Skip to main content

Full text of "Illinois Appellate Court Unpublished Opinions: first series"

See other formats



iiii ; 



Digitized by tine Internet Arcliive 

in 2010 witli funding from 

CARLI: Consortium of Academic and Researcli Libraries in Illinois 

fii&3 '6« 




ra. I CXBOUXI COUrvr Oif COOK Ci^UTf, 

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


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 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. 


( . .tn> 



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 ta ttie s 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 


'•: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. 


'•i... x^' 

,r?. oiTi'i/. 



ooMtiwEstja. Lzjpz msmumai 

COXVAITT, a Corporation, 


25 - o i^ 7 



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 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 


Hit* 'X»#s 


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 '♦'•**, 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; Ciil c^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: 

"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 

¥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 


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 


, tt«»lAl$£ 

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



Bttf«ndant In Srror, 


l»laintlfr in Srror 

■ / 5 

. i 




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 


: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 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. 

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^l .aaatt^a?.^-* •'^- ■,.■.-».,:. 


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


9. M. GHAT fuxd MRS. V« R. OIUJ, . 


ten vicTcA Mkd i*. vicT</«<» 

A|^l> ell ants. 


256 I.A. 598 

£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, 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. 


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 




▼ ». '^ 


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

tijaz * LEWIS, 25nTA ^. OQ 

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 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. 


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 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 



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

I ... 

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

Petitlon«r. , ,, , ^O^i.«/i. 98 

App«Xl*ot. ) "-^ "ur v^ 

'«&. ]«¥SZt>IliU JU3TXCB MaSURlLy 


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 


i\»i U O^ 



a1*li^ «t? 


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


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 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 fco tor 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. 


Xatohett «WQd •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?« 


»»«l«^*»J}. ||l|(4i A 


': K» 

'' .i ^i; ii A X' 

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


HJ? .♦-i .■--•;.: 

.,.,. - .w .... ....... . ^^ »rf» 


I>«X**nd«nt In Hrror , 


WGSm LIS «ASHIJlOTOX and JQiik «-. 

JPlaintlffs In irror, 

OF csazciyGo. 

256I.A. 598 



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« *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 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 


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 


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




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 


/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^ 


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

FlMlntlfT in Srror. 

TO J^i» I^ir^COORT 

256 I.A. 5 99 

liR. raXainifiG JU3TICI K^UXXLT 

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. 



^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 »'«»^ *«» -^^ 

• ■ 


J, BARATT, ) ^^ 



) / or CHICAGO. 

JCaa S*AUOSB and £R8« ) 

/'''^ or CI 

8T3LLA D*AkOJiB, } 

ApptXl«nt8. ) 

256 I.A. 599" 


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. C h^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^riea c Sur etY 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 

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@ 


?«isj£ .»-•■• 


«^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. 


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

ssywi't^ ai 


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^ ^-'^ 


)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 


,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 


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» 

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

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



sujrnnr l. cayshos Md wuxiAk 

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

X>«f*n4ani« in Srror, 



PLintirr. i„ .„.,. i 2 5 6 I. A. 6 


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 

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. 


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

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

"59X2! - 


: 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)«* 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 Yyl fr 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. 


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


not AD-L£X QLiLS'M.y, » 



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 &-** 


«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 


'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 ▼. 
Wh eelyelt . 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 Li no 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 ?-■> 


a Comoratlon, 



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. 


.IIIU& m^^i 



•Tfl® j-ii" 


::.i /:«1?'* 

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


,^ *J iSW ./ «Ji'ij>» 

inii «,&' 

^4t>iiiu »«^ «l«i 


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 






.m»ifl^ limn 

.ens tmti. 


■ tils' 

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

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


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, 


J08XFH 1ITL£, 

Plaintiff In I?yrpr, 


0/ CHICACf. 

56I.A. G^o 



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. 


^ $.,VfM i; 


■y0€ fAA ISO 


i4» ■im.i,j^9w m few- 

y $ii 






l s;to*« 



.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 »*» 


' .'' ' .' 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 

^ • • " - ' . ' 

» * ■ 



Ui,iw.w.U^ » 



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. 


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

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

it 4' &iU 


*.fc'^k;/'-: n'<»6 


m Corporation, 


Z. i. CCOE, 


ATP^. nm unnciFAi. ccxori 


256 I.A. 600" 


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 ;.. 


, »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* "?#»>{■»■ 



♦'»i"*Kf'.f ^ 

'<^r'{*.t!,tP3 trtss !■:'•* '?«*(! 

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


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' 


itfj^iufwi i»*%»'i'l« H»««f 

: 9 •9«W 

•tv^A^i\fS9 ki-Ui' 

be* b*^.'l"t •TjLll'OM"- 

*ii« ^a. 


;v>* a l-rts? , . 


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


KifciciFAi. coon 

I. L. SItllEiATHR. r>olRg ) y 

Appellee. • j 2 5 6 i.A, b 1 


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 


'^^ 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 


.. afejWR^^ te *#©#Rtr 

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

• R s i sir 




^ . ; v^j-f 

^f€^.-^' '■■ I, 

- -fA^ 

*««--;« ^r »rf;? 




-- • — 


'^ ^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 


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

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


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 






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 


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 Bxm w 

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 

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

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

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






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;«?!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 g lrich v . FprscUner Centra ot ^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# 


■t»fe«j^ -swjftelN*** 




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 

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 



Apr>«*ll«nt, j 


25GI.A. 601^^ 


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 


^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^eabor np. 232 111, IIS), on<| 
"brtntiy ▼. B rtncy . 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 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«% 


•: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* 

In passing on a eiaiilar question the iiuprwie Court in 


'■•*^ ???? 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; 





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. 


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


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


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


ILORA 8. KROIfiCXB, ) t"^ / y 






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. ) 


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* 

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<<, 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 


*:><;• « f 'i.AtC;>til'. • 

t^ »k^ ^^^t^^X^Jw^ 

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





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 

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^-^ 




fi'a ? 


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


m *MOtf. 

^^'. «i#' 



-.? .'^."x/ 



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« 


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 

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. 


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


.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. 


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

^ '• J .^So '■■■■■ ■ '""<■» iOt!* 




A|»p ell «• , 



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 • <- 



, .* 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- 



iUii^- - .: • ■■■•■■ 


.^- . .,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 

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 



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 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 


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

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


i-Jiiiai*; ■ ul-nA 


Plaintiff In Error, ) 



STAVSR .wTu mKfia ooKPiunr, > 

* corporation, ) c\ r^ j^ • 3 

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



iii ttUkSf^iaist. 



^<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' :<«■"? 


t *. ff ;f iR ?f»- 

J nr •»■«» ♦ ♦ 


:« *t*tt^£!ii'^,-r^ •:}rI- 



^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 




.•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^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 


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


FAUL D. TOUT, / / j/ 




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

256 x.A. b02 


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 

Ttea record diacloaas that on Soptcnbar 17, 1928, plain- 
tiff brougbt an action of asaujipsit againat the def^:Dlant. The 
8a;.^«ti^;.>;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 


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 

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. 


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


is©t^o«s afi(; 

ci ■■'. is^se aof 






wA&rxR h» Qitman, 






COOK coairrY# 

256 I.A. 602 


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 



i\.l-?gSt I 

■It • f '"■ ■ ^--■- ■-•^- 

.titi$/;(^ %^ mil a ^■msifi-: 

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



■ii^ii? '^i* «Oi 


•t*x^|»ia *!fSs'!, 9t-^fsj«S, 

» IfrSMTt.' 


ii^^ :•!{»*«? 

»«*£itf-:/. : 





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'- 


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* 


«!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 



i.v ,><tfl«i.^;: 


.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. 



- a - 

4 » ■ ' - 

^f-ttpj-v •■■■■ f* 


AP?EAL moil 



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 

Froa the faots it appears that the plaintiff vas 
ths owner of a 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 .-.:.rt^ 

0Z£1 «5 ffOTjBM £)" 



<"> lAw ■> . . 


- 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»« 


- 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 
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 


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. 


wamUc .'«..«i-.a!ii^»jb x^ 

/ ■ / ) 

/ App«llftat* 


or OHIO AGO. 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 



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. 


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

10 w. 



• 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* 


'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 


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. 



OCei tC rfoTM toiit noiniqO 

.f!:>li»x<^ »&i ^%*'9ll^t 

.' n«»«»4- '■ .' 

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


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: 

• « - 


-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 

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. 


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




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



*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 


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 

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<! 


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

ooLFvoKK LA no ocmvKtr, f 


}^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 


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 

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 


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 


.y »»ii 



- 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, 




i 256I.A. ^04^^ 

Opinion filed March 5, 1930 

KR. JUSTIO£ H0I.90i£ dellTttTed tht opinion of the 


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: 


%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 

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 

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 





,;; - •*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 

The judgment of the Cirouit Oourt ie affiraed. 

- « - 

•^^'-'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 






f /" ./ V Appellant, ) 



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 

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 


s^ , f.> ^ i-^i -*"»■• •■■■■ 



^Sit^XAOQC;.^ >•■ 

gj'If^Cj* •"'• aS 

,i«!:ii<3» «?** It© m^li?. 


■■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 



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 » 




- 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 

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 

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 

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 

Kifnuao AiB KtiuiMn nn qxriotions. 



a OerpoTAtioii^ i cock J'JUBTT* 

Appellant. 1 2 5 6 I. A. 6 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 


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* 


, . >&sa&Sf J5j;f tcs r'-*a s^J-i- tli^^A ■■•B 



- 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.* * 


>■ ■ . ?4«ife ^®4* -^i^^: " 

... ^y.- — ^i 



■ cafe&-iv9 Sift 


#1 ,-'^*'*5< *v; (^ ^jirss »«»t»j«^?Bi.^ I'fjiti'* g»»<# ^-yp' 


- 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 



• .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; v ioldbery ▼. 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 ' . - ' ■ • ■ ■ - -. 



\»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 
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. 


;dHS .ftXft: 


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 

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?^« 




TH£,0O«ILCf nt 


ocmrksit , 


OOOr OOUi«fT. 

256I.A. 6 


Opinion filed March 5, 1930 

MR. JUeTXQK HOLOOM daiWeTCd th« opiikioa of the 

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 


0561 ,a riottJBM bBin aoiniqO 



JI SSlJli "^^Pi'AW. 




; T-^^iihxv 

.-i »afi^ 


- 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 

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; 





•^•o* «d* 

.f»X ^atfti 


- 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 .':':■ 


■"^'W^-mX^i U*f& JBt^ nllTc -fl b^' ■ 'sxsiai^- »di 


■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^ «*(# 



t^' ••• if"*'''' '■ 



->■':•« tt«,rf.*A-*i,v, &tt,^ <^'i<k-.v .\(J *•:* ; 

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 

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 


sr: '■ ■*■■' ""'f'^ftiiMj j^>if1 g>#«^ *.• -VI,*.- ^..H-w./ 

> » •» * -r .-. > * 

< ■' 

^alxf.J'saioft bjsrf ^ftfif »T»iti* «ii.Jt.*1?? 

iA(f4- vol 

'iCi tt«! 

'J6 *#IXli*«# mBHt 


- 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 


!^ .^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- 


tf ix;»fijf-,' '-'.S 

'?:i?4X ■*♦«." 

a5>Ji;2 ?;riif fc?iU ir.!ii-vv*-- ;^■^> '^iij 

i#0l.«Xt! l«*#wtv: 


:>::(,* o4 sv^j'sb i|?ff? tjt^r 


«iirf «i ■■ ^sm v**** #*!» 

,T»l|-i- .. 


■v? 7^«»lf*#^n4 tV«irf[^ iJ- 

;.8iEc#« ' 


.Tf^-"' ■ gi'f* t.^IRS 

. ?a,trf«v^ *4;» Ti)fs|-?0'> :^aiTi} 

. ■.■■*:mt'< *V'^i 


}■•/ f"^vtri ■■•' 


ia^\« j. 

■ \9h;.;?/.^: 

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 

*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^kin g & 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 


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. 



aid K/, 'Xsi/Mv 





.«.««tiK)..*i^ MmMinmi'.^^ 


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* 







Opinion filed March 5, 1930 
!«• JtlSTIOS HOLOOM deliT«red th« opinion of th« 

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* 



" r, 


fl«i . 

♦ AI/ s^Vi ^, 



BMDID G. BRinn-, 




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 


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 


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« 



'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 


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 

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 

>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 


"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 ▼. Trettt on 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^:'%^ 



-^^ uMilMiUS 





X #51 


,dt^*- ,.r^^ Xii 


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 


The jud^^oat of the Circuit wourt of Oook County is 


WnmXt, ?. J. AMD BOLDOM, J. 


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 


U^V ciy. 



i'jt i- : 

snii ^* 






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 

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 


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 

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 



^.'.j',-' S",? ."■^.'t'.I^C 

k>tli& *1E» , 

.(.'.. is '/'iJi«/'v.i 

'w is'^tti- 





- 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* 


ffXUOi, f.J. ARO ROLDOtf. J. CONOtm. 

mt tftf^ ai<ffifc ^ti-a^iE^iiE i^^-^ssrij ^# tod axmr ot Hit 



Flalatifr in £rr«r» 

ft eorper^tion* •% &!•• 

JD«feadi:knt« in Krror* 


256I.A. 606 


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 

It app«ariac mb t^« ho-^riag ¥«fare ths eoart thcit tba 
hills were siultlfRrious the chuaoillor of his ova aotiont 
cpCTBtS a 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.-^. 


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 

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« 



■^a *.., 

. _l;xi;>gdo lea 

•-*, tfe---. *. ■< -^ ■ 


?oe? * Il- 
ls^- .=•• • 

^n.S.-J->-'l •^"^:.' 

^kJC^H ,Vfi t^jyi- .»'«*4>Xtsiti*.?aif 



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 










Jfilg Sfc.: 

ojcjecj iba£ 




■m-' ■ 'MS.. 


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 ahaad o nc d hia eon* 

£K,v ■ 5SS.Z- 

s^iK-nrsi^.^-itfl fit i^^''i -^ i^Q frib &gt» i»ai't5-";*J«« 


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 

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 


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 


MART T.KIXmLD, ftdttlBletratrlx* 

£«fendiuit la ^rr«r» 

FlmimtttX im ^.rr«r* 


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 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 


««*4. - :'. ,:: ::,- . :-; C' ■ " : ■«•?■; '^.f^*':*/ ■ ''^^ii^^ fed 

13 „».**• 


• 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 

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 


'U ftA 4| 


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 


■■• ??« 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 



♦iiis*/. : 


;^^lX^'i-i:"- ^.;:>s);'^^' 



•J -, -'A .^w. ' 


v.-:.i *• ;• , • . .■ i lar.: fn: 

■,;Viujy^ tiAi.;> <«•« i*oj[J*,a 


•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. 


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'^'^- '■:&' 




\Xi^ iiti'.fii'^ 



VILLI AM JTt o«cairyo}v, 

▼♦ ) couKT, COOK C(wrrY# 

f^ «> ^ji' ^vi,^* 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 


' J I! 


%^lhAi^'^>< .■■ ^:y- '': iF-r-'r 




AiH St^t^'i- 

*<-. "-^-^f^M-iti, i.. 

-*i ■"',;;( '■■' 


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 

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 


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 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»£ 


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 


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* oaora t 

"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^: 


Pl«latiff in srrort 

TKS COSEO ?aK3S» !»#•» 

COCK coiamr. 

256 I.A. 606"^ 


]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 






^^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 


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 

. *>»*®!f«ife t^*-? »^ ail. -■«•• Jstsi-wa* 


•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 


*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»:f iwt» 
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 

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 hic a/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;^^- 


.^jy^^ 1^' aiJ|6' 

.-..i * S- << 


«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 

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:'?' 


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* 


w>e&aiaa «ad vhriiiXcy* JJ«» conour* 

Xt:^i;^^ -.^i* iSiiLi'^ti' 


R. I* IaTXS 



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» tatttsj T 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* 





t,'S''i$ua%i «JB 


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* &« C f 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^coyX jr » 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 

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 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 



APntiL JKOK maifoz?AX 

256I.A. 607 


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'«> 

»«*«>» 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 

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* 
|fo pa»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« 

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 



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. 


♦ 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* 


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 


judgnent wUl b» r^r^rm^A with «• fladiag af f^tet*. 


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» 




CiaylAiiuuitB a«tf Appall •••# 

;>«f« lid Ants* 

UWirsi- f-TXT •■;- MO.'TOAili; CGBBPAHT 



) 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 

^ \ 


>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^ ....»^^..u v^iif^tj-. £;X.>.w« -^/^UMAi i-^kp.-a d^liv ia»li:;fwius,<i,'^ 

<mii Titt^ *ii»^ ^xM3i^m!& «||«|^Y«X 


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 

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* 


i;4^»|l^ M- ■■■iii.Xif'u 







* ■<■#'!■ 

t ' '-T ■T? 



tfoaplmiiuuit aad Dcfentfaat la f^rrort 
CKiCAdo TXTLx * tsvnr oo«t mi %r«st««f 

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* 




?laUtlff In >rar» 


onteuxT couTTf 


I.A. 607 


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 



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^ 


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 O cto bar 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 



«tJ»/ ; Sii:: ^. V .^sStiBi atjiii- 

l^^v: ^3;SJ 




'• J?^t;^-; 

-•: 7'^ , ■ fe 


•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*^. 


ViS^ '»'!(f^ i- ©« "\£ • 


■*i;:.r 4.- 


:X.tN»i<:t«Ui| -.' 

ii<aB.if»<?; * 

VHiH C4 %K.- 




.>«(JP tifK» «r4»' 


•idtf It* 4lii«»T9'»'-?S «»«<*« 


•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 oosi plaiaan tii 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 TUl o ^ 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* 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 


PKOPLS 07 rX8 8TA1 


fRAlKLtt 0. CaKTKR, j Oifc^ A T.A# 608 


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^ifl a.l f r;'..otijBO ■^.„ aa ajw pded 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 







*.e-i5».it'^» %^'^ 

j'fitiCI tVM'S 


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 ^m i ^ 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; ^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^m^iiiJk^M' ■'■'■■ 

■ t/f.' 

mt »v 

«S>M « 



■ 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^ --^ ir f-A ^ I ^^ «*'•-* t^--* ""^ -^ 

t$f>.- ■'■■■■ •" ■,:;, siA'Umitmi 'tii\i^-' -h -■■'■'<'. ■■-.w.-.*w- '.i^i^ 


III r« Satftt* •f 
lUIMf JQfm I!t08X» 

•4iiliilittr«ior •f sai4 

▼ • 



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% -,» 







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 • 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? reaeryod to tho 

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* 



XtSifitS".- ■ 

;» ,C;^^I .^^ ^?i:<.- 


. "iU J 




worwuAM BBos* Tjamxmi co., ) 

▼• 1 coirnT* COOK c<KnrrT« 

u^T H. u».a«j..^^^ j 25 6 I. A. 608' 


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 rocoM waad ed 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*^ . 



. mm iuu'n,\^ 



^ ■?■ :- iir---; ""^^ ' ^-:5 '^S*%1 *■:;?? ■^ 


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 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 go od t ltlf 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* 

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 


i'^^40 xSl'i^^ih'm «t«" .ryigtSf-us 9ii.S gsst ^*fe &l5^s if*.U» 9isi» »Vfn 

ttJb^;?.' ^- -,.j- ^?ii? »^3lXoq fife*;- .. ..■ ■ _-■ 


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 jutm ivm 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^^rr IiSt:iiiS"^4A 
*arra«ty deed. ?urch;.«e s«riee and aart ^eThereii SSt loaed. 

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^Url cer coat rol^ nay ei«fiL?«..^ ' 
ey d 1 tloasja, JSa. aantjr&jc t aoJelLhstAj^^^," ^^ 

f^^jiff* .tI:*]!; ^?^2 



•.■*■■ *■ 

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^ 


9 A'^Um 


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 el lBtitt ate th*: boae t» ai tho ;>i .tJL.t i on, If t t 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» '^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* 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 



aa K spii* vi draft 



■O.i U J-SrM 

, -S^I^Sif./ 

,^ _J»-i — 


-;»-!? IA&'£<6, i^ 

-it*** «X 


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 
jfl dTa 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 


-^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.._,_- ., :.■;•: 


•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 n oj. proce ed 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 li aitatloa 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} *ii iXX 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 ph r ased 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* 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 


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 on l y reaaaa w d^ 
go t coiiply ylth the ceatrfcc ^ vae thf^t eeaplaiaant was 2^ihle_tj|> 
dtyllver t** 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 



^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( « 



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'-fjodap i^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^ 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» 

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 


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« 


•ri© isStt^i&rs. 


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 e liiinat o 
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* 

■* ^ 


*^»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. .^^ •»«<• 


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* • de ofiKi 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 


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* 

laiRBOo* Tm J»0 aad SaaBlaa* J«» coaatKr* 


(?3!*n?"Xf --©R- til 'S&^^^JKS 't,3W 

«*«^ «tft l»fA *^r i^« »*«•«& 

^s*^'vl:'?:i »e^>f5i .?-itit- ■'%tii 

■>ff ^'n;*-' 

,St0iifl!S|i Jll <!.? 


•"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 Wntw elM 
did deliver it there to a voMaa vha aaid aha aae Irs. Kerris aaA 





• » 

:^ ^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« 


#js^^ (»i5aW«w?>c««T-- ; :^vi :frf#.'k. ,>. Afjftfc* "sicisrl ,§c<?i «>: > 

■J it \ -■ -. rf - n •. f s 



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« 


9^^ irMi tiUM'^ %Jbiii mk #0jBt ^i^xk^Sa fstssi »& Imlt « • 

.f 'i%^»*#'i-*^ it3*s.iii» «.t set 



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 



■l,'3f.- - ■.v„i,.;> V-«^ tAjrvW- 

J G ^• 


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 


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, 


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 C0 m y» Itaaoh t «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 


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 


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. H ocfol^ . 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* 


T. f * , •> . T 


a ottrporrxtloB» 




256 I.A. 609 


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 

>'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.** 



^>- A-,?o>^«ii ^ 1t« iis--- •;;>- m-i *w* »*a ® -^.l^Ia 




. v>» W 

liTiu' •ti9ll%m% 

4»lfr»*T M SSi 

■ ii 


i ?*vi:l 


"^^ .«$x% £$ >#xii ^|tt«tef»i«& j^i^««~%»i;s»«fi^ 9A& 

,«*fejl^ r,rfj »tij©srr !vlb ton ** h«ll»<»«rc jj 


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 

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'^' 




t^s^mm a^nsa 

■ -Ml 

tsttmio' ■■aw^i^^x: . vfl' 

.",.:*; l-i'» J' 

'' fc*i7';fo^ 


▼«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 


•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* 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 ▼. fiX t 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 (c uestion srisoa uatil the d^fgaditat off sra 
e ridsac a 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 

■££.--.*t^.M'' .25 '"^^ ••'■^ «©^tf ;•*»»• 


■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 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 

Plaint! fl* wbA Appell**, 


CITY Oy CHICAGO «t «!., 



'^oul.A. 609 

Ml. JU3TICK osiQurr»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. 


^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 



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. 


•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 


,*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 -%':<. 


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 yitsa t^w si i s v. C*teiU . 214 111. 494. ''hers 

it was deei-^ed in subetsmes that the failure of a eity couneil, 

^|St| , nt: i fl 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 

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 


^:.^- ■t»5 liri^ •Ml 

(i»i? t4? lea £l ftOii* 


■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 !*» 




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; P ffcnXe 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. 



Plnimtiff in ibrror* 
c«ftiHtMit in ^rr•r• 


.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 &•>• • 


,^^..■2?^^ v;;^v 


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 o ott 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 

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» 



) ffi .^l«e «.v *w!4J»JC Mtl 





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 


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 « ?> 
« '■'■ 



•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 


^tlfA»^*:i«< ■ ,,jiii.-' A«>M 'fl^'f ^»* (ivT,-! •->;•;■;. 

«i ^'*^'<»1?8stxi X«« ''*«f aiffi;; ^jSrtsiw****; l^««$ -d^ 

\'i'^9V'm'%i&i 4^m-- 


4«ii ^«»'t^"»- 

• ssc«>,*a ft© :»■?;© »^^ 9 i '% «■ 1 -i-r 

• oa »*«'S^«. ■■; it««ta»^> »«I^ ■ 


J «»« « 4}.' 'iKlw» Hot 

«K»1 .' 


ftljwt !*» , 


Oi #>■•:•-; 

•jStKlsftiwIs ,flXl5ifJ»»f?; 

«*waf;a «* 

. .; •■x.'^ 


•■ -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 rft orno 
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«<?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«« 


£;»«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 • 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 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 

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 l9R i^ and io not oiib^oot 

ta oxeotttian." (Citing, aMon«; othora* the c^.-^z of . Ifo^ga B 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»cn t 2 lll« pp* S7a, oao^ 

«^ M lXlken 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^ 


US KP:B23rs» 

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 




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 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.- 


cont.ntlozi.. On th. contrary we think th. T.rdlct ^ jud^.at 
•r* fuUy w.rr« 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,^*»''^ >^*' '^' 



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 


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 «?▼!- 

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* 


. ' A^i' Ik If 

' - -i , 
-- --. u. .w .-. -i . 


. ■ i 

-lA J ■ ' . -I -' ;• ; V. , . hs*. 


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«« ^m^'x 

!**«* tx**" 

fiMi at 

.i.> .r^-zV-'L ^' 

a;^ A^ »>>!V> .'•,.'<•<!« :j,,!j7, iri'-v' - is.J' ■■< ,4«f;.;i>i,' } 


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 
C oapolidated 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* 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 {,!▼«• 

Bftraoot P* J»» and Qaxdaiit J«» eoaovur* 

«w^y^ilf'!J> 4»^v e>n,^x«»0'- &»•»« ... ,. aaqraAC 


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« 





» 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.«:^ . ■ -'- .■-^- '■■ 


• .' — -iffs ^E«^^«»C» .»»":■ -' '■* '■• ,'""■> •• ■■* ■ 

■?v,^ 5»j*i'*« ifnidi et^'=^& ?i4r«jr1 &Z<j;aeM> IjuIs^ ?-*«i ,'>?^ttje4«5»'-' ^ tst^iWBii^ tis^*-*'"' 'C* 


%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 



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 


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 ^ »# 


•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 ■ ■ . . . ..- . 


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» 

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« 

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 balsa o o 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 
b a loa a o 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 
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 


6- J 

f^M- 9ifi« i^E««^ f^r %j^«)^ W-iiv^-i^ «#t *^^ ^i^' <K-^«.;ii>» »jj>«^6 ^s^^^^t::^ -^ 


J£ :j« «e^- 




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 

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 , 


tl«^ •>'& 

■■^i» ir.>f>. -- .Ti*.*A^ ■* W!'^^.'- -• «; ; -3,5 -» y..- . .. ■. -.t: ■:,« 



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 


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 

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$ 



r^ -j: :-J^N<».- 



'-.if> *^«l 


*k •iioii cf murs h»» H«k«d «• ta lm,,ttir« U yam «ft«K 

t'iiai*««% 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 

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« 


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 



l:- . - 


;s4- : ♦ai*> 

»♦*■■?■ ^ 


9# »j»fS 




?^a '^?*i'. 


v5- ■ ■ ■■ - ' - ■ 


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- ;: ,: ■ ■- ■ ^ ^ ' ■ ^ 


%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 



•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* 

ldXo» %:\u for oae y««r» aag »o iiior|t i*_/" 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 


...•^■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 gaati aaiaM: ta t»Jpt a g»r eg»t f»r t hgir 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 


^,: y^i ^i£J Is i««i.Jdxt^p9 

■%^&,:,''-i « 



*^? ^.vi 6J 

,M*.. Ill ^4 »3fiaE»i&: «4if 



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* 


■ .■--:■■- sf-xq tsiti 

I^igl' U^ 

ma «s: 

« J2i5«s?t- . ♦ss-er,. 

0. M* Tum, 


"•"-'• i 256 I.A. 610 


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 Jud g i ea t 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* until* if aTer» the mjso io rererood 


«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 » tt<t i^r, ^-nr^o elil« ^» v^-7Mii» ^:>ao &Mi (Hum 


\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^ Illinoi s 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*eop l e 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 


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 

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 

■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 


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— '■j y 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 •'* 


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'Uh riho 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 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 '.nioi l* 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« iL lller t. Lf.ktt vjeti r.*.uti» ^ r*Tr 
240 111. /pp. 3*i0 404 1 Iaierit«>e,_y i3juaieo Cor p. ▼. 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 


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 



« .?noiiaK?j-i£ 

'Hi Vd": 



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 

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 l awyer has \ m llt a» , 
ihia o aae fro a 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 



'ia{, i^di ion %9 

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 





lha ssm, 







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 


« 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 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 


•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 a lwayp 
aaod th«lr g&rha iia 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« 


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* 



■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 


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 ILerfac t 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 

to disaiaii th6 bill of tbe coepI<s in ant/ mnml af aqaiiy* 

B«rata* /^* J«» aad Cridltj* J*» atao«r« 


~!>ri.;-V -.^m-it imt% -k»S^. ** &«i^m-1> «l SSi:- :^tQ^h -SSfi 




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* 



.. &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«|» 


¥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 ▼• Jorii a 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.& 





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 


« /ta»i 

* T 



^?tJE^^2I. tMK/U^ $??1T 

4 ^ «.v r.;-; 



'!»«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 eh all 
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^iaf t^ 
BhalX be the rewpon had an ro u lred 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«< 


m •ttrper<4tioii* 


fW MAT^aiKJ n-STXC, lie., 
& ooryor tlon, and JO..:u'H iSlAiaCISt 

fCO XJ jL^Jrl. oil 


m» jasTici' aoAWLAM jd^iv 


?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«»" 


-tis feezes ;.v!6*ii,is*l 


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 



»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 


JMKii; i£-lv. £i;^i.w'^*i(^« 

'^<ii^'$.«i« w^^^K W'» iA-jUSx^i 

\,j:ii?'ai<~.-Aw.-it: -i*'^** "»- 



<j;»tf«r «i»»« i^^ tneMlXdUitf St: ' te *':»lTt 


v5? al tX»X»« 


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 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 #-^ 


«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 


»Ht ^ 

■•5&.«?|.^0?« ftvii^r. .ntf^h 

,..■; -... 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 g rtat frobabllltjr tfcpt ihlft 
iiao oocaTred ,< ^i ji olll cant iaue io_ oocar •▼oa yttl^wit aar oro r t act oa 
liw > rt of tJMt pylaolpal de fencjMt .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 pr incipal d cfoaduat h&a a right to tno aao of ito OTooraio 
aaao* a a<i txao the further Tight to coiw^ot Ita jsi,uoineot>> la cowpot itiop 
»ith tho ooou>lalaa at aad ty •i^aa* in ito haoiaoas withaat tmr rogtri p- 
tioBfli hut th/6 Itaater flado tk <t hec- aa e of the gc cttli'^Y cca Maattoa of 

£ldt«aUti*K!UL&5fe^Ml#Juj!«-J*^ gt aity of 

uafalr ccaipet itioa if the y nre peraitt-g to occMtpy the gf joe baild laft 
aad aee tho naao *7Mr Kl>tohiafl n g ryioe* Iao »* whi ch appoa ro a m tho 
httlletia ^i.r^^ directly ahove tho nau o of the o ggplaiaaat y* 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- 




• 4t 



3 if 4 

:^ i-: 

■ -^t 



' 3i3Lt. 





<:• ;>-!?ij -. 

• --^ 





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 

: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 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* Pr otec tlre Bareaa . 210 111. 17«, 
1W| aJhaseador Hotel orp . ▼• Hotel -he Ti^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 


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* - 


j9gt •▼ i;5J»§^i 

i^ ie» w 



>sf»' «JMi^ 

; xXt^liuitC' 


: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* 


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 

laieraati onal, :::oM alttee of To t«t «m««*s 'Hirictiaai s Qei»ti|tt§ ▼. 

McFeir Electric" antTTe lepHSne _C_0»1I». 

/ouaie aa ey*s Chris tiaa Ascoci^tioa a/ ^jicfi^»» 1^ ili» 1»44 MoFolj, 
■lee trie Co.. 110 111. \i^p* I82t 3^o ▼* 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 '*-»»^«' 


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 

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 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* 


'»« "Soils' <•* *«Sil« aa45 Taj«tt(t q«tftS««€ ^^ior «»'St 

*5^^ iiiMt ^-^'-..„ 


-« ^^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 





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*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 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 


-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 \:,. 



.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, J., eonsur. 

-.^>>«. ^''««^4'«i'«ii>i. «4i»i-.'4«f SL$:lm>^ 044 iS»4S>» ««^(? $,1 X'SAItSSII^igfll^K; itmti^h 


«ttatc of ttl£& MJUOTXCH, 
4««#fts«d • 


Tttx A f AMI new, TC^SJC. aJO) 



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 ali a) 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 



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»\ 


■t«riy •! ihm reoord and a aoa«id«rntien of ill* A ig mm m tm 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 



App«U««» ) 




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* 




SiJIS' ■ 

f-^t r-a-- 





r ©*^«- 

••?!;^. ■■■■ 



: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 


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.- 

l aai^afe^tdcr ▼• relfaohaaU er, 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.'.^:- « 


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)»!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— laeldo r ▼. 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* 


•tS4i; *tS *«© (i) ex flt«IJa*« i*4^i inaawse^. 

«.&£^!» '%^ml m&ii.tsal^^i'S^ ^^ Sssa 'tissue; = --.sttj^a^ 


rtuMcm KiKivzcxXf 

APfflAl fViOH MnriCZPAL 
090KT 09 CKZ& ao« 


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« 




• ^^^fluIXsie 


tt'f *««,;}■ 

,.1'»y»-:f .-/.ff 


■:.;;\:.:j, ; J <■ \ ;>./ ■,\'"* ,. > w,i 


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 

tho jadsBoat of tha KuBlei^UL Coart of Chieago ia a 
Jaat oaa aad it ahoald ba luid it la afflxaod* 


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=^'^""*- 


Defendant in Error, 

vs. ' 

aintiff in Error. 

Writ of Error to County Court of Pike County. 

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 


Mattie F. Henry, Conservatrix and ex-officio admin- 
istratrix of tlie estate of Samuel Farlow, 
Deceased, Appellant . 
Fred Farlow, et al.. Appellees. 
Appeal from Circuit Court Adams County. 


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. 

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 





--^^ /<^ 3 ' /-? 

3 ^ 

256I,A. ^1*^^ 

General No. 8354 Agenda No. 15 


A. M. Myers, W. H. Drewell, et al. Appellants, 


John M. Gerhardt, Appellee 

Appeal from Circuit Court Coles County. 


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. 

the second part has heretofore invented an appliance 
known and named the UNIVERSAL TRUNK PLAT- 
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- 

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 
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) 




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 

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 

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 



JAMES MULCAHEY, et al., Appellees. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Vermilion Countj- 


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 


Tlie decree of the Circiiit Court is affimied. 
Affirmed . 

Fase 7 


U-Of^rtr^ •/-t^' 

j^ti^ ,/^ 3 ^/f3f> 

(^iM^-^----^'- ^ y-^^cl^-W' ^.U. i^-^V^O 



256 I.A. 613 

General No. 8370 Apfenda No. 28 


Clarence Wyer, Appellee, 


Emil A. Ekstrand, Appellant. 

Appeal from Circuit Court of Champaign County 


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- 

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 

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 

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 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 


Sarah McGowan, Appellee. 1 

David N. Conwill, Appellant. 

Appeal from Circuit Court, Sangamon County. 


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 


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 


General No. 8383 Agenda No. 36 


NETTIE M. WEBB, Appellant. 

Appeal from Circuit Courl, Mason Count.v. 

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 

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 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- 

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 


People of the Slate of Illinois, Defendant in Error, 


Samuel Sincere, Plaintiff in Error, 

Writ of Error from Vermilion County. 


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 

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 

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 


Carolina Cobelto, Apyjollant, 


Fiauk Cobello, Ai)i)ellee, 

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Montgomery County 

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 

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 

One promissory note, dated October 10, 1921, for 
$1,150, payable to appellee and si.e;ned by Suio:i Ta.i;- 

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 

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 

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 

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- 

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 

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 



General No. 8368 Agenda No. 2(3 

256I.A. 615' 




Appeal from the Circuit Court, Sanji:anion Count}' 


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 


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 

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 

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 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 . 


Page 4 


^.eJA.^t yC 


' /f 3^ 



25ei.A. G15 

General No. 83 J7 A-yenda No. 18 


A. F. Huber, For the Use of, W. F. Crunibau.j?!! 
Trading as the PEOPLES OIL C(J., Etc., AppeUants, 


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. 


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 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;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 . 


256 I.A. 615 

General No. 8369 Agenda No. 27 


Travelers Iiisurauce Company, Appellee, 
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 


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. 


Page 5 





FEB 12 1930 

OCTOBER TERM, A. L. 1929. •'^,e;icCA]\\^0 %^ 


TERM NO. 5. 


Defendant in Error, 

• V. 


Plaintiff in Error. 

AG. NO. 13. 


256I.A. 615 


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 



OllJP^ ^- 


,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 


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 

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 . 


.O-v.Tt"^'^- "■ ' •tif^-r'TCitjtiT 


TEKW NO. 18. 




AHMOim & COrPATfy, 


October Term, A. L. 1929. 


Iiyp". Cr THE H>^f'.:,.-Cc . r ^ 

AG. KG. 22. 


256 I.A. 61^ 



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 

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 





. ''"^< 




rtedb d^^0 







.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 
■'■'•' •■•^■-■" ^'--" ■^o::'-M 'tno .T>.:r-:Ja srf;:^ lo Ita-^ cfee. 


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 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 

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 


iOBilii «C Jb»n -07300 acts. 11 Loo srii rndvt baon 9di lo ©she in^t srf; 

,;*««1 »««trf* 2fj>ftcf 13 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;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 . 


yU4/(:i^ ijt^^iA^f^ 


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 


TT5RM 1T0.U5* 


In The 
Fourth District 

Od-OBBR TERM, A. D. 1929, 









FEB 12 1930 

riERK Olr THE 4Pf>£Li;>Tt C30RT 

Appeal from the Circuit 
Court of Perry County. 

Hon. Jesse R. Brown, 
Judse Presiding. 



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 

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 







Jill 'Jt^C T31HT3K1 

v;r^w-C ^'i-ii>S: Iv J'OoroC ^ ,.:399iX&C[qii 

JaOC 1' 




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^ 


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 


bib 9ii *«ri;^ b9iJiiee& x-*=«w«II«0 ^r^s^srrojiiol^ x^ ^r<£ld ni bercpia 

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 

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 



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, 

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 


,\&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. 

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 


\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. 


:i.'f.j l ^UO 

' ■ - - toiietit 19^'ai srl* jbop. Hid 9ri;f 
.i-eft .III 681 ,ifiK;ff ^v €!>l9li«8 




TSRM 10, 22. 

In The 


Fourth District 

OCTOBSR TSRM, A. D. 1929. 

HARRY DORTOT, Administrator of 
the Estate of B7A DORTCH, 




i. ) 



Appeal from the Circuit 
Court of liiadison County, 

Honorahle Louis Bemreuter, 
Judge Presiding. 



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 




,QSM1 ,4 .A ,M55FT iSg??oaXiC 


T sIo'jBrEono.'' 


TAO^uIlAR l^^S-l^eiUd 


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 

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« 

':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 


fourth Dletrlot 

oc-roT^np. in^FTt, A. n. 1929. 

Sin>A KG. 23. 


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 


<- * 

- 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^- 




it, •" 

■ ■• : •■,■? 

f.fvc? c: 

,r -■ 

to;»l« ...i-. 



8««.:^ --. - - 

f)®tf- ■ ' ' 

. .... 


'. 1 >•! ' 

' ; ' ' • 

T^n i-;^' j'> 

n* ban v.- ■. ..> 

/ »^- 

«r{d^ -xstajeiiw 



. ..... 



>xl;<- ' ■< ^' '■ :■ ' 

i pr> 

f ► 

i .-.f,' 


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^ 

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. 


No. 5. 



lay Term, A. D. 1929. 

S. J. Gr;:, Truatoo, 

Berendaiit in Lrrov, 



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 

^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 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, 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 


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- 

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 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. 


Iliimber Twelve. 



FEB 12 1930 

• " • *'■ ifti(f r " r \- T \yVl ' \l lE COURT 


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. 


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 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 


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 subs titution 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- 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 


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 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 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 


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. 


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 


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 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. 


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 


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 


October Term, A. D., 1929. 

P rtBera, Doing Busiaess Under the 
Firm flame and Style of 



Number 24. 


Appeal from the 
City Court of 
East St. Louis, 

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 


,.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 


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 .-.) 


j'.qatoo i>jBrf 
> fflorr^ .iiol;faI 


f "So ii. 

27, Si. 



October Term, A. D« 1929. 

Apx)ellant, ) Appeal f2X>in the 

) Circuit Court of 

vs. ) llnrion Coiinty, 

) Illinois. 


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 

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 


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 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- 


»i-^' '■■^^•- :. ac^ cfiiiJ- ." 


or..:: x -fj? s. :? ■ ' :• x '^s: OffiJ- • 

-et» ■clr.uoi 




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. 



ion !»U) 


-t \!V\ \«^ 

Nvunber 31. 

Number 27. 




October Term, A. I., 1929. 

ZEir;;ECK jeivelery company, 

a Corporation, Etc., 


POWER COIvlPAIfX", a corpora- 

Appellee . 

Appeal from the 
Circuit Court of 
St. Clair County, 

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 


1.^1 i:i.i:y!.'J'J'\ 


>.</.. o ..: .;^ jaalfijaqoEOO 

■ .f>26I^'5*I oxiifTr /to 

■ ■ -.. .- ._...... ...... .-..-..j- be:fn©:f 

.... \. . . ,Xi3l^t fi 

. . (I)' te«xj8 cfoldw 


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 


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,&^ 





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 


;0D S0iT16' 

ii IG q 

/vCn imjb::. s 

1 B -."x c V 3 a 9' ■ ^"1 :" "xon ©rl 


©rid' rt 



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 






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 


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 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- 

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 ? 


^ ■*ffh<^»-r^; . 


J ffcj^ri.!:' 

■XiO *ti :