Skip to main content

Full text of "Illinois Appellate Court Unpublished Opinions: first series"

See other formats


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&lttlng    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&lttod 
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  $30  dao  Sftptoiribor  10,  1924 1  tliat 
Buasla,   at  the  tliso  of    the  pajfaeat,  representod   that  toe  w(?«  the  owner 
of  the  principal  note  aatti  that  the  eeae  van  temporarily  mloleld, 
bat  that  he  wotUd  prodaott  eaae  »s  eeoa  as  found;   that  neither  the 
araebielekls  nor  the  Ueeieetead  Asgooiatien  hs^<  any  notice  prior  to 
the  payaeat  of  &l,03a«5S  that  the  otaqplainaat  vK«i  the  oraer  of  the 
note  I   that  the  e^ild  p&yaeat  wae  aade  in  goo<^   ft&lth  upoa  ''the  clr- 
ctvastanee  tbrnt  he  Tsna  thxs  Truetee  naaed  In  8r*ld  Trnet  Deed,  and  i^oa 
the  further  fact  that  os-id  3uezia  wst.&  is  poee«e$^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&olt;  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&gtb  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&lth  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&ltaer  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&lth  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