inaolvent. The directions to the reoelTer
to ooaproaiae and ruay the Wgit»ott,S:iroben '^nd Peterson ol-si«»
««re eont«ln«d In one order entered Cctober 5, lii23, ^he inter-
Tesin^ petitioner therefore knew of the Jillofftnce of the watson
da&a as e*»rly aa 1923, yet he made no move io contest it until
HftTohs 1927. If his petiftton is, ae he ohf^raot^-rlyed it, in
the a»tiure of a bill of rerieir, he *ss barred froa relief by
the statute of llaitatione. But ?rheth«:r true or not,
the ohanoellor was fully justified in di^nylng th<5 prayer of
the petition beoi^u«« of the l»t>ee af tiae Gonsider«Hi in conneotlon
with s?ai the fleets and clrcuastsncee.
The receilrer h<i8 assigii«4 croas-errora upon the record.
He contends that the court erred in not till oiling fees for the
•olloitore for the reoelTer na reeoasaended by the master. In view
of t^e irregul«rlty In prooedure in invoking the court to suthwp-
lae the o<MBr>roaiae and pa/asent of the three claims ebove referred
to without notlee to the general creditors re are not di?>i?osed
to reverse the decree -^nd thus stsjsp with ac^^roval the eonduct of
tb« aolioitors for the receiver. Xt ssy iiell toe that the pur-
oteslng eoaaittee would not rurohnse the assets of the company
vlthout first having the three oIrIms in Question dlepoaed of
•ad that the As^^ets were conserved by the settieaent, but the
•olloitore owed the duty to the court ^^nd the receiver to proceed
In an orderly way*
The decree of the -uperior -ourt of Cook bounty is
feat<*f.cT:'' 0.' x5Ti5;/?>j s-.- -;•?*> -/is ilea
,t A««4«lf
OpinWi filed April 17, 1929
n. JUSTIOS wi.iOa delivered the o dnlja of tbe oourt.
TIU« «pp«al i« fr&m. a judgis^ct for H8,&00«00, for
p^r*©!!-^! iaJurletB r*c«iv«dl toy the plaintiff M?^yy Dib&ell, »hll«
ritJing «• R p^ssimg«r in a taxlo&b ©paratsd by the {i«f«md?»nt,
T?»* Cfbecker Tasti Ctowpiujy, a corporsjtion,
Froa th« f«ets It *pp«ar8 tlcst tbo tuxio^b in which
pl&latiff vfl^a rl<£iag *ai» nrc»c«e<iir.g *tlong SheridlBJi <<©'^dL, **
b9txl«Y-<7d In th« CJlty of Ohioaigo, ■it ^bout 45 sileiK f>jEE hour
aad x^a lato & eoaor«t« inftt in the a«tit«7 af the gtrset t^lth
ffaffioleat foroe to br«ttk th« post ^a4 s^^Ilt the coucr«ta
•btttisent, dMBoIishlag the front of tfc#» ear, knocking looae the
xotor bloek, b«n,dlag th« front ne^t nnd throwing the i^l^ilnttff
forward ngftlnst the v^rtltioa sersr^tlng tfe« fJri^--*' -^^t
frtM tb%t part of the <j«ir rroTi<i«<S for p*-»seRger6,
Flftlatlff testified thst nh* ine^ nothing sfter the
aooldeat until she ^**a feeing os^rrlcd o«t of the «Hb into the
hoe^tsil. The LUbility of th^^ -iefend^^nt is ^daitted «nd th«
t»o Briaotp«tl grouada relied u.oa for rerereil %re th'?t the
diuMtgea are «jtee»:^lTe ?.nci that the jury was »?uilty cf slecondhict
in arrlTlng st its rer<liot in the cnae.
Rf^iyW t^as-'s
f
,?v
^«i^'
»XI#*;«II«#sl«S t!^« ?1fi!;^«ir«i;'£r #4* t*' .|Sksar|«»©«^ wftlt»t«s Xfia««%9s|
,«siifc««ssts«» s ^;it^|g|iiKEifec ■" ;-^.^'' ■-:■■■■■■- - '=»
fet.ll
&*.i is-'
- s -
1% Is silso UTg«<l tb?t the ' y^K>thetio%l qu«RtioBS
propounded to the aisdieal «ritiio«fi«B v^rn so Icmg ^ud inT3lv«4
»• to oonntitute error ^nd th«t o«rtala rrsnrke of counsel
for th« plnintlff In his n^rgwiisnt to th« juzy 9?er« not bused
on Xhti erid^nao» As to the first of these letst object ious»
•• have exaalaed the hypotJietionl Q«eetis>a ^nA oan see bo v^lid
olyjeotion to It, as to the ^rcositioa that ootms*! hst.
remrlM not b«,«ed on the evidence, ^9 find that oounsel for
ih9 dlefendnat was e<}URXl]r &t fi^ult.
Plaintiff, tnstifylaii; in b«r own h*t>^Hlf, atated that
irhea she arrived «t the hospital thar*' w»« it cut about 3 l/2
iBObes long above her right <?y«* »hi«h r-^o :lred 4 or 5 etltchca,
a»d that there vas <* deep cut and & gouged out hole in the left
sBtiLe; th^t she ims in the hooBit^l 4 d^tyg r/n! frosa tfestre she
vas 9.8!»i8ted to the SorrisOia ; otei, where sti ,*»d jsbout
two veeks in t>«d« Fros there she went to Oan^.dTt to th« hoae
of her f»*a41y, where she rejoined for another t??o ^eoks; that
•he use out of work api>roria*j»tffly fros 6 to 8 Treeksj tfc-t since
the aooident she has suffered severe isLln in her head; thst
there is a feeling ^s if there was a solid chxmk inside of her
head; thst «he »uff«r« eoatlaually froai bS9.dsch<^s; that two teeth
vere feaooked looee, one of ?Fhieh lasy have to be sytraoted, ae
it never tl^teaed; that whsa at work, nnd bending over, ittie
suffers fro« disrines^; thut after the sccideat her entire body
ms bruised i^nd that her shoulders «»ere bl%ek »ad si^ollen mad
thmt *»he had various tetaior cuts on different p*iTt« of her body;
tbfltt vhlle at the hospital they npnlisf! he»t to her legs %nd
«^d ftpplie<«tione to her h«id for hours; th«t her right leg
tree svoll«» three or four tlvtes it^^ Batumi else ^nd %l%ck fros
the ankle to the knee; tb%t «he h^d gn^t difficulty In rsieing:
- « "•
b«r «T» and thftt thl« oondltion l«)8t9d for thr©«? or fotir aonths,
but th«it It i>ipT>*Rr« ncm to b« In fi*.ir oonditlon; th.-nt h*r legs
*««I1 mtXmr ah* hi«« b«i« stranding on thoa for any leni^h of
tl«« and th«t 9h« »uff«r« nnln fro« the foot, =» :proxi«ateljr
hftlf wny «9 th« I«k; t^t her knee la stiff and when she geta
up it er40iL«; tb«t »be still has to t>xk« hot bt^tha at night
to reli«v« the p&lai; tbftt prior to the «ooid<Mtt she- hnd b««a
la good hi^Ith; th?«t ah« had nn oper^itioa «lght ye^rft befot-«
for !in Itttftrrmi oonditlon, but hnd ao other '^ooid^at prior to
th« oa« involTOd in this suit.
Dr. Shsfwr, a witCMSfi oallftd on behalf of the plala-
tlff» t«Btified thit h« ir»s m -^vhyaiolan and tlsi»t h« exaained
th« plaintiff -St th« '^luaibus koapiti^l, ■* A^j or t??o after the
jtooident «nd found bruises ov^y |5ractlc*^ily the entire body,
■ostly on tb« ri|tht «ho«idor und right «Trtr«»ity; %h'»t thers
WHS «♦ trai*B«tio iibrHalmiL atteove th<? right ey«, ^hieh rea»air«d
«titdli«9, ^d * larg« l»«a»toii^ or blood ^«j>r oitpt the rl^t
•omi? tiseusa; th^it h« found a sut o^er th© right foot, r«QTilriag
a vtitehf and raia in th« vioinity of the right hip; th^it siie
(MNiplftlBM of b«^dn8h»8 and mi«b«*«s of the 3c«lp; th?»t he faad*
& dlAgnosls of h«r oondttlodi at the ti^© aiad faund oonousaiofi
of the bmia, vith 8«!Ter« hoadaohes nad freouemt «no3tt5CiJ>v
trawa&tio heaetcaasi 0T»r tho right s®9iip tla%u«3f %n^ trauai- tic
lajory to th« rlgjit «ttpm-orbitsI aerv*.
Dr« Hesa«rt, a ^itn«8S cmi*cd on behalf of the pakala-
tiff, fr%9 s»k«d & by?othi«tlo^l «v»«*tion, inToivlng praotlo^ly
th« »*«B*i f30t», a« to the condition of the plislntiff «*5 et»t«d
by fa«ra*lf *nd !»• £h«»f«r, and testified thtst, in his oplnioa,
•he v%« suffering frost eonouasilon of th« bmia; th^t It w^m not
n<gaaa%ry th^at there shoiJld b« «t fr^otvcre ^^1 the skiall to prod»o«
- 8 *
:^^(|t^i:^iff-'Ss«s-^^^«@*». ^iisr^ittstf i^4dr ii lair ,«»i!8#i:f«
"•ifiisjife »#,^
*H a^>
moh « oondltlon, but th-^t it cotd.-H b# e«u«i«d bjr i Budflen jerk
OT Injury or Tioi«ao««
TTM»r« m94mii to b« a dlTergene* of ojIdIob »« to
wfetfther or not th« pl»latiff tfsii unoonvolous followi&g the
aooldcat ttiKl wp to itnd until tjh« arrived at th« honpitaX, but
thle w*a « <?ue«tloa of fact for the jury to consider, together
«i^ tbe other facte eonoeminfr her oonditlon ias«dl;^tely
following the nocldent. ?li* history shee^te prodused fro* the
re«t»nle of the CoIuaI>u« Hoepit^I, un<!er the heading, *iersoaal
! letory* ooatiis s. et<9tfrsest to the «ffe©t thst the p«itlent wits
oaooneeloue fron the mm%n% of the «»eol4ettt until «be v%n
brought to the ho«nJt!?d. This record ip^v* 1 ntra.'feioed ia erideaoe
by counsel for the pl?ilntiff p^n(i «*lth the c?>T33eat of cotmsel
for the defendant. The driver of t>i;» oafe testified thnt she
ir%» eonecl:>u8 fro« the tiae of the aecldent until ehe reaohed
the ho«r;.lt«l, i^9rdt a witnea? on b^alf of the plsklatlff, who
%-Mt irlTlag faat the aaene of the 'socident nnd assisted the
plaintiff to the hoapitftl, testified that she was unoonsoioue
until they tmyrttd nt the hoeultal.
?)r, »agner, a Ayulclan tJ«stJ[fyinK on ijehjUf of the
defeadiint, 8t'=*t»d th*t he *^a house surgeaa st th« i^olusbus
Rospltnl, iBd, had been pr?icticlng medicine for «Jb0ut ?«vcr»
ye^r? ^nd h d oeoealon to trent the plaintiff ©t the ;
vftS brought Into th* hospital; tbnt she muB ootwelous but
hysterical; thwt the lamlses to the plnlntlff w^re not ?«irtle-
ulsrly ?nlnful or nerloaB; thnt tbe pupils of her ♦*yes ^^ere
asntel »ad thftt there v^^e no dleturbaiaoe of the rfiflexes; tb«t
SB analysis of her urine ladichted kidney trouble by the rssence
•f ftltemea and c^sts; thH the? ohronlc nephrltls| th?»t
L iiui tf&x
i.
Mim
til- , fev-
- » -
b« fotmd fto syBpttMui of oonousslon of the br<!iln»
If th* faota testified to by %hm plaintiff wn" th^
wilniMia** on her b«h«.lf «^s to h«r phy«ienX aondltloa nr«? true,
^ad th* i''?»\jlt \ttrib«t^ibl« to th« PO-^ld«nt, th« ;}u4Ig^(mt 1«
not •xo««*i'V«. I'he faet th»t n court ?aight baTft ■»ir<«.rdl«d »
Xf»» 4«ouRt thin th?tt arrived ^t b/ the jurjrf l« not sufflolsnt
Teason for d«eli^riag th« f^jaoimt exoea^^lve. It is isuoaslbic
to nTTirm «* an •xaot oaloulatlon -"6 to the extent of d.a»ftg««
oecM^ionftd by iBjurlca. i^lxlng ■ ani of the 4^aMg«s is
a fimdtion of the jury, Th« resell t of its (i?:lib«rntion la
arriving at the aMa.8ux« of dnnj^tgos sboul<J not b« disturb«»4
unlosa th« aaouat 1» so grossly exo«s«ive %« to indiOAt«
pntsloa or pr«iudlot», %e c^-nnot ssy th«t th«re Is evidence
of eith«r pasDion or prejudio* on tbe ',>?»rt of the jury In
(irrlvlng at th« aaouat of its v^r^ict in this ossae* The Jury
had -»» op-ortunlty to see and h«sir the vitnese«« an-l to obaerr*
tb«lr eo»Su5t »i^ demennor »hil# testifying nnd *«a in a «uofe
better c^oeitlon to !m»;? upon the truth or flrob*^blIity -^f tbelr
t«»tl»pny than ?«ould a oourt of r^vl»».
It apd«8ir«8 th»it*ft»r the jury had retired to consider
its verdiot the t^u«»flon of dmai»,ge9 ws« dieousBad for sd«e
le>b of tlse %nd nine were in f??v@r of «wnr<Un|!; ^m&gan to
l^e aawuat of I1S,000,00 and three ^ers' in fmvor of fixing the
i9(«ount ^t !13,5<X).0CK, A ooln was flipped to anf* whether the
rerilot should b« ^13,500.00 or Il6,000,00, »-lth the result
that the verdict •*»« fiited at $15,000.00. *h« court permitted
defendant to esll the Jurors ^- a - 1 < nesaes for the r^urpoee of
lapeaehiAg their oi»n verdict. . pr^otloe ahoxidd not be
eaAOtioned. the verdict of the jury should not be i«pe%ebe4
3f««»i^i:'4%«-a f^A *a %lt«?c *sif '^^ ' ^»l«*B tc-sisr jurtit *»?>" -a
, ^«s*«» HIS* ,C-C,OCO,SJL$ f* lirt^il c- -' «»c-s!"-;-v ' :' J •^'*iJ
». s^ ♦$l^*»i_«jt*r >»tsfc*&«W awe <y{^^* ^Riff?k«a<p8l
iB the <JOurt »h«r« It i« r«n(i«yed, by the Jvrors th#ii»elve»,
otherwise the aerts^lnty of rerdlota *ovld b# insecure «Bd
liable to b« oTerthrown by «iiy one of the >»»«l, Jt r1o»« not
•ppCAr, how«ver« ths^t «ll of the jurors *«r*: %gT©«d upon th«
•ua of ll2,6O0«D0j nlae of th«9ai «-<?t«* In f^iror of ^.war^ing nior«.
The oourt eoaip«ll«d « rflaittitur of >3,500, 0, fixlag the ^aouiit
at $12,500.00 aiui entered Judgn«nt up<m thift ;3je0atnt. On thla
0tAt« of th« fftota vontre unnble to a«e why th« def«n4ant would
h*T« o«aa« to ooflsf)! 'in* Won* of the juror® K^er** in favor of
« less luiount than this. &y the action of the trl^vi oourt» It
!• apparent %hnt the jurlgis<»nt entered ira» for the l^st saiouat
that the jury wae In fa-vor of a« sealing *;t^in8t ibe defendant.
While the t>Too*e<liBg vmm irregul-sr, we earmot see that there
eae any error in the entry of the jisdgaesjt hisraful to the
defendnnt aad conofmlBg whloh it v^Mld be is r :?osition t©
oweplala.
J or the re>«9oas et'itei in thXe ojviaion the juTlgas^nt
of the Circuit Court ia affiraied.
r # .*
isseim^ ff^mx »*» ire's n^tv i*«»*fl[* *»»i^^»t *^ ^^«^ tu^xs^.f?^ «i
33053
HKLl^B M.lHIOaiM
AUBU
1.
Opinion filed April 17, 1929
KR. JUSTICE l^II^OK delivered the opinion of the
OOUTt,
Plaintiff, Helen ss. Higglns, filed her declaration
consiatlng of two counts, ohs^rjlng in the first count that
the defend-aint ivlMe C. aejsek, intending to injure the plain-
tiff and deprire her of the society of her hueb-md Kdward
Gh&rles Higglns, did *3rongfully and wickedly debsuch the
s%id Edvftrd Charles Ul^ggens, «hile he v.^.s then s&^ there the
husband of the plaintiff and thereby ?ili«astrd his affections
and deprived her of hie society an^ assllitanee. The seoond
count oh^-^ge« the defendant *rith alienating the affeotlona
of plaintiff's hiutb^nd and depriving her of hia 8oci«sty and
assistance. Defendant filed a pies of the genexr!l issue and
the oauee being reached for trial before ■». jury, the trial
court sustained a aotion at the conclusion of plaintiff's evidence
to direct a verdict in favor of the defend' nt and the jury
«as so instructed. A action for a ne« trii-tl ir%s owvruled
and judgment entered in favor of the defendant for costs, from
which judgaent this appeal is perfected.
The only testimony w«a that introduced on behalf of
the ipOLalntlff and froai this it appears th?it the plaintiff sas
■arried to Edward Charles Hi^i^ins at Kalas^soo, '»!iehig»n, ^pril
20, 1898, and lived in Chicago until feiroh 1916, »tnd then aoved
to (^aifomia. four children were bom ^s r^ result of this
■arrlage, ind at the ti-ss of the triia* plaintiff was 57 y^rs
:£$&I4
:gS8I t?I IxiqA |?9lx-i noiniqO
. 'ms*mmJ^»ii^ '*9m^ imi0. .^m^M .^^..m^. -^axuMi^m
Si'^k ^Ms^ij^iSk ^^mmmiMlM $» lusl^iS ssilEs^ Jnuacfca of fntl^?.^
of as* and h«y huabaad a^ut 61. ^he huaband pmotioed law im
Onlifomla for a narlod of tlae ^nd then retunied to Jhloage
In JsnMATj 1931, where ha waa followed tqr hla wife and fanlly
In June of that year. Iliey lived together until nbout 3epteail>«r«
1931, when the wife returned to Cedifomia where her husband
joined them la 19^3. He teturned to <^'hi«a|:o in the Ull of 1923
and the plaintiff also returned later in the fall of that
year and went to bis office where che found the defend%Qt in
company with her husband, i^om this tiae on it npoernxs that
the defendant was a oonat^uit wisitor at the office and was
seen there frequently, ihey appear to have spent a good de^X
of the tiae together and luabbed together frequently, '^nd there
ia testittony that in March 19SS, they were seen together »t
the flat of the defendnnt and that Higgina, the huabnnd, was
seen in the Itring rooa r-ith s aaoking jacket on. Another
tiae defendant w*i3 seen to c-ill for i:igglns and taka him with
her in her autoaobile and there is t'^stlaony to the effect that
they wer« frequently together, both ia publie and ia priTate.
On one ewening the plaintiff, with two officers,
watched the flat of the defendant after the defend:'iixt and the
husband Higgias had arrived at the ?ipartaent and the lights
were extinguished aboxat '^:30 o'clock in the aomini^. ^he officers
rang the bell and were ndaitted and fouad the defend«nt dressed
la a ni^t-gowB and the husband Mig^ins with nothing on but a
bathrobe. There was but one bedroom in the @p@^rtment. ^e bed
ia the apartesnt had the apperranoe of having been occupied.
There is evidence that the husband Higgitts had be«a spending
his time with the defendant and not with the plaintiff and that
the defendant had been heard to make st-tenents to the effect
that Sigglas, the husbaad, did not dire to leave her.
4S*^s«sj?caf. life^jt: i^fss^ «*^#«^«# B^yil ^««":4' ,«j««t **^*" **>■ »mii, al
tM0 A'm&m* *i »*• *«*^* ^^^^ ®**'* jNwseEes?]^ is-i ^fiw t*««^«^
,**?:•? ri:^; £.1 life'- ill 4l^«^ »ir®^#ftj.^-r<t Tl-^»^SlS^1ct 51C9i¥ t^d*
em ism 0mi^m^^i^ ■^M-.m^'i^ t&f^li^im^^*, a«S^ 1« *»|^^.®ej? /jt^irv-?-!???
- 3 -
The only rueetioa to be deteraln»<} on the record
In this Oftce, on the asslgameBt of error «lth reference to
the dlreoting of the rerdlot, la as to i^hether the eTldenoe
offered by plaintiff, vith nil the reasonable Inferences to
be drawn therefrom, f&irly tended to proTe the allegptlons of
the deel'^ration*
The cottxt oa a notion to direot gi verdiot should
m»\ rel^ the eTldense as it does on >% isotion for m nev tri^,
but should determine as to whether or not there l3 »Ay
OTidence fairly tending to prove the alleg^ti^s of the
deelamtion. Scowden t, Xsphor^. "14 III, App, 394,
The testimony in this 8».se iras not contradicted.
There was eridence tendiiag to support the deelciration *nd
it was error to hp.re instructed s verdict.
for the ren-sons stated in thia opinion, the jod^ent
of the u^uperior Oourt la reToraed imA the oauae r«EBanded for
a new trial.
^
►'€■.'#
te 0£s»j;i^^»lX$ «<ijr «W«<t ^ n^^^t %£a^i/^t ^a^ltp
..fcir^'^i^S, ;i-^'
• ^V' S*.-ii^
*■«*•-: ! 'Sj
33113
WALTK* J.
.1* ^
3
on filed April 17, 1929
'bh. justice m»Soa dellverffd th« opinion of the
court.
Halter J. Peteaoh, (lolag bu«ine«s ae T*alter ^.
Petesoh i Ooapany, plaintiff, brought his -jietloa for co»-
■isaion for the eriie of certr^ln reai estate sltuj^ted in the
City of ^iengo, against the defendrmt Obrist U, Sr^rlson,
defend3,nt. a trl^ «a8 bed resulting ia a rerdiot by the jury
in favoT of the plgsiatiff for the sua of y^SSS.OO, upon ^-hlch
Terdict judgment ^^ae entered.
It ai?pe»re from, the uncoatradicted testiaiony that
the property In question ^»^s sold for 1 49,000, DO and that the
full oo»:«is<?ion baaed upon that aatount '^^ould be il,670,00.
It is =5!.leo undisputed thnt the dcfexxd'snt .aid ^835.00, hut
the defendant seeks to defend vipon the ground th^t there tnas
BO teetittony showing the eat^loyaMmt of the ol^lntlff by th«
dafend-ont -^nd th = t the pnyaient vft,8 n voktmtary, mor^l contribu-
tion. The ordinal affldarlt of defense filed in anld cpxise
stated that the defendant infnraed the plaintiff th^jt there
wfts another broker who had the exclualTe agency to sell '^nd
thnt the defciid^nt ^ould not close the deal unless the pl«iintiff
agreed to accept one— half of the cooaiesion and -<'if the other
-»fvl
mi^ vnji
s .< i »"."-;?%
"1 "
\
C3 O «i-i#X ws G ^
esei ^TI IxiqA bslil noinxqO
M^ -1^ .«^M.e<T« *^ &c*tts>-iA3^ J8&S4I'' »Bi?S£n, »m
%iSfi
.t^i^ide
tw* *C<**#^I JM:«i«? #it*l».8«%4?ife *«?;# $m^ -=:••'■ ■•f^^--.' !- -'-^ "' *■
k&s Ilsm 9t "fE^m^^ mttmsli>x9 *ifjl* fe«tf ««*« T»*0ir<f 5«^.to«£ raw
- « -
broker the bnlanoe. An 9ia(tn(l«<l affld«>Tlt of cuerlts filed by
the defendant deniee that he listed the r>ro: erty vlth the
plaintiff and denies th%t he agreed to pay 4 full ooamiaBion
and, for a further defense, states that he told the olalntiff
that he would pell If the pliaintlff would agree to accept
one-h»lf (it the amount of the eom;tils«ilon. The defendant in
his tsstloony stated th»it he told the pl»latlff th«t he vould
sell the proi:>erty at 1600.30 a foot <?.nd 'rould p«y some 00m-
■ission.
The testlflMoy is uno^atradietf^d to tb© effect th»»t
Petesch was ? re«l estate broker qnd thst he talked ?rith the
defendant about the sale of the ^-^trtioular oieo^ of property
la question and th^t the defend«»nt told him that he would t^ke
$600.00 a foot for it; that on or ?.bout Soveiabcr 11, 1935, he
sent 3 aan to see the d©fendp.nt ?ind the r|@fendnnt ^ooosspfinl^d
this B»n to plaintiff's office, vrbere he ^.s intvoduced to the
purehassr of the property, which property defendant ultiaaately
sold directly without the knowledge of the plaintiff. s.fter
the sale defendant left a check for 1835.00 at the office of
t})« iilaintlff. this ymM «BiS*^half of the full co:sffli08ion to
vfeioh plrrintiff was entitled. Plaintiff thereupon a^uaovl edged
receipt of the oheck by letter and stated in the com»u&io^tioa
that it had hmea applied on account, leaTlng a b&lanee of
fSS&.OO still due. Objection la mn&e to the introduction of
this letter which t^.9. Introduced in eTldenoe on behiif of the
plaintiff, but ?re are unable to aee ^y it was not coatretent
for tha purpose of showing that the plaintiff did not oonsider
the payaent as a full JMtisfaotion of his olais. there does
act appear to hare been any notation on the check to the effect
that it was payaent la full sad, aoreover, the account was a
.A - s -
a^:^^*«»«^..iiy«^.*5-.li^ «# ^*S^-*; - • «NSf^J«»6 fc«^ \\i.i Alicia
• ■ ©df 4^S:i^',M:is«^«y©«/*«6«^ as©, #*Ef# i#i >!»$ j^«$1:-li oo.ooai
-fJIfttiSifcttjBr irst«fee»*»fe irjhWteGa^ 4i^i^ ,,fr»N|<5«q[ a^fit' io r^nsHt^tuq
4(^* 1« ^il^fes^ ■^- '^'^'^■!*hJtm' si temi^<cntsiii c«w <fel<^ tester/ aM*
f«»t««sB©» *'. ■ iTjf- *?«« "<if '»£<faisfg $t« aw Jutf »ltitHlslq
- 3 -
llqul4nted aocount ftnA the fuaouiit of the ooMmlaaion ottrt^in if
th« ;:iaintlff vaa entitled to the full ooa«iosion.
froa th« testisonf it appemrs that tlie pl»ilntiff
disoussed vlth th« defendant the quetttioa of the sale of the
property belonging to the defendant and «aa ouoted a price
aadf &0 a ontter of fnct, introduced the defendant to the
person ^ho subsequently bought the property sad '^9 find in
the reoord ijiple testimony to aupport the verdict and judgment
of the tria.1 court, ^e find no error in the nioeceding which
vould warrant & reTers^l*
For the reftsone stated In this opinion, the Judgment
of the N!imicip«»l Jourt is affirmed.
•"8 *•
1 - -- T:^ J . *
.Ifev-ir m^'^i'^yM: v^*!"
33133
doing btJTinety T« OOnoTiy
PltuiV>ln# and i«atlw ^'o
S.
'U
Opinion filed ^pril 17, 1989
MR. JUSTIOK »H,SO» dellT«red the oolnion of the oourt.
Plaintiff*, Joaeph KoHimsky -"nd ahsries Ro8«, doing
Imalnesa aa Eoononty Plumbing ^nd How ting Og., brought its
eotion flig*»ln8t the d«fend:int ^. Bortz, to reooT«r a b»»l«»,noe
due for labor 9.nd anterlale furnished on three garages erected
by the defendant in the CJlty of Ohloago. A Jury ir»8 *qlved
«nd the oauae tried by the court, restdtlng in a finding in
fa^or of the r^Iaintlffs for the sum ot #I490« a. Jud^ent
vaa entered on the finding.
Rule id of this court rovidea th^t the brief shall
contain a torae outline of the principW polnta relied upon
for reTeraal. ^e find no auoh outline of the principal oointa
relied upon for rerersial in the brief of the appellant In the
onuae. But one oolnt for rerersnl appears under tha polnte
ajftd authoritlea cited, > namely, th<^t the judi^ent is iBYalid
beoAuae of the f<iot thitt the judg?uent la in the i^lngular «nd
not in the oiursil. An ex!iBiln»«tlon of the plendinga l» the o»8e
diacloaea the fact thst they are r11 entitled, "JoseT^h Kominsky
and uharlea ^oaa, doing buaineae t«8 rconoaqr '^^^luj^blng nnd Hen ting
Oo«* There la nothing in the record ahoving r dissieaal r<.9 to
any party plaintiff. The title to the onuae olaarly Indioatea
.0&6fl^i Vi f C
||V-f?a"*^»f-
: mmk -imi ^ «%ti*«li«ias «tf£# t<* to-WjwT
• v.*»i'j. -<b-!-;
- 2 .
ft partnership aad thmt t^• "rork done imA nst^^rlals furaished
w«r« l»y the plelntlffe jointly, Tbe finding of the trlnl court
aeeesKfiV (a.sialirtt* (tluna) daaagea at the eua of i»I4dO.
Judgac^t '"'•?i entsr^d uv>on this finding.
fhe appenl bond filed in th(» onuse Bt-^tee that 0,
Borts, as principal and the United States iridelity ^ GM»T^ntj
Contv^ny, as surety, %Te held %nd firwiy boun<i unto Joseph
lomiasky ajoA Charles Hess, trnliQis »^ Eoonoay <luaklng >ind
Banting Co.
It la apparent frMi the record ?nd the proceedings,
that the Judi^aent was ia favor of the plslntlffs (plural) and
not in fivor of «tay rirtioiilar one of them, ->ay rei;t.t?U.«
In the Ju'ljjaient; order Inoonslet'^nt ?^lth the i-rocesdlaj^js nnd
the fimUf^g <f the tri?a court are, necesanrily, tytHS^graphiesl
errors, ^nd full legal effect will be given to the judgssent as
lntende<!.
This court la the c.ee of Lurle ▼. bre?»er> '48 111.
App. 535, said:
• Def end?tBt oontenAs th; t the judgM«nt is in f".vor of
{ilaintiff "hen it should hs^ve been in the plur?vi nuaber.
W« think thst talking the reoord altogether the judgment
■ay bfi re?»d ^a being in f?var of the Plaintiff a, for ?>t
the o«58t it ia but a olerlcsl error. All of the reeit^tions
both in the ^^.eadings, affidsvita rind other recitals, both
by the plaintiffs '^nd the defendant, refer to plnlntiffa In
the plural and not in the lingular. Any recitals inconsis-
tent with the foregoing are typographical errors nn i the
legrl effecti thereof ipHI be given by the court. It
would be ridiculous to reverse this judg^aent on such r
fllKsy pretense th^^^t in one inatnnee ia the tmnscript,
but not in thfi JiKigaent, the plsintlffs were recited in the
slngul'ir inste&d of the lurnl niimber,*
rid other reason hnvlng been assigned «>0 ^ound for
revsrsnl in the brief filed herein, it ia only nece8??ary to consides
the oas cuestion resented for the eonaideratlon of this court.
For the reasons stnted in this opinion the judgment
of the ^niclpal -ourt is affirmed,
JUOGS«£*T AFFiatfED.
H0L2XW, P.J. «K» HYIER^ J. OCHCJUR
••^ # ■•*
.$41 S-^-S %ite^ *^ Ha^ '^^ ^«-"-^ ■ ^^.^ ■■
Mi A
I .V iii>t.T-«.i,
,jhc»c« »?f*t ••fe?«ff<»s» *
,b-^mtttt9'. si #i»e-
:^mvit mt
33141
VII£ CR££OOTA(L
for MflDA &tMht
I)«f endnnt- App«l I aat •
AJPP
50UHT
or chioaoo.
Opinion filed April 17, 1939
la, JCSTICK wlbBOS d«llT«red tbe orlnloa of the
aourt.
The stftteaent of oLsim filed in this cause charges
that the defendant Bernatt forovics is indebted to the plain-
tiff's attorney in f?!Ot, in the sua of #400, with interest
froa dste, upon certain contracts in writing: stt-^chsd to ^nd
oHide a puTt of the statement of olsia. The defendant answering
allegad that the contmets or notes in writing vere not
exemited by bla and that the sigi^tures thereon rere obt^^ined
by Tioleaee aad duress; denies further that they v^ere giTen
for «& YsOLid consideration and fleniea that be is indebted to
the plaintiff Mike Sreegoimo, attorney lii fact for Handa
BenakoTlos In any saount ^^h?* tsoerer. Jhe proocedlnr
?»etion on a oontr-^ct of the fourth cl8.e3 uader the kunicipel
Court Act. Upon being called nM a witness by the plnintiff,
the defendsnt ndmitt*».i ,=>lgning thp four certain notes or
agreements to pay the ^-^OO, together with interest ^.t thrae
percent, and adaitted further thi^it he h^d received froa ttt^nds
BiMiakoTioe $500, on ^rhieh he |mi paid bselc 1100.
The cause vas submitted to the court -without 3 j^XF
&Bd s finding was made by the court in f^Tor of the plaintiff
for the sua of $499, upon which finding judgment ?"?<» entered.
^...-mi^
■«■ Sf 34 'r'^
■qi''^%tiSff*e.
^ss: i isqis A~?i?.rB/r^ if^
esei \VI IxTqA ham noxniqC
* tj J. -jtj'
m
:^5
jS.^V'jfA^v-aa*-
•?^i,?Ov
- 2 -
Tti« court found 9r»«ol<m7 that the notes In questioa« and
vhloh were IntToduced la eTldence in support of the oItiIk of
th« plaintiff, were obtained by duress and were inv?slld,
Erldenoe was introduced upon beb'lf of the defen1-int
to the effeot that he had entered Into a Terbril ^sgree-aent
with ttanda BezuikoTlos, by which i^e «%8 to purchase a oleee
of property In Jugo-SlaTln belonging to the defendant snd
that the nAynent of ^800 tme }» de^?o8it on the nurchnse crlce.
It appenrs further froa the ••etimony on behalf of the defendant
that he rirepered x«pere to be sij?ned by his wife, who wna them
llTlng in Jugo-Slavla, but it does not sprear thst they were
ever so signed but thsst, »e v. ^ssttt^.r of f-ct, the wife esubsequent-
ly sold the property to Manda Benakorica upon dlffer<rnt t^rsa
and uikler a different agre^^went, fhe t500 paya^at was msde by
lloBda Beanltovloa to the def^ad&at In HoYeaber, 1919, and the
defendant testified that soaetlae thereafter she deasuied
the return of her aoney nnd that he oalled at her home «snd she
told hla if he would not return her aoaey she «ould kill hla.
This oonreraiition was denied by others present at the tlae -^^nd
w« are unable to a8cer1»,in frosi the record under «hat f'>cts
the trlnl court found the notes In question were obt'^ined isf
fraud and dbaress. There does not 3pT>e%r to hawe been aueh %a
ualawf^jil aet performed on the part of M*inds. ^eiu^kovlcs, or any
one on her behalf, ss would hnre denrived the defendant of the
exerolse of his free ^111 in the ssi^lng and e^secrutlng of the
notes la otMstioa. These notes or instruments in writing
aoknowl edg&hg the indebtedness appear to h?^ve been ssde soaetlae
after the alleged conwersation and, so far ss the evidence shows,
w«t the woluntary net of the defendant,
nie Supreme Court of this State in the case of
•*!A *:
,.5.i.. . . ..;.v/. lu -i!^ ?i^-i?i ©''»!:?«# '^.ejBt* ^8t le tasstj*? *0- f^^i-
^«p» ^»^ $s«» «A»cni« tax «»«{> #1 -tmt. ^miWBl&-&m^ al ;^ilvii
)#». ;.2s* ^ -
»8 !#*?!!«►?»
.^w 'Sdwk- S-
ozj ^t:7i.yi
1»
- 3 -
Harrla ▼. flaok. ?89 111, 322, in Ita opinion b^s defined
*axti—** as foll«ir«:
•Dureas haa been defined aa ». condition vhich exiata
where one by sn unlawful (Ct of another is induced to
■&k« A oontraot or perfom or forego soaie not under oir>-
ouastanoea vhioh deprive hia of the exereiae of free
will. (14 Cyo, 11^3), Mere annoyance or yexation will
not conatitute dureaa, but tbmM must be auoh ooapulelon
affecting the alnd ».8 shove th«it the execution of the
contrrfct or other inatrument ia not the voluntary act
of the ar,kftr. feitchell y. Mitehell. 367 111. 344;
Kroa-neyer ▼. 'uck. o58 Id, 586; jiou^ton v, -:B>;^t)>,. 348
Id. 396: rjintz ▼. Uintz. 2^2 id. 348: joraey v. AoJboott
173 id. 539: Hfieaa ▼. ^aldo. 168 id. 646."
It Is urged aa a further ground for reweraal th^t thia
finding ia inoonaiatent rith ^he Judgpeent and that ao nmaigm^nt
of error appeara In the record on behalf of the plaintiff to
the finding, but it i» stronfjLy urged In ar)p«»llee8 briefs filed
herein thst such flMlng Is contrary to the evidence and 1b
tbla we concur. It is also urged th?>t the court ahduld not
haT« entero^d judgsent in f^vor of the defendant because of the
fact that it aT'peara the acney paid »a« a deposit under a verbal
offer to purchaaa real eatate "^ad that, therefore, r.. tender of
perfora^.nce i^ould h::ive been wade before the return of the
deposit could be deaajsded by the plaintiff. It is a auffloient
Murwer to thla to aay that the rr«>P«Tty la question had jessed
beyond the control of the defendant and that as offer of er-
foraanoe would have been uaelesa. Froa the facta it ia ap^rent
that the defendant received the money In Question, but that
the pro?:>«rty wns not oMiveyed under tbe vcrbjil ngreeaent, and
was aubaequently imrchnaed by Ms^nda SenakoTica un-^er a different
arrangement «ad under different coaditiona, Fartberwore, aa
a Matter of jwtioe, the plaintiff le entitled to the return of
tha deposit.
l*§g|gs^^
■1 &A &s:
.1- ^0£'?; t'it? ^flsr^rf
^ll^ %jfe <|f:^5j:ss«ws;--
-ajel
mi
■tfaj:M%Qtl»q
iSt^-'
"-•- - p.^f ,«*(&i:®«f* fisacC »'riKi feji-r. — — --ret
"Ttm
..r JtS©'--^'?«fc »!rf#
- 4 -
Xb :>ur Tl«ir of the •Tld«mo« Mid the t©oot<?, the
court firrlTOd at % pror>«r conclusion on the aerlts of the
oniui« of action ind its judg;!iient should not be disturbed.
For the reasons Bt:<ited in this opinion* the judgment
of the ;^iinieipal Oourt of Chicago is affirmed.
JUDG«E»T AFJIHSJSO.
HOLDOM, r.J. A»D RTHtfl, J. G0IISU8»
33162
JOSEF ?#Ki);.i^, v^*^'
D«fcndRnt in i£riro
HUilGl' -^i .'CURT
Opinion filed April 17, 1939
MH. JUSTICE siL,!30a deilTered the opinion of the court.
Flalntlff, Joseph wa&das, filed his olala 1b the
Huaioip^l Qo^Tt, alleglag th?«t the d©fend!».nt, Morris Qerber,
«a« indebted to hia, the al%intiff. In the ©«» of 1675 for
real cet^^te ooamissioos by rs&soa of the proQureaent by blm
of 5 purchaser for tb« protHirty of the defendant, i'he osuse
wa« tried before the oourt without a juiy, r«'miltliig in ^s
finding la favor of the defendant, upon vhlch finding ^udgfisent
vas entered for costs in f%vor of the defend^^nt nnd t^gainst
the plaintiff, Froa thie judgment thie appeal is oerfected,
rroa the facts it appears that the plaintiff ifhb In
the re&l estate business ^nd hatt bees for s nunber of years;
that on July 20, 1327» he ves employed 1i^ the defendant to sell
certain real est.%te and that he procured a purchaser for ea.id
property i?ho was ready, nble and ipilling to buy the saine; th*.t
on July 30, 1937, he introduced the purchaser to the defendant;
that a oontmct wms entered into between the purchieer and the
defendant on August 1, 19S7, the plaintiff not being present.
The defendant in hie sffid^Tit of serits denied that the plaintiff
««• A duly licensed broker. It appears, ths^t there vn-s %t the
tine in full force ?Lnd effect In the Gity of O'hicago, a certain
ordinance providing thr>t It shoxiia be unlawful for *ny person.
\
\
SdXSS
i^^^flk «.r tt*#ftA'j'
t T <^^ ^ ""
eseX tVI IxxqA ^,..:,,;.i ,-ioxniqQ
,0? tXs^^^ <«5
.^stsi^sni
- 2 -
fix* or corpora tloa to eam^ftge in th« buslnsss or act la the
oapaoity of a r^nl estate broker frithout first obtaining a
licenae therefor.
It appears from the f«ots and It 1« not denied, that
pl«intiff*8 business was thnt of a re:<!l est^^te broker as defined
by the oTdlnanoe in nuestion. It further appears that on JiJly
30, 1927, up to and including July 30, 1937, plsilntiff was
operating without the required license* His work as a broker
iB procuring a purchaser and introducing hla to the defendant
was coaoluded within that ^>erlod of time sad. his servloes fully
perforsed. August 1st, the parties entered into the agreement
with reference to the sale of the property and, on the saae
date, the p&alntlff procured his lioense froa the Oitj of
Chicago* It does not ao -firr whether the contract irae signed
before the prooux«»ent of the lioense or vle<^ versa, but, in
the view we tnke of the c=»8e, it la not a^^terlal as to -^hloh
was first in onler of time. Hvc work perforsed by the plaintiff
was daring a tlae irhen he w-ia Tsrithout abthority to >-ct as a
broker and, consequently, ual^iwful, Under such clreumet&noes
the court will not sanction his recovery.
This court in the caee of fcirk v, acnry a. filoh & Octy.
156 111. App, 48?;, in its opinion s-^ys:
The aerrlces of plaintiff xere rendered before
he obtained a license. It is iei^Rterlal tbrt ?iftex the
services were rendered ^ind before the l«a3« ras ex-
ecuted, he took out a license. Plaintiff performed
his part of his contract with defendant when he r^ro-
cured a person willing and able to accept '^ lease on
the teras offered by the defendant, but his =..oto in
the pMrfonsnnce of the contrgct bping unlarful, they
oaanot b« the basis; of a recovery.
The licenae took effect from the date it ^^a
Issued and cmnot be given a retroactive effect ao as
to aake valid ^ots of the plaintiff done between May
1 and October :50, 190?.*
« s -
;& gft*ai-«|5*& #(rr«i 'teNMEHsir- .«»J)i«t«r ^#«$«» Xt.'.^T J6: to 's*i»^«r*''5
^ ^^^ ^ mis ■ S^t-%^^$--m *i&« «i i?i »««i!i^ «^* 'I© ®lj*t »« «®lY 4^*
- » -
To the siiatc •£ ■•ct «^»e iLtaaeT ▼« iieln»ohp. lenersl
lo. 33669, Opinion h^Aded dovn by this eourt October LI, 1328,
(not yet reported}.
ror the reAsoiitf stated la this opinion the judgaent
of the liunioipal Court is affiraed.
|M:X- ?'-■ ^':''''® ■ '^'-
33336
JAMSS H. HOOFXHf
A %int J/f-A ci^ll ant
V^-
Oef enda|ht-App«Il B%i
JUSTIOS Wlt^S
pinion filed 'April 17, 1929
ellversd the opinion of th« court*
The plaintiff J'^^.aies H, Hooper, on 3crte«ber 8, 1936,
obtained judgment by confeeaion on a note for the m\m of
fS14,60, agn-lnet the defeMtnat Aatoni fitazur, a notion to
▼«oat« nH.a «tlloi»«d ^nd th© cause was tried before s. Jury •ad a
▼erdlot returned finding the lesues In favor of the defendant,
on which Terdlot jud^ent tmn entered an' appesd token to thia
ooiurt.
Froa the faeta It appears that the plaintiff bought
a certs In stock of groceries, fixtures and ecjulwa^nt ^t ^. mle
conducted by the bntliff of the Munlelpml -Jourt on July S, 1336,
aad entered Into «ib agreement to re«-sell this stoeJc of goods
and the equlpaent to the defendint for the num of ^1100«00, and
reeeired in eash sua part p^iysent h\ the time the sua of i640«00.
there appears to be eoae dispute «ie to whether or not the tceys
to the preaiisea were delivered to the defend'xnt on this date.
At the tlae of this Rgreeinent a foraial bill of scJLe wns executed
vhioh reolted thif^rein the artioles intended to be conTeyed. On
On July 7th, defend««nt went to the place where the ^oods *ere
stored and, ^coordlng to hie teatinony nnd thnt of his •'itneseea,
foxmd » number of tbe articles missing*
esei tVI liTgA'balil noiniqoC J
mztz
%# ^»ft atfsr ««iE.. ###« J? ffl»,.Hi^J)s«3*Si8©© ^. #»ss@fe»C >-„
'■ ' ■■ ' ■■ iiiMf^
. Sa* ,"(^.©^111 "fefe «*S''*ii* «&t #!3.«'Jb«»t»/> Silt o# #isr«»qiito« «-d* fea«
- ? -
FroBi the eTl(ti»noe it -tpoenrs that on July 7th,
Hooper v'-ia intomed ol the fact that o»Tt'»iii articlea vtere
■IsalBg and notified the police departsient thpt these 'trtioles
had be^n stolen. The defendant introduced evidence to the
effect that after the loea of these articles »>?.» dieoovered, %
new agreeisent waa entered into, under which the plaintiff
undertook to prooure the mla: ing artiolee or, in the event he
vaa unable so to do, then the defendant i^s to be released
frofli the :5«?y«ent of nay further aisount under the 'sgreewent of
July ?^nd, ThlB -w^s denied by the def-nd^mt.
The oaiae apoesra to have been tried on this theory
«nd DO objection mis jwide by the plaintiff to the proof or
the judgment entered herein on the ground of vrjriance, \intll
the filing of the reply brief, i^hioh un^ler the rules of this
court cones to© l»t€. The jury found the leaues In f^'vor of
the defendant sad we laee no reason for rfisturblng tK-^t verdict.
For the remeona stated in this opinion, the judgment
of the M\mioipal Coxurt is affimed.
M^i^ la «*&« «MJ^ l»ftea flsl«fif ,t»ih[^ tlof^'i sdS- to -^aiiil. »«W
^ t-^"^-^'''
/
53216
SSUiiA CKA^'y&HO, )
Fl&mtin' in £rror, )
.:«ll80K.,JS|h.8UFi;BlC>li CI
\ ■ -^
;.R. PRXSiaaiO JUSTlCgfO'Cvi.i*i)«
Plftintiff brought »ii -^etl^n against defendants to m-
eoTA^r dataageB for unlawrully reatr*ini.ng h(>r liberty ;tfid aetalnlng
hftr in a smnltariuai. Xhe jury fouttd tn« Issues in piaintii'f 8
f AYor a&d aB»«s8ttd ix«r dai^a&es at one dollar. Judgi&ent ?;&« e£iter«d
on th« Terdict aad plaictlff «p>yeal8.
'ilte suit was 8&art«d July 28, 1916, mi<S thore have 1|^««b
four trials. In two ef ti^osa tlis iarj dissi^^reed .out ixi th« eth«r th«
T«rdiot was ill famvcr of d«fc?£<jat2ts. Ab a^p«ai «as taken te the S«»
prczue court v-^sre tli» Jui^ont «as r««-vsrsed suad the cause r^e,ar;ded
for a n«nr trial ( Crawf q rd T ^, Brown . Ml 111, 5C^S) , fici as stited,
the fourt'a trial r<^eult«d in % T«rdiot and Judi^«nt in favor gf
plaintiff for one dollar.
The f^ets in th« case are rataer fully set out iu tbs
opinion cf the Supre<ae court on the ioxvksr a$>peal , »o it vill be
to
anDeo«8*ary/re >r-tat« th«B in detail h«r« beeaase upon tht re* trial
of the ease the fuets ^9rt^ aukattmti&ll^ th^ eame. Xhf> buprez&e eourt
held that the ets^tute of tuis 3t:it« in regart^ lo lunatics ^.l<t not
authorise uAstbers of th^ family, doctors ox nurses to oot&siit a person
to an InstitutifiMl for tb.« itizuoe without t. 0 JudgWL&nt of a court;
that the statute aatiorized only n teaiporary d«tentloa, lluited to
ten 4ays, when neeeseary, pending an InYest (gatlon; that the evldenee
suoved thsit plaintifl was not insoiie anct th&t it v&s unlawful to de>
tain her lr> a eanita^rium for libeut two weeks without aut erlty of
dJXCS
■^ ^t;--^-^?w:^
^l^JS^Li..- $. ■■•--
i^a
■0 -*
\ jW '■■ : lit-- • ? •- if.-
*«f:v
«»^
■■^'«"_-,- : .. •■•■^ai'';
:t ao
Ii?t ?ii>5-.-a-^« ^;-
t»T
t&t
i40l«X9
■ f'Xi
, - --5 <^ -.^X-XAiiu-c.r ;;..- yap* «^*s.-1: »£<;? *ift«^S atiJ 1«
i'*****^^^
jH-sAim
sMii
law. In brief eocpass, thn •▼idenec shovs Uiat in 1915 pXaintiff
and her faioil/, eonslstln^ of h«r hualuHntf, her son, ^6 ycare of a^^c,
an^. her 'lau.hter, 22 years of o4t*» llT«d on t&e Gouth aide of Chi-
9mg!0» Ihe huebacd vac ill with typhoid fever lajai «as car«4i for by
a phyalclaa and a nurae. I'lainiiff wa» also hitlplng it. Uxe care of
her husbfts4 and under thf strain t«eai»€ very n«rvoua, «o muc^i so
that the required the eenrlcf!* of the atteiiflia^ physician. Dr.
Schvarts. He conferred with Dr. Hom* ^o ^a^ formerly hee» the
fasily phyislclaB, md they advised that pliiintilf be tak«:i to the
ILenllworth ^anitariua oonlaeit>d hy defendant Brown. Ihe a.irse «h(>
had been tai^tn^s car« of pi ilis tiff's hueb^uud vtii^iniSbSr^td &orphiae
to t>iaintlff to Qiiet her for the trip froia her h{m« %o the •*«!-
tariuK, a dlstanee ef several Kil«s. Def^adtuat Dr. Brovn owtied and
conducted, under a et«te lieenee, the Kesil^erth oanitariuK, an
Inst Itut lea where tiatlents were treated, E.ost oi theat bciBjj of un-
sound «lnd, Xhere r.er«» doctors und nurses e)eploy«d &t the satiitari-
UA. Portly lifter plaintiff vas t&&e». to Uie 8acilt3.riUK she des!Jtn44i
b«r release, whlcn vae refaeed, Sie gave teatlsony to the sff*et
that sh« had been b«idly treated by tlri^ attsRdonts In c/iar^^e of the
sanitarluK. ^she rest^lned there about two ve«ks. Ihe SYlierice of
ill trt^atKent was denied by a &u«ber ol «itn«!S»ee <j&pl«y«d at the
sanltarittB, snri other evidieiiee was introduced ieadlni., to &ho« that
plaintiff was benefitted by h.ur tresitiaerit at the e»nit4iriu&. Ihe
^pre%«» court heli that her detention was itjilawful and rerersed th«
juigaent in favor of def^adants.
In th@ in fit -a)! trial the court ins trusted the jury to
find defendants ifuilty, alxich instraqticoi «&e sub^iittcd by plalnv.liV,
but adHed to lais inetruution the following: "b^eavise defet^daf^ts
ha4 no legal rii^ht to csuise the plaintiff to be rf>etrained of her
liberty ^theut aa adjudication of the t^ental condition of plaintiff
•Bd aeaiiuit her firotest." i^laintlff contetida that this sodificatioa
^&^ %^ kitm^'^' *^^"i^^' t^^^^f^^ «»«? "*» sal#aisa95 ,tfJt&«l ■«»« fea&
Tif^tBUOf ■■- ->sg*^ «fr£S «»** >llBf 'i^' "«§»%■ %if J - :
was unv«rr«mt«d and thi»t the eourt •J»ould huTe (;iirori Uic iniitruotloii
«ith«at ■odlflcAtioB. V« thifik the aoilf Icatlon was orup^r. Und«r
th« opinion of tho SuprcHue court pl«ilntllT'o detention «t th« aanl-
tarlum ««• h<tl4 to ^e ttDlavlul booauao, under Ux« Xa^. a peraoa
••flnot bo deprivod of hlo llborty against his «111 I'or more than
ton days without sax ndjudleatlon --in to kls sanity, ax.1 tuat sine*
there had heoa «o suen adjudl cat lost, !»Iaintlif vas entitled to a
▼erdlct. Ahe e-vldenee aho«e iiiat plaiAtlxf 's eon, 26 years old,
and her daughter, 22, vho vas a graduate oi the UuiTersity of Uhi*
ea^o, after consultation with Doetors 3ch«artz and ^{oa^j decided
it vas the best thing for their rather and jsotiier to have the
mother plnoed in Dr. Brows 's sanitarluB, aoa^i she vas accordingly
sent there, i'lnilntiff gave testi&ony to the «-i'rect that this vas
doBO through the eonniv^utee of Dr. Sotivartc urA the nurse in aaarge.
It is significant that although pl&intiff 's sister, ^re. ^"ichultc,
vas staying at plaintiff** hsae at the tls&e ic quf^stion, she was not
called z\» a witneee nor was plaintiff's son. Her daxi^hter testified
in rebuttal only but she was «i«ked very little ccncen i»g th« BJitter
«Bd no expl»natioa a^tne^rs in thr record as to why these Tdcneeses
were not isore fully ex«»lfi'P>d la the matter.
Plaintiff contwids tnat the oourt erred in siiEittlng la
evi^enee l^stters vrltten by plaintiff** daagh%Kr to defeiidant lir.
Brown, aii two letters written by her to her mother «hll«» she was at
the sanitarioxi, a letter .o Br. Urast, a phyeiclan at the Institu-
tion, ear! a letter froa plaintiff's son to Or. Brown. We think
these <!ocui?£ertts were properly adiciited as tending; to show the ctoed
faith of defesdauits, ftiid while they vould not const itute a legal
defense, under the opinioii of the iuupreae court, yet they were
proper evidenee for the jury on the qu<>stio. of dasia^es.
Coaplaint is also sade to the ruling of the court in
refusing to permit couimel for plaintiff to exsKlne plaintiff's
.•Si's ' .>.--,.-. .•<fl t» *$2Sr-»i< ■-i*.-. -
SioA ;.;?.*!? ■-? ## *<Sv' n '"**■'! J us.? I--< .^^.^
r :'<!{ ,?sss s*'f^- Jt~^^;
f---* - : .„,:. ^,..: ..... --^-^ '^^^ ^$l*t
"t*- . *, J -
nt --4iu»^^
daughter, ^ho ««• oalied Aa a wltuaaa on r«buital, an to waetfiar ia c
tteottghl bar aotitrr v^a inaana aU«i> au« sir^ad tlia eontract Tor th«
Motkar'a g»x« at lh« saalt^U'iua. *$« tnixu tbe court «ig>it properly
have permitted tha axac^n«.tioa, but ii, tue vl«« wo take ol the o^««,
«a do not lialleTa &uca rollr^ ui' tii« court wurranta a rcvcraal of
tlia ju^igiseDt, l^eoaasa It la app:irexit ^.n-^i the coatraot si^jacd "by
plalBtin'*a Amu^itor auJ aoa uitnorlsin« tii« Inatitatlon to tax*
oare of their Kothar «aa axaeuted uy taas uodar tiie adTic« of
Doctor* Seavarts and .^ioaft. Moraover, def aiii^ita had already in*
troducad the daai^^itor'a l«tter to Dx . J^rova ^/^X'^iii aha atata4
aba dl^feal that h«r atothar «aa inaana.
W« ar« alao ol the opinion tiiiii tat; eont^atlou ikada
aa to the eoBrtaot of deferidanta* eounaal would net warrant ua in
diatarbing tha verdict and Ju;ig»«nt. Surie^ tha pro^eaa of tha
trial defendant*' couiiaal proposed Uiax. the jury go and view tha
•a&itariua, to which oounaal for pluintiff o1>J«et«»'t and the ob«
Jeetioa vas auatsdnad. ^e are of uie opifiioi: Uiat tue Aurora,
vho are presj«ied to h^ve tha ^uallfioaticma required by the gtatute,
would not b« effected by tnie auitter.
C^aplaifit is {«l8o a^tde taa^t the court erred i« instruct-
ing the jury as requested by dafandaata, Inetruetlofi 5, eo«i|>l<%ined
•f, told the jury that one node of Imp^tusiAn^ a witness wae by A'aeV"
Ins thst tk« witneaa had &«ida diff<«r«fit »sd eontradiotory atat«aenta
•a fersar oocaaiona &iid ta»t if the Jury beliered fros the evidence
that any oi th«t vitneeees had been ii^eached i£) t.hat cancer, they
had a right to take that faot into coneider»tioB in «eigv'.ing the
tfatl&ony of each vitneae or witnesaea. The ar^JKent at^de against
tMs inatruotion ie that wliile it h&a been approved im the eaae of
iJMr T. SaaaaelJ.. 148 111. App. d>i» yet it la net correct in «a\ing
that a witceaa nay be ispeaehed by Siieviac that he eade different
•tataawita on other ocQaeioaa, "but that ^r^of of aucn eentradictery
ft5
«* *.-
■tfttUifWt «i«rel> terdE to Ispeatch. " Vn tuink the- erguatent let hyp«r>
orltlcal HJil tliiit the Instruetion i^ivan (?ld iwt prwjuiicially ufi«ct
plsilntlfl'. Instruction 7 coatpl&lned of, toll the jury that prel Ini-
Dtury to tn»jir be lug acc«?tei and awom to act h» juror© th?y vnr*
•XASiin«d by bL;tli old^s as to ti;«lr qu-illf leationn, that (.h<»ir %itffW4>r«
•tuiv«d tiiai, th«y w«r« co^ipeterit t%xi6 quallfl^-d to vot ^*» jurors and
that th<?ir acevers to the tjunetioae pat to th«tt by eoHnsel «8r« bind-
ing on than until taey »er« ftn^lly llechareed In the eft««. '^e t ink
ih« instruction iraa not iiubj«rot to sny objeetlon, and it cartnlnly
cannot be •'ad.-i that platntUf wa» Injured X>y tiu jtiifiag ef It,
By inatrucition 9 the Jury watt tol^i thsvt «hilc the lair peraiita th«
pl&lntirf tc testify in her o«r. beaalJ', lueverth^leaa tho jury had
th* right in vaighlng her «vi«i«nee to d«tersuine hev »uch cred«nc«
tii«ttld b« feiv«n to it and taite ifits sjonci deration the f ao . that
ahe vaa the •laiBtlrr and interests'? in thts suit. A eialliir in-
■truotlen waa held to b« erroneous in E.ai*!ts.'JiOrr^ v., liartahorn. ;;^79
111. A|>p. 4^^, «^cre both pl&lntliT j^nd tfSsaSimt vsre n^situral p«r«
•OBS «d hM t(;etiliG(i, i'at the reason that it singled out the tft»*
tieony oi en*- p»rt>' una ]c;adc no r«^f«r««ce vo th& testiiseny nf the
ether, who «aa pqu&lly interested. We thifjk the Instruction cu^^t
ixet to have been glToa, but we are also oT the opinlou Uiat the
giving of this instruction ought not to «ork a revei^eal. In iriew
of th* evidence ic the reecrd« it is not everj- erroneous iiiStruetion
that vill irork a reversal of a iudi^ent,
Camplaint le also auwde of the refusal ci the oeart to
fciTe three instraetioaa requested by pli»intiff. By the first re-
fused insatractioa pl&intiff scut^t to h .v<& th^. jury told that i:' it
fcssd the defendants g»ilty 6nd further lound "that the trespass was
oosalttcd by the defenf^.ant in a 'Kac.ton hs^i ineulting &8nne r and in
willful disregard for the rights oi the plf*intiff,* the Jury w%n
authorized by lav tc find excisplary or punitive dadu6«ee ^iuh would
*-,i*
:^i-:;t $?=' .«4Mgs i»^ ^ JMtg%'3j^iM».l{» irXl£.£t4l; rsM»« i^«M Xi/J^a nMtf it^ ^oi
IM^ iji^bstnz, ^s»l »iif ^Si,^^ 4^^i^ kSvsfi ^9am V^ *f^ ^ &0l$i-
*u -, ... -« A ,*!:«« .„,.-. „ i*X« ft^» «*■* s*H«:
sot oQly cojKpenaat* pinlntll'l' Utt «u.so punlah d«r«n'laknt«. la sup*
port oY t! ia cont«ntl»B It it aald thKt "It eaauiot be <1oubt«d that
this SkSjluia ia 0!)*rat<!>d in •yst«matie defiaitee of th« Ikw.^***
V« thick Uiia stctCHiMit in not varratAted by th« eTldCDe*. Os the
eontrciry, th« •yldene* anovB that the •anitarluai iraa eoniuetcd
under a Iie«is« iseucd by the ^Hate of Iliineie. »« think the
vritten eYidenee of plaintiff *• datut^uter and son elearly indicate*
that ufl'ier the advioe of two doctors, vhat they did vas for the
beat interest of their fatiter and their asother. Jiereover, the
ioetruetion referred to the defen^iant ^and not to the defendants
and wsa apt to be misleading tecauss the ^ury »ight aesime the
treataeci of pla^intiff vas insolent. %e tiilnJE the iisstruetion
«»s properly refused*
The sesond refused icetruotion was to th«- effect that
any person ami awfully restram«>d of his liberty ttight recover
daawges agi&isst the person or persons who trms restrained hiis,
*anA the aaati^es reeoTerable by the plaintiff in sueh action <ire
daatages for th« oAtire restraint, fro^v tae ti»t* it was tlrst ife-
posed, and all wt»e wilfully partieip^ted in rgsiraiflints the plsdn-
tiff in suck action are liaMe to the plaintiff, not only for ti^eir
ewa acts, but also for the acts of all the others ir that re,:ard.*
And that if the Jury b«(lieved froa the swldecee tiiat plaintiff was
tied ta a Qot in her apartcuect and Borphine ad&i}^ietered to her by
the nurae employed at plaintiff's hone, then they should hold the
defendant lorown liable to plaintiff "not only for the actual Ik-
^riseiment of the jlnintiff in his e«biUt@iritttt« but adso I'or the
adbBinistratiob oi the aorphine and forcibly conveyinig oJ the
plaintiif to his sanit»riras,* We think this instruction was clearly
vroBg toid properly refused, ^he eYilence t^iotnw that the defendant
Brown hH.d nothing to do with plaintiff ur<til she was reeelTSd at
his saiiitorium and hi» ootild in no atamiffir be h.fl^ liable for whet
<j t<^ mem hi^ tf«i^ 4i9Ji^ ,««»d|»9l^ «pi|-la «»^ve$« ««[# %9^hsm
^ii-* #!^%ts ^s^ >&$ %tm m^^w0m^ - -^^^ '^a^
*^ •£«e^:s. iiNuslr:';jid^: #<¥ift!^« iMi^.. ..
the nurst Hi at plalntliT *• iione. H« h«4 no eonncetlon «ith that
s»tt«r; all Ui« crldeno* shovs t^» to be thm f^et.
£7 t^ie ttilrd refused instruct ion plMxstlff sou«ht t«
h»ve th* jury told thlit irtieu the pl&lntil'f was in the def«fidsat
she
Bro«n'a sanitarium^/ had » rl|^it to deaiftttd h«r r«le»e« i*n4 to uee
force ir neeeeeKry to obt«in her freedoat, and th&t all «he I'oreibly
prerentfKl her froA l««Ting were t^uilty of «e«(uil^in{^ her, but that
if the Jury bellered froa the evidence tiiMt the uursee or attfindacts
•iruek plj^lntlff or reatr»ij)ed her, the defendant Brown ««,• liable,
even if the Jury bAlievei thftt the defecdoat £ro«B did set expressly
authorise sueii eonduet siBd ltd not knov that plaintiff wae eo treated.
We think the offered instruetion should net have tcl4 the jury that
if the esiployea at the satiit7<iriws forcibly pr«veht<i^d plaintiff fram
leaving the institution they vere guilty of assAultin^ her. Pl;%in-
tiff g^T* testiaeny to the eifect that oBfileyee had ahysically aB>
•aalted her while at the instil, tion, while the att«ndivits g&TO
teatistoRy to the contrary, fhe offered instruction jseiii^ht l?&d the
Jttry to beliere plaifitia^'s version of the Kmtter by tilling the
jury that if the &tt(»odanta forcibly prevented plaintiff froa le«Lv-
iBg they »ere guilty of aasa.ii tln«i^ her. But ic any view of the c»»c
ve think we w uld not be warrant*^ in r^Terelng the jun^ent en hc
count ef the refusal to ^iv« this offered ini^truetlon.
CoJftplsilBt la aade th^it tue re&arka of th« trial court
vtre prejudicial* ^e think there is laerit In soibo of thtf eonten-
tioBS Kdde in this respect but net in all cx' theat. 'fhe nurse e«-
ployed at plaintiff 'a rtcae testified on Jirect examination that on
one aftemooa ol&intiff ran into her husband 'n rooitt, as a result of
which her haaband b«caae a«it&ted and that .here was a riae ef his
ieaq»erature; he was thmu suffering fron typhoid fsr*x. Ca eross«
exa»inati<m of this witnesa by ocunecl for plaintiff, the vitness
was a8k»d, *But yeu win attui^ the ct&tc^«a>t that it wa« un;:sually
tt^^s^'^-^% «^ «i td^ 1CtlitA»ii% »^ iifMJNv ^»Jlr &J[»t x^ui *ti^ '?^«d
exia
«t0S't tlJUAl^I^ fr^tA^vsiMi ^Ml«t:«rl •«it<%iiidri«e«r »4» im «m%9tqm '-^--^ 'ii
-v- - r^ -- - - '— r^»----% «laii&«g#^je «ul* It safest. . :..;,
s*»« *ll* . .„._,- - dis«« Id X^^-^^a »" -- •-"''"'• -^-
1« J^Xsiw-iE £ «j& tJK»d« m*hog^a^ %&d »$«i awn Viiu«u«A,« &«« ;»
hlght" (referring to the httsb«nd'« t«c;.p*ratur*) ; th«> c urt iat*r«
j«ot<»d that th« wiUK^es had not siKtitd tha^t the p«ti«i:t *• t•UiO^Tm.''
ttir* «ma "unuaually hl^h^* T« think thla rcffi«rk of th<* trial court
vaa «iirrant«d. Ih« witness h«d not utied th« words 1» ll«d lu the
question, uthtr remarks sad* by the trial ecurt of which complaint
Is Adde, «e think ou^t net to huve be«n nads, bat it Is luuieoessary
is detail theis here bf'oause we ar« of the opinion that u^n a eon-
sideration of the <mtire reeord we would not be warranted in re-
▼ersia£ the ^udgMent.
The ewidenoe tended to show thnt ttn:ler the X%« as an-
nounced by the Sttpreae eeurt the detention of plaintiff was un-
warranted, yet under the faets her detoation was brought about
by her own son and daughter nad Dr. He^, ;s^&lnat wiiom no eoienlaint
is 2eade. ibey tho.tghi it was the proper thing to bm iisne lor the
benefit of plaint! tf and her husband.
Upon a conei<leratlon of the entire record, we weuld
net be warranted in iieturbin^ thf» Judii^ent although there are u^mn
errors in the r«eord. It ia not every error that will warrant a
rerersal. ^e think we would not be w^grrsnted in awarding a r«w
trial so that a ii^re perfect record Miniht be sade, hyane y. ■i^ant^.ar.
285 111. 336.
1!he Jud^jaent of the Sup<»rior oourt of Cook ccunty is
afflmed.
Awnmm,
keSurely and ^atdtiett, JJ. , concur.
ieX^i-^^r^ i^ 0s&ii'« #SKtes^ «S&«H .<sa: bat *s;»?/i^a«6 b£M oee n«r« 'isA %ii
';i^ ^fiii«@» .ito^ t«» SsM^ iH^^«^tf^ «<il t« it»m^i
.111 geg
..'*4srit'?1ls
vU^^i^'nir,!*,
33234
r, 8. MOIVXLUI and 0. H. LaHSOK, }
J>ein,< BuivlnDSa as MOfiVILL? <i&n LAHUiJi, )
AKOFLOHA EUG|tI/7in:I ilLOkpA BUOSCIO^/ )
/
ItlAttO.
V..^'^' 2 5/^ l»rt. \.. v> A
3dK, PBSSIDI1.G JUSTICE 0 'Ollili^
BSLIVBRKD TflE OPIi-IOfi OV TH?S COUHl'.
\
Plaintlf1"«, real e8tat« feroksrs, brouf^ht ealt agftinpt
d«fen4imta to r«coT«r eos^micslons cl»lK«d to be iue Uitm ior ob*
talfilnE a tcfi'ict for property ovn«d by fiioaeutt i^uoeoio, <>u« of
th* deferdants. Iha case vas tried befora the court without a
Jiury aad there vac a ringing aad Ju1ii^«Rt is plalBtiffs' l*<^VQr
for $730 '/jud dvfendaxits «p{i4ial*
!Q&c rtteord diacJ^oees ih^t the defa^^da^jts ore fi.aab^jyi'i
andi wlfa; that this wil*« owned * pi«ee of re«tl estate at Ipcltatiapolis
Avanue and Aranua d, Chicago: thstt plHiutlffs >ir6 real «st<&te brckara
and prior to the tlKO is qucatlon l&a.d» &a brokers, eold 8oa« real
«etat« b«lon£iBt$ to th« dsfeniaDts ^ie-A tk«> evidauce tends to ahov
that •(»« tiae in th« fall of 19^5 plalatiffs «ere >iit defei;ir)>:^it8'
home, ton tha «Tid«ccs en be ali of the piaiiitiffs is to the «ff«»ct
that At that tisi« tha property in questioc was listed ^Ith plalQo
tiff a to sell or to I'ind a t«iant fcr It; th&t Bsoat oi" th« coc»*>r-
•ation at that time was between plaintiffs sad Angelona Buoseio in
the presence of the other dpfeudsirit , his wifs; thut aftsrwaxds
plaintiffs, as brokers, wrote letters tc a nua»b<?r ol p&orties «ho
they thottght Kit^ht be interested in buying or Icaaiut; the preatiaes.
One of the letters vaa aent to the Texas Ull Coi:;pany and in response
to the letter a r»pres«ntatiY« of that coi&pany called on plaintiffs
at their office and negotiations vrere entc^red li^to. SosetiKe there*
after defeulants executed & lease to th« Texas oil Ooxap»ny de&.ising
t^
Mm^
*?.§?,£
*fi. -if ein £jrfitl«<£<; €2<M: Io Xlttt 9Mi jal awii =-3-^'^ :;is=xU
the pr«nl««« for a 9»rlod of t«n y«ars. It furthor appears that
plaintiffs did not Jcnov aU>ut t^« «&ecution o:' th« leaos until aoBtt
Bontlis Skftervarda vh«aa thay d«Ba&ded payneAt of th>lr coa&lsaloiaa
but liability waa d»ni«d.
Hie dcfciidarils co&tand, a« «« u&derstan<% the arguKent,
that the CTldenow shows that plalotlffs dsalt with the d«fACdaot
Angslona Buosoio vhils ih« proji»«rt^ vas o«tited by hiB vii's, th«
Other dsfendant, Hnd that Uxitre is no pvi<f«ace that th« husband
va« authorized to li«t the property vith plaint! 5T8 so ae to bind
his vlfe. The diffioulty Jrlth this contention is that there is
e-videnoe tending to show that pl<iiutiffs had uegotlatious with both
defenaants, although SK^et of the sohversation in ih^ia respeot vaa
had by pli^lfitiffa with tJbie defen^aist /iusbo&d, yet thnrs is stme
eTidenoe that the wife was pres«Bt acd ftotually took part 1» the
XistlBir of the property. Witfiesees «4»© represeftted the leaoas Cob--
9any gavs teetiaotty to the effect that the property In qu^siloB
was bre«j?ht to the Texas (^ompssy's isotiec throagti a letter whidh
it kAd received fre« f»laihliffe )ms that as & result of this latter
ths Tsscas Con^aBy took the satter up with ipilaistiffs, euls&isatinf
In the exeeutioB of the leas*. la these clreuKstaiices we think ««
would not be warrsuitedih holding that the eridecce was Insufficient
to establish the fact that platifitiffs proeared the oxeeutlofi of the
lease.
CoKolaint is aiade that the evidonee ie ineuffieient to
warrant the amotmt of thf^ finding snd Ju5g&c!i2t. '@e think the eyi-
denes on this question is rather s&eager, but one of tho plaintiffs
testified thut #7:^ was the oustoa^ary and ueaal real estate broker's
fee for su^ serwioes as were rendered by the sl^lntii'fs in the in-
stant oass. Ih#re is 5'urther evidence to the effeot that this
eoatputation was based upon the rat« of oharf^es fixed by the rules
of tho Heal Sstate Boj»rd of Chicaeo. *e think prita fuoie the
■-'- '--■■■■■■■ i m»i^$.m^^'»--0^v'^^iym^itis-tMAitmsgif .s'^i-* .»jtij
"^0 m^^M^ ^^sism»m^^ -^^^ m»!»i&»^^B: . ,i^»i^'tq- ■■ma 1® s.»i49ll
i-^il^.^lfim^ .««* #©^!?i*j|¥«l-*^ .;«#*l?!::jM:JiM9^ i^"f^b-4'-niB^-^^ €-<f iass Ma&w
^^0M MiSi^ i^^B- :*o.'-«^ »^' .o^^aJi^ 'ta M»«S *ijfs#*a CJs*^^ »sU ts
•▼ld<n«« w»« •uirioieoi and ia«r« b«lng none to th« contrary, th«
ju<1gKent of the ftuclclpal court ol' Uile«^o is afi'lr»i«d.
HtfSurelj and J^^atchett, J J* • conour.
, •t^"' t**«ife4«S feais x-i*'^«&»*
;;^: si;-i.5 ■; :; ^H^sSg; ^*v^ , ^;r.ft:rfi;i«^■
SS33S
PSILIP THULUa.
C> CHICAfrO.
252I.Ai652
MR. PftSSlDlSG JUariCS O'COJiitOR
fiBD.IVKBSI> THE OPlhlQti 03^ tHE COUKf.
On Oetobor IB, 1926, plcantiiT brou^^hc auit against
d*f«ndantD to reooTor |S89 vl'i.leh he elM-lssi^d f&r «ork . lar'Or aind
B*i«rlal furnlshad del* eridajots. !>ef«&iaiita fll«d tm Afri^avlt of
fs«rits In vhich they denied liability. AftertFArdc pl&liatifr haA
the cause ola««d ob the ahert cause e«LLeBdar .oil on k&reh 2&, 19S7,
the cause vas stricken rro» the s^-^ort c&use eftl'^adar. HR'i the record
discloses that on July 10, 1928, the c«u?« caaa^s oa for hearing hut
thst defendants did sot appesjr aor vers tliey represAntQd. A Jury
vas then svoxia, the case h««rd, »aA th«re trae a verdict «ad Ju^^s^ient
is plaintiff's f wor for $9S5. (« &«pt«»b«r 4th folXov^liu^ the de>
fendsnts Koved that the JadifBetst be -vacated acd set aside, und in
support of th^ Kotloa filed a verified petition «upv?orted by two
affidavits. In oopositlon plaintiff filed tvo counter affidavits.
The matter was heard oa the petition nad affidavits of both parties
and an order v&s cat<«tred vacating and setting nside the Jui^ejut
and plaintiff appeals.
The amotion to vacate the Ju<:l|^«nt h ;i.ving beisn »ad« merit
than -VO d&ys after the jud«|£«^nt ^&m 3n.t<@re4, the oourt vas not var>
ranted in VH>oa.tlng the Jud^ent ucsless a si^o^lng vas oade that would
varront » court of equity in settini<. asid« the jud^ent. "isctlon 'H.
Municipal Court act (Cahill's 1927 Stsitutea, p%6S ^o, paxaeraph 409.)
It appears froK the petition and affidavits filed on be-
half of defendants that on Kareh 25, 1927, the cause -^ «s reacued on
hm S'k'^.^*'-
,«©».
i3s^i0&*d »s»2t^»t ^^0i3SE«i ,m
-'- -^t^' iXWi^lTiM m M»£kX 9im*ifs»t9i^. »miimJbitft\tib b^d^lax^i'': ia&iTi'SifMM
■ jfe#i£ ttl*af4*4^ egsius««rs«*tA »%jmiiS»ii il9^i.mh ^M Hsidv cti eiit*®
««Rlf \;<^ fecjf-x»*?i^«« e&lillts^ *«f"llt»ir « ft«i:i'* ^^jH^o* tAS tf sroq^m
«z«R »j6«t« chmN! ^mJkmk^ sema^i^ mMi »$mmr «>d oolj'gs?. ^dt
thp ahort c»ua« e«l«ndar btsi'or* Hon. P«tdr >i. ii«mr«bft, oa a prclisxi*
n&ry call oi' the eAl«o4«r, tuvd it wuijr th«n d«teri>aLti>4 th«t ln« trial
vottld take aorc thai. oa« hour; therau^on th9 court ulruc^ th« causa
from tha ahort eikuac ealandar a&d ordered that It b-? pi^tced upoa 'tiie
next Jury ealacdar;" that uotvi that an ding thi» order ol' tht court
the olerk erroneoaaly 'made on entry oxi the llle"* oi' tha eauae that
It tield ita plaea an the regular jury calendar; that ta« eauaa ocTer
thereaft^ appeared en any Jury oalentiar; that no othar jury e&laDdar
vaa thereafter ieaued ahd thai defendaata hiid no notice or koo^ledga
that a juiga«&t hftd \%9n entered until sm axeeation vae aerved, vhieh
«»a mere than 50 daya nJ'ter the entry of jude'j&exit. Sefej^daftte alao
aet up that they have a aceritorioua defense, the f^&cta iti this t9»
gar-} being «t*ted with eoxxaidtraVle particularity.
The oppoaicg al'l'idaTits filed on behalf of platlntiff set
up that the cause c«s.e on fax trial Mareh 25, 19^7, before Judge;
Sehvaba; thAt o« the preliatin^iry call counael for th«f defendacta
•tated that he belic^ved it would be t&poesibl« to try the ease vithis
an hour; that after ccnaiderable ar^assent the Judge stated that if
the oaae w«a not tried within an hour it would lc«e ita 5Ji?4C« on the
calendar, but that if olaintiff did not jtraeeed with the trial cf
the cace it ^oul.! be put baek on the regular oaXenrlar: that tn ereupoa
both partiea agreed' that thl« Bight b^ done nnd ar, order iras entered
by asr«e»«at; that both counsel than conferred «ita the clerk of the
court, vho B»da the proper entry unl the caaa was then put b;^k on
tha regular oalei^dar and eaae up for trial on .^aly 9th before Ion.
John i. Lyle, ^lother jud^e of the Municipal court, ^md that on the
next day the eaae waa tried in the absence of the def«ir*daBt».
Def«ndant8* irotion to iracsite the ju^g^oat ca»e up beiora
Hon. Qiarlea y, kc^inlfty, one of the judges of the Municipal ecurt,
and an order vas «it«r<>d on tUat date - Septes^ber 4, 192Li » transferrin
ttie ^tlen to Judge Schwaba, the judfeo on wnoae eall the caae appeared
L
1 ■
fT trial on th* aliari o«us« aalandar as above otated. Aftarvsrdo
Judge i>chw«ba hesxd th« Biattor on th« petition, affidavit and oouoltor
afflda,-vit» Mtd upon eonsidoratiou of thca found In f^vor of 4«f«ed»
ants and t -cated tbo ju(i£7!.ent. Judge 3or.w»ba vaa faJblllu vith
vhat took plaee Then thf eauoe vaa strioken froit the ehort causa
calendar and was therefore in a better position than --ure «e to
Jndea of the truth of the ttllegationa eontaiued iu the o^tltiona
•Bd affidavits Bubttltted to hln on the i^otion to VHcate the jU{i£<>
seat. He found ir favor of def er:?tant«, *R'^ It le ceriaiti that we
veittld be unable to say that his findini^ Is a^falcet th^^ s:at>lfest
velght of th« evidence ^ub dlecXoeed by th-« petitloii and affidavits.
It would be Inequitable to jperalt the Ju Vi;;ffle«»t to »taj;j4 if the
faets were as dleolosed by tae petition a&d affidavits lied by
the deferidatits. they have not had tixeir d«y In oourt aXthou^
they were diligent and hav^;^ & »erltorlous A0i'<m»9» Under th<iss
olreufftstanses we would not be warranted In disturbing the order of
the kuniclpal court vaeatlng the ju^tp^er^t.
The order of the ituclcipal court ef Chicago is aiTlmed.
KeSurely end i^atchett* J-^., ounour.
««s<^ ;?-s;«tf«ie »^^ a^-Yr «©^«$lit?ik su«* ^ktjjw^ -'iS* i5«f5f»' »*aX^ sSflr'^t 1*^'
":./ (^^i»-'-i.-< '« *
33148
on Rtlatien Af l/l-SST K. 3A3^TT, J)
/ y ) APPEAL
ApT>«lle«)«. V )
fp:-^rvioB COURT
X 25
^_
K&. JUSnCS KeSJHSLY DJULIVSKZD THS OPIlilOli 0^ TSS COUKT.
The relator, Rolisrt 5. Bacsvtt, fll«»i a pettticn J or
a writ of 2&snd«ttua aeeklEit; t]bi« r£8toris.tlon of a list of ti^oe* who
successfully phased an exauiin-atioei far tne po«t cf BattalloB Chief
of tha flra department of the City of Chloa^o, o& »hiob hie cuaa
«aa fourth, a&d which liat he alleged wa», oc ^^Tstmsber 9, 19S7,
ill really cancelleil. ^a«er w%a lilnd by tA<? defendaiata and upon
hear ills tha writ wae denied; frost this order he ^^^eals.
The relator f Irat arguaa here as to the power of tue
eourta ir, sue;; caee to or<ler the reatoriitiori of thn liat. Thla
Qay be eoneeded. 1r maay eaaea it haa "bn&a held th&t the eourta
ha^e po'fer t© prevoit ci<tiaif«at injuotice by otacr tribunals -^t©
the 'llseretlonary power lodged therein, ie ao grosely and wraniffully
abused as to amount to a virtual refu-^al to perfom the iuty en-
joined. Pjwple ex rei. v. '&Trm%. 329 111. 65; Dejfttal Exa£4.cers y.
Th» People. 193 111. 227; Pgcpla ex rely &h?»opard y. Dexital a3ij>a4.p-.
erf. 110 111. 130; l^^^p.^e ^«^x rfl^ ifixm<i^.m v. lic^ridf . a?6 t.. t,
252.
Does the record it; tUfi i^&tar^t case Drreat«Qt f^ete »ix4
cireumctaDQas wtii<dt si^ov a gross abuse of discretion flmounticg ta
canifest injustice? We hol-i t^at the ;inswer &u6t b« In the negatiire.
It ia adeltted Uiat the relator entered the fire deoartsf^nt oi tho
City of Chicane after sueeeaefully passinj^ exaiain^tions in <'ul^, 1911,
and Bubeequently by p seeing pr<^!tiiot local exaa.in^tIoE8 bee a.in
M»mA '
W>i v» W^
8»XS5
^,i-^~-.^,..
.^r
1©
>^^
'^T T--"
^*sP5«is ^a^ «<* artf^Ti^f^ 91^-v r'lt^strr.fj^ irjf^g^^K s
''^' y9&U^%J0&id^ m^S^'^l^ W^ltaistaJfe f^TLliiam fmr^^q «•? t'»*eK5 <»xr«x?
In Unjt 1932. In 198S h« took the prtMotlonal •xMii&aitlon for bat-
talion Chief «i>d the list of aucee^iaftil Mid olii^ible oanii dates van
poated MttToh 2, 1929, and hia aaaBO vaa fourth ofi tha list, tha
patltion all«cca that it haa been the uniform and praotioal eon-
atructton of the CI-yII j^ervloa CoooAiasiou to h11o« the nmz^fo of
eligible eandid&t^B ts r«s.ain or. the list until further examina-
tions have afforded new and other eli(i,ible liata, bat that on
Sapta»ber 9, 1927, Albert v. aoodriiA, t^ire Uoe&i iiaioner of Cnicaeo,
r«^ui*st«4 the Civil i^ervlee Cosusidsioi^ te oanoel the list for £tit-
tallon Chief aitd that ti;i«reupo& the list vaa cttncoli.«d; that Ics^^^dl-
atel/ thereafter fcur tecpor^try or alxty day aippointt^er.ta to the
effiee of P-attallon Chief «er« made and th&i such teotiporary ap-
pointeea vera fair b^low the relator on tint aancellad list.
Section IC ef the CItII .>ervio« Act (Chapter S4, pfira.
#94) provides that the Civil Service Cois;^^ salon "^may atriks off
■aves of candidates fro% the registar after they hav« rsii^iJiedi
thereon sere than tvo y^ara.* Since l>ecember 12. 19 2i, there h&a
been in force and effect a rul« o:' the Cosi^ission as follove:
*JiaBes reKalning on elit^ibla registers i'&T tvo y«ara and en«t day
■hall continue to resale oti such eXie:ible ra^laterc, ualess the
•as* shall have bean atrieJ^an therefrom by the eosie>ission." tndar
thla statute and rule, therefore, th<» Cam&lssion »&• acting wholly
within its povers In oancelling the list in question, iuaS the
aouTta will net interfere »itu the exerclae of tiula dlscrfttion ai<-
laaa It should appear that sucii diaeretioa wac exercised in an il-
legal or arbitrary sanner amounting to Kanifeat icjustice.
th« evldebc* to sapoort the alle{^is.tloBa &b to the ic-
jastica of oaneelling th« list is v-:?ry sealer. She rel».tor testified
that he talked «ith Xho&as J. nouston, president of the Civil Hervica
CttsublBsion, Inquiring why the lint was oaneelled. Mr. Houston re-
plied that it was cancelled "at the r^i uset ol tii© srlr* Uo^alBeicner"
aar^ ««#»^il!3«i« «^d'l'|)li& boa JD?1Im^«
^^•^ X'i»t'9^eas^ ^s3 .«jk«^ l^a» sfae» ««'»«' ^i&l;^ ja«li:«lt£^^ 1:& ««ltt«
.fall ^XX9»««@i» #33? «^ ««fl'«i:»it ers^ ««rj5»af -s^t w-ste^'fessiiaJd?!
«' -«K»Sg£idir «^ fidlssisKis^ «£» %* »£H^# ■HIl^'ifH hm^mn. --4
t^ »ia^ tm 9^ks^ ^»4 i^^«t»l^«l4»ic 9ittflB?Xi» '«» jMiUislii^-x «'$.^>i5[**
•il im sil ^»i»^*>g.6 18*5^ «i«i.?«T.$«ilt i^sm $M& x^s^es^ tltiods *l seel
siTid that At a later oonversation Mr. Houston said that the list was
oanoelled at the request of Commissioner Goodrich "eo that he could
make a i'ew ol' his friends." Another witness testified that he had
heard Conunlssioner Houston say that it was at the personal request
of Ifire Cormnissioner Goodrich that the lists were oancelled. Good-
rich, testifying, denied that he had made any request to cancel
the Hats in order to have personal friends appointed to positions.
In this he is supported hy the testimony of kr, Houston, who further
testified that Commissioner Goodrich had called at his office and
in the course of th>3 conversation hrought out that some of these
lists had been up for a lon^s time and that it would be a wise thing
to hold an exaunination and retire aoiae of the Hats; that Houston
told the Commissioner the matter would be taken vi ty the Commis-
sion. At the time the list for hattaltion chief was cancelled
certain other lists in the fire department were silso cancelled;
these were the list for Captains, whicii was about twelve years
old, the list for Lieutenant, 7*iich was five years old, while the
list for Battalion Chief was over two years and six months old.
It aklso appears that after the petition was liled in this case
examinations were called for the purpose of making up new
lists.
The record fails to disolose ariiy improper exercise of
the powers vested in the Civil Service Commission. Most of the
lists cancelled were mauiy years old. All of thaa had passed the
two years which under the statute euid the rule was the permissible
life of such lists. It would seem to have been a wise move to have
new examinations and kJLsts, and the fact that this program may have
been adopted at the suggestion of the i'ire Commissioner throws no
suspicion whatever on the donduct of the civil Service Commission;
indeed, it would seem fitting and proper to consult with the if'ire
Commissioner as to the advisability of such action.
*eij , .iff . ,.#j|teJSJ«*Mt4; !i|l3^^
■•■ -'ti..:JiaW'.va>^i6.j. •■ .■.•.«jiL,jJ!*&!,'0'ia^ ijaoiw*i./,i;i,i*AO
. -:.tail
The faot that acaci Tour tcstporary battalion ciiefs
v*r« appolntad does not prove that the eaceeXlation ol' th« list
vaa arbitrary asd unjust; th« aoat that rel itor claina lor this Is
that it abows "aoKetnlaa is vroag vltta the adntnlatration of th«
ClYll SerTie* i^ov la the City of Uhicaeo.* Xi^i* la too Indeflnlt*
to call for a&j icterfer^TiC* by the courts.
"Sh* power of the Civil l^ervice Cosu&issloasrs to strike
Boaies froB) the lists after two years has been sun talced ir. PeooX^e
T. City. 226 111. A9p, 409, Ift which are cited the supporting cases
of ^tpr;? T. Crai^. *^31 A. Y. 53, and iLsx\r. v, Tracy. 186 Oal. 272.
See also Thoatfe* T. City of Uhicago . 27S ill. 479; Pgople v. Weblt*'.
2S6 111. 364.
the record falls to 8U{»pert the char4;e8 xade in relator's
petition and the order of the Superior court dwiying the Iseuanee of
the vrlt of mandanui was proper ^ixA is afflrBted.
C*Conner, F. J., asd katehett, J,, concur.
r
.ussBaseir #^*'-,-#*»i^j-«il- feu
33398
A. 3. aaasmjm,
Ap99ll«A,
£aalne«s
AjMtellantir^
APPS
COURT
lOi. JUSTICS M«SUKm.Y I>F4.IVnE0 TH£ OPIinIOii Of THK COURT.
Plaintiff brought euit to r«oeT«r tlacftgs* sustained to
his lot tiiroui^ the cxcftvation bjr defcAdants of tke akdjoinlng lot,
«D<1 upon trial by the, court hwA Jud^oat for |38,3l:*, from whloh
AofendMnto appeal.
Only a quoatloa of fij,et is presented. iThe court could
properly fiad that, vhtn def«nianta exoawated tii<» let adjoining
plaintiff *a property, it was a^«ei between thee that if any |»«rt
• f plaintiff *a lot should slide into Xha exoavatlen def eiittauta
veuld reatoro plaintiff 'a property to the sa&e> oondition It vas in
before the exeaTaticn. I>efendants r«s.oved the eod from a portion
•f plaintiff's lot and proee«d«d vith the cxeaTation, as a result
• f vMeh a considerable part of plaintiff 's lot slid into tk«
•xoavatioa. Thereafter def 9x4.4 ants atteupted to fill up this part
• f plaintiff's lot but used stones and other rubtiah, to «hi^
plaintiff objected because it vaa not filled in «i t.^ the sase
kind of material that was there before the exeaTation. ii'or oTsr a
year plaintiff atts»ptcd to have defesidar>ta restore his lot, but
without aueceaa. After his lot had rosialned Ih an unsightly eondi-
tloB for about a year, plaintiff prooeeded to fill the «xe<:fevatioA
hisself and emended 130. aO for dirt and re»se«ding.
Dsfendants asserted that they vere oblig«t«d to fill
in with blaek dirt only for hu Inch or tvo beloir the l«Tel of the
•od, and tAat when they atteaptf^d to reol^eo thf aod it hod
f52sos ":i*4J2i 5|jft .;S!tsrb??j:5% I
,4) miUJX^
\^^^^'^0'-'Wm0.t^'''m^^?^wfwi.mst y.M«E«s»'t «^t*?i^i3t
3M»i£»« •nd.i i^ kw ai ^Xiit ir3£t JS^'-? i-i .9a£ai»^tf &9:it^»|tf« lliisfiAX^
^lirsmt xXss^l9&^ AS sti haa.k£iim% bast #«£ cJHE «»JlfcA .«e»Q34i« i»^.^lir
. i£i*%. .»# &»^4it'sii^ e!ir»« %»iii iMU h^i^tssM sifmlbzi^liiS.
disappeared. PlaintllM *■ jaiiltor t««tlfi^d that the scd wlil«||
d«fendiifit« ha4 rirat r«»oT«d hmA been storA^ on plaintiff *■ let,
bat va« mc nf»el«ot«d that in tine It rotted --rfid Jiat he was
obliged to roBoire it so that it voold not bloel: the liniht froa
vladevB of the house. A number of vitneeoea testified that d«*
fcndacte ciid not reetoro pl«intilT'« lot tc the aafte condition
it wa« in before the oxoaYation but at tainted to fill it U|> with
roeica and refuse.
9e see no reason to 'lisar:ree with the otjnelusion of
the trial Jad^e that def«end^ita did not coaaply with their aitree*
aent and for thie reason plaintiff was obliged to restore the
property at his ovc expense.
The court also allowed the plaintiff the it«& of
^7.50 to replaee a large pane of ^^aae broxezi by def«n<laeta*
It is argued that there is no direct eYideuoe that def ei^oante
broxe the elaas, bttt plaintiff's janitor tsstlflsij to the fact.
th« Jud^ent was ri^t and is affiz»ed.
AfJi?IKliS25.
O'Connor, P. J., and Matcliett, J., eonour.
- ^
>a£ie9*0
iS- ■•&*' ^■■^Si'tiii
i 5.r;.,,i,: .)*-::'
?*<-«& -i^§ & .
S9S79
SARAH P£XLIX,
Appells*,
AYS GOikPARI, Cii,
liAli^WAY CO^'.Pa^Y
iilRUHT Ji/l'lLV'AY GC
LllKS.
JULIUS Ct»kiJLttO^Q£Y.
APPKAI yRO
m, vnjuTICB llc3UR8i.Y BEHVSRSD VM OPlhlOU Qi' TIIS COURT.
In sun aetion to r«coTer iftHii-i^ftB lor p«r»onftX injuri««
■ plaintiff had a ▼•rdiot ugalnet .ill tii« d*f«iidHi>t8 fixing tHe daiiiag«»
' at 14,0;^, frow th« jul,ifli<Mat tuer«.j/i tii« defendtUJts street railway
I ooapanift* appeal. Julius Charnowsky does not appeal,
I the declaration «iJLl«^:0di tna'» trie ntr^&t car o°vn»4 by tii«
railway coi&panles vac »o carelessly ep9ral«d tiiat It collided with
am autoicotilt of the iefendant Ch.arnows^y, Ic wiiioh plaintiff wae
I riding as a p»»8«ng«r.
> The accidei't hupp«tned on iierth $ivei;iu«» iu Chicago,
P vhlcn avenue runs east siAd west. It was about six o'clock in the
I evening, wh«*. it waa dark, in January, 1927. Tin? collisieu hap-
pened between a street car rur^ning west on tlie north street oar
traek and the autcaobile, »?hlch waa jsoing west but tariied eouth-
I,
ward across the ^est-b and truok, in f^ont oi the approaching
street oar, nbout the :&i;'idl«! of tue block.
At th* uloB« of plaintiff's case the street railway
•ospaniea moved the court t:iat the Jury be instructed to find them
nat guilty, w lo:i uaotion waa refused. Xhereai'ter the railway
comp%niea did not participate in the trial either by exasaiining
witnesses or in arguing to the Jury. The refusal oi' tne trial
1(0 court to direct a verdict ior the street railway coEpaniee is
.X».
;'f a;si.«vivU:«tTvaiSua»tf' mw
9m \
mfi
.Ifisqqjs J' on saofc xyLevfocfitidO ?.uiluZ
aiiX.y^,ji ,.,^;aa'^o^iV>iv 104^1. ■
..af
.f|l^ «i- .aMi-X»-«« Miljli ti._ ... ,
allegtd »• r«Tcrslbl« »rror,
Th<> oDly oceurr<tnc« wiunf>(i« on beh&ll ol' the plaintiff
was th« nlalntiir h»ra«ll'. Sh« iftstlfled that she vaa elK^it««n
ysarv cl'9 at ih* tliae o)' th<» aooideut; waa a friend and •eJaooliLata
of the daug/iter of the def»ndar»t Charnowsky and had called to >••
har at th*lr ijoata on 9«at Jborth a-renua, whioh was on tn» north
•Ido of the street between 3t. jUouia avenue and BalXou street. I'he
two young IttUes decide! to vlnlt a frlt^nd, ^und kr, Charnovsky
undertook to tak« thee tc their destination In his sedan autcmobllc
vhieh at th« time was staniln^ la front of his aoms at the north
ourb facing west. Pl(»intiff got In the automobile Hn<1 8«>at«>ri her-
self at the left «ni of the rear seat. Other leiei'jberB of the fj»&lXy
got into the mac'dne an^ the defendant Chamowaky took the wheel to
driwe. Plaintiff tsstlfied hat she was seated directly biok of
Charnowsky. As f.-o* xn sue r«^(s:;«iub9rs« she was talkin,'^ i^ita ner
friend when the car started; it this tiffii? aJi?* dl-i not ses any
street ear anr! did not look to see ii' ruiy stre«$t oar vvi» apinroaeh-
ing. The automobile started west cmd after r,olng prob&bly ten feet
It tumrd Ipi't to the south. Xhe autosiobile "Btyrted suddenly jjoid
stopped and then the s^xt thing I knew was the> crasii. "f-- 1 60
r«»CBiber the f .et that he cut stralte^ht acros? the tracK so that he
WAS headed straight south aorosa the traok. xhat was the position
he was in when the accident happened. X do not know whether the
accident haop ned alaoet Inatttntly after he ^^ot into that poeition.
It was very shortly after." She said she did not hear any bell
or gong rung by the street ear nor any warning signs of ^^ly kind,
ihis was YirtuaXly all ol the evldenee off(»red on be-
half of the olalntiif to support the allcgationo of her declaration
as to Inproper ».-m ai,i?i&«nt of the street oar. When the notion to
instruet for the street railway coisp^niee ^^as s^'jAe , the trial Ju-ige
indicated that, ii it were a suit Prouu^nt against the street car
■'■'' ' •■)■ ■ ■
» Waft's- ®al®i!.l shwii
mm ■
i>£l46(m^iM AiCfS
'P. ,liativ«c^«
iitoi
. arl.? a'ij
,Iaa^
i,i;\:; \f% 'fjsj^ji '-si.
'"■ "
■ J- 'S-'i' 'i;.''- •«•''■■ "• ■'
mltximt'^-''
,, , .. . , .. .. ^ •«':'; ,l"v rt f ■ r: { > X
».? rtf
r^'
.Xo^a i»i- ■'
•l'^^'.
cr.t(i>0 V: ■
J;.
oo&paclas *lon«, ha woul ^ \itt required to Airwot a Tcrdlct* but aa
there were other dafendauts he vaa oV the eplDien tliat the oaee
•h^uld t^o to the jury. The motloB elioul'] have laeeo decided aa If
the railway oompanlca were the only (lefexidaute. >>uo'o netlona amat
be deterailned upon the record ua it exiated at tae ilae the notion
vas aiade. Cpptloc T» Schoeni'eld. 214 111. ZSfi; aeleany v. Bjrjlc
B,r,e a , Br ew i.nk Cp . . 211 111. App. 282; 0 'Cornell v. w«at aide iJoBPi-
tjfti, 209 111. App. 233; ArrlKoni v. Straaaheia. 2c7 111. App. 354;
P43vqfl. -Hit. a»nt^n»g»;^ii,ittf s^ff^ ,h9'» 233 iii. zm,
Conai Bering tUe plaijatiiT 'a evidAr^oe, we are oi' the
opinion that the notloja oi* the atreet railway' coriipaoiea ahould
have been alloi«?ed. She knew notuint; about the proa(?uce oi' the
atreet car and her teatli^ony la conalst«fit T?ith the theory that
the automobile turned acroaa tiie atreet oar traoka in the odrtdle
ef the block at the time wh«rA the »tre«t car vaa eo cloee that the
notorman, in the exeroice of ordinary care, could not brine it to
a atop to ATold the eolliaion. Xudepd, th« cirt;ut»»tariC«e related
by plaintiff more atroni:;ly aupport this theory than »ny other. It
ia well aettled that where the .'illege^^ ne^cli^^^enoe of a aeryant
eonaieta of an osiiaaion of duty suddenly and unexpftctedly itriising,
it in inounbent upon tixe pla.ntin' to ahow that th« aervar^t hrid
an opportunity t- beoose conscioua of tU« facts .^;iving riae to the
duty und a reaaonable opport-^nity to perform it, before the master
can b« h^ld Untie. C. U. T. Co. v. Browdy. S»6 111. 618; Rack t.
Chi page City ay,, Cq., 173 111. 239; Sex y. C. g. By, Co., 153 111.
App. 265. It ia alao (he rule that, where the evidence ia aa oon>
aiatent with one aet of facta aa it is srith another, it haa no
tent^eney to prove either aa ^jsiinet the other. Davier y. Saiiaer.
280 111. 334; Condon v. aolioenfeld. 214 111. 23«: C. U. T. Co. v.
Haape. 226 111. 346. If ttiR fact* proved give riae to conflicting
Infftrenoea ac tha-. the choice between then ia mt-f natter of con-
Jeetur*, then th« pl&lntlff faiils to proT« her oaae. Peoria Ry.
Tera. Co. y. Industrtal Bonrd. '^19 111. 592; Ohio Bl.1>,. Vault Cq.
Ti IJV.^'J.^tr^fl^l, iqi^Tji, 277 111. 96; fftertw & Co. v. .n^uetrl^
Bftjaii. 2ai 111. 326; LihbY . MoBelX ^ LiVby v. iadUBtrlal i^oard.
326 111. 293; Kyim r. Induetrlal uoa.. 32& 111. 2(/9 ; Utaridmrd Oil
^p -y. indaeiriag Coat,. 322 111. 524,
Appl>ln«i; the rulo as ctated in theae oasea, we hold
that the peroijiptory inatruotion to fini lor the del'«/idants atreet
railway eompaniea alicul d hare been given an(? the Jla<i«^«nt againat
tha jippealin^ defet^danta la therefore r^veraed.
RKVIftSF.]).
O'Connor, P. J., liOd Matohett, 3 , concur.
Hit-' ,■ . . ' f«^l 1J'«»*4i^*<-«t:*\ 'ii- Jgi s
;ff';?;'4,^:'"'Sv.i^'rV.i''
■iij >?,%,•;■
->''(5i*s;? ■'?■■iy^"■•^■A•:■'^if*^;;i^.':■»";fiS■-^$ "'fiii,. .SiSr:?^' • :--iai.!!S^.'
33279 FINDIUG OP FACT.
We find as a fact that there vae no evidence introduced
on 'behalf of the plaintiff tending to eetablleh the negligence
charged in plaintiff's declaration against the Chicago Railways
Company, Chicago City Railway Company, Calumet & South Chicago
Railway Company and the Southern Street Railway Company, corpora-
tions, operating as Chicago Surface Lines,
.,..^..„ ..-^-- . .afflariaS ,\«b«PB0Q x**-!-^** X'S'^S* ©S*®-^^ (•^isjBqpnoD
-jsterioo ,T;u;aiaoO vJ?/<»Xite!:'i w'iS>«a,?'8 «rJ»4ti^0Sl «xi^ ftiw ij'K^'JKfoO vfiwli**
,: ^'if: *■;■'■;■ v<:;f
33321
JULIUS oppmoMDLm, )
Ai'J?i.'<AL FKOJt MIKIJIPALICOURI
.-*^'*"
■iJ
3
^.T 3Ki.IVv,RK!) rsBS GJPIii|oii Or rS??. COUHT.
PXalntirr, a Isindlord, brought suit against kia
t«B«fit, thfi d«f <»fi'l{u«t« ior r«i»t. ]>el'tt»daat filed & e}<?t<>ofl' «n4
ttpon trial by th* Goort plaiatiff hsid ^u<i«i»tmt for 1103, Td, froa
vhioh he appeals, assertlnK that he was ssititl^d to isore then the
court allowed for rent and %h»% the: eet-oft' vaa inproperliy allowed.
Plaintiff first took JudgmsBt by eoafeeeioK under the
lease for rect for the mofitha of Deeesiber, 1927, an<l January* i^ebru*
ary, Marci^ asd April, 19Si, at ^300 a nenth. Tain with $^ attor-
neys* fees sa^r* his a Judtfae&i for ^1020. Upon sotioB of d«fenl-
ant leare vas eivea to a|»peajr »nd defffisd and ;«£ affidavit of merits
and also a plea of set«-eff were filed* The court found that plain-
tiff vaa oBtitled to r^ait for Deeesiber and Jaeuary, aasouiatiafi to
|4C>0, and we itra oi the opinioiQ tiiat this «a» proper.
The pree^ises vas a brick balldisg trtln » i^arai^e k
the rear. Defendant oceupi^d the i'lrst floor as a reetuurant and
&• seeend «ad third iloors %s a hotel and eufclet the garage and
another egaall bull liag In the rear, J«inttary S, I92(i, i lire- oo»
sarred on the prenises. There is s:pl« OTldence thut the bull -ling
occupied by defendant ituM rendered un t en aij table. It «a8 provided
in the lease that -
*In ease eaid p realises shall be rendered untenttx;table by fire
0T Other casualty, Isssor aay at his option terminate the lease
or repair said pr«mieeB within thirty days, and failii^g to ^io so
•r upon destruotion of said prei^iaes by fire the tera h<?reby
created sfiall eease an ^ d«t»r&ine.*
It la also pro Tided tu»t the leeaee >ti4$rc»>8 -
Xa£€C
•^^'^1^ 'iff z^M^ m^. .OSMt K^ j;^»^ii»H « es.XA «▼«% st»»t 's'Cfra
-«i«^i<l 4«^ f;;3ef»t #t&e» »l££ .d«iJ:t 9<X««' tl»»i»9« Id ie«I« s 9dX« ib«s
IBS «fe «-^ ga^ii'jt^l sni* »a'^«.fe.igi'$l-- ■' " .-'• * »•■ '•■'
« H-VS?;^ »«e«9X «i^ I4U$9 &A&Jt90<:Q ^v; ;>
"At tariBlnation oT the !«»•• by lap** oi' tioia or otU<?rvlsc
to yield up lamedlata po«s«Keioa te iiald I»aeor."
It is Bot disputed tuat tli* ItuaUord v^s no r«p«irs
»«r 414 anyttilng towards ftuitljat, the pr«Kl»«>'a tenantable luring t&%
thirty days tin'^i they r«re not rf>i;>aired m-itil the follovlng kay.
The p»rtie* hiuS sose t&Xk about BoKioi^ a n«vw !«»«•« Xh«sso eon-
T«raations took plaeo after tb« Axpirjition of thirty days frea the
tij&e ol' the i'ire» but, aXthou^ a new lease was drntwn up, they
nerer agre«?d ur;on teras tai It sr«ui not ui^Jied. Un-ler the prorl-
slone of the lease aboT* Quoted, vhen the leeeor did not repair
the pretbisee vithlc tliirty diaye, the tors of th«i lease eeaso'! rmd
enjed and the teniint v&s beu&d to yield up laiaeLedlate poiiseaeion
to the landlord.
this is not R. e»se of eonstructi-re eviction and the
mle in sueh esses is not applleable. The If^ase rircyided in
express ter&e for its tcrainattion upon a eertais eveiit, r^loh
event took pl^ee. The l'rm<:',lori hid the 09ti<»i either to hold the
tenant for the full tern of the lease by me.king the ^^reKlaee tentLS^t^
able "Tithin thirty daye after t3%e fire or to terislftste the lease
by falling to nske repairs. She failure to repair tei^dnated the
lease.
It is argued th&t, beeauee the tenant's two sub^teniuite
regained upon the prei;:ieee, there «&s no yielding of poneeeeion by
the tenant, citing Hogore & Hagi Co, v. balden. 205 111. Aop. 415.
In that case the teaaiDt Toluntarlly eurrer>Llerec! or abandoned poeseea'
loB. lo the instant case the lease terrsin»ted unier the proTlaion
aboTO quoted. In C^rlj^oyf y. JL»Tii^»Q^. 233 111. App. 104, it w»s
held that -("tiere there i^ae a partial eriction by the leesor, the
tenant was excused frois paynent of the whole rent, ^ut these were
eases of construetiwe eylctlon, while in the l^etant case the t'^rei
of the lease «ided by ylrtue of its proTieions,
Defendant testified that ne has not occupied the prosii«
sicftie' t&»»j£i J^sS .tabu's *i!«i!i«' sj^jI '^« jhtiSJSRr^
. tmr-
••• •!&«• Um 4«t« ef ih« tir*, January 5th; tamt U« has not col*
leet«4 any rant sine* that ilK« fro& Ms «uh-teuanta Mid that
thirty day* itft«r th* rir«, tu« presses not being repaired, h«
notified thcK that ixls lea«« h&d teriblaatcd. !rhe landlord th«n
eottld treat wltJU th« subotauanta as he aaw fit, al thrr oolI«eting
for uaa and oecupatioii or obtaining poseeBslcB. t^Iaintlrf vas
entitled to recoTor no mort than |4U0 for rent and the judgiaent
In that respeet was pro'pix, !Qi« d«i'«c<lsi^t do'vs no( c^udstioa tula
waaunt,
Oafendar.t pleaded us a aot-olff , wh.ieu v^as allowed by
tha eourt, an it«si of #66. 5«- for th« cost of & barricade aroufid
tha building after tha fire. Sef«nd»nt testified that he padd
for this the next morning after the ilr?? wai iBf ©rated the l-in'^lard
iHm said It was all ri«^ht. Plaintiff de' i«>i that he aoquissoed In
the Batter and testified th»t defendant as*:ed hiai to pay the bill
but he told defecdant to present it to his lneurane« adjuster.
It is sore reaeonuble to beliere that the landlord did not agree
to pay the cost of bi»rrloadint; the store, vhi<^ vas isore for the
benefit of the teor^At than of the lardlord. this item vas ii&«
properly alloved as % set-off.
'ihe court also allowed an itew of ^22b, «?hich «as
half tha eest of plu»blne work done in the buildln^^ s<»e eight
or nine years before, x'hia should not h^TO been allowed for a
BUBber of reaaoas. When thle pluKbing was done in 1919, the
defendant endeavored to ppreuide the landlord to pay the bill
tnr asKS, ^ioii aaoonted to 4^490. fhe parties finally agreed to
dirlde the cost, %nd the landlord paid $2S5 an! tix^. defendant paid
|285, 80 that there wae & oo&pleta eettlcement of that dlfferenoe
soBie eit^t or aore yearv prior to the present controTerey. Farther*
aere, the fiwe year statut« of lisii tut ions had rua.
i'laintlff coifapiainB that the court did not allow hia
^^rn^rn^^ 9^ ^m im^.'S»t ^^ -sefRS «-ie^^ «a «{»vdi»^ n^ £!«UlJtjn9
^ .&*s'%a ^iiAait »»i#t«:n imSsiMsmgi ^<Ajt4<r «fjar-
|20 attornvya* f*-*, eltin« Mjthftr y. *»ck«f . SlO III, i«>p« 346,
«"•<" 8^y«oV»r V. Junk<cr. 230 111. App, 366. lo both ol th«ae
0&s««, upon tri«i on tit* ncrlt*, lh« Judtj;s«ut was virtublly the
•mat* aa «ao «nt«r«d by oeBfaaaion. V« can a«« Zio rnaaozt wher«,
aa in tii« preaent o«b«, upon the trial th* Juif^vetit vim reduced
by a Xarga MRount, that plalniiin' ahould recover attorneys'
foea.
Th9 jude?&9ut oT ta« (.rial eourt is r<i^verasd and
Jttdg8i«nt for th« plaintiff la entered in V&X» eonrt for |400.
THIS COURT K;« #400.
0*Coanor, P. 7.* jaS Malehett, J., ccGcur.
*u'0
S3340
OBSiilS J. CARROLL,
H0WT01l^/iWCHIBAI.B t.
CItII Sf^lcAv^CoanieslonfT
C4Jv of l^lcago, /
^ AopollantJ,
OF COOil Col
53
2-
kR. JUyXICB MoaiiWSLY IHJLrVKHKD xHif. OPXl. lOJS/ Oj;' THE COURT .
Petition for writ of c»r1,iorari w&e filed in the ju-
9«rior tourt and it was ordcr«d that the writ isaue. The reepond-
ant, the CItII Sarrlee ComxQiseion of the City of Chicago, moved to
quash the writ. Upon apnlioation by the petitioner the reejondent
waa orc1e>r«d by a supplemental vrit to return a traneoript of the
•Tidcnoe taken before the commission. At final hearing the motion
to quaah the writ was denied and the record of the Civil Service
C^HBiesion waa quashed. Ji'ror^ this order the respondent appeals.
Relator Carroll was a police oantain in the Department
of Police of the City of Chioaijo, and on June 29, 19 27, was chiarged
with violation of certain rules and re^^ulatione of the depeurtinent.
was
Auffust 16, 19S7, h^/found (jjuilty of th-? charges and ordered die-
Charged from tiie police service. 1h© writ of certiorari issued by
the Superior court brought in review the record of the respondent
and it was thAre hpl-i that there waa no evidence to sustain the
ohargea .
Shis case is in many resoects a ootnp^uiion case to
Murphy v., flftuwten elf aU.. Civil Service Coeaiai 9 ;? loners, reeently
decided by this court - 390 111. App. 335. Almoet all of the
pointe made in the instant case with reference to the powers of a
court reviefwing the proceedings of the Civil .'Service Comnilssion
were rai8<>d and decided ii. that case. 9e tnere held that the
reviewing oourt may ^xaoine tne I'indiri^s and the evidence, "twt
<^-;
^^♦S<X«»!!.tT:
.% '■tii'tUA',
..'^
^tiiM^ ^M %!^)^&Ui.l^ «Hi ^M^:M1JJ& Yvj^.>tt;«t4)Ja SOi*'
Qi>mt
•*M' IfeWltlilR*- ' »8ift'' »«^*(R'I^ *«iaf It* ig*Xi «■■■■ *- "Srijf -Vv ©/,■ , . .:* r t« i^-ft wA
X-rf Nk«*«>i M^'SftMl**. ^^ H^» •<£» .#3.'
,, IT iwa Iris's
for the purpose of welching the OTldenae upon any luaterial issue
ol' faot, but In order to determine (1) whether the aocjolBsion he4
jurisdiction; (2) whether it exceeded its jurisdiotion; (3) i^ether
there w«a «ny eyidenoe ten-9lng to prove the ch&rgee made; t&n.i (4)
whether the ^rooee^inge were oonciuoted &ocordini>; to or in viola«
tion ©f the law,* We quoted from yunkhoueer y, (,QrXia^ 301 111.257:
•Xhnre le no prssuuiption of juried lot ioii in favor of a
body exercl»?inp a llwltpfi or Btwtutory juriBfJlction. iSothing
ie taken by intendment in favor oV cueh jurisdiction but the
ffoto upon i^hich the jurts'liction is foundet? must appear ir
the record. » * 'and the record must show uiat. the bo air d
aetr ! upon evidence tuifl ooritair. thp teatiwony upon wiica the
deoieion was based, U- order Uiat the court &ay determine
whether there w&b any evidence fairlv tendint to euetain the
. ©rder, "•
We adhere to what was h*?ld in the Jburphy case as to
the principal points involved. Xher^ ie It^ft in the present case
only the question whether there was any evidence in the record
from whlcii the comieisslen oould reasonably I'ind that o^titioner
Carroll was fiuilty of ooniuot wjaioh justified the fln'5ing of an
order for hi? discharge. Xhnrc is alsc if. the Inptatit case the
question of 3, ftOhe,fl .
Relator was charged "with con?Juot unbecoming a police
efficsr or e«ployee of the police departsent. lieglea of Duty.
Vilfui aal treatment of any person.** I'he epecifie ohurges were
that on March Rth, 6th ani 7th, 1927, he had ordered <^lvers rai'le
to be B;ide by his subordinate ofi'icers against certain men and
woK«n «4i<>re no criminal offense wae cou&itted; that he suffered,
permitted an.^ :^ireoted offioers unier his cooioiande to take part
in political caapaiti.r<8 %nd Buff<?red and peraaitted proatitution
and the operation of houses of assignation in th«> district under
his ooRsmand, amd permitted solicit»tion r>nd roping for prostitutioi
for said houses and places on the stre?its in his district; inability
to prevent and inefflcieinoy in th<i prevex>tion of prostitution and
street •eliei tation; inabllit;; to prevent gambling and the sale of
si
«4)i.
ivt •)* «<W »..'..£ .*,\"?,S 'J 51 «
jf * ■' '^ 'V. ;•' '
^*lX14f$«sl,,,3;#jt^J^,i|#«^,^^ srlJ no «.»»«% ftiWv £>^^i.'« ■ ^i^ii-i en's:
t« (|f^,^ »4|, :fik«iss. jgfli^fifflb' : .; <til4«(!aa»i xnatix^ i'^Lion dentin
intoxioatlnf. liquor*. 1h» ooxitAiaslon found that Carroll wai«
guilty of:
"Con laot uabooomlnf a polLee oiiicor or an enploye ol'
th« rolioo Daipirtwrtnt,
"Jt;«i;ieoi ol' iuty.
*I&eapaoity or Xnofi'ioicjney in tii« sorTioo, and
*Vilful naltreataont of aucy peroun.'*
Koapondtmt loee not arguo in it« brief th<tt th«re is
any OTldanoa in the record from tfhici tlie oo) BiinBloii could reawon-
al>ly find that Carroll was (guilty. By a eup ddsientol record itcd
additional abstract of record th« relator has brouf^ixt bftfora this
court a ooBplote tranooript. of the ^Yidence taken. The evldenoe is
Tcluminous and it would unduly lengthen tule opinion to attaspt to
p«t it forth.
"Shwi Carroll was transferred to 2-A .District h«» vas
tcld ty oup<«rlntenoefit of Folic© Collins that thfe eoAdltions in
this distriet wsre Tsry bad, that there vas vice, prostltation,
gambling, iops fiends, street walkers, an4 other forms of degeneracy
and crlae, and thav the superintendent was ssnding hiiw there for the
purpose of giTin*; the dietrlct a thorough "cleaning ttp" and timt he
would be held responsible for •oieaiJing" it. This dlutrict is known
as the Stanton Avenue Police M strict ; its boundary lint^e are from
31st street en the north to 39th street on iirie south and iroiaii the
railroad to the lake. A large 77:irt of the tostii&ony relates to
arrests, gen-jrally for the crimes of gaablini; ani prostitution. Ihs
testimony. Instead of oroTing the diarges made a^.ilncst Carroll, shows
hia to have b««n a highly •ffioiont and eapable officer. There is
no evidenee vhaterer in the record whioh by >iny reasonable construe ion
coul.t b« saiti to sustain the ch-rirg«i-» ai.Ade, as was said in the Murphy
ease:
awe; • -' *M»#>*tti ,t:KiiJSi*««.'
;:-3»ves,f«iiisf ^a-wiiwiUiWJ cat
t^i*.*.
•To perarlt. « trcot'I llic this ti titand vrouli aaouut to a
nullirioatlon of »* the civil dTriam Lew. •• *h'r<i is
not a «olntlll« of •TH«nc* t«n1in,, to anow any 4«r«liotlon
on th« part ol' (Captain Carroll), but on the oontiuzy tii«r0
!• trllerice tending to thoy « dilie?nt, «Rr/i6st, efr»cllT«
»tt«nr>t Ib gccd f<h to p«!rJonB hie duty."
The Superior court T)roo«rly quashed Hit record of
the proceed inge.
Thff date of petitioner's dlsohsrge was August 16,
1997, ftn<< tire petition for writ of g^rtiqrari wan not liled until
May 4, 1920, - an ictcrrening period of alu.ost ni.'/e months. The
respon!5ent saye this constitutes l»eheg. This ooint wae not
raised Id the lower court »md therefor*? it win not be considered
in the eourt of r»Tlew, Hgoplo «x rsl, 0* Shea v. Lantry, 60 t.Y*
8, 10C9 . The proper pra-atlce to raise this point is by motion to
dismiss or qu*sh the writ. Lftphes in applying for the writ may be
valTed by aopearance s^fi ploadin^ or by aaklng a return. 11 C.J.
143, «nd cases there olt<^d.
furthermore, there were circumstances in the Instant
ease ^hlch reasonably could be held as exousin^- the delay in
filing the petition for th* ^rlt.
Upon thfl record w« hold th&t the order oi' the
Superior court oTer-rullng resoonient'e notlc; to quash the
return and quas'ilng the r«eord of the Civil 3erTice Oo:r^ii?8lon
was proper, orH It le afflrjted.
O'Connor, P. J., arH M»tch(*tt, J., ooncur.
« itt im'.^m I'Xeaw feirjc^K oS nltdo witiX fcias&i .?? ii.:a%H^ eX*
ei :r>i:":ft' ** .wbJ t^ lvi<-" XJvi^ »if4 *« '^c fr^ •:,>■,■•; itx fiaa
,!i)0#^», 9:mttt si««„^Q ^0^ «s>x
■ . » i,vl.".i". . ■•T'iiisj .^*f .« ;■«-•■ >
IR. JU..AIC,
Xhln Is All M-ppftini !y th© ^tti'miAwcit Ircra » Ju^jflttimt in
th« sun of ^76.32 «nt«r«<d upon thn I'inUng of t,h« court, i'l^vintif J*
elai»<><i that on ii«pt«9i»1»«r S, 19 S6, hi a autojsobllo was daits4<£,«d
through a collision with fiJiotii«y autsaotlle n«ijlliv«ntly <!rlve» by
ths d«f««)'1*nt. Ii»e* plaintiff has not a,op*'^iiX«d in tnis court.
DsfmMant contsnrta that Ui& I'in Urij:, ia not supported
^y th« ©Tidionco and that plaiRtiff was ijullty oj oontril-utory negli-
S«ne«. Xhxee witnesses, pl«i.iBtlfi', iefenrtant aiid ©«« Xuilg^siard;,
tsstirio'l to th* '^ccui-renei*. Ihoy agrc® that thf alli^tje-;! a<3«iir!«nt
oecurrod S«i>t«wjb«r 3, XS?'6, s.t the intore««ttion of LMyt&ofi av«nu«^
anl Dakin street; that plaintiff was driving a Chwroltet aoAikh on
Lanon aYoiiue iwl (Safe»<liant was i^rivin^ a JTord w<i»at on Dakin street.
It was daylight tout th* streets were slippery.
Plaintiff says that ae lii« approach is^?* th* intftrsection
h« saw th«y ^ord about SO feet «&st oJ tho oroBWwialk and that hff was
thon about ovon with th« north oroaowaik; V^t def«nda«t's autoftobils
was on his l»ft and that '^h^^ he was in tho mi ^(3X'> of U'i« int«rsoetl«
dafsc'lant's *'ord struei: hie Ch«Trolet or. th'? l<»ft aid«, just bick of
the osnter, head on, knocking the Chevrol«>t ov«r to the Bouthw«>8t
ourb. ii« says that def^ridarit then told hia* thai it was his, ??*-
fsndant 's, fault rin ' that h« was sorry, ar<»as* was rvmning out of
the difr«rential, (i sprini^^ waa broken an4 two fsndsrs on ths Isft
sids '»«r«5 siaashsA. Plaintiff drove iiie oar iioiue. the r«ar wheels
did not roc true, therr ^»as a grinicliCfc noise 1j th« differential
•ad the rear whe«ls wer« out of aliKnxtent. He h;*A iiia car reo4.1red
826
■si^ '■■■ .g»9ll»^
\iem<mmr ^ miw^
tmoUM/^iu
t<*
t« me.-
m-3tui VMsii ■«9%^*
it zix*
^«t»iM(ti)f«» #^ «# it«Mrx| t^i^ini*/
i^^rt-wi^i;*
5 ••><<« ntfrjft
:'i;is??'nst»^
4j»i 5?i4>*X-
iiai*;X'
by th« Albany Wurk kotor 5al«>s Company. iU Maya (and th«r« la no
«vlft«nce tc th« oontrary) that, tUi» iitr«et» wer« about 94 f«*t vide
•ad that th«r« was a hou«« at tli« aortheaat corner ol' th« Inter-
•eetlon* Plaintiff further teeatiiied Uxat h« flret eav defendarit'c
ear when it was about 90 feet eaet of tlie eroaawalk: that defeniajrit
wae tfoing about 95 ullea ^^n hour; (mA he eaya he &x:*t defendant
tesether exj^.inA<1 th« ^wtrxaaA oar.
Thilgaard on iirvci exat£.:nation eaicl thu he w»o etsuid*
lag 20 feet nortK of the inters«ctlor> of LaBion avetiu<? and that he
saw a Chevrolet going aouih 13 or 20 uilea tm hour; that he aav a
JTord going veetward at 35 nilee an hour» m-i that he »aw it when
it waa i&bout 50 feet eaat of the oroefmalic of LaiKOU i:ivenue; that
It etruek the Cherrolflt head on. de i'uTtner eaid i.hat defendant
did cot almeken hia apeed; that plaintiff *q car vsa going between IS
aad 19 »ll'*« an hour wHkii it wa» etruek; that th© rear pnl ©f plain-
tiff'a o*r went over the curb at the aouthwset coiner » the front
end projecting into th« street, ite di\l not aee the Chavrolet itfter
it P'teaed him and paid no further attention to it ui. tU he hsard
the oraah, and did net pay sue atteiitlon to tlie >'ordi until it
atruek the Chewrolet.
Defendant teetified, on the eontr&ry, that ae he ap-
proaehed the Interaeetion of Lemon aTonae and JDakin street he waa
driving about 1^ ailea an hour; that at 10 feet east of the eroae-
walk he ebaerved the Chevrolet coi&in«; south but thougnt it waa
between 75 and 100 feet north of the eroeswalk; that plaintiff *•
oar was traveling between 30 and 55 miles an hour; that he waa
afraid to put on his brAkee for fpur h<>» vouli skid, t^e the pavement
waa wet; that he therefore turned hi» car to the eoutA and stopped
it on Lanen avenue near the '^'ast curb, ue says that he did not
•OBie in eontaet with plaintiff 'e car nt any tine and denind that
h« had ads:itted he was at fault. He says he eoul'! have stopped
a
*$k»$i^'^- i^xtmm '^i^^tH «$ lfWMlt]M:j.rv
■^■''''* ■ ir* Ilfmf 1^^*' *s» ** m,mm>M0
^^»<^ »iy: Mt»Ull4'»
hit o«r within two or thre« f««t but thought h« eould pass in
front of plaintiff's oar. U« did not know v)t;otn«r plaintiff
■laokonod tho apoed of hia car but h« knew that h«, dofenaarit,
did not alaekon his apaad.
It io ap arvnt that the teatlK.ony of the ooourranea
witnftsaaa oI«arly prepon^arataa in faror of tha plaintiff. So*
fandant contends thai the physical altaatioa ua deaorlhed by
plaintiff and his witnaas wab In eertain r4<!ap»ets im toaaible and
that th«ir taatimony la tti«rtfor« i^ot antitlod to oredenoa. Ha
•aya that Xhilgaard'a teatliiiony to tja« effect that he stood 7S
feat north of the interaectlon and aav tae i'ord oar 50 feat east
of the east erasowalk was imposeible In view of the teetlmony that
there waa a house at the northeast, oornt^r oV th<? Interaectlon.
!fhilgaard's evidence »« to distrmcaa wa«, howev«!r« only hie eetiriate.
At one tii&e he estimated his diatarioe fro^^ th<l crosawal^ to be 2C
feat north and at another tiK« 7S feet, Probs^bly neither <>stl:na.te
was oorreot, but thia doi^a not Katerlally affeet the value of hie
evidonoe with reference to what ne aotually aaw or h<*!ard, and he
testifies positively th&t there was a "eraah" which is shelly
incon«lftect with defendant's theory that plaintiff's automobile
waa not ntruok at all.
Again, defendant ar;-.u4B that the teatiffiony to the
affect that plaintiff's oar was knociced tc the southwest curb
with the front whcela oroJeetliMS Into the Intersection is physically
inposalble and i« inconsistent with the twetlKony of pl'^intiff 'a
witneee. However, the record 4oe8 not disclose evidence fros
which this can b« determined. Th«f spe«7d at which thfi oars were
moving is only estimated. 7here ia no 0vldenee at all -as to
their wdtl^ht nor any evid««nce a« to the* lo^iet^ they carried. The
probabilitiea are that neither c«r waa movini; at the eetl&>ated
•P«c4 at the t Ue of the Inpaet. Moreover, the evidence dc^s
£'■
:■ ^,,^am^^!t09k : ««4^ |feiwsfl,,«^l«^ :»il «^ '«iii^ .|M^, '*■» l*iwt«j <:^
-■■v:,..c^:,■^^:^::•v•-■ ' /;";v> .-i-: ^ :^- '' -- , ^- ;■ , , v •' ,. \ ,, SW^v.;: ' i,^^ *^ .«»;>i«Mli/
»tAia-i-*«« t*^!*!* isl«i?*>«ff«t , ^*#»1i «f ftasJt* %9i0!i^m,^$^ p ■
not ln<)ioat« that plalntll'i' lost «ntir« control of hltt oar. Vhllo
dof«n3ftnt danlos ibAt ii9 Admit fd liaMlity to plaintliT, thore Is
oe <)«Dial "by hiot of a conToroatlon wl Ui r^fervitoe to a a*xoT>oH9A
Injury au«taln«d by plaintiff* oar. If the cars '.id not collide,
why tho conT«raatlon?
Xhc evldcnoo tend* to cho« that aa plaintiff and da*
fondant approaehad th«» eroaaln^ plaintiff had the ri^ht of way.
Tha weight cf tha t««tlKony was p;»rtioulajrly lor the trliU court,
who aaw and heard th* witneosaa testify* to decide. I'he only
qUAetion in the oaoe is one oi' fuet, ^>n<l we c«mi>ot «ay that the
flnllni! le .'j^fidnet the evidence. Ih« judgsi^nt if, tiit^^refore
affined .
O'Conr-or, V, J., and feo^vurely, J,, concur.
t/r
.•T*;oM*» J . V* 4t.4,»-tif';
^iv;*f:;(v
'S'^*!*:'"- . ^,?,*,f";■;:'■■::^^ ■■;*.,.■:■; •■'■-i^.-jii -j^^i' <^i-? ,;^
iAL 7R(Ai WJUJtlJM:. COURT
33894
SUfA PAunot,
IbSUHAiJre C0« P.'vifif , ft CorDjBirfttlojf,
— ^ Aprjfliiint, ,,/ /
/ 'X .^ *." /'■ f O
kil. JUSIIOS itATCfCSXT B8LIVKKKD tifJH C?liitOhi i)V THS COUKT.
Thl» appMki la by tn« def eiHant I'roE. & jud,.^«nt for
platlntin' in the sua of $573 eot«r»d upon the rir.>Ung of the
court. Plitlntil'l' fluvd &« the beoel'i clary D)jt£L@d in two life
Insurance pcllolea Issued to Vletor JP»l£3csr, thi> son of pl&inttfl*,
en Mardt 18, le^S, iind BoYember S4, 1936, r<;(tp«ctiv«tly.
The statement ol' cl.-^isi alleged th&t th« Inaurcit da*
f«rt9«1 thlft life en I>eeei&b«r 19, 1926; tha.t till preuilai&s had
been p%l>i; that nlaintlff gave novloe tiuid lur»lai-}o<l satisfaetnry
proofs of fleath but thai defffn^lsutt rei'ua«d to pay. Copiee of the
Ineuranee policies were attaGhed> an '< the st«»i«ifiAnt p:; cla'i
▼erlfled by the affidavit of plaintin', In ^hic she »t,at©(l that
her suit wae upon eontract for the payisent cT «on«y; that the
nature el' the dei&aod was as stHited «uad th%t there was du« to her
froB defenij&nt, after allowing all just crdite, d«5uctlo«» ind
set-offs, the sun of f37U.
tii9. 4efe»dar.t filed an aK«r'tded affidavit of serlts
whlo^i iiwverred the belief that defen^Ant had a ^ood defense to the
vhol« demand, denied Its Indektednee* In Any amount, dei^suided
etrlot proof of the death of insured, and set up thiit the policies
proYlded that they eheuld not take effect unless upon their date
the ineured vas in etun^ health, wbieto It was averred Ae was nc^.
She AffldaTlt furtner set up tliat the teruis of eaeh of the
pelieles provided as follows:
*^^:^
saso
i'';f'>7:riV"f .f^itt
'^w"""*^.
•^^<i
'a««^ •s.liki^ 4is>^. ^t^^i^i^' t^^^ll^s «)fil»'$ 1^. '^^liiifir^' '^'^ mm^ %«ii>i:- -
•Poiley when Toid - iui« ^llcy •nail b« rold ••• If th«
lnaur«d has b«ec att«n<l«d by any physician wjtUin two yttyji
b«for« ita d»t« hereof* I'or any a«riou« (1it«4«e, coir';<laini
•r eporatloD; or haa had ••* diaoaao ol* th« hoart or\klineya''*.*
7h9 affidairit arorrad tiiat *th««« polieiea were void
baoauaa tho oald Viotor P^l&er had baan attaudad hy a phyaioiaa
vithia two yaara before th« dates thereof for a aarioua diaeaae and
that tha said Vlotcr Palaar had hnd a diseaae of the heart SKlSL
to th£ »li..ftli>>; £f tTfe BB^d appl iaatloo for said policies r of erred
to and prior to the date of t e said polioiea."
Upon thA trial the plaintiff eave sridencs tending to
•h«w that the >r«Biuaui had ba«a paid; th«t Viotor i's<aer di«d at
Cbloago, lllir.eia, Oeee»ber 19, 19?6, lan^ that paywest had bsea
raAiaed by defenlant; that the doeeas^d wa« not under the sare of
a physician within two years of the tise of hint death, ^^Ith the
sxoeotion of his laat illneas; that he was a palute^r and a deeo*
rator by occuptittioi] '«nd worked eontlnuously «t kis truds.
In suits upon polieies eontainlng provisions eisiil^
to these, we have held that la order to reeover an affiriaatiYS
proof of the fact of sound heiilth t^on the policy was delivered
Is necessary. Lfwati.iowski v. ytstsra A $ftutl^<era Life Ij^g. <;^^,^
241 HI. App, 55; L/tu^chlln v. i^ertl; ^erictp. Benefit Corp.. 244
111. Aop. 391. We hold this proof as above reeited waji prjatft
facie Buffioieot to sstatlish this f^ct.
In support 01 the defenses set up in the affidavit of
aerits, the defendant produced as a witness the attendiing phyeieian.
He testified that he first sow th« dee<?ased May 29, 1922; that he
dlacsBosed his oase at that ti»e as atyoaarditia or heart trouble;
that he next sew and treated his about a weeJc before he died and
that deeeased then had influetisa plus syoaarditia; that his heart
oondition at this ^iae was the ease as «?hen u-a nitn^ss first saw
hla; that to his re«elleetioa he had not sem the deeeased betwetts
May 29, 1932, and the Platte nhen he was called in the laet illness
*9^^^m'mst*i^l^ ■^. *s.u#ii ^-M 'liS' s^.a-«^iifc/ ♦** Sttfsi serf ^» ia»i^ii,,.---
msm $9i%Fi »ee«ia-i« »m$' m^iHi »&■ eaeug »is^4 .a^*- »*;._.
■?.*S*;*&s
«l
lafciftiti-s aisysl
»«Oa3M& tb
• r dceimaot!. This waa thm only aadlcai evideno* oftrfd, and tha
f««t that ta« deoeaae.l was aff liotsd «lti; udort dlssAoe prior to
the datva of th« policies is practically uccontraJi ctftd,
Th« plaintiff rightly a*y8, "Tiiia brings us t& th*
only Queatisn in thla c««« - irhetii«r the fact that lcsur«d «uy
hftTe bad heart troubls at acma tice, is Bufi'leloct to avcl^H tha
policy." The provision of th« pollclaa to lie eo&struad rea<i8:
"Ihltj ptilicy shall be ▼old: (1) If the lr.eured has beea
rejected for ingi^anco by thic or hny other coEipaJiy, society
or order; or h»e attended any hospit&l^ or IfiStitution of any
kind engage<1 in th« care or cure of hu^an healtu or disease,
or has been atten-^e'^l by any phyBioi?*n, «it..lft tv© y«*xs before
th0 dat^ herepf . for any serious dise^uie, oos^^pijilnt or opero*
tlon; or hos had before said cl%te au-y pulBson*ry cliseaae, ooneor,
sareoaa, or disease of Ino heart or i^idenys; >«*,■
Plaintiff aa,y« that this p^^ragraph of the polioiea is
to ^f eoastraed liberally in her favor acd strictly h^aIh^X the
company. She eitoo Terwij-lliger t« ^..^tional i^^^oclc acc. Assoc* ,
1«7 111. 9; fe,in<i5«: v>, ,fefy ^f 1r1fy4^ C^BHgqjJL.^' » 22i ill. ikpp, 74;
OB'I Davlo Tf .^jAlimd Cag. Cq.> ISO 111. a»?. 33a. ihe cajies Bvist&la
her coBtetitioB as to tae rule ws.i<^ joasit be 6pf>lied. there is no
dottbt of the rulo aor vould «e be slov to follov it in csitses to
vkioh It la applicable.
The proof for defendUit fails to eho* thai the insured
had a disease of the heart viUiln tvo years prior to the da^tes of
the policies ; and plaintiff ooatends th&t this psura^rasb properly
eenstrued tt«>ttns th^t the policies shrill be void only in e^se the
deceased hat! suffered frota heart dl8«a.B0 vithlji; two years prior to
the dates upon whlo.t the policies were issued. Ouch, she says, is
the reasonable construotioa aitd is ta^ eojaatruction placed on it
by the trial court, "^o should adopt the views of the trial court
if pessiblo, but an .UBaiysis of the paragraph faile to diacioso any
basis for thie constructionp
It is apparent the paragraph under t^es to state the
eircftzsotaneos under which the policies viii be vcici. These ijire
-re
.V,. ■--.. . ,...,-..:..,«. >«{ J^j^ ...^^.. :.lsr% »ig4. ojr «4 n»^jis*5Ji^» isiS
(l) 11' the insured haa httmn rejected for other InnuraAoe (appro-ectly
without any tlse limit as to the rejection); (2) IT the insured had
bttccded a hospital or siailar inetitutlea (a^ain* witt^ut llaitation
as to tlAo): {:m if the insured bad fceeii attended by a physician (hare
a tiae liait was ebTioasly nest appropriate stn<.} it is expr eased by
the tiae of the adverbial clauas, ''within two yeara fro;u the iate here-
of*}; (4) if the insured had had (a) pttlaionrjry diBe>se, (b) oanoer,
( o) eareoaa, (ti) disease of the heart, ( e) dlsetvee of the liY*r. In
the last ol^xse the verb la aodtlfied by the f^uross. "before said date.*
Vhat is aeact by *»aid dnte"? The only date theretofore i&entioned is
"the date hereof." "The data hereof* obviously means ^jjsd refers bask
to the dat«8 of the instruate&ts, i. 9. , the dates of the policies.
■Said data* is therefore wholly di8con»ected frca the phrase, "within
two years,* which aodlfies tlie verb "t^tteiided'' in the previous clause.
Plaintiff's eonatruetlon therefore see^is to be iespossibls when eonsid-
ered froa a grtusiaatical standpoint. Moreover, lo3i:;lni{ to the whole
parat^aph, even a layman can discern that there probably «oull be a
good reason why an ar)pl leant «rho had tiieretofore saffered & pulaonary
disease, chancer, sarcoKs^ or disease of the heart or kidneys should be
regarded as an usdesiratle subject for insurance. This eonstructlon,
therefore, is cot ttnreasoB%tXe, as idalntiff argues«
^l^iile the whole p^^agrajli shoull be liberally construed
in f&vor of the plaintiff, we have no right to ocnstrue into it aa*
t*rial etateaenta whien are ineoueistent ^ tn the plain aesning of tha
weirds, tae construction of the sentences, ^tnd contrary to the obvious
intention. If we are right in thl» construct ion, th«n on the uxtcon-
tradicted evid^toe plaintiff as a aaiter of law was not «mtiti«',d to
recover,
"She court erred in findin^g In f9<vor of tne plaintiff
and the Judgment nuist be reversed %ith a flB':^ing of facta.
BsvsRasD ^ifs wiknmG of f acts.
BoSurely, J., concurs.
0*Conner, i?, J., di^s^ts.
sNf &.;;._ ,. •: :> .#«^*iKss ^«*tsi=9^«_ ^^e^ft^is-
3t5 ->«*. "^'S ■S!*f^';S! .* «.?- T$irt«Si«i.^ 6»iKif>lr« |:S$3ii.fe*f^<J
*!lt3M.^^
33994 nUDIlia oy >*.iC78.
V« fiad •• ftt<tts that th« polloi«s upoc »hi(^ th«
pIftintliT vusa In thi* case preTld«d tUat Ui« aa»Bf» aiioulil be ▼oi4
is e»s« the in»ur«d had bei'or* th* datea oi' aaid pollciea aBy
dlsaaaa of the heart; thai prior t& tha dataa oi' these pelloiea
the insured. Victor Paliaa*^ was afflicted trith a ;Uaeaae oi tha
heart «^ic>i aftervarda eaused his death; th«t the poiicica fey
their teraia ware therefore Toid, and that pl&intlff canriot reoovar
th«r«o«.
SSS03
amCRAL laGHWXIS SYSTRK, inc., )
vs.
App^lwcxt,
App«XI«f,
CB kAlCHKTT mXI^Ki:© XiiK OP Hi I
'Sh.iit is «c api^efil by tht< plAir^tixf froJ^ » Ju.)g»<»)t in
favor ol" th» defendant, «nter«d up&n the irerdiot of a Jury l>y In-
•truetlon of th« court nt ti\«> cles« of plaintiff* svidenoe, i1&»
•rrer «ssigr>«d and argued is ta« dirieetioi^ of tills verdict.
Plaintiff '• ()aoltkr&ti9& «a» iu itssumpelt and sverr«d
In aucietarioe that on liova^er 36* 1923, in Uook eounty, Illinois,
dttf«n4aRt gava to plaintiff adsi ^rdnr in «rltlxkg wlil&h reel ted
that. In eoDslderatlon of ol&cin^ bI^^o &b "llBt«'i below", r. usely,
A%T^6i^t*n adT«rtla«fceat aloo^ au^litt roads l^»4in& into teliw^ukea,
*incf3i8;.K, aoeorllCK to Bpe«ifieHtio» of eorietr«tiori and coijAltions
prlnt«»<l en th« reverse side cf ttie siieet, ih« d«fsnd8,t.t pronlse^ t«
pay the plialntlff 1560 *vh«{) sltr^s »r« iE>iae«d ^td s llKe asss* ,%oiBtbly
te*re3»ft«r for thirty-sljs asRtas, * Xiiia order furt ^.er sstatei! that It
vaa a€re«d th»t tiiea« aig^ns «oalr$ \te pla^ad aa deal^£>{%t«d by the
puro^>~%a«r vlthin the area eov«r«d by the th«a pr«!)S«nt ayste£<: cf 60 .
aigna, anfl stated that the i»pplloatlan on tii« forser contract vould
•eAse on the date e»id ooa tract beoesue operative.
The ilecl«r%tle» averrerl the execution anH delivery of
the contract to the plaintiff; that plaintiff un;lert«}oJk to pl^^ee 12U
•IgBs i^eordlBx to the tert&a oi the contract and ta&t they war*' pl.-^oed
oB Jtay 2?» 19 24; th :, they were Htaintained cojitlnuouely froit the ttsse
of pl«eing the nnsut; Oid In general the perforiganoe of eaeh acd all of
the tersa of the cootraot aa s«t forth, it rurtncr fiverred the defaoa-
■nt MM ttot paid the soney as a><^eed; tuat by th^^ tf^Ti^tt oJ' ihe contract
i^ -^0 ■«4.1i«
eesst
( ,.»«! tiisss0Vi ^tSimsm Mmt^Q
>
^%ji;»mm «*H»»c»rf *»««^I4*' „.-«i»..*«i&iif-_ api*B,f«. 'fee j»|i»^&4ii0 .,■ .. .^.?ii3
II #j«i«l' ft*^jr« f«^j^;?yja ^^»x» »l^ •,«^#(»»
i^»6j^ »'l»(ie» ^^a^^' 4l»a& l^tfe\ 4^ -.^&tos9« mse^lm
it waa asr**!! th«t upon fallura or dAfftult oi' the defen-^act to p«y
•ay ol* th« inatallKents in thr coatraot Bention«d, pl»lctiiT aUght,
aftar du« notl«!«, daelarc tbi« tetal unptkld hulimem lia^edi&tcly 'iu*
and payabla; that on July 27, 19S6, it elected by reaao). ol' the
default In payment by tha defendant te declare tbe total unpaid
balanea InuBadiataly daa, and notified dafetidant of ite electloc.
The daclaratlefi also coritaln«d the ooffistoa counts and
atta^ed tliarato «as an affidavit to the «rffi>at that the denaad ef
the plaintiff was for furnlahing, plseinj- and aaintaixiing 130 sl^ns
at |S«0 a Aontb, froa June 27, 19 24, to June 27, 19 27, iind ttiat there
was due to the plsdntiff frossi fcae d«f»n'Jaj.t, aft«r allowing to it
Juat credits, deduotlons trnd set-offs, $6,430.
The defendant filed » plea of the general is»ue and
a cpeci&l plea in «&leh it was a-verred tii&t the impposed contract
waa void becauaa upon the date of ita execution the plaintiff eor-
poration had failed te eeiaply with certain statutes or the stat-s of
Vlaeonein. Attaohed to the pleas vaa an affidavit of serlts, as-
serting that defendant had a gsod defease on the ^aprita tc the
vhele of plaintiff's des-aud, the nature of vhich Is as f«llo**:
*I'-sit the eifena and sxruetures erected pur »a ant to the
plaintiff's sapvofed contract wers^ rot oeourely erected, nor
were they aulntained as agreed thert-iii, but tir,re permitted to
deteriorate and beeoiae unsi^tly to »uca a^a Qxterit as to becoice
a detriment to defeniaijt fr&si sn advert! eing etroidpeint, iKd the
defendant did not default ita payKcnta until after sue.; con<1i>
tiona beca^is© appaXiWit nor until after the sign© hc*A fali«n or
beeo«e unsi&htly and after plaintiff hid failed in ita said
undcrtakiHK.
And affiant further saya that the supposed contract vas
undertaker, in Wlaeonain, and was to be perfortced wholly witliin
the borders of Visconaia; th^at defendant waa t>»nd Is rui Illinois
corporation mnil had failed to ooisply with the ^iacansin atsitutea
respecting foreign corporationa, thereby the supposed contract
waa and le by ths laws of Wi.^eonsin, wholly null iOid void, and
th«>refore oneriforceable either by the Courts of Wieoonaia or of
any other state.*
Upcn the trial plaintiff offered in evidence the
»jf^ia *r»t?^»X^ ^,i»»sit*iS$« *»s-3**as» »^ «i «^mp«£X.«#«sI ®i*f '■
^4 l^i
' -^ ^ cf.
■; -if ^ .. -_: V BfV-
vritten ooctraet, proved aotioe to (i«fe&dai:)t ol' it* el«etlon to Ac-
clar* tii« unpaid biUanec of |6,4dO iuBodiately due oad pajabl*, and
oallM oaa of plaintiff** caployocs %u a witness, who teotifiod in
a general way tbat the ali^ua vera Bunuf -iotured in Chioo^o and
•hipped to waridus plAoea In Vleoonein and Juiehlgan*
Plaintiff then rested Its caee tuii on def«£idant*s mo>
tion an instruction to return a verdict for defendant waa ti:iven by
th« court.
In Cooper t. Anderaon. 846 111. Apo« 1, this court,
rewiewlng; the autnorltlea, h«<ld titat wh«) a plaintiff filed an
aff Ida-fit with his deelaratien ahoving the nature oi' hla &lal», the
plena of a defendant would avail nothing except inaofar &t the ma-
terial facta alleged therein conforts to th« affidavit of nsrite*
The aut/ioritiea were tuf^re collected »ni r<*viewed ^and th« reasons
for the rule atated. It is unricoeasary to repeat h«re what is raid
in that opinion. Va h«ld that the vulft of th« Municipal court that
aver;i<enta of fact In a pleading which were net denied were demised to
he adsittad aa true, had %lway« he«i enforced by th«» courts as an
aascrtion of the general principle that one "saiwes an objection
which h« do#e not st&ta.
the def«ns«Bber« aet up were aJTflrKatiwe defeneee,
naaaly, that the eontraet waa void by r'-ascn of the 'Wisconsin statute
and that plaintiff waa not entitled to recorer on account of th« ^e-
feetive way in which the contract ha4 been perfcrvsed. It waa for th*'
defendant to eatabllah these aiTlraiatiwe def«neea, not for tha plain-
tiff ta ne^atlTe the ease in the first inatance.
In the condition of th« pleadings the Hvldeziee for pls^ln*
tiff eatabliahed a priisa faeijj caac, *ft;i it *.•»« arror for the court to
inatruct the jury to fln3 for the defeniact. >'or tala srror the
Judt^aioat is reveraed and tlie ofeuse rsi^aaded for another trial.
O'Connor, f. J., tmc', fee>'UreJy, J., concur*
*,»m ^M m» 'sxCl9«mk i^o^m $«J^«i< £s«»v ^ii»^»«iwt«|» « lt« WMtXoi
««j-£'«K»« '%$ 4if^»i't1i« «<t9r m mi^tmitt uX»'&tdS &«a«»i£a «$9At lai-kut
,»**e«5' -^?*. sfn* ^fse. - - 'S10' "
<»« ^
i^*^'9a»& 4 »t. 4v;«''-5'"*si'iai* i>n
S3355
Jj^jm I. ilORTGIi, AdKlnlatrator, )
AppeXlant,^ }
WILLlAk k. LYliCH, / '/ )
Appell/«. / ) /r> K ^ l\
m, ju
iiAfCHLKTT DAl7f¥«KR0 tlM OPIKIOI*. l)i^ THP. CCfKt.
Tlii« ai)p-.'ai la toy tu« piaintiiT ad4iwl8trator rro»
a judjsaeiit in faYor of defewidant «nt#red upon th« ver-llct oi" a
Jury, ^9hloh wa« diractad by ti"»« ocurt at th«f eioB« of pX^tntlff '•
rrld«ne«. Th# action was in o»8fe, sjri^ tri.« declaration i<ll<?>ged
that on July 17, 19^7, the d«c«aa«d, whil« rx^^lng in an au t.oa=ols ll«
in th« cxvrcle* of due cajra, reopired injfuri*!* a« a result of th©
B«KligMic« of defendant, froa wjalch «h« 1ted A-uguat 3, It?,?,
Thi» proof offsrad In TsffiiitXi' of jJlftiBiiff ti«fHd»d to
•heir that about 7:30 p. bi, on ^uiy 17, X^^:l , tJie deceased with
har huabnnd, th« •idii.ljtilatrator , and twa frlotrja, Lr. and Si-ra,
Sohwarta, war© riding in a i'ord tourintf c^r on Austin avonu?!, a
Smhlle hi^hvay axtcndlng north %nd »outh; mat th«f husshand, Janes
T, Horton, waa driving th« car on th® waat 9i le of th» svsi.uw,
going south, »nd that aa h« apirroaohctd Wabtmaia unrpmue, :&r)oth«r
public hlfehway axtocjlnrj «aal and weat and Intsraucting Austin
Wfi<rM9i, he blav th« horn and alo»ad up to a «p6ftd of about tar or
twelir# mll»B an hour; thst wheji h« arrivad at th© Bid«»wal]t lint he
•aw d«f«ndAnt*a autoosobile approao'uing fro?; th* left upon ^^ab-snaia
•vanua, and tha* it w»a about ten or Mfteen feet b«?i.hind th* «R«t
• ida^alJt \\.n% of AUBtin hv«uu«; that defcB'Jaxit'o cwr iccj?t on
•oaing at a apa«d of about, twen y-fti?© or thirty alleo an hour;
that the driver milled the oar in which tue lntei3l»t« waa riding
•a far a« hf could over to th'.- curb but was hit by defendant's
•ar, and that Mrs. UoTtun tiiereby reoeivad the injur! ee froa
t
vn
mfa rj.
seesc
t
fi CM siitjjti,^ 'G
a^t^ *^ iHiklJJiX'V
, *\ 1 1* .-^Ji^A
.l|,;>»- iie^tX'^.
.-,..; j{Mii-'^»#«^«r;. 4.^ .|Mt,..^«.^# M'jT tssn^^a iiAiii 'nv-?im
{■•»ilf!pK :,««,■
<at1K.t tt«|*2i-^|«t£ 9'4'#' pmMl^i^^ t^JlKTflhSU' Jiftlt^iii .•'X^
vhloh. »h9 Ai*d,
Th« dAl'endant han not ao^nnarttd in tnie court to
•upport tim ju>^£»«nt «rtt«r«d. %« do not know th« theory upon
vhl«^ th« Instruetion to return a Tordlot for tns ft«l'«u<ri«nt wa«
given. The general rule is ««1) B«ttled, that if chere is nny
eTi4enc9 In the reoerd I'roa. vhicda, considered in the Xl^cht meet
farorable to the plaintiff, a jury ffil^;ht, without acting un-
roasonably, find for the plaintlfi , on instruotion to flni for
the iJefenrtant ie error. Modrejyp.r v. Kgrid. Jfturdoch /< ^9»f I'T'Q
111* **<; i.ibt.y. MtoeUl <^ i*ibby v. Coo». 222 111. a06; .DjSSilUI
y_^. X?elw.fi. 272 111. 166; kelly v. Q;ieaieo City P.y. Cp.. SSS ill.
«4C.
For the r«»&8one isfiicated the Judt^ent is r«ver«ed
an) thi» cause reiaondstl.
0*C«nnor, >''. J,, anil fc«l^rely, J,, ocncur.
33400
B. JSw. auisos,
App«llo«,
FKAL VHOK/IKTSfvlcUUfCSiy ORDER
Oi' crxicut;><rr^ij it oi^ cook ccua'TT.
ROSTBURT cour/m o?
KAKILASSE, ft>eerf>oratioqf,
•t al^
App«ll«n£a.
UR, JUSTICB liATCJlSTT DKLlVKRiiD THF, OPIKlOK 0? tHS COUftT,
/I
■X,
2_
iMs l0 &n «pp«al by the Chicago Trust Cumpany »s
trustee, (od«> of several 4«f en iitnt«) frosi an order entered wiiereby
>-^ilton H. korrla was '*%r>point(?d r<?celver oi' the aeeeta axis pror»erty,
real aix^ p9Tbc4x^, thinga in aotloAf dehta, efjuitali^le int<<-rettte and
other effeote of thc> (tefeiidttrit, Heatolry Compcoiy of i'>.ajQk&ke«, a
corporation of Illinois." She order states that the receiver
shall eolleet and Karshall th« prop«»rtles, rm.tn, issues, irtoomes
and profits. «n(! proseoute »nd defend, suits in lav or 1^. equity
involving the property or aseets of the corpor«iktion, axiA autnorises
the «Bplo>Ts«*rit of counsel fox that purpose. It farth<»r ordered
that an injunetlon issue >i«<ianst the Chioago iTust Company,
trustee, and others, enjoining nnd rastralnint; then fron dleposing
of, transferrin^:' or ple'iglnt^ oertain aecuriti«9 of the iiost^'lry
Conpany of ^ankakefl^ "and eaea pf thee ar^ further restrained ^md
enjoined fr ja instituting/ suite In law or in equity in the nature
of foreclosure or other proceedings biised upon the securities of
the said Hostlery Company of iva^nkakec until the iurth«r order and
dlreetioB of this court. And for ^j,qo^. cause sho^n), it is further
ordered that said injunction Issue yitiijaut fiptloii^ am^ wit^^ijQu^ feon^jj**
The bill was filed on January 17, isas), tojd the order
appointing the reeelv^r and directinji th%i tue in Junction Ibous waa
sutured the follot^ing day. The ooppiainvint is B. &• Uibson, vhe
brings the bill in be-iaf of hicself amd otftsr stockiioidere.
mi-MB
."Tf
dt ads a X-r,.,,,. 'X
is«»imi$« ^1^ mm:nj^x!L^tjmsiZku,.tsiU'
• ■.... ; *0^
^M&w !»»»:«| ;||«£«iii^aw|ia^':i((^ ' ''>i>»T4Eit9«"'iHRir 'WrvifDi-
er«ditors or purtiva in lntcr«st «iio magr thtrcttftwr join.
ih« mtitffrlAl fact* aa nllogrd In the bill are that
tha eoBplstiaant ia a Rtoekholder oi th« dai'«nd«nt oorporatioB,
haYing purehnsed, at a date net nasiad and lor a priea net diiioloae4 ,
69 Bharoa ol' the preferred capital etooJc or th« par Yalua of llOO
aaeh, whieh, it ia aY«rr«d, are duly roti'^iatttrad in hla natua. the
corporation waa organised in April, X9Zf>, it* charter raoordad in
Cook. oouRty, and ita principal pluee ol tueineas Htuto^i to be at S9
Ueuth La^alle atrect, Chieoigo. The total eapital stock oorieieta of
2,000 aharaa of preferred atook and 4,000 ah&res of cotoson atoek
of no pSkT Yalue; 1113 aharea of the preferred stock and 3d60 aharea
of the coujTion etook are outat»i;<9ing, the rffij&ainder bein^, held in the
trffasury* The till eaye that the cocipany wae orgaaiued by Fred C.
Brietol, a partner of one CeArie H. iimitii, doing buainpee under the
nam* of Bristol * CoKp^my, engage-l in the buaineras of underwriting
bond an4 atook ieeuea; that this ooasspstny wan oKni^^d sai^ eoritrolled
by Bristol; that h^ csiueed Claude H. Sgan to bocome president and
Cedrie H* Seith aecretssry of th* iloatftlry Coiapttriy; th-^t theee two
ar* iuj^Mea of Briatol; that Bristol caused to be issued to hiieeelf
the 3,860 eharos ol the eowisen stock; that Bgan and l^ith have at
all times earrlwd out hio will and orders; that on July 1, 1925,
pursuant th^^reto, the ceaipaTiy executed ami delivered a 'ruet deed
conveying to the defendant Chicago Truat Cousptmy l^uds and bull !inga
of the oortpany to secure bonds in the agKregate ajaount of $360,000;
that in iiay, 1926, Bristol also caused the officers and directors
of the oorporatlon to execute for it another mcrt-tij^e ii the nature
of a junior trust deed, -^hf-reby ita pm^e^rty vas oonTey<?(? to the
Caluset iiational Bank as trustee to Recurs ms ie»ae of ubout
$200,000 of seocnd mortgage f% bonds; that Bristol marjlpulated,
tra.ded, controlled and otherwise 'iealt in aall seourities as if
they were his own individual property; that he dietrlbutei! th«r.i to
■ "xi^sstid a,ji.i*#;tf#t«i ?«!;,«*, M«*«» ]:*#iaii;tt^ .ir«44-,, fXaic^iii i©- «jjiiiiiiiw& «ic«
i- i'TDn iUi^ib tm» a*»«i ***!* ,ii»»i^« ;««««u&» jmw^II^ *»'mm*» oa^^c »]Si
»je{ir fl!F# ^ ^^KKT^SMftt j»«K ^S'pi^'Otn »4l %^*%^ii^ t,Mfi^ 4f9^pi ta*ti.
▼ iiirious ?«r»on«» ih« n&Jorlty oi' viiem «r» not innoo«r.t tioldtrs for
Talue; th«t some ol the bonds «<»r« traded I'or real ««tiite, to wilch
Bristol and Bristol A Cespany retainsd tltls and whlc<< ibsy havs
«nou«berod i'or ih«ir own bensflt amd AdY&nta^is; that away of ths
bonds ware also plsdged by Bristol i'or iiis own uses and purposes
•Bd that Bristol and Bristol ^ Covipany, unrjer tns «ui»« ol oom-
niasions, appropriated first and second iaortga£«t bonds in an td&ount
in exa«B» of $225, UCO; that many ol these outstaiidint^ bonds are
h«sld by nuBQirous persons who were put upon in<;ulry >ta to the le**
gality axii good fuith ot the triuxBfer and ownersaip thereojr, but
that ooff-plsinant is not abl« to state th« l'.-:;.cts ^xiid cireuR.&ts«nces
with eertainty: •still it would appear, •* tiie bili a-vftrs, that the
Hostelry Company reeeived only «bout $24<^,Cv'(> out oi tho $350,000
issue of bonds; that through certain ai,re «/(£.«& ts two i^>urety con«
panies, which are made dei'«r datits, (;s:uarante«d the paysaeiil ol' a
portion of th« ilrst aort^:age bonds, and tiiat certain taoneys, bunds
and ether prop«rty, "the egiaot nature of whiol^ your or-^tor is not
informed," were assigned and turn^j ov«r to these cK^fftp^^nlas; that
Bristol and Bristol & Cof&pany have diverted s^oneys oi th« company
to the London 4 i-aneasairs Indecjr^ity Uotiipaiiy <iuA the I<'«deral i^iurety
Company, wuiou t'hey now uolA and tiireateii to »4f>proprl«ite to their
own uss; that Xarg« blocks of the bonds were ue«^d for ob;|«ct3 nf a
personal nature; that about #35,4/viO oi the Junior bonds «ere turned
over to one Jenn Carneiile without consideration; Uxat Carnegis de*
livered thAse bonds to one Bi&ley in exoharti^* for a piece of Isnd;
that Bristol and Bristol & Co/ipany were indebted to the Ghioat^o
Trust Cofuptoiy ^axd. were its casto^sers and depositors: that the i'rust
Company knew that thf^ Hostelry 'siQaipwr^j 'Has contrr.lled and donioatc<d
by Bristol taai Bristol & Company and ti.«t riiiiitfc was a psArtner ol"
Bristol; that n ever th el ess, iu AUt^ust, Itf^a, it f>rit«red into an
agreement with Brietol <uid Bristol & Uoi^patty tih»v\>y it secured
'' :''"«^'£'' ii^'' '# >« t^ix^dl ttxi^&i #»$ »'se>W'"te^ ikit^'i^^t ii»#ir«duiiit yd !>£•£{
4|i^,0te& , ^mi fflT^NT* KJ>^ iN»¥l6»#t X^4^<it«<^ tt^X^tf-AAU
4 l^f «f4^|,«r«> it^t t;«»d«» «t^ir «ftnd4 «jil« 1f«'iiiN»«JC^'*|it«X #^' '"^ aw9
tli« e<»nv«yar.e« to It by Sttrm Cmratiiiih of the lnja^ thereto t'er« eon*
▼«y«d to hiu ior Uis purpooo of ooouriji^ the obllgntlono of BrlvtoX
NOid Bristol h Coiapaoy; UxAt Bristol dolivcrod to tho Xruot Ooa*
psny approxiia»t«l]r #43,C<..0 wortii of Junior Borttsag* bonds ae addi«
tlon«l soourity for the inaobtodnas* of iUmsolf and Bristol & Com*
p«uiy to tho Irust Uoapaoiy, aiid tuai tho Trust Cowpimy hod full
knowiedgs thsit t2i« >:<oDds w«r« the property of the Hostelry Jonpuny;
that the hostelry Coupany reoeiTOd no oouslder^itlon tor the bonds;
that Miiirous Aurslius has $8,000 oi these junior Btortg;j«<v bonds,
whiei' he holds for Isriwtol and ibristol k Company ; that in oeptecber,
192S, Bristol delivered to H&rry L, Topping of Lankak«!>e Junior tmri"
gaise bonds of th« su£. of aS>S,wOO, ii. oon8l<!orat Lo» of ^^hlch 'looping
delirered to Brietol preferred etock of the doetelry Company in a
like amount; that Topping hod JcnowI»dg«i umt i^rietol or i:<ristcl &
CoBpany had no titla \.o the bonda an^ of tne oth<»r facts; tlmt
Bristol dellTered to one Jaaee H. Moffat t |6,R&0 junior morteage
bonds for a personal indebtedness" '"^** iAoffatt received th©
bonde with sueu knowledge; uiat la this vb&uner Bristol has
dis-^osed of ^150,UvO of the Junior mortgage bonds to persons «he
arc charged with suoh icnowlsdi^e; that Bristol and Srietol & Com-
pany have nade no aeeountini^, althou|;h ooesplaXuant has dejT.<aric!ed
that he do so; that the Uostelry Cou^pany owns certain described
lands in i^ankakee worth at least '^lOO ,Q^»»(;; » a hotel bullying located
thereon of the value of 4»500(<JC>0, furniture, fixtures, e<|uipuaent,
etc., or t'le value of #100,000; that its total liabilities, ex*
oluslve of the tvo aor images, will not ezoeed {|>7 5,000, Aud. that
the eorporaiion is oisiply solvent.
It ie averred that on October 1, 192a, the oorpora-
tion "entirely eeas^d to do business, closed its -^oors stnci die*
charged all of its employees," ;ind that since that date it h&s in
no vay functioned nor has it in :^ny KHtnfier exercised its corporate
■.m mf'itimiif% xmm^. ■p'^*'*^ ^# .^*4t
t»ov«r«: th%t Kf£»n md^ Snith h^r* r««ign«d onA 69cTiA*A to ti«Tt
furUi*r eonneetionv with the oorooratlon nc * its oi'l'io«rs; that
no 9UcefncT9 h«v« b«eui AlAQtcd; that « jU($ii:(m«UQt w%6 it^r.tftrc) in
tho Circuit court of Coo^'. oouniy agaLnet th«R Ho«t«lry Company
In % tvuB in «xo«B8 of ISO, 000; that «x«eutlon has leitued th«r»cn,
th9 e^.>»riff haa ba4* Aae^and and th« «x«iOut.lori h«t« l!>««n r«turn«d
•*• t»rop«rty found,* anfl the judiKOot 1» wholly unsAtlefled; that
in 1926 the HoHtelry Cuapntiy entered inte ft contraot i-rlth the
Great i-akea Hctel Company, an operating aornoratlon, viieretey It
wai agre«>d that said Great Lakes Q-xipuny would manai-re and opfirata
the hotel, leaee the atorec contained in th« hot«X Ibullding and
from th« proceeds, after deducting •X7>«n8(»a, pay the n«t ir4coffi*^ to
the Ueetelry Coapany at rent; that th<:! eontraet »i*y bft eancwlled
upon K> days notloe; that by reason oT the aost'^lry Ccwftpmity havine
closed its offices, »tc. , there is no w&y to rcfoeive the r«Bt or
sake proper di«bura«!«m«nt thereof; %hut a large number of bond-
holders %nd ers'^itors haye pl-ioed their cl da-JS in th» h«rjd» of at-
torneys and ore inaioting that unlt'ee i&^i^.^a • .©at Ir siade,
suit vlli be instituted ani lleiiS e^nfi attac-mente f6.flt<*n<fd on the
property of the iioatelry Cosip'oxiji that certain cr»'?i tora have
already instituted suit, so that the aeaetft <'.rft in great danger of
being dlsoipated ;m1 iraeted by reason of default judj^mwitrs and
attaohioents; thai the hotel property and etor-»B ara tynxTiiae, over
and above all expenses thp nua of ^55,000 par «umum, tivillabip for
its eeeurnd a,nd unsecured creditoro; thskt the stores huve been
rentnd to t^ood lind rettponelble tftnants; thr),t %hn hotel itself
has been rented at a «ub8i.af.tial pro i It and that it« future, if
properly operate<j, la astmred*
It is a^erreu that unlcsu the court takce jurisdic-
tion there will be a multiplicity of auite and a race of dilifMioo,
attempts will be B&de to aecur* Jurlgments aaad priorities, Htt,cb-
■•ats an) leviea will be aado apon the property and the Oreat iakes
|i^:-''^*««#S;w-->'ifr'^*Mt%4r^^ ;Si(t«*«t*t<*'"^'''-»%i5«^^ l;»-t«fl:' »**8«X t.»*1f®
CoBiptmy will be prcv«nt«''1 3 roe- ^p»rlxtin(^ the hot«'.l to th» (^r*»t
lea* and dctrlisttnt oT oonpl .ilnar.t Mti'i or±.ttr ercrdltora.
It 1» coJit«»nd*rt by AefenAmnt Tjruet Couipuny that tlj«
e«ttrt 9rT9A both in th* nppoiutKitaci ol a xeo«iv«r >^ijn«:! the «tlree>
tlen tixat an injunction is«a«.
C«>cs ar« cited in wiiioii co/iii^'lilnanta prniy«>A isn^l ««•>
ourcd th« appointiucn^j of rac^lvsra to th« sni thut eorT>uratlon«
Might b« voundl up ■an^l th« asttta distributed, ;ni iri y/hlch our
SApresa court h«ld tha trial oourt waa wiliriout Juris-ilctlon to a«
iaoraa at th* suit of a cteoJdioldar In th« aspeenc«t of <a {-tatuta
authorizing aueh r«liei*. People t. »'»l(..l«y. 185 ill. 491; j-'oouarj^
V. «at'l Llnwa?d Oil Cft.. 171 ill. 4dC; £l,aifichai>rd .iirg., & hf^f v.
C>y Co« . 8aB 111. 413, and Gal.lffitm v. fcci^ay. 28a Fed. 33».
llta bill hera <2oo» not s»r&y I'or tiife ?ti««clution of
tha corr)oration, smd thl« c&ae la thf>r«fcr« c)l«?arly Hotlngulahisl^la
rrar tha eaaas cited*
*n U#<aiai4t ▼« , Joanaon. 16o 111. ApT>. O'.'S, thla court
aff ire^ad an or:jer appointiati a receiver »i.<^ '>«''jM 11 10 *ft«r th«
suit of cottplalnsmta, who ware aoldera of About ar»e»t£fir4 ©f tha
atoek of the> eorporatioa, the ey^urt «t&tingt
*In ajJiauatira «jtaa;.inati©n of reported ftaB*p ef a ftlKiU'^.r
character, In vnloTi reeeirara h«Ye been &ppoint«(1, w« have been
unable to find any whersin tha f icta so-i-'id to ^i-arrtitt aote
clocjrly th» ictrrroeltlon of a court of equity Uim\ the ©ne no*
unier eoneidaration. "
In that oaoe the oourt quoted #ith t^iyroTftl iiiorawetss oii PriTnte
Cerr>ori)iticna, ?Jid HL,t aeo. 331, as fulXow»;
"The aopointcexit oi a receiver er ,*if.«'.:t^er ui" x Kr!lA=-«»nt u<>r--
poration cautt t.h,>ref-«>r« to*? ccneld*red a strong j"«»K<?f!y, wnich oan
be juatlfied only in a etrnng oa«e; an ' ta« jB-iaaj-^uiftnt o:' ihe
corporation ahoal^ b'> restored to its ' aharehol^^era aa aoon as
thia eaa be done with oafety. "
Saa alao getferatone ,v. Covfee. L, .-{. 16 Zq, 29d; Cin»i ■ ^11 # r a o rt ,-'■ aKf
Company ▼. i^rinj;. 113 ill. At>». 4S5; It <?rrl field T., Bgrro^.q. ifjj 111.
App. 523; Pride t. fride Luatber >.o.. 1109 i»o. 452, 1515^— <..K.A.608,
and 23 A. k K. Kno. of Lav, 2n1 ed. , p. 1004.
*'
•.■:■.'"*■»• '■■ t«-:-««&l-t>l£«»»4Si^ -»i» :*«f^ ^^Sf^: :#»«. «»:dfe fflKlii, XXI**.- 9lsM\, ■
^n sac^jlfrt y%. M^y^fgy. 246 111. App, 18, thla court
atatttd th» rule applloabl« In th« grauruinK of iujunotlose, nnd Id
MoDoug^ll Co, ▼, W^odft. 247 111. App, 170, *• difteu6s«d Ui« Jurls«
dletlon of this court to review intftrloeutory orders ftppointiag
rac*iT«r«. i'iae Mitheritle* ar« txicra eoll«ot*d and r*Ti«««d. V*
•tatvd;
"Ih* priaatry fiurpoa« oi' tiie atatute permittliiK »pp«>als from
Intnrlooutory ord«r» lo tj pwruli a r-vi««ir o3' iui* «x«rcli6 ol"
th<> chaiicttllor '» diseretlon to determine whetn«r the order*
probably wor* ueceeaary to au-^l.iiu the a c a tu a quo, aral prsoex'Te
the (•suitable rifhte ol' tiic piirtlea."
It la «vpp«rcnt th?4t oreoedeuts ar^ of llt,tl<; value la
oae#s of thie kind and that eaeii oaae must be considered upon ite
own sprite. Alter a eareful perusal of th« bill w« arm cosr«p«lled
In this cas#» %o hold that the i»ppolnt4Ei«Bt ol the receiver i*i»d the
iseuanet oi' the In^urJotion were an abuse of discretion, ihe aver-
sents of fraud in the bill are s<»neral, indefinite und va«ia<?. The
oornoration is solvent, the oompli^iinttnt is the own<i;r of a very s&:all
part of the stock, anil the el reuu stances under whici he aoquir<^d It
are not stated. Ih# bill doe* not disclose an '•n^erigeney such a«
would require a reoeiver to j»r''>teet the interest of the corporation,
nor are any faets disclosed which ^ould indicate an snletiivor in Kood
faith to bring the thlBijs of which complaint is aade t^^ the Sbtten-
tion of the stockholders* The defendant who itT>T>«alB is a trustee
n«med in a trust deed. The injunction forbids this trustee to pro-
ceed by foreclosure to proteet the interest of the holders of the
seeurities.
The land oonv^vfld by the '.rust de^c^d Is located in
Kankakee eounty. Ih»% court of the couRty In wiiicii the land is
Biluated is the proper one in vhic to bring a sjlt to forecloB*.
If nuc suit wsr:» brou,.;ht oojaqliinsnt cauld intervene atid secure an
adjudlcatloD of hia alleged rinihts.
The facts <%verred do not shew an eaiergenejr ^idxloh
#
^' .. -•>_■■' «■ ■ -
441 mifStti &-'»'£'■'- «'^ >i^t*'U 4i*«4^ ^«ji^ £)«»
|Mti^i*«!P«8s)« »•'*(' ,^'/ .,v^'y .<4j? 'Ji? X^'' "t'n-itts « ■»'.'** i/- .
.W'fco u^iii-T'^'t ft;:^ ?J!i.3 •' ^^slzif ■ -it') tfti''^
.xfiisJr^JKt %tim'$imm: m-,0fi^, ^m
justil'lvs auoh 4ra«l.lo action ^^Ithojt notlo«, rh« entry oi lh«B«
orders was an abU8« oi' iliaeretion, en acoount of which the eome
uust b« reveraod.
IfefJureiy, J., concur*.
O'Connor, f. J., •p«ciaXly ooncurrlRi;;: I oonciAr iii the rosult
tut not ic all that 1» said in the opinion.
>^k0:^<Xf'''M
■r:v-^:;t
.■a"*^. 0. .
U' ■[ %:-■' wv, \:.f:v-^-:' ■ ' ■ ^^■''■f-i i^^'-ii, -a;'/-
■j;4.>:.«;?S"S «f-^s
?«4^rfe-j;^/':
)r^: ■-''''f'U^^-''''f. A.W^
■■•*'' 'V 'M^'-'''^l r !
33177
ASiDKiCW J. KIGHLAliD and
WILLI Ab H. TX)HSRTY, )
0«f«ndantc in Krrer, )
) SRh&H TO
ys ooox
.654
3
IB QRJ^iaaM{,.,DBLI^K-D fUS WIUIO* Oy THie COURT,
\ '■■-■ :
By thl» vit ol' •rror^Nil*^*'' '' 4nt ••eka to reTcrs* an
order of tha lup(»rior oourt «nter*d Ki)L S» 1928, vhi;reln the court
denied defeniimt 'e motion to ati aeide a'Jud vent r<«ndered \»y de»
fault aeainet hits on DeecSiber S, 1937, for $7,924.96* The notion
!• baaed uy>on the i»roTi«ione or eeetion a@ of the iTitetlee aot, •
defendi^t claiailag that an error in f*ot had Intorrened in th(«
preeeedinge vnioh resulted in the default and jud.,£ient.
Plalntiffe' action, coeitueneed on July 30, 1927, with
euautkona returnable to the ^epteaber, 19 'j7, term of the eourt, waa
in g^ej for dab^ea for fraud and deoeit. ZSefendaut was \uly
served on August 10, 1937, but he dirt not «ntor an appaaranoe or
file any pleading. Plaintiffs* declaration, oonsisting of one
flpeeial eount, wns filed on Au^iist B6, 1927, • ten days before the
ee»aea«eA«nt of said Ueptember tnra. llie charge of fraud and de-
oeit was in connection with plaintiff a* written agr(»<8iet^t , exeoutetf
in August, 1925, to purchase of defendant eertaln Florida land upon
which nialn tiffs had 3>ade paytacntt' fros tiffl9 to tiate in a large
*ef <*8<^t* aiaeunt. On Beeffaber §, 19^7, b^lnti in the Deoej3.ber tuira,
the court, on plaintifl's' cot ion, defaulted def«»K'i«jit for w»n% of
an ap^earanee, h^ard «Tiden8e as to Plaintiffs* da^-ages, asseneed
then at >7,9»4.9 6, JUid entered ^u'.^^ent again«t defendant in eaid
BiuB. On January 6, 1958, -if ter tn* Degewbftr terit. had massed, de-
fendant appoarct and fllnl a Terified pstitloc to set aside the
Jttdftsent. Subseciuently, on February 16, 19!?Ji, he file r ^i
VfJUX
«»6 ftf iMN^&mv-r lu«'2!i()l^i(i''« 9^4ft« 4'#«.'«# mk^im m*$mtm9''
,-•#».: t<| ||«l#94.faB» 4,i«»»JMj»is*: '.m^iidlai^. ..»!»l|>«»X«r t^'-
•«f». JMIM! ,JM»j^ %,;ift.i^ ;4H«^r «ft4jiiw4 f»a Mr; - ^mAmmmt
h»0»9^-.-. ^.-v-; ,..,.... ■ >.. , ^..v...-. ...... ,.,.v- . . ... ,*»aw*sM»-. ... -■...
petition, «lao T«rifl«d, to which pl&ixttlfra iil»d an ans«»r,
Torlflod by 8(Sv»r4 U. 3. kArtin, oha oi* th«ir attorn«/a. l^b-
••quvntly, dafAniant w»a glTaa la&Yn to ill* • 8»>eall«d "oount«r
aff IdsTlt,* whleh was fllal on May 4, 19 ?d. It was atipulat«d by
r«apeetiva oounaal that upon th« final ;ti«aring of dafsndant'a
motion or potiwion tho affidavit of aaid .kartin ir. ansvor t«
dafandant'p a&ended pfttiiien ehould *roc«iv« Ui« ko&o eonsldarft*
tlon, ralatlTO to «4^roos.«nt vita the faota nkini vority, as though
•aid ktartln «aa not an attomoy lu tht eaao." ihe bill of ox-
eootlona 'lieeloaoa tiiat upcii tha final hearini^^j of defendatit 'a
motion the court ooneidorad defendant *• verified petition &nd
•ubeequent affidavit, plaintlffa' verified answer and the ctipu*
lation, lUkA that no other evidence wae h«ard.
It %pt>«*re thftt after deffttidant wae eorvo-1 wlttx aum*
aiena in th<» orl»,'ln%l o-Ause in August, 19 V?, Kartin, on "bautilf ef
plaintlffa, had varioua interviews with d«f©ni!arit as to n aettla-
sent; that def(«ud«nt stade several off era of oettlei^ezit to «4trtln
whiA upon oub»le«ion bv hli. to plalntilTa were raj acted by them
and defendant *aa iBuaedtately notified of aai^ rejeotiona; Ihat
before the en'l of Move^^ber, 1927, defenlant hsid kno 15.1^?.© t.ri-,t no
aettlenfuit «aa probable; that he then knew that, itltitoui^i served
vith proeeee, hw h'»t1 not appeared li tftp cause or sot I'ortn any
defenea and that beottuect of tnin a default ju^.vment Klght be
Witered a^alnat hin at any time. It dcB not appear that either
plaintiff a or Vartin were iruilty of «fiy bad faith in taking said
default juKwent, or that defen lant *»• "aleled into Buffering
the default,** aa here ecnteoded by hie counsel. On the eontrary
we think It clearly aj:>TJ«*r« that the default Judriaent was the
reeuXt of defen^ant'o negllifence. It Ib r«»ll settled that tha
provlelono of eection 99 of tho Fraeti«e ^ct .re "not intsiided to
reliefve a party frost the onaequencea of . _ . negliiranea."
■■■■ f.j'tjft*
■<'*<wa,4a »jij -^tte -|g.'.
1». tfr
i»
Aa-nnEst©
«C<
&.•«■ ;%:
'■«b
.mm^U$^, m<^ «li^.
2 ^^//
(Cramer v. Commercial Men's Ass •n.aeo.Iii, BlSjLo'jw v.
Krauspe, 3130 Id. 244, 250). While It le the law that "fraud
on the part of the opposing party or hie counsel that prevents
one from making hie defense Is such an error of lact as can be
availed of on writ of error coram noble or under the statute"
(People V Crooks, 326. I 11. 266, 280, Chapman v. North American
Ins. Co. 292, Id 179,189), we fail to find evidence of such
fraud in the present transcript.
The order of the Court of May 5,1928 denying defend-
ant's motion to set aside default judgment of December 5,
1927 should be affirmed and it is so ordered.
AFFIRMED
Scanlan and Barnes J J. , concur.
/^
9cf xjjBo ajs *o.s'i l:o 'roT:i9 -xus douB aJt ssnslsb airi gnWam saotJ. sno
"a^wS-Bts Qrf;t ■xsbxiii' to aJtcfort j&eTQO 10119 lo tl-xw no Ito f)9XlBVjB
rrBOitemA rid-iog.v nsmcrsrfO ,08S,33S.XII,8SS,8>{ootO v 9lg09<I)
riows lo QOflsblvs bun ot IJts'i 9W, (eSXjeVX .bi,Ses.o0.a«I
.ct-qiTosost* Jnssstq erfJ ni birBil
-bnslob gniYnab SSei.S vsM lo JiimO srf* lo r^b-io orfT
,S isicfflsaosC lo i*-fi9ffi3bwc tluslsb sbtsB ;*9a ot nol^om a»J-aj3
.b9'r9bii:o os bI d-i has bafflinis stf blx/orfs VS9i
aSMHITflA
,*,fir':';';:::^:: v-ii^Vt^f .,,';'-*v>'i. ^, "v
>::,;*';,;< .<V;i.
,-:: ,Wgs-i>;/;<>.y:'S!fe«ia;-
In th« natfc«r of tlK eat«t«
Tc Ceawtcry
atlon» a oorpoX'-^.tli^y
Appellant f
axftcutrlxt \
4^
t. FSSSXDXIIO 3VSflCF, GRUSLSY SELIVKHiSri THE OPIJTIOJS OF THE COlffiT*
In May* 1928* 1b th« probate court of Cook eottaty* Mre*
0« L. : taagelaadt *for use of Moottt oiiTo u«Bet«ry AbbooI' tion,
a corporAtioSt and en toetealf of hera^If as a stockholder of s-r?4d
oorporstlen*" filed a Terified elato or petlti<Hat hereinafter
referr«d to* It la headed "Claiai of kotmt Olive Cesetery aBoeiatlon***
TlM prayer is that the executrix of Uie «&tat« and the Cesetery
Aseooi^tlMEi Bake answer theretaf tliat aa accountini; be had 'of the
dealings and tr&nsactiMte of Jena C. Bassaat deoeased* \fy auad «lth
the funde* ieaeroh^ndiee »nd property of the Ceaetery s® el&tionf*^
that there he a full adJuertoMBti and that any aaount found to he
due to the \ss>oeiatioa he p-lleeed ae a olaiai %gs,inst tint: estate.
fter the r.seooi&tion hac filed Its anemsr the probate ooart» mi
July 12» 192d» expressly find lag th»^t it had no iurisdiction of the
elaia or petition* dieaiseed it* l>*raai this order lire* taagelaad
appealed to tae eiroalt eourt* On r>epteBber 17» 19SS, the executrix
appeared la thrt eowrt $Mti aoved thnt the olaia or petition he die-
■laaed* The noti«m w^e granted and tht; ci^ase disjalsaed without
■JlSS^^m^,,,^
ul
»***i»*;.<i i
ttmrnt mr t^ '»9J?*^ m,
^..ial ^i i^mm% im60i» i^m-'^M4 -lam. t^a^Mcu^H^'' -^^
costs t fr«B whleh order of the eirovlt court Mrs* '^toacolaad proseontoo
th« preeeat appoal*
TiM elalc or potltloa io to tho «ffeot that tho Coactory
AaeoolatloB 1« an llllaols corporr.>tioa vlth Oi:4pltftl stock of 8»000
•haroo of the par Taluo of it25 e&clii th.- t for aore than 10 yoaro Mr««
' taBgol»nd hna >9ac t\.ail la nam a stockholder » omnlag 1520 sharost azid
a director of tho os^ooliClon; t)x>i.t during ^48 lifetime ancx for ft&out
16 /oars prior to his death (wUich oecu^^re^ on April 27# 1927} p Jeaa
C« UanaoB was a stAckhsild<!*r and director of tho aaaoolatlcn and Ita
seeretarj aad treasvreri th;t nftor his death Mrs* t^taaigolaiid dla*
coTered that caring his llfetluo he "haA e^osslod aj^ dlTorted*
large sums of tho assool?itlon*s vumsy for hie ovm ttso and for tho
use of othftrof th&t ho Icnowlngl)'^ permit te certain nased perecme to
fraiijdulently conrert to their ova roep«ot«vo aaoa a^mey Htk^ Berehaadiso
beloaglttg to the aaaoelAtlcat th-^^t craring tho yeern 1920 » 1923 aad
19^4 h« rccelred j>2»002 of Its ftads «lth whleh to pay certain taxes
and disbursed <mly -^IfOie thereof aad a&fsv accounted for the halaneoi
that ho paid personal dehts of certain offlearo and e^>l«^e8 of the
Aseool?tlc« out of its foadsf that altoeether thero is a '^shortogio**
of |71t474*81 (aa par itoatiaod account)} tlmt Mxs* ctang:eland» as a
minority ntockholder* h«£ roq^uestec the offii^rs and dlrtsctore of
tho as80oi>^tl(m to file in the proh^ate court '*the aforeoaid cI&Ijb of
s%ld assoelAtloa* a^aiaet tho estate* hut t^t» althou^gh ti^ tlam for
filing it Is about to expire * they hare failed and rf^fuaec^ to file it|
that the aseocl- tioa b&*t not tttkon &ay othor legal action to obtain
an acoountlnt; fren the estate t9i the fuada so i^iTertod by 8ana«it
and that unless petitioner la peraittec to file this alala for aai on
behalf of tho assoolatioat a l&rge sua of neney* >?hlch eox% only bo
realised out of Hanson's estate* will be loi^t to it* end 9ha* as a
stocldiolder* as well as other stockholders* will be lrr«pfj.r."4bly
•3U
"is^ ^BB^ sew *s» |K» ^4^ ■ s^^-s •wrt&i
j^ «8»&^-^ &^«g^ Safc^^N;*® ir9#ii^^«t -^^^waM- M iJbdi 448t»rf'*« to »«J.f
smm^'MMtHL^ii' ^0i ^^ dmi-^ Mi-^: st^te^ &4t l»: s^«S4^: %i3irl«8«»% «c£ ^$tl
"''-i«« »*&-*9l» *^r#*^^i^»i --Nr-lili^r n^*&9^^ ^>»«sfe*a«i? t© 4f*?« ^««M«»T
-3-
In Um ast;o«lnti«i*s aAftWcr it tie»i«d itU allasc.tiono of
eBi»e;i^lezn«ii( or unlawful coBTcrBioo ef iXa ■»— y« ^ Kaasca* lull*
ftdAittlag thr<t he r«c«lTe<i froM the ueiioelAtlea the said sua of |2»002
asd that taxes were paid by hia therefreai to the suawuat of ^1»C16» it
alleged that the dlffereaee "waa used ano oMieMBed hy Haneea In *
litigutioa brought ag&iaet it for the tfvxes 'ior Buid ye&ro 192C« IQki
and 19S4*'' It denied th'^t ^msen &t t'of. tiae of hie death oifed uqt
Boney? to it. It alleged that an auditor eaployed by petibien^r «ao
giren free access to all books and papers of the ^iaeoei^tioni that
said auditor elaiaec^ th^t he fownd eert&in in^ecuracitts and dla*
crepaiicleo in Eanaen* s aeeo^mtet th«t nn auditor enpl<^«d by the
associr^tion fMind no sueh inaeearaciee or discrepaneiee and so report-
•At that chereaitor* at petitioner's reqaostt a emeaittea (of v^hieh
petitioner vas <me} of the hoard of directors of the afsooif^tioa «»•
appointed to exaaiine tho books and &^>n&9n*t: aeeoantef th^t the
ooemittee sado a tkor««igh ex&alB£^ti<» vith the aid of sa iadeyoadea^
publio accountant! and tfe^t upon the ex«aBinr^ti<m "nrithar said
cansittee nor snid aocountsat v&s able to find •^n^'thing is said books
or aecounts that would justify t^ filing of a olaim against m&iA
e»ti%te« and ao reported to the bourd of directors* which report «ae
approred by the bo&rd." It is further alleged (adalttc-o to bo facts
in the briefs of cowRsel here filed) that tm May :49 1928* petitioner
filed in the suporior oourt of Cook county a bill in ch{«jicery againot
tho asBOoiation* »I1 of its directors (except petitioser)* and said
Joanna H* M. Bnnsen* exectttrix« etc«» therein pecitimier B»de sub-
atantially the s&ae olaias a^ nace herein and as>ked for the appolat-
aent of a receirer for the assoei-'tiea and for other relief, and that
said salt it still pending &ai undiEpened of*
'^'0 are of the opinion that* uad&r the alleg^tioie of the
olaia or p«;tition and of the as»ooitioa*e answer thereto, the probate
i^Sf^ "m mm Mae tidi.jmiistssuimm- «^ mmX Is»rlm99% lui ^is^4 :gali#lfldN
s .'jmtm^J aMM ^ j»ij«| i^'»» a*-iws4 *«^ !*«•
i^Mirss. »^ »©>*»r5©*fig- ■jswsaji. .#««**:« *»«j8«j» «wf^ ^® £=*• «»t«i*s«- '•?©■ «fcM»
-4-
ooaxt waa without jurladletlon of the cubj«ct uati.«r» wbA tluit tbs
circuit eourt on appo&I did not err in dldHiatvlng: the craeo* It
does not appear that tho asaoelation has any olfiiut cither legal or
equitablot «g^.iaat tha estate which It deslrefi to proeecute; neither
does it appear th>b Mrs* HtaaKelMnd* iadlrlcvuillyt haa any el&iai*
Bho» aa a stockholder of tha as^ofiiation* filed the clnin or petition
in her o^m mune for Its ttae> atatlng thr^t it haa failed and refused
to file any cljila. 3h« aauSe the &8noeln^.tieB & peurty to &hc petition
and demanded th^tt it nake aaaYer. In 1 Joaea S. cumtin/rha»* a i^actice*
See* 11» p* 9» It is Bai4< "''^here clains a^aias^t eetatea are purely
of an equiti^hle naturo this (probate) court is not osstiic of Its
Jurisdiction thereby* but asy proceed to adjudicate there^s as if
they «ere of a legal natarct b«it where third perestts are to be brought
in and e^aflicting interests are to be ecaipo»ed susd settled this eourt
Ksy not lict** See* alBOffior»er*e Probate Practice > 3rd Kd*« :^'ee«
96, p. 2071 P<JdSMMa. ex*r. y. Grareg, 26 111. 405, 408t Barah&ll ▼.
a-rahall. 11 Colo* <'pp« 505, &10* In the i^ahlMajp ease, it is Halds
*The couoi&y court has no Jurlcdieti<m to entertain such a bill on
such a c->,s«. '^htX this court said la K^jgcre t* ^sSSL» ^^ ^^^* ^'^^»
and in ^ixoa ▼. Sitell, -dM*r, 21 id* E04, was not intended to ae.'^srt
the doctrine ooatcsnded for by appellee, that the county eourt has a
general equitable Juriadietion in cases where third ps^rties %re re-
quired to be brouc^t in, and oonflictlag interests coag^osed and
settled." la Hanralt t. Mfeinehaaaea, 2&i III* &a&, 527, it is said:
"Probate eourte are not courts of geaeral Ghasu9t«ry Joriedietisa*
Ths JuriedietlMi sf such courts is fixed by soctioa 6 of the coa-
stitutica and the acts of tha legislature passed la porsaaaos thcreol
Ths coastltutitm prsTldes that snid ce^ts, t^en establi^ed, shall
have erigiaal Juriadlstloa ia all probate witters, i? ths settloaaeat
4S «^>iic^«i^^ ^^ ^0i.-$ir£s£s>l^ mi. ¥%» itfNs^ i^Jlfc^ Xaiif9i^ tsf Pm^fi 4 .i-iS'?^£JN>
-^^"^^ -^^^ ^^^'S^f^ ^«)£i^^ ^M&£» «<-i»hI'-^*' »fiFil,S!K «i:, ifi. «it HMK 4ilX «&£)£
** Ms^^^ %^^ «^* '^-^ ^ ^J^g^ "^ •.l^^^a^saSfeS S^'* *^; tS«
. il^M« «%$i^i? «9e«a 0^, jef»jt^ai^£i«i4 c^X^^a*^ :X£%»:«t*a
-5-
of «atat«s ef dcMased p^r^vam, tta« apj^lataMUit of guardlaas aad
ooascrTntors sad ■•tulcveat of tk«ljr accouatst ate* tlur aet sf lt77
proTldlng f»r tlM ••tablialawnt of protettt eourts coBferr«<! Jturie-
dietioa on tho«o eoorta la the laBgaago ef tha eonatltutlaa* and it
hac l>aea held tknt vhlla tba prdbata eourta any* within tba llsita
of the ^urlsciotion conferred, exereisa chaneerj powers* tliay eire
not given general oiumcery povara and ar« not ootirta of goneral
e^uitx ^urisdictiMi*" FurthenBore* wa do not thistle that la the probtita
court Kra* :>taagalaadt as a stockholder of tha aasooiiitioa* could
properly proaacata a cl»iB af the asaooirttioa ii^eh aha thiakc it
haa againcs the aetata* In € Fleteher*^ Cyc* C^rp*t sec* 4052t p*
6868* it is BAidt ^Heither a ssiaglt^ ittockholdL^r aer all the utook-
holdera* as inciTiduAls* o&n staint&ia an aetloa at 1»^« in their ova
nanea upon a contract aada by tha cerporii^tion* or for injuriea cannit-
tad againet tha proparty of the oorperi^tioD* as tratq^8s> troTor for
the eonTeraiott of property* ete. /^>ll &uoh actlc«d auat h« brouight in
tha corporate aa»et and cannot he mslntaiaed by stockholdera in their
own nazEws» e ithar on their oaa beh&lf beeaaM of their etiui table
intereat in the property ef the cerpor^tioat er oa l>ehalf of the
cori>orr.tioB* * » It Btatee no dif sreaca ia tha ap^ie$>tioR of this
rule th&t the injury is cauaad by tha offieere of the corporation
In their »aa:.gasaBt of ita affaire* Miefeasaace or negligeaca on the
part of the aanairiBg off ieera of a corporal tiMi» r&eultiag ia leas of
ita aa&ets* ia an injury to the eorporatloni for »hieh it auat aae**
The jttdgaeat of the cireait oouxtf appOAlao froaif la
affiived*
Geaalaa aad B«raaa» JJ«» concur*
•I-
«««; ^i$ 4|<JS^^^!^»<S '^|;«»9«^9 miA'i^x^ «Jk»^«1^|^ os^i.:-
»#sfl^-;«l «i^ ^ #iMi# ji«M^ ^»B ft« lift ««^i«ac$9ti£^^t ''»m»i»^tb^xiii %ititi^9
'::-:-mm "s^f^ sat w«l,4^ mi4m,sm-,M»i!iim m^. *fU«^i>vtml 9^^- as^sfeXwf
m* PRs.iiinRj jusrier GBiuLEY mi^vfmKi^ thk o?i*ioh op ths cout.t.
Tills is an appeal from an istt:rlocutory order or tfecroe*
entered bjr the superior court oa iec<»bcr lit 192d» appolntlzig the
Union Bank of Chlo»g« as reeelTer for the u^cets of Oliver ?• ^»adth*
Mo briefs txare here been filed by appellee*
On lfOTeid»er 28* 1921« :^>Bith executed and delivered a
collateral^ judgment note for ^30,000, ptvyable to the order of
Ctats Bank of Chicago* The stent ioned collateral v&s SiX) shares
of the Citizens Trust L liaTlngs Bank of Uhioagot and It vras
proTl<lsd th&t 10 per cent of ai^ i£Kiebtednes» due might be in-
oluded as attorney's fe«a In any Jud^nent cotuTesited* obsequently
the payee {^tate Bank) ei^orsed It without recourse and ddllvered
it to "lUtaJS Hughes* It bore the eneorowaents of flTt; iBdlviduals
who were directors of the Citizens Bank* ubssqaently tughett r«>
eelved froH «ith t^o pay»ent8» ag..:regatlBg 44|iXK)» «hloh leere
applied on the note* On j^ebrun-ry 27 » 19^:^5 » Boi^hca oau&ed a judg«
Bent by confeHsioa for 4^t403»60» to be enterec upon It against
oBlth in the Kunlclp&l court of Chisago* This (OKOtrnt -eas aade up
of principal, i2t»OCtO, interest* i5805*60, and attomey*e feea«
$2,600* Eteeution wns Issued and returned vakm^tiBfi&H* <M June
2, 1927, there nas filed an as. i«:nB8nt of the Jud^^ent froM ^ehes
fe
^\
mzu
til tf
aft
i'JTfjfe IP '
XMMStU0^iii^i
i^Xtiliii^U ', ju^
isiihi-'iti i.q
\i.x4. ,u.-»
'if ^iX!MB
fi .' i =;t.
-2«
to thm ceaiplnliiaBtf Tlrevaa*
Ob October It 1920* coaplHlnant filed tlM present crueltor*a
bill ag^^laat mith and others t pr;*yiag for the ap olntnent of a
recelrer for smith's aaseta« a dlaooTory and other relief. Co^plalBaat
allegod iB subetajsee thrit :^ith v&a tb« cquituble owner of aertain
propertiea chieh he had tr.^tnsferred to others for the parpoae of
hindering hla eredltora* The purport of mlth't^ sworn an:;w«r waa
that »lBee t>« dellTory of the note and th«! entry of the confessed
Judipnentf by renson of certain httalne^i^ transactions had het-aireen
ringhee and ^altht the note and Judgment had been paid* Ho further
allege^ th.':t ooKplalnant m.ii: not a bona fide assignee of the note*
^Ith also filed a croas blll» praying thrt uhe court enter an order
that the Judgment be aatlsfled. Comply innnt deamrred to the cross
bill.
On Octoiber 29* 1923* coopl^^iaaat leaving atoved f^r an
appelntBMnt of a r€d< Irer pead^ate lltoi the sourt ordered t}mt the
BOtloB *be held in abeyance pem^ing a hearing on dtefend^int'a offer
to proTO that the Judgeent had been paid eoffiv&tlBie between February
27, 1925 (the d<s.te of ite entz?) and J\me &, 1927 (the date of ita
asrlgmient)*'* and that the OHu;3e be referred to a neater to heg&r
eTidenee and report en the aole queet^on« "Wae said Judgment pal4
by defendant to Gillian Hughea aoaetlsie between February 27» 1925^
and June Z, 19277** mith depenited $300 with the elcrk to insure
XMjnaent of the costs of the reference, and a hearing w<ii& had before
the Baater at vhlch both «ith aac Hughes em «ell as other Kitneseca
teatified, and considerable written evic^oe e^s Introduced* .'ub-
se^iuently the aarter filed a report in i^hicht after leaking nuscroua
findings* he conduced th-'^t 'said Judgment h!>s net been paid*"
Qm i;eeeai»er 11 » 1928, the eourt anterec! tig^o orders* in
the first of which, aft'^r reciting that th*^ master's report h^d "been
•a-
«»t^t ;..... 1-. '^^m^mib. .. • ii!f^i!Ri--l-;ii'... siwiXs
»e KStiKea^w: ■-^j'Wl ^di Stud*
:'*'<. St. F.ff sas.^- ;r€« s^aft imm^-^t ^* v ?'■■:-■ X:.:-- .:;.«itiai:i
-3-
read amA argmeats of r«af«retlT« eeuaacl h«ard« it ««• ord«r«cl
that th« "Ualoa Bank of Chieagio 1»« and It is lM»x«%y apj;>oiBt«Kl
receirer terein* for all of tho asooto ot uiirot If* ^»itli» idwrooo-
ever sitvated» with the usual powers of reet»iTer8 In chaineery in
like o%ao8» and * * th/it for t^ood cauae »ho«n the bond of the ooai-'
pl&inant bo and the same is hsrtt'bj waived asd excused •**
In the second order* entitled an "interlocutory deoreot*
the court nade nuseroua fimiiagst following thooe ol th& M&etear»
subBt&atif.lly as foUevoi iiaith was a hanker and in 1909 orgtfiised
the Citlaens* Trust mmd -'AVinss Bank sMd bee^^fliie its president*
Snith and Hughes had had rnrious financial deftlings with e«oh other.
On Xieoesher 25* 1921 1 ^^aith cane to Jiughos' heme and eta id thnt it
«ae aeceesar/ for hia to hnvo $SQ,0QO hecsuso he isns la fiaaaeial
trouble* Bughes agreed to asslBt ;^aith« telling hia that ho (Hugiieo)
had ^10,000 in eash* Balth sug^ec^oted that ilu^ee could procure a
loan fr«B the atate Btmk of Ohle^^i^* ^ ^^« follow i^ day they not
Maurioe Br,rksai» an attorney, ht that laoetii^ ;mith mgfeti to twtm
orer to Hughes* ao security for a $80,0(>0 loan* Ula note gup.rantood
by the directors of said Citisens* Bank for $30*0O0, also 301 sh&ros
of the stock of said bank and a «£td aortgage i^caad of #40*S00 as tlM
f:pen«er building in Chle^^go* and further i^i^eed to |»ay h^ek the
loan to Hu^JThca vithin a y9HX» vhoreupoa ialth* iloghee euod 3«:rkseB
iaterrieved &n official of the '>tat« Bank «ith ihs reeult that tho
bank decided to and did lean $dO*0^* receiving at the tia» froa
Hv^hes his cheek for vlO*000 and his note for $70*000* and collateral
security as follows t 2nd aert£pakges on two buildings* nae the $4O,SO0
r>p«neer Builfiing bond, fbe bank turn <i over to Berksaa "seTeiral notes
«hieh it held aa seenrity for -4iith*s loan* - one of th^n being "a j»te
fwr $30*000 * datod Sorenher 28* 19S1|* axMther fw #^0*000* d&ted
July 2* 19S1» and another for |29,0iX»t dated ^ptenbor 6* I92I9
jtts^eaa ^? "Sift «>43«i((£ ^t^XW^ ,.*a&U«ai:t ««»«.««a^ ^sfe*: . -.di
(a$*iS^|i «fGl ^^* t^Ui s»t.JU:^ «i6^*BK' a<&Aia«» «* ^9T^m a*^~:i«a »&J^^»V
sep «jfi&t 4t^s»4r'5i m,^ min .^*»& «*sd? «s^ 1* JjaHed^lsi j&« Ij*?¥«4ts9#«M:
Imt, the etoek of tha Citlsens' Baak s»a* not turmec orntr to AaglMSt
aJBd ibc only eollatorail receJTcd oy 1\4# *"i^ SHld v4v*«500 . peneer
Build lag bend uk) y.id, #3Ct^O0 noto* Itttfihea v&.a o«Rp«lledi to pay
mt its laaturlty said ^70»000 »oto« la Jtaiot 19^2* nith told Hoghoo
ho noeded llOyCOO* that ho had 4iX3»000 worth of Motor i»iilldln£ bond«
sad that ho woolti tura orer theso boado to Hu^mo if he (ilu^&oo)
voittld eiTO hla ^10»000 *ia additioa to what he hfl-i already advaaeod
hlaia* Thereupon Ha^eo gare to mith hin ehock for $XQ»<'00 and re-
««lTod fr«» ^'Ottth $12»0c>0 worth of sr^id Motor BalXciac bonds*
The court further fotm^ ia aithiitanee that ia So^emhert
19S2» Satith stated to Hughee that ho "eeulc aot pay to hia the
#0O»OOO thAt he oved hJjat*^ oad farther stated tK t "he desired to
fettXy the cotter t thnt ho wottXd giyy to his (Hughes) the Sponcer
Suiliilag b<md of $40»S0O» ^jsd also the eci^iaity ia & buiXdlaig Xeeat«!d
at 9Xst street ^^jid ^S'Soaaaha avenue valued at $2&»00Q,** oa @hich
there was a BM»rtgage of i41»0O0* Ahout r,Ms tisse -^ith and Hughes
showed Ecrkstm a ^rittea stntntent of their ▼- rious traasactioar.
eoBoeraing th«e ^'90»000 Xotfi mad Hughos stated ""thaLt he had settleA.
his aatterg with -^th as ^ell as he eould tmder tl^ eirovBBstaaoesi
thst he yag to hare the property at 9l8t street aad fasoaaaha aTeauog
and tte Motor Juildiag b<H^8 and the jMnoer Build lag h«ad| * * and
tl»t he wss to retaia fehe |S0>000 aote. «idorsed by the directors aaft
oa which |4»000 had beea paid** At this late^rrle'i: both mith and
av^es iaforaed Sarks^i that 'they had a^oed oa all of the iteaa
aad th%t the balanoo due to Hughes* after the : djutitaent of the
Tariotts debits nasi oredits* wne ;X9»>X)8*S7» for %hich a ne« note «as
to he elgaod hy «ith oad «sdersod by the directors of said Citiseaa
Baak*" a aote for $19»oo8*e7 wae drafted hy Berksoa aad givea to
oaith* who w s to procure the n« cess 17 signatures thereoat and there
^■ssdss^ M«# ^#l»e t^Ssti; tsair^ 0. •»^«« 0»v,^^ »is8 ^*i-s»»ws c.
|«5»£Cs«^) 94^ tl »«j«MS «t wii^Nf i^^EMt?' %»y«» msti Ust ■ ■^-■
45jBgil® .Nfijfa^g- a^^*:;*?** ««« «^f ^i^»"«^| i/?) 5??^?!r ?=*««!» t*
.8*
waa tfiaeosaion cvaevrsiiig the 91at atreet property. BerksoM is«
qairadi whathar it vaa aaeaaatiizy tadror any coBTojraaoaa or doauaMmta
in ooaneetioa tber««ltli» aad aus^iasted ihsA^ If Httgliea ulienj&T bad
tltla therata It ai^siit %a t^all for hla to ra-oawray to ■oO.th aaA
hare ^alth axeeuta asotter d—^ to ^ighaa. BerksMi pr«^jpuiad ttaa
daeda and gara ttbea to Biai^e* ^t -alth aitbeaquaBtly told hla
(Serkson) tkat tbej "had baea tora u|>»* aad for tiie r«uaoa tlmt
*HHg]iaa alrcadj had title and It ivaa uaaeceadazy to aake other
coeYcyaaoaa**
Tha B&ld wrlttea stataawat* be&rlae d&ta ■''eccsabar 1» 1.922f
was latrodoeed la aridmMe aad ia silso ft«t out by tha covirt la aaid
ordar* Thera waa aa error ia tiie 's^ording of the deerae &s to ana
Itea of th<3 6tat«WBait wbieh was rectlfiec by a court ord&r* eaterad
Joauary 8* 1929* la the at^iteocat nfo cl^ht Items t aiHSTSgfiting
$92,214*82t ahovlag this 8«ai to be ->eatk*c total im^ebte^aer' to
I&ighdB* « &ir- iBnt thia sua are aerea it«au of erecits* agigregatjjig
i^73»206*25t aad ahowiag a balaaea dae to Haghes of I19»00S«57» wMeli
is preceded bgr the worda ''i.ireetox's Soto*** Vour of the eeTe» credit
itaiM aro t9x iatereot rvoeiTod cai the ^pMse^r bond &ad the Mot^
beads aad the three other credit itcao are a« foUoves
'Spflseer B«a4 |SC«SO0
Itotor Boads 10«oco
Sqaity Slat t. Bldg. as»000"
The eoart ia said order thea eiaied the e6Btea;tioas of
^^aiiht ▼!«• that the 918% street property we held by Baghe& ai^^ly
as collateral security for >4aith*8 ia<iebtedMos«i thai th« title to
the property vae conveyed to Btt^taB by Ibirehall -^aith» a brother of
defeadaat ^iaith* by deed dated Juae 10, 1920» r^scorded Juae 17 » 1920}
that la^wa aboat tlk» saae tlao gave to defendant -aith a deed correy-
iag the property, but th-it said deed was torn ap by aith ooaetiao
Sum d^^ «>* 'i»ii?»»«*«'x &# «3t.a 's.s'^ *I* V »^ iif^tsi ^i ©iftiad-i? ©Jvi^
44iai:j js»«,s>«K mt^ i»-s aiMf **p? «£»j ifKa»<f iMP* 'q?*^* ? i*:- '- -^'-ss
|^i^*^»-«:^» ■***l^«» ^ «mf*M msmm m» mm feisl* tn&i-- .c^its^
*'■ ?»ai!Si|»l i« ates «*bMI «|[^*«» ««iitt» ftstit"^ ."i. ?^':s
ig£^« ^sglgaj^. i^JBi^ftgl »isw •f*<«Mrs=s^j #««rSill» ^t0"m:- ■■ *^iv ,^l*s3
-0-
betv««a Se«eiri>6r, 1921 » nad Jaffiiory 1<j. 1»22> ud thczi Sbtghmm
had OQll««to<i saf:lcieBt uoafty* from r«Bt« from tlM property to
pay ihe r?Btlre! sunouat of tho 4*^Si**Bt la :ia«8tl<»i* the eourt* tew-
ervr, found that Hui{h«a did not oxeouto ai^ aee4 o9mrejin% tlM
property to aith prior tg the laoath of j>«ctt»l>»r« 19g::> trhea ouoh
deed wae prepiured by Barkaon for KoK^ea* ei.rasitttret th^.t a. deed wmm
to b« sieaod by Hnglies aad wife reeonveyia^ the property to :Klth»
aad "laetlier deed recenTeylag the property by «ith to Hugbee waa
prep&r?d for the eigm^twre of -^Rlth nnd wifef roA thnt oaid deeds
«ere «kfter«exd» deetrored by «fi^tli» who etsted th&t it eee not
aeeeoQs^ry to recvmrej the property ae the title thereto w<&e alreadlj
▼eeted la Hui^o*
ad the eourt further feimd th^^t otAtOB^stB of colleetiMis
of reato nad expeadltttres* t»ce by l^^en« ittcre sulanltted to slth
up to and lacludiag ^ovei^or SO, 1322 1 th^t on said d<%te the balsaeo
due to Saghest regnrdiai; s; 1«3 reata e.n& exp^aoltures* nau^iated to
§2 ,511 •90 «. sad that said balaaoe api$e&red la ssid i^rittea 8t.»teaieBt
of -i^eeaiiiter I, 1922, sad v&s agreed to be correct f that :3tace
Sovenber SO, 19^4i, ao farther etnteaeats as to snid reats nnd ex^
peaditures ^ere rendered by £^i^es sxid nps^ yi&a .rrer re>;^ttlred bj^«AVli|
oad tk^t the teort^^fMse indebtedness oa t}te property becr^ae due la 19^6
tad «A8 reaeved by Huiites* Tl3>:. eourt Utsn adjudged that tnder tha
tenu of the ^^reeaeat bet'sei^a the pfi^rti^e, m&ti& aboat luecewber 1,
1922, *Uie e;;uity la said property ^ue taJcea by ^a^hes at a ▼alu*>tifm
of 4^5,000, sad theit '^adth i« nai. catltled to sny rents therefreB since
SoTsidier 30, 1922|* susd thi^t the Jud^ateat in queetioa has aot be^ pai4
by >4Bith eitJier to iMt^e^^ or to I'lrss^a ( cosqilAiaaat ) •
Tlu eourt th^i ordered »»d sdjad|(ed that ^«lth*s exceptions
to the 8Mster*s report bo OTerTt»le<i, that the report bo appsoTod
and ooafimed, that the eostn of the aeferenoe (aaeimting to ei74«s
25}
b« taxed a^iilRBt I'mlth. im ih« roXlowiag A99 (X:«eari»4Br 12« 1629)
tiM UbIob Bank of chleMco &oc«pt«d iia appoiatseat us recelTer«
•ad Ml I)«e««ber ia» 1928t Ioat* was givaa to It to ei^loy oouneol*
On Jamuury 3* 1929* the proseat laterloeatory &x>i>«al isaa porfectod
by £teith in the Superior eourta
Xa addltiem to the faots as fewKi by the eoort la unid
^laterlocatory decree* of i)eceai>«r 11» I928» It appeared front tte
ervldeaco thsht* oereral Mmthe before the Judgment by coBfeeuion mb
the $30,000 aote was entered ag last '^mltkf t1s» oa July y, 1924*
Hughes «rrete to ^Mlth as felloes t "Yoar aote to as for #26»ooo sad
laterest is iMig past duo* I have boea yf^ry leaieat la this natter
aad have boea valtlag for you to vmM» seao poyawats* asd X vlsh to
lafora you th^.t if this aatter is aot takoa o&re of ob or before
August If 19:^^49 I icilX place it ia the haads of ay i^ttomey with
iastruetioBE to st rt suit for full ajeourat*" To this letter >%ith
replied uader date of July 15 » 1924 » as foUotrs: ''I have boea
Bakiag every effort to eleaa up 1^ obligaticme and ^iroid baakruptey*
* • You lasu»« th: t it vfts ao fruit of uiae %}^% the enciorsers got
off of this note «hlch throw tt:^ whole burdes <m wb» I vaat to call
jrour atteatloa, howerer* th&t the aaouat is aot ^^fifOOO, that there
is a credit due no for Motor Build lag boads aad also for "Spencer
Build lag boBde th'\t were turned over to you.* M© xnentlcHR «hatoTor
is aacie in this letter thvi. the net rsats over expeaditarest tha^t
tiughes had boeii receiriag froa the 91et street property after l^eeeaber
1» 1922* should be applied oa said aote*
The aaia coateatlon of ^aith* s ceuaiselt here aade, is
that the ehaaeellor orred ia appoiatiag a reoeirer because tbo
ovideaoo latroduoed before the aaster* t<%ether «ith aith's swora
Misaer to c«9KplninaBt* a blll» ''raised such e etroas presuaptlea of
full payaeat of the iadsbtedaess aad Judgaent thrX ao reoGlrer
should haTo boea appelated vitheut first tsJciag aa aecountiag of
•f.-
S» »0la«g>1fetW& ^ ^l»iS!Sggi3»t 3^t »^«t»tf »^>«9te ltkXS^^9 ^iM$ 90St»Ur»
^{- £sfifc m^ »«itf *^;$l«^: «««l--sS^ lss's»4fa® adw **«& Ooo,;'£.| siti
mtfrna »^^ ^ i^sm^mi. ipe%7 m^ mrM I *»ish i^M^ ipsca. - ^-^si
♦**i&« Mass ^ '^ M«£^i-i-
'•^''""■&'^^«f-^^'' "^ ■^'' ^^-^ %«^ai«<j«i* '-^-■>^^ "'■^■■'■^^ '^tm'-
-3-
thc rents and oth«r proceed r of Ihm 9 let street property.* It Is
nrgttttd thnt the nrldenoe oheved that tlie property vue oemTeyod by
avglftos to caath in I92& sjsd *reBslaedi In Jsla iiotvittost«nd lag the
destruction of tJbic doed by riakitta.*" end the^t "no settlement trsAsferrlas
SKltli*8 title to th« Olst street property to Uti«:lMe w&a shown*"
^fter reriowliig the erldenee «• oannot agroe vlch the contention
or the argHBOais* «• think that the ole»^r pre pond <?riUMe of the or i*
denoe disoloeoa th/:t About -DeeeiiAor 1» 192a, by agreement of tho
parties t Bughes beerune tho owner of the 9l8t etrcot property* std>-
Jeet to a large stortgag* thereont - he t&lclng it oTOr at a T^luAtioM
of tho equity &t 4^25,i)OOt thst ^^iHith «»s not entitled to an accounting
&B to the rents of the property receiTOd after s.tld d^:te| and that no
such presvBBptioa* as coiit«nd9d» can properly be raised*
ifor do we think there is aay aerit in counsel* e further
contention that* under the plendings and the evidenoe* sufficient
cause for the appointannt pe»?onte lite of a re'seiver of usith'e
assets was not shown* ?liat he has sone aseets whieh in equity should
be applied to the payaeat of the indebtedness > ae oTldeneed by the
judgaent* eufficieatly appears* Sxactly how such resystins unpaid oa
the indebtedness and ea the Jud^nsat is unosrtaln* but it is plain
that it is eeasider&bly in eseeae of $19,000» the tmly real objection
to the apiiointaeat of a rec€iTer» as urged by :»aith in the Superior
courts vas tl^t the indebtedness and judgaeat Viad fully been paid and
s&titified* '^hen the aotioa for the receirer first was sade he offered
to prere such payaeat and e- tisfmctloa by eTir^eaeef and the court held
the action in abeyaaoe pending a rc-fereace to a aaster to aseertaia
the facte oa this one issue*
CouKHol further contend th^ t t)w order ep^ointiag the
reociTex is erroneous bec£.U£>e neither a bond by the eoaplo^inaat was
filed aor did the court st&te in the order of nppolnt»»at any facte
^ t»rCf^n@!i»» »>^ XS^'4^^ ^ai# t4!^ ir«iKMfiir «»inr1^iV» tati teas &sM^t.«
1^ $0t^isi&^i^i& %»]&sae» Mi ^^«i# inmimiD tmi$'Uft Istaim^r.^
-9-
aluwtag vlqr tbm flliag of auch m kond shoald t)« «xo-a««<i. It Is
proTid«d In tte« Chmnc^Tj et (Cahll:*s :^tat* 1927« <^>haLp* 24i» p£24)
that before a roeclTox obAll b« appointod the part/ Making fclio
Application shall glTo a hone, "prOTlde^* that boad a««d not b«
ro(iUlTe£ vhon for good canue ahownt and upon notice and full h«aring»
the court is of the opinion that a recelTer ought to be appoiaued
elthoat such bond*" In tiie 9T6eT appointing th« reci:lYeT in tlM
present e^^ee It Is etAted "that for, gOijxl c^!>^ ehowB ilm boad of
coapl&ia&nt be and the Scum is hereby vaiTttd and exeused**^ It Is
argued th3Lt the order apiiOinting the reoeiver vae ieyiroperly entered
bec8.uee It doc& not aj^e&r frqt, that ordey (a) th;at a f«ll he&rlng
«ft« had OB the aoblon for tlM ?ipi>o in twenty (b) t'mit the court saa
of the oplQlon thnt the appaintiMiit siaould be aade vitl^ut a oobi-^
plain%nt*e b<md » and (e) btti»t no faeto or re^ieons %re recited for th«
ee«rt*s action* Counsel cite the c^eea of aheryan F&rk 3ai^ t* Loop
fiffiee guild la<e 09xp», 238 111. App. 450, 451, taui ■^a.tsaij^ ▼« ^M^5«Zi.
144 id. 624, 629f Is support of their eant^BtloB. In our opinion
these deals ions Bhonld sot here be applied* In the present cu&9 t99
orders were enterer. on th« »sma day - ose appointing the recs^irer and
the other as * inter looutory deeree,* froa the f ladings of whieh latter
order appear good sjid isaf fie lent fnets sad reesoBS vhy e receiver
should be appelated f».nd without reqslring cozi^l&ljuuit to glTS a
boad* Coneideriag these two orders together %e think It appsars
th.it there vas a euffieieat conpliaBce with the at«>tute referred
to, and that the appolntKeat of the r&cclTOr without a eonplaisuuit * s
bead was fully Jastlfied* ?or the reaewns Indicated the iater-
loctttory order or deeree of Dec^O^er 11, 1928, appointiag the recelTor,
is affinsed*
AiTFZKMSi;*
i^easlma aad BanMSi Ji«,
- Mit.^^--^- ^^i^^S^m^ 9^-^^^ %$ WM-llltl M4 ■^^ :^k'mi,B
r.. ,^H««? *-iESS»ft . *K^- S.miM yi:p^ £&«>»£ ssit^A-^ ^^i «#"l jEiUi^«e. Kstj £» &saE **w
s:tS^^ji. *^^^»;2xgX ®«^ «^* f^*- *?Sf i*^ ®** *«JJSiL.^IMiS^->M«319l
"~TaR-JR;OPtK OF Ttt: STATE
ILLUiOtJfi e^.., rel . Rush,
\ PlalBtlff in %tx9T
UK. JUSTICE BaPJIKS P.::iJ|ViaiKi^ TKS 0?IVI0S 0? THE COiS^T*
Plaintiff in arror was appointeiS and serrc^ rb a Judg«
of •leotion in tha uity of Cliioaco &t the regular election held
iroT«ii»«r 2» 1926* ntae was afterward oited be^fore the county
court in cootcnpt procdetiinga for allowed nistoehaviour in said
office* in aecordanee vith the proTieione of section 13f article
II of the City Election net* on the hearing she was adjudged
guilty of contejipt for Kilful violation of certsiin proriaione
of eaid act pertaining to the duties of an election Judge and
«ao Bcnteneed to jail for one ye&r«
The only point nado and tirgued h«re ie theit plaintiff
in error being a woaan vae ineligilBlet «a the statute then stood*
to serre as such Judge of election and therefore the court acted
beyond its authority in entering &uoh order*
thia »nmti point was urged before the v^upreme Court upon
a like proceeding and a like state of fnote in Pe^p^e etc* ex rejl*
Rush T. Tina ortwan and Lecaa cpine* 334 ill. 298. The ti»«
voaen in that oaae senred as Judge and ol@rk reupectirely in the
sane city and nt the aaac elect ion* and were cited for oontenpt
in a like prooeeding under the anae statute, they \irere adjudged
guilty and tlM oonriction iiaa upheld on the ground that "they having
M*'-
•*fj?*i*.:Sl..
>;'%MftS«|<^..«»;^«^r,:-^* ,IW»^ -^1^ *«Mm *:«««»« lllfcfi 'AJ^"'
-a*
aoctptttd tho appolntjicBt and entered upon tlw ^erformno* of tiM
datl«a of tli«ir offices they beeeun* auch ofiTioera de fftctot and
neither their eligibility te Appointment nor the Yaliditj of
their official acta can ho isiulred into except in a proceediai;
hroweht dirsctly for thnt purpoao***
That deoiaion being oonclusiTo of the questions raiaod
bare upon a like record* the JiadgMont of tho 90\mt,y court la
affined.
Qridley* ?• J«» and Soaalan* J*t coBcur*
^mnmtiit •*'v ifuiim»'!^ ma . v:ftXi»jlto
^■ri%:f')^>^:'.'-'. './d^
'U- f ^' ^>*;5 4^«f
:&ii^%-?;-l:-^ ^'ySy'ifi-
•aRVKT B. CB(;3ii, for th«
use of ;-. X, liJ,<>kCKi:TX,'
Plaintiff in Hrrcr
T7«r£idant in i^ro
iiV JUh-ri^.
? \l \iUUHt
ilA. 6 55'
OPIJ.IOJ& Ci' THB COUKT.
'£h«» ao&ioi:! belo^ v£9,8 pretlicated oit tae joilovlntj; contraoti
ReceiTed of o. J. Chtmb^rn, note ruil jiortffa^^e, a«curlag
•MBi« for forty Uioueand (i4v,0i/0) dollar*, dated Sentcraber
12, I9S4, Ic faror of S. i., All?*n, signed JoliM iiutcKl«»r,
iaieia i\ Mitchler, $ma k&rth& Kuteixlffr, endorsed hy
B. M. All<^.
it ie und«retood that th.l» ffiort^^H^c said i:kOt^ shall
t« sold, and out oi' tn« net procerda thi^ ur.fKrBi.^^-r.t.'^
shall be entltleil ta !i«4ttot the axx^. oi .ieiren uuiidrtsd
(|7C;C) dolliaTB, expanse incurred Ir sscuriisj. the alj-
Gtract, ^i)tx<^ r«eordiiis of aiort^ufe,*.
If said mortgage is not B:e(;ctlatPd witair ten
(10) days, it is to be returr.e'l to 0, J, Chaaibers,
with the uoi-rstiWiniBf that wher. th« mortf. i/zf; ia
negotiated, out of the ztet proceeds the undersi^&d
is entitlifd to the abor* mention©* sua of Seven
aunlred (*7Cw) dollars,
(Signed) U. B. Cross.
Accepted:
0, J. Cha&bers.*
The C5«««e w»s tri«<l hifffw* the court 'without a jury.
At ths close of plaintiff's case, consistin.; of his own t«8t.ift;ony
and sn exaeination of defendant unier see. 3S of the if-unicipal
Court Act, the court on defendant's 5ioti<»n directed a verdict
to flni the issues igalnpt the fjlAintiff.
It appears frosEs th« evldwice that each oi the p-rtl««
purr»ort«»'1 to be nctinu In a representstive capacity, plt»iBtiff
Ml •attorney" for cne Braokett , iwd defendant as "attorney* for
the miOcers of the note or notes •'■nA iRortftk^e aentioncd it. the
agreeiB«nt. , imi that f\rit(* tc&kere htn^ •Autertsed defenil^tfit to
sell the said notes and siortgage. xto proof, ho^^ever, was sade
f
"^"===5-
Ci
»L* ij
" ■ - '^^-^ ■ ■") .1- ,--> Ic
J. A/-
XXfids se^ ml£i£ i»ni ^^^s-sa/vaij «i i.
■•?■*«.* fJrii
•^."'^ rXi9^
aa to tJEie details or tHe extent ei' euoh uititorlty. &er was ther* proof
of the Trftn^^inentu b«t«ae& plsintilT aD<^ Braekett f' r. whoss uss
plalntli'f sued. As set forth in the eridenoe firaokett's position
vss th»t of a possible purchaser el' the notes and Mutrtfrage to whon
Dlaintiif t30^ th«si lor the express purpose ol' negotiiatifig a sale
of thea or for his ezanlnatlon and con si deration. Braeltett k«pt
thes a few days, ad In aeoordanoA v^lth the a|[reer<<>nt bf<tvecii
plaintiff end defen<iant at the end or ten days t-hny verc returred
by plaintiff to defebdaut. After holdintf theait in his pos»ei»Rlr>n
about one or tvo weeks def<>-E.dant returned these to th« makers on
their desiand.
Plaintiff testified that ^I'ter getting the notes otul
Bortgase hs made tvo trips to the looatloi) of the property and that
Braokstt adrui^ued hijn the &oae> tuerelor. iiia coiitraGt when signed
•Tiiently oocteA^lAtsd an expense of #500 "in seeurin^: the abstract,
and recording of isortga^s." It was subsequently chang4>d to $700.
Dsf«iilat.t deuied knowledge of may &ieh chatiii^^ and tostifl<»(4 that he
BSTer assented thereto. But we thi&k the point in^aterial as we
do not think pl^ntiff could reoover on the evider><:<s,
xhe action is brought on the theory that Braek^tt
adTancsd the isoncy nnd is entitle to hare the ease retuii&e'* to
him by defendant. But the evidence does net disclose oiiy contract
between defendant sad firaekett nor that Brackett advanced the monfty
for ainyone sxespt plaintiff, -'hat were the arran£e.::i«>i:ts between
hia and plaintiff dees not appear. If israckett was $'ntltl«>d to the
Boney froa defendant the suit shculd nave \&eti brought ii:^ hie tinMt,
The words "for the use of*" etc., are aerc sunplusa^^e . Plaintiff,
If anybody, siust reoower froi^ def6nd«u;t, the oontract being betwe'Cn
thes.
It is conceded th^t ii the notes and siortgai^e had been
sold after their return to the aakers defendant would hrive besn liable
4«&$ Stm^-'^^stmmmt ^ <$m- ^^ 'm^maik^ ■■^miit: m^- $mim^' ^i - 9-^^^ a -
andtr thf eontrftet to pny plaintiff th« aaMsunt b«T««<l upon, "^haterar
It vaa, defcndiaiit Toluctiurily binding hlmaelf to pay plsiintlff »u«h
•xp«c«« out of xh.9 &«t proe»»<le of tL>' Bal«. But th«r« va» no proof
•f ac/ 6«1« nor of any gu-tr«nty by 4»f«nt*.ant that thor« %ould be one.
Vlthout proof of on« or tho oth«r thero to no baola for luirtiff '•
thfiory that by rf^turGln,:, the 'looumMita to th« Aakers on tlioir (3«::*au4i
dofcniant put it beyond hla pover to c^rry out, hin a^reA&^eut &n4
taoneo will not be allowod to 3,TaiX oi' the non-p erf u rsum ce h« hi&self
has ocoAsioned. ^h&t dafondant ha<t th« right to entrust the papers
to plaintiff for ton laya to negotiate a sale ^suky b« aauuxod. But
that dofendant had a right or oow«r to withhold thtm froTi> tlio BiaJciTS
and owners of th« psipers after that tin?, at 1 '^'nLSt beyort'l th» titae
they dotnainiJei thotr return, it not }*howr; >^i ^':il?, not bp presuK«d.
There bsing no proof of Ch»]!«ber»» rl^rht to hol'i thp p?iper« il'ter
thoy woro deaandtd bv the i&aicera th»r«cf or that he guar iuri teed that
they ^ould be sold, we fall to aee that plalntin* s^ade out ^ cAse
of liability Qfainst defen'ieint.
In the abaence of proof of defend^unt'e ri^ht to bolt the
l^apers until a sale was negotiated or that he '.guaranteed a sale, we
think the words in the aereei&ent "when the mortgage is aegotiatad*
■ust he con* trued "if* negotiated, and that the words *8hall be sold*
■ust be Gonetrued "say* be sold. It ffiust be inferred thst defer.dant's
stttbority to negotiate a sale ^ter the ps&pers wer** ret ^rried on tho
makers* decAr.d was t«;T:^Ln'»ted %<nd th»t th«' agre&c^ent was :&adc wit^'
kaoviedgs of defendant's ll»it<»d autiiority. If plaintiff wois deallag
vith Qiaabers as a specii^ agect and not In hie Individus&l cs>peicity
he was bound ts inquire into the extw^t of hl« authority, ^e think
the oourt w^^ justified in direetinf a TerrJlet.
Orddley, P. J., and ^^canlon, J., concur.
' .w&
,-Stt#ar . *irs.--2ij
«&£■!• .„
^«^^^»
»%,.„..
a^^rOKS iX':.MV5JRS»
Oi»isioir GP Taa: Oi)-ji<T«
i'laiatiff vas thm eigeat of a life iasuraaea oo^pangr
thrtttt«h vltOB defcttdtuBt, ^ilXlna C, i^elttex, applied lor tv«
polioles for life iasuraae* ttp<ta hl« owb life* payable to his
•«tai«. :iaiatlff adTaaood th« a&ify tot the ^rdaa.laBs for whloh
•aid ^^feiffer gave his check for |36«50, and his peraoo&l note
for 1175 payfthle to plaintiff* Ifel&ker cheek u&t note v^a j^ld*
Plalatlff sued to reeorer their Bssount and aade the «lfe of caid
i^elffer a part/ dc^feadaat as the theerjr th^^t eueh lasuranee
affor<)8 "protisotioB* for the fuatlly 9M& the paj^e^t of pres&ivns
therefor is a fMStily *xp«Mia imder the sts^tete (seo* 15 » oh* $8)*
The court )>efore vhon the once iKxe tried without a jury ^ve iudsn"
■eat agaiaat the hushaad aad diaadLsaad the caae aa to the wife*
Plaiatiff appeala*
The oaly queatios preaeated la whether etteh ixKSehtedaeaa
c<matltute8 a fosdly ex^eaae voider the etatate*
Appellaat atute^ that the queatlcm hae nerer been deeided
la thia state or la other etatea haTlag a like statute, ^t we
fail to aee that the case coms wlthla the reaeoalag of the Buaerous
•asoa th&t iMiTe ariaea uader either our etatute or ^ like etatate
la other atatas*
s^'
r-.
~ /
1.?
•-3«
Th« uau&l test Is whsthsr the expendlturtt was laourrcd
fsTt SB aecount of* and for use in the faailly (Vpn Platen t* graegeya
11 111. A9;p* es7t aaedlcy t. Felt . 41 la* 583)1 and when for
art isles whether they are aotwilly used or kept for uss In ths
f&nily (Hyaian ▼. Ha<iley. 162 111. 357 1 yjtg^eraiq t» iicCaxtjt* &5 la.
702.) .Ten thoufh a hueband nay obtnln the neans of euppcrtins tte
faslly and defraying their exposes by expenditures in business
oBterpriees they ae not deesed "fMsily expenses*' (Y<» Platen eaa«»
S33S&.* ^'^ HTmgm ease, swpra.) lincussing the scope of ths statnto
in the lattar ease the oourt said ttsat it does not include business
03Cf«Mss inouoxed ''■terely to secure the steans to naintain the f-saily.'
^t we kttoe of no case where the eicpenditure has been
hold to eatbraoe expense for soBOthin^ the use of which depended
upon sotto future possibility or remotm eontlnseney. Assuning tte
family night get the benefit of the ineuranee pay^O^le to the estate*
yet sueh benefit depsi^^ 9n the hushand*s death» or possibly if the
policy hAs a surrender Yaluo» on the use tJ^t leight he Bade of auney
deriTed therefrw. The statute is not r^sedial* It ia«&riotly
construed. ( Feather stcate y. Chapia, ^^ ^^* 223.)
But the o&se reduees itself to a elaiK against the wife
for soney advanced to the hucri^sad to pay for sane thing that oa»»t
be put to o-Xff direct or iaEsediato nse for the fj^jaily. In that
respect we think it is outelde the scops of the statute*
Our statute was adopted fron the loora statute and we hare
adopted the interpretation placed upon it by the Iowa i^tate SupresM
Court. That court said in l^avie v. I itchejr* 55 la. 719 1
"The statute was enacted for the benefit of ths
husband or wife and person fron vrhon the things con-
stituting the faaily oxpense were obtninod, to the
md thot credit coulA be obtained and extended for
sonething essentialf necessary or cffixreniait, or so
^frt sSf^ ^3^ f.i.^e *®I U ^M^ >r %^^^m^' I^S^ *^.tiA .La Xi
i c«.* alt »",cXi.«i»*t adig ^«st &ae ftt^alfl^aatt xo Js*s;i& ^^gsLfe 0* j(s^ i&4
«Mi'^ ^s ■ik'ij...:^ ... .. ... ._
-3-
A»0mtA \j tb* taMflbaatf or «ife, to b« naees In or by
ftlM famllj* Koa«7 oaumot bo oe used* Theretforo
it easnot bo a t^jnily oxpcneo oTon if borrovod for
the foaily. It Bay be, and in the present eaoo
VRBf uoed to procure vhatt if obte la«d on credit »
would haro boon a fuaily axponso**
The oaso io no different fron a ault brought lor monoy
borrowed by th« huoband for whleh there would bo no liaoility oa
the part of the wife whaterer it sight bo iiaed for*
The JudgiMint Is afflrsod*
Orldley* i'* J*» and ^canlan* J.« eeaeur*
I
•s*
■■■''•' *««»««&45pc© -iiisKsIt ig ^ise<j »r.^ feJUsiJ.-^
«» ^f^iueicifijU ^ i^ sSs0^ ^tmiii ^9ijSw rt«t. i»«i^^»^ '&0J x^ bs^^it^d
3S192
.^y«ISi«^^lK^
VAl)^CBr SASH ft IKKB COMPAVT.
■"^^ I
'■^^r
r»tien» and FRSp^?*^^
LICK I. Br.a^'X Lyiol;^ c<mpiiX*^,
iffi. ja-^icfi BAJOBs msjrmKD rss o^xhioe oj? ?j^ coir.r*
This is a fourth class e&««« XefOBdatat Frederioi: h,
Bro«a vas Aef stated, to plaint if f* i? eifttea«»t at elain appell&st
fllo4 Its affid&rit of sfirits* Ths triia w^m had ugfore tho
eo«rt «lthoat a jurjt axKt this appeal is fr«si a JudggoMtnt s^ainst
api>ellaat for 1700.08 sad eosts*
Plaiatiff*8 elaiB is predloated upon a right to the
retttra of Bonej paiil to appeliaat through aietak9 sAd InadTertenee*
The faets are set oat at ssaie leagth ia the stateaenfe of clala to
the effect that plaintiff bought a ear of liaeher froo the (Ude«a-
■^•aderson OovpAay of ^^t* Louist aod has paiis the sfuse therefttri
that before aaking the pajivent it received frcm appellant an in-
▼else of the saae lunber from the Vrederiek L« Brown Luotber CoHpaay
to plaintiff th^t purported to be asBigaed to appellant t and that
through atistake aad iaadrertence plaintiff's clerk or bookkeef«r»
liittaottt plaintiff's knowledge of the facts respecting said inroicet
paid appellant therefor on reoeiTiag sueh inroiee so aseigaedt that
plaintiff had no dealing for said oar eitlMr with said Brown or
^'
♦ »7f {i»>^«*' '.? * W-J-.
ll«6%3'S«^^ sassy* e«M fe4.iS^ a^st Ssis !,»itmS *#v i« -iisw^paeij is}3<x«iH»&
«»at»v?tl Sill*® :gKis&s^ft«^ e^ss'i 5i5jiwsJ:««03t e'lti^st^iq .J^fedJJtw
L' »pp«Xlaai aad was net liicl«^t«d to «ltli«r» aad thert was no con-
•Idsrntioii for such p*jr%*nt«
ittfeadantB* affitiarlt of B«riis states that th* payntnt
vaa Bftd* OB acoouBt •t XuBb«r »nd auterials sold hy BrowB to plain-
tiff &ad aecsptcKi by the J.attor» and that the invoice to plaintiff
therefor wee dulj aasigsed by Brona to appellant for a good aad
▼aluable conalder/stlon paid to Browa by appellant, aad that plaintiff
had fttll notice of the uaBlgxaseat* It ^111 Ite seen that the affidoTit
took issao oBly a« to whether there vae a anle of the luaiber la qaee-
tlea by Broea to plaintiff, in other ¥?ord8» if pla^tiff actually
bought froB BrowB there w&o no loiatake*
On the hearing the president of appellaat wssie called under
oectiea 33 of the Municipal Court Act. He admitted the pci^aent by
plaintiff to appellant &Bd tte^t the ear of Itxn^er ■*rti.& not sold by
«ppoll«»t to plaintiff. rlaiatlff*8 praslc;€Bt thea testified that
he did net buy the e^^r of loader from the Brotm Lussb&r Sonf^paay sad
I vae not indebted to the saao hat bought it fr«B t^ Oid@im-Andersaa
Coa^aayt that h« si«aed a eheok for appellaat through the fault of
the Uookiceepor, aad vhea the aists>ike eaa discoTcred dCBianduf^ of
appellant the return of the aoneyi that plaintiff did uot rec&iTO
the lumber .^s the 3ro«n iaroiee aud loiew aotkiag of such invoice»
and lat^r plaintiff palu the uld^.ut-Aad«r«da CoBQ>aay» as the rii^euXt
I of a suit brought by oueh cccipanjr*
n<me of plJtiatiff' 5 eTidenoe was denied. In defenoe
appellaat* 8 presideat testified that plaiatiff hsxi paid appellaat
for laa^r oa other prior inyoices of t..e Brown Lusher Ceaistaaar
aaaicaed to appellaat. 7h&t evidence, hovoTer, had no material
bearing ea thio transaction* Ym further testified that appellaat
^ paid Brovn for th^ carload in iiuestioai that Browa nae to uoe th»
■sal <%»l^ -•:. ^i*;4
• ■■4mt-i^mi'4s>mi::-W-^li^$!m mtaei imm 9^k^0^ sm^m^-- ^i<.im ii«^»X $s;f
-3.
check to pay %h» alll to eoTer th« lnvolo«; tlvit th« alll» h«
b«li«T«dt w»a ill* Old con- -OKI ere on Cvmpmjajt tlagxt tilwii the onrXaad
of luaber was roeelrod It «»• billed lay e^iid 3ro«Bt wad that
appellant* b check to the roxm Luubcr Coii^mjtQr was baeed on the
InToiee aesigBed to it aac eeat io plaintiff* 3ttt appellant nuide
ae proof of ay actoal porelUbae of the lunber hy Brown or of sny
traaeactioa ^'hereby it baouBe poeseeeedt if CYer» of the luaber*
':^ro«n did not testify. Appellant* s pxesid^ttt »&id he tras owtole
&o looate his* letter from ap$>ellaat ia erldcaoe statee thet
it had adTanoed Bro^a atoncy 9a aesigaseats of hie iBToic^s* and ia
Qost oaeea he ueed the mnawy eo ».cvance»2 to pay the aillt bnt
latterly coaveried soim of the memiy to hie o«a usee and failed to
P».y the mill. It in iaferatele that Br«wB had abscondedo
-laiBtiff'e proof ^hat it bought the lanbar in Hueetlon
directly from the Oideoa-Aaderson cempaay and p«iid the snam fhoxzttae
aae aot controTerted* Appellant's proof o£ its traasactioa trith
3ro«a had ao teadeao/ to rsbut it or to eatablleh an obligation by
plaintiff to the Br&sn i^uaa»er Coaqpaay, or orea to siure that Brown
eTer acmkired title to the Itai^er or h^id Bsy mere right thedi a
etr&nger to iBYOice it te plaintiff* It mty p«rha|>s be inferreMJi
froB appellant' e letter tik^l the ear of luaber «&« origla&Uy ionroloed
by the Gidewi- -aderewi Uoay^aay to Jrowa* and that ha failed to pay
for or ta accept tiM a»aM* fhere was bo direct proof ott thi^t sid»Jeet
oae way or the other* except adnissi«u» by Sronm that eere aot bindinc
on appellant* But the imto f^et that pliiintiff paid appellant as
aaeieaee of preTiouu invoices txom the 3rewn Company to plaintiff
had no teadency to proTe that the Br ewn c'aaqjKiay erer owned or had
the laaber in question. There w»« direct proof on the part af
plaintiff th.^t it h^ aa dealing with the Jruwn Coapaay therefor*
4# &«ij^^ diss «e«ur mm alHI 94 t^ss^^s «^v %« «»i?a i^^#%«v^9 xi^'^^^^tsx
l^"'4^»JCI»<^^jg Mi»^ lliiSll^q ti9l£^ d^% d^^afiB «^4 ^^' .f&sX^^e^^A »«
Appellant did ast atteagpt to pror* It did tat relied wtelly oa tlw
fao* Qf tta* inT«lo« of whleh pl&latlff*a presldeat who algncd the
eheek t« app«llaat had no kno«lodg«« The oridea** otaodo unlMpeaehed
that plaintiff's eheok was slgnod by plaintiff's preeideat aad o«ai
thrott^;h ale take and inadrerteneo of tho hookkoeper who supposed it
voprssctttod a genuine transaction*
Appellant inrokee the principle that a payaeat Toluatarily
aade by Bi»take aay not be recovered* But th;it is where tho payaeat
is tu^e without knowledge of the facts* Here ths prijnseat wno aade by
oae ignorant of then and oaiy be reeorered bnok* ( •>teMpe|| t* thiwaas/^
09 111. 146} est Frankfort Bk* & Tr« Co, t. Barrett!. ?.::« iU. ,.pp,
261*)
Sor caa we apply to the ffucts the doctrine whore two
innocent persons suffer a lose thi-ough a third party, the one through
whoso instruaeatality it is auEtaiaed amst bear the loos. It does
aot appear that appellant was induoetS to pay Brown by any act of
plaintiff's, ilaintiff was not responsible for the invoioe n&de oat
by Brown or appellant's adTanoo of BU»ey on the strength thereof*
It is well settled that where sMmoy is paid by aistakc without
knowledge of the facts azie the party to vhsoi it is paid had no right
in equity and good conscienoe bo the sasM it aay bo reeorered baok
anAer assospslt for aaney had aac. receiTod. The evldeaeo aisoloses
this is suek a oaso*
It is also urged th^t the court had no 4ttri«t<iiction because
tho ease was reinstated acre than 50 days after a disaissal of tho
suit for wnnt of prosecution. But it was rel&stated upon stipulation
botwoen the parties* «hich gawe jurisdiction to proocseU in the
partieular ease the saaa as if the ploadlags had bo«a r«tfiled«
It is also urged that the statoasat of olain does not state
vx »d4 9%i%js% Di%im m l^ipR»%M^ a»m£ # «|»StM| 9m!f9%»'^ im^mAt
fpfeS^f^ at^-iJ»«^£^^ est: |J«S^- -l^a^ ©»iL« «J. :#l
• oaiis* of ftcilott* It is » f««irth class «»••• D»f«id)Uit tmdcr*
stood ths n!itare of it well snough to ^o to trlAl on the lesnss
ralseii* •^o bars fro<iuent]j- held thst when a <iefewiABt gees to
trial vithottt questionljig the sufficiency sf the st&tenent of gIaIbi
oas*
in a fourth Gl^ae/tim will be presttssd ts ttaderstaad the nature of
t1u» elaia* and will «ot bs pemitted to raise the tiuoetioB here for
ths first tlKo. The atateasnt of cl^im* howsrert contains enough
on which to prcdiotiite a oaues of aotiOB for the return of etoney
paid throuf^h nistake and i»adTertenoe» sad <iefeiNUkat*s affidavit of
■erits shows ths istmo was well understood*
It is contended that plaintiff did not aake proof of all
tho allegations in ths st&t^eent of olaije> ' oase of then could bs
rojected as surplusace* Pri»> fjfccie proof was siade of the essential
elenents of the oauss of action* »hile not rery full it was net
rshutted*
Ve need not diacnss sdleged ineass|>«tent tertistony* The
trial haviag hoea before tlM court without a Jury it was presiaaptiToly
disre^urded*
Ths jud0iKnt is affirmed*
Oridleyt P* J** sad 3«a«l«n> J*t coaear*
««i-
m^^m^^' ^mm ^m ^i^'^mt «f »^- # ss'^.'m^^^ ^ «»«»» *
^™:.««»»„ „™__^«»> »»„»-=_» ieit i6«««L 1&'
3t«SS « ^4i»i<J.. >-t ' -- i«-^ - ^.tiSfflBESOHai (9«wv>B.«ffi» •wawrwKs-w*' »''^.~* ■"—
^M*;;^^'^''^-'--
»'rus^^-p' «»t' ,a(^I«Ms»S
■;* »y!«*V
■.>.i*'-&,^-.v: S;i:.::SMS:
.;-vSl* -7 %.- ->' r*-f
^UHT^=-^'
66
i&im
thf: couht.
Plalotll'f brouf^t » suit H^ainitt £^»p#lXant and hi*
wife to rceoT«r for profcaaional legal services alleged to hay*
baan rendered to both defaridacta at their ifistar;.e«! and requaat
to raoteve a oleuA upoB tba title to oertaln real estate thai
o«7ied by Anna Ja«ila who aabaequeintly beettta appellant *8 vrife.
An anidavit of aerita was liled tn behalf of both defm-danta
denying any joint liability cr eiaploy&ieot of olaintiff by either
defendant to render euoh aervieaa or th«t ha eT@r Jid; uIsq alleg-
ing that another suit brou^iit ai^ainst appellant was rejj a4Jujlic<|itt;^
of sal:) claim*
(^ the iaauaa involved plaintiff vas his only material
vltneaa. Se el&ised that he r«uder«4 auea eervieea on tixree dif-
ferent datea, one in December, 1926, ^oii on« in Janu:;^y sud one in
March, 10S7, for which |60 «as a reasonable fee. Beth of the de«
fendanta teatified. Eacii denied eaploylcg pla^intlff for any sueh
purpose. Pliilntlff claij&ed that his serviees yere sou^ait bee«usa
of a oleu4 o»8t upon tr.e title to the wife's property by pioeeedinga
hskd in a divoree suit betveen appellant and hie forner v'ifa which
prevent <?d his *«con4 wife Anna froia. prooitring a loan on the property.
Hie latter testified that she not only never sought plaintiff'a
services but tlxat .-uiother attorney rendered her services in Deccs&ber,
1926, in proeuring a loan on Ball property. Appellant testified
that the onl^' serrioes r«»ndered by pl;«.lntiff to ;.1bs w»re those in
■L-
m sii'i-j
#«»■•
-3$XX£ !^Xa :.j|r£ii 1K»?« #:|| #£110 ir$> Si>S>i':'
-life flt&%ilt IM «MM»Jir««« jS»«« lk»-*afei!*s^ *-i -s;.» -.-i-ii-xd »i,. .aasa,?!^
iS^ «4i£fe 1^^ x^sttnifisal' Slit »a» &36i r^tl «%»<l3ss9&«ti si ft«i8 4C«M& ;r«i«»'l
i^^-Mmt $mkl$9%^ *%i''M^pm%. &l^ .^c» auMiX « asU'iaii»(rs<r ai cd-S'^.c
eonn«cllon -i^ith the dlToree %etlon an^i oontDtspt proceedings ooa-
De«t*d tr.erovith, ixid that a judgnezit was obt&inotf a^^dnst hla
upon a suit brought by plaint li'l' to rscoTsr ths value of his
ssrricss in eozm«otion tnerevith, sad that he never sought plain*
tiff's serTioss ic any other matter.
After reading ths teetijEBony we are of the opinion
that STsn if pl.^istiff had a right of actloo ?vgai&at appellant
alons the finding of the court vas against the weigut of the eri*
denos. The burden of proof rested upon plaijstiff and w« do not
think hs sustained it. liot only did both defe(.danta isny procur-
ing him lo render services to r<tffioTa a cloud upon th« title of
said property, but it appears liiat the purpose of the serriesf
Bkained by plaintiff, nu%ely, to etia^le procurffiitent of a loan en
the prcpArty, h^ been raet by the serYices of another attcmey
for ;4|>pell»nt 's wife in Dse^sebpr, 1926. It appears also that
plaintiff rendered appellant services during the sa&« interval
in connection vith procuring his diseiiarge frofi) payaent of alimony
to bis first 9ife, &nd Xn that connection had occasion to look up
the condition of th? title to the property belonging to th© sec-
ond vifs. 9ft think it may well be inferred that ths services he
rendered ^^ere in conii'sction isith th« mlii-^ony proceedings and vers
covered isi th« suit h«! brou.iit to recover for eeivlces rsndersd
in the divorce and alicbony proceedings. In that suit plaintiff
included other itssis than his fees for the divorce proceedings,
and as he had already rctndered the services in cozmeetion with
said real estate it i« strange that he a^uld not have included
his fees therefor it. the sasw suit if h? had a bont| fl^ claiie
for thsB outside of fees for services in the other satters.
Set only do we think that the liniing of the court
vas against the wei^cht of the «>Tid(»;ce l:ut plaintiff's slain is
predicated upon a Joint liability in tm action ex contracttj. It
offff'i:?? M^^:"?- *"*-'-^^-'> - .i-. ,^M^i*»i»£ti' aft|*--«-^»- c**- :3.,,^ :-,»*:^i§
?-■ • ^
#<e^^- yi*.;.3 :^,u»« :,*i JA ,«^«i ^"-i^^JV&H^ «i ,»li* «»»a«Xil?q<i;> ■■■:■•
<-.......-. ,jj| i^iB^a «i4t :|pttiea^ «»i»i<?'S»« |»«ei£a5F«Pf« &ii«»fe«<n tttfatmii!!
•Tp,...,.^... .... #a»sr)C»^ S3*'?'* e^'^eMmili 9i^ .siUtesoTH? rfllT. .Tsel^oaaao© i%i
tut S : . . - i^*?- r:?SO
Is foadeunental that is mvudh an aotloM rtt««Tery aunt b* lud If at
•14 fltfaliiat all the pt^rtiao tmlesa tha pXalatiff aaaada Ma plaad-
liiga and ^iaalsaae aa ta sueh defeadaata aa are nat ahown to ¥a
Xlabla with tha othera. (Ppwall y. yjnn, l^a 111. 567.) Plain-
tiff* a arldeaea pfurportet! to support a claia of Joint liability*
The vifo vae diaaiooed out of the suit at the end of tha eaae by
the court* There ««e no amendfitent of the atataaont of ol&ia* I'ha
court should hare Iwmd for appellant* ^^^e naed not decide %taathar
en aaendaeot of ]^ea<!iiiS8 «aa Baoeaasxy in the Uunlclpal court » for
certainly it takea from th« force of plaintiff's claim thtit he
iaatifled that hie nerriees vere reciueeted by both defeiuiajtte»
on their te^tiueay the court ?&vmd there was so liability ut tc
of thai* a need not dlacnas the qaeetion of ree ad4tadiea;^ so
Xmv aa the weight of the etridenoe is Ageinet plaiBtiff*e olairo
The Judgnent will ha reveraad «Bd a jud^nent vill he
entered here upon a f ittdiag of fact*
mcmnmss with fisiisu or pact*
Cfriclayi P* J*f and cacU.as* J>» concur*
iiaek- W «^ ^MiNI»dyiL «K ft«V ««^^ ^9«S«it^t J'-s^f^w ««(#. ^!9»I^?:.«S -si^^-^ ee
53202
WUTiVK} 0? fACt.
Wa find Uuit Aj^pellaat did n»t speclalljr eoaitr«,«i
t9x tin* aerrlcec for vhiek appelX«« hAs bTMi^ht aolc* ojid t.3&t
sueli •crrioea w*r« iBcldeatnl to llio*« alraMdy jaid for*
^Si,-
crj ^^i*? (-;i'^? \
,!Jii?l?#«fSi^''i;*^1i
COTOT \pV CftiC a-K>*
2_
MB. JUi:>TICS B
OPIVIOI 07 TiiS COISIT*
Tbl« ia aa *pp«al fr«i •& ord*r Yatt«tijig aad sattliq;
asida f<»r naof^t a JudfMiit by cMifsasieii in favor of plaintiff
oa (3ef andioit' a proaiaeory note entered May 25» X923» for ^69o»97,
and for a Ju<lga»»t a^iaat plaintiff for eoata of the 8Ult»
The JttdgMeat vae reopened on the affidavit of i avid
A* Kase to the effeot that the isote wae paid by act'eptaaee of eat
order oa tlw Hill < tate Bsjik Octol^er 26* 192S*
Tlie herriag diaoXeaea the f olXowiag state of faicts*
I'laiBtiff did the a»eoB work oa two biUldlo^e erected by defecidaat
I^avid Eaae* aituated at the nertheaai eoraer of iiontrooe and Keaneth
aTeaueot CMoago* one kaowa as 4429 Eeatroae avenue » and the oUmot
as 4407 Kenneth aveaue* The coBtrt»et for plaiatlff*e aerrioea*
dated MAy 15 » 1925» c<^lled for eca^letioa of his work for the aiai
Of ^2S»900» 8S per eeat to be paid aa the work pri«reaaed» and the
entire aooaat upon ceo^letioa* xl&iatiff completed the saaaa fNork
•a the Koatraae build lag t except the cleaaiaff of the build lag* about
•<ugttat 2G, 1935 • aad the ««rk <m the other biiildiac a^oat a weeJe
before* The eleaniag &witnmte)t. to about a'eouple of huadred dollara*
aad vaa doae »beat a week later* j^efeadant L-nvid Kaae obt^iiaed two
Xoaaa* eae oa the Keaaeth build lag froa the Kitchie Bead & Mort^aga
\
L|»-^
..s
.eSfeff*!'?^'
^^/l
»l:n::io:- ur, x
3S.>
Uf'^^er j^«.sai^£^ j^j:»j^^&9 llt^^ilATl .e$>ii»£c(^& ss^ffe' iauGBia 99iim9
CoajMuqr* aad ob« on ihs Montroa* build lag frcMB tlM Hill -^tat« Baak*
thm B«t« In question ««• f«r $3»u00, datod u^st 19*
X929» ftBd payablo to Appellant* ■ order 30 days after Its date* with
Interest at 6 per ocnt per annum ttntil paid* On the hack thereof
vas this endoraeiMnt at the tlae of Its dellTeryt *Thls note Is
glYen «e part p«jnent for aKson work tm a ^-flat building being
erected at KewMth aTemio nenr Montrose avenuo**' The note la slgnod
liy I>aTld H» Saee aaA his wife Jean.
The execatiOB of the aote in ^uioh foxw ben ring eaoh
•adoroeaont la not (iuestioned. Bor la it questioned that Hi the
tlae of the he^-ring there was 9till due plaintiff under hie con-
traet $90C. The only queatlon ie whether the note vae to be
surrendered on plaintiff reeeiving an order for #X0«O)O an the
Hill atate Bank.
Plaintiff testified thr t nearly erei^ dsgr for the week
before he ^ot tt^ note he talked to both defencL-ust l^aidd Kane
aad his father J&cOb Ease* who euperlatessded work on the structure
for laridt with refer eaee to his pt^jneent for the work* eaylag he
aeeded the aeneyt thst he had got to hare ^ISfOOO. Parld s.'&ld
he oould aot glwe that mnoh. imtll the bulldizig imc> finished; that
he could aot «slwe aore than I15»000 oat of the loaa «a the Keaneth
areaue bulltilagi thst he would giwe a note for $3»v>00 until he
eottld ebtala a loaa oa the Hontroee buil(£iag» but he had sot applied
for oae aad did aot teow «l»ether he could get Itf th%t plaintiff e".id»
*the eal^ thla^ to do ie to glwe m» a a^e f«r iZ,QO0 aad I will hold
it until I get ay Boney*" The note wae then given and a few daja
afterwards plaiatlff recelTod two checks froet the Mtohie Bond £
Mortgage Coapeny* one for |10»000 moA one for $4>5O0» Plaintiff told
defendnat he w&b entitled to %18,000 en the ICenneth aweaue building
on whleh the loaa was aade* Later tha Hill i^talm Bank aade a Iinui
^^r^Mit iStejsi« «^ i# «!»£«« Xkim ^is&f^ *.&% m^'^^m., js^^^tssi
^r'Sif^^lf^t^i 48** l»& 3f«8Py fes^'se#i8irfe<9^-' «^ «««i«3i «?«otje1 tWiSfsIt »M &£»
ts'f^':^ i^^§h^tm I » ^^ ^£Mtsf* ^^ Xfrtisc* «NB«f *«s«^ »1^S #«*i MiWW ««l
||$$is«^ si^'i^ m'&i !9^ 1» ^l«» ^^?«M^ ii^jii ^Stt ««^£$. J<Mi bJCsw^ 9A
tM/sfe Y^J5^Si2«J^ i^sC# 1 11 ^sa 3h£5ws« -^ «aeli^«5^ i^©«s ^ss^ Mfe sa?js 8«w s^l
'^'>'i^<%ilSBM ^i»i?&»^tMx^i'}m^ ssfcs^ils? »&.■? fe»v^s#*-: ^lAaaii*!^ «feT.t;.«!«5tii
to Bavid Km,— oa an appllefttlon tharefar anula >u«ast 27* 1S25»
•itf plaintiff ra«eiT«A aa ordar «i eald Hill 3tate daak for ^10»000
Octibar 26, 1925. To proanra thaaa orders pXaiNtlff waived Me^baalos
lleaa* through tbeac ordara plaintiff* therefore, hnxk re^elTOd oa
him conir&ct 4^4*600 lee.Tiag ^90*^ d\ia tjr tha teiaa of tba oontrftct*
It ia defesdunt'a claim tbitt tha nota was to bo ctirr«gider«d when ha
reeelTOd hla tIO*CHX> froB the Hill atata Bank, and plaintiff** oon-
tent ion tht^t it mna giran as seciurlty for th« hal^^nea du«f on tba
contract to represent ^3»v>o0 ad^'itioaal ho vns entltlad to out of
tlk« Bltehle Coi^aay*B loan «hea be reoelTod Its t«o ohooks*
The «Bidor3eB«ttt tt|>oa the note Ve):^rfi out plaintiff* a a«i-
tontion* Pwrthcnaore, tise note was given hefor« tlitse had otw* heen
•a oppllo^tloa for a Itmn from the iUlI > tate J^^oak* ^.ocordlag to
l:avid K&aa*8 o«B teetljaony he ira« uae«trtaln &.\. the time ho eava the
nolo th&t he could proonre an a£^ltlona.l loeia or for wliat ansountt
afid plaintiff desi«& tbi t thara was nny Torhal acresaont to aurreadair
the note on the p^yate&t of tlO,000 out of the ^ill Bskak loan* It la
hardly probabl«* therefore* uzKier et»sh a 6%at« of facts* th^tt aagr
arraneezient twta ^ade for a specif l« fiO.oOO pajTv^^it sut of the loan
th&t had not baen obtained* i>efondrjit* s oral tasti&oay df auoh as
arrangaaratt too» «t^« not adaiaeible to rtixy the t?ritt9n andoroanest
en iho note «hl^ stated th^t it w s given aa y^irt pQ^^aont fcr plain*
tiff* a aaaoa work on the building* Plaintiff's objection thereto
should ixave boon sustained*
It soesa clear to ita froa the entire teetlsmy* thorofore»
tluiit as stated on the oadorsassat, when the note was glYoa It was
glTMt as part pajnoat for what wrs then due tmder plaintiff *8 OMitratot
Kad tK'^t ho had the rlgM to onferee ths aenm for the balaaoo due
thereaader after crediting th» $10,000 payn»n%* hilo the $10,000
^m^-0^'i^'^i^isM'''Mm^ 111*^' IkN® -isi* *»1^«^ ^& iafliei^d^ lllaaiA-jA^i ■.'^":■
*n^m$m»^ *^ IE* sgs&g# ^«^ -^If -^i^ a^f «tf^««i; -''6@»'.,*s| ^9#a-???sr. sfei
««^. :fe *^t#«g*jC^ Sate ^«m>^ i^S^-«^« a«r«» -^sft^a^sis^^^B?' -ajft
^■^: a»ir* .6*8* :«-^-«i# i»*#%»^ siB^ilftl -«Ma*^ ■»it!S&'-m$^--i,mi^^s9d.$'m^ *m3k$®»i
«.# ^(aA"K$^*»^. .. rite*- «if*«l#^/i^St ««i* SKS^'Jft «IS®J' <*■■«»* imM-^:i^iSX^^ tm
SatfiJk^ <M^ 3e© $«^ ^lS»J3^ji^ «K.ife»<*i^ ^S^^^ai?* a =5«ft ^IS^^^ ©«« ^fia«E:ss«'r-i - -
is^mssi^^^, »»i$i,%-n »tiS ^l^r M ^£€^#si:^^ im. «»»* «c«<^ 3$^i<^;$'3^-£it^
.^ .^miS$ :s^H^t^ «*m#Mfi«t^ .^.ib-5$£i^ #1^ mt *m-» mfism »'t\u
«^S ii$i«i^«d «ds <£$»$ smam fd4 0e'S»'ttm »a idol's: aci4 btA sd J ■■ n^ .t^^---
tki^f&t ■*- ^'■~'^% -ii^ii^-'- •v«it-;v#i'i
payaaat l«f t oaly ^900 due on tha contrAOt it is ImmaterAal (iHit
pl*labif f did a^t andor** * jMiyBmb af ;i^2l J on the back of tha
aaia* The aote epaaka far itsaXf » and tfefcadaat vae cntitlad ta
tha or»dlt tbareon whioh plaintiff gava at thfi triail to the extent
of $2100. a think defendnaia did net au^tala the gretmd tm ahiok
the judgsant vaa opened* and that the eaurt erred in vaoAtisg the
8s«e» and* therefore* its arder yaantiag Xiu^t JttdgsHmt and entering
a Judgnant in helmlf of defendant far easts ehottld he reversed and
that a JttdgaeBt ahoold ba aatereu hare for the h&Iaaee diw on tha
note* ttaately* |9O0» tofi^thar aith interest t^reim at the rste of 6
par eent frwt ita date* suoovaitteg to $1099. 50*
ASS- jmrnrnwr ami: vm APPKiiAsr,
Oridleyt ^* J«» and ^eanlant J.» ooaenr*
it
«^jrg»ae» «*X «8ai>i;iKfi»<- ^e. ^^t^XSri^o
•f*-^ **
333X7
'^« fiaa that the note in quest loa «^.fi sItcb la p«rt
pajnMBt for jsasoa 'Sioxk don« by plaintiff for ftpi>ellee InTid
A* Kacttf aad ttet there is t. bal/Jiec due t>ier«on of $1099.50*
fi.'U&
*'^¥^m»m %.^''<-
scbwail: p|pkr coHPAnr» j
"'**^.
^ •• CeMftal Paper Co«»
X APP«I1««
»• JUSTICE BikEBTi^S liKLIVSBKi) TVS 0?ISIOS 0? /rH^ UOO^T.
Thla is an aotloa In aasungpslt brought agalaat d«f«Ml-
•at trading as Central Paj^r Ca^faay to racorer pay»»nt for
#3t000 Korth of awrchandiee sold during the pariod frov Harob 1
vtatil Jana» 1927. In addition to tha pleaa of ganoral lasue
apaalal pla&s were filed to the effeot th^t the ladebte^aesB »isL
fox w&a incurred net ^ defaadejit doin^ bttalaaai? taider aal4 name
bat hj a cerpor'4tlon of that aaisa* Tli&t being %hsi ra»l iastta
on «Moh the eaae vaa tried it is not neoeaa&ry to oonsitier anar
ather queatlon*
Tvo witneesea vera e&lled by plaintiff t I>Baelay» its
•eoretary and general aanager* and one Hayiaend* its oooWceeper -
the lfttt*r to identify Btateoenta of accoimt on defendant* a
atationery thf^t aeoamp&nled payiaente by his eheck during tha
tiaa of their deali^;a* i«fendRBt Qasley aae hia only «ltn«a&»
Daaehy testified that in ite.roht 1924, *feen he first »et
daalay the latter wanted to go into the ^per buaineof; and to know
If plaintiff woald eall sierchandifia on open account. Teraw were
di&eusaad and i^anelv sug*^e»tcd that for oosnercial parpeaaa defendast
ataould ttse a ausre deecriptire nana. He said they agreed upon
tha aaow * Central Paper ^o»* and defendant thereafter did buainese
9 .iil ^r
^
rf:m^ m^ ^m «&ia5£^ sae^ awimtsm mwi'
•l«JS%SJt ^»«li?^ SifSSfVS^ #t«I^^SBS«ii n- £40*iSG-^^ S^' «<
sK8»«i i.a«im«^ t# »^it «^^ «^ affii#-Sii^ «i .tSJX ,sagffc JUie^
.i^i»^*t*^ iWl^-0?l^ |^*»Sfe»: •• s>i?#»»js -^i; -•:.•.;.■.> . :;a«&jiiaaiJj
-8«
In ihRt BsiMf th&t In th« lAiter part of 1025 defeadaat s«i4 iM
thought ho iivottld iBoorporato ami get numey Into th« baBlnoosi |hat
Z>«B«))j had scToral ooBTerantlena «lth him lator as to wfaethor "^ho
had ineorporated" and waa inforaed by Qazloy th&t ha had not* Hmt
vould Infora Danolgr as ooob as ho had* Thsrottpont plaintiff took
tho prsoaution to vrito to the soorot&ry of state Jajmary 13 # 1926»
to aseertain whether an applleation hAd bees ia»<ie for the inoorpora-
tioa of the eotral Paper CaaipaBy» and recciTed a reply to the
effect that there had not* He showed the letter to defeadaat «bo
agaia assared hla that ho voiald ixtfom l^aaelqr vhonerer he inoerporated*
Thereafter plaintiff hy vay of preoaatioa billed its goods to
defendant &e "^Certral Pap«r ^o* (Sot Ino*)»* ineludta^ the a»erehandiao
ened for. The words "Sot Xnoorporated*^ sere on eneh bill. Daaehy
testified he never had any notice th-^ t a charter of incorporr.tioa
ass taken oat taatil he received notice of st»h a defence to this
claim* and thnt he had no coareTar tiefo. subaequently with Qaslcy about It*
Oasley adadttB^a doiag b«ieine«« under th@ nana ^Central Paper
Co." until it was incorporated in Jam^ry* 1926* He elaiasedt but
I>aBe^ denied » that the incorpmr^tioct papet-a ^rere taken out on the
sogeBotiea of Doaelgr. He adaitted th^t he receiTOd bills froi^ plaiB«
tiff ;udidreBaed to his cttosMuoy as not inoorpor&tsd • ilm claiaed that
in ]S&reh» 19^6 » 1/anehy cimplained of hie inserpor rating the compaxQr
and taking fro» plaintiff its eaployea* ax»i u.% that CisM borrowed
|2»000 to settle up his account with plaiiri;,iff • I^anet^ denied haviiig
any eueh 60BT«rs^.tieB and teetified th««.t t^ $2»000 waa paid in October«
1926. aaxley adadtted using stationery and bills designstting his
caspany as "Cestral Paper .o. (Sot Ine.)*** and identified statements
of .locount OB his billheads so reading whleh he ht^ traa&Mitt&ti to
plalatiff with Qlieeka for the aee«tmt. tie said he Bade the ohanga
tJ^^jjsC ' *t^^if«»*'«Sif ««*w ^sti^t^*^ is^ -:**t»^ 'tot as*(s
^H^m i»^i^»3 ^asjt^ •t1ll:«i»i«£l ^^i« js^i8»«rfid£ siM ^ '' ' '*'? -^^ Oi^«&£
•3*
ICKTlBg «ut tlM) wordc *Vet In«*" 1a June, X9Z6, but l(tentlfl«d
stat«B«iita of account in his vwn hMitiT^ritlngt sent to plaintiff
on the uQChanced font as late as Jssuary 7» 1927 • He was unablo
to produce his eheoks* cl&ising he had plao^Hl thttai In a varebouae
in fT-eptetfjer, 1927» that was bume<t in February » 1926* The svlt
vas becrcn Ancast 12 • 1927« yet he did not thsresfter lock for
the ahocko %i>d oevor took them to his l»«yer. It did not appear
thi^t h« OTer sent eitker oheeks or statesMmts to plaintiff not
cont;s.inin$ the words "^Sot Ino*** AOknoirlcdging a letter from plain-
tiff as late as July 14, 1927* Galley tteod lott«r paper <3e8isnailaff
the company as not inoorpor».t»4» In rebuttal Iniielqr again testified
that Gaxley never inferme^; hlsi that h« had his eoaspany inoerporated
and defendant* 6 eheoks were si«?M4 ''Centrnl Paper Co«," with his
own nawi underneath*
*6 think the contention «aae th&t the Terdlct of the Jury
was sKinifeetly against th* weight of the eTldeneo la ,x#ll taken,
and that the Judgraint should bo reversed on fch t ground and a new
tri»l had*
CoNfplaint is BMhdo of the refusal ^ an instrootion sub-
Kitted by plaintiff ae to the burden of proof* syod an Intstruction
giren at defendant's re<ittest fr,» to the preponderooice of the evl-
dence* '^e de«» it unnecessary to dlaous.:; thea as the quostioas
they pre Sfsat are not likely to arise a£ala»
K^TgRSED AID m&t>m^i>*
Gridley* P* J»» nad Seaalan* 3», conouTe
S3i^;:'-.; ^.M- .^-^K ad -^^
33022
-^OCI RAPIDS CBKaKSSEWcOIIjS^IT,'^"''"'"
* S^'JKS' ' t Ion , Jj^jr^he umiTlit
TfflL iJbV TOi-.K c;,(jrfiiAi RAILROAD
\j^ PlalntlTf ijEi iirrwr. '"V J
\
». JUSTICE SCaBLAF i3(El.IVKRi.r^ THE aPI2fia» OF TBK COUKT*
8'
Al«x Oatjs o^iHlacd « ^uoggicat la the I'lizticlpal n^urt of
Chiosco agalaet i ock h&pltiB Creasezj C«»ipaQy, a corporation* t9T
II 9200 , and, haTiag hud oxecutioa iBimed thereon and retumcci un-
»*tlafled, sued out a srit of girnlslment and cattsoti the He^ York
CoBtral Railroad Coapany, a coruors^tiou, to be stinB^ae^ s ganilskoa.
Interrogatories vore propowdeO to tlie aald garnishee and It anovored
that It waa not iadebted to the said Creaaery Coatpafiyt that It had no
■oaoya, ehoaea In aetlon, orodlte, or effects owB«d by the CreasKJrj
Compsayi th*it it had no laada, etc., of the CroioBcry Coapeny, and that
it had no property, goo^e, etc., of «aar kind belonging to it. Thao
Samishee further answered that the treaaery coa^^my hat filed two
elalw with the recelvera of the Chleae«t UUiraokee & i;t. Paul iiallway
Coapaay for dajBagcs alleged to have boea sustained on t«o ohlpK^sBte
of llTe poultry conslisaed fr« ooasoeket. louth iakota, to Kc« York
City Tie the lineo of the Chlease, Mllwaokoe ^ -t. Paul hfellwaj Oompaayi
that the Chioago, kU^ctukee k bt. Paul Railway Uoapaay was the initial
oarrler and that the oaid ff&mlshee delivered both shlicients to their
ultlMte eonalfiiioesf that a^ld olaiaa are for dsaagea that cannot he
Moertnlned by coKputntlon; that said elalms are unlic»uldatod and are.
therefore, claims or choooa In action whloh are not subject to attach-
'^r^'v"
"-'--^
'W- irii/Oi^
-2-
neat «r g&raiBtwtat proeeeifUmsf il«it the said senUshec is nm%
llsble to thfS Creaa«r7 CovpsBy and th&t «lbit«T«r clalai sal4 Cvq^nj
s«7 hare is sRalBst tte Cliiengo* ltil«a«kse & t,» 'aul THii«ay Ccn&paqyt
th&t tlM Ursnawry Csospaay has not f lX«d any «1<i1b8 with thfi gxmishss;
*vl»refore« ths garBlslMs praya tkmt s&id samlstanoat proocc<iiiigs
ag&iaat It ■amj b« disaissod*'^ Ths bsneficial plalntijri filed no
replic ition to tlM aa«»«r «f tins t&minhAe, althei^h th« ease was
apparently tried ne thoush » fomaX isoue hao beoa raised* Ho
briefs haTC b«fn filed by the boaef iclal plaiatiif in this court*
Ob the henrlag tlw beaeflcial plaintiff eallec as his
sole witness his traffic aaaagert George ;• vajtean* This ^Itnoes
test if led thEtt he le&ra«d frMi "ear aea* or '*es.r takers'* that the
care oontainlBg the poialtry were in aa ftccideat while la the pe&aosslMi
of the garalsheet tik&% he learned froK officers of the sc^r&lshee
that clalas for daancca had beea filed by the Cr&a»&xj Co^aay wi^
the Chlcatgot ^ilwauicoe k St. Paul Hailv&y Coe^aayi tht^t one claia
r^as for "^500 to i502» and the other olaia 1^203 •X4f" th&t he had
exaj&ined a letter froBi thi^ g&ralshee to the freight c1«i1k. a^ent of
the Chicago f l^ilvaukoe .' L<t« Pattl iiailw&y Coiapaay tmdsr d&ts of
VebniAry 27* 1926* This lctt.er was introauo^^d in eridenoe by the
Denefioial plaiatli ft orer the objection of tho garaishee. It is
signed In typewriting* '*JofaB >Z, Lorellf *'^»s%» Freight viaiat goat*"
of The £e« York Central KaiXroad Ocmpsjoy^ ace it is addrssseci to
the freight olaist ageat of the ChiC£i.go» Kllwaukee &^ i^t. Paul Kailmiy
CcHp&ay* rh« letter stsntes that the tivo ears eonts-lalag t e poultry
in queetioa receired a serere Jolt aear uris ^ey* Ohio; that a suddea
stop was asdo at Hollaadt Ohio| that aaoth«r 8Udae« stop was autci: at
£«si Buffalo* and that as a resttlt soae tfaaage was dcme to the poultry!
that the clalas filed by tht Chia^go* Milwaukee Jb ^%» ?&al Hailwtgr
is9«»rT'h«t'* Hi "ft .^a» «ipy8<Gpei^ IMIitfias^ l^"«*ati0 iiesT weS acTT to
-3-
Coai>aa7 agHiaet tlM garaistuM growing out of the Atuangen to the
pooltrj "appear oxo«»aalTe« heooo eric atly should 1>« rodaood."
Vaaean fuither t«&tlfi*d that h« t&ilcec «ith the diatriot elala
cgmt and the ge&eral agoat of the garBisheo ftbeut tho said claiasi
that oao of them 8»id h* van "golag right to th« ^t* Paul and toll
thoa that the llabilltj was with tho Vev York Central* and thst thoy
admitted the liability} * * * that they dia not ^^dmit liahllity in
any aaonnti * * * bh&t they did net proMise to jp^r anything o« tho
claims t that asither of the tuo offieialo prosioed to pay anything
on the olaiBo • • * the Sew YorJc Central eoiildn*t o«e the Creamery
CoiqMUiyi the 3t« Paul is tho eettllng carrier t and the S^e« York Central
couldn't pay*** The gnrnishee ohjsete<t to pr^etie^ly all of tho
teetimonj ol aaerni given on the direct* and hei-c strenoouely omk"
tends that its aotioa to strike fros the record hie tee tiston^' ehonld
hare been sustained by tho trial oourt* ^.t the conelaeion of aeoaa**
tescimony tho garni ahee moved the oourt to (iif>eh?vrge it as g».mieheo
upon the grotmdot *!• The 5e« York Central Xtailrosd CogQpaEQr was
not the initial car r lor | 'iSasti. no olaim had been filed by the i^ook
Kapide Creaaery Company against the Hew York Central ra^^llroad Omsgimy
but had boon filed with th^recelTors of the Chieago* Mil^avOcoe i< ^*
Paul Eailwiy Com]»ny» the initial oarrier. 3* the olaim of tho
Kook Vapido Creamery vOBiwny trais for unllquidsi^ted damages and vao
therefore not subject (o garnismoent*'* rjie eourt overrnled this
Kiction end fotmd ttmA. the gamlohee «as ia^^isbtec to t)x% Hook Hapide
Creamery Con^mny in the sum of i 651*92 and entered Judj^aent in foTor
of the Keck B-^plds Creamery coBipany» for the use of lex Get2» agftiast
the garnishee for that amovnt* The gHmishoet the ¥eis York Central
Kailroad Com^asy* proeeeatoa this «^rit of error*
rhe gtomitihee raises a masber of cententioaa In this court*
=(!««# .^^«l|t -I«ie- ^i&3^l««S H^^ ws^ sali a^nm «f», ^-lil-Xs^Ji «^. #;fi«CJr «mU
stsasr ^^m^ss&'^ kM«niXjB0 Mt^^e^ j^s«if ^stsc ^je^ •.4« » i^^«^G>i^ o«j 0q^«
'^^ss^seiU &»saXiE*ii M'xiisii^ aHfc&'f i8«s «si^ ^»*isi!^ ^gtes^Meiii %^<»itt.'5i(3 s.^i^aS
«IC ^ %^ii^4iiSl|i1^ ««@i^ft&d^ t«i£ '^ ^^»^«Si» -T^^t Mi^tf ^4^t fis^" ked $iei0
but It is Bee«8sary to xtat^r to unly on** Tlic garnishee eoatonds
thttt ** plaintiff '■ eTidvnoe* coai^trttod Msst fairerably to it* only
edtabll&h«4 that th« Jud0iMnt (i<!fbtor had an anlis.uidu.te(i olaiisi
aeuiast th« caraiohtte - liitoh epaoles of clr^ia eeumet bo reaoheU by
C&miabBetti." This oontontion is clourljr a Kerltarioue one ■>
Unliitttidatod (teur^geo are not liable to g^^ralahaont. Thej %re not
a debt «fithia the aeRning of the at&tute relating to garaislneBt*
(Capof V. Bttrgoas « 155 111* dl«} If it iNire neceseiary* other
eaaec to tn« s^me effect iRight be cited*
The eoart erred in oTcrroling the notion of the garnishee
to be disohargeo ea e^x&ishec» and the Judgnent of th<f Xn&ieipal
Court of Chicago ia r<sT«rstta*
Gridle^t P* J«* and S>>mesf J«> ooneiffe
^ -,;<(J«rtU*»*W- /V-^' -•
COO [ CvJUSI
le. jur^ncai; scailas c^rLiriatKB the opikior of tr-^: cocrt.
In tlM .'S«9«rlor Court of Cook County* Joseph tiondek*
plalnulift sued John Gtuurz* defondnnt* in an &oti(Mi of troapasto
on the ease for n&Iicleue proBecutl<m* There was a trial beforo
tho court ultli a Jury and a Tertilet re tamed, finding tte (i@fendlant
guilty and asaeselttfi th« plaintiff's dnai^ee et tl»3S0* Judgment
waa entered on the Terdiet and thla appeal followed*
The defendant first contends that the eYidonee shews
that the defendant had probable o&UHti to hellOTe Uiat the plaintiff
had ocraiftittec the offense of l!>treeny as bailee* and therefore tha
4ud0Bsnt should be rerersed* Tha plaintiff has been employed by
the Cuaaeo Corporation for aany years* He owns his home, where ha
llTOs with his wife and two children* The defendant* w&s engaged
in the busiaeoe of selling new and need autonobiles ui^er the di
of tj, k C. Motor oales Coapany* Me v-.e ^ell Ae«iu<!.inted «lth tha
knew that he
plaintiff and^^e the owner of real estate* On Hay 2?» 19S«» the
plaintiff pnrohaaad frssi the defendant ^ Gardner rofidster at a
price of |2*3(>0» and as part pa^nsttnt for the e^wr the plaintiff
gKf a note and chattel oort^^ase to the andley 7inanoe Coi^aiqr
for ^1*380* On Febru.'^ry 15* 1927* the plaintiff and the defendant
entered into a vritten OMtraet whereby the defendant proposed to
r\
?r"
■%mk^^4J^
'*" »SW!til'^cf-'
c dS-v.
»l<^*rtfc» s*41 .^f 4!iJ»"^i
t^^'kak^i^ di^ 9a£iae£t ^S9nu$.u>i: ttifm^ % i^im liMlr A lt»l%- ;fiiee« «mS4
'fii^xiAm tat^ 9m» ^i n^t smmfi^ JNa^^ai- tea «oa$«^t to ^t^tt^
«f l9^9^i;«;^$li«i^^ ■ : ., i^xim^Hf^ *©i»-54is9» r»;J^*-i*r s ^s&k ^a?«*«R
-2-
fiirnlnh the pl«lntiff one 3artecr •«4aa at a price 9t |2,44&( oa
which aJBouat there •.is to be oreditcdi an &llo«ra»e« of 4^1 •000 for
tho Qftrdser roadster* Th« lMauBeo« sil»44S« ^^ft to bcooaio <in« %hoa
tho Oarcaer sc<i&a was d&llverod to tho plaintiff* The c^efrndaat
aloo agreed to paj tho balonee thea due oa the luortgiMfe on tho
Qardaor ro«fd«tor» tSOO* The propoaAl v%e aeceptod hy the plalatiff*
Oa the rereree aide of tho paper that o<»tRitia tho pro, oo&l and
accepttiaco ia a "Bill of :>&lv ," aigned by tho ,>Ialatiff « whieh
•oto forth that tho plaintiff la tho o«ner of the (Gardner roadetor
and aloo cootsina these proTlsleeai
"I «ill celiTer the c bove car to you at tine of
delivery of new car on 192 and will accept
aeeordlng to cone itiong of the coatraot T have sigaed*
aad to whioh this dill of iisXe is a&Ce e. p^irt thereof*
• • •
"I hereby transfer » i^ell* e€t OT@r and assigs all
■gr right » title* claist «md interest in and to the uut«»aobile
ahoTO doserihod to B« & f:. Kotor '^les Coapan/y their heirs »
adainistrators or a s^iigss for^rer* in consi(!er- ti<m of
S* Je S» Motor i>kles Cmpany allowing ae a eretiit of 4
as specified hereia on ths* ccwtr.tct (to iwhich this Bill of
Halo is a part thereof) for a new oar as sppcifieii in
aaid contract**
Tho eontr»ct and bill of anle were dr&vn tm. a printed fons furnishoA
by the defendant* and were signed in the office of the aefend^uot &.t
the eaae tiise. Prior to the above traner%ctiQa» the defend^^^t had
had la his poseesgioa the Gardaer roadster for the sole purpose of
selling it for the plaintiff* Cn Febro^ry 22, 1927* the defendant
laferaed tho plaiatiff th^t he had sold the Gardaer ro&ceter and
had reaeired ia part payment a Biokeabaoker ear* The dcfead&at
testified that ho alsa rodeiTOd $450 ia cash oa the trade* The
plaiatiff tOKtifiec that the defencaat told hia thr^t he recelred
$800 ia eash on the trade, and it woald appear* froa a paper sigeed
by the defOBdaat* thnt k* aotunlly receiTSd th»xt sstount in OR-sh*
Tho plaiatiff further testified thnt the defeadr.nt showed hia the
WIS "'^^4^$ %# 1N»#«f^« iB'-ig»^ ■^^MSan^ »i^ tliisit&l^ ■ rsjst
'mit m^ttM ifes m^nmiM ms MMMmt- ^m 0$ »Bar ^t&di s^:^oms ii^idv
,->.';.->"5^ li^isar*. ffijBJt* «»ft«s«i^ e^ aig! 4r«i»
-3.
Iviekeabncker •Mr «Bd said t« hiat "I vUl liare th» woLChiam olmmamA
«p and polished up« aad if you like it take it «at and try it* and
I will giTe 70U a clear bill of sale fear $1»000 an the Kickei^acker •
aad eTerythiBs will b« settle<l upi" tlt'.t the next dajr the defendsBt
care hi» tke ear and told his te ricte areiaid aaA see if he liked it|
that about t«re aad a half hours later he drere back to the cUfead-
•■t*8 gAra^e but there was ao <me there but the ai^t « .tcl«a»i that
the aext dAj he neat to the defeadaat's gara^ "to get a receipt oa
thut Blokeabacker so that ererythiac should he eleared up* aad Mr*
Stars refused to give a receipt on the Bi«k@i^Mokert aad & clear bill
of sale* aad refused te place the 4^1» iXi on the Sardaer sodHj}}" that
eeae days later the cefisndmnt, t.% hie plnce of busineesf told the
plaiatiff thrtt if he did not brisg the iilckeabaoker car buck he would
faare hla arrestee* to which the plaiatiff respoaded that tht^ defendaa^
"should either gj^ve & clear bill of iKile <m it &s he prusd.i$ed or plaoe
tl»000 cenm va the Gardaer sedan or g^ixe ue agr j^pere b^ck for the
roadster* vhieh he refused to do*" the plaiatiff ftxrther teiitified
that he never received froB the dofeadaat any thing of value for the
Oardaer roadster or the a&r^er sed«ai "outside of this Hickexri»&cker
ear*" The defeiwl&Bt testified that he told the pls^iatifx to try
the Riekenbaeker t^r aad if he liked it tlM» defendaat would give; hin
a bill tit s^ile for the nsae* parorlded the plaintiff gave hija a ^a^ttttO.
aortgage on tlu! e^r for $790 » and that when the chattel isertgage vas
givea the defendant would pay the tdOO balanoe due on the ehg^ttel
mortgage oa the Gt&rdaer roadster* and tteit the plaintiff agreed te
this prepoeltioa and preaised that he wimld bring the ear hack adTter
he had tried it out* The defendaat adxaitted th&t he die not give the
plaintiff the Oardaer sedaa aad that **out8ide of the Kickeahaoker that
he has takea* tlM plaiatiff has never received ^nythiag t^eai the
«5-
J; tern n^^ tsi ^i^^ ^^ ^i tisi^^ ^'^ «t2^ iMtt: %t ir^ 4^1^- iN»^%i^X9i? &«» «»
'i
c
«a#4l^ «& s«^ISBe«s| «t segt *i fflSf «.t >^ TV • .. -y<. ^«j« -'vVf« feXwari*"
•^,-<" sip «il^ 'i9 ^*'?'^ • -i-
Jas-t- j# Sii Asii ^-«» »«>Cr: ."r?
JgS^ Sm ^ «SI£llJE««r &a£f H^ 1^ %k. ^-i:.
-4*
defcad&at for the Gardner roadster* The defenduat further teetifleA
that when he traded the Qardaer ro«dBt«r for the Kickenbaoker the
▼alae of the latter was placed at {1»000* la a paper si^aed by the
defeadsat he "allowed" to the i>lalatiff «l»aoo fer the OardBex
roadster. Oa Vehra&ry 26* 1927* la the ^^imieipul c art of Chicago,
the defeadsat •weore to a coaplAlat ch-rglag the plaiatiff with
leroeay as bailee of the Blckeahacker e<%r. Upon thla eeaBpl«tlnt a
varraat wae iseucd aad the plaiatiff vae arreeted at 9x30 a* n« at
hie place of 6^ple7»eBt» and he «^s held in confineaent la the
station house latil lli.'K) a« a« the follovriag day. Upon a heariac
ho eaa fouad not guilty aad diecharsed, and no further proceec lags
tottchia^ the alleged lareevy vere t&.kea ag&iaat hia* The pl&labiff
paid o^meelt for representing hla la the Municipal Court* ^2 SO*
Tho Jury beliOTed the theory of fact of the plaintiff » aad we are
antisfled that they vere justified la so aoix^. ^e eertalaly Ciximet
aaj froai the record tbvt their fimiiag was agfiiast the sanifest
weight of the eridenee. Probable e&ase ''ie a bi^lief held in s^ed
faith by the preeecutor in the guilt of the aeeueee t based upoa eir-
etaustanoes euffieieatly strong to iadaoe the belief in the ssiad of
a ro'sonably oauti^is person th»t the defendaat in the prosecutloa
was guilty of the p&rtioular offasee chprg^." (Gleaa v. LaiCTeaoo*
280 111. 6%1, 517.) 'Jnder the plaintiff* a theory of fnct the
defendr.at h^d not probable RLUse to bellere th&t the plaintiff had
ecoaiitteo the ofrense of lareeay as bailee*
The defeadf^t next oonteads that the pl^.latif : did not
prove that the defend^jBt wsls actuated by mlice. It is a euffiolent
aaswer to this contention to b^ that if the ariaiwa proaecutlMi is
shovn to be without reasoaable or probable oauoe the Jury «ay lirfer
aalice. (Rrug ▼> ard, 77 111. 603| Thowpooa ▼* Force. 66 111. 370t
xi;«a's««5 asSt'Tiit ■^^♦1# It^i^iitMq 'iii^^-it ^%»»«ii«'^ syt ^asSasatftfe
^ i^MM-^^^^ ^Mt sm^ .-sus^ iii^;».js;^s»^'»ii ^^' i@ 9o£te^ it» igm9t.»l
■m^mmi^ ^W^'-' •%t^'''0Si^»tX^ a^XX £I4£H} s>is&ml S9t2»#€
-«»tld «9i^ !tm&4 t'^^&miii- • t•«a9ss^-
R«y T. ^0J£aJL» ^^ ^^^» ^*l I>aAly t« XX«atk» loo Ill« App, »S«)
HereoreTf thare la vTldone* tending to shov that tte defttjwiuit «»■
«alB£ tbe criminal laws for tmjuat and oppreeslTs usee for hlo
private gala and advaatago* >>• refer to this evldeaea In paaelng
vpm the noxt contention*
Tlie defendt^nt next contemin th.<>t he consulteo a oonpetont
leiCBl eeimeel In good fi<h to nee^rtaln iih^^t courne to purene In
referenee to th« i^ets doso ^j plaintiff* aad thskl auoh cooneel adTlaed
hla that there vns probable Cc^uee for s criminal proeecntlim and that
he aoted upon such adrlce* and thr-t euch adrlee constitutes a coKpleto
defense to the plaintiff's suit* Before a defe^ant cau shield him-
self hy the adTlee of oouneel* It Buet appear frect the ^Tldenee that
he Bwde In good faith a fuXlt f&lr and himost stnteaent of all the
Baterlel eireunstances l>«»?'rlag upon the supposed guilt of the plain-
tiff* «hieh were vithin the knoeledge of the defendant* or vhlch thu
defendaat eoold* \tj the exeroise of ordlnrvrj sate* have oht«ln«^» to
• respee table attorney in good nt<\ndiag» and that the defendant in
good faith acted upon %h» advloe of »«ld attorney la instituting and
oanryittg on the prosecuticm ttgalnst the plaintiff* (Ho/ v> Gotngg,*
supra. 663-4 1 ?roend{e v» Uhbsm^, 215 111. App. »6, 89-90.) la the
present c ee it Is appereat fr«a the testiaony of the attorney who
was consulted by the defendant * over the telephose* thnt the defend-
ant dlH not sake to his a full* fair and honost stateaent of all the
sskterial elreusetanoes be ring upra the supposed guilt of the plain-
tiff* vhish ifore within the knowledge of the def©Bd?)nt« i^reover*
the defendant adnltted th»t prior to the eoRaRencen^nt of the original
proceedings » by axiviee of the ssa» attorney* he told the plaintiff
that if he did not oobm in and »lgn the sortgage or bring the ear
baek* he would have hia arrested* It ie not disputed in the evideneo
that Just prior to the cenBa&noeaent of the hearing la the Municipal
Sfi^ #8i«i«s,-jlf'3e «?l^ ijsdv5 ws^ "^^ : ^«sl| -^if^irfe ■
|»te SP^e^^^^^tSi .Itl^ «!^igM»|>^ M^^. 'm- »#i|ir:tji«.«i^ 49%^ fe»JS,@ Ji'ljt«tt JW«|i
«i||^ .Jl|ii;^:.;^$9fi^^:j^ .^Nn^^ Ji|li: '^t^ ^llslt .^ 4^ «J nnim - Sa^
Cvurt tbe •»«€ attornej appr«fcch«d tk* plaintiff aad stftted t«
hi» that tli«y »aiit«d the •ar nad tfant the plslntiff ebeuld fjlTe
it to tiMs. *If tha erlslaifcl protieoubioii n«Rlast appellee vae
laatitutad for the mmr« purpose of eoeroisff hia late payment of a
debt* or the eanrender of eaee right olnlaed* and aet la the laterest
of public juetlecf or to vtnciloaiie the lam and pualsh CTimi$ ead
wns faleely aade* the fact th:^t he proeared the ^^dvlce of counsel
will not shield hia trtm the cosftequeaoee of hie ^^englul £vct» done*
aot la foo^ faith upoa euch udrlee, but vfith the Biniet&r notiire of
perseaal gala* * * » if couaael is oou^t simply for pvoteotloa
agalBi^ t ladul-'ing his aaliee* or to «ml>le hixa to use the oriiaiaal
lava for uajaet ami oppr€B?iire uae^ for hie private gals aad adTaa>
t«co> it will afford so ('efraee to the p&rty e»uslas the urreet*
*but vill he rather aa eleneat of iaereasod dana^es.* Besg ▼* Iiinlft«
26 111. 259." (Beufelfd v. Rodeatnahi. 144 111. 83» 83-9.)
The defeadfxat has had a fair aM& iap^^rtlal trial* and
the JudgaeBt of the >iaperior vourt of Cook ouaty should be and it
ie affirmed.
AFfIB3IEi>.
Gri6ley» ^» J.* and B raea* J.» ctmour*
4i .. _.■,■,.,._ .,:i:
01.'., /
^ »"■ — ■"'
Plaint 15/ In iir?»r^^^
KCVZCIPAL
OF CfiLC/^O.
■■■^ 5
7
Z-
John ^aeh» plaiaiiff 1b error t vais «li»r8tt4» la «b
laforB»ttion fllatf ia the MuBiolpal Court of CI^w^^q, Jbb* 21»
192af vilth hftTiag la hie j>e«9*)isioa !««£» wieked* ee«Adalotts
•^•••a* pictures* He pleaded guilty to the charge aad th«B
an application for pre\>ri.tiaQ» vhich was allowed* 9caA he was
plae«4 OB probati<m for six moaths aad the oaase was e^ntiaaed
to Juau^iry 10, 1929* Oa 'epteaber 10, 1920, a prol>&tion officer
aade a writt«« report to the court is which he stated thr>t the
plaintiff in error h&d riolated hie prohatioa in tmiU he h&a left
the state without perniseiea and continued to circulate obsceao
llteratare, aad the off ioer asked that the prob»>tion be revoked
and a wioraat iseue for the arrest of the plaiatiff la error.
Tfaereopea an order vas entered tteit a wt&rr&at issue, aad the
plalatiff la error aas rearrested* On .'iepteii^er 1^» 19^d» th*
eaase Or<iB6 os for he&riajs aad the c urt fouad that the plalatiff
la 9TT%T had Tiolated his probation by leavlag the tate of lUinoie
without peraisBioa of the oourt* Ceaapel for the plalatiff la
error thereupon aered for a nee trial, irhlch nas dealed, aad thea
aoTed for aa arrest of Jad^Mat, ahi^ e«s doaied, and the plaiatiff
la error «&e thoa acatoaoed to tlM House of CoxY«etion for » p'>riod
of sixty days aad to pay a fiae ia the &\m of #25 • *hls vrlt of
('
JL
\^'-'
^it#l"ii/|it^i*t*5«
tlli«i#£%. 4NM ^^eiNF £in£f(»l #^^:.-9 $«id D^^ ^^r.i^ x&l m eoi^d »^t4»
«X7«r foll0«r«4* Bothlae but the eoMnoa lava roeord is Ismfmrm «••
Th9 plftintlff la error uontead* that th« iKforsatlaR
charged t)i«t the alloged not Wia cora^itted tm an Ispeaalble date.
The ?fteple» hj lo^rv ef court > hare filed an adcitienal traaecrlpt
•f the r«eord( and frms this it e^pears that the infoivation oh»rged
the offense to huTe heca cwwiltted *on the 20th day of June* a* Dm
1928«" and there is therefore no aerlt in the insteat contention*
The pleintiff in error next c^ tends that the infornptlon
was so dttfectiTo &e to be rold^ 7he inforK:il(m cmurges th>%t the
defendant, on June 20, 1923 » la chieagro, Illinois f "did then aad
there unlawfully « wickedly* ssLlicioasly and seandaJLoasly h&ye in
his possession a oertain lennl* viielcad* so»«ndalouB and obreene gletayf
to the aaaifest corruption of public aorals* in coatss^t of the
i^eople and the law* to the eril exaaple of &11 persons*" in vlol^-tiMi
of the stRtuts* etc* Plaintiff la error coatMids that the only
pietttre aieaticnied in th« statute is a ** stereoscopic picture »" saaA
thmt the inforaation is fatally defective because it fails to all«sa
that the picture that the plaintiff in error is charged with hsiiriag
in his poesesaien was & stereoscopic picture* Paragr&pli 45&» seetioa
223, of the rrlaiiu»l Code (Cahill's 111. Her. St. (192?), p. 923)
proTidos a penalty for "Whoerer * * * have la his p^sseesioe* wltfc
or without intent to sell or give away* aay ehseeae anc^ inu&o&at £>ook*
paaqihlet* paper* drawing* lithograph, engraring* daguerrootype*
pjiotoicraph* stereoscopic picture * » * or artiole of iadtsceat or
iBBorel use* * • • shall he confiaed ia the couaty jail*' eto» The
c^oatary dicti(mt>ry dcfiaes "photograph" as "a pictare produced by
say process of photography*" "Picture* is the word ooB^oaly used
f^ 'photograph*" Paragraph 740* section 6, of the Criaiaal Cods
proTides thftt an iacictsient shall he deesMd safiicieatly technioal
and oorreet which states the off ease ia the texas and laagaage of
tho statutes oreatiag the offense* or so plalaly th^t the aaturo
|j@s (ss^-.'^^'*' ^mmMS ^M^-^m-hm., ^.;*JP#4 «-.S ^e.^ - . --^.erhn^t^St
-,|g[Q^ SS(S#»i^tl^'-?iali3«>v«iE»9NM^ ^^^ iX^'«Jt' :i£sOh£SL4 ^;a(i«|^iN ITS
of the offeaa* aajr ^e •aslly und< rsteod by the joryt aa* aa tiM
easie rul« ap^ll«» to an InfotBittloa it vauld ••&« el*ar tta&t tte
inforwttioB la question siated the off ease eo plalaly thct It ooulA
eaeily be uader stood by the plalatlff in error and by tte court*
Tlte reoord ahowe that the plaintiff In error at tho tlaw ha pleaded
guilty and at the tlae of the hearing of the applie<7tloa to hare tha
probntloB revoked t vae repreaeatod by eooasel. There was no aotloa
to qaash and ao aotloa for a bill af partloulars* there Is ao aerlt
la the lastaat ooateatloa*
The pl&latlff la error aoxt conteads that the eourt m.9
without Jurlsdletioa to rearrest hla m the petltloa filed 1^ tha
prob<%tlon officer* The petition rcoltes that the signer 9it tlw saaa
was a duly qualified probi^tl<m offioer» and it la signed ''Jesepll
Racerst Probation Officer* Per K* a* £«,* and the plaintiff in error
&rguas that a proh-'. tlos off leer eaasot delegate his officicd 'fovnx
to any person* and that therefore the preceeclnge hasea upon tho
applicitlen and t\m warrant were ttaatttherlzed by the statute and raid*
It la a sufficient answer to this contention to s&y th^.t para^&pih
316t section 6» of the Crlninal Cade provides th£^t '^at any tiate durii^
th£ period of probatlont the ooort angr* upon report by a probation
officer or other sj^tlitf ctory proof of the vlolAticn by the probationer
of any of the eonditlons of Itis probtitlea* reToJce anc ter»lsu&te the mm
and issue a warrant for tha arrest of the probationer*" ete* Hut order
of the court raeitea that *fr« the proofs subnitted in this cnusa that
there is probabla ottuse for belleTlag th>3t the dafeadaat herein haa
violated the eonditlons of the prob»tiea of said defendr.nt* it is
ordered x,hri% a warrant Issue*'' etc. The statute is in the disJimetiTo,
and it would appear la this ease that the court did not act alono
upon the applle .tion of the probation officer, but required proof
before iseuiag an order far the warrant. HoreaYer, the statnto da«s
•t-
M&l ii0ri^$ %»ft£9 «i»«9 lk£s»iF di mi$f&X9t»ii a^ 94 s^iM^r &lirx ^ss^m
ijbgft^^" psms^^ ^i ^i ^"^''^ '^-i'i'^-'^^ ^»u^fyiss% b»i%t£m* ..
99«f»l^ i[ji|9>£i;'^ «M »«<«i^e;»SF i^»mm ie«*4'^» «itJurj<4K . ..^>^%;^:
oot ••«» t* requlr* that th« r«p«rt af the pr<ri3ntleB «ffloor ¥•
elsaedf or erva that it be la ?frlting» There is no aerlt la thfi
yreoeat ooatenticn.
Tha plaintiff in error aext ooateado ^thnt the eoart ««•
vitheat paver or Juriadioticm ta H«nteti«e the dofend^^iat t« conf ine-
■eat ia the Haaeeef Carrectioa at hsirtf l&bor for 60 dtijm and fine Mm
la the euB of |3S nor pORy other sua** Para^aph 4SS» oectioa 2^5 •
of the CriaiaaJL Ce^e proriuea that a def«aidftat fouad guilty- ** shall bo
confined in the coontj Jail not sore tb»a six moatha or he fined net
lees thna OlO<'} nor aore th^^a $1*000 for e»eh effenoo*** Coaaeol for
The i^eople conoede that the ootitrtt under the statute, oeuld not iapoeo
both a fine &sA lBprl3c«R«it» hut they eoistettd tha.t ia t^ preeeat ease
there eheuld he *a ravereal aad reaaadaoat with lastraotloae to entev
the proper Jud^giaoat** Thia coateatioa of The i^^^ople is a Keriiorlouo
one* (Tee aXlaoe t. The ^eople, 159 111. 446, 464 1 ?M«L£?3PiS. ▼*
Beer* 262 111. 1S2, 157.)
The Judgaeoit of the Mtsnielpal Court of UhicAgo ie revctre«d9
aad the oau«ie ia reaanded with le&ve to the ;>tate*a ti^eraey of Cook
Coanty* oa hehalf of Tho People, to novo the court for the catry of a
proper Judg»eat of oeat^inee upon the plea of guilty, aad with dlrectiene
to the oourt to alloe ouoh aoti<m aad reseateaoo the defeitfaBt, Joha
w«toh (plalatiff ia error.)
J&^^HC:^ ASH i^&M^jmiX ilTS ilriECTlOMS.
Gridlej, P. J.* and BariMs* J.» coaoar*
'$<f 1£« :'«lll»IS«v
^T«9
d*©<i
^i^iS'X hsm 'MiiSt,:
^^mm^-^m^^ mm.
%i!i^^mm f't t»»ifii0&. Isrir
«4' 'v-"^-
CQUPAVt,
I. josTics sc.AiiAH muTSBKS vm oi>iirioH or tas aOURI#
8Hith^Ls«wM£i-c'o«B^s Ctmpftziyy ajpi>«llaBt, »«eka to rev&ts^
a jttdgmnt ftBt«r«d aipal&st it In th* i^perior Cohort of Cook J&uatj
f«r M»377»48 In a ^mlshsieBt pro««e4in^. S^roMtn Trust &. >&rliigs
foak» /^Uftialatrator of tho Hst^te of Loellle Karbgwelci* brought an
action for the wrongful death of i^uclllo .^rbowski n^inet Ibftrt
Valkiaa and aalph V&lklaka» iaclTlcitially and as oo-partnerof doing
business as a. Valkijm it Sobs* a»i o^taiaad a Ju^gisent for ^4»0CK)«
Tliore&ft«r» and prior to tlio Instituti^a of the garnlei^ssent prooo^d-
inss in QuostlMit tm exeoutioa was isnuod and retura<&<l no prop«rt7
found. On Kovei^er It 1927( gamiRlnent proceedisge vers instituted
by the filing of sa affltiaTlt* in vrbich it wte Rllegeti "that irquitab]
Casttalty Und«rvriiera» oy K-mltii* Lavaea* Coajs&s Company t attorneys
in f»et« are indebted to aalc iefen(iants* or have str&ets or oetata
of said i-sfenaants ia tbeir hands*" v>a the some date interrt^E&toriai
«or« filed against "equitable C&sttalty Underwriters by :4aith-la.waon-
Coan^s Co** attorneys in fact* I>«f eadanta . " on the saae date a vrit
of g'Lmisfaiiettt suMUMiB was isened --^hieh sioi&toned '^qwitahle Cs^enalty
Gndervriterst by -aith* Lawsen* Coasdbs Coffip^my* attorneys in faot»"
to answer* The rstam on th^^ i(taft»4Be reada^ *5srTed thie writ
I
^l&t
-• %:■ ;***»»■«',
:-i M #1 *»«t«»# ^"^>^«« ^-j-^s?****!.- a
... r^aisIXaV
OB tlM Hi this mmmO l4uiUbl« Cftstaalty UMdomritera of tlw «Uit
d«f«B<iftnt by dellTferine k copy th«re«f to J. B« Cobi^b* attornojr
in fact of the v^ld O^feudr.at this Sad d^ of Vorcabert 1927*
Ckarlos £• uraxdost Sheriff t by Thoaaa C* Bttlnuai» l>«puty*" CM
2^««Mbor 7» 1927 • the follow ing appearoBO* was oaierodi "Ve horbby
enter the api>«araaee i<4ul table c&3u;>.l&y Uadervritere by : alth*
Laweon-CoABbe Co*» attomeya in fact* aa defendaata eutid etar appear-
aB«e «8 attorneya for aald l>efeBdajit8 la the abare entitled aauae*
L«e Phelpa & Clelaad» attenMy for auralahoe I^efendunta*" OB the
aaMO data* *£qaliabla Caanalty Underwritera by >^Klth-L«iraoa-Uoai*a
Co.0 attomeya la fa«t» c&rBl^ee defendoatat" ia aasnor to the aald
interrogatoriea* deaiod that It had la Ita poaaeaatcA any »MBiaya«
riehta* oredtta or effecta dtt« to either Ibert V«JLklB» and Balph
ValklBBt liuSlYidw.lly or aa o««partaera» dolag bueiaeae &n a» Valkiita
it Sona* or that it waa la any «ay indebted to aald parties* and
denied that it had erer iaaaed an iaattraaoo policy to the defend&ats
in the origin&l suit. Oa May 12» 1928* an affiilerit n&u filed la
vhich it naa stated "that :^qaitablo Undervrritera by ^aith* LawaoUf
Ceaai»a Conpany» a oorpor&tlaat >ttomeya*lzi*fact» are Indebted to
aald Isfendantot o? h&Te effects or estate of said X^feadi^ta ia
their handst" and on notion the foUowiag order vas entered* **Le&T«
la hereby givea to sake ^<.kiuit&ble Underwriters p&ity def ead&at to
the gamiskyseat procc«dins herein and for prooeas to iasiM ai^iaat
said Bi^uitfeble Undervriters by - aith-Lawsoa-CMuriba w«.» a 0<»porati8B»
Baaager aad atty* ia fact** Qa the ssoMi date interrogatories were
filed agalaat ^Sqaitablo Itederwrltera* by >^adtht LAVoon &. Coairiio
Coapany* a Corporation* attomeya»iB-f&ett ia^loAded with iSqaitable
Casualty 'inderwritera*" and a garnishee qube^bs was iasned agaiast
*Ths £qai table Qaderwriters* by Saith* Laxraon A Coaii»8 Coapaayt &
oorpor^bion* Attoraeys ia Vaet* iaq^leadod vith the Ki^uitable Caeoalty
m^mi: itm^fmm^ 1m -^f* :Sa0 ^Mi im;
-d^iag- ^ u:iwl'ifit<->mi^ ni^Smm^ «j&|«#i«pSi «!^^:vx^:>=?.^-i'? 5.^ '
:i$l^^^:.:1^»» mU^JUi'f ix^l*- -fs4H» 0^ ^stkA^^^fl^ %^ m4l!i»t& ^aMs^i
-■•^m tflMfJt^ifJ^^ Ma* -«# fe»4^»Jl^i: 'taw t#?« Kf «*•.* #i it-^S «» ««fi(»a 4
-3.
Uadcrwrlters** The rtitura of thl« mmmntmrn xmaAmt *.«rT«<l this
«rlt on tho «lthln aaaed Tho Kqulteblo UadorwrlterBt by dollTerlnc
a eopy theroof to a, H. 'ialth* ageat of -«ith» Lavaaa * uoaaks
Coapaay* this Kth daj of aiayt 192t« Charles h, Orajdon* iMrlff*
1^7 Thcnaa p* SrahBaa* I'Sj^iy." Diereafter tlM follow lac appoaraaca
«aa eatorod* *We noroby eatar our appoaraaoo for sAid ganiiidMM
aad ilia <!ippORraBe« of aald garalohoa i^efaadaat la the abovo eatltlod
oaaoo* Lee Phelpa >! cieland* .cttoraoy for auralsi&oe aeft*" Ttaaro*
after a "Kqttltablo Undorwrltera by MiUt-Lamsoa-'Oiariia Co«» a eor*
perntloa* attomoya In fnet* gAraloheo defeaoaata laplcadcd herolSc
by Loot ^lielps ^. Cleland* thotr attoraoys** ia aasvar to %h*
laterrogfttorlea, ctcaiod aay indcbtedaoas aad neaied th&t It isuaod
aagr policy of public liability insuraxaoa to the d^feadanta in the
origlaal suit* Thereafter the garaiehKent proceed lags cane oa to
ba heard bsfere the eeart* inuring the course of the heariRi^t iU9d
tnrmr the obj&etioa of the garalahees* the defeadaats vere given
leaTO to traTerae the aaawera of the garalahoee* ^t the ooaclasioai
of the GTideaea the court entered the follovia^ orders *^?he Court
Aa«8 fiad the lasuea ia faror of the plaintiff tmA aj^laet the
defeadsat aad does fiad that said g-^miahee ia iacebted to Albert
Valkiaa ani Hal^ V'suLkiaat ladiTiaually* aad ae oo-partaera* deiag
buaiaese aa a. Valkiaa & Sons» La the atat of |4>006«0O, together
aith intereet ttwreoBf :.t the rate of life (5^) per e^at per amiua*
froa the aeveateeath day of i>«!oeaber« A* *)• 1926» aad casta in sfiA
ecaae asouatlag to ^19«1§ laakiag « tet«l of v 4377 .48 » to which
f iadiag defeadaat duly exeepta*"' Certaia OfOtiMoe thea iaterpoaad
by the defeadfiBt garaiahae vore overraled aad the court thereupctt
entered the followiag Judgaeat: " v hareupon , it ia eimaiderod aad
adjudged by the Court that the plaiatiff do hare and recover of anA
froa the defeadaat gArmiahce hereiat -«ith» Lfta»ont ooaaba ,oapa«y»
*e*
t«*«id^ a^-if^aX^, ■i««*ll*l»t»& i^^^Jlait«% «'i#i»ift «i'*lg»B!S:«J'4« ,,.«©i^flis<{
•««,'
■-•i;f.r«V jf-
as«j*(3«^>.j j«i,:gpsj»afvi.
^4|j^. ;^j^M»^^il «i«S»i^tMi .AmdhK>^i^ ««u oarti
a eorporr tlMftt fttternex in fa«t fox ^qttlta1Ba• Uad«r«rlt«rst thm
em •/ M37?*4fi, together with eoaia of this Ruit» and JMlt* •xcc-utlon
th«refor laauo**' "i^dtht l4KW0en« Coaaba CoHpaoy, a eorpor-.tioa.
attoraoj in faot tvr J£<iultabl« Under«rltors»" aau prayed m appeal
fraa this JodflBcat*
In lis ^rl«f the appellaat arffMa a nuntter ef ecmteatloaa.
»• Aecm it noeesearj t« refer to «ily <Nie. Tha api>«llAat eMitokla
that tte court had no para<mal juri^^ietion of the Jvui^umt debtor
>^Bitlk-La«aen-co»jidi>a CmqMuyr} that at no tlaw was the Jud^aeat <Sfbtor
■atfe a party to the proceed iasa f that procees aoTcr ieteed for it
at any tlaa aad it aerer entered aa appearaaeo or eubaiitted itself
to the Jurisdietien of tiie oourtt and that the trial court «as without
Jttriadictios or aathority to eater & peroonal Juegnent against it*
Tha sppellee concedoat as it ntst» that the Judgaest in c^uestion is
acaia»t the vith-Lsvetm-CoflOBba uonpasy, and in anavor to the instant
oontentioa of the appellant it attya: "We reapectfitlly enbait thia
Jiid^aent aaa properly entered against :iBib^X<aae<m-v Ofisgis Qgnapna^t
FToper party to the r<;e«rd» properly in court and correctly pleaded*"
Aa «e read t2» record gamisha«tt proceedings were hroairlst against
Xquitalile Underrr iters and Iqui table Casttaliy C^ider^riters only* a:i^
ttese eo^paalea wore the oaly garnishee defeK^aats* la its affidaTitst
BUBs.misea and iat^^rogatories the appellee dealioaatos ^>al th«L««0c»-
Coauba Ceaqftaxft a corporation* as "attorney ia fact* for Iquita^lo
Oasiaalty UnderKritera and ^^quitablo t^nderwritera* n attorney in fact
ia an afieat for a principal* The appellaait tiierefore* in its writs
aaA pleadiaffs treated %ultb-I>awaoa-(-oai*a Coa^paay &i a aere agwt for
its principals* Sqnitahlo Casualty l^»3eraritsra and .^-quitahlo littler-
aritera* ^e do not fimd ai^ aerit in the contention of the appelloo
that the appearaaaosfiled any ^ eonetrued as appearaaaaa of oaith-
«.sj«*#«^^^*«fl'--» « WS««ss»^ «&«^«8*^ ««**^ *'.»i.-esi -S^^ft^M*
■■%?«^s®l?fe«I^O ^mm-.i^m'&mt^kigl&Mm; S^i^i^M^ fea!Sa.*ss» tl^»<%»-3!q. .s.«(fi- j^aii^i^t
9^$i»J-' - ■' ■■ - . ?a»«S«Wl8#.& f)S;fC:#i«s«i^ ^iS£OJt -■■Wl# ffS** ft^tltf^'-ase^ *99eii
i&»t -i's^^B- ■■^mt mwi» '^0msi''&'^^^ n^^im^^s^i^sms^^ii^ix^ Sf&Siim%i t®0ti»«*S4: Mt»
La««OM«Coaaik8 Co«|iAay aad that thereforA 11 aubBltteci Itself &• m,
SarnislMe defeadaot te Um Jurlscletioa of ttai« court* a eartfal
stttdjr 9i tlSM r«c«rd falls to aisele-'.« aaj jHtrsonal Jurl&dlctiOB
•T*r caith-Lavson--o««bs ^oai]Muqr* H s-ould have bc«B « T«ry slspl*
Katt«r for tlie appellee to have BUtde tlie appellant a KHmlahee
defendant hAd it eo deeired. Kone of the deolaions cited \ty tlie
apjHillee In support of the Judgaeat appe&led fron he$ any Peering
ttj^on a record like the j^rcseat oae* The appellee fxurthsr contends
that the appellai&t* during the proceedings, did net question the
Jurisdiction of the trl&l cenart and tknt therefore it Tel«ait> /llj
sniiKitted Iteelf to the Jnrisdiotion of the eourt. It is a snffl-
etkont iin&ver to this c4Hit«Bti(m to n&y thi^t vratll the entry of the
Judgaent order tlM appellant had no occKeies to rales an^r t^nestloa
of jurlt;dictien« :>:Ten tte eoart*s finding* npon «hieh the Jad^peeat
ehould he hased , is not a finding against the appellant* In fACt*
as there vere tvo grrMi{$hee defend3nte« it is impossibXo to tell
froB thftt order which of the t«o the trial eourt fouawl v/me Inc^ehted
to the appellee* The apj^ellee further srsnos thst **re£tiisg hetweea
the linee* ve thinl; it Is «■ snfe eoicIueioB that ralth-Z^^wscffi-
Coemhs Cvt^OHy and its stoel^xolders and directors are* in fact*
Kquitahio Dndervrlterst** na^ th^t ^^^ c^m^^sy h&s tritet frntds
vhloh should he reached for the t>en«rfit of » policy holder or judg-
Kont creditor of a policy holder In tquitahle Qaderwrit^rrs* ■ vmh
an arguseat e«n hare no weight in deteiieiBlas: the instant conten-
tion. If ^(iuitahlo Ui^ervriters is indehted to the defendants in
the original s«it sJMi if ^ith-LawBOB'^Cossibs Cenq^any hae trnst
funds helODsiag to &qnitahle Itedervriters, the appellee* hy appro-
priate procedare, can reaoh that fund. It swet ho reaonborod*
howeTor* that gamislaMnt procecHllagB v/Ui reaoh only snoh assotn
in the hnada of the garnishee ao e&n he reaehed hy an '*ation at X&««
The Jttdgaoat of the superior Court of Oook Cmm^y^m
rerersod • r RYsa^-s? ^ •
Ctrldley* P. J*, and Barnew* J., cooevr*
«iK -^ liSd^ ie»vi«i;«s&'^# ^ sale- ^mihso^i^t
ii«e&^^» ^S^^^s^f ««€X«^# «^
tkmx Skelmaim, plaiiitin*. Bu«d &&m1^ L. I>unc«n, dtt*
f«n4ai^t, in th<i Municipal U»urt o)' chie^^o, Ir tm acti&n of ecu-
traet. A jury vtui vqiiv«4 and the esu8« «».% tiubsiitt^i to th«
eourt, and after evidence hmstrd the court found the icisuds
agaiast th« plaictlff . Ju^!g»«fit irae eiit«re4 on thti! fln.llng
ui'*. this sppc&I follov^ed.
The atftt.?«:.n;t ol' dales a]Ll«:Sed th^ exftcution of
» written !««•• between th* |»arti«j» for a pisrleci of tvo year*
b«ginninx 4eay 1, 19S5, and ^ndiag April 30, 1927, at a ©orsthly
rantal of ^125, to \>* paid in a4T«ae*: tii&t th« dftfenimtt, on
Ootober 3C, 1926, vaeatad tkm pr<s&is«e «itiiout the aequl«Bc«nce
•r ooB««u'. of the pljftlnUfi', Ha?* plaintiff susrf to r*»oaver r-^nt
for the Bjpntiia of lioveidb^r and Uecesbsr, X9'i6, *=»« dsfenaaat
filad aa affidavit of aarits adi&ittl»g ta^ execution. 9f the l«as«
•ad that h« THcated th« preKlses about October 3o, Idne, but denying
that ha Taeat«d the pr«fci»o8 wi tSiftut t::e Jfcno?irl.«4g<j, aequiescenca
or coneaoi of tJie plaintiff, laji all«gls»i that on October .32, 1926,
tha plaintii'f ani he "Yerbally mutually caJiceXlad* the lca««, =!>n<i
that pursuant to sueh car<c«tllutlon ti^a del eialant It^nadlately
th«r«aft«r •located aiioUier plaoe for uJL&salf and family and
•urrandarad tn« leaaed pr«Hiilaes to th« piaintlff an*? tiaat at said
tlsa tha 8urrend«r of sail isaaad pr«iai»ca, together ^ith tha k«y
therato. waa accapt»d by tha lAlr.iiff ,* t*ni thu d«?i«jjla«t ^.??ni«d
that ha -waa Inda'tted to tha olaiotlff for th« rent in question or
;££Sf>
; % Mx i(», .Jf^_. tejpri. ; .fa^^SB*^
li^ ,a»lV^.5;t .KM
tnCs:;
:^*#^'
»i^-- '^^Mm^^si::--^€Mmm
liS-*:^* <J"Xj»i!>
$ liis** -iii'
&^.i.^a-sA;^; >:i4. ."ae.^:
Tor mny other kub vhatsoev^r.
Ih« plAlotin* first contends th*t "th^ Liurdcsk vf proving
the
the exDrese a^ceseat of the p-trtlse ty OHtionX th(» Ir^imo ar.^yaarr^ider
of the ^rexlsee and ii««*iptance thereof vae on the le*K««." Thit coa*
tent ion may he conceded*
Ihe plalEttiff next contend* that it w&s neeeseaxy for
the defendant "to lu-ov* by a gxeat«r vei.«,ht oi the eTldJenee that not
only did the parties a^r^e to & eurresd^r up «»r the l«aee bat that
it was an exoeuted a^re«Sient." This contention say ^se 1»e ooneeded.
rhe plaintiff contends that "the flnllnti: cf the trial
court anj the Jud,^ent thereon is ^slnst the ttanlfest <»«lght of
the erldence," After a ▼J'ry careful exae^laation of the record la
this oas«, we sure urtkble to suKtaln this contention.
The defen'^ant called the plaintiff aa & witness under
section 33 of the kurileipal Court Act mei'I the Isiiter fi&vn cyidecec
tending to support his th4»ory of fact, an^ the pl».lntlff contends
that the def«ndeirit, harlng called hlK, Toucheti for his e^i3.r«ict«r
and truthfulness and was bound by hi* teetis^ony, 9Cd that this
rourt le therefor© bound to find the f»«tft as testified to by the
olaintiff when he vais thus oalled s« £^ witness by the defendant.
It is a suffloi^st answer to ial« contention to say that esetion
33 speolflcally provldiis tiiat the p^rty oaJling the adT<u*se p^rty
for •xaslnatlon under the seotloa "shsai not be concluded Uiereby,
but he ls.;^y rehat tiie tsstiaiony thus jiXTCn by or.untor teatlii^ony, "*
The olalntiff n»xt eontenffs th%t th« trial court Hd-
Bitted improper ewl^enoe on behnir of the defnndRJit. i'hia oont«B-
tlon relates to the adBlseien of certain evidence ae to the conii-
lion of the furnaea in the prfalsea ic question, -^he court admitted
it with l.he provisos that rhe ^erlta of the oti^utior. ta th* t.-jntiaony
could be thereafter argued, "^e fall to flctt, in tne record, that the
" X.
^7<»^ 1« rSi^tSUiS «4$^ #«iC$ «li-iefi|»^»0« #»«ll 111.-
♦■er^i " Off* i>i«$«tsi» «* ^'f!^^^ »v , .-'ss «ij£J5
plain tiff xad* mBj ftttMcpt to taka adTtknta^tt of Ui« proTlao. V9 do
not d0«? It n«ee««ary te dveide th» question a« to vh^tn^r th« «vl»
danca eo»T>l!^iuad of vaa competent or ineompatant, a» tJti9 aole qu»Btiai
in the oaaa vaa: Md the ptiTiias, by an axpreas a^a«ae»t, aancel
the leaaa. and did th« defandant thftrenftar aurrendar tiia prfm<i«aa
to the plaintiff and did tha l«ttar aeeapt the •urroniiar gi th«
•aaftc; and the short opinion deliTOred by tUe trii^ court » in dacidiag
the eaoa, ahor* ttxat ha ondavatuod tU« T9hX iaaua ;«a)i tnat ha baaad
hi a finding upon th« a-vid^nea that r^l^itei t<i it,
Iha jud JKttnt Qi tha oKuniclpal Court o^ Uhleago is
affirsad.
Uridlay, **. J., sud i;«Tn-:8, J,, ccccur.
,-^s>*sxttt»
SS96S
BUXA scKiyy,
D«feu'{<ktit in Srrc
Plalntllfs kn
:or.
KB. PRKaiDIHG JU3TICI 0 'COH&Oa
aBLlVEEBS THE OPIi.lOi. OF l-ffii COTfRY,
£j tills writ of error the d«f«ndacta 8i>«k to r*T«ra»
a jud>nent r«nf1«r*d ss&iJiBt them in the County eourt of Cook Ceunty
ea May 10, 1937, for $!»9.55.
It arpeare from the reeorr! th»t plairitiif, on coteber
31, 1923, brout^ht an aetion of aasumpeit e^al&st th«> deferit^antA to
reeoTor aamaeee clai«(Pd to hare been sustained by hmr by r^aeon of
the defec^ants* breach of varriuaty eoBTeying eertaia precaieee to
plaintiff; the breaeh alleget! belBg tha^ the defenr^ants hJid r<»pre-
eented that th<» toiler in the pr<N&iaee was in first-class con^^iitlca
an<! vcald heat the three-flat buil'ling in ^niaieU it was located.
It was averred that the boiler vae def ecilTe and plaintiff vas
oblig<>d to install a aev boiler at a cost of #500. A further
eleB*nt of deeaees »ae that «heK olaintiff i^ureiu^ed the property
there v«.s a quaritlty cf coal, reprftsente-d by defendants to be
about 33 tons, «^lch plaintiff p?!^ for, stfid it was fifterfrards
aseertained that there vert but 33 tans, and the ovnrp^ytaejiX thus
made by plaintiff was also sou^^ht te be reeoTered.
The declaration was in thr*re oaunts - thf first a
•peelal eount setting forth tiie ff&cta above st-^ted; the c^d and
5rd counts were the oosaeon counts. In the itpeoial couat olaintiff
alleged that the purchase by her of the prsa;i»e» was eTiSeneed by
a written eontraat ^hic<:3, plaintiif sought to be aade am exhibit to
the declaration by atta^ing it th««ret.o. Uuder the eo£i3oi< law
£*ses
ta
!s ? ^?: '>
,?5?S
t-its^-s- ■ "=-*n si# *e^
,|f*i» «=«§*-« erf «t ijij«*« estj£# *^* tl|3«t*«'~- "' --•'
|Hii& l^m. 9&$ iU-~^ ■ -u^ 9^«»t ««£tj ^gaKia ]|pKiti»tt ,^.->...
•ystaa oT plsading In thla stat*, the eofitraat cannot Vv ooaeiderad
ma a part of tha daelaration. PI air t. Beard. ?74 111. 032,
January 15, 1924, the dareudanta rilitd a Ren^^ral de>
w»rrmT to tu« daelaratlon. On April 29, 1927, tha deiuurrer waa
ov«r->rulad, l«aTe glTon the dafeniantu to lilt the pla« within
fiTa daja, and th« eaa* act ror trial on May 10, 1927. On May
10th th« daferidanta, hsring failed to plaad, wer« dafaulted and
judgmiwt waa «at«?red in fiiYor of nlndntitf on tha affldaTlt of
elaiie which she ]'iled vlth her d«cl«ration. 3ev«^ral »ostha aftor-
warda th« d9f<>ndanta filed th«lr motioi' to vacate thn ja').B#Rt.
Plaintiff d«JBurr«d tc th« notion; the demurrer waa 0T«r-rule4, the
Jttd^ent Tsuiatad and aet aaide, and plaintiff appealed to thia
court. Upon consi deration we revpraed the order. ( ">^i ft y ,
StMU.ey. Ho. 38640.) We thpre h«lti that while the defeudtu/ts con-
tended that they had Bet been notified thai. th(*ir demurrer to
plaintiff 'a declaration was to be dleposed of, yet the record ahowed
they were prfsent in court. «e further held that if thle were not
the f&ot, it waa not eueta an error ae eould be corrected under !>eo»
tien 99 of th* Practice aet. Afterwards the County court, ou motion
of defendanta, entered an order on /tme S, 19'?3, purport inj; to cor-
rect the record, which showed that the defendantB were act oreaent
at the tlaie their demarrer was over-ruled nor at tJbe tisie the judg-
■tent wae ont^red agalnat th«8, and further th^t no evidence waa
heard. The order ae eerreeted etatea: "Tfjla day ca«e the pl»iBtiff,
by her attorney, upon a call of th« calendar of coaaon lav casea,
and the defendanta eai&e not, lAd were not renreaebted by their at-
torney, sn-i thp^euoon after a he»r!Dg, oft motion of the pls.latlff 'a
attorney, aaid defenr^anta* dea&urrer is hereby over-ruled ani it is
further erderc? that said defendants have leave to file pleaa tritnin
flTc daya fro& date hereof, ^ind « further hearing of eaid cause is
hereby set for May 10, 1927.*
.s#d
,8«35.^.
^•as
«i ■
On thia writ of Arror th« d«l'enf)(tnt« hnvK natfe ter.
Asalgiaianta of error. Sight of thnu queetioia th« ruling of thia
eourt In r«n<lerlAR tha i'orvKf^r opinion. Gb'vioualy thaao alXaged
•rrora eannot b« eonaidared on thia writ of arror. '::]ie fcrmar
oplnioa and <)aciaioB i» in no irmj ir.TolYod in the Batter now be-
fore ua. Two of the aaaif;naf>nta of error question the ruling of
the trial court an^i ar** th«»refore properly before ua. .ne io that
the trial court «rred in net euGtalniai; the defendant a* deeurrer to
the deeisjration bec&utie, it is arued, the deolar&tion did not st^te
a cAuae of aation. ik9 aiAted, Ut« deolaratioR w«a ir: three ocunta,
one a epeoial count anl two eoflubon eour^ta. It is elesent»xy that
tke coaaoA count a are set aabject to a de^i^rrer. In theae cirous-
ataur.eaa of courae the desurrer waa ;'roperly cTer-ruled.
i-hi next error aaaignisd ie taat the trial court exrad
in retiiiering ,1ur!i^snt without hearing any OTidenee and tkat the
affiSaTit attached to plaintiff's deelaration waa inaufflcient uooa
vhich to render Judj^iiaent. irlaiatlff , in her affidavit of claiis,
•wore that her deaand waa lor th# reoo-very of aioaay paid by her to
defendanta in reliance on carranta mnd* by the defeadante, and that
there »a8 due to plaintiff, after allowing the defei^dants all Just
•redits, de4aetiona and set-oifa, 4^9, bt. We thinii this affidawit
of claiis waa aufficient to warrant the entry of Uie ju :«^aea3t ^ichout
•Tidence. koi'eoTer, eyen if uie otner poicta contended for by the
defendanta were properly before ue, vo tiiink we would not be war-
ranted iu diaturbiag the jud^csient, Th« contention made by the de-
fendanta ia that under rule Xd of the County court of Cook county,
they were (»itlU.ed to uotlee before their deaturrer could be dianoaed
• f , aad that aioce no suci notioe waa givea, it was error to over*
rule the dczaurrer in the defendanta' abaence. hule 12 ia aa follows:
^otione r<ot of sourae, or conteated t&otiona will be h-^ard on ea^
Saturday of the tern, ^t»^r diepoaitiou of aotiona for new trial on
s- - '-- ^ * f i » - '. - ^ . . .^ 3««^%j^tf %^i*«-a ei^_ J^A. . .IS ST-rr tori*
that iajr, en« lay's notloe in wriila^ haTlng been previously «;iTaB.
ni« clerk vlll, Jfroa tltui" to tise, pr^xniTc a oalotidar ol' aouttattd
notlene, upon ^blch auoh «otlona will ^« vl «•<! lu tU« order In
whleh Rctlc« th«r«or waa glTeri to hiia, A perecaptory call oi' such
Botlon* (Till be «fcadr »t»«»n ordered by the court, ol' vhldi 4hra« day«
notle* vlll be given In the law BuISetln." There can be no doubt
that If tills rule applied. tii« co&tentlsn of tke del'eudants would
have to be sustained, heeause it la th*) law tUrit & ral«> ol' court
with r«f^rer.o« tn praotiee has all the blndlag effect ol the
ctatttto. Ajttell v. ruXKir«?r. 155 ill. 141. But plaintlfl' ooc-
tenda th«t this rule does not s^ply fixers the case Is reacAed ott
th« call of t^e calendar; th.a^ In euch a sltutttioa rule B rLpplles.
Rule i Is >4>) follo'irs: 'Parties ehall take notice of all calls of
the calendar. lio notion will be heard or er^tix aiade in any cause
"^thoat notlei to the opposite party "j^hea an Appearance of such
piiTty ho-u besn eaiered, except wtiere a party is In ddfaalt or when a
case Is ie,>«hed en the call of t^^ calendar." If the caa* Is reaped
en the call of ihc calendar, tn^n uq ler this rule no notlea need
tc given .f any xtotlor. or order. In the inatiant case, the defend-
ants, ftJter the rendition ol t-ie i'oraer opl^tion by tais court, went
into the County court ani en thtiir Aotlon aad the record eorr«cted,
part of which W4 have above quoted. Xhat correction »tates: '*l'his
4%y c^%DS the plaintiff, by her attorney, upoii a call of the ealen-
•$ar of cotcoon law cases." ilxe x'ollows the over-ruling of the de-
fer.-iants* dea»rr«r. Or.der rul« Q no notice was required, because
It expr^esly exoizipted froja notice all sotlons or orders cade when
the eaee is roach«^ or. the call of th« calendar. In these eireuai-'
st&neee, tke defe{>iaiits were eiikitled tc no notice. Mix y.
Chandler. 44 111. 174, iurthexiftore, after the opnion was rendered
by thle court p air^tlff procured vh&.'. ak« calls at. order to be
%4i»PMM^'^-M- >^v-^ 3SE.if vi?-,:-. j£,r-,i.: i'f^ >vr »3Xj^3 m^^t ?;««.- ,'iej- .j^ib*
'-jNi^'^idli ^» $«' sets 9^t6^ ^'^^fisf^^i^ m^ «m Sit m»i^ «tf ili» »^ltoa
'- 4h£)^ft- '%# S:.&B^ ^ Jt^sm v»£^m~iii. t^.««$«MM»tf ^Jbiiist$^.ts.b» icf £.1 <^vjiiti|
'<«S^ '$tl*«a«i;fir *38S .1*1 »41i ««i *si^4l3a^^^y«j&iida5^ ••^«i-«*«
:''«$i^a«inr4^ J^«e«1E::«t^ %iimm ■■■s^-^Jma .■■^Hmii^ -^fm^ *4i &iat
•nt«r«d \y th» Jud^e nho tried th« e&s«, which states that th«
eaua« "otute \ip on tna regular call ol' th* trial o&l«Dd»r pursuant
to notlo* t'.ereof In the j-aw iiullottia on April 29, 1927,"
In tIsw ol t)ie record btrTore us, ih<i csise havifig
been reached on tiie call ol the oaleindar, defeniianta were ftSUtled
umder rule 3 to no notice tltat thair dexsurrer would be called up
far dlepotitiofi.
Xha jud^i^ent oi' the County court of Cook couct^ Is
arriraad.
iie^urely and Matohett, JJ., concur.
«^ ^4»^ »«#is$» M«l<^ ,$s^» «^ ieiiti 9^v Sufis' ftifi %4 i^tr^iin
^num^it^ «.ict «itir«jlti#«it'M» tit»aMS«2
■■-:■. -^■.:. i,4j^|:J :,v;5-^. ,:v?.^ -^-a? .
338S8
L, T^^iOi^lS CO., a
; ^'■"•'^
SHPIR11L0MB8R CO^«KaKY,
Appellant.
3SSLrrsBso ths oi'iiiio^ oir* ruK count .
fiy this i^ipvaJL the fteplra Lus.'ber Conpuriy, th« g&ml»hee,
•eftka to revera* a Judtjsaxat entered ogalcst It lor |S26. 50.
January 16, 1929, L, T. £llia CoapiOiy eauaed jad^mit
by eonfesaiou to be «st«»red in th« Muuiclpal court of hlcago .-vgniaat
Trmak Kantor for |Stf3.50. Aftervarda <uj cxaouticn vns issued and
dasaiil Bade, but th« bailiff havl&g failed to obtain uny aatiefK^e^-
tlea, the exeeutio« vaa retumetl wla.olly uosati&fled. 7uly 11, 1923,
aa affidavit for gsrniehee eumi-aone waa filed In vhiob the £^r>ire
Lvaber Compiuiy vaa sased aa gamlnhee. The muKMons waa serred and
the LtiBiber ecmpany onewered that it vaa net indebted nor had it
asy property bflencicg to Cantor, the Judi-jsent debtor. Hie answer
vaa ooetested said upoa a heari&g before the court without a jury,
the oourt found the is sue a ag^^lDst the garni ^ee aiid that there
vaa due fros. it te £antor 4^S2d. ?dC. Jud^^ent was entered en thia
finding and the gaurnlshee nnp«»l>.
The garnishee contends tuat the Ju ^ • v, -
•houl'J be reversed because the elain, if atiy, «hioh aantor had
againat it, th« garnishee, vas for unliquidated danagea and tliat
garniartB«9t -s^lll not li» in such ease. In support ei' thia coaten*
tiea the eaaea of Capoa y, iiurgaaa. 135 Hi. 61, and ohraiberg
'■^'•^^- %
r^
■:"-^
.n^mji-'smt^m.
.f5«ea(» tat m mmi%0 sb? caigvix-^
,S«^^ge% i"- ^ i **«fe«aM 6fW£J&*42» *«»*«gfe«i't « ««it*T
.-m^i^ltiJgm ^^oi uM$4& «dr %»iWi> ^aiimi tU^^4 ii^i^i ^«tf «•§«» &a£^&
I Oj] rill wii I ri0ii ■. a»i Bk .■■._. .• • ■_ "• ■_ ■ «waiT<^»iT|>niiii»gNwi>ftt»«fc>ir i ». ■*!■■-—
Mfg. Co. V. .So^ton Xpn. (<o.. 246 111, App. 196, "ir*? elt*d. T>i«««
CftBcs sustain the garnishss's oont«iitlon« It Is th«r« held that
garni si\ri;<tnt preos«dings will net li« where tbe cXaift. of the Judi*
nent debtor against the garnishee is I'or uiiliquidat«d <!attaH«a.
Plaintiff adults that thla in the lew but it contend*
that in the instant oaae the da^agos are liquidated rmd therefor*
th* jttdifKCBt of the trial court ahoul i be affixmed. On this que*-
tioB Kantor gare teetiutony to the effect that he hvA entered into
MB oral eontraet with toe Sapire Lueber Coopssj to install certain
f lambing for the Ssylr* i«aaber CoBtpsday in a building o«n«d by one
Wonsig, for which the Lusab«r co^p&ny had agreed to pay &»iitor
1485; that the vorJc was <tone and ia^sfitor paid $442.25. Xhere i«
•ubstsntlally no controverey as to the foregoing, but further
•Tid«nc* offered en behalf of iiantor tocded to shew that he had
done extra work on the premises ir. queetiofi I'er which tixcre was a
balanee due his of MdS. The eridenee on this question is cMaflict*
ing, the garnishee'* erldenee tenrting: to show thivt ther^ «as no
arrangement bet«e«n it and aantor for doing any oxtra work, find a
witneaa for th» ga.rtftlah*« ga^e testmony to the ei'feet that £ra.
Wenxig, owner of the preoiiBee, had extra work do£ift on her o?n ac*
eount, wi til which th«) garnishee had uo eocnection^ ihe testimony
of Kim tor on this queati<m clearly siho'^^s that there wao no sped fie
agreesteat aa to the asount he was tc be paid I'cr the work. We think
it dear that the aaount of the olaia against the garnishee is un-
liquidated. I)^^cy» iwbor Co. v« X'he ■Le-jaard Lueib^r Cq.. 332 ill, .'
104, and eaaoa therein elted, lu that oase it vxaa tiali that dam-
agoe arlslnj?, fnnn an alleged bxeach of contract to deli-ver luasber
at a certain prieo, the daastges claieod beln^ the differenoo be-
tween the contract price and the earket vctiue of the lumber at the
tiMe the eentraet was Tiolated, were unliquidated da&agea. In %hut
oaao the ecurt said (p. 1C3): "BouTier wa* quoted aa defining
»*a»-#«ss# Ji *fe«f iks^_ 0m a^i »JM# #*4s itiisafesj 'rtitsl«-i--
iSe^M^^ftd XJtiB^i^aJ ^>i^ -^fmsM •m^^'^ p^ij^0^ ,,^i 03m. ^^hSM'itsK!*} l&t& sm
'•Minril j{(fiuiia- hr^j^ nmr $i mum mM-1^" -■v6%«4iS' fi««i^' If^^
*llquid»t«d daaagCB* to b« m. c«ri&ln •un du«, and that it mat «p»
p««r net only tbat soaetnljag ia du« but olae how sucii la due, or
th* debt i« net liquid&ted. 'An unliqui4&t«d dwbt i» ona which ona
of the portiea cannot alone render certain. **
In thf> instant ease Kantor'a claia a^ainct the garniahae
being unliquidated, gamis.'ueont will not lie.
the JQdp:n9nt of the kunlcipal court of Chicago ia
reweraed.
JUDC»iKHT RKVERSKD.
MttSurely and liatchett, J J. , concur.
A-"-^ -i?';; %^^"^^ 'H'^
■S%^^
33909
1 *^P»fei*^.. )
tin'** ott««, iffi Bvotiee of ihir r!«l'«u:;*irjt, ils«»r« ««« ^un lAMtruec«<l
and pla.lritifi' «$»!^»«Ia.
the jr««er4 diMo).«««« XaiaX to^tw**!) ««v<$» u&'i lAlgjttt
hl» .¥erl ct&uj^e in Ltbkg G«U£i£y« XXliaoi«t ^^<^ it oir«rtuvne)<t« «*•
4«f«ii<!lat;t filed th« ^1»& of t.u« £:«n«tr&l i««u» axuii two &p*«3iiaX |»l«a«,
auio«;'«bll«, »&d i« t£v« «»ei«ad s$>@«il»I pl«a h« set up iA»t "plyiltitiff
Jointly 90»««s»#?!, co»t3RjXi»4, ^rccvft, sifcR-,%4«-.!, «|i«rin«»d mju'I »»iatal*i«4l
l^ii^ijitlff W:*« Ui« owJkSf )V'lutA»fi is, tile o^««. iitoe t»»-
tlflftd th«t aii^# liv«4 la Chli3«ic«i t£t»t bf^r aiwe«, ^ho <^«8 mu^ii^'^A to
¥• »(Lrrt*4 to tt^« ^•i'«i)da£tt, was vieitlajj, witii ^iaiatirf at h«r -.es^^,
hovlag %ss£ iixsr« :>t » f«w daj'S ^rlof t«) U^e d)»>' lt>^ fiu«sti«a; tiutt
Uis aises JEL«4 Iftotm ^oicjclni^ Ik UUiGajji,iA and tJ^Mv a1i>$: «»d U&« <]«l«a4«mt
ii«4 »rrsii4i3'<S is 4rlf» ts) ti-is aiss«*s i.'SM&s 6«t «*ur^#©n .. ,. iao-.-'fieta;
;^iv#? ■■;:
MBti«4i)i<!3^s4{|W ^tMi mmmim *»'mm 9*^m$>im «# •» tvi^'^
~frt$;»
iscrtM b*>d
that plaintiff was InTiti^it Xo tm^ompojny th«nt that on tli« Bordi«s
In qucatioa dafenlnnt droY« UtB Vord auiowoiil* to plMlntUl'a
r««l<S«no« and a«alat«(S plaintiff ivaA h«r nl#a« in puttlfis ihoir
grlpa ant! son* lunoh tn the ba«k «1 tiia «ar; that ahertly aft«r
thl* th« thr«« pf!r«ion« kjiot into thu auioia«blX«, vhiei^i had but oaa
9«ftt, plaintiff «lttlcr. At the ritv^t, th« Dleoa in th« «i Ml« and
d«f«nriaut at the l«ft, irlving the MUto&obll«; %ii%x thvy 4roY«
north «ttt of Chioa^p «ua Mllwouka* aTonue te th« Wauic«g»r» road; that
tncy than tumod (saat and wi»r« travcllBg at a i»p««n of about thirty
»il«« »n hour, im4 ue thay w«r« turuinri. to £^9 north the Autoznolllo
tumort oir*r and plaintiff «aa Injurod oo that «k f«w /jaye tharoafter
it waa naoaaaary to aspattttt the right «trjii« fl«intiff lurther t^n-
tifiad that th« 4ay w&a elaar, th« ror^d in ^ood eonlltloB and that
thera vaa no othar trafflo at th« tist* oi tu« »oeiiant« Altboai^
plaintiff waa tha only witnaac who t<»atlfied, tha fi.ctit an to U9*
tha aeeident oocurrad v^r* not clearly ^ev«loped.
It aaaeuB alBMsat inorotdibla thatt oou/:ai»j. i'ot plaintiff
did not d«T«lop tha faota i&ora fully. C&un««l i'or vXaintlff in
hi'a atatPb'^nt of th« «aaa saya: *th»t. a&id autoci«>bll«, prior to
•aid aecldact, vaa going <?aat nnd «h«tii th« aedna raachi»d a poiut on
aald road wh(%r« aaitl road turned nortn th# car (i'rertumod on ite
right aide, pinning pittintii'f** rl^^t i^ss uiulemeath." mt in hia
•rgmant ha atataa that *7h« evidence mrnvn no app«raeit reaaon for
the OTor turning of the ear «hi^ would not h»v« happioiad r^ut for
oo»a a«t of ncit-li^anea, either aa to the or^ndition of tha om* or in
the flMn«g«ffi»nt of th^ «M«e, •■** ^jcp#rierie« teaehen ua that a ear
oparatod in aueh a miomar aa th« a»r of d«tf»udant ».^t and before
the tint* of the acoidant r.iii raseiJU: on th» hi,-IusFay. " Jmd it is
urged that pAointiff nr>«^da out a. o^ea unr'«r thei ^oetrine of y,ff isSA
lo^iuitur. A e4r#ful etjinal^ariitloii of plaintiff 'a t^ratiaiony tenda
to ahov that the «utc»»ol4ila waa bein# driven about thirty Kilea
*l»4*' .#.. V. :.,.;; , ; a-^i^M4 mMii^m.i^Ti-^- ^v. .■- .......
*«•? ifJf!?^. l«-4 #i^ i#l^^^^^^ ^ .5'^*
'>A-.;:**«J^j »i¥:^»i*' ..iiHiSa^ '^.siii;" 4*tftii« -wt*.--
i%f. "».«!• T«« 'J**S.-'
.H #'^%'<$Jiy>«(!l4»iir "iN* Aft «iS!
,*%IM ^a^*^ m^iiti^ 0^'i»ii ««V'V'.
MS h*ur win^ •• it «»• tarnlng to thw north it tipft«d 0T«r on its
rictot «ld«. It ia obTieuft Uiat tA« ilootrina oi rjaji Jj^pf. lot^yti^yg;
has no ftp:>ll«Atioii. iiv«ryon« knowo ^.iiai ii mix nutottoril« i»
driveu fMit MXoujBd «k oorfi«r it may tip ovor.
lii* dofwodojit conton<i« tht&t plalatiiT waa a ;^«'ro
lioaoaaa and th«r«fcr« no iuty roated upon <i«iru'iiU4t ex««pt to
rafrmln fros viii'utXly Injurisiv u«r. w« UtinJk this la a niattppra-
h^naion of th« aitu«tioo aa dlac2.o»«d by ttx« «irlderic«. It ia
obrloun thttt pliuintiff ipraa iairit d to ^o in tha autni;aobLl« vith
tht dafavidact and plaint iff* a ni«««.
A turtinat point is nada th^tt tQ«r« vaa u fatal vaJTl-
•&•« botvaoB tha allcgntiona or %h^ d«oI»rAtloi' .^d thA pr oi' ici
that it w»a Eil*t;«d In thfl deeiarttUon ihtki ih« »oei<JoftV occurred
•a August IS, X9£6, vhile tn« proot Hiiov?« i it trut on August ':^l»t.
IMa TwriArea w&a net peintod out on tii# trltU; If it had baen, a
proper anan^&i'eiit to tha daolarfttioa oould ixaTo r^*dlly beta. isHda.
It ia I'urtiriAr oentcaidad tli&t do reooTory tf«tft bi^! b»4i b«»e%u«c tha
airidonca diao oaes th»t plalntirf waa j^ilty of eot^trltiutory «««;»
li£«uc«, (Old in aup^ort of thia eou»BOl aay "plalxitiff tuoic th«
chATioo of rl.Unif' with a drivajf wuoaa sU>iXity «^-ff ^i«w nothing, ©f ,
in a oar, &c tho condition of wuieh aha apoar^itly ri«ver gava a
thott^t, «asd to •■H7 eo aJio orowdad %i)X«>ii i^dulta Uitct ■ «p»«o tuilt
to aceoaee«dato tut tw& ^aoplA, althcu#% on« o^ th« thrao »aa the
drlT«r who r«<3uir«d »si>ia rooa for fr«a ©Gv«Ai«nt of hi* aTKa «ad
logs iB tha oporatiors of the car. Furt.a«r« It at>p«F»r8 thiit ihar*
vap ttothin^; to proYact h«r frcrt aa«ln«i a ai^^a ^trhioh indio^tad Uri^ir
oourao raqulrod a turn t© th« loft an't »Hi? »ald nothing to d«f»K<*r;t
thereof •* %'a thick tha aio«t thet can b« aaid in thie resard oa
behalf of tha defanf^ant ie ih^t tu^ ^jeatlou of »iiether plaintiff
vap in tha eaerei»« of due oarv? for n*T own ttafety tra« for the
Jury to decide. Ve think the inatruoted T«rAiet eu^ht not to have
;i« ^m #«»« ^«'i5m, «»«li- «flM* "9**. »««# »l|fi» 1# #«Jl««*A«> >»m"
b*«fi glTMi; that on th« eontraxy tlie qucntlont InTolvad were f^r
th« Jury. Li^^fey. Mft»1>U^ ^^ ^^^^J T., fftflit* 328 Ui. 804.
7h« ju4«;^«nt oJ' th« :iup»rlor court of C^^ok eounty la
reT«ra«d an^ th« aouaa ramariidad,
MaSuraly aa^ Matahttt, SJ,, «on«ur.
,.v ■/:;•■; "^■.,;-: !-;?>>'■-■.■ .vH. *■•■..- ,w>.s,, ;^'4 vi'~?^-- .W;-' :■' -^■'jv''^- '>!;^-.* %:'S-
- ■;■. -vv.,' - ■■■■;.■ \>'i> iMik .%& ,y':. '':";'-<' '■
3S816
JO HI V. fOlXMSR tt 1.,
▼».
the ltuni|lpea Cttrfrt oi^
) AT
TY.
/
-IVSRED THK Oi'lKlOli Of THS COU^IT.
JBy till* appeal ooaplainant* teek i r«-v»ra« a deorc*
of th« Sapvrler eourt of Cook County » disiuitselng thnlr bill and
■OTOtAl amondod bills of oompljiint ai'ter a bearing for vant of
•qulty.
Soptfltcliicr S7, 1927, oomplainanto fllod ihelr original
bill of complaint. Afterward*, upon notion, tne court gaT« oon-
plalnants leav« to file an aoiendod bill of coiapl&int arid on Docon^bor
19, 1927, th« ata«ndod bill was fil«d. ]>ofcnda/)ti dojuurrod tc tne
bill and amondM bill, rhfl doauarror wa« sustained and leare was
giTsn to ooBpiainants to file another aruondsd bill, und on March 7,
192d, th«>y filed their second ax&snded bill of complfjilnt. Oxo de*
fondants' dccnirrer to this bill was o'vsr^ruled suna they filed their
Jsittt and ssveral answers. Afterwaris, the cause was heard before
ths Chancellor and on Seo«»ber 15, 193d, def efidanta , by leave of
court, filed thftir third astendod bill and on txie same day the do-
ors* appealed frott was entered.
The deoree recites that the *wi«* oas^e oti for hearing
upon the seoon<^ an<! tJaird omendod bills of cottplaint and the joint
and sewVral ar48wers of the defemlMnts; that the curt heard the
rridenee and arjyi:utt»nt of counsel ani it was ordered and doore«>d
that the bills be dlMiiesod for ^ant of equity an-:*, this appeal
fellew*4. llie oubetanso of the allegH,tions of Vatf bills, so far
as it is necessary for us to stnts theei, -xre that one of the com-
"^^
«■*•», <?"■'
«».:<>. «^. ^(«|k.'««i»« «^<9^ $ii»,;|ta» 4y:.M l^.(:(£ii»«;i»..|i<si«ii ti^sis t^XiH ^s--tum
plaln«nt» bougiit an Mxto&«bil« and in piurt payaant gave hi* not* and
apparently th» notn wa« eitned by th« two othar coBpluinanta, thay
baln£ tha fathar anA laoUiar oi' tb« puroiiaaar ol th« autonioiulla: that
a ohftttal nartga^KC «aa glvan to B«eur« a pii.rt tti the purohnaa yrioa
af th« autoBobila; that (nl'tcrwarda tha chattal taortgaea »aa
foreolotad and aftar a aala, thare beln^^* a dafiule^iioy, judgncnt
vaa antMrad by oonftaalon on the neta tor the balanoa dua and un*
paid I that al'twr^v^arda an axaoution vaa iisauad, a dauand aiada, and
tha bailiff waa proea«>dinti^ to sell soaa real eatate belonging to
th* oosplainanta, tha father and mother oi tha purehaaar of the
auto«o>^ilfl. The prayer ol' the* bill vaa that the «&le be onjoloed
and the not* for the bolcmea oi' the puroimae price oV the autoetoblla
be held Inyalld.
The eTidenea taken by the Chane<tllor on the hearing is
Bat praaerred in tha record. Whll«» the eeyeral bllla cocelat of
aaveral typavrittan pagaa and tti» aninrer of the defendanta ii:fee?lsa
oonsiets of sayeral pagea, the abstract of these doctuit'<<it@ is a«t
forth in about a half p<tga in the iikbstraet filed in this oaae.
Obviously euoh an abstraet is oi' no b«sn'$flt to tuiu court. Counsel
far oonplain;<mta state that while a nuKber of points were urged by
thaa in the trial court to euetdiin their lillSf all oi such points
are waived exeept that tirte chattel aM>rtga^fl note waa void bpoause
it was made payable to "aysclf • that th<«»re was no puye* naaed in
the note and therefore, under section 1, par. 37, ohap* 95, page
1709 ol' Cahlll *a 19^7 statutes, the note was void. That section
provides: "That all notes aecured by chattel aorxg^es shall state
upon their f»ee that they are so secured, and nhen assigned by the
Fa/*e therein natued, shall be subject to ;;ill defenses existing:', bw*
tveen the i'ayee and the Payor of »a.iA notes the same as if said
notes were held by th* Payee therein n«i&«d, and any dbattel Bort^^a^ie
securing notes which do not stAte ipon their fnee the fact of such
k f A
;}';8(ss«»a^«lt ,^»«K>i^^*l» A f«t»<sr »«#j# ,*44kik « »«#'»*» f^ftifi Sxeaolssiol
•d»r j(M»« t^fii' 'in&itii^ti itjs^ %$fr»im )(Mf# m «< >£^ ^eitAjro* c*^
hiut ^^^a'Si ^1'jC^dMh ii «&#!»»» ji timi atfri^tf^AX* «l n^l... aa^'^t ^nM I'-i^f.
&si.$ Xii h^mM'mt m>i^hiim ■^■:k»%ttm» «« ■s-vtu. %mA6 i^iSJi ,»tt»% ■:*ii-»-^^ us^qii
*i*4s:5i,.y'iiB«i x«.*4<8ife, t«M: hm 'tiii^-mM •i»^it».%'»m »m(»%^itiM. %€ hMd ot!*w- ««<»«
tcourlty ihall !># al^colutel^ Toid,**
V« ]&»▼• ii«i Xhn *Ti<lca«« In tA« rtcord so that w«
•re ttnabX« to say wh«th«r th« p«y«« •! tJtt* not* was n«ntiencd
or oet. Th«re la noinlng in the laetion quotftd that aaya
cthatt*! aoTtgaga ootea ar« void 11' th«y jirt soda payable to the
order of "Btysalf.* Xha atatuta provid«;a only tbat auoh notes
are Told onleae they atatfl on their face tl[tat the payment of
th«n 1» leoured t>y oliM.ttel mortgage. Since w« do not hvro the
eTl<i«noe liefore ua, we nust presume that it was euffiolent to
warrant the deoree oi' the oouri. in sueh circusatarices every
presu«:iptiou is iraluXged iu r«iTor of the decree. J^or aught that
appears, couplaliititnts nay have falXed to prove >ny tdlegatione
in their bill that wore traversed by the answer. Moreover,
einoe the judipiient <vas eoni'eseed in the kunielpal court, 11 the
eosplt.iinantEi hod any equitable defense in that ease, we Botst
presujae that if a request ha4 been asade by them that they would
hare beer jpermitted^^* wik« sucii defertse there* Where the ju4g»
Bent la by oonfeiteiont parties are not limited to 30 days there-
aftt'r to siake suoh. sietlon. On a notiein to vnoate auoh a judipnent
the court »cts upon equitable eoneideratione In refusing or alo
loving the defendants to coeie in <and defend, he such motion ap»
pears to have been ib»de. If suor> a defense coul-^ hnvc been nade
there, obTlously a court of equity had ne juriediotion. But
in any ovent, there ia no reason advacoed that would warrant us
in disturbi*rbiB«^ the deeree in view of the record before us.
!inie deoree of the Superior ecurt of Cook county
is affirraed.
kcSurely and liatohett, JJ. , concur.
' «* 'M«&? m ¥tts«»«t m^ sd mmMf^ »iti urn wv-iJii fr^'
4«nr*tt JHoam sT^^Jife tJ^*** ife^^.lvtftq A!!'****!* *rfSf *a-JE«i«^ '1:i» «»fev«i
^•si^ynft^^siit .*«?»«iteai *«!# t*^ iH^ssi^VAir-l «»•««'»' *«il* XXM ^i:»i.\ ix
Mt^jiff y(^^ ^^/i ma^* xti »%»M mt^ii h»^ t*»ifii^ ^ 111 iaMi ftmfl»»7«
<!ra jijsi^iu^f ^ fi^refir^Jtit^l^lsuDa^ «X'i'A»i:ii]^» tamsi «#«« Jl^itM'
^^c / c$»9«^ «^j£ e^Xi;f<»t' ««j«^l:«l^ » 'Unm. It .tt^lMSiM ftilW^t^ 0^ «t;«««<r
PAiiY
APPEAL VJfOk SUPkKK/r^ uu^
lOLIVBRKDn-iffi OPLhlUl. 0/ Ti^ COllHl".
By this app««l plta,lntlfT se«VB to r«Tcra« a ^udj^jaent
of tht 3up«rlor oourt of Cook eounty aist«r«>d on n 'ilroete?! T«rdlet
iti f^Tor oi' the d»f onoaittt.
Plalntirf l>rou£^it suit agaln«it th« (|<»l*«nr^<mtfi to r««
eo^«r di*aa««« for |>«rs?5nftl injurlo* cX*iKt»»d to haire b«on «apt/.lnf«d
by hl«, *h« testiaony offAred by plaintllT tended to show that
on July 9, 19 ?7, plaintiff got into hl« For^ truoJt vnicn wae
■tar.'^ing aliout 129 f«et Sfiuth of i'olk etr«<rt at tho w^st curb ic
Voatom avftnuo, f>ii«lng north. *h«m plaintiff (tot ia th* truck h«
looked to the snut sund Bsw a northbourid ctriiH ear ooming %t a
•pood of from 20 to ?& mlloc ur< hour; it v<«e th«n mboot 600 feet
•outh of thr truck, ih« <l«f «isrj.ant» opprnt«^ » double lino of atri'et
««rs Ifi Western RTunue axid th« iiitret»t «ar in quaetlon w«e on the
east or northbound track. I'he (>vidi9ne« furtnf«r »iio*"i!» that at that
tl«« plaintiff talked to hln aon« who whb stm.i^ing nr^ar the truok,
and Just as pl»intlif started the truek he <%^-iiin lo ked <o the
south nnd saw the northbound «tre«t oar, wuic; wap then from 2rsC to
800 feet to the south* Plaintiff 4rc)ve tne truck nt ^i'bput 8 niles
An hour towards the northeast, crtissin^ tne v^»t or southbound
street oar tr&ek »nd t^ier. turriod north « s^traddllnt.; the east rail
of the northbound track. After he hud troTelled in this direction
for about 60 to 75 i^^et, the truck was struck ir the rear by th«
nerthfccund street ear, and plaintiff was injured. Xt w«ks about IX
!?Jk5S^
ijltl"?:^>4l .AiHi.ii
jM!ai^i«j«i;t» !»»«<} BUmUl. etS k*m^M.t» 0»i%ii%»i. LoLii^mtitf^ t&'i .e»ju»e«:.t t«r<»a
'US''ik4vl». 4»
.'< woe
o'cleok in th« iorvnoon, the day tiuu bl.;fcr tuii thcr> T>at no other
traiTie in th« etrtcot,
Further «vid«r4C« tmu ofl>r«d i.lioi.ini., tli« nature of
plaintil 1 '• iajluri««. ^« austiiinad a fracturo oT th« olavlole
and ir«« «onfin«d in Uic Uoa^ital i'or a period oi' Uureo iveui:*.
On oro»B««XM]Rinution oX' th.e pXaintlTf la«) vas s}iowu a releaa* whidi
h« tcstii'lofl bore his signature. It «»■• the ordinary fcrc. oT r*«
l«a«a obtained %y strftat oar eoaip«(ni«s in suou eases. It recited
that plaintiff had reeeived ^Ok^ Irooi tJ:i« def «iid«brits: <and plulxi-
tiff t«8tifi«>{! on orose-exaB.iitQLtiQn lh(«.t the defendants had paid
hlK the tdO* On objection l>y counsel for plaintiff the ucurt
held the oros8»exa&iinatlori iib]»ro]»er. '£he olijection miide by
oeuneel for plaintiff «ae that vh« oroee-examirii^tloi; was "fixing
ottllateral leeues as to eomfitnln^r, »le« that has no connection with
this question," Ihe oourt held it was pro£»«ir for cou/iee:^ to ask
the witness vuether he had si^ed the iufitruivent. JTurther exaai-
aatiea on this question was then app^trentljr abancionea. Aftemr&rae
plaintiff oalled phyeioiatis «ho testified as to thf nature and
extent oi plaintiff's injuries anri th« treatment niven. At the
close of tills the jurors were ^tiyen a eiiort reoees inid vlalntiff
stated that he had introduced all his evid««no« as x.o uhe ucuur-
r^woe. Counsel for defendarits then oi'H&rti^ iti evirieuoe the re-
lease, when t]i» following took plaoe:
"7HK COUHT; I'here isn*t any queetion i^beut the effleaoy
of the release and Uie oireuoistanees under vhioh this record now
staTids.
"tm, 1lKY£R0VI7Z: Insofar as It affects that parti oalar
Injury for vhleh the release vas t;ivea."
But without h'ivins the latsttt^r passed upon an argument
followed on the point uade by the defendants •> that th(« oourt siiould
direct a Yorciict in their favor, the court then iniieated that he
' 'mM^ ppi^Mm '^■mM ism-^»^ ^m i&ii^.M$ ,««<iw#'i«>i"#.dj
• ...•s»vS|''8>»ill»iSi' 'Ittmim^
■■■■■'''•■"'. .!8^»l«*'?
voMld •liatain dofandanta* ooBt»ntion nnd dlr«iot » vrrdlat en t,^«
ground that the •▼ldeno« ahvwad that the Plaintiff ««» not In th«
•x«rel«e pf due oar* for his own aafety. Th« (fofanftu-.tc then
off«r«d in «vM9no« th« r«l«aa«. Th« Suxy was brou^rht in *«n4
th«r«ur>on oounotl for plaintiff stated:
•MB. HBTEROVITZ; I will olojeot to the Introduction
of tho release.
*TH3 COURT: What is your object lonT
"liR, JiKYKROVITZ: That It has no bearing upar; the
question InvolTod.
fTHS COURT: Vhyf
•MR. MSYii'HOVITZ: Bsoaus* th« <J«f&n4arit has not aino'WJ
thAt the plaintiff understood the nature of thr? relAasa.
•Tiffi OOURT: That is up to you to sho^. You ;,''lead
that it was obtained by duress or fraud, but you havtt^iH, There
is no pjTOof in the rooord.
■im. MBYgROVITZ: I will excftit te thi- court 'e rulirig,"
Thereupon a TRr'Jlct was hu?.f?«>! to the jury "-hlcfc vas
siKDSd by the Fcrecan. Tbe verdict w»s: •^r., th<> Jury, fintl the
defen<iants not fullty. * Judtiaeent wee pnter«d on %h« verdict acd
plaintiff appeals.
Plaintiff ooBtenHs tnst the verdict s^xoul"? not have
been direeted beoause the question whether h« iras in thd exercise
of due care for his own safety should have boon subuittfd to the
Jury and that IV was error to reo«ive the relnaso In ©yldence at
that time. Ve are of the opinion that %ht releune sboul^^. not have
been receiT*d in evidence. Although the obji^ctlon su*de by ocunsiel
fsr plaintiff at tho time it w?is offf^rod an not teoimlcally the
proper ebJ«ctioB. Plaintiff had Just closed his case said counsel
for the defendants was arguing that def«rd urts' sect ion ior & iirsoted
rerdiet should bs sustained. Obviously Uie deieiid»4rite were net
mti^i '^■^ '.Wism'i.nh #'*«s *%imt»9, am* iid "JWt tetm »iih 1» ■■'■fi^^'^x'^
.JHe»»TS «if# at *■'■•-;-'• vH tti
'"■•:' :"•; ".' ' ' ■'' '" '■ ' ' . .. .: .ftTi
•ntltl«d to iBtroduott any «v14mio« until ttxe isotlon hod bean p«,a8«d
upon. A:or«€i'ver, w» Uilnk It anpear« froia th« reoort?. that the court,
in pAsiicg on th« wiotlon oV th«> defeniants I'or u, directed T^r^o.lct,
did not t«k(o tb« r(»l«'a»« Into cc<neid«ratlon.
Th« qu«Btien th«n reiualn*, «h«tu«r all rttasonablo
oiinda would r«aeh th«< ooncluelon i'Tom th« evidenoe that plAintil'f
WAS not in the ojcerelao of due eare and caution i'or hia own aafety.
If itll maaonable ninde vculf. not reaeta such conclualon, the quee*
tion waa on» oi fuot sod cot of law, Louthjan t. Chtcimyo Qitv Hy.
C£. , 19a 111. Avp. 329; Vail v. Chioaigo Junction kv. Cp., 28© 111.
476: IheCtjiicaKo Union XrM,gt ion v^o. ,y,,. Ji\e>l>aon. 217 jlii. 404;
B■^]^.ly T. ChioftKO City Hy. Co.. S83 lil. 640, Upon a cftreful con-
aidaration of all the *jvtd«nc», »* wro unsitic to say that all r^&aon-
able ffiinda would r<saeh tiae ecncluftion that plaintiff w»« net in tha
exerciae of 6u« crsixt and o&ution lor hifi o^n safety. And t'nie too,
althourn the defen*.»nt8 offered »o «nride«c«. fcimtAel t. l:iell Ry. Cft,.,
232 111. S63. Plaintiff vaa not raquirad to damenatrate that he
waa in the axerclae of due corn 2or his own safety, hnt reeponsi-
bllity for th*- »ccidcr;t ssurt t^ dftteriK.tned upon r^aaonafclp conclu-
aiane to be drawn frosr, th« pTlifmce. Ujf?i,o,n FApif ic K. H» Ce. ▼,
Huxoli. 245 U, 3. 536, Wa thinir. the aotior. of the defendrmte for
a directed T'^rdict ahould Yxato bo«n over-r^led, X-ibby,, Mc^^ejjj, &„
Llbby ▼. Ceokf 223 111. 206.
Tha ;JudjBflent of the 3up(»rior court of Cook county ia
reyeraad end the eauae remanded.
EEVF.KSKT) AKI' ~D.
XaSurely and i.»tchett, J,T, , concur.
: .*-«8#:i#*'J©fe'l®ia«.»:«4,«i •#9«*X'^''i «<-f^-i' '■■"-' >i'?"'t ''■^^
t%4!»»A«d&t';i## .(W^^ilf *J;,W :«^ fplf* 'm^t»M^tm!s*t^- ^S*"* fcX««>« «?J3i«
'>4»stmm^ tn^^^sK.^'im *? ;f.^^'J; ;#ie0i»- -.^i^jt '^-^ f»i»T•^7•-■■
33353
AKTIiOJnr k, 3LALIS,
JOSKPH J. EKASG^aKI, )
8 TWwn-----'iyfc^-^|gY^ ^mT'l
By tlilei a^p««l 4«f«n4iMat secica lo reverse on order ef
the &up»rlor court of cook couiity entered i>ote££ber 9, I93ti, deriylng
hie notion to e«t tne case lor heiarijQiig «uid to peroilt the deferidact
to laake hie def<«nR<».
rhe reeor«! diaeloees tfciat oK Karch 30, 1^22, plaintiff
brottt^t an aetien of aseuaipslt gainst the def^nciimt to reocvitr
42,000 ^feloh im Glaiwed to be -iue hiB; by reaaoa of » > re&oh ol" *
ecntraet on Ihe ■•■»ar't of the 4.«f'*r««liWit, rtr.d to recover for legsil
aerrleee and 4i»l9ura«s«jte by plaintiff as altorn^^y for tjae defici-
ent. At the a.a£:*^ tljfi;^ He »u«-t oat an attaehswnt in addi ^hlch vaa
levied en esrt&in real *st«t«. Say 25, ISMS, plaintiff filed hie
deelaratioB eocaiatlni? of a ap«>ei^l covmt fUnd tteo eoe^iOR counts.
Fallowing the »w«}ci;il count was sui affidavit of jjlaifit-lff *a clatas.
JuD* 3, 1922, defendarit €a9tered hia appear^noe ai^U .filed a pl>a of
the gen«?ral iasue and also an affidavit of facrita. In which iKt .-^e-
Bied aziy liability arid eat up ^1 in. aosia detail tha Batura of hie
Aefcmae. May lt\, 1923, in thp altaeiice of th? def «n(tiUi.t, the e&uae
vae re^ehe>l far trial lAd th«x-e traa tm j|£ y.jftyt^^ hear lug before a
Judt^e and Jyiry. Tl-ii^ jtiry found the isaa«a in fsvor of the plaintiff,
aesaaalAg hla daisagee at 9?,0OO; it ftlao found the ,itt3c;aB«iit in
favor of the jjlaintiff. Oh the aas^ date juiiBJemt was cKt«red on
the verdict, th^ n«xt day, kay 19, 19 25, eounael for the def entrant
•erved a ootice oa plaintiff, -^rfiarwiji they atate^ th^t en the lol-
S3S«£
\..
^^
<%r f^m^i>wm
.t CSS ?^ rs^ "I'l? '! ft'rt t
.y^'
,1fl
•'i =i.>' . zp.y .■5E ?:. r-. ■-.'• k:
-.4 <>#*!:..*<¥ >^>
««tt a» -^a-d*' iNl^iaNj ^m^-m
.'^sr.r^^ait
6«y'i<»8
Icvlnn; lLon4ay, May 3lBt, thay would t^p^fmr b«for« tha trl«l Judci*,
lion. Sdvnrd D. Shurtloff, aiiA aoT« to vacate the jttdgBi«iit, and
would ftuteit In support oi th« notion two affidavits, vhioh T«r« at*
:.t««h«d tc th# neUcft. Uce of th« affidavits *as Binds by Israel a.
iierkatus, attcrney for the dAfendft/.t, mud the other by Charlss H«>a«(h,
who was also counsel for the 4«f enfant, Tooth of thee: biding OKivViers
ef the firK of Unrisartn, Acs{:h .i ^fverin.
£erki&a& swears iti his affidavit that Ciiiirlss hcagh
of his flM» Uitd charge of th? cne*? said wbb inter.dirg to try It be-
fore Judge Shurtieff; thst 1; was on the trial cjill of Ju ige
Elxurtlefr oo kay Itj, 19';3, fceiRf^ the 19th on th* trial cfeil ; that
the coll was aet i't*T ten o'clock in the forfjnoon; that at 9:30
o 'olook of th*t a&orning itpagh, who wasi th^T. at his iioc^e, called
up thi> office saad «tskte<5 that h<? was too 111 t^-; cose down tc try
the caso; ^hat th^ other siejabBr oi the lirci, Severin , h'id »i\ortiy
prior to th-il tie* left to try «, ease ir, the Murisipal court to
b« heaad ic .Hoo» 1118, City hall; txiat feerkraaii h.:s4 to atUeiid the
court calls on that ttorhin^;, there boiBg four oases sst for trl«a.
at 9:3C a. a. ir. Vareo <?1 f f ersnt court rcoJES ijs thi? City h-U-1 and
tVir«o eases set for tea o'clock si. »., ^srhloh o»ses wsre a^jprirfntly
pen.lln^ on the trial calls in the Oouuty bwilUag; that Eerlaaim at
ten o'clock th»t Korrdn^ att^rido^ th? caIIs in the iiaiiicli>ga. court
and eue in the Clrci;lt court, vi^iieh w»s nuab^r 7 en tive trial call
of Juds« Wil84B, and ae noon -m ha was throu^a* he hastciried to Judge
ShLirtleff *s eniUPt roor., ^rrivlut; thsrs at 1C:23 a. w., when he was
advised by the clerk that the ca«« hnd been c^led mA aeard and
thai the jury hffd silready ren«l«fr«i its verdict. Affiant further
«t<%tod That y^" w'&s un'^'ble to ftmt any assistnnee aftsr hearing from
Kr. Keac^ on that morning. The affidavit further set up that the
d«f«}'lant had a aerltorlous defenss.
Th« affidavit ef Keagh eet up that some tins in 1932
dsfedant had endsavcred to negotiate a ssttlerseiit with pl&inti ff
0^S^^-.*-- -'■■' --■^>- -^-'■.-^^. '-ICiJfr ffi# ,*'^- ^..- >,-,.-., -
jyts ,i. ..,,.,»,. ,.... . ays* |jjis» »^'t :..;-,
•*» »«#« ^feiite ,elJI*«fe' a«ii>Jfta fl.;J?'*!e .tTs,'t';jag aJf :f';ad':
, ^j^^»4 %9 mil
^ *'-
i-^iii ;J.ti6© JE^I'^J, Hi^ J.W «i^ ^ •*-»*^ .^j»s*s4 n-w-S-sX ^ ■.-.■^J-i
^. V *'« 4jBi# . ' "■■ ■ ■■a ti;-3f ::iLss SlC#
*.-j-« <* ■lyx'Aii*
and thai plaintiff said he vould taka |25C; inat affiant d«eir«<1
lo eoi;«ult furtticr at>«ut Xh9 aattlastomt but had baan ill I'er ao»a
tlBc and vaa unttblo to io ao; thut on »lda7« Lay li, 19 23, ha
t«l6pUocad nis affloa about 9:3C statin^, h« was too ill to eoae
to the oiflcc at th« usual tliat but that h« would be lovB about
•lov«A o'cloek; that about al^ven o'cloelc tJhat sorninii he felt
hattar and v^nt to his oiilca, reaching thcr* about nooo; ttiat if
ha had not baan ill ou the sorniag of May li^th, he would haT* baac
able to appear before Jurige >^hartlaff oa the ealX cl' the ca»«; that
ha h»d prepared to dalenii th« eaa« soid that h* beii«ire<i the d«i>nd-
aut h>^d a ifood dcf «Be«.
1^ 26, 1923, Jud^e Qaurtleff a&tered a& ord^r giviug
leaTe to >iaf9rida(;» to HI* mi aiaeuded affidavit of Ei<^rlte or. or be>
foro June 11, 192d, ^id Uiat the executlott \j@ atsiyed. ^Tune 7th
the dcf«Aa<ibt iilbd ari u»ended affidavit of sierlts settiij;;. up in
datall the nature oi his def«uae auu denying s^ny liability. Jsumi-
ary £!l, 1927, an ordar «raa «utered aseigi^inii the ease to Judge
Caylar^a triai caleiidar, and oa iiay £1, 1SS7, the parties appeared
before Jud^-e ahurtieff , when Uie defesdant «ao'?«d tliat an order be
Miter ed uung pro tua,^ as of itaj yi , 1925, allowing that he ha.d Eada
a Botioa to V!>.catc the judgt&«nt at that tiiae. thes court found in
ita order that it appeared froa tae records of the superior court
that a petiiloa and stotiofi were i il«d on ^s^ 21, X9ri3; th^t the
■•tiOA and petition were prea«nte; to ttir^ court 0£ aaturd&y, ^ay
S6, 1923, both parties appearing;; tm»t vluring th@ heso-ing of the
matter the court, witcout aetie^ finally oa tJfs pctltier. and Kotion,
gare def«K4afit i^'s.Tfe to lile ar. aa-^nded affiftaTtt by Juu* 11, 19fe3,
and ordered t.-iat tne execution ba stayed, «a<;l t^at no aetion had beaa
iaJce& since taat time qu ths action; that the a&ended afi'ida-*lt w»8
filed June ?th, "and this court holds that said petitioa unA laotion
to T-uoate the jul^ent as presented to th» court on kay 26, I@"3,
Is now pending mj-^ uniisposed of." Ihe eoart ttxerefore h«>ld that f
StiPlH^ "!£i^. ^*^i mt»ti -mmA s^t^ ^ns^mfMji-*^ ^r^ -HM^ett-^
«l
a nm3>,9 pro t^ng ordT »*• uniiecpssjury anJ d«f «cidant *» motlen for
suo au. order wits dftiied.
On Jane 5, 19S0, counnel for plfiin-.ifr aenrvd a
Botlee OS couMcel lor tho def<eniar.t tii«it they veull, on the fel-
lowinti KoriilB^, appear bm'ore Jui^t. Pab sad fltoT« th* court that an
order b« entered ':lrcctint^ t)!i« cl»rx to l&aue a writ of ex«euticii.
Ihe reaord I'.'i.ilK to shart ijuy erder on thle action. Or. &ov«ab«r 91b
deler.dant'e »^oti<m Utat thr eauee be set i'or hearing an ^^ that he. be
peradtted to d«r«n'^ w«k» li«ai'<l said dftcifed, frot; T?hlch the d<?i''endant
l^roeeeutae tii.ie uppeiJi.
*e think th« motion i^iould iiitvo o«-n iAllo^ei, Th«
affidavit of iRcrite ajoi the ?«a«nd«d affidavit of mfrlta filed by
tae def sndazit tisuj to iao'^ thcit he h-^id % &^3ritorloua de^enee tm'3
the fee affidaTit* filei by the jefeiidAfit 'a counsel ani •i«5rve4 on
til* coai;sci. for plaintiff tha nsi";.! dsy after the judgRjuct "sas en-
tered «et up a »affiei«ot r«»^?r;n for the eourt to vacate the julg-
*ent *itii cr v»itiiout tarae, §9 al{i;iit aopear proaer. As gt^t?!, the
Boiiei. tf> T:<.eate Ui« Ju?gE8ct -wasi stistde the <;aj after the ^u-grsefit
wae «&tere4 aad duri&i^ the tera at trhic;; It irsf? eRlfreo. ~e think
the al'fi^aTite diecleee th&t ccuiiRel vfre j^ulity ot llttlt or no
negii^efice, I'oi it ap{.«5arfc they m^uI^, h^,ve teen pretr.f.* tp try the
caee hut I'cr the ilitkees u-f one of dcffudiait's cov.n&al , vhc ^hr to
try thf case; ihitt uiiesij«tt«i'i.y a niissber of cfts^'fl ^Hn- oii tt.c ealle
ol vlilT!!»r€tit ceurte wtiio... coui-,sel ^r-ai: etlig^.i ta fittiafid t;« ; that
he eouii Bo'w jjet other h*lp that morcing: th*t isur oi' these c&lle
were set for 9:3^ iB thf^ HAmiag and t'lree e ^.hers *t t<si\ o 'sleek;
tjatt the inaterJt o»se ^a» auiah«r 19 on tlie trial uall; aai tr*«
affidaTit 8el& U|j that it '^as but ^3 (slnute» i^ft«r ten th«it he
appeared fcofore 'a-lfip Shurtieff, It hIso ntJpeors th».t «?h«Ji the
natter eaae before Judge ^urtieff on th« Sdth hn g^ve the deferi4~
iMt leaTc tc file aa amended affidaTit of serite, etrangiy indi-
eating thet if defec^act elxowed a merltorieua deff^XiHe h« woold
SB - V4^ *'st«a»f. »:S^ ^T^)^ ^itKtrt i^-^ «%&«!. »ii«t«»i^ ^^^i|» ,»eiflri»w
i^ M i--^i»:Hd& ^s^y SiSrw^mum £i»p^ »pc«m^ Sm-^'-.
s. .'^Jtettoa t»Ai %i^^ "^1^0 t»j^ iiaM h
▼ 90»t* the ju'f>*nt, "^y ihv w.^.ttmT l*y in afceyanec i'or a nu>...b«r
«f yfTir* tcee not ai>|.i»r, C»ut:»ei lor the :.)luiniifl' aa«l« no aotloii
tb«kt aa •xfteutlon lb? Imued until Joe? 9, 191*3, .ui'l in thra* cir-
tujt«tane«« wft think :i« ou^rht not tc 1)4 ji»'urd to coApAaiA that th«
dtfac'^aot Hi not o«Il t,h9 aotion up fin^illy until iiOTeeiber 9,
xtaa.
l*h« orier af Uij -^upftrlor court oi Uook county is
reT«sra«d.
UliSSii hEVMtaSI).
33378
T8B F10Fl.e Oy THK 3TaTB
Of XLLIKOIS,
StfMidant in ATi
)
)
) SRRCm
BKLIVSRED sm OPUilOii 0* mB! CoUKX.
fty thi« vrit of •rrot A^tefiisait svAkB to rifT«rs« a
ju<1g»«nt of the Municipal court of Chicago fin ling iIib guilty
*of th« erlBinnl oir«»»« oi wilful «&d a&lioloU» assault with a
deadly veapon without any oon«l(lerabl« prcyooatlon tnd un^^ar clr-
«ua*t<ute«t shewing an abtmdonsd aitd malign>j!jnt heart yrit'n. intent
than and there to inflict a bodily injury" on J&na loUca. Tht
dofendaiit was nentenood to 60 days in tji« iiouae of Uorreotion and
a fins of |2Q «as imposod.
The infonaatlon, J iled by leave oi' court, charged that
the defendant on, to-w4t, the loth day of AU«Eust, 19 2b, "then fuad
th»ro being, \i<\ then and there with ^ certain instruffitsint ooiBit>only
called « roTolver "*»* being a dangerous and deadly weapon, ^it^iout
any oonsiderablo proTocation ivhatever, and under circum«tane««
shewing an abarxdoned and malignant heart, unlawfully, wilfully and
Knliciously nake an assault in nnd upon one Jaiuri i^^ika, 'stlth int<>nt
then and there to infliot upon the person of S8.id Jol^rn itika * botlly
injury, contrary to the Statute."
Aft^r a number of continuiuices and a change of T'liue
the defendant waived a Jury lOid the eause was subititted to the
court, the defendant entered a pl«>a of not e>ullty, the court
heard the eiridence, found the defendant guilty as oho^rgel, iind
isposed the sentence as aboTS state-l. There is eubstantially no
eonlliet in the evidenee and froK it it appears thst the defsmdant
!Tf.SK
gSf^ ..A-i S5C' • \. -^^^^ " "A
•■«?;.i"ai' jT-ii, :Sf.'.5JfTft4j-«(«t'Sti^ «j£,i!f«"S;8>l5i'»;a»9 X«S» y^uW$lw jpH>tJ8*iir ■vi.f'.ff.:;.!-..
,IM))» ^Miit#ild ;«^'''%iJi:i.ttg 4a»t»a«l»»a» ^ii^r- ^m^^
MDd J*tan Mlk« were frlanlt and had b*«n ■ehoolaiatas: that th«y had
nercr had anjr fuarrala or nl •under at and lags; that th« d«f«ndant on
Attguct 8, 1928, returned frwn a trip to Calii'ornla and ou tho
following' «Terilng Mk* oalltd on d«l*«ndaat at his homo, whero 4t-
fon^ant lived wltu hia faUi«r and nother; that klua vaa looking at
■oa« ploturoo and photegraohs dolortdant had l»rou^t irom California;
thmt ho then »at on th* hod in tho room «uad a rorolvor slipped out
from under defendant** pillow; that kiica then took the gun in hie
hands and reuoTOd the oartridt^ea, when dei'enetaitit told hia to pat it
acvagr) that defendant then oaoio and took the c^un and as he wae putting
it together, it w«s disoharged, the bullet atrlking kika in the
aheulder. 3«eing what had happened, the defendant immediately took
l&ika on his shoulder and o&rrl«d hia about a bloeic down the street
to a doctor, wh^re he was adKtinlstered to by the doctor. The je-
fendant told the doctor how the «ecid«9it occurred, ^e police were
ttttlled by the doctor and defetidsont was plaeed un-i«>r arrest.
At the couolueion o^ th* awldeneo defendant's eounsel
■awed that defendant be disoharged; that thereupon Ovuneei I'or the
People stated that he had two witnesses, who could net appear at the
tiae, idle would testify that 8oa« tise after the accident they had
»et the defendUit, ^^er* h«» told theia that he had shot Mika
so he could get into the stowiea. Ihe court refused to grant defeni*
ant'a action but said he would continue the ease for the reason that
ha wanted defendant aauubined by IiT» Dickson, and the oaaa vaa then
continued. Afterwards the ease was a^aln called and the reeord die*
closes that the defendant had been exonlned by j)r. Hiokson, who
reported that he found the defendant "non eo&x«lt table.** The State
then eall9d the two witnesses who toetlfled thai they had met the
defendant some time after the* accident and that he stated that he
shet ilika so that he eould get publicity and get into the laoTleo.
At the eonclueion of all tne eTldence th« defeiidanl'a
'titi^^i£»^-'iam^ ii^m%€-:$t&& ^iisbmUi^t' mi^»'^^»^ hem ic»%is$«lq »tu»«
^is$m '■■■ ^-4 %&ifi. 00^' ^M lim'^i 'J^hk mm sm0 tm^mlmb i»Ai i^«s
'^' -^ofy^^ ,%^ji^i»i^ HM' 1^^^ : cvJasa* •«» j»4 «^^ ■■*
j:;2ix I . 4 "f^lt ^muKsi mbiJiti ht/td »«( «t«i::tf» «^4U>j&iai«>««» x
1 ftl«i «ltMMi^lft .Kite t^ l»»«JltiU!«» #IUtAiS«tl
0it;«j«& Sits; ^»ji}£i^#4|i«i&w» «»«(* tj^lsji^'tofti mOS hmmt - ^»^iof»'x
ooujiB«l ft4t<^^ moT*d that th* 4«f«Bdant b« diaohargad: the court
OT«r-rule<I tha notion and aald: "X baliera this boy to ba a mantal
oaoo and should b« in an inatitutlon. * He than found tho dofffn^amt
guilty and ordered hlB eontmitti^ to the House oi* Corraction for 60
day* and lnpea«<! a i'tn« of i'Uft and oostff.
Xha etatutA undor rhieh def an riant was proaaoutad pro*
Tidao: *An aaaault vith a deadly weapon *"* *ith toi intent to in-
fliot upon the peraon of another a bodily injury, «here no consider*
able proTOoatioB appear* or ^rhere the cirousi»t«kriot8 of the aaaault
•h»w an abandoned or malignant heart ahall eub,1#ot the of lender to
a fine net exeeediag il,000 nor lesa than $25 or imprisoiment In
the eounty Jail for a period not exoeeding one y«ar or both, in
the dieoretion of the eourt." ^iec. ^S, (Tar. 37), Chap. 3a,
Cahill'a 1927 btatutee. In proaeeutione lor an assault with intent
to ooBuait bodily injury, the apeoifio intent oharged is the gist
of tlxe offenae ami oust be proven as oharg«d. People y. Connor q.
253 111. S«6.
In the instant eaee the information charged th«t the
defendant assaulted John Mika wilftaiy and malioioualy with a re-
Tolrer, there bein^;. no provoeation and under oirouK^tEvices showing
an abandoned and stalignant heart, with th«« intent to infliot a
bodily injury upon the p<trson of Mika. It la obTlous that all the
OTidenoe anews th»t there was no Kalioious intent, but on the con->
trary all the OTidenoe shews that MlJca was eiiot through an acoidnnt
and t,be finding of the court wae contrary to all th« «Yidenee. Just
why defendai't, who was referred to in the ewidenee »e a bey, should
have a rewolver un<)er his pillow we nre una tie to uxidorstand. If*
are olear that all the evidence sho»r« that. th«t fin ling and ju'rAsent
are uawar rented, therefLre tiae Jud^^ent o: th? ii^uuioipal eourt of
ChloAgo la reversed.
Ita3ttrely and Jtatehett, JJ. , oonour.
V ,. ii^m fii^si iSm^ifU>tl$^kS> ««f :it&0tm^m »j(Kr fNtt:^ !!t»v«m e&^^" is»vmim
J^m^ » »«>' ^ %p< ^Mf %v»^*>'^ ^" ifi.kfif4t Sum mi.$im ^m b^iut'-'^fit
#»i^ *«iSvt si fe«5ji5»«s® ^iiswjt^tai ^0M«.<3f« «<iM ^^TS»!'t*t^ tii**«*"'*is««s^» »*
if^^i^^iuii tm» VM» ^41^ «^si^ mi^^m mmni^'mi»'''im''*t%ift^
, ^ ,( „ H^wwi^ft , :i>i&'i h:m Kiw^wtisM
3513«
CLARA BU8I01UI,
I)ef«ttd*nt in Brror,
X
25
0 MUiilCIPAL COURt
CmCAfiO.
-Hk "X
MR. JUirflCa ItoSUWixy nSLIVXRID Ti« OPIMOJ* O*' TiS COUFT.
Pliiintii'f brought suit \o r«eoTer dftt<H&«« sustained
bjr r«a«on of a ooljlaloa betw«cn h«r Jiutomobil* and »xioth«r alleged
to bo in th« poaaffsvloc ol' tho del'anAanta, huaband and wifa, and
ap*rat«d by kay Caaay. Upon trial by a jury alrie had a Terdlet
a^^alnet bot'i defen<1anta for |4i>'« Oafei.dant JaKsaiea Caaay by thia
writ of «rror aacxa a reveraal of the ju?jsne?it thoraon.
About ona o'clock In the morrjing of Auguat 22, 1925,
plaintiff vaa dri-ring her autcmoblle south on arand bouXoYard near
the interaeotiou of 47ta atraat in Cliiea^e. As she was crossing
47th straat her ear waa etruek by the automobile driven by Kay
Caacy oomin^; flrcm the weat. It is conceded tnat the aeoident hap*
pened through the negligent Banag«eent oi the latter autoiu.oblle.
May Casey HA not a!}:>ear at the trial.
Jaees Caaay tv^stlficd that tue autof^iobile driven by
May Casey belonged to hi«; that she had no Int^Tsat in the ease;
that fron June 15 to SepteMb«r 13, 1925, he was uoni'ined as m
prisoner ii. the PuPa^e eounty jail; that bM'ore this tine his wife
had nerer 'iriven the autoiaobile and .iid not laaow how to drlTC one;
that before he went to Jail he i{i(>truet<?d her not to let ari>one
take the car out; that he put the ear in a new garage, locked the
door wnA eerried the key with bin; that whe::. he returned on iieoteB'
ber 13th ho found hie wife gone and the oar gone, ile obtained a
dlTorsa froK her on April 1, 1926. He did not eee hie wife on
Attgust 22nd and was n t present at the tine ol th<- acoidertt, but
Was In Jail. He h%d never given her peraiiseion to drive uie oar
{^ »%P^5t^ M ^i5ffe<^>"
*' ^^^^^i****" ^
,%«>%%!&
v^.-. . ■>#*(« *^ ^rf *(|.tf«i^ia »«WP -sum %9^,^--.
and n«T«r allowed h«r to <lo so. This aTidenc* 1* undlaputoA.
Counool for plaintlfl' sayo that It was ohovn that
3tm*9 Caaoy In Doeoaibor, 19 2&, ai^ad a bail bond for bio «if«
and that tuit with cortaln otli«r f iOta tondad to diaoradlt Janaa
Casay'a teotlnony. *« do not oo ooncludo. The ineldonta olalmad
to ^« diteraditlng ara not inoonol stent vlth tha Bt(tt«si«!>nta of tha
witnaoa Caaay ae to tha faot of his nen*prasanea at the tlse of tlia
aaeldant and hla explicit Inntruotlona that his wife should uat re-
Biora th« oar itom the gara<a. Tha werdlet agiRlnst Janaa Caaay la
■anlfastly ogalnat tha walght of the oTldence.
£ut It la said that Janaa Caaey may be held either as
a Joint tort-feasor, citing Vat^gter vs. Clumey. 24o lll» App, IdS,
or under the doctrine of raas>ond«at M&2£SA3£.t citing i^turyy) v,
Adanlftk. 2S1 111. App. 431. I'ha deeiaioca in these cases are not
applicable to the present oirou»ietaneea. In the Uurr* ey ease both
the Maattf and the servant var« in the sutoRiobila at the time of
the accident and It vaa held were jointly reaponelble for its
operation. In the Barrap case the autos^oblle was driven by the
admitted agent or servant of his prinolpal, nuxd It was heia that
under such cirousstanees the naater and th«; aenrant oould be joined
in one aetion. In the Inatant ease James Caaey was not present at
the tlKe of the aecident and It Is a^ply proven tltiat the automobile
was rei?!Oved fron tha garage not in conneotion with any family oon-
oern but In lireot violation of his orders. In tbtot, the elrou&->
stanoas tend to aupport the contention that, while her husband waa
In jail Jkay Caaay stole the autoiuobile and was usin^ It for her own
pleaaura when her negligent operation of It caused the ace 1 dent.
Ihe court luproperly Instructed tlie jury upon tha
theory that, if it was shown tnat both ttay and Jcunes wasey ownad the
autoaobila aa husband and wlfa, then both defenianta were responsible.
It was undisputed that the ear belonged to Jskiob Casey alone. Tha
i
jt»i^ it« «^jttiieE»^«^« »ie^ Aiiv ^m^ni*m9ii^iJi tmn aim 9^8.2 >!^i£'»%«^ii^ tt4 &f
,9j^ ,9^ ♦lis ij*« tttims^.^iL.MiiMsl ^m^ ,ii6«A*t-tn»* *«i&t *
#««r QH^ «««4»« iSwti^^ a;i ^&*HHi^ •^^ .t8i^ *<t4%^ ..XX? msi •Mljm&A
^m hn^m-Kt X!^^»Ct mmmt Sia» x»^ dftt^ 3»tii W#£^ «»w H ^i t?£iis \i9'»^S'
t^^l'ssXdqci^'C #««!» A^ttNyb3»t«j^ ilj^W <s«4i ,«t1ilv ha» taui^nitti »» (»n€'^9Hm
jury vaa alto in ropcrly instructed that il' it should find that
Jaai»« Cas«7 ovnod th« «adr wid that Magr Casey on the ni^^ht of the
aeeident ▼»« engaged ifi »o»« oooupatian or errand I'or and on !»•«
half of Janea Casey, then it oou)d find Jaune Casey guilty of
of
any neglif^enail/irtiiGh J&ay Casey was guilty. Xhere was no evi-
denes to Justify this instruction. w« otoi eonceive of no oarrest
rule of lav -vuieh under the olrouKstanoea i^piearinK in eTidecoe
would justify a Terdlot agAiast James Casey.
JPer the reasons ab^f indicated the ju ife;a«nt is
rrrsrsed and the cause rsuandsd*
O*0ennor, f. J., and ii>atohett, J., concur.
.'sag(8r4l^;.iii';;i^t;»t**a«»«*4^,ft^ *** »-*p«jja»e*^
i|"^j,:5aiV,' f'*' :^3'-t«<J:AS''-i
331 8t
JOKM 8. CRAlli,
'•"^'APVT.UJ trj^OU liVNlJW*'Al. COURT
MR, JUSTICS JtoSUHKi-Y DStLIVIKSD !*1E 0PIIiI0ii|Oif THK COURT.
P«fen<3fcnt by thla ArP^al 8«*ltB tl** reversal ol' a Judg-
Bsent again et It 9nt«re4 on thu rer'^lct oi' a jury for ^172. 75 In an
action troU£:ht to r«eoT>»r i'or Alleged damr^'ee to a a&rle?'i4 of bor«««
•hipped froa Arlington Height*, Illinois, to Atlajnt*, 0«or£;l&. The
oar tr&Telcd oTsr lines beloui.lng to a nuisber ol' railroiids, but the
defenr^ar^t ie the initlitl oarrler an<! undar thc^ C«n£»ok Affi)tn(%f^«nt to
tfc*» Act to Regulate Commeroe pi»y >>p 9\xe<\ under such circumstances.
Plaintifl' el&lBis thtat the horses were datfi&ijed ou ^count oi' rough
handling in transit.
AS there sBUCt bf another trial ^e r-f^^r only briefly
to the erl(3ence on the Tacts. JSioTinaber 13, 19^5, plaintiff ten-
dered rlefen<!ax:t for shipment a oarloa«} of 24 horses nnA 4 mulen to
be hauls'! to Atlanta, 0«oruia. IhB horses «?ere ordinary fara
horses; the car was a 4C foot ear, lo:«d«d by the shipper, who ae*
co^npftnied th« car frorc the stockyards in Chicago as far as Kash-
▼ ille, XenneBsse. The evidenoe %o to the rough uandlintf narrows
<!owE to the attige of the journey froai Terre Haute to SvansTllle,
Indiana, % distanoa of about 111 atil^s, and the evidence as to
this is oonfllcting. Plaintiff was tho only witness 'Tho testified
that the train was rougiil> handled between th«se points. His t«s»
ti^Bony was contradicted in nome prirticul^re sm^ th<^rA was other
eridenoe tendin . to aaet doubt upon his statr^aents.
There was eonslderablt!- eridlencs teniiint:: to show that
the car -as oTcrerowded. Jttany witnesses testified that a 40 fidt
86XS£
oar oan hardly hold 24 heraoa and i kuIAs njad thAt auoh ov«rlo»ding
is el)J«ctlou&l)lt booAUtfi, ii tu* ;«tiliii«.X Tails Uo«n It^ !• aliboot
icipoviiiblft I'cr hiM to ri8« (i^i^-tin.
T)ioro naa alao c^ oouTliat Ijc tae t«»tii:^ony »• to tho
oondltien oi' Ui« hoxac* T.'h«n th«y var* aJilppod, sosiO wltnoBsaa t<>e->
tifyljri^ th«t choy ««re "ii^ pr«tty ii<J,r condition «" whilo otiior «rllo
»•»••• e«l-l U^&t Ui«y wer« d««r«pi4. 1A« wkybill rnoltes that tht
heroes vvro ;U.l a^od -AiifX ruugh, 7 to 16 y^aro eld.
It «ao iiuporti^at andor «uuti cljrou&otaiicao that the Jury
\*i oorrootly IriRtruotod. ih«t court, at doioiidant'o xnataneo. In-
•tructed tho jury that, 'vnoire the ahlppor loada th« livostock and
in doing 00 ovororowdo uio anistals, tn.« risk or loss In upon tho
•hippor. ( ir»8truction i»o, 1.) ;i,it^^neo y. ^ilPaoQ ,^ Houta '^eotorn C^..
88 i», M. 133; If, C. a.. ;k.« Oo,« v. i;>«j|^fy,y c>.. Xj-.oa^a.^. 162 ;^y, 535;
Llbro Y. U. W. U. A; .it. L. Ky. ;^Q. . ^iC'S ill. i^pp, 410.
Tue Lill 01 lading apeciilcally provldod tiiat, unl«08
thtt ohlpaont «raa damagod by reaeoia ol the nee<;Xigonoo of the o<irri«r
or Ita «unploy««s, the oarrier would not b^ liable for injuiry sue-
talned by trie llYoatccic '.«hiah was cuuaod by ov«rlo jding or erowdiag
ono upon onoiher. ^o«?«T«r, th« court orroneou&iy, at the inattinoo
•f plalntilT, guve Inatruction nuffibftr 24 aa iclXowa:
"ihe jury are inetr ,ot«d that •'.aere livo stcoJt auoh >is are
in quoation ii\ this oaae are reoelvad by a comaon cfirrler, ^mil a
raoolpt or bill oi lading is ^ivon conlHlriin^- a uXvuao e^cor^^pting
tho enrrier I'roB certain liabilitiea th«r«lri mnntionnAt auoh ro»
oeipt or bill oi l«.dlnt^ i» not cin Ung on tho ahipper unlesa it
appoara by a preponiarar.eo of th« avldience, that h« knew of vxiA.
aaaonted to tu0 oxomption; or whether he di') so aasont ia a
question of fact for th« jury."
Aa this rtiipment waa floncede41y interotate. It was i!*r-
roneouo to charge the jury In aooordanco '!<:'l (h thp Illinole rule eon-
oemlng tho ahlpnor'a assent to liniitatlonfi in billa or lading.
Adaaio Sypreaa Co. ▼. Cronintter. 386 U. S, 491; M. K. &. T. Hy. Co.,
•y. Harrinan. sa? U. 3. 6ft7; K. C. 9. Ky. Co. v. Carl. 227 U.S. 639:
OaBiblt'»RobinaoB Cob ..iBSlorj Co. r. Union racil ie K.R.Co. , 26? Ill,
;>>iLiAM...,a^.gjiaL...itI^l..JLl?.' r" ••• *»«
4«>: J. C. Shafftr » Cq, T. C. K. t. A p. Ry. Co.. 188 HI. App.
6i6; •>w««t»tr ▼. C. A \. K. Co.. 196 111. App. 6«5: ^ifatllabmrgwr
Al^vutor C«. T. X. C. tt. K. Co.. 212 111. App. X; T. k ^, Hy. Co.. t.
Lti^thfrwatt^* ^S<^ ^* ^« ^''S* i^trtll•ruor•, tills inntruetion ifcnoraa
tu« ml* uiat, It' th« injury- it cituBad Iby ovcrioudibe; and not caused
1i»y th« earrier's n«gIi«;;eiio«, th« oarrler la not liable,
Ihp court alHo isii>royerly i^ava, at plaint! IT 'a r«-
quaat, Inatraotion nurabar 34 aa I'ollowa:
"Tne court inatruota the Jury tn«t the loailng and unloading
of cars sr^ nrePURed to ba un'?r the cixrier'a coui-rol and th*tt
tnc c>'(irter la liu.l'l»> lor itiy loaa inoiiant, tho.rato, unlcaa tha
Bhlp-n»r afrjiBoa the r'^nnonalfcllity, jii.! ilkttn only i>" tha cl«i'eola
in loading c uld not haYc boon raadlly seen by tha o^urriar under
ordin-iTy observation nnd Inspection,
"And in t.iip caae if you i'ln«i frous the evidence that the de-
fendant knew or coul-' h-iv? known of t.ic "efeota, IV saiy, in the
loading by reusonsbXe obaerTHtioa or Inepeotion, tben, even if
th« ahlpner aerlitwd in t,hm lo^^dlni^ oi' t;;e horaea, t)X9 derondant
would ba liable,**
This inatruction la lnconaist»nt with given Inatruetion
number 1. The eTidenoa aao«ra th&t the ahlpper exeluaiTely had oharga
or loxdin«, the livcatoe^ in the inatant aase, lurth«rB^or«, we can
not concede that the law le th&t aven where a ahlpp^r haa exejualwe
charge ol' loading the llYcatoCif, i!' the defendant knew or could
hava known of the overlosiding by reasona.ble obaervation or l:nau<»6~
tlon, then tha oarriax would be llabla. In I,, C, K. K. Cq. -Vj^
Rogers & rhoaat. 162 Ky. 536, the rule waa atflit-d to tha contrary,
althougii noting tnat "there are a few reap<i^ot!<ible a,uthoritiea hold-
ing the contrary view. " Xhe opinion eonelades, hovevar, that
"The great weight of authority aupporta the proposition that
where the ahinp^r loads tbL« qmt diiaell", th« carrier is not 11-
ablf! lor leae or injury ariaing froKi auch dei'eotlve siAnner of
lo«dlKf:, r.h«*t>ier the Bafl}« b« riijcoveraoie or nut, U not actu-
ally diaooverad by the cnrrier. Tha carrier h&a a rij^-ht to
aaauae that thR shipper h.«.a louded the car ii> proper manner;
and it doea not lie in the mouth of a shipper whose act or fault
In respect to th* «:*nii«r in ^hieh h«? lo-;ded Uie oar h^^a reauitad
in less or injury to his property, to say to th*!- carrier that it
mloht h«v? discovered aucix isij^roper lo xdiiij; by sui inapeotion.
!Rie ahlpper nay not thus deriva advantage froa his own wrong."
Other supoorting oases «.r<» Texaa ft P. By. Co. v, ^r^lns.
J'ttf^O «ifif*
-.te ff;«;S -B i?,;j
'Ifl
' « 1 t«,. ;
anr'-^nr
-UJ .u
Ho W«i,t:
Ji^l
36 IM. ClT. App. 638; Jficklin » 4on v. w>bH«h Hy. Co.. 119 He. App.
•53; kore< t. Quftudiur. ; »oinc ^^y. Cc.,> 97 >.•, 77. i'ain prinolpl*
has t**!^ applied in f> ehipw^Mt of iron trusff«» In PgnnpylTania 00.
Ti ^<ftWgS3, krU^n ,<tf,y,»« 170 111. 645.
It was aULso licproper to glT« plulntlfi'*s tMidtrtd In-
•truetlona nuKbcra d, 14 tsid IS. Itxc eighth inatruotloo told th«
Jttry that the obrrler waa an innurer without any quulll'i cation as to
the rule that exists in the case ol liyeetoclc. It i^Ibo Improperly
referred to the duty ol' the carrier to prorlde a safe oar; tbere
was no olaia «i t-^er ii. the pleading nor In the evl deuce that th-^re
v»e anytuing the maiter vrltU th«5 car lurniehed. Vhe 14tia ^^nd 13th
instruct lone are also open to the orltiolsn that th«;y finJ.l to in>
cluie the rule that, in the oaee of llveetook the carrier la net
liable arhare it has proyen freedom i'ro^ negligence. We '«re not
referred to any oaee holding ^hat the carrier of llyeetoelc: le ^jjr
ahaolute insurer except a« again»t ita own neQlic,enee. These cases
hold to ta« oontrary: C. H. ^f '"^ ^» 'fjr. Co. y., iiteoTfton. 12 111. App.
B4; K^m9 A^\ir«n^ ^■<i* ,T« ^?^%U9».» 106 111. App. 563; Wahaeb K^K.co.
Xi_JaMl2a. li"i il-^' -^P* S45; Jiorth Pa. P.. H. Co. v. Coaaercial
Bank Q) , CuJoagQ. 123 U, S. 727, 'Ihls rule wae aiuo stated in an
suioient case where the property trannported consisted of elayes,
opinion by Chief Justice &are]tiall, -ii^oyce y. AnderBc|i. 2 Peters
ISO (u. ii. Sup. Ct.)
Defendant claims prejudleiaJ error in the conduct of
counsel I'or the plaintiff. A conalderable portion of defendant's
ewidence was in thn i'orui of d<»poaitions of noae twetity*one witneeces
taken alon^; the route ti'aTOled \»y the ehipwetit. Iheee dtpositions
were taken in the regular way pureu«nt to the statute, but plaintiff
did not appear at the taking of th«B. l>o objection was iftade prior
to the trial as to their fon& nor was any obj'^ction made based on
"Ay e^'ound of failure to oocrply with the law applicable to the taking
««ft^ ,.u^3: imfx i..«^jBfcjyxL«c '^^--^ -^
W 4.dL^L.M:^t^ r"?** -'i"^' **'^i ^JfJt »fv
of <!«i>e»ltlons. During tu« iriitl, h«w«T«r, plaintlii *• oounaal \ty
vamny »t«t«K«rits aouit;!;. to disorttdlt liQ»»« d«po»ition« on the ground
that tli«r« «»• BO •ro«a*«juunictttion, "th»t •vevytrilng 1« ■laply on««
8ld»d: « « » you only take on* aid* oi tha atory and Itt them put
In a lot or taatiaeny whloii 1 n«Y«r aaw." A«j;ain plalntli'f'a attorney
■tat*d« "Wa did not know & aici^a ti:iing about tt, nol/ody «aa praamt.
Bet a aiii»':le on* to hear tha teatlaieny of any one ot the witnaapaa
on tha atond.* .vgain. "I thlnJc It '^aan't fair to tha ols.inti;f to
lot ail Ihla t<»i!"tlmoBy In, In riifrw of thw t»etij»ony oi the olairitlfr
that •»aa axoluf^ad.* And RRwlr th** dwnoaltiona vera raf«rrad to aa
•all kinda of stuff,* Thpra wr« alao further ramarka charging: Uiat
dof«n'*ant'a eounael h;id tha daT>9Rltiona In bi» pxcIusIto poaeestion.
Although admonlahad 8«»varely by tha trl^l court to refrain froiB
Baking aueh atatiWBwnta In the preoi»no« of thr jury, plaintiff*
•ounaal atill paraisted aveti wh^n the oourt Indicated th?.t, if the
attorney waa not more car<»ful the court would deolarif » mistrial.
Alao in argument oounael for the plaintiff ref<'^rt«d to the olaintilT
aa "Bot a rieh man; he ie m.> ordinary farmer," :4nd stated that tha
dofendant had ateana to aend "around »t^enta and inveatigatora %11 over
the country," and tha.iit did thia "in order to our»r>re»» this olfi^liB,
in order to defoat juatieo." auch at«t««r.enta Hr*? cl<?arl- praiu^'lcial
and require a raveraal. geatbrook v. QU.cj.ajto 4 .^Jbiprta .■"eetgrp Hy,Oo..
24S 111. kn-y. 446.
Wa can find no ,1«j«tl f icatlon in tha record for the ariount
of the vTdict reriered - *1172,75. Pluintlff undertook to teatify
aa to the Bark<»t vjlue of such horaea 'xt th«'ir deatinitlon in Atlanta,
Uaoris|;-la, >>ut M-l not "ttallfy aa m eix^ert In tnl* reap^ct. Ho said
he knair thia yalua "by expert enco" al though he had not t^een in Atlanta
sinea the World w»r. He aaH he f«lt that "the lot of horeaa ou^t
to net »a $3900; thai, ie juat whJit I fi^jrad." Thwre wae an abundano*
of teatiiaeny by witneaeea, reaidantts of Atlanta, that the aale of
,,*«*«<• t<? £•*•*■ -.^.:- .5 ■-.■>. j/ji ^vi^-cw.^ sitltfl;!^ ii|ifl|ii#« '«r«Wt '#^ AAfr *W* ,&**##«
_■ , .; ■ •■ _ ,'i*i'«*>^- : --M
■■ ' '4^ 4*4i *'*y*' .f*i-ii* 4.i#'A ' ' ..;■. .c3
hor«ss had fall«ii off a* oonp&red vlth the sal* of biuIab aBd thAt
there "'»« no i«T!i?»nrt lor horses of L.il« clftss. i;;r, Pattr^rtua,, re-
slltriQ at A.tlAnt«, tc>stlfi«<d that an w^ts in th« IlY«ctoek luual-
Bsaa nine* 19G4; that his oonotrn was ono of th« largest in AtlMota
ant' that he was sngatrftd iii the handlln^f of all kin is of llveetook,
••lllng horses and mules weoKly at auction ard private sales dally;
that he bundled about 15«C00 horses and auil'^u tiurln^ the course of
a year; that he 1^•as familiar vri th ecnditlons re^ardiAb horses In
Atlanta and that there vas a ea^e of atout one horse to forty or
fifty Kulcc, there ie no publl cation oorerlnti tU*; market of
horses in Atlanta, The vitnee& haid a p^reonal reoollection of the
shlp&iSnt in question «jri1 sold the tatati i'or iiie plftlr;tiff. The
horses were delirared to the Patierson anlo«t>ding sneds. de eaid
there «'erf> a fev horaee and sales taat were bruised un s'oi&e, one
eepeeially that nuA bean down lu th«! oar; that "it w»e a load of
peeked, plain eeeond-ht^nd horaee and males, " ;md that the "type of
horses in this loid <loes not suit th«( Atlanta market ;" that his
reeollection ^ac that the six Itijured horses were sold privately,
and "the market value was realised on the b?i3.ar.cfi of ths ahivUisnt*
trhioh va» sold by auetioa and handled in the re£?:ul.»r course of
business. Another Atlatita witriese of exp^^rit^uoe testified that the
horses vere old, tiiin, disa'cled ?md v^crh out, they "eimnly ^9r« a
vorn out set of antutale." Another qualified Atlanta witness testl*
fied that the horses were "praotioally of no mjorket value, b^inp
old, thin fmA praotioally worn out.* xhmre was mueh other <»vldenoe
of the same sort. ^h» horses brou^^ht at the sale in Atlanta s/466.
As thpre w^n nn proof of any roariiet value for sue;; horses in ntloiaita,
the Dreaumption la that the roarket valu^ is what they brought.
For the errors atovt inUuated the ju5,merit, in rftvereed
and th<? oause remanded.
0*Cannor, i-". J,, tuad ^atoheti, J., concur.
-# ..«ift fjs»srf ,t;«fc».; k4jtf%:-^m-miH*i-m-^ tmaetiAn
Sj^ itod;# ^i^#4^«t,.«#«^,^^; Ji.lSl^. 4'1«^. ^#t« e9;«l£« ife««I »&iii SUL m^Ti'Hiiti
•>1^»»$ »'j»«i«:9j'«' iA$v^i.ik %titXil»&p %»jli«iM '*««>ijt««li«a ?3io' #»«- j»i^;tfS«i1r'
||, y!si^4 ^mlsfi* ipf%i^fsi' ^1A ^ii ^i^t&i^M* iM^Mi^ Mmtmi «>&i i*Jii hti^-Ti
I .4«#a«i4'i- ,i«i,«*«tojf( .tiaw»'-2#l ««i.#-?. tfw^it/** '?.••.■
b»&t!aimr &ii .,'mmbt<^ i,ikf'b4ftt^ii:M'9Vf-: f 'tot
App«lltt«
JACOB anOSTSMAV*
oy CHIC ao«
Appeiiaai*
»• juf.iic3^ MsQiiKLY muvm&L tm opiMias m tm CQimf*
59
i:«faad«uBt &ps>«&ls fron & juifjsibeiit ftfAiaat hia entered
upon the fim:t«« or tlM ewurb f<iv ^1695 •«£• flcitt poUitv raised
«i>1a« en th«r pleaAiaKe*
the «tA&«M)At of oXikiM RllfrgjNS th«it in at foreoleeufre
prooeeiiiBs In the Circuit ooart ftf 0»ok aounty bit»ue)iit l»y
plaintiffs ft )»««(! w&e given* signed by the /kehlauMS Bi»ul(rr«rd
H«spit«l as prlnoipsl »ad Jaeeh OrosdMaua a« sursty* In the
MBOunt sf |3t(X)0t in lieu of the &pi>dljti4»c»& «f & r«o«iv«r of
ih« Ash>sn< Boulera^rd Hospital* Th<» ooojI whs oo»<^ltlon«a ^hatf
in the event a d:«oretf ehould b« r«nd&r«<! a^inet the hospital
for the pa:y»«nt of aoney* th^ ^3<md should stand ao fe<;eurlty for
the sstiMi; that a deeree was entered in tiie foreelosure preoeedlng
findlnii due $3170 .SO | Ui/ikt lh« Ashland BouXerard Ho&pital paid on
account of this ^doo* Icaviac a b<^'laisoe tno of ^1570«20, «>hieli»
with itttArest* aakes a total rjaount due of $1605*d2*
XHrfend&nt on this appeal raises wmy i>ointa whi«h»
upon thtt state of the rec^rdt c<%rmot be rfiTioved* It is said
tkat the Municipal court did not have Jurisdiotlon of >«hs fore-
closure proee<^dinKo but this is an aotloai in debt on a wri&ton ,
instrunent of vhioh ths IfcUBlcipol court elei^rly has Jurisdietion*
.''S::^
iM ■ . ,. . ■ • •. • '■xtn'^
.2.
TIm 8t«t4nMBt of el&tM il1X«c«* ^^^ ^* ^'* •'^» '*
I>orlMBd Ifi the bona f idt oira«r of tho olala* aad defoMnst aaoorts
thnt iho asslgnwnt io net proporly pl«a4«ft» «■ required by seetlea
laf chapter 110» Praetlee Aofe* Tke neei^nMnit to lorland la
proporljr pleaded In the etateaent of el&lm» which la under o^th*
BBd a eopy of v.he asulgnnent la attaehec*
Judgntent might well haYe be6Q entered for mijit of a
•off icieat nffidsYit of merite* vhloh in general texma allegea
that defendcjit neither ecoaite nor deaioa that defesadaat ia in-
debted to plaintiff but oalia for «triot prdof thereof*
The reeord eho«f8 no objections wo any^ of the proce<?di]ifs
nor to the J|u<3i^e»t » so the defendant e^^nnot nw for the flrat
tine <«tteatioa the eoao* l-»ja^e v» b.ty>,cit, lt»9 111* App* 938}
Hamon t. Callahan* 187 111* pp. 312 1 r.eid y. Mcg.innay, 202
111. Api>. 1291 Knuda,^ Y. i^aaiSJt* 207 111, <^pii. S>8c
It ia isug, eated th&t thw form of the juc^Rent la arroaeoua*
Tkia aajr be o«Bo«d.ed and for thia reason the Jud0Baat will be
rereraedt but as the ease was tried by the court a proper Judgaeat
will be entc'red in thia oourt agaiafit the def(ind.'%at for $Z»()00
debt to be «^^ti»fied upon the p^-jraent of >^X695*32 awarded as
daaagaa* The eoeta of thle appeal ^ill be tsixed agK^.inet the
appellant*
RB?£BiSEi) ASt JVhmmT HSJ^K.
0* Connor • ?. J«« and Matehettt J*» eoaeur*
,, . :x®i%jp^/;tijS:/4i«9»fijK^ (fttf^ awffii- feftll** «#;««- '^iMf <!>;^ s4^%
•1 -'J a*iilKj3j[i{f
¥«*
»^S^«»^'-:' t;^'.;& v^iUpl^tJld^.xj^llK;' y . -.omise^ *0
S3S49
tUSk AUlk|bli>AL CO
OJb" CHIC AGO
8. 1»A|»,
App«ll««, ;
/
/
ttSTBOPOl^TAK j^SiTROLK,
•nd K>^ BUB,
AppolXftnt/l*
. JU3TIC2 M«SURSLT BILXVXHEn) 7HK OPXJiZAl OV THE COURT.
Jttdf{B«nt for 9563.50 vas entered by oont'cBsion a^alnat
defcndania by Tlrtuc sf a pov«r of atteriity oontaliscd in a Judgncnt
not*. th» not*, <tat«d April ?7, 19^8, «»• payable to the order of
J. L. Henaan for ISOC, due six Kont^e after date, and signed by
Ketro?olltan Petroleim Co. by Israel £. Zimaeriaan; I^at Ru« alee
signed it. J. L. Hernan »ndorsed the note and i«QTefflb«r 2« 1928,
judgment vas catered. Defendants Aored to vaoate the jud.giB«nt,
eupperting the aiotion by petitions and affidavits. After hearing
the notion xras denied, frou which order defendants appeal.
Vhile the petitions assert tiiat the note was i';iTen
vithout consideration, yet it appears therein that J. L. Heman
was a stoekholdar of the defendant eoBq>aBy, lAiioh company was tiie
result of a eonsolidation of two companies, nac&ely, i^etropolitan
Fetroleua Company and )»etropolitaii SerTicc stations. Inc.; that the
lietropclitan Petrolexift tforupany vas under the impression that stock
of the ttetropclitan Serrioe Stations, Xne., eoull be sold after the
stock Oi
eonsolidation and sold blocks o£/th^ consolidatod cou:p&ny to diyers
persons who riled ooznplaints before the i^ecurlties CoBuninsien dSB'snila
ing restitution for the unqualified stock they hud purchased; that
Julius Heman had purchased soibo of thie stock mid filed a eoisplaint
vith the Securities Coraaission, vhcreupcn the eonpl^ints of the
purchasers oi the unqualified stock were detera;ined to the satisf^ic*
tioB of all the parties and the Beourities UoBUKission ordered that.
qm:-EE
4m^Li^' $mmmim»'-'0 wmmm-'mm mmm^'^im 9mm^^^-
'to 5foo;ta
;$'<«l«i/:^^M). » »ifi.X2% &-:UB ^'''. -^m9t &««bei^)^sii«>ul{ $»s«r»»lii a«iXv&
ttnl«»» th« d*f«nd«nt k«trenolltttB P«tr«l*ua Oennwiy mais a sisttl*-
mtnt with iiarmaa, o«rtain Droo««4iaga would not b* dlaeilstad; th«r«-
upon ZlBuaarmaa, th« pr««id«nt oi' the dafandact oorttoration, and Um
Ru«, tha ••erotury, Agraed to taka baok tha eartlfloataa of *took
a^gragatlng tha auM of $1900, for whieh thay agraad to axaeuta
thraa promissory judfpaent notaa in tha sum of 95CK) aaoh, whieh actoa
vara axaeutftd and dall-varad. On« of theaa notoa is tha banls of thia
auit. It alac apovars from the patltioa that the board of diraotora
of tha daf ondant eor:>eratioii oonalstad of thra« diraotora and that
•t tha tisa tha nota in quaatioa waa axaeuted thora wsra praaact
laraal ZiBsuan&an and Hat Rua, balng tha prealdant and taeratary r«a>
paetiraly. Thaaa parsons ^«r« &l»o dlreotors of tha eoj)!p>uiy st this
tins.
It is oontende'd that on ih# f')ea of tha nota Zlaaoaraian
and Rue signal only aa officers of tha corporation and that thia
balni; manifaat, tha note auet h» considered &• tha not« of the cor-
poration and cot <is tha note of liat Kua individually; but tha nota
on its fia« thews that Unt Hue signed In his indlvidura eapttcity
•nly and not aa an offlear of tha corporation.
Where an inatruaent on its faea reprasenta an abaolute
individual obligation, parol awldenoe will not be reealYad to vnry
tha terus of tha written Inetruaiacit, and wh4»re a note is aigned by
•n indiridual without any worde IndieatiJie that it ia signed in any
other eapaeity, the obligr^tion thereby incurred ia individual. In
Hypes V. ariffln, 90 111. 134, it was held that, when the note vaa
aigned by the defendant in hie individual oap&city, hi a undertaking
waa abaolute and that oral teatiaiony would not be admitted for the
purpose of showing that he did not intend to incur >vjiy peraonal li»
bility. Ihe court eaid:
«(»^t«fe »\^$nm '^Hiit$e»& mstim^t^^ miill9i(VtH'& tmhm\»h •£(«' avt^lsua
t^t^fii ij^'j:^ ,jft»ii'« 0(^$ %» «Kiw »^ nl ^Mt^ 0mm •''■''^!^'-*
<*«»« i(f«r^4« 'X'S^<»'« &m» ^^kr\i$t%^ »i^ sti£^«f( xftniit #«^. .turn mfi':r^i,miiZ £»&,'iuki
t^^mf;^m''-miM:T*:^fil -M^' ^»i' ■$mmi'^''' '**rii' *»« «:«*' iRw^ja* imkX «* j ■
"WhAt«T«r Bay l>« tto« d«ol«lont •l»«whL»r« en Mialogou* qu#»tlon»,
th« »uttu»rltle« In tali Htat» ore full to the p Int that a p«rty
will not b« permitted to thow by oral t»»tWony tiiat hi* wriltan
•gT««ment •»»• not. In f*«t, to b« bln-llng on him. --^
"Ih* a-^k^ra of thl« not* •Uon« to tlnd thm««lir«» in il-vl(4u«lly,
unl«r their hwide aiid ••»1«. without the ub« ol' Wiy apt »ord»
in th* agr««i«nt to Mnd th- corporation of *hlch th(»y were
tru»t«o«. Had It bo«n the intention to charge the corporation
•xolunHtly, we auet undoretan-l the «greoji.««t -^ould h'^r* be«n
•xpresesd In the i^rl tint to that Bfr«et at that tiioe. 1 ureenll.
:?▼.. Uee. 375; 2 iient. Co». 746.'*
The case of fliyaplan t. Keith. 103 111. 634, followod
till* distinction, holllng that wheru th* elenero d th*? note had
tlgnod using *pt vor<S« of ItiarlRtift i?«r»onas, the obllgUlon was
that of the corporation. No «*«•» ^ro oltod holdlnij that, where
th* »l«paturc to a no to 1« that of the InnTllual Tslthout «my ^erda
Indicating any oth«r capacity as a •Ignor, h- l» not bound thereby
pereonally.
While it in true the petitions allege l&ck of eonaia-
eratlon. y«t the f^cts set out In the oetitlons slio^ th* oontrary.
Defendant corporation had sold J. L, Herman certain etook wnlch the
Securities Cesialaelon*^** declared unqu all fled, and It was In settle -
■lent of this iB«ttA>r that the nott^s tn que«tlon were KlTsn.
orflt»*rs of the oomoratloa hav» the power to exe*
eute JudjiSient not^e for the oerporation, where such pcv^er Is
Inplled from all the facta «m6 clrcuiBatAnceo eurrout ding the
transaction. »t.ftt» »ahK of ^&8t l^ollne t. Molina Presoed ateejy
C^., t93 111. 981; A lyj^t ttx r , Am crl can li.7if{ih(nx§. e X^ at 1 m ^l £arU .
192 111, 605. Other ease* also so hoiei.
Defendants aeeert that an tigreeiaent by a corooratlon
to buy lis own etock cannot be enforced ^hen tue aolYcncy of the
corporation 1« In eu^stion; citing 01,i||iato;ad v. Vat^oa ^ Jones C^>.
196 111. <M. Thlc case io not in point, for there or«ditors of
the corporation r«ro queotlonlng tlie walirUt:; of thn aale. The
rights of creditors ar* not Involred In the Inatant matter. So
long as ereditors ure net questioning th* tranoaotion, we cannot
L MM
■■^ ^^,;p»,.m»mk^- j^:^:m»i^:^'iis-' w»^Mmi(tn^fu»isiim*» it »£^^
tint ^ aj^..*a««5iMi«;vli^ *«*»: ?iMM»1i,iM^:; |?Kftr««<^, ^** ^«^
«
••• mnj bails for th* corporation to ualntAln aay ol«ltt that It
ha4 Bo right to eell atook.
Thero la no nerit to th« point that plaintiff in
his ootfxio'vit exoAadad tho power h'A'''^^*} ii^* th« wiirrant of attornoy
In a^raoing tiiat no writ of arror or a|>p«al ahould be pro»eouto4
oa the Jadtt'S«nt. Th« plalntii'f la not quoatloning th* right of
tho dafaniiivita to «pp<»al. Vhila It i« th« gont^rul rul« tn«%t all
warrant* of &ttom«y will bo strictly oonstruod - i^oith v. ivalloittt.
• 7 111* 147, • tixia oast wise holds that this rule has its reueon*
abls llffii tat ions «»ud oust not bti applied so rigidly as to defeat
the laanlfest intentions of th* pturties to tho instruKent. This
was also the holdini^ in ji^lues v. Parkjar. IS5 ill, 47tJ.
Ws a»n see no reaaonatile gr 'Un-.is fcr roYArsal an,l the
order is affirftsd.
C*C»&r;or, i\ J., £iud hatahett, J*., conour.
..,^, ^ , „„, , ,..„,^,. :s •+«^:"''
^i'-.v- ?.";■-- ::?.:*• ;(Hyi -Y-,:.j~,,'->^ ■..■>rw.v
!i&x-^'
.(;-,;-::i..i;'A'-'-':*^v^ i''*''^* ''i*''*-
33949
KTJkliUTI 0. SILL and /
App
OS CO
ItR, JU3IICK JLATCHSTT D^H.IVBRKD ?«?' OPINICifi OF THK COUrlT.
ilxls writ was su«d out by the plaliitii'la to keouro the
revfii'iial oi a Jui^ient eiitAr«d In f'tvor oi' the del'euiant upon the
verdliQt oi a Jury iUter a motioG for a nev triaa hud been OTerruled.
ih» suit was In aaeuxtpslt upon an alleged oral prcti^lee
by fierendaiit to pay oo&i^leaieaii to plaiutifle icr their eervlcee in
fieuurlng a purohaeer oi the iJouthisoor hotel. The original declara-
tloa coneleted oi' three count*. Li«ter lour more oounta were arloed,
to whlca the codBCion counts were attsished. i'laintli'l'o I'llird % bill
of partieulara. Defecdtu^t pleaded the general Ineuc arid gaT«< notice
of Bp«olal defetiaes.
It la urgtd for rAVfersAl tha^ rji« T?rdiet is against
the Kianifeat weight of ttie (evidence; tuat defendant was per Itted to
introduce incoi^petent and IrreleTact evidenoc; that tho court and
oounat^l i'oT the defense aade prejudicial xtmiuCiiK in the preaenee
of the jury, and that the oourt erred 1a the giving ond refuaing
of li^etructlons.
At the tlnie ol the occurrenoee «rhich iro in 'Henute
the ICKal title to tae Southi&eor notel v?aa in the heltig Building
eorv'oratien. lu ti-ie b^^ttlriuln^-: the suit was broui^ht by Peter 3.
DeVoney and dd$eaukA u. Mli. aa aoj><*rtjiifT9, rloing buRineat at l>e-
Voney, £111 & Uonpany, and Albert Ko8e/<iloxd. Petidinti the auit
OeVoney died. ihereaftAr it waa proaeouted by Bill ae the aurTlTlug
partner, au-i i*lii«rt i^oeenfleld jointly.
Ihe ^uthmoor hotel 1e altuated on the wnct aide of
ff^^f
I
stony Island aY»nu« wnd •xtMcids froa 66th pIao« to 67th atroot In
Chioftgo. Dol'endant Glttlcr o«n«4 praotloally all tho stoek of tho
oorporatioa, but tht »took wao in fa«t hold by itdward I. Blooai as
oollntoral to seeuro a lo:ui. The Holtlg eorporatlon waa eapltal-
izod for 1700,000. Tho land upon iriiioh tho hotel wao built orig-
inally b«lengi?d to Blooa. The atook of the corporation waa paid
for In oaah suni the cash w«0 deooaitod in XtxB LHony I aland Trust
A SaTin<:,s Bank, of ivhitfi Bloom vaa a director.
Tho property waa enoumbered by a firat mortgage J'or
$3»50C,00O held by Straus Bron. , and by a aeoond aortgago for
#SOO,000 held by Baudol Bros. The oorporatioa also owed Mandsl
Sroa. on an open account approxiinately $dQ,000 tmd had other
liabilities in the way of accrued taxes uid aaseatULents, intereat
upon Its first mortnags bonds, etc. Defendant ulttlsr was nomi-
nally the owner of this hotel; finanoi&Xly , however, he i^as obli-
gated to BlooB with i^hoxQ he advised froiu tlse to tiiss. In January
19^6, £loosi advised hi a to ssll (suad he was not slow in ascsyting
the advios. He listed the property with many real eatate d^talers
and "brokers. William h, QmlVn was then the mnnagf^r of the hotel,
holding that position from Jarm«a'y 29 to siepteiaber 15, 1925. He
testifies that he ws,8 to receive extra c&mpeniKation in case the
hotel was sold. iThile JoiiUi was m>tfiii|;er defendant had a rooir. en
the second floor of the hotel.
Barry J. iiitoops represented some f astern people who
had been inter eaied in the purchase of hotels. He had aot^uired
the Marlborough and St. filles hotels an<i at the time was living
at the .it. Oiles; he had offices at -^ Uouth La^alle street; his
health was not good and durin^^ at least a part of th<» time he was
a1»sont from Chicago and practically all the time was in the cam :
of a nurse.
There is a sharp ooni'lict in the evilenoc. The plain-
tiff Kosenfield testified lUat he met the defendant at the South-
.j-atwTT fe-i*«!l«* ■'S-ant.fi: s'.'i .■-.?; fe«tl»«<|«.fe «»» rftjjstS arft T'is.ri d':?>.>.» ai tot
.... '; *. «*W fflKt-fiXS sii> .-: . , . . ., ■■i>iv«S &
•feiekR la« '«»X***^ I'm**!*''*** i«««., *»fe«»«i' •st«ii#^©« <?■«♦ ^ ■ JotTtf
ai'««j;*iiiS »i&3u^ ln^'x '^swwen ittl* -^j***?****^^ *«f# t^ialX *Jd ,»aivM i5ri#
moor hot«l in f^hrutryt 1939, and <Sl9eus««d «ltb &1k th«r« th*
quavtlon of obtaining.: a purnHascr. Roaanl'leld aaye he told defend-
ant that he had a frlitud niwiad JLAmunA o. Bill who ^a» a nmnber of
the firm of DaVonoy, Bfcll & Gsmpany; that thia firm hud a elientel*
of hotal paopla and that he would like to bring Bill to ••• dafand-
aat. Ha aays pursuant to that oonveraation he took kr. Bill to the
hotal ill the aaxly p&rt of February and introduotd Uii& to dcfandant;
that dafandant and Bill convaraad about mattara oonc«ming tha fin«n-
eial condition, rtc, of the hota); that dofendant procured atata*
sent* aa raqueatad by Bill froa> the nantk^er and handed them to
Roeenfleld, together with a circular iaaued by Straue Broa. Hoaen-
field testifiee that at thia interTiev defendant aaid: "Whoerer
you nay bring in and be interested in, I guaraKtee^ you a 3^' ooie*
■iasion on the sale of $4(800,000, no Ratter vhat kind of a deal I
make;* and that defendant further aaid, "Ifou need not worry about
your eonusiseion as you know that I ralways pay eoasilBaiona to
brokers, wuioii this is my buainests and has been and I never try not
to pay ooBUiiiaslons or to beat anybody out of coismiesions; all you
hare to do is to go out and put all your efforts and your tisie and
rverythini^ that is possible as 1 am ready and willing arid aiunt sell
at the present ticio, that hotel.* Kosenfield says iUli was present
and that they asked an exolusiwe ageuey for the sale of the hotel,
which defendant refused to gire; that he, i oeertfi^eld, then asked da
fendant bow plaintiffs were to bi» protected in the lUAtter of conueiis-
siens and defendant replied in eubetance that i*'hen Kosenfield had a
prospect Its buyer he s^xould write defendant a lett<»r to that efieet;
that he, defendant, would keep tha letter in his files and would
guarantee then if anyone else or any other brcker vuuld sutenit the
s«a« party he would oerer do sny business with hict and would tell
him that this party h*kd already beturt subs<itted to him by Ur, Ho sen-
field and ^T. Bill.
tn ^iii^mis.M 9^* lo"^"^ lUd *ii itimm^'i ^»m^^ JUt^^^Ht <«t A»si :'SH
«uE*ii«^4i:ft 4t ,i^^ mn .^am ^tttsm ',xm^?s/s& ^ £i4Wi ,t»«sv*<r ;f.^
Plotintiff £111 tklao iffstiriea to thi« conTcrsatlon,
eorrobor«ting Ho««tU'l«l<l in dtttail. ii9 says d«rmK-)ii,rit said, *£e
■attar ii' w« g«t togathar and I naJc* the d«al if I (you) furnish
tht parti«t I will pay you a co^^inissioJCi ol' 3 pctr oont on ^4,500,000.*
Ho aloo oays that ho acoopted th« proposition by roplying, "I will
do that." Plaintiffs tootify furtaor that thoy callied on Stoops
at hit offlos the latter part of karoh, 1925, and prrsentej ths
Soutlaoor proposition to hin; tiiat he told thorn he vas intervstsd
in buying hotels for a syo/licato and requested a inoro p«.rtleul%r
statsaisnt; that thoy obtained sueh st&te&ent IVos dofonlact in his
evn handwriting: this ata^enent or a copy of it they caused (as Uit^
say) to be aail'^d to Stoops.
Plaintill's also testify taat vhen they eeeured tills
further statesent they submitted to defendarix. the Daa«» oi' Stoops
as a prospeetivs buyer and aeked defetidant whether he knew Stoops
and whether the name otoops had been sub&itted to hla; that daf«n'1aat
said he would look in his files, whioa he did «nd replied that
plaintiffs were the first to submit the n<:iti.«t of Stoops. They both
testify that Mil then said, nfsll, don't forget, kr. Gittler, he is
ay client and I want the coni&isBion ir: case of a e&le," to «hioh
Glttlsr reolied, *You write m* to that effect."
Plaintiffs also ii;iTe evidence tendini^; to show that on
April 3, 1925, BsVoney, I>ill & Company wrote defetidant •
•Thio is to inform you that yesterday we aubtaitted your
Southraoor Hotel tc Hurry J, Stoops, of 29 t>outh xa.>alle street,
and who now owns a caaln of hotels ic the city of Chicago. U.T,
Stoops is wery uiueh int<?rest*d, and we nre today subsjittWg hia
a statement of your pr;:>perty» Will keep you infon^od sie the
negotistions proeeed.*
A copy of this letter was offered in evidence, and *isB
Jurcsak, who was then a stenographer itx the office of BeVoney, hill
k Cospiiny, t<?atifies that she type-il and mailed the letter; that a
letter was also mailed to Stoops on the sane -! .y. r. Bill testifies
that Stoops afterwards, in a conversation by *puone, adi&itted that
[ -^ l*»-|#liR<>«K««e -- ::«'i>5»«i, »ii jiaiU a"^a8 es-Lfii •£
. . „ ... .. .. ., , .,. , .. . ,: -jqexif weflKC^iroQ
it»»<f«i?>
i4S« jdMJ*' iXM. #«ii# t'^i*«»*
h* had ree«iT«d him l«tt«r.
IPlalntifft I'Urthcr t««tiry that Utoops »ad« an app.lnt-
B«nt to n««t them at th9 hotel for the purpose of oxaniinlng it; that
Stoops k«pt the appolntra«nt ailil was shown through tha hotel by ths
macafier, vho v^s aeootr,punled by the del'wndant.
Bill ani Rosenfleld further testify that in the oon>
▼ersatton at Stoops' ol'floe, stoops tolil them that h« woul<$ h&ye to
ffS down i^ast to see his assoctales, tmi Kr. Bill says that Btoops
after looking the hotel over said he was interested but didn't have
sufficient funds; that he woul'l hA,v« to go east to get funds and
that it woul<i take hlai thru© or four or eiayb* ilva or six months
before he woul4 be in ta position to ^.^o ekh<?ad«
Snith testifies that he saw Stoops at the ^outhstoor
hotol in thp Bonfn of taroh or April, 1935, and that Mr, Bill and
kr. Bosenfisld were T*ith his. iie rtoalls the cireusistancas beeausa
his vift's birthday was on Maroh 21«t. lU says riiat the bellboy
•ataa tc hin and sair* that defandont wanted hiift in the lobby; that
be went in there ani th^-re were three Ken thera > Bosenfield, £111
and Stoops; t>iat defendant told hi^i to auov then through the build*
ing; that he took them upstairs; that when they oaae baeJc defendant
was standing by tlxe cig«r stand and said that he, defendant, Fould
shew them through the baset&erjt, kitcheii »iind dining roo&t. '^^hereupon
telth turned the piu-ty over to defendant.
Defendant Qittler testifies that he net Kosenfisld and
Bill in the aiJdle of February: that the hotel was already listed
with ▼arious broksrs; that Bill asked for an exolusiva aj^ency, wnicdi
he refused to give; that the Jofendant told JSill that he could get
state^nents frosi the laanri^sr and gave him a rough estlaate of the
earnings In ease the hotel was full; taat he told Bill that in
trade the price was $4,500,0CG, Defendant says that he never saw
Bill after that, lie denies that anything was said about oobueI salens.
■'.a ^iSJlf »i«;js» rJti^t .W'fefllw j«^#«l»®«)B«- »li «»*■« ■ 'J -J
am
#ftjii j»i:«f«>« »,it j«rf^. $J!0^.,mp^ i^;«fife|f|#fe. i.rfir..5f*# ,|'^t/..
H« SAjs that Ro««nfi«ld th«r»iurter ■ul>iaitt«4 on* l^shjtiiin aa a pro»»
p«otiT* buyer, whp vantod to know if d«f«n4«int vould aeocpt a s«c«
•Dd or tnlrd aortga{i« In tr^da. u«r«ndant aays h* a^yr T«o«iT«d
froa any of the pXaintlffa tho uliogcd l»tt«r of April 3, 1029,
axiA neT«r told plaintiff a he would pay 3 p<»r oont on $4,500,0(.>0
for sulHaitting a naiae. Ho furthor te«tifi«s that in tho FishBian
doal ifiulmmn told hi» that he tiad arrangod for the eotuciesiona «i xh
Roaanfield; that thia deal waa pendinc^ until September Q, 1025; that
the Base of Harry J. Siteopa waa not u«ition«d until the last part
•f JKovember and then by Attorney Altheimer, who repreaented Kandel
Broa. in th(t collection of notea due froci the hotel; that thereafter
Stoopa waa introduced to defendant by Mr. £looia.
fileott teatified he beeaesa aoquainted with Stoopa in
JiOTeaber, 1925; that' he waa introduced by Althelaer at £lee»'a
office: that they then went to the hotel <vh«re he, BIook, intrcduced
Steopa to the defendant Gittler.
Stoepa teatiflea that Roaenfiold vtth another gentle-
auM called on hia at hie offioa in iPebru&ry hdA aaKed sdiether he
vaa Intereated In the Southaoor hotel; that he told them he waa not
lnt«reatftd at all; that he had juat had it aubwitted to hln froai
hia iiaatem people and that he waa not at all intoreated in it;
this, he aaya, vaa after he had been out to look IJie hotel ever.
Stoopa alao aaya he did not receive any letter from plaintiff a
about the matter and never reeeived any lettera fron kr. Bill of
QeVoney, Bill it Coc>pany. Ha aii^a he waa In the bouthnoor hotel
after hia return i'ram California and while there ran aeroaa aoae
people who were tryln,: to buy the hotal; that he Juet happened to
atop there and was not ix: the hotel again until the letter psort of
JioTcmber, 1025, when he went out there ori a propoeition put up to
hilt by Ur. Altheii&er; that at the requeat of Altheiner he vant to
Bloom 'a oi'fiea to meet Bloom; tiiat Bloom went with him to the
«««»*iEil « 8NU JSftiiBiciit j'^ iiA^ ^^iitu^'jm '%»$'u^%inl$ h&^lti&tvnfi t»M »tfit, 9%
: '''<%! irSr «»^(ftKfttji't$i*^ Xija>«« s^Hk&m^ im* i»*^ »kdi t0M i«ii
J.' > ^ ^i-- {. ^.r^« iama.994 ^miA h9l*llt4»9!i ssa9S.€
^i^o j» '•- . 'JJ9[ ««<i' ??# *f»W «U»((i v-*.r.f !i5;r{.? ,*»«»l'St«
tsim s»0i»» ttA'i xt^'»kis »£i<dv km is,ltt>s .*x>v msfi «ni:s»$»* '. >w .;.»'»«.
«it ^.*rv -.-r,.f* ,teiwt »ti[ *4aa^ jicil^i;^ mfUt ■<fB<tf o# aAifv:^ «*«•• ©iSV »jtij©«<y
. . ^ »j(i /1^4W* JKlftl^ £ft!^|»|{ i4F# Itt »•« «<»« ferflW »tl»^ Q0^«
S«tttha')or luid intredue*^ him %• th« (l«l>n<lant aittl«r; that h« Xlum
mad* an appolntjn«nt to n««t dafecdant tuid Blooa at the efrioa of
Althaiaer ft ikiaytr the next day, wharo the oagotiatlona I'or tha
purohaaa of tha hotel ware oloaad. On eroas-axAminatien Bloon
•paalflcally daniod that in the t<prin£- of 1925 he had kac^led^n
that Stoopa was a prospaetlTa purohaaar or that he had any knowl-
edge that plaintiff* wera trying to inaJke a eole lor defon^Jant.
Ha heard of tha ir'lahntin eontraet but waa not present whezi it waa
prepared (tnd did net aae it* Ha did not know a prosp^otlTe pur-
ehaeer naKod Oundaraon nor hear of a Ounderaon contract.
yiahaan teati I'iea that he aigned a eontraet for the
purchttae ef the hotel on Aaguat 6, 1925» at the office of Kaplan
4 Kaplan in tha preaenee of ^r. JfcLaplan, defendant iiittlar, Mr.
ftBlth and Hr, Pet era; that Ho «enf le!l<i( was outside tha roou and
not preeent ineide when tho deal waa cloaad; that Hoaenfield at that
tiae told hia that the deal waa about to \>». closed, and that their
agreenent would stand good, vhioi^i was that Kosenfleld would get
llSfOCO if the deal waa eoneuGu^ated, end that Hoaeufield aaid he
vae perfectly satiefied. he saya that Kosenfleld said not>iing to
him about arranueaente with defentlsnt nor ariytlilnig about having
any arrangementa with defoadant about eosutiiaaione in eonn<»ctlon
vith that deal*
On Beoember 2, 192S, Blocai, defendant, Kaplan and
Mayer being preaent, £itoop8 made a propoaitlon to defendant in
writing whioh recited certain obligiitione of t^ic oort>oro.tlon and
propoeed that he ^ould purehaee the atooii aai*. def«idant*s int«>reet
In the Kortgage, notes, bonds, and other olaims of the defendant for
the sun ef $630,000, payable |2»,GC>0 In cash upon ncoeptanee,
Il7&,000 in cash en or before January 10, 193S, and |130,(00 in
18 monthly inetalmenta to btp eeeured by certain collaterel, the
second aortgage of $500,Ov.O to be onncelled and satiefind and in
Mf' ' ''"' ?My»^-^l"*li> •''««>'' lilt ife«t»«?fco*l ad bna ts-^mMu^
a«f "S^i ^s^i^li^ ' U>ii»^'M:'':MiMtl^
; J^lt'^'VH' .iflHKWk «ii«:«l» Ate 1»<»^«{n»11«
'i^ ^'ik^' '^^fiiiiim^M. a^y^?' 'a^v#'i!Sj**i#» ^hi»m *««#« t»j:«ow ;fl(«j«»»it9«
^», ,,.... :.,-:.........»„..- ;.^ il*ti<^sid*<»'- *i*''^i'''0^ ?..l»a«ffi
li«u thfiraof boad« aggravating 1300,000 to ^« l»sued to "be peourcd
by a Junior mertgago on the sano property. These latter bonde
v«r« to b« doIlTered to dtrMiiwit !••■ sueh aaounta aa mif^t "be
ratainod «a ai^raad for apaoli'ie purpoaaa* ilxia agrsasant waa
oarrlad out by tha partiea.
In walgalng this uoni'lioting oridenea it »>uBt ba
ranattberad that the burden of proof ««• upon tht» pliintiffs. Gn
some oi' the material points the nucber ol' vitncassa testifying to
a giTsn Mtftte ol' facts is in favor of the plaintiffs; on tha other
hand, some of plaintiffs' eridenca seesis quite ii^iprobtuble. A«Bum«
ing a fair degree of int el li(t, enea on the part of defendant, It
son hardly be supposed he would agree to puy three p^r cent on
l4,60Q,OuO Irreapeotiva ol the amount for whioli the property
might be sold. There ie soaia doubt east upon the letters by tha
faet that such praotiea «as net followed in other proposed deals,
to vdiioh the sa»s agreerent, s,eoording to plaintiffs' t(»eti£:ony,
would hare been applicable. A registered letter i^ould have furrished
undisputed proof, but this aethod vae not adopted. Xheti, tha ad-
Kitted faict that plaintiff Bill brought a suit on this elaiK in
b^alf of his o«n firm without Joining Hoaeniicld as a oo«pl«ilntifT
is not oonsistect with his litatflDent now liiAt the eiaployrb«i/t was
Joint. There are also improbabilities ii. ssotie 0} the testl&tony
for the defendant. It would be a burdenaone task indeed to dis-
cuss all of the evidence for and og&inst, as uas been dene in the
voluaineus briefs filed in behalf of these pdurti^^s. ^e h«va gens
over it carefully. One group of witneaeee or the other Is wil-
fully testifying contrary to tha trutu of the mutter. It is not
possible to oocoada good actives to both eides.
ihe findings of fact iti suoh cases are neaulisrly
within the province of the Jury. Harely indeed is a verdict
disturbed by an appellate tribunal where the fuote >ro as uncertain
«JM^ 19s»;^^^«J» D'^sr^ 4>^<jrt:«)%c' 3f^ «^<iawi« $»dir ii^e »;%«i%i^3«! n»i,£mt a T^
««i!»«7;.>i *«i^^f|«KM^ #f j:j«p ifm»% «i)t««^jrv« i^^ttl^.^Aif, 1L« avisos' ,.h.mA
9MJt ^'■■s^n 9*m i^4mk imv* si &%»sit *&im »«f 't/i^JEei
.>«.''<,'. ^.1.^ '>«v^US*! ^#S$ «4!E«r «0;t4h»A«il| i;t»(;s 4Mii JOJil
lf»4Ki : ?*'--u.'»r '^-y.ttjtk^ ||«r«^*»i;^*!«l A .*,£fi&»*i;i;«/i» «*••<? *'W»Jfl feXMOW
'»]|^^ ^ .^ J!9ti a^snr JKti»4jtap^ «<^ ^Artf ,'»V«'SM; &^>^J»«»i^ne
ij»j»«au«##4 ^iJiSt' i« '<s^<(M»' ai »& ii ilXi^m's-imi fi«"i^ ««ii> .f^iiMiiS;:. .'»#atH'
and eoBllictlng at her*. The trial judge nnd jury had obTlous
adTania^ea In i>elghinr th* •▼ia»ne«, ISTan if vt should be of tht
opljiloa that ni ttiag as jurors we vouli^. have r«tumed %. differrnt
▼erdlot, this vruld net justify ua In vettlc^- aaide thi« Terilct.
It la tht T«r;!llet ef twelve kci. from all walkc cf lift trho ta«r
HBd heard tht iritnttafft. It h«t been apprcre^:! by a judgt vho
alto tav and heard the vltnetBet. Ve la&y aet It aelde only If '£•
art able te tay that after ooneidering all th'^ fncte vn are con-
Tlnotd that the ▼«»r(iict l» &galnat the njUilfeet weltiht of the «t4»
4tJ3t«. Wt eaimot cay thit. The contention of plsilntiffs that tht
T«rdlot Is a^alnat the zcioiifttt weigiit of the evidence eacKot be
outtainttf .
Plaintiff* aay that th* oourt trred in isaijing improper
and prejudicial reisarkt in the pr«»"oe« of th«? Jury cujd that counsel
for the defwnee also saade licprnper ramarkt, "but w*s find no assign-
Btnt of error covering this point. However, we thinJt; the st8tffiB(>nt
«f the Supreme Court in Birmingham, J|irt Ins. Cs» jf^ Pulver. 126
111. 329 » is applicable to tb^ rpcord. The caurt there Bald in
substance that every un^juarded ffxpreesion of a judgt thould not be
treated as grounds for granting a new trial.
It is urged that the court erred in adxnlttlng tvi-
dtnot oonoorniiig the oropoaed 3«l1<^ of the hettl to one Flshnsn.
It is said th»t the only r©far«nce to this sale in the first !n-
8t«7iot was brought out in a orose-examln'ition by defendant whiah
transgressed the rul<« that the erose-ex.'UEilnation should be limittd
to the f'^ett brougjit out In the exiBunintition ( Sohsiidt. v.. Qhicai^o
City Ry. Co, , 339 111. 494), and that defwidiint ouUl;l not offer
tvid«i:oe tendinis to impeaeli a witness of the plaintiff on intut^terial
aatttrt thus brou,iht out. (i..ii:,» y.iv.tt.^^. v, >Qrain.l4u III. 117),
■Flaiutiffs, we think, lai sunder stand ihe record on this
point, i'laintifft efftred at a part of th«ir case evidenot tending
xo
to the* a eontraot which «llo'v«d th« production oi' any pro:>o»«<l
purohancr which plaintirfs might find, not a particular miued
purohaB«r. They offered erridene* tendint; to aho*! tUat they h&d
attlMitt«4 the property to kr, Louder, Mr. yiehmiui, xv, ^toopa and
et>iere. SYiience ae to th« exieteuefl of other oontracta with theae
named, or, indeed, we think, *«ith auy prospeotlve purchaaer up to
the time of the aale of th<^ property waa adiulaalhle in view of the
broad nature of thle alleged contract. The f»et that the tsatter wag
first broutht out on or Ba-exaciin^tion irould not prerent its intro-
duotion as a part of the defense if arterial and relevant. Of
oourse, it is necessary that sueh evidetice should be liult^d to ma-
terial matters. It was so limited by the rulings of the court.
It is also urged that the oourt «rT94 in ndjisitting
evidence of oonversations of Althelcier, iiiloom and Stoops out of the
presence of plaintiffs. This evidence was, however, 8trick(<x« out
on motion of plaintiffs' attorneys, and we think at (oiy rate it
could hav« Aone no injury. Oonplalnt is also made that i^toops was
permitted to say that «4ien at the hotel in kareh, 1935, with Mr.
Hawes, in response to a 8tat.e.,j«tit by a iir. it'ryer triat he was too
l%te, h« (Stoops) said he was not out to buy tht? hotel. We think
tnls was not inad^^lssible in view of the evidence given by plain-
tiffs to the effeet that they had taken iitoops to the hotel at that
time t at he might examine it as a proypeotlve purchaser.
It is also complained that the contract between ^Hoops
and defendant was admitted in evid<uice and that evidence as to the
payment of a ooiumission of #30,000 to Althelmt*r was «idi&itted. Bgx
V. Porter. 161 ill. 235, tmd. Ogren v. i^undoll. 22c.' 111. App. 5d4,
are oited. Hers again th« broad nature oi' the contract alleged by
plaintiffs distinguishes this case from those cited, indeed, proof
of this transaation was essential to plaintiffs' case.
We hold there was no reversible error in ths a^i.l8Bien
ox
"Mm c ■ ibtui^iit mimkkrfi Xhii4t Imm# i^uhi «»<»(» a «> <.:.'::;
-.'^Ste* iMa«( f*tf^ imM t»ft';
.M« ,«4|A. UlJ '<38« ♦il^^M^O.^MS^ ,««8 .Xn"«i'x .I3!Xt9l^.v
u
The pl«iintifrs %1bo contwad th&t thfire ««r« •rror«
In giving and refuting inktruotlons. Conpls.lnt in particular is
B»d« el' instruetioa ^o* 7 iflven at the request of dafendant, by
vhioh th« jury was told that one of th« «iat«rlal Insuf^P in the
em«« va* whether or not the plaintiffs «er« the T)rocuring sauee
ef the sale; that the burden of proof was upon thest to ahoT? that
they were the procuring oauec, t\nd thi^tt if tli« jury should fin(3
from the eYidenoe that they had not so proved they ooulA not re-
eoTST. ConplAlnt is further ariade ef instruction i<o. 3, wKleii told
the jury that plaintiff's elaiin wao as brokers for oofflpsnsatlon
^y vay of oenKiseiens upon a sale of prop«rty m&de by the defend-
ant to Stoops; that to entitle the nlaintifis to r»ccv«r «ny com-
pensation on account of the ealf$, the jury must boliere from a
prspon'leranee of th« <«vidonc« that plaintiffs w©r» employed by the
def entrant in lanrt about the buBinpae of aa^.ing the sal** arti that
thslr serYicts were instruiae*ntal in ;&oootRpll9hlng it*
i^lalntiiTe also eoKplaln of instructions! Hop. 9 and
10 given nt (<ef«idaiit*s request, by ^hlcH th« jury was told that
if it beliered that the defendant Qittlsr saude the nale of his
sfajires of Btook in the H«ltig Building corporation without the
aselBtance ef the plalntifts and that p.aintiffs In faet did not
furnish a purchaser for th« def er.djUiit '» »hare» of stock;, tbt ver-
dict ehould be for the defendant, anfl that If they b^llrved that
■OMS person or pe^rsons other than th» plaintiffs were thp prf<euring
and efficient eause ef the «»le b6twe<?n the defor-lfint rik! Stoops,
thett the plaintiffs were not i^ntitled to recover anyttiing,
Uie plaintiffs pclnt out that t^-ese Instructione »re
RMidatory nn-l direct a verdict fmA that it was error lor th<? court
to tell the jury that, one of the Skaterial Issues waa whether plain-
tiffs were the procuring cause of the sale; that the theory of
XI
i»t-e!^ft vnA"^ nn^s <t«4ri ^mi-mm 8N»i« *vm^i.»iiii «aT
mitt if-JtoWBfft ^«i*t ««*<? tl t0M ^a» ,«i«a»0' ^t*^^ii!iKi»fl>it«3 «iSt "i^tif^ "-t^di-
■•^ves &tm tfSm^ -w)^ i^vrnt »» ■*«« »«<J 1!J««** ***** wofmb.^ ■^'fi
'.fire w ,«.(3a .,':.> > jf«<i ^c* MftftlirjfiiiajK* &(xSji *T?\it«l*Jt^
..««»>:ySi«*.v-'f tWA,i»#t «4i"-*(Wi^ ^^li ^Aiiiirtr^f ••■*# ««iiii«t'''«^«»«» '
««i«x«r '««ji^*itx^ ,mm-]»'6i»k»t mk%m$iim iiii&^ -n^ '^aatu '»«^ti#-' ifiitit "^.(f^ uvi »!
pl»lntl rr* was that th«y wart to I'umlah a uhu who would buy hut
that <ll«l>adAnt was to Indue* him to buy; that an «|:r««!a«Dt to pay a
•tipulHtAd eonmisulon for •ubmitting th4 Baa« of a buytr as 4i«>
tlngui8h»<1 froa making a sale or halng th9 procuring* oaus« of tha
•al« do** not amount to an und^rtakiQ,^ to sail the proparty. In
general a* to all thes« inatruotlons, they contend th«y vara errono-
ouB b«cau»a tixey iuioora the pl&intiffs* oontcntion and theory that
th«y vara inploytd only to inteddaoa a buyer an'2 not to nok* a sala.
An examinmtioB of plaintiff* ' declaration diacloa«e that thea* oon-
tantions cannot prsTall. It would have been improper to give an
Instruction wtiieu present«ri a case eubRtantially difl«>rent from that
stated in the declaration. Sohaidt v. BallinK. ©1 111. App. 388.
The various counts of plaintiffs' declaration asserted that they
"secured a purc5iaser: " that "plaintiffs were the direct procuring
cause of securing said purchaser;'* that the plaintiffs secured a
puro^taaer "ready, willing," etc.; that '♦said plaintiffs did procure
an^ pro'ltjoe i'or said defendant a purchaser;" thr^t **»$ a reeult of
plaintiffs' efforts, they procured and pro<?uced to the defendants a
purohaaer;" that plaintiffs "procured ou« Harry J. Sitoops," etc.;
that "plaintiffs procured a purchaser for the sal 5 capital stoci^*
who purchased the same,*
It is apparent th'»refore that plaintiffs presented
their case upon the theory that they h.id procured tiie purchaser to
whom defenjort sold. It certainly cannot be held error for the court
to give inRtructions which correctly **^t forth pltlntiffe' theory ae
elated in their deolaraticn. Indeed, it would have been erroneous
to refuse nuch inetruetiona. there is, we think, in substaco* no
differaries between an ixv«rxa«nt that plaintiffs procured the purctiaser
and an 'Aver:.ient that they were the afnuse oi' the a^e.
Coaplaint la nade of def (^nlunt 'e ^^iven instructions
*08, 11 Mid 12, By instruction 11 the court tol'l the Jury that one
13
of thft oonicntlon* of ino plaintix'ft vmm tumX dofoudant pronlood to
pay • eemnintilon of thr«« per ooot on four Mid oue-hali nililon
dolluro irroopootlve of tb<i WBount tho Koxtlg iiulidlng oorpoj»tlon
property nl^t oell for, proYidod the plaintiff • furuiehod tjtxo do-
fordnnt vith tho ntucic* of any poraon wiio was Ints^restod abd puroUAMM
tho proporty in <!u«>stion: that, the burdon of proof was upon tho plaln«
tiffs undor this cnntontiou to oroTS by & pr«poKderaiico oi the evi(Sen<
not only that dof^ndant nado sueh a prouise ).>ut also that plaintiff*
furnished the nam* of a p'^rson Interostsd in tiie purdriass oi ths
property; that ths faot that the olaintiifs may hi^v9 furnish fti Uie
n«K«> of stoops ii: April, 1925, did not atltlb ttie plaixiilffs to
rsooYor, provldod ths jury b«liev«d that it tii& tisis ths niuue of
Stoops iras furnishsd :.>toop8 was not IntsrHSted in tiie puroiittsg; of
ths property, and that ths fact that Stoops pu£euiis«d th« an^ur^s of
stock in Dsesmbsr, 102&, did not entitls tne al&intlfis to r«icovsr,
proTldsd ths Jury t>sll«T«d frees » prspanderatice oi ths STldetioo tnat
ths purehast was brought aheui by persons other thaju Ui« plaintiffs
ana 'ithout fraud on ths part oi tho defoiadani.. Instruct ion i^o. IS
told ths jury that if it b«lieTSd that ^;lalntlffs «vr» autiiorlssd
ths
by dofondaijt to offe^/rsal setats and persgnal property iLnourn tiS
ths Soutmuoor HotsX owned and operated by the i^eltlg i^ullding cor-
poration for sals upon oertaiti teri^s and conditions, and uiat d«-
fsndant Ud net a^jree vith plstlntiffs that he would protect L«iem
against all other brokers and persons with rf>S!^eot to ai^y pruspsQ-
tive purehassr subiaitted to nij& by ths plalx)Ci.i'fs, and that xf they
further b^ll<>TSdl tnat plaintiffs sutiaittsd the nsms of stoops <uid
that Stoops rsfused to eonsider the puronAS(» oi th« :)rop«>rty and
thsreai'ter ui« thou^iit of purchasing the property upon the terms
subaitted by th^ plaintiffs paeesd out c: tne aind of Stoops and
that thersai ter dsfeftda/it , solely through* the e:'lorta of persons
other tnan tn*; plaintiffs and imolly without ;»£»rtlcipatlon of the
14
plaintiff*, or «lth«r of ih«», sold hio aharoa of ■took to Stoopa,
thOB plalntiffa would not be entitled to rocovor.
Tharo la, of oourao, no quoatlon ainoo thcao Instruo*
tlono aro mandatory that oaoh ehould bo compl«to In it««lf and
that «aoh should oabrueo all the faota osoentlal to tho Terdiet
dlrootod. 111. Iron &. Motal Co. t. Wpber. 196 HI. 526; C. & A.
a. a. T. &ttckkuQX. 197 111. 304; CantwoU y. Harding. 249 HI. 354.
Plaintiff* oomplain that Inotrucklon Ho* 11 advlaod
tho Jury that, notvitaatandinc plaintiffs furnished iitoopt a« a
proapeetiTO buyer and dafendant proalaed to protect plaintiff* aa
to buyers subiaitted by ih^m a^tainst all othera ttfid to pay all eomo
mieeiona if tho buyer bou^jht, yet il he was not interested when
plaintiffs sub^ulttsd him and afterwards beeasie intoreoted, plain-
tiffs eould not recover. We do not think thie in »tra «ti on contrary
to the lav or that it eould have aialed the jury, Th9 deoloratlon
sTorred that plaintiffs producsd the buyer. They did not produes
him if he wae not int«restedi when the matter was submitted to him,
and if it was neecseary to find persons other than plaintiffs who
eoul'l get hiib interested, plaintiff a would not b<*! entitled to
recoTsr,
Coffiplaint is also made beeauae the court refused to
giw* plaintiffs* inetraetion &o. 14 as requested, i'hls instruction
tol'! the jury that if it found that defendant listed the property
with the firm of DsVeney, Bill & Uocipany and Kosenl'ield for sals en
sueh price, terms and oonditions as defeoid&nt would msyce to a buyer
and prcaleed to pay thea for their servioss or oo£ix<tiB alone la pro-
curing a purohassr, three per eent on the ^ross or aggregate prios
of the eale, and further found that through the efforts of plain-
tiffs dofeniant prooursd th« witness Stoops as a buyer for ths
hotel, then plaintiffs were <!(ntitl«d to recover froai defividant three
per cent on the gross or agjireKate pries at whlcn tho Jury should
»s
-■■,; , «»«»I'«&»/,1|. ,.*^ isttjt##af#«*6 #«^it,.^A#4,@«aft© (i1|l*ijS«»i*?
•^tOis^j^ 'l^i a^-Ji^Jttisi »«fe} i^if<st'S)ii ^A^^ ft^m^'i tarts' isw't l^ow ,»iii« ajl^ "*«
u
find froa th« pr«9ond«r*&o« rf th« crideno* d«r«n ant aold the
hot«l.
It it urgAd th*t this iustruotion should hKT9 been
glTen ui>on the theory that there vae some proof frou whi(Ai the
jury Biig?it infer an e^eenent to pay three p«T oect on the amount
of the sale inetead of three per cent on the four and a half million
dollars, and that plaintiffs were «ntitl»d to have the court in^
struot on that theory. We thinii, however, this instruction was
suhstantiitlly covered hy others, smd while it adght have «p11 been
given it was not reversible error to refuse It.
We have oonsidered these inotruotions quite at leceth,
assuming plaintiffs did not request the instruotlons of whleh they
eomplain. Our aesiusption is not Justified by the reeord. whidi
Barely states *Instruetions caoh eida reserving on ob;ieetlot; to
eaeh instruction. "
The record is voluciinous uuad it si&y not be entirely
free from error, but w« think tiie error, if any, is not reversible,
and the Jurlg^sent Is thtrefore affirmed.
icrwrnmn,
O'Connor, P. J., and ii«Surely, J., oonear.
m^ I'J^^ ^^ax^ ^s^iar #1 ^-iiiim %m ,»%»4^o ^tf $i>#iUert4»»^'tf£4i.»i0m^«td'i'i»
i,.y, ■,^4.,:,,, ;fi<a..':>,:i^,:j;\.v'S..rs!. A' jj-.; '^'il'^ ■■
^-i^jinisi^s/-; ■;;; . 'S^tv:;
•■■;%.*<j>:S^s?' A'-t, ■•;■.'■ ■'"■v.:: -■!•. ■;;■■■• .'y> ■■"•■■, ";■''■:'■ ■'■ ' '■ ■■■•
33008
In V Bttfttc of TtmiM B.
) APV&id.. VMiik CLtfJ
UOUHI Oi?
Thar* hikrA oo k|^p9«l froa rrobat*
Court Of Cook Q>uxtty.
0
IBiLIVaWMI rtm ©PIKIOK 0» THE COURI.
Sdvin B. JontilngK, a re«ld«ct oi' Cook County, IXIinoln,
di*4 Oetolier 51, 19S3. A<balniatratora of his etitatr wore app&intod
Ma4 aocoHing to thm uvual praotie* « table ol holrehlp v«* «nter«d.
BaitMrt V. Briittaa. Ml 111. 160. On .Octol3«r 31. l&i::7, Btiward u,
K.o««ter fil«d a p«titioA i« *iilcb h« avers that ii<? la th« aon and
only hi!>ir at law q1' said Edwin h, JenKings; that eaid Jeniiings
about April 9, 1685, *tt 3yoas<or«, Illinois, was entxri^A to
Johanna Duswsl; that pstitionsr was th« only c-lld born of »»i^
aarriago and that no ohiia van adoiptsd, ac'i tr.at thft t&other dii<»d
shortly aftor ths birth ol' petitioner.
jfhfl petition prayed for a hearing an.-i that the table
ol' heirship alght be vacated ood 6 nssm one (tntered showing his
relationship. Op January 17, 19 SB, the Probate court ent«*red an
order ilenylng the prayer, An aopeai was takeii lo the Circuit
eourt, and on June 2S, 19S3, that court after hearing evidenee
found that petitioner was not in any way related to i2;dwin JB.
Jennings and «as not an heir »t law cf said deoeaeed and disiuiseed
the petttloB* 7ros^ that order tais rts^peaX has been perfected.
Respondent Cassis Bft£;art, one of the heirts at lew,
h»s entered a motion to disttise tnie r^ppeal on the ground that
ft decree entered by the Cireuit oourt of DuPa^e oounty, llllitois,
in a proeeeding tc partition certain lands to whiah petitionor
vat nnAe a p«rty has beeoaie final and that eueh deoree renders the
further eonsideration of this appeal useless* A transcript of
r-
sooer
./v <^
0 A I fee
^ Vt
.^'e^:':l.«!i'r^j^£^««i(« & 4«^^tj»<«»t ....(1..
■ ■ ■ I *^^
th« raeorA of the oourt of Oui^ago eounty In that cauea is «ttoeh«d
to tho notion, an-i ouifgcatlonB Afid counter«tu(f^«ation* h«iY« boon
filed.
the •ug£««tlonai are not without Korit. io^«Ter,
having •xanlned th« reoori, we prefer to rest our deeleloji upon
the Berite. The i&otiofi le ttiArefore denied.
The petitioner ocnteode that the trial court erred ic
adnitting ineoapetent cvldtmoe, but »• the afttter «ae heart! vitiiout
a jur; 8U0A error, even ii conceded, wouli not cciiapel a reT«ra*I.
It is urged that coapftent ^Yidenoe offered vae exoiU'l«d (nftueb of
it, «e nold, properly), hut petitioner's ofiere to prove are in the
record, raid if all this evidene* had b««n received it «oul.^ not
ohange our oonolueion.
Petitioner also contends that the finding and jU'U)B9nt
are contrary to tne weight oi the eYldenoe, .^^d this is the eon*
trolling ((ueetion in the oaae.
lite table of heirship, ifhloh petitioner aaics to have
•et aside, le prlajji f»ei.f correct, and the burden of proof «ae upon
him. In deterctining that question it ssay b« well lo the begii^ning
to state a ftsm uncontradicted facte.
Sdwin B. Jeiaiinga wae at the time of his death 64
years of age; he lived in CMoai^o, Illlnole, (iurini: ale entire
life, :ie was Uie son of Jolm P. Jerninga, wio lied in Uhica^o on
April 19, 1399. Sdwin h. JeiMAga was known ^s a i&an ahrewd in
bueineaa affaire. de dealt largely in real estate; in conYey^oioea
he uniforuily described hla.eelf ae a bachelor. On April ;9, 139^'.
the Circuit oourt of Uooic county entered a decree in a prooec^ding
relating to a truet eatablished by th« IntH will and testament of
his father, Jo>.ui 7). Jennings. J^d«ir; i^. wae a uarty to the proceed-
ing and filed «ui anvrttx n^ibitting, as the decree found, that he had
seYcr married or had iasue. Sdwin B. left an «state estiiuuted to
^ a ^ « -v
>*• ^»sm\ i^»&««/,«kaj:* #««» iifrW^'^* m^^^m ii&fii>s»09m M*'*^ Ixus' ■
b« el' th* valti* ot tS, COO, 000.
JohAima Sa«w«I waa ths dAU(iht«r of Jeaehiia, also knows
as Jea«i)h, Iniawal, and hi a wli'a karia I>u«wel. J^aria'a isAidan nam*
«ma it^arla islag«nf«ir, )uid ah« had a «i»t«r, Bophia, rho snarried
August luoaatar. Aagutt and hla vli'a ii«phla, prior to IdSS «nd
afterwards, lW«d in Vajne Countyi uiobdgan. They, aa »«r« tn«
X>ue«tl8, wora I'araara. The Duavala, iioeatvra and Mngenf«rs w«r«
ijuilgra»t» froK Osr^any aztd vara aaaoQlated aith the a;vang»Iloal
Lutheran churah.
AuiKust £o«8t«r, the husbahd of iSaphia, died on August
XSn^ 1806, an inhatitant of £rownsto£i« tovnalxip, Vayne county, »idx.
The raeorda of the Ji^robatQ court in.iloate thmt he left real estate
of the TaiXuft of about |i&,Oto« The proof of heirship there ehoirs
that h« Ifcft hiK surriTing his fridov siid. sight enil iron, one of
wheal was petiticxier, Edvard i^osster. As lute as Janu^ory 15, 19^4,
upon a hearing «f tU« final aecouct, Sophia Koftstcr th»n beinit:
dead, the X-'robate eourt of W^^yne county ordered the estate to b«
MitigDod in equal shares to said Kdward ilof^eter an^. the oth'>r heirs.
Sopiila t^if^it^T diftd on January 30, 12^3. On yebruaury
asth of the saat year, on i^etition of her daui^hter, kixuiie Haakey,
administration of tue estate was granted to her SAid <^.aughter by
ths ?robate eourt of ^ayne county, Michl^^tm. The petition naced aa
heirs with the others the son 12dwar3, p«tition®r herein,
Augusta JoharutiA Suewel was horn ir Wodeni.ck, Pouerania,
April 7, IdTc, dau^nter of Joachia und ^aria ;>u«wel. Her body is
buried in the Buewol fooily lot ut Dundea, ^oine oounty, Xlliiu>i8,
and the insoriptios on the fatu.ily raonuiaent stut^e that she was
born April 7, 137u, and Ai^A 3ept«a;ber 32, 1433, Prior to 1381,
Joaohia Duewel and his fabiily lived ot. a fjura near Sycamore, Di^Fsge
oounty, Illinois; they afterward aoved to Kane eounty near Dundee,
and the records in the recorder 'e office indicate that on i^ebruary
•siaafiii® *i){* (i) its 58
«^, lift,.;,, M^i.. am. ■ ^.i^gy s;*#tf*^ »^*
88, 1884, Joachim I>u«w«l purona««d a tract oi XmkI In that eoiunty
froD Chriatian I<or<*jnc. The ohuroh r«oord« at Dundee shew that
Joaehia ')u0vel and hla faally jelnad the ohureh At Dundaa on
Janusa-y 2, 1031, eml that hla daughter FrederieJca «a« married to
Chrlatinn Lor*ms on AuKuat 21, 1S61.
The death reglater of the ohureh at Sundae aheva the
death of Au^uata Johanna Duevrel on September 2^, 18S3, and atatea
her ae« at that time to h«T« been IS y«are, 0 nontha sutKl IB daya
and that ahe vaa buried en Bept ember 24, 1383. The ehureh meisber-
ahlp reoord alao ahowa her death on th<> ntxiae iate. It la argued
that theae church reeorda were erroneously &dBdtted In eTldenc*,
but the objectiona «er« only general and not n;>«ei}'lo. Qafce y.
Mix* 18* ^li» *32; Lunger t. Sechreat. 186 111. App. 521. I'he
reecrda were Identliied by their cuetodian {palley v. Brotherhood
of R, is. Trainmen. 511 111, lae) and, atoreoTer, petitioner Intro-
dueeA 8lmll?;ir recorda, "^e therefore ftold the aasa« to b« properly
in erldanoe. 3«£^t ▼. BraiKtf. 531 ill. 160.
Joao);ilja Duewel died a re a Id en t of Eaat Dundee, &ane
eounty, Illinoia, on Auguat 16, 1912, t«stat«. Ee left uiin aur-
rlYing, aoocrdinfe to the prool' of heirship aade In the County
court, hla widow, iiaria, hie aona and dau^^hters euto two grand-
children. The petition for lettora on hla <;etsit« was eli^n^d by
hla aurrlvtng wife, karla, and the petitioner in not nt^uBied in said
petition ae one of the h^ira.
Xhe reeorda of th« c/mroh at Wyandotte, kicnlgaii, ahow
the baptlaK at the home of his parents on October 2V/, 1835, of
Sdward JLarl ^aas iioeater, eon of AUi^uat ixnd c>ophia ii^oeater, and
the date of hla birth ia there stated aa /lu^iuat la, 1385,
On Deeeeber 2ii, 190d, petitioner, under the naie^e of
Edward Chealey Hsl^eiiter, enlieted in the J, <!. £avy. A certified
copy of the aervice reeord g;it^ea hla for&ier reeid<>ne« aa Irenton,
Michigan, and at»tea that hla next of kin waa hie aother, Sophia
»S-ii;ISil- ?*:'*^^*'***''* ^<J*Jfe^*l* irfli?.^)?!®® i{;.|:tS4j 9T»w SiS&l«*©trf9 #<**• iifi«-
•4^ .jc»i?j ♦.??.#. *w-i m.i^mMmR&M...^x^mMm4. i^u *ui mi ,:iMS,
4»l«{<jo&.. ,ncft^.7«i£ alj^^.«s4»'t. #3&,^ft:tx«i!t ttijr jtoji^ «»ji'«;i:« §»aB>ff£altUilX'
iko«at«r, of Tr«nton, Mic'U({«a: th^t he «»• born AUc^uat la, ].8ft4,
«t konguaeon, Kichlf'.m. P»titioii«r alto aanrad in tha U. 8. Ar»y
«b4 a eartlll*d ao^py of tha aarYloa raaord •iio'wti tlint h« anllatail
Ootobar 26, 1918; that ha raportti In saraon «a4 K«Ta tha naaa «n<i
sddraaa oi' tha p'^raon to b* aotlfiad in caaa of tmmr^nrtaj a* ira.
8«9hl« ^astar. mother, Tranton, kiiohinan. Hia dealaration in tha
••rvio* raeorda atataa that ha vaa bom in feongua^ion , ulahitnaa, on
Aaguat 18, 1885; that he ia by ooottp»tlon m dinar triepaotor of tha
K, Y, C, r&ilroad, a ettigan oT tha Unlt«»d dtataa, marriod» an-l hft«
BO chllir«5 -.nflt that no ora is 'if^fwudaut on hlsB J'or aupport.
Thla la th** third attwipt of petl'.lonor to aecure for
ht»«elf th« p»t&t«' of Sdvln 1 ,, .Tarnlnisa, Koeetgr t. Janr-ln^a. 354
111. 107. In October, 19^5, he fll««i<1 w. p«tit,i©n praying that im
aillffjad vlll of Sd«rln 15, Sfttmini^m 1p whlah h« waa nacsed uo aolo
legatee might ba adralttcd to probata. In that potitlon h« avarrad
that th9 helrahl^ had been found and ©ntiBrad on D«oaieb«r 56, 1993»
aund amended o» July S7, 1988, s^^ttlne up the «««♦»« of the h^^ira so
found but ararrlng that otJiar pftracvna olalny-f* to b« heirs whoas he
■Ada d«f eniante aa •unl<«fiwn hetrc." Hia petition also st.'Htad,
•Tour patltiocr i« Tltivout Icnflwledjfi* of th* n«jK>sa und r^l^ition-
ehipa, plicae of realienca nn", popt of floe al-lr^ae^a af the h-jlra-
at-lBC9 of thf: aald Sdwir B. Jamsingu, dfrea'iRefl,*
In thf corxrnt of ';ir «ar««r T>*titlf>nar h*« b«t(a ooa*
fined In tha nan»l Inatltuttona of Miahl^an aaad California, In
April ■■mi Itay, 19^6, whll * thus detained at iiari^mstta, t*loii., pnti*
tionar wrote a «»ri'!»a of Ifttera to a csueln, Mrs. kaaie Jbiaaa, at
Ckleago, Zllinotf. In those I'^ttwrs he rflpe*t«dly rofara to Sophia
Kcaatar aa '•ila not^ier, an'? in on^-> of t.ism ^ayss, "Aa you kiiev, aothar
die:? on January 51, 1923.* In thia Ictiar h« alao «al4:
"I ^ot a '/Ir** %'i ceres acn? at oj^o*? j«c francs s, .-ny >-lf« ,
araa aick, **"» She paaaad quietly away, i'^* She waa buried in
■T«»t i^oond whera lay partita ^re burlei, »"*' ^«11 liattld, I as,
not feeling goad today ao 1*11 not write auoh more only about
th« •Bi«t«, y»tt will r«c»li wli»u I vaa la Uiictttfo iu Got. 191S,
w«ll it w&a at that tin* l^r. Edvriri I, Jt^'inliiK* m-i^d« i)l» will,
UMilAg tB9 itol* U«ir le his •stat* ol' ov«r ^o,ww^v,'w .v^.C/O, th«
will wua vitn<^sa«d by thr«(f o«opl«, who %r»* all lifing And who
r«e»ll «T«ry d*t«il ol tli* Oiaicln^ mu<i sx«inin^, La«> will aooa
Coa«» up l"or proliat*. I think owfTytnlriii/: is i'ine to fax, kr«,
Ik. /, ffarnar dr«w up tli« Will iu la« Viotoria iiot«j. wr4«r« «li»
WAS the st*jjO<(fraph«r , h*r lualdsn n«i»« w»« ^^i*ry tmhl. It' you
wish I tsll uojr to o&Ij. on yeu« aiis can t«rll yoa -^ll aUout,
ahs In » I'inf: Ifwly. I mu looking] J"or « l*ttfr fron h^r tonisrrow,
#•11 JMufiis, ii' X att suoosssful, aAii i do«i*t see ituy r«a«on why
I on not ^;olng to b», you surs shnll ■«« l5*»HUtil'ul California,
Jor, rsaily, ka^is, you rsally wsrs closer to ms wh«n ws wsr«
kids than ny own s ist«r. »«>»'- <-•
Your oousln,
Kdward 0, Kosstsr.*
33\« o^unty el«rk of D«jiL%Il» county twntlfisd that ho
kadi »a4s an sjiaKiinatlon of his fil«« ari'l r«»o«jrri« and frun'l no
ehlHrsn born of Sdwin £, Jennings, tin wro'iuoed a c»»rti flc'its,
hows<f«r, sworn to by iiJrs, Warner, » witness v^aoce t»«i9tiBiony is
hsrs*ft«r r«elt<»4, whlcii h« ».<»ii hf» had rsoslvad throutr: th« nitiila
Autfuet 2, 19 ?7, Hs •xawlnw'l the records of hie ofl'lcs vith relV«r-
•nes to birth cwrtlflontoa of children horn to Kdwin l^r*nM99 Jsn-
nings or Johanna Fr«d«rlcka I>uewel %nd found no such rscofd. xis
axaininsd the raoordt; of his office as to » ia«rri&ge between Kdvia
B. J«iffiings or %dwijn Breesee Jennltitigo atid Johanna Fre^ierleka
Duewel or Augueta Duew«»i. He »ai>5 that thA marriage record goes
1»»ek to the year 1885 an.1 that, he hftd ?>3f«n?lBed it subsequent to
that time. He says thnt the birth records of 13as were not kept
Ir thr shape they 3r<? now; that there wsre a lt;t of births around
1S85 that were nf«Ter recorded, but a3.l %»rrlaees were reoorded.
The SYldlenoe subsiltt*^ iq berslf ©f netltioner was
substantially as follows:
Agnes fcyers testifies that she w^a present at the
»arrlag« of Ain^ista Puewel to P^dwln B. JenrilngB» She says that
in lass she was 1? or IS y«ars of ?*ige; that t>hf isrent to yislt
relatlT«>e nasied Allen who resided 6oir(«wh(»r« near ;->yc«niore, TMk'v^m
oeunty, Illinois; that ehe remrvlnwd at their iiome about two wg#jts;
that she drove out to Syoamors with a horse and wagon from
»'
m
.' trn/m «s|^Att*?« A^ *j»'i^ ,*»l^i««?fr'S ^»v«!i« erf«v l^iit es^U
Uhlc««o 1b tht 9Y«nlng; thRt ah* d»«« not r«nnin^9r whetluir th*y
SroY« throuMU 3ye«»or«: tJiat eh« doo» not fenow vii^ro John Allen,
h«r onusln, !■ now t'Ut sihi^ laat h9iu:<1 ho vh« 1<; i^AnFrauclaoo,
3h« haa not acea Joi-.n Allen or hla ><'i]'« t^iDeo thia vinlt to th^
farm. Xha Allona h»4 no eUll(!r«n: John Allan h&.(1 no Ijr^thmra or
atatara that aha rau!«tnb«ra. Sba ic-^ti not know vhathcr th<% nl&ea
«
to >*hic'i oU» went "»oa north, aouth, «»st, or weat of ^vyoaj.er«,
Th* Allen fwm joined tho CKiawfti f>\rni, but ah? do<ta not kaov In
wtaieh (tlroetion. Th# Allena !!▼»'! p«»r la^ja a mile or a, alia «ai a
half iron tho Duoweia. >ihe n&yz sh9 t&ttt -Toham^o )?ue«rol oni har
■other on tii* dtiy d' th« wa«i;Ung; that Vu«Jr« wore pro>bably alx or
3«v«n peraonn at th-* wo<5f1ing, - tha pr«ttoh«r, Jmuiinia^, kr», ilue^^al,
JohauKflk smd aon* «^ll<!r«n wo^se a;3E;t»8 «hp si-usr^ot reoall, hor aant,
Anna ]i&y<Kr8, tira. Alien ani hare^lf,
jh» neYor h«*rd of kr. JttfUiiwgs ati-*l« 'U?itll 1913 • 53
y*W8 thoroftftor. £»%« thon ciwt -iia in the docrwity at 2» i>outh La-
SaXla atreet, Chlo«iSo, in Janu-ury, 1913, ;Sh« »vet hlui v-^her. she k&ad
■n ;*ppr»iiiti?»#nt with a Ux, Sawaer, who h*i>. sinoa Ued, mid a g^icoKWi
RMBia Cor#y, whc ^^id not t«atil"y, i^«t >says -liiA'- she eaid. to hi»,
*Th* firat wp!«''.ing I fver attendea, or asarrla^* I aver att««;l«ti,
th* ma&'e O'une waa B<tvln ^. Janr.inta," ar.i'l tiisit h^? 8s*.i;i, "I gueas
I t*si that man," She «ay» sLc apVf-f1 hi« ho»« l.i» *^li'e was u.n<i he
ropllad, *itj rife -iled '^hcc our aoii wa« bora..* Xhac he at.a»ag;ad
tho cooYcrBaition and aoaraoti reluotwit to talk about It,
Th<? cewrt -^sk«d this witnoae, *Did you aaa tha earamoB^f
partfotmed?" and ^o replied, *Tfa8. 1 h«ar<l tha ttinleter perfora
tha ccroBiony an'l I rwaaabor thoy Joln^^d ha>4 da and he hloaaod thMi.
'i'hat ia th<» flrat wsdcSlng I ov«r attwidci. tha cftroi<:ioay v«ia p«r-
forac) tr. tha Sn^llah l&niiUB^a. At ti^at tlsia I waa 12 yaara old."
P«tHloOipr alio prciacwJ -w , titnwaaitra. Ssaxtk r;tefi'«B,
vho aald ah« iraa tha wifa of Hot. J. t. ifan, pttator of a criurcli
-.,;a# l»a#^|8li*J&|(<^^W«*'^*fe':^^
t^sosw-xe^ «^i3 : ,/.2<«l^M^^'' «>|^\ J|i^j(;««': ;#^^
.e&«Btf ^tdliM *««*?■■ &*!lH«|i4W. <j*#8^ .;««|J||«* .; .
In ISan. She •«lrt th0]r I1t«< at UMOft, Dc£a1Ii county, Illia«l«,
of whioA 3yatuAor« vao bU« county seat, <ac! Uiat li«r huolsand
pr«&ch«4 in tho Do&.»l^ eounty eourt houoo. Ub« eaid she know tho
Suowal fftfAlly AT.a th^t thoy wor* M«i»btr« of bor huobaud'o ohurofa;
that about April, 1305, h«r huQbttnd p«rfenaod a Bi«rrl(Mg« i<i tho
Ouovwl fmally but oho ««a not preoont; tnat oho roiu>>«b«rod ac
oecurrenoo ar«*un(l ;vu«^unit, liiirtn, of the l^Xrtii of a child lu th«
DuevoX fatblly, hat akx* did not rttciciiibor th«) rcoor^ of a marria^o
bet«««n wdvlu Jofiiiiugs and Johanna .^ft.a»ta Duowol. Upon objoo-
tion to u«r toatioiony, potitioner efforod to pfovo tbat ia Auguot,
1S8S, hor buRlajtd told iitir oi the death of Joh.»nn« AuguttaDuovol
in ehildbirth «uid mat ho &dfiilniator«d tho la«t •aarar&^nto; that ho
told h«r that the i^irl ho had narriod in 1885 had ^ivon birth to a
child and di«(!! in otdldbirth and that Ihin eliild vao th« oliiI<4 of
Sd«in i» Jecninfts and his vife, Johi«nna Augusta iXio^ol.
tnie OTileneo was properly rejcotod by tJi« oourt and
oxeludod beoau»(t it wao hearaay
turn. naxAiti Ma«ui tootified that U»r aiothor died iioTesabnr
4, 1901; tiuit prior Co her death her jaotuex told h<«r that aho felt
«h« would ooon paoa a»ay mi.A ih&l »he, tn« wiineae, should know a
oeoret; that ^dward i^ceater «aa tho fo»t«r*eon of ^or. and i^rfi,
Sopteia >'«08ter and Uiat his pwr^nta were i^dvin Jojmiuga and Johanna
I)uewol; that st tk« tiiae of JTohaiiAiik I^owel'a death A'<ra. Kooator
took ai..d raioed his aa h«r o«n ohild; that &t the a«£a« time ahe
had glTOU birtii to a ehild who lied and ene took adward and
ralaad hiso aa h<«r own aon. rhla witneaa ^iilso testified that ahe
•av Kdvin £. Jennittga about three tl%ea out on tho Ko ester faroi
and that ii9r oiothev tolri her that Jerjiirigs uao^uct to »e« Kdward
Koester. dhc idet<tifled a pioture of Joiwl»gB aa the %«Ui she tand
aeon n% the &o eater farm. She BaXA o'a« waa toll Uxat 3 taming ti vao
a kenron preacher; that ebe knov oi the Duovel lot in Dundee hut
3'---
«' ^. '^3ft#"« «4* 'm^mm^
rii llJt ir&.&'l
,^--^ifj* f
'«»»
haJ B«t •••n th« stoB* there, 8h« was «*lc«<1 by th« oourt what ahe
seaot wh«n mh* told t>,r, Iflsohar or kr, WllllaniB that ah« had nrvar
heard of JtmningM and if she had tuny cxpi.i«ni*tlon of that answor
that Bhe want*d to nak*. Th« witn«»» rifpllfc?, "Jio, 1 hava not,"
Rlehard J. Trunibull «a» a eashl«r at tha Arlington
Fark raee traok who knew Bdvin B. JariClui^s. U* tectified that in
1886 h« mat Jannlnga who had witn hift a b«y, 0, li' or II y«»ara
• f aga; that Jennings taid» "Xhla is my key." He saytt \x* eaar
<7«nniDga «itii tho boy five or six tiio«>c and that Jenninft;* told his
that the boy wae liyiag in ItleMgan; that his smother was dead. This
witness etated that his work waa to pay ou i th« b«t« that were w©n
on horses; that he h^A teen around the Ifcetropole and Lezington
hotels during the years 1925, 1936 and 1927 many tlsteo,
John P. Park«r, a ealeoiaaii iij the Boston stor« {'or
S4 years, testified that Jennings hou&ht auuiy clothes fro» hiia, as
■any as fiv« or six euitc at a time;; th'k% the witness !;iaked J^xi'
nigs what h« would do with the clothes and that J«umings said,
"Give th«wi away to others; buy them for oth«r»;* that at one time
in response to a question I'rooi hlK, J«anijLi^a ^smawered, ^'Hot^ do you
kAow I aaa not ^uyinj*. it for ay ewis l»oy?"
frM C, Sng«aif«r of Wyandotte, Michigan, a brother of
airs, ^phia i^^e«t«^, t<»stlfl<sd thai hp reiseahered the occaalon when
a dead haby was born to the Ko^sttr faMXy; that he iKad« a coffiii
for the baby and that lo^l^r when the oeih eatery had to be rsmered he
mowed this body,
2lYie Fowler of J?©wlerTille, Mlchiijan, testified that
in 1910 or 1911 she took i^rs. Sophia Koester to Uxa office of an
attorney in Lareing: that £>ophia tuen told her that i^d i^eester
was her sinter's boy »nd that her sister lied when he was born;
that ehe, iikophia Ko«8ter, had a c^dld five days ol«!er than &d
K««ster, or iid Jer.nings, ana tha* har baby fUedj that she raised
■'■mi&i '■ ■■ ■■'>% lost MA
10
«ad nura«<l ^d Jofuii/iK* aa h»r own ohild. Bhm ««w « letter a<t<lr«Ba*d
t« ^|»hia iLoattar at that tln« an'! thtre w«rR two HOG lallla in tlia
•uTelQua. Aa effar vaa made to ah«v that tha letter vaa al^nad by
X4wln fi. Jaunlnga and atiier all^gad facta aa to Ita contfmts, but
•a ebjactien vaa auatain«d, and properly. Ppx^nixif. y. J^oktof^ .
a08 III. 8&.
▲Ifrod C. Hol'iaaxi,, «ho 0]p«rata4 a hotal In Oatroit*
taatifi'»d tidat ha aa» Kdwio £. Jencinga ecea 4uriiat^ hia lifatiMi
In the hotel; iixnt h« oaae Jilone and &»k«d for iid ilo water; that
ILeaatar Introducad Jannlngs to hl» and aaid, "lliia la my fathor."
Minnie katakol'f , who lived <%t Wyan1otte« klohigan,
teat if If^ that aha had conT^raatlons with Hophim Koeatcr *lota of
different tlMaa" bai'ore aA<^ after th« year 191<^: that :^phla i^««».
ttr firat talked «ith her about the a&tter twenty y«>«ura h«o in
hor ovn houae an<1 tol'1 h«>^r about Jiaunlnga and that h«i often caiaa
thera. The vitneea aaya, "I oan * t junl rer<.«£:b«r but I ]c»o« ahe
talked lot*, but of Qourse It 1r bo loci^ &^o. ^e aaya, *W«li,
that la the man -nhat't ^^oln^:: to lAav« some day lots of money to
that l)oy. ' That is what sh« told K«." &h« says that ^phla told
har how tha isothar iiad *ao guiok and ov^rytSiing;" that eh« talked
vlth tiophia in &epta»ber» a year b«for« ahe iled; that Sophia eaid
Sdward waa not at homo, that ahe didn't knew where h«« waa, that
ahe waa looking all over Tor nlm; that s^i^ told th^ «»ltneas to come
ottt the next £>unday, that she waa ^^ola&. to tell the whole thing
and that wben nha, liephia, died, tii^e witness wao to tell ''^dward.
The wltaesa, however, didn't go cut there ths^' next Sundiay. She
•aya that SecAiia Koester got letters frosi ^''ennlnga, ''lota of them
in Genaaa. All the letter* were la M«r»ari «m<! sti>> wrote baek in
Genr^an. *
Charleo &e filter, son of Sophia, and Aa^vRt Koeater,
teatified that hia mother told alBt that Sdwaxd C. i^oeoter waa not
'.>i
f iS' Ii*m4» *«^5'
*m^M^^^.jMmsi
■ s&minm ,9nl^ allium
'■■♦*
-8rf&--:^ :fe.i.;:iv
i t.«r.v<;. aiS*.v,f^Tfa»,jft«ft ■m9%»'^ '••*ffisi;# *«st--'-- ,*•"
^ ♦$■-'*»'• 4«.i.*4<i'i!>*: «»4» s»4«" *«j(M J^a»
s*;i^^r.^wt^ -a-srfSa* aM ff«i-tl A*AJ#«»K^
u
hit brother liul ihut she »houIt1 not tdl until ul'tor »u« vaa d«ad|
that she ta»d t&k«n Sd on tho farm to ri*ia« vh«i. h<» nii* luut a baby;
that his H«th«r di«d vhan Itha was very young; that »tkm, c>«phia,
had takwn him «n4 raised tiia and! Tory for people knew that ho aas
not h«r own ohild s>a<! net hie brother* He saye that ah« alvaye
aald that Johanna Duewcl trae hie Aoth«r and kr, Jer.ninge wee hie
father end that they were married; that heiera this oenvereatioB
with hie mother h« hiid seen £dwin B. J^imin^m on th« I'ans four or
fiTO tlDee; that he ea« Jenninge and MvAVi C. ii»n»tmr tn«ir«; that
hie mother reeelvad eorreepon<)«nee ftc-m Jexxuiuga and that he was
preeent when the oorr«epon(lmnee was reoeired: h«t could not giye the
general oontenta of t'ri'? letters; h« thinks the letters wore all
destroyed after hie nkotJier'a deaith, thut jutayhe atm destroyed then
herself; that the letters contained laonsy. ue a»i>-s no iaiew J«i;xiings
as a kerrsoB oreaoher; th'«t tJi« last ti^aa he siu« niiu ti&a in 1910; Uiat
tantil XS08 the witness tiioui;;;;t that HdWisad was hie brother.
Mary Stahl Waxn«r testified that in liXa eh« was a
yublio stenographer at tht Victoria hotel In CulGagOt and that eke
did wori for Jenninfre; thst he tol*;! her that foeetcr was his own
son; that he had married in eeeret; that th« mother hat died at
the sen's birth; tJnat the soUier oi hiit wife war;;t«4 to k»9p him
but that the fathrr woul-* not allov hisir to rilee tiiw fooy, »o he
dsel4ed to take the boy to kiohl..:an» and iiophia Mi«t.»ti»r was to
rales nim «is her own; that Sophia Ko eater hskd recently lost her own
baby. krs. Warner say* that Jet^citngs spoke witi. h.er ^uite frequently
about this eon; that h« woul-1 al^ayo be sending i&otiny to him through
Mrs, Sofihia a^'onXmr, Trenton, MicUigan; th;4t she saw Jennings and
Edward Koeeter together; that in October, 1918, j»«titionar oame to
the Vietoria hotel i"ith eamf. oth(.>r tuye im& Jeunitigis afid that Mr,
Jennings said, "This is >:-^di«, my son." S>hr- reoeived a letter from
9Stition«r in aaroh or i^rll, 19S6, whoi^ he was in tj:ie penitentiary
It
}j^„%«>- <:,u& ti»jj' ^0Ai Jbit««iir$« «i«ift ^SJd
,jf lAd* }fes>i,'*«<s'tfl* wr** TjiSifJi i»R}S;r ^»^ ' ' ^
Iff'' «».t«t ^♦atr't *«(«»? ««f4;»»iB*«<m lNwli>«»i »i
r^sim>^ mas ^<^^stpAf sii4uiti« «^ ec
net
at Karqu*tt«. &h« aoal^t«ll Ixow wauiy Itttorc wha r«e«l7td i'roB
hl»: «h» prcba\3ly 4o»trey«4 »I1 Ixls lrtt«rs a f«« d&ye ;a't«r aha
r«o«lTed thca. H« %<\'!r«e(se4 her ;kt post o^fiet boai 2 4w» Chicago.
Aft«r h« v«s paroled! fratb prlaon h« oame out to har Uouso and
Tlaltfd. the -erltn««8« n«vor r»e<iT«4 a latter front J<unrila£a and
had nothing; with hla h&ndvri tla^s on it. 3h« aarnr tanAo any earbon
eepl«« Ql' hla l«tt9ra; after tH« will wa« tidied <$ii« aa« him aliaaat
•▼•ry day but neT«r aa:* hist a't<tr shm left Ui« aeire't. lu 1920, and
nrrar h«ard rroa him ai't«f>r thnt. i:ilie •Ays* *1 wrot* l<»tter8 I'or
hlat and I wrotf; tha viii »,% hla «UetmtioB, tli« wilj. wja«^r«ltj he
left evarythlnt^ to hia ^eod friend, x;.4«arrl €. ko^^ster." The w:itu«)»a
thought Jennlnga had a rnaaou i'vr telling h«r About th»a« mmttere
in that he "vanted »e to i^o rith iar, iieegtwr mxa i waa «ngaji.-<j to
Biy hueband who waa Ib yr«cc«, and I aaid 1 would not ijiv*' hla up,
and we ha4 quit« a hat little — ", Xhis vitneaa had alao •««» the
Daewel lot In I>unde* -"th? i Irat t.l&* U% July laat year." J3ho wwi
there atter^-^ing a ^'^^aeonie I'iCeraJ. l/ut lid not icnev -:«ho&8. iier hua-
band and a )tr. Gibbena wer« %'ith h«»r. <^^ae wm,8 li: th« i^ra'v«yi'ird
enoe b«for« Iju 1937, on a wet, eold day, «irtd ^r. iso«!!;t«r was with
hor. Uhe saw the name ]>ttevel on the tombstone, iioestitr took s
pieture oV the toisbatonc th&t dj^y; it was w^iite ^uid ii>.oe«tsr bl tokened
the face oi' it, but «ht: '2o?a net ree^nsoib^r thai ahe aaw him take »
Vhttto£:rav>h of it ;<tft9r it ^as bl !u:i>.eri«d. Wh«) (|ueetion«d ae to her
presence there she repll'^d, "I wwit up tiiere to look ov«r the ulll,
I love those «een<?B fcr ;>aiRtiB{t.* I'his -nltnees ad£>ittod that about
Migust 1, 1923, su< eubecribwd to nt. birth certificate before a
aetary public. Uoest^r helped her wita tfie ini'ors^iatlon ^^nd she
r«KeBtbered what Jermings tolS h«r. 'dii-e. could not recall the exact
date but hf^ knew the d«ie o^ hie birth ^aiA i<he did Uile )or hin. aa a
friend. This ai,l<ȣed eertifieate was ttaile^) to the county clerk of
I>*Kalb eounty and atates that the mothar of petitioner waa Johanna
tl
sm*i
'■'i.'^jr
S
ii%<»j
''
,CJ'
,%h K<.'
'
/Ot*
»Xfv-
(>«M« m-m
mis t
-
«MW «^#^
"".v
-A, t.t
» " . s
fc*S»SK5S/ ;*jf Xf><i^^i
. a} «.Ji^ ri*X *^ ^*V )W*4 *6Ml Wtfc'
. w# "sti^ atmimt; * ^iaiH -in
.«» Ml^ 4>|& »* «« ft-^M-r
isi »mi^ Htl'i •$$«'^» «>*il!ii3iU$ »^ < '<^
.^V ,i»j^ Mil* ^ytmc meit!^<f-*^t!t ,tv «^ *?«» tur-gsd
V"-
(• ivilwa^ MM t!fm »«t« ««»<ri!! :m<.i'^««if:^ $«uHt «»a^ iMM> ^^ ^^4 "^o '
^kUA MCjiF tMirt >-t9 ^ji; mm <t^6i% »«!it «»ific,
Augusta 7r«4tri«lui Ji)u«v«l» want thct ah* ««• 17 /•nrs «f •«••
P«tltioii«r alM pr«du9«(l as a wltnase L«* M* PttSB«ll»
mho t«*tifl9<3 thr<^t h* «aa a practielng lavyar af Sulfporty Uisslse-
lppl>aad sovcrsoir of tfektt ittata /ron X920 (o 19<i4« This vifcnsse
ieatlflsd to allsged oorrcEpondsass irith Hltfwln B* Jennlags uM
queatlons vers ^aked by osunael for pstltloasr as to the oonttats
•f tlssse Isttsra. An objsetloa s^tie properly su^^taineti for ikr
reaa«n» as we thiak* tbfit the prellBixury proof fallsd to sliow
a ssaroh In good faith for the oorresponifenes* Prusafajg t»
^••kMB. 200 in. 86.
Bsspondsnts produoed Bst* imsst A* Brauert pastor of thfS
ZaMaauel Lutheran ohuroh of i>«iid«s» wIm testlfisd that hs «st Bdvazd
C* Kosstnr In th« parssnags at Duntfss on ieocaihsr U$ 19^7t that a
Marriage esr«RU»y vas perfonaed there at that tlae} that the hrlds's
name was iorothy nsBksjr* and that pstitloasr ' Awaxti Ct Koeeter* stated
hs was the unels of the bride, vhe llret: at yandette* klchlgaA* The
nan who was Buurrled «&t this tiae vne Boy M* Hoffaaa* The witness
testified that at thst& tlsM hs said to the young couple thftt thsy
vers strangers to hlat th^t he wtoitsd to ash a few que&tlonst and
addrossing the young man inquire-* if they insTe h«ittg married with t)MI
eonaent and good wilJ of his p^r ents* to whioh the young nan replied
in ths aff IranatlTei that hs then sddresi^ed the young ladjr and whsn he
asked her shs hesitated and then Mr* Koester spoke for her* Ths
petlliottsr «c » allowed to eontr'Uiiet this isstlafiNBy*
■Louis F. Grenlngt 6A years of agSt vrho had lived la
lundee all his life» and whose nothex w&s a sister of Joachia or
Joseph Ittswel* tostif Isc th^tt he kasv Joseph inewel ewer slaee hs
oaao from ths old country; thnt he oaao and settled fit ^undeo and
fr«B iKittdoe he went to a farsi hotwecn i^l^to and yoaaorei that ho
aoved to another faraf that ho hsd two pl«»ooo around there hy
'^yoaaerei that his wife wc^s "^uat Kariai" that he knew herf that
mm^:i^-9im !*Mm «4 ^U^. .ismt .^^i «■
MA Y ''
««««l*jbf *l£t *«SS«sa^^*K *«j t^-J* »««^ elMAt ■«&*» •*« JWMTfca*!S »«»w «rfv. .:v.::.;
.^S4» ««t^l.»«<^i^ «t%'« |te».»'«t .Ml»i^ i«X»$«««tl» {»'%4W
••^tf 91«Mid SsawrO-s:* l»W>wi« -CRB'iJ fewrf ««f #«ilij JJBMut "SiidHtiA «iS '.■'
14
h« knvw th» «hlldr«n ol' Joa«ph mb£ karla ]>waY«l: cluifc J«tt«idi
that h« liY«d th«rR ta l'«v ytibXe i^<i ttAcn beut^lxt ^> fariK fj^ox^ kr.
Lpr«n«, hi* •oD-in-ia«, whv auurriad th« duui^tor VmA iristkB, Ihtt
witn^if) r«c!«tQi>«r«ed tii* oacaiilor. «r the tibtidixig ef Lerens and
frvdcrloka Du«wel. U« w«« lk«-A'« aiu' «£ raa & ijj.^ ^^fti-J !lii>i: and all
th* far:lly van t'orrv. It ««>■ th« ilrat V!«iri4la{> in tUc £un««l
f«Ci.l)7. 'I'his WDH in 1681, mid it to&k plt*eo au the Chris B«K.«fiA
farw at Jo* iAi«w«l'». iili* %l(<iti«a» also <ial.1 chii^ b,« kx.ov Au^u«?a
X>u«w»l; tiiat «h« <'1jL«d in 1333 or 1330 ai'tf>7 th.vi i"fliddlni^. 3j!i<<i
llT«d OK i'a.« J'oHu .i}«te!>«iii S'ugra .md wau "b^arit^d iu ziiQ DoriJ^e o<tai«K~
tvry; that, h* «itt«fid<i4 Vu« accr'vio« ttnd that uiao wae Juried on her
fatuer'a lot; that ho n««rirdr h^ax-ti el' U»v iiain^ marriod* ii9 caald
not twil vhat r<9latlT«« v«re at the iunoral, out his folks wero
thOTO and S0819 of tho nnar rolatlvos, tuid Umt /!« n^Ter ht^ard ei'a
ehild l»9ini£ torn to Augusta Buovol; that tho I'uneral of i«uguata
vat at Duadoo and th« SArTieos wore oonduotsd in th« oliuroh Isy
RcT. ?t««^«; that he im«w oi' th« death of Krs. Haaaehild and at-
tended h«r funeral t tnmx he Jmew of &h« defcta oi Joeeph iXtevel
»»& attended his luneral ai:d that of hie wife ^&2-ia: that ixfi
knew or the ^leatn of Are. i^oirenk and atteiided her fiinartil; that
iUigusta irrederleka I>uevel might have hi^mi i«i«2-rl&d iiritiiettt hie
krcving it but he doulttttd it; che ni^t have had a child vithout
hlf kr.owlng It but it vould be pretty h&rd to tell that. Xhe
irlt-nnes did net knov Itire. 3ophii\ Koenter, thought she was re«>
Icr.t'K*. to the Duewele but iidn't know he«. He didn't know if
thftre w«re tmy oeople frost Wyandotte, Mioliig^ui, at th«> funeral.
Johanna had a fair funeral; she was buried iro:;. the chureh. they
had little to do ^ith i^r. Baewel* He osiue ever to eee the folks,
that i« all the witness eoul.1 tell about it, but he went to th^dr
home when he was real youiig, H;ruund i:^, 14 ur 1<); ixa did not go
there wery often so h« could not tell Juet what %ook pi
ae* there.
1^1
..is. i* rf
*«me »«w «#» "^li'tf^ijjf*'' »«*ii«*"«l' «ii5t^^
t:« ?{t .ii3^«f& *it^«^flww!* ^0«l«i»'' eiiir'iiC^''' t^l*iil£<-
.««ui^''«ii«i«' <»'»* *«^' *»*t tXM4 ^m k^» ^ ..■»* ^^
If
Mr*. Anna Holta, who waa a «li*t«r ol Jo«atet«i ^cirsl
of T)Mn^»«», X.-fftiTirfA thai -h** wa« AoqiaaiutvH with tha Tmmily; that
Jeaehlm** vlft's mai-^^m! r.ajsin vos Kngonfcr; that thft ehll<jtr«ii of kro.
Mario Dttovol voro Mrs. leroca, Vro'^erioka. Mro. itflrinle i^uogor.
Charlc" t)u«ir«l , &r«, Carrlo H«u»Qhil4« Au<Pcuata and ro. kary
Xggort; tiiat i^lnnio kruegor Is tn* only otaet llTine now; that th«
«oth<.*r ef tho aitnwes <^1.«.'S ttur^o years t>«loro{ Uaat h«r mother n«vor
tel4 ttnr anything with rofcrortoo to Aut^uota JDuowol. Ut» and Jtro.
Joavph iMovol used to go thoro. finty Jutt saii r-n.^ !i(»d irJnon oho
vao a young girl; tliat *unelo Joo and ny auwt llYOf^ ri^vj^t aerooo
tho atroot fro; uo up UKtll tiio last oightoon yell's ;md ther> we
liT04 aoro^o the riTor;'' thai ah« h«d uer^r heard in their family
that Auguata Ouoval h^d boon carried; that she thou;(f'^!t *h« -would
hoTO b<»«r<J a^cut Johanna Isein^r i&<?rriod if that h»d b««« eoj thff.t
•he ^i(5js't think a eoorot wefliJing. eould "ollp ov^r* in Dundee with-
out Tf#c?le fl«<*in£ otit; that tt (Udn't isanpa« in Syc«aaor«, but if
It hs4 happened in Syoanscr? nhe pro^iB^ly would Kot h^ve buard of itj
that hfT uncl« ueM to ccaae over t© h«ap houap qult« oftsm* isutdI If
anybody olao in the neighboriioed knew tibout it ohe trxiriKa ahe
woulil htiiYe h«ard aVout It; that ahe wouldn't tell it to outside
pooploi that if they had boon aug^rrled and tjotain, sold outside of
the lauROdiate fanlly, 8JJd ur, ^nd Mr*. JJuevel h«d not told her
■Other a1)owt it ah& didn't aupcoao she voul<^) have h>»ard albout it;
that ahe muet Hare aoen Aucuata Duevel bat ahe <5iin*t have on in-
dapendtat reoollrotion of having aoon h«r,
i^phio Ksnkp teatifiad th»t 4h« waa h&Tu in 1863 tuaa
hor i»»rmte' Ra«e waa Sohreodor; tfast e>w wao adopted in the f«&lly
of John Domion and llrci or- hip i\xK fro< Uvi tljR« abss wao eight
year* old until the wsto fift^oa; that uftsr ahe l«ft, Jaa«'>h
Duowol and hia faeiily aoTod on; that thia John Desden fans waa
about four and a half Kilea northwest of Dundee; that ahe knew
«1
»««i«fe« M'*^ h«vU i&m ^ iS(A«l #«* mU^ *-iMiS* tii«ii ■»««£-
-«ji ftfe i^md i'si^i^ SJi^ >•■ ■..■.i^>. i***.a. fiMijI #»*i-i :■;.■ ;;u i«4l*
J»« Cu«»«l ftRd his wilo end Vradericki^ »hr, icE.rri»:? ehrln ic5r<««;
tJukt liiie v&s bridc»&£.t'? rt llr.nir «».:<d]»g, »t»lch rj?ck oinor, ar th«
Dctuidib fana «httr« tke lK\Vff»^9 llv*d; that ch« kr«9ir a lit tie about
Auewtt* I*»«Ttl, not Y^ry aateh; tbRt Augufta •»*» mXiy ot tho tlmo
or 1.iiK i.or«n« watfiLiit Vit oJi* z'li! not "m«ir hew vxvxy r^orfs sho
llY»i< uftwr that; th#t frf$fvick». -vac Kiurrioa «o cult* r largo
fars ioaat»4 in l^ario oounty nnar T)un4o«.
Johjn J, tHoltt^ *7 yi»RrB of tge «td Tfe^r/ Ic G«r»rjsny,
tootlJlod lh-«t be oa«>f( to ti»ii« *>;ttatry vium h« ir»«i alvovit sis 3a«S »
hall yean* eld; t^c* hlo p5jr<mto oottlff^; Ir T3uk5o« ar^'J hn vcrkM
on ft wo; that hio ««tVk*r'» nkmo vao it ary Sucvcl , s slr.ter of
Jofk»ph Duevel; tniit vphort ffoo i)ttO>'»l rirct. come hc^re ho utsytfl -'•I th
tho l^uia Grening^o I'olko; that Joo iJuowel IItoA ob tho Uroning
plttoo, than movod to tho Bdvfardo f tim. in Bundoo; thstt thoj then
MOYOd ovor to iiyeacaoro and vltneoo hclpod th«m aiovo thoro; th&t he
««• alwut 17 or XQ yi^aro eld then; that th«y h^.d two oowo -^hioli
thoy ')rovo along. <uid tiioy otojipod evor ai^;ht with tho 3ohrood«roi
that vSyoanoro vao oouthvc*Bt of thi- fsiix^^; thet- <^^{:)«> Lionel moyed
baek te« U\*! rlaco irhoro tn*>y r-tyyod tTor nt|;bt» 'fshJoh ^ao known
aa the I'hiaoo f'ii7i 1« UtllmUi In PIk-I.c lovitishii?; tiitit. thon «roe
SuGOcl aored en tho John Domlon tvti'v R©rth*?»at os' I^ttTidor*: that, he
knov frod^rioka narr l«d Loronii; that s'mm that form he moved to
Dundee and «ao llTlng in Inmdee at the tiaie he died,
Louio ^. IHaewol , «ho lived at i^yeaAtore, testified
that ho vao 46 year* of ago Mid hie father was a brother of
Joeeoh Duevel; that hs knew eose of tho ohlli^rsn, Charlie, ^ary,
!fT*i«Tiok.fi and Jb^inf'le; that he had net tho petition«!r Hoostor
about two yearo before in his plaeo or buolneoa ir Byenmore and
had a eoBversatlon with hint; t)t»t booster aoked hlM if he was
related fco tbo i>»^er«>lK t»t i5tt»itl«»f: und tho witno««? tcid hlpi that
ho was, that ho Jgdov Joe IHiowol, who was his uncle; that Jloeetor
u
\p-)i^tl'»tsi^ :«a«AJfa »9^
l«i».|»fta«Bc»«. i«id» 0^^ t^i^ 9Wf. ^^iMEtlifft' iGfM^ iws ' *||n
i«^':- ,|fl(!f«l| ./v ■ -■ >wm- film t»%mmvfxa- $t^i
■■ -f «|*|%, ##JB^^^ ^Sl^ ||Mfi|1C«4 A«|iri^MB «Jit^il»*«iK'K fftfOl
t«^«»wl t:*«««Ml#»4{ #j^i( jF»» £Mjat «4 jr..
-jaw i>«f 1/ ..*» t»#««i^ imi^ im3sA «•:
unimnk tiiM imJb»m :mi» 9»^ '<»i£r ^^£9^f!<^t■
if
•aid h« w»» tola vm«l« al«o on Je« Btt«rw«I'B wir*** sid*, th«it his
Moth«r was a alHt^r of ivrs. Je« Du«w«l. th» vlttieaa aaltt that waa
about two yoara imo ani that kocster n«ntion«<1 an oatato ho waa in-
toreotoA in; that Koeetor aakod hla If ho didn't frnmahmt tho Jeo
Duowel raally; that ^ootor diin't «ay that Johanna iniovol , tiio
daughtor of Joo IXiowol, waa hla aothor; ho said Jo« Duowol waa hla
unelo.
C. V. Rakow, a rotlrod at«r«hAat f2 year a of ago, IItIbs
at Bundoo, Illineio, olnoe 1M8» t«atiflod that aa a young man he
workod OB a f«n5, sni aftor ho waa a farator h« aa a eoaoheian for
Dr, Z. 7. Cl«Toli%nd of i}tundoo and know Joe Baowol of Dundoo, ho
thinka, ainco 1871; th»t Joo J>uowol*8 «lfo*« Kaidon naao waa
Xncaafor; that he know aone of the ejiiX;}r«>n In that fimlly •
Charlie, Mrt, Hauaehlld, Mra, liggert, itro. ^uegox and kra. Lorona;
that there waa not another girl in that fHmlly that h.^ kriew of.
Uo roeallod drlTlng the doctor out to t.h« .l>u«wttl Totm on an oeea>
•Ion of illnoao whon a daughter ty the a«un« of Miguata waa eiek;
that at that tlm« he waa 25 yoara old; that he dldnH know what waa
tho troublo with tho little «^irl; that Ui« Jeo Puewol fasiily at
that time waa liwlng on a f^tw about four milea nerthiv«>et of Dundee,
on John D«al«n*a fam; that the little slrl waa not Qiea long; tliat
•ho was ahout thirteen years and eone Konths of ag« wheri she died;
that they hsWI no eathaliner or angler taker in th<% town at that titao,
and his mother used to dc; a lot nf ouoh tnlnga; thnt his oister
and Bother went out into the eeuntry to th? farn and did the work
for the peoolo there to lay h<^r out, dressed the little t^irl and
laid her out; that she was r^uried in the West Pcindee eoaetery; that
after that tine he waa ooaohman 104t yeare for a doctor sund then in
1893 he went into the furniture an^! unHortakini^ busineaa; that ho
buried kra. Hauaehlld, ^r. Joe I>uew»l «nd ^ra. Duewel and he had
boon out and seen their faiAily lot a nu-^.l^er of times; that he waa
'■tl
^d:im» ■-mr^m ^^%:.hm4\ «^ iiww^w' *m .«»iw rJ#«»M«f -#*^x i# mi^i^MMih
-'■.■^- -^^0^101^: k^nM''M^: ^4»i«^y^##. '■0^- ^ -im^^'- mfifsM: He^isi- -ittts^' ^i^tvm^elSi.
.»*fe.^i*if«,t« ;#««.w«£»-^*iffi »*Ate- -*!#*">.■ *iy«itf* ««B^^ ;<» «»' ^mMii ««WF «kM ■ *.«j!f^
^*i* ifiBf*! 3f^« ■*«««.: mm^ 1^^ AMMi »m- t«*i# t«*«i%- »-^mtm&' «ff«t wd
imnitt *M mm mmM^-m.m '^»' *»!<#■ ^-^ »?■ !>«>»« iwtE?©*?. «l4i fee*
IS
»t tilt ««iB«t«]ry 1b ISaS; that h« dtidn't ka«w th« data ei Johaana
AMgusta't death but b4li«T«d It vac in th« fall at' tli« y««r; that
the d«ct<»r h« vorkcd for travv:l«d ija Qi.1 dirtetiont oAd had a T«ry
larga praetiea; that »• h« re«olX«ot«d» Joitanaa Augusta dlad in
18d5; that h« had to work around th« biirc a great daal; that thara
vaa lota to do aod ^r. Duawal, tha girl'a l'atn<!jr, cauic 0T«r to
vhoro ha waa at tha ^cxn and aaJicd hii>> tu t«>Xx uic doetor tiist th«
littla girl had 41 ad and h« oe«d not, e<>«e ii^aia; that ha roAiohbarad
tha>« dataila Tory dlatlnotly; Utxiki on ta» day tais littX« girl
diad ha nade only «>n« ohII; ho drova hia^ out th«r«; ti^uit th«y only
vant out th«>ra onea haaauaa tha little t^irl h^ died; that oi* hi a
own raoullftotioB h« doea not Jtnow about thia tjirl'* s^ga axaotly,
but hor fathar told him and nobody <&!»« gaye hi» tiie iiiilorsiatlon
at th« tin* whan oho diad, ana th« fa h^r told hiia to t»ll the
doctor not to eomt out again becMi£i« tn« little ^ixi had died.
Aoalo Jennings testil'it^d thut iildwln B. Jenrtlngs vaa
a oouain of h«r husbund; that aha i» tats abothar oi onarl^o Jenninj^s
and ona of tha hairs: that she knew i&dwln B» Jeimlnga* father stnd
mother; that hia i'atiior'a niwa was Johfi D, iSb&d his tnother'e n«uue was
Anna; that ha lived in tha ^uthern iiotel at 3^nd street and '^'stbaah
avenue ir. chieage, Just a biocx i'roa the Juexington Jmotel located at
22nd street Mnd ^ieaiibiaii avenue; that sue icnew <£dwiii Ja, pfennings
for laany years up to the time ne died; that he o«me to their house
r«ry often, wid they were fil^ays friendly and on good terms with
hiai; that there was a reiratation in the faadly me to whether or
net £dvin h, Jennings was Aarried and Xm^t tra-iltion ^as that he
was never lOHrried; that ehe never haA heard anything in the family
•f Sdviii £. Joiininge tc the effect that he ever a^iarried. 'fhs wit-
ness said he was net a talkative iban, v^ry quiet itx a way, didn*t
talk about Qis private ai'faira to anybody an^ didn't talk about
his private affairs to hnr; that she hardly thougiit he oould be
§£
•:■■«*.*'»«»»
\: ■?> ■>':;■.;
" ■ ■' ■;
,>i;ij,jii.,v
mti %r-
.^ ..-
'(^-4-( > rt. v;v-k2 hX^ »?<"' ''
.:«. ',€ .iS^0'^ le#lll^'«^l£>'
.> htu&i-i. ft:
li
Barrl«d waA not tell It to har; that s^ie wntt in th.« family ocucoils
quit« A ^00(9 <1e«X *«round in 188(5 but wan not tiUot; into Um iiati-
iBRtft fiit'T'lly 41seuB»ioni: that oh*; known th«kt E<l»»lr; J-., Jonningo
Ka4« trip* with hi* parontn Init do««n*t think th%t h* w«>nt «ult«
at ofton aa oboo a aonth.
Sarah T. Joi.r.iiiga, 70 yK«ra of s.^;*, lived in Chicago
ainoo 1379, was aarrii!"^ to SmrucI ^., Jannin^o, and hor huHl^ond,
•ho dlftiJ eight yi»arg before, ««• a i'lr«t cousin to artwin i. Jen-
niAgs, irhoK> ah* h*d kno^r etnca IBOS; that V.miUi B, Jonnlnga
Tlaited h*ir housa, know whero tha k«y w«a, and uh^ voald ook(» homo
and find hiai thoro; th'M bs 'Had at s5t. Luko'e hospital »nr! nha
▼ l8it»d him thara quit* ofton hf^eauna hf; «■»« gla-^ to »<?* >'
haye har ooma; that al'tar tha dts^ata of his father c*nd saothor he
eaxaa to «a« her two or tlire* ticiflo a weak; that she rild bis oetiding^
lisod hlo ooats vhon they look«!d ao rags;,ad Bh« rtiinH wMt to e«e
th.«ft; that »h<f hud vialt^d hi» mother find Used hf?r very iRuch '«nd
hlo wothar TiBtted at h«r hou«#i th«t thare irasi a roputatlon in
tha family ae t© Kdvin B. Sttmlngn to tai© f JT «ot , ae she aaye. that
"he was a otinig^y oX<! 'baohelor.*'
Hrt, Kalllc D. Baoheld«r, ^"ho lived r^t th« i exln^ton
hot«l, said that «h« vaa aarriad in ia.91 and after her marriage vtnit
to live at tho jouthem hotal; that her huafeand \>uUl the hotpl
and waB running it Then she «ra» married end th«y wmii t>icre to liv«;
that aha Jaiaw Kdwin B. J«jm5ing» fro.- the year 1381 ttntil h» iipd;
that hia family livad thar» ser^^ral yearo before she was osi^riad;
that ha had an auBt, ''Kllisa Brlsec," one of tha prlneipal ones In
tha fasilly, -ifho looked aft^r tham all; that this sjunt took care of
tha t*o beys; that Joim I>, JeuaingB pasoad «4w«y in 18^9; tJiat this
«wnt died In 18P1 and Uiss Brleae in ia&3. Site says, "Taey vere
with us all tha tim* up to that time iToui *3l; fro». '01 ^intil thoy
diad thffy liTad viti) ua iu tha flane hotel; thera vaa rarely a lay
u.
«.^|S!p*t .s ^^^^li,: |-#iKi#- |«%tJ; ,«iiMa**' .ipN*w£ Jftt^jsl iktai;, mt^^ .a^aiat
fe:;'- , ■,'.«.'!:;•,«, ^>> i*--.)! ^«S<t 'j»#4^, jM.lftW t^^^^
■ Id
;^-!^»i€; .Mr»it^% . , *»*-
0. ,m^=:tl.^'^^i■■
9**5
%<^ ;6ti»*i^ ,4*3# ,:iaf»R; «iv«&|; $04. ^^^^ '^PMi; «»;>J3K« jllt'^.^f-l ,.'»'"■•• i -'. »■
so
I Aii ■•! ••• tkoit'' thifct Jii<twin It. Jtamiuum ttom XH&i. U|> to ih«
d«ath of his fathor mad aoth«r liTvd In %h0 i^outh«rn hotel And hm
was auppttrtedl ty hia »th«r: that ai't«r hia t'atlier's daatn ha
11T04 with hla motiiar until aha paaaa4 away nnd than h« want, as
aha aaya, "with ut oTsr to tha Lamngtoa hotal;" that tidvin h,
Jar.ninga oeouplad tha saA* ro»as wita tbaai Ircub IWl uutil ltt>i
•r 1604; t>iat h« l«ft th* hotal waA vant to liirc with kr, aad i^ira.
Jehnaon, with whwu h« liT«4 until ha want to tue heapital; that ha
««a alwaya hoata: that ha aort of jokad MBd talkod about tha aubjeot
•f aarriaga but navar want out with youni; ladiaa; h« waa alwaya
hono. Oho aai.-) on orof!<0-«xaiBln«ttloa aha ooul4n't answer whathar ha
was hoB« eT»ry day In 1984 hen*atl >-, but eh« u«ad to «»« him erary
day; ahe thought aha aww hi» arary lay in Xii&6 and th«> asusia In 13d7,
laaa, i^ap ?>nd ia»o.
Jfalli« Johnaon t«etlfl«>d that 9h« h^itd known iS4wln B.
Jannlnga for about lorty y<»«ra ^mA that he and her haafeftnd wara wall
aoquaintod and Sdwln B, Jcnnlnf;* llyad in th«lr t'aj?dly, 1'lrat In
1997 at S()21 Caltusat awaruw, and fror. th«r« they ssoved to 2A'o6
Pralria aY«nu«, and i<dwln B. Jannlnga oa»« with th«tFi and llvad thera
oontinuounly from 199 until h« di«d; that aha knaw Tranic J<mrilU£;8,
tha brothar of Kdwln B., and i'rwak called at their hora« ona day to
•«• hla brother, who waa out; that vitneva, h«r huaband and J^ank
Jarunings wer« thara and no ono .vlaa, and Jfrtoik said, *Why« thia ia
th* heuao h« b(?ttKht— >" (uaanlng tha houaa tr. Jannings bought), and
li9r httaband aaid, "Yaa, this i«i tho house ^4 bought." »ank said
It was a good thiag hi a Ibrethar nerer gut siarriad btcauaa ho dii<fUi't
faal ka eould afford to kaap a wif*. nhe Bald that in 1918 Edwin
B, Jannlnga narar had any boyo li. uniforo; OYor to the house on
Pralria sTanaa; th&t t>xero was noTar but one boy thsit case timra
and ha waa Jay Hwideraon, whoea f»».th«»r was nn attomay joI who
lirad at tha eoraar of 24th streat and Calu v nue, a neighbor
tm
*^'i iiJfj«!* .€«liiifi; »»'ft mt^s iiJii'v »J^<?*« *»to« «*4ir ii*i^»09« «jjjiaiar«iX.
r;»# jfr-r-*- j'.ji^'-faiSntf *it»ts «f.«te *i< i»M kt^ *it*?^T t*^^"*''^ *««wite "^o. :^_. '.n"-
©Ni^ik* «^ St^^mns ^i# sf'Jt^.^^ "f&^l i-^s» »^*tt^if**» $iimiisi*4i i3?«« **> Tflfei
•¥¥»$$! fo9tvJt£ %mt tmti-^ ^Sk^ «fiui& dj^.iKaftti ^€ MJNi^<£ i^ «»l^li»v« 0l%t»'>A
tttSP^ssftwt 5&«*t* Wftisr* *f*«r $miS i^-^Xfi «i« ii***®" «I<S^1 mm*k i^i:«w«i»«^*-r'^'s
ttl «tM^ «^«^ «M«$; s{^«^»t^ mt^ ^mtp ^m «d ftili tftif^ #!»'# «^i«(rT»'*^
J!ii4%9 3{jii«t-!r^' * . i^j%ii}3»(r' m mm^ ^m «! «b{ji^^ ,ft«ir* ,j^iik liei«^'
^•y; that onoe la nvkila '^t» Jtnnlngs toroufcut in ti«nbxfttuei. frittnda i«
m BftsI - br. xUiyek and kr. R««d, Ucorg* A4«*a l>roth»r; that «h« kn«w
•Tvryon* h« vTAr broUKl^c there ani h« iatreduo««i her to them; that
It «aa hard to tell vhat her poeitlon vaa In tiiat house; she «»•
aald ol' all work ant) nurse lui'-l a little of ererything; tnat ifdwin B.
Jennings 'Ud not pay for the upkeei) oi tae house but h« roomed nnd
boarded vlth her; that he did uot pay her ao mufiih a ir««k but £ay«
her the rent ol' the heuae ami that was all; t)iat he was quite lil^eral
with hifl aioney. When asJk«d it' he owed her a large num oi aoney
she said, "Veli, I thinic I sm dsaerring. if you knew all ye« would
think so*" ^» s«id •tit tiiciUfj^ht Jeitninsa* h«irs vers charitable
enough to know she was deaerTlne; that every «iord tih« saKt was true;
that she was ii^ter«8i«d in the suit tMs muc., that Hit) thought the
relatives should get what was eoaiut; to th«K.
Martin P. Huyok, who vae in th<» real <«Rtat9 business
at 2attl» Crewk, kiehigan, an<f eeeretAry wjid treasurer of the Brown-
lee Pork arsvel & Material eompany, ts^etifit^d itimt hf first me^t
JIdwin B, Jennings wh^n the witnesu was fourt#>#tn y*»»rB old, en ci'fios
bsy in Chioaero; that Jennings was then a young .^lan of »bout 39; that
the witness was born end raised la Chicago snd hrsid lived thcr«^ all
his life exeept the last ei^^htesn years; thmt hf* h«4 bustnese <iral»
ings with >;;dwic ij. Jennings beginfiing in 1903, and th^y contirued
up to a perisd el thin a few nontiis ol his death; that the >^ltne8S
was sesretary and treasurer of the Jennings i^and Oo^npany, in whi^
£4wln S, Jennings was interested and a stoekholdsr nnd direetor;
that for ten y<>tars at Ic'ast he saw hiai oontinuoualy vrpTy week; that
they w#rs «nga*?e4 in oonatruoting howee, d*»velopin« wubdiriRlons
and negotiating loans for hr, Jennings, >:ind in the sale of }iotse«
after they were developed; that he travftlert frncs coast to coast vith
itr, Jennings at l^ast ten ♦Aaes durinifT' the p-rio^ from 19CS to 1919,
So Was acquainted with members of his fatally and hip h«irs{ had eon*
*,..- .'SWMJt ^*|J» :.sii-iiBi*-':*»4f Affi-fSH?' ■l*** t-**!^ iXft^-* «il ICWiS •*i«r 4i
'SMi^''l*«i«**^'^ .'' J- : ■' •\-.-:.'«.'ft-.vi" ftiBkiS' '"^ist <|#»lifoae*' »<i^.-.n:»'i -^^ *«« Vfe :«a»i«*»*
"j%m.s-^'i^ ■"■:■■■:: ■:":■■:■; ■'''-mm Aa» ^tim»kstl»M ^Jil.»f»'i':-' o.i^\i.a;-u *«
MI«f-^«»«->«a*S'- iji**'!^!* Still*: »S^
'->; ■ ,.>«#''%i^ '^l^tiJi^iar: gi««*tt^^ «Rg«i«w»i& ,««. «*;«*«( xtti^« en«4
8t
TcrtAtiona with Kdwln B. J«nnlagt •» th* nubjoet of whether or not
h« h(»4 9^9r bean nttxried; th»t en that oooaslon >'dvln aaid he wai
net married, h.\d no i»*ue, and vaa net ejcpeetiUis to b« married.
This wltneee aleo testified that he had eeea j£d»in S. Jennlnce
write and that h« eould net writ« or epeak aersuui to hie knowledge.
^ank Q, Gardner, treaaurer of the Chieago Title &
Iruat Company, teatifled that he had known JKdwln Ij. Jennings frea
1906 to th« tlin« of hia death; that the Chloage Tltln «c Truat Com-
paaj "^aa truatce uB'^er the will ef Fdwln h, Jenninti:"* father and
Sdwln B. Jennlnga was the ben^floiary of that eatata. The witness
net hlsn in eonn«!>etien with ths affairs of that >aid hlsi
his ineoane quarterly, ooneulted with him trfsriumilly s^bout InTeat-
aienta and about th« 8al<» of r<»al estate; h;«d conY«rsationa with i^r«
Jannings aa to whether h« had been ma^rX^d or ast, and as ntmr as
he oould rei»ecb«r it was 7, 8, 9 or 10 y<ears ibsfore h«> died and is
the offies, when Jennings was sittiitg at his desk onf day, emri the
witness said, *Kid, why in thunder ia it you ni«vsr got ii«rx'l$d?'*
and he said, as near as he could rflms&ber, *I n<>Ter have starrl ed
because I know p^rfeetly well that no woatm would erer aarry ae
for anytbia^ ezeept ny aoney." Qn eroae-oxaialjQatioa wiUiOea said
he knew Jeminga was a bachelor from koowledgis and eonTersatioBs
with hioi and that if kr. Jennings had an affair in his lift he
newer h*ard nim talk about any and dldc't know what he ^ould haws
done.
Howard A. Jennings, 66 y««Ara of age, bom im Msdia,
7 miles north of Legans^ort, Indiana, t«atifiad he caa:e to Qiloago
whsn he waa three years oli aoid h%a llyed hare ever sine* and knew
Edwin B. ''ennings, who waa his third oouaia; that from 1871 until
1885 or 1086 witness lired in Snglewoed; that Edwlji liTSd at 2i.nd
and Wabash, probably fiye miles aj^art; that he knew the father and
aether of Bdwir. B. , his brothers and his uuole Bamuei ii., who are
' -r r;!tj»(t %9y h»iA 9d
--& »'.S ii ^xUm'^^ i'ft*! ***» i>«» »*%**** -^w hr>fi ,*#t«rf#iR s-sa
!?:.; iivtf - '■ ■ ■ ' ^ H^Mp^nmm ^4 ■::.■ iipm
.'?'*/•'■'-!■•■'■ ■■■.>,-.. .-,....,...,■.■.... ...... ,.,.,..,....., . 10 «!»ij8)ii ®i^ ta^ttA bnm ata^ai
«J; ti^ru- Ssl';.: -^i* 3t$*^*?f tt«»t Q-l ^ f »• t,^ ««W f .c ■; -*« bistro 9 A
. ■;% ««i M »i . ■ a4 •^w ,.{>8* ,^
.'•■• ttium «-**d 'a»ifi*.« 5srf ..«« *•»« «* .feliis
t»»iWl £(««» imniM t»V§ ^m^ km'iX 9*4 Itaip.^ fti« ««««"«_ ]»«•«:>*,? K.rf.<
Silm SWi larrt *«ii» »«*«■**«» ]&«4??.t t-.*d «««< 1^ .«■
j:<» :^v»
23
all AumA; that th« r«l»tlon«hip l)«tw««ii tii* lamillts «a« elpa«;
that th«7 v«r« atsoeiatad mr«T slnctt witn«ta was a baby until th«
tiaa they all diad; ttxat he wa« aculttiuit aaabl«r tund auditor i'^T
Araeur ^ Company for 30 years whsn h« quit: that he last ssiv iidwln
B. JeiuilDgs In 1923 whan witness vcAt to Calll'ornia; h« said he
was well aequainted with the reputation in the fatally as to iudvln
h. Jennin«;s, tun^ it was that he was a basheler; witn«ss said tnjit
Kdwln h, Jennings was net maoried and he «as Ywry sure he would
know; that he ha4 ooiiTersations with hin Tery el'ten as to whether
or not he was narsrled; that at one tlae In particular, in 1920,
«1 tness met Jennings on i^aaalle street and h« was telling about
a mutual friend who had narried* when the witness asked hla, "Kd,
why in ths world den*t you get aarrisdT* Mad he said he never in-
tended to get n^rrled. Xhis witness further testified that i^dwln
B« Jennings lived in Chleaice: that he nerer lived in 3yeaB«oro or
Dundee, Illinois: that he was born in Cnieafio and "this was his
home Hturinj^ his entire lifo." litdwin £. Jennings had net«r said
anything to hla about an ^fair In 13S5, and at that tine he was
with hlM etmstantly, he wouldn't ssy every day but every week;
that iJi Idas and Iddd they were together all the time; he sa ys
that ^>'*wln S. Jermlnce was prob^ibly nm eonfidentlal with rdsi as
hit own brother, 'beeause thsy were broug t up together and he
wme there a g,t>o^ deal; that if JemUngs had an ;«f(alr and a wife,
he wae not the kind of person who ^ould talk about it, but Jen-
nings would eftcaa say thiage to him und ask him Questions to re-
Here hie alnd, »«ybe, on some buelness tiling or sometiiing of that
kind; that he thinks if he talked to ^mybody about hie pereonal
affairs he would have talked to the witness,
Trsd V, Cooper, a mortgage banker, who lived in chl-
eago 26 years, testified that he knew S^dwin h, Jfmnings very well
4r< v>i. iif«tiiB«: that his firm had extensive relatione with him
It^i'U <r >'■ ^x$i.-vf |%«£«^1»ki«d' ^ «ui'«» «it i^di ia^« fi htm ^tiinuitia^X ,9
■-4UHr SiAiT ^Tj^amX. ,d itl«iM ^.ifllJS 0%k9ts» «|jsf \
IP( «s «>jst }«»«|j . . . %»tiS^9i (»^«« ^^^fti^jr fiOl^i; IMt« 6' ^ '
,el|w « j^n» 'ttii^l^ (Kfr &«^ «^si<ss»»i iri #4K(lt ;Jbiiih l^««» &-
«n0C ;ri«r/ t^X itumi^si tt&^ tim* i^ imnt^^ t« feff.|}£ •i(9' Idtt ii«w «d
<»*i «# ««iel^»«jUf» JHjtl Mm hm mM »f *^0tSi!t ys/MH a»ft« I»£m«->^
34
runnlB/i tato hundreds ol* th«u9anda of dolLiLra: Ui&t h« vaa one of
tho )»allb«Rrar« at hit funoral; that ho had iunA ooclol relate ono
with him; that Jonnlngo vas at hi* houso for dinner oyr a long
porlod of yftaro, prohitbly or^ry «ook or ten ia^e or 8o» and ho
roaemlserod the oecaelon of hlo death at it. Luko'o hoa^ital; that
tiro or three year* preTiou* to hie deatli he had a eonTeriatioa
with Jenninga ao to whether or not he had Barrled; that ho anewtrod
that he hod nerer bown Karri ed and ne^er expected to be, aund **sar-
riage ie all right for you follewn Who arc Karried and have fine
fanilia*, but not I'or mine."
It was proTOd that upon a hearing, before Judge Horner
in January, 1933, the wltneea, Mas^ie feaao, waa aaked, ''Didn't you
t*ll l<«al WilliMBa that Ur. Koeater wae a aor. of Au^uat lioeater
Mid Sophia Hooaterf and ahe anawerod, "I did,*
It la apparent that nest of ttiie «vid«nee nhich we
haTO recited, offered in behalf of petitioner a» well as of
roepondenta, would erdin^rlly be iR8^iisi»si'bIc. Xhe general rule
ia, aa atated In Jayohow y. Qreeae. 257 111. 36, that doolaxationa
•f persona can be adoitted to prove pedigree after it has been
established (1) that the deelarant is dead; (S) that the deolara&
tione wers ttade before the oontroT^^rsy aross; and (3) that the
dselarant was related by blood or a&rria^ft to %h» persona to whoat
the deolarations refer. It ia, however, also Uie fuXe, tmA for
obvious reasons rnxkift be, that euoh deolarations ttire received with
the greatest eautien and amet be examined nnA weighed with the
greateat poeaible oars. Xhe evidence is t^earaagr. ^uoh deol-nra-
tions cannot be subject ed to the teat of orosa^eacaEaination. That
pstltioner*s reputation is not th« best; that he has been a party
to other mttesapte to get tliie large estate in proeeedinga incon-
sistent with thie one; that the principal witneeees here wsrs also
apparently his willing witnesses in xoracr proceedings - giving
.^^j|(»«f» 1^»«rj»' W«^8l»"-^«0 IwawMSt-*** '«»; iw» »s«*«p.»t .t*ilt :aU;4 4ilw
i'.re f--*iff, ■ ^-^ JIBS*' -itig ^^^SlWNF-'-^^'^^ ,|»>WK»\; "te ftoJ*MI«
tfjftjt^ ^V»« fern: *.«*«flts?« tfltft ;9a«»''#«W«-|*:%'-|ifl 1M^. 1«(#Jl-. ■
»iC^ *Mir U-j Jim imr:m ^tm^fmimm #«tt mm'^^ m«m ^t^rr' eRolt
/•^'^it *<#.*t «**«*■■•• <^^ *^ ♦^^^ '*»'*. eiSso-lA^mie-sA ».rt#
iid-f^- ^vi.««»«»<s »4»^';if^l»»i'^ty|«4t)£«(»M^':|)^^^ ^hMlfil' :4«ttf'^.|»«££ «n4;«).«K<»% «ii4»iir«ir«
:3tli»''' .^ti^ir »^"M' tislfWikMJ^-I/tiitiiii-^i-a^^^'''* i»ia-'ii jsiii*.' M.tui -^n^Jta-im
oentradlettfjr t«atlaiony - miat go Tery fur towards ^laercdlting
tha evldcnas valoh la n«w aubaittad In hi a b4th)ill'.
We OUT) not boiloya tba atory of tha all aged narrlaga
of Janninga to Auguata Uuawal. It ia r«I&tad by a vitnean who
talla of an improbablo journey frosi Chicago to ^ycAmora in litifi,
and of a wadding wiiieh (oa patition«r's theory) it waa tha intan-
tlen of tha parti ea intareateii ahould b» k«pt ae«rat but alileh ahe»
a child of twalT«, vaa parnlttad to «iia«aa. £iha aaya aha oaada
tha journay to Syearaore to her eoualnt, tha Allans, and that aha
▼ iaited for about threo va«ka with th«n on tha fiana of Joitui Alloa.
Shs haa not aaer« tha Allona aineo. She do^a liot know irtaera any of
ths Allans art. She ^oas not nttmn a single |i(»rao£i who can oorrobo«
rats her atory. iiiinnls J&rueger, eiatar of Mtt^uatsi »nc} tha only
mesber of her imme-dlate family now llYing, who in all probability
would haTo known of aush a wadding had it oocurrad, was suffering
with a broken hip at the time of the trial «nd id not testify.
Jiiot a olroumatAnos Is reli«s.ted tending to show how i.dvin Jt. Jennlngil
who llTSd in tihioago »11 his life, oa^e to know or aaao&lHte with
this young f(iil living in a rurad eoiomunity, The interest of such
a soauMtfiity in auort tu. ecourrenos would have b«er< ii)te»as* nn4 it
ia diffioult to believe that it eould have oeourred under circum-
atanoSB aueh aa are related without oeain^ to be generally known.
There la an at»esphers of unreality about the i^hole jtStt^r whleh
ooaysla the beli«f that ths atory is flslttlous.
Bven lass credible ia the evidenoa tending to a>iew
that petitlenar ie th«^ ehlld of Kdwln B. Janninge and iUtH>^*ta
Dutwel. It reats entirely upon hearaay, adeiieelble under the
sxsaptlea whieh permits pedigree to be orovad by suoh avidenea*
If the birth of the petitioner had in f%et oeourred aa alleged,
it la highly probabls that the knowledge ot it «!a<t tha tradition
arialng therefrea would have beoeee known to the entire rural
iSS
S6
•oaoounlt/ wh«T(> it it, N«ld to h«T« occurred. Ll«r« Areata Mincl*
Kru«g«r ^ivoul^ alAost ••rt«Lnly Hat* h»4 kuovi«(tg«, &nd tha a,bs«ne«
of hor tootlj&ony la unuaually slgnlfioaot. If w« (tasuae tha atory
of A«naa Myara to be true, it ^ould aaam hitjhly iaiprobabla that
Janr.inga, tha huabiuii and father, «fouXd h«iT« b««i ixbaatit at tha
birth of hla eon and the d«ath of hla wifa. Iiiot one wltneaa ax-
oopt Agncfl kyars la produoad to show hla pr oasiico In this rural
eoBUMtnity at th«>aa tiaea or in load ai any tima befora or after tha
•upposad wadding, ila la aaan by Agnoa UferB, )ia diaappeara. Ho
doao not rotum. Tha atory hao an ath.oaph«ra of unreality. «i4^aln
aaauwlng tha vaddlng eoourrad, <mr' Xh.9 child «a» boi*n* h« had tha
right to Ita euatody nuni ccntrol. Why ehotac 3o9hla Koastar to
■ethar hla son? 7h«r« la no aTldanca that b«fora thla ha h»d avor
aat har or knav anytfilag about h«r dlepoaltlon or ch&riictar. Ihe
haaras«y teatlmony is that karla Duaval, tlie grand»oth«r, irlah«i to
koap the ohild but that th* grandfather Joseph rafuaad to glvt hia
aona>!nt. Xhare la no &da<iuata motiva ibr aach eonduot. It is (dif-
ficult to bRiiftTO any fivtlii«r «oul!^ thus oaat aray thie holplast
ehlld af a ^irl-orlfa dau^itar vho had Juat 'iled in ei:iildblrth*
Hamana do not uaually aat that ^ay, iliera waa ao udequata motive
(aaauxalng petitioner 'a theory to be true) why eith^^r Joaaph Duawal
or Janninga ahould act ao petitioner 'a eYider>ca would Indloate they
a«tod* If tha aarria«^e eareanony wae performed the cMld waa legi-
tlaato. Tha di agraoe willed slight, be supposed to supply a Biotiye
for aue^^ conduct hs^ been riti&ovad.
Mary Utahl Wiun>er*a teatl&ony is voniradlcted not
alone by vitncaaes lor respondent* but by tiioaa Tor the pptition««r.
£Tidanee for petitioner ia not; consistent. !Fha lettara written
la &i£llah at Chicago are In dmnuaxx when read in Mle>ilc/an* iera.
Varner la ap;}ar«ntly hr latalligeut woBUtn who would uniera.Mid
aoaetrilng of the value of eTldanee. A^r^. iiophla ^.oester, aec.rdiDg
-'^^.$0im"''^M^^ M-'^miM'f^ ^M^.^^»'ii(it^^i»s Siw>:»fc#^iif ei «'««^SI ■»«»«»* ji^*o
/
.»'&% .£t»j%l««dJrlS tut' iMer»Y-''''«^j£^ '
•f
to th» t»stlaMiiiy o^' on* of pfftitl»ni>r 's v^ltnaasA*, consulted a
Xtmytr in Ulnhlfan lonur l>«for« hmr death. %<» nX«o 8e«iui to hare
'boen intellli<:ent. Yet r)« letter i» preeerred. Th« vuppoeed let-
ters to the UoTernor of <»ietlaeinpi <*rn not found. Ve itre asked to
belieTC thet JenriinRO lor ore than thirty yettre had hctn aaklng
Tlalta to see his eon In Mlchlamn bad had been senllag monty froa
tiiie to time to the footer nother of his eon In order that he night
b« properly oared for; that the aon on ntmerous oce&eiona visited
him at Chicago; that his father hougiit snd sent elothlng to hlsi, •
yet not one word of sorlpt - not a pl«ee of pHp«»r Ib to hw found
from wuleh such rdlmtlonshlp oottlrt 1?^ niny *ay he Inferred, it is a
■est l?iprob«blp story that the trial court vas as)!:«!) to belleTt.
Respon(4ent« Insist It was fabricated, ^e h&v«> no doubt that it
was. The trial oourt sisw the vltceses 'lud iselghed th« testimony.
The eeurt *as JuotifiM In rinn»g that »o marriage ever took
plaee between Kdwin B. Jennings and Johanna Duewel uod that peti-
tioner is not their child. The question for us to deciJie is
whether the finding is stanlfestly against the «»vide2]ic«* W«
fini it ie not.
the ju<3{?«ent of the Circuit ccurt is afflrBied.
0*C«nBor, !■"". J,, and MeSurely, .T, , cencyr.
•pg
««i;:1l ^^«s«A« g^ni^u«9 m^ l^»- !>««» «i«:$»-^«9ii(( oJt aes ai4. »(»« it<r fttltly
J)i»^l!»^ «tteii:««tip@® «u»isr««J»ak 1^ ai«4k «# $$Mi: }««1c iN»t«« t^tt&^o'nr tff
^ .fan »1 ii feiraf'i
.-•"/i-*
rf ;: ■,,■. .;.v^
V,vr..
rA- :■
^•^J^^i^
■<^
,*■■.!■ ■"s^f ;
vi.:s;: ■'■
:.'iv- ;
^?-
"
'■•'■ ■«'•■. ' <'..-,■
:;,;,.-..
i
M'^m-i
ii>^4i^'i^
?tvS*^
^:-.^*-r
' t
«^j«j!M»» iA i^%m'9m'^ Dmt xA. «t:'«f^a«t#*G
V ^; ,>,
'if*
33117
SYLVJa R. OiflSCi;, Kor»erly )
3YLVU H, MAWKB, ^-~^r"> )
Appsllyfr;' \ )
'ClRtyjlV COURT
'i
TICK KATCK2TT DELIVEHKD |ril.T OPtUIOA Oi* TiCi CCUKi'.
The qu«Bilon* arising in this apoeal are b<i>tire«n the
•aua* parti to and are eontroll»d hy the opinion this day filed in
general nvwtlier 33116.
After the appeal froia the order of June 13, 1927,
vhloh ve haT« reversed, Syl-rla K. i&athee on June 19, 19!Sa, filed
another petition. In %«hlch eJie recited th? prior proee^'dlngs &nd
the appeal from that order, represented that stie hn^ no property
or Income of her o^m to defend the appeal, ?md prayed that
another order for furthersolloitor *a fees should he, Qntered. Xhe
4ef<tn.lant aneirered thia petition, iOiA thereafter on June S9, 1923,
another order was entered "by the court granting the prayer of
eoBtplalnant 'e petition and directing the pajreiect to her of a
further sum of $350 for solicitor's fees in defending: t>i&t appeal.
An appeal vas prayed and allowed froiu ti.at order unii the osuees
were consolidated in thle court for hearing. Obviouply, for the
same reasons Rt^^xted in th* eplriion filed, thle order also must be
rsTersed.
0*Csnner, P. J., and ^«£iursly|| J. « coneur.
^'uzr.
:'X-,rf'fi
iA. ^
X..
^Ti^SOS .i?it 'iG SfiiMl^-Q i^yj £dB«Rn.l2t« tfSSSOtAS? SBSyfft^ .
.i««
.«j#a«o ,,>; tttwtmm hm *»t *f .g^wa^*.;*
33537
ASTHA ACaEPTANCifi CO^,
Ccrporation^
J. /I. 3H.WiP.;3f,
APJPKAi
Apn«ll<Uft»
kH. JUSI'ICE MAlCiiiSST Dtl^IVIJiBi) tm OPIiilOi* 0*' XHIS COlWt.
\L COUi^T
Thl» la cm appsal Isy tho d^Ondar/t from « ^ludgrceut
In th« «ua of 1660.39 ent«red upon thn T«r4iot of a fury a«? Ir-
•truet«d by tha court, Th»r» was a motion i'nr * n«»'5r trial supported
l»y MB «ffl(iaTlt all#glng n«wly <Jl»coY«r«d *Yiiiftne«, which ir«e 4#«
b1»A. The suit v»« >3«|!;ua tyr eonfesdioQ of jud^iu^^nt, i?irilon, on
motion of dtffendant fiuipport^d by a rorifl^d ->«(tition, ^an nnt
ftftidle an<? an oT'IOT' wa» ent*r«<S thttt the p*tltion «hould et.»ji<? sr aa
affldaTlt of Bii4i>rlt» to th« «tftt«Ei«i.t of cl»l».
TJi* affidavit «Terr«(l that on T>0(tmh€T 11, 1925, r'o-
fondant purebsieM a Ford truoli for tho «p<^cifle purriuae oosiesunleatilA
to the f«ll«r "befor* the a*l«, that it was to be uwed la conaectlon
with a ilry cltanlng ettabliaiimect for h&ulinfc, articles to the plant
to be el«an«d tnd Ymok to th« eustoaiert; that tht purch».«e prlca
jrm.9 |1,149, ui»on wftilob potitioner pttl4 |334 arid signad and i3*?Uviiarad
th« note, upon whloh Jul^TSsnt was entisred, in payusont of the bal^tnco;
that dcfoniant e^ceautct^ » chattel mort^^af^Q on the truok on th« n$n.e
dat?: th.'^t. the truck was top-h«avy, unwi«ldy, and pntittoner v&b
obllgprt to dlocontinua th«» u«e of it t«nl notlfltofl the ftf»5li«r to take
the truok h?ielE, wkilch waa done on i'ebruiwry 10, 1926; thitt on ifobruury
10, 1926, p«titioB«r receivad iiotloe 02 'oreeloaurc from olaintiff;
that on Jfebruary 31, 1926, petitioner r«c«iv«d Btatf^'.-of^r.t of chattel
Rort^ace sale h«ld i^ebruary 17, 1926, and that thn truck had been
sold to one J. Burt of *7auicegan for s25C, na^lna; a ^eficlr^noy of
^mtf>
,W
:s»^^\
^fi%»vttSkk fern &«xi^^ii dnm hM^ biihfi '$»Mi&4t-M$iv9:- UO't'O^ mm--4^i>^k-SI^- *Mf
fK4Bm<l©'t a* is)M i9i^i^X ,i5X ^'!;.<»and»U 09 ^aolii «»w :d»i.i*»f «4ft(»4 jfoint* »rf#
Xa*S'«*ti» t» .♦ai».i»«l«.*« fc^viw^t-s wjusi^i^o^ ^aifM ,JtS «'«,««'Mf»t ao ^«tft
$€09.64; thut petitioner claijftei no ehattel mortgage tale was t/rttv
held and that plftintlfr ha4 been otTericii; tiie trucJt I'or ealff at
all times elno* the dcliTf!r> oi tiie trueic to petltieoer.
An exaa>lnfctioa oi' tu« reeox-d falls to ahov any proof
tending to euvtaln the aatarlai 4bV<urti<mta oi' tne dei'enso oet up
by the afridavit. on the ooutrary, it appeara all Ir natively that
there vras & lorcolotture sftle. , i^fid tiicxe is np proQi* "ffhateoeirer
that defendant at any tx&e lOMle any eomolalnt that the truoic wae
Dot a« reprea<tctttd«
£rr&r 16 Mttttignea but not argued ae to tht» adKtlssion
and rejection of evidence, ihe del'«n<jant eltea section 36 of ohap.
95 ol th< Illineie nevised wtatutea* wuich provide* that ^1 notea
•eeured by ehaitel mortgage aJtiall 8tat« that the:y are so secured, and
when asviitned by tiie payee Ahali. be subject to all defenses exietlng
l»etire«n the payee and payor oi ■ueh notes the aaoae as If suoh note*
were held "by the pajree, and that any chattel mortg,age seouring notes
not stutlcg upon their f«ce the fuot oi auoh seeurity shall be abee-
lutely void, iaBllajd v. isyerXy. 833 ill, App. 632. Ihat section is
not applioat'le here bectuiee the cnattel Mortgage anr) note are in tlie
hands of the original payee who su«e thereon. Ho^an. y. Akin;, 181 111.
448; Bellere v. Yhocaas. 186 111. 584.
ihe uiiii £:vd«u.t aluo aTj^ues that a new trlsQ. should have
¥«eR granted tecftupe of newly dlacovered evidence, cut the affidavit
suhBittel in eupiort oi' that motion fail? to slittg* any diligence
whatsoever on th© part of defendant. Indeed it ftppf.ars therftfroK
that upon the exercise of due dilli:;ence sucn oew evider^ce could have
been obtained U'len the trial.
As there ie no errt>r in the r«oord the judgjuent is
affirmed,
AJFIHkiSI}.
O'Osnnor, >-. J., «nd Me^urely, J., concur.
i 'v'
^/L>^A. -^^'^
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the second day of October, in
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty-eight,
within and for the Second District ^o^ the State of Illinois:
Pre3ent--The Hon. NORMAN L. JONES, Presiding Justice.
Hon. FRANKLIN H. BOGGS, Justice.
Hon. THOMAS M. JETT, Justice.
JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk.
.. 1
FLOYD S. CLARK, Sheriff.
^
BE IT REMEMBERED, that af .-wards, to- wit I On
'""' ~ " the opinion c the Court was filed in the
Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
General No. 7928
Agenda No. 5
In The
APEELL/iT3 OOITRT OF ILLI^TOIS,
Second District.
MAY TERM, A. D., 1228.
DOROTHY L. BRWrBACH,
Plaintiff in Error,
ILLIIfOIS PO'.TER & LIGHT,
CORPCR.ATIOTI, a corporation,
Defendant in Error.
Error to
Circuit Court
La Salle County.
OPIWIOH by BOGGS, J.
An action on the csise was instituted by plaintiff in error,
hereinafter called plaintiff, against defendant in error, herein-
after called defendant, in the circuit oouxt of Lp. gsile cotmty,
to recover for in.jxiries alle ged to have been sustained by plain-
tiff coming in contact with a broken electric wire.
The declaration consists of one original and two addition-
al counts. The original count charges that defendant was operating
an electric light system in the city of Ottawg., "that it was the
duty of said defendant to keep said wires properly insulated and
suspended upon said upright poles in proper repair so that the
same would not fall down upon or near the ground and transmit
deadly electric current through wires endangering lives of persons
passing along said streets; that defendant carelessly and negligently
neglected its aforesaid duty,
by reason whereof wires fell
and sagged across Lafayette Street at the intersection with l^ul
Street and while in such condition, on, to-wit, October 3, 19£4,
the wires .vere carrying deadly current and while plaintiff was
walking along sidewalk on north side of Lafayette street at its
, oVi Biins-gk
83 f\' .O'l li?^ 9X190
,c'I07:iJ.Jl lO T3U0 0 SEAJJiKg:*,
•'.^j-rufoO sIIbE ill
( ,E0Aa?<^5Ta .J YHToaocr
,1 ,8T')D0a ltd Eomi^o
'■•"'"'■'■' '■•' JbsnxB^- .-.i^o iioacf ©TJSil ot £93 •alls esxix/t^il 'xol T:9yoo&i od"
.©^Iw oil#o©Ie ixs:&0'X<J b xfd-iw dojs^fcoc nx snlaroo lllJ-
-noxd-xM-s cv/d .5xi,s I^nlniio eao to aial&sxoo noi^B'zsloeb Sj1T
.•iTci^jBisgc '-^Bxii 8S-%tBtio &xtaoo Isal-Silto 9/fT .ed"xiiro{> Ib
9£fd" e.; fjswj3d-t0 lo Y^lo sjrf^ fil msd-BTja cfxlslX otitoelo as
si^'d- isiif 08 nrlsgsf^ nejjoiq; xix eslog; ^xf^inqx; J5i.S8 noq:x; J^s^xtsqexre
■ d-lnexifii* JbsiB btnroxB 9ri^^ 'IBSU "xo xtoqja xiwoi> ILsH: ion i>liii.7f 901,83
enoaieg lo aavil §iXri:'X98rteJ&i5s> ae^iw JEfsJ^oijcfd- d-ireTixro oxidoelo \;X-iE'J58J&
Ilel S01XW toQ'isffw ftosB©^ xd
tX,ii}£) 1)1 SB SI els eii"J: ^eJoelgsxt
Isiifl xiiL\'} noIcfo93i9d-xc.t ©il* ;fjs ;^^s%i^ siiexsi'taJ. bboucs Iisis^s^bb icB
,^261 ,5 I9£fod-o0 ,>iw-o* ,ffo .aolilMoo xfoxrg ni ©Ixxfw Xrts d-oeid-c
saw tlidTflsIq eliriw Jbrra tnet'xsst xli>Bs3 -gxtlxiiBo siov. eeiiw exii
intersection with Paul street, throu,v-h said negligence in per-
mitting said poles to be and remain in aforesaid oondition for a
spaoe of, to-wit, two honrs, while plaintiff was in exercise of
all due care and caution for her own safetj'", she oame in contact
with said insulated wire and current passed to and throiigh her
bocly and threw her violently upon the gi-ound," causing the injuries,
etc., for which she "brings suit.
The first additional count is in effect the same as the
Origi al count, except that it alleges "that seid wires, being un-
insulated and defectiTely supported, were permitted to sag across
the intersection of Lafayette street and Paul street at at out six
feet from the sidewalk," etc. '-'he thir") count is the same as the
first, except that it charges "that the wires conducting said
electric current sagged or broke, and that it was the duty of
the defendant to shut off the current," etc., and tiiat it failed to
exercise reasonable care in this behalf.
To said declaration, defendant filed a plea of the general
issue. A trial was had, resulting in a verdict in favor of defen-
dant and judgment against plaintiff for costs. To reverse said
judgment, this writ of error is prosecuted.
The unindisputed evidence is to the effect that plaintiff
at the time of said injury \'ra.s bet\?een 17 and 18 years of age ; she
was employed by the Postal Telegraph company of said aitj and was
living at 306 east Lafayette street, whioh street runs east and
west, intersecting Paul street, v/hich runs north and souiHi and
which is a.bout one block west of her place of residence. She was
living with her brother, mother and sister. 11^ r father lived in
Ottawa, but was not residing with the family. On the day in curstion,
had
she/worked, finlsiinf: her duties at eight o'clock in ite evening.
She attended the Orpheum Theatre with her father. From there she
went with her father to the office of the Postal Telegraph and
then to the Appellate Court building at the corner of Lafayette and
Columbus avenue, about two blocks west of plaintiff's home. At
this point her father left her, and she proceeded easterly on
eeetc^B .rr.t nt^<
■ i r- . 0! . xioJ:;t"e©ai©*nJ:
ff o.t ssloq; Jii-a?; Sifiid-itiii";
baB 9*3:50 sirJb lis
- itefBlirsnX blae xfcfiw
-acf ^niecf ,3 9*j:i:w ,.;'iS3 o-r-iij- as^sXj.T ?i tsiid' tq9X>xe finsjco iBri^iiJ
1 &ii d'fis:. -
.oisa aisl#oj:rirj-0'
-xislsli '±0 'xovbI
CAR ; !?a.s t© arrjset ^ '
8JST7 -^.r"? . sons .tt^a': x'
!ii ■ ■ .
.^..'flrrsvs «# ni if -
3'fis 91 set* fflOtfi .leritf
.L'.rvB xlqrirEaeleT 1&&BO' 9Xlo ?:
uts si'iJ'e^jB^Al lo aetAroo a At lis ^atJoliis
^ '=^+t9'^a5:aI lo rrolitoeaisd'nJt ©rid-
_^_ .od-e '\2ll.T?^33l8 ©rf* niorrl cfeel
; \^crr(f TC f>9's:^s8 d'nemirro cx'i'd-osls
. , ■•fxi.a ci dnsLnQlQb esii
. .'i:.I.f:.-r:e<f .. sibo olcfBao^ssi ssioi.sze
viK»(.;j!io;; riqJfS3eia»5? L'if - '" :--^ "^ j&etolqine saw
.-.. ,v\,sid-e lifB*! aalitoearred^ci ,*bsw
- :.h-c-Il;- 'le;; lo '.h-.ev/ jfrclcf eno ifxrotfB si rlslifw
. .. . had
0 cf .3 , ejyiie VJB BirrfiExrlo D
i!o %li£j3B9 *©J&©eoc'i:i 3ii3 iui: ,x£i.: Jlel isiid-cl •rpri i-nioq exrfd-
-3-
Lafayette street toward her home. At the northwest comer of
Lafayette and laul Streets, she was found "by her trother between
ten and eleven o'cloclc In a semi-conscious condition, ^-^er face
was bruised, her eyes 'blaolcened, her nose mashed, end four of
her teeth had been knocked out.
It is the contention of plaintiff that she came in
contact with a broken vdre, which was hanging near the sidewalk
on the north side of Lafayette street and that the shock therefrom
had thro'Am her to the ground, causing the injuries in question.
On the other hand, defaaadant insists that plaintiff was assaulted
and that her injuries resulted therefrom.
It is first insisted by counsel for plaintiff that the
verdict is against the raanifeRt weight of the evidence.
Plaintiff testified that she and her father "went back
to the station after the show, and started home * * * on west
side of Columbus street and father went back to Leix's Hotel.
I walked up to the northeast corner of the park at Colvjnbus and
TO
Lafayette streets, 3(?^rssed to the north side of Lafayette at
Appellate Court comer. There was a light just south of the
Appellate Oourthouse. There was no light on the next comer.
Paul, Lafayette and Columbus streets are all paved ^th brick and
have concrete ciirbing. I walked on the north side of Lafayette
street; nobody was behind me, nor did I see anybpdy about there
at that time, v.'hile not exactly pitch-dark, it was so dark that
you could not see very well. * * * j was walking east on the
north side of Lafayette street singing to myself. As I came to
the corner I saw no light there, but I was not afraid, and then
I don't renember -That happened. I cajae faintly to myself; re-
member getting upon one knee and trying to get up. I don't
remember anything more. The first t'-^ing I remember after that
was my brother trying to pick me up. He was talking to me;
calling my name.
Plaintiff's Mother testified that ahout eleven o'clock
- >; 0 -■ I'.J-...;. .cj.i.
raCi'iS'ie-ff;!" :i^o:ii
L-d-rts^fl:©©' Mi-
le s-.oIb iliioa Grf;J- rro
j'^i<J £.Bj{
aBssKm'tot} ^Jbasn innrfc
3#d-9-^«la_
,^m*aeif lil^flii-.T-
^^ has. *©®a^a airtfaurlo 0 io aiixs
ot j!i£e^43r .Eitsofd-e sd-d-s-^tslal
. -x . . ,9 8xro.f(*rr.rf 0 0 s* BLle qg A
3d'9T©fltoo 9v/.tri
, ■■.," -"/jrocfor jcts9id"3
•ton sXlrfW .oiclci- d--ej:'
-e'l- jlIoaTjK :
:f f ^,. r
-4-
that evening "my son John brotight her home; he had his arms arOTind
her, her face was covered with blood, nhe was dazed, scarcely
ahle to walk. 3he tried to talk, hut I could scarcely understand.
She kept saying, 'I am all right, mamma, I am all right,'"
John Brumhaoh, the brother, testified: "It was sprink-
ling while I was on my way hone. V/hen I came to Paul and liafayette
I saw an object there. I first heard a groan when I was fifty
feet from the corner. Jit first I couldn't see anything, and v/han
I got to the sidewalk which crosses Paul and Lafayette street I
heard someone say, 'Maaiaa, where am I?' * ♦ * Her feat were about
on the curb and her head in kind of a southeast direction. She
was lying flat on her back. 3he said nothing else. Carried her
most of the ivay. ."Jhe -did not know anything and could not walk. * * *
I called my father and the doctor. Father came. Doctor came right
away. I went back to the comer "/here the injury occurred with the
iQsfcor. I found nothing there tliat night. 'Ye saw her tseth vvere
out, llext raorning dad and I went doivn to the corner and fo\xnd her
teeth and a small pin. Teeth 'vere in a clot of Tiood. This clot
was straight out from the north sidewalk on Tjafayette right towards
or between three or four feet east from the iron plate. It vms
straight east from the north end of the plate about four feet.
I saw the v/lre hp.n/^ing there the next morning right dovm ovor the
corner, attached to the pole south of the walk. This pole was
right at the northwest corner of Paul and Lafayette streets,
* * * The end of the wire y/as about 100 feet from the pole. I
went to the end of it. The insulation was in shreds. * * *
Don't know whether it was charged or not. The blood clot was alout
eight or ten inches iii diametei',^ with the teeth about in the center
of it."
()n cross examination, this vatness testified: "I went to
police station that night with Dr. Ildgecomb between 11 and 11:15.
Saw Desk Sergeant I-IacITamara . Saw him again the next day. * * ♦
\'!h.en 1 asiced her (plaintiff) what happened, she said she lid not know.
-^.
, Jic: -:? .
*■■' 9 rf
I ^ 6' ? "J" # .? e> ^ •+ B y ':?
.' anil
\VS3 I
S:ail#iT©t
^isxf lisxT^eT .ssl;
■ ; J- no
1 ■o,xtJ:'^I bqtv
cx'iJifeoc
Si-id' lias '■sesUsI ■^sai isllso I
■■.•rr'* r.rp'iwiJ-scr lo
iuodB ejaw sola' Jiooid"
.';X n-esTjy&ff d'rr>cr'2T'..5'
woraf d-or? \&li) €nia hi
-5-
Gripson Finley testified: "Prior to that night (Octo'ber
3, 1924) I observed where the wire rested on the pole it flaahed
a yellow li^ht. Don't recall how ofuen this was. ITohahly two
or three times, but I don't know. Can't say how long "before this
injury. * * * j noticed the wires the day after Dorothy Br-umbaoh
was hurt. The wire was dovm abciirt fifteen or twenty feet north
of the wallc when I first observed it; that is where it touched the
/^otmd and sloped up 45 degrees to the top of the pole, which I
judge WPS thirty feot high. I called the service company the next
mominjT- "
Charles Tisher testified for the plaintiff: "I remember
I s&vr one of the wires on the ground broken. It was along the
curb, bet'A'-een the curb im<l the siiewallc. The \7ire vres north of
the walk ruxining east and west. * "^ * The wire I saw was lying on
the ground. It extended from the pole north."
Fred "Buehlei^ testified: "A person coining in contact
or eTTposed to s. live 'Tare -dth large -"-oltage siifficient to Iciook
a person dovm, with a person standinc^ on wet groimd, there v/ould
be a burn if there were high voltage. If one came close to a
current v/ithout direct contact, the injury would depend a great
deal upon the voltage. A person can receive a shock sr.fficient to
knock tliem down without getting a burn."
Plaintiff's father testified that he went to the place
in (niestion the following morning: "I saw a pool of blood there
abo'at three or fo^jr feet wast of the iron crossing. The pole
was an old 2:iole. The pool of blood was about eight or ten inches
in diameter. '3he must have struck her nose there. It was strung
along the pavement about fifteen or eighteen inches. Four teeth
were lying in the blood. I saw a wire down f /om a pole on the
corner. It was lying down tov/ards the street co^ssing from the
plate at the corner. * * * it was a copper electric wire, with the
insulation hanging on the wire in shreds. The wire was exposed."
William Graham testified that he went along the same
street that night; that he "carried an uinbrella. I was walking
* * * on the outside of the walk as I turned east on the north
r;-.T no s.io!
ex ■-■-■'! -<■'■' ?e3i.-u ai
Tj.iTv'r'T-f f :
avij.rJ o r
yi)I aii^ifo wild
-6-
6f Lafayette street, ^t the ooi'ner my um'brella caught some
olDstruction and I pushed the umbrella ■back. It was in my left
hand. I put my hand up v/hen I struck the ••oriibrella. I experienced
an electric ahook. I was wearing rubbers. It was not p. sever
shook, /'ore no gloves. I-iy umbrella ceme in contact v/ith a wire;
I then presumed it was a telephone wire. The next morning I saw
a v/ire, and it was on the berm coming dovm from the pole, slanted
from the ?iorth. * * * j sav/ the wire hanging the next jpoming. I
never saw it before."
The foregoing is the substance of the testimony on be-
half of plaintiff as to liow said injury occurred.
On behalf of defendant, Ernest Hink, a news reporter,
testified that he saw plaintiff the day following her injiiry, and
that she told him "she was walking east on Lafayette street, near
Paul and saw a man on the south side of the street; that she walked
east of that intersection and the man crossed over to tne north
side and when she got near the high board fence, she was assaulted.
I worte that story in the paper of October 4, 1924. Saw her
thereafter at the jostal Telegraph office. Told me she v;as about
to swear out "/mrrants, but diin't name anyone. Saw her several
times.* * * Miss Brumbach nade no complaint to me about the articles
written in the paper."
James Fox, oapt4in of police testified that, following a
report he found on the desk at the station on the morning of October
fit
4, about 8:30 or niefi O'clock, he went to plt.intiff's place of
business and talked to her; "she did not tell me who assaulted her.
Talked about fifteen minutes with her. I went back to the station.
Saw her again that day around six o'clock, at the police station.
Her father and brother were v^-ith her. Cfficer MacNamara was also
there. 'e talked about the case. She told me in the presence of
JfeoKamara that she had been assaulted."
On cross examination, this witness testified: "She said,
'I was assaulted'. She seid by a man. Could give no description
of him at all. She said he came from behind and she didn't see
^m:
BSicj:-
,8 p.^i. Vt'O.
'ftsd-gcfx;';
i DQBSSfii
tUalAl
v/jaa iirxis Ixrs „
".laq
«s;:ixd-
0£i ^ioq_ei
■.MitktB
«olt«t«£»Be '
. 'MiMlfJBBaB E'
-7-
him at all. Said she had seen him on the opposite side of ohe
street. * * * she said she had been assaulted, but did not '^aiovr
what happened to her when the blov; was stimok."
"i^ranlc Lfeollamara, desk sergeant, testified: "I r/as on
duty the next evenln;^, Ootober 4. Offioor Fox cmae along about
six o'clock that following night. Dorothy Bnunbach acme-; there
that evenin;^ vvith her father and brother. She told un there that
she hal been assaulted."
Earry 'Mitchell, salesman for the defendant, testified
that he was demonstrating vmshinp; machines for a ICrs. Haminereich
on Octobsr 8, 1924; that a Jtrs. Langley snd plaintiff and her
mother were there at the time. "Mother and dav^'^hter (Ilrs. Brumbach
and pleintiff) talked there relatir^e to the occurrence of a few
nights before. Her (plaintiff's face v/as bruised. :-!be told me
in a general way how the thing happened. * '" "*" She said ohe had
been assaulted. Said she knew the difference betv/een an assault
and coming in contact with a live -vTire."
I.Irs. Langley testified tliat she T/as at !.>s. ''ammereich' s
v/hen plaintiff, her mother, and LIr. !'itchell wsre there; "We were
in the kitchen. I heard her (plaintiff) tell that she knew that
somebody hit her or somethiiog like that, but I cannot tall you the
same words. 3he sfid she 30i32d tell the difference between being
struck and coming in contact with a live wire."
Edna Lev/is testified that she .vorked at the : ostal Tele-
graph in the cage next to plaintiff, and stated: "I sa-;v her the
next raornint^; asked what had happened to her. It was about eight
o'clock. Told lie she had been slugged. 'laat it happened along the
high board fence, near the academy. Think it vvas the same day she
told me that."
There was further testimony on behalf of the defendant
with reference to things said and done by plaintiff's family,
indicating that they f^ere of the opinion that j-leintiff had been
assaulted, b^it it is not necessary to ,'0 into this testimony in
detail. Plaintiff, in rebuttal, specifically denied having stated
a 'deistrt
^ajsJ&iis'rsj!) srid-
ftcfi^.-
-ga^MBw^ JWJiJ>.iJj I. . . .
to any of the abo** mentioned witnesses for defendant that she
had been assaulted.
The forego in/; is in substance the testimony with
reference to how said injury oocurred. 'i'he verdict of the jury is
not against the manifest weight of the evidence .
It is next insisted that the court ei-red in modifying
plaintiff's second piven instruction, and in giving defendant's
sixth, eir'hth, ninth, tenth» thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth
and sixteenth Instructions.
The modification complained of reouired the jnry to find
that defendant negligently allowed the wire in question "to be and
venein improperly insulated, and with the insulation thereon to
be v/orn, loose and rpgf^'ed, and also permitted said wire to be
and remain old and of insufficient strength to withstand the
ordinary strain," etc.
It is insisted that, under the doctrine of res ipsa
loquitur, the burden was not on plaintiff to affirmatively prove
negligence on the part of defendant, but that the happening of
the Jnjury to ohe plaintiff, unier the ciroutnstanoes disclosed
by the evidence, was sufiioient for the jury to assume negligence
on the part of the defendant, without further proof.
"his same point is urged in connection with the giving
of defendant's sixth and sixteenth instructions; said instractions
being as follows:
"I'he Court instracts the jury that the Kirden of proof
is not upon the defendant to show that it is not ^-uiltj' of the
specific negligence charged in the declaration or in some count
thereof, but the burden is upon the plaintiff to prove that the
defendant was jniilty of such negligence, ?nd this rule, as to the
burden of proof, is T.inding in law an.d raust govern the jury in
deciding thi? case. I'he jury have no right to disregard said rule
or to adopt any other in lieu thereof, bU'' in weighing the evidence
and c o-.iing to a verdict the jury should apply said rule and adhere
strictly to it. TIo presumption that the defendant was negligent
arises from the mere fact that the accident happened."
S£flY'±i-&'
vT.rffN-'r JbiBE wori o^ ecxisnslsi
5iTB 9d' Oli ''
iigifi ax >tJ.
ceJ-t^s-K
SXUVj
:3piai:^t(j
:i ha^tss el
3-woIIo*> as 3xii9cf
eili' oi 8jb ^i}^:!-- fiir^j x;n'- ,
-9-
"The Court Instructs you that If you believe from all the
faots and ciroumstances in evidence you are not-, able to say how
the accident happened, it would be your duty to find bhe defendant
not ,-Aillty."
Counsel for plaintiff cite as "supporting their contention
Feldman v. Chicago Ry Co,, 26'J 111. 25; Chicaieo Union 'i'raotion Co.
V. Giese, 229 111. 230; Fielf v. nnhelm, 123 App. 227; Heimberger
V. Elliot b, 163 iipp. 316,
In Feldman v. Chicago Railway Co. , tha court at page
34 says:
"The 'lootrine of res i^sa lo xiitur may be stated thus:
Whon a thing which has caused an injury is shoTTn "Co "ae under the
management of the party charged with negligence, 'md the accident
is such as in the ordinary course of things will not happen 4f
those who >iave such management use proper care, the accident it-
self affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of an explanation
by the parties charged, that it arose frora the want of proper
care." Citing Chicai^o I'nion "raction Oo. v. Ciese, 229 111. 260,
Gii\oting fr.rther from this cr..se , the court ao page 35 says:
"The recOTiid contains no e'/idence explaining tlie cause of
the accident or overcoming the presimiption of negligence. Yie are
of the opinion, therefore, that the jilaintiff in error was at the
tiae of the injury a passenger, to whom defendants in error owed
the highest degree of caro, and that -ujnder the first and seconi
counts of l-he declaration and the circumstances in this case a
prima facie case of negligence "ras made out under bhe doctrine
of res Ipsa loc;uit\ir.
In Chicago Union Ti'action Co. v. Ciese, the court at
page 254 says :
"In the case before us, all of the elements of the acci-
dent were within the complste control of appellant, an.d the result
is so far jut of the usual oo-or'se of bhings that there is no fair
inference that it could have been produced by any oth:r cause than
negligence."
l^i sax .7 "a: ■
o't Ic-e-
f.TC^Xf.T
-■yi<x 86'
'f^"'-'"^ 9l(^aa:0e-"t.-i ei)ucr:xs lies
•^/i£££iiS£ JSai, set '^-^c
-*• "'-^d-iwr s-Te-sr */i9jB
-10-
Heim'berger v. Elliott, aupra, is not applioatle here, as •
the Court there held that the injured party, v.'ho vms in the employ
of the Elliott Frog .?; owltch 'llompany, could not recover on the doc-
trine of res ipsa lo qui tux, even thou.-^h the instrumentality Tiiiioh
oaugad 'i^he injuvy was in possesaion of tha ccupany, its control
and operation being in the injureOL party. In Tialf 7. Vinheim,
supra, 3\iit -vas hrou-riht to recover for an inj-ory caused "oy the
falling' of a passenger elevator, v/hich v/as entirely in the possession
and control of the party sued.
In order for plaintiff to successfully in'/oie the doctrine
of !^^"§ ipsa loouitur, it must he .'^.ssuined t.hat her injury was caused
■by ooning in aontact vv-ith the .vire in ru.e3tion. ./hat fact was
directly in issue, and the finding of the jury t'.iereon is not
against the manifest v/eight of the evidence. In none of the cases
cited '.vas there any question hut that the injiiry for Vvhich recovery
was sou^:ht vras caused hy means of instrumentt-lities in the possession
of the party sued. The court did not err in modifying plaintiff's
second, instruction and in f;iving defendant's sixth and sixteenth
instructioj:3. It mi-t-ht he farther ohserved that plaintiff's first
given instruction adopts the theory that the burden of proving
negligence is on the plsintiff.
She doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not relieve a
plaintiff from the burden of proof, but is a rule of evidence. In
Feldman v. Chicago Railway Co., supra, the court at page 35 says;
"The rule is th£t negli£;ence is rever presrjned, but that
the ciroiuostanoes surrounding the ease nhere the Tiar-rin of res
ipsa loquitur applies, amount to evidence from v^hioh the facts
of neglifjence may be found; that; is, in a case within th-. maxim
of res ipsa loij.uitur, proof of the circumstances of snich case and
of the injui-y constitutes a prima facie case of negligence, and
vj^ill justify a verdict unless such prima faciq/case is overcome by
px-oof showing that the party charged is not at fault."
Defendant's eightt^ ninth, and tenth insti^ictions state
a correct principle of law, o.nd the court did not err in giving the
same.
-01
-U-iO OOJ. -■,..--. r.. „,,'^
■d' .Xi.
* t7iiu.se
-li-
lt is insisted that the giving of defendant's thirteenth
instruction is erj-oneous, for the reason that it -.'.D-ald v/arrant the
jtiry in finding that a witness' testimony should be iTipeaohed
because contrary to previous statemertts raade out of court. 'Thile
the instruction is r)ot as carefully guarded ps it should be, what
the jury are finally told is that they may take these contradictory
statements Into consideration in v/eighln^ the testimony. There '
was no serious error in the givinf; of this instruction.
It is contended that defendants fourteenth end fifteenth
instructions recuire a higher degree of proof than the law requires.
Vfhile the use of the word "este.blish'' is not happy, an examination
of the instructions will disclose th^^.t all the plf-intiff was re-
quired to do v/as to prove her caBe by a preponderance of the evidence,
ITo serious error resulted from the givirj^ of these instructions.
The contention of plsintiff for a reversal of the judgment
in this case is founded on the proposition that the doctrine of
res ipsa loquitur should have been hold to apply, and that the court
erred in not so holdinf. Clewarly, binder the authorities cited, that
doctrine does not apply in this case, or in any case where it li
not conceded or clea^ ly proven that the injury for -.vhich recovery
is sought -"A-as caused by instrumentality in the possession and control
of the party sued. That proof was not nade in this ease.
For the reasons above set forth, the judgment of the trial
court will be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
sli- :':■. si's r :(§i::iS?-,f{'
.!MiJLfiMdt £L:
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
SECOND DISTRICT J I, JUSTUS I,. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in
and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof,
do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above
entitled cause, of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal ot
said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this day of
in the year of our Lord one thousand
nine hundred and twenty-
Clerk of the Appellate Court
(53761— 3M— 7-27)
t^p^-J-MA/Z^oJt^yf'-^
AT A TERM OF THE AP/ELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, an TuesdAy, the second day of October, in
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty-eight,
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois:
Pre3ent--The Hon. NORMAN L. JON^S , Presiding Justice.
Hon. FRANKLIN H. BOGGS , Jus^e
Hon. THOMAS M. JETT, Justice
JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk.
FLOYD S. CLARK, Sheriff.
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On
i«,i n -, Ar\r,r^ the opinion of the Court was filed in the
Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
3
7957
E2
SAM VfSISI-IAH, APrELIANT,
v.
CHARLES BILADY, FR^5D H. RAILSBACK,
TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY OF CHARLES
BRADY, AND OTTO HILL, APPELLEES
APPEAL FROM THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF
ROCE ISLAND COUNTY.
JONES P.J.
Sam Veisman, ooraplainant, filed a bill to foreclose
a meohanio's lien against certain premises owned by Charles Brady,
defendant. The bill was filed December 24, 1925, and alleged
that Brady was the owner of the premises in q.uestion, and employed
complainant to repair a brick warehouse thereon which had been
partially destroyed by fire; that the contract price for doing
the same was |5300; that before the work was begun, complainant
also contracted with Brady to repair a concrete building on said
premises which had been damaged by the same fire, and to change
the driveway in said brick warehouse, vhich defendant had been
using in his Junk business and in part as a garage; that under
the latter contract, complainant was to be paid on the basis
of cost plus ten per cent. The allegations of the bill as
framed showed that all the work was to be done as a unit. It
allgged that the work was to be paid for upon completion and
was completely performed by appellant, and accepted by Brady
on or before Ilay 20, 1925.
On April 7, 1926, complainant filed an amended and
supplemental bill making Otto Hill, mortgagee, a party defendant.
This bill alleged that on or about February 14, 1925, complainant
entered into a contract, not in writing, with Brady, to re-
construct and repair a brick warehouse for the agreed sura of
|5300, due and payable when the contract was completed; that
before the contract to reconstruct such warehouse was com-
pleted, Brady applied to complainant to do extra and additional
ss
Vg(;V
%o Tiraoo titjosio
.YTTIITOD (IHAJei SOOS
,S
.!C"^AIJEI<IA. .HAMEISEW MA.C
£eaj:a.£i;i4 ^lLIIH 0T!P0 mix ^YCkkS.
.Xi.<i esioi.
v;£s'ra: asIiSilD ijcr £snwb sseJtjrtsfsg rjisrfieo jexrl.s-gs ailL s 'o-Jcxifirioenr j3
J59S9XIJB X)rrJ3 ,5Sei .i'S letfrnseeo: i)©m bs^ 1£x6 erfT . d-itBMsl e£
d-ffjenvjcjBlqvnoo jXt^r^sd" ssw 3lti:ow sxiit siotsii ifaricJ- ;00C2| eBw emse eA^
J6iss so swiMiirrf scfsrEOffyO js tis;iet pt z^&^E liixti bsioBtiaoo obIb
e^assio 0^ J&rts , srtil: omss &d& %ci ^te^ssELsX) aearf Lsd ffcxrivi' esai/nsn^
rteecf iBjrf ^ctBiisis'iaL £ol sin ^QssjQjistBW iox-icf i!if5e nx Tjewevlii exfit
•xsltixtf *Bx{d- js^s^ss ,e es ^isq ai Mb Besai&srdi icnt- &iff cl sxilaxr
Blasrf ©iid- HO &laq_ oo' oct- sb*- d-iuexji slgmoo .d-oc-xd-noo -xecfd-Bl eiid-
eB IXid edi lo snclcfs^sllje ©ilT .-d-0ijc leq; JCTec^ sirlq; o3Co ^:o
tl .d-xrcif jg ?,B effoJ& ed od^ sbv/ jCiow sr/d- ILs d-Grio Jiewoxle Jberisrcl
iijrrs nold^olqffloo xfoqxr "re's isxisci ac' ot sbw iiow srid- d^ Brief JBsagXIs
.esei 5 OS •^jsK sno'rstf 'xo no
,tasi}a@1e£> -^jd-ijsq 3 ,&9sJ3s*ioa; ,IIin o^d-O anxjfiun Llld iBoiierasIgqira
drt.anijBXgmo 0 ,SSei ,^I ^^BXfxd's'? d-xrocfjs rto rro d-srld" ^sssIIjs Illcf eirlT
-91 od- fX&BtE d&x^ ^:^silil'm at &cn .d-osid-nco a oiixl ieaed-ns
lo cixre fiesi^s erfd- •xo'i saxjojrfe'XBw Sox id b ^jtsqsi Lna d-cxn:;f8xioo
d-srtd- ;i/0d-oIcxiKoo ejsw ^ob'x&soq ^& ftexfw elcfB^'Sq: -b«-B &ufi ,0055i|-
-raoo SHv; s&xjoxfsasw xfoxra d-sxnifaxfoosT: od" d-osid-noo erid- eioled
iBaoliltiSie iiita a'xixs oL od- ^asnlsLq^EOo o;i jfcsil^gxs xi'^'xB ,i)e&elq.
-2-
work on the premises "by repairing a oonorete block building there-
on, and to change a certain driveway in the hriok warehouse
buiiaing, oonstruct a oertain garage on the premises, and make
other changes; that taerenpon Brady and complainant entered into
an oral contract, whereby complainant was to furnish all material
and labor necessary for snch additional work; and that Brady
agreed to pay him the cost thereof plus lO'fo upon the completion
of the work. Said amended and supplemental bill further alleged
that complainant furnished some extra work and material and
completed that work on December 15, 1925, also some further
work on February 8, 1926, and that said contract was fully
completed on February 8, 1926. Later on January 5th, 1928,
complainant filed supplemental allegations to the effect
that on June 10, 1927, after the filing of his ovlp;xr^al bill, he
recovered a Judgment for ^5307.70 in a aiit at law against
Brady, which arnoimt included the indebtedness for which a lien
is claimed in this case.
A separate demxirrer was interposed by Hill, and a
Joint demurrer by Brady and his trustee in bankruptcy. The
ground for these demurrers was that the bill alleged the work
was completed on February 8, 1926, which was subseciuent
to the filing of the suit. The court properly sustained the
demurrers. Thereafter complainant filed an amendment to said
amended and supplemental bill, alleging tha"b the contract
was fully completed on December 15, 1925. Demurrers were
sustained to the amended and sapplemental bill as so amended.
Complainant elected to stand b.r his bill and the same was dis-
missed. This cause is brought to this court to review the
decree dismissing the billj^.
Section 7 of the Lien Act, Chapter 32, Revised Statute,
provides that no contractor shall be allowed to enforce his
lien against or to the prejudice of any other creditor, in-
cumbrancer, or pxLPChaser, unless within four months after com-
pletion or within four months after the completion of any
extra or additional work or the delivery of any extra or addition-
al material, he shall either bring suit to ^enforce his lien
Isiie^J-sr '^ •■ - -■*'- r:'—"'' -+ a^aw d-fiCjsaisIqaroo ^scfeietiw ,d-osT:d-aoo Lbiq as
%L.^^:. ...... _. .- ,-iow Ijenol#li>i;.3 fiiura 'so'i ■'^aBeseoexr lOcfaX bas
ricx*eI(iffiOG Slid' aoqsf ^QL strlq, 1io©-i •« sxiO- min' TSfiq; od I'^S'igA
fi8§9llfi icsild-axft IliGf XstrrtsEsalqigxre Mb J&«£seias JJi^sL .i^ow ©xiJ^ to
-5n:B l£X"i3*BLT Xifls Slow BtixB Qflioa Jbsxleiii'XJ/i crnBiTXjBXcyaoo -^BAi
loilJt-^xfl 0ffl©B oaXfi ,§sex ,SI' ^cerfoieosQ: no liow cfxsffrf^ i)9d-elCTffl00
, . , .lAtncTs'ff rro inovr
, \ri;riCfo''I ao JbadeXqnsoo
.j'yi.i' TSiji©X<iqji/8 JbeXil ^xxBniJsXqmoo
3il ,IXxj L- ' .J asd-ljB ,VSei ,01 ©nirT, rro ^btH
cisni.esB \x&l c^b jxie s .cj; !JV,?0S3| 105 d'rfeja§i>xrt s Jbeasvoye^
• -'-■■-■■ ---'*• ,',_^./-. f-,.^ ...■■■- --.f-roni drn/oraB xloxriv^ ,Tji).fsia
.OEBo siiiif nl XiSDiifiXo bJ:
.■: I ••' ,._. ,cf X)9soff"s©<fTcx e;5w 'xsi'xxrffisi e^JiiiBgss A.
."od^c^irrrr-rpf r.x ostBirxt Bid iae ■^jsiff xd te^iumei) ttiiol
3C70V - isrlu BBw e*rs«fxoffi»i) essxid" -icol X/Xtxroia
orrejBrjjQerfjTB e-sw xfeMw ,SSex ,8 x'xmnaB^^ no X^oi^eXqfsoo bbw
eri.' rvflsi -^X"!? . -^xXx'i srid od
i>lii- iififfeffijB r d-KacciaXgfiioo teitBensdl ,aieiijjtae!b
*OJKEd-ao© Sri* «tsjcfT :gai-%9l£s. , sd-neuTeXqqxfs J5xib iisXixcsHis
eiOK etettss ■ . '-eX, ^Sl ♦xdO'sH&oeC no X^sd-GX^moo "?XXxrl bjbw
.i)8j>jasnuB oe bb XIi:a l£&nem9l(iq.:e $>kb IteLuQtns &iii o* LQala^esss
-Bib 8.ew smse erid- bns. XXid aJtif ytf J5iH.s*r od iiod-esi© d-xtsnisI^fliclD
^J4 ,„o>-.ro.- .-r 4^-...^ -;-.'+ -+ d-rfsi^cirf ai ©affjso alilCC ,j&seaxfli
.ijXXIcf sxid 8X£X8sXffi2.r* 9eios£
,3d-xrd-ad8 is.exTeH ,S8 TsfciBxi""' ,:;dA nsXJ srH" lo V xtoidoec
elrf eo^olfls od J&ewoX ixle lod^ojsnd'jaoo on d-^xid esiiXvo^q
-ni .nodx^atto ^Sif*© -\:. ; Gi£xr&©»iq ejf* o* io #Bfrlas« neiX
-3t0 8 led^la arf^flOffl •urol nxitiw aeeXmr ,iaaj8xloii;( , ofifiicffluro
Xiis Tio a:oXd-9Xq[p dxicm ixrot alAitti *xo xiold-eXg
-no.t|iii)£ TO fiidxe Ajis* to Ata&vlXoi) Pxfd to jitow Xsnoxd-lMje -xo Bid-xe
n»lX 8ix< ©©"xolrrs^ oi' jMxna s^intf iexl*i9 IXsxIe eri ,X allied jse Xb
-3-
therefor, or shall file with the clerk of the circuit court
a claim for lien, etc. As to the owner of the premises, such
suit must be befcun within two years after completion or the
completion of extra or additional work, or the furnishing of
extra or additional material.
Under £fch allegation of the original bill, that the
work was ooiapleted on ..fe.y 20, 1925, no decree could have been
entered against Hill, because he was not made a party to the
suit until April 7, 1926, or more than four months after the
work was alleged to have been completed. The amended and
supplemental bill of April 7, 1926, was filed to obviate
that difficulty by fixing the date of final completion on
February 8, 1926. But that date is su-bsequent to the institution
of the suit, and made the bill subject ta demurrer on that aooount,
In order to cure that defeat, the amendment of L-Iaroh 15, 1928
was made, fixing the date of the final completion of the
work on December 15, 1925, which date is prior to the filing of
the original bill and is within four months of the time v/hen
Hill was made a party to the suit.
Appellees urge that tie provision of the statute
requiring the bill to state the time of completion of the
W3rk is mandatory; that inasmuch as the date naaed in the
last amendment is different from the date set out in the original
bill, such amendment amounts to the statement of a new cause
of action; and that having been filed more than two years
after the alleged completion of the work as therein . stated,
v/as subject to demurrer by reason of the Statute of Limitations.
The argument is, that the last amendment, made Iferch
15, 1928, stated a new cause of action against Brady, and was
the first statement of any cause of action against Hill, and that
because it was filed more than two years after the completion
of the work on December 15, 1925, (the date of completion of
the work as fixed in the laat amendment), the demurrers vere
properly sustained. In support of their contention, appellees
■ ■-■ .neiL-iot s&kali) s
■: -reals ex-ser o-?,-^ rtiitJivj li-jj^stf ©tf isijss iius
,\ . . , - ,. i'. no x)©rf-©lQcroe efiw sftow
pf cevr qM s«xrno«(f ,IIiK jt-BtiJt^f^s iS'Sed'Xis
osmsmil &ssit ^iio& Bhn.ma. ei :A.toM
&n&'s.oYxi-b ex ■t'risjnldTej-iiB t^sl
iioi^! ©J&J3W j^j30fliB£f©j9!JB teBl ©ii# ^£i£[t ^ei t&1»Sl^t& Qti'I
a^ I'ff.f^ ,-:5.S'i:?[ :;8fd.c;^i; .rcGiJes liQ asirfio weii a £o*fi*B ,8S€I .cil
noxii:-! ■ v? grfA^v .....
-4-
rely on North Side Sash & Door Company v, Hecht, 29 5 111. 515.
In that case the original hill made a purchaser of the premises
a party defendant, and fixed the date of completion at a time
more than four months previous to the filing; of the bill. It
therefore did not state a cause of action against him. An
amendment to the bill was filed, fixing the date of completion
within four months previous to the filing of the original bill,
but the amendment itself was filed more than four months after
the date of completion as therein alleged. It v;as held tiiat a
lien was not shown to have been established under the statute.
The statutory reauirement is that the bill must state when the
work was completed, but this does not mean that the complainant
may not amend his bill and change the date stated therein when
the bill, before amendment, states a cause of action. Ihis rea-
soning applies to the last amendment as well as the first.
The original bill in the case at bar did state a cause of
action againdb.BrSayip the sole defendant therein, and alleged the
work was completed on May 20, 1925. Hill, the mortgagee, was
not a party to that bill. Therefore, the ruling in the Hecht
case is not applicable to the facts in the case at bar. Com-
plainant, even before he made Hill a party defendant, could
have amended his original bill by changing the date of cmmple-
tion from Jfey 20, 1925, to December 15, 1925. rhe amendment
vADuld not have given Brady any cause to complain. Further,
if after such amendment had been made, add on to-wit, April 7,
1926, complainant had obtained leave to amend his bill by making
Hill a party, he could have done so. Vifhen such amendments had
been made, the pleadings would have been in the precise condition
in which they now are.
The statute does not require that creditors, incum-
brances, or pxirohasers be made parties to the original bill.
The only effect of omitting to make them parties is that their
rights are not affected by the proceedings.
„^_
:1a G? aJDx£ 43' "^oH no "'ilai
J J:.:., srf^ sea?) ;h«xi»f nl
jiciooB 'xo eeu&o b QiBc . ■o'io'xeiii
, J tnsmLaemB
C'«j sxroJcveig 8riiJ"flQffi a/iol nixf;MTiv
■'9.3d- 1 txioiniiasDiJB sA& iis6
/± ..bt?,4©11.6 liictiSjiCi ciij ncirf-slquioo lo sd-jsl^ sri,^
.&;i-j:rjj3ia 3xIJ 'isJiixxr ierieJ- - '-seer svari od^ xiworiB d-ofl acw xxsll
Qrfrf- .(i9.dw ed-av:e ^axrifl IXid cr;cr ysnd- aJ: cfnejus^tiji-psi Tj-aiod-ird-^Jt a sriT
E£>3.i:C!9T
i-foi'^eXqffiOo '.to s
,XIi:' iBiti-^l'i'-
.jjCtsrrx'I •--" """■ ■* — ••
jflGsF arid" iii lEiii;.:
*S!O0 .IBCf ^
" -' ■ •'"rr 8eol> sitii ^ss(S ,l)8d'eIqnioo asw iiow
„. -;_ c... 9s«>srio ioG llicf Bill linsinB d-OK -^Bia
0: ,x,;f:'' ■^^j asd-sJs , u-nefrLfiXie;i:rs eiolecf ,IIxcf eAt
■9nxBK«m;p ■ BeiXcig.3 snixiOB
? ^tJBS^S'.ifacifiS-e 110 it OB
. ;i5v; :S[rrow
, -iSxS .Xlicf i'jafiu Oy xiTS-q s dO0
ofij rri sz'oB 'aaxXqqB to0 ex easo
-eXqiiiaa io eci .sX' ong sfixgnjerio y.cf XXxc*" X^srtxs'i'io Bxxi J&s^it9ffl£ srsd
c^II©mi)fi:e.fil!B oiiT .gSSI ,gX 'xsciasoeQ: od" t§SfeX ,0S ij^t aoil noxd
,nf?r!v+'ji.'''I .xiXM^flTo© od ©exrso -^le tj^btS iieiria eTaxl ton J&Xxrcw
JiditeflTAxit
itoJtd"lJ6iioo eeloe
-raxronX , c^c
.XXxa XjsxiXsx^o
.•-.' dTT'^riX^Xgiroo ,3Sex
ow a^iX . .aXfim need
.f- t -s'zc.'-i '::e,fld xioixlw sxl
pert ^ on aocX) 9d-xrdec ;
-5-
In the Hecht oase, oomplainant saw fit to m&'ke the piirchaser
a party defendant to his original bill, and it was therefore
necessary to allege therein facts showing a cause of action
against him.
It is insisted tliat the amendment to the amended and
supplemental bill stated a new and distinct cause of action
against the owner, and being filled more that two years after
completion, the court was right in sustaining the demujprers.
The Hecht case is also cited as authority for this contention.
The distinguishing features of that oace have already been
pointed out and need not be further discussed here. However,
it is, enough to say that the work to be done as alleged in the
original bill appears to be the same as that set forth by
the amendment. The property is the same; the price and terms
are the same; the relief sought is the same; and as to Brady,
the cause of action is identieal.
Defendant Hill urges that the bill, as amended,
does not allege that the additional work was performed as
a part of the original contract. The allegation is that
Brady "complained that your orator had not corapletely finished
said contiract and demanded of your orator, that he do certain
painting, etc. * * * And in res onse to said demand, yoiir
orator did do such painting, etc.", and it is f\irther alleged
that the contract was fully completed on December 15, 1925. We
think it sufficiently alleges that the additional work was per-
formed as a part of the original contract.
Acceptance of the ^work by the owner is not a pre-
requisite to the comaencement of a suit to enforce a lien.
The statute nowhere makes such a reci.uirement. If that were
the law, any owner could defeat a lien by simply refusing
to accept the work, ifeither is it provided that a contractor
must comply with the provisions of Section 5 of the Lien Act
before beginning action to enforce his lien. (Hall v. TTarris,
1Q.i-e«%4 J
xBixfpe?
-6-
E42 111. App, 315; Floinlng v. Galloway, 212 id. 226.) ror is
the reaovary of a judgment in an action at lav/ on aocoTint of the
work a bar to this proceeding. The remedies are ouniulative.
(Decatur Bridge Co. v. Stanlart, 208 111. App. 592; L'. Tugh
Co. T. 7/allaoe, 198 111. 422, ::rikson v, '7ard 266 id. 259.)
Defendants insist that the bill as amended is so
loosely drawn that it fails to state a cause of action and is
not
demurrable on that ground alone. It may /be a model of
pleading, but we thinl: it is sufficiently definite and certain
for its purpose.
For tie error in sustaining the demurrers to the
amended and supplemental bill as amended, the decree is
reversed and the cause reaanded, with directions to oTerrule the
demurrers.
Reversed and remanded with directions,
.} •r.-,<T'Y.rn:,9|)
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
SECOKD DISTRICT J I, JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in
and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof,
do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of tlic opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above
entitled cause, of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal ot
said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this day of
in the year of our Lord one thousand
nine hundred and twenty- — - —
Clerk of the Appellate Court
(53761— 3M— 7-27)
■»----;,- -j-^^rTTTfB^
cx^^^^-^£C^^^y;(r
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on' Tuesday, the fifth day of February, in
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty-nine,
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois:
Pre3ent--The Hon. NORMAN L. JONES, Presiding Justice.
Hon. FRANKLIN H. BOGGS, Justice
-.^ ^- Hon. THOMAS M. JETT, Justice.
JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk. 4
FLOYD S. CLARK, Sheriff. -^
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On
-1. - j^a-the opinion of the Court was filed in the
Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-witi
O 1
fteneral ITTim'ber 7929
Agenda 6.
ARTHUR F. FILKBTS,
APPELLANT.
LOUIS I.WELIER, !MYOR OF
THii: CITY OF PEORIA, ET AL,
APPELLEES
APPEAL FROM THS CIRCUIT
COURT OF PEORIA COUHTY.
JETT. J.
Arthur F. Fil.ins, filed a jietition for a writ
of mandamus in the circuit court of Peoria ooimty, against
Louis I'ueller, layor of the City of Peoria, A, W. MoMasters,
Co;nptroller of the City of Peoria, V/illiam Kunst, Superintendent
of Police of the City of Peoria, Charles Casv/ell, Charles
Engler and Gus Karl, Police and Fire Coraraissioners of the
City of .P'eoria, and Fred Buerlce, to compel his re-instatement
to the office of P5.trolraan, and for pajrment of his salary from
the time of his removal to the time of his reinstatement.
A demurrer to the petition v/as filed by the respondents,
appellees here, which was over ruled, and an answer was filed
thereto, denying the allegations in said petition.
The Petition was amended hy aalcing the City of
Peoria and the treasurer of said city, parties defendant.
A demurrer to the petition as amended, was filed hut withdrawn,
and an answer was filed, denying the allegations of the
petitioner. To the answer a replication was filed and the
cause was tried hefore the court and a Jury.
At the conclusion of the evidence the court
directed the .jury to return a verdict against the petitioner
on the questiO'i of salary, and to find in his favor on his
petition for reinstatement.
jiii/nssA SSe'?' lacTjnxrTI IbishSx'
,a'TiA.ijsq:g:/L
■50 HOYAJ-; .sSu^jaui',: biitoi
d-.ttw E lot soxiitQq .8 iisXll: c"8iii jell's: .I otfji^ii
tais#B«J'sM .W ,A. ,Bli0 9l lo TjtiD arf# 1:o ^o'^bK ,/isIIeMi sxiroa
-nsLssQ^BltBqM^ tt&xsssi jbjbIIII?/ (SItos^: lo ■'jitlD ©rid' lo aelloiuqaioC
eaJEiMD .IIsv/asD e'^IaBffO .al'Soe'I to ^*1D exfit lo eoilo^l lo
sdt to siexxGiBBicjffloO sii;'? J&na ©sllo^ .I^jeS 8xrO JBtib noIs«S
moTl ^"ifllBB slii to JHaerviBq: tol bna ,xtjsml0id'jsa ^o solllo ©if? oi
,cfx£9ffl9d-.Q^3n.tS'i: sixi to ©inicf- ©rid- od' Im'-oinei 8J:r! tc eni^f srfd
<sd"ff6i»cog89'r sxfd- Y,^ M11.1 ssw aol»M3-9M erLd- oi isi'ixrmsi) A.
»sox;}'id'9q JblSB ni aaol;}' Basils erirf- gci-vinei! ,o^si9xl%t
lo i^i-xD srf* s-ttirisra '^cf JbQi>s,mss s.fiw r£OlcM#s<-I erJT
.u'-flB^Xfstei) soltruBci ^-^ito Li&s loisixrsjssio srfo i).rtB BJt^os^
, m^jS^M* iw .txftf 59lit bbw ,£0i;ft6nj6 eij woxd-itsq; 6x1* oi*- leixsrael) A.
exfd- to giio.Ld-i?s©IIfi &sit -^ni^aBL ,^©Ixt s^bv/ igwbxcs its i>ns
axl+ i)ffs ^eJJt i»!W ,n:oid-8slIf6«i 3 iswejis eMit qT ^ssaol&l^eq
ci-Tiroo srfd- eonsJ&xvs sxicf to aoi.sisIt>is.oo &tit &k
^8«oicMd-9c[ srfd- d-8nls§j8 *oxJbisv b 0Txrd-si od- -^iirt erid- £ed-09^1l!
alii rro loTst Blxl aJ: iixilt ocl" f>nB .•^iBlse t© fiolct-sexo^ srfd- no
.te9)xi&iJ'B*8xii©^ lOt .n;ox>txd-9q
-2-
Judgment was rendered on the verdict returned by
the Jury. Appellant and AppelLeea prayed for and perfected
an appeal to this court, and by stipulation of the parties,
a^ record and abstract of record, of the petitioner filed
herein, are considered as the record and abstract of record,
of appellant and appellees, without prejudice to either party.
While the facts in this case differ sli^tly from
the fkcts in ^umber 7Q27, the principles involved are the
same, and for the reasons stated in the opinion in "uraber
7927, the Judgment in this cauye is reversed and remanded.
Reversed and Remanded.
.s :; 311:1-6 93JS© stdi ai. Sxfo.^ ©jW sI" '■'
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
SECOND DISTRICT J I^ JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in
and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof,
do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of t!ie opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above
entitled cause, of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal oi
said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this day of
in the year of our Lord one thousand
nine hundred and twenty-
Clerk of the Appellate Court
(B3761— 3M— 7-27)
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fifth d
the year of our Lord one thousand/nine hundre
within andj f or the>Becojm Distr/ct of the S
Pre3ent--The/Hon. NORfcWclTT' • JONES/ Presiding
/ Hon. FRANKLIN H. B^GGS, Justi
I Hon. THOMA'S M. JETfT, Justice.
/ JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk.
FLOYD S. CLARK, Sheriff.
*^ •>
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On
the opinion of the Court was filed in the
Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
following^ to-wit:
7896
CHARLES H. DAVIS
appellee,
T3.
V/ILLIAM T IRMANi et al
appellants.
WILLIAM P. BECIffiRS,
appellee,
vs.
'.'.'ILLIAw TiRLIAN, et al
appellants
Agenda 7,
AP-EAL FRO.M THE
GIR'^UIT OOIIRT OF KAIOCAKiE
COUUTY.
Jett, J, *
The Farraei'S Lvlerchants J roduce Company was a
par-tnership formed in October 1921. Charles H. Davis, 07ie of
the appellees, and ,'illlam Terman constituted the partnership
for the pTir\ose of buying, dressing and selling ooultry. : eyer
Terman clai.ned to have been a partner.
Undor the agreement of Davis and '.'illiaia Terman
eaoh .vas to furnish One fhouxand Dollars capital and the profits
and losses .vere to be divided accordingly. Davis v/as to receive
■s;40,00 per v/eek for keeping books and running the office. V/illiam
Terman i-vas' to receive ;p40.00 per week and do the buying. i;eyer
Terman was to be paid 75$/ per hundred weight for hauling and
delivering the chickens. This seems, Trom the record, to have
teen, the agreement entered irto by Davis and 'illiam Terman with
Ileyer Terman. The busi'^ess was transacted at Kankakee, Illinois,
where the chickens were" delivered and dressed; they v/ere then
hauled to Chicago and placed in the plant of the Forth American
Cold Storage Company in the name of Ti^dward Terman Company, a
ooinmission broker, composed of Edward Terman only. Sdward Terman
and 'Villiam Tei-man, a member of the firm, are brothers, /oyer
Terman is a son of illiam Ternian.
Bfjxissi
sesv
glVia ,H 83IH\F0
,80 II QcqjB
esellsqqjs
■■ J n J3 1 1 eqqB
ac srto .eivBff ,E aol. .;8I isdc raaaiol qixlBi8n*r[JBq
T9"^$Ai .^J1d■IJu•og snillse jScb sfl[X88STJ& ^giii^d' lo saooiirq sxld- ■sol
ssRmiQi: iaeiXIxr; J&ixs eiv.8G 1& ismmek'>i'gr. c-rfi isMU
gd-Iioig- 9if^ cm. lB*.tQ-.go a-isIXoG MsKJj-orii' sxiO dsiti-isjl oi esv. jIojcs
' ''^191 0* 8j8w eivflC: .ijlsnl-btooss I)9^iTii> ecf o& sisw 898eoI ins
isYSij' -s-ftxTSiio sxld- ol) .6.C.5 >[s©w usq 00,0t^| ©viso9*j od" '@m« flSflPieT
Sxis jsfilXxrsxl rtol ifjEf^iew J&a^rmri ^9c[ "sjST iiaq ©tf o# saw nsnrieT
OTjerf o-J- .Jbuocs'x oxfrf- ffidl .sssssie aid: .aneSoixir &x£* sniievllsi)
,3loiT.cIII ,96lS3fn=-?<i *.a I>©d■i:>JB8^TB^:c^ asw aBSi'lexfcf oxfT ' ,xi.eiKT[9f 79\eH'
rcsxf:^ 9T9W xeii& ibee&e-xL -Mb i>s»fevil9i) 9«x©w crraa'slrio arid^ sis/lw
isBoliefiiA rfd-noVf edi lo d-iaBlq; sad- ni Leoslq i>as ps^oljsT o^ foIiXBri
s ,''S«scimoD HBHrtsT X)-x«wJBffl 1o oms/s oxl* al -^XLBqraoO sskio^c JbloG
n.-;isi9T iiiBw^S ^Tjlxxo nsffl'tsT Jbtsw^i;! lo J&Bsoqmco ,iS3ioicf /loiseiKsnoo
•r^v-v .eieriiJoitf SIB ,c>ill exiif lo i9cfi>\9ai s ^iiBm-xsT bijbIIXIV!/ Lcb
— 2—
The hanking liusiTTess of the Farmers "^erc lants Produoe
Companj'- as carried on at the "^tnte Bank of Papineau. T.Tpon the
sale of poultry by Edward Terma^i, the ooramission h^^oker, re-
mittanoe v.'as to he made to the produce company and the check
de oaited in the state bonk of i-epineau.
Sometime after the business had started the Farmers
Merchants Vroduoe Company bought two carloads of chickens p.ni. did
not hare the money with which to pay for them. Application
w%g made to one William F. Beckers to advance the money. Beckers
oonsented to lo ??o unon the terms for v/hich he was to be paid out
of the proceeds of the sale of the chickens and also share in the
profits made upon such poiiltry. A like situation ap-ain occurred
within a short time in which Becsers advanced $2500.00 as he had
do'ne on the former occasion. A little later Beckers a^^ain
advanced ?2,C00.00 under a similar agreement. He -as j:"e-paid
the latter sum of .•2,000.00 advanced but no part of the ^5,000.
was paid to him.
Kffor^ were made to induce Beckers and the cashier
of the Papinean bank to become partners. The efforts failed
although it is insisted b: appellants that Beckers became a partner
in the business.
The record shows that the Produce Company was not
finaftcially solvent. Trouble arose betv.'een the varioTis persons
interested in it and finelly it ceased to do business. ,At the
time the Produce Company (^uit business Edward Terman had in his
naiTie at the, TTorth Aneri'; .n Cold Storarte Company's plant a quantity
of chickens and it was agreed in writing by nembers of the produce
company and Beckers that this poultry should not be disposed of
without notice to and the consent of Davis or Beckers, it evidently
being the intention of the parties to give Beckers Pn opportunity
to receive the profits of the sale of the chickens upon the
indebted.ness due to him,
blatters ran along for sometime and the poultry was
XHBi''' 6
rtslilw 10^ r.
•ri'i"ol Si-;T 'CO e^ror
— 3—
sole by Sdwara Tfirroan and no disposition was rode of the ftmd.
Abo^'t four months later, at the reiLUcat of eyer Terman, Edward
Terman f^ve him a cheolc for ■1^57.67 the balance due and payable
to the produoe company. .Te>tjer Terman endorsed the check in the
narae of the produoe corn ;any, cached it nnd r^ade no return to the
produce company. Owing to the condition of affairs as existed,
shortly after Edward Terman had delivered the check in question
to 'leyer Terman, '^hnrles ^t. Davis, a neniber of the partnership,
flM his bill in the Circuit Court of Kankakee County for an
acoountin,^ and foT' a dissolution of the 'partnership.
Davis in his bill for an accounting and for a dis-
solution of the partnership made '.Villiam Terman, 'eyer Terman,
William P. Beckers, Edward Terman, F.dward Terman Commission Company,
a corporation, Sdward Terman doing business under the firm narae
ef and style of I^dward Terman Company, the Horth American Cold
Stora^^e Company, a corporation, the Continental and Commercial ¥.a-
ti vial bank of Chicago, a banking corporation and the bank of "apineau,
defendants. The defendants answered the ori^'i'nal bill filed b;r
Davis. William P. Beckers in addition to answering the Tjill filed
a cross bill charging among other things that he was entitled to
and hp.d an e^^^lta^le lien UDon the chickens held by the cold storage
company and Edward Tarman Company.
The pleadings and the record are exceedingly voluminous
but the issues according to the original bill and answers and or»ss-
bill and answers thereto presented for the consideration of the court
the nuestion as to -wtiether or not Meyer Terman was a member of the
co-partnership !?nd as to xvhether or not Edward Terman Company had
accounted for all the chicken? he had received and had placed in
cold storage, and as to vihether or not he should be req.uired to
account for the sum of .;1557.67, a sum received for chickens sold
by hi,-n, he ha ing issued ? check for such sum and delivered it to
Ileyer Terman, the check being payable to the produce co'npany and
■ikieyer Terman having endorsed the s;fline and received the money failed
to account therefor to the produce company. Also as to whether or
not Beckers had a lien upon the chickens and was entitled to a lien
iMmid&'v S*.jE'
■pv:j q:: 2¥-
—4—
by reason of the money advanoed by him and to the ^1557.67 item
and the sum of .;;724.14 which was in the hands of the cold storage
company.
The cold storage company deposited the said stun of
|724.14 with the clerk of the court to abide the decision of the
chancellor, I'he court in its decree found that there was due from
the Farmers Merchants i-roduce Company to ./illiam r, Beckers the
sum of ^iSjOOO.OO for money loaned to said company; that siad
Beckers had a valid C2i4_uitable lien on all the poultry; that Edward
Tennan had notice of said lien prior to the delivery of the check
for !?1557,67 to ..eyer xerman; that i^dward Terraan Company be ordered
to pay direct to V/illlam P. Beckers said amount of , 1557. 67, to-
gether with, the sum of ,^9y4,55, which represents the amount due on
3343 pounds chickens, and costs of suit; and furthers orders that
the sura of ,,i724.14 paid by the Tiorth Americari Cold Storage Company
to the clerk of the court to abide the restilt of the cause be paid
to William 1. Beckers, and that the Continental and Gom.iercial
National Bank and the state Bank of Papineau be dismissed out of
the case and that villiam P. Beckers recover of and by the defendants
in the ees'p cross-bill his cats by him expended in the prosecution
of tiis suit; that Charles H. Davis pay 40 per cent of the costs
incurred in and about the prosecution of this suit and that the
appellants 'illiam Terman, ifeyer Terman and Edward Terraan, jointly
and severally pay 60 per cent of the costs of the suit. It is
from this decree that the appellants prosecute this appeal.
It is insisted by appellants that ^le:jev Terman was
a member of the co-partnership and that he was from the time of
its formation. A very labored effort has been made on the part of
Edward Terman and ..'illiam Terraan to establish the fact t at Ileyer
Terman was a partner of Davis and ^'/illiam Terman. The reason
evidently is that if it be true that -;eyer Terman was a member of
the co-partnership then the issuing of the check for 1557.67 made
payable to the produce company and delivered h to .leyer Terman by
\:i.i(ie>orj
)9i^ al/L?" moi!t
i liafltofEd^ ACT - (
;rami©T
— 5—
Edv/ard Terman '.'.'ould te a delivery to the produce cjompany.
7e have examined the reoord with a view of ascertaining
the fact as to whet 'er or not ileyer Terman was a partnfir. It would
serve no f^ood pTirpose to set out in detail the great volume of
testimony bearing v.pnn that ciuestion yet when all the evidence is
considered it is clear that he was not a member of the co-partner-
ship. Since Edward Tertian nold the chickens '''liiGh were in oold stor-
age and after the selling of the same there remained 51557.67 due
the produce company and he liaving issued a eheoJc for sa.id gum
payable to the produce company delivered it to I'ie^'er Teraan, vho
was not a partner, ^Afas bhis a payment "by iiira to the produce company?
■Ve think the record dis^loses the faot that ddward Terman ai. the
time he delivered the check to ?Ie;^er Terman was in possession of
information to the effect that Ifeyer Terraan v^as not a member of
the firm. Hien this ohe':?k wc^s delivered to .layer Terman the firm
had ceased to do business four months previously. The partners
were quarreling among themselves as to ?mo constituted the partner-
snip and this was :Mown to Edward Terman. Davis and Beckers both
testified that they told Jj]dward Terman that this check was to be
handled the same as every other check; that is it was to be sent
to the ")ank in Fapineau to the ace unt of the firm, namely; the
Produce Company. "loreover Edward Terraan insists that he had no
notice that Becker clai ed to 'nave a lien upon the chickens or
proceeds for 'Afhich they might be sold.
"rhen "Bdward Terman was cross-examined by the solicitor
for :3eokers he testified as folD.ows:
Q, How then did you have ar,y notice that William 7. Beckers T^as
to be notified when these chickens that -ere in storage in
your name were to be sold?
A. Wot to my knowledge.
(\ Did you have any notice or not?
A . Fo .
0. ^•^oii had no notice whatever?
A. Not from V/illiam P. Beckers.
sisJ&lsnop
-vSirsai
:i^ snsitadi
.fCiTll erf*
5©J:l:i#esd-
— 6--
C^, Did you iiave it from anylDody?
A. From I'eysT and Davis.
". Tow ras that notice given?
A. Verljal.
Q. Verbal notioe?
A. Yes.
Q. This was the only notice you lial that William P. Beckers 'aad
any interest iv the chickens that were stored in ;y our narae?
/. Yos.
I},, You are certain ahout that?
A, You tet.
Q. O^n't be mistaken?
A. /ibsolutely sure of it.
Q,. Yes sir. I will aslc you to look at oorapiiinant' s Exhibit 1,
and state whether you ever saw that instruinent?
A. Yes I lid
Q.. You did? Your name is attached to that insti-ument?
A. Yes.
Ci, Yon say you h^d no other information that lilliam I. Beckers
had e.uY interest in those chickens except verbal inf orniation?
A. This here says tor poultrjr stored by them after the first
of the year, not in my name, it ifra.s not in ray name, it was
their ov/n poultry.
Q. It was their o^Tn poultry?
A. Yes.
?n. Does this say it -Tas their ovm poiiltry?
Q. V/hat is the question?
Question read.
A. Yes.
".xhibit 1, under dat ; of .lay 1, 1922, reads as follov/s:
"2,ir. Davis of the Farmers ;;ierchants Produce Company
of Kankakee, Illiaois, has tui'nsd over the list of poultry
which is now in storage at the Tlorth American Cold 3torage
Company, C.iicago, for »vhich I agree to the following: The
poultry to be sold at ESjzf for the corn fed and 34/ for the
..eoY .A.
•^OIQii S19KI'rJ3'S[ ©lid- lo ElTrjsCI ,lJi'
milk fed; should this price be not obt'iinable, :ir, Edward
Terman is to aotify us by telephone, at our expense the
best price that lie oan obtain. If this price shoiild be
satisfactory thea '.r, Edvrard Terman is to receive upon the
sale of the poultry 2-51^ per ^oound cojiiraisdi jn. :r. Edv.-ard
Terman also apr^es to notify I'v. 'Villiam P. Beckers or 'fr.
Jharles Davis of Kankakee, Illinois, in ample time so that
they laay arranfre to be in his office at the time the deal is
olosed. -ir, :!]dward Terman and -Ir. Oharlas Lavis agree to
put their signatures on the above agreement."
fhs agreement is signed by Charles H. D^vis and Edward
Terman,
Q^^ss-complainant's Exhibit 4 ujider date of February
25, 1922 3tat3s thst:- Charles ■■!. Davis and Villiam Terman are
the sole partners operating the Farmers I.Ierchants Iroduce Company
located at what is laiown as the 'Villiam ±eTimn Produce Company
building, Kankakee, Illinois; that they have in storage 39780 boxed
dressed poultry in their name at the North Aniericjan Cold Storage
Company and 20550 boxed poultry at the !-Torth American Cold Storage
in the name of Edward T ;rraan Company. In said exhibit it is agreed
that they will not di3::o:38 of anv of the aoove poultry without
getting permission from Beckers. The exhibit is signed by Charles
H. Davis and '.'illiam Terman.
' , It vill be seen by exhibit 1 Zdward Terraan agreed to
notify Becksr-.^. or Ds^'-is in advance of the sale of the chickens so
that they mi^'^t be in his office at the time of the closing of the
deal. Edward Ternan did not notify either Davis or Beckers as he
had a,<^reed to do. The record also discloses from the oross-
examinstion of Fdward Terman that he, in the first instance, denied
havin^- any notice that 3cckers was to be notified when the chickens
were to be sold. He finally admitted that he had notice from "'eyer
Terman and ?avis and that the notice was a verbal one.
In view of the state of the record we are of the opinion
that :Odward Terman intentionally placed the power in the hands of
ifeyer Terman to cheat and defraud the produce company; that the
delivery of the check in question W8 not a payment to the produce
company. The cold storage company deposited with the clerk :72'i.l4;
• oiic[ d-aetf
'J lo siBa
xssjrcrxeq; 7i^J;*;^©5|
ott J&a^ ed-^Bsi^ Si^tittm.bB ,.1
*'I■'^.•: J.Cft
aM ««f* si *C€«wCi^
'■(oMfit®#CTl ifflflrisy JBrtBwJb;
;:'airiee^<
sail sura was money reoelved from the gale of chitskena which were
In the hands of the cold storage oorapany, and upon whioh Beekers
olairaed to have an equitable lien. "he cTiestlon then arises under
the showing made, is Beckers entitled to an equitable lien?
The evidence is undisputed that Beckers had loaned
;'7,000. to the firm. That ^2,000. had been repaid to hira. On the
25th day of February, 1922, and after the firm had ceased doing
business Beckers had a c'voversatlon with '".'illiam Terman and "Davis,
partners, and Beci-cers told Davis and 'Viiiir.,ni Terman that he OTight
to have something to show that he had sn interest in the chickens
and thereupon Exhibit 4 was signed by Davis and "'illiam Terman.
The signing of this instrument was for the i;urpose of g'iving to
Beckers an interest iT the ?.hickens mentioned to re-imburse him
for his '^5,000. *. t the tir^e of the si{.min.5 and entering into of
Exhibit 4, by Davis and '^illiam Terman, it was i;r)posslble to get
physical possession of the poultry =^dward Teriuan and the '''Torth
American Ooli Storage Company having niade advances on the voultry
and warehouse receipts being in their hands. Beckers therefore
accepted Exhibit 4 as an evidence of his interest in the poiiltry.
The said exhibit described both lots of chickens, those stored in
Edward TerTi^n's name and those stored in the firm's name. It vms
then and there agreed that the poultry should not be sold without
getting permission from Beckers. This is in our judgment sufficient
ujider the law to create anli equitable lion. The fom of the lan-
guage f.reating an equitable lien is not very liiaterial for equity
looks at the final int^rt nnd purpose rather than the form. If
the exhibit evinces an intention that the lien sliall ex'i((ist,
but falls short of its' creation, a co-art of equity proceeds upon
the rnaximum "':5quity considers as done that litiich ought to be
done, and will carry out the purposes of the contracting parties."
37 Corpus ■:ri.iris, 317 3ec. 20,
An equitable lien ir personal property may be created
by a parole agreement. 37 Corpus -Juris 319, oec. 23.
._e_..
■-.el ri-^-.s r 1 BXJd
•:9S
TS 9XiT
.r-T.Rwl>3'
- •■■m-j-
— 9—
In the atsenoe of the express contract an ev.uita'ble lien
moir arise hy i,ia].licatioii oi't of (general c onaiderations of right
and Justice where, as> applied to the relation of the parties and
the oircnimatanoes of their dealing:;, there i^ some o'bli.3;ation or
duty to be enforced. 37 'Jorpus Juris 319 Tec. 24.
■'e are uf the opinion therefore that Beckers had an
eo^uitable lien on the ohickens in ciuestion; that this lien lollows
the proceeds receLved from the sal.^ of the f-.hiclcons.
J\s to thst uart of the decree that IJdward Terman, doing
TSnsinsns under the naiue and style of Edward Terman Company account
to the Farracrs lerchants ■ rodtice Corapany for 3343 pounds additional
poultry, v/e are ot prepared to say that the v/ei^^ht of the evid'^nce
sustains the finding, '-'/e think the court erred in decreeing him
to pay ;994:.55.
.Ve are of the opinion, therefore, that the decree should
"be affir'ned so far as it relates the items of )724.14 and '!!1557.57,
and in so far as it finds that I'eyer Ternan v^as not a neraber of
the co-partnership, and that the decree should be reversed a: in so
far as it decrees that t]dv/ard Ternaan Company should account for
1^994. >35, for add'i.tio-'al poultry it is ols.iraed that he had failed to
aecotint fox-, and the cause is reversed and remanded to the Circuit
Court of KsnVkakee County with directions to enter a decree in
conformity with the conclusions herein reached. Jne fourth of
the costs in the Appellate Court should be taxed against Beckers
and three-fourths against appellants, appellants to pay the nosts
of the additional abstract.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
SECOND DISTRICT J J, JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in
and for said Sucond District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof,
do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above
entitled cause, of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal ot
said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this- day of
in the j'ear of our Lord one thousand
nine hundred and twenty-
Clerk of the Appellate Court
(53761— 3M— 7-27)
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fifth da-sf-Cf February, in
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twerifcy'-nine ,
within and for tJie Second DistrLe^ of the Sta1^,ji*T Illipois
he/ Hon . ^ORmAn L. JONES, Rresiding-
\p , Justi(
Pre3ent--Th
^ / /
Hoi^. FRABKLIN H. BOGG,
/ Hon. THOMAS M. J^X^ T "JiS"Sis-wj.ft^
JUSTUs/l. JOHNSON, Clerk.
FLOYD S. CLARK, Sheriff. O C^
(■
o2
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards,' to-wit: On
the opinion of the Court was filed in the
Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
"U
.■\ -:i^'.-! ■::•.■ rf^^i: A
7987
Agenda 36.
ALBERT C. HAKIIT,
appellee
HUGO ICAi 3TE1IS,
appellant
APPEAL FROM TEE OIRTUIT COURT
OF DUPAGE COUNTY.
Jett, J.
This is an action on the oase brought by Albert
0. Hakin, appellee, against ^-ugo ICarstena, appellant, to
recover damages claimed to have been sustained by Fakin, as the
result of a collision betv/een the automobiles of the respective
parties, on t^e 11th day of -'ay, 1927, at the intersection of
'est and .'esley -.treets, in the City of 'heaton, DvJFage County.
A Jury trial was had and a finding in favor of 'Takin for '187.50;
a motion for new trial was over ruled, as vvas also a motion in
arrest of judgment. Judgment was entered on tho verdict in favor
of appellee and against the appellant for 3187.50, together with
costs and charges of suit. Appellant prosecutes this appeal.
For convenience appellee will be called plaintiff,
and appellant, defendant. The declaration consists of three counts;
the first charges that the plaintiff was driving his automobile in
a southerly direction on est Street at a rate of speed of about
15 or 18 --ailes an lioiir, and t'\at the defendf?.nt ICarstens, at the
time and place aforesaid, drove his automobile w^est along and upon
said .'esley Street, and across the intersection of said '.Vest Street
at a speed of to-wit, 25 to 30 miles an hour, and then and there
drove his automobile so that it collided v/ith the automobile of
the plaintiff.
Tae second count, in addition to the averments in the
first, charges that the collision was the result of reckless and
careless driving of t .e defendant.
VBSV
. Ji OOTH
;t9X,
arl^ BJB ,GX3[s'f-'' -sjcf J&sniB#a£fe aaed" sysff od' 5»ialJ3lo a©s£flL8i> n©Tooe«r
svWoeqsS't 3xW !to asl;. 9il# rtsswd'scf xtoisilloo s 'io ilueoi
,nof39ff¥; ^0 ^*iD Qrf'd" ii-t ,s-t9&*i;!'?: "^©laeW has ^ssW
■ic"^ ni:.-i.«!H lo totsI xix sisi&sll s hi^M iisd ajsw Isl-it T£rtirli k
'oOffi B OEIB 8J8W 8.3 .J&SXJjI ^SVO SBW Ifiild" WSK lOl rtoiifOffi B
ri^fiw T9ii'cf930.t ,05.V8lt -xol ^rf^IIe^^jB Oil* tsnls^s J&as ssIIeqqB lo
.Issqqs s.trfit' ss^iresBOiq; tcsIXs^gA. .Jlxfs ^o ■^e■A'I^i'': tins Etf'EOC
.^•llrf-filMq lt®Il2o ed XI-cw eeXXeags ©snelr
;sdTtXfoti sstdi lo B&eistioo acissiBloeii ©ifT .is'sljn .sXIsqqjs J&flJB
nx sXidoaioctxrB &£n i^ntri.-xL asm Itl^ialelq ^Ai v^s.{fc^ essiBrio #8iij: eriif
d-.r/ocfB "to I)esq;a "io si^Bi b is .leei^E rf"8' iXTSiijfxioe b
'■r-i is ,sG6;faiB2 S-n.a&ns'ie.b sxfcf i: seXxiR 91 «o fiX
xio^x; J&uB ^cjoXb ;>-8S-w sXidocsoJxrjs airxi et o'iii .ixties'xoij^i sobX? -Bxtb emit
cfesict-S uasW i)J:,BS lo nox^oS8T©#xil ©rit seoisb X/x?^ j^esnd'S \e>Lat^'> Lt&z
BiQtS^ JJHB iisri^ i)nj3 ,^rirod dcb seXiia OS o* (5S .;)-xw~o# lo X>®eq8 b cfB
^0 sXlcrcffiOvtirn s;l,t rirf-lw ^efilXXoo i'l d-.sdi os sXicfofsou d-^ eirf 6ToiJ5
.^^xdrrlM- =^-':t
Ms seeXsfee'x ^c d-Xxraei sxiii- si'w acXelXXoo ^''f tQff# ss^ljiBilo ,*ei;Il:
.■tn-Xr:el ''13 &b9X8>t.bo
-2-
The third oount ayers that the plaintiff was driving
his automobile in a southerly direction, on "/est Street, at a
speed of a>iout 15 or 18 miles an hour; that the defendant, driving
7/esterly along and upon Vesley Street, drove his autoraohile at a
high rate of speed aci'oss the street intersection, so recklessly,
carelessly and negligently that it came into collision with the
plaintiff's automobile; that there was then and there In fu].l force
and effect a nu>)lic statute of the otate of Illinois, which is
in the words and fi^mres follov>ring, to-wit; "Tiixcept as hereinafter
provided, raotor vehicles traveling upon puhlio highways shall give
the right-of-way to vehicles approaching along the intersecting
highways from the right, and shall have the right-of-way over
those approaching from the left."
Each of the counts aver that the plaintiff y/as in
the exercise of due care and caution at the time of the collision
of the automobiles, and that he was accompanied by his wife and
daugliter; that the occupants of plaintiff's autorao>iile were injured,
and the automobile damaged; that as a result of the collision he was
req.uired to p?y out for doctor bll.s, for his wife and child, to-wit,
the sum of )500.00.
To the declaration the defendant pleaded the general
issue. The defendant urges a number of reasons for a reversal of
the judgment.
Hakin, the plaintiff, testified that he was driving his
automobile between 18 and 20 miles per hour before reaching the
crossing of Vesley Street, and at the time he reached the crossing
of said street, he was driving about 17 or 18 niles an hour; and
that he was past the middle of the street when the car struck him;
that he saw a cn.r coming from the east when he was a few feet
from the corner of the intersection; that it was about tvo thirds
or half a block away. A witness by the name of IlcOabe, calls d
by the plaintiff, testified that he followed a car down 7est
Street, traveling south, and saw a car coming froa the east, and
the* two cars collided; that he imarined the car traveling south
,L.citos'i±X) xJL*i@ditsoe s at eilciojnccfirjs ai;l
o;:?r c'-'io 7.aj# jr£iroi:( rtB aslifli 81 no SI ^xrocfs lo i>89q[B
■'■'r- ■■••;• -:■--!■ .rf-&e«id"8 ^elesW noqir Mb gjiaXB Tjliej^aew
,. ,_,,,..„: ^ .....i. i}-8©^#a ©xiii" saotea J&eeqE lo si^jsi lisiii
isd-lBflle^axlsB d-qsoxS" j^lw-od- ,sffiwoIXel aei'j/;;^!! ins eiiow sdi ni
" . :' : " ~ LiIo£;0'x;iqJ3 SBOrfJ-
■.:-n:xaj.q_ WHO vj Hiv 'isv^ iii.fai/u;,' S'^io it^ iiOi5^'
SF?..' - ... : LrtB
exi, ■ ■ ' isw |>xl -^BiL^ AsIxiO&Q.cf ,2lid-jc£lBXg siiif .alii:':'
^'i saoletf jcjfToxi -isi- eeXis! OS ^jxjb 8X ssf :^' cr'odwjs
,- .:,oK..-.-T~.'f g^ esiiil}! QsLi J& hits. ^^^sii'S.'^&Xn:- -v ^,r;x2BOio
oxf^d-8 riBs ©x£* nariw Jf'serr^a e^if 1:g eX5f:; cbv^ 9x{ *&££*
aJti-rixW ow* d-irocf^ asw il &si\- se-ts^isci ^j moil
-t'OlXpo .scfsDoM !to ©£(iJS|i sxfd- -^j;^ B&mtr . 'cI-Gri io
d'saVi' iswojj, ISO, js £ew©XX. : /iliteisXq ©ri* co
l)xt,G ,;te30 6Xf* ffictl s«^ln?oo -r^as & yrs - ' ,#961*8
-3-
was going at about 20 miles an hour.
'.Villiam J, ileiser testified on the part of the plain-
tiff, that he witnesced the automobile accident in Vest and -/esley
Streets; that he was coming out of .'/heaton Avenue, by a comer Icnown
as /ittsiord "Corner, and that iCaratens' car passed hi/r at the comer
and he followed behind it, .^'oing about IS 'niles an hrar, and
Karstens ran away from him; that he had been di'iving a car for about
^en years; that he had been an automobile mechanic in the army,
and hfld driven his own car for five years; that in his opinion the
speed of defendant's car, at the time it passed him, and from then
on to the point of impact, v/as from 88 to SO miles an hour; that
he could.^ee the intersection of Test and 'Vesley Itreets; that he
saw plaintiff's car coming out on to the intersection, and believed
it v,as traveling arov.nd SO miles a-n hour; that there was a line
in the center of Teslej' Street; the defendart was dririrg on the
Center of that line, ard perhaps a little past it to the soutiti;
that he could see the impact when the cars csme together; that
the plaintiff's car was struck on the front, and then side-swiped.
-A, n. Kern, testified that he vras a ; olice officer in
the City of lieaton on the day of the accident; that he received
a call and went to the corner of 'est and 'eslejr Streets, at about
five o'clock, found tv/o cars there, one of tviera belonging to -Takin;
tliat I^akin's car vra.s on the southwest corner of "'est and .esley
Streets; that the front of the car, that is the right half thereof,
was on the curb; that Xarstens car was about 15 feet to the south
in front of Hakin's car, in a southvrest angle, a" out three feet
from the curb; that he didn't ?inow vhet er a half of the ear was
on 'Tealey or "est street; that Karstens car was about 15 feet to
the south in front of '"akin's car at a southwest angle, about three
feet from the curb; the police officer further testified t^p t he
asxced Ilarstens, the defendant, to tell him how the accident
happened; the defendant said he wa3 corain?: from the east and was
going 20 miles an hour; tliat when he got to the crossing he had
bwen run into by another car which was Hakin's.
■Anios e.';'";
-U&WOJ..!.^ .. c'n !;;">'
The witness aaked Karstens al)otit the tracks on the
streets anl Karstens said they were his tracks CP.UL',ed by the sliding
of the tires. The police officer testified that they were south
of the center of the road on vesley Street, the left rear tire to
the souih of the middle of Vesley Street, aili^ling southward at
the intersection. he v/itness further testified that Karstens
said he was coming from work and noticed a man hy the naiie of
Selander driving west on Vesley Street and had looked to say
hello to 3elander; Selander was waving to him and he didn't see
the other ear until it hit him.
Mrs. Lenora G'Hagan, called hy the plaintiff, testified
she was on her front porch; that she looked up and saw a car
coming from the north on .Vest Street and after the driver had
driven his car past the center of vest Street, going south, a
car came along from the east on ./esley Street and struck the other
car, throwing it to the west of the center of Vesley Street and
twfetds the curb at the corner,
to 'a/'ds
The defendant, among other things, testified 'hat as
he approached the intersection of Vest and Vesley Streets he was
driving ahout Iwelve miles an -ioiit; that he looked to the north
and saw nothing in the vi/ay of an autoraolDile coming from that
direction and he continued on his way; he looked to the left and
saw ^^r. Selander and his brother-in-law coming along; as he
came opposite them he bid them the time of day and had scarcely
turned his head rihen some thing struck him coming from the north,
which threw him off his balance; that -vhen the inpact came his
oar was al.out seven and one-half feet past the man-Viole, west
of the man-hole; the man-hole is a'nout in the conter of the inter-
section of the tv/o streets.
Selander, who was driving his wagon and team to^Yard the
north, on Vest Street, near the intersestion in q^uestion, testified
that :ie saw Karstens first and then looked up the road rnd savr the
plaintiff, :Takin coming, and looking toward the west; that TTakin
was gaining time on Karstens and Hakin kicked Kastens over and
Karstens car came toward his wa on.
ed.{l hi
arsete.-
-5-
Arendt testified he was on the wagon with Selander and
saw Karstens oar ooming from the eaat. The front ena of the
oar of the defendant was about tiiree feet from the man-hole when
plaintiff's car hit the cai' of the defendait on the riglit side and
swerved it south iato 7/est Street.
The defendant insists that the verdict of the jury is
contrary to, and manifestly against the weight of the evidence.
We have examined the redord 'oearing upon this suggestion of the
defendant and are of the opinion t.ie court did not err in refusing
to direct a verdict, either at uhe close of the plaintiff's
testimony or at the close of all the evidence.
After an investigation of the record we are not prepared
to say that the court committed reversible error in the admission
of evidence. Insti'uctions (1) and (2), given for the plaintiff,
■bearing upon the question of who was entitled to the right of way
as the respective cars approached the intersection, are criticised.
We are of the opinion that the instructions are subject to criti-
oism, but in view of our finding of the facts, v/e thinlc that the •■;
verdict and jad£:,'ment is supported by the evidence. Substantial -j ^.
Justice has been done, and the judgment of the Circuit Court of \
Du Page county will be affirmed. / ^^v
Judgment affirmed.
■"■■■-- " -rlt ^0 TMO
. ■ vi.td-nislQ
::. :rJ: ';? views
.Is.i:-^
0 esA^ irti
STATE OF ILLLNOIS,
SECOND DISTRICT I I, JUSTUS I,. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in
and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of tlie Records and Seal thereof,
do hereby certifj' that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above
entitled cause, of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal ot
said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this — — — day of
in the year of our Lord one thousand
nine hundred and twentv-
Clcrk of the Appellate Court
(53761— 3M— 7-27)
(^ZL^.
V
^
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fifth day of Fabruar,
the year of our Lord
ne Jmousa/id nine hungr
red and
within and for the Sacond Dislfrict of thrf State of
It ^
Present--The Hon. NORMAJI L. JONE^ , Presidijig Justic
Hon. FRANfLIN H. gOGGS, Jusfice
Hon. THOMl^S M. JElT, Justi
JUSTUS L.' JOHNSOKJ, Clerk. /
FLOYD S. CLARK, Sheriff.
662
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On
A.'-i, i^j _ iqon ^^^ opinion of the Court was filed in the
Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
^.■|; ^> /
"f«r .M'i'^;^; hTi - v." 'it p '.' '"i 'i *■"" f't 'i^
5';-'' •.-.'. S^^OHI .
■V . .. , %
..-:cLc .:'^.^j
General Ko. 7952
Agenda no. 2.
In The
APPELUiTE CO RT OF ILLINOIS,
Second District.
October Term, A.D., 1928,
"V
Alexander P., Duncan, David R. For-
Oan, Charles V/. Folds, B. A. ;ie-
'Donald, G, Roy Warren, 'Villiain H.
G-rimes, James C. Fenhagen and
John D. Larkin, Jr. , Trustees of
Oontnercial Credit Trust,
Appellants,
A. H. Bennett J
Appellee ,
Appeal frora Circuit
Court of iVinne-
bago, County.
OPIHIOET by BOGGS, J.
Appellants, as the Coramercial Credit Trust, instituted
an action in replevin against appellee in the Circuit Ooui^t of
Winnebago County. The declaration consisted of t:wo counts. The
rst count charged a wrongftil tailing and the second a wrongful
detention of a certain automobile . To the declaration, appellee
filed pleas of non cejpt, non detinet, a plea^^ of property in
the appellee, a plea of property in a third party, and a plea of
tender.
A Jury being waived, a trial ^vas had before the court,
on a stipulation of facts, acconpanied by certain docujuentary
evidence. The court found property in appellee. Judgment was'
rendered thereon, and a wi-it of re torn o_ habendo was awarded. To
reverse said judgment, this appeal is prosecuted.
Said stipulation was in substance as follows: On Harch
26, 1927, appellee contracted with one !I. ',V. Barenche for the
automobile in q^uestion and a conditional sales contract was
executed pursuant thereto. Said contract was, on the same day,
.aioii.iii ii
.8SGI ,.G:.f ,i:.'i-s1- ,, , .
(- ; ^oxictC .S TefiiiJSxsIA.
( ,H i: C'i .0 -,J3l.8no(F
( , - ■■J .C^ mlcl.
-xl iBsqigA ( ,ed-rfjSll9(jqA
♦ BY
{
( .©sIXeqgA.
.aseos: ^;{j Hoiii'io
lo d-'f£r©0 ^ixi&niO arid- nx saIIoq;ci£ cfexiissfi iii-rslc[©^ ci no Hob hb
f,,-rr-. . -r; ,aol^STBlo9Jo add- oT . elirJOfiJOO-xris-fiflsS-tiso jb lo noid-nsd-ei)
isqo-iq lo 8?s©Xg b' ,d"9itxd6i) goxt ,J'qlgo 0.on lo eselq; Jbsiil
.'le^nsd
.d'j^a.c "'At siela^ £«£[ SBwr Isl^* jg ,J&evijsw bjjxp',
-/;ia*n8fit0oo^ jiifijj-^©? -^cf J&eJcxLS<,iKioooi! ,e*oj3l lo ftoxd-sixfq:idE b 'xto
C" ,i)8J5i^!xvs saw oBi:?5d"jBii oyio^tei lo Jinw £ toa ,if6©i®i{a^ bsneliaei
.i>ad-ja-8®8o^q ax lBQ(iQ:j3 Biii* .^flams^xr^ Jbiee ©aasvai
::&.i'!j fiv' :ewoXIo1 ea sotmi&^sss sxt sbw abUaSMiili^ ±iji^
aSK JT'S'ri^noo aelaa Lsjccg i*i/"^'" '^ i>rfB xiold'BSifp ai Qlldoss.otsrB
.Yaft SfUBg OiU jEO ,Bi5W ifeBld-nOJ. . CJeicnrf ;hr:Rrrp-.n,' XlsdiroSXS
-2-
assigned to the Commercial Credit Trust, an unincorporated
association composed of appellants. There^after, certain pay-
ments were made on said contract, and on October £1, 1927, there
was unpaid thereon the sum of ,;;370.35. Appellants having made
demand therefor appellee proffered payment upon appellants execut-
ing a hill of sale. Appellants countered by offering to cancel
said note and sales contract, and to deliver the same to appellee.
It being insisted ty appellants that they were not req^uired to
execute a bill of sale in order t,o entitle them to payiaent of the
balance of said contract. Appellants were rei*using to execute said
bill f sale on accouJit of certain irregularities in connection
with the handling of automobiles by Barrenche.
In the documentary evidence stipulated were the following
letters. Letter of September 22, 1927, by appellants, to appellee,
contains the following:
"Replyin,? to your letter of the l':Jth, we beg to advise
that, because of the rather involved s.nd irregular condition of
M. V7. Barrenche' 3 affairs, we feel unable to give you a hill of
sale on this car, because of the possibility of complications In
the event someone else has a prioi' lien. 'He do not believe sr.ch
a condition exists, but it is in line v/ith our policy not to issue
such a bill of sale at this time. I'he release of the paid in
full contract and .julgment note on this account are, v/e believe,
all the evidence necessary to indicate that our acoount has been
satisfied and that the purc'iaser is p-O longer indebted to us."
In a letter written 3eptember 23, 1927, appellants say,
among other thiigs: "We hold title to the automobile which
?.!r. Bennett has under tiie conditional sales contract which was
made out by Barrenche and S^igned by Ir. Bennett, and upon trans-
ferring this contract and Judgment note to Itr. Bennett's possession,
with our indorsement indicating that the accoujit is fully satisfied,
we fail to see v/here Ilr. Bennett could possibly be talcing any
chance."
Appellants contend: First, that "the alleged tender
(by appellee), being conditional, is invalid." Second, "that the
lOU VjQ^yt
soiree
, vOi.i ^^qQJi
IJtdoffioc;
..toiese;
.Loq^riB lo j&.oeofmoo f!oid"Bi:ooaej3
^-+r-,v, :,r -.■,^ r£0 g^fifli 91SW e^^xf9ra
-. // ' -iiat.
., IT biBS
riucer.Q
^^j:,cf
: : 0 elrfd' xic 9l£8
j:iid' js riojje
^ •.iriAr-^y 4v r-Ti 4 -*■ (? r
nJL
''.eo<nsifo
.'Ilaqiia ■'jrT)
-3-
tender, to te valid, must always be kept good." Third, "That the
bill of sale provided for in the motor vehicle act, is inoperative
to the facts in issue." Lastly, "if the court construes said Act
as operative, the same is therefore unconstitutional, because the
effect is to distinguish automobiles as a distinct class of mer-
chandise, whereby a seller must convey title absolutejr by a bill
of sale, and not under conditional sale contract or as provided
by the Uniform Sales Act."
The first point raises the question as to the right
of appellee to demand a bill of sale. Paragraph 18 of chapter 952,
Cahill's Statutes, among other things provides that: "Upon the
sale of a motor vehicle by a manufactiorer or dealer, he shall
thereupon give to the purchaser a bill of sale, setting forth
the names and adlresses of the purchaser, the date of purchase,
together with a description of such motor vehicle, showing
names of tie manufacturer, style, factory and engine nujubers,
and amount of the horse-rower, " etc. The contract entered into be-
tween Barrenohe and appellee reserved the title to said axitomobile
to the seller urtil full payment therefor had been nade. As stated,
said contract vvas assigned on the same day to appellants. Appell-
ants, in the letter above set fort?i, state that the title to said
automobile was in thorn. It therefore follows that, under said
statute appellee was entitled to a bill of sale, and was war-
ranted in maiing his tender conditional thereon.
On the second proposition, it is only necessary to say
that the correspondence in evidence discloses that appellee,
prior to the beginning of said suit, had tendered to appellants
the amount they were olaining on said contract. The stipulation
shows "that the sum of $370.35 is now tendered in open court,
under the same circumstances as heretofore offered."
IJo propositions of law were tendered by either side on
the hearing of said cause, and no Question was raised in t' e
trial court with reference to said tender, other than it was
insisted tliat the same \ira.s a conditional tender, which contention
we have held is not good. As to the third proposition, a reading
of the statute above q.uoted clearly discloses that it is
i>OX!.
.n;. id-'
^Oi^tfftif 'T: fi
"3 ^isti^&i^
-'ten sriJ d J:^Ic^
'.3B arid' ^sfiffxr
-lew wAl
: ;;;,; ;^ 'x a;3Vf no tie ">■ ■■ ,
-4-
applioable to the facts stipulated.
There are two answers to appellants' fourth contention.
First, as atovo stated, no propositions of law were submitted.
The constitutionality of said aot was therefore not raised in the
trial court and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
Second, having appealed said oause to this court, and this court
having jurisdiction of the questions raised on the assignment
of errors exce it ip. to the constitutionality of sail statute,
that qiuostion is therefore waived. Case v. Oity of Sullivan, 222
111. 56-63; ?. C. C. & dt. L . Ry. Co. v. Chica^f^o, 242 111. 178-
185; Lujcen v. L. S. & M. 3. Ry. Co., 248 111. 377-385; -Armouj
& Go. V. Industrial Board, 275 111. 328-535; Ghiea.j;o-Sandoval Coal
Co. V. Industrial Gomraission, 301 111. 389-5S2.
For tie ressons above set forth, the judgment of the
trial court will be affirmed.
Judgment affirsied.
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
SECOND DISTRICT ] J, JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in
and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof,
do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above
entitled cause, of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal ol
said Appellate Court, ,it Ottawa, this day of
in the year of our Lord one thousand
nine hundred and tnentv--
Clcrk of the Appellate Court
(53761— 3M— 7-27)
A.-^
^'
^^
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesdajf.^'jAie fifth day of Februar^,
j^^usand /ine hundred and twenty-jiiine ,
the year of our Lfcrd one
within and for t/ie Second Distri^fct of the State of Illin^
Present--The Hon. ijoRMAN L. JONES ,/ Presiding* Jus'^-ice .
I ^
Hon. FRANKLIN H. BOgfGS , Justice. \
Hon. ITHOMAS M. JETI, Justice,
JUSTJpS L. JOHNSON, Clerk.
FLOYD S. CLARK, Sheriff.
'W v, J- t~~.d
O i JL 6 -J -i._y /^
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On
the opinion of the Court was filed in the
APR 8- 1*^'^'^
Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit;
;£.> •■.;: i^;:
General IIo. 8012 Agenda No. 2E.
In The
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS,
Second District
Fetrriary Term, A. D. , 1929.
PEOPLE OF THE 3 TATS OF ILLINOIS
ex rel. ANDRE"/ RU3 SELL as Aw-
ditor of rublio Acoo-unts of the
State of Illinois,
appellee ,
vs.
FARLIERS STATE &. SAVINGS BANK
(R0B1]RT B. HAINAN!, Petitioner),
appellant.
Appeal from the
Circuit Court of
Kankake e , C ount y .
OPINION by B0GG3, J.
A bill was filed in the cirouit court of Kankakee County
by the Auditor of Public Account , to v/ind up the affairs of The
Farmers State and Savings Bajik of G-rant Park, Illinois. A decree
was entered on April 10, 1920, appointing appellee receiver of said
bank, and ordering him ''to take possession of the books, records and
assets of every description of said Bank, and to collect all debts,
dues and claims belonging to it, and to hold and administer the same
under the direction of this Court."
On April 14, 1928, appellant filed a sworn petition
alleging that he is the school Treasurer of Township 32 "orth,
Range 13 in said county; that he filed a claim against said Bank for
$5632.00; "that said last mentioned sua was school money, which
your petition deposited in said bank as a trust fund belonging to
said Trustees of Schools; that afterward said Receiver paid to
your pet tioner one hal*^ of said sum, and the balance of said trust
fund, to wit 02816.00, has not been paid, or any part thereof."
,SS .oH sMsbA
SI08 .oTT IsieaQii
.$sei ,,.(1 .a ,.j2T9'i -^j'XsSir^d 6'5:
. "v^ irisso 0 , e ©ilBljaBif
SLQYillll %0 2JA.TC EKT 10 SJ^oa^
-XfA S£ US': 2UH WMGHi ,let X9
siii tea siasiCQOk q116ss1 lo loilb
,aionlIII lo 9#s*8
ilLiS 85T?[IVA.8 c& aiAICe EiiSMHAI
,^«BlIsqq:js
.EBSOa ^<f flOIHlSiO
)3lB3iflus5[ lo Jfrttro© iixTc^io Slid- tti &&li1 eBw ILic L
oin' io a'xisllJB arid- (jir Afii^ o* (ad'xttroooi 'silcfif^ lo toillur^, &dt ijcf
^og-r ssXIs^fs Siil^nxo^fjB ,OSCI ,01 liigi ito -Bsiadris bbw
3 cl-cosi ,8:Sooer exii to nolaeeasoq s^Tsd- od-" mlti s^l^eJ&tco i)xis ,:il.asrf
. ad'd'af) lis d-oslloo o^ Mb ,3lflsfi Lisa lo nolifqltoeeJb ■?ievs lo eteses
n ■.-- <v©d-elc:j:fi!X)£ Mb Jblori od" i>nB ,d-x o;t sixisjciclsd amlBlo Mb 88xrJ&
",it"5x/oO aXiii to nci:f-09'xiJ5 «rfJ isJbrnj
rr-xd-id-eq: jK'sowb b ijsAtil: dT.sIl9(jqB ,8SeX ,M IItqA. xtO
,-cia©S5 SS gidsnwcT lo istxtsbsiT Xoorios exfj el- 3d isdi snisells
)1 2toBS Ifxee *8«Ibsb aslsl© b JbsXxl ©ri d-Bxf^ ;TC*ixxi-oo .bxr^e nx SI ©sabH
.cfoirNf ,-^9jaoK Itodse BJSm mse LettoMaem teBL S}1bb d-BiiJ" ;00. S53S|
o: xjxBo aavIsoeH J&Jtae Sttjsvne^'is isdt laloodoS lo seed-Bxrrl £lBe
Jir.y.::-^ fjj ■:^.!:: lo eo.-i,?.i-ad 9dt j&xis ,pfittra J>iBs lo-JjlBxf enc tesnQlii&eq 'tsjox
-a-
Said petition prayed that the receiver be ordered to pay appellant
said balance of ;2816.00 a in full, etc.
On Au^\ist 3, 1928, the receiver filed a petition for an
order directing the (nanner of payment of certain claims, alleging
that "among the various deposits in this said Bank were a n-umber
of accounts which had been deposited by various individuals, in-
stitutions, organizations or groups of persons, " listing 39 aocoxints,
the total of which was ,310,018.39, and among which is "Robert B.
Haminan, Treasurer, )5685.92." The petitron further alleges that
proofs of said claims were made; that the receiver "had treated each
of said accounts as being an ordinary accoiint, and has paid out
to the vax'ious persons, organizations or groups of people herein-
before listed, 50/5 of the amounts shown hereinbefore as being due
and owing to the said persons, organizations or groups of people;
that the payment so made is tie same payment that has been made to
every creditor of said Bank who has made due proof of his, her or
its account."
Said petition further alleges that each of said persons,
etc., "now demand t-iat each of the accounts hereinbefore listed
* * * bg declared preferred or prior claims, and that said deposits
be paid out in preference and priority to all other claims now on
file, * * * by reason of the fact tliat the same are trust funds;
that your petitioner does not icnow of his own Icnowledge whether
the said deposits are trust funds or not," and prays tliat said
matter be set down for hearing and that the court "enter such
necessary order or orders as may be required to direct and guide
your petitioner as receiver of said Bank in the matter of the
payment of said claims', " etc.
Upon hearing, a decree v/as rendered, finding that said
claims, including the claim of appellant, were not entitled to pre-
ference "and that such said fujids, whether they be trust funds or
not, have no preferehce or priority as to payment."
To reverse said decree appellant prosecutes this appeal
.0*1 , 0O.3X8S4 1:0 eonslBd blse
•xecfffiT- ;-. sasw ^[xieS S)Ibb aixi* nx s?x«og;ei) aa-oliav eiid- snoBia" d-Bifd-
.5hx aflpc: 0€»i?laG^*& sped' ^sri rioirlw B^mrcocp. lo
,'d. d-TscToH" si xJoiitw ^tioms bus , ?" " ' / i:^ ajsw doiifw lo JCjBd-p* erfd-
-srid- 2©s9llB iSffd-Txrl no'Jcd^ld-sg ©j ,38S8| ,iert£r8J8©*cf. ^,flfMiEBifiK
&6d-serid- 3Bii" larlsos's: Siit ;^Bti;i , ^.. _. . law ssil^fo Mbb to elrocrrq:
tj/o .5I'.'i(; GJ^f!' iir.B .drfirooss Tj^aGlJa^G its %ttl&4S bs ed-mrcoes Slss to
~.";j":6"' a-X^iois io e0oid'j3siHi>aTCo ,anoei6g axiciisv srld- od"
cfflis'iori flwcrie gd-axj-oasB erf^^ to- ^8 ,i>ed-sil sioistf
:el-:c 10 anoxd-ssixxas • niise Bd& o& sxiJtwo J!>xu?
:-t 3 0.;! ?4 *sff# d'XtSffi-^jgq aaiSB sr'i aJt ©J&jsat 08 d^n©/Ti-^3q Qdi i&d^
ro -10.:' ,Bi;: ...0 J- 0^5 airii . ''!T hLssB to lo^lLsio "^^isTe
" .trjjjooojB sii
DBS d-BxiJ ees9ll£ Tsiid-ax/l nci^id^eq; J&xb2
- ;- jiMSTsrf Bd-axrooos ad* to ifo^s d-erid- Mjamsf* won'' ^.od-e
a^xaog&L .v...r.-.i ^.adif £>m .ainxjslo ioiio[ ao isTrsla^q; J^siBlseJi ||(f * * *
wo "woa sffilBlo neifd-o IIjb" od^ •^d-lioliq iniz 9oa9islei[q[ rrl d-xro jbi.ej scT
jaijrixrl d-airit e-Sfs ssBa sxi* iM^ toBi erfd- lo nosBei -^cT * ■*" * ,9x1^
'^^Iwo cat mwo efd : :. Ldxjsq; oxroy #«xW'
iTjjsrrq £>"■ .'j&ru/l: d-efrid- eij* 8#.tBO(T9J5> JSlsa eii*
9xf* i^Bild- Mfi s; -orf^d^sffi
aJiiug jBecs d'osrtli od' ^eilirpei scf vi'iiiBesoen
xii 2£xle; nsTieoaa ba ^»ttol;Md'ei| iiio\
.od-s ".sjsijslo JBlae lo d'neci-^jsci
j&iise diJriu §ni£rfxl ,.fi©nc3l)xisn aBw qqioqL. a ,^ai^aesl aoqV!
'-''"■' 'i iosx snsw ,^aBLIe<iqa to ffiialo sxld- snxjbxilonx ,f;mxBlo
-^ ©rf vsrld- ^exfd-sriw .sJirayl J&iije rtsxra iaxii J&cs" so.neis^
".d'asiin.^sT ou h^i ■\jd"±^oi*cq[ io soxtsisteK"^ "" mreri , ton
..stsfOOBCi -qqs seioai J&Iss ©Bievs.t
-3-
Ajpeliant testified on the hearing that he was school
treasurer in said Township, and that he deposited the school funds
in the Farmers State and Savings Bank. Tie further testified:
"Cashier was Charles iayhorn. I told him when I made the deposit
that it was school money, belonging to the school fund. He made
the entires^of that deposit in this book which Ls the passbook
given me by him. * ^ * i cLij^ ^j-t at any time intermingle these
funds ef a with any funds of my own. Kept a separate and distinct
account. I had a separate personal account of my ovm and a separate
pass book."
Ihe pass book, which was offered in evidence, is entitled:
"Savings Department.
The Farmers State L Savings Bank of Grant Park
In Account V/ith
Robert B. Hamann, Treasurer.
Savings Account.
This book must be presented when money is withdrawn
from it. Four Per Gent Interest on Savings Dei^osits GorapoTinded
S eml- Annual 1 y. "
The entries in the pass book show a deposit on jiJarch.
30, 1917, of -sags. 40, and on April 13, 1918, of ,'i880.00; certain
withdrawals in 1917, 1918 and 1919; credits for interest payments
by the bank, made on June 30 of each year, and a balance on July
15., 1919, of 3563E.73. Ko other evidence was offered by appellant
or by the receiver.
It is contended by appellant that said bank held said
fund in trust, and that he is entitled to h^ve said claim preferred.
Section 68 of chapter 12E, Gahill's Statutes, provides
among other things that the bond required to be given by a township
treasurer of school funds shall be conditioned "that he shall faith-
fully discharge the duties of liis office according to lav/, and de-
liver to his successor in office, * ♦ * all moneys, books, apapers,
securities and property which shall oome into his hands or control as
•.fjes.ti&B@i tsdists/i. ©H ,2!:iiE?[ egnxyBB J&i^ ©ii-a*8 eicsfflifi'J er?;^ ill
;M&o-- " ' o.!bjsffl I nsriw mid Mat I .ii^ori^aS BelosifD asw asijlpsp"
...rchaati 9d^ ai doliim Sood" eld^ ai flBoqob drr::- 'i:C~B^^i:,-
ci-jsiJSq'sB B i^gs^ ,mo Tjai to aJ&iiift "sytjci p^J-ivv' « *© BJinnl;
'^jsisqee .'i Jaxis mnfo -^sm to d-rarobofi iWosasti ad-Bia^sc
£tcMW d-asrc : ■ '
.■xe'j'irHRft'T'" .'■••.•■■ sn'v'^'''^ .-T ^'■t s ■.f r j 5 "
1-a-t
, . . ,05
li^ii'i i. ailjjv"' :il eiijw^iijxld'iw
■' ■■.-•— "^'>-- 2fiw ©SKSMve «reri*o c': ."'".f.SSSl to \QLQI ,.5X
lorf :toBcf j&iJSB uMd- #11811 ©(jqB Tjd' JbeMistf-fioo e? j^
,f)eiielf^q_ islsxo bi.S8 er&d od" isld-id-ris ei ©Jtl #Bri* i»iis , : i Lnist
Be^i¥o<X0- ,89J-ii-;fBd-£ o'lilifBC ,asX iB&q£.df> to B5 xioi^o©?
^IriBiJwr nerl% tttf o* J&eaixrpftn JiiiGcr e, a^nlrid' aeritfo gnoEJi?
ooed" Xljsria sJ&xmt Xoorfos to "x^isssBBii
-'•-f! i)afl .wijl oif Sft-tJ&^oooB «oJtttb ■;>-,f asiBxioBli' Y-CXxrt
,8'X:S5B5^ ,8;SG0r : 'Xaxtl
;•^ Xosd-no© no sLaui aixi Ov*"!;! siiioo IXbub iioiiiw ijd'xeq.O'iii M.a' tii)xit'XJfoeB
-4-
such township treasurer from the date of his "boncL up to the time
that his successor shall have q.ual4.fiecL,"
Section 71 of the same chapter provides: "The township
treasurer shall he the only lawful depositary and custodian of all
township and district school funds, and shall demand, receipt for
and safely keep, according to law, all honds, mortgages, notes,
moneys, effects, hooks and papers of every description helonging
to his township."
The supreme court has held in numfeEous cases, that a
school treasurer is an insurer as to the funds committed to his
charge. Thompson v. Board of Trustees, 30 111. 95-lOE; Swift v.
Trustffi'es of Schools, 189 111. 584-588; Trusties of Schools v.
Cowden, E40 111. 39-44. In People v. MoGrath, E79 111. 550, the
Court at page 557 says:
"The rule of law is well settled in this state that a
public officer and his sureties are liable upon his official bond
for moneys received by him by virtue of hi a fo- of his office as
an insurer, and are '^ot relieved from liability by loss of the
money without the officer's neglect or default. It was so held
in Estate of Ramsey v. People, 197 111. 572; Swift v. Trust*es
of Schools, 189 111. 584; Oeltjen v. People, 160 111. 409; and
Thompson v. Board of Trustees, 30 111. 99. In those cases it
was elearly decided that the liability of an officer was not
that of a bailee, but that he was an insurer of the funds coming to
his possession, and could not be relieved from payment by unavoid-
able accident or by the misfeasance or negligence or felony of
another, or by any other reason than the act of God or the public
enemy. The same doctrine is held in United itates v. Prescott,
3 How. 578, and Smyth v. United States, 188 U. S. 156."
The statute further makes it the duty of a township treas-
urer "to keep the principal of the township fund loaned at interest,
* * * secured by mortgages on unencumbered realty situated in this
state, worth at least 50*^' more than the amount loaned."
It will therefore be observed that appellant, as such
•rirfsnwod' d^sse
x'l aolto&t ,
r8.-)f' -^'X5V5 _ ^^0- Ms/i^ S3[oocf ,^a#08l:l? \s~sridlff"
«j
, : . ... . . ; . ,;:3i)vroD
.EdJes IIs'v ex ,V7£I Ic slri siiT''
Piiif 1o 88C. 1.;: J J. .roll fiavQlIsn !for Q^: .3 I^tfA ,'io*xxrBjrfl GS
5e?.-+r'j:'\: , . . ;??.-. .1.*/ . ' 9!}-s#iB!E nt
. i.fi osi , . . , .-tioojtfoe io
- .6©;Mx3;U itf |ti9jM si 8iiJ:r£;ho'oJ&; acec. ^. . .itmens
, tfeetad-pj iortlic Siif* gees!: o&" tcti/
-5-
treaaurer, was not following the statute with reference to the
loan-ing of said funds. By placing said funds on deposit with ssid
hank, with a provision that 4^ interest should he paid thereon,
he was incurring a liability which he need not have incurred had
he followed the provisions of the statute.
TCven though it he conceded that appellant, on making the
deposit of sp.id funds with said hank, stated to the cashier that the
same were school funds, and even though appellant did not vrdhgle
said funds with his personal funds, the bank did not thereby beconE
a trustee of said fund, so as to give the same a preference. To
so hold would be in effect to hold that the bank could dissipate
its assets in the payment of interest for the riere privilege of
keeping a fund as a special deposit, without having any use theref.
Th6 evidence in this case wholly fails to disclose an^^' reqaest or
direction to said banK: to keep said fund intact and separate.
The conclusive implication from the agreement to pay interest is
that it was not so to do, but was to corimingle the sane ■ith
its other assets for the purpose of making loans and profiting
thereb . This "being the state of the record, appellant A'OLild
not be entitled to a preference.
.'/hile it has been freciuently held t:iat money held in a
fiduciary capacity by one who places it in a bank can be recovered
from the bank br the beneficiary or cestui gue trust, where the
fund can be traced and indgntified, (School Trustees v. Kerwin,
E5 111. 73-77; Kirby v. '.7ilson, 98 111. 240-247; Woodhouse v.
Crandall, 197 111. 104-110; People v. luka State Bank, 2E9 .App.
4-10), the particular itund must be capable of indentif ication.
There must be a preservation of the distinctness of said fund.
'floodhouse v. Orandall, -supra, 111; '.Vetherell v. O'Brien, 140 111.
146-152; Union national Bank v. Croetz, 138 111. 125-135. The
^irden of proof is upon the one claiming a specific lien upon
assets in the hands of an assignee for the benefit of creditors.
Union Trust Go. v. Trumbull, 137 111. 146-179. In Bayor v.
American Trust & Savings Bank, 157 111. 68, the court says:
"It has freq.uently been announced as the law of this
,' ijJ8B91u
< :''B(.:
cjitJ" 8.s\v ed
' sbaafl i»i<38
•.*t5'&4^ll
5S
:ov.
-6-
a
State that even in/oase where a definite and actual trust fund
which possesses all the attributes of a separate and distinct
identity, has been so mixed and mingled \iith. other funds as to
render iJi^entiflcation impossible, the cestui que trust, in the
event of the insolvency of the trustee, is remitted to the
position and the rights of a general creditor." Citing Trustees
of Schools V. Kirwin, supra; Otis v. Gross, 96 111. 612;
IVet erell v. CSrien, supra; '^Tnion national Bank v. Goetz, Supra;
Mutual Accident Association v, Jacobs, 141 111, 261.
It should also be observed that the major portion of
said fund was deposited in .larch, 1917, and ''that the total reserve
of said Bank, on !.!aroh 25, 1920," as found by the trial court,
"was less than wkeli three percent of its total deposit liabilities,
and that said Bank is wholly and irretrievably insolvent." ""he
right to priority of a special depositor in an insolvent bank
is limited to the smallest amount of cash on hands in the bank
and deposited to its credit in correspondent hanks, subseqaent
to the oomningling of the deposit with the general funds of
the bank, j^eople v. luka State Bank, supra, 13; Woodhouse v.
Orandall, supra; Ilacy v. Roedenbeck, 227 Fed. 346; People v.
Auburn State Bank, 215 App. 133. There was no attempt to prove that
at the date the receiver took charge, said bank had anj"" cash what-
ever in its vaults, or any sums of money on deposit with corres-
pondent banks. It therefore follows that this decree must be
affirmed, if for no other reason than the failiore of appellant to
make this proof.
It is i^Tsisted by counsel for appellee that the decree
ot order here appealed from ts merely an interlocutory order,
and that the appeal should be dismissed for that reason. This
point is not well taken. Said order in effect fixed the rights
of the parties in said funds. It was therefore an appealable
order. Kavanagh v. Bank of America, 239 111. 404-406; People
*. Illinois State Bank, 312 111. 614.
For the reasons above set forth, the decree of the
trial court will be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Mi »i.si^
;ai &di to *xis"^e
- •■'■ •" -.-J xioxd-laoci
IV
■""': "-^ 6ed-j.80C[©f) iiiis
'J- ai^sfa
_-i/ce laiii
.Jioimllljs diit
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
SECOND DISTRICT j I, JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in
and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof,
do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above
entitled cause, of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal ot
said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this day of
_in the j'ear of our Lord one thousand
nine hundred and twentv-
Clerk of the Appellate Court
(63761— 3M— 7-27) . .
'■,/' ')-
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and h«ld at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fifth day of February, in
the year of our Lorfl one thousand nine hundred and twenty-
within and for th^' Second District of the State of Illii
Pre3ent--The Hon. NORMAN L. JONE^', Presiding Justice
y Eon-v FRANKLIN H. BDGGS, Just><5e.
Hon. TrfDMAS M. J^TT , Jrr^ice/
JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk.
FLOYD S. CLARK, Sheriff.
662"^
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On
the opinion of the Court was filed in the
Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
Appeal from the
Circuit Court of
Vinnebago Coujity,
Fritz Ellison and iiisther
Ellison,
appellants,
7951 V.
Eri3k Ellison, Administrator,
etc. , et al,
appellee ,
JONES, P.J.
Esther Ellison and Alva Lonn, as copartners, o\'med
and operated a restaurant under the na;ne of "Svea lafe". Esther
Ellison died February G, 1927, and Eriek Ellison was appointed
administrator of her estate.
On February 19, 1927, the surviving partner filed an
inventory showing the partnership assets and liabilities. On
the same day he procured an order of the oi'obate court to sell
at private sale, the half interest of decedent in the co-
partnership business.
On March 1, 1^27, the administrator gave Fritz Ellison
and his wife, whose name is also Esther Ellison, a bill of sale
in the usual form for"the undivided one-half of the copartnership
property of :^3ther Ellison, deceased, and Alva Lonn, doing business
as the Svea Cafe". The consideration as expressed therein is
^•;2500. At the same time a written contract was executed between
the parties, reciting that it was not yet determined how the
consideration of ,'2500 should be paid in order to protect the
purchasers; that the bill of sale and the purchase money should
be left in escrow with the Commercial Rational Bank of Rockford,
Illinois, until it was determined by the probn e court of tha.t
county how the money should be paid; and that upon such de-
termination the bank should pay the money under the order of the
court and deliver the bill of sale to the purclia-sers. The bill of
sale and the purchase money were deposited in escrow as provided
by the Tontract. Alva Lonn and appellants conducted the business
together from :!arch 1, 1927, to about February 1, 1928, when it
was discontinued because it 'ms unprofitable.
,xioe1IJ
,seJXeq;q.B
^stnloctr R RKv ftaslIIS koitS J&jkjb sYS^X ,S Ajiisjj-icfe'? f)eiJb noeillE'
Xlsa od- i'n'oc $i»4iOiq sdi lo la&io [sa J&saixoo*xg 9.ri "ijjsX) ©cuss er^
-00. Slid" nl d-nei>909£ 'io c^S8'X9!l■XIX tl^ ©xfd ,9fe sd-BviTi^ d's
aoeillS. s&rri 6V3s ^oitsid-axiiiia.fcs sjSd- ,VS(?X ,X rio^tfiK n'
sXsa I9 IXi cf s ,jEroBxXXS isxIcl'sK oeXjs ei 9.msrt ©eorfw .eliw alii J&xie
q:irfsisni"i.sc[oo sxid" 'to JiLeii-eixo X>9X>lvi;^mf ©£{iJ'"i0l kiioI^ X.C5xrs.cr erf* sit
3asxfi:30d anxoli .xasoJ btXA has t&sa&Qoeh .xsoaiXXS nstrivtBa lo x&iecioiq
Bx ni9i©r{# £98ssispsf s.s nclJj-srsXiiBXToo ©riT ."elfiO b«t8 ©rid- sjs
r:ro^wi9cf iiacfxToexQ 8SW J©,B^cJ-floo .<!t9;J cMiw i? ©mid- ©mBs erid- d-A ,0063$'
.i# wort J&sffjtmn9#9i) *«^ jj-oc e^w d-i d-Erf;:^ i^at&loei ,s@]:&tBq ©rfcf
arfd- d-ooi}-0":fT 0* ie/;io xiJ: l>x.Ba srf hlisods 005SC lo noid-BisI^Jtsrroo
IiXxj-orfe, venoci essrfoixrg .srid- .ftss 0X^3 1© XXicf esii i&£l& jR^seBBriotarg
.xi^oliooH lo ia&E XswolitsT? XjaxcjisfiimoO arid xJd-lw wofoee ni d-lsX stf
d-Bri^ lo d-Tifoe s./isdoTq axf;t ijcf JSenlETad-sfj sbw di Xtd-mr ,gJto0i:XXI
~^b ffoxrs jKoaxr ^tfixi* £xt.e jfiisq; &(f ^Xxroxfe -^snont sxfd" woxf Yd-nxroo
sitt Ic 1 8.610 Slid" lefimr -^©jaoin ©rid- ^sq; iXjrofie ^fiistf srid- Holdfixilcnisd-
lo XXJio'" snT .a"iS8.effoi£rg sri* od- ©Xs8 lo XXM erid" asTxXsJb i)ii.8 d-ixroo
beljivoici 8R wo'isss Ki isd-isoasS siew -yiextoni SBBrioixrq arid- J&hjb sXbs
r-ioctlsxrcf orfd 5ed-sxj£ffoo a.t.rfalXsc[q.e jbcB cxxoJ svLk .;toj8td-floo arid- "^cT
d-J: nsK.v ,eSPi ,x ^TfirT'icfe'-f ^irod-B od- -.VSeX ,X rioisM fljo-cl isrideBCXd-
, eXc-Bd ilo'iicTiiJ/ acr.v dl OKxrf.ood' S)Qsjni.:TnQ!iP.s:& ss^''
-2-
Thereafter appellants filed their bill of complaint
against the said administrator and af^ainst the Commercial
National Bank of Rookford. It sets out the making of the two
agreements and alleges the said sum of .'.2500 was to be left in
escrow with the bank until such time fs it should be determined
whether or not the administrator could transfer to appellants
good title to one-half interest in the "J^ea. Cafe", free from
enoiimbranoe and not charged with the payment of any debt or
obligation. It further alleges that on or about :arch 1, 1927,
appellants began to work for Alva Lonn at the cafe under an
oral agreement, by which they v/ere to be paid for their services
a sum commensurate wit'a the profits until the delivery to them
of a proper transfer of decedent's interest in the business;
that after such trajisfer, they and Alva Lonn would then conduct
the business as partners; that the profits arising from the busi-
ness were not sufficient to pay appellaftts a reasonable, wage
for their services; that no further partnership agreesffint was
ever made betv/een them and Alva Lonn; that no transfer vra.s made
to them of any interest in the business; and that the partnership
which existed between Alva Lonn and decedent, j^sther Ellison,
owed debts in excess of its assets, and in consequence thereof,
the bill of sale was without consideration and void.
The bill prays that the bill of sale and contract be
cancelled .and declared null and void, and that the bank be ordered
to pay appellants the ^2500 deposited in escrow. The answer of
the administrator denied^ that the tBrms of the escrow were as
alleged in the bill and that appellants made the alleged oral
agfeement to work for Alva Lonn. It alleged that appellants
pxipchased an interest i^ the business, as partners, and engaged
in its operation until it was closed about the time of the filing
of the bill, and that so far as appellee is informed, appellants
are still in possession of the property.
An intervening petition was filed by one Hugo Larson
on behalf of himself and all other creditors. It sets out sub-
sta-ntlallv the same allegations as the answer and prays that the
>'i«C sevis^' 9A^
Cht ©*r®r
'jJ3 1310
ad^jaxtrenscttDoo blub i?
A^ {8v
'0 jjjH«. 9-Cjei8 i«a I
•- T9V9
..... od
? rfclxiw
'5 i\ J
.i ..'Ilc^s eis
hna ijsKramjs
-3-
money in escrow te paid to the administrator for the payment of
the creditors of Esther Ellison, deceased. The Commercial National
Bank filed no answer and was defaulted.
On the hearing, a decree was entered, finding that the
administrator conveyed his intestate's interest in the business
to appellants; that Alva Lonn Icnew of and consented to such con-
veyance; that thereafter appellants and Alva Lonn were partners
in the conduct and operation of such business to about February
1, 19E8; and that the creditors of the partnership compfiised of
Lonn and Esther Ellison, deceased, acquiesced in and consented to
such sale and are now estopped from asserting any claim agt inst
the partnership property.
The decree ordered the bank to pay the money in escrav
to the administrator and directed him to keep it separate from the
other fands of the estate, and to pay therefrom the creditors
of the partnership which had existed between Alva Lonn and
said decedent pro rata. It also directed that if any balance should
remain, it should be paid to the general creditors of decedent's
estate.
The chancellor was correct in holding that the contract
does not provide for leaving the purchase money in escrow until
it could be determined whether or not the administrator could
transfer a good title free from encumbrance or obligation of
creditors. The contract contained no sujh provision. The
agreement is that the money was to be held in escrow until
it could be determined how it should be disposed of, so that
the purchasers -Tould be protected. Undoubtedly, the deposit
was made to protect the purchasers against the claims of
creditors of the original partnership. Appellants bought and
took possession of decedent's interest in the _^roperty. They
operated the business in conjunction with Alva Lonn for
almost a year, and the facts show that a partnership existed
between them involving the property in question.
Appellants claim that the surviving partner became
vested with the title to all the partnership property for the
^^ir'lrrj;
■^-' -"'■ ' 6rcs ©Ij8b doise
:lJEj;oxia e„
.©o.sd'se
-70Cii ioa eeo.f)
.eiocMJbsio
.14 ri;)-x,?;
cf eM Jbe;
.•^^Wd Oif
-iiiisia^
.4.
purpose of settling the partnership affairs, and that until
such settlement was macL4 the administrator had no title or
legal interest in the partnership a:;sets. Such is the general
rule. (Linn v. Downing, 216 111. 64.) Sec. 89 of the -4d-
ministration let (Chap. 3, Rev. Stat.) provides that such
surviving partner sliall liave the right to continue in the
possession of the effects of the partnership and proceed to
settle its business. Clause D, Sec. S5, of the Uniform
Partnership .Act, (Chap. 106 a Rev. Stat.) provides that upon
the death of a partner, his rights in specific partnership
property vests in the surviving partner, hut such surviving
partner has no right to pot^seas the partnership property
for any but a partnership purpose. The enactment of the Uni-
form Partnership Act made no change in the law regarding the
title to the assets of a partnership upon the death of a
partner. V/hile a surviving partner takes the exclusive legal
title to the assets for the payient of partnership debts, (Killer
V. Jones, 3S 111. 54), he may waive his rights. In People v.
ViTiite, 11 111. 342, a surviving partner v/aived his right to
retain the property, and consented to its sale by the administra-
tor. The personal representative of a deceased member of
a firm may adjust the affairs of the partnership with the
surviving partner, and in the absence of fraud or mistake, the
settlement is conclusive upon the parties and all persons
claiming through them. (Andrews v. Stinson, 2%!^ 111. 111). This
case also holds tlmt Sees.* 87 to 90 of the Administration Act
are cumulative and do not provide any new remedies v/ith
reference to the closing up of an estate.
There is no o.uestion of fraud or mistake before us.
Appellants ourchased decedent's interest in the partnership
property with the knowledge and consent of the surviving
partner. They took possession and operated the business in
conjunction with her for almost a year after its purchase.
;rc 1.BS1 'mi-z':f'Bljx:r -t:r?Ic^#^T^ iltri.
i.fic .- ■ ; ,Q^- .s«^ < . ' ' :r^^0E
- xa[ { tisii . . Id i-i8xid'tt£l
.■:.:;.=:••..■..:,, 'jlll^^'Si' Hi Sw'r^--i; sixi ,iorrd--:i-;c^ i= ic rfuB©£ eri*
:.iJ lo JriSffit^o^'S dxff ,ssoqxf/q; iilifs^sfl^^sq s rf-xrcT \iiB aol
.V ^J. ■ . i^la alii 37i.B\l \SB1 9d ,{#2 .IIx ^c: ,3bil0t .V
l'
i;iOfc -^aa^isiijai; wS io eTid-iB*hfici98Gtcq;ei Ijsaca'xsvi axil .1.,^
-j- DJxw fiifB-isfrtisq; trf* lo stljalta asii tBsjlbs im anil b
oo.A. A'ciiJj4^*ei.aiflL6A ©3^^ i© Oe-o*- V8 '.aosS i e^ii aJblod oels osno
.eJBcfBe xt.s to (£/; ^xiiBoXo ssl. .■i-'-"i
.8.0- s-selstf ei&^&im 10 i>a\ait "to no lis Mp on si ea^iiT
ctMs-isxKf'iScI Sil* jai #B9iiaij-fli a»ifH©X!®09J& .be^sAd.oTjjci B^ctslL3q_q_k
aMivlva.rj: I ^fiieasoo huB o^bQLy,onJ. a/Id" i£*t'f ^j*':r9(T0ic[
fix 8 asm ^QiTia^e^/j iijus Btoiaasaaef id©* usriff ,T9iI:^'^'^■.'
-5-
Durlng that time they [nade no attempt to have the sale set
aside or to place the parties in statu q.uo.
One who seeks to avoid a contrect must restore
or offer to restore what he has taken under it and place the
other party in statu q.uo. (Rigdon v. Wollcott, 141 111, 649.)
A party to a contract cannot retain the consideration and
refuse to "be hound by the contract. (Bahcock v. Farwell, S45
111. 14.) ■'■'here a party has accepted the henefits of a contract,
he is estopped to deny its validity. (Kadish v. G. C. S. L. ^'. B.
Ass'n, 151 111. 531.) Failure to promptly exercise a right of re-
cission operates as a v/aiver of such rights. (."^ound City Dist.
go. V. Oonsol. Adj. Co., 15E 111. App 155).
Appellants are rot in a position to complain of the
decree, and no one else has challenged it. By its terms, the
proceeds of the sale are to be ultimately aprlied in the same
manner as thourfi the sale had been ^nade by the surviving
partner. It is of no eonseciuence that the distribution is
to be made by the administrator rather than the surviving
partner. Equity regards the substance rather than the form.
The decree of the circuit court is affirmed.
Decree affirmed.
-(3-
., , , osrcod'^s si sri
... . .oe
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
SECOND DISTRICT i I, JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in
and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof,
do hereby certifj- that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above
entitled cause, of record in mv office.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal ot
said Appellate Courjt, at Ottawa, this ^ ^ '^ ■'^ y day of
^-'(-^^C-^C^ :: — in the year of our Lord one thousand
nine hundred and tff enty-^^^T^^v'r-^ <AL^ — _= _ ^ ,
, Clerkfof the Appellate Court
(B3T61— 3M— 7-27) . / /
/l^^M/1 ^7
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and b«l<l at Ottawa, on TueayLay, the fj^th day ^f FebriyCry, in
the year of our ,£ord one tho/sand nine hundred afnd ^g[gQX3Lr.D,ine .
within and fo!
ihe Second Dastrict of the State of Illlinois:
Pre3ent--The Hon. NORMa!^ L. JJDNES , Presiding Ji;r'stice
/ /
Hon. FRANKLIN H. BOGGS^ Justice/.'
Hon. THOMAS M. JETT, Justice.
JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk. O ^T
FLOYD S. CLARK, Sheriff.
3
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On
,_,_ „ the opinion of the Court was filed in the
APR2M92S
Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
'fUQO (iiTi.jja^^A :fHi: 'io
, J. i,/:.: •.vJ^^c.jj:
.'''1? . ;■'' 3/-.ii::')ti'.C . rrt
:p : -,> -or~:iqo
, r ■;■'. f -:-
Gmeral t:o, 8013
Agenda TTo. 23.
In The
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
Second District
February Term, A. D. , 1929.
EETER CROSETTO,
Defendant in error,
vs.
JAMES. CHERRY, )
Plaintiff in Error. )
Error to the Circuit
Court of Bureau County
opinion ty BOGGS, J.
Defendant inerror, hereinafter called plaintiff, is a
"bar"ber residing in the village of 3eatonville. AlDout five o'clocic
on the afternoon of July 24, 1927, he v/as driving a Ford coupe
along the highway in said village ?/hen his oar collided with an
automohile being operated "by Roy Cherry, the son of plaintiff
inerror, hereinafter called defendant. As a result of the
oollision, plaintiff received injuries for which this suit is
instituted.
The declaration consists of six counts. The first and
sejond counts charge general negligence. The third, fourth
and sixth counts charge in effect the operation of defendant's
automobile at a speed greater than was reasonable and proper,
having regard to the traffic ana \ise of the way. The fifth
count charges failure on the part of the driver of defendant's
car to keep to the right of the center of the beaten track.
Each of said counts, in varying language, charges that the
defendant purchased and maintained the automobile in q.B.estion
for the pleasure, enjoyment and entertainment of his family,
and that Roy Cherry, the son of defendant, was a member of
his said fa''ifflly. Each of said counts charges that plaintiff
,SS .OH i8J3iI9§A
5108 .oif iB-xsnoC
er£T nl
iot'ziBt<I, 61x0 rsS
,')TT2i2oso Haraa
.1 .SBBOS \d 150 1 mo
as i£#iw fisJ&illos tcBo nixi rteriw ©sfilllT iii.33 ui •^BWiigixf on\+ :%noIs
lli^aijslq; 1© nos exi* .XTi^siTD xoH Tjcf Jb9d--nrrogo galscf el^cfcmod-n-js
©rf;*' lo it'JlCTsoi fl 8A. A aBLasleli J&sIIbo led-ljsrrlsrrsji ,ioni9i^i'
=?i #Xjjs ei£{# if.elx(w 10I ssiTir(;rfx isviooei llld-niBlg .nolsiXIoo
♦Jbsd'xrd-li'enx
J50B ;^QiX^ siiT .a;}-imoe xie lo Bialsaoo acxtBisloe3 SifT
rf^tifOo: .J**!!!!* 9£fT .ssfis^jElsen Ibisxiss sgnazio Bd'nxroo Lnosse
a'!h£feJ&iSs5aB lo jKGl*aieto sxi* ^oalls nt e^iMe ed-xixioc rld-xla briB
: ;:8q;o^c[ i,£t.s slrfsffosjsaT: 8bv/ nsri^ lefsex^ besq_s js ;^J5 oLidomctuB
xfd-iil ®xi!L' .-s^sw Siid- to eass Lob olIlBit osit oi i)tBS9i srrxvBxl
8 ' ^xiBjB.nislsi) lo isTliJi sxl* iO J-^Bq sxf^ 00 s^twlifll ae§T:Bifo d-flxroo
e*t d■af[^^ a©a^.srfo .Q^BxranBi s«-i:\:TBV ffl .bJ-xidoo iiljss lb rfoBS
:.ixd-as.EFp nx 9lio'offio*x;.s Qdi J&sniBd-xrxsin finjB £9ej3x!oixrg *nB^ne!tei
,^IiKsl elxi l-o d-ngiHHXJBs-as^xie ^xts dnom^otxtg ,9ix;sB0lg srid- liot
1o iscfmom .3 s.aw , driJRfi ri9l si) lo noe axld" ,T£tri9.d[0 tjoH d-Brid- Lm
ItUalBLq *firf* essisrio ei-nxroo blsn to do&'£ .^iX^bI btZB slri
-E-
was seriously and permanently injured as a result of the
alleged nagligence of the defendant.
To said declaration, the defendant filed a plea of the
general Issue and seven special pleas. The first special plea
denies the ownership of said automobile. The second avers
that the defendant did not keep said automobile for the pleasure,
etc., of his family. The third avers that Roy Cherry was not a
member of the defendant's family. The fourth avers that Roy
Cherry ''was not using any automobile of the defendant for his
enjoyment and entertainment as a member of defendant's family".
The fifth, sixth and seventh special pleas, in effect, set forth
that Roy Cherry was not using any automobile of the defendant
as the defendant's agent or servant,
A trial was had, resulting in a verdict and
judgment in favor of the plaintiff for ;4.,500. To reverse said
judgment, this writ of error is prosecuted.
The evidence discloses that the road in question
had been freshly graveled, but that there v/as a beaten path
or track where the same was traveled. On the part of the
plaintiff, the evidence tends to show that he was, at the time
in question, driving about fifteen miles per hour, and the defendant's
son was driving some forty to forty-five miles per hour; that the
driver of the defendant's car kept in the beaten track, v/hich, ,
at the point of said collision, v/as to the left of the center
of the road, and that by reason thereof the collision occurred.
The evidence on the ^^art of the defendant tends to show that the
plaintiff was negligent \i: ■.; operation of his car at the time of
scid collision. V/ithout going into a discussion of the testimony,
v/e are satisfied that the evider.ee, taken as a '"hole, supports
the finding of the jury to the effect tlia.t plaintiff vras in the
exercise of due care, just prior to and at the time of said
collision, that the driver of the defendant's car was negligent,
and that said negligence v/as the proximate cause of said injury.
I^Iuaerous errors have been assigned, vrhloh. we will allude
to briefly. It is contended that the court erred in permitting
'Bat Is'tenog
- : 'iflit'i EXii ,2c , .c-d-3
^aa^ii^aai) ©£# to «Ii cf®iH©*jxs ^«s- sal;
J-Jilij vOXX^'l'
■'3jbB&tsj
S-...C-!. j.,j<.iuo nc ,£ tli,.
8£
-■ sn:J:-fr.t.'2J5 saw xioe
i^iira|j8X«
^acf &var
-3-
plalntiff to testify as to the speed at v/hich defendant's oar was
■being operated, without being qtialifled so to do. This objeotion
was not made at the time, and oannot be made in' this court for the
first time.
It is also contended that the court erred in permitting
testimony as to statements claimed to have been made by Roy Cherry
in connection with said accident, on the ground that they were
not a part of the res gestae. That objection was not made in
apt time, and t'le defendant is therefore not in a position to
complain.
It is also contended that the court erred in permitting
plaintiff to offer testimony tending to show that the defendant's
liability was covered by insurance. This point is not well taken,
as defendant's counsel , by cross examination, went imto the same
subject and developed it to a greater extent than the plaintiff
had on direct.
It Is strenously insisted that the court erred in re-
fusing to direct a verdict at the close of plaintiff's evidence
and again at the close of all the evidence, on motions to that
effect made by the defendant. In this connection, it is seriously
contended that the record fails to show that Roy Cherry, inttie
operation of said automobile at the time in q.uestion, was in
any way the agent or representative of iiis father, the defendant,
and that therefore no right of I'ecovery is shown.
ihe record discloses that Roy Cherry was some tv/enty-
seven years of age; that he v/as employed at the sine works at
DePue, and was earning '^S.SS per day, \7orking six days a week;
that he turned over to h'M ff.t^er :iis checks; that his father pur-
chased the clothing for Roy, anf! gave him about 35.00 a month
spending money.
The undisputed evidence is to the effect that the de-
fendant, his '/ifa, and Roy Cherry, composed the family; that,
while the defendant and his wife made a small amount as .janitors
for the c'lurch, practically the entire support of the family
was dS*ived from the wages of the son Roy. The ear in q.ue3tion
■ +jieBr9'!j'j85^«^6* bii v.i^iociJ:d-s©ii"
:v .r-^cxc ool'.'O ere;::: . s;:.»j ?.-e^: c?t sr? lo d^isg; s ^oa
6in.se ; , , ^^ssssjoo a 'clitJ3i>fi9l'e6 sjB
itiiiilBS Asq;oI®v©Jb J&xrB tcsldsie
9fjrx- . :-ru Bjj-l
■" ■ . ' r -':'- - rf ©jbjaffi cfo9l5:e
„... V ...... ...... u, -axii^ h^btxeiaoti
..u- Xins
.OS
"y .& ono' Off .ei 90jt:s->.£v& jjocr..';i8jL.',x.uj e>j'.
^^:.;„ „ ^„^.... ;,....., ^._, . ,_ v..«sJiG»leJ>) Oil* eliflw
was purchased and paid for by trading in a former car, and "by the
earnings of Roy. The fatiier testified: "I bought this car for
my son's use and my wife's use. ly son would use it most generally
on Sunday or Saturday night. If the roads vvere l)ad, he would take
his own oar. Never gave hira instructions not t) use the oar.* * *
The key (of the Buici .coach) was hanging up, going in the kitchen
there, and anybody that wants the car can take it off, but F.oy
always asked me. If the roads aren't bad, he asks for it ri,;^ht
along. I ariways let hira liave it. He goes out on his own pur-
poses with the car, just like he did on this trip. If he asks
me for the oar, he has got it for his own purposes, to take the
boys and ^irls out riding, and 'le got it. The only time he ever
used it "/hen he didn't ask for it was when he took my wife up to
the church, and I didn't know where he went, I heard my wife
talking about going up to the church, and she asked "oy to take
her. I didn't give hira any insti-aotions about coming back with
the car, and I didn't tell him any particular time to come back
with the car."
On the day in q.uestion, the defendant ^oiew that his son
was going to take his mother to the church, for he testified he
heard them talking, but he also testified that he did hot knov;
his son was going to use the car for any other purpose. I'lvs.
Cherry testified that Roy asked her for the car after he took her
to church, and she told him not to take it. 1.oj testified at
on# time that he had tne permission of his father to use the
car tiat day, and at another that he did not. The record, 'however,
clearly discloses that the ca^' in q.uestion was maintained for
the family use, for pleasure di'iTing, etc. Under the decisions
of the supreme land appellate courts, the car in <: uestion must
be held to have been purclBsed s.nd maintained b the defendant
for the use, pleasure and entertairxraent of his family; tiriat
Roy Cherry was a member of that family; that on the day in
cjiestlon he was driving said car, if not \rith the express, with
the implied authority of the defendant; and that in so doing he
was carrying into effect one of the p-arposes for which said car
.j:iib£ti ilsq has bQzMo'Wq, sjbw
iw ij;a J&££s 9Si/ c'xioa ycj
■^jaMir^jsB •ro ■?Bi>ruj2 ao
.10© iiwO Bixf
,.: -(„..,, ;;jE«s«nt ©ii^ '11 .esi £el8£ e^jeTflB
,...., . ... - STisxl fliixl *sl 8'w;sw>S» I ..gnbiB
> -vc I).'.r> ?f.( juixl, c!i,.;i. ,<i£o' srfd" .jiiitxw seaoq
,'TB6 6iC* 10^ am
n-3 ,rio5Xj-ri6 oil*
.■i/^o Sri* xltHw
•> e;?j" t* '%}i.i.osi, BSi7j ttoe Bid
. -i'zltBai x^iesiO
lo* ©i(e trt!^ tdcijjdQ ot
it ^mitmm
.5- :..•■ •-- to«f«J9jii a ei^>w -^TrrreriO -^tofl
-- ., ^,ni^Tx^ < ajsw sxi fioi;h89JBji
3JSW
was maintained. The defendant would, therefore, be liable for the
negligonoe of his said son, if ahovm, in the operation of said
oar. Graham v. Page, 300 111. 40-44; Gates v. :.rader, 316 111.
313; Cloyes v. Plaatje, 231 App. 183; Toms v. Kitterer, 237 App.
185; ^Tinkle v. Gall, 238 App. 512; Beesley v. Goldstein, 239
App. 221. The mere fact that the defendant's son has reached his
majority will not relieve the defendant of his responsibility.
Beesley v. Goldstein, supra.
Counsel for the defendant cite and rejjy on the case of
Arkin v. Page, supra. That case was decided 'by a divided court,
three of the judges dissenting, and the fasts are somewhat differ-
ent from tae fao bs in this ease. The defendant's son in the Arkin
case took his father's car to drive to a college to see about
matriculating, and in that connection, he expected to pay his
own tuition. The father did not know that he was using the car.
The court held the father not liable. ^lere the defenda'W^
son was using tae car for one of the purposes for which the defendant
testified it was piirchased. Then, too, it ahoultl be observed that
the supreme court in the later cases of Graham v. Page, supra, and
Gates V. ..'ader, supra, followed the rule making the defendant
liable where a car has been purchased for fa'uily use, entertainment
and pleasure, and is boing driven by a member of the family, as
here.
In grahsm v. Psge, supra, the court at page 43 says:
"The question "* * "^ -is presented, vhether the law imposes liabilily
n the defendant for damages aastained b~ the plaintiff. This
question, under somewhat varying facts, has been the subject of
adjudication in many of our state.-;, and the decisions are not in
harmony. Those holding the ovmer of an automobile liable for
injuries caused by the negligent drivin?; of the car by the child
of the o>Amer, base the liability on the ground that the child was
a the servant or agent of the o.mer, and have sustained liability
where the car \ms purchased and kept solely for the pleasure of
the owner's family and a member of the family was driving it for
hiw own iDleasure when the injury occurred. The courts taking that
..axxj-rixo-c {:i\it- •sol Xsaacrc "
.'irl 3lOO* 92*0-
, \uisdssziti&m.
view say tUe car was being used by authority of the o 'ner for the
purpose for which it was procured and 1:6; t, namely, the comfort,
pleasure and entertaln-nent of the family, which it is the duty
of the father to provide for his family. ;.I.')ny of the oases holding
that view will be found in the dissenting' opinion in Arkin v.
Page, supra, and heed not be again cited."
At pa^^e 44 the court further says: "The wei .<^ht of
authority supj.orts the liability of the wwner of a car which is
kept for family use and pleasure \7here an injury is nejPillgontly
caused by it while being driven by one of his children hj iiis
permission, and the reagonin^j of those cases seens sound nnd more
in harmony with the principles of justice. '7e a.gree with the
Supreme Court of Tennessee that vfhere ar- father provides his family
with an automobile for their pleasure, comfort and entertainment,
'the dictates of natural j^ostlce should req.uire that the owner should
be responsible for its negligent operation, bec;ni,'^.e only by doing
so, as a general rule, can substantir-l justice be attained."
(King V. Smythe, 140 Tenn. 217)"
In Beesloy v. Goldstein, supra, the court sustained a
judgment against the defendant, where his daughter, twenty years
of age and living with her father, T>/a3 driving the oar on her
own initiative, accompanied by her fiance and his sister. This
withovit the actual Imowledge or consent of her father but vd th
his general permission.
The court did not err in refusing to direct a verdict.
It is further contended that the court erred in the i^iving
of the second and fouji'th instructions given on behalf of plaintiff,
and in refusing the sixteenth and seventeenth instructions offered
by defendant.
Said second instruction purports to advise the jury vith
reference bo the amount of proof necessary to siipport the plaintiff's
cause of action. The insti-tiction is not entirely correct in the
rule annotmced, but the giving of said instruction would not warrant
a reversal of said judgment.
It is insisted that the fourth instruction contains elements
iMl:tm>B.:
■,b1
n't iJ'qai
, ric 'ic'^ .ciovx'i oeexrfio
— '"■ '^■: i^K.'cfiu: . . .;■. (Ho.reelisTTreg
_ - lits'^ riB %" ■-■■, '■- ,+ .<Atii esRBsttasf to- *«j«> 0 siffsrrq-xrG
■•!^t yx^ 9ltifo-c- err .-tr, rft^'-^^
. " aula)'-
;.-;i:9*ai>ic-
-■'!■ :■£--;■. ess "io
.Jioiaaicmea Is^rerr^- ^'ir
:v) ton J)i5 ct-tfj/oo er!''
o#jK9T«e fiits iS;^ii96#:; rr ieirlatr fix Smb
J. Be
■'6^9^ ST
,^ei:ru. crura siin
-i-
as a basis for damages, not oontained in the evidence. In
this oonneotion it is insisted that there was no proof of permanent
disability, or that any money ,vas necessarily expended b the
plaintiff, and no evidence of any future boiily pain or suffering
or inability to transact business.
Plaintiff testified: "l!y hand was cut clean across from
here (indicating) clean around in there. You could see inside,
right there, right open, and clern around in there, and cut the
cords clean off of lay fingers and left ray hand injured right
along, and I couldn't move it; my hand is perfectly dead at the
present time and no feeling in it. Have a cut here dovrn to tlie
bon^ (indicating) and it left one of the blood vessels stick out.
Got a piece of glass under this knuclcle , which can't bend very
good now. The doctor says I will never bend it wlihovit ita hurting,
all of ;Qy life. -A piece of glass ^Afent right into the knuckle of
the finger, straight in.^
It cannot be said there is no evidence of permanent
injury. -.Vith reference to future pain and suffering, the plaintiff
testified that every time there was a clmnge of v/eather, he
suffered from said injury. The declaration avers that the pla;:ntiff
expended a large amount of money in and about attevipting to be cured,
whereas the evidence is to the effect that he incurred a liability
of )100. for physicians' bills and )50, for hospital bills, but
there was no proof that these bills had been paid. !I'o that extent,
the objection :.aade to this instruction is v/ell taicen.
The refused instructions sixteen and seventeen, offered
on behalf of the defendant, so far as the same stated correct
principles of law, wrere fully covered by the instructions given.
There was no reversible error in the ruling of the coiu't on che
instructions.
Laily, it is contended that the verdict is excessive.
The testimony is to the effect that plaintiff vvss earning ^G.
per week in his business as a barber; that since his injia-y he
had not been able to use his right arm or to work at his trade.
From the character of said injuries as disclosed by the undisputed
■ BS
;o aLioc
, noLQ
.IV iX*5
>ej>nsqxs
. 3W 618X1^
■Jioi air.
r-clgioflirtq:
ii69W 1®(T
nicf- aoi'i
i
evidence, the ^VlTj would be warranted in finding thai plaintiff
had been permanently in-Jrajed. 7e are not prepared to aay that
the verdict is so exoesaive as to indicate that the jury were
governed by prejudice and passion. That being the state of the
record, we would not be warranted in reversing the judgment on
the ground that it was excessive.
In view of the fact that the declaration charges the
expenditure of money in an attempt to be Gur3d, and the proof
only showing' that a liability liad been incurred bo the extent of
$150., the verdict to that e):tent would be excessive. Tlinton v,
ITuhlraann, 201 App. 177-179. If the plaintiff will remit ^150.,
reducing the judgment to "4,350., within fifteen days of
notice of the filing of this opinion, the judgment ill be
affirmed; othervifi^e the same v/ill be reversed and the cause re-
manded.
Affirmed with remittitur: otherv/ise
reversed and remanded.
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
SECOND DISTRICT } I^ JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in
and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof,
do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above
entitled cause, of record in mv office.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and^ affix the seal ot
said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this ^~' •-' ^y (■■' day of
L.-'i-^? — 'i^'--' in the jear of our Lord one thousand
nine hundred and twenty- . 7.'/t<-'?^y-'
~" Clerk of the /Appellate Court
(53761— 3M— 7-27) ( /
1/ ^
/?/S^'
/ /^4 <^^
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
', t»J*e fifth lii;
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tueafiay, t*«e liltn iray
the year of our Loi"d one tho/sancr^nin^ huij><Ired
r
within and for the Second pistrict of tfft*-6*«tt
/
Present-^rTfTe Hon>sNORMAN L. ifONES, Pre^i'ding Just
Hon. FRANKLIN H. BOGGS ^/justice .
Hon. THOMAS M. JETT, Justice.
JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk.
FLOYD S. CLARK, Sheriff.
1..
6 3'
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On
{vpc 2-^ \ii-^ the opinion of the Court was filed in the
Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
■i':\3 ."-.ii-
n ': , .+
General No. 8018 Agenda No. 26.
A. H. Manunen,
appellant,
^s* Appeal from the Circuit Court
H, A. Millard, H. E. Manmen, of Woodfora County, 111 inoie.
R. H. aeorge, R. E. Gordon and
F. D. McNertney,
appellees,
OPINION lay 30GGS, J.
An action in trespass was instituted by appellant against
appellees in the circuit court of '..'oodford County. The first count
of the declaration charges appellees with falsely causing appellant's
imprisonment in iiie Slgin State Hospital for the Insane. The second
count charges false imprisonment as the result of a conspiracy on
the part of appellees.
Demurrers filed to said declaration being overruled a plea
of the general issue and a special plea was filed by defendants,
Gordon and JJlllard, setting forth in effect that on August 16,
1926, a petition was filed by the defendant, R. H. George, in the
County Coxirt of said County; that a writ was regularly served on
appellant on said day; that said petition alleged that appellant
was insane and prayed that his sanity be inquired into as provided
by statute; that thereupon the Honorable W. H. Foster, judge of
said county court, entered an order appointing a commission
consisting of the defendants Gordon and McNertney, duly licensed
physicians, etc.; that said defendants examined appellant as
provided by statute, and made report to said county court, finding
that appellant was insane; that thereafter, on August 18, said
cause coming on to be heard on said report before the said judge
"at a time when said court was regularly convened and then and
there had jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the person
.da .oia s^Lmp.k 8IC8 .OH .iBiene-D
.aemxaM .H .A
' u^vo j.u.fav£iO 5JXX3- ffloil XseijqX ^g.^
■iris noJi'SoS .2 .H .©aiosO .ii .H
..:>! *s.,-a^A ao .*Bxl# Goalie ax xI#^o5 sai^^ea .i,^^iiiM 6a^ ,xoMo5
no M-r.es ^X^^ix,^.. saw .I^w B ,.si, ,^^^oO Mbb lo ..xroC y^tmsoO
^n^IIegq. .a.. ..^.XX. ^.Xc^x,., ,,,, ,,^, .^^, ,,^^ ^^ ,^.Xle^^s
M.™, ,, ,,,, ,,,,^^^^, ^^ ^^^^^ ax.. ..^. .e,.., ... e^,,, ..w
s. *«Ii.„^ i,„,«^, a*^i«tsi, iis, tadj ,.0*. ,B«.ioiB^.I,
■m^nnn .i^„ ^,^, ^,,, ^, ^^^^ ^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^_^^^
.a. «^*^ *„„„o. tX«I^« .„ ,«o. .... ,e.,w .,.u . ,.n
of the said A. H. Mairaen, and that upon a hewing of said question
and on oonsideratlon of the report so filed * * * * and of the sworn
testimony of witnesses produced in said court * "^ * touching the sanity
of the said A. H. llammen, * * * W. H. Foster, judge as aforesaid, ♦ * *
then and there having Jurisdiction of the parties and the subject natter,
did then and there enter a Judgment or order upon the records of the
county court of V/oodford county in the State of Illinois, then and
there adjudging and finding that the said A. H. Hanmen was then and
there an insane person." Said plea further averred that appellant was
committed to the Elgin State Hospital for the Insane, "that the Judg-
ment, order, decree and finding so made hy the said liV. H. Foster,
Judge of the said county court in the county of V.'oodford and the state
of Illinois, still remains and now is in full force and effect, and
that said Jud^ent was duly ana regularly entered as of record on the
date aforesaid; that no appeal has ever heen prayed nor has any v,'rit of
error ever been allowed or prosecuted against the finding, order, Judg^
ment and decree so entered as aforesaid."
A plea of the general issue and a special plea was Joined in by
appellees Oeorge, McKertney and Llammen. Said special plea in effect s:.ts
forth that on the 16th day of August, 1926, and prior thereto, appellant
was insane; that by reason thereof a petition was filed in said county
court, alleging as in the other plea the issuance and service of said
writ; that a commission was appointed and a hearing was had as provided
by statute; that on said hearing appellant was found insane and was com
mitted to said hospital. Said plea further avers that appellees Millard,
George, '"-ordon and McKertney were on the 16th day of Augst, 1926, and
prior thereto and subsequent thereto, duly licensed and qualified physi-
cians under the laws of the state of Illinois, and were practicing their
professions as such physicians at said time within the county of .,oodf crd
and state of Illinois, and that the commission appointed by said court
was a valid commission and in accordance with the statutes of the state
of Illinois, etc.
m±t&m$ fii^a Ic ^l-xBsd s mqss *ad^ Ms .aem-B.. ,:,eo q^'j -q
ix^owa sii* ^o bn. 'haUl oa fkoqe, ©n* lo aolU^BhlBtiox> no £ri£
.-i..v,3T; o-oc[.«.;s i)/iv.^;ii^ aexJ^g^ s^i lo co^e^iAeiout saiv^ri ei^d;f i)iii^ Xieil*
.5^3 «9il* ,8X0X1X1X1 -- -,:fS 9x1* ^i ^J^^OQ Mo<tfioo,y ^o tT^I/OO ^^OXfOO
^iis n^M a.sw ixsiia^L ... ... ^xbs e.fif *^t aaiJ&ali fim; snxsJ&xrti.^ 0^9x1*
i.xi3 .toea*©-^., ,j^^ „j,gi ^^ ^^ 8fi±j»ffl^* iXljfa .BxoxiXXXI lo
.X^Xj3?I»x iJHS Tg^X^. a«W ;*fl8^Si^j BlBfi
-vp^', ri9l^^^,^^n edt d-axtxss^ J>«;fx;o92G^g io .SewoXXa me<i -lere aoi-xe
".I>xfia©rrolB a£ .iQied-xis oa ©©ttoe^ Ln^ c^II9ffl
nx .oaai-ot a^w bsX« Xaioegs b i,xiB eiisax Xe^sfles eii* lo seXq A
-^Xi^.^ .<.#e,*ri, ..,,^ ^^ ^asex ..axraoA to ^^ rf.ax ex£. .o .sd. xl^.ol
"^ztx oc. 51.B Hi ^«^i^ a.w i.oxfx#a« « loe^^* xtoaBsa ^cf *^rf^ ,.n.axti a^w
.^tr^XXiM aaeXXeqqs *»rfif s^evB %9xfii-t£r'i ^eXa Dx^f r->+^« . -»
ii»A*'x sexq Dxse .X^d-Xqeori alee o& be&iisa
^ "^^ ^^J^ ^^ mo^m xm<t'xe^^M baa aob-io^^^
-x^wi^^B .axoft-^^^.9^,^«^, axl* to aw^X e^cf ^eMxr anaXo
ciiexsia^cxfq; rfoira as exioiaaetoiq
^^ ^^ i>*.^xo,^ aoX«al«„.oo ^M n,^ Mb ^Blanlili lo ..B#a Lc^
■'^■^*6 s/i:! _ .mttmm Mlmj, aoxaainmoo DxX^v b bbv^
•ojs .exociXXI lo
-3-
To 3dicL special pleas appellant filed replications, almit-
ting that the proceedings set forth in said petition had been had,
bxit averring that appellant on the date of said imprisonment was
not insan*; that no valid judgment was ever rendered by a court
of competent jurisdiction; that the initial petition filed in the
alleged insanity prooedings was not filed in said county co-art
but it was filed with the clerk of said court in the city hall of
El Taso; that said petition W8.s on information and belief and did
not state that appellant was insane; that said so-called inquest in
lunacy and all the proceedings in regard thereto, including the
order of said county judge, were held in the city hall of the city
of El Paso, Illinois; that the said so-called inquest and all
proceedings in regard thereto were not held at a place where^ the
county court of Woodford county, Illinois, was authorized by law to
hold an inauest in lunacy; th3.t said so-called lujaacy inc3\ie3t was
not held in court, was not held in chambers, and v/as not held at
the home of the appellant; and that said proceeding was void for
want of jiirisdiction, etc.
A general demurrer filed to said replications was sxsbained
by the court. Appellant elected to abide his replications, and judg-
ment was rendered in bar of action and for costs. To reverse said
judgment, this appeal is prosecuted.
Appellant did not demur to said special pleas. By his repli-
cations, he admitted that said pleas set forth a record v/hich, if
true, would be a complete ansv.'er to his declaration. He seeks to
avoid the conclusive effect of the proceedings set forth in said
pleas, by undertaking to shov; that the petition was not properly
filed; that the matters and things therein set forth were on infor-
mation and belief; that said commission appointed was not a proper
oommission; and that the proceedings were held in the city hall at
El Paso instead of in one of the places provided by statute, etc.
In other words, appellant, by collateral attack, seeks to show that
said record so pleaded is not what it purports to be, and is not a
valid and binding record.
Appellant concedes tliat, as to many of the matters over whiteh
county courts have jurisdiction, such jui'isdiction is not limited
or special, but general, but states that "county courts in lunacy
inquests are in the exercise of special statutory powers, snd are to
.... (
■y-r=:h o&o'io \:J-.'ni <;ii' i5:ajlj!:j
'©'Ibiiu jb"i,£A
c^rreffig,!)//?.
'.^.i;:-s?ciq: ;;:ii7 ic ^-ocjtt© #rJ:ax;lonco site L^u:;?
r ■>* rr ; ofj- _^^ eie^'-^' m erii tar* o t^^^J^'-^
, -xoisaiiiEaK 0
: ajsXl9C[ffJB \siiciw i»4*o nl
k ^^
treated as courts of limited or special Jurisdiction, and that nothing
will be presumed to be within their Jurisdiction which does not dis-
tinctly appear to be so."
v.Tiile county courts are covirta of limited Jurisdiction, they
are not courts of inferior Jiu'isdiction. Vhen adjudicating upon a
class of questions over which they have general Jurisdiction, as liberal
intendments will be indulged in their favor as will be extended to the
proceedings of circuit courts. Fecht v. Freeman, 251 111. 84-97; Ander-
son V. Gray, 134 111. 550-554; Hoit v. Snodgrass, 315 111. 548-551;
Moats V. Moore, 199 App. 270-274.
Jurisdiction of the subject matter means Jurisdiction of the
class of cases to which the particular case belongs, and it is always
conferred by law. Roy v. Upton, 234 App. 53-55, Ochman v. Small, 282
111. 360-363.
Viihere a oourt has Jurisdiction of the subject matter and the
parties, its Judgments or decrees cannot be questioned collaterally.
Spring v. Kane, 86 111, 580; Sheahan v. Madigan, 275 111, 372-377;
Hoit V. Snodgraas, supra, 551, Bishop v. V/alsh, 145 App. 491-497.
"Jurisdiction over the persons of insane persons, not charged
with crime, is vested in the county courts." Gahills Stat., chap. 85,
sec. 13. County courts are courts of record, and are created by the
constitution (Art. 6, paragraphs 1 and 18.) Under the statutes of this
state, the Jurisdiction of county courts in insanity proceedings is
original and exclusive, except in criminal cases.
The coTinty court of V/oodford comity therefore had Jurisdiction
of the subject matter of saia proceedings. The pleas set forth
the filing of a petition, the issuance of a writ and service thereof,
and all the statutory steps necessary to be followed in a proceeding
of this character. Under the above authorities, the Judgment of a
county court in a proceeding of this character cannot be collaterally
attacked. In Hoit v. Snodgrass, supra, the court at page 551 says:
"Where the court has Jurisdiction of the subject matter and
.;,DS-0«E .III
;v7^-a\v* .^,.. 3VS ,nB3Jt5.s^^ ." •--:■■■■'•• ;r;^-- .'■' ^^ ^ — ?-' .Y saiiqS
-.Ilirrtso ".B^ixroo vtsxrc: t-^i'lo:?! rfi-iw
ixff^ 6if* ,9d-Bd-a
■^'•■'^'- ■ - ILb hJXB
the parties its Judgment or decree cannot be questioned collater-
ally, no matter how erroneous it may be. This rule applies in all
its force to tlae county court, which has general jurisdiction of
conservatorship proceedings, and its jucgraents and decrees are not
subject to review by the circuit court collaterally for erroro (Sheahan
V. Madigan, 275 111. 372. * ♦ * Having a ri£:ht to decide every q_uestion
that ooourred in the proceedings, the errors and ^regularities of the
court rendering judynent, if any exist, must be corrected in that court
by proper proceedings or by a court of review regularly exercising its
appellate jurisdiction. * * * v/hen the general character of a judgment
is such that its subject matter falls vdthin the general jurisdiction
of the court that enters it, a collateral attack cannot be made thereon
even though the pleadings may be defective and subject to demurrer.
Christiansen v. King County, 239 U.S. 256, 36 Sup. Ct. 114; Jarrell v.
Laurel Coal and Land Co., 75 W. Va. 752, L.R.A. 1916 E. , 312; Tube
City Mining & Milling Co. v. Otterson, 16 AriZo 305, 146 Pac. 203;
Altman v. School District, 35 Ore. 85, 56 Pac. 291; In re James' Estate,
99 Cal. 374, 33 Pac. 1122; Trumble v. V/illiams, 18 Neb. 144, 24 N.W.
716. * * * arant that the petition should have contained a formal prayer
to declara Smith insane, the action of the county court in treating the
petition as sufficient and rendering its judgment appointing the conser-
vator can be nothing more than error."
County courts have the right to determine their jurisdiction,
Fecht. V. Freeman, supra, 98; Anderson v. Gray, supra.
Counsel for appellant, while admitting the general rule to be
as set forth, insist that, in insanity proceedings, those rules do not
obtain. In Moats v. Moore, supra, the court in discussing a question
of this character at page 274 says:
"Appellant aeeks to reverse t. is order of court, first, be-
cause the appellant was never legally declared insane, and that no
basis ever existed for the appointment of a conservator. It is claim-
ed by counsel for appellant that, at the time she was adjudged insane.
.0; ::l:: e:^:.i'.ri ::iXO''iB .'-lis
-■'^i/oo aja- lot
:Jl2lTJa{,
IwBIiX'O.'
Ofi ;i-^;r:
•
-■'C.C^Clo
: ^^■i.MlxO L
.i-iSjBlIsgq..
leqqij exic
--■ -
'xo asvs
a.taa<i
:.JJJ-Ot;
^cf J5e
that no notice was served on her, and that she was not present at the
time of the adjudioation. While the county court of Jefferson covinty
was a court of limited jurisdiction, it was not a court of inferior
Jurisdiction, and was invested by the legislature with Jui-isdiction
in this class of cases, and aa liberal intendments will be made in
favor of its jurisdiction in this class of cases as will be extended
to proceedings in the circuit court. (Fecht v. Freeman, 251 111. 84.)
* .'."here the record of a Judgment or decree is relied on in a col-
lateral proceeding, jTirisdiction must be presumed in favor of a court
of general Jurisdiction, although it is not alleged and does not appear
in the record.' Horn v. Metzger, 234 111. 240. V/e are of the opinion
that it must be conclusively presumed that the county court, being one
of general Jurisdiction in this class of cases, must be presumed to
have had Jurisdiction both of the person and the subject-matter,"
Iven if it be conceded that appellant had the right, by his
replications, to q_uestion the sufficiency of said record, it is a
serious question if the matters set forth in said replications would
be sufficient to impeach the same. The point most strenuously urged
in this connection is that said proceedings were held in the city hall
of El Paso. The statute provided that "such proceedings may be in open
court, or in chambers, or at the home of the person alleged to be
insane, at the discretion of the court." Appellant cites Bouvier's
Law Dictionary, Vol. 1, as to what constitutes "ii^'chambers", as fol-
lows: "Any hearing before a Judge which does not take place during a
term of court or while the Judge is sitting in court, or an order
issued under such circumstances, is said to be in chambers." Under that
definition, even though it be conceded that said hearing before the
commissioners and county Judge was at the city hall in El Paso, it
would be a hearing in ohajnbers.
Another point urged is that said petition was on information
and belief, and did not aver that appellant was insane. There is noth-
ing in the pleas to. show that the petition was on information and be-
lief, and it does aver that appellant was insane.
tlSSCt 0081 J^ifiB
[loqq-s •%at.S&tmt
.■•'/iix^csjja as.
:J.:l'I;' jyibMyJjUJ-.
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
SECOND DISTRICT J I, JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in
and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof,
do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above
entitled cause, of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal ot
said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this r— - y-t/// day of
l/f/j-t/ jy in the year of our Lord one thousand
-/
nine hundred and twenty," /,. ^/- ? ■ *-
J, Cleric o/ the Appellate Court
(63761— 3M— 7-27) . //
li-^'i
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Otiiawa, on Tuesday ,-' the fifth day of Feb/-uar
the year of our/Lord one thouaaJnd nine hund
/
and
within and tj6v the Second Di3t^ict^of the/State of
Present--The Hon. NORMAN L. JONES, P^sidiXg Justic
Hon.-v^RANKLIN H^^,,JMK?G S , Jj/fetice.
Hon. THOMAS M. JETT, Justice
JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk.
FLOYD S. CLARK, Sheriff.
^.'
r> /^
f^
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On
the opinion of the Court was filed in the
Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
rui.v^.
:^':.-v.;; .^
7993
Dan Saltsman,
appellee,
vs.
The Home Ilnsurance Company
Bew York, a oorporation,
16
Appeal from the Circuit
of La Lalle Covmty.
JONES, P. J.
Appellee, Dan Saltsman, instituted an action against appellant.
Home Insurance Company, New York on a fire insurance policy and
recovered a Judgment for §437. 30 and costs. The cause comes here
^y appeal.
The declaration consisted of one countjf. Defendant filed a
plea of the general issue and special pleas. However, the special
pleas were waived ty a stipulation that the defendant might under
the general issue introduce in defense all relevant he. tters of evi-
dence which could te offered under any special plea, and that plain-
tiff upon ;he trial to 2\eet such defense might introduce all evi-
dence with the same force and effect as though the same had been
specially pleaded.
Appellee had suffered a fire loss under a policy issued hy
the defendant company previous to the issuing of the policy in this
case/ The property destroyed by that fire consisted of household
goods and effects. After the lost was adjusted, appellee made an
application for a nev; fire and lightning policy, and also for a
windstorm policy. The full premium for both policies was |61.63, for
which appellee gave his note dated April 21, 1984, payable October 1,
1924. There was due appellee from the company $32.44 as a return
premium on the old policy and this amount was apportioned pro rata
on the premiums of the new policies and endorsed on the note as a
credit. The amount of the return premium credites on the new fire
policy was $21.19 and upon the windstorm policy ■'jll.SS, leaving $29.19
as the principal of the note.
-31
see?
.noiiBioqioo b ,3[ioY jbtsH
£xis ■'ioiloq: eonexuafli sixl £ no lioY wete ^-^gasgrnoO Qons-xusnl eoioH
©asif BSffioo e3Jj°o 9d2 .sd-aoo i»as OS.VSi'<^ 'xol onemaii/g, b l>9ievoosi
iBlssqs 3£ii ,iev9woH .3B8lq Ibxo©(I8 .oxxs esjusl .Lsiensg ©xld- ao Bslq;
-ITS lo a■t9d■c^3K d-iijsvslo'x IIb eaiisleJJ xii: ©oxf-boijrfj: oxisel Xsiexiea sxid'
-iitBl.i a'Bxid' haB ,j39lq[ laloeqs Tjrts isJicju hoteltc ad iliioo xiolxlw 9or£©£
~i:ve IIb so.a^oidrtx jri^jiXfr 9B.cts!t9X) riox/s d'Sem od" iBxid" erir noqx; ^1±*
nssGf 5j3xi 9ffiB8 ©iij xiajjojid- e.s d-ee'lie Mb eoiol effiBs add" ric^.i;w eortsfi
xo &Qsssax '^oxloq. s 'xs.&ou aeol 9'xil b j&e'islluB -6sil soIIsgqA
eii# XIX ■^oxloq. 9d& 'lo sxixi/aax 9ri;f o& axfoxve-xci \;xi6giiioo ^oaMslsi) siit
ModsBSJod lo ied-siaxioo sill d-sxlc^ xd J&aTjoid-asii ■^id-i9q[o'xg sxIT \saj80
as 8i)sffl ©sIXactciB ^Md-axr^j&B sbw *boX arl* is*M .sd-oslla lixis aJooo-^
.B lol: oalB i>njB ^^^oxlog -Sialaisi^tl Dub ©ix^ wen b •:lo^ xio J: * so ilgga
'xol ,(Sd.Xa| 3BW BexoxXoq rfd-ocf lo'l jsmimsig; XXi/l erlT .-^oJrXoq iMod-a.C)iiiw
,X iscfod-oO sXcfB-v^sq. .MeX ,XS XlitgA be&B& Q^oa std ©vsg seXXoqqB rioxxfw
iiivtQ'L B SB :&^.SSt. T^xiBqiHoo Biit tsoil ssXXeqqB ei/fi esw eiojrfT .i^SSX
B^tfli o'lq iJ9iioi*'xoq(i« ir45w tmsomB air(d- I-ris VolXoq 3X0 9il# no mjitaotq
B B-3 9d-oxi edi no Xjae-xoMe lias asiaxXoq woxi edi lo aiiurXineiq sxld- no
e'xtl wsfi srld- 1^0 ae!j-J,.fesxo swlEsiq aiijd-eT: @.iijj-. ^q #m;offiB ©rlT .d-ii)e-io
L.eSi aaivBeX <3S,XX|;^9,J:Xoq m^o*BJ&xiiw sxW xiocrx; lixte eX.XS?^ aaw ^oiXoq
.ed-on 9itt ^o XBqXoiiiiq oxfd' SB
The property viva destroyea by fire Avi^Mst 25, 1925 and notice
thereof was glMOD to the company as provided ty the- policy. The
insurance company denied liability and to this suit on the policy
interposes two defenses: (1) that the premium note was due and un-
paid at the t rae of tne losy, and (2) that there was a chattel mort-
gage on the propert^v when it was insured, which fact a^-pellee con-
cealed end misrepresented. hen plaintiff notified defendant of his
loss under the policy, he sent with the notice a draft for ;p2..19,
the unpaid balance of the face of the note heretofore aontioned.
Defendant's agents returned tne draft to plaintiff notif ing him that
his offer of pajj-nent of the note was refused; that the policies be-
came suspanaed and inoperative on October 1, 192-^, a,s the result of
his failure to pay such note when due, and that the Company v;as under
no liability/ for any loss or daoage which aay have occurced to the
property lescrioed in the policies or - iiich mi^ht occui* thereafter.
The application for the policy, and the ijolicy itself provide
that if any promissory note or obligation given for the vmole or any
portion of the premium for the policy shall not be paid promptly when
due, then such policy shall be suspended, inoperative, and of no
force and effect until such promissory note is paid, and the company
shall not oe liable for any loss or camage while such note or
o -ligation fciven remains past due ana unpaid.
At the time of the fire, the premium note was past due end
unpaid. ^Jefendant claims that therefore the policy became suspended
from the date the note matured until it was paid. It is the contention
of appellee that the company waived the payment of the premium note
at its maturity and consented to an extension of the time for pa^.niient
until after threshing time in 1925. In support of this contention,
appellee testified that he met Meagher, defendant's agent, who wrote
the policy, in t. e early part of Au^-ust. 1924, at Seneca, Illinois;
that they had a conversation about the payment of the note; thit he
-ton mssitnetq siid- cJ-j3jia- iX) :sean.9le2» ow* *©8ogi©iJ"fll
. *0jBt doxiiw ,ja9i*fafij: saw cfi asrii<'-vd-T9qo'ig qiI^ no .e^Bs
-Qd e&^,<-:..,.^..^ V,:,.: .YBfiCf- •JiQ&n1e''x sbw ed-ou and- lo iaaturpq^ xo "s^lSio alii
isi.itir as*' Y^va^iaoO bM i&dt \m»: ,e'»ii HftftW ##'OK sfoatra t'^'q f^* 6*xxj£i:B^ aid
ad.i 94 Mu.'isjt^eG &yjid- %&&M!&M^- 9^B>^^ on
.•x.^t'lsfi'xeM *uf&&o iti^m i^E^S.;! 1© Bsioxloq «i!S^ iai J5Mi*DS0l) -^tteqcTcq
9liiTC«q IXeBi^i: v&i^o^q ettl*:jtnj3 ,-^oJ:Io^ ««ji^' «#1 koitfioilqgfi eifT '
nsriw '^i*5«©?rt Ji»5 «<I dO« XX^ds AcoiXoq ©jS# uoI: aujiiaeT:? &ti& lo uoid-xotj
fia ,i9vX*js'i©tiOflX ,i3eJ30sqai;8 acf XXi^ris ^ioifoq ifdx/e ssrfd" .eisb
J:#xi^*HOs ©alt si
;;oxXoq. ^xld- s,\^ IbIo d-ns-&xie -?qiicf
' •'—■- - '- ■■■■ :,vs' ^iisqiEoo edcT J-^ild" 'jeXXsqqs lo
■^ -'■^- ■' '^^ &9iiieeaoo has x^iini£m ad'X iB
.'JSex aX 9mi* sfliriesirid- leilk lltasi
< ^: -iXoq srfd-
-: .urBHi9V!too "■i'*'JKBd Y^SiJl^ *Bii*
i-i6-i-
told Meagher he would pay it just as soon as he got through threshing;
and that Meagher replied it would be all right with him and with the
Company, if it was paid at that time. Me^her admitted having had
a conversation with appellee on this subject but denied telling
appellee it would be all right to pay the note after threshing time.
The provisions of an insuranc policy for its suspension or
forfeiture are inserted for the benefit of the " company ana may be
waived. Provisions regarding the non-payment of a preihiujn, premium
note, or installment note are generally of this che.racter and may
te waived. {B6 G. J. Fire Ins. Sees. 350-352; Phoenix Ins. Co. v.
Hart, 149 111. 513i)
\Ihen ihe fire occui'fed, the earned premium was less than $23.19
which had been credited on the note, that is to say, the cost of
carrying the insurance from the date of tae policy to the time of
the fire was less than the credit which was endorsed on the premium
note. It is now urged by appellee that no suspension of the policy
oould be had until auoh credit had been exhausted. He invokes the
rule that where an insurance company attempts to cancel a policy, it
must return the unearned pi^mium before it can cancel the policy and
that there can be no cancellation of the policy until tjie unearned
premium has been returned to the policy holder. (Peoria M. & F. Ins.
Bo. V. Botto, 47 111. 516; Etna Ins. Co. v. McGuire, 51 id. 342;
Williamson v. Vvarfield, Pratt, Howell Co. 136 id. 168; Hamsell-
Elcock V. Frank IVayne Ins. Co. 177 id. 500; Hartfore Ins. Co. v.
Tews, 132 id. 321.) Lefenciant cannot at one and the same time tr.-at
the policy as alive for the purpose of earning premium, and dead fcr
the purpose of avoiding a loss. iaagHgyrTxtfw-fctmi (Young v. Union
Life Ins. Go. 202 111. App. 321.) Vmile it would indeed be harsh
to permit an insurance company to suspend the policy while it has
unearned premiums in its hands, still it is not necessary to decide
this case on that ground. The question of an agreement to extend
the time for payment was fairely submitted to the jury as a question
_„... .„i- ilsi-'crrrs' j-os 9^ 33 nooB as. -tasf, ^t ■^SQ feli/ow eri ^lexIsfleM 1)10*
■rr; aoi^jftag; ons'xssBui. me Jo aaoiexvo'icf. ©iiT
,II*5^ottS3 eis ejoft iaesaSSBiaxii 10 ,eff,oa
. . , . . . .-iisOiK: 'ilds-vac; . .sxxl e'li:'? .1, .0 aS) .J&dviBW ©d
(fSId ,111 eM ,*rrBH
_L y-Boo 94i# (Vsa OCT a J; cf^>ilj .ejcii srii- ao Xjs^ii'Sic nescf ijsxl rioJtiiw
voiI(3t{ £j# aso^ aoisaaqearts iSa tfiife^ -J®^!^^ JSaa*^ won si il »Q&oa
.©atosTfli; eH .^artawBilz^ neetf lissi tiI>6'xo xioxre. -l^uXuj I>£rf 9 J .bLuoo
aoiiao od- sd-gae^.d-is Tjnectffio© sonB-xiraixi iie e-xeiiw dsxld- slsii
& «i(}" ,l(Wr<aa^ as© dx &-iol®cr iiixiJaissq fisxxTjBexu/ erio n-xxj-ttei (haoK
isastf fij^ IXtaas: '^siifflf s/t* i© «oi*.8lI©ortso oxi erf xibo oisxfji- ^J8x£*
.31 J9lio«<g:) .isJ&JEari igDxioq 94st;, ©t; i»«ti;t©i asecJ sbxI Eustm^iq
"■---- ..,-'■ xicKxasxIIiW
^1 uiio >iii ;iOirt:r c.u,s.oxioxau (.ISiS .M SGI ,Bwe3!
-^"■■' -^^ ^.■■^;- :"':■; K£,.t±ESz;;o::ao.¥:s;Kifx .qsoX iS. §X£J:fiJ&ov3 lo ©Bogxac^ esU
. m€ .q;q[A ,111 SOS .oD .anl eliJ
'^cusgiffoo ©onaxueni ns Jxasaog od"
, B&siBd sd-J; ni Bity/ijne'xci £>f=»n.ijB8jKif
j.oid'Sftii'g ©ii:: _ , .'rxiid-
of fact and the issue was deoided in favor of appellee. V/e are
of the view that the Jury was ri^ht inreaohiUc: the conclusion that
the provision of the policy for a su pension thereof in case of
non-payment of the premiura note at maturity had been waived.
In the application for insurance, appellee stated in response
to printed interrotratories, th.,t he was the sole and absolute owner
of the property to be intjured -.ma that none of said property was
under mortgage or other enouxabrance. The application contains the
following printed provision: "The foret^oin^^ is my ovm agreement an-d
statement and is a correct detJcrip-Gion of the property on which
indemnity is asked, and I hereby agree that insurance shall be
predioatel in such statement '" '' * *. and that the foregoinij shall
be deemed and taJcsn to be promissorjr w,^rrant?. es runninf^; during the
entire life of tbis policy." 'hen ths r.pplication 'vas made, the
property was encumbered by a chattel mortgage, and v/as so encumbered
to and iijclulint^ the date of the fire loss. It is therefore app- rent
that unless the Company had Jcno ledtj-e of the e:x;isteu'je of such en-
cumbrance at the time the application v : s made and the policy issued,
there can be no recovery.
It is the contenbion of a;ppellee that the Company had suda.
knowledge. Appellee testified that the answers to the interrogatories,
concerning encumbrances, vere not propounded to him, and Ghat he aid
not say ti.at'ti.ere vas no chattel mortgage on his property, and that
he could not reuieraber that he was asked anything about oncvimbrances;
that the uppiiea-Diou was brought to him by Kelly, an agent of the
Company, for aigna^ui-e. Kelly was well ac-iuainted with appellee,
knew what proper v he posset^sed, and admitted he Icnew that at least
some of it was under mortgage. He adjusted appellee's first fire
loss, but claimed he iiad nothing to do with the application for the
policy now in question. Appellee testified that both Kelly and
Meagher were active in tne transaction and that ths arrangem^.nts
• 1o
;f':.rHrr--
,&slwd£b£
•i(£t« * JrtfiiT
for the new policy were virtually made at the time of the adjustment
of the loas under the old policy. Notice to the .jent at the time
of tho application for insurance of faots mt^.terial to ths risk,
is notice to the insurer and will prevent it from insisting upon
a forfeiture for causes within the knowledge of the agent. (Hon»
Insurance Co. v. Mendenhall, 164 111. 458; V/eisguth v. Supreme
Trite of Ten Hur, 272 id. 541.) The different contentions of the
parties with respect to Kelly's knowledge and participation in
oTotaining- the application for insurance were submitted to the Jury.
The issue was found in f :'Vor of appellee . Under the facts and cir-
oumstances as shown by the record, it appears to us the Jury v/as
warranted in making the finding" it did.
I'/here (questions of fact have been submitted to a Jury for their
determination under the proper instructions, the verdict of the Jury
will not be set aside if the testimony by any fair and reasonable
intendment, will auchorii:c- the verdict. (People v. Egan, 241 111.
App. 189; Illinois Central Hy. Co. v. Gillis, 68 111. S17; Bradley
V. Palmer, 193 id. ISj:' Carney v. Sheedy, 295 id. 78; Blackhurst v.
James, 304 id. 586.)
Appellant tendered no in stnie ti ons and two were given the
Jury on behalf of appellee. Those Ejlven correctly state the law
as applied to the facts. No reversible error appears in the record
and we believe the verdict is sufficiently supported by the evidence.
The Judgment is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
.&il£ .:>rio '•.^-:
.ar^id'o
fl.tw
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
SECOND DISTRICT j I, JUSTUS I,. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in
and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof,
do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above
entitled cause, of record in ni}' office.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal ot
said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this — day of
. in the year of our Lord one thousand
nine hundred and twentv--
Clerk of the Appellate Court
(53761— 3M— 7-27)
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
t^^ , ^, ^ .
Begun and held at Ottawa^ on Tuesday^-'the fifth day of Fe>ruary^i^
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundredj and>twenty-
within and-£.or. "the Second District/'bf the St^te of Illip'oii
Present--The Hon. N^Wtl^N L. J0N55<^PresidiTjj^''justice . /
Hon. FRANKLIN H. BOGGS , Justice.
Hon. THOMAS M. JETT, Justice.
JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk.
FLOYD S. CLARK, Sheriff.
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On
the opinion of the Court was filed in the
Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
i u Ov . (A \: .■:rj.^l ■_ w J. .
<i.x5f-o-:: <■ tw:)-;
General No. 7965
Agenda TTo. 5
In The
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
Second District
Ootober Term, A.D. 1928,
HAL CAMPBELL,
appellant,
V.
C0L0G:R0 DIGIOVAmi,
appellee.
Appeal from the Circuit
Court of Winnebago County
OPINION by BOGC-S, J.
Appellant filed a bill in the Circuit Court of V/innebago
OoTinty, seeking to restrain appellee from sn alleged violation of a
certain building restriction. Said bill alleged that appellant was
owner of lot 1 in block 33 of Central Tark Realty Company's Subdiyisioi
etc.; that appellee has pvirchased lot 1 in block 32 of said Subdivi-
sion, and "has taken possession of said lot and has cominenced the
erection of a wooden building thereon 9 x 16 feet in size, on the
ground, and 8 feet in height, and that said building, when com-
pleted, would cost less than 5500".
Said bill further alleges that the deed to sail premises
purchased by appellee "contains the follov/ing restrictions:
"'ITo building shall be placed closer than twenty feet from
the front line of said premises without the v/ritten consent of the
sellers being first obtained.
"'?[o building erected on lot shall be at a cost of less
than one thousand five hixndred ( JlSOO. 00) dollars ;• '' that appellee
"has now placed a foundation o#7 said lot for a house 23 by 23 feet
in size on the ground facing Sunnyside avenue, which is a street
adjoining said lot on the north, and that said foundation is 60
feet from Kilburn avenue, a street adjoining said lot on the east;
srfT ill
jefcf ffiotl Ia9(i,(iA
& to tioi&silotY J&sssIIs XIJ3 moT^: ssIXs'gtifl .al-Bid-seri o;t ^xii3f©e8 ,xiaao'0
^i?xJ5cfj3-S B'^jxsaffloO -^cd-IseH iisl XaniaeC to £5 ieolcf «1 I ioL to leaxc
lirtbduZ Ltss to S5 :isoX(f xil I iol issBxioii/q bbxI esIIeqqB d-sric^ j.ojf'e.
adi i»soit8Euroo earf M,s tol Ltae lo noiaeeBsog xieiisd- ssri" Xtr/B ,noxB
"ffioo neiiw , SjaiMixj-cT Blea cJ-flrW Ijcb ^d-ii^tJcei:)' nl d-es^ 8 ins ,J^rtx;ois
."OOaf. iisxfi^ eaal d-BOo lilircw ,i)9d-9lq
5SBJ:a?ati5.5tse o.& b&eL esii &sid^ a9:%9llj5 iQsiitsjt. ISJt.d His?.
: snox^si^ihes'a SKlwoIIo'i end- ercxBd-floo" esIIscjcTj; ^tf X)©Earioairq;
■Jird- xisiii idsolo Seoslq stf Xljerie snxl)Xi.cfcr oW"
-I oax-oo xi9##i'i:w ©xiii ^sjoMivt sselmaaq i)JtB8 lo snlX tf.toil erfd-
.^axiiBdcfo d-E*iil :^filed" eaeXXsB
v,^,r "=t-r •rr.f, 3 ;j-a ©ff XX^s d-oX «o i)sd-09^9 sniMliJcf o"»!'"
.■ "' js^sXXoJ(OO.OOSX#) J5eii)iixrxl svll XtJtiSBxrorfcf sxio narid-
■3 i(S SS ©axrerf is irel d^oX Msb^o aciishoL'ot b JbsojsXg won esxt"
ri . ^'xtB s ssl doMiv ,9Xf£j©VB 9i)Xexf"i08 sxclosl fimrcrs srid- no vsle ni
Oo Bi xioi^BJbitt-ol: ^i-ss d-sfid- iiis .rfd-iorr sxfd no doX blsa gnlxiio&J&B
9ji}' no j-ol jbisa sHitrio^its d-ae^d-s a ,©.cfiievB xiTircfXIX moil d-ssl
-2-
* * * that the said building, 9 x 16 feet, now "being built by said
defendant, also said foundation wall 23 fe?t square on the ground,
are each facing said Sunnyside avenue; and that in the construc-
tion of said building and in maJcing of said foundation the
defendant has adopted Sunnyside<^as the front of the said lot 1
in said block S2 aforesaid; * * * that the north or front side of
said foujidation, as it stands today, is 16 feet distant only
south from the south line of said Sunnyside avenue."
Said bill further alleges tiiat said building and foundation
for a building are each in violation of the building restriction
above (luoted; tliat appellant is interested in said Subdivision and
also interested as the ovmer of his said lot; and prays that an
injimotion be issued, restraining appellee from proceeding further
with spid i^.provements, etc.
Appellee filed an answer, admitting the purchase by her of
said lot and that the deed thereto contained the restr-icfcion set
forth in spid bill, buy denying the other allegations thereof,
and averring that said building D by 16 feet was erected for the
purposes of storlAg her chattels and household goods as veil as
working tools, during the process of condbructing a residence
building on said lot, * * * and that said wooden building was an
accessory building incidental to the construction and use as con-
templated of the main building or residence on said lot; =^ * *
that Sunnyside avenue is not in front of her said lot, but to the
side thereof, and that the front of said lot faces on Kilburn
avenue, the same being an improved street."
Thereafter, by leave of court, appellant filed a supplemen-
tal bill, setting forth "that since the filing of the original
bill herein, the defendant is proceeding to erect another >^uilding
on said lot, the north line of said building being but 6 feet
south of the south line of said Sunnyside avenue," and praying that
said construction be also enjoined, etc.
Appellee filed an answer to said supplemental bill, admit-
ting "that since the filing of the original bill herein, she has
proceeded to erect another building on said lot, the north line
&:r.'-i- y.lm won ,^•69'?: 91 x €' , grr JcMlxrcf iitBe edi &3r'i
,.:MiX-:T> -^'pa tBel 5S Hew no i^ shnxiol Ltss oel£ ,d^nel5Xiei©Jb
' - XftievB Qj&isx^mrS lixBe snxo^l dose eiB
;jhreja s^: ^eri^ * * * jM^ae^ols 35 aEocIcf ^l£a cJ:
. ,;;5Te ^tt^nnxr'^. Mae lo onil xf>t;roe ?r?r^ frrr'rt xljfiros
aoid-'j iiei^jelc/ «s sis aniMlu'cf
.'•e©^©«xii 'ai *j:i£llsc, ;' ; .'fB
rrs rl;f.' £,,.:;j;-: Cim ji^ol IJtfia 8 1x1 to teax<ro ©ilf eb ^©Jaotced-jcrl osIb
,.)".'. tai'jnsi&eTO'ieiffil ilss xld-lv/
.. &<; :..u- .e-'- ■^-' ■' vi..; i.s',..lii*ireo o#»«E6i>.^ i.;-fw yri^ »^j?fi# ^aj^ loX x)iJ5e
^■^r^^.-t.-.r ■■■■•(La fs.fiTo ©ff* gflivfjaJS Tgxr^ ,^Xlcf J&4:.sa xtJc jrf^iQl
;;f'el •■.; ,;<: *; ^il&lli!^ iii&e t^^ Sfiliisvfi Juts
■3l'3rf-*.^o ^8xi j|^^(j>d:8 lo ssBOtjnffq;
j^i^si^p exf*: Ovj iBiJiehXp&X .3aiJ&Xx;?rf ij;'X028©90B
• . - ■ Q-xfaavB Qi>laxpao^ iBii^
sQ,l.-S>Xf:'-- . --di i&dt. Jbas -fclo.BriQslt «J5xe
/■jx jhs ?^iiis>4 efPUBg «££# , exrnsTB
.■aJ.il eilj- ©oxiie sI'Bfff.'', il^'io'i sai^jJ-ae <j : -.--
E-i"' -nl^nrooTjij, el, jJ"xisJ&fl©;i:9i! erf^ .irie^sxi; Ilxcf
'- e J"x;oa ed* 'io xlixios
; enj;o(,££e. osXa. erf noltosrtiBaoo Iube
.-I'^^x/d' 'X.eMc>a.& tfos'ie o* ^eJ&seooiq,
-3-
of said building being but six feet south of the south line of
Sunnyside avenue, " but denying that this is in violation of said
restriction, etc.
Upon hearing in open court, the court found "that the said
lot is approximately 50 x 150 feet in dimensions, and that the
narrow or fifty-foot side of said lot abuts on Kilburn avenue on
the east, and that bhe longer or one hundred fifty-foot side on
said lot abuts on Sunny side avenue on the north; and the court
finds that the said lot fronts on the said Ivilburn avenue, and
that the front of scid lot is not in the direction of Sunnyside
avenue on the north;" that appellee havi oommenced the erection
of a wooden builclin^' on said lot 9 x 16 feet in siv:e, and that the
same when completed would oost less thanv5G0; and that the deed
to said lot 2 on tailed the restriction set forth in appellant's
bill. I', decree v.'as rendered, ordering that said wooden building
be remOTed frorr said prenises vithin six months from the date
of said decree and that appellee be enjoined and reatrained from
erecting on said premises any building costing less tlian 51,500.00,
as provided by tho terms of ssid deed. To reverse scid decree,
this appeal is prosecuted.
Ko brief and argument '-as filed by appellee. We would have
been warranted in reversing said cause pro forma , but have deemed
best to consider the same on tiie merits.
In his brief and argument, counsel for appellant states:
"Two questions are involved in this case as follows:
"1. As to tiie legality of the building restrictions in
question.
"£, As to the legal construction of the words 'front line'
as used in sAid building restrictions."
On the hearing, H. W. Herron testified on behalf of appelladttt'
that he took certain photographs of appellee's premises. These
photographs v/ere offered and admitted in evidence, but are not
found in the certificate of evidence , nor have the originals been
certified to us for inspection, "his witness furtlier testified:
"The Digiovanni building v/as then located on lot 1, block 32. This
-' - ^ 'r:- •---'" - eJxkTjb jfol JBise
■-. ... > , . .,rf* ;f£i{i- sJfcrtil
"'Of gi :' '::•' trf.TT 8rf;t tjsil^t
. acf
^OCOOGjA;, li'^i'.- ci6:?I s"--yj-" .-a no sJ^.t;to©!r9
- - .- - b&ittmrf^r: rtsstf
.; vit#fi* ©i# jato effljaa aid* rreiiEn. ^scf
'il b&irlo d-BOji/p ov/i'"
'-^&l arid
■•291 anlMiirc i'i^a xr^ x'&ajy j.:--:
>-^ ■ •-' •j-r.jvi iiu-i^Lc .'' /^ ,3ifliiB©ri ©rid' xrO
"•■ *.t-rf ,$c/T9.5*te- rfi: fi?vt;f loyr;,,'' ^.n,'? ^aiollo slew Bdq,STsoiQd(i
X'nixBVolaxCr o££T"
-4-
"building v/as in the southwest portion of the lot. That building
was 9 by 16 feet and about 8 feet high. Nothing but a little blook
of earth to rest the building on. Building was about 12 inches
from the surface of tho ground. ■" * * .'here is a concrete foundation
there 23 foot square. -''he 16 feet way of that building faces the
north; the 9 feet way of the building faces west. It is 16 feet
from the north line and GO feet from the east line of the lot to Iftie'
oonorete foundation. It is on lot 2, block 32. * * * From what I
have leu-i'ned, I could tell bhe cost of this 9 by ly feet building
wiien completed. It voald not eicoeed 250 dollars."
Thds witness was recalled and testified further: "Since
I tooi: tlie photogi'aph& testified to there lias been a new foundation
started and another bull iiig built in the corner of TCilbum 3Vrnue
and Cunnyside avenue. The new one is S feet south of the sidewalk
on Sunnyside av^^enue and about 20 feet back frosi the center of
the building about four feat sciuare b'^ing built in the southwest
corner of the lot. The ne'v foundation is a^out 20 by 20. The
foundation has been p-oured."
George A, :?ubin testified on behalf of appellant that he
was in the real estate bxisiness in Rockford, and originally had
Central lark platted and recorded and sold Itx as lots, in 1915;
that "Kilburn avonue is one of the main arteries from 13 townships
leading to Rockford. It runs north c-nd south. Sunnyside avenue
runs west. It begins at I-Cilburn avenue. Lot 1 in Block 32 is in
that subdivision. It is at the southv/est corner of Kilburn and
Sunnyside. It was first conveyed to Ben Stone. Ve ut in ceaent
sidewalks on 3xinnyside avenue, ceraent curb, extended the electric
pole line, cindered the street, set out two trees in front of each
lot and graded the street the street. Lots are 50 by 133 and a
sufficient alley. Lot 1 in block 32 is 140 by 48. The 48 feet
front faces on Kilburn avenue, ihe 140 feet front faces on
Sxmnyside avenue. Sunnyside avenue has been used considerably on
account of the addition west of Central Park. They are laying
sewers there now."
Appellant also offered in evidence the deed to the premises
&lftit SJOi
sj&K snl^lli
•:a£S>liir'r
!i>Sifij:,%ii.ty'
uXa^SQ^c
'::.LLiic mii-
J J..'W . iTt-V-i
. ;^a8rw axun
.,,. .. ... . V . . , , .^ I fl * n 3 i 3 i llxTB
-5-
ovmed by him, and the deed to Ben Stone, under whom appellee held
the premises here i.nvolved. This was all of the evidence, no
evidence havina; been offered by appellee,
While, as contended b" conjisel for appellant, restrictive
clauses in deeds, 'here not unreeaonable , are upheld by the courts,
yet covenants of a character which hamper the free use of the
property are to be strictly construed against the restriction, and
all doubts are to be resolved in favor of the reasonable use of
the property. Eokhart v. Irons, 128 131. 582; ■'Tutchinson v. Ulrioh,
145 111. 336-342; 3wertsen v. Gerstenber^r, 186 111. 344-349; Curtis
V. Rubin, 244 111. 88-92; Loomis v. Collins, 272 111. 221-232;
Boylston v. "canes, 276 111. 279-285.
("here a doubt arises on the construction of a buildinf^ re-
striction, as to which way the building sou.<^ht to be enjoined
fronts, that doubt is to be resolved a£-ainst the restriction.
Boylston v. Holmes, supra, 286. V^'hether a building fronts on one
or the other of two streets is a ouestion of fact, to be deter-
min*d. Isy from the evidence in the record. In 'Taw3s v. Favor, 161
111. 440, the court at page 448 says:
"Whether the covenant to front buildings on the park was
violated by erecting the new structure, presents a question of
fact, upon which the evidence is conflicting. Counsel for appellant
insist that certain photographs of the building, offered in evi-
dence, clearly show the t it fronts on Fifty-first street and not
on the park. It may be, if one were called upon to determine from
the mere exterior of the building which would more properly
appear to be the front, the contention would be correct. Evidently,
from these photographs and the testimony of the various witnesses,
it was intended that the house should have the external appearance
of fronting both or the street and the park. But a majority of
the witnesses, who were acquainted >ith the interior of it as
well as the exterior, state that it fronts on the nark, E^nd among
them is the architect \rho designed it. It certainly cannot be said
from the evidence in this case that it does not front on the park,
e^i^^ iO %cv.s'
tLlt.f:S
•9£u'xi:wi ;i:i:^c"doci .III e*x
;Se-88 .III :^*S .RifxriJ .t
fffihc ©rid' 10
.III
••^^■f v'r.r'r> vJ-TagXo , flonsi*
■ ■eJ5fred'fiJ: saw vi-i.
_ 8V.
-6-
and, in our view of the proper and legal construction of the covenant
claimed to have been violated, it is iriraaterial whether it also
fronted on Fifty-first street or not."
A3 siat-;d, the photographs which were offered and admitted
in evidence are not a part of the record and are not before us for
inapsctlon. ,If t}io photographs did not indicate something with re-
ference to the street on v^hich said foundation purported to front,
there is nothing to so ino-icate. i.ie evidence, all of which was
offered by aipeilant, discloseo that "ICilhurn avenue is one of
the nain arteries" of travel, leading into Roekford, while
Sunnysiie avenue is u. street only fifty feet wide, beginning at
Kllburn avenij-e and extending west. If the facts and circumstances
disclosed by tho evideace tend to any conclusion, it is tliat
appellee 7:^s fronting' tlm building to be erected on said founda-
tion on Jlilbum avenue. Gortainly tiiere is no evidence on which
the oourt could baje a finding that she was facing the same on
Sunnyside avenue .
So far as ss.li foundation is concerned, the court ;7as
warranted in finding that it aid not viola te said building restric-
tion. As to the fraae building, said deorea recLuired that appellee
remove the saiie from said premises within six months. Jlppellant
Is tnerefore not in a position to complain of the decree in connec-
tion therewith. J\s to the second foundation or basement on the
premises, complained of in the sup lemental bill, the testimony of
appellant's witnesses is that it v/as siz feet from Sunnyside avenue
and tv/enty feet from Kilburn. Tresumably, it is intended to face
on Kilburn avenue, in wViioh event there would be no violation of
the restriction, there being no restriction against erecting more
than one building on each lot.
It might be further observed that the restriction sought
to be enforced is that "no building shall be placed closer than
twenty foet from i;he front line of said premises without the written
consent of the sellers being first obtained." Even conceding that
Sunnyside avenue is the front of said lot, the bill did not charge
and no proof was offered tending to show that the consent of the
::r ^-icts-.;
.- -.. _^=i sdif Ic
-■lr:J: '^'cn iylL silc.;;
■fX.b
•^VOPIfX
-f i>«r!:92;3;» aaw liooicr
■■/
'''sellers h^d not Ijoen obtained by appellee, previous to commencing
said bu-'iiding.
/' For the rea-nnr, above not f ort ., the decree of the trial
/ oc>-art T'ill be s.f firmed.
Ueoree p.ff'.rmed.
-y?-
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
SECOND DISTRICT J I, JUSTUS I,. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, In
and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof,
do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above
entitled cause, of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set mj' hand and affix the seal ot
said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this day of
in the year of our Lord one thousand
nine hundred and twenty-
CIcrL- of the Appellate Court
(oSTOl— 311— 7-27)
/
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and b«ld at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fifth day oy Febi
the year of our Lord one Zhousanet^lTrve t^ndred aryl twanty-
the Secojftd District of ^he State
NORMAN Tf. JONES, Presylding Jus/ice/
FRANKI^rlN H. BOGGS> /ust i ce ,
TH0MA,6 M. JETT, J^'stice,
JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk.
FLOYD S. CLARK, Sheriff.
^^*^.
^
663
J?
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On
,y|^ , the opinion of the Court was filed in the
Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
,THUOO 3TAJJaqiA JiHT 'iO M-ISj.' A j:)\
sdj y X is 3 I X 'i o A w J •,: rj o 1;
E 3 1 i; ? .'. 'i t U k. i. L 7 O '-,' :■ p' ,
General Ko. 797V
Agenda No. 8,
Frank P. Schmidt, kenry J.
Sohmidt, Louis A. oohmidt,
Joseph '.V. Maple, Trustee,
appellants. Appeal from Circuit Court of
"^^^ Peoria County, Illinois.
Alliert Randall,
appsll ee ,
OPIKIOir toy BOGGS, J.
On Hoveabsr 10, 1920, appellants, Frank P., Henry J.,
and Louis A. oohmidt, being the owners of the premises in question,
a coal mining property located in Peoria county, conveyed the same,
with the machinery and appurtenances, to tiae Leitner Coal Company.
On the same day said coal company executed a trust deed to appel-
lant Maple on said premises, including said eq_uipment, securing
certain notes to appellan-us 'rank P. Henry J., and Louis A. Schmidt,
the last of which saia notes were to become due and payable four
years after date.
On December 30, 19E1, a bill was filed by appellants to
foreclose sail trust deed. On May 19th, 192E, during the pendency
of said proceedings, The Herget National "ank procured a judgment
by confession in the circuit court of said county a^ ainst said coal
company for $10,516o67; an execution issued on said Judgment was, by
the sheriff of said county, levied on the eq^uipment theretofore used
in said mine, lotice of sale under said execution was given by the
sheriff, as provided by statute. Prior to the time fixed for said
sale, notic in writing was given said sheriff by appellants Schmidt
of the execution of said notes and trust deed, and that a bill to
forecl se said trust deed was pending, and "that the complainants
in said foreclosure claim a valid first lien under said trust deed
on all the property so levied on".
^vev .oil
• SiOXllXII ,%trtWoO J8|X0 9
II -£ai9xi9{)
•~ « ■"'»wAi -ir&ifaj 2)IXB Bed' on htoa '^■n «« f.^.
^ -^X,«o ..* ,^,. .^.,,„,,„,, .,„ ,,^, ,^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^
"" "'"' *°"" "-^^ - -"^o e™.oIo.„, MB3 ai
•"no iaiToI oa x;*.i,K,(, ,- „,,■ r r., co
On June 18, 1923, the sherirf of said oounty made sale of
said equipment to one Henry Graber, Junior, for ;(^1,065.50. There-
after, on April 30, 192£, a decree was entered foreolosing said trtist
deed and for sale of said premises. On February 26, 1926, appellants
instituted the present suit against appellee to recover damages al-
leged to have been suffered on account of said levy and sale.
The declaration consists of two counts. Appellants coneeid
that the first count is in trespass, but contend that the
second count is in case. An examination of the second count dis-
closes that it is also a count in trespass, it being averred that
Son, to-wit, February 29, 1924, and on divers other dates, etc.,
with force and arras, etc., defen..ant broke and entered a certain
close and mine of the plaintiffs, etc.," and conoluaes "against the
peace of the people of this state".
To said declaration appellee filed a plea of the general
issue and certain special pleas, to which special pleas demurrers
were sustained. As no cross errors are" assigned, it is not neces-
sary to further discuss said pleas. A jury was v/aived, and on the
trial the issues v/ere found for appellee, ano. jud^j-ment v/as rendered
against appellants, in bar of action and for costs. To reverse said
Judgment, this appeal is prosecuted.
V/liile numerous errors are assigned, the principal q.uestion
involved is as to whether an action of trespass will lie. On the
trial, propositions of law \;ere submitted by appellants to the
effect that said mining eq.uipment was, as to said trust deed, real
estate and a part of said security. These propositions were held by
the court. Appellee concedes tiiat, as he did not assign cross errors,
said finding is conclusive.
The action of trespass is a possessory action, and, at common
law, "one must have a property (either absolute or temporary) in
the soil and actual possession by entry, to be able to maintain
an action of trespass." Blackstone's Com., vol. 3, p. 211. "In
-tSB to tll^QiiB ©rid- ,SSej: ^'8jE'«jarTi KG
.1© asw ©®'a:osIs £ , "-: ■ .OS Xirigl •to- /isd'^ts
i^;^ lo,^xu;roa$)£ xi« .feaiellifa tt9»«f fvarf off iagel
■ -,,.- .ed-mfoo ow* to a^aiaxioe noits-c; .real o^;t
-sx^- ■ ;io»«G erf^ "i^o floid-snxHiaz . .... -.ifoo Mooes
&£^sii !)^"-s.-i&.-vM sH-i , . sBqast t fii iffltroo s oelfi el J-i &BrLi esaolo
,.0' , < .S'S \iBsn(i&'i ,d-J:w-od- ,rioS
\eil- 3Xi3- ^0 exixxTi ■ rus qboXo
^i& to olqo; r- soseq
,jb9ns^a©js '913 G-'irjtie bsoto on. cu .beal&i'asjQ snaw
i39'isji«9^' Bsvf *a9ksJ5u8t .-- ,.-: -II»55» to'i ^iiufoi eiew aei/eai: eii* Isttt
blsB QB'xeto'i oT .ad-BOO lol !)m JsoJt-J-ajs lo ibu at , .^icfiijlle-.- - ri-arutfiSB
■'"'•.••■■->■"■ -^'rfgijffe'e -^B aiOt'i» ax?©ie«'u . .
.r'».8H5tfa; ... rts lexid-aiiv „J: ^erloYiXi
,.'mi& S8.&©0JlOO ®8£l8.. ixlcJ-
.ftviax/Ioiioo ax afti^aJ;! ^ix^a
.■-.jItcs -v-xoaBaasoq « sx essqasiit to aQti9& axf..
' tc 9txrIoa4a larf^ie) ■^^i-Tteqoiq is avB/i i-ax/m $mo' ,wsl
s\ si C.+ tj^s^f-as ■^tf noieaeaRoq Xsxr#0J3 X>nB ilea sxiit
order to maintain an action of trespass q.u-are clausum fregit, the
plaintiff must, at the time of the trespass, be in the actual or
constructive possession of the land on which the acts of trespass
were committed." 26 R.C. L. p. 955, sec. 32; Halligan v. C. <Sb R.
I. R. R. Co., 15 111. 558-559; Dean v. Jomstock, 32 111. 173-178;
Winkler v. ..leister, 40 111. 349-351. Trespass tiuare clausum fregit
does not lie, except for injuries to possession. Fort Dearborn Lodge
V. ELein, et al, 115 111. 177-189.
Counsel for appellants practically concede the general rule
to be as above stated, but insist it aoes not apply in this case,
for two reasons: First, it is contended that a mortgagee or
trustee, upon condition broken, can maintain actions of ejectment
and trespass.
No specific proof was offei*ed to the effect that the condi-
tion of said trust deed, at the time this suit was instituted, was
■broken. Appellants, however, say that the facts and circumstances
in evidence conld lead to but one conclusion, via,, that at that time
certain of the conditions of said trust deed v/ere in fact broken.
4ss\iming this to be true, it o.oes not follow that appellants, as the
holders of said notes and as such trustee, were in either the actual
or constructive possession of said premises. Appellants cite Llaasa-
ohusetts and certain other states as holding that the right to possess-
ion by reaeon of condition broken in a trust deed is sufficient to
maintain the action of trespass, out concede that they have found no
case in this state so holaing. The authorities in this state ho3d
that, for condition broken, a mortgagee or trustee may maintain an
action of ejectment, but until such suit is brought and Judgment ren-
dered thereon, such trustee or mortgagee does not have possession,
actual or constructive. As the action of trespass is a possessory
action, it canr.ot be maintained by a mortgagee after condition broken,
until actual or constructive possession has neen obtained.
The second reason advanced as to why actual or constructive
possession is not necessary is that, under section 36 of the Practice
e^;. i^'-
*''■; f-"?"'
■ i ■: vxew
, .1
ortcf
aisiiXoif
.H ^i«., ^^^ .vxv^«M. .■;:.-%.:; >^ v*:o .,..1 ^.v^anoo ^o
nsjE^sc^ -tojb
aot, appellants are to be held the owners of said premises, and to
have the right to maintain their oause of action without being in
possession.
. Said section (Cahill's Stat., ch. 110, sec. 26,) among other
things, provides: "It shall be lawful for any owner of real estate,
though not in possession of the same, where the same is in possess-
ion of some person or persons claiming under him, as tenant or
otherwise, to bring an action in trespass or case for aziy injury
to his interest in such land as oi'/ner, reversioner, remainderman,
or otherwise, the sarae as if in possession of the land, against the
person or persons claiming under him, or a. ainst any stranger commit-
ting injui'y to the rights of such person in said land."
As between the mortgagee and the mortgagor, in an action
at law, the trustee or the mortgagee is held to be the owner of the
premises. Carroll v. Ballance, 26 111. 9-16; Oldham v. Pfleger, 84
111, 102-103; Esker v. Heffernan, 159 111, 38-42; IVare v. Schintz,
190 111. 189-193, The mortgagor or his assignee, however, is the
legal owner of the mortgaged estate as against all persons excepting
the mortgagee or his assigns. Esker v. Heffernan, 159 id. 38-42;
Lightcap V. Bradley, 186 111. 510-519; Ware v. Schints, supra, 193.
As this suit is not by the trustee and holdexs of said notes
against the mortgagor, but against a third party, as to such third
party appell.oiits were not, at the time of the institution of said
suit, the owners of said property.
A careful examination of sai-^ section 36 will disclose that
appellants' construction thereof is not correct. wTiatever
rights appellants have in said premises were derived from the Leitner
Coal Company. Appellsjits were neither the owners, the reversioners
or the remaindermen of said premises ag against appellee. The
Leither Goal Company held possession of said property at the time
said suit was tAstituted.
Jo oBSJi'.. '"i" evsri
..aozEasesoq
f. A%vodt
noi
^a.v'xa ocf ,saiwi£)ilo0
7 -'■ -- - .-.scfxii sirl od-
,..wc .>v , Jijiyiddifo TO
■ L', In p.iTO'.'CP-f lc noa'ieq
,v/£i (fa
, .'rtu6ll©H > -eeisS ;SOI-SCI .III
, -.GiJi^ii: .V qs?>*il3i«I
aoi^aaXm&xt' Ix-jre-x;;:
- -r.i'X
.U5lIeqqA .-'^'aqfiroD IsoD
f'!©fiTT0.&nlj3Jfldt!: SXW 10
It mi^jht be further observed in thli. case that appellants at
the timetha notice in ..xuestion was given to saia sheriff, were
not olairainjj to be the ov/ners of said premises, but v/ere claiming
"a valid first lien undor said ti"ust deed on all of the property so
levied on."
Appellants, not having the actual or constructive poesess-
ion of saic premises, are not in a position to maintain their cause
of action, and the court di. not err in so finding.
It v/ill not be necessary, therefore, for us to discass the
other questions attempted to be raised by the assignment of
errors.
For the reasons above set forth, the judgment of the trial
court will be affirined.
Judgment affir.ied.
i» at as
£©x
©rid-
.ilmlaXQ iSifs
nt
iiXBt
letisja
sx&i..
1 /: L?:'\
: .iiOXjOB ?:o
S1&&QP.:
•Tj;joo
\\
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
SECOND DISTRICT [ I, JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in
and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and tlie keeper of the Records and Seal thereof,
do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Ci.urt in the above
entitled cause, of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal ot
said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this day of
__^ in the year of our Lord one thousand
nine hundred and twcnty-
Clcrk of the Appellate Court
153761— 3M— 7-27)
i
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held a-t/Jttawa, on Tue&dayr'the "fifth dav^^TTebruai
the year "tff our Lord one thc^sand nine hundred arp twenty-r jine ,
within and for the Second District of the State |)f Illinois:
Pre3ent--The Hon . v^ORMAN L. JONES, Presiding Justic
^on. FRANKLIIi.-H. BOGGS, Justice.
Hon?*^OMAS B. JETT, Justice.
JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk.
^
FLOYD S. CLARK, Sheriff.
/
2^
^
y
/
664
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On
RISV c ,,-^ the opinion of the Court was filed in the
Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
^te.-> rf!) -
7945
Tador Kapinsky, Defendant in error,
V.
Anna Hlawaty, Ilaintifl' in error,
Error to Circuit
Court of LaSalle
Oovjity, Illinois.
Jones, r.J.
This cause is before us on a writ of error to reverse
a {judgment 4n favor of Tador K^.^insky against Anna ^^lavraty. Tliey
will be referred to herein as plaintiff and defendant respective-
ly.
The declaration consisted of a sin/rle o 7umtj|( for raonejr
loaned as evidenced "by s. procnir.sory note for H25. The instru-
ment purports to have beer executed hy defendant, and a copy
of it was attached to the declaration. Defendant filed the general
issue and a verified plea denying the exgcution and delivery of
the T-ote. Fo similiter ?.'as filed and the csuae ?/as continued
several times covering a period of more than 7 j-ears. Plaintiff
subseq.uently sued out an attachment in ail. Later the oause was
called for trial. Ilaintiff ana his attorney appeared in court.
Defendant had moved away from LaSalle County rind vms living in
the State of Iowa. Pier attorney had died prior to the time the
oause was called for trial. She did not learn of his death until
a few days prior to the entrj' of ^udgn";ent. !^o one appeared for
her and in her absence a default v.'as entered against her. The
ooux't, wichout a .jury, heard evidence on the attachm'^nt issue,
and as to the amount due on the note. !To evidence was heard on
the issue roised by the rl®^ denying the execution of the note.
Judgment v/as entered against the defendant as by
default. At the sa-ne t^^rm of court, th*^ defendant appeared by
counsel and entered a motion to set aside the default and for
a new trial. The motion ■s^'as denied.
Defendant, havinr^ ple'^ded to the daclaration, was not
in default. 50 far as 3he was concerned the cause was at issue.
Under that staue of the record, it was error to enter a default
against her and proceed to hear the cause without submitting to a
LBieae'^ 9sii' &®i.tt i'ltQ^ixo'ie^I ..n[oJi#B's:sIo^.& ©rid- o* ^s/fost^.a bsw rf-i "io
1© V;''"S'Vi:l9j& fi«.G £ioi$ssG^x» ««f# s^l^^ei ssXq; itQillisv B dab exrssi:
.tixros «tx fis^RsqtjE ^^e/x-sod-^s alii-Lits tli^faiisr-I ,X,siTr# lol JbeLlso
at :^ai-v£L eaw i)tt« ^droyoC elXsSiWI aioil igawfl itsvcm fsBri d'jtti?i>09leCI
srf;^ Offii* add- oct lox^rq isi* .6arf y.snnod'i^.B leH .jbwoI 1o ed-scfS qjA&
xtims d&BBi) Bi.rf to '["xbsL d^onJbiJb siiE .Xjsjtrt^ lol Ltllso eaw e8Xfr>c
srfl- .Tteff ;^EfJKiJS55iI; ^9i:s.tn9 asw *Xirjsl9i» & soirsBrfB 'xsrf «i JbnB i-er^
tOi lifts :J-Xi;s'i9J5 @di qMba ^0b o.t rfolrf-om .8 he'is.tns ijces Xserriroo
tfon Bsw , fro loB'XJsX*>s^- Oil* €i-:t IbobBexq ^akvaii tinsJbtiQleU.
,'^x-i^si: r*^::; zsy^ &sa&t> exid- i)6ff^©oxfoo aaw eria aa rrsS o8 .*Xi/B'xoJb n.r.
tiRiJiSB *xro.ri*iw aexTBO eriir isari o^ X5e8oea;i ^rrs ted teatn-^B
-2-
Jary the Issues raised by the plea. (Archer v. Spillraan, 1 "cam.
552; Paul v. -eople, 82 111. 82; .'.eras v. Adinamis, 195 111. App.
92; .'iaokcr v. \oung, 172 Id. 2;;5; Thomas v. ToG-uitmiss, 94 id.
248.) The case at bar is not one of the class of cases .vhere
the right of trial by .jury was waived either expressly or by
conduct ijiplying such a waiver.
There was no testimony ofl'ered which tended to snow
that defendant e:<.eouted the note in question. without any evidence
on that issue, plainoixf had no riftht to recover a .jii'igment.
neither was there proof suxlicient to support a judgment in at-
tachment upon any of the groujids set forth in the affidavit.
The judgment of t/ie trial ooart is reversed and the
cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
-s-
iet:0-i:.M ,JieI(T eiv:' \6 tiosiB'i QosseBi. edi xis:^,
aaaeilT ?eca .-.■ ... ^ ,.:.^^,. .. ......... i^e
: veVlBW BJ9W \;v- ... .'
-nojuld'asi'" on -esw otedT
.££.f)r sins';
^^Masn^g: .feit^ .fesa^? v ,• ;
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
SECOND DISTRICT I I, JUSTUS T.. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in
and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof,
do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of tiie opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above
entitled cause, of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of
said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this. day of
in the year of our Lord one thousand
nine hundred and twenty- —
Clerk of the Appellate Court
I537(il— 3M— 7-27)
J-
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the f
the ys'^r of our Lord :'one thouflp,nd nine
within 4,rid for the Se^^d'hd District of
Pre3ent--The Hon. NORjj!
:AN L. ■ JjONES,
Hon. Franklin/. BOGGS, Justice.
Hon. THOMAS Wf. JETT, Justicj
JUSTUS L. JOfHNSON, Clerk,
?enty-nine ,
rtate jpf Illinois:
Presiding Justic^e
FLOYD S. CLARK, Sheriff.
i^2 I.A. 664
2.
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On
Ma .
the opinion of the Court was filed in the
Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit!
■'".0 ii:mT
'■\ \-'-
7988
AMOS CABVffiLL, Appellee, )
V. )
J. S. LtALEi, ^.ppellant, )
37
APPEAL FROM TH'iJ]
OIRCUIT OOUF'T" OF
KNOX: COUiTTY.
JOISSJS, r. J.
This is an aoticu brougiit by appellee, Amos Oadwell,
against appellafit;, J. E. Maley, before a .justioe of the peace to
recover 'vaf;es of labor. Judgiiient v/as renlered by the justice
of the pea?o in fnvor of appellee. An appeal was taicer. to the
oirr.iit court fnd the oau3e vvaa tried by a iiiry which returned
a verdict for )87 in appellee 'g favor. Judgment vfas rendered
on the verdict for that ju.a, together fiitln attorney's fees
of )15 for the trial before the .iustice of the peace and )35
for the trial in the circMit 30urt. An appeal vras thereupon
taken to this coxirt.
Appellant, ?:aloy, was the owner of an apartment
building located at 6t;9 V/. South Street in the City of G-alesbupg.
He wanted the i^^rass in the rear of the building mowed Tritln. a
scythe and wont in search of someone to do the work. 'e. drove
his automobile to the "Puff Pool Room". Upon entering the
pool room, he asked an elderly aan if ne wanted the job. The
.Tian replied ne was sick but that nis son in law, meaning the
plaintiff, Icnew how to mow with a scythe and would do the wox'k.
Appellant then engaged appellee to now the gra&s. This was
about the 14th day of June, 13£7.
The controversy- in this case arises over the terras
of the agreement entered into between the parties, ''ftiile the
original enployrnont related only to raov7ing the f'::rass , subsc-
•quenb conversation "ijotveen zheia. led to a further agreement
which contemplated a 30Me-7hat st?ady eraployraent, '^hereby
appel.lee was to perform labor for appellant in connection
with various oropertit^s owned by appellsjit ^nd was to receive
3£ij OCT ■:: bc c:j3w laS'^Qi! £tk .©ell«qq;jp to ^fivGl ajt 80Bec[ ©il* Ic
^atrida'-e' • -■• -jaj:rf B xrf J&sii^ saw s^xtjbo siJjJ' J&rtG i'^J'OO (Miroiie
a"0(j.v©'i9£{# 8SVf laeqgjg c' .^^xreo iH^o-xif) sxlrf' ni Ijsi'i:^ erio io3:
.jirrco 81 .'id' oo"" aeisid
srQib.QH .Ittow ©ii* oi> oi snoemoB to j^c^^se iiid-xiQw Xjcq ©xfJ^ss
6jS[t)- aKlrrs#«9 noq:U ."atooE Icol l^tj;;^" siiif od- sLi.(loniotss& Bid
Qd'i' ,Got ®i^ci £8d-j2J3W ^ 11 nan Tjl^sjbls iij3 i)el2£ orl ,£iooi looq
aiid- s«lii,3em ,isbI ni xioe aixi ^siid d-xfcf 2Loi& a^w su Jb©i.Ig[oi n-aci
.Dt^iow 0jSd- o& Llirovj Lns odt\os js xiJiw wom od woxi weixa; .tlld-xiiJSJta
saw sirlT .asxi^silt wor. cd 6ei.I©q;(iB 4>S"S''^-'^ -rrsii# , #|Sj^41J^fiig(j;A.
.vaci ,9i>i-T. ... :.&hl arid- *X'-C<fB
ifri©* Qd& %eYO. BsaitcB 9Ei^o j^lxfd ai \Bi©voidTcoo sriT
sxf^ i^Ud:^: .aaldisq sii;!- Hsswd-ocT odxil Lers-etae iaeme&^B trl.' io
"OtJid'/.-p; ,fis«=r5 fill* 5)Xtxwoo! o* ^ijKO Jbttd-alet d-ixPcrt^oXgfiie Ijsjttl^iio
rfKSMOGijjii •Esrid'tttJl £ od- £©I ffisri* ji©6Wi^9c' fioJtd-BBtteTrcot
' ;\' ■." ' ,d-n9j2^oI^£j9 -^iJ&JBod-B d-£riwsx«oe b LQisltimsiticQ rioixiv;
-2-
for such labor, wages and a place to live. -he chief dispute is
as to the rate of wages appellee was to receive. Appellant
contar.ds that the rate fixed was ;45 per month, hut appellee claims
that it was to he 35j.' an hour.
Each of the parties was corroborated hy ot'ter withesses.
Vavner and 3ozad testified t'nat they were in the pool room at
the tide appellant oame in and engaged appellee to mow the
grass; Ahat they walked out of the pool room with the parties
to the suit and heai-o. appellant say tnat he would pay appellee
35/ tua hour u.ad give him a place to live. On the other hand,
two witnesses produced by appellant, Sriowalter and Shoil, testi-
fied they were staudiug in front of the pool room at the time
the paroles come out and that they did not see Gozad and
Taruor or hestr appoilaiit maxe any statement to appellee about
tvages. 'Vitn^'SiOc!, loppcl and Pluaer, testified to alleged ad-
missions of appellee that he was x'oceiving i45 a month.
About July 13, 1927, appaliso aovGd from the apartment
building" to another Vrjuse ovjned. by appsllarit and the latter
clal'nG ths-t appellee nev-^r worked fox- him after that dato. 'le
also clr ims th-'; t on July 2:-rd, he and appellee had a sottlerasnt
at 'hl^h ti;ic it i.r.s dste:;.'' ained that uhere v/as '1.50 due
appellee; tha;^ appellee said that he was in need of more money
with "iw-iich to buy g]°ooeries and asiced appellant to lean hie
1^,?. 50: that appellant accordingly made out a cheek for '5.00
end vrpote v.vov the fnce of it the follov/ing-, "In full to date.
f?.50 over for rages."; that he read the check to appellee and
that tbe witness Ryrsn heard the conversation between the.Ti aad saw
the check st the time it v/as -written; that the chock was
cnshed by appellee who never repaid the loan of '':Z.50; and that
no fu:^ther d3'-r!and was made for v.ages ^oiitil after appellee had-
been evicted from ■^.ppolla.nt 's aouse .
Appellee denied that t:'ia check was read to him, but
asserted that 'ie ex^'mined it; that it lid not contain tne no-
tation above referred to at the time it was cashed; ohat no
final seiBement was njaie betresn the parties at the time
m:- iCC
: -,^. ;SX{J ^BTi.l .?'
oinc^ifee
it was given; and that it was not determined that there waa
a balance of '1.50 due him. It ia his contention that the
check for 35.00 was p;iv"en on account only.
Api^ella^t states in his brlof thr t the cvideroe is
irreconcilable. Certain it ir, , tliere is '..lucli dia^ute about
the facta in the ct'se. '''e have carefully exaniriod the absti'aot
and record, nnd tho contentions of the pertios with respect
to the facts carnot "oo reconciled. If the te!Dtinfio;iy of appellee
and his witne^^ses is to be believed, the .judgraent was rightfully
rendered in Uis favor, b'at if the testimony of appellant and
his witness3s is 'true, then taere should be no rooo'-'ery. Two
trials have been had, one before a ,iustice of the peace and
another in tho circuit co'-irt bv a ,1vi.ry of twelve -nen. In both
instances, ~ho ip-sues \;erc founcL in iax'or of appellee. Under
the circumistcu';ce."-T, the veidict of tlie jury and the aatiorj of
the trial coui't in overruling a motion for a n=;vv trial, ia
entitled to creat weight. The jury and the trial Judge were
in much bettor position to test the credibilit;;/' of -vYitneFses
and to determine the weight to be given to their testimony
than is a reviewing court. In this case there is ample
reason for the aoplioation of the rvile that the verdict of a
jury ^nd the ,1udginent of a trial c^urt will not be disturbed
unless such verliet and judgment are so manifestly against
the weight of the evidence that justice requires a reversal.
iHfealea v. Xeenan, 244 111. 484; French v. French, ^15 id. 470.)
Appellee's 'bojli. of account v/as properly admitted in
evidence, although it waa cxnidely ^:ept and ;iad certain lesves
torn frora it by the Justice of the peace, \^ho songht to seiarate
the account yued on from other items not lelated to this con-
troversy.
Gomplaiiit in ^lade of alleged prejudicial conduct on the
part of co-msel for ajpellee. "he bill of oxceptijus does not
iri'^lude the renarics of which conplaiut is made, /u attempt
to presont the aatter by aj'fidaviif-^^^c been made. It cannot
be done in chat vray. (Bellinger v. Barnes, "23 111. 121; .Austin
v. Public service Co., 219 in. App. 137.)
-ny .ana jnovi^ sbw •xi.
.5 Od.lC lo soHBletf e
'fO !: -.InflrTj
-4'
In the oral argaraent in this court, appellant ^irged
that attorney^ fees should not have been allo'.ved because
no suXricient notice 'tos given before the brinring of tlie suit.
That qfiesticn \ms not raised in the trial court, ncr ij it among
the aasignaants of error. It was stipulated b^ia t if plaintiff's
attorney is entitled to fees yjider che notice and under the
record tht^t tae ustml, reasonable, and customary fee in such
oases Is '15 in the justice coart and -'35 in thi circuit court.
Finding no reversible error in the record, the jud^-Ji-ixit of
toe circuit court is affii'med.
Judgment affiriiiod.
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
SECOND DISTRICT ' I, JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in
and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof,
do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of tiie opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above
entitled cause, of record in my office.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal ot
said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this day of
in the year of our Lord one thousand
nine hundred and twenty-
Clcrk of the Appellate Court
(537S1— 3M— 7-27)
If--' '
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT,
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the fifth day of February, in
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty-nine,
within ari^^^-Tor ti^e Second "ETistrict of the State'of Illinois
v.- ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■ *■ v — - ■
Present--The Hon. NORMAN L. JONES, Presiding Jxj%tice. ^.
Hon. FRANKLIN H,,., B06GS J ""justice.
*i:.THOMAS M. JETJ, Vustice .
JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk.
FLOYD S. CLARK, Sheriff. ,_.
BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On
■ ,V the opinion of the Court was filed in the
Clerk's office of said Court, in the words and figures
following, to-wit:
8010
19
appellees,
V.
SIHOLAIR PirE "-urn nOI.TANY, a
?> orporati on , a-opeliant ,
iPI'EAL FROM CIrt'TTJIT
COURT OF LASALLE
OOUITY.
jo?ni;g, p. T.
AppelJ.ees recovered a iu<if»ment against appella.nt
for il50 on account of money paid oat as attorney's fees
under the terms of a ripht of way Hi-^ree^nent between the par-
ties. This appeal is prosecuted to re vT'^rse that .juiggmant.
'''he record discloses thp.t appellees and H. F, Sinclair
entered into a wi-ltten contract on the 10th day of Holrem'ber,
1916, by which appellees granted Sinclair the right to lay a
pipe line across their tract of land. I'he contract proTi6.ed
■or the payment ox all damages *. ioh mitqht avise frora laying,
maintaining, and operating such pipe line, and further, t lat
suoh damages, if not mutually ai,Teed upon, s^hall "b^j aaccrtained
and de"5yr;ained by thi'ee disinterested persons, one of i,/honi
shall be appointed by appellees, one by "fSinclair, or his aosiigns,
and tne third by the two arbitrato_-s already appointed. i^he
award of the three arbitrators shall be linp 1 and conclusive.
The oontraot v/as after./ard assigned by Sinclair to appellant.
'(?he agreeaent as orif.' ' '.ally dravm -.'/as not aecep-cable
to appellees, tnd there vms aided a provision requiring the
e~rantee x-o save the grantors haruless from all attorney's fees
and court costs occasioned to them or incurred by them on ao-
oounty of one laying or maintenance of the pipe line through
their land. In ]iay, 1927, certain daruages were caused to appellees'
land thrcu^.;h the opei*ation of the pipe line, for which they.
submitted a claim to appellant. Interviews between Freeman
and orie r-'oul".. n, an agent of appellant, relative to the clrim
for damages, 7;c. e liad in June and August of -chat year, bv.r, no
0108
fL\}:,rzosri- AJiMs mik miT-^'i
.. ' Y;i;,i'ici i\3 a-S Jx/q £i.eq \:sffOjai lo liitroooB /to Odl':, lol
js -^Bl. oi t^Jt4Bi■1 ©rid" <ilBl©x3:ic i)©jf-jn.GT:s as©II©q:q;« rfoMw y*^ ,dI&A
^sffivoiff ivs.'x^zioo ©ffT .fijKBl 'lo ^■oc^td' 'xie/fj s&oioj3 anil eqirr
«:§fiJ:Ti.af. mo^t 9ex'x.fS ^xisim rioxiftv BOgsaiei) ££b lo ^aom^G erf^ tc.
rfAi-.i t^Sifd'arl .5n:i! < srfil ecrxg rfojj'B ■^ixt^i&ric 'cniBinii^m
-•■i'x.e&BJB ed IlBiiei ,ncc£xf JJsft'EVAa ^slli;'.. .BSgaaiG/
moffw lo ^e <axio^;i9q: ^sd'sa^e^niBxii es-iiiii ■^ci' Jisnxjiitieff 8i> I)/
. ansi«e-s airf- no .liisXecxB x<S Mw .eoalleqjgs -^o' Xjed-nioggs ©tf Urns
.d-icBl'. '.ojsri:!? vcT' ii9jss-£^aa£ Ii'cs^ted'l-jB ejKv d'oenl'xicr. s/iT
s/Id- ^ffl^isra-ST iroxalTO'iQ <b J&«&ifc5 saw •©•:. ,as9ll«qfl;i». rj
asel 8'\-SxT:iod-d'is Ila lao'i^ eseljantafi B":cG-Jn«rc- .-is osj- esdrcs'::-;.
M^itoidt sixJj: ®(3:i:cr 9x« Ic sorrsfloifxfijstn 10 5i«x\;jsl 6n;t lo ^S^mfc-
7 OCi- I)33J.rf-50 919W saajBfiiaB nlstlSO ,fSei c"t-'' /-ir^I IXSfiJ
'v5*:^.' ol ,aail eqlq; sxld io xioldsneqo suiJ^ if^jxronxid" J&&al
i'^isaoG-j • av/ert'iad-xcl .J-nBlIsiiqfi ai ssiBlo b JSsiJ'd-ljndxrp
-2-
settlement was reached. Thereafter, appellees emplorfed an
attorney who attempted to collect the cleim without litigation.
?"of:oilr.tlons ex.jended over s ;ior led of several months and
finally oulrainatod in the yeloction of arbitrators, vho made
an award of ,;512 ':o appellees. Tl\e av^ard '..-as da.ed liay 2o,
19.':a, bTvb v.T'p noo sif-nnd by tlte arbitrator na.T.ed by appellant
until Jiuifi 2nd, ffter some corrtispondonce bct'voen the attompys
for the re'jpgotlv3 parti? s.
It is the contoriti'Ji\ of appellUiit that the award
made by the arbitrRto:'s was a settleaifej+Lin i'ull of all inattors
in di3ji\te bet-'een t.h3 parti3s; snd t;/ e3cepti:i£ the award,
appellees raiTed an^' further clain for damagsa oi- attorney's
f'^es; th?t cppellant A?a3 always ready to ar-bitrste the laes-
tion of drms.re?; r.ni that it was unnecessary' for cpp&llses to
sniiploy an attorney.
Th? record 'j'io'ts that the ^^ontrovsrsy extend od ever a
period of more thpji a 3'-ear. A portion of the wervices re">dered
by appellees' attoi'^iey w^s perforiried oet'.'.'eon the tine ths- award
Tisz nvade f'.nd its payment. Appellants \y^re r-epresentsl by their
claim ed;;ust9r t^nd later by their attorney.
The contract did not provideK^ for &n7 arbitration of
cuestions :■ oncernirif; attorney's fs£3. '-.y its t3r!ns, the only
matter tc be s\ibmitt9d to ar1:ixrati:n vras the aino-vint of datnages
wMch nii^rht arise froai laying 3iaintainin~, and operating a pipe
line throu<rh t^^e pTetiisgs in cuestion. Ine arbitration a.^^r'f'e-
ment did not iminie the subjeot of attorney's fees. "'ha record
discloses that in nafclng the award, attorney's fe?3 were jiot
considered as an ele-aent of damages. .Aft3r the a-?rard had been
made, appellant's attorney sent to appellee*' attorney, two
checks coverin^r the award and. the expenses incident to it. In
the letter acootnpanyin" the remittance, appellant's counsel
stated that the defendant "/as not liable for attorney's fees.
It is contended that by reaeon of such letter, pppcllees'
act in cashing; the checlcs amormted tc an aec-eptance of them
in full of all cIpL'-is, and '.vas a 'vaiTer of all demarda for
a+.+.n-rnox- ■Pfifia.
■I.
■•^it-la ,J&!
iota Ip.JielTS
8u<#w e4B»lI.&qsi^ ^tliajH'^fisj aJi iim? ulr
/
'T-f.-'tre erf? f-frfrr-i^oK, £l.i
.ess-^audj 'io ttmmelB r.B rb J&«i el>l aire o
:iii.DiTel9JI) ©/';f if- arid- i>0tBd'2
-3-
.Ve cannot agree with this contention. .Acoording
io our interpretation of the contract, tae question of li-
ability for attorney's fees v-'as not tnade the cubjcct rratter
for arbitration. XL tnerefors I'ollowa that an acceptance of
the amount, due on tho avraird, including e:penges of the arhi-
tratDx^s lid ;iot preclude appellee from making a claim for
necessary at Loi*ney' 3 feea. I'lie course followed in presenting
the /arious claiiua .vas in accordance v;ith the oroTltBiins of
the contract and appellees cannoc be held to haTs •/aivcd thair
clai.:: to attjrney'.-i f^es, uocause they accepted the amonjit due
on the av/ard.
llie trial court coramit"i3d no reversible eeror in
giving or relasing ins'cructions . The vei'dict is sustair.ed
by the e/idenco and tne judgment is accordingly afiirxei.
Jadgaent affir'^ied.
:l:L:i lid"
STATE OF ILLINOIS, |
SECOXD DISTRICT j I, JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in
and for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and tlie keeper of the Records and Seal thereof.
do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of ti.e opinion of the said Appellate Court in tlie above
entitled cause, of record in niv office.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal ot
said Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this day of
in the year of our Lord one tliousand
nine hundred and tnenty-
Clerk of the Appellate Court
(53761— 3M— 7-27)
STATE OF ILLlfOIS
.J'PELLiiTE «OURT
OCTOBER TERM, A. D. 1928.
FOURTH DISTRICT ''rSIirnr .iTRrt'T'-o*Mi,'''
TERM NO. 32. aGEITOA NO. 3.
INDUSTRIiVL ACCEPTANCE CORPOR^^TIO!", ? "^ -
Appellee,
VS.
ILLINOIS BOl'T) .ilT) IN\''EST1':E1\T? CO. ,
Appellant,
iiPPE^'^L FROi; THE COUl^JTY"
COURT OF MARION COUNTY.
T/OLFE, J.
On March 1, 1928, the Illinois Bond and
Investment Company secured, in the Circuit Court of
Marion County, two judgments against T. E. Sharp and
^\ A. Bauer, doing business under the firm name of Sharp
^ cauer. The judgments v;ere obtained upon narr and cognovit
being filed in two separate actions. The record does not
disclose v/hen the obligations vrere oontraated, upon which
the judgments v/ere secured, nor the nature of such obli-
gations nor the facts and circunstances givir.^ rise to
their ori-rin and formation. The boreness of the record in
these respects is alluded to, because it is one of the
material elements forming the foundation of the decision(
of this Court, as will appear later on in this opinion.
On the same day the judgments were secured, e:iecutions
were issued on said judgments and the Sheriff of Marion
County, in obedience to the command contained in one of the
e:;ecutions, and on March 8, 1928, levied on the automobiles
which are in question in this case, '"'hen the levy was
made, the cars v/ere in a garage in Centralia which is re-
ferred to by the witnesses as the Sharp and Bauer Garage,
although Sharp had, on July 10, 1927, withdrawn from the
firm of Sharp & Bauer, and Bauer alone was in charge of
1,
TERM NO. 32.
the garage; the firm of Sharp & Bauer ceased to do business
in February, 1928 „
On obout n^arch 19, 1928, the Industrial
Acceptance Corporation, the appellee herein, served a
v/ritten notice en the Sheriff claiming to be the rightful
owner of eight of the cars so levied on and to tr'/ the
rights of property under the statute in such cases made
and provided. The Industrial Acceptance Corporation there-
upon became plaintiff and the Illinois Bond and Investment
Company became defendant in the trial to try the rights of
property in the Marion County Court. A jury was waived
and, upon a hearing, the CountjA Court decided that the
plaintiff was entitled to the possession of the property
and entered judgment in its favor against the defendant,
which has appealed the case to this Court, Hereinafter in
this opinion, the appellee, the Industrial Acceptance
Corporation, and the claimant of the automobiles, v/ill be
referred to as the plaintiff, and the appellant, the judg-
ment creditor, will be designated as the defendant.
The evidence shows that the firm of Sharp &
Bauer for a number of years before July 12, 1927, has
been engaged in the garage business and in buying and sellin;;
automobiles at retail in Contralia. This firm apparently-
held the agency for the Studebaker car, but in the course
of business they also became the owner of all of the eight
ccLrs in question, which nero second hand or used automobiles,
One of the automobilesj a Colo sedan, was sold by Sharp &
Bauer, on August 24, 1925 to '•', E. Salisbury who, to secure
the purchase price of said automobile which was payable in
monthly payments, executed and delivered to Sharp k Bauer
a chattel mortgage on said automobile which was given by
him to secure his installment note given for the purchase
price of said automobile. On October 11, 1926, Sharp &
2,
TERM NO. 32.
Bauer sold one of the Qutomobilop, a Studcbaker toiiring car,
to Thomas Herbert, who also executed an delivered to Sharp
& Bauer a chattel mortgage on the car purchased by him and
\7hich vies given to secure his installment note for the pur-
chase price of said automobile. On August 24, 1926, the
Salisbury chattel mortgage was assigned by Sharp & Bauer
to the plaintiff and on October 11, 1926 they assigned the
Herbert mortgage to the plaintiff. The mortgages pro-
vided that the property described in the mortgr.go should
remain in the possession of the mortgagor as long as the
mortgagee deemed said property and said ■ debt secure and
the conditions of the mortgage were being fulfilled.
The other six cars levied upon had been sold
by Sharp & Bauer to various persons under conditional sale
contracts and these contracts were assigned by Sharp & Bauer
to the plaintiff in the months of February and April, 1927.
These contracts provided, inter alia, that the title to
said cars should remain in Sharp & Bauer until all amounts
due on the purchase price, which was payable in monthly
installments as evidenced by notes, should be paid; that
negotiation of the contracts should not operate to pass
title from the seller to the purchaser. Both the chattel
m.ortgages and the conditional sale contracts provided
that the purchaser was not to use the automobile for taxi-
cab purposes, nor mortgage, assign, incumber or dispose of
said car or remove it from the County v/here then located;
that should the purchaser fail to pay the installiaents or
to violate any terms of the mortgages or contracts or com-
mit any act of bankruptcy, or if ~ny execution, attachment
or other writ should bo levied on any of purchaser's proper-
ty, then the seller might take possession of the car and
sell the same, for the purpose of satisfying the amount
due under the terms of the mortgages or contracts.
3.
I
TEM.I NO. 32.
The mortg.igcs and contracts also containod a provision
making them binding upon the heirs, executors, adminis-
trators, successors r-.nd assigns of the respective pur-
chcscrs ~nd the seller. The r.ssigniiicnt and delivery of
the notes secured by the ch'ttel raortcagcs and the con-
ditional s:le contracts is in no manner questioned or
contested in this cso. The chattel mortgages and con-
ditional s -le contr'^cts vfcre introduced in evidence on the
trial by the plaintiff to establish its title to the c-rs.
The assignments of the contracts appear on
the backs thereof and contain a guT'^nty by Sharp & B'uer
of the payment of the notes given for the purchase prices of
the cars. The assignments are lengthy and the defendant
docs not contest their sufiicioncy to effect a complete
assignment of the contract. Defend iit does, hovjevcr, con-
tend that the assignments did not vest the title to the
automobiles in the plaintiff, the assignee. The first
paragraph of the assignments reads as follo".7s: "For value
received, the undersigned does hereby sell, assign and
transfer to Industrial Accopt.'.ncc Corporation, a Virginia
Corporation, his, its, or their rights in and to the con-
tract on reverse side hereof and the Lotor Vehicle referred
to therein and authorizes said Corporation to collect the
amounts due thereunder and give receipt and acquittance
therefor,"
In support of this latter contention the
defendant cites the case of General Ilotors Acceptance
Corporation v. Arthaud Land Co., 118 'Trsh, 59?, 204 P, 194,
In the case thus cited the Supreme Court of '"asnington held
that the assignee of a conditional sr.le contract was estopped
by his conduct from asserting title against a bona fide
mortgage of the seller of an automobile vrho T/as in possession,
of the car vrhich yjzs the subject matter of the suit. As
4.
TERM NO. 32.
will appear from a ro-ding of that c^.sc, tho loarncd Judge
who rendered the opinion assumed, without deciding, that the
title to the automobile was in the assignee, this assumption
being b'.sod on the c/se of State Bank of Black Diamond v.
Johnson, 104 "ash. 550, v,'hich c .se does decide that the
assignee of a conditional sale contr^.ct does take title to
the property. To the same effect as the case of State Bank
of Black Diamond, supra, is the later case of Redmon v.
Andrews, 143 '^ash. 102, 254 P. 453, where the s-ame Court
held that a seller, after transferring a conditional sale
contract, parted with all title to goods covered thereby,
citing as authority for this doctrine the case of State
Bank of Black Diamond v. Johnson, supra. The dcfend'^nt
cites no authorities holding contrary to the law announced
in the cases decided by tho Supreme Court of ""-.shington
and which is supported by a number of authorities among
VThich may be cited the following: Dillon & ^"^est v, Gruit,
38 Nov. 46, 144 P. 741; Robinson v. Pipe Organ llaintainancc
Co. (N.J.) 139 Atl. 438; Spoon v. Frejuback, 83 Minn. 301,
86 N. ^, 106; Standard Steam Laundry v. Dole, 22 Utah,
311, 61 P. 1103; Barton v. Groseclose, 11 Ida. 227, 81
p. 623; Blashfields Cyclopedia of Automobile Law, page 2380,
section 150,
The evidence further shows that all of the
cars wore repossessed and placed in the garage of Sharp &
Bauer before they were levied upon by the Sheriff and before
the defendant had any lien, claim or interest on or in the
cars, so far as is disclosed by the record .now before this
court. It is true that none of the v/itncsses v?cre able to
testify on what precise d-'-.y any of the cars ;.'ere repossessed,
but the uncontradicted testimony of T, E. Sharp and '", A.
Bauer was to the effect that both mortgaged cars had been
repossessed before the firm of Sharp 3: Bauer had ceased
5,
TERM NO. 52.
doing business and -.vhich '.7as in February, 1928. Sharp tes-
tified that the Cole sedan (the Salisbury cnr) was repossessed
while he was still a membur of the firm, so the repossession
raust have taken place before July 10, 1927. Bauer testified
that the Studebaker touring car (the Herbert car) v/as re-
possessed some months before the firm went out of business,
Bauer also tectifiod that all the c"rs v;ere repossessed by
Sharp & Bauer, and that they v/crc in possession of Bauer on
the day they were levied on is undisputed. Some of the
cars wore repossessed by agents of the defendant, being other
persons than Sharp & Bauer, and the other cars v;ere taken
by Sharp oc Bauer and placed in the garage. Owing to these
circumstances the witnesses '.vere unable to state whether
the cars were directly repossessed by the defendant or if
Sharp oc Bauer took possession of the car.
Mt. Sharp and Mr. Bauer, speaking of all
the cars in question, testified that they repossessed the
cars for the defendant and that they had authority to sell
the cars. ''\ M. Jacobs, a financial rgunt for the plaintiff,
testified that Sharp £c Bauer notified the defendant that the
cars had been repossessed, and that they had power to re-
possess the oars under the general plan or arrangement of
the plaintiff to repossess cars after default made by the
purchaser. This arrangement was contained in a booklet cf
forms issued by the plaintiff and one of the paragraphs of
the booklet was introduced in evidence. This paragraph is
as follows: "Repossession: In the event of inability of I,
A. C, or the dealer to make collection from the purchaser on
a retail offering, repossession will be made for the dealer
by I. A. C. at its discretion, or by the dealer, depending
on which one can handle it most conveniently." After the sale
of a car. Sharp & Bauer would remit to the plaintiff the
money realized from the sale either in full or in partial
6.
TEmi NO. 32.
payment of the amount due under the mortcngc or conditional
sale contract securing the cars so sold^
After a conGidcration of all thi. testimony in
the c".sc, tosother T/ith the proof that the plaintiff v.'s.s
the assignee of the mortgages and contracts, it is our
opinion that Sharp c. Bauer v/ore the agent of the plaintiff
TThen they repossessed and remained in charge of the cars.
In support of this opinion we cite the case of General Motors
Acceptance Corporation v, Arthaud, 118 Wash. 593, 204 P. 194.
Considering all of the evidence in the case
v/ith attending circumstances, together with the fc.ct that the
defendant was the assignee of the mortgages, v/c do not think
that the trial court erred in holding that the title to
the mortgaged cars was in the plaintiff. In support of
this conclusion attention is called to the folio-wing propositions
of law as the some arc laid down in the case of Talty v,
Schoenholz, 224 111. App, 158. "In Pike v. Colvinj 67 111.
227, it was held that until a breach of the condition
of a chattel mortgage, the mortgagor holds a contingent in-
terest in the property th"t is liable to levy and sale on
execution or att^-chrAcnt. But after the maturity of the
debt, or failure of the condition upon which the mortgagor
may retain possession, the mortgagee has the right to reduce
the same to possession and, having done so, he has the legal
right to retain it and an c:cecution or attachment cannot de-
prive him of that right. Durfee v. Grinnell, 69 111, 371,
Also in the case of Springer v. Lipsis, 110 111. App. 109
affirmed in 209 111. 261, it v/as held that a mortgagee
having acq^uired lawful possession of the mortgaged goods may
turn that possession over to anybody, even to the mortgagor,
as his agent, without the loss of any of his rights.
It is contended by the defendant that the
cars secured by the Herbert mortg-ge is void for the reason
7.
TEmi NO. 32.
that the s^.mo -.i-.s not c.ckno'.'.-lcdgcd by the m^.kcr in con-
formity uith the st-.tutc, -^.ttcntion is c-llcd to the ar.so
of Springer v. Lipsis, supra, •.-here it is decided that even
though a chc.ttel mortg?.,-j;e does not create a lion as against
third persons, the taking of possession of the mortgaged
property makes the mortg-.gc good,, although not acknoivlcdgod,
even ag'.inst an execution creditor. The assignment of the
notes secured by the chattel mortgages is not oontostod in
this case, ther-^foro the case of Ensley Lumber Co. v. Lov/is,
121 Ala. 94, 25 So. 729, and cited by the defendant, is not
in point.
The main C[ucstion in this c".se is raised by
the contention of the defendant th .t the plaintiff by its
conduct in leaving the cars in the possession of Sharp &
Bauer, coupled v;ith their actual, or appar-nt, authority
to sell the cars, estops the pl^.intiff assertin;;; title to the
automobiles as against their claim and right as a judgment
creditor of Sharp & Bauer. Tlie evidence shov:s, as testified
by Deputy Sheriff Barnhill, that the cars, nhen levied on,
ucrc on the second floor of the Sharp & Bauer garage vxhcrc
they T7er^ stored r;ith other automobiles in Storage there.
Sharp testified that his firm repossessed the cars '
for resale, pl'-ced them on their floor to resell, holding
out to the public that they had the right to resell the cars.
Bauer testified, in substance, that the repossessed cars
v;ere put on the floor of Sharp & Bauer r.nd offered for sale
and the firm held out to prospective buyers that they had
the right to sell and convey the cars; that a number of the
cars had been sold that r/ay. As before stated, r;hen one of ■
the cars ".7as sold the proceeds o'cre paid to the plaintiff
to apply on the debt secured by the chattel mortgage or con-
ditional salo contract on the cars sold,
V'
From the evidence in the case, nc find that
8.
TERII NO. 32.
T.'hcn the c^.rs ror^ levied on the title thereto up.s in the
plr.intiff -nd the O-^.rs v.-epv. in tho store room of the g'.rr.^^c
of Sharp c: Bc.uer for the purpose of s.-^.le by Bnucr; that the
plr.intiff by its course of do?.linss vrith Sharp & Bauer, as
sho-'n b^' all the proof in the case, must hrvc knov/n, at its
peril, that the c-.rs v.-cre in the Sharp ^ Bauer garage being
held out for sal^ by Bauer, Gen^r'^.l I^otors Accept^.ncc
Corporation v. .^rthaud Land Co., 118 '^.sh. 593, 204 P. 194.
For the purpose of discussing the principles
underlying this opinion, it may bo conceded, under the
authority of the case of Illinois Bond and Investment Go. v.
Gardner, 249 111, App. 357, that a bona fide purchaser, for
v-^lue, end defending against the claim of ovmcrship by the
plaintiff, v.-ould have receivoc'. title to one of such ropossossod
cars from Sharp & Bauer under the doctrine of estoppel
announced in that cse. The question nor before the Court is,
if a judgment creditor can invoke the doctrine of estoppel
against the true oTrner of uho goods levied on ■•hero the latter
has intrusted the custody of the property to another rith
po'Tor to sell the s.^jne, and, furthermore, it not appearing
th~t the creditor had in any manner given up.- anything of v~luc
or changed his position to his loss or prejudice in reliance
upon such possession and authority of the custodian of the
goods.
It is universally hold that, as one of the
essential elements of estoppel, that the person asserting
the estoppel shall h.^vc done or omitted some act or changed
his position in reliance upon the conduct of the person sought
to be estopped. 21 G. J. 1133; Sl-.crer-Gillctt Co. v. Long,
318 111. 432; Sutter v. Peoples' Gas Light and Coke Co., 284
111. 634. The doctrine of estoppel should not be applied
unless the conduct relied upon as creating an estoppel has
been of such a character, and has resulted in such injury
9.
TERJ.'! NO. 32.
to the person relying upon such conduct, thf.t in cciuity r.nd
good conscience, he thereby is prohibited from enforcing the
l-e"'.l rights v/hich ho v/oulcl hr.vo othcrviso, nor unless in
any given c-.so, all the elements exist \7hich have been
universally held to be essential for the purpose of creating
an estoppel. — Rogers v. Portland &: B, St. Ry« 100 Kc, 86
70 L. R. ;.. 574.
In conformity uith these principles, the rule
th^.n an ov;ner of personal property v.-ho has clothed another
uith apparent ov:ncrship or authority to sell the property is
not estopped to assert ovraership, unless the person alleging
the estoppel hat; acted and parted v;ith v^lue upon the faith
of such apparent o-;.T^ership or authority so that he uill bo
the loser if the appearances to v;hich he trusted are not real,
21 C, M. 1179; McChregor v. Sibley, 69 Pa. 388; Grubcl v.
Buschc, 75 Kan. 820, 91 P. 73; ia.bright v. Albright, 151
'Tis. 610, 139 N. "'. 413; "and in this respect it docs not
differ from other estoppel in pais" — Bernard v. Campbell,
55 N. Y. 456, 14 :^, R. 289.
Our Courts have held that personal property
left "Tith an agent vith -ctual authority from the ovnier to
sell the property, the agent beins required to account for the
proceeds v/hcn sold, is not subject to sale under judgment ob-
tained against such '^ent. Loomis v. Barker, 69 111, 380;
Buffalo Gasoline Ector Co. v, ..t'.vood, 159 111. .^pp. 28; and
Conzinc v. Brents, 123 111, App. 615, holding judgment creditor
parted v.'ith no value. — Buffington vs. Gcrrish, 15 Mass, 156;
Globe Co. vs. Jennings, 59 Atl. 239; Scha'Gizor v. Traccy, 76
111. 345; "'alsh Boyle & Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 228 111. 446;
Nonotuck Silk Co. v. Levy, 75 111. App. 55; Corzine v. Brents
supra; In Re Gold (Under 111. Lav:) 210 Fed; Hartford v. Stout,
102 rash. 241. 172 P. 1168; Orcutt v. Cast, 231 Mass, 305,
120 N. E, 855,
10 0
TERM NO. 32.
In the cnsc at bar there is no evidence that
the dofend-nt extond.^d credit on the strength of the
possession of the automobiles by Sharp & Bauer or that it
lost anything on reliance of such possession^ coupled -./ith
the right to soil, if they did so rely. There is no evi-
dence that Sharp & Bauer had any other property which might
have been seized or £;arnishecd by the defendant to secure the
payment of its debt, and thatj relying upon the conduct of
the plaintiff they neglected to seize other property or
garnishee other indebtedness to Sharp & Bauer» (iTarder v.
Baker - '"'is. — 11 N. iJ* 342 < ) ;^tcr a careful ooxiaidoratloci
of the facts in this case and the principles above stated,
v;o hold that the plaintiff in this case is not estopped to
assert its titles to the property in question.
"■'c have discussed these principles and matters
at such length for the reason that the dcfend-.nt places
great reliance on the case of Drain v. La Granco State Bank,
503 111. 330, -.vhich case it is strongly urged announces a
proposition of la:- that is controlling in this case. The
facts in the case cited arc in no '.'•iso similar to the ones
in the case at bar.
''c do not consider the Drain case as in any
manner reversing or modifying the case of Schv:cizer v.
Tr-^cey, 76 111. 345, and vrhich is the leading case in this
State holding that an attach ment or judgment creditor is not
a bona fide purchaser for a valuable consideration. The
Schv;oizer case has been cited vith approval, ajnong others,
in the follo^iing cases: '"alsh Boyle and Co. v. First
Nat. Bank, 228 111. 446; ITonotuck Silk Go. v. Levy, 75 111.
App. 55 (judgment creditor); Iviagerstadt v. Schaefer, 100
111. App. 171, (judgment creditor); Hacker v. liunroe and
Son, 176 111. 394; King and Co. v. Bro"rni, 24 111, App. 579,
11.
TERM NO, 32.
Gould V. Hov.'cll, 32 111. App. 349; O'Ncil v, Pc^ttcrson -.nd
Co. 52 Illo App. 27; La Salic Prossod Brick Co. v. Coo,
65 111. .i.ppc 619; Link v. Gibson, 93 111, App. 433.
The judgment of the County Court of Marion
County is affirmed.
i^FIRIffiD.
Not to be rv^portod in full«
^
RESERVJi BOOK
111. UnpubllBl^ed •plni«n«
1
^^67fB"
This reserved book is not tran^f.-rahlc and
must not be taken from the hbrary, except
when properly charged out for overnight use.
Date
Name