Skip to main content

Full text of "Illinois Appellate Court Unpublished Opinions: first series"

See other formats 


m 


11 


iiii ; 

ifli'' 


111 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Arcliive 

in  2010  witli  funding  from 

CARLI:  Consortium  of  Academic  and  Researcli  Libraries  in  Illinois 


http://www.archive.org/details/illinoisappellat256illi 


fii&3  '6« 


BOUND. 


34062 

BURTOI  II .    COLSSMt, 

)         IKTSRLOCUTQRY    APryjiL  WOU 
ra.  I        CXBOUXI   COUrvr  Oif  COOK  Ci^UTf, 

HARRY  X.   fIJIG,  )  f>  ^  '^     T     A  '       \  H^V 


KR.   PR1S0IDIX0   JUBTIGB  MtSURKLY 
BIHVBRSII  TM3  OFIiaOit   OF   THIS   COUHT. 

This  is  eui  appeal    I'roe^  an   interiooutory  inJunetioB 
rsstrainlng  th«  prosse  tlon  or  »  suit  at  lav. 

By  his  bill    a»«c:pXalnaiit   soui^t  ih«  oorr«etion  sr 
rsforaiation   of  a  eontraot  dated  Marah  30,    192fj«   aads   b«tw««n   ths 
partlos  I'or   th«  purohass   and   aa3.tt  of  oartain  r«ial   eatata.      It  was 
all(!g«d  that  It  vas  int^ndad  \ty  th«   contraot   to  provlds  that  n^T" 
tain  r«ttrletions,  not  quaetio»«4»   should  ba  4fr«otlv«  ur.tll 
January  1,  X95C,   but  by  nlstaka  or  the   scrivener  who  prepared 
the   contraot  It  reelted  that  the  restrictions  sliould  be  ori'eotive 
until  Jariusiry  1,  192&;    that   in  iftnoraneo  ol'   this  nietake   in  date. 
ooBplainant  sl^^nod  and  delivered   the  oontraet.     Vhec   the  parties 
met   to  cXoso   th«  natter,    complainant   tendered  a  doed  r^oiting 
that  the  restrtetlons   aheulri   b«  efleotivo  until   January  1,   1950. 
Defendant  refused  to  aeoept  tlie  sasMi  on  tho  ground   that   this  date 
in  the  deed  <!id  not  oorrespond  with  thn  contraot  date  for  the  ex- 
piration of   the  restrictions,  nruuely,   JanufOry  1,   lt}<25,   and  brought 
suit   at  law  against  ooaplainant   for  daaa^oo  for  breach     of  eon« 
tract.     Thereupon  coaplainant   filed   the  i^0t^lnt  bill,   setting 
forth   the   above  Matters   and   alle4^in^^   that   ccutplainant   did  not 
discover   the  nlstako  until  ho  tendered  his  dood,   which  the  do* 
fondant  refused   to  accept.      The  bill   prayed  ''or   the  refori..atioB 
of  the  contract  eo  as  to  recite   ttiat   the  restrictions  woro 
offeetivo  until  19S0  anr!   for   an  injunction  restrainini^  the 
4ofonda»t  froa  prosoeuting  tho  law  suit. 


*t?>0« 


(  .  .tn> 


r}4Xv^ 


LfVi-. 


Puraawnt  to  notioe  oi'   the  aAtlon  for  toaporary  la* 
junction,   d«f«n4ant  appeared  auid  r««iat»<t   th«   SAa*.      Afttr  hearing 
b«fftr«  Judge  JTrlwid  th«  te^p«rar>    injunction  was  griuit^d.     £0  ap- 
peal vaa  pray«d  Trom  tuia  order.      Subaaqucntly  dafandant  moTOd 
iliat   th«   Injuxiotlouad  order  )>e  Taeated.      It   appear*    that  defend- 
ant also   filed  general    and   apeeiul   demurrera.   which  dejaurrero  were 
argued  at  the   oaute   time  that  4ef  «ndact 'a  motloii   to   disaolTe  the 
iaju2:otion  was  uTi^ued.      Xhe  »otion  te  diseolTe  was  det^ied  and  the 
demurrffra  were  overruled  and  defeiidant  wa«  ruled  to   answer  withia 
fifteen  days. 

Oefeudtoit'a  brief  and  arKus<«nt  preeent  only  Question* 

touohln^i  the  eorreotnees  of  the  order  of  tnc  trial  eourt  over- 

ruling  the  de&urrers.     Vm  have  already  h»ld  in  otmer  oasAS  that 

tbe  purpose  of  the   elatute  in  all0'»lag   iuppeals  fro»   interloeutory 

erdere   is  not   te  detRriiiine  the  rights  of  the  parties,  Vut  only  to 

deterfi.lne  whether  the  party  probably  is  entitled  to   the  relief 

sought.     McDougall  Co.   ▼.  Woods.    247  111.   App.   170;  JTrledcmn  r. 

Fesklftj^.   255   XII.   ^p.   199.      in  the  first  of  these  eases  we  said: 

*Ttitt  primely  purpose  of  the  etatute   Is   to  permit  a  review 
of  the  exercise  of  the  dieeretion  lodged   in   the   uhanenllor  with 
the  purpoae  of  detereiininK  wnetier   tine    interlocutory  order 
prob^illy  was  necessary   to  m^^lntaln    the   s tatties   gjift   cjnd  preserwe 
th«  e-^uitdbl«  rl^^i'^te  oi'  the  pitirtiits. " 

Is   the  second  oase  it  was  said: 

*An   lnt<^rlooutory  appeal  was  net   interided  ae  a  Siiort   cut 
to   an   aopcal    tribunal,    in  order   to   di^anoae  of  a  cauee  upon  its 
Merits,  without  giving  th«  trial   court  an  ooportunity  to   firet 
eensHer  it** 

Iti  the  in»t»M<t   caae   the  detujrrers  were  argued  and 

overruled  and  defendant  ruled  to  answer.     He  did  not   <«lect  te 

stand  Isy  his  denurrers  but  se^ic*  by  this  &pp«>al  to  have  th«»lr 

merits  detercinrd.     We  do  not  aoprewe  of  thie  praetioe.     On  the 

face  ef  the  bill   it  appeare  that   the  oontraet  dated  kareh  30, 

1925,  provided   tor  a  sale  subjeot   te  restriotions  expiring 

January  1,   1925.      Tills  alone  would   indlioate   a  probability   that 


r 


'•:xl    \i;  "last  ©«[»'>■■'  i4««[  ^M 


3;*>:  U 


^^•*    .ag.i«JE«:l 


••i9l&^«nt  wftt  entitled  to   th*   relief  ht   sougiit.  The  bill 

preeents  at  l««at  «  prietf  faele  e«e«,   oelling  for  a  te&poraury 

injunatlonal  order  reetralnloK   the  proeeaution  oi'  the   euit  «t 

lew  until   the  mnritu  of   the  prinoip«l   oontroTerij  :xre  de- 
ternined.        The  order   is   affirmed. 

Katohett   an-l      'Connor,   J.T, ,    concur. 


K^ 


'•i...     x^' 


,r?.  oiTi'i/. 


9S947 

MABJSL  XSOLL, 


ooMtiwEstja.  Lzjpz  msmumai 

COXVAITT,  a  Corporation, 
Appellant. 


07  COOK  COUBTY. 

25  -  o  i^  7 


3 


MR,  ffUtSlCUia  JUUTXCX  K«SiJR&LY 
DBLIVSRBT''  TH     OPIfiXOB  Of  TK«  COOHt. 

By  this  app«»I  dofondant  aooks  tho  rovoroal  of  a 
Jud^«4it   agnlnat   It   for  |2353,79   <tut<iro4  upon  th»  ploadiflgo  In  a 
•uli  to  r«oov«r  undor  an  aoeident   inouranoo  polioy  iaauod  by  do- 
fondatit   to  JUorXa  linoXX,   pXaintlff  <•   lou,  vbo  vao  aooidontally 
killed  Ootobor  7,  1926. 

To  plaintiff *a  d«Qlaratloa  dofondant  ril*4  apooial 
pXoao,   to  wttioh  pXaintilT  dociurr«d.     Dofoiid^int  withdrew  alX  ol* 
its  pXoao  ozoopt   tho  sooond  and  i'ourth.      Upon  hoorlng  plaintiff  *■ 
doBurrero  to   tb#so  voro  oustainAd  and  dofondant  olooting  to   atand 
by  Ita  ploaa  judgnont   follovod. 

Dofondant  firat  aoaorts  that  th«  doolaration  la  ln-> 
auffielont  ao  not  etating  a  eauae  oi    «otlon  toid   that  ita  soiion 
la  arreat  of  jud|SB«nt  ahould  not  haro  boon  ororruXod.     Tho  poXioy 
ooT«ra  aocld«rita   *by  tho  vrooking  or  diaabloibOBt  of  any  privato 
autocBobiXo,  iBotor  dri-von   oar  or  horat-drawn  vohioXo   la  vhioh   tho 
inaurod  la  riding  or  drlTing,   or  by  b^lng  aoeldentalXy  thrown 
from  auoh  wrooiced  or  dlaabXod  autonobilo,   oar  or  vohiolo."     Tho 
doolarution   alleged   that   tho  ioaurod   *waa  aooidontally  klXXod 
irtiiXo  riding  on  a  gaaolino  apoeder,    aaid  g&solint   apoodor  boiag  a 
motor-dri'von  To>iielo,*   and  that  in  aooordai.co  with  tho  proviaiona 
of  tho  polioy  th«r«  waa   dua  the  plaintiff  tho  aua  therain  naead. 

It  will  bo  aoen  at  oneo   thai   th»  alXogationa  oi'  tho 
dooXaratlon  do  not   apooii'loaXXy  oosa  within  tho  torzKO  of  tho 
polioy   ittpo«tn(j,  XiablXity.      Th*r»  io  bo  aXXogation   that  tho  Toniefto 
in  which  tho  inaurod  waa   riding  wao  wrooKod  or  disabXod  nor  that 


,vi*iOyt/»    .. 


K  ...'■■■  '-  'Jrt. 


,  f  :i/.'i..tJi 


ij»lli»^. 


Hit*  'X»#s 


'!d<»tUO«tt» 


Aifw*  ■|»i?!^.l 


(ii.d^    1.Q  fkeeiTtii  ■:■■ 


'Sflithti  WAV  ft«'9r.m' 


of  tjitt  V'«hialtt,  n«ita«r  is  it   %llog«»<l  tnat  la«  «tM  klll»d  by  belnc 
a«c>id«Ktaxl7  Uirown   free-   »uoti  wrecked  or  disabled  '♦'•r.lol**,  nor 
thai  th«  'vdiiicl*  w«s  i»rlT%t«.      it  it  art^ued   that  as  far  «ui   th«a« 
allttg&iloii*   are  oonc«m«d,   ia»ur«d  aifiiht  hxrm  1>««b  aoeid<>ctall/ 
•hot  or  Mtruok  by  aoBf^thlnf  and.    In  general,    that  the  doolaratioa 
de«s  not  otato  tho  oireaBotane#o  or  eenditioiss  of  the   »ceJd(;ntal 
death  •«)    that   it  would  Appear   that   the  aecldeiat   eoiso  vititlB  the 
terse  of   the  poliey.      DefeulaRt   did  not  fjemur   to   thin    leol&ratlMi 
««4  while,   eritlcallv  oxai'lr.e-1,    it  sight  b«   «!iH   to  be    lefeetlTO 
la  ito  omission  of  aeoeeaary  <3aiegaticu8,   we  &re  incliued   to 
kold  th-it  it   eoaee  within  the  rul*   that,   eiren  ^hure  itiere  is  a 
dofoot   in  the  doolaratioa  whieh  W9ttld  hive  been  fatal   ap»A  special 
dooiirrer,   yet  if*  the   issue     joined  wero  suoh  as  aeot^ssarlly  required 
Ob   the   trial   preoT  or   the  faets  so  d«f '•etlv^Iy  eet  out  or  oaitted, 
and  without  vhlch  It  i»  not   to  b«  preeua«'i    tflat  either  the  judge 
woald  dlroot   tho  Jury  to   ^Ito  or   the  jury  ^o«ld  hJive  jlT«n  the 
verdict,    such   defeot  is   cured  by  Terdict  or  judgjeiciit.     {■lllicy 
T«  gye^go  C0. .    SC'S  111,    104;    Ciilc^Ke   ^  QT:ijr.i   iTunk  Ky.    Cc.    y. 
SSSimSX^  1^7  in.   471;   Corlett  t.   XUi.-ois  Central  K.    .    Co..   241 
111.    JM»o.   124. 

Th9  deolslTO  quf^8tion  is  «tiQt>idr  thn   court  properly 
sustained   the  demurrers   to   jofendant'o  pleas.      These  pleaa   set  up. 
In   substHoee,    thst  the  insured  at   the   tis:e  of  the  aoeideat  rssuiti£ii 
in  his  death  V9.m  in  the   anpXoy  of  tiMt  JSev  Tor     Central  HaLlroad 
CoMpony  and  on  duty,   end  that  the  policy  do$s  not  cover  accidents 
VOoelYOd  by   "Ksployees  of  Railrottda  ♦**  while  on  duty,* 

fho  'Validity  of  these  plaaa  deseeds  upon  the  oonfitrue* 
tioB  of  the  terr.s  oi'  the  Tjolicy.      Tim  pr!3-7i8iona   in  question  are 
as  follows: 


•OSI^XRAL.   PROVlSlOftS 
"thim   incur«AC«   4«>««  not   covar  (l)    ^uicid*  or   Httf«iiit   th«r«at 
whll«  •«)«  or   ln«&n«;    (2)   viiiXa  rldla«i  or  4rlTlAs  is  raoco  or 
any  6ri^«T  or  oecupaxst  of   acy  autoseVllo  in   any  r«c«  or  opeed 
eo&trot  anywh<^re  or  wnilo   tooting  any  autonotilo   on   any  raeo 
track  or   »p««dway:    (  7>)   Vhlle  engaf.od    Ln  nllitury  or  naval 
oorrioo;    (4)    Any  Lav  Knforootaant  Officor  i4ai«  on  duty; 
( S)   Saployoos  of  Hallroada  or  City  Fire  Departs  nta  vhlle  oa 
duty;    (6)    Unloos   suat<Alned   in   tU»  Jnited   states  or  Canada*" 

Plaintifr  oontondB    that  tne  i<i«t  provialoa  cittalifloo 
number  5  iauaodlately  before  it,    an!   that  properly  construed  it 
aeana   titat  the  ineuranee  dQ«e  not  cvver  accidents  to   eftploye«>e  of 
rallroadia  except  «h«i  auetain«d   in  the  United  Stutes  or  Canada; 
thai  is,  it  eoT«!!rs  all  aeeldente  to    railroad  «&ployees  hatppoBlaK 
in  tha  United  aiat«s  or  Canada. 

Ve  hold   that   eueh  a  eo&etruetiox:  is  iKprob&ble  end 
onreaeonable.     The  aanii'est   interiiiea  of  the   "General  ProTlsions" 
is  to    stat«  thf   charaoter  ef  aooidents  vnion  the  policy  dees  not 
cover.      Head   in  its  entirety,   a«   it  Kust  be,    it  aeans   that  tha 
Ineuranoe  <)o-$s  not   cover  suieide,  injuries  recelTflkl  in  rAces  or 
vhiXe  the  insured   ie  eng^g^rd  in  ailit<iyry  or  naval   service  or  re- 
ceived by  ntny  lav  enforo«»ient  offieer  "sfhile  on  duty  or  by  any  ea- 
pXoyee  of  railroads  or  city  fire  departsients  while  on  duty,  nor 
any  aoeident  unless  it  is  suatiiined  in  the  United  ^t^t^e  or 
Canada. 

¥he  ehari%eter  of   th<^  policy  clearly  indicates  this, 
aside  froi£  the  lan^age  of   this  provisilon.      It    is  not   a  general 
aooident  policy  but  is  limited  and  restricted  in  its  terus.      It  is 
sold  by  a  newspaper  and   la  "issued  exclusively  to  regular  subscribers 
of  the  IShicago  Herald   and  Kxas:.iner,*     The  annual  prcsaium  is  $1.10. 
It  provides  for  indswoity  *to   the  extent  herein  limited  and  provided.* 
Ve  vottld  ex«>ect   in  such  &  c»olicy  some  provision  lisiitlng  the  terri- 
tory covered  by  the  policy,    sjsi   the   sixth  provision  of   the  "general 
pravisions"   clearly  limits  the  territory    to   the  United  states  or 
Canada, 


1 


tt:   9fo< 


A0  ' 


»Si>;^    -^v/ j«y-i-.^iJ-    i.-.Xi^^jj;    \?iXi*r.    •**■-  •'■•    i*?-^- 


Am  »•»   aaltl  la   the  r*«*i^t   scuic  of  i>on»t«>Bl#lo«  t. 

Qyat  Aa»rlQ»B   Uft»u>aty  Co..    241   111.    A^p.    283: 

*th§  plur««*ology  of  inaurtuio*  polielcs  lutst  ¥•  «onstru«4  »e- 
aordlng  ti>  th«  nnmn  effneral  fflrinoiplea  that  arc  perklnMit  is 
th«  In ttUTfiro tuition  of  written   ooutraets   g«n«rally.* 

Contract*  of  IdsuraAoe  should  ba  iilvoa  »  fair,  raason* 

•bio  -iJid  ••nsiblo  ttontttruction   ij*d  uot  one  which  io   otraiAod,   foroed 

and  unnatural.      32  C.   J.   1151;   QraadaXl  v.  Contine/.tal  waoaaltv  Ca.. 

179    III,    A|»p.    350.      1/.  Kallir  ir.    Erathorhaod  of  R.   h.    TiTtlmm.    50* 

111.    SC8,   the  eourt  said: 

'*A  contrast  of  insuranee  ca<mot»  any  koto  than  any  other  eon* 
traot,  bo  ^iTon  an  triti»rprotatioa  at  variance  with  tho  clear 
•oiiso  and  fioacing  of  the  language  in  wiiieii  it   is   expressed.* 

S««  Al*©  P^«^4   Vf   ^9UP,^rSi»    2d5  111.    36;    Hartsock   ir.   i^aakasxia 

i.,lTeyto«?k   In^,    w^.,  ,   22S   111.    Anp.    433;    Cl»r<«  ^.  Uo.    ir.    yidelitT 

4  Casualty  Oo. .    220   111.   App.    576. 

Vo  hold  that   the   deseurrers   to   defendant's  plo«o 

si^uld  have  been  ovorruled.      T&e  judt^ent   is  tnerefore  reyeroed 

aad  the  cause  Is  rMiandod   for   lurtner  proaeedin^s  oonoistent  with 

vhat  vo  have  said  in  this  opinion. 

nsfsstsKB  AM9  wmuBssm. 

il^tohett  and  d 'Connor,   <rJ. »   concur. 


b9^^tr't    ,h*n  'tis   jb^   •I«r« 

«0£     ,A 


'.S.SMjLJ' 


,  tt«»lAl$£ 


.t'.'&aoo   ,.1.1   «i{oms«D*&  l»<Mi  4^1»£ial^*J$ 


39700 

KAZA  HODGS, 

Bttf«ndant  In  Srror, 


BOBT  ALLJOt, 

l»laintlfr  in  Srror 


■  /  5 


.  i 


07  CHICAOO. 


V 


KA.   muSlDlUQ   JUSTICE  ]U8UiiSl.T 
MLITSRHD  THK  0J»I£I0»  03?  TH5   COOHT. 

Ju(tg»<mt  )»y  eonftt«Mion  for  r«nt  un<l«T  a  X«asc  w«»  «a* 
t«r*d  Against  d«f*rtdaDt,  <«i'iiien  «&«  op«fi«4  u^  amd  dafeadrnt  p«rait- 
t«d  to  i»l*ad.  Upon  trial  by  tha  court  th9  fiadiag  «»a  as^^^Bt  th« 
daferffant  an<4  Jud^ast  vaa   eaterad  for  |3SC. 

Bafon^laflt  aoaeria   that  by   actual  atirea&eat   the  l«aa« 
v»a  oane«l]L«d  and  defimdaet  vaeatad  tita  proKisas.      It  io  eaaeadad 
to  be   tha  I««  th%t  parties  to   a  !«»«•  Kay  by  mutual   agraoKest 
aasoal   citnd   eurr  ad  r  the  ac^e. 

Tliff  l»aa«  ran  frcn  Hay  I,   L9a5,    to  April   30,   1936, 
at  lUO  a  atontb.     Safwidwit  T»«ated  tho  prowkiaa  Getob«r  1,   1925. 
Plaintiff  t44«til'i«4   th^t   the  apart)&«at  «ao  vacant  Oetober  and 
lEOTemb*r   s^ni   that   siia  rentad  tb«  proRleea  in  OaeflBdiar»  1926,  at 
"  |90  a  aonth.      Oal'cn<)aat  t«»tiried   that  plaintiff  ehargad  hla  vifa 
with  running  an  isuaoral  hauaa  and   aaBi«  evary  two  or  thraa  days 
through   tha  houaa  and  abusad  hin   and  hio  wifo  and  aako4  tnoM  ta 
•OTO  out,   >u}d  k«pt   tHla  up  ovar  a  aonth,  when  thay  finally  a^craad 
tha  leaaa  ohauld  ba  eanaalled  it'  tha  dafandaat  irould  pay  tha  rant 
ttp  to  tha  titt«  ha  aiciould  ■«▼#;    that   thia  waa  tha  sutual   asraottent 
and  that  ha  paid   tha  rant  up  to  OatobAr  1,  «h«n  ha  ?^ved  out.     A 
llrs,  l^lta  )|aTa  aapportin^  teati^Mmy,    aa.ving  that   aha  vaa  preaent 
in   tha  )ipart£j«nt  Tiaiting  tha  dafendant,   and  haard  the  oonvarsa* 
ties  betvean  him  snd  plaintiff;    that   ahe  h«ard  plaintiff  tall   da- 
fandant   ahe  wanted   tha   apartK«Qt  and  wanted  hi&  to  get  out  b«cauaa 
the  naitthbara  v^ra  eonatstntly   coapl5U.nias  against  Uia  and   threaten- 
ing to  aove  out  if  ah*  did  not  gat  rid  or  him.      Plaintiff  eatagori. 


■  iisi    iiTC>5 


^t^ttM  fid  ttmii 


,«Y 


:vfl!3  jK 


■?v:  p  i  «*■■ 


J         -..J    &a;«i»«  j^Ofi   0lii*  *i«5  feafr*   «i«4  !y»«A«J*^   feflt>   ««iJOi$  »i:  •    .......     xHt 

frs^-ii^  Xli«^-i^  %»*W  *i»iiw   ,isj«««  it  t:»ve  qti  9lsii    ^q^^  *«».  «#»•  »V«ar 

.i:idt«i»o   TtUakMl^     .al.    ic  l*--    ^s^  >#«  tlA  aiUi  1i   iwo  iroa  oi   gal 


•Wkllj  denied  aakiag  aueh  atateaents  to  lh«  defendant;    ahe  denied 
that  ahe  had  aald   that  the  neln^hbora  had  aeMpl^lned   about  dcreod- 
ant»   but  on  the   contrary  aaya   that  she  nerer  had   wnj  trouble  with 
defendant  or  hie  wife,  rei^ardad   then  aa  good  tenanta  and  -lid  net 
]m««  eky  they  noYed. 

A  faet   tas'llag   to   glTe   credltoUlty  to  plaintiff** 
veraloa  ia  that  defendMit  had  ooeupled  the  prenlaee  ainee  I^agr, 
1924,  under  a  lease  expiring  May,  19^5,   at  vhien  tljse  a  aev  leaae 
waa  entered  into  between  the  parties.      It   ie  reasonable  te  supiioee 
that,  if  plaintiff  had  reeelvad  n&y  cosplalnte  of  inineral   ooaHuet 
prior  to   the  new  lease,   ahe  would  not  have  nade  it.      BefSndant 
hinself  teat  if  led  that   fros  £Lay,  1924,   until  Auguat,   1935,  he  had 
had  no   eotttrowersjr  whateTor  with  plaintiff. 

The   trial   court  haa  a»  oppor trinity  to   see  and  hear  the 
witneaaea  whs  have  test!  lied   in    the  case  and  is  better  abls  than 
•re  ws  to  determine  the  question  of  credibility,   aad   the  s««e 
weight   should  be  given  by  a  eourt  of  review  to    th^  findiags  of  the 
court  as  to   ths  verdlot  of  a  Jury,     itlaehart  v.   ahedd.   207  Ill.App. 
139;   Psti^er  Voolei.  Qo,   v.   ^ortJ^iur  r.i:ioB  iTwr^ai^r  Co..   1*7  111.   Ayp. 
409;   IfidgerwQQd  i^fg.    Oo.    v.    S.^.H.   f^obixiSO«  ^  :^b.   198  111.   App, 
604.      The  v^rdlet  of  a  Jury  b%aed  ob  oonflietlag  svidense  would  act 
bs  disturbed  although  not  in  f&vor  of   the  party  produciag  the  greater 
nuaber  of  witnesses.     Plxiey  v.   awail.   194  111.   App.    151. 

FlaiBtiff*s   tesUaony  that   the  pr  sal  sea  were  vacwst   la 

Ostob«r  sad  Sovestbcr,  19^.   aad  wera  rented  for  $2C;   a  oonth  less 

for  the  biiklfir.ee  of  the  tens  wae  not  eoatradicted.      ^ef«mdant's 
pi  H^lngs  dl.1  Bot  ((uestleB  t!:ie  (vsount  oi    Ln«  juit^<tnt   ruii  no  objec- 
tions wwre  made   at   the   trial    to   the   t<^8ti&ony   on    this  point.      The 
sasunt  of  the    i'in  ting  was  Juetlficd  by   the  evidence.      V«  vould   not 
be  warranted   in  rsverslng  the  jud^sent,    and  it  is  affinssd. 

A97IRMSS. 
Katehett  aad  0*Coanor,   JJ. ,    coneur. 


^ff  *iC  »?S^r    ,?s»r:j*a.    ii?f-^^    ,*^,*:^i    ,-;•--:   ^til  ^dd:»   ^^1111^94  tX»9aijl 

,^^    UiX  TW   ,  .^aai&slgj^l.... .™^...- -w..A....i^;i«LiS^I^jMM:    ;^i 

.;:^\   ,£il  e$i   Mfiig^.  ^..«Rfeu;is/V->A>^^>^    -^l.^n^    ^^\j  bft)ie%pr^f,4  ;«©<► 

.„;...   ,rWfA  .lU  **i  .iiilSL..tl.JlSi^l     .aaatt^a?.^-*  •'^-  ■,.■.-».,:. 


ITU 


.1k"3i'-..  /ci'^i 


sasM 


9.   M.    GHAT   fuxd  MRS.   V«   R.   OIUJ,      . 

App«llft«8, 

ten  vicTcA  Mkd  i*.  vicT</«<» 

A|^l>  ell  ants. 


aWal   FFC*  VUKICIPAL  COTOt 
OJr  CHICAOC. 

256  I.A.  598 


SSLXTSmtB  THK  OPIli  I0«  07  THI  0<HIRT. 
£7  thin  appeal  defeed^nte  «»Ak   th«  rffveraal  of  a 
J«4lfpimt   <Mit«rttd   ag;alii«t   th««i  for  $120  upert   »  directed  Teritlet   r«r 
t)i«  plainUfi**  in  an  action  brought  ag<tlnfjt   tium  as  j^uarwBtors-  of 
r*ntsl   Eunder  a  Iea««. 

th«  d«f«i)s«  urgftd   is  eon9truotiv«  eviction  of   ths 
t«s&Rt    i.'i   that   tiis  basctsent  «as   flooHed  «ltb  vater  and   ths  pr«s«ae« 
of  coal   ^a«  from  th«   furnaos,    aoi'^   that  as  guarantors   tho  <Iofsri<*acts 
ar?   •Dtltleit   to  all    tk«  daf«tises  of  the  tenant. 

fh*  «Yi denes  tended  to   show   that   plaintiffs  leased   ths 
fr«Bises  Is  question,  nusbcr  415  Hsslyn  nlA.ee,   Chicago,   to  be  used 
f^r  a  rsottlBK  heuss  to  Mr.   Jehr.son,   whoee  lease   expired  April   30, 
X92d.      Jehnsea  desired  to   sell   the  rooislng  house  business  vith  ths 
Isase  to  krs.   Aagii*  kason  and  for  this  parooss  sHowsd  her  tks 
yrsBiiiRes.     Mrs.  ^ason   teetit'l^-s  that   she  went  through  the  hou9«»  and 
oellar  and   that  the  oellar  was  Arj  sad  el<«an;    that  ah«  exaaiaed  ths 
faraao<^  and  asked  whether  there  was  any  ooal   gas  at  any  tins  fr^m 
tks  furnastf.      She  and   Jonnson   caB-i<»  to  tersis  and  his  lease  was  trans- 
ferred  to  her  and   she  toolK  possession.      The  tine  ^en   this  was  dens 
is  sosMfwhat  indefinite,    altheag'^'  pro'b&i^ly  it  was  in   the  earl>   part 
of  April.      8h«  also  exeeuted   a  lease  in  her  own  nttss  with  plain* 
tiffe   for  the  tent  following  whe   expiration  of  the  Johnson  leass. 
'Qie  nev  leass  began  Kay  1,  19^8,    and  expired  April  30,  193ii.     At 
ths   ewae  tlste  defendants  executed  a  written  g\«aranty  whl^  reel  ted 


.   yA*?!^  ^ 


V    i-s     «X1« 


».i   iito 


1^0  •«■ 


'?-f5'i  a»i-*ar  #»fliai®  ^«««*»«^  ^^«?>^i 
.  .,m^l!t  su^iS-ia^  S5*  «i  »liJt^«iAX«  Oil* 

.^..,.:.*.      :.--.;..»«    ,...-.     r'^:^--    »*•-*   tiftfl*©    »M*    i«ri^^  ^rfiid* 


v;M'     if  i     Wi- 


•iJru^l-aa'tsft  ©.«( ; 


thttt  for  T«lu«  r«C9lT«4   in   th«   tvm  of  |25,    *v«  heretoj  ^armiit«« 
th«  tfaTncBt   of  X^9  Bent   and   tH«  ptrfontajne*  oT  the   e«Te&«nt«  bj 
th«  paxty  of  the   ••ean^  p&rt   la  the  vithia  lease   eor^nftiited  aad 
a«reed»  iD  manner  and  fern  as  Ij    sai4  Le^uie  proTlded.*     Mrs.  *'a«ai 
yaid  her  April   rent  to  JQhaaoti  and  fail!  root   for  liax,   June  and 
Jitly  te  plaintiffs  uailsr  tus  b«v  leass.      dhe  testifies  that  early 
in  Ayril,  vhieh  vae  during  the  Jshiisoa  lease,   the  esllar  beease 
fissdsd   »ft(*r  a  raU}   stom  uad  it  beeai&s  fleoded  sereral   tiaes 
thereafter,    ^r  ^    that   the  Misuse  beeasie  sold  and  dajap;    thiit    it  was 
aeseseary  te  kee|i  a  fire  all   th'>  tiste;    thi^t  ih.9  cask^lained  at 
Tsriotts  tisss   to   %hg)  t^imi  of  plaiatifi's  a^oui   the  fumaco   aad 
wat«r  in   the  eelX<%r.     She   left  the  pr«Bises  September  23,  192d. 

flie  record    )'!»ile  tc   cUboIoso  any  erideaco  as  to   the 
eoaaitien  oi'   the  freEslees   at   the   tiae   e&e   signed  the  leaso  froa 
pl&iBtiffs;   aeither  is   there  any  OYldence  as   te   the   eooditioa  of 
the  proisisos  at   the  tlae  shs  Tae.%ted  the  swbo.     I^o  lease  coat»iaod 
the  ttsaal  prcYisioas  that   the  tenoat  has  exaeaiaed  the  prcatises  aad 
kaovB  the  «aB<)ltion   thereof  anf*   that  no  represeatatioas  coaeerciag 
tho  sase  haire  boss  ubA^  by  the  leaaors   «n4   that   the  lessors  shall 
Bot  b«>  liable  for  dsKt^^es  oecasios&d  by  failure  to  keep   tho  preal- 
SOS  in  rspair. 

To   ooaatltute  h  ccnatruetive  eTlctioa  it  hits  repeatedly 
been  held   that  the  cvietioa     smst  be  by  vilful  oaiseiea  of  duty  or 
ooaaaiesioo  of  a  yKTann  oa   th^  part  oJ'  the  landlord  which   roaiers   the 
|ir«&i8os  untoaable.     Barrett  t.   Boddio.  Ifta  111,   479.   The  landlor< 
eaaaot  be  held  resnonsiblo  for   coii'litloas  not  known  to  hia  at  the 
tiae  of  leasing,   unless  he  h»e   covenanted    to    repair.      Sxmasaok  y_^ 
MoroY.   157   111.    App,    273;    36  L,    J.    323.      Xhe   defendant  haa  the 
burderi  of  proring  a  conetruotlTe   ?rictioa  aad  Mist   s  ito«  that   the 
eonditieas  eoapljilaed  of  were  of  a  itraTO  sad  poraan^t  character 


^,i^  Ic  i»<si3iji«o  Xtrtliv  ■*?(   r-'   .^■^.£'•5     ;s'?iir!>i?f»  »4^  ^^ff.-   fel^si  flfB^^jC 

•  incviiti^i:  «ifi  .<iv^  .ill  tesi  ,^i>:i.:,ij£L,ji,r...^*.ii:si!!M    »«i4««»*«»a  tt*49i<3}*TE^ 


ttMd  d«priT«4    the  tecaut   oi'    Hat  IxM&eficiiJL      nJoj^Ms&t  ol    tli«  pT9aki» 
■•••  Rjkttfr  T,   C!*qqqni|^At   1''^   lil-    Aj»p.    64. 

Th1»  ea««  la  not  11.  «  Jlbfe«jrt<  y.  iioaf»ltl.   20&  111, 
495,    «it»4  1>y  d«f«rid&cta,    in  waleh   th«  prtmi»*m  were  net   ready 
f9T  ••«tq>«ncy  at   th«  b^HSltuilng  oi    tha  tern,    na  iMitn  parties  kB«w; 
th«  t«n4UBt  than  had   a  right   to  abun^on   tha  prariaaa  hut  vaa  in* 
<Sttead  eat  to  do   ao  by  tha  proft^leeB  fii*  tha  landlord  to  roaedy  tha 
dafaota  eMapIalnad  of,    an!   waa  Induead   to   ta^va  poaaeaaion  of   tha 
yraatlaaa*     In   tha   Instayrit  eaae  tu«r«  -merti  no  proelsaa  or  r^rm- 
aantatione  oi'  any  lUnd.      I^aro  «a»  bo   evidenca  of  uldian  deraots 
n9T  9fri4«riC«  that  )»laliitliT0  iximf  or  vera  ah&rgf»ttbl«  with  n^'tia* 
that  rain  vrould   ao»^  into   the  baaaBast  &er   iwy  arldeAee  a«  tc 
ha«   tha  rainfall   enterad  th«  pr<K£i8aa  or   taai  tha  prasiaaa  *nrt 
ren4erad  antanahla. 

^«   e»cnet  aee   that   laara  %'aa  «Ay  queatioii  to  he  atib* 
sitl9d  to   th«  jury.     7h<»  juci{^««nt  was  propar  ar<d   la  affirsad. 

ilFirXhliST). 

katoh«tt  ai}d  O'Connor,   J-j.  ,    concur. 


»59«'%•%^  i^-  ■  #->n«ifeiv«k  ■*?*«»«  «ss¥^     ^^bM  1^  >»  asai^-ta^a 

•fit?-,.     ■  ^el^iNttfe  Xisun  «MBi»«»&^  .-iajfe?^  #^ 

,?v«a«ri'i«  »i-  brsij^  ^*SfSt1^  ««*  #?s^«j:?^^?t  ^*^     -^^si^  ^mSf'^^  t^ftim 


S3  649 


JULIUS  H.   XAa^ARBT, 

App«ll««, 


OF 


▼  ».  '^ 

KORHIS  lUkXZ  and   ISMAIL  LKVI3,  ) 

Coj^urtAcrs  Doing  Bunlnesa  lui  )  ^^  t^   .^    ^ 

tijaz  *  LEWIS,  25nTA     ^.  OQ 


KB.   FRKSIDUtO   JU^JTICE  MoSSULT 
S%UV1B1I>  tax  OPlKlOiJ  0?  THT,    :00H5f. 

This  1b  BiA  K^cai  by  4ef«a4iukt«  froB)  ar.  adTt^rs*  Judc* 
it«iit  of  $!l,00€  «at«r«4  upon  the   i'tRilng  of  th«   court   In   th«  trial 
of  Kit   aotlon   In   ao«un{»«lt, 

i^ttit  «««  brou^^ht  £oT«£l)«r  9,  1327,  upon  aa  giXJiegod 
oral   eoQtraet   soli   to  h^T«  beofi  nado  February  I,   1923.      It  «1X1 
bo  Bot«<l  that   «olt  ^as  bre»tt,^ht  skortlj  boforo  th«   st.j.%atery  Hal- 
tat  Ion  of  rivo  years  h»4  run,     Plulr-tlff   say?  that  he  vao  aoyloyod 
by  dofonHaata   to  proouro  thoa  a   Tontr&et   to   fur nlaih  labor  ^ad  «&• 
ti^rial   i'<>r  pltmblag  work  on   the  (ira«Bero  hotol  and     cfobdaato 
agrood  to  pay  nla  #5,000   for   ti^eoe  sorYlcea.     Defcf.  ..iutK  doay   thlo. 

l^laifltl ff  «a«  Ti 0 e»preB Id «Xit  oi    iju.o  W«at  Sido  fruat  k 
Savlr«ga  Bfkr.k,   of  «1»ieii   dofauioAto  had  boon   oustoaicro  and  dopoaltoro 
for  mikry  yeare;  h«  testified   tkai  on  ifobrufury  1,  19P.3,  idofendant 
Morrie  Kats   esire   to  hla  and  aslced  hia  to  cat   the  dolcr.dartta  a  Job 
of  DltMblBg  «»d  Kats   told  plaintiff  that  h?  vould  a^jce  it  worth 
while   for  ^Xftintlff   to    1o   thla.      Plalnti  rf  tol'l  hia  of  the  job  on 
tho  eraoK«>ro  hotel   aad  they  figured  it  woal4  ntn   approziaately 
flO0,O<X>,   sad  dcfendaat  ILatc  told  hia  that  ho  woul4  give  hia  IS, 000 
if  he  prooured  the  job  for  them.     Plaintiff  aAaita  that  |(o  know 
aotHlag  about  t^luabin^  woriv  or   ocntracto  auad   that  he  did  aot  have 
tho  piano  before  hla  .'scd  did  not  knew  how  I^rge   tho   eontraot  would 
be  at   the  tlae  el'  thia  alleged  oonveroatloa. 


«Mee 


ilt    aKlTlSaSS    ,Jl« 


blue-    i«wrs#r5<!Ks  »il;>   «ji^*I  wori  »<5«A  *»«  ft'  iio'l«rf  aeyiXff  9riS 


S«tx  (IttDlt'l   th«t  he  aa4«  amy  mftrm^mmtt  •r  proMiaa  to 
pmf  plaintiff  |9»vOO  or  anj  other  sua  ic  tals  comeetlon,   oai 
tootifiod  Ui%t  Mr.  Eayer,   th«n  prosiflcnt   oi*  th«  banx,  yIUi  ^thoa 
ho  «a«  very  v«li  aoqualntitd,   r«9-j««t«d  plaiatiif  to  osaiot  d«foDd* 
onto  to  cot   tho  Job  un  th«  Oraoaoro  hotol,    on)   that   t^oroupan  ploAa- 
tiff  eaY«  &»ts  A  lattar  iatrodueing  jiia   to  kr.   Foster  of  tho  3ha&k 
•o^^aBja  "rhltrii  woo   tho  gonorau.   osntraator   (ui  tho  littildia^f*     t>o* 
foMdaato  th«tTOoft«r  roeelved    th«   -)l;4n8,    aubKltted  Mio   ^tn  i  pro- 
oarod  tho  oontrftot   for  PiOsliing  acl  h^taiin^   for  th«   oa»  of 
|10S»&00.      Pl&lfitiff  hal  t®»tllioi  th«t  li4   «oo  adTisod  thot    lo- 
fondontc  voro  tAklae  oobo  |5,C0(}  in  bocdo  an<ior  iheix   ooatraet 
Mid   thot  he  had  ftgrosd  tc  oecopt   theso  )>cads   ira&  dof«cdante  la 
llou  of  caah,   BJ&A  hi^  s&do  ro^Stttod  dOKoiids  I'oi'  the  cmtAi  or  bonds 
a  short   tine  «kfter  th?  cotttrttc-t  "irafc   r.ater**d  l£to*     The   eottrftct 
woo  Introdu  od  i&  orldecce  utii  otiCw&lcfi  n&   pxovlolon  rith  rcforocoo 
to  dofecdonto  tohle^  ocy  bonds.     K&ts   furthor  teotlflod   that  euboo- 
quontly  pli»i&tlff  left   tho  Woot  Side  Trust  k  Saviit^o  Boiik  hut  dofocd- 
onto  fro;;u«ntly  had  bualKoos  dooll»i;a  with  lain  no   to   ^boiit   tho  yoar 
1927,  nc4   that  at  mi   tiso  duriti^  &11   thbt  period  was  any  roi^aoot 
•r  dwaiand  aado  upon  his  }»j  plai&tirf  1q   eoxinectioa  vitb  pa>««Dt 
vndor  aai<^  contract. 

thi*  io  u  o&o»  vhere  plaintiff  tMis-rto  an  ortil  eon* 
tract,  tihio/t  io  oatifgorioolly  dsiiled  by  dofosd^nto.  T;«o  docloiMi 
«o  to  «';^;leh  Torsloii  ia  corroot  dopenda  upon  th«  oredibllity  of  tho 
vitaeaooa.  tln^or  oaoh  ciroozsstuieoa  tho  trial  aourt  ahould  woi^ 
tho  prob:»bU.ltioo  of  tho  raapsctlve  storlea  ^ui'-\  be  libsral  ia  ad- 
Bitting  aad  ooBsiderlng  orlionoe  9i  eollit«raI  f  iOta  vhidh  »ffo«t 
tho  ]»rehahiliti«a  oao  way  or  anot^or. 

Zt  ia  a  n«itter  of  eoiuaoc  iLnovlod^to   tiiat  cuFtocera  of  a 
banh  co&atacitly  cook  aod    tako  advloc  I'rtm  ito  offldala  ooneoraiag 
buai&oaa  sattsro.      Such  adTi=  e  ia  ueually  given  ao  a  aattor  of  good 
will  hotwo  m   tho  bank  and  its   -.uatc^ioro. 


«'>s«*wa  vija^   i--~l?i ;!=«»#  tik^AS-^t  stx^^     .s^*?*^  ^asi  ^ifljutftrf  «#a*|vi»->9l!  9i 
t^is%    attf  ..til*.'  •'■    ■«««Sfei»**tf  l»i^  <i?<»i«J9"ft  «*!»• 

j2?''.i»   .H*iji«v  asflu'l   ijBi:*i;?    •  ,  fe^ti*»i;i»-    ^fiittftt^jtsite^  Aa»  Hfci-^iiUH 


Ua4«r  th«  olreus>»t«no««  «ir*a«ated  by  th«  oas«  bcfert 
«•  w«  vottlA  r*th«r  be  Inelined   to  b«lleY«   thmt  this  vas  such  an 
Inatftrio*.   and   that  dofendants  never  expeeted   to   and   did  not  «£ro« 
to  pay  plaintiff  anythloc  for  a«relf  i^'rltlog  a  letter  of  Ir^troduatloa. 

V«  are  of  opinloc   that  tiie   court  excluded  Aor^petcat 
•TldeRC*  «moh  would  tend   to   eopport    'efer.da&te*   vvreion.      Defend- 
anta  offered   to   allow  that   their  profit  on    the  tranaaetlon  Yaa  eetl- 
»at«4  at  $7,0U>.      If  thle  vaa  the  f«ct,    it  voul-l   throv  eoneiderable 
doubt   as  to  the  probmbility  tnat   del'endaute  would  pay  |9,000  of   thia 
aaeunt    to  pl^ietiff.      The   ;.ourt  held  saeh  erldesea  Ijnco&petent.      D«* 
faadaate  also  offored  to   ahow  th&t  the  defendant  Lavls  hod  conTersa- 
tleae  with  the  pl&lntlff  and  vae  presant  at  eose  o;'  the   con-reraatioae 
between  plaintiff  and  £.ats  and  (iff«drad  to   ahaw  that  at  none  of  theaa 
aoaTeraationa  waa  there  anything   said   about  any  obligation  to  pay 
plaintiff  anytning.      Such   eTldtasoa   should  havs  bean  a<!sdtte<!  aad 
eonaldored.      The  law  la,    that  whenewer  there  is  ti  cotullctla  tha 
awi<?enca  rel  >want  to  th<»   issue,    «¥iderjce  of  collateral  ff^ts,   whleh 
haw*  a  direct   tondesey  to   show  that   the  avldenee  of  the  one  aide 
la  mora  reaaonabl^  an-*   therefore  eora  credible   thac    that  of  the 
apposite  side,    is  «»dfl!lj!t»ible.      Stajudaxd  Erewt^ry  v.    ■Icao.y.   5-09    111. 
App.    2J2,    M-i'{   CAeei!   thftre  eited.      as  was  said  in   tr.at  ease,    "it  would 
ba  a  narrow  rule  that  would  liait   the   evidence  to   oa  afflr&atien  of 
tke  a^retwent  on   the  one  hrmd,    ixid   a  denial   oi'  it  on   the  ether.* 

Far  the  errors  in   exeludlis£  eosipetent   cvldenee  aa   ia- 
dicated,    the  Jud^aect   Is  r^averacd  and   the   oause  la  r«fcandad. 

wxfoaasn  ako  KttAnsB. 

Xatehett  imd  O'Connor,    *T. ,   eoaeur. 


!*«  Ooiis  »»«•  sli^i"  *a»J    »ifei:&Mf  «*  %*at4£»ai  ^  ^*ri,?«ii   hiv;^;>-  ^-^  «» 
-.*ti      ,i^a»3»#ieK^M'  *«i^f!'*^r©  -nt-'&&   ';i^^rrsr  i-jijes-,  »;^      .IrHl-^al-i  .••  ?«» ssae 

-fed  '7?.   -■  ta*|f>5qr'-==5«<^  xi  «t©-i'ffe  9M.i  i«s 


4.^ 


95807 

Looiss  AuausTw      for  u««  of       )  •:::^^<^^^' 


I      ... 

WILLIAU   J.  IteCAK,   Int«rveBifig        )  "^S/^TA         »^*a^ 

Petitlon«r.  ,       ,,      ,  ^O^i.«/i.    0  98 

App«Xl*ot.  )  "-^    "ur  v^ 

'«&.   ]«¥SZt>IliU   JU3TXCB  MaSURlLy 

CSLIVKHID  IHS   OPlKlOi*   OF  TiTH;    CGCHT. 

thia   i9  Mi  appeal  by  tb«  Interver.lng  petitioner, 
Willi»ai  J.  licGah,    fro*  ft  jadgsant  for  plaintiff  for  |5C<>  in  » 
gmrBia)«ent  prooo^ilng.      Saaiuel  £,   3111,  l»*r.afiolttl   plttlntiff,  UaA 
|li44pi«at  a«;ul»at  Louioo  Aag:ui?tin  upon  her   juVtWftrit  uot«  c^v«b  hi» 
In  9»3«ent  of  ^ttarrto^*   fees  for   sorvjLces  rnndioroA.     He  aow&ensod 
•  garni *iua«ct  suit  b^ood  ttpec  thlo  Jud^«Qt  again «t  dossier,  Bippus, 
Rose  and  Burt,   uttcrneys  *t  lav,  fts  gajroieh^f^s.     They  a^^earod,   ad* 
■ittlng  th«  po09«6eioii  of  lotiB^ys  teclosi;int^  to  Louiao  Augwatia,   and 
mire  dlaniesed.      Tli«  court  keard  th«  opnoping  clalAS  of  th«  plain* 
tiff,  Kill,   e»iJ  of  the  Intervening,  petit! onsr  and  docidad  In  f&vor 
af  tht;  plirJlntHf  »aid  JudiJR*mt  wh«   ant©r»»d   acccrdlnil}, 

Host  of  tht   &ri^uii<eat   uad  points  pres«nt«d  bj  tho  briofa 
are  concersod  «itli  tha  question  &•  to  whether  Hill  waa  entitled   to 
aa  atlcrney'a  lien  on   tha   fund   in  the  h%nda  of  thn  gtrnlBhaea. 
So^aver,  we  do  not   think  It  ne«a»8»ry  to  decide  thla,    for  it  voald 
l»a  eoaeeded   that,  in   the  abaence  of  suiy  olab«  by  the  intf»rfeiiing 
lpatition«r.  Hill  would  be  entitled  to  4adcfamt  In  the  j(Hrniaimant 
yrooeedlnK.     The  oaeo,    th'jrefora,  leuBt  be  determined  upon  the  ahow- 
lag  uade  b     the  iatervanin^  petitions   in   aeeking  to   eatabllah  hia 
right  to   the   fund  in  the  h«*na6  of   the  garaieheea. 

Apparently  an  intenr*ning  petition' wan  filed  and  plain- 
tiff filed  an  answer.      Thla  xmA^  up  an  issue  oi    faot   to  be   tried  by 
the  oourt.      The  abstract  glTea  ua  no   infexKation  es  to  the  b&als  of 


rosce 


i\»i  U  O^ 


,3jU 


XOVd 


a1*li^  «t? 


>ii 


XS  h*' r-  ...J-  |ft«*i  '>9  cciSKl  a«  «rtr  *?:■. 


.iomtittdf* 


petitioner *■  elBls,  nor  njiytilnR  with  r9i«r*nc«  to  the  Mivrer  tliereto, 
•o   th«t  ve  eeAnot   tell   from  ^ir   Inapeetioa  ei    tae   at^atrftct  what  ie- 
tue  ve9  ipre9*nt«.{  tr)   t^e   trial  oourt  with  reference   to  the   inter- 
▼enlBg  petition.      It  le  a  "cell    eetalsllehed  rul'f  thAt   nc   atetraet 
■last  efcev  auitters  relied  e&   f&r  revereal.     The  reriewlni;  court  vlIL 
not   «3»s.'lne  the  reeord  to   rini  gproua'i*  for   revereio^.     Beterdlati  t^ 
Ceoirel  lUloote  Puhlie  Service  Co..  223  Hi.   App,   374;  Barl?er  .y. 
Iielli»h»a»yw»rd  Co. .  239   111.    AT>n.   299;   iaureffler  t.  duller.  2oa 
111,    Apu.    63, 

"fe  g&tlier  that   the   l&tftrvener   al<iiae4  under  an  lU-leged 
Aoeiguaent  of  th«   fwAA  aade  1)7  l>ouise  Aut^atlc   .      If   this  vas  the 
l»A«i»  €>r  htr>   el&ls,  it  «&e  neoeseiftry  I'or  r.is  to  prnye   the  eetfte. 
Section  X3,   ohapter  1IC»   Illinoie  Statutee,   istrovldee   that   the  a«- 
ei^ee  of  any   el&oee  in  i^ctioa  smy  eiie  th«reaa   in  his  o«n  nase  and 
"ahall  lE  hie  pleaillng  on  oath,  or  hj  his  Affidavit  vhere     <3tl«»ading 
la  not   retjulr**!,    >11  =*ga  that  h«  in  the  aetual  bon.u  f ij\,«  o^uer  tn«reof, 
aad  o^it   f^rth  h4»i«  3*1  '^er*  he  aeqoired   title.**     ?Kle  placed,  open  the 
lat«rVi»nor  tJie  biur.len  of  '%ll»ging  aiaid  proving  thd  facte  required  by 
the  atAtute.     q|>er»aa  v.   Saw^en  yjre  tne^   Aoaeg. .  314  111.    264; 
t^ftdl8on»^edgte   It.^ta  Sank  v.   Oj^d  Beliablg  fcotor  Truck   Co..  236  111. 
A^pp.    14:3.        Coneid<%rlnj^  the  Ict^rveiiin^  p<!»titlca  eontaiued  in   the 
r*cord,   v:e  art   of  opinion  t:at   It   1«  wholly  ineuffioient  ue  not  cos- 
pi  yinf  flth  th«  etatttte* 

Te  Co  cot   fin«i  the  ell^^ed  aeei^jiaeiit  in   either  the  ab- 
etract  cr  in   the  record.     The  bill  of  exceptions  contal«e  no  proof 
of  the  sane  anS  tfcf-re  vtp  no  ettf^ipt  to  prove  it. 

ynder  sue^i  cireucietaneee  the   trial   court  vould  i.ave 

been  jttetlfl^d  in  fln^iin^  r^'elriet   the  olai»  ef  the  interv<»Mr.      If 

the  JUilj.Si<WJt.   or   thf    rf-ccri'   Ic   r>roi>^r   1*.  will   be  affirmed.      On   the 
record    the  Jud^ent  wae  proper  and  It   le  affimed. 

AFMR^FD, 

Xatohett  «WQd  0  •Conner,    JJ, ,   concur. 


-li    <^»sj«*   io^-U&aA   sMJJ*    10  Si&Xio<^ir-  -*.->t'i    XC»vJ    *»ffa.-       r       .gsit   if 

«lt»»a*   *?*-J   Cii   *»^.i^'^^\&f%  ditr    ■.•**«»•"    ,$■->■-  •'!»  sis'?  5i?« 


i0Uf 


»»«l«^*»J}.  ||l|(4i  A 


^iff*- 


':  K» 


''  .i  ^i;  ii  A  X' 


-ii..  .      .  -        i   i&^taii\:,: 


tt«/» 


HJ?  .♦-i  .■--•;.: 


.,.,.    -    .w  ....  .......  .  ^^  »rf» 


33886 


^JEOJ*LK  01  THUS.   JTATK  OJT   XL2.IjK0IB, 
I>«X**nd«nt  In  Hrror , 

r; 

WGSm  LIS  «ASHIJlOTOX    and   JQiik    «-. 
•OILXTT. 

JPlaintlffs  In   irror, 


/ 
OF  csazciyGo. 


256I.A.  598 


4 


DKLIVSRSD  Tim  CPlJilOli  OV  T^  C08RT. 

By  this  writ  o*    error  def«iidttnta  saetk  the  r«T«rs«l  of 
•B  9T^9r  finding  th«K   in   ccnt«(u|»t  of  court  and  s«attt£>cing  iii«i  to 
••rrft  9ix  nocths  in  the  eeunty  Jail, 

Th«  oreler  fin-lifig  th«tt  in  coGt«ii.pt  *re»e  out  of  a 
civil  proae#4ing  ixi  vbloh  ilishkin  and  ftiahJcia  were  -plaintiffs  and 
Sat  fiaxarro  aad  £at  lias«rro,    Ir^c.  ,  ■^ttren  d«f  e.^idai^ta.      Xhe  defend»«nta 
here,  Washington  and  Sublet t,  were  garniskeed   and  filed  an   anawer 
stating  Uiat   at  the  tine  oi    the    illiag  af  the  a&aver  they  were 
Bet  indebted   to  ^at  iiiaaarre  or  i>at  ji^xarro,   luc. ,   in  any   sun 
vtiaterer  an<1  h^  n«  ssoney,   e'noees  in   «fcetion  or   effects  belonging 
to  thoB  or  In  which  they  were  interested,      ^^baeqa^ntly  on  hearing 
the  iaeuea  w<^r«  :ound   againat  the  garniahees   and  Jud^eat   entered 
against   the»  for   the   asioimt  of  IllCO,   the   eewurt  fin^iing  that  they 
were  indsbted  to  i»at  fiasarre  and  £at  Kaaarro,   Ine. ,   in  this  sub. 
Thsreafter  Mishkin  and  Mishkln  filed  an  affidavit  and   aought  a 
rule  en  the  defcndante,  Wetshin^ton  and  Sublett,    to   sliow  eause  wlnj 
they  should  not  be  hold   in   oontes.pt  of  soort.      The  affidavit  alleged 
that  mt   the  time  of  the  serrice  sf  the  garnia.<«ent  writ  and  the 
filing  of  the  answer  thereto  by    the  garniehees,   the  gairniahees  did 
have  tton<*y,   oiaotnf  Iv   action,    orA<1Lta   i^nd   effects  owned  by  or  duo 
to  l«at  ^asarro  or  Sat  jisjiarro.   lRe« ,  aad   that  the  anever  of  the 
garnishees  was  wilfully,   falsely  and  <wrruptly  sworn   to  and 
"thereby  said   ^'ashineton  and  Sublett  eoKAltted  a  eonte£;pt  of  this 


"U- 


x&itiivit'z  »m  ae^is  ^Zimtrn:-  ?-3! 


.<#jij       f«:' 


041   l^Iwo4a  x*^ 


:iC»   9VMI 


M»aorttfel«  Court.*       Siftb«ttt««iily  th«   oourt   «&ter«<)  ma  order.   •»• 

9«reBtlx  b*««4  on  this  arfi<i»Tit   alono»    I'lBdinK  t)»«B  tl^iltx  of  ou* 

tOKti^t  in  aaklac  oad  fllia^  «b  untrue  anovor  wu^nr  oath  and  ooot«i3«o4 

tJUM  to  oonrineatABt  in  the  oouRty  jitil   for   oix  Montho. 

W«  aro  r«f«rr«d   to  no  oaso   »nd  iinov  of  noAo  viUoh 

Aathorlses  «  tri»X  Ju^go  to   isstituto  eonto&pt  proooediaco  «c%l«ot 

A  KomlRhoo  %iOcau«e  of  filing  a  fal««  anitvor.     Sootlon  35  of  tho 

Oamlohneat  a«t,   ehapter  «a,   providoa  for  an  attac^«ent  and  pufiiot^ 

Kimt  &•  Tor   contes^t  if  any  g^orslabae   "resuoaa  to  no^oeto  to  dollar 

Any  goods,   otaattela,   ehoaoo  in  aotlon  or  affoots  in  hie  hwida  vh«a 

tharato  lairfully  raquirad  by  t^«  oourt  or  Juotioa  of  tta«  pcaaa  or 

affioar  Ki«.via£  an   oxaoutiaa  upon  9hle)>  Uxe  oadsa  »ay  ba  raa^'ivad.* 

tbia  dooa  not  aut^rlsa  oontat&^pt  prooaedinga  ^ih9T9  tba  garaiahaa 

by  h.ia  itnavar  daiileo  Utai  b«  itaa  peaacosioii  of  any  goods  cr  ehat- 

answer a 
tala  beloKfiin^  to    tbe  def^ndarit.      If  th»  garni ohej/fiasoly,  bo  nay 

b«  boanA  ovtr  to   t^«  grand  ^ury  a»d  indict »d  for  porjury.      In 

y^raaabeiiB  y.  ttillgr.  241  lil.  App.   338,  «a  held  tluit  the  atatuia 

authorisaa  t^e  oourt  to  pvtniah  a  g$ymiabaa  for  contaa^t  only  vhaa 

tba  gBTniabea  refuoat  to  Xum  over  property  in  ita  poasaaaioa,   «n4 

doaa  not  t;^iva  authority  to   tbo   court   to  puiiiirii  aa  for  eontoftpt 

unloaa  it   «ippoars  tbat  the  gari  iahoa  haa  proi^erty  ic  ito  ^oaaaaian 

baloaging  to  tha  dafand^it  a^id  refuoea   to  daXi^ar  poaaeesion  of  tba 

•am*      In  l»acplo  ▼.    atone,  lai   111.   App,   475,    iind  in  People  v, 

gar  rail .   ^6  111.   4pp.    Ml,   tise  daf  sodacta  '•ertt  found  in  oontai'-^t 

for  aaearittg   faloaly  before   the  oourt.      In  both  oaaas  it  vaa  held 

that   the  oourt  had  no  uitnority   to  «ntar  tha  order. 

The  ordar  vaa  ^ao  f^lty  in   thut  it  failed  to  aet  out 

tha  faata  aoAotituting  the  offenaa   ae  ftaiy  ^nd  cartalxay  a«  to 

ahaw  that  the  aourt  waa  autherisad   to  aaha  the  order.     People  t. 

In  th«'  oaaa  before  ua   the  defendant  e^spl&lne  of  naay 


■?«t?t    *&  $■'■ 


vsd    •ors^ftlllu 


<♦..'   r      'I  Q 


fti?^    *I 


-tsf-^ns-rr;   r«1 


•jsltaiw  f.'ii  »/«•*■   St*i. 


*'-?s^>':=   e'suut  *i£.t 


"!*'*;:.'"■* 


lrr«gttlarltle»  vhloh  1%   in  net  a*«««Mury  to  o«t«,    «•  «•  tiold   ttutt 
tb«   fifidln£   3b4  Jurigmnat   again  si   tho  Karslshtt*  eantiot  W  aAd«   tk« 
)»&•!■  of  ft  e&nt.«apt  proa«e<tlQc  l>e««us«  oT  tii«  ftlleiE*4   fmlmm  stttt** 
a«Dts  in   th»  2u$«w9r. 


K&tehatt   »C(1  O'Connor,   J^J. «   eo&cur. 


'^  'JS  i?   "»,     J  ■ 


S  •-  i  ."  4   A  •-■•.  -.  *?3J»1 '/ 1 


[it^t^fj--^ 


t'Ua-ioU" -^   rcw    SJ":" 


33944 


OAKR0LL,  aCHIKDOK?  4  BOKEICES,  Ine., 

▼■• 

AUKXD  C.    BcamoXF,  ) 

PlftintiiT   la   AlTor,  ) 

) 


nut  MilSlCXFAI. 
C(>imT  Of  CBICA0O. 

256I.A.  599 


urn,    PRS&im)»Q   JU3TICK  S63UH&LY 

an.ivBiui9  thk  opuxoii  ov  nts  counr. 

?l«i<:tiff ,    a  Xie«&<«i  r««X   «st*t8  br«ic«r  in  Ch.l««f», 
^rottght  suit    te  r«eoT«r  a  r««i\    «st&i«  coamii*»t^n  alleged  to  have 
be«n  •arn«4   in   lin^iiag  a  purshiui«r  ready,   willing  «ii<S   ftbl«  to  pur^- 
d9iA««  <lef«!n(lai3t*«  property  «&  hl»  t^rss.     lipoa  trial   the  jury  r»* 
tiimM  «  T*r4iet   %i?»in«t  def^t^dont   Tor  |5C0.      yros  tke  jad^ipcBt 
th«r«nB  h*  aeeka  a  r9v«r»al. 

e«Bai'1criKg  t))«  so«««bat  Taqriast  t^atlKony,    Ut«  jury 
eo«il4  properly  "believe   thi^t  Willia  .  XttCaca,    m^ployed  by  plaintiff, 
eall«4  en   the  ^efecidact   and   inquired   if  he  dselred  to   sell  hie 
property  at   6505  Henvood   iAYesue   mtid,    ii    so,    plkiatlff  wc-uld  list  it 
for  his  aiiiJt   that  the  eoa«ieeion  vould  be  d'^.     Befeodant  teld  i»eCahe 
tliAt  plai&tiff  oould  llet  it  for   eale  at  a  prlee  ef  $:?5,50C  or   texme 
ef  $10,(>00  eaeh  «&<!  the  balux^ee   la  reaeo&atle  drnf^rr^A  payneRte,   aad 
that  defeEtda&t  vould  pay  pl^ilBtiif  a  eoaAiAsien  ef  iA  on   sueh  eale. 
Later  ^cCahe  vlth  Ur,  Leig^,   alee   tfoaaeoted  with  plaisttiff ,    called 
t>n  dAfendant  with  a  coBtract   fur  t2i,by.fO,   «hii^   defendant  refused   to 
elgn,    saying   that  hin  price  trae  $2i),50O,    »b  he  had  stated   is  a  pre* 
Tiette  coBTereatloD.     thereafter  T>iaiAtiff  procured  Arthur  k,  LanaldL 
as  a  purohaeer  for  |33,&C'<J>,   $10,000  eaeii  and  115,500  ou  deferred 
paynsnte,   "idil.h  was  the  prlee  aod   tenae  fixed  by  defendant.     J.a&siii 
g&Te  plaintiff  #1,000   earnest  aeney  aaid  was   a&ply   able   to      puroa»se 
the  property »    onrning  several   pieces  ef  real   eatate  in  the   city  of 
Qiieaso;    or   ^ae  of  fe^ia  buildings   the  equity  wae  eati&ated  to  be 
worth  $130,000   Mid   en   another  his   e^uit^  was  placed  at  #180,000. 


iit  ■Ja«ha»^''< 


« «s-»^*  •«■  ■ 


^  i  t,?  <i  i;i  V  A  *-i«t.";-  ■  r*-*r 


I.^tSc 


/m  J    ■  ^^.ii.;s,-.s    ^«-;.. .  .  ^  «•■■-••    V    •  .  ,,..,^ 

;''ii;r    ,<?>£($J8f«^  fci>'5'3;f5"i<?i.   =%i-Je«Si;:3i,at   ai   isi   '•'>:•  .--^     ..•»*  -. .. 

.ai«e   iisois   £19  *;^  "ie  A&iB^*!-  '    '      "     :      •  ^-c   t-i^;-^  jj^sr^Kj  i  • 

j::<4f?»*:?   ,4  itijri^ti  bBtu^i^tq  ttt^Ki-n^lr,   Tt»i't;#^»t»jiT      .ac^l j^jittitrnod  ei!«iT 
b»%tt»t%b   tffo   ;^,3X*   fcjx-  ■    "      "v:-*^   t^Ka^tititn  ft  «• 

Ic  ijiid   !»ii^   «i  «**4a»   lurtTi  "t»  i!t^»»i«   taa»«r4»a   i^ai^-jfj    ,xttf%^9tt^  «tii 


D«f«n(,liuit   d«oll«i«^   to   wnter   into    the   eoniraai  and   then   titat«4 
tluit  hi*  prie9  vas  $3%0O0  n«t  vaAh.     LMicicl   th*n  ofi>r«d  to  pmj 
$25,500  ft&ah.      Pltklntlif  vrot*   to  dcf^ndftDt   aubAlttini^  this 
proi>o»itloa  K&d  ofiVrwd,   ir  th«  do*!  ««ijt  ihroutili,   to  re<luo«  its 
••■MlasloB  froBi  3:i^  ie  $500.     P«i'«fidant  rofu««4  to   earry  otit  thi* 
acrtecaietit  but   gaT*  no   r«a»oa  for  dolBK  to. 

Zh«  fftcts  in  •▼id«ne«  bring  tho  esui«  wltnlit   tlie  ral« 
that  a  roAl   «RtMt*  broker  i*   eoitltlod  to  his  eoani«oio&.   If  ho 
aoeiiroo  &  purohoaor  ready,  vllling  AKd    stble  to  purenase   the 
property  on   the  ters^e  oi'  the  aelXer.      S^ujite  v^  Me^aja.  133  111. 
App.   491;  Juang  -y.   UaBd.    57  111.   ^p.    134;    Sgitl^  v.  l^eel<ff>   51 
111.    App.    267;   Carter  ▼.    gJihPeQll.   13^    111.    App.    32a. 

Def<?udcurit   in  «  72  page   brief  iieoaeses  the  evidoic* 
in  great  detail,  vlth  oopious  quotations  f'roa  deeided  eases.     w« 
have  eonsidered  the  points  auude  but   do  not  kold  thai  any  of  thea 
re<3iilr«s  a  r^rersal  of  th»  judgment.        To   e«HMent  apen  thev  all 
would  unduly  l<^fsth«wi  this  opinion.       Ve  cannot   eay   that  the 
T«»r4ict  of  the  jury  v«e  B^nifestly  aKainst  the  veii'^t  of  the 
evidence,   and  at  there  were  no  reTArf8il)l«  errors  upofi  the  trial 
the  judgment   is  af finned. 

Katehett  and  O'Canner,  JJ. ,  conour. 


.-sz  .mi-  -j^^-  .ii.4tSj;«^wa-mi^^"  '"^^  .ct^   .   ^ . 


.<T'<^  .;;■.:  i  T.^i 


.-IfciO;:,  ,  .         ■-  .L^:^ipt^ 


9W62 

?«0Pi.3  0/  THK    3TAT«<  Qf    ILLIKOIS,         ) 
9«rendant   in  x.rror,  j 

FlMlntlfT   in  Srror. 


TO  J^i»  I^ir^COORT 
Oy  CHICAXIO. 

256  I.A.  5  99 


liR.   raXainifiG   JU3TICI  K^UXXLT 
DSLIVSKK9  THE   OFlJilU^  OJ*  THS   COUAT. 

S«fexi4aRt  ira«   fouiKl  guilty   In   th«  kL;Bieipax   court   of 
QUcago  of  QiioAgo  of  earr^rixiK  eafio«aIei  a  d«adly  va^pen  and   seiit«Bc«d 
to   the  Kottsft  of  Correction  tor  ene  y«ar  and  fiAed  one  doll»r,     ^ 
thie  vrlt  of  error  he  se«k«   the  rerereAl  of  this  ^wdgiiMit. 

In  defecdant*«  brief  »  BUBber  of  points   itfe  raised 
whleh  ve  do  cot   coneider  seritorieue  vith  on**  or   ooBBlbly  two   •x-^ 
eevtlone.     We  are  iBeliB«d   to   think   that  defendant   did  aet  hA-ve 
full  opportunity  to  preecmt  his  defense,    ii'  ar^y,   upon  the  trial. 

The  iei'erKatioB  was  sworn   to  August   dth  and  the   trial 
vas  held   the   ease  di^.      The  record  8h»i»s   that  at   the  trial  defendant 
vas  Bet  repres#nt«d  hy  oounsel;    that  he  had  heeu  in   this  e "untry  only 
two  years,   eould  speak  hreken  KAt^:lish  to   seme  extent,   and  vas  iaterro- 
gated  hy  the  court   throug>i  an  interpreter  irtie  se«fts   to  haT«  been  a 
bystwider.     Defendant  denied   that  he  had  a  ffua  on  his  pers(;n. 

It  was  held  in  The  Pecple  ▼.   iteiralsici.    332  ill.   167, 
that  a  person  aeeused  of  eriae  should  be  giTea  full  opportunity  to 
plaee  the   court   in  posseoaien  of  all  fiiets  bearing  on    the   question 
•  f  the  t^uilt  or   innocence  of  the  accused.    Properly  to    1o  this,    de- 
fendant  should  hare  been  represented  by  eourisel,    mx'X    tne  ease  is 

roMBded   for   another   trial. 

Upon   the  n<»xt   trial   any  question   hh   tr   prool   of  the 
proper  Tenue  can  be  sTcided. 

Hatchet t   and  O'Connor,    J«7,  ,    concur. 


SXKC 


i 


^rs  -    -*  ^^  Q 


^-iisi-iBl-^f^  Xsi"*^-  »;  ••-^■'5    s^-^iii*  ft's*^--'*:  *ff^      .X«*  ss^BW  '^df  kStad  9Stf 

,v&i:  .xji  s«.  .i^.iA2s2L4Xj2ia£aX,»iS,  «i  »'«»^  *«»  -^^ 

•    ■ 


33994 

J,   BARATT,  )    ^^ 


;-7 


▼•. 


)    /  or  CHICAGO. 

JCaa  S*AUOSB  and  £R8«  ) 


/'''^         or  CI 


8T3LLA  D*AkOJiB,  } 

ApptXl«nt8.  ) 


256  I.A.  599" 


BCIVBiaB  TBS  OPIJJIOK  OJf  TRX  Om^T. 

9«f«&d«nis  ril4>4  tiidir  {>«tltloa  Aa^uat  1,  1929, 
undtr   :;«etioB   a9  of  the  Praatle*   act»   &eklRg  for  th«  TftOAtloD  of 
m  ^udgBi«st  eotercd  agAinat   th«»  2>«e«ffib«r  5,  1927.      Their  atotian 
vtkm  d*ni<9d  Msd   th«y  «pp««l. 

?h«  oetltlon  allee««  that  John  B'inMra,  oao  of  tha 
dafanl4tntt»  hsi   &t  no   tlae  kBo«l«44:«  of  the  9«ad<uicy  oi*  tha 
original    e«tao  agaiziat  hin  and  did  not  hira  or  ratain  an  attomej 
in  hla  bit^alf  and  had  no  opportunity  te   appear  in   court  and  praannt 
hla  dofonao;   that   tha   eo-dof «nda<it ,  hia  vifo,  vaa  found  inaana  hj 
tha  County  court  of  Cook  eounty  Fobruary  1,  1933,  Mid  waa  raatorad 
to  sanity  Fehraary  9,   1926,   ^in<\   that  duris^c  tha     tins  aha  waa  in* 
aano  aha  had  h<»«a   tha  Tictiai  of  aoh^sara  and  othor  unocruiittloua 
l^artiaa  toad   that  John  D'Ajtora  had  oonaiderabla  troahla  in  kaapinf 
h«r  in  aaoluaion.     Tha  petitioner  alla^paa  that  at  no   tiaa  had  ha 
«ny  tranaaetiona  with  tha  plaintiff  and  that  «iiila  h«  had  no  knovl* 
od|r«  of  hov  tha  oonapirsoy  vaa  conooctod  ho  waa  ^oaitiva  that   at 
no   time  vaa  ha  aerrad  with  au^snona  or  ao^uaintad  vitA  tha  yondanoy 
of  tha  auit;    that  while  ha  does  not  ^argo   tho  deputy  hailiff  with 
oonaeotion  with  tho  eonoDiracv  or  plot,    it  e&y  hp  that  tha  eonapl* 
ratora  or  nlottera  had  aerrad   aoae  other  person  ooBplaeent  «aough 
or  wished  enouffh  to  ittperaonate  the  petitioner,     as  rr^queated   that 
k^  ha  eiTcn   the  apportanity  of  offering  proof  ahowin^  tha  truth  of 
hia  allagatioaa. 

The  original   auit  was  eoaaienoed  agn.lnst   John  0*AMors 


.-.  »3^?- 


)Q^im  to 


'■   T 


4  ft»4i"i  t^awbiMfX^-ci. 
G^i^csi  -'>4  «$:  s«C-i^«»ja^  <H%(ijr  iL^Mtfs^  .'&i(«»i^9t»  ,4ms^itii  .m , 

•^3m,9^#v  .^'SEi^  -4im  h0,  im»t  sgJtM-  fa.sijs^y*  »«i^  i-(S.«i3gi-f« 

r^ia««^  fern  ■Jis^^^.e  ^S  '%^  lmii'S%^.tm  im  ftitA  $i0M.  .%lmm.4  misi  si 

'    ««^  .&,.-.*  ^d&  i^mti  ^jfiiii^  .^siTuitr  >«^   ^  ^'iS^uTE^.a^^^l^stie©  -i 

,  swoi:rivs%ft»iii«  i^'jdJd  &4su>  »is;»<i^iilaH6  tir  £sj^j^«iiv  fiit  $£»4>^  .&s»f  »£iet ^^sr» 


Xft7  14,   1926.      8Maai»aa  ▼»•  lasu«d   imd   sarred  on  kay  16,   192&,   »• 
•hovn  by  tJ&c    r«turn  oi    th*  d«]Hity  bailiff,     kay  25th  the  i^paafaxie* 
•  f  ^onn  D*Ara0rft  by  Marry  Z.  J*ar«l,   mu  littorcay  at  law,  waa  asterad. 
Hay  2«tb»  en  xctlon  of  daf truant,   tna   tlaa  for  filing  an  affidavit 
•f  Kerita  vaa  crtaKdad.     May  aath,   an  dafendast'a  iu>tion,   plaintiff 
vaa  ardarad   to   flla  a  Kara   ap^oifia  at%tam«»t  of  alai«  and  dafc&d- 
aat*a   tina  to   fila  an  al'fidairU  of  m«rita  wtia  axtandadl.      Juaa  liVx 
an  anaiKiad   »tat«e«nt  of  elai^  vaa   filad  aHft^lnt^  inat  plaintiff 
alaiaad  for  goada  »n4  s«reha};<liaa   aold  and  dallTarad  to  daf«QdaBt» 
Tha  atat*inrnt  la  it-:»isa4  and  ahava  t>iat   the  sKi^raitaxidlaa  vaa  dry 
foeda,   sssuct:  aa  aha^ta,  piliav  eaaaa,   curtaina,   alao  voKaa'a  and 
■WB*a  garss«ntB.      Th«  total  bill  vaa  $1129.05,  an  T^ioh  payaa&ta 
had  ba«n  sada  on  acoouot,  l«aTlug  a  b&laBoa  due  of  1311.75. 

June  l^ith  «iB  affidavit  oV  narita  wina   /llod,   in  whiah 
4«fendant  daniad  that  ha  bought   tha  gooda  or  au»r^»ndlaa.     Oetobar 
Tth  I'-ave  traa  i^lTen  to  a^s4  i4ra.   i»talla  i>*Ar.Aora  a  «o-deiacdant, 
and  April   ^7,  19 ?7,  har  a^poaranoa  vaa  filad  by  Harry  <;.   and  2>. 
IParal.     Daeeiabsr  5tli  tha  aw-in*  aasa  on  f^r  haaring  .ind  tha  raaori 
raelt#«   that   the  9arti«a  vara  pmw^sit,     Tna  court  found   tha  iaauea 
aisalnst  th$   jafandants.     Dafandanta  novad   tha  court  for  ana*  trial. 
aiiii^  laotioa  vaa  overrulad.      i'hay  aovad  is   arr*at  of  Jiadgiaeat,  vhiob 
was  ovarrulad,   and  it  waa  held  that  plaintiff  ahould  hava  Judgiaant 
Is   the    ,»9unt  of  $311. 75.     Bai'andanta  prayad  sui  appeal,  vhioh  vaa 
allo^'-ad  on  oonditiaa  of  fillsi£  a  bond  vithio   tiiirty  daya  and  a  bill 
of  axaaptiona  vithln  aixty  daya,     Decaaber   ^th  daf«ndaata  sovad   tha 
court  t«  vftoata  tka  j«d^«it,  vhiaxt  Kotlon  «aa  heard  Daoaa^r  lOth 
and  ovarruled.     Tha  naxt  mova  vaa  tha   flllnii  of  tha   inatant  pati- 
tioa  on  Auguat  1,  19 as. 

It   ia  tha  astabliahad  lav  that  aadar  Saetloa  09  of  tha 
Praotlca  aot,  vhlah  ia  aabatltuted  for   tha  vrrit  of  arrer  coray  npbia. 
tha  ratum  aa  a  avwsoaa  eannot  ba  contradict  ad;    that  tha  parties  to 


5fsc^*'?  *n4    ?»«r    3ja«                                                        -^   ^$   ■S¥=&:^^s 
?<sjti5^    ^  .i-^'SKiSi!   a«*©it   ,:  ._      .irfer 

.jUiM   aiSSS     ■'■^'"'"      '  '•"     '^■'-       ='■■'     '-'"    '—'":;  ,....:...     v.,..^.. 


m,  «uit  »t  1«»  mX9   so&olualtrely  bound  by  th*  return   aTtftr  tb«  ttnt 
•f  •ourt  in  whloh  th«i  Ju<St^«nt  ^am  <tnt<»r»4.      Ch^wnga  t.  *ort|| 
^■CTl— a  Lif»  Ia»urmno«   Ua..   192  111.    179. 

Th«  allegAtiena  of  «  ooaspirmcy  In   th<i  9«titlor.   %rft 
t*e  TsgttM  wad  urie«rt«iln   to   oaXl   for  any  action  by  tho  coort. 
furthermort,   •tteh  petition  nuot   ohov  that   tho  entry  of  tn*  jud£- 
■tnt  ooitj^t   to  be  T&cr«t«d  was  fiot   cau»«d  by  any  nogllgaaoe  on   tk« 
part  of  tho  petitioner.      An^rieac  SuretY  Co.   -y,   ^l^ff  t   214   Hi, 
A9j»«   463.      ho   sueh    ishovin^  vas  made.      It  should  be  iiotiee^   that  the 
petitioner  adsita   in  his  piatltioB   toat  hs  was  eall4d   9S  a  ^^Itn^ss, 
but  th9  oao«  wae  conticoed;   that  he  wan  not  inforsaed  that  the  eaae 
was  9^ainat  his,  aithouei'  h*  was   interrogated  b^r  the  attom«»ys   as 
to  whether  he  h%d  had  any  txaneaetian?  vith  the  plaintiff,   Jacob 
Baratt.     The  elear  iAf«r«nA«e  la  that  defendant  h^id  )nie«l  df^e  of  the 
eaae  but  took  no  steps  in   th«  aatter  lABtil  lon^  after  judgiaaat  wan 
entered. 

Petitioner  oorrectly  sayo   that  hin  notion  under  :>i«otien 
9B  ef  the  Prastioe  aet  ie   the  beginning  of  a  new  suit,  but  arfruee 
that  its  ouffioieney  auet  be  r.mised  by  A^^rr*fr  or  plea  or  by  notion 
to  diesdss  or  in   saae  way  nalcing  «n  iaeue  of  fiMft.     While  t^ls   is 
undoubtedly  the  better  praotloe,   y«t  ve  knew  of  no   case  hni^ing 
that,  where  on  Its  fae«  the  p«titioB  aapeara  to  be  lnsurfiei«st 
and   th«   court  deni<«8   tho  si^otion  eade  thfTeunder,   a  court  of  review 
must  reT«rse  because  the  olalntlff  filed  no  wrlt.tcn  pleadings.      Such 
a  rule  would  be  unreasonable.      The  record   ano^'s  that   all  the  parties 
ware  praaeat  at  the  hearing  of  the  petition  and  it  ie  apporect   that 
tha  court  treated  the  matter  as  if  a  deicurri^r  to  the  potitien  had 
been  nied. 

The  order  denying  the  Kotioo   to  vacate   the  jud^ent 
was  prober  im<^  is  affimed. 

Flaintiff  ankft    for   ari   aaee'sern'mt  of  a  penalty  of  ten 
per  cent  of  the  asuBunt  of  the  jud^«nt  en   the  ground   Uiat  ^la 


fijdU    tijiti    &»oJ!^oit   erf  ^£&{»ii@ 
.•6' 


:i:»Ti:ejil9«! 


?«isj£  .»-•■• 


?8 


«^l^   4-^*3 -ri^j^s.  si  ii  bn»  HP 
i^«srf  rtali  J;l«q  %as  9i  rrn^xymti 


appffal  «m«  prosveutM  for  d9lm,j,     W«  find  no   (authority   in  thm 
•tatat«  for  ouei^  a^  p«&taty.      Soetloa  33«    chapitr  53 »    Co«to,   p«>r- 
»lt«  the  ftBEee«M<M3t  of  «  i»9nalty  wh«r«  »  ju^licMttni  is  %rfirmm4 
Mad  the  app«al    in  proo«cut($<3   for  <fi«lay.      ¥«  »a>«  Kvt   ftffirmiap  tho 
original  Judgn«tit,  only  tb«  order  denying  tho  notion  to  vaonto. 
JTor  th«  reuaono  IndloAtod  tho  ordor  a^po«1o4  fnm 
in  aiTirmotf. 

AyyiBVVD. 

X»t^<'tt  «tt4  C*C&ux>or,   JJ. ,    Gsonour. 


ssywi't^  ai 


M679 

03C\R  H.    CARL30S   ik  ^SO«e.   Inc.,  ) 

for  U8«  ftf  Sttg«n«  il«4g«B,  i 

I      4PP2AL  noil  mnniRioR  court 

WALTER  0.    KAKHLKR,   Garni *h««,        ^^  y^    ^-'^ 

m.    JUiJTICK  HATCdJBTT  SKLIVIRIB  TJIB  OPIHIOh  OJT  THX   CCUhT. 

)ioveBi1>«r  30,  X92c»,   Sttgan*  li«<lg««  obtained  a  ju<i^K«nt 
for  #729. S6   ag<«intt  Oxiar  U,   Carlson  &  Sons,   Ine»     K«<Ik«*  brought 
gamlfhoK'nt  proaft^dinga  on  th«  jui^^aant  and  auamonad  Walter  G, 
lAthltr  aa  earni«h««.     ILaahlar  was  a«rr«d  with  aus^ona  an  Vabruary 
11,  1989,   «n4  tharaafter  filad  an  anawar  an  /abruary  20th  and  aa 
amandsd  anawar  en  April    >n\»     Upan  tila  asi^andad  anawar  tha  court 
on  notion  of  Hadge*  anterod  a  I'in  ling  and  judgnaat  againat   tha 
garnl»h«a  in  tha  aon  of  |7<i0.26,   tiia  tataunt  of  tha  original  judg- 
ii«nt,     that   Ju  V:i&Mr}t   tha  g&rnio  :#«  aeojca  to  r«T«r8W  upon   thia  appeal. 

the  aol«  queetien  to  be  determined  is  whether  on  tha 
aaawera  as   filt^d  &aidiXer  is  liable  for  the  a«ouat  of  tha  ju<tgMent. 

The  answer  sYers  that  eti   the  dat     of  aenries  and  at 
the  tlae  of  illinj^  the  answer  the  gamiehee  waa  not  indebted  and 
had  no  Boneys,   oredita,    He.,   of  any  kind  belonijinc   to   the  ^udHment 
d«bter.      In  parti eular,   it   Ky%v%  that  on  JSovenber  6th   Hind  10th, 
III 28,  JLaehlar  nade  eontraats  with   the  ju4(^«9it  debtor  whereby  it 
agreed  to   furnish  material  and  perform,  work  on  e^^rtain  buildings 
about  to  be   erected  far  tha  garnishee.      ThA  work  was   to  be   done  and 
tha  material   I'Urniohed  aooording  ta   dr'%winga  and  plana  of  an  arohi- 
teet.     PayB^nt  was  to  be  nadc  upon  the  oertii'ioatea  of  the  arehi* 
teet  as  the  work  progressed.      UnHer  one  oentract  the  garni ahf^e 
agreed  to  pay  $9477  and  under  the  ether  9178.      Tha  garnishee  mada 
BO   further  paymdots   to   the  judt^ent     debtor  after  the   servicfi  of 
the  writ,  but  after  the  writ  wae   eerred  and  before  the  filing  of 
the  final  anawar,  ha  paid  eertaia  auna  to  rarieus  a&terial  b«i   for 


TJ^-, 


,1 1> 


^ 


vhloh  e«rtl}'io«t#s  ^ftrn  ima\l^  prior  to   th*  tlar  of  ••rrle«,   and 

h.%  adTAa«*d  oth«r  tuas  to  »••!   tho  payroll ,   Vroe.  tlao   tc   tino. 

tho  lt«nt  apen  whleh  piiyiR«nto  voro  tB«4«  aro  ontmoratod  iu   th«  anavor 

anA  will  act  b«  ropoatad  hf»ro  furthor  than   to   ataio  tJiut   th«  total 

•VUB  of  ouoh  paysftnts  oxso^d^d  thv  anount   for  vtol^  JjudtiViont  vas 

•ntvrod.      Tha  Ari«vor  otatAs  that  it  wat  ii«««asary  to  make  thoaa 

pajrmwnta  in  ordor  to   pr«vant  tha  parti  «o   to  vhaa  tho  payaanto  v«ro 

aada  fron  I'illnc  Haas  against  tho  real   aataia, 

Tho  doolsions  a  «&  to    told   th«i  lav  to  b«  that  a  garni* 

■haa  uador  auoh  oircumotaiaoaa  makca  mieh  pHynonts  at  his  p«ril ,  and 

la  taktn 
that  a  payaont  of  thia  klnj^to  bo  an  admi  salon  on  hi  a  part  that 

ina  was  indobtvd   to   th«  judgsont   dobtor  tc   the  oaount  paid  at  tha 

tlmtr  th«  Yrrit  was   a«rT«d.      Tho  leading  o&aa  ao  holding  la  yiloua 

V.    Kline;.    67  111.   107.      That   caaa  hna  bean   follovad   in  Gra<^  ir. 

John  ton.  181  111.   App.  63j  Wtatgrn  Valvg  Cg.  y.  wuayPakln  COf.  177 

111.    App.    948;  Mh^UI^T  Yt   ^^rpU,    207  111.    A  p.    3Gd.    and  in  £aiiij|;      . 

v^   Pajrh  yiTtproof  atorflitgt  Co..   sas  111.   App,   9fi,      Thaaa  deoisiont 

go  upon  the  ground  that  upon   tha  aarrioa  of  a  writ   tha  garniahaa 

■uat   aubnit    tha   fund  to   tha  Juriadiotlon  of  tha  court,   and  that  ha 

■Ay  nat  himatlf  aet  arbitrarily  in  daaldlng  to  «hor.  it   shall  ba 

paid, 

7pr  tha  r«a«ona  lndic%t>rd   tha  judgment   ie  affirnad. 

KeSurely,  P.    J.,   mM  O'Connor,   J.,   concur. 


«>'>w  j«'.^  IV. r *,:!•.  .<•>!: J*^'  t«!t'i   ^fTr?5:;3?^  -Tiff  .?'*f-*j«t'a"-7  et-r^5rr."fr  ■■'r-^  >:;  mn» 

ST' 
'!'''■*    ,.t,-v-  .:-,/•,     ■  --■  .t.<"....lflif.„..IiSl--  •■   '    *BBd^£^. 

t^UMl    -i-    '■■■■  ■■     ■        ^^'     ^^    .ii^l.:.....*,:  :     -"     • .^" 


TU. 


S3708 

sujrnnr  l.  cayshos  Md  wuxiAk 

X,  £AI8KR,  Copartners  mm 
CaT«nd«r  and  Kalssr, 

X>«f*n4ani«  in  Srror, 

▼•. 

JUAOaKET  aCKHXUOBI  and   JULIUS 
B3CK3&, 


PLintirr.  i„  .„.,.     i     2  5  6  I. A.  6  0  0 


■R.   JVSiXICl  kATQUTT  TiMhVfmSD  TOI  OPIit^IOJI  OV  THS  COORT. 

ftarirty  X..   C«Tea4«r  toid  ViXlictM  «£.  £«ls«r  r«coTer«d  two 
ja.igmentQ    tgalast  Julius  B«cker.     Sz«cutions  issued   and  v«r«  r«- 
turnod  unofttisfled.     Oavender  and  iUU,»er   than  filed  a  creditor** 
bill   ai««iinat  Beclcar  and  kargaret  a«hrei1»er.     Ttie  proaeirdine  vaa 
under   eeotien  A^   of  the  caciiyri eer^r  aet  ( ■**  a«itb-Hurd*B  111.  Hot. 
Stat.    19S9,    chmp»    ItH,   eeo.    49,   p.    263.) 

Tbe  Mil   averred  that  property  beleni>;in^  to  Becker  had 
b»«n  transferred   to  defendant  Schreiber  and  prayed  that  this  be   ap- 
plied to  the  satisfaction  of  ths  judfpirnt.      Interrogatories  were 
SMbsdtted  and   wiswer  under  oath  bjr  defendants  deaianded. 

Becker  answered  but  net  under  oath.      The  answer  was 
strioki»  sad  his  default  taken  and    entered  of  record,     kargaret 
Sehreiber  answered  denying  the  allegations  ei    the  bill. 

The  record  brought   to  this  ooart  is  per  praecipe  nBd 

includes  only  the  soaaieas,  bill  of  oos^plaint,   appearance  of  de* 

fandants,   answers,   decree,    togetiier  with  certain  orders   entered  in 

the  cause.     Xhe  decree  recites  the  dcfaut  of  one  defendant  and   the 

answer  of  the  other  and   states   that  witnesses  were  heard  in  orpen   CMurt 

It   ie  argued  by  defeundamtc  who   seek  to    rewerse  the  decree 

that  no  replication  was  filed;    that  the  case  was  therefore  net  at 

a 
issue  ao-f  that  a  aiotion  Made  by  def«rtdants   a^subsequmat  tens  to 

set  aside  the  decree  should  haws  been  granted  for  that  reason.     &• 
far  ae  this  record   discloses,   the  parti f»s  ^eat  to  trial  without 
filing  a  replication,  an4  the  replication  wae  therefore  waiwed. 


.sr 


.>3«  M^iaci;  iB«»ji4iJn»«£<i     .-ssi9»Z  %«xX»Ci  isu&^  fia»ai^»% 


\'%«skt»^%?>  »  Ssslil  a»ilc?  'xi3»li^ 


"59X2!  - 


■**i«^' 


:  t*Q«1Sl| 


XM  .*^i^ 


Uni*>r  T.   MiUT.    210    111.    A|>p.    67;   Plot   v.    Davi«-   147  111.   A^p,203; 
M»rp»l   T.    Soott|.    41    111.    90. 

The  mntimmr  of  hmokmr  not  hayinii  boo&  morn  to  «nd  tho 
*now«r  undor  oath  not  hm'vlng  boon  waivod  hy  ooBtplalniOita,    tUe  ordor 
to   strlko  WM  proporly     nt«r«4.   Ao»l  t.    Odle.   30d  ill.    460. 

It  1«  also  urgod  that  the  d«oroc>  io  not   supported  toy  tho 
f  Indlnco  of  faot.     tho  d«ero«>  finds  th«  rocoYory  el'  tho  Judgiittito 
•cainst  Book or   in  the  Municipal  court  on  April  9,   1926,   and  in  tho 
Appellate  cottrt  oa  iiay  9,  19^7;   that   tne  oxscutioas  issued  therooa 
wore  rotttrn«d  vholly  unsatisiiod:    that   th»  bill  was  not   I'ilod  in 
collusion  with  Booksr  or   aiiy  other  person;    that  durinig  tho  yoar  1938 
Booxor  enterod  into  a  contract  for   the  purdhaoo  of  real   estate   la 
Cook  county,   deseribed  a«  lot  5  ia  blooic  4;   that  i^oekor  at  that  tiao 
requested  Cavendor  to   take  title   to    this  real   estate   i     his  ns«e 
for  the  use  of  Backer,   and  that  it  was  so  taken  by  Carandor  at 
Booker's  rei^u^st;    "that  en  about   the  6th  day  of  iiowoaiber,  1922,   for 
the  ifturpose  of  proteetinc  oaid  Julius  Booker,   the  said  iiarvey  L. 
CaTondor  executed  two  (2)   eortain  4|uit*olaiai  deeds  for  oaid  real 
estate  herimaboTe  described,   in  one  of  ^i^ieh  said  deeds  tho  naae  of 
Julius  Booker  was  inserted  as  grantee,   trnd   tho  other  quit-elaia  deed 
was  oxoctttod  with  the  n»aie  of  the  grantee  ia  blank;    that   tnereafter 
the   eaid  Julitts  Booker,   without   the  knowledge  or  consent  of  oaid 
Harrey  L,   Cawendor,   inserted  in  said  last  abowe  aentloned  deed   tho 
nMse  of  the   defendant,  iiairgarot  ^ohreibor,   and   on  about   the   dth  day 
of  January,  A.   P.   1924,   eaused   said  quit-elalai  deed  to  be  rooorded 
in   tho  Hocorder's  office  of  Cook  County,   Illinois;"   that  oa  about 
February  1,   19  23,  Cawendor  paid  on  account  of  aortgagoo  then  duo 
upon    said  real   estate  #507.50,   whiexi    sozn  was  adwanced  by  £ecker,    mb4 
that  *the  down  i>ay»ent  upon   aaid  property"  was  edwaacod  by  £eekor 
and  ao  part  of  the  payments  Bade  was  adwanced  by  Uargaret  i^ehreib^^r; 
that  oa  about   January  12,   1923,  Becker   entered  into  a  contract   for 


&i  h*£l't  tds  ^^^  ££ia  ^iSJ  ^-:ft 

.'.a-   &i^t9m  heif^'is-'t^  fmm0&%n^  "s^  t^  $^«tS&i^s  s  ^iisi  h^t'^fitsi  "xes;^ 

^af    .  -      :         <c«f  if«».-a»yh^  ^mit?  iiat;^^   /•iaitCipf  \_'^^':S^f^-  "^fa***  X«««  fcl**'-    i**-^ 
*isi»5?^  \a'  fepiHte-rfes'   •««  ^f#»t»i!j«-ai   •  <&«•  aw«fc   ^rft*   i>.«f*?f 


tli«  irarohaae  of  r«al  •»t&t«  '^••eri'bed  as  I«te  IS  and  13  In  bloek  4, 
•to,,    in  Cook  County,   Illinolo;   that  th*  oonoi'loratloa  for  the  pur- 
obaao  of  aald  Iota  was  polj  by     Bookor  and   that  ther9jift«r  on  oboat 
July  17,  19?3,  Bockor  paid   on  additional   bum  of  $51f>.U3  on  aoe  :.ttnt 
•f  the  pur^aso  of  oaid  lots;   that  on  about  JuiiO  9,   102&,  Boo<;or 
•xoeuted  a  qult«olai»  doed,    con>«!ying  tixlo  property   to  ono  Alma  M, 
CoMpo;    that  thie  do«d  *aa  recordtsd;    that   thoroiiftor  on  Juno  9, 
192S,  AIna  K.   Caapo  exooutsd  a  warranty  do«d  convoying   aaid  lota  to 
Margarot   Sohrelbor,    u»d    that    this  d««d  vaa   alao   rooordeid;    that   <  or- 
garot  Soiiroibcr  during  tho  yeara  X92"A  and  1923  woa  mployod  by 
Sookor;   that   oho  ha4  aetual  knoTrled^e  of  thc>  olain  of  eon^lalnanta; 
that  the  protended  eenvoyanoo  and  reeordintj;  of  thoao  dooda  w«r« 
laado  by  Bookor  irlth  tho  int«sit  to  hindor,   delay  and   defraud  coir- 
plainanta  in  the  oollootioa  of  tholr  olala  md  jad0B«it  against 
Bookor,   and  thAt  Sidiroibor  at  the  tiwo  of  roeordlng  the  dctfdn  know 
©f  thla  Intent   on  th^  part  of  Booker;    that  the  d^oda   ao  rooordo4 
should  bo  act  aaivio  and  deol'-vrod  null  and  -void  ho  against  the  elaia 
or  lion  of  oosplain^mto;    that  $74d.S7,   togotiior  vith   ooate  of  auit, 
vaa  due  to  o<>i£.nlalnanta,   (stnd  that   tho  Jud^cmta  aoro  a  firot  and 
ralid  lien  upon  the  real    estate,    subject  only  to   the  bal  meo  dtt« 
upon  norti^agoa,    truat  doeda  or  valid  liena;    that  Booker  and  Sehreibor 
haa  no  right  or  olaiai  of  hoGLOotoad  a^ainat  tho  liim  of  ooatpl&in&nta 
upon   thia  real   estate,   and   that  if  tho  real   <»etate  waa   aold   to 
aatiafy  the  cli<»ii>.  of  ooK^lairianta,   the  aalo  ahould  bo  froo  and  eloar 
•f  any  ouoh  claim  of  homoatead;    that  all  of  the  Material   allogatloHB 
in  eosplaln«%nt  *a  bill  of  coBcplalBt  have  boon  proTOd  by  oo9q»otent 
ovldenee,   save  ;md  except   that  the  oonplainacta  r^rc  not  entitled  to 
any  relief  aa  to  a  lot  dosoribod  aa  lot  4. 

It  waa  theroforo  ordered,   adjudged  «tnd   decreed  th^it   the 
dooda  be  set  aaido  and  decreed  to  be  of  no    foroe  .wd   effect  as 
against  tho  Judgmenta  of  oosol^i^anta,    and   that  nnleea  tho  amount 
found  due  was  paid,   together  with  intsreot   and  oo&ta,   the  ol-rk  of 


^aiia©4-.  .,'*'  3jr«fii  4s..- 

■<{jJ    hftvo-?-,'    fW^rw    *3V:«jeC  jTttiik fij^BJOC-    Ity   ILH   s*  tflU-.^ 

»&'i   if.Ai  h^^tD^b-  hxS0>^  &r>5jkl)»ifei":  «MV»fe'Xtt  »'S.eTt«ii»jdi:4   «*  ■ 

*,-v   ^©ftlH*   :fc^;-   »&«»ll..|Ni  "t©  «tf  «#  ^»*n;3»j»  him  »fci«»  fftji  «^  «i^9l> 


th«  eonrt  ahottltf   iasut  mn  •xsoution  for   ihrn  MMuat  found  4u«,  with 
eoats,   and  lerj  tti>«i)  •B'I  ••!!   tlx*  r#al   estat*  to  saiisfjr  aaid  amovnt, 
and  that   th«   aula  vhaa  )aa4a  ahould  ba  fraa  and  alaar  of  any  right, 
tltl*,   Itttaraat  or   el  air.  of  Baclcar  and   'Sciifi^«r ,   aava  Knd  axcaot 
tlielr  right   to  rftdaao. 

It  ia  elalnsd   that   th>  faeta   found   .<ur«>   Inaufflciaat 
^ee&uaa  there   ia  no  flnilag   that  Baokar  waa  InaolYont   at  tta«  tina 
of  the  allagad  fwiudulant   cenTeyanoa,    and  MsS^LJSXJslXBiSiSLJL» 
Barp<>tt.   25C   211.   313,   ia  olt^d   to   thla  n  fnt.      That  caa«  la  dla- 
ttaguiahat^Ia,  h^'^vt^t ,   in  that   tt   Is  eaa  wHara  th<*  dafacdant  took 
by  gift  vitiout   intention  to   dafraud,  vhila  in   thia  eaa«  tha   find- 
ing ia  that  itafaodaQt  Sehrai^er  took  th«  titl#  with  kn«7l(>d««  of 
tha  ri^ta  of  conpI^BHiits  >ad   for  tha  purpoa*  of  aaalating  to 
i«fl«ad  then.     Tlie  raturn  of  th«  asraeutiona  unaatiafiad  would  alao 
•a«M  to  b«   auffici«st  pri»a  ga»i<|  to   ahow  th«  inaol Taney  of  Faekar. 
P^«ffa4  Tf   R9figyf«    203   111.    464. 

It  ie  also   contended  Utat  tha  fisdlaira  tif  dafaetiwa 
in   ^at  thay   fail   to   ahaw  affirmatively  that  tha  svoi^  anawar  of 
defandant  Sahrribar  waa  oTaraoKa  by  Kora  than  oaa  vitaaaa,     la 
ensa*  ara  el  ted   to  thi»  point,   ^oid  v^hfra,  a»  h»ra,   tha  4m9Tm*  ahavt 
that  tha   eauoa  vt^  hvard  by  a  ohaneellor  upon   thi*  taatiaoey  of 
altnaaaaa   takes  in  o?«n  court,   »e   think  any  Mich  finding  otiita  un* 
naeaaaary.     Vhila  a  bet tar  4«or«a  alcht  have  baan  draws,  wa   think 
tha  finding*  of  fis^ot  ara  auffidant   to   ahaw  that  ]kargarat  Uohraibar 
taok  titla  and   la  holding  titla  to  proi9«rty  whioh  in   equity  b^longa 
to  Backer  and  whl^  ahould  ba  aubj*otad  to  tha  payaiflnt  %t  hia  debts. 

BafandantB  contend   that   eoB^plainarta  «ra  nat  antltlad 
to  racoTar  baeauaa  of  thn  finiing  that  one  of  tha   eontplain^nta  hai 
at  one  ti«a  took   title   to  lata  4   and  5  *for  tha  purpoaa  af  oroteeting 
£ae)t.er«*        It   ia  argod  that  thla  a)aowa  a  participation  by  on«  of  tha 
eoaplaiaants  In  a  frandulant   conTdyanea  vhieh  would  praeluda  his 


ASiV    ,»i^    b^ii^'^  ■■'  '    '>-''^    f'eiiStwe>x.ia    aa  »lflHil    hJkmA  lltlNM   mH 

^ift..  *  j^jtMii  «>*=s'j  »?f  fefi;-n.»   fl(f ;.  .,•    i-ii'f-^  ."f:..!;    5^-^    :?-i'.i(;f   hats. 


ate''  >.>~.A,..^^           ^.   {-.-:-;*;.      ■;     ■ 

-  ■  -    -   ^^&jr 

^t;^.  ;■,;■?  £«fe   *'5e    «;g^. :  :     'l 

•iv     r=-:,v.:.  ^             '■-■■■  ..iff. 

i«^               .tntaxh   tut&a  uvi,ti  ;fi;.i^tji  .o/^ti^'-tj-   ^.scv-^^  «  ssiiii'ft      .^XJ3S»*©9a 

■X'^'fia^,,^^   i»'t»Ti%»M  S»Ai  wad*  ■>!»  4©^1  "ta  k^:^               5^ 

»sii  to  »«•  t''  ^»^ 


^•©•▼•Jry  In   •qulty,    oltlng  Yylfr  y.    TyXgr.   126   111.    525.      tht  d#« 
trt*,  h«««Y«r,   ^Q««  not   find  iixx*   taxy  oi'  th«  %otlon«  of  CaTondor 
woro  with  ft  frau^ulont  intent,  nor  ar*  f*ot«  di»cloo»d  suiriclont 
to   tftslsllsh  frtiu<^  on  hie  part.      J'raUil  la  not  prosuKod. 

for  tho  rf99one  In-Ucatad  tho  doore«  of  tho  Clrouit 
court  will  "b*   afflrmod. 

AfilRkiB. 

M«8ur«ly,   P.    J.,   %r^   0 ♦Connor,    J.,    coaour. 


89»a 

not  AD-L£X  QLiLS'M.y,    » 


^^ 


XPFSAL  nCK  aUKIClP/a  CC/OST 

ojr  cKXCAfio. 


im,  nsneti  mcnsm  mi^iyrnm  ms  opisios  or  tbk  court. 

PlAintlff  *e   9tat<»MWt  oi'  clftia  ^aidgad   that  It 
•Upptd  eertaln  ballt  of  (gua  iYo»  J&eJuonTllIo,  Florida,   to  Cliie«i^: 
Ih&t  <lftr«n4a2;t  vas  »  <»onn««;tln5  c*rrl»r  froa  Loui«vtll«,  Kftntueky, 
to  cailcA^o*   and  thut  def<'>»d«ct  fcll«d  to   e&rry  siiKe  trltoout  lose 
or  Atm»e0, 

The  affidavit  of  tt«rlt«  deciod   that  th<»  •hiimoist  vae 
in  soed  €(»n4itlon  «h«c  re«clT«d  b;^  d^feAdvBt  an<*  denied   th^t  th« 
ftOGda  v«r«  di^&£ftd  D^lo  li^  dofend&nt**  ^oes^a^ioa. 

The  iesueo  were  tried  ty  th«   eooxt.      There  vac  m. 
fiodlitg  for  plaictiff  md  Jttd^igneat   tii«r«on  for  1243,  vhioh  defc^n^laBt 
••eka  to  reverao  by  this  appoal* 

XKifsrideuat   eontsnds  that  the  sYld«ne«  fails  to  shew 
th^t  tha  goat  vas  in  i;ood  condition  vhmn  d«?livor«d   to  a»f<!ndant.     Hm 
further  aajs  that  the  daaago  «aa  dus  to  plaintiff *8  aegligane«. 

Umlj  at.<tnoriti««  ture  citad  auotainia^  propnnitiona  of 
laov  which  ar«  not  queatioKad,  btit  tha  contrclling  Tu^stions  in  tha 
east  •«'as»  to  Isvolva  issues  cf  fact.     D«f^n4f«t   *Ja?B,    citing  aut'norl- 
tiea«   that   tha  hurdeii  of  proof  vas  on  plaintiff  to   show  that  tha  gm 
vaa  in  good  ooaditioa  vhctn   l«llv«rad  to  iefsndant.     Thare  is  as   ioubt 
af  ths  nsoesalty  of  sueh  proof,    imd  vo  think  thnra   is  svidsnea  in  tha 
rsaord  fron  vhioh  tha  ooort   sould  wall  find  that  nsoes^ary  f-utt. 

It  appssrs  fron   the  atldanes  that  an  Marah  11.  1926, 
tha  A.   &  H.   Candy  Corspmny  ;it   J%o:i8onTilla,  Florida,   d9li-v«r««d   to   the 
Qaargia,     Sou t  am  &  Florida  iiail«ay  Coc&pany  at  that  plaea  oartaia 


^    R  T 


,  i^&i 


j.^v  T>":^-?^  ;.*>iM,*   ,f,>l§l  'sasi  ««*•  !»i  i/i3U    iliijJS-.i«  Ti«it  selifSll 

JSSt^   tnii    i^iLf    «'■  ,  .'S  ii 

Sdsnif'   tsm  «il  *f'%tix*.\      .^ifsfi^nni^t  vil»b  «R»is»  aoIj^ it>a-.«3   fc»03  ai    &-** 

.WW 


«x^tA»  of  gun  'bftlls  «b4  gi»  «aahln««  eonttigftmd  to  plaintiff  at 
ChieaffQ,   Illtaol*.     Th*  dArrl>*r  l»«a«4  Xhmrmtor  m  unifom  •tralght 
1t>lll  fif  la^iftf  vhleh  •tatwtt  that   it  had  r«o«iT«4   *¥he  pro^vrtj 
1>«l*v  !■  »vi»ar«nt  <(9o4  ord«r,   vxeapt  a*  not  ad.      (Cantanta  a»d  aatt* 
4litla«  af  aantanta  of  p&okagaa  unknovA.)*'     Thara  •^ara  no  axaa^tioas 
Ratad.     Tha  ahlpsent  stovad   n&d  vaa  4AliTera4  to  defendant  earrlar 
at  LoaiavUla,  Katituokj,   aa4  by  it     tra^iapoxted  to  Vhiea^o,  vhara 
it   arrtvad  on  April   9,  1926,   dalivM^  being  aiada  to   th«  AtXimt 
Dixon  Traaafar  Coapaay  by  ordar  02'  plHlctiff  at  1C:30  a.  k.   oa 
t^t  datt,   at   tha  loeal   fraight  offiea  of  tjM  Ofkrriar  at  83C 
Vadaral  etxaat.      -^m   that  aftemeoa  the  aUi|n«Bt  vaa  daliverad  to 
plaintiff's  plftaa  ot    buaistiaa  at  d2S  ^>outh  ¥«baah  avanua.     Plain- 
tiff intrdduead  tha  aontoly  vaatner  report  of  tha  Unitad  Stataa 
(taT«mat«Qt  for   tha  aenth  of  April,   19^6,  vhi^  «^«ad  that  o»  April 
6,  1926,   thara  vaa  no  rain  after  eight  a'oloak  a.  n. 

Tha  «vid«Rce  alao   taa^s   to   suov  ih*\x   th»aa  bsaia  of 
g!OM  and  g«tt  naahinat  had  ba^  ahippad  froa  Chicago  to   tha  A.  A  a. 
Candy  Company  Ir  tha  preeadins  Oetobar:   that  prior   t,o   aliipaaat 
tha  gim  vaa  axaBina^  asr!   foxmi  to  be  in  ^ood   oc«idition;    tliat  a 
portion  of  tha  ahifwant  vaa  opanad  nftar  ita  {orival   at  Jaokaoa- 
Tilla,  ifloTiAWk,   att<S   that  the  giw  than  axawinad  waa  foMud   to  b«   in 
good  eonlitiea;   that  tha  raaaaiuiag  portion  of  tha  ahlpMOit  vaa 
atorad  la  tha  roar  of  a  baicary  and  in  a  atorarooa  which  vaa  net 
axpoaed  to  daaimaoa  or  aoiatura;    thj»t  >4boat  a  aanth  bafora  tha 
ratum  of  tha  ahipnant,   ouatoc&era  of  tha  Caady  C<»paAy  raqueatad 
additioaal   oartona  cf  gua  and  that  tha  raf iila  ware  takan  oat  of 
thla  otorarooa  and  found  to  bt  la  ^ood  esoditioa. 

Thera  is   axpart  rridanoa  toiding  to   oho^   Uiat  tha 
ball  a  of  gam  vould  naturally  rasain  in  £OOd  oonditloa  froa  aix  to 
tan  aontha,    and   diraet   avi  !enoa   tnat    tha   cartoas   oT  ^um  irtiac  r*» 
paeJcad  at  JacksoBTilla  v«r*  la  ^ood  aonutloa;    tAat   th<^  mmrm  aaot 


^Ifti-rtu*   *»s«f;:fjf;;ls;::    a^   iN'i^^-lI*^  •*'^  b»f    ^*' 

'f.Jlfftf  ■fjsTi'm.i-^Q  Tr*'t*«*!*1'  «ift*J^*? 


j^",^^**   ^?*rrt,"   -^S^'tT  ^^i'-'''*'?:   '$«;"' i 


i/ 


'Sfi!    &  1  i.J-4 


K«n   *?fr  s^^!3-i 


ii^m   ific'i^^':^^'-   ^=?-n '^i'tfif  «t 


••?!«>*  iftj?; 


'^>^      ''^i^' 


r«   »,'»'-.•>«,-< 


5<f  -iUum  «   ffcrs'ij 


to    ih«  aarti  cr  l»y  •  'IrtkynaB  who  TuMd  «  olo««d   tru^  «ith  «  top  on 
it,   aii<1   thAt  It  vat  Bot  ralcin^e  vh«m  th*  •«■•  ««r«  aant. 

lli«  «Tldttne«  «Iso  t«nd«  to   thow  thm  the  eartoos  vhta 
•xayBla«4  at  olaiatifi***  pl<»aa  ol'  bualn«a'-i  on  A^ril   7th   ahov'ad 
in.9ury  frott  water, 

W«  think  thia  arldatiea  wa«  prjias,  fide  auffiet'snt  ta 
•ha«  that  the  i^ooda  were  in  ^ood   oon^ltlon  ^an  delivered  to  the 
firat  eaorrier  at  Jaekaot^TlXlfr,   axi4  that  faet  Isalng  proTa4  thera 
vsa  a  iireauKj^tlon  thai  the  goodie  reaeaiAed  in  the  aaae  oondltioB 
ttt>OB  deloT'^ry  to   :Ser»»rda»t  aa  a  aaeceedlai;  carrier,     Ketr  Y^rj^ 
C<yitr«a  S  H.   cp,   ■?,  iehjgh  Stone  Ca>.   220  111.   App,    M3;  10 
Carpua  Jaria,   994.     I>el*eA<)ant  offered  no  eTld«aca  tending  tc  over- 
eeaa  thie  preeuBptioB. 

Dafendont   oitea  Harehaw  v^   III.    Cytt^   H.   Ti.    Co..   tSB 
111,   App.    893,    a  oaee  ^h«T9  jadfcjBsnt  Jar  plaintiff  ahipper  «aa 
r9yr9*A  for  errora  In  the   Inatruetlona  .   and  ?here  the  dafexuSant 
aff^red  aiTir&atlYa  eTtdenoe  that  hniga  of   aaeda  hnd  bees  daoa^ed 
la  tm  ocewa  Toyage  prior  to  delivery  of  aame   to  defendaiit  carrier. 
There  la  no   auch  evldenoa  h<»re,     dafaodast   aleo   cites  Hottae  ▼. 
Wheelyelt.   854   ill.   Apo.   140,   vilcji,  unllk?   thie  caae,   InYolvad  an 
Intraatate  ahlpaant.     The  ec;iatt   In   that  opinlaB  pelnta  out  that 
aeetlac  P^  of  the  Uitifoni  Bllla  of  Lading  aot,   chap.   S7,  par.   24, 
Steiith-Httrd'a  111.  Rev.    Statutes  19 »,  waa  controlllnu  thare,  while 
an   lnt«relate  ahipcent   la  ccntrclled  by  aeetlon  30  of  the  Xntar- 
atate  0<noeeree  aat. 

7he  lav  applicable   to   the  preaeAt   ahlpii.ent  le  aet 

forth   in  Lino  v.  JUtrtnweaterp     aalfia  K.R.Co..   24«  111.   App.451. 

9M&  other  caaee   coaatrulr.b,  eald   seetlc&  3C. 

It  ia  not  ar&ued   that  the  finding  of  the   court  ie 
ae«iaat  the  eaclfesi   uel^Ut  of   the  >TldeAC«. 

The  Jttdt^eat  of  the  trial   court  is  therefore  afflmed. 

ha&urely,   P.    J.,   and  O'Connor,   J.,    Cs^ncur, 


,*«g«   i>%ii^  i»aji«   ai"!^    fiiv.'j.^  ^i  'i>«  a^sT*-  tt   i*^' 


-L.m*l  -  ^  *^..^lk-:.ft^ .  Mldt^L? 


ii?l^«MSSii».«"X<:;^   e*iit. 


,  5f?QX«*«»f*' 


•>%^j^i^  tt^  >«  9S  a©l4a^ia  "^i^  Ik*  i 


•  ?fS«<?i^  it'^; 


S-9^    *.l     r 


■■«r*»f«f  •*«© 


•ft  ?-■> 


3391S 

COUMXROIiO.   flSRTIOI  OOkfAKt, 
a  Comoratlon, 

App«ll«Bt, 


MX.    jnSTICS  lUTCHSTT  D1U.IVi(aiS!>  THI  Oi>lKXO«  07  THS   COURT. 

I^lalntiff,   OoA«crcl«l   Otrrloft  Oonpany,    sued  dafsridvit, 
V«8tera  Vuloanlelng  Kquii^nttt   Coepany,   for  a  boXwno*   allagad  !->  li« 
4u*  iui4«r  tha  tarns  ol*  a  wrlttan  contriiet   for  coooiareial   sanrloa^. 

Tha  affidavit  of  merits  adoittM   tha  exaoutlon  of 
tht  oontraot  but  aOlXagod  that  dafaodaut  haA  giT«n  notioa  of  tho 
eanoallatlon  of  tho  oontraot  ai^d  dlscontinuArsoa  of  the  oarrieo 
as  tha  contract  providad  it  aiisht. 

Xhora  vao  a  trial  by  tho  oourt   nnd  a  finling  for  plain- 
tiff In  tho   sun  of  |75.  ao»  upon  whloh  Jude.;n«nt  vaa  antarod. 

Plaintiff  olai«a  that  tha  finding  should  haTO  boon  for 
»  Xargor  Miouat   and  to   that   and  proaacutao   ihio  appeal,   danandiag 
that  ju^lisaant  be  antorod  haro  for  tha  auia  of  t372.33.     Defendant 
has  not  appeared  in  this   oourt • 

Tha  contract  under  vhioh  plnlntiff  olaiaa  waa  Intro- 
4ttctd  in  OTl donee.      It   a^jpearo   to  have  baon  oxaoutod  on  May  4, 
1933.      It  provideo   that  plaintiff   shall   furniah   to   defendant   oor- 
Tioo  in  the  way  of  weekly  reports,    }or  T^hioh  daf «n<)Ant  agreed   to 
|»ay  |S7.aO  a  month.      In   tha  margin  app^ara  tho  following  st%teia«nt 
written  by  plaintiff's  sales  i&anagor«  Mr.  Oribblo,   prior    to   tho 
oxoeutlon  of  the  eontraot:      *'Tho  oubeorlbrr  hao  tho  prlTiloge  of 
disoontlnulng  this  aotrvleo  at   tha  «ind  of  ninety  days.*     Kr.aribblo 
testified  that  plaintiff  reotived  a  notloo  about  tho  aiddlo  of 
Sopte»bar,  19 2d,   to   discontinue  the  sorries,   and  that  plaintiff 
was  Bst  notified  prior  to  xh«  expiration  of  ninety  daye  froa  tho 
4ats  of  tho  oontraet. 


96 


.IIIU&  m^^i 


T'-Jt'.VIWT' 


3 


•Tfl®  j-ii" 


.1'? 


::.i      /:«1?'* 


^an?.  tm  J j>-,  ;i  «   ^,£{1 7<rc  i  JL  !5  ' 


•ii.Jf^i'IO'f.'' 


,^  *J  iSW  ./ «Ji'ij>» 


inii  «,&' 


^4t>iiiu    »«^    «l«i 


./-J^TirtCO 


Xe««T«rf  Ar.   SohrwM,  pr«»ld«iit  of  th«  daftndaat  ooa* 
ptuiy,    t#»tlfl«d   that   about  the  mlidX*  of  Jun«,  1938,  ]|4»  a«ll*d     th« 
ol*fl««  of  plaintiff  HAd  l«ft  word   that  h«  wanted  to   oanool   tho   eoii> 
iraot  and  a«li«d  that  ho  >c  oall«4,   whioh  vao  not   dono;    that  Just 
I»of0ro  tho  holiday  In  July  ho  oalli»d  at  tho  off  loo  of  plaintiff  and 
•aw  tho  girl   at  tho  owltohboard   !4n<i   told  hor  that  ho  wontod  iir. 
Orlbblo   to  get   In    iottoh  with  him  ao  ho  want«d  to   oanool   th9  oontraet 
at  tho  Mid  of  nlnoty  dayo;    that  ho  loft  a  nouorandua  to  that  of  foot. 

Mr.   Orlbblo  In  robuttal   t«otlfltrd   that  ho  did  not  ro- 
•oIto  ony  tolophono  eall«   fron  kr,   Uohraiu  or  anyone   oonntiotod  «lth 
Aofondant;    that  Mr.   3ohram  noTor  ealled  at  plaintiff's  oifleo,  nor 
to  tho  kno^'lodgo  of  tho  witnos«  did  tho  oft'lco  rooolvo  any  call   from 
hlB.      Ho  iil»o   tootlfiod,  howtfvor,    that  In  xiio  aboonoo  ono  of  tho 
glrlo   In   tho  off  loo  had   onarcO  of  tho  off  loo,  but   oho  was  not  pro- 
dueod  as  a  ^Itn   as  to  dony  th«»  testimony  of  Mr.    aehrom. 

Plaintiff   citoo  the   oa«<»  of  Bour  v.    Klabal^  .   46  111. 
Aop.   327,  whieh  wo  think  Is  not  oontrolllng  hero,   oinco  tho  torao  of 
tho  oontraot  thoro   oonotruod  woro  ooo^tially  difforont   froa  thoso 
of   this  oontraot.     Kathor,   tnlo   oaso  oociiis   to   turn  upo^l   tho  question 
of  foot  as  to  whether  notice  of  the  doslro  to  toralnate  tho  oonrloo 
wao  glyon.      'fhe   rinding  of  tho   court  on   this  lesuo  of  foot  has   tho 
tOBO  weight  as  tho  wordlot  of  a  Jury,   and  it  Is  not  argued  that  tho 
finding  of  tho   court  is  against    the  manifest  weight  of  the   ovldonoo. 

Plaintiff  Ski 00  arBU<>s  on  the  authority  of  Kadloon  y. 
Fort  UP  0.    etc.    vQ..  163  111.   App.    27ft,   tha'v  tho  oourt  orred  In  ro- 
oolTlng  tho  OYldonoo  of  ur.   Sohraa  in  that  it  was  not  oonsistent 
with  the   allegations  of   the  off l.lavlt  of  aerlto.      The  record  sr^owo 
that  In   tho   oouroo  of   tho   trial    tho   statoaent  oi'  claia  was  naoadoA 
by  plalntilT,   onl   it  do«s  net  apooar  that  any  rule  was   thereafter 
entered  upon  defendant   to   file  an  affldiivit  to    the  stateaent  ao 
aaondod.     MorooTor,   ve   think   it  was  not  necessary  either   to  awor 


;}'^«t  tBSi«    ;«iH.nk  tmi 


sdrjwosi' 


•ail. 


iii<|«<^«^ 

^;c- 

<^wk 

.m»ifl^  limn 


.ens  tmti. 


Ml 

■  tils' 


•r  to  pr«v«   that   th«  notlo*  w&s  in  writing.      That   avcmant  wai 
•urpluc«|[«* 

Ih*  judtiUBtt&t  of  th«   uri«I  eourt  it  Afflnaed. 

AmHMS]). 

MaSursljr,  P.    J.,   >«ad  0*Co/iQor,  J.,   conour. 


M939  ^'"""^ 

TKK  TOO  put  Of  rm:  ?TATf  oy  nxijioiv^) 

D«f«n(la>tt  1m  Krror, 


Yi. 

J08XFH  1ITL£, 

Plaintiff  In  I?yrpr, 


L 


0/  CHICACf. 


56I.A.  G^o 


1 


n.    JU3TIC3  KiVTCiriTT  DRLITIWB  ruS  OPISIO*   OF  TKK  COURT. 

Kyl«,    d«f«n!5iuit  tJlalntifJ*  In   error,   wft»   tried  l>«fftr« 
tt  jury  upon   an   unic^nd^d   infomatlon  whloh   charged  th^t  h«  *te*wlt, 
en   th«  :^'th   day  of  ilay.  A,   D,   1929,   at   ex»  Citv   of  Chlo»g«,   mfor*- 
•aid,    ?li1    Irlve   ^utl   opcrnt*  &  i&otor  Tthiol«,    to-wit,    aa  autotnobilt 
on   a  yu'bllc  bl^iv&y  in   the  City  of  Chicago,   County  ftf  Uook  aai4 
8t«t«  of   Illlnola  vhll9  drunk  and   int«>-loat«d   contrary  to   th9   fcm 
yf  th*   statute,'   eta.      Ih*  lory  ratamsd  a  Tftrdlot  of  guilty,    de- 
fanlant't  notions   for  a  nv»  trial   and  in  arrest  9f  judipiant  ««r« 
denlad,    ^nd   th«r«  -^raa   a  juigaant  on  tha  Tcrdict   4nA   i«f9n<lant  wm» 
•tatwaad  to   ccnf InaTscat  at  labor  In   tht  Houva  of  Corr^otion  of  tb« 
Clt^  of  Chiea^o    for   siztj   iayt  and  to  'p9.j  a    tin  a  of   tIOO  and  cost  a. 

Dafatndant  har«  oonttndo  that  the  jud|j|b«nt  ahould  1»« 
Ttr9XM<i^  in   th«  j  irat  plaaa  b«csu9«,    «>.•  h«   ^ays,   tharc  ia  no  proof 
in    tha    reoord   that    tli«  pl'iee  of  drlTlnjf  vhll*  intoxlcatad  vaa  a 
l^ul>llo  hifthvay.      Tiat   f^tet   le  provablt  "by  piirol*  rridenoa.   P^iodIo 

8e-vtral  witnair!#a  t«atifif*d  that   th^  oollition,   wki^ 
eecurrad  vhile  deffndatii  vat  drlTlng,   took  pl&o*  in   the  S(/00 
block  in  Irving  Park  boulflVfjrd  at  Ko.    5046,    and   that  tha  ttiittera 
al»out  which   they  tettifi   d  occurred  in  the  City  of  Cuicaga,  County 
•  f  Cock   and  State  of  IlllnoiB. 

Defendant  upon  cxauix^ation,   ae   tha   atwe   appeara  on 
page  103  01'   the   reoord,   vhioh  it  not   abetracted,   replied   to  quea- 
tions  ae   fello^e: 

''^,        Vou   drove   e^tst   then  in   Ixria^  ;  ark  heultifiird, 
did  you?         A.     Yea. 


af*^ds 


^  $.,VfM    i; 


f 


0 


■y0€  fAA  ISO 


"'»'■ 


i4»  ■im.i,j^9w  m  few- 


y  $ii 


■13 


,slfM 


acT 

3<f« 

-.«fc,i»*t*a 

l  s;to*« 

;»voXl^ 

:.A) 

.L-Uf-ibihJi>4  i.x&'l  z^irtl 


lUVX  blh 


^.     Vhen  you   ca£i«  naoY  at  about  LaClalr*  avMme,  what 
happMAcd  th«r«?     Just  mlat*  «hat  oaeurrad.      In  th*   first 
9la««,   Itt'a  ligrsas  for  a  umiisnt.     Hew  wlda  1«  th*  atratt 
at  that  point?  A.      It  is  about   56  foot. 

<i.     And  it   is  pavad?       a     Yao. 

H,     D«s«rib«  it.  A.     Wall,   thara  ara  two   oar  tracks  la 

tha  niadla  of  th*   stroet,    i^d    t.Uera*s  abtmt   30   fast  en   «aoh  side 
of  ths   oar  tracks  ana   a  ourb;    ihmxx   the  sidewaUcs  ara  about  15 
feet  wide, 

\,     And  at  that  point  A&e   there  buiidinfts  built  upT     A.  Yea, 

^.      To   tha  sldowalk^  A.      Store  buildiiisa.* 

This   aviiSenoe  was,   wa  think,    sufficient   to    establish 

the  faet  that   the  off ansa  of  «hloh  dafsndact  was  found  guilt/  «*■ 

eowaltted  In  a  public  hl^^i^.      SeetioB  25(,;  of  ^apt '-r  121   (see 

ftalth-Hurd*e  111.   Revf  3tat.   1929,  p.    2532)   provides: 

*Publie  highways   shull   inoluda  saxy  highwaj,    eounty  road. 
State  road,  public   ^^treet,    a-remie,   alley,  parkway,    drireway  or 
pttblla  olayoe  iu   any  oounty,    oity,  villac*t   Incorporatad  town 
or  towns.  ** 

lii^ereoTer,    seetion  414  of  eh<M>tsr  37  (see  3aith-Hurd*s  ill.  lisr. 
Stat.    19^,  p.   935)   provides  in   substoAJoe   that  the  kunloipal   court, 
in  w  loll  this  ease  was  tried,   sJ:uai   taks  judioial  netiaa,  la  addi- 
tion tn  other  facts,   of  all  gen?»ral   ordiriiutoes  of  the  City  of 
Ghieago,  of  all  general   ordinanues  of  el^ery  Municipal   eorperatien 
situated  in  whole  or  in  part  within  the  linits  of  the  City  of 
Chicago,   and  of  all  ordinimees  of  any  auinioipal   eorporatioa  roaain- 
ing  in   force   aftw  the  annexation  of  the   territory  of  sush  nuaici* 
pal  eorporation,  in  irtiole  or  in  part,   to   the  City  of  Chicago. 

As  the  streets  of  the  City  of  Chicago   are  ereate4  by 
ordinaneee,   it  would  therefore  seem  that  irreepeetiYo  of  the  proof 
the  eourt,   in  wlUoh  defendant  wae  tried,   would  have  been  required 
to   take  judicial  aetioe   that  the  places  aaaed  in   the  testimony  were 
in  a  public  highway.     Defendant's  first  oontentiea  therefore  is 
without  tft<«rit. 

It  is  eon  tended  in    th«>  second  place   that  the  court 
•TTfiA  in  centenoing  defendant  to   aerre  i>is  tens  of  iaprisocaieat  in 
th9  UouKC  of  Correction. 

2h«  «t%ttttc,    for  violation  of  ehioh  defendant  was 


a.L   a;**:?!*  ^joa   «w^  «'"i*5   witoi.:*   ,Xi»W      ,A  -i      »*» 


;^'SJL4-.^^<* 

' .''  '     .'  t 

JU«    ,  ■so,.; 

aa«  "t^i 

i  >/4   .t^  ( 

■'u;:i  ^.i-"^ 

^.ii*£.fl«  ).u;- 

«»«) 

;r<Ai"tO   Ifi 

»    .;.g{i   ite>'^ 

j-^^ai  In^^i 

^  •  • "  - '     .  ' 

» *  ■ 

'X^-:/: 

li^i&ti 

Ui,iw.w.U^     » 

-'viif-' 

't^i^iitiKat 


fe*xi«fst  a»»tf  -nifaii  fc.Cwo»   ^fctotir  ^.i^xum   *rf^ 


een-«rlot«4,  proTldts   that  pttnlshm«nt  by  way  «f  lnpri»onn«nt   ahall  li 
in  th«  oounty  jail.     Qttction  75A  of  sUiipter  38,  which,  h«weT«r,  wm 
tnaet«4  prior  to   th»  •nttotsi«nt  or  th«   statut*  unAnr  whieh  dafendait 
was   eonvlotad  ( gna  3nlth«Uur4*«  111.   K«t.    3tut.   19^,   p.   1072)    pr** 
TliSaa  in  subatwoft   that  any  pcrtion  oonTlot«d  oi'  an  «ff«nft«,   the 
punl«:A«»nt  01*  wMflh     la   oonl'ln«{a«nt   in  tha  eounty  jail,  May  ba 
•antanead  to  labor  for   tho  b-<4iai'it  of  tha  'ounty  durln^c  tha  tara  of 
mich  iMpri aonaant ,  in  tha  workhouaa,  houao  or  eorr motion,   or  othar 
Plata  proTldad  Tor  that  purnooa  by  th«  oounty  or  city  autuoritias, 
Tha  Stata  oantanda  that  thia  atatata  autnoriaad  tha  court  to  aaa- 
ttnaa  dafandant  to  i»priaon«ant  in  tha  llouaa  of  Corraetien. 

Dafandajcit   aaya  thut   th^  aot  atfainat  driving  on  a 
public  highway  vhila  intoxieatad,   lika  tha  Daa41y  ^aapaa  aot,   whioh 
boaa&a  a  law  in  1985  and  waa  oonatruad  in  PfWoXf;  t.   Borgaaon^   335 
111,   136,   io   a  ooaplata  aot  in  itsalf,    ani   that    thic  prior   atatuta 
la   th^T^fur*  not  applloabla. 

Tha  larttiruHga  ol'   aaetien  793  praeludaa  sueh  conatruo* 
tioB.      It  la  general   in  ita  ternio,    and  it  waa  evidently   tha  iatea- 
iA«n  of  tha  loj^ialatura   thai:  its  provlalona  ahould  be  applicable  in 
aaaat  of  oonviotion  under   auoh  laws  a«  then   exieted  or  whioh  nl^t 
be  enacted  in  the  future.     Tha  Saprene  eourt  of  the  atute  has  ao 
held   in  conatruin^  a  statute  where  a  eomeehat   aiailar  (lueatlen  waa 
ri^l»«4.     Lypna  v.   People »   63  Hi.    271.      In  that  eaa»  it  appeared 
that  the  legialature  by  a  (onoral  lav  pr&vided  in   sutotarice  that  an 
Indiotment   ahould  be  suf i  ioient  wnion  charged  axi  offenea  in   tha 
language  o)'   the   statute  defUiing  it.     It  waa   contended  by  the  da- 
fenv-*ant  that   thia  stf^tute  ehould  be  eonatrued  aa  limited  in   ita 
application   to   oaeea    irlaing  under  statutaa  exiating  at   the  date 
•f  ita   «oaat»ent,  but   tha  Suprece  aourt  aaid  io   subittano*  that  it 
waa  a  general   rule  of  crijsinal  pleading,   applicable  to   all    oa8«>a 
within   ita   ter^a,   without   regard   to   the   A-xtft  of  thr   fcaotcant  of 
the  etatutea  under  which  a  particular  oaaa   ahould  ariae. 


-;;£■*  ,Ti«£i'«-?»»f«   •WJTialasi   #«sfw{»««»  »  ii»«s;i*ftw  ♦sj'tjiitjii   .?;   }ftffl.l«*j(;?«is^&  al    M.*«f. 
-»>.:\^.T*«>  'tut    -■  .  ->■>/  .»n»t4ji'ii*sti?«  «t«r  i^i:iM»jd«  tm»}»x*^ed 


Th«  pr«cls«  qu«sti«B  as  rslatlng  to   the  T>%9L61f  w«apMi 
a«t  (■••  aadtii*Uiurd*t  111.    iiw.    St«t.   I92s  ,    ohap.    33,  p«r.    1!M, 
••«.    5)   h%s  quitt  r««*ntly  l>««n       decid«d  by   this  court,     faoala 
▼  .  K^l^icm^  S3i  111.   App.    474.    7h«  d«l'«n<tiu;t   th«r«,   »•  h«r«.    onn- 
t«od*d  that.  BmiA  ••etion  whl^  aut^ierlstd  th«  •oaflBtaeot  ef  m  d»- 
fondmnt   found  (cullty  in   th«  Uou««  ol*  C«rr«otiea  wk*  not   &pplieabl« 
1»«eauflie   the  Dcndly  V«ai)on   aot  was  not  *  part  of  the  Criiolnad  Cod« 
tf  the  state,  Wt  eoAplete  in  iteell*.     W«  there  stated  the  reasone 
(whioh  need  not  hore  be  repeated)   constraining  ux  to  hold  that   this 
statute  was  s^plioable,   and  ttiat  the   oourt  vas  authorised  in   its  dis- 
•ret ion  to   sentence  defendant  to  the  House  of  Correction. 

'or  the  reasons  Indicated  the  jud^saeni  of  the  trial 
•curt  is  affiraied. 

AfriRMSfi. 

KoSiArely,  ?•    J.,   and  0*C«nr;or,   J.,   concur. 


"fret;     .»T'^''    "■  "        -"■■-;    '     *■-     ;-''■-'■  ^  ;  •s:;,~«jt_S 


it  4'     &iU 


/xmLii^::^.h 


*.fc'^k;/'-:  n'<»6 


,t.;jDi»/(«e 


m   Corporation, 

TO, 

Z.  i.  CCOE, 


Appolloo. 


ATP^.  nm  unnciFAi.  ccxori 

OV   CUICA0O. 

256  I.A.  600" 


KR.    JU3TICX  HATGHSTT  lOLXTSIlKD  THS  0FI2iI0J  OF  7m  COURT. 

Plaintiff  lodotanity  ooripoBy   ouod  dofonrioct  on  o  eh?ck 
}«»d«  "by  dofonlant   to   th<i  order  of  ii.   /U   Crovo  ou  J^ovoubor  80,  ISS^, 
and  1»7   th'f  nayoo   ondorood.      7b ^^ro  irao  a  trial   by  th«   court   and  a 
fin>iXnc   for   dofondant  irith  ju-ittitont    th«rooB,  whioh  plaintiff  oooko 
to  Tttmrnt  by   thio  «9T>eaX. 

At  th«  oloB"*  of  all   tho  ovldonot  plaintiff  nado  • 
motion   for  a  fintliAg   ic   ito  fuYor,  vhioh  waa  doniod,    and  it  la 
Aooignod   ao   error   that   th«   court    so   rulod.      It   i«  alac  urged  that 
th«  fin  *lBf;  for  Aof«*ndant  lo  agaiaot   tho  1h.w  im-'t  the  evidence, 

Tho  faoto  app#ar  to  be   that  plalAilff  wao  in   tho 
buainooo  of  vriting  bondo  in  favor  of   the  Stale  of  Illinoio    to 
inioMiify  the  f-Hate  atfaioot  loos  tiirough  failure  of  certain  oon* 
traotoro  to   oarry  out  oontraotn  vlth   the  Stat^   '.'or   th«  conotruction 
of  oortain  hlfihwayo,      Crovo,    to   viioee  order   the   oheck  waa  «aie,    lo 
tho  attompy  for  pl&intlff  «nd  aeted  in  ito  behalf  in  taking  tho 
ohook       Defendant  Cook  wae  a  etockholder  in   the  i'ederal  Motor  i^uok 
•OKpany,   rhieh  wao  in  the  buoineet  of  selling  Kotor   trucks.      The 
•OBfony  aoXd   truoko  to   tho  Cook  County  Conotruction  Con-pany,  «uioh 
had  contracted   to   do   o<*rtaln  woric   for   the   Stitte  of  Illinoio.      Tho 
Conetruotlon  Conpany  was  un«%ble   tc   oosipleto  its  contract,   and  by 
arrangeuant  the  federal  kotor   Truck  Company  too^^  over  tho  oontraot, 
tho  agrooosent  b«*in^  thct  upon   ooiP.^letion   of  t.-ris   contract  tho  State 
should  nake  payment  directly  to    the  Federal  hotor   Truck  Coepaay 

instead  of  to   the  Construction  Coenpnny.      The  work  was  ooapletod 


ac^rife  «   &a  j^V:   ;<'*•:;■:!'•  :is*jt.    ^£i.»tji ■•■~m  v>  a ; v;> .w ;.. 


^ftAIC!^^^ 


,  »5  ."?-.;•  lit   ikdf 


..^ft    XllGt:'  ■.■■  • 

1  J««(9iJ      f»f?^'  »       • 


mnA  thttr*  wa»  $4600  dua  from  th«  3tat«  but   the  St«t«  d««liJi«d  t* 
i|«k«  payaont. 

Use   •Tld«r.Qs  It  oontradiotory  u,w  to   th»  r*K»on   for 
this  ii«a-««yB«nt  hy  th«  Stat*.     Mr.   Orow»,    t««tlfylng   f^r  plaintiff, 
•ay«   that   It  was  be.aus*  Il*n«  aun«t   claims  had  b«en   fll«d  Dy  othar 
parties.      Oook   t«stlflad   that   It   va»  viilihvld  >](*aaus«  of   th«  actios 
iaktn  by  plaintiff.   Union  Inder.nlty  eoxc.pai.y,   Crows *s   eliant.      Ths 
Union  Indsxinlty  company  had  given  a  bond   lor  ths  Illinois  Contract- 
inc  sonpany  upon  an  sntlroly  din>rf»nt  job   and  held  an  Instrument 
in  writing  ournertinK   to   indefajilfy  it   aisainst  loss  on  this  bond, 
sad  this  eonstruotion  Indeiuiity  vrritlag  p;^rport#d  en   its  f^G*  to 
haTs  boon   <»x«ftut"1  by  defendant  and  other  oi'i'ioers  of  the  Tsdaral 
■•tor  Trudc  eospany* 

Dsfendant  requested   plaintiff  to  rcleass  its  olaim 
against  the  ^4600  due  ths  Ysdsral  ilotor  Truck  company   fro»>  ths 
Stats,   but   the  attorney  for     laintiff,   In  bs^alf  of  hi*  client, 
mad<:'  a  claim  basr»d  on   this  oounter-indssmlty  in  the   num  of  $1190. 
Dsfsndact  contends  that  this   eountcr-iadeitxity  writing  is  a  fert^cry, 
and  his   testisioay  is   lo   the   effect  tiiat  p«   ding  an  InTSstigatiea   to 
dsterrrlne  whsthsr  thai  writing  was  genuine  he  Kado  this   check,   post- 
dating it  and  delivering  it   to    the  attora«y   lor  plaintiff,  with   tkk» 
conrtition  and  underststniinti.  that  if  the  oount*r»ind«unlty  bond 
proved  ts  be  genuine  ths  check  was  to  b*  sashsd,   but  if  net  ths 
cheek  was  to  be  rsturnsd. 

It  is   adt-iittud  by  all    t)ie  p^ti<$s   that  this   ^legsA 
oountsr-indSKaity  instrument  upon  invssti|i>itlon  was  proved  to  b*  m 
forgery,     Ssfendant   th<^refers  contend*  that   since  the   claim  of 
plaintiff  is  based  on  a  forged  instrument   there  is  no  valid  oonsid- 
oration   for  the  otisek  and  that   any  pruoiise  M>iide  in  coeipromiss  ef  a 
claim  which  has  as  valid  sxist^iice  is  witi.out  consideration  and  un* 
en  forcible. 

Ihe  attorney  for  plaintiff  and  eae  Reaves,  hie  agent. 


.il*  "?#»>{■»■ 


-f/.^ 


!l.<":*4a 


♦'»i"*Kf'.f  ^ 


'<^r'{*.t!,tP3    trtss  !■:'•* '?«*(! 


^  ij  vS  '.i  ^,1       w  .•  .  )      ^  1 :  ^t  V  t-  0  I . 


t«Btlfle4   to   th^  effcet   thnt   the  dtfck.  va«  d»liT«r«4  with  th*  Ktrrtt- 
ntnt  that   the   uttomoy  aheulA  ixnld  tht   «h«e^  until   th^  ftderal 
•onpMiy  rneftlYtd  its  funds  frcA  thu  8t4.t«  Highway  dA|>art«i«at  uid 
th«t  la  thAt   •T«nt   It   anooll  be   oash«d.     EtaTes,  hoA«>9r,    »aid  h« 
oottld  not  reQ«ab<)r  tha  •xaot  qusntions  and  anstr«jra  at  the  ttm«  tha 
ohaek  was  <l«llv«r*d. 

Thf  onurt   aaw  «nd  hi^ard   th«  iritn«8a<i»,    iai4    tha  tf^ati* 
atony  of  th«  A»f tmdmnt   a«   to   tha  tritjnsactioB  aae»B  proh<ibl(>  and  oon- 
•  istant  with  tha  undlsT>tttad  fi»ota  In  aTlrlenca.     Vo  woul<1  not  bo 
ittntifiad   Ir.   holilBg  tha   finding  of  tha  court   to  be   fi^alnet  tha 
iaaalf««t  walght  of  tha  ivid«nea. 

Tha  chaak  haTing  baan  dallYerad  to   oaoure  a  olala 
basad  upon  a  fori^ftd  d«ouK«nt,    It   follova  that  th«i  oheci  w%»  ^yaa 
wt  thout   convldarition  and  that  plaintiff  cannot  rocoTsr.      Erandayi* 
p,\tiin  T,   Ivgyauff.yfl  Ofe»H.M^jLt   1«2  111.    App.    645;    atumu  v.    ^dlay, 
20?   lil,    App,    537, 

It   !•  trua  that  tho   oheek  itaclf  liaportQ  a  consi  lara* 
tlon,   but  aa  avilonea  had  baan  offarad  rebutting  that  prcaumptlon, 
tha  burlan  was  thna  upon  plalntiif  to    »ho«  by  »  prepondaraaea  of 
tha   •viilenoo   that  th^r*  *a»  in  f*ot   a  ralid  ooneiaarAtion,      talf  ▼. 
gaQuloB  Bank.    355   111.    App.    127. 

Thftr«  Is  no  4cubt ,  at  plaintiff  oontonda,  that  tha 
llnoharga  of  an  axiatlng  injoltednaaa  ia  suffioi^it  oona  daratioa 
to  bind  ona  in  algnlnt:  a  not««  nor  that  tha  sottproaiaa  of  a  doubt* 
fuX  rlf;ht  «h<!ira  thara  ia  noithnr  aatual  nor  oonatruotira  fraad  and 
tha  parti 0  8  aat  ii^  good  faith,  la  auffioiant  oonaidaration  to  sup- 
port a  proLiias.  Tha  saoas  oitsd  by  plaintiff  sustain  thsss  propo- 
sitions but  ar«  not  applieabla  to   tha  f<iSts  &ppearln/t  in   this  raoord. 

^or   th«   reasona  In  Ucattrd    ui«  ju^aia^^iit   is  aiYixttad, 

AFVIBKSI). 

ko^raly,  P.    J.,   and  O'Connor,   J.,   eonour. 


•>/  'Ivt  VI  i  *  /    ««•       4»«»t 


•5  '; . 


'»   £iai.««^4ai;iu?j'  $xiJ 


ml»ld  *   ss'U'e****    0»^f  .&»Ti»vi .t*fe    ft»«»^   j,«^lv*;li  i*;*.-?- 


-mliMSA     •■**' 


a^i  ««.>.-: 


j^     J  ^  w-ii      »  i;  <i 


:f«»      *  iw  Jt  A     -.»  *  : 


a««f:ij   J&^tjid' 


..aunt 


itfj^iufwi  i»*%»'i'l«  H»««f 


: 9  •9«W 


•tv^A^i\fS9  ki-Ui' 


be*     b*^.'l"t    •TjLll'OM"- 


*ii«  ^a. 


,tW»«ff'. 


;v>*  a  l-rts?     ,  . 


SSTOf 

H.    S.  KAlSim  C'iiVAikJ,   am 
Xlli&«i«  C«rpormtlea, 

Aopcllaat, 

KifciciFAi.  coon 

or   CHIUAOO. 
I.    L.    SItllEiATHR.    r>olRg  )  y 

Appellee.  •  j  2 5  6  i.A,  b  0  1 


Mil.    JQSTZCS  O'CQNliW   BKLITXBIB  TMK   OFIHIOU  OF  THX  COOliT. 

Plaintiff  broufl^ht  an  aatlon  ef  forcibl*  d«t»iner  Ac«l»«t 
th«  ^•fen'lftnt  to  rttcoT«r  possession  of  esrtain  prcsiisss  oaeupls4  "by 
ths  ^«fsn4snt.     Ther«  vaa  a  trial  by  jury  and   a  Terdiot  and  jutS^pesot 
in  4«rMidaat*s  faror  and  plaintiff  appeals. 

Tho  ro«ord  di solo ass  tUat  dofsndant  «as  occupying   ths 
pr«Bis«s  andor  a  writ  ton  Isaso  fro«  plaintiff  and  plaintiff  olaimsd 
no   rsnt  hnd  bsan  paid  by  dsfsQdant.      Tbe  asKittnt  elaiKSd  to  bo  duo 
was  H330,  which  coTsrsd   a  p«!rlo<^   fro«  August  1,   1927,   Uis  dat«  of 
ths  Isass,   until  Kay  31.   19-^9. 

The  dsfenso  intsrpossd  was  that  the  defAndant  ha4  fur- 
■Ishod  natorial  and  psrfon&sd  esrtain  labor  for  plaintiff  at  tho 
latter *o  request  and  that   at  the   several   tlaes  tho  BiAterlalo  «»re 
furnished  and  the  labor  performed  it  was  agreed  between  the  par- 
ties that   the  defendant  was  to  charge  It  againet   the  rent   falliac 
duo  under  the  lease.     Those  largos,   as  contended  for  by  defendsnt, 
together  »ith   eheolca  tendered  by  defesdaat   to  plaintiff  for  rent 
for  Maroh,  April   and  kay,   1929,   was  at  least  equal   to   the  aa*aBt 
duo  under  the   tencs  of  the  lease.     The  oourt  instruct «d  ths  jury 
that   if  they  should  find   fron  a  prepondoranoo  of  the  evideneo  that 
the  defendant    fumiahed  nat^^rial   and  perfomed  labor  for  the  plain* 
tiff  at  tho  latter *s  request,  and  that  plaintiff  further  requested 
the  defMTtdant   to   charge   the  sssM  against  tho  rant   as   it  beoase  due; 
aad  the  jury  should  further  find  that   the  sMount  for   the  labor  aB4 
iaaterlal  was  equal  to  or  in   excess  ef  the  rent  duo  under  the  lease, 
thttB  they  should   find   the  defendant  not  (guilty.     By  tnia  iuetruotion 


t?.)?^? 


'^^  O   ♦livX  O  G  ^ 


,i   »>:  »-n  e&^i-^.':auil 


.t«."ati«^  «»j3a^t.*fc  »jS^i»^stt  1»  BE»li-e«  »*  .*trsi4?'r- 

td  &«i<s^©sQ  aftsiKS*"*^  i5ii*#^«a  lo  ftslaa^sss-cfS  •s^rfi>'.;?>'.«    s^^   i-AJrj:.'i*4-^.c  #iU 

Tint,  *^  h«Si>^ttiiiti   ittioz  laM      ,#.a*®X  ?r~s>^  'le  9itn*J   «nii   xahm 
htm  tQif&l  wi$  %0t  )mtmt^<-  »-^  hsUX  %^Aimf\  Mm*-:?;  x'"'^'.  ' ' 


th«  quvstloB  Whether  th*r«  had  1»««i  an  a^prcaBast  b«tw««i  the  parties 
whereby  the  defendant  «ae  to  furnlah  auiterial   and  perfone  labor  and 
oharge  ease  acainet  the  rent,  wae   expreasly  aubeiitted  te   the  jurj 
for  deeielon.      They  iourid  in  favor  ol'  the  defen<lant. 

Plaintiff  eontende   that  the  oourt  erred  in  aduittiac 
all   erldenoe  offered  by  defendant   tmrliag   to   ehow  that  an  era  1 
arrengemeikt  had  baen  eade  betwe^    the  parties  iriiereby  the  tenaat 
vae  to  pay  the  rent  by  fornieliinK  plaintiff  vith  aaterials  and 
perforaine  serricea;    the  oontenllon  being  that  in  an  aation  to  re- 
••▼•r  poeeeaeioD,   eueJi  as   the  one  at  bar,  no   aot-off ,    counter  claia 
•r  reeouptrent  can  b#  int«rt>oaed  as  a  defense;    t^tat  the  lease  between 
the  parties  being  under  seal,   it  eould  not  be  atodified  by  a  mbss- 
fiacBt  parole  a^ree^'^t,   and  thai  a  lease  for  a  longer  ten  than  one 
yt^ar  Bust,  under   the  statute  of  J'rauds,  be  in  writing,   and   oannot 
be  altered  by  parole. 

Ve  think  none  of  these  contentions  is  applicable  here. 
There  was  no  offer  of  set»eff  or   oounter  claim,  nor  was  there  any 
▼aryine  of  the  written  instruKent,  nor  was  the  Statute  of  Frauds  ia 
any  way  invelTed. 

Defendant *s  sole  defcnes  was  that   it  had  paid  the  rent 
net  in  money  l;ut   in  materials  furnished  and  services  performed. 
ObTioasly,   if  this  defenee  was  borne  out  by  the  ewidence,   plaintiff 
could  not  recoTsr.     There  is  so  reason  in  lav  why  the  landlord  and 
his  tenant  may  not  agree,   after  a  written  lease  has  baea  mads,   that 
the  tenant  may  pay  the   reast  by  l'\irnieulAg  materials  and  performing 
serwiees.      Plaintiff  deni«d  that   any  such  agreement  had  bean   enters^ 
into  and  claimed  that   the  defendant  had  sought  to  oweroharge  him  for 
certain  atateriala   furnished  and  labor  performed,   but  no  contention  is 
mads  in   this   ooart   that  the  fin  linj^  of  the  Jury  in   fawor  of  the  de- 
fendant,   te  the  effect   that  the  materiale  Airnisasd   and  services 
]i«rformsd  were  r  aeonably  worth  th~   aaiount  ei'  the  r«it  due,  is 


baa.  TLQuml  leacfi^^  fcu*fc    «..%,i5?»4*i4i  jisic;  vb  *4J   ^•nstfar 


:utitll« 


..  afejWR^^    te    *#©#Rtr 


^O"!     i3fJt  i\     h    it^e.Oi-  ■'■-■'       l^*:l     J-.^. 


•  R   s  i  sir 

■lyoiT^ 

.'?*yatf*r: 

.;...-^ 

^  . ;  v^j-f 

^f€^.-^'       '■■  I, 

-    -fA^ 

*««--;«  ^r  »rf;? 

cniii-.XT 

..-::;-.lV-»»e 

:.^ra 

-- •  — 

.>l*tH*:> 

'^    ^tfld:,   «. 

.    ;il   9&.-%tQ 

>^(.-.         Al4* 


fcA   ,»x/i'   5ri9i  i.'i\J 


^■Jvi-  ^   '^isj'-'f.'S;''  "J    »TftV    n.?:r  soi'-  '•  q 


AC<^ln«t   th«  mitnlfcat  v«i|^t  ol*  thie   eTid*ac«. 

Sine*  V*  H«1<1   that   th^   d«fcnt«  was   &  proper  oa«,   and 

•  1ac«  th«  Jury  found  on   th«  fotota  in   faTor  of  tho  d«f«i«dteat,    and 

•  iBO*  th9r«  is  ne  arguaeni  m\A9  that   thv  f  Jjq  Un^  la  against   th« 
■aalfast  woltlit  of  the   <tTi4enc««    tha  Jud^x^nnt  auat  1>«  ai'finaad. 

Tha  jud^aofit  of  tlM  Ikunielpal   eoort  of  Chiaag* 
la  afflnscd. 


Mafluraly,  i".   J.,  and  aat^«tt«   J.,   aoocar. 


.*i5i4»a««    ,  ,t.    ,,,?^^if«^**l  fe«t-:  .^Xi^^lS 


OT  SOCr  COU£TY. 


CCi^JPAlT  ani  HIT  WIS  Iina.1 5^1X0   )  ^    ^    ^      m  '^ 

"""  ^"^^0,;;^^^ . ..         j      256I.A.601 


ua.    lUMTICS   0*CCfXOR   DKLIVKIDn}  7HS  OPIEIQII  Of  7H}S   COURT. 

ean  Pttbliahlag  «<mrpA>^j,    u  corporutloe,   ULIl&ols  Publishing  «Md 
Frlnting  MaifMUiy,  »  •orporatlon,   and  Garac*  ^•m\.v%  Conpaoy,   a 
eerpcraitioii,    to  r«eov«r  doKA^ces  elndmedi  to  hairs  b««a  saetaiiiAd 
by  pl»lMtil*f  throu»?h   tht  n«£:lig#Bc«  oi*  th*  4«fnndacta  In  '♦rlvtng  an 
aatoTfoblle   truoik  whloU  vtruek   w^  Injurfti  her,      Xh«r«  «»•  a  jury 
trlfil,    thT  (sourt   !)lr«et«'t!   a  T^rliot  of  not   guilty  as   to   th«  d«f«nd- 
ant  C'^ra^^  S<>rTi«a  aoRviKny,   «n<<   th.«  en«a  va«  sabMiltt^d  to   tho  jury, 
vhloh  found  til*  r'»alnlii^  tvo  d«f«ndaAt«  guilty  *nA  «ss««ti«d  plain- 
tiff's ds^tip***  %t   ♦4,0(iO,    %nd   tiia  two   d«r<mdaat«   itjpeal, 

Th«  r(»«crd    11»eXos«c    JMt  en   th«  ^venln*;  of  jiaroh  11, 
1999,  hit^cen   nix  ^ad   saran  o'o^oeic,   as  nlalntiff  was   orossing  Vent- 
worth  AT^nua,    ^bout  50  faat  north  of  th*  north  oross-walk  of  53a4 
•traat,    sh*  w%»   struck   and   lajrurad  by  dtfanlants*    autnetobila  truok 
wblcb  w«ip  being  dri^an  north  In  Wfltntworth   avanae. 

It   appears  frtM  the  STtdenoe  that  plaintiff ,   a  wor9<iB 
sbont   ^  T««rs  eld,  was  returning  hoae  iron  h«r  work;    that  ah*  kad 
\i.%T  baby  and   a  iiaeksifr*   In  har  arae   «nd  board «d  a  southbound   str<9«t 
ear   in  y#ntworth  ATenua  at   25th  atreat;    thai  the  street  ear  stopped 
at  the  unaal  pi  nee  At   t.h#»  nrrth  crofls-walk  of  5^n1   street.      8he 
t«?atlfl»d  that    'it\f*.   stained   fr  n  the  rear  platform  of  the   street    ear, 
then  ^nssed  behind   it  and  looked  to   the  north  tmd   south  but  !»aw  no 
traffic   in  the   atre-st  ;that   she   then  walked  a  few   steps  when  she   asta 

A#f«ndants'   truck  being   iriven  northward  by  one  of  defendaats* 
aspleyeaa,   about   tea  feet   fro&  her;    that  she  endeavorai  ta  get   cut 


/ 


\ 


XdPf.C 


X 


?^>S  0 


frit-        .^•■-•'T  ■  :(X««»-««^m 

♦•♦w'-f^rl**!^   >»  **a*  Y'^  *rrfl*.'«fr«>«  rt<^'*'?r*  ^nJ^  2f»«»"T?   *»#Ei*ba»l»b 
_.    ._. _.._      ■'-.....    _ _■         ....    ^ ^    :>vciiastm 


•f  th«  way  Mid   Ui«    IrlTcr  of  tha  truok  tum*4  th«  tru«k  iorvari   ih« 
•ASt  to  yroTOBt  •trlkiBii  plaintiff  but  waa  imablo   to   do   oo.      Plain- 
tiff was   atruok  ani   thrown   to   tho  ground;    Uio  truok  atoppod  and   tha 
drivor  with  two  othor   cltiKona  pickod  up  tho  woaan  and   tho  baby  and 
droTO     b«r  to  ^it^oroy  hoapit&l,   %bout  a  mil'^  diatant,  Mtiara  ah*  ro* 
oolTod  medloal   and   ourgical   att«Dtion. 

Upon  oxanlDation  it  vaa  found   that  aho  had  aufferod  a 
Bunbor  of  oontualona  and  bruiaoo  on  hor  right  am  and  right  log, 
a  ao&lp  wound  ateut   2^   inehfta  lontf  and  a  fraoturo  of  ta*  loft 
•lavide.      JUray  pioturna  ware  takan  of  all  portion*  of  plalDtlff  *a 
body  vharo  It  waa  auapectad  thera  nii^ht  ba  a  fraetura,   but  none  waa 
found  ftxcopt  tha  left   olaTlole.      Plaintiff  eojaplalned  of  pain  in 
har  buak  in   tha  lumbar  region,   but  it  appear a  no  X-ray  pioturoa 
WT*  taken  of   that  portion  at  tho  tiiMi.     Plaintiff  waa  at   tha  hoa- 
pital   about   tKrao  we«ks  ani   then  want  home,      there  waa  a  good  union 
of  the  elaviele.      About  Id  «ontha  afterwards  X-ray  pieturaa  were 
taken  whlo^i  ahowod  perfect  alignaaat   and  no   ealleua  at   the  point  of 
injury.     Plaintiff  wan  laid  up   for  a  conaiderabla  time  after  aha 
ar«Brt  hma*.  and  waa  unaMe   to  work.     Before   the  injury,    the  eTideriO* 
ahowa,    ah«  waa  strong  and  healthy  and  had  been  verking  at  a  aandy 
factory;    that  about  5  asontha  after  the  aoeidant   ahe  went  baek  to 
work  at   the  eandy  factory  but  on  aecoont  of  pain  iu  her  baok  aho 
had  to  (^:iwe  up  the  work  after  about   two  woeka;    that   ainco  the  aeai- 
dent  ahe   appeared   to  be  pal*  and   aiokly  and  had  paina  in  her  baek. 

In  1026  X-ray  oiet urea  were  taken  of  the  lumber  re,;ien 
vhieh  showed  ImpaotAd  fraoturaa  of  the  fourth  and  fifth  'vertobrae, 
and  there  was  expert  teatiiKony  to  the  effect   that  this   conditioa 
»ight  hawe  been  oauaad  by  the  aecident. 

There  waa   further   eTidonoo  to    t  >e  effect   that  plaintiff 
was   atill   suffering  as  a  result  oi'  tha  ucoident   at  the  tine  of  tha 
trial,   'hieh  began  April   3,  1929,  sore  than  four  yeara  after  the 


•atftX^      .oa    r>"    aJ    *ia»ts«  »«w  itt^  IMsttiMl^  ^siHlxisi  ia^^mtj^  ©4   tarn* 
^9X  Aii^  Ito  fttu#QiA«t  «  i^i«  l^a!«l  s&<it>£ri  fS(  tsmdm  &nso«  9£«$«  js 

1  h09n  «    S#V  #^»^       .ft«&&4   $^1^   KSl!^   tSR   ft^^MHT  «»?'^f    l&-t$<^«    Utilii 

'!«  ^ai£(s  9^  #«' IHHiXXftt  (»«  iH^'  (Nm^o^li:^  i«^$>1'^<t  &^^$<'*'%  mm^  m^^aS 

.    oJI   isifi  r«».«  lu  ^  a-auK  »iSJ   ItI^ik   t^^ffitKC  3  fu94d  imli&  ;t -'---■ 

-IsdS  *£ti    9««M.«    iMtd    S«al«i^#  «Vl    .t>f<a'l#    t^j^tft   ^to«  »^.t  qts   9rl[i    c:    hjc-rf^ 
^iQM\i    i'-'d  -    '■•:  hJid  tax  x^^'  -  ■'  sl»tii  «t?  a  i9'i»^^i(^.   »rfs  3a»fc 

.  ^".i'r«,«»»y  il^ti'i.  Sou  direct  «ci^  'S(ft  letuiainc'J  i*^i»js«fs;jt  h9*i^am  ti^lif^ 
ndi  t^^S'^ji   .aiii*!/   ttmt   n«>it  -itsa?  «  e^i«X   ,&   XltcA   n»sdtf  tisi^   ^l^l^ii 


aeai4«Bt.     Thers  Is  rtarther  •▼ld«ne«  &«  to  eth«r  %il»*nt«  surrcrvd 
by  Xh9  plAintiff  vhloh  will  b«  h«rclii&rt«r  r«fcrr«4l   to. 

Theo'lor*  w.   Vttn i«irar<l«n ,   a*ll«<!  by  plaintiff,   t(>0ti- 
fl«4   that  h«  was  sagat^cd   in   ta«   l»isln«SB  of  hauling   ies   ROd   ooal; 
that  Jast  befors   th«   acoldeiat  he  was   stauding  en   ths    slilewalk  at 
ths  northwsst   ecmrr  •f  32ii4  street   -jBd  VsAtwerih  avsnas;    that  at 
that  tlas  defendants'    truolc  in  question,   ueed  to  delirer  nevspapers, 
was  standing  at  the  west  oiiTb  in  ^entworth  awenue,   facing   south  In 
front  of  a  store,   an4   that  a  boy  who  was  with   the  driver  of  the 
truck  dellTered  papers  »t   that  place ;    that  about    the   tiae  the  pHpmrm 
vere  being  delWer^d  the  eouthbound  street   car  stopped,    the  rear  en4 
of  it  b<»lng  nearly  or»90site   the   stanilng  truck;    that   after  tho 
papers  vere  iellwercd  and  while  tho  street  car  was  standing,   th« 
driver  of  the  truck   started   south,  turned    to   tho  left   dirwotly  in 
front  of  the   street  ear  ^ielx  had  just  started  up  and  which  was 
•bilged  to   slow  <«own  or   atop  to  persdt  the   trucx   to  pass;    that   tho 
truck  then  turned  north  en  the   east  side  of  tho  street  car,  and 
alsost  iauiedlntely  ho  heard  a  ooand  as  though  soMoboiy  had  beoa 
struck  by  the   truck;    that  the   street  car  proceeded  south  and  tho 
witness  and  another  eltlsoa  ran  oTor  and   assisted  tho  driver  of  tho 
tvuok,  who  had   stopped  soft*  75  or  100  foot  north  of  32nd  atroot 
noar  the  wast   curb  of  l>ontworth  avenue,   to   pick  up  plaintiff     froa 
tho  stroot  and  put  her  in  the   truck;    that   tho  driver,   together  with 
tho  boy  who  was  wlt^i  iiin,   the  witness  and   the  other  eitixoa,  rodo 
la  the  truck  to   tho  hospital,    taking  plaintiff  there  for  surgical 
and  BiedicaX   attention;    that  plaintiff  was  anconscioua  when  they 
foand  her  in  the   street. 

&onsaft  i,    3tepheas,   the  -irlvor  of  the   truck,   teotillod 
that  ke  was  mployod  by  tiie  dofendsnts  to  drive  the  truck  in  deliv- 
ering defer dants*  newsp^Lpers;    that  he  was   K.lven  a  district  bounded 
en  the  north  by  ?6th   etreet,    on    the   south  by  3&th  street   axxd  on 
the   <»ast  by  La'^»lle   etreet   smd  on   the  West  by  Vallsioo  street;    that 


i^  14-dJ    j«4.'es¥«  iftln«w^^?s?  fea.:-   :^'^»%4t&  i^^«  It-  ■S''.ap&«i>  i'fuwwCl^ea  mils 
ta  '«»?i^&  «4<^  il^ir  iM»«  «it9  x^sali  M  .3«<£l  lftsi<^  ^9%«lji9  »  1^  ts&n'y 

llip^^iih   ftmi  *d*   «3   &*«its*  ^^4m^   b&4'S^Sti  M^aiLt  i»H$  *?«  t^rttt 

istM*i     I'tUraiAl^  ^  alalia  j>tf   ,$^«ii»va  ^,?iE»«is«»*  !«  <f^»*  ?•*«  *>«i.^  lt^H»« 

'Xftc;i»^i»i^   ^f^vi's.Ji^  iidt  4»H.$    siiikit.^  ^OA   m  -%«ii  9i;^  ^a«  l^d^^^*  <»d# 

..i»siJif>   *8»fiia  «]l^   ItflUE  ««*<ui'*  a*^   »alis  «?Jiir  s»b*  ©Kw  ^rf  *ifi 

00  fcrtc   *9r-t#»=-   ftS':"?.   t<^  rf^j5?»  '♦fit   ««   .y^*"-;??   i^??r  v.*  fTfreti  •£{#  ma 

*...;^     .4^,. _.^ _    ^.:     ; „.    .     .._    . .._    _.._    -it    i»mm    mM^ 


at   th«  time  in  quaatlea  h«  w%«  dvllTering  tb«   fiottl   edition  of  tlio 
■ironing  Aa«rle«n;    t'i«t  hi*   first   atop  on  Voat«crt]Ei  oTonuo  vao  ot 
.^lot  otroot  «her«  he  loft   oomo  p&poro;    that  b«  thon  proeoe<lo4  south 
b«t  did  not   stop  at   tho   otoro  Juat  north  of  2k2a4i  atroot  on   that 
trip;    that    aftor  3lBt   atroot  his  noxt   stop   vas  at  35th   stroot,   whnrm 
ho  left   papers;    that  he   taon  proeo«dod   south   to   39th  stroot,   ohero 
ko  left   oax>ors,   then   tunio4  arsund  north,  drirlng  in   ths  northbound 
street  car  traek;   that  ho  was  driving  froa  19  to  18  «ilos  an  hour 
passing   tho   street   car»    ^nleh  was   stopping  Just  north  of  S2nd   street • 
when  plaintiff  suddenly  ran  frtuii  bexlnd  tao  roar  end  ef   the  street 
oar  three  or  four  feet  In  front  oi    hi::>;    t -at  he  sounded  his  horn 
and  turned  his  truck  to   the  east   endeavor ia^  to  oroTeot   the  aocidant 
Vttt  plaintiff  stepped  b&ok  and  was   striioJc  by  the  left   front  part  of 
tho  truck;    that  he   did  not  have   anj  boy  assistinii  hiK  on   tho  trip, 
and   that  he   stopped  his  car  ne&r   the   cast  ourb  and   two  son  assisted 
his  in   taking  plaintiff  and  her  baby  to  iftoroy  hospital.      Stephens 
further  testified  that  Ht   tho   tiae  of  the   aecijent  it  was  dark  and 
that  tho  two   iim  lights  on  his  traek  wore  Xi«uitod.      thoso  are  tho 
only  two  vitnessos  that  gars  say  testimony  as  to   the  aanner  in   vhi^ 
tho  truek  was  drives,   ^kd  this  is  tho  only  point  in  the  oaso  wher« 
tho  eridoneo  is  in  oonfliot. 

Bofendants   oontenl    that  plaintiff  failed  to  pTi>ym  any 
nogligonee  or    tho  part  of  tine   dcfotiiaitts   euad   theroi'oro  the   court 
■hoiil'd  hftvo  directed  a  verdict  as  requested  at   tho   dose  of  all  tho 
•videnee.      They  AirUior   contend  that  in  any  ovont  plaintiff  wmi 
guilty  of  e-ntributory  negligocoo  and  that  tho  judgvent  sho«ild 
thoroforo  be   reversed. 

Wo  have  detailed   tho  evidence  at'  the  conflicting  viowo 
as  to  how  the  truek  was  driven  at  tho  time  in  question.      If  tho 
ovi^leneo  offered  by  Ql»intiff   to   the    effoet   tiiat   tho   truck  was   stasi* 
Ing  at   U»e  west  «a»rb  of  "^^entworth  avenue,   just  north  of  32nd  strict, 
at   the   tl»e   the   street   ear  cai&e  up    %n4   stopped,    eind   than  proceeded 


9-t<»it>9r   ^^BsttH   &}S£  $«  ««sr  (^rt»  J*»a:  »id  ^rse^^s   >^«Ji;£   i^^^l^^   4:«£»i    :Qi%^ 

&9$«l^ft^  is$js  nivi  him  4xue  i9m9  »iill  "ViMta  "Si*  «iJS  ^*i;^#' 

9i'iS  *ta  99en£l      *^<»i..v:^ii  e-ssv  ussstJ   sits  nc-  MMqilX  «^i^  ^w^   «s|tjf   i»iii 


•OMth,    turned.  ahATpl 7  «roun4  In   front  of  thA   Htre«t   cnr,   drlTing 

9tr«at  ear 
north   in  tho  northbound  tr%«k»   ¥•  kopt  in  ain4.  w«    vhink  thn  Jury 

voul4  %«  vamuitiNl  in   fin-ling  tho  dofoiidanto  v«ro  guilt/  of  negli- 
gmk—i    and  w«  art  also  «r  tha  opinion  that   tha  avidanoa  waa  au^ 
aa  to  warrant  tha  jury  in   fin-iin^  that  tha  plaintiff  wan  not  ^ilty 
•  f  contributory  n»^lit.«noa.      Sha  t«atifi<^d   aha  lookad  north  and 
aautk  vhan  aha  traa  bahind  tha  atraat  oar,   or   a  Tary  littla  distuioa 
aaat  of  it,  but   aav  nothing;  in   the  atraat.      If  tha  jury  balirra^ 
thia  taatUaany  thay  might   alao   r^^aoh  tha   oonelualon   that  at  tha 
tiaia  aha  looked  north  and  aouth   in  Vantworth  stTanua  tha  truek  vaa 
than  turning  around  in  frost  of   th«  atraat   ear  and  waa  out  of  har 
Tiair.      Xo   th»a«   olrauoittaneaa  va  think  that  vhathar   tha  dafao(<anta 
vara  guilty  of  nagllisMiaa  and  whatnar  plaintiff  vaa  ^11  ty  of  con- 
triVutery  caitligrnaa  yr*  both  proper  qm  atlone  for   tha    ^ury. 
Upon  a  earafttl   eonaidar«ition  of  all  tha  oTidanea  ic  tha  raaord  we 
are  unable  to   aay  that  tha  finding  of  tha  jury  in   favor  of  plaintiff 
ia  against   tha  i&anlfaat  weight  of  the  aTldanea. 

Tha  daf«r.danta  next  oontand  that  tha  aeurt  rafuaad  to 
inatruct  tha  jury  properly  aa  rac|U(*ated  by  tha  daf andanta,   tha  oom* 
plalnt  being  that   the   court   ehouli  hiive  glTan  inatruotion  So.   S  of- 
fered by   the  defand-wata.   wnieh    La   =«e  followa; 

"3.  Tha  law  olaoas  upon  all  peraona  the  duty  of  axeralalng 
reaaonabla  care  to  avoid  injury,  -aid  ev<9n  thouf;r,  the  jury  ehonld 
beliera  fro?s  the  evlienoe  that  the  defondanta  ware  nt^glit^ent  and 
the  plaintiff  waa  Injurei  tiieraby,  if  the  eirldenor*  ,-»lao  ahowa 
that  tha  injury  would  have  bean  awoided  by  the  exercise  of  ordi- 
nary care  by  th<»  wlaintifi',  land  that  the  plaJatiff  dil  not  Pxar- 
eiaa   aueh  eare,   you   slMuld   Mn4  the  dafendonta  not  ,£^ilty,* 

Xa   aokplaint    ia  made  by  oounaal    for  pltintiff  that   thia 

inatruotion  waa  not  proper  and   aheuid  ha-ve  been  given,   but  h«   eon- 

tenda  that  tha  paint  waa  covered  by  other  inatruetiona.   ^e  are  of 

opinion  that  the  rafuanl  to  Kive  it  waa  net  reveraitly  erronaottf, 

beeauae   tha  jury  were  told  by  inotruetion  fio.   2,   giwen  at  tha  re- 

qaeat  ^V  plaintiff,    that  a  person  driving  an  autonoblle   in  a  pabiia 


•■'?.3»ft2'- 


i!'?"^  If^-. 


Tt.?-  rt 


«ix(.?     SL 


Htr«ct  la  r«r;ulr«d  to  us«  r««»onabl«  earn   for   th*;  safffty  of  paraona 
In   tha   straat,   and   that  if  thmj  b*lleTad  froai  a  prepoB4«raae«  of  tho 
•TidOKOO  that   i»lalxttlff  «a«   aroaainif  tho  atract,   and   furthar  that 
dof«»D  ivits  bai'ora  and  at  tha  tUia  in  queatlon   failM   to  axorolao 
reaaonaMe   oar*  In  tha  control   Mnd  ovaration  of  tho   truok,   ad   that 
•«oh   falluro  9roxiK?»t#l7  catiaM  9laLatiff*o   Injurlao,    <«nd  if  thojr 
furtMor  bnlte-vod   from  tha  «Tld«noo  that  olaiatiff  ^ai'ora  aa<j   rit   tho 
timo   In   Qucntioa  wao  axarololng  duo  and  ordinary  cara   for  her  own 
iiaftty,    than   thay  ahould   I'lnd   tha  iofan^aBto  gailty.      By  inatruetion 
lo.    1^  /?iT«n   at   tho   r^u^ot   of   dafaiidanta.    tho  Jury  wara  told   that 
tSio  ylaiBtiff  Y»o  "Juot  aa  nueh    in  duty  bound   to   axorolao  ordinrtry 
•ara  to  look  out  far  tha  dof'^dauto*  a.  oroaohiag  truck  and  to  a-vold 
boiag   atruok  by  the  oaaio  •*•   at  tho  drlvor   in  ohargo  of  dofandanta' 
truck  vas  to  look  out  for  ABd  to   avoid  otrlKlaic  tho  plaintiff.* 
The  laousa  in   this   c<<ioo  vara  not   oonplie^tod,    «nd  the  Jury  vera 
tol'l   that  i»laiRtiff  eoald  not  rooovor  unloos   oho  «aa   in  the  oxoraiaa 
•f  <ta«  oar''  aad   oaation  for  h*r  ova  safety.     la  those  oir«i»stanaas, 
wo  think  «a  would  aot  be  Juatifiod  la   rewersiag  the  Judffiwit  for  the 
refusal  to  fclva  tho  lastruotloa  requested  by  the  dofandaats.     lar 
do  wo  think  th«re  was  error  in  the  refusal   of  tho  oourt  to  giwa 
inatruetion  So.   1,  ro'tun^etcd  by  dofeadaats.      That  iastruotion  was 
to    the  off  est   that   tho  law  di4  aot  require  or   exaot   that  the  driver 
of  th«*  truek   ^should  be  all   tho  while  on  his  sword  agmiast  dancers 
Rat  rtrasoaably  to  be  «xpeeta4»   or  a^^^Bst  unusual  or   extraordloary 
eoourreaeoo  or  eoaduet  oa  tho  p&rt  of  others."     This   inetruetloa 
was  abatraot  in   fern  «id  it  was  not   rrror   to  refuse  to  give  it. 
Soroovor,   the  acoldart  happened   at  a  otreet  iateroeetioa,   ^here  it 
vas  knows   that  ipasnenfvrs  ai>pi\i  be  alighting  froa  the   stan'Jinc 
street  ear,     W*  think  the   court  prop  rly  refused  the  off erad  is- 
struct  ioa. 

thm  defef'danta  i\i;'ther   contend  that  the  eourt   erred  la 
permitting  evldenoo  of  ailcefits  eoatpl  «in«d  of  by  plaintiff  i^iok 


mo  ■;■;!'   ■s»t  9f*s  x^"-*^^  ■  "^^'J^  aicaaJtt^isx*  tf    »j2.i4 

i«iS*  tilci  ^rt'--  :-^.*>£*«H*l5  1©  JC'^Jii^^T  9g$   i«,  etstvi:*    " '-    ,  -  •' 


««r«  not  ih*  r*«ult  of  th*  aeold«it«     In  ■upport  oi'   this,   it  !• 
•aid    that  shortly   aftor  tlft«   aeeldent  X-raj   pieturoo  w*ro   takon  of 
tho  itlalntlff  which   shovM  a  fraoturc  ml'  tn«  loft   claTlola   and    that 
other  pieturoa  vora  taicon   but   U\ey  wm  all  &«4^ativ«:    that  ao  pie- 
turo  wao   taken  of    tho    i9pii>«;    that   ssAt  14  or  16  aontha  lat#r  *a 
v«M«B  appoara  at    tho  laboratorloo  of  Dr.    i^iogrona  and  ia  X-ra/od." 
At  that  timo  an  X*ray  ploturo  vaa  takoo  q:'    th«  apiuo  and   lunbar 
roeioa  which  dltoolo««4  a  fracture  of  the   J  ourth  and   i  if  th  vertobrao. 
Xho  OYidloneo  shows   that   pl&lstiff  va«  thio  voaaa  irtio  was  X>rayod  at 
this   tlKO.        Ytirther  t^stl.Tooy  was  {^iweu  that  in  19  27,    about  two 
yoars  after   tho  aecidont,  plaintiff  was  troatdd  b/  inotbor  doctor 
who  gawo   tffstiftooy  cone»ralag  tho  Cx^ndition  of  plaintiff  whloh 
was  net   tho  result  of  tho  accidont.      And  eoaxisol  states  that 
although  when   the  hyoothotioal   qadstions  were  piit  to   tho  doetor 
saeh  other  allsients  were  elirJLnatod   fror.   the  questions,  yet, 
newertheless,   the  jury  h^   the  ewideuce  before   thOM  and   "eonsidored 
it   in   the   awarding  of  dsnt^os.  *      Of  course   the   tostiiaony  of  the 
doctor  concerning  any  allisesQt  of   the  pitsii/. tiff  net  the  result  of  the 
accident,   was  istoroper.     But  we   think  a  readh^  of  all   tho  ewideaoe 
in   tho  record   shows  that  the  Jury  ufideretood  that  plaintiff  was  Bak- 
ing no  g1%1j&  for  dasages  except  for  injuries  which  she   sustained  as 
a  r<vsult  of  the  aeoident,    nni  the  Jury  was   speoifieally   instructed 
on   thie   question.     Mereower,   so   argUMMSt  is  aade  that  the  judipeat 
is  exeesslTO. 

A  further   eoKplaict   is  aade  that   the  court  un<july  re- 
strieted   the  oross-eTtaninstios  of  a  doctor  who  was  called   to  t<»stify 
for  plaintiff.      On  oroeo-txamlnatioa  eouneel    asked  the  doctor   th« 
following  question:      "Any  person  »i^t  hawe  a  fall,    suatain  this 
kind  of  a  fracture,   and  go  About  their  affairs  suffering  a  little 
pain  but  gradually  getting  better,  might  they  aotV     An  objection 


sate  a-avT>sui  ^  :ji*Q«;A   Bxmw 

Tdi««fe  "ta^lpa*  ^  l»»J*«'!t:i   »«w  Yli^al^^ig  ,**»4Js»§f*  «giat»#Xs  ^'s^wf 

;?«i£7    S-  ^.^-^,.J^«*  j»«   »4'  -sat  .fif-^  ^■''* 


rl^ht   to    athow,    ii'  tbmy   o«uld[«  that  a  ptrsoA   lnjtu-«4   as  «a«  plaintiff, 
Ml^t  gradually  g«t  Matter;   but   again,    this  voald  affeet  eiily  tli* 
oaount  of  th«  ▼•rdlot  atnd,    as   »tat«4,  ii«   eoaplaist  1»  aadc  tliat  It 
Is  ex«««aiT«.     Uor^cvor,  w«   tiling,  upon  a  «oasldftriition  of  all    t^o 
rTi<1«noo  on   this  phaso  oi'   tiie  o&a«,   plaintiff  was  not   so  prsjudlesd 
as  veald  varrant  as  In  dlttturbla^  Ui«  vsrdlet. 

A  furtiier  ^oaplalat  i«   Uaat  tiitt  d«elaratlo<i   did  not 
stat*  «  esise  of  aetlon.     Wh*n    bJ&o  eass  vast  to   trial   th«r«  var^^  a 
awb^fT  tit  eooBts   in   tna  daolaratlon  but  at   tha   oonduaion  of  plain* 
tiff's  easa  all  the   counts  vara  wltn4r«iwa  exospt  the   first.     Tha  fisst 
count  stated   a   oausa  o:    itotlon,   but   la  eonoluding  it  was  all<»gad 
tht%\    *l>y  Cif'ans  '•'haraof  pialntli )    ^as   injurad,   and   sustalaad  danagas 
as    rxli<»g«%<)   in   the  lest  oount  ei    tnis  daelaratlon,  "*      It  la  eontendsd 
Vf  sotmsel   for  £«fan1aats   that  t:.lB  count  was  not   coaplsta  In    Itaalf 
lADd   that  BO  raf«r«9nss  could  ha  nada  to   tha  othar  counts  hasausa   thsjr 
h%d  baan  vlthdrbVB  and  vera  out  of  tha   casa.     Vt  think  Uils  contsB* 
tlAT;  is  unsound.     Vhlle  mH  of  tha  ooants  hut  tha  first  weT9  cut  of 
tha  s»sa,   thej  could  still  be*  eoneldarad  for  X0t»TmKi^9  purpeaas. 
Mtauahnasay  y.   Holt.   236   ill.   485.      A,  furthar  ootaplalnt  is  a»da   tuat 
tha  jury  r^turnti.  t«o  vardlcts  -  ona  a  dlraatad  vardiat   finding  ths 
dafan^ant  Oaraga   Sarvlsa  Coapany  not  uuilty,   and  the  othar  finding 
tha  two  dafentiai.ts  guilty   tmd  aeaaaaing  tha  plaintiff's  daaa^es. 
Ws  think  this  is  tha  propar  pr act lea. 

tha   judtoaaut  of   the  Circuit   court  of  Cooh  county   is 
afflTwad, 

ShSuraly,   ?.    J.,    und  ^atohatt,    J.,    concur. 


kiwi's  «d A     .$u-xlx  »^  #a««3?.«  awFstlail-.tw  (&ie»w  **r.:-  as**?/  e*tllJ 

t^'^'v*    *^3i.-;S?-"f  >.»?T?'«i>    ^**«*??'    «?•'>'».*  ■#!!*»  ■>Ml   ^ijg^5    **?w*-"f"»'l»«    *»  #l!SC#    *«» 


SSt21 

H.    A.   OKMBIMT.  ) 

▼«. 

ISA  k.    3TATFJI. 


kP 


a^^l.k,  601 


MR,    JUariCS  O'COWiOR  BSXIVIRKJ   ms.   QfliilQh   <jc    ■£-L     C   JkV. 

Plaintiff,    the  p&y9«  Oi    «  pr^jalssory  uet*  tl«t«d 
tavteoibcr  1,   1917«   for   ^551. Xa,    du«  on  or  l»el'of«  4ft  dajs   -JTicr 
4Atc»    Irotteht    milt    «|t«lj)9t   the  4«f«f)^iwit,    the  aak«r  af   the  n«te. 
elalsine  th»  f-&d«  of  the  noto  vlth  leterett  tharacm.      The  <tef*&dii4t 
fll»d   aa  aftidaYlt  of  aaerltt  in  vhlebi  h«   set  up   (1)    th^t   th«r«  ««s 
BO  con  slier  at  ioa;    {7t)    that    the  conelderatlee  vhoiljr  failed;    (3)    that 
tli«  Askiclng  of   tJh«  note  vae  prooured  by  fraud   or  elreoenr^Btlon   lo 
that   Ui«  payeo  obtaiao^    the  aote   fros;  the   iofeiidattt  upoa   the  ox- 
preot  agreffOOBt  that  ho  voald  dleeouat   the  Bote  aAd   ueo   tho  pre* 
•oo4o  thereof  to  pay  upon  a;n   liid<«htednos0  oi    the  defocr'.ant   to   Sol 
Outh,  vhleh  In^AbtodneffB  vao  erldetiood  by  ftortgatiAO  on  Jriorlda 
land;    (4)    that  aha  ^a-ve   tho  note  to  plalatlff,   who  vae   to   pay 
Outh  a«  nboYO  etatod,    tiad  a^orrla^  that  plaintllT  hiutnat  paid  uuth 
the  aonoy.      thore  was  a  trial  boforo  a  Jud^e  aad  a  Jury   aad  a 
▼«rllot  rondered   ic  defendant**  faror;   Judgaeat  v&a  antered  on   the 
verdict   alid  plaintiff  appeala. 

I^cre  la  ao  aatorlal  dlapata  ai  to  tho  eeaoatlal  fiota. 
7roc  the  OYidoroo  It  appearo  that  plalatiff  waa  OBfiu^od  la  Uio 
baaklKti  buslneao  at  Vaahlngtoa,  Illlaolo;    that  ho  oold  Jlorl<la 
lands  beloBttSa^^  to  Outh,  who   aloo  11to4  at  «aahln.r..toa:    and  dafan4- 
aat  beoaiiae  tho  owner  of  tha  lanAa.      Thoro  wore  two  aort^iaiEOB.   ob« 
app'«r  en  tly  exooutod  by  a  Hr.   Karl  an  and  tho  other  by  a  i^r.    Stat  en, 
tho  defeniant'a  h«ob«n4.      Saae  Intereot  on   tiieaa  aortiEOiioa  vaa  due, 
waA  i^lalnttff.  viio  vaa  aaqaalntcd  vlth  tho  diafaadafit,   oaaa  to 
CSblaaco   endeaToring  to   eolleet   tho  Interest,      ho  called  on   tho 


i«l*4#  ■**  «#«e  fit'-"- 
sfii   its  fe*T#jr£.H  5*la&  ai  fe»5»fe<^l  foil;    ? 


4«f«nd«nt  in  r«f«r«n««  to   Ui«  aattAr.      Th»  dtt'indwat   ttftt*!   that 
•h«  41d  not  iAAT*  th«  M9a»y  but   th«t   il'  pli&lntiff  would  aAv^no*  It 
•ad  pay  it   to  Outh  for  h#)r,   an*  would   sxeeuto  h«r  not*  to  pl«in<- 
tiri*.     Thifi  w««  M^ood  upoo  Mid  tno  noto  In   auit  «ao   vhoo  »odo. 
Plaintiff  tootii'iod   that  ho  paid  tho  oionoy,   1956.62,    to  ttuth 
shortly  n^tor   tho  dato  of  tho  noto.     Quth  ^aoo   tootli  lod   that  tho 
•onoy  wao  paid   to  him  by  plaintiff  ao  Inttroot  on  one  or   botn  of 
tho    tflorida  norti>;a«ofl.        Bofor.daat  tootifiod  that  ahout  1926 
plaintiff  and  dofondarit  not   in  dof«n4ant*o  attorney'*  ofi'ioo  la 
Chloago  and  at   that  ti«o  plsiintirr  gave  hor  a  stulABent  ohowiac 
tho  aaount  duo  Quth  on  tho  nortsaK**.   &nd  sho  offorod   thlo  la 
OTldonco.      Thor«!  aro  a  nuabor  of   Itoico   in   tho   kta^oKont   and  ono 
of  thon  appears  ao  a  orodit   iat«d  Ootob^tr  12,  lyi7,   allowing  "a 
partial  payment   ol'  ii^teritot   •  1556. SS." 

Thoro  i«  no   dispute  as   to    tho  fororioln,;  faoto. 
There  was  some   orLdenoo  on  bo^ialf  of  the  defendant   to 
tho  offoot  that  just  prior  to   the   tlao   she  oxeoutRj   tne  note  In 
suit,   plaintiff   told  her  that   she  was  personally  liable  on   the 
flerlda  nertiF.ag9s:   and   the   oontention   soeuis  to  bo  that  sinoo  de- 
fer, dant  had  not   executed   the  Florida  aortt^a^^es  thoro   ^^as  soao 
aiorepresontatioa  and  fraud  on  the  part  of  plaintiff  in  obtaining 
the  note  from  defendant.       Vo  think   there  is  ao  aerit  in  this  ooa- 
tontlon.       Defen<^Rnt*t  own  testimony  sliows  that  she  wanted  to  pay 
off  tho  aorti{ai{ea  oa  her  /lor Ida  la!>d,   sund  while  sho  was  not  per- 
fiosially  liablo  it  is  obvious  that  if  9i\m  desired  to   olear  her  laad 
of  tho  aorti{agoa   she  would  have   to  pay   thea,  prinoipal  and  interest. 

Tho  defendant's  position  sooas  to  be  that  uader  tho 
arraagoaent  aado  by  her  with  the  plaintiff  at   the  tine  of  tho 
oxooutien  of   tho  note,    it  wae   the  ^lut>  of  plaintiff  to    see  that 
ah^  he  paid   tho  money  to  Quth  It  vas  applied  by  Outh   in  payaoat 
of  tho  Interest  due  on   tho  Florida  aort({a«^es.     Kven  if  we  assuae 


^•"4   i«str    bv?r}i*««4  .    :?*H  tltJ?  .-'son* 

-  r»dd   »i'<i^    ^'ii    ;^l*J.;>.'i  ««  «i    ftj^t^i*?'   Jfc.f.*  .MI'S**.   ^  .-^i   ^iLi 

"%»*:(  «#a  «J»*  :«!.«  •.ii;iSv  luaai    tS**^*-*  ■   'w^^  «<»  vs^v:;..:;,.: '«'&.■■. 


this   eoDt«ntion   to   bn   •ound,    th«  ur.o«nt  radio  ted   orldonoo   ahovs   that 
tho  »on«x  v«o  ap9ll«»(^  on   tho  Tlorlda  mort/^ogoa  by  Outh.      auth  mc 
tost  11*1  #d,   oBd  the  otatoaont  c^lTon   to  dol'en'^ant,    aiboTO  Bxtntionod, 
and  vhloh  vas  offered  In  ovlioaoo  by  tho  dofoadant,   shews  that   tho 
■aaoy  «aa  so  applied. 

The  court,    <tt   the  roquf^ot  of   tho  p\9.inXitf ,  instntetoi 
tho  jury  that   If  thoy  boll«>yod   froaa  a  propondoranoo  of  tho  OTllonao 
*th».t  the  dofoniiwt  Ida  U.    3tut(m   o;«?o.tt!v1  th«  note  in  oridoneo  sb4 
4lellT0rod   it   to   tho  '^lAlntifr.  A.   It.   Kliifisbury,    and  that  tho  sali 
Kingsbury  i^ald   the*  anoutst  of  said  nnto  at  tho  roquest   and   -lirootiMi 
•  f  tho  (*ofAr^ar.t   t?  one  Sol  Guth,    th*'^  in  that,    atato  of  tho  yroof 
you  should   rind  in  i'xtor  of  tho   plAlntiff, "     T^io  undisputed  orldMioo 
•hovod  that   tho  dofAndant  gave  the  noto  In   suit  to  plaintiff,    that 
plaij^itiff  p<xid   tho   wouut  of  tho  note,    -^t   defendant's  roMUest,    to 
Outh,   urA   therefore  under  tnis  inetruotion,   in  view  oi'  tho  undis- 
irated   fsriinhcit   tho  Terdict   should  h^YO  boon  for  the  plaintiff. 
»ut  since   it  'Kso   li-  fivor  ci'  tho  dof »r.rjat(t,    it   is   contrary  to   all 
tho  evideneo  cud'^  to  the  lijatruotions   of  the   court. 

At   tho  clot<c  of  £JLl   the   erlTenoA  plaintiff  aoTOd   for 
an   Inatructcd  Terdiet.      Tho  motion     vas  oTorrulod.      fte  think  tho 
KOtion  oheuld  have  been  allowed  !UJd  tho  Inrtruotion  t>iv«a*      Siaoa 
V*   urp  of  tho  opinion   that,  Tlovin^  all    the  ovi^tencelu  tho  lii^t 
ato!?t  favorable  to   the  dofenia&t,   there  was  no  ovidenoo  of  a  dor«ass. 
It  voul-!  be   a  useleoa  oorenony  to  roTerae   tho  judt^ont   and  r«nand 
the  oaiao.      The  lav  never  rtquiros   the  doing  of  a  useleoa   a«(. 
Therefore   the  julgTaont  of  tho  liunlotpal   oourt  of  Chioa^o  is  revorsod 
with  <%  finfiati  of  fast   *ni  judgment  will  bo  wtorori  in   this  oourt  In 
fsTor  of  the  plaintiff   and   against   the   dofeudant  i or  tho  f^oo  of 
the  note  irith  Int-irest,  which   is  1990.00.      In   support  of  our 
aetloB  we  site  glrich  v.   FprscUner   Centraot^g  Co..   312  111*    343; 
Roe  V.   Roe.    315   111.    120;    Binopoli    v.    Chioai;o  P.ya  Co..    316   111.609; 


inAt  9vtii^  •»»i'l>i'y«>  h9iQihM%3^wi>i^*i  ^fii  at9»xti»««  -.iti i^^tnt&  nisi* 


•r-^tyt   9fJ# 


iauithm' 


■t»fe«j^  -swjftelN*** 


i 


'tiittiaJtisr 


••.vipaifjfelv 


Myra  y.   horthwt^rn  gj.  K.   R.    Co..   314  111,    94;  Jlorthern  Truat 
Co.   ▼.   Cilc^kO  fcyg.   Co..   318  III.   402, 

JUDcaoiiT  RBTnunn}  with  fix  disc  of  VAcrt 

ABO  JUT)GV«fT  RT3B. 
tio8ttr«ly,  P.    J.,   and  MAtA«tt,    J. »    oonour. 


fia-niMQ  or  Facts. 

W«  rind  as  ultlMAte  ( -uitm  that  th«  dafendant  axteutad 
th«  Bota  In  suit  pa]rabl«  to  pXaintlff  in   oonal :i«ratieB   that  plain- 
tiff pay  to  3ol  Outh  iiitenreot   on  ■ortt^a£««  on  land  ownod  bj  do* 
fondant;    ttaat  plaint! IT  paid   tho  money   to   Cuth    md   tliat  auth 
appli«d  it  in  payaant  of  tha  intoroot  on   tha  Florida  mortgagoa. 


■.40    i»*1l»*M-i 


93860 

HSSHIXTTA  ASHTOft,  ) 

Apr>«*ll«nt,        j 


CXACIL   C.    A3HT0K, 


25GI.A.  601^^ 


lA.    JUBTIQI  0*COfiKOR  DKLIVBRSB  TBI  OPI£ZOIi  OF  7HS   COORT. 

By  this  appeal    the   complaiaant,   H«cxiettii  Aslitob, 
••<»]« B   to   r*irer««   an   orier   entered  in   th«   Svpcrlor   court  of  Cock 
eounty,   4i«ei»aLiig  her  petition,   toy  whieu  she  aout^t   to  have  the 
defendant  eoaaiitted   for   failure   to  coapXy  with  the  deoree  for  sepa- 
rate Aninteaanee  entered  in  f?%Tor  of  the  ooKplaiaant   and  affainet 
the  defendant,  requiring  the   defeadant   to  pay  the  eouplainaat  for 
the   eupnort  of  herself  and  her   child. 

The  record  dlseloeeo  that  on  August  IS,   1919,    eosplaln- 
ant   filed  her  bill   for  separate  maiutenanee.      Summobs  was  serred  on 
the  defendant  by  a  sheriff  of  Cook   county   aiul  Sspteuhsr   20,   1919, 
dsfen'lant    filed  hie   i^ewer  denying  that  he  was  guilty  of  the 
oharfree  mads  a^Kinst  hii£  in   the  bill,      the  case  was  afterwards 
heard  Vy  the  shaasellor   and  June   24,   192c,   a  dssrec  was  entered  as 
prayed   .'or  by   ooaplalnant   and   the    sua  of  1^60   a  week  was  ^warded  her 
for  the  support  of  herself  and  her  child.      The  defendant  prayed  for 
and  wae  alle^'Sd  an  appeal   to   this   court  %'Tvm  the  deoree  but   did  not 
perfect   it.      Ostobsr  29,   1920,  he  nadle  a  notion,    suprorted  by  his 
sworn  petition,   that  the  sswunt  of  aliz^on;y  he  was  required    to  pay 
toy  the  decree  toe  r^^used.      The  matter  was    rsft-rred  to  a  master  In 
^aneery  of  the  ihiperior  court  of  Cook  county.     Beth    >4rties  aopeared 
toefor?  the  aaster  and  considerable  eTideaee  was  introduced,      the 
aaster  cads  up  hie  report  and  rs«oaB»i»dsd  that   the  desrse  be  nodi* 
fled  to  re(tuire  defendaiit   t>>  pay  ^30   instead  sf  160  a  week.      A  ds- 
•ree  was   entered  ss  reeoaoiended  by   the  si^uiter  en  kareh  10,   1931. 
The  next    that    appears  fron    Uie   record   is    that  february  4,   1929, 
••■^^•^•Bt    filed  her  petition   setting  up   inter   alia   that   the 


omtt 

^i»fl[  &^^   lutf  ^9T$^h.»A^  mitt   i-xnoo   e-^dx   «.^    |isr»^;3j«t  s»  l»»>?fiXijs  A«tir  Nw 


dtfcndant  wa«  in  d«2'ault    ia   tli«  auai  of  mor«  thAa  02,300  anfl.  pr«7«4 
h«  !>•  rulsd   to   ahov  oaus«  whj  hm  shouXi  not  b«  p«nl«h«4  for  oontiM^ 
of  court.      Ac  order  was   onteroa  aaeordln^ly.     karcti  15,  1929,    do- 
fond^mt   rilod  hlo  «navor  dooylug   that  hit  «a«  In   airroaro  iwd  oottlni^ 
ttp    that   th«   court  «*6  vitliout  Jurlodietlen  in  tho   aoparat^  Bttinto- 
Dat>««  oait  bttc&uB*  tliere  vao  bo   allftgatlon    In  tho  bill   thftt  tho  d«- 
fondant  vat  a  rosid^nt  oi*  uook  county  and   that  the  d«er«»  failod  t« 
find  that,   at   th«   tivo  of  th«  lilin^  of  tho  hill  ho  was  a  r^oldost 
of  Gook  eounty.      'Zhm  natter  «a«  heard  hy  the  (^iumeollor  and  a  trant- 
oript  of  tho  oiridono«  taken  en  tho  h«0TiBg  of  the   separate  main  to- 
nanao  suit  was  offered   in   eride^oe  aa  well   <3ui  the  erldonoe  taliori  "by 
the  master  on  tno  defendant's  petition  to  reduce  the   aaount  of  all* 
monj,      ?ho  ohaiioeilor   found  that   the  defendant  vao  in  arrears  in 
payment  of  ali»oay  aa  alleged  hy  eomplainant,    sind   that  he  had  heem 
at   all   tlK«>o   able   to  a»ke  the  payments.      The  ooart   sustained  the 
defendant's  aontention  that   the  oourt  was  without   Jurisdlotlon   to 
tntex   the  deoree,   diocnarged   the  rule   to   she«  oause,    ^uid   diwilssed 
oomplainunt 's  petitloa. 

It  was  alleged  la  the  bill   for  B<<9parate  nainiseanee 
that   the   eoaplHUDiiAt  was  a  resident  of  Uhlea^o,   Couk   o  unty,   Illinois; 
that  she  married  def«niact   at  9&uJt.«gaa,    Illiaoie,   Cotober  17,  1906; 
and  oontinued   to  llTO  with  defendant  as  his  wlf«  until   April   SS, 
1919,   i»nen   «he  was  eompelled  to  liTO  separate  €uad  apart  from  him 
through  no   fault  of  her  ova.      There  vas  ae   spec  if  ie   ^illr^atlon   as 
to   the  rcaidenee  of  defendant.      Defendant  filed  hie   ansver  adsilttlag 
the  aarri»f.«  but   denying   the   obarges  made   against  him   la   tho  bill, 
Ike  deoree  reoites    that   the    cause   oau>e   on   to  be  heard  on    the  bill, 
anever  and  replloatioa  and   tostisony  taken    in  open   court.      Th#   court 
found   that  it  had  jurisdiction  of  ttie  parties  and  of  the  subtest 
matt«i>r,   and  further  found  that  defendant  was  guilty  of  the  charges 
made  againet   nlm.      There  was  no    apsclfie   finding   that   at  the   time 
of  tho  filing  of  the  bill   defer^dant  was  a  resident  of  CooX  county. 


^:,,  -JUS  a^ft;. '  ^«ui4  ^£i^«s*»    i;>*^-  ^r-g't 

«iii  l-'>^x;^>»4^«.  t^ui;e9.»ill      ,«»^3^ij^^$  <Mi^^.Hi«^£ft  Qi  &ldgt  m-s^jsIS  ££m  4» 

H»   noiJ«^X£#   sl'U:>«'4«    v*a  «««  •ui«^l      .ana  vee  *£(>  jiXi;j(V   <fta  1 
^-tu«9  «x<t     ..t-vitf9D  11900  al  •'»ii2tftl  x^^^^'^*^^  ^'^^  wuiis»&tl9ot  him  ^•v«a« 


D«f«n(liuit   onntttiKls   that  U19  ord<;r  a^pcalci  from  obottld 
\im  Arflm«4  V<fo*u««   th«r«  was  no   »Il«c«tloii  in   th«  bill  or  rLndiag 
in  th*  4*er««  th«t  dwfnndant  vaa  «  rttsidnnt  of  Cook   oottaty  %t  tho 
ttnw  tho  l»lll  w««   fll«<i»   a«  r«q«lr«<S  by  i>tkra!;rftjiho  2^   wi     :^,    sooa. 
1   Miif  ?»   eh-^p.   63,   Ctthlll  *•  Statutoo  1929;    nuid  la  oupoort  of  this 
eitco   tho   e«t'f«  of  RookXenborf;  t^   Book^eabornp.    232   111,    IIS),    on<| 
"brtntiy  ▼.   Brtncy.    213   Hi.   App.    119 •      ^ootlon  1  wrovl<<«o  thot  «»r- 
ri9A  mon^n  who  without   th<*lr   fault   IIto   oopsrato   nni   Ap&rt   froM 
tkolr  huobanio  atiky  h«iVO  th^lr  rotaody  in  onuity  acnlnot   tholr  huo- 
b«n4o  *ln   tho  Clr<suit   court  of   the  county  vhtro  tho  huoband  ro5<i1oo" 
for  tho  r«»o«ionabl.i   oupport   aad  Mainton«uieo  whllo   thoy    so  livo   apart. 
Hootion  8  prrvldoa,   "Prooficdinj^a  undor  t-.lo  Aot  ahall  bo  i&atltutod 
lA  th«  eonnty  v^oro  tho  husbiuid  roBldee,"   ete. 

Tho  £»ckloob«irt:  caao  «aa  a  auit   for  dlYoroo.      Zho   court 

•aid   (p.   l?l)i 

•Mo    ooTtl float*!  of  <?Tl«i«rico  wao   tak««,    ned   It   it  urgM   tnat 
tho   f«oto   found  by  the  doeroo  do  not   eho*  that  tho  oourt  ha4 

^uri  0'!lcti<9n  of  tho   oabjeet  t&itter,    for    tae  reaoon  that   tho  do- 
oro9   4o«a  cot   find,   by  specif le  r«eital,    th^tt   the   coBpl%lnant 
had   r*oifc',   in    litis   rotate  one  *uole   year  noxt  b«»foro    filing 
his  bill,    ^nd   io08  not   find,  by  liko  rocltal,   that,   tho  proc. Hdlnga 

yrt*  had   la    the   county  whti're    tee   coKpi-iin.mt  r^eirJej^.* 

Tho  court  h*ld   that,    since   it  did  ftot  appear  fron  thr  pi  tradings  that 
tho  parties  had  r^oidod  in  XixiB  Gtato  for  aore  than   a  yoar   ifiic-^^io 
atoly  prior   to    tho  filing  of  tho  bill,    and   thoro  was  so   allogatloa  as 
to   tho   county  ic   ^-^1(^   tho  <!l6f«>4ant  roaidod,    :^d    sinoo   tUero  vao 
no   epoelfie  finding  that   tho  dofoadant  waa  guilty  of  habitaal   drnh- 
oaaoaa  aa  charged  In   tho  bill,   tho  dooreo  aast  bo  roToraod.      It  will 
bo  noted  that    that  oasa  waa  ua.ior  tho  DlToreo   aot  and   that  th«ro  waa 
no   cortifieato  of  aridonoo  in  tho  rooord. 

Tho  BriBoy  eaaa  waa  a  auit   for   neparato  aaintonaneo,    «&4 
t-ioro  vao  no    allegation   in  tho  bill  aer  a  finding  in  tho   -tooroo  that 
tho  detfondant    '^ao  a  rooidoiit  of  Cook  county.      :^o  oourt  alao   otatod 
that   th<*ro  was  no   oortlfieata  of   oridonco  la  tho  record  and  roveraod 


.»*  'flat  ia^  «iS5»'»}i#i*iir  T'J   ^^yrlsrien  «#   «*»iJfr  jf^-i   •«!# 


#j»ri  !>-  ,i!!»:ar«i  *«-  ■-•?«*   9'^" 


a  ?   ^:  J«% 


to 


•:lj^«^f«f  »it*'  ji&lrt-iisl'»-^f«Sfi  ■#»«  r.  .  tci#    M*(f  :tT»<:.- 


Compl&lnttnt   eont«&da    thai    the   eaa«   at  biur   is   i«  bv  dis- 
tiiit^ah«4  trem  thm  B*ekl«iib«rg   and   hrln«y  casts  by   tas  fa«t   thai 
in   ths   instant   oass   ths   rvidsnos  heard  by  the   chaneellor  on   ths 
hsarinc  oi'   th«   separate  aaaintsBsncs  bill,    sad  on  defendant's  motisa 
to  radttss  the  alitbon/,   whioh  vaa  heard  an  avi  lenoa  taken  by  the  aas- 
tsr  in  ohaoeery,   is  in   ths  rseord   and  that   this  evidenoa  shovs  bajend 
peradTsr.tura  that  the  dafandant  vas  a  resident  af  Cooh  eeunty,    aa 
required  by  the   statute.     Va  think  this  contention  Mast  be   austained. 

tcXlesen  y.  iiallaaap.   236  111.   App.    622,  nonbar  29604, 

not  reported*  was  a  bill  for   separata  aaintenoi^ea.      A  rehearing  waa 

allavad  and   the  point  vaa  aiada  that  the  court  waa  without  juriadia- 

tioB  to   enter  the  dearee  because  it   did  net   appear  froai  th<>  bill   or 

decree  that  the  defendant  vaa  a  realdect  af  Cook  ooonty  at  the   tine 

the  bill  waa   filed,     ^e  court  thc^re  discusses  the  Baeklanbrrg  and 

Briney  oaaaa  and  points  out   that  in  neither  of  tha»  waa  there  m 

certificate  of  eTidenea  in  the  record,   and   said: 

*In   this  eaaa,  unlike  the  oaaea  sited,   the   evidence  haa  been 
praaerraA  by  aertiiicata,   and,  while  it  is  true  that  the  bill   does 
not  all^e   apecifieally   that   the  defendant  huaband   is  a  reailent 
ef  Cook  county,   in  whiea   suit  waa  fil^d,   that  f&at  flaa  aada  to 
appear  1>ok  the  e-videnea.** 

The  instant  aaaa  waa  heard  by  the  Superior  court  af 
Cook   county  and  a  decree   entered.      3o«e  six  oumtha  thereafter  the 
daf enfant  petitioned  that  court   to  reduce  the  aliaeny  and     it  vaa 
referred  to  a  aaater  in  chancery  of  the  ^parlor  court  of  Cook 
county,  before  i^eh  both  parti ea  appeared  and  evidence  waa  Intro- 
duaad.      ^he  bill  alleged  that    the  defffadaat  vaa  the  owner  of  ataak 
of  great  value  and   the  principal  o<^er  of  the  tuaineaa,  which  vaa 
conducted  in  Cook   county.      The  auauaona  vaa   served  upon   ths  defendant 
by  the  eheriff  af  Cook  eeunty  and  he  filed  hia  anavar. 

On  the  hearing  of  the  separate  s^intananee  auit  cor  plain- 
ant  testified  that   ahe  want   to  lav  York  at  defendant *a  requeat, 
taking  her  baby  with  her.  and   that  when   she  returned   to   Chioage   she 
vent   to  live  at  the  iJaeibridge    Apartisent  hotel  in  Chicago;   that   she 


iht&s   hem    ,^*t»»x  s*Lt   «i   e$i3v  .•-*itl#'»stt 

dasl^ies'X  St   ml  ...;■    .J*iii' 


*aU   t«4't,-i«t«iU  «^atifc.  , fiat's ja?i   *#>s»«kfe  3  tue?  ij.^iji?* 

"oxrai  acv  »oa«i^ive   buM  b^ita^m^  m^l^nLn^  tUa^rf  doirtw  a-xsTt^if  ,'^^afi;«o 

9ite   <»j>«3li£i    o;f    fc'>a^M**»-i  ^-^    !h:7«    .iwcf  d^iv  ^<:f««r  tf^$i  -^alsisi 


•C*iB  l«ft  Chic«co   In  April  b*o&u««  4«f«ndani  did  a«t  want  h«r  to 
!!▼•  In  OiloAiro  vith  h.«r  d«u«{htcri   th«t  ah*  again  r*tuni«4  to  Ghi- 
•aco  ia  Oatobor,   1919.     A  polleo  oifioor  of   tho  City  of  Chicoce 
testified   that  ho  arrostod  defendant, bei'oro  tlio  ooparate  »Ainto- 
Baneo  trial,  on  i>orth  Aahland  ktouuo   ,   where  he  found   defendant 
living  with  another  ivoaan,    end  the  defendant  nlmeelf  teatiflod   that 
ho  ha4  oubl eased  this  apartment.      Ho  further  testified  that   shortly 
after  he  and   eonplaluaat  wore  narried  they  liTod  in  a  four-reon 
flat  on-  4ath  street;    that   th«y  afterwards  lived  together  on  4Sth 
etroet;    at  the  Plaxa  hotel;    714  Vot eland  aTonue;   493d  iibcrldan 
Road;   4984  Sheridan  Koad;    49^  Uherldan  Head,   and   5116  aheridnn 
Road;    and   that  he  lived  there  until  long  after  his  wife  left   for 
low  York;   that,   *I   sas  ny  wife  at  the  Oai^ridgs  apartaoats.      I  pre* 
cured  this  apartacnt  for  her  upon  her  return  to  Chicago;*  that 
after  tallclng  with  his  wife  about  their    iiff «!renees,   ehe  told  hin 
%be  best  thing  for  her  to   do  was  to   "paeJc  up  hsre,   go   to  ^ev  York 
and  never  oone  baek  to  Chiongo  again;*   that  he  told  her  net  to  go 
to  fi«v  York,      them  is   further  evidecee  in  the  record  Xo  the  ef- 
fect  that  defendant  lived  at  Honewood,   Illinois,   in  Cook  eounty. 

A  reading  of  the  teetisony  in   the  reoord  leads  to   but 
one  oonolusion  -   that  on   the  whole  record  not  the   Blii(htest   doubt 
renains  but   that  the  dcfstdant  was  a  resident  of  Cook   county  for  a 
nttBb4ar  of  years  prior  to   nod   after  the  filing  of  the  bill   in  the 
instant   ease.      In  Yhe  People  v.   Huffnan.  326  111.    334,   In  paaeing 
on  the  proof  of  venue  neoessary  in  a  orisinal   ease,   the  court   eaid: 

*Vhlle  it   is  not  neoeeeary  that  any  witn<*ss   siiould  testify  in 
so  neuiy  w'>rds    tha.t    \  orise  wao   cc:;j«altted   ir»   a  certain   county   In 
order  to   eetablieh    the  voRue  ( People  t.    Shaw.   34JC   111.    451), 
ani   the  venue   c«n  b»  provec   by   cirevi.T,atAncos,    (P«»ple  v.    /ame» 
wortft.    524   III.   96),    yet  when    cir  cuss  stances,    alone,    are  relle<f 
upon   for   auoh  proof    th«   circuxa stances  must  lot   such   as    to   exeludo 
every  r  aronablo  hypotheels  otber  tban  th«t   the  cri^e  was  oon- 
nitted   in    tht?   county  in  vhio  i   the  venue   is  lai^  in   the   indict* 
nont." 

In  passing  on  a  eiaiilar  question   the  iiuprwie  Court  in 


Ti 


'■•*^   ????  T^sivf '.5^(^?   hi7-fii^f!-%it*rsit^r'-^fi': 


';^  *«:?»**■ 


;;  -i!-;  r-rac 


.^■^S    'T'?- 


4;ft-^iiCt    ^*    ::^5,. 


.'sfi  "  fci^lat   3A;t^ 


"/5  cX  X  ^:  - 

si  it^ 


•tfc'Xsx*;-   o; 


-?*<;r. 


•re 

Hi, 


km 


i    31U0'J    d^a&XQM?'    9133    n-^i-3»*vf    tst  t.Lsi*    3^    eSUf    $i7li««««t 


fHtlUfft  T>   P\^  ^nv),^*  122  ^11.    3d5.    Bald   (pp.    986.      337): 

"It   la   charged   in   th«  l&di«ta«iit,    tli«  effsnaa  of  which  dc- 
fsDdant  was   convluted  w&s   coeaiitted   in  Cook    i-oonty,    and  ^h<*n   til 
th«  evldcno*  in   tho  <»*••  la  conaidarad,   that  fuct   auffieiantly 
apptars.      The  prosaeuiin^  witn  ^sa  toatified  aha  lived  on    *Ka«raea 
ttrenae,    formerly  called  Aahley  street,'   and  that  the  offense  was 
tOHRitted   in  her  houwe.      On«  ©f   tha  <ritn<>«&ea    ior    the  defense 
teatified   that  ahe  llTed  near    the  proseoutina  witness »  at  whose 
house  the    trouble  oocorred,    euii    that   sua  lived  on  ilaereon   itvenae 
for  twenty  years  and  in  Chicane   twenty-seven  years.      This  evi- 
dence,  considered  in   co7Ui?ction  witii   the  ol'fii-uutive  ftct   that 
appears   from  the  record,    the   tri«il  was  had  lu  Uook  county,   where 
it  ia   aJ.leged  the  offense  ^aa  perpetrated,   is  oufliciunt   to   sup- 
port   the    findlnf;  oX    the  Jury  the   uffenae  was   coasiitted   in   the 
county  of  Cook,   as  alleged  in   the  indiotmsnt.      It  is  proved   the 
offenee  was  oovucltted  en    ^li^urson  avenue,'   and   that   it   is  a 
street   In   Chloae^*      ^'*    •sourse   this   court  will   take   judicial 
aatioe  that   Qiieaso  is  in  Cook  county.      Proof  that  a  eriste  is 
•OSJBiitted    in   Chicago,    is  proof   that,   it  v^as   co:auitt««d   ii^   Cook 
•evnty.      On  the  whole  rnc^rA  considered,  not  the  slightest  deubt 
reaaalns   the  offonse  of  ^hich  defendant  was   convicted  was    'eotii- 
Bitted  in  the  ooanty  alleged  in   the  indietEient.  ** 

Tke  order  of  the  Superior  court  of  Ceok  county  is 

reversed  and  the  natter  remanded  for  further  proceedings  in  ae- 

Pfir€m»^  with  the  views  herein   expressed. 

BSYSRSIU)  AMD  KSKABSBD. 

KnSnrsly,  P.    J.,   and  Xatehett,   J.,   oencur. 


m 


:l'?!^-fc      jdse   -•'-■   ^is.^    ,ft&=£    •''  -  -:-o  '^  -^i^'^    ,f  agxiii^ 


9^> 


/i9.*^&4'x  -  .  Xft'Xfi^'ltl^^ 


93a7t 


ILORA  8.    KROIfiCXB,  )     t"^ /  y 


^. 


l^ 


▼•• 


SXYlkkL  mOB  9UP^.RX0II   OOURT 
Q?  COOK  COUliTT. 


CMICAOO  RAILWAYS  COii:rASY, 

ClIICAOO    ZVn  RAILVAY   COMPAIiY,  ;  rfc  ^   •»    -■-      «  ^          ^ 

CALUMKT  &  aoura  chicaoo  rail*  ay  )  IJnniA  fiflv 

COMPANY    and   TiCK   SCUTill^RIi    aiKKXT  \  f^  ^^  \J    -^  •iTX.m  \J  \J  fy 


^(ili:9f'Xt   and  TiCK   SCUViii^Rli   aTMKST  ) 

RAILWAY   CotJ*JUSiY,   Corporfctl   ii»,  ) 

DtICK  Busln««a   as  C-aCAGO  ) 

8URPA0S  Llli£3,  ) 

Aypallioita.  ) 


n.    JU&iTICK  0*COI<AOK    DtaiYSXIB  Till  OPIitlOli  ^H   THK   COUHT. 

Plaintiff  brought  ault   agiiinst   th*  (lalaniaatu  to  r«- 
«OT«r  danagaa   for  parsonal  lujurl«s  elalsffd  to  hatra  b««n  auttaia^d 
by  h«r  on  aecouat  of  tho  alXogod  noglit^onoo  of  tha   dof  »a<la»t«. 
Thoro  waa  a  jury   trial   and  a  ▼•rdiot   attd  jud^ont   in  har  favor 
for   ^6500,    and   th«  dofoMd«j:tt8   appeal. 

Xl&a  raeord  diacloaaa  that   whertly  aftar   fivo  o'cloek 
la  iho  OTonin^  of  uooossbor  10,  19 86,   pl&intiff,   in   ali^htln^  froa 
on<i  of  dofftri  ^anta*    atreat.   9«r«,    ollppod   and   foil,    •uatainlac  a 
•o»pound,cosiminuted  fraeturo  of  both  bonoo  abovo   tho  anklo  of  hor 
loft   lag*      Tha    tn««ry  of  tho  plaintiff  «at  that  tho  dofondantt 
poralttod   tho   otop  of   tho   oar  fro«  waloh   ahe  «ao   aliifhliniE  to   bo 
eovorod  with  snow  and  ic«,  irriieh  oauood  h«r  to   allp  with  the  ro- 
■ultant  injuriofl.     On   tho  othor  hand,    tho  dofandanto  cootoad  that 
thoro  was  ao   loo  on  tho   atop  and  llttlo  or  no   onov,    ■los'l  that 
plaintiff  vaa   ln,5urod  through  no   fault  or  nogll^.onoo  oi  tho  do* 
fondanta. 

Tho  dofcndanto  ooaton^   thoro    sibaald  havo  bo«i  a 
dlroct«d  Tordiot      in    their   foTor  at   the  oloso  of  all   tho  OTidonoo; 
that    in   any  oroiit,    th«*  verdict   d?    t^o  jury   i«   -*|[riin8t   th«  aanifeot 
woight  of  tho  «Yid<<j.co,    and  that   tho   oourt   orr^d   in  glTiofi  ao4  ro* 
fuilBtf  inotruotiono.      Oth^r  oontontlons   ato  audo  vhloh  will  horolc- 
aft<?r  b«  roferrod   to. 


§08  .A 


T'    .^:    ?5    <? 


.  ti  1  Ai 


•-'■:^    »#    ^l;i<SlCj»    WUtm  «»3li    <X*i  r'.«    i>«i^ifltic*a 

i&ni  »*4»»   ,tiii«»  tia  t»  ♦/?""   •  • ft^t  »««  f»ol  «Hi  ««v  mrinii 


'tB«d,    th*  «Tl4«no«   la   to   th«  affttt  that  pl&ln« 
tiff  US'!  tve  Iftdy  }'ri«r'ds  had  b««u  »tt«ndia4f  a  card  party  aa  th« 
afternoon  of  I>««t«b«r  loth  and  la  rcturulng  hosa  al»«ui  i  1t«  o'olook 
in   th«  vrcning  boarlad  on«  of  dofet^^auta'    aaatboimd  atraat  «ara   in 
IrvlBg  P»rk  boalayard,   Chleaiso.      7h«  oar  waa  of  the  pay*aa<-y6u-«r.t«r 
typo,   boardad  by  paasangaro  at   th«  raar  and,   ^h'^^ra   iha  aonductor 
raoalTad  tha   farao.     Paaeaut  vro  nlgtit  b«  disoiiari^ad  both  at   tha 
front  and  raar  and*  of  tha  oar.     Thara  was  euna   anow  oc   tha  ground 
vhloh  had  apparantly   fallao  a  f^rf  daya  bafora.     On  %ha  availing  i« 
quaatioa  it  «&a  thawing  ao   that  thara  «aa   ano«  naA  oXuah;    thara 
had  ba^ri    »li^;bt   snov    that   ttft«rnoon  which  turnad  into  Kiat.      Tho 
atroot  oar   In  qu«<tien  vaa  taken   I'roik  tha  ear  bnra  ort  )ilston  ava- 
nu*,   drivan  north  about  ona-half  »iXa  to   Irving  Park  bouloyard  a&4 
tnon  waat  in   that   atroot  to   the  and  of  tha  line,   irtiioh  vaa  n«ar  ths 
Xftanning  Inatitution*     On  iha  vaatbuund  trip   the   ates>a  at  tha   front 
and  raar  Mida  oi'   the  oar  on  tha  nortu   sida  wara   iown  or  opon   ao 
that  ^Amnmii^nxB  in  boarding  or  ali(..htiag  from  the  oar  could  uaa  thaa, 
while  the  ftepo  on  tha  couta  or  blind   aide  ol    Uie  oar  ot)   thia  trip 
wara   folded  up  againnt   tha  oar.      fhcn  tha  oar  roacnad  its  deatina* 
tion  tha  trolly  pull  waa   ^jutted,   the  atapa  on  the  north  aide 
folded  up  and   thoaa  on  tho  couth  sida  turned   lown  or   opened  for 
uaa  of    ihtf  paaaengera.      Km   the   eaatbound   trip  tiiva   oar  had  travel  ad 
about   i  our  milec   «t   the   tlr^ie  ot   the  aoeidant,   and  during   that  trip 
as  er  Jm  paaawigare  had  ajLi(^»ted  fro&    it  througli   tha   front  exit, 
ueing  the  front  atop.     Vhen  the  oar  reached  uaoraBftnto  avenue,  which 
ic  two  blooke  weal  of  J^ranciaoo   aveuia,   vnare   tha  accident  occurred, 
eac  ef  the  ladice  teatifiad  aha  got  off   the  ear  through  the  front 
exit.     Vhen   ehe  otepped  off   ahe  turned  around  to  help  her   two  and 
oacohalf  year  eld  daugittec   frou.  the  oar,    ani   than  noticed  that   tnare 
was  a  anowy  aluah  packed   aolid  on   the   atop,    that   the   step  waa  cot« 
ered  with   this  and  waa  slippery.     Tne  ether  lady  of  the  party  tee- 
tified   that  ahe  get  off   tho  car   at  Jhrancieoe  avei.ue  Juat  after 


r. 


*:><;• «  f  'i.AtC;>til'.  • 


t^    »k^  ^^^t^^X^Jw^ 


fc*   ^v#t*  iMUi  -sus©  "•t^  '«i*^  i**"^ 


z«»gs«*o' 


S)i4»igii.v»' 


'.->«« 


li 


plAlntlff;    that  plaintiff   sllpp«d  on   th«   mtmpi    that  on«  oerncr  •!' 

the   Bt«p  was  pMioked  with  Bluth   ubout  2i  inohat   thiok;    that   tha 

•tra»ta  ware  aluahy.      Plaintiff   tettifiad    that  It  had   aaowad  soma 

during   tha  day,   whieh  waa  oloudy;    that  later   th«   snow  turnad  into  a 

•lawty  rain  and   slush;    that  sis   sh«  was  about   to   alit>ht   fron  tha  sar 

sha  lookad  at   thtt   stop,    took  hold  of  tha  rail »    and    Uiat   as  her  foot 

toudriod   tha  stsip  It  slipped  off  and  her  leg  itent  under  her   «nd 

1»roka;    that  she  <?id  act  sea  anything  wrong  with   tiic   step;    that  she 

Just  looked  whsre  to   pl'ioe  her   foot  hut  did  not  have   lime  to  mx" 

amine  the   etep, 

the  motor&an  testified  that  wiiati   Uiey   took   the   ear  out 

Of  the  oarhara   iii   th«  ikfternoon  the  steps  were  dry;    that  there  was 

no   snov^  or   iea  ou   theui  and   they  were  in  perfect   condition  sieohat.i- 

oally;    that  when  he  got   to    the  w«bI  and  of   the  run,   near  Dunning, 

in  preparing  J'or  the   eastbound  trip  he   saw   the   step  was  down  and  in 

perf aot  oonditioa;    that  there  was  no   snow  or   ice  on  it;   that  during 

the  f^asttoound   trip,   which  was  about  four  ailes,  he  hi*4  oecaslon  to 

•psn  tha  -ioor  to  disoiiarge  pasesngers  about  85  tinas  and  that  he 

oottld  see  the  step  at  all   tiaiet  «h«>n  the  passengers  i^t  off  and 

that  at  no    tiaia  was  there  an  aooumulation  of  ice  or   enow  on   the 

etep;    that  after  plaintiff  was  injured  he  and  others  assisted  her; 

that  h«  looked  oarefully  at   the   step;    that  it  was  a  little  bit  wet 

but  there  was  no  aoousiulation  of  slush,   ioe  or  snaw  on  the  step  or 

anything  that  aould  oatoh  a  person's  heel. 

The  conductor  testified   that  "/hei:   they   started  out  of 

a 
the  barn  the  steps  and  platform  were  dry;    that  there  vajiAittle 

dampness  inside   the  ear,  w-ic)i  had  be«i>  out  that  Korning;   that   tners 

eras  no  snow  or  ios  on  the  steps  when   the  ear  was   taken  out;   that 

vhan  the  ear  was  nads  ready  for  the  eastbound  trip   there  was  no   snow 

•r  loo  or  any  foreign  substaiioe  on  the  steps;   that  whm   the  aeci- 

dsnt  ocourrad  he  went   to    the   J'ront  of  the  oar  a;.d  looked  carefully 


\9   t»^t» 

9iU  imi   ; 


•v>Jla  AAivf  ha)it>. 


anf 'fefito^-^ 


itni«iXq 


'■«ti« 


^06£'*lf» 


fi'a  ? 


sila^i 


J'ftt*'.  i,?.a'   -sX^tii 


l» 


m    *MOtf. 


^^'.  «i#' 


•.al/ft\CHO 


-isiMkh 


-.?  .'^."x/ 


ll»£t« 


4 

at  th*  front   utcp   to  a«o*rtaln  lt«  eoniitlon;    that  th»r«  was 
BothlBtf  vrodf  with  it   eth«r   than   Lt  was  a  Xlttla  wat;    that   thara 
was  no   fsnew,   lee  «r   eluah  on   it. 

A  bey  fifteen  yeazo  old,   than  attendiag  higheaheal, 
vae  a  pAe«entf«r  aii4  etanvllng  on   the  front  platiem.     &•  teatiried 
that  he  eav  plaintiff   fall}    that  he  went   to  the   exit  where  plaintiff 
had   Juet   fallen  and  looked   at   the   etep;    that  it  was  wet   and  a  little 
eluehy:   that   aside  from  this  there  was  nothing  on   the  step,  no   ise 
or  anything  hard  on  It;   that  it  was  juet   sno>via«(  a  little  bit  at 
the  time. 

Another  witness,   a  painter  and  decorator,   37  years 
old,   testified    that  he  was  about  100  feet  froet  the   street   oerner 
mt   the   tlBbS  px^intiif  was  injured;   that  iaasedia^ely  after  the  ae- 
el  dent  he  rat.   over   lo   see  what  had  happened  and  heli>ed  pisk  plain* 
tiff  up  and   that   the  oar  was  standing  at   the   tiae;    that  he  heard 
sone  mvx  there   talkiut^^   about   the   step;    that  he  then  looked  at   the 
step  and   there  was  probably  a  little  wat^r  on  it   •  Just  a  little 
wet;   that   there  was  no   snow  or   loe  or  hard  lu;ups  or   anything  en 
the  etep,  nor  anything  unsYen  %beut  it. 

Under  the  liar  it  vas  the  duty  of  th?  defendante   to 
use  the  highest  degree  of  eare  oonslstent  with  the  praotieal  opera- 
tion of  its  street  oars   to  rerrows  enow  aitd  ies  from  its  ears.     Mut 
upon  a  careful   ennel deration  of  all    Uia   eirl.)«i»a«  ii,    th»  record,   we 
are  of  the  opinion   that   the   oourt  woul<f  not  be  warranted  in  direet- 
iBg  a  werdlot  on  benall    of  the  defendants  at  the  dose  of  the  owl* 
a«ios.     i^ibby.  hiisill  &  l^lb^y  t.   Cook.  822  111.   804.     Thsre  was 
•Tideiioe  tending  to  show  that  plaintiff  was  in  the  exsrsiss  sf  due 
•are  for  her  own  safety  sni   that  the  defendant  wae  negli£;ent  in 
the  BAlntenanee  of  the  etreet  oar  step.     w«  are  further  oi'  the 
•pinion,  howswer,   that  the  Terdiet  in  favor  of  the  plaintiff,   the 
finding  in  whioh  is  in  offset   that  the  step  of  the  street  oar  was 
la  an  unsafe  eccditloB,   ie  against  the  iianifest  weiiiht  of  th« 


k 


AH^i^  J"-    l^Rlf    ?♦«*?  If**!*    fe*»*    -*>*4ai»*Sfi'^*4^    6*..  >fc.i« 

*-fftf*»jf.  x«^J;<h5>**'s<i  #ijur  ■  i!^#i*^  #»**'*'*'**'«'?«^- -ft^  i-jv.^.y-T'.,:             ^i^  *jtf*  ««£»■ 

^.,tjj.»^j(j6   «/j   .^*J'«j8'«:*<i»'W  !{rtr^f'*ii  h'iti^  #%«*«#  »«*?>'  ;?«*;?«•  ««iA«if*:.               ■■    ins 

x»4|jjf«    *.}«!;•  «##'-'#<4((s'    .  ■.♦    **'ifrfR«tV    i)    W.Hi 


«Tlt1tc««.      In   thlt  vlrv  of  th«  oAet  It  1»  our  (futy  to   avt   «ti<t« 

^3»   111.    6SR. 

TIkt  eourt,  At  the  r«qu«st  •f  th«  pl&lxitlff,  «»▼•  tli* 
f«ll«wlBj;  iBetruotion:        "Th*  court  inatruots  th*  4ury  that  ^11^, 
«0  •  m«.ttttr  •!'  l&v,    the  l>urd«f)  oi*  prooT  In  upon   the  plaintiff,   aiftd 
it   Iei  r^T  h«r  te   proT«  J&wr  99^99  "by  a  pr«non<)«rai)o«  of  tha  ari- 
Aanea,    ntll}    ii'   th«  jury   lind   th»t   th«   «trl<s«nca  baarinf  uran    tha 
aaaa  prspcndnratea  in  har  f^Yor,   althou*^  but   alit^tly,   it  irould 
ba  »uffloi«!^)t   I'or  tha  Jury   to    ftB4  tha  laauea  in  har  facror."     Tha 
dafandacta  contffn<5   that   thie  Inatruotion  ia  ravt^ralbly  <9rrcn<^oua. 
Th«  <^lvln£  of  H  9ittll(ur  inatruotion  haa  oftoc  baen  p  :.aaed  upon  by 
our  9ttpr«r.;«  oourt,  bat   la  t:o   ooae     hava  tra  found  a  jud.iaant  ra» 
^i»r»9«i   »ol«ly  on   account  0;:'   thia  Instruotlon.      Hpwarer,   in  moant 
yaara  tha  Suprans^  oourt  haa  oritlciead  thia  ifietructlon,   and  1r 
tho  lHt«^  caa*  of  kplloy  v.   Chica^so  Henid   Xroiisit  Co..    3»6  111.164, 
reyaraad  tha  Judijjcas'it ..  one  of  the  reaooca  beln<4  tha  citing  of 
aua)x  tun  inatrxtotioQ.      In   th«   In^t^u^t  caaa,   whtNra  tha   arldanoa  waa 
ao   ahurply  conflicting;  on  tha  vitad  point,  viz,   sia  to  tha  nonfiiiitn 
of  tha  atreot  oar  stap,   tha   Icatructioa  ou^t  net  to  hara  baan 
ftlYan. 

Cottpla>.nt  ia     iaa4o  aa  to  tha  argunant  of  counaal    for 
tha  dafandanta   <3ia  to   tha  rafusiC  of  tha  court   to  giva  effar»4  in- 
atruotitma  numbora  1,   8,   21   and  S2,   offarad  by  dafandanta.     Va 
think  offered   iretruotion  nuKbttr  1  might  have  baan  f^iven;  but  tra 
are  further  of  the  opinion   that  there  waa  no   error  in  refuaing 
off trad  inatruetion  number  3,   nor  in  nodifying  nuabers  82   and  22. 
The  argument  of  eouneel,   irhile  in   »ok0>  reap^cta   aosaewhat  objec- 
tionable, waa  not  of  ouch  a  aharaeter  ae  to  warrant  any  diaturb- 
aaea  of  tha  Judcjaaat  by  ua. 

Tha  doctrine  of  rea  Apaa  loquitur  waa  in  no  way 


■«7    J./-f^ 


i'n%»>«»'5  ..!i.  .i<?'?&v«K     .ns. 


%iii£m 


tfo.^i  i'/iu-c:.  fije£f  e^  sua  «5^9    » 


^y.^.x*^J-: 


.8^^  mw^dmin 


:y*J.».-/?ftr  rii  doxies   ftfX  ««*  ■«*; 


ft9l»lloftbl#   to   th«   OAa«.     H«r«  apoclflc  nsftlitfano*  vaa  oharg*d,     mA 
•▼i4«na«  «»•  •fi'«r«d  t«ndlntc  to  proTC   mkI   to  dlsproYt  nuoh  oharg*. 

tnr  th«  raasona  atatiKt  Xhm  Judi^nnt  oi'  th«  Circuit 
court  of  Cook   county  is  r*-«r*r««d  and   tho  oauao  !•  re»:ui<1«4l. 

JUrrSBBXD  AKD  fUSMAMDBl}, 

KoSaroly,  P.    J.,   mad  ki»tahott,   J.,   eonour. 


^    '•  J  .^So '■■■■■  ■    '""<■»   iOt!* 


M«it 


/L 


TITIAI  VH2TKL£T» 

A|»p  ell  «•  , 

OF  COOlf  COURTY. 
CHZCAfiO  AH]}  AORTitVSaT^Rli  ) 

MM.    JUtfTIGS  0*CG&l»OR  SKLIVXRSI)  THX  OPXSlOfi  OF  7HC COURT. 

PlalKtiff  br::tt|;iat  an  action   ai{«,laai   tki*  dtti'vcduBt   to 
r«eoY«r  da^^A^**  for  poroonad    iajttrivs  ahe   eli&iaitd  to  have  austaia«4 
tkramch  the  n«gll{f«ioe  of  tho  4«fejQ3ajQt.      Diero  wao  a  jury  trial 
«l4  a  verdict   and  jttd£ja«nt  in  plaintiff  *a  favor  lor  |34,u'.<>  and   the 
iafandant   anneal ■• 

The  fenTA  diaclosea   that  on   April   26,   19  27,    tha  plain- 
tiff,  who  vaa  than  about  tnirty-two   y«ara  old,    ic   attempting  to 
board  Qn«  of  dafcndant'a  aul^rbs^   traina  at  ita   Irring  Park  atati^i 
in  Gtaiioa£o,  «aa  aaveraly  injured,     dmt  theory  of  the  oaae  la  that 
aa  ahe  vaa  in  the  aot  of  boarding  the  train  vhic^  «aa  atanding  at 
lit  regular  atopping  place,   it   at  sorted  up  before  ahe  ha4  tiaie  to 
get  on  and  ahe  vaa  thrown  and  acTerely   injured.      On  the  other  hand, 
the   theory  of  the  defftndant  ie  th&t  pl&intiff  atteapt^d  t«  board 
the  train  after  it  had   started. 

It  ap]>eara   tx^m   the   evidence   that  plaintiff  lived  with 
her  hueband  about  150  feet   i'Tois.  the   etairway  leading  up   to   the  de- 
fendant *  a  Irving  Park    station;    that  ahe  vae  «»ployed  i»   the  dovntova 
district  and  had  been  going  to   and   froi^  her  work  on   defendant  *a 
•uburban  traina   for  about   twe  years  prior   to    the  accident.      The 
tracka  of  the  defendant  are   ca«v»te4l  at   thia  atatioa,   and  &edvale 
av«tue,   a  public   street,   paaaea  under  the  tracks  dividing  the 
atation  into   two  ports.      At   thia  point  ths  tracks  run  la  a 
soatheaaterly  and  northwaaterly  direction.      Por  the  purpoee  of 
t^ls  opinion  we  ehall  refer  to   that  portion  ol    the  atation  near eat 
the  dowtttovB  tersr.inal   of  the  rl^llroad  aa  "south*   and  the  other  as 


\ 


,i3   •   <- 


81MC 


rj 


,  .*  tii. ,' 


,tiii/<.;<  ii!t>«Si9»  9ttf  ffi}     .to^sio^  XXsiESTtrs  &>ii«  sp»&tdi  'mmti  ^ibt  -tarn  aj  t«:g 
ntii  ^cUbkrlb  msuMii  miiS  %»hiSu  ••»«***  »■♦**•*#•  ♦'i/^Wf^  <»    ,&£»!«▼« 


"north,"      it  bclag  diTi4«d  ^  lL«dTal«  «?«■«•.     Thm  Math  part  of 
th*  atAtlon  voo  «  long  otono  or   coneroto  platiom,  whll«   tho  north 
portion  «o«    :ado  of  lunbor.      7ho  atatloa  propor  «ae  lecatod  nort^  tff 
£odTml«  aTamta.      Thera  w«a  a  stalrvay  laadlnfi  frai*  tha   atraat  IotoI 
halov  ap   to   tha   aoath  portion  of  the  atation   and   another  to   tha 
north  pXatfona, 

Ahout  8:30  oa  tha  somiofi  of  tha  day  in  queatloat,   da- 
fandaat'a  regular  auturban  train  atappad  at   tha   at^tlor   to   toka  on 
paoaooffara;   the  train   oonalstad  of  tan   eajra  and  a  l»o«a«tiT«;    a 
«ro«  of  aix  Kan,   tIx.,   tha  aagineor,  flraaan,   tvo   eollactora,   tha 
•onduotor  and  a  rear  brakaeaaa,  wara  in   charga  of  tha  train.      It  «aa 
»  alaar,  brii^ht  nornlng.     Sa  ono  taattflad  ab  to  how  the  aoeidant 
oeeurrad   ex«apt   the  plaintiff.     She  waa  about  five  faet  tan  and  one- 
half  Inohas  in  her  alaoaa,  walghod  about  196   to   2(^0  pounda,   duir*  van 
in  good  health.      Plaintiff  te8tiri«d   thAt    oh«  had  been   aftoaatone^ 
to   eatoh  defendant  *o  auburban  train  arrlYiag  at  th<'    Irrlng  Park 
station  bet-T^aen  8:30  and   S:49  o'clooh  Brerj  sorning  for  about  tvo 
jr*«rsj   that  vhen  aha  got   tc   the   foot  of  the  stair*  leading  to   tho 
•ottth  platforai  the  trtaln  vaa  ert^iaalng  tho  rladuet  oYcr  Kodralc 
nT«auo;   tixat   ahe  walked  loiaurslj  ap   th*  atalra;    that  it  waa  about 
fifteen  feet   froai  the  head  of  the  stairs  to   the  'satranoo  to   the  oar 
«hloh  waa   th«n   atandlng  and  whloh  ahe  dealred   to  board;    that   eh* 
started  to  get  on  the  front   end  q1'  the  ooosh,   tocit  hold  of  ths  grab- 
rail  with  her  right  hand  and  as  ahe  put  her  foot  on  the  atop  ths 
train  gave  a  luroh,   atarted,   and  oyarbalanoed  her;    that  oho  fell 
un'ler  tha  trala,   the  irtieels  paaclng  evsr  bath  her  feet,   ueeesaitating 
the  anptttation  of  her   right  foot   about   aix  ifiehes  abOTO  the  ankle, 
and  the  left   foot  was  all  reatoTod  exeept   the  basic  port  of  the  heel, 
aiie  tftotified:      *As  I   started  up  th<>   stairs  the  ea^inc  of  the  train 
vas  on  the  Ks<!Tale  Yiaduot,   Juat   coming  orer  th**  viaduct.      I   did  not 
gst  up   tc    the   top  of   the   atalrs  before   the   train   stopped. *»•     IThsa 
the  train   started  1  had  juat   stepped  one  foot  up  on   the  first  atep 


«v  &J^i   &3  imif^ie  «ii'3  «j*  fe»?i4^«^s  stisx4  jm4m4$f^K  t*X»fis»^  ^*t««te!»1t 
-"-^.-^c  b9»  ii9t  i99%  ff-vL'i  $»9^a.  3d«'  s-^^^      ,tLimi^l^,  ^^   ^^»9x«   Mt^«f»d9 

^V6'4«  «»«  -11  i<!ii£4^   ;»-xi:«>^»  *^  ^m  '<ei9'7iiai»X  ^$M  ;:«£«  ^iit  t«j&  ii^utmwa 

isijEfi   ff«**f  S.C.'   ;ii^  $!f'/i   t*^  .Jtf^  ajS»  ««  tm.  hoed  ici^it  t»d  44  iw  Ijtat 
XX«*?  9/^  ^«!.iJ    r'tofi  h*tQ£Uil»ii^mrQ  kit&   ^!i9i%tit9   ^dmtul  m  «7«b  ni^xS 

30 ."ft      ■   -  -  .ferf«t!}i«»    nis-ii^   "iff   •Trifif  «xi«<^»  •i4i    'Ic   «*«f  -^i^   i.'^H 


•f  th«  cQAoh  and  vaa  pulling  uj  ^edy  mp"«h«c   shs  waa  oT«r- 
balane^a.     Ab4  furth«r,   *Vhefi  I  «*•  g:  lAii  up  tha  atalra  thara 
athar  paople  on  tha  atatloo  p  atfara.     Itian  I  got  to   the  top  of 
tha  atapa  thara  wmr*  othar  paopla  gattlng  on  Uia  train.     I   do  not 
r«a«aibar  of  8a«ing  otbar  paepla  off  tha  tralc  on  tha  platfam. 
All   of  tha  paople  X  aanr  wuas  I  got   to   the   top  ol*  the   atalra  w^r^ 
la   tha  aet  of  gatting  on  tha   fraln;*'   that   oho  valJied  lalauraly  frMi 
tlta  ta^  of  th0  atairvay  to  tha   entranea  of  the  ear;   that   thara  «aa 
■O  brakatsan  at  tha  pl%«a  -whert  aha  tri^d  to  board  tha  ear;    that   aha 
dlda*i  m«9i  any  train  nan   th«ra  until   after   tha  aocident;    that   thera 
«ara/othar  paople  on   tha   ataira  at   tn«  tine  aha  vaa  aaaan^fing  thaa. 
Tha  firemn,  tha  two   eolieotora,   tha  oonduator  and   tha 
raar  hrmk  sma  all  taatifiad.     i>cnt>  of  th«K  aaw  plaintiff  until   &ft«r 
tha  aeoid^ct.      All   of   thaa*  vitnaasea   t?8tifiad   that  when  tha  train 
^toppad  thff  tYo   collaotora,   thn  oonduetor  adsd  the  rear  brakoaan  get 
off  tha  train,   as  was  thalr   euato^,   and  atood  on  tha  pl&tfaxii  ^hera 
tha  paaaengera  wara  boarding  tha  train,   tha  front  oollaetor  near 
the   forward   cara,   than   tha  oonduetor  about  tha  alddia  of  the  train, 
tha  raar  eol lector  a  few  eare  bacic,    .%nd   the  brakesaB  at  tha  raar 
end.     The  forward   eollaeter  and  the  c^n'iuctor  were  on  tha  platform 
•evth  of  Kjcdvale  sYanua,   the  ether  oollaetor  and  the  brakaa&an  were 
en  the  north  platfora.      About  110   to  112  paaseDgera  boarded  the 
train  froai  the  aortn  platfera  f»n<i  about  10  or  12  paaaeagare  from 
the   aouth  platfora.     Saeh  of  th^ae  fnur  wltneaeea  gaTO  teatiuony 
to   the  af  feet    that  all  of  thaaa  ateod  on  the  pi  at  f em  until   all 
yaaaangere  had  boarded  the  train;    that   thee   the  brakesaa  at  the 
rear  algnalad  by  raiaing  his  ar»  to  tha  raar  eolleetor,  indicating 
that   the  platfora  «aa  elaar  at  hia   wnd  of   tha  train;    this  eolleotor 
in  turn  gare  a  like  aigaal   to  the  oonduetor,   the  eondiuoter  thea 
elgnalad  the  forward  oolleeter  and  ha  in  turn  aignaled  the  flreaaa, 
who  waa  an   that   aide  of  the  loeonotive,  who  advloed   the  fasi,]lBe?r 
that  all  wrm  on  board  aiad  the  engineer  then  started  the  train. 


^.  ,ri^J»;&  •£«£•»(!   '%!»ii#«  «Ta*  ^^ixii    »«*is   ft^l 

".5»«K|;    %Mii4^»    ■^'iP9    1q   t««lia.«jK*'5 

*F-:  :^5&t!&»t-  'm    V9i  l^i    ,«*«** --U.:    :>«Ji 

fu  .  J . u>  .Ji  Ida**  ♦k;! 


1   »ai:<^iA   9Jl1   h^Hivlim  Hiin 


,   jpAiii' ««*>&«  «%#«  AtL^jiJ^aa^t^  e^l 


Bttch  of  th9—  fo«r  «itn*sa«a  testified  that  •^oh  oi    th«k  a«v  all  af 
tXa  algnala  «aA  thMt  all  paaaaA^ara  ware  Aboard  the  tridn  bafero 
the   first  signal  vaa  £;lv«n»     Baeh  of  tho«  alao   teatilM   that  they 
did  not   aea  the  plaintiff  uAtil   after   the  Acoidaat.      Tha  rear 
oollootor  further  taatlilad  th&t   after  tha  train  atarted  op  he 
otoi^poi  on  tho  platfom  aext  to   the  last  ooaoh  and   *1  Xooko4  out 
the  oido  a««^in  end  oa»  a  aan  ^ive  a  aignal   to  aten;'*   that   thia  nan 
voa  OS  the   sotith  pl»ktfor»;    *at  thot   tiao   X  oav  a  wonas  lying  doan 
batve«rt   tho  pl^tfora  and  th«   coaok;*   that  wtion  he   first   aav  tho 
voBMi  the  last  ears  of  tho  train  woro  going  by   the  depot  «hieh  vao 
booido  the  north  platfora;    that  ho  vaa  than  obont  throe  oar  l^gtha 
frsa  hor;   thot  ho  then  reaah^d  up,  pulled  th$  whistle  oord  twioe 
to   indicate  to    tho   «i#ino«r  to   stop  right   awaj;    that  he  thai 
grobbed   tho  oeorgeney  cord  and  otopped  the  train  hiasolf;    that  when 
tko  trnin  stopped  tho  roar  ond  of  the  laat  coaeh  w»8  about   two  our 
l^igtho  coot  of  Ko^Tolo  viaduot;  ani   that  ho  jostpod  o:f  and  ran  b&ok 
and  helped  plaintiff, 

the  etridsAoo  furtaer  she^o  that  aa  ooon  ao  tho  tmia 
wao  stopped,    a  nuaibor  of  tho  train  non  and   soae  of  tho  paosengero 
vont  to  plaintiff  *o  asaist^j^iOO  and  ahc  wao  takeii   to    the  hoopital. 
Thoro  wao  testimony  to   tho  9ffoot  that  lateeJ^tsly  after  plaintiff 
v»a  injured   she   said  that   idio  had  run  to  got  on   tho  train  i^ioh  woo 
Moving,   «nd  there  was  terther  pTideeoo  to   the  offoot  t^iat   she  had 
ognitt  stated  this  when   ahe  was  taicen  into   the  hospital,    to  one  of 
tJie  nurses  whoso   ^ty  it  was   to  |{ot   suoh  information,      other  wit- 
aoaoos  who  voro  proo  nt  at  the  tiste  of  the  aooident,   and  at  tho 
keopital*  gawo  teotlnony   to    tho  offoot  that  plaintiff  nade  no  suA 
statot>oat,   and  plaintiff  herself  denied  K&king  any   suei^   statCMeat, 

Tho  dofondant   contends  toat  the   doolaration  did  not 
ot&te  1%  c^suoo  cf  action   and  therefore  Its  Botion  is  ^jrrest  of  Judg- 
snat  should  have  boon  sttotaiaed;    in  oupport  of  this  counsels'   argu- 


?i«*  j-Mt  tontr  -^-*V   ??J.a^\?    -^rt,-  Vfl*   «»««v 

a»J[Tj  ^:t<f     lt9ii  SKtt 

■  •■it I   as 


ecJf  wee   ■Js"S- 


"XAS 


Tlii., 


iUii^-  -    .:     •  ■■■•■■ 


:f/ 


.^-  . .,i. ...,,•  '"ifl-f    ife-  •■  .at«»   9i& 


■  Mit,  mm  v«  uuitrstaaa  it,    is   that   there  »a«  no  aIl«|fatloB  in  «b/ 
ef  th*  eoanta   that   the  defendant  had  icnowiadge  of  plaintiff  *•  peei* 
tlon  at  tha  tlKc  it   etaried   its  train.      The  aetfIl4;eAee   cii%ri£e4   in 
•%«h  of  the  oounte  vae  that  defendant   etart  ^  ite  train  while  plain* 
tiff  van  in   the  act  of  boarding  it.     We  think  tide  vae  euffiei(>nt. 
OVrlously  it  was  the    luty  of  the  duty  of  the  defendant   to   exeroiee 
•nre  to   eee  that  pasaeogera  had   iiiae  to  bo  ^  I   the   train  bxrfore  the 
train  etarted.      The  train  haA  stoppad  at  a  rot^ular  etation  to  re- 
eeire  paeeesgdre,   and  if  it  eae  netflig  atly  etitfted  before  all  had 
boarded  it,   ebtrieualy  the  defendant  woul^  be  liable   for   daau^ee  to 
any  paaReoc«r  «iia  vae  in  the  exereise  of  ordinary  eare  for  hie  ova 
•afety. 

It   le  aleo   aontended  that   the  plaintiff   falle^l   lo   prove 
any  a^glitcenoe  on  the  part  ef  d«fea4ant.    and  that  the  vardiet   ie 
ai^ainet  the  nanifeet  veiiJat  of  the  evidei  ce,     Ve  haTO  above  eet 
forth  t  e  oub»tanoe  of  the  evidence  a£d  if  plaintiff**  veraion  eas 
aeeepted  by   the  jury,   then   the  Ji^ry  would  be  warranted  in  finding 
that  plaintiff  wa*  not  giT«&  euffieient   ti^e   to  board   the  train. 

At   the  retiiueet  of  the  defendant   the  iurj  vere  specifi* 
eally  inatruoted  that  luilete  plaintiff  had  proved  by  a  preponderane« 
•  f  the  «vldenoe   that  the  train  vaa  Btai;dini(  etill   at   the  tine   ahe 
tried  to  board  it,   their  verdiot  should  be  for  the  defendant.     JBy 
another  inetraction  given  at    defendant *a  request  they  vere  told  that 
if  they  found   fron   the  evidenee  "the   train  in  queatiun*  ha4  started 
to  no-ve  end  was  uoring  at   the  iiae  Mrs,  ^iteley  tried  tc.  get  on  it, 
*y«ttr  verdiet  auat  be  not  guilty."     The  jury  iii^ving  returned  a 
verdict   in  plaintiff's  favor,   ii  is  obvious  tiiat   they   found  the 
train  vas   etan jing   still    at   the   tiae  plaintiff   triad   to  bo^rd   it. 

In  view  of  th<^  evidei<oe  ve  are  also  of  the  epitiion 
that  we  would  not  be  warranted  In  disturbing  the  verdiat  of  the 
Jury  to  the  off  est   that  pl*iintiff  was  in   the  exeroiee  of  aue  care 


rS      .:JfiftK.a»'la5i    «45-   tot   ilMf  Mi,'OfE»    ??^if5»*?    t4#.i';.:  ./«# 

iiU^^l     VVi'j      ^A^S    MJMe^yrt  .:^y- 


iiX  .i^lUj 


f^T  h«r  ovn   safAty  tu^u  that  tii«  .4lcf*Ad«ni  va»  ReKll^ent,   or  th« 

sroHAd   that   It  was  agalaat   th«  Kaaifaat  w«igbt  oi    the  rridcue*.      «• 

think  vh«ti3«r  tha  plaiBtllT  «&a  ic   tha   azarolae  of  due  eara  aed  tha 

AttI'MUlaat  guilty  ai'  nsgXiganea  as  ohargad,  %»r%  quest lona  r&r  tha  jury. 

Comiilalnt  is  nlto  Batfa  that  the  arsummt   to  tha  Jury  by 

aounsal   for  plaiatiff,   «aa  iiuoropar.     Xhat  9*^^  of  aoMBsal'a  ar«ua«at 

•aKpl&in«4  of  la  as  follews; 

*liav,   I   told  yoa  I  vo«ld  tell   yau  he«   this   thing  htkppenad,    sod 
X  SH  going   to  t«ll  you  how  it  ha99«Ba4  sad  why  it  happened,    in 
4ttat  a  vord,     The  rallrQud  company  hara,   if   they  pay  a  Judguect 
tft  this   oaae,  will   pt^y  it  ^coauea   tuey  arc   the  vietise  of  their 
otm  aaraleasnass  in  this  respect:      Jfirst,    they  build  tneir   ac- 
tWHSodatione  for   the  publie  In   eueh  a  Banner   tunt   they  inyite 
mm  aaaidant.     &edtralfi!   4ver<ue  is  a  public  street  in  the  City  of 
QULea^o.      On   that  public   street   ia  a  staircase,  unobstructed, 
■•  wieJret,   no  gate,   not aing  to   iapada  the  progress  of  a  peraon 
frwB  the   street  onto   the  pl&tfena.  * 

fa  think   there  ie  no  tiling  in   this  nr&m&it  that  vould 
varr^xnt  ua  in  disturbing  the  verdict  and  Ju4^ent.     tha  only  issue 
in   tha  case  vmm  irhather  the  defendant  hsul  started  its  train  without 
gi'fing  plaintiff  aufficl«nt   tLK«;   to  boari    it.      This  waa  stated 
•pecifically  in  tha  inetruetione.      te  think  tha  jury  underataod 
this  Tital  point   cle&rly.     there  is  nothinir  in  the  arguaient  onat- 
plalned  of  that  would  warritfit   the  conclusion  that  plaintiff  waa 
%«»iaf  her  rlg^it  to  recoi-er,    in  part  at  least,  on  the  f<tet  that  the 
station  was   improperly  constructed.     Counsel  was  only  calling  th«f 
attention  of  the  jury  to  the  surrounding  oirouastaneea. 

A  further  contention  is  Bade   that    th«  court   erred  la 
glTlng  two   inatructions  at  plaintiff's  request   an<l  in  refusing  on« 
re^u^sted  by  dafenlaat.     Tha  first  instruction   coKplaiaed  of  la-> 
strueted   the  Jury   that   *a  ooaaoa  carrier  of  pasnengera  la  required 
to  exercise  tiie  hi^est  degree  of  care  aeaeistant  with  the  practical 
operation  of  ita  railroad  :ml   the  aeans  of  convey^uEice  a 'opted  for 
the  safety  of  its  pi&ss«ngsr«.">     iUid  it  is   s^id  th%t  this  assused 
that   at  the  tiise  of  the  acoi'lent  plaintiff  wae  a  p.iaswwcer  and   that 
it  also  ea^haaisad  the  i^^anent  of  plaintiff's  counael    to   the  effect 


lis* 


..i»^'#$sb 


hm.  i. 


i^sftttv  »ifi»  «s   X»«cu»9o  a<ni;rn/ 


1    h»&l»*tSi^a»  osjte  ^Jt 


that   th«  dcfeiidajrib  ^&a  guilty  of  neglie«n««  in  not  obotruotliic  it* 

■tatrs  with  gates.      Plaintiff  had    a  ticket   onA  vaa   in   the  act  of 

hoarding  d«rondAnt'i  train  at  it»   station,    tOiA  thmrmToTm  the  rala- 

tioc  el*  aarrlar   and  pasaenger  «Al»t;ed,      I.    C.   R.    A.    Go.   v.   'TreUft^  17 » 

111.    570.  IQuit  w«  have  already   said  with  referenoa  to   eounsal's 

ATi^uaent   dispoasa  oi'   the   ottior  objdotion      to    thla  instruction. 

Iha  other  instruction   eookplained  oV  was   as   follows: 

"Tha  court  Instrjcts  the  Jjry   tnnz   the  pialntii'f  was  not 
raquirad  to  axarcise   the  hi^'iest  dagroa  of  oara  for  her  own 
3ui>ty,   bu'.  was   ijT.ly  roquirsd    to    exeraisa   oraiii'try    iare.** 

Ve   taini:  this  instruction   atatai   a  oorroct  zniie  of  law  and  vaa  ap- 

ylicabls   to   th«;  facts  in   the  case.     The  r<3ru8ed  Instruction  re- 

9a«Btad  by   tha  deffBi'iant   stated  that   the  ^uxy  were  instructed 

*that   as   a  uatter  of  law   in   ti^.is  oas*   therft   is  ne   eTidanea 
reasrnably  tan-lin^   to   prove   that   at     he    tine  plaintiff   sus- 
tained her  in,tury   the  relation  of  oarriar   and  passenger  ez» 
Isted   between  her   an-l   thu   dei'eniant  railway  co:ipany. " 

/roBi  what  we  h^we  said   it  la  obvious  that    this  instruction  waa 

properly  r«fuaad. 

At   the   close  of   the  plaintiff *a   case   taa   court,   on 
■•tlan  of  olaintlff   and  i'>vsr  defendant's  objection,  n^rsdttad 
plaintiff  to  inereaaa  tha  i|i  dfmaauBt  fr<»  #:K),UC0  to  190.000.     V« 
know  of  BO  reason  why  this  ia  improper,    md  aaoeeially  nn   since  ne 
eoatolaiat  is  m^d*  that  tha  vardict   and   j«dt9s«)t  are  exeassive. 

The  jud#<jBent  of  the  Circuit   court  of  Cack  eounty  is 
affirmed. 

AFFIKfiSD. 

XeUurely,    i\    J.,    and  X^atchoti,    J.,    concur. 


f:  -  -:^>^  ITB    ^f?   -  f 


.K.** 


i-Jiiiai*;  ■  ul-nA 


HOXTXS  HARRIS,  ) 

Plaintiff  In  Error,  ) 


R  TO  KUJilClFAL 
OF  CHIOAOO. 


^ 


STAVSR  .wTu  mKfia  ooKPiunr,       > 

*  corporation,  )  c\  r^  j^  •  3 

D,fndo«t   in  iCrror.  )  25  6    ±  .11.     (j  0  Z 


HR,  ;rusTicB  o^ooniQii  B2i.iTiaB9  X9B  oriHioi  or  flB  oovn. 

Flalatlff  brott^t  an   aotion  in  th«  Municipal   court 
of  Chicago   tc   recovor  th%  Tilae  of  an  antoaotilo  claimei   to  %« 
ovnod  "bj  111*.     Ho  fil«d  a  ottitigDaont  of  olais  whioh  In  ouV«tarto 
io  t>io  oa»«  ao  a  docl&ratioa  in  an  action  of    troTftr,   vherein  ho 
all9go4  that  hv  oaoualljr  loat  tho  autoeobilo  and   that  aftorwar4o 
tt  ••«•  into   tho  po«»9S»ien  of  th«  deftoiant  \»y  flniiag  it,ote. 

The  tfofon^azit  was  ocrrad  and   filed  lit  affidarit  of 
Kcrit*   deuyi&K  liaVilitj   and   aottins  up   that   th?   autonobilo  in 
^ttooiion  va«  da&agod   in  a  vreek  anl  was  ohstructing  the  public 
strotto  of  Chieage,  where  it  was   found  hy  polios  oiflcors  of  tho 
City,  who,  aotlag  in  their  official   eapaoity,  rorowod  tho  dsKa^oA 
MiUMMhilo  to   tho  dof fondant *s  garago;    that    tho  license  nujabor  of 
tho  SitttOBOhllo  rowoftled  the  fact   that   it  heXoni;od   to  Dttnl«p  Uarrio; 
that   shortly  after  the   ear  was  hrou^t   i»   to   the  dofsedant  's  garage 
tho  wife  of  Dunlap  Harris   called  at  defendant's  plact  of  ^ueiness 
end  ordered   It   to  repair  the  car;    that  afterwards  the   repairs  wore 
■ade,  Lrm,  Harris  called,  paid  the  bill   and  reeelTod   the  ear;   and 
that  SMM   ti&e  thereafter  plaintiff  elalAed  to  be  the  em»er  cf  the 
«li0M«bile  when  it  was  broui^ht  into   the  garage. 

Afterwards,   on  hareh  22,  1929,    the  oaaee  catte  en   for 
trial,  the  <1efendant  aot  appearing.      There  was  an  j|2  Pfte  hearing 
and  a  fin<!in£  and  jud^^ent   in  plaintiff  *a  fawor  of  ^562.     Plaintiff 
waited  more  than  thirty  days,    then  took  out   an  ezecutica  and  two 
days  later  it  waa  retarned  by  the  bailiff,  no  property  found,    and 
SOBS  tise  thereafter  an  affidavit  of  garnishee  sujusr.ons  was  filed. 


^f«5e 


.'SV 


iii  ttUkSf^iaist. 


tne^ 


tu 


^<ii  t©  5*£»c  Oil  »d  oi  MiBtjftXs    illfttiaXq  Tt»itA«-s»rfi  »'?t4.?   mti»%  ^*iii 

i>t.  V.t^»<T01«!    •«    ,tl;  «:<fe6 


Shortly     ihtv^afXifT  the   def«n4«nt  learned   that  the  judgncnt  had 
V««n  «nt«r«d  against  it;   a  f««  days  aft«ir«ards  the  dsfcndant  aads 
a  BsttoB  th&t  the  jaagsient  be  opened  ap  and  it  he  &iven  leave   to 
dsfeuda     In  support  of   this  iMtioa  a  YsrlS'ied  petition  and«  seo- 
tioB   21  of  tha  Municipal   Court  aot  was   filed,   in  which  it   is   al- 
Isged  that  on  Maroh  13»  1929,   a  notice  w%s   served  by   oounsel    for 
plaintiff  on  counsel   for   tho  defendant,   that  en  the  next  soming 
Maroh  14th,   couneel   for  plaintiff  would   appear  before  a  Judge  of 
tho  Municipal   court  and  ask   that  the  defendant's  affidavit  of 
■erito  be  stricken   for  icsuff ici^noy;   that  thoroupoa  oonnsol  for 
dofendsnt   telephoned  plaintiff's  counsel   that  he  was   4igage4  la  a 
trial  before  another  Judga  so   that  it  vould  be   ia^ssible  for  hia 
to  attend  the  sMtion  the  fello'^'ing  corning.     Thereupon  counsel   for 
plaintiff  agreed   that  nothing  would  be  dene  on   the  notion  and   thoro 
vas  a  dioeussioa  betweon  counsel   to   the  effect   that  plaintiff** 
oounsel  desired  to  test  the  suffici«Dcy  of  defendant's  affidwlt 
of  merito,   as  to  ii^ether  it  sot  up  a  legal  defense  and  that  tho 
■attor  might  bo  disposed  of  on  the  pleadings  without   the  necessity 
of  a  trial;    that  counsel   for  plij.intiff  %hen   said  he  voold  again 
oorve  notice  at  a  later  date  and  bring  the  utitter  up  on  tae  eon- 
testt'd  Botlen  oalsn^ar;    that  if  this  could  nox  be  done  before 
March  23Bd,   the   date  on  which   the  case  was   s^,  courisel   for  plain* 
tiff  would  have  the  ease  continued:    that   eounssl   for  defendsnt, 
relying  on  this,  |Mid  no  sore  attcRtiou  to   the  matter;   that  Me 
never  received  any  other  notice  and  the  first  intimation  that  judg- 
meat  had  been   entered  against  defendant  was  long  after   the  lapse  of 
thirty  days. 

Plaintiff  fil«d  a  deeummt  which  is  designated  a  ooaatcr 
petition,  in  vhioh  he  adisits  substAntially  the  allegationo  of  the 
peti'ioa  sworn   to  by  counsel   for  defendant  aa  aboite  set   forth, 
oxoopt  he  stated  that  he  did  not  agree  to  have  the   case  continued 


Stsl«r«e»  ;*«*»  •jgi;;    sts  ■mis    ,iJfi§:StiSS«1:- '  Vtl.iflii«C<r 

*   >-ti-.  h  .  '  t1ri*i«.t*3f«  fe*a#itf«#i*;#  ltish«^li»i 


««•*»<»**  • 


r*  is  SO' :<«■"? 


'^3 


t  *.  ff  ;f  iR  ?f»- 


J  nr     •»■«»  ♦  ♦ 


??i?SS 


:«  *t*tt^£!ii'^,-r^  •:}rI- 


se.' 


-"M 


^t7«a4  March  ataid,   th«  4LmXm  on  «kieh  It  «»•   Mt  f%r  trial,  but  aa 
tha  eoatrary  atata4  to   aouaaal   for  dafoMant   tJaat   if  tha  not  ion  Xm 
atrlka  the  dafat^dant'a  affldaTit  of  aarlta   for   lAaurfialanoj  waa 
»ot  dia^aad  of  1>«fara  tarah  22ni^,   It  would  ba  heard  aa  that  data 
aad  In  eaaa  tha  cotlaa  vaa  daniad  couaaal   for  plaint  if  JT  axpaatad 
tha  eaaa  to  go   to   trial. 

Upon  consldaratloo  af  tha  petition   <uid  counter  p«ti* 
tien  tha  oourt  on  June  lat   «nt«r«d  an  order  that   tha  Jud^ant   ataa4 
aa  aeeurity;    thnt  th*  oxaaution  b«¥   ata>«d  and  the  dafendwit  elrtm 
leav«  to   i1af<md  on   th«   trlAl   oT   the   caae,    tha  dcl'endant   to  pey 
eoata.     (^  June  2Cth  an  order  «aa  entered  ^hr-reia  it   ia  atated   that 
plaintiff  *l}|Kin  apeoial    appearanoa"  BOTod  the  court   to  vaeatn   the 
9r^9T  of  June  let,  vhlci  aotion  vaa  overruled.      On   the  aaae  day 
another  ord^r  ^?ao   entflred  on  motion  of  the  defendant  th&t   the 
plaintiff  riln  a  aore  specific   atatsaent  of  olala  vi  Uiia  IC  days, 
aad  that  defendtuit  be  ulyrm  10  <Ugr8   thereafter  to   file  aa  affi« 
4aTit  of  serlta, 

Counael   for  plaintiff  paid  no  attentioa«  ai^pareatXy, 
to   thla  order  and  ea  Auguat  6th  follovins,  on  taction  of  defendant, 
the   suit  was  dimicaed  far  failure  of  the  plaintiff  to   file  the 
acre  epecifie  atatOBent  of  elaia  &a  ordered.     Afterwarda  plaintiff 
eued  oat   this  ^rrit  of  mrroT, 

The  deferilant  coctenda  that  the  court  h<*d  no  juriedie- 
tioB  to  open  up   the  jad^^ent  and  that  the  order  pumortinc   to   da 
ae  vae  yold  beoauae  aore  thaa  Su  days  had  elapaad  alnce  the  enter- 
ing of  the  Jttdgaent.      Seetloa  ^  ef  the  Municipal  Court  aet,   chap. 
S7,   Cahill 's  1929   Statates,   proYidea  that   there  shall  b«  as  atate4 
terns  of  the  Municipal   court;    that  every  jadeaeat  flaal   in   its  aa- 
tura  shall  not  be  opened  up  after  the  expiration  of  S()  days  from 
the  date  of  the  an  try  ef  the  Judgaent,   ezaept  'upon  app>?al  or  arrit 
ef  error,  or  by  a  bill   in  equity,   or  by  a  petition   to   aaid  viunleipal 


"la^aiSOi 


?i5rf.1 


3i^ 


.•5     .!:*!►«« 


-:..-,'..  irf«j^g>h«t  'K'^«»v«  -tiki  '"»  »is?!t«* 


court  ■•tting  I'orth  grcunia  i'or  yMCKting,   ••tting  aaid*  or  Bodirj- 
iag  the  •«&•,-  vhleh  would  be  suff  iel«ut  !•   «aus«  thf-  •«»«  to  bo 
vaeotod,    tei  ikoldo  or  moHlfi^A  by  a  bill   la  equity," 

Tho  potitloB  riled  bj  couneol    for  the  dofondwat  oboTO 
referred  to   set  op  f.usts  whicA,   ll   bellrvod  by  the  court,   would 
vmrr&nt  tho  finding  that  there  w&e  ob  acr^wxait  betveen   eouneel 
that  ao  thine  vould  be  done  towards  the  hear  lag  of  the  eaoo  until 
plaintiff '•  notion  to   toot  the   sufiieienesr  of  dofandant*fl  affXdaTit 
of  nerlta  vao  diepoeed  of »   ^d   that  the  «srooa«it  had  boon  Tiolated. 
The  petition   ftirther  eet  up  thait   defendant  had  a  aeritorioao  defaneo 
no  dieelosod  by  ite  affidavit  of  nerito   the^  on   ille. 

Zn  these   cirouBaetonoes,  ve  tliink   the  trial  Jadfo  was 
warranted,  under  seetion  21  el'  the  hunicipal  Oourt  aot,   in  opening 
ttp  the  judgiscnt  and  «^lvin«  leave   to   the  defendant  to  have  a  trial 
on  the  A(?rits.     Wo  are  also  oi'  the  opinion   that  the   court  was  war- 
ranted in  ordering  plaintiff  to   file  a  awre   apeoifie  statoaeat  of 
slain.      One  of  the  purposes  of  the  Municipal   Court  aot  was   to  do 
away  with  tetdwioal  pi  leadings  and  to  require  the  parties  to   etato 
their  oauee  of  aot  ion  and   their  dof«oao  in  plaixi,   sinplo  lant.us^e. 
Tho  plaintiff  having  refused  to  oorply  with  the  order  of  oourt,   thero 
vas  nothing   to  do  but  to  Aisnise  the  wit. 

Iho  judgment  of  tho  Muniolpal   oourt  of  Shionco  is 
affirsed. 

AJrJ^IAhaO. 

M«9arely,  P.    J.,   sad  Mateh«tt,   J.,   eonour/ 


S3948 

FAUL  D.    TOUT,  /        /  j/ 

▼». 

TW  OKIOJJ  OP  HOW  ASIA*  B!r5^?i:;iAL 

AKD   CULTURAL    L-OCIHTTX!'   C^   Al'.iiHICA,         , 

Plaintiff  In   ''rror.  )  O  r-  /T)  '  ^  r^  » 


256  x.A.  b02 


U,    JU2TICH  O^OOnKOI  WILITKBITO  TIH  OPIKIOS  07  THS   CCURT. 

By  tbl«  vrit  of  error   th^  dofftadant  oooko  to  roYorao 
an  ordar  ect^ratf  by  tha  8tt-|»«rior  oourt  of  Cook   county,  eTarrullac 
Ito  Botlon   to   ««t  aai4a  a  defAult   an<i  judt^cent  and  for  leaTo  to 
plaad. 

Ttea  record  diacloaas  that  on  Soptcnbar  17,   1928,  plain- 
tiff brougbt  an   action  of  asaujipsit   againat    the  def^:Dlant.      The 
8a;.^«ti^;.>rt.it;H..7raa  returnable  to   the  fioToaber  tena  waa  ••rre4  Octo- 
ber 19,  1988,  and  en  SiovoKber  2^4  plaintiff  filed  hie  deelaration, 
whieh  v«a  the  ordinary  printed  form  of  the   coKaen  eounte   for  aoney 
leaned,   goods,  Tar^e  and  seriAanJlse  eold   and  deliT<ired,   etc. 
Deeesber  6th   following,  no   aop'saracee  haTing  been  entered  by  the 
defendant,   it  ^ae  defaulted   and  judgment   imtered  againet   it   for 
#3721. 4C.      On   S^o^m^t^  2,   19  39,  which  vaa  vlthii.    the   tent  at  which 
the  Ju(*i3nent  wae  <»nt«re4,   th«  defendaiit   wr\t«red   ita  motion  to   TA-cate 
and   eet   naide  the  default   Mid  Judgment  and   for  l->aTe  to  plead.      Xhe 
matter  wae  oontinued  and  waa  paased  upon  karoh  16,   1929,  when   the 
motion  wae  denied.      An   appeal   wae  prayed   and  allowed    to    thia   court. 

Ab  affidaYit  waa   fii   d  in   support  of  defeniaat**  motion 
to  which  were  attached  and  is.«de  a  part  ol*  the  affidarit   eeweral   ex- 
hibite,  being  l«ttere  wi<ic  •  paesed  between  eounael    for  plaintiff  and 
eeunael    for   the  defendant,  who  wae  a  praet icing  attorney  liTing  la 
ClcTolanfl,   Ohio.      The  affidaTit  waa  made  by  defendant 'e  Clewelaad 
counsel,    fros$  whloh  it   is  made  to   «ppear  that  he  had  been  general 
counsel    for   the  defendant   for  acme    time  prior  to   the   Institution  of 
the   suit:    that  iaas«diately   after   the   suit  was  begun  a  number  of 


:lmJL  ^  4^ 


^  JS»  ^g^^ 


t.str  «??->  ^-:fe 


-jfil 


iV-     ,»^'    T^rf 


"xn    lull?* -^9   Jir«l>ill«  •at*    tft 


- «  ♦  f .  •  » » « 


l«tt«ra  pAS8«d  bet«««R  nlaaalf  aiul  plt^lntiff  *a  counsel   ir.  Chioac^* 
VroB   ihe««  letters  it  mppmmrm  that   aoiifis«l   for  kotu  p;&rties  vera 
•ndcATorlBK  to  Bogotlato  a  octtlcnoni  of  tho  Imi   8uit»   and  It 
f>irt>i«r  appoars   tiiat   th«  Clorolaad  oaunaol   was  vnfaikillar  vith   tho 
praotleo  in  Chicago   oad  Bttdo  a  auabMr  of  Inqulrleo  coaoorniac  tho 
•«ao,    to   T^hieh  plKintiff**   ccunool  roplled.     Vo  think   it  would 
oorro  BO  useful  p^urposo  to   analyeo    th«oo  leiioro,   but   it   is   suf* 
fiei«'nt    to   oay  that   they   iodieato  Mitire  good  faith  on  tho  part 
of  counoel   in  doreland  in  asu   «eidoavor   to    settlo   tiuo  suit,    «o<l 
that  he  vao  of   the  opinion   Ut&t   the  aogotiatioao  vere  still  ponding 
ohen  he  van  adTieed  that  Ju  *«^  nt  bjr  default  had  boon  ontorog 
againot   tho   dofondant.      Tho  affidaTit   olao    tended  to    show  that 
tho  4of  en  !«u3t  had  a  aoritorious  dcfenoo, 

Tho  aotion    to   vaMato   and   oot  aside   tho   jtti«smont   aad 
default  having  boon  laaAo  at  the   tons  at  vhioh  tho  JttdgMont  was  ej> 
tared,  wo  thiaJc  it   should  have  been   allowod.      It  is  the  praotico 
la  our  oourto  to  be  liberal  in  sotting  aside  defaults  nnd  judg- 
■lonto  when  tho  motion   to   do  oo   ie  aado  at   the  t<vu  in  which  tho 
Jvdgmoit  is   ont^rod,  ^here  it  appears  that  to  do   so  will  prottoto 
justioe, 

tho  order  of  tho  i^perior  court  of  Cook  count/  is 
roTersod   and  the  natter  remanded  for   further  proceedings  not  in* 
ooBsi stent  with  tho  viovs  herein   ejtpr eased. 

BBnOWlS  AID  REkAfiKO, 

lisSiirelj,   P.    J.,  and  teatohott,    J.,   concur. 


•l»fc 


is©t^o«s  afi(; 


ci   ■■'.  is^se  aof 


:>».l>a««».' 


,Bi»»«*"i:' 


«'Xtf&atC;': 


E;«HtM?^.Si< 


Mtsa 


wA&rxR  h»  Qitman, 


/^ 


/^ 


ILIIIOIS    HOMj.    FmAVCS 
CORPORATIOH* 


A77BAL  fPOH 

CZRCUZT   COCTTt 

COOK  coairrY# 


256  I.A.  602 


J> 


XaaJVivKkX'  THK  opinio)?  oy  THX  COQPT* 


Thl0  la  A  ohaneery  proceed Ibi;  la  whlcb  ih«  Uhleag*  Tltl« 
ir  trust  Oompahy  «as  appointed  both  «p«cl«l  *<iid  ffeneral  reoelTor  OT«r 
the  Interests  of  Leuffgen  ^4itt  Sitlefi»  !»«••  a  oorporatlon*   In  aatf 
to  the  aateaetilles  anu  eecurltlen  Mentloae<l   In  the  bill  of  o«KplalBt« 
aad  geaoraX  reoelror  of  the  property  of  Joha  H«  Leuffgoa*  tradlag 
la  the  naae  of  aald  eorporB.tloa*     Appellee  ease  lato  the  eaee  apoa  a 
petition  for  reelaaetloa  of  thirteen  old  atttOBobllee  la  poraaeseloa 
of   the  Leaf f gen  Auto  Salea»  oa  which  1(  elalaeC   a  Ilea  toy  ohattol 
Mortgage  to  aecture  a  note  for  aoncy  loaned  to  aaU  Lueffgoa»  dolag 
haalaeoa  as  afa>eeai4t  m  «hleh  there  vao  still  due  $1025*00  aa4 
lBt«reat«     It  vaa  elalatd   thnit  sold  Ilea  was  a  first  aad  prior 
Ilea  oa  snld   thlrteea  aatoMoblles* 

thereafter  aa  order  was  entered   for  ttm   selo  of  tlM 
assets  hold  bj  the  reoeiTer«  aad  a  sale  wna  had     aad  upproToA* 
9m  hoti^rlag  the  issaoo  raised  hy  tho  petition  for  reelaai'^tloa  tho 
ooart  foiad  th^^t  appellee  had  a  Ilea  on  all  of  the  naseta  la  tho 
haads  of  the   recclTsr  sad   entered  a  deorotal  order  In  faror  of 


♦-V 


^^S^££ 


i\.l-?gSt    I 


■It  •  f '"■  ■       ^--■-  ■-•^- 


.titi$/;(^  %^  mil  a  ^■msifi-: 

sot.*    t»  «w£jw»    ad.?  tv'i  'few*.!*: 
idi   '•'■■■;-*■    ■  '  ■■.  :  .;^•^pf 


*llcAi»T«%T*: 

al 

■ii^ii?    '^i*    «Oi 

,*wg 

•t*x^|»ia   *!fSs'!,    9t-^fsj«S, 

»    IfrSMTt.' 

.'.m^jim. 

ii^^  :•!{»*«? 

»«*£itf-:/.                 : 

r^-s^tM* 

tei 

Xi=j|fi».ii»'Xl 

j«A^" 

a]>p*Il««  agAlaat  the   rccrflrcr  f«r  tha  'b»Iaao«  dtM  on  saitf  B«t«» 
aatf  lat«rt«t»  or  twx  tt«y  part  thereof* 

▼arietta  polBt«  are  urc«<l  f#r  r«T«r«al  whiohf   la  Ti«w 
of  aa  acr««a«at  b«tw««a  appallamt  and  appalXae  la  apea  court » 
ao«0  aot  bo  ooaoldorod*       It  appears  thrt  thoro  aoro  fort/*oao 
aatoMObllea  of   •nld  OaXoo       Coapa^y^  takoa  po«>4e»aioa  of  by  tho 
rcoelTor  aad   oold  pureaast  to  the  order  of  QOurt»  aad   tlait  tlM 
a«rrecate   oiai  the  fortj-on«  autOMObilea  broaekt  aao  |8M8*58« 
Tho  order  appealed   fros  glTOo  appellee  a  prior  lies  for  tho  fall 
OMOaat  of  ite  clnia  <m  the  eat ire  proceeds  of  eole*     Coaoediag 
thiit  it  had  a  prior  lion  ae  to  the   thirteen  oars*  it  io  appar«it 
that  aa  a«aiaet  other  or«ditoro  it  di<i  aot  haYe  oao  a*  to  tho 
t«eatx*eight  cMUra*     Tho  eourt»  therefore*  should*  ia  rioa  of 
appolloe*e  prior  Xiea  mi  the  thirteen  oara»  hare  directed  a 
toparate  aale  of  thorn*     Za  the  aWeaee  of  njtsf  ]fro9t  ot  tbo 
relatire  value  of   the   thirteea  oars  oa  which  tbcf   licaeaa  elaia- 
od»  aad  tho  tveaty-eight  eara*  it  io  iispoeflible  to  detenoiao  fraa 
the  rooord  idutt  proportion  of   the   proceed  a  of   thr   oaXe  appoUoc 
is  oatitltd   to  uader  its  prior  Ilea.     Only  oae  o< editor*  coaplalnaat 
Oithmsf  tfess  appealed   from  tho  ord«'r  aforesaid* 

It  is  recogaiaod  b/  appellaat  aad  appolloe  that  to 
reTerse  the  order  appealed  froa  aad  ta  rew^ad   the  cause  to  tate 
oTideaoe  as  to  wlnt  «aa  the  relatiTO  Talue  of  Vhe  two  sets  of 
autoaobiles  iaoluded  ia  tho  receiTer*s   sale  aad  ropreseatod  hy 
oaid  proceeds*  would*  at  this  tiae»  eatail  oeasiderable  expeaso 
to  obtaia  aay  reliable  proof  oa  the  aubject  la  rieiv  of  tha 
lapse  of  time  siaee  ths   sale*     But  aaloos  agreed  ayoa  a  deter- 
aiaatioa  of   their  relative  value  is  aecessinry  as  a  basis  of  aa 
order  fixiag  appellee 'a  relaUro  oharo  of  tbo  proceeds  oa  tha 

theory  of  hariag  a  prior  Ilea  thereoa* 


•fltiijl::      .  -.Ur^""^ 


ft  •&▼•  sueh  cxpcuM*  Mid  f«r  th*  9«rp«««  tf  ttralnRtlac 
tlM  lltlc«tlon  lavolTtd   oa  tkis  appMl«   it   la  agreed   in  opcm  court 
that  ilM  decretal  ^rtvr   shall  he  r»T«rs«(l9  at  app«ll««*B  oaatst 
ami   th*  •Rttaa  reaa»)»d  with  dirtctioas  ta  ■auifj  th«  aaat  so  aa  t« 
allaw  appallta  a  prior  litn  (m   the  prooaeds  of   the   axile  to  tha 
axteat  9t  #700  .oOt  aad  direct  lac   th«  r«e«iTtr  &o  pajr  aver  salA 
am  ta  appallaa  ia  Ratlsfactioa  af  its  lita  tfasreaa* 

Aacort^iasly  tha  dsoretaX  arOer  will  ba  rtfTarsad  aad   tha 
aaaaa  rsMiaded  far  a  nod  if  lection  af   Ui*  dearte  nm  harsla  ataicd* 

>>aaalaa  aad  8ridl«j»  JJ«»  aonaara 


a>^  »^--.  otsd  ^i«it»«  »rf<J  xU  '^^fi 


■*fmM':  ■■        '    t%^l-^^%^  tm»  m^SMm'- 


Z^b§J 


W  ^BV^rt  or  KOWMID         )  kPTtkL  nxM 

/\  A^«iiant,  j  CIRCUIT  OOUItT* 

OOQK  OOliirT* 


256  I.A.  603 

opinion  filed  March  5,  1930 


/ 


MX.  ]«I3I0IR0  JimTZOS  WIL&OM  deliT«red  th«  opinioB 
•f  tha  oourt, 

Ann  Cng«X«  oo«plAin%nt,  filed  h«T  olnin  in  th« 
Probtttc  CJouTt  of  Cook  County  Auguat  31,  193e,  alleging  that  the 
A««M««d0  Edvnrd  w.  Wallace,  a  short  tl«e  before  hie  leath 
gare  to  her  thirteen  $1,000.00  bonds  of  the  South  ^eetem  Oa« 
Light  A  Power  Ooapany;  four  ^1,000.00  bonds  of  the  Oonsolldated 
P««er  and  Light  Ooapany  of  J»outh  Dakota;  four  ?600.00  bonds 
of  the  South  western  Oaa  Light  and  Power  Ooapany;  one  11,000 
bond  of  the  aelden  Hotel  Oo«p«»y;  that  ehe  placed  said  bonds 
in  •  safsty  depoeit  box  and,  after  the  death  of  the  deoeased, 
found  that  the  an  id  bonds,  with  the  eiroeptlon  of  the  Belden 
Hotel  Ooapany  bond,  had  been  taken  from  said  deposit  box  and 
were  listed  as  part  of  the  aesete  of  the  estate  of  the  deceased. 
Prays  an  order  on  exeoutrioes  to  turn  orer  said  bonds  or  to  pay 
the  fair  aarket  ralue  thereof.  The  clala  was  allowod  In  the 
^•^*«  Court  and  an  appeal  taken  to  the  Olroult  3ourt  of  Cook 
Oounty.   The  onuse  was  tried  In  the  Olroult  Court  by  the  court 
i^lthout  a  Jury,  and  resulted  In  a  finding  In  fawor  of  the 
oiniaant,  and  assessing  her  daaages  at  eas,186.61.  Judgaent 
was  entered  on  the  finding,  froa  iH»loh  Judgaent  aa  appoal  was 
taken  to  this  court. 


,V?tUOi;  -Jiu..:.^^^': 


,     ■  il®.:;|5itA. 

^M9ii%i[f^p  :9^t  t#  dtm'^  --^^^^  ««'a-^  m^  timq^Hf  %^^'ifio^  -^  a* 

t.;.  .»l:'.'!io««'  ,feli*»  ti^vo  artf!^  ».t   feiso It #•«»»»;??  no  ^ftJtet*  U-a-  «Ts*ir'4. 


•  •  - 

Ronald  M.  Ba«Tili«»  a  witnaas  for  olaixaBt^  ti^atlflad 
that  ha  vaa  the  Tattlt  aaaaftar  for  tha  City  Stata  8afa  Oapoalt 
Ooapan)r«  and  that  he  know  K<l«ard  n.  wallaoe  in  Ma  iif^tiaa} 
that  Wftliaea  had  a  aafaty  dapoait  box  In  tha  mult  prior  to 
Jvaa  15«  1936*  He  Identifiad  tha  laaaa  to  the  box  in  quastion 
and  a  raoalpt  aoknoalad^ing  tha  pftyaent  of  f^S.SO  bj  ;inn  Kngal 
foT  tha  aapoait  box  3769*  froa  June  I5«  193S  to  June  15«  1936* 
Tha  lo&aa  In  queation  waa  algnad  by  Ann  Kngal  and  £.  1.  iaiiaaa* 

Lillian  Long«  teatlfiad  that  abo  vaa  m  nurae  and 
attended  the  deoeaaad  for  five  daya  prior  to  hie  death.  She 
aaked  the  deooasod  If  he  knew  he  vaa  rery  slok  and  raa  going 
to  die.  and  he  replied  In  the  negative*  He  aaked  for  Hies  inagel 
and  8>»id  he  waa  aorry  he  vaa  unable  to  arrange  the  trust  fund* 
and  vitneaa  alao  heard  him  tell  Mlaa  !;ngel  to  go  ahead  and 
renov  the  leaae  and  that  he  vould  t«tke  oare  of  th«  truat  fund 
aa  aoon  aa  he  vaa  out  of   the  hoapit%l« 

Ouilford  B,   Oavis,  teatified  that  he  vaa  a  dentiat 
and  had  knovn  the  doooaaed  for  aoae  yearaj  that  be  ease 
frequently  to  hia  offloe  and  at  one  tiae  he  told  bin  that  he 
had  ^ven  itiat  Engel  tSO^ODO.OO  in  bonda  and  Intisnded  to  add 
■ore  to  it}  that  he  intended  to  hare  it  put  in  truat  for  her. 
Stated  further  that  he  had  taken  the  bonda  out  with  the  exoept- 
ion  of  one,  but  had  not  yet  made  the  arraagesenta  oonoeming 
the  truat.   Witneaa  aaid  that  he  notioed  wallaoe  vaa  a  very 
aiok  aan«  Thie  oonveraatlon  vaa  July  14*  1926*  He  also  etated 
that  he  knev  klaa  Kngel  and  had  done  eoae  "-ork  for  her  in 
iuguat*1935,  but  not  since* 

Adsls  Hagsl  teatified  that  ahe  vas  the  aother  of 
Aaa  Engel,  the  olalaant*  and  knev  Wallase  and  that  in  June* 


.ICJ.^JifS 


«!S)»3  's;  fi^fff   f«TA«^  *{^t  t©f  I»»fe/fw««i3   vfli-^   ffnreujt  &,»?'^  bets 

'^nittk*;i"-(Ks>  vsrc»:c.    ■  «>rft»  ^iSvaites  (fi^x  •'f'''*"  l*^***  ^*^   ««*«?••»>  H  ««i 

ni  t'iss^  ««t*r  ':<««^  »«H£irfs  ^aet  fc«i!  x'  ^f  «»Ay  imaM  ^•^  fa^i 


-  3  - 
1936*  h«  fttk«d  her  to  vrlt*  to  her  i?«uia;ht«r,  Ann  CBg«i»  «ttd 
hAT«  her  oo««  hem*}  tbit  h«  was  not  f««llag  v«il  and  i>^nt«<i 
to  Mftko  provision  for  her;  that  eh«  hoard  «allaoe  tell  the 
olainttnt  thnt  ho  was  going  to  giro  her  t30«000*00  la  bond* 
and  for  her  to  moot  hia  the  next  ffiorning  at  the  Oity  Stato 
Baakf  aad  to  l»o  there  proaptijr  at  9  o*olook*  He  later  told 
tho  vitneae  that  he  had  girea  the  olaiaant  >?30,00C  and  thou^^ht 
ho  had  bettor  add  nore  to  it  and  put  it  in  a  truet  fuad»  ao 
that  the  ooold  have  a  auffioient  inooae.  Later  eho  heard 
the  tald  WalXaoe  tell  the  olalaant  that  he  vas  going  to  take 
tho  greater  part  of  her  bonds  and  add  aore  to  thea  and  create 
a  trust  trxaA,   and  asked  olaiaant  for  the  ktj   to  the  safety 
deposit  box,  and  thnt  she  gave  it  to  hia. 

Rose  LaTin  testified  th^t  she  knov  iLdward  ^^llaoe 
and  Ann  Fngsl  and  that  in  the  aonth  of  June  in  1925,  at  her 
hoae,  when  they  were  both  present,  be  stated  th<^t  he  h^d 
glTsn  Miss  Engel  120,  XK)  In  bonds  9nd  that  latsr,  in  August, 
ho  had  stated  that  Miss  lEngsl  had  orsmted  a  trust  with  ths 
bonds  he  had  given  her, 

Marj  v>uillua  t^stifisd  thnt  she  knew  the  olsiaant 
and  the  deceased  ^nd  had  for  soaetiae  prior  to  August,  1935; 
•hat  on  June  14,  1925,  at  ths  hoae  of  Miss  ingsl  and  in  ths 
prssenoe  of  her  aothsr,  vallaes  told  olaiaant  to  aest  hia  at 
ths  City  State  Bank,  as  he  wsAtsd  to  giro  her  ^'30,000.00  in 
bonds;  that  she  want  to  the  bonk  with  tfiss  Fngel  the  aoxt 
aoming  and  there  ho  stated  that  he  wanted  her,  the  olaiaant, 
to  got  a  safety  deposit  box;  thst  olaiaant  thought  it  was 
better  to  hold  the  box  jointly,  but  that  he  objeoted;  that 
shs  finally  persuaded  hia  and  that  both  of  thea  r«gietered  on 
ths  oard;  that  Mr*  v^allaos  got  his  own  safety  deposit  box  and 


!>?*.  ...I**   y^i*.'i}^^'k   «««   «#»  IMI  .-^^Jiiri^S^    ;»!r»»2(   ft«0<3   ^«ff   a-v^fi' 

■»iifi.  :i^im%'(!>s.  .*x*8s  vid#  ^isid  im^s^  pi^  ^md  ««i  baa 


Ir.I    «::    .■        .  .,i'#(iWBr«««if    ;*>fc  /   i*V;i-fffi    Vtrf^    /l*ffw    ^'Sftacf 

, s.fSiy^jrf 

«<i  X)»t.'..  1    . 


-  4  - 

took  out  ^aO,^'>0•^0  in  bonds  and  Kskod  olaiowat  to  mUio  m 

Hat  of  thtii,  whioh  tho  did;  tlMit  th«re  wore  thirt««m  :^1, 000,00 

bonda  of  the  Q«s  Light  I   )'o«or  Ooap^ny  of  Texas;  four  9&00,00 

bonds  of  the  saas  oonpn^ny;  four  iSOO.X  bonds  of  ths  Consolidatsd 

Light  &  Povor  CoMpnny  of  ^outh  Osketa;  ons  '^l^OOO.OD  bwid 

of  ths  BsXdsn  Hotel;  that  at  the  tins  ths  bonds  were  given 

to  Uiss  Engsl,  hs  said*  ** These  bonds  are  yours".   Tbey  the* 

went  upstairs  and  there  be  hatfded  to  ol«tiaant  both  keys  to 

ths  deposit  box.   The  wiftnsss  further  stated  that  she  was 

with  Miss  ^ngsl  on  August  33«  1935«  vbsn  she  opened  the  deposit 

b«x  and  that  there  vas  but  one  bond  left. 

Ths  rseord  of  ths  safety  Deposit  Vault  Ooapaay 
showed  that  but  two  visits  ««rs  asds  aftsr  ths  obtaining  of  tbs 
original  Isass;  one  by  wallaoe  July  10*  1935.  and  the  other  by 
Ana  Sagel  August  22,   1935,  At  this  last  tins  the  witness 
Gillua  testified  she  w98  prsssat* 

The  inventory  of  the  estate  showed  that  there  were  on 
luuid  in  the  estats  as  of  fsbntary  34,  1936,  thirtssn  $1,000.00 
bonds  of  ths  Southwestern  Oas  light  and  Powsr  Ooapany  of  Tsxas; 
four  61*000.00  bonds  of  the  Consolid^tsd  Power  «  Light  Ooapeny 
of  South  Dakota* 

This  was  all  the  evidenos  heard  or  oonsidsrsd  by  ths 
trial  oourt. 

Our  attention  is  direoted  by  oeunssl  for  tbs  plaintiff 
to  but  two  propositions;  first,  the  gift  was  a  gift  causa  aortis 
and  was  revoked  by  the  donor  during  his  lifetiae;  seoond*  even 
though  it  sight  bs  hsld  to  be  a  gift  inter  vivos,  ths  evidenes 
of  dslivsry  is  not  of  suoh  a  oloar  and  oonvinoing  oharaoter  as 
to  warrant  a  finding  of  an  absoluts  and  unoonditional  delivery. 
A  lift  CRUSs  mortis  aust  be  aade  by  the  donor  in  the  belief 


b^  ■■  nb 


^1^  to  lfe^&oc' 

•is  le  «!>ffotf 


??^Ti 


*i: 


i.v  ,><tfl«i.^;: 


t'' 


.csoi>  erf;. 


-  B  - 
that  h*  is  about  to  dlo  aad  to  tnk*  offect  only  in  th«  •▼mt 
of  hlo  death  aad  «uot  !>•  aoooapanlod  bj  an  aotuaX  dallTary  of 
the  tubjoot  of  the  donation.  R«  «ay  be  ill  and  suffering  hX 
the  time*  but  there  auet  be  a  irell  defined  belief  In  hie  own 
■ind  that  he  does  not  expect  to  reooTer  froa  the  present  illness* 

rroB  the  eTldence  in  the  oaee«  it  ^ould  appoar  that, 
STen  during  the  last  few  days  of  his  lllnees,  he  told  his 
nurse,  the  vi-itness  liong,  that  he  did  not  know  that  he  was  going 
to  die,  and  there  le  no  eyldenoe  la  the  reoord  to  the  effeot 
that  his  belief  ma  otherwise.  The  gift  was  laade  June  15th  aad 
ho  died  August  32Bd,  two  months  after  the  happonlag  of  the  eweats 
upoa  vhleh  this  aotion  is  predicated.  Telford  t.  i>-tton« 
144  111.  dll« 

In  ordsr  to  constitute  a  deiiwery  inter  tIyos.  it  is 
esaeatlal  that  the  gift  take  effeot  iansdlately  and  not  at 
ooae  future  tiae;  that  there  be  a  dsliwery  of  the  thing  la 
question  and  that  there  be  a  ohaage  of  posaeasioa  so  as  to 
put  it  out  of  the  power  of  the  donor  to  repossess  hiaself  of 
the  thing  giwea. 

Frea  the  foots  la  ewidenoo  it  ie  eloar  that  the  bonds 
voro  actually  deliwered  to  the  elaiaaat  la  the  waulte  of  the 
City  St'ite  Bank;  that  there  was  an  actual  d^llrery  aad  a 
ooaplete  change  of  .7oasosBlon.  This  is  OTldenoed  by  the  teeti- 
■ony  of  the  witaoss  Mary  Giliua,  aad  borne  out  by  et^iteac^nte 
aado  by  other  witnesses  la  the  ease,  ehowing  hie  intention  to 
■ake  the  gift.  There  is  no  contradictory  evidence  in  the 
record,  and  there  is  no  ewldence  from  which  it  could  be  said 
that  ths  relationship  between  thea  was  of  such  oharaAsr  as 
to  east  a  doubt  upon  the  intention  of  the  donor,   vtolle  the 
deposit  box  was  taken  in  the  naae  of  both,  the  keys  were 


,  ■  ^  :;i       ■^v-  .  '■    r  p    .  -its   aso'S;^' 

sir  J;>J«'  ,i.i.i-i^b  fltaifa 

ftn-v-'  iffiiX  iti-l  :Ji.i'>a   aj»w  3XX|i  &4f     *»ei,»v 


;».«!**-....  ;■■  ten*  t«  iM)ifljn 


-  6  - 
glTMi  to  olnlaaat  tt  th«  requ««t  of  the  aeoeA8«d. 

Hi«r«  1«  n«pl«  •▼ld«no«  in  the  reeord  in  our  opinion 
%•  tttpr;o7t  the  oinia  and  we  are  fortified  in  our  opinion  by 
tbo  faot  th*t  both  the  ^robote  Court  and  the  Cireuit  Qourt 
om  appeal^  aftor  hearing  the  vitnoeeoo  and  obaerring  thea 
vhile  upon  the  stand,  found  the  issues  in  favor  of  the  olaiaant. 
There  it  no  force  in  the  proposition  that  iaaat&rial  or  laproper 
OTidesos  was  adttittod*  beoaiuio  the  oause  v«ia  tried  by  the 
eo«irt,  vrithout  «  jury,  and  under  suoh  oirounstanoes,  it  is 
prssvoaed  that  only  oompetent  and  nateri^l  eyidenoe  was  oon- 
sldered  by  the  coiurt  in  arrlTlng  at  its  finding. 

The  faot  that  the  bonds  vere  taken  froa  the  l<»posit 
box  by  the  deoeased  oaa  not  fvall  th«  eat&te«  because  of  the 
expressed  intention  of  the  donor  to  the  effect  th^tt  it  w*is 
not  done  for  the  purpose  of  depriTing  claimant  of  the  title 
ta  said  bonds,  but  in  order  to  plaos  thea  vith  other  seourities 
im  *  trust  fund  for  her  adir«nt%KS« 

After  a  rsTlow  of  the  testiaony  in  the  oause,  ve 
SOS  no  rsasoa  for  reversing  the  Judgment  and,  for  that  reason, 
aad  the  reasons  sxpressed  in  this  opinion,  the  Judgment  of 
tlio  Oirottlt  Court  is  affiraed. 

JUDOMKXT  A.FFIRMSD. 

RTSra  ABO  KOLOOM,  JJ.  CONCUR. 


-  a  - 


4 » ■ '  - 


^f-ttpj-v  •■■■■  f* 


JkQOB  LE«AI1Q0W9KI« 
Appellant. 


AP?EAL  moil 

SUPIBIOR  OOORT, 
OOOK  OOUITT. 


^: 


doo  J.    iiJ  O  X)  3 

Opinion  filed  March  5,  1930 


.^^ 


MR.  PH£:sioiKa  JUHTiaft:  ^XLSON  d«llTtr»d  th«  opinion 
of  the  eourt* 

This  is  an  appoal  froa  «  judgscat  of  the  f!up«rior 
Court  of  Oook  wounty  in  favor  of  Klisabtth  aaSfdittna,  plaintiff « 
and  aicainst  tha  dofondJ&Bt  Jaoob  Levmndovaki.   The  aotion  was 
in  trover  for  the  oonTeraion  of  a  il^JOO.^O  note  and  truat 
deed  .iTen  to  aeeuro  eaid  note  &nd  waa  tried  with  a  jury 
reaulting  In  a  Terdiot  for  il,180*D0«  the  aaae  heing  for 
prinoipaX  and  interest*  eind  upon  tbia  verdiot  jndgaeat  was 
entered. 

Froa  the  faots  it  appears  that  the  plaintiff  vas 
ths  owner  of  a  oertn.in  lot  inproTSd  «ith  a  bungalow*  whioh 
had  been  oonpieted  shortly  i>efore  the  giving  of  the  note  in 
Question.  On  U&roh  10*  1936*  the  plaintiff  and  her  son 
John;"av«nioh  and  hia  wife*  .mrehasers  of  the  property;  Jnaes 
Houlton*  who  was  acting  aa  a  eontr^otor'a  forem%n  in  ths 
oonatruotion  of  the  bung>^Ior;  h.  J.  Pryetalski*  an  attorney 
for  the  purehasers;  and  Ooaenio  (Jianotti  and  Antsnis  steripga* 
workaen  eaployed  in  the  oonitruotion  of  the  builcling*  were 
}»ressAt  in  the  offies  of  the  defendant  for  the  purpose  of 
exeouting  the  neosssary  papers  for  the  o«>«tpletion  of  the  aals 
•f  the  preaiises  and  ths  payaent  of  suoh  noneye  or  checks  as 
wsrs  dus* 


i^- 


spaxc 


,  ;  -i  .-.:.rt^ 


0Z£1    «5  ffOTjBM  £)" 


:nioO 


■:}jr. 


<">        lAw  ■>  .  . 


^0 


-  3  - 
Th«  defendant  vBa  to  rrotlT*  a  not*  for  9X,000,")0« 
••eur«d  bf  «  trust  deed,  and  this  note  ?ind  trust  4««d  wars 
t«ni«4  OTcr  to  tb*  defsninnt  at  that  tlat  for  ths  uo«  of  tks 
plaintiff.  Piftlntlff  t«stifl«d«  is  did  also  tier  son,  that  sho 
laatruoted  thn  dsfendant  to  Icoep  the  note  for  h*tT,     Bteripga 
testified  that  the  defendant  told  the  plaintiff  thot  he  would 
keep  the  aorti^age  in  hie  snf^ty  box.   Lewnndovikl,  the  defendant, 
testified  th^t  the  plaintiff  instruoted  him  to  turn  tht   note 
«nd  thc)  trust  deod  orer  to  Boultoa,  ai  he,  aoulten,  was  aotinc 
for  her  and  that,  thereupon,  he  had  her  sign  a  oertnln  vioou* 
■ent  dated  ^Aroh  10,  1936,  dlreoted  to  hia  to  deliver  to 
Boulton  the  trust  deed  for  ?1, 000*00,  ao  eooa  as  the  saao 
was  returned  fro«  th9   Torrens  department.  A  reoelpt  froa 
Boulton  was  also  introduced  in  evideno^  datod  May  3,  1936, 
aoknowledglng  reoelpt  of  thft  trust  deed.  M«ither  the  order  on 
lawandowekl  to  tarn  oTer  the  trust  deed,  nor  th^  reoelpt  of 
the  sane  by  i^oulton,  mentions  the  note. 

Lovaadowakl  at  th«  tlae  of  the  transaction,  and 
for  3oae  tlae  prior  thereto,  was  a  real  estate  broker  and  it 
was  throu^  his  office  that  the  doal  was  ooncuaaated.   It 
beooaea  a  question  of  faot  as  to  whether  or  not  LewaAdowskl 
held  the  note  in  question  for  the  benefit  of  the  plaintiff, 
and  in  thle  respeot  «a«  a  bailee  who,  without  oonsultlng  the 
plaintiff  ^wrongfully  conTeTt«>d  the  note  to  his  own  uae,  or 
without  authority  oonreyed  it  to  a  person  other  thnji  the  one 
to  whoa  it  rightfully  belonged* 

TroTsr  will  lie  for  the  wrongful  oonw^rsioa  of  bills 
of  exehaage,  proalssory  notes,  bonds  or  other  securities  for 
the  ptayaent  of  aoney*   Any  unauthorised  act  by  which  an  owner 
is  deprlTed  of  his  property  peraanently  or  indefinitely,  or 


»«»*»  iN>*t>  f9H\f  !!>«*  «lo«  min^r  trtA   «,fe««fc  .; .  -^41  £)*T£fO»« 


ii'tjJ'XwdS 


-  3  - 
th«  •ZArelaa  of  doalnlon  oTer  proptrty  inooa«is%«at  with  tb« 
rli^ta  •/  th«  o^ner*  It  n  oonTtrsioa* 

Th«  HMpx9m9   wourt  of  tblt  8tat«  la  tk«  o&s«  of 
il&lhi  ▼•  JMffiL*  390  111.  11,  e&7»j 

*fho  authority  of  »  b«ilc«  Is  llaitod  by  tht 
texat  of  the  oontmot  by  vhioh  h«  aoqulrod  tho 
po«to««ioB  of  th«  oroperty.   Though  h»  has  tb« 
bailor**  authority  to  u««i  it  for  one  .>urpoae  this 
0 oaf era  no  right  to  uee  it  for  another,  ind  if 
ho  dooa  use  it  for  q  different  ;>uruoo«  fron  that 
for  "hioh  he  wae  authorized,  or  in  a  different 
Meaner  of  for  a  longer  tine,  he  •^ill  be  held  liable 
f»r  lUKjf   loaa,  eren  through  an  unaroldable  sooiient. 
ijqr  WMiuthorieed  act  «hioh  depriree  an  orner  of 
hie  property  ie  n  eonverelon.  An  ag(^nt  who,  h&Ting 
rcceiTOd  a  bill  of  exohan^e  to  be  dieoounted, 
procures  its  diseount  \nA   aT>pTopriates  the  noney 
to  hie  own  use  is  not  guilty  of  th«  conversion  of 
the  seourity  taut  a  Misappropriation  of  the  prooeede, 
but  if  inetead  of  getting  the  bill  diaoountei  he 
usee  it  for  the  peynent  of  hie  own  debt  he  ie 
guilty  of  ft  oonTersion.   (ralaer  v.  aaraan  ?  M.  A  «. 
8WJ  Qrmnoh  t.  ^hite.  1  a.H.  C.  414;  Adkina  ▼•  c^wam. 
4  Ad,  A  £.  819.P 

Froa  the  faote  in  the  case  it  appoara  that  both  the 
note  and  th^  trust  d^ed  were  turned  ot*t   to  doulton  by 
ItOaaadowski  and  the  note  was  eubsecuently  oonreyed  by  Boultoa 
to  an  innocent  party  for  value.  Boulton  aubsacuently 
disappoarod  and  his  whereabouts  appear  to  be  unknown.   X% 
beoaae  a  question  of  faot  as  to  whether  the  defendant  held 
the  note  for  the  benefit  of  the  plaintiff  and  subsequently 
oonweyed  it  to  Boulton  without  her  consent.  This  was  a 
<}usstion  of  faot  whioh  was  properly  one  for  the  jury  to  paas 
upon.  The  jury  foitnd  for  the  plaintiff  and  the  trial  ooork 
entered  Jxidgaent  in  oonforaity  thereto. 

This  oourt  o^innot  s^y  that  the  testiaony  is  ao 
OTorwhelaingly  la  faror  of  the  dofendnnt  that  the  judgaent 
of  the  trial  oourt  should  be  sot  aside.  The  only  question 


7!i.- 


s«*'^  0#  f**lft   •■«^*  '*<>'*^   *«®   't-^-'  v««t#s»ifi> 

fit-      *  nn.fyvit^- 


-  4  - 

before  thlt  court  it  one  of  f»ot.   Tboro  it  no  ooaplv-int  M^do 
by  defendant  ee  to  the  glrlng  of  instr^iotlona  or  the  adalee 
IbiXity  or  ln&d«iaeiliJU.ty  of  evidenoe. 

for  the  reaeone  stated  In  this  opinion*  the  jud^sent 
of  the  Superior  Oourt  ie  affirmed. 

JOOOHIJIT  ArrZHMEO. 


wamUc  .'«..«i-.a!ii^»jb  x^ 


/  ■     /  ) 

/  App«llftat* 


ArPttL  FROM 

MUM  10 1 PAL  OOURT 
or  OHIO AGO. 


App.li...  J      256i.a.  0U3 


Opinion  filed  March  5,  1930 
m,    PRK9XDIM0  JUfSTIOK  WIL&OM  <l«liT«r«d  th«  ooinloa 

•f  th«  oourt. 

This  la  att  ftpp«al  fros  ft  judgnent  of  th«  tfunioipii 
Court  of  UhiOAi^o  in  favor  of  tho  doftAdant,  o.  0*  ttarko^  %ad 
against  tb«  plaintiff*  Uihlain  Healty  Truitooo,  for  ooato. 
Tho  suit  was  basod  i^pon   a  vritton  loass  to  oortain  stors  praa* 
Ises  looatod  at  1480  jostsr  avenue,  OhioagOf  Illinois,  at  a 
Monthly  rental  of  ^5«00a  to  bo  used  by  the  lessee  as  a  dress 
shop.  Lessee  entered  into  possession  in  August,  1939,  and 
oontinucd  in  possession  until  sometime  in  February  of  the 
following  year.  The  lease  oontained  a  provision  to  the  effeot 
that  heat  was  to  be  furnished  to  a  reasonable  degree  of  t»a> 
perature  fro«  October  first  to  June  first  of  e*ob  year. 

The  only  Question  of  faot  is  whether  or  not  plaintiff 
failed  to  provide  a  reasonable  aaount  of  heat  and  that  defendant 
bad  a  right  by  reason  of  si^id  failure  to  neve  out  of  the  pre«-> 
isss  OB  the  groCnd  of  oonstruotive  eviotlon.  The  oauee  «aa 
subaitted  to  the  oourt  without  a  jury, 

rroa  the  faote  It  appears  that  the  defendant  notified 
plaintiff  in  jSoveaber  1936,  that  the  preaisee  were  not  properly 
heated*  Thereupon  the  plaintiff  undertook  to  ctrreot  this 
situation,  but,  as  defendant  contends,  unsuooes<)fuily.   There  is 
eridenoe  on  behalf  of  the  defendant  to  the  effeot  that  the  store 
had  to  be  closed  on  one  or  two  ooo^slons  In  I>eoeaiber  becnuss 
the  heat  was  about  forty  degrees,  and  that  it  was  iapossible 


i 


i 


4j  ''J  ' 

OEQl   ^e   rfotsM  beit'i.  aclnlqG 


'^■.-.'■r^i'.Ji-' iUi,   ■!?•«*««:>  :t ;:  :;;■    isv:  •;>-?;<v;i!.i,i':;  r5    /j  i'    v.,;r  ?.;:''1;    ^;:ft,;     ■•■■;^':', 


-  a  - 

to  !!••  thm  pr«ai«ft«  for  the  purpose  for  wbloh  th«y  v»re  leatod* 
«Bd  that  thla  continued  until  on  or  iibout  tho  aiddlo  of  Februmrx, 
19lt7y  vhtn  the  dofondant  «««  ooapflilo4  to  Taoatt  the  pr««ises« 

Plaintiff  testified  that  tho  dofontfaat  paid  the  rent 
for  llarohf  but  this  wae  denied  by  the  defendant.   3o«e  objection 
ifl  aado  ao  to  the  mdnieinibility  of  sose  of  the  eTideno<«,  but 
beeauee  of  the  faot  thnt  the  oftuse  was  tried  by  the  oourt^ 
without  a  jttry«  it  is  aenumed  that  the  oourt  ooneidered  only 
•Itch  eTidenoo  as  vas  Material  and  coapetent.   The  testinoiqr 
was  oonflioting  nnd  there  is  aaple  evidence  to  support  the 
position  of  the  defendant  th»t  there  w!<is  a  breaoh  of  the 
oovsnant  of  the  lease  in  February*  whloh  he  took  adnuitags 
of  and  raoated  the  preaisee.  The  position  of  the  plaintiff 
that  th«  breaoh  «as  «aiTed  by  the  payaent  of  the  yaroh  r^at, 
was  a  question  of  faot  for  the  oourt  %nd»  in  Tisw  of  defendant's 
teatiaoay  that  it  was  not  pald«  and  there  being  no  doeuaentnry 
STidenoe  that  it  was*  this  oourt  oan  not  eay  that  the  trial 
court  erred  in  arriTing  at  the  eonolusion  it  did  rith  regard 
to  that  partieulsr  f?>ot« 

«•  sse  no  renaon  for  disturbing  the  Judgaent  of 
the  uunioipal  Court. 

For  the  reasons  stated  in  this  opinion,  the  judgaent 
of  the  ifunioipal  Oourt  is  affiraed. 

RTIXA  A«0  HOL001C«  JJ.  CJOXOUR, 


;-A*    t--.-^*"    v.j.;i-    ««.*..■      >iv..    iif^^tsi-Xmr,    -    -    *•,.*   <i-*ai« 


10    w. 


WILLIAU  0.  BOUAM  *Ad 
MARY  BOM AM, 

App«il«et. 


•  i 


Opinion  filed  March  5,  1930 

MR.  PRKSIOIIIO  jmriGT.   WILSOI  d«ilTftr«d  the  o:)inioa 
of  th«  court. 

This  v««  an  motion  in  tort  brought  by  thr  plais- 
\itt,   Uoloa  0.  Klolda*  to  t»oot«>t  d9aag«s  froa  the  defendaato* 
Williaa  0.  BoflMA  aiBid  SAary  Boaia^n,  by  reason  of  Injuries 
•uit'tined  \>j   the  plaintiff  in  falling  down  the  atairvay  of 
a  building  looated  at  3508  Hhedes  a-renue,  Cbioago.   The 
deolaration  chfirgee  the  defendnnta  with  ovreleaaly  and 
necXigently  pexaitting  the  atairmty  of  said  building  to  be 
unlighted  and,  by  rbaeon  thereof,  plaintiff,  who  «ae  a 
tenant  in  said  building,  vaa  oaused  to  fail  down  said  st^ir- 
iray  and  was  injured. 

The  trinl  r'^siilted  in  a  verdiot  by  the  jury  of 
not  g  ilty  and  judgaent  on  the  Terdiot  in  fayor  of  the 
defendants.   A  nuaber  of  v^itneesee  testified  on  both  eides. 
The  jury  heard  their  eTidenee  and  ite  are  not  able  te  eay 
that  their  Terdiot  is  so  aanifeatly  against  the  weight  of 
the  eridenoe  that  this  court  should  hold  otherriee* 


B^i^iy 


't  -=  .^'4;; 


"+*, 

'*-,'■? 


♦  ^:i■/f>; 


*fi<;  iiXi;ftv  .i.*Tis.'i3  djTJt'*  **jxf5|>H*t«&j  ©A*  »*^«/i!rf«>  jSK3.i#axtsi«il» 


-  2  - 

Objeotlon  Is  oiadc  to  th«  eonduet  of  tht  oounii«I 
for  tho  dcfOBdmatt  in  Interrogating  vitnoo^soo*   Objtotlonf 
voro  aadt  and  suotalBOd  and  oounael  repriaM.nded  by  tho 
eourt.  An  exeiainntlon  of  th«s«  ouffttlona  and  the  tmairoro 
vhloh  «0r«  fltrloken  out^  do  not  appiiar  to  hftTO  been  of 
sueb  «  ohariiotor  aa  to  b«  projudiolal,  A41  a  natter  of 
faot  it  appaars  that  aoaa  of  thaa  night  have  baea  oonpotant* 

Objeotion  lo  oiade  by  tMUoal  for  plaintiff  in 
their  brief  to  tha  giriag  of  inatruotion  nunber  eight. 
Tbi«  inatruotion  ia  not  aet  out  in  the  brief  in  full  or  in 
part  9nd  this  court  ia  not  rcQuirad  to  aearoh  for  it  else- 
nhora.  '•e  find  no  auoh  error  in  the  reoord  aa  vould  varrant 
a  roTeraal* 

For  the  reaaona  atated  in  thia  opinion*  tha 
JudQitAt  of  the  Superior  Court  la  affirmed. 


\  ^^ 


OAROZICIt  HETALyOO.,   a  ooTpomtion, 
^"^  Dttfiuidnnt  in  Krror, 

FRAIK   DI   SRI8^0l*f»j'/ 

Pl'-lntlff  In  Error.  O 


ER«OR  TO 

mnrioiPAL  c 
or  OHioAoo 


T  ' 


56I.A.  604 


Opinion  filed  March  5,  1930 

IfR.  PRKSIDIiiO  JUOTXac  WILSON  dellT«r«d  thu  opinion 
of  tbe  court. 

Tho  dofendRnt  in  error*  ORrdinar  Metal  Oo«,  a 
oorporntion*  plnintiff  below,  fllad  ita  atatoaant  of  olaim 
againat  Frank  Dl  Orlatoforo,  plaintiff  in  arror  hare  and 
dafandant  below*  charging  that  the  defffnd'intt  Frank  01 
Cristoforo*  v«8  indabt«d  to  tha  plaintiff  for  gooda  and 
aerohandiaa  oold  to  hin*  for  whioh  ha  bad  refuaad  to  pay* 
Ohargaa  furthar  thsit  after  allowing  all  dua  oradita*  there 
waa  dua  tha  plnintiff  tha  aun  of  9847. 86*  Attaohad  to  aald 
atatanant  of  olala  waa  an  affidAwlt  aa  to  tha  aaount  dua. 
r^rton^l  sflTTioa  and  suaiaont  ana  had  on  tha  dafandant  who* 
tharaupon*  filed  bia  appaaraaoa  and  daMindad  a  jury  tri%l, 
Tina  to  file  an  affidnrit  of  dafenaa  waa  axtendad  and  on 
Ootober  36*  1337*  an  affidawit  of  narita  to  tha  action  waa 
filed  by  the  defendant*  by  hia  attorney.   Thia  affidavit  of 
aerlta  waa  atrioken  froa  thn  filaa  and  defendant  ordered  to 
file  hia  aaiended  affidavit  aithin  ten  daya  fron  Moweaber  9* 
1937.  An  aaanded  affidavit  of  iserita  waa  filed  by  the 
defendant  on  Xoraoiber  31*  1937*  and  what  appaara  to  be  a 
•eeond  aaended  affidavit  of  merita*  aubaorlbad  and  evom 
to*  waa  filed  Qeo<'abar  8*  1937.  On  aotion  of  plaintiff*  entered 
May  3*  1929*  the  laat  amendod  atatwaant  of  elaia  *aa  etrioken 
froa  the  filea*  and  judgaent  by  default  entered  agalnat  the 
defendant  for  ^47.86. 


^^.>i 


]^Q-- 


OCei    tC  rfoTM  toiit  noiniqO 


.f!:>li»x<^   »&i    ^%*'9ll^t 


.'  n«»«»4-  '■ .' 


,-^  4.;O0    0***    1:0 


8injT«*ioT«i 


flo  ltfs,.«  bair-mtyfl   »iRt«r  »»«**  • 

,€  T*^)^^^!!  molt  %xsib  aai  nlA^ is  tivRjbitt*^  «i«Jnr»»ft  «i'/  »*.it 
«  »<{  <»^  ftfi:  -ifw  itflji;  «?sax   ,iX  x^m'f^A:  no  «flf,ffluiQlo£> 

•Hy   »e«l.rt/«  bi>ttt;,'  .it  JS>0«   *«<*!/ 'J:  «i<t  ao^l 


-  3  - 
Thl«  writ  of  9TTOT  wf<»   sudd  out  of  th»  Apptllat* 
Court  to  reTi«w  the  action  of  the  trl%l  oeurt  in  tnterinf 
this  JudciMnt. 

It  la  urged  for  reTereal  thet  the  laet  »ffid»Tit 
of  aerits  filed  hj   the  defend«nt,  wae  filed  without  leuve  of 
oourt  and  w&e  «  nullity*  but  there  le  nothing  in  the  record* 
ae  shown  hj   the  Abetmot*  which  shows  whether  it  was  the 
affldarit  of  aerits  filed  without  notice  thftt  was  stricken* 
or  the  one  that  was  filed  Noweaber  ?let«  The  action  of  the 
trial  oourt  in  atrlklng  the  affidavit*  aust  be  preauaed  to 
hare  been  properly  taken.   The  order  striking  the  affidavit 
of  defense  and  entering  of  judgment  by  default*  was  ower  a 
year  after  the  filing  of  the  suit*  »nd  the  action  laay  have 
been  taken  by  the  oourt  after  due  notioe  or  after  said  cause 
vae  renohed  in  its  regular  order  upon  the  trial  eall.  what 
took  piece  is  not  preserved  by  a  bill  of  OToeptione  aa^*  in 
Its  absence*  «^  must  presune  that  the  action  of  the  oourt  was 
regular  ani  orderly*  end  thnt  its  aotion  vaa  properly  taken* 
Motions  and  orders  striking  pla^s  and  affidavits  fro«  the 
files*  and  exceptions  thereto*  should  be  preserved  by  the  bill 
of  exceptions  and  cannot  be  nade  p«rt  of  the  record  otherv'lse* 
So  fay  as  this  record  discloees*  no  exception  was  taken  t« 
the  aotion  of  the  trial  court.  M?^nn  v.  grown.  ?63  111.  394. 

It  is  also  insisted  thst  the  court  ooiaaitted  error 
in  ent^oring  judgment  b/  defmult*  when  there  w?te  a  de«and  for 
a  Jury  entered  in  the  oa««o  by  the  defendant.  In  the  oass 
at  bar  the  deaand  for  a  jury  was  made  before  the  defnult  vas 
entered  and  no  further  deisiBd  was  aade  after  the  default  for 
the  purpeoo  of  aasosslag  daoagee.  The  tuprooo  Court  of  this 
state  In  the  oaso  of  Mann  v.  Brown,  supra,  in  its  opinion  says: 


•  «  - 


:r4Kl«»' 


-t '?« J,  ^ . 


m-  i,5'r 


i«*   ««  «1    V-,.  .^    Iffttti 
.  ...»    .„.r.^,.. ...  .  _;    ^Ajrnjif 

>i ..  *  4.  *  V  ■■  •  V.  V 

'' '-■-■    ' '-ia^nx 


IIOii<t«(^K9    Aft    i^ 


-  3  - 


"The   jud^ent  bj  dtfauit  *ft»i>  appttarano*  enttriKi 
was  Irrtsulsr*      It  should  hare  be«n  i   judi^^«nt 
nil  dloit  or  for  want  of  plsa,   but  this   Irragu- 
Xarlty  is  not  n«o«s8ATily  r<iTsrsibie.      (M?.ff  ▼, 
Pnclflo  £xprt«a  Oo. .    ^51  Hi,   343,)     Ko  objection 
vns  aatd*  to  the   judgment  by  dsfftult  and  no  r»'nue»t 
WAS  and*  by  plnlntiffa  in  error  for  a  j^^ry  to 
atseas  the  dnangea  after  dofault  entered.      •   •   • 
The  deannd  for  a   jury  waa  ande  before  there  was 
any  iefn.ult  and  when  it  was  apparent  plaintiffa 
in  error  did  not  oontempiate  a.  jud^ent  agninat 
thea  by  default.     The  dewind  was  for  *  trial  by 
jury',   !»nd  we  think  it  clear  had  reference  to  a 
trial  of  the  iasuea  whom  oade  up  ^nd  not  to  an 
aaaesaaent  of  dwawgea.      If  plaintiffa  in  error  had 
wanted  the  dmia<!»g;e«  «ia9eB«i9d  by  a   jury   they   should 
have  m^de  th«t  rermeat  after  def«*ult  ^sa  entered, 
aad  not  hKiTe  stood  by  and  without  objection  allowed 
the  oourt  to  assess   the  ciAm«ges«      The  oourt  was 
warr^inted  in  asauaing  the  demand  for  trial   by 
jury  Bade  on  entering  their  appearaaoe  did  not 
nean  they  «^nted  the  daaagoo  aosoasod  by  a   jury  after 
defaults" 


VO  aoe  no  reason  for  diaturhing  the  judgnent  of 
the  trial  oourt. 

For  the  reasons   stated  in  this  opinion  the  jud|$ment 
of  the  Munioipal  Oourt  is  affiraod. 

JUOaUFliT  A77JRHSD. 
KTBIK  AIB  KOXtDOM,  JJ.   OOMCOH. 


6»t«frt'">  *»K«ir"n*rt'?f* 'niltlf'*  *j;^v.-  ..^t" 


i,£;j*ii 


Ca 


AFPKAL    m 


YARUtf   S.    i{L&J-lCr3,    Doing 


KUIXCIfAL  (SOCR 


or  OKEOAM* 


*PP^Unt.  ^  5  g   J^      g  Q  ^ 

Opinion  filed  March  5,    1930 

MR.  fR£3IDII0  JD^TXCE  ^IL30K  deliT«r«d  %b«  opinion 
0f  the  'court* 

thiu   is  an  appCRl  from  «  Judgneat  foT  $3«S&6.3^ 
in  favoT  of  th«  plaintiff  Oertrude  M.  Hiehardaon  ftnd  agaiaat 
tba  dafrndant  i&mej   ^.  Headrioka^  doing  buaineaa  aa  I,  S, 
KMdrieka  «  Co. 

Tbe  brief  of  plaintiff  faila  to  ooaply  with  the 
rxilaa  of  tbia  court  in  that  it  doea  not  contttin  n   abort, 
eoaoiaa  at^taaent  of  the  facts,  but  instead  seta  out  the 
testiaoaf  of  the  iritneaaea  Jja  eytenao;  neither  doea  it  coats  in 
a  terae  outline  of  the  prinoipal  pointa  relied  upon  for 
reraraal,  aa  roQuirad  by  ftula  19  of  thia  Court* 

Umdar  the  heeding*  "Brief*  t^o  r>oiata  are  vA^: 
Tint,  th'tt  ft  deed  without  proof  of  -aaeeaaioa  or  title  in 
graatar  doee  not  prore  title;  rreoond,  thi>t  it  ia  inoaapetmt 
to  prove  title  to  land  by  parol  erideaae* 

Tbe  «etion  vna  brought  to  reeorer  reatale  elaiaed 
to  be  eollected  by  the  defaadant  aa  the  ag«ftt  of  the  piaiatiff 
aad  far  whieh  the  defendant  had  failed  to  aeooust* 

Ikila  the  Queation  ia  not  rniaed  in  the  brief, 
except  in  the  srguaent,  neYertbeleeo,  ve  are  of  the  opinion 


r«Ts« 


C5&I    tG   a'otfiM  fcalll  nolfiiqO 
aslfl^!?©  mis'  fe»iE«ylI-~ 

.b»«l.*i»  eX,-7«i»rt  a»T«&«ir  «;  ;^  jftfttf  «e&l*9»  «."■? 

♦^ffK^jtJj-^:;   w*   l»<JAii«t   feed'  ^fSJ^iUl»t«^   «*?*    i^loitfaf  «dt   iUtJ« 


t1i«t  ther«  ««•  suffioient  «Tl4«iie«  t«  •uatain  tkM  Tordiet  of 
th«  ^ury  &Bd  the  judgoieat  of  th«  oourt  waa  •at«>r«d  pursuaAt 
thereto.     Th«  aettt*  d«gr««  of  proof  Is  not  roqulrod  to  proro 
title  to  ro%l   ••t%t«  where  that  ou«>etioa  1«  a  eoilatornl  oao 
in  the  Oftee.     The  cu^^ation  of  title  ««e  not  inTolred  la  thie 
proeeedingf  other  th^ia  e  auf fioieat  ehowing  to  entitle  the 
plaintiff  to  aaintftia  her  aotioa*      If,   la  f*.ot,   «nd  the  eourt 
80  found  the  fnot  to  be,   the  defctadaat  wee  the  ageat  of  the 
plaintiff,  then  it  did  not  lie  in  hie  aouth  to  dispute  hie. 
l»rinolpel«9  title. 

Where  the  title  to  reel  estate  in  oalf  oollnterelly 
iaTolved,   that  feet  eay  he  eatAbliehed  b/  parol  eTldenee.     In 
the  omse  at  bar,   the  plaintiff  not  only  testified  th^t  ehe 
eas  the  oeaer  of  the  pre«i«ea  ia  rmestioa,  but  produeed  %a 
origiBHl  deed  fro«  her  grantor.     Thie  eTidenee,  steadla^  alone, 
vae  sufficient.     Mo  eTideaee  wae  produeed  on  the  part  of  the 
defeadant  oontradi rating  thie  faot.     23  Corpus  J«ria,  eeetioa 
1349. 

For  the  resLSoas  stated  ia  thie  opinion,   the  judeaeat 
of  the  llamioipel  Oourt  ie  affimed. 

JUOGKtIT  AmililKd. 


;?aji-vet3<r  fe*-*****  turn    '■-   —     -■    '      ?e^«^t&>s^  *«ft  fc«»  t*»t  ^^-rf* 


::    S-/i^    r.  .  ,?f®Z^*»    •!■>'::    <■«*-.■  .-.S'.i^    f>5-     •-^:vai#l<! 


33769 


•Ml  OrOHei  U*    H^dAHD^  Oo- 
]Mirtn«ra«   tr^^lng  a»/G«o*   £• 
feat  4  3tm, 

ooLFvoKK  LA  no  ocmvKtr,       f 

Appellant* 


}^56I.A.  604 

Opinion  filed  March  5,  1930 


iOU  mszailiO  JUSTICi;  VILSOII  dellTerttd  the  aplAioa 
of  th«  oourt* 

Th«  pldlntlffs*  u«orK«  f.   te«t«  IdvlA  it.   w««t  &ad 
Gcorgt  it,  Hubb»rd*  oo^ptirtnera*   tmdiag  ea  aao*   S.   v^eat  ^  S»tt« 
brought  thin  motion  Ag&inat  Colfmore  Laad  Ooapeny*  »  eorporsitioB, 
d«feadAat«   to  reoovar  for  serTloaa  rendarad  aa  audltora  nnd 
aeoountaata  in  daf sating  n  oiala  of  the  Unitad  St»t«a  i3oT«niaaBt 
agalaat  tha  dcfftndMnt  for  «n  axolae  tax  of  taa  pcroant  on  the 
Bonay*  paid  tlia  defandaat  for  th«  uaa  of  ita  golf  oouraa. 

Tlio  •Iai«  V9a  1»ft.a«d  upon  tb«  theory  of  the  gOTtnuiaat 
that  auoh  aonefo  ware  taxable  &a  du«a  or  aaaborsMp  fa^a*     The 
pool ti on  t'iken  t^  x.h%  defends nt  «aa  that  it  rua  the  owner  •f 
the  preaiaaa  i>rhieh  "were;  «aed  in  the  year  1923  by  the  Playsora 
Qolf  Club  tind  later  by  the  ^ilAatta  Coif  Ciub»   und  thit  the 
faea  or  duea  ver«  paid  to  the  dafend'^.at  aa  rent^  *  the  defesdnnt 
iMiag  a  landlord*     The  ooneeption  of  thla  defense  la  elalnad 
both  by  C\mninghaa  for  the  defendant  and  ffaat  for  t^aintiffs, 
t>a  total  aggregate  of  alleged  rt^ntala  ao  reeelTed  for  the 
years  la  Question  aaounted  to  T^?:0l,i79,  upon  vhieh  b&aie, 
aooordlng  to   the  plaintiffs*   olain,   the  tax  together  with 
pcanltiea  and  interaot  would  aggregate  ^ 30* 134 ,04.      It  ia  the 
poaitioa  of  plaintiff  tba.t  the  fair  and  raaaonable  ooKpenas^tioa 


!^m  -MaE«aA 


(     . 


OEei    ,3  AotJ^  belli  noxniqO 


.#1fs'^i;j^^i?^;: 


4s©ifiAf©  «if#  fcfi»Tii»*  isa«=as"  .loiiSti^  ©iii^ 


.i'tii^ii   r:if#  to 


3»ir<3«t-^.'  7<f  SS€fl  T^^  »sXi  «j:  &»«.»  ;<?f»^  rfsiiS^  ss^JLe&Tco   ^itli 


-  a  - 

for  ••rrloftfl  would  Im  approxl«%tely  t^eatyofire   p«r  oeat  of 
^30,134.04, 

Th«  jury  «a«  w>iiT«d  and  the  OKuse  sub«itted  to  the 
•ourt*  r<(«uXtiog  la  &  fiadiog  la  fa-rer  of  th«  plaintiffs  for 
tho  aaount  of  #|«$00«00»  upon  wbioh  judtcaeat  ««•  aatorod  aad 
aa  Appeal  prayed  «ad  ailavad  to  tbls  court. 

Tho  (loolaratlon  eon^ltt^^i  of  thro«  ootmts.     Th« 
first  oouat^  a  apaaial  oouat  la  ftasuapait*  ehargod  aa  exprass 
acvaaMrat  between  thff  c^rtios  uadar  whioh  the  defaal^at  wae 
t#  pay  plaintiffs  nothing  in  the  araat  they  vr^  uaable  to 
secure  a  oaneallmtion  or   reduotioa  of  the  tarea,   tout  that  la 
the  event  plaintiffs  were  suooessfui,   then  they  vara  to  reoeiTo 
a  reeaonatole  fee.     The  aeoond  oouat  is  on  a  guant-aa  ai^ruit   for 
aerrioee  rendered.      The   third  covtat  it   the  ooaaon  oounts, 
ti>get)iar  irith  a  copy  of  the  sooovunt  sue4  upon. 

Defendant  interpoaad  a  plea  of  the  gi«ner%l  issue  and 
an  affidarit  of  merits  to  the  af foot  tha^t  it  had  a  good  defeaao 
to  the  entire  olaia  in  exoeas  of  ^530. "K),   and  that  a  reaaoU'itole 
fee  would  not  exoerd  th it  a4»unt.     Froa  the  pleadings  it  %ppeara 
that  the  oauae  v^s  ttied  upon  the  oueetion  aa  to  rbat  would 
toe  a  reaaonatole  fee.     The  tri^l  court  found  aa  e  proposition 
of  lav: 

*k.     The  oourt  holds  defendant  is  liatole  to 
plaintiffs  for  n  r^ft0oa%tole  anount  as  eonpensntion 
for  their  aervioea,   regardless   of  any  usage  or 
euatosi  aa  to  4Mapanaatlon,  and  the  finding  and 
ooneluslMi  of  the  Oourt  nn  to  «h«t  oonatitutes 
reaaoaAtole  oonTenaatlon  in  this  o^ae  is  not  toaaod 
om  evidenoe  of  uaage  or  ouston  offered  In  this  oaaa.* 

to  elte  thia  proposition  of  law  as  held  by  the  trial 
oourt  at  thia  tine,  booituse  of  the  f«ot  th^t  the    iriaoipel 
r&llanoe  of  the  defendant  for  a  reTersal  of  the  Judgnent  appesra 


-  s  - 

if'    i 


f<ljf 


ifit    .&»tSff#   mf^hi^^    t 


-  s  - 
to  b«  kiui«d  salnljr  upon  the  f<»ot  that  th«r«  vao  eTldonoc  Intro- 
duood  «•  to  the  ountoa  of  aooount^nts  in  T«g»rd  to  thoir  ch«r^a. 
It  la  Inalstod  that  a  ouatoa  la  ordor  to  b«  blndl&g,  atat  he 
known  to  both  partl«8«  or  preaunod  to  be  known,   or  th&t  tho 
dofendant  ehonld  hnve  aotu3<l  aotloe  of  the  ouatoa;    that  when  a 
euotoat  la  relied  upon  aa  a  baala  for  rereraal.  It  auat  he 
jklondod;   that  an  opinion  baaed  upon  a  ueusti,  ouatonary  and 
r^sonahle  oharge.  mast  be  for  aerrieea  rettder«?d  on  a  per  tllen 
Imala;   that  no  auob  ^Tldonee  eaa  adduood  on  behalf  of  the 
plalatlffe  shoving  a  reasonable  and  ouatonary  oharge  baeed  mi 
a  per  dlen  baale. 

A  nusber  of  wltneaaea  were  produoed  «ho  testified 
on  behaLlf  of  the  plaintiffs,  aoae  of  whoa  were  askod  the  oneation 
as  to  what  was  the  usual,  ouatoftary  and  nlnlaon  oh&rge.     On  the 
oth'^r  hand,  oth^T  vitnesisoi  were  asked  the  cueetlon  as  to  what 
would  be,   in  their  opinion,  «   fair  and  remsoi^ble  ooapsnsatlMi 
for  the  aerrloea  of  the  pl&lntlffs,      Herbert  Condi t,  a  witness 
on  behalf  of  the  plslntlffs,  testified  thet     7,5X>.30  In  his 
opinion  would  be  a  fair  and  ress<nukble  ooapensation  for  the 
serwleea  rendered,     F^uessli  k:»  Qoafort,  h  witness  on  behalf  of 
tho  plaintiffs,   testified  th»t  f 7, 531.00  ^'Ould  be  a   fair  and 
roftSMAble  eoapensatlon  for  the  aerwloea  perforned  by  the  plain- 
tlffa.     Both  of  these  wltnesees  were  cuaXlfled  as  experts  and 
both  teatlfled  that  their  opinions  were  bAsed  uooa  all    the 
testlaony  given  In  o^en  oourt  on  behalf  of  the  pl<ilntlffs* 
This  t«atlnony  r<^f«rred  to  by  the  wltneaass  ras  that  eonoemlng 
the  serwlees   read«red  ^nd  the  altuation  as  it  existed,      k  jury 
hawing  been  w^lwed.   It  Is  prssunod  that  the  trl9l  oourt  considered 
only  sueh  testlnony  as  was  naterlal  and  ooapetent.     uoreower, 
ths  oourt  expros9ly  found  in  tho  preposition  of  law  subnltted 


'Ctjfai  «fx*rJv^ 


-Z>  •:        V;' 


m>     !:-?ii-' 


««*,'»■'     a  XJ . «-.•.- 


'*.<»' ^j!«-«-fe»« 


iu.'  -.J  i-gKecrSKdf' 


■tii  titmw 


f^lWVii 


.y  »»ii 


hm 


s%8im^« 


-   4  - 
to  hlB«  that  bis  oonsidcriitioB  bas  based  0BI7  upon  eTldenoe 
p«rtin«iit  to  the  ouestioii  of  a  roaumabio  faa« 

Tbora  vms  a  eonfllot  1b  the   eTidenoe  a*  to  vbether 
or  not   the  serTloea  vera  to  be  ,;>erforaod  upoa  «  oontlngent 
fee*      Thle  question  in  our  opiaioa  ie  eettled  b/  the  findiag 
attd  jttdgiaent  of  the  trial  eourt  «hioh  hear^  the  vitaesifiee  and 
•beerrod  tholr  doManor  while  upon  the  -^itaess  ataad.     The 
pXaadii^sa  oharged  that  ao  aaotmt  had  beea  agreed  upaa  as 
B— l>ta»»itioa»  but  the  aaouat  %aa  to  b4>>  decided  upoa  the 
■v^oesaful  reeult  of  the  efforts  of  the  plaintiffs.     The  Tain* 
of  th<f  aerrloea  depeaded  upon  a  number  of  eon«iderationa«  sueh 
as  the  skill  and  stnnding  of   the  ;-!eraon  eaployed*   the  nature 
of  the  controTerex,   the  ehHrsoter  of  the  r^ueatioa  at  issus^ 
tfes  asMiuat  aad  iaportaaoe  of  the  subjeot-^atter  of  the  suit* 
the  tiae  and  labor  beetored  aad  the  results  a«eoaplishsd* 
Under  suoh  oirou.<aat»neee»   eviienoe  of  those  fasiiiar  vith 
sueh  serTleos  is  co«peteat«     There  eo\}ld  b^   ao  fixed  rule* 
dsterainHtiTe  of  the  vnlue  of  suoli  serriess  if^ad  the  jud^eat 
of  the  trial  oourt  aruat.   aeoessarily*  depend  upon  the  oplBiea 
of  those  qualified  to  express  en  opiaioa  as   to  their  T^lue. 
Lm  H.A.    a   Q.    Py.    c;o.    T,      ^Ilaoe.    136   111,   07, 

Objeetioa  «&s  aade  to  the  ruling  of  the  trial  court* 
in  refusing  to  a<j^t  eTidenoe  to  the  effeot  thnt  the  rules 
of  th«  Oopartaeat  of  Internal  HeTenue  require  eittora^js  or 
age»t«  handling  oases  to  file  an  affidRvlt  shoving  whether 
sush  agents  or  attorneys  are  vorkiag  upo«  a  oontinirent  basis* 
to  see  ao  error  la  the  ruling  of  the  tri-il  oourt  oa  thie 
Qfiestl^  nor  to  its  ruling  on  the  Queatioa  propounded  to  the 
witaesa  sest  «a  to  whether  be  had  n.led  euoh  aa  9ffid«Tit;   nor 


,i..*.i.-*.*  r  *d<r  "^  Mi*i»*  ti  ii€iiti«$e  t«^:itl  sf^Upf^r*  »iiit      i^Bt 
■-■      ■■*.iS^««ff?AE?  Sn!**    0^i6«rf   ^c«A«-i«  4^^££H>«  XAjS'Sf    ^ly-   Ite   yH«»/v^''^£   *«»» 


,?•  ^t.-.'     s-s**-".  i  .     ciJ 


7c  j»t"««6*#»  ftilsi^wt  »«fcir!»T4»i'  iyiFvws'ffI  \i»  iK^&r%mip^  *iU  t» 
#l(^  e#  ^friV'"  ';.bi:f»i^.u>-  •^^i  tut.  ^^t3.ii.if%  Sftt  mi  «•<«  ^^i^itvta^ 


-  5  - 

do  v«  b*ll9T«  that  it  wiM  •rror  la  haXdiag  that  it  mma  not 
ooap«tent  to  prova  by  the  witness  Ounnini^Ma  that  he  had  bo 
knowlodfo  of  nmj  ou«to«  of  aooottntmnt*  haiMUiag  exoite  tax 
oaooo  to  tfboxgo  a  ovrttin  ritnumtnnt  of  tho  aaowit  of  tbo 
tax  roooTored  or  ''bttted. 

Vn.tor  th«  charga  la  the  ploadiago  and  the  theory 
upon  vfaloh  tho  oa««  was  trle<1c   thore  was  aa  cxproaa  %gTO«aOBt 
^otrooB  tho  portiofl  to  tho  of  foot  tbnt  the  foe  was  to  be 
oontiO{c;ottt  upon  the  result*  regardless  of  custoa*      ws  soo  ao 
roasoB  for  disturblag  the  judgMeat  of  the  tri^l  court* 

ror  the  reasons  stated  in  this  opialon*   tb«  judg««Bt 
•f  tho  Superior  Court  la  affirmod* 

Kniai  AID  ROtlKMU  jj.  covotm. 


^oA  h$^  tt  i»ii^  '^ttltic.ti  3l  -one  &£<^  tt  imit  wnr*lim4  av  •* 


1^     j Apptlltc* 

nurist  A.  OAKLSOM, 

AppSli&Bt. 


APPEAL  THOU 

OIR01JIT  aOUKT 
OOOK  GOOTTT. 


i       256I.A.  ^04^^ 

Opinion  filed  March  5,   1930 


KR.   JUSTIO£  H0I.90i£  dellTttTed  tht  opinion  of  the 

OOUTt. 

A  ;)iidgnt«nt  )>]r  ooafe«9ion  ««s  entArnd  In  th*  Ciroult 
OouYt  of  Ooo)p  County  upon  v^rrants  of  «.ttorn«»y  «nior(»«d  on 
two  pre«io>»ory  no  toe  amdct  by  Edward  D.  nosi»n  &nd  Agnos  S. 
Reton^  one  for  U600  and  the  other  for  $1700*  with  Intorost, 
w^loh  notoo  vero  guRrsnteed  by  defendant  rith  oowsrs  of 
tiittorney  to  eonfess  judgment*  thereon  with  reaaonsble  ettorn«y*8 
fees  to  be  tared  nnd  ooets.  Judevent  was  entered  against 
defendant  on  the  two  notea  on  xaroh  9,  1938,  for  fS,U4  and 
ooate.  on  January  36«  X939«  defendant  aowed  to  w«eate  the 
judgiMAt  and  to  be  allowed  to  ple^d  to  the  aerita  of  the 
aotion.   The  ooaaon  Iaw  reoord  abowa  that  an  affidawit  waa 
filed  In  aupport  of  a^id  motion.   Thia  aotion  waa  denied 
froa  the  order  denying  that  notion  defend'^nt  prayed  and 
allowed  an  appeal  to  thia  court  froa  the  judgment  by  oonfeaaion, 
and  the  record  la  before  ua  for  review. 

The  order  denyl n^r  defendant* a  aotion  to  wneate  the 
judgment  entered  by  oonfeaaion  ^snd  the  order  allowing  an  appeal 
to  thia  oourt  are  in  the  following  vorda: 


,J'?;J&II*«>C; 


%e    «Mr»WO^     !<<^  *        ^-  -^  "*«J*IS(tJl|&    Vf*     ?,f»^i!V^-f.;^L;-     -■t--«     v,vri:,:V     ^•'•rji^w 

dfft  to  »*i3i!H»  e«iJ^  «h*  J^««ii|  ©#  £s»woXij»  «<f  at   baa  i-a^m-ikul 
i»j»w  ^J'iv^'Iiltt*  ff«  i*-Mi»   jwr©^^  i;jto©«lc  ■wax  «o«»'«o  »ff;r      *«oljro« 


-  3  - 


*This  c»uae  coming  on  to  br  h^nrd  upon  the 
(l«f«ndant'a  votian  to«to«t«  th«  iud^mtnt  heretofore 
rendered  herein  by  ooofesalonf  eiter  argvuetnte  of 
oeuui*!  Btod  due  deiibercttioa  toy  the  oourt  ef*ld 
■otion  1»  ci<»nl«»4  to  which  the  defendant  excepts. 

Thereupon  the  defendant  ha-vlag  entered  his 
•xeeptions  horein  pr«iys  '*n   appeal  fro«  the  aboTs 
judgment  of  this  court  to  the  Ajpeliate  Oourt  in 
and  for  the  iTirat  Jistriot  of  the  3tnte  of  llxinois 
vhieh  is  allowed  upon  filing  herein  hie  np.enl 
bond  in  the  pennl  sua  of  One  Hundred  ^ind  fifty 
Dollars  (.iliO*00)  to  be  approred  by  the  oourt 
i^ithin  thirty  days  fro*  this  date  <\nd  sixty  days 
time  froK  this  date  is  hereby  alloved  snid 
defendant  in  ^hich  to  file  hia  bill  of  exceptions 
herein.'* 


It  will  be  obserTsd  that  th«  aypgal  is  froai  the 
judgment  and  not  fros  the  ordsr  denying  defendant's  notion  to 
Tuoate  it* 

The  oo«»on  law  reoord  only  is  before  us.  That  dis- 
oloses  no  error  of  procedure.  The  judgnent  is  entered  in  aooard 
vith  the  wnrrants  of  attorney  to  confess  it. 

There  is  no  bill  of  exceptions  fovmd  in  the  reoord 
prescTTing  the  prooeedings  had  on  the  action  to  raoate  the 
judgment.  Laoking  a  bill  of  oxoeptions  naught  is  presented  to 
this  oourt  for  review.   The  eTidenoe«  if  a^ny,  h«»ard  upon  the 
■otion  to  vaonte  must  be  proaerred  for  review  in  a  bill  of 
•xoeptions. 

As  held  in  aoyles  r.  Jhytrftus,  175  111.  ?70,  ths 
warrant  of  attorney^  af f iiawlt  of  exeoution  and  the  note  upon 
«hioh  judguent  b/  oonfesaion  is  rendered  in  tern  tise^  auet  be 
preserved  by  a  bill  of  exo^ptions  to  authorise  the  consideration 
on  appeal  of  alle^j^ed  errors  i^hioh  r<*quire  an  inspection  by  the 
reviewing  tribunals.   In  the  absence  of  such  ri   bill  of  exceptions 
it  will  be  prssuaed  the  oourt  heard  evidence  on  the  cn^eetions 
as  to  whether  the  noto  was  properly  endorsed  and  whether  the 


»'-., 


10 


.tK,m 


fertf. 


,;;  -    •*9»miff 


:>a    8«.»|>l0 


«d  ^tikm  t»«i.t  sit^'t  itjC  li»VfibiT  'i^isstflo*  \;ii  iJ.-  mliw. 


-  3  - 

w«rr«.nt  of  attorn*/  im«  ••  drawn  as  to  bind  th«  lef»n>l>nt. 

A«  oftld  in  Potcr  mnd   Brerlmc  Oo.  t,  i;au»«d».  et  »1. 
tlO  111.  App.  153; 

*Tho  Al»«trsat»  whloh  it  th«  plsading  of  th< 
defendant,  oontAlm  the  Affid^iTltt  road  upon  th« 
hearing  of  the  notion  to  open  the  Judgnent.   Theae 
hRTO  no  pXaoe  in  th<s  nt'^tutory  record,  but  belong 
in  the  bill  of  exoeptioos*  h»   ttic  latter  dooutaant 
haa  been  atrioken  wa  ere  not  priTileged  to  examine 
or  reriav  thaae  affid^yita  and  oonamiuantly  are 
not  at  liberty  to  deoide  their  probatifa  for««^  but 
■uat  aaaume  that  the  ruling  of  the  trial  Judge  on 
the  notion  waa  oorreot  and  not  in  the  oondition  of 
the  raaord  aubjeot  to  ohallen«j;e.  Hort^  t.  jieu.  63 
ill-  W»i  ^WH  ▼.  MZ£<S£*  863  Ul.  394J  Peopla 
▼.  Board  of  RoTlaw  of  Ooofc  County .  36?  111.  ^afi,* 

Thin  appeal  la  froa  the  Judgaiant  by  oonfaasion  and 
not  fro«  the  order  denying  the  aiotion  to  THcata  auoh  judgaant. 
In  Fanoaylv^nia  Gp.  t,  >;r«?rq.  79  ibid.  1^7,  it  ima  held  that 
ahara  no  appeal  la  taken  froat  an  order  oyerrulin^^  n   motion  t« 
Taeate  a  judgment,  the  Appellate  Court,  on  appeal  fr<»i  the 
juifawat  below,  eannot  reyie^r  «uoh  order.  That  ia  the  aituation 
in  the  ci^aa  at  iMir.  There  are  oanf  oaaea  to  a  like  effaot 
appearing  in  aany  daeiaiuna  of  thia  oourt,  whloh  mky^X   be 
reaited. 

The  judgment  of  the  Cirouit  Oourt  ie  affiraed. 
fILSOH*  r.J.  AID  RTKSR,  J.  CONOUR. 


-  «  - 


•^^'-'Mtt^^  ^*f  &r^. 


nvw£b  e»  »*ir  'iw^*!***  lo  #fl.'ST»i».w 


Jt..'A  .■.^■■:.:....,. « '^**'ii*?  u'iji :'' j-' 


*  J^' . -.ji'd^.il.i;^. 


0.'  .^olt.Aa.    '  -ytii-'  '■■■■■■  c«  »-t»«lw 


,t9»in\}i   »i  *t«.r<0  tiyoTiO  ai(«  tc^   tma^fxi/J;   •SilT 


»^'vai;''A'^'. 


vt^Pirw 


X 


33978 


WS< 


k   KSOZIt  STATE  BAIK,   ) 
f  /"    ./        V  Appellant,        ) 

App«llC«. 


OZROUIT  OOURT 
OOOC  OOUI 


2B6I.A,  604 


Opinion  filed  March  5,  1930 


UK*  fUSTiair  HOLDOM  dellTered  the  opinion  of  tht  oourt. 

On  July  12,  l92Bt   ft  )udgMn%  was  oonf«saed  on  a 
•ociiOTlt  in  fftTor  of  th«  pl&intiff.  th«  assignoc  of  s  not«  msdir 
by  defendant  to  the  order  of  Austin  Hospital  Atsoo&stion  for 
the  uum   of  !1300,  and  by  the  payee  endorsed  and  delivered  to 
ths  plaintiff  bftnk  before  saturity.   The  aAount  of  the  jndgment 
was  91464, 75.  vhleh  included  $90  attorney*8  faes.  On  motion 
of  defendant*  supported  by  affidavit,  he  «as  let  in  to  plead 
ttpMl  tha  seritSf  the  judgiient  in  the  asantiae  to  stand  as 
security. 

Thara  was  a  trial  before  the  oourt  vithout  \   jury, 
and  a  finding  in  faror  of  the  defendant,  with  a  judi^ent  af 
nil  oaT>ia^  and  for  costs  entered,  fro«  «hioh  pl&intlf  prosecutes 
this  apr.«a.l, 

While  sereral  pleas  were  filed,  the  defense  relied 
upon  xas  that  the  note  ims  deliT<»red  to  the  plaintiff  baak 
eenditionally,  th^t  it  should  not  be  effeotire  until  treaty 
shares  of  the  stoek  of  the  ijayee  in  the  note,  Austin  Hospital 
Association,  7fts  delivered  to  the  b«nk  ier  the  defendant. 

On  the  trial  plaintiff  offered  in  eridenee  the  note 
upoa  whioh  the  Jud^jjaent  i?%e  eoafeesed.  The  note  was  endorsed 


\i 


s^     ,    f.>  ^  i-^i    -*"»■•        •■■■■ 


N 


tv^.tr. 


^Sit^XAOQC;.^       >•■ 


gj'If^Cj*      •"'•  aS 


,i«!:ii<3»  «?**  It©  m^li?. 


:':'»"!r*V,i. 


■■OH  ari^iiu*   »fl*ttfr.  '<  '^^xb^  9iit  to  i<i>M*^ 


''  3«a«j>i< 


-  3  - 
"Austin  HMpital  A««oei«tlon  by  John  F.  l^Ino*,  tvMstoer.* 
OounaaX  for  plaintiff  RSked  ooun««i  for  defendant  this  (iue«tion: 
"Tou  do  not  deny  the  eigBAtiire  on  the  note?*   3efendknt*e 
eouneel  anewered^  "i'o*  but  ire  dmy  the  exeoution  of  it«  e« 
tbnii  you  will  hare  to  prove  that."  Couneel  for  plaintiff,  *I 
take  it  the  signature  on  the  note  is  fltcUBitted***  Counsel  for 
defendant  replied,  "Yes*  th'^tt  is  tidsiitted  by  the  pleading; 
that  is  not  dAQied,*  Th«n  the  court  s^tde  this  obserr^tion* 
*As  X  underst'sind  the  lav,  th^  fact  that  th«7  hsTS  the  note  in 
their  possesaion,  and  the  faot  that  you  admit  the  signaturs, 
»nd  it  is  proTsd  that  nothing  h^s  been  paid  on  the  note*  stakes 
it  prisMi  fasie.  rsu  adait  that  thirre  has  bsen  nothinir  paid 
on  the  note,**«  to  «hloh  quei^tien  of  thi?  oo\jjrt  defea^iant's 
oounsel  answered  "yes*.  Then  the  oourt  said,  *So  thnt  raises 
the  presuaiption  of  deliTery  and  proper  exeoution.* 

Plaintiff  then  offered  in  eTidenoe  the  oognoTit  vhieh 
th«  court  i».daitted.  9ounsel  for  plaintiff  then  eaid:  "X  vould 
like  to  have  it  understood  that  oa  Exhibit  1,  the  p«*tr  of 
attorney  is  also  reeelred.*,  to  whioh  oounael  for  defendant 
replied," yes".  The  ootirt  thea  nade  this  obserration,  <*lurely, 
the  entire  doeuaent,**  whereupon  the  pl^iintiff  restsd  his  oass. 

Oefendant  «as  his  only  vitnesa,  and  fron  his  testimony 
it  sBpears  that  in  Juas  1936,  hs  bought  30  shares  of  the  ssanon 
eapital  stoek  of  the  Austin  Hospital  Assooiation  for  91500,  frea 
»  salessAa  for  the  hospital  nsasd  Kere,  who  negotiated  the  sale 
with  hia  at  his  hoae.  This  was  four  days  before  the  firet 
note  vas  signed,  Hs  paid  lere  ^100  oa  eooouat.   Kere  told 
defendant  tilat  the  bank  would  deliTer  the  stook.   Afterwards 
defendant  «eat  to  the  bank  and  signed  a  note  for  H400*  He 
said  he  signsd  the  note  at  the  first  window  in  th«  ba^nk,  th%t 
hs  did  not  icnov  ths  man  hs  dealt  with,  ^ould  not  know  hla  if 


•'>:■:  >'«^    »ll#     1J«-.-  ■      ,^*.*f «'{?«««    XftStrttffMJ 

■■■■"'.■  »A" 

tC    ««?- ,        :i^i.. 

;*X49(!fe    ig^il^    4f»>#«i4!Oa&<MS[  O-rf-*    HtSy*"®.*   feiSIMWS    '...StSi«"- 
tl   «iK  viS>«'S    *«»-«   WWC*    ,«£*.«'«'   *i«ftfa   «.: 


-   3  - 
bt  SAW  Ma,  ftnd  did  not  go  btiok  to  thft  twnk  iiino«  the  suit  «*■ 
•  %arto<S  to  ftsoortala  vbether  tho  naiii  was  •till  there.     {!«   told 
tbt  win  «t  the  hunt  thnt  he  had  bought  etook  of  the  Auotla 
Hooplt.^l  AtsooiKtlon*  and  he  had  oome  down  th*!re  to  eign  the 
note*     He  thinka  the  note  vaa  tBallod  to  hla  and  that  he  took 
it  do«n  to  the  bnnk  to  eign.     The  tian  gare  hia  e  note  to  •ifun, 
and  then  ho  Inquired  about  hit  atook^  and  ''■o  like  a  duaay* 
Z  did  not  expeot  to  get  it,  and  I  aaked  for  it,   and  he  said 
the  atook  nould  be  aailod  to  »••"     He  did  not  oay  when,     I  bed 
Ao  talk  irith  hia  »ft«r  that  tiao  nor  saw  hia  thereafter. 
That  ia  all  dtfoadant**  t-atisionr  in  relation  to  the  tranoaotion* 

It  appeara  froa  the  erideneo  that  the  note  waa 
renewed  four  timoa  and  that  Jud^^ent  by  oonf«*tsion  was  entered 
oa  the  5th  note;   that  at  the  tiae  defendant  gitre  the  fifth 
note  he  paid  HOO  on  aooount,  reducing  the  aaount  of  the  indebt-> 
edneaa  to  t;1300.       All  the  notea  were  reyable  to  the  Austin 
Hoepital  AeaooiatioB,  and  by  then  enloraed  and  deliTored  to 
the  bi^ak,   eo  thtit  in  the  ultiaate  reeult  thio  waa  a  apooulatioa 
by  defendant  in  30  aharoa  of  the  eowMin  oapit^l  9 took  of  the 
Austin  Hospital  Asaoeiation,  t^ieh  he  bought  for   "IfS'X},   paying 
#100  at  the  tiao  of  the  purohaso  and  another  tlOO  at  the  tiao 
of  the  exeoution  of  the  fifth  note,  whloh  was  the  one  upoa 
whioh  the  Judgaent  herein  was  oonfesesd.     It  does  not  appear 
that  defendant  ewer  dsaandod  his  20  shares  of  ooaaon  etoek 
froa  the  Hospital  As^ooiation  or  any  one  of  its  representa^tlTes. 
Defendant  ienied  g^ny  reeolieotioa  of  eigning  any  other  note 
but  the  first  one  and  the  last.      Defendant  adaitted  that  the 
aignatuxe  on  the  note  as  aaker  was  his.     On  eross-ex&ainatioa 
he  was  ahksd  this  Question,  <*Did  you  ewer  see  anybody  at  the 
Austin  Hospital  Assooiation  and  ask  thea  where  your  etook  vaeT*, 


'^U-.t   •?  •      •«T»lft  Xii^TS   aj!rw  am   »iit  lNirirf#i»ife  «.fc;*»1t»©?«»  o*   b^ftXifti 

»rj-:;  ;  ^   ■■•*      'c-ii    r   fijlri  avfi!*^  »■«»•  *«fi      ..tti^in  f'-J*-  -jki^^  »rf^   «t  jroroJh  ti 

)3(ii    «3»*»    {•«':    jic.'::  -•>Ti£ns«fi    *?^   «'>rf*    fc«i5 

&i,««  *4i  Mil  «#|  *«©t  f>.«tjri6f;..  4,  il4i«  ,tl  #««'«*  fO^cfX©  tea  bib  l 
*<i:'^'t*?*.ir«i(f*  iK4?f  «^*   sojs  #fi^i*  i^«)!fjf  t*jMS«  aslflt  tfti-s  jiX*f  ©a 

•1:^'*.r:  -jCi:-  ^.;  - 

»«f-t  H  rf»atR  i»ti:<?r«>«?  flr««»©6  <»«t^-in>  itjufK*?*  "j^  «>  *B«£i*^i:»!>  ^tf 

■^»U  «^>  a'l!  ecu      _  ■»«isi^'3.„,  ....,,;    . -..•      ■.    CCi- 


"  ^'  •  » ■>.»»     sf  "'  f.  .*  IT     f ,  roi  u     jt  «»■  •«  ?/» 


-  4  - 

to  vhloh  qu«0tlon  ht  aaawartd  "no  sir**. 

Defendant  thereupon  r«f»fA   his  o&ee» 
Tbc  plnlntiff  in  r  buttftl  oaiied  the  ;.T*sident  and 
«iitbier  of  the  bvnk,  both  of  rhtm   testified  that  they  had  no 
knowledge  of  any  selling  of  atook  by  the  Hospital  Assooiation* 
The  presidsnt  of  the  bonk  testified  in  rebuttal  that  by  an 
•yxmntensnt  with  or*  Blaine  u,   Ransay  of  the  hospital,  who  was 
in  charge  of  its  finanoes,  the  bank  would  froa  tiac  to  tiae 
diaoount  notes  of  the  hospital,  and  inasanoh  as  the  hospital 
was  soaowhat  new  as  an  institution,  the  bank  vould  require  a 
proper  guarantee  froa  the  Hospitsa  Assooiation,  whioh  was 
furnished  in  the  sua  of  310,000,  oorc^rinf;;  all  obligtsitions 
of  the  hospital  to  the  bank.  Under  this  arntagsasnt  the 
praotioe  of  the  hospital  was  froa  tiae  to  tiae  to  disoaxuit 
aotss  at  the  plaintiff  bank* 

It  la  apparent  as  a  aatt^r  *f  law,  at  the  eonolusion 
of  defendant's  testiaony  the  bank  aight  hare  rested  its  east 
BuooesafuJLiy  veithout  any  further  proof.   The  reoord  aay  be 
•earohed  in  wain  for  any  evidenoe  th«t  th«!  note  in  suit  was 
delivered  to  the  b^uk  conditionally*   9h?tteTer  defendant  aajr 
haws  said  regarding  the  giwing  of  the  first  note,  it  is  patent 
that  he  made  no  effort  to  procure  his  ntook  froa  the  hospital 
at  any  tiae,  and  froa  the  tiae  he  purohised  his  stoek  until 
the  entry  of  the  judgaent  upon  the  note  in  suit,  being  a 
Ysnawal  of  the  orii^inal  indebtedness  for  the  fourth  tiae,  hs 
aads  no  effort  to  procure  his  stook.  It  is  in  «'wi donee, 
hoTOV'T,  that  the  hospital  v«it  inta  bankruptoy,  and  that  it 
was  without  assets*   Kewertheless,  it  «ny  be  assuaed  to  hare 
besn  solvent  during  aoet  of  the  tiae  that  ctefendaat  was  atteapt-* 
lag  to  pay  for  his  stook  by  renewing  the  original  indebtedness 
oontr%oted  th«rsfor,  less  ths  3100  paid  at  the  tiae  of  the 


**ttm  (:  '-mam  iofi  m^iint^tjp  Htii^m  of 

baa  $s»hU<:'  ;:««  Imtfttdl 


-'Oi^fiHYQ 


i2Ci:Sx.;i 


ytseo  v:-fi  fesJc^?  av-feiS-  ;r.;';iiJt  Ja'-o  S'ji5';it^oi»:i;5?®^^'i'  ^  * 5" n :=:;:"••  ;iyr?  ta 


-  •  - 

p«r«1ias«  of  the  at««k  »rtd  tb«  ^100  ss^ld  ftt  the  tinft  the  not* 
in   suit  was  glrea* 

Ther«  1«  no  OTldono*  of  iMd  faith  on   th«  part  of  tht 
bank  »nd  no  •▼idanoa  th3t  it  did  not  rcoelvo  the  note  in  suit 
in  due  oourte  and  without  notloe  of  any  legal  defenees  th«ret« 
on  the  part  of  the  defendant.  Khile  the  lenrned  trial  jud^e 
ruled  eorreotly  upon  the  state  of  the  lav  «hen  he  alloved  the 
»ote  to  be  admitted  in  eridenoe^  he  eeeas  to  have  etr^yed 
away  froa  the  ie/^uee  hy  reaaoa  of  hie  eyapathy  being  incited 
for  defendant  i^hoa  he  chnraeterised  "ae  a  poor  wiotin  of  a 
etoek  selling  prop>oeition*.  A  oosp«*lte  enewer  to  thnt  obeer* 
ration  by  the  judge  reete  in  thi<»  undeniable  faet  th«t  th^re 
wa.e  no  ieeue  by  pleading,  affid^ivit  or  evidenoe^  of  "any 
etook  eeliing  proposition.* 

It  le  a  preeiueption  of  law  that  the  holder  of 
negotiable  inatrueiente  in  the  abeenoe  of  erideaoe  to  the 
oontrary  is  presuaed  to  hold  in  due  oourae  for  value  and  with-> 
out  notioe  of  defeases.   Kualt  ▼.  Canrixht.  203  111.  App.  503. 
Aad  likewise  where  a  proaiseory  note  is  in  ths  hands  of  a 
holder  for  value  before  maturity*  the  burden  ie  on  the  persoa 
who  attaoks  the  title  to  shos^  by  a  preponderaaos  of  the 
sTldenoe,  that  the  bank  was  guilty  of  bad  faith  when  it 
took  title  to  the  aote.  Clarke  ▼•  Sew ton.  335  111.  530. 

To  inwalidate  the  title  of  the  bolder  of  a  nef^otiabls 
instruaent  ohallenging  suoh  right  of  «n  inaooent  holder  in 
due  eouree  for  waluCy  it  is  neoes^ary  for  »  defsadaat  to  prewe 
IhUIL  faith,   jf^othetein  v.  arossb«rflf.  2^2   111.  App.  238* 

In  Kuolt  ▼.  o-^nright.  suprn,  it  was  held  thet  ewery 
holder  of  a  angotiable  instruaent  is  presuasd  to  be  a  holder 
la  due  course  in  tht^  absenoe  of  eridenee  to  the  eontrery." 


<»   «»«i«^>.JKi 


ii?l**i    e' 


HtM^U       » 


«X^X«iif' 


9V0t«; 


t*:.y-i 


-  e  - 

Citing  OX<irte  v.  tic- ^' ton,  tuprn. 

Th«  ooiirt  in  Morey  t.  glaoson,  is^  III.  kpp,   56, 
b«Xd  i^nter  r1^»  that  th«   tltl«  of  tho  holdtr  of  eomaeroiftl 
piip«r  for  ir&luo  and  before  ovstxiritf  o^n  only  b«  defoated  by 
•Tldenot  thftt  «ueh  holder  ««•  guilty  of  bad  faith  in  taking 
titlo  to  ouoh  not««  titid  it  ia  not  mou^h  to  proT«  th«  «xitt> 
#»••  of  ii«r«  «ttopioion  of  ditfeots  in  aucb  title  or  that  auoh 
holdor  »t  tht  tiae  of  trking  ottob  titlt  knew  of  faoto  oel'- 
0ttlat«d  to  oxoito  auapioion  in  tbo  aind  of  a  prudent  ma,  or 
eren  that  eueh  holdor  was  guilty  of  gross  negligenoe  at  auoh 
tiao. 

The  STidenoe  discloses  that  the  bank  r&s  the  holder 
of  the  note  ia  suit  »s  an  innocent  holder  for  t^Ius  before 
amturity  and  >?lthout  any  notice  of  legal  defenses  ther*l>9) 
that  lis  title  was  aoouired  in  good  f»ith  and  that  the  trans- 
aotion  is  free  of  any  proof  of  bad  faith  on  the  part  of  the 
bank. 

The  diffioulty  with  the  trial  judge  in  his  deter- 
■ination  of  this  oase  is  that  he  did  not  try  it  upon  the  issues 
Joined*  but  disgressod  and  trarelled  a  path  not  warranted  by 
pler»ding|i  or  eridenoe.  His  syaonthies  seoasd  to  be  aroused 
upon  the  theory  that  the  hospital  hnd  indulged  in  a  stock 
Jobbing  transaction  and  that  defendant  ry^n   dupod  thereby «  and 
the  finding  and  Jnd|psent  of  the  trial  court  is  the  result  of 
tho  court's  syapathy  irith  the  defend<«nt  vhoa  he  ohsrecterited 
as  a  Tiotia  of  the  hoepital's  stock  jobbing  propoeition.   It 
is  aiuoh  iBore  apparent  from  the  eTidence.  vhich  is  not  in 
dispute,  that  the  defendant  undertook  to  fia^tnce  a  11500 
obllgntioa  for  the  purchase  of  30  sharoo  of  the  oonison 


3i?i 
itctif*  tl|-,  «#fi»:8iiX2Jtw  »»«Mr.|  U©  if!r.t.u  t#&X^if(  d«iita»  iS'^m^t  m^tn 

»»</a?:*  ».-:.t  tf©crjar  #i   p*  #««  foils  »t^  4'->9«(-t  »£  »w.«©  «lf<«*'  ttsi  a©^*KjRisj 


-  7  - 
•  took  of  the  hospital  on  tb«  laodott  siui  of  ^iOO»  and  tb«t 
four  tl>ea  he  rfttlfied  tho  tr«ns%etion  by  renoT'lng  the  note 
and  that  only  on  renewing  the  note  in  judgment  did  he  pAy 
nnother  tllOO. 

The  adaiteible  «nd  uncontr&dioted  evidenoe  in  the 
reoord  apolioable  to  the  ieeues  joinod  in  the  <ietlon  olearly 
entitled  the  plaintiff  bank  to  wiintain  its  judt^nent  by 
oonfoseion.   Tberefor«  the  Judgaont  in  thi^^  nppsal  of 
nil  ORpiat  of  Uaroh  ^8«  1939,  is  reversed  end  tho  oauss  is 
reai%nd«d  with  directions  to  the  Cirouit  aourt  to  expunge  Ite 
•sld  jud^dsent  of  ;i«roh  93,  1938,  froa  the  reoord,  And  to 
reinstate  the  judgaent  by  eonfssaion  entered  July  13,  19S8, 
In  faror  of  plaintiff  and  ngainet  defendant  for  the  sua  of 
j^l4«4«7&.  The  oosts  here  and  below  are  tax«4  against  the 
defsndatnt. 

Kifnuao  AiB  KtiuiMn  nn  qxriotions. 

ILIOM,    P.J.    AMD  HYHEH,    J,    aoJICUR. 


AfPIAl   FROM 

a  OerpoTAtioii^  i  cock  J'JUBTT* 

Appellant.        1         2 5  6  I. A.  6  0  5 

Opinion  filed  March  5,  1930 

Wl,  JUf^flGE  MOIidCW  delivered  th«  oplniou  of  the  oourt. 

Th«  reooTd  la  this  o*ae  la  before  ua  for  reriew  oa 
AB  appeal  by  defendant  fro«  n   jud^eat  agt^inat  it  of  II, OX) 
catered  on  the  Terdiot  of  the  jury,  after  orerruiiag  defettdaat't 
Motioa  for  fc  aev  trial. 

The  eoeae  of  the  aecideat  vie  the  intersection  of 
Aehl»ad  Aveane  »nd  Sohooi  Street,  Chicago.  The  eauae  rent  to 
trial  upon  the  deolnrstian  of  piRintiff  oonaiatlng  of  two 
ecvBta  aad  a  plea  by  defendant  thereto  of  the  geaeral  iaeo*. 

The  firat  count  nllegea  in  subataaee  th^t  oa  the  lOth 
day  of  Septeaber,  i9;?5,  defendant  by  ita  agent  operated  a  aot^r 
truok  oa  Aahland  Avenue  in  *  aoutherly  dl  recti  oa  at  or  abroach- 
lag  the  intersection  of  Oraad  AT«n»e  rith  SeK^al  Street;  that 
plaintiff  »ae  ia  the  exercise  of  due  care;  that  ahe  vaa  a 
paaaeager  in  aa  autoaoblle  drirea  ia  a  eeaterly  directioa  al*Bc 
8«h«al  Street.  It  ia  averred  that  it  waa  the  dpty  of  defeadaat 
to  oper»ta  ita  actor  truck  ao  ae  not  to  •ndaagar  the  life  of 
peraona  lawfully  oa  the  highway,  but  ia  vioiitioa  of  ite  duty 
ae  aegligeatly  "ind  careleaUy  operated  aaid  aotor  truck  that 
it  waa  oauaed  to  collide  with  the  Huto«)blle  in  »hich  plaiatiff 
•*•  a  paaaeagar^  aad  that  aa  a  direct  reault  of  aueh  careleaaaeaa 
aesligeaca  of  defendant  plaintiff  suffered  ccrtaia  iajuriea 


i3&fti 


OotX   ^a  /iOT«M  bstlit  flolaiqO 


#«!rf^  ^ariiij   to#ofli  tlifi*'  £fS*s»9^<5  x^^'(^«^^t£0  f:^,':'  xlifs»^i^»n  <>« 
^nirulai  tiif.$'i9t:-  5»«»»ll5»3  'iH;^iielisi  t  »ettbfl$lftt  to  9««sftiU^s>«  Imm 


-  2  - 
%p  her  p«r«OA«   Th«  «eooBd  ooumt  aharge*  %•  a  sp«oifle  aot 
of  ii«gllg«iiee  thff)  TlolHtion  hj   dtf«i<UAt  of  th«  tUte  statute 
fOTbiddlng  the  driTin«^  of  ab  autoaobilc  nt  m  r»te  of  speed 
exoeeding  15  alite  %n  hoar  in  the  resideno*^  district  of  a  city. 

DefoBdant  aesigne  for  error  amd  argues  for  rerereal 
that  the  eYid«noe  ehove  that  defendant  was  not  guilty  of  any 
negligence  a  ttribatnble  to  the  aeoideat,  but  th^st  sueh  <nrideBee 
d»es  shov  thtit  plaintiff  «iis  guilty  of  negllgenee  irhieb  ap,  res- 
isfitely  contributed  to  the  eellision;  that  the  Terdiot  is 
exoessiTe*  and  tb»t  the  oourt  erred  in  refusinc  to  gire  to 
the  Jury  Instruotian  No*  A   tendered  by  defendant* 

there  is  evidence  in  the  record  that  one  T^itneen 
testified  thst  whmk  he  first  sew  defendr>nt*e  truck  it  ims  obs* 
quarter  of  a  block  north  of  school  street  cosing  south  in 
Ashlnnd  Avenue^  ^nd  th?)t  when  th^^  truck  vas  that  distance  away, 
about  on<'— Quarter  of  a  blocks  the  ear  in  vhioh  the  pl?%.intiff 
ems  riding  had  arrired  at  the  east  cross  ralk  of  -'Ohool  ^trest 
with  its  front  entering  &shla.nd  Arenue.  Another  witnces 
testifi<!>d  that  he  was  on  the  sidew&lk  at  the  northwest  eorner 
•f  the  intersection  aAd  frou  that  point  wiewed  the  accident; 
thnt  he  saw  the  autoaohile  in  which  plaintiff  was  riding  ttt 
School  Street  oouing  went  aeroes  Ashland  Awenue;  that  when 
*it  got  ower  the  cer  tracks"  he  thea  first  saw  the  tmek  isaseiBg 
and  that  it  ran  "into  the  back  of  the  auteaobile*  in  which 
plaintiff  was  riding.  The  driver  of  the  auto«obile  in  »hihh 
plaintiff  was  riding  thought  she  was  r«q[ulred  to  stop  at 
streets  on  which  ear  traoks  are  located;  that  she  did  stop 
when  approaching  said  traoks  and  she  and  oth(»r  Fitnesses  like" 
wise  testified  that  whes  the  frwit  of  plaintiff's  autoaobile 
was  jiMt  at  or  a  little  bit  ower  the  east  cross  «&lk  of  3eh«ol 


»#ft4i#x:«  'ta^^aai    *i^&s^wk  i4ml(^%i>  ^itii$s»  r»c»it  sii  £ii^ 
s»if*  #Ad(*    *»«/«»*•*   ?*«#iit»^'  »i6«w>J5  ?sflw  ifa(|»o«  ^if^ttU  ioo^«3 


-  s  - 
3ty««t«  d«f«Bd&nt*a  truek  w%m  about  200  f««t  tanj,  «b«ttt  • 

thlM  of  m  bI<Mk  aorth  of  the  orotsiag}   th»t  th«  driv«r  of  tho 
•«t«MblX«  in  vhleto  plaintiff  w&s  riding  st^rt^d  soroos  «Ad 
hor  •»?  "iFfto  oo«pl*teIy  oTor  the  oar  tr^ok*  vhea  it  iraa  otmok 
Im  the  roar  by  dofondvnt**  truok  which  did  not  slov  do«m* 
PlAintiff  toatifiod  that  she  ouw  the  truok  juot  aa  tha  oar  ift 
vhioh  aho  ««a  rl^ais  enterad  into  A.ahland  Ar%mum,  •tnd  th^t  the 
truck  vaa  about  a  ouartar  of  «  blook  north  of  School  ^tr«at« 
and  th^t  when  aha  looked  agai«  th«  trtiak  «aa  set  aloving 
do«m  or  ohasgiag  ita  apaad* 

IB  oontradiotioR  of  this  teativony  the  driTcr  of  the 
dafendant'a   truok  teatifiad  that  ha  saw  the  ear  in  vhioh  pitia* 
tiff  was  rldin^f  %h^X  i*h»B  ha  aaw  it  ha  ii%a  about  10  or  16 
feet  aouth  of  the  north  aide*«lk  of  Sohool  Otreet*  and  that 
•uoh  oar  at  thst  ti«e  had  t^ot  to  tha  vest  of  the  eaat  sidevalk 
of  lahland  atmum  whan  he  first  notioad  it»  and  it  ia  argued 
by  plaintiff's  eounaal  th^t  if  defendant**  truok  ir«a  K)  feat 
aouth  of  tha  north  aidavalk  of  Sohool  street  *rhen  the  oar  in 
vhioh  pl«!&intiff  vaa  riding  h^^d  not  yet  ooae  ta  Aahland  Arenue. 
the  accident  could  not  have  happanad,  for  the  raaaon  th«t  the 
truok  vould  hava  ba«i  entirely     aoroaa  the  atreet  before  tha 
autOMobile  in  vrhioh  plaintiff  vna  riding  could  rMoh  the  plaea 
of  the  colli si on* 

^othftr  vitneaa  for  dafend«nt»  w»ho  ana  fanwrly  in 
tha  esploy  of  defendant  and  at  the  tine  he  testified  vaa  driving 
for  another  ice  eraaai  ooapany^   teatified  that  tha  autosebile 
in  which  plaintiff  vaa  ridiaj^  vsa  travelling  a&  or  30  silas 
an  hour  aor«»«  the  street  juat  prior  to  tha  happening  of  tha 
colli 6 ion* 


?fe 


,  .  >&sa&Sf  J5j;f  tcs  r'-*a  s^J-i-  tli^^A  ■■•B 


IJ^* 


.a 


-  4  - 

It  is  MppAreat  frm  tb*"  fer«goiac  r«oitation  of 
fiTld«no«  thit  it  la  la  aharp  oaRfXlet.     Th*  iuty  of  r^oonoiXlmc 
tha  diaexopanoiaa  In  tha  t'^Btlaony  of  th«  p^rtlaa  v%a  the 
burtben  sod  duty  of  th«  jurors.     It  waa  th«lr  duty  to     r'^oonclle, 
if  poaeibl«*   th«««  ooafilcta  in  tha  aridanea  uid  from  tha  sftnnar 
ajMl  appattraaee  of  the  aaramX witnesses  inglTlng  thalr  taatisoay 
to  eonoluda  vhioh  of  tha  vitaaaoas  rttrt  antitlad  to  the  ^m^t^r 
t>tdwi08»  ftnd  ia  arriTlag  at  tbair  Tardiet  to  giira  affaot  to 
%h%  testlflM>Ay  of  such  vitnaaaas  aa  they  baliaved  taatified  to 
tha  tTuthf  aad  oa  the  other  hand  to  diaoredit  the  taatiaoay  of 
auoh  other  ^itaeaaea  rhoae  testiaoay   they  diatMllaved.      If 
tha  juxy  believed  the  vritnesaea  of  piAiatiff  and  diabeiieTOd 
tha  vitnaasaa  of  dafead3int»  where  their  testioMiy  vaa  la  oonfliot 
vith  that  of  the  plaintiff*  they  had  a  right  ao  to  do,   end 
if  the  testiMony  of  plaintiff* a  witneaaaa  taken  alone  la 
auffioient  to  justify  the  jury*s  Terdict,   then  it  ia  not  tha 
duty  of  this  court  to  aet  auoh  Terdiot  ^aide  ualeaa  it  appaara 
froa  ell  the  eridenoa  that  the  T«rdiot  ia  oontrary  to  ita 
probi^tiTe  foree.     wa  are  of  the  opinion  froa  a  review  of  <ill 
tha  evidenoe  that  it  is  of  sufficient  probetive  foroo     to 
wnneaat  end  sustain  the  verdiot  finding  defendant  guilty  of 
the  eotion^ble  negligenoe  charged  in  tha  deolention. 

Whether  or  not   iefend%nt»a  truok  had  the  rijrht  of 
w:§  ia  likawiae  &  crueation  of  frot  for   the  Jury  to  deeide. 

Z*  Headier  y.    >ileon.  343  111.   kpp»  t9«   in  oiting 
»fc»^T^<|gy  T.   fberatein.   3  5  ibid.  :^d  where  tha  court  aaid: 

"    *    fhatever  the  exact  diatanoa  aay  hawa  ba«&9   it 
is  apparent  that  pl«^intiff*s  autoaobile  was  approach' 
lAi  the  ittterseotion  of  the  highvnya  froa  the  ri^ht 
and  th-<tt  under  the  statute  it  «n«  the  duty  of  the 
defendant  to  give  the  ri^t  of  v&y  to  plaintiff's 
auto»>bile.*   * 


.e^J 


>■  ■  .  ?4«ife  ^®4*   -^i^^:  " 


...  ^y.- —  ^i 


1^^^' 


84' 


■  cafe&-iv9  Sift 


•.:;«dS;iii 


#1    ,-'^*'*5<   *v;  (^   ^jirss  »«»t»j«^?Bi.^  I'fjiti'*  g»»<#  ^-yp' 


t^^iWiMCr*;^' 


-  6  « 
the  oourt  adds: 

*Wlth  th»t  •tntment  v  are  vuMibl*  to  «g7«««   for 
r«nsona  hereinafter  referred  to« 

**!&  the  n;  ne  o&ee  the  otwrt  also  e&id  that  a 
▼eblole  wight  be  •aid  to  be  approeoblnc  t^«  ioter- 
eeotion  froa  th«  right*  vlthia  the  aeaAlAg  of  the 
et.-'-tute*   Jiiid  «o  eat  1  tied  to  the  right  of  w.%y  orer 
one  approaching  the  Intersection  froa  the  left*  fhen 
the  driver  of  the  latter*   1b  the  cxoroiee  of  due 
oare*  vould  or  should  eee  thAt*  unless  he  jlelded 
the  right  of  "iray*   the  vehleleit  vould  or  alght  collide* 
In  '»S9lAg  oa  the  iu<^«tlon  atf  i>heth«r  due  o&re  vas 
exercised  by  the  drivers  of  the  rpapectire  oaro  1«- 
▼olved*   two  prlnclp«tl  eleaents  nust  be  t»icen  into 
eonalderatlon*   ar>.fliely*   the  r(>l»tlve  ^^osltlonn  of  the 
two  oars  with  reapeot  to  tb?  Int^rseotion   ind  their 
resT^otlwe  rates  of   speed.      Ususlly  the   -question 
of  irheth#;r.   In  ^lew  of  th*'  relative  .positions  of  the 
two  cnrs*  with  respeot  to  the  intersection*   »nd  their 
respootiwe  r^tes  of  speed*   the  driver  ot  the  oar 
ajj^preaohing  the  intersection  fro«  th«  iftft*   should 
hsTs  seen  th'^t   the  Ooirs  would  or  alght  collide*  unless 
he  yielded  the  right  of  way*   is  one  of  fact  for  the 
jury  to  determine.     Cf  ccmrse*   like  slailar  questions 
of  faot*   this  tmy  soaetlses  beooae  one  of  lav*   but 
oaly  ''^here  in  the  opinion  of  the  court*   ^1  reasonable 
Minds  wovtld  re&oh  th«^  s^se  oonoluslon. 

''It  ^efould  seen  to  Oe  clear  th%t  the  statute  doss 
act  «ean  that  the  driver  of  a  Tehiole  approaching  aa 
iaterseotloA  aust  y ftold  the  right  of  wt%y  to  one 
approaobiag  the  s-^ae  Intersection  oa  hla  right*   without 
reg>rd  to  the  distance  that  Tshlcle  »ay  be  froa  the 
iaterseetioB  when  he  reaohes  it  or  to  the  r^ites  of 
•pood  at  tthich  the  two  wtthloles  are  traveling,      rbea 
the  driver  of  a  vehicle  appreaobea  aa  intersection 
aad  h«  sce^  aaother  wehlele  appro%ehing  froa  the  right* 
at  a  greeter  dist^.noe  froa  the  interseotion  and  at  a 
•peed  such  th^t*   in  th?  exerolse  of  due  o^\r«*  he 
bell««Tes  he  will  be  -cross  the  Interseotlon  before  the 
wehiole  approaching  froa  the  right  reaches   It*   thea* 
la  our  0;inloa*   the  letter  c^^r  is  not  ona   'a-proachlag 
froa  the  right*    'Ithia  the  xe^nlBg  of  the  statute*  ?.ad 
so  as  to  require  such  driver  to  stop  or  yMld  the 
ri^t  of  way*     rrhetht'^r*  In  exerelsiag  his  jadgveat  aad 
jioiag  ahead*   the  <}rlver  exercised  duo  «are*   is*  w« 
repe?jt*   ordinarily  a     question  for  the   jury   to   leclde. 
Such  ?ould  be  the  situation*   la  our  opinion,   where* 
as  la  the  case  at  bar*   the  evldeaao  showed  th^^t  the 
•oliislon  oocured  whea  the  car  approaehlng  froa  the 
loft  haad  reached  the  area  beyoad  the  aiddle  of  the 
iaterseotloa  snd  the  one  aDnroaohiag  froa  the  rii;ht 
Kad  not  thea  renohed  the  middle  of  the  intersection 
and  where  the  cer  cosing  in  froa  the  left  *as  struck 
la  the  rear  by  the   front  part  of   the  onr  ooalng  in  froa 
the  rights.      In  th«^t  situation*  we  believe  it  aiay  aot  be 
•aid^  as  a  aatter  of  la^**  that  the  >irlver  of  the  vehiolo 
appr<mohiag  froa  the  left  failed  to  exereiss  due  ere 
in  belieTlng  that  the  or.r  ooalng  in  froa  the  right*  not, 
having  reached  the  InterseetioB  ^hea  he  ^id*   w»s 
sufficieatly  far  away*  tba.t*  conslderfcag  the  r^tes  of 


#X.' 


&«?i 


•     .iJ^%v. 


i-JJi??rJ:.:  ..i.^^' 


-  6  - 

speed  of   th«  tro  oars«  ke  hod  tiJM  to  oros-a   th« 
lnt«»rseotloB  b«for«  tb«  oth*r  o&r  r««4ih«d  bis  iln« 
of  tmvti.     la  other  frords*   in  «ueb  <%  •ItM^tion^ 
w«  belieTo  that  it  may  not  be  s^id,   as  a  satter  of 
law*   th9t  the  atntuto  applied,   "tnd  that  the  dTirer 
oofldng  to  the  Interseotion  froai  the  left  t:rooe«ded 
^oroas  fit  his   peril*      It  vas  9t  rruestioa  for   the 
jury  to  decide  on  all  the  eTid«noe»* 

IB  support  of  the  for«(^olng  diot«  the  court  cited 
>>I«on  ▼.    ^lieoa,   2?7   ill,    ^r^p.   386;    Zspf  t.   Kqtt— ,    -'39  111* 
App,   406;    Jj^rllng  ^  Oo.   ▼•   Tempw  aab  Co..   338   111.    App,    ?^; 
Owits  T.   3hindbloom.  339  111,   App,   674;   violdbery  ▼.   rhllr>ott. 
340   111,    A)n,    663  :?n4   goydft   Qalrr  Co,    »,    ^mlsh.    ?4'^    Ill,Aop.633. 

)>ro«  the  forf^going  reoite^tion  It  Is  aprftreat  la  the 
sltuiitlcm  ooafroating  the  parties  la  this  case  st  the  tlae  of 
the  ool^lslon,   the  party  drlvlag  frost  the  rl^t  did  aot  aeoess- 
arlly  hBTe  the  rlg^t  of  way  so  as  to  abeolTS  def endsjat  froa  the 
asgllgeaos  attributable  to  proceedlag  oa  the  assuaptloa  that 
the  driver  of  defeadaat*s  truok  had  the  right  of  «ay.     Under 
the  olToxmst&aees  la  eTldenoe  the  jury  irere  Justified  la  fladlajE 
that  the  drlTsr  foi»  defead».Bt  la  prooeedlng  upoa  the  theory 
th?it  he  had  the  right  of  w&y  uader  the  statute,  was  negllgeaoe 
juetifylag  the  Terdlet  of  the  Jury  la  so  fladiag, 

Defeadaat  argues  that  t?lalntlf f  vas  guilty  of  ooBtn~ 
butory  aegligenee  in  aot  notlfylag  the  driver  of   the  autoaoblls 
la  vhich  she  was  rldiag  of  the  l«peadla(  daagor  of  a  eoUisloa. 
lA  the  earlier  days  of  aut9«oblle  traffic  it  was   in  a  f<»w  eases 
held  that  •  passAager  wis  aot  la  the  eTereise  of  due  care  for 
his  owa  safety  If  he  filled  to  notify   the  drlwer  of  the  oar  of 
appro&chlnf;;  daager  evident  to  hla,      riant^   ▼,   Chictpo  aity  Hy.go, 
284  111,   346.     However,    this  theory  has  since  been  erploded, 
Baok  seat  drivers*   notivltles  have  of  late  been  eoadesaed  by 
the  courts  of  review  of  this  st^*te,     Hoffaaa  v.   Yellow  Jab  Oo.   , 
338  111,   4pp,  369  ,  la  which  the  court  said: 


^dt  iS^x»  &S  i»»l  )  9di  lo  it. 


^Ujs^U      '      .  -       '  ■      •  ■    ■     - -. 


l^lirfi*,* 


Ai 


\»XMm  tTaew  trd*   dtti:i»  ai    «  ©SC;  .^^si*   •ill  SC?" 


-  ▼  - 

"A  vaming   to   Xh-    trirer  tram  n.  r««r->«««t  pes* 
•wnger  ttlght  veil  di*tr»ot   tbc^  drltr«r*t  att«ntloB 
tb«retoy   tending  rath«r  to  cause  thftB  to  prevent  sueh 
mm  ^o<]ldeBt.* 

As  i«  %ptly  Mid  lA  H»4geg  v.  MitoheXI,  &9  Oolo.   286: 

*Tli«  T««ir->«e&t  drlTer  i«  responalUe  for  enough 
ftoeidont*  a*  the  score  atnnds  Tithout  the  &ld  of 
judiol%l  ;^r«oedeBt«     The  plsoa  for  &  pae^^eager  «ho 
know*  better  than  the  driver  •   •   ♦  vhen»  vhere  and 
how  it  should  be  operated  le  at   the  rheel** 

lo  ^gty  T,   Telipy  3ab  Co.,  348  111.   App.   609,   it  was 
t«id  tbat  a  i>»neenger  is  not  required  to  be  otmstantlx  "on  the 
^ui  Vive  to  prevent  a  servant  of  the  oarrler  fron  aeting  o%.re- 
leseljr  in  the  waj^iig^sent  of  &  train*  street  e«r  or  oeb.     The 
obserranee  of  svefa  a  m&t  of  lav  vould  plaoe  upon  a  passenger 
an  intolerable  and  hii^lf  unjust  bnrthua  %n<i  irould  onlj  tand 
to  hinder  and  annoy  th<»  s^rrtnt  of  the  carrier  in  his  control 
of  the  train*  street  oar  cr  t«LXioa.b*  and  tend  r^ather  to  eause* 
tban  to  prevent  an  aeoident.* 

In  Houn  V.   The  ghic?t£0  City  H&ilway  Co.   333  111. 

378*   the  eourt  «ade  these  observ&tions: 

"There  has  not  been  ?»  eointills  of  evidence  pointed 
out  ffhiob  indioates  thdt  appellee  oould  direot  or  oontrel 
the  aovenenta  of  the  vagim  or  the  aethod  of  driving. 
The  driver  «%s  in  sole  obarge.     This  being  the  Bt^te  of 
t^e  reoord*  '^e  c/nnot  sgrea  vitb  appellant's  oontention 
tbat  the  negligence  of  the  i1  river*   if  any*   would  be 
ifl|9at«d  to  »pT>ellee.     Ktmi  if  the  negligsnoe  of  the  driver 
namsed  or  contributed  to  the  aeeident  it  vould  not  exouss 
ap:>ellAnt  for  an  injury  to  one  who  w^^s  vitheut  f^ult  or 
negligrnoe.     ghioago  and  fcltoh  Hailroad  Oo.   v.   Vit>ond. 
212  111.   199.** 

Ws  are  unable  to  o<H»ur  vith  the  contention  of 
dnfsndant  that  the  ai^rd  of  dasHiges  is  exoesslTe.     On  the  contrary* 
we  think  they  are  rery  misger  for  the  injuries  suffered  by 
plaintiff  as  a  result  of  the  collision. 


»»**«®i 


;dHS    .ftXft: 


asdf 


riaimtlff  t<'atlfl«d  thKt  prior  f  tb«  ^eeldcfiit  sh* 
vac  la  good  lioalth,   that   sb«  had  vorkod  «•  •alcolady  for 
•OToral  ymf  »nd  oamod  About  $40  a  vaek;   that  at  the  tiac 
of  tba  aeoident  aha  v^ns  6 truck  on  tha  hoad  oTar  tha  rl{^t  €f9, 
aad  that  aha  wn^a   throva  aoaa  how  agalnat  the  ataftrlag  vbaal 
vlth  suffloleat  torea  to  ISraotura  two  riba«  her  jcnae  waa  injurad^ 
aatl  ftlit  WRa  takaa  froa  the  ao ana  of  tha  aeeident  to  ^iaboldt*a 
Stora  whara  a  aauraa  baadagad  har  knaa  aad  lag;   that  whaa  aha 
got  hoaa  9h9  W118  nauaaatad  n.nd  h%A  aa^ara  paiae  in  har  left 
aida  and  had  diffioulty  ia  bre^i  thing;   that  the  doctor  vaa 
called  the  next  4ay  and  found  plaintiff  in  bad;   that  he  baadagoA 
up  har  oheat  with  ^dhaaiwa  tape  extaadlag  arauad  har  body; 
tha  outa  nnA  bnxiaea  oa  har  head  orar  har     aya  bothered  har 
for  aoaa  tlaa;   aha  waa  in  bed  about  two  weaka  and  on  aeoouat  of 
diaeineaa  aha  eonaolted  Jx*  'tnjlQT  who  X-rayed  her  head  ta 
diaeorer  if  her  akull  had  been  frieotured,  but  the  x-ray  did  not 
ahow  any  ekuU  fraotura;   that  aooa  after  the  aooidaat  ahe 
dewaloped  a  tfl«par^ture  nnd  had  great  difficulty  la  breathing; 
that  paewKMiia  deraloped  at  the  aita  of  the  fractured  riba« 
whieh  kept  har  ia  bed  a  few  waaka  loager;    that  ehe  vaa  usable 
ta  attend  her  work  until  Af^ril  After  the  nooident. 

The  foregoing  reoltation,  we  think*  refutaa  the 
oonteatioa  that  the  daaagea  awarded  are  exoaaaiwe. 

The  motion  of  the  court  ia  refuaiag  to  gire  Inatrua* 
tioa  tXo.  4,   proffered  by  defeai'^Bt  ia  ohaileagad  by  defaadant 
aa  erroaaoua.     The  court  gare  three  inatruetioao  tendered  by 
plaintiff  and  19  inatruotioaa  at  the  requeat  of  dafaadaat.     It 
al^t  be  aufficiant  to  aay  tt»t  tha  Jury  waa  auffieieatly 
iaatruotad  by  tha  iaatruotiona  giwaa.     Yuaerioally  et  le)»at» 
dafcftdaat  baa  ao  oaaae  for  ooaplaint.     P^jrthar*  we  aight 


-M  fc-='"5.  sdrAitfifT^iMiJ    a*^^  sv*:^  *iD-iC.  .  .iarts*ao-x'Xs   ai-- 


-  9  - 

T9tvMm  to  pft««  upon  th«  ouestloa  bo«&use  ooun»«^l  h«Te  fniled 
to  sot  tho  instruetion  forth  la  Its  bri«f.     Hovever^  v  hare 
•xaaiaod  th«  inatruotion  »nd  find  it  Tulaerable  to  tho  obj«o- 
tloB  MBde.      Ajio&g  other  things^   tbo  instruction  oontninod  tho 
foliovlng:     "^nd  if  you  find  under  the  evidcmoe  in  this  aotioa 
and  under  the  inetruotion  of  this  eourt  that  the  pleintiff 
knew  tuBki  appreoieted  the  daj^^er  of  ooliieion  in  tiaie  to  prevent 
it  bjr  preaptly  v«ming  the  driver  of  the  <i.utoaobiIe  in  vhich 
•lie  «»•  n  pnesenger^  it  tf^^n  her  duty  to  do  eo,  snd  her  failure 
%•  Teaoaetr^te  vith  or  vmm  eush  driver  "ould  constitute 
neglicenae  in  thie  oaee*" 

^e  gather  fre«  vhitt  «e  h^^ve  already  said  that  the 
lev  under  the  faote  in  thie  e&ee  east  no  duty  upon  the  plaintiff 
to  interfere  in  any  vay,   by  eug  eetion  or  otherviee,  with  the 
aetiona  of  the  driver  of  the  autoeobile.     It  would  have  been 
reveraible  error  for  the  oourt  to  have  ^Ivea  that  inetruotion. 
In  Vittuw  V,    i?Tury.  161  111.  4pp.  603»  the  jvd^aent  vne 
reversed  beo^auee  it  invaded  *    the  rrovinoe  of   the  jury  by 
telling  the*  in  effeot  that  oertsin  faote  oonstituted  oon- 
tributory  negligence  »ad  pr«olud«d  a  reeoTery.'*     whether  or 
Aot  plaintiff  van  guilty  of  contributory  iiegligenee  vae  a 
question  of  ft^et  for  the  jury  snd  it  would  hi»ve  been  error 
for  the  court  to  heve  given  Instruction  tio.   4«  vhioh  in  effeot 
told  the  jtury  that  the  fsot  that  plaintiff     did  not  vam  the 
driver  of  the  autoawbile  of  iapeadiag  danger  prohibited  a 
reooMnry. 

finding  mo  reversible  error  in  the  record  before  us 
la  this  ease,   the  jud^aeat  of  the  Huperior   :ourt  ie  affiraed. 

VXUOI»   P.J*    AI9  BSm»  J.    C(^OUH. 


a-^jfc¥f  -'*'9^^  feiffi,  ,9ii«f3«^txj*  siJ':  afS©l?^« 


SS78t 


X 


/▼A 

TH£,0O«ILCf   nt 

App«ll«Jl«. 


ocmrksit    , 


APPEAL  mOM 


OOOr  OOUi«fT. 

256I.A.  6 


05 


Opinion  filed  March  5,  1930 

MR.  JUeTXQK  HOLOOM  daiWeTCd  th«  opiikioa  of  the 
oourt. 

Tb«  oau««  tr«Bt  to  tri^.l  upon  th«  ••ooad  UMnd«d 
dMlAr^tion,  vhlob  Ir  its  thre#  eount*  inter  ali»t  obdrg^d: 

That  the  d6fendxint«  Th«  aowi««  Determent  0(»rnny, 
(herein«ft«r  referrffd  to  a«  th«  oorporatlon),  ims  &  oorporrtion 
•ngagod  in  the  ar^nufROture  and  »*!«,  oto.,  of  soap  »nd  other 
oleaneing  produots;  that  on  Oo^eaber  1,  ia?7,  the  defendant 
Oerejr  wan  a  serT^nt  of  the  defenl;nt  •ostomtlon  for  hire. 
In  the  oapaeltx  of  a  saleeaan*  and  ae  euoh,  eng<tged  In  eelllng 
and  ■arreting  Ite  iraren,  and  th»it  he  did  In  behalf  of  hlas«lf 
and  the  defendant  corporation  operate  divers  aotor  Tehlolee 
•Ter  publlo  hlghwnye  la  Cook  County,  In  .leilvfrrlng  Ita  product* 
and  in  oalllng  upon  and  eoliclting  proopootlvo  bu/ere,  oon> 
euaere  and  other  poreons;  that  the  defendants  oimed  and  operated 
a  eertftln  aotor  rehlole  over  divers  highways  in  tT&nsportin«( 
divers  salesnsen,  ngents  and  eaployees  of  defendant  corporation 
•agaged  In  Its  buslnesa,  eto*;  that  defendante  did  thnn  and 
there  Invite  the  plaintiff  to  ride  in  said  noter  oar«  and 
that  plaintiff  did  then  and  there,  in  the  exereise  of  ordinary 
•are  for  hie  ovii  safety.  In  response  to  ouoh  Invitation,  ride 
in  the  saoe  ^hlle  the  saae  ras  operated  by  defendants. in  trans- 
porting divers  ealesnen  and  agents  of  the  def«»nd»»nt  oorporitlon; 
that  as  *»ld  aotor  vehicle  oper^  ted  by  defendants  In  which 


•/i< 


0561   ,a  riottJBM  bBin  aoiniqO 


Cib?^ 


.S*i&C??.r'r- 


JI    SSlJli    "^^Pi'AW. 


..ttr.'co 


?t^- 


;55 


;  T-^^iihxv 


.-i    »afi^ 


'i# 


-  3  - 
plaintiff  ««•  riding  pToo«ed«<l  ev«r  Tuohy  ATenue,  the 
4«f«Mliint«  vllfully»  irantoxLL/  and  rsoklcasly  oftuted  It  to  b« 
op«rRt«d  at  a  high  And  d^ngwrous  rftto  of  apood  and  to  forolblf 
and  TiolontXy  run  into  and  atrlkt  againat  another  aotor  T«hloXe 
■wing  in  an  oppoaita  <![ireotion«  and  thim  to  too  forcibly  *nd 
▼iolantly  run  off  froa  tho  road  and  into  a  ditoh»  wheroby 
plaintiff  waa  forcibly  and  Tiolfntly  tbrovn  and  p<iroipit^ted 
and  (proatly  injurod  and  doMigod* 

Tha  aeoond  nnd  third  oounta  nra  auoh  tho  aaao  aa  tb« 
firat*  and  oount  on  tha  9?mt   aooidont«  and  ohar^o  wilful* 
woAtMi  and  rookleaa  op«r*^tion  of  the  defendonta*  notor  rehiolo. 
In  tha  third  oount  it  is  oharged  that  tha  aotor  oar  upaet. 

To  the  oooond  amended  deolar>»tion  defend^nta  int«r-> 
poaad  a  general  and  apeoial  denurror  whioh  vna  overruled*  Both 
defendtnta  then  filed  plena  of  the  gene^ml  iasue*  and  tho 
oorpomtion  filed  fire  opeoial  pleaa,  in  the  firet  of  whioh  it 
denied  ovnerehip  or  opemtion  of  the  offending  aotor  or  th.<9t 
at  the  tiae  of  the  aooident  it  mum   uaed  for  trmnaporting 
•alee-nen*  agenta  and  employeee  of  a&id  defendtant  in  and  about 
its  buainooo*  ete.;  thut  it  did  not  invite  nlaintiff  to  ride 
iB  aaid  aotor  Tehiole  and  that  at  the  tise  and  plaoe  aforea^id 
•aid  aotor  vehiole  vas  not  operated  la  defendant  oorpon^tion*e 
buoinees. 

The  aeoond^  third,  fourth  and  fifth  apeoial  pleao  of 
the  (iorpor<ttion  defendant  are  praotioaliy  to  the  sa^e  tenor  and 
•ffeot  in  varying  language  ae  in  its  first  apeoial  plo^. 

The  o«tu8e  whs  tried  before  oourt  and  jury,  on  the 
iaeuos  above  outlined*   when  plaintiff  rested  its  oaae  both 
defendants  in  due  fora  aovsd  for  an  instruoted  verdiot  in  their 
favor,  T!>hiah  tho  oourt  deniedg^  Then  a^in  at  the  oonolusion 


-  *;,  - 
^  if^S  91  J^A«>l/'^c   \lsdMnlHi«t  hn^  ^isx^^mMW  ^xllxi^iim  »taAtaft)«ib 


,^<»y.if.i    -fi'ft    -inffito    */f*     .rani    b'i:^,'$^.f{«- 


.    in 

;.-j'Cv-   friliif    '^'U  fli 


-ir^t«i  »;^«#l»a»t«f'  «■■ 


:<;fc    fe«l; 


too 


#i 


t»i 


'lltni 


•^•o*  «d* 


.f»X  ^atfti 


.ex 


-  J  - 

•f  All  th«  proofs  HnA   the  pHrtloo  h«d  r«)a%ed  thoir  oasc,  both 
d«f«*ndAnt«  aoTod  for  aa  l&struotod  Tordlot  in  their  faTor^ 
This  ttdtion  th«  oourt  4«ni«d  ao  to  th«  oorpor%tion  and  gn^ntad 
••  to  the  defend«nt  Carry,   rho  09uae  there'* f tor  preooedod 
against  the  oorporation  defendant,  against  who*  th<»re  was  a 
rerdiot  of  guilty  with  an  assessment  of  daaages  at  the  sua  of 
tia^OOOy  upon  irhioh  the  oourt «  aftrr  owsrruling  aotioas  for  a 
now  trial  snd  in  arrest  of  judgment,  entered  k   jud£;aent,  fro« 
whjtoh  the  defendant  corporation  brings  the  reoord  to  this  oourt 
for  roTiew  by  appeal. 

Ths  (Min  offios  of  the  oorporation  defendant  was  la 
01cwel»nd,  Ohio,  with  a  loonl  offioe  in  Ohioago,  in  ohrir^e  of 
one  J*  W,  iiordy,  who  was  district  salessftn  aad  who  also  had 
supprwision  and  oharge  of  the  business  outside  of  Chioago  and 
oontiguous  thereto.  Carey  wsis  in  ths  employ  of  the  oorpori^tioa 
defozuiant  as  a  salesman  and  a  aerwios  amn.   The  motor  rehiols 
used  by  him  in  discharge  of  his  duties  was  owned  by  Carey.  Me 
was  paid  ^350  a  month  v'ith  an  allowance  of  ten  cents  a  mile 
la  Ohieago  and  eight  cents  s  mile  on  outside  trips  to  oorsr  the 
cost  of  gtisollne^  oil  and  upkeep  of  the  aotor.  Carey  kept 
the  motor  in  his  own  garage  and  used  it  for  his  owa  pleasure 
as  well  as  in  his  employer's  business.  His  work  was  in  ahioagm 
and  adjoining  territory,   v^hether  he  disoharged  his  duties  ia 
Ohieago  or  outside  was  oontrollsd  by  his  employer,  the  oorpomtiMi 
defendant.   It  is  oloar  from  the  ewideaoe  that  the  corporatioa 
defendant  newer  had  title  to  the  motor  used  la  his  employer's 
business.   Ths  ownership  of  the  motor  was  ia  Qarey.   furthermore 
Oarey  oper^^ted  bis  own  onr.  A.t  the  time  of  ths  aooident  it  is 
undisputsd  that  plaintiff  was  ia  the  employ  of  the  Chieago 
&   Northwestern  Railroad  Company  as  a  time  keeper  "ind  material 
olsrk.  Oarey  aad  plaintiff  had  been  friends  for  mayy  years  at 


1  ii'Wi'fi      V'Ji  ?■•?. -'.i .':':■ 


i^* 


■"^'W^-mX^i  U*f&  JBt^  nllTc  -fl  b^'  ■    'sxsiai^-  »di 


.£«r 


■v     W^'*^    '^^''^     «''^*'- 


•  •  *• 
th«  tiae  of  hia  Injurlaa  r«o«iT«<l  in  th«  oolilaloa  of  0&r«y*« 
■otor  vlth  aiiotb«7  goln^  la  m«  •ppo«lt«  dlrootlon,  ftad  tipping 
OT«r  Into  «  dlteh  in  wbloh  it  fall  an  «  TMralt  of  tht  lapaet; 
plaintiff  often  rod<i  in  a%r«7*s  notor  and  th«y  Tltitod  naoh 
other  fr<i!iquo|^tXy« 

Plaintiff  was  «agaf;n4  to  a  Toong  lady  who  llTOd  in 
tlio  ■&«••  nolghborhood  aa  Qirey,   and  for  r  fow  Month*  prior  to 
tho  aooldent  h*  «.nd  th9  young  lady  Tlslked  the  Careys  about  oneo 
erery  t^o  aeeko,  had  dinner  there  a  number  of  tinea.  Aa 
plaintiff  expressed  lt«  *they  vere  aoolally  Intluite*,  and 
auoh  friendship  continued  sfter  the  aoold^nt.   On  the  erenlng 
preoeedln^  the  atornlng  before  the  aeeldent  plaintiff  and  hla 
young  l«Ldy  vera  at  the  Oarey  hone. 

On  the  day  preeedlng  the  accident  and  for  aereriil 
daya  prior  thereto  Oarey  had  been  calling  on  the  laundry  trade 
in  CMoftgo  vlth  P*  «•  VllliaBo  of  St.  FauX,  who  was  a  aaloanan 
in  the  eaploy  of  Bterae  9>   M-^ley  Coaipaay«  jobbera  of  laundry 
suppXlea.   In  the  afternoon  they  oaXXed  at  the  Milvi^aukee  ««% 
Wash  Laundry  Xooeted  at  4130  Belnoat  Arenue,  Ohloigo,  of  whloh 
laundry  Joe  Rlsner  waa  the  proprietor,  f^litner  o^ned  a  roadhouae 
known  aa  the  *Chnntleleor  Xnn'  n%   6100  Tuohy  jiTenue,  nnd  that 
day  Oarey  and  tulXXlana  or^Xled  on  '^Ixner  for  the  purpoae  of 
ooXloltlng  an  order  for  Ksoollte«  a  cleaning  oreparatlon  uaed 
by  Xaundrlea.  Hlcaor  toatlfled  that  3nr9j   wanted  to  know  whether 
Risner  would  giwe  bin  nn  order  for  >sooXlto.  He  alao  teatlfied 
that  Caroy  was  alnaifo  wanting  to  wlalt  hla  roadhouae}  that  he 
told  Oarey  he  waa  too  buay  to  talk  then*  but  if  Oarey  wanted 
to  ooaM  out  to  hla  roadhouae  that  night  they  night  talk  things 
OT#r  and  aee  whether  they  oould  uae  aone  of  what  Carey  aold. 
lilXlasM  aad  iJarey  both  teatlfied  that  after  talking  to  iUaner 


,•••*?.■  r  to  T»4ssiia  fi  -^TS'-^t  taafsJl?.  few?  ,»i«»^  c^.'i   ^T^iyii 

«^(tp»*'».4«e  «  *ref  ftjfw  ,XiU('-      ^        i'o  sw^lfUt-  »      '^tl*  ??^#«>.H^  si 

rioiifv  1;«^  ,d3?.*«S<<r^ -^^fcrnt^™;'    ?!ne>;':i'i*B  ?■•']'>  .y.«  ^'*>*)'-i'>^i:  "^*r.f'- 

"^^    «««>(|ir«?i>    '^■'t    'W*^    T»:--. 


-  6  - 
about  their  produot  h«  gaT«  thMi  an  9rd«r  for  o  barrel  of 
Coeollt«  ithile  thoy  w«r«  at  the  laundry.     Rlmor  asked  0«r«x 
whether  he  vas  ooaing  out  to  Hlxner*8  roadhouee*   &nd  that 
Oarey  replied  In  subatHnoe  that  ae  ^llllaMe  was  a  etran^er 
with  nothing  to  do  they  laight  i»  out  that  OTenlng,     The  oaU 
at  the  Xilw^ukee  ^et  ^eh  Laundry  wae  the  laet  wllllajn  and 
Carey  mtde  thst  aftffrnoon.     vroa  there  they  vent   to  the  rort 
Dearborn  Hotel,  where  Viiliiaaa  iras  etayinp;,  about  6  o*olook; 
they  washed  up;  while  Carey  wae  trashinR,  ^rilllane  oalled  Mordy, 
the  s%les  Banager,  by  telephono,  and  told  hia  I'hat  they  had 
done  during  the  day.     After  that  Oarey  aleo  talked  to  Kordy. 
Oarey  sr^id  he  told  Uordy  thett  they  h»d  eold  Ricner  during 
the  Ahf  and  ««re  going  out  to  ee«  his  at  his  roadhouse  that 
Alght«  and  that  i^ordy  told  hin  to  go  hose  to  his  wife,  which 
Merdy  corroborated  on  tho  witness  at^nd,      Sarey  then  oaIl«d 
kio  hoiw  by  tolephont  and  talked  eith  his  wife.     After  th»t  ho 
taXkod  to  plaintiff  who  with  his  "fianoee*   ^99  at  the  Carey 
hoao.     Oarey  told  plaintiff  that  they  were  going  out  to  the 
roadhouse»  asked  hia  if  he  would  like  to  go  along,  and  that 
he  said  '*yes*;   that  he  had  his  girl  there,  but  that  he  would 
take  her  hoae  and  neet  Carey  at  the  Haliburton  Hotel  at  10}30| 
Oarey  then  e»id  that  he  told  plaintiff  not  to  tell  hie  rife, 
that  she  did  not  know  where  he  w«s  going,     following  the  talk 
with  plsintiff  Carey  «ind  williaas  ha4  dinner  Knd  then  orooeeded 
to  the  Haliburton  Hotel  on  the  north  side  where  they  aet 
plaintiff.      Following  the  talk  plaintiff  took  his  fOung  l^idy 
hMM  and  then  went  to  the  Haliburton  Kotel  where  he  aet  Oarey 
and  that  Carey  and  no  one  else  inwited  hia  to  go  with  hia;    that 
was  about  10:50  o*olook  at  night;   that  lis  thereupon  got  into 
Carey* a  autoaobile,   it  was  a  Buiok,  and  they  startsd  out; 
plaintiff  sat  in  the  froat  seat  with  Oarey  and  silliaas  sat 
in  the  rear  8eat« 


..««;^t€»®  ^f  imiSS-^-t  iwi«  t*^''-^^  ******  if»#'tA     -,.^#!  «!i^  ^Jt^Afi)  »iSO.^ 
-^t-^iOt  ic-ftmJb'i  blm  bM  f»4.r  *«Mii  .t^to.i.  '      *    -ii  iiU-«  %»iiM^ 

.:     *;«(&    ^i«ife    .fb'S*;:*-    ^'i'    Tt^   «*(# 


•b.ujo'v;' 


i5v^'*tHg)A*.> 


t^' •••   if"*''''  '■ 


,::I^ 


{m^,M»'i<^' 


->■':•«    tt«,rf.*A-*i,v,   &tt,^  <^'i<k-.v   .\(J  *•:*    ;J-.vi. 


ftil^Ott*** W."    ■.  '"i^in'SA.: 


-  e  - 

Oarn  MMl  wlXliaM  testified  tb^t   when  plaintiff  got 
into  th«  omr  h«  asked  about  drinks,  and  that  thty  wsnt  to  a  drtif 
store  on  Lunt  stratit  where  tbsf  b<mght  a  pint  of  vhlskoy;  that 
vMie  they  were  at  the  drug  etore  they  had  a  drink  of  brandy; 
AftervftTde  they  left  the  drug  store  and  droire  to  the  readhouee) 
that  they  had  one  drink  %  pioee  on  their  way}  that  they  i^ot 
to  the  roadhouse  about  eleT<;n  o'olook  or  n.   ou&rt(?r  nfter,  where 
they  met  Risner,  who  ehowed  then  *tround  th«  plaoe;  that  while 
they  were  at  the  roAdhouse  there  vas  no  talk  between  thea  %nd 
Rlyner  about  Csoolite,  exoept  that  they  told  hia  they  had  also 
sold  to  the  Anerloan  Wet  wash  OMipeny  t^^  blooks  fr<Mi  Hitner*s 
plaoe* 

l^lalntiff  t4^stifled  that  Oarey  told  Ricner  that  he  had 
oone  out  to  see  hia  beoause  he  had  been  inrited,  th&t  he  had  been 
too  busy  during  the  day  and  wojited  his  to  buy  a  barrel  of 
Xsoolite  and  that  Kisner  h^^d  said  he  was  not  sure  he  wi.nted  it, 
but  said  all  right,  he  would  take  an  order  for  a  b&rrel  of  it* 
Plaintiff's  story  was  oorroborMtad  by  '^.isner. 

They  reaained  at  the  ro'tdhouse  about  an  hour  and  a  half, 
until  about  1)3:30  la  the  aorninf;*  v/hile  there  they  had  soaething 
to  eat  and  aarsy  and  Wllliaas  testified  they  had  a  few  drinks* 
This  plaintiff  denied,  and  dehled  that  he  drank  anything,  bat 
Oarey  and  villiaas  testified  that  he  did  drink*   All  three  of 
thea  testified  none  was  under  the  Influenoe  of  liouor*  i^ile 
they  were  at  the  roadhouse  eoae  oouples  oaae  in  and  ^illiaas  aad 
Oarey  testified  that  soae  one  remarked  that  they  did  not  hawe 
any  girls;  that  Ricner  then  said  *  Carey  knows  where  to  get  theadf, 
and  that  they  said  "let's  go**  Oarey  also  testified  that  Rlraer 
said  ••Oarey  knows  a  plaoe  on  Kenaore  Aweaue",  and  that  he  replied, 
*yes,  I  kno»«,  and  that  plaintiff  and  flliiaas  said  "we»ll  go 
there";  that  when  they  left  the  road  house  they  started  for  that 


-  a  - 

s-ci,  lri:#nl<«tlq  and*'  t&rf^  ti^nu»94  «R*iJij;i;«.:.Aasi  ^t^Mi 
;tnti)  .a  «.t  $si*A  ^4*  #««?*  fc«*  ,^iaiiti  tw»tf«  bauta^  s:ti  ijj*  ««<i  0fnt 

.....    -iSfe  «»®4i?  v!?.  .j£iMtl» >««  lk«ig  t*«?'*"  ^iwt'^ 
0»i>*   j^  ^...':.    ..  i../   -r,,*    .,,...<■.    *.v:i,    ,..,.,„.-    ^«^4ij8>©«J    *v?;r,>«i'jB.  tf^it^lH 


f>!.'n 


sr:    '■  ■*■■'    ""'f'^ftiiMj   j^>if1   g>#«^    *.•    -VI,*.-    ^..H-w./ 


>  » •»  *  -r  .-.  >  * 


<  ■' 


^alxf.J'saioft  bjsrf  ^ftfif  »T»iti*  «ii.Jt.*1?? 


•V 
iA(f4-    vol 


'iCi      tt«! 


'J6  *#IXli*«#  mBHt 

■sdt 


-  7  - 
l^Iae««  villi*  plaintiff  dsAlcd  knoving  Mijrthing;  Dbout  th»  plae«« 
Tb«y  all  l«ft  tb«  roadhouse  together  1b  aar«y*s  a«r.  Plaintiff 
testified  that  as  thsy  Isft  the  roadhousa  Carey  secasd  to  be 
drlTlng  all  right;  that  be  was  apparently  IriTlng  the  o«r  oarer 
fully  and  the  way  a  person  ordinarily  did)  th^t  prior  to  the 
tlae  they  got  there»  the  plaoe  where  the  eooident  ooourred* 
Meaonlek  Boulemrd  and  Touhy  Avenue,  he  and  Oarey  vers  talking 
like  nea  vlll  talk  «hea  riding  along  together,  f^nd  that  up  until 
100  or  150  feet  froa  the  T^laoe  of  the  aooldent,  Oarey  »ee«ed  to 
be  drlTlng  all  right;  that  they  were  eoalng  along  et  a  iMderate 
rate  of  speed,  about  30  or  35  miles  an  hoar;  that  plaintiff  did 
not  pay  aay  attention  to  the  oollldlng  ear  until  It  was  about 
100  or  aOO  feet  away;  that  then  Oarey *s  oar  seeaod  to  g« 
dlreotly  towards  the  other  ear  aoross  the  noorth  side  of  the  road 
In  a  rath«r  straight  line;  that  he  would  not  eay  it  was  a  cridok 
or  sudden  turn,  thnt  It  seeaed  to  be  on  an  angle. 

Fritebe^,  the  drlT<»r  of  the  ooUidlng  oar,  testified 
thHt  he  wae  going  west  tt  the  tlae  tind  whem  lie  first  noticed 
Oarey* s  oar  it  was  about  SO?  yards  away,  the  head  lights  on  both 
oars  were  burning;  that  he  wae  going  froa  Hb   to  30  alias  an  hour 
on  tb«  right  haiM  aide  of  the  road,  and  did  not  think  the  other 
ear  was  ooalng  any  faster;  that  the  road  was  weay  narrow  with  a 
deep  dlteh  on  either  eide  of  it;  that  ae  he  drowe  west  the  lights 
on  the  other  oar  in  his  faoe  attracted  Ms  attention,  and  he 
noticed  the  light  was  getting  aore  directly  in  hie  eyes,  and 
thinlclng  his  head  lights  weason  and  they  were  trying  to  attract 
his  attention,  he  looked  and  saw  that  ho  had  his  dlaaera  on;  la 
the  aeantlae  the  ears  were  getting  closer  together;  tbat  lit 
speeded  up  a  little  to  get  Ahead  of  Carey*s  oar  so  that  ths  oars 
would  pass,  but  did  not  succeed;  that  O^arey's  left  front  wheel 
struck  his  left  rear  wheel;  Oarey* e  oar  ran  into  the  dlteh  on 


,«©*ic<  «f(*  iuoii^  Afildix&ti  ^tLX^c&Ji  fc»i««?'   Lili-nleJiq  «Iii*w  ,»»«X«f 


norx  t^mi:  mi  to  ml 


^niii'^-  Mi 

^^1  :\.  et»$>k!t/9  16 


a#- 


!^  .^i     '  L-  1-;  - 


■  j»  .*  !^  /,«v  J  ■; 


•  •:'*r.-,.t<i  >  r-w     f.JKJJ 


-  8  - 

%h«  north  aide  of  the  street* 

Carey  in  desoribing  the  aooideat,  toetlfied  thet  vhen 
the  oare  got  about  2b  or  30  feet  from  eaoh  other  eoaethiiig 
happened  to  hie  oar»   thnt  ae  the/  oaae  »len((  there  ««•  a  sort 
•f  a  luroh;    that  he  tried  to  get  the  oar  straight  ?ind  hold  it 
•n  the  road  hut  vaa  unable  to  do  eo  and  struok  the  rear  end  of 
the  other  oar;   that  he  did  not  fintloipate  that  anything  mnn  going 
to  b9ppeny  but  that  he  loot  control  of  the  oar»  he  did  not  know 
in  T^hat  way«   it  aiay  hare  been  the  throwing  of  a   tire,  but  he 
Aid  not  Kno*  whether  that  waa  what  it  was.     It  ell  happened 
■o  <ittlokly  it  vaa  haxd  for  hia  to  reaeotber  «he  details. 

MXliaM  t«etlfl«4  tlMit  Just  before  they  set  the  other 

oar  there  was  a  sverre  and  the  oare  eaao  together  In  the  oenter 
of  the  hlgh^t^y;   that  he  did  not  know  what  hapj>ened  then  ae  ho 
was  hurt.       hen  the  ear  went  into  the  dltoh  plaintiff  was  injured. 

Upon  rs<>buttal  plaintiff  produced  a  written  et»teaont 
signed  by  Carey  in  which  stateaent  he  said  they  drore  to  the 
roadhouse  ithere  they  aiet  Rixner,    that  they  aade  a  sale  to  hia 
and  left  about  one  in  the  aorning«  and  did  not  hare  anything  to 
drink  dlurlng  the  erening.     Oarey  said  that  he  smde  this  etateaent 
of  hie  own  wolitlon  in  order  to  proteot  hiaeelf,  but  eal  d  that 
the  f'>tet  '»i^fl  thet  the  order  for  recoil te  wns  actually  giwea  at 
the     laundry  and  that  he  had  had  eoae  drinks  both  before  and  after 
he  got  to  the  roadhouse. 

Xt  la  assigned  and  argued  for  error  that  the  trial  court 
erred  la  refusing  to  Inatruot  the  jury  to  find  the  corporation 
defent'^nt  not  guilty,  and  in  overruling  the  autioa  for  a  new  t'i&l* 
and  in  entering  judgaent  on  the  wercliot. 

All  of  the  counts  of   the  asiended  declaration  on  v^hlch 


vtttsi^  ids- 


,t;>-zi;|-.ca 


tf  ix;»fijf-,'  '-'.S 


'?:i?4X  ■*♦«." 


a5>Ji;2   ?;riif   fc?iU  ir.!ii-vv*--    ;^■^>  '^iij 


i#0l.«Xt!     l«*#wtv: 


!.iO 


:>::(,*   o4    sv^j'sb  i|?ff?  tjt^r 

bf4/^jjia 

«iirf  «i             ■■  ^sm  v****  #*!» 

,T»l|-i-  .. 

.i«t 

■v?   7^«»lf*#^n4  tV«irf[^  iJ- 

;.8iEc#«  ' 

.^:«* 

.Tf^-"'                   ■     gi'f*    t.^IRS 

.  ?a,trf«v^   *4;»    Ti)fs|-?0'>   :^aiTi} 

.          ■.■■*:mt'<      *V'^i 

U 

}■•/  f"^vtri   ■■•' 

>i<* 

ia^\«  j. 

■     \9h 


..it;.;?/.^: 


th«  oaus'?  ^ent  to  tTial*  oharga  «lif«]e«  vt^.ntoM  and  rMfcl«a« 
•onduot  la  th«  opcritioa  of  th«  «otor  Tchiolo  in  vbloh  plaintiff 
wao  rldlag  at  tti«  tiao  of  th«  aooident* 

Th«r«  la  not  on*  •oiatilla  of  wldoaot  of  any  wanton^ 
vllful  or  reokleas  oparation  of  the  aotor  Tf^hlola  at  any  tlaa 
at  07  bafora  %%•   aooidant^  and  plaintiff  t^stiflad  th9!t  hm   and 
aara/  itttit   t Hiking  just  bafora  tha  aeeidant*  and  that  Onxeij 
aaaaad  to  ba  drlring  all  right;  that  thaf  wt9   ooainir  along  at 
n  aMdorata  apaad  and  than  juat  bafora  tha  colli aion  0ar«7*a 
•ar  aacMOd  to  ba  going  dlraetly  totrard  tha  approaohing  ear  in 
a  rathar  atralght  line,  nnd  thst  ha  oould  not  us%j   it  was  a 
quick  or  auddan  turn  the  oar  took*  but  it  aaaaad  to  ba  on  an 
angle. 

*han  th*  oourt  inatruoted  a  Y«rdiot  in  faTor  of 
Caray«  tha  oo-dafandssnt  of  tha  corporation  dafandant,  it  cartain* 
If  abaolTod  Oar ay  fro«  anf  and  all  aagligenoa*  vanton«  vilful 
•r  raoklaos*  and  as  all  that  tha  corpora tion  dafend^int  oould  ba 
hald  for  wa*  tha  oonduot  of  Jaray,  vho  being  abaolYOd  by  tha 
oourt* a  instmction  fron  arary  eharga  againat  hia  in  tha  oporatioa 
of  tha  oar  at  tha  tiaa  of  tha  acoidant*  and  tha  oorpor^tion 
dafand^nt  baing  an  artificial  paraon  oould  do  no  act  of  ito 
oim  Tolltion  but  la  ohargoabla  only  vith  tha  acta  of  ita 
r#praaantHtiT08,  it  logioally  followa  that  tha  oorpor^iitioa 
dafandant  waa  likoviaa  axou^pated  froa  tho  charge  of  f^ilful* 
wanton  and  raoklaaa  oonduot,  baeauaa  it  oould  only  b«  guilty  of 
■uoh  oonduot  by  tha  action  of  ita  oo-^afanda,nt  0»ray«  It  la 
tharefora  patent  that  if  it  was  propar  to  giro  tha  inatruetion 
aa  to  aaray,  it  ahould  haTO  baan  given  alao  aa  to  hia  eo^afandant, 
Furtheraore,  tha  title  of  the  actor  rehiola  uaad  by  Oarey  in 
tbe  perforaano*  of  hia  dutiea  aa  aiiaaaan  for  hia  oo-defandant« 


•  ^.-:~■'^  ;-a>ii©?fl?«   ^3Jjiii     -i-^'i-ja^   ^^i^j-'i   oi    JiK»-^   "««>*«  »«1# 
£•?»  ^JK©1^  t^eiifioo  ^it'sr  *?>.4#   #*rf#  |l^»*KJHr  Xl«  jprlviTj*  »«f  o#  &««&«• 

S'r  !J^.--rrr'*«r#  9rfrf  #*^#  «-j«»Xi<i^  liX*»«t<%X  #1   ^Mvls^**/**?©-!^*** 

,:■  .      Q  a«:»tf  »T,»/f  bXi^dn  ;>'X   ,x*'*'BC  o#  »jt 

^. .    u  fjXoXdsv  so/o'Jt  div?    'if.'  .nit:  r   ^^-i;-    .^  yxfisn^  illttft 


-  10  - 
^•▼tT  ««a  In   the  oorpomtlon  dfff«ndant«  Vut  aii^ayt  mum  in 
Oarey.     On  this  i>oint  thert  is  m»  dispute.     Uor^ercr  there  is 
BO  STidsnoe  ift  the  reoord  that  it  v-as  vlthin  the  soops  of 
Oarsy*s  duties  to  his  eaipXoyer  to  invite  third  persons  to  ride 
with  hia  In  his  notor.     f'lsiintiff  v»»  not  connected  rith 
0«.r«X*o  eaploysr  in  »nf  vay,  Oli»po  or  9ftnB«T,«nd  when  Cxirey 
sllowsd  the  plaintiff  to  ride  in  his  aotor^  he  took  his  ^long 
as  «  friend  for  oomp«inionship.     Ondor  these  fnots  ^nd  oiroua* 
sV%n«ea  it  is  w«ll  settlod  in  Isv  that  there  oould  he  no 
yoooTery*  and  that  plaintiff  hmd  no  right  of  action  vhatSTor 
against  Car«y»s  employer,     nhen  plaintiff,  Carey  and  their 
ooapanion  ' ilii&as  left   the  roadhouse  after  one  o*clook  in 
ths  «oming»   Just  prior  to  the  aooidsnt,  they  had  boon  irin|;ing 
aoeording  to  the  evidence  of  Carey  and  milliaas,  and  they  were 
not  going  hoae«  init  to  a  plaoe  on  xenaore  ATtnue  vhere  there 
were  some  girls.     Oarey  was  certainly  not  engaged,  nor  was 
eithsr  the  plaintiff  or  ^illiasis  en^t^ged,   in  the  business  or 
affairs  of  Oarey* s  eaplo/er.     It  is  olaiaod  that  Oaroy  sold  a 
harrsl  of  Ksoolits  at  the  ro^dhouse  to  KlxaeTa  although  it 
would  appoar  that  that  sale  was  aado  at  Risner*s  laundry  before 
going  out  to   the  roadhottss,  but  be  that  as  it  may,  after  tho  party 
left  the  roadhouse  they  oortainly  were  not  ea(»go4  in  any  way 
about  the  affairs  of  Oarey* s  employer. 

I>^  gQ^\M  ▼•   MoU  Bv^king  &  loe  grosa  Oo.   886  111.   App. 
124*  the  plaintiff «  a  minor*  wns  inwited  by  a  truok  driwor  of  ths 
defsnd'^nt  to  ri4«  with  hia,  «in1  whlls  so  doing  was  injured  booause 
of  negligenoe  on  the  part  of  the  driver.     9nit  was  brought  Against 
ths  defendant   to  reoower  dsa^ges  for  the  injuries  ^hioh  the 
ainor  sustained.     It  was  olaiasd  that  the  aeglig  nos  of  the  driver 
In  operating  the  truok  at  a  high  rate  of  spood  aade  his  eaployer 
liable  for  the  ainor *s  injuries,   and  the  eaployer  olaaaed  that  it 
was  iaaatorial  whether  the  ainor  was  riding  by  InritRtion  of  the 


-  01  -• 

.■';fiw    ^/»#«#«»«^t>  *©»S   «*W  tICi.''  *^^0^0<s!    Sii:i?'  Wi    Mi;?    rfti«»' 

-sBLm-'X*«5  ^3  .»*»««t  ,»««»#•:  V^^jS^      ,-^^o^s««>ia^«ao«^  «tt^'.  I»fl»i1i. : 

«^«»«IS/  ?»1*«*»  *«9ftffl«'iv.  tf-f «,<&«» ^   .  .  ■-•■.cH  ^il<J®   «t©« 

>(fji  «>tt^  jjAlOto  cc  ».Uj!;v!  ■*;?«£«   «»iil  Aii^  %>i;'*;f  c^  *w«lw»^#J» 


-  u  - 

drlTey  or  »t  hi*  ova  request;  that  th*  drirer  in  pcndtting  %h« 

■inor  to  ride  under  either  of  euch  ci rouse t%noee  ves  eotini^ 

beyond  the  eoope  of  his  eaployaeat,  «nd  the t  therefore  the 

eaployer  wne  not  iieble,  ermx   though  the  Binor*e  injuries  «ere 

the  r«eult  of  the  driver *8  neglieenoe.  The  court  in  holding  thnt 

the  employer  oould  not  be  hold  liable  oited  Soott  ▼•  reabodv 

Oiel  Oo.^  157  Ibid.  102,  in  »hioh  it  w»e  eUd; 

'So  in  this  ease  whether  appellee  was  riding  by 
invitation  of  tbe  driver  or  at  his  own  recrae«t«tbe 
eajne  y^n   entir«<)ly  outaide  of  the  iriyer*8  eaplofaeat 
and  b<^yond  the  eeope,  ae  shown  by  the  rvidenoe«  of 
appellant* 8  business  and  appellant  th<»refore  eannot 
be  held  liable  for  tpvv«iAee*s  injuriee  even  though 
they  vere  oeoasioned  b  the  driver's  negligenoe,* 

la  Brewing  &  halting  Jo.  v.  Kug^ias,  36  ibid.  144«it 

eas  said: 

*4n  not  done  by  a  eervaat  while  eagnged  ia  his 
jMtster*s  work,  but  not  done  as  a  aeaaa  or  for  the  pur- 
pose of  performing  th»t  work,  is  not  on  Ji'et  of  the 
Master.*   Bowler  v.  O*0oanell.  et  yl.  :se  N.  S.  aep.  498. 

And  there  is  no  implied  authority  in  the  serrtnt  to 
invite  or  permit  a  third  perswi  to  ride  in  a  vbhicle  in  his 
sharge,  and  if  in  so  d^ing  suoh  third  person  is  iajured  through 
the  aegligeaoe  of  the  servaat,  the  master  'ill  not  be  liable  as 
the  servant  is  not  ftotiag  within  the  soope  of  hie  authority. 
There  are  aaay  authorities  to  be  found  ia  the  books  to  a  like 
offset  ia  other  Jurisdictions. 

The  doctrine  of  reepondea^  s\fperior  has  ao  ap'^lioatioa 

to  the  fAots  ia  the  ease  at  bar,  as  there  never  was  any  lisbiiity 

oa  the  part  of  the  master,  the  oorpor?ition  defend'^nt,  to  the 

plaintiff. 

The  oourt  erred  in  not  instructing  tlis  verdict  as  rsQuest 

ed  to  find  both  defendants  not  guilty,  «nd  therefore  the  judgment 

in  this  appeal  against  The  Oowlee  Detergent  Company  ie  rererssd, 

?tnd  as  th«?re  oan  be  no  recovery  againet  it,  if  ws  should  award  a 

new  trial,  the  OAuse  ie  act  rei^nded. 

WIL80S,   P.J.    ^KO  RYMSH,    J.    OOKOTIR. 


7ft^ 


aid  K/,    'Xsi/Mv 


^«iXv.{i*:.;i:MilA?, 


5fi7f' 


jU 


,'-T''«iKt;5j'? 


.«.««tiK)..*i^  MmMinmi'.^^ 


34035 

Gl*n»tl^  TRUST  A  8A7IM8  BAIX« 

4m  »UXH»  at  al, 

App«al  of  Ollrar  F.   ^mith  «ad 
Oath«rln«  0*   Saith,    (Oef«ndAnt«) 
App«ilAnt»,   from  Xnterlooutory 
Order  appointing  Heoeiver* 


IKTiftLOCTJTORT 


ORT  AT  'SAL      /^ 


OOOK  OOUXTTi 


56I.A. 


C05 


5 


Opinion  filed  March  5,  1930 
!«•  JtlSTIOS  HOLOOM  deliT«red  th«  opinion  of  th« 
ooort* 

This  is  an  interlocutory  ».pp«al  fro«  an  ordor  ftppoint*- 
Ing  A  roo«iT«r«  vhich  is  h«re  for  tha  soeond  tlao,  Zb  tbc 
fora«r  o«s«  No«  33687»  th«  interlooutory  order  ««•  rerorood 
booaust  tb«  Obloago  Titl«  A  Trust  Company,  trutto*  in  tho 
trust  doed  sought  to  b«  foreolossd^  bad  not  bsoa  »ds  «  perty 
to  tbe  suit.  Tbat  srror  bas  b<isa  oorrsotsd  by  an  order  frsntlng 
XoftTS  to  mOio  tbs  OblODgo  Tltio  «  Trust  Ooapany  sji  n4dltieasl 
party  defendant* 

Tbe  aerlts  of  the  aause  are  not  before  us  on  tble 
appeal.  The  only  questions  projeoted  into  the  oi^use  by  this 
appeal  are  of  tbe  jurladiotion  of  tbe  omirt  aad  tbe  integrity 
of  tbe  interlooutory  order  inrolTed  In  tbie  appeal.  Tbe  trust 
deed  sought  to  be  fereelosed  is  subjeet  to  a  prior  and  past 
due  Mortgage  s souring  the  eua  of  tlO«000  wbieb  is  a  papaaount 
lien  to  that  of  the  trust  dsed  sought  to  be  foreolosed  la  this 
prooeeding.   Tbe  trust  deed  in  this  appeal  pledged  the  rente 
aa  seourity  for  the  indebtedaeae  eeeured  by  said  trust  deed* 


^H4.k^   'iiHiUi 


OSei    ^5  rloajsM  bQlil  noiniqO 


•  i  - 

On  Ootobcr  1,   19^9»  on  ooaplalnant't  motion  th«  eourt 
appointed  c«  h.  i^enllcoff  reoelrer  of  the  «ortcftged  proaieea, 
oonditioned  upon  his  filing  hie  bond  in  the  >>enAlty  of  >1000 
with  eiuretx  to  be  epproTOd  by   the  ooxurt,  %nd  further  oonditi'>nod 
upon  ooaplninHnt  filing  the  bond  presoribed  by  etatute  in 
the  ponaltf  of  |a«030  with  euret/  to  be  nppreTed  by  the  oourt* 
/roa  the  order  eo  appointing  ienikoff  reoeiTer  this  inter- 
looutory  appeal  wfie  pr^/ed  find  allowed. 

It  ia  aesigned  inter  allni  an  error  *that  eaid  Circuit 
Court  erred  in  appointing  said  reeeirer  upon  ooaplainant*e 
filing  bond  of  fSOOO  without  any  tine  being  epeoified  in  eaid 
order  within  vhioh  eaid  bond  was  to  be  filed*" 

If  thie  was  a  SAtter  of  firet  iapression*  and  this 
court  had  not  In  the  first  and  eeoond  dirieions  thereof  decided 
the  contention  here  presented*  holding  th»t  it  was  error  in 
the  court  in  not  fixing  a  tine  oertnin  for  the  filing  of  oo»- 
flnlannt'e  bond*  wo  night  feel  oonstrainftd  to  hold  thnt  the 
order  in  this  regard  »as  not  erroneous.  Howower*  this  court 
has  spoken  decieiTely  upon  this  natter  in  Liohtstern  ▼•  J. 
Wonanbami  Qrain  Oo.»  176  111.  App.  380«  and  again  in  fnuUc 
Blnurook  stt  al>  ▼,  On1»iX  Faofcing  Oo..  Mo.  3S6C0  filed  July  8« 
13a9«  not  yet  reported.   These  eases  inrolwed  an  order  sub- 
stantially in  the  fom  of  the  one  in  this  appeal*  in  whiota 
the  oonplainant  was  ordered  to  file  a  statutory  bond  without 
fixing  any  tine  in  which  suoh  bond  should  be  filod.  Xn  the 
oaoe  last  yupra  the  court  smid} 

"Oonplain&nts  hare  not  yet  furnished  suoh  a  bond* 
and  as  the  injunotion  is  not  effeotiwe  until  a  bond 
is  filed,  the  question  arises*  is  the  order  apponlnblet 


,Jfc»'*©l44'   fee.**   tie^-:'.  ■.,^;.    •^'ivJ'iiS.i* 

#jt//««is  &j.ft#  *iS{f#*  "soitt*  sjsf  ^4^:  x^t.gj.  l?«i^^3i»«* 


ffiify  n's,     mimiJUl  and  i:iSM«iii^  baism  il»Mtt  0oiihi  tU  »»X,t  tt«-A  '^ns.\.ti 


-  J  . 


Whll«  it  1«  true  thut  th«  rtoord  «bow«  th^t  the  order 
li  not  7«t  effeotlTC^  y«t  it  purports  to  be  an  inter- 
loootory  injunotionsl  order  «^nd  tbe  test  of  its 
appealability  • herald  not  be  its  effeotiTeneea  in 
•per<«tion  but  whether  the  court  properly  entered  euoh 
an  order.  Seotion  133  of  the  Praotloe  Aot  proridee 
th-!it  an  appeal  is  alloved  *«heneTer  9n   interlocutory 
order  or  deoree  ie  entered  in  any  suit  pending  *  *  • 
granting  an  injunotion.*  rurtheraore,  the  statute 
proTidee  that  euoh  appeal  mst  toe  taken  *  within  thirty 
days  fro«  the  entry  of  euoh  interlooutory  order  or 
deoree  and  ie  perfected  in  eaid  Appellate  Oourt  vithin 
■Ixty  days  fro*  the  entry  of  euoh  order  or  leeree. • 
Defendants  were  therefore  obliged  to  take  their  appeal 
within  thirty  days  fro«  i^j   10,  19 -'9,  when  the  order 
was  entered.  If  they  hitd  deferred  doing  thie  until 
after  the  thirty  daya  had  expired,  they  would  have 
lost  their  right  of  appeal,  whioh  is  purely  statutory. 
wo  hold  th»t  the  propriety  of  the  toaporary  injunotion 
any  be  oonsidored  by  us  upon  nppoal  regardless  of 
whether  or  not  it  is  effectlTe. 

IJn  hk^Si^UW'   ^.  rtQ8enb»u«  Grain  Oo..  176  ill. 
Asp.  350,  a  oiiilar  injunotion  order  wee  \m4er  eon- 
sideration  and  held  erroneous,  the  oourt  s^^ying  that, 
as  the  order  did  not  require  the  compiainant  to  file 
the  bond  nrithin  any  fixed  time,  it  vn9   therefore  entire- 
ly optional  with  hia  when,  if  ewer,  the  injunition 
should  beoosie  effeotive;  thnt  thereby  the  ooMpi'iinant 
was  delegated  the  power  to  decide  whether  the  need  for 
a  prsliainary  injunction  ^^u   urgent  or  otherwise. 

"fte  hold  that  the  order  is  erroneous  in  not  fixing 
a  tiflie  oort&in  within  vhioh  the  ooaplainante  should  file 
the  bond  r«ouired  by  the  order." 

The  for«going  reasoning  is  equally  applioable  to 
the  ease  at  bar.  «e  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  foregoing 
doeieiona  establish  the  law  of  the  ease  in  this  >oi^t  asA 
should  be  and  is  adhered  to  in  the  oaoo  at  bar. 

For  the  foregoing  reasons  the  interlooutory  order 
of  October  1,  1939,  is  roToraod* 

mmisco* 


WXL809*  P.J.  AiO  HYNCR,  J.  COICOR, 


"  r, 


•:.i. 


fl«i . 


♦  AI/  s^Vi    ^, 


,-^ 


93431 


BMDID  G.  BRinn-, 


A4^rKLLKK. 


AWPtAL  FROM 

CXRCVIT   OOORT 

ooox  couvrr. 

256  I.A.  605 


Opinion  filed  March  5,   1930 


IB.  JUnnoE  RTMKR  delivered  the  o  i»lon  ©/ 
the  court , 

Oo  October  11,   1927,  the  plalntlTf  obt&izied  e 
Jttd|!^eat  by  ooBfesTlon,  on  «.  proaie^ry  iwte,  for  |5«3.68 
asainet  the  defeatfaat,   in  the  Clroult  Court  oX  Cook  County. 
The  judei«ent  »&•  later  eiM«ed  and  the  de/e»de«ft  ftlloved  to 
plead.     On  D«ce«ber  21,   1928,   the  ease  esoM  on  for  trial 
before  the  oc^t,  eitbout  a  Jixry,  upon  the  pUlntlff'e 
8tatea«!nt  of  olal«  tind  the  defend^^nt's  affid.^vit  of  iii«»rlte 
and  tvo  ftMnl  pleae.      During  the  trial  of  the  oaose,   the 
tefeadant,   by  le  .▼•  of  oourt,   filed  a  third  ri«iidlid  plea. 
Thore  vaa  a  finding  and  judK^ent  in  f  vor  of  the  def end^nt 
nad  the  pl«intilf  has  perfected  thie  appeal. 

In  hie  affidavit  of  neTite,   the  defi^ndsnt  atated, 
under  oath,  that   ^1  K.  Bloek  falsely  and  fraudulently 
repre  ented  that  the  note  in  ooeatien  eae  received  in  pnyi- 
aM»«t  for  five  eharee  of  the  capital  etoek  of  tfve  State 
Uiacount   -os5t5^iiy;     that  before  the  execution  of  the  note. 


s  ^  I 


0561   ^3   dorsU  bsiiJ.  iioiaiqC 


«»l3Ei^JU.*i^  ©ft  ,Tmi  ■  -fftlxJ 


-2* 

vhioh  bore  dots  •!  u^j   19,  1927.  i^lo^  stated  to  the 
de^andi^nt  thf^t  the  ^tate  Dlaoouat  Oomp-^  txy  *>ku   eolYent, 
tbAt  the  etook  vac  worth  the  monmy^   aad  that  Blo<^  would 
dellTer  to  the  deXend^at  the  Rtook  if  the  latter  executed 
the  Bote;  that  Bloch,  at  the  tiiM  the  note  vaa  eigaed, 
knew  thnt  the  V'tate  '^ieoouxit  Uo«paiqr  «**  InBolvent;  that 
Bloeh  "fTtlsely  and  fmudtftlently*  promieed  the  defendant 
that  the  iiote  "vrould  not  he  delivered  to  or  Teoeived  by 
a«j  one  until  eftor  Ite  aaturlty;**  that  on,  to-vit. 
May  19,  1927,  Blorti  •fMeely  and  fmudulently*  influced 
**«§»•%  ^^ule  to  endorse  the  jvote  l»  order  to  atke  It  •■'z>v9VlT 
that  it?Tule  v&e  an  innooent  pureh  ser  for  v!:lue  before 
■aturlty;  that  3'>ule  never  had  poeseaeion  of  the  note, 
pftid  BO  considers  t ion  for  It,  but  acted  as  m  fi^uxehe^td  for 
Bloeh  and  the  Htate  Dleeeunt  Cosp^  ny  e-nd  that,  eubeeQuent 

to  the  execution  of  the  note,  Blo^  bec&ae  the  preeident 
af  the  plsiiitlif. 

It  is  further  stated  in  the  af i id&vit  that  the 
plaintiff,  when  the  note  was  delivered  to  it,  had  knovledgs 
of  the  Matters  set  out  in  the  afiidavit  ftbore  reoit*d; 
that  the  defendant,  •confidlBj?  in  the  false  and  fraudulent 
representations  aforesaid,"  exeeuted  the  note  vithout 
rsoelving  any  consideration  for  to  doing  and  that  the 
nets  "nae  then  and  there  freudulently  endorsed  by  the  said 
«^«gU8t  oaule  and  then  and  there  sfterwrrds,  delivered  by 
the  said  ^1  jf.  Blo^*  to  the  plaintiff. 

Tho  first  BMBted  ploB  allegod  that  on  Hay  19, 
1927,  Blooh  was  the  president  of  the  plaintiff  bnnk;   that 
iM  BBRaniod  aai  repr  ssnted  that  the  tate  iecou/.t 


-3- 

Om$tptksft  of   whleb  h«  wa«  also  preeldant,  vae  solvent  a&d 
tiM  sliares  of  atoek  vere  Kortb  a  l&rgo  sua  in  •xcooe  o/  the 
— oiint  of  th«  note;   that  upon  the  eole  cone Idcrat Ion  of 
tlno  aarr&ntles,  aade  toy  Uloch,  the  defendant  executed  the 
■ote  and  delivered  it  to  Bloch,  bat  th^^^t  the  etook  vae  not 
Of  the  Telue  it  «ae  repreeonted  to  be;  thst  the  corpora- 
tion «He  inaolvent  &nd  its  stook  irorthles:?;   that  Bloch 
nooisned  the  n  te  to  ''aulo,  «ho  kne«  that  the  ooneiderat ion 
for  the  note  had  f failed  und  that  the  note  was  vortbleRK; 
that  subaecuently  Blooh  procured  fmle  to  endorse  and 
deliver  the  note  to  the  plaintiff;  that  Blooh  a^'^e  thorn 
the  president  of  the  plr.intiff  and  knea  of  •xui   vfis  oonnected 
with  the  tranaaotion;  that  Blooh  «a«  tue  "essential 
repreaect'^tiYe**  of  the  plaint  if  1,  and  that  the  plaintiff, 
through  Its  representative  *had  notice  ol  the  said  fcviiure 
of  oonsideration  sad  la  sai  wmi  not  a  r>opa  fide  holder 
of  said  note.** 

The  sooMMl  aasadod  ploa  set  up  a  failure  of 
consideration  in  general  langua^-e;  th&t  £>aulo  knew  of  tho 
f allure  of  oooeideration  and  that  tho  note  irtts  Kortbless; 
thet  Blo<di  9as  the  eseenti?:!  representative  of  the  plaintiff 
in  the  transaction  and  thnt,  therefore,  tko  plaintiff  had 
notice  ox  the  failure  of  oonsldoration  aa4  w^m   not  a  bona 
fids  holder  of  the  note, 

Tho  tnird  rtaoadodi  plon,  filed  during  tho  progress 
of  ttie  trial,  alleged  tb^^t  Bloch  obtained  tho  note  *hf   tho 
«so  of  fraud  and  clrounve  tion"  in  that  ho  fslnoly  represented 
to  the  def  nd&nt  that  the  note  was  in  p'fyaont  for  f Its  shares 


of  the  atook  ol  th«  3tate  Dlsoeunt  aoap  ny;  ttivt  Blooh 
further  repreeentcd  th'it  the  3tat.c  oisooijit  c<mii;>  ay  ■&• 
■olvcmt  And  that  «th«  viook  cbs  vorth  the  aonej;"  th^t 
BXoch  knew  thHt  th«  ^^t&te  I/iaoeuBt  Coap&ny  vas  laRolveat; 
th&t  Block  *f  Iselx  and  frd^duleatly"  promised  tho  def^ndcat 
that  the  note  **voald  not  be  delivered  to  or  received  by 
any  one  until  after  ite  ■feturity;*  th>>t  Blooh  induced  Saulo 

to  OBdorao  the  note  so  that  it  would  appear  that  tho  latter 
«»o  an  innooent  purohseer  for  value,  before  Maturity,  but 
th&t  eule  never  had  the  not^  in  hie  poseoe^loa,  p^ld  no 
onuiideration  for  it,  nad  aoted  Merely  ae  a  figurehead  for 
Blooh  sad  the  i^tute  Diaoount  Oo«p».&y;  th^t  eubaecuent  to 
the  exeoution  of  the  note,  Blooh  bee^ae  tho  preeideat  of 
tho  plaintiff  aad  ected  aa  its  "essential  representative " 
in  receiving:  aad  dleoounting  the  note  sad  that,  therefore, 
the  plaintiff  had  notice  of  the  iniMlvency  oi    the  t^te 
Discount  Coisp^>ny  and  "kae»  th/ 1  the  stock  oo.  Id  not  be 
delivered  to  the  defendant, **  »ad  that  tho  plaintiff  received 
the  note,  vith  notioe  that  ^aule  vas  not  an  innocent 
p«roh'<.<rer  for  vsilue,  that  the  State  Diaeeuat  Ootto^ay  was 
insolvent  and  that  the  note  was  executed  riithout  the 
defendant  reeeivme  ^ny  oon^^iders^tioc  for  its  execution. 

Upon  the  trial  of  the  e^ee,  tho  pliant  iff  put  tho 
note  in  evidence  ^nd  re^^ted. 

lilooh  Si-  ■   the  firet  witness  to  take  the  stand  in 
behlf  of  the  defendant.  He  testified,  over  objection,  that 
the  stook  vas  never  deiiver'^d  to  the  dofeadnat.  Be  further 


OiiSU"    :Uri*r    f.;*J     Ic-    f'-i^l^^.    figif    lis 


,a&jr;Jir©i»X#   4»fci:   tal  SSMM  '<(^    -^-  .JiiJ 


%««tlf led  that  ht  was  psB^ldant  ol    th«  State  Dieooxmt 

Oonp^agr  ^nd  alfto  oi  %hm  pi  Inti/I'  tenk  vh«n  the  note  was 

dieoouated  by  ^tule;     thj>t,    in  the  aM>nth  oi    MoTmher,   1927 

hm  reeitined  as  oreKident  of  the  pi  intlff  aad  went   into  the 

hotel  bueines^t;     th^t  he  'g^.To"  the  note  to     >wle,    plaoed 

his  *0.   K.*  on  it,   aad  t  Id  Thlelea,   aa  aceint  nt  o  shier 

of  the  plaintiff,   to  take  eare  of     axile  ae  he,   Blooh,   ba4 

"O.K*d'  the  liote.     'o  far  as  the  abstract  dioolosee,   he  was 

Bot  interrogated  about  bxs  kiowledge  of  the  f  insuci^l 

«>ndition  of  the  ^tate  Dlsoount  Oomp*mft  or  about  say  agroe- 

WHit  tlth  the  defend  at  tixat  the  note  stiould  not  be  aeg*-> 

tlatfiid  before  v^turity. 

(^arlee  G.     olt  tentiii  ;d  thc^t  for  the  la nt  treaty 

years  he  had  been  pre ident  of  the   Jitizeas  ^tate  Baak  of 

Melrose  Park,  &ad  also  an  officer  of  the  nt»te  nisoount 

Ooffl;^'i|iy;     th^t,   without  referring  to  the  books,  he  bad 

BO  pret-ent  recollection  of  ths  exsot  aa»unt  of   the  assets 

af  the     tat.f*  jii>teouat     onpany   ia  May,   ld2T,  aad  that  tho 

books  veie   in  hia  possosslon.     Re  «s«  persiitted  to  testify, 

over  objeotioa,   that,   ia  Haj,   19^7,   the  actual  o&sh  ralas 

of  ths  Co  pnny*8  asnstt^  did  not  exceed  |1CX), 000.00  aad  that 

its  llabilitips  *raB  in  the  neighborhood  of  1175,000.00.* 

Be  also  stated  th«it  he  bad  bssa  aotiag  &s  trustee  for  tho 

stookholdere  in  &a  cadeavor  to  raise  stif  i  icieat  aoney  to 

pay  all  the  debts  of  ths  eoat>aay  aad  that,  up  to  ths  tiao 

lM  testified,   he  hrd  suooseded  in  pay  jpg  all  the  oblii^tioiM 

Of   the  ooarijany,    except  |39,00<^.C0. 

Ths  defead&at  taRtifiid  tht^t  he  «as  a  physiciaa, 
residing  in  iielrose  Fsirk  aad  had  attended  Bloch's  f  laily 
professionally;      that  Hloeh  told  hia  that  he  had  a  fe»  shares 


■?!*   *jSs« 


¥^«ap-'a8 


"'JS^S&J^X 


'm  fMi^^ 


TS»#Qt  tdi  ta 


left   is  tha    ;tate   niecoxuit  Ooa^jqr  >»hieh  w«re  Talu&bla  b^A 
mvt9  "about  two  to  oqa,**  sad  that   Bloeh  euid  that  he     ould 
teld  %      the  note  at  his  oftlcm  "until  fmoh  ti««  aa  X  »as 
Ttt&dy  to  take  it  up."     Over  objection,  he  further  testified 
that  the  etook  w&e  uever  delirered  to  his.     In  thie  oon- 
aeotlMi  he  e&ld  that  Bloeh  proaieed  to  deliver  the  ^tock  4a 
m  few  dhjBf   t  ir.t  he,    the  defeudant,   asked  for  the  stock 
seT4irai  tiac^e.     But  he  gave  oe  datea.     He  waa  uot  aaked 
about  hie:  knowledge  of  the  f  innacial  eonditiou  of   the  '  t&te 
Diseo'iBt  OonpsiOf, 

Leister  m.  Thielea  waa  filled  &e  a  vitaeaa  la 
rebuttal.     Re  testified  that  is  1937  he  vsa  thm  aseiataat 
•a«^ler  for  the  pl^^iatiff;     th:  t  the  first  tia«  he  aau 
the  note  is  nueation  waa  oa  &  T^^.tuTd^y  night  is  the  aosth 
af  j^&y  1927 1     that   it  ikfta  preheated  hy     'ule,   who  eaa 
■■aoi>8nied  by  ?hil  Oertner,     ho  srsa  kaown  by  the  nitaeaa 
to  be  a  etookholder,   dircotor  ajul  eflleer  of  the  pl:?i&tiff 
h^Mtk  »ad  aleo  an  officer  of  the  i^tate  Disoouat  Company i 
that  oartner  aaked  the  vritneofi  to  approve  of  a  loaa  ta 
Haule^   stating  th'^t  he  kaev     aule  very  wall  aad  th^  t   the 
laaa  aas  good;     that  Blooh  was  act  la  the  b^^'^ak  at  that 
tiaM,  aad  that,   aocor-iixig  to  hit?  reaolleotioa,   ftleoh'a  "O-K** 
aaa  plAoed  oa  the  note  about  a  v^eek  after  the  note  had  beea 
disoouated.       aula  reoelYed  froa  the  olaiatiff  tha  >— uat 
of  the  ao^e,   les^s  the  disoouat  eh/^r^.ee. 

r.Tidently  the  trial  eovirt  believed  the  teatiaony 
fVA^eated  by  the  defeadaat.     The  rraestion  thea  ^rieee  cheth^  r 
thia  evidence  fairly  tended  to  support  rny  of  the  d^easas 


:aS>^-      1*4.  ^^-^i'i       •  '     -      i 


-7- 

lJit«rpo8«d.  The  prlnoln'-^l  def«ii««s  ««rc  f.^ilaTe  of 
oon»l>}«r!'tion  and  tb&t  the  nota  ir«i«  frawiuleatly  pl^^ed  la 
olToulstlon. 

ab  to  the  IvtRue  of  fillvrt-  of   ooubI ^er&tlon,  the 
faete  are  undlsouted  that  the  etook  wee  to  be  delivered 
iwaedlately,  or  %itbln  e  fe«  ds^ys  a/t<^r  the  execution  of 
the  note,  and  that  the  defendant  «&s  not  to  he  required 
to  nAy  the  note  until  he  vae  ready  eo  to  do.  '<?e  ooc elder 
that  th«  re'il  underBt^^ndlng  ot   the  parties  eae  that  the 
note  m&m   not  to  be  negotiated  beXore  mw^turlty,  or  at  loaat 
until  the  sto^  w&e  delivered.  The  stock  ««■  never  delivered 
and  proof  of  th<it  f  et  was  coim>etent  nxilcr  the  ifaues.   The 
dofeadnnt  vae  therefore  not  obligated  upon  the  note  to  the 
president  of   the  plaintiff  bank.   If  the  plaintiff  h^d 
kneele'ige  of  the  faete  eurrouadlnt  the  trane&ction,  it  vao 
not  a  bona  fide  holder  of  the  note,  ^e  think  ths^t  the 
faete  irarrt?nt  a  finding  th»t  it  did  have  eueh  kncvledgo. 

Bloeli  vas  the  preoident  of  the  plaintiff  ^t  the  tine 
the  note  vs^e  disoounted.  According  to  bis  testiaeny  it  eao 
discounted  t^>oB  the  strength  of  hie  0.  K.  «thioh  «.&s  plaood 
MpoB  the  note.  In  authorising  the  di«iCOuating  ot   the  note 
he  ens  acting  as  the  solo  agent  aad  reprceent^tlve  of  the 
plaintiff. 

>e  are  not  unmindful  of  the  often  referred  to  rule 
th&t  s  oorporoition  ie  not  char^renblo  Ylth  not  lee  where  its 
agent  receives  inforaation,  wiich  bee  use  of  his  own  private 
interest,  he  presuaobly  eill  sot  covRunioe-te  to  bis  prlRCipal. 
Mrt  there  are  several  decisions  of  this  court  holding  thnt  the 


ai    ij«©^?I<?   fluffs* Iff^«"St  ^    ?5|t^  ll«>ii-9-'x«5.i*:^a«9 


ml0  dOf^s  not  apply  wher«  the  ngeat  r'^oelves  hla 

infora»tlon  chile  "acting  as  Iks  sole  or  ••^•atl«X  rcrpra- 

••Btf^tlY*  of  the  oorporntioa  la  the  trsjieaot ion .     Mutugl 

Inveftaent   Joaipanaf  ▼.  Wlldaan.   182  111.   >iop.   13T  and  3heraaa 

"tate  BHidc  V.     -alth.   244  111.    koo.   171. 

In  llutttfll  Inyggtaent   On.   ▼.      ildiWLit.   supra,   the  court 

snid: 

"la  the  Higi^:ln8  eaee,   maprn,    (nig^lnn  r,  Laneliigh, 
154   II   ,   301),    at  page  587,   our     uprfae   Oourt   <"UOtee 
with  ftpproY&l  from  the  wise  of   iJames  ▼.  Trettton  Gas  "p. 
27    i.  J.    'i^ri*   35,    la  whloh  <TUOtntioa  therr   Is,   first, 
a  etHteaeat  of  the  general  rule,   tIz:    *that  notice  ol 
facta  to  an  a,  4»nt   i«  oon^traotlve     otioe  thereof   to  the 
prlnoip'^^1  hlaeelf,      here   It  firises  froa,   or  le  ^t  the  time 
con£tecte<1  »ith,   the  euhjeot  aatter  of  his  agency,'  and, 
second,   »   ett^Atfttent  of  an  erception  to  the  g  ner  1  rulfc, 
▼l£:      that  wher     the  f^fFient   Ip  an  oi:'ieer  of  «  oortior-Mlon, 
ani  la  deckling  «ith  the  corporation  In  hie  o«n  inter<>r;>t  and 
Oppoae.1  to  the  Intereet  of  the  corporation,   he   is  held 
net  to  repreecnt  the  oort>»rctlon  in  the  tr«n»iotion,   eo 
ae  to  ehr-rge  it   '•^ith  the  knorledge  he  pos^esr^ea,   which 
he  doee  not  eoifi^unio&te  to  the  eorpor&tion  and  «hich  the 
corporation  doee  not  other nire  poaisea^.   »   •   •  »   • 
There  are  eeyer  1  well  conaidered  ©riflef  shich  recognize 
«  '>u- lif  ioation  to  aald  e-'oeptlon  to   the  gener-  1  rule, 
▼iB!     where  the  of i leer  oi    the  corporation   (though  he 
alao  acts   in  hi?:  oan  internet  or  the   interest  oS  another 
oor■>or^{tlon)      is  the  sole  or  an  eeeentir.l  represent  stive 
of  tiie  corporation  in  the  tranc^^^ietion  in  rueetion,    in  ahieh 
eTcnt  tils  knoaled^e   Is  h«rld  to  be  iapntnble  to  the 
corporation.        ee  Brobeton  ▼.  Penniaan,   97  wa.   527; 
Morris  V.  George  Loen    ^o.,    109  (in.   12;   Blr^ok  HHIf   Mat. 
iiank  v.   Kellogg,   4      *    ^.   312;       Heaa    Jtne cutter  Co.   v. 
Hyera,   i>4  ho.   Aoo.   527:     traders  Sat.   Bank  ot   >t.    -ortb  ▼. 
Saith,    (Tex.   ''ir,   >*pp.)   2Z      .      .   Ret>.   1056;     KlhlKok  t. 
OOBler,   74  Fed.   Ren,   la^n.      In  2  Pcmeroy's     t.  Jttr.(3d.?d.) 
sec.   ^75,   note  1,   the  author  ezpres^ea  a  doubt  whether 
said  exception  to  the  general  rule  earn  apply  to   'prealdenta, 
and  other  such  Managing  ofi'ioers  of  a  corporation, 
through  whoa  »lone  the  corpora tior  en  set.'      In  sn 
eih-Ufltiv*  note,   folloviZM'    the  reoolT~ol    the  c^  se  of 
'^ayneFTllle  lat.   Sank  v.   Irons,   8  Fed.    "ep.   1,   at  p^'^ge 
11,    it    is  stated  t  rt   'In  or'ler  to  chr-r^:.«r  the  corporation 
vith  notice  of  ff'ota  of  «hioh  a  dir-.ctor  or  other  oliioer 
had  knowletige,   he  cuat  have  acted  In  the  tr^n^'sction 
on  behalf  of  tie  oor >or8tlon. •      "ever^l  ofeses  arc  there 
cited  in  BupT5ort  of  the  etatea^at,   in  »hich  e^^ees 
the  officer  of  the  eorooratloa  acted  in  its  behvlf   io  the 
tran^'sction  ?'nd  his  knowledge  was  hel-i  to  be  iaptttf^ble 
to  the  cor  oration.        ee  Bank  of  U.   ",   v.   Dv.vls,   li   -iill 
(H.   Y.)    451;      Virst   Hat.    '  ?ink  of   Hew  ttilford   v.   Toaa 
•f  Setr  Milford,   36  Conn.   93;        lerks'     -▼.   l^^nk  t. 
Thoaae,   P.  Uo,    -^op.    367;      Sntional     ecurity  Bsak  ▼, 
^shaan,   121  M&as.  490.** 


J^5a/5?«  .!nt>*   ^J^-'ii^:'%^ 


&!m: 


J-IJJOO 


-^^     uMilMiUS 


««i 


9n? 


•If 


'■^v. 


X  #51 


.V 


,dt^*-   ,.r^^  Xii 


'sr. 


AS  to  the  ottier  Ittmt,   the  deleadbAt   t«$stlli«4 

that  Blo<di  'igr««d  not  to  n^^oti^te  the  aot*  bat  would 

bold  it  until  the  d«/»ndaiit  »*•  ready  to  take  it  up.      Ir 

this  bs  true  the  note  sat  negotiatod  ia  breach  of  faith 

or  under  imoh  oirouasstanoes  as  aoounted  to  a  fraud,  within 

the  BM^'Blni>   of     eetion  55  of  the  Negotiable  Instruaent 

Aot,   end  the  burden  was  plaoed  upon  the  pl£intifi    to  aho« 

that  it  «ae  a  holder  in  due  course.     Bell  t.   McDonald. 

308  111.  328  and  Fonc^nnon  t.   Lewie.   327  III.   455.      In 

the  latter  esse  the  ^uprene   'ourt  oi  this  State  s»  idi 

*1^  section  59  of  the  sot  every  holder  is  deaned 
priie&  facie  to  be  s  holc^er  in  due  course,   but  «»hen  it   is 
sheim  that  the  title  of  any  person  «ho  has  negotlsted 
the  instrtment  ira«  defective,   the  burden  is  on  the 
holder  to  prove  that  he,   or  sose  per bod  under  shoa  he 
elaias,  aoauircid  the  title  as  a  holder  in  due  oourse.* 

The  title  of  Bloch  to  the  xwte  ia  question  «as 

defective  end  ttie  trial  (»urt  vns  warranted  in  finding  that 

the  plaintiff  failed  to  sho»  thst  it  vas  a  holder   in  due 

course. 

The  jud^^oat  of  the  Circuit  wourt  of  Oook  County  is 

Qffirac-d. 


WnmXt,   ?.   J.   AMD  BOLDOM,    J. 


-9- 

if#2el  to  ii&«rt4  ni  b9iMif99^  »&«  si^oa  ed^  Bsn^   ^  sins 

««d«  9i  iiife  y  «o<?ir  l>®s  mih'w^  i^£t  feas  ,^A 

«Z  .  lil  Km^stAntmi    ..   ^.-  KSimm^  hs.t  3S«  .ill  dOS 


eH  s 

''.d^Ti.: 

U^V      ciy. 

a&i^^-S^- 

.>SXi^ 

i'jt  i-       : 

snii  ^* 

l;?:&^iC 

■i?ai/o. 


:l« 


Appellant. 


•OPCRIOR  aouRT 
OOOI  OODMTT. 

256  i.A.  605 

Opinion  filed  March  5,    1930 
»!•   JUSnOK  RTHKR  d«liT«r««d  the  oplniOQ  of  the  oourt. 

Th*  pl<iintiff«  a  wMMtn  •eT«nty-tvo  j9»rm  of  «ge  «t 
th«  tlBO  of  tho  itooi'l«Bt,  vhloh  r«tult«d  in  injurl««  to  bor 
porson,  reooTorod  n   Judga^nt  in  th«  Buporior  Oourt  of  Ooak 
County*  Aigalnst  the  d«fend'«nt9   'o'  t650«00,      Th«   judgment  v«« 
lM«cd  upon  the  Ttrdlot  of  »  jury.     This  la  tho  appoal  of  tba 
d«fendnnt. 

Tlio  plHiintiff  w%»  the  only  vitnaa««  taatifylng  in  her 
behDlf,  aa  %9  bow  tba  aooidant  ooourrad.     dha  taatifiad  that 
prior  to  tha  «ooidftnt«   aba  b*\d  bai«n  amiiloyad  for  a  period  of 
flTO  and  oa'*'-biilf  yeara  at  a  aalary  of  tirelra  dollara  par  veek| 
that  aba  uauAlly  walked  to  her  place  of  eaployaient,  which  aeta 
a  aila  c^od  one«*balf  diatHnt  froa  her  hoae;   that  her  ouatoa  ^vae 
to  prooead  froa  the  raar  of  the  house,   the  aeeond  etory  of 
whieh  abe  oooupied,   to  the  allay  b^iok  of  the  preaiaas;   that 
in  ao  doinga   abe  passed  along  the  north  eide  of  an  old  bam 
abieh  vaa  ua«d  aa  a  garage}   that  at  6:30  o*olook  of  th9  aornlng 
of  SoToaber  10,  X9t37,  sbe,  pursuant  to  her  ouetoa,  paased 
al«ng  the  aide  of  thf*  barn  until  abe  reached  the  allffy  uUI 
then  turned  to  the  eouth,  when  the  door  of  the  garage  *oaae 
all  of  a  sudden  and  knooked*  her  down  so  th^vt  she  fall  on  her 
aide  and  baok;   that  it  wae  light  when  she  entered  the  alley 
aAd  that  abe  could  see  tb£.t  the  daor  of  tha  garage  vaa  not 


V. 


OSei   »a  rioTJSii  Jbsin  no  in  tqO 


tart  sti  %iti^f_""-  t«  ^^/    . 

lO   feci'.  ^X<>'*€I«««' 


»iM»  ■ 


*>tii'oi»^T   ««©aiftqi 


♦  »«/^i; 


%eiF  noi**   ,  * «"^*f«*'?(»»  *©  »t?sjfef  laid  oi*  imaiAaw  xi^*****  ^^^  **rf* 


'<(ft©tti  2>.«ff  a9^bS>sr0  s  to  lis 


-  3  - 
op«n  ••  ah*  stftrted  ■Ofutlmmrd  m  the  all«y  and  th«t»  after  the 
deer  ttruok  her»  she  wae  wedged  In  the  epaee  "between  the 
back  of  the  door  and  the  bam,* 

The  allqr  in  queation  was  dedio^ted  to  the  uae  of 
tbe  inibXlo  and  the  rear  end  of  the  barn  or  garage  was  approx- 
iaateljr  eren  with  its  ed|;e.  The  defendant  leased  the  buildintj; 
aad  used  it  for  the  storage  of  oars  used  in  his  business. 

^A  eaployee  of  the  defendant  testified  th'\t  the 
aoeident  ooourred  about  twenty  ainutee  before  newem,  in  the 
■orning,  at  whioh  tiae  it  was  dark;  that  he  opened  the  door 
of  the  garage  and,  in  so  doing  "get  a  full  wiew  of  the  alley;" 
that  he  then  went  b^tok  into  the  garage  and  while  ineide  he 
heard  someone  "holler*  and  thnt  he  went  around  the  door  and 
found  the  plaintiff  ibaok  of  it«  with  her  hat  off. 

The  brief  of  the  defendant  contains  no  points  suggest-' 
Ing  for  our  oonsideration  the  rulings  of  the  trial  court  in 
the  adaiseion  or  exol^ision  of  ewidenoe,  er  in  initruoting  the 
Jury. 

It  is  partioularly  urged  as  a  ground  for  rewereal  ef 
the  judgaent  of  the  triil  oourt  that  the  testiaony  of  the 
plaintiff  was  oontradioted  by  that  of  fiwe  imiapeaohed  Titaesses 
for  the  defense.  The  substrinoe  of  the  testiaony  of  these 
witnesses  was  that  the  building^  in  cueetion^  had  sagged  so 
that  the  bottoa  of  the  door,  when  it  was  opened  for  a  diatanoe  of 
abeut  a  foot*  rested  upea  thfi   oobble  etenss  or  granite  blocks* 
with  whioh  the  alley  was  pawe^*  and  oouXd  not  be  opened  further 
without  lifting  it  so  that  it  would  olear  the  paweaent.   It 
is  contended  that  this  ewidenoe  oontradioted  the  teetiaony  of 
the  plaintiff  that  the  door  opened  suddenly.  The  point  is 


%QCb 


-«i>i<-»»iii 


^.'.j',-'      S",?      ."■^.'t'.I^C 


k>tli&     *1E» , 


.(.'..  is  '/'iJi«/'v.i 


'w  is'^tti- 


l.^i^inffk--: 


.tmthiWM.i?-' 


;!!j1#Tj»«:; 


>ifc«is*r. 


-  3  - 
without  aerit.   Th«  jury  v%»  warranted  in  finding  th«t  th« 
door  op«a«d  tuddsnly  d«spite  th«  obatruotion.  Th«  obatruotion 
did  not  pr«T9nt  th«  defendant's  nsployee  froa  lifting  the 
devr  and  swinging  it  back  with  Teiooity  aad  foroe  euffioient 
to  knook  the  plaintiff  down. 

It  ifl  further  urged  that  eridenee  of  the  financial 
condition  of  the  plf^intiff  had  h  orejudioial  effect  upon  the 
jury.   The  physioiaa*  who  attended  the  plaintiff,  testified 
that  be  called  at  her  hone  three  times  within  about  fiwe  days 
and  that,  later,  he  treated  her  at  his  office  about  nine  days 
after  the  aooident  and  that  "she  felt  that  she  oo\jLld  not  afford"< 
At  this  point  an  abjection  was  interposed  and  sustained*   The 
plaintiff  testified  that  the  doctor  called  to  eee  her  three 
tiaes  in  one  week,  le^he  also  said,  **I  later  went  to  his  office, 
at  his  orders,  beoavuie  l  was  unable  to  pay  -*   Ay;ftin  objection 
was  astdo  and  sustained.  The  rule  that  ewidenoe  of  the  finaa- 
oial  worth  of  litigants  where  not  directly  in  issue,  is 
iapToper,  is  well  recognised,  yet  in  the  instant  oase  we  do 
not  consider  such  evidence  sufficient  ground  for  rewersal. 
Ho  obj(»otion  was  aade  to  the  testiaony  of  the  plaintiff  that 
•bo  was  sew«nty-two  years  of  age,  thnit  prior  to  the  aooident 
•ho  was  eaployed  at  a  wage  of  twelwe  dollars  per  week,  nnd  that, 
after  the  aooident,  she  earned  fiwe  dollars  v^x   week.  This 
evidence  was  sufficient  to  apprise  the  Jury  of  the  fact  that 
the  plaintiff  could  not  afford  the  expenae  of  the  eontinuous 
atteadaaAo  of  a  physician. 

It  appears  that  the  plaintiff  sobbod  when  she  was  on 
tho  witness  stand,  dut  the  trial  judge  eirpreeaed  hiaself  as 
being  satisfied  that  she  was  not  feigning  and  iaaediately 


-  «  - 

•  ;■•         . 

stuff Uitltemn  »il ' 

*  I ;  -  i  c  i  a  \  it .  ■  :'/i  si':  iXJ:  i4jii 


-  4  - 
exousad  th«  jury,  H«  then  adttonished  counsel  for  tht  plain- 
tiff to  warn  har  to  ooatrol  heraalf*   Sh«  vaa  again  put  on 
th«  vltnaaa  stand  and  It  doss  not  appear  that  sht  aad*  any 
further  dsmoastrntion* 

Whether  she  was  expreselne  a  naturwl  enotlon  or 
whether  she  was  feigning!;  was  a  aatter  for  the  determlnAtion 
of  th«  trial  judge. 

It  Is  also  oontended  that  the  pl&intlff  wae  guilty 
of  contributory  negllgenoe  and  th^t  there  was  no  ewldenoe  of 
negligence  on  the  part  of  the  defendunt.  These  Issues  were 
deteralned  In  fawor  of  the  plaintiff  by  the  Jury  and  their 
werdlot  was  not  ag&lnst  the  nnnlfeat  nelght  of  the  erldenoe. 

The  Judgment  of  the  Superior  Court  of  Oook  County 
is  affirmed* 

JtrOOHlUT  ArPIRMVO. 

ffXUOi,  f.J.  ARO  ROLDOtf.  J.  CONOtm. 


mt  tftf^  ai<ffifc  ^ti-a^iE^iiE  i^^-^ssrij  ^#  tod  axmr  ot  Hit 


V 

33253 


Flalatifr  in  £rr«r» 

aiXTLX'  V.vriOllAJL  aLOfSDBMI* 
ft  eorper^tion*  •%  &!•• 

JD«feadi:knt«  in  Krror* 


MKm  TO  SVIlXCIt   OOQKT, 
COOC  COSITT. 

256I.A.  606 


BEUV^  OPIBICH  OF  THE   C01R^T# 

This  vrli  vceka  tii«  rmrlew  «f  «  dear«e  illaadLa>.ia^  tlM 
•ri«ia«l  ulll  of   couple  in  t  t-.nti   th«  bill  as  ajwuded  f»r  vont   of 
e^ittitjr*       ftcr  issues  were  tt%k«a»  ref«reii««  was  ba^  is  •  aasivr 
la  chfi-aary  tvt  hia  eonclusioas  »f  I'tw  sJWi  fact*     T)&«  •bJseti«M 
»tti  exceptions  thereto  »er«   rsepeetlTolj  oY«rrvl«<.     tlM  ufkster'a 
r^^pori  vvlii  appfroved  aiiA  eoafiraad*  and   is  ac.'orciaaeo  trith  its 
yoeoaBead'^tioa  the  original  bill  anA   tho  bill  as  aaaadicd  «ero 
di«»ias«d« 

It  app«ariac  mb  t^«  ho-^riag  ¥«fare  ths  eoart  thcit   tba 
hills  were  siultlfRrious  the  chuaoillor  of  his  ova  aotiont 
cpCTBtSa  so  d  selured  thea  la  an  oi'<i<-r  of  eourt*     Thereiq^oa  c< 
plaiaaat  ol«eted  to  prooood  «ith  the  ^aao  oa  the  <iussti<m8  of 
aa  accowBiiai;  aad  hr«^<oh  of  eoatrftot* 

The  cQBtraot  rmt^Tfd  ia  vas  botveen  tho  oarpor^.tloa 
a«d   coMplainaat.     "he  hill»  however »  Made  as  additioaal  defoad* 
aats  the  offioera  aad  stockhaloera  of  tho  oorperatioa  aad  aoodift 
to  hold   thea  ia^ivicar^Uy  and  Jointly  liable  with  the   corporation* 
^  it  eoaplainaat  aot  saly  soasht   to  reeover  draaces  I'or  hr«»«li 
of  his  said  ooatraot  v'ith  the  defectii^at  oorporatisa  aad  aa  account iaf 
Sroviag  oat  of   inioh  coatraotual  rel«ttioaaf  ta«t  also  &e«iekt  ta 


^ 


,-2  O 


JS  ^a -i«SC  •:;  S 'i 


«i*>£*J.v^.       *A  *■<    >      -i'_r 


f    ^    .^t,  ,-v.-^. 


-2- 

holc   Uut   fti^ekhvldera  llabl*  fmr  Ihe  uaj^id  p«rti«a  of   tlMiv  stock* 

Thoro  ««a  ao  «l«ia  thnt   th«  eorporr<tioo  «tto   laAolYcstt.     It  lo  eleay 

th;it  tho  bill  «fto  attil*wifarioua«      liom  so*  tho  oourt  to  avoid 

cttlMrraasaiont   Itt  tlM  irlsl  of   the  •!&•••  o«a»  aoo  apowtet  •afoy— 

that  oujaotioa  to  the  telll.     (OiXKiore  v.  £aH2.»  ^-^   ^^*»  ^•'»  3<^«) 

Tho  r  oault  of  cojaplals&at*a  aleetien  after   ^ut  ortior  vca  to  ollalBftto 

froB  the  eon«idar%tioa  of   tn«  court  with  ooa^lalur.nt*a  eoaooat  all 

other  sattera  then  those  p«rti>oiit   to  an  aocoantiag  vlth  the  cofr 

the 
poratioa  alMtOf  and   to^h&.rg«   thnt    it  had   braaohod  its  coatxaet* 

Therefore  cosplaiaant   la   in  ao  poaltioo  to  nrgao  th»t   the  bill  was 

Bot  obBOJcious   to  tho  0'a4««tioa  of  nBUtifarloasneos*     Tfa*  ea«e« 

therefore t  BOetf  he  eoaaitfered  onljr  with  rcf«rebe«  to  thone  tvo 

lasttcs  OB  whiah  it  vaa  finally  ouhaittcd   for  hen  ring* 

Tlio  rooord  i«  ToluaiaottSt  eoveriac  about  IakXj  yagos  aad 

cffiBtiu^liiiag  44  oxhihita  offered  on  eaoh  sida*     It  ia  iaipr^otiesUo 

baa  uimecoaar^r/  to  aet  forth  the  bill  or  r«Tie«   the   e^ideneo  in 

detailt   if  aifter  oarefui  exri«iiin tian  ve  camiot  oajr  Uint   tlie  fiadiago 

of   the  aciater  vithreapeot  to  the  awvttara  thua  left  for  eaaaldersti«B 

by  ceiiq?IainAat*a  el^etioa*  are  agniaat   the  voij^ht  of   the  evidcaee* 

It  haa  bo«B  fre^ueatljr  on  id   that  vhere  the  tintiingm  and  cone  lu  a  Ion  a 

of   the  auiater  have  hopo  eoafirsed  hgr  the  ohaaofrllor*  aad   it  doea  aot 

appear  la   the  record   thtvt  stwh  coaclusioMs  are  oaaifeetly  a^'^^iaat 

the  «eit:ht  of   the  arid  race »  the  da  or  or  ahoald  aot  ho  d  is  tar  hod  hgr 

the  reTic^iiag  court.     (   iegel  ▼«     .adro^ro  *    "o>,  ISl   HI.  550 f 

Chaayioil  T.  MgCarthy*  2;?^  id.  Bit    j>a£  ▼•  »riflh^.  ass  id.  21A| 

SUlMftv*  XlelCAag.  27ft  id.  9t.) 

Brieflj  atiBNariaod  the  oalioat  faeto  srot 

£)ef«ndaat  oorpor^tion  ia  a  co»oper».tiTe  orgaaisntioa 

co^^ood   of  retail  olothiura  haviae  aa  ita  aaia  objeet   the  pooling 

of  the  purohnaiag  power  of  ita  a  wockhoXdera.     July  27»  19X4« 


«^» 


lari 


■^a         *.., 


.  _l;xi;>gdo  lea 


•-*,  tfe---.  *.      ■<  -^  ■ 


i>^(g 


?oe?  *  Il- 
ls^-   .=••   • 


^n.S.-J->-'l   •^"^:.' 


^kJC^H    ,Vfi   t^jyi-      .»'«*4>Xtsiti*.?aif 


C.^'^503 


-3- 

coapltiiutat  «ni«r«4  tato  it  «0Btr&et  with  Att eninut  eorfor«tioB  t« 
•«oiur«  wiiibcra  ar  •t««kholders  la  It.     Thn.t  coatrMot  ants  iittto»«(tueQ(ly 
r«BOlnded   and  all  w&tters  gr««tBK  out  of   It  adjuuitvd  by  «Btoriac  l*t9 
ftBoihcr  eofitraot;  Wiw««ii  thm  j»«yti««  l^itrvnivsr  4*  1916 •     Thm  I«ii«r 
contraei  1«   th«  one  la  queetloa.      It  exprot  zl^  prtnridoo  th9i  all 
olftiiu  ap  t9  <uui   laolodiajs  Its  4«>t«  nold  bj  eltter  party  a^ptlaai  Um» 
othftr  wort  jxatttalljr  «aatt«ll«<t.       »eh  thnt  i«  rcliotf  apM  ^  «OH,i>lal»-> 
•at  to  «how  non*coopllen«e  vf  d<?f«a<Rai  oorporntiam  oith  tte  lattor 
coatraet  coaolsis  of  ianttoro  ib^tvoro  %ham  odjuotod.     la  ike  eoarso 
of  ooapls^iaaat^e  «s&plcyw»n%  mder  prrrleuo  coatranto  litrolYlag  oI&Ims 
aa«  oouBt«r-6liii»a  waA  othor  anttcro  of  ooairorcrsy  tlmt  voro  thon* 
•«  iho  lottor  ooatmot  otatoo  e>m4   fcke  aaater  f  lado*  antuAlly  eonpreaioo4 
aad  atfjuotod,  «nd  anaraorcf  «]»i   e^^tisf  netioa  «? «   tliea  had*     It  iacladod 
iho  oaaoellatiMi  said  surroador  of  a  aete  of  eoaplAlaaat  tia  $S»000 
hold  by  tho  eorpor-.  tlon,  oad,  ao  ole  Tly  laforblo,  aloo  a  prior 
ftlloiKsaoo  of  l?X'',i:O0  to  hl»  for  proTloaa   aerrioost   to  ^hloh  ho  a«kk»o 
rofercnoo  la  hio  brief*  iaaiedas  th£  t  ho  lo  &%  loast  oatitlod  U 
that  ooa  aa  daMmoo*     1%  la  oloar  thnt  oach  oi'   thooo  obliff»tioiu  aao 
roXoaaod  aoA  rella^aiohod  la  ooaold^rjitioa  of  o-^oh  pr^rty  eat«rlaK 
la  to  a7:.i(t  coat  root  of  Vthrwixy  4»  191d,^      and        the  Cttt»etion  of 
dAMa^oa  ao«d  aOt  bo  eottflidorvti  if  oefoadaat  oorpoTHtlea  did  aat 
hro  ioh  tho  oontraet^ 

3y  ito  torao  ho  «  ^  to  dsrate  hio  tiae  pr lac ipe.lly  to 
occurine  aoo  aoa*«r«  for  tho  eorpor&tlMi  aad  one  to  wodcrtflko  aa 
other  work  ox  bueilnooe   ineoapntible  vlth  hia  dutioo  aader  tho  oo«* 
traot.     He  WAS  sXoo«  boslnniag  itmm  1»  1916 1  toaeoare  aoi  lose  thaa 
10    aeijboro  for  tho  dcf oadaat  oorporati<wi»  n%  the  rnte  of  2S  aoahora 
<2ttartorly»  dia>iag  tho  firat  yanr  of  ea-id   ooatraot.     He  vaa*  ho«oTor» 
privileged   to  eator  apoa  hio  aark  f roa  the  dute  of  hio  contract  aad 
tho  aea^orohipo  t»koa  prior  to  Jaae  !»  1916*  wore  to  bo  eoimted  ao 


*£- 


%4i 


if 

-t 

i«;«4«l^ 

■><»ft?! 

»ii<iafea- 

m 

\9 

Jfilg      Sfc.: 

ojcjecj  iba£ 

'i«i:^^ 


■elia 

'■I 


■m-'  ■      'MS.. 


.-e 


titlrcB  la  th»  fixal  /•nr  of  tit*  e«atrROi.     Up  t«  Oet«Mr  24»  lfie« 
h«  lutf  f«mT9^  mXy  19  n«w  imto«ra  fmr  tk«  ••rpor%tloB.     To  Mq^povt 
his  tflaiit  t)k»i  >»  tfid   ■tfCttrc  ih«  r««^aialt«  nairii*r  )i*  iBoludffs 
»«ato«r«hlpa   i>»eiftre4   la  th«  previous  SorttaHfx  audi  7>ce«iil«r«     It  la 
alar.r  t^t  uatfer  th«  contract  af  fekru  ry  4*  1916 »  ha  wtk»  ^rivil^^HL 
ta  iaclotfa  la  tlu  flxai  <4ttn.rtar  only  iMradicrslilpa  aaeurad  after 
?«^ni  Tj  At  and   ibtit  aoaplttlnaat  br««ielketf  kila  ooiitr^ct  la  tliia 
raspaat  an  vail  aa  la  tht  athar  raayaata  for  which  It  ^sa  aubaa<tueai- 
Xj  aa»eell«l«  aa  foimd  by  tha  a&atar* 

fha  eaatraat  waa  deelnrttl  anoceXlad  f^t  a  recal»^r  aactlag 
•f   tha  baard  of  dlr«ct«ra  ^t  vhloh  eoa^ltia&ot  «aa  praaant  mM 
voted t   (1)  bee<R«ec  ha  did  not  <ieTota  hla  aatira  tiaui  prinoipAllj 
to  tha  aeeuring  of  aa^  jnet^arei   {i:)  lH»c»^r.e  ha  did  lOMl^rtAka  tmH 
parfonaod  atliar  work  incoit^»tibl«  vitJ&  his  a^ Id  duties  uad  obllgatlmia 
ai^ar  aald  eoatJraot*  aad   (3}  l>ac»«fic  ha  prootured  aaly  19  aev  aaaibcrs 
d«riR<  the  flrat  eight  and   oo«-hHl:f  xwitha  of   the  life  of  the  eoa* 
tract.     >H  af  the  dirsctara  except  eaa9l«iaaat  voted  far  tha 
reeolutioa  of  Cfinocllatioa* 

?ith  reap«et   to  the  flrat  t^o  Rrevande  it  appears  that 
ia  tha  ttoatli  of  lU/t  19l€»  eoaplalaaat  rdrertiaed  for  a  p.'irtaer  to 
help  orgoai«e  a  chuia  of  elothlj^  etoreat  aad*  aa  Adalttad  by  hia» 
he  vaat  la  the  follow iac  July  or     agaat  to  Ve«  York  to  proaote  tha 
eaterpriae  aad  did  operate  ela««lMre  ia  Veiv  fork  la  fartheraaeo 
•f   the  project.       e  think  the  master  «na  Jaatlfled   ia  fiadl«s  tkat 
ihia  l>u8iaea£'  was  iacoapatible  vith  hia  datloa  uader  t)M  aoatraet 
ia  ^ueation  aad  v«»e  ia  iriolHtio«  of   its  tenut  aad  alaa  la  fiadlag 
tl^t  he  vaa  aot  UeTOtiag   the  Bcceaai^ry  tiae  far  the  preeureaaat  of 
the   iacroaaa  of  wnabarahipo  ar   6tockholde.a  of   the  eorpar^tioa  aa 
res^aired  by  the  teras  of  hio  ooatiraet*  aad   thftt  ha  failed   to  aoooro 
the  re  ui  site  aaaher  fox   the  fir  at  %a&rter»  aad  ahaadoncd  hia  eon* 


£K,v  ■    5SS.Z- 


s^iK-nrsi^.^-itfl  fit  i^^''i  -^  i^Q  frib   &gt»  i»ai't5-";*J«« 


.ft. 

truci*     CoaplalBiuit  ndaitict)   th  t  h«  stoppw:   proouriag  awaberslii]^ 
after  Juljr  15 »  ISICt  aao   th  t  «ftcr  thr  t  tlae  iM  aoacht  to  quxtj 
out  kis  vald  plMi  of  aluULM  stortfa*     ^«  t]U.nk  thcr«  ««•  ai^l*  evl- 
d«a««  th2tt  ii«  br«aeh«d   tlM  coatraot  in  tliea*   erreral  reep«eta« 

S«t  coBiplaiaaat  claim  ik»t  there  «ere>  prior  brefiOh«s 
by  defeadjiBt  oorp<HratiMi»  eiuuMi-etec   na   (1)   a  failore   to  pay  hia 
meAeya  th^t  vere  avias  to  hla|   (2)  fHiXurr  ta  ^Ive  hla  tfttigammaitm 
af  iiieaberahipa  aa  pravided  t9T  in  tha  ttoatr&ci»  aad   (5)  eolleotiag 
•cniey  mi  mta^ntrnhlj^m  thnt  wne  aat  paid  aver  ta  hUit  and  appr^prlatim 
MMl  d  Bylag  him  credit  for  a  soO^erahlp  9t  a  jparty  la  tha     tata  af 
Minoeaata* 

Caaplalaaot'a  urgmMmt  tm  these  elalaa  ia  oat  Tery 
llliMlAntiiig*     Sa  return  s^lal/  ta  eertaia  exhiblta  vhlah  da  aat 
of   theaaelTaa*  9t  vh«rB  tHJcea  with  all  the  ather  eirldeace  bai  rlan 
aa  these  oltilaet  establish  aff irK;tiTel/  a  breach  af  coatract  by 
defendi^att  or  that  what  ha  elalaa  n«  brea«haa  took  piece  prior  ta 
hia  ova.     ^a  da  aat  find   thU  there  w«s  &ay  reqaeat  oa  defeadfiBt 
or  ref uaal  by  it  ta  pay  coMpl&laaat  aaaey  th«^t  waaaetaaXly  owiag 
to  hljB  or  ta  e<aaply  vitk  pravlaioaa  relntiae  to  tha  aaelaiawut  af 
aeaiberahipa   ta  hlM*     la  faat  the  Iteaa  ^t  sumey  T^fmrrv^  ta  appareat^ 
ly  iaelude  clalas  ar  abllg^- tlMis   th»t  vara  au  Justed  hy  tha  ooatraot 
af  Febnidiry  4  afareMiitf* 

Bagardiaig  the  allesad   f^llare  ta  aake  aaet^iauta  aad 
daayias  eredit  far  the  Miaaaeata  ueaiberahlp,  he  refers  to  t«a 
lattera  eddreaaed  to  defead^at  fia  aat  replied   to*  writ  tea  on  Kaj 
82  aad  Juae  3.     Tha  fojnaer  refera  ta  a  aaybarahip  receired  froa 
hiaaeaata  ia  the  preTiaas  >ehru«z7  aa  aat  rapartetf  ta  hla«     It 
does  aat  der laitely  t^ppear  whca     ny  aueh  naaberahip  «aa  rscei^ad* 
If  prior  ta  FebrWiry  4,  it  vaa  reeeired  uader  hia  yoriar  eaatraet, 
all  elaiaa  ua^Ser  vhiah  aere  axpreaely  adjaated  by  the  voatrs-ct  of 


1&  ^i^tv^  «^1  aUt  it^iis^  *  Ix^  s^jLa-SiSJiui^a  \ Xiao's  .gii^  -gfal^  .»  tarn 

%•  #«rf^;*ffi&-j   ?it?  it«f  &»i£«t?«»^^^«»^^*»   ^•x**  »l»**r  ««&«»  fta£4«Xo  il* 


Uint  dcitc*     HTls  Qwm  letter  Isctlentes   ih:. t  \h»f  ««i«  m  4i«y«i*  «« 
id  wh<^thrr  he  was  eatitlpo   t»  tlw  «.«••  and   i^rc  i«  notJiing  iji  Vnim 
r«o«rtf  on  «hlah  its  atrita  ••add  be  de-i«niliied.     In  a  l«tt<»r  of 
J«a«  3  ht  atat<r9  i2i<«t  a  lleen»»  !•  stfoeasiry  i«  do  Iraotaooa  in 
errtalB  >  t«t««  before  «)i^Kcriptiaae  are   aollcttodt  oatfer   th«  blae 
la<eo  of   thooe     ifstecf  amf   tl»v»  ho  la  sost^iac  blank  a^plio  .tl«au  for 
llceaeea  to  be  flllo<S  oat.     It  1«  testified  1^  two  of  nettn&p^t^m 
officers   ihrni  thoy  wore  usable   to  «d:«pl/  vt'.h  the  rosvireaeato  for 
•ttoh  appllottioas*     Tbere   ia  nochiag   in   thie  tecOT<i   to  alouHr  tbojr 
eoultf  bave  ceitplie^    fit     the  t»lae  lavf   of  tbe  eeTorsl  :i«toa  ox  to 
choo  af-riroatlTeljr  tb.xt  they  bre^ok«4  tbo  oo8tr&«t  «itx  refexcaoo 
to  those  i^T  n.ny  otb«r  sontlers*     a^&o  lettero  eorot  iMvorer* 
ftaswored   ^a  Jul/  15*  bor   ^^he  then  pr«^ld&at  of   the  comp^MQr*      ^roi 
the  letter  it  SLp£.caro  thstt  a  cocfereaeo  «ltli  coapl-^iaaat  luA  bo€fi 
held   ia  the  proouuro  of   t«o  ether  diri^ctors  la  rhieh  th^se  aaittero 
«ere  thoreufhly  oiieeaasodt  aw^  th->t  it  vac  thes  cl^^  rly  stated  tibat 
thejr  ls»4  aothiag  to  <&o  viUi  r<igar€   to  the  xeaber^hip  ^erk  and   tho 
blue   lavs   la  the  differeat  siatest  Isat  thr.t  the  leeaborehip  vork  was 
absolttteljr  ia  his  eh^xgei   th/^^t   the/  h«4   ta  OTery  vt.y  co-opernted 
with  hla  so  tfkT  as  eooolii-teat   r.ith  the   iatereotH  of  the  orcftaixr:ti«it 
bat   th'>.t  thej  had  ao  erit^eaco  cf  hia  deiafi  hio  p&rt  for   the  i^sat 
sereral  leoBthsi   th»t  ho  had  boea  la  Oiio^o  aoot  of   the   tiae  aoiag 
the  caaip%nj*s  offioo  and   thti   eooTeaieacesof   the  oorporrtioa  for  hia 
ova  frivate   purposes  aad  p> racial  &^:  ttera.     Tho  record  la  b£Jr«  of 
sttffielcat  proof  to  oo&trovert  these  coateatloas* 

coKplii  laixat  doce  aat  ap^f>r  to  have  <  oae  rjiythiaift  OK^er 
the  eoRtr^tct  aft«r  th:xt  d^to   UvOy  15 »  1910}  and  the  tcvideaoo  toada 
to  sapport  laniffereat  aiteatiooi  to  his  ;iutiea  prior  to  that  tiao« 
The   parties  h  d   eviceaily  rcaehed  poisto  of  differeaee  as  to  thoiv 
respoctiTO  elaia»  and  oblis&tioaat  aad  do  aot  appear  to  haw  aat 
acaia  oatil  the  foil  ok  ia^  Ootoher  vhoa*  after  di&oaasiea  aad  aa 


*»itj5Uia«r»^"'^'6  1*  ^ci  ^0  ^rii^i\^  ..=fa   'mint  tf4  *^  s-s^a-tsiX 


•7- 

BBaTaillaiS  >tte4pt  to  g«i  «a  «aie«lil«  dlsposltlMB  of  ite  cmi- 
traoit  tk«  btt^rd   of  dlr«ct«r«  of  defeBdr«t  C(M|pa«j  o&noolXoi 
the   OMat  as  oforea^ld  b«e-  itiic  of   kio  onld   violAtiotM  aitf 
•hatnAmmuHA  of  tbt  oomo.     '■«  do  not  think  oooipl«lnoBt*B  ooa« 
t*Btloa  of  *  broach  of  contract  hy  eefend^jit  is  ovyperted  hy 
Mtfrioioat  evid«nee»  or  th^t  tiso  eridenco  iihova  thrvt  the  hroaolMo 
rollod  mptm  h^  hla  oocurrod  prior  to  hia  firet  br«aok« 

Aa  to  the  el  iai  for  -n  accouatiag*  ull  the  iteaa  vith 
re»p«et   thereto  ii|»poar  to  relate  to  triuia<  ctiona  ustder  a  prior 
HCrectteat  th^t  vor«  adjuo^od  aa  «iforottaid«  by  the  contr-act  la 
^voetloii  of  Tebrm%ry  i«     Henoo  «e  need  not  eater  into  li  <?t9Lile« 

So  far*  therefore*  a»  the  as^eter'a  fiadiaga  relate  to 
the  t^ro  subjeete  on  ehieh  the  cti«»e  vas  eubaitted  for  heariac 
«e  think  fraa  th«  erideaee  pertinent  thereto  th'jit  the  oeart 
properly  np^roved   the  report  aad  dioalaeed   tht^  bill  for  e>at  of 
e(«aitj*     At  mxtf  rato»  ia  the  coafttaer   state  of  the  record*  «e 
OdiiBot   saj  the  erideaee  prepeacseratea  the  other  way* 

O'talaa  ntad  Oridlej*  ^^•»  ••■< 


•  ails*':'  ^;  3:Jai:    •x®^^  ^J-: -5r-^ S . ■        . -.-    >i-^'li3»afi 


M7M 

MART  T.KIXmLD,  ftdttlBletratrlx* 

£«fendiuit  la  ^rr«r» 
▼• 

FlmimtttX  im  ^.rr«r* 

MB*   P!vKr>XI»ZVO   JUirrXOI  BAKXES 
IiSl»IYmi£I^  THS  OPIJflO!?  OP  THIS   COTOT. 

tlur  4ud0i«at  iaMl*r  rcriirw  was  r«Mid«r««i  aKftiaoi  ««f«Btf«Bi 
for  ^49500  in  9M  aetloa  to  r«««T«r  cM)p«B«nti«n  r«r  th«  dcatk  of 
plaintiff* a  dtoodoat* 

At  iho  eIo««  of  j^lAlntiff *0  o«ft«  tfefciadaBi   Qskt<°.  for  aa 
inatnaeied  rurdiot*     Tlic  aolioa  was  deaiodt  and  defeadAat  r«ttiac« 
th«   ef^B%  vaa  eataitted   to  the  Jury  without  further  aricicaoo*     Tho 
UHttftl  ■•tions  w«r«  aloo  dsaiod* 

Dooodeat  hnd  >9«a  a  taa^at  of  ocfsad^t  for  aiae  yt^rfl 
oocttpyiac  aa  ap  rtaoat  la  h«r  baildlac  oa  th«  «  aot  aido  of  Soatk 
■alsted  atroot*       Tlw  »p«^rtaoat  w&s  oa  the  third  floor.     It  could 
to«  entorod  %/  a  atalxvaj  fr«M  tho  front  eatrnnoo  or  hjr  aa  opoa 
aWtiroay  &t  tho  roax  of   tho  building*     Tho  f  Irat  etorj  of  the  buildiac 
oxtended  beyond  tho  iMtia  t)uildiag  Cft  foet  to  aa  aXloj  oaai  of  it* 
fho  rear  8t«>irwa/  Xed   i»o  tho  roof  of   the  firat  otory  aad  oao  aaod 
la  ooanoa  hy  tho  aeroral  tenedita  n.na   those  rcnd'ria«:  aerriooa  to 
thorn.  vftor  re  9hia«  tho  roof  oae  had  to  ^alk  tho     5  feet  aerooa 

it   to  the  aaia  build  lag  to  eater  any  of  the    ip«irtKeata  abore  tho 
firat  floor* 

The  atruetare  eoataiaiac  the  atairway  at  the  rear  of  this 
firat  otovy  oxtoadod  froM  the  wall  nhout  10  feet  aad  oae  about  7  or 


ei:,v«c 


««*4.    -  :'.    ,::    ::,-    . :-;        C' ■     "   :  ■«•?■;   '^.f^*':*/     ■  ''^^ii^^   fed 


13  „».**• 


-8« 

•  ftet  ia  width*       Bteriac  it  frMi  th*    ill«jr  om*  «ouXa  go  up  a  ImI 
4«s«M  HiAps  tmrnyd  th*  biUldla^f  t«ra  t«  his  ri«]i^  on  th»  l^iKtag 
•LBdl  ![•  up  «  •latilAT  flight  of  ftt«9«  l«iiitiBg  •ifi  dlreotl/  awnj  fro 
tht  I9tilldiit^.   to  ttAother  landiajs  or  plfttrork.     parallel  with  tbo  all 
antf  •urroundod  oa  lt»  •«•%  oido  aad  north  and   aoaih  «ada  hjr  o  rnil 
or  baaiat«r*       fter  roaohiBg  it  into  woul<t   t«rn  to  th»  right  a^iUa 
toward     its  routh  oBd  vhoro  a  otalrway  Itfd  dlreutly  toward     tho 
bmllalag  to  the  roof  of   tho  firot  otory.     Tho  oatlro  weat  oido  of 
platform  «.?-.•  takm  up  vi\h  tho  opeaihca  "»^   ralllBgo  to  those  too 
stairwaXe* 

Tho  erldeaoo  dioolooed  tht<\t  the  ralliacs  at  the  south  ew 
Of  tho  lAOdUie  had  bo«ii  la  a  had  aad  rottof^  eoaciltloB  for  too  jeof  t 
hefore  tho  aocident  in  Mueotloal  that  it  «»e  loose  ttmi  eh&hjr  aad  oi 
of  the  tenaato  h<^v,i  fnetoaed  it  ap  la  »eae  way  by  a  eordf  tl^t  aaot] 
teaaat  had  vajraod  her  children  ubout  it«  condltioat  and  thrvt  aaothi 
had  eoaplfiiaed  about  it  to  tho  «ffoat  of  the  laaciord  ooae  oix  aoatl 
before  the  ^ccideat* 

^•oae  tiao  between  9Ut  ajid  llt:>0  p.  b«,  a  d^rk  ftad  raingr 
aiffht  on  Kareh  1^*  19£7t  deoedent  wao  found  uacon  ciouo  in  the  alia 
no!  r  the  n^^outh  aide  of   tho  etrueture  i>ith  parts  of  said   oouth  r^ili 
aloagoide  of  hia*     He  died   the  B«xt  aoralne.     Vo  oae  api^ears  to  hair 
eoea  hla  fnll  hut  the  olroonstanofre  ole  rljr  iadio^xte  that  ia  his 
aoeent  after  re-chia^i;  the  eecond  laadiag  or  platfora  he  in  soae  waj 
oaao  ia  ooataot  vith  the  r&iliag  ».ad  fell  off  the  platfora  with  it 
to  the  concrete  paveaMUt  about  10  feet  below* 

Oa  the  qaeetioa  of  li&bilit/  «i«fendAat  U  error  relioo 
Vftm  tho  feaeral  rule  followed  ia  ihie  utate  thst  "aa  i«pliod  dutj 
is  iapoeed  upmi  the  lanaloro   to  ke(?p  in  repuir  oosoioB  paooace«vaja 
tad  approaches  retaiaod  uncer  his  eontrol  and  used  hy   the  s  eroral 
teaaate  ao  the  »oaBo  of  aoooos  to  tho  portioaa  of   tho  prcaiooo  daUeed 


U4t  fi«*i  j>ajiii:j»Tt  ftst* 


♦  **|!J 


«»I1«1 


'U    ftA    4| 


-5» 

io  th*a,  «id   ihni  %h9  Xt^nnlmxA  !■  lia^l*  for  injuri^a  reoeirvd  ^ 
a  icnnai  1»«e/«s«  of  tho  loAdlord^o  n«cIic«aco  U  pcrforaln^   thia 
<}«^/**     OWPlM,  V.  Httl»t^,  216   111.  546,   960.)       Tkis  rala  la  oua- 
taiat4  by  the  wol^ht  of  Authority.     (ab«  1  i^ag*  ;^;Boy«  af  Law,  Vol* 
Id,  2Bi  Bd*,  p«  220 •)       7ho  ralo  has  booa  appXloa  la  TAriaao  onaoa 
eoMiag  to  thlo  eoart  apoa  r^rj  eiallur  fnoto,  aad  oomo  of  thoa  laTolrod 
tho  olalu  of  tlM  landlord •»  aegllgeaeo  in  not  ropairiac  a  def^otiro 
ra lilac  4hoat  a  paaB«4r«*iray  used  by  toaa»ts  ia  •omiom  whoro  tho 
landlord  had  notio«  of  the  oxiotoaao  of  U»  dABgoi^aa  oondltlav,  tr 
aftor  tho  ii«f<?<»i  hud  ooafclmod  r«r  oaoh  a  loa^th  of   tl»o  ho  to  ohi^ga 
hlM  with  oonatruetlTO  natioo.     OsSBSL  ▼•  :^Hyjia»  i*8  111.  App.  a«i| 
BStMMSM  ▼•  ItotfrAMt*  Xas  id.  1641     B»<lido||  t.  rhmuip^  198  id.  34*1 
Pottor>o«|  ▼.  i£&|si»  'OS  id*  S09*) 

Vo  ^««Btioa  la,  ar  omu  h«,  raiatd  horo  ho  to  adoquato  aotioo 
f  tho  landlord  of  tho  coadltioa  of   the  r»iliB«  for  a  long  period. of 
liao  boforo  tho  Aocidoat* 

Tho  oaly  point  au-^dt  aa  to  liability  by  plaintiff  la  •rr«ia 
that  ft0  doeodeat  Ivaaotf  fro«  yoar  to  yo»r  ho  mat  haT«  imoim  of  tte 
d«f««t  la  tho  atftirwoy  at  tho  tla*  of  letting  «nd  aaat  bo  dernod  ta 
havti   ftcceptod  it  in  tho  ooaditioa  h«  found  it,  togoihor  with  all  in- 
•id«atal  riaha  and  ha^AMs,  ualeoa  thrro  waa  a  ooatrftot  to  ropair. 
In  oihar  words,  plaint  iff  in  orror  invahoa  th?  rulo  of  »aT»at  oi^tar 
appllod  in  th«  oaso  of  known  <li«f«*3ta   in  pr^alsoa  loaood   oxolasiYoly 
by  a  tonaat*     Th«r«  oaa  bo  no  donbt  «ib«at  tho  appUootioai  of  thctt  rula 
whort  th«  dftfsotlTO  «onditi«n  is  a  part  or  p'^rool  of  tho  doaiao4 
1^resl»«0  Ao  diotlne;ttii.Ow<S   fr«a  th^t  portioa  of  tha  prtraiaea  rotaiaod 
uad«rr  th«  control  of   tho  landlord  for  tho  ttowaon  mvo  of  hio  toaaata* 
la  othtr  werda,  th«  mlo  is  applio^lo  to  tho  prcMiaoa  in  tho  oxelnaiTt 
»«oaooeioa  of  a  tenant.     Tho  o<%aoa  oiiod  by  plaintiff  in  orror  froM 
th&a  £%at«  nro  of  tho  l&tttr  oharaotor.         utteritioo  are  citod  fro« 


«««.■"«»  aiMMSiiAV  «i  fe»|it?^,,v'  .'v,iJ»4  »®d'  Ilia's,  W/4T  ti^X 

aftfXftviltl  »«^t  1f0    :»SB£tf    J^s;  ■.•t^i'r  min^  4t»«ts  «i4^   ■a^   ;, 


1 56 


-;«iXI*>'S'  *^-« 


^l:;^.;:;;!^   -^  l,sM^:%J.*:. 


'!t    Si 


<9VJtat«X 


■■•  ??«  a.-ic<^. 


;  ..:;.  *»*iJ^ 


..•X^*i :-  ;^ 


ih«  ftff«al  tlaKt  the  duty  of  th«  lABdl^rd  In  retpcct  t«  »  p^saa^-^aj 
a»f^  1b  combmi  in  thrt  •f  mily  dae  (Mir«  t«  k««p  It  la  fueh  concltloa 
</>»  it  wna  n  parporitd   to  be  at  Iha  tlat  of  letting*      (&••   c:.  J« 
1S0»  and   OAttt  citad  in  mnr(la*l  rvfaraiKa  10.)     Th*  mla  in  thia 
^'tatt  la  a«t  a«  qibillfie<l*       Kuaicroua  AUiherltica  im  hf  rmam/  vltk 
tlMiMD  of  tMa     iatt  ara  referrac    to  la  nota-a  is  14  L*  H«  .  •,  p«  2S9| 
t3  L.      «      .•   p.   15it      48  L.    ?.•      ••    iV,^*)   930,   aad   L.  P«      •   1916,  L« 
p*  1£3«« 

Vntty  th«  rula  tte  think  Uutr«  ctoi  W  ao  dottkt  of  daf«Bd>uit*a 
liability  for  a«clig*ao«  la  f»llla^  ^o  »a»aej  tha  o«faet  ualam 
dacp^aat  wsia  fttlltjr  of  c^ontri^atory  ntcUffcaoo* 

But  *«her«  rtr^senabla  man  &etias;  vrithla  tJbo  llKits  preoorlbod 
Iqr  lav  sight  raath  diffaroat  ooaelueiona*  or  <f If  ferant    laftraaaoa  oould 
reasooAbly  ba  drawn  fron  tho  rtdalttad  or  tatnbliahod  frictot  tho  (^ooatioB 
of  eoatributory  nt|;lie«ace  is  for   tht  jury**      (|.uallar  t*  ^htjLpjp.  392 

It  e*ai  not  he  doaaod  aagllgaaeo  th»t  daoodoat  ohooo  to  oat ar 
his  qpHrtnant  by  tha  vaav  iaata  td  of  th«  froat  otalrwuvyt  or  that  Jw 
vaati«Ttook  to  uaa  it  oa  a  dark*  r>^iny  aii^t  aaloaa  ha  had  kaowladgo  •t 
ita  eoaditioa.       7hara  waa  ao  dlraot  proof  tht  ho  did  Iomw  of  it* 

Hla  vldon  tastii'iad  that  ho  had  goao  up  by  th«  roar  otainiAvy  *aoao 
aayoa  er  aight   tlaos  la  tho  aTaniag  la  the  Inat  yo^rr  or  ao*"      'iko  alto 
t«»tifi«d   th  t   ahe  had   aoaa  hia  «oiag  ap  tha   atairway  and  baiag  loft* 
haadad  h«  "would  uaa  hio  loft  hoad  «)ia«  ap  atairoaxo  to  aupport  bia* 
aolf  •"     :h«  know  of  ita  ootuiitioa  but  toatifiod  thf^t  aha  had  aoror 
apok<ea  of   it   to  hi»«       bile  it  ia  ooaawhat  diffioolt   to  uaderatood  why 
ahc  chould  not  haw*  doaa  ao  aad  «hy«  if  othar  tt^aaata  kaow  of   ita  eon- 
ditloa  for  60  loa«  a  tiao«  ho  ohoald  hawa  r«aaia9d  igaoraat  of  it«  yat 
tho  <iUoation  of   contributory  aagligaaoo  w%e  oaa  of  f*ict  preparly  nub- 
alttad   to  tho  Jury*     tharo  wna  aridaaoo  tcnt'lag   to  ohow  thut  ho  wao  a 


9f      ,fH|i^«*-^i-{jJ4t|IHH*H     \P      ftiKjf.'i.      ;»|iS 


tcimt-lfulh^l'w^  «tMi*« 


■J  nJt  b»9it 


at;' 


®*»*etJ^!iB 


♦iiis*/.  : 


J.fy^;'f>r: 


;^^lX^'i-i:"-  ^.;:>s);'^^' 


■frhtjfdbia 


ViM 


•J    -,   -'A       .^w.     ' 


-^t-i. 


v.-:.i  *•   ;•    ,  •  .  .■     i        lar.:       fn: 


■,;Viujy^  tiAi.;>   <«•«    i*oj[J*,a 


-5« 

•ttft  kUo  ovtilaxtrlly  mxtr^immc   o»^«  mm  HmI  used    ih«  liAok  ■inlrvvj 

th«  conftrhry  ho  okn  aoikin^  t»f   Uie  eoatfititm  of  t)M  rr. lliai^  aad 
■igr  »ltH»ut  B*sligciio«  Imtv  ftiltn  A«^lii«t  it  vr  hAT»  tnlw«  Iiiil4 
of  It  for  oapport  la  ii^orraoo  of  its  'lottdltioa.       hilo  Hfon  tlM 
•Tidoaoo  lh«  <ittoatloa  or  ooatri^utor/  n«iaifi*noo  any  to*  dvbataAl* 
»«  ooB  aol  wy  ikat  tke  fiadla«  of  the  Jury  oav  oanlfOflUy  o4|aiao% 
Uw  voigkt  of  tilt  «Tld*ao«» 

<*>  <Jo  B(»t   tklnk.   t^crtfr'orvi  that  tk«  oovt  orrod  la  r— 
faolag  &o  dirool  a  mtoUX  for  d^feadnat.     Jior  did  it  «»»  la  ^x. 
elitdiag  toatiittday  offeroti  toy  hor  la  tlio  m%ux«  of  «j«  oniniM  m  t« 
th«  dr»ae»r  of  aeocrfi^lag  &he  ofesOroaoo,       'uoh  oviiKnioo  wwid  toaro 
tr«a«h«4  upoa  tli«  provia  oo  of  the  4ary» 

tho  jU(i(Btt«Bt  Mouicln^ly  it  *ffir««d. 

A9FlBM£iJ» 

s^toalaa  oad  Oridloyt  J<7«»  ooaour* 


hltui  m^:l-  ■    


I  I  Ji        VJiU 


li-  i*5^js, 


^1  tfl 


■vat*  Tt^  diS't;'- 


5^v     ;"    aiU'^'^-    '■:&' 


*%tx:l 


■:-■X^ 


«'$j;4;?^ 


\Xi^     iiti'.fii'^ 


33T6f 


aSOItfK  2>.   COXVER 

VILLI  AM  JTt  o«cairyo}v, 
oop«.rtB«r«» 

▼♦  )       couKT,  COOK  C(wrrY# 


f^  «>  ^ji'  ^vi,^*  0 1/ o 


Thla  ia  an  «pp««l  from  an  trdtr  eat*r«4!   la  a  pr«»c*«diac 
la  t)i«  n«tiir«  of  a  «rit  of   caroit  aabip.  Taoiilag  a  jttd«Roai  oaiorod 
agaiaet  tlefoadnat  &•  ia  e  aso  of  defftalt  for  failar*  to  fllo  an 
affidaTit  of  aerita  aa  j»roiridod  la  s«^otlon  96  of   thi^  Praeiloc  Aot* 

The  petit ieo  oa  tihleh  tlio  order  «  a  eittorod  «l logos  that 
jadgaAnt  «>>>»  olitailaod   Mtiroh  12»  19K99  aa  a  default  aattor*  without 
aarvlag  dofoad^jiat  or  hlo  t-ittorae/  «lth  any  aotioot  aad  that  tlM 
oaaoo  aaa  aot  oa  tho  trial  eall  at  tho  tl»«»  aad   thrtt  deftataal 
iMid  ao  notioe  of  tho  Jutigaoat  uatll  aervod  with  a  copy  of  oxeeatloM 
>>prll  9,  1929*  and    ihr%  hlo  '  ttoraoy  entered  hlo  appoaraaoo   la   tho 
o^ee  Jttae  16 «  198t« 

Tho  potltloa  «na  supported  hy  the  affldoTlt  of  hit 
attorae/  whleh  states  aore  specll'lOFilly  the  ,  rouads  of  tho  pro* 
owed  lag*       la  It  1m  otatoo  that  he  oateroc^   tho  appoar«aioo  of 
defeadr«at  as  hlo  i!^ttoraey  of  record  Juao  Id*  19<:t|   thnt  ao 
doolariitloa  whs  thea  oa  fllo|  that  holac;  about  to  lo«iTo  the  ^tato 
for  a  period  of  OTor  t'fto  woeks  aad  kaowlag  th&t  It  «ould  he  aoccoaarjr 
to  file  a  defease  ho  eallod  plaintiff* a  attorney  by  telej^ioae  with 
regard   to  the  situation  aai  wns  told  by  hla  thnt  he  -Kwuld   take  ao 
adwaatago  of  afflaat  whatsooror  aaa  tht^^i  he  alght  file  aay  kiad 


©a1*«« 


'  J  I! 


ifii^smii 


%^lhAi^'^><  .■■  ^:y-  '':    iF-r-'r 


.«»« 


>a 


'.\i 


AiH    St^t^'i- 

*<-.          "-^-^f^M-iti,   i.. 

-*i   ■"',;;(  '■■' 

ui;: 

i.t,    .uv-. 

!  .     .     -„■.«■.,-•, 

A£t   ft;!'.'  jNX«    ttOla^Ol'J:; 


•f  «  def«B««  lM%9X  •»•  «lMM«T»r  1%  waa  oonTtBivnlf  tbat  aot  lOMwlBg 
tlM  BaWrt  9t  tte  d««l*r&tion  he  infsraetf  yl«latlff*»  att^ra^y  that 
IM  «Mld  l«iiT«  a  9l«a  «itH  oom^b*  1b  hi>  offiaa  ia  ^a  filed  b*f«ra 
ifmlf  If  tliat  it  wfae  ihca  a&id   that  aaithar  of   ttaaa  vtald  take  aagr 
BtfTantaco  baoeuB*  af  aajr  pXwadlBCs  flltdy  or  to  ba  flXad«  by  tha 
athar*  but  •aeh  would  kaep  tba  oili«r  adTtood  af  th«  pragraaa  of  tha 
aaaoi   thnt  ralytna  ob  such  agrevaeat  ha  loft  ChiOAga  aad  v  b  goaa 
far  a  ytriod  of  frcai  tvo  to  thra«  veakat  thnt  la  hi»  Abaeaoo  hia  pl«a 
aforaeaid   «ao  filtd|  th«tt  ha  took  bo  further  otapa  in  tha  aattar  with 
yoopoot  to  the  plead laco  exoupt   ^o  iaf  era  hie  olieat  It  «rould  bo 
Boeoaoary  to  gat  togoUuer  aad  prc^pare  a  aet-off  or  couatesr  olaiai 
that  he  Heard  aothiag  frea  opposla^.:  cotmeel  aad  *o«refally  watched 
the  progreae  of  the  ouee  upoa  th«  call  of   the  oaleadar*  plaaaiag  to 
get  the  eaao  at  iaeuo  la  aaple  tlae  for  ite  trial I*   that  after 
learalag  froa  his  ollaat  of  the  aenrioe  of  the  exeoutloB*  ha*  for 
the  firot  tlBttt  *l«arB«d  froM  the  filoo  that  pleviatiff  had  filed  am 
affidaTlt  of  elnlji  aad  that  a  Judgaeat  by  tiefealt  ha<^    been  catered 
ao  afareealdl*   thnt  he  had  aerer  boea  iaforaed  of   tte»  rUla^  of  aa 
afiidavlt  of   olaia  alosg  with  plalBtlff*8  declar'  tloai   thnt  plala- 
tiff* a  attoraey  Had  *for  orer  aiae  aontha  aeglected  to  deaaad  of 
affiaat  to  file  aa  af i  idf.Tlt  of  aorlte  or  proper  ploao**  aai  that 
without  aotiee  to  hia,  oppotila^i  couaeel  had  aovcd  for  a  defaalt  aad 
JudCBOBt*  la  direct  cMttraTeat ioa  of   the   ngreeaeBt   exietlag  beteoea 
than* 

Tho  ooatentloa  la   the  affidawit  is  that  there  aae  aoQUieo- 
eeaoo  la  the  aaiving  of  the  affidavit  of  aerlte^  aad   that  tho  riolatioa 
of  the  agreeacat  «aa  a  fraud  upoa  hla  and   hia  olleati 

XI  io  apparoat  thf t  the  aietake  or  error  of  faot»  that 
aaat  be  relied  upoa  aador  oectloa  99  of  tho  statute,  rooto  la  thia 
oaoo  upoa  aa  alleged  Tlolatloa  of  aa  airraagaieat  or  uaderotaadiag 
hetweea  ooaaeel  for  aot  ice  of  aiqr  fatare  procedure  ia  the  e^eo  by 


*«al*  t*o^«'^^  »*'^^-?.?ni:-a«  J«>iaw«'ilijt,sj4  «oj;4;.i'«»x*^ft  Mti  !t»  »7tir«jin  Ma 
suit  le  «»iMtse''t^  «vU'    *$<>  r-ar^':.      utiitid  ^i  ?i»*at   !!»ilj»©«i'  Ats:*    iwS  ,7 


-3- 

plalMllff •     3iieh  a  •t«t«  •/  facts  aay  4i»eX«a*  al«plA0«d  o«nf ltf«a«« 
or  a  brtaoli  of  Terbal  acrtoaeni  belKooa  couaaol  la  tlw   oaao  but  aot 
iflMt  to  x*09gml»9^  *a  aa  arror   of  fact  luulcr  a«  ciion  &9  of  t)M 
Praoiioo    ^vt* 

TlM  orrora  of  f«o%  ihMt  wgr  ba  oorreetatf  apoa  a  vrit  vf 
cor—  nobla  at  oonMi  lavt  f«r  which  aaetlMi  8f  bow  subetltutaa  a 
ROtlOA  la  th«  a*tar«  thareof  t  aro  fully  dlaoosaod   la  karabla  t« 
Thowpgoa  Koaaiia;i»  509  111.  147*     It  la  appareat   th»t  whnt  lo  raliotf 
upoa  la  tlM  oaa«  Ht  bar  k9  aa  ttrror  of  faot  cowm  not  «•■«  wlthla  tho 
aoopo  of  ooaaoa  lav  oa  thu  aubjaoi  aa  thart  atatedt  or  uadar  tha 
daololoaa  of    th<!   courts  ao  far  aa  our  attoatlon  haa  bo«a  directed 
to   thoa* 

Tho  patitloQf  without  a  ouffleloat  atatoaoat  of  facts* 
asaaaos  defaadaat  «::s  oatltlad   to  notlo*  of  taklag  jutiflaoat  by  de- 
fault, aad   ttaa  affidavit  Is  bascci   solely  oa  tho  violation  of  aa 
ACroeaent  or  uncarataadla^r  batveca  oottaael  as   to  «lTla«i  Aotlo«  befaro 
taking  It*         Aa  a  aattcr  of  logal  procedure  plalatiff  was  not  re- 
quired uader  saotlon  55  of   th«  ■fmetiec     oti  or  under  the   rul«  of 
the  oourt  r*sp«otln«r.  B0t.lcest   to  giT«  notice  before   ths  oourt  ooiiltf 
properly  eater  juogaeat  undcv   said    seotloa*     7ho  statute  aad   ths 
rule  were  »o  laterpreteA  la  Craagr  ▼•  Cwaeroial  Mea*s  Aaaociatioaa 
8«0  IU«  5U« 

Vor  wfis   tho  court  bound   bo  take  ooftnlsanoe  of  prlYate 
aiproeaeatu  betweea  oouaael.     lurlag  ths  term  It  nl.ht  la  Its  dls* 
ereti«B0  as  provided   la   t«ctlea  &a»  have   »et  aaido  the  default  ajui 
JudiipBoat  beoauae  of  sush  undHretaadlag*     But  after  the  tcra  it  ««s 
Jurlsdlotioaal  tbr^t  the  grooad  far  vaoatiag  the  Jucgmsat  bo  susk 
»s  coaes  within  tte   eoeeptod  esastrastion  of  what  ooastitatss  errar 
of  fact*  or  ooatos  vcithia  the  purrisw  of  ths  statats*  &s  thinic  it  is 


«».... 


S»*«t*ftfK:-  ■•-■      -'     .J«tf«lf 


ht£t''  ■■'iUm  ^-  '  .'i^on  ^.,. ,  .lit 

Q&i    tik^  tti;.  JM    ^?a»3r?(it>tJt   i!^****  't^'»«^©«B 

■,'btM  4  ill  €lt»£ 


-4- 

1»«yonil  qiMotlon  cho^b  a  neru  )»r«&Qli  of  courtcvy  or  ^f  «b  uadar- 

•taauiB£  betvtea  couaetl  oviimot  be  eo  iaitrpr«%o<3*     To  h«Id  oth«r« 

«1b«  would  not  onl;/  b*  a  dear  4«|Nirtiir«  froM  aXl  i;>r«o«(ica%s  with 

vthioh  v«  are  fajtlXlar*  but  vouXd   open  wltfe   thft  doer  to  diaturb 

JudCKOBio  ent«ree  i^^t  prior  texvo  9M  deprive  then  of   tlurir  ooited 

•tobilitj* 

Bat  oTftn  if  the   erouad  relied  upon  to  «iipp«rt  tbo  eotion 

could  bo  hold  to  cone  vlthla  the  purriev  of  the  etAtate  there  oould 

be  BO  q«eati<»i  of  the  negXi^oncf  of  d«f«nd«jit*fk  «.ttorae/«  by  trhooo 

ceadaei  he  TFould  bo  boaac: »  ia  hio  waitiac  t9r  i)l&iatlff*«  attoraogr 

to  tAke  ootioa  with  refereaoe  to  hio  e«B  f&ilare  to  flic  proper 

ple<^diaso  oad   BiB  iLffidn:Tit  of  aerito*     It  «n«  hio  dutp  to  aot*  oaA 

nesXigeace  aot  to*     His  0«a  affid»Tlt  oho^so  tta>  t  ho  waited  for 

•<T«ral  terau  of  oourt  to  pae»  without   takias  umj  etepo  to  attoai 

to  the  pleadiase  la  hio  e*M%»         wen  the  trial  oo.rt  rscogaised  hio 

Xaeh  of  tiXiiceBoo  ia  th^t  re»poet»  but   thought  t.hv  «&at  of  oourteojr 

by  t>lalatiff*o  attoraoj  Justified  the  order*         e  hare  foaad  ao 

author it/  thnt  adaito  Of  euoh  eoaetruetioa  of  the  statute  or  of 

tho  law  wi :.h  rei.>p«ct  to  a  prooeedlag     coraa      ao;^ia>     i*9f  eaoroioo 

of  reMa4MUiblo  oaro  aad  attoatioa  aa  th«  pert  of   the   sittoraey  for 

defoBdaat  withla  the  aiao  aoatha  thnt  laierToaed  before  the  defeali 

aad  Judffoeat  were  tRhoa  would  hartc   or  wed  his  elieat  froa  a  judnaoai 

ao  ia  caee  of   viefealt*     Ao  eaid   la   the  Craaef   G^siee*  ejuyuij^f     *Tba 

Botioa  ie  not  iotcau^c^    to  rcliere  a  p^rty  ftoa  the  coavequeaoes  of 

hio  owa  aegllcoaoot"  aad  aaowao  oaid  la  the  Marahia  oaoo*  oaorat 

"this  oato  io  oao  whore  dtXeadant*  hoTiag  boeu  acrred  with  proceoa* 

with  full  kaowledflo  of  a  dcfeaoo  pcmitted  Jadpuiat  to  be  readerod 

by  4efaalt«* 

Aocort^la^ly  the  order  io  rorerood* 
BoaaXaa  aad  Grid  ley  9  .JJ*»  ooaear*  Kr;V:>i-S~:;:/« 


->»•'![«*}<*!!*  t*jE«*<!  0"^     *.*ija>.>«fff*»4«i   -.••■    .rv   imi:^.i-ji  Xx>a«»»3.  a-:?*»iw*  /iKti  *>!<.*<{« 
lift  t^  &$b4i&M  *??v    "ie  «»l^'j«i.'td-««s8.4o  (iCoi^a   'u»   'rid^laitt**  ^jwtc-  iiE;tfl'{.i.. 

JU,   ♦•«»«^   ;^.v        ■  ;v.:.-iiav*    tfflU    '^jf^'SJrt'OS.Jii.. !;:&:/■«  J«(Bt»   »ld 

»««4ffM>ir!»^  jfttf^^sor  ■i>8>^'K»«  «i*»^   sti^cH'SJJd  «  (?n*«a«»'i**i   «!!fa.i!^ir  «ifi5»  Mi    »s*.-ra«  •  slit's 
fesv^'^jfcax^  *<^  <j)!j  ^ffi^js^iw-t,  %iu>4\$iiar.-^y;  *ai&»'t»b  ,;^,  Is  m*-':^  i  >^»t^  tiailk  tiik^: 


3376t 


Pl«latiff  in  srrort 
▼• 

TKS  COSEO  ?aK3S»  !»#•» 


COCK  coiamr. 

256  I.A.  606"^ 


SSLXT^m;  tKS  O^ISIOS  oy  TBS  GOQHT* 

]fy  this  ftxit  pliiUitirr  ee«k«  the  reversal  of  a  JttlpMMt 
«S"Liiist  hlB  ia  »  personal  injory  sttit*     Tb»  deelarntioo  cbnrged 
titat  a»f*a6«i»t»   UEureugh  lis  «aploye»  <iid  BegHsaatXy  opertU^e  ita 
m»t«r  T«ble3Le  wlMrsby  ^laistiff  mt.»  ttvAi^tttdy^  stmekt  latocked  dows 
•ai  r«n  OT«r  b^r  it  vat  seriouely  injured  •     Therv  ««,»  nJLao  a  ceuat 
for  ^ilfoX  and   mat%Qa  negXi^cse«*       3:«feBdfiat  pleaded   tlM  5«n<7«l 
ls«ur  and   ttaat  at,  the   tlA«  of  the  oecurreacc  plalatlff  «&8  vorklag 
un<3«r  aatf  vrte  bmmd  by  the  t«xa»  of   i.)m     orka«a*a  CoaipeBaatiflM  Aot, 
•ad  that  the  Injury^  acei«a«Bt  aacS  occuTr«ae«  arose  oat  of  and   ia 
thr  cotarso  of  tbo  eaploj-»eat  of  the  plAia&irf  ao  oa  Oi^loore  of 
an  employe;  «.hieh  ^»as  also  i^otad  by  the  term  of  en  id  ^ott  aac  that 
defeadaat  aad  all  of  its  a^ats  aaA  eaplegrea  vexe  also  nc  the  tlao 
«orklag  under  aad  uotaod  bj  the  iezao  of  said  Aett  aad   that»  thero* 
fore»   9lalatiff  had  ao  ri^ht  of  sctloa  ocaiast  the   defe»!Hat« 

He  quostloB  erieoo  bttt  thrvt   the  eridi^oo  suetalaed   tho 
opooial  plea  to  the  exteat  of  ehooiag  that  at  the  tlae  of  tho 
aocideat  plalatiff  aad  hio  ei^ploxer»  the  ChXc%go    orfaee  Liaeo* 
oad  def eadf<tat  aad  its  eaployee  were  verkiae  under  aad  hoaad  hf  H^id 
Aot*     It  oae  a  <^ttCBtioa  of  fact*  bo«eTer»  for  the  Jury  to  (letexudiao 
froB  the  eTlcenoe*  as  «e  held  idwa  the  Oii,s«  caae  here  before  en 
aa  iastrueted  verdlet  for  defeadaat*  ohethor  or  aot  Uw  aot  hoiag 


'^. 


t  SiitiVx.    .ivi;-..-  vj»^>   v>A    .=sjr 


anai^. 


u 


\\ 


a»f&< 


&A.DK 


^^a-txi.  el  i%l:j«i/5i.-i 


«s-^l»'^'-4«9^diEa  *'^S3#7#*  v^v  - -clr^BiisXss.  x#:i«i^w  r.jt«14fev 

i-ae^^  lift  «»j&i--***  »'s.g^    ♦i!*«a^;ist-  islsjwrlit^a  fee-  .^r-i  l«sj|- 

tui  ^ii>l>£  tii^  "^m.-^  -:»9/T&  «i{r:}  mmut  iktotf  »«  Ci^  t«tNx&;x£'9^'»  i>tii  jm-xI 


-8. 

9«rfonMd  at  tka  tia«  mf  voeiyiMs  the   la  jury  was  oat  cMilag  vlthia 
tlM   M^fc  •t  plaintiff**  ciqplovaaBt.      (:^S1  111*  560 • )     Qm  thai 
qtttatioB  th«  Jut/  ta  a  apecial  Inierracator/  iui«wer«4»  "Y«a«*     T« 
^aaihar  ayaoial  later rafatar/  vtetlMr  %lia  dafaadaat  vUfully  aai 
vantvaly  e«ttaad   tba   Injur j  tlw   ^uiavar  «aa»  *!••"     B«t   tba  faaaral 
▼crClot  af  *n«t  »nftlit/*  n•c«a*^  rlly  lBcl]t4a4  a  flndlmg  Un^t  dcfcaAaat 
waa  aat  naftllgeat  aa  ebargad  la  tl»   acverel  caaaia  af   Um  oaalaTHtiaa* 

It   ia   argaad   tluit   tlM  T«i^iot  »»ti    tlie    epecl&I  fladlstf   t2M% 
platatiff  ««a  laJttr«o  «hllc  la  tlw   eoarae  of  hla  ampla/aaat  aza 
agalaat   tka  waiglit  af    tiM  erldcaca.       hlXa  «a  arc  4iapa&atf   to   wMiik 
tJu.t  tJM   ayecl*!  fiadlac  la  a«»lB»t  tlw  granier  «el^t  af   tha   erl* 
daaea*  aad   tlt'^t  imder  tlM  olrctua£.taauaa  aa£  faeta  la  eTl<i*a«a  plala- 
tiff  w«0  aat  voTklag  witkla  tte  eeepa  af  hla  eaplayaaat  vhaa  h«  ra* 
ealirad   the  lajur/t  yet   tluit  fnet  beeoaaa  utterly  iHaatarlal  If  •  aa 
fawui  bj  th«  Juryt  df^faa^nat  aad  aet  sullty  of  aagllcanea.     (m  that 
laaue  «*  are  aat  prcyara^   to  aay  that  the  Tcrdiat  «ss  aanlfaBtly  a^aiaa 
the  weight  af  the   erldeaea* 

l^latatlff  wsa  helplat;  to  push  aa  auto»ablle  aaataajrd   <^crao« 
a  hrldge  at   the  ti»e  ha  recf Ired   the  Injury*     Three  othera  «ero  push- 
lag  it»  oaa  en  eaoh  aid*  of  the  oar*  mmA  waa  vlth  plalatiff  at  tho 
rear*     vfhlle  thay  wore  ao  paahiag  the  o^r  defcadAat*B  tntoh  onae  up 
alo»ly  froM  behlad  aad   rvm  la  aad  rtj^tm  plalatiff* a  left  log*  oaualac 
tia*   lajuxy  60ai^>lalBed  of* 

Th*  drlTevay  «a  the  siorth  half  of  the  hrldsa  la  ahoat  18 
feet  wide.     :tre?t  oar  traoka  arc  oa  Ita  south  aide*     The  drlrer  of 
dcfend«at*a   truck*  ^^hlehoaa  6  feet  wide*   teittlfi^it   that  at   the   tiat 
of   tho  «eeid«at  hie   truck  aA.a  «lthia  S   laehea  of   the  &oufch  edge  of  tho 
drlTevay  aad  about  the   aaae  diataaeo   iaaioe  tho  aorth  atreet  oar  rc^il* 
aad  there  oaa  ahout  4  feet  hetaeea  it  aat^   th*   aide   af   the  aataw^Uo| 
t^t  vh«a  he  ^oi  up  «lthia  4  feet  of   the  aatoBohile  plalatiff  guTO 
hla  vhe   »lgaal  to  pMa  hy  ami   thut  whoa  ha  wa*  wlthia  »hoat  3  feet 


•it- 
.    *>»*®!f«ife  t^*-?  »^  ail.  -■«••    Jstsi-wa* 


-3- 

•f  plalattfft  ii9in.'  siteat  .^  Biles  nn  hour*  plaintiff   «llpp«d  oa 
SOS*  ice  and  fell  au   that  hla   l«fi  leg  "aJMt  rl^ht  out  aeroaa  ilia 
aireet  ear   traek*  vhaa  tbare  aaa  about  2  f««t  oieianac  bvtvaaa  tia 
truck  and    th*  rear  a«<  •f    Whe  autaaobUri   uh^.  t  ha   ftteppatf  as  the 
brake  nmi   the  car  otopped   right  em  hie  leg.     flwre  aaa  no  eri- 
dener   to  the  contra ;rj  aa  to  alitra  the  truek  «a«i  »it  the  tiaa  of 
the   aecid«at»  and   the   rridettoe  «&e  suifcc  uaifamt   inclutiing  plain- 
tiff *a  ovn  tcBtiBOB^t   th<%t  the  i&utoitobile  vae  frovi  5  to  4  feet 
north  of   the  north  rp-il  of   the  etreet  e&r  trj^.ok«       hile  plaintiff 
denied   th-'^t  he  elipperi  anc    th-j^   there  was  ioe  ea  the  hrlogOt  ona 
•f  hie  witneeees*   the  one  pushing    b^e  oar  at  hia  sidCf  ieetifletf 
ikat  there  vcw  onov  on  the  eroun<i  and    that  plaintiff  "vas  alippias 
tkWt  the  car  w%a  g*tac  avay  froM  hia,  ana  he  sae  ^aing  lover  all 
the  tiaef   that   the  «heel  of  the   truek  was  leee  than  a  loot  froa 
hie  lac  at  the   tiae*  nad   thnt  &he   truek  was  «;oiag  very  alow* 
Another  vitaeee  for  plaintiff   teelif ied   tto&t  hie  foot  alipped  and 
lie   then  fell  down  eaci    the   tmok  ran  up  oa  hie  leg.       Sone  of   tlM 
other  vitnessea  eaa  Juat  ho'w  the  .tceident  hapi^eaod.      Their  heada 
vore  dewHi    as  they  paahec!   the  ear.     Their  attention  «%a  not  direeted 
to  i»  until   they  honrtf  plaiatif  t*e  etj, 

la  Tiew  of  the  foretroia     evideaoo  «e  cannot  aay,  Bm  vo 
aenld  be  required  to  eo  to  reverae  the  juii0eent»  that  the  Jury'e 
fiadtag  ea  the   iaeae  of  defeadtat'o  nedigeaee  wae  aanlfeetly  a^iant 
the  weight  of   the   erideaeo. 

Ualeaa*  thei'-fere*  it  eaa  be  eaid^  as  elalaedf  that  there 
wae  error   in   the   oeurt'e  inatructieae  or  ito  ruliaca  ae  oaanet  dia* 
tarb  the  veri^iet  of   the  Jury* 

The  principal  inatruetion  coaplaiaeti  of  i»  defeadaat*e 
instruction  9t 


wrfd   .».&et^s  iin  sa^t  *»S«*  t^Z  #twi   *.^.;i   ^^^rtJ    »«  ilt^l;   ;?««  i*-:*!  ■•••d* 
«*^  a»«w*?!€f  s-3««'^«i^  ?«»!  &  #sm«?j*  ijMfw  -^TriHif*  «©ri<y  "'alswt*  t«9  ;>*9f#« 

3atiiaili4U>  •  ajwr*  If lllal;*!^,  *«J4   fen®  &fi»^s^Ts  «:d4  »'.?  *«5.s5is  »m^  uTisitii  s»g$ 
.iX*R  *s^i«ml  :imw^  «»*  3>^  «*»  a«ytrf  m^^\  %mm  ^M^  ^.ftA   fr«^ 

4j(i:>?   Is  ©CfisB;       ..*4*1  %lftt  ii*  %B  »««  JC®4r-i.i   «ii-^    .m«»  m^^h  ilikt  mmU   ml 


-4- 

*You  are   In   tructeci   tK'  t   th«  T«rkaen*>  C(Mp«asatioa 
ct  provides  ajMOg   other  IhiaK*   that   Che    aaid   uct  •h&Il 
apliljr  lOAtawitleiilly  and  rlhlumt  elect  ion  to  *I1  employer* 
MMl  all  tlMlr  employees  eaflagt^d   la  aqy  deparfeaent  of  an 
entcrprlbc  or  buBlnesa  of  e&rrl"gc  \tj  laad  »  vater  or  aerial 
serTloe  and   lo  'iixxe,  or  imlo^dlag  la  eoaaectloB   therewith* 
including    tht  tit  trit>uti  jn  of   tmy  eoB<:«c  Ity  by  horse  dra«a 
or  HOtor  driven  tehiele  vhere   the  eaployer  employs  aore  than 
threr    eaployees  ia  the  enterprise  or  husineer^t  exo  pt"   ete* 

IefeB(taat*a  iaotmction  To*  3  told   the  Jury  thati 

"You  are   instructed    th^t  an   Injury  p>s  ises  out  of  nad 
in   the   course   of   the  eapleyaeat   o:    aa  ea^loyee  provided    tho 
oriKia  or   e^^use  o'    liv^  s'.ocid'^Bt  belongs   to  and   is  connected 
with  his  contrnct  oir  service »   io   iaoideatal  to  yeriorsULab   ^ht 
contrrtct  of   nervier*  a»3    is   suffere<^    Xn   the   coarse   of   the  cioiag 
of   soaethin^j  'dhlch  the  eiaployoe  aay  re   stoaahly  co  eithia   the 
tlae  during  -«hlch  he   Is  e^ploye<^   auiS   '^t  a  place  where  ht  aay 
reasanalily  be  during;   that;  tis^   to  <!o   thnt  LhlB£." 

refeadftBt*8  instruction  »o»  t  directed  a  veroict  for  de- 
fendant  If   the  Jury  fouM  froa  the  evidence   tlsit  the  injury  coaplaiaatf 
of  'arose  oat  of  %nd   ia  the  course  of  the  plaaiciff^s  eaplojr-aeat  by 
the  Ch*««co  ^'Urfaee  Lines** 

There  can  bo  no  viuestioa  but   th^^t  each  of  thete  iaetructioos 
eorrc'ctly  stated  tho  law.     But   it   is  ttrc«<^  by  pXaiatiff  ia  error   that 
they  gave  to  the  Jury  aa  entirely  errotteous  view  of   the  law  applieabi* 
to  the  facts  of   the  oaset  that   the  act  does  not  aeoessArlly  apply 
"autoBatlc^Uy"   becaase  the  *two  ei^loyers*   were  engaee^?  t^ncrally  ia 
bttsineesoa  ooverod  by  ito  prorisieas.     laetruotiea  S««  9  is  practically 
in  the  laagaa£«  of   the   stntute  with  respect   to  the  autoaatie  appU* 
eat ion  of  the  act  to  the  kind  of  buaiaeosoo  ia  whioh  pl&intirf*a 
eaployer  ad  dtfendnat  wore  engage:^*  and   ciefeitcnnt  was  as  auch  en- 
titled to  aa  instruction  applicable  to  its  theory  of  the  easo  that 
plniatiff   oar.e  within  the  provieiono  of   the  Aet>  as  was  plaiatlff  t« 
an  iastruotiea  giv^c  ia  hia  behalf  baasd  oa  hi6   theory  of   ihs  eri- 
deaoo  that  "where  an  eaployee  eagages   U  a  voluntary  act  &:,  a  place 
whore  his  eaploymat  does  not  rsruonably  «\rry  hia  and  where  ho  incura 
a  danger  of  his  own  choosing  and  o««  altogether  outside  of  a^r 
res^soaable  exersise  of  his  eiqiloyiMnt  and  his  duties  as  suoh  eaployeo 


->- 


l«i    tSUi 


?jid   is  ihrcby  Injured »  sueh  injury  d0*a  not  a.ris«  o«t  •/  «■<  la  t)M 
coorx  of  his  eaplo.vwmt.*     «•  to  not   think*  «•  coateMttf  tgr  »l*la- 
tlfi,   thai  tJft#  iBAtnactioas  »f0r«e»le   {{Itcb  st  <$efcatfMmfc*e  »evi«tt«t 
««r«  o&lciilAtcd   to  amk«   the  jMry  b«li«Tv   that  plnUitiff  «&a  vorkiss 
tni<f>«r   e»i<i  ««t  Mid   injur si^  ghily  in  thg  conroe  of  hl»  eaipl»:fiwt» 
Qador  th«  ondiopuiod  cTiceaeo  rjad   the  atnttiie  the  httslntooor.  of 
tfefcBdnmt     aad  pXAlntiff**  eai^Xoyar  «or«  of  the  kiad   thet  autabatiealljr 
hroiaght  thra  and   Ul«  «ithi«  the  prorleiono  of   the  ''•ot*  natf  indtruotioB 
Bo*  9  dlu  aothing  nor*  thiui  no  atato.     Under  ih«   apeciaX  pita  and  th« 
«Ti<:enoo  pres«>atiac  an  iasuo  of  fact  thereon*  vhether  plaintiff  «aa 
irorkins  at  th«   tino  of   th«  aioci^est  rlthla   the   »cepe  of  hi  a  ciaplo/aaatt 
defendant  «aa  entitled  to  theee  Inatruoiiono*     ?hej  did  cot  <xclade 
the   >^|>otheole  of  plaintiff's  theory  hnt   still  left   the  qneatioa  of 
fact  for  the  Jury  to  d<ftcralB<e  ichether  the   injury  «a«|ilaiaod  of  wna  ro* 
erlTod  vhilo  In  the  oourso  of  hia  eK^lo^-sent.       hen  all  the  inatruetlMlo 
were    t&ken  t^ether*  ae  they  should  have  i»oea»   the  Jury  could  not  well 
hare  been  ntlsled  or  coafnsed  ao  to  the  istsiieo  ea<i   the  lav   pertaining 
thereto* 

To  he  eurf»  aa  orgcc  h>   plaintiff »  the  harden  of  proof  nan 
on  defend'tnt   to  prove  its  «pccl&l  pl«a  that  plaintiff  vaa  aetia«  vithia 
the  scope  of  hia  enplo^^aoat  vll^ten  iujured.  hut  no  iasimotioaa  appear  to 
hare  haen  glTen  u-e  to  where   the  hurden  of  proof  lay  on  that  auhjeet* 
Plaintiff  would  hare  heea  entitlee   to  suwh  an  iaatrttctioa  if  he  had 
naked  for  it.     Ho  ci^not  eoeplaint   thsretore*  that  noma  was  girea* 
(City  of     hica/tf  ▼.   Fvegf e »  ll4  111.   222,  230.)     HoaoTet,  aa  before 
stated*  shile  re   thick  tht    'viueaee  on   ^hAX>  auhjcct  preponderated  la 
plaintiff's  fsTor,   it  la  utt«tT&ll.iag  if  nercrtheleaa  uefendaat  vaa  aot* 
aa  found  by  the  verdiot*  n^uilty  of  Bogligence* 

The  giat  of  plaintiff**  action  la  negligcnoo  on   the  part 
of  defosidant  ana  without  eatabllehing  it  he  d&nnot  recover,     cja  that 
iaane  the  Teraiot  vaa  agaiast  hia*  and  bo  12^  toMble  to  a«y  it  la 


-»- 


^1^  $^^ 


ry«(     ,.-<AA.'; 


^.<? 


;3i  ;>i^      iVi^ 


->  .  ij  U^J-A     --«;.;■;-'     !if  ^ 


':':.ei   -....    .   -  ■■■■■$ 


■^vi;     %i^\^     ^^-     i.£l^«^    §43;^^- 


,j)-; 


.^jy^^    1^'     aiJ|6' 


.-..i     *  S-    << 


-6- 

«ialf«6tl7  aciilast   the  walelit  of   th«  «Tid«ae«  oar   tkmt  there  mm 
r«T«r  Bible  error  la  the  mllneo  of  the  eoitrt  ve  eaimot  diet  orb 
the  verdict  mkS  tlie  JudgpMiii  on  lb-  t  groimdi*     *If  m  <lef«nid«Btple«d» 
ead  proves  one  pltt&  In  bar*  he  is  «Biitle<i  to  Jwdpiiint**   (MoClwre  y* 

:£Uiiayi»  ^  i^^*  ^^o*  ^^s.) 

other  iaatruotiott*  are  eoBiplolae<?  of*     one  of  thoa  was  t« 
the  effeet  that  the  sere  h&ppeaiag  of  an  aocideat  la  and   of  itaelf 
raieoa  ao  preeiaiptlMi  of  nesligenco  on  the  part  of  cefeaaasit  nor  io 
it  erl^eace  in  and  of  itaiclf  of  the  exereiee  of  due  oare  i^  the  piirt 

•f  ^ialatiff  •     This  ia  not  a  ck^ee  of  rea  iaaa  lottttitar*  nor  a  eaeo 

in 
between  a  eoaam  oarrier  antf  a  paaaeager*  and  a«  attiu  Be>rqef  t*  I^^fft^ 

^^XlK  3tife<it  Ry«  Cy«.  235  111*  6€€p     "Ih*  preeuaptiou  arises*  bO'ir&Tert 

froB  the  nature  of   tlK  accident  and   the  clrciataitaiacet}  anil  not  Sx-im 

the  acre  fact  of   the  accicemt  itself** 

It  is  also  urge<!   that  an  Inctruotion  directiag  th$  Tordiet 

for  dcfenfisat*  it    the  J(ury  helicved  froa  th€  ctI  «ace  tlk:it  plaintiff 

faile-  to  use  thnt  degree  of  mire  and  Ci^^utlon  &»  9J&  ordinarily  prtKieat 

a»d  oarefal  person  would  asct  eto**  v&is  erroaeouat  la  Tiev  of  the  coat 

charging  wanton  and  wilful  Qej(lis«nee«     le  yI^w  of  ^he  fact*  hotfrwext 

that  the  jury  tovca^  Bpcci:>lly  that  the  dcfeitd^at  wns  sot  ^llty  of 

wilfulneaa  th«  Jury  o&uld  hardly  ha&Te  boca  aislod  by  the  last  mot  ion* 

It  related  piijrtiottlarly  to  t'lw  other  coeata*  sad   In^.truelioas  wero 

givea  by  plaintiff   (Ho*  X  and  Xo*  S»)  directing:  a  werdiot  for  hla  if 

the  Jury  foiou^  nm»»(i  oth<?r  things  fraa  the  -Ticience  th^t  the  defeadaat 

*falle(f   to  ane  ordiiiatry  earef"*   etc*   tiaiu  lliaitiag  its  applicntioi  to 

the  other  counts  than  the  oae  ch^irging      wilfidaeMi*       Takia?  the  ia- 

straetieaa  together  ths  Jury  cenld  h^^rdly  pl&oe  a  vroag  iaterpretatioa 

<»  cefendftttt*8   instructicB  vlth  rerpeet   to  the  aecedity  of  the  as* 

of  ordisfrry  care  aa  the  part  of  plaintiff  aa€  dcfeadaat.     niere  was 

no  ttvideaco  of  ill-^iU  of  c^efeadotat's  driver*  aod  ia  fao  t  ao  evi- 

denoe  oe  idftieh  to  baee  the  cotoit  of  ^ilfBlaess*       e  do  aot  think  the 


%ss€  ,oi*G  .ui  ee  ti^HJUl 


3r:"*«f     rje:./*..  ;.;t--;.^. 

1i  SRiil  'St^''    ■''■-'  - 


«>v*J'.'  ■  i:'?' 


-7- 

iBstxttctions   KO  CMiplAiACtt;  •/  oaiu»UlUute  i-«Y«*rai1»l«  «rror* 

!■  *  prior  suit  torwii£li&  tgr  pl&iiit.i/r*B  caplojcr  a^nlaat 
4erendjui6   on   tii«    viAtfory  of  11*  liA&illtjr   i.o  ^uj  back  to   OAld 
eaplojer  vluw  It  IumS  paiu  pi^iai^i/t  vucalez    t,ha  theor/  o/  Its 
obligikcloB  00  to  Uo  umdi^r   tito     axkautn* »  waoip«&a:.tlaa  Aott  def«adoat 
pl«o4*d    ttao   rOry  eppa«ita   to  ^kaxl  it  pio&Ae4l  horc  with  reep«ot  io 
plaiatlff'o  Oisplo/Atiit  coniMg  wlLhia  tJM  proTliilcao  of   the  »et. 
Tor  tlMit  ressoa  pi»aitiff  urgeti    lant  deifead&nt  «ao  ettopped  fron 
noi   taking,  a  contrary  ano   iaconai^t^i&c  po&itloa.       th«  o^nteiitloB 
is  unten&2)Ie»   this  cction  no;   uoin^  ttoiwcen   thgi  8att«  paattt^* 

■Uafttttg  BO  ir«Ycrei^l£  orxor  tbo  Jodg^ient   is  afflraod* 

APT:::2s;r. 

w>e&aiaa  «ad  vhriiiXcy*  JJ«»  conour* 


Xt:^i;^^  -.^i*    iSiiLi'^ti' 


3977S 


R.    I*   IaTXS 


App«llaatt* 


£aaitV2u£P  TBB  OfXVK»  OJ^  THE  OOQRT. 

thX»  is  Mi  *pp«al  by  Lamia  w.  ii;iok»  <«•  of  tta*  4cf«atfaata 
iB  a  for«clofi«re   »ttit »   Ttwa  tm  9t4st  «nterc4}  Jvly  29  ld29»  direotiag 
hia  as  a  tenant  of   tb*  property  InTalvedt  ts  pay  rsnt  in  tbt  cuootoit 
of  $B7S*00  io» tatttsjT  to  ills  reoeirer  vrho  had  bsen  ap^inted   on  May  3» 
1937 •   to   tnke  posaossloa  of   tlw  property  and  eoUaet  the  ranta   tbara- 
trmt*     A  previous  order f   entered   Auguat  12 «  1987*  roqaired  hin  to  pay 
the  reoclTer  rettfc  at  %he  rate  of  ;>12ft«00  a  mcmth. 

Tks  appsal  taaa  been  erroneonsly  daa<»iinAtec!   as  inter- 
loeatoxy*       The  order  appoalstf  from  is  nov   atioh  na  ia  coB'.«aQ»latsd[ 
SBder  oar   atatats  pertAining   to  interlocutory  appea.lB«       hLlo   t)M 
proTioua  order  waa  finail  with  rcapcct   ta  appellant* a  obligation  to 
pay  rent   to   the  receiTer*  the  orci«.r  appealed  froa  NMst  \9  regar^oA 
aa  final  with  reapoet  to  the  aa»aat  allegsd   to  hsTO  hecosw  dno 
under  the  prcTioaa  order*     ^^uile   the  proceecin^   eTideatly  cflBtoaq^latodi 
a  cflBteayt  order*   the  one  anterod  vms  norely  one   to  pay  a  sposifio 
aaoont  aa  rent* 

Both  the   ifioaeB  raiaed  and   the  pointa  di^cusaod  at   ths 
he* ring  preaonted  Mioh  iapertinont  and    IrrcleTant  natter  aa  ihs 
haaia  of  an  ttttack  hbom  the  appoinUaent  of   thereceircr* 


.1 
5^ 


^ 


«»??^il>< 


a"7?£ 


t,'S''i$ua%i  «JB 


-2. 

tlw  fX9UmiA9  were  vMiiit  of  Juri deletion  of   iht  oo«ri  mmC   th«  nttlllt7 

•f  the  order  of  api>«UiUMai«       Btat   tlda  eosltf  aet  ^«  tfone  oollaivrallj* 

A  •lalXar  ooXInUral  i.U«okoB  Ilk*  yroiada  «a«  Mad*  ia  Uwcaao  of 

▼»«&«JUiS  ▼•  :jt.  j.o«JL«^^Yand^JL^i,J^er|re  a^ttfcy  H*  &«  Cf  tt  fc^«.   8C» 

111*  73*  tidier*  %ht  o*«rt  OKiit 

*V|MiiieT*r  th»  oourt  h«»  Jurlft<iicti«B  of   the   subjoet 
■Kttor  AAd   of    t.h«  nectaeary  parties  lie  appoiataoBt  of  a 
reo'fiv«r  CMsnot  b«  c.ttooti«ie«   ia  a  collattfral  proecetiaff* 
vbeUior  orrenoouo  or  aot«      (Jijchanta  t*   f^coyXjr »  91  111*  &51«) 
floererer  orron^oao  oach  an  or<^or  way  b«t  it  is  blst'laf:  aot  oalj 
oa  tbo  parttffSf  ^ut  orerywhore*  imtiX  rovoraod  by  coporior 
aatberiiy*" 

THore  c«a  b«  no  doabt   thni  ibo  eoart  tocr«  ba4  Jnria41etloa  of   Uie 

parii«a  aad  tb«  «abj|««t  afttt«r«  both  of  t«bioli  acre  teoa^pnljoti   ia 

app«llant*e  pl««<cii^»|  aats  ua<^er  ibrt  taetu  pX^acied  a  wtao  whs  aXaa 

pr«««Bt«4  unc'^e^r  wblota  th9  ap^^intaaat  of  a  rec^iriTor  «%e  riutborized 

iff  laa*     tbst  propor  way  to  r^ioo  thca*  qaosilwio  «iis  sa  appaal  froa 

itao  ord«r  of  a|>..>oljit»»at«     2ro  ouoh  app^kl  «t^»  takan. 

Zt  ia  aot  oaXy  «pp&rirat»  th«r«foret   that  appeXlaat   o«i»«t 
(tttoation  ihm  appoiataoat  of   iho  rec&lTor  by  tbla  e«kXlttt«r«OL  tsittack 
bat  tlHt  tk«  oaXy  quootloa  th^t  eaa  bo  ralao^  ander  J&is  appeaX  is 
abothor  or  aot  tho  oiM  of  I'^t75*00  «a«  tbo  balaaoo  ^ao  for  rcat.     Ao 
to  th»t»   tbora  aoaaw  to  taav«  bo«B  ae  oiaputo*     Tk«  ree^xc  ciecXoaoa 
ao  attcapt   to  »o«t  tlus  »«rita  of   tise  taHy  pertiaeat  qaealioa  of  faoi 
tk-^t  aroit9  oa  tho  rule  «atore^   i^oa  appollaatt  bat  a«rcXy  aa  atteiq;»i 
to  tta«  th*  ooeaolott  for  suoh  eoXIataraX  attaok* 

Th*  arswMBt  her«   is  a  aare   cnitiaaatlon  of   tb^. t  attaokt 
aad  vhila  tho  aaia  grouad   r«Xi«<l  apon»  aaaolyt   that  t)»  pctitioa 
for  tho  «ppaiataeat  «ao  vonrorlfle^t  h^a  boca  roaovod  by  a  oarrootod 
roeordf  ii  ia  amtt^'coaa&ry  to  r«rTioa  or  diaottae  tho  ▼.iriotta  grmmAm  «f 
»a  Attack  that  enxoiot  XegrJ.ly  bo  ondo* 

Scanlan  and  6ridXoy»  JJ«»  eoaotor* 


%itll»a  «ft4   Jmy  s-xaexi  9iii   lit  m^li^limi^ati  t»  Mum  :»%»»  m^mt^asA  w/U 

'J  <  i  i  '•-'•»'■ 

h.*.    ■*$«»%  19^  ^^  mHml»^  ^i  jftA«  &o«d^#  1*  cHr«  m^  J<»«  a«i  ^^tU^^it.^ 
»&i^t&t,i.h  iit99.tX'«^     f^mitiqMl^  (^  s&^»fi  mma  «#  «aftti»«  rx«2$l   t^wi^  «-i: 

«a^^«'is^H  9^i  4jiU  «^^i%»^-.  ^..'iCMp  j^»Xl«^   iJiKMrrg  lO^HK  «^«  vliNi-^  ^'- 

•sir»Ke«  ,»tt  «^9Xbi79  baa  a^LaaoZ 


S3791 


Apptll««t 


APntiL  JKOK  maifoz?AX 

256I.A.  607 

USI,XVJ!J11X  THi  OPWIOH  Of  THK  COffi'T. 

Ttit  app«aX  n«r*la   in   tf:>k*n  by  John  i,  iiern*   "doiac 
littaiJievs  iB  tli«  nii.flM>  of  John  J*  Kfni  &  C<nBpnBy»"   froa  a  judfl^vat 
noKlnnlly  8c»l«»t  wkiA  owBp«iiy  iM  f«V07  of  plMlniilfl   f««  $<a7*BT 
niid  o«ita« 

Yho  oottrt  otruok  tela  ciffidaTlt  of  Bcriks  froi  Uw 
flXco*     Ho  «l9et«r.    to  rtttiul  by   the  snat*     rUo  appoal  foXlo^404« 

The  oole  quest  1«|  la  whether  •n.ia  *ffic'nTlt   stated 
a  defeaao* 

The   atateaeat  of  elala  el^irgefl   thbt  eaitf  eoaipa^gr  «*• 
oaployec   to  aaaaiC*  ^n^  Oare  for  a  certaia  build  lag  ovaod  >y 
plalatlff  aad  to  ooUect  roata  ttom.  plaiatlff'a  teaaata  thoroiai 
that  nt  the  termlaK-tioa  of   aueh  ageaoj  defead'xat  owed   oaid   aaa* 
9M6   at  ill  o«eo  the  aua«  after  auii.erouo  requeata   to  pay  the  aiuao* 

The  %aea4e<    affidaTlt  of  aerita  «aa  filed  hy  Cera  la 
hla  o«a  naae  allcKiac  thftt  ho  mum  the  nitent  of  plniatlff  aafl  doias 
hueiaeaa  under  the  naae  of   aaid  oeapaayi   that  he  oollooted   the  reato 
hat  that  plalatlff   owod    hla  flt300  "for  real  estate  brokerago 
foea  arlalae  oat  of  a  oontraot  hotvoea  hla  aad  pXalatifft  vherohy 
he  predaoed  a  parohaoor  of  aalci  bulldlns,  whovna  roady»  ailllag 
aad  able  to  bay  the  aaae  at  fixed  tenwf   th^t  ho  had  porfanMd  oa 


r«^  "'•  -fSiftti^l/.  .c<*-x^  .'jiCThr  ;h'«>-.fi 

»«*«>»  VMM  'il.l^ffii    .  .    ....  -^r^  if<M::    ,,..  ,  ■;  £.;:t,   ,{!;. 

>«v  -,  iv;Jo«iU;i»tf"  M  ^  ■  ■■-■   ■?«■«•  ^-  ««*«l9wrf 


Ills  part  ABd  en  neceuat  uf  wlilsh  plaintiff  booNi*   indebted   to  hla 
la   kh*  auai  •t  ^Xt^iOU  for  brokorng*  foos*"   and   tho  pleudlng  off«r«4 
to  i»et*«ff  against   ih«   9txmm  tho  allogod   ladolitadaoas  t«  plaintiff* 
Ho  alto  pleatfod  that  plaintiff  haa  brought  an  action  for  tho  n»ount 
**upon  the   oaat  o^vk&t  of  aotlon"   aisaiaat  a  aurcty  eoBpa^f  In   tlM  oaso 
court   (without  oth«r<^la«  doserlblng  lt}|   that  his  alloc«(i   net^off 
hnA  btea  hm»ign*iA  to  anlo   auraty  ooapaay  *aa  aavurlty"  and   that  tht 
aaaw  la  ploadad  by  a^ld   auraiy  oo«pany  la  »i>ild  aotlon  brou^fht  mpilnat 
It. 

Tho  pl«%clR(^-   thoa  at^tea  th^t  ho  aoufiht  and  nao  not  panalttod 
to  lnt«rTono  In  th<r  ault  aijAlnat  the   euroty  oornpaAy  "purou'-nt  to 
a«otloa  4»  oh*  15P.»  CshlU'a    'tato*    (19'^'?)***     Tho  ploadlng  than  pro- 
ooo4«  to  otato  arun^entatlToly  that  anld  Kara  la  d«prlT«d   of  hlo  rli^hto 
uador  anid  !^ectl«m  4«  and  that  plalatlif  In  brings  lac  saUd  ault  agalaat 
auch  auraty  oonpaiiy  1«  oatoppod  froe  eulag  In  this  notion* 

Tht  aTemont  thr^t  xlaa   ault  agalaat   tb^  aurety  campaay  la 
tho  9tm»  orsttac  of  action  her«in  brought  la  a  «iOr«  conolualon*  ^^ppoUant 
adalta  In  hla  aatflj;attoat  of  orrora  that   the  action  a^lnat  tho  auretj 
ooapi^hy  «aa  on  Ita  bond  t  and  thorc-fnro  a  dlfforent  ei:>.ttso  of  aotlon* 
But  If  It  W9r»  tho  ottiBO  o&usa  of  itotioB»  «•  oannot  conaldor  In  thin 
oaoo  alloeod   orrora  In  tb^t* 

It  lo  Apparont*    too*   thi^t  a  ooatmot  for  brokorago  fooa  Must 
in  Ito  Tory  naturo  oo  an  ontlroly  dlf Joroat  contr^iot  from  oao  for  tho 
colieotlon  of  roato.     It  thus  aptM^ro  that  tho  olala  of  aot-off  doos 
aot  grow  out  of  tho  oontract  or  O'xuaa  of     otlon  aa«d  uy«i*       nd  If  It 
dooa  not  It  lo  not  a  propor  sohjooi  of  cot*off  ualojia  the  daanfes  aro 
llquldntod*      'Po  Vorreet  y*  Oder,  42  111.   SOOf     iJXaUgo  t.  Bulloolr 
^yiatln»;  rrosa  Co*,  lia  Hi*  612.)       Vorely  alloglag  that  platatlff 
is  "lactobtod  for"   or  that  *tho  amount  duo"   io  <1«800  la  Inaufacloat 
to  ahOY  th-'t  It  vao  a  Xlciuidatod  oua  or   that  It  ««o  tho  agrood  brokerago 


tlc-^».:>   n.AiB«iI«  oi*'^««l?  tin  W^U^ttm^h  :.  :x>At^l*i)  S^ttf 

ii»«^iare«ij.  4i>n  »v6<».  ^m  ^^Si*»*:  *<  t^iM  «**    '  ■^'^  **^^^ 

V  Aid  Is  £vs»tI's«s*'^  ei  «s.-»-l  blm  4^i  tX»vi<5*l»f-  '■•^•« 

,1a'»XJ.»«,«3-  *a«l*:i?.3ttott  ««»««  «  eJ:   :iAu*9^^  Qt^'x»^  i»iia«   'to  »»««©  »»«''  »«^* 

OJt?    t*"i    *e:*»   »«-«;'i    it#.«t:^,t?^-».    ^|«t%^f.5iil    >4l*«AJ>«IO    »«   «»'4    J>X«4»«   ^t#T    «^i    *«  i 

\  , —  ..,      ;  *fli8t^  r!2?  ■■.->.rijs  \^  (♦Sfld  f/.i'i  8X1  «vLS;^.:  ---••--     ■'■■ 


f««9   if  anx  •uavrna  mMf6    to* 

li  lM«  also  been  hold   that  o  olala  9t   ooi-off  f«r  oa 

aaouac   that  wouie.   ocao  within  a  flrot  olaso  oh«o  onmiot  bo  plottdod, 
ao  h«ro»   in  a  fourth  olaoa  onoo*      (Ghloago  Tjtlt  t   Tr<tot  Co.  v* 
|fopa»r  LMWlier  wp«,  151  111.   -^pp*  979 •) 

Conoodiac  thbt  over/  portlnoat  fao%  ploadod   In  t)io  affliUTil 
la  %Xtto»  tho  <l«foad%at  h»o  not  presoatod  a  d«foa«o  vhloht  uader  aaj 
thoorjTt  Kould  oatltle  hin   to  prtyail. 

It  was  irregular »  hoooror*  to  oator  a  Jud^tuat  agaiaat 
John  J.  Kara  &  Conpansr.     Tho  jad^aoai  should  havo  l>oeB  agaiaot 
Joha  J.  r.trn,   tho  roal  pMrtjr  la  the  oaoo*  as  shera  toy  his  ova 
ploHdlact  oatf  aay  b«  oorrootod  lie  low  frost  tho  faoo  of  tho  plo^d« 
ia«s« 

S^aalaa  and  ^ridlojr»  JJ«»  odnoaro 


tKisi  vfi't  l!<l4t'»#«ir  %•  ist£^I<»  v<i  t'^  Mmi  vm-»4  <!^nl»  ntJPjA  i^^ 

s-immit    ®.««X«t  iJafJEl^;  •  ,.'rk;*;i    *.3 

t:t;i     r  •.  -■•ft.-.      .,ia:.©.5fj«'   ^^a®'^©^    »    ^*.*&,*:;^-rSt  :#«#:«IWl    *S«A*fe««t%*  4.*«nt.;^    SfA 


*»i|i:i5©»ifci":*'  t»£8.;3  mU'fras 


33800 


PAVXJ}  T.   ALKXAXDiA*  ) 


Z561.A,  607^ 


mtirmtj)  tm  opxhiov  oy  tbs  court* 

Tt»  plftiattjrf  s««d  t«  r«««T«r  j^XtOOO  ««  the  r  •niwia»I» 
TaXti*  ror  icnrle**  rtad«r<f«i  toy  hia  iu»  aa  afcttttMey  f«r  dvfeadaaii 
la  A  (ilYore*  tult  ferroo^ht  liy  th«  I^fcttr's  vifc*     A  irlAl  v««  hirt 
vltheat  «  jury*     ?^«b  a  JiuigiMat  agaiaat  ^«fea<i^«ai  far  $500  h« 
apptals • 

7b«  r»adltiMi  of  tlia  aerTle«a  «»»  aat  quvatlaattf*     lai 
tfcftadftBt  ««al«^  th9j  ware  rtHBVAmVXsf  worth  tl»000»  oa«i  itliocoA 
that  «  Dill  Of  $400  tlier<  far  was  nubaittotil  aaci  paid*  ISO  la  2^««iiibor« 
lOSIt  aad  $3»0  la  J&auaryt   1922,  and   thnt  th«  oUtatc  •t  llaltatimo 
had  run  on  the  deht*       ^'laiatlff  elalac»d  th^t  <t*f«ac  nt  paid  |2&  la 
tha  aoath  of  Xay«  1924,  whloh  >i«fead%afc  d«ai«d« 

?'hll«  oaoh  of   tho  plcaAo4  faeto,   oxc«ft  ao  to  thtt   oerrloao 
roBciered,  vvae  eootroTtrted  aad   tht  t*v.tiao«y  with  r«c&rd   thtrtto  la 
lrr«eaneUahlat  yet  ualeoo  tho  vYldoaoo  pro^oaderatoo  la  favaz  ot 
plAlatlff*o  elala  of  oald  pajracnt  of  $&ft  la  May,  1924,  so  a«  to  ra- 
aove   tho  bar  of   tho   aiatuto,   the   !>ult  oannot  Oo  aalatalaod* 

It  «tppoava  froot  the   <fTl<ioaae  the\&  the   acnrloeo  voro  tor* 
alaat^d  la  ^^vooahor,  192tl,   and    .hlo  ault  w&»  ao(  hro««:ht  until  la 
hay,  l^uf*       Plolatlff  waa  boaad   ko  prare  the  afflramtlro  laieaatloa 
of  oitoh  payaont  hy  a  propon<^«raaoo  of  oYidttaoe,  elae  tho  negatlTO 
eould  bo  prooMwd*        ^haanell  t.     llder,  67  111.  3S7|       ehro«4er  t. 


0\^&C€ 


♦  CS^.-'»A/; 


i  .ii. 


.  4flf-fe.t 


life's  ^-.f^-t^i**  A     »»l5ir  ■>»*«»#* »X  W*  t«f'  i»«fs.ii7©"««f'  #*«?«■  ■»*•!* '«r J: ?j  ;■>  fti 


■««tj»^«t   '-■"        •■'^''  '•*• 


^'■f'ltoJiiilq;  m; 


»vi..-  ;.o  uwt^.-.'-'-i.'fMiiy- 


,^  .ui   «t* 


-8- 


SAMJt*  ^^  Z^i*  403*]     T«  iiJuf  a  cti»«  sut   of  \h»   ttaiuit  of  limit*. 
tiont   tbo  trldesoe  auBt  bo  elcar  and   ofttioft.otor/  to  eTcro«no  tlio  bay 
of  thft  atftUtv  ('/.<.cMt»jf  ▼.  Jtb£«»  »c   XU.  47),  and  bo  of  oiMh  a 
okarttottx  aa  to  cl««irl/  mhon  a  roo^gnltloa  of   ti»e  6t*t%,  and  an  la* 
tOQtloa  to  pay  U.     (Carroll  ▼•  yor»yt^.  6f  In.  la?.) 

Wt  bmrt  earofttU^  oxaninod   tho  erldonoo  rolatimt  io  itao 
oiate  of  9aj9)«al  and  do  not  tUnJc  it  «aa  oufXioi»nt,  In  tIow  of 
tovllnon:/  to   ttao  Uy»ti'&r/»   co  renove   tha   oav  of  the   ^tatuto. 

?laln;iff  wi&o  hi*  only  witnooa.     Eaoh  natorial  fae%  am 
elrowiotanoo  Hoaring  upon  tho  olai»  of  yaTmrat  to  wMok  ko  te^^tlfiod 
•a»  flatl/  doniec  by  ^^efeadioit.       Ull*   onob  f^rty  appoara  to  bo  of 
oqual  orodibUity  and  uniNp«aclwd  oxctt^i  by  cenial  of  tbe  othtr» 
there  1«  no  clrouantftnoo  In  tho  oaot  to  corroborato  plaint  if f*o 
tiittinoay  on  that  oidiject,  bat,  on  tho  eoatrary,   th«r«  «or«  orodlblo, 
uarofttiod  clrouRj^^ttmcee  %««tifi«t?   to  by  d»fondnnt  and  hia  brotkor 
toadine  to  ohov  that  dofdndaAt  wue  not  pr«a«Bt  at  the  plRce  »h«r«« 
hoir  at   tho   tlao  vhon  ylatntiff  olaimed   tha  faynont  «aa  nada.     flaln- 
tiff  eoBt«aded   it  w.a  aada  duylae  the   tliM  thay  vara  an^afftd  in  a 
potofr  ffABti  that  he  «aa  a  lo=»r  aw   rsktd  d«fend  .at  for  aoney  to  eoa- 
tlnue   tho  caao,  raying  it  ws»  "on  a  ucount."     Bono  of  tho  poroona  plain- 
tiff  aaid  woro  proaant  In  tho  gaao  «aa  eallad   to  oorroborata  hio 
toutlnony.     Th«  p».rti*!o  *ora  broth»ra*i2i-la«,  waro  partnera  for  a 
tlao,  liv«(2   in  th«   ttnm  apartneat   l>ull<!in«  for  oororal  ytar*  ani 
•xehkM^tA  Tiaits  up  to  19;:f,  «htn  litigation  batvo«a  aerikaro  of  tho 
faalllaa  aroao  and  a<rT«r<c   their  friendly  rclutiono.       hllc  tho 
olreuxaaianoao  of   tha  tina,  pl&oo  and  laannar  of  tha  ^Uogod   p^yw^l 
»r«  not  Tory  p«roua»iTO  of  thaaaelTaa,  all   tha  oth«r  attandtng  cirow^ 
■tanooft  iciTO  prapoBdaranoo  to  rfefanda«t«a  aida  of   tho  eontrorar^y  an« 
tntltlo  it  to  nore  faTorablo  oontltf.r  tlon.     Plaintiff  faUlng   to  oo- 
tabliab  tha  proof  of  hia  aliagat^n  by  a  preponuaranoa  of   avUaao«   tho 


-5- 

judgnent  wUl  b»  r^r^rm^A  with  «•  fladiag  af  f^tet*. 


(33000) 


i-jf:  IF&  oy  facts. 


V«  fiaii  thttt  dvfffndeoit  did  not  mk«  im/  p«ya«nt  t« 
flaiatirr  m  ««ttoaiife  pr  aak*  a  »•«  proaive  to  p»y  tu«  acoouat 
auad  on  «t  «jv'  tiae  within  a  perloc  of  fir*  y«*r«  froci  the   lime 
th«  MUM  ^c(MM  tin*  maA  ji>A/atoXe» 


1^ 


"tjaA^' 


34UX 


CiaylAiiuuitB  a«tf  Appall  •••# 


;>«f«  lid  Ants* 


UWirsi-  f-TXT  •■;-  MO.'TOAili;   CGBBPAHT 

A|tp«lJiaat«» 


VRQM 
CXROUXT   COCltT, 

)  COOK  ccrarrT* 

! 

i..       ,A.  607' 


aozYxiUK  tn  opzvidii:  o?  rats  cornx* 


This  is  an  appeal  frsa  an  lnt«rlocuiary  order  rentralalBtf 
%h«  Unltcv'   :<%ates  lierlga^a  Coapaay  an((  lit  dlrrcfcara  fros  proceedlag 
with  a  sMlt  ptadlag  In  Ite  Clroult  uouri  of  Cook  ^ouitby  acalBst 
Frank  R*  7.   I'ottor  on  two  proMle;iory  notos  fr  |0»OOO  oaolu  oxoevtoA 
^y  oalA  ^'tttor  to  tlM  Mort«a«o  Ce»9aay« 

tho  bill  !•  filoA  toy  tho  «lQOrl%y  otooldiolavro  of  ilM 
Ualletf  i>%atoo  ^orica«o  Company*     Omitting  aIl«|piktlono  thoroia  not 
•oeoooary  to  m  coBaidnratioft  of   iha  itaifl  <ittffetion»   it  ekargta  that 
dofan^Aitt  l^ottoi-  orgaiiiaad  tlio     utooMbilc     ceuritioo  Coapaay  «ttk  a 
OapitaX  f  took  of  ^3S(K>,  «abaertll*<$   for  «out  of  tlkr  oapitaX  atook* 
aaA  waa  alaetod  a  director   tliereof  |   thnt  the  char  tar  oaa  aiaafKi^O 
paraitlia^  an  inorfra aa  of  a took  but  no  ad'  itianal  oay&tal  vao  paid 
iat   th«.t  «hila  ha  aaa  a  dlreetor   thereof   aaltf  eoapaay  borronad   frga 
tha  tjait«c     tntaa  MortgafO  Coaspaay  in  tka  yoar  lOSlt  loano  aaottntiRg 
to  ^30»Ses*&0,  whlob  aaa  ffro«tly  la  oeooas  of   Ita  oupitalt   that  "ia 
eoaa<!>cti<m  -ni^h  Br>id  loaas  aalA  Potter  executed  lUa  ttfo  prwiaaory 
aotaa*  payable  to  Uiaself »  and  by  hia  aadorood  aa^  dellTared  to  aaii 
Uortfiajjta  CcmpsMy^  for  the   aan  of  $5 #000  OAOht  dated    vpril  11 


^  \ 


lU^F. 


>4  wiX^ii^'SSiSft 

$»nX:^::.-  :'^   *'?*r®--'    .^K^sil?  ««iJ?  ,sii   ^AlJNtSkf   *t»?   5i  dtftw- 

4««  M^ilU  ««»l«#3i»M«  .^*i5l^'     .Y,fto»^j,aoP   ,v:ij,£'^jt-.t;'      .;-»s^-^*";   f^n^J^fir 

'{':»».;.-& .irU^  ....»^i.it#^..u  v^iif^tj-.  £;X.>.w«    -^/^UMAi   i-^kp.-a  d^liv  ia»li:;fwius,<i,'^ 

<mii   Titt^  *ii»^  ^xM3i^m!&  «||«|^Y«X 


.8. 

pril  Xa«  lf21|  that  tte  liici«bt«<jii«sa  »f  tk*  n«eurltl«s  Ctayaair 

IMS  B*T«r  b«»B  yniif  MM  tk«t  It  haa  ocaattf  d«iii^  l»aslB«stt  «aA 

b««a  dls3olir«<l« 

YiM  bill   th«B  pro«*«<la  !•  sUi*  %)i»t  "t*  yrotact  blMsalf 

trmm  liability  •»  aooomnt  of  ttet  l«aa«  ••  aad**  by  saKI  ftortca4pi 

CoMpaajr  lo  fcht  ti««iaritle«  CvrnptuaoT*  ^•tfx  catorvct  iatb  a  oaaapirao/ 

witk  app«lla»t  liilttat  aai  •%]ura«   to  )MiT»  th»ii»«lY«a  •l«ot«d  as 

«»ir«ctora  af  »«iitf  Uortfaga  Coayamri  aad  pi&r»aa«t   thereto  Xilooa 

«aa  oleoio^  a  tfir«etojr  aMi  prttoidont*  audi  ^^ottar  a  nfwktr  of  tho 

bot&rd  of  direetorii  and   that  Um  lattor  vna  alao  appoiaied  attoraoj 

for  thv  MortiTikge  C^vpaajr  awl  "dOMiaafe^d  aatf   ooatroll«d  tho  eatiro 

board  of  direetoro**     Tho  bill   thra  chfirc«»   thr>t  a  aalt  hao  booa 

laotitatod  by  the  Mori0a«o  Coapaay  oa  the   tvo  hotter  aoiee  nfore** 

eaidf  aad   thAt  it  io  *a  oohoao  fMi  (i^Tiee*   on  tho  pari  of  aAld 

Patter  to  defoat  nny  reeorery  by  the  tto;  tfage   Coupaay  oa  tmxUi 

aoiea  or  oa  ao90iait  of  hlo  liability  aa  a  director  of  oaid  eorporatlMi* 

A  deaarrer  to  tho  bill  ^aaa  OTerruled*  aad   the  Vorti^ago 

Cooq^nay  aati  defeadtiBta  l^ilsca  aad  Bareataon  filer,   aa  aaovor  (ietBylac 

kaoolodfo  ao  to  the  orgaaii^AtiMi  of   ttee  ^^eemritiea  Coapaay  dr  of  tho 

aaendnoat  of  tto  eh%rt«r»  or  of  any  ka«wit<ige  ay  thm  of  «aiythiac 

ii  the  ajitur«7  of  a  coaapir-xcy  or  aitrooaaat  to  defmiad   uhe  iiertgaco 

CMQMU^t  or  of  «ay  falao  reprcarat^tioao  by  agro«aaai  or  oihervia*  to 

iadaoo  atockholciioro  to  iaoao  their  proxioo   to  Kilaea  aad  fitter  ia 

their 
aeeai'o/eleetioa  aa  director  a  aforea«id»  aad  deaied  th»t  tte  oait 

Mtalniit   rotter  vas  broa^ht  to  prertat  a  aait  apoa  i^ttrr*o  allotod 

dir«Qtor*«  liability •  aad   thnt  it  «»•  broocht  to  relioro  or  abaolvo 

hia  trtm  hia  director* a  liability  or  liability  oa  anid  aotea,  bat 

alleged  that  the  aaotait  yepr«oeatod  by  hia  aoteo  aaa  for  aoaoy 

borrovod  by  Kla»  aati  th  t  the  aait  nao  proaeoatod  ia  cood  fd  th« 


snjfe#iq|^\»A'  .<»,»©•» s-i.'  0.^  si^  1X1  tf .<'•.;•  \     ■•■i\ 

\  >■,  .  ^  .  .■■■,■ 


-»• 


Til*  tlM«r/  of  vte«  bill  •▼Uoatlj  1«  tbnt  «  Jjud^Mst  la 
HiXnr^B  tmytt  in  th*   oull  an   ih«  B«t«M  uuvld  b«  jrta  i><<i»^A»jitt^ 
on  Ite  qMi^ilMi  »f  hl»  llAbllitj  m  a  <!ir«ot«r  of  the  <t«fwiot 
^*^cttrUl««  Coa^piui/*     Tlfcftt  i*)uror/  ha»  is<»  to**«l;i   ia  1*«  ««  tte  pl«iUI«d 
fftttist  *»K»   If  Ik  fcAt  a«n^»  tbtre  Ic  im  ^rouMii  for  lb*  lnJiuietl«M 
Ay^'^l*^  r?«i.     vf  «ur«  not  c«ii««ra««i  with  vh*  right  or  app«llo«a  to 
rmmu9  KhKir  r^ma/  ogalnot  th«  ^lr«otor«  of  ih»  (ttfooot  corporation 
wodtr  tht  alttltt&o.     Tho  oal.v  quffaUim  Involved  h«r«   Is  thoir  right 
to  Ml  lnjttnctl««  to  rcotrain  proeecution  or   '.h«  ouit  offuiant     ottoy 
lUKlrf^r  tht  clretaauiloaeoo  oll«co4l  la  tho  bill*    vo  tfo  aet  think  tho/ 
ho7«  th»t  ri^rhi* 

Aooortiiag^  tho  Injuaotioaol  onJor  io  rvvoro^d* 
SoabImi  tMA  9rl<lley»  jj«»  ecaoar* 


►ft* 


i;4^»|l^    M-  ■■■iii.Xif'u 


•;:.i- 

't-'^bO.ii 

<iJ 

vJ;:.. 

*^^1-- 

,.?7 

*  ■<■#'!■ 

t     '  '-T  ■T? 

*»;-i.St« 


3S53t 


tfoaplmiiuuit  aad  Dcfentfaat  la  f^rrort 
CKiCAdo  TXTLx  *  tsvnr  oo«t  mi  %r«st««f 

LOOZS  GORKI  I  OHJaSMBBAiyM  BOVB  BASIC  It 
fRO&T  C0«»  as  CQnt<erT«tttr  of  th« 
•«l«l«  tf  L4Mil«    ■•h«n»   Inaomii  KAHr.T 

QBEiOriSBAaKi  Ju:irA  ^.i^rmaii.  ladiTldttitXly 
and  aa  truata*}  and  oibtrt* 

r^fenct&ntB» 


LOUZi;  OOSFJ* 


25 


?laUtlff  In  >rar» 


6 


onteuxT  couTTf 

OOOX  COURT* 

I.A.  607 


KTi.   JU'^TlCv    (IKIIILST  SKLTmiU)  TIS  OPUrZ(»  07  Til  OOWT* 


By  thia  writ  of  arror*   suad  oat  ob  April  29»  1929| 
Lauia  Cahaa*  plaintiff  la  wtvx$  B9ek»  ta  fwf  a  daaraa  af 
faraelosure  cntercfd  by  tb«  oireult  aoart  9t  Caok  eeuaty  oa  Jima 
4»  1987 •       7b«  daaratt  fallonto   iiia  repart  aae   racMMwadatlaaa 
of  a  Mftttar  bafara  vixon  oonnlderabla  «iridcBoa  vas  iairatfuaed* 
A  Halt  of  tha  pr«misaa  «•%•  Mad«  to  aa^ylainant   on  July  19»  1927t 
•ad   tha  proe««d«   ()&34»0vC)   roallsad   tharefroat  hava  be«a  dlBtributadt 
as  appaara  fra-i  tha  aaatar*a  ropaxt  of  atl*  ti^ad  diatribatiant  filad 

•ptoiibar  S2,  193Yt  and  contniaod  in  aa  ai^dltifliMil  traasorlpt  af  tba 
roeord  fllsd  by  leara  of  thia  ooort*     Tha  writ  af  orrar  «aa  aat 
aaad  aat  until  aaf^rly  25  aontha  aftar  tha  irntiry  9€  the  C99t—» 

CaiBplalnaat*B  bill*  filae  Jaaa  23t  19i!«»  saa^ht  a  fara« 
closart  af  a  third  traat  detd*  seoariacr  tha  notaa  of  i.oaia  ^ahaa 
aatf  on  vhleh  wars  than  ttw   sua  of  i^l6»4O0  aaa  «^paid•     Thlo   traat 
deed*  datttd  Ubj  1ft,  1924,  «a»  subjaot  to  two  prior   iauuahraBoaa 
saouriag  the  than  unpaid  balanoa  of  ahaut  fei,noyO*     Thara  aaa  alaa 
a  fourth  truat  dtod  t%T   .8500  and  a  fifth  ono  far  l4tS  m  tte 


S><K 


4 


38ir  -v- 


«l>»ij!^lRi?it.^>-^i:ii  «%«#  »9-.*^  ^»»'«%«'%««i4  ii94lXi&»t  'Io^'O^M!^]   '^il»««»9o?f|  9^:^'  iuui 
r_«c!.'.  1©  a»;fo«  ««f«   Hi Ti;t« ■•■  .'i    4i-::-.jt>  ^ajftt  ftiiiii   «   'ie   i^iitt^l^ 


•s* 


pr9mlu%Mi  «l»o  ••▼•rai  elalaa  for  mchaiilco*   2,Un»  aad   MTtral 

Tta«  wi&kvr  r«uao   rr«»   the   9Tiacao*   th»t,  at  th*  d«t« 
af  his  r«y«r%  (Pe^nuiyy  1.  l»2T),  tJiertt  »«»  Ma»  to  ti„  ao^pi*in«it 
(Balpijr)  iiM  *acresifct«  «ua  of  I19,28a.6»,  Hpos  ««m  of  C'otaMi**  aoics 

••ourffd  by  mU   third  tntat  <i»«d   .ou^jUfc  to  h*  foioolooo^i.     Tli4t 
•««"«ato  auM  aiclude4i   la4«r«.0i,  a  ^n/«*jat  «»<:«  ^  ccplnliMuit  oa 
««o«uiit  Of  a  pa»i  tfu»  t«<Sehi.dw..  a«  ono  of  i,«i  ^i„  lno«rtr»»eo., 
oo«pUli»a«t«.  allowed   i,oXlcito»U  foo.  ia  ih«  am  of  USOO.  «»d   tho 
«0«t  «>f  9ro«ttriag  certain  blauioa  for  forooXoaart • 

tut  aaoUr  furthor  fmoU  th^i  Uojro  ««a  du*  to  Harry 
Ortmaba^  tht  oua  of  nsso.w.  a^o«  athar  «f  CoJuoa*.  noiaa  arourod 
by  aatd  third   truat  d««d.     ma  »v«  laemdet^  «a  additUnal  aollcltar'a 
f««  ftf  1190,  aUovod  to  bl«« 

Tha  aaator  furthar  found  that   thara  waa  duo  ta  Lwmm 
^:temaa  tho  aua  of  U^i.'n,  upon  o.«  .th^r  .t  CohaaU  aot^a  aoourad 
by  mU  third  traai  dtod.     m.  oua  latrlud.d  an  additional  aolicitar*. 
f»o  of  $100*  allairod  to  liar* 

Tho  aaokor  furttiar  faaad   that  oa  «oT«iri>or  84,  l»a»,     ohaa, 
bolng  ind.btad   to  .«id  Loaa  i^he  —ta  in  tha  ou.  of  iaioo,  oxooatod  anA 
dolivarad   certaia  aotoo  «gurc«atia«  a^^^id  •«»  ^   to  aaoara  iho  aa^ 
txaaatod   »aid  foarth  traat  da«l,  „hioli  aaa  raeordod  m  V«r«*or  a?. 
1M»|   that  .Mid  truat  daed  »raTli5ed    that.  1«  th*.  araai  of  tha  faUara 
•f  Cohda  to  pay  iHrlor  ia«aabr«gM»oa  and   lat»ra«t,  l^»i   4iaraa»,  or  tho 
hald*r  Of  tha  notea.  «i«ht  pay  aaoh  Incartiraao.a.  olo.,  and  all  aoaia. 
••  paid  aahaa  aiproad   to  rapay  i».«dla%«Ur,  aad  any  aaoh  adTaaoa«aat. 
•boald  ba  an  additioaal  tadabtadaao.  ...urad  by  .aid   traat  doad,  tlait 
I^na    ihenaia  la  tha  lag.!  haldar  .t  ma  of  tha  acta.,  aigyocatiac 
#2100.  aM  that  tharo  i.  dua  ta  bar  anid  aaa  aad  aecra.^  iataraa^l 
t^t  to  protact  tha  lia.  of  bar  a^d  tra.%  da.d  aad  aT.rt  a  fr.clowr. 


lM*i.9i^r^t^   ime^  mall  *'»9>l.'  '-imijRXsi'  lin<ifvt%  o«Xi»  mtttiM^tii 

<.«twt»..    ittJtia**-    *>'5!«t»»^.    t»   64itia«St-  ■■:•«■ 

♦1^*?  «*■  .is^-A'ftXt*  t^'^tXl  "Jo  Sis'! 
................    :..,..........    ■.;;. .^    ;,.JSll^#*«i;     ,:,     ,.•....„ ,    .,      ,, ..u-    5»^t«r?«(^^ 

ftniiuelt^ttt^t  *  *t*f»  <!rtW'>  .•:„«  «*«l  ler-  «!*,U  -■Mm  »*  *'-'^' 


•1M»  AH  S«veift»«r  SAt  19£5«  pai()  an  lBiitnlX»«Bt  of  iat«jr*«t  dv« 
tB  tht  firnt  (mat  U^t-d,  h»l<l  by  ilM  Xaapttro^ariaain  ^tttit  Bankf 
•aotnitlag  to  dl»0«9»1.9|   that  «n  ^OT«aiber  27*  I9S9»   sIm  alea  pal4 
t«  tlw  ••rtala  awawra  af  prior  io««Mlirnji«««  principal  aad  latarett 
Aim*  AgKroguiinK  |1110|   il&at>»  tk«at  pajwaata  balA^j  aMterlaad  !»/  hMr 
trual  tfaf<!^»  ah«  «««  aalliXaci   to  raoorar  ih»   an^ae   na  an  adtfitianal 
liaii  an  ttot  praaiaaaf  ti%«t  har  a4ESrasaia  llaa  waa  av^Ject  t«  aertala 
olalm  for  Mcahaaloa*   liana  of  aartaia  tfafaadaata  aatf  to  Ilia  liaa 
ot  eoaplainant'a  thXtH  tmat  ^aadt  and  th.%t  (liara  waa  <2tta  to  har» 
•uifejaai  aa  afaraaaitft  tiM  total  •vm  of  ii>4»769«22* 

rhe  flMiatar  furUicr  f ouad   ^Imt  thraa  <iaf«aiaat8  (aaaiag 
tlMia}  hnA  aaol^riioa*   li«a  ol«^i«a»  afsx'*€»tlaff  #7S4«60  and  iataraatt 
wlaioh  vara  alwad  of  th«  liaa  of  auck  tbird  truat  daad  aoagkt  to  ko 
foracloaodt  that  by  virtuo  of  aaid  tmot  deed   tlM   aaid  liono  of 
ooaplainant   (' 19*262  •59)  t  Harry  arooaabaua  {11530  •95}  aad  L^nm, 
iiboraan  (''&dfi«77}  ^9T9  an  a  parity  aad  noxt  in  or(9cr  of  prlarityi 
tlyit  aaxt  «aa  a  elata  of  obo  ^^^ax  a»o«rnfiald  on  a  oertain  Jadipaont 
againat  ^oHoa  t&aoitntla«;  to  I»a5«77  mm  coataf  x,hif*t  aaxt  «aa  tha  aaid 
alaiiu  af  litmk  ^h»nmM  for  I4»7»a»;^ui  that  aaxt  «ao  t)»  alats  of  oao 
Hyautn  Spataia*  aaouating   to  ^  3t6kd«4ft|  aad   tliat  aaxt  wara   ttoo  olaiaui 
of  oartaia  JucigaaBt  oira«(itora  of  <-otMa* 

Tha  ^•0v%  la  <iaa8tion  folloootf   tha  abova  flndia«o  of  tko 
aaater  aa  to  tho  aaanaito  of  tha  aararal  olaiaa  (with  aecraad  lateraat 
added)  and  aald  ord^r  of  jirioritiaa*  aad  ordarod  a  aala  of  tlw 
yroniooo  ualaa^?  witteia  10  dajo  Cohoa,  or  aooo  9{  tba  dafaadaatot 
aada  tha  raqalrad  payiaoato* 

ttia  firot  aad  aaia  ooatantira  of  aouaaal  for  Louia  <^haB» 
urgias  »  raira roal  of   (lio  dear«a»  ia  baaad  upoa  tha  olainad  aaatal 
lao^ApDaitj  of  ■•:ohaa  aftor  Octobar  3«  1924*       Comool  argao  that  aftor 
that  data  all  doenaaato  aad  oantraota  aada  by  hin  ia  oonaaetloa 
with  tho  9^d«iooo  ia  <iUaotiott  are  void*     Couaaalt  hovoTOTf 


$9^ 


♦.'■. 


«tJ»/  ;    Sii::    ^.  V    .^sStiBi   atjiii- 


l^^v:  ^3;SJ 


•4i»ri^ 


^«i.' 


jr'« 


'•  J?^t;^-; 


-•:  7'^  ,  ■       fe 


'-I^li-s 


•tat«  thnt  ihny  m$LkM  im  sueh  ol»j«otloa  «■  to  tte  trmst  tf««d  mvcM 
tt  li«  for«olo«ttd»  beoaos*  It  wna   •xteitt«<i   B9ftn.l  MMitlu  prior   %o 
OetoWr  3»  1924*     But»  as  to  %ha  noic»  and   fourth  tn&ot  dted  of 
*OT«Mbor  :^4«  IVSfty  deXivorod   to  Leaa  ^horaaa*  thoy  olala  thoy  «ro 
TOld  ¥«o»ttoe  ftt  th^t  tl»<»  ^o)i«a*s  potato  wao  otUI  ift  tlio  haado  of 
aroeaobauB  '^ooo  ttaak  &  Trust  ^'O**  as  ooaoorrator*  and  tho  oattaoro 
irator  liad  not  boon  dlool^zsod  ao  saoki*     TIm  uadistitttod  oYldonoo  dio- 
oloaos  thsiX  (Ml  Ootobar  2»  19^4 «  ^ohea  imo  adjodcod  laoaao  ^y  thm 
oouaty  oourt  of  Cook  «oiuit/t  th^t  oa  Ootobor  5*  19:;w4«  oald  Baak  A 
Trust  Co*  wao  appointor)  by  thi  probata  eourt  ooasormtor  of  bis 
eatftte  and  qufillfiod  aa  sa«li|  and   t)»at  oa  Jaauary   j5«  19ap>  oa 
^oboa*8  a«tioa  aad  aftor  a  lioaria«t  ttea  county  oourt  ontorod  «a  or4ov 
find  lag  that  "Louis  ^ohea  has  fully  rooovorod  bio  raaaoMt"  aaA 
adjudging  thf^t  "bo  lo  b«rcby  roetored  to  all   tho  rlfhto  ttad  prlYilogoo 
of  a  saao  porson***     th«r«  io»   thnrsforot  no  marit   in  couas«lo* 
eontsation.       Th«  fnot  tbat  ttoo  pr<?s(«at  rroord  doos  not  diueloso 
that   salA  Bsnk  i    Trust  o'o*  has  booa  diseharirccl  ^y  ^be  probate  oouA 
as  oons^rTntor  of  iahea*»  sstato   is  iB^.«.tfrial»     Sy  s^id  finding 
and  Jadgaont  of  tho   county  court #  on  Jftauary  «^5«  19SSt  ho   ihcroaftor 
had  full  Itgal  capnoity  to  aign  pap«ra  aad  docunt^ats  aad  aaaago  hia 
psrsonal  affair s*  •  tho  saMs  as  prior  to  Ootobor  8»  1924* 

ounssl  also  contaad   that  tho  dt^eroo  should  bo  rcToraoAf 
(a)  bsoauso  ono  iieyoro«its»  elaiswd  vo  bo  a  nsoosoary  par^y  to  Uw 
forsclosurs  proosedlagst  was  not  aado  a  party,  oithsr  «ks  a  oo^ 
Odsqtlainant  or  as  a  dofoadanti   (b)  bomuos  t  .c  evideaoo  disolosoo 
that  tho   ooTsral  antounts  allowed    bo  Lsaa  ^>honsui  aro  la  soiio  partiottla 
oxoooaivoi  aad   (e)  b«entts«   tho  d^oroe  gsnornlly  is  contrary  to  tho 
law  aad  the  eTideaoo*         o  havo  ooaoidorod  all  of   thoss  ooaUatloao 
aad   the  nrguaoato  of  ronpsetivo  eounsol  relativo  thereto*  aad  do  aot 
think  thnt  thoro  io  sueh  svfbataatlal  aorit  in  any  of  tho   eoatentloss 
ao  oarraats  a  reTeroal  of   tha  deoro««     »o  ueeful  porpoae*   ia  o«r 


»•♦» 


i';;*5<v>  sC*^. 


Ai^; 


ViS^    '»'!(f^  i-     ©«     "\£  • 


:.;^:i^;i* 


■*i;:.r    4.- 


«»s*i 

:X.tN»i<:t«Ui|       -.' 

ii<aB.if»<?;  * 

VHiH    C4    %K.- 

tt5W»-;'. 

•>WlHS?J»*., 

':*!W&ii,i 


.•i«|i;-,S»JS- 
.>«(JP   tifK»  «r4»' 


««rct»wV' 


•idtf    It*   4lii«»T9'»'-?S  «»«<*« 


-6» 

•j^lni«n,  will  W   mtrwwA  liy  «mr  <l«tall«(i  disciuiniva  of  %lit  yolBta* 

Coimscl  further  oontvad  thAt»   ia&ewiah  as  eoKplaiiiMit 
WAS  allovsd  R  »olloltor*»  f»«  of  4'^I0OO»  it  ««•  roveraiblo  error 
to  also  allow  a  Bollolior*o  foo  to  Marr/  3reoM«lBaMB  of  ^I50«  oBd 
a  solloltor'a  foo  to  Laaa  SkonMUi  of  ^lOO*     Xa  tht  tmat  <i««4 
ooti^hi   to  bo  foro«loo«4    It   la  prOTlde4   ttant»   la  C!\oo  of  fore- 
closure thtreof  "Oy  u^id  trusbeo  or  by  tht  holtftr  or  hold«ro  Af 
oaicl  principal     nd   intc^rest  notes  or  of  any  of   thosT   ia  any  oourtf 
"a  r*;;tM«nabl«  aua  sball  be  allowed  for  tlM  stenofrapboro*   wmA 
solicitors*   fees  of  the  oosiplaiaantii   ia  ouoh  prooeetiiagi"   that 
"ia  oaao  of  aay  other   suit  or  leg^l  prooorOlaff***  whorela  tho 
trustee  or  tho  holder  or  holdoro  of  skM  aoieo  shall  bo  wulo  a 
party  or  pn^rtios*  "thoir  eo*to  aad   exponsco  and   tho  renaonabXo 
fees  and   ch&rgts**  of    the  solicitors  of   the   trootee  aad  said  holder 
or  holders*  "for  serviooo  ia  suoh  suit  or  prooeipdiag  shnll  bo  a 
further  lien  aad  cht^irso  ttp«B  said  preadsesi*'   eto*     It  ia  argaoA 
that  the  only  allowaaeo  whioh  could  properly  be  aado  ia  tho  preseai 
oaso  for  solicitor's  fooo  would  bo  a  xe   sonablo  sua  for   the  fees 
of  coaplaiaaat's  AOlioitor»  ao  there  was  no  othgy  suit  or  legal 
proceed in«*     In  support  of  thoir  oMitentioa  and   -^rguaeBt  couasol 
oitOt  with  other  oases t  the   coso  of  gorlhera  frust  So*  ir.     anford* 
»0a   111*  301»   5a9»  whore   it  Is  said   that  ''provisioBs  for  nttoraoy*s 
foets  are  to  be  conntrued  otriotly»  aad  oaoh  fooo  ennnot  bo  roeorered 
for  Miy  o^rwices  ualeoe  oo  yrorided  by  tho  trust  deed  or  aottgago** 
Under  the  facts  aad  oirounotaaoes  dieolosed   ia  the  preseat  traasoript 
«o  do  not   think  that   tho  deoree   should  bo  reTerscd*  aad  tho  saIo 
Bade  under  it   set  aside*  because  of   said   addltioaal  allowaasos 
for  eolieitor*s  fooo»  a#:refntia«  oaly  $290t  aade  to  Hftrry  C^rooaebauB 
and  Loaa    'heraaa.     taoh  wns  a  holder  of  oeaa  of  tho  aotoa  wthiob  woro 
ooourod  by  the   truot  derd  sought   to  bo  foreclosed*     Coaplainaat 
was  tho  holder  of  aost  of   those  notes.     Barry  Sroeafbaua  aad  Loaa 


., « ..^  > 


|S,»W«-'>.  ^VSJM 


JiTyi  %?-r('?S 


G^     i  !<S^ 


'■li'-.Vii-'^^   ;■■*.«* 


'i^blt^i  Jvl«r.  S^titi    •  ■afl>a'r«i*:o   fast*  «®*t 

H^'Sfli  «i(?  1^1  ,«ai»  «Xtf«i0?  •    ...  ■■im. 


,&  if  >  -    c:-;ift    t;5wv  v  ■« 


Shoraaat  opl^yinf^  iftt(prn«y«  other   th«B  co«9l«lnajit*ft  A%t«rn«7» 
Bi«M  yrop«rl7  hfiT*   ««k«4  th«   eoui>t   to  «Ake   them  adcUtlonal 
parti«B  ooBpl«lnani»  tMi   If  this  hftd  b«(»a  4oa«  aad  If  tkc  court    had 
all6««d  11790  f«r  tht  ftolioittor**  ft**  for  th*    thr* ^  ooMplf^inanto 
tho  ollovABO*  oould  not  haiTo  lioon  conoidvrod  nm  «xoo»i3Wo*     To 
r^e».r^   tho  InetttBt  contention  of  coanool  ft«  toobnioal  foid  utt^ 
{A»ritoriouo«  ond  on*   thrv^t  doee  not  Juotlfy  a  roToroAl  of  tho 
tfooroo*  or  tho  oipttias  aRid#  of  o  oale  laado  thoreundor  on  July  lf« 
1927 •  and  aftor  tht  ]»rooo<^do  of  tht   oalo  haTt  lo»g  tlaot  Voos 
dtetrlbutod.      (Btt  S^i;  ▼•   ahl»??.go  TUlo  ^  Tyuot  Co..>   194   111* 
8a9»  134*)     ^rther»or*9  it  doo«  «Mit  appoar  thr.t  c«he]i*a  roileoiptioa 
rifhto*  If  an?  he  hao»  w«ro  9ubetr.ntln.lly  A/feot<9d  by  nid  allowanoo 
of  ^'^50  for  solicitor* 0  ftta*     Tho  aaoont  hid  at  tho   oalo  wao  oororal 
thoao^ad  doll^^ro  loo^n  than  the  ^mouot  fouad  iLue  to  tho  rnrioita 
elAiaanto  havlxv^  lloHi  upon  tho  prtaiooo* 

RoooQtly  in  thio  coart  a  motion  oapportod  hy  aff Idnilt 
Vfcs  «a4t  hy  ooao'loittuit  t«  dloBlse  tho  prostat  writ  of  err«r 
heefitiiit  of  Cohen*  o  f  Ulare  to  filo  a  proper  and  ouffiolcat  bead 
and  for  a  rule  upon  hla  to  filo  an  additional  bond  aa  oecttrtty 
for  oertnla  ooato*     Couattr  futcfootioao  «ore  filed  and  tho  atotioa 
«At  r«o«rTod   to  tho  hoHriziK*     Tho  netim  ia  now  denied* 

For  tho  renooaa  ladiofiied  tho  dooroo  of  the  oiroaii 
oourt  of  Juno  4t  IO279  ia  affiraod* 

lamoa*  ?•  J*f  and  ^oanlan*  J«»  oanouar* 


■■   vf':V.i  *!q;«y<?    n-gi^rf    WVar-      '■■"       ■'■  ^-rviljn    ♦rf* 

"'•v^'j*';:''*!  ;j  ''?;*J;i*i*t  ■   ■' •>f^*l  *a»   )««*  ««Si!,oi*oil'j(a« 

If^fU^-^'  !»f^«ti'^  :5*«i9l   »Vi8li'^  ftjlj*®'  *4ii    5w  ^^■iyA^:"rq  «fil^  -^-s**!;,*   fo«ir-*?£«I 

t.#l*S»90«    ««    ^JJiCitf  ilKfftl! v*iA&A  ««    *il>    v^i    ««ii:5    2r!Me«   ftl*fa:  IW,3 


33C79 

PKOPLS  07  rX8  8TA1 

iLi,uroza« 

fRAlKLtt  0.    CaKTKR,  j        Oifc^  A    T.A#     608 

MH.  JO  TIC^  OHLUXJnr  DKLIVXBKJD  THI  0?uri'»  Of  TKR  OOORT* 

By  U&lt  i»rlt  piaiatiff  ia  frror  ••eks  td  r«T«rs«  a 
JudgHABt  of  t)i«  mmlolpal  court  of  Cble&ii;o,  oaterod  Umj  26$  I989i 
wluirtln  ho  «!^s  bdjuacvci  *gulXty  of  bho  orlainal  •ffoaoo  tf 
TlolHtlea  of  ibe  MeUitBl  ?rrxotl6«  a«%»  pr/zcileiac  aocloiat  aad 
ourgery  In  ilM     tat*  of   Tlllnolo  without   a  liiionatt  oa  a«i<i  Ttr* 
diet  of  guilty t**  aad  aaatcaeod  to  tho  House  of  Corre«  tloa  la 
CUo'tjto  for  a  torn  of  six  aoatho  aad  to  pny  a  floo  of  $20()« 

Th«  ooaaon  lav  rftoord  aieoloooo  tlKt  va  ^prll  9»  19290 
thero  wns  fllotf   la  the  aualoipa.1  court  tltt  followlag  laf orBatloa» 
»l<a«tf  aaei  9yfm  to  ^y  a«  h«  Hoadcrrooat 


"/vadrev  H*  Headoraon*  a  r«i>ideat  of  the  City  of 
la  the     tate  n'orff»taid»  ooaoo  ao«  hor«   lat.o  aourtt  aad  *  * 
glToa  ih«  Court  to  bo  lafonMd  aad  underat  ad   that   ^Vanklia  0« 
UartOTf  hcr«tofor«[»   to«ititt  tn  the  8th  dny  of    ^pril»      •      •  1929» 
at  the  City  of  Chio^^eio  aforct^tni^t  la  TloXution  of  oi-ctloa  .iA 
ifHf   the  ii»c^ifla.l  f  r;'..otijBO    ■^.„  aa  ajwpded  m  <il<    hold   hlaaelf  out 
to  tho  public  $l8  boiag  oagagetf   la  the  tre  tnont  of  i^ilaenta  of 
huaaa  hela^ot  aad  ditf  attaoh  the   title  of  phyoioioa  and  the 
Ullo  of  ouTKeoa  to  hio  aane  in  the  siga  on  tiie  viadoo  of  hio 
office  la  r.ooB  yy    of  the  build la^  at  177  b«     into     %•,  of  the 
City  of   :hicago>  »a(i   -t  ould   tiae  the  aaid  }^Tuaklin  0*  Carter 
did  not  pooeeoe  la  full  foree  and  Yirtue   or  other«i:?e  aay  Talid 
licenae  laeaed  by  the   ;«uthority  of   the     tate  of   IlXlnoio  to 
praetloe  the  trer  taeat  of   huaaa  aiJiBante   in  any  aannert  contmry 
to  the   fora  of    the   etatato^*   eto* 

The  ooar^oa  ln«  reoord  further  oieeloooe  th^t  oa  Bay  1»  1929« 
the     tate*o  attorney  appoared*  aa  did   the  defeadaat  la  pereoa  aad  by 
oouaaeli  thitt  Iokts  vaa  glYen  to  the     copl«   to  aaead   a&id  iaforaatioa 
oa  ito  faoei  that  defeat suat  «ae  duly  arralgaed  aad  pleaded  aot  gulltyf 


«T»eft 


♦V 


8?iSI«J'.. 


w:- 


Ax 


fsdi 


*.e-i5».it'^»  %^'^ 


j'fitiCI  tVM'S 


«2* 

and   that  aft^r  •  tria  bwfor*  a  Jury  a  T«rdl«t  »••  rttiira«<J  «i 

May  It  9  X»29»  f  Hid  lag  hl«  "guilty  i»  •nnner  aatf  f»m  a»  «hHr««« 

iB  th«  iafonft»tla«  h^r^in*** 

Th«  bin  of  •xceptloaa  dlsclaa««  thnt  <m  %\m  trial  aKitf 

A*  H.  KaadaraMi  aMl  faur  other  «ltna«»«a  iactlfiad  for  tha  i^opltf 
that  dtfaadaat  alaae  tantiflad  la  hit  bthalff  aarl  th'it  9>-.tsh  partj 
iatrodacad  dertaia  iBetnuM&ta  bt  writiaga*       uring  H(»ndera«i*a 
tantiaaay  h«  stnttad  that,  when  aa     pril  9th  ha  aigaad  i^n&  awara  t« 
tha  iaformAtioa*  it  cu  not  eonti^ia  the  vor£«   (ohora  Italleisad)  *af 
tha  MciiioeOL  ^ri<otie«   ^9%  at  aaacdedi*   thnt  thaaa  wards  wx9  iat«r- 
liaad  in  ink  iauer  iattly  after  the  eatry  %f  tha  ardcr  craatiac  XaiiY« 
ta  aaaad  tha  iafor».stiaai  siad   th^t  ha  did  not  ra-evaeir  to  tha  la* 
fantjitioB  &■  aa  aawadad* 

Xt  han  aoToral  tiiias  heead  added   la  thit     tai«  th»t  if 
aa  laforsfttiaa*  iaeuffioieat  an  orlglaaUy  fUac*  io  naaadcd   aa  a« 
ta  rcadrr  it  oti/fioiaatt  it  auat  ha  r««owara  to»  atharvioa  it  o&aaat 
aaataia  a  4ud0Mat  hasad  upoa  it,     (Paapl»  ▼.  ^lataieki.  2A6  lU. 
185,  1861     ££0i2il  ▼•  aiiiSJam*  3<»   ^U.  4«,  8S|      .aopje  ▼.  BfaEt 
243  111.  App,  ASJt  432«>8«}     >^ad  d«faad»4at*a  eounvel  hara  aoatdsi 
thttt  tha  ari^iaal  iafont£^tiant  1  ekiag  a^id  ward  a  *af   th«  he4ioal 
J?r>«ti«a  Aa%  aa  oMadlad/'   la  laaaff  leieat  ta  auataia  tha  Judsaaat* 
Za  aar  opinion  tha  coBtaatlt»  is  without  merit,     fha  original  iafor* 
aatloa*  aat  haviaj?  aaid  worda*  ohurgad  la  aubatfUMs  that  dttfaad&nt* 
an  April  d»  1829,  la  ChicA^ca,  hald  hiaaalf  aut  ta  tha  pubUo  aa 
htiag  oagagad   la  tha  traalAaat  of  allnaBta  •£  huaaa  htiaga  aa4  ha4 
attaoh^i;}  tha  titla  9t  phyaieian  and  aiaa  aurgaaa  ta  hla  ^mi^  la  tha 
•Iga  oa  tha  vriadaa  of  hla  affioa  at  »o.  177  H.  -tata  i^%,,  Chiaaga* 
hut  that  ha  At  tht  tiao  did  aat  hara  w  poaaaas  ia  inr^e  loid  virtao 
aay  Yalid  Xie«aa«»  laaaad  toy  authority  af  tha  ; tat«,  ta  9r»«tio«  tha 
tresaawat  af  hunaa  ailaanta  ia  aay  atutaar,  contrvs,qr  to  the  f8m  af 
tht  atatate,  eto.       ad  thara  «»a  a  atatuta   thea  la  foroe  in  ths  ntata. 


.iVftii    fell!'''*    \*' 


««!.    /-i 


(CalUll**    >tat*  19K7»  »•  1#5S)  aaiciBe:  lb  unlnvful  •r  a  mi»dea««a«r 
f«r  uqr  p«rsmi  t«  do  saeh  aota  wlttettt  potaeatfing  a  prop«r  lic«»s« 
under     %h%9  autkorlty  i«  pr»atio«  th*  tro  UMBt  of   hyaAn  ailaeatai 
and  haa«e»  we  think  (li»t  auch  informlimik  euf ricleatly  aharged  aa 
•ffeaaat  mn&   ttant  it  van  not  «avi«ntial  ikat  tteo  pMrtiouIar  aeetioa 
of   the  etatttte  lie   stated   tharoia*     Vurthffraore,  it  doea  not  appear 
th  t  Gt  nny  tln«»  either  prior   to  tbe  attoavte<?   aaoadwiBt  of   tlM 
original  lAfornfitioa  or  thoroaftor*  d«f«nd*tat  u/idit  aoj  laotion  to 
UKKh  the  isf  or»  tioBt  or  in  SiJi/  other  Mumer  ohHlle&ff«-d  its 
uff ioi«^^Bcy>       Bd»  if  there  bo  9My  forawiX  defect*  la  it*   it  attst 
be  doeaod  th  t  def ead^at  mr.irUL  thaa*     (Poo|ple  v*  Qroeahera.  X72 
111.     pp.  »«0t  5«S|     Feoa^e  t.  Coaboy.  178  id*  90,  98|     People  ▼. 

'-'jTpm»  131  id*  M6»  eea*} 

hilo  the  eTi<?.eaoo  dieoloood  th  t  df^f eadaat  an  Jvlj  3U« 
1904 »  by  irirtae  of    the  n9%  of  18999   r«:eeiTOd   freoi  the     tato  Bo^^'Vd 
of  Health*  a  oertiflento  or  lleeaee  to  pr»ctiee  aodioiao  i»  thio 
"tato*  it  appearoit  that  aaid  oertifie»te  or  Xioeaso  hskd  boea  roTOkod 
la  Jttae»  19»<*     i/«f eadaat* a  oouaeel  further  o<m%«ad   that  Uunro  waa 
aot  proper  or  suf  *  ioieat  proof  of  thu  r«Toe»^tioa*     ^v«  oaaaot  ngraa 
vith  the  oontentloa*      <*  U*  HoadoroMiy  an  iaapcottr  tf  the  l'«partMoat 
•f  i^e<iatration  aw!  Idttoiitioa  of   the     4at0t  toistifi<N»    th<it*  whoa  OB 
April  3»  19299  ho  orillod  on  fitf tnii;i.at  ^t  hie  Chie  so  offioot  ho 
oatv  th^t  defeadi^t   thea  «aa  ea^a^ced  la  tho  pr&otioe  of  aodioiao | 
that  tho  «itaoat»  aoked  hia  if  ha  thea  «&»$  a  liooaoed  phy»ioiaB| 
Bad  thiit  defeadaat  replied   «hAt  ha  «no  aot*       tha  ?oaple  iatrodaootf 
In  oTldeaoe   u   record  of   said  Aop^rtaiont   ahovlne  thtst  defeadaat*a  oald 
lloeaae  had  bota  revoked  on  Juae  20,  1926*     /«d  defeadnat  a4aiitod 
on  ero8s*ox«aiaHti4Hi  thrt  ho  had  vnauoceasfaUy  atteaptcd  by  pio* 
oo>'diaga  la  oertlo|rari  to  have  reooiaded   the  orrtr  of   a?  Ic  lepr  rtawat» 
roTokiag  his  an  id   foraer  liceaao*       »A  la  thio  conaeetioa  tha 
opinion  in  tho  onoo  of  Cnrter  ▼•     heltoB»  326  ill*  SOO9  aay  bo 


,.■■-   5»/v..;:-;     iS^   *v?f  •&!  «ri  «7:arf?t- 


««»*Jt3-'    ?t'n.n-> 

.:..i,i 

i^m^iiiJk^M'        ■'■'■■ 

■  t/f.' 

mt  »v 

«S>M      « 

i^mlm.'.--^^- 

i'gu^^''- 

■  -i-.tf  s .  •■  ./.t. 

fH^l^ttl^'VliiSii,    .' 

.  ■-:,     «^  ,.'i(l- 

^4    ^I»«9.     ' 


;  ■)**? 


:5r«*Vi,',?r,«,    1> 


Atwt  «(i  tf«  not  think  &hnt  &h«  %ri<OL  o«ttri  duriae  cIm 

ant*  or  eueh  as  nmuir<!-ft  the  Jiul£pMni  to  b«  vt9TW4» 

iidttitn&tmt* B  «o«n»«l  fiiiAXly  oentenft  thnt  tha  Jud^^Mat  or4«r 
i»  not  renpoRnlY*  to  tl^  Infoiwr  tlon*     Thftre  in  »«k«  mirit  in  tht 
e<mt«ntloB.     Th«  v«y<ii«t  io  iii!.i  aof«iii!r«ii%  io  *8«iilty  in  ttRWicr  «ad 
fom  ai  til  rs^r^i  in  t}t«  Inf  ormt'tton^"  and  the  isfar»atloB  ohQjngcd 
^ettiwi'mK  witko«rt«ila  iriolaUoao  of  iht  provlttona  of  ttooiioa  24  of 
llM  Btfiklttto*     But  t^  l-';<ai£iia4;ft  of  t)i«  jut^|pft«at  order  ta  -.iwootioa 
wo«iid  H««a  to  imiifi&tt  thnt  i&«f«sKi)tAt  ^waio  g^alltjr  of  tlw  offoaoo  aoa* 
tioaoo  la  «««ti«a  2ft  of  the  otntnio^  r«th«i*  thnji  s«eti<Mi  :'4«     Kov* 
«TOf f  i*ft  tho  >  e«o**(i  «iOtfo  aot  iiifjialoti«  &n3/  orror  i^ior  to  Utr  ^atry 
of  oi^&d  Ju4flttftat  it  lo  aot  aeo^owAry*  la  oajr  opinion t  tbi^t  tlM  o^iuio 
b«  roJMOMtcd  for  ««A®thv'     trial  b«f07^  imoth«r  Suxy*      e  oab  dirf^et 
tht  trltt,X  court  to  ^ntof  th«  Jfudgaoat  that  ohould  h»TO  botrn  ifntttrod* 
vlSi  odJiMi«iafi  4«f«ad.  at  giuUt/  of  th«  offoaooo  o«  eh^xfptd  in  tJw 
iafonuitloa  «nd  la  ooortiimoo  with  th«  tr^rdioit  •  tho  boloaoo  of  tho 
4ud£R«Bt  oo  to  the  «0at«.nooa  to  rooRLla  the  6>t««»     (feo^ultR  y*     aooh* 
154   JU»  46,  ftfif     l^-ortln  ▼.  Btvrtthmrdt.  39  id*  9,  I4t       tprlji^';  v»Jal»y» 
44  id*  i::.^*  11^41     %letzmef  v.  >jpy3^ey«  164  id«  Sit  Q4»}     '^O'.'orciiagXyt 
Uio  JudQaitnt  will  b«  r«T«r«<»a  raid  th*  chumo  twrnMUvi   to  the  ena^iiiCipal 
court  vlih  dlr^otleao  to  oater  ihft  proyor  jitdgaeat  agyiisitt  d«i:«ad«a%* 
rt3|^oaelT«  to  th«  inforw^tioa  and  la  aiodordaaoo  vlth  tho  Ttfrdiot* 

BacRoot  ^«  J«t  awt  "OMtiatit  '«» 


-.^^    ■■■•'.tft'l.S'i 

■.V-  .Af»y>  Xj^x 

r  ;■■•/■;! 7a-I    !><<         '      '                 .  ' 

-■• .  :^:.  .  '■■ 

-.    ti^tl  &«»:-'■  J>.    fa-v  ■•:                                    '-TV.- 

'V  :•,.:,            *    .-  ■*    -;;-'■■/;    ^■:-      -"*■  ■            "^       '  .                                               ■  "^; 

tXi?i«*:^'-               ^.^  ti*  »b*   MiX  «3i2jfcL^  --^    irf-A^I^^     «*'•-*  t^--*   ""^    -^ 

t$f>.- ■'■■■■  •"               ■,:;,  siA'Umitmi 'tii\i^-' -h   -■■'■'<'.  ■■-.w.-.*w-                  '.i^i^ 


3374a 


III  r«  Satftt*  •f 
lUIMf  JQfm  I!t08X» 

•4iiliilittr«ior  •f  sai4 

▼  • 


^ 


(X^ 


256I.A.  608 


MR.  jcnricr^  ohhslky  i^.LiV' i.t^  ths  opihio^t  o'?  ?«2:  court. 


f ti»  eoBsncm  1%«  r«e«r<t   1b  th*  pre  aent  cause  dliolcaes 
that  th«  pro^atip  eouri  of  Cook  county*  after  a  ha^rlos  vn  * 
ei%iitlon  ]prooe«(?iAf  for  tho  <iicooT«r/  of  aosots*  cntcrMl  aa  ardtr 
en     ftil  17 »  1929 •  finding  UiAi  titltli*r  Jano     hoaalinsoa  nor  tlM 

uatla  atAt«  'lank  had  any  rl^kti  tilXo  or  intoreet  In  luqr  of  tlw 
lO'OjjHtrlij  of  th«  d«e«aaod»  ami  erd«rla«  that  thu  Bank  «it)iin  20 
dajra  deXlTftt  and  tr»Asftr  certain  jaoaaj  on  doposlt  vlth  it  to  Herbert 
J.  Krua«»  aduiiaietrator •  «te*»  and  further  ord  rine;  th&t  JtUM  ThaaXinaoB 
vlthia  tho  aaflM  timo  turn  oiror  and  d«llT«r  ta  ttia  adaiai'^traior 
certain  ^ank  booka*  papera*  d««o«*  do«UMoato»  ete«|  ttiat  from  tha 
9X6tr  Jant  Fhonlinaoa  p«rfeot«d  an  nj^paal  to  tli«  eirault  aourtf 
and  thttt  on  Juno  S»  1929,  nftor  a  feoar*n<  do  norro  and  without  a  ^utj^ 
iho  otrouit  court  entwrod  an  order  or  JudgMoat  findlas:  tiiat  *Jaad 
ThomJLineon  le  ontltlcd  in  nor  own  right  to  tho  Ktawunt  of  $17SX*S0 
on  dopoait  in  a  9)iTin«a  aocouni,  Vo«  S5»7(;tf,  in  tha     uatln  >>taio  Bank 
in  tht  naao  of  ^Ulllaa  Xruoo"    (iht  do««aaod)»  and  further  fiadlB«  that 
sho  had  no  riieh6  or  imtereat  la  a  eortaln  oontraett  aaidgaod  to  wmiaB 
Krueot  for  the  parohp.»o  of  OArtala  land  la  C  ok  oouatjrr  aw  ord.rlag 
th^t  the  haak  *tura  9y«x  to  Jaao  thoallaaea  tho  oald  aaofuat  on  dopoalt 


f  .  :>^j;>j»ft\>iir-ii^ 


t^iiSii%  -,» 


:o^- 


.'^[M 


ftjiii 


»%(MN(X 


^•f.-jtH'^ 


-2* 

with  it»  %hioh  it  hereby  awfqrd*4  to  hart"  mnA  th^t  sta*  rt««Ter  h«r 
e«8ts  in  %)m  proo«c(iliiK  to  b<»  pmiA  in  due  oQurst  of  adaial •  trA.il on | 
but  forthvr  oretcrlng  th^t  skw  turn  0T«r  td  tlw  ndMlnlstrator  tlw 
^•atraet  for  th«  purahatftt  of  tho  land  |  and  furthtr  ordwrlag  ttevt* 
upon  tb«  i>nn::*£  failiiro  to  turn  oir«T  to  hor  onld  /&on«r  on  d«pooit« 
"and   Intortet  on  ths  ■««•  nt  tht  rato  of  lk%  p«r  annua  fron  Jnnu»ry 
I»  1939**  oxi'cutlon  Itauci  airitln«t  tlio  bank*  «to*f  and  furthor  ordering 
thAt     ou(;   of   th«  Mon«/  on  depoait  and   to  be  paid   to  hoxt  "Jam  Thoialin- 
«9n  pa/  tho  fun«r&I  bill  and  tlin  dootor*  •  bill." 

TroB  thla  order   Iho  ud»inlatrator  p«rfeeto4  (he  prooont 
appoal«     80  oroas  orzoro  bavo  boon  aaaignod* 

Aftor  the  tranooript  of  tbo  r«eord  vao  filod  in  thio  oourt 
J«R«  Thomlineon  norod    (l;    tb<it  pagoa  7  to  80  theroof  bo  atriekcn  from 
the  record  ^nJ    (a)   that  tho  Jud£»ont  bo  affiraod*  tho  aotioa  to  atriko 
waa  allowed  but  tho  motion  to  afflrn  %ho  Ju«l0Bont  w?  0  reaeryod  to  tho 
hearing* 

Tho  elerk'a  tranoorlpfc  discIoMea  thf?t  on  June  7,  1929»  a 

certain  •agreoU  ottttenont  of  fncto"  wao  filod   in  hit  offioe   (oot  forth 

on  miii.  pagoe  7  to  lo)»     Th«re  io  r1»o  a  ao-«nUod  bill  of  exceptional 

oertlfiec  by  the  trial  Jttdffe*   in  the  tr»n«oript,  but  oaid  agreed  ataio- 

nent  of  faets*  01  other  etatonent  oho^ing  what  evidomo  vftoheardnpon 

tho  tri«l»  i^  not  included  thoroin*     The  orr«ro  inalffnod  by  tho  a4» 

mialetrator  are  baaed  upon  tho  »»t.  tencint  of  f^oto*  But  we  oannot  oon- 

aider  onid   et-fctoaent,  it  not  appe  ring  in  the  bill  of  oxeoptiono  (  'llooff 

▼  •  2i«22*4U»   •»   Ul.   B24t     hlOH.^0.    etc,   ...    Cy>  t.  i£^m»   ^^   m»   >^»P* 

S4aj     2J^ja  ▼♦  ?53*lfiXi3:«aiaJiil-»  l^*   Ul.  ^»y  #0)1  maa  it  Muat  bo  pro- 

raed  thiit  eufflolont  cTidenoo  ««io  prooontird  on  tho  he  ring  to  aupport 

^nd»  no  re  find  no  erioro  in  tho  ooamon  law  reeord,  tho 
^udgaent  appoalod  fr«»  ohould  be  sffiriaod,  and  it  ia  »o  ordered* 
Bianee*  '*»  J**  and  ■'osnlant  J«»  oonour*  AypZRIlHXi* 


mi» 


tt(»9 


XtSifitS".-    ■ 


;»    ,C;^^I    .^^    ^?i:<.- 


9Xf-r?^ 


.  "iU  J 


O-i 


337f» 


/^^ 


worwuAM  BBos*  Tjamxmi  co.,  ) 

▼•  1       coirnT*  COOK  c<KnrrT« 

u^T H.  u».a«j..^^^       j   25 6  I. A.  608' 

SI.  JUSTICE  (3KIDX.ST  liJuLXVKRlSlF  flDS  Oi>»IC«  OF  TRS   OOORT. 

On  October  Xu»  X927»  ctapJlataMit  fU«d  «  &UI  In  th« 
•i|f«rl«r  coart  of  Co«k  eooatj  pr&jrla^;  for  ttso  npeelflc  p«rfonauM« 
>9r  def«n4^st  of  m.  vxilten  cimtTAoi  «)ior«lii  too  agrootf  imder  apoel- 
flc4  «onciltioaa  %0  psrelteao  of  (soaplniiuait  oeriftia  layrored  r««l 
coioio  ia  Cook  eo%mtgr«       fter  cAs««r  ttBd  replieatloK  ther«to  hod 
^o<ra  filtfU  thera  w&n  o  ho^urUig  before  a  M^atort  awi  oa  £2ay  17 » 
1928t  h«  f iX«<^  hlo  report  ia  ^)iioli»  after  amking  BuiMrotta  f ladinsa* 
he  rocoMwaaded  tlmt  th«  eourt  deoroe  apeoifle  p«rferarxace  of  ilM 
coatraet  by  ^efoailajit*  eio«     l  ef«B<l-;at*8  ^Jeetiwio  to  the   rcrport 
vere  ordered   to  »ta»d  ao  cxceptiems,  auad*  after  a  hesrisK*  tbo 
eoort*  ea  April    A,  1929,  enteric  a  dooroo  ofalaet  defendaat   la 
aabetinatlAl  Accord  vith  the  Btater*a  fladlao  aad  rocoBsttoad;itioBo« 
The  preseat  appoal  fallowod* 

the  eoBtr<xet  la  dated  '$«pt«ibor  21,  192*rt  aad  le  oa  a 
printed  fora  ia  ccearoa  aoe  «llJt  the  blaako  filled   la  with  tjpo* 
»rivla<g»  aad  there  are  eertain  apeolal  ijpeYrittoa  proTl£<lMi8« 
It  la  prorided   thr.t  the  purehaeer   (d«foad>^jit)   afroea  to  parohaao  of 
the  Tnimiau  '-^o*   (coa^plaiaKat)   the  preaioee   (deeorihod)  at  tho  prioo 
of  t72»&00«  aad  eooipi«la«diit  a«reeo  to  eell  the  mnma  at  tl^t  prioo 
aad  to  coar^y  a  sood  title  thereto  oy  general  « ^rraaty  d  ced »  oa^* 
Jeet  to  tax«6«  buildiae  ami  llctBor  reatrletloaa*  ete*t  that  *tho 


r*^ . 


v-^-'i 


SSfSS 


.  mm  iuu'n,\^ 


•sTi 


■?l&&iXi#v:^ 


^  ■?■ :-  iir---;   ""^^ '  ^-:5  '^S*%1  *■:;??  ■^ 


•t- 

parohf(S«r  hna  paid  $X*<MO  mm  •araest  memmj  t«  ¥«  applitd  on   s^xid 
puvtiiase  wtMn  consiMTaatvdt  and   agrees  i«  p«J»  wltkla  flT«  Amjm 
nf  ter   (h«   tl^la  Is  sbowa  to  ¥•  good  or  It  neceptoi^  1»j  hia*   tlw 
furtkor  om  of  419»000»  proYldo4  «  de<t'd  ao  aforesaid   olUkUL  tlMi  W 
roMdy  for  d^llTeryf"   ih^t  *tho  bnlanoo  shall  1>o  paid  as  foXlooai 
|2«,000  In  cne  ys»%r  aad  ^2#,5O0   la  tvo  joars  froa  cnXircrf  of  doed»* 
alth  latoreot  at  d^  por  oanaat  paynblo  ssal-annur  Ily»   "to  ^  erl- 
dcaeed  qjuA   socored  ^/  tho  purchaser's  aotos  *  *  and  trust  do«<l  of 
erea  daio  with  s^-ld  doed   cm  th«  pz-@aia«!fl   la  a  fora  ordlnr^rlly  usod 
by  tko  chloago  ?ltle  &    -rast  Co*!"  aad  thr^t*  "vlthia  lb  days  fr<ai 
th«  data  hereof*  the  sollor  s)balX  dellYer  to  tho  paroJ^s^ser   (-^hlek 
d^llTery  may  be  aaiie  at  tho  office  of     •  ^*     •  *oleb«l)   oao  at   tho 
three  follow  lag"  I      (1)  a  coi^lete  aerohr^atahle  abotiraet  of  title« 
shovla^  title  of   record  la  tho  proposes!  fpraatori   {z)  a  guariyity 
policy  of   tho  Chlo<'^go  Title  A.  tntot  ^•p  la  usual  fora*  **  guar  nates  lag 
purohaoor  ageila»t  loss  or  daaago  to  th0  exioat  of   the  paroh..se  prloo 
by  re^/son  of  defects  la  or  liens  ttp<m  the  title  of   ti»  proposed  grantor 
In  said   dle«d    to  said  proKlsoo  nt   the  d&tc  hereof  f"   8Ul»Jcot  to  certala 
exeeftloaei  end  It  Is  proyri4s6   thi^l  such  policy  »hall  be  "coneluslTf 
eYl(*eiBoe  of  good   tltlf  subject  aoly  to  the  except  leas   therein  stated  »* 
aad  th^tf  *teapornrily  la  lieu  of  each  polleyt   the  seller  aay  within 
tho  tlae  opeolf led  faxalsh  the  euetoHtary  report  of  cf^ld  chlcnge  Title 
I  Truet  Co*  on  ttM  tltlot"   la  whleh  ease  tho  stiller  "shall  not  bo  la 
dcfatsilt  for  failure  to  furalsh  auoh  polley  UBt.ll  5  dayo  after  srittoa 
deasad  therefor  by  the  parohAsori*   (5)  tan  O^raer'a  luplleatc  tertifloato 
of  Title  Issued  by  the  Heglstrar  of  Titles  of  Cook  eemty,  Illlaolo* 
eto* 

It  Is  further  prorlded  la  the  •  oatr'sct  Inter  alia  that 
should   tho  imrehaoor  default  la  the  perforvaaco  of   tho  contraot 
m  hla  part  at  the  tlao  $3ad  la  the  aaimer  speoiflod*  thoa»  at  tha 


-t- 


i'^^40  xSl'i^^ih'm  «t«"  .ryigtSf-us    9ii.S   gsst    ^*fe   &l5^s  if*.U»  9isi»  »Vfn 


ttJb^;?.'      ^-         -,.j-        ^?ii?   »^3lXoq  fife*;-  .. ..■        ■  _-■ 


-3- 

Mlltr't  optim*  •ttes  canMst  aoacy  shitll  b«  forfeited  ah  ll(4«id«W4 
<*«HE«s*  ancJ  the  e«iitr;.«t  We«a«  T«ld|  tlb^t  th«  fhjMBi  af   th»  prl«« 
uitf  deUTery  «f   the  d««4  alfcll  b«  mUn  at  th*  offlc*  af   ch»  Title  & 
friwt  C#.|  that  M  iead«r  •!   tte  (l«>^a»  or  gu  7Mit««  pollcj  w  r«p«rt 
on  th«  title,  thMlI  be  restored*  tei  a  natiea  to  ihm  pttrcluiser  ttet 
the  BMum  1«  ready  fw  a«llrery  shell  heve  «u   the  faree  amd  effect 
of  «  teod^r  thereof)  that  the  eeller  n^gr^^n  to  pay  a  brokcr'a 
eeendasioB  of  t2500  ta  Hoary  J.  Johnaant  that  -tiiw  ia  af  tha 
eat^eaae  of  tMa  o<«tr5.ct  and  of  s.U  the  coaditloBa  thereof  i**  ttet 
aeid  earsest  iwmey  of  ,1,000  ahall  be  hold  ia  eccrow  by  said  Jahaaoa 
far  tha  aatual  beaeflt  af   tha  partite,  aad,  voaese   the  porok  ser   ahall 
be  eatitled  to  a  refimd   ef  the  e&raeet  aoney,  tha  a&ai  *l*ill  ha 
^pplUt,  first,  to  the  payaevt  af  tmy  ex^chac  iiiottrre«>   far  the  eellar 
hy  said  braker,  aad,  aaoaiwt,  to  the  payaast  of  his  ooHaaeion,  -  tha 
haUaae,  if  ^ay  le  be  paid  to  the  seller*  the  two  ep<ei«l  typewrit iaa 
prortsiMiB  are  ns  followat 

•The  seller  elU  jutmivm  dlliaaaae  to  peneit  tha  reaseniB* 

Mii^LoX-iaaSi*  but,  peadiag  euah  T?ie«Uoi'  of~*ti5T£iii^iiir^ 
the   sae  ah  U   not  be  closed,  but  held   la    .beyaaee.  aad   the 
wllor  ehaU  not  be  held   liable  for  aay  del&y  CAitaed.  niwhout   ita 
•wi  f*ult  or  oe«lect,  la  and  aho«t  thTme^tioa  S^UaJ  dwee" 

"^At  the  tlae  of  theexeeutlon  of   the  aarr^aty  doed  herein 

JK£"tft!l  beroln  i*-ntloned   to  parohifcaer  ^^m75^^rrIiSt:iiiS"^4A 
*arra«ty  deed.   ?urch;.«e  s«riee  and  aart^eThereii  SStloaed. 

Chlaa«a  Title  ^     raat     oapAsy  until  cellv^r^  af  eatire  wealaea 
*M*  "^^^^  i«»«^»='.  aa«l  If  «rllrery  tl^.  eaf  be  aSt^Ja 
wlth.n  10  djya  thereafter  a  raduetloa  of  tl5  pJr  d^  JroHtid 
l^jtese  price  shall  ha  aada  aad  paid  to  pareh^serrand   lat^re.t 
•a  tha  laeaabraaaas  thea  held  eh&U  abate  fraa  the  d«te  af  tha 
axpe«tl«,   thereaf  i»til  ..liTcry  of   entire  preiel^e  U  o^ne  tl 
pttrch  ser,   eueh  abttteaeot   of  interest  to  bo  aa^e  frae  aurah^sa 

iiti!     tl^  fi   ff^reiaber,      .      .  1927,  purchaser  aay  by   .rlttaa 
J~fL^*.'*if*^\*^"*''    "*  dcclnre   the  pur«hr.»e   eJjicelled, 
teral^tee   aad  all   t^oeuacnts  ex.cated  by  hla  and  money  pal«s  by 
hia  8h^vll  be  retaraed,     ta^Urlcer  coatrol^   nay  ei«fiL?«..^     ' 
ey d  1  tloasja, JSa. aantjr&jc t  aoJelLhstAj^^^," ^^ 


f^^jiff*    .tI:*]!;    ^?^2 


«lC# 


W.*5^!^ 


•.■*■■  *■ 


fift^j*    i*rts    iii    *  * 


proTlaioBs  of   th«  roRtjrft<;%«  mt^Ae  in  sububKacc   Um  f»ll»«itig  findlagai 

i/bortlj  Bfter  ^HrpteAfir  21«  1927»    (ciat«  of  eo«tra«t} 
«  srsseagcr  of   complAlii'tnt   (the   seller)  ^>«llv«r«<^    fc«  tfrfendant   (tte 
p«r«h;'\»«r)   two  p&p«r«f  btlng  •  4rf>ifi  of  a  p'.^tltioa  »d(lireadO<!    to  th* 
U«    :•  r^iotriei  voart  la  Qii«ftc«  mnA  a.  ar&/t  of  ««  Odri&la  t»Mitf  rtmnlnfi 
io  Urn  X{ait«()   -^taiee  of    '*ae«rie«-«     Botln  p^pcro  b«4  bo«B  <Suly  oxveuto* 
^j  etnKpXi\in&ni9  AOd  defead^mt  «»»  reQu«ete<^  &Xi^6   lo  «x«eut«   itea« 
Jto»  lw««T«r«   lolti   S''tl4  ■••««Hi;«r  t)i-^6  fr^oh  SAt&orn  vould  h»Te  to  bo 
rcferrei!   to  hie  nttor»ey»     «  F*  T«  r>i«»bel.      [from  o.%i4  petpora*  Intro* 
4u99i  i«  eTl(3eB«e»   it  Kpponrs  t:.?^t   ^h^^   stiUBet  if  *l«o  oi^oc  toy  dcf«nd* 
natt  v«r«   to  9e  aoed  by  e^apl^latxat   la  aa  eadt^aT«r   bo  secure  ttao 
vaofitioB  of  a  o«rtaia  iajimctloa*   iet^Dit^i:  b^  ar.iii  'J.   r>»  O^urt  oa 
Jaamry  Si*  1927«  vberebj  a  portioa  of  the  prt'alt»eft  la  v^ueatioa  bai 
b«€n  eloa«d   far  Tiol^^tl  aa  of  t^  Voleie^d   ^oi  by  foraor  teatuata 
af  eaapiala«at*} 

(^  noptaabor  27  th  anid  p«&pera  vera  dallTarod  ta  -iobal, 
aad  oa     opteafoer  8Stb»  titore  «&«  fil99  delivered  a  letter  addrcaitod 
t.0  hia  4tnd   sigaed  by  7bi»adar«    '•  /^Ib   (oeeplalaAat*  a  esollcltor}»   la 
vhioh  refcrene*  v:»  aiada  to  the  e^eitrr^^aoee  up  to  thnt  tiaa*  r.olb*a 
letter  coacludet'   aa  followai 

''If  tha  ptf&itioa  «M&  bOBd  vhieh  T   haee  aubaitted   to  you 
conti^ia  nay  fe&tare«  which  lura  abjaotion^^^tale   to  you  or   to  your 
oli£Rt»  nad  «hieh  (ma  be  obviatad  by  lUkkln^  ebB^Cas  ami   aiiU 
reaftia  «ltiiln  the   Bo<ip<e  of   the  cireetioaa  laid  dova  b/  tha 
riatrlct  Attorney*  8  of   iee,   X  «auid  be  v«ry  glad  to  eoafer  tilth 
yoa  and  i»«rk  out  »a/  auoh  ebuigaa* 

I  BO«  ra.  ueat  of  /aa  aad  yeur  olientot  la  behalf  of 
:^ffsaaa  ilrothera   rssaniag  C««  th^^^t  /ou  axecata   the  (^oouaaata 
whieh  I   h&ve  left  «ith  you*  eoat;«iinlng  a  p«titl«a  addraaaad  ta 
the  Itn&ted     tntee  :  Istrict   -ou?u«  umi  %  baadt  or   thf^t  yoa  at<^ia 
whatever  objectloae  you  r.avc  *i|{  last  Bli-aia&   theia.     If  yoa 
obieet  CO  Jeialag  la  ^^oy  petition  or  bond*  it  seLll  not  b« 
naaaaaciry  ta  so  lata  tha  austter     urther.     I(  you  object   ta 
eart«iia  f^atarea  oi'   tae  petit  lam  aad  boad    I  eill    ti^ke  ap  the 
aatter  af  aedi-yiaif.   &hea«* 

la  Hlebel'a  reply*  dated   2«pteaS»er  SO&h*  ha   atated  that 
hia  elleat  (defeau^at)   r^roollectad  a  eaAveras tiaa*  had  priar  ta 


limit  ^  ;«ei8lrfir^ 


^ifSSSi 


9  A'^Um 


-5. 

tht   RigBlng  of    tte«  o«a6r&«t9   to   the  effect   Lh%i  d«f«adiuit  would 
HoTO  to  olgn  A  boad  aa  «  •oadltloa  to  tb«  re-op«aiB«  0^  ^)M 
proalsoo*  ilMt  defend '.at  then  troAt«<t   tiic  antior  *&o  a  J^k**"  ^t 
•*dld  not  o«j  tiutt  IM  voul^  apt  sign  tho  p«tltloa|*   ihtit  th«r«  axo 
■MBy   stBittBonts    la  the  p«tltio«  to  which  dftf«MMiAjit   "OMinot   »u:bccribc' 
(fttfttinc  than)  I  «Jtu   :;i«i>*l  further  aiatcdt 

"flow   the    ait!i.Hlloxi   Is    Uhla*     Silage riaad    Iv    ready, 
able  aad  vllllag   to  coaiply  with  the   eatlrt'  coatTnot  for  tho 
^ut ah\BH  of   this  real   estato  a,e.  i»roTl^i«d  hy  coa tract  sia;aod 
hy  &oth  |»aTtle»t  aad   bo  will  not  ouhacrlhc  to  the   potltl«i 
yroo«St«d    to  hl&t  aad    If    that   i»  ^  eomMfiion  upoc  ^.hich  Lhla 
4oal  dope»do»   It  ooeae   to  a«   th  t  you  haTO  thsrohjr  roluatarUy 
caacellod    t^ic   coatra«tt  aad   th»t  «e  are  entitled   to  the  rctura 
of    tho  ^'IvOOO* 

If  >ou  ellBtittate  th*:    boae   t»ai   tho  ;>i .tJL.t ion,   Iftt  ua 
ffffpood  una^r  the  cj^n tjract  to  gur^paoo  at  pace** 

iLoXb  did  not   thereafter  ^ilco  nnj  further  attiecspt   to 

procuro  d«foi^&at*s  aif^eiture   to  on  Id  petition  aad  boad ,  bat  cauoed 

to  ho  executed  aad  presented   to  tho  U«  i^«  Court  a  eialXar  petition 

slgaod/^  coaplRlBaat  jU.ooo»        '^J^  «»  ^toher  5*  1927 »  hjr  rlrtuo 

of  said   laat  t^eatlMaeci  petltlfloi*   the  '0*    >«  c^urt  entered  an  order 

{oertlfled   copy  la  evlteaoe)   re*opeal&g  all  of   oald  prealeoo  aad 

vae^tlag  the  exliftlntt  lajuactlon*   (i>)vcyiettsly  entered  taa  January 

21»  19k^7}  ^ild  orderlaf?  the  Marshal  of   the  /latrlct  "ta  roaoTo  all 

look*  frott  tho  preasleosf*  sMi   further  ordering  that 

*^OBe  of   the  persons  or  eas^loyoeo  tvho  were  In  said 
prealsee  rvt   i.hfi  tJuao  of   the  viol&tltfa  ei    the  Velstcau     ct» 
horolnbefore  described  »  shall  he  fsnpleyed  upon  or  located 

upon  s'^id  pr«£«l)Lv«a«** 

That  It  heooOM  ooaplainaat*  0  duty  to  dollTor  to  defendant 
tke  report  oa  the  tltlo  to  the  pr^alisedt  at  ~;ioh«l*s  ofrico*  vlthla 
15  d&yo  fr<Mi  the  Ovte  of   tho  ooatraot   (^-epteahor  2l3t}|  th^t  that 
tlae  expired  vith  the  olose  of  huslxiet^s  oa  Oovohcr   e:*  19rv7,    iono 
^'^    ^^*y  t^  order  of  tho  U«      •  Court*  vaoiitlas  onid   iajunctloBt 
et«*«  kad  been  entered }|  thnt  oa  oftlfi   ^>ebobor  6th»  about  4  o'clock 
p*  a«»  coBplainaat*  >y  Kolh,  eauaod   to  he  d»'ltvered  at  -Uohel'a 
•friee  said  report  of   the  Title  .    tmot  Co*,  alao  copy  of  ovlglzml 
deed  of   the  |^«ais«St  •*e«»t«d  by  ccKpl&lnantt  »hlch  original  deed 


blt^^  4»«*r 


**.- 


^'9di'X-^<^diiK 


aa  K  spii*   vi   draft 


%i 


li 


■O.i    U  J-SrM 


,  -S^I^Sif./ 


,^     _J»-i — 


as 


-;»-!?  IA&'£<6,  i^ 


-it***  «X 


•6* 

was  deyaelied  «lVh  tli«  Tiil«  f-  Trust  0««   as  «s«r»tr«F«  mlm9  eojfj 
•r  ft  letter  01   fllr««tiMi  tMH   deposit  Rddr««8«d   t»  it»  ftlso  o  r&fts 
•f  •rifiiaal  iiot««»  eoufn  noioa  sad  trttsl  tfe<a:    t«  b«  aicaed  ^ 
^«fc»diuit»  ftod  &!«•  oth«r  jMipcrs*   mcludln«  «  letter  af  ttet  «•&•» 
•44r«»*ca  to     10«1  ftiid  tigm^  by  x«Xb|   th»(  la  sftM  letter  Salb 
atftt«d   Ihjxt  "aXI  objcclloas  fta  th*   fcltl«  hftve  been  ol^ar*€  19* 
aad   tbi-it  «  WArrnaijr  <i«e4i   to  the  yroBiooa  ln<l  b««»  d«IlTer«4i   to  OftU 
csaro«e«f  roc^ueoiod   Ui«  oxeeulioa  of   «Ki(i   aoloo  aad   trust  ilead*  aad 
doaaatfod   tb^it  vltbla  5  d«yo  (by  Oecobor  Uth)   tiMre  bo  dopooitod 
with  o^^ie    csorowec  a;$id  sote«  aad  tmot  £eod  fally  oxecutad*  aad 
tbat  a  payaoat  of     19,000,  looe  iaxoo,  bo  aado.     Solb'o  lottor 
concluded   ^.0  follovot 

"If  7«a  IMTO  <,ai^   objoctieao  to  mot  of   tbo  doctaionto 
vfaleb  I  h«T«  prepared*   or     hich  i   h«Te  dcpouii<*a  with  tbo 
nae»s«  title  &  traai  Co.,  or  if,  ia  your  opinion,  I  imr* 
aot   ia  every  way  fully  cotti^lied      ith  tbe  tertt«  ^ad   ooaditioaa 
»f  the  emtract,   I  be«  to  r«.:,u«8t  yoin  to  adTie«  ate   In    ^ritiaft 
proiptly  ttpoa  receipt  of   thla  letter,   so  th  t  a^y  allec«4 
deviatioaa  or  aaiaaieaa  oaa  be  reaedied,  es  etheraiae  *e  aill 
iaaiot  apaa  a  atriot  porforaaaoo  at   the  ooatraei* 

X  beg  to  »dviao  yoa  also  tht^t*   iwaed  lately  looa  belas 
a4iria«d  by  the  ::hicii;o  title  i--  Traat  -o.  t  ,  t  you  havo  ooii-^ 
■aiiniitod   this   sale,  yoa  »ill  lie   let   into  i^,  edi«te  posdeoaiaa 
•'  •!!  tb   t  portion  of   the  preaioea   la  questioa  except   tha 
jfldTa  faetary,*" 

That  oa  the  a^^ae  day  (October  «th)  aad  at  about  the  snao 

hour,  certain  papers  (eauac.-ated  ia  the  deerae)  ware  d^liTered  by 

olb   to  a*iid  Title  -'    traat  Co.,  as  eaoreaoei  that  the  paper*  depoaitod 

with  defea<l»at  by  delivery  ^.t  :iebel*a  offioe  •were  ia  nccorcrae* 

^sith  the  coatraeti   and  thr  I   the  depoaits  aad  direct ioas  deposited 

^ith  the  ChlOiijEa  Title  #   Tmat  Co*  aaro  likeaiae  in  coafaraity  with 

aald  ooatract,  ^ad   th-.t  r.t  ao  tiao»  before  or  -»fter  October  6,  l«S7, 

did  defeadant,  by  hiaaelf  or  hla  attoraey*  aake  kkny  eaaplaiat 

reapectiaiE  aaoh  depoeits,  or  re  aest  ^n:r  ehaaffes,  alter  tloaa* 

ad(fiti«a«  or  dedaetioaa** 

that  tha  ooatraet  proTided  ths^t  tha  r*part  oa  the  titla 

•f  »aid  prcadaea  waa  *to  be  coadttsiTe  eTid^noo  of   titloi*   that 


-d> 


-^J    ♦'.TvX^*    ^^   *^    V&^k  ^fjJT!*    '^U-    i!:->^--if~    :r<>^i#«!P    «»9#0fi   ljBS?"i'vf^    V. 


XS^  '»»%9^lXf'j  »1£S''  i^5>s»s-y   a^*    -:*•     ='?^-^    -ftr.M',-«-    '■-■^ix*'^  _J.._,_-    ., :.■;•: 


•7- 


•ttltf  r»p«rt  *4rritf»M0*d  »nA   o«rtiflee   •xaetXy  tlM  tltl*  «hiek  tlM 

coBpXslaant  luult  b/  •nld   o(»ntr«ctt  acr*«4   to  deliver i*   ite^t  it 

*bec«M«   the  duty  of  def<tnd«at   to  oonnun^ote   ti»  oontraot*  oad   to 

9wrolia««  oald  preMl«oo  aad   to  <i«llver  eetoh  Mad  aot«»   Im  payaeni    . 

thorefor*   in  aceordnaoe  «ith  onld  eontrAot  ajmi    th«  doaaado  bj  eoBf 

ylalmiat*  on  or  before  October  11«  I927f*   iluit  the  eeerowee  (tho 

Tiilo  Ik  Tr«ot  ^o«}»  b/  letter  dated  October  l^*  198T*  adTlood   :  lobol 

of  the  r«6#ipt  of   eald  depoeltoi  oat^    Ubat  ^iobol*  actiag  for  defend- 

«at»  replied  b/  letter,  dote!  October  loth*  la  yort  o«  folloooi 

*Aocordia«  to   the  pree««t  at?  ttte  of   thle  whole  mtter, 
%h»  ooMpletion  of   thio  coatr  ict  of  purchase  i«  eatlrelydepeadeftt 
opoa  iqr  elleat's  eigaing  a  petition  left  «>.t  ^/  off  lee   to  reopoa 
a  portioa  of  the  preaieoe*  «»a.,lMied  In  the  ooctrrxct  of  purehaoot 
oloaed  aader  the  i'rohioitioa  -ot,  «hleh  my  olieat  gill  not  eiiai. 
ao  oaok  o»o  not   coBtenplnted  by   our  original  coutr^Totl     ^i 
>fil«  Hlf  ffi^V*  WQ   oha_ll  noj.  proceed  ititb  the   contrnct** 

That  oa  October  10th  Kelb  oeused   to  be  deliTered  to  niobol 
a  letter*  acviatac  hia  th.%t  the  loeko  had  boea  ordered  r?iMvo«'   from 
the  clooed   portiea  of  the  prsaioco*   thnt  the  Title  i    trumt   t;o»  Ih»4 
*«alTod  the  lajtwctiont'  and  th»t  ooaplaiaaat  ooald  £ir9  poosessioa 
of  the  tannery.  «hlch  had  prcvloualy  boea  eloaed  by  the   lajunetioa 
order  of  the  U.      .   Court,"   in  about   too  niautoo  after  reeeipt  of  tho 
parehaeo  aoacy  and  aortsage,*  aad  deaaadiag  thnt  oaeh  pojaoat  aad 
deyooit  he  aade  before  the  cleoe  of    the  6fy« 

That  dr°fendrat  has  r«rgae.i   an  exceptioa  ia  eourt   to  tho 
effect  that,  ia»a«aoh  ae  the  ord?r  of   the  U*  Zm  Coart,  rooponiag 
the  tannery,  aade  prorloioa  that  *noao  of  tho  perooae  or   ei^loyoeo^ 
oho  were   la  eald  primiooe  a%  tho  tiao  of   the  ▼iolr.tioa  of  the  Yoletead 
Aot,   shall  be  eaployed  apoa  or  located  upoa  sold  prcaUses,*    thio 
provialoa  •coastltttted  a  liaitatloa  upoa  the  oao  of  tho  preaisoo  hy 
defeadaat,  vhieh  he  hed  aot  by  his  ceatrs^ct  Ajpreed  to  assnaof*   tJbat 
the  eonteation  aad     rgvooat  are  vithoat  aerit|  that  tho  exlotoaoo  of 
the  orl^iaal  lajiaetion  order  of   the  C.    :•  Caart  io  spocificrOlj 
yocogaiaed  in  the  c«itruet,  ^herein  It  io  <mlj  repaired  thct  tho 


••ll«v   (c«ipl«ilaaat}   *iiiXX  uaq  dug  dli.ig»»o»   f  pamAt   tif  fOpenJBft 
•f   tlMtl  portion  of   th*  l>ttllalii|,ff  lo«fit«ct  oa  th«  cl«Aori^oa  pr««itioo« 
vhleli  Is  now  clea*d  b/  tta«  ord«r  of   Injiaeiion  of   tho  iloirlot  Court |* 
•ad   tbAt  ihlo  ooiirt   (Siii^rlor)   coacluces   tkoxftfroM  tbat  Uw  yurohaoox' 
(def  eadttMt)   *i««»  obllfed   io  neeeyt   tiiXe  to  on  id   preailifeo   aubjoct  io 
•ttoh  iaJnactioB  order*  aad  «11   ineideato  fXonia^  thorefroa*  except* 
lag  fh-at,  tb«   sejUer  «:-•   to  toko  steps  *  to  perolt   the  roopeaing*   of 
the  toanery*  which  scg  doao** 

thmt  vitlOa  a  f«w  iii7S  after   the  date  of    the   eontraoi 
(3ept<ahox  21*  1927),  aefeaoaat   laep^etod  preaises  other  ttwui  thaaf 
«t»OTO  deocrihod«  oad   entered   lato  aegoti^  lions  for  thoir  pnrchnee« 
oadt  en  Oetoher  Xlth  (the   s.joe  d  y  th  t  he  sas  obliged  hy  tbo  ea«- 
iroet   to  wi^ko  p^.jnoont   for   tho  prcaleee   in  suoslloa)*  pur  phrased  s^H| 
S^J^I^SiltfMMfitL  *^  P*^^  ^ltO:>0  OR  aooouat  of   such  purohaeoi  th-'t 
oa  srid   ^etober  IXth  it  sas  defesdr-at* «i  daty*  ttAder  tho  eo«trf>et»   ta 
fojr  «oR«7  aatf  deliver       a  aerte;offe   to   tlw  ee«r««ce»   the  Title       Trust 
Co*t   th'<t  oa  th'it  dmj  aoik^ifinmnt  Vfso  ro  tfy  and  ohlo  to  deliver 
poseeseioB  of   so  mteh  of   the  building  oa  the  preaises  »^s  is  kaova  as 
the  tfi^nrnry,  "^ad  had   then  offered   to  drrliyer  saeh  posscedioni   that 
tho  voo*  tion  and  deliv^^ry  of  poasoseioa  of   sush  part  of   the  build iaga* 
iocs  ted  apoa   the  lane*  as   is  kiMvn  a     tho  *gloTe  factory**  wntt  aat 
^tt*  i»  a»y  gv«h|  uatil  10  days  after  amid  poyaent*  and  srenta:  lly  not 
uatil  SoTCAher  5»  192(7*  at  eoaplaiaant* s  optioai   th^t  on  i^otohor  llth« 
ooB^lainant  ««8  aot   in  any  way  in  cefr;nlt  hut  had   in  all  revyoota 
coapllcc   «ith  tfTory  daty  asBMsed  hy  it  ander  the  oontrticti  and   thai 
oa  said  last  aratione<^  d.'^y  it  hecn»e  dtrftcndr.at*  a  duty*  UBd%r  tho  tei 
•f  tho  contract,   to  pay  ta  o^id   ?R«roYoe  noney  andl  alaa  dellTor  hia 
aaios  and  a  nortgago*  hat   th  t  therein  ho  w\do  dcf;talt,  «<herehy  ho 
waiTO<d  «Bd  exaneed  '<my  further  pcrfonaanoo  on  eanpl&iaaat*s  part* 

That  on  Oetohor   ilth*  eefead^it  cars  hia  cheek  for  $1*000 
in  purchase  of   wild  other  pre«iscs*  vhich  are  new  oocapied  hy   hte| 


liBi  «ai?  *4T,T«^o«t  &veXs*  ^^      R  are  -^a  2if*^s9«-'' 

a^9^».vi  xXi!^-  fu  (;».£»£  i£r<^  iSM  "->o  csi  t|^  xi^ft  i|t  $im  mt^w  itn^l&X/fsmf 
iPsHi   ost»  i$ti^^%tmii>  !sdi  t^iNSBi  iX  %4  ^mmm^M  xiaii  x^wt9  Ai^  in»lX^mia 


*9* 

tlini  ttp  t«  SoTeabcr  7tli*  h»  lud  yaltf  f«rfth«r  tfumm  «b  aeid  oilier 
purchnse  irhlcfa»   IscIik;  Isg   tlM  $1»000  f«itf  dowa  Ooi«ber  lltht  ftiBrrvsat* 
«19»715«32t  a:id  «hi«h  are  la  •xe«B8  of    the  iI9«CH)0  tihlota  he  sli^uld 
l3AT«  paid  ttBd«r  the  ooAtriict  in  Hnc«tl;mt  and   th^t  1i«c«iib«  of   thf»« 
f«.ote  It  Ik  diaol»a«d   tk^st  d«fcBKti-j|i  «a  OeteVcr  llth  ««is  f iBaAciall/ 
able  to  etmauBssate   th«  coatraet  ia  qaeatloa. 

that  OB  the  hav-riac  bcforu   the  anster  drfeadi^iit*  hj  liis 
counsel*  o.t^t,«ii  th  t  *«ttr  yooltlMi  la  that  the  only  reaaaa  w  d^ 
got  coiiply  ylth  the  ceatrfcc^  vae  thf^t  eeaplaiaant  was  2^ihle_tj|> 
dtyllvert**  hut  th»t»  en  the  coatr;  xjt   the  eemrt.  fiads  that  ea  Oeteber 
lltht  eonplalaaat  cemlti    theB*  aati     t  aa^  iiiu»  &/ter  October  5th»  haTO 
mmiii%  iaataat  delir^ry  of  the  tannery •   thf^t  4ellverj  of   the  glore 
^flctoTy  vne  aot  due  oader  the  cwstrs^et  imtll  October  2let»  or  (at 
coaplAlaaat's  eptiea  sa£  KUbjeot  t.e  etrii^ia  o:  oh  (i«4ttctlena}  aatil 
3?ev«:fl»ber  5»  19:S7»   thnt  eoKpl&laast  has  repetu«(fl/  offered   to  deliver 
poaeeeeioa  of   the  ^loTe   fr^ctery  in  accordaaoe  with  the  c<Miwrftot»   -tad 
th«sit  ceuplalaaat  v««.s  re-^d;  and  able  to  eoaply  trith  Ite  .nerenoeat 
respeetiag   the  tiao  of  dcliverj  of  poesea^iea  of  all  of   aaid  j^ealoes* 
ao  i>roeide^   la  the  c«ntr»tet« 

?hat  la  the  ic^tter  #f  defeae;^at*«  (»ttoraej  (■.^iobel)  to 
toe  eeerovee  of  October  K^th*  above  ta^nt loatt<i »   it  la  stated  that 
"the  coBpltrtloa  sf   thie  e«itract  of   pvrckuae  is   eatir«Xy  depeadsat 
ttp^i  my  oll«at*8  tsigaiaK  «  p«titlea  left  at  mj  of  flee  to  reopea  a 
portioa  of    the  proiiaea  *   *  oloe«d  aad«r   the  Profalbitloa  Aot«  vihioh 
By  client  will  ,fio^,  ciffl  s^«  eueh  e  a  not  eoatesplated  by  our  orl,ilaal 
coatraetl*   th;^t  therein  la  etsfced  aaether  reasoa  for  defead&nt  aot 
eoaoBaaatiaf  the  eoatr^et,  vhleh  is  vlthottt  aB>   eubet -atlal  aerltf 
that  eoaplK laaat* •  reqaeat,   tiirough  the  letter  of  hie   cellcltor 
(Solb)  of    'eptcabor  Sttth  above  atntloaedv  "did  not   la  aasy  vaj  iaolado 
the  latlwi^tioa  th^t  the  eloelac  «^   Ui*  i*»l  depeaded  apoa  defeadnat^a 
8lg»^tiixe  (to  said  dr&f  ted  petit  lea  aad  bORd}»  aad  defend  fiat  *s  replj 


•«• 


^l£i>^^ 


^i  T^i^jttr  esrJs  jeg  gjsw  ^yaifag.^ 

■■is-   ».-i    'iib^ 

■.-i?#t0    1W   ^9 'Jems*    »»# 

:    .  .         ";:3i*«^- #«■*??►  Visa  *»«iS*i«f  j»l  ni&l^it  ^:i^.xitm9  ^2f^  x^tifigBsm^a^^ 


dl    (Istfsti:, )    i^&Hr'Stt^^ 


.s.  *Wv  ■■('.■ 


,m  .  t  ■■■■      x.s(    « 


<XJ> 


-10- 

i%j     l^cl)  •Tid6BO»«  th&t  h*  etd  B«t   s«  uiKlvrstaad   Itf*   ihftt  •■ 
Oei«t»«r  9Ui  ecHiilAiMUit  obiid»«a  t,h«  Aatiry  of  «a  order  bjr  tte 
9*  n*  i^iatrlet  Ctvri  oj^aiilBg  »&iiL  pttmi»9u9  wkich  s&itf  arder  *««• 
•btaintd  vithoui  «ithi'r  iMi'ltioai  ax  b«id  t>y  d'-fjodapi^i''  adM   Uiat  mi 
0«t«l»«r  10th  defeadriat  luid   :i«lMX  "lacw   tlkifc  Uw  preMlses  ^d  U«4N| 
•p«tt«d  vltlieut   t2«»  help  Af  aJV  ytftltlMi  or  beitf   ftf  <icfe«dr.Jtt   aai^ 
JKae«  it»i  Um  cX»0lag  of  ib«  ««itr!*«t  did  a^t*  la  fsot*  deyead  up«a 
A«tMMlMit*»  •i&al«(f  such  m  j^^^tloa  aad  band*** 

Tluit  6kfvmiisMt  testlXl«d«  «ith  ref«reae«  t4»  said  other 

»ttpi>Oft«  a  «oaple  0f  «««lta  lieforc  I  b^ti^^ltt  li»"  aiwl   tlH»%  h»  bott^^JU 
i%  an  0«tabar  11»  X*27|   tht.i»  tliercfore*  tl&e  eaart»  flAda   limt  il» 
r«aaaA  trbj   thm  dcfaadoAi  did  aou   c«aclad«   hia  |«7«teAS«  of  eoKylala- 
aai*a  praaieaa  'wea  ao%  tlw  aaa  »t«ked  ai)  tlta  trial  b«far«  tlM 
anatar  (taat  aaa^lalaaat  aaold  aot  dellv«r  poa&«arlan}»  aor  yet  tha 
0B«   stated   ta  th«  c-earotiaa   (tba&  the  alealo^  d£.|»«i^«d  «i  tkur  defaad- 
Kat  alcBlas  it  p«tiiioa  »a(i   osad»  vkleh  ka  vaa  not  aOllffod  ta  vl^ 
f<ad  vottlfii  rataaa  to  aijpi}** 

tlMit  "aoaj^Xalaa.at  la  poaweaaad   of  icocni   litla  ia  aad   ta 
(be  pr»alaea  a09T«  daecj  Ibec  »  and    tk^t  Sb<>^  tltXe  to   th?    a^aur  <ma 
lio  aada  to  dafaaduat** 

fka  aoart  la  tba  daorea  ordered  and  luljocc*^   tknt  tto 
oaatraet  ia  ^iuaatioa  *1m  spacl:  ierJLlj  jjMiirfarvod  la  tiw  falla«jJiC 
aaanar*'      f'aa   co«£t   khea  »t  jprv&l  lattgth  acta  forth  Um  aaaiar  af 
p«rioraMaea.     Sa  poiat   la  baro  nada  b/  d«f«ad«at*a  oomaal  that 
ttt«i«   ia  aay  ^aerwr  la  tSt«  deoiraa  re>a9«otiae  »ftld  Haaser  of  p9T» 
lorKAaaa* 

JDofaadl«H*a  ooaaaal*  uc  th«  and  of  tte  atataaaat  of  tte 
0080  ia  ala  priatdc  brief  aad  ^rguavat  hera  fllo<5»  aabea  t«a  ooa- 
teatioBcft  rim* 9  *titat  odovlalMUiU   (Toador)  aao  aoTvr  la  poaltloa  ta 
deliver  tba  prcaJLuas   to  def«aiiaat   \TOSd«e),  oleareft   of  tbg  bardwm 


-01- 

mtvf^  t»^79  M»9  i&^ishi  •«««Jae»t9  M«i9  ^tli»q^jp  itt^ai)  tsitiiel' 
»^  ir^^   ^Ad  'iJlSl^i^l^tJQl  AiS^  ^  it»^ii«»<SN;  'r»$(tl»  #x;e;^li~»:  &»st8«<j« 


"*;jfas.fc'^te»" 


•ri©   isStt^i&rs. 


-u» 


of  th*   irijuaetioa  of   tiMr  U.      *  i>istrlat  Coujrt»"   and   (b)    "thut 
coaplBloaai'a  dOMUMi   ihX  d«f«adiat*«  «!<:•  Join   in  the   truat  6%e4 
mM  notes  mntt  un«iuthorift(>d»    thereby  Inipoalas  Inirdeno  net   eonteaplated 
by  th«  coatraet*  luid   vhieii  Juetifled   tbo  imrehAaer   In  ref ttaln^r   to 
aooepi  the   titlo  ^»  fcon^ered.* 

In  our  opinion  the  first  eoat^ntiosi  ia  cithout  onbeiAntial 
Mtvi%,     Th«  eontrfiiet  r«e«|pai»td  the  exietenee  of  tho  injunotioa*  /ct 
it  did  XKIW  provide  %»  a  eendition  of  dcfeo^'int  conattW£ia.ting  tbt  par* 
ch&oo   tli?t  oaid   injanction  be   tntirely  Tmoated  ana   eliaioaitoc.   CoaH- 
i)lHin«Bt*«  <mt.!f  dnty  «ne   to   '*ase  due  diligenco  to  penait  tho  reopen- 
ing* of   ih«  jjKirtioa  of   tlw  biLildiiME  «hich  had  b«<?n  cloood  1^  order  of 
the  U«  n*  i?ottrt»  aod   eoaylaiBABt  used  aueh  diligence*  and,  prior  to 
the   tine  when  defend  «i  mi»  to  pay  the  Cl«»aoc  and   to  deliver  oertnia 
notes  and  giro  a  8a»rtgag«»  pro«ttr*<i   the   reo^niag  ordtr  of  said  U,   =  . 
ourt.      It  ia  trno  that  ia  this  order  it  «««  provided  that  "nono  of 
the  per^mn  or  e^loye^s»  «Hq  *ere  oa  •^li4  preftisea  at  the  tin*  of 
the  Tiolruion  of   the  Volstcnd     ot.   ahall  bo  eag»l«yed  «pM  or  loeaiod 
apoa  anid  praal^s,-       Yet  tho  persona  nnd   eisployo^ta  nentioned 
more  not  in  %my  way  oonitectetj  »ith  the  defendant,  koc   this  proriao 
oaanot  be  eoasidored  as  having  any  ateierial  effect  npoa  cefendant 
or  upon  hia  proposed   laaful  btteiaoaa  on  tho  prciftisos.     iven  if  it 
oan  bo  oo  considered  defcadaat  *aa  not  Justified   in  refnaing  to 
carry  out   tho  contract.     Conplaiaaat  did  not  agree  therein  to  eliiinato 
aaid   inJuncti«Mial  order.     And   tho  contract  provided   ihixt  oosplaiaaat 
•ould   procure  and  deliver  to  defend  nt  aa  inaurance  policy  of   the 
ritle  ^   Trmai  Co.  lasarin^  hia  against  defects  ia  the  title«  and 
teiqiort^rily,   in  lien  thereof,  a  report  on  the  title,  and   furtkor 
provided  th'st  oaoh  policy  should  be  *coacluaiv«  ovidtaoo  of  good 
title. •       ad   it  appoaro  froa  the  evideaoo  that  the  title  A   Trast  Co* 
ka4  iBdicuted   that  it  *f^s  re^dy  to  iasao  t«  defeadaat  eueh  aa  iasur* 
•we  policy,  and  "vaived*   the  injnactioai.     fkc  peiat  ia  fnlly  eoa* 


■*  ^ 


•a- 

*^»o  Jsii-y-J   «i4«   fti   a.i©t  »ai^  e'is  ^ifl{-3»  #  ii;  ; 

?ea  a«5fe?jr*i    jai^so^j^i  vjj»t*fSj   ♦^MiTed?e»j5*j-  ^ne  a^setu  &n. 

-=^i^  •5*4§fti.-^j,-^  ^«fe  »«-»a«^i¥  Xi->-»i5ls«'    ><J.»«a^ii.  .^-.tf^  •»«<• 


-12. 

iiic!er«4   in   the   court* »  «iR«r«fft  «•  *¥«v«  »«Q;;loBec'»  aait  mm  «# 
tliink*  oorr-^ctljr  decided* 

A,«  io  Cttww'amt*  B  «aua««l*B  s«o«nd   caa(«rntlt»ii   CtJtot 
coaplRlBMii* •  deofiKi    tba(  d«f«iid!Bt*B  vife  Join   la  tlM  Imst  d««tf 
•bA  B«tca  ii»:9  tta&ttth«r !£•<?}   tlM  mvlA^nom  di»ala«««  ili»t  ea»pI«lJi- 
itai*s  aolicitAr  dr^te<5   ;&iid  d«livere(i  faras  of  notes  io  1i*  olfiMid 
by  d«f«Bd^at  fta^   F.Xmo  m  form  of  a   trust  AteA^   ov curiae    Itao  aateo* 
to  ^«  8lini«d  by  d«f««dABi  ami  hla  vtfo*  out  aot  thai  aaid  aollcltoar 
«r«r  ajpt^clflc^lXsr  daaailod  tli'^it  the  vifo  alga  tte  triut  do<rd«     So 
eo^pl'^tnt  ox  objeetioa  ■mmm  ral»«d  at  thie   ti««  hy  d«feadast  or  hlo 
^ollcltoi    (    i«b4l)  m»  to  tkMT   form  of   &h«   traot  d«'<i«  or   to  tJako  im> 
plitc  propoanl  thnt  d'.foad-vat^o  vlfo  Jola  la  that  do«rdf  although  in 
elh'o  lett«r«  taoloolag   tho  psip*^ra0  ho  ro-uestcd    th^it  If   thort  oare 
aiay  objoctlona  thaxato  &hey  ho    la^'.,    lately  «iul<*  ao   thr^t  moy  derlatloaa 
or  ottioi'ioao  alj^ht  ho  reotedied*     ?ho  oonteatloa  la  «ppa7«ntly  an 
ftf ttr thought »  aund   Is  without  «erit.     In  or<!tr  to  prrr«nt  cafeadnat'o 
»lf«*a  rlsht  of  dooer  and  ]|anoa%c?itd  aocrulBfg*  supt^rlor   to  tha  ricM 
to  deateiad    tha  payaMht   of   tbM  Ualaaoo  of   the  ptftTdh&so  prloe*   It  «aa 
P^^P*'  either   th  t   the  wlfo  Join  la  the  ^ropoaet^    truat  oaedf  £^ 
thMt   thara  bo  Inserted    there ia  a  saltahlc  raeital  to  tha  effect  tlfit* 
the  dead  ««  a  glvaa  to  aacart  fatxt  oS   tha  parchaao  jprlea*     If  defend* 
«at  or   "'iohol  prof  erred   each  e   recital  in  the  dead   ta  defcaBaat*a 
«>.fa  Joialaf  la  the  de&d»   their  pref^reaoo  ohouXd  laofteciately  hoTO 
been  laclcatod* 

22af<«ar;aat*  a  ootoioel  la  hio  *briaf  af  j^late*  aaieaa  flvo 
a«ditlonal  i>oiata»  vl^t     (I)  *it  raato  la  tho  aouad  logal  dlaoretloa 
of  courts  of   acuity  vliethar  or  aot   thoy  will  ooapol  apaclflo  prnit* 
ioYmmsMoi^   (2)  "a  eoapl^la^at  Moot  afi'lrar  tlroly  ahoor  tha  pcrforaajiea 
of  all  e<mdltl«aa  rc<«alrec  of  hl«|*   (s)  *a  eaart  of  o.ulty  hao  aa 
jftommr  to  ooapel  a  p^rtj  to  rcceiro  aoaethiag  dlffex«at  thaa  that 
ahieh  ho  hao  ooatraated   fori**   (4)   "a  porooa  lo  aot  «itltled  to  speclfie 


-X3- 

perl«rMUM»e  «b«o  Im  !»•  i8daa»<t   %h»  •th^-r  pari/  t»  tha  oeatrBet 
ti>  b«lleT«  b«  has  abitodanetf    Itf*  nad   (ft)   *«c:«lt/  will  BOi  {•rmm 
upon  a  vcadac  a  iitl«  te  •«■»!  r««dlljr  cisjMse  af  or  oa«  that 
aajr  expoa*  tain  to  lltlgntlon**      ^»  Imve  eo«alder«d   Uies*  polata* 
and   the  «Lrgun*a%»  aada  la  tlt«  effort  to  ehov   thalr  ampllertHlllty 
to  the  preoeat  OAaset  sjad   %r9  of  tho  oplnloB#  ua<5er  the  term  of 
the  eoatraei  &ad  cooelderlac  all   the  erloraoe   itttror'ueec) »   that   tlM 
decree  ojppoaled   froa  la  fnlly  auf^talaoo  V7  the   e-vlceaee  and   the  law, 
'•o   thlak  th)«t  It  clearly  appeaura   that  eoaplamaat   eufflclontlj 
yerforMK*.  s.11  of   th«   condltioas  of   the  contraet  which  were  rov.  aired 
of   it  I  t)wt  defeadinat  hgr  the  deort>«^  le  not  helug  coapellod   to  re* 
Ci>lve   aawethlag  dlffcr^itt   th«n  th' t  which  he  contracted   to  recelTOf 
th->t   coaplsiinant  did  nothlag  «hieh  would   lend  tief«?nd<vat   to  bellewo 
th«t  It  h«d  a^andoBOd   the  contraett  oad   that   the   title  nhileh  the 
court  dooreea   the  deft^adMit  ahall  r^eel-re*  ui^a  inpikiag  the  jagriMBt 
of  tho  aoaey  and  upoB  the  al^lag  aad  dcllr^ry  of   ths  notee  etad 
trust  deed   saentloBedt  la  ex^^ctly  tho  title  fete  eoatraote<3   to  roeeiwe. 
Ajai  w«  f«ill  to  aee  ho«   the   t&klBg  of   the   title  will  cxyoee  (tefea(ii:jit 
to  lltl«atloa« 

Oar  eoaelttolMi  le  %}b\t  the  decree  appeniled  fran  ahoald  ho 
afflmtd  aao   It  la  ee  ordered* 

AnrXMHUD* 
laiRBOo*  Tm  J»0  aad  SaaBlaa*  J«»  coaatKr* 


-fix- 

(?3!*n?"Xf     --©R-  til    'S&^^^JKS    't,3W 

«*«^  «tft  l»fA  *^r  i^«  »*«•«& 


^s*^'vl:'?:i  »e^>f5i  .?-itit-  ■'%tii 


■>ff    ^j.li'n;*-' 


,St0iifl!S|i  Jll    <!.? 


;:.3^11tt^ 


•"iwasKi*   *•*»   t«iiXf!./;-  ,^9«Rt«€ 


33  7M 


rjp.u«t.  i     2561= A,  608 


In  ft  4th  «l«ji«  A«tlOB  la  e«nty«ot»  cai^eaoeti  la  tlM 
nail«lpal  court  of  Chioa^a  ob     prll  JlXt  l^^iQt   to  rec«v«r  ite 
olai««c  T«l««  ($150)  of  tt  atrtalB  rugt  vhlcli  plxiniiff  aVovt 
"epicM^cr  d»  19ad»  dellTer«(i  to  def  en<  &ait   to  Im  eleaae^   Mi 
r«turB«at  uad  wkl«h  plalntii'f  cla.i8&«d  h«4  not  Wen  retiira«dl» 
bli«r«  WIS  a  trl«l  witbottt  a  Jury  9&  Mcgr  5«  i9£9»  rcBUltlng  la 
th€  eoart  finding  the  l»snoo  for   i>l&inllf  f*  aoftee!  U^  hlo  drtaacva 
•it  j: ISO*  uhS  entorlBg  jiadgBoat  in  tte^t  «bb  «g  last  dofeati-iat. 
Tho  pr«s«Bt  aj!>««l  foll0**rid^«     Plftlatiff  hmz  not  appeared  ar 
filod  a  brief  la  tbla  eourt* 

Plaiatlff  b.Xoae   trsiifiec-    la  kla  beluilf  •     Yior  d«fea«liint 
Mwarj  SttrrlSf   ita  presideat*  ^.md  Mialteel  Hiuaeha*  one  of  iio 
cirlT«re»  g&r*  iri«ti»oa  •     It  appecre  trmi  a  proponderaaao  of  tha 
evi  eaee  th- 1  about  Scpieaftter  i,  1928»  plaiatirf*8  vife*  at  tbm 
faaily  rffoideae««  Ho*  1351     outh  Arero   'raaaa*  Shioasa*  dfillTcrodi 
*■  ^^^Itoa  rag  of  aaall  value  to  another  of  <jef end  ^Bt*  n  criTera  ta 
be  e. leaned  by  defeadaat  aad  retaraed   to  aaid  reaideaaof   tkat 
<i«feBtf<uit  oleaaod   the   ran;*  ehxM^t  #:^»2S  far  the  ^»ork»  and  cm 
«ptealior  Idt  192t»  inauracted  HaaufliMi  ta  deliver  the    rug      at 
aaid  ree&deaaet  aad   to  eolX«ei  aaid  aiait  tl»Lt  es  vh?^t  day  WntwelM 
did  deliver  it   there   to  a  voMaa  vha  aaid  aha  aae  Irs.  Kerris  aaA 


v- 


\ 


2^fC£ 


»&9ii 


•  » 


:^  ^M  -^-mi    =-.*?« a  -  -  'f  »f??f^^*l    >^^#  Jijsi-aiftil  ^<ssiid  a*f 

^  ••  ■- ;      :;  x^'iii  id?  t-.    -      .■    5-'."u-    "'.^t'm  ist'itf ''^i--'.<  .'•:/    ^r-, .    >^akji«»iiAi4'4r  iti;>-.a 


colIe«t«<r  from  her  said  avm  im  curr«Bcy#  «moh  he  turiMti   la  at 
drf«ad^at*e  •ffloef  aad   th^t  it  was  aoi  imill  tiM  latter  p^.tt  ef 
Mnroh*  19a9t    (more  tJiaa  six  aonths  after  enld   traasnctioae)   thai 
plnintiff  eon  S^irria  at  dcf  endABt' a  office  mxi  first  anfie  the 
elftia  tht  anid  rag  had  not  beea  re  turned  •       fter  eoaaideriag  all 
the  eTideaoe  «e   thi^ak  it  clenrly  appears  Ihat   the  tug  ia  ^aestiea 
<-'«»  nr't   thf  THilu«hl<?  Ofieatal   rag^  as  ol^Jjied  hy  ^laiatlTf  aMd 
th/  t  dsfead^mt*  after  clonala^^  it*  reluraeu   it  to  plaiall:ff  *a 
reoi(!rnoe9  vhere  It  orl^laull/  h.>.u  heea  receiTe<l»     la  oar  opJLuiaa 
tha  JaAgnsat  asaiaet  defcacnat  emnot  staad  aad  aaat  he  reToraeti* 

TQt^cmi!  rry^.\:zn-  'ti?h  ^Tarims  o?  fact. 
B«rae«9  ^»  J*»  aad  QetaOLaa*  J«t  eoaear« 


•I* 

#js^^   (»i5aW«w?>c««T--     ;  :^vi  :frf#.'k.     ,>.   Afjftfc*  "sicisrl  ,§c<?i  «>:  > 


■J  it  \        -■  -.     rf  -  n    •.  f  s 


-3- 

337M 

TmROQ  07  f  ACT* 

r«  fiai  ft*  aa  ttlilaute  fact  la  this  cm*  ihtit  Uw 
r«ff  la  qaeattoa  «r«  oa  oepiovAicx  13*  Xtaa*  rttttni*^  t« 
plalatlff* 


-«- 


9^^  irMi  tiUM'^  %Jbiii  mk  #0jBt  ^i^xk^Sa  fstssi  »&  Imlt  «  • 

.f   'i%^»*#'i-*^  it3*s.iii»  «.t  set 


ccmjpoR/Ticaf* 

y 

TMo  »pr*«ttl  1j»  :pr«f!«'<?«te<l    to  »«ver»f  ft  Ju<5t:r;<^nt     for 
#VM  rmidvree  m(r.lB$>tt  ti«f#ii<!irmt  V  th«  munilcir«Ll  court  «f  nhlc-  ^io 
9n  April  \t%  l!lv9#   l0  an  motion  to  r^coTer  r«9%  oXaiJMd  to  ^«  dn* 
M  twp  written  l»fj«#»,  •^cplrlnc  tn  JpjMi'ryt  19;f«,  for  t«o  \'t^rt 
fl»er  oAjinlnlnir  ««p<^rin«nl.»  la  »/^Jotnln>;  ^ull<^ lai^n ,  lo^r.ted  ab 
Bryn  Mfttrr  ftTenuOt  '^hiOHgd*     PXaln&iff  It  o  not  oa^ftretf    iiii  oppoar- 
ftseo  or  filed  a  tiriof  In  thio  ooiurt* 

Tho  ostlos  WHO  OfMvsonood  on  ."^vooMlM^r  %t  1927*      Xa  pXalB* 
tiff*s  fttt«iido4   atatesiont  of  oXala  oopioa  of  tko  1««looo  aro  attaohod 
audi  aado  a  p'ri  thereof.       Thorff  la  a  prorlsloa  ia  each  loaoo  that 
*L««Aor   ahaXl  furnish  to  Looooo   *  ^  In   tho  radio  tor  o  a  rosiaonablo 
(oiounl  of  hot  victor  ho'^it  or  atoaa  heat  &t  reaoonahlo  hourot  If  thto 
woaih«r  and   teMpernturo  rov^ulre  li»  fro«  tho  lot  dajr  of  Ootohor  until 
the  ^'VOth  dny  of  April  In  the  ouoie?dlB,i  y«nr  for   the  uoo  of  LcoBOe." 
Plaintiff  charged   thdt  defendtxnt  ^d  net  paid  che  nottthly  r*nt  of  .90 
for  c.-^oh  np/'rIiMnt  for  the  months   of   iHepteabert  Ootobert   "OYetdier 
ajm  i*e»nber«  19:<29,  and  Jtnu^rjt  1926>   and   th/^t  oht  «no  indebted  to 
It  la  the  total  oua  of  j^toO.     i^feadaat  entered  her  appo<!iraaoot 
deaaadttd  a  jury  trial  nad  filed  on  affldarlt  of  aerlto  ciaiala«  a 
eoaotraetlYe  evlotioa  ao  a  defcaee.      .ho  «lXo«o<5   th>tt  oho  had  lenaod 
both  npf^rtaento  for  the  purpo»«»  v;«ll  kaoKa  to  the  leaaort  Of 
canductlag  a  rooalnic-houoe }   th  t  ehe  h«d  hoen  coapelXed  to  ▼acate  and  did 


v 


h9fU 


■l,'3f.-  -  ■.v„i,.;>   V-«^      tAjrvW- 


J  G  ^• 


•i%»il9«ii 


Ai^^  9«r  e6  bmalmX^  4mm:  %&vfsimi%  9i  js«>i;#«-j»' iw  Jul  ^t'^tx  t^x  X^r^^A  at 
MM«  <iwi  'saTf  e»^<&i  t"'T£'jL.sjiaiH'St.  eti  sisi'il^txs  ,«e«wl.  «i»4^iT(«'  ov;>  m 

fl^nii  -t^ii^^v^^  %»  ii;»!!)  ^'SX  Mid  mistiX  nil  »^liip*t  f$'m$.mt>(^m»*f  ^n«  'f^iUm^yv 
fe»Bf3(«X  &ji«i  »4»«   «««**    iw(»j|»XX-     -'^  -.cjl.J?.iv'«-    ■i:'vij^ju%$ma»at 


•a- 

T«r.«<%|«   iih«nR  on  0<;%o1»«r  I5»  l9JiZ,  b«ciMiit   (1}   pl&iulirr  huC   fall«i 

rtA«onftbl9  h««i   in  ibt  r<»4iln%»ra»  ut^fA    (2)  pX^iallff  h&d  ji;»«rMiil«4 
%h9  ¥aa«n«nt»   first  woA  sttecBtd  fl»or«  af  th«  pr'taai»cs#  ittMienMaili 
til*  upMrtacniA*   to  b«>o(ka»  iafo^tcKS  T<itii  iftlc«»  rvachos*  Mu^a  toM 
▼emln»  ^'ihleh  h&d   i«T«tril«><>   thA  np  .?ta«s%»  to  such  &n  cxt«nt  aa  to 
nik«   th«»  untTihnbltevblo.  nsuS  i)lHlntiff   fJLtli«ugh  re%«oato<i  tmA  fallotf 
•ml  r«tru»«(*   tr>  e.?.tcrKlnAte  th«  p«ote$  on!  llu\t  boc<itt««  of   theoo  fc^eta 
her  reo»«:re  lux;'  »»OTed  oat  «»£   ahu^  nlco  hcxi  beon  eoAipeliod   to  moto. 

On  ^oir««)Mir  20»  198®*   Mut  cattttc  tovlag  0AAl6€i  for  trial 
ond  ^«tfoRfii»at  net  np^tr^riniif  fuoh  j^rocee&inKb  wor»  2it><i  »o  r«»ttltod 
In   tb«  tancry  of  ^  r^raiet  and  Jud^jvcat  A4;:.ixiiki.  dttf*B(liUlt  :for  ^too. 

itnin  30  4l^3r9  «f«fen^nSt  api>oiK3rf4  fuaul  aoved    tkat  ih«  jodgwoat  k« 
T«e4»ted»  fUKS  th9  notion  vtaa  ooatitato4  frm  tlae  ta  tiM«  uji&ia. 
A9VU  U»  1929* 

A«  to  th«  proae^dis^a  oa     p?ll  16»  Id^^t   th«  oon&oa  law 
record  discloaoe   th:it  Ofi  sotloii  of  tfiaiatlif   tbo  court  Taoat'-d  asld 
JttdfK^nt  of  *<{oreis1l07  aO»  1929,  tout  finally  oatoroc*  a  now  JucipKoat 
agalaot  def«>nd4fi%  fox  $720.     Tuo  bill  of  OJi'j«ptioas  cioolooot  ia 
Ottb!7taR««   tliAt  tlio  oause  oaao  oa  for   trial  upon   tlut  aerita  bofaro  a 
^uryt  thnt  plulntiff*!)  at^oxnoy  muotf  Uia  opeaia;<  otatoaoat  to  tlM»« 
tHat  defond<iait*a  nttomoy  thoa  oatliB«c   lo  tHe  jury  d«feadaBt*a 
defoaao  of  coa«tructiTO  oYictioBt  a«  atatod  in  lior  aff i:  nvit  of 
Bcrital  thr^t  th«r«ii;il^n  tho  eoaurt   otat«<^   (aot  in  tlio  prtsoaoo  of 
tti«  jury)   that  a<?ithor  of  tko  eavooo  ao  tiwroia  eauacrattc*  oyob  if 
praTod*  would  i^iTo  &h«  rigUl  to  dirfeadaat  *ia  broak  tho  1«>  no*" 
aad  refttood   to  allow  defendant   to   iatrottuoo  any  «Ti(  oaoo  (altliMifli 
apparently  oho  t^  aa  rendy  oo  to  do)t  th^t   thorvupon  def<>Bd!ait*a 
attoraoy  otatod  thnt  defem^'^at  had   otlll  <tnotnar  d«foaao  to  plain- 
tiff *a  a.ctienf  Tiit*,   tJiflt  innodiat«ly  prior  to  tho  tiau  of  defend* 


«»  ail  in*  :?  f^^bf^'wit   ^«*(  .rticrxfv 

,9 rim  9^  lN»XJ:*«iaii»»  mi:  yrim  ^Jiif  «^mio««  ««4 

♦<f  #p»«S!?!l5at    •       ■     ■■    ■■>«^'^^-*'  •'!^--   fee-  .^tdii*? 

itf/il  &Q6-j«Bei.<  d<&j?   4fira€X  t^X  Xl«^>^   '.  "O&'Sf  i(wC;^  »{»  s/' 

Se-^tBfiiQvi  ^na  tu  ^»t^t@s  \:XX$(«tXt  $a4^  t%^^t  i&&  utt'tAB^Tttf^  T«  fn««mbirt 

"id  i.'-  :^t  «i  &c^li!^^  -.i;,.  Srva  sir i tf-wtf-'jf ;* «nt' :■  Te*  aunt t»l^ 

< ..    aia*   jTjRV^tf  Orf*    ifif'..u,-i     .       ..    ...,,,_ ,  :.  ^H, 


-3. 

va%*m  ▼ae'^tlon  •/  th«  pr««lsla  iht  parties  rerbally  9.gg99A   tbat 
if  (^^t^n^mnt  vrould   i>U7r»adttr  %h»  pr«Bi««»  ■)!•  woala  ^  r*lMtft«4 
fr«B  ajqr  farther  liability  uadur  ttur  lca««»,  aaA  pr«»i>ttt«<}  aa 
MMflMlB«nt   i»  <l*f«wl«st*«  affitfRTlt   of  ■•rlts  »«t&Ui«  forth  Buck 
addltltaal  d«f«»««{   th^t  t;ii«  ooart  lefuoect  to  all9v  auoii  awtnoMnit 
to  bt  filc<$>   iitAtiai;   thnt  said  proo«iitftlil«n  e««o   "to*  lato' |  and 
that  thereupon  ta«  court*   upea  plaintiff**  attonay  ntfitiny  that 
tb«  foraor  Tcvdlot  and  Juc^gaoat  of  6900  vaa  oxoco^Iyo  aad   that  h» 
oaly  w«]|%td  «B0  for  $V£tO»  ontort<i   ttao  ^tuiuwiat  MppoaXor*'   froa* 

^ter  raTl«»>iAci   tha  prooaat  traaaorlpt  vo  art  of  tho 
opinion  ttant  the  jutfgaant  ahoold  not  Oo  allovotf   to  ataad»   that 
thort   K&ould  bo  a  a9«  trial  of   th«  oaoo*  aad  that  d#f«adeat  ahould 
be  t?iTen  an  opportunity  of  preueatin;;  to  another  jury  OTi<ieaoo  ia 
support  of  h«r  def^noo  of  construe; tire  OTietiea*  hoeuuee  of  either 
or  Iteth  of  the  grouada  ao  pleaded  #       e  think  it  eloarly  a^^pearo 
that  tho  trial  oourt  erroneoualy  did  not  allow  defeacaat  to  prooood 
with  her  defeaoe  btoauoo  of  a  aiocMioeptioa  of  tho  law.     Ia  Lawloy 

▼•  H££att£&»  2^3  ^^^*  '^>P*  ^^'*  ^*^»  ^^  ^*  "*^*     "'^  ^*  *^*  ^^ 
wall  fi8'btle<?  l:^n  th  t  faiXare  of  a  Xaadloy«i  to  faxaioh  heat  ia    an 
apartment  iaaeoorcaaoo  ^ith  tho  t«nBa  of  tho  lease  anouaia  to  a 
construct  lire  eTietiOBf  which  Ju&tifiee  the  teaaat  in  ahead  oaiag  tho 
prealfioe**      (See»  aloo*  Bftraway  C0m  y»  Itaaoht  «4   111.     i>F»  Std,  S8S| 
TboKOfen  ▼.  Heine r»|Mtn«>  307  111.  App.  HO.)      Jid  ao  to  tho  ooadi- 
ti#a«  ao  pleaded*  lieoauoo  of  aAee*  roachee*  tfto«t  the  caoc  of  Barnor^ 
»o^;.ty  Co«  Y.  isaaik*  ^^  '•  Y»     ttVP*  1©60,  lOSlt  io  la  point.     It 
ia  there  oaidt     **Ter7  l^rce  nuahera  of  people  IIto  ia  teaottoat  hauoooi 
apariaoat  houaoo*  and  apnrtaeat  hotolo  ia  thie  city*     ::aoh  ioaaata 
hoTOf  and  eaa  have*  control  oaly  of   tho  Inaxdo  of    their  ovfn  liaitod 
deaiaod  prealaea*     Conditlfflaa  unkaova  to  tho  etncieat  c««/^<«  la«  aro 
thus  orentf^d.     ?hla  ro^uirea  elactioity  la  the  applieatloa  of  the 
rinclpl««   thereof*       -^  intolerahlo  caaditioa*  which  tho  teaaat 


■>4'** 


itejii   t  **ii'.r>».jf    ^r-.'-r'-    '«R.>xir*   ^t^ji  ■•?'■.  ,-*!«•>>*'>.■*,.    f?JS  •• 


jU^iC  «!»««  ♦^r^;-^  *4fXX   ?^*' «ite-    - -'   -i.i,..  ■"•'•■■'■   "'^ 
-•►IJ?!**©   «i(«di-  »*  »m   *«..      (-Oil  •<i«jA   «JL.,- 

^.        •■•  .l;>r:;  at  **  «Xti»i   «■■-*<-»   w,..,.^'     v.    v 


8tfai<«*i^  Mofc".-     *^^l-   t  .•...,/   ........... 


"  -r'     *■'♦■.-.>■->- .V J, ft 


-4« 

ntither  oaa0*»  nor  or\B  r«Bcc(y,   rveais  to  at  imrraato  tho  ■yplloailoB 
of   the  dootrino  of   conntruetlTo  tTlctioa,"     >jui   It   is   tbo  lav  of 
thlo  ctato  ttaKt  tlw  «ao»tloB  of  tonHtruotiro  oTiotioii  la  aa«  ©/ 
faot»  tiep9Mtns  *ipoa  the  eireiaaslwioos  of   the  p'^rtleulftr  oneot  and 
lo  to  ko  4et«niliiod  liy  m  Jury.     (KlnjflZ  ▼•  -JapcrMia.   329  111,  78,  aO| 
GUbayp  y.  Hocfol^.   390   111,  459,  464.) 

7or  th<f  recBons   Indloated   tho  Juc^^Beiit  1»   r«T<?r«o<l  *b4  ite 
OK«oe  roMoadod* 

BanMOf  ?•  J.,  and  'looiaaat  J*»  oonour* 


^h 


T.  f  *  ,     •>  .    T 


53ai« 


a  ottrporrxtloB» 


^Z^ 


afp: 


COOK  COUKTY. 

256  I.A.  609 


•  JOCTIC£  aBIDLST  ])6LXVSK£r  TlK  0.'X£XO«  OT  TSC  COTS^'X. 


PlalBCitf   9U9C   drf$Q<f.aBt   to  recover  th*  »«■  •£  $S«6» 
clalHWdl  to  b«  da»  lor   the  i'oliTtrirj*   19k9t   rest  of  a  oioro  at 
So.  1135  kllvatt]t««  aTOBdO*  in  pls-intiff  *a  buiU iiiK  la  Chieb^o* 
by  Tlrttto  Of  a  wrlt^on  leraso  of  the  pr^mtoofF.  conEeoBoinc  SoToateer 
If   X925t  axid  ruimln,    for  a  period   of   t«B  y«ar»i   aaA  olgaed  bj  tlMi 
fMirtioo.     Luzirif  3.^igr*  198f,   a  trial  sttt  bad  &ef«r«  a  Jttrj*  roaultlog 
in  a  Ter<£iet   in  pI&iBtiff*o  fai^r  far  $226,  apon  vhloh  jud^ont    la 
ttoat  muBi  w  t!  or.t(pr<yc*   lur-lnst  <i<>f<>iM$KBt »  anc*   tho  pr^eeat  wi-'poal 
followed. 

>'laltttlff*9  d«>cla.r<iti«B»   is  atdiiioB  to  tho  cobmom  ooante» 
eo«8isi«45  fff  a  opecifU.  eouat   iB  «hieh  a  copy  of  the  lea««t   tegothor 
vlth  a  ridrr  aBt   a  fleer  plan  of   tli»  store  attaek*4   th«r«to»  voro 
net   forth  ir.  full*     to  th»  4eoletT='ai«B  (iof«ailaait  file     a  ploa  of 
tho  gonoral  iovBo  nai  also  n  aotior,  umdtx  sectlda  46  of   tiM  -tTactieo 
A«t»  of  apceial  aattor   latoadod   to  ^  relied  upon  ao  a  defoaao*  7h« 
notioF   r.t&to^    ia  omJ^otaBoe  tluit  plaintiff t  <Jttriac  the  aouths  of 
Xeeefl^cr,  192A»  and  J<i.aaary»  1929»   fulled  an£  rofitaod   to  fuiraioh  heat 
to  th<^  store*    la  necorc'iuice  Bith  elnuoe  icth  of   tho  leneo*  and  ttet 
in  coaae'^aeaee  dsf*Bd4Bt  oaa  ooB^olIed   to  aad  di<i  vaoato   th«   ktere* 
and   auirv«ad'9red  po«.'><ta9i«B  thereof*  ea  or  f^iheut  FehruF^rj  !>-'«  Ii2y« 
£uhae(«u«nLlj  i^laiatiff  filed  a  *replie^tioii*   to  tho  offeot   that  ho 

«aa   *n^t   i^iillj  of   the   eh-^rge  of   lallare  to  proride  heat.** 


<; 


^saix 


^>-    A-,?o>^«ii  ^  1t«  iis---  •;;>-  m-i    *w*  »*a  ®  -^.l^Ia 


iSSi53i"K« 

.a 

.4 

.  v>»    W 

liTiu'     •ti9ll%m% 

4»lfr»*T  M   SSi 

■     ii 

.^^sg^XiOl 

i  ?*vi:l 

X.--^.i?»q,- 

"^^  .«$x%  £$  >#xii  ^|tt«tef»i«&  j^i^««~%»i;s»«fi^  9A& 

,«*fejl^   r,rfj   »tij©srr   !vlb   ton  **    h«ll»<»«rc  jj 


-a* 

riw  l«A«t  1«  4RUd  J«au»r7  26*  1»:^:S»  k«f«r«  plaintiff** 
bttllifUMi  hAd  )>••»  conntruetetf.     After  th«  »t«r«  wmt   r««<lj  for 
•o«tt9«a«/  d»f«iki««l  took  pooc««f«l9a  and    tlMr««.fl»r  for  ■•▼tral 
/•art  04ntlaii««ftly  jwld   the  ■onr.hly  r^at  up  t*  and   Ineludlnc  Jamuurjt 
1929*       For   thtt  flret  elt^hteon  Roa^lia  or  the  period   tha  atoro  wmm 
ooeupiad  \>y  eiefendnat,  and   thOB  b.r  rnrloua  a\r^-toiMuito  of  dafoadmii* 
Tho  laal  aott-iwnaat  nr^n  Jahnmm  ^itt*  vfao  t,sx,k  poaaaettioo  atoo«% 
90T<r»bar  10,  X92d»  undar  a  alx'^ontho*    v^rlkteft  laaaa  frooi  defend- 
ant t  and   jraMilBad  In  th«  stor*  until  January  *:4»  I9i^9»  vtMB  ah* 
■OTOd  out  boeaaaet  aa  ah*  tentifl^d,   th«   etora  *•&•  too  cold.* 

ay  tli»  6tk  «latt»«  of    tha   lenae  It   ia  provided   thrvt  tho 
toMtnt   (dofendaat)  "shall  hnTe  th«  rl^ht,   to  vaikv  alier-.tianat 
dlTiBioB8»   changoa  and   InproT^nen&a   :;o  ami   rcaodel  the  pr«nlaaa» 
ln»id*  iind  outaldt.  at  ita  awn  ^xp^nne.,*  aud  thi^t  ihe  ianajit  "nay 
renoT*  and    tc.lce  for   its  o«n  use   the  pr«s«nt  front   In  ooaplatiag 
aaid  renedellng  nnd   i»prov(»«i<-ate.*'     "^  the  icth  clnuaa  th*  loa»or 
(plaintiff)  *agxoao  to  furnish  hor.t  to   ihf  draicei^   preaiooe  curing 
all  nanthfi  vhan  aiuat  vony  be  aecewenry  vrlthout  ?o»t   to   tha  tenant** 
0/  the  4th  clauaa  of   the   rider  It   la  pr orided  tha\  the  loaooa'o 
taking  poeaoaaion  of  the  3tore*ro9n  *  shall  conatituto  an  attorMooat 
and   approTal  of  tha  loBiiOr   hatln«r  ewde  a  suhntnatial  cui^piianoo 
«ith  tho  roi^ttireflicBto'*  aa  aho  n  on   said  attached  plab*      r-jad  on  tho 
plan  io  tiM  vrittOB  atntenifnt   th'  t  tho  r«diotora  &h«kll  bo  inatallod 
"whore  doeignated  by  tenant**     By  tho  9th  clmco  pemiasion  ia  eiTon 
to  the   loaaee   to  aob-lot  all   or   irOy  portion  of   the  pr«Aiaaa»   sxeept 
aa  to  certain  naaod  huaiBOaaea«  wlihout  ohtalnlaiC  cenaont  of   tho 
loasor* 

On  Vohru'ary  ia»  1989 »  d«f«^n4iAat»  br  itr  u^ent*  Dame  11 » 
notlfiod  plaintiff  in  ^ritinf;   th<  t  It  had  rocated   the  proaiooo  bo* 
oanae  of  plain i;iff*a  *fnllare  to  furaioh  he&t*   in  aecordaxioo  with 
the  tcraa  of   tho   lease.      At  the   e^ae  tlno  iornall  left  the  kojo 


•«• 


*  1.  ■ 


t    -4t.?s*fc'^' 


*vi;'; 


*;' 


a. 


t^s^mm  a^nsa 


■  -Ml 


tsttmio'  ■■aw^i^^x:  .    vfl' 


.",.:*;    l-i'»  J' 


''    fc*i7';fo^ 


-3- 

▼«rblet  is  wmaiftriitj  agAlnst   the  vel^lit.  of   *Jic  (*Tl<^esec  on  the 
<iii«»t.iQn  iirh«th*r  rlftintifi  cvaim^   the  aoethc  sf  ii>ec«aber»  19£t:*  smd 
Jawiajrjr*  JL028*  h«id   furttlvheci  heat   t9  th«   «t»r«  «>s  ref^oirei^  by   th« 
iMuic*     Ca  thla  qtt- ^tian  the  «Tlces«fi  was  cMifllctias*     ?laiBtlff 
■atd*  cut  A  jwri^fc  fnci»  c&i^e  h7   lBtr«d«clHs   th«  I«ft»t«  «lih  »tt«ch«i 
paper**  ajMi  ehMrlAfi,  defeaesisi'e  peesee&ioa  aaa  p«j»emi  of  the  aeathlj 
remt  fer  %  perle^  of   ecver&l  /tarst  ma/d  aXao  ahovlag  thbt  there  «ae 
due  fr«K  it  the  rent  for  Tthrue^rj^  19:i£tl»  aaeuAtlag  t«  iZZb*     There^pea 
deieartaat*  to  saiAt&in  its  ciefeAse  of  couetraotiTc   #victioa»  «m  stated 
is  its  snid  netiee*  iatrecueuc    the  teK;.iKoay  of  TArious  witHeeeee 
tesdinfi  to  ahov  that  during  Asid  ifMithe  attfrieiemt  heat  had  aot  hoea 
furaishi.'t'  to  the  store*  th&«  ftOK«tlw»8  the  rK^iators  vere  cold*  and 
that  the   teiBp(,rr.tiir«   of  the  store  aevirr  vaa  above  Sa  or  59  degveeot 
7ahr«tfheit*  et««     Vlalatlff's  evi&eaee   in  rcbuvLal  dit>closed  that  the 
building  «i.e   '*.hree  etori^e  in  height  and  hac  six  oert^ieo   stores  oa 
the  suroet  leveJi  uxtu  o^ct^iei^  ruooia  ^boTef   thav  Ui»re  vas  a  feneral 
hee.ving  i«laat  for   thu  entire   tuilcin^*  fraa  «tuea  tgr  proper  pipes  heat 
aaa  eflnT«ye£   to  all   stores  ami  roons*  incladiait:    &hc  btore  in  qaeawioni 
tlMit  our  ins  s«^id  nonths  ;hs:  hcr.ttiaf  pl£ijit  vao  in  conatKnt  op«r':ition 
ana   in  eh-^rge  of  an  ea^perieueec   j  aitor*  ete*|  auB    ihat  no  oeaplaiats 
as  to  the  heai  furnisheo  hac  \»een  aa^e  by  the   tenant e  of  sold  other 
etor^o  or  ot    the   v^.-tbib  ivbove*     ^laintix'£*»  eY-iceiioe  xurther  dlsuloseo 
th%t  if   the   atere   in  ciuestioa  »«s  at  tiaies  uncunl  uttzibl>'  cold   it  vas 
due  to  d«fe«aiMBt*it  cvn  acte  after  plaintiff  hat^  inatalitro   radisvors 
in  the  store  as  originally  direoted  by  cefeacianti  that  defendant  had 
reakod«lled   vhe   etore*  had  renoTOd   the  original  frnit  and  r^plaeed  It 
with  a  eifferent   sae  (therehy  inore> .^ing   the   epace  to  be  heetec)  and 
h^  replaecd   the  front  one  of   %he   ti*o  radiators  ia   (;he   i^tore   ia  snoh 
a  position   that  the  sap  ply  pip^?   therebo  «as  narte  aaeh  losger*  aed  the 


iS&  i^»mi»    !>Si.ffMa3:»    JSJtat     -m^    S^    vja^»  i>jtf 


1 


•is*  of   tlw  plp«  -n^m  wm6it  roa»icerr^bIy  fl«all«!r»  UMV^ksir  #l 
tlw  aiMUttb  •!  st«aa  ooav«||ro<J   to  ih?  r«cdlAt*r;   iiQd   thc-*t  thr  rff ieioafgjr 
•f    w)H   zadiator  hatf   X'urthcr  b«cn  ytt<itt0^6   by  <oT«rrlB#  n  portifsn  of 
it  bjr  ft  woeileA  nlMlf  and  l»y  fc  curtvJLa.     Canst iA<»riR(:  lill  the  •Ti<l«ae* 
«•  thiak  thct  it  amAl  «u»tAl»a  t2i*  v«r<)i«t« 

Ci»uiic*l  fitrth^r  aOBtilld   t]sk".t  Uu*  emacri  «rr«d   !■  RCaittiBC 
saoh  «f  j^aiatlff  *»  evidfrMi*  in  rebut  t«I  »«  is  last  abers  satlijia^ 
1»«o&«s«»  it   is     csAtrar/  ts   who    cnB«  19 s  md*  l^r  ths  plsadiacs**   sMi 
«a«  a  'sarprias*"  to  cttf^aAuat.     ?h«  nx-^savst  1st  as  «•  mde?st«ad  itt 
ttet*  iasioaieh  a«  4<pf<rwSaUftl  iu;d  ^irea  aaf.ie*  un4«r  its  >lfta  sf 
tbs  gen«rai  is&iM  af    Uu   «]NreiaLl  JBR&ters  af  o  •f  ease   It  wimld  tpXj 
«pau  vis«»  9lal»tifX*d  i&llux<&   to  fttroisH  h«at,   ste«,  awl  as  plaiaiiff 
kad  fils«  a  **r»i^idn&iaii^   ceayin^  su^b  f^^ilaroy  th«  sole  i«««o  «aa 
uhsthsr  plaia&iJTf  )m4  faiXec    to  furai«li  he^tt  e>-nt}  he   «tasul<!  not  bars 
\»«sa  Allo)r«<&   &9  intT%4v^cc  &nj  ftridmss  t^^iirtta;;  to  shs«  say  "sxouss* 
fax  aueb  iV-ilmrs*     la  svur  s^irtion  tbs  cmttfrntion  sac   nrti^isiieBi  ars 
slibaat  sabsiABtiivL  a^-^rit.     V-^f^vdsJOt  ^w*  aotlc?  cuidsr  Utc  st^tats 
of  its  s^oial  4«f«[ui«t  la  sabstaaec  thai  it  v^.e  ast  liable  far  Ubs 
rcat  sastf  for  W»fta.i&«   it  ha^  bees  c<«ttra«iiT*ly  «Ti«ts4  from  tba 
stare  beenus*  of  ^lulBsiff*(i  fK  llnre  to  fnmlsb  boat  la  TioXbtiaa  of 
tbc  terouB  of   ilx»  !«»««&•     To  *re;>llt)<^tien*    to  this  aotio*  was  aec«ss4ry 
or»  iadoe^t  perait^ciblo*        Xa  npeaXiag  sf  naeb  notice  aader  tiM 
statute  our  .>  prcae   .'ouri»  in  ^^11';^  r*  Vy>lley  1  tlsaal  ^&ak«  127 
HI*  532»  33a,   s&tdi     *X»  r«J^l/*  rUher  of  rcvlealon  or  ctsaiol,  of 
tbo  plniatiir*  is  rs^ttirsd*  »x  perxiiseibl*   tbsr«to»  sad  ao  issvst 
oither  of  la«  or  of  f&«t»  civa  b«  r&ler^e   t)>er«on.*'      (Cltiag  Bargwia 
Y,  Baboock.    U.  ill.   29(     Hint  ▼.      fiXt   k«   ill.   dd. )      auc    in     hits  ▼. 
loarftuia,  204   ril.     pp«  S3»  9i!^»  it  is  s&idi     "fas  ao&ioa  sails  far 
ao  aa^vcr  frsa  tbs  plaiatiff*  sad  no  issas  of  lri«  or  f^et  can  b« 
aa^     vrpoa  it*  aad  ao  (cuestion  srisoa  uatil  the  d^fgaditat  offsra 
eridsaca  to  sapj;>ort  it  oa  the  trial*     If  the  ao^ice  it,  th^a  fottad 

d«fcetiTO  or  does  aat  state  a  good  defoaaot  the   eourt  will  aat 


•>• 


•*si>vt«-w  self  efti;.  ;js£i5  ilulff^  3» 


-1  ■&»«??  id  ?i  3&s^^  "fee  jEftim 


Slii''W>'£l    l^^tal^Mi   ^fe- 
te «el.'   XAjf  ist   'j'ssff  j?s*a'--: 


»^  ft.-?.-'  sm<.i  to 


S»t«ji>"l  At-a*.:^    -ii    it^i*  v*»    >5i4ia    1. 


'1^  Mli 


■  rii.is££.--.*t^.M'' .25  '"^^  ••'■^  «©^tf     ;•*»»• 


-8- 

■4«1&  cTl<l?ao«  uRfitr  it**     Oa  the  %rt«l  of   th&  frecfrat  ••••  tb» 
ImrdvB  ->:iu  u^on  tt^feadaat  %•  7roT<;  snft  naiiitfilJi  iin  d«feflia«  of 
o««atrttctiT9  CTlotl«it   ma  (niMincd    in   tlie  n«%io«t  ftw^   ^«  i^lOiilr 
iliAt»  vm^tT  tte  pl»)tdl«c«»  )ilalatlfr  tuU  tlM  rtcHt   in   rvteii.^a 
tc  proe}««e  «Tldono«  tv-^dljif  to  ebft^  aor  oalv  th»t  Ho  1m«  no^«  ffcil«4 
to  faralR)!  kf^t   to  tho   st^re  <nriBs  6«iU  Months*  hj  n9^»M  f»f   bho 
aiMtt  hcitliLg  pX&nt  tend  oonn(H*tJja^  pll»eo  9^n  hmftirnt  bat  aIso  tki<&(» 
If  aa  Istmf  lol«nt  Auovnt  of  h»- 1  ciam  fron  tlw>  r*dlc-:tora  i»  tte 
•torst  it  ii<i8  tho  roft^t  of   uHa    :  ets  af  <i<>foBe(Knt  ttai  its  sab-^oBB-aia 
oac*   act  of  plaUt;;JLff *3  scto*       aa    >^«  o^llaot   o«*  taa«  4iofei^;^4K^  could 
baTO  >•««  varpTl9«d  Hy  j«j^r  of  jklmtatUTf  *»  eirldewje. 

Cai^l;«tnt  %l99  is  aa^p  a'    ',H«>  i<rivia^  of  t.be    Stli  iaetructloa 
offcr«cJ  by  jl>iliil,l:  ♦'.     Ta  tIish  of   iHo  t^rao  of  ttoo  X«a3«  aki  of  all 
ihfi  t'vl<s«ace  ^?  do  now   t.hink  %>v?  neiYia^  of  tao  lAdtruatiea  ->-«.»  orror* 
Bor  do  yf«  thivik  tiLit  the  coart  errM  la  r«fafilaM;  to  ffrnat  ^«»feaauiH*a 
ttotloa  for  <i  a^r  trial. 

Tho  jHdcatat  of   tho  (^ironit  oaart   B)M>al4  bo   Affiraoa  oad 
it   is  so  ordered. 

Barnes^P*  J>«9     &ad     otuilaiit  J«>   coaoar* 


'  .^'.;"5h'^i.    ^c    si     ?l 


#.-^^-j*-ie*  «.^  ..ST^eana^S 


y  7. 


33028  •  '         ^'^ 


PKOPLK.    Ate,   M  £•!•    ISADUHl 
A.    HSUTCU. 

Plaint! fl*  wbA  Appell**, 

▼•• 

CITY  Oy  CHICAGO    «t   «!., 


Ai    mfM  CIRCUIT   C c«RT, 


I       /  CCA»   COUIiTY. 

'^oul.A.  609 

Ml.  JU3TICK  osiQurr  mx.in»SD  ras  oni^ioii  ojf  thx  coort. 

Ott  Jaly  II.  192<i«   th«  r«lator   Ill«d  a  p«ti  tion  for  a 
■aadas^ua  In  th«  eireuit  eourt  of  Cook  oooMty  against   tho  City  of 
Chioaeo,   its  ieayor.   City  Comptroller  and  City  Troaouror,   tho  smi* 
^•rs  of  its  City  Counoil,  (ioorgo  K.  Ityo,    ita  Chi  of  Inspector   in  tho 
dopart^oit  of  "StoaM  Boil«rs,   Stewi-i  and  Cooling  Plants  sad  Saoko 
Abat«a«nt,*  and   tho  ftoahers  of  ita  Ciril   3«rTioo  Cosjoission.     Aft«r 
aoirJing  numtroas  allegations  of  fact  he  prayed  that  dof oii dan ts causa 
hlai  to  bo  raatored  to  th«  oi'i'ieo  or  position  of  Junior  KoohanioaJL 
tecinoor  (frota  whlela  ho  «aa  unlairfgLlly   retsovod  on  January  X7,  19 2B) 
and  to  all  th9   iutios  vid   sBoIuRenta  of  tho  position   *'by  vhateTor 
0«s«  it   is  no«  or  h«r«aft«r  asor  bo  kriovn,   and  to  «h.«te-ver  deportacent 
•  f  tha  aunicipal  govornaant  of  Chioose  its   oxseution  cLuy  ba  alio- 
oatod,"  in   eonneetion  with  *iKOk«  control   ojr  aaoiia  abais»ant,   or 
both;*   that,   ao  long  as  tho  City  contiuuoa   tc   ooiploy  aon  to  die- 
ehargo  audi  duties,   and  so  lon^  as  he  is  ready  toid  ablo   to  dis- 
ohargo  th«si«  dofendaiits  ke«p  hi£i  in  auoh  posiiiois:   that   they  eauao 
to  bo  appropriated  sufficient  funds  to  pay  hiK  hia  aalary  (|2,640 
par  y^ar)    froa  January  17,   19  28,    to  Doeoieber  31,  I92u,    and  thoro- 
after;    that   thoy  laako  all  nooosoary  ro turns  in  payrolls  and  oar- 
tificutQa  rettuired  to   sntitle  hi&  to  roooiTo   sudt  salary  froM 
January  17,   1923,  up   to   tn*   tiae  of  his  rostorsition   to    said  pool* 
tion;   and   that   thoy  thoro*ftor  pay  hia  his   salary  as  it  shall 
aoertt«,    ete. 


,SV 


^O  YtiD 


•BMrtir   to   th*  petition,   and  •urly  in  Julj,  X929,  tiiorti  va*  a 
trial  boforo  th«  oourt  iritiiottt  a  Juxj.  at  vhiah  aoBoidarabie  otI* 
ioxteo  was  introduood  toy  the  rvopoetlTo  parties. 

Ob   July  10,  193'J,    the  ju)e»«iit  order  anpeaXed  flroa 
vaa  ontarad,  1b  whieh   tho   oouri  founA   tlrat  for  many  y«ara  prlar 
to  January  17,  1933,   th«r«  waa  In   oxistottaa  In  th«  oiirll   aarrlca 
•f  tha  City,  and  unviar  Ita  Civil   dervioa  CoKBtinoion,   oertaia 
posit ioBo  known  as  Jiuiior  koehanioal  liBclnoars:   that  in  Aacust, 
1936,  potltionor  waa  duly  a«rtii'iod  toy  tna   CoKiEdsaion  and  duly 
ap^^intad  by  ti&a  Haaltli  Cosaaiaaioner,   tha   Xhmm  appointiaff  off! oar, 
as  an  Incuakent  oi'  one  of  aaid  Junior  ^aeaanioal  ftnginaar  poaitlona, 
and  ha  lsjs«diat«ly  ftnt«red  upon  hia  dutias  and  continued  to  parfora 
thaai  until   January  17,  1923,  whan  h«  waa  axoladad  tharafroM;   that 
on   aaid  date  ha  was  a  da  Jura  irvomsbant  of   the   poaition,  with  anrotal 
aalary  of  $^,640;   that   tha  City,  toy  Qnorse  h,  i«ya,   ita  duly  appointad 
offiaer,  unlawfully  axaladed  -.ViA  haa   siaoa  axoludad  hia  froa  tha 
poaitien,   and  daprlyad  hia  of  his   aaltary,    "althoujch   thara  haa  narar 
b«an   any  laok  of  work   for  his  as   auofa  iafMabOnt,"   and  althoui^  ha 
haa  always  toaan  raady,   able  and  willing  to  parfora  hia  dutiaa;    that 
tha  City  has  oslawfully  failad  and  nagleotad   to  aaka  appropriation 
for  tha  aal^ury  for   tha  volition  for  tha  p«riad  fraai  January  17, 
1936,   to  January  31,  1029,    und  that  on  aaid  laat  aentien«d   lata 
thara  waa   du«   to  patltlon*r   fox    aal^ory   tha   »uk  of  |2,742.66,  whioh 
haa  not  baan  paid;    that  at   th«  tlc«  tna  praaaat  patition  waa  filad 
(July  11,  1923),   and  at  all    tiaaa  up  to  January  31,  1929,  patitioaer 
was  antitlttd  to  ha  raatorad   to  hia  poaltioa;    that  on  January  31, 
1989,   as  allagad  in  dafiVidaiits*   anawar  aaA  ateittaA  toy  hia,   pati- 
tionar  waa  raatorad  to  hia  poaition;    and   that  *lt  is  now  naedlaaa 
to  award  a  writ  of  aaadaaas   for   that  purp-iaa,  and  thia   causa  aev 


wt* 


•>• 


pro«*«dB  t»   ooA9«l  l^»proprl&tioo   Tor  uad  p«yB«nt  of  aaid  ¥a«k 
Maary,*     And   the  court  ordered  and  fulJuJeed  that  «  writ  of 
sandMUS  forthvlth  iaauo  coma^iu^in^  dof«r.<l%at«  ( taoh  to  do  hla 
part)    to   aause  as  appro pri?itt ion  ordlnaaoo   to  bo  paaaod  and  to 
appropriate  said  oua  of  42»742.66,   mDA  intor««t«   for  pagmont   t« 
potitloAfir  of   th«  aiEnouAt  of  hio  OAlary  from  January  17,   1923,   to 
Janufury  SI,  19 29,  and  that  upon  aald  bum  being  appropriated  that 
dofor.danto  eaaao  It   to  bo  paid  to  hln. 

On  tho  trial   th<»  following  facte  in  aubeionee  vere 
dieeloaed:     Prior   to  June,  1926,   the  City  had  a  departnerit  known 
ae  the  Health  DepAXtt&ent  vhlch  had  a  Bureau  of  Sanitary  ::>n4lne«riaA 
in  vhloh  th(»re  waa  a  dlTlslon  of  "Slaoke  Control."     The  Health  Co** 
slseloner  of  the  City  wae  In  eharge  of   the  departaeat.     On  June  8, 
1926,   a  vritten  exaalnation  vae  held  by  the  Civil  Servioe  Ceaale- 
elen  of  ap9liear;t«  for  the  poaitione  of  Junior  i^eohafiical  :jaglneere 
In   aaid  diTiaioa,   and  petitioner  with  othera   took  the  exanintttion, 
paeeed,   and  vaa  ^)aee4  upon   the  eligible  regiater.      In  Au^uet,    1936, 
on  requlaition  of  the  health  Co&aiiaeloner,  petitioner  vith  others 
waa   Oftrtified  by  the  GIyH  ^rrrioe  CiMM&laaion,   «id  appointed  aa  one 
of  aaid  cngineexa  and  entered  upon  hie  dutiee.     He  eertred  for   tho 
prebatioaary  period  of  aix  aonthe  end  ooatinued  to   e«krve,-«hle 
appolnt^^ont   thereby  bee&jaing  oonplcte.     Karly  in  1926,   the  City 
Council,  by  ordioMioe,  had  aade   an  appropriation  for  the  ealariea 
•f  a  eonaiderable  nuaber  of  eaeh  ffnglaearn  for  the  diTiaion  of 
teeke  Control  in   eaid  Health  Departaent.      In  June,  1927,  by  another 
•ydinaaoe,  the  diTieion  of  teoko  Control  waa  datacard  froa  the 
lealth  Departaient  and  trai^aferred   to   the  enlarged  dapartaent  of 
"Steaa  Boilere,    Stea?  and  Cooking  Plaiita,*    U  the   title  of  whi^ 
ther*  -rare  %dde4   the  words   *and  Snoke   Inepeetl^^a."     &eorg«  £.   Sys 

vaa  the  head  of  thla  boll«r  department  an4   thereafter  petitlwaer. 


-c- 


•JSil:^  «ir  Ibte^  »4  d^  #1  .»»t^«9  s-tiK^ '^tj»& 

-XS'UJ^^tte   i;</    «v"'l>$X    »^sXKI>   »l       titifi.iatTi&ii^'     :U  i»*H.  t  Lisa    oi    i>»«ts«3    *>Ji9tA 


9%hmt  sueh  •n^iBvers,   cootinu«d   ia  their  posit Ioas  uador  hjm, 
dolnn;  th«  Mat*  verk,  p«rformiag  the  •&»•  duties,  <uid   rAcelTinK 
their  ealariea  luitil  J«uiuaxy  17,   192ii.      lu  the  ttvproprlatiou  erdi* 
a«ne«  of  1929  (paaeed  Jnn\xtiTj  Iftth)  aiofiiee  wore  ftftpropriated  for 
•aid  ¥c;iler  departtRoat  for  only  flTO  of  eoeh  oa^iaeera.  of  whioh 
petitioner  vaa  not  oae,  but  aoaiea  also  wmrm  snpro|»riated  for 
five  "Junior  Uoabaatioo  ifaciaeera"  (Ister   iaoreaaed  to  oi^i)   aB4 
for   forty-two   (42)    *Boiler   Ibap««tera»**  sc   iaereaae  of  tweaty-oae 
(21)   in  th«  BvuBlier  of  auah  iaspeetora.     on  the  dfty  utkiii  spproprta- 
tiea  ordlnftaaa  vaa  passed  Uym^  by  letter,   exeluded  petitioner  from 
further  eervica   ia  said  boiler  daparti&.eat,   saying:      "In  aocordarica 
with  the  tertiS  of  the  1938  appro priiAtioa  hill  your  positioa  as 
Juaior  keehaiiioal  .^^a^iaeer  jy>   »bftl i ataed .   axid  you  will  he  separated 
fraa  this  deportaeat  oa  Jaauar/  17,  192a,   sad  your  ajtae  restored 
to  tha  ClTil   Serviee  elii^ible  liet."     Oo  this  date   also     hye 
diasieeed  frea  the  departaeat  aore  thaa  tea  additioaal  perscms  sdia 
had  beaa  eervia«  as  suoh   engineers.      Xxiere  was  tlien  aad  thereafter 
plenty  of  worii   for  petitioner  and   the  other  diaaissed  eaployor^s  to 
do.     ity^  ai^aet   iaaediately,   and  witn   the  ceaeurrei^ee  of  tha  Ciwil 
&erTiee  Coc^ieaioa,  caa4e   t«K:porary  si^ty-day  i*ppttmta«ata  of  auaMroai 
pereoBs   to  do   the  sMse  work  in   the  deport^^xit  whioh  haA  feraerlj 
been  ione  by  petitioner  and   eaid  other  disotiased  mployees, — six 
with  the  title  of  "Boiler  Inspectoral  sad  eii^t  with  the   title  of 
"Junior  Coabustioa  Engineers,"   aad  who  were  aot  oa  the  eligible 
register  of  the  CoBaiesioa,      Subs^qa  ntly,    at   the  expiration  af 
aaii  sixty   icgra,  <ye,  with  eoneurrenee  ox'   the  tioeHaiseioa,  ual^wful^ 
renewed  eaid  appoiataents  for  aaother  sixty   i«ys,   sn^  eoatinued  sa 
to  do  every   sixty  daya  for  the  period  of  about  one  year.      During 
all   these   tiaea  petitioner   rKiaxned  oa  the  eligible  register  and 
was  deiaeadiag  reetorstioa  to  his   former  poeitien.      ^larl/  ia 


O-^HB 


,*X*^  tafcijif  fittcili««<|  xl^ti;'  ai  j?  it^^^aiaiis  Hats  *jK»48'/a  5a« 


4mua  9m  al   its) 


;3>5    »«iTit«^ 


»4i  jEStt  4<»IS  -%':<. 


-s- 


Jiuiuary,   1929,    th«  City  Counoil   p«a«*d   th*  1929   •ppre^x^ttlMi  ordi- 

Q«ao«,    ia  <9^1oh  »oni«s  yi9r9  Appropriated  for   ««.f.d  depAriaont  tmr  Vh» 

•«■•  Bu»ber  of  oagixieiers  md  1>i»il«r  inopootoro  aa  la   tho  19?9  ordl* 

none*,     im  Jaauiiry  !?9,  199,  p«tltloB«r  vas  oortifiod  and  «p:>ointed 

to  hit   fomor  po«ltion  «•  »  Junior  i!.««hanical  Sn£ln«*«r,   and  on 

January  .11,  1929,  vat  roinatatsd  itfid  aaaignod  to   do   tha  aaiM  liaa 

of  work  vhifrh  ho  had  formarly  dona  prior   to  hi  a  <iiflr;lasal  on 

Jasuary  17,  1993.     At     th«   tins  of  th«  trial  he  vaa  perforaing  th'* 

dtttioa  of  the  poeltlon. 

Ve  think  th«  faeta  9S  contain «d  in  the  pr eaant  trans- 

«riyt  dlacloao  a  notieable     ▼iol^tion  of  thn  lettaar   '«nd   spirit  of 

the   Clril    Serrice  latr,    that   patitioaer  va«    for  core   than   a  year 

valsvfully  separated  from  tJils  poaition  sol«ly  for  political 

reasons,   ^md   that   the  court  was   fully  Justified  under  the  facts 

and  the  lav  In  laauing   ths  vrit  of  mandaeaui  as  etatad,  vhers^y 

l»etitioner  will  1»e  enaVled  to  recover  ths  baek  »&X&ry  of  which  he 

iMkS  ofllavfully  >>e«jn  deprived.      Counsel  for  def e7:.tants,   ooctendlag 

that   the  eourt  erred  in   awardlniS  tha  writ,   pl:),ee  conaiderabls  re* 

lianes  upon  the  ease  of  yitsat^wsiis  v.   C*teiU.   214   111.   494.  ''hers 

it  was  deei-^ed  in      subetsmes  that  the  failure  of  a  eity  couneil, 

^|St|,nt:  ifl  saai  ^-'*H.,)i  and   for  the  purpose  of  rcduoing  expens<^8,    to 

make  ar    appropriation  for  &  poaltlon  in  the  civil   service,    the 

duties  of  which  ar«  added  to   those  cf  another  effios  without  addl* 

tional    ooBpensation,   eaounta   to   an  abolishaient  of  ths   first  n«}tioas4 

yssitioa  nnd  is  not  a  viol<ition  of  the  Civil  Service  law.     But   ths 

sass  i«  net   ap:>licahle   to   the  f  ^.ct9  of  \he  itistant   ease.     Hers 

an 
there  wa^atssnes  of  goo!   faith  on    the  part  of   sosi'!  sf  the  defend* 

ants  and  thers  vas  Ro  B|>ipsr«nt  desire  to  reduce  exn^nsss.     In   ths 

192%  appropriation  ordinaase  the  muaber  of  "Junior  Meeh'tciioal 

Itegineers*   for  the  !|«Tartn«r.t  was  oonai  leral^ly  decreased,  tut    ths 


•d* 


^:.^-  ■t»5  liri^  •Ml 

(i»i?  t4?  lea  £l  ftOii* 


-6. 


■saber  of  •o-«a11*4  *^ilttr  Insp«otors*  was  Krcatly  Loor«aB«4,    la* 

^••A  ieabl«4,   and  Uxo  total  «ppr«prlihtloB  for   Xhm  49pmrtu-Mnt  vaa 

inci-«a««d.     Til*  ataoimt  and  olittraot«r  of  th«  work  to  bo   ioao  Iji  tho 

pAtrtleuli^  "ijaoxo*  AiTloiea  rcttaia»<l   tiio  oaaio.      Th«  oi^n^o  in  thm 

noao  of  oosRO  of  tbo  pooltlons  froB  t&at  of  "Junior  Moohimieikl 

ji.nglno«r*  to  that  of  *Boilor  Inap«otor*  woo  oopurftntly  a  noro 

au)  ter:i^o,   and  Bi»4o   for   tho  purpooo  of  londlnc  oolor  to   tho 

pooltioa  takvn  by  ^yo,    so  head  ai'   tho   doportaeRt,    thai   ooao  of 

oaid  oBglBooring  pooltlono  had  boon  aboliahed*   and  to  hio  ouboo- 

qtiont  actlono,    co&currod   in  by  tho  CoKinliioion.   in  making  and  oen« 

tinuing  to  rh- •  oaid  olxty*daj  appoiotAonto  of  poroono  vho  woro 

aaoignod  to  do»  or  to   att«q>t   to  do*   tho  oaaut  ^araotor  of  work 

^ixich.  had  boi«  don*  by  p«titloner,   and  othoro  ol«ili»rXy  affootod, 

prior  to  January  17,  l»2ti.      In  g»OT^ie  t.   Co; fin.   tSS  XH,   999,   410, 

it  io  oaid: 

"Vhilo  thtf  olty  ha*  a  ri^ht   to  aotually  and   in  good  faith 
dloeontinuo  any  poo  it  ion  vhe^n   tho   oaso  beooB**  no  longer  nooeaoax 
or  UAoful,  yet  neither  it  nor  the  coaatieaioa  had   any  ri^ht   to 
coutlnue   the  oositlon   in   forso   an'   to   re;coTO  appellee  until 
ehargeo  jcu^A  been  preferred  ag.<kinet  hia   and   eu stained  by  tho 
OOBuBitolon  in    the  aanner  provided  by   aeetion  1:^  of  the  CiTil 
Sonrlco  law.      (Clt:>  of  Chicago  t.  ^uthardt.   191   111.    516.) 
£  either  the   olty  nor   Min  coivni  etslon ,   j^or  both  oofi;blnod,  eon 
legally   aibollah  a  pooitlon   toi.pcrarily    l^or   tho  unlawful  purpooo 
of  later  re>^6stabllehing  it  '>r.4  installing  therein  another  per- 
oon  ao  ffloployoe.  ** 

3ee,   aloo,   in   tixi»   oonneetion,    the  eaoe  of  i^OArdle  T. 

City  of  ChicagQ.   21d   111.   j^p.    343,   3S4-5.      And  ill  Poop1«>  ▼. 

Yhoaooon.   516  111.   11,  Id,   it  i«  oaid: 

*k  jud^oBt  aw»r<1ing  tho  writ  of  ■»ftfi4otwn  to   oonpol  ro» 
inet&tAnent   in  offioe  nay  includo  i%  ccManand  to  pay  eal«ry. 
{People  T.   Coif  in.   279   111.    4ul;   13  i\,    C.   L,    260;    3tftte  ▼. 
Rttn<fbeyg ,    { ho . )    1^  S.W.    996.)        T^e  rule   in   tni*   i.tate  ie,    that 
the  i:»ay»ent   ic  iLoo'\  faith  of  tho  oalary  oi    an  o:Tieer  to  a  ^ 
f  nete  officer  const  it  utoo  a  bnr  to   an  action  by   th«?  do  jury  of- 
fioor  for   the   oalary  pai4   to   the  do   faeto   officer.     T?ooole  y. 
Soaaoidt.   Sai    111.    an.)      Xho  veil   defined   excention   to   tho  abOTO 
rale  is   that  where  tho  relator   le  illegally  re-.oved   froa  hio 


■    SSI'S*!?*'-  i   -  V,    -        :.' 

-■y*:^^fv'.    =i*3i  wt   f*i5   ^!^g:^j5  Jf::;fr>  :^«s«)vf  "=^j<  3ifol^i»a«t  sa-^'**'' "  '..  -■     ■  '»- 


Jei^i-  ^a*.  li    !*» 


'.^"i^ 


ti*/' 


-T- 


cffi««  ««n<l   th«   sill  wry  haa  bc^n  pali   to   WMtlivr  p«rson   lll*g&Ily 
Appointed  la  bla  •%%mA  u  writ  or  amiHawip  will  b«  a«ar(:«4l  r«- 
qxairlaf  th«  r«-ln«tat«a«nt  of  ttie  ralatsr  la  ai  flo*  and   th« 
yayaaBt  of  his  aalary  duxljaiK  hi»  lll«gal  rethoval.      (Paopla  ^. 
lar«4T.    26*;   111.    578;    PffcnXe  t.    it^nrantoii.    27!:    1.1.    MS;   PaoBJa 

Our  ocnoluaioo  is  that  tha  erdar  of  tha  olrouit  court 
appealad   from  ahould  ba  Afflmad  aad  it  la   ao  ordarad. 

B«rn«a»  P.   7.,   aal  ^eanlan.  J.,   oonour. 


->T- 


asasa 


Plnimtiff  in  ibrror* 
c«ftiHtMit  in  ^rr•r• 


1M20B 


.A.  609"^ 


NT*  jvniiGL  SBiiiLfrr  hslzishss  tie  ornrzov  oy  tmk  covir* 

]^l«iatlff  «Mt«!  deff^BdaMt  to  rvoover  dnB«g«s  for  pvmonftl 
Injuritt  rectflTtd     while  lit  vi«8  oro«»liij;  9ra«for<!  htobu*  tov&rtfs  the 
«••%  a»  or  ■•nr  Vadison  3tr«et»     hloK«o»  b/  to*lac  stmok  aad  ttarovii 
dltva  b7  i.«fendaat*B  aatttMOtiil*  movlag  eoutlMrlj  in  Cruvfortf  aTeBU* 
•B  ii'c^ocBtoer  12»  1984I*     a  trial  «&•  JeuUi  bcfart  a  Jur/  in  Juae,  198f  • 
resulting  In  a  Terdiet  being:  rettuned  la  A«f«ndrAt*it  faTor«     By  ikls 
writ  of  «rror  plaint! rf  •«' ka  to  r«T»rst  tht  judgBent   roadorotf  a<alao% 
hla  upon   th*  Yerdiet* 

rh»  bill  of   exetptlona*  oonbalnod  la  tte  traat^orlpt  aad 
o«rtlfUd  by  tbo  trial  Judc«»   1«  unuoual  la  that  tho  icntlaioay  frirtn 
Hpen   lb«  trial  lo  not  prunttrfA*     It  le  eftatod  tlMt  plalntlXf»   ta 
■alatalB  th«   iesuoo  oa  hit  part*   Istroduood  t«t:tlmoa     aa4  other  erl- 
doaee  vhloh  "fairly  t«ad9fj   to  prore   tho  %lleg'ttloao  of »  and   tho  cauoo 
of  aetloa  nn  stated   lut   tht  firot  and   fcaoMid   eouato  of  tho  deolaratioTi 
thnt  thtroupon  defendnat   Introduoc-d   other   teatl»oay  aad   rvlueaoo  vhloh 
"fairly  toa4ed   to  dloprovo"   thcoe  alleeatioaof   cto*|  aad   that  tho  eri- 
dtnoo  "vao  oonfllctlas".       It  io  furthor  otated  tteit  tho  oourt*  of  its 
own  motion*   lastraoivd  tho  Jury  to  diortgavd   tho  third  count  (oharciac 
vllfal  aad  waaton  Bcgligoaoo)i  one   ths^i  thorottpoa  tho  coart  faTo  to  tho 
Jury  la  iB»truetl«aa»  5  of  «hioh  worfs  offeree  by  plaintiff  aad  13  by 
defend^at.     Th»««  instruetiona  aro  coBt«tlaed    la   thr  bill  of  txe^ptiona* 

The  firot  coaat,  alleging  that  at  the   tlno  aai  plaeo  plain, 
tiff  wfto  la  tho  oxoroiso  of  due   oare   for  hio  o«a  oafety,   oharfed 
defoadaat  ^.Ith  general  nogligenoo  in  the  control  and  op.r^tloa  of 


tt^tf'S-Sv?,      ;.. 


■  rt^im^t'^^ 


iMf;}    Ajvi  '-mi  »i2««V:«*  S»*rotar«'»t  s«i»««»ta   «j?w  »£<  «*Xl2lffi 
go-in irvjs  ^'ss'i««'3t3  jsi  ij^tiaUiKeff  ifssiv©*  ©jEiaJ «»©.':.. 

•  #  tJJS  &•>•  • 


ftiw^ 


,^^..■2?^^    v;;^v 


^fifei 


the  autoMpbUtf  aw!   tlie   •covnd   couBt  with  M«clig*a««  la  optmtlac 
th«  fiiutoB»bil«  At  »  dnMg«r«tti  «io<t   exotsslTc  ra%«  of  spacdt  to-wlit 
SO  mll«s  an  hour*  la  tialHtloa  •f  iht  •tcitai1(««  D«f ••«•■%  pl*ad«4 
%lw  ftiMrraX  isaiw* 

Tha  only  arrara  aaalmMd  aae   nrgMa4  relate  ta  tha  glTaa 
Ixistruotiaao  offered  liy  tieft^ndant*     It  is  amnteanSied  by  plalatiff'a 
coaaeel  thnt  tha  court  erred   la  girlng  an  d<>feiid^Bt*a  bvhalf  aa 
**undtte  noa^cr*  •f  laetructiane  on   the   subject  of  pialBtlff*a  aaa* 
trl&utorgr  negll(eaoe»  eneh  of  which  concluded  with  tlur  worda  "thoa 
your  Terrtlot  ahould  be  aot  guilt/**   or  alallnr  words*     ^'o  do  not   thlak 
tharo  le  aqy  eubataatlal  aerit  la  thd   ooatentloa*       hothor  plalatlff 
waa  guilt/  of  ncgllgomsa  which  proxlaatol/  contributed  to  the  aocldant 
aad  hla  Injurlea  was  a  aaterlal  quastloa  in  the  oaoo*     the  aeweral 
la»truotlon8  preneated  dlffereat  aapocta  of    the   queetl^  aad   eaoh 
oerrcctl/  stated  the  Iaw*       a  aald  la  Caraoa  **lrle     oott  fc  u'^»  t« 
Chlo-.gQ  Ky««  Go»»  509  111.  34<»   352t     •The  elaborHtlen  of    the  rxtlm  la 
differeat   iaetructlono  did  not  add   anything  material  to  the  defense* 
but  aa  there  wae  nothing  Incorrect  la  thsa  tho/  are  aot  grouM  for 
roreraal**' 

Coapldlnt  la  aade  of  the  oalsslon  of  one  word  la  laetructlon 
Wo*  14 i  offered  by  d#fendnat*     Other  porta  of   the   Inotructloa  roadarod 
that  oalsslon  hAX«lese>  ami   tho  jury  could  not  Koto  been  aisled »  aa 
eoatead«d»  wben  the  l»B<^uags  of   thft  eatlro  lastruotloa  1»  oonalderno* 
(<3oo     tchiscn  ▼•  ¥cKinnle*  333  HI*  106>  US*)      sad  wo  do  not  think 
that  the  £l<ring  of  Imfttructloa  Vo*  16»  ofrerod  by  defoadaat«  ooaotltutod 
rererelblo  error  for  tho  r eaaoaa  aa  urged  by  eouasol.     la  view  of  tho 
issues  »s  fraised  by  tha  plendiaga»  and  la  tho  abaeaoe  of  any  dotailad 
sWtenent   la  tho  bill  of   except ioao  ^a  to  tho  eTldeaoo   latro<^ttorda  ym 

cannot   en/  th'it  the  court  ooaaitted   «n/  rcTerolble  error  In  j^lrlag  Mi/ 
or  all  of   tho  laetruotldae* 

the  jjudpaent  of  tho  superior  omirt  Is  '^tfflnwd* 
Barnes,  P*  J«t  aad     oaalant  J*,  oaao«r«  kW-llJi&2» 


-8* 


yK 


)  ffi  .^l«e  «.v     *w!4J»JC  Mtl 


yai:f..5X«tE«i;- 


1© 


sswt 


<pte< 


a  oorpor»<.tleM« 


3Ha:-.:  ETO*   CO.* 


Miiuioipal  CMiri  of  Chi0««*»  mM 

Uh)■lL:^}^l   CASUALTY  COUP  Alt, 
a  o«rpor^tl«a* 


cooi'vT,  COOK  coujrnr. 

256  I.A.  G09 


r 


la  4UI  aoiioa  la  debit  cesaaeaead   in  tht  tuperivr  eoUrt  %t 
Cook  ovuBtjr  on  flovvaber  S9*  X927f  apoa  th»  off  ioial  bond  of  tte 
bailiff  of  thff  manloiyal  ctourt  of  Ckiesgo*  bteaaao  of  hlo  failuro 
to  Xavy  aa  <A«cutl<»n  upoa  eortaln  goedo  «hloh  oao  H*  3alo«ioli  (tiM 
txectttion  Ctfbtor}   ha((  repl«Tl*d«  ihoro  vao  a  trial  before  a  Jur/ 
in  Jua«»  1929*  reHul(ia«  in  tbo  ooari  dirootiag  ilM  jury  to  m^ara 
a  Terdiot  for  d«f<»adaaio»     ^'poa  Judgaent  bolag  entered  aeaiaot 
;>X»iBbirf  for  eoots   tbo  pr«otat  ayponl  followed* 

?laiBliff*o  deolarr>tiea  coaoiisted  of  a  oyeoial  oouat* 
Aftor  et'^tlaic  tbe  executioa  aad  approT^l  of  Saon*  •  official  b«M 
ao  bailiff*  with  ouid  Casualty  Co.  a*  ouxety*  plaintiff  aaeigaod 
ao  a  breaeb  of  tbe  boad   that  oo  October  li,  19k6t   tbo   stlao  Capper 
4  Bvaoo  Co,  recovered  a  Judgaont   in  t)»  aunielpal  court  agaiast 
Oalo«lob  for  v3v'  »94»  aad   oootoi   that  ea  May  aSt  1V7»  an  j^J^t 
vrit  of  oxeeutiea  on   the  Jud^MBt  wao  iooaedt  «ad   saboequently 
plaoed  ia    ao«*o  haadei  th&t  afterxarda  aad  before  the  retara  day 
of  the  vrit  thfer<?  were   certain  goode  in  Oalo^leh**  po&aoooioa  ia 
Chlo.%so  "eubjoet  to  oxeeutiea**  of  which  fact    :ao«*  aa  bailiff* 
ha'*  notice  and  out  of  «hioh  h«  "oaght  to  have   oauaod   to  bo  aado 


the   oaid  aoaieoT   that  neverthalooo  he,   in  diaresard  of  his 


\ 


Sit?  id   «  ?> 
« '■'■ 


tiii: 


-8- 

•ff  l«i«l  dttt/t  414  not  and  ^oulc  not  1ief«r»  •&i4   rvturn  tmj 
•*tt»t  to  }»9  wUI*  th«  Koniesl  and   llmt  •«  ^oeuat  27t  1927t  M* 
"tmXwlj  mM  4«oeltfully*  r«tttrne4   th«  writ  *b«  property  feuM 
aad  «•  part  ontlsfiodl"  t«  plftlntiff**  4iuui«co*  oto* 

l>«foD4!Uit«  ia  ilwir  ploa  aXltgvd  la  siAstaaoe   that  !^fi«w» 
as  bailiff*  did  not  (tItroKard  or  not;l«ci  %o  pcrfona  mny  ovtjr  re* 
qiilr«4  of  hia  by  Iai»|  th;»t  on  Juno  Xf  1.987»   eold  •  so  out  Ian  oao 
pXaood   la  -aow's  haadst  as  beUllf  t  to  ko  oxooatodf   that  on  Jul/ 
5t  1^27»     new  duly  aado  doaand  upon  aalovlehi   ttar^t  on  July  12»  19a7» 
Oalowleti  filed  a  •oh«>dale  of  hie  proportyi   that  ^ao«  vne  wmhlo  ta 
find  any  prop  rty  of  (lalovloh  In  Chlor£o  oubjeot  to  execution^  aat 
that*  ROcerdlBf^lyy  he   returned  the  OK^eotloa  "no  property  f«uad»* 
elo.     /jid  dcfoadaato  denied   thrt  at  any  tiae  durlB«  the  life  af 
the  writ  ■-''Uow  had  knowledge   thrrt  i^alowleh  had  osy  property  in 
Chlengo  thFit  wao  »uhJ«o%  to  axeoutloa*  or  thr^t  ke  ''fnlnely  aad 
deoffltfully*  aai2e  utxiii   return  on  the  writ* 

on  the   trial  plaintiff  Introciuoed  oerialn  writings  or 
decuwrats  and   ce^.llet*  Oalowloh  aa  a  trltnesa*     I^fendaata  lBtro<$uee< 
oertaln  other  writing*  or  doeuaeato*     TrMi  all  the   cTldmoo  the 
follow iBif  f»ct8   in  dtthstnnee  appear i     The     tlae  Copper  A  Bntas  Co* 
obtained   aald  Judpient  In  the  antnlelpal  oourt  agrlnet  t^alowloht 
and  said  excoutlon  was  plaoed   In    now* »  hands*  as  bailiff •  on  June 
1»  1927«  aad  ho  aade  deaaad  upon  Oalowloh,  who*  on  July  12»  1927* 
filed  a  eohodule*  clalsdag  thJit  no  had  no  property  subject  to 
execution*     on  July  30,  1927*  while   the  ex'outlon  r^e   etlll  In  Snow*  • 
hand* I  Oalowloh  ccaa>eaoed  an  action  In  replevin  la  the  snae  ccurt 
against   the  -^hlto  City     nuseaeat     o«>  a  eorporntlon»  by  the  fUlag 
of  the  usuel  affidavit  an4  the  islvlag  of  the  asual  bend.     la  the 
affidavit  Oalovleh  stated   that  ht  was  the  owner  and  lawfnlly  entltlsA 
to  ths  posnoseloa  of  wrtaln  e  orap  copper  ami  s  sray  aotal*  "of  the 


-s- 


^tlfA»^*:i«<  ■  ,,jiii.-'    A«>M   'fl^'f    ^»*    (ivT,-!  •->;•;■;. 

«i  ^'*^'<»1?8stxi  X««   ''*«f  aiffi;;  ^jSrtsiw****;  l^««$  -d^ 


\'i'^9V'm'%i&i  4^m-- 

'•^««'?90 

4«ii  ^«»'t^"»- 

•  ssc«>,*a  ft©  :»■?;©  »^^  9  i '%  «■    1  -i-r  0 

•  oa  »*«'S^«.  ■■;  it««ta»^>  »«I^  ■ 

ijii-? 

J «»«  «  4}.'                        'iKlw»  Hot 

«K»1 .' 

^aoJlT* 

ftljwt   !*»    , 

*^\< 

Oi    #>■•:•-; 

•jStKlsftiwIs    ,flXl5ifJ»»f?; 

«*waf;a  «* 

.  .;                •■x.'^ 

■iU'. 

•■    -KftitxWjwS^    , 

■^Stkii  i    ''■■^■i    y    ♦?r»: 

.^:4«W*S«.-                                                 .  '•■ffUriA 

Wf«    ft-       . 

r.T-i-^rt'i   ^-^                                                        1(? 

&oJ:.''.v'.^-;y'-   •■  t.Ja'J'.'^jsX   ftflft  i  .jfr.'? 

:■!* 

'J  * 

tA.:                      ii^r   Q/ 

TAlKft  of  <^iilo»«  la  th«  poB»:««»ioa  of  tkm  fammtmtmx  C«»  m  esrd 
•tr««t  MMI    'OUth  ?KrJc  aTeau««     hicngo*     Th«  r«pIeTin  writ  va« 
i««Mtd  ABd     now  vndvT  U   took  froai  the  posteanloa  of  th«  /nascntBt 
C«»  (1900  pounds  of  ooppffr  lUMI  lOf  o  poimdo   of  load  Mid:  (1»XiT*T<td 
»lwnit  aoodo  fcg  a«low^«|||L»  who  rtooipiod  ihorofor  on  %hm  W.ok  of  ilM 
«rit«     aaow  «loo  8crT0<t  tho  ^MuaeBent  Co*f  which*  oa     uguot  10, 
ltS7«  «ntor«d  lt>o  nppo^roaoo  la  ths  roplevia  salt  and  deanadcd  • 
jurjr  trial*     On  Jnaaary  t»  19:^:8,   tho  replevin  suit  wao  irlod  nad 
bho  O'urt  on%ort*«^  an  or<i<-r  find  laic  bh&t  ih«^  right  in  tho  proport;f 
«ao  in  tht   'Bu»«B«nt  Co*i  ani  adjudging  th^^t  It  roooTor  tY(tm 
g»lowioh  poettooffion  of  thr  proportj  and  th»*.t  a  ^^rit  of  rftorno 
halKndQ  iHstto.     It  Ajppearo  th  t  after  thlo  jadpioBt  ordor  a«« 
entorc):^   tho  eourt  entioroed  thereon  tho  T^ordo  *nfttiofiod  in  oourt" 
and  further  ortierod    that  tltalowioh  ^o  glToa  loa.TO   to  ^Rithdrftw  frcn 
tho  f  line  hi«  replvTln  boa<i« 

It  will  b«  aot.io<?d  that  :^noif»  undo*  IJMl  WVflnwin  «rit« 
roplevlod  tho  zooAm  and  d^liverod  thta  to  Salov'ioh  at  a  tlao  ahoa 
plaintiff *8  oxtfcutlon  am  9niA  jud«Mnt  for  $300,94  «ao  still  la 
:4io«*e  haado  unoatiof  i«d »  but  th»t  sfi^id  oxt^cutloa  voa  returnod  hy 
^pm  uaa-atiafiod   ^n   mgaot  S7t  1927t   ooverKl  nontha  b^faro  %hm 
final  jttdpiont  In  the  r«plt.Tin  suit  >aa  onterod*     (}alo«ioh  toati- 
f iea   th  t  ahortly  after  th«  goocis  v«r     rvpltsTiod  and   turned  oror  to 
bin*  ho  ^olA  ihtm  to  a  third  pmrty  at  «  prio*   In  cxoeas  of  tho 
«»ount  of  plaintiff 'a  judgacnt*     upon  tho  trUl  plaUtiff's  attomoy 
ooatoB^f'd   th'^t  Saow*  after  taking   tho  goudo  under   the   roplcTin  vrit 
and   aftej;  he  had  <;ellvered   then  to  a«lo«ioh»   ehould   hare  leTied  upon 
there  ujci;>y  pl«latlff*o  oxooutlon*  but  tho  trial  oourt  hold  in  oidl* 
stanoc  tht  the  r  eploTiod  ^ooda  wero  ia  caetodia  loaip  uatil  Jaflaavjr 
S»  19M*  when  the  replevin  oait  «aa  deoidodf  that  et  no  tiiiio  prior 
to  AUtfuat  Zff  192V»   (whi^n  theexroutioa  oe&so<l   to  have  life)   ooald 


«<:•. 


<3     d  i'jt /e  ;;■ -t'^  M  .-■■' M<4     '■  •    J      "' 

«i{jp  »TtiSfl-^sf  *(«fi-a©«  im.rsfVWR..  tfii!«fi   ♦^^  isBW;,  !,ws  woics 

iirv  fliirwXt*^   m<i  t*^mi  •Jw>&s  *«i^  mM%*i  tf»*1J«.  •««tyM!(:^  3e4ii$  li>^S>«*sa«« 


-4- 

£;»«w»  ••  bftlXlff  t  h«Te  iH^fttlly  XoYled  v^n   blut  reploicti  gooC*  *y 

ylrtM  «f  Mid  ex«e«tlai|  wM  Mart,  hcnatt  ^Iftiatiff  wa«  m»t  •atiile4 

to  rtooT'ir  •nythlnie  of  def*n4«t»it  on  lBo«*ii  effioial  bMMl*     1%  wis  «i 

thl»  tlwory  of  lav  ttat^t   iho  ooitrt  dtrect^ti   tilt  4«iT  ^«  retvm  a  yX" 

dioi  for  defeaiiMBta  axid   ontored   tho  judsB^nt   In  QuestioB* 

Coimool  for  pl«lBtlirf  h«r«  oflstond   thHt  th«  court  vrrod 

la  dlr«ctiag  auoH  Torcilot  and    In  entering  the  judcKoat  a^alaot 

plaiatiff  •       0  OAiuiot  acre;  vith  tta.«   eoa%«>BtloB»  and  think  th&t  tto 

trinl  court's  potitloa  a«  to   tbm   Isv  upon  llm  uedliiputed  facto  waa 

tho  «orr««l  «no*     la  Z^  c^orpu^^  Jttrlai»  r. i'fi«  l'>7«  p«  3ST»  it  in  o^ida 

"like  (doctrine  it»  well  nettlet^   that  ptixp*>.Tt.y  In  tho  haada 
of  Kh«rrifff!*  eon»-t«ibl«o«  *  *»  «^tc*»  ir  rogardod  aa  boiac 
to  m»todia  Xtaiff.  aa<*  cannot  bo  rotieht^d  by  ©xa cut  Ion,  in  tlM 
oliomoo  of  •ttttEtti«ry  dkUthorlty»  the  »aly  -iffi^altjr  exporloaasd 
in  tho  applio-'iion  or   &he  doe.riae  bsiiit?  ia  d«tomlnlai{  t.h« 
(itteetion  ar  to  «h«-&  propert/  1«  ect   .f^thli}  the  6q  tady  of   tho 
law  ao  to  ho   iaoXuded   in  t!>e  pttrriev  of  th»  ruXo*  Tho  dootriaa 
•f  *ia  euatodta  l^yaio*   is  a  rulo  af  pfoy«rtjf  right*  aado  for  tha 
hoBofit  of  litigant a »  a«     oil  rb  a  rulo  of  juriad lotion*  »ado 
for   tho  r^\ir:!^^'s  of  avoiding  eonfliots  o«two«a  oourtot  and  it 
applies  unt.il   the  aattoro   Involve'    haro  hofn  finally  difii^sod 
oft  %n<l  «h«th«r  the  Cvceeutloxi  iai^'U^K;   oot  of  the  saao  or  saotlwr 
court** 

Xa  tho  saat  artlolo  (oeo*  lv>$»  p*  3S9)   it  io  aIoo  o'idt 

"Proportjr  takon  undor  a  writ  of  roplcrla  frcM  an  offieor  who  hao 

••isod  it  on  •mactttion  ro»aino  in  cu^todia  l9Ri^  and  io  not  oiib^oot 

ta  oxeotttian."     (Citing,  aMon«;  othora*  the  c^.-^z  of  .Ifo^gaB  y.  :Uica»^^ 

10  ?otora  (U.^«)40<  •  404 •  aa^  ^Oiincg  v*  Phglgf.  3  Oils.  45&«  4<4«) 

la  80    siiejF*  L&w  (lot  o4«)  f«   1076«  it  to  oaidi     "  horo  the  pxeperty 

hao  hooB  t&koa  hy     rit  of  roplcTia*  it   ei»nnc>t  ho  loTi(*d  upon  hjr 

judicial  proeooo**     (CitiiMi  Qoodhf-or^  ▼•  Bo»cnt  2  lll«     pp*  S7a,  oao^ 

«^  MlXlken  v.  :»ylyo>  <«  Hill  (V.  T.)  fss,  eS4)«     la  Cobhoy  oa 

leploTia  (lot  od*)   oa«a«  70«  anci  JOB,  it  io  oaid  t 

•^'T<jporty  t«.kon  In  repleTia   i<»  Ic  tlw   cut^tfsdy  cf   Iho 
la«f  who the r  la  the  hands  of  a  pnrty  lo  th«  eait  who  has  ^iToa 
hWid*  CT  btlc?  h>   ^he  o>f'ioffr»   Io  ianat^rial*     ^n  the  j^iviSi;  of 
tho  hand  tho  property  la  placed  ta  tho  ott^tedy  of  tho  olainaat* 
His  custody  la   aubatitutcd   for   th  t  of   t;h«t   sheriff*     Tho  property 
io  not  withdrawn  froa  the  ottotady  of   th«  law*  •  • 


»:■ 


'^S  'i  a^,Vf  '*^ 


Vklle  %1M  r«plfvln  tult   it  >>-nt^tw,'Tn  the  ]?r©p«rt7  CMuot 
lit  ttixttf  o£  txf'vwtioa  or  other  prot  at*    *   *     rroi^ortjr  rtpltTlttf 
It   in  tb«   oii«-tt4y  of   tht   Inw*   aad    ci^nnct  (i4|n\»  be    X^Yled  on  bj 
t}i«   trUK   eherlff  hoXdiaa  a  Junior   txcuu&iMi*   or  Viy   tJty  othtr 
•fflt«r  holding  an  txv'CVktian,  aad  tny  ouch  officer  virhio  luiket 
BMOll  teoond  Iffyy^  does  ao   In  hit  o«m  viroog  tuul   tttthoxai  Authority 
^'f  l«iTa    (filing   the   tr^o   Ullnoie   «na(?(i  (t)»eiYe  nentloncd  antl   tbt 

Cotuisel  for  plaint  l)'fi   in  oiii>)»ort  of  hit  o«>ni>«Btlon» 
refer   to  ecrtfiin  hoXriinge  In  Mohr  ▼.  l£SSS3&»  ^^^  ^^«  '^*^^»  ''»91«4« 
If  it  «*an  be  t«iiA   thnt   ttaty  tujiport  hie   content  ion  fM6   art  ni»pliMiblt 
tt  «he  facta   in   tht  preeent   CAr.t»   'O   think  it   oof  Icirrnt   i.o  gay  tta^t 
they  ftppemr  to  bt  oontravy  to  thtr  Ilxisiois  deoiaioaa  mbA   «a  tlM 
gtncrr.l  current  #f  authority   in  other  jttrl;id4cti3at.      '8o«,  ia»o, 
the  tueet  of  Hftrtfy  e.  iCeeiej^,  ft«   r,U«  1»2  and  Fjrgt  y.r  tionaX  iiaal^  t# 
I>Utttt«    97  £•    Y.   149.) 

Our  ooncXusion  it  th^t  the  jiaAf^MfrnX  appeaXetf  fxrat  ehoMXA 
he   affiised  asMl   it   it  to  t*r(iere<)* 

3i&rnest   ^'*   ^'«>  antt   3«AnlAn»  J«,  ooaemr* 


'~*!9     ff^ 


35903 


US  KP:B23rs» 
OVn  G)f  CKICVOO, 


APPEAL  mm  gsofimim  oourT» 


256  LA.  610' 

&»•   JUr.TICii   '3Rli/lBir  irXXYERJKtJ  Til  OPUflOir  Of  TSBE   COURT, 

It  is  sought  \ty  thi»  app*iil  to  rentr^tf  ft  .fua^Mmt 
ftgAia»t  the  City  of  Cixlo-igo  for  S'lSOOy  rendered  *ft«r  v«rcLlet 
la  an  aetloa  for  daani^tB  for  porooaaJL  Injurioo  roeelTcd  1^ 
^^biatlff  •  by  rtftoon  of  «  dof^otiv*  aidovKlkt  vi'oilo  ata«  wto 
i.licl8f:  aoath  oa  the  tAot  «l«it  of  south  v^aai^All  «T«M)tte»  1»ot«ooB 
oik  aad     rthixistctt  etrotto*  Chlcr.gOt  oa  JetinUkry  29*  I9l^7»  about 
XO  o'clock  la  tbft  evealcMj;.     ilitiali:'!  tofto  not   lUod  a  brlof  la 
this  eourt* 

tl»  Onol&rKtloa  coaoifrted  oi   four  ftouaiK»  to  is^hlcli 
thtt  Oity  fiXod  a  ^laa  of  the  goat.ral  Ibous*     lh&  fouriJbi  cotait 
tkas  vltMra-R8»     the  flrot  couat  alX«s«d  la  »ubfit&ace   tlmt  for  a 
loag  tlao  j^lor  to  the  toeiaosit   th«  CUy  a«£Xlgtatl^  poxaitttc 
th«  al4twaXk»  «a  tho  OAot  »id%  of  stiA  fcTeaut*  "aorta  cf  tbic  hXIo/ 
eUBd  between  nusbrre  809  and  617    k>atb  Canpl^tXX  9Vcauo»'   tc  to  &ad 
rem  la  la  it  b»<!  ane!>  tfo  nser  ouo  condltloa»   la  tivnt  thtre  vac  n  tioXo 
or  cp<alns  thrrela*  S  foot  Xongt  IS  laohico  vide  aad  about  e  lachoa 
d««p»  and  that  pXalatlff t  «alX«  vaXklag  ca   ibe  oldovalk  aad  oxoroloiac 
dat  oarc  for  her  otb  8af«tx»  stepped  lata  the  hole  or  epealae  end 
feXl  or  vsati  preolpitfttf^d  afalOHt  "%  oertala  aanhcXc  oot^t  9jsd 
tsat^Tlal  thiai^s  tkor^t*  vltereV  sb.o  wan  seriou-iXy  und  p^xat'iaeatlj 
Ir.jurM*       The  .}rco»d   count  ehttrgt'd  n«sllg«nc«  In  p  raii^teg   tStt 


.■t<«ll»{ 


Sfud^^a,-^-^ 


•t* 

mlOffwallc  to  rffamla  in   auoh  dnagerotts   con^'itltMi  "without  pl^oiiifr 
•«y  loap  or  llii(ht«  fna«rd   rail  or  barrier #  nt  onid   Holo  or  op«niac 
to  proTviit  trikTfrloro  in  th*  aiehttiste  fron  -'nlktnr  or  ■tepyiae 
into  o&id  hol«x"     tJckti  third  uoioit  oht^rgr^d  nnglifjoneo  in  pvrMitcii^ 
tiM  vidowalk  to  roBMlA  ia  ouoli  dang«^rouii  condition  And  vitteat 
hftriag  the  ^tro«%  laupo  in  bho  vioiaitjf  liehtod* 

On  VhK   trial  plaintiff  itotiflod  as  to  the  cietaila 
•f  the  accideaty  the  extent  of  her  injuries  toid  the  condition 
•f  the  sidewftlk  at  the  tine*     Three  oocurr«:aoe  witntoeoa 
oorrobornted  her  Tcroion»  aj^  four  eitneeetc  OftUed  by  her  testUiad 
that   the  •id««%lk  wao  out  of   i-e9e.ir  njid   the  hole  in  <iuce>tion  danger* 
•ae  to  pvd(?etrianet  and   ;hMt  the^^e  eonditienst  known  to  pereonn 
Xiviac  ia  the  Tlsiaity*  had  exi^^ted  for  mare  than  eix  Konthe*  i'laia* 
tiff*e  «Tl<:(trno«  also  shoved   th^a  the  lifthta  in  the  bXoeh»  «hieh 
aeaalXy  were  Cumins  at  nitfht*  aart  not  lightt^d  on  the  erening  in 
<;ue8tica*     The  City  intreduood  arideaoa  ioading  to  thaw  that  tha 
lighte  were  ^uraiag  at  the  tine*  and  one  of  ita  witneaneo  testified 
ia  substance  that  the  eidewalk  at  the  prticulcr  pXa^e  had  baon 
repaired  &nd  me  in  a  rtt^eoaably  tu\tm  cgodition*     Plaintiff *c  eri* 
dence  ae  to  the  injuries  was  not  contrHtSiot^^d  and  the  City  does  not 
here   contend  th^t  the  Terdlot  and  Judgatent  are  osLeeeeiTO* 

The  City  oent^ttde  thr  t  the  Terdlot  is  ■anif(*:?tly  agaiasi 
iho  v^eight  of  the  oYideaee  on  the  que^tioae  (l)  whether  plaintiff 
n%  the  tlae  aaa  ia  the  exerolee  of  dae  oare  fcr  hnr  ova  srfcty]   (2) 
ahether  the  mere  slipperlaaoe  of   the  sidea«11c«  occastoved  by  saaw 
and  nluah  thereon*  did  not  oaa^o  plaintiff**  fall  asad  injurica 
rath*«r  than  the  hole*  mat}.   (3<   vrhcther  the  ffid«>'«allcm8  reuaonably 
%&.t9  ior  travel*       fter  rerieving  vh*  cTlden^^e*  so  contaln^i'  in  tha 
abpiraot*  we  do  not  think  there  in  Any  nerit  in  the  contention  ar 


•:♦•.      .•.-'ij.?  *iStft  O.jS't?      ■•5»iK..v       »    J,      ;.;««»o»«A 
?Sl*     8»S»-'r  ■    •     '    "  ■        ^  •■  ■    ■•  »   '' 

>if(v    n.i    b'.frj.^.'  ui..     -i^sii.  nMiȣfi  x'jJi        ^  JL'j'T^a'i.- 


•s* 


cont.ntlozi..     On  th.   contrary  we  think  th.  T.rdlct  ^  jud^.at 
•r*  fuUy  w.rr«it.cl  toy  u»   •Wc.»«..     «>  4..,  ^  UBo.ocawury 
f  1-^ulg.  in  ai^y  ,etau.d  dl.ouo.l«„  of   the   futl^ouy  .t   th. 
▼ariouB  wltn«s0«a, 

the  4udpi«nt  io  affirmd. 
*>»r«»a.  ?.  J.,  «ad  ;  oanlun,  J.,  coaeur. 


,tsy»«i,^*»''^   >^*'   '^' 


.a^stfrxc-sR 


3S911 

i 
LGHD  Gm  X«  X»  ZKlOfL^ifl 

T«  )       Ai'PXAL  fRQK  annaf  loK  cooitt^ 

mxLKSi^  DAXPT  coMPAjnr,  j  cook  wousrr* 

•— -v^^n...        I      256I.A.  610 

KR.  jrorfXCK   aKHa-BY  DKXJYKHEJ)  THK  OPIHIOM     ff  THE  COTJRf. 

Zb  an  Mtlon  for  dtOMMsea  i'or  plaintiff**  personal  injur !••• 
o«ca«icm«tf  11/  tli«  nftffliseBM  of  defen£Jiait*a  »ttrrant  at  «lai»ad9  there 
«a«  a  trial  btfar«  a  Jury  a^t  which  e«ial<ltratola  CTldenaa  tm«  Intro* 
due«(i  bjr  both  pftrtioo.     The  court  ftaTv  to  tha  jurj  14  Inotruetiano 
of  vhieh  7  «or«  offored   by  def«n(i«LBt«     A  Terdlot  JTor  cl«f«tBdant  vaa 
r«tum«d  and  on  i!t«gr  4t  1089,  JudgMont  was  ontored  agftlaet  plainttrf 
and    thin  appoal  follovod* 

On*  or   the  grauado  arced  by  plaintiff's  oounsel  for  a 
roToraal  is  that  ths  court  itrrmC  in  giving  to  the  jur/  saeh  of 
the  following  instructions  offertM^  hjr  >)«fcn^Kntt 

*7»     You  rr«   InHtruetsd  th.«t  before  ths  plalntitf 
•an  roooYcr  a  'r«rdiot  in  this  e(»so  h«  iiu«tt  proYS  the  ecise 
as  alXsjSSd   In  the  di'Cjlar'illoB  }»iy  a  prepontioranoe  of    the  «?▼!- 
denco* 

10.     Ths   court  Inetruetes   the  Jur/  that  if   the  Jurj 
find  froa  tha  ffYid<?noe   th^- 1   th«  plaintirf ,  by  ^ny  net  of 
noj^ligenoo*  contritiuted   la  nny  c».»itree  to  the  happenint^  of   tha 
aocideat   ia  HU<^etlont    then  th^  Jury  nuet  find  a  Yerc^let  of 
aat  ottilty* 

11*     The  court  inetruots  the  Jury  th&t  if  you  find 
::rea  the  tTi<i«^^ao«  th- 1  both  partiee  were  jcuilty  of   negligenco 
then  the  plaint  in    «;aNnot  reoorer** 

The  first  count  of  the  deelar«tien  aTers  %hst  on  the  dsj 
naaed  defendant  by  its  tjc^rvant  wae  operating  anr:  con  troll  lag  a  horea 
nvd  ^tK^n  along  a  publle  alley  In  Chicago!  thnt  plaintiff  excrclsiag 
due  eare  for  his  o«b  eafet/  was  upon  a  ladoer  in  the  alley t  and  that 
defeBd$9»nt  so  negligently  drove  and  ape  rated  tha  hor9e  aad  wacMi  that 
the  saae  ran  into  the  ladder  upaa  whieh  plaintiff  wus  pttsndlng* 


U9U 

.     '      A^i'  Ik  If 

'        -       -i     , 
--  --.  u.  .w  .-. -i  . 

•i 

.  ■  i 

-lA  J  ■   '  .   -I  -'  ;•  ;       V.    ,   .      hs*. 


-2- 

OAuetnc  hlK  to  frll   to   the  grmiB^ «   •%«• 

riM  aecoiKi   count  all«c«s   fch*  ptqrviOAl  facia  vlth  aor* 
partieul>%rlt]r  9LWi   i%Tera  In  avU»st«aot  ihKt  ylolatiff  waa  tha  •«a«r 
of  tha  prenlata»  kn«va  ae  6X14  Keamor«  aTanua^  Chiaaco*  oa  thft  r«ar 
af  «hl4h  «aa  a  garaga  abut  ting  on  a  public  f^llty*  running  in  a 
nortlwrly  ane   southarly  dlrcctloni   that  plnintlff  iMut  pXaoad  a 
ladder  in  tha  allay »   Uunin^  ag^lBat   th«  gv)rag#»  and  waa  lawfully 
•tan41n^  upon  tha  laddar  and  cxerolelng  due   cart   for  hit  ««B 
BAf<^'tyf  kitmt  thora  waa  onfficleat  efaca  in  tha  alley  for  wa^foa*  aad 
Tthiolaa  to  paao  by  tha  ladder  without  coning  in  contact  with  it| 
that  dtfcntiant  by  Itii  et^rYanto  waa  controlling  the  horaa  aad  wagon 
in  tho  alley  n«ar  whara  tho  la<id«^r  aad  plaiatif  f  «ara|  that  defaai- 
ant»  net  regax-ding  its  duty*  ''negligently  peraittad   aaid  hor»a  to 
wander  and  proceet^   aloat;  anid  ulleyt  »hlle  itc  d-rrant  in  ohKrgo 
thereof  was  not  keeping  a  proper  Icokout  and  /ruldlng     8«iiid  hor«o|* 
an4   that  as  a  result  the  wafMi  "atruoh  tha  ladder*  upon  whieh  plain- 
tiff waa  atan<!ing»   cvueiai^  it  to  fall**   aad  plaintiff  waa  throw* 
to  tha  ground  aad  injured*  ote* 

The  fourth  count*  after  alleging  tho  oaaa  phyeioal  facta* 
ehargad  drfendnnt  with  tha  negligent  operation  of  tha  horaa  aad 
wagon  *i»rithout  aountsia^-  »my  wurainfi;  of   tho  approach  thereof* ** 

The   8«Tenth  count*  after  alleging  tha   of^ne  phyoiaal  facts 
ehargcd   that  defcndaat  "negligently  aad  onrelaaaly  allowed  »al4 
horaa  to  waiter  and  walk  away  without  a^id   a<^rTant  attending  to  or 
watching;   the  direction  or  ceurae  which  the  terae  took*   oaid   aervuat 
being   then  engaged  in  oth«r  dutieo  and  not  driviag*  and  the  rclan 
boin^;  thrown  over  a  hook  at  the  top  of  the  wagon*** 

Aaothor  ooont  ch^vrgetf  Cifeaaaat  with  tho  negligeat 
TiolAtlon  of  an  ordinance  of  the  City  of  cKieago*  aakiag  it  aa 
offenae  for  sany  person  to  loawe   a  horae*  attached   to  any  ""agOB  or 


•t« 


.■t««  ^m^'x 


!**«*    tx**" 


fiMi  at 


.i.>  .r^-zV-'L      ^' 


a;^    A^     »>>!V>  .'•,.'<•<!«  :j,,!j7,     iri'-v'      -      is.J'  ■■<      ,4«f;.;i>i,' } 


-3- 

ether  T«hlel«   la  any  publlo  vajr  •/  tlM   cit/*  nitteul  ••ottr«2jr 
f«ot»Bla«  iht  h9rii««     In  tw«  othn-r  counts  dcftartMit  vtss  eihsirs»4 
«ith  vllfiil  (Uid  vcatoB  negllgtMiOf  but  during  %h»  trial  the** 
coimt*  wre  wltlu^r&wa  froa  t2i«  i\krf*  9  •«i«i4«x'«tiMi*     To  all  nouatt 
d9t«adiat  b«4  fllod  «  floa  of  tho  tfOB«r«l  ioowi* 

la  flov  of   i)M  ooTorAl  clnfi^rg9u  of  a«glig«aoo  ne  o«li> 
t»|jied  la  tli«  Gouatii  thni;  voat  to  the  Jarj*  w^e  think  tlMit  oniA  !«• 
ot  rue  I  Ion*  Vo«  Tt  toadoA       to  aioXond  tkoa*     Trom  Ito  lioi^ttoco  thoj 
Might  imvc  btlloTtd  that  it  wao  *o««iitlal»  b«foro  plaintiff  eotad 
roeoT«ri  th>^vt  h»  prove  all  charsoe  of  nttg:li€«ao«  a»  eoatalaod   la 
all  five  counts »  whll«  under  tho  law  proof  of  tho  avgllgoBco 
chur^od   la  oao  good  count  vould  bo  auffioleat  to  oupport  a  Ttrdiot 
for  plfi-iatiff  •     (aruoaondu^tf,  v.  Confeollcatoci  Coal  ^p^m  108  Ill#  App# 
«44»   $A€*'H      MarTOy  ▼.    OhlcftgO  k     Iton  K>   Co^.   IIC    id.    BOT,   809.) 

Aad  v§  think  th»t  la^truetloao  Vo«*  lo  aad  11  vara 
•rroa«ou«  and  tradtd  to  aiole'^d  tho  Jurjt    atyoolall/  as  plalatiff** 
evldsnoo  diaclotfod   thcit  all  thnt  ho  vas  liolag  at   tho  tlao  of  tko 
«)ecld«Bt  was  staadlag  on  th«  lad  or  and  assisting  la  tho  paiatiag 
of   thfi  6av«s  of  his  ova  gayftfo*     fh«  iury  nliht  hoTO  ^olierod  that 
plalatiff  vmo  Kulltx  of  oosm  oarolossttoss  aad  also  haT«  hoUorod 
tJutl  saoh  oarolosenoso  «a»  not   th«  proxisate  oaaso  of  plalatiff  *o 
fall  aad  lajuries»  jfot  la  aoithcr  of  th«so  lafttruetloast  «hlo]| 
diroctod  a  Tvrdict  for  defeadf^ntt  o^^Q  this  oloaent  of  proxiaato  oaiua 
aootloaed.     In  holding   tk<-it   the  glvlag  of  a  sonovkat  olallar  la* 
struct loa»  which  did  aot  onrilody  ikls  tlcaoat  and  T.hlob  dir«otod  a 
Tordict  for  tho  d«foadaat»  «as  orror*  our  ^aprsao  Court  04&ld  ia 
Coapolidated  Coal  Co«  t.  Itokaao.  lai  111*  9*  16 «     "It  aight  ko  that 
plalatiff  failed  to  do  aosc     ct  or  wtic  iOillty  of  oosit  ear«lcoo  or 
Bogligoat  aot  vhleh  ooatrlhatod  to  hie  In^uxyt  7«t  vhiohors  aot  tlM 


«'i»i  dlua«   ««tfl   jf'-.jbt'    f'v/   ti^xiy^t   ^'^'i    4^i    ^Rti«(  ^4»l(<7   aJiSi»«s   -^d^   »i   !:iitiNjt«# 
iM^  batrvil^ii  ST4«C  iii.vi*  v:**«f?.  &^<'      *»3w»i.«j;  -ii  1«  fff^?*'   ^i   !• 


proxlaat*  «a««t  of  Ui«  injur j,  Mid  atlll  W  •Btltled  t*  rvoorvr** 

Vt  AT*  of  th*  oplnidn  thi\t  ^ecniMu*  of  lim  glviag  of 
thoao  iastnaetlona  tho  Judfaont  oppaea.od  froa  staoultf  bo  xvrttroed 
•ad    the  onus*   reannd«d*     Iiuisattoh  ok  another  trial  will  probabl^^ 
bo  hod«  vo  hoTO  r«fraiae<?   fro«  ^irouoaiag   tht  «Ti;:eiMO  in  detail, 
although  we  hare  ooitidoroc!    the   tvmit  iB  oomcetion  «ith  all  {,!▼«• 
iBttnaotioaa* 

Bftraoot  P*  J»»  and     Qaxdaiit  J«»   eoaovur* 


«w^y^ilf'!J>   4»^v  e>n,^x«»0'-   &»•»«  ...  ,. aaqraAC 


»»&57 


Mi  BKHKS  aad   :AIi:'X  V.   Il j^riK,  as 
Tr«»t««s  wider  tlM  Lactt  ^'111  «atf 


e*rj^r»tieaB  e(  iil*» 


COOK  ccMrrr* 

iSei.A.  610- 


Ml  7Tit«i«««  ttBcer  tim  Lftftt  ^^'U.1  «nd  TcstMMBt  of  J^Ti  2:«  loiior* 
««o««««d»  filed  ttetr  ^ill  ««iil«ist  5i«g«l»  Coepov  4  Coi^ui^r*  a 
oerporntlMit  e«  •!••  4«f«]sdftsi««     TIm  ou^oiort  fco  wIkmi  Uw  «»•• 
vfto  rofonrotfa  r^j^ortod  la  fuTor  «f  ttet  «ef»ad4«%«  oJitf  rooaaoMitM 
tlM  dlo«i»8«l  of  tlu»  bill*       tho  «tHtii««Ilor  overrtaotf  «11  exeot^iow 
f  tlod  by  ite  emploUiants   t>o  tii^   rttyart  mHI  ontor*^  «  <t««roe   <is« 
aiaslac  t)M»  btU  for  »(k«t  of  «*ii«lty.     Tko  eovylalaonto  hovo  o»po«Io4« 
la  odititlott  to   :logoX»  Coo^r  A  Coa9"«7»  ^li*  ^efmUmt»  ««r«  Ioao« 
S*  Keia*  oa«  of   Uw  traotcco  of  the?  ootaio  of  ^'foolsor*  Aoeoaootf* 
vteataui  (!•  Boekor*  Ttie  Kotioaal    '«iik  of  thm  i^oyvbXlo*  fte  Coairal 
fW9Bt  CMq^ytor  of  IUinota»  Siogol     torco  Cojr^r»tioa>  anA  w«jM»nr 
Korri«9  Jooe^  K*  Otio  oaa  AlKraaMi  Q*  Bookert  irttttooo  iai4er  a 
eertala  Totlag  traot  acr^^acitt  of  JnanskSf  31t  191<  t  b«tvo^'a  ^^io^olt 
Cooj^v  it  t^m^tmf  oad  Tho  ccatral  rraei  cma^matf  «f  lillaolet  mnA  all 
of   the  kaowa  o«aero  aa^   tBa  iwiaoaa  otmero  of  105C  t  yor  oaat  oao- 
Tvrtible  g&XiA  aaioa  4a%e^  Jftaoarj  51*  1914*  and  ibo  aataaaa  owacra 
•f  emtjfom  notaa  bolooKlag  to  aaid  priiMlpal  noteo  ioaaatf  aatfor 
•al£  fcTttot  O0ro€atat« 


Te««« 


if 


:,tm' 


t^O 


» JkiS««»*iqi«  4«<ti^  Man 


flM  kill  all«c««   (|i»gr  ajij)   tter  «u««il«i  •/  a  lMt»« 

«■  li«r#li  6»  1*^  a*  bet«««i  fMMplMimiBts  nma   d«f«iiriiuit     l*«cl«  Co99*t 
*  Caapaooft  vh*r«lqf  oaKpl&iniuits  l««iMHf   i«  snl^i  deftfadaat  e«rtaila 
9r«ai«««  in  tte  looy  »««tiaM  af  oiiieRi^  (li«r«iiHift«r  ^••ortkM')! 
%kKt  tli«  AKid  eef«wl»a(  ottcugpiee   fch«  ««M  yntil  sbaut  Xaj  1*  lflt| 
tlteb  said  dc>f«Bdaat*  i^ior  to  Umy  1»  191d»  t>«c«a«  fiaaiMiHlly  «i- 
barr»*««4  aad  1mm  «T«r  siaoe  reaMte«4l  Im»]»«1«« eljr  insalTtati   itist  it 
sold  oU  of   its  » seets  MKl  o«i  of  tlM  faro«o«4o  paid  aoaojro  eviag  ta 
oro45itora»  bat  th^at  it  loft  d«kta  ai^aidt  iaoladiac  Uio  ian«bt«tfB«aa 
ia  oaa^laiaaatOf  ia  trx^aeao  of  HlvOOd^oaOt  viaokore  at  ill  aayaid^  aad 
that  th«  corporatiaa  laui  ia  ita  ji^asoaeioa  aaa«ya  ia  •«««•»  of  $l&u«ooo 
vUek  eoa^lalnaata  claim  choald  b«  applied  upon  ita  iacebtadaaaa 
oadojr  the  lease  i  ih^t  oa  Jaonnry  31 »  1914 »     i*col»  Caayor  *  C««paaj 
aaaavtod  it»  lOM  7  par  ecat  7  /a«^r  c«BT«rtihl«  oold  natea  of  tta^t 
datOf  all  payabla  fthrwkty  1»  ldi^l|   tlbit  all  af   a«id  sataa  vara  iaa«ad 
andcr  a  traat  agroaatKl  datet    Jaaaairy  31*  1914,  h»twa><a     i«j|el,   ^^aoyar 
ft  Coa9n«y  aad  Tlia  OeatrAl  Tnust  Ce^p«<tAy,  br  viach  it  ««.s  praridae   ttet 
tha  «ot«o«  iacladiag  priaaiyal  aad  iatvresttt  ^it'ot  ai^ht  baeaaa  dao  apaa 
li«aidDtioa  af  tlM  aarpai^tian*  alkotlMy  Toltaitaxjr  ar  iavoluatary*  ar 
apaa  aajr  oala  of  ita  property*  *«Iloald  aot  be  paid  wtU  «U  of  Um 
other  i«debte<iaaaa  of  tha  earpar«»tiaM  thea  oxietiag  ar   thereafter 
aocrala«f  should  have  beea  pai(i   la  f«ll»  aaii  th»t  if  tiM  Ceayai^  ahaalA 
beeaae  ia»olT«at  and  aMble  ta  paj  aU  ita  ar««itora  te  fall,  ttea 
papaeata  af  the  aatea  iasaet^  ar««r  e«ld  a^e«a»Bt  ahaald  ha  pnntpaaad 
to  the  papaaat  af  tha  Caapaar*s  ather  iadehtedaaaa*     Bat  thiit  the  aatea 
iasaed  ehofild  be  paid  before  the  distributiaa  af  aar  part  af  tiM 
pr^^rtp  ar  aaseto  of  tha  Conpaay  aaeas  its  etaehhalderai*   that  there 
ia  aaa  datst&adiai?  aai  aapaid  of  the  aatea  aa  a«d;resate  af  ff 25,000 
af  priacipta  aad  laterett  ther«aa  frea  Jaaaarp  31,  191«|  th»t  tJie  aaaera 
of  iheec  notea  clala  ta  be  entitled  to  the  fwtfa  aad  prapertj  etill  halA 
by     ietel,  Caaper  *  Cm»maar»  bat  that  eaaplaiaante  chnrsa  ttet  aaiag  ta 


:^'='.T9    ^?    (AHa.-t?--  i»iX«   1114    <^itt 

e-5  3^i:w«  «t*s®«  Mw^  mk^f^&*t!i  n^^   Ic    wise  ;>««s  e;tssa«  a#i   t©  -ll*   ^^9 

-••^gaej^  -^^a*  s&*<K?  M-^?^                                                              •        ■          .  5$?«J& 

::=^s:^-'-    ,i;^:a-   ^&««'^*;-f   , '.ni    .                                                ?g:va^'=^T^^    *?;  -fti.- 

^-■•^  ii  -    ■  .      V-    i.«:^   .                                               ■  -'-    .■-^-      '■■ 


•s* 


•  .' — -iffs  ^E«^^«»C»  .»»":■    -'       '■*       '■•    ,'""■>  ••     ■■*  ■ 


■?v,^  5»j*i'*«  ifnidi    et^'=^&  ?i4r«jr1  &Z<j;aeM>  IjuIs^    ?-*«i  ,'>?^ttje4«5»'-'  ^  tst^iWBii^  tis^*-*'"'   'C* 


-3» 

%1M  yr^vivlMIs  iB   Mid  trust  ac«««M«i  tlM  p«ya»Bt  •f  saU  Mttfs 
*aKrt  ¥•  p«stpMWd   t«  •AaplaliMnts*    t»d«1»teita««««  vf  tk«  esryoritUaf 
tlMit   itonlwi  a.  ■•«k«r»  TlM  Vntiottal  9«ak  of  th«  Itofablit*  TIm  OvatTttl 
TnMt  CMipiiay  of  Illiaola«  cMpJUiaaDto  mat  oortoUi  otter  yartloo 
(aaattf  la  the  biU.)  or«  ttao  o«ii«rft  of  ombo  4f  tho  outfat&BdlBc  aotwo 
•Jitf   tliAt  tht  M««»  of  otltor  owKom  aro  uaxaovii  to  c«9Xa.laaata|  tluit 
RkMit  Vojr  It  I#X7»     ioi|el»  Ooepor  A  Coai^aj  T*o»tod  oat  okoeBdoaoa  tte 
tfOBlootf  pr«*Ml«o«  oad   tltet  thoro  lo  aov  da»  tke  ooaplaiaaato  aador  tha 
tonM  of  tJM  loftoo*  ao  af  l>eeciriMr  31»  1«;^'.»  >X9rrd^ta*t«,  bo  part  af 
«moh  kao  ¥oea  paldf  tl»tt  ooByplaiJMafeo  have  ao««  Uurir  koat  offorta 
ta  roat  th«  ^uildlag  oiiioo  It  mi,t>  akaadoaadi  bj  oald  Caapaay  kat  tkat 
tko  l^rcoftt  eiaooaio  of  mammy  ^kiek  eoapI«iB«Bts  eouXd  reallso  kava 
koca*  aad  ooaf^Xaiaaato  boliovo  will  for  a  laac  tiao  ocntlano  ta  ka« 
Kttok  Io««  than  tko  aaotat  of   rcat  roaerrod  la  tko  la«»o»  aad  tkat  tha 
saa  00  oiM  «111»  durias  tko  yoodeaogr  kf  tk«  aaib*  iaeroaso.  Tko  kill 
prajro  (later  aU^y)   that  an  aeeauAt  aay  ko  tahoa  of  tko  iadoktodaoaa 
dao  to  tk«  eoaplalnanta  &ttft  tks  otk«r  aredltoro  af     iccel»  Caaper  * 
Coayaay*  aad   tkat  tlw  r  ot^eiTOS*  ko  decreed  to  ptkj  to  tko  ooaylalaaata 
aad  tko  otk«r  oreciitoro  tko  aoKMOito  dao  tkoaiasii^eciiTaly* 

Tka  jpriacipaX  defoadaato*  la  tkRir  aaoivoro*  aver  (iator  alia) 
tkat  oa  kay  1»  191^1 »     iofol*  Oaofor  4  Coavamr  oarroadorod  tko  prc^ooa 
ta  tko  eoHpIalaaato*  tkot  ike   attrr«ad«r  «no  aocoptod  k/  tka  lattor 
tkat  Vko  oatiro  rtatala  dao  tkt  co^pXalaaato  fraa  ^iofol*  Caoyar  4 
CoHpovjr  kad  ka«a  yaid* 

Tka  aaotor  faaad   tknt  akaat  It<arok  6t  1MS«  ■Mplolaoata 
oatorod  lata  a  «rittoa  loaao  oitk    icgal*  C&op9T  «   CoapAj^y^t  akorola 
aat  akorakjr  eaaplaiBaato  loaaad  to  oaid  Ooapamr  tko  oickt-otvry  otti 
kooWMiat  koildias  oitaaiad  oa  tte  oaot  sido  mt    .^ato  ttroot  aad  ax« 
tea^i&f  fraa  Taa  Bar«i  otraot  oa  tko  nartk  ta  Coasroao  etraot  aa  tka 
odatk*  tmi  froa  ^^oU  atraot  oa  tkt  aoot  to  tko  aUo/  aozt  onot  af 


•s- 


*-■•*< 


fiii^  ^tf^ifim  »j&ims js^i^ios^  fs&t   ^-h  ^-^  &I  ^^^.t  i^^ii  \msi  $«»ii»9t^  iMilaKti 

«sU  r^M   t***&i.    *»«^    *^    .,*-;x    v^---:    -a.v.'..'        .;:■    J^Si^ftei*    *-»=*   @is4l    J6ai9l  li3«s« 

«xfi  i<ift  is^-i'^'  .' .  ^im  i4^$JUf'il!»  ji^^kUiiifi  tnmm»mil 


-4- 

8%«te  atMci  Mi   Uw   <«•%«  mni  th»  b«llcr«  t>nA  ll^lit  aatf  i*««r  p 
f»r  U»  M«  vf  «»U  >iaitfltt^  Uon%«4  la  tiM  b't ««»»»%  ttf  ilM  bulUli^r 
tlMM  loMva  «•  999  mmd  »1  f«^fth  «T«Mie,  la     Me  e^t  ^^t  Xhm  l«mi»« 
«»•  f«r  A  p«rlo4  vf  %««st7  j*(Ur«  fr«M  ]f«r«li  !•  lfI2t  ilHit  tiM  r««tal 
f«r   tte  vk«l*  t«ni  wit  l^tMSyaoO*  f«7aM9  »i  tlM  rat«  ^f  |t«0»0«9 
M'  awnM  f«r  tlM  first  firm  jmmrm  •t  ih»  i«xat  $279f^X>  p«r  asBNM 
fM*  ite  mcwmd   fiT*  /«ars»  «ai  $90OtOOO  y^r  >iii  f*r  Uie  la  si  Um 
7e«ir»t  •ll  p&jaUc   la  Mon^Ujr  iastallBeaiat  «a  tlM  last  d«jr  of  ««iidl 
Bonihl   t^t  tte  !«»»•«  al«0  acvc^^^  to  pigr  all  t<ix«s  vkxlch  alcM  %• 
I«yi4r4  «i»oa  the  prtmlrttm  timriag   th«  tera  of   ilM  lo«i8«|  lilutt  upea  tho 
•xo««tioii  of  tiMr  lOftso     legcl»  '  oofcr  ^.  CoHpoar  took  ji^oaoociioB  of 
tko  yremioooi   tiM%  In  1914   aalA  CoapftflQr  wao  la  botf  flaaaelol  e«nditioa* 
oadi  la  Jnaasiy,  1914 »  tt  wm  latfo^iotf  to  ite  I^itor  Kotote   for  reat* 
«ad  (0  tko  iRtloaol  Boak  of  tlw  '  «jMblle»  tlao  Ceatrol  Trast  Co«poigr» 
Cora  Sxolioafo  M»tioai&l  Beak,  the  S^ttloaal  ^It/  Bstak  «a<     •  <!•  Beckor 
A  Cca^Maar  for  T«rloao  stou  at  soaoj  oaavooaat  of  loaas  thoriMoforo 
aadoi  ilbtt  la  ord«r  to  loprove  Ihtu  fteaaeloX  eaadlltioa  of     i«ir«l»  ^^— 
At  Cam>«ar  •»  ««3re«a«at  mio  aado*  i«t#4  Jsanary  SI  •  1914 «  bat  «hi^    vas 
oeta»ll/  eatered  iato  Fekra&xy  13»  1914 «  bjr  a»;  l»ct«ooa    'logol    toroa 
Cayforstioat  a  oorpor&tioa»  aj»  p^rty  af  Ui«  firat  fart*  aaa     ojOMur 
■•rrio*  ^oatph  otU  ^ad    .teakoM  o*  a«^or»  *•  iraatooo*  aa  ywtioo  af 
tko  a^coBA  p^%0   la  wklok  agirotaoat  it  oa»  oot  fortk  tlk^t     iecel  ^ia*•a 
Caryorfttioa  K&a  tko  o^aor  af  S*SOO  akRreo  of  iko  oityital  ciook  af 
^:it<«l»  Cooyor  4b  cm^my^  ooaai^^tiag  of  IS.SOO  akaroa  ia  lOli  that 
atot«l»  c.o%pw  k  Cm^^mir  ooatoapl«t«<^   aa  ia«aa  of  frrferred   otook  tkot 
««il4  ^«  Aatitlo<t  to  friaritjr  over  tke  la»fOO  ateroat  tkat  ooi«  tiwvMir 
vao  ia  a««4  of  additioaal  oayltal  aad  ko4  ox^cakod  oa  acvoamat  witk 
tko  Cotttral  Truat  Cm^nmy*  koariag  tkv  o<aat  4tkU,  yroTidiav  for  tko 
ioawAoo  of  ^ripOOOtOOO  of  Ito  aotoa*   Um  rl«;kva  of  tho  holders  mt  u^A 
aatoa  to  ko  saken!  laatoa  to  tko  otk«r  th«a  yrasoat  aatf  fataro  orcritoro 


-  -*r-s;'4r  Urn  ^^^SiS  -^'^^ir^  «;Si2^  '«».^af*f-^.j  .i/s^'  t^^^-^aMi 

....  ..,.        .  .-,^...^.,      .-.  ^^r  -k^     =»«...  c.  ......    _.  ...,.^     *  -t^^i^:;,  ,i3qBi»lB 

«=i«ii»»\«>  sr-uf^iil  «&.^  .-alibis'* -.%  av*«i4  rstft^*  *dti  «t  &«*Kail  isnRKfee  ^  »# 


-5- 

•f    ilM  Cmm^aMj,   anS    tH«    h«14«r«  mt   MtIA  BO%e«  ^  !■£   bcnoM   i*   cmi- 
Ttrt  &]M   0<UM   into  «n  la«iie  •f  fr«rf«rr*tf   Biccllt   ^1^*^  llF  w^iA  «c»«c- 
■•at     Ucttl»   :*«y«T  A  Coiq^fltj  «««14  n»i  mU  mmU  M%«a  wU.<r«s  a 
•ntlsf  ct«rjr  mui^^aM>«i  of  ik»  •««pM|f  ««•  tkm»mx9A  fmr  »  p«rl«4  af 
Xtatrt*  MBd  f«r  ilial  yvryas*    'i«t«l  3%«r«»  CarporNtlMi  acrve^   ia  •MmX^ 
••ftOO  akiixca  af  taid  «ta«k  ia  vnid  irvateaa  wtiAtt  a  vaiUlc  traat 
mipftmmmt  for  a  period  aaC   apan   r,he  iaraw  aoaiionod  Uk  oald  oo«iraa%| 
Ihai  OM.44  Kgrov^aMai   furt>i»r  ^arMctf   thai   -.)i«  vaiiag  trn«i*«a  aJk^ki 
Toto  %t»  fttaak*  aabjoct  ia  ^^h'*  ftgre««^at,  at  all  aaciijico  «f  Um  «ar* 
paarallan*   opeolaX     j»e  ^«a«rra,  upos  Jtay  Biatt«ra  »itaakia4  to  tlia 
«a«lla«|  tlKi  tk«  «ciiaa  ef  «  wgorlt^  of    »nUi  Ixmetaea*  vitk  ar 
aiiliout  a  *0t^i.i»g*  ahata^  coMatltata  actios  of  %11  tha  ir«ataea|  tlati 
aalA  ftr«al««a  ware  alaa  ^I'v'a  ih«  p«««r  to  vate  ia  favar  af  aa  a^vaa- 
■cat  er««(.tliic  pretertmM   ttfotlk  antf  vara  alao  aatliariaad   f  adopt  tJaair 
aas  Tilaa  tmA  wi%h»in  of  praea«ara«  nfitkaat  aotlet^  to  tha  JstaJUara  af 
he    ctoclE  traat  e<  rtif  Ic'^taef   thnX  a«d<i  traaft     ste   to   t«nalaate    if  «iA 
wliaa  aU   the  sotaa«  vhleU  hnd  bora  la««aa  ^t  aflgr  ttac  ttui  aatetaMlac 
ai)<t«r  ih«  uotehaldara*  a^*«wnt»  alMal4  liaTa  baoa  paid   la  full  la 
aaak*  If  s.m6  skea  tha  helaera  af  nil  tk*  aateo  aatsUoailac  aadur  ilM 
Botahold^re*   jigy^aaantt  mmt  aU  ttaa  preferree    utaek*  aatt  traat 
aartl  le&tao  ou'vstBdla^  aadar  aAid  atfreeaaatv  aa^aatad  la  *rltla4(  ia 
aai4  taxaln^tiaai   tk^t  la  aay  ar^ab   :.^^ltf  traat  a<>e  ta  taraiaata  aa 
fn^rwirf  It  1*24 1   tk^t  tka  traat  r<c»ac»*at  kataaea     lagalp    aop«r 
*  -oapa^r  aad   tlM?  CeatTal  ?raat  Coapaajr  far  ika  kaaarit  af   tha  aata* 
haldara  «'^a  alaa  (5%ted  3>%amxTy  51*  1914*  tat  vaa  aotaalljr  aatar«<.    lata 
aa  ^•^Tm^J  13 1  ltl4f  tJiat  it  ^avlCad   far  tlM  la»aaaaa  af  aaairartlkla 
ffalo  acitaa  la  t)M  accr«fata  «tai  af  ll«O0O,ooo»  la  daaoala**  tUaa  af 
#l»i>CO  aad  ISO^,  all  ^f^rta«  «vaa  tf^ta  altli  aaltf  a<raaa»at  tpayaWLa 
aa  i'ckrmxj  1*  192I«  aad  ka  rlag  lataraat»  «ta.|  tk&i  aiti4  traat  mwn9» 
Boat  also  caalaiaac!  tiia  fallaaiafft 


-^    vt^-:..^   ibJ!--«A    ^    JT^gl;    ||{f»«^«    ^ft'S^-S't^^^    1«    tMMml   il»  •Silt    OaMit    M(2    J^7«T 
-.,;..;..  "»:ia*    9«U«^«4"8»^    4|*««^^     i»l*4<.    «a«<«nsfli    -i  .-'**    9»^    htm    «»«jM^ 

iiit^iA  9i^»i9itit4  '^ilHt^f  «9(-'  lMt4l4  >«l4t«>%i|  aLiKi^f-a^  ^sai^'«iqi«  M««  s^iit 

^jj^  ^Oitn^i  V'.srtiJ  bhm  4-44  Ji8»^  2>  ^ai«rs5  3C«M«   «^- 

^^kitasin^^  hWt^.^Ji  m^>*4  i^s^  ^     '.'va  ^i   SXm  0wal- 

49td'!(4    aflUK   »*Jv...  "■  :5"ier    «6'^    l/jt    bSt^    t  d«S»¥--2^^.-fi     •rS%**XSi^4*« 

^. -..   .,,,.»       ,..»...-.  .  .  '•-•'>• '-^fltC   "iAi    -"-   >?«IK  AX#^ 


*Thle  »•%•   it   iSBiitd  MM  ft«ceyt«4  «pMl  tlic  •xj/ofmrn 
eontiltioii  «xaot«4   for  t)M  iMMcflt  of  all  oiher  jir««eot  aai 
futur*  trvOiisrs  of   t)M  «0iM«Bl7»  ^^^t  tli«;   r  lights  •/   tli« 
h«ld«ra  of   ttai   not««  IssnX  mdtjr  aaild   tt^^i^aKHt   ar^   .^ub- 
er<liattt«4   t«  tl)«   ^If^hts  of  aJLI  oil^^r  yroaoat  oad  roLwro 
oro«{ikoro  of   the  ooayAH/t  to  the   oxioai  mM  is  t)M  Muunor 
provided  la  o»M  o^irocMCBt*   *  »  • 

li  is  oaqprooaXy  vBaorstootf  sMf   agro04l»  mHI  all  of  oati 
iMieo  sro  ioeno4  oad  *«e«pteO  UBoa  tlw  exyreso  eontfltloM 

(vhioli  «cre  :ar)Kt  io  mu!«  aort   rluoh  oon^itioa  is  oxaeiod  for 
iho  bsftcfii  of   Um  )io1««t«  of  all  tbc   ^rcs«Bt  (un.   faturo  ia- 
d«kt«<incsa  of   i]u  ooapony  otlier  thaa  thnt.  reyrcomto^  k/  tho 
notoo  oaoer  tkis  «<ro«soai)   t>lt^t  the  principal  aad   iatsrsoi 
of   tbo  aotoo  is.'Ued  lawlcr  thio  m^^t^t-mffnt  t^mXl  not  bo  paid* 
•ither  ia  «liol«  or  in  part*  «?on  tb«  lit^midatioM*  dlooolaiioa 
or     isdiBi-;  up  of  tho  woapaagrt     he  (her  roXimtary  •if  imroluatar/t 
or  upon  aa(y  sal*  of  the  property  of  tho  Coapsay  «ii4*r  oxec«tiai» 
or  vpoa  tho  aci^iiAij^irr'tlon  ef   the  property    lad   sfraArs  of  tho 
Ooafpaaor  ia  rocelTershipi   liaju.ruptey»  a--^oi^nBeiit  or  other  liho 
froooc«i$iagS0  witil  all   of   tho  other  iatfobtedaeas  of   the  Cosipany 
thoa  oxiiitias  shall  ^to  he««  paid  ia  fallf* 

that  aotes  a«jrro{C%tinfi  l^^3»  oo  ooro  io»aod  uadt^r  thio  acr«4wat  oai 

ooro  tahoa  pr iaci^lljr  by  tbo  old  erc«itors  of    >iocol*  coopor  4 

Cmt^ajt  %h»X  the  affaire  of  sai4    ^^ooipaay  did  aot  iaproro  aad   thf 

notes  issaed  aader  said   asri^eaeat  vor«^  past  duel  that  the   iat  ^  bteci 

to  tho  Boiato  for  reat*  ncoluoiTO  of  tho  deboatoro  aotes  tlura  hold  hgr 

it*  eoatiaaod  to  iaeroaoo  aatll  ia  #ehr«ary»  1016*  «hea  it  aaoaatoc^  to 

abeat  |2«0»000t  thac  tho  iadebtedaoe^^  to  the  hftahs  for  earreat  Is—    ' 

aaoaatod  to  |77&tv00|  th&t  daria^-  thie  period  maseroas  off  arts  wore  aada 

to  oeearo  additioaal  capital  aad   to  roorgani«e  the  Ottsiaetta  of   oaiA 

CmmpHUj  aad  that  fiaally  a  aMKttia«;  of   the  oro^itore  of  s&id  Company  aad 

tho  represcratntiToe  of   the  Ksiftte  ests  hold*  oa  ?«wraarx  1*  1016«  vhioh 

aeetias  ooo  the  roMJLt  of  ooTcral  prior  ooafereaoenf  that  it  io  ooa* 

toadcd  aa  behalf  of  the  easplalBaato   that  at  a^U  aectiac  it  aaa  onTOOi 

that  the  baak  ore^^itors  aad   the  Kctato  vore  to  oaborciaate  their  elaiao 

acaiaet   f'^icgel*  Cooper  ^   Coap«ay  to  the  claias  ef  aerehaadise  arecitorol 

th&t  the  Sstate  asre«d  to  sabard  iaato  $140»t74«9a  of  iioaoeraod  r«ii 

elate*  ^hioh  «<«•  the  looe  to     iocol*   Cooper  h  Caapaay  for   the  j9ur  1915* 

to  tho  ear  reat  laaas  of  the  baidca;   that  the  Estate  aipreed  vith  tho 

orvditors  to  defer  to  tho  baaha*  earreat  loaaa  a^ll  reat  orer  3  per 

eoat  of  the  craao  oalea*  plas  taxoo  f«r  oae  jroar*  a«d  it  ia  ftorthor 


t  ■  ■       .  .  .   ..-     . 


.7* 

coateBd*<t  toy  ibe   .^etat*  thni  Iqr  reitj»«a  Af   sAid  •^••■•■t  II  luta  a 

«lal»  *(iui»«%  Si«fttlt  C««jwr  A  Cttipvjiy  f«r  rent  •«f:Te|(Btiag 

M»9«a»«l3«4at      tluit  M  belMir  •f   tlM  c  ^feadr^Jits   ii   is  •«it«Btf«4 

ife»t  ^^%  said  ••ctiae  tte  wrlticB  lensc  ¥•««••■  i^i«c»l*  Co«p«v  4 

•ayaiy  •»!    Mild  i::«i«i«  «iu>  t«r«iiiai«ci  «uid  «aa  «il«pl«««tf  b/  •■  mtrnX 

mgfmamuk  pto^icimts  f»r  tte  j^jmmnt  af  5  ^r  •«•(,  of   tlK  grass  sales 

plus  taxes  far  a  ^riad  of  «•«  /sarf   ttet  all  ladetotstfassa  ahish 

assT«e4  wmAmr  s  14  Isaea  af  X908  aaitf  a^r  otiMr  laasa  ar  Isasas  that 

ersr  sxlsi«<)  briss««  mK  Hstaks  aaii     iagal*  Caafsr  A  Csmpsajr  luui 

tesa  paid  la  falli  ik»i  it  is  agrssa  ^tw««B  ths  p^rti^^s  tka(  iks 

taial  ((seat£  •£  -iagal*  Caofar  A  Uaay^iay  aa*  rsaaiaiae  ara  all  la 

aaah  aad  appreciaata  4ieo,i300  aaA  tli^i  if  tte  Kstais*«  slate  far  raitt 

is  a  Yalid   elni«  ami  is  &a  ba  yrsf erred   ta  %hm  elate  af  the  aaia» 

Aaldsrs*  the   eai4  eash  gaes  ta  tJte  Xstate»  uad  if  the  elate  ef  %h§ 

Ssiaia  le  nat  Tali4  wt  ia  iMt  etttitlad  ta  jviaritj*  said  aaaay  gaes 

ta  tke  aatsteldera* 

TiM  BSister  farther  faoad   tlmt  after  ft^w^rj  1»  191g» 

about 
Steipilt  Ceaper  A  Caapaagr  aaatUmed   ta  a«i^»at  its  tottaiaass  onti^^^ttay 


It  1913 •  daring  whtoh  per iad  it  paid  ta  aald  Aetata  a  warn  a%aal  ta  3 
per  aest  af  tha  grass  snles  %f  said  husteass|  that  the  trustees  %t 
said   >^9tate  addressed  a  letter  to  the  ha»k  ereritars*  vhich  letter 
«as  laeorporated   te  the  atiaataa  of   the  Meetiaig  mt  the  haa^rd  9t  dir* 
esters  of  lUtgelt  Casper  ^    •o^paSQr  hsld  <»     pril  22 »  1916 »  aad 
reads  as  fallavat 

*  hiaaga,    HI.*     prU  15 »  191g« 


Ta»  SatlsMl  3ahk  af  the  ltap«hlie» 

Caatral  fraat  Ce^paayt 

Otm  Kxshaaga  Patiowil  ^aak* 

A*  G«  Baaksr  A  Ca« 
ftaaUaMSi 

Ymi  are  the  holders  <i^  aatee  girea  hy  :: legal -Caaper  A  Co*» 
ttaaMltUlg  to  ^T75»ooo  par  Tftlae*  prineipal*  vhioh  are  naaag  tlM 
praf erred  abligatlwis  sf  thj?t  a«npidh>* 

fhr  tha  p«rpase  of   iadaaiag  /oa  to  agree  ta  a  eeatlmisaaa 
af  the  haaiaeas  af     iegel -Ca^er  A  co«   ia  an  effort  ta  effeet  a 
raargaalaatiaa  th»reaf  •  ycm  teve  aoaeented  ta  sxtaad  jraur  aotea 
frsM  ttee  to  tlas  ap  ta  sad  iacluciia*.^   the  preseat   ti»e»  aM  aa 


,r;  '     ?  %iS#i»^'«^.  SJi^i    J.,5    «-?«l^  j^.«'*)»    fejT-*-©    «li4    fif»X»f»Xl^ 


»^'j     KJJfe.     ...  _.      - .._ -  •***«   *••      _•        ■     _■    . 


•will  »xi«c«tioa  h««  ^va*  la  ;p«rt  kI  !•»•%»  at  tK«  v«HE^««^ioB 
•/  ihe  traiit«es  uBccr  ilv  L»ei  >^ili  aai  rcsiMwai  mf  Lmjrt  d^ 
Xt«it«rt  d««««.a«<»  tiM  Trustees  hsTt  h«]ret«r»rs  TcrlM;!!/  s|{r««4 
vlili  /Ml  Utot  tiM  aafMOit  of  ths  Xftss  siist«.in««  kj  iscsl-e»«per 
1^  C«*  4iirlBig  ilM  7«sr  raiiUig  ««:Wis  ry  1*  191fi«  'osomtlag,  as 
•iMnm  by  tbit  h«olis»  io  «l4i;»774*ta9  shoMKi  be  ircsUd  la  (ks 
foil  0H  lag  aaaasri 

In  o»s«  9f  ih«     I'iaid'^  tiaa  sf  Um  Aovpsasr  by  TOluntftry 
4llsBOluuloa»  baakrai^tsyf   or  •tlur«t»«»  »n  aaswiit  tqa&l  io  s^Li 
•aa  of  «14>»TV4«13  cat  sf  ibr   iadsbtedasse  vwIbc  froa    .Istfsl* 
Oooycr  4i  '"'••0  to  tbe  Trast««s  slisll  b«  sid»r«cAis4  t«  ysar  aet*a 
far  %775»04C»  so  «h?it   auoli  a»  <«ts  la  li^ai<Snti«i  slisll  ba 
affOLisd  first  to  tJw  pRj«t«ut  yro  rat*  of  your  ia43«btedaoss»  maA 
tho  balsaoo  of  ites  la(:ie)»te..a«&K}  to  tht  Tnutoes  la  oxaos*  af 
tbo  MWiHit  of  *140,774«63  «taA  vlara  yaar  lacobt«6mos«  oad  tkto 
baloaao  of  tbo  ^rustoes*   la<i«bto4aose  syaiil  hav«  bo«a  pmiA  la 
fall*  tbo  ssKots  shall  next  be  sppXloa  to  the  p-nyMcat  of  tho 
s&li  oaa  of  .14C»774«S2«  aac     j^  raaaiaA^r  stell  bo  apj^ioabla 
to  the  defonr«4l  dcbcatare  aot«s« 

It  is  aadersiaad   '-h  t  ooth  xtm  i«^  oarselvos  taaro  acr«o4 
that  th(^  aorelwailiso  crec  itors  shall   first  be   pai<»    la  full  oat 
•f   thexissots  of    thie   coryar^tioB* 

?his  eoBKttaicatiaa  is  &<i4irosi<e<i  to  yaa  for  tho  yaryose  of 
o«ifirai«j^   tbe  vtrbal  taieerst«adia«  ahOTe  «et  forth* 
Very  r^iKpoctAall^r  yaaro* 
(   iga»4) 
Tho  Trastoea  vmder  the  Lnat     tU 
aad  Tentaaaat  of  Levi  i.     Loiter* 
tfoaaasod*  by  Joseph  Xieiter*  Trasto«"t 

that  ajpoa  tho  expir- tion  af  tho  first  yoer  after  yebra^ry  1»  1916« 

thoro  woe  ao  farther  a^eea^at  bet«o«a  tho  p»  ties*  bat  fr«i  yebnatrj 

!•  in7»  oatU  lay  1*  191^*     iogi^l,  Gaoyey  ik  Cas^  ay  paid  tte  Xotato» 

fr«»  aaath  to  aoath*  9  i^^r  oeat  of    the  gross  sales*  jplas  tho  tsxesi 

ihat  ia  ^pr il,  1913 »  it  «ao  aatw  11^  screed  by  tha  Estate*     iegol* 

Caayor  k  Ctmfsm^  oad  itft  ox  editors  thbt  tuo  baaiaoes  of     iogol*  Caofor 

*  Coa^ahy  ohoala  eoaso*  aad  tint  ita  ecook  of  goods  bo  sold  aad  its 

ossots  ll<ttidat«d»  aad  th>^t  thbreapoa  tho  fellot«iag  agrovaeat  oua 

eatoxed  iatoi 

*KoMir«Ad«n  hetvooa  Cre<!itoro  aad  i'l^rsoas  laterestod  la  tha 
liqaid!«tiaa  of  the  basiaese  of     legal »  Cooper  &  va«9  a 
eorpo/atioi* 
Tho  Ml'  ersi^gaod  who  are  oredltoro  of     legal*  Cooprr  ft  c^a** 
Kn6   tho  aa^ersisttec  a«  a*  Beok^r*  Joseph  k.  otis  «iad  seyaoar 
Karris*  who  sa  irastoeo  bald  aad  ceatral  a  aajority  of  the  otaak 
of  :>iogel*  Cooper  k  ilo*  hereby  s«ree  as  foUoast 

1«     All  of  tho  aadersigaoi^  haoa  solootod  R.  jr.  hallo  of 
Chicai^o*  oa  li(4ttidatoir*  aa4  a«roe   ti»tt  oi»id  Kalle  shall  ho 
placed  la  fall  cea^rol  of  tha  hasiaess  of     legel*  cooper  h  ^o«* 
with  a  Tiev  to  litittld^  tloa  of   the  oaid  baolaoas*  aad  dlspeeiag 
•f  tho  ssMota  of  s»ld  baaiaoos  la  saeh  aaaner  as  ia  tlM  iadpanit 


iSi 


6- J 


f^M-  9ifi«  i^E««^  f^r  %j^«)^  W-iiv^-i^  «#t  *^^  ^i^'  <K-^«.;ii>»  »jj>«^6  ^s^^^^t::^  -^ 


4«M»»ft 


J£  :j«  «e^- 


«1 


^; 


•9* 

Of   MtU   HaIX*  «««ld  ¥•  tor    the    Mai   latvr««t«  «f  aU  pmrti** 
iBi«r««%»tf   la   a^lt-    eorjKnrniiMl  aa  erf«lc«ra  ar  other^iae  la 
ilM  ortfrr  of  prior It j  of   thot*  respect !▼•  «lai«a* 

li  U  iaUadetf  to  veat  a   i<t   B«illo  villi  oil  tte  4ioorctlo« 
wkicli  ia  Ttoiod   In  tba  Boart  of  Mr^ctoro  and   is  the  aiook- 
holdcro  of   aald  ooaifMaor  oo  for  oo  uImt  rlrftctora  oatf   ac#okkoU«« 
oro  o«iirollo4  hy  iteo  u»«.«rai«]M4*  oad  li  lo  laioMtec   ibot  o«U 
fiaOio  otell  hoTO  ilM  ri«Jti  io  <:«9loy  oa/  oaalftioaiBt  cltkcr  tbooo 
wh0  oro  aow  la  iko  oat^Ioy  of  oaJA  -iocoi*  Coopor  *  -«.•  or  o^jr 
otkor  pera«na  viMOi  IM  aay  tfoos  otfTiooblo  to  aioplaj  for  tlMt 
fwryooof  tlt>it  ho  oaall  bo  ft»iiMrl««<^   vo  aoli   ilM  aoooto  of   ooi4 
SloftoX*  Coopor  &   --«>•#   in  auik  or  bjr  a^^loo  coMiaetaO  wi  Vm 
prcKioea*  or  la  nay  othor  asnttor  vJaUoti  teo  «ogr  (^<«a  odvioablOt 
oat   tltt^.t  o  eh  ot    tlwr  «u)4«raiga«c   oill  by  ro<itt«   bias   ^ba  Oiraotoro 
to  voto  or  ^7  vol  lag  o«  otocl^ioldoro*  i«ilco  mmf  ociioa  ahlch  aoy 
bo  aceooaorj  or  pro^r  in  eanneetiwi  vith  iho  adaiai^irNitioa  of 
ibo  offld  eorpor -tloa  t»  ^aoblo  tho  iM-id  Holla  io  porfora  ^^ay 
ooi  vblcH  la  hl»  JiMijjaent   la  for   tte  boot  taiarcaia  of  tte 
oorpor.'^tiots*   and   Ito  orrt  Itoro* 

It    lo  aB4Seroi<»o4    ^h- t   tbo  aarobnattioa  e^eOiiora»  i*o»» 
era<Jltoro  abo  Iskw%  sole  ia«rGbRa6ioo  to  ilw  o«id  oorporntioa  ia 
tba  ra^olor  ooaroo  of  bu^laooo  oa£  obooo  ololao  ooaoiot  of 
accouatK  curreat  oitooa  oa  ibc  beoko  of  tbe  oorporstioa*  obalX  bo 
flrat\p«i4   ia  fall*  oae   tbat  tbo  proeOf.<i»  of  iha  ll^ai4%tio•  of 
oald  boolaooa  obali  tbaa  b«  dXrUfi  oaoag  ibo  rtaolaiag  9Tr.  Itoro 
9loA   livt   atocOhoIdoro  la  tha  order  tit  tbolr  log^ki  prloiity*  abb* 
Jeci   .d    ay  «4profiaoais  oaleb  oay  bovo  boca  i^et-vtoforo  oaiorod   ia 
connect ioa  ibar4«itb  &lwt^la«  ^poa  tbo  p>^  ftlati   thereto*  or^f«y   thlrtf 
partioa* 

It  io  oad4i»r»ioo<i  ilk^  t  ua  io  lagol  aoitars  tbo   a«4tf  K«  J« 
lollo  ohauU  b«  rai^oA  by  tho  sidTloo  of  )  igrer*  M«yor«     aotrioa  tt 
Ploiiff  obo  !^r^  hereby  4«aieao%«6  bJT  oU  tbo  pfertioo  tercto  oa 
bio  lofol  fttriaorot  b«<t  t^nt  ia  oU  aoii«ro  of  baoiaoMi  polioy 
tba   obitf  Hallo  sboll  ex^roio*  bio  owa  boot  IwAoaaMl  aai  «bcmi- 
irollotf  tfiooratloa* 

tt  io  aadaroiooA  ibat  tbo  eaai^aoo^tioa  of   a  i<i  KoXlo  orO  hio 
^■tioraoyo  oball  bo  payablo  «»  «  p;  rt  of    tb*^  axpeao^^  of  ll^uidjutioa 
oat  of  tbo  prooooda  of  tbo  lit^ai^.^.ciott  of  »  id  bttaiaoo«r*  oad  tb^.t 
all  pariioa  b«r*to  will  aae  tbcir  twat  <:fforia  to  prooara   ooid 
^>iogol»  ^'Oopor  Ik  '0*ff  a  corpor^tioa»  to  eatc  into  tmy  eoair>>ctB 
and   tobo    «agr  Oi.tloa  a^eeaaory  or  proper  to  pertora  aagr  agrotaaata 
or  aa<l«  rtokiaffo  aa^e  by   a^i£i  Hallo   la  eoaa^ctioa  «itb  Uw  propoaod 
11  ttidntioa* 

It   lo  faribf  r  tta^<?roiood  tb&t  o«  far  ao  rar.roaebly  laoy  bo  aagr 
eloUi  of  TQ/  of   tbo  p' riioa  boroio  «hiob  Bay  arlae  ia  ooaaoeiios 
vith  aft  id  lif^ttids^tioa  obiob  aay  aoafliei  v  lib  tba   iaiareoto  of 
otb«r  jMtttieA  borcio*  vill  to^   »<'Jaoiod  by  &rbitr&tioa  or  oiborwioo 
oltb  tba  Tlo*  of  vbor»  pooeiblo  avoidia^  lltl^tioai  it  boiag  tba 
iatoat  oad  purport  of   UUo  a^iroraoai  tJ^t  nil  aattera  eoMi£cted 
•  itb  tbo  li^ui<S  itioa  of      iogol*  Coopojr  4  .^o*   ohall  bo  acjaaiaig   ao 
far-  oo  pooalbla  wltboat  uaaoeoe^^ry  delay  aad  viibaat  loo«  or  oaa* 
fuaioa  sir  1«  las  fraa  liviKntioa  batooaa  tbo  pf^riioa  bare  to*     CMloacot 

<^pr  11  13 1  ma.* 


riio  aaotor  far«bor  foaao  tbt^i  oa  Xoj  la  in«t  ibo  dooro  of 

iogol*  CoQpor  *  Ooa^our  o«ro  olaood  oad  ito  bactoaoa  oeaoodf  ibat 
iboa  oott  Coapo^r*  by  a«rooaiai  oitb  or. id  Ketaio*  paid  reai  at  tlw 
rato  of  ^1»COO  per  4H:r  f^  a  p  triad  of  15  deyof   tb&i  oa  May  1,  1910  , 


miim 


tl«^  •>'& 


■■^i»      ir.>f>.  --     .Ti*.*A^   ■*      W!'^^.'- -•      «;  ;       -3,5  -»  y..- .       ..    ■.    -.t:       ■:,« 


-^siS; 


-t-i: 


tte   Bi««k  •€  B—6m  mt  aati  Coi^mof  was  ••!<   to  %h»  B*»i«i     t«r« 

build laiE  tn  •  period  aoi  laivr  thm  May  51»  X9ld»  at  tiM   •mm  rest 

•f  IXtoOO  ftir  d«jrt   bbni  a  l«U«r  «fli^<  yi»6^   th«  tents  of  strict  asr««* 

■•ttt  «M  «<-iii»n  ¥y  Uu  K«i«t«  t«  ih*  Bo«'<.om     Wr»«  ««  follovst 

*«lb»  <  i«g«lt  Ca«j>tfr  and  C«n|Ntf«r  t«r»  •▼er  ta  /<«  tiM 
^••«o««io»  of   iia  8t«rtt  UttildlBg  Ml  or  «b««t    ttoc  X6Vll  tiay  •t 
May*  /ou  will  bo  9«rwltiedi  to  ooci^jr  oc*.!!!  bulltfla<i  for  ao 
m.n^  di^jo  AB  yott  i^^aso  up  to  Imt  »ot  htx^md  Kaj  21*  ltl4» 
oa  iwjmuit  to  tte  Loitor  ;^»tato  of  vh*  «ai  of  llouo.oo  pmx 
day  <iiiTla(;  t)9»  tiBO  you  cocibiinw  la  «tt(ih  ooe«poaoy*| 

that   tte  BoKtoa     tore  o^cwpird  tlw   otill<ttiig  aatil  May  23«  ll»ia»  vImb 
tlw   e^ook  of  c^odfl  «<«  «ov«<?  oat  of   the  builfSiae  «M   the  ^oildisg  was 
▼aoatodi   th'tt   r  laoe  tlk^t  tUii^   .'leffol*  Cooyor  *  Ci«ij>aay  Imui  polA  bo 
farther  r«nt* 

?h«  aaat^r  fiirtlier  foioid   \Hn^  %^  m«   tlac  of  tkm  vwcitmf 
of   «»id  C«ipiuqr  oad   »nld  l^atato  hold  on  Fehraeiry  1»  191€t  «o^  i*t«Bd«< 
by  ▼rirlotto  ofi'i«ero  of   tlM  InoUco  hereinbefore  iMBtiottod  audi  ^ 
roK^«»«Bt<»tlT«o  of  th«  Isctatof  tk- t  &h»r«  la  •««•  ««aflie%  ia  tho 
t«st,i»0Ry  as  to  ahat  vi»»  etald  «it   thlo  aofttiais  aboat  th«  thoa  oxistlac 
loaoOf  vhirthar  it  «,%»  to  bo  cnaeoloc^  ar  r«aai«  la  fore«|   t]fc».t  thoro 
amo  a  ttiac«r«  d«oir«  oa  tho  part  of  all  th»  altaoftcoo  to  tall  tho 
trmtht  ba&  chat  ao  the  tttiiimom^  »"a  i^lvea  ooato  10  y««r«  followtai;  tho 
eoaforoaoo  it  ««io  not  ol«»r  »a  to  msmgr  of  tho  <ir.  tails  |  th-«^t   ^hm  aoto 
of  tho  Bst&to  subRequcat  to  tho  eoaf«r«aoo»  ho«»Tor»  all  iadioato   that 
thv  aaoaat  of   tho   reatal  prvrie*^d  for  ia  a&id  oriffiaal  Icaso  of  M!>«roh# 
IfMt  »^o  ohaagod  to  aa  aaovit  oqaivalcat  to  ^  per  oeat  of  tho  fpraoo 
•oloo  of  said  Coapaajl     thr  t  oae  J*  H*  Bliaa»  Jr«»  was  oaq^loyed   aa  am 
aadltor  by  eald   Covpaay  by  m70' aeat  with  Joseph  loiter*  oao  of  ths 
traoto<'0  of  tho  Ketato.   aod  half  of  his  F«li<ry  oso  paid  by  tho  £otatot 
th^t  311  oa  pr^pftro<£  a  balaaoe  shoet  shoviac  tho  eoadltioa  of  tho 
baoiaosa  of  «iid  Coayaay  on  leceaiber  31*  19l£|  th%t  it  ehaao  oaaat 
tho  liabilitieo  vho  tnm  of  ^23.^,610*^i3  dae  tho  instate  for  deferrod 
rtat  of  tho  b«ildiac|   that  said  c«i  tfaoa  aat  iaelad«i  tuaj  part  af 


-11- 

baileiiag  th!-t;  mcnrwoa  pi  lor  t*     yril  14t  Itl^*  mmmmtimg  %• 
|I40»774*S2|   Uii.l  m'id  i&«m  ««»  to  b*  Bi*«r<i lttat«d  «Bid«r   tlw  ftffr»«« 
a«Bt  iB«r«lji\>«f«re  aeaiUaedt  MM   !•  set    i»claci«d  in   tlM  9r*8«Bt 
ttlaJM  MMAtt  ]Bgr  tlu  ib^«%ate|   tlk«i  tb6r«  is  aJL^*  »■  ite«  !■  sciid   Mliftt 
«ta»wia«:   tJfct  t]M»rc  ««•  4im   U  h«l($«  f>  •£  Um  7  per  •«iit  ocarrertfkX*  j 

n«i*ii  ^9'Mii900i)t  &a««t]h»7  vltk  iattr«ftt|   (h&t  it  clear 2j  »j»9«fljr«  frta  ] 

tlwr   aaid  rftpart  tk<^^:t  ih«  proacMfc  olaia  of   (Jie  Sdt«%«  «<.«  sol   •!»««  «■  ] 

tlw    l»aliuM>«  sli»et|    ihr-xt  rejf^rta  of  Bliet  Aait*  in  S^t^twi^erp  If  17*  Jai«» 
1»18»  and  X9v«nlto«r»  l^lOt  <i»  a«t   coatftln   «h»  elala  in  (;a*«tion|   tlb.t 
•  report  «&<:&  ^j  hin  on  A?0e««*«r  IC,  191ll»  •«it«ln«  all   tht  r«aniniag 
lin1»iliti«0  nf    U*ff«lt  Caef«r  A  Ceoq^i^JKy »  bnt  d«cft  not  cuii&in  tk«  oIoIb      > 
In  ^ttoationi   thnt  all  of  o^iici  report*  «or«  oubnittetf  to     oymnLr  Korrio, 
on*  of  the  tmeteea  of  tb»  £:;r.t«t«»  mni  no  obj  otioso  «or«  nn^*  to  bx^  •. 

of  mniA  r«9orts|  tkat  &  TOttch<::r  ch«ek  e*:     iegel*   ^eoyer  *  Conyaiqr* 

i«io4  Anennt  3«  1917 ,  to  tl»  Sstoto  for  |45,ll5«3u  ia  ifr«atoo4  no 

I*) 
follows  t  ;:| 

*'ientol  11  noatho  enc^ed  £»eeeiii^r  3l»  1916**,,.» ••••4184*230«5T 

L«o»  rental  jj^ajyiMiMio* 

U  aontlie  endotf  lGc«i*er»  1916  •••••  ;|90»,^99««9 

JoSMar/,   1917      1^»719«48  | 

P«I4  F^brn«r3r»   1§17   •••• B0,0c>0>00 14A.11S»1T 

(iw»«ai  of  TOttclier  eheeli) 
Bolanoc  tfoo  on  rental  for  11  mmkih^  emle^ 

lJ«ee«fc«r  n»  1»16 *..»*. •!    4»ai^aof"  1 

that  on  )?OTca*«r  lit  1920,   t)a>  Ki  tate   oMit  iia  statosont   to  >^«s*l» 
Cooper  *  Conp&iqr  for  a  halaneo  da*  for  1913  taxoa  a»  foUoast   *W«1onoo 
ff«ieral  tnxoo  aoeoant  19la  -  |>«,110.V4*|   tlfc*t  a  yottohor  dato4  KoTeAor 
lit  1920*  for  »aitf  ataMt  in  favor  of   th«  Istato*  «aa  iKioraotf  hy  tiM 
Sstato  *ia  fall*   for  halanoo  of   aaid  ^aeral  taxosi  that  no  ta&oa  \ 

aere   ch&rtod  or  paid  hjr     iosolt  Ooopor  &  Otmpnsar  after  Hay  1*  19ia|  j 

thnt   the  Katato  to«k  ehargo  of   the  ))uilAinf  after  it  aa»  TaaatM  hy 
the  Boetcm  Ctoref  that  the   Setato  hiwl  several  lac.uiri«s  ahoat  it|  ] 

that  tho  follooiac  lottor  aao  received  hy  tha  Kstate  froK  %€ldl  A 


iSi^AtSS^    ii^ 


v  '-  ^^SBK^'VC' 


,  -jstsf  'SMicr  _!&  #0$ 


^lt«i.^. 


».i. 


r^      -j:     :-J^N<».- 


-•;C5^«!4 


'^i^'^<^^ 


'-.if>      *^«l 


-12- 


*k  •iioii  cf   murs  h»»  H«k«d  «•   ta  lm,,ttir«  U   yam  «ft«K 

t'iiai*  c.tr««%  formerly  o«cttpl»<l  k;     l«fclf   v,M»p*r  A   ''MqMJQr* 

till  7»tt  iiindly  lei  a«  kn««   tli»  l««ia  19*11  ifliieli  /•« 
viU  tfOttaiel«!r  Miklag  «  !««&«  fvr  a  loai;  ivm  af  y«nm7  Omr 
9««fl«  are  •!    i,)m  hi^turat  fUiAiwial  r««9«B»ib^ilit/  asd  will 
■aica  a  B»»t   a«4tftUL«  ianaai* 

?matUis  «•  naj  Itew   tkia  lafenaatloa  at  /mix  aarllaat 
c«Bveni«aa«»*  I 

tlMtt  an     ii«uai  «»   1  Iv*   tlw     ttnta  rapli«4  ac  foll«<a«l 

''«^<'  hanra  ynx  l^tXtt  mt     tisuat  tftk*     t  (iuat*  f»r 
|»r«9i  mefplmmfm  «i  ite   i^uilciib:  foimrrljr  •cvi^ia^  %gr 
Siagalt  Coayer  4t  Cimp.'.>my  tjm  Xa^bictf   -^t  VaB  Buraay   ^^tato 
aai  CoBcreaa    :tr«*ta*  ^liiaAsa*  ae  fallavai 

Oa  a  f  iTe  yaar  laaaa  iSfO^OOO  par  /aHX  aat  ia  aa* 

oa  a  tea  jmnw  laaaa  t)tO»O0O  par  y«^ur  far   tlie  firat  flTa 
ym  mnA  #4<>i},0OO  par  yaer  far  Vka   a<^c«ttd   flra  jaara*   ihaaa 
aawaata  Wiac  aat  ta  thla  K»iata* 

Tlia  iaaattt   ia   ta  fmj  all  ta.xaa»  ia^^umaea  aatf  apcrcbiac 
axpaaaaa* 

If  jmur  aliaata  are   lat«zaat«4t  «a  will  ba  cla«  to  hasr 
fraa  /oa  at  aa  a>^rl/  4si«*| 

tJail  aa    'pttX  Sit  l^ls*   tH*  tt^iftia   rt;««iTad   t)w  falleviac  lettar  t: 
J«  L«  Kaaaavt 

*V-9mr  Mr.  X^ltart 

I  have   la  aiwi   a«aa  r«a|»«»ai)>le  parties  whoa  I   think  2 
could   tateraat  in  raatiac  jroar  bailcliM?  fara>i^7lj  aacapifrd  Igr 
c)iacol»  Coo|»«r  &  Cfampmrnj  tf    taa  reatal  baaia  war*  rastaaaaUia* 

ill  joa  kiwily  glvo  ae   tlMt  lo«oai  reatal  aa  thia  bail4iac 
for  tea*  f if ia«a  ma  iventy  yoaya* 

£>lsioaId  /oa  ear«  to  00a  aa  vitli  referaaeo  to  tMa  aattar* 
X  aaaM  ^  datf  ta  oall  oa  yoa  if  yoa  will  aot  tha  tiaa  aari   da/*| 

tkai  Um  fallowiag  reply  «»a  eoaft  to  &aaaar»  oa  -priX  3^*  1919i 

*1ij  4oar  Kaaaort 

ite  «aat  ^3 90 .000  aat  to  aa  far  tbt  :tata   -iroai  Sulla iag* 
Oa  thie  kaaia  «o  veald   rrat   for  fivo  ya^^rot  vltli  aa  laercaao 
caak  fario<i  of  f  iTO  yoaya  of  l50»Cv»0« 

Toarot 

Joaaph  La itor* I 

Uait  aaothor  lettar  aaat   to  K«a«er  la  aa  follo«oi 

"Vy  A<»8X  Mr*  Koaaart 

X  IMV*  yoara  af  the  v:4tli  mt  April*       o  4m  aot  oara  to 
aegoiiaie  on  aay  atkar  baais  thaa  tbr^t  ia<{i«aiod  ia  agr  latter 
for  reatal  of   tha  -i»U     tra«^t  luilOiag* 

Toara  very  truly* 

Joaapb  La itor *t 

tliftt  ftartt    liafxaor  ^  la«x  offered  ta  laa»e  the  four  apfor  flooro  of 
aaU  build  lag  froa  the  i£«c%«U  for  Ia90»00e  a  jroar  Vat  th*  offer  aaa 
aot  iieceptedi   tlt>t  aoaa  of  @&ld  lettero  or  of  faro  aaa  aabaltted  ta 


.£1- 


«• 

l:-     .    - 

■:s#. 

;s4- :    ♦ai*> 

»♦*■■?■  ^ 

rf^ 

9#    »j»fS 

.1 

^St«^S-4t« 

^^a^ 

?^a  '^?*i'. 

%>it^. 

v5-  ■      ■     ■■  - '    -  ■ 


-13- 

M«C«lt  C«ojpcr  A  CwBpajmr*  and  boim  ^f  th*  prepo«itl«n»  %t  rcBting 

0«*9«r  k-  Cwpavgr  by  tte  SstaU.  •r  by  ai^^s*  la  its  btludf  |  ilMi 
ih*   ftgr««^a»Bt  Made  on  fmhrm^rj  1*  19ie»  pr«Tl<i*4   tvt  \.hm  pmjmmnt  •f 
B  9«r  •«ai  of  ite  ffr«««  snl^s  plu«  tnjbt«|  tki't  it  tUi  Bot  avrcXy 
chanc*  th«  aiaaalit  af  rrat  praridecl  for  la  %,h»  arlitiaal  leitaia*  Imt 
eatirvir  ehaac«4  th»  ba«ia  apaa  wkiioh  fatar*  raafi  «e«  ta  ¥a  aalaaiaiatf 
9mA      'paidi  thfti  %h»  tem  «an«^r  sMid  Agre«a«ai  an*  far  ma  fr^tt  alurra- 
aa  tte   t«rm  ttn<^*r  &Im  «rlit»a  leaa«  ««•  &baut  If  ycerai   thr^X  oa  ^a^ra- 
«i]r  1*  ltl6t  tte  ^ant  for  »:talcli  tkc  3  per  o«Bt  mt  tte  grasc  »Alaa  waald 
b«  paid  «a«  fixed  ?«t  «••  y««ri  itet  ajMMi  iiM  axpiri^tlaai  af  Mid  y«ar 
d«  r»¥raAry  !»   19X7*  aa  acra^aaat  ir&«  aada  «a  ba  tlio  latara  r«atal» 
\m\    -iafvl*  Caoper  *  Gtmfmf  cantiaaed  to  pay  aa<  aaid  Sstata  «aa- 
tiaacc   ia  ««eept  5  per  o«iit  of  tb»  gresK  nklaa  froa  aaatli  ta  aoatkl 
tliAt  alMa  %ka  Baataa     tara  parcliefiad  um  «aads  af  sia^*!*  Caapar  * 
CMi^jagr  d«  Say  1*  Itid,  it  acracd    to  piiy  •XfOOO  yar  day  fras  JBay  Idth 
uatU  sack  tlaa  a«  it  vaald   tak«  ta  «•&  iha  gaads  a«t  af  U»  buiXdlat* 
aad  tlM  l<rtiar  af  tlia  £j^te««  ia  it  ataie^  Xhs^X  tha  aaai^M^y  sliaald  »ai 
oaatiima  lQa<er  th»a  lt«y  5l»  l9id|  tlMt  tiM  Ba«t«i     fr*  aatanMLad  \)m 
baildbic  f«r  a  pariad  ^t  #aT«a  d«ye   fraa  Kay  16*  1913 «  \%  Umj  t3»  19ia» 
aad  paid  thrrafar*  to  the  Estate*   tlK   uwm  af  I7»000|  tli  t  eutfmg  Mmj, 
191d»  aiai*  RftUc  vao  la  «oatr9l  of     l<cal*  Co^^r  ft  C«Mp«iqr  aa 
llqaidaiar*  aader  ite  asvataaaft  lwroi«b«fara  Matla«<><'»  1m  wao  gl^aa 
pax«l«9laa,   far  «aid   *iac«l,  Coopar  &  Caapoajr^  to  coatimM  ia  mw 
tlM  build  mc  ia  tla  ».la  ar  reaaTal  of  ih«  f  Utares  aad    tlmt  aa 
e^rga  ana  aad  a  fnr  aaali  aaa  ar  aacopoaay* 

Tlw  aastar  aaaalitdad  tlbit  the  laK««  af  Hnrak  d*  1908*  «»« 
aedifi«d  by  the  sisraea«at  nad«  Fabrac^ry  1,  11»16«  tc  a  eeapi  reat  at 
Umt  r«l«  of  3  per  oeai  •€  iha  grmm^  reeaipka  mmA  %itt  aaid  3  par  a«Bl 
af  aaid  sroaa  re««ip%a  aaa  fall  w*ymtm%  far  all  r«at  aecralag  darkle 


^i-   ;:  ,:        ■      ■-         ■     ^       ^     '    ■  ^ 


-14- 

%hm  p«ri«tf  fr«i  9€^rnaxjr  X*  191C»   l«  Hay  1*  I9Xa|   &lui  «l  lUj  1* 
X91c9t  %li«  Xmm  «a«  •■rr«iii:*r*«  nm6   thr.i  mil  rvak  ««•  i«  tl»  K«t«i« 
fr«i  :  i«8»X»  Cooler  k  CmK9tmj  has  ^cca  fiiitf   to  fvXX*  aad  tkat  tiM 
ooxpXatoaat*  iMtvw  faiX*^  i«  pr<rre  ilw  Mi%«ri*X  (vlle(uil«a«  e*ntAto«l 
in  the  I>1XX  ^f  c«BpX»tot»  mM   tto  aastcr  r«c«HMadc^    tiMii  ite  ¥iXX 

TlM  o<Mi>>X»ltt»at«  cMitevd   tliKt  th«  e«atr»ct  vf  V^^rupry  X» 
ItlC*  "wMi  aatftt  iMXaXjr  Vt«««'M  Um  7rwit«cu  of  tim  ««%«%«  cf  i.  •  ii« 
L«it«rt  ile««a»«4»  sat   »h«  flT«  baiUui*        *  •     Thmme  ««r«  Um  %•• 
•Mitr«iXtog  eTC<!itors«     Vcitlui'  t)i«  prlnelpaj.  d«f«ndiiJii»  r^leg^X^ 
e««p«r  A  CoMpna^r*  a»r   tlMt  lMX^«rs  »f  tn«  sA-^aiXXe^  i'«Wai«rc  V«i«« 
ha4  aay  9*o)«lar7  totorest  in*  •»  ««re  to  aiRy  «gr  »ff««t«d  by  tlM 
aiTe«aaBt*     Tte  Zie»s«r  «aa   Mcr  .^aaOui  o«aX4  ndjiust  tteir  eXAtoa  b«tv««a 
fe]MB««XTes  R«  tlMry  clHis*!*'   (li»t  *th&«  eenir  ctt  *  •  •  jorai^ded  tifeti  as 
b«(i««^a  the  Bitok»  cat   ite  I-citcr  K«>tat«  ilw  I«il«r  it«tat«  vvvld  Mcept 
S,<  «f  th«  sr«M  aaXe«  af  ^si«8»l«Caap«r  «a«  sat  coXl«ct  tl»  •atir*  rftataX 
prari«Ml  for  aa<i«r  th*  X«*ft«»  aatU  \,ttif  »«aka  tan^  bMa  yaid*     Tki«  ia 
a  qatniiaa  af  f&at«     Ua(l«r  iiii*  «9alealiaa  ^f  iJU  coaplatoaala,  ia«r« 
«aal«  aav  ba  4aa  ta  tlM  I<tiier  ]£»tatc  a^er  ^ttO^OOO  vhi«h  is  sra^iar 
ilMui  ta*  a«a*7  to  ilM  kaada  af  -l*ceX-Caap«r|*   tk«l  *ilM  MaJLca  Xaasa 
W(«««a  tlw  Trmaieea  of    tlw  Letter   ::;»ta%«  aae     Amg^Xt  Cooper  aad 
Ca^paa?  »»•  Bat  itfispXaactf  -    *  *  mmA  »&•  aat  aaaa  MMiifiar    *xc«pt  aa 
fav  aa  tJi»  Baidlc  w*r*  eoaaAzaD^.**     TIm  ja»«%«r  faaaA   tib  t  Umx*  aao  «■ 
a«ra«*aKat  »aAa  aa  Fabric ry  X»  X9XC»  boivaaM  .  iegeX*  c;a«p«r  * 
Ka0  ih«  I.«li*r  Xaiate  which  nal  aaly  eteji^aa  tlM  ae^uat  af  roaik 
pra?i<l«a  for  to  «ko  arigtoaX  Xeasa  bat  aXaa  elMas««   tte  baaia 
vlUeh  fatart  7«at  «fta  to  ba  oaXoaXatec  aad  paid  far  •••  yaarf  tlMtt 
by  tliia  ft^ooaaat    vlegal,  Caop«r  A  Coapaay  a»a  ta  pay  ta  the  Loitar 
3i:ateto  a»  r««t  far  tlw  dne  yccr*  ^  p«r  ««at  af  Um  graao  saXaa  mt 
iairalt  Caapar  4  fTaapoiigr»  jpXaa  iaxaa*     Tli«  elteae^XIar  oTerraXed  tlw 
•x««pttoBa  ta  thct'o  ftotfto^a  of  tka  aaatar*     At%*T  a  aarofoX 


^Xrrft    -■all*    TSSf    •^jtt.SiP..:  '^do3 

ft*   ifijSt     mJkMjiM^  «**^  Mflgl  «iiaM?:^   .=3»-.3    Ulms    *-.r..-v!^t    M-    -.i^  "ivi^   -Jca    l*9allP»«l 


■^.. 


-16. 

•x«ai»»iloa  •f  all  «1m  f«et«  «wl  eir««i«iaM«»  b«  rlag  U9tm  tlM 
Inataat  vMiUaiiMi  »•  ar«  siitUri*^  tlmi  ik*   flntflMca  of  Uw 
aH«%«r  «*rc  f«lly  jtt«iifl*tf  ^  tiM  prccf* 

nar  t«ftplAia«at«  cMtMii   ilMit  ti»7  **Rr«  emtitl*d  t«  tlM 
41ff«r«Be«  lMt«*«a  th»   rvAt&J.  jproTl£«d  f«r  «ui»r  tlM  Xv-hs^*  aatf   S 

%•   ^^il  S0»  X91S*  r«CftrdX«««  vlMtlMr   tte  a«r«cwKt   of   Fcbrv  rj  X, 
Xn«9  «a«  *Uli  ilw  BMika  or  «ltli  ^i«s«l«  Ooofer  «ad  CoapMqr*  l»r 
ilM  |Rarp«fle  tf  argWHNBt*  o«d  not  otJurywj^m^  «c   ««aceido  ilMi  tte  &4ir«o* 
»mt  sf  r«)»r«axy  X*  X9Xf  #  v&o  1»«t««ea  tlae  I^liox  Stttato  aac   :  logoXt 
Cooycr  atJKi   CoapoBST*  ««A   abeoXttteXy  Modified   tkr  rcMaJL  for  »  >^ri*4 

of  oao  jr««.T«     There   lo  no  ^uu^tioa   (bat  (bo  agrocaeai  of  F«brii».r7  X* 

and 
ldXo»  %:\u  for  oae  y««r»  aag  »o  iiior|ti*_/"  ibo  coatmoi  aft<;e  tb#  jromx 


b«far«^»  ^a  v«  hAV*  »JQa«a*  oad  aa  la  ss4adctecs  b»4  o«aM»  to  aa  «ad« 

taaotfiaUXy  tbo  reMal  vXA«ii«  ia  the  Xo&aa  af  It08»  vhieb  hac  bo«i 
4oi«na(i  far  a  ya^r*  rorived***       hlXo  ibo  aMotoy  faiaitf  tbi.i  apaa  ibo 
oxiAirfi^tioa  of  tbo  yoert  aa  Fcbrarry  X»  X9X^»  "ao   fmtk^r  a«r«o»m% 
*(%■  «MMI«  bofcYosa  tbt  ]^rtiea»*  bo  aXao  fmmA  ibat  ^f^fta^ol*  Caopcrr  aatf 
CoayaiOr  contiau«d   to  pa/  mM   a&i^  L«ii&r  £:s%ate   coatiaaod   to  <•  ocspi  3 
p«r  eeat  of  ttm  ef»s«  ^^los  froa  aoatb  to  Moatb**  oad  bo  eflsoladotf 
froM  tlw  eTltieatto  *that  »«id  3  per  oeat  of  aaixi  |^aa«  rvcoipto  «ao 
fax  I  p9Sfmmm%  far  aXX  ro«i  aecraiaM<  <Suriai:   tbe  pcrioi^   i  r«i  ''ebruKrj  X* 
ine.   to  itajr  X.  X9X3t  oad   tbrt  oa    ay  X»  X9r^»  *  •  *  aXI   rmt  tfao  to 
tbr  Le-itor  Satato  fraa  ^^iogal*  Gmmper  aad  Com^aor  ba«  boca  ^itf  ta  fall** 
The  «haBe«XXar  ovorral^tf  tba  «xc  ptiaaa  af  tl»  ooMpXaiaaato  to  tbooo 
fiat  lags,     ^o  «re   k  tlof  io«   tbat  tbeea  fiatflace  of   tba  Bi%strr  and   tho 
aoaoXaaloa  b«  drofi  fr«ai  tb«   erideaee  aor*  fuXXy  jai^tlfird  by  ^ba  proof* 
Xt   io  pXatai  t^t  OH  T<rbrw&z7  1»  X9X6«  aXX  partioo  caaoemeii  4«tsiro« 
aatf    frood  that  tb«  baela^oa  ef     iogoXf  Coopor  k   :««p«By  eboalA 
eaatiaae  -  ami  it  did   e(aiti]mi>»  ama  ia  tbo  poroaiaaa  ia  qatstioa* 
Tbaro  wBo  a  diff  «r«»oo  of  opiniaa  *a  to  boi»  Xaa«  tbo  baalnoas  obaalA 


•4£^ 


...•^■il    i^S^JtJ-^:t  x>tiiiij  sat? 


>i.j«.-#  --'i.-- 


■:ir.iiiiiiu:    jM-*    rttft^    **-•'    &•    ^.i    «k4>i»''^0    '£«   »#*65  >  :^  1  ii*.   *     *«*^    *3-.  .^:' 


W  ••■tJjM«d.     Tr««%««  L«i%«r  had  vatfer  cMMtsl^cry^iloB  oartala 
]v»«9e«tiT«  puamMBtiX  t«mmnt»  f«r  ilM  9r«Mln««  mMd  iM  vms  UMwilXiac 
t«  a^**  to  •ll»w  tlM  1m»ls«iiw  to  eoailnic  there  for  another   f«ll 
jt9.T  \aX999  h«  httuA  Xhm  ri^ht  to  t«rmiiiai«  th«  «i^«e»riit  ttpoa  ^iTlas 
«ixt/  tfr  aiaHTi/  4«7«  ii«tl«««       hlle  ae  rxyrcss  aiprcMiMit  «as  m«D« 
h«tvt«a  the   eoaplAlaaAt*  aad  »leg«l9  Ctn^jfT  &   Otm^wa^  mpn  ih» 
•xpirdtiMl  %f  ih»  0B«  yvsur  jperiad*  it  is  perfectly  el««(ir   that  thtt 
taaia««a  af  the  laci«r  va«  «aatiiani«^    (he/c  hy  aisrecMeat  antU  haj  I9 
Iffia*  wh«B  it  was  dia««ntiau«4  by  attttual  aoaaMit*     Th*  tnnttaoBj  af 
aitavMCs  far  hath  sKi^ii  »ha««  ta^t  *«att«rs  driftv'd  alaae  aa  thay 
«>«r*,*  and   the  £stat«  eoatiima^  ta  ftcctfyt  r«at  fraa  iiecal*  Coapar 
A  C«hpaaQr  «a  th«  5  9<»r  ««at  haals*  j^aa  ia&«fl«     Tmatac  l*eitsr 
tcatifiad  thj».t  "thv  thia^  drift*^  aa  an!  the  Rttcapta  tk' t  «a  aada 
ta  reach  a  d«riait*  agr«<MMit  vara  rvachct;  hj  r«aawal  af  laMi*  hy 
th«  BiuBks  aaci  hy  aar  gaatiaaiaM:  ta  t»Jpt  a  g»r  eg»t  f»r  thgir  rcat** 
Th«  r«at  aad  ather  vaaehera  giv«a  hy     ias«l»  Coa^r  t  Caavaqf  ta  tha 
Kstat*  all  ttappart  th«   th« ary  th«t  th«  rental  v^m  an  ilte  2  p«r  e«»t 
ha«ist  pitta  taacaat     tha  awnul  aaidits  aad   r<?parta  of     legal*  Coaper 
*  C«q«aQr  fttT   the  yeare  1917  mm}  1913*  prepAraci  by  the  audi  tar*  alea 
•appart  this  theory*     Bal/  af  tine  Ba«jit«r*a   salary  aaa  pa44  hy   the 
eitar  instate  aaA  his  refiarts  «are  prec*eae<?d  aot  oalj  ta  the  vstiag 
tvastsaa  of  "iagal*  Cae;>er  ^  CovLPaaiy  hut  ta  tha  L«iter  aetata*  aai 
the  latter  appears  to  have  aada  ao  at>4ec  ties  to  thea.       hila  tha 
roforts  purpart     to  state  all  •!  the  liahilities  af  ^i«cal»  Coaper  h 

Mqway*  they  esataia  ae  a^ntiaa  or  aaggestiaa  ef  the  llahllity  tha 
eaaplaiiuuits  aa«  assert  axiete«!  »  aatf   the  aatfitar   testified   that   they 
e<«itaia«<S  all  af  tha  liahilitiec  af   -1«8«1»   hooper  A  Coa^a^y  •t 
«hieh  ha  had  9x19  IcaenledKe.      ^  far  as  the  reeard  divelasas  tha 
preeaat  elnia  ef   tha  ee^plaiaaats  aaa  first  auserted   la  Kav9id&er*l»ia* 
Xa  sappart  af  their  iastaat  cMoteatiaa  the  eesplaiaaata 


•*i- 


^,:  y^i   ^i£J    Is  i««i.Jdxt^p9 


■%^&,:,''-i   « 


Ir. 


"ssq-^j 


*^?    ^.vi   6J 


,M*..  Ill  ^4  »3fiaE»i&:  «4if 


itll^i 


-17- 

C£.  ▼•  City  •!  »t»  Yem—.  ITS  ».  T.   3.   S««  tait  B«l%li«r  •f  th«   m 
tkm—  aypXiM  t*  tlM  facts  and  oireuMt«iia«s  of  thm  presmi  pre«««d- 
il««     Ttei  itat  »i»ds  of  tte  y^rti**  »et   a.s  to  tiht  teais  of  Xh»  rent 
fMT  tlMi  jroftf  nftor  rv^rvary  1»  1»1T»  ic  vrUml  froa  tte  •irooMtcacoi 

4is«Xft««tf  hf  tlw  ri»f^0Td»  Mad   froa  ilM  ««%•  %wi  coiKiMt  of  th«  pi^rtioa 
m  owirrtft  inylio^   la  fact  nroM*     "A  tiatraot  la^liett  la  f^et  is  a 
trtt«  eoatrtiet*  the  Ai^seaeiit  of  tho  :^<rtio«  bolac  laferro4  f»«M 
the  eir«wi0tn.BOQ««   *  *   *     i%n  mgre^memt   la  fa^tt  or«ftiia«  mm  obXlftjitlMit 
ia  lapllo<1  «r  presvaect   frtxa  ibclir  aeto*  ar*  as  It  iMia  boea  etlionvlaa 
stat«<it  whore  %h9r*  ar«  slroaBotaaeea  »hiah»  a«&ar<Sias  ia  tha  artfttaaxy 
eoarao  of  tfaaliae  aad  %h«  «a«aMi  amiAiatfeadlac  ^  aaat  ahav  a  antaal 
latoat  ta  aantraot."     (13  C  j«  a40*l.)     Tha  caa/  dUferoaea  hetvaaa 
aa  axfr«««  aoatraet  aad  aa  laplied  ecMty»ot»  la  tha  prap^r  ooaaa»  ia» 
thai  la  the  for»«r  tha  prrtlea  strriTo  at  aa  acra«a»at  hy  «arda» 
althtr  irsrh&l  or  DrritterBt  i^hlla  la  tha  latter  tha  a^rteaeat  la  nrrivai 
at  hy  a  eaaaidemtiaa  •£  their  aeta  aad   ooa4aat»     (The  People  ▼•  IJaaaer* 
174  111*  «3T*}     The  furihar  aoatoatlM  af  tte  oanplalaaata  that  avaa 
If  there  aaa  aa  acroea^at  for  the  payiraiit  af  a  leas  oaa  thaa  that  oallaA 
far  la  the  l<?naa»  euoh  asraeanat  waalei  he  wlihaat  MaaldcrMtiaat  aaA« 
therefore*  aot  bladia^  on  the  Estate »   is  vithaat  aerlt*  as  laider  all 
the  facts  and   clro«sst(«Baes  there  ane  el«ftrly  oaffleleat  oaaslderstian 
far  saoh  aa  iicnra«aeat.     XereoTor*  as  tha  oral  ««7««auit  aas  executed 
hy  hath  partlas*  the  oeaplainaats  ^re  now  la  no  pae it laa  to  raleot  la 
this  aqaltahle  pn'oeec^ias*   t.he  laat^^at  palat* 

tha  eenplaiaaats  etMatead  that  the   f  lad  lac  9f  the  aaetar 
thet  *oa  limj  1,  1918 »  said  leaea  wks  aarreadered**  aas  aat  Jaatified 
aader  the  oTldeaee*     V{«  flad  aa  aerit   la  this  oanteai.laa.     lhHl«r  tlM 
facts  aad  olreaastiaiaaat  the  aaster  owU.d  hare  juntly  reaehrd  aa 
aihar  aoaolaalaa. 


cC    :v- 


,   ^^-f^  fly:. 

MS^^ii^iM  ;jJ?4:  ^'-■■'■"i?'*  '  ■'■•'•■••'■2*^    jj  ■?■'■;'.'■  ;.  - 

^^ '  ■  .i4®.  .^u.-  ■■■-•:■ 

- »!}«»:««.  *jf*t43«  3j»«»5§.ii8r  i{|4E   *s*-4«Jj4-^-i  t^i   ^m  ^li^Xknkd   iiM  «3Mt«ty"it«liW 

minimi  i^^HitaU  m^  *&BiXr^-9-rso'9i%.  *M»4^ip9  »Md$ 


tlMr  pr«Mat  «l*iji  mt   Um  Loiter  S«t«t«  Wf.u  Mut*  vas  in  VoTCftoCT* 

l^tAiscs  to«k  t«  UU{   £«i»i«.        i  tk^t   itw»»   to  ((«»te   fr«v>  tb* 

A  CMqMOl/  ««i»  toldt  nad   Um  proct^dii  1»  casIi  ?>cr«  «»«tf  <)vrtilR  Mft7 
i«  yaijr  Off  «r«<siii«rii«     <4Ml   IM  Xaj  tiM  referred  ruit  i«e  pviMr  t« 
FvbniAry  I*  191(>t  except  tht  Kukordiaated  lt«B  of  |14&97Y4*5St 
«as  yalA  la  fttll*  t4Mt«th«r  <9;ith  iatare^i  t]ien:oa«     Tht  itpf«rr«4 
r*a(  far  mt  iuiA  ftlr«%tfy  )i«<?ii  jH^d«       Bd  the  luiaks  aai  etb#r 
•r«dit<»ra  v»r«  p*!^   la  f«Il   ia  fljgr*       Bd  oo  JuXt  ''#  1910t  tb« 
l«it«r  ••Wi«  «Ke  paid  tlOOfOOO  i^««  its  d*f«rr*d  nmA  wttb9Trilntt%m^ 
claia  far  |140»t7<&«t3  rent  prior  to  febranrx  I»  1916*       «  aabait 
lliat  It  la  a&aolotE<ly  lae«a<«iTabl«  tlt-«t  tb^  I«lt»r  aotato  «aald 
Bot  linYe  £«a'.lea«d  fiurib«r  r«st  llabllltyt  If  fvrtber  rmt  llabllltjr 
bad  oxiotftd** 

After  a  v&rj  earefal  oosaideratlaa  ef  tb^  rtrcard  vo  ara 
aatlalicd  tbRt  tba  d*«ra«  af  tba  ^iqierlar  caart  af  Caob  ^atntj  la 
a  iut,t  ^ao  aaH  It  abaald  b«  ami  it  lajtffirw»d« 

Baraoa*  ?•  J«»  aatf  Orl^loj*  J«*  eoaaar* 


•fix* 

■  .■--:■■- sf-xq    tsiti 


I^igl'        U^ 


ma  «s: 


« J2i5«s?t-  .  ♦ss-er,. 


0.  M*  Tum, 


▼• 


"•"-'•  i    256  I.A.  610 

m«  JU:^nCK  SCAXLAV  |}lSLZV::HKli  TKE  OflSlGS  OF  TBE  C08HT« 

0«  >«  *1Ut«»  plalBilff»   ra«d  Vajidtl  Brothers*  a  cor- 
p«rn^tiMi»  defendant*   to  recover     miX&rj  and  •Mnioelons  clmimec 
for   the  yenr  1933^t  muiitr  a  written  conbrret  for  his  eaiplojr«eni 
OS  b9]r«>'  ^-Btf  JMii;  ger  of  dGfeo^'-Bt's  fttrnltare  tfeyartnent.     Tlurre 
VAO  »  Uriel  before  tfao  ooart»  vith  a  jary*  mmA  •  Terdiot  vas 
rttmme4   flaclag;  tbo  ioaneo  ocainat  ttao  defendnnt  «uM  aoeoofiiBs 
ilw  ^Iolntlff*e  dftttsceo  «t  CXS,91I.69«       Judgseat  «&«  eatorod 
Ml  the  Terdloi  oad   ikis  oppe&l  f«llo««4«       This  io  tbe  oeooati 
trial  of  the  eaoo.     The  flret  «  .o  triod  by  the  eovrt  withovt  a 
jury  and  at   tbo  eloeo  of   plAlatifr*s  ea«o  defendBBt's  aotioB  for 
«  fiaciai;  «*•  olloved   aad  a  judcfaenl  a^-s  entered    thereon  for  tho 
plAlatirf  for  $I98«2t»  «a  oaowit  adaittod  hjr  the  defeadoat  io 
ho  duo  the  plKriatiff  am  o  o«iU*c«schIjr  o^lary  froa  I>eoeriber  IK  to 
l^eeemiie.    ai*  19't.^t  «ho»  ho  vao  disehargod*     ?liiiBtiff  ftppeaULed  froa 
tho  jud^aent  entered  on   the  fiaitiBr:»  oad  ia  -hlto  t«  Mawdel,  .Brothejroj. 
24B  111*   App.  3I3t  »e  rererood   tho  Judgieat  end   rooMBded   the  onaoo 
for  o  ao«   trial. 

Tho  defeadrat  h^s  utieaptea    to  rc-arfuo  oortaia  iaportoMt 
qttootioao  vhich  vore  ceoided  hy  us  mi  tht  foanser  appeal*     *  hoa  a 
ease  has  oaee  hoea  dt^iezitiard  hy   this  court  aad   its  aaadaie  has  goao 
forth*  what   this  eoart  there  held  in  det«ralaia«:  the  qaestioao  la- 
TOlved  io  tho  law  ia  th«i.t   Of.se*  until*   if  aTer»   the   mjso  io  rererood 


etmu 


«K^  AJ.M4 


*—:  n       ■^       i  ?»-■' 


>C?^^  f^^j^ff^T??    '•>£?«    ^^Ui^lr^/r.,    ^z-firV 


■,l-*f    *£;!?.:' TfT»'i'   3^ 


4eCt^:{<.,:..-     ...   .-;-:..^     --;-.  ,v.,..;-;.        .,    ,.,    «^.  .»^,-.  ..5*1*    ftrfT 

%H&}^  hiiii  »#Atef.ar  tt<t  i^r,   ^-nr^o  elil«    ^»  v^-7Mii»  ^:>ao  &Mi  (Hum 


-s- 

\fy  ttet    Mvrtmm  Ca«rc»  ajad   is  bliuiine  an  tta*  pnrtiesf   the  elrovit 
c«urt»  aad  iliis  oouri."      (Orlgley  t.     •od>  ISO  111.  App*  4ft»  47* 
>te   »>l»o  Oeaaliagtr  T*  ?Tt^   Illinois     tia»tie  '^lnj>»  tft2   HI.    vp» 
2M.)     t^a«»bioi^«i  of  lav  «Moh  hATe  booa  <}«eld«^  ^  ttn  appcllftto 
oa«rt  on  the  rpp«%l  of  a  onno*  «ilJ.  not  b«  asaJUi  eonalcervd  ea  a 
•eooaA  r;pp«ftl»   ami   the  docivloa  oa  th«  appoal  la  biaeiag  not   oalj 
iB  th«  trial  court  la  the  further  presre««  of   the  onaae  hut  also 
Ml  tho  appellate   trlboaal   la  etty  subsei^uent  appeal*      (i*eople  ex  rej^.. 
Kaataiic  t.  tt|lU«li:.  30X  111.  2*4.) 

TlM  defeaa^at  coateade  %hB%  *tbe  court  erred   la  pentlttiac 
plaintiff  to  file  a  replleatioa  to  dcfeattrvBt*!  affldBvlt  of  aerlto 
•   ft   <  that  the  gist  of  the  laeve  mleed  by  the  repllcEitl<»i  eotnuied  la 
tort  and   that  the  PMouat  elrilae^d  exeeet^iac     3*000,   the  Vunicipal 
Coart  v»e  «lthi>at  Juria<iletloa  to  trjr  the  la^ue  e«  raised  hy  the 
repllO'tieB  aad   should  hare  oustalaed  <5«frnd  at'e  aotioa  to  etrlko 
the  aaae  froa  tlie  flleo."     There  is  ao  aerlt  in  thio  contention. 
The   contract  hetweea  the  plalallff  aad    the  defeadc\at  coMtaiaed  a 
proTltsloa  th%t  *the  booko  of   the  Ceaq^amr  shall  he  aocepted  as  fteal 
aad  eonclusire  uptm  the  qaestlm  of   the  aaouats  dac  to  said  ^«plojo«»* 
•ad  the  defeadaat,   la  its  RffidBTlt  of  aerlts*  sot  m$  the  eoairact 
aad  alleged  "that  it  kept  fullf   coaq^letc  ead  separate  books  cf  aceoaat 
relating   to  the  buslaees  of  its  Peps^rtaeat  24,  coTered  kj   the  oea> 
tract  iavolTed  la  this  ease**  aad   the  plalatiff  sav  fit  to  file  a 
replieatioa  to  the  affidavit  of  aexlto  la  vhloh  he  ch>>rsed,  la  eff«ot» 
thPt   the  books  were  not  honestly  aad  fairly  kept  and   tteit  therefore 
the  proTlsloa  la  quest ic«  w^^b  not  olndlag  upoa  hia.     la  our  oplslaa 
the  repliofjtlmi  was  entirely  uanecessarj.     «^ithout  it,  whoa  tla 
defeadaat,  la  the  trial  of  the  case,   saw  fit  to  latrattaee  ia  erldeaao 
the  books  of  tho  eeapaqy,  the  plslatirf  had  the  clear  ri«ht  to  iatro- 
dttoe  evl<i«a«o  teadiag  to  show  thai   the  books  wore  not  honestly  or 
fairly  kept.       If  the  proof  shewed  th^t  the  books  were  not  heitootlx 


.<f'.r  -Ai^  &^   ♦.;  :iS.*«lj4l.l«JK»S  »?  ?»i^<ttJE«y»<>  oaXff  ••a 

£?ii:ii-vi>{«  «Ai  "^tf  i»s>&it>«?^  ««*»<?  sv^Kj^  ss&i^='        .:3>l-j^«;.-v  (••§$ 

a;#Jtisiiaa  m^l4si9itii':  t  tat  All 


•3- 

aad  fairly  ]k»pt»  tlM  fr^TialMi  !■  s«««ti«i9  •/   ••«-•«•  'mqmli  nmt 
1»t  1iiiKila««     Th«  &rg«a*«t  tk  (  th«  f  iliac  sf  th«  r«pli«ntloB 
«lwag«4l   ilM  KctiMi  fr«B  a;  ftiavait  io  t«rt  is  «ith»mt  Uw  sUchtast 
■•rlt« 

Th*  <!*feBde:Bt  next  o<Nit««d«  tluii   tli*  e«iirt  erred  la  dei^riac 
it*  Motion  f»r  a  r«le  upon  the  plalatiff  t»  flla  a  frill  (ftf  f^rticvlars 
''ia  aapp*?!  of  replieetioii  bjr  bia  fllMi  •   •  ••     It  ia  fondaaeBial 
tlMii  Mi«  allegiai?  fr««d  auat  aei  fortk  el«v<.tly  the  fe^eta  vhich  Im 
elaias  eats tt tut*   iha  fraud  nnd   «hereia  h«  luu»  )i«ea  daprlTad   af  tMa» 
rlgkt  by  ranitea  af   Uk  &llag«ci  fr^ad**     Tka  iaataat  caataatloa  ia 
baaad  upoa  th»  first  con^oatioa   th:i»   ihe  f iliac  •'   taa   rvpllc'^ties 
atwafad  th«  «cti«»  froai  aaauapait   ta  tart»  aad   #•  haTt  alraady  dia- 
poaad  af   th^'t  c«ni*fiti«fi.     Xji  aay  araat*  w«  are  uaable  to  aee  taa«  it 
cattld  y>9  h*ld   tliat  tha  caart  abuaed   Ita  diearetioa  ia  rctaalac  tlM 
bill  af  pi^rtiealAra*  aapeci-^lly  aa  tha  dtfsnctjit  had  poasaa^ioa  aad 
caatral  af   th«  booka  >uic)  rccorda  vhieh  the  pl^-iatiff  is  hia  replieatiaA 
attacked.       Kor«aT«T»  ««  arc  a^^tiafiad  fraa  «  aar«:rfal  «x<''aia«>tiaa 
of  th«  r  ecorfi^   that   the  defea^aat**  def  Miae  «aa  nc%  hnrwtd  ar  hiaoared 
ia  &a7  aay  hjr  the  eourt'a  i&etiaa* 

The  defeadxBt  caatead^   tha  the  ooort  erre<<[  ia  a  ■it^.ins 

improper  eYideaea  affered  on  behalf  ut  plaiatif  «MI   ia   aQstaiaiair 

aa  object ioB  to  proper  eTineaae  af fereU  aa  behalf  ^t  defeadnat*  Va 

haTO  earefttlly  eoasider&d  thia  eeateatioaaad  ^^e  fiad  ao  axihataatial 

■erit  ia  it. 

At  the  olaae  af  the  plaintiff* a  evicaaee  the  defenduat 

not 
■aved  the  eaart  ta  iastruot  the  Jur/  to  fimi  the  defeat* nal/:uilt/« 

thia  aotioa  «%a  orerruledy  aad  the  Gcfea^nat  aov  eoaiteada  tht  the 

eo«rt*a  «ctioB  ia   th  t  re^nrd  waa  errar.     *^here  a  defei^iijit  amihea 

a  aotiea  aX  the  oleae  of  plaiBtiff*a  caae  f9r  •.  directed  Terdiet* 

if  he  deairee  to  a^TO  hia  poiatf  a*  wtet  take  ao  farther  part  ia 

the  trial*     If  he  dot»a   take  sueh  p&rt  r^J^  d«airea  &  directed  Tordiet* 


im^isSiSill'^'  ^ii^  iSH^4i^  ^t  di.9^  o.  ^.^^iiim  tsars'^  g»i4i>A  tdi  i^esMo 

m&l4AMimy-^-  i»Si  4i   m»%'t    milt  : 'tW€»*t%s^ ^  iii»$$M 


-4- 

Ikt  ooiurt   ia  paMsiag  ob   «a«k  boWImi  aiiai  do  «•  ««  of  Mm  timi  1M 
■ak«u  «iioh  •«ooao  »ot.i<Mi  uad  o«ii«id«r  all  of  Uic  flnrldcao*  ilwa 
iatroAttoetf.**      (Caak  v.  Aa^yr— '■jy  24A  111*    'vpp«  044*)     Th»  d«f«]iKl«at 
did  But  uiaad  Iky  it«  notion  for  a  diroototf  Ttrdlot  \mt  proeoedod  to 
IntrotMoe  teatlaoay  la  ito  def«n««»  aoc   by  tbia  oourso  1&  vaiyod  oil 
obJecMoaa  to  tbe  nolloa  at  iho  eotir^  la  overrulljic  lid  aoiloB  for  o 
6ix9«ii9ii  YorolQi  ut   the  olooo  of  plaintiff's  rrl<^«k«o*      (Cee  ?0'»lo£ 
▼•  C*  4  ¥.  !♦  »•  C<^«»  182  111*  App,  125»  ias>  and  o  asoa  cited*)  ftoro* 
OTert  port  of  ttao  pl&latlff*«  oIj^Im    fmc  for  uapai<:    a&laryt  oBd   tho 
dofoodoat  la  tto  *>iffi^«Tlt  of  K«rits  cMie^d«d   lhr:.t  there  «e»  dae  tho 
plalatiff  for  \mgmi4  salary  «p  to  the  d&te  of  hi  a  dioo]|.nrgo«  |900« 
?rOB  ohot  ^9  hoT«  odOTO  otated  ^.&  to  tho  yroooat  ooaten&io&t  ve  do  aot 
pish  to  Oo  oMoratooc  os  holclaa  thkt  tho  jilAintlff  dU  cot  aako  o«t 
*^  gylto  f  Agio  eooo  as  to  tbo  oooBsiosioMo  allosta   to  ho  u«e  hlau 

The  d€rfead<3ttt  ooMtoadfe  t)^%     the  court  erred  la  &..ayiag 
dofead^nt's  eotloa  at   '.he  olooe  of  - li   the  evideaoe  teadererd  o« 
hohjilf  of  plKlnilff  %n6  def«»d?«t   fox  na  iaot rooted  Tert-ict  a^.viaot 
plalatiff  en  his  clt«i»  for  n  boaoa*  as  to  both  olasoee  of  oaleo» 
ret'*>il  and   coatr-'- ct •*     It  l&  rather  diffloalt  to  follow  the  dcfoniaat*s 
nrgmont  la  support  of  this  ooatentloM*     Ao  «e  anderotaad  it*  dcfead^it 
arffttos  that  if  tho  trlF^l  coartt  at   the  otmolualoB  of  the  plaiaiirf*s 
c^se,   thoaelit  th»t  tho  latter  h»d  aotfe  a  »ylia  tatuJM  sho«^ia^   ttett 
his  dischAXgo  was  aot  Justified*   etlll,  »t   ih«  coatlueioa  of  all  tte 
teotlJMBy  the   eTl<ieaoo  «.«8  over^hf^laiag  thzit   the   eefeadnat  oeo  Jmstlfie^ 
la  disch/^rglBg  the  plalatiff  oni   therefore  the  coort  ohould  h&iro  ia- 
straetec!    the  ^uxjt  as  a  a^tter  of  la«t    that  the  plnlatiff  vao  jMet:y 
dUeh-ircod   for  f^aaei  aad    it  further     rgueo  th  t   there  oa«  lack  of 
aigr  rvideaoo  of  fraud  oa  lUe  pnrt  of  tha  dcfeacltjit  la  aajcisg  tha 
redttotioao  ooiqpl&iaed  of  hy  tho  pi  In  tiff,  atti  therefore  the  ecurt 
ehoald  honre  directed  a  verdiot  la  f:\rtr  of  the  d^tfeadfiat •     Xa  our 
foraer  opiniou  «o  hold  thttt  evoa  if  tho  plnlatif  r  »ere  prope^l>  die- 


•f   r(»eib  Iti 

-...^.    .....    ..:» 

■,'  ^  ■  ■»  au-^  K    .  .  '"J 

'"■'^■^"  Yli^ttE.'vXfj^   eii^     .i    Ul>V*    .j.ifi*     «aI»J<    »*    tf^itjiv  •'* 


-5- 

ckarged  for  *ai««»  Ui'^t  faot*  aJ.«ic«  ivould  not  deprirt  hia  of  iht 
right  to  eoMtiaflaaa  up  to  ili«  dni«  of  his  dll«cliftrg«»  If  the  eri* 
d«BO«  proTed    thai  he  wna  •ntitlec    to  anjr  eoHBloelOBo*     lloreoT*r» 
th«  trlnl  court  hoA  not  th«   right t  oador  th«  rriconem  in  thle  eooa» 
to  iaatruct   the  jtiry*  oo  a  aottax  of  low*   thai  the  tiefeadoai  «oo 
jOdtifUd   IM  dlsch)  rglBg  tho   plAlatlff.     It  !■  el*<tr   that   tho 
plaiatli'f  used   laproper   and   iJi»altlag  iRBi^uago   to  hie   «ap«rloro 
ohioht  Birjadiac  alon«»  would  hoTo  ondoiibtedly  Justified  the  d«fo«A«n% 
la  dlrch'Tgia^   tho  plaiatlfft  bttt  the  letter  ol&lao<i  ihni  tho  defoad- 
oat*  for  the   purpoae  of  ceprlvla^^  Ula  of  o«Miio«ioao  that  rightfallj 
holoac''<'   t*  hia«  proroker   him.  iato  luiiag  the  laacuoc*  is  (iaestioa 
for   the  purpov;e  of  glYiag  the  defead^oit  aui  opportmitj  to  dloch&rfo 
hla»  «Bd    there  are.  undouhte  Ijr,  oirovKisiaiMoo  ia  the   c»9C  tlMil 
•apport  this  theory  of  ploiatiff «  oad   therefore  it  «ao  a  qaoetiMi 
of  fRct  for  the  jur/  to  d«oide  ao  to  whether  or  not   the  dlechRrgo 
of  the  plAiatiff  %nB  Justified*      (Soe  Rooe  t»  Oraad  Paat?  Co.«  ISC 
s.     •  92|     >yRde  T*  Hofkorjt  ^  ®«  ^*  ^^1  ^'Orraaoo  t.  Hoope«»  9^  Ail* 
Ml     I'Uhriho  Co«  ir*  ^yaaa.  290  7ed»  12»  15-«.)     Koay  other  ««tteritioa 
alght  be  eitod   to  the  effect  thit  preTious  provoet^timi  "by  the  auiotor 
oil!  soaetiaes  reader  excue-hle  eor48  or  beh&Yior     «hioh»   apart  frmt 
that  eleaeat*  «ouId   ooaotltate  a  good  grouati   Tor  dioaioeal*     Xar  'tp 
wo  agree  with  the  eoarvhat  labored      rguaeat  of   tho  ccfeadrjit   that  tho 
oTideaoo  overwholalBgly  ehaws  tfet   the   reduotieao  aa^o  by  tho  defeadaat 
were  fairly  aad  hoaeetly  aade  aad   thr«t  la  riow  of  thi\t  fact  mad  tte 
farther  fact  th^t   the  proof  orer^?helaiagly   showo  th&t   thif  plalatiff  was 
dicehi-.rged   for  4«»t   oaaeo*   tho  coart   ehouid  hare  directed  a  Tordiot 
for  the  defead^at«     la  its  nrewBent  la  oapport  of  this  eoateatiMi 
the  defeadi.at  igaoroa  facto  aad  oiroaaetaaoos  fawornhlo  to  tho  plala- 
tiff* •  theory.     The  plalatiff  »  de  oat  a  priaa  f;^cio  o^oe  aad  therefore 
tho  trUl  court  had  no  right   te  iaatruct  the  Jury  for   tte  «?efeadftat. 


•«- 


(S««    Wlip— I  ▼•   aUllttaJtalff,    321    Til.    168,    17€.)         «   ite 
comf4*4  thtit  ik«  pl»ijitlff  vas  entitled  to  a  e*rt&la  aaooat  f&r 
unpaid   9mlf:Tf»   th«  court  coulet  not  haTe  inctrtteictf   th«  iury  ta 
find   the   i»»«««  t9X  tlM  c'ef«BciHiit»     /<«lde  froH  wlfc^t  ««  bare   statvtf^ 
ilMra  arc  other  good  s^'^^xx^s  vlgr  the   trial  aaarc  «hoalci  have  r^f^Aoi 
tJM  ivo  aj^olal  instmotlosa  tfforea  by   llta  def«M(Jtt  •Itli  tte 
g«B«ral  iBBtruetloi  to  fian  t^x  it*     Tlw  defoncHiit  oiaiieakta  that 
^tha  court  orroo   la  /givinc  laproyer  iiie  tractions  oM   In  refoaiag 
proper  inetractiona  iottdored  la  behalf  of  <'>(>f«a<  eait*"*      In  tixla  «<ioo 
ttto  eharc*  »&«  dellv^r^t^   to  tho  Jury  orall/*     *Ta  »uoii(taa««  it  in 
not  «xp«ot«('   th&t  it  will  be  entirely  tT9^   frcm  etltiolsa  In  brvtj 
partlottlar*       hore  th«  Jury  srt  olk'-^rged  or^lljr  it  eosvlsto  o/  oao 
continuous  aad  comnreted   «Ji.^.rge,   so  that  on«  part  will  sXmmj*,  llKii 
mna   c^uallfj  th«  othor  parts •  and    it   lr>  unfair   to   the   sourt  ta  pick 
out  oert&la  portloao  of  tho  ch^.rgo*  oaitlln^  th«   otlM:r  portioaa 
«hlch  lijalc  «Bd  qualify  %.h*  snae*  and   thou  inoiet   that  the  court 
oomdttcti   error  in  Ito  eliargo  to   tho  Jury.      (Orocahorg  ▼«   qhilca  fc 

o.,  242  111.  110.)*      (^aaft  ▼•  Iprth    wrlo^.B  '.nioil*   a«3   nj  4   y-X, 
313«4.}     Rule  8  of  tho  ttunicipal  C^ourt  of  CbiOiMilo  rot.uireo  that 
"objections  to  tho  glviag  or  refuoUig  of  oral  iastruotlottt  to  tho 
Jury  aurt  he  speoifie  and  aust  ho  aado  im^diately  upon  tho  oaMluaioa 
of  tho  ch;?*rce  and  before   the  Jury  r^^tiro,*  and   this  rulo  ia»  of  course. 
eaforood  In  the  appollato  courts.      {Co«  iLlller  t.  Lf.ktt  vjeti  r.*.uti»  ^r*Tr 
240   111.  /pp.   3*i0   404 1      Iaierit«>e,_yi3juaieo  Corp.  ▼.   CoMaoroJal  Joyolyy 
Cjt.,  201  lu.  .'.pp.   54g«)       Attio  •  aor»l/  faUo»a  th(»  rule  eaforood  la 
all  courts  ^ihoro  oral  Ustructiona  arc  glToa.     Tho  defcadrjit  aa^-.c  but 
throe  opacifle  objoctiona  to  the  ehj&rsot     (1)     -Tho  defend  jit  ohjectod 
to  the  in.-5trttctloa  tolling  tii.  jury  thsit  tho  plaintiff  hau  a  Joint 
Itttoroat  in  th*  atook  or  a  Joint  lator«st  U  tho  prof  ita,  or  a  Jolat 
inttroat  of  nny  kiad   la   ih«   stock  or  profits.*      (2)     "Tko  defend>-at 
objected   to  tho  lastructioa  ^hleU,  in  effoet,   told  tho  Jury  to  tako 


^6i   %9t\  €«»«4sl   •.*fi  hell; 

...^-tr-vi-  ;.    'm^vl%    mi     ?i«TS»    ^t««S    Wif* 

.-%^^i^%«%-  i^i^^-s'&s  tit;* 

*  ■'      |»^  ♦«»  •€{^i^  *Ul  64^5 
»^^;{  ,  -.^t  -sfs  ffA^  d^  «nfeJt4i5»ifi'*  «till»sw8;«   ^f^-s^^i 


-7- 

iBto  co«ai<l«riitioa  tlM  q««atl«ii  af  goad  la,    In   r«li-.  tioa   &•   tiM   r»- 

oaitk*  ■•£•  by   tb«   pUltt;.i]rr   iio  tb*  defeadKiit*  en   th«  «p*ettM   ihat 

it  «a»iuM»  tk«r«  HAS  «Tio*Dfi«  «f  (•<L4ittc  ABA  ^^^   thtre  «aa  ao  «▼!• 

4eiie«   l»   tha»c«r<  of  g^wtiae."      (.^)     •.«/•«««■%  obJaot«d   to  ilM 

iaaiructri^n,   l«f.viB«   It   to  th»  jury  am  i«  wh«tli«r  or  aat  the  da- 

feaitiatt    Uind&l  'jrethera*  i^eted   la  i^ee^   faith  la  taking  "e^uetieaa 

»•  there  aaa  no   evldpace  before  the  jury  ef  b*tf  faith*"  The  de- 

fea£}'-at»   la  its   argtmientt  /    kea  no  ^olnt  aa  to  nmher  !•     It  eoa- 

teada  th&t  *it   «aa  th*  proTlace  of  the  court  and  not   the  Jury  to  orj 

whether  or  aot   the  plalatirfa  ooodaet  «»a  aueh  thK.t  tlie  cef^ndiiat 

was  4^ctified  &a  a  aatter  of  Iae»  la  disoh'  rgiac  pl&iatiff •     tkmxv 

«aa  no  coafliot  of  erid^'acc  on  the  ^aeotloa  of  vfhgr  ylaiatiff  waa 

di^oh'^rgcd.*'     Aa  we  hare  heretofore  atated*  ve  eaaaot  CLgroe  with 

the  eoBtcoiioM  thnt  under  all   the  facta  mid   ei:  f  .aatanoea  of  the 

eaac*  the  court  had  the   rl^ht   to   laotmei  the  Jury*  aa  a  aatter  of 

!%«•   that  the  dcf«ac.^jit  «aa  Ju^^tlfied   ia  discharglac  the  plaintiff. 

The  latter  had  been  for  a  moAcr  of  yocara  a  truattfc]   eaployee  of 

the  defendant  and   hie  position  «ua  one  of   Inportaaee  to   the  fira* 

On  October  23 •  19:^3 »  IM  had  notified   the  defend i^nt  th^t  ho  had  eleeto4 

to  tftke  rdT^atac*  «'   ^he  oIauso  is   the  written  coatraoi  of  eaploy 

neat  which  prow Iced   th^t  either  party  alght  eanoel   the  eontraot  hy 

liwinc  aixty  dajra  prior  notioe  to  the  nppoaite  party.     To  uuote  froa 

oar  feraer  opiniont 

*lteder  the  contraoi  la   .ueation  enterM"   into  morei^er  7» 
19S1»  ho   (plutotirf )    took  ch.  r$e  a«  buyer  nod  aana^er  of  defendant's 
furniture  departaent.      In  the  perforaaace  of  hia  dutiea  he  pur- 
•bAae<<    the   rtock,   arr  aged   for   iti»  »«!«,   fixed    ret&il  priceot 
aade   the  re^uctloaa  thereon   In   tae   courae  of    the  yer  r  or  at 
iaweatory  >»nrieda»  and   had  been  uareatrioted   in   the   exsreiae 
of    the  duty  of  aakiac    recuctloas  froa   the  yetr  1V17.     Tho 
rodttctioae  he  aaUe  kept   la  view  hie  duty  to  aalataia  a  groaa 
profit   of  33  1/3  per  cent  on  n«'t  retail  aalea  for   the   firm, 
and  durin?  the  year  19:23  redaotinaa  were  aade  b-   hla  in  the 
uenal  courae  when  neoea^nry  for  the  parpoae  of   uellln^,  he 
going  over  the   stock  £«r   further  reductions   !»   ^toeaber,  1923- 
preparatory   to   the    inventory  at   the    end    of    the  year.  ^^9a*'»»*V 


a«s.t 


■^'''? 


« .?noiiaK?j-i£ 


'Hi  Vd": 


'«s3«d^ 


'?«J 


Qoatri&ry  ^^  tcrw»x  ymctle*  of   tin*  fir«  his  Mi)»«rlar«  «i 

9rlc««  thnt  9ln>tnt;iff  thou^Tlit  w^«  unoHXIe^iuid  unJuRtlf iaibl* 
aad  (hat  t«u14  hav*  a  &<.*iMienc7  ta  dcpriYC  nlM  •/  aaaai^^aiau 
ha  had  aAniad  durlas  (h«  yaar** 

knt  ««  ihcra  •nii.  applias  alth  equal  f^ft  to  tha  preaent  recortf* 

It  «aa  plaintiff *•   theory   of  fact  tiiat  ifbaa  ha  axareiaec:  hia  riglit 

to  l«iraliiat«  tha  contrHott  tha  defcmssiit  (ictaminad   to  dcyriTe  hia 

af  apj»3Foxlaat&ly  $12*000   that  mikm  4\f  iila  and  at  kla  contYaat*  ¥/ 

vajvatlf  lahla  r«(Suctlaa  of  pricea*  aad   thr^-t   tha  diech&rga  vaa  part 

af   tha   sohaaa   to  dafraud  hia*     Thara  ara  facta  and  cirouRataaeas 

ia  tha  etaa  thi«t  anpport   thia  thaary  aad*  iharefara*  vhather  or  not 

%1m  dafead^at  ana  Juatified   ia  disob^-^rglA^   tha  pl&latifx*  aad  fhathar 

or  Dot  there  war  a  eoataiaaieaa  daa  tha  platatirf^  mmr*  qaaatiaaa  af 

f  aat  tT  tha  Jary  to  <i  eoida* 

fha  follow ia£  ia  a  part  of  the  long  oral  ekarga  of   tha 

eaortt     "Tha  aaxt  itea  ia  the  nattar  of  the  elmia  far  an— laatoa  oa 

eoatr»o%  aaloa*  lea*  let*s  aaai     I  thinh  It   la  eaaeeded  he  ia 

eatitled  ta  a  ««aaiaalaa  &a  eoatr&ct  a<»lea»  hat  the  rmoaat  la  ia 

dottht*     Sr*  Cook  I     VtXX  •     The  Caarti  Tha  aaouat   ia  ccntaaiad*  la 

th<^t  earrectf     Jtr*  Maaioat     Jfo  thara  la  aa  ceateation  at  all  oa  tte 

part  of  the  defead&at   thcit  ttta  ooaasilariea  per  ecat  etaiataiaed  ia 

tha  oeatraot  aalea  waa  aat  aaiataiaed  for  tha  /eari  and  it  would 

•iapljr  1»a  a  inatter  of  ceaput   ti(»  i»hat^ar  it  wotild  ha  for  one  jaar 

or  UBtiX  }>eeeaaiar  Slat*  oa  the  oimtraat  «  lea.     The   "oarts     It  la 

oaaeeoed  that  Ux»  ^kite   ia  entitles    to  a  eoar^iasion  ae  prorided   ia 

tha  ooatr'SGi  pt  1  per  oeat  of  the  A«t  eoatr&ct  svlea  la  exaesa  af 

llOOtOOO.     Yau  have  heard  the  evideaaa  aa  to  the  aaouati  &a«  yoa  vill 

deteralae  whether  ha  ia  eatitled  ta  a  aoHalasiaa  aa  the  set  ooatraoi 

aalaa  up  ta  Xecea^ar  Slat  ar  X«ceaher  31at»  dtfpeMdlag  oa  vhethar 

ha  aaa  rlghtfull/  ar  «roa£f«lly  dlacharged.       If  ha  «aa  rightfully 

dlaehftrgad  he  can  oaly  ree«Ter  to  tte  21at  of  £ee«iker|  if  he  aaa 


♦  i>*t) '■■■;.    txi-  .  i«-t   Xas^-i?   Jf?t«!^   ?!;l»irr-  •  ^'tSi^.*    »>-   i-'fT' 


5&:s$3     i©!    «f'-^» 


Tk«  def^ndaa^  no*   ■••k«   i«  ns>«m»    uh* I    thi«  iwrtlda  •!   ih*   ciu.rgi 
•ao  wrroBcoHs,     ua»  14  caaa^t  d»*  f»r   t««  r  •as«as«  first.   It  ^t* 

BO  sptoifla  •ejection  to   this  portion  of   tho  cliarge,  ojid»  oooond, 
it  •i;poax«   thta  it  aa((Uios«o£  la  tko  eorrectaooB  of  thio  ij&rt  of 
tho  ch.rgo.     In  aa  «f(oxt   lo  ovoio   tk«  eff«ei  of  .'ulo  a,  oountool 
•tatofi  that  "tko  voreiag  of  tho  lasLructlon  wa«  a«i  cuug-Ht  hj  tte 
oitoraojr  for  tJic  a^ttatn-tti  oad  «««  not  aotloed  imtll  tiftoY  tte 
r«rco»d  imtf  boea  t^ritten."       a«ii  «  !«»«  exoaoo*  of  cottr««»  oanaet 
*•  coasldered.     Tte  cototaoX  vwe  ftc^iisfl«d   *ifela  th»  portion  of  tho 
ch^rgo  ia   lUOBiiiHi  at  the  tis«  It  wito  d<*llvcr'^4  ajtf  kc  wlU  aot  a«« 
bo  h»tix^   to  ■»/  tJaftt  it  vao  orroaeoiui.     SorooTcr,   tbo  4«fo«iAniit«a 
ArgWMnt   tlisit   t]&«  aaU  i^rtioa  of   tho  cli<rgo  ia  erraacouo,   io  ^«0O4 
u»m  the  coatt»Btiott   th  t  tho  uourt'o  <5ecl»ioB  on   tue  fo«MP  a^-^pool 
Of  this  eaoo  «  o  orrmsoottfl* 

Tho  ««foad«at  ooateaAit  thnt  tho  oourt  cttoo   in  ri^fueii^ 
to  givo  the  follo^ia^s   iUi^iructioB  teadered  by  it  oftor  tho  Jtu-y 
ha«  retirotf  to  ooa»i<l«^r  th«ir  vertiioii 

"If  jrott  beliov«   fjro«  the  ^Yideaoe   that    the  plaiUitiff« 
vhilc   In   the    ««i^loy  of  the  cfeavsat,  or  in  tho  proooaoo  of 
hia  ottimriors  aad   ia  tho  prsecaeo  of  othur*  of  hio  follow* 
o«ploy«;s»  oadt   ff^atiuitl  11^'   the  tollo\^i]ig  sioUaottia  eo«* 
ceraiA^'   '.he  c^r«a<i&at  corpor   tioni  *Tho/  aro  noUiia«  hat  a 
biaach  of   crooka»   trjio^    ;»  be    t  mi   out  of  m^  bo«»»  aad  if  mmr 
of  yoa  people  have  i\nj  eoatraoto  -«ith  Kaaael  Brothers  «horo 
yon  got  a  boaua  at  the  cod  of   &ht  yvzr,  you  bettor  g«rt  it   ia 
yoor  <lalari««  aa   thoy  will  be  t  you  out   of  your  bonuo.*    thea 
yoa  nre  Instmeted   t}u»t  aach  ooatiaot  »a  the  ^irt  of   tho 
plaiati/f  oonetitate^  good  o^aa^r  for  discharge  vithia  tho 
Koaalni^  of   the   concr..\ct  of   cwpio^aent,   if   r  roa   th«  cvicvaoo 
'J*  J*^**^*   *^   >'laiatirf  did  aah?   such  reanrhs   la   tho  pre«ienoo 
of  his  aapvrtor   officers   \nti    ia   the  pre&oaoo  of  other  fellov 
M9l^eos*** 

Tho  ooatentioa  of  the  d^fendnat  is  oithout  a^rit,  as  this  inetruotiMi 

igaaTos  facts  mad  eirouast^aooo  ia  the  ease  bo^^riag  «(poB  ths  qtta«tiMi 

aa  io  rViOthor  or  aot  tho  plalatiff  ws»k  riichtfully  dieek^zscd* 

Tho  dofoadrat  €<rateads  thit  •the  srguMoat  of   the  eonaeel 

for  plaiatifr  to  the  Jary  ».  a  preJucloUl  aad  iaflaasatory.*     Gob- 


.     .  ■   ii 

:-s?f^    i«i^    ir*  ...  ■.•:i>l.-<S^II_     P?.!    »S^i^l& 


(•ntloMs  of    ital«  kinc    nrm  ^•cobIbjE  T«rj  ooaMOB*      In  thtreceai 
•Aiie  •/  taaar  ▼.   voXltMjf  855   -11.     pp.  23S  (««rilorarl  d^alW 
%j  tte  nitf<r«aie  c«ttrt}»  la  p««eiag  ttp«i  «  qveviiaM  as  %o  wh«th«T 
dr  not   tlM  jur/  w^v  Ispr^i^rly   lafliiMwed  Itjr  »  ocriaia  *«%  of   th« 
ylalatii'f  in  tiH«)t  eni**  «•  oaK  t     "Xa  ihlo  *nIigtat«ao4  country 
AwS  ondnr  out  oyatcn  of    ;niTejrosl  fdaoHtloBt  Jnrioo  auiit  b«  prooi 
t«  9*no««o  ref*.o««  nod  judgnoat**       «  «dli«r«  io  that  stutoaont.  TIm 
•al7  asaiKanont  of  «rrar  In  r«f*renee  to  tkt  nrgitaoat   of  tho  attonwj 
for  tho  ^alatlff  i«  t^t  *th«  e^urt  mrrmd  la  permit  tin*;  c^aaool  far 
ti9ptll99  to  aako  imprttfT  argaaoato  to  tho  jury  OTer  the  ab  J  cot  loan 
of  appoXlant  •*     Th?   tqcpvu  ahoss  that   ti^a  caart  not  oaljr  aaiitalaod 
tho  ol»4^«^^*na  of   the  dt^feaaaat   to  reaorka  of  couaaol  far   th«  plala- 
tiff   tk'^t   it  ao-i*  coaplatas  Qtt  hat  th^t  tho  eoart  aa^o  hia  rulia^ 
in   duch  a  snimar  ae   to  riNMVO  wmj  j^aaihla  ham  th-t  «oal<l  haT«   caow 
to  iht  eief«nd?ra(t   froa  tho   ateteaoata  of  coaaaol*     lariac;   tho  argvaeat 
of  tho  ceunaal  for  tho  pXniatiff  tho  folloviag  oeourrodii     "Is  thoro 
aigr  other  evideaao  th'^t  ha  wao  gaatfod   lata  it?     It  aaa  appoara  fron 
jPIaiaitlff*a  tkchifoit  3*  Mhioh  ia  the  letter  of  tfiacharge  whioh /an 
will  take  Kith  yoa  to  the  Jnry  ro«n*   th^t  <»   &he  dny  followiae  thio 
ooourreaoOf  thin  rtgrettabla  ooeorreaocf  ho  goto  a  letter  and   tho 
ttf-tiaony  ia  it  is  aigaed  £4«iiB  I^i^atiel  t»at   the  iaitials  on  hero 
are  *B«J»A«*t  a  In-ayer  for  Hansel  Brothers*     In  othvr  «ardo  thoy 
goaded  ^hite   lata  aayiag  a%at  hf  ClU   aad  iaartfinicXy  tl»y  dash  «p 
into  their  lawyer* a  offiee  -  la  other  aorda  a  lawyer  has  \mllt  a»  , 
ihia  oaae  froa  the  atari*     Hr«  kanion  (coaasel  for  defeadnat)i 
Jaat  a  aiaate.     The.o  in  ao  evidence  ia   this  re  card   ch^t  suqr  suoh 
Inference  of  any  sach  oharaoter  eonld  he  draaa  nai  I  objoet  to  oouasol 
aakia^;  i^ay  saoh  e^rgummnk  %nd   he  knows  and   the  court  kaaao  thot  thoro 
isa^t  a  tttd  of   tmth  ia  th.-it«     The  Coartt      %4eotioe  safttainod* 
Mr.  Cooki     If   tho  eoaxt  planae*  tho  plaintiff  teatified  that  tho 
initials  B*J«A«  aro  Benjaaia  J»  Aithalaer  aad   it  otaatfo  aadisputod 


-dX- 


-etfc^i 


'ia{,  i^di  ion  %9 


-Il- 
ia  tlLla   rtttord*     Th«  Coitrti     Tint  la  tru*  but  I  don't   think  7< 
lBf«r«a«tt  «a«  ftxaeily  Ju.  tifiee  aliottt   th«  wheiv   efi««»  Ir*  li«okt 
It  isn't   «T«n  AH   lafarevo**    it   i«  a  XR«y«r*«  latter*     Tha  Oourtt 
But  jou  said    tkatt   th*  vh«la  «aii«  «aa  built  <m  «  Inwyar*  a  tfouaaal. 
o  llr«   Cook  I     Z  wotild  9mj  tkoy  at^rt«<}  right   out*  Hare   la  tha  foioHi  ^tioa 
atOBOt  a  l«tt«r  writtaa  ky  a  lA«/or*     Fho  court t      >kJectloa   aua- 
tAiaodi**       The  tfefeBct»at   eomi>laino  of   tao  italiel<&c<l  portion  of 
the   Arguaant.     Tho  plnlatl/f   cont^aded    tt^^;.t  tho  dischnrgo  vaa  pitrt 
of  a   naheao  to  defraud  hi«  of    the  ooauBla^io&a    Iht.  t  ho  had   earned  • 
and  undoubtedly  eouiiis&l  had    the    right   to  coaaeat  oa   the  f«i«t  thai 
tho  defettf-^at  had   lia  sttoraoy  dr^ft  the  letter  of  ditschnrgo*  end 
plaiatiff  etronaoaal/  argaea  that  tho  ott^teBHint   la  (^ueotlon  «?8  a 
reascaahla   Inference  froa  the  f^cta  aad   cirouaataaoeo  la  eTi<!^ae«t 
and   ths't   the   trial  court  erred   ia  »u«talali^  tho  objeotioa  of   tho 
defendant  luid    la   st- ting*   la  the  ^eaoaeo  of   the  jury*   that  tho 
ftrgnaottt  vaa  not  a  re^^sonahle   iafereaeo  frea  th«>   eTldeaoei  hut  eroa 
if   it  wore  not*  the   court  not  only   nuekaiaed  the  okjectloa  to  tho 
aiataseat*  but  gave  hlo  reriaoas  for  aia   ?ietloa   in  auch  a  way  that 
the  jury  could  not  hare  hoea  Ispropcrly  prejutiloetf  h7   tiM  atafco^tat* 

o  aay  add  thnt  tho  otutaaent  of   the  attoraey  for  tloa  defeadaBt  la 
aaklae  hia  objeetiea  thai  "ho  (plaintiff  *  a  eotmeel)   kaowa  aad   tho 
court  kn««s  thxt  there  iaa* t  a  v^rd  af   trath  ia  that*"  vae  iaproper* 

^o  hanro  now  cotteidered   the  T^riaao  e<mteatioao  of  tho 
defendnat  and  «e  ^re  a^tisfiA^v  after  a  ear«fal  exaala'itioa  of  the 
r.cord»   that   tho  defeadrvSt  hao  had   a  fair  trial,   and  the  JudjpMat 
of  tho  Jlvaieipal  -ourt  of  Chio^ga  vill  ho  affizaed. 

Baraoe»  ?•  J*t  *ad  Qridla/t  J«* 


5t     • 


J?   rKii  ^n: 


imoB^l^i,  i^i 


■^ii^iTi 


^jcreafjt 


SSMT 


J 


lha  ssm, 


A9P«11»«9 


Tt 


fVffATK  VIILAVJ)  mxA 

/Vpp«lX«Bt»« 


! 


APJ=1UL  TTGH  CXr:CVIT\COTr?» 


j      256I.A.  611 


;•  jvsrics  scAXLAV  ]^:xjviS!Ks  THE  ophioi  07  ras  oovt* 


Lena  3«Bke  filed  h«r  bill  la  tte  Cirevlt  Court  of  Ce«k 
Coaaiy  ftcaiaet  ?ct«r  Heacbel*  austavt  J«iljuiid  aad  7r«d  Vi«|p!rt« 
TroM  «  c:«cr««  entered   Ib  ia«r  faYor  tiefeadaats  )i»t«  appealed « 

Tte  •eaplaiwuit  ie  the  •«ii«t  of  tte  preaieee  described 
«•  60&»  607  and   609  r-ivereey  paxkarayt  leeatec   ea   tlie   eoath  eide 
•f  riTersey  penrkway*  about  175  feet  eaet  of   tlte   iatereeetiea  of 
Clurk  eireet*   l  iTeritey  parkirftj  waaA  Brondvajr*     Tlio  yreaieee  axe 
iaproved  vith  a  build  lag   tlya.t  oocupiee  pr«etionll7  the  eat  ire 
lot  area  eith  the  except ioa  of  a  epaoo  deaerihed  as  aa  area^aj 
Or  jrard*  la  the  rcav  of   tlirc  build  ia^;  approxiaately  eighteea  hj 
thirty  feet  la  else*     Tbe  build  lag  la  L-shapf^d«  four  storioa  hii^f 
aai  is  ttaed  aa  aa  a^iiruaeat  hotel.     Zi  ceataiaa  three  otoree  oa  tlw 
Croaad   floor*  front  lac  <">  I^lToreey  parkway.     The  eeaplalnaat  aad 
the  dcfi-ndaato  entered   into  a  writtea  leaao  Cct^oher  38»  19Sft»  vhereby 
the  oonplaiaaat   leo^aed   to  tJw  d«feada«%o  tho  *pre«l»e»  koova  aai 
doaorihed  a«  the  aiore  kaowa  aa  tOS  Iriveraoy  parkvny**    to  ho  uoed 
f«r  a  reetauraat  aad  for  aa  other  purpoae*     The  lo^ec  expiree 
Soreaher  30 »  1940,  aad   the   tot<a  reaial  ie  $loa»000»  payable  is 
■oathly  iasi«ai»ente  varying  f  r«B  CSOC   to  ^700  a  aeath.     The  biU 
aliased   that  the   ealy  prealaee  leaaec^    to   the  defeadamia  *«ae  iha 

iaoide  of  iMiid  eiore**  aad  *that  without  the  eeaaeat  of  tho 


t^ 


«  1'«  IX»%^i^ 


M^  &&sX4-:^v  5rv.ft4:;>i}^  ♦Xs^^edS  ^*tf^  ^esi^E^JS  '<,#£t^^ ; 

■  "if-    " 

v;£ii   J2'     u-.'-.'^.y   ^-*Vf,\^    ..-jls^rr.  . i^^**;^  4«««|»t'!^4*.SK  «»  *(5iU»  »^   ilfft 

Y.:'^.,-i"-'       .'I.  .    4i**,?i:^5s  «^&^i    I»1l1t'^>&»   e#iE»^'^l«4!»   mAf 

«Ut   ttX<J«X«'<    t         .'.<'*-   vi    X*->^A*^  Jk^'lijff.  «JS^       ■      .    ■■•5-£   .'*  -•■?r^  ■ 
IXi?t   »j!7      ^j^SiP- -    .-    ^•••'         •       • -^  •    :-    -      ?■  J,,    ,-  V:: 


oonplAlnuit   the  tfefvndABts  er»ci«d  two  0ha«ka  tuJjoinlng   the  exterior 
wall  of  •miA  bulXdlBg  projeetine   late  the  T«fB.r  mxtwmmj  of  eMiplala- 
mat*»  lot  la  m.  westerlor  dircctiont  •mi   frcM  tlie   aoutherly  lot   llm« 
to  the  eeatherly  duildlag  line  of  eonplals«Bt*a  bulla  lai;»  — ^«g 
tlur  rear  of   eeltf  premleee  tmeifthtly  and  imsaaitaryt  aad  vrotttrfally 
AeyriTiBg  the  coeplaiaaBt   of   the  uae  of   a^id  premiaeai*   that  one  of 
the  ahacke  la  approjcUBatel/  aix  to   scTea  feet  deep  by  tveatj  feet 
long  I   that  th«  other   shack  is  fraae  and  ia  huilt  •■  to  ttar  fir at 
ahaek»  and   la  unsightly  aM  tmaaaitaryi   that  the  defendaata  pile  «p 
their  garhate*  debria*  waste  aatter*  ete«t   that  nwlla  eaaaate  frea 
the  gac^ago  and  coniaaiaate   the  ataoephere  aai  dietarh  the  peAoefal 
oeeiqpaBcy  of   thr  re  at  ef  the  preaiaeat  eaaalatg;  great  leeeee  la  reata 
%m  the  c<flBplalaaat  sums  eadaageriag   the  health  mf  ether  oecopaate  of 
the  buildiaj;!   thp>t  the  leaae  proTUea   that  the  defeadaata  are  te  keep 
the  prealeea  ajsd  ap^trteaansea  ia  a  cle&a  aad   sanlt&ry  coaoltioa  aad 
comply  witi)   the  ordiaaoeee  of   the   city  at     hieugot  and   reaeTe  all 
garhage  and   litter  laei^eatal  to  the  reetaaraat  euaiaeeet  aad   that 
they  *  shall  not  place  ar   o%ui?e  to  he  plaoed   ea   B?iid  yarot  amy 
te»por«iry  ehatructioaa  af  aay  kiad**'      The  cuaplalaaat  prayed  that 
upoa  &  final  he   riais  ahe  he  awarded  a  aaadatary  injuaetioa  >«hereh7 
the  d«fea<iaate  ahauld  he  uireoted   to  reaare  the  ahaeka  la  <i«et«tlMi 
aad   to  reetarc  the  preaisea  ta  the   ease  eoaoitiea  as  they  «ere  ia 
he  fare   aaeh  ehacke  eere  ereeted*      In  their  aaawer   the  defeadaata 
averred  thf*t  they  ha£  the  right  ta  the  aae  of  th»  yard  or  areavaj 
aader  the  lease  i   that   the  areavay  vae  uaed  ^  all  teaaais   for  the 
delivery  of  aerehaadiee  aad   aleo  aa  a  place  to  ko<'p  their  garhage* 
aoeepiage  aad  other  dehriei   thc>.t   the  arcaway  haa  beea  ae  uaed  hy  tho 
eauplalaaat  and   all  of   tr»   teaanta  aiace  :>eceahor  1»  1925*  aad  that 
the  eoaplaiaaat  haa  had  fall  kaowledge  of   aaah  uae  and  hae  at  ao  tiao 
wutAe  any  object  lea  to  eaoh  uee;   that   the  defendnata  bare  eauaod  their 
g^xThage  to  he  reaov«;d  once  e^ch  day  and   that  there  has  he«a  no  ehaage 


#»&t   -^l^ftEg:'*    v,4    ^»*^    $99r^   t^V$«    O^    XM    ^d^^UJfefe  -ialjfirfft    ^i 

iX*i  grafts'- ■  \i-:^^s^iit-  **»  ^^i3  -ase-^?  14^^  ^s?t3«««l-^i*  ^*-   ^islur  -iX$a&» 

^-ii:;    S-  ,  :y.i  sC  ^- 'i^m&f»  itstt      *»  isa&f  ■?.¥^=.   ~«   ^ase^J  J.-vifs  j^titv   v-i/i  ■soi^s^i 

«ejl»   MSi   (tr   6i«!i   bite,  asur  jjift^vr.    to  ^s^^^.C'^OiSl  OmI    bjBA  S4Ul  «it««l«JC|{W>»  i^J 
fi^fAi  *>»6*':?  e^t»(*  %*«  ;&mj!tJ>s*  »i£J   4*0.^   |««ff  ilwsre  ©tf  s»l^»t2f«  '©ws  »*s«8r 


la  the  wuamMt  •t  tendlln^  th«  e*r^a«*  ^«rlaff  th»  paa%  thar««  r«aFs| 
ilinit  there  kas  keen  a#  meeuBmlnti<m  of  litter*   r«fa»e  er  ^rb«c«  At 
wmy  iiae  lOitf   tltet  tWre  ]m«  been  ae  eteaoli  er  ebaoxioae  gBella 
MMB»tlaff  ftmk  said  enT^ftce*  aad   that  tlie  areewigr  h«ji  beea  kept  la 
m  eXe«a  msti   »aait«ry  e«a<tltlen*     The  ^cfeadAnt*  deajr  tiMt  the  le«ee 
eoAteaapliit«d   th?iit  thej  had  the  rlc^t  to  tli*  «••  ef  cnXj  ttoe  laeUle 
•f  tlK  et^re*  mad   they  deelare  that  the  deaiee  iaolMdetf  the  riffHt 
t«  «ee  the  airewmy  &s  •■  aejaa  •t   incree?  and   e^rees  to  aad   trtm  the 
reetaoTAntt   for  the  purpdae  of  df»lir<>rlae  nOd   r«oftiTiai;  artiolea 
aad  reaoTiag  garVa^ei  aad  ae  a  place  to  keep  t)M  gav^ajce  eaae  of 
the  def«adaata  aad  for  all  other  purpo^ea  iaoideat  to  the  reetaoraat 
haalaeaa*       The  defeadnats  deigr  that  thejr  erected   the  ahoda  vithoat 
the  ooaaeat   of   the   eoapl&laaat  aad   they  aver  th^'t   &he   ahcda  r.re  air- 
tight aad  eoTer»d  «ith  &etal  '  ad  «iere  aade  to  JMep  the  gartec*  eaaa 
thereiaf   teapor«rily|  that  oMBplaiaaat   kae«  of  the  erection  of   the 
eheda*  thtt   they  have  h«ea  there  for  three  yeara  aad   thr.t  eaapXaiaaat 
aftde  BO  ob^eetioa  nt  aaj  tlaw  to  the  prceeaee  or  uae  of  the   anae* 
The  defeadaats  fiarth<}r  aver   that  at  a  reeeat   coofereaoe  eith  tike 
co^plftiaant  ahe  nn^id   th&t  nhe  had  ao  objeetioa  to  the  preaeaee  or  aao 
of  the  aheda  or  th<f  maimer  ia  'which  the  gri)rba4[pe  vaa  he  ing  h«iadled  hy 
tlM  defcadABtst  that  ahe  aaa  aot  sufferiag  aay  cauoa^o  froa   tKe  «ny 
the  gnrha«o  me  heiag  haadlod*  hat  th  t  ahe  desired   to  loaTO  CkioA«a 
aid  saked  (^efead&ata  to  teke  over  the  lUttidliac  of  h»r  hotel  property* 
aad   that   the  defeadaote   refaaed   thia  reque«i|   th^t  eeaplaiaaat  offered 
to  vithdraw  all  obj«otioa   bo  the  aee  of  tho  aroaaay  if  the  d^foadaata 
««ald  yay  |aoo  additioa&l  reat  per  aaenthf   that  the  prestaea  hare  haon 
of  tea  oxaaiaed  by  the  health  dtpnrtaeat  of  tlbe  city  of  Chlor^^o  aatt 
*foaid   to  be  ia  a  healthy  mk!   aaeitary  ceaditloa**     Tko  defeadaiika 
doay  that  tho  oonpUlaant  hAs  lo«t  ai^  ienaata  or  reata  hyr  e«a«i  of 
the  prc8«ae«  of  the  ehoda  la  the  aroaaaj  or  the  Muaior  ia  «hioh  the 
fftS^Cc^  ia  haadled,  or   thfvt  oIm  haa  aaf fared  easy  daatage  therefroK 


^r;-3?i;>rixi3jif*  i^4   s«*4   -str^  v*sii    4jal4    48&41K 


«liAtBorr*r»     fh«j  mrmr  tlvit  thfvj  k««^  th«  platt*  eltui  «sd  B««t 
UMI  roMT*   ilM  s»rW#B  daily*  and   d^e^r  that  tiMr*  i«  smj  «au^mt 
•f  a  toreaoh  of   tlur  peao«  ar   thm,%  tlM  e«iplalBa«i(  Jmmi  aot  &a 
«4*4Uaie  T^matj  at  law*  axid  deqjr  that   blMr  oenplaiaaat   Id  antitlMl 
i«  a  aaadK.torjr  iajoictioii*  aa  ^ajfed*  ajuA  m^ut  tiistl  flonplnioaat  la 
CttUtj  9t  iRclMa* 

Xk*  «&»•  v«t«  fi9tx96  ta  a  aaiater*  aha  aac*  liis  fladiafa 
aAd  reeoMi«iKiatloast  aad    cja«  ctiaB«*llar   t.hFr««fter  «at«rae^  a  tfeora« 
fittdiag  th«  tqoltUa  vit^  %lm  •aa^lelaaat  da<:  paraaaeatl/  «njolaiBC 
Uk»  a«fojKiaata  fron  Meoj^iag  air  storla^;  g&n^a^^   aum^  aa<i  gartHm«  ta 
•aio  ar*A«ttor  or  yarti  a%  i.^y  tiawt  &aci  fron  arsctiag  o;  attftsptiJKC 
ta  tr««t  a«y  biiilelacs  ar  ab^  tract itmd*  »h«<ia  mv  abncks  la  ar  apaa 
aaiti  &jrea' ay  aOEt  ara^ria^i  tbtiH  ta  *':fartlMvltli  ;r€MDYe  aao   talca  dawa 
aai^   iibacka  ar  ataatfat  aas   restore  aaid  aireaway  and  ]^r6«l»««   ta   tka 
•aae  eomt it  iaa  a^a  tiie   aaid  ar«a»ay  uad  pr«ad8««  vare  ^lar  to  tli« 
(laa  thist   Wlte  <'«l>aaHnt»  erecttttl   t>Hia   ciki».6ica  or  abt^a*  and   tkat 
eald   skeea  ax*   eliAoka  ^«  /«9aov««4   ttit;lUa  aat  aH»r«   thaa  thirty  dsja 
fxoa  the  date  9f  taia  &««»•«•* 

tiM  d«i'eadants  ba?c  arg»»«i  a  aui^«?  «>f  eaatan&ioas  txad   la 
our  Jttdga<?ut.   6h«r«  j^a  auch  farce  la  3eT«r<«l  of   i.hca«»  ¥«t  in  tha 
Tio«  thiii.  «•  have  tak*a  af  tkia  app«al  It  «ill  ^  aaaaa»«X7  ta  refar 
to  oaly  ace*      flu  cofcadaata  coaiead   tlMtt  tha  esttplaiaant  la  clearly 
guilty  of  laehaa  aatf   la*  tli«rtffar«t  ndt  ta^itle^   to  \>y»  raXlef  aka 
sa«ka*     fhla  oflot«ati«B  is  &  seritorloav  mkt*     The   &1m4b  la  Quaiitioa 
vara  aractad  ^  tha  defaadaata  la  Jaaiaary*  192<»  aad  the  bill  %S 
OMEpliiiat  was  BOt  filad  uatil  fearoh  5,  1929*     Thera  «a.s>  aa  hxsaaatii 
ta  the  prealoaa  oacm>lad  by  thv  ftefaudaats*  aad   the  dcfend^^at  ?et«r 
lieuchal  tee&ifled   thnt  at  ttm   \im*  of  tte  aalciiis  af  tha  laasc  ha 
atatec    to  the  coapI).laa»it   thi&t  as   there  was  ao  )>'\3eBeat   to  th« 
yrastiaee  they  sould  aoed  ^pftoa  la  the  areavay  la  «hl«h  to  place 
thair  gayha«a  eaaa»  that  thla  aoald  he  oaseatia.!  to    the  coi^t^t 


itntn   >c^  SA9l*  99slq^  9H$  fP^Ml  x^^  iMS  tiami  x^ait     »t»v»«aiiHibr 


-5* 

•f  their  restAiu'^jit  buelntaai  thsiC  fct  first  (tejr  pJL*«««   th»ir 
g»rba£*  e*a»     out  *t  nisht  mad   tiM  gurlMc*  vas  haiAttd  wmty  oaok 
da/ 1   thai  a  «e«k  aftar  thay  vprnM^    th«  pl%ca  ha   tald   tte  ooeiplalB- 
•at   that  ha  weald  lika  to  build  •  abad   la  ortfrr   la  kaaf  the  gurbaca 
e«tMi  under  e«v«r  aad    thnt   tha  eonplaUMUit  aald   that  it  wguld  ha  a 
hig  iMpravaaant  ta  hava  the  garhai^e  oaiia  toAtr  eaTerf   th'it  ha   thth 
{JAimRry*  1936}  ardarei^  a  cftrpaatar  ta  pat  up  the  ahadaf  thnt  whaa 
thajT  «arc  oaaatru«i«d  bm  aaleed  the   coatpXalAaat  what  aha  thaaghl  af 
thaa  aad   aha  aald   it  ab.0  a  wanderful   liaproveBenrt  and   that   the  gairhaca 
•ana  *9uXA  be  aut  of   '^ietht  aad   th^t  olat  «aa  aatiafiee  vlth  It   tllat 
«ay*     7ha  Hitneai^  testified   that  they  had  been  ualMg   the  shade  for 
that  pnrpoaa  ever  aiace  they  were  ednsinMteti  aac   tl»t  the  coeplaia- 
ant«  vho  Head   la  the  builc}itti^,   $,!xm  the*  e«a«t;uitl/  aad   thnt  aha 
aerer  ceaplalaed  about   thc^a  *  ant  11  ao«»"  itad   thftt   ohe  haa  alwayp 
aaod    th«lr  g&rhaiia  caao  la  the  ahd^o  for  her  garhago^  ant   that  the 
hotel  *al«aja  threw  their  c&xlia^  lata  oar  eaaa**     The  defeadaat  Vta4 
Wlegert  teatlfied   that   they  had  baaa  aalnc  the  a2ieda  contlnuaaaly 
alaoe  ^amtary»  1926«  aad   thht  the  oenplaiaaat  had  never  made  a«y 
objeetioa  to  the  aae  that  they  «ere  in&klBC  of  than.     7he  ooaqplaiaaat 
dealed   th^;it  aha  ShTo  the  defead^ats  peralaelon  to  build   the  albacka 
aad   at^'ted  that  ahe  vas  la  C&llf  orala  at   the    time  they  wer«  ereotW* 

ha  adaittOiS  th-tt  ahe  aa«  th«a  there  whea  ahe  r^taraed  to  Chlo&Ka» 
la  M»j0  1926»  and  thf^t  she  had  aeon  th^a  conaiaatly  siaee  nad  knew 
ths&t  the  defeadaata  were  alwciya  usin^  the  ahada  for  the  fMurpoae  of 
plaelag  th«  (far^a^  oaaa  chore  la.  Her  toatlato^y  re^Ard  lag  alleged 
oe^plalatd  to  the  d^fead^ata  la  not  of  a  very  aatiofnotary  kind* 

he  testified  th;U  whea  ohe  eaao  hack  fraa  California  ahe  vent  to 
Peter  leaehel  aad   ei^ld   to  bias     **So«»  /ou  know  there  has  been  aa 
avfal  coaqplalat  nhout   thi^  garhad;«»  *>^   <^^b  etuff  haa  to  be  taken 
away*  and  y«i  hnrv   to  tnke  oare  of  it»*  ai^  ho  oaid  he  voald*     le 
naatad  to  bull<f.  a  store  so  that  it  goeo  all   the  way  acroaa*  aad   Um 


m  IMS' jih(U^'''  '^'    ^i-Mg  ^imstti ^ l^m^9  ^4^.^   «...•...   aja^  •■i:-^f^»  x^iaix  imt» 


"$-«  -fcs^ci  *,«%  ■-:«'J   "sat  Bhmi.^  ^-^  :.':iHtim<t^^  ^d$  i^t 


Cf«i^»C*  0<ui*  ««uldai*t  shtiv*  Mid  h*  vaoited   to  rest  tfeRt  froa  at 
fOid  I  hnd  b««i  «niiia$  f«r  hJta  t«  hes^r  froa  hia«   •  •  *     I  v«aft«4 
kla  t«  take  (Iwi  Btvff  avajr  and   tli*  iMalth  ««p«<rta«Bt  •!&■•   iA  to 
e««  ■•   tOKl   I   «aBied   t«  •«■•  to  soat  klaad  mt  tad«yaiajKllac  kct«««« 
«••     I  didn't  vaat   to  1»«  mtaa  to  thca."      ^>he  fiurilkfrr  t«3tifi«d    tint 
tm  '^Wiiwmt  or     <rpteiriior»  192d»  Poter  Heaolwl  snld  to  Iwr  that  ht 
would  llkf  hor  to  allow  tlira  to  pat  &  gnrtage  buraor  la   chr  Ttnrd   to 
taiRr  eor*  of   t)M  (pirlMMKo  oad  that  thpy  would  j»ay  hor  for   th*  opaoo* 
""tkoj  opoko  olMut  the  yard  koestuito  tkoy  vaaiod  to  buUd  an  extra 
Imllt^lae  and    they  had  a  aaa  arooad   tlioro  fi^arlac  )m«  aaoii  it  vao 
SOia«:  to  cost*     fkxn  ttey  said  tlioy  uoald  eo»o  ovex  to  o«a  »o  aad 
«•  would  go  ahead  aad  aak^  arraa£«aoat«  with  Xro  "  traoBheia  aad 
draw  up  the  agretrarnt  hctweea  «»f  aad   the  dny  hefore   thoy  wore  to 
baildt  ?red   (^iecort)  eaae  ia  aad  he  aayai   *I  aa  lettias  you  kaow 
Bo«  that  wo  dai*t  waat   thia  rooa*  hut  we  are  goia^  to  build  a  oae- 
otory  bttildiag  ia  the  back  of  thia  reetA«rant  la  the  yard**     I  oayoi 
*Tom  oaa*t  do  that.*     Sc  snyo*  *«Vff  «luit  ia  the  aatter.     Yoa  doR*t 
aoed   the  ay&ce  aad  I  need  the  opeoe**      ^ad  I   o&yo*  't'ellt  ywa  bawo 
to  pay  ao  eokethia^^  for  it*  aad  «e  ^ill  have   to  eoao  to  eeoM  kiad  of 
wader  at  nac  lag*  *   aad  h«   oaidt   *I  will  aot   you  later**      I   «iiyo»   *I«a*t 
yoa  build  aaythia^;  vntil  you  aee  aot*   aad  he   eaid»  *Voll«  I   hawe  to 
oall  «P  the  aaa  ia  the  aoraiag  «ad  1st  bia  kaow  aot  to  ooew*  heenaoo 
wo  already  ordered   the  »an»  aot   to  oem  hack*'     I   oaya»  *That  io 
fiae*     Toa  toll  ae  wli'vt  to  do  wlthi  ay  pr^ertyt  build   oa  ay  property 
without  payiag  ae  ahythiag**     Thoy  aalad  am  ho«  ouch  I   waatee   for 
tiMt  book  ia  there*  aad  wo  were  fi|,iiriag  oa  ho»  anch  the  baa^Beat 
was  worth  at  bJ»   tiae*       The  haaeaeat  wae  additioaal*     I  wae  aot 
opeekia«;  of  th^t*       They  ifore  figuriag  oa  how  auoh  it  woolc   eoat 
to  put  ia  the  gax^age  haraor  aad  we  were  foiag  to  f  iirai'*  ^^e  all 
oat  hetwoea  aot  aad  we  were  «^iag  to  adjust  it  eo  th»t  there 
««ulda*t  ho  BO  «r«i/v  to  thea«  by  helpiag   thea*       Z  was  waitiag 


S'^i^avr  t     »  *  *  ^aXti  x»%^  x*ml  t&i  mkd  19^  '^tt4M»9  s»ttf  kMi  I  ima 
9^  tsJL  SMUta  iameshiiii^%  £iil««dt  ads  im.»  x^k^i  Ttisii^  i  j«ks  vnimi  m»  wilA 

fi-^xn  a*  »iJ:y«f  tii   3«^«^  tsatJ  »Js*f«j«a«'  &«jo^  ^1^  iim4»  safeq*  it»iit'' 

:         ■•  ,*?«i;  t^i^^  -al;;s  \9dti  si-i^.  -i   >«le^ 

i?ffl??  j£l»^$«i3'S»      <■  .0    .,    :•  ji«aB  its;>ii   *i«ima  OS  blue*'   •^*' 

■;:      '/,.-.•=.        ,  f.C*^*  9M#5»   ©if  ?-e  -wiK  »«ix  JU4mi  i^siMi^^s,  hi*'"<*   ^'«t 

^;?<»e    'xCuew    =;    .>;;i;iv  t»f-:  ..  ;'Aft'--  r&d'i        ■^^   d.^    "it?     5*jgi.'>cr« 


•7. 

f«r   tHrtn  to  cone  ia  luaa   hur*  som*  mwlerstaadlac*  •   »   •  Z  hmd 
obj«o&loc  &o  their  umiMg  tkic  yartf  under  the  eoMdltion  It  )ws 
%««a»  th«  vajr  every thiag  h«.e  btea  g,oixkg  oa*     I  (t«B*t  vast  ilM 
fArbage   oab*  there*       *  *   «     I   tald   thea  te  t«lce   th^t   staff  avcgr* 
?•  tokt  e«re  9f  thnt  c  rh«ite.       *  *  *     I   t«xd    tkea  to  aavc  crerjr* 
thtac  out  of   the  yard*     By  ihfit  I  aoABt  the   «h&cko»  ^aitece  MM 
ererytklag;  el^e*     I  dio  not  epeeifjr  the   eiieda  Hvt  i  ae««t  tte 
Bhedey  too**     the  tiltaeo*  foritaev  testified  thai  xtimu  wha  got 
h»ok  fren  Ollfomia*    in  Kejr,  192e»  sh»  teXd    th<»  tfefeadaata  to 
r««ove  *ih/iX  stuff  aja:   they  dldsU  evea  liatea"    to  her|  that 
*th«/  c«t  »«'^'r*d  about  it*"*  amd  ahe  told   thea  th^t  If  thoj  dU  aot 
rvM»Te  *thntt**  alie  «i»8  golAK  ^o  court*  aad  thay  told  her  to  gm  mm 
fior  as  ahe  llkefit  that  It  vab  their  yard*     a.o  «e  read  the  record 
thoro  ia  auieh  f  oree  ia  tJw  conteatloa  of  tke  d«fend«ita  that  thay 
•reot«d  the  ahoda  by  penaiaalon  of  the  ooapXalBiuaitt  hat*  la  any 
«T«at»  tlM  ooaipl«.iBaBt  far  three  yearo  a»»  the   shedo  o&ily  aad  know 
the  aso  to  ohieh  thay  vere  pat*       la  faot*  oho  did  eat  dixeetly 
dt^ay  the  tv««tJL»eay  of  the  defeadaata   th&t  oho  heracXf  «a«d   tlMi 
C^^rha^B   caJM  of  the  ^sfeartriata  in  the   aheda  far  tha  yarpoae  of 
j^acing  her  c«)>rte^   thereia.        he   rtdaittec    that  la  .Hosuat  or  l^eytoMhert 
3L9i'.a«   ahe  dirseuaaed  with  the  d«f«Bda«ta  the  que  tiaa  of  allaviag 
to  aakc  further  aae  of  the  areaway  or  y«ird  aad  thf^t  aha  told   thea 
th^^t   they  vould  have  to  ymf  her  soae thing  for  it  if   they  did*  aatf 
«e  thifik  ti»re  ia  eonaiderable  aerit  ia  the  oaateatioa  of  tho 
defeadAata  th-  t  the  present  proce^tsiac;  vua  the  reaalt  of  thoir 
refuaaJL  to  pay  her  tho  adc^itiaaal  r^it  a^  dea^adod  for  the  oao  of 
ike  areavay*     la  fiict*  the  caanael  for  the  e<a9laia»at,  daring  tk» 
he^^riac*  otatcdi     *T1m  tro«bl«  with  vheae  fellova  ia   they  vaat   tho 
I9a«e»  but  dfla*t  «a»t   to  pay  for  it«*     The  ccKpXeiaaat  teatifiedt 
*X  like  tho  way  thoy  kept  the  reataarant**   and  *I  doaH  mtgr  tk^t 
they  were  not  good  teaaiitai*  aad  t^hlle  at  tiaea»  la  her  testiaoay* 


l^.c-= 


''Tit' 


■ma  sf'i. 


^^•S  ^-^ 


flEft-r'  ' -i    m»   -.:■ 


L  -.--ii^    ^*^V   %i>Sii   iiii.  *fi4 

-J!*  t-®«?  «^  «»Y««S  dlaeiff  %«U  -j 
;s   JK^f  ljsss9i^i.  i>^-  mAi   %mi  ^asi  ^s  l*9MT»Tt 


»l^m 


ftk*  «ii4e«T*r«4    t«  «r«at«  •«  UiprwsKlon  th«t  alM  liad   I^TSiAle  witli 
tlM  4«fMMlnata  a)>OttC   th«  a)M4c»  aeTttrtlMlcvB*  it   la  kfird   6«  r«- 
coscll*   thAt  crli^eBec  vibit  o«rtrtla  adaittvd  fneta  tuid   oireiaMtMMva 
la  iht«  e«i»«.     Ik*  ooMj^Iiiinaiil  t%il9d  i«  call  «  elacl*  vitacM  i« 
sMsiaia  her  coatcBiioa  that   th»  »he<U  aad  siijr%«c*  <?«*•  tter«ia  ««r« 
«ff»astvc*     th*  ^trtamdnute  Tolant&rllj  ^i^llt   th«  aheds  for  tlw 
pMXpos*  •/  £iifld.antla£  aAars  froi  the  |p&rb«<«  nad   tbay  vera  oarerei 
frith  ahmet  irm  t^M  «rre  aada  ns  «lr«>t.icht  aa  paaaltaa*     The  eoapl&ia* 
aat  ttda&ia   thsit  oUwr  tea»ata  plaaod  (ptjxhmgfi  la   tha  areanaj*     tlM 
|ira«f  shavs  tlutt  «he  eanj^laiaaitt  $tad   the  natal  ucaf!    the  gar^a^a  aaaa 
la  tii9  akttcia  far  the  purpaae  of  dlvjpealng  af  their  CRT%aira.     Tha 
o<Miplaiaaat  reataa  tha  prc«is«8  ta  the  dsfeadaate  far  reet«ttrnat  par- 
paaaa  aad   ahe  kaaw  t&at  giirhaca  vaa  aa  la«iiieat  of  th^^t  haalaaa»* 
it   la  aot  diajpted  that  ahe  »»•  iiBxlaae  ta  get  tha  ^efeadaata  aa 
teaaata  ^ai   Ui»t  she  proaiaer,   to  htlp  thes  la  their  rt^stnaraat  hoaiaeaa 
If   they  would   heetmi  har  teaaata*       s   to  the  aize  af  their  hueiaaaa, 
tha  cofiplftinaat   tectiflec   ihnt  tvaat/  «r«itr«aeea  ami  sbaat  fifty  a«a 
vacked   In   th*   r.etaursat.     Thai  the   coapl^laaat  «aa  guilty  of  l«chea, 
aacer  ail  the  f&cta  »ati  clrea^taaoaa  af  thia  es^.e,  eeea»^  to  ua  elaar. 
Cauaael  for  tha  euakplalaaxit  aatfeitvare   to  escape   tha  effect  of  her 
X«oh«a  hy     rguiag   Ut  t   »im  '^eaatlauottely  ohj^rotec   to  tha  she<i8  aad 
«arha«e  e^iia  of  th*  dcftadaata*  uaa   tha  ahe   "aaaaisteatly  excraiaad 
her  greatest  ^ttmtm  ia  aa  atteaipt   4o  ^rooare   the   rei»Tal  •!  theeo 
•bstraotioaa  &ad  ^%  ao  tiae  gave  her  caaaeat   to  their  heiag  aa  har 
laai,»  hut  this  firgaa«'nt,  la  ear  jati«ae»t*  does  aot  accord  vitli 
tha  facta  aad   clrcuau  taaaea  of  tha   enm».      vocardiag  to  h^r  ova  testj 
•he  told  the  defeadaata,   la  iSay,  l»26t   tfaet  ahe  voald  ko  ta  court. 
•«o  to  lav.-   If   they  did  aot  rc^aore   the  eheda.  aad   they  told  her  to 
«•  aa  far  aa  she  liked,     Moraover.  aero  requa.ts   bo  reao^e   the  oheda. 
aloae.  aaaecaapaaied  by  ai^  act  to  give  effect  to  the  re<«««ots.  will 
-t  h.r  lachoa.        (Sae  ILerfact  t.  Billi„.,  leo  Ul.   565.    574.) 


^iiiAPim*  ^^  ra&e©*i  ««  M&^     ;  -^^  aa*  ^^-^A  ^-"^  ^*^* 

^ss^-f     ♦'^jssai?**-  '    ^a^^  .ii'5ttsX':j  «i««s^  «aaU©  a^«i^   #**«&»  *«a 

fii    -irti    f»lft5    Vf^*    ^--^     ^.-rm:-    ■^^-      ><.--•  ^     --    -^    ^ '^ 


Yki  MMitcr  Bftcc  BO  fine: lag  ttoni  %hm  ««f»«daiits  ihr*atett«4 
%•  tr«ct  vr  aii«upted   to  «r««i  mmjf  build ln£;a  or  obairuetlono«   ohctf* 
•r  ofeftcko  In  or  upon  th«  aroawmj*  and   he  BoreXy  recn— nMo4  *(lMt  » 
■andfttcr/  lajunctioc  iooao  forlhwUh  tflrecdsf  tbo  4«fcadiuiio  i« 
roaoTo  ft"  id   tvo  oiioAft  «r  olweko  fr««  sold  AroavAjr  «*r  yMrcSt  «ao    tiuii 
tte  i&irfoBdutito  W«  pemMieafcl/  t-ajolned   tram  ko«pla«  or    storiag  Sat- 
tago  MUM  and  ^rlMi^  la  oitK  oreavftjr  or  jrar4**     ?jm  decroo  also  oo- 
JolBe<2   tJM  d«f<>adaaift  *f  xcoi  «  rcctlag  or  fttteapbla^  t«  oreet  maj 
bull<ili^s  or  obftbructloaot  obodo  or  shuttles  in  or  upon  ft&ld   axownjr** 
tiMro  la  no  evlceaeo  to  v»rr&at   tkia  pari  of    tao  cieeroo*       fter  a 
careful  coneldtrfebion  of    the  «Tlr«iie«  v«   riave  ro«olM<i   tbo   conclttoiMI 
that  tb»  coaplaijuuit   la  not   eatitlod  to  iba  relief  graatod  taor  im 
the  doaroe.     if  aba  ia  eaiitlefi   to  «tcifclo»al  roat  froa  ii»  dettnd" 
aata  for  tbo  aao  of  tba  epaaa  ia  tb«  area«a/»  or  if  tbe  defoaduats 
<trc  aare  trospaaiMra*  nt*  obie  allesta  ia  bar  bill^  tb«  lav  affarda 
b<r  aaple  r«awdj« 

Tbe  U»ere«   of   the  Ciromit  uaurt  af  Caok  County  ia 

r<rTeraod  and   tb»  e-^<as«   it  rea^iftded  i»itb  directioae  to  tlw  cbewaeellar 

for 
to  disaiaii  th6  bill  of   tbe  coepI<s  in  ant/    mnml  af  aqaiiy* 

RETi^SSfi  jOQ^  ISSXAV^K^  :^  ITX  PXfiKCTXOV». 
B«rata*  /^*  J«»  aad  Cridltj*  J*»  atao«r« 


•9» 

~!>ri.;-V  -.^m-it   imt%    -k»S^.  **    &«i^m-1>    «l     SSi:-  :^tQ^h    -SSfi 


S372S 


ISAAO  A*    rHOM. 


j  COOK 

256I.A.  611 


robari  iir«««h  •(  aX«»  «OBpI«.inaiit<i»   ril«<i   ilMlr  totXl 
iai  tlie  circuit  Cmurt  of  Coolc     ount^r*  fMsaiBei  !•«««  a«  T^mms 
•i  mX*»  (letetn^^nf*     A  deorvt  v««  cat cr^tft  tram  iriiiek  4«fe«lAat« 

Coa^Iaiwuita  are  a»eadieT»  of   t)k»  '^>«eoBti  5«pti<t  Church 
•f  ATanslim  »ad   th«  bill  a^i^^ht  to  restrain  defeadtuits  froB 
iaterferlng  villi  ttee  foactioaiag  of  VIk(  cburch  ia  ftocoriljaMO  with 
lis  establislMe  r%ile«  Rad   ri^gul^tieas*  uwa^es  aad  eus^tOBOf  fra« 
^eajrlBci  aay  of  tiM  aoatocrs  of   %h«  ctanroli  t.o«ess  to  ilM»  dnroli  for 
the  purpose  of  holcilas  soetiaco  therein  sad  froa  enjoy iae  tM» 
pririlegee  thereof;  fros  la  aay  aaaaor  exeroi'fiag  or  attoatptiai; 
to  ezereiae  the  dutieo  aad  fuactloao  of  the  officere  of   th«  chgarehf 
froa  ia  ajqr  a&aaer  iaicrferiag  with  the  collectioao  or  ooacributioaa 
of  the  ae8A>::ro  of   the  oharoh*  anu     roa  elituiaiae  or  diopoeia^-  of  sngr 
proporiieo  aad  ohoooo  ia  AOtioe  of    the  cteircht  froa  porforaias  or 
aiteap^iag   :o  perfor;    naiy  aoi  e-Aoolaied   to  ooatiaao  defoadaat  ThmmB 
mm  yast^r  of  the  charoh  coatrazjr  to  the  «ill  of  the  Majority  of  tha 
aoahership  of   the  chuxohi   froa  hinderiag  coaplainAiito  or  <»aj  othor 
aoi^era  of   the  olairA  froa  eajayiiv  the  rights  sad  privile^oo  of 
aoaberehip  ia  the   church*  sad   troa  aiadttrias  certain  of  oc^plaiaaats 
itmk  excrci&ing   their  datles  sad  fuaetioao  as  officers  of   the  churoh* 


r 


S2TU, 


..  &i»^'.m  ^i   'i^  vim  .wftJk'S^^ 

i^js    v;Sf-    ;•:!'»» l%J>10v     J^^tiJ^^^tS 


:  «aurr«r»  vtre   fll»tf   to  th«  bill*  b«t  bo  aotion  «    c  i«k«a  la  rvferco^o 
to  th«  oaao. 

Ob  Jane  15,  192f ,  Jiitfco  ?i«h«r  oatorod  a  oMooat  ordor 
aypoltttlag  a  ojpooial  eoaaisoioaer  aae  dlrcetl^^  hla  to  conuuct  *aa 
oiection  by  tlM  mtwBff  of   tho  :>ecoai  Sa pilot  Clouoli  of  '^vaaataa* 

Illaoiot  for  the  offloeo  of  ■onfeoro  of  tfa»  Soard  of  Tnutov^o*  59nT€. 
of  iaacoao*  Clork  ane   7rojui«ror  and   ohAll  also  ot^uao  to  bo  doioxmlao« 
vBotkor  or  not  Xoaao  A.  Tlioawo  otaall  eostiaue   to  occiqptx  tlM  i>o«i  of 
Paatox*  of  oaid  Ohuroh.*     ?^lO  eoa»lo&loaor  ««t  ih*  ol^ctioa  for  Jolj 
1&9  193»t  ^i  on  ^vlj  14  ho  pootod  a  aotleo  that  iho  olectioa  vcold 
«t  hold  on  Jttly  1^,  1989.     Ob  Juljr  16  d«f«BAaBta  filod  «ith  tko  olork 
of  tho  oottrt  a  notice  aad  Affidavit  to  the  offoot  tlvit  tho  tlao  llait 
for  holdiac  tho  ol«eti«a,  aader  the   r|proe<2   order  of  June  15,  oxpirod 
o»  July  1£«  th?t  thfi  oetcaaaoionor  «  a  without  povcr  to  hold  aa 
»l«cti«B  OB  Jol/  19»  aad  "that  tho  jHnror  of   o&ld   oeaalooloaor  to  ei^ 
oaid  Botiot   or   &o  bolo   o-iid  electloB  la  oxtet«otod|  thnt   -.ho  duty  of 
tho  eo;<«ioKl«ier  io  to  r^^ort  «t  oboo.*  aad   th^.t  the  solicitor  for 
dofeBd«Bt«»  aftov  roocivlBg  hy  Ball*  on  JbIj^  I'j,  •*  oi^ic«oti«B  fraa 
o»id  ooaHio»ion«r  th?  t  tho  d«to  of  tho  propoood  oloctloa  »Jould  ho 
frldajr,  JbIj  Xj.  1929.»  had  laaodiatoly  dolivortd   to  tho  ooMiaeiMior 
a  lotttr  c/iUlng  his  ^ttoatloB   to   tho  fi40t  thftt  tho  ohoBco  ia  tho  date 
of    the  el'jetlon  voiOd  toe   aoatrf^ry  to  tho  zeroed   order,      vu  tho  !«•% 
date  aa  olectloa  waa  hold*      The  coaKiioaloaor  drifted  a   report*  i^ofoad* 
«BtB  filed  ohjeetioao   to   the   oaow,  ohloh  were  OTorrtded  by  tho 
eoBaioeioMer.     Ia  tho  aer^Btlao  tho  oaaao  hti4  frooa  plaoed   nm  tho 
recBl«r  cpleno   r  of  a  eh^iRcellor*  other   than  Jnigr:  Vtahor*     L^te  la 
the  c^fteraooa  Bf   ^acBBt  S,  1929*  oolieitBre  for  oo^laiaastB  aotifiod 
«»licitBro  for  def oadaata  that  oa  the  follooiag  aeraia^  they  «obU 
ai»pe  vr  hefor.    J^»d«e  Fiaher  aad  oiAalt  tho  report  af  tho  coMBiaaloaer 
aad  MTo  that  the  o.>m  he  f  Uod  aad  approiro4.  aad  eould  aleo  aore  tho 
cBBTt  to  eator  aa  lajanotioa  la  accordnaco  eith  tho  prayer  of  the 


•«• 


*S«..  ':»  ^Cft-syaa-::    t^*-'!-^^;'    *sies«*3Sti    fSt^j     ^1?    «l-»^^t   3^2    \jtf    fl^i4»*i.» 

i.v- ;  ■-=«»* -tat t«  -iKfJi-  ?|«ttM&J«-  i»t 

4f-;, -^.f  >«i"  Maw*  t«ii-3s«?f*-  *«f4    I* 

•^'l^    V'.''  j^*!^-?-?!*?*?   ^-SflSB  lS&i^9   »««.:- 4    J^#i^    eii    s«»i«&»t^«i  ft»J^t  909* 

^X.<^,.  ■■:'  stu  tMs   •^irn'm^tf*^  lit*  *-«Jiu*i«« 

nSii-     ■<-:^  ^.-»l-  j>1mv«    ^«   ,li»v»'S'.q>*    saw  ^11 1   swJ  «*=•■-    '^^'^   -*'•*   »V««  1«|» 


-s- 

¥lll»  *n4  «Md(ii   further  move    the   Mvri   t»  ••t«r  an  •rd«Y 
4*fcadnBts  r«sutrlag  IJmb  f  »coo«it  f«r  all  •r  lugr  F''op«rtl«a  or 
•oacy*  iJi  th«lr  teaads  er  tuiAcr  their  control  btfloB^las   f  th«  »nl4 
church.     Yh«rettpon  •oXialtvrs  for  dcfoadmio   lKtf»4iat«ly  oorvod  • 
notice  upon  solicltoro  for  eovplftlnaiito   that  thoy  w—ldp  tm    •«£«»% 
9»   1929  •  preetat  «  petltlea  for  a  ehsJiffo  of  t«buo  fro*  Jadgo  Fimkmr* 

hoB  court  ooj)T«n«d  on     a«ikoi  •»  thlo  petition  vg>»  presoaifd   to  onitf 
Judge.     It  olXoco^  prejttdloe  of  Jttdg«  /Idwr  aad  &!«•  aUogod   that  i% 
•ppe«red  tttm  tkm  royort  of  the  of^eelRl  Ofla»io»iMi(  r  thnt  Judge  Vlekor 
«a8  a  MfttcrlAl  vltnoofi  1b  the  c«.ee«     That  the  petition*   on  Ito  faoot 
eoaplled  vlth  the  reoulreaonts  •f  the  ittiitiit«»   Is  not  dlnpnied*     At 
the  tine  li  «a«  preacntcc    the  r  pert  of   the  canEdLosiMier  h&d  nnt  hoen 
paa0«d  a^>OB  hy  the  ohnacrlXor   •  lit  fact*   It  hue  nat  even  been  filed 
or  preaonted   to  the  el^B««lI<»r.     The  chaneellor  denied   the  p«tltloM 
and*  over  th«   stremtoas  obj&ctioao  of  ccf6Bd»aito»  proocecer   to  hear 
the  eattse  apon  the  bill  of  eoMplaintt  ae  a»mded»  and  npon  the  report 
of   the  ofeelal  ooKBloeloner*  and  then  entered   the  deoree  freoi  ^dUoh 
def6B<)ftnta  have  appealed* 

Z»efendanto  contend    (int^r  alia)     thai  the  trial  oourt  erred 
In  d.'iiylii,;   the  pttitloa  for  ?   :>h  ng«  of   VL>nae.     Thla  conteatlan  la 
clearljr  &  nsrltorloue  ono*     The  he  rla^  before  the  cl»inc«llor  on 

ngust  9  toek  plaoe  daring  the  snaBor  T&e&tlen  &ad  ut  a  tine  ahen  tlM 
OAuee  had  boon  plaoed  npon  the  rcgnlur  o'Alend  .r  of  ^uaether  chaaocllor* 
vhleh  «<i«  to  h«  called  daring  the    :  pteniber  tern.     CoaplJLnaata  eon- 
'^•9ii   that  the  applloHtlen  c:^ne   too  laite*  taui   they  cltet  in  snppart  of 
".heir   dontftatlMip   CrRoe  v>   >rane«  dl  111*  169|  r.ioiutxd^  ▼•  QyeenOft  7t 

^i^  B2S|  Foyd  ▼•  Joriia  139  111*  App*  45d«  htti;  nane  •f  thmm9  o*i 
.■■a.xUiins  their  contrntloa*     In  ^'irawe  v*  Crane  the  notion  w^a  not 
antll  all  the  CTldsneo  had  hoen  heard  hy  the   court*     In  Rjchirde  ▼• 
Or»€no  It  w<«e  held   that  a  9n,rt,j  cannot  valt  uatU  a  oanoo  ie  en   trlal» 
hBtll  the  court  haa  Intlaated  an  oplnlwi  oo  the  nerlto  of  the  eaee» 


Sjyatse  f'^fc^e-a  liUti  ^*  ?^i-      i^iiiL.'^-tl:^.)   bf^a^ssa  *«Js88;^e»t*». 

•  6ft»ii  3i#e  «6?c>  ♦«?f  'i^i^  ^^^  ".^SSl  ^     ,._«.  ^*^^  '^^ 
tii»--  i"i^  '■■■■'■■  ■-  ^'£*3;  i'fia  ^«;%»?  *v  ■a'ajij^_:»  si     •mt^tsm^OA'!}  idiin^}^fti*$9u^ 


tram  tht  rfitfea«e»  nm6   tkca  •M<!ila  «  ehaag*  9t  TMHie*     la  Wmr^ 

▼  •   ftrd   it  m9'?*Tt   tJaa^  fc)M  i>ctitl4Mi  f«r  •  chaatf*  sf  V«>m«  «*• 
aot  #i-eB»at«Ci   v*  ^h*  o«tirt  until  »ft«r  tk«  tTi«l  of  tht  o  -mm 
Ited  a«BMm«4«     la  ilk«  iustcuit  eH««  all  tK^t  ilM  clu>.iio jailor  had 
tfaaa  ^lor  to  the  tlai«*  of   the  applletttion  for  a  etengo  of  yoi 
oaa  to  eatvr  oa  «^««d  or^or*     X^f^eatf/uita*    pctltloa  for  «  e) 
of  r«muo  ami^Xivii  «ith  t)i^   ststatory  rovalrea^nta  ajid  r«io  pr«ooaft«4 
la  ayt   tiJiH»«  uMS   aa  tho  groasd   ull^ced  «?io  tile  prejudice  of  Judfo 
FialMry  ho  irao  bouatf  to  gxmml  ti^  pe titles*     (■Hooa^e  ▼•  ^>oatt» 
82<   III*  ^2V»   342.} 

Iluf  d«cxe<f  of  tliko  Clrottit  Cattrt  #f  Cook  uoaty  ia 
rereraodi  and  tja«  oaaniiO  ia  TtietKxnc<^   to  tlttt  aanrt  t9x  furtlior  pro* 
eoodiaga  ticforo  ooao  cteiBo«^llar  oiker  tibia  Jut^ge  ?i«)ior« 

Innwat  ?•  J*»  aJi^   ^ridley*  !•#  coaovrc 


i^civS   «@^4    1^    i«lX$    S-.^il    :f9^t«S    jU«?iy    iXSl^lS    S^^    »>     3<$;ft3SJi»1^    iws 

(•.£^£   «tf«   »1XI    »«« 


waiSf^Sef:*   tJ^S  ti1t«ii?i'-     ^i^    .  »*»BSr.& 


3S7i8 


£KOVAR£  L.  IlAXt 

App«Xl*jrt(t 


APTXAli  FPOM   TIBCiaT  OOORT, 

0001  coorrr* 

256  I.A.  611 

m.  JtfsTtoi  •OAiLAi  ]>xxjnaaa»  thk  oraxoK  of  the  cor  ?• 


Tlw  plaiiitlfft  Leonard  I.*  B«ar»   fil«d  his  »ffl(tKTlt 
t9r  ftttftoluitfnt  ia  aidt  all(F«ing  UiKfc  tlw  6eftBdMit»  Jolm  J. 
f<tl)»«k«i«  mi  liide¥t»d   to  hln  In   tiM  ti\m  df  ^B>000  «ad   ilMt 
Uid  d«feiid»at  «••  a  n«a-r««ld«B%  «f  th«  ctai*  of  Illimols* 
Tlw  d«f««d«Aaft  •Btortd  «  B«»e«II»d  «p«dl«l  «ppe&jr»a9d  "for  tte 
f«rp«tt  of  <i«aslil»g  tht  «rlt  of  AttActaoKint   in  old,  aad   dlochr^rglsf 
tb»  goralithooof  and   c<nit»istlas  tho  jurinxiletloa  of  tfeur  comrt  la  tho 
ottaobBoat  In  aid  prof:«<^^<  In^e  of  Jolm  ^«  fehock«t  aa  defradftat** 
Ho  alftO  filod  a  trayerso  to   tho  fcffldATit  for  etttaclMsnt   la  aid   la 
vhlch  ho  prayed   thiit  %ht  »rlt  too  ^uoehod  tauS.    th«  garalohoo  dla- 
ohargodt  "toooaaoo  ho  arijo  that  ho  lo  a  rocitinai  of  thlo   -iotot  *  * 
aad  th!»t  ho  li  net  a  ncaor««l^cat  of  thlo  :;iato»  oad  that  ho  lo 
aot  ahout  to  dopart  froa  thla  t:tatr  aad   that  ho  la  not  ahoat  to 
rmooTe  hlo  property  froa  this     tato."     A  Jury  wao  oalled  to  try 
tht  ItsaoB  aa  to  tho  attt^uhaontt  and  after  t^yl^t^aoo  haurd  r«tura«d 
a  Ttrdlct  finding  tho  lo«Uis  for  tho  d«foadaat*     Jadpnat  aaa  oatorod 
9m  thft  Ttfrt^iotf   tho  attaohaoav  ^rlt  la  aid  «a«  <«aaehcd»  aad   all  tho 
garalahooo  aaa&d  or  oauNKmrd    in  the  writ  aoro  dlach&rgod*     Tho 
plaintiff   hae  appo'^'-led   trmi  thlo  Jud0ioi:t« 

Xa  our  opinion  th*  Juc^Mrat  appoalod  froa  lo  aot  a  flaalt 
roTloitahlo  Juagaoat*     Tho  Attaokatat  -^ot  yroTldoai 


«iftC 


« /ta»i 


*  T 


7X0% 


UI^O 


^?tJE^^2I.  tMK/U^  $??1T 


4  ^  «.v  r.;-; 


a.**f«MiiMf 


■^a» 


'!»«t,3    ikih    !*«*    « to'*«i^«^i*}>   ii;»W    ii/i.*?    ,', 


ffi«t«  alalcd   In   the   afrKli<vlb  upon  Mihlch  the  sitinoluMat 
l«aiied»  «IU.«h  pl««  ahall  b«  verified  by  •frid<\Tlti   and   If, 
upon   the   trial  tbercon*    'wh>$   iai^uu   oxtuli.   b«  fouatf   for   tte 
plAliitlff*    the   cs/end»Bt  amy  jilead   or  nnwair    to   the  «etioa 
ae  in  tthor  oaaetf  tiut   If  found    for   t]M  (lefciidHni »   the 
ottisictaJKnt  okdU  be  qtt&ohrds  anc:    the   eoeie  of   the  «itt*c'rai«iit 
■h&Il  b0  a.1jtUI«od  agitiaot  %he  pluiatirf»  b«t  tla»  »mit  ehall 
trocjrftjLtA.  fjfliii  Jy*ggJU|t.JL«.  t^mk  o,owgi*ne»ci""by  amwne . - 

*PKr  31«     Att&ehMent  la  aid  •     galani  noaresldeata* )-Sec.3l. 
The  plf^latlff  y  la  nay  aotion  •«  &&riuai90iit  *  *  *  SMgr,    '    ^   ^ 
9U«>  out  an  ^tt-xchmettt   r^alast   th*  laada  *■   »  *     aad  effects 
of   the   r!cf^Tndant«»  ^Uich  oold  attaoluotut   ote^U  be  eatitlo'l   la 
the  nuit  i><*adine  a^ut  bu   in  aitf   tber«rof  |  aaii  aaah  arooeri^iaft^ 
BhalX  be   the rewpon  had  an  ro  ulred  or  jtwfweitted   ia  orlgijiua. 
attaohaciata  aa  aMr  a»  aay  ¥ej   *   *  *   * 

^»  '^ft^i^fi  ▼»  Uve  Oak«  ^orry  &  aalf  K*  Co. t  246  2ii«  npp.  m«»  vhoroia 

the  court  hole;    ih't  aa  er^«rr  tfenyla^  a  aotioa  to  vaoate  aa  order  dio- 

ohargiair  ganiioheeo  la  %a  attAohneat   in  rIO  of  a  oult  to  reoorer  far 

aeatiellT^ry  of  flr^ode*  v(*k  not  a  flaal*  r«»Tieimble  judf^ent,  tka 

oourt  said  I 

'*¥h«  laerite   of    the   caae  are  a«t  properly  before  ao  beoaaat 
tbare  la  no  final  judgaont  eateretf   la  the  oaee.     The  Rtt^chaoat 
in  aid  ^isft  i£crely  an  adjimct   vo  tho  toain  sult»  aad  uniil   theio 
io  ft  final  juf «»ent   entered   In   tho  aain  oult    .here   is  nothing 
before  ue  of  ^?.  f laal  nmturt    ihut  se  caa  rerlev*  yirabA||ri>  r» 
Mai^Xt  «3  111#  81.     The  vril  of  errar   is   therefore  dlaalaaed.* 

Ve  ooaour  la  the  Aboro  rullag* 

The  preoeat  appeal  aut^t  be  dieaiaaed  and   it   la  ••  erdered* 


Baraeo*  i"*  J.«  and  aridley»  J*^  eoAoare 


ifi  .i^-;-..>.  ;*. 


.15  «  098"        CO 


«■- 


■  ■  .a. 


♦  ■&»ti«!!lS     s  -vJ    iJR-S     ,  .,  f;^«-4«< 


33T74 


m  •ttrper<4tioii* 

App«llt«« 

fW  MAT^aiKJ    n-STXC,    lie., 
&  ooryor   tlon,  and  JO..:u'H  iSlAiaCISt 
ppell«at«« 


fCO  XJ   jL^Jrl.    oil 


i 


m»  jasTici'  aoAWLAM  jd^iv 


TU  :   OPISIOI   O?  XI 


?ttr  KerciwJiie  i^xcheiag«  lB«»t  a  «orj^r   tlMit  filed   Its 
lilll  t0T  «m  lajOBctioa*  is  th«  circuit  Ceiu-t  oT   C«ok  •otnty, 
ana-lMut  ?UT  K&teliiBc,  -enriect   Iac*»  *  eorper'tioa,  MHi  J«aepli 
fr«jn#r*     a  decree  vru«  e»i*r»«   In  &ac«r<t&Bet  vi&h  th*  pr^/^r  of 
tk«  tiiXlt  3«<i  tlM  4«f*adaiit«  h&re  app«ale4» 

Tlw  bill  £ill<g«d  thrt  eoaplAinmat  hani  ii«  principal 
pXao«  of  )»ttslii«ft»  <-'it  IIS  "^uth  -Cf'.rtoorn  atrc^t*  Cbicrngoi  aaH  ihat 
ita  prlBci^al  )»ualBeae  «^s  t&r  i  af  at  tolUJig  fors  far  &iM  rapnir  of 
far  eo^ta  aafi  fur  grvraasts  by  tailors  awl   furriers  tfarouf^lMmt   tbc 
Vaiiod   Titfttea  9nd  C.^aadal   that  it  ba4  paiateo  aa  tlia  doora  aad 
vlAdowft  of  ita  pl>«c«  of  Uttainese  tlM  vorda  "frix  H'^tokiae     erriea** 
to  ia^ie«t?   th('  a  tar«  of  ita  bualnoae*  anA  taa<S  axpaaaaO  larc«   »UBa 
of  aH»a«7  in  advcrtitiajs   In  tr^^cie  Jauraala  aaA  liy   oire«l)  ra,  nm&  by 
dl&tribtttioB  of  pcaoilo  to  the  trn(i«t  aoci  tk»t  la  ita  adrartiaiag 
It  hAd  «««€   tho  90rds   "far  a  tchia^   merrier"   ae  deacriptiTo  of  its 
bucineraf   <-h  t  defc'Biiant-   RraBuner  opcaec   a   retail   fur  bualnOBS  is 
a-iis    >'ail<iifi£  xad  patrMiixrd   cwpls iaKnt ,   and   th  t  t  «  offiears  aafi 
tt»ployo«a  tf  coaipla  iaiuit  coavtyect   th*   isprosaisa   to  anld   eut^mi^tKt 
th^.t  ooapl%ia«.Bt  wna  uoiae  •  pro/iti^.bl«  buaiRoaoi   that  on     pril  28, 
192a»   »  cid  <i<rfciiM  >at   cxaaca  to  be   iacorpori^ted,  wider  the  lava  of 
Illiaoia«  a  eorporv  tioa  aadoy  the  aaaa  •fte  Katehiag  Scrrieoa  lae«»" 


t'\'fZ& 


-tis  feezes  ;.v!6*ii,is*l 


-a* 


vilh  its  principal  pi' ce   of  tou«la«M  m%  !•■«  S17   la   sRld  littlldlaci 
Ui»it   tUerutifter  Miil«  yaolnc**  oxJ    r«ait dances  lai«ad«d   tw  e«Bpl«i»* 
ami  aitfrc  delivered    to  (iefead  mis  ana    th  l   ouemMrs  iBt«»(iia£  f 
patrsal&c  ocaplalMOife  if«rc  mltletf  by  tli«  b«m«  'ar  UaiohlBg   ^errte** 
I>o«*   (h  «  appeared  oa   the  bttllecia  bo^s-rd  of   •nic   aulldlB«  Mid  «it«r«d 
ta*  place  of  >iu«iB«3a  of  d«fead?ia&  corpora- blMit  sJtd   thnt  a  groat 
fiooouat^  of  coaiuaion  had   re.^ulted|   W}t3.t  dcfe»if»Bi  Xxaasmmx  orgaaiaoA 
■aid  corpor -tion  la  orci  r    io  obtain   ibr  adrantage  of   tho  aoaoy  a»d 
efforts  thnt  ha/d  bcea  oj^oadwd  by  eoapiaiaaat  ia  hnilciai;  up  the  far 
»<t«>hlag  buaiaeosf  «a^   tli«iit»  al^aoagh  requootod*  defead  at  corpora tioa 
kad   refuaC'O    to  refrain  froa  tt»ia£  the  aoao  *Pur  H^tchiai;  r^erriee»  Iao«t* 
to  tho  dajsage  of   coaplaiaaatv  oto.     The  bill  prnyed   th»t  defendaato 
bo  reatraiaed  froa  the  use  of   the  words  *fttr  mo  tehiat^  aerrlce*   or 
aay  eoabinxlloa  of   saeh  words.     X-efeadnnta*   la  their  aaawer»  deaiod 
that  defeitdaat  KroasBtr  oTur  diacaaaed  tho  baslaosi.  of  «"myli  twfiat 
with  ttOHplaiBAnt*a  offioero  or  eaployees  or  th-  t  ho  lonraed  or  was 
iafonacd  of  aaythiag  eoao<^raias  tho  busiaos<^  of  oosiplaiBaati  dealetf 
thnt  there   had  boea  aa/  coafasioa  la  the  dcliTerj  ef  nail  or  pnokaceo 
to  eaaiplaiaaat  or  d^fendaat  corpor  ^tioa*  with  tho  exi^eptloa   thrt   oa 
oae  ocowsioa  a  package  latsadeu  for  eoaplalnaat  wao  dellTered  by 
the  oxpressaaa  to  aefeafiioit  Gorpor-\tioa»  and   th^t  la  ene  iaataaoo  a 
oastoasr  of   eaid  defeadpnt»   seadiag  a  rcattaaoo   to  8«id   rtefeadaat 
ia  oa  earelope  properly  addressee    to  it*  laclosed  osio  aloo  for  e«i- 
plaiaoatt  deaiod   thct  defend <i.Bt  corpora tioa  v&a  iacorporated   for   tkt 
purpoB*  of  sccoriac  tho  beaefit  of   coMplalaaat'o  r<dTertiaia«  or  other 
efforts!   deaiod   that  oem»l&lBaat  Made  a^^  obJeotisA   to  the  ase  of   tho 
«•■•  af  defsactnat   eorpor-  tlon  tint  II    the  4ay  its  fore  the   rUlag  of   its 
billy  &nd  dealed  that  eeaplalaant  had   sufferod   ^a/  lose  of  buaiaesis  d» 
to  any  aet  of  '^efead^.ats*     Tho  oiswor  alloge^   thr.t  complHlaruit  had 
boea  ^^Ity  of  liches  ia  pt^rmlwtiag  defeadriats*  without  ^jeetioB>   to 


•a- 


^;^n- 


»3W£'fe£«A'?a  ii-i^i   ^»^«it^   tSt'0  >*A  -  .    «^«.»..- . 

&?5*8wiS-   t^S^MM&Lal^Set:-    *s;    ..i^^n-i^uu    sA*;    :u,jj,:.;r-  .  i-^^tO- 
-a»%  "foJ  mta  9nif  '^-.v-wsl'jfiu  *  .•  'suss'sbfeii  xl'z^^s^ci  t>^Q^-^mt  g^  la 


9X9€»A  Xargf  auai*  ot  mnivj  ia  atfTeriifilas  sad   otherwise  4«T«lepia8 
Its  butia«ft«*     It  fttrilMr  aXlffc^d  I'unt  ea«pla.ln«at  lui£  no  cxcluaiTC 
rlgki   io  ilM  luuM  *yiur  KmUkUie  3«nri««»*  &•  tttcli  aaa*  aaa  mcreXjr 
de«oriptlTC  •/  •  ^u«lnc*«  uid  tlKi  ttM  ^uslnestt  of  aaiekliu;  twtm  »a« 
•arrliKl  on  by  nusvrov*  furrlcro*  aad   iJwtt  i&o  7«?*tre.lB  d-  f  eadaoto 
frOB  ttolas  (hff  vords  "rvr  ttrichlai;  ^errleo*  vould  tend   ta  sWc  am" 
yl«1a»at  »  we^aw^ly  of  t)M  fur  mf^tchlng  bu^lnej^s. 

Th*  »aat«r  to  wbooi  the  e««o  wao  ref«rre<i   fouad   thf  t  ca»» 
plolaoat  hon  e.%rriff£i  OA  a  aMOtai^ca  of  ftdvortitiiac  Its  liaBiaoks  aad 
tlttit  la  »1X  of  Its  ^arfvertiooBcato  it  had  otrooood  lis  far  a&toliiag 
•«rvict»  aad  ihtrt  li  h^t  built  up  a  goo^  Ba»e  aad  r•p«t^tloa  la  the 
tra<J«|  tlvnt   it  hn£.   *:i$m»  oa  th«^  windows  ium&  doors  of  its  ^u«o  of 
tasiaoeft  ia  vrhlck  the  «ord)i  *far  ar^tohiag  m^rwitm'*  voro  proaiaoatljr 
<ia,9lajr«d|  ttot  b^  r««-»Mi  of  th«  loa^tk  of  tiMo  tbAt  oom»laiaaAt 
Iteo  iMi^'a  oteiftocod  ia  the  ^ar  &'>Hehla^  )mciaoo«»  &n(3  boot^aoo  <tf  Um 
aatux«  of   ite  afTi»rtl'i««ea%i?»  lt»'p«troBe  know  Aatf  «ad«r«tatad   th&t 
coaplnlaoat  ia  itnga^^c   OKcXusiTt^lor  ia   ^h^  far  ar-tchlag  buoiaow&i 
Ut.^'l  o-^vsjl^la^^mi  has  acYt^r  r^gieterodt  «t$  «  tr«^€««ftrk  or  irodo* 
aaaio*  &h£  v)ord«  "far  »^tc)iiaifl'*     kli'it  snld  words  baro  80t«.   ^oa  a 
yart  of  its  oorporaie  naaof  t)»a  the  aardo  *rar  »  toblail  o^rrloe" 
maU  "fur  ar^tehias*  «re  4c*orlj»tiTo  of   tho  baelaess  of  sf  teliiBe  >«« 
aad  tisod  ploaee  of   far  for  grtraoats  or  es^aq^loi;   (tubaitte^' t   th^t  suob 
buaiaosD   i»  aot  bo«  or  o^pitfiaal  with  Qoapl&laaal*  bat  lr.&  oxisiod 
goaer-sXly  throu^iioai  tb«  fur  tr^ci«^  for  anay  yoaro  aad  thr-t  tte 
oordo  *f^r  »«Ubin«;*  nad  *far  ap.tohiac  o«rTio«t*  or  stay  coaiftia»tieB 
of  th«   »>-ao»  aro  not  oObjoot  to  oxclusiTO  appr^pri^tioa  by  <oapl&ia« 
cni  or  naj    9th<*r  firs  oj>  sorper^^^tioa*  bat   aro  vorde  wlUoh  j;>ro9erljr 
4eol«Mito  thtf  ol»vae%or  «at!  serrioo  of  tho  buaiaosci  thr  t  such  busi* 
■000*  as  oosn acted  by  coiaplHlaftBt  nad  defend aat  eorpor.>^tioa»  dooa 
■»t  iavalT*  nny  tr^dr   secrets  or  secrot  9roo«s<?os«  bat  consists 
saloly  la  the  a  tchia^  of  fars  froa  8  took  to  the   oaa^e  of  for  or 


•c* 


JMKii;    i£-lv.   £i;^i.w'^*i(^« 


'^<ii^'$.«i«    w^^^K    W'»    iA-jUSx^i 


\,j:ii?'ai<~.-Aw.-it:   -i*'^**    "»- 


iis.*i*a.s. 


•fc/ 

<j;»tf«r  «i»»«  i^^   tneMlXdUitf  St:  '    te  *':»lTt 


vl.i«-»*li«^ 


v5?  al  tX»X»« 


-i- 

Saxm«nt   oubalttec*,  aat^   lnvolT«c  only  a  %»ovl«ds«  •t'  f«ra|   that 
aoflt  furriers*  to  ^  limited   ttxtcnt*   e^sage  la  tbft  »ntohiB}^  nif  furs* 
&t  lcaat»  so  Xc-^r  as  tlielr  ?t«ck  of  furs  «B-ibl^«  th«K  to  do  so  I   that 
MinrrQus  coneemfl   in  Chlargo  onA  Vev  Tork  h«Te  bsca  eusd  nr«i  now 
eB^^M(<>(^   in  the  enterprise  of  »'  tohiag  furst   thii.t  a  nunbor  of  such 
oouceras  advertire   thrlT  businf-of  as  "Vnr  i^^tohiae*'  (^^   "For  Mr^ tehiJig 
'service*    in  thr  fur  tr&^e  mo^xlnoo  «mmS   thnt  the  t>u'8lao8s  of   euoh 
coBocrns  io  sinil^r  to  thrt  of  eosspleiJiaDt  nnd  d(^feBd$lnt  oori>orr>  tioai 
th&t  defendant  UrasRwri   in  19:^5 0  wsa  enfrtige<i  ia  the  retail  fiaX*  husi- 
aoes  »t  US   ?outh  Lenrborn  street  and  ooeasioBalljr  patroaised  oooplain* 
aat  «^n(!   cocplalaant  froi  tlae   &a  tine  pfttronisec   hajst    ^h'^t  abou£>    .yuril 
2d»  1928f  dofeac^not  KrassBer  oavoect   to  be  litcorpori^ted    the  (iefeBCBSt 
corpiir>xti033»  >»fith  its  priacij;Ml  place  of  buelj)e&k>  ui  Baom  21'.'*  US 
'^oach  Ijetrborn  »treet|  th;%t  its  bui^tiBeBs  is  described  iB  the  certifieat^ 
of  Ineorperition  *ia  **tradia;;»  denlia^  in*  buyiag  and  sclliag*  nev  aad 
old  skins  and   furs  and  kindred  urticlesf"   thsvt  siBce  its  incorporation 
it  ims  dis9l"i7ed  in  si^a  on  its  vindovs  the  words  "For  Matching 
"crrioe*   Ibo****  and  uBderneath  aeid  naae  the  vords*   *?e  ar.  tch  anythiBg 
fraai  head  to  tail**  or  *tm'  »  tehli^**   or  mords  of  siail&x  iaport 
desoriptiTO  of   the  nature  of  its  buelaesai  that  defendant  corporation 
loon'.ted  its  business  in  the  arid   building  oTter  coaplainaBt  van  es- 
tablished there;  th^^t  since  its  incorpor^vtion  defend^^jit  corpomtisa 
has  adTertisec"   in  different  fur  trade  nagaAines  and  that  in  said 
e-dTc^rtisea^nte  it  has  need   the  vords  *ftir  a  tching  aerrice**   vhieh 
«orde  haTc  appeared   as  part  of   the  corporate  naao  of   said  defendant* 
together  vilth  the  x^ords*  '*«e  antch  vJiy thing  frosi  he;r4l   to  tcil**   "fhx 
a  tchiag***  and  other  words  of  siadlar  iaport  deecriptiTc  of   the  nature 
of  defendr^nts*   business*  but   th-t  s^id  adTertissaente   and   articles 
aiTen  avay  by  defend.;Bt   corporr.tim  for   the  purposes  of  nilTiirtlBiBOOt 
.<ire  not   siailar  to  those  of  cosplainant*  but  are  entirelj  dissiail&r* 
aad  that  thers  is  nothing  in  the  pidrertiseaente  of  defenc^nt  oor^^mtici 


T^iifk   ^^  -:«liid^av  «<ii^  si   «|t=xH$S«    t.a^^vt    5-:><fiailX  «   oi^    c6:9ltsir>  ^tMi 
4«rf*    8  0«  »^  *4^  KiMi;?  »«X<5r;a*  «ts^  t©  sis*;? a  xtsr^   a     "s,.*!  0s  «^»&«X  #-^ 


-3» 

«hieh  i&  ««ls«Xat«<i   to  ftisleu^    lh«  public  or  ttM*«ro  of  Um  trod* 
i&tt;  ltll«vlae   ^^^  ^^  bu<3ia«8s  of   «Qi4  dcrendoat   !•  pftXi  of  tte 
bui(l]t«99  «f  ooaplaiaaM^I   i;Ii^  (.  «aid  adToriltoMito  ar*  falrlj  «riit«a 
tt»<i   ahov  »<»  lit»&*n.l«a  M  (te  pari  of  c^rlewiaato   ba  copy   tte  o/dTertloiag 
of   wiXbi^laiaoat   m  p^ny  »»nnQX9  or  to  attoapt  to  imfolrljr  mad  llle^alXr 
appropriftto  coa;^l«iit&nt*  •  ouviooivrv  bir  osek  stfT'trtftMaBtnif!!!    tht  d«* 
featf'Attw  coipca'  -ileu  o&«  Mi^pent  lorHre   «»»»  ct  n.ooity  In  ootxR^ctltm    'Itk 
ii«  a4v«ril«la4;  asd   «•  *   r«salt  lit  ba^ilnos?  h^.^  f^rcmn  oad  It   la  mtv 
delag  a  xucrRtivo  Utseinosai  t)^t  ther*  Appe=xr     4n  ih«  l»all«tln  donrd 
•f   tbo  balloin^  viu^rclc  tkus  partioa  are  ^.ocatrda  under  tbo   j^^or 
alph»betio<l  indvx^   the  ^orce  ^Jhir  Itn^oluLiic  Serrlec,    Inr**   '!1R»*   and 
tli'^t  41y«^ttly  bclo«  this  appo&ra  tho  aaiw  of  Odi^lalaeBt  i  tlr.t  neither 
of  {<«feRc.»aitik  er^r  lt<^r»ed   fras  coBplalaant  nmy  of  Its  trvce  aecroto* 
castMitrs*  prices  or  trtnncr  of  e^Bductlne  baaiiioswt  and   lixnl  tte 
*kB0*l9dce»   Inf  orat  tlofB  aad  nlcill''  vblob  <iefcadnnta  oo«  1b  tte  oporntitfa 
of  tteir  bu8iB«83  aro  suofei  i^o  aro  po8»*»»«d  tty  eih«r  lodlTlduals  «»• 
gacod  ia  tiu  fur  m  tchlag  a^rrleei  that  the  bu»«lia«8is  of  tur  s/.tahlBc 
Is  Chlo^e  la  «on(l««t«rd  principally  i»  %k«  fij^llora  Built  lag*  ot  9 
^oath  ^'!e.b<tfih  iiTe»i«t   aaO  tbo     dFins  &xpr«ftit  Sulldlar^  a^t  115  ::outli 
X:«»rbora  atrooti   thr  t  in  otbor  builllBgs  la  th«  loop  aectlan  of 
Cl&loaco  th«ro  ar*  rarloua  othrr   In^lrldaals  aad   corpora tloao  inmnfoi 
In  tb«  far  •^teblne  eerrieet   th<-^t  Fcelit  and  Baokor  and  Ktaapp  Tux  -'^or- 
Tlo«  are  oagagtd  is   tblo  bu^lnooa  *tt  115  3«utk  J^^rbora  airorti   that 
OB  several  aoe^vaioaa  •xpr^m*  pAokasea  aa£  aall  dir«ete4  to  qj^  lat«a««4 
for  oonplfiimiat,  '*by  alntake  of   tbe  cxp^taa  aaa  or  mil  a&rrier**  ItaT* 
bet^n  delivered   to  ^^trfeodrat  eorporntloni   tb^t  ob  iBOTcral  oecaftloBa 
expreae  packagaa  sad  Ball  dlraotetd    to  att!    iateaced  for  <f7f*Bd>uit  cor* 
por^tloBi    "by  mlfttnko  of   th«  eaipraaa  maa  or  Ball  OArrl«r»*  haTe  boom 
dellT9re^   to  eoKplalB-^iatf  th  t  vhllc   Out  nmtmn  of  oo^plalaaBt  aad 
defead&nt   oorpor^tloiit  aadtr  ordla&ry  clrounataBCOo*  arc  safrlelently 
clffereat   ta  prerent  coBfualea»  yat*  bee > as*  of   tba  f&«t   tisctt  tba  »aid 


til    ss: 


:.<;??  .-..•<i'  .stU»  &ijB«  ^;->i£v"    ,  .'^^^^^^^{iKue  >c   ;;«^&ii*iMr 


Vii'?* 


»Ht    ^ 


■•5&.«?|.^0?«  ftvii^r. .ntf^h 


,..■; -...  i 


^.^'i^rvfi'i 


p»ril«s  arc  l»  th«   stUM   duiXcia^  mo6  '*b«o«iM«  of   th«  Juxtfipopltloii 
•f   tA«  WfiM  oB  tJw  oiLLlvtiB  board  I  W«««itt«s  o/   &&•   slailt^rity  of 
•orrloo  rcMoroU  '«y   th«  ooaipXuiaMK,  «ao    ttkm  itriaclpal  ^Sefcartsstf 
ftB4t   bceniiMO  of  tbt  fu/ttMrr  f-««i  iiMi%  4)Mr  yz'iacii;^!  def«BBa4it  te« 
iitf«pt«d  tt«  it*  B«ae   t)t«  vordtt  *7ur  He  6chiJC  Serriec**   wkieh  aro 
th«  itfcatioi^l  vordtf  «hi«l»  th*  uixbiplAiiuiiib  xuut  proMiofatljr  u«4j   la  M> 
its  lutTertlbla.:,*  iat^4vi<iift*l«  ol  orciuftiv  iAieliii{ttao«*   intiemlay  i« 
•all  ott   Ibe  cuMplii.iaAMS>*  nMt  «««iljr  kaaotte  ooAftt»*«i  ajai  Ml»t«\k«»iiXjr 
^rlBg  thtir  bu0lattp.«  to  th«  j^t-LawipAl  o»r9ab.Aat»  iuaornml  af  Um 
foot  that  ilMywero  ao;  doia^  s»a«iaoo3  »iih,  tkd  oo«ipl» i»ottt |  |hoi 
whllo  BO  evldeaoo  »tta  of fare^t   tfr^.t  tAijt  h^:<  hayyoaetf  la  aigr  oyclfjL^ 
faooj  yot   ta»  gftotor  btjlgree   tjaiora   to  grtat  frobabllltjr  tfcpt  ihlft 
iiao  oocaTred  ,<^iji  olll  cant iaue  io_  oocar  •▼oa  yttl^wit  aar  oro rt  act  oa 
liw  >  rt  of  tJMt  pylaolpal  defencjMt.tr      tlwl  la  oo«o  Instance e  tho 
aiodellTcrj  of  nail  aad  cxj^oao  j^ckai^oo  kcrttoTorc  rtferre<}   to  vao 
«&a««d  hy   llw  fHct  tJk-:t  tlMjr  taac  cot.  )»«^b  properly  ftd<!r«occ^|   that 
ystuT*  error   la   this   regard  ha«  oooarrod   coapl&laont  »ad  d^feaif  int  cor- 
pora tieti  taiTO  rectified   the   i^  jk j   tlit  sclttacr  of   tlio  partieo  intoadod 
to  divert  aay^'^tlclc,   r^-aitinaco   or  pn.elCHC«   lateaf!f^£   for   (he   other} 
"thrt  the  principal  dcfoaduat  h&a  a  right  to  tno  aao  of  ito  OTooraio 
aaao*  aa<i  txao  the  further  Tight    to  coiw^ot   Ita jsi,uoineot>>  la  cowpotitiop 
»ith  tho  ooou>lalaaat  aad  ty  •i^aa*   in  ito  haoiaoas  withaat  tmr  rogtrip- 
tioBfli  hut  th/6  Itaater  flado  tk <t  hec-aae  of  the  gccttli'^Y  ccaMaattoa  of 

£ldt«aUti*K!UL&5fe^Ml#Juj!«-J*^  gtaity  of 

uafalr  ccaipetitioa  if  they  nre  peraitt-g  to  occMtpy   the   gf joe  baildlaft 
aad  aee  tho  naao   *7Mr  Kl>tohiafl  ngryioe*  Iao»*   which  appoaro  am  tho 
httlletia  ^i.r^^  directly  ahove  tho  nauo  of  the  oggplaiaaaty*     Tho 
aaoter  roooisiaeaded    th;.t  a  Ceeree  bo  eatored   perpotanlly  eajoiaiac 
defeatfaato  ''froa  atiae   the  vords^   *fiar  a«6t«hiBs  aerriee*    la  ita  oor- 
poraU  aaaOf  or  aay  other  coBhiaatloa  of  vorda  alailar   thereto  ia 
eonasotioa  sith  their  o^id  bneiaess  loc&ted  ^^t  115  ••  Dearhora  :  treet." 


1t$  ^iil^^li«3i£'3  «fl^  t9  98i««e»^<i  }l9ie3««i  al:£^.r.f.'ifw   i^i  a^  SMMtt  «x^i   Y# 

ji£  -'.JgJ^A.f-i^.'?^^-^.. .*'»;^^-.**^  ijg"'  -■-'■■   ■'^^'  ^.'»ii)iiiif-t^-o,if'' 

■Jj':': /i''''L-\  ..''rr:^-^ --^^Ji^^^AJ^^  T' '    '•':"-  -^  '-i-  ijifei>rit;;sgaw»  ?Ij»li- 


'sJtitftfel 

MfS 

3Tfe5 

•  4t 

£ri^ 

•s- 

3  if  4 

:^     i-: 

■   -^t 

■^ 

ifn* 

'  3i3Lt. 

gat-* 

'i.g^de 

JiihS 

;i«.-ixi^? 

<:•  ;>-!?ij  -. 

•  --^ 

,._.-■$» 

T 

tt'SJiV 

-7- 

Obje«tioa»  to  the  rej^rt  ««re  oTerrvlvd  Wy  ilM»  Master  maA   th* 
chaaoell«r  OT«mil«4  «xl  «xo«ptl«is  to  the  rf?port  sad  •at«roC  a 
deer««  la  seoor<?nne«  vlth  th«  f  lad  lac*  ^'^  rt«owB*Bd'  tloa  of  tht 
■Raier* 

:jof«nd»ats  CiMitead   thui  th«  4««rs«   la  th«  pr«a«rat   cami 
lo  trroaoouft  ftad  coair».rj  to  tho  erlceaeo  ouMi   tho  lav.       •  aro 
eailraly  la  aecord  «ltli  thlo  coateatloa*     "Mntmir  c«9«tltloa 
eoaaloto  la  passliig  tff  or  attctaptlag  to  paos  off*  apoa  tlMi  publlot 
tlbr  (oodB  or  baalaet^fi  of  oao  person  ao  aad  for  tlM  goodo  or  teolaooo 
of  another*     It  ooaolsto  eosentl^ll/  la  the  cenduot  of  a  tjrado  or 
httolaoeo  la  muih  a  aanaer  th^t  there  lo  either  aa  exprees  or   lapXled 
repreoeat'<'tloo  te  th^>t  effcot**     (38  0j9»  756*}     "Tho  eo.cnco  of 
uafalr  eoapetltl^  is  fraud •     It  le  »ald   la  lio^tf  ■:ofi.le  Cq,  y«     yelcoff. 
193  U.   ;  •  119,    chrt  It   *c<Nisl»to  In  the   s^ao  of   the  gooda  of  one 
■aaofactar^r  or  veador  for  theoe  of  another*  and  If  defend nat  oo 
condttota  ito  haalaooe  so  aot  to  pA.la  off  Its  goode  as  thoae  of 
coMplalaaat  the  ftctloa  fallo.'"      (PoI^MMc  Cf,  t.  8mtp  Halrjla  U^»> 
297  111*  3599  571«)     "9raiid  Is  tlM  eiot  of  aetloao  of   thle  klad** 
(Kioohol  ▼.  The  Chle  go  Landlords*  Protectlre  Bareaa.   210  111.  17«, 
1W|      aJhaseador  Hotel     orp.  ▼•  Hotel    -heTi^ji   Jp.^  8^6  111*     pp. 
247.  265 1     see  also  This    >teToaa«l>afls  Cp.  ▼.  Mather  &   Co..  230  211* 
App.  4tt  ahere  tho  oasos  be:.rlag  «»  thlo  sAJeot  are  reTleved.)Tho 
OTldeaoe  clenrly  e&tahllshoe  thnt  *far  aK^tohlajE*  le  a  dletlaot  Haalaess 
aad  h?t£  existed  for  wmny  yeajrsf  owl  thrtt  the  sards  "fur  »  tehiag 
serrloe**  and   **far  aatohlag*  aecurhteljr  deslKaato  the  chr^rvcter  aad 
service  of  the  haslaess.     Xttiv^rotta  flrso  la  the  Uteltcct     tates  are 
sacacsA  la  this  baslaoss.       la  Uhlo'^go.  a  atariier  of  coMeras  aro 
eagaged   In   this  bttslaeas  exolualTelyt  oad   seas  of   th«-ae  aoe  words 
la  their  aaaes  th^^st  aptly  describe  the  natare  of  the  buslaess.     aU 
of  thta*  la  their  adTertlseaaatst  ase  the  words  ^far  BF^tchlas*  or 


'Si 


4t?il^»^  «^^  «*Qff  ,t1«  smsag  ©i  :sguUip!&i#^  t«  11«  vni.'^iisi  iu       . 

5  ji  4  iiK,*^i.  _>   x  1  alas? 


■-a  ■-»  «  .;  -i  Si  *•  *<5J*  - 


)lMM^^ 


j9gt  •▼  i;5J»§^i 


i^  ie»  w 


iaJBttH 


.,4.?LJ^ 


>sf»'    «JMi^ 


;  xXt^liuitC' 


re 


:t    KtABm    ttv^4    ill 


"far  aatohias  aerYiet**     r«T«ral  finis*  other  thaa  cwaplaiiuuit 
and  d»ffl»dlMit«»  arc  aasaced  in  this  baaiacas  et  115  :>o«th  l*«ark«rm 
•ir«tt»  aad  pr»etloallj  all  of   tho  flraa  ar«  looatod  la  the  lattor 
build  iB«:  or  ia  tbt  Kjai«ra  BaildiBi^*  b   .«uih  ira^Oi  aveatto.     TIm 
oriceaoo  cl«' rly  ohtwa  Uut  dcfeadnat   corpor  :tioii  dicf  aot   ao  ooa* 
dttoi  lis  teusineas  &a   to  pals  off  its  e^^da  aa  tlMso  of  oaaplalaojit* 
Sot  a  siaslo  witaeoa  ttetifiofi    th^t  ho  pfaroknsod  dcftadnat  oorpsv* 
atioB*s  aorcluaidiaa  or  oerrioe*  WliaTiac  it   to  bo  tlio  norohaadiso 
or  arrriea  of  ooaplaiaaat •  or  tl^\t  def ead  at  eoryorutioa  had  ro- 
pr«B«atod  to  aayoee   thrt   th«  goods  or  aerrieo  of  daf end  <]it  oorperatioa 
wore   thoflO  of   conplaioaat*  or  th«it  ho  had  ho««  (»«o«iirod  bj  tho  cob* 
dact  of  d«faada«t   corporatiaa  «ad   as  a   -osalt  had  ]Mirsh.*aod   tho 
lattor*s  sMrehaadiaa  or  servlee*   or  th  t  c'efaadaBt  eoryorHtioi  did 
aajr  aot  •r  aas  rosfpoasiblo  for  aa?  act  which  dceoiT«4  or  »ialcd   a 
aingia  poraoa*     *Ia  oloso  ae»«s*  *%har«    the  doet-ptiro  toadeaoy  la  not 
clear*  equity  aill  vrithhold   its  haad  uatil  actaal  oo««ptloB  has  ro* 
oalted*"     (3d  Cjo.  tft,}     But  as  «e  ro'id  tho  r«eord«  or-feadnat  eor<* 
poratioii  has  booB  hoMost  aad  fair  ia  its  nothod  of  deiae  baaiaeaa* 
The  asJM  of  coiq^laliiaat  Might  veil  d  ccIto  the  antmry*  as  it  sagrooto 
a  eloari]ig*houa«  for  fur  Borobaats* 

It  will  be  noted  that  O0Bitplaih*«t  daoo  aot  eositoad  that 
the  aaaw  of  6cfendfmt  corporotioa  sival^tes  its  aaaie*     roaplaiaaat's 
bill  is  appareatly  based  ayoa  the  theory  thut  beoaaao  it  aoed*  ia 
ite  exteaoiTO  adTertisiag*  the  vords  **f«r  afitehiag  scnrice"  it  thereby 
aoquirec   s«o«  superior  right  to  the  aoo  of   tho  oaae*  althoagh  oosiplaia- 
aat  MOW  coneetfoa   th-'^t  these  word?  aocarstoly  aai  aptly  describe  tho 
aatare  of   the  busiaooo  in  which  defead»at  eorporntioa  aai  Maor  othora 
aro  oa«agod  mad   that  defcadoat  oorporatien  has  the  right  to  tim  aoo 
of  ito  corporate  aaao  oiQndtere  ooto  ia  the  build  lag   it  11^     outh 
ie^rbora  street*     Cooiplalaaat  has  ao  aore  oiyorioir  ri^t  to  the  use 
of  the  ««rdo  ia  quest iim  ihan  a  wholesale  grocer  would  hare  to  tho 


^«i&«i;sX<a»#  iWEl*  T-sirf*«  «4!urrf1t  Xjevsv.-        *7»«iT -.  ?,   ijaA4<i,»K«  ret* 


-9« 

wse  •f   the  wore. a  *«hol*««l«  gfovx"  ««relj  b«oiim«e  h«  aa«d   ttea 
exieasiTsly  la  his   2i<fTcrtl««M«ta«     Conplaliuuit  o«Be«d«a  that 
It  had  »•(  «4«9t<d   fch*  words  In   ..u^ntlon  nn  m  trAdsHsnrk  or  irMie* 
h«M«  hut  cvsA  if  it  tmit  «Ml«r  ths  author Itiss  such  adspiioa  {■ould 
•▼ail  it  nothihe*  as  *it  is  «  fvadsMNit*!  rule   thnt  tcnu  aer«>ly 
rseoriptivs  of  ths  gsuds  or  buslassa  t«  vhleh  thoy  itro  applied  osji- 
Bot  h«  sxcXusivsl/  appropriftisd   as  traiie-Marko  or  txadoHtasMa** 
(3«  Cgrc*  7001     uolttjadcr  y.  ^*o»»r»i«  13«  lUt  ^U»  2is-0|     BaX^  ▼• 
r>i«jtol»  116   111.  137«}       la  airport  of  its  9oat«iiii<Mi  th!«t  tte 
decree  shoulA  he   soi^taiae^t  eo^plalaaat  oitea  t>ao  foUovta^  easosi 

laieraational,  :::oMalttee  of  Tot«t     «m««*s  'Hirictiaai    s  Qei»ti|tt§  ▼. 

McFeir  Electric"  antTTelepHSne  _C_0»1I». 

/ouaie     aaey*s  Chris tiaa  Ascoci^tioa  a/  ^jicfi^»»  1^   ili»  1»44  MoFolj, 
■lee trie  Co..  110  111.  \i^p*  I82t     3^oaaj.cr  ▼*  Jaoohs.  ««   111.  >.pp. 
&7X.     la  the  fir»t  it  m.a  held   thf>.t  the  ase  of   the  naaw  ^laterastlooal 
Consittee  of  Totttg  ^oaaa*  a  vhristiaa   ^seocintioae*  triii  ho  eojoiaed 
ttt   the  eait  of   the  Youbj;     eaea's  nirietiaB  Assoel^tioa  of  ChioAso* 
it  appcariag  th  t  euoh  aano  v^s  n^Tisedly  a<iiopt«d  hy  the  c>feac^aat 
for   (he  purpo£»e     f  ad.«leM:diii^  the  general  pablic»  aad  pf^rsoao  frosi 
whoa  it  hop'd    to  rcrctlYe   support  hy  «^y  of   d9nftti<»ist   into  helit-rias 
th%t  it  stood  ns  th«  oosaittee  »ad  repreoeatr^tiYo  of   the  Toaag 
'VoMea*e  ^-hvistiaa  '^ssocic  tion.      la  the   eeoaatf  it  tw^e  hold  that 
vharo  a  steekhoXdex  la  the  "So^elX  li^leetrlo  Coap^qy*  hsu  eoa* 
tnTTtcd  on  a  corpor-ttioa  the   rii;ht   to  use  his  n«is»  ia  the  oerporato 
aaae  aad  aftereazda  sold   his   «toek  to  saeh  oorport*tiw  far  a  Vfi^lttahlo 
OMisider^^tioa*  he  coaXd  not  ]»ftervc^ree  orjf«aiso  a  oorpon^tioa  aadrr 
the  aaas   "hol^cXX  ^X<tctrie  &»d  Telephone  Cosrpaay*   an4  then  Xoc«to 
ittt  husinoea  in  the  s&ae  buiXdlac  as  the  conplaiaaat*  aa  suali  aetioaa 
on  iiis  part  had  crery  nppoureaoe  of  aa  attcaq^t   to  sdeXeati  the  puuXio 
and   to  obtain*  by  deeeptiaat  the  heaefit  of  the  patroaace  aad  clieataip 
eaj<^ed  by   the   origiaal  eorper^tim.     Xa  the   third  case  the  eoa- 
pXaiaaata  had  boea  doias  businosa  aader  the  styXo  of  "Six  Littla 


;.i.-,5^     *■;.,,.>,    mA    ««|j|;«!»«tf    XS-^XIHS     *X'5«>91IQ    3X4iJi*X<Ni{»'^    8JXO»    SWtS     ^«    «?{« 

«j«r-t»  »«?{  "^^^■qi^sK>  slt^ifSa-X*  XJE-s-?©^  !5>i^Jf  .«Jt  «s»J5Xss»a!»»5.«  .s  '*-»»^«' 


-10. 


Tallars*   tukl   thmj  e¥taln»d  mn  iuivM9t,kam  mfgciMai  tb*  A9tt»Aamtm 
frmk  doln«;  ^u«la^sB  nmA^r  ite  anoM  ami   atjlc  of  *'Bix  Big  Tailor*** 
OonplflitMUBt  hrift  fnilftd  to  olio  aBQf  oaso  thi't   supporto  tte   iaoiurt 
4o«r««  « 

'*X/*««rlpttT*  t«nui  tUMi  ffeaerie  iin««is  are  ynMlcl  Jorlf 
oai  not  ORjpftlilo  of  «xc1«o1t«  approprlptloa  fry  uny  on««  but  ntj  bo 
««e4  by  nil    the  «orltf   la  mn  honeetXy  ciosorlptlvc  sBd  non->d««t«ptiTO 
mtrnicr*"    (38  Cye.  800 )  oad  "la  oil   thla  claoo  of  oaooo  vkore   tho 
vor^*  no»e»  or  other  aark  or  dorlce  lo  prlwirily  £ubjJLeJLjOTJL£  tho 
riffht   to  r*li«^f  d«pead«  upon  tho  proof.     If  plolntliT  proroo  that 
tte  aaao  or  word  has  bo«B  oo  cxclusWely  ld«!Btlfl«<i  «ith  Mo  foods 
or  btt»ln«'<«  oa  to  bave  aeqttlr«!i:   a  eooond  ry  taitttiins»  so  a     to 
Indieat*  his  ff<tod8  or  bttolaooe  aad  his  aloaaot  ho  la  eatltlcd  to 
rcllof  asmlsftt  anethor'o  deo«ptlTo  ttoo  of  euoh  terao*     If  ho  fallo 
la  8ueh  proof*  ho  la  aot  eatltled   to  rcllof*"     (Xh*  769-70«}   C«a- 
plaiaant  ^oacodost  oo  It  auott   th-<t   '.he  vords   la  qaoetloB  de«crlbo 
only  t':e  aotare  of   the  bualaoao  la  vklch  It*  the  iiefead-uit  oor* 
por^'tloat  and  nr-mj  other*  nro  eagoffedt  aad  therefore  neither  It  aar 
aay  other  firm  hac  an  exclusive  or  Raperlor  rlgkt  to  the  use  of   tho 
word** 

After  a  O'-rfful  exAalantloa  of    t.h«   :vl(ieao<3  bcnrlag  upoa 
the  alsdrllre/y  of  aall  aad   eapreoe  ptieka^jCea  aad   the  positloa  aX 
tho  aaacs  of   the  parties  otk  tho  bullet  la  bo^rd   of  the  baildla^* 
vo  &r*  f^r-tis^ied   that  the  ar^sier  aad   tho  ohftsocllor  s».r9  to  theoo 
circ«OB&t?>aoe<«  aaw>rrbateH  weight  aad  effect*     **Thtfalr  coayctltloa 
lo  alirayo  a  qaeetloa  of  fact*     The  i^tteatloa  to  be  deteraiaed  la 
«Tery  oaso  lo  whether  or  not*  as  a  aatter  of  fact*    the  n— o  or  aark 
used  by  defeat -.at  hao  preYlottsly  ooan   to  ladiento  aai  desl^aato 
plalatlff's  goodo*  or*  to  state  it  aaatber  wojr*  whether  defeadaat^ 
«s  o  aotter  of  foot*  is  by  his  eoadaot  peoBiag  off  his  gaodo  aa 
plalatlff*s  goods*  or  his  basiaess  %s  plnlatlff's  baslaess**      (Zh* 


•01. 


'»« "Soils'  <•*    *«Sil«    aa45    Taj«tt(t    q«tftS««€  ^^ior    «»'St 


*5^^  iiiMt    ^-^'-..„ 


.■;X9T.fs? 


-«    ^^5     ttft    ^trj^TC^  £»9ii;;-    al 


77f»t0«)     T«  •atltl*  m.  Govplalaaat*   lMeiis««  cf   this  alHiva«t«v« 
!•  Ike  r«ll«t  ««iKlit»   the  risht  auT^t  b«  cl.rrljr  ••Wbllaked  bj 
the  erid«ac».     (B(»ll  v.      l«gel»   sapra.  14 T#) 

TlM  0«;«rir«  uf   t^iie  Cixottit  C«urt  1«  r*Ter»«d   and   Ui» 
ea«««  is  rcaaadeii  with  dirtctioac   to  the  chancellor  ie  diMilte 
««aipl&la«at*n  bill  tmr  want  of  eq«i%jr« 

BftnMBt  Pm  J««  aad  9ridle/t  J.,  emieiflr* 


»!ia?fa^i>$   ;:•**  ,x*i^^--    '«:«   ^  i -^-iJS-tJifi 


3Sa49 

VUXIM   T.    VOCSLXT, 


ikpptlX** 


fMk  KlUfXCXP 
OT  CHXUUBO. 


ntABK  J.  U«2)tt.  v^         v-  I  "  I. 


256I.A.  612 


UK,  JusfXtt  seAiLAi  ncumoiin)  nx  opxkiox  ov  tkk  coimT. 

let  %hm  Municipal   Court  of  CMottgo,  Willi  km  T.  W«odl«y, 
^Xmintirr,    eue<l  Yraak  v^.  Lod^ge,   d9f«iidiuui.      ra»  pltelntirr  «r.tt*r*4 
iato  •  «ritt«n  !«»••  with  tii*  4«f«a4«ftt,  hy  Xhm  fru9  «f  vUioii  th« 
plmlntiff  1«&»«4   to   trh«  der^ndmnt   a  e«rtalB  afiartAoat  1a   Uui  ap^rt- 
■attt  builtiini;^  Ju&e«tt  &•   tS493  Corocli  »v«iia«,   Qtlcago,  i'or  »  >)*jrio4 
or  OB*  y*«r   froa  Oetob«r  1,   19^,   at  m  rostiil  of  |T0  |i«r  aionth. 
PlalDtlff  all«g«4  tlUkt   tUdTo  vuo  duo  ^Im,  ttsidor  tho  Icioo.  ront 
lor  tho  Months  of  Ha^r*  June,   •'uly,  Aaiiuot  ond  Sopttcabor,  1922, 
tos«th«r  trlth  *ttomoy*a  foeo.      Tti.9  <!lor«u<2afit'o  sr^oadod  AlTidavit 
of  tt9rlto  adlogoA  {lux^x  aXla)   thot  on  or  otout  April  30,  192:>, 
he  a«i^otiat«d  witis  i^n  pltelatii't    for  o  •*trr«»'1or  acd   oanooll&tloB 
•  f  tho  loaoo,    and  at  that   tUte,   In   oonoldorutioB  of  tho  dofondiuat 
iaa«dl^t«ly  ouxrftUdoring  |»o»o«»olon  of  tho  iiroMltoos,    'pliklutiff 
•C''**^^  ^o  ^*^^  ^^^  ooaool    and  oceopt   o  surron.-tor  of  oaid  louoo,* 
and   tb.at   tiio  doi'oii'twut,   vitu  tlu»  conaMii  oj    tba  pli^iatiff,   tr«ic<ikto4 
aad  ourroBdorod   tUe  apstrteoat,   and  tlU&t  tke  dofaadaat  ia  not   lo* 
d«¥t9d  to  tJi»  olaiatiff  for  roet  Is  aay  aooimt.     S)to  oaae  vaa 
triad  beforo  tho  oourt,   witii.  «  Jury*  *cd  thora  vaa  a  vaxdlot  ro* 
Uimod  flBii&j;  tha  ias>^oa  a^i^lnst  tiaio  pliwintiff.     Ju4#»oct  waa 
aatorad  on  the  Tordiat  aaA  this  iM»p«al   followed. 

Baaauaa  of  tho  f»ot   HiaX   thoy  ha4  a  baby,   tho  defend- 
ant and  hio  vlfa  rc^oaod   tUa  soaolaaioa  that  tne  aparU^ont  in 
t««atloo  vaa  not  l»rs«  «cou|ptk  I'or   Uitai  aad  (-Uat   *in  alx   fairnosa 
to   tho  yoan^stor  thoy  i^taald  aovo  and  aook  largar  quarters.  *      ^xay 
oxpr'^asod   tiiooo  vi«rvs   to   tha  ^ilalntlff  aa4  ho  adsnittod  that  thy 
vottld  b«  toottor  off  iti  A  liorgor  apsirta&ont.      ^o  d«fon:lant  and 


Wl 


-ft*  "-1^1  Jicd  i»»  Up 


IU«  vlf«  *toak  it  for  sr^afd"  from  this  •4BlBiilon  of  th*  plftlntlfT 
tliat  h0  vii«  vllliog  to  allow  Uiok  to   ourrecdor  the  proAiatoy  «ud 
th«y  ii«ouro4  kfiovhcr  apartaont  atfi«l  ccoTOd   I'rati  th«  proMlaoa  on  kaj 
1.     the  plaintiff  t««tll'i«4  Ui«t  h9  Be>r«jr  A^ood  to   tt«ao«l   th» 
loaso  *nd  tUot  ho  t«ld  %hm  dof«nd«at  ood  hio  vifo  tn«t  ao  votad 
aoatot   th«e  ixi  ro-roAting  th<>  oparttftont.      Jh.9  dafoariant'o  «if« 
tootlfled   thttt   Iho  plalBtiff  nover  »t  ony   tijoo  aentioAod  oayt/iiiig 
akotit  OiftBoolliBg  tho  loaoo,    ah^   tlM  t«atii».o&y  of  the  dofondoct  io 
to  tho  oaaio  oisoet.      thm  ^lAUitiff  fvurthi^   tootifiitd   Xh^t  hm  ku4« 
•Tory  off'ort  to  ro-rant  tho  opartKost  for   th«  dofandant  but  was 
wiable  to  gat  any  t^a&t  during  himy,  Juno,   ^TuXy*  Auir<^«t  and  Sop* 
t«Blior»  1922.      Tb«  def«»dajnt.   In  hio  p«;ti%ioQ   to  vacato  Judt^iont, 
«ll«g«>1   that  bia  defenoo  tr^a   that  ha  hiUl  a  ot>eolflo  ngrosKont  vlth 
tbo  T^l^intiff  to  cane«l   tbe  l«a»o  ao  of  April  3c,  X9'i'i,   If  do* 
fondant   ia»odlat«l]r  T^oatod  and   ourronderod  poaoaoalen  of  thm 
proaioea,   «knd  thoro  io  a^ioici  fcroo   in  t:i«  oeatontioo  of  plaintiff 
that  tho  dofondant  fail«d  to   euatain  thio  affiiKaxlvo    lafonoo. 

1h9  dof->i24ant  eaXxod  ta«  plaintiff  ao  a  witneoo  undor 
•oetion  53  of  tho  llusiclpal   Court  Act,   and,   o'ror  tbo  ohjeotiori  of 
tho  plaifitiff,  wao  peraittod  to  proTO  thav   tho  plaintiff  ownoA 
•thor  largo  apartaemt  huiidln^^a  and  tho  nuab^r  of  aparta>«sito  in 
Um  Vuildiago.     Vhothor  or  not   thoro  «aa  aa   ai^roaaioBt   for  tho 
•auBOOll'^tion  an>d  ourr«3dor  of  the  loaao  wao  tho  only  ioouo  in   tho 
oaoo.      Tho  teotiveay  adduood  frott  tho  plaintiff  hroujcht  hoforo  tho 
4tury  tho  faot   thai   tho  plaintiff  vaa  a  rioh  landlord,    and   auoh 
faet  wae  ontirely  Irrolovoct   to   tho  only  iaoao  ia   the   oaoo  and  was 
voll    ealoulatod  to  prejudice  the   oaoo  of  tho  plaintiff.      It  vao 
orrer  to  perait  tA*  examination   in  'lueotlon.      (See  Jonoa  &.  ^^'rT§ 
Cq,   y.   GeorgQ^   227  Xil.    64.    70;   fejjaM'^y  ▼■    ^PT^a  ^«^i»2  .y<?ft^    >^'» 
85a   ill.   473,   479;  i^urt«  v.    S^ano.   201   111.   App.   1^;   Angoloo   ▼. 

Poliao,   15C    111.    Apj.    627,    529.) 


'nijatmj.^  •di  1#  miamlal>it  sl«s  ^»fa«r«;si  TWt  ii  stool**  »ti«  siji 

&ii»  «« waists'! if  Ai^  ii»Aei»irtJNi   »#  ssxu  w»iX«  s^t  %al£XiT  «.  ^  f^n  t&d$ 


"  -lt*JrS*  ^ . 


5.  j£iiMj[- 


Bit^      ;.•:■>     i5C-A 


■S   1t«VC 


,'*a»f  \:,. 


sv«4ir 


ri": 


.x»  •ill  :tUn*^  Pi  %9VSM 

Lit  fV  ..iL^X...^^ 

^^•^■^    ,^S«    .i;i«A    ,^J   0«X  ^«*ii«^ 


Th«  ylaintirr  eontcnds  ihm%  ••rtaic   eoa4a«t  ef  Ik* 
trial    8o«rt  ««•  blgnly  pra^adioial   to   the  ylalBtlff't  aaae  vltn 
tk«  jury.      7h«  oacurr*na«   th&t   forK*  tbe  basis  of  th«  lastAiit   soa-> 
tsstloa  is  Bst  at  sll  Xiictily  to  oeour  ot:   naotuer   trial   aad  vs 
4s«Hi  it  unnossessry  to  pass  upon   ths  msrlts  of  the   iostaat  oob* 
tsntioB,   nni  vc  do  not  d««a  it  oeeoesar?  to  pass  upon  othsr  eoEi- 
tSAtlons  asAs  ^y  th«  plaintiff. 

The  Ja'{y;pont  of  tho  Muueielpal   Court  of  Chicaj[o   Is 
rffT«rsc4   luji    th«   oauss  is   r«aando4. 

Rivsuso  AKo  aBLono). 

Bars**,   P.    *• ,    ai»4  Qxid.sy,   J.,    eonsur. 


-.^>>«.    ^''««^4'«i'«ii>i.    «4i»i-.'4«f   SL$:lm>^  044    iS»4S>»   ««^(?   $,1    X'SAItSSII^igfll^K;   itmti^h 


53848 


«ttatc  of   ttl£&  MJUOTXCH, 
4««#fts«d  • 

▼• 

Tttx   A  f  AMI  new,   TC^SJC.    aJO) 


12 


2- 


I.  jucric?  iCAKjji  m^LTfistzsj  rtm  oj^nrioa  of  tk  coahT. 


Xa  th«    /ttperiofT  Court  of  Cook  County^   !•  aa  aetioa  oo 
iho  caeot  i-'i^ollaA  VorlceTieli*  A^wtaistratrlx  of  tho  Kat^te  of  lUko 
XorkcTioh*  dooeaoodt  plftlBtlfff  mie^  thft  AtoJiionB*  ttpolc*  oncL   r>rjita 
y«  Ksilwojr  C«iip«mrt  a  eorpers%tlon»  defoKdaat.     thor*  h«iTe  l^e^m  t«« 
trlalo  of  this  e»oo*     TKe  flr-ot  resulted  la  a  T«rdiot  la  faror  of 
iho  plalatiff  la  th«  om  of  Il7«ft00«     tho  4«dgaoat  ontorod  oa  thle 
T«x>eiet  »A0  r«T4>r«od   la  thin  eourt  aaci   tte  chu«o  %&•  riaaiindcd> 
(too  y<»rkoTlch»     d»x>«  etc»  ▼•     tol^l«<3«i>  ?ojo3ml  j>   aania  go  ftRJIwar 
Co*,  2&0  111*  /pp.  637*)     Oa  tho  »«cO(a<i    trial  thoro  «&o  a  ▼«rdiot 
ia  favor  of  tho  pXaiatiff  for  tho  Bvm  of  Iia*t00«     Jud^Hiat  inia 
oatorod  on  tko  vercloi  and  tklo  appoal  folloaod* 

On  tlM  rirot  appoaXf  tto  reTorood   tlio  Jud^aoat  on  tht 
froaad   thnt  tiw  Tordlci  «!>o  olonrly  ae»ia«t  tho  welglit  of  tte  eri- 
eoaeo*     In  our  opinion  ««  ot^totf  roiy  fuUjr  tho  aatorlil  facto  and 
olrottKstrtaooe  i^ad   our  eoaelueiooo  la  rt^feroaoo   t.hor«to»     Ca  ilM 
pr««ont  ftppoul  tho  d«rfeadaat  a<aia  c<»t«»d«   (lat«r  alia)   th&t  tho 
Tordiot  lo  ele  rly  a^aiast  the  w«i^4it  of  tho  oTld«Mo.     Ia  oar 
eoaslderotloa  of  this  laportaat  eotttoatloa  tio  haTo  had  tho  hMi«fit 
•f  oxhaaotire  hrlefo  aad  loa^thgr  oral  ar^— oaio>     ^/tor  a  oarfful 


(>-v. 


ft^SCJT 


it':  H- 


(m  &»i-S^  -JUS  ai  4fv<^fSJi»C>  Mf^--' 
ts«/  «•**#  99£i^  m-n^f     »4f:ei»*ea^-9A  44?45i^.<r^^j^-2f?«  ■  .  ^n^ii  .y- 

i^S^itji'^^^r    «   it.S!ii    v%«gs#    X«^'l«     ^«d«^;&    ^-^    Si'       lii?£|l>    •^JL^'^'^    ♦XXI    C»dS    t  *  "^^ 

hem  «*t'.al  XrlT^^iBSJ  »fii5   xXX«l:  ^t»T  i^i;a4«    swr  ?Mitl;viQ<i  t*o  si      w?ia« 
TUB©  «I      »*4afc'^*T»   »a*  ^e  9if^i9v  »if4i  4«oJtA^|ji  xi«i*X»  Ki  i^iin»\ 


•2* 

■t«riy  •!   ihm  reoord  and  a  aoa«id«rntien  of   ill*  Aigmmmtm  of  oauBael» 
«c  kaT*  remelwc   th«  coacIusImi  thnt   the   coateniiim  9f  the  defeiMle«t 
is  a  »erit«riOtta  •»«•      Xa  rea«hiag  ikla  cooolusian  w«  !»▼«  «1t«b  dua 
waifHt  t»  tha  fa«t  that  two  jurlea  havo  f^oiMd   for   tho  plAlntlff . 
Conaaal  for  tho  plalatiff  bne  eamaitly  and  abljr  anieaToarod  to  aho« 
tlMit  tho  plAiatlff'a  oaso  oa  tho  ^oacmt,   record   la  stromor  than  it 
«&a  on  the  first*  hut   1b  oar  Jut'sBMrst  It  lo  weaker*     '  •  are  oatlo* 
fle^   thr.t  it  would  be  an  InjUBtloe   to  yonalt   the   preaoBt  jud^noat   to 
•taatf«     lo  uaefttl  parj^oe*  ?*oul4  ho  oerred  by  agalo  rceltiac^  the  ewl- 
4ea«o  oad  ooaaMatlug  ap«a  the   aiuM»  and  aa  plalatiff  aay  t  ee  fit   to 
have  the  oaao  tried  *«Coln»  *<  refrala  frooa  tioias  ao« 

tho  judgaoat  of  tho  -aperlor  -"a art  of  Cook  Ceuaty  la 
reweraer:   nAd   the  eaaae  is  reaaaded* 

wsr£ki,jz-  ASP  KHaAiBe:i:;« 

Baiaoof  ?•  J**  and  Gridley*  J*,    coaoio'* 


-■f-^3   »M^  ?^5jt*5»r  ai*gf^  ^  &9TT!^f!    5':?    SJjiOi    9»«i%:j»ii   Xntats  oS     .aetata 


",■..•   4 


S5t70 

HAI^CKXXA  BOOftcXO,  ) 

App«U««»  ) 

)        APFBALfRCH  SVFSiiXOR  OMRTv 

▼•  

)  09KM  OOVITT* 

m  .  SmttlCM.  SCAlLAX  i>^UY?.  ilsD  TKB  OPHIOS  OF  IIS   OOlBlT* 

Th*  e««plalBuit»  liAreeXXa  Bu»»eiot  fil*<i  h«r  bill  of 
«o^plaliit   in   th«  3aperl«r  Court  of  Cook  Couat/t   «i^iae  for  o 
d««re«  of  8«]>aro%«  «&lnt«n«Beo  *i(aim«t  tke  defend rjit»  Hearj 
Bvooeio.     After  tl»  6«efcadeat  had  filed  mi  ansvor*  ih*  conplais- 
ant  aadc  a  iMtimi  for  tlM  allovtiaoe  of  i«a9or«.r3r  aHaoay  aad 
saIiottor*e  foeo*       In  tiM  ftfi»«er  of   the  dcfeadttafc*  and  aloo 
iB  his  reply  to  the  a&otloa»  ho  dealo^   that  he  aad   the  oomplalBoiA 
1m4  OT*r  he  en  Mar  r  led «       The  ehaae^llor  teerd  evldeaoo  la  refer  eB«o 
io  thr  aotloa  aad  thorcafier  entered  rm  order  tki^.t  eontalaa 
(later  alia)   tho  folIoolHct 

"That  OB  Fohrvarj  26th*  Ida?*  the  defendoat  herola 
oxhitoiiod  to  tho  cenplaliiaBt  a  doeiaieBt  purport iB£  to  ho  a 
XieoAse  author Ijilag   the  mtiTxU^t  of   the  ptirtieo  hereto! 
that  the  defeadKBt  the*  aad   th»re   infersed   the  e«vl«l>Mit 
that  ho  had  arraafod  with  a  Justice  of  the  Peaoo  at  ladiaaa 
Barhor  to  perfera  the  ooroiaoa/*  and  induced   tho  coMplalwuit 
to  aecoapaasr  ^ia  to  oaid   ladlaBa  £Urhor*  where  a  aaxriac* 
oorcaoB,v  was  duly  perferiKd   in  apparent   cociplianoe  with  tho 
lav  iB  relstlen  to  aarriace  aad  a  errtifloKte  iaemod  pro* 
Bouaciac  the  p«rtiee  horeto  aaa  aai  wife* 

?h«    court   furtht-r  find?   that  thr  p-  rtieo  hereto   there- 
after lived  aad  o<rtMhited  with  e^eh  oth«r  &s  aaa  aad  wife  at 
Terloue  plaoco*  aai  pru-ticulrtrXy  Rt  the  hoac  of  oo^plalaaat'o 
father  ut  ChootortoBt   Indiam^*   two  or   three  Bighta  eaeh  aonth 
uatil  the  amth  of  Uaroh*  1923 •  shea  the  act  of  craeltj 
doo«rihed  in   ^nid  bill  of  eoaplalat  took  place  |  thn.t  ao  a 
rosult  of   the  aforecaid   eohahitatioa  of  tho  portiea  hereto* 
oat   child*  Irio*  was  tt^rm  oa     agmt  50*  19aA*  ao  lecitlaato 
toaut  of   the  defoadaiA* 


> 


n 


ra 


SiJIS' ■ 


f-^t  r-a-- 


li^S.l-i'il'i,-.:. 


ct; 

teS-- 

ir^iSJ 

r  ©*^«- 

••?!;^.     ■■■■ 

nismlxmv 


«2« 

:b»  court  fiirtb«i   fiacio   that  ihM  dcfeatfjit  i«  •  tr«Bg» 
aU.«-b«di«4»  la  Mfa¥le  ol   vorklne  •n'l  •^  •aralBg  a  liTii^ 
far   tbt   Kupport  af   hinaeXr  aad   af  tlia  oaaiplaiBaat  aad   ttaair 
chilli  I  tkat  Um  dcfendtiat  la  «r  raia^  Mifiicleat  aaaa/  ta 
avppart  hljuacXf  a«d   ta  paj  ^l^'^^o  9«r  waek  aa>  allaon^  natf  f«r 
auppart  •/  stt^liS  child »  and  in  adi  Iticn  Kbttrcto  a  aalicit«t*a 
t99  af  $100  •  CO  itt  niarty  daja'** 

Tka  ardvr  prarl^ad  that  tlie  dafcadaat  pa/  to  tha  oflBplainaatt  aa 

taaparnry  allnaa/  for  \1m  aup^rt  af  htfrsclf  aar:   chiles.  ;^I0  a  «aak» 

aatf  $100  solicitor* a  f«ea«     Tka  <l«fcM)%at  haa  apptnlad  fraai  UM 

ordar* 

Hm  dafaadeat  eoataada  tJb^  t  "pdraof  9t  aarriaca  la 
aaaaatlal  ia  aa  action  for  aaparato  mlatvaaaoo**     laia  eoetaatloM 
aaj  toa  o«aaa4aA« 

TiM  d«feadaat   co«t«ikl»  taait  *th»r«  an«t  alao  ba  a  Talid 

aarrlaita  before  a  -sifa  vlXX  1m   aatltledf   either  ia  a  dlToree  aait 

or  a  aaparata  aalatifnanca  aait^  to  aa  alXavaaca  for  taa^orarx 

allaoajr  or  eoXicitor'a  fcaal  aai  vhca  tte  MRrriagc  ia  aot  proTcd 

or  tha  caovlalMkat*  s:  richt  ia  altiaate  relief  ia  for  amy  raaaoa 

doubtfult  tha  aation  for  a  te^^orary  allovaaoa  ahoold  ho  tfeaiod*' 

aad  tha  d^fead^at  farther  eoataads  ths^t  tlar  proof  ia  the  iaataai 

case  *v&a  far  tthert  of  ^hat  la  rer. aired  oa  a  aotiaa  for  tiiporgiry 

aXlaoay  or  «olicitor*a  faaa**     The  rule  th&t  isoYemo  the  praaeat 

appeal  is   thu«   stftted  by  oar  "apreae  Court i 

'teapar&ry  aXiaoay  geadcate  11  to  aajr  be  aXXaaodl  vithoat 
a  aarriaca  haiac  yrovetf  t   thau^sh  a  oriaa  faicijt  eaao  should  ha 
roqaired  ta  be  ahova  la  behalf  of  the  «ifo*     (2  Am.  h    ag«    acj. 
of  La«»  -  2d  ad*  •  p.  101.  aad  e^oa  there  citad*)    *   *  t  It  ia 
ao  object loa  to  iha  alXovaaoo  of  aXiaaoy  paadiag  the  vlTo'a  biXl 
for  eeparate  aaiateaaaoo  that  the  haaWiid  deal  as  the  facta 
aXXaged  }^  hfiT»     tha  eoart  «ojf  if   it  da^aa  aaeees  r^t  eaior 
lato  a  •oftlcleat  exttalaatioa  to  deteralae  the  goad  t^th  of 
the  coaplftlaaat  la  e  chlbitlag  hrr  biXlt  «hleh  vill  ar^llnariljr 
be  coai'laad  to  an  laspeetlon  of  tha  pXefeoiasa*     H^-  r«i  iaif  t* 
jfeTdtofc.  X4'4  111.  &a8|  SfifiMiL  ▼•  £fistfisx,»  iJi  id.  xes.- 

laai^afe^tdcr  ▼•  relfaohaaUer,  X4X  IXX.  92,  99.) 
The  rale  thus  stated   Is  the  aae  thr t  ia  foXXoaed  ia  aoet  of  tha 
aiatar  atataa*     'JTtcr  a  oareful  ayaalaatioa  of  &1X  the  f»cta  aad 


^;%fif»^i«^l   a«,^."t«v1»^  «i4^   Jed  J   a  hols   x*jatirl  ^nijsft  fitfT. 


(,/. . 


v?Sf    t^^ 


i«. '  r 


!«•>      '.    -m.'.^:- « 


-3- 

cixeoBsUuMMS  ^e^rlafi  •>  ^^  ^•••iioiB  a«  t«  vhetlwr  or  ■•t   Uttr* 
««■  a  valid  Wirriac*  b«ftva«ii  ilM  coapXalMuii  aad   tlw  tf«f«a«asit 
v«  ar«  eafciafled    blMtt  th*  ooapXainast  pravvd  a  prljaa  facia  tfaaa* 
and  thia  «ac  •nfflcieat  for  ilM  yorpanea  of  ttoo  iB«ta»t  aatlon* 
Tte  defendHBt  contcada  ttant  tte  obaae«llar»  la  re^olOiMi:  kla  flJuUaca» 
aaaVBMl   itarit  aecfcton  IS   (X)   ok*  M.  Cahill*s  111*  K«t«    it.«  lta7» 
Ited  a  t^ariag  on  tlw  question  1)«f or*  aa#       •  asroo  with  tte  defaadaBt 
tk&t  UU.0  aaoiloB  has  no  be  rlns  «*  thr-^  queelloBt  ^t  «o  arc  aaiia* 
fiod  that   Out  proof  la  the   ease  aupportn  tho  flndiaca  df  tho   ehaa* 
c*llor«     TH»  e)»R.ne(!ll«r  txpreased   the  oplaioi  tb;\C  tlM  defoadejit  vaa 
"telllag  an  uncrsth  «11  tte  nay  thxoagh  *   *  ^|  th.-^!  he  a&a  aat   tellias 
the  truth  aac*  had  no  iatentloa  of   tellia«^   the  truth  about  it»*     tho 
re«9rd  jtt«tlflee  th)»  ehttBo«llor*8  oplslon  ia  thla  regard* 

The  def«Bd?.nt   coateado  that  *the  allowaaoe   for   teaporaxy 
aliaohy  aad   solicitor's  feaa  vae  exe«asiTO>*     >e  fiad  ae  aerlt  la 
this  coatcattoa«     The  ehaaeellor  fo«Bd   theit  tho  defeadsat  v^ui  a 
otrdagc  ahlo-todied  aaa*  oapahle  of  «orklae  aac  curalag  &  llviac 
for  thf»  capport  of  hlaaelf  aad  the  c^aplaiaaat  rjie   their  child* 
The  <iefcadaat  varka  onl>'  nx.  odd  Joiho  aad  ho  io  dctenaiaedt  appar*Btlj» 
to  avoid,  if  pos3ihl«9  the  p&yaeat  of  f'ajr  menty  for  the  eappoart  of 
hl«  «lfe  nad   child*     It  ai^wani   thc&t  ho  la  ahlo  to  oagaffo  la  litlffatioa 
to  eocape   the  perforsaaoo  of  the  oeeroe*       hai  m»M  aaid  In  3'*  relay  t* 
^aSSiSlM  1*'^  ^U.*  ^fU  47d»  mm   ^^If— laeldor  ▼.  aoifachaeidfr*  aa»a« 
101»  applies  to  tha  proevat   caae* 

The  deoiee  of   tho  v^ai>erlor  >vo«rt  of  Cook  -oaaty  io  a  Jaot 
oae  aaei  it  ahoald  ho  aad  it  ia  affir»od* 

laraeoy  P*  J*t  aad  Orldlej*  J*«  eoaoar* 


•e- 

•tS4i;  *tS  *«©   (i)   ex  flt«IJa*«  i*4^i  inaawse^. 

«.&£^!»  '%^ml  m&ii.tsal^^i'S^  ^^  Sssa  'tissue;  =  --.sttj^a^ 


SStST 

rtuMcm  KiKivzcxXf 


APfflAl  fViOH  MnriCZPAL 
090KT  09  CKZ&  ao« 


SB*  JU3TZCK   50AJI2Air  lELXVT'lHKX}  TUB  0JPXVI09  OV  THE   COUnT* 


A^  O   V>'    jL  .iTA*      ^  X  iw 


Za  IkM  iiiiBlclpHl  Court  of  ChlftAgOf  7r«ao«s  Kusaloklt 
plolatlfff  Mueil  John  liefoldt  <t«ftiid%ati  to  rooovor  |27U  for 
lio«xd»  roo«»  Island ry  mnA  oaro  aXlofoiS   lo  l»vo  boon  furaloited 
the  defeB4i«&at  nad  hl«  four  minor  chll4roa  by  tho  plftlatlff # 
rht   oaoo  «*o  irlod  by  tho  courc;*  «>ithout  a  jury*  aad   thoro  «&• 
o  flatting  o^ia«t  tho  d^fendaat  naO   the  plalabiff'o  dMMMe«a 
wore  iii««o«oo4  la  tho  «tai  of  41d6»     Juf^fiaoat  «%»  ont«re<i  oa  tho 
fiB(:^^iag  »mA  tho  dofoad^at  has  aLppooled*     Tho  pioiatiff  hao  not 
fllod  a  hrivf  ia  thla  eoiurt* 

Tho  d«fead«<i«t  dOBt«a«is  thrt-t  "the  i  lad  lag  lo  o^iaot 
tho  oonifett  wol^ht  of    th«  «vld«Boo*"     Tlure  lo  no  «M>rlt   la 
thio  eoattatloa*       r  aro  in  n eoord  vlth  the  fiaolac  of  tho 
trial  ooart* 

Tho  dofeadaat  ooatcad^  ch'  t  "tho  Court  orrod   la 
odnltilac  lapropor  teetlnoay  aw  to  rcteonahlo  v&luo."     The 
plolatlff »  tho  graadaothor  of   the  chlldroa  ead  o  housekeeper 
for  anny  yeiuro*  tcatificd  ao   co  the  vvduo  of   the  hoard »  reoa* 
laundry  nad   oaro  furalehi^d   the  four  ehlldr«a  by  her«  and   the 
defeadaalk   cont^^ada  thut  oho  vrae  aot  qoallf led   to  fWo  "expert 
te^tlaon^"   cm  to  the  vnluo  of   trie   bo«rd  t  •'to*     This  coatoatloa 
le  without  the  ollfhteoi  aerlt.     The  vltaeao  vac  voU  <iuelif io« 
to  giro  te»tlaoa7  ao  to  tho  value  of   the  hoard*  eto« 


1: 


v--~ 


rstec 


•  ^^^fluIXsie 


»4-. 


tt'f  *««,;}■ 


,.1'»y»-:f    .-/.ff 


v':* 


■:.;;\:.:j, ;  J  <■  \  ;>./      ■,\'"*  ,.  >    w,i 


-2« 

Tte  4cf«a0&at  Ia«t  oeataads  tliat  i)m  e«Brt  *rr««  in 
adaittlag  m  •erinla  niateowat  or  r«fort  mf  the  Courl  of  I/«aeaiie 
RelAti«iia«     Tkls  e«nt«ntion  is  al**     Itlsout   the   oU.i;bt«ei  wrriU 
It  appcnr*   tlvxt  dttrlBg  th«  exaaiiAfctien  •/  the  <i(>fen<ioBt  h*  testified 
that  tfett  pXftlBtirf  h&d  hia  broitj^t  >«fore  the  Court  of  Daaestlo 
B«lati«is  at  aac   tiaa  aad   thitt  tha  oourl  ordarcd  hla  to  pay  "fart/- 
fiva  dallara  a  half  aaath**  aad  thAt  ha  1m4  mute  cartaia  pajMaata 
oa  tha  arder*     a  dlajKte  axoaa  &a  to  hov  aueh  the  defeadioat  httd  paid 
mn  tha  aroer  aad  apoa  \»m  angcaatlaaa  of  the    trial  oaort  xae  couaaal 
for  hoth  aideo  waat  ia  the  cl«rk*fi  afriaa  to  fiad  aut  fraai  tha 
T9<^r&9  the  ajuouata  that  had  heea  paid  hy  the  4af«ad9«t  oadar  tlHi 
caurt  ardar*     Theresftar  the  camaal  r«partad  ta  tha  aaart  tha  taial 
aaaoat  tlv^t  had  baea  paid  ^  tho  dafaadidii  ander  tha  order  aMU 
tha  halaaoa  thst  aao  atilX  due  aader  the  mrdvT^       It  ia  alaitr  that 
the  aouaaal  for  iho  dafeadaat  ae^^oieaaad   la  tha  proc«d«ra  adopted* 
■oraoTATt  if  Uw  «Ti<i«aoa  ia  refereaea  to   the   records  of  the  Coart  of 
laaaatio  Relatioaa  tu   oatir^lor  diaregiurdadt   thara  la  a  till  aapla 
cvldcBoe   ia  the   rtc^r^   to  auetala  the  fiadia^  aad  Jadpiant  of  tho 
doart* 

tho  jadsBoat  of  tha  KuBlei^UL  Coart  of  Chieago  ia  a 
Jaat  oaa  aad  it  ahoald  ba  luid   it  la  afflxaod* 

JJfVlll 

Baxmea»  P*  J*»  aatf  Qridlajt  J«»  aoaoar* 


•  swam?-  4«»s-i^ 


256I.A.  612 


General  No.  8333 


Agenda  No.  1 


l^t^^ER  TERM,  «■  D.  1929=^'^""*- 

THE  raOPLE  OF  THE  STATE  OF  ILLINOIS, 

Defendant  in  Error, 

vs.  ' 

aintiff  in  Error. 

Writ  of  Error  to  County  Court  of  Pike  County. 
ELDREDGEP.  J. 

An  information  was  filed  by  the  State's  Attorney 
of  Pike  County  consisting  of  two  counts,  in  the  first 
of  which  it  is  charged  that  the  plaintiff  in  error,  Fred 
Hyde,  on  the  fifteenth  day  of  December,  1928  unlaw- 
fully and  willfully  possessed,  for  the  purpose  of  sale, 
certain  intoxicating  linnor.  In  the  second  count  it  is 
charged  that  the  plaintiff  in  error  on  said  day  did 
unlawfully  and  willfully  sell  said  certain  intoxicating 
liquor.  Upon  the  trial  of  said  cause,  the  plaintiff  in 
error  was  convicted  on  both  counts  and  on  the  first 
count  was  sentenced  to  be  imprisoned  in  the  State 
Fai-m  at  Vandalia,  Illinois,  for  six  months  and  on  the 
second  count  he  was  sentenced  to  pay  a  fine  of  $600.00 
and  imprisoned  in  the  State  Farm  for  six  months  and 
stand  committed  until  otherwise  discharged  according 
to  law. 

The  evidence  for  the  People  tended  to  show  that 

Page  1 


one  Orville  Clemmons  and  Donald  Luzader,  alias  Chick 
Niccnni,  alias  Lewis  O'Donnall,  came  to  the  sheriff's 
office  at  Pittsfield  and  told  the  sheriff,  and  also  his 
deputy,  Johnson,  that  the  plaintiff  in  error  was  sellinff 
whisltey.   Luzader  asked  the  sheriff  to  be  permitted 
to  sisn  a  complaint  and  the  affidavit  for  the  purpose 
of  procuvinsi-  a   search   warrant  of  the  premises  oc- 
cupied by  tlie  plaintiff  in  error.  After  the  search  war- 
rant was  procured,  by  agreement  made  between  Clem- 
mons, Luzader  aiid  the  slieriff,  Clemmons  and  Luzader 
were  to  proceed  to  a  place  desi.jrnated  as  the  Barr?' 
Cemetery  wliere  tlie>  were  to  await  the  arrival  of  the 
State's  Attorney,  tlie  sheriff,  and  two  deputy  sheriffs, 
Jolinson  and  Fitch .  Clemmons  and  Luzader  were  then 
to  proceed  in  their  car  to  the  house  of  plaintiff  in 
error  and  purchase  some    whiskey  while    the  State's 
Attorney,  the  sheriff,  and  the  two  deputies  were  to 
wait  for  them  at  tlu^  "Four  Comers.  "  Clemmons  and 
Luzader  accordingly  proceeded  in  their  automobile  to 
the  house  and  Luzader  went  into  the  house  and  testi- 
fied that  he  bou?.;lit  a  pint  of  whiskey  from  the  plain- 
tiff in  error.  Clemmons  remained  in  the  car  until  Lu- 
zader returned  with  the  bottle.  They  thereupon  went 
back  to  tlie  "Four  Corners",  handed  the  whiskey  to 
the  deputy, 

Pase  2  .    . 


Johnson,  and  all  of  tliem  proceeded  to  the  house  and 
made  a  searcli  thereof.  "When  they  entered  the  house, 
Mrs.  Hyde,  the  wife  of  the  plaintiff  in  error,  poured 
some  liquor  from  a  bucket  into  the  sink  and  some  of  it 
upon  tlie  stove  where  it  burned  with  a  blue  flame;  that 
the  liquor  so  |)()ured  from  the  bucket  had  the  appear- 
ance of  beiuji'  alcohol,  and  one  of  the  deputies  also  said 
that  he  tasted  some  of  it  as  it  came  out  of  the  drain 
t)ipe  in  the  sink  but  did  not  testify  that  it  tasted  like 
alcohol  or  intoxicating-  liquor.  No  other  liquor  was 
found  upon  the  premises  occupied  by  the  plaintiff  in 
error,  but  in  a  field  adjoinins'  the  premises  and  separ- 
ated therefrom  by  a  fence,  a  five-.srallon  ju.o-  containins: 
intoxicating-  liquor  and  a  basket  containing"  a  number 
of  bottles  of  the  same  were  discovered . 

The  e\idence  shows  that  the  witness  Clemmons,  at 
the  time  he  testified,  was  a  defendant  in  an  informa- 
tion filed  by  the  State's  Attoniey  for  selliufi:  intoxi- 
eatina:  liquor  whicli  was  then  pendino:  in  the  County 
Court  of  Pike  County.  It  further  shows  that  the  wit- 
ness Luzader  liad  served  a  sentence  in  some  jail  or 
prison  in  the  State  of  Missouri  for  the  commission  of 
some  criminal  offense.  When  the  witness  Luzader  was 

Pag-e  3 


asked  on  cross  examination  if  he  didn't  procure  the 
money  with  which  to  purcliase  the  point  of  whiskey 
from  the  plaintiff  in  error  by  sellins:  whiskey  him- 
self, he  declined  to  answer,  claiminsr  his  constitutional 
privilege  on  the  ground  that  to  do  so  would  incrim- 
inate himself.  Aa:ain,  when  he  was  asked  if  the  pint 
of  Uquor  which  he  testified  he  purchased  from  the 
plaintiff  in  error  wasn't  part  of  the  store  of  liquor 
whicli  he  and  Clemmons  peddled  or  attempted  to  ped- 
dle, he  claimed  the  same  privile]2:e.  After  the  trial, 
lie  made  an  affidavit  in  support  of  a  motion  for  a 
new  trial  in  which  he  stated  that  he  did  not  buy  the 
j)iut  of  whiskey  in  question  from  the  plaintiff  in  error. 
A  number  of  witnesses  testified  that  the  general  repu- 
ti'.tion  of  the  witness  Clemmons  in  the  neighborhood 
wliere  he  resided  was  bad  and  they  would  not  believe 
jiim  under  oath.  The  witness  Kendrick  stated  that  he 
was  in  the  stock  business  in  connection  with  the  Kin^ 
MiUin.s>-  Company  and  that  night  was  in  the  house  of 
plaint ilT  iu  error  and  was  playing  the  radio  when  Lu- 
zader  came  in,  and  saw  no  liquor  sold.  The  witness 
Weruowsky  was  in  the  lunise  at  the  time  and  was  room- 
ing there  and  likewise  testified  that  he  saw  no  liquor 
sold  to  Luza(U'r.  In  the  affidavit  made  by  Luzader 
after  the 

Page  -t 


trial,  he  stated  that  shortly  before  the  trial  he  was 
living  with  a  sister,  Mrs.  Glover,  at  Hannibal,  Mis- 
souri, and  that  on  the  nig-ht  of  January-  23,  1929,  one 
W.  R.  Marks  came  to  his  sister's  house  in  Hannibal 
and  took  him  away  by  force;  that  when  he  resisted, 
Marks  assaulted  him  ^^ith  a  black  jack  and  finally 
overpowered  and  handcuffed  him;  took  him  in  his 
automobile  across  the  river  into  Illinois  where  he  was 
delivered  to  a  deputy  sheriff  of  Pike  County;  that  the 
depvity  sheriff  was  near  his  sister's  house  when  the 
assault  took  place  and  followed  Marks  and  himself 
from  the  City  of  Hannibal  until  they  crossed  into  the 
State  of  Illinois  when  he  was  transferred  to  the  car 
of  the  deputy  sheriff  wlio  brought  him  to  the  county 
jail  of  Pike  County:  that  he  had  not  been  subpoened 
as  a  witness  and  diil  not  want  to  ft'o;  that  he  Avas  kept 
in  jail  all  that  niaht  and  was  told  that  if  he  did  not 
say  that  he  liad  bought  liqaov  from  the  plaintiff  in 
error,  he  woukl  be  punished  for  contempt  and  a:iven 
from  one  to  twenty  years  and  that  he  testified  as  he 
did  under  duress  when  in  truth  and  in  fact  he  never 
bought  any  liquor  from  the  ])laintiff  in  error.  The  sher- 
iff made  a  counter  affidavit  in  which  he  averred  that 
he  did  not  talk  oi  siteak  concerning-  this  case  to  Lu- 
zader  either 

Page  5 


on  the  night  of  January  23,  1929,  nor  on  the  morninji: 
of  January  24  while  Luzader  was  in  his  custody  in  the 
jail  in  Pike  County  and  that  the  affidavit  of  Luzader 
is  false  in  so  far  as  it  refers  to  the  sheriff  exercising- 
influence  or  coercion  on  Luzader  lo  produce  evidence 
or  testimony  at  the  trial  of  said  cause.  The  State's 
Attorney  also  filed  a  counter  affidavit  to  the  effect 
tliat  Ijuzadev  Avas  examined  by  him  before  the  County 
Jiid.H'p  and  such  examination  was  taken  by  a  steno- 
i?rapher  and  the  same  is  attached  to  the  affidavit.  No 
other  counter  affidavits  were  filed. 

The  evidence  clearly  shows  tliat  both  Clemmons 
Mild  Luzader  had  been  convicted  of  criminal  offenses 
or  were  defendants  in  actions  invoMng  the  same  at 
the  time  of  the  trial  and  were  of  such  questionable 
character  that  their  evidence  is  entitled  to  very  little 
credit,  if  any."  The  only  evidence  ag:ainst  plaintiff 
in  error  under  the  second  count  of  the  information 
charging-  him  with  tlie  s.ile  of  liquor  is  that  Luzader 
who  repudiates  his  testimony  in  regfard  thereto  made 
on  the  trial  by  his  subsequent  affidavit.  His  testimony 
is  also  contradicted  by  the  plaintiff  in  error  and  the 
two  witnesses,  Kendrick  and  Wernowsky.  When 
asked  on  cross  examination  whether  the  whiskey 
whicli  he  claimed  tliat  he  boug:ht  from  said  plaintiff 
in  error  was  in 

Page  6 


fact  whiskey  which  he  and  Clemmons  had  been  ped- 
dlinft"  themselves,  he  refused  to  answer  on  the  g:round 
tliat  his  answer  wouhl  incriminate  himself.  There  are 
no  corroboratin.i>'  facts  or  circumstances  tending  to 
support  his  testimony  as  to  the  purchase  by  him  of  the 
pint  of  whiskey  in  question. 

In  regard  to  the  first  count  chare:in^  the  plaintiff 
in  error  with  unlawfully  having-  possession  of  intox- 
icatins:  liquor,  his  guilt  rests  upon  the  evidence  of  the 
officers  to  the  effect  that  his  wife  poured  some  fluid 
out  of  a  bucket  into  the  sink  and  onto  the  stove  and 
Ihat  when  it  came  in  contact  with  the  stove  it  burned 
with  a  blue  flame.  There  is  no  proof  that  the  liquor 
contained  in  the  five-sallon  jua:  and  the  basket  which 
were  found  in  the  vacant  lot  separated  from  the  prem- 
ises of  the  plaintiff  in  error  bv  a  fence  was  ever  in 
tiie  possession  of  the  plaintiff  in  error. 

This  is  not  a  case  where  the  evidence  presents  such 
a  state  of  facts  that  reasonable  minds  coxild  come  to 
no  other  conclusion  but  that  the  plaintiff  in  error  was 
g:uilty,  and  consequently,  if  any  errors  wore  committed 
on  the  trial  which  misht  have  prejudiced  his  interests, 
the  .iudgment  must  he  re\'ers'ed. ' 

Page  7 


Tlie  witness  Clemmons  was  permitted  to  testify 
over  objection  tliat  before  the  search  warrant  was 
issued,  lie  and  Luzader  went  to  the  sheriff  and  told 
him  that  plaintiff  in  error  was  selling  whiskey;  that 
Lnzader  bouRlit  the  whiskey;  that  after  he  bought  the 
same  he  came  to  the  car  in  whicli  the  witness  was 
waitiny  and  said,  '.'Well,  I  got  it."  The  witness  Lu- 
zader was  permitted  to  testify  over  objection  that  he 
told  the  sheriff  that  the  plaintiff  in  error  was  selling 
whiskey  and  that  he  requested  the  sheriff  for  per- 
mission to  sis'ii  the  complaint  for  the  search  warrant . 
Tlie  sheriff  was  permitted  to  testify  to  his  conversa- 
tions with  Luzader  and  Clemmons  before  the  search 
warrant  was  issued  as  follows: 

"Mr.  Luzader  and  Clemmons  came  to  the  jail 
office  something-  about  six  o'clock  and  told  me  aboiit 
Jimmy  Hyde  liavinft-  liquor  and  selling  liquor  and 
thou.s:ht  tliey  oui-ht  to  do  something"  about  it,  so  I 
questioned  tiiem  aliout  wliat  they  knew  about  it.  They 
told  me  they  had  plenty.  I  asked  them  if  they  could 
buy  it .  They  said  they  could,  I  said  all  right  we  will 
buy  some.  I'll  go  down  there  witli  you.  Well,  they  said 
wo  are  wiiruig  t(»  sign  a  search  warrant  as  we  seen  the 

Page  S 


liquor  and  well,  we  decided  to  let  them  si.a,'n  the  search 
Avarrant.  They  a.yreed  then  to  buy  a  pint  and  let  us 
watch  them  buy  it.  " 

The  witness  Johnson  was  also  permitted  to  testify 
over  objection  that  Clemmons  and  Luzader  came  to 
the  jail  that  ni^ht  and  told  him  about  "Jinamy  Hyde 
selling-  liquor  at  Canton.  "  One  of  the  samples  of  liquor 
which  was  admitted  in  evidence  bore  the  label, 
"Liquor  bought  by  Donald  Luzader  from  Fred  Hyde, 
December  15,  1928."  Another  exhibit  was  labeled, 
"Liquor  taken  from  five-gallon  jug  on  December  15, 
1928,  at  Fred  Hyde's  place,  R.  A.  Shive."  The  five- 
gallon  jug  in  (luestion  was  not  found  on  the  premises 
of  the  nlaintiff  in  error  but  on  a  vacant  lot  as  hereto- 
fore noted.  All  the  abo\-e  evidence  was  incompetent 
antl  |)vejiidicial  to  (he  interests  of  plaintiff  in  error. 

The  third  instruction  given  on  behalf  of  the  People 
is  a  substantial  copy  of  the  second  section  of  the  Pro- 
hibition Act  and  states  that  under  said  Act  it  is  un- 
lawful to  numufacture,  transiKirt,  deliver,  furnish  or 
possess  any  intoxicating  liquor  except  as  authorized 
by  the  Act  and  tliat  the  provisions  of  said  Act  should 
be  liberally 

Page  9 


construed  to  the  end  tliat  tlu'  use  of  intoxicating- 
liquor  as  a  beverage  may  be  prevented.  This  instruc- 
tion, in  effect,  tells  the  jury  that  they  should  not  only 
construe  the  Act  but  should  aive  it  liberal  consturc- 
tion.  This  section  of  the  Act  is  for  the  benefit  of  the 
courts  and  their  guidance  in  the  eonstraction  thereof. 
The  construction  of  laws  is  for  the  courts  and  not  for 
juries  and  tliis  is  true  in  the  first  instance  even  of 
laws  for  tlie  prevention  of  crime  not  withstanding  that 
archaic  absurditv  wliicli  the  lesrislatures  have  permit- 
ted to  remain  on  the  statute  books  for  so  many  years, 
that  in  criminal  casi's  juries  are  tlip  .iud.<;-es  of  the  law 
as  well  as  the  facts. 

Instruction  number  eitrht  attempts  to  define  a 
reasonable  doubt.  Such  instractions  have  been  con- 
demned so  many  times  that  further  comment  is  un- 
necessary . 

The  eleventli  instiiiction  informs  the  juiy  that 
in  passing  upon  the  credibility  of  the  defendant,  they 
have  a  rip:ht  to  take  into  consideration  his  demeanor 
and  conduct  upon  the  witness  stand  and  during  the 
trial.  In  a  criminal  case,  the  demeanor  and  conduct 
of  the  defendant  duriuij  the  trial  when  not  testifyiuf-' 
is  no  part  of  tlie  evidence  and 

Page  10 


tlie  jury  have  no  ri.ylit  In  consider  it  as  sucli.  Purdy  v. 
People,  UO  111.  46;  People  v.  McGinnis,  234  111.  68. 
The  thirteenth  instruction  states  that  one  of  the 
tests  for  doterminin.e:  the  credibility  of  a  witness  is  his 
interest  in  tlie  result  of  the  suit  and  that,  "as  a  general 
rule  a  witness  who  is  interested  in  the  result  of  the  suit 
will  not  be  as  honest,  candid  and  fair  in  his  testimony 
as  one  not  interested  but  the  de^Tee  of  credit  to  be 
siven  to  each  and  all  witnesses  is  a  question  for  the 
jury  alone."  The  above  instruction  mi^ht  be  less 
harmful  in  a  civil  case  where  it  would  apply  to  both 
the  plaintiff  and  tlio  defendant  as  each  would  be  in- 
terested in  the  result  and  according  to  the  instiniction 
each  would  be  equalh'  dishonest  in  this  testimony, 
])ut  in  a  criminal  case  where  there  is  but  one  person 
particularly  who  mi<iht  be  interested  in  the  result  of 
the  suit  the  effects  of  such  an  instruction  is  to  infonu 
the  jury  that  pvesiimiitively  the  defendant  is  unworthy 
of  belief. 

The  fifteenth  instruction  jiiven  by  the  People  tells 
the  jury  that,  in  iiassiui;:  upon  the  witness  for  the  de- 
fendant, tliey  have  the  rinht  to  take  into  coiisi;h'ration 

Pa"-e  1! 


any  inteivist  which  tliey  may  feel  in  the  result  of  the 
suit  if  any  is  proved,  srowin^-  out  of  their  relationship 
to  the  defendant  or  otherwise,  and  to  give  to  the  tes- 
timony of  such  witnesses  only  such  credit  as  you  think 
it  is  entitled  to  under  all  the  circumstances  proved 
at  the  trial.  It  is  an  elementary  mle  that  all  instruct- 
ions in  regard  to  the  credibility  of  witnesses  should 
apply  to  all  the  witnesses  in  the  case  and  that  the  wit- 
nesses of  one  party  or  the  other  should  not  be  singled 
out  and  tlic  test  applied  to  them  alone.  The  use  of  the 
word,  "only,"  temls  also  to  belittle  or  disparage  the 
credit  to  be  given  such  witnesses. 

In  view  of  the  errors  above  pointed  out  in  the  trial 
of  the  case,  and  tlie  weakness  of  the  testimony  for  the 
Peoi>le,  in  our  o|)inion  the  plaintiff  in  error  is  entitled 
to  a  new  trijil.  The  judgTnent  is  therefore  reversed  and 
the  cause  remanded   . 

Page  12 


256I.A.  613 


General  No.    8346  Ag-enda  No.   7 

OCTOBER  TERM,  A.   D.   1929 

Mattie  F.  Henry,  Conservatrix  and  ex-officio  admin- 
istratrix of  tlie  estate  of  Samuel  Farlow, 
Deceased,  Appellant . 
vs. 
Fred  Farlow,  et  al..  Appellees. 
Appeal  from  Circuit  Court  Adams  County. 

ELDREDGE  P.  J. 

On  August  8,  1928  appellant,  Mattie  F.  Henry, 
as  conservatrix  and  ex-officio  administratrix  of  the 
estate  of  Samuel  Farlow,  deceased,  made  a  final  re- 
port in  the  County  Court  of  Adams  County  which 
showed  there  was  on  Jiand  a  balance  for  distribution 
of  $1,737.40  which  the  court  ordered  to  be  paid,  one 
third  to  the  widow  and  two  fifteenths  to  each  of  the 
five  heirs.  The  Court  decreed  the  above  distribution 
but  in  the  order  held  the  estate  should  be  kept  open 
and  that  appellant  should  continue  to  be  conservatrix 
and  ex-officio  administratrix  for  the  sole  and  only 
purpose  of  releasine:  any  unreleased  mort<;:aj>;es  or 
deeds  of  trust  whicii  had  been  made  in  favor  of  Sam- 
uel Farlow  during  his  lifetime  and  which  stand  un- 
released of  record  in  his  name  until  the  further  order 
of  the  court. 

Page  1 


Appellees  are  the  heirs  of  said  Samuel  Farlow, 
deceased,  and  appealed  from  that  part  of  the  order 
of  the  Comity  Court  which  ordered  the  estate  to  be 
kept  open  and  appellant  to  remain  as  conbervatrix  and 
ex-officio  administratrix  for  the  imrpose  of  releasing,- 
unreleased  mort.sja.^es  and  trust  deeds  to  the  Circuit 
Court.  Upon  a  hearing  in  the  Circuit  Court,  the  latter 
held  that  the  estate  should  be  closed  and  found  that 
there  were  no  unreleased  mortgas'es  or  trust  deeds 
and  ordered  appellant  to  make  the  distribution  and 
close  the  estate.  From  this  order  of  the  Circuit  Court 
appellant  appeals. 

The  first  question  raised  is,  that  aiipoUeos,  who 
are  the  heirs  of  the  deceased,  had  no  riuht  to  appeal 
from  the  order  of  the  County  Court  as  after  thai 
Court  had  entered  the  order  of  distribution  they  were 
not  further  interested  in  the  estate  and  could  not  In* 
classed  as  parties  ajr,a:rieved  .a:ivin£r  them  a  ri.2:ht  to 
appeal  therefrom.  With  this  contention,  we  do  not 
acrree.  The  heirs  were  the  only  parties  interested  in 
the  administration  of  the  estate  and  in  our  opinion 
had  a  right  to  have  the  estate  settled  and  closed. 

It  is  urged  that  the  proofs  did  not  sliow  that 
there  were  not  unreleased  mortgages  and  trust  deeds. 
The 

Page  2 


proofs  do  show  that  all  tiie  notes  secured  by  any  trust 
deeds  or  mortgages  had  been  sold  and  assigned  so 
that  the  estate  had  no  further  interest  in  them. 
Whether  any  of  these  notes  remained  unpaid  or  were 
not  yet  due,  the  mort,a:ases  and  trust  deeds,  if  any, 
securing  them  could  be  properly  released  of  record 
when  the  same  were  paid.  An  assignment  of  a  prom- 
issory note  secured  by  morts'affe,  also  assigns  the 
mortgag:e  and  could  be  released  by  the  assignee.  If 
it  should  become  necessary  to  release  a  trust  deed 
not  yet  due,  a  Court  of  equity  would  readily  appoint 
a  trustee  for  that  pui'pose. 

In  the  case  of  Waxnecke  v.  Lambca,  71  111.  91, 
the  facts  shown  were  that  one  Rausehor  was  named 
as  trustee  under  a  trust  deed  to  secure  the  j^ayment 
of  certain  promissory  notes.  The  trust  deed  in-ovided 
that  in  default  of  tlie  payment  of  the  notes  secured, 
or  any  part  thereof,  on  application  of  the  legal  holder, 
"John  Rauscher,  or  his  legal  representative,"  should 
advertise.  S(>11  and  convey  the  land  as  the  attorney  of 
the  grantor.  Rauscher,  the  trustee,  died  and  the  sale 
was  made  b^"  his  widow  as  administratrix  of  his  es- 
tate. Upon  a  bill  to  redeem  the  land  on  the  ground 
that   the  widow 

Page  3 


and  administratrix  of  tho  deceased  trustee  had  no 
power  to  make  the  sale,  the  Conrt  liekl:  "The  general 
rule  is,  tlie  trustee  must  himself  execute  the  power, 
and  if,  by  reason  of  death  or  incapacity,  he  cannot  do 
it,  relief  can  only  be  had  on  application  to  a  court 
of  chanceri-  to  appoint  a  trustee  to  execute  the  re- 
sidue of  the  power.  ***""■"  "The  lesal  title  to  the 
real  estate  covered  by  the  tnistee  deed  was  in  the 
trustee.  It  did  not  descend  to  the  administratrix,  and 
hoAV  could  she  convey  that  which  slie  cUd  not  have? 
She  was  in  no  way  connected  with  the  title  that  was 
in  the  trustee,  but  was  a  stranger  to  it.  She  could 
not  convey  in  the  name  of  the  trustee,  for  he  was 
dead;  nor  could  she  convey  in  the  name  of  the  .crantor, 
or  her  own  name,  for  no  such  jiower  was  .niven. *****. 
"It  is  agreeable  to  the  analogies  of  the  law  that  the 
assignee  or  grantee  having  the  legal  title  that  was  in 
the  trustee  can  execute  the  power,  but  it  involves  an 
absurdity  to  say  a  mere  stranger  to  the  title  can. 
This  is  the  doctrine  of  the  cases  of  Pardee  v.  Lind- 
ley,  31  111.  174,  and  Strother  v.  Law,  54  111.  4in. 
Tre  principle  of  those  cases  is,  that,  where  Uie  mort- 
gagee of  his  assignee  is  empowered  to  sell  on 

Page  4 


ilefaiilt  beino-  made,  if  the  indebtedness  thei'eby  se- 
cured is  assignable  at  common  law,  or  by  our  statute, 
the  assi^ee  is  the  only  party  who  can  execute  the 
power.  It  is  for  tiie  reason  the  assij-nee  is  the  legal 
holder  of  the  indebtedness,  and  the  assignment  car- 
ried with  it  the  morts-a,2;e  as  the  mere  incident.*****" 
"Therefore,  there  was  no  one  wlin  could  rightfully 
make  the  sale.  A  new  trustee  should  have  been  ap- 
pointed to  execute  the  power,  or  the  trust  deed  should 
have  been  foreclosed  bv  bill  in  chnncery  as  an  ordin- 
ary morts'ase .  " 

There  was  no  necessity  for  keci)in,y  this  estate 
open  for  an  imdeterrained  number  of  years  in  order  to 
accommodate  the  i-rautors  in  the  mort,2:a.s>es  and  trust 
deeds,  if  any  there  were,  by  releasin.u'  the  same  upou 
the  record,  so  that  it  becanie  immaterial  whether  the 
proofs  showed  there  were  any  such  unreleased  mort- 
gages or  trust  deeds.  It  is  also  urged  by  appellant  that 
the  hearing  in  the  Circuit  Court  on  the  appeal  thereto 
from  the  County  Court  was  a  trial  de  novo  and  that 
the  Circuit  Court  should  have  cnt^^-red  ti  pomjilete 
order  of  distribution.  In  this,  we  think  the  conten- 
tion of  a|>pellant  is.  correct.  Un  an  appeal  from  the 
County  Court  in  juobate  matters  to  the  Circuit  Court, 

Page  5 


the  latter  Court  should  enter  a  complete  .iud^ment  aud 
not  simply  direct  further  procedure  in  the  Probate 
Court.  Under  the  statute,  the  trial  in  the  Circuit  Court 
under  such  circumstances  is  a  trial  de  novo  and  a 
complete  jndament  should  be  entered  therein  in  re- 
gard to  the  matter  appealed  from.  For  this  reason 
the  iudgment  of  the  Circuit  Court  is  reversed  and 
the  cause  remanded  with  directions  to  enter  a  proper 
order  of  distribution  and  for  the  closing  of  the  estate. 
Each  party  will  pay  its  own  costs  in  this  Court. 

Paee  6 


^U4- 


/ 


\/ 


y.. 


--^^    /<^    3  '  /-? 


3  ^ 


256I,A.  ^1*^^ 


General  No.  8354  Agenda  No.  15 

OCTOBER  TERM,  A.  D.  1929 

A.  M.  Myers,  W.  H.  Drewell,  et  al.  Appellants, 

vs. 

John  M.  Gerhardt,  Appellee 

Appeal  from  Circuit  Court  Coles  County. 

ELDREDGE  P.  J. 

The  second  amended  bill  in  this  case  charges  that 
Myers  and  Drewell  were  partners,  prior  to  January  7, 
1927,  in  manufacturing  trunks  and  carriers  to  be  at- 
tached to  automobiles;  that  John  M.  Gerhardt  was 
in  their  emplo^Tnent  and  workinfj  at  making-  the  at- 
tachments; that  it  was  necessary  to  adjust  each 
trunk  to  automobiles  by  separate  attachments;  that 
Myers  and  Drewell  afterwards  incorporated  as  Myers 
Manufacturing  Co . ;  that  prior  to  the  contract  entered 
into  Gerhardt  represented  to  Myers  and  Drewell  that 
he  had  invented  a  device  which  would,  without  al- 
teration, enable  the  attachment  of  trunks  to  at  least 
fifteen  different  styles  of  automobiles,  without  alter- 
ation; that  they  entered  into  negotiations  with  Ger- 
hardt; that  they  did  not  know  whether  the  invention 
was  valuable  or  not;  that  Gerhardt  represented  that 
it  would  do  this  and  probably  as  many  as  twenty- 
five  that  from  the  plans  they  could  not  tell 

Pafice  1 


as  to  its  usefulness,  nor  how  it  would  succeed;  that 
they  executed  the  contract  relying  upon  what  he  stated 
to  them;  that  in  the  contract  they  were  to  pay  him 
a  royalty  of  twenty-five  cents  qn  each  device  until 
the  first  year;  that  the  contract  was  in  fact  conting- 
ent on  it  working  as  represented;  that  the  device 
would  not  work;  that  Gerhardt  had  invented  no  such 
device;  that  what  he  had  was  worthless;  that  he  ad- 
vanced him  monies  to  demonstrate  that  it  would 
work  but  that  he  finally  abandoned  the  attempt;  that 
Gerhardt  had  invented  no  device  and  the  contract 
should  be  reformed  or  if  not  it  should  be  rescinded; 
that  Gerhardt  made  a  warranty  that  the  device 
would  do  what  he  claimed,  which  was  by  mistake  of 
the  parties  not  incorporated  in  contract;  that  certain 
stock  was  issued  to  Gerhardt  in  pursuance  of  said 
contract;  that  proceedings  on  the  cross  bill  filed  by 
Gerhardt  should  be  restrained  until  a  hearing  was 
had  on  the  original  bill. 

Subsequently  the  second  amended  bill  was  amend- 
ed by  setting  out  that  Gerhardt  falsely  represented 
that  the  device  would  enable  the  attachment  of  the 
trunks  to  at  least  fifteen  kinds  of  cars  without  change; 
that  they  relied  upon  the  representations  and  were 
deceived  thereby,  and  he  was  their 

Page  2 


employee  and  occupied  a  confidential  relation. 

The  contract  is  as  follows:  "THIS  CONTRACT 
AND  AGREEMENT  made  and  entered  into  this  the 
7th  day  of  JANUARY  A.  D.  1927,  by  and  between 
A.  M.  Myers  and  W.  H.  Drewel,  parties  of  tlio  first 
part,  doinp:  business  under  the  firm  name  and  style 
of  Myers  Manufacturinf?  Conipanj^  of  Charleston,  Illi- 
nois, and  John  M.  Gerhardt,  of  Charleston,  Illinois, 
party  of  the  second  part. 

WITNESSETH:  THAT  WHEREAS,  the  party  of 
the  second  part  has  heretofore  invented  an  appliance 
known  and  named  the  UNIVERSAL  TRUNK  PLAT- 
FORM AND  BUMPER  CONNECTION,  to  be  used 
in  installinft-  and  attaching"  auto  trunks,  bumpers  and 
luKKaf?e  carriers  to  automobiles;  AND  WHEREAS, 
the  said  party  of  the  second  part  has  apitlied  to  the 
United  States  Government  and  Patent  authorities 
thereof,  for  a  patent  thereon,  by  filing'  with  said  auth- 
orities the  necessary  papers  and  applications  to  ob- 
tain a  patent  upon  said  Universal  Trank  Platform 
and  Bumper  connection  and  has  heretofore  done  all 
things  to  this  date  that  are  necessary  for  procuring 
a  patent  upon  said  connection;  AND  WHEREAS,  it 
will  be  some  time  under  the  usual  process  and  pro- 
cedure of  the  United  States  Government  authorities 
in  granting  patents,  before  said  patent  will  be  granted 
to  the  party  of  the  second  part;  AND  WHEREAS, 
the  parties  of  the  first  part  desire  to  procure  the 
exclusive  right  to  manufacture  and  sell  said  bumper 
connection  and  attachment  from  the  present  time 
thence  forth  and  to  receive  from  said  party  of  the 
second  part  a  transfer  and  assignment  of  said  patent 
when  the  same  shall  be  granted  unto  him  by  the  Uni- 
ted States  Government,  as  aforesaid. 

In  consideration  of  the  foregoing  premises  and 
covenants  and  agreements  hereinafter  contained,  the 
party  of  the  second  part  does  hereby  contract  and 
agree  witli  the  parties  of  the  first  part,  that  they 
shall  have  the  exclusive  right  to  manufacture  and 
sell  said  Universal  Trunk  Platform  and  Bumper  Con- 
nection, as  aforesaid,  from  and  after  the  date  of  this 
contract,  and  that  upon  the  granting  to  him  by  United 
States  Government  of  a  patent  thereon,  he  the  said 
party  of  the  second  part  will  transfer  all  of  his  rights 
thereunder  to  the  said  parties  of  the  first  part,  or  the 
Mj'ers  Mfg.  Co.  Inc. 

The  parties  of  the  first  part,  for  and  in  consid- 
eration of  the  above  agreement  on  tlie  part  of  the 
party  of  the  second  part,  do  hereby  CONTRAC'T  AND 
AGREE  to  pav  to  the  party  of  the  second  part,  the 
said  JOHN  M.  GERHARDT.  or  his  successors  or 
assigns,  twenty-five  cents  (25c)  on  each  one  of  sai<l 
bumper  connections,  upon  and  for  the  exclusive  rig'it 
to  manufacture  and  sell  said  bnmiier  connections  from 
the  date  hereof,  and  during  the  period  that  shall 
elapse  before  said  7>atent  is  granted,  to  tlie  party  of 
the  second  part  as  aforesaid. 

The  said  parties  of  the  first  part  for  the  consid- 
eration aforesaid,  do  hereby  contract  and  agree  witli 
said  party  of  the  second  part,  that  if  twenty-five  cents 
on  each  of  said  bumper  connections  in  anv  one  year, 
beginning  with  the  date  of  this  contract,  shall  not 
equal  the  sum  of  TWENTY-FIVE  HITNDRED  DOL- 
LARS ($2500)  per  annum,  that  the  parties  of  the 
first  part  shall  pay  to  the  party  of  the  second  part,  at 
the  end  of  each 

Page  3  ^ 


year  from  tlic  date  hereof,  his  executors,  adminis- 
trators or  assigns,  a  sum  in  addition  to  twenty-five 
(25c)  on  each  one  of  said  bumper  connections,  which 
aken  in  connection  with  said  twenty-five  cents  (2.  c; 
and  added  thereto,  shall  equal  the  sum  of  TWLNil 
FIVE  HUNDRED  DOLLARS  ($2500.00)  per  annum. 
That  if  twenty-five  cents  (25c)  each  on  said  connec- 
tions shall  produce  a  sum  P^^r«""^"\";  .fX^tof 
$2500.00,  second  party  is  to  receive  the  total  theieot^ 
In  event  that  said  25c  on  each  o^f  «/,, «f  [.^.^^^"^P^^ 
connections  does  not  actually  equal  $2.jOO.OO  u  an% 
one  year,  either  party  has  the  option  to  cancel  this 
contract  at  the  end  of  any  year. 

It  is  further  contracted  and  agreed  between  the 
parties  hereto,  that  the  parties  of  the  first  part  tor  ihe 
considerations  herein  contained,  do  hereby  sell,  set 
over,  and  transfer  to  the  party  of  second  ]xirt  an  un- 
divided 3-1 00th  of  all  pronertv,  machinery,  ease- 
hold  interest,  and  equipment  of  every  kind  and  and 
character,  now  oAvned  and  possessed  by  the  parties  or 
the  first  part  and  by  them  now  beiiv^^operated  under 
the  firm  name  and  style  of  the  MYERS  MAM  I  AC- 
TURING  COMPANY. 

It  is  further  contracted  and  aj^reed  that  in  the 
event  that  a  corporation  shall  be  organized  by  the 
parties  hereto,  for  the  purjiose  of  operatinp:  tiie  busi- 
ness now  known  and  conducted  under  the  name  ana 
style  of  the  MYERS  MANUFACTURING  COMPANY, 
for  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  automobile  trunks 
and  attachments  thereto,  that  shares  of  stock  m  said 
corporation,  when  so  orfranized,  shall  be  issued  to 
said  JOHN  M.  GERHARDT,  for  and  m  considera- 
tion of  his  undivided  3-lOOth  interest  in  the  property 
above  mentioned,  and  said  stock  shall  be  delivered  to 
him  by  the  parties  of  the  first  pa:': . 

It  is  further  contracted  and  agreed  that  an  ac- 
counting shall  be  taken  between  the  parties  hereto, 
and  payment  made  of  the  amount  due  the  party  ot 
the  second  part,  for  the  manufacture  and  sale  ot  saul 
bumper  connection  as  hereinbefore  provided  on  the 
first  day  of  each  month  hereafter,  beginning  on  the 
first  day  of  FEBRUARY  A.  D.  1927. 

It  is  further  agreed  between  the  parties  hereto, 
that  the  partv  of  the  second  part  shall  have  access 
to  all  the  sales  records,  and  all  necessary  papers  per- 
taining to  sales  and  orders  of  the  iiarties  of  the  first 
part  or  their  successors,  to  detennine  the  amount  duo 
him  under  the  agreement  aforesaid,  and  tliat  he  may 
have  access  to  said  books,  memoranda,  and  all  neces- 
sary papers,  invoices  and  orders  of  the  parties  of  the 
first  part  pertaining  to  sales,  or  their  successors,  to 
be  examined  bv  an  expert  accountant,  at  any  time 
during  business  hours,  for  the  purpose  of  arrnmg  at 
the  amount  that  shall  be  due  him,  tlie  said  party  ol 
the  second  part,  on  the  first  day  of  any  month,  and 
at  the  end  of  any  year  from  the  date  hereof. 

IN    WITNESS    WHEREOF    the    parties    hereto 

have  set  their  hands  and  affixed  their  seals,  this  the 

day  and  year  first  above  written.  ,c.     ^^ 

MYERS  MFG.  CO.  (Seal) 

A.  M.  MYERS  (Seal) 

W.  H.  DREWEL  (Seal) 

JOHN  M.  GERHARDT        (Seal) 

WITNESSES: 

THOS.  J.  LYNCH, 

LULA  E.  COX.  -      .   1 

,  Page  4 


Appellee  had  prayed  in  his  answer  that  the  same 
might  stand  as  a  cross  bill  and  the  hearing  was  had 
upon  the  second  amended  original  bill  as  amended  and 
answer  thereto  and  upon  the  cross  bill  and  answer 
thereto  and  replications  to  said  answers. 

By  his  cross  bill,  Gerhardt,  appellee,  admits  the 
partnership  of  Myers  and  Drewell  and  that  he  was 
an  employee  and  familiar  with  the  conditions  exist- 
ing in  connection  with  rnaking  and  marketing  the  lug- 
gage carrier,  and  it  was  necessary  to  adjust  each  trunk 
to  each  automobile  by  separate  methods.      He  also 
admits  that  he  representee!  tc^  Myers  and   Drewell, 
prior  to  the  execution  of  the  contract,  that  he  had  in- 
vented a  device  which  would  enable  tninks  to  be  at- 
tached   to  various    makes    of  automobiles,    without 
change,  and  that  negotiations  between  him  and  said 
firm  were  entered  into  to  obtain  the  rights  to  use 
the  invention.  It  is  further  averred  in  the  cross  bill 
that  appellants  were  familiar  with  all  the  work  that 
he  was  doing  and  were  fully  informed  by  him  prior 
to  the  execution  of  the  contract;  denies  that  he  rep- 
resented that  the  device  would  fit  fifteen  different 
types    of  automobiles,  but    avers  that    he  perfected 
models  of  the  invenljon  which  would  enable  the 

Page  5 


attachment  of  trunks  to  fourteen  different  kinds  of 
automobiles,   and   that   these   experiments  were  con- 
ducted prior  to  the  execution  of  the  contract;  avers 
that  all  parties  acted  in  good  faith  and  believed  the 
invention    would    be    suitable    and    practicable;    that 
appellants  agreed  to  transfer  l-300th  of  their  assets 
to  Gerhardt;   also  agreed  to  pay  him  a  royalty  of 
twenty-five  cents  on  each  device,  so  invented,  for  the 
exclusive  right  to  manufacture  and  sell  the  same  dur- 
rn;?  the  period  that  would  elapse,  before  the  patent 
was  issued,  and  guaranteed  it  would  be  $2,500.00  per 
annum;  denies  that  he  made  any  representations  or 
warranties  as  to  what  the  invention  would  do;  that 
appellants  had  plans  and  specifications  for  same  and 
knew  all  the  facts;  that  he  did  invent  the  device  and 
that  letters  patent  were  issued  to  him  therefor;  denies 
all  mistakes  of  fact;  avers  the  device  served  the  pur- 
pose intended,  and  that  he  has  a  patent  for  the  in- 
vention which  he  is  ready  to  assign  to  appellants; 
says  matter  was  fully  investigated  by  appellants  and 
they  had  all  the  facts;  denies  he  made  experiments 
and  abandoned  attempts  or  that  there  was  any  con- 
dition   as    to    the    payment    of   the    $2,500.00;    avers 
there  was  no  warranty;  that  he  obtained   the  stock 
from  appellants  and  all  but  ten  shares  thereof 

Page  6 


had  been  transferred  or  assigned  bj'  him.  Appellants 
filed  an  answer  to  the  cress  bill  which  was  several 
times  amended  and  which  in  substance  denied  every 
affirmative  averrment  therein  and  averred  that  it 
was  understood  that  Gerhardt  warranted  the  patent 
which  was  valid  and  that  it  would  do  wliat  it  pur- 
ported to  do  but  on  attempt  was  unable  to  do  so  and 
the  device  was  useless;  that  even  after  all  parties  be- 
lieved that  the  device  was  a  successful  patent  that 
there  was  a  mistake  of  fact,  and  if  Gerhardt  did  not 
believe  so  there  was  a  fraud,  and  that  the  considera- 
tion failed  and  that  Gerhajdt  occupied  a  confidential 
relation  and  appellants  had  a  rijiht  to  rely  on  his 
statements;  that  the  consideration  of  the  contract 
wholly  failed,  that  the  device  was  of  no  value  and 
not  subject  to  a  patent,  and  the  whole  consideration 
of  the  contract  failed  as  the  patent  was  wholly  void 
and  it  would  be  inequitable  to  allow  Gerhardt  to  re- 
cover on  the  contract. 

The  hearing  was  had  before  the  Court  who  en- 
tered a  decree  dismissine:  tlie  original  bill  for  want 
of  equity,  ordering  appellants  to  pay  the  sum  of  $2,- 
500.00  to  appellee  and  that  appellee  was  entitled  to 
an  accounting  of  royalties  due  him  under  said  con- 
tract. The  decree  further  makes  special 

Page  7 


findings'  in  substance  as  follows:  that  said  contract 
was  not  entered  into  between  the  parties  upon  any 
mistake  of  fact  or  upon  the  belief  in  the  existence  of 
an  invention  which  did  not  exist;  that  appellants  had 
all  the  information  concerning  said  proposed  inven- 
tion which  appellee  had;  the  contract  was  not  entered 
into  by  appellants  by  reason  of  any  false  or  fraudu- 
lent representations  made  to  them  by  appellee  that 
said  proposed  invention  would  enable  tnmks  or  bag- 
gage carriers  to  be  attached  to  at  least  fifteen  differ- 
ent styles  of  automobiles;  that  appellee  made  no  rep- 
resentations falsely   or  fraudulently  witli  the  intent 
to  deceive  appellants  and  that  appellants  did  not  rely 
upon  any  statements   of  appellee   and  were  not   de- 
ceived thereby;  that   the   position  .of  appellee  with 
apellants  at  the  time  said  contract  was  entered  into 
was  not  such  that  they  had  a  right  to  rely  upon  the 
representations    of   appellee    with    reference    to    said 
proposed  invention  and  that  appellants  were  not  with- 
out means  of  knowing  anything  to  tlie  contrary  as  to 
said  representation,  if  any,  made  by  apiiellee;  that 
it  was  not  the  intention  of  the  parties  that  a  war- 
ranty should  have  been  written  into  the  contract  that 
said  invenion  or  device  would  enable  appellants  to 
attach  auto  trunks  which 

Page  8 


they  were  manufacturiiiia-  to  at  least  fifteen  different 
styles  of  automobiles  without  alteration;  that  such  a 
warranty  was  not  omitted  by  a  mutual  mistake  of 
the  parties;  that  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  contract 
was  made  upon  a  condition  that  the  payments  were 
to  have  been  made  as  the  device  was  manufactured; 
and  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  contract  between  the 
parties  was  that  the  payment  of  the  royalties  and  the 
$2,500.00  a  year  were  only  to  be  paid  upon  condition 
that  the  device,  or  proposed  invention,  would  euable 
trunks  or  ba^ffa.2:e  carriers  to  be  attached  to  at  leatjt 
fifteen  differeiit  styles  of  automobile  bodies  in  ac- 
cordance with  representations  of  appellee  to  that  ef- 
fect; that  there  was  no  mutual  mistake  of  the  parties 
to  the  contract  by  which  the  contract  should  be  made 
to  read  that  said  $2,500.00  minimum  per  year  was 
to  be  paid  only  if  the  device  was  in  accordance  with 
representations  made  by  appellee;  that  pursuant  to 
said  contract,  the  said  Myers  Manufacturinf?  Co.,  was 
incorporated  prior  to  March  18,  1927  and  did  on  said 
'^ay  issue  to  appellee  or  to  persons  whom  he  directed 
sixty  shares  of  the  capital  stock  of  said  corjioration 
and  that  upQii  the  issuance  of  said  stock,  appellee, 
to  furtlier  carry  out  said  contract,  executed  and  de- 
livered to 

Pa.o-e  9 


said  corporation  an  assignment  of  his  riglits  under 
any  patent  to  be  obtained  for  said  device;  that  the 
United  States  issued  letters  patent  for  said  device  to 
appellee  June  12,  1928;  that  said  Myers  Manufactur- 
ing Co.  has  refused  to  male  any  payments  to  appellee 
under  said  contract;  that  appellee  has  made  demands 
upon  said  company  and  the  said  Myers  and  Drewell 
for  payments  due  him  upon  said  contract  and  that  such 
payments  were  refused;  that  said  contract  was  can- 
celled on  January  7,  1928  by  reason  of  the  refusal  of 
appellants  to  make  payments  thereunder  or  thereon; 
that  appellee  is  entitled  to  the  sum  of  $2,500.00  but 
that  there  is  no  evideiice  to  show  that  he  is  entitled 
under  said  contract  to  any  amount  in  excess  of  said 
sum  as  provifjod  by  said  conract  and  that  .iudgment 
for  said  sum  be  entered  and  that  execution  be  issued 
therefor. 

The  principle  contention  made  by  counsel  for 
appellants  in  this  Court  is  that  the  patent  obtained 
is  void  and  useless.  This  Court  has  no  n'urisdiction  to 
pass  upon  the  validity  of  patents  issued  by  the  United 
States  Government.  As  to  tlie  question  of  its  useful- 
ness, or  whether  it  is  of  practicable  value,  or  whether 
the  device  can  be  constructed  thereunder  which  is 
practicable,  in  no  place  in  the  contract  is  the  validity 

Page  10 


of  the  same  made  dependant  upon  these  considera- 
tions. While  the  evidence  for  appellants  tends  to  show- 
that  about  fifty  of  these  attachments  made  under  the 
patent  by  them  were  returned  to  them  by  their  cus- 
tomers, yet,  there  is  evidence  introduced  by  appellee 
that  said  attachments  or  devices  had  been  set  to 
eighteen  different  makes  of  automobiles  and  appellee 
himself  testified  that  he  has  seen  them  attached  to 
at  least  fourteen  different  makes  and  other  witnesses 
testified  to  their  having  been  attached  to  a  number 
of  different  kinds  of  automobiles.  There  is  no  evidence 
tending  to  show  any  fraud  or  misrepresentation  of 
any  kind  made  by  appellee  to  appellants  to  induce 
them  to  sign  the  contract.  It  is  apparent  that  they 
believed  th^at  appellee  had  invented  and  could  get  a 
patent  for  a  useful  device  and  it  is  apparent  that  ap- 
pellee believed  the  same.  The  fact  that  a  patent  was 
issued  to  him  shows  presumptively  that  the  patent  was 
valid,  practicable  and  useful. 

There  is  no  evidence  to  sustain  the  contention  of 
appellants  that  the  parties  made  a  mutual  mistake  in 
omitting  a  warranty  on  the  part  of  appellee  from  the 
contract.  This  contract  was  originallj-  drawn  up  by 
attorneys  for  appellants  and  submitted  to  appellee 
who  examined  the  same  and  submitted  it 

Page  11 


to  his  attorney.  Some  objections  were  made  to  the 
original  contract  and  as  a  result  of  consultation  be- 
tween the  parties  and  their  attorneys  the  contract  in 
question  was  formulated  and  executed.  There  is  no 
evidence  that  the  question  of  warranty  was  ever  men- 
tioned or  discussed  between  the  parties.  The  con- 
tract is  very  plain  and  speaks  for  itself. 

Counsel  for  appellants  in  their  brief  say:  "The  main 
purpose  of  this  appeal  is  to  reverse  the  decree  for  an 
accounting!:,  while  the  Court  also  dismissed  the  orig- 
inal bill  that  has  become  of  no  great  importance.  "  The 
same  facts  relied  upon  under  the  original  bill  are 
relied  upon  in  the  answer  of  appellants  to  the  cross 
bill. 

The  evidence  introduced  does  not  sustain  the  orig- 
inal bill  but  does  sustain  the  cross  bill  and  the  decree 
entered  by  the  Chancellor. 

The  decree  of  the  Circuit  Court  of  £!oles'  County 
is  affirmed. 

Page  12 


256  I.A.  C13^ 


General  No.  8361  Agenda  No.  21 

OCTOBER  TERM,  A.  D.  1929 

THE  RANKIN-WHITMAN  STATE  BAN^, 
Appellant, 

vs. 
JAMES  MULCAHEY,  et  al.,  Appellees. 

Appeal  from  the  Circuit  Court  of  Vermilion  Countj- 

ELDREDGE,  P.  J. 

This  is  an  appeal  from  a  decretal  order  entered 
upon  a  hearing'  upon  an  intervening  petition  filed  by 
Nellie  Abbott  in  a  foreclosure  suit  brought  bj'  the 
Rankin- Wliitni^n  State  Ba.nk  vs.  James  Mulcahey, 
et  al. 

On  July  11,  1923  James  Mulcahey  was  the  owner 
of  certain  farm  lands  in  Vermilion  County  and  was 
indebted  to  appellant  bank  in  tlie  sum  of  $13,000.00 
in  evidence  of  which  he  executed  certain  promissory 
notes  for  the  above  amount  and  also  a  trust  deed 
conveying  said  lands  to  secure  the  same.  This  trust 
deed  was  subject  to  two  prior  trust  deeds  gi^-en  to 
secure  other  indebtedness  aggregating  $29,000.00.  On 
March  19,  1926  before  any  default  in  tlie  payment  of 
principal  or  interest  under  said  junior  trust  deed  had 
taken  place,  Mulcahey  by  a  warranty  deed  executed 
by  him  conveyed  for  a  valuable  considei'ation  tlio  real 
estate  described  in  the  trust 

Page  1  ; 


deed  to  his  mother,  Mary  Mulcahey.  On  March  22, 
1926  Mary  Mulchaey  executed  a  written  lease  to  said 
James  Mulcahey  for  the  same  lands  for  a  period  from 
March  22,  1926  to  the  first  day  of  March  1927  in  con- 
sideration of  a  cash  rental  of  $5.00  per  acre  for  the 
^ass  and  pasture  land  and  one  half  of  all  the  crops 
raised  on  said  premises  to  be  delivered  at  an  elevator 
in  the  neig;hborhood .  James  Mulcahey  entered  into  the 
possession  of  said  premises  under  said  lease  and 
farmed  the  same  as  a  tenant  of  said  Mary  Mulcahey 
during-  the  period  covered  by  said  lease.  On  September 
22,  1926,  appellant  filed  its  bill  to  foreclose  its  junior 
trust  deed  and  a  decree  of  foreclosure  was  entered  Oc- 
tober 14,  1926.  Tlie  premises  were  sold  thereunder 
November  15,  1926  and  appellant  became  the  purchas- 
er at  said  foreclosure  sale.  On  November  18,  1926  a 
deficiency  judgment  aj^ainst  James  Mulcahey  was  ren- 
dered in  the  sum  of  $4,097.70.  Previous  to  this  date, 
on  October  14,  1926,  E.  H.  "Wliitham  had  been  ap- 
pointed receiver  of  the  lands  involved  in  the  fore- 
closure proceeding  ^vith  full  power  to  collect  the 
rents,  issues  fuid  profits  arising:  out  of  said  lands  dur- 
ing the  pendency  of  the  foreclosure  proceeding.  On 
November  30,  1926  said  Whitham  as 

Page  2 


receiver  executed  a  lease  in  wriiiuo-  t>  Jnmes  Mul- 
caliey  for  the  premises  for  a  period  from  March  I,  1927 
to  February  15,  1928  on  the  same  terms  of  rental  as 
v/ere  embraced  in  the  previous  lease  from  Mary  Mul- 
cahey  to  James  Mulcahey.  James  Mulciiliey  as  tenant 
of  Mary  Mulcahey  raised  a  crop  of  corn  on  said  lands 
which  had  matured  and  was  standing  in  the  field  but 
not  gathered  at  the  time  of  the  foreclosure  sale  but 
which  was  afterwards  fathered  and  placed  In  a  crib 
on  said  premises  and  was  in  said  crib  on  June  7,  1927 
and  in  the  possession  of  James  Mulcahey.  On  June  7, 
1927  James  Mulcahey  bein^-  indebted  to  his  sister,  Nel- 
lie Abbott,  in  the  sum  of  $15,000.00  executed  his  note 
for  that  amount  and  to  secure  tlie  payment  of  which 
he  also  executed  and  delivery  a  chattel  mort.^a.i;*'  io 
her  on  one  half  of  all  corn  in  the  crib  heretofore  men- 
tioned. This  morti^a^e  was  duly  recorded  in  the  of- 
fice of  the  recorder  of  deeds  of  Vermilion  County. 
On  July  6,  1927  Nellie  Abbott  caused  said  mort.2:aA'o 
to  be  foreclosed  and  the  same  was  sold  under  said  fore- 
closure on  July  9,  1927  and  slie  became  the  purchaser 
of  said  corn  for  the  sum  of  $1,757.66.  On  the  same 
day,  July  9,  1927,  the  receiver  caused  all  the  corn  in 
said  crib  cousistin.a:  of  3,863  bushels  au(.l  12  i)ouuds  to 
be  delivered 

Pase  3  _  _j 


and  sold  at  the  elevator  at  Rankin,  Illinois  at  $.84 
per  bushel  makin.2:  a  total  amount  received  by  the 
receiver  for  said  corn  the  sum  of  $3,245.10,  one  half 
of  which  would  be  $1,622.55.  Thereafter  Nellie  Ab- 
bott filed  her  petition  in  said  cause  for  the  purpose 
of  having  the  Court  order  the  receiver  to  pay  her  one 
half  of  the  proceeds  received  by  him  from  the  sale 
of  the  corn.  This  petition  is  variously  called  by  the 
parties  as  a  supplemental  bill  and  an  original  bill  but 
its  proper  designation  is  that  of  intervening  petition. 

One  of  the  terms  of  the  lease  under  which  James 
Mulcahey  operated  the  farm  as  a  tenant  was  that  he 
should  pay  for  the  husTting  and  selling  of  said  com 
but  it  appears  that  the  receiver  assumed  this  expense 
which  was  $588.55.  The  Cliancellor,  therefore,  de- 
ducted this  amount  from  the  sum  of  $1,622.55  and  or- 
dered the  balance,  $1,034.00,  to  be  paid  to  the  peti- 
tioner, Nollie  Abbott. 

Appellant  contends  that  the  corn  crop  of  1926, 
which  is  all  that  is  involved  in  this  controversy,  was 
growing  and  unsevered  on  said  lands  wlien  the  lauds 
were  sold  under  tlic  decree  for  foreclosure  and  was 
a  part  of  the  freehold  and  passed  to  the  purchaser  the 
same  as  any  other  part  of 

Page  4 


the  land  subject  only  to  the  rlft'lit  of  redemption  which 
was  never  exercised;  that  the  land  was:  sold  without 
any  reservation  of  the  unsevered  crops  ptrowin^  there- 
on and  tliat  the  sale  discharged  it  from  any  or  all 
rig-ht,  interest  or  claim  thereto  of  any  or  every  party 
in  the  suit;  that  James  Mulcahey  had  previously  con- 
veyed his  equity  of  redemption  and  every  right,  in- 
terest and  claim  he  had  in  the  land  ineludini!;  the  un- 
severed crops  then  fti'owing  thereon;    and  that    the 
receiver  durin.^  the  entire  redemption  period  and  pos- 
session of  the  lands  and  under  the  deficiency  decree 
his  possession  inured  to  the  benefit  of  the  purchaser 
at  the  mortft-ase  sale.    Counsel  for  appellant   are  in 
error  in  these  contentions.    James   Mulcaliey  before 
any  default  m  the  trust  deed  had  taken  place  con- 
veyed by  warranty  deed  to  his  mother  ail  his  risht, 
title  and  interest  in  the  premises  mort,s?a.e;ed,  and  Mary 
Mulcahey  became  the  owner  of  said  premises  subject 
to  said  mort.a,ase  incumbrance.    As  such  owner  she 
had  a  riijht  t^  lease  these  lands  to  James  ISIulcahey 
or  to  anvone  else.   James  Mulcahey  had  a  ri.uht  to 
rent  the  lauds  from  his  motlier  and  farm  them  as  her 
tenant  or  rent  any  lands  from  anyone  else  that   he 
desired.  His  lease  from  his  mother, 

Page  5 


Marv  Mulcahey,  was  executed  before  anj-  bill  for 
foreclosure  was  filed .  If  he  was  such  tenant  when  the 
bill  was  filed,  then  It  was  the  duty  of  appellant  to 
make  him  a  p_arty  to  the  suit  and  set  up  his  interests 
as  such  tenant.  The  half  of  the  crops  raised  by  him 
as  such  tenant  became  his  property  absolutely.  The 
receiver  could  only  take  rightful  possession  of  that 
part  of  the  crop  raised  which  was  the  rent  for  the 
land  and  this  Jie  obtained .  The  fact  that  a  deficiency 
decree  was  entered  save  the  receiver  no  rifi^ht  to  take 
possession  or  sell  the  personal  property  of  James  Mul- 
cahey as  it  could  not  become  a  lien  thereon  without 
the  issuance  of  an  execution.  The  purchaser  at  the 
foreclosure  sale  acquired  no  title  to  the  personal  prop- 
erty of  James  Mulcahey  which  ho  had  acquired  by  the 
terms  of  his  contract  of  leasiiij;-.  It  follows,  therefore, 
that  James  IMnlcahey  bcin.e,'  tlio  lawful  owner  of  one 
half  of  the  corn  raised  by  him  as  such  tenant  had 
a  right  to  execute  the  chattel  mortgase  to  secure  a 
debt  owing  to  the  petitioner,  Nellie  Abbott,  and  she 
by  foreclosing  said  mortgage  and  purchasing  the  corn 
at  the  foreclosure  sale  became  the  owner  thereof  sub- 
ject to  the  expense  of  harvesting  the  same  paid  by  the 

Page  G 


receiver. 

Tlie  decree  of  the  Circiiit  Court  is  affimied. 
Affirmed . 

Fase  7 


^^A^^tM^ 


U-Of^rtr^       •/-t^' 


j^ti^     ,/^  3  ^/f3f> 


(^iM^-^----^'- ^     y-^^cl^-W'     ^.U.   i^-^V^O 


1 


^a. 


256  I.A.  613 


General  No.  8370  Apfenda  No.  28 

OCTOBER  TERM,  A.  D.  1929 

Clarence  Wyer,  Appellee, 

vs. 

Emil  A.   Ekstrand,  Appellant. 

Appeal  from  Circuit  Court  of  Champaign  County 

ELDREDGE  P.  J. 

Clarence  "Wyer,  appellee^  procured  a  judgment  in 
the  Circuit  Court  of  Champaig-n  county  against  Emil 
A.  Ekstrand,  appellant  in  the  sum  of  $2000  in  an  action 
on  the  case  brought  to  recover  damages  for  personal 
injuries  received  on  account  of  a  collision  with  ap- 
pellant's automobile  on  state  road.  Route  No.  1  in 
the  City  of  Georgetown,  Vermilion  County,  on  ]\Iay 
26,  1928  at  about  7:00  o'clock  A.  M- 

The  declaration  originally  consisted  of  four 
counts  and  subsequently  an  additional  count  was  filed. 
All  the  counts  were  amended  and  at  the  close  of  tiie 
evidence  on  behalf  of  the  plaintiff  on  motion  of  the 
defendant  the  evidence  was  excluded  as  to  the  third 
and  the  additional  count  and  the  case  went  to  the  nury 
upon  the  first,  second  and  fourth  counts  of  the  orig- 
inal declaration  as  amended.  In  the  first  amended 
count,  it  is  charged  that  plaintiff  on  the  26th  day  of 
May  1928 

Page  1 


was  lawfully  crossing-  a  certain  public  street  in  an 
easterly  (iirection  in  the  City  of  Georgetown,  Vermil- 
ion County,  known  as  State  Road  No.  1  exercising 
due  care  and  caution  for  his  own  safety  and  the  safety 
of  others  and  the  defendant  was  then  and  there  in 
possession  of  and  was  driving  a  certain  automobile 
from  the  north  to  the  south  along  said  highway,  and 
it  was  the  duty  of  said  defendant  in  the  management 
and  control  of  said  automobile  to  observe  a  proper 
regard  for  the  safety  of  others,  and  to  exercise  due 
care  and  caution  in  the  operation  of  his  automobile, 
yet,  the  defendant  so  carelessly,  negligently  and  im- 
properly managed  and  operated  said  automobile,  that 
by  reason  thereof  the  said  automobile  was  driven 
from  the  north  to  the  south  along  said  public  high- 
way colliding  with  the  plaintiff  who  was  then  and 
there  crossing  said  street  from  a  westerly  to  an  east- 
erly direction  and  thereupon  the  plaintiff  was  struck 
by  the  automobile  so  driven  as  aforesaid,  knocked 
down  upon  the  pavement  and  greatly  injured;  that 
he  incurred  hospital  expense  in  the  sum  of  $146.00, 
Doctor's  bills  in  the  sum  of  $300.00  and  ambulance 
service  in  the  sum  of  $10.00. 

In  the  second  count  after  the  preliminary  aver- 
ments. 

Page  2 


as  set  out  in  the  first  count,  "it  is  cbarg-ed  that  it  was 
the  duty  of  defendant  to  so  operate  his  automobile 
being;  driven  by  him  at  the  time  and  pLace  in  ques- 
tion so  as  not  to  injure  pedestrians  crossing-  the  street 
on  which  he  was  driving-,  yet,  the  defendant  nes-li.ffent- 
ly  and  carelessly  drove  his  car  in  a  southerly  direc- 
tion upon  and  along  State  Road  No.  1  and  at  the 
place  aforesaid,  the  same  being  a  closely  built  up 
business  portion  of  said,-  Cit?^  of  Georgetown,  at  a 
rate  of  speed  exceeding  10  miles  an  hour  as  provided 
by  statute,  and  at,  to-wit,  a  high  and  dangerous  rate 
of  speed,  to-wit,  30  miles  per  hour  and  at  and  against 
the  said  plaintiff  etc. 

In  the  fourth  count,  it  is  charged  that  it  was 
the  duty  of  the  defendant  to  give  warning  of  his  ap- 
proach and  to  use  every  reasonable  precaution  to 
avoid  injuring  the  plaintiff,  yet  the  defendant  care- 
lessly and  negligently  failed  to  give  any  warning  of 
his  approach  and  failed  to  use  any  reasonable  iireeau- 
tion  to  avoid  injuring  the  plaintiff. 

On  the  morning  of  the  accident,  the  yilaintiff,  who 
was  a  coal  hoisting  engineer,  was  proceeding  to  his 
work  in  an  automobile  of  iiis  own.  In  his  car  with 
him  were  four  young  ladies.  While  he  was  proceed- 
ing along  Route  Xo.  1  in  a 

Page  3  • 


northerly  direction  on  the  east  side  of  tlie  street,  he 
stopped  his  car  in  about  the  center  of  the  block  be- 
tween Eifthth  and  Ninth  Streets  and  opposite  a  green- 
house conducted  by  the  witness  Burgoyne  located  on 
the  west  side  of  the  street.  He  descended  from  his 
car  and  crossed  the  street  to  the  R-reenhouse  where 
he  talked  for  a  few  minutes  with  Burgoyne .  He  then 
turned  and  proceeded  to  recross  the  street  in  an  east- 
erly direction  to  his  own  car.  He  had  taken  but  a 
step  or  two  from  the  curbiua:  when  he  was  hit  by  tlie 
defendant's  car  which  was  proceeding;  in  a  souther- 
ly direction  within  two  feet  of  the  west  curbing:.  The 
street  north  of  the  g:reenhouse  bends  slightly  in  a 
northeasterly  direction.  Inside  the  curb  and  four  or 
five  feet  west  therefrom  and  north  of  the  greenhouse 
are  three  large  maple  trees  and  in  front  of  the  green- 
house is  a  telephone  pole  just  inside  the  curb  and 
about  two  feet  north  of  where  tlie  plaintiff  stood  be- 
fore he  attempted  to  recross  the  street  to  his  car. 
The  nearest  maple  tree  was  25  to  30  feet  north  of 
him  at  that  time.  The  west  side  of  the  sidewalk  iiui- 
uing  north  and  south  in  front  of  the  greenhouse  was 
about  three  feet  therefrom.  From  the  east  side  of  the 
sidewalk  to  the  curb  line  or  pavement  was  a 

Page  -4 


distance  of  11  or  12  feet.  The  plaintiff  testified  on 
direct  examination  in  substance  as  follows:  "I  ,2:ot 
out  of  my  car  and  went  across  the  street  to  the  green- 
house run  by  Royal  Bursjoyne.  I  stayed  there  prob- 
ably 3  or  4  minutes.  As  I  left  there  I  went  directly 
toward  my  car  which  was  across  the  street.  I  walked 
out  a  little  ways  from  the  g-reenhouse  and  stopped. 
I  looked  to  the  risht  and  left,  went  down  to  the  curb 
and  looked — at  that  time  I  looked  to  the  rii^ht  and 
to  the  left  aiirl  I  saw  some  north-bound  traffic;  saw 
nothin.o-  soutli-boimd;  that  was  to  mv  left.  I  saw  a 
small  Ford  car  s'oin.e;  to  the  south  to  my  rio:ht;  a 
wa^on  and  two  cars  coming'  north  were  all;  every- 
thine,-  that  I  saw  was  to  my  ri.oht.  Tlie  car  s'oins,-  south 
was  about  300  feet  from  me,  and  of  the  north-bound 
cars,  the  head  one^was  a  wagon  and  a  car  immediately 
beliind  the  wagon  on  which  my  attention  was  fixed 
first.  The  last  recollection  I  had  was  stepping  off  of 
the  curb  or  stei:iping  on  the  curb  and  stepping  off  and 
after  that  I  had  no  recoRect/m  that  morning."  On 
cross  examination,  lie  testified  in  substance  as  fol- 
lows: "I  don't  remember  how  I  came  out  of  the  store 
that  morning,  whether  I  was  walking  rapidly  or  slow- 
ly. I  think  I  was  walking  slowly,  will  say  medium 
speed.  I  looked. 

Page  5 


north  and  south  as  I  came  out  of  tlie  store  after  I 
crossed  the  sidewalk,  I  would  say  1  was  about  10  feet 
from  the  curb  line  when  I  looked  north.  The  bou;2:hs 
of  those  trees  hangino-  low  constructed  my  view  from 
seeing  any  great  distance.  As  I  remember  about  that 
time  some  limbs  or  branches  were  hanging  low  and 
in  driving  under  them  would  scratch  the  top  of  my 
car.  I  looked  north  again  before  I  stepped  onto  the 
pavement.  When  I  looked  north  the  last  time  I  was 
on  the  curb .  A  large  telephone  pole  or  light  pole  just 
inside  the  curb  a  couple  of  feet  north  of  where  I 
stood  obstructed  my  view  so  I  could  not  see  up  the 
road.  I  stepped  out  on  the  pavement  without  know- 
ing whether  there  was  a  car  coming  from  the  north 
or  not.  I  did  not  look  north  any  more  but  stepped 
out  on  to  the  pavement  and  took  one  or  two  steps 
and  remember  nothing  after  that . ' ' 

It  is  a])pareut  that  if  the  plaintiff  had  in  fact 
looked  to  the  north  before  he  stepped  off  the  curb 
he  could  not  have  failed  to  have  seen  the  defendant's 
car.  The  telephone  pole  inside  the  curb  could  not 
have  been  sufficient  to  have  obstructed  his  view  of 
an  approaching  car,  but  if  it  had,  it  was  then  his  duty 
to  look  around  the  pole.  The  maple 

Page  6 


trees  were  40  or  50  feet  north  of  him  and  .iust  beyond 
the  trees  the  street  swerved  to  the  northeast  and  this 
curve  in  the  street  aided  his  view  rather  than  ob- 
structed it.  There  was  very  little  traffic  on  the  street 
at  the  time  and  all  the  south-bound  cars  that  he  saw 
were  south  of  him  and  the  northbound  cars  that  he 
saw  were  on  the  opposite  side  of  the  street  .2:oin.G,-  north. 
The  witness  Swank  at  the  time  of  the  accident 
was  driving  aj  team  of  horses  hitched  to  a  wa,c;on 
joins'  north  alon.i,^  the  east  side  of  the  street .  He  testi- 
fied in  substance:  "I  observed  the  accident  or  col- 
lision that  mornin.2:  about  150  feet  north  of  me  on 
the  west  side  of  the  street.  A  man  hit  Mr.  Wyer  with 
an  automobile.  The  first  I  noticed  the  car  was  when 
I  heard  the  crash.  When  I  looked  up,  Mr.  Wyer  was 
clear  above  the  top  of  the  car  when  I  heard  the 
crash:  his  feet  was  up  hi^'hest  and  looked  like  he 
fell  rig-ht  down  at  the  side  of  the  car.  His  feet  pointed 
up;  looked  like  it  just  whirlgd  him  right  over;  he  was 
up  in  the  air;  he  was  whirling-  over  the  front  part  of 
the  car,  over  the  top.  Why,  yes,  of  course  I  would 
have  an  opinion  if  I  would  see  a  car  .s:oing  along,  about 
how  fast  I  thouglit  he  was  going.  As 

Page  7 


to  this  car  I  wouldn't  want  to  saj'  I  bad  an  opinion, 
for  this  reason:  I  did  not  see  the  car  until  it  hit  him. 
I  have  an  opinion  as  to  the  speed  of  the  car  immediate- 
ly after  I  saw  it,  after  the  collision;  I  think  it  must 
have  been  ^oino-  35,  sometbins:  like  that  from  the  dis- 
tance be  went  after  he  bit  him  to  where  he  stopped. 
The  car  stopped  opposite  to  where  I  stopped  my 
horses.  When  be  stopped  the  car,  he  sot  out  and  1 
heard  him  talking;.  He  says,  'Why,  my  God,  where 
did  he  come  from?'  He  says,  'I  didn't  see  the  man; 
I  didn't  see  him  at  all;  where  did  be  come  from  any- 
how; I  didn't  see  nobobdy. '  The  man's  body  was  lay- 
ing ris'bt  at  the  ed^'e  of  the  street  when  I  saw  him, 
on  the  curbing-  riijht  by  the  sidewalk,  part  of  him 
was  lying-  on  the  pavement.  I  didn't  g-o  over  to  liim 
at  all.  I  never  g-gt  out  of  my  wagon.  " 

The  witness  Paxton  testified  that  be  was  sitting- 
in  front  of  his  place  of  business  on  tlie  corner  of 
Eighth  and  Main  Streetb  at  the  time  of  the  accident, 
on  the  east  side,  across  from  the  g-reenhouse;  saw  the 
car  that  was  being  driven  south  before  be  beard  the 
collision.  Observed  the  car  about  150  feet  north  of 
the  collision  and  until  it  came  within  about  50  feet 
of  the  collision.  It  is  his  opinion  that  the  car  was  g;o- 
ing-  between  30  and  35  miles.  The  first 

Page  8 


thins  lie  saw  after  lie  lieai^t  the  impact  was  Mr.. 
Wyer  above  the  top  of  the  car  from  his  waistlino 
down.  His  feet  were  pointed  straight  up.  His  body 
dropped  strais^'ht  onto  the  concrete  on  his  ri,a,-ht  should- 
er and  was  li'mg-  crosswise  of  the  street  with  his  head 
to  the  curb  about  a  foot  away.  The  automobile  was 
about  6  feet  from  the  west  curb  at  the  time  of  the 
accident.  'That  is  my  sisnature  to  the  papers  shown 
me  marked  Exhibit  A.  I  said  he  started  running 
when  he  started  out  of  the  sreenhouse.  Don't  think 
I  said  Wyer  started  across  Main  Street  without  Inok- 
in,<>'  north  or  south  nor  that  I  said,  'Mr.  Wyer  was 
near  the  middle  of  the  block.  There  is  no  street  cross- 
in.c:  there  and  I  saw  him  coming'  out  of  the  flower 
store.  He  turned  in  a  hurry  and  started  out.  You 
might  call  it  running  or  might  call  it  a  fast  walk.  To 
me  it  looked  as  though  the  fellow  was  in  the  act  of 
running  as  he  tui'ned.  I  did  not  see  liim  look  any  di- 
rection when  he  turned  inside  the  greeniiouse. '  "Ho 
also  testified  that  the  glass  on  the  right  side  of  the 
car  was  broken;  that  he  went  down  and  examined  tlie 
car  and  found  a  piece  of  scalp  on  the  hinge  and  some 
hair  with  it,  it  was  the  top  hinge  on  the  door  on  the 
right  hand  side  as  you  go  south,  the  front  door. 

Page  9 


The  witness  Biir.o:oyne,  who  ran  the  ft-reenhouse, 
stated  tliat  the  plaintiff  came  to  the  g:reenhouse  that 
morninj;-  and  i^aid  him  a  small  sum  of  money  and 
further  testified  in  substance:  ""When  Mr.  Wj'er 
walked  away  that  morning,"  he  walked  to  the  curb- 
in.o'  and  hesitated  there.  He  said  something'  about 
the  time  he  s'ot  to  the  curbing-,  and  I  did  not  see  him 
step  off  the  curbine;.  He  was  standino;  on  the  curbin.i-- 
when  I  closed  the  door .  Leaniu.a,-  around  the  telephone 
pole  and  those  trees  a  man  could  see  up  the  street 
standiu.«'  on  the  curb  line  for  at  least  200  feet.  " 

The  witness  Bennett,  a  boy  of  14  years  of  use, 
testified  that  he  saw  defendant's  car  that  mornin.o- 
a  block  away  from  the  accident  A'oiiiS"  south  and  at 
tliat  time  was  runnini!,'  3d  miles  per  hour. 

Miss  Flossie  Rector  testified  that  on  the  morn- 
ing' of  the  accident  she  was  workine:  in  the  witness 
Paxton's  store;  that  when  she  first  saw  defendant's 
car  it  was  200  feet  from  the  sreenhouse  .n'oiui;"  south 
and  runninft-  about  35  miles  p^r  hour.  She  further 
testified  in  substance,  "I  obsened  Mr.  "Wyer  just 
before  the  accident  comins'  out  of  the  greenhouse.  I 
would  saj'  he  was  coming  out  in  a  slow  trot. 

Paee  10 


I  observed  liim  after  he  left  the  gTeeuhouse.  He  walk- 
ed down  to  the  curb,  and  stood  there  .I'ust  an  instant, 
and  that  is  the  hist  I  saw  him  until  the  accident.  I 
could  not  say  whether  he  was  looking  in  either  di- 
rection at  the  time  I  saw  him .  I  heard  the  impact  but 
did  not  see  the  accident.  I  was  across  the  street  from 
the  S'reenhouse  and  saw  Mr.  Wyer  corainft-  away  from 
the  greenhouse  in  a  trot.  I  believe  I  made  the  state- 
ment si.srned  by  me  that  Wyer  did  not  look  either 
north  or  south  as  he  started  across  the  street." 

Miss  Sophia  Valhovitch  testified  that  she  was 
one  of  the  women  in  the  plaintiff's  car  which  was 
parked  across  the  street  oi)7)osite  the  sa'eenhoiise  and 
that  plaintiff  just  took  two  steyjs  off  of  where  he  was 
coming:  from  the  greenhouse  and  the  car  hit  him, 
knocked  him  a  few  feet  over  the  radiator,  riglit  over 
the  top,  and  landed  down  on  his  head.  "I  observed 
the  man  driving  the  car  south  just  before  the  acci- 
dent; he  was  looking  at  Wyer's  car.  Three  other 
girls  were  in  his  car  with  me .  Their  names  were  ^lin- 
nie  Tintorri,  Catherine  Tintorri  and  Miss  Miller. 
None  of  us  were  related  to  Mr.  Wyer.  I  was  in  the 
back  seat  of  his  automobile.  It  had  curtains  on.  I  look- 
ed through  the  side,  the  curtains  on  the  side  of  the  car. 

Page  11 


when  I  saw  the  defendant's  car.  There  were  celluloid 
window  glasses  in  the  curtains.  Mr.  Wyer  was  walk- 
ing- towards  the  car  at  the  time  the  collision  happened. 
He  walked  about  two  feet  on  the  pavement  when  the 
accident  happened.  He  looked  north  and  south  .iust 
before  he  stepped  onto  the  pavement.  I  was  half  a 
block  north  of  the  .e:reenhouse .  "  The  above  was  all 
the  testimony  introduced  on  behalf  of  the  plaintiff  in 
regard  to  the  facts  surroundinio:  the  accident. 

The  defendant  testified  that  he  lived  in  Ludlow, 
Champaign  County,  Hlinois  and  is  68  years  of  aace; 
that  on  the  day  of  the  accident  he  started  in  an  auto- 
mobile with  his  wife  for  Terra  Haute,  Indiana;  that 
as  he  approached  Georgetown  he  looked  at  his  speedo- 
meter and  saw  it  was  runninsr  at  the  rate  of  25  miles 
an  hour  and  then  decreased  his  speed;  that  he  had 
driven  an  automobile  nearly  every  day  for  15  years 
and  at  the  time  of  the  accident  liis  opinion  was  tlir^t 
he  was  not  driving  over  20  miles  an  hour;  that  his 
first  knowledge  of  the  accident  was  when  he  heard 
his  wife  scream  and  heard  the  crash  of  the  j^lass  on 
the  rio-ht  hand  side  in  the  utsfht  front  automobile 
door;  that  the  srlass  came  into  the  car;  that  he  ap- 
plied the  brakes  as  hard  as  he  could  and  swerved  the 
car 

Pase  12 


to  the  left  and  then  he  released  the  brakes  and  went 
to  the  ri^ht;  let  the  car  coast  down  a  little  further 
and  then  stopped;  that  he  immediately  ran  back  to 
where  the  accident  had  happened  and  found  a  body 
on  the  pavement  close  to  the  curb  probably  a  foot 
from  the  curb  opposite  the  door  of  the  greenhouse 
or  nearly  so;  that  he  did  not  tell  the  witness  Swank 
or  the  boy  that  testified,  "I  saw  the  car  across  the 
street .  I  was  watchinc;  the  car  across  the  street . '  He 
further  testified,  "  I  was  looking?  straight  ahead;  tak- 
ing in  both  sides'  for  that  matter.  I  never  saw  this 
man,  the  plaintiff  here,  until  after  T  heard  the  crash 
of  the  .a;lass  and  saw  him  on  the  pavement.  That 
was  after  the  accident.  "  The  witness  Burj^oyne  testi- 
fied to  the  fact  that  the  ^lass  in  the  ri^ht  front  door 
was  broken  and  there  was  blood  on  the  sill  of  the 
window.  The  witness  Ellis  also  testified  as  to  the 
broken  front  window  in  the  car  and  that  he  saw 
hair  or  pieces  of  scalp  on  the  front  door.  The  evi- 
dence conclusively  shows  that  plaintiff  was  struck 
by  the  side  of  the  car. 

Wliile  the  plaintiff  had  a  le.s:al  ris:ht  to  cross  the 
street  which  was  a  state  liif!:hway  in  the  middle  of 
the  block,  yet,  it  was'  his  duty  to  use  such  care  as  an 
ordinarily 

Paa;e  13 


prudent  person  would  rejisonably  have  used  in  do- 
inff  so  and  commensurate  with  the  known  danger. 
It  is  self  evident  that  if  he  had  looked  toward  the 
north,  he  could  have  seen  tlie  defendant's  car  ap- 
eroachinf!:.  Of  course,  he  could  not  look  through  the 
telephone  pole  but  if  the  telephone  pole,  which  was 
right  beside  him,  obstracted  his  view,  it  was  his  duty 
to  look  around  it.  Furthermore  the  telephone  pole 
was  two  feet  back  of  the  curb  and  if  he  had  looked 
when  he  reached  the  curb  it  could  not  have  obstnicted 
his  view.  Under  the  circumstances,  defendant's  car 
would  have  collided  with  him  as  readily  if  it  had  been 
going  but  10  miles  per  hour.  Even  if  defendant's 
car  had  been  going  at  the  rate  of  35  miles  ver  hour, 
the  evidence  shows'  the  road  was  perfectly  clear  be- 
fore him  and  there  was  nothing  to  indicate  tliat  any- 
body would  step  out  from  behind  a  teleplione  pole 
in  front  of  his  car  in  the  middle  of  the  block  or  walk 
into  the  side  of  it  as,  the  evidence  conclusively  shows, 
the  plaintiff  did  in  tliis  case. 

In  the  case  of  Greenwald  v.  B.  &  0.  R.  R.  Co., 
332  111.  627,  the  Supreme  Court  is  sustaining  th«.'  ac- 
tion of  the  trial  court  in  directing  a  verdict  to  find 
the  defendant  not  guilt}',  said,  "The  rule  has  long 
been  settled  in  this 

Page  14 


State  that  it  is  the  duty  of  persons  about  to  cross  a 
railroad  track  to  look  about  them  and  see  if  there  is 
danger,  and  not  to  ro  recklessly  upon  the  track  but 
to  take  proper  precaution  to  avoid  accident.  It  is 
s:enerally  recognized  that  railroad  crossings  are  dan- 
gerous places,  and  one  crossing  the  same  must  ap- 
proach the  track  with  the  amount  of  care  commen- 
surate with  the  known  danger,  and  when  a  traveler 
on  a  public  highway  fails  to  use  ordinary  precaution 
while  driving  over  a  railroad  crossing,  the  general 
knowledge  and  experience  of  mankind  condemns  such 
conduct  as  negligence.  (Graham  v.  Hagmann,  270 
111 .  252 ;  Lake  Shore  and  Michigan  Southern  Railroad 
Co.  V.  Hart,  87  id.  5'29;  Chicago,  Burlington  and 
Quincy  Railroad  Co.  v.  Damerell,  81  id.  450;  Toledo, 
Wabash  and  Western  Railway  Co.  v.  Jones,  76  id. 
311 . )  One  who  has  an  unobstructed  view  of  an  ap- 
proaching train  is  not  .iustified  in  closing  his  eyes  or 
failing  to  look,  or  in  crossing  a  railroad  track  in  re- 
liance upon  the  assumption  that  a  bell  will  be  rung 
or  a  whistle  sounded.  No  one  can  assume  that  there 
will  not  be  a  \iolation  of  the  law  or  negligence  of 
others  and  then  offer  such  assumption  as  an  excuse 
for  failure  to  exercise  care.  The  law  will  not  tolerate 
the  absurdity  of  allowing  a  person 

Page  15 


to  testify  that  he  looked  but  did  not  see  the  train  when 
the  view  was  not  obstructed,  and  where,  if  he  had 
properly  exercised  his  si^ht,  he  must  have  seen  it. 
(Schlauder  v.  Chicago  and  Southern  Traction  Co., 
253  111.   154.)" 

Under  the  facts,  it  was  important  that  the  jurs' 
should  have  been  accurately  instructed.  The  first  in- 
struction ffiven  on  behalf  of  the  plaintiff  is  as  follows: 
"The  Court  instructs  the  jury  that  if  you  believe 
from  the  preponderance  of  the  evidence,  that  at  the 
time  of  the  accident  in  question,  the  defendant  was 
proceeding  in  a  motor  vehicle  within  the  residential 
portion  of  the  City  of  Georgetown,  at  a  rate  of  speed 
greater  than  fifteen  miles  per  hour,  and  if  you  furjher 
believe  that  such  rate  of  speed  was  greater  than  was 
reasonable  and  proper,  having  regard  to  the  traffic 
and  use  of  the  way,  or  such  as  to  endanger  the  life, 
limb  or  property  of  other  persons  lawfullj"  on  said 
highway,  then,  and  in  that  case  you  should  find  that 
the  defendant  was  negligent."  This  instruction  while 
not  in  the  exact  language  of  the  statute,  5'et  is  very 
misleading  in  that  it  inferentially  informs  the  jury 
that  a  proper  rate  of  speed  would  have  been  15 
miles   per  hour  at   the   time   and  place  in   questiion 

Page  16 


and  that  any  other  rate  of  speed  greater  than  15  miles 
per  hour  miffht  be  unreasonable  and  negligent. 

The  fourth  instruction  is  as  follows:  "The  Court 
instructs  the  jury  that  even  though  you  may  believe 
from  the  evidence  that  at  the  time  of  the  accident  in 
question,  the  plaintiff  was  crossing  the  street  at  a 
point  other  than  a  regular  street  crossing;  that  fact 
if  true,  did  not  relieve  the  defendant  of  his  duty  to 
use  ordinary  care  to  avoid  injuring  the  plaintiff  or 
other  persons  on  the  public  highway,  if  you  find  from 
a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  the  defendant  did 
not  use  such  ordinary"  care. "  This  instruction  is  also 
misleading  as  it  wholly  ignores  the  reciprocal  duty  of 
the  plaintiff  of  also  using  due  care. 

The  seventh  instruction  is  as  follows:  "The  Court 
instructs  the  jury  on  the  issue  as  to  whether  or  not 
the  defendant  was  negligent,  that  if  you  believe  from 
a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  the  defendant 
knew  or  would  have  known  by  the  exercise  of  ordinary 
care,  the  position  of  the  plaintiff  at  and  immediately 
prior  to  the  accident,  and  in  the  exercise  of  ordinary 
care  could  have  avoided  the  accident  and  that  he  did 
not  exercise  such  care,  then  and 

Page  17 


in  that  case,  you  sliould  find  that  the  defendant  was 
nes'liA'cnt .  "  There  is  no  evidence  tendin.sj  to  show  that 
the  defendant  Icnew  of  the  position  of  the  plaintiff 
at  and  immediately  prior  to  the  accident,  or  hy  exer- 
cising' ordinary  care  could  have  avoided  the  accident. 
Thq  evidence  conclusively  shows  tJiat  the  plaintiff 
was  hit  almost  instantly  after  he  stepped  onto  the 
street  and  that  he  walked  into  the  side  of  the  car.  It 
also  omits  any  mention  of  the  care  necessary  to  be 
exercised  by  the  plaintiff  in  attemi^tins,-  to  cross  the 
street . 

The  eifthth  instruction  is  as  follows:  "The  Court 
instructs  the  jury  that  if  from  a  preponderance  of  the 
evidence  in  this  case,  and  under  the  instructions  of 
the  Court,  the  jury  shall  find  the  issues  for  the  plain- 
tiff, and  that  the  plaintiff,  Clarence  Wyer,  has  sus- 
tained damases  thereby,  as  char.oed,  then  to  enable 
the  jurj'  to  estimate  the  amount  of  such  damages, 
it  is  not  necessary  that  any  witness  should  liave  ex- 
pressed an  opinion  as  to  the  amount  of  such  damages, 
but  the  jury  may  themselves  make  such  estimate  from 
the  facts  and  circumstances  in  proof  relatini--  to  the 
subject  or  the  extent  of  the  plaintiff's'  dama.a'es." 
Part  of  the  damages  proven  were  the  hospital  expeuso 
of  plaintiff. 

Page  18  ■     . 


also  the  physician's  fees  and  his  expense  for  the  am- 
bulance. These  were  proven  bv  direct  testimony  of 
witnesses  and  were  also  allejjed  in  the  declaration  as 
part  of  the  damages  and  the  juiy  could  only  assess 
damages  for  these  expenses  in  accordance  with  the 
evidence  introduced,  yet,  under  this  instruction  they 
were  at  liberty  to  assess  damages  therefor  regardless 
of  what  the  positive  evidence  thereof  might  be. 

The  judgment  of  the  Circuit  Court  is  reversed  and 
the  cause  remanded . 

Paae  19  ,  : 


256  I.A.  614 


General  No.  8372  Agenda  No.  30 

OCTOBER  TERM,  A.  D.  1929 

Sarah  McGowan,  Appellee.  1 

vs. 
David  N.  Conwill,  Appellant. 

Appeal  from  Circuit  Court,  Sangamon  County. 

ELDREDGE,  P.  J. 

In  April,  1924,  Sarah  McGowan,  appellee,  owned 
in  fee  simple  a  part  of  a  certain  lot  in  the  City  of 
Springfield.  On  the  said  date,  David  N.  Conwill,  ap- 
pellant, and  his  wife  were  in  possession,  under  a  con- 
tract of  purchase,  of  a  part  of  an  adjoining  lot .  The 
McGowan  lot  was  vacant  and  unimproved.  On  the 
Conwill  lot  there  was  a  small  cottage  consisting  of 
three  rooms  in  which  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Conwill  and  their 
four  children  resided.  The  contract  for  the  purchase 
of  the  lot  was  executed  by  both  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Conwill 
and  they  had  paid  a  large  portion  of  the  purchase  price 
thereof.  Mrs.  Conwill  is  the  granddaua-hter  of  Mrs. 
McGowan .  Mrs .  McGowan  is  a  widow  and  at  the  time 
when  the  transactions  involved  in  this  case  transpired 
was  about  85  years  of  age .  She  went  to  live  at  the  Con- 
will's  home  in  Januarv,  1924,  and  paid  them  $6.00  a 
w§ek  for  her  room  and  board.  She  had  previously 
lived  at  Ashland,  Illinois,  but  had  sold  her  liome  there 
in  October,  1923. 

Page  1 


■^•i.;/ii« 


for  the  sum  of  $1,500.00,  after  which  she  lived  with 
one  of  her  daughters  until  she  went  to  live  with  the 
Con\\'ills.  The  three-room  cottage  being  veiy  small  for 
the  accommodation  of  .seven  people,  Mrs.  McGowan 
tliought  she  would  like  to  build  a  cottage  on  the  lot  she 
owned  which  adjoineil  the  Conwill  lot  but  found  it 
would  cost  her  more  than  her  financial  means  per- 
mitted. Finally  the  Conwills  agreed  that  Mrs.  Mc- 
Gowan could  build  a  three-room  addition  to  the  Con- 
will  house  for  the  personal  use  of  herself.  These  rooms 
consisted  of  a  bedroom,  living  room  and  a  kitchenette. 
On  January  12,  1924,  Mrs.  McGowan  entered  into  a 
written  contract  with  one  L.  B.  Sargent  to  construct 
this  addition  to  the  Conwill  house  for  the  sum  of 
$1,645.00.  Mrs.  McGowan  occupied  these  rooms  until 
the  11th  day  of  September,  1926,  when  she  left  them 
and  again  went  to  live  with  her  daughter.  In  her  bill  of 
complaint  she  charges  tiiat  as  a  part  of  tlie  agreement 
entered  into  between  her  and  Mr.  Conwill  it  was  iinder- 
stood  that  in  addition  to  the  rooms  which  she  should 
have  when  such  improvements  should  be  completed 
she  was  also  to  be  furnished  \\'ith  heat,  light,  water  and 
use  of  the  bathroom;  that  during  the  time  slie  lived  in 
said  rooms  she  was  not  free  to  do  as  she  wished,  was 
not     permitted     to     have     friends     and     neighbors 

Page  2 


call  on  her  and  visit  with  her  when  and  as  she  desired 
such  visits;  that  she  was  refused  the  use  of  heat,  li^ht, 
water  and  the  bathroom  as  had  been  promised  her; 
that  she  had  been  required  to  pay  for  services  in  and 
about  her  I'ooms  which  should  have  been  taken  care 
of  or  paid  for  by  Conwill  or  his  wife,  and  that  in  many 
other  wa5's  her  stay  at  the  home  of  the  defendant  was 
made  unpleasant;  that  her  health  became  impaired  and 
she  was  subject  {^  much  annoyance,  discomfort  and 
insults  on  the  part  of  the  defendant  and  his  family; 
and  that  on  Septem,ber  4,  1926,  she  was  ordered  by  the 
defendant  to  leave  said  house  as  a  result  of  which  she 
did  leave  on  September  11,  1926.  In  the  answer  of 
Conwill  he  avers  that  Mrs.  McGowan  left  his  homo 
without  cause  and  for  no  .iust  reason;  that  durinj?  all 
the  time  she  lived  with  him  and  in  said  rooms  she  was 
free  to  do  as  she  wished,  was  permitted  to  have  such 
friends  and  neighbors  call  on  her  and  visit  her  as  she 
desired  and  was  not  refused  the  use  of  heat,  li.aht, 
water  and  the  rise  of  the  bathroom;  that  she  was  not 
required  to  pay  for  services  in  and  about  her  rooms 
and  Quarters;  that  during  the  time  she  lived  at  his 
home  he  and  his  family  made  her  welcome  and  her 
stay  pleasant;  denies  that  her  health  has  become  im- 
paired   on    account    of    any    unpleasant    attentions 

Pase  3 


driven  her  bj'  himself  or  his  family,  that  she  was  subject 
to  any  annoyance,  discomfort  and  insults  or  that  he  at 
any  time  orclered  her  to  leave  said  house.  It  is  also 
averred  in  the  answer  that  slie  is  welcome  to  live  in 
said  improvements  constructed  on  said  property  and 
to  make  her  home  there  as  she  did  prior  to  the  time  she 
left.  In  the  answer  it  is  further  denied  that  he  was 
desirous  of  makin.s:  said  improvements  and  avers  that 
Mrs.  McGowan  proposed  to  build  said  improvements 
in  order  to  have  a  place  in  which  to  live  and  that  he 
save  his  consent  thereto. 

The  evidence  strongly  supports  the  idea  that  Mrs. 
McGrowan  was  contented  in  her  rooms  until  her  daugh- 
ter returned  to  Sprinirfield  and  beo:an  to  make  trouble, 
the  latter  be.inff  provoked  that  her  mother  had  not 
built  a  home  of  h^r  own  on  her  own  lot  so  that  she 
could  live  with  her.  IMirs.  McGowan  also  owned  au 
equit}'  in  another  piece  of  property  of  the  value  of 
about  $500.00  and  was  receiving:  a  pension  of  $30.00 
a  montli  from  the  United  States  Govermnent. 

The  bill  asks  .for  an  accountino^  between  appellant 
and  appellee  and  that  appellant  repay  her  the  amount 
she  expended  for  the  improvements. 

The  first  contention  of  appellant  is  that  equity  has 

Pa^e  4 


no  jurisdiction  of  tlie  subject  matter  because  appellee 
had  a  complete  remedy  at  law  in  an  action  of  assump- 
sit for  the  breach  of  the  contract.  The  bill  was  not 
demurred  to  by  appellant,  nor  did  he  insist  in  his 
answer  that  the  bill  was  witJiout  equity  nor  was  the 
jurisdiction  of  thii  Court  questioned  therein,  but  he 
submitted  the  issues  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Court. 
If  the  subject  matter  of  a  Bill  of  Complaint  is 
wholly  foreig:n  to  the  jurisdiction  of  a  Court  of  Chan- 
cery then  the  Court  will  not  yrant  the  relief  sought 
evejj,  thou.2:h  the  defendant  has  submitted  himself  to 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  Court;  but  if  the  subject  matter 
belongs  to  that  class  of  which  a  Court  will  take  juris- 
diction when  the  facts  create  some  equitable  right  or 
the  relief  of  the  parties  renders  the  exercise  of  such 
jurisdiction  proper,  an  objection  that  there  was  an 
adequate  remedy  at  law  must  be  taken  advantage  of 
at  the  earliest  opportunity.  Law  v.  Ware,  238  111.  360. 
In  our  opinion  the  case  at  bar  comes  within  the  latter 
class  of  cases.  Appellant  and  appellee  made  no  written 
contract  as  to  the  rigiits  of  the  latter  in  the  property  of 
the  former  or  as  to  the  consideration  which  should  pass 
from  the  former  to  the  latter.  The  contract,  if  an}-, 

Page  5 


rested  in  parole  and  it  is  apparent  that  there  was  a 
misunderstanding-  as  to  the  rights  and  obligations  of 
the  parties  thereto.  Appellee  had  caused  to  be  con- 
structed and  had  paid  for  an  addition  to  the  house  of 
appellant,  the  title  to  which,  upon  its  completion, 
passed  to  appellant  as  a  part  of  the  real  estate .  Under 
such  conditions  in  our  opinion  the  Court  of  Chancery 
will  take  jurisdiction  and  adjust  the  equities  between 
the  parties.  The  Chancellor  in  the  Court  below  charged 
appellant  with  the  amount  paid  by  appellee  for  the 
imin-ovements  and  charged  appellee  a  reasonable  rent- 
al thereof  while  she  occupied  the  same  and  ordered 
appellant  to  pay  the  difference  to  appellee.  The  title 
to  the  improvements  became  vested  in  appellant  and 
he  has  the  advantage  thereof  and  the  Chancellor  ad- 
justed the  rights  between  the  parties  in  the  only  way 
that  it  could  be  equitably  done. 

The  decree  provides  that  the  balance  ordered  to 
be  paid  by  appellee  should  become  a  iien  upon  the  in- 
terest of  appellant  in  the  property  and  it  is  urged  that 
this  interest  is  not  defined  and  therefore  such  order 
is  erroneous.  Appellant  is  in  possession  of  the  real 
estate  under  a  contract  of  pui'chase  which  had  not 
yet    been    fully    paid    and    he    had    not    received    a 

Page  6 


cieed  conveying-  title  to  him.  If,  in  fact,  tlie  alleged 
lien  established  by  the  decree  is  for  this  reason  void 
or  unavailing,  it  is  of  advantage  to  appellant  and  he 
is  not  in  a  pgsition  to  complain  of  that  part  of  the 
decree . 

The  decree  of  the  Circuit  Court  is  affirmed. 

Pag:e  7 


^ 


256I.A.  614 


X 


General  No.  8383  Agenda  No.  36 

OCTOBER  TERM.  A.   D.  1929 

SHAFFER  OIL  AND  REFINING  C( )..  Api)elk'e, 
vs. 
NETTIE  M.  WEBB,  Appellant. 

Appeal  from  Circuit  Courl,  Mason  Count.v. 
BLDREDGE  P.   J. 

On  AuM'nst  4,  1924  one  Roy  (rardnor  leased  to  the 
Shaffer  Oil  and  Rcfinin.i;-  Co.,  apiiellee,  a  ijart  of  a 
lot  (70x75  ft.)  in  Mason  City,  Mason  Connty,  for  a 
period  of  fonr  years  for  the  snm  of  $500.00  pa3-able 
on  the  first  day  of  each  month  in  payments  of  $10.00 
each  month,  said  premises  to  he  used  as  a  fillin.u'  sta- 
tion. The  lease  also  contains  a  provision  that  appel- 
lee may  at  its  option  renew  said  lease  for  an  addi- 
tional ten  years'  beiinnins  on  the  first  day  of  October 
1928  at  a  rental  not  to  exceed  $15.00  per  month  and 
that  appellee  may  remove  the  buildin.os  and  equip- 
ment from  the  sronnd  at  the  expiration  of  the  lease 
or  its  renewal.  On  October  9,  1924  Gardner  and  wife 
conveyed  a  part  of  said  lot  including;  the  same  prop- 
erty mentioned  in  the  lease  to  Nettie  M.  "Webb,  ap- 
pellant. Thereafter,  at  the  recinest  of  Gardner,  ap- 
pellee paid  the  monthly  rentals  to  aiii)ellant.  This 
deed 

Paee  1 


contains  a  provision  that  it  ''is  subject  to  tlie  lease 
of  the  Shaffer  Oil  and  Refinin.q;  Co.,  dated  August 
1,  1924  ftiven  for  four  years  with  privileA'O  of  a  ten 
year  extension."  On  ilarch  3,  J 928  appellee  made  a 
written  demand  of  appellant  for  the  possession  of 
the  property  co^'ered  In  its  lease,  which,  bein^'  refused, 
this  suit  for  forcible  entry  and  detainer  Avas  instituted 
by  appellee  before  a  Justice  of  the  Peace  to  .2:ain  pos- 
session of  the  i)ropert\'.  An  a)jpeai  was  taken  by  ap- 
pellant to  the  Circiut  Court  of  Mason  County  from 
the  .iuiisinent  of  the  Justice  wliere  the  case  was  sub- 
mitted to  the  Court  for  trial  wiliiout  jurv,  who  after 
hearing-  the  evidence  rendered  judgment  in  favor  of 
appellee  and  ordered  a  writ  of  restitution.  On  the 
merits  of  the  case  tlie  evidence  is  very  meaner  and 
unsatisfactory.  However,  the  foUowin.u-  facts  do  ap- 
pear: appellee  dealt  in  .crasoline,  oils  and  like  iiroducts 
usually  8(ild  at  .iiasoline  filliui;'  stations:  Immediately 
after  the  execution  of  the  lease  mentioned  a)ii)eliee 
constructed  on  said  property  concrete  driveways, 
tanks  and  machinery,  etc.  necessary  and  usual  for 
carrj-inn'  on  the  sale  of  its  products;  that  several  dif- 
ferent parties  at  different  times  operated  this  sta- 
tion presumably  ir,  the  emjiloy  of  appellee;  in  some 
way  un- 

Paae  2 


explained  by  the  evidence,  ai)])ellant  and  her  husband 
commenced  operatin<i-  this  plant  and  purchased  s'^iso- 
line  and  other  products  sold  therein  from  parties  other 
than  appellee. 

It  is  apparent  from  the  facts  above  that  appel- 
lant purchased  the  property  from  Gardner  subject  to 
the  lease  of  appellee  and  that  she  recognized  tiie  ri.iihts 
of  appellee  bv  receivin.o'  the  rents  therefor  from  it 
during'  the  entire  time.  She  is  estopped  by  these  acts 
from  ousting-  aijpellee  from  the  possession  ot  the  pi'op- 
erty.  There  is  a  pi'ovision  in  the  lease  that  a]ipeilei' 
shall  not  sublet  sr.id  promises  Avitliout  the  written 
consent  of  the  ))arty  of  the  first  part.  It  is  claimed 
that  appellee  had  violated  this  provision  in  the  lease 
by  subletting-  the  proi)crty  without  apjiellant's  con- 
sent to  other  iiarties,  but  there  is  no  competent  evi- 
dence or  proof  of  any  such  sub-letting-  and  the  proof 
on  the  part  of  appellee  is  to  the  effect,  tliat  it  had 
never  subletted  said  premises.  Even  if  sucli  sublet  ting- 
had  been  proven,  according  to  appellant's  own  testi- 
mom"  she  continued  to  accept  the  rent  for  the  prem- 
ises long  after  she  had  such  knowledge,  and,  in  fact, 
up  to  the  time  this  suit  was  commenced,  and  would 
be  held  under  such  circumstances  to 

Page  3 


have  waived  this  provision  of  the  lease. 

Counsel  for  appellant  urges  that  the  Court  had 
no  jurisdiction  to  order  a  writ  of  restitution  because 
the  lease  had  expired  before  tlie  judgment  was  enter- 
ed. The  cause  of  action  between  the  parties  must  be 
determined  as  of  the  date  when  the  suit  was  instituted, 
and  moreover,  the  lease  provided  that  it  could  be  re- 
newed for  a  period  of  ten  years  at  the  option  of  ap- 
pellee. 

No  propositions  of  law  were  submitted  to  the 
Court  and  no  complaint  is  made  of  the  Court's  rulin,£;s 
on  the  admission  or  exclusion  of  evidence.  There  is 
no  reversible  error  in  the  record  and  the  jiidajmcnt  of 
the  trial  court  is  affirmed. 

Pace  4 


2^I.A.  614 


General  No.  8336  Agenda  No.  2 

OCTOBER  TERM,  A.  D.   1929 

People  of  the  Slate  of  Illinois,  Defendant  in  Error, 

vs. 

Samuel  Sincere,  Plaintiff  in  Error, 

Writ  of  Error  from  Vermilion  County. 

SHURTLEFF,  J. 

Tlie  plaintiff  in  error,  hereinafter  mentioned  as 
defendant,  was  convicted  under  an  information  filed 
in  the  county  court  for  an  alloj?ed  violation  of  the 
Prohibition  Act  and  fined  tiiree  hundred  dollars  and 
costs,  and  sentenced  to  the  county  jail  for  ninety  days. 

The  information  contained  three  counts,  charo;ing: 
(1),  unlawful  possession  of  intoxicating-  liquor;  (2), 
unlawful  manufacture  of  intoxicating  liquor,  and  (3), 
unlawful  keeping  for  sale  of  intoxicating  liquor,  in 
violation  of  the  Prohibition  Act. 

A  .iurj'  was  waived  and  evidence  heard  before  the 
court. 

The  defendant,  before  the  trial,  made  a  motion 
to  quash  a  purported  search  warrant  and  suppress 
evidence,  supported  by  affidavit  that  all  the  informa- 
tion upon  which  the  State  contended  for  a  conviction 
was  procured  by  an  unla\vful  search  of  the  Saratoga 
Hotel  in  Dan\'ille,  Illinois,  of  which  the  defendant  was 
the  owner  and  proprietor,  and  that  said  searcli  was 
unlawful  because  made  without  the  consent  of  the  de- 
fendant, and  without  any  valid  search  warrant. 

Upon  the  motion  to  quash  the  search  warrant  and 
suppress  evidence,  it  appears  by  the  proofs  that  the 
warrant  was  issued  upon  a  complaint  in  the  following 
language : 

"The  complaint  and  affidavit  of  C.  R.  Harrier  of 
Vermilion  County,  Illinois,  made  before  Henry  E. 
Brown,  one  of  the  Justices  of  the  Peace  (Police  Magis- 
trate) in  and  for  said  County  on  this  ISth  day  of  Octo- 
ber, A.  D.  1928,  who  being 

Page  1 


first  duly  sworn  upon  his  oath  says:  That  he  knows 
that  intoxicating-  liquor  containing-  more  than  one-half 
of  one  per  cent  of  alcohol  by  volume  is  unlawfully 
possessed,  kept  for  sale,  sold  and  disposed^  of,  for 
beverage  purposes,  in  violation  of  the  Illinois  Prohibi- 
tion Act  of  this  State,  and  certain  mash,  still,  imple- 
ments, furniture  and  vehicles  and  other  property  de- 
sig-ned  for  the  illegal  manufacture  of  the  intoxicating 
liquor  is  possessed  in,  to 'wit:  One  four  story  brick 
building  located  No.  8  South  Hazel  St.,  Danville, 
Illinois,  County  of  Vermilion,  used  as  a  hotel,  rooms 
103  and  105  in  said  hotel  also  adjoining  rooms  on  west 
side  of  room  105,  tlie  said  premises  being  occupied  by 
Samuel  W.  Sincere  as  a  hotel  in  the  County  and  State 
aforesaid;  and  that  tlie  following  are  the  reasons,  to- 
wit:  Did  purchase  intoxicating  liquor  at  said  hotel." 

The  complaint  does  not  state  when  or  from  whom 
the  affiant  purchased  the  liquor,  and  under  the  author- 
ity of  Hirschfield  V.  The  People,  241  111.  App.  439,  and 
The  People  v.  Prall,  314  111.  518,  we  are  constrained 
to  hold  fnat  the  affidavit  was  insufficient,  and  that  the 
warrant  should  have  been  quashed  and  the  c\-idence 
suppressed. 

The  record  in  this  cause  docs  not  show  that  jilain- 
tiff  in  error  was  arraigned  or  entered  any  plea.  The 
trial  of  plaintiff  in  error,  therefore,  was  a  nullity. 
(People  V.  McCarthy,  176  111.  App.  499;  People  v. 
Hughes,  226  111.  App.  135;  People  v.  Goff,  211  Ul. 
App .  122,  and  People  v .  Ayers,  250  111 .  App .  529 . ) 

It  follows,  therefore,  that  the  finding  and  judg- 
ment of  the  County  Court  of  \\n-milion  Countv  should 
be,  and  is  reversed  and  the  cause  remanded. 

Page  2 


256  I.A.  G14 

General  No.  8363  Agenda  No.  23 

OCTOBER  TERM,  A.   D.  1929 

Carolina  Cobelto,  Apyjollant, 

vs. 

Fiauk  Cobello,  Ai)i)ellee, 

Appeal  from  the  Circuit  Court  of  Montgomery  County 
SHURTLEFF,  J. 

Appellant  filed  licr  bill  in  the  Circuit  Court  of 
Monts-omeiy  Covrnty  for  separate  maintenance,  cus- 
tody of  minor  child,  and  adnustment  of  property  rights. 
Appellee  is  charged  with  extreme  and  repeated  cruel- 
ty and  the  excessive  use  of  intoxicating  liquor.  The 
defendant  answered  said  bill,  making  a  general  .denial 
of  all  material  allegations  and  claiming  that  all  the 
property,  whether  in  his  name  or  hers,  was  his  prop- 
ert}^  purchased  by  him  or  purchased  by  her  with 
funds  belonging  to  him.  Tlie  cause  was  tried  before 
the  court  and  on  June  15,  1929,  a  decree  was  entered 
which  finds  that  the  parties  were  married  as  alleged 
and  that  they  lived  together  until  about  the  1st  of 
January,  1923,  since  which  time,  on  account  of  the  ill 
treatment  and  cruelty  committed  by  appellee  on  ap- 
pellant, sTie,  without  her  fault,  has  lived  separate  and 
apart  from  him;  that  the  three  children  have  lived 
with  appellant  since  the  time  of  the  separation  and 
that  she  is  a  fit  and  proper  person  to  have  tiie  care, 
custody  and  Qontrol  of  the  minor  child,  Mike  Cobetto; 
that  the  appellant  and  appellee  were  engaged  in  the 
general  merchandise  business,  which  business  was 
conducted  by  them  for  the  benefit  of  each,  and  that 
tlie  property  accumulated  and  owned  by  them  at  the 
time  of  the  separation  was  the  result  of  their  .ioint 
efforts;  confinns  title  to  the  store  building  in  appel- 
lant as  well  as  the  goods  and  merchandise  in  that  part 
of 

Page  1 


the  store  building-  occupied  by  her,  and  confirms  in 

him  stock  in  the  State  Bank  of  Taylor  Springs  and 

the  stock  of  goods  and  merchandise  in  that  part  of 

tlie  building  occupied  by  him.  The  court,  in  adjusting 

tlie  property  rights,  charges  to  api)ellant  certain  ]irop- 

erty  and  fixes  a  valuation  upon  the  same  as  follows: 

Business  building  and  confectionery 

stock    $2,000.00 

5  U.  S.  Treasury  Certificates  ....     4,000.00 

Savings  Account  First  National  Bank 

of  Hillsboro   2,257.50 

Making  a  total  valuation  of  proyj- 

erty  charged  to  her  of   $8,257 .  50 

Tlie  court  charges  to  appellee  as  follows: 

Dwelling  house   425 .  00 

Stock  of  goods,  merchandise  and 

accoimts   5,500.00 

5  shares  of  stock  in  Tavlor  Springs 

Bank    500.00 

A  total  of $G,425.00 

The  decree  also  orders  appellant  to  surrender  to 
appellee  the  Musatti  note  in  the  sum  of  $600  and  the 
Tagliole  note  in  the  sum  of  $1,150  in  order  to  equalize 
the  amount  of  property  received  by  each;  decrees  the 
$5,000  in  United  States  Treasure'  Saving  Certificates 
and  the  savings  acccumt  in  the  Taylor  Springs  Bank 
to  be  the  propertj'  of  both  in  equal  proportion.^;  orders 
the  appellee  to  pay  to  apr>e]lant  the  sum  of  ten  dollars 
per  month  from  July  1,  1929,  for  the  support  of  the 
minor  child,  Mike  Cobetto. 

It  is  the  contention  of  apiiellant  that  all  of  the 
property  mentioned  in  the  decree,  except  the  ilwoU- 
ing  house,  the  stock  of  goods  in  that  part  of  the  store 
building  occupied  by  ai^pellee,  and  one-lialf  of  the 
savings  account  in  the  State  Bank  of  Taylor  Springs 
was  the  property  of  appellant  and  should  have  been 
decreed  to  her,  and  that  tiic  court  erred  in  dividing 
the  property  as  it  did.  Complainant,  appellant,  has 
brought  the  record  to  this  court,  by  api^oal,  for  review 
and  cross  errors  are  assigned  by  appellee. 

Page  2 


It  is  contended  by  apjDellec  lliat  the  proofs  fail 
to  sliow  a  piirtnersliip.  or  lliat  any  of  said  property 
was  owned  in  common,  or  that  aiiix'llant  liad  any  in- 
terest in  said  property  and  that  the  decree  was  con- 
trary to  the  law  and  tlie  proofs. 

We  have  read  the  entire  record  and  the  proofs, 
and  they  tend  to  sIiow  tlie  following-  state  of  facts: 
The  appellant,  Carolina  Cobetto,  and  the  appellee. 
Frank  Cobetto,  her  husband,  are  natives  of  and  were 
inarried  in  Italy  in  1900.  He  came  to  this  country 
first  and  she  came  in  1905 .  At  that  time  appellee  was 
living  in  Troy,  Illinois,  where  he  was  joined  by  ap- 
pellant. He  worked  in  the  coal  mine  for  a  while  and 
afterwards  ran  a  saloon .  They  kept  boarders  and  lived 
in  Troy  until  the  year  1911,  when  they  moved  to  Taj^- 
lor  Springs,  Illinois.  At  the  time  appellant  came  to 
this  country'  neither  of  them  had  any  money,  but  by 
the  time  they  moved  to  Taylor  Springes  she  had  fif- 
teen hundred  dollars  which  she  had  saved  from 
keeping  boarders,  and  he  had  four  hundred  fift}-  dol- 
lars which  he  had  realized  from  the  sale  of  his  saloon. 
In  1912  appellant  and  appellee  commenced  to  operate 
a  grocery  business  in  Taylor  Springs  in  which  she  in- 
vested eight  hundred  dollars  in  the  original  stock 
and  he  invested  two  hundred  dollars.  The  first  two 
years  little  money  A^as  made,  but  after  that  time  and 
up  until  about  the  first  of  January,  1923,  when  ap- 
pellant and  appellee  separated  and  ceased  living  to- 
gether the  business  prospered  and  they  had  accumu- 
lated considerable  property,  estimated  by  appellee  to 
be  worth  forty  thousand  dollars.  Most  of  the  work 
in  conducting  the  business  was  done  by  appellant  antl 
appellee,  she  having  general  charge  of  the  stoi-e  while 
he  took  orders  and  delivered  merchandise.  The  store 
was  operated  in  his  name  and  all  the  business  done 
in  connection  therewith  was  also  in  his  name.  Both 
parties  bought  a_nd  sold  merchandise,  made  deposits 
and  wrote  cheeks  on  the  bank  account.  Appellant  and 
appellee  had  an  ag:reement 

Page  3 


soon  after  the  business  was  started  that  each  was  to 
fsliare  cqualb^  in  the  proceeds.  When  money  had  ac- 
cumulated ill  excess  of  what  was  necessary  to  operate 
the  business  it  was  equally  divided  between  them, 
each  taking  his  part.  The  store  buildinA"  in  which  the 
store  was  conducted  downstairs  and  over  which  the 
family  lived  was  purchased  in  1918  for  the  sum  of 
four  thousand  dollars,  title  of  which  was  placed  in 
appellant.  Appellant  on  March  10,  1920,  rented  and 
from  that  time  on  was  in  the  possession  of  a  safet}' 
box  in  the  Hillsboro  Natioual  Bank  in  which  she  kept 
her  money  and  other  property. 

From  October  9,  1911,  to  December  3,  1917,  a 
checkiuo-  account  was  maintained  in  the  State  Bank 
of  Taylor  Surin.cs  in  the  name  of  Frank  Cobetto,  whkh 
was  closed  about  the  latter  date  and  by  a.i!,recmeut 
an  account  was  opened  in  his  name  in  the  Hillsboro 
National  Bank,  which  was  maintained  until  the  time 
of  the  separation. 

Three  children  were  born  to  appellant  and  appel- 
lee, namely:  Tony  Cobetto,  who  was  twenty-one  years 
of  ago  April  13,  1927;  Anna  Cobetto,  who  was  eig-hteen 
years  of  age  April  3,  1927,  and  Mike  Cobetto,  who  was 
nine  years  of  age  on  December  22,  1928. 

Some  time  before  the  separation  appellee  com- 
menced to  mistreat  appellant  and  many  times  was 
guilty  of  personal  violence  towards  her  on  manj^  oc- 
casions hit.  struck  and  otherwise  ill-treated  her.  Ap- 
pellee maintains  that  .at  llie  time  of  the  .separation 
the.y  had  forty  thousand  dollars  worth  of  property, 
but  that  amoiint  was  considerable  in  excess  of  ilio 
amount  shown  on  the  trial  as  being  in  the  possession 
of  or  owned  by  either  or  botii  of  the  i^arties  at  the 
time  of  the  separation.  It  is  disclosed  bv  the  evidence 
that  the  following  property  Avas  in  existence  at  the 
time  of  the  separation: 

Page  4 


One  promissory  note,  dated  November  1,  1920, 
for  $600,  payable  to  appellee  and  signed  by  Stephen 
Mussattij 

One  promissory  note,  dated  October  10,  1921,  for 
$1,150,  payable  to  appellee  and  si.e;ned  by  Suio:i  Ta.i;- 
liole. 

Ten  United  States  Treasury  Certificates  in  the 
denomination  of  $1,000  each,  which  cost  when  pur- 
cliased  $8,000,  half  of  wliich  certificates  were  in  the 
name  of  appellant  and  half  in  the  name  of  appellee. 

A  savino-s  account  in  the  First  National  Bank  of 
Hilslboro  for  $2,257.57  in  the  name  of  appellant. 

There  was  also  a  saving's  account  in  the  State 
Bank  of  Taylor  Sprino-s  for  $1,000  plus  interest  ac- 
cumulations, in  the  name  of  appellee,  one-half  of 
which  was  claimed  by  appellant. 

There  was  a  small  confectionery  stock  in  one  side 
of  the  store  buildino-  valued  at  about  $150,  where  ap- 
pellant has  conducted  a  confectionery  store  since  the 
separation . 

In  the  main  store  buildiu.ii,-  there  was  a  stock  of 
merchandise  the  value  of  which  was  estimated  by  the 
witnesses  at  from  six  to  twelve  thousand  dollars,  and 
after  the  separation  appellee  continued  to  conduct  a 
store  and  dispose  of  the  stock  of  g^oods  until  shortly 
before  the  time  of  the  trial. 

There  was  also  a  small  dwelling-  house  of  the  value 
of  $425  in  the  name  of  appellee  and  he  had  in  his  pos- 
session a  sum  of  money  shown  to  have  been  eig-ht 
thousand  dollars  but  claimed  by  him  to  have  been 
only  one  thousand  dollars. 

Five  shares  of  the  capital  stock  of  the  State  Bank 
of  Taylor  Springs  of  a  par  value  of  five  hundred  dol- 
lars, in  the  name  of  appellee. 

The  store  building  above  referred  to,  which  had 
been  deeded  and  given  to  appellant  long  before  the 
separation. 

Page  5 


All  of  the  above  property,  except  the  stock  of 
soods  in  the  store  building,  the  stock  in  the  State 
Bank  of  Tajlor  Springs,  one-half  of  the  savings  ac- 
count in  the  State  Bank  of  Taylor  Springs,  and  the 
money  in  the  possession  of  appellee  at  the  time  of  the 
separation,  was  claimed  and  shown  to  have  been  the 
property  of  appellant,  and  was  property  purchased 
and  money  iiad  and  loaned  from  funds  which  she  had 
accumulated  and  saved  entireh'  from  her  i)art  of  the 
business. 

Tlie  above  notes,  treasury  savings  certificates, 
pass  books  and  other  certificates  of  title  have  been 
in  the  possession  of  appellant  from  the  time  of  the 
separation  until  the  time  of  the  trial. 

After  appellant  and  appellee  had  separated  and 
ceased  living  together,  they,  together  with  their  chil- 
dren, continued  to  occupy  the  second  story  as  a  resi- 
dence, he  using  one  part  and  she  and  the  children  an- 
other portion  of  said  upstairs.  He  continued  to  oc- 
cupy and  conduct  his  store  in  the  portion  of  tlie  first 
floor  of  the  building,  and  she  continued  to  occuiiy  and 
conduct  a  confectionery  iu  another  part. 

From  the  time  of  the  separation  until  the  time 
of  the  trial  appellant  paid  all  the  taxes,  insurance  and 
expenses  on  said  building  as  v,-ell  as  all  reijairs  made 
on  the  same,  and  appellee  paid  nothing  in  rent.  Dur- 
ing said  time  appellant  had  the  entire  care,  custody 
and  control  of  their  three  children,  yiaid  all  expenses 
of  the  same,  he  not  contributing  anything  toward 
either  her  support  and  maintenance  or  that  of  their 
children.  The  record  discloses  that  both  appellant  and 
appellee  were  hard  workers;  that  she  has  taken  proiier 
care  of  the  cliildrcn,  and  the  court  permitted  appellee 
to  prove  his  good  reputation  in  tlii'  comnuuiily  for 
sobriety. 

Five  of  the  United  States  Treasury  Certificates 
iu  the  name  of  appellant  were  disposed  of  by  her  in 
1927,  from  which  money  she  paid  off  a  note  in  the 
sum  of  $4,200  which  represented  money  she  had  bor- 
rowed at  various  times  and  used  in  the  support  and 
maintenance  of  herself  and  the  children. 

Page  6 


These  are  substantially  the  facts  as  found  by  the 
chancellor  who  heard  and  saw  the  witnesses,  and  from 
the  proofs  that  were  uncontradicted. 

It  is  contended  by  appellee  that  appellant  and 
appellee  are  living  in  the  same  building,  under  the 
same  roof,  and  tliat  under  the  authority  of  Smitli  v. 
Smith,  156  111.  App.  176,  there  is  no  proofs  that  the 
parties  are  living  separate  and  apart  from  each  other. 
What  was  said  in  Smith  v.  Smith,  supra,  was  stated 
to  be  applicable  to  the  particular  facts  and  all  of  the 
facts  in  that  case .  In  the  case  at  bar  appellee 's  answer 
admits  that  appellant  and  appellee  are  living  separate 
and  apart  from  eacli  other  and  entirely  eliminates 
the  necessitj'  of  proof  upon  that  question. 

Appellee  further  contends  that  tlie  court  erred  in 
finding  that  there  was  a  partnership  between  appel- 
lant and  appellee  in  the  operation  of  the  merchandise 
business  between  1912  and  1923,  upon  the  proofs  sub- 
mitted. The  proof  is  conflicting  but  the  proofs  did 
show,  on  th^  part  of  appellant,  that  tliey  had  an  agree- 
ment to  divide  the  proceeds  of  tlic  business  and  that 
such  actual  division  of  the  proceeds  and  profits'  was 
made  beiween  them,  and  ai)iiellant  was  corroborated 
in  her  proofs.  Appellee  denied  the  agreement.  The 
chancellor  heard  and  saw  all  of  the  witnesses  and 
this  court  arrives  at  the  same  conclusion  from  read- 
ing the  proofs.  Appellant  claims  to  have  put  the 
larger  sum  of  money  into  the  business  at  its  com- 
mencement, but  neither  party  is  corroborated  in  this 
respect.  It  was  n^jt  necessary  that  there  be  an  express 
agreement  as  to  the  partnershin.  Heyman  v.  Heyman, 
210  111.  535.  In  this  case  it  is  held: 

"There  is  testimony  in  the  record,  wUicli  justi- 
fied the  court  in  finding  tliat  the  husband  and  wife 
were  equally  interested  in  the  propertv.  It  was  ac- 
cumulated by  the  .ioint  exertions  of  the  husband  and 
wife.  It  is  tiTie  that  there  is  no  evidence  of  an  express 
agreement  of  partnership  between  appellant  and  aji- 
l)ellee. 

Page  7 


but  a  partnershii)  maj^  exist  under  a  verbal  a^cc 
mont,  and  without  written  articles  of  ap;reement.  The 
existence  of  a  partnership  may  also  be  implied  from 
circmnstances.  (KeUeher  v.  Tisdale,  2:1  111.  35-t;  Bopp 
V.  Fox,  63  id.  540;  Lintner  v.  Millikin,  47  id.  178; 
Haug  V.  Haug,  193  id.  645.)  In  the  case  at  bar,  tlio 
proof  shows  that  the  business  was  carried  on  for  tlic 
benefit  of  both  appellant  and  aio^ellee  as  the  heads 
of  the  family.  A]ipellce  and  her  liusljand  both  took 
responsible  parts  in  the  management  of  the  business. 
She  looked  after  the  store  as  well  as  he,  spending-  a 
ffood  part  of  the  day  there.  S'ne  made  loans,  and 
built  up  the  business  by  her  labor.  " 

As  to  the  riglit  of  these  parties  to  enter  into  a 
partnership  agreement,  it  was  held  in  Hcyman  v .  He.v- 
man,  supra,  page  530: 

"In  the  first  place,  it  is  contended  by  the  appel- 
'ant,  that  a  partnership  cannot  exist  betAveen  husband 
and  wife.  Such  seems  to  be  the  general  rule  in  otlier 
jurisdictions  than  Illinois.  It  is  said  by  Bates  in  his 
work  on  the  Law  of  Partnership,  (vol.  1,  sec.  139, 
that  the  preponderance  of  authority,  even  under  the 
broadest  statutes,  is  in  favor  of  the  position  that  a 
married  woman  has  not  capacity  to  contract  a  part- 
nership witli  her  husband.  Such,  however,  cannot  bo 
the  law  in  Illinois .  Section  6  of  chapter  68  of  the  Re- 
vised Statutes  of  Illinois.,  being  the  act  to  revise  the 
law  in  relation  to  husband  and  wife,  provides  as  fol- 
lows: 'Contracts  may  be  made  and  liabilities  incurred 
by  a  wife,  and  the  same  enforced  against  iier,  to  the 
same  extent  and  in  the  same  manner  as  if  she  were  un- 
married; but,  except  with  the  consent  of  her  husband, 
she  may  not  enter  into  or  carr>-  on  any  iiartricrship 
business,  unless  her  husband  has  abandoned  or  desert- 
ed her,  or  is  idiotic  or  insane,  or  is  confined  in  the 
penitentiary.'  (2  Star  &  Curt.  Ann.  Stat. — 2d  ed. 
— p.  2122).  It  has  been  held  by  this  court  that,  im- 
der  the  existing  law  in  this  State,  married  women  are 
placed  on  the  same  footing  as 

Page  8 


femes  sole  iu  respect  to  all  property  rights,  includ- 
ing the  means  to  acquire,  protect  and  dispose  of  the 
same;  and  that  all  restrictions  upon  the  power  of  hus- 
band and  wife  to  contract  with  each  other,  except 
so  far  as  tliej--  are  expressly  retained,  are  removed .  It 
thus  appears  that  husband  and  wife  may  contract 
with  each  other  without  restriction,  except  that  tlie 
wife  may  not  enter  into  or  cari;v  on  any  partnership 
business  'except  with  the  consent  of  her  husband.' 
The  plain  inference  is,  that  she  may  carry  on  a  part- 
nership business  if  she  has  the  consent  of  her  husband, 
and,  as  she  may  make  contracts  with  him,  there  is  no 
reason  why  she  may  not  make  a  partnership  contract 
Avith  him,  or  a  contract  for  a  partnership  business  with 
him,  where  she  obtains  his  consent  thereto.  The  very 
fact,  that  a  partnership  is  formed  between  husband 
and  wife,  pre-supposes  that  it  is  done  with  his  con- 
sent. " 

None  of  appellee's  assignments  of  error  can  be 
sustained . 

It  is  contended  by  appellaiit  that  the  court  erred 
in  charging-  to  appellant  the  value  of  the  store  build- 
ing- as  property  received  by  her  from  said  bnsuiess. 
The  evidence  shows  that  this  building-  was  bouf^ht  in 
1918,  three  years  before  the  separation  and  title  taken 
in  the  name  of  appellant.  It  is  immaterial,  so  far  as 
this  property  is  concerned,  Avhether  a  i^artnership 
existed  or  nojt,  or  whose  money  paid  for  it.  Under 
the  law,  the  presumption  is  that  when  the  title  was 
placed  in  appellant  by  her  husband  it  was  a  i^ift  to 
her.  "Wliere  a  husband  purchases  real  estate  and 
tiie  title  to  the  property  or  an  interest  therein  is  taken 
iu  the  name  of  the  wife,  there  is  a  ])resumi)tion  that 
the  husband  intended  a  sift  to  the  wife."  (Crysler  v. 
Crysler,  330  111.  74;  Partridge  v.  Berliner,  et  al.  325 
111.  253.) 

The  title  to  this  property  does  not  need  to  stand 
upon  presumption,  as  appellee  testified:  'I  g:ave  her 
the  buildino-  and 

Pa^e  9 


nothing  else.  "  In  Ciysler  v.  Crj-sler,  supra,  the  court 
hold:  "Where  the  husband  purchases  real  estate  and 
the  title  to  the  property  or  an  interest  therein  is  taken 
in  the  name  of  the  wife  there  is  a  presumption  that  the 
husband  intended  a  sift  to  the  wife ;  but  this  presump- 
tion may  be  rebutted.  (Partridge  v.  Berliner,  325  111. 
253.)  The  court  should  have  found  that  the  store 
building  was  the  sole  and  separate  property  of  appel- 
lant and  that  appellee  had  no  interest  therein. 

Appellant  further  assi^is  as  error  that  the  court 
failed  to  charge  appellee  the  separate  maintenance 
and  support  for  appellant  and  their  three  children 
from  the  first  day  of  January,  1923,  the  time  of  sep- 
aration, to  the  date  of  the  decree,  and  the  court 's  fail- 
ure to  ftive  appellant  credit  for  money  expended  in 
such  support  and  maintenance.  The  decree  finds  that 
appellant  was  livdnff  separate  and  apart  from  appel- 
lee without  her  fault;  that  she  was  a  fit  and  proper 
person  to  have  the  care,  custody  and  control  of  the 
minor  child,  Mike  Cobetto,  .^ivcs  her  sucU  control, 
and  provides  that  appellee  shall  pay  teu  dollars  per 
month  for  the  sujDport  of  said  minor,  commencing- 
the  first  day  of  July,  1929,  but  makes  no  provision 
whatever  for  any  separate  maintenance  for  appellant 
herself,  cliaraes  nothiii.n-  to  appellee  and  siives  appel- 
lant no  credit  for  money  she  had  expended  in  provid- 
ing and  caring  for  herself  and  children  from  the  time 
of  the  separation  down  to  tlie  heariu.!?.  The  evidence 
in  this  case  discloses  without  any  dispute  that  appel- 
lant had  the  care,  custody  and  control  of  the  children, 
Tony  Cobetto,  Anna  Cobetto  and  ]Mike  Cobetto,  from 
the  time  o.f  the  separation  until  the  time  they  became 
of  aft-e,  and  as  to  the  latter  child  luitil  tlie  time  of 
tlie  hearing-.  The  record  rdso  discloses,  without  any 
contradiction,  that  ai)pellee  did  not  contribute  any- 
thin.e,-  dnrini;-  that  period  to  the  support  of  eitlier  ap- 
pellant Qv  the  children,  but  that  the  entire  burden  was 
borne  bj"  her.  The  record  also  discloses  that  none  of 
the 

Paft-e  10 


cliildreu  contributed  any  substantial  amount  toward 
tlieir  own  support.  The  oklest  boy,  Tony  Cobetto,  was 
of  a^e  on  April  13,  1927,  and  the  dauj?hter,  Ajina  Co- 
betto, was  eighteen  years  of  a.i,^'  on  April  3,  1927.  In 
other  words,  it  was  four  and  one-half  years  from  the 
time  of  the  separation  of  these  parties  until  these  two 
children  became  of  a^e.  Mike  Cobetto  was  substan- 
tially nine  and  one-half  years  of  a^^e  at  tiie  time  of 
the  hearing .  It  appears  that  the  length  of  time  which 
appellant  supported  and  cared  for  these  three  chil- 
dren would  correspond  to  a  period  of  more  than  fif- 
teen yeai's  for  one  child.  The  record  is  not  complete 
as  to  the  amount  of  mone^-  which  appellant  spent  in 
providing  for  herself  and  the  children  since  the  time 
of  the  separation,  although  it  does  show  without  con- 
tradiction that  fi\'e  thousand  dollars  of  Government 
Treasury  Savings  Certificates  were  cashed  by  her  in 
1927  and  that  she  used  forty-two  hundred  dollars  of 
this  money  in  paying-  a  note  which  represented  mouej- 
slie  had  borrowed  at  various  times  for  the  purijose 
of  providing  and  caring  for  herself  and  children.  The 
court  charges  the  value,  at  the  time  of  the  separation, 
of  the  United  States  Treasury  Certificates  in  the  sum 
of  four  thousand  dollars,  thus  cashed  by  appellant, 
without  giving-  her  any  credit  for  the  forly-two  hun- 
dred dollars  which  she  s'^r^nt  in  caring-  for  the  fam- 
ily. The  statute  which  provides  for  separate  mainten- 
ance suits  makes  it  the  duty  of  the  court,  where  mar- 
ried women  live  separate  and  apart  from  their  hus- 
bands, without  their  fault,  to  require  of  the  husband 
reasonable  sujpport  and  maintenance  while  they  "have 
so  lived  separate  and  apart." 

In  McGee  et  al  v.  McGee  et  al,  91  111.  554,  the 
court  held:  "It  does  not  militate  against  this  view  of 
the  law  that  the  widow  may  have  sufficient  means, 
derived  from  her  separate  estate,  with  which  to  sup- 
port her  minor  children.  She  is  not  bound,  in  the 
first  instance,  to  apply  her  separate  estate  to  .'the 
support  of  her  husband's  children.  The  law  has  cast 
that  obligation  primarih-  upon 

Pag:e  11 


the  husband's  estate.  The  policy  of  the  law  is,  to 
T>rovicle  a  home  for  the  family,  that  they  may  be  kept 
tofjether,  and  the  mother  is  not  oblij^ated  by  her  ante- 
nuptial a^eement  to  abandon  lur  children,  but  may 
share  with  thjgm  the  homestead  which  their  father  in 
his  lifetime  had  provided,  so  Ions  as  the  youngest  child 
is  under  twenty-one  years  of  age.  As  in  Phelps  v. 
Phelps,  72,  111.  545,  the  antenuptial  contract  may  de- 
bar the  widow  of  dower  in  her  husband's  lands,  but 
it  does  not  prevent  her  from  sharing-  in  the  provisions 
the  law  has  made  for  the  benefit  of  the  family.  It  is 
a  matter  of  public  concern,  and  the  beneficent  pro- 
visions of  the  statute  for  the  protection  of  the  family 
can  not  be  abrogated  by  mere  private  contract  be- 
tween parties  not  alone  within  its  provisions.  "  And  in 
Goelitz  Co.  V.  Industrial  Board,  278  111.  169,  the  court 
held:  "The  duty  to  support  his  wife  is  imposed  by  law 
on  the  husband.  This  duty  does  not  depend  on  the 
inadequacj'  of  the  wife's  means  but  on  the  marriage 
relation.  "  In  Decker  v.  Decker,  279  111.  308,  the  court 
further  held:  "If  the  wife's  income  be  insufficent 
to  maintain  her  and  carry  on  llie  litigation,  the  hus- 
band's income  should  be  required  to  contribute  to  her 
income  as  alimony  and  to  bear  the  expense  of  the  suit . 
If  the  income  of  the  wife  be  sufficient  to  suitably  sup- 
port her  there  will  ordinarily  exist  no  reason  for  mak- 
ing an  allowance  for  that  pun;)ose.  The  amount  al- 
lowed a  wife  for  separate  mainteiurace  or  alimony 
varies  from  a  sum  sufficient  to  meet  the  actual  wants 
a!ul  necessities  of  the  wife,  to  a  third  and  even  a  half 
of  the  income  of  the  husband.  "Where  they  botli  have 
an  income  the  method  of  computation  of  a  proper 
allowance  for  her  support  aud  maintenance  is  to  add 
tlie  wife's  amiual  income  to  her  husband's,  consider 
what,  under  all  the  circumstances,  should  be  allowed 
her  out  of  the  aggregate,  tlicn  from  the  sum.  so  deter- 
mined deduct  her  separate  income,  and  the  remainder 
Avill  be  her  proper  annual  allowance."  (Harding'  v. 
Harding,  144  111.  588.) 

Page  12 


Under  all  of  the  circumstances,  in  consideration 
of  the  record,  it  was  error  to  cliarj^e  the  Government 
Savinft-s  Certificates  in  any  amount  to  appellant.  It 
is  further  shown  by  the  testimony  that  at  the  time  of 
the  separation,  in  addition  to  the  other  property  ^^row- 
in^  out  of  snjd  business,  ai)peljee  had  a  considerable 
8mii  of  money.  Appellee  testifies  that  the  sum  of  one 
thousand  dollars  was  in  his  pocketbook.  The  pre- 
ponderance of  the  testimony  shows  that  the  sum  was 
much  laro:er.  It  certainly  was  error  not  to  have  char<;ed 
this  sum  of  one  thousand  dollars  to  ayjpellee  in  the 
settlement . 

It  is  further  assigned  as  error  that  the  court  below 
did  not  charge  appellee  for  the  use  and  occupation  of 
the  store  buildin.a,-  occupied  bv  him  from  the  time  of 
the  separation  to  the  time  of  the  hearins,-.  As  already 
shown,  the  store  building'  was  the  property  of  the  ap- 
pellant and  was  a  gift  to  her  from  appellee  when  the 
parties  sepai'ated  their  business  relations  as  well  as 
marital  relations  ceased  to  exist,  but  appellee  con- 
tinued to  occupy  and  conduct  his  store  in  said  building 
without  the  payment  of  rent  of  any  kind.  Tiie  record 
does  not  disclose  what  would  be  a  reasonable  rental 
for  the  premises.  The  bill  alleges  that  the  reasonable 
value  of  the  preniises  from  the  date  of  separation  to 
the  filing  of  the  bill  was  the  sum  of  two  thousand  dol- 
lars, and  this  allegation  is  not  denied  in  appellee's 
answer.  However,  we  arc  of  the  opinion  that  there 
should  be  a  further  accounting  as  to  this  matter  of 
x'ent  to  be  paid  bj-  appellee  to  appellant  fi-om  the  date 
of  separation  down  to  the  final  disiJositiou  of  this 
cause,  or  until  appellee  has  or  shall  have  ceased  to 
occupy  said  premises,  which  amount  of  rent  in  its 
entirety  should  be  paid  by  appellee  to  appellant .  Upon 
a  remandment  of  this  cause  the  Circuit  Court  of  Mont- 
gomery County  will  proceed  with  such  accounting. 

The  decree  of  the  court  below  made  no  provision 
for  the  separate  niaintenancc  of  apiielhuit  in  moneys 
for  her  support  and 

Page  13 


did  not  state  an  account  in  that  res:ard.  However, 
tliere  is  no  assi^ment  of  error  covering  this  claim  and 
any  decree  entered  in  that  respect  is  subject  to  modi- 
fication upon  a  change  in  conditions,  and  the  decree 
for  support  money  for  the  minor,  Mike  Cobetto,  is  in 
the  same  situation.  As  to  all  other  provisions  of  the 
Circuit  Court  of  Montgomery  County,  not  mentioned 
in  this  opinion,  the  same  are  affirmed . 

The  decree  of  the  Circuit  Court  of  Montgomery 
County  as  to  the  items  and  matters  set  out  in  this 
opinion,  is,  therefore,  reversed  and  the  cause  remanded 
to  that  court  for  further  proceedings  not  inconsistent 
with  the  matters'  set  out  in  this  opinion. 

Reversed  and  remanded  with  directions. 

Page  14 


1 


^ 


General  No.  8368  Agenda  No.  2(3 

256I.A.  615' 


OCTOBER  TERM,  1929 
FRANK  ORIESSER,  Appelleer 


vs. 
REISCH  BREWING  COMPANY,  a  Corporation, 

Appellant 

Appeal  from  the  Circuit  Court,  Sanji:anion  Count}' 

SBTIIRTLEFF,  J. 

Appellee  brought  liis  action  in  the  Circuit  Court 
of  Sangamon  County  on  a  plea  of  trespass  on  the  case 
on    promises,  for    unpaid    wages    in  the    amount    of 
$1475.55  upon  the  following  account: 
Wages  and  salary  for  12  months 

1922    $600.00 

Wages  and  salary  for  12  months 

192.3  $600.00 

Wages  an<l  salary  for  10  months 

1924  $500.00 


Total  wages  and  salary  due  $1700.00 

and  appellee  gave  appellant  credit  for: 

Amount  over) .aid  in  1926  $150.00 

Amount  over|)aid  in   1928  74.45 


Total  credits  $  224.45 


leaving  a  balance  due  of $1475.55 

of  which  account  there  was  an  affidavit  of  claim. 

Appellant  filed  i^leas  of  the  general  issue,  of  the 
Statute  of  Ijimitations,  of  accord  and  settlement  and 
full  payment.  There  \Yere  replications  by  appellee,  a 
trial  by  jury  and  a  verdict  and  judgment  in  the  sum 
of  one  thousand  dollars  in  favor  of  appellee.  Apjiel- 
lant  has  brought  the  record  to  this  court,  by  appeal, 
for  review. 

There  are  no  errors  assigned  as  to  rulings  ujion 
tlie  admi.^sion  or  rejection  of  evidence,  or  the  giving 
or  refusal  of 

Page  1 


A 


instructions.  At  tlio  closo  of  plaintiff's  case  and  again 
at  the  close  of  all  tlie  evidence  appellant  moved  the 
court  to  instruct  the  jury  to  find  a  verdict  for  ap' 
pellant,  which  the  court  refused  to  do,  and  it  is  as- 
signed as  error.  Appellant  insists  that  the  verdict 
should  have  l)een  for  the  full  amount  of  the  claim  or 
nothing. 

Appellee's  proofs  showed  that  he  had  worked  for 
appellant  from  1912  down  to  the  year,  1928,  except 
that  he  was  in  Peoria  the  larger  iiart  of  one  year  in 
the  years  1924  and  1925.  Appellee  testified  that  ap- 
pellant made  "near  beer"  for  a  period  after  prohi- 
bition and  at  about  the  beginning  of  1922  appellant 
ceased  making  "near  beer";  that  the  business  became 
less  active  and  not  so  profitable,  yet  it  needed  some 
one  to  look  after  the  j)roperty  and  care  for  the  ma- 
chinery and  that  aitpellant  requested  aiipellee  to  con- 
tinue his  work  at  his  former  salary,  but  to  leave  a 
portion  of  his  salary  in  appellant's  hands.  Appellant 
agreed  to  ])ay  all  of  his  salary  later,  renewed  these 
pi'omises  later  and  paitl  a  portion  of  the  back  salary 
as  set  out  in  the  account.  Ap!)ellee,  after  crediting 
the  exact  amouuls  ])aid  him  in  1926,  1927  and  1928, 
testifies  that  appellant  is  indebted  to  him  in  the  sum 
of  $1458.89.  There  was  very  much  conflict  in  the 
proof  and  the  claim.'?  of  each  party  were  denied  by 
the  other.  Appellant's  witnesses  testified  that  a])pel- 
lee  was  indebted  to  appellant.  Appellant's  mtnesses 
testified  that  ai/L'<'llee  had  been  fully  paid  for  all  work 
done  r)rior  to  1925.  Apiiellant  contended  and  now  con- 
tends that  aiuiellec  failed  to  prove  his  claim  that  a 
portion  of  his  wages  had  been  withheld  upon  a  promise 
to  pay  such  wages  later.  There  was,  however,  con- 
siderable testimony  before  the  jury  supporting  ap- 
pellee's claim  and  the  statements  of  appellant's  em- 
ployees were  corroborative. 

There  is  no  disjnite  between  ilie  parties  but  that 
appellee 

Page  2 


woi'ked  for  appellant  fluring  1922,  192;)  and  1924,  as 
claimed.  A|)pellee  testified  tliat  lie  was  to  receive 
the  sum  of  $175  per  montii,  of  \\iiich  only  the  smii 
of  $125  per  month  was  paid,  while  appellant  offered 
testimony  tending-  to  show  that  appellee's  salary  dur- 
ins'  that  period  was  only  $125  per  month,  which  had 
been  paid  in  full.  Noth withstanding  appellant  admit- 
ted appellee's  employment  durin.sr  the  years  1922, 
1923  and  192-4-  and  claimed  the  salav\-  was  at  the  rate 
of  $]25  per  montli,  all  of  whicii  had  been  paid,  ap- 
pellant offered  proofs  tending  to  sliow  ^hat  "por- 
tions of  the  time  appellee  was  not  at  the  plant;  that 
]je  only  came  there  to  get  his  pay  check,"  and  that, 
as  one  witness  testified,  "I  only  saw  liim  there  two 
or  three  times  per  week.  "  There  was  sufficient  testi- 
mony in  the  record  to  su|)port  the  verdict.  It  is  the 
rule  in  an  action  ex  contractu  that  a  compromise  ver- 
dict will  stand  if  substantial  justice  has  been  done 
and  the  verdict  is  consistent  with  the  evidence  or 
defense.  (Kerman  v.  Advance  Terra  Cotta  Co.  211 
111.  App.  316.) 

The  weisiit  oi  liic  conflictin.i;-  eviiience  was  a 
question  for  the  jury,  and  it  was  the  province  of  the 
Jury  to  determine  the  preponderance  and  the  credi- 
bility of  tile  e\idence.  (Foster  v.  Swanson,  189  111. 
App.  3U:  Gerlock  v.  Conroy,  197  111.  App.  .^98;  Green 
V.  Ryon,  242  111.  Apii.  4G6;  and  Deminff  v.  Prudential 
Ins.  Co.,  190  111.  App.  604) 

In  actions  for  breach  of  contract  where  the  jury 
found  such  a  contract  but  awarded  a  much  less  sum, 
if  the  evidence  is  conflicting  it  will  be  upheld  by 
the  court.  A  defeated  party  e;ui  not  com))lain  that  a 
verdjct  was  for  a  less  amouiit  than  the  evidence  of  the 
iiuccessful  party  warranted.  (Central  Trust  Co.,  v. 
Kuglin,  194  111.  Ap)).  294;  German  v.  Advance  Terra 
Cotta  Co.,  supra,  Janssen  v.  Janssen.  Gen.  No.  7671, 
Tliird  District  111.  A))p.  Court.) 

Paae  3 


The  Janssen  case  was  a  suit  upon  three  notes  for 
four  thousand  dollars,  and  tlie  verdict  was  for  $2,425. 
It  was  contended  by  appellant  that  the  verdict  was 
wrona-  because  the  verdict  should  have  been  larger 
and  for  the  full  amount  or  nothing.  Justice  Nieiiaus, 
in  the  opinion  of  the  court,  held:  "It  is  sufficient  to 
point  out  in  reference  to  tliis  contention  that  appel- 
lant was  not  liarmed  by  this  error,  and  therefore  is 
not  in  position  to  raise  any  objection  thereto." 

For  the  reasons  stated,  the  .iudsment  of  the  Cir- 
cuit Court  of  Sanaanion  County  is  affinned . 

Affirmed. 

Page  4 


a^4- 


^.eJA.^t    yC 


x^ 


'  /f  3^ 


A'^ 


\ 


25ei.A.  G15 


General  No.  83 J7  A-yenda  No.  18 

OCTOBER  TERM,  ir)i!9 

A.    F.   Huber,  For  the  Use    of,    W.    F.    Crunibau.j?!! 
Trading  as  the  PEOPLES  OIL  C(J.,  Etc.,  AppeUants, 

vs. 

A.  J.  Walters,  W.  H.  Wri-loy  and  H.  W.  Wri.-lej% 

partners,  doing  business  under  the  finn  name  and 

style  of  H.  W.  Wrigley  &  Co.,  and  Farmers 

State  Bank  of  Downs,  Appellees. 

Appeal  from  the  County  Court  of  Mcl^ean  County. 

PER  CURIAM: 

This  is  a  o-arnishmenl  suit,  oriy-inally  broui,dit  b> 
A.  F.  Huber  for  the  use  of  W,  F.  Crumbauiih,  trad- 
ing- as  the  Peoples  Oil  Company,  against  A.  J.  Walters, 
W.  H.  Wrigley  and  H.  W.  Wri.aley.  jiarlners,  doing- 
business  under  the  firm  name  and  style  of  W.  H. 
W'riglej'  &  Co. 

Interrogatories  -were  filed,  to  whicli  the  gar- 
nishees filed  their  answers,  admitting  an  indebtedness 
to  the  execution  debtor,  A.  F.  Huber,  in  the  sum 
of  $660.04,  the  proceeds  of  certain  com  sold  to  gar- 
nishees on  March  2,  1926. 

Before  the  case  was  reachetl  for  trial  the  Farm- 
ers State  Bank  of  Downs,  Illinois,  a  corporation,  an 
adverse  claimant,  appeared  and  filed  an  interplea, 
claiming  the  title  to  the  funds  in  the  hands  of  the 
garnishees  and  was  admitted  as  a  party  to  the  suit, 
so  far  as  respected  its  title  to  the  funds  in  question. 

The  death  of  W.  F.  Crumbaugh,  the  beneficial 
plaintiff ,  being  suggested  of  record,  Lottie  Crum- 
baugh and  Charles  Eldoris  Cnimbaugh,  executors, 
were  substituted  as  beneficial  plaintiffs. 


Page  1 


A  jury  lioiiiii'  waived  li\-  ihc  iiartics,  tlic  ca.sc  was 
tried  by  the  court  solely  uiioii  the  qucotion  of  the 
title  to  the  funds  in  the  liauds  of  the  f^arnisliees . 
There  waw  no  controversy  aboiit  the  facts.  A.  F. 
Huber,  the  execution  debtor,  was  a  tenant  farmer 
who  resided  upon  and  tended  some  :^41  acres  of  fami- 
iii^'  land,  during-  (h(>  season  of  1923,  in  Ernijire  Town- 
ship, MclA'an  County,  Illinois,  which  was  owned  by 
one  Loiran  Fiy.  On  June  1st  «f  tiiat  year  he  executed 
a  note  in  the  sum  of  seventeen  hundred  dollars  to  the 
Farmers  State  Bank  of  Downs,  Illinois,  and  secured 
the  same  by  a  chattel  mortfta.s>e  of  tiiat  date,  duly 
signed,  ackn()wled.ii,(<l  anil  recordeil,  purportin.ti'  to 
convey  to  claimant  the  undivided  one-iuilf  of  170  iicvp?^ 
of  growing-  corn  located  in  the  northeast  one-half  of 
section  1,  townshi})  22,  range  4  east  of  the  Ihird  pi-iu- 
cipal  meridian  in  McLean  County,  Illinois. 

On  March  5,  1926,  '^Y-  F.  CrumbauMh,  tradin.o- 
as  the  Peoples  Oil  Company,  obtained  a  judument  in 
the  County  Court  of  McLean  County,  Illinois,  againsi 
A.  F.  Huber  for  tlie  sum  of  $29.1.9:^  dama.s,es  and 
five  dollars  costs.  An  execution  was  issued  on  such 
.iudgment  and  was  returned  bv  the  sheriff  on  March 
8,  1926.  "No  property  found  in  my  county,"  where- 
upon an  affidavit  in  ftarnislnnent  was  filed,  a  writ 
issued  and  served  upon  the  s''ii'nisliees.  The  plaintiffs 
introduced  the  record  of  the  jud.nment,  the  issue  of 
the  execution  and  its  return  b\  the  officer,  to^et'ier 
with  the  letters  testamentary,  and  rested.  The  claim- 
ant ( desi.i>nated  defendant)  offeied  its  note  for  $1,701"). 
dateci  June  1,  1925,  and  siyned  liy  A.  F.  IIuIku-,  and 
offered  the  chattel  mort'^aiiv  executed  by  A.  F. 
Huber  on  June  1,  1925,  duly  acknowlediicd  and  re- 
cortled.  The  mortit'a.i^e  was  objected  to  on  the  .nroun<l 
that  the  description  of  the  mortgaS'^'d  propertv  was 
insufficient  to  locate  the  propertv  movt.i;-a2:ed  aiui 
because  there  was  no  in-oof  that  the  funus  In  the 
hands  of  the  .c'arnishees  had  uothiuo-  to  do  with  the 
property  alleged  to  be  contained  or  described  in  the 
exhibit.   But  the 

ra.i;e  2 


court   overruled   the   <)l).jection,    to   wliicli   ruling-    the 
plaintiffs  excepted . 

The  only  witness  offered  by  the  claimant,  Farmers 
State  Bank  of  Downs,  was  J.  R.  Carlisle,  a  stockhold- 
er of  said  baidc  The  c()niT)ote7icy  of  this  witness  was 
challenft-ed  by  an  objection,  but  'the  objection  was 
overruled  and  exceijtion  was  preserved.  It  appeared 
from  tl>e  testimony  of  this  witness  that  A.  F.  Huber 
owed  the  Fanners  State  Bank  of  Downs,  ])eforo  the 
note  and  mortsas'e  mentioned  were  executed,  be- 
tween thirty-five  and  thirty-ei.iilit  hundred  dollars; 
that  the  bank  took  one  note  of  seventeen  hundred 
dollars  from  A.  F.  Huber  and  his  father-in- 
law  as  security,  wiiieh  was  uniiaid  at  tlie  time  of  the 
trial;  that  the  bank  advanced  him  three  hundred  dol- 
lars to  pay  his  corn  buskers  and  took  a  mort,2:ai::e  on 
his  corn.  The  v.-itness  states  that  lie  knew  what  corn 
the  morts^a^e  covered;  that  it  was  srowiuK  corn  on 
the  northeast  half  of  section  1,  township  22,  ran.a;e  4, 
east  of  the  third  piinciyjal  meridian,  wliich  Mr.  Huber 
was  farniinR  at  that  time  but  wl'ieh  wa.s  owned  by 
Lo.^an  Fry;  that  it  was  hauled  to  Sabina  and  deliv- 
ered to  the  Wrigiey  (irain  Com])any  some  time  in 
December;  The  witness  was  asked,  "Did  you  ever 
talk  to  Mr.  Huber  about  that  corn?"  to  which  an 
objection  was  interposed,  o\enuhd  by  the  court  and 
exception  noted.  In  dc^tailin.i;-  tin  conversation  ihe 
witness  testified  that  Huber  wanted  t<i  know  about 
the  price;  said  it  was  about  as  ;;ood  as  he  could  jjet, 
better  sell  and  reduce  his  loan  and  apply  the  money 
on  his  note;  that  A.  F.  Huber  never  applied  any  of 
the  crop  or  turned  over  any  nuiiiey  in  [\i>-  hank.  On 
cross-examination  this  witness  stated  that  he  knew 
A.  F.  Huber  hail  all  the  170  acres  of  corn  planted  on 
June  1,  1925,  and  it  was  sjood,  but  did  not  know  that 
Mr.  Huber  had  corn  on  any  other  tract  of  laud  that 
year;  that  the  bank  never  foreclosed  tlie  mort.ca.a;e  or 
took  possesssion 

Paire  3 


of  tlio  property;  tliat  it  was  turned  over  witliuut  (liat. 

The  plaintiffs  on  rebuttal  proved  tliat  on  (October 
f),  1925,  tlie  Farnieis  State  Bnuk  of  Downs,  by  :i  let- 
ter written  to  witness  W.  A.  AVebb,  aiitliorized  wit- 
ness to  advance  fifty  dollars  to  A.  F.  Iluber,  the- 
mortp:aRor,  on  (me  liuiidrod  l)usli,' Is  of  his  corn,  and 
that  it  would  release  tliat  anionnl  on  Huber's  niort- 
ii:at;:e;  that  v.-itness  advanced  the  fifty  ilolhirs  to  llubei 
and  that  Uder  on  Hnber  lunded  four  or  five  loads  of 
corn  to  witness  and  v.itness  was  about  to  deduct  the 
fifty  dollars  which  he  had  adviineed  io  i:im  when 
Huber  objected  to  it  and  Ruber  (idlrd  the  Fanners 
State  Bank  of  Downs  over  the  telephone  and  the  bank 
authorized  the  witness  to  pay  the  money  to  Huber; 
that  the  amount  paid  to  Hubo-  was  one  ImndLed  thirty 
to  forty  dollars.  It  was  further  siiown  by  witness 
Claude  Dawson  that  the  morti;a.s:ee  permitted  larpfe 
sums  to  be  paid  out  of  the  proceeds  of  the  corn,  al- 
le.ced  to  be  morlsa.£>ed,  to  Huber's  other  creditors  am! 
permitted  Huber  to  retain  498  bushels  of  the  corn 
for  feed.  All  of  these  payments  and  the  value  of  the 
corn  retained  for  feed  a.i;-i>re.<;-ate  the  sum  of  $1,401  .57. 
It  was  further  shown  by  witness  William  D.  Fricke 
that  in  1925  the  mortf!:a.Si:or  had  twenty-six  (u-  twenty- 
seven  acres  of  land  in  the  southwest  half  of  section  1, 
not  covered  by  the  mortsaste.  in  corn,  which  yielded 
seventy-five  to  eighty  busiiels  per  ac-re. 

There  was  no  proof  that  the  mortf?a.£?or  ever  de- 
livered the  alleged  morti-a.2:ed  i)roiieriy  to  the  mort- 
.i>'agee  or  to  the  Wrig'ley  Grain  (  oinpany  for  the  mort- 
pas'ee  and  no  attemjit  was  made  by  claimant  to  sliow 
tliat  the  corn  sold  to  the  .ijarnishees  by  A.  F.  Huber 
on  March  2,  1926.  was  corn  that  was  raised  ou  the 
premises  described  in  tlieir  cliattel  niortifat-e,  and  there 
is  no  evidence  in  the  record  identifyina:  the  corn  sold 
to  the  garnishees  as  the  corn  of  whicli  the  claimant 
was  the  owner.  A.  F.  Huber  sold  2,279  bushels  of 
corn  ou  December  21,  1925,  and  on  March  2.  1926,  he 
sold  to  garnishees  3,742  bushels.    The  moneys  now 

rai;e   4 


ill  tin'  hands  of  tlic  uanusliccs  arc  tlic  proceeds  of  the 
sale  of  Marcli  2,  IDL'i).  Tlio  court  louud  tlio  issues  for 
the  defi'iuhuits  AY.  H.  Wri<<-h-y  &  Company  and  en- 
tered jiid.niiicnt  on  its  findings  and  dismissed  the  writ 
of  ffurnisliment  at  plaintiffs'  costs,  to  \vliich  tiie  iilnin- 
tiffs  excepted.   Appellants  have  apiH-aled. 

Apiiellees  have  presented  no  brief  or  ariinment 
in  this  court  and,  therefore,  under  the  rules  of  this 
court  the  .judjiment  of  the  lov/er  court  is  subject  to 
reversal  and  remand.  In  addition  we  have  examined 
the  record  and  abstract  presented  and  find  various 
errors  necessitating-  the  reversal  of  tlie  .juds>mcnt .  Ap- 
pellants were  suini;-  in  a  re1)resentati^•e  capacity  as 
the  executors  of  a  deceased  iierson,  and  the  testimony 
of  the  witness  Carlyle.  a  stockholder  in  claimant's 
bank,  was  therefore,  imder  the  statute,  incompetent. 
In  addition,  much  of  his  testimony  was  hearsay,  ffiv- 
in.o-  statements  of  the  debtor,  A.  F.  Huhcr,  wlilch  was 
admitted  over  the  objections  of  a{)iielhints.  Tiie  de- 
scription of  the  corn  in  the  chattel  mortgage  held  b}' 
the  claimant  bank  was  indefinite  and  uncertain,  de- 
s'cribinft-  it  as,  "The  nndi\ided  one-half  of  one  hundred 
and  se^:enty  acres  of  .£>rowin,a,'  corn  located  in  the  north- 
east one-half  ot  section  one,  township  twenty-two, 
range  four  east,"  etc.  Tliis  description  is  of  very 
doubtful  validity.  In  addition,  tiie  jndjj,ment  debtor 
raised  another  field  of  corn,  yiehling  about  eighteen 
hundred  bushels,  in  the  soutliwest  iiorlion  of  said  sec- 
tion. It  was  shown  that  Hnber  liauled  corn  to  the  ele- 
vator of  appellees  and  sold  it,  nn.!  that  claimant  bank 
knew  nothing-  of  such  sales  until  about  a  yt>ar  there 
after.  Of  the  corn  sold  to  aitj)ellees  by  Huber,  upon 
which  there  remain.s  a  balance  due  of  $660.04,  there 
is  notliing  to  show  whether  it  was  raised  in  tlie  soutli- 
east  or  southwest  part  of  said  section  one,  and  it  fol- 
lows that  in  so  far  as  the  lien  of  appellant's  is  con- 
cerned, it  is  superior  to  the  chattel  mortgage  lien  of 

Page  5 


claimant  bank.  It  follows  that  the  jiulgiuent  of  the 
County  Court  of  McLean  Couutv  should  be  reversed 
and  the  Judarment  is  reversed  and  the  cause  remanded 
to  the  County  Court  of  McLean  Count\-.  with  direc- 
tions to  enter  a  judsmcut  in  favor  of  the  appellant  for 
use,  etc.,  for  the  amount  of  tlieir  claim  a.srainst  ap- 
pellees . 


a^ 


256  I.A.  615 


General  No.  8369  Agenda  No.  27 

OCTOBER  TERM,  A.  D.  1929 

Travelers  Iiisurauce  Company,  Appellee, 
vs. 
George  F.  Reiscli,  Carl  M.  Rciscli  and  Hariy  T.  Mor- 
gan, doinft-  business  under  the  firm  name  of 
Reiscli,  Morftau  and  Reisch,  Appellants 

Appeal  from  the  Circuit  Court,  Sangamon  County 

PER  CURIAMi: 

Appellee  brought  suit  in  this  cause  to  recover 
premiums  for  insurance  in  the  amount  of  $1873.54, 
collocicd  l)y  appellants  for  appellee  and  retained  by 
appellants.  Apyjellants  interposed  a  defense  of  set-off. 
Appellants  were  employed  at  the  time  in  question  in 
this  case  as  agents  for  the  production  of  insurance  bus- 
iness. Tiio  cause  Avas  tried  before  the  Circuit  Court 
of  San.iiamon  County,  witi\out  a  jury. 

Upon  the  trial  a])i3ellants  admitted  the  collection 
and  roientiou  of  tlu-  ])remiums  as  charojed  in  the  dec- 
laration but  contended  tliat  they  were  entitled  to  two 
items  of  set  off  against  appellee's  claim  amounting?  to 
$r)22.35  and  $1346.87,  resiiectively. 

The  first  item  of  set-off  was  based  upon  a  charge 
made  a.y-ainst  arijiellants  for  what  is  called  "  earned 
])remiums."  Api)cllee  contended  that  according  to 
the  i-ules  of  the  comjtany  if  a  policy  was  issued  and 
delivered  to  apiiellants  and  was  held  by  them  for 
more  than  sixty  (hiys  but  subsequently  cancelled,  a 
premium  couhl  lie  charged  against'  the  account  of 
api>ellants.  The  jiremium  cliaryed  was  in  proportion 
to  the  length  of  time  o\er  sixty  days  which  the  policy 
was  held  by  apjiellants.  This  sixty-day  period  was 
called  a  placing  period. 

Pap-e  1 


The  list  ol'  riolicios  jind  i)remiums'  under  the  head- 
of  "Eanieil  Premiums"  showed  all  such  policies  ha<l 
been  held  l)y  a])pellants  for  more  than  the  sixty-day 
Ijeriod.  The  evidence  showed  that  these  policies  were 
not  taken  by  tlie  policy  lioUlers  and  were  later  re- 
turned to  the  ap))ellee  and  cancelled. 

Api)ellants  contended  that  tlie  earned  pi'emium 
was  wrongfully  chju'ired  against  them.  Tlieir  evidence 
upon  the  (rial  was  concernino-  almost  entirely  this 
piiase  of  the  case.  The  testimony  showed  that  one  of 
the  methods  used  by  appellants  in  soliciting  business 
was  to  secure  mfonnation  about  a  prospect  and  from 
that  fill  out  an  application.  This  application  was  then 
sent  to  the  Peoria  office  of  appellee,  where  a  polic.v 
was  written  and  sent  to  appellants.  Appellants  then 
called  on  the  prospect  with  the  policy  already  pre- 
pared sind  oideavored  to  pre\ail  upon  him  to  accept 
tlie  insurance.  If  the  T>i"ospect  accepted  the  policy  it 
was  deli\ered  to  him  at  once  and  a  premium  charyeil 
ag-ainst  him  on  the  books  of  appellants.  If  the  prospect 
refused  to  accept  it,  it  was  returned  to  the  Peoria  of- 
fice with  ai'  explanation  for  its  return  and  was  there 
cancelletl . 

Two  of  apix'llants'  solicitors,  LeStransje  and  Head 
and  Harrv  Morgan,  one  of  the  appellants,  testified  that 
in  various  con\-ersa(ions  with  certain  of  the  mana.ii;ers 
and  s]ieeial  agents  of  appellee  they  were  told  to  fol- 
low this  method  of  securin";  business,  and  that,  if 
they  were  unable  to  iilace  the  policies,  they  could  re- 
turn the  jiolicies  not  accepted  by  the  prospects  and 
recei\e  a  refund  of  tlie  premium  advanced  by  them. 
There  was  furtlier  evitlence  that  in  seven  instances 
appellants  had  been  allowed  refunds  when  the  poli- 
cies were  retained  1iy  them  over  the  sixty-day  plficing 
period.  The  trial  co\irt  found  for  appellants  on  this 
question  and  allowed  the  set-off  of  $522.35. 

Tile  second  item  of  set-off,  called  "Uncollected 
Travelers  Accounts"  claimed  by  appellants,  was  com- 
)>osed  of  a  list  of 

Pas:e  2 


policies  and  premiums  which  they  claimed  had  not 
been  fully  paid  to  appellants  by  the  policy  holders. 
Appellants  contend  that  these  policies  were  issued 
under  the  same  circumstances  as  were  the  policies 
]iste<l  under  the  lieadiuR-  of  "Earned  Premiums.  "  The 
evidence  disclosed  that  all  of  the  policies  so  listed 
iiad  hveu  delivered  to  the  policy  iiolders  and  were  ac- 
cepted by  them.  Tliese  policies  were  never  returned 
to  appellee  for  cancellation.  Appellants  had  entered 
tlie  amount  of  each  prenuum  due  from  each  policy 
holder  upon  their  books  and  were  collectino:  these  ac- 
counts. This  claim  was  not  for  the  full  amount  of  the 
l)remiums  advanced  but  was  for  the  balance  due  from 
the  pplicy  holders  after  deducting  the  amounts  each 
had  paid.  On  some  of  these  accounts  collections  were 
made  l)y  ajipellants  after  this  suit  was  started  and 
the  list  had  to  be  amended  upon  the  trial  to  show 
tliese  Tiayments. 

All  of  these  policies  were  in  force  for  a  full  year 
after  they  were  issued.  A  number  were  continued  in 
force  by  the  policy  holders  for  several  years  and  some 
of  them  were  still  kept  in  force  by  the  holders  at  the 
time  of  the  trial.  Upon  some  of  these  policies  appel- 
lee had  paid  claims. 

Morsau  testified  that  he  had  conversations  witli 
representatives  of  appellee  in  which  he  told  them  that 
these  accounts  had  not  been  collected  and  was  told 
that  if  he  sent  in  the  money  and  failed  to  collect  from 
the  policv  holders  the  premiums  would  be  refunded 
to  appellants.  He  said  ai^pellants'  bookkeeper,  Mc- 
Reynolds,  was  present  at  these  conversations.  Mc- 
lieynoids  testified  on  behalf  of  appellants  but  f!:ave 
no  testimony  of  any  such  conversations.  Head  and  Le- 
Stransre  testified  that  the  conversation  was  that  if  the 
policies  were  not  placed  with  the  prospective  policy 
holders  and  were  returned  to  appellee  for  cancella- 
tion, the  premiums  would  be  refunded.  Certain  of  the 
representatives  of 

Pace  3 


appelleo  named  bv  Morp:an  as  havinfj  made  the  state- 
ment testified  on  tiie  tnal  and  denied  making  any 
such  statejiient.  The  contracts  which  were  in  force  at 
this  time  between  appellee  and  all  the  persons  named 
b.v  Morfi;an  were  introduced  in  evidence  and  disclosed 
express  provisions  therein  to  the  effect  that  the  agent 
had  no  power  to  make  any  such  agreements.  Mori-an 
said  he  had  no  personal  knowled^o  of  the  items  listed 
under  the  headin,<>-  "  Li^ncollected  Traveler's  Accounts" 
as  those  thinjys  were  beyond  his  department.  He  also 
said  in  reference  to  this  item  of  set-off,  "I  do  not 
know  as  lo  the  accuracy  0/  the  set-off  here."  Mc- 
Reynolds  also  said  he  knew  nothing  about  the  facts 
relaliny  to  this  item  as  he  just  kept  the  books  for  ap- 
l»ellants.  All  of  tlie  instances  Riven  by  appellants 
when  refunds  were  allowed  them  bv  appellee,  relate 
to  refunds  allowed  after  the  prospects  had  refused  to 
accept  tlie  policies  and  after  their  return  and  con- 
cellation,  and  no  instance  was  given  in  which  the  re- 
turn and  cancellation  did  not  appear. 

The  trial  court  found  against  appellants  on  the 
second  ground  of  set-off  and  entered  judgment 
against  appellants  for  the  sum  of  $1,351.19,  from  which 
judgment  this  appeal  is  taken.  Appellants  did  not  re- 
quest any  findings  of  fact  or  holdings  of  propositions 
of  law  at  the  conclusion  of  the  trial  and  the  court 
louuil  generally  for  appellee. 

Appellants  complain  that  they  were  foreclosed 
from  showing  a  course  of  dealing  between  themselves 
and  appellee  which  would  have  entitled  them  to  com- 
missions upon  other  business  written  for  appellee  by 
f)ther  agents  in  the  City  of  Springfield.  There  was  no 
offer  bv  appellants  of  any  evidence  tending  to  sup- 
port this  contention  upon  the  trial.  Appellants'  coun- 
sel aslied  his  witnesses  certain  questions  to  which  ob- 
jections were  sustained  but  did  not  follow  this  up  by 
making  any  offer  of  proof.  The  action  of  the  court 
in  sustaining  an  objection  to  a  question  cannot  be  re- 
viewed on  a])])eal  in  the  absence  of  an  offer  of  proof. 
(Ittner  Brick  Co  v.  Ashby,  198  111.  565;  Scofield  v. 
Wabash  Ry.  Co.,  214  111.  App.  353;  Gerinffer  v.  No- 
vak, 117  111.  App.  160;  Owens 

Pasce  4 


V .  Gumey,  241  111 .  Ai  >!  > .  477 . )  It  was  contended  by 
appellants  that  the  terms  of  the  contract  were  ambig- 
uous and  that  appellants  were  precluded  from  show- 
ing the  course  of  dealing  between  the  parties  in  order 
to  shed  light  upon  the  construction  of  the  contract 
given  to  it  by  the  parties  to  this  suit.  It  should  be 
sufficient  answer  to  this  contention  to  point  out  that 
appellants,  neither  in  their  abstract  nor  briefs,  have 
seen  fit  to  present  to  this  court  the  terms  of  the  con- 
tract entered  into  between  appellants  and  appellee,  or 
to  enlighten  the  court  as  to  its  ambiguous  terms.  We 
have  examined  tlie  record  and  the  contract  and  are 
satisfied  that  its  terms  are  in  no  manner  ambiguous, 
and  under  such  circumstances  evidence  of  a  prac- 
tical construction  of  a  contract  by  the  parties  is  not 
admissible.  (ShoU  Bros.  v.  P.  &P.  U.  Ry.  Co.,  '276 
111.  267;  Finch  v.  Theiss,  2G7  id.  65;  The  Joliet  Bot- 
tling Co.  V.  The  Brewing  Co.,  254  id.  215.) 

Finding  no  errors  in  the  record  that  will  waiTant 
a  reversal  of  this  .judgment,  the  finding  and  judgment 
of  the  Circuit  Court  of  Sangamon  County  is  affirmed. 

Affirmed., 

Page  5 


.*^' 


/ 


STATE  OF  ILLINOIS. 
APPELLATE.  COUKT 
FOUIiTH  DISTRICT. 


[FOLd© 


FEB  12  1930 

OCTOBER  TERM,  A.  L.  1929.  •'^,e;icCA]\\^0  %^ 

eiIa 


TERM  NO.  5. 


PEOPLE  OP  THE 
STATE  OF  ILLINOIS, 

Defendant  in  Error, 

•  V. 

"'ILLIA!:'  GERMAN, 

Plaintiff  in  Error. 


AG.  NO. 13. 

^ 


256I.A.  615 


ERROR  TO 
FAYETTE  CIRCUIT 
COURT. 


Barry,  P.  J.  -  Plaintiff  in  error  was  convicted  on  charges  of 
possessing  and  ^a^^^^^Hj^y^  intoxicating  liquor.   Prior  to  the 
day  of  trial  he  moved  the  co-urt  to  quasb«4>>e  search  warrant  and 
to  suppress  the  evidence  procured  thereunder.   The  motT^t^fea^-^ 
denied  and  he  now  insists  that  such  ruling  constitutes  reversi- 
ble error.   The  question  has  not  been  properly  preserved.  The 
abstract  does  not  show  that  he  excepted  to  the  ruling  of  the 
court,  and  the  alleged  ejrror  in  that  regard  is  not  refejrred  to 
in  the  motion  for  a  new  trial. 

The  contention  is  that  the  premises  to  be  searched 
were  not  properly  described  in  the  complaint  or  in  the  search 
warrant.   The  description  is  as  foll<''wa;-   "House  and  out- 
buildings being  the  first  premises  or  residence  north  of  the 
National  road  and  east  of  the  road  nanning  north  at  the  school 
house  commonly  called  the  Bluff  City  School  in  Vandalia  township, 
the  said  premises  being  occupied  by  rilllam  German  as  a  residence, 
in  the  county  and  state  aforesaid."   It  is  argued  that  the  first 


-1- 


lOWI: 


OllJP^      ^- 


TOra^ 


,2X.0H    .  -"^    -OS  ^fl^' 


KHT  10  SJ 

nro  aTT2Y;. 


lo  syQiaifo  no  boiotvao  ......  .  irri-al'l  >TTt:'' 

arf;*  lo  jjniXiT-i  fdi  0^  I)9;*q90X9  ad  ^ai2^  worf.:  ctozjid-so 

xio'icoe  orf;t  itJt  lo  ^niclqaoo  ©rW  nl  .b9Cft'i08oi5  ^X'leqotq  don       -^ 

^;^  r;-f.oi  «l.r.flf)nflV  111  Xoorfoo  ^dl  >ffi  fyeXXaa  ^^Inoamroo  aeJcrc 


residence  north  of  the  National  road  and  east  of  the  road  running 
north  at  the  ac}.ool  house  aforesaid,  is  the  property  of  another 
person  and  not  that  of  William  German.   The  property  of  the  other 
person  is  Just  north  of  the  National  road  and  is  about  three  or 
four  hundred  feet  east  of  the  north  and  south  road.   The  residence 
of  plaintiff  in  error  is  six  or  seven  hundred  feet  north  of  the 
National  road  and  Just  east  of  the  north  and  south  road.   The 
description  in  the  complaint  and  in  the  search  warrant  expressly 
states  that  the  premises  referred  to  were  occupied  by  plaintiff 
in  error  as  a  residence.  That  being  true  the  sheriff  v/ould 
hare  no  difficulty  in  finding  the  premises  referred  to. 

A  search  warrant  stiff Iciently  described  the  place 
to  be  searched  if  it  points  out  a  definitely  ascertainable  place 
in  terms  of  reasonable  certainty  so  as  to  enable  the  officer  with 
reasonable  effort,  to  identify  the  place,  and  a  technical  descrip- 
tion of  the  place  is  not  reqtiired;   People  ▼.  Holton,  326  111.481; 
People  ▼.  Lavendowski,  320  111,  223. 

It  is  argued  t'^at  there  was  no  competent  eridence 
that  the  liquor  fotuid  in  the  search  contained  more  than  one-half 
of  one  percent  of  alcohol  by  volume.  The  officers  testified, 
without  objection,  that  they  were  familiar  with  the  taste  and 
smell  of  intoxicating  liquor  and  that  they  tasted  the  liqnor  in 
question  and  that  in  their  opinion  it  contained  at  least  three 
or  four  percent  of  alcohol  by  volume.   If  plaintiff  in  error 
thought  that  the  witnesses  were  not  stifficiently  qualified  to 
express  an  opinion  on  the  subject,  he  should  have  objected  to 
their  testimony.  Not  having  done  so  he  is  in  no  position  to 
complain.  At  least  two  witnesses  testified  that  plaintiff  in 
error  told  them  that  he  and  his  wife  had  made  the  liquor. 

It  is  argued  that  the  court  erred  in  refusing  to 
give  plaintiff  in  error's  first  refused  instruction.   In  the  state 
of  the  proof  there  ia  no  reasonable  doubt  as  to  Lhe  defendant's 
gtiilt.   The  Jury  acting  as  reasonable  men  could  not  have  reached 
any  other  conclusion.   It  is  xmnecessary  to  decide  whether  the  in- 
struction stated  a  correct  rule  of  law.  N©  reversible  error  having 

-2- 


leuio  9fil^  1o  x^rceqo^  sdT       .aaitcxax)  rnslXIl-    '^.o  :tarfi   iofi  f>nn  jnoaieq 

•to  0£T«xre   c^utKto  al  bee  AjNTt  ImmoHb^  ©ri^  1o  lid'iojct  cfcut  si  uoeioq 

eoneiJisa*!  arfT     .JbBon  rido-oe  f;xis  diiOA  ©xW  i^o  c^bbb  :t39l  fieibmrd  "xirol 

erfT       .iJBO"'  na  dd'ioa  erf^  lo  :t8B9  ;tarjt  has  bnot  laaoldBVi 

,0.;  ii&'x .  s8J-js£©-^q  ©rii  aix-fcbnliJ:  jkI  x^LxrolVilb  oa  9rAci 

©03lq  erfi  fe©dlio.^9iD  t-^JKe^t^  ■ '^'^^''8  ;tafi'x'CBw  xloiseB    ••, 

©oBlq  3ldBal.3ii;s>oa3  xlo^lsill'ab  a  cfsro  e^jsxoq  d^l  11  BoiidrsBea  ad  o.t 

dilw  •£©j>i:11:o  3dd  aXcfjscs  od-  as  os  "^iiils^iso  ©XiiBCfOBBai    iio  ajcre^^s  al 

-q.trt©e?5J>  XaoXfir^osct  £i  ijjrra   ,9iKi«Xq  odd-  vlld:£r©l>l  oi   ^o-TOlld  eldanoeR^^t 

jXS^.J-II  0S5  ,fl:od-XoH   .T  slqosl        ^bsilwpai  d-oa  ai  ooaXq  srii  lo  colcf 

,SS2  .1X1  OSS  ^MBv/obnavBd   .v  aXqool 
sonsblTs*  ;fGS';JsQffsoo  on  ssw  ©rr©  l»eis-3''i-i3  si:  il 

,|3t9Xlld^89.  -aoioq  ono 

i 
baft  eie.«;J  afi:t  iltfjtw  •jaxXiissl  ai^^  ''liooldo  ^isjod-.' 

^oTrfvt   :^8i3©X  :^j3  b-)alR-^r  ::ohilqo  il&di  al  isdi  baa  nol^eesjrp 

toils  ill  TllSitLaLq  Ti      .^m/IOY   ■;;o'  XoiiooXe  lo  ;^iiaoi9q  nuol 

i>^  ba;t03{;tXo  ssvori  bluods.  od  ^idQ^fiEcii  drfst  no  iiolnlqo  xx/t  S8©'^i<p:» 

ai  "^IXixilisXq  v+an^  botti^iBB^  BescaiiJXvjf  ow;t  *e>. .-  .       -Iqiaoo 

oci'  ?^Bi/t&u  al  b^'vie  iram^  9sii  iadj  b&tr^'XM  aX  dl 

oiiaj  aiA©^  c  •■ioiia  nX  llXicXuX 

•i'i.«>asa«>t'iWi«f  &tx  Ji      .noXsjErXgJSOo  tQdiso   -^a 

^.o:Xv-i;i  '.LO-r'-xo   j.^uX;;  wv«i»'S  t,A      .vvbX  lo   gXxfj  cJoe-r'SOO  u  boi&i»  nolizns' 


been  pointed  <mt  the  judgaent  is  affirmed. 


yf  X  KfWTBXSL . 


-3- 


.O-v.Tt"^'^-         "■   '      •tif^-r'TCitjtiT 


,-)Cf 


TEKW  NO.  18. 


OLIVER  MARTIN, 

Appellee, 

V. 

AHMOim  &  COrPATfy, 
Appellant* 


STATE  OP  ILLINOIS. 
APPELLATE  COURT. 
FOURTH  DISTRICT. 

October  Term,  A.  L.  1929. 


m 

Iiyp".  Cr  THE  H>^f'.:,.-Cc  .      r  ^ 


AG.    KG.    22. 


APPEAL  FROU 


256  I.A.  61^ 


r 


ST.  CLAIR  CIRCUIT 
COUI^T. 


Barry,  P.  J.  -  Appellee  recovered  a  verdict  and  JudcBient  for  [^1500. 00 
for  Injxiries  sustained  in  an  automobile  collision  on  June  27,  1928. 
He  v?a3  riding  in  a  Buick  car  ovmed  and  driven  by  his  son.  They  were 
going  in  a  southerly  direction  on  a  cinder  road  aouth  of  Venice  when 
the  accident  occurred.  There  is  a  street  car  track  along  and  upon 
the  east  edge  of  the  road  and  the  road  vest  of  the  vjest  rail  of  the 
street  car  track  is  18  or  20  feet  wide.  That  portion  of  the  high- 
way east  of  the  street  car  track  is  in  no  condition  for  vehicular 
traffic  and  is  not  traveled.  The  collision  occurred  in  the  early 
morning  dxiring  the  existence  of  a  very  dense  fog.  The  lights  on 
the  Buick  car  were  burning  and  appellee  sr.ys  the  car  was  three  or 
four  feet  from  the  west  edge  of  the  road  just  before  the  collision, 
but  he  coxild  not  aay  where  it  was  at  the  tire  of  the  impact.   He 
says  nothing  about  the  speed  of  the  car  or  that  of  appellant's 
truck.  In  fact  he  says  he  did  not  see  the  truck  until  after  the 
collision. 

Appellee's  son  says  the  Buick  was  nine  feet  ■vi?est 
of  the  west  rail  of  the  street  car  track  and  about  three  f e' t  from 


-1- 


3:i 


'■10 

ITAT". 

.  ''"^< 

xhTcJXc 

-fi 

eT 

rtedb  d^^0 

"^SA" 


K/ 


^ 


<rv 


•'J 


OTOiilfl 


.6S6I    ^VS.  aatiT.  xio  iioialXIoo  dlxtfOasoctifB  a«  al  fe^aiBi^awe   *a«>i-iiii,iil 

9iii  Jo  llBi  ifi9v  edi  lo  *a®w  i)f5orc  &tii  bjasi  bsot  9ff«  lo  e^bc  ^bb©  art 

-rfS-ttl  oil;f  to  xiolctioq  d.8ifT      .tjfilw  ^test  OS  to  81  el  :ri:ojB^-J  'ijjo  ctf!>an* 

TflliroJt/faT  io1  rroic^iiJiroo  on  xii  ei-  iCoijict  ijio   :t9»i:t«  ©rf;t  lo  i9se  x"* 

XltAo  s-di  al  I>9iitrooo  xsoleiXXoo  ©ifT      .boXgyBTct   cfoix  el  Jbrus  olllai 

no  zid^tl  orfT     .sol  osnel)  v^ev  s  'lo  ©oneJelxo  arf;?  gxii'xwf*  gnlnio 

lo  9«i^:t   SAW  niso  ««f;t  a-^iSB  oollaqqi?  i>iifi  snl.aiiKf  eiow  tso  alo/j/3  ©rf 

,jioJ:    ■  '".      oci^  aoolacf  ^eirt  6i«0'x  ©rf.-*  lo  «>5f>©   5»9w  ei^^  soil  ctoo'^  i:i/o 

..aa(imx  3   smvr  il  sierftr  x«o   ^«>^  blaoo   zd  Ju 

^'  .1^    'lo  X3C  odi  lo  fyjeqa  ^di  rfifoda  s^ridJ  on   e^B 

ortt   *:;.'    :;^   ,.:;!.•  2iirr,r»ij   t»ii;t  aes  iort  fcxb  eil  a^Be   &d  do.3l  nl      .  iojrt 

.ncltil   Xo 
■v»Ii.3qqA 
■'■'•'  •■•^■-■"    ^'--"   ■^o::'-M   'tno  .T>.:r-:Ja   srf;:^  lo  Ita-^  cfee. 

-I- 


the  west  edge  of  the  road  when  the  collision  occxirred.   On  direct 
examination  he  sa^s  th  collision  knocked  his  c  cv   back  three  feet. 
On  cross  examination  he  says  the  tmck  must  have  been  going  pretty 
fast  to  k'lock  his  car  six  feet.  V.a   says  he  saw  the  truck  about 
three  seconds  before  the  impact  and  it  v.as  then  from  six  to  ten 
feet  a^ead  of  his  ear.   That  his  car  was  not  on  the  street  car 
track  until  after  the  collision,   vhen  asked   how  the  truck  got 
on  the  street  car  track  he  said  it  drove  aroxind  to  the  right  of 
his  car  after  the  collision. 

Bie  driver  of  appellant's  truck  says  his  lights 
were  not  burning  and  that  the  fog  was  ^o  dense  lights  would  do 
no  good;   that  he  was  driving  north  astride  the  west  rail  of  the 
street  car  track  and  was  in  that  position  at  the  tine  of  the  lir- 
pactj   that  he  was  driving  six  or  eight  irdles  an  hota*  and  saw 
the  Buick  coming  toward  him  when  fifteen  or  tv/enty  feet  away 
and  that  It  v/r.a  also  astride  the  .-.est  rail  of  the  street  car 
track;   that  it  was  going  about  trrcnty  miles  per  hour;   that  he 
applied  his  brakes  as  soon  as  he  saw  the  Buick  car  and  was  practi- 
cally slopped  when  the  impact  occurred.  TTe  says  that  after  the 
collision  lie  backed  up  to  pull  the  machines  apart;   that  when  he 
drove  away  there  was  no  room  to  pass  on  the  east  side  of  the 
Bxiick  and  he  passed  on  the  west  side. 

The  witness  Owen  was  driving  a  truck  and  was  two 
hundred  or  Lhroe  hundred  feet  back  of  appellant's  truck  when  the 
collision  occurred.   He  says  he  drove  up  to  the  scene  of  the  accident 

and  found  the  right  v.heelB  of  appellant's  truck  and  the  left  liind 

the 
wheels  of  the  Buick  between  /rails  of  the  street  car  track.   Another 

witness  was  driving  a  biuck  and  at  the  time  of  the  irpact  was  about 

twenty  feet  behind  ap  ellant'k  truck.  He  says  he  stopped,  left  his 

tinxck  and  walked  around  appellant's  truck  and  its  right  wheels  and 

the  left  wheels  of  the  Buick  were  between  the  rails  of  the  street 

car  track;   that  the  machines  were  driven  together  and  the  driver 

of  appellant's  truck  reversed  and  parted  them. 

It  clearly  appears  from  the  testimony  of  the  three 

truck  drivers  that  iirmedlately  after  the  collision  the  Buick  and 

-2- 


iOBilii  «C      Jb»n -07300  acts.  11  Loo  srii  rndvt  baon  9di  lo  ©she  in^t   srf; 

,;*««1  »««trf*  2fj>ftcf  13  0  elrf  Jb^^JOonsT  nolsIIXoo   >xli  ezsa  eri  «o±J«iHitt8Xi 

Xi^^tq  sa-lt^S  «'3«<^  ©v'srf  *®~-'  ^''^  ^^^^  ®^  ooiiBalniBxe  ssoto  n< 

^ifode  ilofii  od&  vrz  e.     .  .  .doal  xls  lao  elri  :rfoor,:i  oct  f»B' 

co^  o3  xffe  rnoiT:  nsxi^J  a^w  cJJt  £)iSB  d-o.s<ii!3:l  9d:i  siolscf  fifinoo^e  aatrf; 

150  3»o-i:f8  orf:f  no  Ion  a«w  t&o  &M  iBdT        .ifio  aJtrf  lo  i3&9'''M  iee' 

io3  jfounct  arW  wor£       f>3?iritB  n^rfv      .no±«lXIoo  edi  t9i1&  Ilinff  ioBt; 

lo  d'i'ji'c  o.fj  o;J  bfl/rorLS  svotb  cJ^i:  bias  9d  jlo/std-  liio  rfaortis'  6rf;t  a 

.jnolelXIoo  9ii;t  ^^c^lj8  tso  e.ti 

ob  blown  ziiio^ll  eano.o  o,^  esw  gol  -^.c^  :?Jsrf;t  £)iia  ^atttrak(S  Son  s>*t^ 

&di  lo  £l&*t  tea*  difcf  ©bi^icJes  rfd-ion.  8nX1ri«i&  asw  ©if  d'arii     jfeoc 

-ml  erfd-  lo   anli  orfd'  ;Jjb  noivJlaoq  ^sdi  at  saw  £u3b  :^ec'r:^   tso   >t-i2>«ii: 

Wfia  6iis  laori  im  aallrn  ^trisXe  io  xt«  sniTlntf)  <.-  ; +33i 

XBW2  ifssl  Y*n9w.t  '10  xi0©ctlli  ioarfw 'rairf'6*r«^  jteJttfS 

TU33  :ioei:f8   s/fj   lo  IIbt  ^taav  arfi  Qbl's^jnc  oali-    :^  11  d'lififif  tut. 

Qd  isdii      {itiod  ibq  sollcr  \;J-n'-'"^   ^/Tori'.;^  £r^ '^orj,  cxiv;  :il  iBdi      j'jfoan 

-  Id^oa'xq  sjg  Id  ilolira  ©rfd-  w  iaijsid  eld  bstJ'^j. 

orfcf  lo  ojble  d&Jiry  9di  no  eesq  oj  rmo'. 

,oi>x3   d^sDv;  ejli  ao  6oassq  e.  olw. 

ow;t  ajcw  boB  iLorrx^   .a  saivlib  t&m  aowO  8a«ii;tlw  ©ffl 

e/lw  aodw  iIoju"icf  a'ifnalXoqqjj  lo  jiojsd  itsel  bertfirmrf  9«^J  io  ^oitnoj 

ioBblooa  Qdti  lo  9i29«a  srfct  oi  qjj  jvo-xt)   3r[  eY\3a  e'd     ,b9f.'xsxooo  aoiaXXXa 

biiXii  ^dX  oficf  i)ij«  jloinJ   a'^ooXXeq'  b   lo   alot^r.^   id^li  odd  onr.rol  fim 

•xerf^ooA      .3(oaii  lao  is»i;:^8   od-i  lo  aXxotX  naewctscf  -jloXjra  &d:>  )©ff^ 

iiroJa  aaw  ^oaqi-fl  arfi  lo  «inl;f  orf*  ;fi)  bns  jloirij   b  gclviTi)  saw  aaoncJJti 

elxi  ;tldX   ,£»aQqo;J8   arf  a^Aa  eH     .iTay-ict  d'^uaXXa  qjg  fwtlrietf  i&&'l  ■(Jnam 

^^  *-^~  '•-'''•  biLu  :Aoss-x:t  a'dinallaaqB   biTj^'-cfl   f)9>fl»s«r  6n«    ;io,frr. 

i^vl**)    idA  baa  TtorW^soi  naviiJj   :>    jw  aonlrfoaar  efl,  ja^oai;* 

•  irierfi  bo;iisq[  baa  ^everjisvs'i  ifoin^f  a'cfctsllaqq. 
96idi  odi  Tt»  t^OfflJt^a^  ©ifcf  Monl  uijaeqqa  xI'i^^'QXa  J I 

iKia  -Aolsja  9d:i  aolalLloo  edi  lo^la  x^-SfiBlbomil  &Bd;i   ci»vl-i£)  ioin; 


appellant's  truck  were  astride  the  west  rail  of  the  street  car  track. 
Appellee's  son  says  the  Bxilck  was  not  on  the  track  until  after  the 
collision.  He  does  not  say  that  it  was  there  liTjnedlately  following 
the  impact  or  that  It  v/cs  th^re  as  a  result  of  the  collision.   If 
the  Bulck  was  nine  feet  west  of  the  v/est  rail  of  the  street  car 
track  when  the  collision  occurred  and  the  impact  knocked  It  back 
three  or  six  feet  as  appellee's  son  testifi  c,  it  is  difficult  to 
understand  how  both  vehicles  could  be  astride  the  west  rail  of  the 
street  car  track  iirtcediately  after  the  impact.  If  the  collision 
was  head-on  as  all  the  witnesses  said,  we  cannot  see  how  both 
▼ehiclea  could  be  in  the  position  they  were  iiranediately  after  the 
irpact.   There  is  no  conllict  in  the  evidence  as  to  the  position 
of  the  vehicles  at  that  time.   Appellee  offered  no  evidence  to 
show  why  they  should  be  in  that  po  ition. 

In  the  state  of  the  proof  we  would  not  be  warranted 
in  affiinning  the  j-udjmer.t.   It  is  therefore  reversed  and  the  cause 
remanded . 

REVERSED  AHD  REI^AIIDED. 


yU4/(:i^  ijt^^iA^f^ 


-3- 


rl  oT^'  \.   -  iofs  a^o^  sK     .aolailX© 

r-a'v'T:  c  -ii  8J3W  ii  iadS  to  ;^«taqaxi  ori 

.     crasw  dlft*^  eaic  sbw  vCotuH  »d 

.  j>aa  fw3tixfOd«  flolailloo  0x1;*  xtddir  afoan 

_i:W«9;t  ffoo   8'30lX9rqqj8  ass  ct^al  xl«   10  said 

aoli.^Tr>c_    -^rfc^   oi  se   sofr  o.^v©  &d:i  at  ^aiXT.flOO  Oii  aX  ©t:c.  :".qT 

--^  rrJ^  9<f  bXuorfe  "^©f^;?  -^jftr  smr 
asuBs')  .         rjiitft  ®^*  gnt-nrix-'Jls  r 


xjoir 


TT5RM  1T0.U5* 


AGBITDA  NO.   35. 


In  The 
JLATE   COURT   01?  ILLINOIS 
Fourth  District 

Od-OBBR   TERM,    A.   D.    1929, 


[p 


L 


E' 


u, 


BTMARD  MORGMSTERN  and 
SYBIL  MORGETISTERII , 

Appellees, 

vs. 

MISSISSIPPI    GOAL 
CORPORATIOTT, 


FEB  12  1930 


riERK  Olr  THE  4Pf>£Li;>Tt  C30RT 
F     'JPTH  DISTRICT  OF  (f  .fjl 

Appeal  from  the  Circuit 
Court  of  Perry  County. 


Hon.  Jesse  R.  Brown, 
Judse  Presiding. 


Appellant. 

OPimOIT  BY  HEWHALL,   J. 


256  I.A.  616 


This  is  an  appeal  from  a  decree  corecting  the  description  of 
lands  in  an  option  agreement  executed  by  the  parties  in  which  it  was 
claimed  that  there  was  a  mutual  mistalce  with  reference  to  the 
description. 

Appellees  owned  one  hundred  and  twenty  acres  of  land  in  Perry 
County,  forty  acres  in  Section  35  known  as  the  "Home  Place"  and 
eii^hty  acres  in  Section  20  known  as  the  "Canrpbell  Eighty." 
Appellant,  throupih  its  a/:^ents,  was  procuring  options  for  the  purchase 
of  coal  lands  in  Perry  County  and  one  Cralloway  was  its  asent  and 
representative  in  that  behalf.   In  June,  1927,  Gallov/ay  interviewed 
appellee,  Edward  Mbrgenstem,  stating  that  he  desired  an  option  for 
the  benefit  of  appellant  on  all  of  appellees'  lands,  and  Morgenstem 
agreed  to  give  an  option  on  the  Campbell  Eighty  but  refused  to  option 
the  forty  acre  Home  Place.   As  a  result  of  the  interview  it  was 
agreed  between  G-alloway,  who  was  then  acting  as  agent  for  appellant, 
i TTH I  In  was  to  go  to  the  home  of  appellees*  and  get  from  the  wife  of 
liforgenstem  certain  tax  receipts  in  order  to  procure  a  correct  des- 
cription of  the  Campbell  Eighty  to  be  inserted  in  the  option  which 


1. 


/ 


■     STTAJJ 


ii3-) 


.9^u 


Z2 


Jill  'Jt^C  T31HT3K1 


v;r^w-C    ^'i-ii>S:  Iv   J'OoroC  ^      ,.:399iX&C[qii 


JaOC    1' 


•^Sf 


XH 


U 


io  rioxiqj;n&esl>  SJi;f  sai;?s9aoo   as^odb  Si  moil  i^ogq.^  ■   ::  i 

OBfiroiwq  9rl;f  io*i  anoxic;©  jscit/joo'/q;  bbw  ^ad-xie^jii  ,ac"x  xfeL^cox;?   «^trijil.«q^ 

(roi;^HO  oJ  l.»ea^.ert  iisii  \,*x£jiirt  lidcfqis^O   ert:?  no  noid-qo  xjs  svivj  o.t  Beats* 
'    -■' >v  Qjli  c!0il  ie-  '^saiiegqc  lo  smoxi  Si3[;r  oi«-  os  ^i  bjbw  sctsSsi^ 


,.1' 


was  si'^ed  in  blank  "by  Morgenstem.   Galloway  testified  that  he  did 
not  have  any  agreement  with  appellees  to  option  the  Home  Forty;  that 
he  went  to  the  home  of  appellees'  and  procured  certain  descriptions 
from  the  tax  receipts  furnished  by  Tirs.  Morgenstem;  that  throu^^h  his 
error  and  mistake  he  inserted  in  the  option  a  description  of  lands 
which  included  the  "Home  Forty",  and  at  the  time  he  supposed  he  was 
only  inserting  a  description  of  the  "Campbell  Hitijhty."   Morgenstem 
had  been  acquainted  with  Galloway  for  several  years  and  relied  upon 
him  to  insert  the  proper  description  of  lands  that  appellees  had 
aj^reed  to  give  an  option  for.   The  option  called  for  eighty  acres, 
which  was  the  amount  of  land  appellees  had  agreed  to  option  and 
Morgenstem  testified  he  was  willing  at  any  time  to  carry  out  the 
option  that  Galloway  and  he  had  intended  to  make  covering  the  eighty 
acres  in  Section  20.   The  evidence  shows  that  the  so-called  "Home 
Forty"  was  situated  about  four  miles  from  the  "Csunpbell  Eighty",  being 
improved  and  actually  worth  much  more  than  the  price  agreed  upon  in  the 
option  contract.   The  testimony  is  undisputed  that  the  forty  acre 
tract  in  Section  35  was  not  to  be  optioned.   Morgenstem  did  not  see 
the  option,  after  the  description  had  been  inserted  by  Galloway,  and 
he  first  learned  that  the  Home  Place  had  been  included,  through  error, 
when  he  received  a  letter  from  appellant,  advising  that  the  option 
would  be  accepted  and  that  appellant  was  willing  to  pay  the  purchase 
price  of  eight  thousand  dollars  for  all  of  the  one  hundred  and  twenty 
acres  of  land.   At  the  time  of  the  execution  of  the  option,  although 
the  agreement  recited  the  receipt  of  one  dollar  consideration  for  the 
same,  the  evidence  shows  no  money  in  fact  was  paid  to  appellees. 

The  bill  of  complaint  charges  that  a  mutual  mistake  was  made  and 
prays  that  the  option  contract  may  be  reformed  to  correct  the  mutual 
mistake  of  the  parties  made  in  the  eBecution  thereof  and  pgayg  that 
the  same  may  be  reformed  to  correctly  describe  the  premises  Intended  to 


2. 


bib  9ii  *«ri;^  b9iJiiee&  x-*=«w«II«0       ^r^s^srrojiiol^  x^  ^r<£ld  ni  bercpia   j3.bw 

eld  jiB«0^^  ujBfii'    {rri^^crfegioM    .biM  ^cF  fcSidexnit!^  stqisos^  xb*   erCd  ffioil 
J-.^qliOBS^  B  nQk&<io  ed&  fix  bed-rsani  sxi  eH&^Qim  Lrus  totts 

noq*T  baiisi  bos  e5jb«^  laieevaB  10^  ^-^'^^''^-f'SD  lidiN/'  bQ;iiitsapo&  naed  b^ 
JuBff  aseXIe^CE«  isiii  abtml   Jo  c^tfiqi'scaek  isqoTq,  9xC*  tissitl  e#  iniri 

I)XSB  rioictq:©  oi  ba^t'BB  bmi  eeelXBqq^a  bn&I  'tc  ^nijoi&s  eri*  ebw  rfoixftr 
Q£i&  itso  -^"STso  oj  SK5;15-  vfTs  iff?  gaiXIiw  a.B«r  sff  i>6i'5-icf5&*  m:ec^8^©s10lff 

'^iecf  (♦'■^figiS  ilscfcTsisO*'   srf*  ao'sc^  aeiiis  -axfcl  *i;o<te  bs&sutis  asw  w-^^io"? 
©ii^  nl  xToqj/  i)»9isa  ooi^:?  Sii^  njscfJ  snoia  rsojam  ilJ^ow  'jJ^Isxr^o*  feraa  Bovomptt 

©ee   ;ton  X>iJb  irB&iSffe^ioM        ..bsnol^qo  stT  ej  ;J-cn  b^w  5€   Pfcl:*098  ni  *o«rr;t 
btm  eY>swoiX*0  -^cf  IbeJ-sss/ri  iTffl«tf  b&d  mifqliOBQi^  sxf*  -SusSvfi^  ,n©i;?<jo  srfi- 

/jOlJqo   «{*  .-tarid   anl:8ivi)jB  ,^ri£;IIeq<i«  soi'5:  'f9t;fel  a  bevleooi  erf  nsiSw 

Xi-itcwu   i)ne  i-Difcrnri!  ano  9xi*  lo  lijs  t»^  BrseXXofo  l)R»«j;fon*  *iiS-ts  ^o  ooxiq 

+«fli  DX^m  firm  "iootUMiif   ncx^J-Moeao  £r»  tft  ©fjjani  asi:fijBq  eri;^  1^«  «rs*eiJiB 


"be  optioned  by  the  said  parties. 

The  answer  of  appellant  denied  the  material  allegations  of  the 
bill. 

The  oause  was  referred  to  a  TIaster  to  take  proofs  and  report  his 
conclusions  of  law  and  fact  and,  after  a  hearing,  the  Master  found  the 
iaauea  in  favor  of  appellant  and  recommended  dismissal  of  the  bill. 
Objections  and  exceptions  v;ere  filed  to  the  Master's  report  and  the 
Court,  on  the  hearing  of  the  exceptions,  sustained  the  same  and  entered 
a  decree  in  favor  of  appellees. 

The  decree  finds  that  "alloway  acted  as  agent  for  appellant  and 
appellees  in  the  writing  in  of  the  description  of  the  premises  included 
in  said  option  contract;  that  by  mistalce  of  the  said  Galloway  the  said 
forty  acre  tract,  Imown  as  the  "Home  Place",  was  erroneously  written 
into  the  option  contract  and  that  this  mistake  was  the  mutual  mistake 
of  appellant  and  appellees  and  decreed  that  the  option  contract  be 
reformed  by  the  elimination  therefrom  of  the  description  of  said  forty 
acre  tract. 

Appellant  contends  that  Galloway  was  the  agent  of  appellees  in  the 
writing  in  of  the  erroneous  description  in  the  option  contract,  and 
under  these  circumstances,  it  could  not  be  said  that  the  mistake  of 
Galloway  was  a  mutual  mistake  of  both  parties  to  the  contract.   The 
proof  is  undisputed  that  Galloway  was  acting  as  agent  for  appellant  in 
the  securing  of  this  option  contract.   The  evidence  shows,  and  it  is 
conceded  by  appellant,  tlaat  a  mistake  was  made  by  Galloway  in  writing 
in  an  erroneous  description  of  the  particular  property  which  appellees 
had  agreed  to  give  an  option  thereon  to  appellant.   Galloway  was  acting 
as  agent  in  the  securing  of  the  option,  and  in  the  writing  in  of  the 
description,  it  is  cleax  that  he  was  acting  as  agent  for  both  parties. 
The  mistake  of  a  person  acting  as  the  agent  of  both  parties  to  a  contrat 


3. 


.?; 


may  be  mutual  30  aa  to  warrant  correction  "by  a  court  of  equity. 
V/arrick  v.  Smith,  137  111.  504;   34  Gyc.  919. 

A  court  of  equity  will  reform  a  deed,  or  other  inatruiaent  of 
writing,  upon  the  ground  of  raistaJro,  providing  the  followinc:  is 
shown  by  the  evidence:  first,  that  the  mistake  was  one  of  fact  and 
not  of  law;  seccmd,  that  the  proof  clearly  and  convincingly  shows 
that  a  mistake  was  made;  and  third,  tb^t  the  nxistalK  was  mutual  and 
common  to  both  parties  to  the  instrument.   Skelly  v.  Brach,  305  111. 
126.   The  mistake  in  this  case  was  one  of  fact  and  it  Is  undisputed 
that  a  mistake  was  made  by  Calloway  in  copying  into  the  option  a-^ree- 
ment  in  question  an  erroneous  description  whereby  certain  lands  were 
inserted  in  the  contract  which  had  not  been  intended  by  the  parties 
to  be  placed  therein. 

Cotinsel  for  appellant  urp;e  that  the  mistake  made  by  Galloway, 
arose  out  of  the  negligence  of  appellees,  in  permitting  appellant's 
a;;ent  to  write  into  the  option  agreement  a  description  after  appellees 
had  sif^ned  the  option  agreement  in  blank  and  delivered  the  same  to 
Galloway.   The  proof  shows  that  appellees  had  no  knowledge  that 
Galloway  had  inserted  an  erroneous  description,  until  sometime  after 
the  making  of  the  contract  when  appellant  sought  to  avail  Itself  of 
the  provisions  of  the  option,  and  when  appellees  then  discovered  the 
mistake  an  immediate  effort  was  made  on  their  part  to  have  the 
mistake  corrected.   Appellant  declined  to  correct  the  mistake  and 
sought  to  take  advantage  of  the  error  and  mistake  of  their  agent, 
Galloway. 

The  rule  is,  that  negligence,  to  bar  the  reformation  of  a  deed 
in  case  of  mutual  mistake,  must  be  so  gross  as  to  amount  to  a 
violation  of  a  positive  legal  duty.   Estoppel  does  not  arise  where 
the  act  of  the  party  sought  to  be  estopped  was  due  to  Ignorance  by 
reason  of  an  Innocent  mistake.   It  is  also  a  necessary  element  of 


4. 


,\&lupB  lo  iijsoc  s  y^  t^iicQTioot review  oi  as  oc  Xmitam  ©tf  -<(«■ 

,111  c(S5  ,rft?8^5r  .''  "^c-  .onefflxf?3-©n4  &iii  oi  e9l:iT£»q  n'tec'  o^  aossano 

to^irqeibraj  si  j±  fjfic  sosx  le   sno  ««■»  sesa   ^ifl*  xri  KasteiiB  ariT        »&Si 

^%^-yfcil^:  X'S  ■esism  s^n^^s^iie  ^&  i^t  9?!^/  iefsliociq.£  lo'l  iseciiroO 
*■ ' 3^:s6iieg«i:»  :; ri:* tiar^sq:  ifl  «s«»Xl9«ls:£  le  soj^ejmjsfi  9iii  lo  .tiro  oeoxs 

od   a»!i£s  9tii  i>©TSTiXei)  Jena  j^tafcld  Pfi  ^iiesjeeisa  x^ox^go  exid  f>»ns-ta  fuacf 
>i^.   -•  s-xoveoeifl  i-iwi'v   aaslXeqqs  xjsifir  ^ru??  ^m^ttcp  eiLi  !:»  sitoxetve^q  erf* 

-Ur.i  f.   ,.j  rrcij^ic-io'iau  Oil.t  tLsd"  o&  ,sonorxi«a«  ^aa^r  tsx   oixn:  erfff - 

o4  ^raroHB  o;t  bxs  eo«7;^  ea  s<f  dsiaii  jS^jsiBXEi  laxfifiBa  lo  ©&bo   .^x 


estoppel  that  the  party  relying  upon  the  representations  nade  was 
mislead  to  his  injury  and  suffered  loss  of  a  substantial  character, 
or  has  been  induced  to  alter  hia  position  for  a  worse  in  some  material 
respect.   Skelly  v.  Ersch,  supra.   In  this  case  appellant  never 
paid  any  money  on  the  option  in  question,  with  the  exception  that 
appellees  acinowledf^ed  the  receipt  of  onedollar  as  consideration,  and 
the  evidence  does  not  show  that  appellant  has  suffered  any  loss  or 
injuiTr  by  reason  of  the  alleged  making  of  the  contract  in  question. 
This  case  does  not  involve  in  any  way  the  rights  or  interests  of 
innocent  third  persons,  and  it  ia  highly  inequitable  and  unjust  to 
order  appellees  to  sell  to  appellant  lands  that  they  had  not  Intended 
to  sell  and  whicl:.  appellant*s  agent  had  not  intended  to  buy.   It  is 
clearly  inequitable  and  unjust  to  permit  appellant  to  take  advantage 
of  the  error  and  mistake  of  its  agent  in  view  of  all  the  admitted 
facts  shown  by  this  record.   It  has  long  be«n  settled  law  that  a 
court  of  chancery  may  reform  a  written  instrument  so  as  to  correctly 
state  the  agreement  of  the  parties.   Sallo  v.  Boas,  327  111.  145. 
The  knowledge  of  the  facts  by  an  agent,  contracting  business  for  a 
corporation,  is  the  knowledge  of  the  corporation  and  his  acts  are  the 
acts  of  the  company.   ]?ranklln  Life  Ins.  Go.  v.  The  People,  200  111. 
619. 

The  last  contention  of  appellant  for  reversal  is  that  the  decree 
was  erroneous  in  eliminating  from  the  option  the  description  of  the 
forty  acres  in  question.   The  bill  prayed  for  this  relief  and  we  find 
that  the  evidence  was  sufficient  to  support  the  decree,  and  if 
appellant  was  desirous  of  having  the  description  reformed  so  as  to 
correctly  describe  the  so-called  "Campbell  Eighty •♦  it  should  have  filed 
a  cross-bill  asking  for  this  relief.   It  appears  from  the  record  that 
appellees  were  ready  and  willing  to  comply  with  the  terms  of  the  option 
so  fftr  as  the  so-called  "Campbell  Eighty"  was  concerned,  and  it  appears 


5. 


\s^&('ae  s  J.C  BEoX  Jjs-relljare  5ns  ^jrtirtxrrJ:  elrf  o;f  f^aeXaJba 

^«  sscX  vfuB  ^&i®l'  .iiM?J:l9^q.£  ^Jsii^  "W-oxfa  #ok  eeofc  9on©l)J:v©  ediJ^ 

3ii;j-  x-BT^ru?  rJ  srvieval  f©ft  esc/;  ©i3£o   exrfT 
o:*  OCX-  c  '^ifi?si^  ei  .tl  ijfits   tSr!caT;«|  MM#  drfsooiorl 

ei:  *I        ."(x-c  -rsi-iTi  ton  hs£i  &Tf9gs  B*ifi£.ri&^£  /ioidnf  bos  II«e  o* 

^•S^MjBfcs  srf*  11©  *i€'  irftii  ft>  d-fTfes*  **!  ^«  ssfa^eiis  ferae  50tcis  ^d^  1o 

■^*o»TrKK)  03-  8«  ©s  *ffa<2jrt#aRi  .ti®t^l's?&'  s  anc«t«^  YjBfc  -^etifaRrfo  ^©  *rr«eo 
•  a^f  ..£11  VS5   ,r-co8:  »v  oIIff£        .esi^^tx^  9A&  19  ^ftftctee'S^^e  eild  ©ojsd- 
seuiufM  5.r**iff>.Qi^ffeG   ,iraes«  'ess  i(;<J  etoal  ©if*  !:«►  e?J)©iw>£Qi  exl' 

.111  OOS   ,»i'-:  xij   niI5£itfiT^        .v«j:iIKiod   ©/{*  to  e^fis 

■2  eii(jf  I'jQ^  XI  f  ,roJt*eojtfp  irl  B«»rtos  ■^j*'70l 

.'t  «Mtj  ;Jro<sqjf.9  ot  Sneioillvv,  e&v  ecnefcxv©  erl*  trd& 

'•-'■*'*   ^  *^  "Y^rfrlE  XXsifOTjsO"    bsXXjsoMBB  €»K;t   9crliOB©l)  Y-T^ei^c 

<r\iiiXIirar  6r-e  ijfcpiai  ortsw  eseXX&qr; 
'■^'  caw  «yjri:?i:5j:  ilorfcomst)*'   JbaXX£o-oe  erf*  ae  rtiBi:  r 


from  the  record  that  appellant  did  not  wish  to  exercise  its  option  as 
to  the  "Camp'bell  'Blt^hty''  unleaa  it  included  therewith  the  so-called 
"Home  Forty".   The  decree  was  in  conformity  with  the  facts  stated  in 
the  hill  and  the  prayer  thereof  aind  ia  in  our  judgment  sufficient. 
Shields  V.  Bush,  189  111.  534. 

We  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  circuit  court  did  not  err  in  ;:^rant- 
ing  the  relief  prayed  for  in  the  bill  and  in  reforLiing  the  option 
contract  in  accordance  therewith.   Tlic  decree  of  the  circuit  court  is 


therefore  affirmed. 


) 


Decree  affirxodd. 


6« 


:i.'f.j       l  ^UO 


'    ■  -  -  toiietit  19^'ai  srl*  jbop.  Hid  9ri;f 
.i-eft   .III  681   ,ifiK;ff  ^v  €!>l9li«8 


\ 


^~^v^ 


,d 


TSRM  10,    22. 


In  The 

APPHLLATB  COURT  Of  ILLINOIS 

Fourth  District 

OCTOBSR  TSRM,   A.   D.    1929. 


HARRY  DORTOT,   Administrator  of 
the   Estate   of  B7A  DORTCH, 
Deceased, 

Appellant, 


vs. 


ALTOT   A?TT>  ^ASTSRJT  RAILROAD 
OOMPAFT,  ' 

i.       ) 


AGSKDA  TTO.    10. 


'?^. 


Appeal  from  the   Circuit 
Court  of  liiadison   County, 


Honorahle  Louis  Bemreuter, 
Judge  Presiding. 


Appellee 

OPiniOTT  ^Y  TSWHALL,    J. 


256I.A.  618^ 


The  present  appeal  is  from  a  judgment  of  the  Circuit  Court  of 
Ttadison  County  in  favor  of  appellee  and  a/?ainst  appellant  in  bar  of 
the  action  and  for  costs. 

Appellant's  intestate,  Bva  Dortch,  was  thrown  from  a  truck,  in 
whicli  she  was  ridin^i,  underneath  the  wheels  of  appellee's  freight 
train  on  the  night  of  September  2^,   1928,  and  killed.   Deceased 
lived  at  ^-ranite  City  with  her  husband  and  five  minor  children,  and 
was,  with  a  number  of  other  people,  on  her  way  to  attend  a  church 
meetinii;.   The  truck  had  about  twenty  people  in  it  and  at  the  time 
of  the  accident  was  being  driven  by  one  Slathews  in  a  southerly 
direction  upon  what  is  known  as  the  IDdwardsville  hard  road. 

Appellee  is  a  railroad  corporation  operating  a  railroad  track 
in  an  easterly  and  westerly  direction  across  said  public  highway  at 
c^rade.   The  railroad  tracks  cross  said  highway  at  an  angle,  making 
a  curve  as  the  railroad  approaches  from  the  west  to  and  over  the  said 
crossin?;.   This  railroad  was  used  for  the  operation  of  freight  trains 
and  on  the  night  in  question  appellee  was  operating  one  of  its  said 
freight  trains,  consistin-^  of  an  engine,  tender  and  fifty-seven 
freight  cars,  in  an  easterly  direction  over  the  said  crossing.   It 
was  dark.   The  engine  was  reversed,  the  head  or  front  of  the  engine 


-1 


3!^"^ 


\ 


LLII  '^-0  TMJOO.  S^7AJJES?IA 
,QSM1   ,4   .A  ,M55FT  iSg??oaXiC 


MflS^X 


T  sIo'jBrEono.'' 


:-;li«qqA 


TAO^uIlAR  l^^S-l^eiUd 


:^Jl 


Y~  T^DIT^«5[C 


sicl*  ei;<.i   i-  Ltra  ti  a.i   ajqosf  y^ff^^"'-*   *ho<?3  &«/{  slo/Jid-  e-'  rc^sain 

p4«tr#  iri»i9Tl  ^o  roid^-xaqo  e;  sew  -a^v  txiOtlijBi  bMT        .j^nJtaeoio 

■aac-xo  l>i*e  ©tts  i©7©  aoi^ost:^!!)  y/ioitsja©  ,  e,iso   iri-^lQ-x'i 


faclnr;  west  and  palling  the  fifty-seven  frel^^ht  cars.   The  tender 
was  In  front  of  or  the  east  of  the  rear  end  of  the  engine.   There 
was  a  heavy  traffic  alonj^  the  Edwardsvllle  road  both  day  and  nl3ht, 
consisting  nwstly  of  automobiles.    It  was  the  main  highway  from  the 
north  to  St.  Louis  and  Sast  St.  Louis  on  the  south,  and  at  the  time 
of  the  collision  there  were  a  number  of  automobiles  travelin.^  in  both 
directions  over  said  crossing.    The  evidence  of  all  the  witnesses 
who  testified  for  the  plaintiff  and  who  were  passensers  in  the  said 
truck,  shows  that  appellee's  freight  train  approached  said  crossing 
without  any  headlight  burning  and  without  any  bell  or  whistle,  and 
the  first  the  people  in  the  truck  saw  was  a  dark  object  approaching 
and  almost  upon  them.   At  this  time  the  front  end  of  the  truck  was 
on  the  railroad  track.   This  truck  had  stopped  at  the  regular 
stopping  place  where  Twentieth  Street  meets  the  Sdwardsville  road; 
this  was  several  hundred  feet  north  of  the  intersection.   While  the 
truck  was  stopped  at  this  i>oint  an  automobile  driven  by  L.  B.  Patton 
drove  south  on  the  TUdwardsville  road  past  the  truck,  and  the  truck 
pulled  into  the  Sdwardsville  road  and  followed  the  Patton  oar   down 
towards  the  intersection.   Another  car  driven  by  5^ed  Stork  passed 
the  truck  about  seventy-five  or  one  hundred  feet  north  of  the  inter- 
section and  barely  escaped  being  struck  by  the  tender  of  the  train. 
There  was  no  light  or  warning  of  any  kind  seen  by  Patton  or  Stork,  or 
anyone  in  the  truck.   The  front  of  the  tender  struck  the  truck  on 
the  right  hand  side  near  the  right  front  wheel  and  cab  door,  demolish- 
ing the  truck,  and  appellant's  intestate  was  run  over  and  killed  by 
the  train.   As  the  train  approached  the  intersection  the  engineer 
saw  a  number  of  cars  passing  up  and  down  the  hard  road.   He  saw  the 
Stork  car  that  the  engine  barely  missed  and  the  engineer  did  not 
^PPly  1'ii3  emergency  brake  until  after  the  tender  had  struck  the  truck. 
When  the  train  stopped  the  engine  and  tender  and  a  part  of  the  first 
box  car  had  passed  entirely  over  the  hard  road. 

The  truck  was  being  driven  at  a  moderate  rate  of  speed;  it  had 
no  top  or  cover  except  a  cab  over  the  driver's  seat.   Back  of  the  cab 


,ix{^ln  Jt.fl«  Tv«iE)  i<;fo<f  Iwaoi  ©/./!;  vRcitawM  «ri;>  s»«i'fi  omj3'iw+  \:vs9x{  a  >«• 
btm  ,sX*a^fiw  -arc  Il^rf  yns  *0«i^-tsr  isms  '^aitfrm€  td-gUbssd  '^ras  .tijo/j^lw 

-..iaij««3h  ,toel>  ifeo  licai  i9«dhe-  Jtwrl  ^^rigiit  «fi*  •sa®.^  «i5le  bisasl  ^f-jf^it:  «rf* 
'£rf  h»iii  ivtt  owt.  tuS'U  a#a*«9*ai*  »♦  Jaalisqgjs  ftwa  ,2foj;7;t  SifJ  snt 

•Mi  «••  «S       .Jkeot  M*if  art*  tm«h  him-  qu  %sti»$siq_  e-XAo  lo  i«»cf«if0  «  -wcb 

*on  bih  'x^^akaa^^  tii&  bn»  kBmhs  XJ^o^xntS  «nl^,m  »di  iMdi  tsso  irei^ 

.'/otrr.^^  9t\:  -'-vsto  hAi\  l«l>iio#  «ifft  «»nA  .liiftii  •rfifttrf  ip>fr«»3T:affr©  fclxf  rX<Hi' 

^••xn   tr':  •><?  »^^  ^  Lot  TC»£>nav^   ft/r*  ^t^i^-m  «slf  Jfieqqc^e  rii^^-;?'  -)rii   nerfT; 

.f-sB^t  h-ijEy^  «rivt  lovfe  xi*'itit!»'  t^QWBii  ftjfcil  tmw  xocf 


the  truck  was  open  and  the  passensers  were  occupying  long  seats  on 
either  side  of  the  truck,  and  two  of  the  passengers  were  standing, 
leanlnc  against  the  cab  of  the  truck,  and  were  facing  In  a  south  or 
southwestern  position,  the  direction  from  which  the  train  was  coming. 
Appellant's  Intestate  was  sitting  In  the  rear  of  the  truck,  holding 
one  of  her  children  In  her  lap,  and  had  nothing  to  do  with  the 
driving  of  the  truck  or  any  means  or  opportunity  of  controlling  Its 
movements. 

The  truck  had  a  wide  seat  In  the  cah  suid  this  seat  was  occupied 
by  the  driver,  who  sat  on  the  left,  and  the  two  young  ladles  who 
were  sitting  next  to  him.   The  lady  sitting  next  to  him  was  thrown 
from  the  truck  and  killed  and  the  other  girl  was  badly  injured. 

The  declaration  consisted  of  four  counts.   The  first  count  was 
a  general  charge  of  negligence  in  the  management  and  operation  of 
said  train,  and  that  plaintiff  was  in  the  exercise  of  due  care  for 
her  own  safety;  the  second  count  alleged  negligence  of  appellee  in 
operatln>^  said  freight  train  over  the  public  highway  without  giving 
sufficient  warning  of  its  approach  and  without  having  a  sufficient 
headlight  to  warn  the  public  using  said  highway.   Tho  third  count 
charp:ed  violation  of  Parsugraph  187,  Chapter  114,  of  the  Revised 
Statutes  of  Illinois,  entitled,  "Headlights  on  Locmutive  Snglnes," 
charging  that  defendant  was  a  common  carrier  of  freight  suid  that  it 
was  Its  duty  to  comply  with  the  said  statute  in  respect  to  headlight, 
and  the  fourth  count  charged  negligence  in  jrunning  its  train  across 
said  highway  without  having  a  bell  or  whistle  as  provided  by  statute. 

The  testimony  of  the  trainmen^  and  other  witnesses  offered  on 
behalf  of  appellee  tends  to  show  that  appellee  maintained  a  sufficient 
headlight  on  its  engine  and  that  its  trainmen  -^ave  due  warning  of  the 
approached  of  the  train  by  bell  and  whistle. 

The  court  gave  to  the  jury  ten  Instructions  on  behalf  of  appellee 
and  counsel  have  argued  that  four  of  these  instructions  were  erroneous 

and  that  the  giving  of  the  same  constituted  reversible  error  under  the 
facts  shown  by  this  record. 


•sty-  tliiv  ftb  oi  sfli'ii^oiJ  £»*^  ^J^  «t-«-t  *is«^  si-i"  nsiMixio  led  1«  ©no 

baieuoo©  sjew  j^ssms  ei«£j  I)faE  cf£0  ssii-  oi  4b9r  ^i»  jb  i>aJti  aComt^   mT 

•x^w  gsiitjsi  i/RxroY  ott*  Bsii  bsm  ^i^Bi  9rf#   ;t©  c«e  Offr  ^Tsviai)  ©lii*  xcf 

rel  eoso  «iii)   j©  ©8.4:3iX«5i©  «*!^#  «jl  aew  lli.tataXq;  ijMf3^  bo&  ♦,ntei*  lbl4M 

ixt  eaiieqg.s  Ic  ©©ns^^ilgSR  L^acIIa  tctjcc  5>neo©8  «iii   ;x*®'^'S©  owe  rr©rf 

rnlvi;;;  iuo^tt'n  YSi-raiHiri  oildtiq  »ai  lovo  nisti;^  Jif<ji©'i*3:  M^e  Qnii^sioq© 

Jboalvefl  aii*  It©  ,1-XI  -sa^^RjlC    ^S'Bi  Ajsi'^f^-iafi  1«  nci^^^Iciv  b&^.^i&iio 

*t  *«il^  bnm  i£i}i^»'ti  Ip  isi^^i^o  rcwseEeo  s«  sew  <}raBibrj9l©fr  i^jBxi^  SfilgOAeio 

sec-xo*  rje:£,t  944  j^xxjtnamc  aJ:  •pn©siX8«f''  fe©5v^t«£ia  ^n»oo  ^^iiuol  ©ri;t  b«« 
.«ix;4»^©  Xrf  fc©i>tv«Ttc£  8«  «I*elrfw  t©  iXfKf  «  snivjMi  ixjcii^iW  xBWtfP.iri  ^ijs« 

Jrstsn^B  «  l>«niciffl4s«  f>©li©<£«;K  J^ff^  w©ite  ©i   e£>ns*  e»Ii©a:qj5  lo  IJjBiiod 
3.1J  1©  na*ftt-w  ©i,f,  ©v«r.     mmatssti  s*l  ij*/,!  Jjxy*  ©ni^.G©  &ii  no  JuiiXivneil 

.©liBiii*,   ira  Ii©cf  ycT  iXJtwii    sri^  1:©  hs^o«oiq.qa 

':oc©?T©Ti©  si©ir  er(oUou-ift>>i   9©ort#  1©  Tc«»"i  *iM«*  h-eirj^-xa  svjaii  loanwoo   5«i 
•Jll  iBbtas  i©5to  ©irfl8Ti4V9i  l>e;ru*li>«r«09  ©«»«  ©rf^t  t©  sni'S'il^  9^*  ^*»J^*  **■ 


Appellee's  glren  instruction  ?Io.  7  was  peremptory  as  to  the  facta 
alleged  in  the  second  count  of  the  declaration.   The  said  count 
charged  that  the  appellee  operated  its  train  to  and  over  said  public 
highway  without  sufficient  warning  of  its  approach  and  without  a 
sufficient  headlight  to  warn  the  public  using  said  highway.   This 
instruction  was  erroneous  because  it  directed  a  verdict  as  to  the 
second  count,  without  stat In^i  all  of  the  essential  eleBwnts  of  that 
count.   The  instruction  did  not  require  proof  that  the  jury  believe 
from  the  evidence  that  "sufficient  warning"  was  given  or  that  a 
■headli,::;ht  sufficient  to  warn  the  public"  was  burning  upon  the 
approaching  end  of  the  locomotive,  and  the  juary  were  precluded  by  the 
wording  of  the  instruction  from  finding  that  sufficient  warning  under 
all  of  the  circTimstances  might  require  the  bell  and  whistle  to  be 
sounded  as  required  by  statute.    Suburban  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Balkwill, 
195  111.  535. 

Appellee's  eighth  instruction  was  as  follows t   "The  court 
instructs  the  jury  that  if  you  believe  from  the  evidence  that  the 
driver  of  the  truck  could  have  seen  defendant's  approaciiing  train  if 
he  had  loolced  upon  driving  upon  the  track,  and  that  he  could  have 
heard  defendant's  approaching  train  if  he  had  listened  before  driving 
upon  the  track,  but  that  he  failed  either  to  look  or  to  listen,  you 
should  find  the  defendant  not  guilty;  provided,  you  further  believe 
from  the  evidence  that  sucli  failure  of  the  driver  of  the  truck  to 
look  and  listen  was  the  sole  cause  of  the  accident." 

We  think  the  foregoing  instruction  was  misleading  and  erroneous 
in  bein^^  so  worded  that  it  might  lead  the  jury  to  believe  tliat  the 
trial  court  thought  that  the  accident  was  caused  entirely  by  the 
negligence  of  the  driver  of  the  truck.   He   think  it  also  subject 
to  the  criticism  that  the  jury  might  be  lead  to  believe  that  the 
negligence  of  the  driver  of  the  truck  would  necessarily  be  imputed 
to  appellant.   While  deceased  was  liable  for  her  own  negligence  she 
was  not  necessarily  liable  under  the  law  for  the  negligence,  if  any, 
of  the  driver  of  the  truck.   The  negligence  of  a  driver,  in  sole 


uil^Oi  hi&m  ray  l/ea  o^  aiijtE*  Sx't  festarraqo  eellati^ij  arit  Ijwii  i>es,-xjBiio 
«liix       ."Tier-  ■«!    :.ifJ«:xi  cil^irq  ed^   ire^w  &i^  ^itf^iiiiseri  iweioi^tirB 

otii  nMLv  ^ainxM  eos*  ^oiidisq,  ^i  r^isv  »i  *G»loil'iira  i-fCjs lib* art" 
9ii#  ^4  ^sJbiTloe^q:  eitsv  Tii^t  ****  feK»  ,«vx^«2:©ooI  exit  'io  fcn©  anJifojwicM* 

dd  ©*  9l*»iiiw  fees  liSHf  ©tfi  ©iiirpcrt  #*f«.;lin  8«Oi^::a^£.ffii«>«lo   exii  'ic  11m 

evfid  biiTOc   an  jjerff*  i>am  ,3£o»"t;J   art*-  £»^'  ,%idt7li&  smq.a  h&^col  bssS.  ®xf 

eJ  rsJoffU^  an*  1©  i&vif.b  mi^t  ^0  atiBiiBl  datm  ahftfttf-  «ox«»Ij1v«  eri^  laoal 
"  .jfj^bidwi;  ©lid*  1©  »n«jsc>   sloe  &£i:i  B««-  ueielX  bra  3io»X 

0jlc  r."      -    =»f,  n»o  uofl  W.    ■  cfidflsfe  ©iliTw'       .^cakj^qKA  oiT 


char-je  of  a  Tehicle,  cannot  necessarily  be  Imputed  to  a  pasaennier  In 
the  vehicle.    A  passenger  in  a  vehicle,  if  he  is  cjuring  for  his  own 
interests  and  safety  should,  when  he  learns  of  a  threatened  accident 
and  has  an  opportunity  to  avoid  it,  warn  the  driver  of  the  vehicle. 
Swanlund  v.  Rockford  Ry.  Go.,  305  111.  339.    The  proviso  of  this 
instruction  is  Insufficient  to  cure  that  which  proceeds  it,  in  that 
the  jury  are  not  required  to  find  as  a  condition  precedent  to  non- 
liability of  the  defendant  that  the  sole  cause  of  the  injury  to  the 
plaintiff  was  due  to  the  negligent  conduct  of  the  driver  of  the  truck. 
^Thether,  under  all  the  circumstances,  the  driver's  conduct  was 
sufficiently  negligent  as  to  be  the  sole  cause  of  the  injury  was  not 
fairly  submitted  to  the  jury  by  this  instruction.   Landon  v.  C.  &  G. 
T,  Ry,  CJo. ,  92  111.  App.  216.   Swanlund  v.  Rockford  Ry.  Co.,  supra. 

Appellee's  n,inth  instruction  is  erroneous,  in  that  it  assumes 
as  a  fact,  that  the  driver  of  the  truck  was  negligent  without 
requiring  the  jury  to  find  that  fact.   There  were  no  facts  shown  on 
the  trial  which  would  warrant  the  jury  in  Imputing  to  the  deceased 
any  alleged  negligence  of  the  driver  of  the  truck,  and  the  giving  of 
this  instruction  was  calculated  to  adrise  the  jury  that  the  accident 
was  caused  by  the  negligence  of  the  driver  of  the  truck.   Landon  v. 
C.  &  G.  T.  Ry.  Co.,  supra. 

Appellee*3  tenth  instruction  is  subject  to  criticism,  in  that 
the  jury  were  again  advised  concerning  the  negligence  of  the  driver 
of  the  truck,  and  was  calculated  to  lead  the  jury  to  believe  that  if 
the  driver  of  the  truck  was  negligent  the  same  would  be  imputed  to 
the  deceased.   The  proof  on  the  part  of  appellant  tended  to  show 
that  appellee  was  negligent  in  failing "to  give  sufficiait  warning 
of  the  approach  of  appellee's  train.   If  this  alleged  negligence  of 
appellee  was  also  a  proximate  or  concurring  and  efficient  cause  of 
the  accident  which  the  evidence  tends  to  show,  then  appellee  would 
be  liable,  the  other  necesssury  iiroof  being  Bade,  notwithstanding 
the  negligence  of  the  driver  may  have  contributed  to  the  injury.   It 
is  sufficient  If  the  combined  negligence  of  the  driver  of  the  truck 


nwt>    Bi^rf    tO"i    ^.£Ti*tJE.O     :-  '--rrssfi^q  ;:>iolff»1'    ftrff 

.cidliiav  f^jdi  Jo  -xoviib  srf*  frtujw  ,;fi  /jiore  ot  t^itoj^'sioqqo  na  bj^  bum 
9ifit  !•  oelTorfti  oriT       •»?€£   ,111!  5C€   «.«©    .t^.  iitelri^otffl  .▼  baelajsv^ 

5JJSW  .♦c.vbrwri   a'^evi^it  ai{#   tsaopf^  +  csjwft'!:!©   »dit  il&  ^isSnsr  ,T»ri#ei£W 
^•n  saw  lEttfLJsi   SftJf  "J*  9aj»£»   ftion   Sif?  »<f  ©#  tt£  #tt©giison  Y-^d-n^loi^^jre 

•arrque   ^.C    .rfi  fc^ol^fjoc  tfiriie*??        .SfS    .(Jcja    .III  2^   ,,0?    .TJ?  -.T 

L9i6ti90&b  t~£it  aS  ^aifKTimi  .«!  ttWt    9ifd^  >KfitT£ir  Mjjtow  jEloiifw  JbIt*  9/f^ 

reriib  «f*  it  wfiaiKJ^i?;:**?  «f*  r>triT!f^rf^^  b^Kirha  tiis^Ks  Qtsw  t^v[  9th' 

rnimair  lf»lol^*^iri  >,fflXli  3?JJf^»iT  asrr  ©sIIeCMf!  *iu!;f 

^'■^'^^  -»  '•'►^-•^  ,w«Jte  e*  sbn^S-  •©«»!>* v«  ©rfjf  rfoJifw  #nsl>looB  otftf 


and  appellee  caused  the  accident,  and  that  the  latter  was  an 
efficient  caune  iiithout  -which  the  Injury  would  not  hare  resulted, 
the  deceased  havin/t  been  in  the  e:xercl3e  of  ordinary  care.   Pullraan 
Palace  ^ar  Co.  r.   Laack,  143  111.  242.   C.  Se  B.  I.  R.  R.  Co.  v. 
Hlnes,  183  111.  482.   Landon  v.  C.  5:  *"-.  T.  Ry.  :3o. ,  supra.   The 
proviso  of  appellee's  tenth  instruction  authorised  the  iurjr  to  find 
the  defendant  not  guilty  provided  the  jury  found  the  defendant  not 
guilty  of  ner- licence  in  the  '^operation  of  its  said  train. ■   The  train 
may  not  have  heen  "operated"  in  a  negligent  manner  hy  the  trainoen 
and  yet  the  company  may  have  bean  guilty  of  nec;ligence  proximately 
contributing  to  the  accident  by  reason  of  its  failure  to  maintain  a 
sufficient  headlight  as  required  by  law  and  this  was  one  of  the  issues 
In  the  case  made  by  the  pleadings  and  the  proof.   Further,  the 
instruction  was  peremptory  in  its  wording  in  ommitting  part  of  the 
issues  in  the  case,  and  the  giving  of  it  was  prejudicial  to  appellant. 

We  are  of  the  opinion  that  these  instructions  did  not  fairly 
present  to  the  lury  the  issues  in  the  case  made  by  the  alles^ationa 
of  the  declaration  and  the  evidence  in  the  record.   There  are  no 
other  Instructions  shown  in  the  record  which  ^ould  operate  to  cure 
these  instructions,  or  from  which  it  could  be  said  that  the  jury 
were  not  mislead,  and  the  evidence  bein,-;  close  and  conflicting^,  I'e- 
quired  the  reiving  of  instructions  whicli  would  be  fair  and  correctly 
state  the  la^  applicable  to  the  case. 

7or  the  errors  in  the  clvia^^  of  these  instructions  for  appellee, 
in  our  jud-7,aent  appellant  should  be  peraltted  to  present  his  cause  to 
another  iury  under  corroct  rulLnr^s  as  to  the  law.   Tud^aent  of  the 
trial  Qurt  will  be  reversed  and  tlie  cause  remanded  to  the  Circuit 
Court  of  TJadlson  County  for  a  new  trial. 


jM^f^  llS^^tul 


■Tudgoent  reversed  and  cause 
remanded  for  a  new  trial. 


,v  .©o  ««  .a  .1  *s  «•  ■;>£  .ill  «#i  ,3Uk«iJ?..#^  .CO  ^£«r'  ^o&i£fi 

N:I»^«iBJExff'iaj  »on3;;2i:5err  1®  \'*i4jg^  fl»*tf  ©«jBjri    i^jss,  -^t^scprjoo  art*  iey  Jbit« 

or;  are  er-rct^f^        .?>r.oo9^  wvt  nx  <3>cjff€iJ[)lv«>  a«Cl'  feras  K<>id-fi'3MsIsfii)  ejlit- 1:o 
rj-u«)  »i-  f>*fs'xoq;t)  i>Ijye^  rft-iits?  &7.«>o®'«  »ff^  fri  £«8»jiie  BrmXfossiimil  i6]&ie> 

fkmril   o.i.  vj.  .^o.>r.r&i«JT  osx/iic   9ii^  Jbna  i)08%»Y£'s  so  iXiw  chunfty  i«lo;| 

•I.'5iSif  WOW'©  TB*t  y^amtt:   nesib^  'io  .*niror 


Trail  rro.  23. 


In  Tha 

APHSLLAT3   COURT   OF  ILLI]fOlS 

fourth  Dletrlot 

oc-roT^np.  in^FTt,  A.  n.  1929. 


Sin>A  KG.  23. 


CrOLDIB  POS, 
ra* 

A.  H.  wirrTEfai'O'r, 

Plaintiff  in    llrror.     ) 


rrit  of  ^rror  to  the  Cflty*^^*''Uv';i '■:■■'. 
Oourt  of  I2ast  nt.  Louis. 

Hon,  Villiaa  5*.  Borders, 


256I.A.  616^ 


opriioTT  ^Y  TT?!m.\T,T.,  -t. 


Tlii3  was  &  suit  for  the  recovery  of  dauaas«o  ^or  injurioo 
alle(!;ed  to  hare  been  received  "by  defendant   in  error  arising  out  of 
the  collision  of  her  automobile  with  an  automobile  bein-  driren  by 
plaintiff  in  error. 

The  first  count  of  the  declaration  charred  ceneral  neiTlicence; 
the  second,  wilfall  and  iranton  negli/rence,  and  the  third  count 
allerced  tliat  plaintiff  in  error  operated  his  car  at  an  excess ivo 
rate  of  speed*       Ceneral  issue  Tras   filed  and  trial  before  a  jury 
resulted  in  a  verdict  finding  the  issues  in  favor  of  de:.'endant   in 
ctrror  and  assoaslng  damanoa  at  the  sum  of  $2500 .00 •       ''lie  trial  court 
submitted  to  the  Jury,  over  objection  of  plaintiff  in  error,   two 
special  interrofjatories  requesting  the   jury  to  find  whether  the 
injuries  suffered  by  defendant  in  error  wore  wilfully  and  wantonly 
Inflicted  by  the  plaintiff  in  error,  both  of  whieh  interrogatories 
weire  ansT^ered  In  the  affirrative. 

Sotion  for  new  trial  was  filed  aad  the  trial   court,  after  direct- 
ina  a  iremittitur  of   '!'.750«00  from  the  verdict,   overruled  the  notion 
and  entered   ludj^aent  for  the  aaount  of  the  verdict,   less  the  remittitur. 

Tho  facta  developed  by  the  evidence  show  that  the  defendant  in 
error  on  the  laominr:  of  Aui^st  11,   1938,  was  driving:  a  ?ord  coupe  in  a 
southerly  direction  upon   Illinois     Highway  ITo.   3;   that  she  was  follow- 
In  i^  a  truck  driven  by  one  ?*ed  3ticiariey  and  was  travellin,^  from  seven 


r^A 


<-  * 


-  V»- 


-..y^•■-lP  •ir.7;i.   t-TfT^tj   i^i-i^    oi:!.-?  £;x  £jUi';i  ff«r  l«t«#-'W««  *«1.  «el**r 

^i   J t7 .,.:>.. 5 u  ftr(^  taxl9  ^';^■-   Oi>  ■'•«»q«iov0?>  «4«jb1   erf' 

•    —'foo  ftsC.        ■    !  -l"sfc  WAV  .-riri-xon  «wl*  no  -xo-na 


to  ten  miles  per  hour.   Tlie  truck  ttxmed  off  to  the  left  of  the 
hard  road  on  which  3he  was  driving;  that  while  she  was  following 
the  truck  her  view  to  the  south  was  ohstructed  and  Inmediately 
after  the  truck  turned  off  the  road  the  plaintiff  In  error's  machine 
was  driven  at  a  high  rate  of  speed  northerly  on  the  west  half  of 
the  road  and  crashed  Into  her  car,  causlns  It  to  swerve  to  the  west 
of  the  concrete  slab.   As  a  result  of  the  collision  plaintiff  In 
error  lost  control  of  his  car  and,  after  the  collision,  travelled 
about  seventy-five  feet  into  the  ditch  on  ths  opposite  side  of  the 
road.   Several  wltnesaea  for  defendant  in  error  teot.ifled  that 
plaintiff  in  error  was  Intoxicated  at  the  time  of  the  collision  and 
that  his  car  was  travelling  at  a  high,  rate  of  speed,  estimated  at 
from  fifty  to  sixty  miles  per  hour. 

Defendant  in  error's  car  was  damaged  and  she  received  severe 
personal  injuries  to  her  hack,  linibs  and  ribs,  the  extent  of  which 
v/ere  proven  byr  her  own  testimony  and  were  not  denied  on  the  trial. 
There  is  no  contention  that  the  verdict, after  remittitur, is  excessive 
or  not  supported  by  the  evidence  in  so  far  as  datoages  are  concerned. 

The  only  witness  for  plaintiff  in  error  was  himself  and  he  denied 
that  he  was  under  the  influence  of  liquor  and  testified  that  his  car 
was  not  f^olng  more  than  tt/enty-five  miles  per  hour;  that  defendant  in 
error's  car  was  belns  driven  on  the  wrong  side  of  the  road  and  that 
the  accident  was  unavoidable. 

Plaintiff  In  error  contends  that  the  court  erred  in  reducing 
the  amount  of  the  verdict,  on  its  own  motion,  without  the  consent  of 
defendant  in  error  and  that  the  judt^raent  entered  is  Indefinite. 

Defendant  in  error  did  not  object  to  the  action  of  the  trial 
court  in  ordering  a  remittitur  and  in  her  brief  counsel  say  that  she 
consented  to  swdh   remittitur.   Ve  are  of  the  opinion  that  plaintiff 
In  error  is  not  in  a  position  to  urge  that  the  trial  court  erred  In 
reducing  the  amount  of  the  verdict,  and  that  the  entry  of  .judgoent 
for  ^175000  was  sufficiently  definite  in  view  of  the  remittitur  of 
^>750,00  from  the  verdict  of  |2500.00. 


sclwclio'x  caw  sila  »XJtrt»  *sii^   jj-nlvirr^  p.n«  sjfa  rwirfw  rro  bjso^  bitui 

©rrlxioatr  a'^oiis:*  fti  ll'ii-nlsiq  adS^  bisea  srf^  11o  bBrnssi  zlotrtt  t>xii  is^lfi 

lo  llfcrf  i'esw  ar:*  rro  ■^iit&iid'Tan  bSBqe  'it*   fl;j£n  j<atff  js  &&  nsvirrfr  asv 

*853\?  erf*  oi   !dv*rewe  o*  *1  sciaejEo    ^t^o   tt>i-  dnl   f;9£&Bi:c   Jbra  hjsoi  «ri* 

isidy  jbsllir-tss;?  rceTS©  nl   JriaijnolsJb  to*  eeacerr;? JNt  I^^sr©?        .bisort 
&£  b&i&Bl&z9>  tic  gas   so  &rfs\  £^itl  a  #*  j^riil^v^^l  a«w  rrjso  eirf  *4B£fi 

•iai^  s3«vJ  fro   bhltmb  *©n  87?p?r  ?*ct.©  tj«)«si*e»;?  rr?y»  isil  ^cf  nsvoiq  ©new 

»viea»oy©  »X,iHti.^itH»t  •!re*'Jfi,*rjj&'!:©^  ©iW   isitii   )r««X^rT©#fro?>   ck  al   Bi©if7 

,h©OT©o -'!<«>  9rt.e  «»;iBs.?>r;  EsjB  ie1^  *B  «t  ©5if&.l/i'«'r*     ^jf-t  ■^rf  b^ixif^f^jsa  *Ofi  1:0 

bsirrofc  ©rf  bim  llBwanid  &ts^r  tn^-^  tit  ViHat&lq,  rsol  ««<a0.tli£r  x-fso  e/TT 

i»o  eta  ifAsii  bolli#R&rf  I/WR  -xo^^ti  "J*  *»«®«il,ai  »rf-J  Tftbrnr  saw  ©isJ  iasSi 

*4tix(i^  jiMj  fcflcT  ©jTi;?  '»!>  ©Me  '^frOTw  eriJ'  ire  no'^itl)  sjrtt©^  sa"s^  tfeo   a'roTs© 

:$«loif£yo'i  ff*  Ptra©  **rM©o  «*fl^  #«!«.*  cJBfpr^no©  rorre  nt  IJiirt&l^ 

•  •^irriTiebni  ol  I»©ie©Jt«©  Je«»Qjlail   ^^^   *«i*^   &»»  -seira©  k1   iraRl-nslel) 

Xclii  er;j  lo  rot*©*  ©«^  ©#  *o©t(r«  i©c  MJ^  ifiTia  rtl  #nAlbKel©C 

Mis  #«fl;t  yjit,  I«r^.jj©o    isl^tf  icesf  Jti  .f>na  'x«ii:i;fiiR9'2  e  ^nliafcio  nl  ^twoo 

'J'^ltrlBlq  ♦ciii  mlnlq*  ©r'j^  lo  »•::«  ©TT       ,ixyii*J.ta©<i  ifcwc  0*  tsiasaimv 

fli  be«c%«  tYoee  tt^txi  ©rti  jijri*  ©jjno  »:f  tietStntiq  g>  ni  ietr  si  to-xio  ai 


It  l3  a  well  settled  rule  that  a  party  cannot  avail  of  error 
which  does  not  oi)erate  to  his  prejudice  and  that  he  cannot  take 
advantage  of  error  which  operates  to  his  advantage.   Miller  v. 
fbelan,  158  111.  544.   Plaintiff  in  error  does  not  urt^e  that,  after 
the  remittitur,  the  judcoent  represents  excessive  damages  allowed 
defendtint  in  error  for  lier  injuries. 

Plaintiff  in  error* 3  next  contention  ia  tliat  tjie  court  erred  in 
suhiaitting  to  the  jury  two  special  interrotjatories  as  to  whether  the 
acts  of  plaintiff  in  error  were  wilfuil  and  wanton  at  the  tine  of  the 
comiaisiiion  of  the  alleged  injuries. 

\?here  a  declaration  consists  of  several  counts  charging  general 
negligence,  and  a  count  charging  wllfull  and  wanton  neglli^ence,  it 
is  proper  practice  for  a  trial  court  to  submit  to  the  Jury  special 
interro,::atorie3  as  to  ^'hetlier  the  defendant  was  guilty  or  wilfuil  or 
wanton  negligence,  providing  there  Is  evidence  tending  to  prove  the 
wilfuil  and  wanton  count  and  the  jury  are  otherwise  properly 
instructed  as  to  what  constitutes  wilfuil  or  waJiton  ne^ili^^ence. 
(Siicago  crlty  Ry.  Co.  v.  Jordan,  215  111.  390.   Vaixlfeter  v.  ciumey, 
240  111.  App.  165. 

There  was  aiHple  testimony  In  the  record  tending  to  show  that 
plaintiff  in  error  was  guilty  of  at  least  constructive  wilfuil  or 
wanton  negligence  and  the  court  instructed  at  the  request  of  plain- 
tiff in  error  as  to  what  was  necessary  to  be  proved  under  the  wllftill 
and  wanton  count. 

Plaintiff  in  error's  third  and  final  contention  Is  tlxat  the 
court  erred  In  the  giving  of  the  o»ie  instruction  offered  on  behalf 
of  defendant  In  error.   The  abstract  of  record  shows  nine  instruct- 
ions given  at  the  request  of  plaintiff  In  error  fully  advising  as 
to  the  l?.w  1*^  the  cnse,  aiid  only  one  instruction  gl\^an  on  behalf  of 
defendant  in  error.   Tliere  appears  no  objection  or  exception  in 
the  abstract  of  record  to  the  giving  of  defendant  in  error's  one 
instruction.   Rule  14  of  this  court  requires  that  an  abstract  oast 
be  sufficient  to  present  fully  every  error  relied  upon  and  where 


lOT— ~ 

^  v^- 

JomiAO 

^iinxQ 

»i.t- 

it,    •" 

■  ■•  :  •■,■? 

f.fvc?      c: 

,r    -■ 

to;»l«  ...i-. 

*x. 

j-oxt 

8««.:^         --.    -  - 

f)®tf-  ■  ' ' 

. .... 

■..ii 

'.  1          >•!  ' 

'    ;    ' '  • 

T^n  i-;^'     j'> 

n*  ban  v.-  ■.  ..> 

/  »^- 

«r{d^  -xstajeiiw 

OJ 

.-.* 

.       ..... 

....... 

.,.,..- 

>xl;<-   '  ■<   ^'   '■  :■   ' 

i  pr> 

f  ► 

i        .-.f,' 

■,-,,;.i;.' 

fi  r.. 

.ftji'xi;  ',"7  J^-;f:w-.bit;  rjj.: 


"■■■  i"-  ■  »':*^ 


ii   «oon€;:iIi\6fi-  :.  

,co:^'  tl:  an  mi:? 


..   j3aq  "xaqorrq;  si 

.aSI  ,....   All  OJ^ 
sm 


ii^m  ^0/ 


x"5oqti>*  toilet  rt©n:i: 


di  oM  tevTB  tiaoo 

■  •  K»vls  ami 


exceptions  to  the  rulings  of  the  trial  court  are  not  preserred  in 

the  abstract  the  same  will  not  be  considered  In  the  reviewin,!  court. 
People  7.  Rahoiii,  316  111.  75,   "Totwithstandin  j  the  want  of 
exception  properly  preaervei  -je  laTe  considered  counsels'  oojection 
to  said  instruction  and  are  of  the  opinion,  in  ri&v   of  the  fact  it 
was  undisputed  that  the  respective  cars  collided  while  join;^  in 
opposite  directions,  that  there  was  no  rs^versible  error  in  the  jjiring 
of  the  instruction  aad  that  the  said  instruction  did  not  assuae  a 
disputed  fact  er  aislead  the  jury. 

Accordingly  the  judgment  of  the  City  Court  of  Bast  St.  Louis, 
for  the  reasons  aforesaid,  is  herf?t>y  affiriaed. 

Affirmed. 


No.  5. 


lymE 

APPEI.LATE  COURT  OF  ILLIMOIS. 
FOURTH  DISTRICT. 


lay  Term,  A.  D.  1929. 


S.  J.  Gr;:,  Truatoo, 


Berendaiit  in  Lrrov, 


VBi 


OEURGE  C.  FOP^PPNIU,    ot  al., 

Pleiiitlffs  In  Ijrror,   and 

KARL  Glover,  et  al., 

Dcfcncl'  nta  In  Irror. 


Petition  for  » rlt  of 
i"i*iK)r  to  the  Circuit 
Court  of  LuxfTonce 
County. 


^561  A.  ^18' 


Opinion  by  Judge  Fre<?  G.  volfo. 


Tlie  record  In  this  suit  la  brougl.t  here  on  a  v/rlt  of 
error  directed  to  the  circuit  court  of  Lawrence  County  for 
the  purpose  of  reviewing  the  case  on  error  aaalgned,  najnely, 
t"  at  the  decree  of  the  lover  coxirt  la  not  supported  by  the  law 
and  the  evidence  In  the  caoe.  The  suit  was  be(;;^n  by  ono  r  .  j. 
Gee,  a  t  niatoe  es  hereinafter  set  forth,  filing  a  bill  of 
Interpleader.   There  was  a  hearing  before  the  Chaz.cellor  who 
reriderod  ti  c  decree  to  which  exception  are  '  alren. 

T3  o  record  discloses  that  the  Developed  Oil  Properties 
Company,  a  Wisconsin  Corporation  of  i.au  Claire,  h  d  agreed 
to  pay  to  the  Gox^on  Trust  Company  the  sum  of  C75,000«CX)  for 
oil  and  3as  leases  on  property  In  Ccddo  County,  Oklahoma. 
The  Suld  oil  company  required  about  .^  25,000*00  to  niake  the 
Initial  payment  on  auoh  purchase  price,  ^n  Axxrll,  1921,  A.  R* 
Manley,  piMsldciit  of  the  Developed  Oil  Properties  Company,  and 
one  A.  R.  Henley,  c  atocldiolder  of  the  company,  entered 
Into  negotiations  with  S.  J.  Geo,  a  d(  fc.idant  In  error,  and 
his  son  and  one  Tyler  L.  Andrews  for  a  loan  to  make  the  Inltlcd 
payment.  At  tliat  time  ^'.  J.  Gee  was  president  ai>d  his  son 
cashier  of  the  Farmers  rotate  Ikuik  of  Lawrencevllle,  and 


«• 


Tyler  L.  Androws  vab   preoident  of  the  rlxio\  Bank  and  Txnist 
C<»npany  of  VlnceuueSy  Indiana*   As  a  z*esult  of  those  ne^otla- 
tlonsy  a  loon  of  CSVy&OO.OO  was  made  to  the  oil  companyy  which 
evidenced  by  its  four  prornissox^  notes  of  v607C,00  each, 
and  seciired  by  an  asalgonent  of  an  oil  and  gas  lease,  knovm  as 
t'  e  ''Leighty  Lease"  situated  in  ^awrei^ce  County,  Illinois, 
to  r«  J»  Oee  as  trustee  for  the  legal  holders  of  the  four 
proiBissory  notes.  All  of  those  four  notes  were  fully  paid  by 
tho  trstee  from  income  rocolvod  fr<an  the  lease  before  maturity, 
and  tliere  is  no  controversy  concerning  those.   On  "'ay  2,  1921 
and  while  the  fotir  notes  wore  still  outatcLiding,  the  oil 
eoapany  borrowed  ^65,000.00  end  Isued  Its  twei.ty  prcHsisoory 
notes  for  (3250.00  each,  which  were  mode  payable  to  ^  .  J.  (roe 
and  sold  to  dif  erent  persons.   To  secure  the  65,000.00  a 
ziew  assigjx'Tjent  was  raade  to  r;,  J.  Gee  as  trustee  of  the  "Leighty 
Lease"  reciting  the  fact  of  tho  prior  asslgnraont  to  secure 
the  •*  25,000.00 

To  further  secure  t:  e  465^000.00  a  sinll  r  assignnjent 
of  an  oil  az^  gas  lease  in  Caddo  Coxinty,  uklahcxna,  tuid  known  as 
the  "Cement  Lea&e"  was  also  made  to  S.  J.  Oee  as  trustee*  The 
notes  for  C 3250.00  became  due  two  a  n»nth  and  were  to  be  paid  by 
the  trustee  under  t'  e  power  conferred  on  him  by  the  asoignmeat 
from  proceeds  derived  from  the  sale  of  oil  under  tho  leases,  "^le 
income  fr<xn  the  leases  being  insufficient  to  rsoet  the  notes  as 
they  fell  due,  the  oil  company  and  the  truatoe  on  July  15,  1922, 
entered  into  an  agreement  extending  the  time  of  tho  pa7:nent 
of  C36»000.00.  that  being  then  about  the  aggregate  amaunt  of 
these  notes  left  unpeid.  Tlio  unjmid  notes  were  taken  up  and 
in  their  place  two  ve  renewal  notes  of  ^o, 000.00  each,  the 
fii'st  duo  September  1,  1922,  and  one  each  month  thereafter,  were 
■adiS  by  the  oil  company  and  they  were  sectored  by  the  assigninent 
as  extended  and  confirmed  by  the  agreement  of  July  15,  1922. 

On  September  1,  1922,  the  Oil  uooQ>any  ojcocuted  another 


•••ignnient  to  tho  some  trustoe  to  sootirtt  forty  bonds  of  C 500. 00 
eaohy  bearing  Interent  at  seven  per  cent^  v/ltV  principals  pay 
able  on  the  first  and  15th  of  each  month,  beginning  Leptoabmr 
If  1923,  and  continuing  thereafter,  ^e  bonds  vero  headed  as 
followst  "United  ^tatas  of  Air.oriea.  State  of  Isconsin. 
Developed  Oil  Properties  Company.  Second  Mortgage*  'even  per 
cent  bond*"   The  bonds  recited  that  they  were  secured  by  a  . 
mortgace  or  deed  of  trust  of  oveii  dtite,  aclniovleclged  and  de- 
livered by  the  oil  company  to  s&ld  Gee  as  trustoe  and  duly 
recoMod,  conveying  to  said  truutee  the  leaseholds  situated 
in  Latrrouce  County,  Illinois,  and  Caddo  County,  Oklahoma,  as 
more  particularly  specified  in  said  laortcai^e  or  deed  of  trust* 
Tha  Biortgace  or  deed  of  trust  thus  referred  to  in  tho  bonds 
being  the  assignment  dated  July  15,  1922.  The  assigntneat  and 
trust  instrument  thus  securing  the  bonds  I'esited  as  follows: 
''It  is  expressly  Sixeed  that  this  trust  deed  cr  mortgaGe  is 
subject  to  a  certain  other  trust  mortgaso  to  tho  sa^io  trustoe 
heretofore  glvon  and  upon  vrMch  there  is  « rpr»'rcli:istoly  duo  at 
this  lirae  ;  36,000.00,  ythlcih   s-  id  trust  deed  is  recorded  in  the 
County  of  Lawrence,  in  the  £tate  of  Illinois,  and  the  ^ounty 
of  Caddo,  in  the  State  of  ^Idohoma. 

It  was  provided  in  all  of  those  assignznents  and  trust 
intrui&onta  that  the  trustee  was  to  receive  all  the  money 
derived  from  the  sale  of  oil  i^nd  g&s  from  said  leases;  that 
it  was  to  be  used  by  him  to  pay  the  respective  no tea  or  bonds 
referred  to  in  the  assign  ents  securing  the  respective  loans j 
and  that  the  oil  conpany  was  to  pay  all  operati;^  ozpenses  on 
said  leases.  The  trustee  operated  the  properties  nuch  of  the 
time,  but  being  unprofitable,  he  sold  them.  The  'Leighty  i^ase' 
was  sold  in  December,  1925,  azK)  the  '*Ceaeat  Lease"  was  sold 
in  January,  1927.  The  not  proceeds  in  casih  from  the  sales 
was  C1V,024,G7- 

In  ay,  1927,  when  the  bill  of  interpleader  was  filed 
there  were  outstanding  unpaid  five  of  the  (3*000.00  iMtes  which 
were  secured  by  the  extciislon  agreement  executed  on  July  15, 


1922,  end  cnc  note  on  which  there  was  tanpold  v2, 000.00  on  the 
principal.   Throo  o  these  first  mentioned  notes  were  clainsed 
to  be  ovned  by  plaintiffs  in  error;  one  w&:?  ompflrl  by  .  J.  Gee 
persor.ally,  and  tho  note  on  which  Cl«000*00  ha  J  be-. a  paid  wss 
Hwnod     by  tho  Faimers  Zi:  to  Ba..k  of  Ls^n'eiiceville^  Illinois. 
Also  in  -iay,  1927,  oil  tho  bonds  were  outstanding*  except  that 
the  traetes  had  paid  himself  out  of  tlie  incpi.-io  fron  the  leases 
C1500*00  tvo  '  ake  up  tl-j»c©  bonds  hold  by  him  persoually.   interest 
h£.d  boon  paid  on  t^ie  bonds  to  September  1,  1925*  The  bonds 
were  then  owtxed  &8  follows}  Kui'l  Glover  ..,j.>0.00;  First 
National  Bank  of  L^  vz^xicevilley  Illinois,  s,C, 500.00;  First 
National  Bank  of  Srid^oport,  Illinois,  Co»000.00;  Tyler 
Andrews  ^2500.00,  all  defei^danta  in  error,  azid  one  bond  was 
ovniod  by  th©  Coatlner.tJQ.  Tupply  Company. 

T^  o  bill  of  interplooder,  af'er  settiL»e  fort  such 
faets  and  cirfiosistonces  as  are  above  su^ixnarized,  alleges  t  at 
the  holders  of  the  notes  and  the  holdors  of  the  bozids  each 
claim  priority  out  of  the  fuiid  of  4l7,0£4.C7  lu  tho  rands  of 
th©  trustee,  to  satisfy  their  respective  securities.  Ti-o 
decree  was  in  favor  of  the  bond  holders  on  the  que et ion  of  the 
right  of  priority  to  the  furui  in  the  hands  of  the  trustee, 
except  th£.t  the  trustee  hJid  erroriSousy  paid  himself  individu- 
ally f  1,500.00  for  the  three  bonds  held  by  hlia. 

The  decree  iS  based  upon  tl  o  finding  of  feet  by  the 
C"  ancellor  that  tho  plaintiffs  in  error,  namely,  George  C. 
HoepjHier,  Knute  Anderson,   .P.  Degenhairdt,  A.  "" .  Foffman, 
P.  C.  Atkinson,  C.  P.  looses  cjid  C  L.  Mason  sl^uld  be  es* 
topped  from  receiving  priority  in  said  fund  for  tboir  notes 
daiined  by  them  to  be  thoir  individual  property,  for  th©  reason 
that  they  bou^t  th©  seme  knowing  that  the  purchasers  of  the 
bonds,  were  making  a  loan  to  the  Oil  Compmnj   in  reliance  upon 
the  represent at ions  of  th©  company  that  th©  bonds  would  be 
paid  befoz^  said  notes. 


Plaintiffs  in  error  contend  that  the  decree  la  contrary 
to  the  law  and  the  facts  In  the  case,  relylnc  on  the  pro- 
position that  6  written  contract  coiinot  bo  contradicted  by 
parole  ovidonce;  thnt  the  evidence  does  not  show  that  the 
alleged  iroprosentations  were  .-nade  by  a  duly  «ut>  orized  aeent 
of  the  plointiffs  in  error;  end  that  neither  the  law  no*  tho 
facts  in  the  case  justify  the  application  of  the  do  triae  of 
estoppel  E(Tein8t  the  plaintiffs  in  error  to  clain  priority  in 
the  fand« 

A»  to  the  first  proposition  relied  upon  by  tho  plaintiffs 
in  error,  v,»e  ore  of  tho  opinion  thot  the  dcfondonts  in  error 
(  the  boi^  holcicrs)  rel  /  wpon,  that  their  rij^ita  and  interests 
gpf>v  out  of »  thfi  ttssigmnont  mnde  to  tho  trustee  dated  -<»pteza- 
ber  1,  1928,  and  the  bonds  thereby  sectored,  the  two  being 
construed  toc^thor.  They  are  bound  by  the  rule  that  parole 
evidence  is  not  admissible  to  very  or  contradict  the  terna 
of  a  written  agreeiaent.  Tl.erefoi»G,  any  parole  evidence  ap- 
pearing in  the  case  catinot  bo  considered  as  a  modification 
of  tho  tez^ns  of  the  assignment  making  the  notes  a  prior  lien 
on  the  leaseholds,   (fchaltz  v.  Plonklngton  3a  k,  1-11  ill.  116) 

The  question  to  determine  is  whether  tho  fiiiding  of 
tha  CT"ai"*cellor  Is  contrary  to  the  nanifest  weig't  of  the  evi- 
dence, tested  by  the  objections  made  to  it  by  the  alleged  er- 
rors assigned  by  the  plaintiffs  in  error.  The  burden  of 
proof  under  the  issues  presented  rerted  uix>ni  the  defe.idanta 
to  establish  the  ellofjed  estoppel  as  charged  in  their  answer. 
(Williojits  v.   ill  lams,  265  111.  64.  ) 

The  p?.aintiff 8  in  error  are  seven  of  the  nizu»  directors 
of  the  Oil  Company  fron  tho  tioie  of  tho  negotiation  of  the 
first  loan  laade  by  the  company,  until  the  company  bocanie  de- 
funct, during  idiich  timo  the  ri^ts  of  the  OTsruors  of  the  notes 
end  bonds  become  fixed.  On  i?epter:ber  14,  1925,  the  Farn»r« 
State  Bank  of  Lawrencevillc ,  Illinois,  at  tho  request  of 
'^'^      Gee,  aent  fbnipof  the  notes  now  in  question  to  the  tinion 

National  Bank  of  Eau  Clrire,  "isconsin,  with  cirectioas  thist 


I 


the  aane  vsre  to  be  dcllvoped  to  I.!r.  Hoepr.or  upon  the  paTaent 
of  the  draft  for  vl^#860.21  drawn  on  Vr*   Hoepimor.  In  J-eptea- 
ber,  19£3,  Mp.  Hoeppner  waa  epjpolntod  trvatce  by  the  plaintiffs 
In  error  to  talce  ccuo  of  t  ese  notes  and  to  relieve  L'r.  Oee 
of  the  responsibilities  of  operating  the  Intorerts  in  the 
leaseholds.  It  was  the  uriCerstsnding  betiareen  the  plcintiffa 
in  error  and  !tonley,  the  president  of  the  Company,  and  one 
l\,   £•  i:andahly  comprising  thje  directors  of  the  -il  Company, 
that  oech  of  t^iem  should  advarice  or*o-ninth  of  the  auiount  re- 
quired to  pay  for  the  fotir  notes  attached  to  the  draft.  Uanley 
and  Sanda>J.  never  coutributod  their  t^i-o  ninths  for  this  pur- 
pose. 

Plaintiffs  in  error,  on  October  C,   192c,  paid  to  the 
Union  Bank  C9»333.34  on  the  drsft,  viiich  paid  for  three  of 
the  notes  and  interest  thereon.  ThJ.8  cocunt  was  raised  by 
the  plaintiffs  in  error  by  ecch  one  cf  then  paying  Kt. 
Bosppner,  their  trustee,  the  airr  of  ^1,700. 00,  racef.ving 
from  :^m   Roeppner  a  receipt,  dcaignntcd  c:i  its  f-ico  us  a 
"certificate"  stating  that  each  held  a  one-ninth  intorest  in 
the  not^s  for  the  plaintiff  in  error  given  the  certificate. 
Ths  amount  paid  by  plaintiffs  in  ei*ror  to  Foeppnar,  above  the 
sum  required  to  pay  for  the  three  notes  vaa  used  l:y  Iloeppner 
after  he  succeeded  Gee,  as  trustee.  Tor  the  plaintiffs  in       ^^ 
error,  to  pay  indebtedness  of  the  ^11  Company,  in  the  oper- 
ation of  the  leaseholds  and  to  increase  the  production  of 
the  wells.  The  notes  have  remai.i.ed  In  the  Union  'Actional 
Bank,  Knuto  Anderson,  secret ajry  and  treasurer  of  the  Oil 
Comp>any  being  cashier  of  that  bank. 

The  notes  were  not  narked  paid  or  cancelled,  so  far  as 
the  record  in  the  case  shows.  The  plaintiff  in  error  liover 
received  or  demanded  any  interest  on  the  notes.  Plaintiffs 
in  error  all  testified  the  notes  were  pure  asod  by  t'  cis  ia- 
dividually  to  pi»otect  themaelves,  the  r   being  involved  personally 
<m  other  conEnercial  paper  of  the  ^il  Cksapany,  and  furt  ermore. 


to  get  the  notes  in  frio!i>.ll7  hands  to  prevent  foreclosure 
under  the  notes.   Uanley  and  Tiuidshl  gave  their  note  for 
$2,CXX)«00  to  secure  the  balance  <?ue  on  the  fourth  note  held 
}yj   the  Farmers  State  Oaxik  of  Lowrenoeville;  .^hothor  it  was 
t^o  Intontion  of  Henley  and  Sandahl  to  dlachoTGe  the  note  or 
porchase  it  rioos  not  appefj*  froos  the  record-  Kolther  uas  s 
ifitnesc  In  the  cp.b©« 

The  onawer  of  the  d  fendonts  in  error  docs  not  preaent 
the  is  rue  thiit  the  plaintiffs  in  error  pdirc.  ased  or  took  up 
the  roten  wMIe  the  Oil  rxunpany  was  insolver^t,  nor  is  the 
decree  baser!  en  a   firdin^  thet;  tlie  doa lines  of  the  plaintiffs 
5.n  error,  in  ta!^n^  v.p  the  notes,  irore  to  their  adva-.tsgo  after 
th<»  con^Mny  was  insolvent  or  about  to  beccHne  oo.  T^o  decree 
doos  not  rind  that  th'^  defendants  in  error  to  their  lose  did 
forbear  to  bring  suit  to  secure  e  foreclosure  of  their  bonds 
because  of  representations  nade  by  the  Oil  Compaiay  or  the 
plaintiffs  in  error.  "  e  ore  of  tl:c  opinion  that  this  Court 
Is  conflnec  to  the  question  whethor  the  plaintiffs  in  error 
purchased  the  notes  knofTing  the  the  Oil  Company  hnd  made 
representations,  or  t^  e  plaintiffs  in  error  thcnso:ive8  made 
represortationc,  t:  at  the  bonds  would  be  paid  before  the  notes, 
undor  such  oircurist&r.ces  as  to  ecyuitably  estop  them  from 
claiming  priority  for  the  notes.  (/J?p  v.  Bloke,  60  Cal.  App. 
362,   218  Pac.  773.  ) 

There  were  twelve  of  this   * 3,000.00  notes.  The  trustee 
Oss  paid  five  of  these  notes  on  February  23,  1923,  and  two 
of  then!  on  Septeimber  23,  1923.  The  three  claiiued  by  plaintiffs 
in  oiTor  were  due  Kay  1,  June  1,  and  July  1,  in  the  year  1923, 
and  were  i)aid  by  purtial  payjnent  of  the  draft  roferr  d  to  on 
October  G,  1923.  The  notes  were  nade  payable  to  ^Ourselves'' 
(xBeanlng  tl  e  Oil  Comp&..j)   at  the  Farmers  State  Be.-k  of 
LesTttnceville,  Illinois,  and  endorsed  by  the  company  in  blank. 
The  record  does  not  s^  ow  that  the  plaintiffs  in  error  had  paid 


or  advanced  any  aioiidy  to  pay  or  t&l;c  up  any  of  the  twelve 
notes  not  ..on   In  quortlon.  The  tltlo  to  tius  otcG  was 
traiaf disable  by  vasDm   delivery.  The  draft  was  Jrava  on 
BooirpDBV,   not  the  oil  Company.  There  is  no  ovidcuce  that 
the  Oil  Company  paid  the  ^9,355.54,  but  to  tho  contrary  the 
evidence  shows  that  tho  aaoxsit  was  paid  by  tho  pl&liitlffs  in 
error  froa  their  personal  property.  Tho  letter  of  loatructiona 
sent  r;lth  tho  draft  v^cs  :.ot  introduced  In  evidence,  aor  it 
contents  provod.  Uador  all  tlio  circ"aastu^*c«s  la  the  case  «s 
think  It  may  be  infon^d  that  the  holder  of  tl  o  thi'ec  i^otos 
Impliedly  consented  to  tho  8£j.o  of  tho  notes.   (iCathcom  v. 
Duncan,  96  U.  £.  659,  24  Law.  Ed.  060  )  The  dofo^cluats  in 
error  did  not  stiff er  an/  leas  or  chr.n^e  tiiolr  position  In 
reliance  upon  belief  of  thoiro  that  the  Oil  Company  had  paid 
or  dlBcherced  the  notoa. 

Ihe  representation  relied  yxpoii   In  the  case;  to  create 
en  estoppel  in  pais  are  testifiod  to  by  t;u>  dcrt^iuiai^ts  in 
error.  Glover,  J.  D.  :.addlng,  president  of  tlK.  First  i^ational 
Bonk  of  Bridgeport,  Illinois,  Frederick  ^ller,  president  of  the 
First  -'atioRal  Bei-Jc  of  I>awroncevllle,  Illinois,  and  Tyler 
Ai;xdz*ews«  Tlieir  teatlmony  wao  to  the  effect  t^  at  !Ioepixier,  in 
the  presence  of  JAanley,  in  1924,  about  t«o  yc-i-s  after  defend- 
ants in  error  purdiased  tl  e  box^s,  s-uld  to  the  bond  holders 
"Tl-'eoe  notes  have  been  taken  up  and  ya;  fellows  ore  to  conie 
first  ai:d  just  be  patient  and  we'll  take  core  of  you  al^ead  of 
everything."  That  Manley  a  id  thct  tho  bonds  were  to  cosoe 
before  tlie  notes;  and  that  he  vould  ^go  on  the  8tc.£id  and  swear 
that  I  ves  aaathorlEed  to  make  the  notes  a  first  lien  on  the 
pi»operty."  On  cross-exarainction  Olovor  testified  that  Croe  ^fi 
state  the  bonds  were  a  first  lien  on  the  leaseholds;  none  of 
the  other  defendants  in  error  testified  that  Gee  stated  :/hen 
the  bonds  were  purcliased  that  they  were  a  first  lien  on  the 
IMPoperty.   All  of  tl»  defe  .dant  In  error  knew  the  bonds  were 


a  second  lien  on  the  property  at  tho  time  they  purchased  them. 
The  knowledge  acquired  by  the  defendants  in  error  after  t  ey 
purchased  the  bonds  thrt  the  oil  Company  mey  have  decided,  if 
it  did  so  deride,  by  resolution  or  ob'  ei^wiae,  uo  aischarge  the 
notes  and  make  the  bonds  a  first  lien  on  the  property  did  not 
influence  the  dofonJn::tB  in  error  to  purchase  the  bonds.   The 
defendants  in  error  v/ere  not  mislec.  by  any  such  alln^ed  action 
of  the  Oil  Company  pnd  the  plaintiffs  in  error  are  not  estopped 
to  claiin  o\Txiership  of  t  r-  three  notes  by  I'erson  of  any  2"ach 
claimed  action.-  Kothcerber  v»  Duguy,  64  111.  45ij;  otraus 
V.  Vinzeaheimer,  78  111.  492;  reMpsbeec  v.   Brcari,  k?75  111., 
S58.   The  d?cr:=»e  is  not  FuetPinee.  by  the  evidence. 

The  suit  ia  remanded  to  the  Circuit  Court  of  Lav.Tence  County 
with  direction  that  a  decree  be  entered  directing  te  br^astee  Gee 
to  pay  from  the  fui'.ds  in  Ms  haiias  iis  such  tr^o.stee  the  costs  cT  unit 
Including  tho  costs  of  t^is  ap^^ealj   th.it  so  far  as  t'^'-  roinalxider 
of  said  fund  will  extend,  the  said  ti^stee  pay  himself  the  sum 
of  C1500.00  and  he  taJce  nothing  fi^rt  er  in  satisfaction  of  the 
three  bonds  at  one  time  held  by  him,  which  amoiint  and  his  re- 
ceipt of  the  C 1500. JO  for  his  three  bonds  sh.?.ll  be  !"or  i^is  com- 
pensation as  sue  trustee;   and  that  tVe  balance  of  said  fund 
be  paid  to  t'o  holders  of  t  e  five  notes  with  interest  in  order 
of  t'eir  maturity,  less  any  amount  shown  to  be  paid  on  any  of  such 
notes;   provided  that  if  such  balance  is  not  sufficient  to  pay 
all  of  said  notes  with  interest,  th^n  that  he  dlstribx;te  suid 
balance  pro  rata  among  the  owners  of  said  notes;   that  if  any 
balance  re-iains  in  his  hands  after  paysing  said  notes  in  order  of 
their  maturity,  as  aforesaid,  t  at  ho  distribute  such  latter  ba..ance 
among  the  bond  holders  pro  rata. 

Reversed  and  remanded. 


Number  Nine. 


IN  THE 


Iliimber  Twelve. 


APPELLATE  COURT  OP  Hi  INOIS .  ^    M     I-     I  '"^     jj 

FOURTH  DISTRICT. 

FEB  12  1930 

•       "  •   *'■  ifti(fr"r\-T\yVl'\llE  COURT 

CHARLES  DURFEE,  ) 

Plaintiff  In  Error) 

)    Error  tc 
vs.  )     Circuit  Court  of 

)  Saline  Gotinty. 

R.    5.   JJorrow  &  50H,    at  al.,  ) 

Def exxdexit s  In  Error. 


256I.A.  617 


Opinion  of  Justice  Fred  0.  Wolfe. 

This  case  was  commenced  by  t-  e  plaintiff 
In  error,  Charles  Durfeee,  filing  a  bill  in  th<=?  Circxiit 
Court  of  Saline  County  on  November  19,  1927,  praying 
that  all  moneys  coming  into  the  hands  of  tre  defendants  in  error 
R.  S.  M<pvo«  &  Son,  for  work  done  on  railway  construction 
for  the  defendant,  Sovthern  Illinois  &;  Kentucky  Railv/aj 
Company,  by  E.  S.  and  Forest  Kelley  be  declared  a  trc st 
fund  in  the  lands  of  said  Morrows  for  the  benefit  of  the 
plaintiff  in  error;  t:  at  they  be  ordered  to  pay  t>i  full 
amount  due  the  plaintiff  5.n  error  from  said  Kelleys  und 
that  R.  S.  liorrow  &  Son  be  required  by  the  o-der  of  the 
court  to  affirm  or  disaffirm  an  account  stated  in  sj  ic 
bill.   It  is  conceded  that  the  two  defendants  In  error, 
A.  Guthrie  &  Co.,  and  the  Scut  ern  Illinois  &  Kentucky 
Railway  Clompany,  have  paid  to  R.  £.  Iriorroe  &  oon  all 
moneys  alleged  due  E.   .  and  Fdirest  Kelley,  and  the 
controvers  -  is  between  the  si^id  Charles  Curfee  aiid  R.  S. 


(2) 


demurrer  to  the  bill,  the  specific  ground  for-  the  demur- 
rer being  thnt  E.  5.  and  Forest  IKelley,  co-portnors, 
were  not  n^^^fe^the  bill.   Tlie  dei.urrer  bei.  g  over- 
ruled, the  plaintiff  ii;  error  filed  an  aiiav/er  to  the 
merits  of  the  bill.  After  hearing  the  evidence  by 
thcoe  two  parties  to  s^aetain  tho  bill  and  tVe   aiisv/cr, 
the  chancellor,  upon  Eotl.  n  of  the  defeadant  in  error, 
dismissed  tho  bill  for  vvarit  of  equity.  By  answering  after 
a  genecal  demurrer  is  overruled,  the  rig'-t  to  assign 
error  in  overruling  the  deimirrer  is  waived.  Gieason  & 
Bailey  Mfg.  Co.,  v.  Hoff^dan,  168  111.  2C, 
HoTvever,  it  is  contended  by  the  defendaiits  in  error  that 
although  the  bill  may  contain  sufficient  allegations 
authorizing  a  court  of  equity  to  talce  jurisdiction, 
still  tho  case  by  the  proff  was  one  wherein  the 
plaintiff  in  error  T.ad  e  complete  and  cdequate  rerredy 
in  law,  and  the  lower  court  would  not  have  open  justified  in 
retaining  jurisdiction  to  determine  if  thure  should  be 
introduced  a  money  decree  in  favor  of  plaintiff  in  e.'rcr. 
In  support  of  their  position,  clefendant  in  error  cite 
Brauer  v.  Laughlin,  235  111.  265. 

The  allegations  of  the  bill,  ronming  the 
basis  of  its  prayer  are  that  tlo  Kelleys  being  wit-  out 
funds  to  undertake  the  construction  work  on  said  railway, 
applied  to  plaintiff  in  eri'or  for  money  Vv'ith  which  to 
carry  on  the  work;  that  he  advanced  to  them  fo^'  thpt 
purpose  t^  e  suin  of  ;,40,000.00,  and  as  a  means  cf  se- 
curing: payment  for  said  advaiices,  the  Kelleys  executed 
and  delivered  to  plainitff  in  er  cr  a  written  astip^'-emnt. 
Tlie  assignment  is  set  out  in  haec  verba  in  the  bill  and 
under  vrhich  the  plaintiff  in  error  claims  he  had  a 
vested  rig  t  in  the  alleged  trust  fund.   The  alleged 
asEigziinent  is  dated  I«iarch  1925,  and  directed  to  the 
defendants  in  error  authorizing  them  to  execute  and 


(3) 


deliver  all  checks  or  other  meiias  of  payment  to  be 
paid  to  E.  s.  Kolley  and  Forest  Kelley  for  till  ./ork 
pi-^rforxned  by  them  under  their  ggreement  witV;  the  defend- 
ants in  error;  that  such  payment  shalD  stand  as  pavinent 
to  the  said  Kelleys  as  if  the  same  had  been  made  direct- 
ly to  thein;  tho  inotruinont  further  appointee  the  plaintiff 
in  error  attorney  for  t'  e  Kelleys  to  recatve,  receipt 
and  discharge  the  said  defendants  in  error  for  payrrent 
of  all  moneys  accruing  to  Kelleys  by  r  ason  of  '7ork  done 
on  said  railv/ay  wit'  full  power  of  substitution  and  rev- 
ocation*  The  alleged  assignrrient,  yhJ-ch  will  hereinafter 
be  refer r-ed  to  as  Exhibit  1,  was  e.xec"uted  bsfore  the 
Kelleys  had  eamod  any  ;no:iey  for  vork  clone  under  tr>eir 
contract  with  the  defendants  in  error* 

It  is  evicont  that  the  bill  was  di'awn 
on  the  theory  that  ilxbibit  1  is  an  equitable  asf?ign- 
ment  absolute  to  plaintiff  in  error  of  all  of  the  funds 
coining  into  the  Viands  of  the  defendant  in  error  in  pay- 
Tne.it  for  tVe  isork  to  be  performed  by  the  said  Kollo  s  and 
that  the  defeiidants  in  error,  after  notice,  held  the  same 
as  a  tinAStee  for  the  plaintiffs  in  error  as   assir^iee, 
and  that  a  coui't  of  equity  has  Jurisdiction  to  enforce 
the  ti-UHt.   Plaintiff  In  en'or  urges  no  other  grounds 
of  equitable  jurisdiction.  Tne   Kelleys  were  not  made 
parties  to  the  suit.   On  the  ^earing  the  plaintiff  in 
error  Introduced  evidence  tending  to  si  ov;  that  the  amount 
which  had  been  received  by  the  defendants  in  error  for 
work  done  by  the  Kelleys  durir^g  the  months  of  October, 
November  and  Decerabcr,  1925,  no  part  of  which  has  been 
paid  to  the  plaintiff  in  error;   Exhibit  1  v/as  FC'nitted 
in  evidence  and  defendants  in   error  were  served  v.ith  a 
duplicate  copy  thorocf  on  April  19,  19S5. 

Tl~'e  v;o  'k  done  by  the  Kelleys  was  under  a 


U) 


contract  entered  Into  by  them  with  the  defendants  In  error, 
the  plaintiff  in  error  rosted  his  case  upon  this  show- 
lug  and  the  defendants  in  error  madv)  a  motion  to  disirdsa 
the  bill  for  wtuit  of  equity  which  was  overrul^^d. 

In  asnwer  to  the  bill  the  dfendauts  in 
error  admitted  the  following  fP.cts,  -ind  whicyi  both 
parties  concede  ere  sho./n  by  the  evidence  in  tne  case. 
That  the  said  .Souti.em  llll^iois  &  i^ntuclcy  Hallway  ^^o., 
undertook  the  construction  of  a  road  bed  for  a  line 
of  railroad  and  entered  into  an  agreement  with  the 
s  id  A.  Outhrie  S;  Co.,  for  the  construction  of  certain 
portions  of  said  road  bed^  who  sub-contracted  a  portion 
to  the  defendants  in  error;  that  defendants  in  error 
on  February  23,  1925,  sub-confcracted  tVat  portion  of  the 
construction  of  said  ror.d  bed  between  stations  lies-  5410,  &  5545 
in  this  State,  to  the  said  Kelleys  and  that  ninety  per 
cent  of  the  contract  price  of  the  wo.lr  was  dorie  during 
each  month,  as  shovm  by  the  estimate  of  t^e  engineer  of 
the  rMilway  com  any,  should  be  P'-iid  to  said  Kellc^ys  each 
moj^th,  the  remaining  ten  per  ce.it  beiiig  deferr  d  'Oiitil 
the  completion  of  the  v.orlc  under takBB  by  the  Kolleys. 
That  Exhibit  ilo.  1  was  executed  and  delivered  to 
defendants  in  error  who  paid  to  plaintiff  in  error  checks 
for  vK>rk  done  up  to  and  includi^.g  the  ir^onth  of  i'^ptember, 
1925,  by  virtue  of  tie  provisions  of  J;.:xhibit  1. 

The  'answer  furV  er  alleges  that  the 
Kelle  s  continues  to  work  xmdor  said  contract  uitil  some 
time  in  r)ecerriber,  1925,  end  that  ihey  then  failed  and 
neglected  to  keep  and  perform  the  terins  and  ctujclitions 
of  their  contract  with  th."  defendant  in  error  p;  icr  and 
subsequent  to  thct  rime.   Also  that  the  -ork  undertaken 
by  the  Knlleys  under  their  contract  with  the  defendants 
in  error  was  completed  sometime  in  November,  1927,  by 
A.  L.  Robb3  uncer  a  contract  entered  into  between  himself 


%o| 


and  the  defendants  in  error  after  the  Kelleys  quit  on 
t>icir  contract.  It  is  conceded  by  the  plaintiffs  In  error 
that  the  Keileys  stopped  under  their  coatract  about  Dec- 
ember 18,  1925,  and  that  Robbe  finished  the  work.  The 
ansT^er  also  avers  that  the  defendants  in  error  h.ave  mid 
to  plaintiff  in  e^-ror  Uiidor  Exhibit  1  noro  than  vms  due 
naid  Kc-lleys  under  t  e  terms  of  the  contract.   On  the 
trial,  tho  annwer  was  amended  by  inserting  tvat  the  ce- 
fendants  in  arror  were  hindered  and  delayed  iii  tho  per- 
forntance  of  thoir  contract  with  A.  CJatherle  &  Co.  on  ac- 
count of  such  default  of  the  Xelleys,  and  \79re  damaged 
to  the  amount  of  ,10,000.00. 

Tlie  cont.  act  botv/een  tho  defendants  in 
error  anc  the  Kelleys  contains  a  schedule  fixing  th© 
prices  to  bo  rocoivod  by  the  la'Pter,  p^^r-  unit  rseaucre, 
for  cloarins,  grubbing,  saading,  hauling,  etc.  for  the 
construction  of  the  road  bed.  The  Kelleys  were  to  be 
pai4  for  th^ir  work  according  to  estimate  made   der  the 
seme  conditions  and  r.t  the  scunu  time  that  the  d-fsndanta 
in  error  received  payments  for  pstimatos  froia  .  Outhrie 
&  Co.,  and  upon  completion  of  the  entire  work  ci^lled  for 
In  their  contract  according  to  its  atipi^lations,  the 
Kelleys  were  to  receive  full  payme.  t  for  the  vcrk. 
The  evidence  slov/s  that  the  defendants  in   error  rDCoived 
from  A.  OuthiTle  «:  Co.  pa ments  for  estir^ictes  fcr  v-ork 
done  by  the  Kelleys  londer  their  contrr-ct  for  Gctooer, 
i"«ovember  and  December,  1925,  including  $3899.41 ,  vhich 
aicount  is  ten  per  cent  of  the  estijiates  of  the  vcrk 
perforraed  by  the  Kelleys  from  the  time  they  began  to  work 
on  the  contract  u:itil  tYu-.j   quit  son.e  ti::.e  in  l-sceT»ber. 

In  the  contract  between  the  defendant  in 
error  and  tve  Kelleys  there  are   no  terms  in  regard  to 
ten  percent  o  the  contract  price,  or  estimate,  to  be 
with-held  a^'^d  to  oe  paid  to  the  Kelleys  upon  the. 


(6) 


coinploticn  of  their  vrork.  According  to  t'-eir  agreement, 
tljB   Kelleys  wore  to  bo  paid  efltiumtea  ae  above  indicated,  and  up< 
coi-iplotion  of  the  './ork  they  should  receive  i\ill  payment 
for  the  sam<^.     Ther.^  is  iio  basis  for  the  contention  of 
the  plaintiff  in  error  that  he  is  entitled  to  tea  per 
cent  of  the  entire-  contr-ict  price  Tor   the  wor't  performed 
by  tho  Kolle/e,  uraess  ib  be  that  provision  of  the  contract 
between  dr.fendant  in  error  nad  A.  Giitrcoie  &  Co,  which 
providea  that  sue":  ten  p'.vc  cent  shall  be  withf^held  Witil 
the  complotlon  of  the  v/ork  undertaken  by  A.  -XvLhrie  &  Oow 
If  the  plaintiff  is  error  takes  the  p->3ition  thct  the 
Kellevs  were  entitled  to  this  ten  par  cent  bec-msa  the 
work  was  in  fact  completed,  although  by  someone  olse, 
TTe  thlnl<:  he  c^-;inot  be  s\^ stained,  ■..e  are  of  f.^o  opinion 
t^'  t  the  Kollcy3,under  th.^ir  contract  with  th?  d>-fe:.dants 
in  error,  v.'ere  not  entitled  to  j^ill  pa:;iaent  u.;til  they 
shored  a  coiuplste  substantial  perforraaacc  of   their 
contract.  Ther  are  no  allegations  in  the  bill,  nor  any 
profif  appearing  in  the  evidence,  that  the  ilelleya  were 
pre -routed  fr-oai  finishing  their  contract  by  a^.y  act  or 
omission  on  the  part  of  the  defendants  in  error.  T'.e 
Kollcys  never  co.^ipleted  t'  olr  contract,  but  only  about 
one-half  thereof.  Ther pf ore,  neither  they  nor  th^e 
plaintiff  in  error »  as  tho.r  alleged  asalg  iee,  r^^f^   en- 
titled to  the  ten  per  cent,  or  any  part  of  't.  (Grassnian 
V.  Bonn,  52  IT.  J.  Equity,  45;  Hazc-lton  Mercantile  Go. 
V.  Union  Improvement  Co.,  14S  Pa.  573,  22  Atl,  906; 
Jackson  v.  Clevelond,  etc.  R.  Co.  19.  ^is.  422; 
Geiger  v.  Vest  em  I/arylond  R.  Co.  41  Vd.,  4;  Lagdon  V. 
Northfl'^ld,  42  I'ini.,  42 1,  44  K.  w  984.) 

The  entire  amount  of  the  estiv.atey,  in- 
cluding the  ten  per  cc-xit  t).  ore  of  was  paid  by  defendants 
in  error  to  A.  L.  Robbs  as  part  consideration  of  his  agreement 


(7) 


to  finish  the  vrork  left  unperformed  by  the  Kelleyc  at 
the  sjune  price  per  UTiit  as  stipiilated  In  the  contract 
between  Vo   Kelleys  and  the  defendants  in  er'or,  and 
the  amofunt  was  to  be  used  by  Robbs  to  pa  such  debts  and 
llcbllltiec  of  the  Kelleys  incurred  by  them  In  p  rform- 
Ing  their  said  work,  and  which  they  had  egi'e';d  to  pay 
and  discharije  in  their  agreement  with  the  defendants  in 
error.  Ati  examination  of  the  cont  act  between  the 
Kelleys  and  the  defendants  in  error  reveals  tiiat  all  por- 
tions of  the  "standard  form  of  contract"  embodiec;.  in  the 
agreement  between  A.  Guthrie  &  GO.  and  the  defendants 
in  error  are  expressly  mede   bincHins,  so  far  as  applicable, 
upon  the  Kelleys  and  the  defendatns  in  error. 
By  paragraph  $  of  their  contract  the  Kelleys  s.£;rc3d,   if 
required  by  the  dofendaiits  in  error,  to  f'j.rnish  suffi- 
cient proof  as  niight  be  required,  t^-at  all  cl-aiirjs 
against  tl-on  in  or  on  accoua^  of  t'.e  work  performed  by 
tliem  under  their  contract  bed  been  fially  p.s-id  and  settled. 

Article  19  of  the  standard  PoT^m   of  contract 
provided  that  the  contr.actor  shall  settle  and  satisfy 
all  claims  for  labor,  n'.cterlal  and  supplies  ariairig  on 
account  of  the  v/ork  performed  under  t -'e  contract.  Should 
the  contractor  fell  to  do  so,  tVe  railway  company  had 
the  right,  in  its  discretion  and  at  sue*  tirie  as  '.t 
dee  ed  advisable,  to  comproEiise  or  settle  any  claims 
mentioned  in  Article  19,  sine  such,  ccinpromise  or  settle- 
T^ient  was  made  binding  upon  the  contractor.  Article  19 
of  the  standard  forai  of  contract,  under  the  terms  of  the 
agreement  ^ith  the  I'lelleys  and  the  defendant  in  eri'or, 
becarae  a  part  of  tho  latter  agreement. 

In  thoir  snsT/er  the  defendants  in  error 
alleged  that  the  Kellejs  before  some  time  in  Deeexruer, 
1925,  had  not  r^^.5.rt  for  tho  labor  performed  under  tl  olr 


(8)     r* 

Agreement  v/if^^   the   d  fondants  In  error  and  were   in 
default  under  the  terme  and  oondi  3 ohd  of  suld  contract; 
and  fhat  defeiidnnts  in  error  dlBconi  Inued  making  pcyments 
for  tlie   vvorlc  perfomcd   by  t'  e  Kfelleye  for  the  reason  that 
they  oo  dofaulied.       Kvidence  v/«8  introduced  Dy  tVie  de« 
feudai.ts  in  error  for  V  <    parpcse  of  sustaining  these 
allegations  of  f^i.eir  ariBwor  and  consisted  of  mariy  alleged 
debts  Slid  liabil.itico  unpaid  bj   th-?  Kelloye  IncvTX'hdg 
it  1?  contended,   iiX  tlie  performance  of  their  at\id 
a^eement.     These  ftcccuntn  included  Isbor,   ^p^ocery,  power, 
oil,   gas  and  variou.«?  otrer  bills   against   tie  Kelleya. 
The  intmrance  pramiurrs  to  be  paid  by  the  Kelleys  for  the 
protection  of  themselves  ?-nd  t>e  ucftiadant:^  in  er.  or 
against  olsims  undv»r  tVe  tVorknien's  Compensation  Act,  had  to 

b©  da-termined  to  arrive  et  a  connect  amoxiiat  due  the  Kelleys 
frorB  tl^Q  defendants   in  ei^ror.        Tlie   evidexice  furt/    i'      shows 
tl  at  the   personal  d^bts   of  the  Trglleys,   'and.  tlioir  expenses 
for  doing  other  -/ork  on  f.  ha^d  ;t?oad,  vrei'o   iiitor.Tdngled 
with  the  allegod  unp^.ld  debts  for  ths    -^ork  c;o:ie  uncrr 
their  agreoinout.     Tl:*?  defendants  in  orror  claimed  dasiages 
from  t^e  Kolleys  because  of  t-oir  failure  tc  finish  the 
work  called  for  by  their  contract.        iCidiibit  1,    L>:ci   al- 
leged assignment,   ivas  to  secure  tho  plaintirf  iii.  er.'or 
for  jKor.oys  sdv?.r.ced  by  hj.-'n  to   the  Kelleys  and  vjas  not 
an  absolute  assignment.      If  an  as-^ignnent.   It   transferred 
future  earnings  of  tie  I'sl?.eys.     The  accounts  oetueen     the 
parties  to  the  siiit  m"<ri   the  Kelleys,  wer^  t'erefore, 
aaitual  and  intricate  r.ud  f  .oni  tti^  evidence  \;e  Tiiid  that, 
if  the  Kelleys  had  been  made  parties   to   the   su:'t,    a  coxa?t 
of  equity  would  have  had  juriadlrtion  tc   fii   the   rights 
of  all  the  persons  Interested  in  thv-   alleged  fur.d,  under 
the  general  prayer  for  relief  contc:ine-J   3^  the  bill. 


i%\ 


Prom  the  proaeedlnija  and  evidence  In  this 
istxini   *c  are  oi  th«  opinion  i.naL  a.,    o.  tj^ij.e^    anu  rorest 
^WR^^'we're  aocessary  parties  to  this  suit.   la  Kiley  v» 

obb,  27i?  111.  S3^,  "It^^ls  sliI^T''^Ir?eq^P6yai±V)ersouB 
vJ^o  have  aiiy  miba^mitlal,  i    1,  —  jonoficial  interest 
In  the  subjttct  matter  ir.  litigation,  and  who  vill  bo 

materially  affected  by  the  dicroo  munt  be  made  parties, 
aiid  the  Court  in  not  nuforlzod  to  proceed  to  q  decree 
if  the  bill  sho,;s  that  a  person  havin,';  a  substantial 
interest  has  not  b?en  broug)it  into  co^iri^." 

The  defendants  first  rai-^ed  this  question 
by  deraarring  to  the  bill,  allege inc  that  the  Kelleys 
were  necessary  parties  ancl  we^e  not  made  a  party  eithor 
plaintiff  or  defendaait  fai   tho  suit.   At  th^  close  of 
the  plaintiff •&  case  toie  defendant  a3.':;in  rained  this 
question  by  makitig  a  'notion  to  dismisc  th»''  bill  for 
failure  to  »'.ake  Kelleys  parties  to 'the  suit.  The  co\:rt 
overruled  the  motion,  r.tatinr-  £.3  one  of  liis  I'easone 
for  so  doing  that  he  vranted  to  hear  the  evidence  of  the 
deferdanto.  At  the  clcr.e  of  c.ll  the  evidence  the  defendant 
agaitt  raised  this  quenviox.  by  a  motion  to  dlsr-dLGs  the 
bill  for  .;r.iit  of  equity  ard  by  fcilure  to  ir.ake  t'  e 
Kelleys  parties  to  t>ve  suit.  The  court,  vvithout  giving 
a  specific  reason  thorefor,  diamssed  the  bill  for  want 
of  equity.  The  deferidfu.ts  raised  this  question  throe 
tiui  n  before  the  bill  vfaa  filially  diasiissed.  Ihe  plain- 
tiffs, to  pr  serve  their  -Igi  ta  should  have  inaclc  soj:e 
effort  to  malce  the  Kelleys,  parties  to  the  suit.  The  ' 
nado  no  effort  so  far  as  the  rocorda  show  ,  to  have  the 
Eelieya  brougjht  into  court  f-^at  a  proper  adjudication 
of  the  rig-ts  of  the  parties  could  be  had. 

vVe  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  Chancellor  properly 
sustained  the  motion  of  the  drfencant  to  dismiss  the  bill 
for  want  of  equity  and  by  the  failiare  to  have  the  necessary 


(10) 


parties  in  coiirt  for  a  proper  adjudication  of  all  the 
ciaiins . 

The  decree  of  the  Circuit  Court 
of  Saline  County  is  hereby  affirmed. 


Number  24.4 


IN  THE 
APPELLATE  COURT  OP  ILLINOIS, 
FOURTH  DISTRICT. 


October  Term,  A.  D.,  1929. 


GUS  A.  EISKANT  and  G.  M.  MILLPJR, 
P  rtBera,  Doing  Busiaess  Under  the 
Firm  flame  and  Style  of 

MILLER  AUTO  LAUIIDRY  COMPANY, 

Appellees, 
vs. 


Number  24. 


LEO  KOGYDOR, 


Appeal  from  the 
City  Court  of 
East  St.  Louis, 
Illinois. 


Appellant,   ) 


Opinion  by  Justice  Fred  G.  Wolfe. 


Mr.  August  G.  Rels,  of  Belleville,  Illinois, 
was  the  owner  of  a  garage  and  lot  situated  in  the  City  of 
East  ST.  Louis,  Illinois.  Mr.  Reis  in  April,  1924,  entered 
into  a  lease  with  Orville  L.  Dirden,  George  K,   Miller,  and 
Gus  A.  Eiskant,  for  t :e  premises  in  question.   The  lease 
provided  for  a  rental  of  ;1?250.00  per  mont^  during  its  term. 
In  July  1924  Mr.  Reis  conveyed  this  property  to  the  appel- 
lant, Leo  Kosydor.   In  March  1925  the  appellant  brought  a 
suit  of  forcible  entry  and  detainer  against  the  appellee 
in  a  Justice  of  Peace's  Court,  which  was  later  appealed  to 
the  City  Court  of  East  ST.  Louis,  Illinois.   On  the  29th  of 
June,  1925,  a  stipulation  was  entered  into  in  which  it  was 
agreed  that,  if  t> e  defendants,  Gus  A.  Eiskant  and  George  K. 
Miller  would  vacate  the  premises  described  in  the  lease  or 
or  before  the  first  day  of  August,  1925,  the  appellant  Kost- 
dor  would  pay  them  CSOO.OO,  which  said  sum  was  deposited 
with  theClerk  of  t^  e  Court;  further,  that  he  would  waive  any 


:>.l'2  necfati 


.TOIHT  1 


,.a    .A   ,iJPS©T  iQcTod^oC 


'      3rf;t  1®.  .  ^ 


:^  Of)!.  J.  ■:>;■•■• 


( 


Jia    Jo.r   ijyiia    o;  "Q-ff 

'-;oiu  isq  00. CSS;;,!  to    '  ^lol  j3a5IvoriCi 

or    ;,:i'if.i.'Oncr  a±rl:^  ,        ^201  ^^"1^  ill 

'      " '>rf^  aO      .aior,;  .T3    ic  ,:^ol    z^lO  &rii 

f^   erfi   oioiocf  •rci 
6£xiow  lofc 


(2) 


claim  that  he  might  have  against  the  defendant  for  rent. 
The  ^500.00  was  paid  by  }&p*   Kosjdor  to  the  Clerk  of  the 
Court  by  Llr.  Kosydor  delivering  his  check  for  the  amoirnt. 
The  appellant  Kosydor  claimed  that  the  defendants  did  not 
comply  with  the  terms  of  the  stipulation  to  vacate  the 
premises  on  or  before  the  first  day  of  August,  1925,  and 
went  to  the  Clerk  of  the  Court  and  demanded  the  return 
of  his  check.  Upon  said  demand  the  Clerk  returned  to 
Mr.  Kosydor  the  check  for  CSOO.OO. 

At  the  September  Temn,  1925,  of  the  City 
Court  of  East  St,  Louis,  the  appellants  filed  their  suit 
in  assvunpsit  against  the  appellees  to  recover  this  C50©.00. 
The  appellant  filed  a  plea  of  general  issue  and  two  special 
pleas.  The  special  pleas  assert  that  the  appellants  had 
leased  the  premises  and  had  not  vacated  them  according  to 
the  stipulation,  but  had  sub-let  a  part  of  tVe  premises  to 
'.V,  H.  Stxirh,  and  that  the  sub-letting  was  unknovm  to  the 
appellant  at  the  time  the  stipulation  v/as  entered  into  and 
was  v.'ithout  the  written  consent  of  either  the  original 
owner  of  the  property,  or  appellant,  and  that  Sturh,  the 
sub-tenant  and  the  original  tenants  were  in  possession  of 
the  property  seve  al  months  after  August  1st,  1925.  The 
appellant  also  filed  a  Plea  of  Set-off,  alleging  that  the 
plaintiffs  were  indebted  to  him  in  the  sum  of  v2250.00  for 
■unpaid  rent  upon  the  premises. 

A  trial  was  had  at  the  January  Term  of  said 
Court,  1929,  and  a  verdict  rendered  in  favor  of  the  appellees 
for  the  sam   of  C500.00.   Judgm'^nt  was  entered  on  the  verdict 
after  a  motion  for  a  new  trial,  arrest  of  judgment,  etc., 
and  the  case  is  brought  to  tils  Court  upon  appeal. 

This  case  was  tried  before  a  jury,  and  there 
is  no  question  raised  in  this  record  that  the  the  jury  was 
not  properly  instructed  relative  to  the  law  in  the  case.  The 
jury,  by  their  verdict,  have  found  tha"  the  appellees 


^r*-  iai  9Ci  i&di  mlBlti 


r£%IS»-<5rf+  ".-t; 


-r-t'  +g   ^n»xr«*rFq» 


o   1£W  .'  ;uj    .eSGX    -ij^ixror 


(3)   . 


had  complied  with  the  terms  of  the  stipulation  nxxd   va- 
cated the  premises  in  question  on  or  before  the  first  day 
of  August,  1925,   While  there  were  other  q-aestions  of 
fact,  this  was  the  important  question  to  be  decided,  and 
the  jury,  by  their  verdict,  found  that  the  appellees  were 
entitled  to  recover  ^^500. 00  as  sot  forth  in  the  stipu- 
lation.  From  an  examination  of  the  record  we  cannot  say 
that  the  verdict  is  manifestly  against  the  eight  of  the 
evidence,  and  unless  we  can  do  so  we  would  not  be  justified 
In  setting  aside  the  verdict,  '.'e  think  that  the  evidence 
sustains  the  verdict. 

Complaint  is  made  relative  to  t ■  e  admission 
of  evidence  of  Eiskant,  Miller  and  Stuhr,  over  the  ob- 
jection of  counsel  for  appellant,  in  which  they  testified 
to  a  conversation  that  took  place  in  July  1925.   According 
to  the  testimony  of  these  parties  the  appellant  agreed  to 
allow  Stuhr  to  remain  in  tVe  premises  in  question  un- 
til he  could  find  another  place.   This  conversation  took 
place  after  the  stipulation  had  been  signed.   If  the  appel- 
lant agreed  to  let  Mr.  Stuhr  stay  in  the  promises  after 
Messrs  Eiskant  and  Miller  had  vacated  the  property  he  had 
a  right  to  make  such  an  arrangement  with  tir.  Stuhr. 
It  was  i;ot  error  for  the  trial  court  to  admit  this  testimony. 

Objection  is  made  t  the  closing  argument  of 
Mr.  McGlyiin.   In  our  view  of  the  case  the  main  is^ue  is 
whether  the  appellees  vacated  the  pre^iises  by  the  time 
set  fort'f  in  the  stipulation.   If  they  die  so  vacsdBe  the 
premises,  then  they  are  entitled  to  recover  the  C500.00 
set  forth  in  the  stipulation.  V.liile  the  argument  of  Mr. 
McGlynn  seems  to  be  outside  the  record,  wo  are  of  the  opin- 
ion that  it  is  not  reversible  error  in  this  case. 

We  find  no  reversible  error  in  the  case  and 
judgment  of  the  City  Court  of  East  St.  Lduis  is  hoi'eby  ^ 


^r .-.) 


ICfilSI' 


j'.qatoo  i>jBrf 
>  fflorr^       .iiol;faI 


\ 


f   "So  ii. 


27,  Si. 

^H^**^:•^H^*rf»-a^^-•t----■?^««■l^-.:•^:•*--:■w-rf**r.-«-<';^«-^ 

IN     THE 
APPEELATJi   COURT  CF    ILJ.UIOIS 
FOURTH  DISTRICT. 


October  Term,  A.  D«  1929. 

Apx)ellant,  )  Appeal   f2X>in  the 

)  Circuit  Court  of 

vs.  )  llnrion  Coiinty, 

)  Illinois. 

A.    S.    CRUTCKFIELD,  ) 

Appellee .  ) 

Opinion  by  Judge  Fred  G,  V'olfe. 


A  suit  was  brought  by  V/«  S.  Stoi»inent,  ii  real  estate 
broker  of  Salen,  Illinois,  agaii^st  A.  N.  Crutchfleld, 
to  recover  a  coicraiasion  alleged  to  be  due  for  the  sale 
of  real  estate  in  Salem,  Illinois.  The  suit  'ss.a   origi- 
nally brought  before  a  Justice  of  tte  Peace,  where 
there  was  a  Judgment  for  the  Plaintiff  i:.  the  sum  of 
|!225.00.   The  Defendant  below,  A.  K.  Grutchfield,  took 
an  appeal  from  said  ,tudgment  to  the  Circiiit  Court  of 
Marion  Cciinty,  Illinois,  where  n.  trial  was  had  before 
the  jury,  res-alting  in  a  verdict  for  appellee.  After 
motion  for  new  trial  was  filed  and  overruled  by  the 
Court,  judgraent  was  rendered  on  the  verdict,  and  from 
this  .ludgmeiit  the  case  v/as  brought  to  this  Coxirt  on 
appeal. 

Tv^e  appellant  contends  that  the  Court  erred  in  refu- 
sing to  admit  competent  and  material  evidence  offered 
on  the  part  of  the  app  ellant,  and  striking  material 
evidence  from  the  record  on  the  part  of  the  appellant; 
in  falling  to  fully  and  acciirately  instruct  the  jury  as 
to  the  law  covering  issues  involved;  in  refusing  to  give 


•  re 


-2- 


proper  instructlono  offered  on  the  pci*t  of  appellant; 
and  that  the  verdict  of  the  Jury  Is  contrary  to  the 
manifest  weight  of  the  evidence. 

The  appellant  had  been  continuously  engcged  as  a 
real  estate  broker  for  about  twenty- three  ^rears,  in 
the  City  of  Salem,  Illinois.  The  appellee  lived  in 
the  City  of  Salem,  and  worked  for  a  Railroad  Company 
for  the  past  twelve  years  or  more,  and  he  end  the  appel- 
lant had  been  good  friends  and  acquaintances  for  sever- 
al ysars  prior  to  the  time  of  this  litigation. 

On  or  about  Aubust  5,  1927,  the  appellee  Crutchfield 
requested  the  appellant  Storment  to  sell  his  residence 
property  in  tlie  City  of  Salam,  wi-ach  he  priced  at 
^^4530.00.  Th©  appellant  S torment  mr.de  a  vest  pocket 
memoranda  of  the  trpjisaction,  and  it  was  signed  by 
Crutc'>\field.  Ilie  memoranda  is  as  follovrs: 

"I  have  given  ./,  S,  3torment  the  sale  of*  ray  modern 
six  (6)  room  ho^jie,  garage,  one  lot,  price  ;:4500.   If 
cold,  1  will  pay  5;^^  corrcnissicn.  This  contract  is  for 
90  days.   Building  and  Lo.?m  mortgage  of  '^3100,00." 

After  entering  inth  this  contract,  the  appellant 
made  &n  effort  to  sell  the  property  for  ^4500. 00,  but 
was  I'jfiable  to  do  so  within  90  days,  the  time  limit  fixed 
in  the  Twritcen  contract.  Sometime  after  th©  expiration 
of  the  time  designated  in  the  written  contract,  the  appel 
lant  took  Paxil  Cain,  a  resident  of  Salem,  111.,  to  look 
at  a  bouse  that  was  for  sale  near  the  eppelle's  home. 
Ti-is  house  was  not  satisfactory  to  Vr,    G4in,  and  he  sta- 
ted that  he  wanted  a  house  with  hard  wood  floors.  The 
appellant  tlien  took  Mr.  Cain  to  see  the  house  of  the  appel- 
lee, and  told  him  that  it  was  for  sale,  and  thought  It 
could  be  bought  for  C.-4200.00,  Appellee  was  at  hon»  at 
this  time,  and  showed  appellant  and  Ivlr.  Cain  through  the 


.    jjoXi  fi%  -..t;a 


Some  tlmo  later  durtiiG  *he  same  day,  Cain  aivi  his 
-.-Ife  retunacd  to  the  appellee's  home,  ai.d  Introduced 
thensolver  to  tho  appellee  and  his  w5.-fe,  aivd  looked 
ovor  tho  property  and  left.   Shortly  after  the  Cains 
had  ';.T«nlne.d  the  property,  the  appolloe  solU  the  pro- 
perty to  tht:  Cains  for  .;4500.()0.  Shortly  after  the 
property  Tras  sold,  appellant  Fuid   appellee  iiiet  5jtt  Salem, 
and  appellant  told  tho  appellee  that  h^e  wa«  entitled  to 
corsrilssion  on  the  sale  of  the  propt-rty.  Tlie  appellee 
told  him  hx;  rrac  ot,  find  iv-rild  not  paj  it. 

The  arjTjellent  contends  thst  he  ?ied  a  conversation  vlth 
the  rppelleo  in  /yhiph  they  ontered  xnlo  &  vei-bal  contract 
by  which  the  appendant  was  iyl-ven   authorit-;^  to  sell  the 
propv?rty  of  thj3  appellee.  The  appellee  strenuously  de- 
nises  this,  and  sfiys  that  thoy  h'id  no  aunh  conversation, 
and  the  appellant  had  no  other  authority  other  than  had 
heen  designated  1".  the  inritten  contract; ,  and  the  time 
had  expired,  and  that  the  contract  was  fuijy  terminated. 
This  is  practically  the  only  controverted  question  in 
the  case,  and  a  decisl.  on  on  tMs  point  <iisposes  of  the 
T^cle  case.  The  jury  by  their  verdict  have  found  that 
there  ^ras  no  renewal  of  the  contract  of  sale  oetvreen  the 
appellant  and  c.ppellee.  The  burden  of  proof  was  on  the 
appellant  to  prove  by  a  pr-epond-erance  of  tlie  evidence  that 
he  h-ad  a  contract  for  the  sale  of  tlxLs  property.  We  think 
the  evidence  warranted  the  jujcy  in  findinii  that  h©  did 
not  have  3tich  a  contract. 

TriB   first  agsignnent  0:1'  error  of  the  apijellant  is 
thnt  the  Court  ei»red  Ir.  refusing  to  admit  proper  evidence 
on  the  part  of  the  appellent  and  in  stril^ing  same  from  the 
record.  The  evidence  complained  of  tended  to  prove  what 
effort  the  plaintiff  had  nade  in  selllnG  the  property-.   If 
a  dispute  had  arisen  bet'ireen  the  parties  as  to  whether  the 
plaintiff  was  instrumental  in  making  the  sale,  then  no 
doubt  this  evidence  would  have  been  material,  but  the 
efforts  of  appellant  to  sell  the  property  were  not  dls- 


ex..w;.oc 


»i-^'  '■■^^•-  :.  ac^  cfiiiJ-  ." 


T»2©«JteB»!>y 


or..::    x -fj?    s. :?    ■ ' :•  x '^s: OffiJ- • 


-et»  ■clr.uoi 


/■wC»*jiJ:®i, 


■s-i^qtrn^' 


j:'i±vfxji,.f:a.i.q 


puted.  The  sole  question  was  whethoo?  he  h^d  authority 
to  malce  the  sale.  We  are  of  the  opinion  tlat  the  Court 
did  not  err,  either  in  refusing  to  adnlt  tV.e   offered  evl 
dence,  or  in  striking  the  same  from  the  i-ecord. 

^t  iP  next  contended  that  the  Court  erred  in  refusing 
to  s^ve  Instriictlons  offered  on  behalf  of  the  appellant. 
Examination  of  all  t'  ese  Inatructionn  dinclo^^L  that  the 
element  of  whether  the  appellant  had  suthorlty  to  maka 
the  sale  is  oma.t*-ed.   No  doubt  thP.?e  ?.nstructlonn  vrould 
be  good  if.  a  class  of  cases  '.rher*^  thnt  qviention  was  i.ot  in 
volved,  but  v/he^n  the.  only  questioi-  mxs   whether  cr  not  the 
agent^  manffle^,  the  sale,  it  was  not  nrr-or  for  tho  Court  to 
refuse  to  give  these  instructiors.   Ve  thliil:  the  evidence 
fully  justifies  the  verdict,  orid  -*e  f^nd  vio   I'eversible 
error  in  t/ls  case. 

The  judgment  of  the  C/'ircult  Court  of  T/^arion  Cotmty, 
Illinois,  la  hereby  affirmed. 


.Jl. 


XV. 


ion  !»U) 


SOCtV' 


-t    \!V\    \«^ 


Nvunber  31. 


Number  27. 


IN  THE 

APPELLATE  COURT  OP  ILLINOIS, 

FOURTH  DISTRICT. 


October  Term,  A.  I., 1929. 


ZEir;;ECK  jeivelery  company, 

a  Corporation,  Etc., 

Appellant, 
vs. 

EAST  ST.   LOUIS  LIGHT  and 
POWER  COIvlPAIfX",    a  corpora- 
tion. 

Appellee . 


Appeal  from  the 
Circuit  Court  of 
St.  Clair  County, 
Illinois. 


Opinion  by  Justice  Fred  G.  Volfe. 


This  is  an  action  in  case  brought  against  the  East 
St.  Louis  Light  &  Power  Company  by  sixteen  fire  insurance 
companies,  in  the  name  of  Zerweck  Jewelery  Company,  their 
insured,  and  for  their  use  as  subrogees  of  the  insursd, 
to  recover  damages  for  the  loss  and  damage  of  articles  of  a 
stock  of  merchandise  destroyed  and  damaged  by  a  fire  vhich  occurred 
on  June  17,  1926,  The  Zerweck  Jewelery  Company  was  t^e  owner 
of  the  merchandise  at  the  time  of  the  fire  and  it  Is  not  con- 
tested that  the  insurance  companies  have  paid  to  the  insured, 
ujider  tlieir  respective  policies  and  in  adjustment  of  the  loss 
tVois  sustained,  the  aggregfite  sum  of  444,700,01.   There  was 
a  trial,  verdict  of  not  guilty  in  favor  of  the  defendant, 
judgment  for  court  costs  against  the  plaintiff  and  an   appoaj 
taken  to  this  court  by  plaintiff  to  reverse  the  judgment. 
Four  assignments  of  error  are  urged  as  grounds  for  reversal, 
which  are:   (1).  The  refusal  of  the  court  to  pemit  an  export 
witness  of  the  plaintiff  to  testify  in  rebuttal;   (2).  Hypo- 
thetical questions  asked  by  the  defendant  included  improper 
elements  and  failed  to  include  proper  elements  shcvn  by  the 
evidence  and  which  should  have  been  incorporated  in  the 


:dmM 


1.^1    i:i.i:y!.'J'J'\ 


.YKA^MOO   . 


>.</..  o  ..:    .;^    jaalfijaqoEOO 

■    .f>26I^'5*I  oxiifTr  /to 

■  ■ -..         .-  ._......    ......  .-..-..j-  be:fn©:f 

....  \.  .  .      ,Xi3l^t    fi 

.  .  (I)'     te«xj8   cfoldw 


(2) 


questions.   (3).   The  Court  permitted  defendant  to  ask  Its 
witnesses.  In  chief,  leading  questions  over  the  objections  of 
plaintiff;   (4)   The  verdict  is  against  the  clear  preponderance 
of  the  evidence. 

Defendant,  as  to  the  first  error  assigned,  denies 
that  the  evidence  attempted  to  be  introduced  by  the  plaintifff 
was  rebuttal  testimony.   Defendant  maintains  such  evidence 
Is  admissible  as  tending  to  prove  the  gist  of  the  action  stated 
in  the  declaration  and,  therefore,  while  admissi  ^le   in  the 
first  instance,  it  was  admissible  only  in  t^e  discretion  of 
the  trii?.l  court  when  offered  at  the  close  of  defendant's 
evidence . 

The  substantial  parts  of  the  declaration,  so  far  as 
necessary  to  be  noticed  for  the  prurpose  of  this  opinion,  are 
as  follows:   That  the  plaintiff  on  June  17,  1926,  was  the 
owner  of  a  stock  of  merchandise  at  ntunber  348  Collins  Avenue. 
East  St.  Louis.   That  defendant  maintained  a  plant  and  system 
for  the  distribution  of  electricity  for  hire  to  customers, 
including  plaintiff.   That  IB  said  building  there  was  located 
apparatus  through  which  such  electricty  was  distributed  to 
lights  and  otherelnstruments  in  the  building;  that  about 
one  month  before  June  17,  1926,  the  defendant  installed  in 
said  premises  an  appliance  known  as  a  "demand  meter,  together 
with  wiring  attached  to  the  apparatus  previously  maintained 
in  the  building  by  the  plaintiff;  that 'the  demand  meter  and 
wiring  were  the  property,  installed  and  maintained  by  defend- 
ant from  the  time  of  installation  and  were  exclusively  under 
its  control}  that  it  was  the  duty  of  defendant  in  installing 
and  maintaining  sale  deaand  jneter  and  wiring,  and  in  causing 
electrlc{ty  furnished  to  plaintiff  to  pass  through  or  over  said 
wiring  and  'demand  meter,  to  use  such  care  as  was  coimnensurate 
with  the  danger  and  to  maintain  wiring  of  sufficient  size  and 


TOO  ddx      '{^)      .  acoliaeirp 

.    .-fGx:'--;^:  J.-TtalSi  ©dJ'  lot 
rl  :j  ixcatf  ftirfo 


(3) 


carrying  capacity  and  sufficient  insulation  to  carry  safely 
currents  of  electricity  passing  througji  or  over  same  and  to 
prevent  such  electricity  from  igniting  the  goods  and  proper- 
ty of  the  plaintiff  in  said  premises.  That  defendat  disregarded 
said  duty  and  negligently  failed  to  use  such  care  to  arrest 
dangerous  currents  of  electricitT  from  passing  through  said 
wiring  and  demand  meter,  and  in  consequence  of  such  failure 
a  dengerous  electrical  current  consisting  of  a  bolt  or  flash 
of  lightning  was  on  said  date  transmitted  over,  upon,  and 
through  said  wire  and  demand  meter,  thereby  causing  said 
property  of  plaintiff  in  said  building  to  become  ignited  and 
burned.   The  Second  count  adds  the  charge  that  the  wiring  so 
placed  by  defendant  was  of  insvifficient  size  and  carr  ring 
capacity  and  of  insufficient  insulation,  and  in  consequence 
of  such  failiire  on  the  part  of  said  defendant,  said  electric 
current  passing  through  said  wiring  aforesaid,  caused  said 
property  of  plaintifff  in  said  building  to  become  ignited  and 
burnBd.   The  Third  covint  contains  the  charge  that  defendant 
failed  to  use  due  care  to  provide  the  arrest  of  t^e  lightning 
between  its  transformer  and  said  premises  so  as  to  prevent  f 
flashes  of  electricity  from  entering  said  premises,  and  by 
reason  of  such  failure  lightning  did  enter  a  ,d  cause  the  propBF- 
ty  of  the  plaintiff  to  become  ignited  and  burned.   To  the  de- 
claration the  defendant  filed  the  plea  of  general  istoie  to 
wMch  the  plaintiff  filed  a  general  replication.    There  is 
no  evidence  in  the  record  tending  to  prove  the  allegations  of 
negligence  of  the  third  court,  and  the  issue  in  the  case  rrust 
turn  on  the  charge  that  the  wiring  to  the  demand  meter  was  the 
cause  of  the  igniting  and  burning  of  the  plaintiff's  merchandise, 

The  plaintiff  proved,  in  chief,  as  follows:   That 
the  main  service  wires  of  the  defendant  extended  from  the  trans- 
former on  a  pole  in  the  street,  and  in  the  vicinity  of  the 
building,  to  the  premises  of  the  plaintiff.  That  the  building 


{^) 


lO'J^'"    Z'ffA' 


It II  :v;ij  'ii-^li  ~t,&^ 


xfj: 


3}'! 


<^ 


(4) 


was  wired  for  a  flat  rate  service  and  a  house  service  on  a  meter. 
The  flat  rate  service  consisted  of  a  switch  and  a  distributing 
panel  which  furnished  the  current  for  the  lights  in  the  show 
windows  of  the  store  and  an  electric  sign  attached  to  the 
front  of  the  building.   The  house  service  was  coniiected  with 
anothe;r  switch  and  distributing  panel  between  which  two  in- 
strxunents  there  was  a  meter  on  a  loop  of  the  wiring.   There 
was  also  a  main  service  switch  contained  in  a  metal  box 
wherein  were  also  the  fuses  to  protect  the  inside  wiring  and 
apparatus  against  an  overcharge  of  electricity.  All  these 
applicances,  with  others,  were  located  in  the  northwest  corner 
of  the  store  near  the  showi   window  in  that  corner  of  the  store. 
The  plaintiff  further  proved  that  some  time  before  tlie  fire 
the  defendant  installed  the  demand  meter  on  the  other  frame 
work  forming  the  back  of  the  show  windovf  in  the  northwest 
corner  of  the  store  room  and  connected  with  it,  through  the 
switch-box,  with  wiring  which  extended  to  an  appliance  or 
Instrument  already  in  place.   The  wiring  to  the  demand  meter 
was  fastened  to  t'-^'e  existing  wires    ahead  of  the  fuses,  then 
in  the  building,  and  was  connected  back  below  the  fuses.  Tliat 
there  was  no  fuse  control  provided  for  the  demand  meter,  which 
was  the  property  of  the  defendant  and  maintained  by  it,  and 
was  made  a  part  of  the  house  service  to  c^  eck  the  load  used 
by  this  service.   Tliat  shortly  after  midnight  of  June  17,  1926 
there  was  a  severe  electric  storm  and  a  bolt  of  lightning  struck  the 
front  part  of  the  plaintiff's  building  or  the  electric  sign 
fastened  to  the  building.   That  imrediately  after  f^e  lightning 
flashed  the  fire  broke  out  inside  the  store  at  the  north 
window  where  the  check  meter  and  ether  appliances  wer?  lo- 
cated. The  fire  was  confined  to  this  spot.   The  v/ood  work  in 
the  front  end  of  the  store  near  the  said  north  window  was 
charred  by  the  fire  for  a  distance  of  about  fifteen  feet  and 


jolviafc 


;0D    S0iT16' 


ii  IG  q 


/vCn    imjb::.   s 


1 B  -."x  c  V   3  a  9'  ■  ^"1 :"  "xon  ©rl 


.aeobcipa. 


©rid'  rt 


w 


V\ 


where  the  check  meter  was  located  the  v/oodv/ork  vms  burned  and 
charred  very  badly.  After  the  switch  v/as  pulled  by  the 
firemen  flashes  of  electricity  still  kept  coining  into  the  store 
until  the  wires  leading  into  the  building  were  «ut.   The  greater 
portion  of  the  merchandize  was  located  in  the  store  back  from 
the  front  window  smd  was  injured  by  heat  and  not  burned  by  any 

The  plaintiff  further' proved  by  Charles  M.  Brovm, 
City  electrician  of  East  ST,  Louis,  tVat  the  wires  leading  Into 
the  building  entered  the  bailding  through,  a  conduit  and  that 
after  the  fire  he  coiild  not  see  anything  that  v/ao  iiisidn  of 
the  conduit,  nor  could  he  seo  anytj  ing  wrong  with  the  outside 
wiring;  that  these  wires  and  the  conduit  were  i7hat  is  known  as 
standard.  Thereupon  the  plaintiff  asked  the  witness  Brown  as 
an  expert  a  hypothetical  question  which  assvuned  t'  at  thore  was 
no  fuse  control  of  the  demand  meter,  and  asking  if  such  con- 
dition of  the  wiring  might  reasonably  have  caused  the  fire. 
The  wi  ness  answered  the  question  by  saying:  "v.ell,  the  only 
way  I  could  answer  would  be,  yes,  it  v/ould  be  possible  to  do  it.", 
without  an  explanation.   The  plaintiff  also  introduced  several 
photographs,  taken  after  the  fire,  showing  the  location  of  the 
demand  meter  fuse  box,  switch  box,  and  other  apparatus  lo- 
cated in  the  northwest  corner  of  the  building.   The  purp  se 
of  the  above  summary  of  the  evidence  introduced  by  the  plain- 
tiff, in  the  first  instance,  is  not  intended  to  be  conclusive 
or  complete  in  detail,  but  it  purpose  is  to  s^  ow  substantially 
the  evidence  upon  v/hich  the  plaintiff  relied  to  support  the 
allegations  of  the  declaration  that  the  v/iring  of  the  demand 
meter  caused  the  igniting  and  burning  of  the  merchandize. 

By  his  cross  examination  of  plaintiff *sm  witnesses 
the  defendant  elicited  the  facts  that  the  entire  ceiling  of 
the  store  room  was  a  metal  one;  that  there  v/as  a  conduit  pipe 
in  the  building  containing  wire  leading  from  the  fuse  box  to 


^I'im'Mi- 


rrj 


on- 


-1,-f 


(6) 

the  ceilingj  and  that  the  witness  Brown  mado  no  examination 
of  the  Inside  wiring  in  t'-is  conduit. 

The  defendant  Introduced  expert  testimony  showing 
that  the  demand  noter  was  e  very  dftlic&te  instrume::t,  the 
inner  coils  of  which  '.70uld  open  and  break  the  circuit  of 
electricity,  under  a  less  voltage  than  would  pass  through  a 
fuse  v/ithout  blowing  the  fiise;  that  no  fuses  were  used,  by 
electricians  to  protect  a  demand  pioterj  that  if  the  demand 
meter  was  attached  above  the  fuse  located  in  the  building 
£uad  an  excess  current  opr'ned  the  coils  in  the  drm.and  meter 
the  fuses  would  have  been  blown.   This  evidence  of  the 
defendant  was  undoubtedly  to  meet  the  plaintiff's  ovidr-nco, 
the  purpose  of  which  was  to  prove  that  the  demand  meter  had 
not  been  properly  protected  by  fuses.   In  addition  to  the 
evidence  so  introduced  by  the  defendant,  the  defendant  fur- 
ther proved  that  the  fuses  in  the  transformer  that  served  the 
building  were  taken  out  within  about  three  minutes  after  the 
lightning  stroke.   That  the  conduit  pipe  coming  into  the 
building  was  a  horizontal  pipe  seven  or  eight  feet  long  next 
to  the  celling  and  extended  down  to  the  boxes  and  meters  in 
the  store;  and  t-at  the  wires  in  the  conduit  had  been  burned 
off  and  they  were  exploded  and  the  -vires  in  the  rear  of  the 
building  near  the  met«l  ceiling  were  burned  in't^'The  defendant 
then  propounded  a  long  hypothetical  question  to  several  experts 
embodying  many  of  the  facts  and  elements  shown  by  the  evidence, 
the  essential  assumption  of  v/^^ich  question  was,  t"  at  the  fuses 
had  not  blown  and  that  the  wires  inside  the  conduit  were  barned 
of^  and  exploded  and  in  the  rear  of  the  building  near  the 
metal  ceiling  wires  were  burned  into.   The  purpose  of  the 
question  was  to  procure  an  opinion  if  the  demand  meter, 
under  the  conditions  thus  shown,  and  the  wiring  being  attach- 
ed to  the  box  containing  the  fuses  and  the  switch,  had,  or 
CO  Id  have  had  anything  to  do  v/lth  starting  the  fire.   The 


lis   l:>jx£    isnlllas  edi 


'\^^ 


:  J  ■:.yj^'j 


(V) 

answer  being  that  tl'e  demand  meter  and  wiring  had  no  effect 
whatever  on  the  fire. 

After  the  close  of  the  defendant •s  evidence  the 
plaintiff  called  an  expert  electrician  and  asked  him  the 
Identical  hypothetical  question  which  was  asked  by  the  defend- 
ant, but  the  v/intess  was  not  pennitted  to  answer  the  question 
over  tve  objections  of  the  defoiidant  that  the  evidence  was 
not  rebuttal. 

The  main  controverted  point  in  this  case  is  whether 
the  demand  meter  installed  and  maintained  by  the  defendant  was 
the  proximate  cause  of  the  fire.   The  plaintiffs  introduced 
their  evidence  tending  to  show  that  the  fire  was  caused  by  the 
faulty  construction  and  installation  of  the  demand  meter.  The 
plaintiff  also  produced  an  expert  witness  uho  in  ansv.er  to  a 
hypothetical  ^estion  stated  that  in  this  opinion  the  fii'e 
could  be  caused  by  the  demand  meter  as  constructed  and  installed. 
The  defendant «s  evidence  was  to  controvert  this  end  show  that 
the  demand  meter  could  not  have  caused  the  fire.   In  our 
opinion  the  trial  court  properly  held  that  the  evidence  offered 
in  rebuttal  should  have  been  offered  in  chief  and  not  in  re- 
buttal. 

The  hypothetical  questions  wer'^  in  prober  form  and 
the  answers  to  the  leading  questions,  if  any,  wer  not  pre- 
judicial to  the  plaintiff.   In  our  opinion  the  verdict  is 
clearly  sustained  by  the  evidence  and  we  find  no  reversible 
error  in  the  case.   The  judgment  of  the  Circuit  Court  of 
St.  Clair  Count 7  is  hereby  affirmed. 


JCi^  ^^^ 


■*  3iiS  no  rceve^aff ? 


^.■^■i&bl 


^  ■*ffh<^»-r^;  . 


ffj 


J  ffcj^ri.!:' 


■XiO      *ti  : 


Mmm'. 


Imm^i 


■•','i'i''"'>"Us>f''.'fl