Skip to main content

Full text of "Illinois Appellate Court Unpublished Opinions: first series"

See other formats


77 2 3^' 

Digitized by tine Internet Arcliive 

in 2010 witli funding from 

CARLI: Consortium of Academic and Researcli Libraries in Illinois 






LOUIE D. aLAKZ as trustee, and ) i)^c 
RALPH MAYfiR, ) * 



kORHIS M, uOijTiiitSIM ct --a . , \ I 

Appellant*. -^ _ ^ 


26 3 I.A, eil*- 


By this appeal the def eridarits se«k to reverse ur^ order ap- 
pointing a reoeiver in a foreclosure suit. 

Th* receiver iraa appointed after notioe tu all parties on 
the verified bill of complaint. 

The bill was filod May 7, 1932, and the order i^pcinting the 
receiver ortcrel i^ay 12th, In the ordor appointing the reoeiver th* 
eourt finds that th* defer^danta, who are tho owners of the equity 
of redemption of the property in forecloauro, had personal notice 
of the motion for the appointment of a rteeiver; that the court con- 
7id«fe!i'*Af^Rbrified^illi«,!|pd ordered the apDointnent of the ro* 
o«ivor upon the reeeiv*r giving bond in the sun of $5,000 and th« 
eoaplainonts a bond of #500, June 7, 1932, the defendants filed 
their appeal bond, '»hloh wao approved by the clerk of the court, 
•• the statute requires. 

The record discloses that the defendants filed a praeeip* 
for r«aord, and that all they asked the clerk to certify was th* 
bill of complaint, the ord*r appointing the reciver, and the appeal 

The trust deed pledged the rents ^nd profit* as well as th* 
property itself as security for the indebtedness of $75,000. Th* 
bill alleges that $68,000 of the principal indebtedness is still 
due and unpaid; that the deferidants, the makers of the note* and 
mortgage, are in solvent and that the property oanriot be sold at the 
present tine for uore than 150,000; that the aarket value of it i* 







..,: uo iioi«i<i^o sfHT crsoPTVUTO aoaaoo'o ski Taut .n 

no asl;ti«q XXa ai voUoa riA^tA b«#aloQqi> sjee- t9vt.9onr •cfT 

.i^otiilqnjoo to Iltrf h*^^*^ nAt 
•Jit SB^^'*-^^^^ -xvkto 9x19 hm ,S£9X ,^ -^a:^ b9ll1 smv Slid ^tif 

%lJtap« »£ti to Btaowo •ii^ via oxiw lalaAtu?!^!) •jrf;} jr«ri:r afeall trri/es 

-•1 »iiJ "to Jntw^oioQa* "JiJ b»Tt»fe^o 5i|0i^XI<t t'Si'UiaPV^WfiF'ff^i^biiF 

•^ i><» 000, ev '10 ftjue »iM al Jbnocf 'gnlrl-^ ttri9oei »x£* noqi? -s^vita 

h^LVt 9$cuit;a9l9b t»dA ,S£«X ,"r »aut^ ,iX*e4 "^o &n<yrf « aianaii^Lvfmop 

.«v.aXxJf)9T: 9iutAi9 mm ia 
Mlo^tfii;! is« &«Xli aitUkbii»^9b •<U J*xiJ adaoioeif. bioo»i *ilT 
•iU SAW ^'riJ-i*© oJ KltaXa ad* fta^isi: 'isxfi XXja ''Hdi bn* .ftio&rvt tot 
lA^qfift •tii ban ,i»vio»a 9-ct* aa-':'*fl-io«[<?J8 -xafcTo *iiJ ,lal«X<?ssoo to XXlrf 


XX1*» •! ■•»i!t»»id9f>n2 X«gianitQ »iiJ £0 000, »•♦ tBxi:', a«a»XX« Xilcf 
bnn aa^on oriJ io ai»)lj»<a aril .«iaiifu«i't96 ^tii imAi :61«iifiif !>na «u^ 

• I :fi t© 9ulMr f^ittnn 9£li SuxLi :Ui>0.oe^ suuLt aioisi to'l •«!* laaaaiq 

aot mort than $50,000; that the preoiisas aur* iaproYed loy & building 
eontainiug Hats, •tor«B uid olficcs, and that the rental value !• 
•nljT $700 a month, the trust deed provides for tue appointtiient ol* 
a receiver without regard to the solvency or insolvency oT the 
aakers of the fflort«!,age. 

The defeririants contend that the allegations oi' the bill ol* 
eomplaint are insulTioient to warrant the appointtuent ol the re- 
eeiver oi* tne ground t£iat the allegation that the property is not 
vorth more than ^5c,oo0 and cai^not be uold at the preaeiit time for 
■ere than that auount, is a uiere cunclusioa. 'ith this oontention 
ve are unable to a^ree. Xhs allegations Uiat the property is not 
worth more tnan V50,OoO and cannot be sold lor more tuaa th^t 
■Kount, are allegations ol I'act aad net aiere uunclusions. jelspecially 
•liOuld this eondusion be adopted in the intttufit case, wuere the ap- 
peal is from an iutorlodutery order entered on the faee ol' the 

The argument made on benall' ol' the defendants is wholly 
Ineuri'icient to warrarit us in reversing the order appointing the 
receiver , ar^d it is therefore affirmed. 


MeBurely, F. J., and Matchett, J., concur. 

jalfeliuo - V. ^ ---■«4a*jI ••*» •••luf* i., .... ;.. - , i .... 'i »..,^, V v/a 

,»]^4Jl6m Qtii 'iO B-X»aL4MI 

lo'i »aJt^ s^i'.iai-itq m'-i' in b£o& *d JoiiiWii) hoik t^Q^^&i smtLi »T9n f{^TOV 
ii^iir«id^eto» 8lxi;i iiilv .aoiauXdaod e-xdai a ai ^tMJwm t»t{i iiiuii aaoa 

^^£i^ IMui» atOiB ^ot 6Xe» Adr i«aajko J^tt6 ^^v^t^ iiBCl.} »'xa« AiTow 

' (|<t,t t sft;f lio b*i©3;i* tact's o .^tt ai Lasq 

.1X1 f( 

.iliiil'oqq« -iafiio «ii^ a, .? 

... *'•* a'x;)'i»"i ■■■ , - 



CilCAdO TI"."L2 Mil) TiiJST COFJPAiiY, ) 

» Corporfttien, an 'fruBte«, ) 

Appellee, } 


) COUNl 

•* '^•» (r-k ^ -^ -r A n^ 

A„^i»t.. )26 3 I, A, uil 


On July 6, 1932, the court appointed a receiver of the 
property involred in a forecloeure suit, an(5 tVie (»efen:^ante apoeal. 

nie order appointin£ the receiver contains the following: 

*Thla cause coming on to be heard on motion of the eolicitors 
for the comolftinant for the appointment of a Receiver and it aiipear- 
Ing to the Court that the holder of the equity of redemption, to- 
gether with all parties involved, have heen duly served with notice 
of thle motion, and the Court having read the sworn Bill of Com« 
plaint filed herein and having heard the evidence as to the valttt 
•f the property descrihed in the trust deed," etc. 

In the order the court found it was provided in the trust 
deed that a receiver miglit be appointed durin^^;; the pendency of 
foreclosure without regard to the solvency or insolvency of the 
persons liable for the payment of the indebtedness, and the court 
further found that it was probable there would be a deflclenoy 
after a sale of the property, that the grantors would be unable to 
satisfy such deficiency and that the premises were scant security 
for the amount due. The order then provided lor the appointment 
of the receiver upon giving bond lor 117500, and the complainante a 
bend of l&OO with sureties to be improved by the court. 

The trust deed pledged the rents and profits as well an 
the property itself as securit,; for the payment of the indebted- 


MOri' . 

A { .SV 

^ ^^ ^ ^ 

• iaii«lfo« -»KJ Tta ntoito* no ftx*:?;* &<5 -; t no ^saiapa »«ijri?3 aJtrfX* 
-T«5^ '-i? ti ♦^as ^9/t«5#H » 'to JxisaKi-fiio^* sift icl iajsniefrfaoi »rf* i©! 

•xU 1e \;oaa»vid«fli no x^anrLoi 9rii ni bim-^^t iaaxiiiv otifaoXdeiol 
♦*xi/so •iW fan ,B««»ab«iJ«biil »iii lo la9m\:*jq «iiJ lo't ftlds-ll ««>aTt«f[ 

« «*ruiJ'xi;;Xq«oo adJ &tijrf ,00; nod ^alrl^ noqu •x9y1«o»t «ri* 'l« 
-b«Jd«fcni srfci 'to itmm^q 9£i.^ -■^■' Miuods «« 1X»8;f! "♦'^■^ ■-'rf* 

The del'eadaatis contend that the order appcliitlng the re- 
eelrer i.« w2*one M»d oliould Ise r«rversed because it waa based QoleXy 
on the allegatioas ol' the bill, tAlLcIi was giroiTi to oxily upon Infor- 
mation arid belief, aiid that ouch verification is icsufriciflxit. 

Ihe affidavit ie that the alTiont "has read the fore^iioiag 
Bill and Jkno^s the contente thereof, axir) tiiat the allegatioug oon- 
tained therein ar» true of hie ovrn knov?ledge and belief, except »• 
to oueh Matterg a6 are thorein stated to be alleged on infonuation 
and belief, ar^d that ae to ^uch t^i&ttere he. la creditably inforisied 
and Vf>rily belioyea ti<e Biiflii-. to be tioie," The affidavit is rjffi- 
cient. hbjr.k &. Trust >:c... v. PEds^ y. 265 111, Ajpp. 546; 
yeterson Co. v. Aaphalt Gz^lcs Corp .. 235 111. App. 592; G ;rK.oe^ Vf 
Caicland Lldt:. asboc. ,. 156 :il. 637; In re Keller . 36 i'ed. 681; 
Lei^ Y. Green . 64 x.ebraeku, 553; 2 Corpus Juris, 355, 

In the Bcliaj-ce Lai.'m. caee the affidavit Has substantially 
the sane as the affidavit before ua, and it was there held ouffi- 
cient. In that case the oases above cited ure discussed as au- 
thority for the hcldin^ in the f>li^ince B& case. Ve witlrely 
a^ree witii the views expresaed in ibjxi case. Subetiaitially the 
•asie fonus of affidavit were h«ld sufficient in tho Peterson case, 
mjgra. What allegation« are positively averred and what are c&ds 
upon thformation and belic-f can be readily ascertained by a «i«>r« 
reading of the bill, in the bill it is alleged that tliere Is » 
b-alance of #53,015 due and unpaid, and it is further alleged that 
the TJremises are deteriorating and depreciating in value and art 
not at the time reasonably worth laore tnan $40,000. These allega- 
tlone are positiv-iy made and are sufficient to warrant the court 
in appointing a receiver to eollect the rents to apply en th« in- 
debtedness, because if the allegations are true, as they must be 
presumed ©n the record to be, there will be a deficiency, as the 
property is met worth the amount of the indebtedness. Xhs allege- 

...100 aiiGi^&^&il. ,to»i»rii aiueinoo sdJ B'^otwl fta« IXIC 

- iiOtf \IJ, i.s9 iiOA 

'^P„,tV, ^a^^ 

-lie Qf5 n>?#f:w-0-:! 
•&J.i8 97. ■■'■ '■ ■■■■ ■ 

* rt ; f ■, > . ■ K CI -x ' 


9*«fi ttlJR •••IfffSirj eft* 

tlont of the bill which are made on information and "belipf are to 
the ?ff<9ot that «?11 the honde secured hy the trust deed *ere sol-!!, 
wad the further allegation is that on information and l9ell«f the 
property sut/ject to the lien of ealil truet ieed is inadequate 

A further eomplaint is th%t there is no allegation in the 
bill as to who is the owner of the premises sought to he foreclosed 
aer as to who is in possession of them. The trast deed, which is 
an exhibit tc »Jid icade a p'irt of the 17111, states that the defend- 
ants. If orris Jaocbs and Sophie J'XQo\iS, vho apDeal froa the order 
appointing a receiver, are justly indelted in the siiia of $55,000 
to the legal holder or holders of the bonds described in the trust 
deed, which bonds are signed by then, an^^. that to seoure the pay- 
ment of the bonds they conveyed the property in question to the 
trustee and In the trust deed covenanted that they were well 
seized and had a good title to the property. This is sufficient 
to show that they owred the property. If they do not own the 
property, thee the appointSxent of a receiver for it in no way 
detrimentally affects them. 

The order of the Superior court of Cook county 1b affirmed. 


KeSurely, F. J: I concur in tha ooncluslon of the court, 
tfatehdtt, J. , concurs. 

T,,, ,r'", . t. <.r ^ ■ ■ r.'<?*f *^«f ©t 

f sir h'^tt»9 

■i^atUA /^^K>) 

.«stt.5>'"i- . j*i£«Ja* 



Appelle*, ) 







On July 13, 1932, complainant filed its l»ill to foreclose » 
trust deed whleh the loill alleged was executed to secure the payment 
of a principal note for $30,000, with interest thereon. The "bill 
prays for an Iwsediate appointment of a receiver and states that 
*the premises are improved with a building occupied as a residence." 
The bill alleges that the note and trust deed were executed by 
Bora and Ji'rank SakanoYSky and that Frank Is deceased. It makes 
Bsra Sakanovsky and Louis L, Olans, the trustee, defendants. Al- 
leged copies of the note and the tzxist deed are attached te ths 
bill and made a part of it« The bill states that the note and the 
trust deed were given as payt payment of the purchase koi ey for the 
premises; that certain eounon notes were attached to the note; that 
eoupen notes ^os. 1 to 6 representing the interest had been paid but 
that two interest coupons described as Z-7 and Z-8 due December 5, 
1931, and June 5, 1932, respectively, are in default and unpaid; 
tliat complainant "is the legal holder cuid owner of said interest 
coupons, Z-7 and 2U8, and holds the same ready to be produced in 
open court upon a hearing hereof." 

The bill also avers that complainant is Informed and believes 
that the taxes and the insurance pr«uiums on the property are unpaid; 
that the property "is scant security for the payment of the amount 
new due your orator;" that the grantor in case of foreclosure waives 
all right to the possession of and income from the prtmises pending 
such foreclosure proceedings and until the period of redemption from 
any sale therevinder should expire; that a receiver should be 


XI8 .A.I'c 

v^ »»^ w^ 
« •soio'i .•i.-slB»aoc. , , 

ftjlj OCT fe»ifoj»*;re 01.© fe*©f! ^8urx.; ,;oi<.«3o fc^a*! 

;ftieq«ii fcnw IXti^^. ... iii« ,tX9^i*o*Q«*f ,££«X ,« flfljEfL iboa ,Xf.fX 

At fec-jjificTn ?»fr o:f Y^a*-! if«fi5js» '."fj cfeXoii foa.-; »a-.S fen* T-i «anoq0oe 

•»T»lX<>(f bos hPtmto'tai: el la«ir(i<jX(i;imoc ^«£ij^ a-xeins osXjb XXiti AdX 

;bi«artt; •i/i ^^JietTCQ *i^^ -■ e.'.'i.'im'^trr i^ort/^iAjaiJl »iil fins aftXA* arii inAi 

taiiQSM 9tii 'to *a«»uncfto „.«»«« si" ^ii»q«»q ©iU **xl* 

••Ti«w atwa 0X0*101 'to f»»j'y »ii loSamx^ 9A3 iatii ^ i-ittaato luoz «ub voa 

Sfli^nnq RsaijKOtq <v :r« to iTola«i*aao<| ftJU o^ ^i^aJti; lis 

aoi'l aoiiq««^l>'^ 'to boi-x itiu bcut aj^Xbsaootiq 4n:u«9i:&i»i:o*t xlaue 

•«r ^Xx)0ii9 •xatisoe-s «> ««jci;t -,9ilfpa bluoii/6 t9bmni*tii «X«a x«ji 

appointed a* » matter of right upon the filing of th« bill of com- 
plaint without regard to the adequaey of the security. 

Attached to the hill is a copy of a coupon, ^^o. Z.?, signed 
l}y Frank Sakanofaky and Bora Sakanofsky for the Bun of $300 due 
Peoember 5, 19 31. It is made to the order of thenaelveB and by 
them endorsed and states upon its face tiiat it is for an installment 
of interest due on that date upon the principal note of 'the under* 
signed" for the sum of if 10, 000, due five years after date. Also 
attached to the bill is a note of i^rank and Dora Sakanofsky dated 
June B, 1928, for the sum of 110,000 with interest at six per 
e«cit* This note states that the several installments of ixiterest 
are further eyidenced by ten interest notes or coupons of even 
date therewith, and that the payment of the note is secured by a 
trust deed on real estate in Cook county, Illinois, to Louis D, 
Glans, trustee. This note includes a power of attorney to confess 
judgment. The trust deed, however, whieh is attached to the bill. 
States that the eonsideratlon therefor is the sum of $30,000, and 
that the grantors, ^ifrank and Dora Sakanevsky, are Justly indebted 
ea 26 prlncipaa promissory notes of even date therewith for that 
amount. These notes and coupons reprsBenting the interest thereon 
are particularly described. The bill is not verified. 

On July 2S, 1932, a petition of complainant was filed as 
verified by one Anton J. Kohatak, who states that he has knorledge 
of the facts but does net state hie relationship, if any, to com- 
plainant. This petition avers the filing of the pending bill of 
complaint; thmt complainant is the legal holder of unpaid notes 
and eoupons amounting te $20,000, and thtt no interest has been 
paid on the notes since Deoeniber 5, 1931; that the taxes for 1929 
sad 1930 amounting to $1900 remain unpaid; that "the premises are 
Improved with a six-flat brick bailding and that the cash market 
valtts of the same Is 126,000, and that petitioner feara that unless 
a receiver is appointed to take possession of said property and to 

,v*ituo09 •xtJ- 'to x^«iipoJE>« ftit* Oj fcxeasi ^ijofi^lv ;^',]X«X(7 
•at 00€« lo xfiMB si£t lot ^3tatapM»fBfi atoG AiOa xil«*l.s£usaUie iomil ^cT 

iiiQMllBStai a« lol «i <}i tmii •9»l aii a»iiu A*^«i« ham JMMn«ha» «»il^ 

-Yahnir 9rf^* to eton Ijs^rioaiiiq ofit nnqrv ntab i*sii ao •»{> is^to^oi *t# 
(?L- , ...©X «vl . . /}Q^QM 1o mti9 9tiS to't "ib««si« 

i9Cf xio ii: iasiiiiai Aflw 000, C5I4 'lo mm •riJ -xo't ,iisex ,8 9twX. 

i»»'i$>ictl 'to 8iaa«XXefsai X^rtevs* »di intii a«#«^a ».^oa aiifi^ .ia^a 

as-'TS) 1q aao»(;oo to sa^cn tsaiMial as;^ ^^o !»aoti9j)/ra ta^l-xj/t aia 

« ^ £:9'iuo^& Sik ^io& «il^ 'to ^iiajbxfici ■:%* tiHivttxmii »t»h 

.0 >t ,sXoniXXX ^x^^^^^ 3[eoO ai a^Alea X^an ao t«9b fmuit 

aaolncd oi x^^'i'^^^^- "^^ i^voa «e asl^bXo^ aloa alril' .•i)^ai;n:l ,aix«X& 

,XXi .&«ilfii-J . -5Y9*«i{ «ib»6Jb t»in$ ailT ,;rn9«sfttft 

lAifl To'i tu tsr^n^ii-i 6iAb oava 'io ce^toii x''^^*'^ ^^'^''•^i ■C^tllactX'Xq dS ata 

nea'xexfi ^aa-xa^ni li^aaaa'XQ-d'z itaoqijoo bott tt»#oa aaaiil .^avaaia 

•i>9XUxsv Jau ei XXXcr &At .^adlioa^i^ ^ItalifoX^iAq aicA 

•a ftaXlt ««w la£iti.£XQ*eEoo lo noi^X;ra^ b ,se@x ,SS X'^^'^''^ ' 

aabaXwoojC •*!! o4 ^ailt ae'J^is odn ,AsiiMJi<^ *1 wiiak aaa xd b&lii%»r 

-moo oi tX^' '^^ ,<iliiexxoi^jsX0i Aixl dJ^aia Jon aaoi^ Jjad ai^ajsl ari* 't# 

to iXl'f stti^n^ot »^^ 'to snjf-ti'* •'** si^tjo aoi^Xtoq alrft ,ia»atBt^ 

aatofl feXdqnu to i»!:>lott Xa;»aX aiiJ ai .trtentjjX<iKoo i»dS ;J-ai«X«aid« 

a9a<f ai^;l ^aa-x^)al oa UttU hGu< ,000, ^S^ aJ ^aUauoam aaoquoa iboa 

011":^ - ■' t^xmS 9tii SmAJ jXtfX ,a aadvneoaC! acaia aa^oa aHl ao Bisf 

axM arv..!.. r.i<f '-rft* ^aiiJ ;JI>laQfiu al^it/ri 006X4 o» gniicuroaia 0€W f»ns 

*ai:ta« dfcao a*r iMM foi» sniMli-U atoX^cf iaX'l-xla a rf*!* fcavoiqpl 

aaaXnu *«jW stunat laaolJic^aQ 4-«ifi bn« .OOO.SSJ al aaaa trf;? lo a»X*sr 

•1 boa ^^'xaqaiq blaa '»^« a >i«!9ii«»Bq[ sAbJ o* l&«^aloqqa ai tmrfo»% * 

oolleet th« resits thereof, the security upon said property vili be- 
eeae impaired and that the naker ol' the notes secured "by said 
trust deed is insolvent*" 

On July 23, 1932, an order appointing a reoeiver was entered 
"by the eourt. It reeites that due notice had been serred upon Dora 
SakanoTsky, the record owner; that she was present in court upon 
the hearing of the notion; that the court read and considered the 
l)ill of eomplaint and the adi&iseions and stutements of oouneel; that 
the premises sire scant and meager security for the pa^/ment of the 
indebtedness; that the market value of the premises is #85,000, and 
that the same had been sold for the 1929 general taxes and net re- 
deemed; that Jbouis 0. Qlanz "be and is appointed reoeiver of the 
yrenises; that the bond of compl^iinant in the sum of $500 should 
be filed within ten days and that the reeeiTer*s bond for :^3,000 
should be filed within twelve days. 

It will be noticed that the petition fails to aver that the 
statements of faot in the bill of complaint are true. It leaves 
the court in douM as to the amount of the indebtedness which is 
due and as to who is the owner and holder thereof. The bill of 
eomplaint and the petition contradict each other as to the character 
of the improvements which are on the oremises; and while the bill 
avers that complainant is the owner of two coupons of |300 each, th« 
petition alleges that he owns $20,000 of the indebtedness. 

this court has often said (and it should be unnecessary to 
M9t»t) that the application for the appointment of a receiver is 
addressed to the sound legal discretion of tho court; that it is a 
hl^ and extraordinary remedy to be exeroised not arbitrarily but 
with caution and only where the court is satisfied that there is 
immediate danger of loss if it is not exercised, IJ'rank v. Siegaj i. 
263 111. App, 316. Certainly, a record such as this, which fails to 

•lid b0X»Llaa9o bsm km-i$^ ttuos ^tiS S»nS ; Helton wii to ^attttmti ftxLt 

i-is.ii jfa^iiijoo >» a*a«»«**at« bras «rtoi9ai«fc-e »rf* ^fu» J^ni«I<ysBd» tp tti€ 
1 J .? jH©m-,«r; ^Ai lo't x*i'SM**« •r«'3j««s fine- d'n«ftR ©xp B#»i.aE>T? #rf.t 

-9% &cn htt» 9»xjiS tM'titm'^ eS£?i »di lot Mos a«»cf hati •«»» •li^ ^ei(^ 
#£^ 'to lorlftoif^ ftt#jheJNk«f^«'' ti has »d sttsilw Jl eiijoa #«IE^ :^A»*il 

,e^£fc »rtow* alji^iw 6*iil »rf fo£i;o«» 

a»fa«- ♦«i«X^iRi;>. !c Hit/ »ti^ ai io«t lo 9ltt»aw*«:»« 

al ^idw 8»4Hf>«ttf«l?a .-K-o-t' v--" a-' »« t4u9h ai $tsf09 oil* 

9rf+ ,«o«fi 00?!« 'to art<^fru?^c ; v ''- '-' .'■■wiai«lq«»o *«ri* ••rava 

« «l i-i tidfW ',&tU0O •if^ to itoU«»x9»ll? X«jK>>C htia$» unit ** *»«»»fftfcil 

.^f fia .T .j^et H ,h^»ior£»,x« *»tJ *i ^i ti aaol to t»art«6 •>J'jlJSrt>i^l 
oi flim-r i^oi^^r ,'■ .-..,..- .. rMi^fs*^ -^"^ • "•-^ •'"'■^ '*^ 

•how lAio yre the owners of the indelstedness, what is the aaoirnt due 
and what is the condition of th«» prenlsea, and where the aveisients 
of the petition oontradiot those of the bill, cannot Justify an 
order appointing a recoiyer. Ihe order is therefore reversed. 


MeSurely, P. J., and G'Geni.or, J., eencur. 

.F)©«T:i>y«a sio'taTa. kro audi .i-;/2i: iJaioq^js tftfti* 


,10 iAoU' &as , . 


2JR0T B« WOrUMf 

M« BOTLAtft 
fi«f ciMtaBt aad 

nmimtitt in £vr«r« 


COOK comrt* 

26 a i.A. 6lf 

On April as* X9S0« %h» •nyerltir mnirt ef Coek ooatttjr 
ipr«ii%«d a <i«er«« of dlrere* la OMqdAiJMnt** fAT«r on the ffromd 
•f d«f •adckat* s tfoa«rti«i» koA tiiaftisiMd <ief«aafiiit*o cursM biU 
for « anMura^* a»latfiB«Mt ffur vast «f •qvltj* aoa iOm 1b tlM 
■MM d««rM ««8urd*d def «iid«a% Mo a aeaili aJLiBOSty MMft IBOO f«r 
lurr •oll«lt«ir*s f««ii iB •ddltlmi to n^iat prAvlously )wa ¥««» 

On Jaxmnrjr 14 » IMlt tittfemtMi ottoci out fr«ai tliio 
eo«rt m writ of trror to rererao th« <S«er«t« lurlas April* 1931* 
o«qa«liuui% flltd » plock of rol«&M of orxorst In wfaleh ho oTonrod 
la ttd>otaBOO tltai aftor tho ontrj of th« d«or«o d«fondaat rvoelvod 
■ad Mooptod frooi hla tho uxm of #900 • vhieh oald deoroo had ro<iLiiilrod 
hia to jpojT to her a« oolloltor*o fo«o and that oho appreporlaie^ aaK 
oaa vlth Inovtlotfffo of th)» puxpooo for vhleh It had hooa yald ukI 
that» thorohy* dho had ooaflzBod th« dcoroo ami rolonsod any and all 
•rroro la the eatxy oi attoh dooroo* To thlo plMt defendaat fllod a 
doBurroXf sod oa April 29^ 1931» thie ooart oaatalstd that deanxror* 

Oa OotOhor 9« 1931* this Murt* for reaaoaa stated la Ita 
opiaioa thea fllod* rerera^d aald dcoroe aad raaaadod tho emaao 

V — ^ 



,tJa?^-5 i5iH>^yi^ t>T •mh,^- 

i^XO • A» jL O O ^ 

Hill aii$ mm ^0m^^ ^*mm m «•# imom^lM ttOmpm Mim*^ mmm 
tUfwi tad yJUui^i^i'H. i»*» ^ tmiHii>hm tti «»•! «*«»^i«IX<M -uat. 

^^^i/^,> -wt iu4 •»««<»6 Mm tf&iMM ttAiet T« iPia «i£9 «!«( «9Zt b9S%p%9m bos 
im» Hm «••< ^^«ii ^^ itoitfir it! «ao«^'$ «ii« )• unfimiwmH Miw mm 

i.^^ MM 19M» a«S4Mli»t MM ••<«>»^ Mf<9 AHKitttOft tell tiill •ttf*%«il') «#4MU 

m hmlBfi $m*btm\0k im£^ •Midt ot ««mm»i» )teM ^ i|i^«» «U si ««m» 
r«<«uaM& tJMti mmkM$mm iim» mnu %JUM ••» U'm^ •» tei ««««nM>l» 
;^I «t h*im$e ttM»ai*«« «#t tihofM mid* %IS91 «« «««i#f»0 «0 

•«iih dlreatl«B8 to %h» suptrUr court to dlodioe eonpl&inant** 
1»ilX for want of equity* ma* to Iwar oriiloBoe «»«« on tho Ibbuos 
«M0 ^ d«foii4«a%*o orooa %1I1 amdi eeaiplalnsmt's eymswor therms to* 
•a4 ia tte BoaatiMO to Mftko prorlvion for the p&j«<»nt of r««»oB* 
o1>lo aliamsr fUftd aolioltor*o foeo to <}ttfen<aat«* thoreaftor* on 
ooovlalaoat* o fotltioa* tlur nu^«uo Coiurt uraMtod » writ of 

On Juao £4* 1932* tko r^upvMBM Court in ito opinion hmlA 

tluit tlUo eourt bad «rrt4i in ottntjkiniag tho d»nurr«r to tHe j^oa 

of voleaoo of «xror«» and atfjudgod that tho Jiuigaont of tliio oeort 

%o rorerooiS* and tltat th» eattoo 1»o reaoUMSed to thin eourt "wltli 

<iy«otioiui to oTorruXo tlw dniiwor and to diflOBiog tho vrit of 

orror** t tho Ootohcr tono of the •sujoreMr Court 4«ft>Bd&nt*o 

petitiws for a roho«jrine «&• 4#niod» alaoe vhieh tiao oqnplaiaant 

has horo iMTed th&t thin oourt eater an ortfeY is omqpJLiaaoo with 

tho aaaonto of the SuireBo Court* vhieh hae^oen filed* 

In eei^Aianoo with th^^t nwidate* it ia hereby ordered 

that defendant* donorrer to eonplainaat*B »aid plea of reloaoo 

of orroro ho orerruled and thAt oaid «rit of error* aued out of 

thio oourt on January 14* 1931* he dinniaaod* 

«•««£«» l« «»J« Hum •*fwiiminiliwi» 04 -£t»!esiMi* d*4Ntiift«»l«» AmM 

*t» in* aMi^ ntv'zit^ t« Sit^ iitm i/fAs lum %»MMVtm^ •€ «'S«ft» to 


LOUIS VikLO for UB« of HAX k. QRCSSMAB, ) 

f, } 

WALD ft SCHWAD^ CO., a Corporation. ) 

Appellant. ) 




^ 26 8I.A. 612^ 


D«f«nviaJit ap:«alB i'rom an order donying Its aiotioc to 
Taoato and sot aaido a prior juigmont against It as {^arnlshoo for 

Umx K. GrosKTaan had obtaln«A a JudgmOint by confesmlon 
against Leulo Wald in tho sun of 1*7. Wald riiod a dobtor*« 
■ehtdal« with tho balllfr sotting forth that ho was tho head of a 
family and liTlng tho sari:.e, and olaining oxomptlon. Oamish- 
Bont proooadii.go voro oosimoncod against tho dofendaut, whioh ai^sworod 
that it did not havo in its Dossoosion any oredlts, property, nsionoys, 
otc, in wnioh Louis Wald had any intereot. Plaintiff eontosted tho 
•Bswor and upon trial by tho court finding was for plaintiff and 
judr.«ont was ontsrod against defondant as garni sjiiee. Within a short 
timo thoroaftsr and within tho tozB dofendant iilod its patltion and 
aoTOd tho court to Yaeato tho Judgnont, which lootlon aftor hoaring 
tho court dor.iod. 

Tho potition upon whioh tho dofendant basod ito Kotion al- 
logod tho failuro of tho plaintiff to obsorro tho statuto roquiring 
a dofliand in writing on an osiployor and tho omployoo bofore a garnlsh- 
a«nt prooe^ding is oonsonoad. Illinois Btatutes (CahiXi), ehap. 
62, s«o. 14. This in short providoo that $20 a woak for wagos or 
salary of tn« hoad of a family rii»iMni! with tho saisA shall b« exw pt 
fron gamishaant: that bwforo bric>,int, suit a do;.and in writing roust 
bo sorrod upon tho omployor and upon tho omployoo, whioh swrvioo 
Bttst bo at loast twonty-four hours prorieuo to bringing suit; saeh ^' 

«9ci^o ^<& tmift) l 

SI8 J T sas 

.♦ft."-— ,- 

. 51. -vX; 

A 'to fe*' -^'tii' M'i ■?> . 

»fS8lfaw» .aoi*<5w«»x.« «fijt«tteift fear ,ft?ftftfc «kjftr'ja».*w naivll fea« xltaaiil. 

ji^JL&^i't jrYi^t!J» «Jtr "i^ ^«H^ «Mi» ill* t«««a« 
..,^.... ,,.iliteJ) 9mtu9At& 9i(nttitl .»»aa»»a«oo ■! inifr^frarxof tamrn 


sotioe aiuat b« I'iXed wltt^ th« elerk ui' tn« court urith the &aoa«r 

anil tlB* of t«rviet «ndor8e<l thereon, and the return duly sworn to 

before it anall be lavfuX to ieeue a eutimons or to require tbe e»- 

ploy^r lo answer in any garriiehee prooeeditido; any jud^paent rendered 

Vithfut aaid dessmnd bein^?: e'<^rT9d upon the employee shall be void. 

Aie petition to vaoate asserted that Louie Wald was esaployeid 

Iff the garnishee defendant and was a wa^e eame^ for serrices to It; 

that it had in its possession an affidavit from Wald that he was a 

wage earner and the head of a faaiily oonsistlng of niKself, his wife 

and thre# children, and that he was residing with them at the tine 

of the serviee of the garnishee suissnons upon the defendant. The 

petition further repves«rted that no deicand in writing was senreA 

upon it, nor any wage detsiand serred upon Louie Wald or any member 

of his fac'ily, as required by statute. Defendant arfjuee that this 

failure to eerrji/notlces required by the statute renders the 

Jud^aent aicainst it Toid and of no effect. In Kunlev v. Panther 

Creek Mines, etc .. 223 111, App. 56a, it was held that, the failure 

to wxy the statutory notiee or desiand in writing rendered the 

Judgaent against the garnishee -roid, »s the court had no juried lc« 

tioD under the elrcvoRstances. To the same efJect is talker t^ 

0*Qara Coal Cp. . 140 111, App. 279. 

Plaintiff eoneedes that if he were attenDtlng to garnishee 

the wages of the .Ittdipent debtor, the failure to Sollow the statute 

would inrali'^ate the Judgment, but argues that the record fails to 

disclose that he was attempting to garniehee wages, tm-i that in the 

absence of a bill of exoeptione showing the oYidcnoe heard upon the 

trial, we aust assume that wages were not involved. But the pro- 

eeedlngs at the trial are not before us and we are not eoneemed 
with thOM. 

The queation lor ue to deterrine ie whether the court 
ahould have allowed Uie siotion to vacate the jud^ent. 

9i m9f** icXtfft tnniis^H x>tii ftr»i< »iT.^"T;:.i>.7 ;■>."?-;:..}» »o.vv'i»a *t© •«!;? ^n» 
.$>J:ov ttd XXe^v ««v:«l<rn» tttU o^qu b»Tf:^n nnk^a btunt»k bUt* iu^titlw 

•i«l$ »i!^ ii& a»tii aHv -^Atbl^ Asii fitm fOmtf^itfo 99ti£i %tm 

•its ,t/t0i^aA't9b «rii flotfu aaooNiiifs ftfifdeia^iA^ »dj le t»ttlyt*«! Of)/ 'to 

•■■; >.---■• ^,-si ^«Jt.t lit** isi <• -jt^ots ^«;^M^«t« *j$^ »VT«« •# 

.SfJ^ .«j«?j| .III o*i .^j>>? jyoO Aru*ft*0 

9sLi a«n3(i.< &i»t«ij 9!>nt.PiT9 9iii jiitivojTlR «n«tjr4«»iaac« 'lo ixtd # l« *«a»ir(fiK 

Th« bill of exe«ption« w^.ioh is before ua show* ih« prooc«dicgt 
up*n tld.s oiotlen and s&jrs cuat the eourt «cted upon the allega* 
tlens el' the petition only. Xhere was neither snRwer nor eri- 
deno«« The action of the eourt muet therefore be tested hy the 
petition alone. While it sight in eoae respecte toe improved and 
Bade mere definite* yet it sufficiently appears that plaintiff 
was aeeking wages which aieht be due laid fron hie «Bployer, the 
defendant » and a« no ie^ue was aade aa to thla we auat aasufte the 
truth of the etatementa >in the petition. 

It follows, therefore, that beoauee of th<? failure to 
eenply with the statute the court was without Jurisdiction to 
enter the Jud^^ert, and it is void. 7ne order denyini^ the uotiea 
will therefore be reversed and the cause recanded. 

Hatehett and O'Connor, JJ. , concur. 

.900t9'*^ 8<'orr& lu »^t«^ iil Aai V ««teUg9dx« t* XiiC itfX 


'tooAoO'v' h£Uf, jtiniUitaH 


Appellants, ) 

) Mf^AL ifRfM MUi;E<riP|U^ COURt 
▼a. ) 

) Of CfiXCi 

?XlfCU& SAL¥Z and M£Y£R MAKXIS, i 

Appall ««a» ) v. ^ 

^V. 26 8 I.A. 612 



PlalRtlffa bad judgscnt entcrad by ccnfessiotx a£«,lnat da* 
fandants an a writtan laaaa, lor $704. Bubaaquantly, en KOtioa, 
dafandanta were glYan laava te defend and upon a trial before a 
Jury the lasuea murtt I'eund «:galnat pl&lntiffe and jad^cnt ae* 
aordinKly entered. Plain tiff a appeal. 

The only question Invclved is ane of fact, namely, Sid 
plaint! f fa and defoMlanta make an agreement whereby defendanta 
^•r9 discharged and ralaaaed frea any liability under the leaaaT 

Th9 lease was for a tens beginning July 1, 19 26, ending 
June 30, 1«S6. Defendants at the tisie of making the leaae deoaited 
with plaintiffs the au* of $8000 in ou-an as security, i^alts, one 
of the deferidants, testified that on June 26, 1928, thay wished to 
aalX their business and leaaenold eatate to certain parties, ttnd 
hmd a oenferenea wit.i plaintiff laraal Qorindar, who is also an 
attorney, in which it was agreed that, if the defei dants would 
vaiwa all their rights in the )3000 deposited, and also to certain 
bake ovens which defencianta had installed in the prwnisea, plain- 
tiff a «ottld releaoa defen'lants froa all obligations under the lease. 
A contract in writing to this effect waa drawn up by Gorindar and 
signed by the parties. Defendants* copy of thA lease was given tc 
Garlndar, who kept it. He alao pr<»iised to nail defei^dants a eopy 
of the contract of retlease. but newer lid so. Defeiwlant Marks 
testified that he waa preaent in Goiintfar's office at this ti«e luad 
that the agrecMeat was Made to release tae«, and a contract to this 
effect was signed by the parties. 



-^Q r*> ATP '" ' 

,«0iihi>« ao ,^/j:ja»ii55o«dMy .^CCf^ tat ,»»e»f a^^ittw « :io «•tf!«^oo1 
« rr«1«»rf XiO.i-1* li uoeju Isle ftaat*!* «* ftyAol rt»v*;» ^tsw aj-fltffciitlw-lk 

'i9M»S -. ■ -■''■• %$iUiimH fas amatl &*««*».,£*n ha» h^^xmii^ilit »«»w 
«a« ,;.. ...^ .-. v300S4 1« mm ntii *nUskiml^ Atim 

«»«««X AfO Yv^jtu »nolJ«^l£<ro Xi« Mail atf;ii»*'n«'tfti «ttji«i«t hfuo" «111# 

Zh« DvlAiinee sixew* thiht th« <l«l itdAntu ther«upon eold out 
tbnir buBln««'» Mti that ot£)L«jr tenoiits took posaaftslan and Htto rnod 
to the plaintirfa. Ii« 4«Baii4 w»s inftr^after mti4« upon d«r«ndsmtt 
for rant. V« do nat I'ind ariy pl«^e« 1; the r«eord «^h«r« this t*** 
tUiony Is dircetly con t radiated. Coun»«l for i»laintit'f« contAQd* 
th«t tk* tr«ti«4»ny oi' d*J'«iidiuita as to th«>ir r($l««&a« is highly 
UiiBrobabl« and ttAb#li9Tabla. Xher« ia nat^iing lttpo»sibi(> in 
tbair atory, vtoA kr. Qorin^ar had appartunlty upon tha tri&X to 
4iany thalr T«reion ol' what took plaaa but h« did not a«« fit to 
ia aa. ii« i» lui attornay, and both ha and hla lawyar lauat aw 
apprcolafi^ tha inpertanoa of thia taatmony, yd lot it |»»oa 
without danial. Tha jury Might prepnrly find that dafandtuiti 
vara ralaaaad from furthar obligations under tha leaaa In con* 
ai^aratior. of thair w«iT«r of th«ir ri,,htB in tha im>00 da^oaitad 
and to tha bake oTona whioh tuay h»d plaoad ifk Uv pranisea. 

It ia ««11 aaitlad that a landlord may Maka an agraasant 
vith hi a t«n&nt wharaby ha ralaaaaa and diaohargaa him from furthar 
•bligation on tha lanaa, and that Bue>^ an a^raefcant ia valid and 
binding. Blooaiauiat v. Johiiaon. 107 111. App. 164; isr<»ahar t,, 
kocaakrin . I'^'O III. App. 343j Chanaan y. Cary . 33S 111. Apt*. 60S; 
Pllla V. Stobia . &1 111. 2< 2; Alaahu^er v. qoixlff . 164 Ul. 293; 
Brthtaann t. nachay. 216 Ul. 148; yoraatnn»8tata '.. k a. i^.«>r>is y, 
pamatay. M7 111. 72, 

'^e aae no raaaon tc disagraa wivh tha Ttfrdiut, coid tha 
JiidgBant is tharafara afflr»«d« 


Matehatt and O'Connor. J<T. , oonour. 

»a«^ «ljit »idri ! «9AtX<i i(;-^ tai'i iea of* e* ,i;«;-i tal 

♦ '«r* ««»♦•?; "O" i'f •>!»«'* *iffl« fe'»«J'5^ 





, ^o.<uti«*v^' ■■• inf^ Si»4»i»^ 


•a Xlllnoit Corporation, ) 




) cr cai|A&c. 


26 b i.ii. G12' 


la an aetloa trl«<!l by th« court th« I'lniiag was against th« 
plaiatiff and It appeals fron th« juJipBciit. Jud^ent by oonfttsien 
had boon ftnt«r«d against dsfcn^lAnt for 4506.35 on a contract of 
•ala which eoatained a po««r of attorney to confoat judgment. On 
■otion this Ju^gn«nt wa« aot a«ld« and upon a trial on tho nerltt 
th« doftnlant prevailed. 

Xha esn tract, cxcoutvd In duplicato, waa for the purehaca 
by defendant of a radio; one copy waa deliTered to nis;, the other 
waa kept by thO tsoller of the radio who aub8equ«iUly aeai^rned it 
to the plaintiff, which brought suit. Upon the trial it developed 
tliat the copy of the contract aeeii/ned to plaintiff hiiid been changed 
after it had boon executed by the defendant, who produoed hia copy, 
tTw». whioh by eoK.parieon the changes ctade were clearly shows. The 
ooatract, whio i was mostly in .'printed fora, recited tiriat the de- 
fendant had bou^t front "the Phoanix Piano and Kadio Coi&paay* a 
eortaln radio. Ihe nojue of thie coapiuiy appears about ton tinea in 
the ooatraot. Towards the end is a elauso purporting to authoriao 
aa attorney to oonfeaa Jud^ent against the defendant. 

In the copy retained by the seller and produced on behalf 
of the olalntiff, the nane of tnie oofl<p»ny whelfewor it appears is 
seratehed out and In ite plaoo the n«k; <*, "(isorgo atratton" is 
written, i^urthercore, the contract when executed was for the pur- 
ohaso net only of a radio but of certain "lausic rolls.* Tha 
•music rolls* w«ro scratched out of plaintiff's copy of the eontraet 

Tto; )Q LU^LOmUM mffi 

mii "iQ { 

Ji^ .ii.X Kj U 

9HT9m »&i no luitt b aeti^ hat i»» »»v ;ra»i8}i(^ut i^lOi aeliom 

.^rMtv.«»'i«Ji •fl^ jr«Ai«^ ^ja«fH^fo»t sao'tAOd oJ x»fi%ut$» fUt 

-iwf< o^v? if'i •<»* fc«iA.a»x« u*i3l* JOi-i..— . -• f .*-t«>.trT*(rf:»i«t .asiJiiv 
»u* *',«iloi utnu'" pK'Mpj Is r».d ciroi t-. fr i^Irto Joo •scifo 

although they nre Id th« duplioata kept l>y defendant, 

PlalntiiT arguca in tuis court that this alteration of tba 
lun* of tho seller waa haralese aa it did net change the identity 
•f the peraen intended, and oooiplaiue of the trial court *a refusal 
to pernlt plaintiff to i^e« that the Pheanix Piano nuad iiadia C mptoiy 
waa one amd the 9mik« aa George Strattoa, whoae nana vaa euttstituted 
for that of the eocipany. l>Ten ii the ehauge of the naise of one of 
the oontraoting pairtiea taight hare Xfma explained aa in noviaa 
ahanijlng the identity of the partiea, yet thia woull not axouee 
ahanging the copy of the eontraet held ^y the eeller by »tri^ing 
•at the lte» of "atuaie rolls", lulu vaa a otaterial alteration. A 
aaterlal alteration of an ezeeutory written oontraet, made without 
the oonsent of the other oontraoting party, deatr:>ya it as a baaia 
• f reooYory. Meyritt ▼ . Dewfg . ai8 111. 599. van if the altera- 
tion ia innocently va-ide, witt^iout fraudulent intent, it deatroya tha 
instrument by hanging it into one to which tha partiea nevar agreed. 
Hayee ▼. Wagner . 880 111. 256. 

Although the written eontraet nay ba wold aa the basia of a 
suit, yet there can be a reooT«ry upoa the original debt or obliga- 
tion. Bxasination of the instant eireuuetaucaa diseloaea that there 
haa been a breach by t^e aaller which 4o#a not pem^it a raeoTery. 
defendant called at the store of the aeller and dcaired to urahaaa 
a "Philea Combination Autonatic Kadio and Phonograph." The seller 
did not hATe this Aaka in stock but took the defendauit to a warehouaa 
raaa where tha defendant aelected a Philoo radio «u)d asked that it 
be delivered at onea. The aeller waa unable ta proffiisa Issuediata 
dallvary, anc^, aa the defendant wanted the radio at his hone that 
night for a psrty, it was agreed taat a 3parton radio should be 
delivered te&porarlly and that witnin a few days the seller would 
deliver the Philco radio, taking back tie Sparton. Both oopiaa of 
tha eontraet apeaify tha purehaaa of a Philee radio, ae taat thara 

,iitmhtt»1t»t xii ^upt(iia 

»rii 'U !n^ii»t»SiM iiiii JiXfU sturr tl ennr».-t» Y^iftaixiH 

k«Hi^il^»(tv% SAW ek.A£.; ,a&iS4t7.m «ii^Q ^■>«)« ««il ikiw ntm ««w 

.^.•; ,,i tiJiii'a Sill %€ J^t9d tOA'i.J .5,30 -SSj 'tO ^«00 9!ii JjnlSjWf'jS* 

i.TttYa^ireutf^ !»'^'i»lfc«b'' slIAMoittA aol$#nisrtBow <M»Iiif9* • 
i jCi&0#« al AijaA *lf(3 »YftCt tftn Iblft 


'>«4llt«i71i|{ •!)/ \:tl»*q« $9MftSa»t» till 

1« BO diaputt on tbi« point. Although the Boller promisod to do- 
llTor tho Phileo wlthli^ ono voek it vas not dollTored. Pol'acdant 
oallod tho oellor up r»p««it«dly, offerlB^ to rotum th« %$urton 
rAdlo «nd asking for tho doU-vory of tho Fhlleo radio. It was 
aOTor dollTorod. As tho oollor failed to perform it* obligation 
to dollTor a Phileo radio it hao brcaohod tho oontraot and thorofcnr 
eaanet roooTor upon anjr pro&ioo of tho dofendant to pny for thlo 
partieul«r kind of radio. Tho sterlto of tho eontroTcroy <ur« with 
tho dof«ndant. 

to do net Tiew with favor docust«jts like this. The half- 
hidden power to oonfeee JudgMont ie too often a trap for the un- 
euopeeting. Certainly equitabl* oonsidoratiene should prevail 
a^iainet any attempt to onforee this power. Alaborwit ad tioa^ jf 
ggi»£i«K Vft« y, H^^t^g, 262 ill. App. 3aO; freisler t. Uuleswislci . 
?64 111* App. 1^. 

Ve are of tho opinion ti:iat the Judgjaent was proper, whatower 
errors say haws been eeanittod upon tho trial, >md it is afflriaed. 


Matehett and O'Connor, JJ. , ooncur. 


SoMiimtta .b»'> &9iiif=i Bdt x9rH 

aottu^ 9ti^ iic£i...j*i 2./ ^ftxijiio ♦v- 5 ii^ 1»aXft« aifll fr*XX«o 



kART ZOBCA, AdAlbiatratrlx of 
istate «f Anton iilonc*, 


F£AHLI£ ^OiCA ftnd Pl^TifR <^C£CA, 


26 8 I.aIgi 


PlaixitilT, a<lBkiiai strut rix oJ' Ui« ••tattt of Anton ^noa, 

^reuiibt suit i^t a lD«lane« oi' principal and interest all«»ged to l« 

4u« on a proi^ieaory not* for 4X000 aada by dafatidants to tha ordar 

• f Ant«B 2anoa, upon «fai«h I&GO had bean paid. 

Paarlla Z«aaa filed no afi'idavit of aierita in the tfuaioipal 
oourt and did net tf^atify, tatnaugh Patar ^nea teatified that ha 
al^ad hia «ii'e*e nana to the note vitnout n«ir Itnovledge or oonnant. 

Upon trial the oourt, ui'ter (^.ivlng eredit to the deffn ?iinta 
for eartain iteeia which Peter £onoa testified ha expanded on behalf 
of Acton c^onca during hia lifetina, entered judi^ant against them 
for 1654.55. Iha only peuit Made by deieudanta upon this appeal 
la that the 4ttd«>aent ie ai^tiinet the Mariil'eat «ei«^ht of the eTldenoa. 

Peter iuonea teatified that he oxpended Koney for the medi- 
cal cars and treatuaiit of Anton ^noa, luid that Anton promiaad that 
he, Peter, "eould keep the balanoo of #5ou due to Anton upon said 
note* and eonsider the balance oanc<*il<?d. Xwo wltn'sses teetifio6 
that they heard Anton i^nea tali Peter that he oould Aeep tho $500 
balafoo on the note for servioee rendered by Peter and for taking 
aare af hi». Peter testified that ha nado raany trips to the oounty 
agent to obtain provisions for Anton; that he took him to one doetor 
ten tiBAS and to anotlter dootor sevcttity-four timea, end likewiso 
bearded Anton and took car« of him day and ni^fht for eight weeks. 

The plfiiintiff teetified, dviylng generally that Peter had 
bean to any expenao on beiialf of Anton, ul though e^iO admits that 

Tffdbo M'k :ViV^f I'iOf^i M^^i 


,^X W' 

,A.i 8 as 


tfittrtsftA «A3iios nua 




.<"':; Ris dl£;i (t0qiii «#iUiii:;'i%»'l»li x^ *b»m lAlcxt >cl««> tiTi: ,:!.&, i-Sm -xo'l 

OCaS^P •fl^ q««X bin >''AJ Items') ilAi ««»«0>» auTiiA. hxinsid x*^^ ^^^ 

t>(W^o 9A'* r* n^iii xa0iA •!»«« •li jasH &«i'U^a»# -utlft^ .«!«( 'to viiM 

.nx-f*^- ;.iai« tot dTffjftin Anifi i(«|i Alii 'to flX«)> ]ioo^ beta a^iak btftiaotf 

Hilton lived in als b)i«9J[»9iit ior a tlii;«. Ihe t>i3.1 of «xe«pUoiit is 
Bot in the I'ortt of quostiouo und abswere but is a narrativo of th« 

W« ar« of tba opinion ttaHt thio caso oallo for tne applica- 
tion of tho rule that « eourt of rrriov wuot roly on tho b«tt«r 
•ptportunity of tho trial oourt to paoa upon the eredibility of 
tho witneoo«s. the litiifation aeens to have grown out of a 
fK&ily quarrel . Upon tho teetimoay a* it »opeara in tho bill 
ol' exoeptiona, «e would aot foel juatiJ'ied in saying that tho 
oonolualon of the trial oourt vaa clearly and nariifoS^Xy it&ptupmr, 
'^ho jud^nent la therefore off irMod. 

Uatehett and v/*Connor, JJ» , ooncsur. 



iMm 1. Howmx. 

▼ 8. 

wmam t. bjoiug. sabb z. vosdicx. 

JLZPaCHIER Slid -nhLlm J. TlLLIiSR, ) 

C«9artn«rt Doing Bu«ln««« mi CCiVUi ) o /t> O T /I /^ -« ^"^ 
ACOiPABT. JiOO i.A, Oi/i 

A^pvIlAQtS* I 


9«r«n!Mits ware stoekbroxors in th« city of Qiie»g9, 
Plaintiff, «te« ll'V«4 ant) did buslaaat in Aorora, Illinoia, Iseoaa* 
th*lr eu«toR«r oa or about Jun* I, 19?9. On or about July 12, 
1919, defendant* chargod plaintiff* aooountvlth tha aua of 
iMtS.SC, whloh is tha aubjtet aattar af thi* ouit. Dia otato* 
■ant of elain all«s*a t>iat thi* charga va* nada without Uta 
knowltdga or oonsant of plaintiff; that it waa unautiiorisod and 
that plaintiff ha* ^ftrtaxi^Bi sail •■■m but paynent has boon rafuoed. 
Tk* affidavit attaehad to tha elals allcfi»s that thi a I3B68.30, vitk 
intarast thoraon froa July 13, 1929, is inn froa dafftbdfAats to 

Tha affidavit of mar it* all#g«» a dafanaa ta tha s^ela 
4«Mmd: dania* that tha ehar^^a wa» nada vitiiout plaintiff** kraowl- 
•di;« or «it-hout hla consant and autnority; and allagAS tliat on 
llar*h 12, 1929, plaintiff ord^rad tha i^irst Illinoi* Comptmy to 
buy 5C0 Anaconda Coppar Company right* at th« Market prioa, whioh 
va* than $30 3/S per right; that tha flrat IlllBol* Ccaapany 9X»» 
outed thi* ordar by raqusating dafaxidants to purohaaa for it COO 
•f thas* right* and agraad to pay the prie* thor^for to dafand* 
ants; that d^fandant* purehi9^*ad thas* 500 right* and chargod tha 
•an* to tha aaoount of th« Pirst Illirioia C<«ipany arid ratainad tha 


^ Avntfii 


SIS .ii.i odS 



^'loie; mm^XAJi soi 

4SX ^Xut ^u«MCe 10 ffO 
»%f4« •iff .f ^i'tt ' ' 

<l»X;r(v .(Ktllq: t«2f&AM f^iGtj ^A •4xi|tXi: \»m^i^o^J littiqvii «l>ao»Jtj|A OUA X'**' 
-•«• t<>*i^<*0«) ftioMi ui i>«'xi'<L n. :#4]tX'x ««« bV* Mt a»Dl^ wtm 

•lU ft^jiiiicio htm •icdttlt <^>e »««4^ i!r*»««i*«tt4| »$mi>tmt»t .ii»d$ {•'(» 

rights la th«ir pesaaaslon p«n4iu£ rtlAburtMaaQt; that th« l^lrst 

Illinois Ceaipaay fftilffd and refused to pagr I'ox* tke rigiitaj that 

<«f«n4ants thcrsupea rstained th9 saJl^t rights, and th»t tht I'iz-st 

Zlllaela Cospany ha* n«T«r paid for tiio oano. 

llto affidavit of Kcrito farttaor allogoa that taoroaftor 

•B ilareli 21, If S9, ylaintlff laatruetod tho llrot Illinois C&mpwmy 

to soil aco of thoso S&O rifthto at tiio aMrkot prloo; that tho said 

eoapany likowiso instruetod def«Bdants, who pursuara thereto solA 

900 of Uiote right* at the narket pries of ^53^ ptoc right and 

oredited tho net proooe4o of the sain ^ tho Illiiiois eompMny; that 

wkoa tho i^irst Illinois ooBpany failed to a«u(e payBieut for thoso 

SOO righto, def e> danto threatened to sell tho ri^to at tho t&arkot 

price and to credit or debit oaid eoapany *s aceount ulta the dif* 

fer«noo betveen tho m«rkot value and tho purchase price thereof t 

that thereafter plaintiff advised defendants that thoso 3uC righto 

ordered by the First Illinois Coatuany fron defendants had been la 

faot ordered in behalf of plaintiff, and that plaintiff d<»sired to 

•aoroise said rights aB4 by a«-aas thereof to purchase 1^ share* 

of Anaconda Copper Coapacy stock and pay the eash differenco on 

the saae. 

Iho affidavit allogeo that plaintiff wao advised by defend^ 

ante that these renalniag 300 righto so ordered on his behalf by 

tho First Illinois Goapany had not voen pal^y that company and 

that consequently such rights were not available to pl»intiff for 
tho purchase of Anaeonda Uopp^r otoe)i rights until the purchase 
prloo of said rights had been paid to def eniante; that plaintiff 
thoroupoa requested defendants to aak« the purchase of ISO ehareo 
of Anaooeda Copper etook and to uoo tho 500 rights as part of the 
purohaoe prloo, «ad that plalatiff guaranteed to defendants that if 
tko Flrot Illinoio Coapany, within a reasonable tiae, failed to pay 
to dofendanto auao paid by plaintiff to said eompauy on account of 

iuMi ittzi^i-i QiU loir %m% i»4 ^9u1*r !>«& ^wiJUtt yrM0f*^ •l«ff£JIl 

fii% «i:. -AiT: ifi*'^ <»i^<^ bf>ai»H»% mhummmmU «taft]^n*l8l» 

ta«<r<M»0 tloalXil *« w -Ai ««> 

feXo« ol^ivxi'- ;'n:;^(«^uq o«fw ^»Sa»hifif^'i^b b9itiii\i'i.iii «tfXwo^XX ^naCSMk* 

tntAda Oi;X 9«i)ifa9Mt •! 'lOc^-Sdi^ •ivrat xf i^A» »^d(%Xt ibl«« ••i9««»« 
vK-! 9Qmi:3Viih 4940 «4»1 %&q hoi^Meilm xMUKla^ %^l^99 »l^no»«AA t« 

.Anal* #iCi 

%%A!i9>%m *^ Itmu n '«!) «ft4K^»4l«lb^. !» SUtfittti^ AMI 

«iill In i'%*tt •« •l.rtali 0>J« Mj t««tf e? f<<w )1*«^« T»c«i«0 mhat*9ntsA 'iv 
tp< ^4 tfJJM'l ,»i«A^ •XitoJMBiUfti A aln#xir «t<ui«fl>«« «i»«lXil #•«!» «Wt 

th« purehas* nrie« of tlit SOO rights, pl»lntiri' wculd pa^ 4«f«n4- 
•Bt« tb* purehAsa prle« oi' »uoh rlghtaj that plaintiff paid dlafaed* 
■Bit $6,600, which vaa th« eaah naeaaaary in addition to aaid 3oO 
riithtt to parohava tha 180 ahar«o of AaaoaD4a Copp«r Gonrony atook, 
and that plaintiff agrt^ad to indannify dofandanta if thay would, 
with aaid 30C rights and aaid #6.600, purehaaa for plaintiff ISO 
aharaa of aai^ atook; that ia ralianea tharaapon dafar.dimts pur* 
ahaaad tha atook and dclivarad it to plaintiff, «ha aaoaptad and 
rotainad it vith full knovl«dge of how it waa aoquirad; that plaiS" 
tiff acraad to pay ^iafacidanta tha eoat af tha righta if tha eeat 
was aot paid by tha Firat Illinoia ao^pany and authorisad dofand* 
aata ta itaa thoaa rishta. 

Tlia affidairit also allacaa that «pon tho failura of tht 
Vtrat Illinoia eonpany to pay for thoaa 300 righta, daf aridanta 
ohargad plaintiff's aoooont vith tho parehaoo priea of tho rii^jhta 
and oraditad tho aaaount of tho J^irat Illinoia oonpany in a liko 
aaioant; that tharaupon plaintiff domandod that tha eonpany roia- 
burao him for tha coat of tho 3(>0 rights wnioh tha coapany had 
failod to pay to d«f ^ndanto, an'i that upon failuro of tho i^irat 
Zlliaois ooapany to roiaburoo plaintiff ho brought an aotioa 
against tho eaapsny in tho tiMaporlor eourt of Cook county and 
filod a doslaratibott in vuioh ho allogad that tho first Illinois 
soapaay had oonTortad thoao 300 righta; that ha rooovorod in that 
ftstion a judjptant for |aft9!S.ftO; farth«r, that plaintiff was tho 
ttndiao'oaed prinoipal of tho i^irat Uliniis ooapany, and that upon 
diaooTory of ti;iat faot dofandanta ehartfad to plaintiff tho ooot of 
thoss 300 rights, whioh dafaudanta ^ad uaod, totfothar with tho 
#6,600 in eaah, to pureh&oo at plaintiff's roouost 1^ shares of 
AnaooBda Coppar ooapany atocic, wuioh otoek had boon dolivorod to 
plaintiff and aeeoptad and rotain«d by hia; that tho aarkot valuo 
of 180 aharas of aai4 atook ao of tha dato of purs^iaso was ia 
•xoooa of $15,100; that plaintiff paid to dofondants, to apply on 

.haf»lii» xtk<?. £X*' v: »£i to ••Ita ••jufoui^ Mil 

^>£ A!** ol aelilikM oi x^M«C9J»*n a**.. . aim 

,<««i« xoo'-JwO vi»<3<Te& jsi^A«9i>(i>v te •^xttiv- « ftsu^ti ^iiq »;r a^tij^ls 

OCX Tli#nli»£^ %&l «««jS*iu.' x1£ Kfii^-x a -'^. blttn ctllv 

hiM &«j^(%»»i»« driy /ttl#ai4iXi Q^ 41 &»'x«(?lX!»ii ban i&ttSn ti£fi lt«4«>i{« 
«ai«iQ XA^U i^-%iui>oti 9*^ Si ifftii 't« ftilrtrXvftitai XXm'i £(^1w »^ tntalm$a(^ 

.-ifA^l-i 4i«»ii'l •«« e> alas 

fetSXi ^flBgxso© nOi H./Jtr.w «J.vj«t-i s>''«*. ».i.» •?© j|-««Ci *A# to! iairf HHtircr 
• l«aXXil fVKlt *jw »1^« Hi H;a4^«'SJtXo»^ « fc^»XD. 

lo ««Ki4« OCX ^avi^j^a^t ••*«^XJ*U<fcX^4 «.« »«.r -XiA.ftf 

•0Xfiv tf»i{tJB« wiAl i«Ar ;*Xtt «i fcMMtrj? ' ^«»»»» kflw t1Xfnl«if 

the pureb«»«, only 16,600 «:<! tbat the r(>tt had »•! b*«ci paid* 

th« affidavit also ««t up a* a 4ef«nB» an &«ecuui atatad. 
By aa sx.^x^'mX to til* asciadtd afflAaTit of ««rlta d«f«ud- 
ants farther t«t up tht Aefcne* that ob Jaxmary a, 19^1, th«ir« vas 
a dispute betvaeo Xh% parties as ts the assuunt bstweaa thsa and 
upen that <iat* dsfei}<1ants paid turn balaase du« to tns aitiount of 
|490d.34. sad that tttsreby thsre vas aa aeoord aad satiafaetlett 
bst^sen the parties. 

Thsre was a trial by tbe eeurt wltiieut a jury vith f Liuling 
ia fttTor ef pl«latiff for |S9ftd.30 with iatsreet at five psr e«at 
froB July 12, 1997, to !£oTe»ber 18, 1931, anounting to 1^999. d4, 
aakiag a total sua of $9967.94, for which J.;diga«nt la fbvor of 
plaiatiff was entQr«d. 

Th« Material facts which ( ia view of the finHing of the 
•eurt) must be rsgarded as establishsd, ar« that defendants at 
the tiae of the transaotions from whioh tills eontroTsrsy aross 
in the course of their business executed purchases and sales on tlM 
sxchaneea in different oitlee. c'laintiff beowBe a oustoaer ef de- 
fendants about June 1, 1939, and thereafter continued to carry mi 
aeeoont with thea until defendant partnerehip was dissolved on er 
about January S, 1931, at whiot tlae, pursuant to a letter fmu 
plaintiff, the account ead the »eeuritiee which defeodante carried 
for plaintiff were turned ever to asith, arahaa & Hockwsil, suiether 
brokerage firm, who la plaintiff *e b«half at that tlae paid te de- 
fendant e the balanee of the aeccuat ae shown by defendants' books 
ea that date aaountinc to $4906. d4. 

Prior te and at the tlae plaintiff b<^eaae a euatoaer of 
defendarite he had transacted business witia the First Illinois 
eoapany, vhieu was an iovsstacnt coapany dealing; la stocks aad bonds, 
While plaintiff was a eustoaer ef that oompsmy he did net oarry an 
aeoouat with it. It was not ths nasbber of any exchange but executed 
■teeic ead bead orders of ousteasrs through oth^r housee. Ihe First 

t» fffttMUi Siii »i hah »tt«i«4^:i «iiif .hi*f nta0hmt»!^ *s*i' i«s(^ lUiqfflr 

mUT aa ««X«» i^nw »»«Mt<«tji<t b^Satm^xw mn/ti'iX'Hid tiri( . '»o* Mli «l 

a» x^'SM^ of l^»t»ftt^flo« i».^A»x»i\J h0hn t^S^l ,1 emit iire«to »ta«ti^i<;«l 

-^b 9^ Ibi^Hf vtftiif ir«ft» ill 1^ I'tli^filiiil ikl, •ifw .ArKl) ni^m^atoiitf 

,tt>a^4 ham wto^t» mk ^nil»*h t<Mqdi09 ii»x4«iivi\l sM i««^ . .taqtsoo 

IlXifi«i» oomptny was m ottct«a<r of d«fiic4ttnt«. Ab^ut Uttrttb. IS, 
192B, plaintiff ^ttiihi frc« tb« i^lrat Illinois ctoApaay 6U) An«» 
eenda G^pp^r CoApaAy rights for which, «• was hlo ouotoat, ho paid 
oaoh to tho aaMMOit of dlft,362.5c;, or §30 3/(1 per rl^t. Xhooo 
rights gscf* to plaintiff tho option of purohaolng oharvs of tho 
Anaoonda Copp«r oospany at a flxod prico ^oforo a tlKo oortaln, 
vkiili was Juao 18, 1939, after which dat<« tho rl^^xits would bocoKO 
▼•id «id worthloss. Tho purohaso was praotlually a oash tranoae- 
tloa, payaont In full bolag nad« within two 4ays fron tho tlae tho 
•rdor was glTon. i'laintlff did not, howovor, tako up tho rl^its 
purehaood and paid for but loft sano with tho iflrst Illinois son- 
pany for safokooplnc, as he supposed. 

te tho ssBio day this ordor was glvon by plaintiff tho l^lrst 
Illinois eompany purohasod thooo 500 righto fron dofoi dauto. Xt 
did not pay oaoh but was oharKod wltii tho purcii&so prloo of thoso 
rights on tho booJis of Colvln 4 Company. Plaintiff did not knov 
that tho yirst Illinois ooapany purohasod thoso rights froa dofond- 
ants and did not know that tho righto had boon obtained by tho J^lrst 
Illinois cMapany through tho uso of Its erodit. un harsh 21, 1929, 
by dlroetloa of plaintiff tho first Illln Is oomparty sold 200 of 
thooo rliii-^ts for |33 S/a por sh«rs, loaTlng, as plaintiff supposed, 
300 sharos of thooo rights in tho pose«88ion of tho first Zllluols 

(M Jiwo 17, 19SMI, plaintiff wont to tho offlco of Celvla A 
Coapaay vhoro ho aot Its floort&an, Joibos &nox. &• told i>aox that ho 
had 34>0 Anaoonda rit^hts at the irirst Xlllaols ooapaay, and that tho 
rights wore about to ox^ilro. Ho tfavo ^nox dlroetlons to purohaso 
l«0 shares of Anaoonda Copper ooMpany atook at tho aarkot prloo 
•Bd requested that ho plok up those ri^shts «t the i^lrst Illinois 
•oapany and apply tho oano en tho purohaso. Thoy together oe«puto4 
tho oaount of eaoh neoossary In addition t© tho rights to pay for 

•s«»«,i <«ji* AMUtir ^tttiK ,^@i , 

■!- ' ^.io« i- •— - "■- -.-.,- :-. - 

*■< ntlrfa.' 'in 9% 



0^ mbaooMOk 

QV tiBUt ttCT 

It 9^ djti(^ 

9l9!tkttl inxlt mMf 

th« 190 ahar**, and fountl it to 1»« |6,6U0. Un th4i follewinti; daj 
plmintlff •«Rt m. Aheek t» defendants tor that (uaouiit, vhleh they 
reeelTsd and or«dlt«d to hio aeeount. ^ox pronlood to ooo that 
tlie transaetlon wao o&rrled ottt and turned tJie or<ter of plaintiff 
•-ver to defecdantt' oHthler for exeoution. 

On June 17, 1939, CoItIb k ConpaBy wired Ita J>ew York ef« 
fioo, *l*lease uee 3i)0 Aaaeonda hiteo Vrom our a/« and eub to 120 
ih* of etk in oar na«e." Defendants purehaoed tne 1^ eharet of 
ARAOonda Coooer nAd theat aharea «ere aft«nrarda tracaferred to 
plaintiff. Th«»reaftAr defendanta rendered a atateneflt to plain* 
tiff for Juno, upon «i>ioh apoeara a oredlt for the cheek in the 
aim of It,d00, and on vhioh no oharfo «aa node acalnat plnintiff 
la oonneotion witb the tranaaetion. It wae the auatom of defend* 
ante to aend a debit OT credit meKorandus to a cuatomer on oTory 
traaaaotioB la hia aoeouBt; auoh atenorandua vaa usually sent out 
the day the entry waa aado or, in very buay timea aa in the y«ara 
IVaa to 1929, it would not go out in possibly t««nty-fottr houra. 

Although thfire is soa« oonfliot in the oTldenoe, pluintiff 

testified (and the rulinga of the court on propoaitiona of f%ot 

and law aubaitted would indicate that the trial Judge belioYod hia 

toatiaoBy) that not until about Ootober 19, 1939, did plaintiff 

know that defeiidarita had not taken up the rights froa the /Irat 

Illlnoia eoapany but that they had uaed their own rights in aakiag 

the parohase of the Aaaeonda Copper eoapany stook. Prior to the 

tranaaotion in whloh the Aaaeonda Copper ew&pany stook waa puroha»ed 

defendants were informed that plaintiff hnd purohaaod theao SCO 

righta froa thj^Allinois oompany «od that he had in faet paid for 

thea prior to that tiae. Akottt July 1. 1939, defendanto learned 
that the Firat Illlnoia e apany waa in finai^elal diffioultiea* 
Prior to that tiae, in Maroh, April, May and Juno of the aaao year, 
the eyidenoo iadioatoa that thla eoapsay waa in good financial oon* 
ditioB and able to pay for the ri«;hta it had purohaaod froa Uolvin 

».ff*-r!«-'tf>8s*'?.! >■!?>'■ 

Sue iaa« x^**-^^^*- <i^ i 

i>ri^ at e» coMi^r \ttud 

;f«<rX*& AtCi owslt air- 

f}titi mil ?^.x.. 

96$ ^Ab ftllt 

i! 0«at|»«ii7 k»r9h 13, 19!t9. July 11, 10:^9, ColvlA it Gvmptmj ore4lt«d 
%h9 first Illinoi* eonpasy vitli Ut« #6,600 piiid by plaintiff #uja« 
16, 19 f, Mi4 «lM ar«^it«d th« Jfirgt llllnelB ccmpvoiy with tli« 
further m.iu of I8B66.S0, wad enaog«d th« eixarg* of that amount 
thor«toforo 4»ntar«<! acalaot tho aoeount of thm first Illla.ia «••• 
fany to a dofcit againot tlio aeoount of plaintiff. It ao«a not ap« 
fear that plaintiff vao at that tiae givon any Information as to 
tho ohaac«o aado upon d of end ants' booics, nor was any asaorsnduM 
tfissloaine the saio suteittod to hia« he itosi of 1656^.90, hov« 
SfTSr, appeared in a eta tenant of aeoount for the nonth of July, 
vhiA was submitted to plaintiff Au^st 1, 1929. Ub Juno 17, 1939, 
as the eYidenso sao«s, the aariiot prioe of ARHOonda Copper CoHpany 
rights oloeed at $92 per right. The halanos of $6663.30, whieh was 
ehanged frcM a debit a^iainst the first Illinois eomptmy to a debit 
against plaintiff, was ooapute4 upon the value of $50 3/6 per 
ri(cht • the market prioe at which the s«bo were purohassd )biarsh IS, 

The testinoay for pleintiff is to the effect that this ehargo 
la bis assouat was not diseoTored by him until about Ostobor 15, 
1999, and that than ho eoanluiaed of the aatt^r to Mr. Tanner, the 
MMBacMT of Celvia k Coapany. Upon Tanner^s advioo plaintiff son* 
suited with attorneys mU9 were in fast eeunsol for defendants, dc* 
fondanto haTing iaforaed plaintiff that they would be goY'^rned ia 
the aatter by the »dTieo of these attcineys. t^s attorneys adTleed 
plaiatiff that he should begU an act ion again et the First Illinois 
•saipany, sad thsroafter those attorneys, in the naae sf plaintiff 
sad with his soneent, broufcht a suit in trowor agftinet the Flrot 
Xlliaois soapaay. The deolaratloa la that eass eharg<^d that ths 
first lllinoie ecapway had oonverted 300 Anaconda Copper Coapany 
rii^ts which belonged to plaintiff. The JTirst Illinois CosQiany 
appeared and filed pleas, but when the matter estts en for trial did 

^^J, :..«iajai^« A ill IwsiidfSiqrj* «9»^ 


i4«Atx4a Jta.4^'1 T^Jl «)t«»'i^ $(iw.iii%maxoJiiM- £(^.l« &«tXtrf 

#«i|'4: »?"* '•- * ■;.}» tftirotd ai .rliw « *8ii;a«citrf «la««tlh»« vltf «i*Jiw Am 
V.i«<|Mo9 i»qQo^ «l»(«Bo*iaA •>•><'• f""^'-i«ivrt » ►.«.!« ^jM»f«i»ft altnlllt tatJtV 

B9t d«f«nd, and a judgAest by dwfault va» vntertfi In faTor af plain- 
tiff and agfclnat th* i^lrst IlXlnela eoMpwy In th» auai ef 9aS95.30. 
Tha judgii«nt h«s naver baan eatielfad, &n(t It la nat dlsputad that 
It la vlthQut Talue. 

It la net dlaput«d that dafmndanta rat«lnad thla |dB95<.Sda 
%ttt thay eontend thi^t In tha purehaaa frov than en Utkrah l2^ 1999, 
•r tha Acaeondn Capper rl^ta, the #lrat Illinois coiapanv aatad In 
faet aa tha a«i»nt of plaintiff, vha vaa tha undisaioaad prinfiipal 
af tha flrat IllLrtola company. Oaf «nd«rita Invojca aa applicabla «n4 
aa juatifylng thalr aation In ehargin<^ tula Itam io the aeeoant af 
plaintiff, tha rule of lav that ona who haa baan dealing with tha 
aicaat af an undiaelOAaA prlnoipal »ay proeaa4 acalnat that prinelpal 
«paa dlatovarlng that r«lationahlp* 

Thar a la no doubt of tha gan«ral rula wnloh la applicable in 
propar aaaaa and whiah la ctated in 2 Corpua Jurla, aaa. liatS, p, MO, 
elted by daf«ndant,aa follovat 

*A» haa baan aaan In ana thai* aonneation, an agani who antaro 
into eontraatual ralatlona on banalf of an undiaoloaad prinolpal nay 
ba h^ld litibla by tha peraon with «heib na deala, aa thougu ha hifflsalf 
^•f in faat tha prinoipal. Tha liability of the agant la nat, ha«- 
mfTf axoluffiva, for, aithoufi^ tha third paraon axtendad aradlt to 
tha agMit in Ignoranoa of tha fiaet that tha latter vaa aetlng in a 
rapraaantatlTO aapaeity, ha nay elect to hold tha undlseleaad princi- 
pal vhan diaeoirared, it b«in^ a firi&ly aatablished rula that an un« 
dlaoles«d orlneipal la bound by axaoutory ainpl(» contracts iLmA9 by 
tha agent, and by ^ota fiona by tha agent in relation thereto, within 
tha aoope of hla aut arity and in the oourae of hie enploymetit, 
aXth«ttgh tha contract purperta tc be tha indlTlluui contract of the 
agant, and althouj^h the third peraon hni preTioa»ly rafuaed to enter 
into eantraatual relatione iritii liiti principal." 

That general rule la reeoiir^isad by tha autharitiaa, and tha raatona 
far it ara wall atatad in the eaaa of thaaaaiaa v. OaYanport. 9 B. A 
e. 78. tha autharitiaa ati^ alao cited and diaeuisaad and tha nxifp* 
tiona to tha rule stated, in 2 keehas on Agency, aectiona 1729 ta 
1779 Incluslire. Tha aontanxion af dafandanta eannat ba auatalnad. 
In tha firat pl»aa tha reeord falla to diaaleac that in tha trarinae* 
tion of harch IS, 19S9, tha ralatlonahlp bfitvaan plaintiff »nd tha 
yirat Illinala Canpany waa that of principal and ag«at. Xha Flrat 


r ^'Xj:4Ii!<'aI1<;); 

: fe V ^AB& i ■ 

■at 19 r 


i^Ai Sum ttllalA/ijr n««vJtttf i^^litovoi ii» I«t f^l: . ^X ^di«(£ )• m»li 

' #««IK tUl .#A9li^ ?»!»-■' fiK-vlofilto t« ?.«rt :'«AiXXl i-fll* 

Illln«i« eot^yaay wa« n«t » broic«r. Ob t)i« contrary the «Yiaene« 
tendt to •he« that it w«« tin lnvftst»«nt eoapaay, »nd th« r«eor4 
failt te 4ia«lo«c th«t It «»• wtthln th« ooata^'iplntlon itt tli« par* 
tl«a to that tr«BSAetloa that thm First Illinois ooapany should a«t 
»• « ttoekbrokor in that transaotlen. Tha r«a»tlon bet«o«n th«M 
•••■• to hKf9 boom a«roly that of vondor and ]»urchaaor. Flaintiff 
savo no "tlrootioRO that tho .Pi rot iXlin la oonpany should purehaso 
Ttw thooo <Sof fnlaats or* iadoodi* that tho rights should bo pur- 
•hasod at all. Cortalaly, ihoro was no dlreotlon that tho first 
Xllinolo ooMpwiy should purehaso tt»oxi orsdlt. &o far as plaintiff 
v»s oonoornod, it was praotioally a oash tranaaotioa, emi it was 
«ii«ll7 inaatorial to hist whothor tho 71rst Illinois oo^ipany should 
••11 f hia rights whloh it alroady ownsd or rights vhlcii It ail^^t 
p«rshaso. tf 71rot Illinois eoMpssy was not a brokar; it was not 
licsnsod to transact buolnoss of that kind. Plaintiff oarri«d no 
Margin aooount with it* Xhore wao no oontraet of onq^loysiiont by 
vhioh tho Firot Illinois oompany should aet for plaintiff la pur* 
•hasinil^ thoo« riifhto. 80 paid for thaa oatriti^it* 3Uid tho relation- 
•hip of principal 4nd agont «aa not brou«iht Into sxiotencto in tho 
tratisaotion. Tho oyl4«noo diselosoa Uiat plaintiff supponod tho 
flrot Illinolo ooapany wa>> aotiag as bailoo to hold for plaintiff 
tko property ho had purohassd and h»4. paid for. Tho tr.jasaetioa 
irlth tho i^lrst Illinois eenpany aust bo rogardod ae art indopondioat 
4«al, and tho rulo whloh dofoxjdanto ootek to invoko must thoroforo 
bo hold not to b« applicable. 

ti0WOT#r, oToc if «o assune ti^at the reliitlonsifilp of prlneipal 
•ad agont oa^atod in that traneaotion» tho undisputed fueta of this 
oa^« would briaii It withla oxooptiens to the rule, one of these io 
that where a purohass has bo4m «a4« by an a^ent upon crn-dlt autt-orlsoi 
by tho priaoipal without disolesiag his rumn and payment is subso- 

i b« ."J H9» %J •ii', U J 

-.i ,23 I'll I yq; &T«4» 


jr.« ja»j^ ban 


Hucntly ma<i« %y tht prinoi^a^ to til* agttit tii go«d faltii b«i'ore th« 
•gtney i« diaalo**'! to th* seller, the orinaipHl vlll net b« liaJ»I«[. 
It hat 1»««n •» h»ld l>y tli« Appelltit* oourt of this utats in £iji»«l^ 
V. Alll»d Pi»ok»r«. Inc. T 84« m. App. 209, and l»y th« court* of 
Mtm Y*rk In H*rd*r t. Canttneatal Priotinu 4 Flaving Card C9. , 117 
i. T. t. lOOX; JCnayp y ffj^jti* »6 i*. If. 2d4. «nd LalPit y. l^ullar . 
44 £. Y» Saprwn* K*)». 144. the •xc*ptlwa is stated in X Parton* 
•B Contract* 62, at follew*: •«*r ma undt»ele**4 prineipal, sub*** 
<ia«ntly diseoT«r*d, say be Bad* liable en *tt<ai contract; (0} but 
in general, eubjeet to th* qualifleation that the fttate of the mt» 
•eunt between the prlnelpal and asttnt 1* not altered to the detri* 
aimt of thit prinoipal,** A**tmlag an agenejr in the first instanes, 
the faets bring thl* ea** vlthin the first exo*ptlon. Th* seeond 
exception is that ths rule is not applicable where the third party 
has elected to hold the agent only, that exeevitioii is particularly 
applicable te the facts of this ease, sinee according to the uneon* 
tradieted ewldencs defendants were InforsMd before they used ths 
300 Anaconda rights in the puroiiase of the Anaconda stock, that 
plaintiff bad purchased th? eame from the first Illinois coKp^sy 
and had paid for then in full. The use of theee rijihts under suidi 
cireuaetancss would seem t' anottnt to ua election en their part to 
hold the First Illinois coBxpsiny rather than plaintiff, ^ee Clark 
A IHcyles on ths Law of A«ency, vol. 1, cess. 461, 4«2, pp. IClf and 
l! 17. It would seen that defendants havinti with full knowledge 
elected to apply th#s* rights as requested by plaintiff, are asw 
estopped te take ths incenaistMst position that plaintiff was the 
undiecloeed principal for «hieh the i^'irst Illinois cosipMiy acted 
only as agent. 

Again, defendant* contend (aseujaing that the action sf 
plaintiff ie In tort) that a person cannot be liable for th9 torts 
of eae wImi do*** net bsar to hi* th* relation ef agent. Authorities 

!« 9tiii»P 0sit xH ka^ ,^^ ,*i%^ .1X1 «Mt ,Ai».fff .ffWaMNi^ »fiJU^.,jy 

■ ■:^^iJAi& ..7 j^m^fc^. fcttiA ,>«>.^ ■■■* ♦jtMfcaL.jtntSffftJ^ :' 

••est*^ X al lt'»*i*^' j><;:&jxi» ■s»li'? <*^X .qtS »iia6'>:y*; 

^t.»«f i-Rl^ flwCtf isf't»£iy 1^mm»l£i^^^ J-©* ai sift* mHi ■iMiAi ei nj(al^tt»»»® 

^»ii i»]fecu» liitlsjtix «»»ti? 'i* •«« *#it *tlt^i ai ««*iv. ■■■;<» fc*.«l hsu 

3(a*x;^ »«« ,niiai«Ji^ imm t».\im .->alXXi: *»ttiit 9il# bio A 

««« •'«» /I tlifliaXo y.€f h«Jn>i^uf>wit «» •#*% tXfl«« »* fc»^»».X» 

»r« oit«4 to thtil effeat* ^* are vlieily unabXa to ••• th« appli- 
«ati«ri 9t this point to th« f;%et8 or this o»s«. In the flrtt pl%«« 
tho trial «8urt 414 not pree»tt4 upon the thaory that ttott aotion of 
plaintiff vas oaa la tart. On the eontrary, the trial eourt held 
aa a prepaaltlan of lav that tha action of plaintiff was for aoaajr 
had and raeolTadi. Howaver, 9r*a If va aaauuaa that tha aotlon ia in 
tha natura of a tort, tha pleadinga do aat dlaeloaa that it la for 
tha tort of any athar than daftntlanto thaataalYaa. Tha rula Inrokaa, 
tharafora, whila undiaoutad, haa no applieatien to tha faeta. 

9«faoAMatB aaxt argua that tha tart of dafi^ndanta waa vaivod 
1^ bringing a ault In aaauspalt, and say tha aaauicpalt oarinot now Ihi 
vaiTod and tha aaaa triad Again a^ dolloto . Aa alraady atated, &•" 
fandanta wf not held llabla In tha trial court upon tha thaory 
that tha aatioa waa ana In tort. Xhla point alao ia therefora 
withaut marlt. 

Dafandanta akao eantand that tha r*99rA deaa not Indioato 
that thara waa any eonaidaratioa promlaad or paid ta dafendanta far 
tha aarviao thay r<»ndarad in purahaaing tha Anaaonda atoek la Kaw 
York, 'Ihay lay that thay ild not oharga any eoBmul salon far th«lr 
aarricoa in that aattar; that pl«tLntiff paid only ^6,6&C with vhioh 
to purahaaa tha 1^ ahorc>a of atoak; that avan If tha ^irat Illl- 
aola oofi.pany had paid for tha SOO rlghta, dafandanto would atill 
hawa raaaivad only tha $6,^0 und th« rl^:;hta, both of wnieii h«d to 
b« uaad to aubaoriba for tha 120 aharaa, and that tharafora tharo 
waa no oonaidaratian for tha prrfornanca on thalr part af tha 
oantraat. furtnar, it la urgad that tha atat«B«nt of elaitt een- 
taina no all»gation that any conaidaration waa paid ar pronlaad 
to ba paid to dafandanto for thla aarrico and tharafora faila to 
•tato a eauaa of aation, and that tho Judgiaant should hawa baaa 
arraatad for that raaaen. 

Thla aontantion, wa think, oaa hardly ba aarloualy aado. 


ikl»<f #i^M«9 jUlf^ 9^i «v%s%4(t«!» •li^r «a .#iui^ mi »a<t ««« lll^aUX^ 
t«iio« %9^ Mir ttkimi0S% t# Attliaui •!» j«ii» «»I U««t««Q 4t mm 

•4 «•« tAMOM ti9ii/mmMm ftHi %<»« b«w «#;ft«4pw«8« si tiu9 * ^Alj^ali^ ^ 

X^<Li««[dr »^7 a04l« t%ii>^f* li&i'ii »iii ai aliUs.lS hl»^ J#a (rt»» iil:i?!rn:*»1 

.tii*m ^TtfttfUlv 

iu>itiir AS in OOdafi^ \£inc» i^i«^ 'ttiSai#lj^ imOi i%9iimm ^«is^ nl ••«2t«»« 

"illl jTe^lt ftiUr tl ti»ir» ^«s£;t ;ato»d^« ^ ««-t»«ii» OSS tnii ^M^iiistuf^ "s^T 

XX U« fcXtfOW •#«»&<»)•& ««#if»it «9IS •tf;f to't Ai^A«^ ft«4 VM't'WM •!•» 

•VmU •--i«lt»«ll|ll #AiU l^fl* (MiUUf* <JSi. *^ %9'l iHit%»94liJk 94 ft*«ll •€ 

mjU 'la. tumn xi^As tm (KtoNKHfr^tiMr c^a tot adX^4t«iFi>x«««» «a «iiw 

'mMM AiAXa t« fmm4mt9 ini$ tA04 kumftK .<s«>u«MliL ,i9M%tB»p 

tosJUwst «• ibljBQ Miw a'»A**T»t>t9a.QQ v^ '•»»' a«XJ«ik»X£ft on usilmJ 

9t fXX«l aittf^ti^vcij i^OM mtlrf 9Ui> 10"1 •«»t«INl»1t»t A^ hit^ 94 9$ 

.r,<;)«4t'^»t $»dt X9i h9iawxim 


In th«r Aba«ne« of a sp««i«l *fr««ai4mt tb« l«v woul,d ln|»ly a proHi** 
to pay dsfendantt for thtir oorYloo In ataking tdxo purehaoo for 
plftiatiff. S«« 9 CorpuB Juris, &$6. D«f s.- danta «r«r« undor no 
•MigatloR to Aooopt tko erdor of plaintiff to purehaso tho itiaa- 
een4a Copper oteolE undor tho tors&o and oonditions whio^ ««ro lib* 
poood by plaintiff t but haTln« undortakon that aorvico and pro- 
•ooiodl to oarry out t.ioae direotiona, tlioy oaenrt now bo hoard to 
aajr that tho undortaking vas irold for want of oonsldoration. Thoy 
did not aako any motion to atriko tho otatOKont of olaiai or by any 
othor BOthod aoek to quoation ita 8uffi«ionoy. Zho want of oon* 
aidoratlon la an afflraatlTO d«fonao which waa not ploadod, and tho 
dofoot« aaauAlag It actually oxiatod, vaa ourod by tho findiaK of 
tho eeurt. 

Dofondaato alao eontorid that &nox. the fkoonaaa of Colvin it 
CoKpany, vaa without authority to tako up the ooeuritioo for plain- 
tiff ao tho a«ent of dofendanta, and that plaintiff dealt »it>i hlK 
tkt hie peril. The undieouted ovidenoo ia to tho offoet that linox 
«o«aaAaioatod to tho proper poraona plaintiff 'a order and ito torao 
aad that dof«n4«aia« through theoe, aee pt«d the term* and undtfr* 
took to oarry the aaao out. there ia no baaie for aueh defenao 
•poa tills record. 

It la eontondcd in th« next plaoo that by aeeeptiais aad 
rotainiag tho Aaaooada stoek plaintiff haa valTod any broach of tho 
ooatraot by which d«fffnd»nta undertook tho purehaao of oaac. Wa 
do act understand that plaintiff has auod upon that ooatraot. As 
already steitod, the court found aa a natter of fact that tho action 
vas la ocaoncc for the reeoTory of money beion^lng to plaintiff 
whieh dof»nvlantc equitably had no right to retain, fho aituatlon 
vhich tho undlaouted oirliimcs anowa confronted dofondanta on Juno 
17, 1929, oast upon then the iatperatiwo duty of tfiving notice to 
plaintiff if the riiihta could not bo obtained. They failed to 


01 J |it««»i< ad van . 

♦il^ lifts ,b&fe«»f- •>"« Ad law 3i.H?i?«!*. iriii 

.8 ftfu« 8MY4»i Mli :i^bav aLsojTa <c»qqoJ mbatto 

eoa**t*h Ahum to'-. 


. 'JtXil 
i»««» al ««w 

•i »9i/oa ii«ilirl)t to t^ut •yi«««»<ttMl MU nud) aoci 

•i 1»*X: 

.i»»ai«^<i9 wtf 

it \i intiiamtm 

sly sttsh BO tie*. Th»y proe»«d«(! to oxoeute th« ordor, u«l&g tho 
rli^ta in th*lr i»o8s«salon, and it vould be Inoqultftblo to pormit 
thflB, after tho inaolvoney of tho J^irot Illitiolo eoapAny h&d b«- 
ae«« known, to eii»rg« tho dobto of tiiat oonpany to plaintiff. 
It is ttloo oontctdod that the •▼ld«nco ootoblishoa an 
aaoount stated between the parties, but the court, who saw and 
heard the wltneeseo, found otherwise. It is urged that the trans&e< 
tioB of January 5, 1931, wh«i:k defendants turned over to Saiith. 
OrahMi It Rooinrell the oeeurlties of plaintiff, reeeiving tK?ir 
ehook for tho balaneo of $490£.34, aKount<pd to an aeiinowledgBAnt 
•f an aeeount stated with referenee to this dispute. Und«r elsi- 
lar oirouBstanoes this court held to tho oontrary in Hunhfi y . 
Carroll . 167 111. App., 100. Koroevor, as plaintiff oontends anA 
as the oourt held, an account stated eannot be »ado the instrustent 
to create an original liability. It nerely deteraines the snount 
•f a debt where a li;4bility prerieusly existed. Fopt (^iquntv t-:t&te 

*flmh T. ^fr ^i fi ^-ffntniVri- ^-Tim 26& iii. app. 430. 

Zt is also urged that by brlA^in^ a suit a^«tinst tho Jlrot 
Zlllnois eojupany plaintiff is preoludod froa maintaining this ao- 
tioB upon the theory that the beginning of that suit constituted an 
election to proeoed in a Banner inoonsletei^t with thie action. Tho 
action there proeeouted to Jud^vent was in trover for an alleged 
eeaversion and was not necessarily inconsistent with or repugnant 
to thie action against defer. dants for Koney had and received. 
Mather, the two were concurrent and cons latent rerri«ai«a. 90 Corpus 
Jurlo, 7s Mil\l^om» V, JJ^iLoll, 1«4 111. App. 907; achwarsesenild v. 
fltafl^fti 183 111. App. 40. Moreover, the doctrine of election be- 
tween ineonsiatent rancdioc applies solely to the parties to the 
contract and hac no application to an actios brought by one of the 
parties to it against a t^xird pcreon who la a stringer to it. 
iBochle V. aprlnger . 145 ill. Ap . 127; aiapson Brick Co. v . 

ft(VA iMs« ' J^w^ «««i|jr««t »ii^ n»»9»i«4r |M»^ji^ii iiii9e9» 

,»**«*• <:^i 1SV0 fv''«i;* «*aj!&i»'«»fc ^»£tn ,.|y.ti ,« i|<««Ai<i^ **® a»i* 

"A .IXX iSdS . .^ga. yal^^flMAaatt . jf, „% ,t\i ,,7 a^fflfr^f 
',*,. ^..•. ..^. ,, , ..« a Aal^iix^«f t*^' ■'•v'-"'^ ^ftin'XAr 6«X» si #X 

{» &4$iikfffi;^(ifleK> ;rXwR &'iKe& %« :g)iJ;.<i«iJi:'||«'tf tucii- ^sil^ vttfwii^ *M nonv Mftii 

fc#^«XXM iw tttl xnt^mA qi/ «l*-* »«»ia:;*»j,*t o.'^ fe«*s«»«a4»ntq »l«kii* aoiioi 

trunrrtiL''^*'^ ti^ A»l^ imn^lmfm^Al xll'%m&m>i$i»n ^9^ 9#v ham omiA'tmraM 

>»T|Ae«*k ^aw iM»«^ '^«in»A; n«*l «l!i^li!>'s»'4i'»ft Iwal^tts JBei^»« nidi mS 

jjL^ ^^MKdate. :f«. . . lu wix .aUja^^^xjMbaaiaiM :^ ♦♦Ha^ 

«»<^ 4K»i^»»X« 't« tiai%*»ai> ttOS ,t«vawT»^ .'>i^ .titiiA »ill 9&1 ,Sl2iM0i 

»Ai tiS ai^Xitjf.q «d3 ai %i^U^ it«ii%tim •aiMMM'x i»*»t».imtt09iti ii«««^i 


Wejr»l<ry . 61 111, Xpp, 460; l»»«h y. MlmiegQta Ina. Co .. 1«3 Miitcc. 

It l8 ur<g9a that th« eourt ttrr«d In that lnt<ir«ist vss 
•ill«««d on th« af<bt f($und -^u« froa July IS, l^'^ii^, %e ^OTm&bor 
l»» 19ZI, Brwinyi .y, uall.afst^f.r, X99 111. 807; Tptttn y. Xotfii. 
894 111. 70; (both suits Iti caiiiriCAry) ax'9 olt«d. i'laXntiX'f w&n 
«iitltl«d to int»r«at. Soetlen 2, oUaptor 74, i^ith-iiurd 's 111. 
Koy. Stats., p. 1754. Wo hold on th« t^of itm th«y hero a-ipoar 
that defe danto on July iJ>, 19^, r«c«iyo4 l«56d, 3u for tho uoo 
•f olaii^tirf, vltnout pltiiotilT'o ioiowledifeO, and tfeat (Jol*«n«3«nt» 
aro thoyofero liablo for Icteroot tr&a that dato uador oald »oe* 
tloa 1. 

Xho rooord hero disolooco tho attontpt on tho part oi th«rao 
i«foadont« to trajs ef«r fro» tholr own ohouldoro to thooo of plain- 
tiff, tholr cu»t0Jn«»r, tho lose which o«i*iaod iaoialcetnt and for wuloh 
ho vaa un<ior no theory liable. 

Iho iu-i^iaeut oi tho trial court la ^uat and it la affinui4. 

KoSuroly, I', J., and O'Connor, J,, conour. 

.-" '* 

♦■»juoa4>a , . « .xeonc^a* ..' fe«« .. , irtPTtcriAoiS 


X.XlaLX;ai SOBSR. ) 

▼•• ) 


CITY 0» OHIO AGO, « Kunloii»al } 

Cor«)orfttion, ) 

*"■•"""*• ' 26 8 I. A. 613' 

«H. juancs sATcasTT DKhirsmm tmt opijkiob o'/ wn court. 

Plaintiff tu«4 In eaa« and filed & <!l«eX«jration in two counts. 

The flrat eount »lX«g4?(% that on Ootebtr 29, 1923, <l»f«(}(liint city 

t«a«d, 8ontroll»4, and U8*d et^rtaln public strs^ta in th* aity 

of Chioaeo, («n« of irhieJa vas a street known as Eastern sTenus) 

and oim<id« eentrollsd and possAsssd a sidevti^Xk th«r«on. In 

irhlen taers was a ooal*hol« or oihsr oponing with a astal covsr 

leeatsd on ths vsst sids of said Vsstern avonue, in front of 

£io. 2210; that It was the iut^ of defendant to keep the side* 

valJc in a reasonably safe eondition; tuat on that «ate and for a 

long tine prior thereto the eity negligently and carelessly per- 

■itted the sidewalh ani the e^al-hole to be and remain out of ire* 

pair, and the ooror to beeeoie loose, unfastf^nM, end out of re- 

pair, of wbieh condition the city had notice, or which had exieted 

BO long a tiae that in the ej:ereise of ordinary eart it waald ha<r« 

had notice and eould have rojtedled or repaired t.he aasso; Uiat plain* 

tiff upon that dat» while Talking ui)on the sidewalk at this platt 

toid in the exeroise of ordinary oare unavoidably an^! neeessarlly 

stepped U'?oB the eover of the aoal-hole, nxni that by reason of the 

neftILi,Qriee of defendant the cover gave way or broke acd plaintiff 

was hurled with c:^^**^ foree to ttj.d upon the sidewalk, injuring her. 

the eeeond eount averred ti^at while ehj|/ln the exercloe of ordinaiy 

ttare defei^ant negli&eritly perssitteti and allowed the eoal>hrle ta bt 

in a daitgerous aud unsafe condition, of whicn it h^4 ijOticft,an4 as 

u result thereof, in stepping upon tb.^ eafis plaintiff was tkttr, and 

X«ii:; ./".OIM/:'^aii J*.:. 

8X9 .A 

i ..^ \j 




.woar i«Tn 



,oa*»J^*'v *» 

■ '-:vrO 





«^«>«icj8 oli^t/fi winrt* 

•c» af.> nuK ,j:;-i-^^'.' • - .-■■■■-til 9ffi«J««ii «# YftTM »<W *«« ,»*«^ 

.3!inM •£U h^xtntf^^ to ii«i^«n•'^ i^razC &X»«« !>«« 9tiX;ftta ft«<f 
. . iai in <£«v»hJt« wrfJ »»<io HHt;'-' *I!i^ -^Jjsf^ #«i«i «•«* lilt 


J^Xiir:! ««« 
tan* bn«o»a •iCf 


.:X«;a«T ii 

there hurl*<l with gr^ait fer6« and TioXenee, stiBtainlBg liiJuri«Sp 

P»fcrilaiit flle<! a plo& of the genoral leiiue, and ttpon trial 
bjr jury tlnert v&e a rnrdiet fer pXuintiff 1a the auK af |1500 «itte 
jttd^omt thertten, matiooa for a n«« trial aB4 la anr#«t havlRg been 
OverrulM. D^f^^ndAnt aaka that thia ju'l^ent >« revaraetl. 

There was a nation at the eXeee of all the evlilttiaee for a 
direeto'l TerJiet, :rhioh waa denied and defendant eoiitende that the 
•ourt erred In refuein^ the Inetruetion as requested. 1% ie alae 
urged that the eourt erred in refusing i&etructione renueeted bjr 
defendant and that there wae no evidenee from whiau the jury t&ight 
reaeonnbly find that defendant h&d notloe of the defeetiTO eondi- 
tlen of the eeal hole. That aotual notiee 0* f«>.eta fran which aucdi 
Botiee might he inferred are eeaential in an aetl'an of thie kind 
ia well eatahliehed. City of Chieaite v. Wateoa . « 111. Apo. 344, 
and Bum*roue oaeee following;. It in also established that the 
harden of ^roof ie uik>b plaintiff ^o eatabliafi euon notiee. 
^UU«« .X*, A KU . 9r ..C ^ i#nrnie> 97 Hi. Ai?p. IdO. 

There vaa no proof that def«ndaiit had aetual notiee of any 
defeat in the ooal>hole or in the aidewallt, aed It is now eontcnied 
in heralf of the eity that there waa no proof from which conetrue-> 
tiire notiee might he reaacnably inftrred. Ihe evidence upon that 
point would eeem to be ae fol o«^e: 

Xhe witneaa Dieiharo, janitor of the adjacent built^int^', tes- 
tified ae to the oondi tion of the plaoe wh«?re plaintiff wae injured. 
The eidewalk was eonatruoted of etone and roeh or a«»ner^t aud roek 
aad waa from aix to eight feet nide. iixav «aa no grass plot betw««i 
the sidewalJi and the buil.iin«, Ihe sidewalk ocoupied all the epae* 
between the bullilng and the curb, Xhe Qeal->hol«r was about two fee1t 

from the eurb aad was from a foot to a foot and a hall In diameter, 

there was/iron rim around it and a east iron or steel corer on top wf 

aitJ i*i?1 ■;• ^ - ........... 


, ^J 




.re •'I 


•Hut) •!!* OWt'l 


tte« ria. About four or ftvo inehoo of th« rla woro broken out. 
Sioharo had notieoA tnis rlB before pXaJLiitiffa aooidont. Mo 
Mjra; "I notiood the ooAditioi^' ol tliat rift ou or about Oetobor, 
X9St; I fall (fovn and didn't pay no ait»»tion and put it baek 
agaia. X oav the tim at that tlse; it was a pieeo broken out of 
that, that is oby I foil ta there; about four or live inches of 
it was broken. I think it was in that eondltion about a month 
before Ootober.* The witness saye that he was in the baaoRient 
idien Dlaintiff fell an^ he h«arA sous one oaXL "janitor;* that ho 
easie out and saw a sian holding plaintiff on the side of the seal 
shut*; she was about two feet fron the chute* he says, *It was 
ab*Ht a aoBtri before that I fell in that coal-hole. •« Ihore was 
BO change in its oenditlon froa the time I foil there until she 
(plaintiff) fell," After the witness fell no notified the agent 
of the building as to the oendition of the ooal>holo. 

On oross-exaRiuHtion Sieharo said that the first notice 
ho had that there «ao anyt« ing broken in the rim was whan he fell 
late the hole. He said, "Z eannot remember the date. I knew it 
was 19SB. It miisht have boon just about a week before X saw the 
lady. Z Euess it was about a month, by ri^t X don't Tmamibmr** 
He further said that he never noticed the broken part of the rim 
until he fell into the hole, tuxd, "You oan notloo by looking that 
a pieee was broken, but X newer noticed it before I fell in. I was 
thMTO OTory day but newer noticed it was hrek«a until X fell In. X 
was janitor there about two yeare before this happened. ** 

Majeweki, another witnees for plaintiff, saye thai h«> was 
about two steps behind plaintiff, and "X did not notloe anything 
about the eoal«hole itself when I saw her fall, X just see the 
cover go up und she fell im." He says that he MA not If ok at the 
hole that erenlng but taw it the next day when the cover hud been 
fut baok on it, and that the etone was ohipped around the cover; 

.^istfo^oO iyotfA to *to mil ffiai to <«'|jt&««« Mf^ Ibm^liint 1* taY«» 

9fi;f «wa i »io'l«(f dMsw a ^a;oJ*. .tsut o»9ii *v. .1 ?i'^: / 
Silt 9iiJ i«? Jisajietir* ti** J^»oXi^«i!i -tev 


^nUU\.t!U •oljuit itan MA I* htm ,Tiltai^*'i bftj 


3; flAI- aial 

^■?X MW 

• ia0l •«« 
-X«e9 o^L^ iu«cf« 


thst m% %h« time of th« aeeitlent th«r« was a ll^ht withla 79 f««t 
asd dUi store llghta wore Ibuming opposite the ooal*hcle; th^t he 
ka4 walked over the street Many tistes and "aerer noticed enything 
wrong with this ooYor before this httppooed.* 

Mrs. Anna Walk<»r, nOio was with plaintiff when the aaoid<«t 
oeeurred, says that the corer oi' the hole was about ei«$htet»n inenes 
In diaMOter, and that she did not notiee the coal-hole until after 
plaintiff had fallen into it; that she then noticed that the eorer 
was lying about helf a foot frea the hole. She s«ys, "Ihe ria was 
Tory nuoli worn out. ihe lid was wore off pretty bad so I san*t 
just sxastly tell Juet. what was wrong with it. The ria around 
there was quite ehipoed off in a couple of places, say three or 
four pltses. 'Hie ria around ths hols se<med to be about two inches, 
sade of iron. I newer noticed that hole before we walked along 
there this tiae." On orose- examination she said that she had walked 
•Tsr this sidewalk many tiites before but had newer noticed anything 
vroBg with the coal-hole; that when stie walked aeroes there before 
■he did not see anyt.';ing e.ipped off the eoal-hole; that it was only 
after the cower was off that she euld see that. 

Plaintiff *s testlnony Is to the effect that she had walkei 
owsr this etr»et a year before ehe was injured; that she did net 
•to the eoal-hols until she fell into it. 

Ve think the evidence is to the off est that so far as it 
eeuld be obserwed frow the lid on the coal -hole tiiere was nothing 
to indicate that it was not in a proper eiatc of repair, eund that the 
defeat en the lid app<»ared only when it was tipped off ths hole. 
»ie fast that thirty days before plaintiff was injursd the Jariitor 
stepped en the Ud and it tipped up and he saw the defect, an4 that 
he told hie landlord who owned the adjoining property of the defect, 
was in as way notios to ths olty sf such defest. Whether it was the 
duty of the eity to inspsst sueh coal-holes we do not indicate be- 
cause there was no ewidenos in the record on this question iMid no 

Btttioni iuit 


••w ait -^rff* ,«x*9 'iii* .St'' 

^'aaa i cr harf V ■> •*«"« •«* til »ifc .if««» otow rfot;« vjxny 

lusiiotA ail «i£r .^1 ii^iw ^j.-sotw »«w fjutw ^avt. lt%3 xlinsatn Jasrl 

gfloiJB h»ii««? t^r •^olt*«f )»X9ii f«£f^ b9^iSea l^trttr o •ft«iQ 

bftiijE* ]b«i( •!£• jr«iif b-i^ ;j&x»<>»«(n;o ttO * ^*Mts •itts 9i»ili 

eiotiirf •-» 

ik«3iX«« fciMil -:?{<« r-ui: 


^i •« TliSl Off Jf*.^;' -*©•■*: 

nii! SAW .it -Mriioif^ 'juu lo 

■m liltivrHklt 9i:^i lOYp 

- «9« lea fci^ •!(• 
. «** t»v»« til* i**;*!© 


' ♦ l*«t» »i«nlStti •# 
.. !*tl •m Ao i»ftt«ft 

I htUk htl mAi ue b»<)({«t« 
h';(^r))n>sI «lif JbXo^ •!( 

♦B* OS at »Mf 

•a ban It0l3ii '9 b^»»»^ ' •ua«l»iT« bii ms^ ••wrj «•»«# 

mtPlh mJtgtOMnX 1» iBa4« her*. Ua<i«r th« «Tidi«fio« In th« r*oord th* 
•nly on«s who Icntv tha^t th«r« v«a s 4«f«ttt in ih« lid ««r« th« 4«ni' 
tor and his «Bploy«r, the owner of tho adjoining property, but tho 
eity could not !»• held liable unleee it had rsasonable notleo that 
the lid wae uosafe. 

In Yiew of thie atoaser eridence, w« think there aheuld )>e a 
new trial of the isaueo. 

Sef enfant *a inatruotion lio. 6, vhiolt waa refuaed* ahould 
haT« 1»e«a giYon* aa it was the only instruction offered which cot- 
erod the point that the city wae entitled to notice of defeota in 
ita aidewaika before it could b* held liable for accidents caused 
by the tttmt, 

J^or th« reasons indicated the Judsgnent is rereraed and tho 
•aaae roaanded. 


MoSurely, P. J., and O'Connor, J., ooneur. 

.tfl»t o<^ vivv hll tit aX i99t^l ^ »«^ (RT»r v^ivA 92m «»ao xlsiB 

bAS io'i tX^tnqoiq ^^mialotb* i^tqaa ^Iti, bam Xmi 

*a\0Ktw SAW bix ii^i^ 

.&l»tj«0l mil) 19 SaI'XJ 1)9(3 

.^#^lmai9\ ••MAO 


• C«rT»oratlon, 



*■"•'""■*• * 26 8 I, a; 613' 


This apptal is by d«f»n<)s^it from an order «nt«red i'wbruarjr 
15, 1932, <l«nyLnff th« pr^tyor of 111* pttitien, J'ilcd on that day, 
that an ax part* judgaaat at lanr «it«r«d against hte n«eeial)er 4, 
19 51, in tha Munioipal court of Chiaa«;o ahott^td bn racutad and sat 
asida and tha eaaa aat far trloa. Mara than thirty days having 
alapsad hatwaMi tha antry of tha ordar and tha Judij^iant and tha 
filing of dafondant's patltlon, tha proeaeding waa neoaaaarlly 
undar aaetion SI af tha Municipal 6ourt act. 

Tha patitlon in aubatanea aTarr«d thai tha suit of plain- 
tiff vaa for an allogad balance olalnad to ba dua for tha purcnaaa 
price of a haating pltuat; that tha hearing of the oauae vaa begun 
•a Auguat 18, 193C, before Judge Daiaglaa, then presiriing in one of 
the branchaa of the Manieipal court to which the case ht^d bean aa- 
algned; that at the concluaion of tha eTidenoe the court waa about 
ta enter jurif^aent in favor of defendant when plaintiff prayed a con- 
tinuance in order that it al«<ht have the eppertunity of repairing 
certain laperf eat iona in the h^atinebi plant (the defenae of defendant 
being that the plant waa defeetlYe under the teraa of the a«;re(N&ftnt) ; 
that at plaintiff *a requoat the cause waa thereupon continued generally, 

The petition alao averred that plaintiff did not keep his 
promiee to make theae repairs, althougu an agent of plaintiff appeared 
on the proffiiaes of defendant aereral aontha thereafter and aft«r in- 
specting the heating plant stated that It waa net functioning right 
but that he waa unable to deteriaine what waa needed and he proAiaed 
that he would report the condition of the plant to hla e»ployer, tha 



818 -A.i bd 

,^iiflt*n«'ii k»«nJ;J*»i» «<i«|^»«!»«lt ^^tf •nau'^ ...... 

i^tuics «itf ill «i7:i}X 
:'!»<&» «a';^ ^jse «M»« 


It was ftT«rre<t that no repairs v«r« rv«r bui4« as proKl««4; 
that no noties whs sver s^rrsA ui>on dsl'eKiant or his attorney to 
hsTo tbs eaust r«stor«4 to th« oall lor tbs furposs of havlBg a 
final ordsr sntitrod aeeordirijs,; to ths fisfiiBi^ 01' Judge Dou£la«, but 
that, on the oontrary, "pl^aintlff frauduXftntly «fid with ths sviifset 
intontlon of dsprlYlng ths dsfsadaat of his ri&htsand Justles in ths 
sass bp surrsptitlous ctstiisds, and vith«ttt •mrrin^ any no ties what- 
MSTsr upon the d9S'«n<iaBt or his attornsy, in a Mysterious «ay, had 
ths e»ss »«t lor trial, and sq ths 4th day of OssMBib^r, 1931, euc- 
•ssdsd in obtaining an j[3| vn^rtf Judgasnt without any notios whatse* 
rrsr to ta« dsfecdant and his attorney and, STidontly, without ae- 
^aainting ths Court with ths faets in ths oase, as ^isoloasd by ths 
prsTiotts hsarlnit and ths finding of Judu* Oeuglas." I'urthier, it Is 
said that on January 86, 1992, fifty* two days aftsr judgpa^^nt was «n- 
tsrs4, an sxsoution issusd whloh was ssrrsd on dsftmdant on Jfsbruary 
6, 1932, and that only thsn did dsfendant b«ooa« asquaintsd with 
what is dsssribsd as "ths fraudulent and unsthioal eoniuot of ths 
atiomsy for ths plaintilf in this eass,* sto,; that defendant ha4 
net bsen negligent in the ease for ths rsason that he had no knowi- 
sdgs whatsosTor of the existence of the Jud^ent until he was serws4 
with a oopy of ths sxseution, 

this pstition was duly trsrified by defendant who awerred 
that it was true in Bubattuiee an<l in fast. Ihe petition hMVlng 
be«a filed, it wae »t onee as8la>*d ts Judge Eriekson, who aecording 
to ths resord was ths Judge whs entered the £& Pftrte Judj^pient, On 
the sans day, namely, JTebruary IS, 1932, Juiige iiriekeon entered an 
order dsnying ths prayer of the peiitioa. 

It is argued in supoert of tns petition that it dieolosss 
srrors of fact sush as ni^ht bs eorreoted nore than thirty days 
aftsr ths entry of Ju-ignent under sestioa 09 of the i>raotios ast 
(tbersfors under seetion 21 of the Muniolpal Ceurt net) and that 

;h««l»flni »* •h*m Wrtr* •■%*» atlsqet Jf-M«*i in»tn%' 

. . ■■>4m»»m(l to v:«fe rfi* •^.. '■' T »»«* •i*^ 

]SlllV*r£! i\Ql3ii9H Sift 

:o'l. .tio,iSa 
,1 xillw 

•»«oJt»att> ^ 

tht pr%y%r of th« pvtitloa sheHld htrrn b««n granted. 

The eententien ear.not l>« tiuBtaia«d. Assuming the truth •( 
•II fact* tt«t«d Is th« pstiVloA, It dosa not ncgaLtiT« nei^ligcne* 
^y 4«fen<laKt. It sawhor* avara t>iat defandant 9as without knovladga 
that tha eausa waa to lea lizard t»«rora «^u4[g» Krickson on T>ee«m1)«»r 4, 
1931. It i»v«rig that naither d«t'i?n:iant nar his attomsy waa noti- 
fiad, but it doea not xrmr that eitncr of thaa vaa without kno«l*<Up 
that tho eauoa would ba triad en that data. It doaa not show that 
plaintiff agraed to natify dafandant or th»t it waa tha duty of 
l^lalntiff to notify hia* tha patition avaro tha eauso vaa continuad 
ganaraliy. Asaumlng this to ba trua^^ it vaa juet a« muo)! tha duty 
of defendant to aaocrtain tha tlaia i^an tha caaa would ta again 
aallad as it waa of plaintiff. 

the auit vao bagun on Juno 16, 19.Vj, and defendant 'a affi* 
iavit of merits vaa filed on August 7, 1930. Th« jud«]a«nt vaa not 
ontsrad until Dao«Bib«r 4, 1931, • suira than a y<>ar aftar tha eoa« 
■ano«eiant of tha suit. Tho affidaYit do*s not aTor any diliganoa 
to asoartain tha erdcra of tha Municipal oourt with raf arenas to 
tka tlma whan tha trial af thia eass or eaaaa lik«> it would ba 
hald. Tha autharitiao hold that a paiition of thia kind t&ust avsr 
faets shewing rsasonabls dilit^anoa. Craaor ▼. III. Corera'l <>»n's 
AsMAa.. 2«0 111. 619; Walley t. JL^ aii^. 257 111. App. 171, ara only 
two of Kmny eaaaa wnic. ii'i«;ht ba eitad to thia point. 

fha patltioB alleges fraud, but it do«>s so only in indafi- 

nita and iraneral tartoa, which are vholly inaaifieiant. Carrr^jL ▼, 

Maatinga . 259 111. App. 5ft4. 

It is also urged that the staveicefit of claim waia deftiotiTa 
and that intaraat was arroneou«ly ir.oludad in the anount rr.r which 
judgment vas entered, ilueh error, ir it exist e, eannt t be held to 
be an error of fuat aad eanriOt be oorreatad in » prooe«<iini^ of this 
kind, sines the remedy in eueh case le by appeal or writ of error. 
nhMwan T tiorth American Xk». Co.. 292 111. 179. 

The Judgment or th«» triAl court is affirmed. 


McSurely, P. J., and O'Connor, J., concur. 

,ft*tfluii|| — < •vat} bitfoti* a«j 

,> Y«tf)M««>a no euM)isixii a^bui' •YOrt^tf (?«u<*iai '>4F »i »ftsr 
•it«j» SAW '^«itoj;r4 •iif Ten ta^^^^V■' a #«ilt 




T. '(t» CM (Nf 

is «ft«lM 

.luonoo , .L .lortiioO'O hns ,.1. .<! ,yX9h;3oM 


SUU, A. nXSHBOM and ) 


▼•. i 

) Q¥ CHlCAt/O. 

UfiZOS BA1ȣ oy CMICAQO, ) 

App«llftnt. ) 

26 8 I.A. ais" 


In th« Munlelpal oourt pXnintlffa brought an motion whltih 
th«y (l*Bcrib«d as in asBuayslt and which apparently w»e i'or the 
purpoac of r«cov«rine Money oaid under the tenta cl* a written 
eontraot, whereby they agreed to purchase arxi defendant to sell 
ecrtaic real est&te in Cook county, Illluoia, 

Plaintiffs* seeond aisisnded etai««eitt of claim allege! the 
ezerution and delirery of a eontraot on January 10, 1925, wherein 
it vaa figreed that if the purchaser • would Bake the payaents asd 
perfora the coTebants mentioned in the contract, defendant as Ten* 
dor would convey or cause lo b* conwyed to them in fe« sii»ple, 
clear of all eneuabranoes whatever, except as therein noted, by a 
good end sufficient deed i^ets 22, 2Z and 84 in Block 2 in Calunet 
Bridge Addition to Bumham, a subdivisiwi of the Southeast quarter 
• f the Southeast aunrter of Section 1, lownenlp 3d itorth. Range 14 
last of the Third Principal KeritStan. in Cook County, Sllinois. 
Thf> contract nrevided that the purchaser* agreed to pay therefor 
the sua of $2276. The Tender aaknowl<»dg«»<1 the r««o«ipt of 9579 is 
•ash. the contract provided for th« payaent of the balance in 
Inetallnents. The oureh^tsert aijreed to pay taxen, «to. 

The second amended etateaent averred XiM perforaanee of the 
eovenants and %greeB«nts on the part of plaintiffs; that on Janu- 
ary 10, 1928, they t*nderi»d the balance due on the eontraot in the 
sua of I7&6.46 and deisanded a warranty deed with guaranty of 
policy as agreed, which defendant failed and refused to deliTer, 



t,ld .ii.i 6dS 

ititj to! iM»w 'ftii- 'ia^mu's .. ■•rf.t 

»sii fc»3«»lXjt: at.-' • J'ri»iem<»«^a b»fe>ii---. 

J. .- _J;!.-.j»>3 fJiiw M«ft r*'**') ««• 

to the d«i»ms« «f plAintlll't in Xm auai nf i^asoo. 

Xli« Al'f IdaTlt ol* ai«rit« denied tke exeoution of the atniree- 
aeat at deeerlbed in the second asended etataafttst, but averred thai 
•n Jft/mary 10 « 1935, AttmAtmt entered into a oentraet ^^Ith Sail 
A. Peterson lor the eale of the real estate dseorlbed; that plain- 
tiff Mabel if, Peterson was net a party to that contract ; that, he«- 
eir«r, an Maroh 34, 1925« defendant entered into a ne« oentraot ^^ith 
plaintiffs ^il A.i Peterson and kabel if, Peterson, whieh oentraet 
eras dated January 10, 1935, although it was actually executed ^arth 
34, 1938; that this contraot of xaroh 24th was the sane »e that of 
Jfanu^ry 10th except that the lots w«re described as in a "resubdi- 
irision* instead of "subditrision. * therefore, defendant deni«dl that 
the contract of Janumry 10, 1939, was the true oontraet bst^een t e 
parties. Defendant averred t at the 1575 was not paid at the tlae 
•f the execution of the contract, and etated that on January 10, 
199ft, Sail A. fetftrson ejdiibited to defendant a preliminary agree- 
■•nt exeeated by Jlail A. Peterson and G. Prank Croissant i^ieh a«* 
koewl edged parent of said sua. 

StiS affidavit adrltted tnat defendant received payments 
under the contraot amounting to $1155; denied the reoipt of ether 
itSMS, except the sun of $8.40 whieh defendant paid to the eounty 
treasurer of Ceoic oeunty for taxes as directed by r>laintifft: 
averred that plaintiffs had failed to pay certain taxes and assess* 
sisata as provided by the contraot and that defendant was therefore 
•ompelled to advance money in payment of same. The affidavit of 
■erits stated that plaintiffs failed and refused to carry out the 
teras of the contract by failing and refusing to pay the balance 
due thnreunder; denied they had outde a sufficient tendef) of the 
bal^iee ^ue or that defendant was delin<{uent in performing any of 
the terms of the contract, and denied that def'»ndant refused to 
deliver a deed and guaranty policy as alleged in the second 

to iSitt «' :j.;i^S .at" r^^it^^a^t. . <>^ 

th9 issues w«re tubiBitted to a Jury which returned « verdict 

for plaintifft in th« sibb of $3,000, upon whieh the court, orero 

rulifig aotions for a n&w trial and in arrost, entered Juctgaent. 

9}^en the jury had been ewern to try the isteuee defendant requ^eted 

that the jury be excluded while defendant preeeated a notion for a 

directed verdict. Xhe motion wae in writing lufid asked a werdiet 

for defendant on the i^rounds that the «tatesient of olain showed the 

agrewKMSt to be b«>twe«n plaintiff and the Union SanJk of Chicago, 

trustee, and not the Union BarJc nr Chiea{$o; that the statement of 

clala did not all age or desicisate defer. iant to be a ecrporation, did 

not allege a cause of action, showed no danages and disclosed a 

suit for specif ie perforaanee; that the statement of olatm alleged 

a tender not in eonforccity with the teras of the contract and did 

not arer that the contract was repudiated by plaintiffs. Attorney 

for defendant, demanding the aiaount olaiaed to bt due \3n49r the 

contract, tendered a deed whioa en Its fate appears to hawe been 

executed on JtioTenber 10, 1931, by the "Union Bank of Chieago, •« 

Trustee, under trust agreement known as £0. 39R, to bind the trust 

estate end not individually, ** by Ite vlee-preeident and assistant 

secretary, and whioh conveys lot 9 32, 33 and 24 in blook 2 "in the 

Resubdivisien of Caluaet Bridge .iddition," Xhe tender was refused 

and the notion denied. At the close of all the evidenee defendant 

Bade a act ion for an instructed verdict in its favor, whioh was also 

denied. It moved to disjiies def«^ndW3t indivlluadiy on the ground 

that the evidence ehowed that all the dealinca of plaintiff were 

with defeidant as trustee and not Individually. Thia motion was 
also denied. 

It is urgnd In the liret place that the court erred in re- 
fusing to direct a verdict for defendant on the theory that the 
evidence ehowed that th« of>ntr«ot and all dealings with plaintiff 


«4 ,o^slffO tit Ti'mii mii.nH'' •fid' %^ «i;4^tJ[ «c>i: t;4»#j!»iir{»iil fle«f i»«j^i(recHNi 

iituti 9sii kali 9$ «^«fi *«)4 «« 4m»£u( <rs»ieH»»'K:%A!' 4'ft679^ TiH^aii ^fttJCtftT 

$0mlH9%^ ftC ' ' .'>«<ki9 Ax:..' . '£}» »«Ur i»JM 

•«« ml *•«• #«*«6 •••'■ --^ *«>»"u.' 

vith r«fer«no« thereto «*r« with 4*l!'«ndant as tru*te« and not 

Individually or aa a corporation. It ia truo the contract was 

•xeeutod by defeniatit ao "Union liank el* Chioago, I'rustea, by i\ 

h. Hayaa, Atslstant Iruat Oi*licor«" and so fur as tho evidenos 

dlseloaae all the dffalinga under t: e contract wore with defendant 

aa truatee. Xhe nature ol the obligation created by such eontraet 

vas disoueasd by this court in the caso ei' Wilson v. Bodaaer f 861 

111. ^p. , 23* and by the Supreme eourt of the State in Sohuaanp* 

He ink T. -golaog . 928 111. 321. In this last naaed oaas the ^upreais 

•ourt oaid: 

"A truatee is the holder of the legal title of the truat 
eatate huA deala with it as principal, subjeot only to an equitable 
obligation to account to the benefioiariea of the trust i^fltate. A 
director 4o«a not deal with the funda of the corporation aa princi> 
pal but deals with them ae th«> agent of the company of which he is 
a director and for whicn he is acting, a trustee is peraonally 
liable on hie uontraet, but a director is tot as long as he acts 
within hie authority," 

7ollowlng these decisions we hold that the obligation ereated by 

the contraoi hers exeouted betwe«) the parties wus the personal 

obligation of defei.datit. 

Defendant further contends that the instruction should haT« 

¥s«n giTSS for the reason, as it claims, ti^mt the uncontradictsd 

SYidencs fails to show thai plaintiffs had &ads a legal and propev 

tender of the balaiios due under the oontraot of January 10, 1928. 

The eridenos for plaintiffs is to the effect that plaintiff Fsterson 

prior to JTatuary 10, 1928, went to the offios of the defendant bank 

where he saw a Junior tnast offieor whose nans was Xreveiler; that 

ho secured fron this offieor a stateuxset of the aaeunt which would 

beooae due on the contraot oa Janusury 10, 192S, and whleh he was 

informed was I7A6.46: that on January 10th in ontr>pany with Urm, 

Peterson, Mrs. Kriek and kr, Xvee, Peterson went baek whffTs he 

again saw 7re-veiler and gawe him the oontraot together with a check 

for that amount; that Xreveiler took the eheek and left the room 

for about fi-vo minutoo. lAion he cai&e baek and asked plaintiffs to 

t9n Me •'*iMtt%) •« iBUiha9lMb AJJtf <»i«;w tf^mm^fii »t)it*»T«tf*-s dii* 



: ua» ?>2l<>^<JjU«i 9iii x,^ .fee.; -^qA .XXl 

ibt»m ixu9» 

X<f fe#tJ99'Xd noitfa^ll^ 

t»(tei4 bast i»u»l « •l)«:3: b»a aJM^r.xn:.' in^^ wsd« o^ ntl»1 tnin»hir» 

if«ri* ;t»XI»irwt.X aw-w •«*«« *»«",=»" •*=»•* ^ 
Mi*e« rfslrfw >f)iiroiM f;!!* to t; 
•«« «ii( iloXiit» foe ,i*SW , 

•tf mtittnkMlOi h^jUtm ham HtM^ aco 

xlw ,ttiuaXai arJl't ^usiii: 

initial a correction on thv original contract « by wnieu th« word 
"aubdivisioa" would be changed to "rooubdiyi&ion.** Plaintiff Peter* 
son said that he would have to aoeure the adYioe of counsel; and 
XreTOiler said that was all he oould do and handed bacic the contract 
and the cheek. 

Mrs. &reik testified that ^e was preswDt at the tl»e and 
that the officer of defendant banic came bacJi and said, *^e can't 
glTO yott the property that contract calls I'or," and that he handed 
bask the check and said, *Ve would like you to sign a new contract, 
and it is only a Batter of two letters, 'ReeabdiTiaion* instead of 
'SubdiTlflion'." Mabel F. Peterson sbye that Xrereiler said, "Ws 
•aa*t do anything for you unless you sign another contract. W* 
tMi't give you any t ling. «e can't take the soney." 

TroTOiler testiiied that Mr. and Mrs. Peterson oaste to his 
•ffies with their attcmey, and that the attorney said that he had 
•OSM there for the purpose of naking a tender upon the contract; 
ih»t Mr. Peterson had the tiJaoek in his mmi.; that the attorney said 
thsy wanted the deed right away and wanted the deed to read the way 
the contract read, and that hs (Trereiler) aft'sr looking at the oon- 
traet, said, "If you pay your contract up, we will gi-re you a deed 
for the property you bought;* tiaat the attorney said that he wanted 
ft dsed to read the sasie way the contract read, iOii that he (Treveilor) 
repeated, "I will give you a deed for the property you purehased"- 
your cli«!nt purchased;** that the attorney then walked away frov the 
desk; that Mr. and Mrs. Peterson wi»nt off with hlaa, and that was the 
end of the transaction. He denied that Mrs. Kroik or any other lady 
was with thea, 

Ab msployee of defendant bank, Viotor Q. fiardi, produced a 
eontraet between the saae parties and of the sane date as the con- 
tract upon which plaintiffs rely. This writing has a meixiorandusi 
in liardi*s handwriting in which the words •a resubdivision of" ars 

hat. ^Alf «*uf ifi ?a*B«'Jt<;; R«iw ©fJe 7»AJ ^«ii1;i^««»# j£i«^ .91 a 

- 1<« s . T, It 1 * a-U / *i '■■ . .-:;:> ia iri !»<<« «9l 

V i< •(•jyr i ji i i ')• b ! 

■■"?*»'; iP 

dmb «•*■« ot'tJ "to him a*i;rf« 
ft :i«ivlb<(w6(»» 41" «*tew M* ^^ 


vritt«n into th« description oX* th« property to be oonveyed* suad 
Jiardl testified tli*t this notation waa made In the preaetiee of 
plaintiff, k.r, Peterson. When called in rebuttal tir, Peterson 
denied that any such notation was made in hie preset^oe and testi* 
fied that he had never seen th« witn«ss ^ardi until he app«-arftd Aa 
eourt on the trial* The bgreecient produced is in e-videnoe as de- 
fendant's exhibit 4. the eTidenee for plaintiff tended to shew iixd, 
ths lots deaeribed in the contract were net conveyed by the deed 
tendered and vere in fact located soae four blocks distant from thsm. 

The issues of fact raised by this ooni'iicting testimony 
vers submitted to the jury and were Bettl«d in favor of plain* 
tiffs by the verdict. It is true that the twider was not nade 
in Money but by cheek, but the reoord shows that other payaents 
had been nade to defendant by plaintiffs throu^i the use of checJcs 
and that ao objection was made by defendant at the time of the ol* 
leged tender on that ground. We tiiinif the law is well settled and 
that where a creditor fails to Kake objection when a cheek is ten- 
dered in payment of a debt, the objection will be regarded as 
waived. Cottinichast v. Qwens. 71 111. 379; Oradle v. Warner. 140 
111. 123. 

Defendant contende that the verdict of the Jury is net 
sustained by the evidence. It is true that the uncontradicted 
evidence shcs hat the first paya«at ef $575 was m^^e to Crois- 
saat, who acted as agent in the transection. The contract, how- 
ever, acknowledges the ree<«ipt on the part of this def«nd«int of 
that amount. We think the jury was justified under the evidence 
la finding that such payment was in f»ct nade tc defendant. It is 
edaitted by the pleadings that other payntents were ottide by plain- 
tiffs directly to defendant amounting to $1155. ^is would make 
a total atsount paid to defendant under the contract of 11730. 
This evidence further shews that plaintiffs paid taxes and special 

t)3J! ,I?T?^B VU'w'..i H^U -■'* -..J ».-J>.Jv.' ii^ -■/,.- .V ..» J >.*. *•.■■• ..... .....-- J. »T 

to »©tWI«»l« ♦iW Ul •**« «•* ai»i*J8*»n a lift • l^S** tb%»H 

.si»sii unit )m^9lb siJiooi >>ao8 b«»l«9c i »i»« fe«» &9T»5n»i 

»&3S5 ion ««w nr®bn9# •*!* ctAif-s >;sf »'rti* 

«>;.;, J%«0^i* at'tl^ii ■ JtttthOi'V: -felSiB «l*»rf *i»tJ 

5{>«' til X'^^i -■'>* ^ ■■' 5!>i^t«v 'Strii ami:.: af;.!»»*u>:; j»w>:; ^m--' 

to ■■'■•»■ "iiiJ 'to *"tr.r! •"'■-■ .;- i«}-.»»Tt %Jtt »*$!N*I»«aaIo« ,»«y* 
»?ir*ci»- ■ : ' ^ov ?>i>itl;l«Lu _. ^ . :, »it^ Utitsii ■■*"^' .JnuC'TjT l,f5i<* 

-itUlq >;d •fc*«» •t»ii «*nv :U^^-».rf! ^tf* t** M**lwft« 

-oeri:^ t© *6«ij'a«o »«"i '*«^ • 

A«MtaM«ntt whieh und«r th« eostraet thoy ««r« obligated to pay 
MROunting to 1196.49. Tho total a&ount tner^for* paid under and 
oa account of thn eontraet by plaintiffs was 11926,48* 

Plaintiff* contend that the verdiot for $ai>00 eiui 1»« Jus- 
tified upon tho theory that they are «»! titled to recover interest 
froK the dates upon whieJ-i these respectire pftyments were iimde, but 
there is no olaiM in the asended statesi«nt for interest and th#re 
it no proof in the rcoord of any ouch item. The at^teaent of cl 
is not a Kodel pleading. It does not avor the rescission of the 
eontraet, but the affidarlt of laerlta denies that plaintiffs are 
entitled to r<?eoYer the sua of aoney paid and that was the issue 
tried and submitted to the Jury. The -verdict oi' the jury can be 
explained only on the theory that they found for plaintiffs on 
that lesue. We will not reyerse the Jud.jsent and r«mand beeause 
of infomalities in the pleadings. We t/:lnk plaintiffs are en- 
titled under the evidence to recover I19S6.48 but no nore, and 
upon the Kotion for a new trial a rerattitur of the diff«^renc« 
between the aatount of the JudivSient, $2,00Q, and 11926.46, na&ely, 
$73.52, should have been required. 

Defendant also urges that the Verdict of the Jury was the 

result of passion and prejudiee, but the record Joes not suatain 

any such charge. Unwarranted eritioiesi la also Bade of the trial 

eourt, who, although his patience must have been tried, seene to 

have eondjcted th« trial with falriiose to both parties. 

If the plaintiffs will within ten days remit from the Judg* 

■ent recovered the aawunt of 4173.52, the Judfe»ent will be afflneed; 

otherwise it will be reversed and the cause r«s>ianded. 


Stterely, P. J,, and O'Coi.nor, J., concur. 

9fdS bam is-- ■■ad>«u>uA4fi ii^hsmsu bAS nl mlmla 9H »i 9t9tl) 

•&8«l ftii^ »etr i»A:: bat. blm^ ^^ : 

fS iit999% »ti JtQ oe 8l 

^.>i'n« 9Ai Jwi ^t9»%ia99 

^«i '-' 

.,.,,., f.v,. '-.^-Sl 

ffl .i.; 

,,,,..-■ .- . .: . Ji© 

.: 1 fs. .5^ 

^ .«»t;a.^| i^oifj 

1 Hffiicitotnl *to 

rft?-a« ?v<*X^i.J 


'fti?« ,9a.€t| 

9t:.;j ««w 'iTfV; 


ai:«iaii^ *ofl «d<»? M«>oe-: &:; , -.loibiif^ftin I?cu5 i\gj:«= ' iut9'X 

i^lt^ a99fi nrmti S9ii» 99et»ii»n 9lsl ii^uotiilm «9iivr ,iiuo9 

-:.,?. .-.Ill ilsMn wio^i i 

Xci rfta.r HTO ^'HUlfXTTIiiKH 810": 




vxiMB w* WGAa. ) r' 

tOlXOO, ?K0KIA k 'SKlithSJk 

lUXiiROA]>» a Cernoration. 


Of COOK 00\i&TL^ 

IT. A 

26 81I.A. 613' 


Plaintiff brought suit against th« d«f«n<iant to r«oov«r 
4Mk«C** ''•>' f>«r«onal Injuria* elalMOd to have boon ouetainod by 
l&la through tho allegod falluro of tho dofen4ant Railroad ooi^pany 
to oboonro tho yroTlsiono of tho Fodoreil Boilor Inepoetion aet and 
tbA fadoral Snployoro* Liability aot. X^iere van a jury trial and 
a Tordlet and jud^^vont in plaintiff *o fa-vcr for #23,900, and tho 
dofcndant apnoalo. 

Plaintiff's thoory is that his doelaration alleges amd tho 

Oiridonco showo that tho defendant Tiolatod tho provisions oi tho 

federal Boiler Inspeotion aot in that It failed to maintain one of 

ito leeonotlTOO, vhieh plaintiff was operating as an engineer, in 

a proper and safe eenditlon so that it algnt bo used in tho sorvico 

of the Railroad eonpany without unneeossary peril to life or limb. 

And that sicee the ewi(li»neo disclosed that at the tine plaintiff 

wao injured he was employed by the defendant and engaged in inter* 

otate oomimeroo, the defers ses of contributory negligence an4 ao« 

ouaed risk were not available to tho defendant Y;ecau90 Bee. 54 of 

the Todorml Kmployers* Liability aet (Boo. &4, ehap. 2, tltliAi* 3. 

C. A*, 494) provides that where one is Injured wnen engaged in 

Intf^rstate commeroo and brings an action to recover da^Ageo ho 

*ohall not be held to have assumed the risks of his employaent In 

any ease where the violation by •^^h. ooaition oarrler of aziy statuto 

enacted for the oaf*ty of «DBployeo contributed to tho injury." 



818 ....,1)8 as 

a j^oaaeo'c 

^nan|ni«2i ^OY/Jtis^ Ja«fce»'l©fe »As to ai:*irXi4»t Jmij«, stfairf* ai^|( 

•nij bam 901^ Lin* :x©l.t«TasX»»* 


. ,A&Xii 

■ .-ik 

•.•>t«ift'»J<JD 9ti»i% 

~ 1ii» l,'i.<lb V.i 

•.\'ti;tial sfW o.t to»iM«(lt;»aa* Bft70X«[0» to >jj-^l«« '"tif io'£ f)»le«a0 

On ih« ether ui4» Ux* dsfandant'a theory waa and la that 
plaintiff was not lajurad &a he claiwa; that there vaa no eauae 
•f aatiaa alleged er proTeu under the J'ederal Boiler Inapeotlon 
•at: that there waa no eompetent proof that plaintiff, at the time 
he vaa injured* waa engat^ed in interatate ooinmeree; tuat if plain* 
tiff waa injared at the time and plaae elai«ed» he aasuned the 
rlak and that the injury waa not the Droxleiate result of any Yiol*~ 
tiea 1»y the defendant of the iifederal Boiler Inapectlen aet. 

The reeord diaoloeea thai on i^ay 15* 1930, plaintiff vaa 
•■pleyed 1»y the defen':!ant aa a looottotlTe dDijineer, h»Ylng then ha4 
■any years of experience; that about ten o'oloek on the «iorning of 
that <lay he waa tranaportine a freight train from iaHarpe, Illiiioie, 
te Peoria, llli/.eis, a diatanee of about S6 Kilea, stopping and 
ylekittg up freight at aeToral atMtlona en route; that; shortly befoxe 
reaching Jbuahnell, whieh la S4 uilea eaat of i^aliarpe, plaintiff 
notioed a "pounding* of the locomotive whlou he aasused waa in the 
right main vedne. The wedge waa a pieee of iron about 17 inchee 
laag* iaatalXed perpendicularly in the loooKotive, and waa about 
84- inohea taiek at the bottom and about 3/4 of an ineh thlek at 
the to^; that the purpoae of the wedite ia aoaewhat ai»ilar to that 
•f a aheok absorber of an autooioblle; it fits between the drWing 
box and the pedeetal frame arid hao flanges on eaoh side of it that 
•aaae it te fit anugly againat the pedeetal jawa; at the bottom of 
the wedge ia a alot into whion fits the head of a threaded bolt 
known aa the *wedge bolt;" the bolt extt^nda down threutih ki pedental 
brace, icnown aa the binder, wuion is alao threaded: beneath ths 
binder are two nuta; the bolt extenda a conaiderabla diatanos below 
the nuta suid haa a aquare end at tiie bottom to whioa may be applied 
a wrenoh, and the Volt oay be adjusted up and down, whieh oauasa 
the raising or lowering of the wedge and the nuto are then aerewed 
up to cor.taot with the lower edge of the binder. 

~«Xe<v X^Mi 'if^ jX£»n«t •ifijinixeid «d<^ ton ai««' ^A^tnl ba« i«it 

-■V- -^.^oe •• — ■ .-.-.-'•v rtiaar iJiiiii 

!n ; 

5X«>ti fe*fe»9-lri* A to bf 

Xfl;♦'"•^•■•' rttf"'* (!*• 

OAS9*tho<i *ilJ .ftiia Jte«r 

<. ;,irm i'i . . •*us9 

■ it 

ufl 9cii 

cue «Aaa*T« « 

ftit# to mini's «>««X -t« aiiiti«t aiil 

nit •▼id«n«« fuTthmr shevs that the proper adjustisiunt of 
th« w«dg« r«^ulr«» that it should not bo puohod up too fur imd 
th«ro1»y be too tiglit - thai thero should be ahout 1/ A of an inch 
play. Whan the wt^dge wear* at the top it i« adjusted upward by 
turning the bolt and than tightening up the n^to against the under* 
side of the binder. 

Plaint! iT testilied i.hat when ae reached Bu»iinel.l he ad- 
justed the bolt and nut* by ser«wing then up so as to prevent the 
pounding: that the train then preeeeded eastward to Ibalthfield, a 
dlstanao of about 16 Kiiles froa Busiinell, and during part of that 
dlstano* he again heard the pounding; that when he roached Smith- 
field h» again got down beside the leooaoti've and adjusted th« 
bolt and the nuts; that when tightening up ti^ie nuts he used a ecld 
ehisel, striking it with a harijsier instead of using a monjceywrenoh 
and ho felt sonet ing strike his right eye; it is contended by 
plaintiff that this was a ssiall chip that flew fro* one of the nuts; 
that he than eonolaln^d to his fircsiac that something had struck hist 
in the riij^t eya* and the firoi^^an exa Ined it but was unable to see 
anything; that this was about two o'clock in the afternoon; that 
plaintiff arrived witii the train ut Peoria about seven o'clock in 
the evening of that day; that at that tine he observed U.^t "the 
%9$ of it (the wedge) was broken off on the Inside. I oouldn't tell 
whether it was the liner or the wedge, thm wedge was down at that 
tiae. Ihere was enough broken off tue top of the wed&e so that wa 
eouldn*t get it out. 1 expect that t.he piece broken off was two or 
three inches square, long, oblong." Plaintiff further testified 
that on the saoie evening he endeavored to get in touoh with Dr. 
Thomas , an eye specialist who rer dared such service to e»ployees of 
the railroad, but was unatle tc do so until the next mornings Ilia 
evidenea further shows that on the next scorning wnen plaintiff 
called en Dr. Xhot&as at his office, ooB;plainaiiit said thera had been 

■f: i;t«..^i»aU<«> Ttt'lP'xq »i^«* ^ni »««4« tNi.d:^^^'!! tiMMA^T* AtfX 

« X»« l<iO 

a I 

jtfS Alt 

A .. ^ * V* 


^*%»>»vm ••«t««ti Mlit^,. 

• tlttrring in his right ey* for a few dajrt. 'Shie doctor 9Si:^D«d 
th« eye And rtwofA a mall oindor or rust. It appears that tha 
oparation vaa oonsiderad trlTial by the doctor, but th« «y« "bfi" 
oaaso infectad and tha doctor eonticued to treat pliiln tiff's eye 
until about Oetcber of that year, when he dronounced hin cured. 

The oTidencc further ahove that on April 4» 19 29, a littla 
Kore than a year prior to the lime plaintiff clalBied he vae injured. 
Dr. Thomaa retr.oved aane aju.all partiol<»a of eteel fron plaintiff's 
loft eye and disooyered a pteryglon growth on the right eye which 
ho adTleed p alntiff ought to he renoTOd; that in Oetober of that 
year plaintiff a^ain oalled on Dr. Xhomas, who operated on tho ri^t 
•ye \ty ran<oTing the pterygium; that tho operation was euooeesful 
and tho eyo pronounced cured by the doctor a few weeks thereafter. 
At that tltt.e the doctor advised plaintiff to wear glaasoa, but 
plaintiff did not again ©all on the doeter until ikiaylS followlne, 
which was the day after plaintiff was injured as above stated. At 
that time tho doctor oxaKlned plaintiff's oyes for glaseos and gave 
hin a prescription eo that he could obtain them. The left «ye waa 
pronounced nor^^al , "Su/ZO" and the right eye "SO/^O* whleh was tho 
sauo condition the doctor found in tne fall of 19 ?(^. 

Tho firosian of tho train on May 1 fS, 193c, toetifled and 
denied that plaintiff had made any cocplalnt at Smlthfleld or any 
other plac* that something had struck him in the eye, an'i further 
that plaintiff had mado no eomplttlnt about hio eye. The other mem- 
bers of the crew, the head and rear braicer:!an and the conductor, also 
testifiod that they heard notaixig on Lay Iftth of any eotaplalnt by 
plaintiff that hie «ye tiad been injured at aaithfleld or at any 
Other place. 

Doctors who were eye speolalists were oalled by the 
plaintiff and teetitled as to the condition of plaintiff's right 
•y, but in the view we take of the ease it wUl be unneeeeeary 

»(t^ tmdi ni«9qq« ;rx .iwkfT T» -i^baXu iinam m hm9mm% Imm wf •ii^ 
.fesuriw fluid Mo!tiraa<iw<i 9ti itftciw ,tA'v>5 *«*(* >e -sftef-i**© *«•<!• llitm 

^ilgii *rfl ao b«Jrfti6qo paw ^tt^m&A'S . -«« ftO l>»XU9 ala^ l.'iiisustlq t*»x, 

.iB$tA9'i%ai itJl«»w wt A to«r»olb »ftJf <a' fv*<u3 6«a««0ia«T? »ic« •^tf »M 

,:jiis*wa:'j1 (tf^«M iltruw l«*o»fe #rf* «« li«» «U»*i iwi *ift YtlitUMlq 

iA .MJr«is d^o^fl «« ft»««tfli «*» TU*«iijBi«? -sftil* ^tr •di ««* fiaitfv 

#/«,, 6ii« a»Rea£s "tot «••'«• •*'ni*ai»JC'j tK»ai*aa<:» not»9i^ •<<* t«i* *«i!* 

•riJ »#w r(»i ■'¥ *3T\«*2* *t"^ s^w-^l-i ■*;':^ ,i.«.arr©a lk«»m(»a»«^ 

Xoa *• 10 blal'tmiuA i» bmtultU «•»* l>»ii «t^ «*^ *•*** ItX^aiAXq 

to dieeutt their t«atl»on]r. There is further eTldet^e* to th« 9f» 
f«ct that, pursuant to m written report i&ade by f»l«intiff when ha 
arriTed at Peoria on the atmiing ol* i^aj 15ta, wherein he aaii, 
li ffter alls. "••* up right eain veviges:" thet on the following 
nornlng, i:ay I6th, the worimen «£:iploye4 at the Peoria shop* of 
the defenaant inapected the rlgnt Eiain wedge bolt and nuts and 
found theci to be in good eonditioB and properly adjusted. And 
there la further teatiipony that en Deceaber 9, 1930, when the 
dallroad learned that pl&intlff wao snaking a claim agalnet it 
and under atood it waa on the ground that there waa eome defeet 
la the bolte and nuts, it reuoved thea, and the nuta and bolt 
aore before ua. The wedt:e waa diaoarded at that tlae by throwing 
it in the scrap, whlc , aecording to the testiiaony of the witness, 
«aa dona because they were not inforraed that any olain w»a m^n m 
aoectu-it of n def eotiwe wedge. And the toatijKiotiy furtiier la tliat 
the top of the wedge waa not broken off but that it waa eraeked 
on the flanga "on the outaide near the top," that the bolt, nuta 
and wedga wer« tbe aane ones that were in use iiay 15, 19 30, when 
plaintiff olaiaa ha waa injured, and had been in oontinuoua uae 
alnoe that tli^e, and apparently caused no trouble. There la 
further oTldence in the record which ve think it unnecessary to 
refer to. 

Contrary tc tJie contention of couuoel for defendant, we 
think it waa a part of plaintiff 'a duty whim he clained to have 
heard the pounding in the locomotive, tc end'?iavor to re^^late th« 
wedge by tighteiiing up the bolt and nuts. This la shown in part 
by tho fact tlittt a ]aonkeywr<»noh, UaK.jBcr and eiiiael wero oarried 
on the loewsotiva. w« Uilnk It would be unreasonatle and ie;praott- 
eabla that plaintiff aiiOul<l i.ave reported the trouble and obtained 
another loeci'jctlve, as counael I'or Uie def '-iid.-uit argues he migiit 
hawe dona. 

9ii mdw It Itttl Mitt X^ •*«« *'«o««t a^t^Si* & . ?±f »»•! 

hnM uSua hRa ii^4 fkSitff^iv tutjim t^,^ '^sa«0»ai tn.rtiyat'Ult %d4 

^A»aii -^ •^Kflfaitllt** ©At >(3fS :ia.. ■ 

f;^5.4»«^a »-»« .*i i»Ai ta4 Tin it»Jicrt^ ion «,ii* a^AaJt •*!<# "to <|oi »^^ 

'ih« defandont oontAnds thitt th« allegations oi* tl2« d«clar«> 
tlon, vhioh Yoz^ in ona count, w«r« insufficient to aharg« th« A*- 
fsndant with the Tiolation of th« i^oderal toiler Inspection aot. 
The deol%ration alleges thet the wedge, after describing lt« "was 
defective ia that the sase had been wera thin nnd a liner had been 
riveted thereto to i^ake it of the proper thloicneBs and a portion of 
the top of said liner and wed^;«, to-wit, three infttien thereof, was 
Ibreken nff therefroa and said wedge was not in its proper position 
but was loose and permitted to play, ^uid was resting down upo4 the 
binder." Title 45, U. 3. C. A., par, 33, p. 79 of the i>'ederal 
lelXer Znepectlen aot provides that it shall be unlawful for any 
earrier to pertitit ta b? used on its line any leeoi^otive unless the 
teller, tender and mil parte of it are la proper condition and safe 
to operate; that the same may be used by the carrier "without un- 
neeeesary peril to life or lisb," etc. And the argt^ent In aupnert 
of the oontention ia that there was no allegation, nor were any 
faeta averred from which it could legitimately be Inferred that the 
defeat In the wedge rendered the operation of the locomotive un- 
necessarily perilous to life or limb. If the declaration had beea 
dei^iirred to th»re sight be soae nerit in the contention; but alaea 
plaintiff filed the general issue and went to trial, if there was 
avidenoe froa whie^. the jury sight reasonably infer that the posi- 
tion and eondition or the wedge was such as to render the operation 
af the leccmotiva unnecessarily perilous to life and limb, and the 
verdict wae for the Plaintiff, thie defect would be cured by the 
verdict had the jury be«i properly inatructed on thie point. But 
•a think all the evi^jenoe, viewed mostfavorably to the plaintiff, 
ahows that even if the wedge were brokwn and down, as Tilaintiff 
contends, it would not render the omeratian of the loooaotive un- 
aecessarily dai.gerous to life or lisib. 

Plaintiff testified: "The purpaee of the right ©ain wedge 

ai«l>»« ftiW to eV .r , .- ... - 
©ri-t e«»Xmi 9rli0&&90: -i;; ^«R 

*!;.. •■ 'Vlf»»#n 

tat •<< x:i6 rnS^al 

■iiXnXo?f- , ,t*UBe«»o»il 


I htm •Ml ot •Miol 

,Tlilial-«X'7 •rfJf ^S xJ.(fMX«r»1t9Qm ^" i^alJJ »w 

Vrl-tatmlc. •« ,Jtwob .?>«*. tw/ioitrf »'x;?w e:.5fc«v »♦,:;,• .-.x a^w ^»tx$ twoila 

Is to tak« up tli« lost notion on th« drlYing box oo th« onglno wlXI 
rid* A Ilttl* oaolor. It properly adjustod the ongine will rld« 
bottor. If tho wodge ic not properly adjusted It will oauaa a 
found and that pound beowaeo oi'l'aneive to the tonal tlvc ear. X 
liaTO net operat«4 englnee i'or mIIob wlti^^ the wodg<* down li we can 
get them up. Z have during ay experleneo aa an engineer operated 
englnee with the wodgea clear down on the binder (Oid have operateA 
thMi la that eendltlon Tor ao«e dletoneo. Other xiian the pounding 
aoiae there la iaiiger In operating an enKina with the wedge down. 
I noTor knew of one Inatatioe where there vac a derallKent beeauae 

• f a broken wedge. *** I ooneidar tuat the wedge be|iig down en* 
4angered my lift or liab. I poealbly know that looomotlvea ara 
•ften operated with both wedges down but 1 believed that It wae 
imoafe to operata that loeo«totlv« with the wedge down." The wit- 
neaeaa, Doherty, aa experlecoad looooiotlYO engineer, and Brlnknan, 
round-houee loreisan, both testified tney never knew of an accident 
reeulting from a wedge being down. 

A eareful eon 01*1 oration of all the evidence In the record, 
when Tlewad moat favorably to the plaintiff, lead* to the eonelu- 

• ian that there was no unneoeoBarj peril to life or lUib oocaeloned 
by the fact that the wedge waa down. ^'''9 are further of the opinion 
that even If we aeeuaed that two or three inchea of the top end of 
the wedge were broken off, aa plaintiff eontends. nnd up6n whloh 
hla suit It predicated, there would be no liability In thie eaae 
for the reason that the bolt algut be serawad up a eufflci<«t 
dlstanoa ae that the part of the wedge that remained would be In 
the a«aa poeitlen as though it had not bean broken, end the nuta 
•attld than be tightened up agalnat the lewar aide of the binder. 

If this were dona the vadge would be In proper adjuetient so that 
the breaking of the wedge. If it did ireak. did not change the 

I ,xa«« 9irii|««»* Mil tt4r M.vivoAllUi •««i»a»cr bmrtg 4>« .^ uim fca«»f 

,'t!iSiRiiaitSi ^n# ,i*»j|i$ii* jtvi^TMEaftv-i Iwm>.^«4'j»<|X .yw»#fl 

"to &«• ?i«>i *«;? 1-6 ii«;3«rt4, #«XiiJ is.! - ^:.-- ■:>=:>>••, ^x.-./. ^ ■;! n«Yf» SMAi 

•««9 siii4 Rl )|^il^4«lj; 9a M hilt;' ^i«3i^•-<' 'ua miJfi 

i+i'i >d^ baa ttmi,€n4 4»aji ^•li n.-- «;-o ?.>;■ an*. ■ . i^i»(.: »«»• «x(# 

.tsfcrtiJ %Ai "to »J>1« n»«»»i •«<? '• -« 6sta»4-tt»W »5f n«4i 6X1/40 

#•<(# ♦a #«»««#«irtJwi iE*4|««« ni ^ . ^ •»^»>lr *tiS •«•* •»tt« aliit HI 

•lit •aA«A'9 Itta Mh ,jt«9ii hih il tl ,»3^»▼ «ili 1* jaJtiijaTtf aOi 

Z^.zm ** think th« «Tld«u«« clAarly Al&eXotes XhmX l^igata** in* 
jury r«sult«4 trtm the ordinary has»rd[s of hi a eta|)loym«nt which h« 
fully undftrstood and Tolunt&rlly assuiaed. He was an «xp«rl«ii;e«d 
Idoomoti-ve 4mgin««r and nutt be h«CLd to have asAuiQ^d th« ritk of 
has&rdt lneld«nt to adjusting tho Ijolt mak »edg*. Chet. & Ohip RyK . 
Co. V. imhn . 884 0. S". 44. ■^^*'"^*^' fttt-U-ifc. 

^' Since wd hold that In wiy Ti«# 6f the evldorico th«r* II 

BO liability, thtre it no reason for discussing the instructions 
or ether eententions made, nor for roGianding the cause, the court 
•hould have sustained defendant's «&otlon for a directed verdict at 
the elose of all the evidence, snd this not having been done the 
Judg»ent is reversed with a finding of faets. Miricn v. Aorschney 
Con trap tinK Co .. 312 111., 343; Beurnigue v. Draite . 236 ill, App. 
75: Collins V. Kurth . 247 111. App. 156. 

jumiiVMt aKVHHaim ihth a FUiDiiiG o* f acts. 

liioSttrely, P. J., end Matohett, J., concur. 

•4# %aifii> a»»'d s^aivsai J»a siiid hem ^moamhi^m *t.d,t l£» to 9t«X;» 9Ai 

39901 fl^DIlJO 01^ VACT8. 

Wd find at ft faet Ihrnt tii« evldftnee faili to iliov any 
Yielation l>y ih« defendant of th« Vtdaral BolXmr Znap«otiou aot. 
And '«• farther find »• a faet Uiat the «ed(^e olaiiaed to have been 
broken by the defendwDt in ne way proxiit%tely contributed to 
plaintiff 'e injury, and further, that plaintiff aenuaed the riek 
under the faota ae dieeleeed by the evidenee. 


.^tl>a'': '>ii 


SiS bXiii 






) oif COOK couiiry. 


flA OOSaPAKY, a Corporation, ) f 

*pp^i«.t. ) 26 8 I.A. fel 


Plaintilf brought ouit afi^inot doi'eudant to rneover dam- 
agoo lor perooiial Injurios claimed to have bfton sustalnod by 2i<>r 
•n aoeount of tfofondani'a n«gli|^«no« in failing to k««p tho floor 
in on* of its atoros in Chicago in a reasonably safe condition, 
«• a result or whloh plaintiff slipped and was injured, rhe Jury 
rstumod a Tordict for >2S00 in plaintiff's rtxynr. Plaintiff 
•atorod a ro. ittitur for ll.ouo, Judgjacnt vas anterod ea tho TorAict 
for $1500 and tfefondant appeals. 

Tho roeord diaoloads that about eloTon o'oloek on tho 
mornin^r of Cetober 11, 19 3C, plaintiff was buying sobo grQO«ri«s 
in one of defendant's Chicago stores. After making her purchases 
she was leaving the store when, plaintiff oontends, she slipped on 
a green bean or pea whioh was on the l1oor« as a result of which shie 
fell an<4 was injured. 

the defondant oontends that the eyidenoe fails to shew aqf 
neallgeneo on Its part beoauss the ewidene« siiows the floor wa« 
ia * reasonably safe oondition; that plaintiff was guilty of oon- 
tributory aegligene* and that the Tordiot ia exeesslTO. 

Plaintiff's eridenee was to the «)ff«et that when sho went 
Into defendant's store on the morning in question, the manager 
of the store was iu the act of oleariing and dressing his display 
window by reiaoTing eertain parts of ▼e«etable8 which he threw on 
the floor, irai as sh« was leaving the store aho stepped on a gresn 





atslt^doYa •MAS ;«aivu(f aA*- itJL^raijniQ ,^61 ^11 i^tiTo. .■ .u-.v».. 

no ^Q^Xia *n» .•ftnttfj'HO tli^nL... , Jiiif inoia 'nii ^a.ivjt»l >«« Ada 

aav tool') 91^ evocts >o<M>Mf'' 'y;f stl «v> •»nEf»slXti»a 

-»4?o 'to ^lii'-.Ai ««▼ ttlianttn ^w-'t' ;ft«^ :'ifii;io8«»i « aJt 

^Xqai^ lid iinidasil^ feiait a«a(t«Di» to .rot: c tav •to^v •d;r 1c 

no wf»iii* ©ri rislitw m^Uaim^^r 'lo «!%««{ £ii«iti>ti :sal7on»iK t^ »i»&fliw 

^Cftn or p«ft, slipped and was injursd. 

Ou tkft ether hand, the eTidenee of Scfendaxit 's fft&nsigor 
«*• te the effect that he dlldi not throw eny r».lu&« ojd the floor, 
but thAt in dressing the wlndov he rea<0Ted oertain leaves and 
parti el «• t'roa the Tegetables and p. it the&. Ic a hsk&per on the 
fleer near him, 

Ihe defe&daat ealled H. k., Urohan, a vitiiese, who testl* 
fled that he was In defendant's ntera and that the floor in the 
plaoe in question vae ewept by one of defendant's es^ployee, and 
the arguBBant of defendant ia that this sweepln^j took plaoe prior 
to the tiae plaintiff was injured, but a earcful exai^^inatlon of 
thie witness' teetiizony fails to disalose whether he was in the 
•tore before or after the plaintiff was injured, although! the tes- 
tinony of the i&ani^^er is to the effeot that Carohan wae there prior 
te and at the tiae plaintiff fell. Whether plaintiff was in the 
exercise of ordinary oers for her own safety, and whether the de* 
fendant wae guilty of negligwiee which proxis^ately oaused plaintiff 
to slip end fall, were queetions of f^^jiot for the jury. V« aro 
further of opiiaion that wfaetiier plaintiff wa« guilty of any negli- 
senoe in failing to disooYor the pea or other SMbetanee on the 
floor whieh proximately contributed to her Injury, considered 
Bost favorably tc the defendant, was a question of fnet for the 
jury. Ihe law does not require that one going into a store to 
■ake purchaooa, such as disoiosed by the evidence in the eaoo at 
bar, should constantly keep one'e eyes on th9> floor to see whether 
it is in a reasonably safe oon<Jition. 

The defez^dant further contends that the judhjifietit is ex» 
oossiTO beeauee the evidence shows that aost of the ailnont* con* 
plained of by plaintiff .Uter she was injured were not the reeult 
of the accident sinoe tho ewidenoe further diacloses that plain* 
tiff was sufierias frosi meet of theoe ailmenta prior to the day of 


_pp- tal •«« fesus MciqXX* ,««9 ie attiS 

.•(•«rt Afii a« t»aVUt xa* veil' ; ajir 

,^ajti ««v»*i aiJi^i!k9 l^or^d^rc »^ v«^w 

--•n -xtteXl 

©la »» . O^ttt o^ "^O't *^- .f.i >«»<. 

-iia«iu ^as 'lo >:iA<tw:5ij B<tiv 'tli. Jt*xit neJtiil. 

k0%9bi9aois .fxut^i v«xi el htfiudlt^aoo \:X7*jr^ .Ixo'xq ifoiiiw y«»^, 

§10. #10^6 « 4»tf4ti ftOJios ViiiA J«A;r •^li^iprx ioa nach vnml »iiT .fsvt 

. <!• 11 1 ^ ofti.} I .tAadjL9$ '■ '■: i i t 

-x« Bi IfM/t^iiVt 9iii JoiiJ 9tft9ia99 fti^T^y 
"taott atitaHXiji •iU io Ibo; ^''(»fl3 e&iiiijbi«'<» mtij: »»M»a!*td ft/Xaa«0 

0»X<.t«»^ '94 •«»¥ flVtjwt^lJ: ' I'll! 't«l fttlMlCi 

th« aoeid^Hit. '!^« tnlBk this eonttntioa Biitt \in suatAlaed. A physi. 
olan who tr«at«d plaintiff tsaiified Vi^at on /u^gust 2Z, which vas 
twelTC days aft«r th« aeoicierit, h« waa oaa.l«d by plaintiff, and 
tastifivd aa to what he i'ounA and what ha did for plitlntlff. Plain- 
tiff taatii'iad that she hud no uiooidant or any ilinees prior to tha 
day aha alii^p^^d and fall in the stora, axeept an o|»aration whieh had 
taken pl^aa about ]'iT9 yaara b«fora ana I'roc: trhioli uhm had entiraly 
raeoY^rad. Tha physician on direct «xaa.dnation taatiflnd that ha 
had not tr^^^ated plaintiff lustil t*?eiv« days Hft«r th<» aooldent. 
Sut upon ero8M-exat6lj4>«tion it devnlopad that h«^ h^id ktipt a written 
raeord af tha aervicaa he had rendacad plaintiff. Xhia r«^aord vaa 
later brought into court, and it ahowe Umt the doctor had treated 
plaintiff aiiartly before tha aeoidant and for many of tha ail£iei:ta 
aha nov eontecda ware tha rea «Xt of the accident. Xhia is specif i- 
aally pointed out in defendant's brief. Afterwards plaintiff filed 
her brief but tnera is no reply to thie contention. In fact plain- 
tiff's brief ftokos little or no reply to the bri»f fil4»d by def«md- 
ant, but it ia frainad as ti^augh it were the lirat brief filed in the 
eaaa, contrary to Rule 19 of tula court. There ia no explanation 
by the doetar in hia ero8s~exa«iination of the contradiction of his 
direct testimony by his written record. 

Tha evidenea further ahowa that tha phyaioian'a charge f^r 
tha services rendered to plaintiff was #2&7; but we think it ap- 
pears fron the written aezioreinduB icept by tha doctor himself that 
part of this was for serTieaa he rendered plaintiff for ail«ent« 
of which plaintiff complained prior to and after tha sccidant. 

In Tiaw of the unsatisfactory state of the record liiid tha 
brief » and artjiaB«uitB filed, w« tuink there should b^ a retrial of 
tha oaaa. 

The judt^ent of tha Superior court of CooA county is roverset 
and the cauec is remanded. 

Uatturely. P. J., and itatohett, J., conour. 

>Mjt«3ii .TtiiaJbtiq lOl feJtt- 9& iaim htm htutml '>d Saeiv r^i s« htltl^a*^ 

9t:aiiztt» 9di 'U xcm» tot hm imbisui* •*# ■«tat*'rf i{X*'xftift ^-■' •'^-Iti 
-i'tlo«^« ai $itit .J.tol)i»9A 9di 'to r' "^ - '^ -^ " »&a»*ii .. „.. *ife 
fc«fi't rtUstlulq vbtAvn^itA ,tsl-'' ■» .^«.. ... iujj h^iaUq t(Xijt» 

Rxri 1© tioi*o!h«iJH9» »if# 'i» ^l«I*»JaJti(a«.s■ 
lo'i fts**^'^® ii»B»lo J«^iiC »ri* Mjt* 

mmtS RIKSCH and K. iiX^SCH. \ ^ 

"""""• ' 26 8 I. A. 614^ 


Plaictiff "brouirht an ae^ion of trover tt«i%lo»t th« d«f«nda»t« 
to r««0¥or tbo irftltt«' of a hut, s'onoo, AutoBnebllo aeeoaa«»ri«« and 
•«ttl|Ma«Qt wuieh It had plaeod upon eertain l«t« »liioh it olalnod 
wmrm ownod l>y tho defenlatita and which i^lalutlff had ocoupl«d by 
virtu* of a vritton X«%a«. Tha baain of the olalH was that un<t«r 
tho tarao ei tho laaao plaintiff had the right to rnmor% all of it* 
proforty. Th« 4«feniants fllrd a ol«& of not tmllty, .md upon a 
trial by tho oaurt without a Jur^ thorc was a finding and Jud^aittet 
in piaintilf '• f<*vor for |15(X), «nd the def«jtdanta appeal. 

Plaintiff's ^Tidance van to tho effaot that it had razitod 

A BUKber of vacant loto from th« defendants about throo yvaro prior 

to tho vritton loaoe horein.'tfter Kentionod; that It had fiilod up 

aad lw*il«d off tho ground mid usad it in th«» conduct of it» busl- 

»•■•, tho aalo of used autosiotilos; that shortly after taking 

pOBOoaaioa of the ground plaintiff eonstruoted an offiet? or uut in 

vhicdi it had tools* autouiobila aocesoori<»s, ^to. , uscfd by it in tho 

oondaet oi' ita fousineoo. About thre« y«aro aft«'r Plaintiff firot 

leased tho preniees, and in April, I93i-, plaintiff again rented tho 

property for a ;)«riod firo* April 1, 1930, Iho written lease is in 

oiridence anji/ei^od by defendant kiehael uirsoh and plaintiff. 

Sofondant Ihosias Hlroeh is not a part>' to the leaoo nor is ho men* 

tioned in it. The leaoo proTidee that plaintiff is to use the 

lets for atttosebile oaloo purpoees. tho rent of 4fi a nenth beins 

payable oa the first of eao}i aonth in advarioe, or a total of |S26. 

f xu;iaij ismi .OM'ti^ ( 

.tiiio.i i- 


^18 .AT 8BS 

t'.vus .bal baa ^f;. 
fr9 Klin's fciiii ^1 

tSil^ «'t«'!>^ 9t*XiU JtiJ^ttitt e«.. 

flfw ^:^ i •. 

•nJ J»*«i|it«'J flJtltj^.'; ■l^^^.. 

aal'»4 iiittom m fl?« to ;.!•- 

<<(i^i.t«f; 0fi !;•;!■ t'-'iT:: 



: H# 

' .4; .-'l 

r- ^ ham 
1 ifdl£tv 


^ ^9««•x 

It oontaine tli* f«ll«vifis previalca: "Pturt.v ei' the s«ooKd 9&rt la 
hereby i;iT«n tha privll«g« of rtoaoTiui; tidi tbtir peraoaaX property 
attaahad to or on said prtt&lsaa cm e-r 1»ei'ora J^n. 1« I9;U.* 1% 
mill tbua l»a aa«n tuat tba laaaa axoirad c-etoliar 31, 183C» 1)ttt 
plaintiff »aa gi^aa the stontha of liaTaBbar and Saottaber during 
whioh it aiiiht r«ROTa all of Ita proparty fre& the lets, iliia ia 
tha cooatruction put upon tha proviaioa abova <)uotad hy lt>oth 
parti •n, 

j^lalntiff 'a praaidant, Stain, tastii'ied asont^ other ti^lciga 
that ahortly aftar ta« laaaa «aa si^ad h« construotad a iKira I'enaa 
aareaa tna front itnd \i&Qk of tha lots and luatalled lights and 
•thar aqiuipaant; that plaintiff'a buain^aa aaa not eonduetad during 
tha viatar aonths; that on Oeta1>ar 31, 193C>, ha leoitad the gbtaa in 
tha fanaaa and tha doara and windeva in tha offiea or hut, prapara- 
%9rf to going to Florida for Ui<^ vlntar, and that ahout thia tlaa 
Ha had a eoairaraation with dafandant Ih^aaa Uiraoh and it waa &gra«d 
that plaintiff aould oaeupy tha praaiaaa far ana thar yaar under tis 
aaai« aanditloaa aa thaaa mantionad in tha laaaa, 

Thara ia further eYidanca to tha affaot that during tha 
fere part of Daa«&bar a 1iroth«r-in.lii» of Stain natlead i^i paasing 
tha property that tha doara and windoaa of tha offioa or hut were 
•pwa or broken iii he aoaMunieatad with stein, who wae in Florida, 
and aa a result of thia a oarp«nter waa aaiployad te go upon tha 
preaieaa to board up tita doora and windowa; that when tha aarp9nit»r 
proaeedcd t. da thia he waa ordered off the property by a stsn whoa 
plaintiff eentenda waa the dafeiidant kiehael Mirseh; that thereupon 
the bro therein « law a^icalA eoa»unioat«d with Stain &ad upon Inatrua- 
tians raartlTed froa hia e&llad upon defendant Miohael ttiradi with 
the rei)ueat that plaintiff be )*llo*od to raaora all of ita property 
trwi the lata: that iliraeh ref uaed ta permit thia to be done; that 
ia tha aonth af J^ebruary following Stain returned ta Chicago and 

MiS^aldi itsiiid ,,no«»«i t)?»i'U*»«5 ,ai*-4s. , J^it^^Xut-SQ «*tti.f 

«Miti.f «lrfi "i;aJ^. 


Is. J ;*aoA i»tf «^ M«U lianftf » •^«'C 1*^' AO'S^ 

eall«4 OB «ieim«l Mirceh, »no ntfun«d %e ftvrwit plalntiri' to r«» 
B«T« th« property* attttlog that it was too iMto - tuat ulsictlff 
•hould h«TO remoYod it iprier to the first of tho yooi*. And th«ro 
ia othor OTidonoo »• to tho iraXuo of plaintiff *• prei»«rty. 

Kiehaol iiirodi taatlfi«d, »nd 4«ni<^ that he had r«fufi«d 
th« oarpwnttr ^omtooioB to f»oton tho door* «nd wiB4o««, (U)d t«o*> 
tlfiod thot h« hod aot soon the oarp*nt«r. iio further teatifiod 
that ho had not rofunod Btoin'a rt^uoat mad* throu|^ St«in*o 
broth«r-in-ltKV in Doeonbor for poraicBlon to romoTs th« property * 
b«t otatod that h«> told tho brethor*i&-l«ir to got tho property off 
boforo the fir at of tho year. 

The eTidonoo la tho record io aoagor. Iiiukoreua objeetiono 
frere jr 40 by eounoel for th« defendatita to mdoneo offered by tho 
plaintiff, a great aany oi whioh vera erreneottsly sjatalned. 

Tve ejueetlono wore involTOd waieh i*ouXd tend to show both 
deferidante liable, Yit: Did Miohaol riirooh in l^oeonher rofaeo to 
pemit i»lalntiff to romoTO ItB property froa tho lotaV Were tho 
lot* owned hy both dofendants^ Any evideucc that would tend to 
throw light on thooe riueotlono should hKT# boon ad»itted evon 
though thoy ton'l to proYO what are oometioieo mfeTT^A to as ool* 
l)tter<a faoto. Yhe 8 t%n<!ard Brewery v. Hoaly . ?0» 111. Ajpp. t78. 
Wo think tho faeta were not eurflelently shown. KTidence of tho 
eonduet of tho part loo, while It Might not bear directly on tho 
vltiseto qoeotion of sonYoroion, should have bo<at adu^tted as it 
«l«ht help in the detemlnation of tho Yitnl <iueBtio&. in j^ 
Standard Brewery oaoo, suy»ra . wo said (p. fiTtS); •The law ia that 
wh»«n#Yer there ie a oonflict in the oYidenoe relovar^t to tuo l«auo. 
OYidenee of oollatf^ral f»eta which hsLve a diroet tendonoy to show 
that tho OYldoneo of tho one aide is »ore reasonable and thereioro 
■ore oredlblo than that of tho opposite side ia adnis(oiblo. 
X«ltia< a number of aut)ioritio«XI It would bo a narrow rule that 

St •£ ,^«i*|i«4»« a»«»'^ •■ 

.««f';> 'i ... . ^.. . . 

, . .. .. ittuMm 

■■■> 'i »»* t^i ' 1 J? b n*JtS 
■ ■•.• ■ ;-(w 

. ..■ fau:^ 

would Unit the evidcne* to an afrimation of tb« »j(rceK«Eit on tim 
one hajQd and a denial of it en ttie other. " 

Complaint is eade by tb« defendants that th« STidanoo 
efferod >y plaintiff on the question o^ dasa^^es is Insunicient 
because a witness testified as to the cost of the different itei&s 
of plaintiff's dais but none as to the value, l^o such objeetion 
was made on the trial. 

Defeo dents also contend that the judgment is wrong beeause 
there was no OTidenoe showing that defendant Ihoiaas Uirsoh was in 
any way liable, - that the lease was signed by defendant <^iohael 
Uirseh only. There is sons evidenoe lo the effect that the 
property was owned jointly by the father and eon but it is rather 
Koafier »nd unsatisfaetory, espeoially as to defondont IhoBas 

Upon a consideration of all the evidence it. the record, 
we think there should be a retrial of this ease, where all the 
faets should be gone into. 

The judgment of the Circuit court of Cook county is 
reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial, 


Kie3urely, P. J., and iiatchett , 3,, concur. 


nUICIB 0. JAMlSOi, M Bxccutor ) 

ubAw th9 Will of Henry «. Bexderfar, } 
]>•••»• ad, ) 


Of COOK tom^TY. 


26 8 I.A. 614' 


Vranela Q* Jaaalson, »• «x«eutor of th« •state ol' rienry '^, 
£oxd«rf«r, deatas^d. filed hit petition ii. the i'roljate eourt of 
thUfU. eounty aifalcst katuildA Utuert^er seekio^ to dieeover assets 
•f the estats waish he slaiasd wsrs in her possSssion. Uvary W. 
Bsxderfsr sill hereinafter be referred to as the deceased «ad 
Hathilda stueri&er or Hatnilda i^xderfer as ths defendant. 

The defendant filed an answer dsnying that she had any 

fropsrty in her possession belonging to ths sstate. Aj'tsr a hearing 

ths eoart entered an erdsr finding that ths dsfe»dant had in hsr 

peasessisn a promissory note for |7fiO0 vith eoupsns attached, ths 

payment of vhieh was seeured by a trust dsed cu property in Qiicago; 

that ehe also hixd in hsr posssssien the trust dsed, firs insurarios 

pslioy, sto., and it was ordared that she delivi^r than to ths exs* 

sutor. An appeal was taksn to ths Uirouit sourt of Coo« county, 

whsrs a Jury was waivsd, the causs heard by the court snd a ju<1iistent 

entered in ths dsfsadant*s favor. The oourt found that ths nsts, 

trust dsed and papers abovs aientioned were in ths possession sf ths 

defendant and belonged to her, and it i» to rsverss this JudtP>sat 

that ths sxsoutor appeals. 

The record di solo ess that Ueery W. Boxderfer, the deceased, 
died Dsesiaber 11, 1928, a«ed M years. »ro« 19C2 until October 5, 

1929, he was eaployed by the United ::^tates Ssbasss Coapany at its 

Qiieaco factory, and h«4 bssn a forssan in ths fnstory for aany y«ars. 

0«tob«r 6, 1929. he was ill and went to sse a doctor, who diagnsssd 



( .•» 

^V-.'.'.l: •• ' - ■ . . -) ( 

.f|f»aiuB X9r99»iii o9 ^aiafc»»» ifufliiM^Jfi «fciLiu^»m i«ai«|pft ^clouoa >iooO 
fea^ b»9M909l> oil* «« «.? fcoti,»"!» :iiw fnittto.*! 

ooflAiuiAai •'Xl't ,fty9fc .istfii^ »At RQtotiMmtt-ei '«M A^ JMj^ ^^'^ '^dn i^niJt 

t^iiuto* ]i«»d '!• ;htuos JludflU fifjl:^ '^.t tt»3k»i ^aw laaq a at, ,t9*ti9 

,9rl«a siii 3mtUi bau9t ixuou mCI .7ori£'t m* ttmbtu»l9h •t'a ai b^xnitm 

f^i... 1.; nolan^aaoq •jltf ui •«•» bmaoiitwts vvwCn ««•««« IbAs &••!» iuuxi 

iiwaQ^»t v*^^ •B<x«y«i 41^ vl /i hn« ,t«ii oi ft9ia«I»d Jhaui »i^bnml9k 

.f i««ro#»o xiirtM a<^9x Mw% .•iw»y « Mam , > ^»d<i»a«a 6»ih 

%tt Sa %$mp^'ni mf049t utittfi'. ImlInU 90$ t<f £):)%olqja9 •«« 9d ,WfX 

.3i-x«^X Yin*'" '«>'' X*9S9Mt f»rii ti (wowiol ji a*»u JUit Am .t^oioMl obmIjCS 

b990i^i^ib oilw .io#oob « ••• oi fa-i* ^m XXl mw «rf .«rt;tfX ,fl "»»rf«*»0 

hit «••• M Brl^t't di8«a«e. On hor«mTa«x 2. on Kdvlo* of tho 4oe- 
t»r, ho wont to a hoopitad and romainod th«p« for ton dayo, until 
XoToaberl2th, irtioo ho roturtiod ho«o ollghtly l*proTOd. Shortly 
thoroaftor he becMGC woroe and diod Deeonhor 11, 1939. 

It furthor appears froa the oTldonea that deooaood was 
■arrlod in 1904 to Sorena Pearl Jboxderfer and thoy llTod together 
as husband and vli'a until 1923, when the wife wao adjudg«d Insane 
and ooHsitted to the Chicago State hospital, ho children were boifi 
•f the narria • but they adopted a boy, unA a girl naned Cyrena, 
who at the tiee in question va« married. On a number of occasions 
the wife was either par led or csoaped from the insane hospital 
and was r«tam94 to the institution, lief ore the insariity she and 
herhustand, the deceased, liyed in Oak Park in a bungalow owxxed by 
theai in Joint tensney. 

ikmthilda Stuenaer was marriedto atueraer . wh9 

was a fellow worker of deceased, at the tobaeoo factory, and the two 
families beeaee acquainted* Stuenaer died sotae years prior to the 
time in question leawing hin surwlYing his widow Mathilda (the de* 
fendant) and three grown sons. About 1926, after d^^oeased's wife 
Saraaa had been adjudged insane, and after the death of Mathilda's 
hwabaad, Mathilda «rould go to deceased's home several tikes weekly 
and do housework for him. About thin time deceased's adopted 
daughter Cyrena did net get along with har father and left he««. 
8a«« tiae in the airing of 1939 the deeeased and Mathilda decided to 
get married and on ^areh 4, 1929, he filed a bill fer divore* ^aiaat 
his wifa. enarging her with desertion and she was serwed by publi- 
cation, (n June 6, 19 29, the divorce suit, in which the defendant 

Serena had beau defaulted, was heard the only witnesses being the 
deceased and Mathilda, ihey both testified that the deceased and 
his wifa Serena had been separated for a number of yeare, that thoy 
did not know where she was at the time, and that the daceased treated 
his wife well. On this evlience a decree of divorca was enterad 

illow •■t«^ o»* «»1 w**!** ban , ,^,..„., . ^* i!t«w tjtf ,t».j 

tX*«oi«* .b«tro«q«ll ^X^diklie ^..ita,: •*-;n..;^»^ ^n ^iftHw ,ft»SiY»d«ftv«A 

,aa»tX^ 6«a«ifl -rtr-. .igorf a St*#^o!>* ^j' r»M «jrf* *lc 

ftii« «^ Y^^<^<K«^ ^'^ »%9t^U ,a9iSiJiUmf%! it»t*v saw hm» 

wr* •ri^ htm ^Xio$ti\ oa»»H«o erfi 1* fe«»«i*»»fe '*» ^»*T0* ««XX«1 • wur 

-•fe SI**) «&IiAi*iS wofelw nil* ^lalrlvTrfefi^ ^i**. J4.»jtVfl#i «uii;f««i.ip ajt 9al$ 
*»t)«» »*fc«»«fi»o»a t^rfla »<*W iU94^. .««j0v« awo^ 4»«iJEi# Jbcw {isukhtantl 

I^9<;«flMi • ' J>»ajtMM>»l> »ajt^ isirt* 3««-. . w»RiJOrf ofc &«« 

. -awl n^^X hm xmi*»\%mi iUtv asuoU i^^ 4o« J»lfe »««iiie^ x»^rf3^o«|> 

.* feflff»»fe m%£ttiSm3A ham hmtm^fi^h »** ^^X to «»t%- • '•« 

-iX*fwi t'' A*^««a »«* tKy - -■ '■ u ■, -"ft JM^Ui^o .•'ti* «lri 

•dj jial»d «»»««Ejli« tX«» *■'■ «»rt»« 

ft:»T«J(>ft •«» HDICOV 

Jttii« 12, lf29. OB July 27th following th« deeeasedi and tfeo &•* 
f«ndant, Mathilda, wont throug^:: tho form of a narriago coromeny mA 
aftor takinc a vaoatloa thoy returned to Chicago and lived at 
Mathilda** hen« as husband and wife until his death. The eridenoe 
further shows that thi» deeaased worked steadily and was frugal. 
He and his wife, Serena, as stated, owned their home and on March 
3, 192^, th«* deeeased bought frost the Suburban Trust and Savings 
Bank of Oak Park the $7500 aortgage and trust deed in question, 
paying therefor principal and aeerued Interest anounting to 
I7B89.S0, and on April 16, 192i), he bought another note and nert- 
gage froR the sasie bank for $4500 paying the f see and aeezued in- 
terest whloh aKGunted to 14960.75. Deeeased had tvro safety deposit 
boxes which were undsrneath the Suburban bank, one individually 
and the ether as oonserv&tor of Serena, his insane wii'e. He also 
had another safety deposit box wnlch was rjxi in oonneotion with 
the First fiational Bank downtown. Mathilda, the defendant, had 
a safety deposit box with one of her sons in a building on the 
liorthwsst side of Chicago at kilvaukee and Western avenues. 

In April, 19'^, after the deoeased had filed his bill for 
divorce , he executed his will by whieh he gave ten dcllars each be 
the adopted daughter and son and direeted that all the rest of his 
property be divided equally between his two sisters, both of whoa 
were carried and living in Pittsburg, neither his insane wife nor 
Mathilda is Ksntloned in the will, the will w»s adisittftd to pro- 
bate in the Probate court of Cook county and is now being ad- 
alnlstered by the adwlnistrator, Jaalson. 

After Henry's death an order was entered by the County 
•owrt ef Ceek county, in which, after a hearing, it was found 
that the insane widow. Ser«na, had fully recovered her reason 
«d She was restored to all her right, and all of the rights and 
privileges of a sane person, ^ihortly thereafter Serena fii^d 
h.r petition in the divorce proceedings i. the .«pe,i,, ,,,,, 

mmM tfdi l>awt b»9»9(i9h 9iUl i^iwol: '%.iM'^ op .o««r ,9.1 •ntfl 

bOB %(l««i-X»« t^lXT4«l 41 to snot AJfti tgiMiiiufi ^n»v ,«l^J >va|»a»\ 

-jTtoai ha« ©ion isii^oiSit? #ii^tfo<i/ *d ,fo£C" , ..«-.-. <■ 

XXXBtff>lTii>''^>^ »ao ,ijiB«( ad4«uflf«»8 •!!# ji^4 . j. .. ..^j mtsv^ doiri^ i»«XQ(i 

%9t, XIU alrf ftftiil b*iA fe*«J5»i el) ^ 

,ijl r t bfi'jr»#tifc bass aor •>« »rf^ 

ton 9ll9 901 .:^ii^z3i. .a^A« •«•» 

.>ijBn 9tt9 hom 


• f Cook eouaty, ••tilAK up thai she h&d Just l«ium«<l of th« pr«t«nd«d 
dlT«r«ft whieh «i«Dry« the deceuoed, had obtainad i'rotu har and allag* 
lag that it was fraudulently obtained; on I)aoaaa>ar 5o, X9k^. tha 
mattar aaaa an bafora tha ehancoilar and an ordar vas antor«Nl 
▼aaating and sattinK aside tha divorce decree. 

The eontention of tha defendant Mattiilda is that on 
■•T«M!kar 1, 1929, Henry W. Saaulerfer, the deeeased, iihysioally 
handed her tha $7500 note and trust deed and gave thaw to her as 
m gift. The evidenoe ia support of t^vis is tnat on the morning 
of lioTomber 1, 192t, at tha request of deeeased, i»tuer&er, 
son of l^athilda, vhe was living at home with his uotner and the 
deeeased, drove deeeased and i&atnilda 4o«& to the safety deposit 
▼aults in the i^irst liational BanJc building; that the deeeased 
there opened tha safety deposit box, took froo^ it tvo envelopes and 
haaded thes both to Mathilda; that one eontained the $7500 Bortg&e* 
and the other tha 94500 Mortgage; that they than drove to the safety 
deposit vaults under tha Suburban bank in Oak Park. Under tha rules 
of that eafety deposit vault coiapany anyone opening a aai'ety deposit 
box was required to sign a ticket. Xhe ticket is in evidenee, 
having been produoed by the safety deposit eeaipany, atid it ahovs that 
lenry Y. Jbexderfer, the deoeae^d, alone, opened this sai'ety deposit 
box shortly after one o*olook that day, as sho^^n by the stautp of a 
tias elosk on th<< tioket. 

The evidenos further shows that the parties then drove home, 

2225 Montana street, Ohioago, and ths testimony of Leo iituermer, 

defendant's son, is that when they arrived heme m hr, Scharrer, 

vha lived on 24th street, a friend of the family, was at their 

hoae; that when they went i&to the house his vother, the defondsnt, 

handed the ef<velope eontaining the #7500 a«rtgage to the deeeaeed, 
irtio refused to takp It, stating that he had given it to dof«ndant; 

that the mother then left the roo« and put the mortgage in the 
olesst in the dining room. The testirxmy of the three sons and 

tobovlftt^ exit !• firsM^t i9ul, kmil •tfm iMtii nu ^^atiit»6 ,^ittuf»» iooO I0 

ft»«««»el^ »ii;r ^isi- Uvd ii&&S. hnao-. y-l sjrXu^ir 

X^«le« wjlir e:r !»y«it& tt»As x*ds Jeurf.^ t:'3.«i 00e*| 0iUi tmA*o 9iii fra« 

,»ftis»felv* at «1 J-f - '' 

Mtl ttt tii^^^Vt tlS tJMT bstf 

ham «a«ft Mtitt «itl to xi^"-'*- 

■i'*''it I 

:»i2d astiw imAt 2»aaft 

th« wlf* of Ml* of then is In aubatanoa th .t on th« OT«clBg of 

SoTonl3«r lot thoy ««r« all at th«ir caothor'o ho«o wh«n th« do- 
eeaood aokod M&thilda to go out «ynid t^et the envelopo eoctoitiisg tho 
Kortfi&go payors; that tho eiother did 00 and xiundod thtirA tc the do- 
eoaoed who again rofuoed to take thesi ar;d oaid lor h»r to let hor 
•oa Walter oo« than, which ohe did« doooaeed stating at that time 
tliat ho had glToa tho Kortiiafio to tho Kotbor, Tho three oono onA 
Walter *o wife aloo tootified that tho deceased wao apparently 
in good eplritfl und that nothing wao eald about hia belne oerieuoly 
ill; that on tho next sujrning, iioTotr.ber 2nd, tho doooaeod went to 
tho heopital and otayed until itowoBber 12th, when he rritumod nono 
and OB Koveabor 16th he went to tho oafety dspoeit vault looatod in 
tho ^ank building in Oak Park, and opened tho box ehortly after 
throo o*elock of that day. Thla appearo free the teotit,ony of Otto 
Vaoak, aoeiatant oaohler of tho bank, who wao well acquainted with 
tho doooaood, and the ontranoo ticket la aloo in tho record. Thia 
tleket ia eigned by the doooaaed and bears tho tine atarap ahowing 
that ho opoBod tho box at that tiK.o. Vaaak further tnatifiod that 
at thattiae tho doeeaeed oaK.o to oo« hia and wanted to borrow $100 
fron tho bank for 50 dayo, which wao aii;reed to, and tho doooaeod 
gawo hio note for that aaouat duo 30 daya after date; that when tho 
ioooaaod roqueated tho loan the witnooa aaked hitii if he had any 
oollatoral, and doooaaed aaid he had tho 94900 aortgago; that do- 
eeaaod then wont down to the b«aoii.«at, opened the oafety depoalt 
box, procured thia mortgage and gave it to tho wltneoa aa oollator- 
al oeourity for the $100, and witneoa trion gav9 tho doooaaed a ro- 
colpt of the bank for tho $4500 note and mortigaga. Thla roeoipt 
Aloo io in the record. The doooaaed then returned noae, w ere ho 
ronalnod until he died, Docfflsber 11th. Shortly after twelTO 
o'clock tho next day the def«ndant i^athllda went to the oafety 
dopoait box in Oak Park In the Suburban Bank buildllng, and opeaod 

•jd;^ Sfilai.jM !3k)a »qQX9V2id »!i^ d9i t)M« 4r». 

at &«j^AotI ^Xtf«v ^4e«a«ls ^*»T!«« " 

»n J Jill ;«»«b -xntlA «tJ8& 0£ 4 

Xfl* t»d Ail "ii «i^ b»3ia* mm^nsi 

.-t»le/.X(i« 9M ««9ailw •£(- 

...» g.,.. .^„« . i,;i.»,<f O/t* 

vttph Stt»v smtLi &••«•• 

ids ft« . , TOCf 

rrX*v:r fttu x-t^-i.iiCi. .JllxX tc-u- vr.c ,' ; fii i.-^m r- 

th« box; this »pp«»ar8 front the «mtriuio« tiekot in the record and 
la aigned. as «»• th« rule, loy th« defendant It^atiiildA* At th« 
tise Mathilda "ent to an officer of the bank ar d off«red to pay th« 
llOO note and sought to obtain fro» the bank the $45r>0 mertgage. 
The bank refused to aeoept the payr.ent or to deliver up tJHe mort- 
gmif, one ef the reasons being that it had learnad that Henry 
Bestd «rfer was dead. 

Leo Stuermer, defendant's son, further testified that a few 
iays after fieTSKber 1, 19 29, aft^r the deceased had giYWi th« 
#7500 Bortga^Ke to his aether, the latter put the nortgage in her 
safety deposit box in the building at iiilwaukee and Western are- 
»«••{ that h« went with his asether and saw her put it in the box 
there; that It was about a veek ai'ter Henry's dnath. 

It further appears frosi the evidence that after the l^robat* 
eewrt «nt«red an order directing the defendant to turn over the 
#7900 iMrt^age to the exeoutor, she, on J^ebruary 29, 1931, filed 
a olaia against the estat« of the deceased for |1275 for personal 
s«»rTices and attendance in nursing and earing for the deeeased 
during his last illness b«>tween Auigust 11, 1929, and Desenber IX, 
19S9« which elalai is stil^ pending. 

This is substantially aill the evidence in the record. 

The defendant the $7500 mortgage as a gift frois ths 
4««eased, the burden was on her to prove that fact by clear and 
eenvincing evidence. Kothwrwell v. Taylpr . 303 ill. 226. 2he 
•surt there said, b»giniiing at the botto.. of page 231: "In Millar^ 
V. Millard . 221 111. 96, a mother, after the death of her son, 
•laissd title to certain money and securities as a gift froK hia. 
She obtained possession before her son's death. Ihls court held 
the burden was on the ;ione« to prove ths gift by evidence not 
equivocal or uncertain." And it is also the law that courts lend 
a very unwilling ear to stat<r.^ts of what dead aen have said. 

s»^ •Hi 

t!*^i ni ^i^jr^jfteai »i^.* :?t?fr ts;? ^ ,'s^^ito^ 

.Ai|l Aoit rtla A •« asilxx V 
bX«il iiaoo «lili .jnliawfi •'«'--. .-. 

$9a »ocwl)l'=^ v'f .nia •ill ©vfi-ia 'J •>■•■'■ 3or 



.-thitt •t9lii 3tU<»9 

.Pi;.t:« 'VjiM »»'<« j;*;"";!; 

X ^j ijifj .*rti'./i»n« x^^r » 

j><«L ▼. Polk Ceucty Cot)p«r Co , , 62 U. 8. 493. In that qm« th« eourt 
■al4 (9« 904): "In 1BS6, vh«i) these de^^oBitions w ttr« taken, Jete 
DaTis wat 4«a4, and eourta of juatica land a vary anwilling aar to 
atatercanta of what daad men h»d aald." And la 2S C. J., p. 291 « in 
diaattsalng the teetl^iony of wltneaaaa aa to etHtech«!nta s&ada ^y a 
daeaaaed peraon, it i» eaid that "it ia iifpoaeibla, in &oet eaaaa, 
te eenTiot the wltneaa of perjury if hia teati^^ony ia vilfully 
falaa» ttfatiiT^ony aa to tMe oral atat««.entB of daeeaeed peraona, 
vhia'i ia th<>refore regarded a» the «eaJcaat itind of avidenee and 
auVjeoted to the cloanst eerutiny." And our oen SHipraaa courtin 
the oaee of Juaureiice v. La^irecoe^ I«4 111. 367, in diacuaeiofe thia 
queation said (p* 977): ^Hividenee of ad%i»eiona s>ade by a peraon 
ainoe dead eheuld be carefully aorutinisad, and the cirouffiataiicea 
ttadar vhieh they were alleged to havi* been nade carefully coneideraA 
vith all the eiridenee in the eaae. tiuoh evidenea ia liable ta 
abuae.** Thia ia eapecially applicable to the facta in the ease at 
%ar where the witneaaea are not only teatifying aa to what the de» 
aeaeed aaid but where it alee appeare that they are all vitally 
Intereeted. The only witneaaee icho teatlfy are Mathilda, the de- 
fendant, who ie aeeiclne to retain the 17900 Kortga^^e, her three aona 
and daughter-in-law. The neighbor, i>^r. Soharrer, »ho wae at the 
houaa on the oirtninn of AovMiber let, when the deoeaeed, defend^^mt 
and her eon Lee arrived at her houe froso the vaults in the Suburban 
Bank building, did net teetify, and the reaaon given b;, one of de- 
fendant 'a aona wae that iieharrer wata ill. 

Serutlnissing tna teetiiftony o^ the defen^ajj^t, h%r three eona 
and her daug^ter-in-lair, aa we muat under the rule announced in the 
•bave autiioritiea, we are of the opinion that little or no oredenea 
aaa be given to their teati/iiony ofi the vital (lueation because they 
are ehawn to be biaaed and interested witnesaaea and beeauee of the 
•ther eridenoe in the rftoord, which ia uniieputed. Wa tiiisfic It 

%ril t» ••ij«»i»tf bOfi ••■•«n.* 

" ■ ' : '.5 iT'si.yef lip 

.''.!»•'«♦ tal 
, .ri'uiba*! 

Mlutf ia«« 
itii^tmb %•$!, ham 

ru> ha«*id 9ct ol avox(« ft%» 

il Jhiiixii ••" .ia^otrtlftiw •! itoifv ^hf9*i *«W -il ♦a««fiv» lait^e 

mpp«uf fT9m all th« cTldsneo UiaH; th« d^eeasttd did not glv« th« 
#7500 aortgAga to tlto dofendant, but wo inink it «»• plaood 1>y HIa 
in the doyosit l}ox ia tho Sul>ar)san bank buil^la^ yund that ta« do- 
focd&nt obtainod it when sko op«n«d the box ^ec«Bb^;r 12th, iho jay 
after Henry's death. It is uodisputwd that ahe opened that safety 
deposit box on that day imd sb,e testil'led that sht took from the 
box the ree»ipt «Xven by Vasak, aesistaot cashier of the 3uburboB 
baixk; but this atateaent is inconsistent vith the undisputed evi* 
desee, vhioh is that the deeeased, Secry Boxderfer, opened tlhit 
box but onoe on £oTO&ber 16th, the date on vhlch ho borrowed the 
#100 froft the ^burban bank as shown by the entrance ticket of the 
Deposit co£^pany of that date. And Vasak, the assistant oaehler of 
the bank, testified that when ^enry, the dtoeased, spoke to him 
about borrowints llCC and witness stated that the bstak would lean 
hia the jilOO and aaked for oollateral, Henry obtained the $4500 
aortfij^E*. The oonclusion to be drawn froc th« eridenoo Is that he 
got this saort^age fros. the box undexneath the bonk at that time and 
brought it up to tho bank and gave it to Vasak as oollateral to tho 
note. Vasak in the nortaal course of business gave the receipt for 
the mortgage, and if the deceased afterwards put the rec«>ipt in the 
box downstairs, he would have opened the box a^^aia, but this was net 
done. The box was not opened again until the defezidant did so Dessa- 
ber 12th shortly after noon, '^a think it appear tj that Henry nust 
have tai':ea the receipt hoae with hia imA in this way it caae into 
the possession of the defendant. Furthertcore, all of the ewidenos 
Is to the effect that on ItoTember 1st nothing ooourred that would 
in'lieate that Henry thought the end was near. All the witnesses 
teetified that he appeared to be fairly well at that tiae. and if 
he thought he was going to get well it is highly ijaprobi*ble that 
he would glYS ttKjst of his property to the defendant at that tiae. 
This ikppears further frm» the fact that ia A;pril, 19 29, shortly 


-M&siftC cm bit 9.emhii»t9k «xU /i^ow tiim^i^ lf«4T»ec ^»a >, - 

;»«% ^Jk^ &Ofi( 

-•• cttxi 

9rt^ Alii 

■■'J «'*«*iV' ••4^»a 

aft«tr h# had filed his bill for dlToro* and was iDt<»ndlnf to marry 
th# dafMidant vhan the divorea vaa obtained, which h« later did, te 
nada his will ItaTing all of his property except $S0 to his twa 
Karried aistera who 3iTed in Fittsbure* It is imdlaputad aleo that 
the defen'^ant gave false testimony in the s^iYoroa case, b«»oauBe it 
is obvious that she knew that Henry's wifa had been ad;1udgttd insane, 
^e testified in the divoree oasa that fi«iiry treated his wife wall, 
and in the instant eaee she testified that she had nevar aaeo tha 

Upon a eareful ooneideration of all the oTidenoa in tha 
raaard, we are of tha opinion that the finding and Judg&ent are 
against the fflaaifeat weli^t of tha evidenee, «md in such caaa it la 
the (Juty of this court to reverse the 4udcsent. Don el son v. ii^as'^ 
3t. Lottia & Sub. Ky. Co. . 236 111. e26. 

The ^udg^ent of tha Cireuit court of Cook eounty is reversed 

an) the eause reinanded with dlreotlonn to enter judt^ment awarding 

the mortgage in auestion to the exeeutor. 


LeSurcly, P. J., and icatchatt, J., concur. 

XVV<« O^ MttihawJai «isr rfU? »)jct .1 »fl t»*l« 

. « .-t;.. s (1 1 h » "H f :■ M ?. ■•Si- ;!■•! « • ■■ " 'Sn si 

• . 

•tin ^a»£q|Mlt t>'^ 



,7«i.v>it . . . , .i?«wft5je>.. : t9-tJwS»j| 


tk eerp«ratl«n, ) 

Appclle*. ) 

Jacob ucvt, ) 


26 8 I.A. 614 


Ob July IBt 1930, pXttiniiif brou&ht an i»eti*n of d*t«niu<» 
•C«lB«t th« <l»f«n4«Eit to roeoTor a oortaln nuabor of foot of 
voldod coila aadi othor Katorl«Xa uno4 in rop»irlCK o rofrig«rator 
plant, «ail for <aaa|{00 for tho dotontloo of tho aatorialo. to 
plalatlff *o ot%to*eBt of olala tho 4of«B4ant I'llod hio affidairlt 
of Bftorito. On Ooooabor lo, 1*31 , plaintiff filed Ito aaondoA 
otat«i«Dt of olais in trovor, tnoroby abandoning ito aotion of 
dotinuo. Plalntlfff in ito oMoadod otat«&oiit of olaia, motitienoi 
tho a«KO material ao tJoat roforrod to in ito original otatoai^nt of 
claim; of oouroo plaintiff did Rut oooii to raeoYor tho matorial in 
this troYor aotion, but tho Taluc oi' it, en aoeount of tho allegod 
OOBToreioB of it by tho dofen^ant. 7hcro wao a trial boforo tho 
•ourt without a Jury. Tho court found tho dofmndant c^uilty of 
oOBTOrtion of tho proporty and aaaoaaod plaintiff 'o iati3a4,«a at 
|13T«S0 *in trovor* and dof«niant appealo. 

Tho oubst'uioo 01* tho oridorico ia that dofoadaut «ao tho 
•«n«r of a building in Chicago ^nd had lo^noed it to tho Siviaion 
Faoklng Ooaipany, i^ioh vaa conduoting ito baainooa of meat paoking. 
Thoro wao a rofrigorator in tho building at tho timo of tho leao- 
ing, «Bd ooM« tlHO tnoroafter tho tonant fouad that tho rofrigcrator 
wao aot ia good eondition, ttnd to have it ropalrod ontorod into a 
writtoa 3uotraot with tho plaintiff wh«roby r.laiatirf wao to ropair 
tho rofricor«tor by inotalliiig piping ouilo mentionod in pluiintiff *• 
otatmocit of olai«, and ao»o othor work wao to bo dono. In eonoldorap 


mm JA**^-' 

%ih .A J ^B^ 


t -?:■>. 11** If 


il ■>.(:> f-.A' 

<«t»t)i«aM rX ••nob •« •< aAv i\Qv< iwaio •4M»ii £Att .al^. !.•? ic i^i««»l4il« 

, ■-■ - mtm 

m* «iti 

.- MOO 

ti*a th« t«aimt, tli« VsiOrlMc Mmxuajr, Agreed t« pay 1400 to 

yladntlff 1r last all ceiis. Plulntiis* t>ii4»reartftz- di4 th« vork !j«ii« 
«9]iar^tly «»• paid p»rt ei' th« $4i)0 "by tiae Paoklne aoBpany, nfid 
'being ima^I* to oelltet ilL« bal^aio* it 1»rought thm iBst^oit tre-vvr 
ft«tlon s^aiJQat tti« (3«f«uBdMit landlord, There Is other <fvidl«n«« 
t» Ui« cffAot that th« <S«f«a(l«nt knew aothlng about th« eontract 
b«tvt«n tha Paojcing oaKfany aad plaintiff and knv» nothing abotit 
iha repairs haTloi^ baan nada, but «a tniak thi« evidsnoa is 
•ntirsly iaaalerlal. 

In hi« bri«l' tha defaniaiit ar^^uas that the evldenea fails 
is shev a d«auuid was &ade by plaintiff on hia for the ooil piping 
in quest ion « and ether peitits are K&de «asd ari^u»«»ts are advanced 
•a the theory that the aetion was in replerin. Obviously this 
arguacnt is entirely inapt here. Plaintiff vas net seeking to 
reeoTor the ooil piping. It abandoned its action of detinue and 
deelared in trover. It did not want the ecils returned, but 
wanted defen'lant to pay the balanee due. 

nier« ie other argumtnt In the briefs as to whether the 
refrigerator or ice box and the nat^rials furnished by plaintiff 
wore personal property or a part of the realty. We think it 
•bTious that these queatioas are of no i&portanes in thie ease 
sinoa plaintiff was not seeding to reoover the K.»terial«. 

frvm a aero etateaent of the f eets as shown by the undis- 
puted evidence, it is obTieus that there is no liability on tha 
defendant under any view of tha law. Ho was in no way a party to 
the contract wh«reby pl<%*ntiff did the weric end furniehed the 
Materials; that was betvoen plaintiff and the FaoJcing ooapany, 
and if the tasking con^any, the tenant, failed to pay, ehvioasly 

that is no legal eonoern of the defendant**. 

The Judgnent of the Municipal oourt of Chicago ia r«vers<li. 


Hoaarely, f. J,, and iUtehett, J., ooaeur. 

.-,«iffla iloi* t^At te'i <al<i »e 1ii4ai«Xe x^: f.S':.- 
9t acJ-isfi^- ts^T SAW rti*a|jBlH .a-xsjS «|pttl fi-^ 

^i^»^«j> ol 



'■■ — " .'a4* 







26 8 I.A. 614^ 

Opinion filed Nov. 16» 1932 


PlaiBtiff reoovered & jiadgawnt against the defendant la 
«B aotion for personal injuries* At the tine of the aeeldeat plain- 
tiff was a switeluBan in the employ of the defendant tind it is 
admitted th^t both were eBgagsd in Interstate oombsroe, and con-> 
sequently the Federal Employers Liability Aet is oontroliing. There 
is no question of oontributory negligenoe on the part of the plain* 
tiff in the oase* 

The original deolarBtion filed in the suit consisted of 
t«o counts* 

The first oount charged that at the time of the aooident 
plaintiff* a switohaan, was riding in the night time upon the front 
footboard of one of the defendant's enginps wbieh was being driven 
in a northerly direction in the Laadmrs yard in the City of Chioago; 
thftt the defendant earelessly and negligently* threu^ its serraats 
sad agents* oaused the looomotive to luroh and Jerk forward and by 
reason thereof the plaintiff was thrown off and was injured* and 
as a result of the injuries it beoame aeoessary to amputate his Isg* 

The seoond oount charges that ths defendant osralsssly 
and negligently equipped said engine upon whiob plaintiff was ridin4| 
aad oarelessly and negligently permitted divers implements* blooks 
of wood, ohains* pieoes of iron ;;nd ateel to be upon and about the 

footboard and oth<>r parts of said looomotive engine upon whioh 


SBei ,31 .voH fiaXn aoifliqO 


XC^ &/'JV 1 

♦■•1^ : 

.jftpvtae Bit i^.w^t.'- , . 


■ (i$ SMS 

ff(»irfir iioqiy Mtlsa* *rl#<»«io»oi tit 


plaintiff was riding to that it was entirely unsnfe* and thmt «hiX« 
the plaintiff was riding as aforesaid upon saii engine, oertnin of 
said imple^ients, bloclcs of wood, oDftina, pieces of iron and steel 
violently lurched and aoTed forward and struok plaintiff and, by 
reason thereof, he was thrown upon the ground, ete* 

A general and special de«urrer to the first oount of 
plaintiff *8 deolarntion was sustained and a plea.^ of not guilty filed 
%0 the seoond oount* Three additional counts were subsequently filed 
and upon the trial plaintiff toy his eounsel stated that all the 
•«ttAts of the declaration should be disregi^rded, except the seeend 
oount of the original declaration. The point ie aade that there io 
BO proof to sustain the seoond oount of the declaration and that 
there was a Tarianoe between the allegations of the declaration 
end the proof. 

At the end of plaintiff's case defendant filed » 
SHBtion to direct a Terdlct in favor of the defendant and also 
■otions requesting the court to instruot the jury to find the 
defendant not guilty as to eaeh separate oount of the declaration* 
At the tine of the aooident plaintiff was riding on 
the front footboard of the engine and above the footboard and 
extending aoroes the entire front end of the pilot besjs was a grab 
iron whioh served the purpose of pemlttlng persons riding upon 
the footboard to hold on to the engine. Xhe testiaony adduced on 
behalf of the plaintiff tended to show that upon the pilot beam 
nv^ baok of thie handrail was a ro^railer weighing between 60 and 
90 pounds whioh was caused to roll, tip or fall over against the 
hand of the plaintiff o<vusing him to jerk his hand away from the 
haadrail and fall off of the engine. This testimony was produced 
upon the trial by the plaintiff and went in without objection. At 
the end of plaintiff's case on defendant's motion to direct a 

^d tbaa \tlfnl»lti 3f«irct«i haws ^ftiviEe^ t^^oot i)ns fcarfatxtX t-J^tiwiXoiT 

•i{^ ball ot X^yi *^i foin^s^. 

lie 'ijd'j", a^ »Tc ^ij^« -: 

C^INf t4iJU( »<l;f 04»$j; «JMi# W»if«t 

. .i to ttJ»ir4M» 

■■■•"/ Oi"'j 1t<7 tattoo 

';? ,,. .. • . iui 

»:'..: C'Xij ^dt baa 
4>©r«»e (iDUh cr«3X 

bus OS a»<mJN»c! ^lUgiAv x«Xi <uMf iii^ifc/i 

•cl# aioTl \ftfr« £»«<( ft/i 3(t»t cii9^ ttitl ^ititx ^r 


Terdlet, It was pointed dut th<it there was bo i^oof thnt the 
re->raller or other plftoee of iroa and steel or bXooke of wood trere 
on the footboard of the engine and thnt eoneequently the seoend 
eount of the deolAratlon was not supported by the eridenoe. The 
allegation, however, does not oonfine the pieeee of Iron ^nd steel 
to the footboard, but ohargea thejr were on VBrlwia other parte 
of the engine and that it vas unsHfe »nd dangerous for then to be 
slloived to remain in the position whioh they oooupied. $e are of 
lilMi opinion thst the seooitd oount of the deolar*.tion wae suffioiently 
broftd to permit of the proof offered ©nd reoeiTOd on the pnrt of 
the plaintiff and that there wae not a Material Tarlanoe between 
the allegations of the deelaration and the proof* 

Ccnroy, the plaintiff, testified that at the tlM of 
the aocident he was a awltchaan employed by the defendaiat aad 
had been working for the ooapany from July 19S9, to the night of 
Deoember 14, 1939, the day of the aooident; that he wae 36 years of 
ng« and prior to this aooident he had nerer been injured while at 
work for a raliromd, bat that when he was 9 yeare of age he was 
kloked by n horae at whioh time he sustained an injury to the top 
•f hie head, from whioh he fully reoorered; that the engine upon 
iriiioh he was employed left the roundhouse about 8:10 o'olook la 
the oTening; that there were about IB oars in the train which were 
taken to a plaee oalled Aahburns that the aooident hnppened upon 
the return trip and thst he wne riding on the head end of the 
engine and on the right h&j»d side of the footbonrd at the time the 
aooident oeeurred. Plaintiff st<%ted that the night wae dark amd 
oloudy and there was a driezling rain} that X#tttman, another swltoh- 
man, w^e riding en th<? left hand side of the engine ajful at^^nding 
upon the footboArd, Just prior to and at the time of the aooident 

•t»« too* 1« •sftNsXcS to 1»^ 


fcri: frY\^ir'-" ■■' ' ' ' . i'l^vjs.qjn* Bfi; ■'- ■ - ■ 

*•» «id 9S(i> t« «rt , "Jj-^f awfe 

«i . • - ■ , ^»c^-'^r:-oy '• 

ini-^ii i>%e9qqm^ imhio 

Im* 3('. ^(fl- ^P.tft h9inf9 

"dottvm TO^toflfl «niM#Vi^ 
fttUhitOK 9(i$ t» «m1# •d* tn ban ot YoJtvc 




: btij$ Batman 


plaiotiff w&s holdiJig a laap with his right hftad tkoA holding, on 
to tho grab iron* wbioh extendod ftoross and in froct of the eni^noy 
vitk hia loft hAitd, Tho owitoh engine at this tint vao preeoeding 
at about 13 ailoo an hour over and along »h!?t is known as the load 
traeJc, vhloh raa in » diagonal direotion through the railroad yard* 
la doing this the switoh engine would at interrals erose other 
traoka e4uipj>ed with frogs* At this time Lutoan, called pi.aintiff*8 
attention to the faet that the switoh ahead of thea v»s wrong snd 
plaintiff started to prooeed over and along the footboard in order 
to giro the engineer a signal to stop the engine* iit this tiae 
jplaintiff testified he had his lantern in his right hand «ind his 
left hand «»s sliding along the grab iron* This aamb iron ran 
aoross the pilot oeaa about 9 inches above its top swrfno** Plain- 
tiff at the tiae had his baok to the engine. As he anas la the not 
•f aoTing aloag the footboard something oaug^t his hand azid he 
lootced baolt. to see what it was and saw a re-yeller* an iron oontxl- 
▼aaee the shape of a half oooa* up sgainst his Isft hand as he was 
trying to pull his hand out, the engine Ittrohed and the re-railer 
svttBg baek releeoing his hand and he fell off the footbonrd. The 
luroh was not unusual, but oaused by the engine oroasing the frog; 
that when aa engine ovosses a frog there is a jogging or jolting* 

Plaintiff testified further that he bad not notioed 
the re-railer until his hand was piaohed} that the re-railer weighed 
between 70 and 75 pounds and when it rolled over against his hand he 
experieneed a painful feeling and hie Imuckles were hurt and the 
baek of his hand after^x^ards was blaok and blue; th&t this re-railer 
was iron or steel about 10 inohes hlgjtt« 12 inohes wide and about 
33 inehss in length and shaped like a half oioon* As a result of 
the aeoident plaintiff's left leg was amputated and be was ia the 

^'sai^tt^ 9tif to iaott al £c« 8«ei0i'. betm^y- 
&ii»»i trf* Bfi amoKJ i-, - .,-■ -,,.-. ■. . _ .- - 

•iil tee im»d 


'r» 5rf# foils Imao^tfi. JWi^ifl'? 

;y:Oii ;■;# >|«[ittsd70 •filao* 9rf* ^' 

S(ft baa #Ytf(f A99W ••IjCOm... 4 tU.^ ;L'-Zir^ ;y.t„. 

tftllxi-viL »lif# iifdi i&i/Xd £md^ io»i^ a^ra sivi>. «^^ 

»ffi «i «*« »'■' ^?<^- ?v":» -.:♦•!••, .^v. ■ 

Id it/l« 

. .. ^juoci« i» 

'^ v^idfc Ml 

^!irf to i«fl«[ 


hospital four aud oae-half or flT« aonf^s. His head palaed hla 
fi.wi his h«inid pained hia and » gecood ssaputatloa of his Xsg w&t 
Moeatt^ry whioh is ft hia with a atutap of about eight iuohes* At 
the tlae of the soeldent he vas earning fSOO a aonth and had heen 
svltehlag prior to thnt tloe for approxiaately 15 years* 

LtttaauL* the other swlteha»jn, testified thet hs worked 
for the defend?int ooapaajr from July 19* 1939 up to the tlaae of the 
trial and that he was on the front footboArd of the engine srith the 

plaintiff at the tlae of the aooident; th?.t he vas on the left hand 
side of the footboard and there wna a grab Iron running ^oross the 
front end of the pilot be»si whloh iras for the pfurpese of proTiding 
a handrsll for switohaen riding upon the footboard; that this 
hi^ndrall vaji probmbly six Inehes above his hips; that as they rode 
along they frequently passed over frogs or swlteh points and th^t 
these vere approxiaately 40 to bO feet apsjrt with & svlteh light 
at eaoh one; that Ooaroy had bold of the grab iron and had a laatem 
la his right hand and he told plaintiff about a swltoh toward whloh 
they were aorlng and it beosae neoessary for Conroy to aove over along 
the footboard in order to signal the engineer; that the aooident 
happened quiekly and as he saw plaintiff Jail he reaohed over to open 
the angle oook on the front end of the engine in order to set the 
brakes; that as he reaohed over he saw two frogs or re-rallers* those 
re»rR.llers were used for the purpose of i-nittlng an engine or oar 
bsok on the traok If It should have run off; that the engine was 
proeeeding st the rate of 6 or 8 alles an hour ^nd he had to reaoh 
over these re>rallers in order to T^aoh the angle oook; thi^t there 
is a plaoo on the tank of the engine used for carrying thooo 
re~rallers and hooks were provided for that purpose; th«it at the 
tlao he got on the engine he did not notloe these re-mllers »nd did 

>c »Jblt 

nzniti S»iii Si9«o ni;^ >/i# t«»7Q 

aot pay mtif attention to them; that the first tlae he noticed them 
vas when he pulled the air after the aeoldent; thAt there wn» nothlaig 
uausuAl about the aoveaent of the engine and no more jumping or 
botinolng than Is oustosary on a yard engine* 

The testlaony of these two witnesses, the plaintiff 
and Lutaan, was sufflolent standing alone to r<^Qulre the suk^slsslon 
of the ease to the jury* The oeurt In the ^ase of MlrlQ| > ▼• 
fersohner Oontracting Oo .. 313 111* 343« in its opinion, said: 

**It nust, we think, be aeoepted as settled law 
that a trial court has no power, when a Jury la not welved, 
to deteraine the weight and prepondersnce of conflicting 
evidenoe mtroduoed to estn^blish or dlsproTe the facta* 
The deoisions are nunerous, nnd ?^re unifora, that the trial 
Judge is nsYsr authorised to talce a case froa the Jury 
whore there is legitiaate oTldenoe tending to proTe the 
eause of aetion. '^hen :i action is aade to direct a Terdiot 
It is not the province of the trial court to weigh ami 
determine the preponderaaoe of th« testiaony** • • • • 

"This being a case tried by jury, - and the evidenee 
of plaintiff seeas unquestionably to hare tended to establish 
a eause of aotion, • the stntute did not authorize the 
Aw^iiate Court to rererac the Judgment with a finding of 
faete ^nd not reaand the case. If the statute be construed 
to authorize the Judgment of the Appellate Court in this 
case, it would authorize that court, in any case depending 
on faots, where the OTidenoe is oonflioting^, to weigh and 
doteraine on which eide is the prepondernnoe of the 
tostisMiny whioh that court believed, and would give that court 
the power to exeroiee the functions of *< Jury, rhioh we 
have repeatedly held the trisl oourt could not do, and th« 
statute would be as such a wiolation of the right of trial 
by jury as if it had atteapted to <Tonfer the ea«« power 
OB the trial court.** 

Hasfcett ▼. J^^BMYtTftaia g^t 34& Fed. Rep. 3B6, is 
very siailar as to the faots. 

Hals ted testified that he whs the engineer on the 
proTlous run with this engine; that these frogs or reorailera sire 
earrled on the engine on hoolui provided for that purpose oa the 
side of the tank; that when he inspeoted the engine on the aoming 
of the seoident the re-railers or frogs were hanging on the hooks 
on the side of the tank; that he aade out a report oa his return 
froa the trip that day aad it was correct, ka examination of the 

jfcfttrip* ■ ■ ■ ■ . 

JOlft? ■:■■:■ 

• •• 1 • » 

■• \ 

bae- -v, *■-■ 
^ff* ... 

Jtt* *U» ISO 

«i ,8;.''!: .q»fl .b«x Sfg ^g'^;. ^zi&nkwi 

atttfT Bid 00 #ir«q»i " ' ^^ - ^f^ *ivi# ;jl««t »H* 1© •hU 9di aa 


report, howereT, shows aothlntr with regard to r«-raiiers« 

Hart, the oocduotor oa th« preTloua tyip. Identified 
Itls report and teatlfled therefroa; th^% there was nothing on the 
report whloh would Indicate that there hud been aj&f derii»ll»ent and 
thftt If there had >»eea, it vsllld have Appei^red upon his report* 

OarlsoB, the flreatan testified that he a&de sn 
Inspeotlon of the engln* oa the day in question before he vent 
out on the trip vlth HaXsted and Hart and that he obserred thes« 
re>r&ilers %nd they were on the hooks on the t^nk. He testified 
further that it mi» his eustom to look around the engine hut that 
hs htul not been asked sines the dajr of the aeoldent as to whers 
those re-rallers were oa that aornlng* The trip referred to by the 
foregoing vltness was made prior to the one aads b/ the erew of 
whloh plaintiff was a ssaber* 

Ryan testified that hs was an engine Inspedter and 
inspected the engine in question oa the day of the aooldent and 
■ads a written sieaorandua thereof; that If the rs-rallers were in 
their proper plaee he would not mentioa that faet la his report; 
that oa the day la question they were oa the t»ak; th&t oa the anmrn 
ewealag when hs asds his Inspect ioa there were no frogs on the 
front end of the engine baok of the pilot beaa. He testified 
further, "they are supposed to be there by rules whleh says that 
you aust have two frogs on e«ioh engine, and they aust be hanging on ths 
hooks of the tiank*. 

Jenkinson testified th?«t hs was the roundhouse forenan 
and that he laspeoted the engine on the ewenlag of Deoeaber 14, 
1929, )tnd that the re-ralXers were hung in their proper position 
oa the side of the tank when the engine left the roundhouse, 

#uadsr, the loooaotive snglneer, testified that hs 
inspeeted the engine the night of the aoeideat aad that ths re-railers 
were hooked oa the aide of the t?i.nk* 

A« •ban td ^ftifif 2>Ai'i. iti>tS 

'«tjy» i:ii»dt*ur% 


«0;5ito,. -I'lcoiq -iiffd* til %iattA »T»^ f* Jbjis «6S9X 

KT«Ii0T->«T "tf* ^aJJ* tax ia»bj >#»»qMii 


iAuM« the loeoiBotive fireman, «he 1« still la the 
•aploy of the defeadsnt testified th^t he was ob the engine »% 
the tlMe of the aooide&t; that there wmi no lurohing ot Jerking ef 
the esKlite «nd that after the nooident he looked oTer the footboard 
•f the engine afid saw nothii^ out of pl&oe; th»t thef had no der<^il> 
•eat and that there «»e no oooaslon to use the r»-rs.iler during the 
\Ti9i thikt when he got down fron the engine mfter the eeoident t» 
tee if there wore any re-r^^ilere lying on the front part of the 
engine he had th<»t Tory thing in mind at the time. 

Leen, the eonduotor, testified th^^t when they got 
b&ak to the roundhoiise after the aooident he nade an inspeetion of 
the engine and th^ t he lid not eee «ny re-rwilers on the front end» 

It is Inelsted thr<t this OTidenoe on hehnlf of the 
defendant oonolusiYely proves that there were no re-railers on the 
front deok of the engine at the tiate of the ftooident; th>>>.t the 
vitaeaa LutArw ontde oert^iin reports to the defend«int and did not 
say anything aheut a re>miler on the front of the engine. LutnaB't 
isaiiier to this is th^^t he wna net asked the question and answered 
•nly suoh questions ?>jb were asked of hia; th«>t he did sake a fourth 
stntetaent to the ooapany soaetiae after whioh ie oont^lned in 
defendant* 3 exhibit B^A in whioh he stated th^^t he saw two re-railers 
on the front ei^ of the engine behind the pilot ^&k and behind the 
grab^irca* ilDis last state;&ent was produeed at the request of 
counsel for the pl&intiff after the first three st^teivents of Lutasa 
had toeen identified by hla when upon the stand and u^er orose- 
exaaination* The testimony of Lutmaa i<ind the pl«tintiff w^e direot 
sad positive to the effect thst there were re-railere oa the front 
end of the engine at the time of the aeoident. 

iidaa«« the fireaan oa behalf of the defendant^ 
testified that h« looked far re-railere laaedisteiy after the 


#• mtiijiti* •Hi JEM 9ii« v^^ i^^if^ b9Jt^tl9'»4 tctffim^f^h ^tia )o x<>-^'3o* 
i« ^nlsfTiil «« $i)tWoTj#i rm i;^ ^wrf* ^«sW :##*»M?>«>-. fe^* *« wilt «rf# 

♦lit 1rd ftJMT fam't ^H Sfo "©al^l i?if»il»*i-***r :-t»rf# t/ ?>■!♦« 

•i^ t**** «ti»<H *"rf* f!«i%ite»* ,ico!it>:t/%(«.-' . ■:s«-:^ 

*rf^ I'll tXtiirfiwf «« dCHf^ftlir© ©*^ -tnrit b«-&K-jmeti nt tl 
Qdf> nu «Jt<»ii*t-«T Oil '»i'*«r 31*?!* tmdt is»f»'m; xXiMtt9vloii^9> f»Mba^Bl^ 

icsi btb hstt- fnabtn'^^b »df ws bi^xo^i-'i ajui^ ■: »iiWSx?v 

tftvtftft ^ 9A'«im nth »ti ^-Kfltf lirlil To lt*i»« «7 '*■•'-■ ■."■■: >j.:.t I ^' »»»,?> lift us v. i.U« 
8Jf* feiYldatf tiaj» awiad Ji»i <»^ »{f if -Imiifstf •wiji** rv^s >■■■ M?> :+»■;«'» t »rf# 119 

t^nJtH B4m 1rt**ai*lc{ »i![r- *ft^ ffjseff ■ :'r»"r *»f^ • 4ttoltBatmnt9 


fteeld«at •aA «»« aostt. This witlisaa Rise testified th»t he had mAe 
e detailed iae^etlea mt the engine at the roundhouse and faat every- 
tlatlBf iree la order* 1% le 11111111111 <■ ibfjr oouasel for plaintiff th^t If 
he had nftde euoh a detailed laepeetloa aad fouad everything on the 
front of the eaglae before aaklng the trip nnd there v%a no derAll* 
M»ttt« that there wae* ooneequeatly* ao ^jurpoee In agmln looking over 
the front of the ea^slne to find out If there were re-rtllere upon 
It, other than In the euetoMtzy plaoe on the tank* It eould aJLeo 
be Inferred thAt that negative testimony of the other witnesses to 
the effeet that the re-ralXers were upon the tank »as besed largely 
upon their eastoauury lnapeotlon« and the reports handed In iriiloh 
were silent as to this pertloular f<iet* 

The Jury and the trial oourt had an opportunity of 
seeing mad observing the witnesses and we are unsbXe to say th^t 
the verdlot is ae aanlfestly against the weight of the evldenee 
as to require a reversal upon that grourul* 

A witness by the aaae of '^atsoa was oalled la 
rebuttal by the plaintiff and testified that he worked for the 
defendant ooa;;>aiqr froa August 3, li)39 until Oetober 30« ItSO; that 
he saw re-rallers both on the front aad the rear of the engine aad 
that It was «uat<Mmry to carry re-rallers la the eaboose, A act lea 
wae aade by the defendant to strike this testlaony froa the reeord 
aad alao to withdraw a Juror and eontlnue the eause* The eourt 
sustained the notion to strike and Instruoted the Jury that the 
testlaony of the witness was strleken out ^nA thnt they were ta 
glre no eonslder^tion to It. The motion to withdraw a Juror was 
not thereafter renewed* 

Ryaa« the eaglne Inspeotor of the defeadtat eaapaiiy^ 
testified that there were heoke on the tunk for the purpose of 
earrylng the frogs or re-r:?ilers and that that w«s their proper 
plaee and they were eupcosed to be there by a rule whleh requires 


nkmt.lkiti ti 0*di »%mi99$ mat vMnttw aiai .mhm m** bum 9m&ki9^ 

*XJUv*& ea «^i!« MA^ !»« «i^l«jr ^sr |^i3f«ft 8«Bl9tf «inJls'<* *n1» i<> #iK>na 

Jb«J9 (WSia|iX« tM^ .V. ^»-.4 9«^i^ i)8« #iS««t ttltr fits Jiy^liit 91;«lii«««>t!« W«» AlC '- 

l««M% Mi^ Mosl tinmltf9ir 8irt'# in* trim <»<r tf'fli$.&£r«i«6 «Mt^ \«( «t>A» m 
#«inM •!(£ •MirMi oif^ mmlHM^ ham is&%i^i a- mi^bmiw «# o«Xjb taui 

4»l »«•« t9^# ir4>ti]r^ Me *«• ASMittJtt Bam Hm>a*im mMi: 1» t«M^'o*t 

tnqoiq ti«<(« ««R Mf(;t S^dit tea tt%Aii£/t'->fit «# i0*ti tii ^ixxxm9 
titlap^n Aekihi •Xtfr » xt «mc«»4I# ««t o# iNitw *<<«» *t«v x«^# 1!mu> •«uiX^ 


th«B %• IM hanging on th« hooks on th« side of the tank; that when 
ho Inapeotod th« engine they were in their pro^r plaoe. Halsted 
■tated thnt these re-r&ilers were oarried on hooks on the engine. It 
voald hRTe oeen proper to rebut the testiaonjr as to the rule requir- 
ing the carrying of this equipment on a oertain plaoe on the engine 
by showing that it was ouatoaary to oarry theai soas plaoe else, 
MtBL ▼• g?P^M^tt> 339 111. 555; ^^SSSL ▼• Sanitarr Diatriot. 365 lU. 
98* However, the testimony »as strioken out and the instruction 
of the oourt to the jury to disregard it in ita entirety, was 
suffioiently olear to oure the error, if any there was, in pemitting 
the witness Watson to testify as he did. 

^e have examined the testimony of the witness Shapiro, 
a physioian, and the objeotion to the hypothetioal question pro-^ 
pounded to him and are of the opinion that there is no error whioh 
would require a rere real of the oauso. 

An objeotion is made to the oonduet of oounsel for 
plaintiff in his opening address to the jury. This objeotion is 
based upon the faet that oounsel stated that the defendant had 
offered to intvoduoe the first thvoe statements of Mr. Lutman, but 
that the fourth statement was not produced until asked for* This 
statement «»s oorreet so far as the reoord disoloees. The 
referenoe to the faet that the oom?any had produeed as an exhibit 
the ^ggeet re-railer made was Turely a matter of argument, mad 
there was no objection to oounsel arguing that it may hare been 
for the purpose of showing that it was too large to fit upon the 
front end of the engirai. There wae -w eTidenoe to the effect that 
the re->railers differed in sise and wAAght, and w« oannot say that 
there was any prejudice oreated in the minds of the jurors by 
reason of the argument* 

*t#»i«H .mUq «t^M| «A«d# «i «t#ir T«rf* ««i»a» »*<# 6»t»«j«iJl •« 

9ai:$a9 »At v» •ftsiti iUm^9i» « oo ^awKiij^p* atli^^ %» liravvv^o wit ssl 
• 8ttX» 9o»Xq arMM m^tiS tyi^o «« Y^>Mt«;^iJK> ««« fi tjMft tcuNrorfa t' 

.XI! i»e .rtiHTirfltti! Tiit(^ff^it ^jmab («9i an «£&' ^^tittHwi .« jMl 

aQi:.ia;;nr.t«£ci ddf te« fu9 n^jOUrfm nm iffamifvi^i »a^ ^tforMNrii vM 

»ir''T .tat Jb«;l«9 Xl#au t. •.-•; »iP« ^a«*«a#«.#» i<4h»9% •&$ #«<# v 

«{$? .frMtoX^ii} tt&9sr. Hiit ■pm xet o« irtMTtoe •«» tit— »<»#» 

«4# fiotiju tiX 0t «a%4i ci«Ml Mv *i ta4t sniwtMftt to «ft0ienv« -mi* ««t 
t«jcl^ tea ^«iiA«o •« frotf «i«l;|Ai« bKM •«!• ai l)»7«ltXi» ttX«i.Xjix«^x ttit 


The Terllot In this was for $40,000,00 and 
ivhlXs Bot so sxossslTS as to indiCAts passion and prejudiee, 
BSTsrtbslssSf In our opinion It is high and this oourt is Inolinsd 
to fssl th<it justlos would be aoooBpllshsd by a reduotion in the 

SBOUB* of the jttdgMfSnt* For that reason the judgaent will bs 

within 10 days, 
sffirasd upon a remittitur of -^10, 000 ,00^ otherwise to stand 

rerersed for a new trinl* 

JUi^UEiiT AfFZRKSO DPOli WS.MlffirVfi» 

HSni. ABD HkhL, JJ. COBOinU 

Bmtt »A noJItoi;^? .« \<fi i>»^»Ai^«w»»* »ai Mb-©* »«lf««i| $9^t l&v-t 4^ 
m Hint tb9mi:^i «'^* a^mt'i #jr»| »«f« •^aaamU^^ «i* I© *mmm$ 


AlaiaiBtr«ito7 of th« £»t%t« of 
f9tvt Martlnut* Oeoftaaed^ 

!• C. 90R£ilS£g MOTOR MtfKBU 
COMPAHTy ft •OTp^^ratlMU 


Q00« eouH? 

26 8 I.A. 614 

Opinion filed Nov, 16, 1933 
FIftlntifft Unloa aaak: of Chle^go, as adatinlstmtor of 
tho oot^tc of P«t«»r Mnrtin«z, doeensed, brought its aotlon &|r»ia«t 
tht d#foad<u&1i N. 0. 8er«ii8«n itotor Exprooo Ooapnax, a oorporattioiif 
to reeoTer di»K»goo for tbo death of the deooasod by roaaon of the 
Mgligeat operation of the defe(^ant*s truok. The defendant flXod 
a plea of the geneml iesue &aA a epeolal plea deaylag the ovaerahlp 
•f the txuok aad that it waa at the tlsMi of the aecident under 
the oontrol of and operated by the def«Bdi>at. Ourlng the oourae 
of the trial the defendant sdadtted the oanerahip of the truck, 
but there nppesrs to hare been no Kdalasion that at the time of 
the tiooident, it waa under the control of or operated by the 
defendant, and ther* wne no erldenee whateTer in the reoord tending 
to ehow thfit the driver of the truck wkc in the employ of the 
Aefendant or operating the truck at it a request. 

There wf^a no proof in thr reoord tending to show that the 
deoeaaed died ^s a result of the accident, Thia v^.a a arterial 
fact whioh required evldenee to aupport it. Johnaon ▼, ghieago 
CMr '^t 99tf iCe lU. App. 49; ttooney ▼. City of Chieago^ 339 
111. 414; Hartrfty ▼. Ohioago ^», Oo.^ 290 111. 85. Moreover, 
there ia ao eTidenoe aheving when the deoeaaed died. 



^Tt?.r! m. 



,'. .« 

1^13 .A.I 8&S i 

SSei (31 •▼oH bsLi't aolalqO 

sift "lo ^«Xqii» »rf* «i s'lr ;fc>ir{f ^tit \9 t9v ^ 

■^ "O^ -k>. Tiliw 

^tftvo^toii .38 .1X1 oes ^^.»;> .» ■ tlt3« j>X# ,XXI 


Th« aooidsnt happ*a«4 Mar«h Xl» 1930. nad th« d«ol»ratlon 
vftC fil«d SeptMti»er 35« 1930. It mttr be argued with ocnaidera^ble 
foyee that the suit hAvlng been utarted by the adalnlstrator within, 
one year after the hapcenlng of the siooldeat* the court should ti^ktt 
aotloe of the f»ot that the deceased oa«e to his death within one 
fear thereafter, but this does aot oure the laok; of erldenoe 
neoesaary to sustain the proposition that the deeeesed eatte to his 
death betfftuse of the a«9&deat* 

At the eni of all the erldeaee the trial oouirt dlreeted a 
rerdlot In faror of the defeniont, and we bellere properly ao« 
Actions for injuries oaualng death are rurely statutory *ind the 
faets necessary to bring auoh an aetloa within s«oh statute aust 
be speelflo^Ily alleged and prowed* 

For the reasons stated In this opinion the judgaent of 
the Superior Court Is affirmed. 

■ ■-■ ^- ■■^' :■■ a099i ,.«.A 

,W» t-C'*?<3"X<? »vaiXi»<- '5"' ■■■■ 


!«»lS!ife©t *'*'^' 




nofut or tuM sfATE of Illinois, } 

0«f«ul&at la KrTOT0 


?lalotlff m Error. ) ^OO i.A« 615 

Opinion filed Nov, 16, 1932 

im* PitssxDXii9 jostxoe wilsos oKLiVi'^HKi) T<i£ orxNios OF 'sm ootmr. 

Th« d«f«adant Ohrfts-kliui PederscA was found guilty Jdnsuunr 
M, I93X* Ml an lnfor«atioa ohArglag hia with acgleoting to 
avpport his wifs, ia Tiolatioa of ths statutt. The defsadaat 
sad his wife, thora Psdsrsea, were aArrisd Juas 30« 1933, aad liwsd 
tegsther uatil 3spt saber 7, 193S, at whieb tias she left the hoae 
la iHtieh they were liTlag. She was the sother of four ehildrea 
whisk wsrs bora to her as the result of a prsTlous aarriags* Both 
ths dsfsadaat and the ooaplainiag witasss wore well ^iloag in years 
at the tiae of the seoond aarrii^gs aad ao children were born to 
thsa as the result of said second aarriags* This motion was not 
brottg)it until Ctsosabsr 1930, over two years aft^i^r they had oeaasd 
liTlag together* After the separation in Septeaber, 1938, the 
soaplaining witness filsd two separate bills for support and aaiar 
tsnaaos agaiaat ths dsfahdaat Qhristiaa ^sdsrssa, in aaltrhsr of 
whieh was shs suosessful* 

Froa the ewideiMe it f^psars that dsfeadaat was aooustcMisd 
to prowidin^ the eoaplaining witasss with ^80 a week whils they liwed 
together and that shs reeeiwed 120 ths week before she left* Hsr 
sob Insr Larson was also llwlag with ths dsfeadn^at. Ths ooaplainiag 
witness "ad her son left the prsalses of ths defendant while hs was 
abasat, taking praetlonlly all of the furniture and a «3,0Of) bond 
whioh was in a safsty deposit box. ths ooaplainiag witnsss testified 


;>T M9m» 






SIS •iifi U O^ i 


t»H «*tel •d» »«r»t»«f aitft-.f r-.'^ :.*•?;« fcarrios^*' 

8-BV •!< •liffw tl»IKlMII»t*l) •><[* t« ••«iiM»Y<7 n't' ■ t »1» 


th»t this bond iMloiigttI to hsr son ftwl was .s^uTehmseti itf or for bla 
prior to his reaohing the ago of 81 jrsars. Sho also testifisd that 
sho o«ra^ a on»-half Interost in a plooo of real sststs known as th« 
Rmooo otr«et property irtiioh vas of the taIuo of aip,>roxia»tely 
llS^OOO and that there was a 14,000 aorti^igs lapoB the prealsos; th«.t 
sinoo Isf-ring her husband she has been living with her son in a 
hoas purohased out of funds derlTed from the salo of the 13,000 
bond and that tho household is supported fros th« earnings of her 
•on. She adodts that she took the furniture frooi the house of 
the defendnnt but that this furnxture was paid for oat of her own 
•oney* Ko explanation is oade by her as to what this noney was nor 
as to where she ebt iasd it* The te8tiaM>tty as to the ^3,000 bond dees 
not satisf'iotorily shov it to kaYO been earned by hin or reeeiTOd 
froa oosie other souroe prior to his reaohing the ago of 31 years. 
She testified to the fast that upon the day she left, or prior 
thereto, the defendnnt abused and struok her and she la supported 
in this by the testinony of her son, who appears to havo boon lying 
down in his bedrooa at the tine of the alleged quarrel. 

If, as the eoaplaining witness olaiaed in hor two bills for 
oopnrato aalntonaaee and reiterated upon the trial, iriit owMkl s one* 
half interest in the Rosooe street property, she was not destitute 
within tho aoaaing of the statute but was posaosaed of aap^* neaan 
-for hor support. 

Froa the STldoaoe we are of the opinion that the erldenoo 
as it stands is not suf fioient and the judgment of the ^>^mieipal 
Court is reTorsed and the oauso renandod for a nsw trial* 

juoQurmi: ani&mmi abo oaiisc !tXMAXOi&. 

IfBU. AliS UAX.];., JJ. COMOUH. 

ciif *tOt to ftf h*9»a9Xm tiO* AfM «•;: oa( Bifl' 

It* te 

--'-■- "■ , *t3i »i{« lpsl^ «»!* a«(K-; "'" "--'^ "■" " -■•.-,.< ^ , ^-^l^ iK^j^g 

- •■. nj. ^^9 bem T«rf Minrxiii b t^iur9di 

,,....:. ^-. -...^ ..- :■ ill OWeb 

.•v'l'i»««ir ton Bern •ifii ^t*"^-' vail 


dr*:c ai tTigroU 





QtO!iaE ^. {.YMAA, 


iPi>fAL rRQir 


«r fiMXOAdo. 

26 8 I.A. 615 

Opinion filed Novo 16, 1933 


The fA«ts la this 0A«« ar« praoilenllY tfa« anse as thost 
la 8a««c oeaeral Suaber 35744 In this oourt. Th« 1«9U0« ar« 
ld«BtloaX exe«pt as to tbs aasunt el^loMd, 

iox the ysasons stiitAd la oa.s« OsasTal Ituabsr 35744, ths 
judgasat of tbs liualolpal Court 1« roTerssd ?tn«l th« oaueo It 
rsBABdod for « aov trial* 


mm Jjamu 


•.J0€ i.A«i|S>IliaS» 

«sftM¥^ 4auuex 


-" O d W^ ^ «-^»i-i. ».■':■; 4 

SSei ^81 .voH bslxl fiolnxqO 


eif* cSk^tas T»dieu/« Xii^^as^ W-. 

8i »«¥»«> ■:?- •: '*««»▼«■ 

-r^ rI 


r'A LiJtSOH and H.vRaT H. i 


D,.nD X. smrm «»« oa jass a. i 


26 8 I.A. 615 


Opinion filed Nov, 16, 1932 

m* i USSIBIKG JUGTias 5!IL£QK dellvonsd th© optKlim of 
the oourt* 

PXelfitiirfs brought their aetlem in th« Umlelpal Jourt 
to recover jsoceys hald by deftsadants. Tlx«se sioa»y» hed boen ool- 
Xeotad by the defendants i4ille &otlB« ee es«Bt« of the plaintiffs, 
and represented r«sit« oolXooted frost eertain teixsnts of the plain- 
tiffs. Ihis relatloaiahip of prinolpal and ngeat had existed for 
a period of three years or laore. 'Hie aaount introlved was #75.13. 
This anemnt was olnltaed by the defendanta c^e oons^i^ion «n the wi- 
•spired portion ot oertaln leases tiAiloh they had made in the 
oourse of their aBrployaent. Plaintiffs elaiaed that there tnae a 
speoifie a|pre«Mmt to the effeet that the dofendi nts wezre to re* 
c<2!i7e 9 per o«ait of t^e enount aetuslly ooll&oted i\nd no more. 

iJLfred Jcdmson, one of the plaintiffs named herein, 
testified tbat he «&• e eentraotor !:.nEl builder «inl pert ewmer of 
the building loo&tod at 337 3fxs% 86th cjtreet, whldbi wem iB^froved 
with a tvelTe ayertnuNit building; thrit he had a talk with exne 
Melsoa y^o wis oonneoted with the defendant ooBpaBj ond entwrod 
into an acre«ii«nt with hin by i^hioh the defend^^jnta ivoire to ool<» 
leot the rents for the building end were to reoeite a mm •qvsj. 


6Id ;A.i 8 a , 

SSei ,61 .voM bain nolnxqO 


.''<p^<ci»*x moA 

'■■- »aiEVf>o 

V ' ■ ■■:■ dttw 
ami Aitt to&l 


to 9 par o«ftt of tho rent <3olX«M8twl« 

Kelaen, on b«half of %1m &9tmi&m%m, testified that hm 
had suoli a talk vrith. the plaintiff Jofansim aad that uBdor tho 
agrofiOMiBt the dofendcaits wore to rooalm 8 per oeat le^pOB tho 
loaooo writ ton on the building. 

'Ilio cmoont involired is not dlsimtod* Th& only ouostlon 
llofoTo tho trial oourt w-.^ urtiothor the oontmot m.9 to be for tho 
ront oollootod or ^othor It was to ho on tho loasoa T«rltt«Qi on 
1^0 Imllding, Thsro woo & dlroot oonfllot In tho tootimony In 
this rogard. Tho osuoe was trlod by thm oourt vit&ovel n jury and 
tiM isMMio woro found In faTor of the dofoaadBSto* 

Tho witnoao Holson tootlf lod tiiat tho Roal Kstato Board 
allowd this 5 p«r <i9&t oonoisBiion <m loaoos wrltton, idi«ro thoro 
wsiB a ooatlauoos ma»wu'»v% of tho proporty* It lo oantondod 
'ttiat this tostlnoBy «a« lapropor* STldonao of an oxlotin^ onston 
1« oonpotent when thoro la no oxprooo o&e^«»v%» 1!ho oottM vao 
hoard by tho oourt, honrror, without & jury ; nd tho oourt 1» pro- 
flnaM»d to oonsldor only auoh tootineoy ao i« rolovant tmd Boterlsd* 
Xlmro mo dlroot oonfllot botiioon tho two wltneoooo as to viusit 
tho oontr&ot was, and the oourt fo«sA In fayor of tho dofondr^ts. 

Wo win not snhstltato our judgnont for tliat of tho 
trial ©otijrt who had an opportunity to see end obsorre tho wit- 
nesses cmd tholr demoonor while upcm tho stand. Hhorofor®, Hh^ 
jud4pgid(it of the Ifunlolpal Gourt Is offlxmed. 

H^EL and BAZ.L, JJ» QmOm. 


■ ':■ ftatilvii m^mmmi. 

••3t!|»lflUr <S1t^hCfe' ,iie4-i i/^w ;.;':;; Sil ;>;; -felS: X.;,.iOi.; S's&ii S»^i ^ 

LOHETtS J. 0Am.XMGfOtl, «t &!•» 
09Aa«7T%tor« of th« Estate of 

«■• H, DAHLii«QTOa, 

Itefcadftats in Error, 


riftlBtlff la £rror* 

26 8 I.A. 615"^ 

Opinion filed Nov. 16, 1932 
MR, i^afcSliJillG 4Ut:Ti0i- :Ii*SCfi pELIY^ntt TKE Oi^lttlOM Of tm COttSf. 
Th« orlgifial bin of oottplalnt in %hla oauao «»• filed 
tqr W« 8« Oarlltigton ?.g>%in8t S. I. ?erry ftBd pr^yod th«t tho •»!• 
•f oartaia shares of sto^k of the i>'ostorla ;:«rua Oo« be s«t ttalAs 
uiA tbat the pertaership betveea tbe plai&tiff sad defendant be 
disaolved} that tun aeooxiatlng be t«kea of all the deftllnge «ad that 
the defendant be dee reed to pay oe«ipi.ainfiifit vhat, if softhing, should 
be due the ooaplaiiuint and that s reoeiver be appointed to teke 
iflMidiate oharge of the pertnership affairs. Sutoeeouently, by leare 
of eourt, uorette J« i)»rlingtoa and others filed their eaended bill 
as oeaaerTHtors of the estate of Darlington, eoaiplainant to the 
original bill* The saended bill wee a Tsrified bill snd ohsrsed 
that on or ;>bmit January 1, 1930* Darlington vaa the owner of a 
buaineas oalled the Great western t«txuk Oo*, not a oorporstion« 
«|ii«h wsa looated in the vioinity of the Union :?took Yards in 
Ohl/9«^o aatt hitd been operated for » BiuiiE>er of yeara previoualy under 
that niiate; that Perry hnA occupied a. o«afidenti!>il and reeponaible 
poaition vith the ooneem for a nwaber of ye are, aad was ao^ualBteA 
with its business sffftirs; that a eontr%ot wrs entered into betweea 
eo«plain«int &nd I'erry for the purpose of oonduetiag tbe btisinees 
knewA aa the ureat teatem Herua Oo» whioh provided; that the 


OT 99m' 

8 IDQO ( 

856 1 ,31 .ToH b9Ln aotaiqO 

IXlaf !>»4««i« tl»rff «»X1^ 

m to ««»*'«;' -s^.-f-^ c-'^v . 
iii ft£ic.*t Xft«#(^ i3«jt0ir «»rl^ le \^-^^ 

«e«nX«firtf 9rft ^i#«irliitt«« t« ••oqvuq 6 't tot vt7 

♦tft« to 

'^<9 i»fi# l»f£) »tf 

. rii»6 to 
■ ■- ~ -**i&.t»i 


jp&rtMim *'vottId part^^kc 6Qu«lly of all tb« ftsaots of the i»u8l.Q««a 

as It then stood," eaeb partner to acavwe one-balf of the deidte or 

bod or unoelieotlble bills &aA. thr.t oaoh votad reeelre fifty per 

eont of the net profits of 8<%id buaiaeM; ohargea further that on 

aocount of illness Darlington mm unable to take part in the oonduot 

of said buainesa and th'st while the esMplaittant was in ill healthy 

the defendant Perry inauosd Darlinntou to enter into a oontraet 

by vhieh Darlington vas to sell the defend<>at 138i eharss of the 

stosk of the Fostoria 3enui do.» ahioh was another and different 

soapnay froa that naasd in the i>arttterahip agreeasnt; tbat the 

statsasats of Perry la poroeurlng 9arlingtoa to traasfsr ths atook 

irsrs falss and untrue* 
Ths/bill further charged that ths dsfsndant assrstly 

apflisd profits of tbs Orsat 'estem serua Go* to his ova use and 

that this was doiM for the purpose of defrauding the ooaplninaiit* 

Tbs prayer of thcybiU aeeks ths a^ae relief as that sought in 

ths original bill. 

Ths defsadaat*s aasvsr adaits that ths parties entered 
into a oontraot of partasrship sffeetiwe January 1, 1330« sub- 
stantially as set forth in ths sasaAad bill of oeaplaint. 

Ths aattsr was ffemd to a aaster to taks proof aad 
aaks his report sad this report found that thsrs was ae proof sus* 
taining ths aUsgation of the bill to ths sffsot that ths defendant 
had scsretly oonniwed to proeure the atook of the Fostoria Serua 
Ci«*« sad further that thsre w«s no fraud on ths part of ths 
Asfsadiaat i'erry in ths operation of the partnership known as ths 
arsst ffsstem serua ae,, but did find that ths dsfsadnat was 
ladsbtsd to ths ooaplainaat for the following itsas: 

•aaaJt«yvtf ^as ^9 Bt^^tut •Jf# iJUi t* Hi^I*'(>'P« »3(ri<u« Iklminr" mxmittmi 
ao t^dt r»Ai'tSii\ »«ytJtil» i«BttRit&«k Jbi vo Ism 

tMi^. Bmu sivii »IH ei »6tt «fie4^ mt»4i>^- 


I -cite aiJ* 

•dl^ t« t^jiq suit am hasfXi. 9f> 



># b»t«r«tei 

*OM*half of book assets of basiness ^^t start 

of partnership (oao-h^lf of >33, 375.83) rTli,ia7.9X 

One-h».lf of old ao(H>;mt« ohnrged off prior to 

partasrahlp and oolieoted -jft^irvrp.rdl hy the 

IMurtsMTship (oa»-half of 967*34) 483,63 

Qa«*lUklf of r«08iT«r*a fae, ao its to ohstTgB 

all to ooaplaiaanta 750*00 

Ome-l^nXf of r«o«lver»8 attorney's fee, so as 

to ohargt six to ooaplaia&Ate 300*00 

OEie-hiLlf of $4«973*93 I<Mie ob aaXe of ftoeouats 
reeeiTAble so as to ehmrge all to eovplainnnta a.488«9(B 

f 15,308. iS" 

lo objeotionn were filed to tke ««ster*B report flMlag 
egmlast eomplainant on the ehssrges ef tT«aA and diahoneety* aid 
%h» aequisltioA of the JTostorla Seru« Co* 3took \iy the defendant 
mm unwarranted, so thmt »a ve eoae to eonaider the queatien invelTed 
on this writ of error, the only quaation with whloh we are o^EKsemed 
la the one sa to the intention of the parties aa to iHlat was 
InolttAed In the pnrtnerahip agreement* 

On Deeeaber 31, 1919, the aaaeta of the QTf?6.t "ieatern 
SeruB Co., ^s shown by the boc^a, oonaiated of oaah on h%Bd, book 
aooounts, aupriiea and the neeessary equipaent uaed to oarry on 
the buaineaa* This appeftra to h&re been rslued at the sua of 
t23, 375*82. F^rlor to JsnuAry 1, 1930, at which tia« the partnership 
was entered into, the asaeta of the coarany were carried in the 
aaae of '■*.'» H* Uarlington* Thia ayatea of bookkeeping waa oontimteA 
until aoaatiae in U^.j, 1939{ and vsirieua adjuataenta were aede 
fr<m tiae to tiaa as to the aaount of the aasets atlll carried in 
Darlington's nam* It is insisted on behalf of the ooMpl.aln%nt 
that thia systea of boolckeeping indioated the true Intent of the 
pjsrtnership agreeaent in that the assets of the bueijiesr, at the 

tlae of the forantion of the i>artnershlp beloi^;ed to DarlingtjMU 

8,i well srs the araendea Mil 

Defendant, on the other hani, ooatends that by the origimsl bill/ 
the express agreeaent of the parties was stated, aaaely, that 
at the tiae of the foraation of the partnership it mji agreed 
tkat the ^rtners would take equally of all the assets of eaid 

4 lit* 
«.P Oil! *^' " 

to KMI« erf* .7»\ J&«Mt:^r 


Ilrcf Dsbnsma 9rf,-t 
\iXid iBfli^i^ 

aidstatttt^KTi. •?<■* "i^ 


Wsln^as »• it th«a stood and that the asset* of tb« iBosiatn m 
It tlisa stood vae the $a3«375*83« as afaowa >ipoa the books of ths 
Oreat ivestera iSenui Oo.{ that this a^reeateat was oharged Isy the 
eoaplainaat to be the airreesent entered lato heteeen the parties 
and that the Ajasver of the defei^ftat adaits this to he true $nd that 
there is no renson for any oonstruotion bf the eoort* where the 
parties hare expressly egreed and the eonditions of the agreeowat sre 

It appears that the crig;lnal ooaplainant* Oarlingtoa, 
hsTing been deeXared to he of uasciuid aiad, ims not oonpetent to 
testify «ad b^ statute the defeadaat v?>8 rendered iaoapable of 



»e are of the opinion that the Allegation oont»in*d la the/ 

bill that the parties were to partake equally ofall the assets sf 

the business as it then stood* ^ in the eyeat the partnership was 

to prooeed, aneaat aa equal int^'rest in the assets in Darlington and 

Perry, fhis agreeaeat is set out in the aatended bill and appears 

to be elear »ad unaabiguous* Darlington aay haips/a good reason for 

giilag Perry an ecfusl intf>re8t in these aesete in view of his mlvB 
to ths eoat>sny and his efforts to brin^ about its upbuilding* what 
Darlington* 3 reasons were is of no oeneem of the oourt. ^ere the 
•oaplaiaaat charges a faoi la a bill aad it is adaitted by the 
defeadant, there is ao aaed to taks proof oa that question but it 
should be aooepted by the eourt as a faot* J;«ou^rld||y ▼• Btor^bireatera 
L^fe Ins. Qo., IdO 111. 367; ftfrw# Irygqy^fiC^e 9ff, ff yexftj, t. Jizsx* 93 
111. 271; g^isher t. Jjufe, 374 111. 363; ii\Uikr^ ▼. Ht;MTt.y4> 221 111. 
86. Sueh being the view of thle oourt, it «as error to oharge the 
defendant with the entire aaount of the partnership assets as 
shown at the tiae of its foraation, but instead the defendant should 
have been eredited with one-half of that »aount« n^jiely, Ui,187,91, 

■■ Wflir»mf 94$ to •#»»a4i mat *»*» i^M t—S* »9df tk u* •BMimv^ 

- -0 ^tR.nai&iqtbQn X««i3|iT'i> iff* li»il* »«-flMiM^« tl 
oa .msd"^ isoe i^oa arvr .fenijs ftaooiWiff t^ »d o^ fc»»*j;»«* «»#«r aalVJidl 


t« «|#»»ar«t «.4f XX<9**^0 ^IXj»«n^d 4Ht»#1^a d# «iiriM e^i^Ufn^ (Mfj» tf;ii|(t XLt<f 

•If* Xtf l>«^srJta(fc« ai ii hat lit'-J ^ti ««ijMii «?!<}■«• 


Tli« lt«« •f $0ft7.S4, b«laf old aoe^sunts and cb@rf«d off prior to 
th« p«rtB«r»hl]p* properly b«lo«f ed to tifte eovfxlsiaaat aad shotiXd bt 

•o or»d[lt«d. Tbc lo«« oa the ealt of »ee«>vttt« r«c«iTabl«« inttoiuitinf 

to 14,973.93, iktouid proporly b« borao/by th« ocaplffiini^att ^ad tb« 

defoadi^at* It «*« orror to ob^rgo th« d«feiidi<^at vltb dao-half of 

th« r«c«lTor*« f«o aad oao-half of tho tttorooy's f«« for #750.00 

aad |800»00 roopoetlToIy, as %h« roeoivorehlp wao broujffht abont 

Dy thB ehargoA in tb« bill tbnt the defftad»at vna ffallty of fraud, 

•lioroaa tbe aaotor** report, eonflraod by tho eb^acellor, fouad 

othorvito. iier«!Ovor, tb» chnrgt in tb« bill eoao«ralat tbo Fottorla 

ioruw Co. »»• vltdout fouadotloa ead outy «lso btvo b«oa la«traiROBtal 

la proeurlag tbo «rpoiat««nt of tbo r»c«lT«r. 9ad«r the t1«« «• 

tata of tbo aottor tboeo Itoas of r«oeiTer*«r feat and tb« feoa for tIM 

attomiigr for tbo rooolTor obould properly bo obai^edi agRlaet tbe 


Xa Tlew of the fact that ao further onligbteaaieiit oea 

be r«c«lTed by « re-ref«renee to the aeeter or aa aoeouatlag, tbo 

osueo la roTcreed vitb direetloas to the ohanoellor to enter a 

(teoree la ooaforalty «ltb the Tleve hereia exprASPOd. 

mmmsxc *«?) nfKAioiD wi-m DiRfsnoit. 

ii^mmirismi n^r^ «▼<««( em£* tDsi hs^. sa^^ sJusa^'i ■itf^iia t««« ,o:^ ttsrx»8 

,--,^ ■■■■■.:«« «i»"5»iat wwiiv »«ftf ^~jtw xti»t^.»mi;tiJt ##«<«*& 



(Plaintiff) App«ll&nt* 



H. W, MISIL, I C% r* ^^ CKXOACW. » 

(Oefeadaat) App«iiM. ) ^O O i.AJ^OXo 

Opinion filed Kov, 16, 1932 
?l«intiff sold the deff^adant sm auto«obll«? and r«e*lT«d 
a« part p«y»«Bt a used e?jt belonging to the defendant «t an <i greed 
prloe for the used ear of $1»225«00» At the s^ae tlae d«fend!mt 
signed, uader se&l* a bill of sale wt>».rranting hlsnelf to be the 
true s«ad lawful owner and that the oar wa^s free and elear of all 
Inoualarnnoe And agreeing to wi^rrant and defend the saae against all 
elalas. Shortly after the transaotion was ooapleted aiul the new 
Oar turned ower to the defendant, the old o^r, in the hands of the 
plaintiff, wnm replewied by the Aetna Aeoeptnnoe Coapany. In a 
p^ooeeding in the Superior Court of Cook County, a judgaent was 
rendered ag^nst defendant in that aotion and the plaintiff here. 
The defendant in this aotion Knew of the pendenoy of th^t prooeeding 
and testified therein. On the trial in the Itunioipal Court plaintiff 
recovered a Judgaent ttp<m a trial before the oourt without a jury 
in the aaount of 1X2 3* SO* The defendant has not followed this appeal 
aad, consequently, we are deprived of any briefs or arguaients on his 

Plaintiff's position is th^t he is entitled to daa^ges 
by reason of the failure of the defendant to defend and sake good 
the ^<)lue of the seoond-hand ^iitoaobile turned in on the purchase, 
mtnely, |l,3?;5.0O, together with repairs aade on the seoond-haai 

autoaobile and attorMiy*s fees »»nd expeasee in defending the repX«Tla 




ISJ^bim'X^b »*t'i. 


a'.^ -' - fn ^mjnitX? '•" ■■*■•■■•"' — • "»■ - '-•■••• 


w« nr« ftot adTis*d as to th« povltloa of defeadrnt* 

iBvt pr««uBO his def«a«* wao basod upon the proposltlen th-A.t th« 

plaint if f« at th« tlMi of th« transact ion* know thnt there was 

a«X «ertg«gs on tho seoond'-hand autOAObiXs in favor of th« 

Ast&A ^.eotptfutoe Ooapany. There n-ppm^rn to hAve be«n eose luuier* 

•tending lietweea the parties that there tms a ohattei aortgi^s 

upon this "iutoaiobile. The faets^, however, show th<;t there was no 

ehattel mortgage hut a oonditionAl armies oontraot, under which 

the title to the oar reaa&ined in the Aetna Aeoeptanee Q<mpftnf» m 

are of the opinion that this knowledge of the plaintiff would not 

defeat hie aotioa tgninst the def«adant« It t»%y h^ve been oon- 

teaplated by the parties that the defendant would olear the title 

for the beiMfit of the pl%intiff. -m are sited to but one case in 

support of this oontention, naaely, Heville ▼• ffyrffrfir ^''^^ ^o» App* 

<15&, (79 8. w« 735} • The oourt in its opinion in thnt ease, said: 

'*8or OQuld defemdant nT«il himself of the knowledge 
of the provisions of the oontrn^ot with Harrington by plain- 
tiff as » defense to his oovenant, the bAsis of this «Qtion« 
, The knowledge of both vendor snd vendee that the title to 

the property in defendant f»s Qualified by bis agreeisents 
with Barrlngtoa did net disoharge the oovenent aade with 
plaintiff. The vendor may ^-^rT^nt hie title as olear and 
perfect to personalty sold« when the vendee^ as well as he 
hifflselfa possesses aotioe of nn outstanding elalB. If the 
vendee usually exacts of the veudor an express covenant 
against the inoumbrRnoes as a safeguard against possible, 
but unknown olaias, the expedieney and prudence of requiring 
sueh protection against e «enaoe known to exist and threa^t* 
ening the validity of the title under oertoiin recognized 
contingencies are ths aere obvious snd re'^son'^ble. The 
evidence of suoh knowl*4g« by or notice to plaintiff was 
lamaterial and irrelevant, and its exclusion proper ?.nd 
appropriate. Witeside v. ii&icruder. 75 i4o# App, 364; 

saUam ▼• MsUa. ^ »•• ^^ST^S^Man ▼• a^U* ^3 ^o. 
4QSt 01— V. iissfaaa* ©* **«• 2407* 

we aye at a Imis to understand upon ^at thsory the 
court arrived at the judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff 
in the sua of $133.50, other than this appears to bs ths cost of 
ths repairs on the seoond->haad oar of the defendant after it came 

•flot> fia»e »»©d Y*' ■ ^^■^--.■■>- ,^ aoi^i. ,, ... 

tUii? --''■' •'-1U.{> Mti^.r >..-■..... •"'^* ■'^- -'^■-^- . 

iti«« ,»«*« tf>d.y ru r;. v..'i, ^ ■•Uv<i^* 31' , , . ■ , 

-frXsXei x^ Mt>t}^tit«X ■■■•' 
f ■ 

'X'iUti tain tat \o vovnt isi ^tiJMUii; #it3Kt;ttjt:qrt ii'iv i vim inu90 



into plaiatlff*» poBi$«i>9ioa« T)i«?« is ••«• •Tid«BO« Xh*t after tb« 
■«oond-haiid oar was breoght iato th* plant of the platlRtlff* it wme 
Bot la good oonditloa »nd required oertala repair a la order to 
plaae it in oondltlon for sale as a seoond'hand onr* but this does 
Bot eoastltute tbe element of reoorery in the eause under the 
warranty olatiae in the blXi of anle executed and dexlvered by the 
dsfeadaat. The eourt ws3 evldeatXy of the opinion that the plain- 
tiff vne entitled to reoover to the amcmnt found becRuse of 
repairs o&de* This w-^s net b^«ed upon a proper oonstruotlon of the 

for the reasons stHted in this opinion^ the Judgaent 
of the Kijinleipal Oourt is revorsod soad the eause is reaanded for 
s as* trial* 

iummstt m^s^Q&n ash caus£ Bzyuksasa* 

ot t»fc«o al stl«; "tie &»•> ifmtie t<*.©g «1 ttm 

"y.; *exf»»swJ .fc«i»«»l ^iiAJ^iiiA c^Vviisii-a: w-s' b^iiixiA^ »pv tilt 


Y«ft A 


(Plalatiff) App«U««, ) '^; ^" ? mm 

A (D«f«id«at) ..ppelOitnt. ) 26 8 I. A. 616 


Opinion filed Novo 16, 1938 

m^ pRSJiiJSia Ju^Tio^i; >iL.t® illiyi^j.!) i:.. ;: ' :■ v^ 


Ifels twi» en eotlon of the fourth oliSias In the ^vuaiclpal vourt 
of {^Im^ge, and fr«i the •tGt«ia»nt of elaia It ti^p(»eiT» thrt the ol«da- 
tiff aXalBwA d«if«tid( at was indehted to hia, th» plaintiff, for the &vm 
of ;i70.00 OR ft ««r1i«ilB du€ hill lihioh iias woAgrmmA to th« plaintiff 
for a Toltiahle oonaldertftlosi* 'ilio oause oaat on for trial h«for« thtt 
•ourt without u ^r7, resultlag la e flAdlixg ia ffiTor of tho plalatiff 
lAd ai^iiLst th» defoBdomt and jud^toit 9S^9Teii en th« flivdltte* ?rott 
this |iaLdgB«nt m. appeal hfXB he^ni prayed to this eourt* 

i^efendaRt sent ends thtit the IxjstnBKsnt .^u»d upcm tms a aon- 
luigotlAbl* ohoae in action and th' t the plaintiff, as assi^a*, should 
iMnrs oooLplisd with the prorisions of see t ion 10, P&ragraiili 16 of 
Chaptsr 110 of aahiU' s Illinoia Rerisod 3t&tut«s« This ssotiott pro> 
Tidss thfit the a8sig&«« and ttquitahlA ;.ind hnofi ft f;l,ds o^msr of any 
ohoss in action not nsgotinhls, harotofors, or hscreaftsr sssioisd, acQr 
SOS in his ami nnas pxoTidsd hs shall in his plaadins an «stii| or by 
sffidaTit, whsrs plsttding is nut rsiairsd, allsge thr t h« is ths ast- 
«*1 bona fids ovsttsr thersof, asA sst forth how v.xid when hs aoqulrsd 
ti%l»* QUls qiasstion, hows'vsr, is not befors us. In act ions of ths 
fourth ol&ss in ths Uttnioip&l acnsurt ths aation is dep«ad@sit upon ths 
•Tidenss ind not ths pleadings* 

oI9 *iiel 8 8S ^ 

SSGI ^B1 .voM feeXxl aolniqO 





'iilfi i' 


x^ 1^ %Mtm a© a«i-.rj.''.«i»Xi, ssid ..^ .. 
•f(4^ lo aoDitajti ol ♦«» qo^?")^ Met ft/ . 

,e.-^:i«li(0 lad 

■•^T." {.),:?"*■ •'7 ■' 

■ . .- In.' 
.f WBifX.9 iVhLMOJ 


tiMAv l8 no bill of •xsaptioas nor nt^Umtmt of fsote 
filed in thti oaase -unA th&T9 Is lKif€a*« this ooturt oily th« ooaeMaa 
law reoord. ^nils [ueatloii has bo«B. y^tor^ this oourt riti vbs passed 
mpoai In the oas« of tlnltt ts. KorahLitla. 248 111. App, 10©. Xte 
eoart in its opinion seid: 

''uoKSTor, in th» mmloipal oeurt of Qhl^ago 
9A atftion of tho fourtSi olaes is itiateT^r tho sridanoo 
»Bk#s it, ij:d«»rt«a ▼« Shieagci. »,!,& i » Ky, Oo a. 840 

iu..>pp. 541} 3i« 111. 4irr~ ~^'"* — 

firitt«a pleadings being unn^«sisary in 
«otiQBj» of ths foaz^ alaaa in the smnloipel eourt, in 
ths abssnos of c bill of exceptions ^d will pr«»uai« 
tb&t the defMt was ©urod by rerdiot* lioJlwm t> 
Oillsspie. i;S7 111. pp. 400; :hgr v. aobiasor.^ MS 

111, ISl," 

Tb<£ (}^£ ct bar m.3 an aotloa oi tho fourth sl&ss and 
19I9 f«r«fi»l]i|; eplal«^ -^t tb« A.pp@llato Gpurt is jontrolling. 

JTssr th« 7#(v8oas stated, ths Jud^Bisnt of th«» Municipal 
Oowrt is <ifflvii«l« 



a Oerporntion, lodlTldviaJLly ) 

•ad «s trustee^ ) 

(Goaplainaat ) Apr>ei.i«ea } 


COOK oomtj. 

n Appeai of Vli:«GE-xT 7L0S.&. and ) O/^OXil x^-^^S 

GLAHA Vi,, frota lateriooutory ) /wOO X»A« Olfl 
Order Appolatliig a aeceiwr, ) v^ -L V-F 

On Appeal of '^luQE-.T 7L0S.&. and 
A Vi^Ois-iLf from laterioout 
r Appointing a Receiver, 

(Defendants) Appe^^azits* 

Opinion filed Nov, 16, 1938 

n. PaiSlDItiO JUSTICE WltSOS OELlVk £D Ttti; OnwlON OF TrlE wuiiu, 

TMe is an appeal froa an lnt<^rlooutery order of the 

Clroult Court appointing a receiver for oert«in property described 

In a trust deed executed by the defendants Vincent Vloek snd Clara 

Vleek to Kaepar AaeriOK>& ctate Bank, as trustee, to eeoure a bond 

issue eonsistinj^ of 70 l»onds aggregating the 9\m of #60, 000,00 and 

, in addition thereto 10 notes aggregating the sua of <;i,350.OD held 

tof the eoaplainant IndiTidually* The trust deed contains aaong 

•ther things, the following revision: 

" * * * The exclusive ri^t of action hereunder shall 
IM vested in 9f>.id Trustee until refusal on its part to 
act, and no bondhoxder ahiill be entitled to enforce 
these presents in any proceeding in law or in equity 
until after dftHtni has been aade upon the Trustee 
aecoait»inied by tender of indemnity as aforesaid, anA 
said txustee has refused to act in acoordanoe with 
suoh demand. • • •» 

The truet deed also provides for the appointment of a 

receiver without regard to the eolvenoy or insolvency of the oiakers 

of the trust deed and th»t if ief»ult be made in payment, and such 

default continues for 30 dnys, then the entire prineipal 8U« at 

the election of the legal holder thereof at onee beeotses due and 

payatile, and th&t euoh election any be aade at any tiate thereafter 









SSei tSX .voH belli: noinlqO 
bCM 0Q«COO,08$ to ttira Miit ^l ■ ::i«llOO •u»9i 

'.rt,', :^i-tt^..^. 


'to \ 


tt»4«B nit to toa«Yiofr 

fun/) ,*J[daY«} 

vithottt notle«. It alto provldffs tkat th« 1imtte« vlll to« p«niltt«( 
t9 occupy Sftid premises attd oeii«ot the rents» lneo«« and profits* 

Th« bill oh&rges default «&• «ad« in tM payaient of boadls 
sad i&tersst coupons in ths naount of l?9496.0C) and default in 
th« ^yssnt of one note in the siun of $187«S0; that the trustee has 
eleeted to deol^re the prineipal sua of the outstnnding boi^s and 
notes seoured by said trust deed to be iianediately due nnd p&yablei 
•krnrges thnt the property consists of re^l estate iapreved with a 
tvo etory and baaeaent briok building oontaining 14 apartaeata* aad 
that the preseat value of said real «ststte and preaises does not 
sxoeed the sua of t50«000«00( th^t although the rents* issues and 
profits are expressly pledged* aeTertheless said rents* Issuesa 
iaeoae and profits have not been applied toward the payment of the 
indebtedneaa; that the said real estate and preaisea will not sell 
for a sua suffioient to oorsr the balanoe due and that unless a 
reeeiTer is appointed ooaf^lain&nt ^11 suffer loos* 

The order appointing the reoeiTor reoites th«t due notice 
of the pOBdeney of ssid aotion had oeen given and that the oeurt 
haA been fully advised in the preaises and hsard the arguaent of 
counsel; that dofault had been aade as charged in the bill of 
ooaplaint* in the ayaent of tlkC ootids and notes* that there vould 
bo a defloienoy after sale and that the defendants would be unable 
to satisfy the saao* and ordered the appointment of a reoeiver* 

This court finds that under the teras of the trust deed* 
the trustee was clothed with authority to undertake the foreclosure 
proceedings and that this right was not dspendent upon any aotion 
of the bondholders requesting the trustee so to do. Rolianoe Sank 
it Trntst Ooapapy v, Dalsey , 365 111* App* S46* 

The eooplainant, in addition to its Ttfj^t and obligations 
as trustee* also had sa individual interest as owner of the 10 notes 
aggrogating the principal sua of ;a* 350.00 scoured by the trust 
dood sad subordinate to the lion of the bonds* 

8:<rf i>i»#a£f7# «tif taiii j04«T£;X$ lo aura Mhr ^ - ^it^ to #ii»ait«<3 Ml# 

-^^fSJ Its #«(M;taij ftrfiT 6^A«<1^;^ &i!utiq;i.8 c«<id f - - ■^-•"■' • *nc»q Jhit* Mw»Mii 
le Hid »iidr at h9csnx»ab ttr< ^h--:!: ji:«i»xu/o« y 

.»^c .anA .ixt . mwaffP fm^lJ. 

••loa 0£ «(f# to Y4JIW0 ttt tw^i*titt i^abivibttt a» Mtrf owXji t«>9#iiintl ba 
jT^urtf 9d;r t<^ ft«Ztf««ti C)0.08S«XiS to nrt Xm;l9li2«<? ttJUT 9«lt«B*^rs;M 


The bill ehfirgfts that the present y%lue ef the property 
does aot exceed the aus of #&0t000.00 &wA th»t the ps^alaes vould 
aot aell for a sua eufiioient to p^y tX» i&debtedneae. 7hi« was 
e direct aulegfttion «» to the value of the property &iid ehovt 
that the value ves Insuffloieut upon a sale to cover the outetand- 
Ing Indebtedneaa secured hy the trust deed. The hill was awora 
to aad WBM suffloient la the abaeaee of stay evldenoe to the 
ooBtr«ry, to 8U8t?.ln the order. 

FiMlng ao error ia the reoord the order of the Oireult 
Ooart appointing % receiver will he ^.nd it hereby ie »5f firmed, 

QSLwm Affimm, 

iiijvti:) ^lit to :•. 

0K» tell »i*i>l 
tft> XX»e tMi 

»^* tjuft 

iinrfiRi.ocuTO??y appi:: 



fREO 3. BfOKiiAa, Ousrdiiia, 
(ComplalaAnt) Appellee, 


QkZZAHkt hi.9 wife* LOUIS ) 

TOIfXTtI and i.mfSaf i*A8T£HI8« ) 

et al« ) OOQK 068i 

(Defeadants) Appeliaate. ) 26 8 T.A. 6l6 

Opinion filed Nov. 16« 1933 
The oompXainant Beokantn. ae gaardlaa of the estate of 
a slnor, filed hla bill to foreclose n oertala trust dead executed 
Igf the defendants on oert^^in property loeated In Oook County. The 
MU oharged default In the payment of prlnoipal note nuaber 3<><3 
for f3,000*00 due June 30« 1931; prlnelpal notes 4-D to 18-R 
Inoluslre aggregating the prlnoipal sua of I3d«000.00, aaturlng June 
30« 193a« together v;lth Interest ooupons; charges that default has 
been mnde in the payaent of taxes %nA that under the trust deed 
oeaplalnant has elsoted to deolnre the whole aaount of the indebted- 
ness due in aocordanoe with the peiver granted la the trust deed; 
charges thttt said prealses are laprored vlth a three story brlek 
building oontaining six, six rooa apartotents loeated in the Olty of 
Ohle^ge and that the prealses are worth approxlaately ¥^3&,O0Q,0O 
aad are, therefore, soaat and ae^ger seeurlty for the payaeat of 
the indebtedness; eharges that the rents. Issues and profits of 
tke prealses are pledged in the trust deed and that there Is a 
proTlslon in the deed glTlng the grantors tha rl^t to a reoeiwer 
without notloe; eh»rges further that ooaplaiaant will be compelled 
to adrnnoe aoneys for the trl<«l of the cause including stenographer's 
charges, lawyers* fees, continuation of abstract of title, aaster's 
fees, et«« 





^Ivll^^f-'^ ,hV 

»ifr .xtauoO Jioc^ el M»sr#d«l X#t*Q«tn al'-litae a* «#ii*i>tt»t^t «H? f«f 

.' -^<''<-«l» tffMi «»st««(9 ja3«»9ir»« #»«iC9»jQi dil* t^Attf^mt ^f^Stl «0S 
. J-aut^ •Hi %^ba» tsM ^f t^tni to ti|ftsn;if;v 9A9 cut •btm M99i 

tal-ni x^ot* rn»%^$ e AtXw bmfmtximl WJ» »o«i««Ta 6i.'?t #«di «it*<8(^ 

to )r««Biit«J »Af W^ V'i'sJt^®** ttt%*?^ fcaa^ ;Ni»os ««t<»t«T»<{jr ,»tii tec 
^0 aJilota box mmnei ^^ta^t 9i(t Sftft m9-^i<!<iio i*$^9tdb»$ii»tiat »!f# 

lNiXX<Nt«)M MT XXiw ^arxiii«X(|«>» #sjEf;^ t*4tt^Ui^ no^rtMSi* ;90i^on :^l/«ld;tl« 

B'tfttf^sM «tX»l;r to ttntm^fi to A<»l$i>unitu«>e «ft«at *t««t*«X ••t||t«j|» 

«Ot» «ll*«it 


Th« bill Is verified by the eosplalnaBt* a? ngtint snA 
guardian of the estate of the avnor* A genernl demurrer w^e filed 
to this bill of ooaplaint by the defendants. The order ^opoiQting 
a receiver m<« entered, after the filing of the general deimirrer, 
end provided thsst the reoelTer was to be appointed upon the giving 
•f a boi»i in the aaouat of ^4,000.00 and a bond toy the ooapXalnant 
in the suBount of ^^300, with surety to be approved by the eourt* 
lotloe w<<>e served uoon the defendants to the effeot thiit the eos- 
plainant would ask for the appointment of a reoeiver and they 
were represented at the hearing* Jroa this order an Interlocutory 
appeal was prayed in aooordanoe with the statute. 

2t Is Insisted upon this appeal :(«^ That the reeord did 
Bet authorise the obanoellor to appoint a reeelverj (b) That the 
bill was verified June 30, 1933, the date upon whloh the Indebted- 
ness beo&se due; (o) that there was no allegAtlon that the persona 
prlaarlly liable foT the debt were Insolvent; (d) The verifioatioa 
was insttffiolent. 

In reference to proposition (a), we have exanined the 
bill of oosplalnt, together f'ith the trust deed vhioh is set out la 
the bill of ooaplalnt, and are of the opinion that It Is sufficient 
to sustain the appointment. It is speolflonlly eh:!srged in the 
trust deed that there is a default In the principal notes due there- 
uBdsr and that, by reaeon of this default, the legal holder had the 
right to deolare all of the indebtedness due and payable. 

As to the second oontention (b) It appears the bill was 
filed July 1, 1933, nad the f?iots contained in the bill ^ere true 
upon the date upon which the bill v^9 filed, ailoey t ▼• ^itranohflowey. 
114 Ore. 508. If the indebtedness had been paid before the bill 
was filed and after verification, there would have no oectsion to 
file the bill, le are not iapressed with this argument. Moreover, 

a«lvJts 94# a«'w ^■»t«id^jq.B SMS 9i s-v. nTi'r 



aoiS <*•»«'• 

1 tn:r-ir^ 

? ■ -^ - to 


tiinf <n«w ili<J ■- '.■ -•. :.•'>; '^'ill 


the general dasurrer filed to the bill ndalta the allegatlcm ae 
true, regardless of the yerifioatlon, Keaeh v, Hamilton. 84 
Ili» ipp. 413, 

With refereaoe to (9)* there is no foroe m the a:rgtt«eat 
that tbe bli.1 fa,tl*d to o^^rge that the OT^era of the property were 
Insolreat aor thsit ©ertaift ten^^nts were aot isEde pssjtiee defends.iit» 
moASl. ▼• lUlaoia Trust a 3^vlnsc3 ainlc. 199 III. ?e. Otrnpl^iiumt 
sete forth facte in the bill froa wMoh it i« uptareat that the 
property is so^nt security for the itulehtedoees and therefore the 
holder of the honde ie entitled to the rents »nd profits* threui^ 
a reoeiverebip, in order to eeoure tbe payttent of the entire 

llefeTTing to (d) ire heve exsained the rerifioation of 
the bill whieh defendants olelA is insufficient. e itre of the 
opinion that this contention is vmsoimd. a Terifieetion very 
siallar to the one ftttiuehed to the hlU in this case eais n]>proTed 
in aeorge S. ieteraon v'o. r, ^^)^^^?M ^a«a Q9rpi» 335 111. App. 
fS99* In addition thereto 1^ their general deaurrer filed in the 
eavse prior to the order appoint in^j; the reoelTer, defend^iata in the 
o?.3« at bar adait the truth of the aHegr^tions in the bill of 

Aether the b«ad ran to tbe proper pertiee is not in« 
Tolled in this ap; (»h1 nod is n aatter that oould easily be eorreoted 
OB a notion before the trisl court. ?he appeal did not bting up 
•attere oemirring subsequent to the entry of the order appointing 
the reoeiTer. It ie vith this order, and this order alone, th^t 
this oourt is ooneerned on this appeal. We see no reason for die* 
turbittg the order as entered* 

For the reasons st'^ited in this opinion the order ef 

the Sn^rioy Court appointing a reoeiver is af firs»d« 




. i_ jf^S^wKi.Qfi-^-^'ii 





fe9!f©»Tt©0 »d tIi«W:-9 III. 

■'i;*u\'^ "i'^ 

^^iiV K. 


\i Jf 1. -"J » >) S'iV, 

(-<>>¥ f<ik«»«i«r HkWit 

— .. -V .'■ h »* .iw'J- *v.' 


^driViifrci .1. 


( Ooivla inaat ) Appcll aat » 


0HABLK8 H. I^Ut-T* UtL£N M. LOTT, 
WALTER J. 0B££JI£BAUM« aa Voting 

M Totlag trustee, and JO^sTii^&aTAL 
ABO CC^MiLJi/l. T.'UslT *• -^MlhCi^ iiAaif 
a Oorporation« 


26 8 I.A. 617^ 

(Defendants) Appellees. 

Opinion filed Nov. 16, 1933 

MA. jJsnrio% HAU. nnLiUtsiQ thi 0. ittio:^ Of tus. oouHf. 

This Is am appeal froa a deeree of the Superior Court ef 
Ooek County dlenlssing « bill for w<<at of eoulty vbereln eoaplaln^nt 
seeke to have a oonTeyanee of oert^ln <* voting trust oertiflontes" 
heretofore made by CJharlee tt. Lott to the defendant, Helen »• iott, 
his then wife, set aside. These trust oertifiomtes had been la»wed 
to oharles ^. Lett under nn ngre«a«nt hereinafter referred to 
^tveen Charles u. Lott and oertnin other pereons repreaentlng 
.eertala shares of stoek owned by Lott in the Lott Hotels, Iru3orpox>» 

It Is set forth in the hill that on Ootober 4th« ld37, a 
jttdgnent on a judgnsnt note for ^50»(XX}.00 payable by Charles M. 
Lott to the oonplalnant hnd been entered, execution issued thereon, 
and returned by the sheriff of Oook County nulj. , ^ bona, and the 
purpose of this proeoedlng ie to oeuae the reeonveysnoe of these 
oertifioates so that they nay cone into the oustody of the court 
in order that a levy nay be au&de upon then under an alias ereoution 
to be issued upon this judpien^. It Is ooutended by the oonplainant 
that the jiadebteAaoss represented by the judgment obtained on 
October 7th, 1997, was <lno aad owing to the eonplainant at the tliM 
the oonveyt»jEioe of these eertifioates was owdo kjr Lott to his elfo} 


«8ni >^ 




^Id .A,! 8 8wJ. 





•l(« b9M %SIUA M^Htk Ti^'Wft^ 3b»«0 ao iKx^»flfi 949 td t4Nt«lf#»« Afti 

<ici^4i»««« ^««4Xs ««. s«£i«fiF waHl&r tim» «l^^-« ^.. 
•mtt 9At dh #aiii/fif«I<7Sdo od;r t^i malm: 

■ V. ,*«_.-,« 


that Lott was lAsolTent n.% tbe %ia» of sueh o<inynf^no»t aad tiimt 
th« oo&T«ya&«« was frnuduXdnt sad void &« to oredltors. 

C?h«rl*« M. Lotty one of th« defendant* h«r«la, ^nd th« 
OfvMr of o«rtaiB e«rtlfl8»t«« of omm»»» atook of Lott l^t«ls, 
Inoorporftt«d, was th« ovmsr of eortain '^▼otiag trust e«rtifie%t«»* 
of I*ett Hottis iBoorporated, iifaioh had b««n Isnuisd by sifaater J. 
Ur«saotoau« and :«• irxant i>y«en«t}$^u«, votlag trustses under »m %gr««* 
asM oatersd lato oa il< roh ist, i9S4» through tho OoatlncintRl s 
OoauMrolal Trust S- eaTlags v%ak« tho stook depositary and agent of 
8«id voting trustees of sueh stook in Lott Hotels* Ineorpcr«ted» 

Oa lioTOMber rth* 1936* trsnsferrwi to Helen ¥. Lott* 
his then wife* eertain of these oertifioatcs* At the tlaM of the 
oeaveysaoe of these oertifiOAtes to Helen M. Lott* Uharles K. Lott 
had been divoreed froai » feraer wife* core A. i.ett. He had entered 
into nM agreemat with Oora, A, U>tt for the payment to hor of a 
large eua of «oney* whieh agreeaent had been ande a p9.r% of the 
deoree entered in the diworee proeeedings* and the oTldence In this 
ease shows th^t he mred Oora k» Wtt several tbou8»nd dolXsrs at 
the tiae of this donveyanoe. The evidenee aleo disoloses that at 
this tiae he was indebted to other p«rsoBS in suas aaounting ta 
upwards of $100*000,00« 

It appeaxs fvoa the reoord thnt the tranefer of these voting 

trust oertifien.tee was aade by Lott to the defendant in the aity of 

i#a AAgolea !!«^beut June 7th or 8th* 1937. On July 7th* 1937* Latt 

reeeived a telegraa from one Moailvray* solloitor for ooaplaiaant 

herein and who signed the bill of ttoapdaiat as iJionald H. ils&ilwray* 

Yioe President* and aade affidaTit to the truth of the ftota sot 

forth in the bill, this telegr^ta reads as follows: 

''i>oa*t think aayoae trying to loe«ite you bat o«iip*By. 
Oon*t uorry about anything, t^est up. Tou have soae 
frlenAs here. Think stook wouO-d be snfer taiSl^pned to 
soasane so ths l^^dy here oanaot raeh it. You will not 
aeed any one th«re. if eo* Oat^ L>athaa (e«idenoe* d98 
Vorth MoCaddea ilaoe is OK. ^lU write.** 

nt^t^ at s^ Mar Jft«e tc^ii^&ifvvt «•« m««x*va** m(^ 
,fti»ioi<' J-^ou to ift«-*<* nw*. . ■■:♦ t«i tM«0 

is bx ^bx .70r. 

■JO Jiis^w Aflj8 jy.istitiO-,r: 

#1 ♦fift »»tcl*>f.t& <9fflil:'- «'^«9^J 

in «»-*. 

> «U-J .7 ^ 

** -t?tf«*VG5' '- 

- . 


. ...... 

■■''•H\ IW 





^Af'jRlsXqmod tot tolioiXoe ^^^YirXi: 

tffwoXXot an eift^.'. 
*^«QK(»o 9^txl trot •^«(>eX 

too Xx.i 



fliiertly thereafter i4>tt and atftadant se]»ar%t9d sod la 
1930 they ir«ra divoroad, (/n .'August 33rd» 1937. at CoXudiihttt, Ohio* 
at the eolloltatlon of MeollTrajr* Lott exeouted the aote for 
iSOfOOO.OO^ piiysible to Lott Hotels, Incorporated, upon ?hleh jttd^ 
■eat vas entered In the October follo«'lng, and upon which this 
proseedlng is baeed. On the het^rla^ of this e&se in the Superior 
8ottTt# Lott nppeered as n witness for the eoaiplaln<>*nt, and on erose*- 
ex^ainntion testified that at the ti«e of the asking of the note 
the ?uiount of his indebtednese to the eospXainsjit had not been 
deteralned, and th^.t he eould not aaj whether it was less or aore 
than f&0*000.oo« He %iso testified th-^t MeOilwray asked him to 
sign the Judgment note nnd 8t«>ted he ande it for I50*000«00 beeause 
he was rsQuested to do so, and that he did not know for what he was 
indebted to the ooapaay* 

On May 7th, 1938, Lott appeared in this eauee represented 
by one Shaw, filed an answer ,ind Rdaitted all of the allegations in 
the bill of eoaplaint* It appears that SSbair was oonneeted with the 
fira of which the solicitor vho oondueted the tri%l in the lower 
court was also a aeaber. there aleo appeared on the hearing as 
witness for the coaplainant, Cora A. Lott tieyer, foraer wife of 
Iiott. It was to prewent Corn K Lott Meyer froa securing posdesaicA 
of theee certificates th'it Mooilwray wired Lott in Loa /vA^Eekee 
to assign thea to the defendant. Mcailwray apoeared as a witness 
in the trial below %nd testified that at the tins he advised Lott 
to oonwey these oertifioatea to his thea t^ife, he w$s and had been 
eince its organisation an official of ooaplainsiat, Lott Hotels* 

In Tiew of all these eiro\HHrtaaee8, it is apparent that 
the chancellor who tried this ease below had serious doubt as to 
the bona f idee of the traneaotione between Lott and the represents- 

'I , r ■ ■ ■ -' • , -. ■: 

•^'"- T«<^* -.^.^A. 

8R.W 9 A. fni^r 

tm JSifc »»t *p«i.'f 


J&ftffeeiltqr*^ tJijirstft «i*f* al bsrt a^r'ifi fs itthl ^Bt^X ^dif 

«»!»(;{ fmd hmM s.'-* -»;! ^o? ;. ' ■ " 

Of ziM id net i^gokt!ft9 b^.d w^la4 ««<v. ^ « 

1£30 XG 

.' tfon ^^^t 


tlTO of the oomplalnant whloh led up to the entry of the judgment 
upon which this bill Is filed, which doubt > is shared Toy this court. 
The position taken by appellant (ooarplainsnt) in its brief is that 
even tho\i^ doubt be thrown around the giving of the judgment note 
In question, and the faots concerning the indebtedness alleged to 
be owing to the complainant* still if Charles H* Lott were at the 
time of the assignment and conveyance of these voting trust certifi- 
cates to Helen M* Lott, insolvent and indebted to other persons* this 
fact would make the oonveyanoe of these certificates void and entitle 
complainant to the relief prayed* In attempting to make its oass 
upon this theory, complainant offered detailed proof of Lottos 
obligations to pay certain sums to another of Lotfs former wives, 
Cora A« Lott Meyer, mentioned in UoGilvray's telegram to Lott; also 
proof of Lett's indebtedness to other persons at this time, and 
oites Soott V. Lumaadxl » 836 111* 564, page 568, as follows: 

"It is not necessary, in order to impeaoh a trans- 
action as being fraiuiulent against the ri^ts of creditors, 
that the evidence should show a specific intent to defraud 
the particular creditor who may attach the transaction. 
In the case before us it may be conceded that the evidentiary 
faots which tend to prove a fraudulent intent have reference 
to the Enders judgment, Tet if a fraudulent scheme was 
conceived for the ptirpose of defrauding Enders out of his 
judgment, evidence proving such ptirpose would be equally 
available to any other existing creditor who might attack 
the validity of such transaction," 

In our opinion, the motion to assess damages and the sug- 
gestion of damages should have been made before the entry of the final 
dseree. The question as to whether or not damages can be assessed 
under the order of the trial oourt, and irtiethex or not the trial court 
retains jxxrisdiotion for that purpose is not now before this oourt. 
The deoree of the Superior Court in dismissing the bill for want of 
equity is affirmed, 



.*Twoo Bxrf* irf b«Xfixf» 8l »*dtfol; rfoidw »**in ■! IXitf airf* ffoiriw nogx; 
i^flrf* ai ^•Ittf 8*i «Jt (ifa«»«l«iq«o«) ^fujXXoqca Y«f anoint Mlti90% •dl 

9d9 ^H 919W d-JOii .fi •9l-mdO ti iIiS'8 ^iHiaiiAlsHiOO ^ri;^ ot gnl^o ttf 

-Jll*it«o ;f«if^^ 3fli#ov »8»d* Ic »dflU5X*'*'«»* '^^^^ taoim-^tattB 0dt Tto aAi# 

aid* ,aao»i»q t»ri#o o* .baJcfsisal &a« taQvlosat t**oa tii a»X»a o* B9t«9 

slJiifaa JbajB hior e9*so.c^i*X9® 0%&d^ lo soafiT'vaoo arl* 8:;{«ai ftXiraw *S4st 

e'**oJ io looT? I>«lij8*ii^ i>at«1;1:o tasaijiXqwo© t^^oori* airi* nogu 
,8*»vlw 5:sasx©l 8^;t*oJ to iiQdtoasi et Bteaa alB&roo x«<l ot 8nol*«sxicfo 

08l^ ;;ttoJ ot m&i'^»i^t B^\&t7imt>U ai bBaotta^i^ ^t&x^- . loO 

rawoXXol b» tSSe »3«q t^5 %XII 8SC clitey^iri •' liP^ asJ-Jo 

.17 itraof »«!# 

'•,.Ui--.v.- ...-:/.,. .- ^^^ \.J. . :3rf* 

-gi/a 9di ba. ..-, .... - .. - ,^s oi aottoei «d* ,floXfliqo 'smo al 
Lna.t\ »d* lo \tta^ ^dt ©roJacT •!>«« n»o«' •▼34 JbXirorfa e»3Aa8i) lo aoi^aas 

tf-twoo XjsXi* ed* *on rto Tfttijatlw £«:« ,*t«oo l&l-i.^ ^dt lo isMo sd* x^bau 

.truoo ptdt «Tol9d »rt)£t *oc »'i anocrxy*! rfuri* ■sol ao l-^f> i^h^trul MOt^itn 

lo #xt3W «©1 XXicf 9!ii 3fl2sGi«eii> nX J-woO toit^ejiU. *&rtfh difT 

.bsBfrill;' 6i xttxlp^ 

,mmoo ,% «u»faH asm «i.»il ,ao&ii9 



jomM sufeu and muiM msmu ) apfx al wmm 

(OoaplalQsats) Appcll««s» 

ALADIR fflCHIiUE and 41IXA SEHIO, ) MQK OetniTT. ^ 

(OefandaBta) App«ll«Ats« ) 26 8 I»A» 617 

r Opinion filed Hov, 16, 1932 


Tlila Is aa appall fxoM a d««r«« of tha Circuit Court of 
9«^ County 1b a prooaadittg liy eoiapI&lasiAts agala»t dafanAaata^ 
ordarlBg tba oanoeilatlon aad reaoiaalon of a oontraot entered into 
tif oaaiplaiA<^nt9, John aurkl and Helen Barki for the purohaaa fros 
dafeBdaata« Aladar sehnke and Anna JMknka, of at ro<wlng houae^ 
furnlablnga and fifteen year leasehold at 7711 and 7715 Sorth 
Pavllaa Street In the City of Ohleago, for the aua of j?16,SCK>*00, 
together vith oertaln pereonal property. Xt 9lao orders the o^^n* 
eellatlon of a Mil of e«Ie of eertain personal property and n 
jshattel aortgaee given hy eeaiplainaata to defendants^ !ind the retvsn 
•f the oonsiderttion pt^iA by eonplainante to d^fend^nta* 

Tfete bill barges tlut the ashnkes sold the rooadng hoitae 
vpsn false repreeent<>tione nade by defend^nta, on which eonplaiuants 
relisdf and by vhloh they were Induced to enter into the oontmet 
aad to pay the oonalderation aietitioned» in th^t defendants had 
repreaeated thnt oertain pev^sonal property eonveyed by a bill of 
sale was paid for and was the property of def andante, when as s 
•atter of fact a large proportion of the personal property oonTeyed 
by the bill of sale waa not the property of defendants* 

The facte show thst oontenporaneous with the execution of 

the bill of sale, Uurki and hie wife gawe i!^ chattel oortgage to the 

defeadante on the articles of personal property set forth In the 

bill of eale to eeoure the oayaent of |6,3SO«oa of the purchase price* 
Xt WM adnitted in the answer filed by defendants^ and clearly proTsii. 

S5e£ «ai •voM b9in aoialqO 

iWiiT^ i»B.n4n^xwi »f''# 's; • jt ■ ..^^ !&«■»?> !»•?.■ 

^tToif ^iv? top aaV'? &■» M&4»^.' 
,00,003 4«i?l to )Uf» fit ««(% ^«>;;|«(&M^ % . 

fefiri fc*.;. i^ ««.rf» crj ^:J^sa«it«-lte ;::,.-■ '"' "<^"-'* «■■ ^: ^f-- - 

>e» Hid i* t<i iti»x**»«>^ "tt««K?<»«a Zeiiii^*i:-^-^ 

&»t'''-^'?'''<?^ v:^^^>^l^tflr l«fl'o«?f*^' ^K^s tg fr-QiJto.r.c'^.'., •?»- -.'t 


la th« tri&I of the Oft«e, that a Texy l«rg« propei'tloii of tb« 
personal property alleged to h«Te beeo fteftlgaed by the l»ill of sale 
to eoeiplainsata was not the prov^rty of the defendants* taut It eras 
elaiaed by the defendants that the inoiusion of the artielee mention- 
ed In the bin of sale, wa« a, and that the eontraot should 
1M enforoed exoept as to these artieles. ^hls defease has no 
aerit* The bill of sale by rhioh defendants sought to oonrey the 
artleles of personal property aentioned is in the usual for* and 
•mitains the ueual guarantee of title; to-vit: 

"And the said parties of the first part do voueh that 
they are to be the true ?md lawful owners of the said 
geodSa ohattele nnd property in nanner as aforesaid* And 
they do, for thenselTeB »ad their heirs, exemitors and 
adainistrstors, oovensat and agree to noA with the said 
parties of the seeend part, to vatrrant and defend the said 
goods* ohattele and property to the pftrties of the 
seeoRd part." 

The reoord shows th^t there wja no aistake, but % deliberste design 

on the part of defendants to defrftud ooaplainants. Coaplainants' 

bill alleges and the proof sho^s that ooaplainants had tendered 

/to defendants* all the property purohased froa thea. 

The trial court properly held that the oonsideration for 
the rooaing house and furniture vme obtained by fratid and that 
the eoapli^iaaats irere entitled to the oanoellation of the bill of 
sale and ohattel jsortgage and the return of the oonsideration ;«iA* 

The daoree of the cireuit Oourt of Qook County is 




^. ^ <:..... 

I>1 aei****^ 

tor a&i^itieiyismift «4* #v«d[S M»^ ^I-s- 



Pliiiintlff la £Tror» 

▼• ) OOUHT or TH£ OITT 

aorporatioii, ) CHIOAOO HflGHTS, 

Defendant la Irror. ) 26 8 I. A. 61 i 

Opinion filed Nov. 16, 1932 


if this writ «f error It la sought to roTlew a judgment 
of tho Olty Oourt of Chieago Heights in a suit against defendant 
railresd oonp^ny for injuries alleged to hare been sustained by 
plaintiff through the negllgeaoe of the defendant. 

The allegation in the deolaration, upoa ehloh the e«M 
was tried, Is^ thi^it plaintiff, while w?^lklng along and upon & 
publie hi^way and crosslag the traok of the defendant eoaipany In 
the City of Chicago Heights, and while In the exeroise of due 
oare for his safety, through the negligenoe of defendant in onusing 
stesB and rapor to be emitted from a loeomotive propelling a train 
along its tracks at such intersection, thus blindin|^ plaintiff, was 
struok and injured. At the elose of plaintiff's oase, the court 
directed the jury to return a rerdlot of not guilty, upon which 
judgment was entered. 

Plaintiff testified that I5th Street in the 01 ty of 
Chicago Heights, runs east and west* and that the tracks of the 
defendant company run north and south at right angles with ISth 
Street. Plaintiff also testified that the hour at which the 
accident occurred was about nooa, and that while w<^lking east on 
the north side of 15th Street approaching defendiant*8 tr«»ok, he 
first sarr the engine of the defendant company approaching the 
crossing from the south when it was about 30 or 40 feet from the 





SSeX t9X ♦voK fiaXil noinxqO 
.TflUCO aHt '^O iiOIHI'lO SHI 


no #ftii« sAliX/^^r mJLiitm tBiit has «A«oa tii«ct^ H«m 6«^Tfie0o ^attioM 


irr*c«iBg« and thnt at this tljia, ha* plAlntlff, w«*.9 <»beut 30 or 
40 f««t fro« th« railroad traokj th?«.t h« we« walking "pretty f««t*, 
HnA that %c Ji« i>a«««<i o^rty: the track the ©nsino was ftbout 5 f««t 
froa hia; that es he h.nd or&a$ed entirely otrer the trnok)^ a deaee 
eloud of eteaa o^ae froa th$ engrine, vMoh blinded kia» 

Th« oolf lnfer©no6 to be drawn froa hie teetiaony i« 
tbftt in hie confusion, aittmed by tHsing enveloped in steaa« he tumad 
baok end ran into the loooniotiTe* The only witneee, ether th^A 
plaintiff, who testified as to the fnote concerning the aooident* 
stated thj^t the train wee aot eoalng fast, th.«it it was a good d»y« 
that the eiia wns shining^ i^nd th^t it hed not rained a% all thet 
A«y» The evidenoe fnile to shew th»t the atena froa the loooaotire 
wae the prexiau^te cause of the injtiry. the testiaoay does show 
th«t the plaintiff w^s groaaly negligent in etepping in front of 
the onooaing loooaotive when it wrs ftheiit 5 feet froa hia, and 
when at tha^t tiae he sew it eoaing toward hia* 

The oourt was fully Justified in dirceting « werdiet 
for defendant, and the Julgaent is therefore siffiraed, 

wXi.soi« P.J. Aio mmi, j. ooifoim. 


-sa-n*?.; , Tf »rf* 1 '.■ _ 'll;^fift 6*«<M>Y0 '^^"'' •■•' S': Jii't ISkld BfO^ 

,\«.fc ftooxv. fi «.«•« ill asdli ,■#»«? |,/Ji«t tif Jw^r'^B 

ft'^iKi.-nn: ^o« had fi t«i(^ fca« ^misi^^t. onr sitm «i!# *«rfi' 

wo.'^'^ a'***''? X'«^-^ • "^"^ •JS''' 


PUtotlff to -rrop. ) 2 6 O 17a. 

Opinion filed Hov, 16, 1932 

TUtLlB i« «B anMwl fr«M ft Jttdgnt^Kt of tlk«» ^tunUSiMiLl aovurt 

of Chioage i&«r*in John B&llay^, t«fend'mt, w^s found ^11 ty of the 

foUoniac «lMure*: "ISif.t John Batlogr heretofore, to-«rlt: on tl» 9 

Aaj 9f z^u^st, A. i),, 1930, at the wlty of Ghlo^kgo aforesaid, did 

ttai aAi l^vo utter, «al»i, dr&w aad deliTer to tl»» aaid Jota 

Lanb«rt a ••rt&iat hanlc ohMk fear tho pAjnuBt of mcoa teavm upon 

tho BiMibo].d% t^tatm Stask of ahi«A0» for ^e (Oiotmt of |50«00. I3ie 

•aid Jc^at Bailflfy did th«i tivA thoro, moll knowingafe the time of 

Miii MftlttAg, drnwlng and delirerlng of tho aforoseid hank ohook, 

Xiukt h« did not then nad tteve hare suff ialt^t funda in the aaid 

hank for tha psymmt of tha aforeaald h^mk ohaok.** In the aon- 

plciint, after the fatmal shnx^ia appaara the following t 

"Seat ion ZSZ Ohaptar S8 3 ft E I9S9,'' 

«aA 'ttutt follows th^^ vrards: 

"iiontmxj to the form of me ata^ta in sueh 
oaaa Made &Bd psa Tided, &bA e^&inat the paoioa 
and dignity of the Peoplo of the 3t te of 

No hill of aaDB^tiotis w-.s filed in the o&ae, < nd too tuastioi of 

faat la raised* 'Hie only u eat ion rr^iaed by appellant is that 

''Saatiom ZS&, ahapter 36, S & E 19^9% la not the aeotlcai of 

tha atstuta whioh prorldes a pettalty far the zoaking, uttering, 

drrtwing or deliToring cT a oheok -i^hmi. %h!» drawer of ru«^ eheak 

that ho haa not ^^uffioimt funds for It a payment wh«fla pre- 



^ - -_ 


SSeX tSl .voM bBitt noiniqO 

^l.^<a ifi'^ til. &&itj^ tx£@j|«Hti^ 9-y)^'.,'' H^^'4i km-- «,mii Htm i»ti» *f^ ifmM 


^Aiftf «i fife/ ' 

t4 fl« 


S9a1s»d, Imt oorstrs the QTism of "False P79t<n«@8." 

^ acit of Vm 0Na«ral ecsMdHsr of the atf^te of Illinois, 
l^iareved Usf S6th, 19X7, reads ^^s teiicMs: 

??«*^*»^^: Be it ipfi^^j>j tM ,^oapl^ of tbe 

ffUd shall m^$ or draw or tttt'sr or d^Xit^r 
•agr oli<aolc, drf.ft or order for th® p^pisnt of 
iHftey upcm .-^my bank or other deposlt^u^, i^M 
thereby obtoliis frcn &ay persoxi iii;^ ^«oy, &er>» . 
aenal property or o^er tnlucihla thing or «ne 
with latent to dafraud, sialoss, dr^iws, utters 
er deliirare any ah^k, drtift or ord«r for pagr- 
»^t ef pereeiiel senrioes or for labor, imo^i»g 
e% th9 time of dueh amkin^!, dra'Aing, uttering 
or delivery that the maker ox* drawer has not 
soff Isient funds in or ar^dit *;ith suoh bsaik 
er o^cr olf^ositary for the pi^ymmt of zmh 
eheok, dr^ift or qxA&v in full upon its p re se n tR- 
tion, shell be ipUty of a stlaAsBeemor; i.n& upon 
oonyidtion thereof shell be fined not mst9 th^m 
^'1,000 or Is^rlstxaed not more the^n one yerir, or 
both. 13ie ifoxA 'eredit" as used hiiKreln shall be 
eonstrued to mmA e& ejen^m^maua^ er undQrfiitrjsA'- 
Ing with the bahk for the pefMBt of auoh ctheok 
draft or order* '* 

31S 111* 86, t,h& ^^ma» JoiJtrt 

held that 

*'lf en indieta^aait or Infonaetlcm is so speolflo 
tliet th» AefondBnt is notified of the oharge 
vhieli he is to Meet nd is ^^tble to prepare his 
defease end ths a "tore of the oharg® m%y be 
•&sl3y understood by the oourt or jury th« indieV 
most or iXLSmmntiasi is suff iol^t. 'Ib@ offexoKi 
is st&tutory. The inf OBftatdoia ties drssim in the 
leigiege of «ti^ statute, end it set forth speeifio 
feete fre« whieh the plaintiff in error wi» ap- 
prised of the oharise rvgaiimt hlis* It mi& svHti- 
oiiXLt in ©^;ry roepsct." 

The oomplalnt is in the Issngua^e of the statute md the 

acre fact th^vt the pwrson i^e drew the InfexBK tKm added 1^ ««rds 

"Seotiisn 3;i3 Jhapter 38 ii & H 19S9'% oould not h«Te laislead the de- 

fendsoit as to ^e offense with ^ioh he wis ol^rged. He was 

distinotly apprised of the faet lb at he Wka charged with the offense 

of uttering;, making, drawing and deliTsrine to the lereen nssMd la 

S j!iAij;CfeM&^9^„li. J?*; 

t + r> 



Qt*-^ :■ 

^« trnts^^'^'- 

'^S *iH 


the ««9lalnt, t^ o >rta|ji chastk vhen he b^id not mttteimkt fundis Ib 

the b^Jik to meet 16s pg^nnent* 

fM JaAtfiMnt of tb« Ma&iol$iuL Ocmrt is nfTtiemA, 


.aLdCK, F.J. i!tad Si- -3^, Of, 2 

ft! &Sm^ tm fiarf «fc.-' -JS ^ <■■■» 



smfmxQn coubt 

nEUums sLsaTRia Ronoffzn ) o? aocic oommr 

00* , e Corpora tioB, ) 

! 26 8I.A. 617 

Opinion filed Nov* 16, 1938 

UrsfTUs H^LL SaiTSRi'ja 'ms: opcaci* / m^ a oust. 

nUs l« ^ft a99*«l troB 6 ^dflttnit of the Juperlor Goart of 
Codic Ooonty ai^inst d foadBUt, Heliuiod Sleotrio Protaoti-ve Co*, a 
Oori>oi%tloii, for tlie mob of |Xa(H}«00 MftWrod opon a lorAlot of a Jurjr 
In a anit for poraoaal Injurloo nXloc^ to h&TO teen suatr ised by 
plaintiff «ui a rasuXt of deftnaf^ut's noglla^nioo* 

on Jtay 34tli, 1930, at atoout 4 P, H,. plaintiff ima riding 
oftirt in ftB amtOBM^Ud on the aoutli sid« of Bandolph atroet in the 
Jity of OMloaeo with Louise Lorteo, one of the wltnoases for plcvin- 
tiff in the trial of this oaito* ^iwn the oar in whloh they wero 
riding had alaiost roaohed the wm% aid* of Wolla Str^^et, It stopped 
iMhind R TelXov Oeb vhioh had alroedy bem stopi^ed by n red aiipsial 
ll#t at the aouthvpest oomer of Randolph and fells 3treete. Plaiao 
tiff testified that sho there loft the oar in vhloli she h@d boon 
riding, pr«eo«dod to the southmat aorner of R^i^olph and wells 
a^eets, and pwoelTtng thcit tha grom Xl#t ^m® her the ri^t of 
«&y aeross Randolph atreet, stsirtod north mvo»a that street; l^at 
si* warn valkine toimrd the ncrthwest eornor of Bsndol^ nnd wells 
streets where there ma a mail box in ^loh sIm intended to mell a 
letter} that idi«i ate had r«aeh*d the ttldftle of Bc^oidolph ;Jtreet 





tI9 .A.I 8 82 

Ssei ,91 ♦voH Jbelil nolniqO 


v,^' b^s^^ititmi a9«f wwM m l»^JLL» wMhei^Al la^s(m-^m^ -i'^ if ft- .< .tt 

aoJfeli ««w m^raiiii tjjotf* ^« ,«ii«l »i«**S ^tf% it- 

'^. !•-'■■•;'/ uits *mA tipm tifeiii a»rf- «^f:? i^ ■..':? ii-'iivj:* ««»•-; &xa ^aitM-v^s 
A lifiCi o# ibtiA.iwt<il «d« itoJttftr «l xotf UtftMC >> mm wuMlli 9«»Ar «te»rE 


ths li^t s5Udd«mly ahsngod ad the trefflo cm Haadolpb Stoea* stertsd 
east ::nd west; that she warn at this ts»e oXo»or to the north f^ide 
than th« sou^ «ld« of RendoXph street, pud tl^t she hurried to«axiS 
ttxc north; ^at hefeom arihe eould readh her d@stln»xtl€Ka i^« s&^ the 
eer urtiloh ettuek her somlne, but thst she had ao tiioa to avolA it sad 
ima strtt«lc try d©f^aid;iiit*B autcxnoblXe and »ever«5ly iRjwred, 

Z.etti»@ Lerine, bh& drlirsr of th© aar fr«a ^#iioh plaintiff 
h^d aXii^ted ^% before the aeeldeat, testified that she saw plain- 
tiff 8tr.rt aoroee Hty&dolph streeik} ^b»t the lii^ta mre then stopped 
CeiBg e«st and west, and that she (pXtzlntlff) i^s about three (quarters 
fidrosa before they etr^xtad to ohnhge. 

GjxiJL J» Stafford* a wltnoss for A&t&iAtmt and drlrer of the 
ear i^ieh atrook ^^vA in^ed pl&lntiff, testified that he ims going 
freat en Hnadolph street < nd «to;)»ed for th$ red il^fit an the east side 
of .elle ^tr^t, rjr^ thr.t vhsax %h9 Xl^ta shtrjiged he st&rlxsd up fjid 
followed a hue und Yellow Oab aero«s eiia r>tr^t{ that at tiie tSam 
he first a&« plaintiff he wan about oight or nine feet frtm her, end 
that he h&i. Just polled out froa behtaft b Tellcnr Oab ^^loh had 
]»rdoeded him ooroaa the street} the^^t th@ eeb suddenly 9topx}ed to let 
plaintiff go by tnd that he (atcfford) pulled out to ^ sround the 
ftab, rnd that it Wia, at thia ttioe thii.% he first a&w plaintiff rjid 
thnt he imB el^t or nine feet froa her* He aleo stated on ezosa- 
examination th&t na he pulled out from behind th(> Y#llov Jab mA 
■aw the plaintiff, he icnev if he prooeedi^ he iiould kit her* fhia 
witneMi olao t oat if led that he lote drlTlng fifteen adlea ^n h<mr 
4uet before the (loeident* 

ttMlXge 3ha]irth^:A, drlTor of the Tellovr Oab i^ioh jma being 
driven ne^ir the defendant's ear, alao a ^itoesa for the ^fenaant and 
ilie aav Hm 6oeid4nt, teatified that &t the; tinu» of the aoeident plain- 
tiff wns near the r&il of th& atreet eer traolE aa he preaeoded toward 

odt vAft ttite mt^H,nXt99h %»& jImm i^li/oo •de ««»%»< t«>i& t^lHMl Ml 

Sfflo5> nair ml tA&i fioi^-t- ...^ ,.,.,.... ^.,, h^ts^m . .. -,-.,, ^-, 

oMa #»«« •ii;J ao tfifel-'- hm &4i wl &^^ *'*^ ? • *^:■^,t;t ;^ .;!r, i«« 

ftfl^ ,««{ rntt #Mft MUiX 10 ^lt^^» ^iA><ii» •«« ad litliiit v)Xq iTM t9xrt • 

r;.' • ,11** ai. tfa 

QOiotf ftRv itoii^ tfftC (r«IX .Vii4i«fi<ii6^ tenooO ^ 

kae itiiixK9f.'3t> ■:■■ wiMb f^'i I'-va mfrli 

-ftlfilq Sa'^bkPM 9d* io f>iR# »«tfK^ *U*ftt»»i^ ffOKfelM)^^ orff vat •/« 

ftTfltmd' 6«teoo»tiq •A aa slOii^ j .J« wi» to JUtor Mt^ *»•« •«» 111 


lHar{ that idM mttdo a dii« for tli« nortli wlAt (xT the strwit t# «•<- 
9ap« to«l&s liijur«4 )»3r ^tta^^mt^B oar oasifiig toward Mr, hIimi i^ was 
strook by It* mis wit»»s« ^so t€;atlfi*4 ^tot iriK«B dcf«»aimt*» 9ar 
stxuek pXalotlff all th« «h««l« on this osr wnre idel4dl]ie« Iter* dm 
rrid«no« from i4ii<di ^i? Jury ooulft hafo areaehed Idui oonoXuoloe that 
tk» spood of dofanda»t*6 o«r wrm suah ^^s 1« h«nr« saumntdi;! to negH^ 
ipnoo ia vl«w of all the 8iarroii»dli«olro«»8tmEoe«« Thm oomer of 
Riasfedolph Ad ^oUs v^traeto la In ah>oaeo*s loop. DriT«.^ra at mttmo- 
bllas aro r« ulrod to use that dagroa of Qev fSiloh the situation ia~ 
■onds, to avoid i&Jttrlag padastrlaas, niio httva an e;|Bal ifl^t with 
flHoh drlTara to the tmm at the atiraat* Xs^ v3hloa«& ggloa l^r^atlm 
Qmnms r» Stanford. 104 IX1« App« 99, pa«t 103, the oourt said: 

'A pshlle str@at la a pasaasa op&i to »X1 
of the oltl£i«aa of the stata te so nd return, 
pass and rtpaas, et thalr plaasura* In the use 
•f a pohllo str^t, the law raeo^lsas no faver- 
Itaa*^'"' The apaad of » oar (ifi thla oasa raf err lag 
to R stroat esar] is rapid or o'ttarwlaa, as Its 
louMn surrouBdlai^ tadloivita* thaider aartala aoi^- 
AitlaM ttiraa miles tm hour ncgr ha rapid t mder 
other a<nidltl<ms thirty mllas oa hoar aay net b« 
Ino oasis tasEit v4th duo oare*'^'^'^ 

Za the instant oosa, there is nothing to show th« plolntlff 
Kbs not in the axaralsa of due oare for har safety* 'Shs evi^nea ims 
saah that ^a Jury aoaXd raasosj^ribly oonalude that d^fand^ak ims eallty 
of the Aogll^aaee ahati^* :jr ax^nin^tlcm of ths raaodrd sho«» that 
tile entire -jusstion ws.a fairly autadltted to the Juzy* Their datarmin- 
atlcn Has that dafanolfmt welb guilty of the aa|pLi0»»ca oh^^rged* On 
^e ufatlen of d^uaages, >ie hold thnt th@ vwrdlet was elaarly ^ 
the reiMlse of the tastj^ony on that <in«itlan* 

So raveralhle error is fovsA in the rafttsal of the in- 
Btruotiona offered by defendant. Thm jodi^Mnt of the :;«parlor Ooiurt la 

•-«iei c>:> 

■xi? i-mA 

"^tT set. HOiSSf 



tiit ClW W-J ' 
to fiat fm if; -t 

,t ,J'i fi !ii.I', i^**^ , 


LOUIS SOLO^Oll, AdMiniatxator of 
the Estate of Paul $oio«on» 
0«o eased, } Ji^iCEAil FROM 


1 ' i 


OSOHOI K« W£AO and the 'voodlawa 
Trust And ^-^.vings titanic, a 

Corpor'ition, Trustee, impleaded } COOK OOUliTY, 

with B. M. Xnrsh, 

i 26 8 I.A. 618' 


pinion filed Nov, 16, 19S2 


This oauae is now before us on rehearing granted* After 
due consideration, we adhere to the original opinion* 

The decaurrer of the defendants to the ariglnal declaration, 
oonsiatiac of elg}it counts, and to the first, second and third 
additional counts, as aasnded, was sustained, %nd the plaintiff 
elected to stand by bis pleading* The e^use was thereupon disad^ssed 
bjr the oourt at plaintiff's oosts* Upon appeal of the plaiatiff 
the oftse is now in the Appellate Oourt for re-rlew* 

Th« plaintiff alleges that the defendants owned and operated 
an old abandoned stone quarry on land between 91st and 93rd streets, 
•ast of Stonj Island Avenue, in a popitlous territory in the City 
of Chioago, in whioh water collected to a depth of about 14 feet, 
and in whioh the defendants permitted, encouraged and invited the 
general public to swim; and allowed and pemitted abandoned auto* 
Mobiles to be in said wat^r, forming a hidden trap ^nd aenaoe 
to life and limb of plaintiff's intestate uid other membc^rs of the 
general oublio who might swim in said pond or body of water; that 
plaintiff's intestitte, a boy 16 years of age, and an excellent 
swimmer, on July 4, 1339, while swimming there, struck and came 

j Tils'- 

S5ei «ai .vow b9llt aotalq 

« *»B0 ©(it 

,#9»1 >X Juocfd to 4#q»lt>'^» «t ivt^oei^c© tsai .« i^Xifv ni ^oj^nOlffO to 

fl<)^ Jbi»tiinil Jbftp fci#5i«tA«i^% ^JS**;}lim»q o*mtft««t«i) ftd* .(foiifnr tii ims 

'-^<':r to •if»€ftta» T»ift« tar tt^ji!u#«»jhBi «* :f^i«.a«X<{ to iteiX itfu iKliX •* 
- jii :«•#«« to- tfiiO<( «• Imtxti hlun nt vi^im dH^im «<«« oi-Xdirq I»r7!>ni»;ij 


iB oottjtaot with hldd«n autoiaobllea which wer« B«glig«ntly allowed 
uA pemittftd lay the defendnats to reaaia in said w»ttr« aod as a 
yosttlt thereof was rendered unoonsoious snd was drowned* 

Tlie ^igiaal deolaration oonsists of ei^t oouat«» allsglag 
1b part as follows: 

iB the first oount it is allegsd that the defendants owed 
a dttty to use oare and caution in keeping the premises ia a safe 
oondition for anyone 1^0 w»s swIbpUj^s^ and that the defendants 
oarelessly aad Bsgligsntlf peraitted old autoaobiles to reaaia 
partly submerged in the water* 

IB the second ooxint it is allsgsd thnt It was an attraotiwe 
Bulsanoe to ohildrea and others who cared to swia* 

IB the third count the allegation is against only 0B« 
defendant « aeorgs «* ead, and sought to iapose a duty on hia to 
keep the preaiscs safe for those who aig^t want to awia* but that 
he did oaTClessly perait it to reaaia ia aa unssfe oonditioa oa 
aooouat of the sutoaerged abandoned autoaobiles* 

The fourth oount is the saae as the thirds except that the 
allegations are oads only against the defendant, Woodlawa Triist 
aad Sawiags ^aak« as trustee* 

The fifth oount is also siailRr to the third, but the 
allogatioB is only against the defeadant H. <• Mnrsh* 

la the sixth oouat only the defendant George w. ftead la 
Baaed and therein he w«s charged with the duty to keep the preaises 
ia a safe condition with due regard tl» the safety of the geaeral 
pttbllOf but that he oivrelesaly peraitted the subaergsd, abaadonsd 
aataaobllaa to reaaia thereia, all of which formed aa attraotivs 
BUisaaoe as to plaintiff's intestate and other children* 

m sa bam «i«liiv ^i'^.a «i oijaisii ol »t0jsl;«9. ^ci hn/tflatt^ iMU 

9tJtm » nX ««8liwi;<:| 9!it ^Mtn^i £ti noitasio baa «!c«o VMr c»# xtat m 

^v^tfn^ritB a» Mir ♦! i^Ai hi»^»il^ :.o&m nd* al 

tit mtti tto xtub s 9aoqtt4 9^ iii»isg,s. l^ . :>&»luf»2fli& 

«A9tMii(e t«c(#c ti/T.fl ftt«#fi(i4-aJ; d*ttl^aij;i4 9i a« •Mistical 


Tka ••▼•nth «adl eighth oouAts are alullnT to th« tixth 
0«iUit« •zeapt that la th« sevanth oouat only the i«oo«11««b Truet A 
SaTli^ B&ak* « eorpor^tloa* a« txuatee* w«s niuMd* and In the 
eii^th oouat, oaljr the defeadaat H* W. Mareh* 

The eliegationa of the seeond addltioaal first aad eeeoad 
eouAts ae amended are herelaaftAr fully set forth* 

la the seoend additional third oount as aaeaded It la 
slleged that the d<^fendaBt8 vlllfully and wantonly negleoted te 
oleaa out the p<Hid or to fenoe lt« and In-vlted the nubile to ewla 
therein* hy reaeoa whereof plaintiff's Intestate was drowned* 

After the demurrer to the aawaded additional oouata was 
•ttstslaed* the defendants sou^t ieawe to withdraw their pleas to 
the OTlglaai, deolaratlon oonsiatlng of eight oo\ints and file a 
dnmrrer thereto, to irtiloh aotlon plaintiff ohjeoted, heoause the 
statute of llaltatleas had run nad the plaintiff would be prejudleed 
thereby. The aotloa wae denied* 

Thereafter, on Mareh 7, 1931, the defendaats* deaurrer t« 
the eeeond amended additional three oounte was heard and sustained, 
and thereupon the defendants renewed their aotlon to withdraw their 
pleas to ths original deelarAtlon In order to demur thereto, and 
the saas was granted* 

The plaintiff oontends that when the owner of prlwate 
property h%e pemltted Its uee by the gener^^l publle ower a oonelder- 
able period of tlae, nnd n considerable rnusber of people hawe 
sralled theaselwes of suoh use, the owner of the real eati!»te owes 
a duty of ears for the safety of persons using said property under 
the existing oustoa} and th!»t, undsr the i^lleg?>.tlons of feet, the 
oourt erred in suatalajkng the defendant's dentnrrer to the deelara- 


J>iieo«it baa ttftlt X«ii«i«iAtui ftff«t«a «»^^ )e ttaoi^«¥i«iXA d<fT 
•i 1*1 £«NiMt« ft^« ^iiiw»9 i)iriii(# £fta9l<^l^>h« faff«o«« ittit at 

C'»9Jti!&t9TC9 9^ bltswf 'i^itaJtrnXn ^s^^ £>«« mn he-ti iiitvx.>v$t»iJL to ^ tut fife 

••w«f «#fi#ftt ii»«t «rfi^ lo ttMrtPO •Hit ,**tr ^otf* I'u R«viftMiikJi;t b^Utif» 
vHmu -f^t»q««er fti«fi ^fli«» iuseaT)?^ l9 xt^^m ndi Tot fsnurb to x^^ « 


The rul« h«t8 b««n settled ^ the velght of ^utfeerities* 

•Bd !• axmouaoed in the etiee of City of i^ekin v. Moiiahon. 154 111. 

I41« me felloes : 

"Thftt the priTste ovner or ooeuimnt of land Is under no 
obligation to strangers to place gvuirds around exoara- 
tions upon his l«nd. The law does not require hia to 
ksep his preaises in safe condition for the benefit of 
treopsssers* or these who oo«e upon thea wLthout invita- 
tioa either express or iaplied* and merely to seek their 
ova ple!i>sttre or gratify their own Ottrloaitf*>* 

How«Ter« an •xoeptioa to this general rule is that liability may 

res\4^ froa a daagerous oondition of priT».te property lying opposite 

a highway or frequsated path« for public usie» upon which the owner 

•r ooeupaat by InTltaticm, either express or laplied, induoes 

•thsrs to ooas. ths dooisions are not entirely haraonlous upon 

this question* but froa 86 L» R. A.« page MS* it appears froa the 

Bote of the author that the v«i|^t of authority is in f awor vt tko 

following t 

'*Ths owner oJT prlTato property Is not obliged to aaks it 
safo for trespasasrs or sTea for aere lioensses. If« 
kowOTer* the olrovsMtanoos hsTO been such as to aaeuat 
ta a dsTotion of the property teaporarily to the publle 
ttse« oare aust be t<iken not to aake it uns'^fe until 
proper aotlee of the ohaage has boea giwea. iothiag 
irtiioh aaouats to a trap eaa bo plaaad whsrs ths publlo 
has boea in the habit of resorting* and exoaratlona 
•aaaot bo aade so near the line of an existing highway 
as to reader travel on the highway uiwafo*" 

It is also anaouBOod as a rule by the Supreae Court of 

Illinois in the oaso of fealo ▼• Haaiaton. 139 111* 379« that 

"Whsrs the owner of land Inwltes ths public to aake use 
of it* by eonneoting it with a public sidewalk* bo aaat 
oxerolse due eare to keep the r-realses in a reasonably 
safo condition. * 

Xm imiil ▼• Hailroad Co,. 103 tl« S. 577* It was said 

by the court* 

"that the owner or occupant of land who* by in-ritation* 
express or iaplied* indtaoes or leads others to come upon 
hie prealses* for aay lawful puypaoo* is liable In daaagoo 

;3woXXot »R tin 

;ji1 T9JblIl/ el iSH' 

'AUMf 57 4. 

oXi<tfs?a ^^t ■■■■ ' '■.'.■mmm'^' 

"^S £UK9 

• *i r is J?>i n' '.? • 

trf tfjiJi«<^.> f^.i CJf 



,fl0itll>£»>9 Ates 

^aolir^itfai xti ,orfw tooiJ. to ;^n.«ji;t>e« to s^a^^c *tdr ^/^rf;^'' 
moo,u »«oo o;r sxorfto »l)«eX to n^tusbui «&«»li.qjsX xo <.su'z^;.to 
%^»mf^t ai •itimll ai .•«»i}xir'. IntvJTvX v^rr vet «G»«iiM«Q »id 

to th«Hi« th«y using due osre* for injuries oooaslo&ed by 
the uns«ife condition of the land or its approeebeaf If 
sueh condition wna kiioim to hia and not to thmi« ant vea 
nagXigently suffered to exist* without tiiMly notloe to 
ttut pv^bliOf or to those who irere likely to AOt upon «uoh 


It is esBenti%l in order to reooTor in an aotion for daismges 
t^t the person injured shall allege and pro^e that the landevner 
InTited the pu1»ll« either in express term or by iaplioation, to 
use the land as a pathway or for juauseaent purposes* The owner 
eannot knowingly permit fi trap upon the land whioh oiay oause injury, 
without warning the publie of the danger. Failing to do so, the 
owner nay be liable to « person ri^tfully upon the premises, who* 
in the exereise of due oare, was injured as a result of a trap 
maintained or permitted upon the limA by the owner* However, there 
»X0 easee where the owner may be liable ewen to a trospasssr or 
licensee for injuriee oaused by wanton or wilfull aets in setting 
spring traps or instruments of destruction on his land for defense 
of his property without notioe of suoh oontriwaaees* The question 
ls» is an owner guilty of asgligenee in failing to ereot a fenoe 
whioh is required by a eity ordinanoo around a large hole or pit* 
so as to prewent injuries to persons aho are on the land by inwita* 
tioa« sxpreosod or implied, themselwos using due eare* The general 
mlo is that a wiolation of a statute is g^nft iMil, ewidenoe of 
nogligeneoa This is also true as to the wiol^tion of a eity ordin* 
SBOO, where the ordinanoo is suoh as the oity is authorised by its 
charter, or by at-^tute, to make. In Q|m]f^.i;^ oy. ▼• Haifetn. 189 111* 
38, it was held in an aotion by nn employee for injuries received 
from falling down ma open elerator shaft, proof of the defendant's 
Tiolation of B oity ordinance requiring all persons controlling 
passenger or freij^t elewatora in buildings to employ some person 
tm take ehargo of and operate the same, ooxtstitutes a prima, faoif 
•asm of aoglige«oo, if suoh wiolation oaused or aontributed to the 

•tf ftoliToe iE*=«u*v „,.,-x..**- I ■' '"9*9t"tcf« y '■■*'••'=■ i-^jsa 

^■»„ .-^Tfli 

•«0«t96 «ot teiJtl «liif ae MJtfmfttttt to a^asststnciTfteri iti& iiq.4iv^ ^txqe 
aoif^mtp pdt *9tma»tiit*tio9 A9tm tp 9mXtim ^if^d^i^ x^'^mctq »id to 

•nifrro illd « to ffoi^Aloir «dt ot )M tmJ »iii<K til sldT .vvntislXsMi 
•^1 t)* ft^siYOiJiTtfj si ^jTIo nit^ »« jf»&« «l •«ft!MilfriEe »4;t »s»ilir ,)M«a 
•XII ((«X tggMii •^ »^Q ^Mfli^ ilO irX ««jfAtt at ^o^urtittQ tei vo ^t9t%M49 

a*tiiJilMi9l:»ft 9at to tootif «lt«il* ao«j$ir9i» sutCiH js« a«r«Jb ,^fiiXXat voft 
SttiXXOTtaoo WMHitsq XIo t*^vl'>'l^<>^ •«AiMiiJ»^e X#io n to lloi#«XoiT 

Jisjsl JKiza. A »9tiriritiuio« ,«M^^ ».^»r .v/^tdtr^ im» to osvikifd oijit ot 

<»Ai nt fto^Mfiv^aoo 10 j^ooMoo ooitoXoir itocro tl «ooaiiQ|ligoc to oooo 

Injttxy* The aonperforoAnoe of this duty iaposed by atatute or 
ordlnano* is a torenoh of duty to the publio^ and therefore eTideaae 
ef negligentte and liability if the injuries were the result of 
suoh Tiolftticm of duty* It has been suggested in this oase that 
the failure of &a owner to enolose a pit or exo«Tation )sf 9 fence is 
not the proxiaste eause thr^t resiilted in injury to the person on 
the land* If the injury is the result of the injured r>arty*s ova 
negligence, failure to ereot the fenoe neoessarily would net be the 
proxisAte o«use of the injury, vthether or not the absence of a 
fence oonstitutes negligence was for the Jury, under all the 
facts and oirounctances in eTidenee* 

It appears from the pleadings of the plaintiff in the 
seoond additional fir at oount as aiaended that the defendants owned* 
operated and oontroiled the premises located in e pepuloue aeotien 
of the City of Chioago, on Stony Island Avenue at 93rd Street; 
that within SO feet of the ceaient driveway and walk on Stony Island 
Awoauc, and within 3 feet of 9Srd atreet, there wns kept and aain- 
taincd a body of water as a publio swiouaing pl^ee, used daily by 
wkttf people and open to the public use* No fence was erected around 
SAid body of «a.ter and no signs of warning were near said pond to 
tell of its great depth or to tell of its hidden dangers; that the 
pond was used as a duaiplng plsee for abandoned automobiles, whioh 
endangered the liTos of people swinuiing there; that there was also 
poraittod in the water a stone slide, which was used for auamy years 
by the Stony Island Quarry, and which was a seoace to the publio 
iisiBg said water as n swlaualag plaoe; that the defendants aaintf^ined 
the swiauing plaoe openly o'^'er a period froa tfsToh 19, 1935 to 
4uly 4, 1929, and were continuously warned and admonished by the 
Oity of Chioago authorities to fenoe said pond in ooaplianee with 
a oertain Oity ordinance, or to clear out of the pond the abandoned 
Mttomobiles and heavy objects allowed by the defendants to float 


tstftf «BJ!« airf.i ,K. ...-..,.. .^e «»»<j ,s->. w. ,^;*i,.. t« ja©ijr-r,j;^;,iv ii©ift\ 

si »oei9t K t<^ tfeitirr«o>r« tt> tin » i»«4tl8«t» oj^ t«M»H» a*> \o 9'tsilif\ 9dt 

eo fvtmtf^ itiiit 6i sfttfCA-t tx.X fi-»tiifa^^ *siti» «»««»» ^it^VLixatq mat ^«ft 

»i$'t Ixn -z^fitus iX't'ft *^^ ^^ ^"^ Bimit^ii^nm ^isdtfSJ^iwe&v tm^^ 

\ft^ti'2 in(S9 #« maumh im»JL*i i0m»M. « ^^,^ to 

o^ Jbttflft} M^% trft«s m'9m ^datjm ttt- ioi^i* «!«! i»«u« x-^imt to yi^>9^ t^m* 

rtjiet t<i^ "to*^ ^i^ «'«^ ei9jL^ ,Aj»iJL« m«*» « %«#«» mi9 ml b^ttUn^ti 
nilctutj 9dS of tt««a»ff b $jbv aoiAw iba» «tx««iij» tmsjitt pi^B 9dt ipf 

of 9f:i:I ««^'X ifMCsM M^% b»iTLim a K^^» %in*fio tmiii f^atmmlim 9sif 

rf#i« MtaDliiiMM ati htmt W»« <»•**'■ ,-. , - r. .■ .<-, -t^ x*^0 


la th« «mt«r; that the dafaadnnts ignored said waraiag, aad mid* 

no nttttapt to aako the premises safe* althou^ they were int^xmaA 

togr the city suthoTltles and oitlzens who llTOd in the neighborhood 

ttant there were sany persons drowned there by reaeon of being 

struek by the articles floating in the wnter; that they did not 

sake any «ittenpt to pireTent or prohibit sirlsuslag, or to sake the 

plaee ff from hidden dangers, but allowed and Impliedly invited 

the publlo to s«l« In said pond; that the plaintiff's Intest^^te 

vae a boy of the age of 16 years; thftt he entered the water and 

started to swla when his head was struok by 9, sunken »uto«oblle or 

heary objeot; that his head was bn^dly bruised, »nd he sank ?ind 

was drowned. 

The seoond additional count as amended. In addition to 

oertskin allegations of f^ot, alleged the violation of a oertaln 

ordlnanoe by the defendants in failing to fenoe said pond; that 

they permitted the olay hole or exeaTation to be kept open and 

exposed to the use of the general publlo for swli&inlng purposes; 

^that the plaintiff's intestate entered upon said real estate aad 

pond without being in any way warned, and was struok by a hidden 

object, rendered unoonsolous and was drownsd. The ordlnanme Is 

as follows: 

*01ay holes and excavations. The owner, lessee or person 
In possession of any real sstate within the elty upon 
which nre located or situated any olny holes or other 
similar excavations, is hereby required to o?use such 
olay boles or other exo«vfftions to he enolosed with 
wooden or wire fences of not less th^n six feet in 
hsl^t, <^en such fences are of wire, only smooth or 
not barbed wire shsll be used, and eueh fenoe or fenoes 
shall consist of not less than eight rows of wire, and 
such roYS of wire shall not be more th<)n nine inches 
apart. Any person violating any of the provisions 
of this section shall be fined not mmvm than two hundred 
dollars for sach offense." 

The plaintiff In this count also alleged that the defendi^nts 

were warned many times tqr the City authorities to fence the olay 

hole, hut Ignored the warnings* and eaoenraged and invited its use. 


fMMRtotiii 9«M \»iSi d»^ <)8 »i«iaw«il Viit «(<M •tf #qs*;»#« OA 

Siii*tf te £•«£»! Y<) »«ft/fi 69itvotl> a(iE03T»i{ xaatt 9i9^ tmnds tmtllf 
Sqs bib x^df t»di ,ai#«oX^ esXai^tA mdi ^ teunin 

M^lvni xXl>*iit?c>; aisfcfcijt aroit ««tt »»*Iq 


te« iB«« •^ hA» ,i>4i»it/m: 

ji?rf# ]i«(oq Met •onei ^> ,,.,>.^ . 


It oil* *sii# 

'flv Ckooq 


»lthofugh they iMt*« thnt mutgr were kill«d there urn m. reeult of the 
dtu&geroue oondltioa of the poad. There is ilea the allegotloB of 
the exereiee of due oare end eautlon by the plaintiff's inteatste* 

It is to he noted that the defendant's demurrer adaits 
faets well pleaded, and adaite that they Knew of the aetu&l 
•ondition of the prealses in vhioh was included the swimming hole; 
Inde^f adoits that they were waased by the City authorities and 
oitisens of the neighborhood that swiAisiag there was dangerous 
toeoause of the hidden dangers in ths water, but failed to t^ke 
steps to fenos the exoawation required by the Chisago ordinance* 

It is also admitted by the demurrer that the defsBdants 
haws allowed, saeeuragsd and inrited the publie to swla la the 
pvtA OB their preadees* This inwitation to use the premises for 
swimming induoed the plaintiff's inteati^^te to ooae upon the 
prealses for a lawful purpose, and while on the prealses and in 
the water the plaintiff was injured, whioh injury resulted in his 
#sath through no fault of his own. Under this stite of the plead- 
Inge, the plaintiff oan maintain an notion for the death of his 
intestate oocnaioned by the unsafe eoodition of the Itnd* This 
condition was Icnown to the defendants and not to the deeeased, and 
they negligently suffered it to exist, without any notioe to him, 
when he took advantage of the defendants' inritation to swim. The 
failure to ereot n fenoe is not oonoiusiTe of liability, but this 
Vreaeh of duty will be eridenoe of negligense. To ereot a fence 
Is a duty imposed by the City Ordinance, and failure of the defend- 
ants to do so, as alleged, is a breach of this duty to the public 
and evidence of negligence for which the defendants are liable if 
the injuries causing the death of plaintiff's intestate were, in 
a substantial ssnse, the result of such wiolatlon of duty. If 
s fence had beea built enclosing the pood, as required by the 
ordinance, we cannot aseuae that this boy would haws cliabod over 
the fenoe to go in swimming. 


%(iT to iia—t » ts: •!«<<# tmilit AT^^if t^iiits tnit imet fMH i^iM^^X^ 

to aolti^«iiji 9(t# •«!» ei #t*tfT .Iunk* «d[if to »&l;ri£ifi9« t(Wit ■§!■■§ 

•a#«jrt»#fli F'lttirniAXsi •fit yd »oi*««;« 1»« ««/»« «t^ !^o 9ti«i[«]ro ctft 

I»tf4»j« »rf« ^ft «oa> x&ift if»Ait ^jrifft^ htr.i? ,{>!' .19^ »t«it 

hoi^ e«i«l*ro!(r»x;« Y^iO »4r y<^ M««4i«r ft-«»i^ ti»<^i^ *»*^'^ «#i«fe>«! «ib**liU 

t;jl g*©i£S':. -a tit «o*«B*i'W?i Ki-tl ♦aatiir:*^ n^i»d# no £«oq 

»j;.i Ri l}«ti£.-»»« t»«t«jt ilajiff tb»tt^tli «.a«r tliMn^- i»ii.t 'SO^J^r stilt 

,.?..■ ■*.-. ^^ .^;S •j^J q^j-J ,.,„...W^^ .- • .,.-, r. ..x^«i->i '-'^ ,..'-.*r 

aid* S:i^ ^Y^tit^^iX la »Ti»rf£*?f'&# ,'t vnuiJt^t 

-bm9\'»b •f '^* ^ #>#»9<yBi t^tft) .a ai 

11 9iU»ii '--r-'- --Ji^-i r-.' ttOyS»l>.tT» ten ^ 

ci «•«•« •l«#a«i^ai s'lllitalfti 4«jtti!;4t9 sfti«jur(;ai Mt 


riaiatiffs oontcad that it W9.» ma abuse of discretion for 
the court to rIIow the defendants to withdraw thoir soTsrsl pious 
to the originiLl dsoXaration after the sxpiri>ttion of the statutory 
period of lisdtation. HoweTer, the defendant a* srguaieat in reply 
to this oontentioB is that the rule has been ohaaged hgr tho 
aasBdaent to ieotion 39 of the Praotiee hot, 0«hill*a St, oh» 110« 
whioh peradts nstendaent to a deelaratioa after the liaitation 
period has expired, otsr thou^ the deolaration states no eavso 
•f action* 

This oourt in its opinion in the O'ose of Zister ▼• Pollao| |t 
MS 111* App. 170* in oonstruing this seetion of the aot* asid; 

'It will be noted that the aaeadaent provides thn^t where 
any pleading is attended, the a«sndnent * shall be held to 
relate baok to the date of the filing of the original 
plsadlBg * * * and the oause of actios " * * set up la 
tho aasndsd pleading shall not be barred by * * * lapse of 
tine under any statute presoribing or limiting the time 
within i^ioh an <i0tion nay be brought * * * if the tine 
presoribed or iiaited had not expired when the original 
pleading was filed, and if it shall appear frost the 
•rlglnnl and asMiadod pleading that the cause of '^(Ction 
nssertsd * * * la the aasadsd pleading grew out of the 
•aas traasaetion or ooourrenee, and is substantially the 
seas as set up in the original pie siding, even though the 
' ariglBal pleading was defeotive in th^t it ff^iled to 
allege the perforaaaee of some aot or the existence of 
soae faot. * 

In the instant ease, if we aseuae that the original 
deolaration did not stite a oaiase of action bec?.use it 
failed to speeificaiiy allege the date of the denth of 
the deoeassd, so that it did not apr^ear that the suit 
vas broun^t within a year after the death of Anthony 
M* Zister, yet w# are of the opinion th<)t this defeot 
■i^t be cured after the expiration of one year by 
virtue of this aMnalaent* At most, the original declar- 
ation vae defeetlve, la that it failed to nilege * the 
existence of soae fsat«f vis*; the date of the death 
of the deceased* It is obvious that the *eauae of aetloa 
asserted in the aaended deolarntioa grew out of the saiM 
transaction or oecurrenoe and ie substantially the saae 
ae aet up in the original pleadings!" 

The plaintiff's contention that the court ehould not have 

permitted the defendants to withdraw their pleas and file a 

deaurrer nfter the statute of limitations had run, was undoubtedly 

ri^t before Section 59 of the Praetioc Aot waa ameaded* The 

sacadaeat to Stotioa 39 affords an opportunity to the plaintiff 

9t fcJ ■ 

■> ^ «!-:;; it 




to »r.'- 


.•♦ »»/«•-: 

9ma9 wir fXlAl 

xlt>ot€iMtmii 9 AW «fltrt h»d 9aoititX»j. 
adT »b9ba9m<d 9km ifoA Mi^ojtlc 


ttl#aJUi<r 9di ct xfiai;#voqqo oa abxolli* tC iioi/«M»6 e# la«ab0»a« 


to fll« an aaondment to the doGlar^tioB, notvlthstanding tho llaltft'- 

tion period had expired; provided thtit the oauee of aotion «aserto<l 

in the aaoBilEMat grew out of the aajM traaeaotloa or ooeurreaee 

At eet up la the original pleadlag, for the reason Indioated, 

«• are of the opinion that the court properly entered the order* 

«hile the order of the oourt austained the deourrer to the 

doolaration, it doee aot appear fro* the record that a deaurrer 

vas filed 'tif the defeadnnte, in oMiplianoe with XeaTO granted by 

the oourt, or thnt the plaintiff objeoted upon that ground* Tho 

court vill* therefore* oonsider the questions before us as if 

raised by a deaaurrer properly filed, HovoTer* for the reaooas 

set forth m this opinion we have reached the oonoiusioa that 

the trial court erred ia sustaining the deaurrer to the aeoond 

additional firet and second counts as aasttdod. Therefore, the 

Judgoent is reversed and the cause reaaaded with directioas that 

the court set aside the Judgiaeat of disaissal aad hold for nou^t 

ths order sustaining the defendants* dsmurrer to the seooad 

additional first and aooond counts as aiaended; that the trial oourt 

direet the defend)><nts to plead to said counts within suoh tiae 

as aay be fixed by the court* and eater such further and other 

orders oonaisteat with the wiews expressed ia this opinion* 


-HALL, J. OID iOf Ff ~ vfE, 


I agroe with the anjority opinion exeept ^s to the second 

additional count as asMBdod, which inllegee the Tiolation of a city 

ordinaaoo rec^uiring the fencing of clay holes and exesTations. I 

am uaabls to see ia what way the failure to comply with this ordin- 
aado ooatributed to the aocident* Plaint if f*s intestate did not fall 
lato the clay hole by reason of the defendant *e failure to fence* 
Consequently, in ay opinion, the failure to eoaply with the ordin' 

aaoo was aot the proxiaate cause of ths aooldeat* 

5«#t9«efl aoitot to •►pi'^n »?<* #««♦* t*t. botrtn aokt 

^bnt»t>thai i!t«6«<?- ai}tX«fi «ie# kT qU 4^* lit 

11 «« B« e-so^fKl CiiYc- t»M«odO »»tol«Tftsl.t «IXJ:-* **too« 

Jbae«9e til* a* i»^«ki.: ^rt »tif 

tti^tfon lot bi9Ji imjs ijs^«i» . ^n ^wo %dt 

• ■ ■ ■ 

bao^'^m rnit ot cc t9«»xft ii4«.iiXQ0 i(«^i%o^jMi ^i^ 4#if aat^'H t 

I ,ftfl0l*«r40K3 isa. VkIo lo ]|flld/!i»l «ifiJ^ griX'sliUjya-x •oannitnco 

lUl ton btb ^tf^f3«tnl 9*l'itiui ,:flt»Jbl»M wrf^ Qt tetutfiT^OM i*tt 

••as«t Of •%uilA\ 9*iaMiM9t9b $Ai l9 apB9PTC xii ^lod t^lo •dS 9tat 

^alt/to •di Aiim xlqmoe oi ttxuli iOOJ-aiqc X" at ,\X(r«At/p«9aM 



Plaintiff in Errov« 

oiacuiT aoiu» 


D«fead&nt in firror. ) 26 O J-*^* t> X O 

Opinion filed Nov. 16, 1932 

ll». JUStlOS Htmia 0£I.I?£R£D THS QPIllXOli OF fU£ OOUHf. 

This is an action in trsspass in the OiTOuit Court of Cook 
ountf 1:^ ths plaintiff against th« defendant, based upon nn 
alleged assault upon the plaintiff by the defendant, to whieh aetioa 
the defend«»nt pleitded not guilty and self defense. 

Oa Moireaber 36, 1330, the ease was r«!^ohed for trial and vas 
tried ex parte, resulting in a yerdict of the jtiry finding the 
defendant guilty and assessing the plaintiff's daaages at $3*000, 
soeeapaaied by a speoial finding of the jury that the defendant 
was guilty of willful and oa^ioious assault upon the plaintiff. 
Judgment was entered upon the rerdiot in faror of the plaintiff 
in the aaount aesessed as daaages by the jury. 

On Jani 26, 1331, the defendant moved for an order Taoating 
the Judgaent of Moveaber 26, 1930, and for an order releasing the 
defendant froa the oustody of the sheriff under a oapis-s issued in 
this oase. la support of the motion to vae^.te, the defend^ont filed 
three affidavits, which were verified, and the affidavit of the 
defendant ooatains the prayer for relief, whioh is, thst the Judgaeat 
of Hoveaber 26, 1930, be set aside and the o««se set for rehearing. 
To this aotion to vnonte the said Jadgaeat, the plaintiff filed 
a general deaurr^r, whi<A was overruled Xif the court, whereupon, 
the plaintiff electing to s^^and by ter deaurrer, the court vaeated 



01 »Sf^ 


"^is .A.I 8 as 


SSex ,31 *voia jbslll nolniqO 
• l/iirOO.aar 10 W3I4I1^ mJT G .i3rt>r 

.ItXttilKixt arft.iioqw tliMr»«JE i6i;aXJ-AiiSi4 t-iae isji. it^J^uf^ »«w 

al ti0>u5til uJiMSk -"S *9'*>«i^ tti!t»M *tf* Ire t^#«ii« «?* f<'-''^> .*^«^>^ ,»■».;. 

f*^ ,"t«it; 

/>* »l»i/ 

aad ••% acid* the Judgacnt and quathed th« oapjaa and the •<Huita«Bt 
ord«r. th« plaintiff brings th« reoord to this eourt upon a 
wTit of errox. 

The plaintiff in errox elaiaa that the defendant vas guilty 
of Isohes in asking the notion to Taoate the judgment at a subse- 
quent tera. Frosi the affidarits it appears that the motion v«8 
■ade on June 36« 1931, to Taoate the judgment ent^xed on ftoTeabex 
36, 1930, fox the sua of 2,000. It appears that the defewiant 
did not know that the judgaent was entered until Deoeabex 15, 

1930, and that he th<?reupon notified his attorney of the fast on 
Doooabox 17, 1930, with the xequest that the attoxney aore to 
hsTO this Judgaent set aside, whioh was not done until Jime 16, 

1931, when a aotion was aads to Taoate and sot aside this Judgaent, 

In support of the aotion, the affidaTits of 0* el. Jeneby 
aad H. ff» Staxx were offexed. The xeason that no steps were 
taken, as appesxs fxoa the affidsvite, it that 0. £• Jensby, a 
elexk of a, «. Staxr, i^ttorney fox the defendant, left the eaploy 
of this attorney, and the defendant's attorney was unable to 
ooaaunieate with hia until June 18, 1931, when he appeared at his 
•ffioo and wsa questioned xegsrding the facts that occurred on 
the date the oase was on the trial call of Judge Poaeroy, the 
Judge presiding in the Circuit Oeurt of Cook County. This aotion, 
however, was aade within the stttutoxy pfixiod of liaitations* 
lfi££i£ ▼. ffM^mft ^9^ffg ^ygonpft '39t» 314 lU. 500, 

The question to be detexainwi by this oouxt is, did the 
facts as they apposx in the affid^sirits Justify the oxder of the 
trial courtT This question, whioh is raised by the plsiintiffU 
general demurrer, properly resolves itself as to the sufficiency 
of the aotion and the nffidriTits filed by the defendant* 

Tti* plaintiff has questioned the foxa of the aotion aade to 
▼aoate the Judi^ment, but we xegaxd the aexits of aoxe iaportaneo 


+ -, .,H-» t M-{* s-r.w;-.«.., ti 0tl'9Mbl1:^s ».<<# «©«'i .tttet ^fl«tfp 


'*m 4ti4m ,«*iR 

O't aid" 

'■■" a..'; 1c:i hit 

awn&fWfJ Bill: 

.31 a^iim ^ItUl 


"? ;: ^ ^ 

» ;Jli«Mr»l 

no feftitnur- 

> / 
• effoiiffi#JuBli to fcoit't'; tic; 


BAi Al* t*'!>0 8i«i* .a t'^fiijjs-tsja' iioir^sj. 


tluua th« fom of th* aotion. The Supreme Court In the esse 
of H^rria ▼. Oblc^i^o ..ouae ^ureokixxc 00^. 31i 111. 600, held to the 
effeot that aa alflilciTit of faete, ewom to, la aufflolent as % 
■otlea entered after tern time, where It appeare la the affidavit 
tbat the defendant aaked the court to set aside a default ;|udgffient, 
and that the motion appearing in the affidavit of faots la the 
•aae referred to was properly oade under Chap. 1X0, Par. 89, 
OaliiIl*s Ul. Hev. St. 

The plaintiff's deourrer adaits the truth of the faata 
set forth la the affldi-ivlts, which the trial court no doubt 
eoxvsldered la i^salng up a this des^urrer. The faets as they appeared 
la the affidavit disclosed that the defendant had knowledge that 
the eaee wns on the trial call of Judge Poaeroy, the judge presiding. 
On Koveaber 36, 1930, C. i^. Jeasby,v» oierk for H. w. Starr, attorney 
for the defeadaat, appeared in Judge Poaeroy* s court rooa nnd in- 
foraed the clerk of the court tbnt he, Jeasby was going to another 
ooort and desired the case held, and that he would return as 
jiooa as possible; that he thea attended a oase in the Municipal 
Court of Chieage, whioh was set at the saae hour, but this oese 
vas not Called until three o* clock in the afternoon. After 
attending to this call he went back to Judge Poaeroy 's oourt rooa, 
and the clerk, or a a&a seated at the desk la this oourt rooa, 
inforaed hla that the Instant oaee had gone over one aonth, 
which he re.'Orted to defendant *s "ttorney. C>hortly thereafter he 
left the eaploy of the attorney, nnd has since lived in Indlann, 
and did not visit the office of the attorney until June 16, 1931, 
It also appears that H. ». Starr, as attorney for the defendant 
directed the clerk Jensl^ to attend on the date the case was oa 
ths oall of Judge Poaeroy; thnt ^tarr was engaged before the 
iTenuyxxT Ospartaeat la two oases, aad would be ready for trial 

«d.t dit M»d «ooe •xn *i€ 4x 

^■ntbie^tc, «:»tat "" .' '"" — ' '' '" "*" "'''" ' ' '' 
©e,?9 aid* txKi t7;jC:-f '^.■^rr 

tMBbn^lt^b a -ft to) X9A70#tfi e . 
no Mm 9BIIIQ •xf^ «if A; •At a& ba^i 

^•Miis sst<9t TefltA J&9ic»>a» a&ttom 

im»l^ tat fm^' 

^di tsdi baft 


--■'■ «•«•' 9d4 

-«.'^£&a9l'«& «H# sot 
^« 3lt»X» «(<* iS»«'rol' 

,0X<^l9aoq as &09B 

iittii} ^9Xi«^ ;foc a,^ 

■^:^ii mid 0aaito^«l 
■s: bib ham 


XjsItI tot t*^^ 'Kt f>Xirev iMifi «aaa»o &vt ui tattmtxi^i^ii xttm^BXt 


Imter In the day. It alao mppesra that tfe« def«n')ii»t «»■ Teit4y 

for trlal« and aooordlixg to hla affidaTlt^ had a defease to this 


The Appellate Court held in the case of Yoth ▼• Phllllpaon, 

A Co.. 250 111, App» 247, that judiolal notloe will be tnken 

from the foot that under the isrell-icnovm ooaditloxm existing in 

Oook County, attorneys often ha^e oases called for trial In 

different ooturta on the saae lay and deputise olerXs to represent 

thea la answering the oeais. and the faet that the attorney for 

a litigant deputized his olerk to answer the trial oall of a 

esse la Oook Oo\mty Is not such negligence as would defent the 

right to have a ;}udgnieat of dlsalssel vaoated. In view of the 

existing conditions that attorneys often have oases for trial la 

different courts* The court said In that ease; 

"An order dlsalsslng a o&se for wnat of prosecution on 
the ■d.eapprehenalon that the plaintiff had not appeared 
for trisl^ when in fnot the olerk of the attorney had 
appeared to answer tbe trial Of:)ll and by aslstake of the 
clerk of the court was Informed that the oase was con- 
/ tlnued, oonatltutes a of f'iot justifying under 
section 83 of the Practice Act, Cahill's Qt. ch. 110, 
Par. 83, the vadation of the judgment of dlsalssal*" 

• • • The olerk is an officer of the court and it Is 
his duty to note its orders that nre to be subsequently 
spread of record. He w!«ia the proper one to consult as 
to the status of thK case and was supposed to know and 
note the orders of the oourt, and we think plaintiff 
was warranted la relying upon his statement as to what 
they were, and was not rr quired to verify the saas 
by eoaaultlng his minutes. The olerk, however, wslS 
mistaken anl here as in the Madden case aisled plaintiff 
sad IndlKeetly the court** 

This oa«Hi Is clearly applleable to the instant case* The 

faet that Start as the defenant's attorney was eng<^ged, and 

directed Jeashy, his law olerk, to answer the oall la queetloa, 

was act aegllgeaoe oa the part of defendant's attorney, nor was It 

negllgeaee to aaslga his law elsrk to answer the trial oall during 

8 1 tit OS ««a»t»fc 6 b»A ^'i: ,*Ti%i t4t 

ai aiifV;K«'»* (%«)icH&a©ft IfwOJlA-tE'^* a,3^ t'SM;- . .,..: : i .. - : : .„:._.. 
tot itaato**/!? »H# i»d$ r.-i i :■;.', ^iis ai astft 


■ t i '■.:i ■ / r.iii**jte <»^/ 

^atfiSt^ttp Hi XX«e %t» %tmiu» o^ ,4t«iX9 w«X »Xri «\(}M«i. tftJ'MTlb 
^attuh £!.«* l^lnjr M# «««««« ol Jiir»X« wi>X clef ii$ita« otf <l«fM»2iXs«lt 


kla •agagettftat la th« Treasury Dspartaent* The tnot i« that the 
Iftv el«7k attended ooixrt oalls s&d returaed to Judge Fo«epo7*e 
•ourt rocHi ^fter atteedlng anotb€>r o«JLl in the Municipal Oourt^ 
ftBd ««s then Inforaed by the elerk of the oourt th%t the Oftse 
mui eeatlnued^ vlileh was a ttletake oa the part of the elerk glviag 
the iaforvfttlea, and justified the order ▼ncating the Jtidgaeat 
entered ia the instsnt oaee* 

••■• oo'^ment ie as to the faet that la the sffldaTlt 
of Jetmtf he reeelved his inforaoitioa of a oontinuaaoe fros a 
olork or aaa seated at the desk. Tho adalttod faol; Is that ho 
reoelTed mistaken infonseition* The defendant's attorney was 
varraated in relying upon Jeasby*s statement as to the oonditloos, 
sad was not required to Terlfy the same hy consulting the minutes 
of the olei^ of the oourt. The defendant was alnXed« aad« lnoldentXy« 
the oourt* The attorney for the defendant in this ease was not 
aegllgeat^ and whether a mistake was made by the elerk of the 
eourt or the $«ttomey*s oIerk« we think* equitably* the judgment 
ou«i^ht not to stand, provided the defendant has a meritorious 

«o* therefore* are of the opinion that the eourt did 
■ot •TT in oTerruling the demurrer of the plaintiff* and in ordering 
the Judgment wmoatod sad set aside and the oaolas qv^ished* 

Aooordiagly* tho order of the court is affirmed* 

ORDKR ArnfyflTO* 

ffXLSOI» JP. J. k»0 RAI.L* J. OOMOtrit* 

'*(!#• «><■ a* «i>«i* B"j s-aw- 



«ajs;«>ii:'«A f 



BLOCilf oopartnors doing business ) COOK^SOUHTT* 

.pp.u«... 1^6 8 I.A. 618' 

Opinion filed Nov, 16, 1938 


Tbis oit^s is tMssd upon an notion of assumpsit brought by 
ths plaintiff against the defendants. The ease was tried by the 
Oourt without a jury, and after a henring the eourt found ths 
issues for the plaintiff and sntersd judgawnt in the sum of $683^ 
froa shioh the defendants appsal* 

The Bubatanoe of the allegations of the plaintiff's deelar* 
ation is based upon the warranties of the defendants in the 
negotiation, sals and assignasnt of a ohattel Mortgage note signed 
by John Mv^rd i-eidy, and guarnnteed by iiary Reidy. It is alleged 
that plaintiff discounted the notes negotiated by the defenlants, 
and thereafter oaussd judgment to be taken against the guarantor; 
that the g\u)rantor, by an order entered in the Municipal Court 
•f Ohieago, obtnined leaTe to defend on the ground that her 
signature on the note was a forg«ry. At the trii^l of the oass 
Mary Reidy establishsd her defense upon this point, and judgmsnt 
vas entered against the plaintiff. Defendants pleaded the general 
issus sup;)orted oy an affidoTit of aerita. 

The fnote in this case are, substantially, that on the 3rd 
day of July, 1336, John Edward 'eidy, of Ghioago, bought an Oakland 
automobile from the defeniants, who were engaged in the ^lutooiobile 
business i th^t Ri^idy paid for the automobile in part cash and 
sxsouted a note for |634, to b« paid in weekly payments of $11.18, 

H u 



SSei t3i .voK baXil aoiaiqO 

til* #TII«0 


nixfw «o«1' 

t>ii\ on J no ij.'i'n.i' ,x-'i'''-t!'"fi '"■'*"»<"<'• «"5^i'' 'i'ftat^ w-i'o' 

«8X.XI^ T« •#IIMlt«<T T^*<>« A^ ^-^ ^^^ ^^O"! ^ b9tU0»X9 

■' ttatri^ ib«7 91^00 mam 


whieh iB0lud«d interest* and to further secure the pnfment of the 
note* exeouted ^nd delivered a ehattel sortg<xge oa the autoseblle* 
Upon the haek of the note eigned hy hia vae a printed forn of 
guarem^y end e eoafeaaion olauae. Thia guaranty iras signed in 
penell with e oreas, and the na«e of "Mary Reidy* written thereon 
hy oa* Thoa. d, Ueade, The eadorseaeat vaa witaeaaed by A. 0, 
Helaan. On Ootober 29, 1936, after John Edward eldy failed to 
nake payaenta aa agreed, a judgjaeat by oon^eaaion was entered in 
the iiunioipal Court of Obieago agaiaat tUktf Reidy upon the guaranty 
for the 8U« of S617. on May 5, 1937, Mary Reidy filed a petition 
In the Muaioipal Court denying that i^e signed the guaranty upon 
the note, and on May 18, 1937, the Oourt, by its order, granted 
Mary Mldy leawe to defeai* 

Thereafter, on Oeoeaber IS, 1929, the plnintiff mailed a 
registered letter to one of the defendanta, Carl J. Ringblooa, 
requesting the defendante to hare tfr* Reads nnA Ur, Holaan present 
•a witneoaea at the trial, and further notified the defendants th%t 
la the ewent Mary Reidy should establish her defeaie, the plaintiff 
vould look to the defendants on their warranty in the trnnsfer and 
sale of the note. The ease onme up for trial in the Mtmioipal 
Oourt in January, 1930, whea the witnesses were heard and the ooxurt 
found the issues for the defendant Mery Heidy, and ent«^rcd Judgaeat 
against the plaintiff upon these findinga* 

la the instant oase, oertaia of the Municipal Jourt reoords 
were la ewideaee as exhibits, and the Oourt, sfter a hearing of the 
wltaesses offered on behalf of the respeotiwe parties, entered 
Judgnent for 1683 in fawor of the plaintiff* 

The plaintiff's t^otion is based upon an iaplied warranty 
^that the instrument is genuine and in all respeots what it purports 
to be," ae provided In )ahill»s 111, Rew. Stats. Chap, 98, Paragranh- 
66 sad 66, entitled "negotiable Instruaents.* 

:»v lo rnuti mfit 'mlt 

»9ii<i9moiw^ adt a* i^s^cMe lei-'^-.-rie ;; s)9t<^vliwA htm l)«tim*x» «•#«« 
Id «iC9t AMTaittt /« Ksv mitt YT bftti^^is 9;r^«; 9d# \o Ti&r:.<i mit9 tmtt 

o>.^t: ^ , ,r, 

vTirM */!rftT« <ni\i at 



Th« oontentlon of the defendants is th?it a jvuigoMnt la 
oonolusive upon & third party only i^ere the third party is notified 
of the pendency of the proceedings in %p% tiae to pendt hia 
effeotiTSly to pnrtioipate in the trial. The oontroversy in the 
instant oase is whether the notice giren t>y the plaintiff wnm in 
ept tljM. The notioe was reoeiTed by the defendi^nte on Deeeaber 
I3« X939« which would indicate that they had knowledge of the trial 
and thst this knowledge was aocFulred frooi the plaintiff in plenty 
•f tiae t* prepare for trial* 

There is evidence in the record that the plaintiff had a 
telephone oonTersatioa with one of the defendants to the effect 
that the plaintiff purchased the Reidy note froa the Ringbloom 
Brothers; that lire* Reidy olalas she nsTer signed the note, and 
call the attention of the defendants to this defCBae, because of 
the guarantee of the genuineness of the note bf the Ringblooa 
Brothers. iQiile objection was aadc at the trial to the adaissibilitr 
•f the STidenoe, this oojeotion was not urged in the brief filed 
by the plaintiff as ons of the errors relied upon for rewersal* 
HowcTer, the defendants in thelT briefs adait that they did reoeive 
notice on the 13th day of Deceaber, 1329, thvcc weeks before the 
trial in the Municipal Oourt upon the issue as to iHnether Mrs. 
Rsidjr signed the guarnnty upon the note in question, and the 
defendnAts in the instant case were afforded an opportunity to 
defend in the action then pending and in which Mrs. Heidy was 
a defendant* 

At that ttial, the witnesses Holaan and Reade testified 
tout were unable to identify Mrs. Keidy as the woaan who was 
present and signed ns s< i^uarantor. The contention of the defendants 
seeas to be that an earlier notioe would hswe aade it possible 
to hare prodxiced witneeses who oould identify Mrs. Reidy as being 

«:. ■ WUTlf «*0J3 \fe.J- 

«vJ;«o'n i»lb t*«^' ?"i8<i^ *iflBiio «"t«x'sc- «i-»«^:' 



A£iW <.».';"• rtj.iuww .»ntfi or* ^l.-* j; . 

1-1 -> »; ^. .• u. ;i.>T-a;* 


present and aigning as guarantor. If tht dsfendaats had aagr 
further SYidsa<M», ths ti«c to pressat it w«a at th« trial in ths 
iiuaioipal Court. As far as it appears froa the reoord« all the 
STldenee of the faete »as preseated and the ooiurt found the 
defendant M^ry Reldy not guilty. Unfortunately tot the defeadaats* 
the witnesses present at the exeoutioa of the note in question 
were not able to eeaaeet Mrs. Bei^ vlth the exeoutioa of the 

There is hut one store question to be diseussed, and that 
is as to the failure of the plaintiff to foreolose the chattel 
Mortgage ooTering the autoaohile and apj^ly the sale prooeeds to 
the Bote in question. 

Ths rsoord does not shov that Any eridenoe wee offered as 
to the Talue of the outolMhile and the oonsequent loss to the 
defendants hy reaeon of failure to foreclose. It aeeessarily 
follows that this eourt oannot say fron the reoord to what extent 
the plaintiff's olaln should hsTS been satisfied hfy the sale of 
t^e autoflwhile in queetion. 

AOQordiagly, the Judgment ie affiraed. 

jmttKuiT xfnm&Q. 

flL80«« P.J. OOliOURS* 



STRAUS MATIONAi. ti.41i«C it T'lU^T GOSir&«T, ) APPEAL FHi 

of OHIOAOOf OuairtUftB of tha i;«tat« 
of Al«z Jaa»8e«ir8kl, a aiinor« 

App«xl««, ) OIROUIT ooy 

JAIUS tOUCZUL, doing buolnos* as ) COOK OCUMTT. 



tpp,u«t. 126 8 I. A. 6 18'' 

^ Opinion filed Nov, 16, 1932 


Tb« defaadant appeals froa a juigasat la ths swi of 
II500 antered in ths Qiroult Gouxt of (Sook County la «A aotloa of 
trespass on ths onss for psrssnal injurlss sustnlned by ths 
plaintiff's alnor, Alsx Jaaosssvski. 

Ths plaintiff's dselar<itloB oonsists of four oounts, Ths 
first oouat allsgss gsasral asgli«;;saos of ths dsfsadnnt in the 
spsratlon tiy his servant of an autoaobile truek; the ssoond allsgss 
wilful and wanton eonduot of the defen:iant in the operation of 
the truok tf his ssrrant; ths third* that the autoaobile truok 
was operated at a rate of speed greater th<9a was reasonable >^nd 
proper; and the fourth, that ths defsndant nsgligently droTS ths 
autoaobile truok contrary to ths statuts in failing to givs 
rsasonabls warning of ths approsoh of ths stid autoaobile truok* 

To this dsolaration ths defendant filed a plea of the 
gsasral issus* and ths oass proosedsd to trial bsfors ths court 
sad a jury upon ths isauss jolnsd. 

Ths dsfsadant ooatsnds that ths oourt srrsd la refusiag 
to direot .-% werdiot of not guilty both at the oloee of ths 
plaintiff's oass and at the sless of all ths ewidenoe* %nd ia 
dsayiag dsfsadaat's motion for a asw trial* upon the following 
grounds : 





SSei t8I .toH Jbein flOiniqO 

^818 .A.I 8 8Sl 

— . - .'. ft ret mf\ 

ti(* 1^ k»tt-l.f^twai% %9liiti\,ai jkAitumMJui t«t *^m 9d# fio a»ci^8«sf 

1c© ««i;*fi'X"K.:w ,■«..:■ oist nc?}T$w li«U XtflXiV 

»fl[^ »T«!ri> \X*«?>;siiijOft ,- — . . -. ; , - ,.. .^^ wija {«»qe«q 

•Tliji Of ]^U£Jt?> Ai «#i;nt«#i( «#!- of trx^ffloe xoyTl »iJtdecoftr« 

sAt lo «ftXq « bell) tsu^Btiti9lt9ti «i$i «<oif«titl<»e> 
fnu309 «<if •T»l»d ialTf of fr»i^*<N»«; •imo Adf £«« ,Mrs««. 

•ti»jtl9| ••crtt«i »tff fffxfv xitf{; • tea 
9irltutr%«t ai t»*Tttft ftnoo oiff f«4# »£«»faoo fflAlies'idt •ifr 

• rff lo oaoXo •At *H At94 Tflids ton ^o foitJiftv « foot it of 

Al teo ,ooaot)iTO otff XXo lo ooolo o^f fo bno oo^m a'ttifalAXq 

^aiiroXIol oKf OiK}!/ «Xcitf vOA « tot /wifon a*fApJteO)o6 8AiX«oi^ 


1* Th&t the oourt erred Isa r«futtlag to laatruet the 
jury to find the dcfendaiit not guilty, ns to the wilful 
aad Vinton count, for v^^nt of proof of sueh nets; and 
S« That the eTideaoe prtpoBderwtes in favor of the 

The oourt has exaalned the eridenoe in the reeerd and 
finda that the plaintiff's ainor, Alex Janosaewaki. at the tiae 
•f the accident , who 12 yeara of ^dge, and that o« the 13th day of 
Oetober, 193d, he was injured iriiile at the interaeotion of South 
fliiioago Avenue and 8dth Street* in Chioago, Xlxinoia; that South 
Qiitmc* Avenue ia a vide thoroughfare running north and south, upoa 
vhieh are street ear traeke, and that 83th street is an east and 
vest thoroutj^fare; that this boy, just before the aooident, vas 
valking vith his sisters Virginia, 14 years of ago, and Josephine, 
about 6 years of ago, on 89th Street tovarda South Ohioago Avenue, 
aad vAiea they reaohed the northwest oomer of South Chieage Avenuo 
and 89th Street, ia the street near the ourb, a wheel dropped off 
the front axle of the ooaster wagon which was being pulled by him» 
and the rear of the se->oalled coaster wagon regained on the ourb; 
that the plaintiff's odnor in putting the wheel on the axle of 
this little wagon was kneeling in the street oleae to the ourb, 
facing south; that north of the boy 35 to 40 feet, an autoMobile 
truck of the defendant was standing at the ourb on South Chicago 
Aveaue, on the west side of the street, pointing in a southerly 
direotion; that two aea oa«e out of a restaurant at this point 
and got into the autoaobilc truck; that the driver, without any 
warning 1^ the uae of a horn or other signal devioe used for that 
purpose, started the truck at a fast rate of speed and ran over 
the boy* 8 le^ and dragged hia into the intersection of douth 
Ghioago Avenue and 8Sth Street; that the ainor plaintiff wi^s under 

'idt'mt'tsd^ bat- ". et,f:«^\: ,#fielilo»A •<i)' to 

to t 

Aim . ttP9Vt9>tii I ^if$ 

'■1 I :\"B 


,sJirf yet AaXiaq ^fiiwf »«'^' 

■■i^ fiitfir 

t*dii Tot £w»0 »0Jhnii) lux^ia t«ft#o '^'^ ' 
i»v« net tmt( t>*iK}ii t<» •#«% fetslL 
rfttfoCi to floi^o««Y»tnt #f{i 0tat ml 

*.**? v.',*!'?! tog fiM« 

r*f'nif orw ttiJnlcIa TonJta srit >/»d* j»»««r;tS rf[4t. 



th« 8Uto»oblle truok whea it 9topp«d; was unoonsolous %nd bleeding 
froa hie ao«e and south; thnt he w&s t!«Jcen to the South Ohleag* 
Koepitftl and reaalned there for a period of three and a half 
■onthe« after dtiloh he was reaoTed to his hose; that as a result 
of this aooident he h«A a fraoture of the ri^t fearer in the aiddle 
portion; that his leg is about one-halt laeh shoirter than it w%a 
before the nocident, and that the oondition shown by the fraeture 
ie fixed and perwuaent* 

At the trials the driver of the autoaobile truolt testified 
tbnt he did not ^Ito any elgnal when he started the truok froa 
the ourb; thnt he waw the boy's sisters at the curb, but did not 
see the boy* 

The rule of law applionble to the faets in this esse is: 
That the negligent oonduet of a de fen ant, which has resulted 
in injury to another^ aoiounts to wantonness* is a question of faot 
to be deteralned by the Jury if there is any sridenoe in the reoord 
fairly tending to ehow *suoh a groes want of oare as indiostes 
wilful disregard of oonaequenoes or a willingness to lufliot injury* <* 
talldren l^toress Oo. t, Krug. 391 Xll» 472, 

This aooident oeourred in the daytime. T ere was no ooatruo* 
tioB to interfere with the wiew of the driver if he had looked in 
the direction of the plointiff's boy befere the aooident. It tma 
for the jury to say wheth^^r the defen isnt, by his aots, showed a 
oensoious indifferenee to ooneequeaoes and the exereise of oare to 
sToid the injury whea he aetually knew of the langer to whioh the 
boy Alex Janossewski* was expoeed at the tiae the truok was operated. 
This View of the oourt has been expressly approved in the ease of 
Giles ▼« i^e9ria By. Co.. 163 111* kpp» 625. rroa the views we have 
expressed la this opinion it will not be aeoessary to discuss the 
question further, other than te say thnt there is evidenoe of a 
wilful aad wanton aot, and the tri^JL oourt did not btt la refusing 

tX«(« ff tee 9t«l(# )o l)o^?9<i ^ -f'tltimofl 

tl»ti9z sit ;*<'<>'< "^^ 9i Surest -'-Iti* tiitlte «»(lt««i 

0XM>iii 9At fli iMiSl; ;MIsit •ij;f Tto 9rttio ^0»l<ioo« sitfif to 

S^ofl fclJb #«cr ««rxtfa erff Jj? »r?itBi& e'lffflef <»*C* «rp« itfvoo •«!* 

ted •»« 

;si &B.J6© 9l^<i «i a;^8>ffS art* #ir &l(i»ef' 


• l«s«rorfi» *a#OjB «s|fJ xd .,;^af:i si^tisu .. - ^«t 

.&9if«f«(!fo »*!w ateirx^ »dt ntnif unit :t.« b^jrec'rs er* . ■ i|^ 

to •UK) »dtf aX ilb»ro-x<:q4i xXe*^' > w»1t tlin 

« to •QtaftJbXVi* sX •%mtit irM x«ii #t A^d* t»<ft< r^ iioi#«tt/p 

aai«tfl»t 111 %%• $ou hib truQ^ l/^Hf »d9 teA ^jTsm ii«#ff4B«r jba« XirtXXw 


to dlr«0t a rerdiot of not guilty on tbis ooimt. 

Tb« other point made \>j th« defendant, n^iMlj, that tho 
•Tldenoe preponderates in fa^or of the defeniant, is without aterit* 
Proa a oareful reading of the evidenoe, ve have r«aehed the 
oonoiueion that the plaintiff's eotion is sustained \sy a preponder~ 
aaoe of the eTidoaoo, aad that the trial oourt was justified in 
oYerruling the defendant's motion for a new trial* 

There iseing no rare rsihle error in the record, t^e judgment 
is aooordingly affiraukL* 


nL5C&, p. J. OONODftS, 

•dt Udt «^M«M ^*a9kt»%»h •Jf* -%{{ vlHm im4m n^ttt »^!t 


MiLWAUxaK TOOL * som£ 00. « 
ft Oerporntion^ 






L 6I9 

JOS G. UAUti, doing bualness as 

!(^ Opinion filed ioT« 16, 1932 


This 18 an notion la th« Uunlolpal Court of Chioaig* by 
tbtt plaintiff against the def«nd«aty Joe a. MAaa* doing bualnoss 
as Lionel « Co«« for 91311 for goods and ohattels sold to the 
defeodamt* whioh elala appears from the plaintiff *« Itenlzed 
ststeoient of olala. The defendant i»dalts plaintiff *8 olala, hut 
states both in his affidavit of merits sod in the set-off filed 
to the plaintiff's statement of elals« la substanoe th<it on 
Septeaber bf ld38» pursuant to negotiations vlth the plaintiff, 
the plaintiff aoknovledged In writing that It sold to the defendant 
3800 rlB wrenohes at 69 cents eaoh; that thereafter the plaintiff 
failed to deiiv«r 1900 irrenohes to the defendant and the defendant 
was d^iaaged In the sua of tb,ZZ9, and that after allowing the 
plaintiff a oredlt of U311» there was a balanoe of $4«038 due 
the defendant. 

The ease oaae on for trial in the iiunlolpal Court with 
•^ lury« and at the elose of all the evldenoe, the oourt Inetrueted 
the Jury to find the Issues for the plaintiff and entered Judgment 
In the auui of ;13ll« fraa ahleh Judgaeat the defendant appeals 
to this oourt* 

The f^ots in erldeaoe «ire, substantially, that the plaintiff 
eold and delivered to the defendant 8,000 vrenehee at 69 oenta each, 
and that the defendant on Ootober ao« 1938, paid #138 on aeoount 


Gl9 Jif^-1 B Bv^ ^ .»««?^.i»^aft j^ 

SSei ^ai .Toi Jbslxl: aoxaiqO ■ ^ 

ItttalMLq ^At x9HBn9ti$ t»Mi j^oa* .^m»9 €8 #« e^ifn'T. ^v»t 0068 

tn'*tn»\%b *ilt bas taMba9i\ttb 94i of s^fi&dTm 0Q6X t9Ti,. ^ iiblJuA 

9di siiiveXlA x»#1t« tiuU Ihoui ,0^S«ii>^ to mus ^ii* ai lim$jmmb unr 

mifb 8S0«.M to •faa«XjRtf « ajwr •«9<(t ^IIZU to ^i;b0to & 1;tl#i;?X«Iq 

ttBLk'bfUi'i^b *M K 

faaaster^ b9%9itt% ba» TLXtiaimlq 9tif tol ««va«X •(!# J»ait ai \%oi odf 
•XjiaqqA tflA£ya«l«yb arft #ff«in|^«(, doXclw nartl: ,XXSXt to aura 9di al 

ttta^ii midt 9t ^ 
ttXiniaXq •Ai i»Ai ^xllMliaMtwxim %t>XM MMlOvf el Bit 
^d9M9 a^oao 99 $m asifoaainr 000«S #«iil)oat<^ a>:{l o<^ b^tvvlx.^ 
inmnot ao 9SX; tisq «8fi6X «QC vatfefaO na #iMilMiatafi sd ' 


of the plaintiff's shipHeatt, but failed to pay ai^ part of tha 
balanoa of anid account, whlo^ payaenta vera deaanded lay tha plain- 
tiff « both orally and in writing; that tho plaintiff is a i^iaconaia 
oorporation and has its plaoo of husinesa in Milwaukee; that the 
de fends nt» and one A. I. £pton, oalled at the defendant's plaoo 
of buainess betwoea the 15 and S5th of August, l^afi^ vai after 
eonsiderahle negotiation between the parties* the plaintiff agreed 
to sell the arenohes in question at 39 oents eaeh, and that tho 
defendant by letter ordered 4,000 wrenohoa at this prioe, vhiah 
order wns reoeived and acknowledged by the plaintiff, and thereafter 
followed the shi^Msents by the plaintiff to the defendant, for 
which the plaintiff received but one payment, iOMVing a balanoe 
of $1311 due. JJefandant tiy a letter dated 8oTenb r 12, 1928, 
addressed to the plaintiff, ordered 1,000 aore of tho wrenches, 
but this order was noTer accepted by the plaintiff, therefore, 
the question before this oouirt is, did the defendant establish 
his set-offT The defendant has the burden of proof upon thiat 
>.saue. The evidonoe does show that the defendant ordered wrenohes 
mt a prioo agreed upon; that tho shi^nents wore reeeivod, but not 
paid for, by tho dofondaat, except one paynont of tl38, learing 
tho balanoe, iHiioh is the sub j sot of this oon trover sy. 

The evidence does not show when the defendant was to pay 
for the nerohandise. Chap. 131a of the Sales Aot, 3eo. 42 Oahill*8 
111. Hot. Qtitta. provides, that unless otherwise agreed^ 

"delivery of tbe goods and payment of the price are con- 
current conditions; that is to say, theosller aast bo 
ready and willing to give possession of the goods to the 
buyer in exchange for the prioo, xind the buyer must bo 
ready and willing to pay the prioe in exchange for 
possession of the goods •* 

The evidonoe is olear in the instant case that tho 
defendant failed to pay tho balanoe due after dovanl by tho plain- 
tiff, and not even after tho suit was instituted. Ths defendant 

90itiii4>« i^t 8«Xtb«X, »i»«ie;Y»^ *m 3if^ Jb@»i?-'^ -■•■• . ■ • : •;-i4j swU ^rfoiitir 

«9S6X »&X »?><Jii»vo|l !: '•? ^ -'^n*^>». "-v .at/.^ XXCX* Ift 

^99^tie!'»Tif »4t \0 ^lom -.- ■ .- .^>.- «-.-■.• ,...,.,.-*.», ..,.' h>3 i>a«a««i»i)« 

jJeiX^^-.tfaft tojeiiaftlta^i 9^* *i/> »»X Szmo td^:^ ;7--^7?hg aoXjritsu^ a4i^ 
fAd# isotja toovq 1« iwu>«iM«J »4t <«{l tnyr ftlo-^«n» »iif 

esdomno l}«T9J»o tftfjtamtfit bM tMi t^«U» ft»0|i 'i^Aa<»&Jt?« i»ilt -.»irsaX 

t«8 #wtf ,6«vi<M»*5 »««w ©irxs-:.- .-1* tJftrii |«oa[i* l»»»a^«. »©Xaq « i-ti 

?^tjiv«»i »a5X$ io #ict«NB^;j »sie ^q.i»tii»s. ,*it«fe««'t6*» «(^^ Y«f ^rsol bX«q 

X^'.', &i sew *affi>flti?:«fc^»ji# B»rf« wjil» *c»5i »«o£> •♦♦•hlir* »41, 
-ao^ ««« w^tqi »d^ Hie .^ 


•xp«ots th* plaintiff to fully perfora, but do«8 not offer to do 

what tho Imv rsquiroo, that is* to pay for th9 goods alrsady 


Ths (question of payMiat was passod upon la the oase of 

Owyor ▼. IhiQuid ct ^^1. 70 111. 308, fho Oourt said: 

*fif th« terns of the oontraot between the parties in 
this oase, nothing was said nbout the tiae when pay* 
■eat WH9 to be aade* Xa suoh onsea, the law iaplies 
that payaent is to be made on delirery of the property* 
Salth ▼• Giilett, 50 Ill« 390; Metr t. iMbreoht, 5a id, 
493* If, therefore, appellant refused to pay for the 
oeal after delivery, and when paysROnt was demanded by 
appellees, he was in default, and if appellees, prior 
to appellant's default, h^d ooapiied with their part 
of the oontraot, they were authorized to treat the 
oontr^ot 98 abandoned, and sight reoorer in assvuapsit, 
on the ooflUBon ooiinta, for the aaount of ooal they had 
deliTered, ^ocording to the oontraot prioe*" 

Aad again, this oourt in the ease of Oonsuaers itut^ Oil Co« ▼• 
Wstera Petroleua Jo.. 216 111, App, 382, said; 

"We think it of little aoaent, under the law oontrolling; 
the ri^ts of the parties, vhloh of these two oontentions 
is eatablished by the proofs, beoause plaintiff refused 
further dsiiTerles on the ground thnt defendant was in 
default ia paying for the oil alrendy delivered* What- 
ever aii^t be the deoision of the oonteMlcm as to whioh 
of the t«ro oontraots the fuel oil in suit was delivered 
' under, defendant was undeniably in default in its paynent 
therefor. On its own proof it had breached its oontraot; 
it was therefore in no poiiticm to maintain its set-off for 
dsaagss, even oonoeding that defeadaat's oontentloa as 
to the oontraot between the parties was sustained," 

At the close of all the evidence, in aocordanee with the 
peremptory instruction, the Jury found for the plaintiff and 
against the defendant ia his plea of set-off, 

A familiar rule is that a plea of set-off is a oounter-olaim 
in whioh the defeadaat is the plaintiff, aad he aust eetablish his 
right to reoover against the plaintiff upoa his aotioa, and if his 
aotioa is for a breach of contract, it aust appear that he, the 
dsfsadaat hiaseXf, is aot in default of perfermeaee of the oontraot* 




.-^ -_._.__ - «^»#tg»«^ 

^ ex 



«)- -■'; : J.;;:; It., ;, .^,, .:v.; ; .- .- 1 J i- tj^y -•'"i C-i 


OpoB th« thaory of th* dftfeodftnt that ther« was an •nforolbl« 
eontraat between the psrtlee, the evldenee is that the defendant 
was in default for failure to sake payaeate for the aeroh%ndlae 
a«««pte4 1;^ his* and, having breaohed the eoutraotc the plaintiff la 
not liable to hla for alleged daaagea* 

It appears from the eTidenoe that the defendant did net 
perfora^ and as the aaount of the plaintiff's olaln m%» admitted 
and there w-^a no question of faot to be eonsidered by the Jury, 
the oourt did not err in lostruoting the jury to find the issues 
for the plaintiif* 

It will not be neee3sary to pass upon the question of 
the eridenoe of dnj8<^ges offered by the defendant* in view of the 
oenolusion reaohed oy thie oourt that, fro« the evidenoe as it 
appears in the reoord, the defendant is not entitled to recover 
upon his set-off* The judffseat is aeoordingly affirmed, 

jumamr affiru;i:d, 


• •UbAAiietM) •Ai 'Uf\ BtettmxMfn niati 9t i^tuHmt x^'i tiumtab at saw 

ton bID fRjri«s»l«ife »rf* tjisci* »f 
«ip:&t 9ds y^ tt&r9bi9sw9 » 

to /ic ; 



i sil<ij»il tea 


•>«.; ^.ss'sul'tsqf 


isr, « !■* 9n»Ht to« 

. ... _ .. 

- ■" - '■ ?«rooo tift 

-^? rot 

tsvm^n fit feflXJijn* :^f•:'? a* 3rr.-hfl«»ii»fc <»<|:f ,! 









^ ^ ^ •W COUNTY. ^ 

26 8 T.A. 619^ 

Opinion filed Nov, 16, 1932 


Thl« i« »a app«al tjy th« dtfendants from % deer«« enter«d 
\ff th« oourt OTerruling the exoeptions of the defendants to the 
lta«ter*e report and finding that subs titjiti ally all of the aiaterial 
ehargea in the bill of oomplaint are euatnined by the eTidenoe* 
end deoreeiaK that the complainants are entitled to an aooounting 
\i$ the defendants* 

The oomplainantt filed a bill of oomplaint in the Superior 
Oourt of Uook County in the year li34« Thereafter the defendnnts 
filed a general app«aranoe and answer under oath* '^he bill prays 
for an aooouinting and for other equitable relief, growing out of 
the alleged purohase of oertain stook by the oomplainants upon 
certain false statements and represent nt ions made 1^ the defendants* 
i^ioh they kasv to be untrue when made* and certain statements mmd 
repreeentatione made by the defendants with the intent to oheat« 
wrong and defraud the oomplainsnts of their money and property* 
The bill alleges that the snle of the stook wss fraudulent and void, 
sad the oomplainants demand the return of all money paid and 
oollmteral deposited by them* 

The cause wae referred to % S(sster« who« after a hearing, 
■mde his report to the court, and the court overruled the objections 
of the defendants, standing as exoeptions to the Master's report. 





.rr»^'^;w V;.,.. i 

^f^^mkz. .§ aoc 



,a^ • , 


jiB^i^tt 4ior^ 


.k-«- ?;^ ;i- :. i 


SS8I .3X •voH JbeXil noiciqO 

m%ft%^ llitf «(^'' vil^^i^ %<^b&}i 'x^ia&s: t&^^iii^m XA^sa^a e i>*xn 
1© #00 5i«iwot^^ t'tw/X^i »iei<i*i«?»® Teif*« toI Ms jialisumf^^ft an rot 

■,Xtr9qo%q IMU tMbott tl*At \e niaafiimlqiK^ii wit htfafif^ti hat i^funm 

«&ioT btua ia*iahaB's!X mm*/ i9»t9 ^ffit to •La* tdi fAMi wr^9liM ISM •Of 

Au bi»q xt»m II0 to atufx »^t biauBmb nStuml^Uimno ttdlt Mum 

jwdt to h€t$^^qmk lt(ftal£99 

ieaol}o«|;tfo ttdt' ibeXirmrr* txuoo 9At baa ^truot miii ci tsaqmr Bid •bam 


ajad caterAd a decree In favor of the ooapieinante fer oanoellatioa 
mad en accounting against the aefealaats* Arohle »• Andremi and 
Chester 0» Andrews* and that the oause be re-referred to a Master 
te state the account between the parties. 

It appears froa the record that the ooaplainaats did not 
waive SB aiunrer under oath by the defendants^ and therefore the 
defendants filed an answer under oath, as required by law* 

The defendants oontend that so far as the answer was respond 
slTS to the bill, it was evidence, and could only be orercoae Tof 
two witnesses, or one witness and corroborating oircuststanoes. 
The ooaplainants* reply to this contention is that an answer 
bssed on information and belief is not ewideaoe i?hen it is obvious 
that the answer as made is not within affiant's personal knowledge. 
Having this contention in mind the oourt will consider the evidence 
la the record in order to determine whether the Ohanoellor erred ia 
entering the deoree* 

The oomplalnant* Jaoob 3. Eaokmaa« lived most of his life 

ea a farm near Bhelby, Ohio, ^-klth his wife, Ida ^S&okmsa, oo-oomplain- 

•itt and their three children* Neither one of the o^splainants had 

mors than/country aohool edueation. For several years Jeeob B« 

Zaeluuui worked m a laborer in the Ohio Seamless Tube ^orks of 

Shelby, in which oenmera he had some of its eapital stock. The 

eomplainants, from their savings, carried a Joint bank aooount, 

and whit money was saved they invested jointly in their farm 

and homestead* 

The first stock transaction involved in the present 

litigation ooourred in it;^reh 1919, when one it. U* Tabor, a silesmaa 

for Andrews & Company, a common lav trust, of which ooapany the 

defendants were members, telephoned to Zaok«Min from Olevelsnd, Ohio, 

tost hiii' Kin.,- -.,-.oS »?f--!- ?r.-{ii t.*X«0«»l sr' 


ill >Xi»oa,f 

.tSQfl &.'' 





<m^\^t.iii «»1MI 


!{:" Jifljs 



and r«po7t«d te hi« that th« defendi^ntii leere Inveataent b?=)Aker«y 
ukI discussed th« sals of eertain stoek. This telvphons oonversa- 
tion was folXowtfd ^ litrnxpture fr(»i the defendants. I«,ol«aa yma 
flftttered sad oallsd »t ths defendants* plaoe of business* vhieh 
V9S suMptuously furnislMd* Ths deftlings with the defendants began 
froa this visit, when he was Induoed by salesman tabor to buy $500 
worth of iiiotograph Froduots Qoapany 8'ji Preferred Stook, Ths 
oomplalnants paid |3&0 oash« and the balanoe wjiis to be paid in 
60 days. 

In all, there were nine traasaetions with the defsndants, 
iribio wers doing busioesa in Olevsland, Ohio» fr<»i April 1919 to 
llaroh 1930* I'he defendants obtained ^'7, 875*00 in Liberty bonds, 
oash and ssfturities fron the oo«plainants« The defendants repre* 
sented thn they were inwestosnt bnnkers, and in all the traasaotlons 
no oertifioates of stook wsre tendered and deliwered to ths 
eoaplalnants by the defendants* 

The defendants inweigled the eoisplalnante into a series of 
inwestaient transaotiona, and they knew froa Inforaation that the 
ooapiainants oould not satisfy the claia of the defendnnts based 
upon sueh transaotlons* 0ns ststenent shows an indebtedness of 
about $S«500 balanoe to the defendants* Ths ecmplainants delivered 
to the defendant additional oollateral in the amount of $1,700, 
reduoing the balanoe on its fao« to $1,800. This additional 
•seurity the defendants reoeired, but, until confronted with tho 
stook transfer reoord, newer oredited the ooapiainants aoeoifii|it* 
i:weninially, it appears frcMi the reoord, the ooapiainants* seettrities 
were looated and traoed through corporate stook books as stsj^lng 
in the naos of the defendants* The defendants purported to control 
<ind sell stook in the Diotograph i'roduets Oeapany and ths Standard 
Oap and Seal Gonpany on extended inst^isiliaent payoents to the 

«ttt9iii«tf t«Mi#««V»t vt«« »iat>im^iat a^tl/ UAi mt^ 99 Ifttoqvt bam 

two' O^ TO<f«T flJ«IS«i«« H:I^ b^Oiit' 

I lift msn sol# 


»e£ai^:- s^^-i 00,df8»Y:' i^-iQ£^cui^ fc-^^.-i.^?: s / .'DSeX /iMisJi 

.... ..oit-"«telai «a«t whm*- '^-v.-ff '.^n- 

• tAUOeOA BffSiSfiiJtIqffiOO 9dt b9iib9Tt? 

1 9% Sufi's^ j(M)#a 


«MQ>X«laamtta *ttA r«eelT«d from th« eoMplainftats th« foXloirlng 

April 3. 1919 I3S0.00 Gasb 

April 11, 1919 S80.00 Cask 

May 15, 1919 500«00 Li'oerty Boods 

Jvly 33, 1919 SOO.OO Llterty Bead* 

Oet« 10, 1919 300.00 Liberty kk>ada 

Oet. 14, 1919 940.00 Cities Serrio* 

Cot. 33, 1919 500.00 Liberty Boadc 

«•▼• 17, 1919 100.00 Liberty Be&da 

loT. 34, 1919 500.00 Liberty Beads 

Dse. 1, 1919 9S0.0O Liberty Beads 

Deo. 3, 1919 100.00 Liberty Beads 

Jaa. 19, 1930 950.00 Liberty Beads 

J&a. 36, 1930 400.00 Liberty aeads 

Sept. 35, 1930 1,860.00 Fourteea Ohio Beaaless TulM 

Beyt. 25, 1930 475.00 Two Botes Jesse Stepheas 

It appears froa the STideaoe that it was represented te 
the eoaplaiiuiDt Zaokuuia th^t Aadrews & OoaiWiay as luTestaent 
Baaksrs oont rolled the Jiotograph iroduots Coapany, a Dew York 
Oorporatioa sad its stook, and that thsy were about to put the 
steok oa the Mew York ourb; that the preferred stook sold to 
the ooaplainaats was eonTortible at any time into oomaon atoek* 
and whea Andrews 4 Ooapany put it oa the ourb the oomaon stoek 
would rapidly adwaaoe la prioe, eo that he, Znokaaa, oould oonvert 
the preferred stook into oosnoa stoek within the next ninety dsys. 
Zaekoaa advised Tsbor, the ageat of the defendants, to issue the 
stook oertifioates ia the nime of hiaself aad his wife, that he had 
no experience In stock transaotiona. Tabor told hia to leave every- 
thing to thea, that they would attend to all details} that they 
would newer el««e i4a out; that after he beaght the steok fr^ 
thea« the defendants, he would be one of their elients; that 
Andrews £ Coapany was a good, reliable fira of {Bwestment teaksrs, 
sad thsy wTots to ZaokrAaa that they regarded hia as a elisat aad 
veald take oare of hia. 

In all the traassotions between the oeaplainants sad the 
defeadaats, the defendants issusd ooufiraatioa slips, and in eaoh 

■* r.f 

aJbtaofi T*"^^'" V , . ... 

#T9Tfto» £ioi»t» ,£Lj«aialo#': ^9ti ted:} «ig t^^eii^'il a1 <>(![fl.'9vS>.;-' ^Xl)i«7«t J^Xsww 
w(# «#»«i 9* »ii#ff»i>er«l»b trfi" t» ia&^» 9d$ ^i:)<iSi<'i' ^eai-s^^i Afifijfoj*;^ 

iMft *m9ilo « »j) mill i^ej^jL'^tn x^^* *»^^ a^i^Ao^.j, o* ^^mt x"^* iba« 
A9M9 ai Itam «MiiX« a«l#r-^- ^<>l:«ijt> tA^ «•#««*••%•» 


liakattdtt induo«<l the ooapininantt to l«av« as a pl«^g« thtt ateok 
alrtady purohaaad as ooIXatflNr&l for additional stocks As a setter 
of faot* no atoek osrtifioatss vere aver issusd to ths i^aokaans, aar 
ware thsy sold atook« Ivut oa tb« sereral oonfirnation aiips were 
thrae aqraterioua letters "VTO", aeaning to the initiated* Voting 
Trust Certifieatea* 

After the ooaplainiant Zaekaan bad purohased 13,000 worth of 
Oietograph preferred atoek» he was adaised that it was not eoavertible 
into ooaaon stook* This reetridtion on oonweraion of the stook was 
d\ie to a plan of Archie u« Andrews to secure certain seoret profits 
to be made under the terow of hia Voting Trust ^greeaent. Coaplaia- 
aat laokaaa teatified that he nerer had his attention called to the 
fast that he waa purohasing Voting Trust Oertifiontes; th»t he does 
not know wh«t a Toting Certificate is« txiA knew nothing of the teras 
of the Voting Trust; that he and his wife always understood )»nd 
beiiered until the tiae that his attorney directed his attention to 
it« that he and his wife were baying eoaaon and preferred stook in 
the oonoerna* 

About July* 1919* the 0(»plainaats first disoowered 
that they could n^t oonwert this preferred stook into co^Hison stook» 
They asked for aa explanation aad were told that the Board of Directors 
of the Oiotograph Ooapaay* under the guidance of Archie U. Aadrews 
had a aeeting at whieh they put off the oonwersioa date until after 
the lirst of the year 1^20, but that Andrews & Ooapany had a new 
stook they were bringing out for their clients. Known as the 
Standard Cap and ^«al torpor?) tion* which would be oonvertible la 
ninety day a; aad thrit it would go oa the curb market at ones* 

%ok«aa was solicited with the saae promises and representations to 
purohass the preferred atook and exchange it for the coaaoa stook 
whea it weat on the eurb» It was represented to the coaplainants 


»i</iti:»T«o«) #OiJ *.f Iff 

•«4»#{»»1I^ INI Mfi«K! 9r' 

ioo;^* mMm«o tit t«t: •' 

<•# ^»it 

9 At 


that th« StMidard Oap umA 3«al atook whioh thay offered thaia at 
f^»00» vaa eolBg on the ourto aod waa at that tlae aelllng at 
II3*00 OB the aarket* Aa a aatter of feot« aa shown by the eTldeaoe, 
there was no trading in theopen au&rket, and no stoek w«i8 soId» 

OurlBg ail this tiiM both of the eMBplainante raoelTed 
literature hy sail froa Ohieago under Andrews ^ Oo«pan]r*s najM as 
iBTestauint Bankers* part of whioh was in the forai of ooufidential 
letters, P^rt in the fora of a "housS'-aagasine* called "How*, and 
part in the fora of oiroulars falsely representing Andrews & C<M>p<9ny 
ae: (1) a ooneem eatabliahed in 1900; and f2} as owning large 
buildings in Mew York «vnd Ohieago. In one of the letters reeelTOd 
toy the ooapl^iinants they were rc^quested to get their financial 
adTloe about stooks froa the defendants* fhey relied upon and 
beliewed these false represent at iona« and after the third or fourth 
transaction, that is, on June 3, 1919, Ur. Z?iokaan, the eeaplainant, 
inforaed ea<^ of the re pre sent at ires of Andrews & Oowpsny at 
Cleweland, tket he and his wife had acre stook than they oould pay 
for and oould not go throiJigh with the transections they were getting 
into, but in each ease the ealeeaan told hia that he had nothing 
to fear} that he was one of their clients, and Andrews « Ooapany 
wefuld take oare of thea and wefuld not sell thea out; that they 
would hawe all the tiae they needed, and that in any erent they 
had "Extension i'riTilegesi" that the stooks were going up in prlee 
and that they eo\ild do thie because ooaplainants were clients and 
that they need not worry* 

At one tiae Zaokaan, eoaplainant, inquired as to the 

klntf of fim the Ooapany was, in these words: 

''\$ere they brokers that put figures on a blackboard 
and if you don*t put up the aonsy in 34 or 48 hours they 
would close you outT" 

and T^bor advised hia that Andrews & Ooapany were not brokers; th»t 
they were bankers, and th»t they wanted to aake an inwestaent client 

■: BO C^«8it 

<r— . .* -^ 

.4J'.^f' '^^ 




.'.,' .' •-»> 


-* Jteq 

(I) JM 



^ ¥if 

xnwyflsa©* «»»«l»A iffli;#a»«W!r<'.'-"' ■'•■•■-■>•■ ■ 
btvi9t»9x mt^tm. wit !« mmo Jzv 

«^flfifi<»i^«m« ^t i^m^si . . ... 

-^a- Mar©© t*'''^* <smRi §'^^i&. »«<>.:, 
>lij;i ;?-?»•!.;) ^tfivT t»?<Jf aa0it©.ii*!aflts«it »<** r!;ti» ^^&%i':- 

X»f<* i^iWl* i#wo «»"'•■• ; ;?ft ftiw«i»- feius m&dt to t«ift« »jti)tf MtfO« 

,^TtO!f» tOjK jM»a t**^* '**^* 
r«A<xo«> ««#<«f;^ «t .«»«'• ^ .t mill 1<» laiJ 


^ido bant %«1 


out of hia huA v^^^ated to a%lc;e same aone/ for bia* 

It appoars firc« th« reoord th$t th« StJsadAxdt Cap A 
8o«l CoMpaair was la the business of fuisufaeturlni, ibottit oappiag 
■MOhinery, v&loh wms 8.n llllnoia oorporatlon, aiKd sttbaequently 
llquicUted undor iia order of oourt; that Aroble M, i^adrewe, throng 
Aadreva A Oeapaajr* bought this oonoera froa one Tevander for 
H5I«CX)0 oaebi orgnnised a ?3«000«000 Virginia oorporntloa and 
turned over the assets pur<^a««d froa Terander^ and as a part of 
this organisation soheae* Andrews & Ooapsjny reeelved froa thle 
Virginia eerpomtlon one and on««half allllon dollars of stoolii» 
being one-half of the preferred and three-fourths of the oonaesi 
eteek^ while Ter-<nder, the other party to the traas<^otlon, reoelwed 
the balanoe. The stook of both Andreatt A Coapeny and Tey^nder 
was them put Into a voting trust by a deolaratlon dated Kay 1« 
1919« reeltlng that Arehle H. Andre*s« 0* Tewander^ and £• W. 
Ewerett, their attorney^ were the trustees; and that the stook was 
to be held dy thea under the teras of a oertaln agreeaent* 

The evldenoe in the reoord le largely th»t offered 
by the ooaplalnants. The defendants did not appear and testify 
as to their knowledge of the faots* The erldenoe offered by the 
defendants did not aaterlally oontredlot the evldenoe of the 
ooaplalnants. whlxe It is true that the sworn answer is evldenoe 
under the statute and oould only have been overooae by two wltneeaes* 
or one witness and corroborating olrouastanees, the answer so 
far as It is responsive to the bill Is only entitled to weight when 
It Is entitled to belief, rrrrear v, Lawrence. 10 111, 3a5» «fhen 
It appears froa the adalsalons in the answer, or froa the faets set 
out, that they are not within the personal knowledge of the defendant 
the answer is not entitled to weight as evldenoe, 1 A, L, ^, 39* 


**.t #* 

►<''j5e , 


•^ I««J8 






W «ld# 


f-a»AO ^ai 9<f 


, .na^t 

':>9«0Xi«tf tifi 

f9<f* «j8V 




%si«uu ik&ii ' 

xi »<J •* 


^dCi »¥« ^«!# tiOtt «ttfO 

♦CP .■' .J , ♦^«>is»l:ilv» a« iifcjlfs* fcjf fo*I:JJ;#jrt* ^oa el TtMrtao n&ji 


It la apparent froai the aaswer thRt the defendstats had no Indepen- 
dent knowledge in regard to the T^irloua repreeentstlona and 
tran«ft«tione h%d with the ooaplalaaats; %hat the i^never oa Ite 
faoe la upon inforaation nhioh they reoelved and derlyed froa 
othera* and ia therefore baaed upon hearsay* »nd not upon t)m 

knewledge of theae defendanta. So doubt« the ahanoellor oonaider- 

ed the aaa««r of the defendant a/eppXled the rule auggeated by 

the Supreae Court in ,vinfcelaann t« Y^iakelanan, 34$ 111, &@6, whioh 

la to the effeot that a avrorn !%nawer ia entitled to weight only 

when It la entitled to oellef. 

There oan be no dlapute th9t a. alarepreaentstion 
whleh would Juatlfy n. court of equity to act In a proper eaae auat 
eentnln « etateaent of f^ot peat or preaent aade for the purpose 
of Induoing a party to aet; that It la untrue and Itnown to be 
untrue by the party aaklng the etateaent; that the person to irhoa 
the at>?teaent ia aade relied upon the truth of it* and th<it the 
atatenent ao aade ia aitterlal* The faeta juatify the oonolualoa 
that the defendants obtained the oonfldenoe of the ooaplnlnants* 
auad th»t they, the ooaplalnanta, relied upon the defendf^nte* 
repreaentatloaa, not Alone thr«t they were Investstent bnnkera, but 
alao that they had induoed thea to purohaae the ao-ealled atook 
In the aeweral tr»aaaotlona had with theee defendants. 

During the progreaa of their dealinga, the defendsnta 
aooepted the ooaplalnanta* money, led thea on to purehnse what they 
belle-red to be stook certifio«itea« deoelwed thea as to the oharaeter 
•f the aeweral dealings, and did not lispart knowledge to thea 
that the eerer^^l stook tranaactions were oont rolled by a voting 
trust agreeaant* These defendants went so far as to convert oertnln 
stocks and notes of the ooaplslnants to their own reoount, and only 
oredlted the aooount of the ooaplalnants wltb these transaetioas 
when they were threatened with a suit for H.a aecountlng* The truth 

«&<fw ©*' a»-3^ ■ '■■■-■■•' *'■■■'•■ 

^j*K .<-^^u^.v.*^ 

.i2K>C( est 


ilttnt •fit •sal^nwooos mi vo't #ii;s % Otl-t JtMmntpnxds 



■ft Cl?l? 

■■i imd^ ' 

Teg&rdlBg these transaotlon* »»• fully reTealed upon the trial 

of th« efts« before the Mast97« a&d the erldenoe olearly Indloiatea 

ft ruthleae luet for the money of these oomplnlni^nte, who irere 

stripped of their aavinga by a ao-oalled InTestiteat baxiker. 

It will not be neeeaaary to further dieouaa the 

faote» but it is sufficient to a&y^ in reply to the defendants* 

oontention, that the false st steaents nade related to promises to 

be fulfilled in the future^ that the ownplainaints are entitled 

to relief. The fmets elearly est»blisb that the ooaplainants 

were influenoed by representations of a past or exi3ting fast ia 

eonneotion with future proaises to be fulfilled^ and the oourt 

Aid not err in granting the relief prayed for by theai upon the 

ground urged by the defendante. The rule applioable under the 

facte before us is well expressed in 51 A, L, H. 86* as folloios} 

'*If one relies* ia entering into a oontraot* in part 
at i.east, on aisre presentations of a past or existing 
faot, the courts will aot indulge ia psyeholo^r in &a 
attsapt to split hairs nnd sake a aetaphysioal diwisiOB 
of induoenents in order to permit the guilty party to 
/ eseapo responsibility for the fmud, ewea though there 
was reliance in part on n proaise which would not 
itself servo as a b^sis for fr».ud«" 

Aad again, thia oourt in ZSSSlk ▼• Andrews & Goapany. Mo, 39367, 

Appellate Court, ^iret i)istriot (lot reported) said* quoting froai 

Oooley on Torte): 

"There are soae caaea in w/hinih eren the f^tilse asaertion 
of an opinion will :%aount to a frnud* the re^aon being 
that* under the oirouastanoes* the other party had a 
right to rely upon it without bringing bis own ludgaeat 
to be^r. 3uoh ie the case where oae ie purohaslag goods* 
the value of which can only be known by experts* ana is 
rslying upon the vendor who is a dealer in such goods to 
give hia aoourate inforaation ooaoerning thea*" 

The defendants contend that the ooaplainants 

persuaded the oourt to adopt the theory th^^t there was a fiduciary 

relationehip between the eoaplainante and the defendants. This 

rule has been before the courts ia auaerous eases* and a late case 

ia the Supreae Oourt entitled MoCord t. ftjoberts. 334 111, 333* 


.Ji l>fttfX ■•fti:-.'.. . ^ 

^UW «cteot 

.' 99IU09 



3Ui«i' jaw '^- — 
•1 X«*' .--^ • 

•■.tsttttt ao %»Xo«0 I 

- --• -^f 


Tclt079.t«« th« rult in tb«8« verda; 

*A flduolaxy relatioiuihlp extends to every po9si1»l0 
eas« In wbloh there Is oonfidenoe reposed oa one aide 
Md resulting superiority on the other. The relation 
ftBd the duties InTolved are not necess^^rily leginl* They 
maj be «orftl« sooial, doASstio, or merely personal. If 
eonfideoM in f.-^ot exists and is reoosed by one party 
ftad ssoepted by the other, ths relation is fiduoiary« 
ajBd equity will re(pird dealings between the pnrties 
aooording to rules Applying to suoh relation*" 

It is evident thi^t the defend^ints had the eonfidenos 
•f ths esaplainaaitSf siiioh they aooepted end used to their 
sdrantsgs in the ssveral dsallngs had with the ooaplainnnte* This 
relation was a fiduciary one and the ohanoellor in entering the 
deoree did not err in granting the relief as prayed for in the 
bill of ooaplaint* 

iKfs have oonsidered the questions raised by the 
defendants* and oonolude that the decree entered by the Ohanoellor 
Is fully sustained by the reoord and is supported by the law 
applicable to aotions of this kind* 

Asoordingly* ths deores is affiraed. 





ifiiT^KK- %%itA4 at •JUn 9di ••#.i>ic9#i«.' 



. '-> 

.iiirxoc J*« 

•rfjT 8aiir»*ff» Hi ToiX»oix«i!© e^^ 

^f Tt« j^OA fci^ 9W^»9b 

.>«.^if,^Ri** i£iX«1r 8l 



SOWXH A. fmMOtt, ) APFIAi. FROl 

App«ll««* } 

▼• } HUJilQUkL OOUliT 

«..<...<«««,.. j 26 8 I. A. 6 iV 

ApptXlant. } or CHXCAOO. 

Opinion filed Not* 16, 1932 


This app«Rl is from a judga«at •ntersd in th« Munieipal 
Oourt of Ohio«go in th« sua of f200 in favor of the plaintiff. 

Plaintiff's action is for sttrvioes rendered under the 
tenM of a oontraot with the defendant. The plaintiff, an 
attorney « was retained to prepare and file the defendant's Federal 
Xnooae Tax Heturn for the jbht 19^7, For these serriees the 
defend>%nt vas to pay an amount ecjual to one-third of the difference 
tooteoen defendant's eetijuited inoose tax of $3*000 and the amount 
due aooording to the XnooiM Tax Return prepared by the plaintiff 
and signed Isf the defendant, the tax paid by the defendant for 
this year was 4S00« and the aaount due the plaintiff tinder the 
oontraot was ii^900. The sJiount sued for is t500» whioh the plaintiff 
alleges the defendant proaised to pay. 

To the statement of olai« the defendant filed an affidaTlt 
of merits denying that there was any suoh agreeoMnt between the 
plaintiff and the defendant. A hearing was had before the oourt* 
mad the plaintiff and the defeniant were the only witneeses heard 
upon the issues joined by the parties. 

There is no dispute between the parties that the defendant 
reti'^ined the plaintiff to presMtre his Incoaie Tax (Return; the 
oonfliot in the eridenoe is as to the amount to be paid to the 




[ ,at5ACS^ to ( 

SSei «dX •▼oH bsin aolatqO 

.lti#«i«Xq edi to T^v«l fii ^.. ■■■■•■^ *'*;^ -f^ -a^ftOiri' ., , ,.;cO 

•s«t ^aeba«1:«6 ttdt v^s blaq x^z r ,ira.i»i3<t«l:9l& »tf# ^ ^iQlla tea 

• t^ 04- i!9>st»y. i a<»;^*XX« 

#iT«i5llt.» fl.« MXil *»5.DK»1:*fe •il* *teXo Yo Mtraa^K : 


plaintiff for suoh ■•rriota. The aaoimt of tb« iaoMi* tax to 
Iw paid )af th« d«fendAat and the quarterly pa/aents v«r« ditoussod 
by the parties. The defendant adaitted in hie affidavit that an 
agroeaent w«e entered into» but denied th^it there w%» an agreeoent 
as to the aaount to he paid to the plaintiff* vhioh admission aJid 
denial* no doubt* were oon8lder«d hy the coujrt in its deoisiMi 
finding the issues for the pl^iintiff* These were all questions 
of faet for the court, and the court found that the plaintiff had 
established his ease by a preponderance of the eridenoe, and in 
reaohlsig this oonelusion* no doubt passed upon the oredibiiity of 
the vitneeses that appeared before hia* »nd the probability of 
the stateaente aade 1^ the witnesses while on the stand* 

The faailiar rule which applies is that unless it appears 
froB all of the facts and oirouastanoee in ewidenoe that the 
fiziding of the oourt is agsinst the wuilfest wei^^t of the ewideneo 
this oourt will not interfere* Ao far ao we can determine froa 
the record in this ease* the conclusion of ths oourt is supi^orted 
by the ewidenoe; and therefore the court did not err when it found 
for the plaintiff, 

Ooaasnt is aade by the defendant as to the aaount of the 
judgment. The plaintiff is not complaining as to the aaount of 
the Judgment* i^leh was t^SOO. tte had a ri^^ht to vairo the full 
$ao\mt due under the oontraot and acoopt a less aaount, Ho cross 
errors were assigned by the plaintiff* and he is not objecting 
in this court to the aaount of the judgment, 

Coaplaint is aade by the defendant that the plaintiff 
was unfair in that by his conduct he took adwaatags of the defendant} 
that the plaintiff's serrioes were purely clerical and such as 
any accountant faailiar with the preparation of income tax returns 
could hare rendered. This court is unabls to find in the record 


9f xMt Mwvfll lAt \0 (hnrw .a^tjirrdc docs te^ itttatml^ 

aotit ^ijltirr^t^fe j«»© ft'w 9* tail ■ '*!'«» J-ft.. 1» *ic««» »irft 

fia»«) ti «»*» lft» **« fcit? i-tatas? »iijr •t.oS«i««f# imr. i^^ejBftftXir® tdt t< 

.minljtiq milt w\ 
elf* to j*«i/ow.^ *i'v* oi «-■' *«*?.feo»'i»JJ erf* fc ©i>3ia ai tif«M8«:? 

wnv^m xii» MM>«flii )a iiol»jiYiMf»««r erii 4«x« tAilicbet tfi»tmm99m yut 
]^f9t 9M ai ktUt •# •JJdMaa mt tat— •i^ Jb*9*l«i»ir ttid bStf 


that anr trmxA w^a on^otlotd by the plaintiff to tnduoa tte 
d«f«ndaxit to aot as he did* Th« defend^int was a general eontraeterf 
aadf BO doubt* from the very n«ture of his bueinese* understood 
oontraots* The fraud an attorney praotioee upon bis ellent must 
be estftblisbed by satlsfsotory proof. In the instsnt the 
defendant did not eall our attention to any praotiee oht^rge^ble 
to the plaintiff that would indioate fraudxilent oonduot in 
dealing with the defendant* 

km an OTidenoe of fairness, the plaintiff* without objecting 
to the entry of the anettrnt of the judgment, is content* notwitbstand- 
lac that it is for less th&a is bis due* 

The reeord is free froa reversible error* and the judgaMtat 
is aooordingly affirsted* 


• w 



PHiLLiF arm ^jam « tmst comfamy, ) 

A««A «Ar w*,*T. 268 I.A. 61 '^'^ 

/ Aijp^iiiint. ) COOi COtWTT. 

Opinion filed Nov. 16 » 1932 


Th« judlga»nt entered in thia ea»t iraa by eonfession on s 
not* signftd )>r th« defandant and aade pftjrablc to tht plaintiff. 
Tht judgownt wna for tb« ava of $11«35£.91. vhioh includes tha 
aua of ?1«023 as attorn9y*8 fees. The note proTides for the 
allo«raaee as attorney* a fees of r> sua equal to 10^ of the 
principal <i«Qunt of aaid note. 

On 3ept«BlMr 39» 1931, a petition was filed by the 
defead^nt to open the Judgnent, idiloh was denied. t^?t< r, the 
4«t«adnAt van islven leare to file her aoiended petition to vaeate 
the Judgment, whioh aaended petition was permitted to etaod aa an 
affid^Tlt of aerita. The oauae then proee«ded to trial, and the 
eourt eonfirved the Judgment, whioh has t>een satisfied to the 
extent of ^10,300. Thia aun representa the aisount of principal and 
interest due on the note. From thia Judg9*ttt the defendant 
perfected an ap^&l to thia court. 

The defendant oonteade (1) that the plaintiff has no 
Intereat in the note, (a) that the plaintiff had no authority to 
oauae » Judgment to be entered thereon; and (3) th^t the attorney's 
feea allowed in the entering of the Judgment otn the note are 

ku to point (1), the defendant ooiitenda that the piaintlff 
lUd no intereat in the note in questitm, end that the note la for 


fn- ^{; i?:>i5?aqiK.; 


f a j^Q 

Ssei ,31 .voK i)«m flolaiqO 

,■; urn "iH mtiiX'-tQ inf •: 

edit 8»l>uicai aoiifi? ,i:t«~^ 
ft4« to *:QX o 

.YL-^fM TA« AJ5IA 


i-^'pf&fXptif m» S80,X^ ^o SUA 


m baldtto* Avm €w9m th« defendant to Chnrl«8 £• 9».rp*iiter la tba 
•ua of 01O,2OO* pajrabXs seveaty-flTe days Aft«r M&jr 4, 1931. It 
ftPi>tar« from th9 •vidftaoc that the note itbon 0x«outed by the 
doftiAftBt wa9 mftd« pajrabi* to the order of the plaintiff toaak« 
aad eontnlaed a ooafeaaloa elauao In vbiok the plaintiff wae 
authorized to oonfeea JudgaMOt la a propoy oaae« aad, as a part 
Of e^ld jud^ent, to laolude a eua net to exeeed 10^ of the »aount 
of prlneipal and Intereat due aa attorney* ■ fees* 

It is evident thnt Mr. Sarpeater was indebted to tbo 
plaintiff baak in the sua of 19*600, as evideaoed by bis ooXlat<»:raI 
aete. The OTidenoe does shoe thmt the defei^&at's note w^o 
delivered to the bnak by Garpeatfr, aad the dlaimte is whether the 
aote was deilTered to the bvtnk by Oarpenter for oolleotion, or 
as a part of the oollateral dej)08itcd to aeoure the payaont of his 
note. The faet that the defendant executed this aote and aade it 
foyablo to the bank is evideaee that the plaintiff had aa interest 
la the note. Mr. Oarpvft^er explains this by testifying to the 
effeot that the defendant's note woe signed and delivered to the 
plaintiff for the oonTeaienee of the witness Oarpoater} that the 
priuoipal aad iatereet oa this aote was |»ld by ohook aade payable 
to Carpeat<»r aad deposited to his aooouat la the bank, aad that 
the plaintiff had possession of this aote only for oolleotion. 

the plaintiff oalls our attention to the rule that ewidenee 
Is not adaisaible to show that the plaintiff, although the legal 
holiar of a prcMissory aote, is but the noainal f^rty in interest, 
and eitss oases to sustain his positioa* However, this evidenoe 
is la the reoord without objeetloa, aad ao doubt was a part of the 

•<f# ffi T«^a*qT.<^0 .a »nX9 9\9A <Mar cMfVlt 0mi> «i»AAij»c( b 

•Irf *• jfstiniii? «** «Ti/»»« at !?*#/■?-• 

#4 •ib^ 6«,9 »*«<¥ »iJi* fc»*f'- 'rff»'*<<f :rfT .Wbift 

•Iff t«w<# p:w#««rqrti»v «o»«3 4w ^»ff to ^tuiiJtsnri-Att afti i»o\ Wifttl*^ 



fa«t« eeaalAcrttd by the ttittl oourt. 

As t« th« Beooad poln&t, thtt the plaintiff h«d no authority 
to oftuse judgment to be entered, there is erideaee in the reoord 
that Ceypeater e&sted the plaintiff to oo^leot the aKoimt due on 
tho aote, and if not paid upon the due date, the plaintiff vas to 
sue* This erldenee of th« plaintiff ves oorrebors^ted by n letter 
vrltten by the plaintiff to Oarpenter, in vhieh it Hppe<%rs that thsf 
adYised the defeadaat that "she aust pay the note or be ready to 
stind suit*" aad ths inference to be draam frea the f^«t that this 
letter was reoeived by Carpenter Is that he had knowledge th^^t if the 
dsfsadaat failed to pay the note when due, suit would follow. 

4s to the third puiat of the defendant on the question of 
the reasonableness of the attorney* s fees, it oight be well to 
hsTS la aind the rule that applies to the iiubtant ease and whloh 
needs ao citation of authorities* that where aa agreeaeat is sttds 
by ths aaker of a note for ». fixed amount &.n attorney's fees in ease 
Judgment shoixLd be oonfessed upon the note, it Is not error to •illow 
the sua agreed upon, unless It is clearly unreasonsble* The aaoxmt 
of 11,082 as attorney *e fees in the instant ease, was in aoeordsnoe 
with the agroeaent oontsined in the oonfesaion olause of the note, 
io point is aads that the evidence does not justify the allows noe, 
except that the amount allowed is unreasonable* Upon this question, 
the re^LSonableness of the attorney's fees was passed upon by the 
trial court, and the court having exeroised its discretion, we 
are unable from this record to conclude that the court erred in 
allowing the amount* 

for the reasons stated, the judgment is affirmed* 

lILSOK, ^.J. k»0 MALL, J* OOiiOtfiU 

•%tt'i^' ■'■■'■■ '-^^ '■-" 

foT«»»T 9fit Sit Si 

oe tkts^ imt<m^ sr. ■ - ■ 

»l<f|- ^e4# t9»^ 9.: 


•ati-vs «Jt(f1 •««» 

»«ip« ill ]B«*»t **^fte2 ■ 

tmnam ^'i 

•mt^^f^^tiA M. mem . 

li^t SiJt balm al 0T«4 
Ai fi!b»!» tti iaicq oil 

' V ». i"* 1 ■»• ^^ 



Plaintiff la txTot, 


QHSlOXSR taxi COUPAiiY* a 

Defendant In Zttot* 

UlitOR TO 

SUt:- nL'jn 001 


26 8 IJ[ 619^ 

Opinion filed Nov, 16, 1933 


This ease le before the Appellate Court upon a writ of 
error to rerlev the record at the inetanoe of the plaintiff. A 
judgaeat finding the defendant not guilty T?ae entered la aa aotioa 
•f treepasa en the oaae brou^t by the plaintiff to reoover daaagee 
for injuriee ehe alleged to have eust-iined aa a pedestrian, by 
being struck ijy one of the taxioabs of the defendant ooapaay^ 
which it la "alleged was negligently operated at the intersection 
of J^okaon >-<ouleT?ird and Wabash Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, on the 
9th day of April, ld39» 

In the discussion of the question before this court, we 
will first consider the written instructions giren by the trial 
•ourt to the jury. 

Counsel for the defeadaat is frank in this discussion of 

the defendant's instructions, and adaits that instruction Ko. 13 

is faulty; that the giving of this instruction by the court to the 

Jury is reversible error, and thnt the Question is not sieved for 

review unices the plaintiff s^ved this question by ^ proper exception 

aseignlag reasons* The instruction now under consideration is 

•a follows; 

*13, You are instructed that the agent of the defendant. 
Checker Taxi Company, in charge of the taxioab in question 
was not required to exercise the highest degree of care 
to avoid injuring the plaintiff \xpwu. the occasion in 



■r'J'iy, ^"-AUt 

T »8§ I 

... > , . 
SEGi. »cjA *vo» fielll'fldlfliqO 

aaito'A OS ail h»t^*e» mxm t^ . 


isit* *!!^r i?r{ fl^^vi-^ «T«>l^'»£rz;»«tEi is^t^i^'* 9/18- •r»&l&a»» itti\ Hint 

«i ooifjRTAlDXvaoo T%J»ur won flOJ:;:e^;t.t j.r 

•1.^0 le aov]|OL .' f 
ui Moiaoooe 9t^ 

aflO«i««i ^ffijBqiiosa 

■ >»»t0XXol 041 

question, but w^g only required to us© ordinary cnre, 
9nd if you 'o«il«T« froa the evldenoe in this oastt, 
under th« instruct ions of the oourt, th^^t as the 
Chsoksr iaxloab turned the corner and approached the 
pGLftOS of ths ooourreiuje* it was tteing operated ??ith 
ordinary oare, and thnt the chauffeur of the tsxiosb 
la question., in the exercise of ordinary oare, did 
nil he eould to avoid the &eoident in question »s soon 
as it wss apparent or aseertainable to him in the 
exercise of ordinary oare, then the plaintiff oannot 
recover in this ease.* 

^9 quite agree with the defendant's counsel that the 

instruction is subjeet to the ctiticisa «hioh has 'been called to 

our attention b/ the plaintiff, and his contention is supported 

by the following case si 

Qanaon ▼, Kiel. 353 111, App. 560 
.Sfi&SA ▼• ginatein. 231 111, Aop, 84* 
SSIXM, ▼• iJrunawick-Balke Co^. 370 111. §04. 

It is not tteoe8a<iry to furt|ier dioouas this instruction^ 
except to call attention in a fe« vords to wherein it is faulty. 
The test to be applied is not thnt the driver of the Qheokar 
taxioab operated the oab with ordinary care and did all he could 
to svoid the accident in question as soon as it became apparent 
^o hia that it would occur; but did the defendant by its agent 
exercise that decree of eare and skill that an ordinarily reasonable 
person would have exeroised under like or similar cirouoatanoa 
at the time of the ooourrenoe having regaxd to the location^ 
oircunstancea and surroundings in which the driver waa oparatiag 
hia oar? Jevine v, arunswiok-aalke Co. 370 111, 504. 

Tha next question is, did the plaintiff save the rl ht 
to eoaplaitt in this court by an exception taken to the giving by 
the trial court of tha instruction in qxiestion assigning reaoona 
therefor at that time? Tha exception aa taken appears from the 
record as follows: 

i^^_. ^ t^ ^ ^ ^.. 

Bid rmijf: 

«-':t hi ft :>( 



2M»i'ii fitxizm'^.'.fttv- 


•flier»tipoii the eourt, ^t fhe recuest of th« clAftndsnt, 
gmTe tbe following inatructlsna to tho jury. In writing, 
to the giving of s vid instruotiona, and «aoh of them, 
the plaintiff, by her oounsel, then »iiid there duly 

The exoeption tnikea by the plaintiff is epeeifie to thie 
extent, that mi exoeption ie tpJcen Oy the plaintiff to the gi'vlng 
of e«ioh of the defendant*slaetruotioiie« The laur of this st^^te does 
not require the litigant to apeoifioally objeet .<)nd resign reaeons 
therefor, exoept in the ttunioipal Court of the aity of Chio^^go, 
iriiere a different rule applies. In that court the litigant auet 
■peeifioally objeet and state reasons for the objeotion to the 
glTing or refuseuL to give instruotions iasediately upon the oon- 
elusion of the oharge by the oourt and before the jury retiree, 
Failure to so objeet WftiTss all further objeetion, whether upMi a 
aotion for a new trial or on appeal. The praetioe upon this 
question of saving mm exoeption to the giving ^nd refusing to give 
instruotions should be unifora^ »nd tbe law shoved be modified by 
the adoption of the proper rule applying in oourts of reoord, but 
In the oonaideration of this question, the ippellste Qourt is limited 
and oontroiled by the law as it is at present. It therefore follows 
that the plaintiff properly exeepted to the giving of the instruo- 
tions in question, and this oourt, tialcing into oonsider^^tion the 
adaiesion by the defendant that the giving of the instruetion was 
revereible error, is of the opinion that the judgment entered by the 

trial oourt ahould be and hereby is reversed and the oause rsManded, 

Other qusations are before this court, but in view of the 
fact that the oause will have to be retried, we do not dees it 
neoessary to ooaia»nt upon the faots and the law, aseuning, however « 
that oounsel in the further trial of the ease will give proper aaA 
due oonsideration to the questions raised, 

juoQian Bk.y£Rsso kSD cause aXttASDKO, 

«IL801I, P.J. AMO HALL, J. COliOfSE, 

e««|) t^jitta ftXif)- t$ %aX tiiX ,si:i&i2«MnJ^«^x£iQ'ia«£aiift):9l» c^t \o liopo to 

«$)9<£4^»'X \T£;t »di astflif^ ben t-sj^oe »tft fcf «;, iif' li^ ctoiajulo 

•vis 9^ ^i«ff&«« detfi B''?!?!,''^ ''^"'^ ®* a^iiii^»%* ttB ^£rtm 1« aaifxtp 

tud «lrioc95 la ntf'sufv ::Ui;i Its aoilqofe* »dJ' 

l)t>tijaXX aX tTfyoP •tMll^isA »>i> ^Aoi^sitNvn aid^ t« £t«i^£X9£>XBix«io siit «|t 

•utv aoi^rei/itstflX *tif lo ^v; jr«^i«»tad (M^* ^ aoX»«Xaiib>« 

#X Sd6£ jfO« «ft •« «£i«lYJ^9« SC( 0# ATflitf XXXw AftiJ.., ... ;.;^d(f t98\ 

«t«r«««t( «|^lKr»«« «ir«X «<ll' bass tte.rxl: i»f$dr ttctqiy ti!f«««» ot vt'^anAQail' 
luuK YtqoY^ •▼ill lltm ••«• eiff lo X«(i:rr^ t»dt%wlt ntli nJk latvummt tMiit 

thmler «K«lJ^»««p mM •# iioXirAie»£i^lttao« mA 

• OXGlAMtfi inOAO CIA aiaAiVJUl tiJUKfOOL 



00* « ft ••rp«(ra«ion» ) CRROa TO 


Defendant in Error, 

T. ) MUMICIPAX. 001 

.. aimo... 26 8 I. Ai 620 

nalntiff m Error. ) OT OHIQAOO. 


Opinion filed Nov, 16, 1933 


Oft 8«i>t««lMr 11» 1931, the plaintiff fll«d r suit la the 
MoAittipal Oourt of Chltfago upon a oontraot with the defendant, 
and sumena was laeued returnable on Septeaber 34, 1931, On 
Sopteaber 33, 1931, the defendant filed a aoeoial written appear^^nee 
for the purpoee of questioning the jurlsdiotlon of the oourt and 
■OTing that the oourt disalas the suit for want of Jurlsdietion. 
On Septeaber 34, 1931, the defendant was defaulted for failure 
to appear, and the court found the issues for the plaintiff and 
entered judgaent against the defendant for i>145 and ooata of suit. 

The defendant brings this writ of error to this court to 
rOTlow the reoord. Ao appearanoe was filed by the plaintiff* 

It appears froa the reoord th t the defendant was defa\ilted 
for want of an appearanoe, leawlng undisposed of the motion of 
the defendant questioning the jurisdiotion of the oovirt. 

Chap, 37, P^ra« 431, Bee. 4?,, of the tfunloipal Court Aot, 
Oahlll*s 111* tier, Stats* 1931, proTldes, in part, that upon 
return of a sunoions serred upon the defendant, the plaintiff shall 
be entitled to judgment <>s in default, unless the defendant spuears 
at the tlaa si^olfled la the suaaons, or shall file his appearanoe 
In writing at or before the tliM speelfled in the suaaons* Sao* 45 
of the saaa aot provides, in effeot, that in any ease of the fourth 

SSei ,31 ,voK bslll: aolnlqO 

,'""' ^^ ae #i«f«jtn«f#^% £«£niel ».«« Bemmmtrt tea 

•: .' nir»» «l;rfr'«l^ ll07*ft it© t-Hnr ttl^vf n.;4«t,- ;i»tal> »^) 

»WifaJL4ttq mm h^^ ft#iit e^mt #«*,#•%■ .o«*o»ir fee?? w^Jtv^t 

,1-0* f*w{>'} iaqintfuM »jft "- . >•* ,XS* •JSfts*? <tW ,«fj«45; 

floffw #«i!» ,**««r ffl ^&«f>l^ <?i *«#j; , i «*XXl(t»0 

7^ •«%? .M>«MUNI «!<# fil b«jnif>9^ mUt tit <»isrol^ to }A 9ffJl#Anr «i 



olasa« or la o«s«9 of the fifth oXass meatloned in ^;<io. 45 of th« 
aot« the defoad«&t ohall appear at the tlae tpeelfied In the 
saaaons, or shall have entered hla appearaaoe in writing mt suoli 
tiae« and the oourt shall as soon as praotioahle fix a tlao twe 
the trial* and the oaao shall be tried at the tiae fixed, or as 
soon as the toosiness of the oourt will per«it« So written 
plesdiags are required in the olasa of oases to whioh this oase 
belongs, Hine iroa. Oo> t. Ja^S^Ut^ ^^^ I^* App. 92, and it is 
error to default a defendant <tnd eater judgaent idiere he has his 
written appearaaee on file undisposed of, questioning the Juris- 
diotloa of the court. Harts et aj.. ▼• Lsaaan. a08 111* App« i:S7, 

Iroa the reoerd it appears that a speeial appear anoe of 
the defendant was on file, and the cruestions noised by the 
defsadsat should haTS been disposed of before the oourt entered 
the default order. It was error for the oourt not to dispose 
•f ths questions raised by the defendant's speoial app(»ar>tnoe» 
The jvtAgaeat is aooerdingly re-wersed and the oause reaaadtd* 

REVCR3£0 AX0 RiilliiUPSO. 


■- (i^ns^y^K 




Appellees f 



et a1»« ) 


26 8 I.A. 620' 

Ojpinion filed Nov, 16, 1932 
Thla is aa appeal \»f the defend«int Trustees System 
Flsinoo Coapany from an Interlooutory order of the court appointing 
a receiver upon a siotion of the ooaplainants^ supported by the 
verified bill of eoaplaint* 

The bill of ooaplaint was filed on March 14, 1932, 
wherein it appears that the defendants Edward C, Slcupa and Isabel 
«• Skupa, his wife, being indebted in the aus of |6,000, Made 
and delivered a certain principal proaissory note for said sua^ 
payable five years after date, with interest at the rate of 6)^ 
per annuio, payable seni-annually, vhioh interest is evidenced by 
ten interest coupons, dated liepteaber 13, 1936, and each for the 
sua of tl80; that to aeoxire the payment of 8<^id principal sua and 
interest, said defendants executed a trust deed gjod conveyed certain 
real estate therein described and also known as 98 Lawton i^oad. 
Riverside, Illinois, to the ooaplainant Helen Redlin, Trustee* 

It also appears that the principal and instellaent notes 
for 16,000, and interact , beoaae due on the 13th day of Septeaber, 
1931^ have not been paid and are in default; that the taxes for 
the years 1930 and 1931 are due, and that it was necessary for 
Andrew Redlin, one of the coaplainants, and owner and holder of 
the notes in question, to procure fire insurance on the preaises 
to protect his loan* 



0S9 -^^•f o dcs; ( 

«3 i« St©-!: 9!l* *K »e8ii'**ai s*-*- .'*■•• --— =^ 


■J tea •▼isitff «X€ei 
n« XS6x fia« (^Ci tTJB»x »<<* 


It Is further ohaxgvd that by th« trust deed soucJat t» 
IM for««lossd the rsnts, issuss and profits Ar« sxpresaly pisdgsd 
as additional aeourity for the indsiatednsss and it further appears 
that the rsal estate in question has been oonreyed by Xsable :^, 
Skupa and Edvard C. Stkui^i, her husband, to one f. w. Esoh, as Trustee, 
to secure the payaMnt of a note executed and d£iivered by these 
defendants for the sua of 11,960, payable iia installaeats on or 
before August 38, 1933; that these defendants asslgnsd the rents, 
issuss and profits fro« the said preaisea to the Trustees ^litta 
asittoe Coapany, whioh is also a dsfsadant to this bill, and it is 
further oharged in the bill of ooaplaint that the ralus of the 
preaises is not in sxoess of 1^5500, and the eatfiplainant* therefore 
pray th«t eertain defendants be aade parties and required to answer, 
and that the preaises be sold to satisfy the aaount due Andretr 
Hedlin, one of the oeaplainanta* \\ 

It also appears that ths appearance and answer of the 
Trustees Systea Heinoo C<Mipany and F, W. Esoh, as Trustee, were filed 
and these defendsats adait that the Skupas ds faulted in the payment 
of the prinoipal sua of 16,000, and the interest note of 1180, when 
due, and that the Trustees Systea ^^einoo Ocmpany is the owner and 
holder of certain prinoipal notes, and that there is due to this 
defendant Trustees Bystea Heinoo Ooapany the sua of $1,039,03» under 
the teras of a trust deed signed, executed and deiirered by the 
defendants Skupas, and thet the preaises are occupied by a tenant 
at a rental of 185 per aonth, and the real estate is iaproved and 
is of ths ralus of $X0,000, 

Upon ths hearing of coaplaloants* action for the appoint- 
aent of a reoeirer, the oourt also considered the answer filed by 
this defead«int. Trustees systea Heinoo Company, and the affidavit 
of one £. Conntd Carlson, a realtor who aade an appraisal of the 
real estate inyolTSd in this litigntlon» and was of the opinion 

to n;> «,vtfff-?'^lffe.- ^■•8B',X^ to «tfe «rft "JOl Ri;(-ai»te*1:«ft 

ir^i-srf «*st«u-T' ■ B©«i8S«Te *!■'« •»?*? aol't tti'^ofq bam atuniai 

ftiolSTVdl cttt»jriii?Inw9o «(<^ &a« ,00eid% ^« cast »$«iAeiq 

TSTtv 'too «J S'^&tm»%q 9{ii tsidf bauB 

t&9m\v - 'utu 9^9 :ntif. n$&jina*ttfb ee»dl' lias 

0t iBia« XjKliMXtq fxftr lo 

bfl^ b^Totqaii ti •#«#•* .' . ;c'j or. ' i-i X«M»t « #« 

^- -\ 'io X« ifC_- :- --'•^ to •! 

•liir lo X««lJ:7q4iS a« •him oAr <re^X<»ei: i' ,a«iiXY«r! birzaoO ,'S ta^ \o 


that It was of the Taiu* of t8500« and after oonsiderlng th« oattera 

presented, the court appointed a reoelver* 

It appeara froa the verified Mil of oonplaint, awi is 
adaitted 1»y the eworn anawer of certain defendants named, that 
the principal sum due the complainants is matured and unpaid* It 
alao appears that the taxes for the years 1930 and 1931 are uspfild; 
that fire insuraaoe vaa not prooured by the makers of the notes 
secured by the trust deed sought to be foreclosed; that the trust 
deed securing the payment of the principal note of $6«000 aM interest 
thereon is adaitted by the defendants to be a first lien, and that 
from the provisions of the trust deed in question, the rents, issues 
and profits are pledged as additional security; that the premises 
are in posseaaion of a tenant paying a rental of ^85. a month, and 
that the ownere of t^e equity of redemption are now nonresidents. 
For these reasons we beliewe that the court was fully justified in 
appointing a reoeirer to take pos session of the premises, to collect 
the rents, and to make suoh distribution, upon the conclusion of 
tl^is litigation,as the court may direct. 

The defendant. Trustees Systea Heinoo Oompany, emphasises 
the fact that the complainants are amply secured by this property, 
which is Taiued at $8500. However, the admitted amount due the 
eoaplainants is 16,180. In addition to this sua, it is neoessary 
that the taxes, whioh are in default, be paid, and alstt the accessary 
expenses must be act to carry this foreclosure proceeding to a final 
hearing; therefore, it is doubtful whether the complAlnants are 
aaply scoured. 

the order appointing a reoeirer is affirmed. 



B'X9itaM »H- 



.;V^ Cf *»A :iii> >;iC' 

?iv£) lei/a XitqioaiTq •!<# 

*'^.'-:' '^•fa stitinq has 


.':)t 999a9qX9 



JPef end«nt is Ern»t§ 

WILLIAM !>• m^Y^BDIO, iSh9titt of 
Cook Countjt Uliaola* 

rialBtiff In Krror. 

»tKOIt TO OimilEIOR 

I268 I.A. 620^ 

in* nUUUQDXJia jnUiiTIC;s JOi^KHKE 1-:.LIY::J^.:i, TKL aPIHXOl 07 THE CC^RT* 

A petit l«m «aa filed )Qr d«f«nl4Uit in errwr* IN»oiA« of 
tlie 3tnte of 'ilinolo* e^ r«l* CSmrlee • 'rrort tOJo^ing that 
Charl«»« A* eT9r tr^s detainotS «iad lmyrt«on«d by plaintiff in 
error • illiwi i • lieyeriais» sheriff of Cook county t Xllinoiot 
by Yirtiao of a oertain ord«r ontored by tho Circuit court of 
Cook county mi i:jgr 5* 1931* in oaoo Ho« B*&937Sft finding sn-ld 
weror s^iXtj of oontcapt of court for failure to pay alimoi^ duo 
i^ditli M* ToTor* The petition prayed for a «rlt of babeao oorpuo 
aad tkat he night be discharged* The return of layering con- 
■ioted of tlw order of omnsitaer.t entered May &• 1931 # by the 
Ciroait eourt of Cook oounty* Illinois • in the o&oo of 
Kdtth M, ferey y. Charle e * ever. So. B.58378, in irfiioh It 
was recited that the court had juried ioticci of the auh4«»ot 
wkttor and the partiee* both of whwi vero preawnt in open courts 
and the court ha-riag heard the te^tlaohyt found that there was 
due 9Bi unpaid fren Oiarlee \« '^wfr to Kdith M« Verer undnr 
a deoxoo of diToroo entered by the Circuit eourt of Cook county 
on I/eceiiher i$ 19I9« in caoo Ko« &8372« the &vm of |5»060*92» 
and thnt said ChArlea A* ^orov hao failed to ehe« »uffiei«Bt eauat 




irligr sftld avflft Bliottld not be psU» but has ^hoU failed s»d r«»fuMd 
to e%«j tlM^ ttrder of the oeurt* foaati aioi guilty of ooat«i«p% of 
eoturt And ordered that ho he eoMBitiod to the eeanoa jail of Cook 
eo«Bt7« Ulineia* for e ported of aot to oxeeed oix Koathe* there 
to resaia* ehftrffed with the e^td eeatCBpt nntll he pojo |5, 060*98 
for bhe woo of Bdi^h »• v««Tor er until releaeod )»7 dtt« |»reee»« of 
1««« Upon A bs'irlnffa the court found that e»id erer hna bee« 
iaprleoaed for e«nite«9t of eonrt for the oonperfeiaoaoe of & deeroo 
for the pojraont of memvjt that e&id ever vao unohle to eoagOy with 
the deoree sod uanhlo to endure oMif lAeMnnt in the eowM»i 4«il of 
Ceek eomty* Illiaoiat asd dlseharged &M rolo&ood '^•erer freoi oald 
iapriootaeent hy the e&id sheriff* The etntee is here oa « i«rit of 
error* The d«feadnat in error has not appeared or filed a brief 
in this eeart tn dofoase of the order* 

la the order rolettsiae; the dafcndaat lit error froa 
ixRprlsoaaent the court r^fttrr^^ ?.o aection 36* eh* 69t Cahill*o 
KoTiooi statutee of Illinois* IVSlt p* 1563* This obatuto 
pKOTidos ia part that aay person isq^isoaed for any centeaipt of 
court for the noaperformaaee of nay decree for the payaent of 
awney* shall he eatitled to a turit of habeas eorpua* and if it 
shall appe&rt thnt sueh pers«s ia unable to cooQily with auoh 
decreet or to endure the oanfiaeaoat* the uourt may ^iffehi^rsto 
hin from inpriseaaeat* 

It is ooateadcd thi^t the court wrime^ttlly di£»o)inirfo4 
woTer» aad ia this ooateatiM tie eoaear* as this statute has so 
applieatloa te the release and dlechi<>rge of persons iaqprisenod 
for vilful eeatcnpt of eourt* for the violation of » decree 
requiring the pajriMnt of alinany* ^h© trial court held that 
erer was inprlsoned for the nonpaynoat of r debt. /U^iueny is 
not ft debt* It is a soeiftl obligation as well as poounlaxir 

h—tf\vt ftoa teXiAit IU*K m»d tu€ %Um »^ ^m i>tm*k mm htM» itfw 

le M»«9«« wiii Xtf MNi«fX»s atwt ra s^vt^- •» ^^Ibisi lo •«» mI^ i«t 

fttlisB mn% %iT»^^ f»«Mfti*t teA i^t$x«iM«Jfib bttn csittftUtX? vt-^iar^o iCo«3 
, jioxl ^^i^^s til itmbtf&'Hb «ii igai- »i»xo tMf^ ta 

tts>m 4'l« "eX^iPMo «l •KMmm «i ««•««$ itosHt ««ii^ «ijsffv» Xi«fte 

ftOM«lT«ttl •B««t»4 1^ fn^XMi^X^ \xu »dM0X«m «iA;r «4 itoi«#«Jti<;t^ 

#«fj •tioM «Tveo X«lv# luft «xao(BiX« !k« 4.own|m mC« a«itl«p«« 
•1 t«M(iiA •#rf-; * --> «mw(A^(Mff Me(# i9\ 'mumitumX turn %»▼* ^ 


llabilit/l it is f*tta<i«« c» puiaie pel ley &8d ic for the goo4 
•f socloty* (litta v« Blooaor^ 191 ill. 41ft« ) CoMil«a«B« of a 
dcfcadABt t9x ewafcmpt for refusing to 9«y allMMiy la Kot aM 
inprlsomwnt for dolit froia wh eh he esis claiM exoaptioa ueidts tlM 
proTisiono of a conetitutloB proMbitisg tm»xiMVKma% fosr ^^t^ 
(Wijfttaaii v> jghtaaa. 4S IU» l«7t 173.) Tiio llal»aity to pay 
allvoay la not foxmded upoa a contraot* l>at la a penalty isposed 
for a failmro to perfora a duty* it ia net to lio onfereed Iqr 
aa aotlOB at law in dha f>tato idiore the deoxoo ia onterad, Imi 
la to lie eaforoed liy await preooedlaga as tho otaaaoellor sagr 
detomlae aBd adopt for Ita oaf o^*oo»Mit • ( Barolay T> aaroltty« 
1S4 IU# 378, 376. ^o« alao olty v# »^glt3r* X95 14. 336f 

?ttrtf Yt ma 337 id* 434, 44£} Meairow t. MoalTOH. 546 Id. 
219 » 3821 Tttttle ▼> '^ttadcraoa ,^ ^^54 11 • pp» SS2, 559 » and okoO* 
cited. ) JfurtlieTaore* the order entered 1>y the -iroolt eeurt of 
Cook oouRtjf llliaol?. o«i80 Ho* 5«oa37at conaltlag «^ev«r to jail 
for failuro to pny the aliflMsn? iras a fiittvl order t the oourt haTias 
jo^iad lotion of whe aUbjeet matter and of the pdraon of WeYor« 
and the power to eoaailt hioi for failure to pay the alinoay* tJSnder 
aueh a atato of faeta he oould not he dieefanrged oa haheaa eorpua* 
Hla reaardy* if there waa aay Irregal^rlty ia the piooeediatfo* weald 
he hy writ of error, (y^e Pe op;ie r. }bit ^'ji, 183 ill. 144 # 146 1 
T^e feople T. S llor. 383 id. 38* 31| Pyfplo ▼. "^UA^fflto ^^ "* 150, 
ISSt aee. 21« <di. 69, Qahlll*8 Rewlaed ntatatoa of Illinois* 103X.) 

¥or the reaaoaa iadioated the order releaaiag aad <ll8* 
ohargiag Charles a» ""OTor froa ia^rlBOinaeat ie re-v»raed« 

Soaalaa and Oridley. 33*, eoaoure 

m tiff >t^ f iwlto IM •# «fitwr%»«. iMft «ip»ii«»fi ^ei #««iis»k»ft 
»#i!^^> s»^ #ir«M(l»«lillKl »tti*ltfiJi#*^ ?«)4U'ir<^**Sff ei»i*lT»i« 

vac «* x«i:iJtf3i.r *'jrr <»?:fjt ^^^i »;.. ji^ffi|ifaJl^.»r_«i!iiftlfJ 

iWf ,?>5T"5#sa _. ... -, --^ ' *s^^ »'■ WJsl ^* tt«l#<wfi c» 

•MA^ hf>-* ,S?'i5 ,gSS »tit- ♦iX.^ ^;5-> tff^f^^fcWftfg' « y Sil^iy y. |SSS «eiS 

ftlMv «imiit»frii09'«if MM $a ^^J;t«UEtfSftK'sl 'Cnnt' s.iw »x9;ii4' U t^^tiKNr •ill 

t«M t^*X mUi ^tU^MMaiiSLjLX^MSL»S.JM) •'mnn» %9 h%k ^ iMi 

«oax %fti oce >j»iK»ii^i. ,y »iff»i»s ti£ ,«tt *iiii eft« sMJU^LjJUJimslLatti 

(«ieox ««ifiHaiXi t« »4»iK»«ia iiMXvi»« ft'xxxi9t«& «i» *iId «xfi »«•« lesi 

♦ '. ■ 

■•< ■ 

xsvUa m* wkcklse, foxiMrly ) 

IxfcBdaat In fUrroTf | 


wa^isk £• PKATiXs* «x««tttrix I COOK aommr* 

«.i«iK U .rr„. )26 8 I.A. 620'' 


]fy thla vrlt of mrror M«rtha K« J^»&me* exvoutrlx 9t 
%h« ••%»«« of ?rank D* INiMni«» de««ft««dt »«sks to reveroo a 
JtttfgM»nt allowias dofondaiit is error's olaia for 1^3*440 iMp^lnat 
tho oatato* ?o )!»▼• not 1»e«a farorsci tiith the aid of a \atittt 
on toahalf of tho dofvndaiit la orror* 

71m olaiB of tho dofeadaat la orror v&s originally 
filod in tho Probata court and upon a hoaring in th&t oourt it 
vas allotrod* Tho oxceutrlx appoaX«d and tha c&ao vaa triad 
do novo in th« Cirettit oourt » liy th« court* without a ^xay* 

Vm rooord diooloooa that the d«f«nd«iat in orror« 
£d«iaa U« ^ooia«r» vaa fonwrly tha vifo of Prank H* J^Morao* 
vko diod JUBO 7« 1927* taatato* and that ah« filod hor clnim ia 
tho Prohato oourt for laatalliMiBto of aliaoay frem May 21* 1913* 
to Juao 7t 1927* whioh aha olataod tferc duo har hy roaems of a 
door 00 of dlToroo ontorod hy tho superior oourt of Cook oouaty 
on Kay 21* 1913* ia a oait la irhloh the defaadHat ia orror wao 
ooa^laiaaat aad tho d^^ooaeod waa defendaat* frihioh deeroe aftor 
graatiac dofoadaat ia error a diToroo «ad the ouatocy of tho4» 


029 .i^.I BBS' 

)f\ "acr* w*i Bfc' 

IS :' . ^>- - , 

-, ' ' ■ . '■■"i.f 



vs. tiKT.'ri 



ic«n« otii»«& iloitllw «4tti««i»^«j» WMr N)'' ''OqpM 

•Mit •vd«r«(t aad d«er« d that Fr&nk !>• PssLxnct ''lit aade to pay 
%• ibdwiB* K* ?«ara«» on tte first day of eaeli wo(i»k to follow tlio 
sua of $ftt ^or t)i« n^port of hor sAld oHildi* tlMt at tit® entry 
of tli« dooroot Sdwia M* P«anio» tho son* was two yoevs of «c* 
sad olum liie f«tlMr died lur was six toon yonrs of s|(0» ond that 
ttum tlw dato of the entry of tlu» deorec of divoroo np to ai^ 
including tb« dr;.te of the death of his f%th«r« the eon li?ed with 
his Mother* 

Plaintiff In error offerod no eridcnoe showing thnt 
the doooased during his lifetiae had paid defendant in error tho 
ft a week provided in the deoroe for the support of his ohild* 
Tho trial oourt hold that the deo ec to pay IS a vock for tho 
support of Sdwin M« J^arne was n Judgment and that section 2J$ 
oh* n* Cahill's Berlood statute of Ulinoist 19S1« p* 18130 
ontitled *Liait&tiono»" which prorides in effeet thiit the life 
of a jttdgnent shall ho twenty yearsf was api>lioablo* 

Tho plaintiff in erior does not quest iiwi tho oorreotnoon 
•f Urn sMomt allowed* but she insists that the dooree wns not a 
judgnont and that defendant in error's olai« is barred by l»ehes« 
e are unable to eoneur in plaintiff in er or*s first contention* 
but do oonour with the trial oourt thai the deoree direeting Frank 
L* Pearne to pay difendant in error $5 a wook for the support of 
his son was * JudgMOnt (Cole y» Q ole^ 142 111* Id* 24f Craig, y* 
Uraia> 163 HI* 176* 1S4)» and is a weste'i right. (In re K state 
of Sossuth H* B9U » a^LO 111* App* 3»0, SSdf ^fe^tlJtl^ i&fflff^y.l 
Adnar** 80 111* 274» 279*) 

Tho reaainlag question for dotexaiaation is whether 
defoadMit in error's olaia is barred by laohea* Oounool fov 
plaintiff in error Ino oitod oases «^i«h hold that laohoo oad 
negleet are always disoountenanoet eJid that courts discourogo 

sitd %(nm9> si ituikmit^h Hmn'ki^ «Ki^<»tll fitjs. acatjf^ -..^ .-:;>::.. 
•£tsx •« «ie9i; ^atimixi;! t» '^«?^£^'' &««£t*h «^i.i;ilj«^ ^co »ito 

•tX^9lXq«Ji ft Air itJUtmtx %^tt^ :jjft ^i»Mq|tet a \9 

•««Mf9xtl tstf 6»inLe<f •! fla«Xo a*'Xo'st r jii«ii^ bite iasflg|!^t 

AT.,]|lAtP. i^SE ««i •ixi 2J.M 4iu[;j|k .» ip9« Sid 

AXJliaM «<WB« •C4«J .w, .iXI OXR t^Affii ttft j<r«Wlff It 
ilM «««ftiia iju(4 l»X«tf iteJdvr «•««« JM»*1« msI «»i«* al mtfthiXf 


antiquAtM d'«Ratfs« W« agr** with ths prlaoipltre annoiiB«94 
iB %lmu9 oaevBt tout they art not fltpi^Xicakl* hmrt* Xb 8«T#r«il 
of t)w ona** ct%e4» it vas luild that lApat of tlso a.t»i tlio 
staleaoca of tte eXftla vas a good defeaoo • iiiutr« no statute of 
liAlt'^tiOB dlreotly gorozno tht oaao* Tbo Inat&at oaeo» hoiaava^t 
i» cov«m«d 1i|r «r?etloa 87t oh* 83 » aa»ra« arM! i« uot barr«<}« 

Flndiag no orror la th<» reeortit tho jutfflw^st ia 

Saaalaa a<^ Orldloy* JJ«» ooaoar* 


i0 •«»»■»» 

» .;')«nl"),l«l 

»im«»««-. ^ ' hrm tSMJCma»' 




COOK C017^T« 

y«««A»^««a. j 26 8 I.A. 631 

Tkit «fts aa action of trespaMi ri gt ajnali|» brought Iqr 
tlM plaintiff acRlMst Josof Koyeajrnsklt M&x7«nna Kopoxynakl 004 
Henry Kopcsynaklt to roooror 4sawco« for lajtirloo reanltlae fra« 
ma alltg«4 aowMllt mmd iMttoij* Durlas the trial the plaintiff 
(ilnaiesed tho ettlt as to Senrj Kopeagmtkl* The oaaoo vaa trlotf 
before a ^vrj and plaintiff rcoOYered a Jt^gaont acalnnt Jonef 
Koposynokl and Maryanna Kopovjnaakl for i^lfOiJO* To roTeroe this 
jttfignent the dcfendanto appealed* 

The deelar%tl<m consisted of two eowata oharglne an 
aoeattlt ami hatter/ on Hagr 23t 1930« The defendants pleiMlo4 not 
fttlltj and self*defcnao* 

The Terdlot laiporto thnt the jury found the defendanto 
guilty of aseattltinff the plaintiff and thr t waeh aosault wao not 
In oelf-defenoo* and ttao verdlot In theoe reepeoio eaiinot ho 
sttoceeafuUy ohallengotf* 

nrlor to May 9 1930 » and for about 17 ye&ro» plaintiff* 
41 years of age* was the owner nai had Ured la a fr«»e building 
at the northwest corner of 87th street aikl Kuskogon aTontto* 
ChioagOt Illinois* and tho defendants were the owners of a bulldtnc 



l:ll#alAX« Mt» iAli^ ttftf adJhiifa »-v^^««^ iMUt #X!k«««a >«i»XX« mi 
ttaoXI twKl«ia tOMasiurt M kvfrfmift l:U$8l«X<st tea rou^ » •t9'i»4 

iMr fr«ft«ftX9 tt#itt!)iiDl*b •tCt •(NEtJ «1B *«»V no x^DtitMt tea IJbniMUi 

#•« %tm ttiMtm* A9tm i:vA$ tea WiiaJnUq, tuii i^iiBnmmo It f'i^Mll 
94 $9msM9 ■#9««a»t MVitt Hi i9tlrtv9 «cfl dan tMa»^«k-lXMi «i 

•b»tff»XIatf» vCAflftt««oaa 

nabXlatf aartt a Kt »rrU Mrii fe«K -nrnm •Hi aav tt^a 1» rta*^ X* 

ft iUM Mtgtfautt Ma 49vtlim A9f9 )o xaavaa #«ain<rxa« 9dt «a 

BfU kiiMtf a U mfotn, itdi »«•« ttaaftiittla* aiCi iMfa taioiUXXl ttSMJUiO 

$k% th« B«rtlkta»t ooraer of BJth atrt«t and Hualc^gOK aT«zm«* TUtQT 
li^d a son* Sciayjr Kopom:fn9ki$ th«n about 19 jears al4* For a^<mt 
itre* /•am befer« Hay 22* Xd30« plaintiff had l$ata iMTise treble 
vith bagre about plejriac ne^r hia property tatC hwf oonvlatneet to tlu» 
poliire ^bmtt it» oM &bo«t one 7«e.r prior to Hayt 1930f h« imci 
trottklo witli 0B« of fiefondania* aona* bout four days b@foro Majr 
S£» 1950 9 iM ooM^aiiftecl io JoaoX K^pos/nisJci a3>ott$ the boys pl«ylBg 
ball* aA/inS ^ vua golsfi to ooort atoat it» and th«roaXt«r 
ooa^plaiaod to a Juvoallo offioor^ vAm oalloti at dofondiaato* hoMi 
mn<i t&lkoti tiM aaitor over vith i/Sro* i^pftsyniOEi* Kojf ^^t IdSO, 
plaintiff whilo oa him way to «ork jm% Joaef fiopozyaaki vho ia<iulr«4 
vbat waa going on and plaintiff r«^ll«d that Kepcaynaki knew trhat 
waa going on* aa bo oav it orcxy daar» and told htn to ko®p the boys 
awaji that thoreupon Kopoxynaki avere at plaiatiff and aold* **I 
will kill ymk lik« a degi* that durina thia e^artfraatiMi Mro* 
XopospBoki waa atandiag in the doorway and aaid* '*OiTo it to hiKf" 
that evaaiag b€tv««[| 7 and 8 o*elo9k t^ilo plaintiff vaa natortag 
tho l&m ia front of hio praaiiooo kt aanr iiro* iCoposynokl toiA hor ooB 
Henry oroos the atroot and when they vere ahoat 15 f«ot frcm hia 
plaintiff vaa struek on the haokf thnt ho turned and nam it ^aa 
Xoposynatki who imA at ruck his nith a ho&o vith a wire attached | 
thereupon plaintiff OMloaToretf to got the hoae oud Ux99 ^poayaoki 
atruok hia a awAer of tlaoe vith a otlokf thi^t he then grahbei tlM 
Btiok and took it away froB her* It was iatroduoed ae as oxhihit 
ia the oaoo* 

The prineipal oontoation of the defendanto io that tko 
oonrt erred in exclikilng tk» erideaoo of aUoged ooaeafoaieiat iono 
to lira* Kopoaynaki eoneerainf; an alleged aoaanlt on her oon oigkt 
Bonths before the ao^ault on the plaintiff. Iron the record it 
appoara th«t the defendants offered to prove by Henry Kopc^yaaki 

-.-;,« .,^.:.i .-^*.v, ,..«v..,.4 ♦»*«»&«•%*» to *»• *it» »Mi<09i 

«l»S«j( t^ft ^^M •JrfwilMmft^ ••W: -■^^-' -■•"-■ ti^^^s* ««» !>»iIiJi b«* 
5-. : *4 «iif hlei fei- . X vyiBii ^d «/< •«» 9«i«« »«» 

mn --'^ii -.^^^■:- x.^'iva^d«i«:^ ••'VM mm. Hat Vi^s>.Lxi.i';^ ftM %«t ^liiotct al: wmml otfA 
o^d i^'4:'t $di»l |^,.|f|pf« .»«Mr w(^ '^f^^^' i!»*i» ^90"«<t» «4^ »«•«» t^MH 

t^. if M A9iiK *99A m d$kv mMii mmtm fentf Miv liiiBgntgl 

tat« MQjc «<f4 j««. «sr %»««iM»AM» i»tl4tolMi« ifmiff 

%t4ltiX% HM Nfl t>««lli|«KJrfli HAW «l «««kl(l «n$ HOMI H.1M&9*- tMtA <tfftttl 


that about •Ight aoBtiis l»efore Vaj 22f IVSO* «hil« H»nry vaa 
cXiablag a pola la the aXI*j near plr^intiff** pr«ata«st b* 
(plalBtiff } sixuek hia wich a ¥oard| thiit &«nry did not t«ll hl« 
Mother about the oocurreaoo until aheat 4i00 or 4i30 p« n« May 
22* 1930* l^efendaato also offered to prove iBj one lira* Skovronek 
that about lltoo &* a* on Mtgr aa* 1930* Mre* KopexyBaki wkb told 
toy Mrs* Hkewxosek about, thla striking of Henry in Ueptei^er* 1929* 
la arguing: thla content ion def@nd«*Bt»* eouaaeX «ny that this 
teatiJBOfly would tend to prove Urs* ^posynnki ««>jf; laboring uMor 
a aoBtal atr&ia produo«d by the oo«K:itaiioatlon to her of the suppoood 
strlkiair of her eon by the plaintiff eight aontha prior to May 22* 
193i:« and wao for the pui-poao of altigatlng punitlre daaacoa* Wo 
are unable uader the faota Is the Inatant oane to oonour in this 
content ioB for oeveral reaaono* Flratt It a^poaro froa tho 
reoord that Eenry teatifled eoBoemine this alleged beating whllo 
Kre* Kopoaynokl testified that Honry had not told hor of tho 
berating* Soooadi The Jury wore iaotruoted that If they 
bellvrod the aaeault wao nade with eoaslderable provooutioa and 
without aallce* tho Jury should ooaaider ouch facta in deteminiag 
the anount of daaagas* l^irthemore* la aa actloa for aa&ault emA 
batteryt previotts provoentloa la not adniaeible la altigatlcm of 
deuKtgoat oAeae it la ae reoeat and lanediate aa to fom part of 
the trMiaaictiMi* Aoto done* or worda spoken by a plalatiif oom 
tiat parerlous to an aaaault* whLeh are a psi^rt of a oerlos «f 
proTOoatloas* often relterate<s« and oentlnued «p to the tlao of tho 
aot» are adaloalble la nltigntioa of danageo* But oTldeaoo with 
roopoot to the eoaduot of tho plalatlff at other tlnoa oad upon 
other oooiislonst the naHault aad battery having boon oonnittod 
without any provoo tloa Riven at the tine, eiuinot be given la evldoaoo 

««ir t>«« »<MV fOMI «S8 1|tH ««»t«4 «MMB «M« ilM^ i^^A^ 

VK •« K ^^^ ^ <^^ ^««tf« XJt'^iitf •iut9i%i9mm9 94$ ^m*» ittfN« 
ll«4 •«« tstMt^M«ol ««i}i^ t^sai «*:3 isiiiC «o *« *« a«««iX AM4* l«t« 

«^ ••oii»»J» »T*4itis»n jnU*^:^, • . -'^ *M*a«;-af^ •i4* ««^ «** 6«# ,Ofil?X 

•4« •out S««*Ct>^ « ?*«r'sr! ,*«««*«» t Jfe©'5»»»« «ot W»l *«»#••• 
•Xiifer «KMi»iil ^a9XXa BlAi ^t4m*imHi ft^ti^ttdt ^K«raa i»sS4 kW99iv 

Mb* «dit9»@v«nrf •X4*v»bX6tt«» ^(#t« »him turn *lMM*ft «i» ArvtAJNT 

kiiA #Xa»««« '30% »i»i$>« Cft tti ^mrntmnmittvit <>ii»Mnii> ^ #«fMBi Mil 


rTWMilTTfrn ¥. ar^wfoTfl. Sa 111. 3XS, 317») 

Xt it n«xt o«iitej»Se£ that tlw nets vt iiut defttadttola 

««r« IB self-dttfwm, and la vi^w of tliat f^ott tlM •««rt t:ry«« 

in ftumimt Ml iaairttotioa •ff«r9d tgr Ums bj wliioh the Jury 
««liU 1»T« "»««» lafomed thst If th* plalattft at and Jtt«t b«for« 

the ti«w of th« all«ff*d asatat by ih» 6iit9imAtm%m$ was ««0nc«cl i« 
an a«»auXt upon Uxu* Sopc^^yaskl* or uyon the oth x defcn^antot 
llum» trta if th« Jury b«ll«7«d that any oaa of tlio d«f«iidaiit« 
«o«d Boro foroc then «aa absolutely nccesaary nt the ti»o of tte 
o oou rg fo o OMvIaiiaod oft still thore oottU bo ao rooovery* if 
tbe ^ury bollere^ froa the tridmw that said defondasto F.oted as 
a ro&soMkhly oartful or j/irmA«nt nan or wamta «o«d4 hare acted toidcr 
the saMO eirounstoaeoB aiMi cwadltlons* oto« /^er a oar«fuI 
ox&BiliiMtioa of the eridenoo sni a ooBsiderntioB of the refused 
Instruct l«a« we are of the opinion the oourt did not orr in re* 
fueing this inotruetii» an th&re was no eridenoe of on assault hy 
the pl&lntlff upon either Josef or Henry Kopoaynski 4u»t bef«r« 
the assault upesi plaint iff « 

Zt is n«ct urc*^ tht court erred in inetruetiag the jury* 
coiplaint being awide of the 3rd* dtht 11th* 12th and 13th in* 
struotions* 9y the 3rd inntruotion the court told the Jury that 
«hsB e«Teral persons unite in an aet vhloh const itutes a vrong to 
another* intending at tfea tiatt to eeanit the act or do it under 
oirouaetstnoes which fairly tUmm Xhfut thsy intended the ocnsoquenoos 
uiiicli followed* then the lav will coapel «;aoh to bear the 
roBpoaalbility of the aiooondaot of all* and the jmrty injured is 
at llherty to enforoe his reaedy a<»^iast all* or Againat aq/ oao 
or norc of the nuaher* the oriticisa to this iastruotion is that 

•«•)«« iMTi Am U ni^a^mH ««lv* 1* *^^ »MR»tia m94 Vfrnf tkCMwr 

i9> "rpiBOTr ««« i«««iiftMit»l» ft^ ^ «iif«f3»tf4i *«{|«Xi;# Mf# %» «■!* .flit 

wU )« Mmli iBi* ift Ts^««dM ^&ft»#t!ei#»«ltf mm mid$ 99%9t •Mi Mwi 
U «t«»f«»*« «• e4 &JWHB «i«tf# i<14» «^ fcM tfJXff W iMircw»f« 

tif-^m i^ia» rfrnA ilmt* mmm «• mm jte»ters% ^ Xiel*%»> xUImcmjv** « 
•9« itit 7if9 4«s l»iib #^»f»{» »fl^ a8ii£tii(4» AIM %w "■ . lai^dtn^tiiil 

•isjt (&$Ui tH»» tUSX *^ll «if44 ,<.<(.€< ;i^~^ tv v'u^ia wKlmi -imJtiUvm^ 

•# iip»»sr A Miutlimm^i A9ltim #»« «• iitl latitat «m«t»<l X«i*ir»a saitir 
T»(MW it Ob to #»» Bild iiemta ta 9mXi- *Hi $9 ^llta»isu «^mI4««« 

•99t»9p99aiQ »4# i^km^Ci X^Sii |/»4l wtMEte '^Sj*! Jl9ifl« ifi9m^itHm9tX» 


tlxtf wKi ■• r«a«oa for the giring of this Instruct ion* flM 
InetTuctloi) ocrr^otXy Btat«<3 th« Iftxp did net direct a verdilot 
mm! under th« eirounstfoieee did not eonatitute rerorellile erx&t* 

Ttoe 7th ifiptruotiott told the Jury thot In detemlsiiig 
npeo Thteh sitfo the prtpond^rsnee of cTldeaeo la th« jurj sajr 
inke Into eoneltJeratien th« nuaber of ^ItBoason tectlfylng ti|^n 
the ont aide or tho other of a dlaputed point f th« opj>ortunltl«s 
of tho ««Teral vllnoaaos for aoclnc or knowing the thlnisa abottt 
which th«7 testify* oto* ^y the 6th instruction the Jury was 
toX4 that the nunteer of oretflble and uai^pei»ehahle wltneaaea 
teatifylag la a proper element for the jury to ooneider iM 
o«nnectlon with all of the facta and clrcuMataatoa in eyldenoot 
In deteminiag where Ilea the preponderaneo of the eTide«eo« It 
waa not error to glTO thla Inatruetloa as the element of nmahera 
should he eon«idered« with all the other eXenonta auggeated la 
the 7th Inetruotion. ( Oaffe t> ^ ddy^ 179 111. 4»a» 504 | ?ea^ 
9hioagO R» H« Co, T« LloaorowltOK^ 197 id. 607, 612 •} 

Xnatruotloa 11 told the Jury that if they find for tho 
plaintiff they i»ould be required t« cittenalao the amount of 
danagea* and in determining tho amount of da&iOgoa* if any* thogr 
had the rig^t to* and ahould take into consideration r<ll the fleets 
att^endinjs the injury aa prowed hy the eTid^moe* ao far aa tho oamo 
are ahova hy the evidcnoe to have hoen the dlr«ec% reanlt of tho 
aasault in ^ueotloa, eto« The eritlcioii aimed »t thla Instructloil 
la that It aaaUBOd «n aasault had been oomiitted }sy def Mdants* 
It la truot Ml Instruotlon to a Jury cannot aasune the truth of 
facte at laaue between the pnrtleo* But the ehOTO instruotioa 
la not open to thia objection, aa It ia an inatruotion on daaagen 
only* and preauppoaea ia ita hypothcala that the Jury has found 
a rerdlot for plaintiff. Taking It aa a whole, wo do not aeo 

• .?• 

uAi tMt 

H •99mH-i-^ ^i Iff CMIK-"' '0 
9A$ tot tol^ i«^d ti 9-4^ 

0fl ««« «<tti(< 

..ISO? 94 biJMrf« 

;•** «fl>li (*"%: 

to t(9ttti 9tli 9amit.iiM HMuutt x^i^ ' ^^ tittii- i" mi si 

how MQT ituror of avcrag* l&teJLXisene« oouXc f&lX t» uxuSier&t«UBtf» 
the iMXj vfim net to o«Beicier the qussticn ef daa»g«» inil««« tlM 
jury first found ihtf i^tmoAimtm guilty. 

By th« 13 tit inatruvtlen the Jvkxy vau told tlutt If tlMy 
iMliCTC frMi tJM erlt'eaee that dcfendanttt» without pxoTec&tioBf 
asttaid.t«tf smA in^vr^u tht plaiatilft aa ehazfed in th« de3:|ls,ratioa» 
and that sueh aaaault wa« a Balloioust atfgraTatad and wasiUMI oi3« 
aau z>«sult«d in phyaioal iajury to tho plaiatlff » aiod if the jury 
boXlore fron the greater weight of the «;Yldeac« that justice and 
the pUbXie good require lt» thes the ia« is that the jury are net 
eoafiaed in their Terdiet t« the setual daaagee proved * hut they 
■ay give axeaiplary daaagett not only to eoapenoate the pXaiatiffg 
hut to punish the defendants* l;«fe«daats* osnaoel n«« argns 
that the inntruotioi aeemeti that aetnal damages had hoen proTed 
end thet it was ast suff ioient thet it sj^ear that def ndasts acted 
vlthont prOToeQtimit hut it MM<t appear that the aseault «as withsiat 
fault on plaint if f*e part* v;* ^ro uaahle to ooaeur in this rlow» 

In&truetiMSB 14th and l&th Informed the jury that if they 
heliere that suoh assault tias nade with eoneid* rahle proToeatiea 
•■d without nalioe» they shonld consider sueh facts in d tenslaiag 
the aaoisit of daaages and that they should not advene exw^plary 
danagest miless the defendants assaulted plaiatii'f without amy 
jtlstifiahlo eattoo* The nndisputsd oTideneo discloses that plain* 
tiff did reeeiTO jphysioal injuries and that ho suetainod aetinUL 
dsBsges and It is olear the instruotiwis required the jury to flatf 
fr«« the «Tid «oe that defendants asBtmlted the plaintiff and 
th&t suoh assault rssulted In physical injury to plaintiff* 

Jhtrth^^r ooBvlaiat is nade as to the llth» 12th and 13th 
instruetimis beof^use the 11th Instmotios contained the phraseologyt 
*ss fay as stt^ deasges and injuries aire ol ai i od and alleged in 


Xltdsf \t fsaU blQi a.^^- v^»j^ >M^ molimrtinsti: iU€i i»di x^ 
«(»li«iueX9#b MCt Hi i»9iygt«ie fe« « m^Kl^x^ «fltll &»iEirtai tea ifiSMMtmM 

XMii iti4 «fe«v«%<s K»!B««»ft Smiti^sf ^^i tt* Htinm %l^i tti boitltoM 

b«Te'(« a*<M* bfc^v. .„,.,:.,:• v.i^--..v B».v**"- •-~' *r** *!^$ 

•wiJhr «iil« oi t»MMt9 •# 9,iiimm ftnu* 9^" «l«iQ .-**^-" tv;jLMif oo iJUMl 

l(tai9MMK« ••«»«»« /•» hSxnM ^iCMl$ imUt hmm a*«Mwb !• la»oe» wit 

1SRA 4tf«lflw wtttJCMH tmHim—m nmBlmtltth mI# •««l«Gir ««*;|Muft' 

-jUiOt *JM|# ••RoX»«lb «OB»hlT» tmim^thHti luSX «••»«» •itfsltilsirt 

iMrt9« tenta^amf Mf tfx>ifi ^)ii« ««lKar|^i Ij^Uxi^ •'rl»»*<x bilk nii 

tflt) •i TUrl «<i4 b9i:lirp9ic »«»i4»«t««8il *Ai r^l9 si ii bas avSMMift 

ftM ))i#fii«X(K tifi ft9#JUbM«is 9immkm»t^b UAt ma bir9 tta^i mil 

dial m» dt&l ntSilt 9M 93 um 9imm uk ixajOvMO vcjiityf 
ml tmt»ilM Mbi l > — t t iff SUA «i»i«iti«i taut ■•»MHift MMm •« mat m* 

the 4««larati«B aad proTSd fegr ttie prepoiic> raKWt of tte rrldfno*,* 
flAd tlw lath fund I3th» **a« oHftrged ta th» deeXftrrtion** ]>«fci}d- 
•»t>* oMPittl* lxoveT«rt adalta that 3tt:>iiulin|r al«s«» the giTl3i«; n^ 
thtM iiiatTttoti«m« «lth the phytise«log3r above seistioBed la Bot 
gMimd fox xevenal* Xa rlov of the faet that ve haT« held that 
there v&e ao »erlt la the serer&l eoatentlMis and** v« e«8eltfeflc 
that the glviag of these inetruetlons ws,e sot grotmtf fttr rerernwX* 
Fluking so rercriihle oirrar the Jttd^Mat Is afflnKd* 


ima$ hl9d ftTjiMf •« ij«jll tb^% »t{v . tX^stxtiv^ vfT ^NMrfsiS 





8iiec«s»er la 7»uit» 

L« iwsix^nR} jue^ioji; 



siesBiw cocfii, 


26 8 I.A. 621' 

aakzv^sHBJ THE opiBion or ras court* 

By this app««l «h« Ca&leag« Tltln A Trust C«H(psnyt <^ 
ooryorfttloB* flrat Huesvsssr la tzvst* sssks is rcrerss sa inter* 
Xsoatory order apj,>siatln« a rcceivsr^ sntcrsd April 21 • 1938* 

S« B* SstsMua fllsd his Terifl«<! bill Marsh 86* 1932* 
SBtf pragrvtf for th« appointssnt of a now trustse under a trust 
Sst4 glTsn hy ths Ciocre- uiney Building GorporatiA to ths MadissB 
k Xsdsis Gtats aaok* as truste«» to ••eur« an isou* of bonds in ths 
stfls sf $S30«ooo» and tn ths appointasat of a r«oeirer y>sn<ls«t s I.JLI&* 
Ths aatsrial allsgntions of ths bill ars that February 8» 1930, 
Madissa & Ksdsis stats Bank sntsrod tats a writtvn agre<?Bent with 
ths Madison-KctiAis Tntot k v4ikTiags ^aak» which esntaitts6« swong 
•ther tsras and proTisisns* the sal* by ths 2C&^i«o» & Ssdsls stats 
Bank ts the Eodie^i-Sedsis Trust 4 i^aTlngs Bank sf all sf its 
asaste and th? aaayaption Iqr the Vadiasn-Kectais trust k r>aTincs 
Bank of its llabilltissi the atfrsssent sf the hadisoa * Xedsis 
stats Bank ts sxeoute suoh inetruasnts as the hadioon-Kedais Trunt 
Jk L^aTings Bank aight rsqusst ia srder ts Tsst in the latter coaplets 


( ^H^SjAVUbi^ 



• V 

t,. ^- t' , .'MOO 

.T'maw atM.. 

Jtli S?fi 

ttvani M x*htm ••#8«t^ «•» v«, i« ^«nMtttlt4«« Mli tot to^«t *«i 

mdi ffl «l^no4f la wsaal «» •«ii»*« 4^ ^v^Hmt sm» tMnaiK •#««;} #l«iwai A 

jJdLU tlMlnt ^«vi«9»« « lu» taMt9«il«««« eK^ !Ml tea «<KX>«o«t4| t* mm 

,i>C«X ,• tM«ttf«^^#jiia »M XXIlf Ml* !• WMI#«»S9XXa XAi««tf4H M(t 

•#«^ vlsftia A iMMlkiill Mtt Xf •!•« Ml» ••MiatiT*'*! JNM MR*t ««!«• 

■*1 %• XXji l0 <A*K «»aiv*« A tMrsS »latei»X«aMilWli mU •# Abi£ 

•salvita A #ttinT •i»c>«2'-«tt«ift»K mU xitf a»l#«i«M«4i Mil Mm •#•»» 

ftisbal A AMilteM iirftf U immm^ mU |«tii5iXltf«iX •#! to laai 

iMfTi •l«t>«x*att«lA«M «i^ M •4IIMKK1MI& jtom •f»»»x» i»^ tesfi •$m$r 


titl* la and to au^ a8e«%«| the right of the la4l«oa*Xedsto 
Trust Ic SatIuco ^anh to nakt aflgr ««ilo» or oonproaioo of aiqr of 
•ueh atiteeto aac the right to uso at i%o diooretion the tum» of 
the MadioON * Kedoio Gtaie Bonk ia i<aiy awttero or proeeetfinfo 
for the yturyoee of enebXiag the Mad iofm-Sedaio Truet * vaving^ 
Bank te ooao«nrci liquidete or diejpeae of e«eli aaeoto* 

It ia further alleged that the Madieoa-Sedait Truat & 
jiwringa 3«nk prooeeded und«r a^id agroenentt i«hioh was t».pprovod 
hy the Auditor of PubXio eoouate of the citate of Xlliaolat that 
purattaBt to the texaa* eondltiono ai^ proTlsioaa above aet forth* 
the liAdiaoo-Kedjiie Trtiot ^i i»oTitiga Bank took over the trust buainoao 
aa voll oo the hoalcifig huaiaoaa of tho Utuiimm & Kedaie -^ tAte Bask 
to whioh there rcaaiaod only its naked aaaioi that tho naao of tho 
ttadiaoa t Sedslo ntate Bank wae uood hjr tho lladioon*E^dale Trust 
it 'i^oTlngo Bank as « nuihterfttgot that no Aiaorot iont^ry powers reaaimoi 
ia tho Xadlooa * Sevslo state Baakf that the Chleago Title & Trust 
^^da^aayt first sueeessor ia truat » and i hi&?^go Truat Coapaqy* seeMUl 
Buooeseor la trust » knew of the oxeeutioa of said agreeaeat and vhilo 
they were aereral tises requoated to aot aa flrat and a^oMid eutcesaor 
la truatt refused to do oo kgr reaaoa whereof the office of truotee 
«&a usurped hy the aucceusor la huaiaoBs to oaid trust deed while ia 
faet «he office of truatoo vsMalaod waoaatf that October 31* 1951^ 
«U1 JI« lade w&s appointed rt;o«iTer of the Hadison k Sedslo ctate Bank* 
and that pursuaat to the order of his appoint«ent» on to-wit» January^ 
1932 1 he resigned all of the trusts oa behalf of the MotfisMl ft Xedsio 
State Baaky whieh joiaed ia tho reBiga^tioa* tmA delivered tho saiM 
to their solleitorsi that for soko rcation th«^ reeisnatioas were not 
filed of reeordi that the first ai^ seooad suecea^ors ia trust kaow 
of suoh reeigmitioas* but f&ile<; to ciualify as successor trustees bgr 
veaa«« whereof the off lee of trustee roMiaod VMaat 


%• VUt %• MiMVCVUM -SO ««!«• IQWft MlMt •# <mft •VllT4iit A #ftf«T 

«i>»»t«fiicr tfcir-zd tid^* T&*r9 nee? %.&j$U sm^yt}^ ^ $»tn'S 9iitb«2HtHMilb«X mU 
«»sni!^' ^ 04^1^ ^<»«iin iwit 4r;>kif« %sim» 9§Mm vlftst^tei ift «miiMic Mii «i 

•1«9£ «XS rt9#«99t» »ft(ll $i2u»»inr mmitt»^ «w#aMhtf t# »«il^t<» mI# tuA 
«:£ail •««#8 »I«MX A fSMlMK «tf# t<» t^rl <>*'it ft^«M|«««» m^ tbulf .B iXt^ 

MW« wi^ ft»<E«TlX«l!» te* «iii9if;ilt3^&«^ &ii$ ol ;»»ftii»t ifaliCw «Maa 9$MilZ 

It furt^r «Xl««s«:d that HevmdKsr 1« l&Z^^ ^he Cl^v^o* 
%itis€7 Bullet Ixtg; Corporatloaa !sx««ut«d its taortgiBgi' gold l^m&n 
•^r^gaAiiee ISSavOOOy »a$ t4i secnurs tl»a poj^sat thereof $iKr^ «i 

o«rt«ln real «»s(ktttttt %3iat In said trust «i9«d %lut7« are reiii«rr@^ Gortaia 
ri^t« and yrlTlXefft* t« tte truste* f«r %te b«ii«fit «f tfae iSMiniS)iiilA«ys 
t)Mr«bj m»tux94t a»6 thnt CSilou^ Title Ik trvst CoMg^&ay 1« siaatee fir»% 
•tieei»«tt«r la trust i tli%« cxm^lHlBant i» the owner and holdt^r «f mm 
#S00 bffitf 9t tkl(St l»su«t th&t certain defaults faaTt !»•«» aiai^a under 
ttet truet deed I m^ il»£«^t the trustee falle<! to lafe^cai the bo«d ewnera 
of such defsaltf th<«t slaoe the defaults it h&o beea neees«i&ry f«r 
aotlOB to he taken hjr the truetott to proteet the Interest of the 
head oowtro* hut the OUe^t title & trust Gimpaaay ^nd Chiaago Trust 
Coaqpshy haT« deollasd to asMaie their duties* and psmltted the 
httrfi s o M K o d sio trust * Sariacs laidc to ^iold out Um U^ismn & KmK.miM 
:^tate BaiUt a« os exitstlxag tjriist ttowsfaay etaerel^ tmtuiya paid into tl«e 
■adlsoi & i^dsie ^tate Janh wore diY«rted hjr ^he ]lR.difti^-II«i^»ift trust 
ft SaYi»«a tenh to prefer itself la the pognooat of hoeuls and voupodo 
sMioii it owned t and that therehjr the of^ ioQ of tho trustee saA 
o«oeeaa«rs la trust h«CfiBR Taeaati tbAt the prenlses are soAat seeurity 
for th« ladebtcdaees they seourot and lailses a r^^celrer Is appointed 
the rights of tte bond^iold rs will he greatly projudleedi th»t tho 
Xadlsoa d> l^tisio /-tate Bimk has reeeived l^irge sihm of Boncy* the 
swount of vhloh Is aot knovm* for whloh they should he ro<jLUir«d to 
ftOcouati and th t its heads ii^hould la e%ait)r ho suhordlnat«d to tho 
rights of th« bondholders* 

^pril 11» 19;^* tho Chio-^«o Title &■■ I'nast Cotapnny filed 
its Yerif led anawsr denyiAs: tias^ TaeiONQr ^(^:ts9^^?«r hfu* existed la 
the of iee of truateo und«r th« truat ore&ted hy «£ trust deed* 
or that it over refused to aeeept as first aaacd stteaessor ia trust 


'sr^sv.s tijir si 

7 tet«*. 

tht trust vx^atcd by «&id trust d—At And allfltfcd tbc-t bjr aa 
imstrMumt la wrltiag* datod Jaauasy 25* I932* tlMr Ifai^ilssa & Kisdsle 
stAts Baak ua& ^lU H« >sde as its reediT«r» rsslsaetf tJM tr\2st«s* 
ship oreidsd uBUsr said trust dsed aa£ r«fttii#d ts ft«t ens su«h trust** 
f«r «stf so bslaaf of said b«itk| tJ^t thsrsoftsr sueli r«aienf^itie« tosk 
sfftet* vb«a b7 tli» sASw iBatrtsMmt ta «ritiiis« tlis tilUo&gs ritie A 
Trust CoaffM&iqr fonoall^ seoi^pted said trust axui siprsse ts aot as 
tmst*c» pursttjfjst te the tesauk ond prorisisos sf said trust dsed* 
vlileh tastrtassnt was t)M>r«aft«r duly reoordsd la the sffies of tto 
Rsecrdsr of Tseds tf Cook vi^ttntjrt Xlllnolsi timt upMi susli rsBignatlMi 
and tlM ftS«sptaB«« of said trust ttaa chitts^ litis & Trust Co^psajT 
auscs«ded to all tk« tltltt rigktst powsrs and dutiss of tks MadlooB 
k Kodilo Ktato Baak mm trustos uadcr said trust dood* and t)uit said 
ClUoaffO Titlo & Trust CM^paay lo n*« HSting as suck trustoef tb»t 
ia said trust dstfd it is also proTid«d t^lksrt vrtxj oioisr of ®»y of tko 
hotsds thereby s«*uro<3 «.«eepts the a^jstm subject te the sxpro^ns under* 
staadiag tkfMk tr^xj n^ht of notioav exetpt upon the happenii^ of 
coftsln specified eoaditloas* is ▼•o%(>d cxcauolToly la th« tntsttoot 
and that la any aetiMis or enito affect Ittff or relAtiacr to said trust 
doed or to ths aortsoffsd prsalsos thts trust** aht'll b« d«s»8d a 
rsprcssnt itiir* of the bondholdsvs* 

Appollo* aoT«<i the eourt f*r ths appointaeat of a r**eiT*r| 
th«r* was a ho^riag sn the not ton and on ^prll '<^lt 19^ • the court 
entered aa order appoint Inar Jaass »• llp«rti» reo^irer of ths pr<asl*oa 
doseribsd In th* bill of eosplatat. The «ou t in its *rder stated 
that it *pp*ar*d t* the court that the Madison A Kedsis State Sank 
sold out all of its fcseets on Febru^irj 9, 1930, to the kadlson-Kedalo 
Trust t .-^aTiags Bsnk, and fr«« 8»ld date ee«se<J t* funetlon as a 
banking lnetltutioa,and under the tema of th* a«r*eaent »ae in ■• 

,<4Ni« fioJt^i8»aitt«« irfdwi ii«#t»4»t«ii« $ma^ %iiimf ^«« i» it£«a9« a» ftos vat 

«« #0* •$ ^#«^ IMM ^wtf^J «(J^#a *m$tti**^» xlJUmttii^ f/msna ^cjrT 

m0U»«£Bi^^'»t A^tm mHP issii |al«Kl. -o ««^i»9«4 

•T«j»fli& 8««ai|K» iMEtf 9f #»H^»i» m-^ ^)As s$qti'.^%i^i u^-ijitn-m x<f*%9dt ■ li M tf ' 

««lMlMEMt > ' ';iNI«im(ft« 

|i«Tin»«i A ^« ttnmnt'tiffi^M mitt t»1 jhrtie* «H ^ 

•i«b«X.mi»iiM]f »if i?X ,« X»«*r' a t9 Uti iti9 bX»« 

« •« Mi^*«fl «# i»M.i«»9 •#At) ftJiAQ MnrH Htm isCoitC •9niT«^ A #««•! 


p«ailiAa to «x*r«lM its ^iMrMloa^ry p9««rf and* Vhat %lui O&looce 
Tltlt A Tnutt Ct^yiaiy failed t« •xeretsc its (Suty to aoeept ito 
tr«(it aoto trtm 'o^nt&rj a» 1930, uatU aft«r tlie flXlag of tlM 
notion for tlw Rppoiatwnit of » reoelTort at vHtch tiiM It jreoratoA 
ito porotoaded Jieceptanoe to the o«mrt» Ibtit tlM Chioiiel Titlo * Vnut 
Cooqpcuiy failed to piroi«ot the interest of the bondholders hf «ntwUm 
into pooaeosioa or applying for the aj^oiatsent of a receivort and 
tha^ aaid Madiaon & Sec^sio tote Bonk and aaid Chie^go Title k Truet 
Cong^aagr were ataadiag I17 and persitting th9 Mortgagor and owner of 
the premtaoa to eolleot the iaeono ef the preuleoa vithottt pa: iag tho 
bond o^nera the aiaounto due mi aaid b«ade aad the taxes and aseooo* 
■onto leried thereon* 

Appellant eonteads the order a^^oiatiag the rrceiTer «m 
h&aed solely on the allegatiMio of the rerified t»ill oad the TerifloA 
«na«er of the Chieooo Title & Trust Coapany* lAiilo the appellee ei»* 
tends to the eentrfiirx ai^ ealla our attention to the following 
roeitation la the order t **Tho eourt haring heard the stateiBonto 
of' the pttrtiea in open oonrt and argamnts nf eounael*" o are 
vaahle to ooaeur la appellee's Tiov* It is ole&r to us thi^t tho 
order wao haaed aolely an the allegctions of the bill and aasaor* 
The ohane«llor was in error in finding th^t it apipeared 
that the Eadiaon ft Ked^ie btato Bank vaa in no position to exeroioo 
ito 448orotioa&r9r power* Tho Madioco! ft iCodzlo utate hank* 

as tmstoe, «ould not diroot itself of aaj trust hy any agreeoMnt 
with the Xadiaon-Xodslo Traat A ^^aringo Baakt ao the off ioe of a 
trustee is one of peroonal eenfidenee and ecowot ho delegated* (S 
PdBer«y*s Bqnity Jurisyrudeaoo* (4th i:d«) pp. i£44a-344t«) 

There eould he ne raoaney in the trusteeship and tho 
appellant eould not he entitled to aoeune ita dutieo aa sueceosov 
in trust uatil ^111 H. iado» rceelTer for the Ma4io«l ft Sodaio 

m^4 %• «KiXit «l««#n» Xi4r^ . ■-*•• .' -t^jKff**!* Mi«t «4m ^Wlt* 
«i$4 a<Kl^«« iMMU'iNr af9ii&»%( 0j^ !i» «iii»»*u 9ii$ t*8£c«i» •« «Mia*iQ ytfit 

aksi« iM4 ^ti 94 zmtX» «if: 4il •««2r «*'«*XXiMii$^«^ ai' -m^Aoa oi stJUlmm 
^iM»4 •f»t<'J nUitvA A n»»JtMf MHT ««•«•« list/HMltVtWNRU vti; 

•IA&9X « MMlft«M Mil TOt 1»T2»«f«c ««A«k .X XJU* X1#W #«rc# St 

Bttktm Bankt reeij^ed th* trttst««sl)i|»« (Jetton II « oh« 1«a« 
C«I]iill*0 B*Tl«ttd statute* of 1931 « p« 171| l>»lofglqr ▼« Jo>»n« a et aXfi 
tf6 Til* App* 351* } It Rpp«itr» frfl« the re?itifiA taiwvtix 9t tte 
Appellant fUad ton tfajs liefare th« api>elBtB«nt of the reoi'lT^ir tint 
"Till H« Waid« bad r««l|p«d the trust 9<»8hlp and tliat th« E^^«ll«»t 
iHtd ae«*ptetf tli« truat* Tte eltaiic«llor was tbarofora i« error 
is f lad lag that tli« appellant had faiXe<[ to exeretot its Juty i# 
accept lift truat aet« tTom Febniarsr 9* 1930* until aiter th< 
flXlag of tho m>tioa for tho appolntmoat of th* receiver* 

for tha re&sono otntffd the order appealed froai in 

Soaiilan and Orldlejr* JJ«» eoaour* 

ei{;> 1**^^ liinu *«««* ^^ '^3.*..irj'«fi!>^ j9»r;lfe s#S3 #»«r9c# ^*1 iJ<|,«h9fa«> 

i.-i.:^;*»^v.:, ,,,^ $t0timfl^: 


TihLim a. coMSZ et ai.. 

(OeaplalnttBtt) Appclltes, 

▼ 8. 

■eiUaS CASTY et ttl., 


Ob App«»l of tlhM CSiSTt wad 

Ap pel lax 

j Irttcrlbe^.fc^y|App«ial froa 
i iiuper^lirT Cou?:^ of Cook 
) OeuDtV. 

... i 26 8 I.A. 621 

n. ffASsxDUia justicb ixilm fidu.ivxH£D rm o^ihion otr ras court. 

This la an appftal frott an lnterloeutor;y order Ap2>ointing a 
r«««iTttr upon « bill to foreelooo a firat mortgage truat doed upon 
oertain real eatate. So reverae the order Morria Uaaty and Xillo 
Caoty have appealed. 

Conolalaanta* bill, riled June 20, 1932, Terlfled by an 
authorised agent, prayed for the fereeloaure of a truat deed ooa« 
▼•ylng the preslaeo to Chioago City £anJc 4 Truat CuKpany, aa 
tr^iatee, datf>d Deeeiober 19, 1930, oJtoeuted by Morria Caaty and 
Tillle Caaty, and glTon to aeeuro their ninoteec principal proBla- 
aory notea aggregating $19,000. l<ote Ho, 1 for $1,000 saturing 
SooMiber 29, 1931; Koto Jio. 2 for |1,000 aaturin^ Deeeiaber 25, 1932, 
and fiotea au&bered 3 to 19 for $1,000 eaoh. maturing Seoeaiber 2B, 
1933; all of the notea bearing intereat at d per oent per emnus, 
payable aOMlannually, eviderieed toy coupon notea. The bill alao 
prayed for the appointiRent of a reeeivor pen.dec;t ,g llt«; . it alleged, 
inter alia , that default had boon »»de in the payment of IdlK) duo on 
lote h>o, 1 and in the pay»«tnt of intereat on the entire indebtedneaa 
due June 95, 1932, and in the payment of g«!nflral taxoa for the year 
1930, and tbat the anount duo the complainanta la I19,41S.5C; that 
the premiaea InYolvad are improved witio a three atory briek building 
eontaining aiz apart£f»nta, on» being oeeupled by Morria Caaty and 




is;9 . 


« S^^-f **>*I^« T^lk-xa 'tt^>»':ii.^<>i.'S'''*f.j.f s* 8.-.^tt - -i. aiffT 
tt«9«» §•»!> iiJ«^ amrr- ■•■'-- "s'li'i « #»©X9--^ic- .' - 

-•l«Br;-x<i ii«<riaaiY<t aeft^<»aio tintii ones' ^^■- • .; nil 

^attuitim 000,11 tot £ .o«t '^ r . ■:ili«9«t3ia« •»^«« v>^> 

,auMUM ic*« Sa»9 i«t d iA ia*^ .^ to XI* ]<ttl 

(MXji llitf tuCt .••#ou »•<[««• x^r fr09it»bJltr« t%liMunaMlx»9 9t4mx»M 

.tmt^llM $1 , 9iil niamhmma wvi»»»^ *nink^tsm mU tat *»v«^(r 

a<» tiut) 046$ to inmm(/Kiq rndi al t^n aft»tf kAti iUMt»b imtii . mXlM fiail 

mtfah9tdiotat %tlia» Btii ao iBet- ^oll 

t»9X 9SU tot •9XMi £Mfm% 16 ta%K, ^ui •tth 

iatii ;(M«fll>«fl« «1 t^Mdi^iQAos -sili *i/r dfw< ^9X 

tolMlMT Jtolid x'««<^* A'^fc^ i* ^'^i^'* t>*y«ttail 0%o fr»«'i<,i.Y .: 4|(1 

Till if Catty, two l>«ine TAeact, and the reaalnlng thre« l>elng oeou- 

pi0d by tanaiits; that lierria C^^cty and TLlli« Canty arc parsoaa of 

DO r«sponaibllity; that th« fair, rcaaunablt eaah sarkat valuA of 

th« preslMta la 117,500; that korrla Qaaty and tUlla Caaty are 

tmeaiployed and that If a deMeleney deeree were rendered eoaplaln* 

ante wouli be unable to oelleet the sane; that lu and by the truat 

deed the rente, leauea and profits of the pr«&iaoa ar« iixpreasly 

eonreyed aa aeeurlty I'or the ladebtedneaa; that by reaeon of the 

default cosplalnantB aa ownera of the Indebtedneee, elected te de* 

alarc wai dild declare the whole lodebtediieee du« and payable. 

The appelotjuent of the reoelver waa nade, after notice te 

the holder of the equity of rede»ptlon. The order wae nntered 

July 1, 1938, and reoltee: 

*rhia Cauae eoMlng on to be heard on motion of the :Jollcltera 
for the CoiBpl<3tinarit for the appolnment of a Keoelver and It appear- 
ing te the Court that the holder of the Iquity of KedeiKptlon, to- 
gether with all part lea Involved, have been duly aerved with notiee 
ef thle BMtion, mnA the Court havings heard the evidence as to the 
walue of the property deaeribed In the truat deed and being fully 
advlaM in the preicaleeai 

"The Court flnda that it hae juriadletien of the aubjeot 
■Mtter hereof and of the parti ea hereto. 

' The Court ir^urttior Jfinda that it is provided in the truat 

deed herein aou^t to be foreoloaed that on the fillnti of a bill 
to fereeloee the Court in whlcU the bill ia liled may before or 
after the eal«, without regard to the aolvenoy at the tixae of aueh 
application for a Kecelver of the pereona liable for the payment of 
the indebtedneaa appoint a Hceeiver during the p«iiideney of the 
foreeloaure suit, and In oaee of a deficleiioy during the Hquity of 

*And the Court having heard the evidenoe and beinig fully 
ftdvlaed in the pretaieea flnda that it la neeeaeary for the preaer- 
▼atlen of the preisiaea, which are the aubjeet natter hereof, that 
ft Reoelver be appointed for eaid preuiaea, it appearing to the 
Caurt that It la probable that there will be a deficieney after 
■ale, and that the grantora in eaid truat deed ure unable to 
aatiefy the aae^e, and that the premieea fijr* eoaiit security lor 
the amount due. 

li« eertlfioate of evidence haa been preserved or filed in 
this eeurt. 

It la appellant a • oon tent ion tiiat the order appointing the 
reoelver waa improvldently entered, and they argue that the order 
waa baaed eclely upen the verified bill. We do not think ao, aa 

•«»•• »«l»tf ••xtiS nalnl»tn% Mt^ bm .^MiMir snU94 99i ^^BmQ •iixil 
.»X4r«t'4 i^t^ ^'^^ «li*a&*#a>hiii aXotiir «ii^ •ic«Xa9£» Mb baa 9%»l» 

XXi:1 a -I. 

■■a %;ji\!mj. 

-.l^icS-iSf '.vai^sO £ t'fT' 

.ii. IS**' 

«wfi to 

lo xiliipS i»>.^ 

tXIut ^;-'- 

-toatiflf 91. ■ 

iMtii /*"■■ ■■ 



or p 

ifl'r. ^j:? : 


'■■-.•■ifi^bai 9 At 
<v<.« aTuaoXattiat 

-0 aoXiav 

';;9 »«! 1«vX*ft«8 41 

rur ,«Xji« 
■>- %t»li»9 

ill itflii to f>»Tt*«ttiq a«!»€( 9»si ^oiMtbtn 

,9ttmt> airfi 

th« ord«r r«eit*» that •Tidene* v&s hftard, and ths rceord In that 
V«:9«r4 oannat b« QUftttloned. 

It !• alto eentcsdsd that it in inc\iuiib«mt upon the oom* 
plainantt to vupoort tha erd*r appointing tha reo«ivex* by a 
•uffieiant ahawing In tht r«oer4, and tba burden of ahowing to the 
Ofturt facts vhleh would JuatlTy the a^pointxa««nt. There ean be no 
Question that ia the lav, and that in ehanoery no presuniption is 
Icxlulged that the OTidenee heard waa euffioient to authorise the 
entry of an order made. AieTortheleaa in the inetant ease the 
order reoitea that the court haard OTidence aa to the value of 
the property, the ineolToney of the appellanta and aa to the 
neee salty of preserving, the property, anri tnc oourt found that it 
vaa neoeaeary for the preeervation of the preuisos that a reeelTor 
be appointed; that it ia probable there will be a defioienay »fter 
eale and that app«ll aunts are unable to eatlsfy the same. Theae 
were ttltijaate faota. Under eueh a state of the record, where it 
ia deaired to reverae the order on the ground that the eTld«nee ia 
/Oot sufficient to sustain it, the evidence must be preserved, 
otherwise the decree atust be affirned. .yeyeir . ^ben^ .v». i>>yeraber)d. 
319 Xll. SM, 963.) Moreover, the verified bill alleges the fair, 
reaeonabli^ caah market valne of the preaie^a to be ^17,500, and 
that the amiunt due eoBplainnnts ia 919,415.90. We cannot eay the 
ehaneellor abused hi a diaeretlon in appeintini^ the receiver. 

Ylie Interlooutory order of the Superior court la affirsiod. 


Seanlan and Oridley, JJ., concur. 

-8100 9tiS aoeru iii* <!«;«(• Al «i .? ft»bn»iae" ' •' 

m •■.<l t^riftdoa »Ai linij^ii---^ ^Yofrririi* ol *f amain tif 

•a «tf lUiO «t»tfr .lOAAtlAloQ^ «ii4 ti^^foi^t &i»«w Hotiitw »i««> lttr«(» 

«cei1? <»uBe *i^# i|fiil;rAa .. .- — -Msif fen* »!»• 


.PP.U-. 5 26 8 I.A. 621 

Mi. jssrxai mmjjst imuvmm> the opuiicar oi the coi^t* 

Xa Ml «etl«a ta juUHMIIa MHMMttf la Oet«li«r« lINIf* 
tlMr* ««• » trial witlwut « iwej in Mnreht 1932* resulting is tte 
MWt finding thB !•>»#• la defendant** f«Tor Mod eot«rUm JtttfpaMlt 
asaintt plaintiff f»y easts* TIm pr«««nt app««kl fttli«ii«tf« 

tk9 a«ti«B is iHissd tipsn a vritisn •eatrftot* siftaai 

hy ths partiss and datad Harsh 3» 1928* trtwrsin plaintiff (first 

party) is issicaated as Uut &iili«Cantraotar« and dafsadaat (sassnA 

part/} aa ths Csatraetsr* Plaintiff's d«slar^tion« fils4 

Cot^«r 10« 1929t conaiats sf a spaeial esaat ami ths ■ ■— n 

ssMBts* la th« ap«eial count the oontraet ia ast sat in IjBJJl 

TSTbft * It ia sa a printed fara* rUXad ia with typawrltiac* 

and partisns sf it ars «8 fslXswst 

*illXIGLS I* TlM $i*»C«atvaot«r shall aa4 «ill prsfrida 
all tha aatsrials and parfsra all tha voric for tha fumistilas aa« 
fatoriSfttiac sf tha straataral stsalt s'«o«a« trusks at buildtag 
sits* far ths Sts«tosn Cla* Baildimtt to ha wvvt*^ »t ths nsrthsast 
esnar of Kandolph * sUa atraats» Chisagse Illinois* for ths 
183 i^andolph Baildlag Corpor&tisnt in aecerdansa with plans 
(daaer ibii« thM h]r dwat ttia*ara snA dataa)* as shswn sa tha 
dravinca and daasrihsd in tha spsoifia^^tisas praparad hy K* M* 
Titxthsn* Xno«» /riAiiteet far saiA haildiag* ^^ . 

*'•*""• aSI; IIU lis altaratisna shall ha aada in tha wrj 
•xo«pt upon written ardar sf ths Csntiaaior* • tha Msoiant ts ha paid 
hy tha Contraetor sr allsasd to tha ;nb«-Csntr^ctor by vlrtna sf aush 
alteration ts ha statsd ia aai4 ordar. ohonld tha '^»*«»^''^?«^^^. 

>ab-Csntraotsr nst agvos as to aaswit to be paid or nllowad, tha vsrk 
ahaU go on mAax the srdar rsqnired ahot^a, an^ in saas sf failars 


♦t;«joq rxmavt mm j-^a^'-.. 


la^e ;^i>n;;> 


iKMCit «jioJt«;$SAl8fl» n*'^t»mijsti^- »'mi^«nttt9t- naii «« (V^upv 

iCitow •^' 

->— •-^- »|U w) ,5ft« 
' "flQtelB I fill 



%• •9t99t tiu i9ttwAm»tl9m of •&ltf aa««at shall ^« ftwx9i %• 
•rbttrntlMt a« fr«vM«tf t9x in akt« XII •£ Uils ««itm«t« 

ART# XX « It is ontiDitlXy affTt^tf %«tw9«m %1» pftr(i«» 
h«r*t« (hftt the stoi to hn yaltf Igr tlur C«atraet«r %• ttec sitb* 
0«atraetor for said vork «a« wittrlaio ahiOl %• $a9I« rOO* It !• 
tlM latent ioa to r9*d««lg» the yorcsMt ewMtrueticn m«! whcrervr 
•bangsB are aade tta« follovlnjr unit j^i««« shall yrov&ill 

#€5*90 p«7 too lor iB0rs«iS04 toiimmEO* 

161*80 «• • • dooroauo^ • 
mjilbi«e% to ttd<iiile8s aac docttutlaos »e horeinb^foro prOYldsd^ aoA 
thJ9.t such SUM BhiilX 1>« paid liy tlso ConttaotoJf 60 tlie su^oCwatyaotOf 
iB ourrent fwaitin» as follows < 86;>: as tlio ««rk pragprtsst** tlui 
fiaal :i^i9«oat stell )i« »ad vitlila 30 ds^» afior ilur SflapX^tiMi of 
tlM ^ork iaelttfdoct in this oostraot* 

ABf* XIX* In eaao tlio Coatmctor siad sifl>»Ceistyaot«r fall 
to acroo 1b rols^tion to mat tors of pajwu^tt^ allowasoo 99 loas 
Tofonro4 to in ahts* liz or VZil of UUs ooair«ot» * * tbos iko 
■s%tov rtuJLl ko roferrod to a Bo»S'd of ATkltratimi to oooslsft «r ono 
forsoB «olsets« by tko Contvaotor antf one peraiM sel*etotf Igr ttot 
::»b-G«atr otor* tkoso two to ooloot a tkir«l« Tko dseloioa of anr 
too of this Sofuni siutU ko final aad kintfiae on kotk p^^rtioo 
koro^o* * • • 

la 0^14 oyooial oomtt plaiatiff arorvotf that yursBaat 
to tko eoatrft.«t it fakrloatotf lOid fumiskod to tk« stookOB Clak 
Build int la Chicago all evruoiHral Bto«l aoi arising to tho plaas 
aad ayooifioationo* oBd la ail r*«foeto pcrfonMrd aad fulfillod tko 
«oBtr«o% oa Its parti that dofsadaat Is eatltlod to e»A 0. edits of 
#tii0»«&09 OB tho contraet prico of l^iftltOoOt loarias a kalaaoo duo 
fr«a d«f«tidMt to it BBdor tho eostmet of $30*1501 that duriag tko 
p«rfor«a«eo of tho oontraet plalatifft at dofoadaat^o roqaoot* aloo 
faraioh^ and dollTwrod to tho build lag •03ct»a oad odditioaal lAool 
work* of the total agroetf prloo aad trIuo of $ia»5&l»f9» of vhli^ 
extra steel work defeB^iont is entitled to oredlto of $S.74a«Td 
(loaTing ft halaaoo due therooB •t §U,«0^.8t)l that all of the stool 
aork so fteraidkod w?ie aoceptod ky deftead&Bt aad ased ky hl« la tko 
erecUoB of the buUeiBsl that tko last delitrery ky plaiatiff aao 
oeapleted oa tecertor 19, Waif aa^ th«t the total a«oaBt das fro* 
dofoBdsat to plaiaUff oa the eo«tr««t aad for the extra work la 
♦44.t5*.£9. together ulth legal iBt^rest. Aoeo«p««yiii« thm 
deolaratioa ie aB affidawit of elal»« 


0.': a; «.v«'- 





«m Mil 4aiC4 

4Mf# MiXiltltfll, ^104 lr«Knio1^t9ti «#i^ 

4 ai tout f«««iJjn9ilif»iHift jMbi 

Kl»# ^«f«r X««l« JMK^JK* 

To the deelarAtimi OefmdaBt fllM • 9l«a of Om generttX 
lSMi« aa* a tp«oial plea In whl«li 1m all«ir«d thnt "as te all ilM 
•ereral eupp93«<i proKtaoa ia plalD«irf*a sjjpecial c©WDt, a3 U?eat aa fcf 
%h» mm 9t gl4.601J«28.* plaintiff aiiglit sat to aaJLntaln i%n «^etien 
beoauaa of Artlala ill of %h» contjKioti ihut ho hmm paM to plaintiff 
all atdu dua wader tho oontraot, •axcept thrt ha baitb thnu tlws mm of 
$30»1&0« aIX«g«« to ba ««e to plaintiff trwm def«ttitaBt» in f«r 
altar&tloaa aad re^«ai^lag of a*ld build iast snd tht»t plaintiff 
aado di w a wri upcm def«aditnt to pay fsuoh aua whieh pajwnat defoedaat 
ref aaod to stake « and that thereby aueh dt^aand and rofuoal conoa 
wlthia the proTiaiona and parrlov of said 7t« III of said oeatract^ 
aad that by r«?«aon tharaof it baoaHo and wao plaint Iff* a daty to 
aabait it« alloga^^ olala to a Board of xlitratioa yuraanat to Art* 
XXZ of aaid eontrnot*** i\mt defendant further allacad that althota^ 
often raquaated jtlaiatiff ban rafoaad aad nacleotad to aulault aaoli 
allogad alain to a Board of Arbitmtioa porauaat to Artlolo XII9 ^bgr 
raaaoa iriieraof plaintiff haa praaataraly aad ia vlolMtion of aaiA 
ooatrn^et iaatitate<; thaao proaoodinga ao to aaid otfli of #50«150*« 

la tho af idarit of mriis aoe«qNiayiaff tha plana and aado 
by an agaat of dafaadaat* aiailar allagationa ar« aada* and affidst 
eoaoladao with a daaial that defoadant la ladabtod to plaiatiff ia 
aaU a«ai of |44975««29« 

Oa January 3« 1930« on plalatiff*a Motion* th« oourt 
ontarad an order ftadlag that the affidaTit of aarita prenoato na 
lesal defenao to the ava of $30»1S09 and ad4itdsiBg that plaintiff 
haT* a Judgaont in aaid mm acaiaat defoadaat* aad ordering that 
the oaaao otaad far trial aa to the balaaoo af plaintiff* a elate* 
7rott thia 4adipoat defeadaat prayed aa appeal to thia oourt aad 
f Ued aa appeal boad ia the eireait ooart. 

^liiBiitlt 9t Umii mad 

^ - ■■ ■ . , ,' ' ■■. 


■•*«#Slp8."« V.,... *^ 

'.ii mortt 


dli t9hxv».rj Z- » 19;5C» th« jiartlea by tlieir xcapeetiT* 
attorneys «r»itt7«d into » «rltt«ii stljp«d.a%iosi ^dierela they a^pMotf 
that %ha nlXowaBO* of tiut appmal tvom tlw Judgttofit ear(5tr of Jfttttuuqr 
Z» 19S0» be Taoateti aad the appoial bond bo vitlidraois am' oftnoeXI«^| 
that tlM judtfOMt osaiast tftfeadant for #90tl50 b« ao% aalde aoKl 
hold for naughtf aad that aefeadsittt be ^irtm l«tiyr« Mtithin 15 <3^j« 
to fllo *9m adi^itional plea yUji. jfloyrotn oeetiaiuunoo« alleging tht 
payMMit to plaintiff of the Mm of i^30»150t upon the olais inroIvoA 
in the oaaao*" Cm tiae follawiag toy (Februnry alt 195v<')» t)M 
stipulation «ae pare«on%e(3 to the court end* upon sot ion of tho 
attoornigrs for the respect ivo parties* tho court oaierod mn order 
la sobstanttal ac««rd with the ntipulatloa* 

On Uuroh 6» 1930, def eaiant filo<l an additional plan 
lliU.#ltfyffiJ| 9gqnffiuffiHW> together with an aff idftTit of aertts. 
on Mnr if 193lt d iftncscnt filed tvo similar ploaa* In one ho 
arerred that plaintiff ought not to sutintaln its »etloA **ai» to tho 
fiws of ri4«e09*29»* because he stgrs thut after Mareh 4t 1030« plain* 
tiff • for a TKluablo eonsid^ratlMi* *a3C«eated and delivered a full 
and eonplete waiver and releaeo of » * lien to and upon the struoturo 
* * and thereby for over deprlred dcfendvjsit of his ri^ts of suhrOtfatioB 
anO/ct of his rlckt to Maintain a aeehanie*s lien on and a«alast saU 
strttoture.* In the other ploa defendant averred* as to %he am of 
|U*609«29» that oa iPebrttarj S0» 1930« plaintiff aocepted ^30»150 
in eorrenoy "and tho further sui of I14,e09#2te reprcflontod by notes 
ex euted by laa Haadolph Building Corpora t ion* and «uari»atood by tho 
Htov^bea ciab, a oorporatiooe iiLjrttU_eatiBfaeti8fiLMi-Mli«i»!2ii£ ^ *^ 
several proKiBes and of all the svm of noney in plaiatiff *■ 
d»ol^*ratiOB aentlonod.* la tlM affidarit of acrits aoco»p«jnylng theao 
last aeatioaed pletis it is stated i 

«That any sad all BO-e*iled extra and additional steel* 

•fi«»«i^*« %t9m ^.mBtti^.^ ».r? ,'*'*l 4'-? i?rrw8<l*« Ii6 

«1t.?ii fat aJt*l**'«i' <*vr'.»X fw-"' ^ 

t# MOM '.-sf.u o4 »^i ,.&«in')>vj» ,^i(su»a'»1-«ft -■■' 
0dX«O.^<l jS»J«<->9<?e )ti#fajiXi£ tOjS^iX «. 

flMtf^ -^ i9«*iki»%atni amis ^»»i^j:tmit^- .^..^ 

«X»>^e XAfli9i4Xi>i*ii iam .Dt-x^ 

tf~ vi^ fe«^ii»itfii«a #a.«X 


fur»istu»4 by plAintlff for st^ic otrttoturs* v&e furnitth*^ n& th« 
•Ji9r«s« (ilrecii«a and authorisation of tlw suiKirrialai; «t.rcMt«et 

* * and net to cr for or u^a th« ret^ueet of d«fendiont> umC « * 

wfts ft dlreet obllgatloa of ontf agalUBt !^hM ownfro of jBcitd struetarf^ 
gn.Iyt thctt it T3r^r thon and tM«re 00 aiprotd aiad ttc^nritood by liod 
between plalatlff • said «reltiteot &n«i 0.nid ownoro «% the time laniA 
ertrn nxid adc It tonal eteel w-se eo fumiahodi Mid IhetX pXftiEitiff 
roeognlsod tho liability of said ownors lyxi aottoyttd nikli oimora 
aa iho obligors of ottoli ebligatioa and did aeeti»t £nm tli<ns aoncys 
aad a«t«B in fall pagnMnt* sett of act iim ana diadbu^rfo of the awia 
•f Mmoy la plaintiff* a doolaratloB Mentioatd*** 

S«b»«^tt«Btly It vaa etifulatod Vetwoea thvt attoraaya for 

tlM raopootlTo partiaa tlutt plaiatlff aotd not fil« rtplie rations 

to tho iloaa* with the uadsretnadii^ th^t upoa tho trial it migilit 

"latoryoe* ai^ dofoaaa to aay of tha 9l«aa«" tka aa»o as aight bo 

iatoryoaod liad apj^ropriato replioatioaa booa fllod* 

Ob tho iaottoa thuo aade thera «».a a trial vlthout & 4u^ 

dwriae tko t&rly doya of MarA» 1932* at vhioh mmmIi oral and 

doo itft agy ovideaoo «aa iatrodiiood by oaeh party* Tho following 

facta iiit«JL.i4ij| ««ra diaeloaadi la k&roh* IfiSdt tla» defendant* 

doing bttdiaess aa Paachaa Bros* (doaignated aa Contractor} oaiared 

into a build iag ooatraot vith ths lad Bantiolj^ Duilding Corporatioa 

(dootgaatod ao Ovaer and horelaaftor ooXlod tho Building Oorp*) ta 

furatah all vork aad au^tariala neceiaary for tb« areotlon of ti^o 

sow &toalb«i cittb Bttlldiag* thoro was sua isaue of 04«ioo»oao in 

first Mortgage b<aad« oad also aa iaauo of accoad awrtgago boiido* 

Tha coatruot provlCeKS for the payaont to d«f«n«t^mt of $a,354»020 

in cash and H2Si»aoa in aald aoooad mortgago bond a* Tho -Jnloa 

Vruat Co^pfdagrt a cihiotvgo ba»k» '«&a designated a£ tho diaburalag 

agmtl tha UBderwrltera of the 1>a»J iaauae woro ifedaoyf ntuart * 

o, aad the latter 'o rapreaaatatlfoa woro ^InatoA f^ Co»| and all 

paymonta to dafaadant aa Contractor war* to bo »»do upon oertlfioatoa 

of the archltactt «• »• Vit«k»«i k Co-, Ino,, douatorolgaod by inaton 

* Co. It naa alao proTidod tkat oxtra aark aad »at«riala ■Ight bo 
famtokod* but that aa oatisiato of tka ooat thereof aul»itt#e by 

Mas ^ 

• .5nx«^ te wmfti br? «wit' *Kfv,"' /sifeiiM 4iifi& m4U99fi wa 

««fead«at alMtOd flv»« kc ftpprsriMt ia writ tag by tiit e>3r«hUeo% 
•ad ^iastea ft a«»» «ad Ui»t tlM yaXu* of ftll auoh (txtr& work »»« 
BftUrUla should Ho f ix«« «^ tiM foll«^iae tesis^ via* *tli« &c«uftl 
«••« to th» contr&otor of euoh «xtm mrk »M witerlalo * • aXaa 
6^ for orrertesd aiMl 1^ f «y profit la ftddltlsi thoreio** 1^ Ks^roh* 
1928, oXoo* tlM Aofoadaat* m Centr^etor* onterod lato tlitt oidi* 
ooatVftOt with pl&latli'ff «• oWve ao&tloae«» for tilt fftbrlOHtlB« 
aad fumlohlac of the ftimotural otoftl work rotiVlrod for tlio propeoot) 
•traotaro. la tht latt«r part of u»jt 1928* durlag th« progrooo 
of tko work* tho ojclaooro of the imoorwrltoro aooortfiiiaod froai 
ox«alimtlono that tho plaao proparod ky tho arohlteot woro <ieflol«nt 
wit>t roopoot to wiad vtrooaoit oad doaaadod thftt Acicltlonal otoel for 
«la< kroelBff k« fakrloatod and famiahod kjr plalatlff (defendant* o 
QUbeofltrt^etor for thnt part of tho work*) Yhi^oaftor ^« <^* iaka* 
def«ndaat*o miflaoor and aiq(»erlat«ndeat* act Carl J* ^uadqalat* 
plalntlff'o r«pr«a«ntatlT»» anC <sir«oted hUi to oonfor iaiao^ latoljr 
v^th Ooorgo Kigrt a atru«t«ur«l «a«lBOor datplojrod kgr dofand^nt* 
Fondtittlot did ae and thoroaftor ho wmA Boy had naaeroao ooitforoaeoo 
a» to ttm adi^ it tonal atool work nooosaary to k« fahrio&tod a^d tut* 
alAod }i^ plalatlff » aad ao to tha probaklo ooat th«r«off and thay 
toatatlvoly affvaod tiMit oald ooat %oald not axoo«d tho aua of 
#16»000« Booaaao of %h9 daflolaaey la tha Ar(dilt«ot*a plaao aai 
opoelflotitloaot on tho kaala of whldh plaintiff hsid aado Ito oaU 
•ak«eontr%et with ^.af «adsnt» th« quoation atlll raaalaad, howaver* 
ao kotvoan tha ownay (tho lalldlng <.orp«}» tho arohitcet, and tho 
frtfclaal oontractar (dafftndaat}^ aa to 3M, «*»»tti^ P^ 'OJf »^^ 
•ddltloaal ataal work. ocor<ilnglya a aaatlae waa had durlag tho 
oarly part of JtBio» 19ata la tha of riot of ih« nrehitaet* st whioh 
rapr^aaatatlTta of all lnt»r«»t«f<J partlaa woro praaeatt «»^ »•«* 
<ittootloa wao diooaaood. kaoh of tha oral t«s laoay eontntlnad la tho 


xtn?© if't Sid 

ait^ SAlvut* Sk«£ ni«w ^) /»"»!» « , 

VrvMOt tr«n««rij^i ^imwtmm idi@i( «a« SAid and a8V««td to ai tliat 
a««tlii(g* TIM I«6tiaaa7 9itttt&4 ^r 49S«aA&M% 1« la ataiur; conflici 
vifth thAi offered )qr ylaiatlff • 

Carl J« KiMdqttiBt 1(«fttlf i«« f«r pl«iatlff tlksit 1m wm 
pT«»9nt A% ikM M««ilngf tlutt lut ««ttXd not ssy ffhi»«lM7 L* c;« a«^ 
«iy >• fi* ••«• (ir««»«etiT«ly 9r«»i<i^t aaA Morvtarj vf ]^liiiiff ) 
««irt yrcsMt •» BOt| fcltet JUrl. M« VitsthuH and I3««»r«« Btumt maA 
Blatk (v«]Nr*s«9tUis tlw arohlt««%)» iu%9 «a4 Vajr {repr^r sent lag 
4«f«a<i«ai}» altcf B« Mtll«Y and o*»rc« • MtmM»T9t (r«yr«««ittec 
tb« BttiKtiac a«xp«t •*»«)• H«nry J* Ov«m« and ailMr* (r«]Mr«««BtiBg 
tlMr tttuVvn iiXvAf) all ««r« pre»eti%| that « *l<at of dlgOAtleffi^oiiOii 
Ma<l iMjnl foo)ilac" «a« idMnm» booiuioo of Um elus«os UMt beouuoo It 
vaa thoDgbt that th* Job wmlii b« dclayodi thot Qxotao wkisto^ u« to 
*9tiirii ilM Job I" &hot ibcjro wto *»e acrovMHrtit aodo ttaat jtlAlntiff 
woulti funilslt bhtf «xtr«« and loj^l.. tfi. . tJMjsmorf of Uio bttlla jyig f<^^ 
Ml— nt^* that "aothlBif of iiatab kiiMi va» »<9^i4 1^ Grmuiitt u^^oelf » 
or ocgroBO elao*" but that "I ojq^*ct*<: that th« owaoro of the butldlug 
wort &Qim to 907 for it I* that X^iAs of Paaohoa !$»•«• oal4 "ho would* 
n*t glvo ao an ordor for thoso oxtrao* artd vouldn*t prooood with tho 
«ork> until ho h«ui gotioa an ord«x from tho ooaovsi* and that "it 
is not a faot that vlllsr aad Srouao said that tho Club would pay 

Karl ^# Titsthua* d03:«aAaat*o wltnoost after stating tm 
wore pr«o«at st e id aoeting jfl^li^lng l • H> fiafft ^ t»»tifief> that 
"th* onX/ convrorersjr «»« ^^m w>,s to itay for tho eo^tt of the odt^itlonsJL 
stool to bo furnished t* that Qroaae* yresidoat of tho toubon clubc 
oaid that "the slab would hairo to pogr th(^ cxtvas for tho tidditional 
otoelf and that ho would hafo to go out ond oeoure adriitlonal aNsd»ors 
in order to tiqr f«r lt|** that "l^lAst ro]nresent«tiwo of i'asoiMn Broa«» 
stated thftt thoir would 000 thut the stuff woali ho hsadlod ia tho 


■ ' x^ ^iff^ ^^^' 
m!t<i9J>^»lim»9i9 lint »'il" ^ $^ 

.>a'4< atf.. 

•fi ■■!;> 

<'iv.. ««« x^T ?vv:v cjipa tJCao ^ns" 
v:^!C{ 09 mmi ^Mwe €»t» ^i" ttiM W«« 

uittftl Uxm, ths.t thAtj wer« Biapl:r t||*^ffiratU^. Il^i* lfe®^»*M3ut. 
^iit tkat th« ooet %Jte?r««f w«al<} bcr Honw >y the »Tr»«ir»|" «id thm.% 

asgrtlitiNr vhoa thAt o1k*t«iiest ««» wui* liy l)«li«* 

I>i»f«iidaRt*t wttHftss'f Walt*!- K Killer* Tie* president 
9t %h» i$tm»en Clitb and trenvurer and a (Slrector ef tite BuUdlat 
^r»*» testified tltat at the aeetliif Pumdqtilut uitf 1^. M» Ciai-jet 
repreientlnif plaintiff* »er« ^eee»tt thnt there w»« » dl«fea8?i«i 
fte to the ne e»<^ity for sdiiitl4NMl et^el far ^Ixid HufiEMeiaiif that liM 
uestien ae to whft ehttttld pay for th« steel wna "thoroisigiaar <il«* 
euaaetft** thnt lube otatei that "PHnehen Broo« veiad aot pay far tlila 
•xttm viiKliraeiag beeaaee it wme %hc ar4ttm.t»et*a filgi^iltfr thnt the 
fme naetfedt* thKt thereUtPMi he (t^ wltBeee}* areune a»^ 'ttsarataln^ 
offtoere and dlrcotars of the . taiftben cluVo all »tate<l thnt the ciMk 
"«rouli fa^ for the extrasi** th%t h, H, Ga^e and Kintdquiet thee said I 
**Ye9» 'ffc vlll hare to do that}* taoA thttt "Orevit* Aiii;ersteiUi and 
VSr^elf tol4 Vltsthm to so ahnu! with the work* and that the '^ludfr 
>e«UiI pay for these extras direojt to thf •»^4|e :^trttetiiral J^teel Cn»$* 
tb^t tfurlBS the meetlae "ve toK hoth Vitsthmi ami >tt1i« ornlly t« g« 
ahead t* that ho (the ^itn«««) 'does not reoall th.t a* stt'frseqneatly 
Torifled this t^ a vrltinei" thtit sonethlnK w^aq »al^ later at the 
aeetlng "about our j»lTing noiee for the anovmt of the extras {** that 
a1>««t six "i^e^kfl after tht v^etlnK* In th« letter jwrt of July* 19S8» 
f»nd *ftex th«f work had further progressed * riundqulst aB*3 Oage *im» 
to hl« (th« wltacsaM affle** tmA "Rwidtittlst saldi '^e ha « oo«o 
for »o«o wney l|UMS»®JLi^ •?llSSdfcil «*«^ «« ««^« ^>»^ * «*»•«* 
froa th« »t«uh<9S Cl«h tn pnrt jmysMnt of tho axtrast** at»d that at 
that tiaio "thoy h»c. no order on us fmn ?fcBShe«! Bros*" 

i'>efe»lHnt*e witness* C<#orce "'« Bi-unkhsrst (repreaent.r;tlw 
•f the Bnlldlng; -orp* at s&id meotlns) t«:ftlfied tluit the aeetlng 


:-. ♦ ;.'i* vmj ■■...■-. «.;ju V. iaisru^n 

n. • j-i«T2)fst» ^$ "Xpt '^fiS, ftXtf**" 

«««» •««« iVAtt d«lD^tei».I •&9t»irca«K9 t^iWiriiil ik«i( item *d# xMt;« aff^< 
Mto erMf eW* tU«« »ja»^»a«i^ iMM ««»in« ((im#«#lv «ir*; sill «i 

#« *tiii$ bM *%nm09m •Oi 1» «MMi%N« #«^ at arid •»4to»rr^ 9g$ mtrt 

bjriolng an4 at**! «Uoli «&• tlM ouigrowUi of a ch«eklOi, don« toy 
«ii«lat«r« » * and for the further i»iurpese of •l.lBinr^tliig a^ d«l«j 
la the eeastruetiea of the t»aUdia«r that aoneag thoao present we;« 
RttB(i4ittUt ftni li. H, 0«ff«| th»t Ore«B« aMl Miller firat staied tlmt 
ae the neeoettity for the atfdltieaal oteel "did net eaaaato froa th* 
luUdliif Corp., It mo J(aL.tjL_th« J5lt«^i*?fii or hi» eaginottr to pay 
for it}" that eoaoidcrahle diseuoslon followed and lueh diffefesM 
•f opialea txpreooodf that "I^aho otated that Itaeohoa Broo. aottlA 
not pay far the oxtraol" that "fiaally* Oroimo eai4i HoU, aU 
rin^t* leto got this settled | wo want to e«t the buil41n« under wayf 
iJlS.^«$, "fJU^I^ t§f_%M •xtraat** that areuno adareonod that 
to all of ttoi thnt Vay then otatod to I uadqaiot or to K* H* Oago 
that "he would oeoperate with th«i and eheek with ttuno the oteel in 
ord«r to deteraiao the exaet MMiait of the oxtraat" that oao of th« 
effioiala of ^he Cage Co* (plaintiff) aado reply, the giot of whieh 
we.s that "the plan as outlined hy droMM was C* K«» that ia» that 
the ciuh would pay for ttie extvas*" 

The teotltwy of ^• '< • l-uhst defendant's superintendent 
and Its witaoao* was suhstantially the seas as that of Brunhhorst 
as to what mrx» s&ld and affrofd to at tho «»etl»«* I^ha also testified 
that he there stated that "faoilMn Br«s« wauld not pay or he liahld 
for any <dMnc»s in the steel work{" th«it Orouao first said that kn 
"objected to the extras n,m hoing a ehang* ia the plans T that aftsr 
Blnek (eagiaoer of the nrohiteot) hMl explained that "the hank had 
inotltttted the change and wanted lt»" and after aueh nore disoussiai* 
aromo mi tflller hoth said that **the ^^touhon Club would pay for the 
extras I" that after th«9e statemmts had boon aatdo* "<}age said that 
they would go ahnni and work with fisy (defendant's strueturaX 
engiaoer) and oarry out the workf* that "Vitsthun said th»t «• 


t«i<r Mi»ta aytil tsixis irk i»m»«iEe 4.«r: 


££a «Jt£»** *M*«B WBBW*^ ,\,iXisfiii" i*ajf *'i&.<^c5.-.* '■idi sdl: t»f #»« 

Kit X9H»t6 &^$ .. 

OJtkdti Ttitt fail tt.^d «Ti^c^-?<' -^^^ 


« « 


l*tt!£tl &4 to x»<l '«« >^ 

«fiel««ir(»iil^ «vcm Hmh y(i4)« ft( 
ftit^ lel ic»i ikitfiwr 

♦» #«S# kiM masttif* tatii •|ihw» «itJ iuif %« 



(dcfm^ant) i^«r« f lutiidlt «k« work &■ ht« ><<at.. and ««r« %« 
«ttp«7Tl»« the work la tha field, tli« 9m9 »■ w« «t« tk« wet of 

til© buildlni^f" thrit M«« prcItaiiiRfy esllwitev ihra w«r« yresent*^ 
«»■ i« th« aMiiiit that ike «hiUMI« 1« tta* min&\ft^9ing would e^Bti" 
«b4 tkfsit Kay sta%«4 tlmt **k« tk«ttgkt %im Mmttnt ««ul« k« la tlit 
MiglitooYii«otf of 116 ,000 » «9 to iho 22nA floor." 

la rotottttol, «• B« d«Ctt, plftLn&lff'o v«|%»oi»o, tosfelfiedt 
"I d«B*t think I «ao prooent at the aoetlac tkftt took plaeo la tlw 
foroport of Juno, 102S, at Vltathioi* e offl«o| I wso aot preneat at 
•ay aootlat la wklek olthor I «r i aadqulot otfttttd tbat wo would 
look t« tk» Clttk «<r tko Build lag Corp. for tko pojnMnt of tho oxttftoi 
ao oao la ay proooaoo at any aootlnfr roctuooted ao to do oo.*' 

I^odiatoly followlag aald aeetlng lettora paoeed k«twoo« 
^k« aroliltcot aad d«f«n^fiai and kotwora dofetMlaat aad plaintiff* On 
JuTiO 7, 192a, the arokltoot vroto defoadaat a lottor, vkloh on lit 
faoa koaro tko wrlttoa approral of tko Sulidlng Ottrp* (owaor) aad 
Vlnoton ft Co* (nq^roooatAtlwoo of tho underwriters)* Zt otatooi 
*Ve koroky autkorlso you to proooei; wltk all gdtijltloaiy^ otool ro^iulrod 
In ooimeotlffiB with tko above Job for additional wlndkr&elng* * * fkis 
lo aa addltlMial eoot due to aodlfloAtlon of plans and opeolfloatioaot 
aad oa extra imdar the ayaeral ooatr^et aad dlokarslae ngroemeat* 
Tlw final «a»ttat kelag oukjeet to final ealoulriLtioao eheoked k7 
our onglaoerot your engineer and owaer*a repreoeatntlwo* In no o«>.oOt 
howoT«r« to exo«ed ^IBfOOO*" tklo letter wao reoelwed ky defendeat 
oa June atk, and on th^it day dofeadnat v:roto plalatlff i ''We here>«ltk 
InntrijMt you iBKodlatoly to yrooood with all lakor aad aatorlal la* 
vol¥6d In eonmctloa with your «ontr> et Ineludlag (hnt for reTlelana 
yp to date. * * ork la oontteetlon v^lth Mr* Say, wkc> will eetabllok 

«ltk the !urohlti»et aooeptaklo temo cover lay "^ifflTff ^^^ !yW ^1 
**'^ »im >• atutkorlaod and fix definitely the naouats for oxtm 


•H^ «t *tf tji:»<9R' #«wsa» «*# -tflfeSjiifS^^ *^'' l«iS* !!»##«ta \«iK tfitl hum 

ii'ii»?/<j*^ Xf9u^mi ^Ttsi^-sX s«j|#^>w«& £»£«« Ipi ■ ~ " xX^sd.mtstji 

aiifv «^ «' ^^i^&%4ki' i'i-(, uv»^A «4t jatn»' »ia«o«an«o ttl 

^ lN»3ia'«ii6i aoolJf.^''£»«Jj%« ilia^i^'/} «}4 j^«-t<tiM »<ii»<^ ^mmu JbMlt ftfC^ 

•al l(if9»4m bm xwtaX ll» AH^ .■■■ %S»t«iJttmmii mx *»mi«m 

MioiftlTfiK Vtt #^stf« 7ilBJkat»mK HA^tim^-^ tuns, iiai^ tt9li9mmp ni b^rl«Y 

4K4aMi ««l s^ioiMM MCI ^•tfiifJt^roJi Mil im» MmtttzatUtm ^^ ^ S^llm hn» 

yaXBuacnt i« m%M Isttora* therm w«e a eonfttr«]i«« in bhe •ffiee of 
felie iurelii%««t at iAi9h. r«]nr««e»trtiir«B of tli« ar«aiit«#t» li«ar 
(6«leii4«Bt*ft ee^iMtr) mtf I \tRdqul«t (plaintiff •• r«pr«&eBtatiir«} 
were pfre»«nt. Or June IX* 192S» plaintiff* p«x> BttncSoalat* wrote 
tfvfcrBdaat in p«.rt nn foXlowai ^oanfimlBs agraeBwnt aa^K Jstttr^ajr* 
Juna ttk* ^ auar fir* f«iiii«qulat with ^rottr Mr* Utsy aac tk« iftr9hit«e%*s 
rapx>&a«ntAtiTa8» • " mm «lll biU 7^ the «tai af #2, 247*40 * far 
axtira ehiixfft** aat lnel>»<llng widitltpai taw naitaj m tlM t^tai^ban Cliiift 
«p to and Including tho S3a4 floor* fko prioaa incJUid* rastockinc 
62 t«na of oelunBBs no liota < In our lot tar o f tha ggnd ult y (i«o«* 
fiogr 2'i* XfM) additional d^tallina axyanaa and additional ahop liandlint 
olMfeXsao* * * dnnfad otool boMu* anglaa* ot«** ar« to bo uoad np aa 
fa* no poaolblo* * * Loft OT«r atool io to bo rcitftooico^ at $30 ]Mff 
ton* torap to b€ paid for at ISO par ton* Adt^ ltiowal tonna ^o to ¥o 
tietornined Irom pl^oio by «ietual oonnt and billod in aooordanoo with 
tormi of contra ot* ?our inmediato aaknawladsaant of thia agr««aont 
wiil bo appreoiatod** Oil tko oo«o day (Jtwo lltb) def«ndant* por 
i'ldbo* uroto plaintiff is parti *Yovr proposition of lono Utbi aoom 
to bo in aeeordanM vitb tht und«rotandin«; derivod fron the «oiif«ronto 
witk tke arolULttot* and it io thoroforo approrad* a ribjof | to th« tonu 
of final eount ao notod tberoln** Thar eaf tar tba work of oonotmotlMl 
of tlM bttildlnc eontinuod and plaintiff o»apl«t<d ita work of 
fabric^ tine and frunlAlne tka stoal ehortly prior to January 1* 1929* 

oonor bad boon baokimrd in WRkim; pajnonto on d«f«n«innt*B gonaral 
oontraot* and on January 5* 1989* rtpr«a«Btat&TOo of d^ondant and 
plaintiff iMd a oonfaronoo as to ^tainin« fnrtlior paymonto fron tko 
owner* and oa January 7* 1989* dofondattt wrota plaintiff as folloaoi 
*Conflminit; iha agrooMMmt r««i«bttd nt tlio oonforenoo cat January Sth« 



s'#0«tli^^ «tf# imm ym^ *'M wmi Mit-w iwiap^w^^ •t^ ^^o i^ 4il<''t »flttit 

:;>% 0^ ^» 
^nieii ltd 

:'X «9t£i^ 

•mt «vlfr«^#ll«&i 1t« iR»^ «MSi 4»»t li^<^ ^it^^' 9^^ 

%m. fiax'.bn&l'^t iM$ll &(mt} %iih mem %*dii i- 

•^ *ii«||^ »gy t»i»ty le^affti »■?'»;» ij^i -^.y^ /— ^ |ij«t 
atf.» sto-sl 0titmm%it.% X'hMxtft ^itiknifiv t^i «a »«n«^«»tiuro * Iw 

ajefetc-j;),!^, at o# jiit 

4 BOW - ' : itif*t 


w« h«r«1i7 contlxu that it 1« our Intent l«a ^9 «a6i»s.ynt t« parcKntr* 
the b«a«io« 9t tite runde due you tm fvut eo»tmet »t tlDi> ..t««ll»«ii 
CAub BiiiXttlBtf fxtw titf <lig3raroliic ai^eBt* during the mmth ot 3mmmty§ 
1989 • Our getfoy^f aJMiir a b«laa«« due jreu of apprexinately ^J^OfOOC*" 
It will b« aotieeii tlUkt ifae letter dees isot etftte ttau^t ecki* &pprttxUMt« 
iMOamie ie due to plmiatUi jfyqpi 6ef ea4&at» It %pi»efure< «n the trial 
''<A alalBtii'f'a origiaia le<igi^v etteet of it« etCeaunt «ltta d»feti6a»t» 
&« yreeenied hy >'• '»• Swaneaiii i4,aliatiff *e treaeurcr ux*6 it« «ltae«e« 
UiAt ftt tlUe elate UaBUary 7» 19ii9) thera waa a set iMOanae tiua ta 
ylalatlff (eeaaideriac eartaUi allawenaea mlisa^ttently aafie) of about 
#tSt^2iO» and tlUe balanoe iaoltt(l«d «14«609*29 (eoanideriaB eaid 
allavantoe) far Uie extra etael ia {^aaatioB furnl^eci by j^lntlff* 
^'Ueli ledger oheet also dleeloaed that a» M&rok 25 • 1929* plaintiff 
recelTod a po^rnont of v7ftOO» and tue aamt v&e ore^ited on its aecouat 
«ith defeadaat* Tkia left a bal«uaoo« than olaisiNi to ba due ia 
plAlntiXf t ireludittg 6ai« '41A»W>9»29 far onid ex%ra ato«l« of 
t44t769*89« Plaintiff did Bat reeeiT* any furtKer payaanta froM 
aayoBe until Fehru&ry :^« 1930 (about 4 aontlia after the preseat attit 
waa aii—iniiiiil la tke interral» audi within apt tlaot it h«ui also 
•onaeaoed a aeohaaie'a lion preeeediag* a« a mbeon tract or t agalnat 
defeadast (Paaeheii Broa»)» the owaer (the BuUdiBg Carf*)» the £teiifta» 
Oltfb an* othara« on lebruary S0« 19ftu» plaiatiif re<;&iTed dir«o ,1 ^ 
fv«B the atmor (tht i»aildin(g i;orp«) the auM of .;}0tl60 in o&ah* cert«>in 
other aaounta in o»ah» and oortaia natea« ag|i:reg>.ti Bg OJtftctly »14t609jJlj 
ai«ao(t by the Building Corp« and ffuaraatoad h|r the stei^ban Club* (thla 
tran»aetloB will horeinaftex further be £ia<maaad«) It waa atipulated 
an the trial th^X when at«^ld notea were reeeiTed laj plainvlff it dia* 
aiasetf ita aaehttnie*a lien auit and slgaoA a waiT^r of aeehanio'a Ilea. 
i>urLng the trial* alae* plaintiff introduoed in eYUenoe a Utter* oon* 
tniaing a long aeoountt dated July 96* 1929* aeSdresaed to the stauiMM 

BimUxtfSl^JKl Him if4ti »ts4m t^m »t»C i «Nn« ji««it4i ^^N^i^«« «»4; ^iiw ^I 

1l;ll4«i«s£«i ,*S«i ,3Si if»^,'-3» m $»dt few-. ■. -■ »i*«s X9%h^ L jftw-^- 

t« «X^#«i jTstf.- ..»'* 9S*- >a«i fit". .. 

#isi« imi^^'%% •id.i %»$\:- i s^tfA*^ tkHsua tmr^ae 

M»4mI9 tiitt » (•%'!<».' -SilUblk^ ;^^) ^<si«nvo ^^ «C«i»«i'«^ fi<v^£»ff«'%} im^ha^^l^Ab 

-aiA tfi ');l;idaii»l9 t<f to»v^»«iirK •««« •«*CHS oistt «««ir ^i^-jfi X«i«4 «ft<r m 
;»a ««»4««i»«« to ie«v#«ir « Imm«1» tm* ^^.tM «»>J •Hf^mmlhii» aft HmkIr 

Cittb end HgnU tiy i9t«a4axi%0 p@r It^e» la ukieh it is «tKt«<i« 
"In aeeortSaaiett ivlth oar ds.«ekiniF of structural »%e6l extras with 
tlM fireteiteet aad ownsrt w« BU>3«lt lierewlth tUivxtn r«pr«s®stiag 
f laal stMielustmist ' hic% ask te ^ nutlierised la the oeueJi »a33x$«T 
»• SB sxtm to »ur contract** f&en f«lleve the loag aieeottzit. 
fh* letter sftsr >eiiig iMtrlEwd «4eetj^«4* V tfc« areliitttet» tlu 
attlldiae Csrp* sad %h» uaa«nirlt«r*s rsyrescnt^^siTti w&s %-etum«4 
to d«f«R(l«at en ttirast 1S» 1939« 

Pwriiis: tlMT trial plaintiff* s <^ttomtys eoiit«aded» a« 
tk«]r hers emteiMt* that Uw letters* eto.* as outlinod in Hit 
freoedlBg p«ra^uph of this dplnlor.* ttonclas lTOli- show that at tht 
■oatUlit 9f all parties iaterestefU hel4 1« th« e:^rljr part of Jtaao* 
198tt no Terbal aipre«Mnt w%a sMide* as testifloA to 1^ d«;fiia6«»t*« 
vltaooses as t?^OTO outlined* to the effeot that defendaat mi& not 
to heooMO prianrlly liable to pXalatiff wider its suboentraot for 
the ooet of sttoh neeseaarjr extra stoel as vould be fabricateU aa<9i 
futraished h/ it» and thnt euoh eottt would he paid dircot to it 1^ 
the ..building Corp* or the rteuhea Club* aad that the true f^cts «ero 
as testified to hy plaintiff* s v/itaoases* ruaciqaist aatf H* A* $»««# 
as fthore outlined. After oarefully eo»sl<^«riag utiA lett&ra* «to«» 
«« oaanot agvee with the eoatention of plaini.lff*e attorae^o* 

During the trial, also* plaintiff offered la erlitehoo 
mm "AgToeaoat of ttettlmoat** dated February 20« 1930» and si^piod 
by plaintiff and the 3ulltfla« Corp. (O«ior)« X>efend««t was cot a 
ptrty to the agroewnst* 3eesiUio of that faot and beearA«e of tho 
further faet thnt portions of the agreea^at voro ap^Ukr^ntXy solf- 
serrlag for plaintiff (the present auit being then pemilitg) defoad- 
ant*s attoraoys ehieeted to the introductioa of th« doeuBumt iB •vl* 
deaoo on thetio gromds and oth«r grounds* ^ut &he ohjeotioao wore 
OTerruled and the deoiMont was adjattod. the agrooaeat* ah\>revlated* 
is ao ftlldwot 


»....•«• , . ~. 

94««X Mix 


M;tf 4i oi iaaU:-. 

.^.di^r on tSSffX 


W]wr«ftt th« st«cl Co. (platBtiff ) "ha* » Just a 
^nli4 olaiK as^lOGit Henry Paaoliea (dcfcodauit) * * as eoatxaot«r» 
for bnlnne* dit« It for th« atruotural si**! fanii»]|«(t to tlfttt 
.Heuben Club BulldliMK* «hi«li ia aoottrea isy vali^ s*«2i8Jiio*« li«« 
ri^ts up4U9 &h« proporty* of «aid attildlaif Corp. (o«nor)« and 

lioroaa* thoro la at tMa d&to Juatly due to the ^tool. 
Co* upon its said olaitt* "taoludlag aoorued later«st ai^ ooata* 
tko aaa of l^4S*2Sl«a9t with latoroot At 6^ froa 7ehrtt&xy 1» X930«* 

Be«« Thortfors* the Bulldtag Oorp«» '*for the pwrpeao of 
oeouriais froa the ntool Co« a vairer of its ■eohanic'e lioa rigMa 
aB4 a disaiosal of th* miehaaio*a lioB parocret'dlaeod** afroee with 
tho Stool Co* as foUowai 

"1* To pajr forthwith to it in oash the sub of 1 33 •672. » 

"8* to dsliver forthwith its notsa for the )w.lati«o 
(#14t(S09*39)» payable at the ra e of «1&00 per aionthf with intareat 
at €%0 gnatantood hy the atouhon Clsb** 

Said stool ^« *hor«hy aooofts aaid pa^aiost of Ottsh ani 
applioa tho am of ^dO^lto mi aot^ouat of its aaid indebtsdnoaa 
against aaid Usaxy ?a«idM»a * *# lo^Tias a baXanoo owiaa awd. <a| » ff<i 
to it £t gm aaidi aop yar Paschof i aMmatiag to ll4»dC9*8«« and rooelTos 
a&id aetoa g|ft,«diitti#(B|»J> oTidoifO aad^..jMim|rity. for said, ihdelitfdaojia 
roaaiaias duo and unpaid froa said Henry P^.vuohen*** 

*SothiBg hsroia oontainodt nor any act doao or oaitteti vith 
roforoaoo to the settleatoat and Kdjastesat evideneet^ htrtrb.. » ahall 
ho eonetrttcd q,§ ,^y W Jgmff. ft^/«.?^,^l»I.Jg AiffiyfilJiag ^k*. e«?*inHl»(L- 
p rimary obligatloa aM|| lljhi lity of s^^id Monry Tasehen * f or tha 
i^imm^ism&iaim . mWiM M .^feS -tool (;o»^ on aooouat of its aaid 
elaia as ftforceaid** 

It furthar ap^ars freai plain:.iff*s said ledfor ohoet 

and tho testisony of oaid 3aans<m» plaintiff's treasurer and ita 

vitnesse that aaid notos wore reoeired by plaintiff in the aggrogato 

oMi of $14 •609*29 1 that on Vebru^'xy 21 » 1930* plaintiff* » actfouat 

with defendant (then shovinc a balanoo due to it froM defendnnt of 

$14te09*29) wns oroditod with two itsu of "notes rceeirod tlo,109»29* 

and *$4t500* (afgregatiag vl4*fi09*29)t and th^«t plaintiff's aaU 

aooowit with defendant i|tiJ|§laBOO^ • the ledtfor shoot and«r tho 

headl^ ^dalanoo" showing "OOO*. It further appears that plaintiff 

thereafter only reoeired rs pfiyaMinto on said notes tba aggrei^to sua 

$S09*29» leaTing a balanee due to it on the sr^so of fl4tl00t and that 

Ml l«oei*or 2$ 1930 1 three yenowal notes were oxe«mted and reo&iwod 

by plaintiff* Those renewal notes wore intradtt^ed ia rrldenoo by 

plaintiff* They are the Joint notes of the Building Corp* and tha 

stovibon Cliib, dated iieoeaibor 2* 1930, oaeh pttyablo to tho order ©f 

plaintiff oao month safter dato with djt interest* and for tha 


km ^i'snun 
X««42 »Ki «4» ft; 

tea ll«»9 1«» iMMlV^lf i»i«f «*^9~' 




j,wie -^t.. .'.,...,:». 'i '-^ litfi^r «#A% m*^ «»•-■. lli««a«if 

r«ft9«etlT* sBOunts •£ 4fOa, liftOO and lia»0O0 {a«fc;r««fttiai il4»lOO,) 

At tb» tla* ttf i)w trUO, iMaxah^ 19^2} aatmaft had b«Mi paid W idaln* 

ilXf ea tli«a« ren«w«d set*** 

At tht ocaolttsiaB o^ all Uw cYl^eiMe ill* aiMurt wmI* 

iJM» g«B«ral flAiijis a«d •Bt«r«tf tiM 4ui«p«at ia fawr vf (i«f«adaat 

aa flrat aWr* Mantlraeft* C*r%«Ui pr9»9»i%ifm» at Xa« vara aulNnibtatf 

to tlic eaurt bj plalatiff « a«ia af »lilah vara Marked "ficfoaad** tmA 

atlwra aarkad "Kald". .mtmsi UMaa aarkedt *Rald*' are th« fallowlac' 

*T1»t plainltiff vaa sott as a canditlaa jnreeadeat ta tlM 
terlB^lae of this aoti«i» obliipktad to di»aad ax^itratiaa Ttty defend* 
aat of the olais far axtm ataaX wark aaeo for» aad that tha faiXtum 
af plaintiff to 9T9r9 a d«aand far auah arhltr«ttlaa eoaatltates aa 
defease to thla aotiaa*" 

"That tlM clvlag hy plaintiff ta the a«n«ra af a valTer 
of ita Beehsale*8 Ilea rlghta upoa the ate«ai«a t<l«b property oan« 
atltutaa ao defeaae to thia aetlea*" 

Aa tha geaeral find ins and judeaent were in faror of 
dofMMlaat it la MDaaceaaeiZir for aa to diaeuas theao ^opoaltiwaa* 
FarthtrBoret we fall to fiad that defendant haa hero aaaigKod aagr 

The T&rloua polntc ursed hy pl&LBtlff*a ooanael for a 
rereraal of the Judgaent aaount to the eonteistloa that the oourt'a 
find lag la aanlfeatly acalnat the weight of the eYldeneo* It ia 
argaod la ouhataaoo (1) that the addltloaal atool» furalahed to tho 
stoahoa Baildlac ^ plalatlff* ma ordered by defendant and ha la 
prlaarlXy llahle under the aatooontraet aued upon to pay for tho 
aaattf iZ) that t)ie notoe of the omterst aggregattag f 14*609 tSOt 
wore not received hy plaintiff in paytsant and ant I af 'notion of tha 
debt but merely aa adoltloaal aeoarlty ther«for| and (3) th^u when 
aald BOtea acre aooeptad by pialxitlff and it oaaaod to bo entorod 
ia Ita book aeooaat agalaat defendant & oredlt for the aaouat af 
aald aotea and a natation that aaidl aoeouat w»» S»lifit»«?,a •»»«* 
oatrioo are aot ooaolualTO th»t aald notoa were takoa la pajnaoat 


bant *imui!iV3'H* b9:&'X£>ti 9t9» tts^lM* le 

Vi^y« i-'»^«« --Vitfifi ttltt\ SA 

mxfiJimt wM *«;St fr*^" ''"*'* ''^w 3l-i^.- . 


^A b«a-^li••sas• 3t«jl «£!( 4ai:;oM»'^t»fe Sails ffc-ssi'. 




« "Wit X«BiK»O0 s*t1::.'rT?aIv v;,^' :r-".xi- .^r 

al til fitfM ^os&n^tftjk -^ %»'«:»in:(» »m «'7ti. 
•tit t»l yf^ »j a»9^ b9f#« ;^9e«#ap9ei 

^- ,, ;-.. i\%fiM%iS. 

-'fid* («) t^ 

«■« •rtlafACtlMi 9t d«fcn«e4Bt*0 ol»lM»4 iatf«totedxi«»K te It* httmw 
ft MUTttfttl r«Ti»w of all tlu evidciiee e«iit«iitt«« Is tii* j|^«»«nt 

ma opinion • this evidesM) eleerly dlselosea* aft^Y it «&« a«e«r%aiaed 
la May* IVSa* tta^it tlie ar«Hit«et*e plfias and •pecifio&tlMBi* «or« 
tf«fiei«at in oertaln j^vtlenlAra* ft»<t aftor tlM ondomriiere of tlM 
Xoano on tiM toulldlne ht^d laolBt^ti upm the dcfioto lioln^ reatvdiod 
Iqr oddliloncil aiocl* th:^t a imw nrraagcaont or agTv^t^nt vaa awida 
Iqr all pArti«a int«roat«d» in ih.f. »%7^1t^-et*a off let » la r4u» tar3jr 
pari of Jimo» ISSSy t^s to the fiumlslilag b^ pl&tntiff of Um 
aoooosavy iad6ltloBal 9t«4l and na to ^ho ^vould pa$ for eueh ot««I» • 
tfofondnnt harln^ refuaec to pay or to 1»ecoae parlmarlly liahXo for 
Ikho oaaof t)»t It was acroed tht ih« BulltflJig Corp* or the ton^Ml 
CXtt^B or hoth* would pay for thft aaae C tro^ , to plalatlftj that at 
no tlaw thtreaftor did defoadaat prdcr sueh additional otool undor 
and in purauaiioo of the original aabcontraot aue<: u^oni th^t aft^r 
tho cwmmemamt of tho preaent suit* plaintiff* on Fohruury 20^ 
lf30« aoeoptod Mtoo from the Build inu Corp*» gtiarantood hgr th« 
Stottbon Clttt>* for the aaoont duo to it for aueh additional otool 
oad at the ooM tiao Vlii^imffirtf ^^ aocouBt It had kopt againot 
dofead&nti that tl^so ncto vore in f^ot deno In pun^usnoo of th« 
agrotft*at audo in Jubo» 1928 i thg^t doftndaat wao not & ptvrty to tho 
•Crocaont of Pohxu^ry »i» 1930 • suido botwooM plaintiff and the iiullding 
Corp.* and that the atattncnto therein ooataiaod* to th« e^^foet that 
aaid noteo wore aoceptod by plaiattif only aji o«J!|ritx for d«f«ad««t«» 
Olaiaod indohtednoaa to it* voro aelf-eervins and not binding upon 
df fondant I and that aubo«'4u«fltly in l«e«»«liort 19S0t aftor plaintiff 
had fieeopt«d ooMO onall payaonta free the xoakor or guarantor of 
oaid aotoo of fobrunry 2 , 19»0» it aceeptod .r.c,B«a^ noteo for 
the balanoo($14tlw'0} signed Jointly by the Buiicsiisi^ corp* oad 


«»&far l-v'^ii^T: i..':;'. :.dlh6tt jtoj^m ^^ sfc^gj^ «»ti^^ 

'.}4«ii^i 'i..' 

. :=x 

hum •iff^ ^ni&JL ■ ) 

Our coBclusloaa »r* thai the eourt*e finding onA ^udgaest 
art aot auifiif«*tly agalast tJxe veijkt of tlie ^ ridenee erd thxt uh« 
JUbCgaent should be &ffinBi«d* eueh '<^ill b9 the order* 



."•Jfji:. owiLjjj -,d,-i 

%»« ?«m t:!^ 





26 8 I.A. 622 

0« 0cte1s)«r 18* 1950* a Judgnvnt by oonftfaelea for I^.SO* 
nyta a !#&■•• «»» •ntered agalasi ^^fendajot in tim Honlolpal eourt« 
thM mamat tf tlw jodgiMttt is ttade uy of r«at alalwKS to h* duo 
for tfe9 i«o ;sai}t}u of aeptsaber and Qotob«r» XdSv't $S30« and |20|^ 
attomegrs* fees* aubtidqafi^iitl^f on defendant *8 Torlfi«»d p^tltloB* 
tlio Judtftaoiit -was opoaed aiswi 1m «b» flTon loave to def«ndt - tlM 
^MAffsMRt to etimcl a& a«cu7itjr aud the yotltlMi to ataad a* defendant** 
affidavit of ucrita. Cte j^obruary a4» I9^« thero waa a trial witliout 
a ivarft re^sultisg la th« oottrt flndiac tho laoaeo against def^ndfjjst 
and a^Jiad£i»if Uaat tlio ooaf tosod Judisment for $S90 stand in full fore* 
and offooi as sf ttu dato of its rendition* Trom tlio Judffumt 
dofeadaat liaa api^al«d« 'lalatiff bas not ajpyoar«d in this oowrt 
or f ilod a teftof« 

7r«i the loasot attaoheo to plaint iff* a atatOBont of olal« 
aa* anuio a part thereof* it appears that It vaa oigned by the partioo 
on ASffttst 10* 19«8| that by it plaintiff* as losaor* deaiisod to defend* 
•at« as lessee* "the entire t«o etojrj and basoaent brisk building loiovii 
as 1057 Jcat 2ierth OTonttO* Chleago*" to be ooouplod for "retail 
bakeiy* wholesale bakery and llring qt»irters|* that the tom of tho 
Isaso is for firs yoars* oMsaenolag August 13* 1928* and eadlng August 
la, 1»33* and that tho stlpttlate<s rent is $115 a nonth* payable la 



-ssd.A.ieas = •*-"•" 

•t^ira) SILT TO 10«I«I0 IHT l?t?% . •«! 

^OSl dan «OSSt| «oeei t%ma*i9(J tan %»4m»i%9 la *ditam tni Mft wt 

, ^ *1NiA'^ « teXIl «• 

Miilt to ^ nw w t a^a «*ttii«i«Xq o^ iXMfo««t« «»«•»£ Mfi ii^^t 

Mi^'xai mOi ^ OMqM« ■«» «| 4«iU tt«««<iii #^ «)«'>^«jf4 t«s« « ttaii taa 

>te<»%»b 0^ himUfb «YO«aoX m «ltlitti«X« li %4 i««ij |£«ftx «ox #«ifS0/^ oo 

EMMdC inlbXii/if iolitf ^a»«»9»<f ham t^ola fNr# 9^:1411* auiJ^" «»»qii»X «« «4jui 

Xi«««'x* «»t »oi«iroe« mT ♦« "ifoliP ««nwwi d^oi »•*» r68X m 

lif^ to aR09 oMI ;>4Ultf *|»'S«;tT«ttfp WKirtl bttti xt^Jiani •XMr^Xotfv «x?t«>UHf 

Sttii^iiu. nnlimn bam ^^^91 «CX ^airavA ;^lon<tki>i(,'i > f,^T<>i»iv ««yii it«l «l OaAtl 

Al ftXtf«V4 tlWca« « *XX| Ol •«« :>tJttJUtf'i*J9 9Ai 4i!^t*.i> i^om «€£tX «aX 


MlTftBtf* "on the thirt«r«nt)i d«j •f •aeb am! er^xy aoBth of Mitd 

%«ni«* TlM X«&s« 1« on « print £« f«7»« filled In with tyf««rltliig« 

A rider t« attached* signed by the psirtlee* ajsd exprvsBljr wade n 

pert of the leave* The neeond and third pRntcrafiui of the leaeo 

(ia priatec. type) are .-xb folloeoi 

"n^COSfS* That the oeofHid party Uef^^ndont) has exmUaoi 
end kn««s the oondlti^n of saltf j^eaises* anl tme rf cgj v ed the nwptf L., 
in goo d ■yf' *"^ repair* except as herein otlWBrssiit" specified" 
Ino except lane apeolflet^ except in the rider ae hereinafter Montionetf}| 
"that no representations as to the eoncil&ien or repair thereof haTO 
boon ffisde by the first party (plaintiff), or his agent, prior to or 
at the eoKoeutien of this loaoo* that ars not herein expresned or 
OBd«roo4 horoMil that he (defendtmt) nlll keep an id ST*^^iiS£3LJ■n good 
ronalfa * * and eill keep thoa and the a]^urtenanees» 'inelUdins oat oh 
basinst vaults* aor?. ^xdjainin^ alleys In a clean and healthy eoitditlon, 
♦ ♦ dnrlag the tons of this Lease i^l his ooa ox»en»o* * "^ and wpon 
the ion of this Imstt la aa? «eyt vlll yield up snld pr.aiisog 
to said first party in good ooaditlMi*'* 

*tEIBS>* That the first party shall not be liahXo for aay 
deaage oee&eio»e(f: by fnilvr<> to keep said premises ia repair, aad 
shall not be liable * * for deaage oeoasioaod by eater > saww or 
ioe being up-cn or ^oa^a^; tltr onf^ the rt;>of^ ♦ • or otherwise, • •#" 

In another prfnted clause is the le«soe*s euthorixatioa 
for the ontry by eonfesslea rf a Jadgaent for nay rent due sad 
uq^ld aad ^20 attorney's fees, eto* 

tm a ^«elal olauso, ia typewritlai?, it ia prorided that 

*th9 looee^^^ iitf&nll furnish at hie own expease all the fuel* labor* 

roaalra , f eto*» sc^easary to hea^t with stoaa heat the above aontionod 

prTaisee** aad thp.t "the loosoo shall do all cleaniag* decoratiag 

aA^ yeoairipsr of said prealseo*** la the rider on tho loaoo* dated 

Angttst 10, 1928» are the folloisriag provisions, aaong others! 

"It io expressly agreed * * thc^t 60 days -eritton not loo 
ipi yiyiH H lessor by lessee of Iftssoe's tntftsill^n te tttminats this 
loaao fp ptM A*«^ aeatioaed da^o# Lessor is entitled to terainate 
this loaoo iM^on like notice to lessee at like «istve, by aatllla^ aoid 
notioe to the vithin aentionod pr«Bi»«8, addreeeed to oaid lessoo** 

"It is sa^reasiy agreed * * that the lessor shall within 
t dsys frea d&tc- her^os^ tt&ke necefuary rf;priirK tc; ohitsney lerixling 
to baker's oven, to «Mblo lessee to properly operate said baker*s 

The bill of o:&«eptloas discloses that «t the mini iiiiifiaoat 
tf the trial defeatfant«s att;omoy (Mr. r>horwin) aade the folloviag 

iw hiwi^»^ ^- - '■"■-■■■ 

bum t%isvii9x ^ :c 9%smtb 

4»«ii^5Hi« 1* * * ,^^4 -^o Mi- ■:■ 99k 

a^i'im.i'isd-ssiii «^99«9«X -sucfii' 9I ^^mtSa m^stl'f^ iMtf^diiA oti 

ten fifl», imx vi^ ^^'^ 4$£#a3ki».v|^ js "It mtkit^tfttitit) xfS x^tm i>H.i -c'^t 

;^i»'X9fi»h «{^{ui«Xo il» ^b iX&ii» «»ft««i, add*'' i»xi$ kn.^. *'4«»d«lAcx^ 

j|ltjw«>iei »«■' -"i'Aif \.43w»f»*^ *'aM^ Sl^u 

VBa69X th» texBe of th« !•%»« it w&b the auty of tli« t4aBnt t,« $«y 

for eOl repairs tm the lstald« aa^ outside of %hM l^uUdio^ iiod tli&t 

tr« ftrt a«t eotltXtfi to sjay aG%»ott for r^pnira ^lob v« w«re fca'at* 

to MAke oa the build lug Veo^ua^ Uw Xaadlerd refwsftd to atalw th«Be 

our omitentlMi i« th&t it w^s th« landlftrd'a fluty t« i^Jm ttec«<i 

repairs t thf^t v«« itarlKg sad e the repairs and liaTinfi paid for thim$ 

art eatitXt^ to h« reliihuraod for th* euaui paid oiiit th&t these 

ropairs did net clean up all of the trotdale} and th&tf th« landlord 

refttslae to put th« prcmisos itt a hahitahle ooaaitlen after ho had 

knewledgo of all tho facta giTon to his hy ^«f.«nelant« it f lacilly 

roBiiltod la a ^writton aotieo glvon 1^ dofoadaat to plaiatiff mi 

S«pt«ili«r 3t IdSC*** Therottpoa tho follovrlni; oeevrrodi 

*]»• EAMZITOH* edait wo re«<»iTod th« sotloo* 
tM QO\k.t» i^ yea admit that dofoBdaat was ia pessossion 
of tho prcaisoe ia .'^epttralior axi^ OetoVer» 19$0f 

!&.• -JJua-u.iii, AiQ &d«ifc wc aro l iable for the r«nt fog ^ 
itoatoatoer aa d Oct ohor ♦ 

ill- ■-■.Ji-,-» If you ean agree apoa a etipulatioa of facts 
t will pass upon it* 

fei. * ^B2.i,lMt 1*11 <iiotat« the facte to tho reporter aad 
Mr* Kmiltoa oaa add aitythiae he vaats*" 

Thorottpon defendant's attorney stated the foUowlllg without 

iiijeotioa or aodifieation hy plaintiff's attomoyt 

*It is stipulated aaA screed hy tho parties that the follovil 
are the &gre«^ ftucts which tho Ooux t le to pass apoat 

1* That the brieks froM the ehianey oa the roof of the 
preBiste fell ia and hlochee the flue so that the Uahe oren could sot 
he used during July aad '<>.u^ust* ld50« aund that ]^aintiff was iaforaed 
of this by <^<fendnnt sm^ refused to rop^ix it or put it in shape so 
it oottld he used* 

2* Th&t la the fevmd'ition ^roimd th«: building there were 
large opeaingB «hloh occiturreCi duriag said aoaths of July aad KUguett 
1930, an<i that, the landlord \7a» sdwlsed hy defeadsuat of this c<»»dition| 
th»t rats entered into tho buil^iaiE aad destroyed $4 h&ge oi.' flour 
ehlch coet OYex 15 per b&g to Uho. gr«^t loes oi d&f«udaiit{ and that 
the landlord refused to repair or eloso up the holes* 

Z, Th»t iK August* 1930 1 the roof &hov« the bake oven 
Wfis like a siore and the r&ia ctme through* so that it wan laposaihlo 
to 0tar<d in front of the oven i^i ohout getiini {irenchedf th&t the 
landlord whs adwisod of this aad refused to sake any repairs | and that 
part of this ro«r wio repaired hy oefcr^oat at a cost of $&0» htxt that 
it aid not help heoauee the entiro raof was rotten aad had to he 
replaced and plaiatiff r& fused to replace it* 

vH'^-::^ #-:;r,4 ftfwo WiW| 4».aBft.. ■ -sii .^wj" 

cc^ la 

$m£JI .« 

'• ■ V wur-i- -s >,»r 4v . »/;.:v«'* <4^Mi #Mt itJtJft *^A 

4* that %bM a«««r la ik* yrcKiMts l»&eJn« up MKf %Im» 
at«n«li tkcrvfrem pcnw»&t*«i that first tl&pv touring Jttly smi ti^u»t» 
1930 9 90 tJtiet It vas impo»ftl¥l« te ue« eulc fle«r| ihtct <lef«»n($eBt 
vith hi» fatally H««tf yitdrt of «ttKl fXoftr for liviiKf q«i«irter«t t)»»t 
defer4/ait apint >>45 la soa6 u^ui. •bdet^Torinic to stop ih» atvneh 
«b4 rcp«.lriag tlur tttrntt, bu6 It dl<} nit h^lp ?i» tb« entire 6d«t of 
r«>p&iriag tiw s«wor %»uid 1»« ^<KX«$ tuati ihutt t^ landlord nska 
aeiTlaea of tliaat ftiets aihI rcfuaad ta mUca a«7 r«palra« 

5« Tisat defeadiott oaaupled tlM praatiaaa* fre« th« 
data he took poaeaasloB of ttteM until H» noraA autt ^<« i!>i li^)t'»ry» 
aiul that the forttgioiBs ecttditla&a eeuuxrad during th« ataBtlts of 
Jldj attd Ao^jcttstt 1930* 

e* rh&t on epitaiter 3» IdSO» «ief«»4.nt aoal tha 
foUovlas notle« ta plcii»;lff # «i&ieh ^^s raeatva^ Iky hiia« 

'Uadar tlw taxaa of tlM laavt vkoraia it la yravldatf 
tiMtt iht Xtsaa aa/ lia tazalaa,t«4 ds 4C daja* no&loa* i liaretty 
«!▼• /09 Botieii tlint I luive 4tcl4«4 to mai bAtm aleet^d to takt 
a4Tunta0a of tlut clcuae to tdmla«tt« a^U laaea» I aball v^enta 
tka pi:mUaa wlthte eo d?>ya^ftajr Saataf^iag X&^ f»^t &t ^Uh 
time /9<i stoOT o^atoTik's tike ko/a Ix you jo tsastlj'at or if n©t 
I ab^.U deliver th&'S to /ou**" 

Thorvapoa the Tollo«ia« oowurradt 

'tU* uoiStf, 417 tiding alaot 

W.f -HTEiXS. *8 your Honor xotG^ t.o yaas upoa tlw 
qaoatioa of tlia Yallolty of the notioa \mii&i: tJM lemaeV 

Ttr: fOTJt;?, ^Q, v^u crjB !j«t th t up vrhess tkey s.e you 
for tlae future r<»tat ^ aaa ao aoati to faaa upoa It lunroi * * 
tint Court tinth r.hi^t fht Ju^gr.i.-rjt li»rf/tofer* tutfer^MS in favor of 
jpialattff oa Ootokov l«lt 193u« for ^26 » aJumlO He «oaflmotf«* 

After reTlovia^s ttoe preaaat tranaeript aa ar« of tlio 
opial«i titot the Jud^aottt appealed froM a^ald be ^Itirmmi* 
'Iefondaat*o ooHBaalt la hia lirlef hare filed* oaatwNIa that that 
JttdipMat la not i3;u;>talnad ^ tlia erideaoo whloh* aa he further 
aoateada* dieoloae; that defa»d«Jit vae oaaat ntotlyfljr, oirtoto* , 
froai tha prealae»» therttoy i^arr^wtiais hia Yiie^tUm tiM aaaa «ai 
aurraiMiarias poasoaaloa thereof to plalatlff # i^ithla 60 dajra trmm 
tlio dato of a«id aotloo of ^^ptttabar a* 1930» (via* oa or l^eforo 
BovMfher 7» 19SK>t xvliloii wattld )»9 prior t« tha tteot Jfoveothar lith« 
that thw IfiSSfllM^ 3rttBt would uocou^ duo («tt^^ ^jroblc.) 'Hmt oat^iot 
•^00 with tha oontestlwta* th« rccoxd alacma tiiMt aafeadaKt*s 
attoraop ia opea couri afiiaittot* ih^t tielejataaS. wca "iiaolst for tka 
raat for f4«pt««ber nad Octobor. l»30* CTi»# thse r^at 0i i-Olft » 
■oath f ulluie due by the tonoa of fella km.m m ;^pt««a»sr 12th attd 


HAW Cntlbma 

mtt ^l jnii -wataa 

•Mi let t>'»«iY/)j) 

Mil a»«ui M*^ 

***** ii^ ^♦afs'*-*^* 

OotobeT l?tSii re«peetlY«ly)» aJid %h&i it was fdr feii® M&ntlaly tmntel9 
0ut «B %lieM dayg that tlia eoisf«fta«l jtadfMaat «as cnt«r«£t iKcIiiMtlag 
the sti]|^&t«<i atton!ty*e £•«•• Furt2i«jcaKnr«» »« do nttt find «Tl4«a«« 
of any aoBstrtiotlT4 oTlction ^ pilAiiitiff . ^jr feb« terns of tlio 
aeoond clji«s« of tlw le«««» i^s tOMfre set forth# t)» etef«»aa»t 
eorenanto^ suid ttgresd that Iw ivsjii xnamirwii the jprejolooo "la ftcod 
ordor ani rapatr,* &ai that ho would "ko«p the prf«i»»e tr geod 
repair * * at hlo tivta a^peaoo." And >7 th« «peclal els^uae Uk 
ijp««ritliis on ;he faeo of tho least* »« «h«ro «ei forth* it is 
proridnA tasit losooo (d«?f«H4ant) "shall do »n ol«n!)l»g» deooratlag 
^^ rggalrlH* of ^'ootsoo*** ?rcn the rid«r on tho leaoo i% 
appoaro that th« Idoeor agr««d thst ho ttould rcyair "ohlwiogr lead lag 
to bakor'o OT«n»** hut it aloo &pp«aTo frm d«f9Tid-%iit*o Terlfiod 
petltlMn ot %ff IdaTit of serlt» that thooo repatro voro aado* Aai 
it lurther appeax-o froa the orid'^neo thi>t mo oeaplaint oeaeerrtiac 
the condition of the chiasn^y v- e stade tgr def« aaiil ahoul t«« 
yo^jro aftor ho haa takon poosesolon* Murine tvhloh pirlod ho centintioA 
to y«7 tho otipulattit: nonvhiy rest* o do not ps^o upon tho logal 
« fleet of that paragrnph of the ridor onu the letMie which p<?rtAins to 
the #0 dayv* writtoxi aotiee* hut wo latgr us^y that k» uro ttsalile to 
ttndffrotaad Ita aoanlag* 

l^r the rs&»tme izidleati^d the Jude»e&t 6f tho mmloipal 
court of ?ebruAiy 24* 19:^ » appealed fro»# la /ff Iraed* 

&»rtx0x$ P» J»t a»G ieanlan* J«» ooamiTe 

Mil !• •■•s/*^ wiy ^ " * 

■ijv b;fi Jiitf-iJfr.'SOC Vlti"; lo 



ta:: »: 

* ; Vl/t: 

i,-^"*iii^ xo lOtfO* 

• • »r<ii«A 


couB7« cwOK a>tnmr« 

"*'"*•• ' 26 8 I. A. 622^ 


This la an appeal froai a deoree of the oireult court* 
witerec ii$LV9h 24 » Id^iSy wherein uhff court found all »Rt«riaX 
alltgationa of cMsplalnanta' bill v<ero trtte» conflx»ed tlui aa»teir*a 
roportt s.m ciecr@ed thrt defendants bo perpetually enjoinod "froB 
oolllag* P.9S i h'^ninsf " * collect lng» «nforeing» or attOQpting to 
oollect or enforeot the Judgpont too^vn ho Fannlo ppol ▼• Sdwaftf 8* 
Barber and Mabel J* Barber* Ho* 143H14a in th« aiunlclpal court of 
Chicago* and frcn proceeding; dlr ctly or oollati'r»lly on aaid 4ud0oent** 

In ooHplatnnnts* bill* filed Xr^reb 23* 1931* th« pra/nr 
1b tt»^t the/ ''Bay be forc-rer reli«T«$d fro* anjr and all obllgatlono**^ 
arising froii or imder thoir note and trust deed* executed am delW- 
ered on .pril 16* 19SS» as ell ae fron or uncer a&ld Judgment of the 
Municipal oourti that defeacnnta be i>otb toB^rHrily and perpetualljr 
enjoined ^e to on^id Jud0Bont &s above stated t KnC thti.t the Judgaont 
"be declared paid* ea&iefied* otuicelleC &ja& extinguished •** 

Ob Uaroh 27* 1931* after d&feiuinnts had appeared* the 
parties agreed th^'t an injunotitti pendente lite night be Isauod 
Hs prayed* and sttch temporary injunction was isaucd* On July 8* 
1931* after defendants had filed an anewer to the bill* in whieh 
■0'3t of its alleg^^tioas wore adnitted* the oatase was referred to 
a sBster to talee proofs aiKi report his conclusions* On the 



ntu6 fBR^y-it . . 

■Jo -^ t: •> li«jl«9intiw Wild pfl »Mi^€M ♦»« **r»»rfn -^ 

"flsooidi^licro XXx; GkFia x<i^ 'X'^'^^ b-Wt»iX»'x 

*«t»ftiltltfsfii#a»» bus :3«Xit>OB0O «J»«Jt1«fiii« «&i, fjx}" 

•• xlifiu CIO *hmitw^ mmt notivmilnX ^ayovm^ ifeMM {Mia «b«t«it t^' 
iColiiv lU «lXitf •£$ %f tf^wmm «» (Milt HaH minslmtUb v*#1m «XStX 


hcnrlag befor* tbt mi&t@T c*frt&ixi fact^ wer* Bti9«l8ii«d and a0r«<a 

t9 by tlM eolicltors for the r&speo&lT« parties* "In adUltloa to 

ths tm%9 «ll«g@£ la oanplAiimnto* bill whioli sore afialtted to bo 


Among %y^ findings of bh« negater t as cont&iae^ In hie 

report* filed on October 23* 1931* are the foUoving in suhatanoes 

That on -pril 16* 193C* wad jarlor thereto* eoiiplAimutto 
were the ownoro in fe« siaple of 0<»rtftin ianrored reeJL tetato* 
oosaaenljr hnonn »• 471v-»47:;a x^irexel BonleirAyo* chie««o| thi^t when 
thi^ toelc title to the property it Nsaa enovnhered with a truat 
deed* Mide hy John C* Orifftthe ^mci v^fe and rutining to the 
COBtlaentAl end ^'oaaereial Truet & Sarings Bank* as trueiee* ivhioh 
trttet deed* dated Sept®iid»er 15* 19^8* fsM ishovti^ thereafter reoor^Jed* 
had heen given am security for «n inuelatf^dneee of I40*000t that on 
April 16* 1986* eonpl&lcants exeeuted atuS ciollireroti their judg&ent 
note for $1S»000 to B&rneiy ^vppel* one of the defendants* and to 
e«ottr« the note aloo executed and delivered their trust (Jiecd (a 
BeofHBd aortgnffe)* dated .pril 16* 1$26* mud recorded ehortly there* 
after* eonveytnj;; i»he property to Oliver £• Cody ae trustee | tlmt on 
Septeaher S* 1926* ocaapXainaate* hy imrr«tBty deed and fer a vfauahlo 
oonslderatlon* conveyed ^hc j^operty to Louio Srug* jtfi^ fiet t p »&,iA 
Qriffiths and Cody trust deedai tlvit "eredit wan given to aald ^rug 
on the pureh:ii><ie price of the property for s^Ud two eneuaa^rancea}'' llm% 
while in the warranty c^ed ts) ^ru*; it i« not etated that he expre«.oly 
aigreed to aeauiae auid pay the two encuahraaooo* tht> t&klng of the 
property eubjeot to eaid enouadtranooa "iM^ao a vikt% of %hs puroimeo 
prioe** to be paid by Kjrugf that on Septeadtor 17 » 1930* Barney ppol 
eauoed the eonfeseed Judaaont in qiiestion to be entered in the aunicipal 
oourt atfalaet eoMplainants en said lia*ooo Judgment note* at which 
ttae there wtui a balanoo duo on th« note of ^'e*6(X)* and th^t the oon- 
fceeed Judgaont of $6*697 cSO* aa then entered* Includtrd aocrued 
iatereol and attorney* a foeet that oti ;ieptenber -^6* 193'>* uud^^r aa 
execution* a draKuid w«e siade upon £dwaxd 'C» Barber thit he pay the 
aaount of the 4ud0Mnt* |6697«50* and Barber* to avail hia«elf of tha 
eKMptlon laws of the atate* thereupon filed with the bailiff a 
aehedale of hi* personal property* claittiai<; exeaption* and said 
f3ceo«tl«l thereafter iime returned by the bailiff "unsatiafied'l 
thi^t oonplalnnnts nev«i aode any tender of the amount of the JudK> 
atent* or any offer to pay it* to uefendiyital that on Januaxy 6* 
19;M* Dannie /^ppel* or her {!.ts.07ney of record* mie ^— ml Blair* 
caaeed the orlgjim^ note* upon which « id c<mfeee«a Jud^Bent was 
entered* to be taken frcn ihi: fll@e of tho munlelpal oourt* by 
aupplficnti g the nait^e with & ooiOTf that on r>i»pt«iddev 15* 1950* thero 
wf>a due and unpaid on the tariff 1 the' first trust d&^^d for ^40*000* 
the BUR of $37*000, which anld sua of t^57*ooo vi&u not thert&fter 
paldi that in January* 1931* the Conttnental* Xlinois Bank it Triwt 
Co* wm» the holder and owner of the ;>40*000 note (of whl«ll the 
Imlaaoe inspald was ^37* co) s<^^cured by &*ki<i drlfflths trust deed* 
moA Mild bank was threatening to Institute foreclosure proeetrdlags 
to etiforoe the Ilea of said trust deed} and that on Jaim»ry 139* 
1931* Louis Entg and wife* as firat p^rtlee* siild bank as &«f€»n4 
party* wad said Bara^ Appol* holder njod otmer of said aecoBd 
aortfafo aoto «f #10*000 and upon which suld conf e^^sed jud^aaat of 
'^e>t€Vr»90 against ocaplalnantB bad been entered* as third ptirty* 
entered into a oertala written agreetaent* sigaed by th«a« 

e4a«aiAX^pnioi ••^•«mU v»lia taut «MtfX «dX litti^ m #«tf7 

«M tJ dtt^asmx hBM 9tiv boa (»flv <C xtiloXi '^ •Imm tiMik 

Hm £«(« tiwi^qpiUKS ^tvc Bid to •Jbafe«ifo« 

•ii«XS Xaumo HMD t&toovi !• -^sMnsoata imtf "»» tXa^^A ^tJtatufi %lf9l 

«. -« -r '&liifftix{2 t>i<^ m» bJtisqiitf £t£u &^i3 airtr 

tvniSD : . .. atm ttiim ftf»M«r •Qe9tt«4 lo flM Mil 

MU lliJUrir tft) fttoa eM^dM ««» 1» tmm IMUI «»i>X9fl «fii »«» vaD 

«b««l» tamc^ aci;^ "^^ him x^ b^-anm (oo «t*e$ «ii?fy btM^au eocwXMt 

a«0t^i>aa-^[ aw 9jr» j^l dets^ pi i«itMi#«a«u a««r jUucf AJt«a tea 

(|9K x^f»iiaAt rtu ^-4..> oflta <fi»»«b laxrxl maa la mitX 9dt 9»'to'^a9 o^ 

>wt aa aj sloatf Mm •aaltvaf t««^t a« toltir Imm setX aifial •X£9X^ 

iMoiMi bJltaa !ta tttnp bum tiihtod tXa^iqA xmrutti Maa Ina «tl««f 

1i» J«imMft> <>•»«»•%■#» Mm ifalilw mmw Iwb 0Oo««X^ 1* a#aa aMtvM 

«X^jM[ Midi a« tbaroiaa oaadt teaatiufxlAXq^ 9a«la:»i» ^'wi.c^Sa,^ 

•amU xd l»Mia^a «;rt««Ma«tBA tntilixm tA»t^*9 a a^ toa 


Tk» agreerBMzit la a«t out In full la ibe m>.Btex* b report* 

Is it &re r«eitale that "the rccorc title te ths proparty la now 

im wa^iA £>oiiiB Krugl** that tho )ianlc» %« ^eeond jM^rty* la tb& owner 

of tha nortgage iadetit<;dn««» &m oYKseaeed l)jr the uxlffitha* flrat 

trust deed I th/it Xru^ aiK^ ^lfe» ae flr»t p/:rtie8t **de8lre to procure 

a eaneellatlea and extlnguiahBent of the mortgage lnciehte<^n»8fl 

««oar«d hy t;a<at of s Id trust deeds** and f urtlier denlre aad '^imw 

proposed t« conToy** th« property In t,udetloa to fiaaatel it ting (the 

bank*s nominee) "in full payaent and s«ttief motion of the Bortgpsctt 

indebtedness secured hy each of said trust deedat uport an opi^if ft 

being given to theut upon tenas hereinafter 8«t forth* to r&purohass 

said property on or before April 29 » 19521** that the bank* aa eeeoad 

pnrtyt "has accepted tlie propoeltiont** and the saMe "Is also hereby 

fully ratified and approred by said third party** (Barney Appel)| 

and that Kmg and vlfe» as first parties* haret oontenporaneoualy 

with the exeoution ol this agvseaent and in ootieicieri^tion thereof* 

^exeottled and dellTered tlMlr deed of conrnyance of even ^<ate here* 

vvlth* ooaveylag said real estate to said Saauel ^ittin^* and have 

by said deed eaused to be rested In hia the f u 1 and absolute fee 

siaqple title to auld real estate and the full and absolute ownership 

thereof*" It lo then provided in the agreeasnt that the bank* as 

seeond party* agreiea to and doe^ uocept said oonveyanee "In full 

payaent* satisfaction and dischei-rge" ttf ths aortgage lndebt«dne«s 

ao secured by said arlfflths* first trust deed* and 

*'Sald third party (Appel) has acrsed and dees hereby 
agree that said oonvey^noe to Saauel fitting shall lUcewlse oporato 
as la full pionaent* sctiafaction and dls^^ia ge of snld siortipftge 
Indebtedness* and all unpaid interest thereon* se«nired by said 
trust deed recorded ^c deoxasent ' o* 9L'484da (i*e«» the Cocsy seeonc^ 
trust deed executed by ooqplainants}* and it is hereby a^e<^* la 
omsiderutien of said oonveys^noe that all of the loortgage indebted- 
ness and Interest thereon* * * secured by o^<^id trust deeds* aad 
each of thett» hnjLbeen and is h^reb -; oanoeX led* et^tief led_and_ 
extingulBhedt and thj^t aU nersona liable thereon are herebjy relefijts< 
ajfid dii^ohiirged froa fai indebtedness secured by said trust decde. or 
either of thsBt and that all principal and Interest notes eridenclBg 


• t^ iVi-\ 

iB» r? ■-»'■• ?»'^'-'f-- 


Jiff'? !?•;• 
10 ««W : , ^.. 

8inrr«Mier«A to first pATtiea*" 

ft&fiOi. ^ins th« op&l(m to ri;;^rck^»« tla« px'operty- of the toanic tspon 

ytt^^iac a •ert&in A«r«*a Btn by Aj^rU iS* 1»32| aau Umt la %im eYent 

lQr«f and »lft eo iMt fi>x@relfte th9»t ^jpei s^i^vU. 6h«r«ii(%«r 

!»▼• MB •pftioB «E« to dn &t ft ccrtftla fixee priet iiy JiOy 2»» 193S* 

Aim tlM aaeter furlliisir found In his report iQ 8«tb^tAne«t 

Tli»t »«ld agremeat of 3smu&xj «S, i931» »a» thereni'ter 
fuXly eoa»uBB»toil| that oa Ycbmary 10, W3l» B«Lr»«y \ppeX ''took 
•aid ««coB^ !f^>^*f?«* note, wMeh^He had oatta^;^ io ya m.tkec aa 
oaaoellod aad oatd.* to »»« Cody, as tnUtoi; and tWyVTS «OT 

trtt«t«e «x«cutet anc dollvor'.d hia releaa* deed of ;;alc osooad 
tract d««d, aad said r«l«as« de«d was Inmodlntoly th«rafter r^<^ord«4| 
th»^t hy Yirttto of said «ifsro«w»at •the Inee-feti^-aetei^ «viic« ..need hy tlM 
not* ex.?i?utec f\ad d^iivered by «<»splaiaaBt« oa vpril i6« 1926» ia 
the s«ai of $18,000, me, wgix aa the i^d aion t, kno^n ■«» Pannift -ppol 
T« M< &rd 17 « 3Hrb«x> sad M&b«l J* Bailor, Ha« 143S14d la the aunloipal 
oourt of Chlc..--:.fiO, l^ajre eiifih staj,g >?ofeh bo n fmlly, paid* satlaritrd aad 
oxtinis uisfaec; aad caaaolJLad|** that FMsio Appil 1« taTdHiS^ljr of 
Baraey pp 1 aad has no real latortat ia this cA.ta»«r» except aa p«>r*^ h&r n«B« Uo be used by her father lor %h» entering of s^k^id 
Judgaeat, ''whieh Judgnoat vao roally eat«r«(f or the ua« s>M ben-^ fit 
of Baxn'^y ppel vm<* aa lil^ o^n act aad for hio <jvjn j^spoa^t'* &hat 
upoa the emiveylag oi tl^ property to Krag, he "b^caae the prlxsary 
otiliKrOr on the note ei^iginoll/ e;t;@cut«d &n<i Celivcreci 'by v^uKsa^aiaaata 
aad edavIaiaaatK hooaiK varety for tht p«gna«nt thereof, * "^ aad 
eatltl&'d in «-.^ult,y wo li« oubro5t;at€C lo the rLa^hts of Baaxicy aad ?aRBt« 
Appol ia the eveat^ that eaaeplalaaafeo ahould be required to pay this 
eblicci'-tlon, so th?it they mi^ht h»Yc rscoiirae otcj ai^'-inet BSild Loais 
Sru^ for aay aad «aLll sums which eanpl«ilaant« laiiTht bo retiUired to 
oxsMiBd ia payaoat of the ol>lig'^tl(»i aosiai&c bgr naid X-xVi^p ^hen he 
purohaeod the prop^^rty frea eoaplaiaaatai* thai before Baraey aitf 
fanaio Appol caa deeuotd of eojspl&laante the p&y&ont of the obliga-tioa* 
ao OYidieaoed ^ the aote of April le, 1926, aad also by eaid Jadfaoat 
ia the aEoaicipal coi-v:rt» nhey aJteoald \s^ tt-mjg able »nd is-llXing t« 
doliYer t« ooavlaianat) aay aad all s curitioa held ygy t,hea» or 
cither of tl^ft, t<r mcvkva the payuent of «»iA 0t>llgrttioB{ aai that 
oaid Baraey and Fanaie ppel, by tht exooutioa aad eoaaiaatatioa of 
said agreeaeat ct Janiiary i'-9, 1931, hart aade la^pcssiblft th<^ ^^^llrsry 
to oaaplaia&ats of the seeurity to -aihioh they are entitled, and have 
asade i^oseibl^^ %he anbrogation of ooRplalasoaie to th« fresuylty, held 
by said ppel$$, for the oblige ticm, • the paym«rt of «hioh ei^id Appelo 
h«Ye attempted to eaforo«r throat mnU jttdgaeat of the MBWlclpfi.! court* 

At the oQMQlasina of the report the Raeter recoar^onded the 

eatry of a dearoe, reetr-xiaia^ %nd enjoinlitg; the defentdafiie nub« 

otantially tc %hfs a^^e effect ee thereafter «ae dcoreec by the coart 

f%a first alMkto aoatioaed* 


to 1 

^y;mi tlun »tar' - 


Ap]Hll<^i}t8* counsel la his >ri«f and argUMent ^0 ttrged 
nifr&l points ae greun^a for a revorwid of tlte perpetual injunctional 
•rdfrr app«tilea frcan* In tlie Tle« » talce of th« oe.B* we do not tHink 
that a dieeaeglon of these polBts is necessaxy* /tfter ooaeiderlfig 
0X1 the f^cts disclosed in .he preeent trtoiaoript we are of the opinion 
that the eoort iv&« tuXly warranted tm «HUit^ible principles in per* 
petually enjoinine defendonto frooi selling* or aet^lgning* or fres 
atteRptlag to ooXleet or enforce » the conf eased juagsir;»t against ooa<> 
pla>mint»» eRt<»reo en Septwhor 17» 1950t td* |£«$97«SOt tm their 
•oeooid aortfrsgo note* th«a really held and owned )qr BMme/ Appel* 
This oeoond Bortgae« 8»d Jii^gMient note ht^ origln&lly he«a ex«e«ted 
Iqr oMqAainaata for ?ld*:>oo <m April I6t 192«f wh^^n th«^/ were the 
y«e«rd ewnera of the prop9rty# hut suhjeet to a first KortipiCO of 
|40»000* In Sept<nRl>ert 19Sd» eoaipXfiiinarito etaiTeyed the property to 
Louis Xrusi AUbJ<}ct to the t^o aortgagest and *eredit wao ^iTen to 
Xru^ OS thv purehnse priee* yood the isaiount shen unpaid on the t^o 
tnortgagea '''^■ras a i^rt of the purahfioo price*" Thereafter o«rt«in pay* 
nents on hoth aortgagoo wore sade to the reap^vctlTO lolders of the 
sortgnfo not'^s. "^"^hen the ewRfessed Jud^paoat wao ^ti%9T*4 in Uept^m^KiSt 
1933a ogatnet ooB^lalnaiste on siriid note of $I$»0'u)Ot the pajMonta anuio 
h«>,<^ 80 rrducec the iB6e1> ednera^ that there waa a balance then dUiC on 
the principal of ^6fd00. M thi& tlBOf also* a nhio%so bank wns tfeo 
crjncv euad holUcr of the flret nH^rtgn^e note of ^4Q»QQ0^ upon ivhioh only 
i'ZOQO hrji bern paid &nfi there w^ts e. baleaiee due on th& prlnai]^ of 
$3'r»'"00. TheTffaftOTt In Jaffli&ry* 19Sl» no further payBonto iaavlng 
betn luin'e thsntmkt the haak threateaeci to institute foreelosurs xac*- 
eoo(?ingo «(i Ito first mortgago. Prler to tMe tl«e Appel, la the 
endeavor to ocll^et fr«8 «OB|plainsdat« on eald eonf««seti 4udgaent»he4 
eauaed execution to be oorred on K4w«»d n» Berber* but ho hoA 


hv^-w ««0t m mi n i i& A^lijii^'>|<?' W'^fee^oft^ Hn^Miiitif^ 

-X*«l f""*' - Icjti*'***!^ *'»tM»i«^ taisj!(»ici;<i' "ftd^ ifi ^-cpff. s 9^5*'' a93*8*t<sii 

«fl5 t^ »'iir» »ri*yf !i¥8*i[ «j4# c*. stes »«s««' »»iMr!|Si<i:om Kierf ftc: •laws 

> / 

n ftfftr 

•«]w<ttl«tf Had tte »xtcutici> liac l^cen rettum^ii t»/ th» toaUiff UB* 
««ti«fl«d» To aToitf en cxpt-vsite aa^ lea^tby^ ro^«ales;ur« pj^G* 
c««4iiis ligr the ^nnk go its fivttt aort£^g&t Kmg* the ovnev ol tl» 
pvQptbriy aiA»jeet to l^otk jMUrrtgas^Sf An4 ■' jtpeXt tilt; ««xi«r Mid 
telder of the B<icmi<i Aor^gags nete oa vhleb lie h«£ cMUMi»d ««a4i 
eoBf««8ed 4^0acnt to b« tm%tiT94 agalsst eer3plaXn<&ata* ^tered 
into th^ aerecwsat ef J&nu&ry a9, 1931* The gist of this ««x&«««nt 
vfta that* iiii}tra<f of ikvvlBig th« thrs&toti«(i oxp^fiBlre ftxid Xengthgr 
foreeloeure pTQQsaeine eusuncnoedi 1»7 %h» Itonk «ltfe> pro«pe9t ii;f « flnnl 
d*«ro» of 6^1« heinQ ultiaAtsI;,' enivree in ttt f«tTor ftBit Krug ^irt 
v^pol theroaffex oals/ re&aiaiaa their reiipe&tiv* ?l£{hta o? redeaptioa» 
Krttg euid viifo voi'a to ooirve/ tho proporiy feo tiM ^ei»lc*a nf^in»e 
(Wittittii)* oeth atortgagea wore to toe reXo&avd of y«oord t>y appropriato 
dc.ds of th9 r&epeotlTO irttotcesth^r&efi i»oth Htortffo«;o Ind^lttednesaoo 
«07e to %e oiuaeeliod nmi eKtlsguish<^» hut Srug and Appol vff« to 
have th£ zi»ht or option is auooABsioa ko repurehK«« the ■pr9^(.>r%j fma 
the leak's e}«ki<i aeniaeot upon pajrseBt of all iaele1it?«ao«!a9 «te*» duo 
to ^hc basikv • &nig to oxeroiao hio optiea hy Ajoril 39, 19?i2f «>gn£ 
; ppel thar^aft^ by July ^*» 1W2« xb the %gr<te»(!iat Appol r*i3^ee4 
that thd eoavc/aaoo i^o ths l»aalc*a noaiaec should ''operate *k9 la full 
yigntnit aatiafActitm aad dinchiirfio of the ffiortga^o ladehtedaoas'* 
•eeurocS hy »a.iJ »ueo«d aortco^^t nad all pnjrt*ieaa iacliudin^ PJ^I^e 
nf^reed th&.% the aortgago isdeht«>dnee£) secured hjr both »ort^<^»B 
""h&a h«dn aad !» herol»3i' otuaoelled* aiji^iefi&d ai^ «xti£(«^la)«@f » and 
that all p<!iT^Tin liable thareoa are h&rehy reloaeod aau dieohj?.rsod 
th«fdlrMi»^ «>»cl that all pyinoipal ai^ iatureat aotoa eirldeitoinc oaid 
ijgu5««ht*dness ^ai'^ horol^ eaaoeUi^ end tanTcaderttd to first jpnirtl<»3" 
{Krae B,a4 wlfa)« It i^ux^er appoaro thai aaid aipreeaont va<s flillar 
eane>AS!Si»t9d f %\mt to bring n>out its conawMatioB Appol or hia 
acent took eieasr fx&Bi the f ilea of the aranicipal eourt aaid original 

4tf< to Yawr« Vili tWts^^ > '<> '' ' ^c»^ oa'^ t*^ j>a.^5«»» 

Jtnnl^ A 1^ #0%<{8l«7({ tf^ltr iaanT «!(.> 't^ iitmaxmrn^ S^li;^f)90*xf fi^uneisdTfil 

©or, . .9»»tffi»*rf»j9«i iXfl "ti! #H*ia^^ a»(i,j/ i,9ft(uaKv ■ it^ 

JfXirt 3i "S.^ o^^'tft^o' i^Xf/c/d.'i ^>'jniig«n a^itouMf *.. .ia^9va»» 9jf< tjirti 

tX^'H^ tU^l^al 4(991 J-Uiq; XI« t»Qs <•»<>*»*« lbw(»<.« :4j»« );tf tsx^;?** 

sv34);^Mi tf4«(i ttf <J»«fif!itM «a& Kill icf fit ^oi «eat3;9^»« -9il.: ^mj!£^ i;»»-»tci<t 

IKia nh^tHmiir^U^* htm bmtt«iiA» ^mllwafi ypim'^d ^i Utm a««>»ti -iumC^ 

lAKlftiT* Urn t%iiitm taiHimm ^^ t« tttlJi «iU Mmt xwi«« ato^J j»ii»»» 

ftec«»a ttori8«ffe noi* for '^^latOOOt "e&usec; it to be ngi|jr3c;f , < t by hUl 
(M ea^eeXX«d sM pattd" and ^.tef^eiit^ff It to Cch^j (tm«t«« in saitf 
n^^e^nd aoi>tf«Stt trust <3&«d)* nclio thari*«upc)n e:r.@0U%«d adNi tfs2,lir(»7<NI 
ma r«l*eis« d««Ni» aA4 tlu^ s&ae ^i&» thereafter r<e^oorded| And thjst 1a 
order f«r ^ppel to aoaypljir wltli said .grcettent# luntd te ltEiT« tb« »»«• 
•oaeuitb^tet^ , it v«e neoesssaix ^er iiiK to proear^ the original |^ltt»OC)0 
Bote (i«rhieH w? e th» iMioie for the entry of e&iiS confessed Jodgtsent 
•CaiaeK eeai^iaiaiufite)* surk it esAQkll&4. &n^ Jpe.i<J« v^^^;^ «)£hibit it to 
oaio God/ RB beinc- concelliHi audi paid* h«f9t^ %h» iatt«t-r' n releaao 
de9d could be obtateed* U&dur all theee faote Had c irouaj^toxioeail 
ve do not thiJik that Appel should be «aiew«d to be In »uoh a i^oltloa 
where he coxild attempt to enforce ycgment of saIc; cimf£ft»ed Jucjeneiit 
by g^ll »^» exeeuiion or otherwise* er could ajB ig» said Judpuint to a 
third party without notice of the for^r^oins faotM^ Mid* as befvro 
stated* we think that ecasLplainaiite ierer« ostl&lec to obtain the 
e<iuib8bl« relief by iiojunctios n« prayet: by ^.hen and hs grtoitcd by 
the- eourt in the order ai?p«al«ti fx'ca. In 24 Oorii^na Jurist pp* 4&9»60« 
ae«« 719 • it is oaidt 

**?ayM«>«t» oc'ttlfmestt er dioehargo of the elala Ik eutt 

»u«>; gsaeii^Xl^' Tse ^^et up asi a defen^o b<3fore J'Jdg.-terJt;, - *• • But 
it ia othorwit*« vhcre thi.^ eireifiagtaao^o of the ease were aueh that 
thia plwA is-old noi hive ■'JOffa rcC'fiT-io: l^n the aotien n.t Is.-r* '"a* 
also* where the payioent ar tsettl^Ks^nt mi$ oade after th« institution 
ai ihis fluit» aa-i -vr-s lot then plSftrfSablei a court of e-.uity will 
grant relief ag&ini^t the JudSiftODt*" 

£ho deoree of the eireaii o«urt of Karoh 24» 19S2« ap?ealoil 

frooif atiould be i^fflnued* and it ie e<i ord'^red* 

Ktxnfir$ ?« J»» aed ^oaelan« /•» eoi»enr« 

<8»R8inrt b»»«9^mv- Iuqh 94 9vmdv 


110007 J» UJJBtf 


.».ii«t. 5 26 8 I.ii. 622^ 

0» Mn^oh 24» 1932t in cm notiasi of the nh olaes i» «i«m* 
tr&ot» th« i^mlclpftl eoart atruok froa the fll»o d^te-oA^At* it e»ooii4 
eiea4»d •^ffirinrlt of ««rits fox* Issttff icl«sic|r» 4et$kvX%ed hUi fw 
vftni Q^^fld&Tit of merits* fouB6 tlu>it t.ta«r« ««« dite t« ]^l«tiff 
tlw SUB of $269«43« and ent4»red JudiSBWiit sg«iiii»t d«f«ndaBt in 
ao^tordaaoo with thfit finding* Thla &ppe»l feIloiir«d« 

la pl&i3iulff*8 as»Qded atnteM«Mt of 9laia ho aU^od that 
hio olaiM io fo? "j^oda and aorol^jadidOt ooaals^tiag of tt«&ta* sold 
and doliTerod hy plaintiff to defandaot** <»t defoedtint** r«t^uttot« 
fxui tiibf; to tlBo duriag tho saaths of Haj ^uid June* 1931« for «hioh 
»erohajidl»« 6^f-iM<m% i^sr^ed tc pay the total sutt of |2$9«49« \ti«iOho4 
to th« «ti»t»»«eit of ol&iB ie %b ite«tz«d account of %h» rercha»dt«« 
olalaiod to hj*<r« b««n dcllv«x-e<d* tiie prl^rss ehaxged lusd the i^s.tCB of 
the rtop*etiT« dellTVTlos* 

to {;<^fp»dsat»» c&ic; Rffldaylt of mcrlte? to %h^ i««»«ded stat«<* 
aent of vlnisi ise dfesiett* su« to oach and all of tha lt«3aia of flu»rohaiulloo 
00% forth in plaint if f*!$ itf>E&lEed oieootmt* (a) that th«y ewr woro solA 
tj^ >^i» 1^ plalstlffi (h) or thrit thoy oror vroro €2%liYered to ixls hy 
plaictifft (e) or th'^.t ho rrer roqttoeted of pXaiJStiff tholr sala aaA 
dolivcry to hiai or (d) thr^t ho over afiro^d to pay th«r«fo]r oaid mm 
of $£6d«459 or any eiat* /md tioferidant alleged i&hr;t h« wee not indehtoi 
to plaintiff in any attount* 


♦ V 

&.i tBn&^;«^t«^ S^ili^«ve ^«^eg^ut f^^'^iii'^ i^oJ^ % ■ "^o iau* tiJ 

sL^Ui'j!! tc*% «X^.^X «t(<!Uiilt bOB x^ ^» aitMrit^ «iC# ^ixub Maui 9t 9tMXt msttlt 

•«lftiiaif»rc«« 1» •flmtfi itAi to XXs &a« M»/i» 9i »^ tx>ftln»iv »a fla;«X>- ' ms 

Hoc stftv t;vv« ifpd4 ia4i («) «»iBWieoA 5eilap»ll «*ni. 
\tf «j(f 04 b9Y«iriI«u •«•« Y«va ^tiCi j*/j(4 xe (n) r 

•IMMIM w at lliiai«X« 94 


1% it our opinloa ths^t defen4t%iit*8 affid&rit «f »#rlt« 
disologee su^ a miff icient deft^nsc as ]f«<inire8 a hearioe: of tte 
cau8« upon Its merit f.» and th^it th9 cetirt e;r«<} is strlkteg taid 
affidavit frsM %h» fll«s* In default lag def^sKsnat for imut of an 
affldarit of nerlts* and la enttriae' tlie Judipont appealed frmit* 
Acuordiagljr the iv^gaent will lie rortrood and th« oauso r««(a»dcd« 

Kerner* P* J»» and "oanlant J«» o«ioiir» 


. -■;-' •• ■ ^'- '■•:'"::• --Till? 


Wt^'tsmmmASmSR OOSil»AJSir, a •«r9<»r<^tt«a« ) 

and/or 0?-^?^F.RAt ACCD^EBT fim-. MD ) 

Ap3^Xl««s« Af.PE.a. TOSH HBWiaiPAX 

m aatm m tAX» ?R0i)9C!r:s o(4E»A]nr» | 

In A 4tii Gl»s« netiai ia ooatrftctt oMnteno^d oil ^<^pt«iA)or 
14* 1931» to ]r««ovcr of eiefsi»)«iit « baliuio« «lal»«d to be tiuo for 
ooriata onmed Ineuranoo jpremiittM» there w&o a trial witltout a Jury 
la Ajpril» 1932, roeiatlAjS ia a find lag and JutfgaoBt aflaiaet dcrf&ndant 
ia ilM ssM of ir599«88t fr«e ^sliioli Jud(pi«Bt tlw pr^^^Btat &|>|Kr&l io 

Za plaiatlffa* ttataaeat of data It Is alli««4 la «u(l»« 
otanoo tlknt said ibalasoe id for ta$ enrn«>(j prffiaitana oa ti$o pelloioo 
of iaauraae^t lsaa<$(i to d^«adi^t Hy th« plaintiff aatirs^noo Cor- 
pornttoa and in sffeot oa £«e«aaier ia» 1938 {ona being a worloaoaa* 
ooav«B»citton i>olicy waA the other a »mnuf aotutar* e llal>llity polioy)* 
aad ulso oa t «o other ainil^tr polieifto ia off ««t «b l>«o«8sto«r IS* 1939* 
aao oaae^aiocs oa ^vprii xe« 19^ « for non^payaont of prettiuas* It io 
furthor allot^d that a&id halanoe is #999*98* vhieh oifli 4<»f&mtm^ 
althoufih oftoa r«<ittO0t«d hao r<^fU8«4 to pay* 

la ii«f«ad£mt*8 ooooac) aaoeilod affi<faTit of wrrtto tho 
4«ffltnoo io th^.t all pr^aiwao «or« paid to oao 'j^« Kraoet Martia# 
J<l^%i:SllM.Ci^ agent* aa<3 th^t dlefen^i^at is aot iatiehted to plaint if fa* 
or ttithor of th«a* la any et»» Xn th« s^fffidavit it ia f^Ilo^o^ ia 
•utostaao« th t dttrinic Dect'oAor* 1928* Ibirtia solicited etf^atf^^t 


( taol#'»«<»^"'i:M» m ,YHA€l«Ot) ^I^T*. 


' Mid 

<,:i, >SiX>vi?i.^ 

gS9 -i^-i 8^^ * 

naiailw^, , . .-.-^ -,. . -■■ . 

': .™... „ .-.. :,ad} 8S«X .■'■«' - '^ 

tC'^ixo^ le^ix^cijax "*'jf#*iy#'^-'t 

«:^'S9X «SX ««'tfK0t»»^ &^ .- 

i»^.' j;>i'Yi»« itt -dtTAfrl^tii ffkmum fc MMw i tt*d 

Ki ft*s»XX« ai #1 tiimUllf: *At ml mMs x^ «I ^mmdt \* imMI* «• 

i^omam MM 


for lBmurMi«« and »t9WX9^ tf&i« /•» "iiolleifre whlolt h# dealretf to 
ooXlf** %h^% »t thia tlae ho •is'as a atraager to 4itt^nfi&at uml It 
know nothiisip of his Imciae^r aseoelfttionsf* that About ivo«rib«r 18th 
ho d«llT«re<J two |>olielet* *?xplrijiK -«^e*«her 12, lf2«, to dofon^r^t 
ansi It pRlc? to fii» by oh ok ih« Myss^lfil pr^iwio %h»rr^toT$ tksit 
fllMrtly hofort tho explrntlcm Of the j;MiIi(;l«s, Martin «o«Milit to ooll 
to 4«f«adHiit fllBllar polielee for th@ aaccee-dlBg y«ar| that aftor 
necotiAtleB« htt, &bOttt i^cmidieT 13* 1929, <iellT«y«d to 4(sftn4mt 
tho now pollci90t «n« def«a(l«Rt» 1» ooi^ll«noo with a bill of Martla 
A Co«» (urns&r which tr&i^d o«ae Mairtla thoa ^u^a d«itt« husln«s»}, paid 
to Ki»rtUi the euB of f 73a«47» for t"^*Tff:- J^'e«i«««| th»t ahoitt 
imnvBiy SOf 1930» it m^a aoottrtaiaotf fron aa &vdi% amxi^ of d^foatfaatU 
hooka that an ad^lti«ial stoi of l3a?«89 w&m «i»» to pl&latlffo oa tlw 
ojritfiaal poli«i«0 iosuM la l>«ee«i»er« 19£tS, 02i4* u]>o» &«%rtlB*s a«Man4* 
tf«fotul«at thon ]^i^ld to fel« said l&at ut^ntleaeA oooi that «B tho 
o««a«ioii» of »11 of tho pajM»ato "Mart la was tho afoat of plaint If f« 
for th« purpoa« of iial4 eolXe«tlos<» aza^ tho payB«nts of u^iA ouno 
eoBstituto payHeat ta fall for all cnrnod parealtooe Al9fit ao a haoio 
of thlo salt I" that oe the so ocu*a«loao "Itartla vti.m olotho^ «ith tho 
tatflola of tltlo to e&ld polloloa* aatf* althoat aJDrthiag to oroato 
ouopleloBt def «a4aat Ih goo<S f altti paid tho hills for tho prealuao la 
aamsor aad foiv ao roquooted hy I£%rtia# to*«lt» hy eluioke pajrablo to 
X»rtia 4 Co«ff a«oat of plalai^lffo** 

Oa the trial eertaia or^l notd dooaaomlavar evldeaoo w«a 
latroouood* :t spiieis^red th; t tho pl&Uitlff Aomtmaotf^ i^rpor^i^tloa 
vroio tte polieloo la (|Uootl«B* aad that Ito eo-plaiatlff was ita 
«OB«r<al agoat la Chic mbo* It «»» aot dlopatad th»« d«feadaat im 
gooii faith hsd «a ff full p^ijraoat of all 6h« @&xfkHi preMi.»» to 
Martin, who had dsllTortd all policies to eef#»daat» aad that 
lUrtla had aot accouatod to plalatlffo for thii awooyo r«c@lTcd hjr 

tmfKi9l«ft •« fttSffX «3iX «««ip»««» Wil«t«K» ••»t«iX«| «w# h*vrrki0b 9d 

$Mdi i^otfuwii mmimt^ MMMUm ^f^^ *»•*«» vi *>ii ♦* &in *i ka* 

Xi»« 0^ M«B«« cUl^jtdC ««vl»li«f ^I^K-si^iaw t»tl> ««!»* xl*tw«» 

i»ilui i^flidl |7A*t 8«iti^»«K>e«(» %Ai t<}'? 9^ji »il«<( tJoXiieia 4(ittHi*t»b •# 

ttl^taii !• XXlrf « d4Xw •9fluiiX^£t >'*'> ^•^^ »»*lol*K wta Ml;> 

blue «(«ft»fli»iNr 9fa»» mm aifi^ 4 ^j^Ufv t»ftav) «•»:> A 

• d>r.4S»7i> t«*jiil|ii4# MV( *AW «M<^1 •in»4R«»«^ Ml Wtt!««t «4Hl«|lf«^ iHilliVO 

' '' *»«m«ii5fi«x«, ISO ;ra»^ t**':* * n»»tAl' 

hiM* Plaintiffs ol»itt«d» s^ th«jr «l«%i« TMrv^ that tkv erUm^ 
■wffioientXy Aieeloacd thnt ISt^rtla van Attendant* m» mM net pXaSa* 
tittm* atvat* anti th&t» &#a«e» d@f«odaat it&a liable to i»l»ist.iff» 
f«r tli« wnnmt <»f t)u» preaiuBs «hl«li thcfj luui iivr*r rte«iv«d* 
i:«f«sdaat ]Mr« «9»t«ad» oa t^ cen%rn.xT (l) tliat It t^ppamte^^ tlMt 
Mortis «^ plalBtilT*j3 ?^«at vit^ mtthdrltjr to eellvet the premliiBs, 
and (2) tiiGt* regt^-retleea of tli« aotual authority which Ma- tin ha<3t 
pl«lnti/fs» ^y giving hiM possoasion of tho polioies for th« purpooo 
of cifliTsrln^^ ftlMB to <jefendia2it» apparently clothe^ hill vlth authority 
to oolleot the prcmitaie for th«i» «jad th«j <^hould he estopped to (ieny 
his authority fo» fche^t purpose* Xefecdejtt &lao eontenda that the oourt 
9rr(-4 in refusing* while ple.i»tiffs* witness (Morgensen) isHff heing 
oross*exsJBinodf to (allow o^^rtnin i^wte^lsaia to he Bmk^6 of the witnonss 
l^eparatoiy to iBp«Hchln« o«rrt&ia aatt ial st»iteKeets made on <^ireo% 
eiCMbinatlen* aai to stew oert&i» eontre.ry statetteats aode toy the wit- 
ness in snoth r oourt proeee<*lag| and also oontMKts ths^t tho ootirt 
erred in rtfueitig to allow 4efendM>t to Introdttoe «Tidenoe shorring 
on aUUiiosion toy plaintiffs' oonduet that Martin ws'.s thoir acont* 
Tis» toy eausing jia,rtin to he prosecuted in the oriaiaal eottrt for 
Inroeny &a toailoe of the aaount of o&id prealttns* paid %^> him hy 
dof endant * 

▲• wo h«re ms^ed the eoBoluetoii thet the JtidgMflnt 
should ho rereroed and the e«««e r cnMided for a new trial* wo 
rofraia txtm outlining the tststinony of the sereral i^itaeeses* 
^'0 are of tho opinion th^t th«; court erred In hie rullngo in re-- 
fusing to ftijteit tho eTieteneo offered toy «i(rf<&nfliAt ae «hoir& nentioncd* 
Aad wo do not think thett the finding oM judgntent are i^f ioiently 
supported toy sudb evidenoe e.s w^is r«rc«iired» or hy the l&w* The 
dooieion ^nd holdings in Juyo aain^ Xno» Co* , v^ ■\»rd.. m ill* S4S» 
are apparently in point* In thett ease «no Tuiseinieurt was an inauranoo 

.£ vtmimvi ^ii toalXff «l 

sntwMto »ta»fetv» ■ ■ iiflNin.lMil ♦# taalM^^^ 

• b?iiOi«(«Mi ovotfA a«. #«^.^twts^^ -^ i*»«ond $«&it»^^VO «M« ^Xm^a O^ »Ki91ll 
>4T •«u»x «tf^ '^ YO •ftrrJtiiovv «m» m» «oat»i«-» il»juo t)f ^^(K4Wi 

• e>lt *li7 69 >*«>^ #V .t) #OJIIl ailtiMI«^ SI Oftlti&lMf (kDi« Rfioltt* 

5oa«i£}«>aL luK «;>«* iii i ii iif ma^ mm-Hm «il «««io« ni tf tWlt^HHO ffo 


f**d. i« in«ur« h»x property s^aiast Isn^ Vy fU« ia «ht ««fffiKie»« 
«tta4M«y ttB« «4ittttier Go«|»Any» ftisd r«pyea«atedi that h@ ««e a» agviit of 
iNith e«ipMsl9«. ;4fter ©xajfcinlMg %h» property, ti« pr«p»««it t« 
tiiattr* pl»latlff la ea«h e««^<yiy fox entt year for II6OO, aetf for 
prwBliaa ««sr««g<.%iag $d2.50» ^l&in%US i%«e«pitt4 tlie pr«poeitiOT« 
•»< in ft 4my or ture ^eateaa returned with th« tw© policies ©x^fcutenl 
hy the r#»pe«tiirfi eei9ftai«s» (i«»llY«rt4 tlui polieies to her ane %gro«4 
t]ift« 8lM »i«kt pay tiio prealuMs In 90 d«ys. ^Iio I'ully peid tb*-8« 
pTf^KlMM ia insUllnento to i^soteaia within tk« tia»o, but h« o«Ter 
paid My of %h9 aiontys «v#r to tj&« 9m»mU»* f ir« loaa oe^nrroA, 

RBd ibc ooa^NUilcet not haTiag reeelTotS th« proaittoo* r«?ftto«4 to ipay 
th« oaount of toe poXieios* ;iiM drouijikt oait ftt«'<^««% tlMt <« tfeatf^t 
coivaay oa me of tii« polleioo «ad x«cov£r«r« & T«s<!iet scad Jwicnoat 
oKftiaal it* Ob appeal tt who urgcNft tlOit-i tht court tta^ «rre« la 
nXloeias lk«r to testify ao to tlie cirouBotaaooOf alcove outlined « of 
k»x deali«c» viith Pueclann la ol»taiiiiag the policloo and ta peyiBg 
tho preaiiaie to hla» In afflxttifii the ^4|pnent owr ^uyreow Court 
oiUd (pp« &4a-9)i 

"It Is cXe«r» i.h'X if the p3.atntlff h^ia oontrs.ete4 "with 
ea agent of the eorapHiiy for the iasuraaoe* an4 paid suoli aiiEMit the 
preaiUBt the payaant vould haToi 1>e«n 't)ln<5ing on th« coapoay ^etlutr 
th* agoat paid over the aoney or aott tixiA it is (SouhtXooa trae &mt 
if the plaintiff h <;! p^l^f^ the preralim to ?aeehaEai» nt the ttpo 
kno«iaf; that he was not the asent of the eea^any hat only a street 
lasuraaee hroher* the poliey coul&* Bot hi? eaforeed* if Jhto ohw 
failed to pay evev the aoaoy* 

Agala* If the plaintiff d«F&lt -with l^ietdtaaa ao the Agent 
of th«^ euapaay* h«llevi»6 him to be aueh* and AiA aot eaploy hia to 
act for iicr ua her broker 1^ oht«iiittiat the Ineuranoo* he ^evltf haim 
BO power to aot for or hiad hor« iJn^^x such &lircu»etanee»» ire aro 
of the opinion thr^ tentiaeay ohj et<d to vsie proper* the plaintiff 
had the right to prOTe idatt the contract ^».»* 1£ i%sehaa» m.& not 
her ft^ent or broker » It wee proper to prove thnt fa©%# If ahe dealt 
with hla Au the ageat of the o^apaa^t th&t m%e proper to h« prftven* 
• * 

Puaeteaa rik!p3r«e«&t«(t ninoelf to th« plaintiff »s an 
ageat of the eoviptmyt he ^xsmlae^. the property to eee if the rlek 
vottld be a oafe one* he eendu«t«(l hiaeself in ail r«u>peota aa ma 
agent clothed with authority to aot* and* irifter he had agvoed with 
the plaiatiff to Inaure her propc^rty* ho returnee! with the poIi<qr» 

■art baa i^Wu:* w»t *jb»x smi t»5 -tttj^^tiw* f^-*"^ «i ttii«i*XHt v^ftol 


rf IMlittJ 

iXfif»V*f» ^Ai to 
aa t»K T0l #%j. 

proporlj «x«flnii«4« re^djr for ^eliveirjr* 'Hie plaintiff aeeeptcc^ the 
p^lieft tmi Vftid th« preniifli in eo@4 ffeitht t»i^er tli« bcll^ f timt 
PuacrhaHui w&s the a««Bt of tM OMQwdQr* 

Ifatfer Buoh oirewnotftaeos* vho should ^'S'ar %h» loas arlsisg 
fr«ii thft fjrciud ooBiaitt.t'g b/ the oftreet broJcer -^lioulcl it tdkl upon 
plaintlffy vlM «^9 AS innoe*>at party in the trans;i.rtiont or ^heiild 
ii. fall iii»aa tlio eoB^aaya -•shs ftlonc tmtvlile^ ?Ujieitano» to auecesBfully 
o«n«8Mnto tho owntrftoi of insuraneo Iqr v^f«U»g 1« kio ham&a the 
policj for delivery? thf «{<tr@«t broker %&s not the ai^oBt of the 
plaintiff for any purpoi^* If the cria^noe ho true* ho hoA no authority 
to aet for hat or aiac he; 1» an/ loatmer whatc^T^f by what he xULght 
do m th& pr^nnie^^e* &m while he najr not have hoon* in fa«t» the 
«C9nt ef &h'v cospany* ^Sill the ofuaj^nyt Vjr placing the policy in 
the hance of the i»tY£«(t ^rokt^r for (i^livery* 1b «8topp«c! fr«ni elaiains 
that th« payment autti to >i« upon the- delivery ef the policy i» net 
hintflag upon the 9«mjim»y»* (&oe« al»9» ^(^e^tic Jnj* oo» t#,. 
gahye»hrMjg| f» HI. 4«3t 46Tf Lebanon la«« Co« t« ^rh* Ha "/«{■» ':t# 
149 » 15a-¥j# 

The iwiftmnt of the aunloipal oourt* appealed trmtt 

•ho«ld he rereraedi and the oanao roaaadeo* It tc so oztlereiS* 

Xemor* i^'* J*t and fitmalnn* J»» ocntoiiv* 


fiv ;. #4 kJUm^>' vwaEmrtf ♦etT.i,? nsf* -' 

^ •■' *ir;i aa* x** Kt'i^ 


A?aK.c J5R0II OIK cm? 
aoro?, COOK comTT, 

' -""'""lp,.xi«». 268 I. A. 622^ 

Thfiant 9* XeOttjr* pl«liittff» 0U«« The Kqui tattle Lif« 
A*ettr«ne* noolety of th« Ualte<' : tates* a «orxN>ra%i<ni» defendant* 
in aeeunpait* Th«r« was a trial befair« tlw oeurt* with a iuzy« 
aad a Tas^iot returned f lacing t^ l8en«a f«r %h» platailff aafl 
a«s««»iBg hl» daaatgaa at ^ft»e4««6X* ludsutat was anttrad ttpan 
ttM ▼•rdlet ana dtfasdaat tefA» aj^^aalad* 

PXal£&tff*s d^aXarutlon <^o»ei8ts of three oouittB. tha 
first allegae* la subst&nce* that rthaor d* llofiasr* the lnaitred» 
<3S Janutiry 23* 197.9 » crntered into en agrceMSBt with th« defeadnat 
ahaxaby far .?. vtOLuahle consld«ratloa ^iTsn te rtcf<»»daiit it agraa* 
to lastta 40 the laoured thraa policies of Inemraitea en his life« 
the pollel^a to be pnynhle* ta oniM) of th« death of th@ lsiwir«d« 
to his father t the plaint iff f thnt it mai^ afread that two of the 
polisiee should ho dellTered to the Issvred tx% that tine and that 
the third policy should he la full fore<« »n& «»ffeet frou Jamaarjr 
23r 1929t until Moreh 2S» 19299 at vhloh ti«e an additional 
preKltn wae to he paid h^ a&ld Ineured if he were llviag at that 
tijw* and that ta the sTeat that he should die ht;for« MNri^ 88» 
19209 the pelie/ should provide that #@9000 should he paid to tiM 
plaiatiff upoa proof af denthf thrit the defendMat failed and 



o??;^ .A.I 8< 

%'£iSmi aanr to senate aai . :m 

mB riUta.MJLii 94* «#! B«ifci*i «£# »pyi^»ait &»n«xjrftis #oif.{nc«v ^ .;.^. 

•If if td ei9i igdi b^tf^ <i«w ^1 sn-xii ).. ., 19 dit$ «%9i(«At otif •# 

itfWl^ik^te OM •(Ki.! Hr>lt'uj i.- ,v"5«?r ,eB ifei.^H titm «WCtX tCS 

9A$ Qi !ilMl 9«f Humi& tv>,,>,.?.^ .+ .^.1 ...>,....,„.5j Oiiwlii x»U«« »fCi ,ta«l 
bar* b«Xi«^, ^mmkoifi:--* ^^ 3^9 iii??»»J» t« i«**^ «W ttiJ«t«lt 

n«iil«^«i«^ t« !••«• %h» third j^ioir* &n^ timt rtlmr d« SE«Ckgr 4i«A 
«i or atKmt tbrob. 14t 1839 • ']%» oouBt oXbo eotitmints the n<»c»90«j;.r3r 
allcf^tlaaa as to ih«i |«rfox»aa«« of e<»uiitlan»« «ie» 71i« iioe««d 
c««mt ootttaiss the aXX»gatimi» ia.ea4«d la tlm tix»% GQvm%§ and iB 

%h9 ihix4 galley t but ia«%««k(i iftsii«a a polii^ pajir«^l« to tM i»Xi& In- 
tiff tout Bo|^ tAke «lf e«i atitU Mar^ 26* Xi^29it MU^ ifhich ^nt».iii«i 

proTtsiiotto emtTfur^ to tlie sig]ro«»eat ant}' %ii^ ntv^r £eXlv«se^ to 

kxtioMX a« kou^ or tiio plaint if £» nor v»«td it fiKro^ei to hy either of 

%hm oftid pa.rti«o* the third (roiiat» fllau oocafr tiitt« «i>Xt«.>x tlie first 

and wtvmAf &lXve8e«i t2mt t^ dooc&«o4» «« Ja^'Atstr/ 2d» 19*:S» »ppli«4 

to tlae derenc^ct for tlir«ii ts»000 j^«Xlc»i«e saa M$ Xif*» pe^stlslt t« 

pXalntiff f *%h«,t onid fi^pplloatloa «r i» c<»}i<»l»«ci Is two oertaln 

letters (viritton Isgr the ln8tir<<i^) and on a pxiaV»«t fO£» of aa 

j^ppXio^vtlon fueaiah^e aald rthur S* X«&«gr ¥7 tlie^ tmid <lef«RdAiit*** 

7h« count «d%8 up the t^»» Xettorst (i>n« adtfreosiOd to the- d«f«»<lRni 

«Bd the othe^r to Biumoy HenNRnt «n «c«m% af iSef«Bdant. The X«it«r 

to the defemianty dittod ^anoaxy 22>» X9S9« ia fta faXXovrai 

**i feA7(> jUAt forifj^rdo^i^ CO i!lr« 3* Hfvnaoi uad^sx a«paf«.to 
eofvar aa appXldi.tiea of 1X5*000 • and n«^i«al «aa liado and ««att from 
Chio;:^go a f £-« d^t^^s %^# 

••^>* here t» how I vant this hsmdledt I hfcTe dlTid^attfa 
aeonied on my poXieioa #3X09*9S»»«929 for th» yrara X928 antf I9S9 
itKmnstlnir In ail tts fIXX*X9* ^ vmnt poll el oa iai{Ue<l is 4ena»in9^%i(m» 
of C'5000t e%oh» On on* of thati I Uriah ta eanr f«r •% oottpX* of 
icmsths OS xxa int«?rlrt pr«2BiStt# iter pe^rausnt for a^mt X forwat<^<e'd oB to 
Kr* l^o«isMM3« Thlis th«a X«ftT«a the %«• paXiciaa of tW^OQ a%«iih« £in4X]r 
trsnafpr Accruad dlvid«»tid8 to th* 2»ii9»aat of tliXis prtalas and the 
haXaaoa I aloa oottt to Mr* H««mui ^ioli h« vllX taker oaxa of with you* 

*whiMi poXioiea ^lam lauuedt have than forwardied to w» at 
thia addraaa ttsirked to aor J^kmcebaL direct ion* 

•V«iy truly yattr«» 
Hm l«tter to Kvaaaat datt^^i Jonnary 23 • X921»i, is m foXXowat 

■I fecut k^sftfOA #«Ylt 4MC* lU; Aftte«ilt •ilMft^«l|*XXji Mi MtlatJvtk «itt«» 

9i H'i^rHiii^ '.'OW #««nH»l ..«»« teror '':.:; 

$»xkt ^i ««d1u> waitT fta^ mll\ n*inm» «>«it 
•4 •Xdl^ix^ • 

«n»^jM»%»& «({^ O^ i>^«&.^'i^'hef t-^ ' v-^X $^4' »4j q^ i^4i. 

«nt teM tmm •ktm aMr XMitMut ten •ao&«ex& "to a^' .3 im %m9 

944 Statfi Avijvn^ ^li^i'^re itauaat/aq, mtftf «^ i>?>:;£;^''i-tvi.ii> jbttcrst;': 
<,iHix tUXvi >Q (»'!.»• »)i;j# JLXiv Ml jtfdlfbr fiNi0.-- .rt^a mtlsi I 9ti»aJLaM 

$s tm 94 &9fnAr;ol mdi vfMd tteiraci .-><£ HanC^ 

'♦•fAitea •© son 


*l^nT VvmmMt 

*Otifirmine 9ur t9l«phoa« »»iiT«ra&tieB of laat nia^X 
^hmniM M& agr«.ci that you wouXn t&X& vlO*Qv ait your ^'0£iL!il>;^i(u; <m 
this n«« palttjr and rUov a« the balftBe« af 7«ttr eMnisaitm* I mi 
therefor? anoloslng appXie<Atian bXejik ct»plc%&d, ^nci vrltlu^; the 
£qttltAl»l« to transfor my aeeruod dlriA^mAB t« %h» ejrcdit of this 
poller and tan enolOBixtg »^ eh«e]| %o Gems^^%^ thm Ket pck^pBOtrt* 

•thiig abov* ftrrc-ang«8»fit ig ctrlctlj' c<wzfl<2«ntiol and 
piuroljr bfttw«e« oturs«a>in»«« For tiMt roaooa X an «dcr«B0ins this 

letter to youjr personal attention. I &cli«rrc that It will sho«f 
up fta follows I 

"Pitmaiim tm ifl0«000« policy iasuod 

/an. 18» 1929 , ,««««$S&9«aO 

S«^ UflMaa* tuyn<h} ovs'X' to a a Meday $129«90 
1929 2- It, .-ol. 310?J92S-.— 929 . . • 74 .IS 

1989 i>lT« Pol* 31099as*— 929 • • • 37 •uO 

By check to anruty H«i^Ma • #• • • 38* 78 2 79 ♦ 80 ^ 


'How I havo decioco to pay foir ^lOfOOO* ioguranoo a« iunr< 
Asd t»kc oat an additional $9000* on a» tutor i« premlun of $>lo^QO 
vhlch vdXl o&rxy it I bolioro about two aoBtlu at which tine i xaojf 
bo in a posit loB to hasdlet but If sot Z oatt than let it drop* fhm 
ranalnittg ^10*00 la your oowBlaaim as a|proed« 

**£lndly fioo tht ubove ie tak@a Ofiuro of 0K« aooding tu> 
polloloa in oare of the abOTO but nark the eavelopo FEBSOXAL* Thaula 
Uf^mska, for aauii.tiii|$ jm 1m thia and reat aaeiurod* X will tlirow aiqr 
bueineaa your -way that I oan* 

"^Ith klBdeet rogartfst I a* 

'''fery tnOy y««ro« 

Zhe oouat than netn up the appllt^titm of MoOay idiidh re<i.uo8to<i tte 
defendaai to ''Ishuo la tlixoo pollci^^o Of |&t<Xiia eaoh*** The oovnit 
also aaio^ee "that a cheok for t58*7S wt%» seat i» aaid let t ex find was 
preeenterd to said beak on v.hioh a&id oheok wits draioi and paid by a&iA 
baoki that d«fti}diitnt aoeepted aai£ fe^fplios^tloa au«u on Jrobru&ry 15# 
1929* notifivd la vrltiatf >>rtlaie a* KcrtSay « * * tliat aald polivlea 
*«ii your life h&Te been lastted as spsplied fort* th&t at all tlJiea 
after A^rllt 19179 the dofesidiiat Iiaa laaua a p£K.{i&loo and cuestom* known 
to Arthur Q» M<r3«yt whereby tha defendant issued the polioioo of llfo 
insuranto to aeeeptHblo appllo»»ta giriag the polley u registry dafto 
fromt to*wlta not oxoooding nine aontha saUaeqUOfit to the date of 



i>v*T£ ft * % ff 


''«aT i»n« iBi.. 


*e'Wm!. TXPT^ TV:-7 

*li^ \;im«»«. 1«» f»i«l^ h^JcX 

■^vjj&ssiat iliJ 

■i^f «»rf,j les/ew »rft 

«»»!;} XXmi iJi- Jijfi.' .--^ttteti ;.«»*«■ <»V«W: *'iAi «tt«X «•*' 

tlM aocepiane* of %h» appllefiitlOB for ineuTanect for tte eenvcni«««« 
of tho insurod la flaying bl« pr«ilua} thnt in order to Ineurc aa 
■j>pliesai*a life txom ihe tiao of the &ccepteiiio« of th« AppXioatlwi 
to tlMF registry date of the poXioy* defeKKiuat gave to th« ftpplicntiit 
Trtteit is designated ao 'PrellaiBary Term Ineuraaoo** Insuring the 
appIioMit's life between ths tlae the applief\tioa wae accepted and 
tlu reglatry date of policy* on payment of the regular preaiumt that 
ia order to have eueh prelininuty Teria laeuranee the appllcaat «a« 
required to pay a presius for #6000 • life insuraaoe for such 
Prelimiaaxy Ten Ineuraaee (If 27 yoavs old» vhioh was the age of 
the applioaat at the tiae la que at ion » at the role of* to-wit4 |S.14 
per thotti^nd per month)! that in pureuMsee of enid eui^toa and pr^setioo 
and ia ohedieaee to it * • « MeQay paid #10.00 to defendant* vdiieh 
«ae aeeoyted hy it for the purpose of Inouriag * « » MeGay*B life ia 
the BUB of 15000 • frofli the date of aeceptaaoo of arUd applio^^tion* 
February 13* 1929} until* to«>«itf two months thereafter under Um 
tenu and oonditloas herein set forth and notified iasure^d that tlw 
policy had been isaued as applieii for* and 'Arthur 3» UeQ«y*8 life 
beeaae lasured by the defendant la the eun of #9000* ynyable to 
plaiatlff here la froaa the date of the aeceptaaee of said applie»tion 
oatll a date long after the death of said assured i thi»t defendroit 
by Its acts «id conduct la the preaises waiTod th»t part of the 
prlated a plioatioa wherein it was recited thnt the applicant agroeA 
that the poliey or policies issued upon said applieatloa should aot 
take effect until the first preaiun h&a been paid to the dofendaat 
dariag the appllcaat*8 good health* and that ao ageat or other 
porsoa» oxeeptlag the Pre8ld«7at* Vice -Pre aid eat* Seevet&ry or 
Treasurer* or a Fegistrf*r of the defendant soeiety had power to aalw 
or aedify say contract oa behalf of the society or to walTo any of 
the ^ooiety's rlgllts 9T requireaieBts* and that no waiT«r should bo 

KH uvinal 94 t*fe«9 «1 9mAi iM»l«»«i SIM »nilpa« 4U Mrcvtol «(« t« 

imAS iiOUiMsmq, 9«Xii^»s t«ii to $ntm%/Mt, am t%»^X«^ %• •^»^ t«^t^l*« wU 

)• tflfca «^ •«« jfoii^w -9^0 9to9T f£ 'it; »i>Mt3-ii(lr«flrt ««•? iruMiliaU»T^ 

ritsjiivv »iaAa«»t»b o« 00.0X1 &isq 16«Ste?v. ■?a»ift*rfo JiJt tet;^ 

idi x9$TL&9tmii tuiitmak vmi |iiw»* Ui9m l«a«X ,?X x:«»»«^ 

•tiX s*t«<!^^ *^ xwd^A fbsm «%«t teiX^%A »a bwumi m—t kiit i|»iX«4 

^-i &tdJi^■%:^ ,0000'$ to K!» *'^^^ oil «iiBb«H>i»i^ Mti xfi ^vmKl mmsmT 

>•-,.?. ..■■ if* . '•■vv-.-jre'aja UiBiii ^ jC4«"-'* *-^ •'•»^' '*«*li» BisoX »t#l> « X?:?'^ 

T&X14 unleaa in writiog aad signed \iiy one of %h» f •replug off io«7ft| 
«T«rt Uwt defemlaat paid t« plaint^iff t«« of thw tkroe policies of 
|5000« eaek whldb it had lo&ued and dvltrifred to th» wild ftoeurod* 
«ad ioeutid the third policy of fSooo* with & registry date of Maroh 
17 1 I929» bat (^l4i not d«Xl7<?r to assured the third $5oao« pelioy» 
*s< fftilod to pay plaintiff th« bob of I5000, for ths PrellislBery 
T«ni lasuranoo as it h»d asroed to do up«B s&tlofaetory proof of deatlii 
•f saiA assurod*** 

Tilt dofondikBt f ilod a ploa of th« general Isuus to all 
throe eooato snd an affldarlt of Mrlls* which aYcro "that Ott» 
tOfvUt JanuKry 83t 1929 said Arthur 0* ll«e«y f^ppllod for $10»OOO« 
worth of Insarsiaoo on his llf«» p^ahlo to tho plaintiff, to ho 
losuod In thr»e policies ef $5000 • oaehf that said applioatloh was 
o««taiaed on a printed foni of »ppllc»ti«e faraiid&sd s^^id HoOay and 
Yas fonraxded t# or.e B»ixiisy So«BaD» an onployo of bhe Detroit of flo« 
of defendant » In tho letter addrftssod to BstsssJEi diited Jnnuary 23t 
19a9t set forth in said Third Count t that la and by said lottor oalA 
apij^ieaat atteavted to psy for tw« of tho $50 >0« polloios appliod 
for by a reb&tiag arranipoaMBt with Vo«BHdi# whereby applieaat took 
credit for tht coanisslons ^Ich in due eourso would be pay^tblo to 
^eiautia «a o^ld 10»0J0« worth of ineuraaoo and by transferriag 
dlTldcsds which were aocrulag on other insurance then in foroo on 
applicant* e life with defendant* but said caiBslssloas were not 
awallablo booause .applicant was ih dt^fault in payneats due on aal4 
other insuraaosi thr t in said lettor applicant «ilse sugereste<2 that 
the J 10*00 OMroin eneloood should be a two ncmths* laterui preaiua 
(M the remlnlng IBOOO* worth of in^uraaoe of the $lS«ooo« worth 
applied fort that beeauao of tta« oempli captions retsultla^: frea tho 
attoavtod rebnting transaction and applicant's nen-payment of 
saaeuato duo «b insuraaoe ths>rrrtofore issued • the reb^iting oomiooioa 

19 99itill»% t»iHU *di \9 •»« tU^lAt.4| 9i him $K»im9\9b $9di ■«•▼» 

,^ilo« •<XMi h9im 9di hmmtm Hi %^ll9i^ fm hik iaH «ta9i «rx 
XMm^Ua-Pi •dt %9t *emm Vt mm 9it» ^tit9aml% te^ 9i b^Hmt tas 

i.U 9t i9»<uel X«t'/fH>% ^i lt> a9lii « ^^Xi^ 4vuidimf't9it iMtZ 

atf 04 «n^<i^4iX<S Mii •# 9S4£i\m «PtU «il4 «> «MMI«»R(ill la 4i%99 

yjnw wmjAr-iS^n^i:, disn i»^ %dtinn9 *i>iX)t^ "xQ ^laititl^ ^<t%iii ni b9iiBi«i 
ban \«^vt>M ^i'-n a'axi»ia'iM\ QOi^.^'SiiXqg.^ t* aTT-^? 'y»iti.lia% s so lMMIl«4taes 

■:s3% hmij^b tt««»r»IL «# i^99»tl>h» t^iii^I. 9S^_i «l «4i|«lMMt»> lt» 

oi:'.;: '<'<^^.t:ȣ Maa ^ bst9 fU irJU isaa^O 1.' m ni /(ixet ^ftii tCfg^ 

l«i:i4j%i» «»i:&iX€M;i (O^ ca^ «il<f t« t^i^rd tot t< i<tA9iXtti,« 

ao •eiel ol ir«tf> aoes-ii^Rai :cii<i<i« no soljituo^fe »•£«« A^lAm ttj>«^^>i'rit» 

Ure «« «lif> ««a«at^ ttl iU r^^'t ittioilfci., «»iaitct>«tf •XtfftXiaVA 

ii:U}i»tBi;q flii*t.;}al **j(«isoai e«^ « »tf (MbMifa b««4loit» «i»tMltf Oi .OX^ «d# 

tUl •lil )• Mi«»Ktf»«i lo Ait9M tOOOil^ )iiaai«a»Y •1(1 iw 

e^nUX»M0v Miiollis&IXQpos «dl to owrMMl imAi \X9\ b^lt>\%m 

\9 liio«\teq<«on 9^inii9^llmi» ^na mlitmrnamvi ^^i-dvt b9aqmtJt 

aatKakaamo anlii^^Trt <MI# «&otf«ol •lo'? «oa«rui«r!l ne t»xib oinuoaft 


w»a n«t aTmilablt to pay for the $10 ,000 ♦ vortli pf ln«ttx>iiB«« uatU 
ye^ruRrjr 3t, l»29f th^st oa acid dat« eaild |10»000« w»rtli of insuraae* 
Wat paid for Igr «&ld r»b»tlas wrraafWMiiti tliet so ^«-ter« poliey 
•r t«m iaaaraBt* poXiejr iiss OTor uppXiM f^t by MoOay or w«» »Tt» 
Isooctf ^ defendant I tSu&t no lntorl« jir«altai «as erer paid hj KoOo^g 
9t accoylod V diif«iid«nt» but t&e $10 •00 ref«rre6 to ta o&ld letter 
•f January 2S» li5S9 was retamed to ICoaay &33d he w*b Infonaed tlmt 
the ineuraaee vUleh He Iwd applte^; fx uliioli was to «e ioauoA ia 
tlvee polleieo of ^Sroo* eaoh h^4 lieoa Isiwvdt the third one of 
eald polleieo* ^iag d&ted ««• atatha ahead* to be held by defendanl 
until the prenlVBi ther^oa waa paid while the ineuired wae at ill i« 
gooe health* la acoordaaoe with the ieraa of aaii appll«:^tlon} that 
aald laat 15000* poli^ «aa fiorer tnken out by UeOiggr anA wa« a«Tex 
dellTertd to «icOayi that SieSsy norcr paid the pr«KiMi thereon but 
died prior to the resiater date of a&id policy and prior to the 
date whea a&id policy wai; to have been tcvkea out la accord anoe with 
thfi tirraagenenta betveen fiomna aiMl MoCiagri that acid policy waa 
therefore nevttr la foree and effect and a« liability seemed by reason 
thereof I that ia ord«r to effect term inauranoe upmi the life of «a 
applicant* it ia neeeoB&xy that ai^plleaat apj^y for term iaauraao*| 
thrit said applletition bo accepted i thnt the term lasuraaeo prenliai 
be paid and thr^t a policy be iaaaed* by the tezvui of i^hlch aalA 
aecepted applicaat la lasur«d for the tem a4preed upon and paid ttat 
by eald applieanti thnt applleant nerer applied fer term laaur?«neo| 
Utfit applicaat nercr paid for term laauraDoei that no tem inauroaeo 
vaa trer losued on the life of eftid applteaati that the 110 • for- 
nardotf t« defendant wao aorer reeclred by lt# wms nerer a©cepte<3 by 
It and w-i8 never reeelTOd aor aecepted by It >e a tera inauranoo 
preaiua* and that defeadaat did aet by any of ita note oar oeaduot 
valTe any part of ita printed applieation nor ia p rtie«l«r that 

•«M«mal %« rf4t«9 .eOOtOX^ Mjba »#«» »4itc *» ^jyl« t«S«£ *«t t««jpi^%t 
x9iiU him «i «« ^ttfU^ o<»«(Uf wif iir«r 4tmim*t»h <itf 2kf lt»«»« it 

t'»v-A« *««■ i)«bti \«Ci»M ^ tfto a;»sfj»i- it>-r«^. ^ ■;,.^.-'.v..„ . '•08$ ffi^i lii;^ 

%sS4 d* «eilfii b«a ^IXc^ M*« 1t« ♦^a^ ■*«>«-; l'3ti>« sms^ (^ Wiwj :-"»lh 
if^rtw »MuiirTei:>9ii aX .t^.9 .i»aL,.tjr av9<f »t«»^ ^iX^ &tA» sadw *JMtb 

am I0 vtil aif# fia^ ^rutmtsm&i iin«i^ ^*SH »vt -i-'h:^.? art l^jli (lcH»iiiU 
MUMiini0i ttto* •ff i.mA. WBflEl «i("^ lo^j 


Ittirt wlureln it li raoltvta ihut applifiraat agreed that uxy polie/ 
l»att«4 u^Mi salA aypXicatlonn should o«t itOctf «f:;^«ct until the flrat 
pr«Rium h»A h*en paid t« tha ei«feiui&Bt ^luring Applio&at*e gootf health 
RDd that BO agaat* ato** had power to m&k» or sadify any oontraet on 
iMhalf of the Soeioty or to eaiTO aay of the .society's rl^hta or 
roqttix«««ata and that bo vaiv«r ahould oe reliA ub1«qs in writing 
aign«d hy certain dealgnatt^d offloora*** 

Iht ^aelaratioB ajdmita that the two p^iolos isintod taoA 
iolivored to tho insurec und«x iiut applio^itiosi of Jta^uixxj 22 » 19209 
««ro p»id in full tor the iaaur«d« tho instant suit vats hrou^t 
to roooTor en tha eo*«alXed *preliiainrury torn insuranoo** the thf^oxjr 
of tho pl&intifi* aa to hia elala iai That "tho aaaurcd appli«<i for 
^5,000 inaorauieot the torn of whioh «aa to Vegin in * about* tivo 
■ontha« In ths inter is h« aalcod to ho covered by i^ellninary term 
Xnauxano«t for >ehich he paid vlO«00« It derelepod that the ^10 .00 whioh 
th:. aaeuzed httd a«nt only paid for : |rifty''two deya of Preliminary '?or« 
Inauraaoo* The d«A« of tho appliositioa Wbo January S:^» 1929* honeo 
the regular tera policy trao dated icareh 17» 1929, ox&otly Xil'ty-lsa 
dara froB the dote of the appliontlon* On Febru?.ry IS* 19&9» tho 
defeijdant trrote the aanured thati *7he polieiea on your life hare 
been loottod a« tiQipliftd for** The oontraet on the inaur^mce of $50^)0 
in thia oaao vk^s then ooapleto and binding* 7he Preliminary 7era 
inauranco una in full foroo and effect for fifty-two daya* the inaured 
dl«?d within the fifty-ttw dnyo*" the plaintiff fxirther statoai "It 
la true that the t»rp of that policy (referring to the one dated Mcroh 
17 • 1939 t but not delivered) began on M roh 17th, but under the 
defendant** plan for PrellninAry 7era Zneuraaoo the aawttrod mmm 
proteeted aocording to the tema of that poliey between the date of tho 
appliention and tho regioter dnte of the tone poltoy." The defendant* o 
theory la that •defendent entered into no contract for the ioauanoo of 

Sfift 5efi{i«l .t9l9lt»9 mi ^i i .litis iit^imbm «»ii^!^^«<» cms? 

^osMi^ »*fT *,»«eji«jkai ««»* IC^aiBii*-?*?;-* fe»ii*:^-9t »«l# toot ««ivcwt oi 
tat ^92i^t2J* ^^'ottiiSMi "idt* tii^ i«li «lA.£» *M . LiloU^isi ftfU t^ 

«f^'«*: TJi^itiatiXw'X^s "Jtt ij^iBBia oy^^^jftlt tel: 6i«si ♦cieeo #ai»a hit& ia^'jyjgeus ^ *iCJ 
t)::>a«;:t «<fS^£ 4«^ ^iWfiU5T> si-^ £seiliioiJD^6 mAi 1« ft^^ Wilt •»«>a^%«j<r...~ 

^V:: . tuox <so «»ldll«^ all?* tS^jciJ Htsna^eA sdi »^«'£ar ^a«^xi»t»l> 

i»»tli«!il «iC;' .BX«^ tiv/t''X/mt ♦jLo'i #ont*:? ^rjp asnieit X|«l a/. ».*»• 99iiA<xjuitffl^ 

• ♦l««fc«»1*S ©.iT ".T-aiXcq «rr»tf ,<it.- "So xJ v. •r-il«J-fl.i v-^i-f.i '...,» -..t .»,-..-■;.. .« 

prclittiaaxjr %«m lii8ur«UBie«9 and Uiat Ita «HC«Bt va» not author l2«& 
to MAke Mar cuAh &gx««mn«| tj» t if any such agnraaest m« mi4«» 
8lB0« it Vfts aot eontaliiAd la tlw poliogr it mta prokllilie^ Hy aai 
trold under tU* statute reXatlns to lift iiiaurait«« poliol€J»f thmt 
& third p«ll^ waa i0stt«(i» tout aot (l«livered» with regiet^x dato of 
M&reh 17 9 I9a9» upos «ihii^ eiato it «&» to 1>«eoiM effect Ire if tlw 
proaiua *oro paidi tliat tiM $10 wlai^ v&b forward e<i toy the alleged 
loeuarsd to siesmmn wao iavttflieient to pair for a»y pr«llaici«iiLry x^ixm 
ia«urajie«» aad triia retureeu to MoUayi thatt th«^r;;ffor«» th«rre w«« u« 
oeaaidvratiim for au^ prcliMinoxy torn inauranoo* or for any eon- 
traet to iosuo tho oaoioi and that no pr«iittM for &ay auoh InauraAOo 
was orer paid** 

B0 polifiiy for preliminary tens ixiBurtiOoo «a« iosued hy 
the defendant* ■■. third policy wsio prepared Wy the defeadaat antf 
gtroa a register date of U«roli 17 # 198V « hut it was not delivered 
to the iaaured nor to the plt&iatit f f aad ao nention of preliainarjr 
tont ineurauoo io eontained in that policy aor in the applioatioa 
for the throe polieieo* ^rthur O* JUOay died M reh 14» 1989* 

three days prior to the register date of tlw tiOrd policy* and the 
plbiatiff • irf oouroo* dees aot haoo hia olaia upoa th/nt policy* 
Ho adBito th&i **th« tora oi that policy hegoa oa Maroh lyth*** hat 
Ike coateads that uader the alleged preliainrury term inouraaoo aad 
the def«:ad&zit'6 plaa ia ref^roaeo to ouch insuriuioe the assored 
nao protectee* accerciag to the texas of tko policy dated March IVt 
hetweea th« d&tc of the applicutioa aad March 17* 

tht defeadrmt hao a&^eigaod aiaa argaod a auai^er of poiatg* 
tout is the Tioii that «o have takoa of this appoal wo ohaU vvftt f 
oaly ihreo. the defeadant contend a that there wao no evidcaoo 
tending to proTC aay contract for preliminary torn ineuranoo aad that 
the trial court errod ia refuaing to direct a verdict for tlio 

ftMi«M»»» *m ttmm Htm «^^ ^^^ Mi* »Hiii;Wiiir'ilHt»4 %T{^«ftif«2X«t« 

toft %4f 1^ltfl4i«t ftstf 4i i|»iJMMii add »l Sff<fr-^^'«(nM» ^^Ml t^ir ii »<mkI« 
$i%A$ {«i»i;9lla4f ««ajt%&f«iSi «li:l &« na^ ..ti^*4« (Mil ««tetf Uflf 

mt»$ t^tJwii«*X«»«i«r ^*i» T#l "t** c-^ *«»leiYJ-««^i smw^' a«d«»»« »* &bxvaai 

m(^iiT-i9>i£i^^i» ttd^T at "xob x^jiie$ tsmdi Hi U^UM^mv ill •9ittfrij;?iiai m9i 

satf^ !i«s« ,\,oi:ItBwt ft-SjUt-J «f.^ '!"• ■'•■■: -• '* ; -- ::il%q^ ir^D ft»«tCI 

:>i«r "trf^fx tf6>«.nM: nt aft|(0tf -p^i';- ■ : &fmi wti**' tjj^a iiii«i&« m 

,^/ «l»i*X bii^sih voliifiq mii I0 luatU wi» «. rfn*i.>T£ttfi>a« «t»J&9t«tti •«» 
«d^ uol Htin^^ a i^itb (»« ^mwrtti mk fx)t» ^Tuit ui-it imU 

tf«ftii4aat« This eententi«i}> atMauously &!««««• i« ii0t ^vittumt 
•«M ferect litat «• Ii&y« conolttded tkat «• voulc^ aot b« ivMttfiH 
la Mi»t&iaUig it« So«ev«r» w« lw!V« rei&dMd tiw eonoXuBilon* 
afttr a 9»AB«iaktiig «x«»lnAtlo» of nil tlie «irt«««e«» that tk« 
T«rdi«t mt th« Jury* whleh ti«c#«^ arlly aoaft )sav« l»««n baaad upon a 
finding that tlis «i€feiid»^^at c<mtraet«d with %h9 inmtred for psrelimiaaxjr 
ttni laiiur&BO«« Is eXe.irXjr B^ainat the aaaifest «ei|^t of tlm eTidotsoo* 
a thia aaaa any ba triad acftla w« purposely refrain fr«« an&Xjr&lag 
and o wii i iJi tlng upon the erldeiMe that benra itpon th&t vital qoeatlea* 
Aa to the eoatenticn of the defendant thfiit It v&a entltla4 
to a new trial b^c-^nae of nuaierotta trial errors* ^e dees It neeeoanxir 
to x«fvt to only twos 71rat» that the eounael for the plaint If fa 
In hla addreaa to the ^mj» aiade Improper and uajttat if labia atato- 
nrnia of a hlghl,y prtijudlclal nature* It appoajre t^t comieel nado 
otatooMMio to the Jurs^ ^loh tented to reflect on the heaeety of the 
4efoa4a»t eanqpaniyt bu& we find abaolntely nothing In th« record to 
varfent auoh atatOMnta* the def«od<Aat fixtmffll^* paid to the plaintiff 
a maaber of pollolea ia»ue«i to the aaanred* altihouoh t<so of thm wore 
in foroe for only alxteen daya before the (^ eath of tlM aaauxedt awl 
while the defendjunt oa« fit to eoateat the Inatant olala* there In 
nothing in the evidenoo that tOMta to ahow that Ita ae%l«B in tint 
regard «ae dictated by dlaJtoaeat or l«i]^oper aotlvea* .eeond* tho 
defendant o«nplaina that the eonrt erred in refuaiag to ftlTa tho 
following lnatr«wtlon offered by Iti "^fhe Court inntxueta the Jvucy 
aa a natter of Ukk that the defend^it*a repareaeatatlTOf Barney KevonuAf 
had no anther ity to bind d«fendetnt» tnawranoo C«apangr* to any 
eontract of or for InaaraBOo*** We thiBkf tmder the pleadings 
in ihia ea^ and th<d eridenee* this eent«ntion ie a neritorlotto 
one* The applieation signed by the Instired expreaaly atateo that 
*tto absent * • * laaa pover to aaieo » • « any cumtraot on bidttOf of 

« n«|» i»aj»tf osMi^ •TMif 4«Ma 'iiax^^ei»9»i'i 4»i£S9 s'^tiit o^-^ "^^ i9k^f^r 
Xtjaalmklit'xm t9\ hii^imat &Ai ^i«» h-stivjmissifi ^tx«ito«l»& wtft ^iMdl 9«i built 

%\\tiaiJi>Ixi set;; solr I9ai3#»& aygtf iaOi tinxH t€mc> -^j ic^l&s o4 

- s»ii ni ^jatil^j'^a Xl^^i»Xo<»«t8 bait im iti4 tX;(C09M»d Ai6brr»i»^ 

\GKa «» «lRniMt9 «*K»«tf»ai •da«J!)«mt«f) Miftf o.) xHttuHam om JteiC 


Var its aeis «• herein set out tm^ cmtduot la the prcaiMet «aiy«<l 

that part of the lO'lBtod appXioeitiea «Attr«iB it vm» reeiteti that 

tho «|rpllo«jat agrooti that the policy or polieloo loauMi upon 8&i4 

Applloatlon should net take of foot uatiX the first jronlua had ho<m 

pftid to th« defoadant during applio^t*8 good healthy and that no 

•goat or other person oxcap^ing the proeitftntt Tio® pr«r«ti(!0nt» 

■oorstary* or treasurer t or a regtstrar of <iefe»dtait bs4 power to 

oakt tr aodify any ooatnet on hohalf of dofendtiat or to salTo asgr 

of defendant *s rights or reqaireoeatst and that no waiT^r ohouXd 1i« 

valid unless in writing sad signed hy one of th« for«tgoln^ offloors** 

The third ooant also alleges "that Arthur 0* MoOaj and plaintiff 

kept* perfomed* and e«npliod with all the terasf provisiono* and 

agroeaoato entered into between McOay and defendant i that defeadaat 

thoa aa4 there heoaae llahle to pay plaintiff the sua of $5«000, to* 

gather with interest at flTO per eent per annua fr«M the tiao iproofi 

of de&tk were furnished to defendant.* There Is aueh foroo in tho 

eoatentioa of the defendaat that uneer the p?\rtioular facts of thia 

oaoo tho instruotion in question should hawe been given* tho insured 

had tooea an eaployee of tho defendant eeapaay in its office for about 

two years and it ai^t reasonably bo proouaed that ho had sea* 

feaowledgo of the llai tat ions ti^os*^ by the defnadaat upon the 

authority of soliciting agents* He and f^'ewaan were friends and tho 

oorrospondcnoe betwoen thea was aore or loss oonfidentlal and personal 

in charMoter* The plaintiff, in his brief, argues that the defoaiaat 

took advantage of sad ratified overythtag Vowaaa h«d done. But this 

ar»»eat does not answer the contention that under the evldcnoo Rowaoa 
•hi^d no authority te blad defendant ♦ * '^ to sny ooatr^ct »^ <» 
for Insurance." It soem alear to us thnt the Instruction should 

hAve been |J^™^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^ Circuit eourt of Cook oounty is 

reversed end the oauoa is remnded. ft^Vv^iiSBl^ JOn^ F,.'3L".mi(.li» 

Xe.aert 3?» J,, and Orldley, J., conour« 

ft»Ti«v ii»iliiiii «Ml4 ol Hatmmi ita»a 4iM» #»« iuc^^tu-, «<.. ;;,»!«« «#l «! 
#^i 9mtMi^»% torn *1 «4*«»A» «rtl«otX««# k^AMizq ad* t« 4»«q[ #«^ 

tti^sialir i«« tiM>«& »& ^i^»£M«A ««g(^« W9»ll» mitti tfotfoo b^fi^ 947 
ham 49mJt»l'9m^ ^mwmi asK IXs il4l« ftfti&pMd »ait «i»iM(ttK»« «tfpHf 

ois^^tif »Mi* ejij w>tl( jam^ ««« ittm "s^^ wi* *ii..*«i«»4i»,A d*i» i9jftffta 

ttfl(»« .6msi ffd 4iBdt l^mm$m% #<^ i£|ltf«ii9«.»»% «i%l« il bun 9*mx wi 
•AS Imti •txcakti «%.w «uatg|r»u bmsi «B ••toUfiM i|ii4t#loiX»» %• nflti^^'itt^ 

< ««»> wii»jb oifi ^«A^ o»tf%ti% 4^$jtsQ[ oiif m «mdiiiiix« vit •<x*#ftAso*o oi 

^nr MMoiilvf »jiU i^inw loif# «oi^ff«#iioo •iid vm$u» Hm «»•» tooMwu* 

«• to ;roxv«i»iioo xiw oi * * * isi>ftm»\ith laml^ 9i \ii%9AiMM •« btid* 

himtSn maliSnM'iiuwL otf4 dtAiftf oir oii «4Ma:o ruMoo jM *«»Mtott««tt i»t 

, ^ ^ « ^ *«OTia a»o4 ovujl 

ci i^Otfvo jtooO to tY«oo »l»»«tO oilt t* fooi^ftMl otfT 

IRASK fKAl*^* ) 


mOHaj £^i>riiyr mA } cook couktt* 

6 8 I.A. 623 

On I;*e«iii&er £3* X930t a Judgneat toy confeoelon for 
#2»120 vas entered agaiani the dcfesdanta* «b a v.rlttexi leaee 
eontalniag a warrant of attorney* 7rcm nm erder entereiA 
VereaAier 3« 1931» jwLrportin^ td vacate amA set aelde the jud^ 
sent* the plaintiff has appealed* 

The reeerd in the instsat east 1« a ssMewhat imttsttRl 
one* Ob April 24 » 1931» the aefendants filed a Betloa to -?aeate 
the Jtad^eent and to peralt the» to file their appearance and to 
plead to the d&olarati«i» and la support of th« notion filed their 
Terifi««d petition* On May 1 Judge Klarkowaki deaiedi the aottttn 
of the defendaate and an order was entered to th&.t effect* Qa Hoar 
%9 1931* the B^ae jud^fo entered aia order settiag &8ide the order 
eatered on Hay 1* On Hay IX* 1951. the asae Judge entered aa 
order Taoatlng the Judgaent of i>eeeaa»er 23* 1950* On Kay 13* 1931* 
the saao judge entered an ord^r rao^tlng the orders entered on Ma^ 
1* May 5, and Miy U* 1931. On May S2* 1931, the saae judge eaterotf 

the foUowiag order t 

•On motion of s^Uliaa 3* Aaderooa attoraey for defead«at 
itOMUi Sestiaa 

•The eoort hairiag x'e«d th« ▼•rrifttd petition of defoadant 
hereia «vBd taarlag htmH the - rguaenta of couiieel for the resiteetiTo 


'K5^B .ii.i Cl8S 



,, i.- ./r 


• -<.■.-■■;■-*. «-. 

paxtlts Iwreto and being fully adTieed ixx the prcBiBes It is 
ordered thm.% the Jud<g;m«nt h^retofar* entered iMtrcta li« anfi t)M 
■am« is ker9t{y oponud up for th« purposa of pemltfeUtt the clcrendiMit 
ta offer hi* i3«fims« upon t]u» iMiritai that tlMi said Judpmit 1m 

pentittetf to stsxKi ae •eourtty* 

*'It is further order«»d that the Terifind petition upon 
vhieh this order i» ontorod b« pensitt«d to otaiid a« & spooial plea 
and aff idarit of aerite and th£)\i thi» ddfb'rtuaai V« p«j:taiviif« lo ril« 
•ttiA oihor pleas oio he mar deem adTitethX* and th«^t this eause ht 
ft«i fer tri^ upon uhe merits ^3 t.he ^Sio& day of June 19;>1 upoga 
the trial oall of this ooort*** 

On June ie» 1931» the defendants filed a plea of the general IsaiMt 

a syeeial plea and an affidavit of amrits* On HoTCTher 3* 1931« 

Judge wiiiiaa V* Brothers entered the following orderi 

*Thie e^use coming on to he heard on the defendants* 

petition fllr-a horoin on April PA^ *• i . 19:^1 to Tacate the 
Judgment hy eonfesaien heretofore enttirred herein on Deo* ^^ 19S0| 
after '«rgutnanti3 of counet-l axid due d^llbe'-'^^.tion tty the court aald 
petition is sustained and it is ordered that the Judgment hy con* 
feajion h<?r3toforo entered h'jrein on J:«c. 33 '» * 19?0 h» and 
the Btmi is herehy vaoated and sot aside to ohioh the plaintiff 

•Thereupon the plntntlff haTinj^r entered hie exeeptioBo 
h«roin praye an appeal froi tne ahove order of this court; <io the 
Appellate Court in and for thft Firet i'ietrict of the 3tate of 
Illinois which is allowed upon filing herein his appeal Dond ia 
the penal sub of throe hundr«?n dollars (#300.00 ) to he approTed hy 
the Court within whirt.y days from vhis date and ai-ci^y days time 
from this dntn is herehy allowed tho plaintiff in which to file 
his bill of exoeptiontt herein."' 

Xhc inatant appeal is fren this last order. Ko order waa thereafter 
entered in the eauee. 

In Ti«?w of th« Bfiato of the record ae it wae on Woreiftter 9t 
1931, It is plttln th? t Ju^ge Byoth«r& inihottld not hare entered the 
nooless oriii^ of th>it dnte, whieh does not puiport to Taoate the order 
of Kay 22. Syen if ^^e had th«» right to pafee upon the erd«ifr of 
Voresiber 3, 19S1, it would ft-o^il the plaintiff nothing to hare tlmt 
order aot uslde. Ho».eTert the order appcAlod from ie not a final one 
and lb net appe&lshle. In CggPf eto^ v. Clehen et al.. Gen. No. 
35»924 (abet, opinion)* <« yaaslag oo an appeal froan a similar 

order, we e> idi 

"•Appeals shall lie to and writs of error frovi tho 


•A* ftfui 4^ lll»t«il^ b«ii«>tft* ^HHr i|b«rt «i' ^lirf^ ^'rr9ftrt• 


1"% troi;fl^9q. 

'Oil t4 ^RMQhlft 

t^lffOlAiq «jU aviMiF oa 8iiJca« #«« b».>'<i i:)'i»#st»jrr y«»V9I£ 

«mil#9«»Kf' Ptif f/r,TO,'t'^"; r-nlT!^ '^*tfsr'fr>i 
^5 ?^/.,' 



*«<;;■ sfiirf OS s«iri:fo« l^iidlnXd gti{7 XlWi'. bi«|>;-. i| ,XCS?* ,a <%»ifiMV«Tr 


appcllatt or 8Upr«sie ootxtt, t>.» aiay he rIIo^mi toy la»» to review 
the flma 4ue8BWBt8» orders or eieorees of ^ny of th« olrouit 
eourt«» the superior court of Cook county ♦ th*" cotinty courts or 
the city courts; aud otive^^ uourta Iron %hloh appoalo AiMi to -tdtioli 
wrlta of error may 1»e allovod by l»w» in any nult or proceeding 
«t laer sx Ifi <^iiancery«* (Par* 91$ aee* 01» ob« HO* CaMll*s 
111. Rot* St»» 1931 •) A fixxnl judfmont revl*w*l)l«» by appr-ai or 
I'rlt of «rror mu' t be sucii aeoision of lae oottrt is aettloe ttoo 
rights of the parties respeoting the subjoot natter of the puit 
or some dpfinitf and aepaxjite br»ach tii®r©ol and whleh conoludea 
thea until rercrsed or set Hside. ( Orwig y. Conloy. 332 ill. 2tl.) 
Aa order opening up a juca;m«nt by coafeet.>loa and graaiing leave 
to plead la net a final order* but nerely interlooutory, and ia 
rot •appealable* (Sec llarmero Baak of 5prth rieaderaon v» ^te:ife ldt> 
253 ill* >pp« 438t and eases thereia oited} also ^'ayetiaow , f cio oe ▼• 
deleoa* "2?? HI. pp. 4ei, and caces therein o it e J •> Tfie pi'ain iHt 
oites* in support of his eonteation that the order appealed from ia 
a final one, elley v. .noin . 257 ill. -pp. 171, 175, but thftt G&.ac 
has no applioatiwB to the aetiea now before ub« 

»W« hold th&t the order appealed fren ie not a final on« 
and ia not appealable* aao: the notion of .lae d»f«ndH!it£ to uisiaiisc 
the instant appoalt at aPP«ll«nt*8 eowts* is allowed*** (See also 
liean y. Serlac^ f 34 111. App# 233? City of ?nr k Kidgre t . ^urpliy* 
258 11. 3$5, 3e6«) 

Zn support of his oontention that tlM order io an aj^poalahlo oao* 

the plaintiff oitcs the following ouaest .elley y. iaein* 287 111. 
App. 171| The People ▼, Lo ttffj 34«» 111* 6401 H* U* -^dyena to« t» 
Anohor P* S * UTr* Ca«* 210 ill. .pp* 636* .^ch of the first 

two eases Invulvea a petition or isotion under «<;ction 89 of the 
Vraotioe aot* and has no bearing on the iuataot question, '^e aaw 
unablo to see how this <.hixu oa£4 helpe the plaint If/ « 

o hold that the order appealed froa is not & finul ono 
and is not an appe&lable one, and the instant appeal ie disaisaed 

at plaintiff's oosts* 


Keraer, P. J.« and Sridley, J.* concur* 

I -XJL aii::) «XW «0« . > 
•led *iJ[d>w*iir«it *«*3i 

J!)^«!'<W •i.WkJ.'. 


!»■;•; 'vXttJ4la«si<^« £(& «ti "Sf'^aa 9B.i amai^Sxm& .nisi lo aTotitiw* al 

till vast a^»J^ «V Xtj» /^ ie»4j3fiU ;i«l«fOii.'. x4£{tJSj[q »JS# 

*\'lk iiiiulil ndi (i(|;X«ui t*;^ ' 9{f^' woff i»fts dtf «XifA<2i 


P&AKli iX>flE)St 



cdtiPASY* a Corporntloa* 


Ai'^SyO. imoK CIRCUIT 

26 8 l.A. 623 


P«arl Pohrvt pXaiatlff » sued llliBois PublialOng maA 
Prlatiag CaHpanyt a eorporAtl(m» and KTiniiBg AKerieoa Publlahiiis 
Caipaayt « eorporotiont d«fendiaiiiat Is aa &etieB on the ease* 
Before trial the plalntifl' diMlseetf the ^ait a* te the ailaeia 
JPubllahlac (am « rlatlAg Cm^pHijr* There vae a trial hefore the 
oourt* with a Jury* and a Yerdiet r«tttxii«(^ fisidtns the defendioit 
guilty and aesetssisg the plaintiff* a daati«ee at $»»000« Thereupon 
the plaintiff filed a renlttitur in the am ef $2»Q0Q and jnd0MKXt 
itae entered asalnet the (^efcmlant in the tiiai of $3»0(.X)« Thin 
appeal followed* 

The deelaxatioa ceaaiate of flTe oountsf hu& It la 
neceeaaxy to refer to only th« first» vhicAi alleges that on ht^roli 
lit X9S9, the defendants, "hy theaselTOs. their agents or serrantSf 
•snodt operated^ aaaaised and o«atrelled & oertain then autcnsetoUo 
truok shioh was heing driwn by their agent or oerrant in a 
vosterly direction on «»d street at or near the intersection «f 








,A.i y d^ i 


^iuh«»l»il 9A8 actltMlli ^0^tft9« t«i^M»ir £ ^txa «\:xat « tf^lv t^^uvo 

•IMT •000«el 1t|»,4Bn) <mI} til ittp li^ inttkAi^fi bv^olm bmw^ 

•iM«»XXo!t X**«4KJi 

talwvrxoa «» mimtr;^ «iMf# •«9TX'>aaraifIi ^ • sliliilmvla t> %Ai t9StX «XX 


SIXt« »Tentt«« » » * and plaintiff atrers * • * oh* iwt« a p^^ttetrUm 
erOB?liis ael<$ 6Srd street ftf. ttr sea? the iaters»«ctioB of ^'Xltft 
VT«nu« « « • and tb^t sh« «a» at all times la that exvrelae of all 
duo tare and eaulion for hsr own safetyf * « * tliat it was tbos 
and thare tli« duty of the d«if«t>4«atB • * » to oxoroiac ordlaaa^ 
OAro ta tlio axma^oaent* opftxr^tioa and control of ib^lr aaid autoaobila 
truok for the mutelw of tho plaintiff | * * * that the d«f«iidaats 
wholly fallod la thelx dub^r In this hoh&lf • a»d on th« con trarjr hy or 
through their air«nt8 ai^ oervaato negligently ai^ onr«Ief<^ly imma^Hi^ 
•yerated and eontrolled their aaid aatoMobllo truck » * » 00 that 
the wmm ran into* upon* a^ialnet and struck the plaintiff * • «•* 
Tho defendanta filed a ploa of the general laaue* and ale* a apeeiaX 
plea of nonoiraerehlpD tjshleh «a« later withdrami* 

The defeadi^nt hae urge^ ftTe polnte in »upport of ito 
eon tent ion that the judgMent ahottld he roTeraed* hut It io neeeeaary 
to eoaeider only on«» the defendant e<NB tends that ao the plea of 
not gttilty opertiteci u» a dental of tlbfe wrongful aet alleged to havo 
bees coBMltted hy the defendant* the «ittrt erred in refualiMr t* direot 
a Terdiet for the dc>f«nci&ntt for the reaeoD th;iit there «ao he eTldiJUM 
that the defendant* e truck etruok the plaintiff* the plaintiff 
coaoedCB th'.t uaccr the ple?diiigB the hurdes *»»t; upon her to prove 
th&t the deffcu^ant^e trtt«k Atrtt<dc the plaiatiif* but dW costen^a 
thrxt frcdl all the fr.cte nnd eirousatanttoo in the ertse *it oanmit he 
said tltttt the jury &e%ed uar<;&eonahle in drawing the coscluslos fr«» 
%ho evldenoe th»t the vvhiole a^nt, leasee In the decl&xr&tiOB w&« in* 
▼elTt'd in the accident #• ^*^er a eartful rtif>jAiw^ of th^ entire 
evldeBoe we are satisfied th».t the oosjtention of th@ d&f(.'n<:iant Is 
a meritorious ono* The aecident happened on Karoh 11» 1929* f».r< 
7 p« ■• It vaa das^k* But t«« «itn«asea testified t^s t« tlw 

elJCr^ to awl^99««:^.»« '-.i^^ . .;< -m ^n ^»«tI« ftVBd M-«c uUenot* 
XXa 1« MitwiMc* «iU la •«Ma;^ XXm «« Mir •!{» /i4l# Ami • • • MOMV^ . 
B»K# lumr «^ ;r«jU * • * tXit'^tm ffw T".'« -'■"<» mltam hts 9rr««. aifli 

•w»tm%i^hr %»4«X raw iteiifir « plica's* mrosoir t« j3»Xqt 

-«1 mam m>UM%iiloaii> uU ai ti9W»USi9m '»Uld4t <Mli 3<.:ai «»«a»b^v« tif^ 
•'Uim f3A3 t^ 9flll»^9t Iifl^Jia* 3 -K*^ % JTof. wr?*** atf« at s^rlifr 

aeoldent, Abralnm Be^ntstein ttn6 the plaintiff. Bematela, eaXlttf 
>y tlw plaint Iff « Jiad a paper stand At 63rd ctrc^t «ad Ellis aT«nu«. 
Ms t«stifl«d that h« did nst b— the accident and tj»at his attsntion 
warn attvaot«d to the fact th<a an ascld^nt had eecox-rec wImnb h* 
natiotd a crowd of people on 4,yTd street* "aidwajr hetween Oreenwood 
■sd £llist* and that he then saw oooso people lifting up a voasn Midi 
"this vSBsa ctam out of this orov/d* and **! inm end see the truek* ho 
wmm hj the place and after that th^ drirer oobbo and stopped on mr 
stand* and ho is goinc t« take the vobsb froM the drug store* going 
with her* that is all* ^» Tou don*t Imow where thr truok was thfll 
ttf to the tlMe he came with the woasui? A* Bo« »•*£;• ^gsd up to 
the time that he eaate there and stopped you did not se« the trtaolc 
ahjrwhere near the wfsn* did yout a* Ho* X no see hia** Ths wit* 
noso further testified that the truolc* apparently referring to the 
truok of the defendant* took ths plaintiff to the hospital* The 
plaintiff testifier^ that at ths tins in question she was on the eouth 
side of 0^rd street and the east sid« of iilllis aTenue* that sho 
stepped from the sidewalk to oross 65rd street and that she then 
saw a taxi eottia,^ from the -«sst. *q.» I;id you continus on walking 
across the street after yott saw this tax.l*oab? A* Yes* I saw I 
could Make it to the center and X kept ay attention on the taxi*»ost,h« 

* Bid yott eross In front of the taxi-cab? A. Yes* sir* il» ^^.ftor 
you h'id orossod in front o:: the taxi-oak then what* if anythlnet 
happened afUr that? A* '^hy X loeke^i to see if I had cleared tfe* 
track sufiloiently for it to pass and &a 1 turned I was hit fron tho 
opposite side, k* '^horo were you with respect* if you kno«* to tho 
center of Ixty- third Btrevt at the ti»o yon wort hit* were you north 
or south of the center? A. lightly south and I had hardly galneg 
the center* <%• After you were struok by this oar, where wore yott| 
wore you standing up* or wore you knocked down? a* Bo* sir* I was 

acX$a*i>» 9iid laAi btu tMCil^iM 9tU **n tm bift wi fjul* l»mi«»t •» 

ftm lumv A «w $«imx •X^«»« •■»« «>•« r.'»il9 «^ #«<(i baa "««iXX<^^aN 

•tf •Jioii'sa «W »•• fia« ran l" &«« •ftwo^ aiJi> ^6 #«« tauio fiMMw »IjM** 

X^ ISO l?»t««;r« Mstt wm9 rurl'th 9^» *.««S# it»*l« lifi« «»«£« tiW xtf ■«» 

MkiiS a.i$(:' HQinS liAi vtsAt V9ml ^'SO^ U«ir * >/ *XXj» fti ^AflJ «:i«ji diiv 
eill •Xi5iic!,p,uat{ «£. rifui«Xq Mt^ >?-■ ^;» "'=-. 'rfa*«T^ 

9aiXU» no 9Uttiiao3 uo\ «9«»b- «iii «»^:^ i««Ujn»» Ix^^. . i.r,« 

I «.-4M» I ta^"^ '^ ^tf*^- ■ "— - y W-* w»» '^^^^^ '^jH* *»«T#e 9tf# ««o«3« 

tan *, .„..,,„. ... .».^y-ixi»* Mt< 1« 4lI0t:1l «i ««flcss> MOX '*' ^ ' 
Mli t»tiJi»X» bmA I IX 99' ■ <-' '"-:-{■'- '^Im btts»q««( • 

lying on tht •ar t»u»ks« * * * l% -was thft eOttth «9ir t7ftoit«* The 
«ltni»0s» «B erosa^exantnationf teatlfiec tliat 3tt»t \»9f9T9 the aeeld'Hi 
lur ati^miian vaa dlr«ote(S to the taxtetito coming froii tlie west «Bd %luit 
•h* 41^ Mit B«« tJto oaur th^t struck her XufSeve 1% struck her. ^tiiher 
on tlM direct nor on th© oroBss-exaainatlon did the wltneeo tt^t^titj 
to any fficte or oirotauitiuiees £r&m whieh It might \>e resaoKaMy 
inferred that tho rehielo that struck her wn.e the i>Teniag <im«rloftn 
oar or tmy oar otmod or controlled l>y tho il«llfl«dRnt» The sadBo »qr 
b« &»ld M to the toettnoay of B«rasioia« Tho plaintiff testified 
that aXtor the &ecldeut th^r ^riv^r of the tntok "of the -c^vi«b1ii|^ 
jaoriean" took her to the doctor** office* and «he vaa a»ked Iky her 
counsel to descrlho th« driver of iha truck» an^ in response to that 
question she testified that the driTeir said to her that '^ho hoped 
there «ouldn't bo »o trouble* that w«iu the second one he hit in a 
««ek»* Thereupon couasel for the defendant BOTea to strike out this 
tciitiaon:, and counsel for the plaintiff concurred ia the BMtiont and 
the erldesoe was striokon out and the court instructor the Jury %m 
disregard it entirely. It is eonooded* of course* thnt this eridenoo 
vas not coagpoteat* The d f«;ndfijit saw fit to offer no evid«noo» and 
it is perfectly cle^^ that the laaintifi failed to ofi<»x any proof 
In fiu^port of the necessary avcxwent ia her declaration that a Tehiclo 
of th« def^ni^Hat struck hcr« 

TlM defendant inslets that as the plaintiff failed to 
Mil» 9vn a mrfufff^ '^Y^lff ff^90 wo should rer^rse th» JudpMmt without 
reaaodiac the cnuse* It io a suffioieat answer to this cont«ati<Mi 
to say th#t In our Juc^fpaent Justice will he hest serre<2 by a 

retrial of the o use* 

The JudcBont of the Circuit court of Cook county is rereroed 

and the cause io rffiaanded* 

WS!fmWSB AKD limiJI2)EI}* 

Xeraer* ?• J«* and Oridley* J»« concur* 

MKT *»«U>£«» -rtftf^'MMr^rtl'iiW-- .«^a^« "U^ •Ai no %2ii%X 

■t»ji*i«'K **»rf 3li>M"?0a *t sito^Jil ritd Hi^urrSft $>ir.d« %m9 naii »»« tmt kib *lte 
^isffls5* «ett«#Jh? 'j«C3 J>lb s»l*»«l»uc«-4s««Ti*? «ilf* na ten ir^aiia wCl «» 

wisrstea/^ soiitirv'i^ «il# ««*• %^ iL-istts* 5>ii4# ojt^lrf^r «ili»-»«ii# bUfxttnt 

Tad ttf 5?vjC«» *iM^ siis »«£» «f*o*'i1o ii»iii*?»ft^ r^;> »4 itM 3te«* *'iis3ll«ir< 

« at ^Ixl «cc ^ifli@ iMit6t»«iK m: «... .> .d# «»i^«ll»e%w ;... ,.^ ^*n^U;£(«» »%iiiU 

baa «0»li«» »£9 nk bi»T.'mt»mi^ 1ttitHL%J^ ^^ xf^lt l9mtm&» ^mit cju«i^-ft»4 
0i Xtai imC« r^-iiitanimni ttsJii^ mi Ixut 4u.o «stLii^tt9v wmt ^mfthtn mSM 

•X«iii«v « ^sHi nelf«-««Xt>>i'!> %»ff nl jhssntivvx t^9««da9ti tali \« ^»%«<im ir/ 

• •4 a^aiuMw* «MM» mmX •% 

( ]ia>M«a<** 



A».ii«». i 26 8 I.A. 623^ 

Ml* /TtrrXCS SCA3II.A1 MIIV; K;:'u TH3i OPISIOH Of THE COtmt. 

A 4tt«ipwBt toy oonfeaslea ii«8 entered ««aiacit tJam 
dvfend ant 9 «b a «»ltt«n X««m MBtainlng a «ajrrunt of Attora«y« 
f«r M39*75* irhleh ooT«red th» rent «ax«g«d t« to* ««» far flT« 
Mmtha oo&3icenclng Oototoer* X932.* »ikt |«S«7& for uttora«yU fc««. 
SatosequenlJlyt upon motion of tlM dofoscfant* Im ima glToa 1o&t« ito 
appoar aai main dafaasa* t^e J|tutisB«ttt to aWnd im avcurlty* Thara 
aaa a trial l»cf«r« the ooart and a flis4taK aada in favor of ttoa 
plaiatiff t and a Jud^wrat 'ma antared tkat tto* Judi^ant talarod 
toy eonfaaaion stand ooaflmed* The det^TaAnnt baa appaaled« 

Tho j^^Uatiff w«a tho amnex of the prealaos known »8 
SV18 Xortli TaXwrn avenue* whloh ooaaiated of a two*atory liuildizig* 
Tha pialatirf oecuplad tk) groond floor and the daf«Mlaiit oeoayled 
tho second floor for Bcm« yeara* The vrlttoa leaa* whleh fomed 
tlio baf\l« of th@ laatant jttlt ws>» dated March 6« 1951» and »ao f«r 
a iwriod of one year 0MKEu»aelns hay 1§ 1931 « «t a rental of ItS 
a aoath* Ih* defendant teatified that he raoated the preatiiaoa 
ah«ttt A«gna% 10» 1931. th* loaao reqnired that hot wi*er too 
fttrnliAad 1^ the lesaor to the loooee* The defendant contends 
that •there aaa a eovlete and coatinooua fallnre toy nppelloe t» 
fvnilah any hot «a*or in tho d««iaod premiaoa fro» JhXy 29 to 

1^ ^ Qi * il i! -^ \^ 

2HT to ^4 

Wti- ii9b ^ 9* tm^llgi ita^t 9AS te«t«r<5:- • -■--. -,.-■ 

»|itt}^iiiir 'X''x«^«'^)*'^ A 'i^ huHitmim 9t»lMm %mam»t» wiH^ir ii^-^o'^ sire 

feMwrol itoKf* •««»! matsvf »ifT .irzAttic »Mm «i« «©»n &««•:»« tilt 
WX ««}«r iMKs .'•'"^ .-1 jitT.-^Ji' &««*«t> »«iir flmt tat^Hml *i£i 1* alitJMf mAi 


A«^«% 11« 1931«" sad «lalwi m (MNtntruetiire •Tietlon by r«&»«ii •# 
•ueh fsiilur«» aad tltat Iw «a» thtir^fero ^M^tiXia^ In vaotitist tiMt 
prfials«8 !!U«1 terainnilng %im l8as«« il^es the erldeao* for tlu» 
4«f*adaat does aoi support his «laia tha.% ther« «as « owatimisiis 
f«ilttre to supply hot w&ttitr ilurisig %he period la quest l<m* It 
doss tsBd to ilioo titat t9x &hottt four da^s during that period 

there w«s a failurff to supply hot watsr* The cTld«nc« for tho 
ylalatUf is to tho offset that ho furalslutd hot ^ater «iuriag tlM 
•atlrt porlod Is quostieat that the dsf^adaait awdo bo pz otost to 
hlB as to the laek of hot water* sad that the defendant loft tho 
yrsaisos without aottOfc to HJm and vithout eurrenderlag tho hoy* 
Tho dofoadaat adsiittod thsit he took poaaeealoa of the aew j^€ialoeB» 
&d5« Bernard street • la th« seooad iRoek of Au^uat and that *oo 
]«okeo arooBd tlwre for a voek or store at dlfforeat plaooe oatU 
tie foaad thio pl.»eo at Bernard Fitreet aad rested lt«* It tktto appoavs 
that tho defradaat had detemlaed to noro as ear]j as Aofsust 1» aad 
at that tt«o tho aXleced failure to furnish hot water ha<1 offintlauod 
tmly teo or thre& days* Xturing the period In quoBtloa the tenperatuvo 
lo aoaaUy hich« Tho plaintif? ooatonded* aad ivith Jusstifio^Ltioa 
uad^r all tho fn^ots and eirooastaaoeet ttvit the aHoged ooaeiruetivo 
OTlotim was a more pretext adTaaeed for tho fitrpose of evading tho 
payment of the reat. moA wo are fMi.tisfied» after a oar«ful osnolde:fati(Hi 
of all tho ovidoBOO* that the trial ooart vne fully juuiif led ia hia 


TlM on 00 soesuit to h&Tv heea oell tried tuid the defeadant 
raisoo ao (lUostion as to aay ruliag hy the osnirt .10 to admistslMa 
or reJectiOB of evldeaoe aad ao propositloaa of Ijw or fact i?ero 
sttteittod to the oourt* The dofeadaat eitos Laffoy T. .jio qdhw^l.i,. 
25« 111. App. IMm l» oupport of his content ioa that a failure to 
furnish hot oator io ouff ioieat to oaotoia a olai. of ooaotmottro 


vr"* imdi ten iMt^wA t« <•*<* km^i^a ^a cii ,«j»«ic«8 Mjoik^s MM 
Xi^^ttf «.*aiilq; lii»T#tti^ iR vttm ko j164ew - -^^"^ '^*Ai hmtwin b^ilMl 

>?;»iUi(aft xXltf% iilfw #>{«•« lftl74 ME# tfciifl 4*»ll»&lV* 944 XX« to 

«V.v,.';ii.. ■ • J49?!r «I*9fl 9T«i W ftflBtM «»»• trfT . 

•# 5:«AJf J A tma* fMl«i»4rfiift« eld U J»«»«CM oU «<«« ♦ftA •III Mi- 
wiHimttmm* U «»aX» « ci«t«M •# #«»i9itii«, •! «»««« #«! HaUnWi, 

tTiotian* 9aA im AXfpae ^hAt tli« facta is th« iaat^it e&8« ax« 
cid»»tiaitiaIXy tho mm* mm in tit0% e&a«« that LaXfcf cnL»« wm d««14«« 
by thl» braa^ e:? (.te eou«t and %b» f aat« iiiTOlTsd vJB»r«i]i lati^ ao 
r»««ablMM« t» tli»«« is %he iavtaMt «&««• Xa the l^^ffi^ «««« w« 
Iwltf that fik 9r*iu;tl6i«liy coat-iauiag 'i>r«a«!h liy * lasi«l»ra •£ u eoT«RMit 
ia a leaiw to sttjijply liat v&ter for the tto« of a tvaaat out of all 
tlt« nfttor fatteet«» tUftor SB«y coavtlainta liy iii« teaimt aad ff».U.ttt>« 
1^ the lauuioc^ to fttirill paroAlooa to s^m&^j th« aatteat* es»a0ti£tito4 
a ooaietniotlTe CTletiOD* th» f&cto ta tltut oabc showed aa &«gr&i«t«d 
aatf 9«»ii«>to»t vlolntioa of the proTlsloa la tha X«»fi»« to furaloli 
hot vtttor to tho ioaoat* mnA there «a« xio &ttflKq^t ea th« pext of 
ttao plaiatlff to oontroTttirt tbo ohonrlac aa£o hgr the dt.fenciimi« la 
facit his tfefvneo vas tht^t vlol«tioa« of the j^ovlsloa la qaestloa* 
BO aatt^r ha« mmrar&ttft't could aot eos«iltut« coBotvaettTe evlettoa* 
Xa tho iaetaat euaoi «T«a if wo asotoie tkat th« liefeadaat aade oat 
^ pyi aa facitf oo^oo of conotructtTO orietlOBi R«Te3rthel9Kn» that cao« 
van ro1mtte4 hy the rriileaeo for the plaintiff* ami* '-«.» wo hare horo- 
taforo otatodt the trial court ^^e fallow Juotified In hi a find tog 
for the plaiatlff* 

The defeadis^nt ooateada that 'the lower ooart 4!T*-o<! 1» 
dsaytflK the Motion to reayoa the hearing aatf allov thft a4(^itlonaI 
OTldvnee offered •** It a^poaffo thnt oeao tlae after th» trial 
ooart had heard the ^-ridwROO an<S tlw argaaente of th* «o«««i«?l mnfi 
the e^ao had hoen eutaiitt«<i for detezsia«tlon» eoaaoel f^r tlio 
defeadeat aored the court that thr* oaae ho reoy«ied aad either 
a trial Qe novo ftUowed or that adCitiaaal erldelioo »o r eootvad 
be«T,la« on the iaoae of coaatraetlTe erlctlon^ aad la nappart of 
thU aot ion couaael made a lenj^thgr atatewat to the effect that 
he weald llhe to off«r additional evld^oa «ltl«h he olallimi woald 
tead to oapPd^t the defeaae of ooaatruotlT. ^rtctlm. »• irit- 

Xi« 19 iwtt 4m»ti»t » %* •»» «B(4 vol! %«idfMr jTttf ^ (ilf i M i •# •fvol « at 

^tttimi^fr *ru tot 

In auypon of ihe offt^r* Xli« trial eoort a it; n«k err in rvivmimti 
%a lOlaw %]itt uokifiNQ. (Stte J tr^f ffi f y ^jgi^^Jlfai yB 241 111* Apy« 

eo2» 6U-19.} 

^9 axo 9ti.%iAfitHi» after a Tfv>sf ciu-'^ful exaaUa:it>i:» af 
th9 ^riiiimf lA thla «dkSK?» that %b^ JiJca«nt of %]!i« J^usiloipetl 

accrttrdUi^y ao orider«£« 

Kf^ratr* 1P» J»p and ((rtdley« T«t 0<mattr« 

^aa^tfit ttl 9Y& ft»fi iiil» i<XM»» l»l%Si Mix •lv%S« imU le $xu^%yii al 


mamL a* gqssv* 

QG9M Of 08ICa90« 

6 8 I.A. 623 


IB t)i« ISkmlelpal eourt of C^lot«e« E»ti«a«2. Bmul A 
IiiT««tB«nt Coapaiiyt a oorpoTniim^ plaintiff » ol»Ula«d a Juagwrnt 
by eosfeaaloB Agalw^ Maatftl • wohMS* Hvf •adonis la the 9xm cHf 
1920 aTO* oa a proaln^ory aott executed 1>y the d«fea4«at aad nad? 
9ayabl« to the order of Glotrke Motor ^>aXee aad by the lattwr 
indorsee^* without recottroe» to the plaintiff* Thereafter » on 
aratloa of the defeadaatt eupported by effldaTltt the Jud^Mnat was 
opened up aad leave i»aa graated hln to appear aad nake defimoo* 
The case eae tried before the eourtf with a Joryt and at the oen« 
eluelm of all the eyldeaoet oa aetlen of the pXalailff* the court 
directed the Jury to r«tiEni a Terdlot la faTor of the plalatlff 
la the 0m of l^920«70« JiMl«MBt «a« eatored ea the verdlet aai 
the defeadeat nppoaXed. Upon that appoel the deff ndaat eeateadcd» 
later alUa (a) tliat the coneld^rnitloa for the note f&lXed* aal 
(b) that the plaintiff waa aot a holder la due course* It waa Bot 
dlsputce that the ciefondaat could haTe pleaded failure of eonsld- 
eratloa haA aarJte Motor fialee eucd him oa the note. la our 
oplaloa we etated the facte aad olreuBsetanoee thnt pertalaed to 
the quest loa ao to whether or aot the plaiatlff wa» a holder la 
due eouree. aad *e hold i -^e are aatlefled th»t uader certal« 




iHft fO 


OwvO •x\»X OC^^>^ 

A iM»a Xiiwii^a •a^^jiia ^ Ham i^aUiam 99U «x 

•ten ta« »mmbt»Tt»k %di xt lm$if&^af •i^a t«o^>ai«M« a m «0?«9tt4 
wMaX 9di jK tea »•!«» ««t«if Hl«Afi9 te «iAnm niCt •« 9i4syHi 

Am Hitnvr •di aw &»T(»iao aim itma%m^ •er«€iS9f t« iw» mI4 si 
«Miftn»«ii9« #»ba»t»» •i('d^X«»«ii« tMtf mtqfff ^bmimqm tfMta«)«^ m(# 

«»• Bl ,9t9tt «rf4 m «iif t»»ir« a%u^ fieA tutxxS^ hui wiimxo 
oi t9mU»'x9% $xAi 9t»9ttMtmmxi9 hmm sio*! mU t>9*M9 pv «»l«l«« 

fftflta aatf •lroiiBuit«noM ia this octsc th« question •• t« wfcw«ai«r 

0r not tiM plaintiff wa« a holder la du« oourso ohoulA haro boeii 

sulwitlod to tht juxy to tfetenoliict o^d tfa^t th« trial court orroA 

ia tfirtotiim a T«raiet for tli« plalBtlff •** nnd wt reversod tho 

judcMnt an<3 r«Maa4«4 tlte <iaua« for a now trial* (S«» Hationftl Bomj, , 

It laroft twiit Co* ▼» Coliooff S54 Ill# pp# 606*) Hui onoo w«« a0ai« 

triod b«^fore tlur court § with a juryt and tJai«re vas a vordlct rtturnoi 

find lag tii« iosuoa ac^^Utot th» plaintiff* frw» a judgBent #ntor«di 

on th« Ttrdiot th« plaintiff has appoaled* 

thKkt th» eonslderiAtioa for tlK iiot« failed coimot >• 

aerlousljr qutstlonod* But tlie platoviff eonteade tiiat the evidt^noo 

shows it is a l3older of the note in ^uostioa in ''due eoursot" as 

that texa is defined la the Itegotiahlo Inetruaents aet» and that ''no 

sTldeaoe vas iatrodueed in the trial court which shoved or tended to 

show that the appellant was aot a holder of said note in *dtto course*** 

and that therefore "the trial court erreifi la refusiiMC to direct tho 

jury to return a rerd let for the plaintiff on the aot ion of the lOaia* 

tiff at the eloso of the evld«neo and in rtfusiag to gri^t a now trial 

oa Botioa of the appolXast*** la its brief* the plaintiff statot 

that tht oalj questiea is "whether it had kaowledge of the elalaod 

4ofoot la Cohen *s aeto or ]owwled|£e of @ueh faotu that its aotlea 

ia takiB£ snid note aaounted^f h^d faith** The dcf eadaat strenuously 

arguos that aot only was the Jury warranted la hold lag that the plaia* 
tiff took the note with notice of its iafixHity* hat that tha Juty 
Might reasonably hare found froa the erideneo thi^t darko was aerely 
a dtsav 9«y«e and that the plaiatlff w^^e the veal payaa* On tlM 
▼ital issao in the ease* as to whether or aot the plaintiff was a 
holder in due coarsos the jury hare found for the defendant* oad aftor 
a Tory o«refttl exiualnatioa of all the f&ets sad clrmastanoeo 
surround ing the traasf^otioa w« are satisfied th^tt wo would aot ha 

»»T«» tvmo 1«1^ •(» «4tft ten* ,«iiirar»»9il M Turi Mii •« tot»l«A»« 

o£ j^r;.da<t>jr to ^s«(Mla ii9iif«' ^Wds ij»i-£^ -a^t £ti ttoaubot^fti vW »9(i»l»iT* 
«ul^ i'i^xtti tfi stfJt««^'3Tt £xi Sry?"5ta ixuco j(4!i5* «£«•" vyoIs-xmII 4mC^ hm 

ael^j) »tl ifdH Htt»»l dam, %& 9^^twmat t» Moa a*a»d9 > ai ;>o?^<»:> 


•izl«X« Mil igidi :QnXhlMi sti «;7^t adi eitt? ^^Xmo Ion ^^H;^ stiiST* 

XXffttXR t^fW MXmX ^«»l»>t>iT9 9^9 ««<xl teMrt OITMl vitfMWSA^'I lil&l« 

ttiCf R^ *»«x«9 X«»ii »i24 UttlAl^ viltf iaaa b«a ••'^piq; tiMwb « 

M ft«ir tii^al:«I« 9if^ ;ro« to i&d3*Avf •« lut «•««>• *di ak •m»l laiii 

i9JtA bmM ^iit^bHm\i>i f!di TOt j-hniIc ^vmA x*»»i •Ai tMtnoo •»& h1 -t»bicn 

«»aiui«a«M»«lt late tt**! ^* XXj» >« ooliAniMiXx* Itflui*» x^r m 

*d «M i»iii«» •w isid$ l»lt9liM» tY« •» Ml#a«»MKt atfi itaiMMVw* 

varranttd la diutur^is^ th&t finding* Vim 9&at«a%ion tit iha 
ylaiatlff that tti^re wai no «Tid«attt trhiioh shoved or teaded i« 
ahvm tHaft it w«o not a hold or of the aote la doo oowrae* ia vtlthottt 
tlM «Xl^te8t laartt* 

fho plaintiff oonteada that the ooort onrod In admlttins 
in OTldoneo e^Ttsln e^^hiiaits offered *y the defendant* :i^ 
aathoritloo nrs cited in support of thia oimtention* It appear 
that the note «ae glToa to CXarko in a transaotlon in ivhieh tho 
latter :^rportod to sell to the defends^rti. an 9%utoaobllo* hut thai 
Clarke had no title to the onar and %h&% vhllo the oar was la tlui 
yooaoesioa of the dafend^nt* Flx^it '^o^^ptaaoi' Corporatloai imoaitmttrt 
re|>l«?Tla proceedings* In the Bti^rlor oourt of Cook cottaty-f agalnsl 
the defendAst and others* and on the o«a» day thv sheriff of Cook 
county replerled the «tatcaMhilo tnem the defendant and tiimed it 
erer to the Virst soceptaaoo Uerporatie&t and thi'.t on Jaznt^ury 9» 
I92S9 there irna a J«^^»ont mtoved la the sr^id o&aae f indlac tte 
right of property in the s^ld eorpor?vtlon ano order lac thet It hava 
and retain the property replevied* The exhlhits in qtueetion are 
the ehattel aort^Mpe on vhlch vas ISMSLoed the replevin actiont result* 
ia« in the lose of the ear to the defendaat* a»i also eertifiad 
copies of reeords in that aotlon. The argwoent of the piaietlff ia 
support of this eontention so^ts to %• th&t th« eishibtts were not 
eoiVetoat for the reastn thnt the plaint iff -w&s not a party to tho 
roplcTia aatioa* The exhibits were ossq^teat In support of tha 
defeaoo of fRllure of eonoideration* That the instant osmtcntloa 
is an afterthought, and without the slightest aerlt, is quit© elear 
f roa the reeord* 2he defendant testified* without •bjectlcait as ta 
the replevin proeeediags and the loss of the ear* »n€ the plaintiff 
oross-aauaiaed the wita«aa in relation to the saiio suhjeot Matter 
and brought out the fact that the def^nd^at 'had Clarko arreeted* 


.is.cM!»»*b wit tJ* »»ittl« •;Pl«<il!.'?» al^txtm «l>wtbiT» «1 
tHI Mi (Mw M» Mijt •XMw S3iSi bm %m 9d4 9^ *UU 9A >m( «Ix«II> 

-J£iiiUi/t 4;i«il94i oiT^lQa'x )»ilj i»ij«^ *»«?/ a(«i^jri '■ »%« d^js'^'i'i* X»*rf**fcs »d4' 
trUKUlq 8JC4 fr«a ,u« iu<# -ke nwi uk$ im^ ^^,.. .-.-..^-x^, nlT»X«»s «tf^ 

and proaeettttfd ia th« police eottrt for fraud i» th«r natter of %h» 
•alo of the «ur* Mereorsrt at tlw tliM tlm •xhibi%9 wore offeroi 
in oTldenoo tlw pX&intlff nulo »e objootion to ttao introduetioa of 
the saao* 

It i« appereat froK the reeortf antf fron the »]»««nee tMT 
eertatn errors usaotlly aoalgned la aaioeai of thia kUid th^t tlie 
trial ooart tried the «aeo Smirly aiad iiD^rtiaXXy* Th« flaiiiMI 
of the Jiuy upon the ewterlel iet^ue la the Q^ae is oert&laljr aot 
agftlnet tho aaaifost weight of the eTic^e^noOt ttati the Judgnmrl 
of the Munioipeil eourt of Chlo«i£0 should he and it ia affirmed* 

Xonwrt ?• J*f aati Oridley* J«* ooaouro 

sit^ i'^d$ ftoM staU I9 «•««« Ki >wn M t» i>JK x1£^mss0 «t«rs» tUMinm^ 

wtiimM\ «ix . •-a£«i»M«Ht tan i^Kst^ift •««!> i«t» iE»»Jtct num iMk%$ 
ttm xi«t»«iiM «1 mam •<« «1 fnrs»l i:»#iiMlsiiii *ti* mtqstr ygu^. «l» %• 



▼• ) APHSiO. UtOK ]iiariCX?AL COORt 

^'^*- ' 26 8I.A. 624' 


Plfttatiff BUftd Tlwodore Waltcrt dofeadatitt to reeover 
#1»140 alleged to b« due lila tram the defendant %e rtal •»%«*« 
broker** OttBHlsaiMB by reasMi of hla eerrleeo la brtnglag about 
a eontmet for th« oxchang* of proptrtlos botwooa defoadaat and 
ono Mia«k«l and wife* Thore «ae a trial b«for« tbo oourt* 
wlthottt a Jury* and a finding and judjgpnont in plaintiff** faTor 
for th« hffiouat of hie claim* The defendant haa appealed* 

Tlie record dioeioaoe that plaintiff io a real eatat* 
broker and th^X on M^^reh 20 » 1939» the defendant maa to hla 
offloe and lleted certain property» in Chi«&ga» that he owned 
and requeetcK? the plaintiff to aell or exchange the oeoMei that 
the plaintiff produoeri Mathilda Minekel anc iSrdaan isinekoli who 
profeaeed to be willing 60 exchantf^ oertain real eetate belonging 
to then for the property of the defendtixst* and later a written 
contract of exchange for the said properties waa exseuttH'i between 
the d«fendnnt and the Xinekelo* The exchange wae noTer oon- 
suattaied* i*laintlff alXegee in hie ^tatcwent of elaim that 
"eaid contract of exchange referre<J to abore w a later oonMnMttedf* 
but upon the trial he abandoned this j^oitien* 

The defendant testified that he wao at all tlnoo ready* 



T-IUUO J.A^iiJlJil.:i ::. 

%S,d .A.I 8 9S 

•tsffoo aaiv mt ofc. ■. .*« 

«»T«t 9*lL%lt*l*lfi til imm>^i *tUk aKiAttil « brr.9 ,^;virt » <Jf«f«l(r 
• iMXjUKtKJi gjuC jriutte9%»k tiff •jkIaXo slri to ^ommm mM «•! 

•ill AjT fl«M #«ate«!teli 9ia ««£«! «Oft jf»««tt M 4^« tM» T«3trx:f 
«rfv «I»3lt»alX iMilivK ^tm l*Amm aklMdieM iumw^txi ^MiaiAlH iN$i 

•MM t«v«a asv tiiMritox* atfT *9lvA9aW «d4( tioji ti!b)ftii«lft Mit 
^ffteiiMiHimiii 'i9iBl c w ere^A «^ hwi-stl^t ttcuufftiHr ttt ttMn^nM *Imi»x 
%yfunx 99mXt Um in umm m( Smdi h9nii»9t ^«aMi«%*b «tfT 

vllllag MM abl« io oarry ettt his jpai't ef %Tm contraot, and tbat 
Iw MOV MilMkel twelT« or fifttta tiB«e »ft«r tlw vKccutioa of thiti 
emitraet aad urgo<$ him to c««»iitt»ai« the contract* but that 
XiaokoX stated to tlu» dofenSiOitt in offaet* that hfi w^s un^Xo to 
go OB with tho contract I thnt ho fewad hiao«Xf imahXe to fuXfiXI 
tho tonao of tho contraot* It io ttMispated* in the record* that 
tho dof ooblast was roady* ahXo and wUliag to fuXfiXl his p@rt of 
the eontraet. Tho position of tho pXalntlff in the trial court 
and in this court Is thus stated hy him: "^ >hore the parties to a 
contraott for the exchange of roaX estate* enter into an onforooabXo 
oontraet* the broker is not obliged to prove th^^t he prodaoed a 
purohaser ready* willing and ahXo to carry out the contract*" The 
plaint if relies up<m juohkievyi^ r^ st» Ceorno^ 22« 111* App. 3X0» 
in support of hie position. In Ittoas T» aohwarta* 243 IXX* pp« 
4Xd (j^rtisrarjL denied hy the !»uproae court t 24« ill* App« xxxii)* 
the court heXd that in an action hy a re».Xty broker to rooovor 
eoniKission cXaiKod under a contract to find one who «ns re^dy* ahXo 
and willing to buy or exchange with defendants* their signing a con* 
tr? ct for an exch^^Jigo with the party furnished hy plaintiff aakoo 
out a grMm Kmit case for hi» which is OTcroone by proof thai 
tho exchange oontraet was not carried out by reason of the inability 
of the party furnished by pXaintiff to giro good titXo* Aftor 
stating the facts th&t tended to show that atttkis» who was the partjr 
furnished by the plaintiff in that ease* was unable to carry out. 
his part of the contract* the court said* •That being the situtition* 
Stnkls oouXd not have naintained a bill for speoiflo perferBaaoe 
•gainst tho defendants* for ho admit tedXy was not in a position to 
show that he hlmseXf was in a posit i(» to perform. uoh being tho 
caoo» the defendants aXso could not hare euccessfuXXy compoUod 

ant \o 9mliU99n Mtt «9«X» nMdl mt^Ut w •yx»«# iwtfanm «m mC 

9mU iu€ tH«%im» ii$ •t—nwi •! «iit ixiisv Mu tfoniiMo 

9i tt4mm ttMT Ml tAMi (fawtt* nl «tfia«Mi*1«^ M(A oi 6«Ai»4« X»]l»alX 

XXI^Xtft 9^ •X(f4imf tlfmmkA m$f1 M ^ftff* |t»«««so0 «il« jtfiiw ao 09 

led «Tttq silt iXi\X*.<1: ei ^uilUm tes tXtfii ttA««« ami 4as»lM»\9b Mft 

« 0$ a*l.»SiSi<i mU ««ii$ "* ?iai£i x0 ^tM** «ikU «^ tKirc^o *id* tU tea 

« f»9C)i<i>«7(q[ £> ^tin^ 9t tHt^id» ion. si %sii»s€ mlt tloattatt 

tCXfi .^ ^« jjaOftStS itj^ltMEl «»«» a»lX«« * l#«i«I<I 

•il«/ •iXi £*« ,»«»iijij^ e f 1^ . ^^4WM|f4 «i ^snltiBWi. miA to ^««^«ti« at 

tdTMtf 9^ t«(««cr ^C^X.'SV s x«i Cioi^'jc Oil ai ««fl« i^Xvxf jT'xirDo «ri^ 
•!€• t'^ciftM^T •4.1V «dv SfiiO b»lt 9^ ;f%R^;irnoo a Y<>tMHf ttoMlAXo aolaalamts 

#4iili loft's^ xdi •mttt'iftr^ tti «U»liiv «&£( irfft <!»««9 fjfifrl (MUlt « ^"^ 

V^«q ftif^ »Atv ttifir «8itfK#^ :fgji^ vHMfo •« l(»!ltt*t «»^;t «^9£t d({9 BBitiR^R 

^&o x<^o e« oXtfAnr •£« «»»4»a #«fji «| m#«l«X^ «>i!ftf xtf k^Mmtman 

•Boi^itir^ia wf^^ S«i»i^ *jaR" ihim ituo9 «i(i «*«.««<<»» •«(« t« Jt/*^ »i£s 

«onraarx«lT!Ki »ltl9*<i« te\. Xlitf a bvni^iiiMi tiir«il !•« tXvao tXiirt. 

e# noijipo^i M tU iofi »«« \U^<)^l«i^ Mf to) «ai«ioiwt«'iej> Mf# l«aia«A 

Mf# anlatf zioi; .juTol-xoq oJ mt4l9Wi a «r«ai7 1iX«aMM «ci 9m$i$ m^ 

toXXa«n» iltalsaoooifi ^iFait ^on bX0O» oaXa tft«Ci>o»»)oft Mli ,#««» 

ttf9itie perfomsB«t* tharefort, tht esatr&ct wsia not auefe a, 
eratrnot &b ^aultf entitl* th« pX&lB&iff io 6b« ooaniasions h« 
e2At»«4, Jgaklgjl ?» /toI3LHigfi^rt» & ^i^t^ 33 IU« App. 139| 
CaS5^oll.JV?,Jsl*!ffiS:tfiaji X70 XU. xpp^ sm** tlw eourt also die- 
ttBgul«h«e Ka8»l»ijwi«& y« 5»> g<»yfff .t maat&f, upon tho f«.ets« 
la the InsttiAt ea8«» tT«a li %h^ %9s%imm^ of tht defendant t© 
ill* *ff*et that Hi»«;]ceX was im«ble to e&yjfy out hia par* «f th* 
tfOntrAct l»» haaresy in lt» jB&tttre» nevettheleeat the plaintiff 
Mwi* BO objeetlon to Us iBtro<tuot ion » u|»en that ground » aad thearo* 
f07« It Hust ho eoaaldftred antf g^rmn it a natural proh»ttTO offect 
ao if it were in 1&^ adteUalhXo* i^s« ^^ft» t« Upit «i utntoo^ 8SS 
lU r,. 442 1 oco also Sa^or t* ^ Yonoh* 23S 3« s. 12«, 130 •) Tho 
plaintiff made no att««ipt to rehat «r i^p^oh this toatinoay of tho 
dofendnntt nor did ho latroduoo my oiridoneo tondlag to show that 
Hlnolcol was roitdy* willing and ahle to oarry out his part of tl» 
eostractt and his position so«ms to he that th« ooatr'i>ct» upon its 
f*o«» is an enforcoablo ono and th«it tte d«f«ndnBtt »«r«ly hy 
tntering into the *im»t oulignted hiiu»olf to yay the plaintiff tho 
ooamisaioa or«n though it «hottld later appear thsct tho Minokols «er« 
not ready* ahle and willing; to perfom tholr part of the oontr?«.et* 
ruoh io not the Xtna* 

The d«f«ndaBt has oajnsestly argued that the e»iia« shottXtf 
ho rercrB«d hut not reauaaded* hut ^m I^t* reaohet^ the oonclusiOB 
that justice will ho best oenrod hy a retrial of the eauao* 

Tho 4ttdfl»ont of the Municipal oourt of .hioa^o is rerorsod 
and the c«use is r«Miad«d« 

wasfmam jm iRm^mim* 

Xornerf !"• J«* and Oridloy* J#* ooneur* 

t^gi •mi*^ •ui «e jgiiait AJteMMWMfiii ii mMbhI v***!*^ 

.9ti» <w£fl <«rM ttft «»«i< ttiA tti£l 391 litWlM l i . l i tJiMlilL 

ttf ^»i:wK «4tttfMWt»d «tftf ^«^ tea «■» «iMiw»WUl» am ml «Mftl 

» ■ ' 



f » eorporatloBf 

cornet or omc/^Q* 

26 8 I.A. 624 

m» avsf xci- scjjo^ur i2iajYKRSi» tsb opisioii o^* th£ coim;« 

TlM plaintiff Bttvd the defasdaat im an action In emi* 
%!««%• TlM»t was ft trial ^^fore th« court* i»ith a Jury* and a 
T«rai(»t xetttmec finding t2i« isenes a^inet the <J«>fendant syuS 
aeseauiaff the plaintiff's ^imnM^s at the am of 1350* Aidflpeat 
was entered on the verdict and the d fcndant has appealed* 

The action wr.a brou^t widor a poliojr of aooldent 
insuranoo for disability benefits* The policy ened upon io 
kBo«i as the "Oterling ^enn3r*A»Daar accident ^lieyt** the annual 
preaiuB of which is |3«65« For the j^irposes of this appeal 
it is neeessarjr to consider only section 5 of the Oeneral 
i?roTisi«i8 of the policy* which reads as follows^ "Vhis insuranoo 
does not coTcr any « « • disability for any period during whieh 
the Insured is not under tno professional oare and regular 
attendance of a physieian or surgeon other than hiaself # at least 
MSoe every seven diays*" The pertinent parts of the affidavit 
of merits are as follovsi * ffiaat states th»t the ol&iM heroimAor 
io on a policy of insurMioo ieeaed plaintiff herein* by tho 
defendant I that the said policy * * * provides that if the insured 
bo imed lately wholly and ocmtinuously disi^bled by the Betaio 
•ad under the oot^itiona set forth in the said policy » and bo 

tixoifrau m^m ^ua.%^j< 

'^S9 .A,I b 



iMn» ts»ftai*ttt^ ^sii u»i^Kit» iMMII 'fillip s^^jMsH '>3»imr#t^i 9»i.bK*Y 

ifoMw ^Itsfb l!wiw« -pUi r-"^ .,»r».f .^w.. <» > * ^ggg, ^e^^ ^^^ ,«l^5 

x»Xws<»'x IMM etAO tmi0-u^.:->Aaifi ■ ^ifi »tm mi ktrtttmml Mf4 

ilwiian^ M(i to 9Hj»^ itamlfiL^ silT "^a^^^ «»T»a xrnw «9M 

99^Mff^ Mil U iuU ■4ibiT»«« ♦ ♦ * t»iX«2 mam m0i imtii %twilm»tQh 
•# tat ^^iimi U— 9di ai iAi^9\ to* •tni*Uiu» «i<# tvbav btM 


pr«rreRt«£ by l£ijurl$s eo r£teelTe<l fr^» p^rfoniing wiiiy and ev««y 
doty pert&lalag to lUs astud oo«vq^ti«e0 tint dftfendMst would 
IMiy for a p«Tio4 of aa« d«gr or iaor»t (M»3 n&l «x««(?<$iii« t«r«itiy*foiir 
MBaeeutlre saontlta* Ind^flBniiy at tlte rate et 1^100*00 per notithi t)m% 
Ui« plalatlff WAB not* a» a r«BaXt of t^ lajtaritta a«t tixtth in tJm 
•%»t«ttO»% of aXai»t tisnie«t lattt3iy viholXy and mmtlntftousl;^ diatablot^ ftm 
* p«ri«d of four Bonthsi «nd jnreToatod toy th« Injurlos oo reooivodt 
froM pftvfoxmlas azqr fta4 er^sy <3uty pertaining; to hXa unwskl oeoii^tiOBt 
for m period of four i»nth«» bgt o« tlm ewn>rary »ltoreo f« atttt oo tl^f 
Iftft to »»_JtlMtt l)l»]lliantiff va» toiaUy dlyaUod »y tho ottiil tn.tttgioft. 
i»x,mT%'lx.3,.mJiH^Pt..%3m^wmM»t. titfet «l»d»r p®<t»rRX Provtyiwig^ „. 
PMTMsr&rti (pectt og) 8. * * » it i» BTOvidod Utot UIUb i|a«troaoo 
<— PNit_o*T«r_».^^*„*„«jLiia)tUity f r ^y poriod during wht ^ the 

«l_Ji. ^SBTcleijH J^^ eA^£!?m oth«exJi^i&.^l^ia«lf .,. at, lo»ojL j»«OjUgrery 
oOYCtt dayoj* that tho plaintiff kMnrola* ao a rossiilt of tho imlA 
iAjuri^o* w&e vuvi«T tho regular attoztdanoo of a phyoieiaa la 
aeoor^fiQeo vitfet thB said proTieion* aorely for a period of two 
vooko* 'hoTttfore* affiimt otatee that the dofendant (plaintiff) 
ia oatitlod tuider th« oaid polloy* to atrely the stoa of $B0«00* 
ooYoriag two weeko* disability^* 

Qio 4«f«ndant oono«d«8 that tho plaintiff vao tmdor Um 
oare of a phyeiclan on dept«id»er 2« 3 and 10 « and th^t tho mmm 
yliyoioian troatod hia affiiii on Oetohor lO and 17 » iier«wb9t 20»ftBd 
J)«e«a)»er 24* and that tho plaintiff otOlod at th» aaiio phy»iotaa*n 
office for troatumt on January 6* 15* 20 and a?, Tehnia^y 14» 21 
and aa* and Unx^ 15 an4 as* and thi^t all of thoae tre&tiaontn 
wore ft tho injuries suatalaod in tho aeeid«nt« But* the defendant 
oontoMs %]mt *%h» plaintiff* as a result of the said injuriea^wan 

tii«l<^#i»«t SBtAavac* ^m fan* ««»««« i* t^b fmx> to lr«i*t»% « wt Xi« 

j|g|__K-.. ^ ^ -- "..^ «»i(4»tiiKii 1B«T: ^e fc«|-x"9<i A tot 

JK>'- ^ ■ '■'■'-'''' ■■■' 


teKtOH «««MT«'4 ««*! bulk ^ ic«^j>oO no aist^M mm te^inU iui»icx< 

IS «M T»cn!tfaf: «rt Mm Oft «fil «a ^wiriiMb ii« *c»»Mt4si>'St t«t •»A^1» 
9im»mtm*$ a«Mft %• XX« ijitis tmti t&i bmt U 4»«^K aoa «Gii ten 

UBdsr tlM xmpMjjut attendrxjios oX a pbyaiolsa la aocordance vith 
8ai4 proTlBlon (eeotioB 5) M»r«ljr far a period of two weeks § 
tliAt tiM plaintiff «&s entltlod* undt^r the poIic!7« to tt^reOy Ui» 
««« of $50 covftrlug the two weeks • d tsablllty," me sub of 
^50 VTAS paid by tlie defendtuit to the plaintiff, «m4 the defcndnoit 
coBteiide that tmder the sftBifee^ weight of thi.' erldcuo; ftud the 
plain provisions of section 5 the defendant was obliged to pay 
the plaintiff, under the policy, no more thnn thn f&O* 

Oa Septeiiber 1, 1930» the plaintiff was Iniured In aa 
autoBwbUe accident as the restat of vhieh he su^taiaod an uyury 
to «ae of his lags. The following ure excerpt a froa his 
testiaoay as to the extent and duratim of the injury i Aftm: the 
aecldent* "X notleed when i tried ta get up aad «alk» Z aauldn*t 
•taad on the les» * * « It hiart «« bad* it pained «•• • » » ~^lun 
X sot to Chleo^o I went dlreotly hone «nd called a d etar* * » • 
X waa aov ehle to stsMsd on a7 foot th«a, 1 was in bed* • • f X 
w»« ta ¥ed orer a oonth* I gttoao* My leg w^a bandagad during that 
time* The dectar bandaged it aad aaaeagadi aad put on hot appllOHtions 
aad things like that* * * » Pur lag that tlae, i could Just go about 
aa far ae the washroeii oa erutehea* ao that for a noath I wee eonf iaad 
to ay bed la ay own roon and the only tiaa I left it was when I w«at 
to the waahrooB* /\fter the fir at aonth* I did aat ga about ay 
bualneaa, I would ait arouad the roaa with «y foot baadagad up aad 
alt wa a ehairi aoae thing like that* I aat Hrouad the reoK with 
ay foot bandaged up oa another ohalr about two aentha I should 
ludga* Daring th»t tlae, l Juat waXked aromd the floor with 
trutdhea* 1 tried to susttain ay weight on that foot without the 
aid of eratcdiea* but I eeuXd not* it wna too aore* I oould not 
atttid the pala* i^urlag that period Z did not laawe the houee mt 

9il^ biw i&mnif art* »« Waiw l#»1i^mMi vH "ksIww *M« «te»«MO» 

«i-ii->U:.-ji£qq« ii^ tt& iisq bam hnng^idMt htm *l kmjiMlmmi «»#«i»A tftHV •Mrl;i 

diiif «&•? tri^ b«ttiei:,<) jr^ts I •#j)tf4 «9tfiX i|itlKi9iat>8 9%litdt « no 4'lt' 

AXmMte I Mf^lMMT mt iU9d» ti»a:» ic«eU«f!» «• f» b»)|«MMr ^tM») \0ii 

tf^lv «#•£! •«tt tanriA lb«<XAT ^«iit t «Mtti ^«iti^ bai<su^ 'tlto^ 

^dn I^XiMo X ««to« •ti^ an» #1 •Icnr t>lif«o I ««tr ^•^ibi^j^'xo 1« U< 

any ti»i« 2i «a« tax ot thrtte w«ih» b«f»r« I left tlM hoitstt 
•ft*7 tbe tajuzy* I did nvt rotura to ny tvcrlc «ft«T %l9»t« 
I Xoet sajr Job bec^tts* I «<»uXd not i^hov up when I v«» ^IsaJiXod, 

• * » It wae nrotmd FebniP.ry of tiw^t 7««4r whea I got rW ftf tho 
0ritte!i9« art*! t uaed a e«M»« * » *«- z oouXd thee go ottt o» tJm 
•tr««t end 8as<taln i9|$r nrol^rfet on ngr foot wlttaieat too auaoh pftln« 

♦ * * I land « Aoetor* Ht« i»hi« was B«nj|«mla Grottoh* He «»« 
th« dootor I Qallod the first day. S^llrot ^ock ho was tlwrf^ 

«««i*lii„.i»Jh:oit„o©jping .ftyfmrt oircry wooii^ * » « Ho tr«at«d mr log» 
He pttt on hot appIio«»ttoao and natoagod it asm baiid9i;«d it and thlagii 
like that* H« took o»o Xore^t that vs.» a)»out th« first Ko^k*** 

The ddfendfiat eoat«»d» tl^t section 5 of the polioy 1« 
iwblgttewa AX^ aniot be otriotly eniToreod >/ the eotarto* Tlio 
jUtkintitt argtto?'* aisd with eonslderablo foroo* ths^t that aectiMi 
oho«Id bo reaeoaably oonatruod la tho Il^^ht of th(» admitted faoto 
i» tlM oaao* 82)4 ho eltoa Hgtional: Lifo Ina* Co» ir* g atyici^ ldj2 
K» S* (Ohio) eaOt 631 f in Rapport of hie content ion th^tt «t«b if 

tho faeto were ao tho defendant eoatoadOf aeetion 3 would not bo 

loteii^«tod 00 ae to defoati^eeoireiry* Aowerex* wo do not deoi 

it Boooosary to pats «poa thlo eontonttoa of tho defendant* 

file defendant eon tend u th&t "the xuMalfcst weight of tho 

OTidenoo shove that the plaintiff o»» not treatc^d by a ptayiiiolaB 

07 aur«eM at least oaoo every eevoa days for a period of four 

■entho after the aoeident* but on the eoatyary for a pt^rlod of 

only approxiaately two voekst" and therefore ttad«r »t?etion 9 

*he was entitled to ben«?flts under the polioy nor 1> for that 

period of tl«e, which ho was paid." Tho plaintiff testified that 

for about four aontha after the accident Hx* Crautch "kept eoMlsic 

,#4Mli T»n« llttW t« •* OIW* .VtWtCi rfi fS^Ut 

wtti t* fcii ^o» i flwriw tJM»x *J»^* *« x*>*»«*»' iminrtn a«f *1 « * • " 
•lU ffo #«• OS a«d4 ^vXtfoo I '^ * * «me(i9 jk &«•« 1 htm Mitoitaw 

99/UA0 ketrn $i b^^tshtati btsa it bv^Mmmm bm «<ipA4«9iX4|t« ^ttf w iuq. »K 

wfT *Li%tm9 •Hi %ft t—xsittust x4,i9i'*i9i ««^ i%am bmit nfrntn^dimam 

m»ii9»m i$aii t&it 4««7«1 tXtfjnefrittMM ii^lv ikr« ««MqrM ttistUsIH 

e#04il >»Jt#JUiito sxf; t'n iA^l mdi nt ittnitatib xtitMomMt •€ kUwtm 

U: ai»T* >;«if4 «»J:j»n«^a09 »ij| lo $r»fi%am mi tifi^.^ «0&d (oiii% 

»<9Afta*t«tt mU to oai^mioM «JU(i «»^ wNat uti xitiW999tt ii 
AAioiti^^ a Xtf !i9ia*>iii iwx taaltg wAi ituii uwdm «M»bJT9 

imU h9tUimti niitUMlq, ttft %M«« M«r ttif itolifar ^niii !• ^t^m 


B.rwm4 etmrf ««e1c»* wti gxwe him tr«ate«Bt» at ttaek o«ai« Br* 
Crouteli «Jia tt«t *eatif^» ^t the def«jidaBt i>!trodtt«cd a wri«t«i 
statement SAde ^y tfee deotor aad '^faioh was sulnitt«<; t« tlui 
d*f*iid«at e^OQpEdijr as "I^hyaioian'* ?4i»i Proof ©f vooi««Bfe.* T^ 
•tatoMntt made ^pon • porlntod form fU7nish«<} by the defeiidjAiit» 
Mad iM Hhl«h the sp?.G« for rma^crt Is rety Halted, oo-at&ies» 
i»t#r alia* the folltningt "9* Setv«@ii what diiitee was olalswnt 
strlstljr and coat imwtiBlj conftn??d within the house? Sept» 1st 
IWO Jtta* Sad Sl« 10. (Anwwsr) The assured vem tetalljr aatf 
shsolutely disabled fr<w performlns all his ctttties frsB dept* 
1st 19S0 ts Jan* 2na 31 < 13. On wluit dates 4i6 /ou treat 
hiM »t yotir office? Ja»« 6 • 13 • 20 • 27 y«b* 14 - 21 - M 
]l«T«li 19 • 33< I^. On what date a did you tvvat Inim at his hooMlT 
S«yl* and - 8 • iO Dot* 10 • 17 HOT* ao Doc* 24* 15* On what 
4att was he s^blo to retiuno |M&rt of hits work? /^aswer Jan* :^fi 1931* 
AH of his work? Answer still on Crutsh* Id. Bas on X-Ray of 
olalMMt ho«n taken? ?«s* if so» vh«n and by vihoa? 3* 7* Oroutolt 
Jati« «th.* Thin statsMont was 9rR«ti0Ally all of the evidaaM 
Offered Iky the defendant in defense of the olaiai* The defendant 
arsueo t]»t when the te^tlaeny of the plAiatiff and the writtea 
ssateaent of Dr* Croiateh* touehinr^ ths point involwed in the 
contention of the d^f^ndnnt, are oensiderec ioge%imx9 it is 
cf ident th«t the aianifest «'ei^t of the ewldtsnee ehows that the 
plaintiff «»s treated 1»y a pJisyaioian onee ewery eerftn days for a 
yerled of only two weeke* "e eannot acvee with this content ion 
and KO feel iaipelled to say that th» defense interposed in tMe 
ea«e» in wi«« of all the undisputed facts* dees not appeal to otur 
sense of jttstioe* v/e axe tnclln4d to agvee with whrit was said 
in ^tiUnrnl ^-*^* ^"^ ^* "* g>*'^^»^' »"g^^» ^ pasaing upon a like 

8«5 - f s • *jt ♦*«« ?g • OS • ex -^ » .fswt: v**in» x«#t t^imid 

"TfisjaafC «lif *« M*fJ- ♦est* i*©"^ ^ji?» k&J»r6 ^«f>^ tf ♦SS - W lf»««a 

#s«d['^ no ,^ •*« ••»a OS ♦Ytss VI • «i »»«iO «.»; - f. • bus .tfiiff 

9»^mMv^ *dS t9 IXA \JLi&9t$^mtn mant $tmm9Mim tti^ ^Hi^ ^suii^ 

••llnwiMtt «ii(« ii#iv aMQi^ iitHuM 9 •43f«(»» 9frj» Xiao 1« &«lt«i;' 

Attti luiw ^M<if ir#Jtv mtttm 49 MmUmA m,e « fr>Xf»tft te ««R»*^ 

49t9nm9 u&dtr a siallsx »tatt« af this record* 

?fa« JudpMBt Of th« MuaieijE^ oourt of Oblca^ shouliS 
1»e and it 1« Hfflrwni* 


•■■;^«!afr'^ , . •. .■".:■::■._ ,,' -■ »'X9afz«3l 


mum BAXx 07 cbic so. 

«i,,««^M. ^^^^^^ j 26 8 I. A. 624^ 


71b* cM^i^laiiiaflt fllvd Ite bill ta for«olo»<> oert&ln 
9r«f«r%jr In Cock county and thereof tor the cfa&nonllCT* upcm 
MOtlMi o:f tht eoaqpilKixmctt appointed & roeetvwv* Boxviard ilalto7« 
dof«R#iknt;» appoaled froa ilio Oi'<l«T api^olatlag tlu» roo«lTcrt aadi 
thio oeurt* in gp t^n Bm tilt of ciitoRg* r* Bgarenrg C« i<uat»y tt f»3^«*,„. 
9on* Ho* 3dS5<:)t roreroed tbe order for Um ro»ii«n that tlue awom 
bill did ao6 tfontaln sufrielimt alldg^tloas of fatttt *e dlBtiB^ttiohod 
fra« aorc eonclttniono* to 4^^^^^ t>lU! order* aa4 for tlM* furthor 
reooeii that titer* wore ao flzKilBts of foot eontalnod la tlM ordor 
fthowlag a Boeosalty ittt tho (RFpolataoat of the reoelTert Mnr «»• 
thoro anjr •ertifi<mte of i^irldeaes fllod Iji th^ e«ttoo» After tlM 
eoiiso ha4 bo«a relaet&tod* the c(»BQp>lAiaaat filed a Terifled osonded 
Mll» to vhloh the defendaats fllod a yloa to a eertala yoaragrAph 
oad oortaia ouhaeotloao of tlie aome* deaayred to another |mjra4p>a9hf 
aad fllod aa oaaoer to the reaaiader of the tolll* thereafter » 
apoB Motioa of the ooaflalaaatt » reeeiTor «a« ap^lated and 
Bomard Halter* defcadaatt a«;ala iM;>poaled« 

Tho appellaat oMUteads that "before hear las eridenoo oa 

^^29 .A.I 8 as 



^'A^-'s^'jL .AE.,mim 

ttmw mt «)» wncn^ «t ouwiucbs kmdwm arozYsia •hm 

i«itl»lBllajEi» aA «#«») \<t MUilt«||t;Xi» l«»i«inii« ttl«^ll»9 #«a bib 1114 

turn «0fl riwYl^ffftt -siH^ 19 twmtnk^^ei/^ t^ %«1 V^^^^mm m ynliNMte 
fctt w — bi»iVtt9jf m JMiXll toMcliiXigpM t^i %h9$Atfim9r u—4 batL mutmn 
«^«ti«v«« i«it#otttt •# tei«jM»ft «MMi MU %• *aal«»»fii<fiy» ftiAAittt Urn 

MM fr»««l««q;4R MAT T«Tl»««a « tiCUMaAXlPM IUt9 t* P»iimi MfS' 

fl* M«»friT» Baiv«*tf •i«io«r« ^j^i •M»«nM «iuxxn«i» mtt 

the suffloi«aey of the isiieurity, the court should h&Te <!iepo»«d 
of tte yloa and Aematrer to parts of th« ^UI** It U a oufflotcmt 
imswor to tiila o<Bite»tioii &o any tlmt the defeadHjato awHe no atetlon 
to liaTo tlio eourt dlepooo of tbe jtLoa aad ^emurr«r l»«fwre paaolKg 
upon tl»« ■etiea for the appointiMnt of a rvcelTor* MUi It appoflon 
froM th» bill of exeeptloas that eounool. for thu 4fit<^,n4^ja%» not oaXy 
tfia not Qhjeot to the h^aringt hut latroduocrd erldeiioo lit oppesitloa 
to the notion* oad &t tho oonoluislox) of the uvldvBOo statotf to tlM 
Ohwaec^llor that tho def endanto woiro tiillis« to kniro hiai paes upas 
th« aotioa. Counsel atovMdt Apparently* th^t tiM deolslmi of tho 
ehoae«llor would ho Mig&last th^o MOttim am& was* therefore* farorohle 
to « Bpoedy decision of th«? oaao* The instant eontentioa ie ele^rly 

an afterthoni^t and without aerit* 

tJM Appellant next oonteada ththt *the crldenoo ele.'arljr 

establishes that the preaisoe ere a4oq«ate seourity for the aaeuat 

allosfrd to he due and the appointment of a reeeiror was elearlj 

against the weight of .he eridenoo** 3>'o aro unahlo to agree witll 

this eoatentioa« 

Wo have eoniiidered sororal other extraauely teelmieal 

eontentions ftad find then urithout suhstantial laerit* 

The interlocutory order of May 16* 1932f of tho 

Superior court of Cooh county* appointing a reeeiver* ioafflrsed* 

Kemor* ?• J«» and Oridley* J«» e«ioure 

n»l}|«»^« 111 ••«»hlT9 il«»«fi>re^fKl isKf «3AJtt;«9«f id^ o< io^ttfe iToa bid 
•rf^ ol i»#«J^s •Mt^feir? ajii lo tmt¥iUloa&'» «iftf d^jt tea «ii«irf«ic ^Ai •# 

•cl< let a»i8i«i»b wAi iii^s 4%i;jrB'$:&j^^ (Immwssa i»mmt9ti »9»iim mU 
^■x«9Xe igAf/ -£9iri- t& iuisia4ttit^t9ja guM iww «<rb i€ »4 ;) -^iisXl* 

> / ^ 





coos OOHSTY* 

26 8 I.A. 624^ 

ir.. ramiGd scahjoi x>ia«iV7i3i^ ths ^^iifxair o? tan C6U{<7« 

ItedO. Mtudlert e«H|^«ii]UUii« ftX«d l^« biXl for foritoloftiuNi 
•f tovialM pr^Htrty loimtttf in Cbio^^o* aad Salter F« Waish» w of 
tho defend oat a and the owner of &1m o%iiii&y of retfrnqrlioa* h&e &pj»oaloi 
froi OB tntorloeutorjr enier appoiatiiif a roeeiTor* 

iOie Terlf led liill oXiOiiea* piX ^t <t3H# » ^Ixi^t M looeab«r 
15 « 19S!7« Cfltrl ?ooh OHO Marr 3?oeht hio vlfo» Oefeadiiato* beinc 
Indelited la tteei prlnelyol mm of vft5»&00f oxoouted and deltvorod 
tlMlr TV principal aotea of oald dato^ payotolo to order of bonrer* 
as followo* i*'lTs aotost inclufilag note mmStrnt fiH» for |5<MI eaoh* 
due Juae !&# 1929| 2S aotes for ¥500 «aeli» d(U» rospeetiTolyt 
ftTO oa Jaae 15 « IdSO^ 1931 « 1932 t 1935 and 1934 | aad 9& tmt d&OO 
oaeli* 20 for lltOOO each* and 5 for #2»500 eaeh* duo I>oe««fh«r 1S« 
1934 « all with latorost at olx psr o«at ]^t aonint payalklo aoat* 
annually • oa the 13th day of Jtme ir%;id I^ec^nher of eaeh jomr» whii^ 
InoiallBaBto of Intoreot are oTldeaoed hj latereet coupoast boarias 
latercet at aeroa per o«nt per anaan after due until pald| that 
ooMplaiaaat lo the ouaer of oae note* BUiAier 5S« la the prinolpal 
•aowit of $500t dtto oa Jane 15* 1929» aad n^leh v&» aot paid oa tha% 

„v n..vr >•! •7:r<cj:i 

j^gB .A.I 8 8S 

« f»«iXr*<jJsiA 


« '-f-vijiirsjj ^tiit:?.' 


-v!? ' > ■; "iiJ 

ial«i*tf ••••Vireft 4»ftn*#ta t^ ft«««»ft^v« •«§ »n9>ii»sai lo «««««£JU4«til 

. if. »iaiX no ♦▼il ^ 

^»te tUM still Jtnmiiina unpstd at %hie tim» &t filing suit dett^ltc 
Baiaer«U0 A«Mlld» for payiumt iSAd* liy tli« eosa|>Xain&a& f (hF«t all •! 
the snid a«t«a i»xe e««ur«<S ^ a trtt«t d»«4 u:pon the preniavs in 
qucBbieat dated S«pt«aA»«r 1S» 1927* t* Citisiene Siat* Bank of 
ChlOMgo* aa tra8t««« Tha bill furUMr alleg«is' that the trust daetf 
e«»baies a proTisioa that !ji case there iu a default la the pafu»n% 
•f i»rin«i]M90L or interest th*R the »h«le indebtedaesa* inoluding 
^iaeijpal and all earned iatejrest* ehall» at the option of th« legal 
heldex* vlthaut n0tioe» beeeae in&ed lately due asd payable • with 
inteareat therean fraai tiaM of eueh brei^eh at seTon p«r eeat yar 
(koauat thrit the trust deed further j^ovidcs that *ia ease the right 
of fareoleaure or ether ri^^ht of yroee^iar^s shaLI Hjti!»« U3td<i»r aaid 
trust 6em^f then tlt^ le^pd holder or holders of eaid principal notea* 
ar BMsr part ther^uof » cnr tih»« ssiid trust<irt' for banefii of such holder 
er noUers shsill Hats the right to bring aueh legal or e^uitalila 
preee: dings for the eolieetimi of tha^ naaeya ae cured by sai^ trust 
X'eed as aajr be neoesaaryt* that bee«i.use of the uon»pa^raK?nt of the 
nate owned by oos^lain&nt* aad in aecordaaee with the terns and 
eoTf^nants of the trust deed* tlie conplalnaat elects to declare hlo 
option to e>^ttse to beeoMR ismadiatelif due mnd payable all of the 
principal seoured by the trust daed aa«i iRtorest notes still out- 
st.-vndin«l thidt he files his bill to foreolose ««d«?r the t«ras and 
prevlBiens of the trust deed* both fcr his ©«n benefit «»d tw the 
miual benefit of all of the owners or holders of the ether principal 
notes and interest oeupons still eutatrJ^diag and unpaid. The bill 
fiATther allegejg thRt the trust deed provides that the grantors* f«r 
themselTOst their heirs* eta.* waiTe all right to possaesion af tha 
pr«siso« pending eueh foreoloswf© proceed iaga and wtU th« exptr«ti«i 
of the redenption period* and that tlwiy further as^ree t mt the oaurt 
■sy at anee* upon filiag bf aV i»m *« foreclose* and withmt 

b—b fan Mf« i4«i9 Mi«xx« %9. 
inmg^itq, •Ai tti ihtmt*^ » ttt 

JU199X »if* "ie noi^fqe »iid »*. « •' .i9t"\':»ot 

ttlaa t€>&l»^ »»liM Xjja^i.- cftr^«>- 

< ^jtaorsJ^ lui «OB*«^>t^ 
ten llMt^**^^ 

•If^ le XJtB ftX<l»ieA^ ftAin ^,i:> '\^X»^ 

bm» «n»# %dJt xi>imi 9^tXt}^^iv ,ij<; a»Xil mi *««l# |«8lfti»i«- v 

9tif TUX fafte IAImM mf> uUi t'A Ai%4 «A>»«li iauti atftf %• MWinlTttrm 

XXJ4 Mff •bkmvm tMU B «<fciii »t »jr«i Jh(l«a «f«»«iB4>o {Ntt^vMal An* ••t«a 

•i<^ !• nol«ft*e«tt^ 94 Ufal^ XX« •ri«w «•»#» ««^«ti iri:ttia tttrlMMlHi^ 

»otic«» ap;>oiai m. ree&tr^x Ui ts-JOi poeses&ioa etna chaz^e af ttto 
IireBl«#s« with full tiftd nbsoluts power to coll«et r^atst ls8tt«0 
■nd profits of •Aid pretttmea dtti-ing th« pead^^ncy of the suit aai 
uatll «:cplratto» ef the redeaption p9rid<t« 't:his blXl furtlwr «ill«g«o 
that t( In for tiio 1»o«i tatcraotii) of the ooHj^AiiUHlt oad tlie ovnors 
an< lwld«ro of all eut^tandiRg prlBolpol and lute re- e% eoupoas etlU 
vapald that * reeelY«r he appointed to tsiJto posseofsloa of the premleeo 
forthwith upon the fUiag &t the hlllf thrt tho proniooo "axo oooat 
0914 «oa«r« oftoarlty for tho la<£ohtetfa»ae of tho ftforeooid truot Ooodf 
that thoj «r« eitiufctod &.% 4l42*414t K* .Toro ATomio la the ^ Itjr of 
Chlo<^0O* XUlnelot and »r« Inproroi with the following t & hrlok buUd* 
la^ ooBolatlag 4tf twelYO Apartmtato aoA oae Mtore» aatf th^^t la tho 
eroat th^t a dooroo of foreeloimro aad oalo lo ontoro4 * * * oatf upoa 
a o&lo holag hadt thore will not ho euffleloat aenloo r«allite<l frcn 
tho oolo to ^itlofjr tlxn IndehtodaooK s«our«<i hy tlu» truet <lot?d * ^ *$ 
that upon auoh oaLot Auo to a aaterlal eho&so In tho ia«rket« tho prloo 
ohtalnahXo froa tho yvoalooo will not oxoood tho otaa of t35»00Ot that 
the proBlsoo have boon permit tod to dotorlorato aad haTo fallen la a 
b«d state of repalxt «ka^ thnt ws^oto ha» hoen oomitted hy tho proooat 
party on eaid proKieoo*** The hill further allcsoo that there lo a 
Junior Mortgage* dated l>ee«iiher 15* 19S7, upon the pr^alooo* in tho 
oiai of $12t900, and t|»at Walter 7* ^«»loll» defeadaat and owner of tho 
oqalty df rod<3^ptloa» olabia «ono Interest In the oaao« 

On Jammry IBt 1952, the oomplalnimt oerred notloo upoa 
the defendants i'ooh and wife end ^?alter ?• - «l«h» that on January 
14» 1952, he *©uld nako a aotlen for the appolatiaent of a reoeiTor* 
Oa the lAst ffientioaecj date the notion was oontinued until J^ztnoary 26 • 
at whioh tlao tho defendant Cltlseao Etato Bank appeared iwsd ohjeotod 
to the appolntaeat of * reeelirer and was aJllowed five days within 
«hieh to fUo ito anowcr and the wotion wsio ewatinue^. On Jaattaxjr 

•MNMi ««#i|rs ^•oXXoa ttJ i^'>«i|)« ft4Ml«»ii» Mb Xltf^ sl^iv ««««itt«ni 
Im iijiitt vdi %# t!MiJ>l«G% Mti ,^Yii« wvvJwKfi Mjm )• Alilvrtq tew- 

(Jto»& t«»ti Mies^teU ssi4 lo 9«*itft9^<f»&«a iMS^ -£»& t<iiciii»«« ««BaMft item 

fl»ic% .i^9«JtXB9« tt«iiBicw #a«l9l^ti;« 9<r ^» XXt«r f»r«»t^^ %^mA a«K^e< vJUm • 
•oiTiX Mf^ ttfBilTJtv •At sl »aA(Mla» i>i^s»»«iH « »4 ttirfe «»iea «f»tm fl»««r imti 

»•■»« wii ta H9%94m mum ^mimiit •a»l««l»««t W xtiny* 

68 tte OitlxMi* QUtU Bank, UMHTitiiuOly mA m» tmsteo ua^er the 
%rtt«t d«e4» fiXt<! aa aaevvr aTvnrliig feliat i3i« ^attk as trusiM oX«itt«d 
K prUr Md ywrawnuit !!•» an tl»« pre^isea (0 t)ie «xt5tait «f tht ia- 
d9b%e4]M»« «t>0ttr@d toy fnt true* <i««dt (i»4 that upon tht ne]ii|>fty»«itt 
0f oeriain internet coupons lt» f«:r tli« bessf it of all the bdneholdwra 
a«(ntr«d hy the truat daad and purctOABt to the texiai; &t the arjne sad 
tht ftttiherity therein eonferxed* toe^ l^aaaaalcn 9t the preniaes and 
hae oontimied is suah poeseealos oatiX the tisa of the filing of tlw 
mmmnttt and that it haa dnriag th^t; thae Gollected the rente • ie»iM» 
and prafits of the preaiaee and aauiaced the a&aw* and haa applied the 
net rentals to the paynent of int<$reet and otherwlee* seia.,t.|^XJInL. 

tj^ cai ^ainwwt ta n»t entitled te haT> a r<?ceiTer Rprotnted to taJw 
]po aaeag ten of the prw eiff * the unewer furUter alle|pe» that the 
3atth» iadiviiSnall/t la th^ avu^r and huldi^r of honda a«our<^^ hy th« 
trust deed In the aggregate mm af ^10t900« which remain unpaiiia and 
ia alaa the aimer of the intereet ooupons thereon and other inter eat 
eaupona which imitm pur^naed hy it fraa the holdera •f the b«ada« Tlia 
nnever further allcgea ''that hf reaaon of the poasaaaioa of aaltf 
preaiaea hy your Trustee taken under the teraa of aaid tmat deed thn 
taaplainant ie not entitled to hare a reoeirer appointed for eald 
proiiaea** On Tehruary 23t X9Sdf the aotioa for the appointment 
tf a rec«iTer e«ae tm to he heatd upon the hill aad the aaiwer of 
the defendant Citl/tno State 3ank of ChiOft«a» ti-uateet aad an 
©rder »a« entered d nyiag the aotion. On June 17, 1932. appellaal 
?7Hlah filed a rerlfted anawer* tn whioh he srerret". that the 
oom^laaat ^m« the holder of only one note, 5S, far tSOO, aad 
that the proTlaton la the trust deed ^hteh vatTod all right to the 
yoaeeaeion and l^ioooo of the prealaoe pending aaeh foreoloaare 

fcaatjifB ft^iii... .. iK»4 irfi #««t« jpl«*.v^ •x'>r.^,:t,„ oc b«£n «fe»»J» Utni 

iTu&Iv.,-. V .-.. ..-». ... .'-»ii 9M.i ii«* 4- .-isrwfip «a«i»lol Hi»i%** t» 

«xr> ^-'srf-t ios-*!!^ iititdtwl «»iR»»a ^>iVi <ti^^M^^ " '■• '" 

ttJt^A "i* aeisft' .'J yfS $mti 


»;.-=■ II 

to fmoM tiU bBs XXitf •«(« iMqto «i««i mt oA m i>«»a • l« 

boa tCioef stt ^aa «•«»• i»iid xSm ia %nbXtyA mi0 «iw iMMlAiWMQ 

fayvB** appttlnt & receiT«r to t&ke eba^ga «f tli« |nr«Klt«s» ete»» 
vas not > Indian ufoa tta« tfouort without. & alBMmijaig tliat Uw appeinuaoat 
of a rseelTor ^ tbo eourt wouXd b« o^^ultAl^lo* the istatiwor denied 
thiit tin* frtMlooo 9«r« aoetat and aoagoi' otfouiritjr for the InAoModaoaa 
aad itet ilM f 74911 sot w«ro of tilii> TaXuo of $S5*0CK>t danUd tliistt %3u 
prcailoos Jbuad Hmnhh pemi^bt^ti be drntorlonAto and to faU. Uito a INuS 
Bin.ta of royair* aiid dtnlue tbii^ waoio va» boins o^mittcK^ ^ t]ib» 
9er«<mo la pOBuoaelon of tlw pr«Ki»e«» and af«rrod tlsat ill* pcr«Bio«a 
voro CO^ obO amjOLo »e«U7itjr for ttw iBdlel»t«dnoR0« aad the.t ik« total 
Talue of the px^ai^oa «a« ii^78»d97*3«« Ob Juno <'a3» 193S» tiM 
eaaplaliuiat f IXoti a T«rifled aM«»dsent to tlie blllt in ^loh ko 
aXloged lot fer »l;tft ft ^'timi ehero la aow duo t» taxes upon th« said 
prealsos a em of %4»%04»M oonatltutiag tltt t^xos for 1938» 1939 
and X9S0«* Oa Joljr S* 1932* upon aotl«a of tko eonplftlnaatt tbo 
ehancellor entered an order appolotlag a ree^lYor "te take iiwesdiat* 
possession and ehargo of • and t? eollect the rente $ Issaoo aad profits 
frm the prt^lsos deserltoed la the BUI of ConpIalBt*" Tho motl«i 
wk» also 8U£>port«a "by a Terlfled petltiea» ie which the ctMq;>lainaBt 
averred that the i^atmotULor hftd deaiod thi» aiotiott for th@ appolntsiont 
of a reo«lv«r oB February 33» 1932, »tn view of the faot that tho 
Tmstoet Cltlfteas .^tato daak of Chlo^^ot as Trustee, had already takoa 
posttosslmi of the pxeaisee InYOlTOd ♦ * * that siaoe that data aad 
shortly heretofore, oa or ahout, towlt th« 31st day of ISny, 19S2» 
tlK» Maid * * » ^maak cil& elose Ito doors and oeaae to do furtho* 
OttalHOast aad is a«» in tho haads of the state adttor aad therefort 
Is laoapahlo aad unfit to further oaaace asd oontrol the proBlees «» 
Trastoei and that it is to the host latertsts of this petitioner aad 
tho oth*z boxidholders to haT« a receiTor appolatod In ordar to properly 

R^llotMS an* ii«ii98l t«^a^ ftiCI #9»Xi<»9 e4 litftjK «!• flss i^&iB!(«#aM 

aoiiVX tllT ^•int.eXllMO )• Xli« llf^* «1 i>&fifl^;,v!.:.;::|> H^avArX.'. .ill^ .-_-.tvrl 

HMAtf xo-s-jrlx: tcis*. iffi^ieii-r*-''?.,,; .o.- -aijio i© arc: ----- 3ta«j«J;dili «<j»«4«««T ^ 

^t«><r»iq »# -»»:«■. i^lnqgA %»ri 

>ito •/€* 

cQiiMnrc %}» r«Btt»* ls»ti»s «m6 yrofitat t&>t tlwy t>« not lo^ti « • • 
tiMt staoe the closliis •/ the WuslEt the uditor «r the t&te •# 
Ulifiois hAM «tppoin%ed «D«9 \£«« A* lto«th«» H«oeiTex- of th« nuitf ^«iA 
and thl« petlti«a«r furth«r ©ay* thiat th» said Ee©eir«r through hli» 
»tt«n<i3r hAs tf«iolar«tf thikt h« «flll aot ehavgo hiaiMlf «ith the dutUa 
«• TnuiM h«r«t«l«r« cxitrolaeQl toy thft mU CltlxMs state Bi^nk of 
nhi«'\go» rvgavtSlag th« pr«aiM« horein lnvolY«d«* 

Tht «oX« ttsaipaMst of error i» that "the oourt erred in 
grnntlng the ootloa to appoint a rooeivor*" Counsel for appoliant 
haa a««a fit to <ieaerib« at length the preeont gr&et ^&pr«8»lont aaA 
h«* argues that no reoeiver ahould be appointing for aa ap rtmmt 
bu tiding during' snoh a period f that tlM appoUanti in order to 
aaeliorate the suffering of his te>n&nto in tlM building in Citteotion* 
pemttted thev to occupy their apArtaentn without pay) th^it tho 
appPlntnont of a reoeirey win not ehango tho existing «opreoaio« 
and that the ehnneellor should not hare disturbed tht pnoooooidB 
af the owner »f tho py«nio*8» and th«%t the appolntisent of « rec«iT«tr 
night deprlTc the unfortvnato tt^naato of th& building of shelter* 
This eourt is fully awaro %hiM the country is suffering froM a gront 
depressiMi and th»t unoi^loynnnt is inreir&lentt and wo have hereto* 
foret in oereral deelsiOBat t&ken Judloial aotieo of the* sltuati«ni« 
Moroorert the three diviaiona of this eourt have ar^nmtnovt^ a mlo* 
to «hleh they hare aidhered» thxit a provision in a trust deed that 
in o»s« of a default in the paymmst of ttny of the Iniebtednosa 
a«eured the holder of the notes shall tmrtt the righ&t upon filing 
a bill to forecloao. to hoTO a receiver appoint^*!! without legnrd to 
the valuo of the premises or whether occupied by the owner of the 
equity as a hanestend* do^s not nntheriao an appotetnont of a 
reeelTor upon «oro allegations in a bill of default and that tho 

U t»' 

5»A*; -..'«■ 

ijSi(»'i'lS '■»: to 

«t»Xm A tr^tMitfOitnjH fTJftet ^i*i<a» «il;iU '$« »Jt¥^ir:Jtvl& ^>xa'-- .^.tro^voV 

conMxre tlw rtnits* t«su»a and yrofitst tlt^t they b« not leotf * * * 
ttet stnoe tlte clooiac of the tonakt tb* udltor of tlK ^t&to «r 
lUinelo tea &ppoliit«?d one* $iu a* HmMiUt K««etTex' of U&o stkU ^mxAt 
tLtid this jNTtliionor furthor oigro itu»t tlMr said KoceiTcr tl&rwigli mo 
»%%oxa^ )!»» (3«rei&reci tlMfct ho will iwt eluurgo hlaotlf vlth the dutiot 
«• Tniotoo b»r«toforo «;c&relo«ci by itus m^X& Citls«M .?tat« Boak of 
Cfei4o«c«» rogAX^iai; tho yrcniMo horeln imrolvod** 

Th* aole cisoUPiiMSt of error la tluit "ttw oourt orred in 
irontii^K tlMt* aetloB to appoint a rec^irer** Counool for &ppollMi( 
luui oooa fit to deearike at loa^th th* 9feo«nit gr«»t depr«Baioa» oad 
iMt argiioe tli^t no rc!e«iV9r shoulA b« appointed for en ap rtnont 
l!»uilitlii£ durlBg: mii^ a ^riodf that tte appoUaBt* la otiier to 
floitliorat* ttes «ufieriaff of taio tenaato ill tlio builtiiag ia qaootiMi* 
jMiniittc^ tluRO to occupy tlwlr apRrtateato without pay I thMit tte 
appointfloat of a reoolT^r will not elioaco tkm oxistias 4%pP*muUm 
aad tint thte iAauM«llor abeald not hairo distttrh*4 tlw poososulon 
of i.h* OKTiier of ihs pr«aioo«t aad tlb^t tho appoiatawat of a r«ceiT*r 
■t£]it d«9riTe the unfortunaio tt^aaato of the build tag of oboltor* 
Thlo eoart it* fully a«aro ttet. tb« eouatzy 1» ituflsrria^ froM a grtat 
4<»pro»»ioa aa<l thtit unoan^Laywiat to pr«vml«at» aaii wo havo hor«to* 
tw§ ia ooToraX dooioiaaof t&kMt judleial netloo of th& <»itu&tloa» 
XorooTor* tho three diYisioao of thio oeturt hart mnngmut*^ a ralo* 
to whloh they hato aAhored* th^^t a prorioioa ia a truot deed that 
ia er^ao of a defaalt ia tte paynntt of aay of the iadebtodaooo 
aeeured the holder of the aotoo shall haT« the right* upim filing 
a bill to foreelooot to have a recelYer ajKPOiat<^<i islthout regax«i to 
the value of the pr««loe« or whether ooeupied by the owaer of %ho 
equity &e a haaeeteod* does not authoriao aa appolataoat (Mf a 
veo«ivor apoa aovo allecetiaao ia n oili of d«faaS.t oad that tho 

at frig's?* ^'w^^ «ii#'* iasa iii ice 

4M<'» timid li|i)tqf 4s3&A^i^ «'«• 
mtiwinMifl. &&' 


fN£IWn»fr t^ Ait ^^a '■■ cx 

..: 'msit*^M^9 mA» 4mU kmn 

:,^Ku:'J ' •■■■''am *rf-* ".■-- l> JAftiA 

*.j-i-J-i A lWOai»<»;.;.jB STBH iSUffiii &Jt5y . >. . 

^jMtJI tr««'«ii <i«urtl A nJt a«laiTd':q is^ im. ■ 

fi!nf.9 mi 

«tK!'«X99-«<«l •! Hi 4 m 
.'r«^i(% Mi J to ftMX«T iMtl 

tKt IjmU tes tXtft 

'Ma »' ai Aa«iij«|»Iijt «l«tt lMM|it «rri»»«it' 

pr^Klses ore aMafvr sM emnX 8«curity for Xhf iiidle)»%editettSt ami 
«iUioti1l osy chowiag by speclfio faets that lua «s»polnt»ent of a 
r«««lYcr would V« oquliatolt* v^e oaaaot refr&in fr(» m^lnfn tlx&t 
%lu» &rfiiMiiit that tii« AppollftRt wn» In pdet^e«&ion of the prtmlooa 
Bjoft ihftt in hio E>ajafic<MM«t of the mmxs he ii^oyod the p^rt of a 
phllftnthireplst toward thfi tenants Is not supporter hy atQrthing 
la the record. Mor«over» the r«oortf dooo oliow that th^ trttotoo 
«A0 ia yooaoesloa of th« prenloois from JaBuaryf X93«U until tho tiao 
of tho appolntaent of the r«rcolTor* and the ohano«IIor rcfusetf to 
api^ittt o receiTer in l^shru&rj* 1952« hecflnoo it apiM»&ro4 thn^t tho 
truotoo ^aa thon ia poooesfil^ of the preniooo* 

Tho appollaat ooBtttndo thctt ''whore tho tbXuo of proalooa 
io ia dioputo hy a owom anower » rvoelver ought aot ho appoiatod 
OBloos evld neo of Ttaluo io heard la opos oovrt** ^ilo it io 
ooaooliat difficult to follow the argyaont of tho appollaat la impport 
of thio content ion» wo aoatMM t&at ho aoaao that whoro tht Torifiod, 
ploadinco of the eo^plaiaaat aoklco out a ffp iatt f acio ohowiac that tho 
pr«aiiooo in quootioa auro aoagor and OMBt oeaurity for the iod6hted«» 
aooo» and the irorified j^es4iaso of tho ap^llaat waho out a eaoo 
to the contrary* and thtt only oaterlal question » upon the motion for 
the appoinsacnt of a race Ivor § relatoo to the vnluo of tho premiooa* 
that the ehanoellor should then ho&r eridaaoo to deteralao tho 
ronl value of tho yrenisoo* If wo are riglift in our asotoaptioa ao 
to tho posltioa of th^' appellant» the oorrectnoes of the oaiK aagf 
ho ooaooded hb a general rulOt hut ia the iaatroit oaoe tho ohi&neellor 
concluded ihr^t under all thsi undisputed eiroiaiotaiiooo it wao ntoooa&rar 
to appoint a rtcciwer to preoerwe the property* and after a oareful 
conoid rat ioa of the record we nre unahlo to oey th»t ho waa aot v 

Justified ia thr>t finding* If tho appollmit oT#r had posHOfioion 
of the prcatiooo • and the reoord failo to ohew th- 1 ho had • ho hadl 


••tuinci «iU »i«if# tiMMlii i»««if» fr«i»o«Y «iirjf «<x9Y»«««tt *ft«9eMt MCi «t 

#ta sow Mt SmUi is«^ ol' •iifettff ft^ft -rt^- Md «>-i - rfs 1(& fL^liatt'ibknttam 
tell ntf • teiC «flt 4 4ju tN«l« o« tXiAl !»•»•« ttitt tea • M«lan« «i(i U 

glTMi up his po38«0slo» ni lenst mix namtha }»9t9Tii th« enizy ef 
tlie •rder appolntin;^ a reoelvsri for it a,pp«£ that thd tr«u»t«« 
iagK8«y the trust deed was in pcteeselon in Janunxy* X692* aoa ha4 
e»llect«d the rests sadl nftiukge^g the build lag* and «»ui still i» 
pssstssloB at the tiae ths ehane^llor i»&ssed upon ths »«ti<m* It 
further appears thst ih» tru«tse httS o^assd te do husinsas && a luulk 
and WAS la th« hands of the Btat« audlt«r» waa its solicitor statod 
to the eh&noellor th^at it aiide no ohjeetleii to th« appointttent of a 
reeelTsr* Ths appoXlaat «aa duly Dotlflmi of the hsnrln^ before tho 
ohansellOTt aadt so far as the record dlseloses* Made no ohj«;otloa to 
the appointaent* 

The appellant also contends th^t the Ys^rlflO'^tioci of the 
hill is hnd and glTes the bill no evldsntiarj Tnlue upon the appoint* 
Mnt of a recelTer imd therc'fore the chmoellor cheiad not have oon* 
sldered the aLl«s:itlon8 of the bill In pti^selng upon the notion for 
tho appointstent of a recelTer* e find no aerit la this contention* 
la the ree^t oaoe of ^. ellanoe 3aak & Xrupt Co> y« g«lsey» 263 ill« 
Ayy* Me» 563» we said I *Yhe appellaato did not oare to t«.lco sdTaataso 
of the opportunity afforded thea to he hoafd on the aotion for tho 
appolntaeat of a reeelvor* Had thoy oippeared and urged oert»in of tho 
teehaioal points they now mUee In this court # the laieced defeots la 
the pleadings* If any there b<f» could have boon at on.« easily ettrs4 
by the ootoplalnant « Apparently appellants wished to avoid euoh a 
preoedurot and It would be a eooaeatary upon ^u^tloo if they prevailed 
in this court upon aere technicalities*** Qui saao alght he s«.ld of 

tho present appeal* 

The Interlocutory order of the Clroalt oe art of Cook 

eouaty will he affinwd* 

Xemer* P* J«» and Grldley* J*> oonour* 

£i«il taM %Si£9i tXX^iiilMil nl «'>i«o>ift««q at «»« %»«1» Hint mU v^Mib 

ssi, ... ...... ■■■^^" ^^' 

«9l# «et G04^4iM *A^ aft ls««^ ftif 0* mmx^ ...,.,,.i» xiXmit^tiiii tii to 

)8 StlHft tttf iA%tU MMS ftdT *«6«jr#llM)l«tf9«;r •f«M IT«^ #t£r09 ftiifi Hi 



BASK, « Corporation, aa Truatoo, ) 



LiLLlAii JORJORIAK 9t Jil.. 



26 8 I.A. 62# 

im. FBisiDiiia Ju^iTics Mc^uRiaT 


Thlt is an appeal by defendant • l*roa an interlooutory 
order appoint iutg a reeeiver in a roreolosure proceeding. 

the Mil of complaint vao ifi the usual form, alleging 
a $78,000 mortgage upon which #12,000 had been paid; that $4,OQ0 
of the principal and ^1,930 of interest had fallen due on April 
1, 1933, and vae not paid; that the maturity of the entire indebt- 
•dneos had been aoeelerated; that the taxes for 1930, ^1780.97, 
had net been paid; that by reason thereof there was due and unpaid 
en aecount of the indebtedness |>6S,9aO; that the proiaises were in 
a state of disrepair; that the value did not ozeoed $60,000, and 
•re therefore scant and meager seearity for the amount of the in- 
debtedness. The trust deed conveyed the premises, together with 
all rents, issues and p !0f its. Xhe bill asJted that a receiver be 

Xotioe ol' the application for the appointment of a re- 
ceiver was served on defondants, who illed objeotions; subsequently 
the matter eame on for hearing before the chaneellor and the testi- 
mony of witnesses was taken. A competent witness for complainant 
testified that he had oxatnlned the preuises; that they were in bad 
repair, and that in his opinion the fair market value of tho 
property was $45,000; that they consisted of a one story storo 
building, a brick building containing seven small stores, also tw» 
othor buildings, eaoh containing two aparts^ents; that the brlek 
building is approxlBately twenty years old. Oppoeed to this a 
witness testified for defwjdants that he had never seen the premisos 


%9.d .A,/I 8^? 

. E 1 U. I 


000, ^t #«f<4r thifKs n^-Kf hfflM SH3t.>,£;X| rfolftV itc^u «sisA*^iK3; fKW.Sifll « 

bliffiriu baa sub «« 

, )Q^ b*»S3^xe> ion 

i tmm*t*S(ii ^> 3£iC,Xt hiv X^frjiftni' 

!««tf i'oa te«c( 

Im0 ni •I** 5(*<il i»]it ;^mnim»tq »iLi k^snitam* bitd »ri tmsfi h»l'\X^9»t 
9di to •uXav ^aitiftai il^t't »<i# aoini<(e »IA a.1 tmtif hoe ^xlmtitt 

« Klxti oi i^vaoqttO .ftXo •xmmx xiemyit xJ^^inmixe'intm el tal!>Xitftf 

¥iit ]m«v the location, from the 4«scription of the building glTen 
In eourt, h« ••tlssatcd tiiat the preed««« w«r« vortb 190,000. Th« 
witness said tliat his opinion was bassd only en hearsay. (>»« of 
tho attoitisys stated that If l\illy rented the prcsiisee should 
%riBg in $7,000 a year, but that there were Kany vacaneles. 

leader these elreumistancee the ohaneellor vas called upoa 
to decide betTsen the vldely divergent teetlmony of the t«e vit* 
Besses ae to the reasonable market valuf^ of the prisnises. Ue eTl* 
dtBtly was of the opinion that this value was at least below the 
SBOunt of the mortj^age in^e>;teftneBs and th^t th^ pretJilses were 
seant security. The appointi&ent of a reeelver rests largely in the 
dlecretion of the ohaneellor. Under the eirciiKStar cee presented 
by this reoerd we eannot eay that thie discretion was abused. 

In defendants* brief usurious Interest is asserted, whleh, 
it is elained* is admitted by the failure of the eosplainant te 
file a replication to defendants* answsr. Ths record does not shsw 
•By answer, but only objections filed to the application for a 
receiver. We do not understand that replications are re<iuire4 to 
such objections. 

The propriety of the appeln^ent of a receiver rests upon 
the present value of the property conveyed. The record Justified 
the appolnticent , suid the order is afflmed. 

Hatohett and 0*Gonr.or, JJ. , aonour. 

ftd'C '■ \0<?| J;t#rtt>W »t?»* »©«liii(«'X«f **;.; . .:.. ; t»4«*4Bi-*6. 

.a»l:«aa8«v x<ma »t»^ »'««fi.* Jj»m i<?0.,fft at saiTff 

««iii9 i0« e»©t fe-J6.«fi«TK Ji^'^' .t®'^" .-.oiJiJS'i last's « ».ii'* 


WILLIAM H. H4RF£R, for u»9 ot ) 

BEBLSY 5LG0f end SOMUflB S, OCBS, ) 

iolag toeslaess «« ILQOSOO R^aiO (Ki., ) 


(nftintlff } App«U&«; ) APPEAL FROM 

l«J»IOIPAt oetTR^ 

ARMODIt and CG»f AMT, 

(l}«f»naaat) Appellant. 


26 8 I.A. 625^ 

Opinion filed Dec, 21, 1932 

MR, PRSSIDIHQ jmflGf. »ILSOS d«llT«r«d the oplalott 
Of tb« court. 

nalntlff 'g 8tate««nt of clal« entitled^ willl«» H, 
Rurp^v* for the u»« of Sibley F^lfOt nad Hdntind 92 Goes, doing 
buBiaees as Slgosco Radio Co. ▼* Armour and Company, » oorporatloa* 
defen'^snt, wss filed in the iSualcipal Court of Ohio«=!fo. Tbe 
olala appears to be baired upon a certain aasig^ment of wages and 
•alary of William K. Harper, tte fltateaent of claim alleges tbat 
tlM plaintiffs ^re the asalgaees nnd squitsble nnd bona fldf ovners 
kt the Boaeys so aeeigaed and are entitled therftte by reasoa of 
•aid assiganent and notice served upon the defenf^ant. Amour and 
Oolqpany. The amount clalaed was IS92.43. An affidavit was attaohed 
to the statonent of claia but does not set forth how and vben 
plaintiffs acquired title. The affidavit of nerite denied the 
assigaatent of wages and denied ftirther that the plaintiffs are tho 
aaeigaees and equitable and bona fide owners of any maneys due and 
•vlag to the said Harper from the defendant Armour and Company. 

The eause wns tried by the oourt withoikt a Jury result* 
lag in a finding in favor of the plaintiffs and judgment in ths 
sum of 01:81.17, together with the ooets of the actloa. 


kOA% j-?..v '•«-«.. ( ;5'-ii«Mi<|.^ {vttiatfuri) 



,m*nm no 

^gS^O .H.i 

SSei tIS ,oea bein rrcxfixqO 

0<^1J[|C^Q »a$ %»t9Vll»t' 

:^/i?:*sTfc *.»»ii''^.?5'>' 



^■^ »> A ;> X"'' s « s * ,! « rrrf 

•Bt afiilL.c*^ -&3i#i#«9 sir r . -■^' 

9dt wnM attltfiiJtXq 9di ti^di itMffYir) iHiintb bus a^a^v to #iiedM8i<M« 
hMM MTft atMOM TM )0 T^HWO •hll attptf tea tXtf4t»lf/p« bUM —agl»*M 

aif# at tffaayfeirt baa aYtitfalaXv^r a4» 1« 707«T oi ^nlbflil a at yai 

Opon the trial of the e»ii»« ilbley tlgot teettfled 
tbat b« wft« 8 a«iBi^7 of the pmrtaership of ^fot aad ooss dolaff 
baslneaa «fi ngo«eo Radio Co.; that h« km«w Harper and hie wife 
attd th«t theee pereone slfned the doeffisest referred to aad offered 
In erideoee aa plaintiff *e exMMt I. this exhibit v&a a note 
Slrea by Harper and hie vife for nerobaBdlse purohaaed and it 
la ekailjaed that no part of the note haa been paid. 

Plaintiff *8 exhibit 3 w«a an aaslg&ttent of wagee by 
Rarper to Sibley Slgot & SdBmod 8. Qeee, dolnf l^uelneaa aa 
Ilgoaeo Hadlo Comp&ny, »ad ehlle this aselgaaient waa directed 
to t»o peraona jointly. It vae ei^ed by only one, but from the 
eTidenee it appe»ra that Klgot and Goea rare partaera f>nd the 
•Ignature of one to the aaelguient «aa aiifflelent, 

Seotloa 18 of the Praetlee Aet proTldea that *Th.e 
aealgnee !^nde<ral table and bona fide owner of any ehoae In aetloa 
not nerotlable» heretofore, or hereafter aaalgned, aiay aue thereon 
la hla omm aane, and he shall In hla pleading en oath, or by 
hie affldarlt, where ple«!idlng la not retitdred, allege that he 
ie the aot^ial bona f jide owner thereof, aad aet forth how und 
when he aeqnlred title; **•**" mia aaae prowialoa proTldea, 
that In the erent *the ehoae In action ao aasliKned eonalata of 
wagea due or to beeofse due to the aaalgner thereof fros; the 
defendant la auch notion, at least flwe daya written aotloe of 
the peadeaoy of such ault ahall be aerwed upon the aafrignor of 
aueh ohoae In action, before tie trial of the eaae; ***** 

It la laalated that regardleee of the caption In this 
ease whleh ladlcatea that the aetl- a la broufht by the aaalgaer 
for the uae of the real rlalntlffs, nevertfaeleaa , the ault was 
by the aaalgneea and the aerrlee or notice on the aaalgnor wme 

teltii>M»t #«iit x»J^» ••«»• •» t» lAivr •« M4^ 

•li« altf tas «««T4II *Mif •<< tMS^ {«o9 <»it«# ot»ft«t^ *« •••Oitlftf 

•^•cr s tjw #itfMx« 9im ,1 il*Sidix» n'miatml^ mm 99nbi^ mt 

«ftl«0 ff»«tf tt«tf fkt«« «(^ to ^4Hii Mr fUt IkmtmH ai 

*rfY*» #sift ssfef- • U aoij^osiS 

«oi*eiR 111 aaori!? TtfC^-c afej, , ]^ ae<y J ^««i »iajs#lw]!&» 6(i« ©fta^isas 

aoaYatf} ana t ;<i3« Tt^^astaff ?<» .a-xatatatts^ ,aXtfj«l^o^ian ^on 

ftf to «£f,^j:?o ^io^ ^tb«»l!j »Ui 9.1 ££M« atf e»iid «afltMi oaa «jU si 

ad #«fff a|^ari« ^bAiltrpat tt^a a| ^il»/taXq avatfv «#lTaM^t« aitf 

tis« wa<f tfiTiol #9a ham ^toa'iafft Y(»£n»9 aftlt .aa^ Imi^n •ni ai 

««a6iTa«q aelalvav<t 9imn 9lt^ •%<»«« saX^i^ batJte^a a4 xiaifa 

to nintvaiom baaqiiata as aoltf&^v o^ ^(ia^fa ttif^" taava oi(^ al tmlt 

9it jcnct to'tt^d^ loaiiAciA »x(t Qf a«rl> a«09a<f of 10 itb aa^aa 

la aai#aa miii'tm Q^aft avil ^aaai #« ^Bott^m thvt ai ttubsftBb 

1ft toaf^tnnt ai(# aoipr banaa n ' rr^.Ha tiv* cfocft to taxiafeiiaq m£t 

"*•** ;a)Sf>a eK* tc I-'^c olstf .ffeitJsa oi Maoris dnum 

lUAt ol <Ml#«aa atftf to aaai)>«tri»i #ai(# aa^alaai ai «I 
90flii8»« atft -fd #d7yirot«r oi o i#a«s «<f# ^«d^ »a^a;>iba| 4ali(« aana 
aaw tixra ad[# « 8a»lad;^YaTafl «8tmisi«X Ia«Y ad# ta aaar •£$ tot 

requlBltc to th« aalatenanee of th9 action • 

This was an act ion of the fourth elsee in the f/anioli^l 
Oottjrtf and In such 8etl>ae tne procatudlag ie wh«t«Tar the evidence 
makea it. Written olaadlnga are unnecessary. Wlnltt v. gorablitli. 
S4t XII. App. 106; Sher ▼. Roblnaon. 298 III. 181. 

Flalntiffa rely ttpoa the aeeignaant of vagca, whldi 
«•• latrod^eed in evidence, as the besie of their right to reooirer 
the wac«s due Harper vhleh were Is the heads of the defen>5.»nt 
Anwur and Coaptay. the statute prortdaa that aa aetioa upoa 
an assigaaent of wagres of this aharaeter oaa not he maiatained 
aaless aad'ontll a five days writ tea notice of the peadeacy of 
saeh suit shall be serred upoa the assignor, Ro such notice vaa 
serrsd in this proceeding. This court in the oaae of Suite v. 
Hew York Central R. h» Oo.. ?e2 111. Apo, 369» ia speaking of this 
proTlsir^n, said: 

*Ws regard e ooapllanee with this proTisloa 
by the aasi^aee of a chose in aetioa aa a eo tditioa 
preoedent to his ri^ht to Aalataia on the trial his 
suit a<nlnst a defeod^nt^ who aay be indebted to ths 
assignor for vagss. We tiilak that the statute should 
be construed as asaniag that the five days* vrittsa 
aotiee be served on the assigaor personally . * 

To the same effect see Uoradden and Koadrath r. PeansylTaoia R. H. 
Co.. 3 47 111. App. 6S9. 

ffs have not besa aided la our eoasideration of this oauee 
>y briefs or argaaeats on the part of the plaintiff. 

For failure of the plaintiff to serve notice oa the 

asaigaor under the vage claia assigaed« the Judgmeat is reTsrsed and 

the aauss re««aded for a new trial. 


miL AID HALL, JJ. OOtiOim, 

,Jtlitf«;yft| .v||;||^|^ .^'i«i;a9i>«»a^?m 9t« «SJ)Ei&«fti$ i»»##iiW .iri «»:!«■ 
.XSX .XII «9S «<iftii|irfflj| .V j^ja i$(U •«F^A .JTXI 9^ 

-:■.,-, V<| 

i oT 
mltit to Aoi#«^«bi«iiooC))Ziro ai; bttbln ; 

•9WiUM?js i«mua QUA (jss^stvsfi Tmoaoi 


(»AJU.S8 rHAISlH* ) kfmiO. FROM 

(Plaintiff) App«lle«« i 

(Defendant) AppeUaat. ) 2 6 8 I !^.f ^^S ^ 

Opinion filed Deo« 31, 1^32 


Chi»Yl08 Fiaasen, th« plaintiff, brought his txotioa 
ag&iaat the defendant a, August Oarlaon am) tbe I ennsflTgnie 
!tailre«^ Ooap«ny, » oorporr^tien, to recover damages for personal 
injwries sust Ined by hi« on Loonis ooulSTDrd at its Intereeotloa 
wtth the rmiXroad of the defendant. The PennsylTJania i^ailroad 
Gosp^ny. Tbe defendant darleon was later dieniseed out of the ease, 

the deolar^tion eonsisted of four oounts* Tbe seeoal 
eoaat was subsequentlf dismissed en aotloa of plaintiff* 

fhe firat oeunt ohargsd tbe defendant 0$>rlson with 
ryinnin^ a oertain autoaiol»ile in vhieh the plaintiff vaa riding as 
a passenger in & oareless and negligent asnner over and aeress the 
railroad traoics of the defendant. The PennsylTania railroad 
Coaipany, and eharged fhe Pennsylvania i^eilroad Ooa.^ny with negligence 
la the operation and oontrol of a eertain train of oars being 
propelled over the railroad traoks of ths defendant and upon and 
aeross Looais tioxil^v-ixA, 

The third count oh@rged the defendant. The Pennsylvania 
Railroad Ooa «ny, with o >releaaly and negligently failing to 
station r brakenan or watohoMun on the rear end of the train whioh 
vas being backed acroaa lioomis i^oulerard* 

The fourth count ohsrged negligence on the part of The 
Feaasylvaaia Hailroad Coanpny beoause of its failure to ring any 
bell or sound a i»histls ^ile the train was npt^rosohing the inter- 


( . . 

\.y '..'•' v.. — '-' •^■♦^ ^- 

*itif;&iM.ltl 1« «6l?ew! eta &«j*«i«iai:fe tX*a«fcwf>^fc<ii •■,'c-o 

4&'T 7»X0oii> ^ittoOhl stetflkja' 

:io*'rt-?r nisi;*' »i'-- "•. " ' " a<s ,fi««>l!J»s^e* «© g»' a©l*,i>it« 

,(■1 "V!s<;i;uc eisToed 8««r.t>*« b«ar ■ • --i 


•«otloB of its yiglit-of-wwjr with Looals BowlfiT»?Td. 

l*oo«U.8 SotHeYaird la & north and south atrsot In thu 
City of Chicago, approximately 35 to 40 foet «id«, with a pRrkway 6 
or 8 foot iride Xoottted between th» gidewalk and the ourb, ffeo side- 
vftlk 1» a stsMard sidewalk about 4 feet in width. A aain trntA. of 
The PeiiBsylTaaia Baiiroad Co^pmny oxosses the hotaerard betweto 58th 
and 59th street at the grade, 7her& ure no g?3tea, but there is si 
w%tohau»n*8 box located Ht the northveet corner close to the crossing. 
k switoh track leads into the plant of the I'eopies Iroa aad Metal 
Ooapany loc-^ted on the east side of Looais £iouleT->rd. this switoh 
traek runs west from this plant '^.nd eoaneots with the main lixw 
perhaps 60 or 75 feet west of the boulevard. 

the day of the a-ooldent three oars had been taken out 
of the aeldsfldth plant %nd olmoed oa the aain line vith the end of 
the box onr r»^^T Looais iouleT;^>rd, oloee to the building line. The 
engineer then proceeded to ho^ on two other oars whioh were to be 
plaoed behlB^ the three oars left standing on the m&Ia traok. It is 
.the contention of the plaintiff th<it the driwer of the ear in which 
he WAS riding ftpproftohed the trneks of tlie defendant coapeny end saw 
theras oors standing on the west side; thnt he stopped the eutmtobile 
9jaA then prooeeded to cross ower the traeks and, aa he did so, these 
•era were suddenly started up and propelled a^eross the boulew^rd 
striking the automobile in whioh the plaintiff W9S riding and whioli 
was driwen l^ the defendant Qftrlson. 

Flftintiff testified that the aocident happened about 
Bocn OB October 5, 1939} th»t he had worked th»t morning for the 
defendant Carlson and wns on his way hoae; th«t Carlson asked hia if 
he weubted to ride with hia »»d he did so; th^t es they were driving 
Borth on looaie bouleward the osr stopped -t 59th street where there 
was a stop lif^t and froa there the autossobile proceeded north and 

a x»»^'9«? * 1**^ «•&!» tMt 0* «.t ti- xif^tKiUvat^iCt^ ,«JMft>.i-'^- ^v» xj* ' 
£$9i a^iSf^tf-.iitsv^Jfia^J^tYJ t^j«i©-r» tttR's^-oO t..'^^rXia^< *itt«tlt*am9^ •*t 

Xc#«ji teft U9rl %9Xqmsn *^f ^& fns- 1'4 stAt o^si m%ml atMrxt ite#t«« A 

«i3jl:X £tij«i t»^ dUi'n a»»fmfi&9 Sm^ tttxlei mlM awifl twm aem iUHKtt 

^^xii^lma fit4i t® *«»w .t«»l ST ■«• Od ttqmit^m 

\s ban »ft? 'iJiw ©ftlJf «lea »*f «o fc»or<iqf feas inuilq «f#inJU«6 wW le 

•dT ,9nii ^iblisji ««?? «l^ ftftelfi «iS4iV»X4*»fe 9tittO«*l «««ll «•© SMt <»^# 

94( <?# <»T»» d«id» St*© -S^if^O OW* it* *«N»rf O* fe?>!fcS«4W*«:.t ««(# TttAttlSP* 

»Xt<f«»itxr« »H» i»»«:ir9ot» <M t«i^« i»BI« t«»ir »<^« «H» ftSlteik^a stao ••«d[# 

9Ai tOl SAilROM #^<f;f 1^»JIt«« iMlf Od #BlCt i«8»X «d ««tl«tO0 AO II90/I 

)i Bid Jb9ie£ aotXt^O ^odf («mod t*" «^^ <M Mw Aftc MMiXt.00 IMilMl|«ift 

<n«i<l s^^Ov »Btt9 M#Ot #s Jb«7f4t« «n« a## M&TtiXu(»il •laoftJ a* i^o> 
ta« ilttiM ib»bM«««q •XitfoMtMii mM b%9^t rn^tt imm iii^i -*^ ft •«« 


•tttpp*d 15 f«9t or sore froa the tracks; th@t he saw a Xftllroa^ 
•fti> ■tanding on the west eide of LoonhIs SouleT-'rd at}out even irlth 
the sidewalk; thnt there vns no vatehaan at the oroesing and thst 
Carlaoa then stt^rted driving aorosa the tr^ok and the tr7>ln 9t9.rted 
at the 9»M9 tiae; thrxt Onrlaoa tried to ^et out of the ray but was 
unalile to do so aad the oar of the defendant* the Penney Xvania 
Railroad Coapany* baeked into the ntutoaohile and the plaintiff 
vaa thrown out aad injured* 

k witness naaed «Cxner testified thnt he was driring 
alftag Loeais ^oulew^rd in m. southerly direotion; thi»t there were 
two traeks aoross Looais J::K>uleT;ard at th^t point, one being a 
through line and the other used for switching; that as he was 
approaohing the track at apprexiaately S& eiles an hour he saw these 
box oars projecting aoaew^nt beyond the building line and they were 
stit^ittg still at the tiae; th>it he slowed up as he npproaohed the 
traok »nd suddenly sa the oars aove aoross and heard the orash; that 
k« was ooapelled to iiake a sudden stop* Re did not hear any signal 
or warning of asgr kind before the Of^rs aored, nor did he see any 
flagpuA or wateha^n or other pereon on the oroesiag* 

Qarlson« the eo-<lefendant with the Railroad Ooapany* 
iHia was disaissed out of the case testified pr^otieally to the saaHi 

R^olph Anderson, a witness on behalf of plaintiff, was 
driwiag along the boulev-^rd and was sbout a block away when he first 
saw the osrs whleh were in aotion «tt the tiae* He continued to 
driwe along the boulevard until he re^tohed the plaee r^here the 
aoeident had happened but did not see a flagaaa at th« orossing* 

Opposed to this testiaony w>>8 that of the trsin orew« 
consisting of the engineer and the fireaan, both of whoa testified 
that the Pell was ringing snd thst the rear end br«keaan, by the 
aaas of i^arter, was at the orossing fts was also the orossing flagaan* 

tf#i« A»T* #tf<»tf«» M/'TdlMNB elJWMy lo (fhini ta*v **iii >xo jgaJtbojei^re y,«:9 

»»r?:iit#e flJUTft •Hi isu i»i«* ««C# w»««ro« y^tvirt bttfj.vt^ aBfit !3,c»X%i^0 
a»*» iwi Y*^ **J^ ^c ^«*^ ■.'■■jdi »«wi» •?:: ; 

*i|MF^/^fF'?®^t{ #iF , *® '^^ **^* ^-^ *• ^ ®* niifMmi 

•ii3%sjl&i baa tue amptiit »»v 

» niil^ »ao »*«!:• i -i.'Vfuu^^ gisooa ji^u%otl»js sifiett ©if* 

mm inS tif> ti&iit i-$at(i9iti- >«i^ xmiSa ^^0 has wttl (i^uextff 

•IS* 1E»4^# lia.e mill ^eilbAiijf<i ntd^ £»o^^ ^AifrANtoe ^l3^09(,oiiq «xs» ]t«tf 

#aYit #4 ««if« ysnA 3iooXtf jt jfuo« :; ?Al£r<Mf «^^ UneXs aoiTitl) 

•y«i8ttevo 9il# tfi «U!«a«i) s ••« ifoa blh tuKi bnan^i: ?X[»Di»0£ 


Th9 oonduotox of the ts'sln was tfomalderably east of th« plaet 

v^«re tbe aocident happened and did net «>itnesa it* 

Ooffll«» the vatobKan statioiMed e,t this point by the 
Railroad Ooispany, testified through atn int^rpxetex' nM. aoeoxtliag 
to his testlaot^ he hlew a whistle and waved a flag and tried to 
stop the oaofwiiig autoatobile In whioh plaistiff was riding* One 
Ueoker testified* the bell ««« ringing &ad th^t the driver of the 
auteaobile did not 3top at the OTossing* 

the only question for this oourt la one of f&ot* niia^ly, 
whether or not there was snoh negllgenoe on the part of the defend^ 
sftt as would support the werdiet rendered* snd whether the plaintiff 
was In the exerolse of due CRxe for his own safety* 

ife agree with the position of the defendant that it is 
the duty of the plaintiff to prowe th^t he wns in the exeroise of 
eaire f^JoA eaution for his own snfety at the time of the f^ooident nwA 
prior thereto, and thnt it is the duty of one ^bout to oross a 
railroad track to approaeh it with oare eoaimensur«!te to the known 
d?nger* we also agree with their position th^t it is the duty of a 
passenger in a vehiole, if he has an opportunity to learn of the 
danger* to inform the driwer* and that the lourden of proof is upon 
tb« iftlaintiff to establish his oase by a preponderanoe of the ewidenoe* 

On the other hand* n railroad eoaspany operating through 
s eity is under obligation to operate its tz^sins in suoh a aanner as 
a»t to injure persons rightfully using oity streets* 

It appears froa the evidence to be unoontr^dieted that 
shortly before the neoident the box ears aere baolced up so th^t the 
rear end of the train mts approxiiaately ewen with the building line 
and the oars were standing at that point Just prior to the time th«t 
the autMiobile in which plaintiff was riding as a passenger started 
to eroea* It also nppears that ths engins w^s not attaohed to these 
st«nding ears* If the driver stopi^d his onr* as testified to Isf 

r^ ii>V,7.TitJflii 

.£^«9# Hid Ot 


tXlawMt < 


t© t*^?- *^- 


IkiMt and 8SW the box oars standing stilX and fmf wn.9 no r«ar 
braktmaa* andl no -mvnlog waa given liqr the ereaaing tratobmim, tb« 
Jiury WAS ;}u«tified in finding the driver of the automobile vae not 
guilty of negiig«noe in attempting to oroes and the plmintiff wbs 
under no obligation to warn hia of danger, the testimony on behslf 
0f the plaintiff aaiply eubetantiatea this position and it is not 
within the prorinee of this court to reverse under sueh oirotuBstanecs 
unless the evidenee is so ovenrhelMngly in favor of the defendmat 
that all re&sonable ainds eould agree thereon. Plaintiff's 
testioiony standing alone should require the subaission of plain- 
tiff* • ease to a ;}ury and we see no reason for disturbing the 
verdiet s^nd Jud^ent entered thereon. 

i^laintiff testified th^t his foot was torn and out; hi* 
rid^t hend wne out open and his whole body was bruised; that his 
shoulder and leg ^^ere badly injured; that he was treated \3f a 
physioiaa for k oouple of aonths or aere; that his right hand and 
ara are sere and ahaJcy; nnd th^t there is a Halted ootion in his 
right ara and he oannot aove it in every direotion; that at the tiiM 
of the aeoident he w^a earning ^13 a day but that he hae not been 
able to do anything ainoe that tiae. 

or. J'^oobaon, the physieian who first treated hia at 
the hospital, testified th?;t he found plaintiff's hand bndly 
laeertted and the three siddle fingers out, his shoulder sprained* 
and a disleoatioa of the ankle; th^t he iidsaobilixed the shoulder 
and sutured the torn tendons and that plaintiff reaMiaed imder his 
oare for about three weeks and subsequently he was eared for by 
his ova faaily physioiaa. 

E^. Seett, a physioiaa, testified that he tooh an 
x»ray picture of the plaintiff and found a 50> stiffness in his 
ri|^t shoulder and a 15> reatriotion of notion ia the index and 


%en Ofi «Fw ^rziit tua IXMIitifltikiMlt^ anuto xocf e4t m»» bae ^mld 

tXstftd no "^aossllsftf •if? •t«;glu<E& to »iK sti>« «# dai/^^iitfo e« iE«i3iu; 

w^J^ilta: .'09t«».'l^ »»t^ft i^yXtfd9 ahalm 0ldjmo9»»t lla tmAt 

*tto»t»sUt ^istia» #'0ftf^^4i:?j{, tass #©iM»T 
« Iftj' i^tm^^ Affw »af i'is^l ;l5»T*r|^al XJU>j^' «>t.3w g*! Jeff-? iafeXj;;di« 

Vili t^tasi Jbt)iiX«M«n l^it^aXflXtj #i?rf# <ha« •ao&nsf i2:i«># •(!» lM»iftj»«i Aa« 
"{Ct toll &9Vfo •4ifr •!{ t^#ix8tfpaa<fi» Imm «^«;$« soiii^ #jjotfj; vol »ii:r* 

•OBlaiot^q xXiMst flnre Bid 

fur ioot Mir #«l(t AftitltB^^ ,A«l9l»t^ « «#tO0^ .TO 

•iitf ai st«ntti»« ^Oe n Aittiot &Bii ttl^iiijKXq 9di to •tJ;f#aX9 t^t-x 
bOM x«Bfli oii# Hi nol^oii to ftoifoitts^v !^(41 ji JiMU rmhhniM tt^tx 

■iddl« fingers of the right hand; that there was oonsideralAs 
stiffnsss and rlglAlty in the musoles of the bsok, both in the snail 
©f the baoM and the uppmx part and that there was a)»out 50% liaitntioa 
la aotlon in the left ankle. 

The verdict was for S10,000 *»nd we iwre uasteXe to say 
tinder the oirouostanoes that it was excessive. 

For the reasons sttxted in this opinion the Judgment of 
tlie Superior Court is afflrotsd* 



wummu mmmmm wmm...mif mm *^^ iba»ti iH^H tuit t* VMfan tiLtbtm 
X»e ci 9JL^3tw *r» 9<n l«w 000, Oi$ ret bjht *oUbi«T ^riT 


XRmO 8FITZIR, trad lag a* ) 
WK1AT0A3T noMPV«Y/ ) 







.« ) 26 8 I.A. 625 

App«Ilant. ) 

Opinion filed Dec. 21, 193S 

MR, PR^PimnO JUBflOf vth&OU dellTered the opinion 
of the eourt. 

Flalntiff recovered a judgvent before the court without 
a Jury for the sum of tS«846,3S, together with oosta, for a breach 
of eontraot. The original contract in queatloa «ae dated Hay S5« 
1931, froa which it appears that the defendant. The Quaker Oats 
Ooapany, sold to the Whoateaet Ocnqpaay, 93 tone of "Muffete" at 
ISO par toa f.o.b, Ohloaga, The tine of ahimaeat was withia 3c 
. tfayt, with a carrying charge after that tine. The contract was 
■Igaed, "Irring spitser, 0uyer, *ssnd tiaderneath the etgiiature waa 
the abbreTlatioa "Prop." eTid<?ntly meaning proprietor. 

The original action aopeera to have been brouj^ht la 
the nane of Tbestoast Gowpany, a oorporatloa. ieave wae granted 
to aaend the nnme of the rlaintlff to Irring Spitser, trading ae 
fhea toast Company. To the statement of claim ts aaended* defaad* 
aat filed Its affldaylt of merits and prooeeded to trial. It Is 
Ineieted that this was not an avendnent but a substitution of a 
party plaintiff and that, therefore, the plaintiff should bs pre* 
slttiod from rsooTery. It appeare, however, that no «sotica to 
dlemies was »ad:<! la the trial eourt, but an affidavit of merits 
was filed to the amended statement of claim and the parties pro* 


«!>■ ^.*il- 

»o to ( 


SCei «IS .090 bsin nolnxqO 

.^ft/od Jtrf* 1© 

tfojMtiNf « Tet ,9#c«o iltiif «««(te994- «dS.8^«S^ Ite £}.'» 9i^» lol X^itrt • 

OZ altiiiiH •«« #«««cridii Tto *mii ^tdf ,«;'j#oidO .tf.o.l eot t«q 0<l 

«s« #oisi#«QO M(T .««i# tAe(# lalts «»:^t:«iia SajTttJBO n dtiw ««v«ft 

ftjtw i>««4'Aast« vtf^ tfla»aYs6ae bfi«-** «T«^tf& ^'iest^q€ ^nirtl* «l>»iisiR 

si S&^ata m9%t5 9T«tf (»# MftftqcA s^ii*i>a Xsai^lto viiT 

•ftmit^b «b»ikaMui «A «i«X9 to iati^imimtz *EI;^ oT .tMi(|»oO #a«0t««fl 
• I il ,£edti ct &«i»f>«i9<rsai bag nftxns to ilTK&ni* »#i belli ^Tju 

atlTtn Icj itrnbi'i'l^ a« iutt ^t'tuoo Luitl 9tlt ai «b«i ■«« fttnih 
••evq ••i^ijeiq «tf^ bnt mialo %o #fl««»^«y» IbAftstiui stft oi h^£t\ warn 


e«9d«d to trial npon the thmrf thm.% the aotloa vae one by 
IrrlAg Spltter, trading «• Whe»toftSt Ooapaay, tmA not ea aetlon 
%]r a Mrporatlon. The ooatraot upon whi^ the ectloa le pre- 
tfleetetf Indieatee that It vae a eon tract between the defends? at 
and spltser rb an IndlTldusI. It !« too late 1» ralee the 
queetlott in thie eourt at thi« time. Malleeble Iron Range Oo. 
▼. ^9997. 244 111. 184; gphiw A Gordon V. Rlohey> 61 111. App. 650; 
Retfloweltl ▼. Croeefeld ^ Hoe Co.. 192 111. App. S34, 

rro» the endence it apoears that after the elfpilng 
of the agreeaeat and oa or about Jane 15« eertftin eiienges vere 
■ade in the eontraet and th«t thereafter all of eald "Muffet 
Feed" vae delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff except 
49-1^ tone. This ap 'ears to hsiTe reemined la the warehottee of 
the defeniiint and, according to the teetlsoay of the plaintiff^ 
the pur^aser, this anount vee eold to Four Cotinty Feed lUstribu- 
tore nt en agreed prlee of I87.S0 per ton by the plaintiff* 

Plaintiff testified that on or about the first of 
At^past he ordered the dnfeadant to ship the Muffet feed «md 
was told that It had been ecl4« There is some CTldence oa 
behalf of the defeadsnt that this material deteriorated during 
the bot weather and that it beeeae aeeeseary to sell It. This 
was a Question of fact for the trial court end, moreover, there 
does not appear to have 'bumn any demand made upon the plaintiff 
by the defendant to order the material shipped, nor was there any 
aatlfieatloa that la the event It was not itak«i It would be sold* 
The contract Itself and the evidence oontalned la the written 
oclBRailcaticine between the partlee eivldeneed as outright sale of the 
property with the title la the plaintiff, s^e are of the opinion 
that the trial court properly found that there was a breach of 
oon tract* 

-»tq ft! «(»Jt#»a tdt ifoltfir « >«r«r ^oAt^aoo erft «aciif«^o<rxo« / x** 
».»g tMiga aarl »Xtf^».^f <^X .wait jjjui» te $t!sv.9 tmi la ndt^^ap 

.*Ka ,q<fA .lix «ei ,.,.<^ go^ ^ MttosQTO .▼ i3f»iw0Xftg,^ 

t© *»T|t 9A^ nf^9 to fio I Silt tit^tM$9n$ ni*j«i«l^i 
B^taho •tli l/* •Ttii •¥ AtJtinti^tq 5rf* ai «X*i* aifif Aitm ft^qaiq 

Tb« court found th« s«asure of damag** to be th« 
dlff«ro&e« b«t»e«a tbe ocBtmct prLoo and the price wnieh 
tb« plaintiff voBld hare raceived und -r th« eala of this produot 
to tha FottJr Ootmty Peed Dletributora. This prodtiot waa not of 
aueh a oharaetar aa to have a readily aeoertniaaMe Taltie la 
the open aiarket* Tbe defea^snt kaev that it vae the purpoae 
of the Dlaintiff to eell thie product ae ehova by its ooa^Bunica* 
tion to the plaintiff of July 3« 1931, in vhioh 1« glren a liat 
of proapectiTe buyers . If there; vae an actual aale by tbe 
plaintiff and the oo^irt ae fo^ond that th«re waa, the aetual 
<«■»«** «o\ild b« t e differ«ne<9 betvecn the eontraet priee and 
tbe inrioe at vhieh the plaintiff bad sold the product. Black 
Dtajioad Fufl C o. ▼. Illinoie yuel i Phoepbate Co.. 219 111. &pp, 
150; Barnet t ▼. Qsldwell. 877 III. P86; Arniaiiy ▼ . Mfidaen * Buck po. ^ 
Ill 111. App. 6?1. 

Tbls court in tbe oaae of Qablia ▼. Mgytaa Co.. 238 111. 
4^. tb, in its opinion, eaid: 

"The ganeral rule i9 th^tt in an action for breaeb 
of contract for a f Allure to deliTer goods and chattels, 
f.o.b. at a eertsin plaoe, where the purcbaBe priee has 
not been paid, the measure of daaagas is the difference 
between the contract price end the market price at the 
tlas and plsce stipulated for delirery. 2 Sedgvlok oa 
Daaages, sec. 734; TSrigger s v. Bell. 94 111. ?fS; rarsea 
T. Bader . 187 111. App. 3lf; O^Hfxi r. Valley Frull <ga., 
HI 111. App. 162. Tbeip is, howcTer, a well-rnowa except 
tion to this r'lle. A recovery aiay toe had for proapeotl-ve 
profita where thpre ia ??ny criterioa by which the probable 
profits may be estiaated ^itfc reasonable c*rt«lnty. All 
the law requires is that sucu profits be establisbed by 
•oapeteat proof." 

Tbe re being no ewidenoe or proof that tber<> was a 

aarket walue, the eotirt prv-:?perly allowed a recoTery for the 

prospeetiwe profite as shown by the evidenoe. Tbe cause was 

trie4 by the court without a jury end we find no rawer sible error 

in the record. I 

for the reasons steted ia this oplaion tbe Judgment of tb< 
laaiolpal Court is affiraed. 

inn B &«tt% ni ia.i- - .^ ^IV -. » l/s-i?".:- «{Jt O* na^i 

.f??0 ,«if|A .III III 


i ■ . ■ 

ec'f T©t ^ttVOC@l B &«»OAi- ■"■■■ "■ ■■ ■ ■ :J ,w;._'^y 


(Flalatiffs) App«XXeea, 

ju'PEAi. mm 

SUF&rtlOR C0U3T, 

PSTKB J. 0*&nlEM» doing buaiaMs 

M y&Ti^ J. O'BRlfciJ AUli OOMPAIT, 

and th« cm or OHIOAGO, St 

»tuaicip«i ;k>rpor^.tion, ! O i^ o *^°*^ OOUHTT. 

(i;«f«ndant») appeiiants, { ^U O l^A. 625 

Opinion filed Dec. 21, 1932 

MR. nmiBigm Jwnom wxlsov asLirenso thx opiiiioii of thi; qourt. 

fhl« 1« aa appeal from h Judgaent for $l«303«d0« in 
tlM tttpovlor Oourt of Oook County, arising out of an eotlon by 
th* plaintiffs ngainst the defend»nta in an siotlon of trespaac on 
tk« ease. The defendant ^'eter «i, 0*Srlen« doing business as 
Pet^r J* O'Brien i Companjr, 99» Joined with the Oltjr of Ohio^o 
1> the aotion. 

Fvea the faota it appears that on Septeaber 33, 19^, 
tlM Sanitary Olatrlot of Ohioago ent?^red into a oontraot with 
Qowdle :<rothera, s corporation, for the oonatruotion of adiaefeftrge 
sever used in oonneetion with the Morth Side Bevnge Treatnent Works* 
SlTlsiott 'ii» This proposed sewer was to run through oert»ln ▼illages 
and along certain streets in the City of Obioago* One of these 
streets w^s LsV«rgne aTenue, upon which street iiie plaintiffs 
resided* The improveanent provided for theopenlng of a trenoh 
approxlaately 38 inohea wide nnd its entire length was approxiatately 
17 nlles. In this trenoh & oenttlfugaUy spun oast iron pipe with 
a diaaeter of 14 inches whs to be laid at a depth varying froa 11 
to 13 feet, Tbe Oity of Qhieago passed an ordini^inoe authorising 
the work to be done and in the ordinanoe it was provided thnt the 
Sanlta:ry ulstriot of Clhibago was to be liable for any daaagea result- 
ing froa the work* and the paving on the street v»s to be repli^oed 


i,ik (af*%t=ib«&.i:<:*u) 


t «t.S»t: 

•fsoi ai 

ditw 9ql^ aoxi tuMO ausi9 ti^^Bs^^ltneo « iiot»««^ vj. ..< < i •sdiis) Vi 


as it had before exiat«l« fh« Bftaltairy aistrlot eatsTAd l&to « 
SfitMT^ ooatract with th« Dowdle Brothers under trhiirb th« ooatmotor 
agreed to do this work and to restore the paveoent not only withlB 
the lines of the treaoh, hut any other paTeaeat ©a the streets out- 
side of the treaoh that w^s broicea or daJSisged durlsg the eourae of 
the operetioa. this trenoh was dug aad the pipe laid, aad on April 
1^0 1938* Uovdle sublet the restoration of the street to Peter J. 
O'Brien* doing business as Peter J, O'Brien 4 Go,* defendsmt lierein. 
In order to ;:^Te the street it beoawe neeessary to reaoTe oertftin 
of the street surfaoe whioh had been oraoked nnd rendered unseririoe- 
able by the laying of tha trenoh. In order to rsaore this danaged 
surfaoing of the street it beoaae neoeasary to break it up so that 
it oottld be easily handled ;ind for this purpose a large iron baU 
about two feet in diaaeter and weighing approxisHitely 300 pounds 
was hoisted up and dropped upon this daaaged pareflent* thus reduelng 
it to ^ oondition where it oould be earted away and enable the 
•ontraetor d'Brien* to re^ve the street where required. It is 
^aintiffs* ooutention that the vibration produced tqr the dropping 
of this biU.!* otsused oraoks in the 13 inoh fovindation under their 
house and also in the stueoo super-struoture* the interior plastering 
of the house and the prlT^te sidewalk rvinning fro« the front to the 
rear of the house. Plaintiffs also oharged thnt by reason of the 
•raeks in the foundation walle* water w»e eaused to and did flow in 
and daaagsd certain tools belonging to the plaintiffs, thst had been 
stored in the basement of the house. It is oontended by the plain* 
tiff that this daaage w».s dons in August* 1938* 

The position taken by O'Brien appears to be that the 
work of oraoklng the d?uB«?ged portion of the parement of La Vergne 
avoBue in the bloek in whieb plaintiff resided was done by John 
O'Connor* suboontraotor* and that this work was not done until 


s &tBi i»t&ta^ i^litrsjtu if5W'^'i«JB3 •ri'i' ,i;';??«i;c?? ?»'it:\ds!; fiuBd tt »« 

lit^h «0 &ff:?5 ,l)lfii •ql«i ♦•«{# ^*s 5n»fe «!»*' M&^i *it?l *i«©J:Jflt»qo ».rt# 
,1; r»^n-'ntft ir***ihSi »!## te lii^ih^jgpto ire-sir «Ji* stil^ue »i^©v: ^d^-tfel «€'i 

#ed# OS MW #i i.^S'Xiw' »i t' #«»»»♦« «MK/?«rtK? #i rj>«rt*« Si-iSf lo |i|«iOi?liuie 
il^ fiwwEl »3^TiSi :* i^eoi^xfq sttAi lot fc*^. imSMcsid xiisiss ©d liiuot} #i 

9dt ©# iaotl *iii »oi't •gifi.mttric 4{i*«w(»^« ©j^.'-vlv,:. *»i# !«« i»«w(orf »£(* to 
Al 00X1 trih bum o# Ib^tac >lsi«r «ftXI«« a«>J^#Jil;tfitfo1: s^i? nx Biturnxo 

•8ffX ^Htf^k al 0{i&6 ».«w OgiiUMA oiilt ^sfid Itli 

Oii# #;»^if 8d o^ ottOqiiJit Dt»l<ri(*v ^(K tib:t»9 mtilm^Ki *^^\ 

otrs^st lU to $umb»rav 9d:i to noXJhxoq bmrnt^turb 9dt saXMocxo to atitow 

Hdo% T^ otei^ «o« 60Mft«T msaitlti rioXjfv Ai JVoXtf •£<# ei Mmt>t» 

UtOM •amb »oa Mv iiw oiilt t«i<# teur «tot^t«aeod«« ««*BnoO*0 


■MMtia® in October* It Is also el»laMHl tliat O*0oim<»r w%8 sa 
independent ooatractor eapioyed by o'liTlen and thst the defendant 
O'Brien was« therefore* not liable* 

On behalf of the Citj it la inelated tbat the work was 
not of a dangerous eharaoter and that, therefore, there wae no 
liability on the part of the Oity* 

the question as to whether or not O^Oonnor was an 
independent oontraetor or uaddr the oontrol snd direct ion of O'Brien 
in the work of replaaing the paweaent v^» one of fnet* liuaterous 
vitneaaea testified on beh&lf of plaintiffa th^t the hoist, whloh 
was uaed to r&iae the iron ball for the purpose of dropping it on 
the p%Teaent, bore the nsa« of Feter J* C* Brian & ao»* and tb^t 
oertftin wagons and trusloi used in and about this work also bore 
tkat aa«a* 

Dewdle, the President of Dowdla Brethere, who hmd the 
general oontraot with the Sanitary District to do this work, waa 
called as a witness for the defendanta B^nd testified there were no 
•ther eontraotors on the job exoept hia own and O'Brien's; that 
his fir« had aublet the ootttraot to l^i^ter J* O'Brien 9t Oo.) that 
lis was on the Job while the paweaent w^s being broken and he 
thought the defendant O'Brien had a oonorete breaker there in 
October* Thia witness also stated th^nt he did not ki&ow to whom 
the concrete br«»*4ker belonged, Icwt understood th^tt O'Brien rented 
it frott aene souree or another* 

3ophia llaoer, one of the plaintiffa, who appears to 
hKf bssn a joint owner together T^ith her hxmbimd of the property 
in question, testified that ahe t^aked with 0*Jirien sm the tele- 
pbone and he told her thiit if there was tusor dsuaage done to her 
bouas that dhe need not worry that they («er,ning 0* Brian A O^npi^ny) , 
were insured* 


9«t ftJit<r VSAltt ,9t©"t»1t'^ -wlf 

aditS*o lo floi torrid kas^ Imi^a in^-t tsstfeiv^ v-.- Toto*T*it«-s sJiiWacaqaJbflJt 


Tbe defendant 0*ltri«ii inaists that th« eirideaec «ts to 
tht naaM on the hoist or derrlok^ aad ob th« truoks asd wagoss was 
only priMfe facl(^ proof of ownership and tfest this ®Tid«noe vets 
overeotttt hy his testiiBony- to the tffeot that 0* Connor wms aa 
independent oontraotor. 

There was bo written oontraot between 0*Srien ^sod 
O*0oi»or and therefore no opportunity for the oourt to p««8 uprnt. 
the question as one of Ian. Sinoe the oontraot «%a not in writing 
it iMOaae a <]ue8tion of faot whether or not O'Connor w®s aa 
independent oontruotor and, \uider the evidence, it heoaae neeeas^&ry 
to aniMsit it to the jury as n, question of faet under proper 
Inatruetiona, ghnnnon ▼• Highting^ile. 32i lil. 168; H^rtler v. 
R ftd ball transit Oo.^ 344 ill, 534. 0» Connor was not produced 
as A witness on behalf of the defendant O'flrien. from oorrespondenoo 
produced by the defendants it appears that O'Connor did the work 
aatd was paid by O'Brien, but the ewidenee as to whether or aot ho 
was an inde>;endent oontraetor or aoting under the control nnd 
superrision of O'Brien was one of fnot ^nd properly atubsittod 
to the jury* 

Objection was OMide to the testimony with regard to tho 
tolophone oenvere^ition in whioh it ia charged thnt O'Brien str^tod 
tli4t he wi%8 ooTered by insurance and would take o%re of any daomges* 
This objection was baaed upon the ground that it was prejudicial 
to the defend^mts and niuBerous eases are eited in support of this 
contention. Kroa an examination of those eases it npnears that 
thoy are mostly personal injury cases where the purpose of the 
teatiffiony was not to support any particular proposition neoessimry 
to show liability. In the present ease, however, the pMTp&w was 
to show thst O'Brien w^s notually in charge of the work end e«trried 
SfttOh insursAce in order to protect hinself while doing it. It has 


AH »«w •%'^aneQ*0 t»fis i':^'-x-' - . .9ssUu»$ nlti xfi MN9trctro 

•lotos's iraoo tii«ito«o*£)isi 
tap A«it8*0 ad^yl-ftof #oc%;^fl«e gniitrti uit k-m-w •i[«ii7 

e#, cfiff Tt^iiaoO'O ton it-> tft^-fJ^rf* t©*flt to aotimttstji} » 9aa«M[ #i 

^»ewfc««o• toij «;r^- T««««©'o .Mfi ♦.. .«,..-,^a. „,:...■ ..^ ■.^... 

bast £'&is TC9tmr •^li- 3G?4«*ao» *na&B»f;8l«xi - 

•atf tl .#1 9aio^ 9lX<!fif llVMaif ;ro*>o«< «« xt%0 ml mMmxtitiX ^•im 


been hald that under suoh oiroumstanees proof of Indonnity iii9arf)ne« 

iM Mvpetoat In order to show by wh<w the work was being done. The 

•at* •f XafikSt ▼• yg^ge;^ . et ai, iSl lU. App. 144, held: 

'Where the existewje of the relation of master ^ad servant 
is n.n. issue in a ens^t suoh »a th?»t at b<%r« It bns b«ea 
held, 3sA «e think properly jejuI thnt it is eonpettnt for 
the plaintiff to show that the defendant oarried iiideaalty 
iBsuyanoe upon the eaployes* including the plaintiff. 

KZSX V. liaifiSlU «6 Kan. 7?0j i^yg ▼. Souafield^ 65 Minn. 

SS5i Oorriifsn ▼. Klsimzer. 81 Mnn. 43," 
To the same effect is Current ▼. Knright. 159 111. App. s«0. In the 
••jie at bar O'Brien denied that the work w^^s being done by him or 
his ooaoany mid nwf evidenoe tending to refute that position ^ns 

The position t«iken by the City is unteanble. 3iaee the 
•ottstitution of 1870, the Oity ie liable for injury oeeasioned to 
an shutting owner by reason of exo«T%tions in % street by the City 
ar persons aeting under a power granted by it. The eonstruotion of 
the trench along lia Vergne avaaue by the ?«nlt»iry Distriot was in- 
speoted from tiae to time ^ the elty ins pes tors aind it W9S a pert 
■ of the agreement that the pa-Tenent be replaaad to the satisfdetioa 
of the Oity. The treneh in question was being oonstriiOtAd for e publlo 
laae and the City« by oo»senting to or aiding in the work, booamo 
liable to the defendants for any damage reeulting therefrom. 3amgrd 
T. q\%Y 9f OftMiCT, 370 III. 37{ M2fifi^v* Jitr of Qhioaam. 312 111. 

fho Aam&gta awarded by the jury were not exoesaiwe. Our 
attention is directed to certain items thi^^t were included in the 
total amount of the claimod loss. It is insisted that plaintiff 
testified to the same item twioe, namely. Ho* 1 kite totaling ill 
daaagoo to 1^36. 00 « and a iio.l~Aklts« $33.00. An examination of the 
testimony, hOKrever. shews th»t these were two separate items. There 
was some differenee in the testimony of the witnesses n% to the 


mmmamttt t^liMtinl %• %o«%c; 1^9mi»$mmfxtn a»m, X9tgiu t»0i Mftif Atfttf 

ta.eirri»9 bam ta^si** t« uoltnisnc trf* to ••«i**«iTt» •«(# airwr**'* 

mtt9d turf *l ,T ■'f'^ ^» sJss?!! . : 

X*l :■:■:• 

%' . 
»rf# iij .Oe^' . .ill «3i p ^£fvai , ir.aa . -At «T 

«ei««Mr ^tt9^: »A$ Ri ^Mflii '» tt^ ^^tinmtmiy jf$ 0XH^ •fit ba^ ftair 

ruO ««r«'Jtta»»X« toil STA^ Xptl^t, 9<it t<it J!»*lh;.<V«rA ««r||Mift^ ftdT 

9tf$ X(i i)«ibjfi»ni sKr«>w t«£(l aanikJi citf^tnii ot fe!»jrQ9iri£) si tsol^awtim 

Hi i^lXjsJ'et atrii I •oil «xlMi£Ui ^^oJNI aftifi f«ue« «Ht ii>;r £»»iti4^««t 

«f(# to a9li»almtiX9 an •OO.dr'; ^&«XA A^l^o;^; i^ 'iia<>- ^ooj&t^ 9 am^imBb 


txt«ii% of the cUasbges* 1sm% under tb« oir9uaat?tne«8 it i« isipoaslbl,« 
fdT thla oourt to 8ub«titute Its opialon for that of the Jury. Tbt 
▼arlou« questions of fact «»«re pasted upea by th« J«ry. th« 
trial oourt required a 7«»!iittitur ^isd entered jtadi^aent in tha 
•tia of Il*s03«90f aad tbls oourt fiada no rsasoa for Interferiag 
wltb tbint judgaa«ut« 

For th« reasoas otatcd in this oplaioa the Jud^^Mmt 
•f tb« Superior Court is «Lf firmed. 


,^m*m ^%% ^j^uH um 031001 


i '• 

ooor ootjiTT. 

iCUIS RtmiR, doing bti«la«s8 a« 

J^6 8 I.A. 626^ 

Opinion filed Deo. 21, 1932 

KR. FRR«it5XW0 jroSTlOf W1MK)» deliTerad the oplal-n 
of the court. 

FlalQtiff *8 autovobilo vao dfuBtgod lay r«a«o& of « 
eolllsloo with n. truck ovno4 and operated by the drfeadnat at 
the latereeotloa of Wastera aTenue and Ltint uTenite, tvo inter«> 
aeotlnf Bireets In the City of Ohlcago, He hroiifht hie actioa 
for damagee in the Superior Oourt. The Jury returned a Terdlet 
la faTor of thf! plaintiff for 1300.00 end Judgmeat wae entered 
upon the Terdlet* from vhlch Judgaeat thle ap eal hae been perfected. 

Ohjeotioa «ae aade st the trial to the teetlaony of a 
vltneea by the aane of Akreas ae to the dftsa^es to the plelatlff *t 
automobile. Thle objeotloa wae bated uf^b the ground that the 
altaeee had not qualified ai as expert. It appears that the witaeee 
AJurtBa wae a aeohaale end bad been for 90 yearejthet he had bought 
aad Bold 50 or 60 oare and that he had repaired and appraleed auto'^ 
■ebllee of different aakea sad that he had eoen the ear of the plaia* 
tiff both before and after the aocldeat. The queetioa ae to hit 
qualificstioae to teetify ae en expert wae one for the trial oovtt 
and the weight of hie teetlmony was for the jury. 



dS8 .A.l Sdii 

- S 

SSei »IS .osa baiil noifliqO 

.<j:t(/00 9dt to 

i» #ft«i>«#l«fc »i{f ifrf »«#«T«^<» bam (taNJWo afoirx* « 4*i» mlvtilo^ 

fe«t»*ei> SAW tmm^btfl kmm 00,DO?;t xot tti#iii«,Jq 94* to loyst ai 
» to xaomlf»9if 0iit at tairt «^ *• mhmt tsir tt^Jtt9»t40 

#4»vetf 6aif •(( tB4i;%xA9x m tot o^ttf &«« htM al&M(»»« « ««« «a»«U 

-c*«* btsl4«qq« BAA »tY|««ftt ftA^ Ml iM^if t^at mjso (» Yo oa J>X08 bAS 

-aiAlcr trft to V49 eii^ »•» &aK Mf iMdf bB» M)Uw *iwt9tti» to ••Udom 

tW o# 14 aci*««ifp »rfT .ta^j!>lao« »<!« t#nii bjui •votstf rfjorf tti# 

♦t»»0 r«iltt *di »0t 9110 •«* ^TftCfXtl IM •« X*i#8»»;:o# WOl^sOlti i wt> 

.t'urt ftni tet »«w taodii^t«)# Aid to ^d:ai«w ^d^ ftiu 

It le urged as a grou&d for reTtrml that the d«olsmtioa 
eharged th&t the autOBO)>lXe vas greatly damaged and th&t the 
plalatlff wae obliged to and did lay ©«t dlrers enus of SKsaey 
for repaira, and that the evld? nee «e to the T«lue of the aachiaa 
aftat the accident was at Tarlanee vith the eharge in the daels^ra* 
tlo«. The wltneaa Ahreua testified that before the aecldaat 
the fflachine waa, la his oplaioa, worth |3SS,0Q taa that after the 
aeoideat he ezaalaed It and fetiad it iraa a total wredk and eould sot 
be repaired* Ho objeetl&n v%a «ade« hoverer, on the groxiad of 
▼ariaaoe^ but ioetead the objeetlon vae baaed upon the ground that 
the witneea «ae not properly qualified aa aa ex|Mirt. The queatloa 
•f Tarlanoe not havlag been preaenred at the trial* it will not be 
eoneldered here. 

We hatre ezanlned l&atruetloa Ho* 7, offered oa behalf of 
the plaintiff, and are of tl^ oplaloB that it atatee the lav fairly. 

It vm* not error to refuae laatruotlona Noe. 3 and 6. 
Theae laatruotlona were oorered by othera offered end glrta en 
behalf of the defendant, 

For the reaMSa stated In thle opinion the Judgment 
•f the Superior Court ie ffflraed, 

ItBfi. AMD HAU., JJ, craooR. 

tMCMi 1« aw* »T»YJII» ta9 tfti l^i^ ^i« e' lMr$iIiS9 nm %\itmliilti 
torn fritfM him al^iw' Sjii9i i'Mnr #1 Imw^I !«« it lmal««x« ^iC ta«ki8«« 



(naintiff) Ai»pell««* kPFiiAl* wmu 


TH« ff«9TKiar A SOUTBlsraC I Iff 
IISURAiOC Oo«i'*ST, a corporation. 

miiioii'A^ ecu: 

or oMZOA&o, 

26 8 I. A. «26' 

(D«fenasBt) Appellant. 

Opinion filed Dec. 21, 1932 

MR. FRS;S1DIW6 JUSnOK fSlhSOM deliv«r«<} the opinion of 
the eourt. 

Plaintiff's 8ta%eaent of cIrIjb allegea that the defendent, 
Th« Veetem A Southern Life ineurance Coapeny* issued Itn pelley 
of Ineurenoe to Stanley Diaaara under which it agreed to pay 
Katartyna Dmara, the vifc, the aum of |600 on the decith of her 
iMSbsad, 9nld. evm vaa ''payable hy the defendr^nt upon the ten» 
i!tttd conditions in aeid policy of inetiranee". It is further 
alleged in said ets tenant of ol«}i«i that Stanley Duasra died July 
IZ, 1931^ vhioh was within a year sfter the iaauanee of the policy. 

fhe affid&Tit of merita filed by the defendant eete out 
the fact thst the policy was not payable, by its tenui» to the 
plaintiff but wt>s payable to the executor er administrator of the 
Instirsd; further th.'tt the policy proTidss, nnong other thim^a, that 
"no oblilpition is asemed by the company unless on the date of the 
delirery thereof the insured le nllre ^nd in sound health. * 

Upon the trial the attorney for plaintiff asked leaT* 
to uumi the statement of *lai« by sulpstituting the adsinistrators 
of the deceased ae parties plaintiff s^nd lesTC was granted, but 
so attended etatoaent of olaia was filed nor were there any letters 
of adninietration offered In evid nee. Ooon the trifil of the cause 



P^^^ .A.I 8 8 




S5&I tIS .osQ b9in aotalqO 

1c m-Jaii-o 0di b9tifvtXii'^ gi: 

T: <) J %:' >; '''. *; .; s^ ^ i » ' i; « 

' »,'.r'.;s^ •»-■.•■ -j;!^ « 

t»^»<^ &(i«t^ ii d«»iifw t^bms mtBtrnfl t^S»&*Si <iti ^^xuix^siii lo 

Mit to to^ATtaiaiarfta tViot&'^Axs »t\i o$ «r^ itrd ttl#ai«X« 

''•:^t.r««'i1 ba0o« i^i bit* tvilff ti bv'Uraal «xi^ tct»t«itft YS*TiX96 

•Y««X f>»i«s tlifflijiXq tot if^tnoiia «if# XAiti «»<1« coqfV 

ttotxTtaleiorba •<{# jiaisftftXfatJEMi t^ «iAXf«to ta«»«^s4« aift ft«Mui o# 

tml «ft»tAn9 aaw avmX baa lli;faiJifXQ s^L^tMl a« taWMMiaft aiit lo 

rtal^sX fDui arcefft f>T«iif Tea b*lt1 aaw jtiaXo to taaa»#«#a lwft«MM ofl 

•aarso ant to Xeitt adt «oo9 .aan blva ni fratalto aoltaxiwiaimhM !• 

ylalBtlff prodtioedl no «Tld«ne« for th« purpose of showlag thst 
th« d«O0«8«d vsB ellre and in sotaad bealtli oa tbe d«te of tfae 
deIlT«r7 of the polloy of lamir^aet. fhie vae a eoadltloa 
praeedftat, and it iMeaaia iaounlMmt upoa tlk« plalatiff to eoiiply 
vltb this oonditloa. The affldevit of narlts ft lad hj tha 
dafaadaat ralaad this Issua, sad the burdaa of proof « tIs,, that 
the deoaasad was altva aad la sound health on rebraarr 16, ISSl, 
waa upoa the plaintiff. Itaaaadowalct t. Westam • Southam Life 
las* Oo.. 241 111. App. 65; Lflttghlln T. north Aaarloan Banaflt Oorp. . 
844 111. App. 391; Kualataa t. John Hancock Mutual Ltfe Ins. Co.. 
S63 111. App. 6X7. 

The oaaaa olted by the plaiatiff are not la point, 
imdar the rule laid doam by the eourte of this stata^lt baeoaea 
laovaibant upon the plaintiff to produea proof in the first iastanca 
aa to the fact that the deceased was aliTs aad la sound health at 
the tiaa of the iaaurenoe of the policy end this question ahould 
be aubsiltted te the ^ry under proper instruottona. 

for the reaaone stetad in this opinion the jndgaant of 
the Municipal Court is r ever sad and the e»uaa remanded for a 
new trial. 



«ol#ifraot> ji ttsfv 9tt£t »*muittmml lo Yaix«q »dt to TC9WXa5 
tlS9£ «91 ^T^'t^dl no dilwA bmrm at Ijse aitIXji ««« £>M!«iO«A 9ii 

,,pt ,tg| n^! imfum^^mm f^ik .^ .g«ifli»ffi uee .^a .hi *Mt 

.?ia .^^A .in sas 

a»iB60»d #l«tt$!Sjr6> aM^ lo n^Tir^ ^^di x^ «*^ hi»X. sij^ «(# 1E»1MV 
il tol' b^hBf.,ti>i% *«»"? r-;-.? -.a.? , ■ ■ ' yoO I«qX3lfiaH ©/Of 


#XR3T rmiOH 'B.^U;iT ft BOfmm 1MIK» 
as 1^ru8t«9 uiididr %te LASt vlH 
eaA T9»t«a»iil of Loo las G. fialMr, ) | «miT\9F WRm TO 




26 8 I.A. 626 


WIURTR J. 0*Bia^«, 

Opinion filed Deo. 21, 1933 

»• JGsfiss HALL imjvmi^ "am ofshqb o? tie aocrM*. 

By VhlB irrlt of error It is soujfit to rerlew {5, Jud^a^mt of 

lftM» MoniolpaX Court of i3hio&go ognlnst pletatlff fcr oosts. Pl^alntiff 

sued defcndaBt on a !•&«• of oertaln roons la the flaih&t Building; la 

ahloa^. Tha dc)f«ifl« is thtit for n ocnal deration rendered to platn- 

tlff , he, def<Hid(int» had bean rele/=;»ed fre« asy liability ther@c»n« 

ttm oanee m-.s saboitted to a Jory, a trial waa had, resulting in a 

▼erdiot for dsfendcjat, upon ^ieh ▼ordlot judgisent was entered, 

€n pril ^th, 19£!3, plaintiff entered into ixn A^esnmt 
a oorporatlon, 
vltfa Warren Gomlng & aewpaay/ whereby It leased to warren iSomlnu ^ 

Ootq^aay BeoBtt MM and 910 In the J'lsner Building In v!hi»f^e for a 

texn beij^yBBlng June 1st, 1933, end tadlng ;.prll 30th, 1926, fear a 

rental #f #XS,078, payable In 3S Installaients of #345.00 each. There* 

after on Deesnber 1st, 1934, v^arren Goamlag & (Jenpany assigned this 

lease to defeadg^nt, o*Bil«a, r.nd by the tenui of the asslgnm<»it» 

0*Brl«i screed to pcqr the rent froa DeeexdNor 21st, 19S4, to prll 

aOth, 1986. Plaintiff aexxs<anted to the nssl^nment on oondltlon that 

Varrsn leaning k Omspaa^ rcnaln liUible foe: the pa^^mt of the r«st« 

There^ifttar «?arr«n Joxnlng &, QoviHiny rsnoved fren th@ building, and 

0*BrlMi by a wltiniS endorsed on the le&se, assunwd etnA agreed to 

a»ke all the pci^aunts of r«»t, imd to obseri« all the oonmants of 

the lease. 


T O ^€^ 

■^t:i ta yuf«*.aii'4 

SCGI tXS .090 bsin noiniqO 


m Ji 

'-rt re f f>.:a-' 

4 JiflJt...^- .-.. - 

ft WJt , ' 

•iil» Hit 

•tnrt «fCt lo ii' 
Jv BtwuuNoo btU tin 


f&mii XtttnqfiKtli . 

odf iu9 bfoivitm^ r^it^ a ft' Italia' 
.#ae:( to «j'iSM8^iacf erif llm vdui 


Tho rent eXalmed to be du« is |3795,00, ^th Interest to tm 
Aat9 Qf the jiiAgBant, ammm tl&g to |1112«04, mcSciJDg a total of |4, 907.04. 
The tult ims Injstitutdd cai '^prll 28th, 19B6, 

In July, 19SS, i^axxea Cora in g & Q(»ap«ai7 eat^red into an agr«»- 
a«it with plaiatiff l>y ^ioh It le; sod o&rt».l& rocma In plaintiff* s 
building, othor than those rafexred to^hy the teras of whioh nad in sm- 
sidemtion thereof, plgintiff released \^:&rTea Coixilng & Oompnay of aiiy 
liability under the lease of aprll SOth, 1923, the lease iBTojbred in this 
prooeoding. The defense is that hy the rel^se of v>'arren Ooruin^ & aoia* 
ptmy <-»d further b@oause of a speeis^l agreoaont esitered ixito hetveen 
pXaintiff nwA defendant on or about ..pril ^d, 19236, defendtmt ^ma re- 
leased froas all llabililgr on the Goming lease. It appears that deftmd- 
ont is tile president of the .^terline-Midlfjid Ooal acwp^giy, ehioli ocoapany 
h@id ooov^ied ro«Bs in the Fisher Building, and tlist its lease expired 
on est about ;^pril SiOth» 19S9. It is the olaiB of defendant, thr>t :h rles 
B. strong, the a^ent htxrlng oh^xge of the building, approsohed defend- 
ant and agreed with hla that if he, a*Brien, would induoe the sterling- 
Ifidlftnd oor.l Uomp&ny to raneir its lease, plaintiff iTould release defend- 
ant freaa ^my liability on the Gomlng lease. From the reoord, it appears 
that ther® is little doubt that sueh on ^recsaait ms hiA beti^en atroaiS 
«nd O'Brien, and that the iJterlln^MidlRnd Qool Ooapany did r^iew its 
lease, thus cerrying out the (jcre««»ent meAe betiteea O'Brien md plain- 
tiff throu£^ strong. 'jQiree witnesses, inoludlne O'Brien, testified 
tiiat the agreensnt ims aaiie, an& two testified for plaintiff, erne strooK 
end the ether an egBoit of plaintiff, that it ims not. At any rate, 
tiie finding of the Svay on this questicm is oleK^rly wltiiin the range 
of the testiaony. Th© only question for this court to determine is 
whether or not the evidenoe ahova th;:t strong, the figent, had suffl- 
eient power and ci^uthorlty to enter into suoh an agreoeiient. 

Vamm s» doming testified that strong wfas in ohjirge of 
the offioe ef tke 7isher Building during liie tines mentioned; thiit a 
JudgBBBfc was entered against Ooming*s ooapjmy <m the lease in juestieiLi 


■dt Ml< 

■'jftB *Tl«30X^t 

•■■■* ii»t¥v- .:^ mt^ $:»■■; 

ftap^e '.■ :.>n "Mil ^ 

'"'■^ '"V^t/Ti/il^ 


that he talked t« Stress a1x)at tfee jud0ae&t, tmA in rejiy iitrong told 
the wlt&Mis* Ooi».l&6, tluit if ha HQuld take anoth r rotm in the Imilding, 
the leAM noiUd ^e oaneelled. This is the leaM involTed in this suit. 
A ztew deel wulB nade with Jomlng by whieh i^'^rt'ea OomlBg & OcsispaBy tvere 
released. The mtneas also stated that »t this tl^ strong had told 
hla th^it ths lidsidlord had no Intent icm of atteHptiBg to twld 0*B]ri«A cm 
this lease, beoeuse O'Brien ima iv t^aont* IBUt lies lease aade to Com- 
tag*3 oompgay fiae put in evldenoe in the trial of tl^ ease, tmd had && 
it ''0.K:, ' «ith 3trdBg»8 initials, 

R. K. Paeren, «» tenant of thu ?inh»r Building, testified that 
str<mg had ohax^e of t)w Fisher Bttllding, ^.nd that daring three e:Jid ocie 
half years whild he, Paaren, v^^s a tim^ait of the building, all r^mt eheoks 
were delivered to Strang} t^* istrong hod steted to hi», tht't if 0*Brls» 
noold reasaia in the buildte& he, strong, would release o*Brien fr«n the 
Gomlng lease. He alms testified that O'Brien h^d negotiated a new 
leese with the 3t®rliaflhMidland Uo^u Coeipffiy. The witness farther stated 
thrtt all matters donneoted ^th the building were in ohoxge of Strang, 
and taiat lAien the new lease referred to was delirored, it ipbs o.K*d. by 

i^feadfiSt 0*Bri«i testified th;3t strong; had oterge of the 
building; thi^t all leases of whioh be had knowledse were no g;otli:,ted by 
and with strong; tb&t at one tiae strong t^reed to and did sm to the 
oanoelluticsi of a lonse held by ttie witness for oertaia sp«ioe in the 
buildisi;, ;nd that he, strong, a(Breed to and did deliTer to the witneas 
a lease for other sp&ee in the building. All leeaes were Q.K*d« by 
atrong. Yarious leases of mrious tenants in the building were intro- 
duoed da eiridenoe, jtiA they were all o*K*d. by strcng. It is undisputed 
that strcBft oooupied «n offioe in the building with the nnae Office of 
the Building'* or it, «nd thfjt he hfid sntire ohrge of the affairs of 
the J^li^er Building^ and that all of the tenants* contacts a@ to leems 

•WW ^pCfl«M»0 4 mtmoO asfjnsifi Ai>lM^ t<^ aAiineC atin i^ank «sw !»«* re* 
flD A«rf i-fl^ ,«»«Be o^^'ldJUlftt^lif ill »oa»6Jiwj /2l *jmv turn X9^qim9 «»aitj 

. ..i.feXXjtfiS t^r'.,, 

hutlfi^iiis. Ttidittir't a«&*i£rj; 


,»i? «s«t.6 

^ ;}t 


'to bud jt 

a -74 


? f .'UX««ce( 

la ecil'VO' flftKa */ft iSiJ^i^ ^isXixrtT fttfl^ at •«mo a/) l^«t<pr»(»o js^BHttt laid 


and o-ther mnttars w©r« witli Str«Bg* O'Brien a®T«r oaov^led the jrem- 
IMS in question, nwA aooording to the tastlnaony, rdceired no hlXl for 
th^i r«$nt olGlmed, emd that no elalm whnt@T«r w^nji made upon him tmr It 
until suit wim ooaiDeiwod* In Pike vs. Knf^lar . ail 111, App. 520, this 
oourt said: 

"In an action to recorrer rant, ©Tidenoe held 
to show that such rent w a paid hy a trrltten * gree- 
Ment hetvasai the ivsirtlee ^eroby pl^dntiff waived 
the rent in oon«id©r; tian of a relenee froEj defead- 
rint of liabtllty for d^iBaees for failure of plain- 
tiff to raake csrtf in repair* within the tiae agreed 
by the lease* 

AB «eeait or Biana«Br fito aots as m»h for the 
oMMir of nn Qffioe build In^, «ftieee n«»i is on the 
building as mxQh. ^o had b^eaei in thm oi««r*s employ 
for 10 ye&rs, imk nede 'ttie lease to a tenant on he- 
half of the oiOBMsr ^nd with vteoa the tenant tr&nstioted 
&L1 of his buAlBWs as teaejit, has autih<»rity to \>ind 
tbe ovnoter by &n AgseeMsnt releasing the tenant froia 
liability for a peett of iAm rent ift ocnsideration of 
a release of the oeMir by the tenant froia liability 
for o failure to laaka eartala repairs (tolled Tor by 
th© le«ise«" 

3»e also Londat (Msflr^gitee nd .oaideiit Oowpany ys* steinbar^^. £64 III. 

ISila ocsurt is of the oplnifm that plaintiff by plaoing strong 
in entire ah' rge of tiwe building, eiviR,z hia power to n<»gotiate leeses 
end control of the leaslBg .nd Ektinaglng of the bulldlni^ in everything 
but the aot of siflUsg le^^ses, thereby constituted r-nd asade )troi^ its 
anent for the purpmf of entering into the ooatraot witb o*Brlen. fhm 
Jodflnent of the Mkinioipel Gourt is affirsaed* 

wxLBOf, P./., Mil Mam., j, j(m;vr. 

«^«r JMRi#il ; ■■: •ij;i.T! o ,r 


"T^ ,?*^ *. 

^:>>i.'i5^ ii ^ .^tiS^ i ^iu4 

•iix ^ftS ,^;^ 

"T T?;:^:; 



A03K K. Si^AMHIX Kind LAitaflOC 



MumciPAL Qoam 

^ or {5HIGA»0, 

26 8 I.A. 

Opinion filed Deo. 21, 1332 
Thia is ajd appeal from the i£unioip»X Oourt of ahlo<^go 
fTMi &• order denying a notion to TnoAte a judgaent entered by 
eoAfessioa in feiror of plnintlff and against defendants on four 
JudjpMint proai«9ory notes t%ggregfttlng $400*00» The judgnent la 
$4OT«S0 eiMi the ooetB of suit. 

The dtutlon to v^-oate v«s asde on NoTenber IS^ 1931^ mad 
orerruled on that date. The reeord shoire that the petition to vacate 
contains the following reoit'<tions{ That the Judgment -^ppe^Rled 
froa w«»a enteired on fu^at 14, 1931, for the awa of ''467.&0 on 
four notes of ^^tlOO.oo eaoh dated May 14th and 15th, 1331, and due 
1 aonth, 2 aonthe, 10 veeka and 13 i;eeks after their reepeotive 
datea} that subsequent to the entry of the judgaent an execution 
iat»ued thereon nnd th^tt on NoTaaber &, 1931, a levy -una node on the 
drug a tore of defend^mta, and tb^t the bnillff of the Munioipnl 
Oourt of Ohioiigo advertised n snle of the property so levied u^a 
for Hoveaber 19th, 1931, The petition further reoitea that the 
notes were executed ?^nd delivered by defendants to one theodore 
Sebaltas, the owner of the building oooupied by defendant, L'^wrenoe 
A. Blnhnik, «i,a payment of rent due on aald premisea; th^^t a ault 
at' law against defendant, L»wrenoc 4. Blalinik, and othera, in the 
Municipal Court of Ohioago, wns subsequently inatituted by 
ChKrlea a. ^oallce, receiver of the preniaes so oooupied by the 
Aefaodaata, aald receiver having been appointed in b foreclosure 



M soil 


^8S9 .A-1 '«5*^'^ 

It. i^i^t** *A 

• fttA>li.. 

S56I ^IS »osa i>$Ili noiniqO 

,1 'li:-: ... . ... „.. , .'.„.. --pj^ ac/iieci .K>a 

CO Ofi.^'d?? t© m}» »tU xo!t ,i:S€i ^^i ^ai/^jA no l3aTi«;ra» 8«w «o«1t 

mit> b&ff ^U.^1 ^^i&l hr -m^ b9$-'^ etousre 00, COX;! to z9ioa nxiot 

•VXiP9C9i9'S ti^si* t!i$%& ' . hatt 9Jt«»w ex t^AiGom i- ^ditsom X 

i*rf^ ft© 9i»ffa iM"« XVT*X « tXKf. . . iMM fl«»«T»rf^ ibfttfovX 

X«i;i<5i«y¥ »rf* to tti ^K4 ,BJiij«Jc«9t!i£' to »zcim sirtb 

fl«>^^M t©iv«X OS x^^flo'v- '^''^ *o *»^^^ *^^ *»«l#«»vftii o^celtfd »o #«0O<B 

9d^ ir-.A* ••itoar x^AttuJi atntHim 9dt .jSCX «tf#€X Tsira«T«K to) 

•MlittttfT «A0 Oif ttOAtffttAb id j^sxevixnis baa h9tit(^9K9 9r9m ••tMt 

••flviw^j «#ABJba9l-«B Id 6«Xq»Qfto 9nXm.Xiio' ' i^asro 9di ,«M#X«lC»a 

#iuft a iirnrf^r ;«««ifi»Tq bin* ac 9ub taw xc Sxr^nixm, »* «)(iflititXfi .A 

9di ai «n9fi»o 6IUI ^slXoiUXtt .A •aci«nrii«i ,jrjutl»««t9l} #tiii«a« w«X $m 

X(j l»9ttfti#ajiX xXtfioi/p»»dtf» anv ^9^e9ii0 to rttfoO X«q/oiiitfM 

•i(j xa iMiiqimoo o« 8»ai«fti:Q tfl^ to t«vX»om «tj(XMr*>» .a •sXYntfO 


p yg »»dlag ftgalaat aaid property; th»t th« owaftr of th« preais«s* 
Theodore 3ohaltaa« had exeeuted nn assignnent of all rente due 
aad owing by defendants on the «ald preMlses to said reoelTer. snA 
thst by reason thereof defendants were Goanpelled to sad did paty 
t||« s&id reoelTer the b\ub of tl078*00* whioh included the rent 
represented Of the notes. The petition reoites th^t inassnioh as the 
^el»i represented hy the notes had been paid prior to the entry of 
judg.iient thereon^ there vas no oonsider^^tion for suoh notes; ths^tt 
the plaintiff was not and Is not a bona fide purchaser of the 
AOtes for vnlue* and that no oonsideration passed between the payee 
thereof and the plaintiff* It is froa the order of the trial court 
AsajrlRf a aotiwi to ▼aoate the judgment referred to* that this 
appoal is proseouted* 

Ursa an exaainsition of the reeord, it appears thst the 
sole ground for the eourt*s denial of the aiotlon is that the 
defendant was not diligent in presenting it to the eourt, the 
judfMS&t h?.TiBg been entered on April 14th* 1931* and the motion to 
Ta«ate not hawing been presented until Horeaiber 18th* 1931* It 
appears fr(Mi the bill of exceptions thit defendants were serwed 
with execution about August 39th*, 1931* and th^t they were advieed 
by oounael that they need not worry* that the judgsMut would be 
Taoated because they had paid the rent to the receiwor* and thit 
they heerd nothing further froa it until a lery was (Bade under the 
exeoution. On the hearing it was st^^ted th»t between the tiwB of 
the lewy and the hearing on their motion to waeate* defendants had 
paid a oustodiaa a fee of f60,00. 

In wiew of all the eiroumataneea* this court is of the 
•pinion thst the trial court was in error In denying the motion to 
▼aoate the judgment and in refusing to permit defendants to ixresent 

«M»is*<xq aifir to fame «4^ i»itf i\fjL9n9nq t>tA» imt*^ S4ijtb««««tq 

bmm «»rvi*«4rr Aiics o^ ttmtimfnq blu* fttf# oe «ta>sito9t»l) j^S ^iw« tea 

t«4| AiJb te» 9;^ iMiXi*t|m»tt (it»« »#«ftlwi«ta«> t4iNit«iU «»»«»k yx' t«>i(^ 

^AJrx •rf} t)«B«XMl rf«t^ «Q0.8tOX^ to mum •At «ftTi9«rx fti«« Agt 

to XttW ht^at' taitii 20^ ««M't«^ 90#«Uk nd^ id JkotavnO'xqsT #tf«d 

#«ilt t»oie8 {iO£r» tot ^cir^ftiobisutroQ »« timr 9ic^fii ^a»w»di ftt-w,§lmi 

»ff.t tc xs«»rf®ti/^ JiLE. JE9i * *<>'» »-* **"* *'^*'' «** m*flieiq •At 

•- •-.■ #j<i- n^sjwtfttf fc»Ra.'^<j a0l^*t*fei'eR<5.» 6« #.''rf# i>aff 4*id.'^ raJ fto#oa 

^■:; :■ -(tt Bi aaltojK «£(^ %o lAla»b &>. = 'l^ tot ikurons •£»« 

Ocl# «^j^o 9d;t o# iTi fei^fl!»89Y0 ni {hsa^^-'^^^ '^f** ^^^ #cr£temA 

•# flwt^oBf e4t Jbfra ^XSti 4<fjM^X Xitisit no b9t>iiw tt*9tS>A ^aftii^l^ 

> ;r8X i^(Kf«ovt»ii XXtmu f^»#ft«a<iY<| a»«<r ^I^mkA fMf olsOflT 

l':, . :.»•< »?rrr^,fe«»'t*fe *rrf* ««3X!r«|Wx« t^ Xii<^ »«;* aentt vvJOaqfa 

fc»«»ivt« **r»K lj«rf«f *jRrf* M* »XX©X .^ilt^ft #eij^M *»«tfj* uoiJi/odxa dUivt 

«f ibXue» *i)i «3ir*sft »«f# tmHt ,t«»«^ **« **«o V»^^* ***<** Xneiwroo t* 

#ftrf* fefls «Tlnr*«e»»T 9iit ot tffdt 1>(;^ bim. ^Bd x»iii i«w«ootf I)©*»o«t 

•At x^hati •bssm «w t^»I '« Xi*«*f #1 »oi?^ t«rf»tirt ^rtld^oa Mssii yorf* 

Ikftrf c*»«?fcfl«"*»fc ^at^.oifv oJ" RoXsTo* Tioti* «© -saltPOfJ »*Jf fciw t^aX •At 

,W,neit to »»t n £r0XiiO#oiro m bkMq 
•At lo el fxifot alrlt «ii«OfirF^e«tiotiQ 9ff^ XIj» to voiv isl 
01 Aol^aiE 9ri^ ^itX\ii9£) ai T05T9 fli 9.»ir Jhtu»o inrtir orfJ^ Jtrf^ mttfiqo 


%h«lr dofeas*. It is, therefore, ordered that the order of the 
Munloipal Court denying the aotloa to raoate the judgment lie reTerced 
and reia%nded with the dlreotion thmt under the ueual procedure in 
•tiMrii eases the Judgment be allowed to stAOd as seourlty, and that 
exeoution he st^jed until defendants have a reasonable tlse to 
present their defenss. 



, 9df to fbtts 9tit ««<(# iigliilM ^9toYmt9dt 4«i ft .»«A»t«^ titers 
«i fvaJlswraQ JUmmai »tit vitthtat ima^ Bet9o9%Jib i»if(r dtk9 b^taifimT baa 


On Appeal «r iflBK 8ua M &asagigaiiQa, 

«atd H xaiA 1IA1O3BEZSWX0S, 


) LOCUTC^RT efO)^ Of 

'am mumxm amm 
or aooK ooumrr 


26 8 l.A. 627^ 

Opinion filed Dec. 21^ 1932 

Hhis la «n Intorloautoiry appeal froa aa orAer of tha 
Lor Court appointing a r«oelT«r fear th« property desoribed in 
a hSU to for«olo8« a nortffag* on this proparty* ThQ original aarlK 
6&0i «&s for #27,000 of «ftiioli a pmrtion had iMian paid «ind it is al- 
l«0»d in the bill tluit tlio mam of t82«000 la now duo ond owing, «ind 
ittat %h» pragBTty daaorlbad la ao«At aoourlty, and that tha fair 
raasonnbla oaA aarkat iriRlaa of tho property la loss than 122,000. 
It is also allogod that the rants , isauea and profits arising ara 
pledged as additicaial aeourlty. To this bill a sworn eaurwKe wbls filed, 
in idiioli it is allowed tlkit the fair oaiii narlMt valtta of the sort* 
gsaad property la #93,000. a hearinc was had cm the raotion, bill and 
«M«er* on tho hearlne it m\» adiaitted th^^t the general taxes on the 
preparty far 1939 and 1930 had not been paid. Ihe larineip&l oonten- 
tica of appelXiOit is that the all<Ms^.tion as to the ralue of thi 
propDrty bQln^^ soeint soourity for the indiriitednesa, is insuffieimt. 
Comael objeots to the statttaant in the bill that 'in the opinion 
of your orator, the prea^it mrket value of the propter ty is lesa ^aa 
#22,000 •" It is Insisted that the allesatleai as to ^9 TyOue anat 

%0<iQ '40 

ftSd*A.i 8 0S 

liM «L-JD3tl!.t ?!:/ LcdCfc; HO 

SSei tIS .090 i)9li't noiniqO 

>#icotB X»2i£sJtze oriff .fti^qo^^ «iJ{t aft fOMD^oas is «««XM«flf1t et JUlif ft 
ftiiA ,sflJtw9 M^ asrJ^ iroa <s^ 000 «sa^^: l<» mm mAi #€u& XXlif fldtf At ft«9»X 

teXll srw ^K«vftit£( irx&^e » 1114 »liSt 0I? •^Amraoft Xi34|»i#Jl&A» m« Jbiaitelit 

•eft m vntai Xa*M»tt ftit^ #^id[^ b»MsA(b mm H W^'ix^ •At «o »^ 

«««»« XiK^Mtlvi ftie? •hl»q. «««ir f«a AjmC OBtj; JMis ««tl «}t T^«»««if 

jooiolfo «(* fU*' taut JXHtf tdtt jsi #MniP^»t« «(» •# s^Mt^e SmamQ 

tt»m MAC fti x0'wm'»i *A* to MTLonr tf'«9ltf» tmmm ^^ ««#««» mirc le 

t%m mtlMf mm ott ma if»M/i««Xia wAi fadf tuHinat mt tl <*,00e«tt$ 

}m Oftt»0Qrio&}.. It is U^Oflsibld for any one liaTini; so millii, «• !• 
tera»d an expert knowledgi of real esttit® value @, to give mos'e ttian 
OB opinica as to yalae* Suah erid^etoo is reooived M Justifiod in 
oonfScHEfine.tion and all ot^er oases iAl«« tdiis (iUdstioii is in issue* 
iQuit amre MUiet testiSiGsiy oouXd i^my witneas glye as to the -ralue 
of real estate, t^im. his tumest opinion, lliere is nothing to this 

It is also insisted that the oontraot in Issue is usuriotis* 
fkls (psstion osnnot be rais«l in this oourt on an interlocutory 
appeal froai an order appointing a reoeiTor. In the opinion of this 
oourt » the tillefiations In tho hill Justified th« eourt in the appoint- 
smt of the rooeivwr ^d the ordor in ^bat regard «111 not be dis- 

AfPomTiHo Rsaxiv^ apfiriiiid. 

w2L^ic^, I.J., ai4 sia^x., if Qmam, 

^4ij^ dWisat 97ls o^ ,*«inUT dtiite* £amt to 4@J^*£«oi»{ ^nnifstv as bma»f 

,«uiei xsl «i ifoJL#«»j8^, ai^ •miftr flMMur^t 'm0p JLXa A«a fli»ltiitiaw£)a<»« 
•iiIi>T tuit &< ni^ miji ««tuetflir ta» AJUw« ^conaltfas^ tntaw •mat tiufx 

..-irfl "io aninlQO «iS5 . . .ri*tt©ic ;i sjrltalf^^-tcc^ TW&rjo adt soil iamfft^ 


RUSSEi.!. nmBhmU^ «• trustee, 
AXSREW W. UildSTHOtil, et al, 

soMHioR oooat 


«f OOqK OQUilTY, 

Opinion filed Dec* 31, 1932 

iOI. J03TI0£ IflSUIi D£i.ZTJ(.aKO THE ufUlon OF tH£ QQURf • 

Tbls 18 an appe&l by the ooaplal a&nt from th^^t portion 

of the decree for foreoloaure and sale of oertaln real eatste* 

•at$r«d t>y the court la n foreoloeure prooeedlng la the Superior 

Oourt of Cook County 9 whieb it in words aa follows: 

"The Court further finds, adjudges snd decrees thii^t after 
the erection of aaid liulldiag icnowa as the 'Slenvood Oourt 
Apsrtaents* >^nd after the payment of bills incurred in the 
ereetiim of a»id buixdiag there rem&ined on the booka of 
said The Bond 6^ Mortgage Coia;:^ny, a ••rpor»tion, ^ credit 
due the eaid Andrew 9. Landstroa and darah G« Landstroa, 
his wife, in the aim of ^>1, 363.04, and th«t aaid aaount has 
newer been paid to said Andrew W. Lnndstroa or Sarah 0, 
Laadstrott, his wife, «ind th^re ia still due nnd owing s'tld 
Andrew w. Landstreai, and Sarah G. Landstros, his wife, aaid 
SUB of II, 363.04 frcm The lioad & Mortgage Ooapany, wbioh 
SDMI shall be paid upon the entry of this decree hy the 
trustee, i^saell Fireb^^u^** 

The prooeeding in the instant ease is one in equity t» 

foreclose the lien of a trust deed securing the payment of bonds 

•fpwf^lag the SUM of #150,000 on real estate therein desoribed, 

against the defendantf, Andrew W. Landstroa and S^rah G. I^ndstrom, 

his wlf€^. Mortgagors* and Fred Slooaberg and Anna Blooaberg, owners 

•f the equity of redSBptloa* A deoree of foreclosure and sale was 

entered in the aboTO entitled oause, froa whioh decree it appears th^t 

there is due and unpaid to the Landstroas froa the Bond and Mortgs^ge 

Ooapany, n corporation, the sua of 11,363.04, which sua beo«t«e due 

after the erection of the building upon the real eetsite desoribed 

and known aa the cilenwood Oourt Apartments, %nd after the payment 

of the bills incurred in the erection of said building. This building 


I > 


.?.<■,.. f» 

A. . '-' :-...-y 




Se&I ifLS .osa Jbdlxl noiniqO 

.tm^^D ii^t m ioz9it0 ant «sihj[VI4^ j$ft»t »&xt^i ,m 

n«d tmanmti bJLMu tris ba^ «^;', ^di ai «»ll«r airi 

,0 ffirviiS t© aMT}«l»{i«J . ' ' .^9»d TeTdii 

^i JKOO 9sa?^4-TdM lo am 

'■; stwifc 9idt to V ,.,.. „. . ^-.. **.,£!» mw 

. tw^9rt% linBtiUfi ^99t»uxi 

»^ XtJbifO^ si Mw ai (NI.90 tOA^efii 9n$ at 3|iail^»»90T<; 9<at 

«A«<fiY«««A al»Tn«fdr 9^£^«» i«»« «ni 0(^«CN3X| to «a« 9j1^ lMil4Qii»lis|M> 
^motiBbttthl .0 d«x«iA IMU, iMMTtaAiUbJl .9 v^fiMk ^^taaba9"t9b 9At iBalti^ 
ettfwo «9«9d«ooXii aaoA bum ycscGrteoXB A9ri JMui ««i»]|4I8#«mi «othi «irf 

•^Wir mlstm bOM 9Xtfeol09T9l to 99«99ib A •«to<l#i«9l>9t to x'<t'^P« ^' to 

ij ftY«9qf« #i ooiovd deidir Mott ^99«»9 teX^Jt^a* orotfji •At nt b9X9ta9 

Wfta^titaM bUM ima 9tit m&tX iHio<it9J)aBJ 9di o$ biMqau baa 9ab «1 »iftU 

mtb «BA09d av* tfoiifw aJ^O<iSd$«X% to atngi 9<(^ «fieitf/^Toqioo « ,xo"<fttoD 

Jb9<IJt$t»»9l> 9^«;r»» Ijsot •<($ aotiU •Btiibllmi 9dt to floilo»i9 94# f^jTt* 

laMiJKr 9((i^ ivttTim bn» ^9ia9iv.ixmk txsmQ boowaolo o/J^ 9« awotui bm» 

mlblkad! •i'<T .^ffjttXiJtftf bism to ffw*«»-f 6d# si Jb»"s«tioni aXXliI •djr to 

vas er«eted upon th# teras of <%& HgT«ement entered into b«iti?«en 
Andrew «• LandatTOtt nnd SaraJb a. i^aodstroM* and the Bond & Morkgnge 
Ooapany^ ai^ the eonatruotion ooet ^as v>ald for out of noneys 
TtomXrmA from the aale of the t>ond lasue, now the aubjeet of this 
foreelosure proeeeding» 

The i^nd It Mortgage Oompany la not a party to thle 
suit, and freii the Uaater'a f lading and the deoree of the Court, 
the aaount of $1,363.04, is due froa the Bond » Mortgage Oeopany to 
the lABdstToas, and the Ohanoellor in entering the deoree further 
ordered that the aaount of ill, 363*04 was to t>e paid by the ocHe-' 
plalnant la the Instant ease. 

There is no evldenoe in the reoord tbnt the ooeiplalnant 
Is liable, or th-t he aotually reoelTed the amount due from the 
BmA * ttoytgngo Osaipmay to the LandstrooM, The oaaplalnant is the 
president and oanager of the Bend & Mortgage Company, nrhioh is a 
oorperation and a separate entity, and it is self<-evldent th«t the 
ooaplalnant, as tmetee, in this proeeeding is not liable for the 
aaount the oourt deoreedl as due to the Landstrons from the Bond 
A Mortgage Company. HoveYor, the Landstroes may enforce their 
right to this siuft in a proper notion, to whieh the Bond A Mortgage 
Coapany is oade a party, and nt th>^t tlae the Bond it Mortgage 
Company may offer » defense if it so desires* 

The fast that the oomplainant, as trustee, is not in 
possession of tbe amount, nor liable, is apparent from the petition 
of the eomplain- nt, vhrreln it is stated that as an officer of the 
Bond & Mortage Company he vill prodxioe an aitsignment from the Mood 
A Mortgage Company of oertain of the bonds in the total sum of 
11,400, if the oourt will authorise the oomplainant to set off the 
bonds enumerated in the sum of iX|400, due and payable to the iioaA 
4 Itertgage Company by the IrfUidstrMui against the indebtedneee due 

«t«io« %« tiw TO) Miiq »#4f t«oo /:oiit(!unt^«noo vrif bam ,xft«<in«$ 
Birf# to #(»«ttff/« •ttt won «9unaiii Ivioof i»rl^ \o ttX^e •(1# fto«1 A«riM»t 

•SalJ^9»»otq »%if8oXo(rxo1t 

r^.Utfj'^ »«T9»b »il* i^H'ita^ at tQll»i>:. ^-^moTtnluuiJ. •A* 

•-0109 9dt X** ^^*<? *tf ^ E ''-,■■"",-' so jj.TU<;;;f;E?. a'1# #6rff l>fttftbT6 

.den* tiifsteai 9flt ai. tattal^lq 

i J4BO0 »d* t* ■">* =^f.^' *'*• »i>a«l>l^» o« iijt tn^df 

, ■• ■■■■■-■" ftiit «.,:„..«,.-, ;-"-^ ■ ^-*"{.*«*.'^ vTX^j^'jftig awl i sii «e 4»Xtf«il »i 

art* w»t *!!:>:■■. 

+ '?'!C ■;<;!■ »5f - !>fih aoX#j?l»q700 

Ml torn %t «»*ifiirz9r er* '^^ia&aiitlMk 

•d# to TAftXtto ai« bj« tsdS bat.f-- 

t« au/« ititoi •sii a I «&no(^ s»i(d^ to ai««(ht«ro to t«^in»^ •SOitfotr 4 
«d(# tto i9« oif tfljifli^XqMio 9iit 99LJit&iiAij'' £IJt$i tfrtiKie 9(ii ti ,00^,11 

:i»t«Jb « totto Y«« to«<7^^ 

tfauama «dif tc aolattSe»oq 
..MtrnJtalqaoo oK;^ to 


froa th« Bond & Uortg^t^ Ooaimny to the Lands trtms, «nd Oftae«l 

and surrender said t»oiids In isaymsnt in full of the njaount due* 

This offer of the petition was not aooepted, in th»t the eourt 

did not eat<7r an order as prsyed for in the petition of the ooapXain* 


Froa the fft«ts in the inst&nt oase» ve mre unt^ble to 
find th%t the OMiplainRatf as trustee for the bondholders^ mssuaed 
the pajTBient of the gjsount found to be due froa the Bond & Mortj^gs 
Ooapenf to Andrew w. juandstrom nnd Sarmh a. L»nd8tro»« his wife* 

Finding no liability on the pert of the oompIaiUAnt 
for the payment of the sua of tl,363#04, to Andrew ^» Lendstroa and 
Ssrsh Gtm LandstroB^ his wife« th^iit part of the deeree, the subjeot 
of this appeal, is reversed smd the e^iase re^snded vith direetlons 
that the deoree be aodified in oonforaity with this opinion. 



••tfi> ttim»H »di \o Hut al ta^mxJtf *tl ttaoiS £)i«t %9bti9Ttitu tec 
rtifo* ttfl #i^£<;t ai ,lN>#qftco« ton lus* aol^ll-^q »<f# )• t»)Yo aitff 

to«v«»« ««Y»Mo((taotf ttrfif tot ••^tiTc^ ft£ «tAMil«Xq[jBoo ftd^ teds bmit 
tAftAisXcrooo «^' ^ili^ 09 \#ii.i«^0iX on ^idai% 


4a«£4H ak. . ^AO'AilM 


SU2 .BETH W«tTK??S, 





Appiwi. moM 

307£ItI0R OOl^HT 

* 26SI.A. 627 

Opinion filed Deo, 21, 1932 



This is an aotlen of trenpass on tht oae* brouglit 
t>y th« pl«iatlff agftibst tha dafend^int for injuriaa allaged to 
hftT* toaen auatained ob Fabruary 26, 191^, aa a reatilt of having 
baaa struek by aa sutowobile truek oimad »ad opar@t«d by the 
defendant, at or near the Intaraactlon of Hslatad and 60th 
atraeta in OhieafO* The oauao «ae oubaitted to a jury, and 
after a asrln^ the Jury returned « Terdlet finding the def^n- 
daat guilty dad aaseaaiag the pliiintiff*p daauigea in the mam of 
I3600, The eourt, after oTerruling the dei«ndaat*R uotion for 
a aev trial and in arrest of judgsent, entered Judgnent upon the 
▼erdiet, from vhioh the def ndant appeala. 

Tko aecident ooourred nt the intoraaotioi. of Hal fried 
aai Mth atraeta in Chioego, at al^ut eleven o*olook in the 
forenoon, on February 36, 1930. The facta are, aubatantially, 
that thare are atreet car tr^oka running north «Bd aouth on 
Malatei atreet, and slao on 69th atreet, an e^^ot and weat street. 
Traffic aigaal light a had been inatalled on eaofa of the four 
ooraora uid worked in uniaon. A light oontrolling the north 

aad Bouthbound trafxio aaa located on Related atreet at the curb 
on the aouthe^et oorner of H&leted *ind 69th atreete. Ju»t before 


1^ :■.- >-iOi- 


^1 o p^ ' -^' ^i * 

SSex ,IS »08a fcexn acialqC 

«s«[.# '^ h0»'iv«>9m hue h9m!9 tam.f siijtc 'i. Mfunt^ a«»rf 

t«t aoitOS »?»S'««bj?:t»7.»i} ftflt ;^.t.i^.r'?^~.vv Tr.-i^ j^r-^f./c-o "^tl" .00851 
#iit «M|« tlMfl^l^fatri b»t*i'ff9 «t8f»»^S^C t"? #89T«Jt ili feOS £«it# «»a « 

•at ai ioeio*o a«Tt»X» ^t/o^i^. ^-^ «<»t$e4>i43 ai si^uex^t tf^^ lute 

.H%Xt9 t99W baM t«i;v« C« ,#SSt)r« ll#96 iSO mXa box ,#••!»« ^fti'•Xfal 

tuol »tf^ lo d09» n« l!n»XXiit»ft^ s«>«4 bm4 vtd^^il iKM^t* 9i\t«TT 
iftYoc Bdi yiiyl££oxttt09 iii..i ..itmltsu at ^ftixon iMii av»£rt«o 

liruo nsli in tinxtn 59#«X»H oo ^»#«o^< iitskxt hmf^iwm htm 

th« aeeld«st occ:urre>1, a northbound strett eax «aa etsj^ding 
•o«th of this oorner on Haleted treet at 69th street, ilnoet 
0pi;>09ite the trsfllc lights. Tlk« plrictliff was ttandlat st the 
curb en 69th ctrert a fev feet «aeit of the so tk«^ct ooraer of tho 
iatereootlon. Both tho plaintiff and the etrsr t ear were held 
by the red light aad wore v&iting for the lights to ohaago so 
that they oould proceed northvsTd serosa 69th street. An auto> 
■ohile ves parked along the south curb of 69th street just east 
of the curb line of Hslsted str«<!>t so that aoist of this ftutoaoblle 
blooked the esst orossvslk ntnnirig north aad south. Back of 
this fttttoasoblle on the south side of 69th street were ot^.er 
psrkod autoabbiles, 9nd in order to proceed northward a pedos- 
triaa would have to pass hetvoea the autoaohiles that blooked 
tko prs«i»;re of this intersection. The iater^ection is leeisted 
la a hasiaesi^ district. The foreaoen of the day of the aooi- 
dsat was bright; the Atrs.t vns try aad dsToid of sxmw. ?^^sa 
the tr<?ffie light chaaged, permitting north aad southbound 
traffic to prooeed, the plaintiff, a large soaaa who was oarry- 
ing seTeral bundles in her aras, started to walk aorth%?!rd. 
la do lag so, the leintiff stepped out froa between the parked 
autoaoblles, «hiob oars sateaded east froa the curb liae of 
Halsted Street, The etre«>t oar, nt the tias, started north, 
the front of which was oTer the westbound tracks on 69tb street 
whea the plaintiff ir^^llced to the place bet«eea the two sets of 
street enr tracks on 69th street. Then, without warning, tho 
defead^Bt*s truck, southbotmd oa Halsted street, turaed to the 
left, cutting in front of the Yeetibule of the aoTia^. nortk- 
houad Rtret-t oar, turned eat^t aad struek the plaintiff after she 
had turaed haok two or throne stens to avoid the aooideat. 


•lit te> ^lbii.^i9 a«« )llt«^«jC<[ Mif .xtifj^iX olit«t} •<# •iriiiorT<|0 

-as&v .-.a::, .. ;; fejre ,a;+II'.^<S»0*tts &«:fir9q 

. Jilt s«f4in :; 


Tli« defendant offered evidence upon the trial, snd It 
appears Skat tbe defendant's dttrer of the nutooobile in queo- 
tita, in ooaing south on Halsted street, sade a long tuxft 
•ast at the Intereeotioti of 69th street, and that st that tisM 
the autoBObile truck was running at a speed froai 6 to 15 allea 
per hour. TYie day was bright and the plaintiff stepped out 
onto the street frost between two p(<>.rked autoaiobiles, 15 feet 
oatt of the crosswalk, 'ihe was struek by the fender of the 
truck* The truck was stooped by the drlrer within two feet^ef 
the aooldent. The plaintiff was in a sitting position after the 
collision; was assisted by the driver and a vitnesit to a doctor's 
office and afterwrrds tre ted for the injuries sustained by her. 

The defendant contends th«t the court erred In denying, 
defendant's motion at the close of the plaintiff *s case and again 
at the elose of all the evidence, to direct the jury to return a 
verdict of not guilty. In Rupt>ort of this contention the defen<iant 
urges that from a conisideratlon of plaintiff's evidence It appears, 
(1) that ther& was a complete failure on the p«rt of the plaintiff 
to ezeroise due eare for her own safety \uider the oircxiffistaneee 
in whioh she found herself at the time of the seoi^lent; (3) that 
her actions at the time of the aocHent constitute negligence la 
law, and bar recovery; 9>.d (3) that there 1« no evidence of neg- 
llgenoe on the part of the defendant, whioh wsa the proiilBato 
eauso of the injuries sustainei by the plaintiff. 

The defendant calls the attention of the court to a 
oortaln ordinance of the City of Chicago w^ich regulates a 
pedestrian's use of a roadway, '^ee* 11, Article III, Municip^tl 

#1 bae ^Xfti^S •Hi am(0 •(Mi*&ira »«T9tlo #a«6«jil«kb t^T 

tmt bfttr<T»t» t%it«l«X9 ti{'t ftfluB tifiiM^^ 8^« t^ *^ *tued x»q 

.ic»tf x^ bt^t^li-^ina^ «»l^tifiii «dt tot )as& >et%t »iaLrjtn9ttA bat •ozllo 

e jjruftoi ft- x'li^: ■"■^ ,»C!<^»Mt9 nrf* XXa lo taaXo 9if#,#4 

lilttaX»lq %Ai 1:^: t" - : nxmZl&t ^Hlq&oti » ««tsr ^ipiii t^df (X) 

«»««B^«JMC'^ ■ - ■'•'" ••-' X^ittBt ttr- "-"' rot ©t«» »Uh »SiOT:»Xt 0# 

» ^ V 

Iml^inafti ,111 «lx>tt%^^ ,XX .o»'^ .x««ft««T a lo •«tf 8'ii4it#«9f>*4( 

Court Act of tbe City of Chlcpge, aad cont^iads that th« 
oourt having juAleial notice of the ordia^noes of Ohieago, vh«a 
Dftesing upoL the defendant *e ootiom for a dlr oted verdiot should 
haTe cooeidered nvA applied this ordinanoe. The record le silent 
un to why such ordinanoe vas not called to the attention of the 
court ia the action, nor vaa an inetructios offered hy the defen- 
diiat and refused by the court instructing the Jury to consider 
such ordinance and its application in arriring at a Terdiot. This 
question was raised by the defend at for the first tiaie on 
appeal, «hioh la not perniasible, and this court will, therifore, 
disregard his contention. In leaning, it is only fair to say 
that it would have been proper If oeuneel had directed the atten- 
tion of the trial court to this ordinance so that due oonsiders- 
tloa of its effect eould have been given. 

In consideration of the first point mt&f by tho 
defendant on the rmestion of the exercise of due o^re by the 
plsintiff at the tiae and pl«;ce of the accident, it will be 
aeee^sary to have in mind upon this motion that if t ere is any 
evidtnoe of the nlif^intiff tending to su^ ort the allegation of 
the plaintiff's declaration, it is the duty of the court to 
strait the cause to a jury. Ther«f is evidence thst tbe plt^intiff 
stopped at the orossiag of Halstsd and 69th streets waiting for 
the lights to turn green so that she oov Id prooeed north. 

It also appears froio the evidence th^t there vers 
several p<^rked autoaobiles on the south side of @9th street extend- 
ing east froai the curb line of Halated street; that in w<ii9T to 
proceed north near the cro«>swallr it waa necessary for her to pass 
botween these parked automobiles. This ?ot of the plaintiff In 
waiting for the tr ff ic li[.hte to change so thst she cold proeesd 
aorth on H^ilsted street and in passing between the parked autoino- 
bilee, is evidence for the jury to ooneider on the Question of 

•tft t»tff Mtmta<i>i> bm» ,09«siif9 !• x^l"^ ^ai lo t&k txa^t) 

t»ib^i|;OQ o# ipt«|^ «iiit ,^i;f«»tfTC**«i t'W'H^ oifl t^ ^•srtft'st fen* HtMt 
a© »*i* i^-Ult »«W t«kX *».ft«»W* •«?* ta lrt»«i.i»« saw aotfpnup 

-«»#*a »«(» t^^aacsii) &««( X»aiSu»o tl t*c«7<j ff»»^ ♦▼«<f feJcrow #X rarft 

.ij»vJtg| H9-9tf ^rift^ fcluoo *^?ftt8 fiti lo ffelt 

9flr Xliw *i. ,*fl»fcX3a i« «»j!t writ #« ttitfi^tjt^ 

w «: YX *«*?# 


e* •Iti.fflXplr' »rf* 

- .vsJxt *«iiTt» il788 1« <ifcis fij'i,.-,. ■•90#ir« fesiT*^<t x«t>yd« 

-moiufi b9iT»n •^f ««»«/•* a«i9M4| Hi ten #»fv#« 6«rtX*li a« dtiQu 

vh«th«r sh* «&« la the •xcrolet of da« ear« and (mutlon at tb* 
tla« of th« accident. 

At to the second point made by the defendant that the 
plaintiff w^s guilty of contributory negligence .«it the tlae and 
plaee of the aeeldent. The plaintiff tin» eroeslng at tho inter- 
ceetlon, on a bright day, and therf was no obstruction which 
would Interfere with the defendant's drlTor. The .laintiff 
testified that she saw the tr^iok when it vea 25 feet fron where 
•he was walking and that she had reached the alddle of the two 
rails on 69th street. The plaintiff had a right to proceed, and 
It was the duty of the defendant in the opex^atien of the truok 
to uae oTery preoaution to avoid injuring the plaintifl, who ws« 
In plain Tiew and, if it beoejie necessary, it was the duty of the 
driver of th£ truok to atop. The defendant tume"^ east at the 
intersection of Haleted and 69th streets and is ehsT^^eable with 
knowledge of the eurroxinding eonditloas* It waus certainly a 
question for the jury to determine from the evidence whether the 
plaintiff exercised due care at this tlae and place, and the Jury 
in reaching their conclusion undoubtedly ooneiderer! the apeeij 
•f the defendant* a truok when turning at the intereeotlon «t ths 
tiao of the aecideat. »o« the evldenee the epeed ranged froa 
6 to 15 allies p»r hour at the tlae when the truck wz» aaklag the 

Upon the third point as tc the negligence of the def en- 
daat, there is evidence in the record that at tbis intereeotlon 
the defendant *'' Auto truck cut in #ront of a street car ae It 
wa^ proee<?dlng i7,orth on H^lated street. The defendant •rmde a 
short turn to the left at a speed whieh nadio it difficult for 
tho plaintiff to etep to a pla e of safety. H this time It w«jr 
the duty of the defendsnt's driver to have ooaplete control of 
the auteaAblle truok, and he is ohar}<eabl« with the knowledge 

• ^«r»fciooft •At to tail 

•aM^w tM-ft ii<t9t SS 9JKV 3-i anAiff -Jitafxt *A* w«b Mi« ^'Ml I>»ilit8»# 
tarn ,*M»«a:ti At tii!i^ 4 hmd tliiaiMn »ai .««»9i^ it^ttO no «Xli)t 

t5W Qdar , .lei *ai file erf* ^liwj,ai &i<rr« o# ffoltTj.'jOisTq t^avo t«& o# 
i»tf# t» 09.99 ^'^srwi im^bai^lmb mil' ,q&t9 0i i9tn$ 9ti$ \tt xftyfltk 

tttrt oity itt« ««6.«^ Ant A«it ft4a;r tC'j^ -^^^ mi* b»ffi»t«4Cd Iti^aiz^ir 
tii»^ oif* Jh«T«fiet«»«a ^^i»t^i^^fhmt' atAifutloaKi^ ttadi -gatAe^m ml 

mtnl .*'*;sa«t »i)iftf» «i^ iftB » l ilv» m'f m<ft-i .*:««feioo* arft to ofil.^ 
«!# llcrCMT •«* iau^# »df iOfgm 9mJti 9di fn %u^ «»q a«Xi« ax •! 9 

•ootA* 9^ to ««ffOj>iX3|»it «Dt 9t «*i *aloa fcil,* oi(^ jreqtf 

aoit«98i»tfni oid* ** *^«ri* WooiJt •«(» ai oojiro&iTs oi ♦i»ii* «#«»& 

it ae t«o *{»ot*8 « to ♦sot* at tu9 "iturxt e>fij* *tat,ba9\9b 9Mt 

9 9hf»& ta«baat»f; ftrfT ,#».95#» 6«#9iffH n :^tti &%•»©•££» •«« 

«ot fI««iJtttlJ> *1 oftsn iioiif« fi»oq« « tA li»X 94 f 9i sruft i^orfa 

•8* *^ »«J* »> 0# <?•#• 0* tti#fllslq orfj 

to IOt#aO0 »4-Ol<I«0C TTlltft «•#«»&«« tofe odt to xtut 9dt 

osfcoivoffi ocft ^»X« 9£4»9sir»A9 ml oil ISiiA ^ioinc^ elid^otire 9At 

tliAt etber persons say use the iBtersectlcn. Ttjcr^" It oc»fr» 
fllot In the evldenee as to iuet where the defendant *e traok 
tumedi 9t this Intereeetlon. Tlie evldienoe offered by the 
defeadsnt is that the truck issde e ttirn eouth of the oentex 
•f the Intereeetlon. There ie aleo e^idesice by a witneee 
offered by the defendant, that at the tlaie of making the Ivtra 
at the intereeetlon the truck nee being operated at a epeed of 
18 Biles T^^x hour. 

There la conflict in the evidence ae to the looetlofi 
tf %hi$ 9%X9f% oar at tble tise, but the evidence doee indio?te 
tlM preeoBoe of e street ear at the intereeetlon. 

the ouestion of due care or contributory negligence 
by the plaint if 1 at the tiae of the oecurTence of the accident, 
and the defendant's negligence in tie eperetion of the truck, 
eere all questions for the Jury. These questions were passed 
upon by the jury when they returned their verdiot, and ve 9xe 
of the opinion that the rerdiot is supoorted by the evidence 
and is not against its aanife^t aeiij^ht. 

Couneel on both sides of the controversy beve cited 
■UBerotts authorities to assist and sid the court in Applying 
the rule of due oare to be exercised by the plaintiff, as well 
as the rule of contributory negligence. Upon sn examination of 
ths eases, it is appar nt th.9t each of the sut onties cited 
is d«pendent upon the facts, and that ^he proper tplicstion 
of these rules vuet be applied and the result determined frMi 
the facts. 

It is also contended that the ooiurt erred iii giving 
the following instruotione: 

♦TifOff 7.9(1 ^9ltm ax 

,i,... .,,-:,.-. 3i^> to »©fl#Tt«ri*»f) «M 1» Mil ajr* t& ttltttlf^Xcj' tiJ/ ^tf 

ftftSiteQ f>it«ir ««l>l *'!«!*{? Si^^rfT .t"twt *rf* tot aiteitasorri XXjs M»tr 
9«l »w !>«e ,^@i&tsr Tlsift tJWffTofs'y t*^* a*^* T^^t •*{* t** a»«l*r 

.fd^i»^ tuitlamn «*1 *9'ain3S ton «1 bae 

SSlt-l^^qB «i iVi/c-o dif^" fe/'* fee . . (iti'^- «X7e'ffa»£ 

XX«v •« ,l;ll#alsXcr »*♦ t^ l»»«l«»t»x* »rf o* •irs?s *Ob t& »Xc i adr 

^o aoitsijrim&xft up, rt©q9 ,»©«»alX3*ir T«o*'«^Jf'^*«oo lo %Xstt 9tit ©s 

£toi#5oiX^fie Yoqo7< /!# 6a« ^ttfaist a/fi^ aequ #a9i»tx9qot «i 

aoiil b»0iirx«t»ft tlu»9% 9flf ham boiXqqo t>o' i tm «»Xjrx 09td;f to 

• «<fOJSt ttHS 


!• *Tt}«rs vae 1a full force and effect at the tia« of 

tbe hRppeuiag of th« socident In thie esse % otr- 
tain section of the Rtstute« of this stats whlcb pro- 
vided In '^-^•Tt a? follows: 

'Upon appro&oblng e person talking upon or 
along :s public highway the operator of a motor ▼«- 
hlolo «ball give reasonei^lo wsrnii^g of hie appri>acb 
and u«« every reasonable precaution to avoid injur- 
ing »uch person, sad, If necessary, stop hlc et^ld 
aoter vehicle unt;l tie oftn safely proceed." 

8« "The jury are furth r Instr oted that thers irss la 
full force and effect «t the tl»e of th€ happening 
of the accident In thi? ease a certain section of the 
etstutes of thle st^te which provided In part bb fol- 
lows t 

'Any person operptlng a sotor vehicle ehall, at 
the Intersection of public hlghwistye keep to tae right 
of the center of such intersection of auoh hlghnsye 

hen turning to the rlji-ht and pas'^ to the right of 
the center of such intersection when turning to the 

The point Is made by the defendant th.^t the evlden e 
falls to show any violation of the olt«d portl? e of the statute, 
aad that these Instructions were a aere abstract etate«ent of law 
BOt based upon the evidence In the record. 

There Is evidence which justified the giving of the 
Instruction thot the defend at* e driver operated the defendant *s 
auto truok IS nlles an bour as charged, la ^ssklng the tura at 
the latersectlon, aad also th^t he made a sharp turn to the left 
la order to pass la front of the street oar, which was not at 
tlie right of the center of the intersection. The violations 
contributing to the Injuries of the olalatlff were: the speed 
the oar was nuikla^ at the turn In a buelaeea district, the 
kao«ledge of the defendant's driver th^t others had the right 
to uee this ero8p>«^lk &t a busy intersection, aad also the turn 
ipade by the driver In ori!er to be^t the northbound street oar at 
this interaiotloa. 

The defendant cosplaln? th' t r,he assjor portion of the 
plaintiff's ease oonslste of medical teatlaony, aone of %hloh 
is disputed, aad thst the bulk and character of that evidence 


lo ••it 9tit t* t^9Vl» k«R soiol: Hut al sjw *%9ti 

-Ota dolxhr »f9i&t midi \o ^• 

'J (IS fji.'t- 



■ 3 iitit to 

♦ft anart ad* ^i^m ml ^h'i'$7Bao s^ i:>-;.. ci^* »»Xiai SI :foirx} osrus 

axroltaloJtr ttft .soJt'o^.. 

J-rf^Xt erf* 

CT«# etfif oBic tea ,ffolt'^? 

tt/^ai Slit •♦ gai 

•lit to noiticoq^ totMF v^t^ ^*i(^ «ai«X4|iM« IvslwildA <Mff 

- 8 - 

WAS gl7«a to arouse sympathy in the odLnda of the Jury* Oouasel 

fftlla to discuss the aaotuit of the ▼«rdiot ot the oh.«r&eter of the 

iajuries* and it would seea that the ooillsion w%« of suffloieat 

foree to o^iuse the injuries testified to 1& ^rt by the plaintiff *8 

phyei8i«n« RiehRrd A» steehe« as folloira: 

*IhxriBg the tiate I nna her faaiily physiolan she never had 
•mf injury or nfflietion to th'i.t ankle to ay knoi^ledge^ mt 
least X never treated K«r for any* I saiv Mr* v'isltere 
February 36, 1930, n% pbout 13:30 p«ai» at the 'Washington 
?ark Hospital* Mrs* 'tnlters mnn eomplaining of a great 
de»l of pain in her right ankle, ire took the stooklng off 
and bandaged it* There w?>.s first oardboard splints i>ut 
on the leg and foot aa a first aid. There wns ^.n abrasion 
on the ri^t anterior surfaoe of the ankle fron vhioh soae 
blood was oozing. The antire pnkle was pretty badly swollen 
and was blaok and blue. Upon touching it she complained of 
terrifio pain. X aaniculated the ankle, I got hold of her 
upper leg and foot and moved it 3 little bit* 1 could feel 
grating or crepitation of the bones of the ankle. I took 
r er to the X-ray room (?nd took an X-ray* ( .itneas ia 
handed Plaintiff's Exhibits 1 and 3*) These are the two 
filma that were taken th:^t day showing a ooiopound comminuted 
fracture of the lower right leg. Com ;ound means there *?s 
an abrpsion or opening or laearation of the skin nnd bone 
protruding. There were particles of boai protruding through 
the akin* There were several pieces of bone« which maaaa 
that the bone is comminuted or broken ia several plaeaa* 
The films showed that the fibula of the right leg had been 
lirokan in two or three places and thvt the tibia was broken 
la aeveral plaoes so th^t the eye could hardly detect the 
Btuaber of fragments* Here (indicating) we see a lot of 
ai^lintered bone and fragoients spread all the way down into 
thm makle joint* The aomal space between the foot and 
thaao bones ia deoreaaed from the normal spacing in the 

ioint; there ia an outward bowing of the upper part of the 
eg and also a backward bowing of the leg ao th^t the foot 
wan angling backward and outward from ita normal position." 

^e have considered the objeetlona raised by the 

defeadant and are not oonvineed th^t there is error auch aa would 

justify a reversal of the judgment entered by the oourt. The 

judgment is nffiroMd* 

JUOQiiEifT AfVimMS, 

«II30N, P.J. AMU HAhh, J. COlfaUH* 

- fi - 

♦T\i^lsl»Xij »4# V 

»_ ^ ^^ tXB^ 

— beta 

. .* ftfj (0 p.. 






Appf 41. mm 



26 8 I.A. 627" 

Opinion filed Deo* Sl^p 1932 


Tbifl Is an appeal t)y the plaintiff froa n judgment 
entered in t^roT of the defendant in an motion in the ifunloip<il 
Court of Ohieago upon a oheok draim by the defendant \|po& the 
Continents Illinois State aank & Trust Coapfin]r« end payable 
ts $lliiaa K. Siegfeld, attorney, or order, for the bu« of $5«000* 
wbioh oheok was endorsed by Zlegfeld and reeeired by the plaintiff 
to apply on aooount of aervioee olaiaed to have been rendered aa 
an attorney>at«-lav at the request of ^iegfeld* 

The Baterial questions of faot i^re, is the plaintiff 
a holder in due oourse and for value before aaturity, f^^nd without 
notiee of ». defeat in Ziegfeld*s title; nnd h^ss the defendant a 
good dofense to this ^otiont 

The evidenee of the plaintiff is to the effeet that 
the oheok^ the subjeot of this lawsuit* aas reoeired trtm ziegfeld 
In part payment of servioes as attorney for 2:iegfeld. The servioes 
rendered by the plaintiff have Isrgely to do with the formation of 
eertain theatrical enterprises; one of whioh was a proposed roof 
gardsn -> show on the tfogador Theatre* located in F«<rls* fraase} 
and the other for like productions outside of Paris. 

The evidenoe of the plaintiff also tends to show that 
plaintiff worked with ziegfeld on these Betters fro« July 15, 
1926 to oepteaber 10, 19S6, on frepteaber 10, 192«, xtegfeid, at 
plaintiff's office, gawe plaintiff the $5,000 obeofc, Ziegfeld 

mfft 1 


TS9 »A.I 8 8S 

8561 «I8 .oeQ JbsXn noiniqO 

( ,;ivwv>HT .& aocA'Ofc 


•IKSOO ant "»0 »Oi»i^ a^t QAP-;-^ .J JG ,^ 

^ 00«d$ !bo asm 9Aif ^ot ^?<^ii^'ix> tc; ^x^nrott^ 4l>£t»%a«jt-5 «/i lysiXXii' o^ 

9 MMt««t3k i»iit vt^a ba^v ;i^l^ij •*M»tsaiS at tn^int .^ lc» dOi#«« 

'fm>iit>-s 9ittii ot »ca9t«S> &ooi 

•••lvit»» mif ,Aiat^"- . i«iif<»t*B wr t« ' •: 9tfiiX»c ftnq at 

to ffOif«iivio'^ 9!ii ■iiiv ot-'oi ^Itn^t^l wv V ^ h9t($bavt 

loo? |)<»«oqoT(i .s f>.«w^' 'to »a«) ;sa«i<%q<i:<«#a» X«oit#e:& :c99 

••i'XM'i to •btBty moQlfsOmwn •MIX v«it <X4»rf»o 94^ ba* 
tnAt aoifft o^ «Jbai»# otX* tti;tifiAXq ftri^ to t*ir«MT» %nt 

#» «f»x«t3«xs «aii6X ,cu i^mtq^ii «o ••stx «ox ««<rjM#qtt9 o# asex 


•Bderatfd the oheek jas attorney, and plai&tlff oall«d this ti^orsfto 
••at to Zlegfeld^s attention as tending to ahotr i^ssible doiibt a« 
t« th« ownership of this eh«ok bf ?:i«gfold. Slogfeld then diotateA 
a letter, <i3lclng plnintlff to ^ please credit thia to ay aooount 
for aexTieea rendered and 9a & retsiner.* 

i^l&intlff relied upon «^at Ziegfeld told hlai» whieh 
W&8 to the effect thnt his friend* Gordon Thome, was anxious to 
take an interest la his Ji*aris eaterpriaes and gave this cheek to 
Ziegfeld, isrhioh wae pest'-dated, so that the defendant could a^ssure 
its fmytaeat hy the bank in (^ioago. Before the due date* plaintiff 
deposited the check la his Paris bank for eollection. The check 
VS.8 preaeated far payawint to the Chicago Sank, Kfaioh was refused at 
dsfend<%nt*8 request* Thereafter ^iegfeld died and the plaintiff 
diseontiaued hie serTloee* During the time plaintiff vae retftined 
by Blegfeld in relation to the theatrioal eaterprlees, no eontraote 
were drawn and aigned nor a corpomtion organised* but only 
teatative plans vere aade* Plaintiff kept no record of the tias 
used or the dates ehea the legal aerriees were rendered these 
enterprisee. It also appe re that plaintiff did not reeeiye a 
retainer or payment for thelegal work performed before blegfeld 
turned over thia check of $5,000 to the plaintiff* 

The defendant's contention* upon the plaintiff's ewidenee* 
is that plaintiff's testimony indicates the ^absence of a conBider«>.tioa 
for the payoient of the $6,000 check, and further that the appearaaee 
of the defendant's signs-ture upon the postod^ted check is eaou^ in 
aad of itself to put the plaintiff on notice. 

The defense of the defendant la one of trtLxiA aad oir* 
oumwention in the making and execution of the (±eok In dlapttte* 
There ie evidence to the effect that the defendant was drunk on the 
aight whea the check was signed, and on prior oooaeions, and th^t 
he had been drUkklng with Zlegfeld when the check ^ae executed. His 

mt0 toXXM ttXiaiBlq baa «YMnre#t« «a ^MMi« ftift MtrelMr* 

d# mroixoe «i^ ,eeYo>:(t juxjiyrei) «j|irf*ltt sid «r.^^# tostte ^ift o# bay 

Jto^^ffd AdlT .niai#«*Xi««> sot M»a siTeH Hid ftx a«ftit(» »dt b9itt»cni»b 
tM brntiofi^ stm tiotam ,iJR?>«i; o^^^itiO 9^ 0t tumf'X^q tot JM^«»a0«cr as* 

Xiao fii*i ,i^9Jta«^« aoi^^,<to<3:ic<E>9 9 1:011 tuM^i* htut aw*xJ> mav 

9»it %(ft to Mao^i^c on ifqol Iti^aiiti^ •«£!j«(ai «tttir aeuiiiq: 9TltMta9t 

tandt t9r9&a9t »t9m frASlvrds Xe^ftX 9iif «»«lw as^^b »(^t ito fcaatr 

8 avXaoet *o« bib YXitalAlq i'^^& at asjcfii oaX^ *i • aaeitqft a^tfa 

Manila i.^ avota^ JNin-xaltai; ±tmt ia^^i^tii Tot tfa«DBt<»Q ^<» T9ixX«#a« 

tt1[iit!itilq •M 9t ^om^^B^ M 4(»aiia iXit lavo b9at»i 

rtM9bJrrfi 9*t1liai»ltt 9it mfftf ^tmita^eov a<^^/u;Jbaal6& 9iif 

ita!tai»iaftoa a to aa«aatfs ^fff htttnPit&i xBU»»ittnt a'tll^Ai.«Xq t.^ift ai 

Ai i^aoata ai -Koarfo fc'>,t iViec:: »:fif ff#q[«f auuta^qgia « * #«t£jbisalt 9t» aifd lo 

,»ottoa ao TttfaJtKl^ arf» iuq, ot \X9*tl to lutt 
«TJt9 Itta ftKrAYt ^0 -ftflo nJt tambMivb 9i!f» ta atfiota^ arfT 

•a#9«(aXA ni ^aatln a.'i^ .0 aol^if^iKKS Jbvtn ^ii(/ft«r ail# al a^tta^ymao 

9dt an'f^iattb »fin tmbi^t9b 9fit in At taatta 9ti$ ot aoita&iva al airarfT 

#«!(# Ma «8itaiaaa«» vaia^ jia 6fi» ,J6«A$ia e^v sfaade a<l^ iia^ ^rfaXA 

alH •Aa^vaaza aew laailo a4# oaifir tXats^X^^ <lti« S«ijtalYl> Aaa^r bail •A 


•Tld«a«e, however. Is soaM»whnt confusing as to his nblllty to 
uaderatsix^ vh&t he w^a •Igning at the tloo the ohoek vbs ex«outed« 
Tho plaintiff eont«nd« tb'^t if every word of the defendnat's 
teotiaony be taken &3 true, the evideaoe offers no defense irhloh 
it reeognized in law, »nd that the court erred in refusing to 
instruot the jury to fi»i for the pl&intiff fof the amount of the 
oheok* The defendant, hoveyer, hns the right to hare the jury 
pass upon the testiaony of the plaintiff, an interested vitneBa* 
na to the probability of the truth of the facts testified to by 
kia« OTon thougjb the testimony of the plaintiff in the case is 
Bet eentradioted by any other evidenoe, and even if the plaintiff 
is not otherwise iapeaohed. Hjghley ▼• Aaerioan jEacohange Mation&jL 
litl^ 86 III. App. 48; ?ft4ft^alhA ▼• i?1fftfift> 83 111. App. 6S, 

The post->dated shook reoeived by the plaintiff frost 
ZiOffold, under the cirouflntanoes related by the plaintiff, for 
tho serrioes claimed to hawe been rendered, together with the 
defense offered by tho defendant of his condition of drunkenness 
at the time of tho siguing of the oheok in Parity are facts 
properly to be oonol^lMvod by the jury, and if the trial court had 
properly instructed the jury we would not bo inclined to disturb 
the werdiet of the jury. The jury passed upon the i«^eight of the 
eTidonoe, applied the tests in order to ascertain the truth of tho 
testimony, »Ad det^^rmined the probability or iaprobmbility of the 
soworal statements of the witnesses. 

wo hawe examined the instruction offered by tho 

plaintiff and refused by the court, which is; 

'If you believe from the evidenoe in this case that 
tho actions of Ziegfeld in obtaining the oheok in question 
were wrongful and fraudulent, and th?it the plaintiff, 
Thomas, auad the defendant, fhorno, were both innocent 
parties in tho transaction, yet if you beliewe from the 
OTidenoe th«>.t the defendant by his own negligence made 
it posoiblo for Ziegfeld to commit the wrongful act, in 
such ca«o, tho defendant must stand the Icmbo** 


•A»#«Mis» •«« ii—i^ mdt 9m it a^ #«> snln^iv ««« trf M^ iMKntvxtiMaf 

9$ ^imtt9rt St tB's'i'i pamm '^i^ ts>4i buB «wA.i. sUt. imnjta:g^9^m mi 
mdt to tipNMsfe fdi fni'i r\itniBSq *43t 'im\ halt «! TU»i 9<i^ imntmmi 

t&^9m$im b*tmtnL9ini as ^'LlttsiiMM ^fi^ ^<t ^sn&6U$&'»jf 9(ii a&qu tmm^ 

VdF 9i ttmt1it99i a#SM<^ »d^ to Atun ^dt to xd'ii.AO.rtt^til £»<ft «« «« 

ri d«i9« »ff# etk m&sti&lq »d$ t& yi^nomitttBi mdi t^dOfi^ awn «Mitf 

fr^HftJiirf^ nmtim^ mmirn^ *▼ jki^aiM •b9a»99e[mi 9ztm^&t9> ^s •! 

»rf;^ tf$i« T^sii-»»0t • i^b^t*im9ii «9'9& 9x^4 mi hmmlelo iumtrvmt m4k 

mtmsumtau-rh td es9Ltkbn9!» sirf \9 tnikltai9\9k mdt fi b9iL9\'fc 99a9tmk 

mtomt 9TM 49Xkm^ tit t(9«4» i^dt %m T^ttv^im 9Ai te 99JLi sdi tx 

ha4 ^nram Imitt etii ^1 Ms^ ,^Lft 9d$ ttfM%»iifciliiiiii»# Mf ^^ xiittqvvg 

94$ \9 tffgiflHv iMf# ofiiqir httrntmi %'^u% mAt •xtal »At lo t9itnif9 titt 
•Ji# Ix) Mut^ ^dii ni»it999M 9i iriNbto mi mf99i 9fii b^ilm* «»eA»i>i?» 

,9lm9»ati9 9A* t« 9tMiUK9t^tU Xm.9r99 

9dt \di &9T«tt^ a9iifmi$imt 9dt bmmim»x9 9v»i m$ 

#.«/fir 99M9 tirfit iii MNIftMr* tett Awt^ < !M»t 11* 

ftfU* 4u>«) •raiXwf vex > ••liri^q 

"••»0j[ 9!ii bOAim fs)> t 


Thft only objeotion offered by the defendant to the 
glTlog of this Inatruotlon is tiiat there ha« been no ^oss to any 
Innoeent person. The question of good faith mist be determined by 
the Jury, as well as iribiether the defendant's negllgenoe, if nnj, 
aade It possible for <^legfeld to eouslt the wrongful act. These 
are the Important questions at Issue. The Instruotlon should have 
been giren by the court* 

A further point to be considered and idi^leh has been 

ealled to our attention by the defendant, is that it does not 

appear fro* the reoord that all of the instniotlons were lnoorpo7?.ted 

Im the bill of exoeptlons* and therefore the court should assusw 

that proper instruotlons were given to the Jury by the trial court 

whleh eured the failure to give the Instruotlon In question, this 

•otation appears In the reeord preceding the oertifloate of the 

trial eourt to the bill of exceptions^ 

*whioh were all of the proceedings had in the trial 
of said cause** 

This would Indioate that all of the instructions* as veil as all 

the other prooeedl{%s« are oont^liied In the bill of exceptions la 

the Instant case. Jlo objection was made to the form of the bill 

of exeeptloiWy in fact, the bill of exceptions was approved by 

the attorney for the defendant, and he endorsed such approval by 

the oharnoters 0. K. on the %ill of exoeptions. Suoh endorsement 

is generally accepted as an appro^ral* 



ttf I«a2rx«#9b »(f ^6091 tiiln\ boos ^<> jk>1^c«c/P «(47 «tMti»T9q f«»<Miajfl 

•iiiFf «tM li^t^Mtir •!<# i^iia»fOO o^ hl^ta^iS xol BlJUe socf ti •ham 

^Two* lukts •<!* x<* Tti't «'^^ o* av9i'$ 9-rftw Ri3«i;?oirs»«£tJt ic^croTq tuttlt 

9djr lo 9i«el1ti.ti:»« adi -^^Mimo^XQ bumn^i »fii ai i»«s9«iq« mtm^am 

»9ftoiJc9t5ir« 1e IXi<i »At oi truoa : 

IXji 9l« Xl9v 99 «8floi#oinr#9ni T^.'(;f 9tf«eiJ!Knii tiifovr 9itfT 

ai sfloitq9aic9 to IXiif 9sit at tfaintao , ^ m^ ib^BVtoiq iscflo •dt 

lltsi 9Hi to ttrtot 9dt o* 9bm m^m ooi Oots^dt? oH .9900 tn9;fRi:i 9il# 

td ib9ro-3qrq« 9isv 9iloi#q9ex9 to XXif . rA ai ,Baoi#q90i9 to 

y<J l8Totqa« filoue bASToJxao 9d ban ^inAttantat 9dt r<i\ x^^'^<^*i* *<(*^ 

' a9«9oaobfiie ' .^aoitq" iitf 9Ai . « rcs^OATiKf* fif# 

r..<it t9iii<tf>Of. i|Xi9T9a9;| •! 



Y a Corpora tloa. 


CARL E. fHI0K30«, 

Appeiiaat . 


MOTHOIf AL 00;»t 

or caievQO. 

6 8 I.A. 627^ 

Opinion filed Oeo« 21^ 1932 


This is * tork action by tbe plaintiff againet tbe 
defendant. The oaue« vs? tried before a jiury and sfter the 
evidence vaa nesrd, a verdict was returned for the plaintiff as^ees- 

lag its dasages -<t • % the full e»ount." Upon mstion, 

the court peraitted the Jury to reoonsider sad eorreet the Terdiot^ 
end the jury fixed tbe amount of plaintiff's dajuigM at |489,88, 
from which jud^jaeBt the def end^^nt appeals* 

The action by the plaintiff ie to reooTer d«aages for 
injury by the defendant to pl-^intifi *a conduit located in the 
pttblio alley east of inthrop Avenue end north of Bryn Unwr ^ivenue. 
Plaintiff claias that the defendant by his agents negligently esr- 
oavate^, on or aboat October 1, 1928, the property iwa^di^tely 
adjoining eaid public Alley s« as to eause plaint if f*8 conduit to 
eettle sad becoise dB«a{;e4* 

The facts are, eubetsnti&lly, that the conduit was 
placed under ground in the alley pureusnt to a pemit le^ued by tho 
Clt,y of chleago. Thie fact is admitted by the defead^at. The 
defend'^at aas erecting s ten-ntory building on the preoiees ieuecd- 
ietely west of the alley. For the purpose of constructing: the 





SSGX ,XS *09a feslit aoiaiciO 

foundation, an exeavs?tlen XS feet d««p iras sade on the lot, and 
extended the entire width of tbe lot, or appro xijiiately SO feet 
along the alley line. Fillet if f*e two-^duot coEiduit coTeriag a 
eable lased for transaitting telephone meepe^es was looated tvo or 
tbree feet below the erurfaoe of the alley and ran <%loag the en- 
tire length of the exc«yation from three to four feet east of the 
vest line of the prenises. On October 1, 1938, the conduit was 
found to be broken ^nd daonged ^nd the cable nae ettepended along 
the side of the open eiteaT^tion for a distance of about 40 feet* 
Sejii ««• later thrown on the exposed o«ble. 

After the work on the build ing kad progreesed so a.s to 
perait the plaintilf to replace the conduit, the plaintiff re- 
paired the toMge to the eable,on or about January 1, 1929, and 
the evidence tends to maow that the eoet of making euoh repairs 
»aa I489.S8. 

The important quest ioa to be cocsidered by this court 
is, did the trial court err in denying the offer of the defendant 
to prove that the exceTation and shoring of the groxind at the plaoe 
in qvsstion was performed by independent contractors, and tbtt the 
V defendant had no control over these contractors in the performance 
of their work. The offer by the defendnat was made sfter %hM 
oeurt had excluded certain evidenee tending to shoa a relationship 
between the defendant ae the general contractor nvA Harry Bairstow, 
a sub-contractor who was doing the exoavstion work on the premises* 
The offer, in subet^^nee, was that Carl E. Drlokson, the defendant, 
made a verbal contract and agree»est with Bairetow somo time prior 
to Serptomber 2, 1928, to do the entir*^ exea!V«!ting Job for the sua 
of 12900. 

In order to establish the relationship of independent 
oontr<?otor between the def <?'ndant and Bairstow it Is necessary to 
show by proper evidence thst Pairstow had the absolute right to 
control the manner of doing the work in oueetion. This control 

Im.r ^icl •£'} ac eibMi mmm qesx) #99: ni acur^.v 1^0.-9 as- ^aatiBinuioi 

t—\ Oa xlBtmrnirvtit^ TO ,t«X s^l to fftUv 9iHtm %(it b9hm4m9 

ft jpiY'^voo tiMbaop #«tfft-««t 3i*ttitai8i? .*alX x*-^I« ftift saolA 

t« ow» ^«#ftOoX »4« «•)«<;••« •ffo4qr»l«^ ^t^l«ftA«Yt «•! teav ftjrtfft^ 

»it %• #t«» #9tt uvol ot »«ifi(:f sort croitiiTMK9 941 t« ittBfliI tTit 

«e« ^ijrfmoo •At «8'^6X «X -r9«r«t»0 as) ,m99tm^t«i •^f to tail »«•« 

8MI« l>9P>03qatfa a^ ftltf40 «dt te« toiMts* 1^ '^ «»ir«tif fttf •# 6«tfOt 

«# •« M toiiwnEBtmv iititf ifUbiisNl' v^iit anf item •tU tvf'U 

-«T lll^llljplq »l£^ ,#i&5lTQ0 •Iff MMll4t9f «# tU^«i«I(r aJi^ ti«Tft<{ 

«s!:?>n»t»l> «rfJ t© t'Stto *jf^ 3ait«9' Ki "T^* iHiroe I»lx* »ri* Wfe ,•! 

•oi^Xi? arf* ts &«i/et9 tms 4© sfi^Totfu feci* aeUTarAOxa ^At tM9 srotq #> 

»£(^ t»6t boM (rxots^T^noO' tjw&^4$«.^l 1^ liMni«tii*9 «»# s(»it«M9 111 

••«MMn»tT«<} 9itt fft 9'roioi^'ifat^ i^»^Mf vave lotiaoo mi bad ituilta^tmb 

Mlt t^iX^ «»>«« ««nr *Ji??bjir*l:«fe •if* Xif «9'ttc (Mf'f .JhEO* il»i!# to 

tfifl9<i&tif»i^'i M wecfft 9^ ^aita^i »off9tlv» atief^roo b9fiitfX:>x« foeft ttu^o 

,t«Qite«tftb Ml# 4««jUlo^t ,& fiL^ #«tr luMT ,wit » < tf— tti ««ftttt> •irr 
toiler Ml^ *««* 9«t8i:iBfl dticr #a««9»«BA >•» fikv*tsu» iaaw m '^OM 

»ili(fcimg>Bl to vlKftnol^JiioT ma* d«iXd«#3^» - t eri 

oi t^»«)««o«a «i li ooMtKi«a fca* #aal)««tol» oift i. to#o<^t«oe9 

Ot ^XljlJtt »fJUrl0«tfO 9B9 b^d ir«ftti£^ fUttfl' OOffOMVS TttqO^q t*' ^>^* 

Xottooo olM? .aoltsoiio ai: itoo otft ioioA to vooomi o4# Xo«#aoo 

does aot appear to t>6 In Balretov from the otfsr to prove 
tbo •xitteaeo of a oontraet botwooa the &tf nAsjkt and Bairatoff* 
tIpoB a »ocE«vh«t slnilar qfuestioa, tho fv^reoo Cowrt in Kaleon Broe . 
A Qo . T. laduetrlal Co«. . 330 111. 27, said: 

*Tha right to control the ffi^aaer of doing tke work Is 
the principal coaeld8r?.tion which deteroilnee whether the 
worker Is an eottloyee or an independent oontraotor* 
(Decatur Hallway and Light So. v. Indu^^tri^l Board, 
276 III. 472.) The test of the ritlationshlp is the 
right to control* It is not the faot of actual 
lAterferenoe with the control, but the right to 
interfere, thht aakes the difference between an 
iadependent contractor and a serTsnt or a^ent.* 

Ihadouhtedly the defendant directed Bairetow wheri: to 
ezo3Tate. ^he ezoav&tloB ^as enrrled on at the alley line, 
nt the defend-'Bt'e direction, and from the oTidenoe, this 
exoaTatlon injured the conduit sud the eable, and aa a reeult 
■Side It neceae^try for the plaintiff to repair the daaage. 

The defend '^^nt eoaplains of the attitude of the trial 
court in propounding quest ions to the witnesses in the case, 
and the prejudicial reoiarks of the ocurfe in the presence of 
the jury. Qeaerally it is aot proper for a judge to teke am 
a«tlTe part in the trial of a oase, for the reason that the j\iry 
•ay he influenced hy the remarks eade by the judge in th« 
exaaiination of witnesses; btit It is always oroper for the court 
to question witnesses so as to get at the truth of the eon- 
troTsrsy. e do not regard the reaarks of the trial oourt 
as injur lovui when the court aanounoed its Judgaent, and 
deterained, as a aatter of law, t )at the eaployaent of Balretow 
was aot as aa iadepeadent oontr?cter» 

Upon the question of the liability of the defendant for 
daaa(«s caused to the plaintiff's conduit by thle ezcsTation, 
there Is sTidenee that one of the assist ant engineers 


tMi8» ,*•--■ .'"''• ^^''^•' , .yf^-^ f?x^»st»ftgl ,r .flSJI 
•io#o«v#aoo tse&osqsl^l «s to ftsicoXeaiA a» ai t«3l'X0J7 

#t 4V»ifir «i«»«-ti»li 6»(h>»?i;l^ ttt0te»t»§ vtft t^MMMtell 

,«fliX t»-rf-« »<** *^- ^6 fealr«»o a*^ »i«rl*3ste»x» »rfT ••tAV«a«» 

,«««o ©eft ^i 8tt«r«®ati^ »rf# 6t 8jii«Jtt*»»o ^i.hmt9q*»tq ai ttuo& 
"to «oa»»»rr<3« •Jtt ffJt ttAr>» Mt lo si-xew^ XAXsJfeot^ttr »«^* *a* 

^ua» »tf# 'set r^dfti^cf tt*9te al »l idKf ,'«48J»osi^i<r to ael*«ixlitant« 
•-a<i«^ 9ii* 16 (^tATt a/ft i^B t9>% ef 3<! «« «9n»i»fnriw noitt«kJsrp o# 

«o^r.«ie<i; to fa^eiY0X<9k« tuif fc.4<# ,«f«x !« xi>»#«ii a 9» ,ft«Milirx»taft 

•vd;;N»*<Aa»9 *«aJbin««i^Wii Hn «* tr<f<.' r;.«'« 
tat tmMba^tth n£i tc t^-i(i^<^«^' ^f^* ^ aai#«aii« atf.t ffo(|(f 
,aoJ:tj»T<«^az« altKir t<^ «i&^ii<»o •'tli#ai«l«; a<fir <it 0aai«ae aataaai^ 

f«r tht plaintiff, after r«eeiTing. a report of daai&ges to the 
tolepbone •Quiiwent, went to tbe olte of the •xeaTstion on 
Oetobtr 1, 1928, end found broken oonduite and an oxpoaed tele~ 
phone cable hanging along side the exoaTation, and then at a 
later date, returned and fovmd irorlcaen filling in the exoavatlon, 
vhloh extended into the alley, and by euoh filling in, eorered 
the expoeed oable vlth dirt. After eiifflcient progreea had been 
Mide In the erection of the building, the plaintiff aade repairs. 
There is a oonfliot in the eridenoe that a telephone eable wae 
exposed. There is evidenoe offered by the olaintiff by one of 
its vitnessee, i;ail s^teinhaueer, that in June, 1939, he called 
at the office of the defendant and talked about the da«igee ulth 
3eth Johnson, the bookkeeper in eharge of the preaiaea. »hem 
thie vas called to the attention of the vitnese, he eaid, *I 
know all ;»bout it," and that if ve (the plaintiff) would send 
a bill he would be glad to take eare of it. This statement la 
denied by Johnson, who admitted, tiOwoTer, tbst a oall wae «ade 
at the defendant *8 office by the plaintiff's represent at Ive la 
regard to the daaa^es. H this tiae, the defend nt was absent 
frea Chieago upon a trip t« i^.urop«, and Johnson, apparently, 
was in ooapiete charge 4»f the business. Later the def@n<f nt, 
at the recueet of the repreeentstlTe of the plaintiff, called at 
plaintiff *e office and talked with Franois Baldwin, chief elaia 
adjuater, about the bill for daaages. He etsted, substantially, 
that the bill waa t>d hl|^ and that the defendant wanted the 
plaintiff to forget about it. This the defendant denied, but 
the fact reiBaine that he called at the plaintiff's office in 
regard to the daaag««* 

All these facta w re before the jury and the rerdiot Is 

"Alii Jbusoqx* as haa, alidJiaoo a»H9va &flur«t bm» «8Str ,X i:Mf9#«0 

I** ,JbdU« sj^ i^e^aiTiii? ^x5^ 'U goUah^&b ^Mf ot ibftXiM •«» •lit 

bswo tXcr&if (lUiliiJLf^Xo 9^^) >«< U ^4«£CI ftitA ",$1 tiroes Xle yoci 

«i ^o^JM^s^R Kir ):c »1£)0 ttalj^^ !»f &«XS tfT Ai^ow «lf XXid 9 

'^ fham 14? iX«o A id4^ ,x9V9wer< (l^«.t {-£«&;«"( 9vl« ,jto»at{ot> vsf 69iA»6' 

,^IX«t>fl«t»sli/9 ^b»;»sf» »a .9«gjs«AJb t©l IXXtf WT* *w<Mr» ,x»t«ir{;&s 

»rf* fc®*rt3T» :>«.afem'l»ls »«* t»sfl* fcn-ft ifgXif ©tf «£»« xxirf »d# *iui* 

«uci ,(>»lff«fe ^as»asl»5 9dt ai4f .#1 iTvo^F* l«a«»l et IXXtmXmlq 

al eoitto s'l^i^olcXq »4t #« fi^XXi^o »<f t«f# tmttmm^ tout ndf 

Bi #9itt9T B^l* *flfl xttiu *iii d^olBd «-j»,w •#oei •»»Kt XXA 


uq>Iy vupported by the evidenctt la tbc record. There la no 
ssriouc oonteet upon the Quei^tion of dasago to plaintiff *• 
equipaeat, and the eafiount th«r«vef* 

Complaint 10 aadc that th« iastruotlons of th« court 
inraded the province of the jury In that they instructed the j\iry 
that the defendant did the work of exo3T»tlng» etc. The Language 
uee(! by the court in the inatructlont wae objected to by the 
defendant, but the court wae aaily supported by the eTldence* 

The remainirAg Question to be eODSidered is, did the 
court err in recalling the jurore and directing the jury to render 
the Terdiot arrired at by them. The eTldence amply supports the 
Terdiot finding the iesuee for the plaintiff. The psrt of the ver- 
dict corrected by the jury wae the insert ioti of the amoiont of 
daaagee sustained by the plaintiff. There is no actual dispute 
in the evidence upon the aaiount of drj«age8 sustained. The state* 
■eat of els la filed by the pl^iintiff alleged the daaages to be 
1596.28, ami the rerdiet, baeed upon the eridence, is for I489.88. 
That was the intention of the jury whea the original verdict was 
returned. The merits in this controversy are with the plaintiff, sad 
thers is ao error such as vo^^ld reouire a reversal. Based upon 
the evidence, it does not appear that the defendant was sub- 
•taati^lly prejudiced by the jury inf»erting the afflount of damages 
ajid fulfillin,. the clear intentlo'. of their verdict. The con- 
clusion resched by this court is well expressed by the Appellate 
Court ia the ease of yioklser-McClure Cc ;. v. Berainghasi & 3eaaa| | 
C^ .. 151 111. 4pp. 540, in these words: 

"However erroneous the action of the court may be In peraitting 
the Jury to recoriolder and correct a verdict rendered sfter they 
have separated, the court will not reverse unle^?> there are some 
' aerits to the oase." 

The judgment ie affirmed. 



■ *ttiral.Qi9 o# 9^f^emBh \o aoi#«9iit^ stfi aoqx; #«9taoo ax/oitet 

.to ;1# ^ta*mqJtu^9 

9tti x<S ot b9t»^^dc' "iXtoutinsi »ilt ai ttuoo •di x^ f>»tur 

•dt bit ,9i tttTsMacoo •df ei a^li'Btntp saiaiov.^f ittfT 
fifltcT 9t x'^i •'1^ },al*oatifc fcas sioiet *^^ 3alIX«o«Ti ai ; js jt:u«o 

-■.:;?•/ s^„. . ,, ..... ........ A,, .., lol «9JCf*i»i 9rf;f HaiMil #0Jtbi»T 

io icssntbM 9itt to .lOitTSd^iil »4t ajsw Y^vt ^^^ T^ fHi^o^rr'soo #oife 

-s?sts .;,■, ■y?^Z!t:^' •■:&(■ -^fff ii^qu «;v 9tlJ ai 

,Gfi.t?9^$ tot al «»oa9biv- : 2tf(e ,9S.at8| 

a/^ ,tti*«i .btaaju**.^ 

ao^tt b»«isS ,lwaT9V3it © «>Ti; li ai vT^d^ 

•«<{»« tt0W ^aelitT9tftb di ,5N>a»biT9 odt 

-noo .;r.«9iBi ts9. iitXfll boa 

»#aXX»<}qA •!(# t^ t>»<^e*irqx9 xr>?r ^i j^iirdA titf^r ^tf 2»«dOi't»rt aoivalo 

IMHftOJMiaS.-' • ■ '3^1" • ^tli»l& - ai titnO 

lebao* •a9a;r ai ,0^a .qq/» .XXI XSX .. pi:) 
aai #tXaT*q tu ed xis' 

*«r 9^ii*« 


miLU UQWHOUt 9 kmkh rROK 




App«u«e. ) 26 8 i«A. 628 

Opinion filed Deo* 21, 1932 


This it att action instituted in the ttunieipsl Court «f 
Ohieago bjr the plaintiff agaimt the defendant wherein the plain- 
tiff 90u|^t to reeorer #1SS0« and interest, for moneys alleged to 
have been ad-??jieed by hia to the defendant, a trial was had 
«& U«oe«ber 18, 193I« and by agreesfent the oase was submitted to 
a jury of six aen. After a herring the jury returned a Ttrdiot 
fiodiug the issues for the defendant, u: on which werdiot the trial 
eourt entered a Judgaent, and froa vitioh the plaintiff appeals* 
Ho cuestion is rtilsed or suggested as to the suffioienoy of the 
plendings filed by the parties in interest* 

The iaportant question to be determined is whether 
the werdiot for the defendant was against the aanifest wslght of 
the ewidenee* 

Iron the plaintiff's ewidenoe it appears that plaintiff 
is related to the defendant, the defendant being his aunt; that on 
July Id, 1939 the defead)«&t asked Bera^ard Jadwin, Cashier of the 
Public stete Bank, for n laaa of S^1,3S0 on 18 shares of stock of 
the bank owned by her; she was Inforaed by Jadwin that it wks un- 
lawful for the bank to aake such a loan; th't subsequently the 
plaintiff »st the defendant at the bank and said that he was willing 
to help her aake the loan and that Jadwin, the cashier, would ti^kc 
the certificate of stock of the defendant, and in the ewent of a si^-le. 

i»om A ^amtmu naam 

I H i 


B^O «.A«1 OCJiS 1 .9»l£*flrtrA 

8Sei ,IS ,090 fcslil actatqO 

.?;■:• :-lT CI^'^IJ.^' .i*^«S;-! -syll^li .Kite 

to ttwoi' Xinqloia^M 9ttt at b»tvtli»nt tmiffSM m» •! Kldf 

«d^ Jo T»ltfei»0 ^niYbAti btnoirai? JbMft? tai^bemtato ftiii $mi «9i tiiif^ 
\o <««#e lo MiTiSiilt &X do e3e«X6 "^^ iui6i ^ lot «4/tii£i •re#S •lltfvSl 

sai 1 Xiw »«« ill ^'^Ai hint, baci iiuKf ftit^ t» tttAbtt^J»k •Hi t*m tlltal«M 

«to# JUjvftv «Y»iif«/^o «t(;r «AJhrliupC> tsAi to* ami »d# •jUba t«tf qXsif •# 

»Xjia a to »«•▼• Old si tea ^tnmh(f\%b ad^r to jfaots la ^t^nVtirtm^ %A$ 

pay the plaintiff ll«3&0» thf» bmlasee of tbe purehase prio« to be 
paid to the defeMaat. FJLaiatiff Issued hie eheok for |X«3S0« 
pajable to the defendant, and ssrked on the Margin of the eheok these 
vorde, "Loan account of 18 aharee Publio State Bank.* At the tlse 
of thie transaction the defendant signed a letter prepared by jAdwin« 
autborlsli^ hia to sell defendant's 18 sharee of stoek at not less 
thskft $130 a share, and after THtying the plaintiff gl,360» to pay 
the balance to the defendant. Pl>alBtlff*8 eheek wnm cashed by the 
defendant at the Oecitinental Hank st the note teller's vlndov* 
In April, 1930, the plaintiff vrote a letter to the defendant 
demanding his aoney and Intereet. Mo aoney was reeelTed by the 
l^aintiff, nor «rere the 18 shares of stook sold vhloh were deposited 
with the Cashier of the Public State Sank, 

The defendant eontends th^t the eheek of the plaintiff 
was given to her ia paysaat of 10 shares of this stook, and not 
as a loan* 

The OTldenoe offered by the defendant is to the effeot 
that she was a stockholder of the Publle State Sank, and owned 
IS shares; that Jadvln, the cashier of this bank, had sold five 
shares of stoek issued by the bnnk and owned by the defendant, at 
$150 a share, and in July, 1929, she called at the bank in response 
to a ©all by Jadwin, who told her that Philip Horwieh, the plaintiff, 
wanted to buy some of her stook; that she aet the plaintiff at 
the bnnk and he asked her hew sueh she wanted for her stook, and 
in reply she stated to hi« tlS© a share; that plaintiff would not 
pay HlfiO, but told her that he wtmld give her UZB a share; that 
shf then sold 10 shares of stoek to the plaintiff and he gave her 
a eheok for tl,3S0 for ten shmres, and that she endorsed the 
certifioate, whioh eTidenoed 18 shares, «nd left the stoek with Jadwla» 
the 0»ahler, tc be split, lo shares for the plaintiff and eight 


••mf^ i»*40 miit to «l||itisa 4m(# «• lsmt%»wi teui «#a«lMr«^«6 sdt o^ aler^jiq 
wmli 9ilt t» "«3ta4stii mt^t^ 9il^aH. mmta4» SX )« toMumtm ««o<i** ,«M«« 

tt«*X *9a t« 3{*0#o to ««'3;9ii& 8X 0*t£Uibtt^tfiib Xi*8 o^ nil} ^i^Jttltodtun 
t«t o^ «03e«x^ ttx#<ii«Xq »At saixm t«fi*i ^» «»Tiuii » oex$ miU 

#aA£Mt«t«& fnAt &t i;»#»«X i» atoirifr tyMfntmlq m4t «OS$X ^XitqfA al 

h»tl»»q^b »t«n sioiaivt M«» i^e»$9 %« o«rt^<(i( 3X ft^t 9mm rox ^VittvlMlti 

*imtA iti$nt& 9iX4tfS; 9dt to TOi^oxS orft tl$lv 

t>jt!»:v. ,,.; ic .soojIo <mW t^rf* aJto^fsfoe tnAbam^mb oift 

ctoii ?;nt» ,AOv5?in t'i'i^i '^.y mvf,H&». 01 In »« si-yftz-i ni tc^ri oi a»rt% SJHr 

•e.«oX « lui 
loottft odi o* ei #«i»ifcnot4M^ tiSs \ - - -. ■ i.^o;;:;.' .:-'-^ ^^tvc' 

Ammo twsK «:i3jrjs^ ajT^ii^^ A^Xtfsr% %iSi to lii^iioifatoote o oav oifs tAif# 

tirlt 6Xoe Jbo£[ iiiats4 •mit to itoi^o^o Oit# ^iUnt»% i»A* \99tsiAz iX 

^< i^aAtootofe orf# t^ ftoooo iMs tn^ Oi(# ftf l»otr«oX loote to oo«Mte 

»CfloqB«t fli An«tf ^Ai ^» i^aXX#o Oilo tOSSJ «tXxfi oi teo t^^ftt « 06X1 

,ttX#aiaX9 9(i# «i(oXvTOi4 ^iXiif% itxAt ttif S^Xo^T o4w «iU«l><$V x6 XXoo « ot 

»A ttjt#iii«Xq offt t^ o<f« tait;r jjfooi^B t9g( to •■•• -fV>f o# JHltnoo 

|«o ^Mtt» «M Yot *o;»<u« oite dosfM «oi< icod I>9:<i0 oi( INic Xfintf Mft 

tea feXjfe« ttX^iil<«Xq $fM ;»Y«il9 « 09X^ Miri ot botots oife t-^^t ci 

#jHff tOK«i(« « aCXt toid OTil JbXiuov ogl t^if# Y«ll 6iot #utf «OSXt to9 

fMf oTOii <M< Abo ttitflioXq 0£(f o# ^iootf'a to owtotft Ctf liXo* ooiff otfe 

o^ ftooYOlwM m4* tuAt htm «oo<r»^ fio> Tot fllS«Xt Mt tf»o4o o 

XvAcV dtk* Jlo«r« odt #t»X te«t ,iio*tjH4« 8X ftooaobiv* doXitt ,o#«oXtl#?oo 

#4|Xo ftA« ttl#ai«Xq od^ tot aovods OX ,^XX<;o otf o^ ,t»idft«C •/!» 


•hair** for the defendant; that 8h« signed a letter wbloh ah» 
tlimii^t vaa a transfer of th« atook to the plaintiff; th<^t she 
did not tell JadwiB or Horwioh, the plaintiff^ th^.t she im& in 
need of aoney; that at th*it tisM she had a balanee in her aeoovmt 
9% the Foreman liatlonal Jank of i3«118,48« and also a saall aocouat 
at the Howard r-i^nk. 

There Is a oonfliet in the evidenee ae to the endorae- 
meat upon the oheek for §1,350 of the «erde« <*I.oaai account It 
aharea Publie Sf^te dank," and there is a further oonfliet between 
the witnesses as to what was said at the ti«« the plaintiff issued 
his oheek for ^1,3S0 to the defendant* It will not be neeesssry 
to oensider the oonfliet in the eTidenoe; that was for the jury, 
and in doing so, the jury must test the eTidenoe both of the 
plaintiff nind the defendant as to its oredlbixity* From the 
▼erdiot it is STident the Jury eoneiuded that the evidence of the 
defendant and her witnessss was entitled to greater oredenoe thaa 
that of the plaintiff and his wltnesaes* ne cannot agree with the 
plaintiff's contention thnt the evidenee offered by the defendant 
was so uBbeliOT«]»le, unoonsoionable, and incredible, «nd beyoiul 
the liaite of huaian belief, thpiX in law it had no probatiwe foree. 
It was rither unusual that a loan was fl»^de at the tiaie the trans- 
aetion took place with the plaintiff in the preaenoe of the bank 
officials, and that a note was net signed by the defendant to 
ewidenoe the indebtednoss. 

The eTidenoe is silent as to the maturity of the loan 
aal the interest rute, w are unable to say that the manifest 
weight of the ewldonee is against the Terdiot of the Jury* 

The defendant has e%llsd the attention of the court 
to the faot that the plaintiff has failed to note an objection or 
exeeption to the order of the oourt denying plaintiff's motion for 
a new trial, or to the motion made in arrest of Judgment, or to 

the entry of the judgment on the verdict* While it is true 


•Iff fjNCt i1tM^lsi«I(r Pfif oJ looj^ft •«f^ t» t9'k»iiMt9 .t:- a^w #(^o<f^ 
al iMHr Mia r^tif^T «t^i»]3tiai% <»i(^ «doiivx«M xe aiwJhul- XX»;r sfais hlh 

iwsa^tM litsmtt « ^Xii^ £iA''%^ «3J^«SIXft<&; to Jbnm; Xm7,oiJr«$ a««i9xoi •tit #• 

.-•■JaaK Irxmiali ^ '■ '^ 

■; . ,j.h tt )U > >X.L.'. iC.'.n.. ' 

.: ' ?^(K ioJULIaoQ 'i»4^'tiit » ml 9x»d} bpm ",Jt«.«jf- *;*^f- oiXtfiri asxttJte 

4^ui 9ii* ««1 ««w #d«(# i9«^0ft£>Jrr» »i1." mI sroiilA©© sri* xaJblcnao o# 
ant* iiM>tt •i|*i^/tfiJS!»9:f-- ■::,■.•....:■,-:.>,, •jrf* JbajiR -]tti}«il«Xq 

ba»x9a hsis ^i&i^Xb^i&Ri lane? «ai<l&««ii(iaaoQflu , dXtftTOiiediau aa ««« 

~};;.c£.^'£^ "^tlt «ffil^ aii^t $^ alMMi iM»v A!«>i|X «^-f«4# Z0«r««fjxu I3d#-:ft« asv ^{ 
iA^ »ii» \^-j istfsmMnwtq »<it ai %J:iJ«X»lq wi* iS^Xv aajcXq 3(00^ aoit^fi 

fuaX 94t to t^i^^s^^« «4* o:f «^ t««l|« tX iKuraJbiva aifT 

#«9ltifl«« atf^ •i'rif^ tea o# sXcfAOij . tiB9'Y«»<riii oiii' hat 

• Tz^t •(i<^ "ko tai-trtev ai(t t9i . ieto^^AjbiY* a/Sj^ lo #d^li»tr 

to «0i^o»(;do Afi 9ion ai l>«ii£l aisn ' •><{# j<Tajr jr 

tot aoi^off «»tliJ«Miq gaJiv*** itv^; • ':90to %tit o* noj^;- /ji>k!« 

ot TO «4^iiaai5fetr(; la ^raavta «i aJbrau noj.iT;in »i(t ot to «1/-J:7^ waa a 


that S«e« 38 of tl>« Munioip&l Court Act* and fitto. 81 of the Fraoti.o« 
Aot MM aMonAod in ldXJL« do a«ray with the neoosslty of foraal 
oxoeptiona to adTersa rulings by the oourt during th« oourae of 
trial* thof do not« ho«pev«r» overOMta tha aeoaaaitjr of smring an 
axoaptioB to tha oourt *s ^tdveraa ruling upon an objection m^ other 
than during tha oourae of the trial* Ho exeepticm haTing been 
praaerrad to the ruling of tha oourt upon tha noti^aa aDove ssentioned 
Im tha bill of exoeptiona thia oourt «ould be relieved of the 
neeeasity of paasingc upon the suffioienoy of the eTidenee, bat in 
Tlav of the oonaider^tion «e have given to the OTidenee and our 
•OttOluaion that the -rerdiot of the Jury wi9 not ngainat tha sanifest 
weight of the OTidenoe* the Yerdlot for the defendant will not be 
reveraed. The oonoluaion thua reaehed diapoaea of plaintiff *a 
contention that the oourt erred in denying plaintiff*a motion for 
a Judgment ssa obatante Tey?<^^otffi,» 

The plaintiff oomplaina th%t the oourt 9rT^ in 
atelttlng dTidenoe of the defendant* a banJc aeoouat* Thia eTidanoo 
iraa introduead aa bearing upon the defendant's need in making the 
jiileged loan with the plaintiff. riaintiff*B witnaaa Jadvin teati^ 
fled to the effeet that the defendant told him ahe needed the money, 
thftt otherwiae there iioiuld be trouble with tt mortgi^ge* The defendant 
denied that ahe made auoh a atatament to Jadvin and denied that ahe 
«a« in need of money, beoaiuie ahe had a balanee of iS3«118«48 in 
the Foreman National Baah. The plnintiff made the evidenoe of 
the defendant material when he offered the evidence of Jadwin, who 
teatified to the faota above aentioned, and the admiaaioa of the 
defendant 'a evidenoe w^a not erroneous^ 

Tho plaintiff oomplaina theit he offered evidenoe as 
to the aeflining of the worda appearing on plaint if f*a oheoh, **'Not« 
Teller,*' am indicating that the oheok was paid to a note teller in 
payment of a note vhioh waa exeluded from the Jury by the court. 
The vital objeotion to hia evidenoe ia that an opinion expreeeed 

T»^ta •ftiWi a&it«9liio n* a^u i^illur i^ux^wtp- >i*txjj99 9tii o# oci#qeox* 

fll #0cr «»oa«Mr» ftd^ to t8tA^i<>i'^tu» Mj^ aona ;ici«a«<| to x^^««*OMt 
tiro bfut Miw^iT* ttif^ o^ aevi^ sTxd 9k ns^^ATftBiaaoe •!<;} to wtr 

»(f ton llkft fa.i?hn»'i9b 9if# 'x^at #olM9v »£(# «iiois9iaive 9H# to t4sil»« 

tot iS&t^«IP «*ttX#aijSlq l^Cit^li^ l!(i ft^l^B ItJTOO »/^:# tsd^ jROlt£t»tSOO 

«i?a»Mv «tei)009^ atoM 8*to4i£fi«»taJ» in&& to eattftJbiyd jixirtJUii^ 

■'lt99i Aivfeftt a{ittfi#i« »*ttil^£iX^^ , l#aX«i(i 9tii sUtvi tuml ^v^aXXs 
4X*a<u> ^^' £»»»•«« »^a miii? Mot $£ii^iJUix\ ^. • - iK^ ^o^l^t* *At oi Jb«lt 

Mia tts4^ JMifl*!) Jto« aivl)tiil> o# jsvstttte^K « dot^s «i}.r,B •!{« tedt bnlamb 

fii ttl'*SIX«5|i to ftOiX^XAcr « ib«rf Ourfe »«tfxo«tf «t«a<Mi ^o tow ai Siinr 

to «oa*biT« •!(# »f>Mi ttilaliKiff eMiT •sUuiP Xiuroi^eH &b««ic«isi otf^ 

erfv ,al«rAi«i;> to •oaofti^YO 94# i»»iri«tto Off aodv Xiiitotiitt ^ai»i«o)»b %dt 

»d* to «oJ['»»«h ' ^^^ "'»- ^^»««>i|-a»B otocTp sto«t »it# •t teitl#oot 

. ^r^'OAfcoirvo Ion ei»w ooxoAivo $i*ioftimftJ9h 

tut •Oflo^iV'j <.-•%-,■ '■■•. - .t^' r.iTiftXqiaoo ttiaraiflXq oi<T 

OJfoK" «4e«<lo t'tti. . '(o aaiT'i9Q<r» a&Ti>^ trft to ;9iiJUu>««) •At of 

Al toXXol o#OA » 0t blttq ««y ioorfo oti iAllAOXfcii&ftft "^toXXoT 

•#iuoo offf xfi T^ft *'t^ aoit ftoiujXexo oaw rfoitfv oloa a to ;raoiii{*<l 

ftooootqxs KoXiriqo flu #«(fl ol ooimliiTf olrf ci ooli99i49 l6ilr odT 


1^ a ao-«%lled export is aa att«apt to bind the Jury upon & Materl&l 
laeue between the parties* whioh i«, whether the pi^lntiff loaned 
th* MOMejr sod the defendant borrowed it to pey » note* nhy the ndte 
teller im« not produced, or the reeerda of the bfuiJc at vbioh it is 
elftlMed the defendiuat paid the note with Money reoelTed fro» the 
plaintiff, instead of the expert testiaiony, ia not oiear* Thia 
ooitrfc ia aatiafied that the plaintiff ma not prejudiced by 
the refuaal of the court to ad«lt suoh ao«>oalled expert teatiiaony. 
The jud^eat ia affiraied, 

jooQusaiT ArrzHtfKO. 

iUMI* P.J. kUD likLL, J. QOliOOff, 





mOH »UFii:RIOIl 

Appellees » ) C00& OOtliTT* 

On Appeal of: 

26 8 I.A. 628 



Opinion filed Deo, 31^ 1932 


This is an interleeutory appeal by Stella tturphy froa 

» teaporary injunotion order entered on the Slst day of July* 1933* 

\if the Honor>$ble Uarous X-aTanagh, one of the ohanoellors of the 

auperior Oourt of Cook Oounty, vhioh order, in psrt* reads as 

f ellovs : 

"It is Ordered thst the said Stella Murphy awi 
the reaaining eoaplainants in ease So* 561665 and the 
eoaplainant in No* 560059, Superior Oourt of Cook 
County, be and they are hereby enjoined and restrained 
frwB prwieeuting and pr oeeeding further with equity 
prooeedlngs filed by eaid ooaplainants in the Superior 
Court of Oook County, Illinois, against the defeadaats 
therein naaed, bearing oourt nuabers 561665 and 660069 

The Court Doth Further Order th<it upon not lee 
aad further hearing bond need not be required of ooa~' 
plsinaats; th^t good onuss has been ahoen and this oeurt 
is of the opinion thst the injunction ought to be granted 
without bond, and it is furthsr ordered thnt snld in June- 
tion issue without bond being recjiiired of the eoaplninsjit*'' 

The pending bills of ooaplaint ars suits to enferoe the 

liability of atookhold^rs of the ffoodlawn Trust a Savings kjHink* 

Ths bill before the oourt was filed by willlaa Wolkoff on July 6, 193^1, 

la the Superior Oourt of Cook County. On Juae 36, 1933, the 

Honorable Williaa J. Lindsay, one of the ohanoellors of ths Superior 

Oourt of Oook dounty, to whoa the first bill was assigned oass 

!•• 6S0059, therein stells Muriidiy was the ooaplainaat and the 




SS8I «IS .osa iiQin nolfliqO 

9{{^ to BtoXit««ufttf» %M to ME« «xts^M(i>a*«»^ (buoitAai sXcfff'xoAoH »ff;} t<^ 


ibM \4q:vm «XX»#« £iiic «d^ $s;fjf 6«M[ft&«P »i #X» 

iif# Jtojt aaSJRMI «oW. n»:-<:i rri r.^0^.0ri:.«*XqaNM» ^ntUaJtamwt mitt 

6dOC9>^ baa -.^ ■ .^i^frnjut niaiod^ 

«M»(jfi Mas f«.'.:' 

ttfiT Mtotn» ot atitf« 9x& iairl' .aim ^ibtmi •ii¥ 

e@X t)Si tXtft. CO tloMXoW aie>lXXZc< Y '^w t'Kiyvo 9d# {it«lwl XXld •!(¥ 

t«iTM{tfft aif^ to viell—BM^ 9m* to mco tts»(ati«l 4^ atsiXXiV aXtfivtYonoH 

•tso toUilaM CA« iii<i »«tlt 9rft n^ifv oi «ttam>0 JtooO to ftiroO 

t»Ai ban tttBBk0lqmmt> 9d» m« xHtiruU «XX»#e «ib««Mlir «M00ia ••! 


Woodlava frvmt i SaTiaga Mxtk, •% nJL, ««z« the defenaants, appointed 
Yiillui l^rrett as a reo^lTer* snd entersd a further ord«r r«8tr«la~ 
tng «I1 other eredltore fr(»i filing or pro8«outing sioilar bills* 

Thoreafter, on July I8» 19Z2, t\e Hon. Marous Kavaiiagh|» 
ma •Kaaoellor, appointed Jules Eiohenlmum reeelTer in the inst«int 
ease. On July ^0, 1932, in this prooeeding, the ohaaoellor vacated 
the Injunotional order of June 38, 1933, in ease »o. &6D0&9, and 
en July 21, 1932, the foregoing injunotional order was entered, 
fr«i whieh Stella iiurphy perfected this appeal* 

Only the bill of eonplaint, the i»etition, and the 
aMvex* to the petition filed in the instant OHse l»y oertain of the 
defendants, «ere oonsidexed by the ohaaeeller in entering this order 
eeaplained of* 

Btella Murphy, as the appellant, eonteiuls thvit the order 
appealed froa vas not justified either by 1»« or faet* It is 
worthy of note thnt one of the oeaplainant * a solicitors werified the 
bill of complaint* as well as the petition, which petition is 
stttitled, ^A petition for an In^unotion.* this practice indulged 
la by the solioitors is not be be encouraged^ . Zt has the tendency 
te aake the solicitor aa aotive partisan* and such act ailitates 
afsiaat the aid whieh the solicitor should render the court in the 
deterainatioa of the questions inwolwed. it would have been better 
if the eeaplainant had sworn to both the bill of ooaplaint azui the 
petition* the solicitors for the coaplainant have failed to offer 
any reason for this praeties, and no doubt they appreciate that 
this eonduot is subjeot to eritieisst* 

It appears froa the record that the several bills were 
filed in the Superior Court of Oook County by wariovui creditors te 
enforce added liability of stockholders of this bank under 'Jeo* 6* 
Art. 11 of the Constitution of the State of Illinois. The Bcope 


inntetai •tit ni tmXto^x wMc(il««U>il ••JUrt. t^tMlofim ^loxis^iusno »« 
•Xjsar^qjt dffjr b»#9»t«cf»<j ^i^icijrb sXIa^d ^sXrfir iB»tl 

■■ ■• ^:. • -ii t*;<? - . JtTi*it'^W-:' 

»if* j|»niT®v »««>*>.■.. .. .■ -'^ to »«« tisrf* - 

XMtliAlM* aill' 4^ '^l&jQ9ti[9 »tf o# lo 

••^AiyiXJtii JO'S ^o»-' • '•■■^AlJhWi: .t»vti«Xio« «idjf ^.i 

t4> oi »ictfo<» »^^ t«^aet bijtm^t to^loiXd* »iff tin X A* I: ^min'^ 

titttff^ a99<l ^VKfi fdli-: .kiniXijvtij! Bm^i* Qtc:X}«aX«i si'Sft 


•f this reasdy has beem passsd upon \yy ths Appellate Ocrart in the 

•ess •f ^pph P^Uyl;^ qgp t. City Stats a&nt of 0hie^.^o> 264 111. 

App* 142« iB theae iroxds} 

"The gea«rall7 aooepted rules are that the fund 
OTsmted by the stutute Is i& the nature of a setmrlty 
f«r the MMBon heaefit of the oredltors; thnt the stoek- 
holders are in effeot partners who aeeuflM a eotitraot\iLal, 
primary liAbiXity* running directly and lauMdiately to 
the creditors^ eaoh stockholder being seremlly and 
iadlTidually iisble for every debt accruing while he held 
the stock, with s llait'ttoE of the ilsbiiity to the 
saount of his stock and th%t a suit in equity affords the 
■ftst effectual tnaA conTenient resedy for its enforoea»nt 
(eiting niaiereus eases) •<> 

One of the bills* Mo* &600&9 was filed by Stella llurphy, 
ABother bill WAS filed on the sMie dsy, la «hieh the firm of Church* 
Baft* RobertsMi, Orowe & 6pea«e* appeared as solicitors* The case 
•f Stella Murphy was assigned to Jtiiigs Lindsay* and the other 
then pending bill, represented by Ohaxles U, Haft* was assigned to 
Judge Denis £. Sullivan. Both of these bills were filed before the 
Auditor of Publie Aooounts had appointed a reoeiver for the assets of 
ths foodlswa Trust & Savings ^ttk* On July 2* 1933* the Auditor of 
Publie Accounts of ths Btate of Illinoie^ did appoint H. G. Yemen 
as receiver for the i^oodlswn Trust « Savings idnjak» a further 
bill was filed on July 6* 1932 by the oeaplftinant in the instant 
Cass* !•• &60873* against the ease defendant e* to enforce a stook« 
heldsn* liability agaiaat the owners of the stock of the woodlawn 
Trust i Savings Bank* 

Thore are three bills pending for the saao purpose - to 
oaforee the stockholders* liability provided for by the Constitution 
of the State of Illinois. Theee eueoessivs bills should be controlled 
by a proper order* consolidating the litigation, nnA no doubt such 
an, order will be entered st the proper tiaie. India ftubber C^. t* 
J. g. Solth ^ sens Qc^.. 75 111. App. 831* 

The next qruestion to be eonsid^^rod is* wts the injunotioa« 
ml order Justified by the verified plendingsT In passing upon this 
qusstion the court will not deteraine or pane upon the nerite 


•4t mJL »t«f«a •tMiXtt^ •^ ttf MV fc— lilt mma fti4 tteM« 9id$ \% 

jftfirt 9.^1 tsAi &%n s^lxn hot ^. 1 'a»g awi* 

Mod t/MTlbsi 

»«&e •iff •aio^ifiiXos sjs /^dTiss^qjs «:>o««q^ ^ i^otO t.a«6^»if«K «#laX 
t»itfo 9itft Ms «f4t£iiiJ tni^^ o^ ft»W||t»*< ««« tite[«fiM «Xi»gr5 \c 

^o 'sottJiah 9tii «SG:ex «S \lu\. nQ *i&a& 8$idciv«sj j^ tnurl av»XJt>oo« t^f 

^«B.»$Ai arfaf Rk ifijjwaiMXqtte^ 9i' ' . : '. ao iatXi'S saw XXi^ 

mTUuA «^Xv«d 4 faufiT 
•# • ftoqYiK)! mum 9d# T«1t ;g«4iites^ «iXi«f •9td^ •ts »«<»rft 
aoittfi^l^asoO •((# ttf toI Jb«bi'nncq \#Xii:<lAXX *ftT«JbXoUalsor« edt •aicota* 
(XXonlooo ftcf mimida eXXitf •▼l«a9e»j/« »«»«{¥ .tXoalXXZ to «tjsl8 td# t# 

•▼ « g'^ ffiita^ j^iltol •©Ei? tSfTcnri^ «-?;> ts JMhc»#a* Mf XXIir fbf mm 
9iirmi ult Aoqjf §««4| «• •aiait*#«l» #o« xxiv Mq»o« 9dt aoitnmtp 


iaTolv«d itk th« fiiBTeraJL pxoo«edlngs« except so far rs Is neoeessiry 

to petfa upon the question tietoxe this court. 

The bill of @teU» Murphy « filed in the Superior Oourt 
of Oook Ooimty, «aa filed first in point of tiae« and mns pending 
idien the bill in the instant oaee was filed. There are no facte 
eharged in the instant bill thrt would justify the order for fta 
iBjunotion. The Terified petition filed in aid of the bill of 
o«aplaint eharged th*tt Stella Murphy and others* as ooetplaioanta* 
filed a eertain prooeeding. Ho* 5ilB65, in the Superior Court of 
Cook County sgaiast the stockholder rs of the Woodlavn Trust A SaTli^j^ 
Wuik, to enforoe the eajoe remedy sought by the complainant in the 
Inetant ease; that Stella tfurphy Abandoned o«uee No* 560059 1:^ 
joining with other ooMplainaats &rtA filing the bill of eoaplalnt in 
oaveo Xo« 581666 for the aaae reaedy; that in order to %t»id a 
■ultiplieity of suits* no receiver hawing been stppointed in the last 
Mentioned suit* it would be necessary for r reeeiwer to be appointed 
1b the instant oaso* which was done* 

There Is no charge by the ocaplainant Vllliaai Wolkoff» 
1b the instant case* that he will suffer a monet!<try loss unless aa 
lajtmetion be granted* 

The general rule is th»t in order to «aintala a bill of 
eoBpiaint in e<}uity* %nd in order that an injunction may be granted 
restraining the prosecuting of a mmber of suits praying for the 
aasie remedy* it must <ippeftr froa the bill th^t the pr oseeut ion of 
the pending bills will occasion a loss to the complainant unleos 
oueh injunction is issued* 

MsBQf of the points raised ip the briefs of the parties 
iB the case before this oourt* go to the aerits of the seweral equity 
suits now pending* whioh» of oourse* this oourt in this ehsraeter 
•f proooedinge*^ will not consider* 

at -i&iis^lqmtt)^ t«r Xild nfit ^alllJ bati vtmJBi:»lqm»«> xfuM^ sttXw ^laio^ 

« h£«tn of ■sawEyio til 9sti$ ;xh9m^i »«:*« »ift tot 'Si^JSb€ •«![ »«m*© 
#a*i t^if 0l *®toio«j<3i5 a-?>^ ^ffliirff! ■t»Hrif»<>ei o-rr ,«*Xxrs lo' t^i«>iXql#Xuar 

mmmh flre^ff (f»XdNr ,»6«9 #aft#8j2i »iit ffi 
,1103lXo?^ K^iXIiii' irn^iitX^awtBr «d#^ ftf ^x»^ «« si «rrtotfT 

•9«ljur #ii.«itlsJJTS9eo 9it# ot »&0l n emtwie'&9c XlXw tXXicf ^X&«9q «t!^ 
ilup^i X.fl-r«veis •*fi' )« ifti^XTKei »4^ o* ©a »JMtArot» j&tdf 9irol*«' »«>^a •<{# ai 

Our eeaoluaion Is ths^t there verm aot «uffl9l«at faots 
shows la th« i»lll or i^etitloa fil«d to Justlff tb« eonaxt la 
eatsrlim; an order for aa Injunotioa. Th« order la aioeordiRglf« 
rover »od« 

WIL80M» l>.J. AID HALL. J, 0OHO6H. 


^Xl:^ihrii9%M fti KsM* f^tiT ^»&ttnfit$iAi a* ret x^hvt us |i«iT»tafi 

,. ^iv; . ,jX^j» lis* .t. .dKjZiiin 


LZVIJiasroii BAILI^U CO., • 

PI air. tiff in iSrror, 


ft Oorperatlon, «t hI., 

I>ttf«ridant0 in S^ror. 


PlftlntilT by tiaia writ ol' error ••«ke th« r«v«rs»l of an 
ft4T«rse judf,n«nt ^nt«r«d upon a dir«et«d verdict. 

Xhe declaration aXle£:«d that en« Knrln AituubAt^ was on jffbru' 
ary 19, 19£(4, «B>|)Ioy«d by tn« plaintisT, vnicu waa operating under 
the Work»«n'e Cocbpeneation aet; tJtiat or^ thle date, through the neg< 
I igent operation of one of defendants* atreet care, it ran Into a 
vagMi of the plaintiff in whion i«auman vae riding an;] ae injured 
bin that he died on that r]at«; that plaintiff paid to the widow 
under the Coaipeneation aet the auH of $4,0iX>; that the accident 
and injury to i>auAtaa wae through no fault of plaintiiT but through 
the fault of the defendanta, and that having paid the cosp^rieation 
plaintiff had be«i aubrogated to the rights of the widow and next 
of kin. Defer.dante I'iled a plea of general issue. Plaintiff *b 
brief arguea only that there waa euffieiect proof of negligence in 
the operation of the defendarita' etre^t oar and want of contribu- 
tory negligence on the part af the injured man, to have required 
submiSBion of th«» case to the jury, for the purposes of this 
opinion, this may be ooneeded. 

Defendants' prlnelpal point .however, is that the record 
falls to diselosft any evidence that Krwln liaui&an waa the wmb in- 
jured in the accident, They ftasert that "there is net one bit of 
evtdenee tending to Ide^itify th* mai* on the ^a^on or tending to 
ahav that he suctained injuries which resulted In hie death." 
Plaintiff's brief do as not controvert this assertion, ^jaA eataelna- 


.1 m\ni "*o 

8S9 .A.I 8 9S 

■rt:' ill 

am to X««t«x%i »iii ajid** 

.#3ih's:9V &»-'*■• -'^ii t9'j?Ai;i^i ,'ii©ia,^tw^ •tttTta 

: t^a hst» »«'■ : ■■ 

J «o I>i»i8> •!* !«;... -M.. 

ti»> ct9JtJf«saf»itdie9 sili "nftuf 

'^^♦©^^{JO •lit 



•kI fUMR MiCi •«« nsiitfj^ ■ 
to iifS •no ion mi mt»rl: -^yy' .J.-."'f 

tion of th« record coBrpels asawit to di«f«sii<!ant«* point. 

Two ooeurrenoa vitncaecs t<»«tlt*lfr'i that on th« day af lix« 
»«cl«!ent th«7 were p««senu«rB on a, northbound *'«ntworth avenue 
street Qsr in chiQ%go; th&t in tn« bXoek b«itarae«} 45rd and 44th 
8tr«et» It collided with a horee-draim wagon whio>i was aoving 
eouthwuaterly^, eressing the noi-thbound atrect o«r traek. One of 
the witneflses said thtt.% It wae a bakery wa^on "wkioh tuzned cut to 
l»e a Li*iringstt08 hmkftry vngon." He caw a Kan fti.tering the wagon at 
th^" «?lde and th« atreet eer collided with it, but he only saw the 
Kan Ittct l;efore the eelliaien. The other eeeurrence witness tes* 
tifled that after the «olIlsion he c^t out oi th« street ear and 
saw a man lying in the street Y?etw<"fa the tr»oif tjn.4 the west ourte 
©f the street; that he did not j;o to vh^re th«* man wae lying, Vut 
saw his tsken away by a police patrol. There was no ewidence as to 
the appearance of the nan or mu to the injuries he sustained . and 
no owldence as t« -sfhat happened to hisi Bft<9r he whh t.»>en »i»ay by 
the police^ patrol nor where he was taifen, and no eviaence that this 
man divd from the injuries received iu the aooiderit or that he 
died at all. 

It was shown that an Srwin Mea&mn was employed hy the plain* 
tiff at this time as a route agent BJid that his duties io»«titsi«s 
ro<iuired hist to travel with salcssien when deliveries were Made hy 
horee imd. wagon. Arthur fiauKan testified that he was a brother of 
Erwin, who was maxrlfifd; that he saw hiis on February 19, 1634, at 
sda undertaker's on 69rd street, nnH. that he was dead. Ihe wife of 
Jrwin £au»an teetlfii»d- that he was oaplcyed by plaintiff; that she 
saw him on the worning of February 11>th; that she hn^ar^ of his 
death at «l«ven o'elook on this morning imd saw him at the unier- 
taker's on lebruary 21 at, at whioh time he was dead; that plain- 
tiff had paid her ?3,79o on account of her husband's death. 
Vhile it is euff iolerstly proven that Srwln i«auffiAa met with an 


O ': ,? L- ■-.♦.■ixs.'i jliCtJtjiiV'' 

■ •, ,, : ,. ' ":Hi-' :■>' 






'.9<) fi(»JCU««$ rtiiiJ: 

•lobflu/ »Jil ^JB tflil WAV *n» ||Mia-& £ii^« no 3iosXo*o ff»v»X« *« <(M'i5 
^rIaX^ ^iUfl^ {J!><av«h C«ir ajI tiai? £toXii« i^ ,ift££ X"*^*^"*^*^ '^ «*t«l(«;} 

turn (Aii^ i9K aamimA al\n& tatii a«roi({ tX#»»-toiVli ' 9ll^ 

Aooident J?el>ru&ry 19th which oauaod hit <!*At)i, fer ivhiah hlo 
ria«w rco«ivt,'A cospeaautlon Stqsa plaintij^f , y«t th«r« la no eoB« 
n^etlon enown t>«tva:»jQ hla aai<l thtt uoidtu; tilled i£^«»» injurdd la tht 
vtT«H car £.scideAt. It wouI4 1>« only a «u3ri:!ii8« %tm% th« twe aieii 

Ihe rle^ht t« bs enroraeA tm<i«r seotlou '<!9 ol' tin* Workmen's 
Compensation act is etriotXy a ittatatory rl^it, wad. nothing vlll 
bo aoou&ea in plalntilT'a Tavor. i iar t ray t . Qlxxc: je/ so . ft%i A , y ajy b Qip » ^i 
SE^O 711. du. 'liability oa^^aot root upon lnagiiiatioa« RT^oeulatlen 
&r ccGJoctur©." Ffct<?r»on ^^ we. r. Xftduotr^al I'O.^rJ, 931 111. 326; 
i;>Ja.lQafctf ^Mi.Qn irt^iytian . yo.. v. Haag ,, ^ . 228 ill, 346. 

Al&oat tlxe oasu) altaatiou wao under conaideratlon by thla 
court in Jfeii4<fun v. Cjiicat^o City A^4ilwa^y Cg ,. 166 ill. App. 49, 
vhoro It was leiold luat tuo plea of g«ineral issue did not ad£r,lt 
the identity of tbe person alleged to have sustained injuries on 
Iha i!xy iz; (question. 

Up&B tiie i'alluro to prove the identity of tiie msn Involved 
in tiio street car aooident as iirvln JUauuion , the trial cvurt vas 
Juoti/led in directing a verdict for the defendants. 

tht jud^ent Is affirmed. 


Katehett and O'Connor, JJ* , concur. 

a»s 0«t •47 ti^ij mtl&vum a vim *<t hi»^ 

,«* .w)' ." t^jb »llj TtOt J^Ji ii.V «, iiMii'JH'iil .-J^t 

.7u»«02 . ona»v*0 fen* tJ«{ia^aM 






8. L. ITABlAii, 0«i&g £ualn«ss 

A^VEAi. mm 3\sp%nioR ooums 


^6 8 I.A. 628' 


PlAlntliT •urf<iir«d the lets of h«r l«ft hand Ic an autoso- 
1»il* aooidant. ^e brought iiuit «g<Aln«t the omsttr mud dirlT«r of 
th« automobll*. S. L. 7&l9i«fi, aod the Vhlcago and X^orth Western 
Bailw«y Conpany. the jury returned a verdlot exonerating Fabian 
and finding (the Kailway ootapany guilty and aeaeesed danagea againai 
it ef 115,000. She dcfeniant Hallwajr ecunpeny appeale. 

The aoeideut happened at about 3:30 p. m. on Kovetaber 3, 
1980, at a point where the hit>;hwey between iMaMkauni* and Oreen 
lay. In the state ef ViBe&nain, croeees the single traok railroad 
of the defe dant Railway. Fabian, with hr. and l^ra. Orintas and 
Mary haciukOTloe. the vilaintiff , were returning to Chie^o, going 
la a southerly 'Urectioa, after an all day ridft in Vlsonnsin. 
Plaintiff and iirs. Orintas were riding in the baok seat of the 
automobile; Orintas wae in the front seat on the right of Fahian, 
who wfts dri-triag on the left side. They ran into a signal post, 
sailed a wigwag, whleh the Railway had plinioed near the traoko 
and the highway; the autc«obile was oTerturned and plaintiff in* 
Jured. She eontends here that the defendant Hallway neglij^ently 
pi seed the wigwag so n<»ar the highway ths to be a dangerous ob- 
struction, whleh caused the aecident. 

As the highway approaohes the railroM eroesing from the 
north, OMUtttiAeing ssTeral hualred feet fron the eroesing, it 


iMmjQ ami. 4J-: 

.ry *"v a * 

^8SS •'^•l ^ ^ 

;rr'-i^>J^ ii^tl^ 

V , 

iiSfti.?:gfi 8»»i'iW«& fe9««i5'«»« htm ^E^Xlifn ^-"•-■■•^o i(i8*ll«>i »4l*;:aol&ai'l kern 

,■" ^0</»S!&v&iS act .i« *i9 ^. i^ $uo^^ -- - . .■,-.- . -isa *'"- 

m^%^ i>A^ 4Qimiiu&^i n^prrintti ^^,wi^^j^l^ 9i^ Mi^^Hv ioiin^ iei 

.islaaoosit ni «si!i'» «.«h ii^ as? ■?«#>-'' ,««.^f9»tlft '^sl'xwjei^ttea «k at 

,l«o<r X«n:9ie c. oJai '^«'x t*^^ ^thla St*t *Aii so i»AiirHt> fl«w «ehr 

ttiUitil wxt^ Yflftu MaaXq k*-si ^viUS. *ti9 i^lAfi .laviXw « ft«XXa» 

•aX 1tld^aiXi»X(( fta« h^anutx*'^^ •«« vXl^ose&^iMi silt {-^i^ill^ld »i(jr baw 

it ,ani»«oYft 9if> «devl #••! bpthamA X«t«r0« a«X»<i»iMe» ,iMt«« 

•urvtt to the left. Thtr* are a number of uBi^rkerA or slgUB along 
the eurv* for th« guidance and vurnlng of parsons approae<^lns tht 
crossing. Xh« wigwag in question was 9 feet fro» the jfails and 
•a th« vest or right hand side of the hi|i;a«ay« Although ttiere 
vas SOBS eontroTcrex, it was shown tty satiafaetory evidence that 
the wigwag was 3 f«et ^nd 10 Inehes frcw the ei;Ige of the traveled 
:^art of the road. It is an iron mast or post a feet hi«[h, of thin cast 
iron 4 inches in dlaeeter on a ecnerete base; on the top is a 
diame&d shaped frame in whleh hangs a "banner" • a aetal disk 2 
feet in di«Daet«r, painted li^aite, with a large blaeir cross. It is 
an eleetrio&lly operated device controlled by the approaoh of 
trains. The banner ewings baek and forth wit^iln the frac^e, shewing 
a light when trains are approaoiiing. it is what is known as tht 
standard crossing proteetiofi in Wisconsin, and its purpose is to 
wan) persons on the highway of an ap,}roaohiag train. 

The hi^^hway at the curve, up to wituin about 100 feet fron 
the crossing, was conerste 30 feet wide with approxii':.atoly a 2 foot 
shoulder on either side. The highway for 100 feet ne;xt the eroes- 
infs was saeadam and tar; along the o«^ter of tht^ hif^,hway ie painted 
a yellow stripe running alatest up to the railroad. 

Aeeordlng to th«i nest believable evidence, J^abian entered 

the first part of the curve at a epeedi ef about 30 or 35 ail«^s an 

hour; the autonebile ran off the read and was in ths weeds and 

grass; the headlights were din so that they shewed only 5o or 60 

feet on the road ahes4; wheri it was about that disttoioe frost the 

wigwag Orintae shouti^<! to labian to "leek out." About the sasie 

tine Orintas saw the wigwag, whion 8eez;r<ed to be squetr -ly in front 

ef ,the ear; when he shouted Fabian saddenly j«airiied and swerved the 

•ar first one w«y »nd then another until the wheels were oflL/ground on 

one side and then off on the other, jusipin^ and tipping several 

tines. Thp center of the front end of the automobile hit the wig« 

vag post, knoeking it over, and the aato»obil« continued on its 

«Y9xii I'.^uoiUXA .i(«wi^id ftdi} 1« •f>l« hfuui $ei^lx t9 ^«»w »i<l ao 

«s ai^ll to «<(jbM '•<k'^ ^« ^«i< ooti isftft si tl .i^«trT ftdi 1» #iaM| 

s «i q<3s fiiii ao ;•««{«( 9^»Yot«»« m mt ri9S»atilb at 09iiaaJt h aatt 

ot »i .»e6«'£«<5 «J'i feat; ,ai£a^*fti'i^' -iJ; »^Hffsi«>^(t»t<? ||«l««trir5 5"M!friwi*« 
#»r.'t 2 fl t'i^ejitijlxwqc*; siiti-it «iblv .?»<»*i <»5 •f»*id0oo »»v ,ahjt«i-i:> wn^ 

.li oili.^t «*l* 03 «?*» t«OiKiUB 2rt4t«rfHf •qJ;Yl« voXl*^ « 

iv« 9*flvK ?»r. la Oe $m4A t« »«♦«;» s^ #« «viuf» eijt ^e t^« ttnctt •!» 

ijoft «l^*9« »££;}■ fii ««v ftiMT 6»di: Ailt lla ami •litf^ool-u* ojii^r jfiuoii 

06 to o« t^a« bnrofi* tai** tji*^^ '? «t!^ ♦n»» B#if%IIB««i< *ri# tttjfvi 

•MM •tLi fuo4A *,iu« Ttoal' US' imldsf^ oS ^«#tfed• a^ialiO ^aflr^t"^ 

tU»^ ttl t^^tiiyp^ •d ot b«s»t« ndldv ,||««dI9' «{t^ «r«« uttctitO taff 

9dj' bev^vvn hue Httimt t-C^^^ttfei.* at-i^»^ ti«luo<f« eH tmdm ;«ue viCt t« 

[o JbnuoiaNoLlo etaw cX^oxiv ftKi Xlliut fiiittxis ii»tiS hrfo t** **0 ttttt ^ttil 

X«tAr«a HaiQQi^ fn« galoaut ,-t9At<i 9if.^ no Yt« cnnitti' Mw •»!» ••Ml 

-^iw "IK. iiiomoiUA »/• Jt;1 «rfJ %• Wti: .•woUt 

•11 ao bti/0JtJ£Kj3 4Xltf«aM>/i;- , A'v ., ; ,^al:<t»iuC ,!r««(r 5»«* 

vmy dl»eros«ll7 in a southw«st«rly direotion; it etoi^p*^ ^y^e •» 
its sid« on t)»« far rail of tbe railroad traek» about %) or 30 
foot voot of tHo highway. 

Fabian says that ao ho eoMO Icto tho ourvo ho kopt hie left 
ivheolo a foot from the contor yellow otripo all tho wt^ to tho 
r&llread traolco, at the saBi<> tiao keoping his right hand wheels 6 or 
S inches frnr. tho rli^ht hand edge of the poTed padrt of tho road; that 
he was soing at abnut 33 Kiles an hour when suddonly the right hand 
oemor cf hi a bumper struck tho wigwag imA the car swonrod to tho 
right and tipped oror; that he did not ohsonro the wigwag post until 
ho hit it. Counoel for defendant wery properly oall atteiitlon to 
tho ineredihility of thio teotinony. If the autonohilo wao a feet 
froBi tho yellow strip* »nd also 6 or d iuohoa froiu tho right hand 
odge of the road - as tho spaoo between the stripe and tho edge of 
tho roadway wao 10 foot • tho autoeiobllo Bust have bo«i about 8 
foot wide. An atttcmoblle of tho typo in whioh tho party was riding, 
a JLineoln 4odan, is 5 feet 11 inehos wide at tho widest part. 

Wo are of the opiniorj that tho proponderanoo of tho ovidenoo 
oloarly promos that tho aoeldont was eausod solely by tho negligent 
driTing of defendant Fabiam. It is OTldont that as he entered tho 
eurro he wao driving at oueh opoed that tho heavy i^ibcoln ear was 
thrown by centrifugal fore* so far off tho road that he ran into the 
wigwai;;, "se it wao squarely iA front, «nd hit it with tho frcmt oentor 
of his automobilo, his disaeod hoadllelits failing to illuainate it 
until it was too lat*. Under tho olreunstarices, iii order to csoapo 
being hit tho wigwas would have to bo loeatod n«arly 3 feet (half ths 
width of tho autoeobil^) fiurthor away fro« the plao" ^herc it «as, 
•r approximfttoly 7 foot front the roadway. i:he verdiet exonerating 
Fabian ana ftiijllng the Railway alone guilty was clearly s^^ainot tho 
woight of the evldeneo. 

Defendant argues that tne loeatiot* of the wigwag involved 
an engineering problon, which is not subjeot to judloial review. 


;'tl» 1«'Q1BM<'' 


■ Htfit^al pas 

th% dttty to •rmet. sbstructions vhien iir« Intendtid fer th* prettt- 
ti»a of th« gttiieral trav«lXl)ag pul^lle c&rri^ts with it a dlserotios 
as te «her« they fthall )»e «reet^S, s«fi<1 this disoretion iei not sub* 
Joot to jtt4icl«:i r«vi«« unless it is so oxsrciood &s to waouiit to 
a roml monaeo to th« public wuo »r« travelling in a reasonably 
earsful and prudoot wa). Ssibgrt v. Mo. g'ac. H. Wo. . Idd Mo. 657; 
City of ir»arbury v. j&arftoo. 228 111. A|>|>. 339; iiortter v. Cit;/ o^ 
PtxiladolPhia . 194 Pa. 542; ^mfaort. etc.. v. ^aKuel . 123 Mlos. 
«#•; Sterc ▼. Int«>rn»tiooai Ky. Co. . 220 M, Y. 284. «« do not re- 
Card tho looatioa of the wigwag in Question as involving an engi- 
neoring vrobl«s roquirlng expert or teehnioal iaio«l«d^e. itathor, 
it involves eoasiuen sense and knowledge bt&sei on observation. 
furihennore, the judi^stcnt of experts is not neoee»3ttrily infalliblev 
An average man who had oooasion to see very frequently tan place 
in question and observe passing auto»obiles Bi^/it have a better 
Judgisent as to the loeatlon of the wigwsg tnan a teehnioal engi- 
new would have. 

Ve are asJced to find as a aatter of la» that the defendant 
Bailvay eompony was not negligent. Xhe purpose of the wigwag was 
the proteetioi' of travellers on the hi^^way as they approached the 
•rossiBg, by warning them oi an approaohing train. Xo serve this 
purpose it was neoeesary to plnoe it where It would arrest the at> 
tentioA of travellers. The farther it was plaoed froK the high«?ay 
the less probability oV it beia^i, observed; therefore it auct bo 
plaoed at that peiat nearest the hit^wsy e^iieh is Just short of 
its being a dangerous obstruction to travellers. The question is, 
Bot whether there is a safer plaoe, but wtaeth«ir the partieular 
plaee eiiosen was so daii^^erous to travellers usia«k the Mfchway in a 
reasonably eautious way that its location beeoHes unreascn&ble. 
This beeoaes a question of laar only wherii all reasc^able Kinds would 
agree that the looatioa was safe. This involves the consideration 
•f all the surroojidiag circuwetsxioee; the degree of the eurve of 

.calif CSI ,jS3iiia(6lL^.,A-*.2i5_..j:3U- 

• line a» ^alvlovui n« ii0i.t'a»iSf.' iii ;^ja'xri^v 

,ieiiiJj»S .»*♦!)* I won. 


/Oil i^flMi ••«•« Att«aefi •tTloTni ii 

rx*«<^0 heu: a^iit^up at 

.*v«4i biuev t<9»« 

■■.9n^l,l%»>A jea SAW ^fitcttaeod xttvlia^ 

tjBXijoiJxaq OvL: -^ -(.^i^.is 1.,' .sotiX); ii»t«« * ai ait^ftJ lariiarfv l«a 

jt ill -/jivi'Ui^i ®^- .' -^-T^^ 04' atfot*;^aa^ 9a a«v a^not.o aMiXq 

,4X<f4ndai>o'xau aaooaatf MaiiTAdoX tnH i^-.^-t t^-r 3i;3^;ruaio Y.Xd«acia«at 

hXMO» Bdnla t'l€»ao9M^'t Xi« aa/fv ^Xao Wv a^ aa«oo«tf aijiflf 

ji4>i^«<xi^i>lano» (uit ••rXomi •Ixir .♦laa a*** ftflil^jR-jf*/ «m1J^ »**?!;? waijia 

lo arstto •tfjr 'ta ••t|t»b *x)4 iaaaojoiaouw^. *to acil XXa to 

th« roa<^, vl<l*h «n4 character of th9 paTCc&ent, th« pr9l>abillty or 

•th«rvl«« of tho vlgvait b«ln^ struok 1»y autoioo^ilea. These «ir« 

questions of fast about whloh It eould net he eald «X1 reaso&ftbl* 

■inil* weald agree. 

A further eonalder^tloa if tha^t tb.m evidence teii<S64 to ehev 

tii«t it wfts cuatomury to paint the aaet er post of tJie mignsig with 

white cttrl^ee: t^at %lth -ugh the Instant wtg^vac hud been set up ob 

Oetober 30th, the saet remained unpaijsted aK^/of a tlack or re'Iish 

eeler at th« time of the aeeldent. Asa-Ji&in£ that the wiiJLte strlpea 

were for the purpose of Increaeing the visibility, ine fmcX that 

It wae net painte4 was a prober subjeot for oo&eideration by the jury, 

A witness, Van^ceiuid, t<?stified rather i&dof Ifiitely, that 
the wigwag at this point had been knocked over a good a^any tiatee 
prier to the present aeoident. Evidence of prior sicillar aeoidents 
is admissible under the laws of Illinois. Ci,t> of ijhlca^fo j^ 
Pewerp . 48 Ul. 169; Moore v. B. D. fe U. L. U, Cp . . 295 111. 63, and 
nany ether eases. Whatever may be the lew in ^idoonslti, the rule 
is that in QuesticBs of evidence the law of the foriua oontrole. 
S R. C. L. 1C45. However, testiiaony that other wigwags had been 
knocked over at this plaee, etari^ing alone, t^iA without any expla- 
nation of the cireumstaneee, was improper and erroneous. 3uo))i 
evidence Is eo&9«t«f:t only where it is shown that the prior aeei* 
dents happened un^ier sinilfur oircuBsatunees. It is ouisaaon knowledge 
that autotsebile drivers are of a wide variety of carefuiAeas and 
■any of th«E do rtekless and dangerous things. 

Having adsiitted the evidcnee as to prior accidents, de* 
fendant sought to show that in thess eases the Hallway huA eol- 
leeted dasages from the drivers of those autoffiobiles which had 
eollidsd with the wigwag, the eourt sustained an objection te this. 
Defendant was entitled to show thle as in di eating that the drivere 
in the prior aeeidents were in fault, uid not the Hail'evay oosipany 
in locating the wigwag. 

•%A »»*rtv .•♦Xis^oui; .c:irT-*i! "jni"?* 35.'?«»lv »ft^ 1© •»ln<Mli« 

^.■; ;• ^^ v; r>»^fii««{ tfatt 
-.-i-^^iifi ,fa&fei:aio» j?i^«»^«| ftC 

a« HI'- 

Yn«4pA*» x^iim^ 9Ai t^a btt^ ^$tuii\ at rK0v «#a«ibi»«« <«oi«4 <»i^ «i 

Deftndant's witnttR, l^oel<:, nhruld here \99ti p«rffiiltt«4i to 
tcetif^ at to the ouetoe «f valBting th« i»a&r.«r of tht wigvag whit* 
with a biftok cro«e, tat A that th« particular wigwag la tiuestion wmi 
•0 p«i0it«4. 

Th« wltne«i0, Kulp« sheulA hare lj«»n pexxsltted to tastify 
that It trat cuttereary «long highways both in WiaeonBin aii4 Illl. 
ntlff, t« plaea traffic vi^a* mail boxea, talagraph polee, railroad 
crossing ei^es and lika d1»j»etB within « dlststnce af 3 feat freai 
tha traT#led v^itt of the hifbiray. If this was the eueten It would 
hvf a baarlnp on daffmdant labiac's knavl adga <3f th« conditieiQB 
•f the hlghvaya o^er which h« had traveled. Also, Sulp should hayc 
litco parmittsd to tsstify aa to the uBifoncity of t'me width of the 
ahauldcrs of the roadways. 

Xnstruotlon ^0. 1, given j»t the request of plaintiff, is 
eritioieeji. It In substance told tis.s Jury that at Uie time of the 
accident there waa in force In Vlseonsin a statute «hloh proTided 
that whenever any street or public highway crosses any railroad 
track at grade, the railroad company "shall Krude, construot; and 
maintain in good ami safe condition for public travel the portion 
of euoh street or highway extending upon, ovar or across said tracks 
or right-of-way." The grading, construction or raaintenance of the 
highway at the crossing was not an issue in the case, tut the jury 
Bight RCt the lapreenion freai this instruct icn that the statute pro- 
hibited TJlaeinf' anything, Including the wigwag in question, withia 
the Units of the hl^fhws^. 

iBstruotloa i»c. 2, given at the request of plalntlfl'. Is 
also ep^a tc the easie erltieisa. The etatute r«;ferrca to provides 
that every eorncration constructing, or owning, or op® rat lag a 
railroad, shall restore ev»ry highway or road aerofs which the 
railroad may be constructed, and thereafter maintain it in the sarae 
condition. Tble ntatute referr^rl to eases In which a railroad con- 

fclwnv *i tag it 

al&i^it»al ,Simetir9» ^altsti^ hr^StdJUl 

»ia rioirfw »«aT3fi t-acK to X/»viijild t^v* • ^bmorltst 

Tilaf{Uiuik t»41if.9t9ti3 Itu: ,l»i»l9un#s. !MioiIi«t 

al^ isAMp at »«vs. 


•tructs Ite line ftcro»s ati exlttint^ hl^iway. M«]re 1% v»a provan 
that the r«ilroA4 trac):: isitn »h«re long b«l'or« tuere «as any high* 
«»y at tula point* h^T was t/]«r« any question in iasutt involving 
th« restoration el the hi^vay to its iormer stats. 7ns inetruo- 
tisa sugiiests that any safety devies established by ths railroad 
soi£pauy on the highway at a grade eros^ing is an ImpalrKsnt of 
the use oi the highway an S a violation of the etatute. 

Plaintiff *8 instruction i>o« 4 should not have been given. 
The Wlsaonsin statute quoted ^ives the rif^ht oi' action, otherwise 
asB«zlst«nt , against any aiufilaxpality, or polltioal sub<livi;$lon 
known as a town, and that any person dat&acsi in a town or oounty 
¥y reason or any defeet in a highway where suoh daiaagea shall be 
•attsed by the neglii<.enoe el any private eer deration, suoh private 
•orporation shall be pri^karlly liable therel'or. I'his sijaply aeana 
that in case oi' Joint negli^enee ol a town and a privato corpora- 
tien, the latter shall be prl&^a-ily li«kbla. Ihe instruction had no 
bearini; on the instant oasa. 

lrlalatllT*s given Instruotien ho, 7 is quite Iragthy. In 
' •ubstajrice it told the jury that 11 they believe that the del'enrJant 
loeat«d the si^prial post so near to the traveled portion oi' the high- 
way that it Interfered witli the reasonable use ol the hii^wi^ by the 
yublie and was dangerous and unsai'e and likely to cause injury to 
persons eatiereielng ordinary care and oautlou In their own b«half, 
and 11 the jury also found that the plaintiff. Jkary i&aoiukeviee, 
was ri'ting along said highway exerolsing ordinary care and oautiaa 
for her o^^ eafety at all tiaes, and tixat as a proxisiate result of 
the aegligense of the defendant Railway ooi&pany the auto&toblle in 
whiah she was riding struck said signal post, tnereby injuring her. 
the defendant hallway ooiapany should be lound guilty. ^Plaintiff *s 
deelaration eharged the oencurrent u«gllgenee of J^ablan und the 
defexidant iiailway oompaay. ike tbuxmftr in wx<.loh ir'abian drove the 

•ff]|lJi xnjB •«» •Y«ill p%<!i'l*4 until 9-fA^ owa lujfxl tmonliMi »£Ur JAd<# 

Oct kMA aolt9t.iii9al ^- 

^fuSAtv al«aoo«iW exit 
»* XXji.i, . -.«U 

9</ %%u{,^i uaujiv Hi ^i«Ai' 

fi' litSaiMVi ,x4lku^ bmto't Ad fcijuona XM*^*'^ >^wXiAJii .T£Uibiie'Ui> oiU 

*f«i 'iyrth imtdi'.\ doli.w ai tAOiUua Aii , , *r;ii<iS3 ijAWli^?* taMdml^k 

%mx wfkB « sfkjor i»ftu« in tta« east, end y<it this InstTuetles !««▼«• 
hUi MRtirsljr out of th* pietur*. It plHe«« the iimeoUQUs oonduot 
•i' plalntilT, Msiry UaeiuliVTlee, who vac a l>aek seat ^«st In ths 
saio»ieblls, rithout any «pnirul ei' th« drlTer, oTsr ngalnnt the 
aotlo^ of the Balliray eem^imy Id leeatlug th« signal pont, without 
acy re1'flr«fac« to Ui« t'uot tu&t F&biteu's reokless drlv-ing might havs 
1»s«n ths sole caues ol tUs aoeidsnt. 'Xhl« was espfeeially aaielsading 
In viffv of plalfitilf*8 givsn iostruetious .^os. I und 2. The in- 
stractisn alse tol4 ths jury xx\&% tb« Aaliwi^ should b« held liable 
if *ths SMSS was inevn to, or diseovsrabls b^, ths d<»l'«ndant Chicago 
ABd ikorth W«at«rn Jiailvay Company." this niglit b« eosstrusd as r«> 
fsrring to ths iocatiofi el' the signal post* 

Defendant's refused Icc^tructioa £o. 8 should have be«Q given. 
It fftiTTfii to the '^isoojQsiii statute which controls the speed of 
Tehieles in traYsrslng curves. It was pertii:«nt to the issues in- 

Defendant's instruetlons ^os. 9, 10, 18 and 13 w<»r« properly 
refuewd. They in substanee told the Jury that the Katlway eoapany 
should be found net guilty if S'abian should be found guilty of any 
negligenoe proxiiaately eoatributiag to the aeoident. 7he law ia 
etherwiae. the negligence of one def en iant dons not exouss the 
eeneurring negligence ef a Joint defetidaut, both eontributing to 
the accident. 

Qefendaat*8 refused instruction Ho, 10 was alsieadlng. lliere 
was no evidenos "tiiut the layout or mariner ef the construction of 
this hij^hvay" was the sols proxiuate cause of the accident. 

Defendant's refused insetruotion l>o. 11 included the ^yieoon- 
sia atalute regolating the headlights on no tor vehicles, fablaa 
lia4 testified that his headli,^t» were "turned kind of down; *•« 
that he eould net see very much, *♦• that the lights were turned 
•te what we call dlai*; *** tiiat Misy »were on dia, or aediuii'.* 

•Viiui ttiaiai sfl'i'*''^'*^* •8''i:4v.'-j ft^awitfftt isj.'ij ;»#«; t ^rfi' o^ ••,>rt*itVf«t t**« 

Xttii 'to vfiLuM f a»#0 ; <*iS« !U>i .oris 

s -oft fm 0i^^^i:t}t9a '. ■ ?f/e 

.i(niifilo«« •di to ouso vt^diHol^ ftX^s •'i>'-t saw "^vtio^lit aiiC^ 

H« eatiisAte:) that thny illUBilAated the r«»4vay sUi«Mi about So er 
60 f««t. Tbe Viseonsln ntatut* required the operator ol* k uotor 
Tehiele to use euoh liglxto as would render the use ol' the tii^iv»y 
¥]r Bueh TChloIe reaeon&bly aafe. Xhe iury were required to paaa 
upon the auffieieaey ef tablafi'a lii^ta, and the Inetruction should 
have been glTcn, 

The briefs filed by both oounael proapt ue to reasiark that 
Toyy rarely if ever ia one aeei'ler. t, wita the eurrouneliuK oircun* 
stanoea, exactly lile another. Oaaea inTOlTlng dltchea along; the 
highway, or telegraph poe^a, or other lilte obatruetiona haTing no 
relation to the publio aafety, are of no fc^reat help to the rerlew- 
lug eourt. loo ofteri the deolalTe point ia oKothered by exosaalYe 
eitatlone and lengthy ({uotatione. A few auttioritlea etating general 
prinoiplkea ar^^ aufflelent. Kescectiv^ oounael hare dwelt eonaider- 
ably upon the deeiaiona in Zllinoia and Viaeonaln, but th« e^aentlal 
prineipl<«B eontrolling the inatant c&ae nre the aaKe in both atatea. 

Yor the reason that the Terdlot of the Jury waa elei»rly 
againat the greater weight of tbe evidenee, and for errora ocourring 
vipan the trial aa indioated at>0Te, the judgaient ia r'?veraed and the 
•auae ia remanded. 

RCVfitaSD AKT) R^KA£ir»tf]). 

Matehett and O'Connor, JJ,t eoneur. 

V«3»tt^« 'i« :ce#ai:940 tmi Maii.'$»r« ti^viA^D AlauAonlV wtfr .i»*1 0^ 


JAKS8 aim, 



01 caiCAfio. 

26 8 I.A. 629^ 

SSLZVJUKSB tax 0PI£X01« OJr xas COUBt. 

In an aetion of trovor trl«d hy the court, plaintiff h»A ft 
jud^«nt for 11300, from vhloh def^ndmnt appoala. The point in 
leoae is the evnerehip of a proKieaory note for 1^1300 eeoured l>y 
a truet deed. It was stolen froA plaintiff, and if defendant 
purehaaed it in good faith for oonsid oration, lief ore aaturity, he 
l>e«aae the o^imer and the jui.&eut la erroneous. Tint evidenee e >«a 
that he paid a auffioient oonaideration lor the paper, but plain* 
tiff elalna it vaa after maturity. If thia is true, the jud(pi«nt 
is oerreot. 

The note in question was dated Oetober 10, 19 22, due three 
years after date, in the sum of $1300, with interest, exeouted hjr 
J9hn V. KaTan and Albina Kavan to the order of themselves and by 
thee endorsed. Uareh 10, 1925, Kavan and wife aold the preaises 
eovered by th« trust deed to John Voda and Antonie Voda, his wife, 
subject to the trust deed, ani thereafter Voda paid the Interest 
at the offlTO of je^avan as provided for in the note. 

Ootober SC, 1926, plaintiff purchased the note froB Mary 
Z>anek, who was th^^n the owner, iie reoeived trim her the note 
and truet aeed with eone other a^ers and put thea in on envelope 
and deposited thesi in his safety deposit box which was In Kavan's 
▼wilt. J^lalntiff had rented this box for over ten years and had 
the two keys to it; h« kept all his valuable papers in this box. 
the last tine he saw the etiVelope in the box was In Oetober, 19^. 
the next tlae he opened his box was in 1931, when he found all of 

,j MHXXitmA ma- 

^<id .ii.i 6 d^ 

.auucos mmon 




al laioQ »tfi' *«jC»*q^a iiWfftB«'ts; fiX* tot ia^msihul 

Ja*ft«i»1»& 'IX i>m ,'tXliiUii£q ssoi'l owXotc »«* *I .J>»»ft *•«!* « 

Xft bsm ••yiiwi.flK)^ 'to X9b%0 9iU ..' > ^M»vt^^ isnldXA ou^-, suira^ .V lutet 
t««lA«i[q ^iii &X(Hi «'il« l>iuk a«v«a .SS9X ,0X ifo'XAli .(^••toba# owdl 

- / 
.»^oa i»iij Ri Tel Jb9t»itvov<j «« iwv«^ to •Wt*)o adt im 

XtMU mati't 9S9a •tia fMaa9tui:, Ttlialmtq ,8991 «Ofi tooTc^oo 

•4oX»rd« a« al a»/ls iu^, hat •<i»Qi»«! x<tdt« Mtmi ittlw JN«& ;t«t»i# haa 

htm ham •tatix emi t^vo xnt «•¥ «JIciJ fttilJMi: »«ii 'tmBl«X<% ,tltmr 

,XvS 9tAt at ttv^ACi •Xd[«uX«r mid. Us S<TiL ». «X«>3[ omi 9tU 

.estx ,i;*tf«i«0 Hi IMV x(»rf Aiif 0i •qoX»i^ii» •at mum md 9gUi i9»i 9dll 

to IXm hauoy. 9d ii9ttm .lf.ex al •«« x«ftf ttiH JM^otq* Mf •iuil #x*a 9stt 

lii* pa$i«ra Biscing, afidi th« i^avelttpe in vhlo > the note an£ trust 
4««d had l>««<i pl»e»d was i'llX«d with soraip pa.p«r ani th« neie and 
trust dssd vsrs gons. Plalntin* tsstii'isd that h« had aer«r sold 
th«B to anyone, er authorised Kavan or mxycu9 else tr. sell th«s. 

Oetoher 10, 19 S&, when the note isatured, an onsigtied en* 
dorsesmit of extension was made on the note, referring to a vritti^ 
agreement of <>xteriSioB of the same date. Ootober 10, 19S<i, & see- 
ond unei^ed endorseae&t was stads on the note te the effeet that 
it had been extended to Ootober 10, 1931, as p%r writt^'c agreesient 
of even date. She agreeetent ior extension Kade en this iaie par- 
ptrts to be between John V. I'.aTan, party of the first part, mad 
John Voda and Antonie Voda, his vifs, parties of Ui« s«oortd part, 
and deseribes the party of the first part» John J^avan, as the legal 
owner and holder of the proaissory note. At this tiac tii« l«gal 
owner and aolder of the note was ii.»ry Danek and not John K«Tan, 
Mary Danelc was not a party to this extension agreestent. Jr'ebruary 
10, 193u, iiavan, who had in sesie wrongful aanner gotten poseeesion 
of the note end trust deed, eel4 thsfii to the defendant for 11300. 
John J^avan eommitted suicide F«bruary 9, 19 31. Defendant stays tliat 
the first time he knew plaintiff claiACid any interest in the papers 
was about two weeks after kr, j&a^an's death, 

Oefendaot's position is that having bou&ht the note on feb* 
raary 10, 1930, whieh b^ the last extension agreecictnt was net due 
URtil Ootober 10, 1^31, he purchased before saturlty. Xt &ay be 
eoneeded that ii' there was a Talid extensloa defi»nd«nt purchased 
before siaturlty. bui the exterisien la properly ohallerxged by 
plaintiff. The a^e«&ent lor extension purports to be »ade be- 
tveen John KaTan, wiio was the stakar oi" the note, nuH Vofiia am? wife, 
parties who had bought the profaiees oonyeyed by the«t deed. It 
is an agreeifi«nt between th« oblii^^ors onlyj the holder and owner of 
the note is not a part> thereto. It is self-eyldtfsnt th«»t no valid 

Jyu »»«« •ffi turn J»n»^ ii«K»t tli^lv httAUt •«« ft^Mliji a««cr feAif J>»«ft 
blfiA xi^tma kAA «4 i^&xtr l9k'ili%fii Tikinlml'^ .•«<>» •'s«v lk*f»f> imtni 

av/;i'sv « o^ ^tai4 . ioit •Hi sm whtua saw noi«n9lx» 1« la*a»«<x«ft 

•••• A ,BS9X «tjii '(«<foJ»0 .•^4Ji> •«•»« »iti 1« aai«n«^xf» to iaMM^ta^ 

^''lU^ *#*!> islit^ Xl« *to« IS0i»£»it^X» ^^X . ^IttMtft-V^Ai 9^1 .a^Aft jEwrtl* 

hem ,i'3^% ^«7ll «x{« It t^%s^\m.rikA ./ n^\ OAVvrtntf •<} ai •#ttt^ 

I«j;i$X>{li $«fiijr elai iA ,9iiia %Xo«i9i tltibi<»si ham tnerin 

X'^j'^i^ff^^ .^<3«4»»»ts* ftdJtiiiia»j«« aXM# «^ ^liu$^ « ten saw 3i»«utG x'**^ 
ii«Jtca««eaq a«^;^«»?.i tAODAa ij.'!^av^>£v ft«oe iii £utx( oilw .lUTail ,<f>89j( ,01 

;;>!<fit tfws ti»Hh<»»^»^ ,mi ,€' *^«»t^(»% afeloiiira fM»;r^la£Ri90 tusTMi^ ttir«1& 

it;4b ^•a «««» irri»ii4^-ij^.,., r.olaai»ix» tA»t •iH x^ ti9k^ ,(»9i ,0J[ xiuun 
j|«««ii»<sii« ia£i&n»'t«l> Miui»tx» Mlm-9 « •«« At«ii/ li JtMiis Jbi»b*»A«9 

^»<r «i«ii •¥ o» a^fd^K^ naiaiiatxa t^n itM^a»*iQiA ajfx .'ni;raJtaxq[ 

.t^lw A«w i»ltoV tiiui ,»»oa »iU to vaiAtf aiil aaw oisi-str ^a^ttaI <utai; ii9««r# 

.ftaab ivuxi inibf x^ ln»%«tA&9 aeai«i*ii| aUt 4l||i#o4^ IMH aif* a»i#nuif 

lo t9aw0 bM naftlad aili i^Xito aia^iXJa 9iit M§^f4 immntitM om «i 

ttiim^ aa f«4(J #iiei>lv»-tXtt« ai #I .a^aaMMil c^xiqr « -^oa «£ •^•*i ^^ 

agreement to oxtaud the tia* of maturltjr of a not* oaa bo ^ado 
without th* oonsont ei' tho o^vnor und holder. Ihe rn^or alone caa-> 

not extend It. It follows, tlierefsro, t^at ^hm. defendant bought 
the paporo the note had ong »lcce Katurod AOd there was no valldl 

i» aMf > A^*|they,.,,#i^ik Y, M<aW»^f.y* 31 3* i3.i. 416, it 
was held that the i&aker of a note eould not alone poatpone the date 
•f payaieBt, "hut an agreeneat for aueh extension oould only be nado 
Vy both partiea.'* See also iterphainto u, A X. Uo. f. Welter . 205 
111. 647. liae eaoe of Justice t. attoaeciaher . 367 Hi, 44a, cited 
by defeniact. Is not la point, for there the owner of the notes 
endorsed th«i and delivered th«m to hie agent for eolleetion, «ho 
fraudulently put the notes in oireulation, Ihat is not the ease 
here, although the defendant aseuoies in his brief that plaintiff 
plaoed the note in the ousted; of Jxavan for safe keeping, but the 
OTidenoe abundantly ahovs that AOTan waa operating a safety deposit 
▼ault and tnat plaintiff rented one of theso boxea, in whleh he 
kept hi a papers. Ihe aatue distinetion obtains with referenee to 
Xt„,M» ^.,.Af ,Vi :^.9^^i'<»U M%%\^^o^ ^1^, 179 111. 899. 

Defoiidant say*, in effeot, tnat if the extension covering 
the period in whleh ho purchased the paper was invalid, the sasie 
was true w|^en plaintiff purohased the paper*. Xnie question night 
aviso in a eontroversy between plaintiff and Mary Sanek, the seller 
of the note to plaintiff; but ehe was paid in full aiid oanuet oosi- 
plaln. neither dc the obligors <iuestioB their obligation upon th* 
mot*. The eontroVf«rsy is between the purohaser of a stolen note 
Wid the person fross whom it was stolen, in suoh ease the purohaser 
«an aseert no elaim basod upon an alleged defect in the title of 
ill* ewBer whioh could not suecossfully be sMintained by anyon* 
haTiag th* ri^t t* question the title. It is the established 
rul* that no one ean transfer a better title than he has. Draiii 
▼♦ LaGrange State Bank . 303 111. 330; 3herer»Gillett Uo. y. Long . 

.t)^^& .1X1 «r?i .fEi^^ l^mtJmSL AxaftA»i>>i ..,>■ .A. >;^__.;l. ..Y 

-jtttjo loofUib oOi XXu'it ttt timi^ MTV *jte sTu^ ;t%liaijitlti »t •i^a rnsii 1i9 
•Hi otiifu fifti^«;iiXtftt ^Xftii; aoJkJftfti}}^ M%tyklltl» ittii oh ««ii4i«H .«l«i<r 

!• «X1U ttU at tMtsJb i^9S0£i9 cut imi4[u Uroeiutf Mi4»i9 •« irv*««« ft«» 
•aox:<i« vor ^at«);}ai4ua 9tf t'i^i^'^«««ft<»ua ^<^ ftiv^s jc&l^tr ivoko •jfi^ 

31« III, 432; ahtrmatn State Bwak y. awlth . 244 111. Apn. 171. 
S«T«n, hsring ae tltl« to th« not*, eould not eonvty & gottd 
title t« <l«f<$n48Uit. 

If the defendant had e3c«siin«d the paper he wim 'buying he 
would! h«Te ae«i that it h&d natured and had n«ver been ^ctroperlj 
extended. Beth plaintiff and defendant were in faet innooMit, 
but where two parties arc without fault the rule ie that the one 
wheee negligence caused the lose, although arialng from ejccuamble 
ignorance, muet bear it. 

Zhe judgment is affirmed. 

Matehett and O'Coauor, JJ. , eonour. 

XXT«90t«!' n«»tf lA^f&fl lMf£i baa- h9tui»m b^tii jj ^«j<^ w^9* vv»d bluon 


hSie iivd^iniA 


8AliF&iiU> V. mC£ik.A£, Ex«outor, •>tc., 
•f Xstat« of AXiec U. iiieitmao, 

D«fen<lftnt in Brror, 


• Corporation, 

^laintilT in Srror. 


oy COOK c 

26 8 l4- ^^9' 

SXLIVSRSD ?J1S Opinion Oi' 7|{£ COUKT. 

Plaintiff, bringing suit on » polioy of insuraneo iosuodt 
\f dlofon<1ftnt, upon trial by the eourt hmd jud Kent I'or ^2225,65; 
r«v«r«i^ !• sought. 

By ita polioy defendant agrood to pay $2,000 as indoimity 
upon tho !)«ath of Alio* Q, Kiek&an resulting frosi bodily injuries 
roooiTod in an aocidont. Alice ^iekman livod in California with 
hor husband, Sanford W. Hloknan, subsequently appoints4 sxeeutor, 
vhllo defendant's home offios was in Chicago. 

Defers iant makes sixteen points in its brief, all asserting 
la substance that the provisions of the polioy as to notice of the 
4«ath of the insured were not followed. It provides that "in event 
of aeeidental deatli Ixeiediate notioe thereof auet be givmi to the 
r— pany ••* affiri»ative proof of less must be furiiiahed to the 
Ceatpany at its said of flee •** within ninety days after the date of 
sueh loss." Defend«mt elaiKs that bo proper notice of the death 
wae given the company until after the expiration of ninety day* 
froiB the date of death. Plaintiff olains that th« record justifies 
ttie finding that notioe was given in apt tiae. 

Alice HiekaaB died en the evening of £iovejBiber 1, 193$; 
£loveeber 7th a written notice was sent to the defi^ndant company 
advieing it of her death and asking for blanks for waking proof of 
death; this was received by defendant l<oven<ber 13th and on i*ove«ber 
13th It replied, aeknowl«><3King receipt of the letter of itovember 
▼th and asking for the correet policy number, as the number givwi 


.rrlnoa aok*-^ %o 


;Sft.CSSSv 10*1 inam but h^fi ttuoxi ^ml^i noQU ,J'filll^a#l 

J Oil oi «i( i(»i.Ia<? ftxii 'to e»«l«i702q »£!} ^it4i •sa«j«tfi/» stl 

tni.i 9i hininitrtiit «tf tuui& ••oX le loitt 9V^liBivtt'itM •*«■ ^cm^miO 

ii#jMft ttiU le •fiiicta isqotQ ea l«ii} ««i«)Xa ^£bil^o»'t«<I "•■eeX {£»if« 

■ »ili«a{jt hioo»-s *»di isjcii aMlaJto ltJtlai«X*l .£(#««& He •jr«l^ M(» mfVt 

;9ikVl ,X tfttffluiroil !• BAta»r9 aril ii» b1^ib oMnCoifi ••iXA 

tMfM»* #eui»n»ltfr •tii oi «a«c caw •elifoa mttJ tiyr » M^ w»<r«M»ir9t 

!• IcMii^ stUiUftM Tol aiowXtf Yot ^aliMM ban Aim^k f i^alsirfeil 

T«<fMV«ii !!• l»o» difiX :iftdaH»ro4 inmhanl^b x<i hmriwt saw eXift \siim9h 

•Xftcf«»roA lo Tta^tfaX Ail* lo lqi»o»t afll4&«iwomi»A ,*»tX«»i Jl Aitl 

«•▼!» «»diiitfa ad* «« ."«»<J(aitfn^oJtX««l latino© aii* t«l »ai;ii«« ia« ^t 

in the l«tt«r «a» tht renewal reeei]9t number ineteatf of the fiolioy 

nuBber; t»oynmb%r 26th hr, lilelcna& wrote to deferident giving the 

oorreet poliey number and asking that the Qeeees(ikr>'^ foriiie for 

■ekinii proefe of lose be seat at once; January 11, 19 50, the at* 

torneye for plaintiff wrote def eudant, etkying that "due proof of 

death und^r this ooliey was subnitted to you several weeks s^go,** 

and In^suiriBg ae to hex/defendant would ta^e aotion; Jarmary P9th 

defen^lant reolied that it h«Ml no record of having received eueh 

proofs and that it hadl net forwarded any blanks for proof and waa 

awaiting fozmal requests from the offioiol representative of the 

eetate before sendlnti out any claim blafiks. It will be noted that 

although the letter from plaintiff 'e attomeyswas reeeived by de- 

fandlaat January 15th, it delayed making any reply until two weeks 

had elapsed, ir'ebruary 1st the attorneye for plaintiff wrote to 

defendant that aanford W. Uielwan was the executor of Alioe 0. 

Hiekman's eetate and again requeeted the neeeseary blanks in order 

that proof of claim under the policy mii^ht be made; J^ebruary 8th 

defendant forwarded the fozme for proofs of claim and these were 

filled out, executed and returned to defendant, together with a 

eertifiod copy of the letters testamentary showing the appointment 

•f aanferd ^. Kiekmam as executor of hie wife's eetate, and affi- 

dmvlta of the details of the accident. Xhese were reeeived by de> 

fendant February 17th. Defendant aaeerte that the ninety days 

p<<>riod expired February 1, 19 30, and that when it received the 

preofe i^ebruary 17th it was **nineteen daye too late.* 

£he words "i^jsediate notice" and "rcaeonaoie notice" are 

practically aynonymouo when ueed in an aeoident iniararioe policy. 

Sun Accident Aeaoc. v, clson . 59 111. App. 217; Kich v. Martfpr^ 

Accident .% Ii.deB.nitY Qo,. 208 Hi. App, 5<>d. in l.iaiiLara h'jy Ins . 

Co, V, a^fsmfia* 100 111. 644, it wm held that a notice within 

fifteen days was a reasonable time, althougu the policy provided 

X-^i^oo 9iU 'lo fejMidanl t*nfiM>na. iql^»9t iMWta^t iHii •«« r*iS*L iHii tti 
xot nxio't -itMftnmuna ^lU smii ^tU- mimMa xpiioti i%9t%t» 


tU^ X'UtUat'i J«0li?>.«: ■ t .;..■■ -^ 5.;., • 1 .1 •■\i:. • ...SJ/'JE/wpal 

^. O ?.v.+ -5ii .».•, . .•f^■, • [ ^,ri :;>.„. r.f -wi.r:/'; v.1« .J»'" A«;h.*.a ?»1|0leirf •#»>§# 

. ■^•.'■■'..>{® (MRlf 

'. Lit 

. uni. S7;v ^:l>.. ..■it4'> li- .o-.,n .<(;,, ,*xi ;>..••■ , 

*.;•/. ifw art r in. ♦«Hl ?./;*»• .Tlf.V ti ,^i"C 

t t 

for *ln(t«dlat« setiea of loss." in th« present oas* d»fcad«nt vas 

notifi«d of the d«ath of ut; Hlotaan en the sixth day aXter its 

eecurrenee. Construing the peliey laost striotly against the In- 

eursnee oomoany, sis we »ust do, it could reasonably be held that 

the notice of ^OTeaber 7tn was suffieient notie* of the death of 

the insured. Unis has been held under eiiailar oireui&statiees in 

RJ,9hardBQn t. 4etropQlitepi ^>^>. ^"s. Co. . 159 Htl, 685; a rick sen 

T. Mutual -Bem^fit uealth & Accident Co. . 122 i.«b. 630. 

HewoTer, it is well established that where the insurance 

eenpany delays in furnishing blankk for proof of loss, sueh deley 

aay be oonsidered as a waiver of thnpli^oioe with the polley re» 

quirw&ent that proof Kist be made within a epeeifie tine. Order 

»f Chosen JTrlends ▼. Austerlltt . 7ft 111. App. 74. Defendant oitet 

at holdinti; to the contrary to a^sk as Y .^ fe'ort^X Am er 1 can Ac oi . /Co . , 

181 i*, S. Kep. 75' . The facts in that case are quite diff<»rent 

frcBi those Involved here. In that ease blanks for proof of less 

were sent parntuant to request, within sewen days aft«(r the death 

of the insured, but were not filled out and returned to the ooa* 

paay until 192 days after the loos, the delay there was 8ol«ly by 

the plaintiff. In none of the ether eases eited by defendant was 

the insurance eoarpuny pensitted to avoid liability on the t^round of 

delay in receiving notice T«^ere such delay wae cuused by the fail« 

ure of the insuranoe eo»p«ny to aet promptly, bo pi^rty should bt 

pemitted to take advantage of its own wrong. iiOveftibor7th, six 

deys after Mrs, Eiok»an's death, defendant was requested to forward 

clalB blanks, ii^ain on loven^ber 26th and again on January lith; 

but it was not until February 5th that the bltinks were forwarded. 

V« are of tlie opinion that the fa«tt justilled the f in ling of the 

trial court that a^t notice of th«; deatii of Mrs, Hiciuaan had be«i 

given to defendant. 

)• ilUtm»b •Ai to •;.> ^islTtua »«; ' :f8V9v«<il 1^ ftt)i#eit rnUtt 

.oe^d .(f«'i St"!: ,^>ji^ 

-■wisf.ieflC'O erf i!;4i* 
.itlitkXi^ii t£ 

, ■■ . . ' xex 

* -^«*'t« •^^ 'Stx xi#iiu ^iu♦^< 


•moo •!<* «* hwmiiy^fitT />«« 4-«o ?5o.f. u. 
»«v Ji«3f-.5<»l»fc \jtf ^'?.J/o ««a«9 iftfliij X 

> / 
jiltiX xtanaeL ao OLit . t»tfiiM<rr , ;^Xtf mlmid 

Two oth«r points ar« prascntAd in th<i lurgument oi' defend- 
ant, although th«7 ar« n«t aa4e In the brief of polnfis. Under 
Rule 19 of this court the ergu»ent aunt be eonfinod to & dieeue* 
sioB ef the poicta jnade in the brief "iidad ao ethers.^ Ho^reTftr, 
«e have given th<un eon ai deration and hold that they are without 
merit. It la aaid that the policy waa not iaaued 1»y defendant. 
The f«eta, which are aoMewhat lengthy, do not aupport thia clala, 
aad fartheraore, the defendant retained the prewiuna paid and 
hmaee ratilled the iaauanee of the policy, Dicxeraon ▼, H, W . 
iiutual -Life I»iaurano e Co.. 80o 111, 270, 

It ie next argued that Kra, MieJcnan was net injured while 
riding in a private aiitoiaobile "of the exeluaively pleaaure 
tyiie,* which waa a eoniition of liability of def'»rdant. The 
automobile waa an old ^•9 touring ear of the ao-oalled "ploaaure 
type.* the fact that it waa in acme diarepair and that at the 
time of the aocident aleo contained aome teola which Kr. Hiesisan 
ha4 been using in renalring a fence, deea net etiange the type of 
the automobile. Penoine t. Sierra l»evada Life & Qaaualty Co^ . 
886 P«c. 729, and ta i-ife & Caaualty cpatpany of Ywnn, v. jaet aijLi; . 
UO Ky. 62a. 

Defendant in areunent seeJca to create auapiclon aa te the 
conduet of Mr. at the tine of the accident, but no facta 
are proved that would affect defendant *8 liability under the 

We hold that the finding waa proper, and the jud^ent la 


tfatehett and o*Connor, TJ. , concur. 

tiroxiflv •%!» ^»^ fMsU hloii hi,iM aoiifii'i9t^lBatto :msii o»rljt svAXt ftv 

*Xi4«) lift'Xtft'^^ '"^o*^ ^^"^ .m^iM^lii .ASA ^A^jT th»M3'X« tx»a '' 


Gounty, Illinois, tor th* use oT ) 

COUBT uK gmjK {M^M'iY* 

, ^'— »<"■ . ^„.,,„,. |2 6 8 I .A. 6 2 9 

jiE. rassiDXiiQ JUIS7ICS m^uumLr 

S« 6e«*rskl to«»«iio«4 a replevin suit t« rseov«r four aut<9- 
Mt^ilttS fraa jtlmintiff vitn ihs Pultllo Xadci&nity Qoajidny us sursty 
sn its bond in ths sun sf |3,0OU. this was dlvj^isssd without s 
hiMMTlaK on th« ««rits. Thsr*iipoji th« present suit on tlis bond 
««s eonu^AnaeA and U9011 trial by tbe court the issues were foundt 
for the plft;nttfr, debt $2,0U} sad 4sn«s«* «1S§«01, debt te be 
aiseharged n^on |»«yB«at oi* the d««»ib«s. iPlaintift' appeals and 
argu.^B that he was entitled to juinsient for daa&ges in the full 
SKeunt of the b«Bd. 

Qnder s«MBtion S6 ef the Hei»l«yin «et, onapter 119, when 
the K^rits of the ease have net been deten^ined in the trial 
of the aetien in which the bend is «ivtti, the defendant in the 
aetien upea the replaria bond stay plead that f^ot and his title 
te the property in dispute. Uanehett r. uardaer. 13B ill. »n. 
Sesdeal damages and eosts alone eati be reeo'vered where plaintiff 
in a reglewin has his suit tfis&issed without trial m6 sTtews in 
aa aetien on the bond that the property ir* voiced was in f»at hit 
property. 'MXM *• J^flikll T. ^>IMP,f , »* Ui. J^pp, 251; Herta ▼. 
&,aufaafy . 46 111. App, 591. And the burden in euoii^ an aetien is 
upon the defendant te prove right of property in niaself. stevi 
Wp F.amest . 80 111. 513. 

To sustain this burAen &, 9. Oedevski, the hueband of h. 

Xj n JLx 9 ^ *^/ ^J' W-* (^ ^ J, ,, «^ J J .. . . ^.^ 

. it 

n^-it*? ,«if '••>;■■ -. ,#«* rt*v^>icr*.-i •H5a ift i-S a.^1 J'B'Ja t»C*R'' 

•^X^^f A ill Alt)?' f&iil inAi fi){»«i^ ->:«» &£k)«f giltmlw^ '-^^ ttwqci a«l#»#. 
.XTI9I .III BiRA ^- ^Aibtitii ^-y i'#»^:ij| ff | i ^%imiiukh aJt xit»^4i^^ i^At '%$ 

*y.-34l«H :ia* *^n^ *XH «« ,fijrfifiS^T_-£l-. 

qudstlon; tn&t 8h« hind owned ««ifi;.&Sja bonds wai«sk shehad seld &ad 
pl«.ct«d tho prde««d«t la h«r li«uilrije2|| »6ooUBt in laaj* omi aiib« ox* 
«ltt£iT@ly; tn&t. tU« aion«j Tor tixa |»uroitia«i» o^ Ui« eaxs iu contro* 
Ttrty wma drHV?; frcA this t^ooeant. i;heok« «er« iriiroduuadi 1b «▼!« 
d«zie* wr.ieii h»|[ 'beta ^^ivea lor tu«c purohat^ er Ui<£*«> aMtos^dtilAt 
•CLd the bills ol sale ran to h«r. iurs. U«iJi«raJii teetli'lAd to th« 
•am* •I'l'eet; ti^at tu* ears b«lafi^e<i t& ;&*r «»d ««r9 Ijb Uis g^^rag^ 
sf hsr httsbsuid when thsy vere t&kttn wuadcr th« ojUeriff's •xscatitm 
issttsd In FhUlo Morris AdT^rtrltiim ^«rvlo< ▼. W»it»r »tolilip «. 
PlaiKtlff *s eounael earr;««tly atiaa^f Uila t««tlfi;«ajr, utreealtvg 
answers !fi«d« %y the witnesses from -»tileh» It Is Mrgu«d, ther« la a 
elasr lnf«r«ne« timt emcsership was In 1, S, usdarakl and not In hi* 
wlfs, Aft»r Fi^in^ oonsideratloB to ths reoord, wa p.ra of opinion 
that th«> trlaJi 7tt/*ge proporly fouAd tu»t tJ^o titlt was in th« <{•- 
fondant. M. Oodorekl. 

Plolntlfl', hswtYor, oTt^os that U, SoaarsJei l»y l«>airing tho 
outomokllAS with falter fbllllps, an autoaohlXo dealer, for aalt 
olothod hisi vltix tite lodiola ol* ownership, ar»(! tiierofero aho was 
oatep^ad froK aasortlng any title. In tho oarly p&rt of VdSl 
Walt«r Fbillipa ira» a d«td«r in uaad auto&obUoa at QiTorsey %nd 
Kodxio aTar!u«s: Aprl. 1, 1931, h« anterod into a eontraet Tor ad- 
wortlalnfi; wit& tUo Philip Morris AdT«rti«ing Carries, Ine. , tho 
plaintiff uao«! pursuant to tbis oontraot th* advartlelng ^i^mej 
ias«rt«d AdYartiaemerits la tho Cfeioago XrilE>i;mo on April 28, aS, 27, 
2« and 39, and o« itay 17; Wiadtor i^hillips did not pj^ tho a««noy 
for t>iia adw<8rtising and on Juno Id, 1931, it reoovorod a judgmant 
acsiaet 'faO-tar Philiipa for tka aatovrnt <fua, tmd on tho aatto dajr 
oauaad a lory to 'he m&do anl took tho foor aatoaiobilao in guostion 
from tho garag* of K, !A. Oodaraki, Tha arideno* shows, howayer, 
that thaso autoaobileo w»ro purohasad by id. Goderskl aubaaqaant to 

•tin iti SC-- ■ ' i -^■- - -i 

. 114 Biii tA» 

X;& ' xtsfi Soa btb Wi^ii ' 

e^ it»Kp»n4uii t:iMi fboi} .M xd t**Jini»%ufi •■(«« avviaaioo/UAi •••ill t«d^ 

r>fla ,(IS f^nii 8S 

t)9i« Am%9 tf the l%»t aivvrtls^as^nt. !rh« t)ir«» l^ords »i't<ir th^y 

trtrs purcka»«d ^tre d«i.iv«r«d Tor sale t« Walter Phlllipr. at hia 

f»r»g« fet Diversoy said i^«dBi« iiv«tiatt», but «ere t&kcr, bucjc ley ^•'^ 

fcudkifit, '■*-. iedtiinkif iM4 v«r0 ii^ feer huaiband's gAar»i;o i'er ftb^^ttt 

» w««k b«ror« th« levy of JttB« 16th w«» csMI*. ^ ih&t at tttd tin* 

7(ilter i^1&illlT3« incurred tii« obligatios for «<iv«rii«jijag, th« aute* 

•eMlet in question had not b«*n ouro^i^ttdd %y £&, ftoilera'xi, nnai, 

• f e«urs«» w«r» set in t)i* jMiiiacseiofi of S'billips. It is %hev«i'or% 

•birieiis Ui%t Flilllipt «r«« t.9% elothad with tlt« indicia of OTmar* 

lidaif at th« titi^ H« l)ee«K«e ind«\ft«l ta iba Mdv<i$rtialt)g ait^^najr. 

ria'vutiff aaar.a t© >or$i:ua tfeat, baeauaa th*« d9f#R'!!int, k, 

(lodarnlEii , had at oaa tiaM aoaaif^Bad cartaic/onra t« PhilXipe for 

MO-e, ah.a baoaaa liabla for all hie dabta, and Anpeolsilly for da>^ta 

ooatruotad bafora ana ao^uirad tA« e*ra la oueatloa. ihia i« not 

tha !&«}. It is a trail roaogniaad rula that la airdar to nir« riaa 

%• «a aatoi^p*! It la naoasaary th«it. tha p»rty aatot>ped a>)<all hava 

Moda, by %at cr vord, aoaa r«pra8«»tatien apoB the faith of whieh 

tha parncm aettiug up tha aalioiipaX haa aotad, with dam tga to his)* 

•♦If. ailvortftai' wtt i. C hayn»|^. 7W ill. At*??. 3.89; ^ha.yBr»otl latt 

V. ^an ?^, 318 111, 438. Xha Fhtll|» horrla Adirartiaing Aganay did not 

nmd e':(Ul'f not aat ta iia danAi^a h«aaua« oi iMsy r*praaant(ition, 

alth«r hy ^*ard or aat, roiiatinK to tha aMtanahilaa which daffmiant 

did aiat yat aas. 

Chicg» rlny , '^t ^. v. riaatrese . 130 111. ^>«, eitad hy 

plaintiff, ia not In paint, thara tha aourt fonnd that thera vaa 

a frwnJul«»t <*gr««p!«Bt isada for tha puri>oaa af hindaring ar«>!it,ar« 

%y ^arauadlng tha« t© gira frslaa or«f«lt to oaa of tha jiartiaa -wJiila 

tha athar pi&rtlaa ratal nad » oaerat 11«b. grordon feotoy i^inanea 6^ . 

^. Aatn a Aaaaotiyiaa Go. . a«l 111. A^p. ft36, involrad tha «al« ef 

ae !%ut<!»!u>bila to an lnnoa<»it third ij^raon hy a ^urohaaar wkioa tha 

aaller h%d alothad with indicia of aonaranip. Xheaa otaaa ara tiet 

•jpplic&blo to tha Inatant eaaa. 

Xptii ^•ttM kM«V •»tH$ Mis ,imtnam*lir*ri H imml ^MJ 't^ »i«ft ntti 

♦,-»n jirj.-?mn» 

»if'<»fc •rail ijlifcias-ti^ift feflw ,«:'.^-' -i.- t/* xo't •X<'i>iX - .. '...^ 

/out SJt tlli^" .ff(»i4'«9»i'^:' ;«♦•»* «}HtM8 t»v- .,-..- 

ffiS»4J*>tI al ^I £.?• 

.flRr«. ^vx ^on M£ 
1o *X»« •^ bofioTttl ,*€« .^<iA .iXI X«? « ^ tiwl , i ftflBl,flf MA 4»tf%fc> , i^ 

latere ia no &ubKt4iir;ti<>l coutrMidlotion tis' tixie «!vid[«ije« 

pr«dwe*d on Istiialf oi* the ^•fendantfir^ tht^t the ^iti» to th« eaurs 

ftt tk« ii«e ^f th« T^le^iju suit «i»0 rile^ v«ib Jub k. uoder«kl. 

W* }iftld Uufct Ui« Ju4^«iil »MI proper, ai^d ii is aflinetxl. 
Kateb«tt and 0*C«nR«r, U. , coBeur. 

'<•.• -»^ai .' 

.tixoac:: . , :',fioJ«M 


ya. ) 


UXm QAROhlM^ hoaOLSf tt ad.. ) 

26 8 I.A, 629^^ 


Alb»rt 1^. X^ongley !i»(1 testate at Paaaa«nH, Cialil'ornia, 
en Cctobar S9, 19S8, Hie ^ill tore <!at« of June 5, 1923. A 
eeAlcll thereto w»« «xftOUt«il Jiay 14, 192S. 7h« will and the 
eodloll w«r« 4uly fll>!«<l la Cooi< «ounty, Illlnole, ttai* plaoft ef 
t*st*t&r'« r#8ld«iDeft. 

CoBipludnaTit, aascrtla^ th%t h» la ih«! ao& ««id h«lr, tiled 
,^.^^^ * JMlX t(Oi ooRt««t th« will upon t>i* theory that It* execution •»»• 
brougJit about by un^u* Influfnae •zeroleeA upon ibA4 'i^sliklot tg 
Ilia widow, itexy QaxolXn* vLont^ley. Uhe and other legateea, in. 
clu4[ing tx number of charitable inetitutione, answered denying thsit 
•eaplalnant was the eon nnd heir wc! also donyiui^ tho charge of 
un4uo influeneo. A^fter the eauae had been put at leaue defendante 
■owed that tho lasuee to be tried should be separated .'*nd that of 
whether ooffi-:^l&l&ant was the eon and heir ai^tould be h«ard first. 

In aupT^ort of the laotien defendants presented the afflda* 
wit of jfrank G. Gardner in substance to the eff"»ct that co£ipl%in- 
•Bt was an impoetor and that no credible evideoct eould be pro- 
duced that h« was the son and heir. The affidavit asserted that 
the trial of the paternity issue first and separate from the other 

issue would save time and expenasa. Complainant reslatea the bo" 
tion aiid an affidavit waa filed in iiia befialf by on« of hie soli- 
citors asserting that it would be s-iown upon th* trial that com- 
plainant was bom the illeeitimmte son of the testator by iaioe 
Hall, whoa he thereafter laarricd, nnd that aftor the marriage ho 

^esa .A.^ o9S 


, ,•* if 

. AiASJi 

. ■■ V 

.T1!U<X) Hh? ^t£) 3iOIHI«U) SOJT CllfllVJ^^n YYffiBDlA.ii SaiTf 

•^.-f "SoJAJa - 

'. L»4a fern- . 

t*clJr ''t 9$i«t«qa* feCM jn'iii. »»i«toi; ^^^''^ 

•oat •iii btiiiiUfX ic 
"Horn «lii 't%; »ac ii<.i 

alii 111 h«tl.t\ «*-»v 

-«w» i«ulJf iM/%J «i^- 

mua « aotSufctXe 


.;0<1* .IX«K 


•fimly »eltno*l»<«««4 complainant to te U* Bon, thut l«gitiulslng 
Mm liy vixtut af a««tion 3 »f eh«pt«r 39 oi* th« at«tut«« (Qaltta- 
Httr4*« 111. »«▼. State., eHap, 39, «••. 1, p. 1114). fhla »l'fl- 
«»▼!! further »e«i»rt«41 that thi* fact* aa t© both issass 'ouH be 
pro-ved te a great trxtent hy taa ••»« vitn*«B«a, aan^ of when re- 
«l<3*d in th* state ef Ua ifornla, sund that th« iaeu«e «r«re 9o 
closely Interwovan tJiat tha trial of th« aaaia aaparately 'wott7i<J not 
only cftuao oiuch Iriconvenierica tut would a4<D graatly to th« <»xuenaa 
•f tha liti£atlon. 

Th« motion of 4«f«n^ar!ta 'oaa grant«d. Co»Dlainant th«ra« 
aft«r ao-r«4 to aat it a^lia. Thia motion vaa <l«nlo4. V en th« 
eaua* oara« on for trial ooitt^l^inant again moriNI that tha iasuoa 
b« auhialtted to a jury, fhia notion waa alao (3«ni«4. Aha chano«l> 
lar haaLr4 tha eauaa in opan court •xelu4ing oTldanet offared wnioh 
t«B4i»d to akiav xmdue influ«ne« and raatrieting tha aYldanea to tha 
ainf^la iaaua ef tha patsmity of oomolsiinant. 

kt tha oloae of tha «vi<lenea the aourt gtntP ita opinion 
that oMvplslnant vaa tha aon af iUiea i<onglay hut tlvat tha o^idanea 
waa inauff loiant to proTa that hn vaa Itia aofi of Alhart. th9 da* 
tftrminatien of tha aourt waa largaly li^koad vipon iuf4»roAaeB that 
aartain lattara of aoaplamont vnich appear in evidanoa wara in- 
eonaistant with a filial ralaticnahip. 

Tha aolieltora for eoapliinant filad a ibatioi^ for Isave to 
•ubnit furt/ior avldanoa and irx rapport of tha niotiea aubmltted an 
nffidavit to tha off eat that eona aTid»noa had \,9«a diaoovarad 
alnea tha trial whioh it had not baan poaaihla to obtain in tisa 
l»y tha axareiaa of diliganoa, (snd that &a to tha othar •ri&etisi* 
thay had baan misled throunh tha rulings of tha court reatrlotinu 
tha rrldsnse to thoca lyattora strictly bearing upon tha iaaua of 
patamlty; that tha l8su«a of patortiity siuad undua lnflu«nea wora 
inaxtricably woven together and that fi^oto whieh couldl ha JTroduced 
•a to tha axeraiaa of undua influeiica by Mary Caroline Longlap 

• itt'fa teMi-iu't SkT9% 

^L'a 0!*n<srjtii#r<t»SiU /iaii.'a 9»4;»9 r,ta» 

M^l.-^.f hP"j»fi0 «»j-<»»ii-/« H!ii£>ffi«e<$ tti/^K tvf-rr^ nt -^Hict ^J'^t- 

iLw '<v.,.<<i {»^« a€t«M* itui^s^ti i^l^aXij-tt rx«^^«4i •••i^'^ ^t ^x. m 

4^' I alio* »/-<! 

«culc'. felBc &«ij;atiir« tb« Int «rpre tut IdB ]pli&e«d upon %he eorr«s- 
pondene* toy the eourt. Tk«y &ftk#4i X«ftT« to eubnit sueh «iri4«^}ce, 
but the KctlftS va« (ionltd, and a decree w&s ^tter«4 tii.£;i£iasing th« 
till of t'omplaint for w»Bt gf equity. 

IX is eefit«nd«d "by aoaplalnatit i» Ui«> flr«t }»Ii^e« that th« 
omirt •rr«4 in dir*etin« that the ia«u«« sheulvi be ««i>ar3it<!i<l. 1% 
ia ttrstdi that the issue of trheth^r eo»;^l%lK«nt wab eon ned heir 
should haT«i beeja raited liy a plea in abateneBt and that through thM 
failur«^ of defecidaiite to so pisad, tuad by aRsweriag tiaey wstiymA 
their ri«bt to have the icoues tried aeparttitely. 

'that thia iseue tttiould, onder tae ueual ehatioery ftraetiee 
in this Bt^te, haYC l>een raieed by aueh a plea in Als»teb«nt is, w« 
thifik, sustained by the aut^rities, atid the order direetisg a 
separn^te trial after seioh ylea h%d been «rai-«ed by filling afi answer 
was, ic our opinion, teehrically erroTiSoui}. %hAt«rv«r the praetiee 
may be in other states in « .ieh a eede of procedure has been 
adopted, the rule in tnls Stats is as abovs stated. S«e 3tory 
Z^uity ?leadic£s, 0th ed. , sees, 702-72», pp. g^^ggg; bitford's 
Qi'uieery Pl»adii^gs, sub«>seotion 4, se«. 2, ))«jrt 2; Futerbau^'s 
Oianeery Pleadings & Fraotios, Tth ed. , see. IM; tttroAtheiM v . 
liirlfley . 3S7 111. 434. Th# saav rule has been applied by the 
ttapreue eourt of this State where suit was brought by an unin- 
•srperated union, { y»anJtlln Union v. Peo ple. 220 ixi, 3&&; by a 
person averred to be insans ( fean^ert v, i^abicert. 232 111. App. 617) 
KRA by a party euin^ as trustee ( #i«caer t . I^tiyfel,. 179 111. se.) 

2" '^urc^heia v. Biricley . 237 ill. 434, an appeal was taken 
frosi a deorec entered upon the verdict of a jury finding the testa- 
trix of unsound mind, tiir>. issues being incapacity and undus inllu* 
enee. In the course of the trial defecdiantc aftked leave to ex- 
amine eompl»lnBat out of the presence of the jury to odnsldler his 
competency to bring this suit, the oourt suetaiaed an objesiioa 

-Mmttoa 9d4 aorta b9tnil' }9%qxniai f>cii oriiaj^^n 

91 .M^A-Z4»oo« •* .-.....•.-•.. ^«w««i t«.... . .V galt^*'... .... -■.•.../ , .»■. .^ 

ti»/i Jui£ Aoe »«w 5rt«al^X.'W3o Tfiff^^srfw 'ic '!».u««!i: iuii 'rffr h*»i[» «| 

!»««{«» ffs %Mi.'Li't -yea imvism <»»*Nf hfu *^in JtittuQ tp^\9 Xei«^ 9i,-9f*M)^m 

99lf9Miti »«i' ■-ft.-t^ici* %litnairis^9$ ,r5»l«iQe - . ■^iHr 

^u9Q ••8 ,fed^*ij.» *iraa*: «« ei '^^^^s «i;.-.jr iii mltn 9ti^ «ft«tq:«AMi 
«»^o't*l«i }ad5-«**« .-ere ,«9fiv-$t?v ,L»«f »88«il^«al^ x^^H^ 

•uCjt x«f Ai»li«r<r« «»•« wfflf ?t*i»< l^aif •' ,::. -..'-1'' 

(?ia .tytijM .ai 2«fi >l^aMiaaia ^y . j-.-u :^taji>4 ; «aa««l ♦«! •# fc^^iwva «le«nt*<i 

•«^««# •lit jifalf^Mlt t^ut « 'to t0-t^'}^ir 9Jii nat^u hi^Bttut 9w%»»h »> inntt 

iXif iwfti«a«o 9i> T^t *^ ^<^ ••«»«•%« 94{<l ^« ^i^a iaaai».it\iatii9 •oiiae 

•n th« ground tn%t hj pl«* eor hy animrcr v&« Ui« leftu« 

r&l89d. P?f@a<J&Rt« ttitm sjRlctd l<»ftTe te vlthdraw t>i« an««r-er and 

to ftle p} ;»a9 ^l«gifig thait Gomplaina»t wnis an all<m enoE&y, «ite. 

Leaf^ «■»• gr«nt«*4, Tifut. ru-^l* »»i«iwi ««r« i'lied, i^ jsotiea fey cons- 

plftln.'Wt to strike ih« $>!«»• vim sustained aoon h* ground th$,t 

thay J&Ad not fll9<1 in »pt tiio*. B^fcm^ftnta tlien fll«4 a/i aur/wer 

whlen, wita other iRatt<»r», ««t tt^ tJa« d«r«5s«B Wiileh had iBe^a 

stat««S in the strie^ en pl«a, but the sourt susliJLnei} exo^ptlonsi to 

thit p«rt di" the anew^r. th,* 'i^itreKd court esld: 

"siaeh avarPi'^nta »r« iti<»t {properly an wiawar *;o tha bill but 
theult!! ))• raiaad l»y vl^it'» tc th« p«>rscxi. (Put9rb«u|(h*8 Ch. £1. & 
Pr. — Sth ad.— IcO.) 'Plaaa t lih* peracns do not nee«««arUy Ua- 
l>ut* the Talldity of th« ri<,:ht« w- Ich are cRtula the aubjeet of tht 
claijn but tnay objact to th© ability of tJaa party to 9u« or b« 
au»l, '"'hey ar» of two kin4a: First, plaaa to the person of th« 
plmlntlff,' et«, , (Story'a e.<j. ^'1., aeo, 78;?) »io>' as t a plea that 
plaintiff is an a.i.l«n afiasy. (Ibid. aao. 7'M). i%e plaaa i& i^ut*' 
tlon ware pi««a t*? tha i*«raofi r»ri4 aJUould h-ive b*)ei* iilel in ?iOt 
titae* App9il4brit8 did not aaek to file these pleas until engaged 
In the trial of tho eaaae. Ihe oUauoellor h<fld that s^id ofiVr 
eame too lata aiad fitruoii: the pleas from tlie files. It «a« net an 
abuse of dlseretloa on tn« part of taw chmiceiior to atri.:»» the 
ple&a. Iney were dilatory pleas, sojd defendawts could not, »a a 
«4tt<»r Qi lifiiitf file thea on tij? trial of the case. P3 aae of 
inoHpadity to «ue ^re pleas in abatosent. 7hey do net go to the 
•erita of the bill but only ten^ to ;in thatasi-nt of the »ult. 
( Flsoher v . ^feiefel. 17» ill, 54*.^ She pleas should have been 
filed in tipt tixae, arA as apnallajrite ftili^-di ta do aa the chancel- 
lor did not 9vr ia striAxnt^ said pleas froa the files, Ltnoolp y , 
yci-auijthlin . 74 iil, IX; Dow r. l>lstite. 143 Id, 76; I'herax y . tftocica . 
149 id. Sift." 

In this eonneetion del'«i>'iants su^i^:e«t two Illinois cases. One of 
theoe Is Stone t. ^aliebttr^ . 809 111. B6, where a bill wae fil«d by 
an alle,i;od heir to contest a will, sm^ the defendants by their 
answer doriied that the oontestsnt was the daugiiter of the testatrix 
tmd est up ether defenses. Ths oause was tri#d as an entirety and 
vao aubnitted to a Jury on alX the isou«a^ whleh were found for de- 
fendants, ani there •!*ae a d«or«»e a«c«»rdln<;5ly. Upon appeal eoBolaln* 
ant argudA error in that the letRue of parentage wae aul%iitted to 
the ;)ttry, but the oourt er^ii that eomplainant i ade no notion to 
■eparate this issu* but volunturlly proooaded to subsilt all ths 

«»••! 9di mmv YirMoa x. 

1 stoii 


■'in» nM»4.^ mtntib,' 


;t j: 

fif *^i-jnrtz 

* R 

V I. Si ,V flr 


•sivdi tft/ «<■ 4^.-^.' ^um. , -i t4itmin<&9 ^^i.%imJi hm^lim «« 

IWkK xfttiam Oft «« b«&it9 (tttv ttBumtt «ii£ ^44»«a*'I»& "ffiNi^ra «S 9m» kp» 

«^-»- «f-ft-Nr /■»(* iftf,;, . •■ -T ■■ • ■ < i "J- Xt^Hfli^ ittiUt $titVt f'V''"'^ «r' *..-.< TJ1M* 'M-'* 

i«su«« te th« Jury su34 th%t «li« UL«r«for« ooul4 not %« h«&r<d t« 

Tli« other oas* i» 0Qr4»n y^ Uprde n. 2d3 lil. 132, trli«r« 
Aael]^ aor<S«n filei « t'«tition i^ Xh& County court iiraying that 
«& ortfcr ftdsiittlDg td prol&»t« th«t Ia«t win and t«f«tam«ijit of 
HuBdall Gordtn should be 3«t tt«14«« The 9«tltion a.verr«<i that 
Adolph Oor<l«a was th« toil tfi&d hoir of 4«a«ft8ed. Upon BM>tion of 
tl&O oxoeuters of tho will tho eaust vao S9t for ttvo diotlnot h(?ar> 
i«ga, tU« firot te bo upon tht ia«u* a« to viiethor potltiooevwas 
tho legit iaato •on of the deceased, and the eeeond te )»e upon t&« 
laeue aa te whether he had any iot««rest In the estate. 'i%« County 
eourt found the first issue against the petitioner stnA dismissed 
kis petition. As real estate was in-volved there was an appeal to 
the ^preasie oourt where the order was affirmed, but a oareful r«ad> 
ing of tke opinion fails to disclose that the praetiee was eon- 
plained of or discussed in any way. ^iTheee eaees while interesting 
are not persuasive. 

After a careful examination of all the evider.o« in this 
reeerd w« find that the issues as the esne were deT«»loped upon the 
trial were inextrieably woten together and thai a hearing at whieh 
the eridenoe mai9rial to both iesues was presented for oansideratioa 
would have nade pooRlble a suieh acre eatisf ictory re-view of the 
record. Xf defendants deeired a s«parate and preliminary trial 
upon the iseu» of par«ntagc, that issue idi^ould have been raised 
l»y a plea in abatement and by answering they walTcd Uxeir right te 
any such separate trial. The effect of the order allowing the 
aotion therefore wa» te give to <!efen'l*nta the b«n«(i'it of proced- 
ure to whieh under the pleadings in the ease they were not entitled. 
The court erred In allowing this motion and in refusing to set It 
•side. Mewewer, we would not be disposed te reverse for such a 
technical error were it act for the fact that a careful examiiistion 

#«fll salV"*^ ■ . ■ ■;-^: ; ' - . ■ . ; 

to noi^aM Oeqi .lt»UA»9«>l:> 'le -£i«>.. ...i. :i.>« AtU S«W C*^ f 

•i«9if #«crJl:^i>ih avl ii^'t ^vs m»v 9»»i/«3 ^;1;>^ XXiw tri^ to rnteJ- '^"^ 

a«m«taeild'i^»t 'tftiltAilw us a« l»lu^> -; : odi a«^t; fftf o^ jfYl't till .l.^^. 

;SllljrR9'S9#Rl ©XllS^ |t»«JP» 9ft*r"i •t*'- .3 fe»niil!»|^|f 

itoidr *« jajU-xjtfttf » i&'^i few* '»»j*J"i»j^v i i«olT JX'" 

«/(} I0 v^iif»« Xir0^)>«tiil^a« »70ie ;fftQ» » »Jttfla«<»«r •&«« •¥««[ {ito»w 
tMixi x^iAisimll»*iisi hti0> 9'i»t4n-^n k^rrinmh uitmhtstlfUth t% .Mi4M«« 

0iit ^ttivntijn fSio •Ai to l0«Tte drtX *X?2*i# »#*t«ir»ff {)o»» ta* 
.[M>i:ii:^a» #•» f»<sfl>«r x*^ •««<> v^ Al «»»iJMi«Xff MtjT %•^«l» /tetety 0* rUf 

©r th« wii«l8 record 4l«cio««« thiit th« result was a tubntantiftX 
Injustie* to cwBpl^lnaflt, 

Mi Qxtei^iod oral oplnioo ^rav i3«liv«r«A Iky tb« eOsijiaoellftr 
ai^d thlR has \i»«R ]^r«s«rT«4 in the redordi. Uis coaelualon from 
idl thfi «Yi<i«K«« v^e that $o«9lain>tat tras th« sea el' Alice . onglffy 
%ttt Uiat the «Ti4«aa« failftd to «ttablitth that iifl was tho son of 
iQ.)»«rt Longley* Hiis ooncluoioa minmn to taaiTe te««a laxgolji d«- 
torstno^i ¥y the f&et that in tho o^itiion ol tho ehanoollor certain 
lottors writtoB by eoaplainont to Albort Longloy failoi to aiacloso 
a filial offeetioB upon the doath of Alioo JLongloy* vltioh took plaot 
at lioajyeigolea, (#allfomi&, ^opteiab^r 115, 1927* It ie ap|(!isiLr«nt from 
tbo opi£iio« of tho eourt that th« oo&eluoion of th« ehoaeellor wao 
roaohcid <i!ft«r auoh heoit^tion. W« shall not undortak® to t^iseuoo 
tho <rrld[«rieo in do&ail nor «!>xpr eao an opinion U|)on tlio woight of 
it in ▼!«« of the oonoluolon to whien wo haTo oomo. It will Ise 
•uffioi«nt for tho purpose of tho opinion to aay that tho OTld:er^c« 
4iaalooos with oortalnty that aero than a yoar |»rior to tho doath 
•f A11»ert l.onglo3r ho and <lof <?ti<lHi t Mistry Caroline, hie widow, woro 
aa4o aw»r« of tho foot that eoapl^inant claimed to ^# tho eon «ind 
hoir by Alieo Longley. Tho owldonce tonda to show that tho lottors 
of eonplainant to Albert Longloy «oro supprooooi; that tht diteiro 
•f ooaplainont to ocu^unic&to with Albert Longloy wao donio^lj that 
ho w&o ojLOluded frc^ Uio hoao of Albert i-ongloy; that tho police of 
Paoadona wore sailed far tho purpose of keopins hia out of tno 
hoi«<s, «nd that he waa «tonottneo4 to tho publie authorittoa ao m 
iapootor. it aiao appooro that the aignaturo of Albert I'Ongley, 
tho tootator, waa obtained to m alleged affidavit whioh Maroh 11, 
If 3d. wae eent to tho Chiea^o Title ft Trust Co,, executor xmiXmr 
tho will. Thio affidavit in its own langaago purports to state 
"all tho knowledge that X have of one Ooorge Adair Or sen. " Without 
paeaias on thio affidavit or the weight of it, it will bo ouffieient 
to oogr that it <1oea not truthfully atato tho faeto aa disolosod by 

ju/f-i-f.- ' vij.'«*.-s waa it>ti7 si'.so. ftKifc fc^OfOT, 9ie£ir 9XU l* 

'to AM Mit «4iir «*i liuu iUiii<;f«tf&» o^ r^-^ltt.'t attmhir iai 

»acXc»alb of &»X1«1: <$«X^aca ^istfX^ ej J2%»i«li(JK;;a ^ xr <!t»i'l*l 

'9 AdlC^ 

, . ;jh«i»}«!> 

J ti^«)'i> 

.>i' J »ilf !• •lev* ^h»m 


ts»l»IVti<« Atf XXlw *1 ,rfl to #iT*hii*t« ■t'Si a« AA««I>«4 

aiB aY«rwh0lai{^ pr«sond«r«nee of %h.« «vl«l«ne« with r«for<me* te tbe 
r«latlonshi9 that •xlstedi betveen the t««i»tor, Al^«rt 1-ori^ley, and 
•OKplaintrnt from his «*rllest /e«r« up to tUc tlKe> ef tl)« d«&tli of 
JbLl«=4HM^»r A11g«, whi«h took plaa* at l^o«Aiig«l*« a« 8t?it«d aboY«. 
It It In eux' opinion inoot Inportant to aseortain a» far as pet- 
ollblo th« elreumstHneoo un4or vhleh this affidavit caiao into ex- 
iot«neo aa^ th« mental ..n4 phyolcaX c«in<iitlon of the teotat&r at 
tho tlKO It wae ma4o. Indoci, the faott and cLreu?aiit«ncoo In thio 
rogard froja t'*.o tliao of tho cxoeutiOB of thl» will and with refeir- 
«»to to tho influenooo brou/rht to t«ar upon Albert X^ongloy ar«, ao 
wo ooneoive thwo, laiportant not alono upon tho lsau« of vhother 
on^Tue lni1u«riC# vas uft«d in ordor to luring about t^o ox«6utlon of 
tho will amd oddloll, hut i^lae apon tho lisouo of tJtte parantage of 
OMiolsiiBant . All thooo faoto ooTor a mum loao p«rlod of tii9.e thaan 
that whleh vnao co-vorod in tiio odadoaver to aocortaiii tho facta in 
roH«^d to complainant *o parcnt^t^o. 

It la ohvioualjr unjuot tiiat ooskplalnnnt Ohvuld 1>« put to 
tho oxp^noo of tno lao suit* when only ono will ouffieo. In tl^o 
ondoavei' to csoniino tho Isvu^o tc th«» tingle ono of parcntago, 
«uoh eTid«Nrtoo i?aa excluded which in our opinion should hairo hoon 
admlttod. ^o ohould alao, vt think, point out tho ovldonoo of tho 
vitnoao Buttolph which should, in our opinion, haY« boon ad££dtt«d 
In •Yidofioo; al»o th® wrltton 8tai«£.ent of Hob«rt ^remi with T0i'» 
er»£!io« to the paronta^e of coMplainant. (Coaiplainant *« oxiiibit 
1C$.) 1130 oTldonoe of Olaylota Jbumld^o alto should ho admittod 
for ofeatOTor It 1» worth. 

Sot WKly do ^^o thiaJi that this causo it oao whora in jus* 
tlo« to all the partloa tho Issuos ohouid havo hooc tried togotaor, 
Taut wo also b^iievo tnat concorning tho iotuo of parontago tho 
ohaaoeiior saight well have taxon tho advic© of a Jury, The Ian- 
Citaso of tho 3upro»o oourt la a muofi lost iaiportant oaoo, Maiafiii 
▼.<. Paino, 48 ill. 35t , i» applloafcie horoj 


. -- . -JOll hls:^*H 

i." ft;A.i-« ♦ 

,.» * i u< 






-'tin: Ailv smart- 




*THi« i« nf thftt charactar of a«««a *h«r« th« shanoellor 
•hould r«3iuir« sit icsu« of faet ^o 1»e fo^Hied, and tric«d Isy a jury. 
In auch m ooni'llst of evid«n««, mud wher* th«re is su(^ uneertalnty 
%B th«r« li!> In fhlB eeta«, th« laaue mfvy well »•» nulaitt^'l to a jury 
for their <i«»t«»rfntr!'ar,ioii« It in "ritflin tJia dl»or«tion aJ' tiie ohan- 
oollor, at any tint* "bt^fcra a <leoleiori te arrlvad at, to r«qulr« 
•HCh "Oi l©!»u«> tD ^jc forri«d. Wh«r« the wrldenaa la aentradllctory, 
d»p«>nA» upon slight plreimst&nces, the veracity of wim«09?«a la in- 
▼oivod, »Tid wV:«>re th« csatinsr, inteliibonoc an4 roiation cf wltrissooa 
to a oaoo, «i4«t feav? th«lr proper 'r«iaht, it is hii.' deelrablo 
that th« i9«a« £hOw.X4 be tried by a jury. ** 

Th» roeord ohe-ws oomo oicllVful r«jaelng betWAoa opposing aoun- 

••1 upon th<i itvopssitioa to vaiTo tua inooi^ipotouoy of the partita 

und»r th« statute und portuit thorn to glYo thoir tootinony. Xho 

doeiaioB at vhieh wo haTo arrived will enahlo theso parti «o to cntor 

into suoii a^reeffioct if it in fuct io deoirod. 

i'or tho r«aoon« wa haT« in^ieatod tho <i«ftroo of tho trial 

ecurt wlli ho rc'vorcod axk-i^ tho oauoo romandod with dlrootiono to 

take th« 3Vidl«ne« on hotii laauoo and oubHiit t.h«%eo iosuoo to a iury. 

KWmaam AAD HSiUimKP WIXM !3IllSi;'iI0£S. 

MoSurely, ?. J. , concur 6. 

' . Vr. Juptlco c 'Connor opfccijilly ooncurrlRg: lo »y owlBlon a 

■or» sotiefactory <1ftcleien oooll bo arrivod at if all tho (rvidenee 
•Jfi hoth ioaueo woro btforo the eoart. The two ioaueo were wavnn 
teget:iier ani %xx» «Yi(lsnoe aa to what trariapirod during the laat 
few yoarn before ^ilhort died would be pertiuant on both iBauea. 
'er thie rcaeoA alone I ooncur in the oonelUMlene in the feregoinc 


(ij >3h\:l'*i-*'i ■ ;-vMiw ♦«.! liW f? !i iv>v?i«i i^jf rii- j^lja;':> 

. ■■ . rSiM knit aw*v!3i* :, 


PKOPLK Oif STATS 0» lLJLliiOl3, ) 
£>«f9ndant in Urror , ) 

) SRStOR TO UmiClPAh ci(|ws? 

Y.. I 



Plaintiff In Srror. ) 

26 8 I.A, 629 



This is ont of thr«9 eaB«»« ecnaolidat«<t for jaoaring in th« 
trial court and in tltit court. Ihft luform»tlon fllod on Qitpttmher 
S, 1931, in oash •*•« «harg«^ that in January of iho saao year de- 
tmnAmnt unlawfully, knowingly and wilfully onooura^od tha boy 
naaad in this easa, Curtis Usars, to boeoBio a delinquont child in 
that "ho, th« said Dunoan Tum«r, did uarbor vurid Icoep the said 
Curtis ii^ears in a club houss An ArdiMore airenuo and Indian road, in 
tho City of Chieago, undsr tho suporrislon of !?aid Ihjunoan Tumor, 
aad did oause Curtis ae«r» to eojta^iit indeoont and lascivious acts 
and eonduet." Thoro wars motions for a bill of particulars and to 
suppress certain oYld«nco, \soth of whieh voro deniod. i>«f«ndant 
vaiTSd trial by Jury, and thoro vas a trial by tU<% court with a 
finding that defendant was guilty as aiiarged and jud^;m<i(Ct that he 
pay a fine of $20C and stand coiottitted to the House of Correction 
until the sane vas paid. Defendant refu&ed to accept an offer of 
the Judge to be put on probation. Prior to the entry of juags'^nt 
■Otiens for a n«if trial «n4 in arrest of jud.jaent were overruled. 

It is earnestly contended that the notioi' to suppress 
should have been allowed for the reasfm tixat th(> eTid(!^nos, which 
ecneisted of certain photographs a^reinafter considered, was ob« 
tained by the iitate through an unreasonable search and seiture. 
The pietures wore found in defendant's poi»sessioB. They were taJcsn 
without a search warrant and, tirie evidenea for defendant tends to 




• •V 



-vA W»\ •ma AXirf' 'to tn^>ii«Ml^ nl t^tii tes^i*.i8 •««$; rioii» el ^ll^l ,C 

a>ft« 8A^<»2vj: ' jit»&9f:al Si^iU:Ui9 9^ a-im^'^ HiititO ••U£9 

ei ttoo •xsiiiOl^'Xitq lo iXiti « lot tifioiSc» '»'i<»w «t»£l7 * .ivmSfnoo incur 

.fi»>«Sfcwt "id ^7#xt9 (kinti «i yoIyH .netiAdQ'tq no ^yq »J o4 «j, 

do^ffv ,««a»l>lvt viU jmtii mtMBi »itt tot ftowoXl« aootf ovail Mwo^Ui 
•<fo ■«* ,iiotol>Jl«aoo •Lti'tmal^xtii ^Mxyts^ai 9A«i niAlYOo le boislasoo 

n»iii3 ttTsiv v,'^oT .aol«&}«. oa a';tnurftai»'kok ai bovol otow ■•ncuiaif aiCt 

•hov, vitheut his oons«xU and by I'orae. Xii« police olTlciaJi, 
hc^sYer, t«Btifi«4 that d«f«&4iuat eonevnted, and thtt court ap- 
parently l^elisTVd thoir testimoDy. liew«Ter, th« matter is not la- 
portMit or osntrolling in Ti«« or tho eonelueion at wtaloh «e haTt 
arrlTod after a oonsidsratlon ol' all the «Yidexiee. 

There Is praetloally no conflict in the «Tid«rioe. Defend* 
ant, an aee. untant out ol «fiploy%^«tit, and ovaer of property at 
S453 Kosedale aTsnue in Chicago, in Mareh, 1930, sponsored and 
caused tc be iiacorporated an orgarilsation known as the "^fhltehnll 
Athl»tic Clttb." The ebjeet of the srganisation was Btat<^ to be to 
prosaete the aoral and spiritual valfare of its moi&bers. the meaiber* 
ship ol' the clab sonsieted of boys under seT^nteen y<»are of ags anA 
of beys excljeively. Girls wer-' not admitted to Besibership. A 
elv^heuse vas leased in oloee proxiisity to def en<}ajat *s hofe<f, sm^ 
the actlTltl'ifS of the club seea to have been under defendant's 
aanagvaent and direction. A number of pictures of boys in the nuds 
wsre taken and sobs of then hung on the walls of the clubhouse* 
froB these boys and under the dli-ectien of defendant a so-called 
"Polar Bear Glu^** was orgai>iaed. Xhe Betabers of thie club were 
BCSUStoBeA and expected to brave the wintry storms »nd snows un- 
Slothed. SoBC of these pictures, as already stated, were hung up 
in the elubrooBS to whicu, the evldenee siiows, the fathers and 
■others of BKUiy of the boys were frequent visitors. 

?ef «i< lant testifies tJiat the obVot of the pictures wa« to 
point out to the boys that they BUst be decent in Bind »nd body, 
and that ths pieturss shewed that they were all el^^an, decent boys. 
Hs further testified (and his testiseny in this respaet is not 
contradicted) that one of the boys who testified against hia w«s 
put out of the club for being quarreleoae aad using bad language; 
that another of the boys ooBplaining was put out of the club be* 
sauss dsfen<iant saw his "runniag around in a iCord and picking uy 

.tUioIVio •eiXof BAt .#»T«'t x4 bam 4a»%nMk »txk iwaiiXiv ^v^ds 
»qm txuoa •dt bam ^hitiamaa^* ia*ta»\9b imdt ti«nii«*A ,7«r«»«il 

,i?o.«ti.: V = -^r.^ XXi» lo aakimrtii t'-^ ^tz h^rlitm 

fens ft«io«iioa« 4i>£0X ^i^iAiA ui ,o)%i»«i.'iO ni «t-»«% 
,.■- nrf as hnimie in^n a^ti»%Xa^u^9 .' i&tttrfiA 

.•ftuedtfvXd AiU 1« «XX«1 •x(t Oc ?ii»« 

MC«v rfBle si-i'U "if, »t;«tfj;a^«« «*l* 
Hi. -^a^'i •xm-et ,b9iAi» \L-:e^%^^ '0X0 

,XA«tf htm Aal« tsl iai»99tti 94 i»hUA x«<{J ^«AJ »\ 

" < »(Ul>•«^ (JW^X* XXs *«*w ^•iM ..''«4i' ft*v«if« ••'ii»«<..i« w..« V..,. ^.^. 

^oa aX Jratqaift ai/l* ol x««a"»t«* «*«! *«« ) ^" ■-'•+ latiiiul •I' 

•«^ oirf ^aaXjQiic MXli*«»4f <Miw ai^tnT tJU U •00 .-. ,:^*aX^«1l;^Il•o 

:*^usaffl h»4 a«il«u ftoe attdtXaviJMti^ t«>^tf f'% tflfX* ftfil ta ^u« is^ 

^*i tiaf'-. «.,<( ic^ -UM iuK «iiw ]iaXni«X9io» at<><f •'U tt,'xaiUaiia IajI^ 

strangs trirla,* Mat! told him h« vc^uld havt to g«t out of th« club; 
that another v'ltnftsfi was put out ei' th« club «^h»n dofendMnt foun4 
he h«d stoloa books, and that h« waa «u»j»«nd«d for ajsaoking* 

Our attsntlen has boen dllr«ote4 by th« St^te to eertaln 
lett«ra written by def<siiant to on« el' th« parenta ^onpltkinlng 
against hla, whieb inllcate that a eontroversy ezi»ts4 in reg.%r4 to 
ths failurs of some of ths boys to pay th«lr dues, and an sx«!:>lna* 
tlon of th«a shows ths sans to b« of a very abuslTS eharactsr. 
Ihsss lettsrs ar« abusiys in the «jttrems, but in no ssnss indeesnt. 

Ths long tias vhieh sl&pssdl betvsec ths taking of thsss 
pieturss snd thh tiK« of filing eoai^lalst indicates to us that ths 
awral wslfars of ths cosaunity was not at tha basis of th«se proas- 
cut ions. Ihsrs is no proof in this reeord titat any one of tnsss 
boys sver bseans in fast dslinquent witnin ths meiu. ing of ths 
statute. 9s ars awars, hovsTsr, that ths actual fast of suoh ds« 
linqu«ney is net a nscsssary slsmsnt of ths erisie hors charged. 
( Psoplff ▼. <U,ya«t , k . S07 111. 18v,) ]>eTsrtholsss, it is nffcesRary 
that the spseific crlats sharg<»d in ths inJiosiixmt b« proTSd ( ^'eopl ,f 
Tft, PVL* ^^^ ^1^« !^^2) , and ths spseifio alls«iation hsrs is that ds- 
feniant knowingly and wilfully was guilty of acts which tsndsd to 
sauss ths dslinqu«ney of thsss boys, in that the eonduot to which 
thsy wsrs psrsuadsd by hist was indsesnt or lasciTlous. Xhs taking 
of a picture of a boy unclad «hers ns aie^ib^rs of ths othsr sex ars 
within Tlsw has n^yer, so fnr as ws are awars« besn held to be suoh 
an aet, and! a picture of an unclad fe&ale was held to be not of 
itself indecent in Gity of Chjoaj^o v. Jackson . 187 ill, App. 244. 
la Rsx V. Crun^sff ,. 3 Caapbell's iieports, 98, a man who wmt in 
VwiKffiiag unclad within visw of hon^e of faa^iliss was held guilty 
of an inlietabls offsnss at eottiMon law, and that sush is the law ws 
haws no doubt. 

Aside frc« ths undisputsd fast that these pieturss wsrs 

hsiuo't JaBl>Jso1»b M/i" '^i'f'^ •lit 'to *tfo *»«t «** «ii««ilw •r»jH:i(M« t*iCi 

.I»l9«aji4« •visMd* v:;'xft? >' ot <ifi!6* tjl^ 9v»d9 xdfU 'o noli 

•8«ci;^ 'tu jiflilfi* »iW av^wt^i^ ic.cci'^^v . vidw jIjbI,^ §aoI t«{I 

03 k*bii9$ sLulsiv ##M 1« t^I^'i'.r; «4r» '^XXlf^XXv bOtt Y,Xa»iJu««aai ^tiA^ii«'i 

ifD«« •«( 4^ l»X»4 0m»<i f^iM^m 9tM «fr oi) tal; oa ,%4»T*n •«/{ ««1t alritt-w 
't« li»tt tf^ o4r bJLwA s«« «X«a«l j^Xdeu? 'xo to »iK.'t»l« a ban ,l9A tia 

,Ht^ ,(t^A .XXI rex ,f«>»,4^^, ,«y,jailHi?,lj<^ JjB...yUS «* ta»»»Anl tXoail 

•w v«x •:U ai xiava t«il4' bmi ,v«X iia<:^a» J« •««»Tto altfa^aifrAi at 'io 

,t'(iu9h ea airiiM 

taken of the boys unela4, thers Is ae sug^astlea In tlis record of 
an iBdceont act or vords by this dofftudant. 

Tht Judges of this oourt may not agrso upon tho question el* 
ii)t«th«r Buoh an orgaiiiaatlon w^s eon^uclro to tho moral welfars 
•f th« youth, but that is net ths question vhieh we are here oalXed 
upon to deeide. The question is w^iether defendant is guilty of a 
crime as defined by the statute (see Lavs of Illinois, 1915, p. 36@) 
and as charged in the information. In the determination of that 
question this conTiotioa eu^t net to be allowed to stand, unless 
this defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Applyint. that 
rule and resolving erery reaeoaable doubt in favor of defendant, 
as it is our duty to do, «e nold that he was not j^uilty of the 
•feoifis offense charged mi that the Jud^iBient i^ould be reversed, 

MeSurely, P. J,, concurs. 
//O'cSnrior, J,, dii^sents. 

,ln«^s;l•t«^ jcdueuf*! x^**^ 9aiTXgsi»': boa •X^/'X 


»OP2.8 OF T1C2 3TAXe^ OF ILLI^Ola, 
Defeniilant in Srror, 


Plaintiff in Krror. 


) 07 CiilCAOO. 


26 8 I.A. 630 


Thi« cftse is 0B« of thr«« whieli ««r« h«ard teg9th*r in 
thft trial court and eonsolidatod for hearing in this eourt. Xho 
faoto and the lav applioablo h%T« been conalderod in an opiition 
thia day riled in easo ho, 36000, and for th« reasons atatad in 
that opinion tha Jud^a4>rit in this casa is also reversad* 


HaSurely. i', J., ooncura. 
O'Connor, J., diaaanta. 



. •OAOIii:) '\o 


080 .A.I 8 as 


{<80 ^H' 

;js;iii sransui 

nt %«4^&ijB»'^ Ibxu'S'il 9-KAV iidl^iw vA^iiUr 't« ftao ni ••£o aJtif^ 




Defendant in Erro 

?: ! 


Plaintirf in I.rror. 

liBftOE TO UUiilCIPALiaa 
07 CBX6AQU. 

26 8 I.A. 

as. J03XICB lUTCUSTT Di^<IVSIii<!D THK QPliilOa Oif tm COUiiT. 

This •»•• is one of throo whieh voro heard tegother in 
tilt triiQ. court and consolidated for hearing in this eourt. Tho 
faeta and the law applicable have been ooneldered in an opinion 
this <1ay filed in eaee i<o. 36009, and for the reaeona stated in 
that opinion, the judic^ent in this ease viil also be reTorsed. 


MeSurily, P. J., concurs, 
O'Connor, J., dissents. 



,lf*;..vir> ,n'J Hilt ,liilkil<3.5 W,~ (TSSSCVSUm ~£T:mVJrA^ ^QIIl^I ..i.;' 

tmlalme tun ai h^tB^it^a^^ n»9di 9ywi «l4£i»3Ll^<^^:» 9ikl •sttif btm «f9jrl 

at M#«#« amatuMt •tH %9t bm ,«00M ,o^ •««« nl h^^xn Xf^l «ii{t 

«l^#i>»n»irfkv (stf ««£e Xilv »«jsc( nii^^ ill la«j;^.&i;it ni^-^ «a«lal<ro t^ui;} 



«. A, MOWSR, 

Defendant ifi Irro 

. 1 


Plaint iff In Brror. 


26 8 I.A. 6f3o^ 


)i^ thin action wa« before this eourt on a fomer aj^peaX - 

fce wer t. Wlrtha , 2#4 III. App. 620. The aotion was brought in 
eaae for injuriea vhich plaintiff euet&ijaei on June 13, 192d, when 
the oMtoreyele upoil which he wae riding eollided with an aatos}0> 
1>il« owned by defeadant. The collision oeeurred at the interaee« 
tiea ef Jsekaon bouleTar<i, a public hi^way ruiuiing eaat and weet, 
and Springfield ayenue, another publie highway running north end 
•euth, in the city of Chicago. The declaration ehargee general 
Beglig«nce in eeToral eounta and in the tuird paragraph of the 
• eeend count ohargee defendant "eo wilfully, wiu;tonly, reekleeely 
and unlawfully droTC, nanaged, controlled and operated hits Raid 
■otoreycle* that plaintiff wae injfured, etc. 

At the cleee of all the evidence Ji^fendant moTOd the court 
for an instruction in hie faror, which wee denied. He also noYCd 
the court to direct a Terdiet in hie faTor as to the second count, 
which averred wilful end wanton neglij^ence. This motion wee also 
denied. The court thereupon at the request of defendant, in addi-> 
ticB te the ueual fonae, gave to the jury two foms of verdict 
eevering only the eecond enuat ef plaintiff's declaration, RAinely, 
irtiether defendant wa« guilty or not under the second count. The 
Jury returned a verdict finding defendant guilty generally and 
dsseseing plaintiff's dasoage at the sum of »X&,000, and also re* 
t«med a verdict finding defendant gui> ty under the second count. 
There were siotioi.s for a new trial and that the speeiaO, verdict 
returned under the eecond count should be set aside, *hieh were 


ziiDO Muonot or nonm 


A**ir"Q 5^0 .Tot-s^J at YtltalmlH 

ai ^d^uotd AAV noijo« oiti: ,0^6 .40( /S^s; «•«Uflt^H'„^T.J'Jl?*^ 

lia» &S*toiit Haimii/t ii;«wit:,Jcl¥u^ %nti: i«Te frXsill^aliqd j&a* 

Xlas«XA«»t ,tXno^a»w ,^Xivlil« M*" #flMl>a»1to]b ni^tMito $auc9 brmtftB 

lT»'>s 9/1^ t«T«tai tnttsaltftS; •9H»i»lT» »d7 XXf ?A 

Ik*tr9« «tXj* aii .fcwlitsft saw rislAir ,tovAl Mlti ui ii«>liii.nS&»l «m Kot 

«MtX« ■«» aal^oo! alfH; .Mom^lJtXata flwliuir hOM X&rlXlw |airt*r« ifsiifv 

#ptb«»v t« cartel ovi \tut ^' 3^ arss ,tino1 Xattcu %Ai 9$ atli 

.^Xaoen ,a«Xiirr«X»«b «*ttl4al£X^ t« ^^nweo *•««•• ftji} x^'"^ »alv»veo 

•<fT .:rawM» fc«»t6a BAt rtlMu #•« 10 ifiXlvs mmv ia^hwtmh fxit^A^ 

koM xllMftiB^ t^Xlva in«ba*tab anIJnXt t^ikx*^ « Mniu^tt xxul 

••I mX« Ma ,000, aX« to mua aili 1« •^t/mmt »*TLltiiitLn aai»**««« 

.lotfoa ftaa»«a adt tabAf x^'-^^S iaahiaat»J» nJtJ'nit loibiav « ftaotvl 

#all^i»r Xaieaqa •dS $MiiJ hnm l»ti* wan »■ oUeai atav at«r(T 

«Tow siald^i ,9hi.mjit i*« arf liiXuarf* inuatt I>noa#a aril Yaboa IMimidav 

ev«rrul«4, «• va« • notloB 1»y jftfecrlmnt in arrest of jud;^4M3t, aB4 

••eondl App«al h&t b««n p«rf«ot*d. 

It tiiua api»«ar« that two ^uri«« haTff pa«e«d upon tHo It- 
■u«« lbotw««n th«o« pttrtloo, both of whieh havo found a»f«n(tfant 
guilty c>f negll|?on«« aotd one of which tea* founS hia guilty of 
wilful and wanton nagligoneo, an^ theao vordiets haTe boon approved 
by two trial judgAS li^o oaw and heard thf> wltnesseo. An Appeilato 
tribunal la undar auoh eiroiaast^t^cea reluetant to r^t-vmrnt a Judg» 
«•»♦• iiarie»vl<^. A4B»*ai ▼, Atoniaon. Xopaica > a . ?. Ry, Q^., 263 
111. i^»|p. 1. An oxaralKtsition of the briefa of the partiea and the 
opinion of the eourt filed in the foraer appeal dlaolooee that no 
point wae made by the partl«a with r»f(<!renoe to wUfui and wantoa 
negligenee. Xhe eaae wae tn«refor« preeented by the parti ee and 
eoneidered by the court on the theory tha\^ it wae neeeasary for 
plaintiff to affirmatlTOly prove that at and Juat prior to the 
tiae he wae Injured he waa In the exereiae of due oare for hie own 
aafety; in other worda, that he waa not guilty of contributory neg- 
ligence. In that opinion this court etatedi 

"It is urged in behalf of defendant that the verdict of the 
jury eonflieta with the clear weight of the, and we are of 
the opinion, aftor a oonaideration of it, that plaintiff did not 
prove • whioii it waa nAoeeeary for hln to do - that he wae in txie 
exereiae of due care juet before anj at the time of the accident in 
whien he waa Injured. We reach thia oonoluaion, aenuuing hie own 
teatlA^ony e^ivea a true atid correct narration of the oireuaataneea 
under whieh he received hie injuries, ^e eaye that he could aee 
the autoitobile of defendant aa it approached frou the weat. Ule 
view waa unobstructed, but he dose not aay th%t he dlid anytrUng 
vhia^ would in any way tend to prevent the colli eion. It waa juat 
aa anach hie duty ae it waa the i^ uty of deferi'jant to be on guard 
and to uee reaeonable dilit^tmoe to Uie «ad that the eolllaion night 
be prevented. •>** 

^ov the reaaon tnat tiie verdict la olsarly $«nd manifeatly 
(iSmlnftt the weight of the eviienee »o far as tha care on the part 
of plaintiff la ocnceroed, tiie Judgiaent oi' the trial court la 
reveraed and the oauae re^an^ed for a new trial." 

An exayaination of the t'oriti^r record diaeloaea that by 

neither of the partiea waa the plaintiff queetioned aa to whether 

he did anything juet prior to the happwaing of the aooiient and 

wh«i it beeaae apparent to hia that it waa abaut to occur for tha 

ham ^tmm^ihui to H»ttm ol ttrnhfitottk^ ^ ttait^m tt «^« «» «e>*;iftn«tT« 


. ♦»« 


,ii«n ntfXfiiXloo »iij i«iU liiW •x)f a. 

ir^n 9ii1 iSf; -'li i) -s*; ,' .>« -..1 -.y #>,; -rcilMf^ 

■ 'la 

purpose of 9r«Y<»n ting Its ooeurrcnoa. Upon this tlrlal plaintiff 
was questioned upon that point waA guyf evidence tfmdiui^ te sbev 
that h? eadoavored upon ascertaining that the aooidlent was i^snl- 
aent to decrease the speed of his aotoreyole in order to prevent 
it. !Ihe sole reason therefore for whleh the o&use was roTereed oa 
tlM f(trm«T appeal is eliminated i'rosi thin record. 

It is earnestly contended by defendant that the court 
)d9teuld have giren the Instruction requested at the elose of the 
evidene« to return a T«>rdict for defendant and further that the 
verdict retamed was against the clear weight of the eviienee. If 
«t had heen of the opinion that plctintiff eculd net recover as a 
natter of law, the cause would net have been remanded upon the 
foraer afipeal. the opinion then rendered reviewed the evidence 
in detail. Ve did not find the verdiot ae^ainat the weight of the 
evidence so far as the negligence of defendant was concerned. The 
jttdipient was reversed solely because it was agalnat the wol^t ef 
the evidence on the ieeue of due care by plaintiff. We did not 
find the verdict of one jury to %e against the CYiderice on the 
lesue of defendant's negiig<mce. We cannot now hold differently 
when two verdiota of guilt have been returned. A detailed review 
•f the evidence was given in the tursitr opinion. 

The qu«Btion of whether t!;ere w«o any evideKoe fr««a which 
the jury aould find defendaist guilty unler the second count, wLlch 
charged wilful ad wanton negligence, is, however, now raised for 
the first tine iti this court. Aasu£ilng th»t there was no evUonee 
tending to suetaia the second count, this alone would net cowpel 
» reversal of the judgaent since the other counts (^re »ufflci««t 
to sustain the judgir'««t. Scott v. ParlJn . 245 111. WO; Price v. 
gailey . 865 HI. ApP. 358. 

The question, howerer, of whether there was any evidence 
froa which a jury could find that the injury which plaintiff sus- 
tained was wilful and vantoa as charged in the second coitfit is 

1 1 .f»ea5J iyr; '-.. 

'^9tiA aoqu b»tom»ha§ set I'AiCI 



ijj« no I 

liui^if fiui^Vi.- 

. :/u£i>a»1t»l> to •tmMli 

,„. 1,;.-...;: - . .. , 

.^ J 

, „- .„ .t4i 

♦•Msr, .ftf*. .rii 8»t .xijUAi 

r»ls«d on this record by th« notion te set Aslde th« vordlet of 
thft Jury returned a« U th»t couat. ^q,^m T., ^-,*^'^'fi..?U» ^^S® m^* 
Apr>. 544. 

On this Issu* there ^aa i^ sharp coiaflicrt In tim vriA^natt, 
Th.m theory of plaintiff vat (and th« OTldenoe twnded to show) 
that jttrt prler te th« ao«id«»t defendant waa drlTlni; hit auto»a- 
liila aaat en ^^aekeon healeTard «ne, south of Ui« oi^^ter line ef it; 
that hf a9]9roaehed aprlutf leld avenue, as intereectlng street, and 
when aheut 7S feet veat of It he ereseed to north of the ooiter 
and atopped; that there were ne stoi^ll^jhta at the Intereeetlon; 
that ('laiatlff waa at the aame tiae approaehlag thla interaeotloa 
froa the eaat riding hla moioreycle oii the north side of J:»ek»cn 
bouleY&rd tuad near the north eurb; th«t the weatl^ound trafflo at 
that tlae of the day waa very heavy, whloh defendant knew; that 
nevertlieleaa defendant auddenly cut aeroaa Jaekaon houlevnrd in 
front of thia veatbound traffic &nd near the northwi^at eomcr of 
the interaeetlen, aaklag a l«fthand turn in front of the etrean 
•f iraffie at a dangcroua rate of epe<«d. The jury waa appar«>totly 
eonvlaoed that the aeeldent occurred In the aianner deaorlhed hy 
plaintiff, and we eatinet aay that the finding waa wholly tm- 
reaaoneble. If the aeeldent happened In tiiat way, the oareleaa* 
aaaa ef defendant waa ae groae aa to Indicate a mind re,vardle8a 
•r eonaeiiuenoea to othera. At leaet. It was a question for the 
Jury whether hie n«gll(i[.enoe was or waa not of that kind. The 
jury found It ao to he, and we cs&nr.ot aay either that th«r« waa 
tta ewldenee to euataln It or that the evidence manlfeetly and 
dearly preponderates the other way. the fons of verdict ealllnc 
apea the jury to determine whether the negligence of defendant 
waa wilful and war^ton waa autaitt«d at defendant *a ret^ucat. tha 
practice was unuaual , but defeudaot la in ne position to coaolaln. 
The queatlon aa to the kind and eharaoter of defendant "a ne^iligenee. 
If any. waa for the jury. iLU I Hay v. Hawh. 890 III. App. axa; 


;n0iJe»«t'X«.: •■■. ••- ■ ■ . ■ 
-•tax«T«© «»iiji .^'^ 

. toa 0iU i««a ba^ l»i«T»X»«){| 

' "1: kotfdrf^asw aiiiJ to ^aoict 
.al:ii»8i ^acit999ti^iaX 9tii 

.'i^n i9a.im9 «»w Ihau .llij^aiAXf 

iS^fiisa*'. ^fi;f tJ .ttXtfjiaoaAAt 

■■' '■..■■ .T !uihitn't»b to t«*a 

Itoo \Xir .;..i-;..r..;r .-1 «e<K»iyiv« •« 

.aLiXfMM tJ^ aoi^lsciiT on ak ti tamba»1*ib inKi ,Li*jiBvmi •«« cviliMiif 

,»«<M]tila*a •*^fluibA!!>t«ii lo xp$9»y»iin ham bal:i •At ijf •» aollt««ii •ilf 

jSM .<T(|A .XXI oe« ^^froa .y itaXiIXi .-i .fiut •Hi »et ««« .>t«« 'll 

»^M<o, ,T« Q *.^^lftG&ISUf 2«0 111. App. 544; Bucjc ▼. Al9,^, 263 til. App, 
886; StliTg T. .»9i,ffg ^ 267 111. Ajap, 23, 

W« find flo r«y«raibl« itrror In the rtoor4 audi the Judipaent 
ia affimed. 


M«£}arely, ¥» J., «n<l G'Cennor, J. » eonour. 

!a \X tSjV 

psoFi*g or nts stat?. of Illinois, ) 

]7«f«ii4ant Ia iSrror« j 

14KM 0«3TSFA1£0» 

Plaintiff In Hrror, 


26 5 i.A.^63o 


Uipon trial Ity th« ooarl, » Jury having; l»e«n »iftiT«<t, 
4«f«nd«nt (plaintiff in error) oxi May 3, 1952, wa« found guilty 
of being ^ vagaboBd. it^otions for a n«ir trial and in arraat having 
boon ov«rrul«d, defdn<}act vaa sentouoed to six aontht iMpri«enB)«nt 
in tho iicuse of Corr«otion. It ic artt,«d for reversal that the 
«videno« waa vhelly insufficiont to proTO defendant's guilt beyond 
a reasocabl* doubt and thai tho inforiuatioa upon whieh h« waa triad 
vaa insufficiect. 

Hi* prooaeution wae undar aeotion 270, chapter Zii, of the 
Illinoie Kevised Statutes. (3Bith>aurd*s 111. Hot. State., chap. 
33, see. 27G, par. 578.) The information, filed jfebruary 13, 
1932, charged "heretofore, to-«it, on the 11th day of February, ^.D. 
193S, at the 'wity ef Chicago, aforesaid," defendant va» an Idle 
and dissolute person irao went about begHing, used juggling and 
other unlawful gasies and pli^ys, was a runaway, a pilferer, a eoc- 
fidenoe stan, a ooau^ion drunkard, «^ ooixiiben nijE;at walker, a lewd, 
vanten and laseiTious person in speeeh »nd behavior, a eosuaoa 
railer and brawler, was habitually negleetful ef iiie eiaploysaent 
and ealllng, did net lawfully provide for hisieelf end his family, 
was an idle and dissolute person who neglected ail l>iwful lusiness 
anA did habitually misspend ais tine by frequenting houses of ill 
fasie, gating houses and tippling shops; that Ue lodged in and was 
found in the ni^ht tlae in an outhouse and in the open air without 
giving a goo'? account of hisiself ; taat he was a thief, * burglar, 
a pickpocket, having no lawful means of support, and was habitually 


^g^ ...i ddi^ 

,£X x'V«^' '('=='» *^ ibci'v «.'iv^i: jAumo'iiRii ^fTX { .679 .'»({ ,0^'$ .a^t ,&? 

fMNBtol«M» Bi-t^ t« XiA;l0»Xa«o tXX*u9i«fiSfi a«w .icIvjitlEtf licui «»Xl«ii 
.XXlflHut Bid htm IXatalii lo't aMyotq iciXwlnipX Iftn bXI* ,ynlXX«i) ftiM 

••ftolau! Xutw«X XXa b«;^»«X))«a o^ i(i»«'x»<|i •#tfXo«ftib hoc dXi^X tui •«« 
XXi to ■••tJ^«if 8ai^a»Mf»»«1l ttf •itii «il«i l^fwgkttXaf YXX^'^^l<f«ii hlh hait 
•«» bai ai f'^b0l mii $mi!^ i^^nM HHiitaqli knm ««au»ci aaXn«s .Muil 

luo/fllw il« M^« a/ll ml ferui ii«;rorftHO ns ai •«i} ^rij«Xii arf^ nX l>a««l 


found prdwling around vtitiw^oat landinga, railroad <i«potfl, «*tc. 
In aufiport of the information a certified eopy of ih0 

raoord of the Criminal court of CooJt county in th« oaaa of P0eale 
y^ Jaigf i)o3t»fano waa offered and reoeived in evidence. It die- 

oloaee an In^^ictEwnt in that court returned en Deoenber 10, 199/6^ 

for lareeny; that on motion of the State's Attorney the felony 

eharge waa salved; that defendant vithdree a plea of not guilty and 
pleaded guilty to petit Ittreeny, and perslBtint^ therein, the plea 

«aa aoGopt*d and entered of reeord, the value of the property 

haying been found to ho ^14; that a &etion for reaeaao on pruba* 

tlon was continued to SeooM^er 22, 1928, when it waa suetained, 

and defendant ordered releaaed on probation for one year upon his 

eve reaot^lsaueo* 

^Tidejuee by a police official waa given teudlng to ahov 
that that defendant In the ttrli&irial oourt vas the Idential defends 
•At in the oaao on trial. 

Another officer teatlfied that he aa» defendant on karoh 
2a, 1933, at the entrance of the oouxity jail, vh«n defendant told 
hlR he waa vieitinir an inaiato named ituzsio wi^ wcot louked up th^re. 
The offieer arrested defen^'.ant there vith three other pareons who 
were with him. The witnaas eaii that defendmifc waa at tliat time 
in the lobby to the entrance of the eeunty jail, was not oonaittlng 
any breaeh of the pease and waa law abiding at that time. The next 
mom lag defendant was discharged froai that arrest. 

Another officer testified tiiat he had seen def«ndant aev* 
oral tl«es in the tast eighteen «ontUs; that one evening about 
three weeks past he had with a squad ear oi>asod defendant, who was 
riding in un %utoffi.oblle with one Eargeno, who the police suspected 

was driving a stolen ear. Tn9 witness said that defendant at tnat 
tiae told the offieer that he*, def etdartt , had not worked for about 
five atontha. An Inveetigation dieoloeed, ho^rever, taat the autoi»o- 
bile was not stolen ae suspeeted. the witness said that he did est 
know Whether defendant had any lawful Bieans of support or had any 

^s^fii ' 


: ..: XS'^'ii' 

t| ^*Vlrr#1>'l 


.©^- ,«?e<7^^ Moit/teT ,«^ffi«' *«8rf»«i**» J^ouo-x* aai.Iws'Jia Aaif«) 

fru9ii t»atmi't^ •Ai to tioosi 
ia*m$9lhnl am t«i«»Jto 

-Atftftt! •u) evc"^ , ■' l'» »<i o^ ifeawol a»»tr ^alwrnd 

siri ii^itik; ^KfxAii; «oo ^d'l £i«i J^js»^a'r^ ao !>«•«$ £aa &»T!»Jbto i«M&a«*U& Aiw 

,9^-iii '.;m ^^t'- '-uw ojjMuva JMdttM«t «<«Afll OB naUl^i^r t«« •d «1-M 

•«41 -f 4Mi# d« um :rjrt4»n»'t«fe §»M -hUu e«»>til« •jfT »sl£( ti«l« f««w 

ix«a viif .*«<;} I«.v$ -^i^ ^tiiitaa vaL 9^:v biw %bm^ t^^l lo f^»Y<f t^ 

•a. „.^' ..,..., ^i^t*! fcMA.Ia «A* lM»»jp« *>■ (Si* hMA 9M »«4»Q •^••V t««*f| 

lnco»«, tut h« said d«i'«ria»r4t. t&XA him thait h« did not i»orfc. Th« 

offitftr «ii» v«rifi«<( th« iniormsition t«atlfl«d ttiat ho hod ee«n A** 

fsKiiant thr«@ tlmea in the paet tiorae and a naXI* Eicmtlis. lie ««« 

hlB Ji&reh 9, 193^., vh.Hr liiri senred tho warrant on Uira. &• also »a» 

hia V«)»ru)»ry 15, 1932, in thft Muniolpal court. Lii» 9aw hiai X)eceiLb«r 

20, }.930« at Harriaofi and Aberdaan atreata, Chicai;o, in » ford «•- 

<|«a with a sac naA«d '*l.«Co8ta, " Tntu olTioial stoptied a&d questlonod 

thMi as<l dttf«ndant at tkiat, iime e;»id that he h&d net workedL fox/rive 

■onti:&«. tif wltnftaa aald that h« knew notning oi' hie ovn knowledge 

ae to whether dcl'«^daiit worked sr as to hie i<ieana ol' eupport. He 

•aw iefeiidtafit h»d AJti injured hand, atid del'siidiuit told hits; it wa« 

burned eperatinii a atill that blim up. Ihis witneos when recalled 

said thttt d«i>ti<l«u>t waa a ""runaway" at miy time he was aeen; how« 

•▼•r, he alwaye "fortunat*!/" caut^lit up witA i:iim; that he did not 

knew defendant to be * oonildenee man, a cooifi.on drunkard, a lewd, 

wanton and laeolTloue persca, a eowbea railer and prowler, or« 

from hie peraonal kr^owled^e, a tiiief. 

Anotiier ofi'ioer teaiiii«d ut had known del'endant for about 
three years and hiMl eeen iiiai within eigiiteeii saontha prior to iTeb* 
ruary 11th probably twcuty ti.^<«<(i, uhe laat tiae being Deeeisber 3, 
1931, whan he sww hia riding iu an wutomobii^e with kargeno. He 
dtiased hii&, tiUnkiu« the autciuobile wa« stolen but foiwd that It 
was not; that defwi.^aiut at i«utt ti«e said tnat he eould not work 
en aacount ol' hie haud, Mitd lau^hinii said, *A still blew up on ae." 
this witness said that he did no& jqow whether dei'endarit had any 
lawful tseane of support* 

JMOther oiTleer teetified that he had knowii dpr^dant for 
about two years and saw hia October 16, 1931, with Marg«mo in front 
of A garage on Polk street, and that defendant told hia at that 
tiae that he had not been working for about sewen aonths; that pre- 
▼ieus to that tlae he had helped hie father on a peddler's WQ^gen. 
The witness said def^ dant was not doing anything wrong in front 

v*« •nJLai «ii .iai4 no itmtXAV siUf JMIVV9» ftd \mii9 ^^liiS. ,$ .ionuiM aiiS 

«»cr.v»«a «i4l «A» ffi* .i-xiMO l»^iola--!ii •tii ml «sr,9je ,ei XTtmttdi»% mid 

»•• 6td% d ai .o^w^iiO ««j»9%^«i a»i)Mf}<U. li^iw w^uixxj^H ie ,C/f.Qi ,43 

•viitVi«i b»iit4w ^«a iki^ji »ii mdi &ii»« »«a^ j««i; 9« ^nwibnfttftft htx* amtu 

(H'.mi^ to »:Mitm uiA df ««r li? I^ft^tftif f£GKl>ifftft& rt«Jli«iNr ol in 
««« Ji 'i ,x.«i7^£t«t»|> £)iMi ,&ii»i$ htf-it!l(ti iM!t baa tarnhMt^h ynut 

allow Joa fcli»oa tJi tjt^. '^oa saw 

^nett nl 9a»8*tiiM rt^lvr ^tK9t «&I ^9dr»#t»0 Mlif ii»at ^rt« «'<ut«t <^v^ jwvgi« 
J«ff* *# Hill Mo* *aef»a*li»fc +'"'■*' *•-■■ _»»f.t^r, » j:i|<5 no j!.k»-.>,«i,. a '♦« 

of th« gar«g«: that he was badly in seed of • tsh&v^i tmd oltan 
clothct and toll vltn««B Ht "aa4 alept in front oj" hi» o*k ho»«, 

Th« ®«rg«»nt who »rr«9i«d <!«f«is1*nt te«tll'iinl tlsiai he vtmt 
to 4tfe&dlar.t *e home at two a. b. and found him lu bodj that defendant 
g«t U9 and w«ni with him to th# station^ and defendant told li* h« 
hs4 not worked for alx xontha. Xh« ritrioes did not k»»w of any* 
thliiiS 'preng dono by d«f •ndant. 

«Aothcr oiflcfcr e«w defendant on the aorrlng of y«bruary 
6, 1$32, &t 1:50; he wae then in an auta»otiIe with two i&ea. De* 
fetidaiit told Tltnene that Marg«ne otm<?d the naeiiine, and this apon 
InvQatlgiitlun vae founl to be true. The witness aslced defendant If 
h* had been working ^)d def<^}d»nt eaid *£o. the depression ie on," 
aad that ie li»d been ucvsployed for six or seven wonths. The olTl- 
<er caid that defondatit was arreeted beeauee he vae a auapeot and 
that he was on that oceasioit:^ dleoharged, 

Defendant testified that he lived at 717 Aberdeen etreet 
with an finunt an*^ unele; that in July, 19:^1, he was in an siutomobile 
accident where his left hand was injured; that the injury was etill 
uiLh«ale4 »nd he had not been able to ^o much work since ; that it 
was a perciait^nt (tieabllity fwf he did not have the aome eontrol mad 
use of the h»nd he had before th« aeoident. Defendant said he haul 
an ineoae frcm a truok from whidh fruits vid vegetables were peddled; 
that hie youn^ brother Marie peddled about fonr days a week end 
the incose to lef^nlant frota t^at businees was about |2S!.&Q a week; 
that the eatiri! Irjoowe av«raged from $36 te $&o a week; that he took 
sixty |»er sent as hie etiare because he own«d the trusk; the lioense, 
h,e e&id, was In the nwke ef hi* brother fcec«ta8e defendant had 
troublr rith the finance ooatpariy; that h» paid casii f^r the truck, a 
Chevrolet; that markings en it are "DeStefano* ar.d it is an open 
truok. He said tliat he had done that work hiskaelf but was not abls 
to drive the truek. In reply to questions by the court defendant 

amhn9t9b $*>til :b9C 

-XuiA to wea< jofj ' 

ib*ii- «ii hlt^o JofifiirtAfX .^0«Mo»«> «i^u »ao1»cf la... ..i^r. Aipr to •«« 
l^«£*t>«(r otnv voXarA^vik^T ^o^ a^tirtl ti»ti\r} not't jIoj/i^ jb ibo?') %mw^i n 

« , lixm-f . . ' ■ 

«X(]ii #«a ajnr tiitf 1tX*a«l<i Atcyi J«<U aixaf 

•tat«4 that the i^&sideat Ia waieh his )tan4 w»a huzt oe€iurre4 at 
Shelto Mid AmrriaoR streets; that tae aaaideut waa rei>ort«d to tha 

pallet etatian at the tlma and defenda&t vaa at tixat tiaa actvanteao 
days in the hdepital. DtfcndAx^t Also denied tnat h9 had told any 
af the paliee oi'flcera that h* reeeivad injury te iila liand from a 
at ill blowing np. On cro8»-><7xaialnation he eald he had been in the 
peddliBjf buslneee lor about ]'our yftara a&d waa 36 y ara old; tuat 
the oar InTolved in the aeeidaut be onged ta hia; that he oould 
drive the ear but eould not drlTO a truck; t^at /le had other linea 
• f «BployK«nt tocaidee tha fruit buaineaa; that he had worked one an4L 
a half years in th^ coal mines at Heron, Illinois, fourteen months 
la bridge work vith the Aaerican Bridge Ceittpany, Uary, Indiana, und 
three years at the Autosiatic i!'l«^ctric Coiapany, Chloage. ue stated 
he was not narried. 

Hario DeStefano t^Rtlfie;!, corroborating the stat«<^erita of 
defendant with referei^ce to the peddling of fruits and vegetablea 
and to the ownership of the truck. 

It is essential, in order to sustain a oonvletion for the 
affense with whi^ defendant was charged, that the eyiderica tend ta 
prawe beyon^! a re«»8onaKle doubt the exleteiice of a status suofa as 
is desorlbesl in the statute. One aet only, honevar unlawful, is not 
Sttffteieut. as we understand it, to ostafelish tnat status, Ihe in- 
forins.tlon saoalri hare charged a continuing offense, and the proof 
should have eetablished the existenee of a oontlnuing oifansa, since 
sueh 18 the nrtture of the crime. It aay be that defendant is all 
that the statute charges, but the evldenae here is net sufficient to 
establish it beyond ^ reasonable .loubt. llie courts have no right to 
gue&B away the liberty of a person. 

It is not neeeHsary to further disouas the OYldeace in det-^il, 
The .ludgwent must be reversed on the authority of geotile v. &lein . 
292 m. 420, a slrailar caao based upon quite similar STideaeo, x» 

lA .' si tmw t- 

hXtfoo « ' 

:«f>- 1 r;?*SiJ"(v. 



siei:<fjai/5;^»v MI49 «*iirj 

ts Rft«l?n«i* bam «}jC*di 

» fJtue© ^ij^ Ttr-o »*U <ivli[ft 

.. ^.^titt i^iil^it'H^ S« 



v« ■••in 

trhlon th« »1i««lgS!»nt was r*v«r»«fJ hy tia« Supret. e court. 3e« also 
t*i» note t© iiarrig v^ Stttft of yey^< > in 14 A. L. E, 1481; A.yp^ » 
• teat ▼. Statf. 11 Okla. Crlm. Rep. 64&. 15l Pac. 511. The 
6t»t»*« Attoriisy oltee u« to Fttoola v. golf. 199 111, 4pp. 446, 
an ^bstrKstcd S«clslen vhiei !• dlstlcgulthatl* not onljr upon th« 
f»«it proTOd but also Ir. that the speeirie point* b.or« relie4 on 
wero »9par«intly &ot rftisttd. 

?or tho roaoono in<jieated th# Judgiaant la r(>!ver«ed. 


Il«8ur«ly, P. J., an<! O'Connor, J., concur. 

."Xi.saou ,. ■•-. ^.'^r?' fi hf»,. ,.' , ry:5»>i 

MARU S£LiiA2Z0, 


▼•. ) 

) OF CHlCAaO. 



Ai.p.11.... ) 26 8 I.A. 63o 


Plaifitiff 8u«d d«f«r}dants aa Ui« makars mnd guarantors of 
••rtain first mortgago raal «8tat« bond* of tJue prinoinal amount 
of #700. Tho t»ondt boar Interoit at th« rat* of aeren p«r oont 
por annual, payabla aopal-aiuaually on .the 24Ui day of August and 
fabruary of aaeh yaar. Xha statoi&ec!, of elala averrod ti^tat all 
intar«st dus up to suad inoludlng August 24, 1930, was duly paidi 
that en Fobruary 24, 1931, the Inti^rest beoane due on the bonds, 
and that default was mads in the payment; that, as the bonds pro* 
Tided, plaintiff declared the principal lUROunt of aaid bonds dus 
sad payable, but that the ssaae had net been paid. 

The affidavit of merits averred that plaintiff had no right 
to aoeslerate the maturity of the bonds and set up the defense that 
einoe a suit in equity was pending t« foreclose the txiist dsed se* 
curing these bonds plaintiff eannst maintain tnls suit at law. 

There was a trial by the eourt and a finding for plaintiff 
in the suiii of 17.5.50, to revcree whieh plaintiff has perfected this 
appeal, oonteniing that judgment should have been ottered for the 
full amount. 

Mash of ths bends eontaine th* following provision: 

*Upon default in tne payment of interest, or of the princi- 
pal of any on<* or more of said bonds, at th^ tims and place tn«reln 
speeirisd, the prineipal of this bond, to- 
gether with the interest acoruAd tn^reon, may, as provided In eaid 
trust dsed and in aseordanee «lth the terme >»id provisione thfreof, 
become due and payable at the place of payment aiorenaid, before 
its regular maturity, »t XKitf «l«otien of the legal holder or holdsas 
of this bond, or of any of said bonds." 

i^O *i-l*x 

6 8S 


.tfitf-lO «ii-3t 

I'm sm' ai-:«aviaiicr trsHOT/Ji ^oi"ri-ut .a= 

iai^ Imitt •i^^ttom S4'il1 iitMtt*0 

T3&«a MTV #Xi;«'t»i» 4aj£U A tun 

•• b»»* *«j«J ©Hi* MoXo^'s -'«f \#X*rpo at Una « *»aJt« 

««wX tm iJt»^ aJtaS al^iai-M^x .tsiu^^d iu...>Rl«X<r «&a«>cf •••xU sAltvt 

•Xill I!nii9«lt«S[ •«<* liliaiAXft dtfliifi oatsvs't ol ,v>a.«.?<^ 1« taun •<!* aX 
•d^ sol kn*#n» «i»*4 »f»if I^X»»a« ^fl»j«i^.dvt ^«*^'^ ^alf tM#ftoo ,X«*9q« 

.fAuwew XX«r't 

(i; •All tiU im ^tihaia4 btint 'to 4noia t« 4ff« X"* '^<9 ^^ 

.,.. ..o x«<ri»ttl«'' *-''--.'--■ ^ '• ,fc»Xii»»«r« 

> tt« 9iUh •JlM«)f 

._,- ;. 4, ..•■« i»Xini»^ •*! 


That auah proTielcr. /or the acceleration and, mfttuTity cf th*5 tond? 
in Talifl and enforceable and that no tri that. mi fling r. per'^lBg euit 
to J'oreclose, the owner of tuch "bond may maintain a suit at IsEir, 
lo 30 roll uettled in this etate that a citation tt' authoritiOB 
Would seer, tinnpcessary, A fer o:' the r.ore rsccnt eaeeB jtre 
lRanlixi-Tliiti:tm Prnk v. :^'nlcE:i4cy . 344 111. C9; Stfinbcrr. v. riop-t^r ^ 
Steel Corp . . 3«5 111, App, 60; ScliRtglds v. RogenTfai a. 267 111. /vpp. 
169, to triilch may be added the yet more recent case ©f -Sau^g y, 
Slmoc , K©. 26C10, in ^hich sn opiiilon tt^b filed bj this ccurt Novem- 
ber 14, 1932, nnc! '^hlch ir not yet reported, 

Befendents hayr net appenred in thi& court in support of the 
jttdgBent, A« s jury waa vaived, the judgment «lll be reversed with 
a finding of facte and Judgment here in favor of plaintiff, Maria 
Selaazzo, and agdnet defcjadante Harry Vosnos, iCary Voenoe, Jerepta 
T, Chuleek end louls Jaffie, for the principal Bum of 1^7C0 with 
interest &t the rate of BCTsn per c<^nt per annua frcm August £4, 
1930, until the date of the entry ©f this Judgment, emounting to 
1115.01, ai£i.iB& a total sum of ^815,01. 


IteSurely, ?. J,, and O'Cenner, J., concur. 

«f>n ^rTviMm: i-tiiilmoo*: or' -'orccf iiaiw* *«/« 

s '3 ;? .'t t nf- .^:t-^ 5 .-:'?. 'tat e J D .^ t Is ?. .it h cf 11 ji 

.^tiir iaa^**©"! »o* 


9^ ^ni$au', . , 


,/;>i^;i,. xmi ih! 

, tOHiSoO' 

. /.olijeaii 

3«179 PIliDlBG OF fACT, 

We find as fact that there is due to plaintiff, Marie 
Delmaxso, from defendant* Harry Vosnos, ilary Vosnoe, Joseph vr, 
Chuloek aBd Louie Jaffie en aeoount of the l>ondB here sued on, 
the prlneipal sua of ^700, together with intereet thereon at the 
rate of eeTen per cent per annum from the 34th day of August, 
1930, until the date of the entry of this Judgment, amounting 
to the further sum ©f $115.01, and making a total of |ai5,0i, 
for which Judgment is entered. 

,00 t'e>u& A-xdii mbaQ<f ^nt ooo« no <i111:aX niu&JL baa ^eoXtfiO 

,X0,3Ife# ■*© Xa*o* c v^aljiasB fco* ,X0,3i£% *io aasiB tadiit^ t>di o* 


*"""- i 26 8 1.1.631^ 

iR. Jwoioi mmmam miAj:fmm tm mmtm wf 

•i«ii t» 1s« «oter*4 fli4i;«dni»t 4«r«fi4jUit Uf^e « a«t« >l»i»<l Jun* 3-^ » 
l9Si>» 9«y«bl« t« th« ttrdier «f the iULbMay ^arit £Alte«ia Biuak & 
Trutt Cvnt^AMy vf Cbie»««, au« niB«hiy €mtn ftfttr A»t«, for th.« tmm 
• f $173«.7a. ;ii« •tat«at«nt «l<hiB*d ifii9r«at from VmrnmitSbitw 51, 19M:, 

Qm 0«tol>«r T, 1931, 4«f«n<!aat !ll«)d a s»atlt.i«a (iirhidat v 
ftftvrvMrda 1»y er(l«jr e< th* etturt stood aa am aft'LlftYlt ef «ftrit») 
vhidi !» •a1»at«ae« «v»rr«d tstat tb^ not* h»A XitHtr* ]i«t4 in full 
tlur«»«h ih* ftffilio«ti»n taervfo 6f t&« {>r«ea«dt ftf a contr^oi \>9» 

tvavtst aa* U9Vl# «Ad t)k« Vhlta Oaka j»an«r ^yndlaata, wiii«>ii e«ntrs«t 


C«wi« a»tf aa*i^«4 ia 4af.^<4ant. Xha an'idaTli ^v^rrmtl tn&t thia 
•aatraat «aa l«ft wlih ftlalnfciff; tant tfoa f%3ra«rii» la QMAatlea 
«tr« Ruula to tha Fart««a arlt lts»tl:>aal Biuik for tto b«n«rtt ef 
4afaBdacit, «id that tka AJL1i«ay ^»-rh t»aak, threu^ it« aaiiiorisad 
agant, ^riamintui aa4 agraat at th<» lifaa af <la^altio« tha e&ntr«at 
tkat It «<»«X4 ««lX»«t fr<m tiia fartaga ii'ark katicaal Bank all ^ay* 
a«n%a a«4a to It tey tha synile&ta ar 1>jr any paraati Ital^ilng aaatraota 
f%r t&a !Mirahaa« af ay&<11cat« prsp^trty aa4 ursuia apply tha aana oa 

4«f«a4lant'a aata; that tlia AXhmy Fark ti«nk, by <»n^ throu^^ its 4aly 
a«tliarls«4 anant, e«llaat«d tha «wa af l«,ft<<> aa4 upwards ta ba 
api^liaA aa tuia aata, «hl«h »aa mar* tlstan auffieiatit ta pay it in 

Xaa jU'1('aw<<>i-;t va« t»><!t »»!<!•; t'hara «»• » triiil by jary* mc4 



,,*! *Jiuaw\v 

.fntJa:- Aim iW- 

, -•£ •««<, !»}/... -^iwa e itsKTfc ii-.f.v- N^ jr^rtisj^c; ft*i»i '. 

m% tiM MtteXusisn «!* the nwidme* v^:l&.i.mti£t mov«4 tsr » 4ir«at«4 
v«r4ittt ia Mia faver, «-.t«^i M«ti&ti ««* A«Bi«Nd »i»d t&« £.«rt on 
its own Mdti»B iBatru«t«4 tte« Jury ie rttunt « vi^rdi^t I'^r d«« 

t«r«4l •gAiatt plDdatlff. 

Ik«r« 1» pnM>ii««ll7 n» eo&fli«t ia ti3.« «vid«!be» a« to 
a*ti«ta aat«rlal ie the iBft«i««, aa! ths seatrolilan ^ue«tid«t in Ih* 

I>*r*u4a»t in hi* ariKua»«t hMt •ug««8tad! a farther dAi'eat* 
i« th» «ff<»at tlt«% i&ara i« *vifl«na« tsudia^; t» iisi«w tJAat tit* 
a«t« up«a whie)} nuit w«« 1»rott)«;bt h%A %»<n> alter«4 «»ft«r It vat 
d«liTftr«4. ^h« ouljT tiviciAaea frcw wiiieh tutb 4«f«»»« aiif^ht %« i»» 
farrad ««• iluii 1% iMli»«ar«4 froa «a •juuniast.tion Uimt « |inii|»*r «».• ^t 
9a« iiaa i»a»te4 oa tha ibaak oi' tha not* «a4 ii«ftd b««n r«»»ov«4. If 
(hi* faat •»ttl«f juttify tat inr«r«)«t of alt«ra%lon, »ue^ iaf^r* 
•Fi«e ir«a wholly ovtraoait ^y tJbt tta«i»aira4iet«4 protoftt^lt ta4 r@at«a» 
abla ttatii^ajr of «r MH^layta ti the Al^tmy i'^vlc biWRfc tuat Una 
yaytr attft«&«4l vat a tag waie^j a« l^t ttpan ib« att« for tint !nir:3«t« 
•f idmstifyiag it aa ta« of a atta1»«ir whi^ tut ^»nk extJiilaar ha4 
tr^trttf «feAjfg«(j aff. Ma tayu ht yat ta« tag o» raf tJat pttrp>o«a af 
i^M»»lag vhattear all ar a part ai* tha nata kaA h«m «har^«(i tt an* 
jiYiatA ureflta. Ma alto t<»ttlfl ad ti%»t na tr«4ita had «irt« l»ta» 
aat«rM an tha tag. 

ma «vld«6«t frea lift 1 ah It i» arguaA that |»aj««tti ««a at* 
taMlialkad it at r&llrvti 

Bafaadttat livad lit £aaftiIwoi'th, lllinait. Ma kjumt ant »{»«• 
*»«a4, »ht »i.«<& li^td tUtrt »n«'/ wna hat aiact litd, i.;aai-»8d[ «at 
prttidani tf fcht 4lbai3y i'ark 2iatl«>aia. Uimk k trutt Ca* Ma vaa 
alta aytaidact of t&t i^artat^e I' ark Itatl^a^l £tiiJe ..anti tHa Irving 
#ark katieaal Bank* tta vaa &!&« tA« trattt* ef a rati tttatt 

«8*«i HUT*? t' 

ctJC/* 9£fl Its iiaeibJl«!«««t 

•yt»41«ai« Imevfi sur th« Vhlt« Oak* <u&fii>r H|WHIint«. Foriac* l»»rl( 

C«vi* A»«ifR«4 tltia €F«>iiir»«i tis 4«l'cfi4lMit Pr*r4%i«», About £MiQ<tmb«i* 
S, 1999* 44»f«at«&t tby«tt|{;ii ifAei.»0(i H9pll«!<S i>r ft Xoa^ of lS,»v^» 

P«f4m4ft»t teatii'i«4 that »t tb* (Ik* of ti^it trane««ti@ii ^i»«Laoi 

took hiji t«i ft «ifi4o« in tb« Vftnk «ttd told txim to »Ak« ft »«%• f«r 

|S,S^«, «^hleh j«f«D4ftnt ««4o. ^a«Lftod guy* hiii a ooftifieftto of 

iopoatt for $S<iO oni « ooobior'a ohook for tho ^ia»riOO aftar i»t«ir* 

••t li«4 l>a«R d«4uol«Nl* 9of«ncl«Qt aigrs that Mttftt.«o4 talA ^ia at 

tluit tUio that til* oall«otloDj|/«ft4o on tn« Cowlo aofitvftot *lnto tii« 

i'ertaito Pmrk l^atioBHl Bftak* «qu14 1>o ad^^lia^i ec trda noto. lUk aloo 

•ftya that MfteJuo«4 told hl» to «rito a letter aftro<«ii}# tbftt |)ftjr«s«nto 

on tho C%iri« cestraot • oal4 ko pciii to tho Al^fttiy iParlc kanJi mntU 

iho a«t« wao paid* Dofotsiani r&Kl«o4 to vrito thio lottor, h»% 4o- 

foft4«»t did aot (fto tiio ftfflAftirit of »«rito aovortt) turii ovor tJio 

Cftwio ooatroet to &«otooA oithor ott that day or titor«aft«r, &or 

Aooo it a^poftT t&ftt 4of«'d.ast ovor na4o asy ftaai.^uan#nt of Xiii» oou" 


aooftT*!', oa Jftwtftry a, 1929, 4ofoii<liu3t mroto a« foUo^t: 

*iir, ii^urrmy 4ftoleo4l, ^ToaiAont 
Uador xruot /S, 

o/o ^'orta^o "ark l^atlvaai Bank^ 
471? IrTl»« Park ilY4, , 
fSiiOftgo, lllUioia. 
Soar v>ir: 

Thio vill &tttnori«o yott %n }»«y on mtd aft^r tblo 
4*to all mtmo of Moaoy duo «o tta4or C««io coutraot to t)io 
Albanr ?«rk &atiosal Baaii & fruot Uosifitey, tr. be ii«14 oo a 
rooorro aoe aat i'!>r ao to a.}p>ly on «oy in4ciB>tOfiii««o -« ^ioh 
I a«y ha<v« to oald Albany Park It^iiitloaal Bank >f Truet C^otsc^aay'. 
thio ftrraA||«j£0»t vlll ooatUauo until »Xl oi ay oblig^tioao 
viUi the S)ai4 Albacy ?Mrk i^atioBaiX Baak <« Xruot Coaftany 
lurvo boon Ii^ut!l!»to4; «n4 yoa &ra autjiorlxod to a«ko raskit* 
tanooo r«if«^rro4 to aW-vo until you »«i«Il a-.trn roeoiT04 not loo 
froBs ttooai that ay obli<tfttl?-.tts *p» os*i4. 

Vory truly yeuro, 

(aijiiJBOtl) Jao. s.i, ^rontioo," 

i/l m4$ tot ic«it.;: ' »Aif intC UmitSii 

, . <%«i:' te . t»'f' b«'iXq[«w JI»d«.iaLfr>& i^^^^im^ »M•^llil1»f» ,«8ti^ ,t 

•liir •jfTi'' «j^As,£iet'»^tXo$ «0ljf ^Afi^ mmii imsstl 

*'.;'vi tvrird ^t&).f (•j^<x(i4i$« iii0it^>& 'i <9 iar|r«l»ITttf vm •«} it«a tlft iflwCuHrt 

»»1 Jj.- :«t •♦»«»5 

iu* mmtf 4t0-xl 

• l«t#^1<n(S .>- .ii"'* {^.-ifiiimJtmjl 

til* l^rian* P»rk ^aliecAl iJMak to the All»«ny Bitnk for aj»^lldatl«B 
•n tlM iA4»)it«tfA««s or d«f«tt>aa^t «»4 w^r* ftf)i#lltt4 in r*4u0ti9ii of 
Vem •««•• Ou <ruB« 3t^« 1.99a. th* ALbiu&jr ^^rii bmk vi>et* 4«r«Kdant 
mylaliainig; tb« or»ilit« «hl6^ h«4 %>••« tii«jr«tofor« suMl« wKd »tfttia,e 
tlMt tlk«r« va« »tlll 4tt« #1794.711. ¥&• l«tt«r atU^vd <S«l'«iK4a>nt to 
«ll(A and r«iu» m ri(a«wl ii«t« for tt^nt nMMUitt dtt« In nintty^i^et 
iayt. I^l'«»»^«nt sigfiod %»^ ri»tun}«ii th« iM»t«, vitieh la tli« &tt« 
•tl*tai«nt Sttttd «>JB. Id Aiigutt, %^«f»r« tu« aaturity of ihit ni>t«. 

9ti«r« ia «irid«uisoa tarsfiing t* ali«« tjvttt t)i« a.tttiticata ctol* 
la«t«4l l%9i^ vhlali ateaulil h^ra bean tt^^Xiad upwi thu attawnt 4u« 
ta dafttudant on tha »a»if:n»«at fro* Covia. It wma. h(»«a<r«r, n«ivi$r 
da9aalt«4 ta dafandairtt*^ aaaouitt in aitiiar 9»m af tka ^atilra. A« 
a wattar af f«iat, tHa ayadieata u««d thla aMmay to jaa^r ita (snm 
d«1itB, t^ ayndiaata aialKlnii^ ttuit d*fan4aat liad baan. «ui a mAittar 
•f fMit, aYar»al4 upvo tha Cawia aaal(v<ua«»t. aa to tk« a«rl.ta af 
llMt aaatroYaragr, vti^mie* vaa not produead vldati. «eul4 anabXa « 
diataratlstAtlaa. iiav«»var, ttk«f« la ttnaontradlctad «t1 janea thmX 
aaitbar tha ayndiaata, nar tlia #art««« i^arJie Itaolt, ua^r tb« AXbrany 
Fark feank avar r«a«ivad any atma «)%ieli vara dafinitaly sat «p«ir% 
«a 1>alaR|£l»« to dafajpidant uiadax' tk^a G«vla aaatrmat. thttr* la «• 
trldanoa in tha r#aor4 tba.i any awn af Monay 1»aXaaMin« ta daf®*! dant 

•var aa»a lata tHa |N»aa««ala» af any ««aet af tlia iai»«By Fajrk banit 
«)i« waa duly matharls^Kft ta raaalva 9«y»aat af tjiia itota. tk» l«$ttar 
«f Jafiu&ry 8« 19 3«, aMt<'«jrisa4 i£aa^.<^4 ia K«ue« {>ft^ytaftnt« In 4afand««t*a 
HlMlf ttodar eartalfi a«n4ition«. ?ha faymeista wart aat K»4a» and 
ilfcara ia b« evidaaaa thm% tha rai^airad aandltlaaa rrar aaMa lata 
aat«fc«rae«. tiiar* vaa »a duty eaat upon tha Alb«iiiy I'mrk feimk ta aaka 
aallaatioA af da^ta wiUoh miis^iit tea dua ta dafandaAfc and asi^ly tlta 

.' ae^»f ^9lilima Wf^4 frT4rli..#XtfMlB liaMiVv dut^Bf i^«#a«| 
Av» 4ilJt ««« i»J %iim0m^iiU &»»« •4««»ij&«t« •Jf^ «<tM») 1ft «•##•«« 

ti«Qji «»« ^^id^-iiui'i^fc «■&»« ^liiv awEHi VMM frvri^ft^t <t»tr« 3[flMtf' slvr^ 
iliintf it*^ xatt^tA mm to #«M9» v«M )• ti1ki*tt9**Mt tMt* •Jtai vmbo tmm 

T»?nt vitJb (Icftto^a&it «»• Ui* «(|@»t 01* (S«r«ad4at ftnd «etlnf for )ii« 
ft««OB»«d!ttlan. Xh« %gr««x«nt «lg4t ^trna^t t« »o 6oB8tyu«d <%• t« 
•1lllSftt« hiiu to i'«rwwa>d t« th« All9.uiy ?&rk bank any 9'jm» of »oj3^ 
^M«h 3l.$ht ¥9 de90«U«4 la th« Portag:* ^ark banJi to d<9fen4ant*s 
a3C9iint, hit th9 «vl'39iio« io«« not siifiv that the noneys «hicAi 
aa«ru«<S uj3i«r tia* 3«wi« AOJitraet «or« «>ir«r so 4epoait04 prior t« 
tH« d«itth of •^ia«L«ol. lh« a«9^* d^^oslt of aoa«y b^lon^rln^ to tb* 
•)rn<lio»te In the Porta«« J^iurk baatc, of wiii^h, ;£aei<«0s1 «»9 i»«t, 
•3ia9 ?*xt af iriaioh ou^t rightly to har* b««n s«t a9ld« by tha 
•yn^i-jate far d^fttbiant, eoul^ cat ( In tsrp rating th« evlj«oo« ao«t 
fltroa«iy i« 4«f <^Bdiaat'« favor) amvunt to thA pa^s,imt of Ms nota. 
»ogw«ga V. ClATk . 85 111.. A^p. 4S0. litis oourt 2i»a haia that a 
ia9r9 aut lariaatloa ta ipay i« not payaant. g'rank Vros. vo. t. £rvsn. 
I9S 111, App. 3S2. 

Va )i«14 »• a nattar of law upon t'.ila «Yl4)«Be« Uiat plain* 
tiff !• «ntitl9d ta T9coyr tha cAount of thia not9 with lnt9raat. 
AOLUCUm ^.atiuA^ BaaM v. -^Fa-alard. 34S 111. 14^. 

Tlia Jud«uiant ia tharefara r«v«7i9d -^itii u firidlng or faoto 
aa4 iud.^«nt «nt«r9d Uora for tha iveaunt du« pialutifi'. £hat aaoaat 
!■ $1079.25. 

MoSuraly, P. J., and O'Connor, •!. « concur. 

<l9f#«<l«n% ui^oo ih* v(«t« (tttwd «B in tlstia ««•• U.9 mm «f l3.?M«7fi, 
with i&t«rft»t t^*r««e l*r«« 0«o«ttilb«y 31, 1«34^, to December 29, 1932, 

th« ^at« of jua«:iS>eBi, «t 7 per ««Mi |»«r aBunai, «w«^At&n,>; t« tk* 
furtntr «u« ^f $242.47 m4 k«^1b« « total num ttf $1979.25, 

ma>^-Vtt»mntl<^ «^ ■■• y - x t>x<>^'M faM •Jam*! *• bnUt 9'^ 



Af»i£UB J. DAAKS At Hi,, 




I 26 8 I.A. 631'^ 


Th« ah«rldifcn«>firos!pten fuid Annax Buil(tlng Corporation, a 
oeriHtratlon, nL»d ita bill a^ainot Arthur J. Baan« Dund athara for 
an aooountlng und to enl'oret th« paTaeaat of tht anount found )1u« 
for the purohuao of 293 aharea of stock an4 a proprietary lipase 
in a oo-op«r«tiva apartsi&ent builiing, and that in defalt of nay* 
aant of tho aaount ao found due tha oartificata of atock and tho 
l«a«« 1»a 4eliTarad up and oanoalled. 

Th« d»feridaxita oniwarad til* bill and filfld a oroaa^blll 
Making th« eoaplainant and othara partiaa dafendant. 'th*t eroaa- 
liill chargad that tha aala of tka 2SS aharea of atook, a olaaa "D" 
atcurity, waa in violation of tha Xllinoia Saeuritiaa act. It «aa 
aoa^^ht to hava tha aala daelarftd void, and tha eroaa-defendanta da- 
eraei to pay to tha Saanaa tha anount thay had theretofore paid on 
aaoouAt of the atoek and l«aea, tog.ath<fr with raaaonal^la attorney 'a 
faaa. in aeecrdanca with the proviciena of ecotion 37 of tha Iili- 
coia Bftourltiaa Lav. After tha Iraue v&a siade up tha cauffo «aa ra- 
farrad to a «fc!&t«r find app%r«ntly the hearing waa h.*d en tha i^euaa / 
Eftda by tha croaa-blll alona. the m&Bter found that eo»e of tha 
oroea-defendarita had not viol»ted tha Illicoia Saeuritiea act, that 
Othara had violated aection 14 of that act (Gahill'a 1931 3tftt«., 
chap. 32, p. 770), and raooantaudad that a daoraa ba antarad daolarlng 





I8d .ik.I 8dS 

ixiuu HM aoT^i<oii«t*iuazjiii&B 

3 *.T« !'£«<'<?/. 

, .1**' *• 


.tnuoo aRx ^v- >.vi:5i<ro «kt crs^pvi.i^rr noaaoo'o !^3It*:.v: 

•••oX X'XA^ft I't^f «^'<| <t ^•^'^ ^o<^e 'to asitf/te ft^;!^ to •ttitdo'xiiQ - 
•/^ fcOB X^soie 'to mtjmt'tiiifo atiJ >i»£, £.4:^0 £ oa Sttaoam »tii ^ir j ;: - 

"T* M«X& « .j(609e lo •riJKitft !?3S *sLi 'to •X«« •dl jTstLt bvs'va/fd XXItf 
new ^I .^Mc ••iiXiue*^ niooiXIl 9x1^ ':c aoi^jtXalv mi saw ,<c^liifaM 

a't^ntcl^a oX<fiin6«««7 it^lir t»}U9j|0l «*8«%I hew <••#« »il# I0 t*<ro»ti« 
-iXX'I •tSi le TC aoit»9i 1a oneJaivoin ^:<i .iil* »9ii4iMa»9« nl ,sti«1; 

#«i(l ,^9« avllltuvvfi tloalXXl » oiv ^aa iM»il a4Adibn9l9&<-a«(rK0 

,.9tJ»l« X>.9X 9*XXlifiiU) iM #adjr io ^X 00^999 j^aiAXaiv hmd nfdio 

ialtaX09ft *9-S9#I19 9tf 99V09ft 9 SMi. (W . (Ott .q ,fi8 .<|«ifa 

thA «»!« Toid mrsd tH%t the eroat-ooap^'^^'suBts w«r« «ntltl«^ t9 «n 
aoeountlBg. o%j«etl9n« v^re filad %o th« naator's report liy th« 
D«iuEie* l»ut tH«y were overruled, ^^ey vere order^l to stand m» ex- 
eeptlone before the oh«noellor; on a hearing the exeeptions were 
euet«ine4l» the orees-bill (fismlii8e«) for waiit of equity* at^d at the 
•■■e ttse the original bill was dlaoiisBed on notion of oonplat intuit. 
Am *i»)peal waa taken by the ]P««>nee tr the Supreme court on the olaiak?4 
sroMAd that a eonstltutlonal question was neeesoArlly involved, ^ut 
ui(»on Gont derntion by the Supr<»ie eourt it fouBd that no eonstitu* 
tional question wan i»roT>erly preBent«!d[, sxid the ease waa transferred 
to this eourt. (th f Sheridan-Byomptoa G o rt)or8»t lQn v. Paanc^ . 348 
111. 30u.) 

The reaerd is voluninous end e nfusini;. It is here in tha 
fers af two voltuaas, one of which is marked *Vol. 3." Upon examin- 
ing the other voluaa we find that the page next after page 14S in 
that volume of the reeord is desi^ated *'Vol. 1.** Then follow a 
great many p^igea and we find what is marked "Vol. 2" and tn» fol- 
lowing nage of the reeord beglne wlt»< page number 1; making it very 
diffleult to find eny p^irticular exhibit offered in evldanee. 

Ihe eubstance of the finding of the maatAr, sot far aa is 
neeessary to state, is that the Sherldan-Broa^pton and Annex Building 
Corporation had an authorised capital stoek af 11,000 ehares of a 
par value af llOO eaeh; that it sold all the shores to csrt«iin par- 
ties as trustees of the Shcridan-Brosipton Trust; that a few daya 
thereafter the trustees entered into a written contraet with oross» 
defendants iirenn & Date, cepartiiere, whereby JLrenn A Data agreed to 
aat as sales agent for the trustees in the eal*; of the stock; that a 
few days thereafter, January 3, 192S, the cross-dof enfant, Krann & 
Bato, Inc., was chartered under the lanrs cf the State of Uliiiois. 
and thereupon that eorporation entered Into a written contract with 
Krenn A Date, the partneronlp, whereby the cor oration was to carry 

"•'t'MtaaiLi:^ tu»<r «B«a «4Uf. fs^^t ,d«^fim99-«<3 \X"t«>9«ii% ««iv soit«i»L(K XAmli 

. ^ .XXI 

al e*^X «>|4*^ • . »3«q si.i-i -sjf.rfj . . . ., nil* S^i 

A wftXfflU fWf(T ".f ,IoV» |ftt.J«ftfji«ft6 «l hitsdirr «rf* "to 9eujX0Y i«fU 

^*v ii --^stl^tM jX «»rfatfi3 f.s«qr 4»rf b-ro9*n •tH 1o «»»»n 8ni»«X 

0* b«aT^ •*«<! A mwxJl x*'*'^ ' "* » ■ . o ?/ •' t^ (twaii adiuiMisltfi 

A *ei* ;aoo.Ti^ ;' ls» tJtf:^ '^i: »90iau%3 ©ifi^ tot Jn»:^ •»!«» bjb *ai> 

.tl«*tlXXI lo •***£ •*« *>s etfttX oKit ^*btt«r ftn»i xiui'* an* , .6«I ,o*4i« 

out ftll th« eoBt9r»et0 sf tue partiiership, which Indudad the ooi** 
tra«t f«r th« sal« «i' tk« •todc, 

111* master I'urth'^r finds tjutt f^bru^ry 16, 1933, th« 
{^trid«n*Bro%ptoa iMod Adgcx Duilding Corporation aks "laau^'T" tmd 
the Iru8t«e» oi* tiie »li«ri<S«n-iirokiiptoii Trust as "issuers'* euussd 
11,000 shares to 09 qu«liri«d ttu "olass £" »«ouritl«s undsr tiis 
Illlnels Seeuritits i.*v. And ta«re&ft«r ths oorporation and 
trufttaea eausad p«riediical suppleBt^ntal state&eAtt, as raquirad 
hf the Illinois Baeurities i^aw, to "bo I'ilsd mith ttia S«er«tary of 
Stmta, tha last of vhic et%t«isai}tB was filed April 29, 1927, 
and 1r th« follovlng I^ce«ai1»«r tUa quail fieatiou of the stool wai 
aane«lled by tha Saorotary of i^t«»te, apparo/itly on t)io ground that 
tha su9pl«s<»ntal stat«ment duo about that tisto hMd not htttm filad, 

'The nant^r furtiiwr found that on kay 21 , 1926^ Caaiie aiad 
his vifo purehHsad from the trustaoa 253 shar«s of the oapital 
stock of the Building Corporation and a proprietary lease of an 
bkpartctant in the building, for wiiieh they ai^reed to pay ^2&,2uc« 
in InstalXsento, and to CArry out this eon tract there was mi escrow 
ttgr^miwit with tha Uhioa£(o Title & Trust Company; that the Daaaas 
paid |4,000 as an initial paynent and nade other monthly payser^ts 
at required, to the Chioa«o Title ^ 7rust Oonp»ny; that the eer- 
tificate of steak and the proprietary lease were lalaoed in eeorow; 
that the sale of the stoek to the Daanea wks negotiated by krenn 4 
Sate, Xce«, by their agent (Msall); and the laaster finds that 
*£.rean k Sate, Inc., was a *d«aler* as defined In t^ara^raph (b) of 
Section 9 of tha ZllinoiB Securities Aot;* that in august, 19S9, 
the Daanes notified the trustees that they had eleoted to reseind 
the BAla an^3 '-;cKanded the returti of their Koney; and he finds that ' 
on the hearing before hiie the Saanae tendered back tha saeuritiea 
sold to th«a. llie report then continues: 

"Tenth: ihat i»ll of th^ provisions and requirements of tha 
Xllinaia Seaurities Law, with the eaoeption of iiection 14 thereof. 

,]toe4» r £«« ttiiir nfl .i%mx$ 

■St;. -,' - r.lUliJ, . ^^tiWitl OOO.IX 

aiiy -.■3jt*«i»il .. , ■.>»<iv/ss!»« ^aiwoXio't 9d« ai htm 

. , 'j:»#* SIR e I ■-; ■■.';^» 

,:'"■''. »Jaw/iM*t at l«rf^ ":.;• .•>.'.t.t?., ..j, X •iJdr 'to 8 «ol>to«<i 
i^ill a.foni"t »4 fo«w •x«'«o'* ti^rf,^ .-. •- -^ - --*•' *»<»*» *J^» •*** 

I kWW fc»-'X r * 

««r* Bubetasitlall^ eoai9li«d with %y Hh* «rGSB-<l:«i'«»d«>nt«, *** «• 
Trttst««« of th« *** 7ru»t;" taat Ermui k l»»t«. Inn, t «<mi fouAd t« 
*» a •€©».l«y* .*• deflnM by para^sra"!! B, s««tion S2, oi" th« i.fcw, 
*and a» »vicih did net comply witri tb« pre^vlsloat of SDOtien 14** of 
tli« Law "In th»t It 'lif! not file or «*ao« to fee filed In tht^ of- 
fice of the Coer^tar^r of 3tato tue nt^tm.«n% rfl»«iulr«d 1»y okIcI 
Station 14 to ba fil«<I hy % Moaltr* »ft«r tho uto^k of oalA 
Ski«rl^«n»Brer*pt0B ^ Annox Building Corporation Jtteul ^««n f^tttalilio* 
»e A *Clft9» ^* Ktourltjr.** th« m»ot«r thoa flrk<is thi4t tho r«l9a»« 
pl«a4[«^ ty t>i« eroeo-4«f'^i)<int9 «>(atw«d into hetwoon tho partiat 
in siAother suit vks not a r»I«a«« t>y tho Dajunot of tho olalu thoy 
ir«r« josJclng in tho instant oai« b«Ci%a8« tiJAt quofttion wa« net in* 
▼elvod In any way in th.o ir«ttl«tsi«nt of tho other oaoo. ^he master 
VnwR eoneluilee that while the truBt<»ea, the sellere of the eteolc, 
h»d tubatantially oonplled ^th «ai the provieione of the aeeuri* 
ties Letw, yet he reooramended that Uiey be held jointly liable ^arlth 
Zjrenn & Dato, Ino., w ieh he held was « "dealer", b«osuae the 
truateea dl5 net aee that Krenn &. Dato, Ine., eoaplied with aeo- 
tien 14 of the Law. The j>%aet«>r farther ooneludea thii,t the Sheridan- 
Broiapton Annex Building Corporation, the "iaauer" of the atoek, had 
not Tiolated ths law; that Hrenn li Uato, copjirtnera, did not parti- 
cipate is the Bale of the etoek to the Daanoa, and that the eroaa- 
bill t^oold be diasiiaaed aa to thoee partlea. 

the aiueter further found t^at the Dannes were entitled to 
an accountinc against the truateea and Krenn & Bato, Ino, The 
])aanea filed no objections to the ssaeter's r<»pcrt. objeotiona 
were filed by the trueteea ii»d by fjrenK & Date, Inc., which were 
o-rerruled and, aa stated, were oj-dered to etaiid as exceptiona and 
were auttninsd by the charseeiior, arid the crosa-blli ^im.lsiz^d for 
want of equity , 

A'uueroua pointa ftre m^de by the DHanea iti the brief filpd is 
th*lr behalf, olaiwini' that tiaere w«ro a great auwjy vlolationo of 

1« **4, £iei#o»« >r ?fi©' 

• ft.: 
•«1 iea asv act^v^ 


tu5 3(«<»M * flo.tff?<ot<-{»»^fi«xJ8 


xt^ii 9e£9 t<cwil 

.ffisi ," . ■■-« " 

R. tOt^tf ♦Jtj ill ««XUM*' 

■' Irft 9dS til felfl<|l3 



%h.9 IXXinvit :^«curiti«s law not only b/ ihr eross-defendant t^taa- 
ttea dJtmm *■■ Ow^to^ Ir&,, but also by etJri^r ero88«>dcf^i ciacte. It !■ 

w«r« iriol^i«a by tii« d6i'<»i4.aoit; l>ut we thinJr B9n« 02' thss* itoir^tt 
l6 properly i^ftl'Qare us «ixo«t}t a« to vh«th(»r Uiat^ ^ae & rloiv^tion 
of ««cti&fi 14 Qi' th« A«t b«cau8« the raaaee did not iile any «l)jee> 
tloae c>€ ta« Aueter'a report* 

^*i GlP f. iteyfi^ . 277 111. 202. it i» said, p. 208: **CounBel 
for «^p^ftll«iit ar^ueR Uiat the trial court erred in 'ga-.t^rin^: a <!«er« 
hoidiM^ tiaat appellant wae not entitled to a homeetead in the prop- 
erty. Cetmeel f»r appellee iceiet that appAllfint catuiot ruiee this 
queetien beeaaee he did net file the proper objections nfid exeeptioKt 
to the tiaet^r's rei>ort on this point. The (^«c>eral rule ie, rhe 
aeart will net ooneider 9rTXiTm aeeif^ned on appeal baei^d on mattere 
considered by the aiaeter unleee proper ebjeotiene were taken before 
the master, and, if everruled, renewed in the trial oourt,*** But 
•where the master In hie report etatee all the facte oorreetly but 
la niataken ae to the letgal eon^equenoea of these facte, it le net 
neaeseary for the partv diesatlefie-i with the aH£^>ter'B findinfr to 
sxeeot to the report, ae the ^ueetlon decided by tht waster say ba 
apeaed, upon J%iriher directiona, wltheut exceptions,"* 

if the master states all the r^cte oorreetly and draws a 
wrong l<<>gal uon clue ion from them, then no objections need be filed 
to his report. But in the instant oaee, the ««»t<?r di«^ not find 
vAiat papers or docuiK«a3ts were filed by the deftfriderita with the Sec- 
retary of atate so that w« might Jcnow whether his conclualonw that 
Hkm ■keridaa-Jeror.pten and Annex Bull ding Ger^oration, the •issuer'* 
aad the iruetees, the "sellers," had prp-rly f?uallflad the etedt 
M •Claaa D* under the 8eeurUi«a i-aw, were well fnur.ded. If the 
Saanea desired a finding of fact by the Raster on this wd other 
questions they now urge, they should ha^e filed objections t«» his 

BinlCQ 9m»iii 'to »a4.Xi ::i;u;;. 

mltL3 m»t.c-i -,;. ....... 


iuuais »lcr. 1 

UTi'VQOl'i ill 

■ ' ? fi i) <:• s «i i n«£.i:?«*!C^ 

M awwrh brut i^XJ'oe'xio 

-0 9 

Ilriw ©iffw? .^jSa i\ ^ ;.iT*'y' 

-i«af ©it. 

. ;.i'4*n alii !»# 

. ;r.5!0'ii«cu»Jfci-i'.'4ik.'. *Jil 


report. Kot hfsiTlng 4lono a^, tmd-^-;* the aatViorltl-r^^ %he-j amzinot a<fw 

Bontaod tjfei*t tii« acaBter erraA ia Me eoaolusloa. Iherel'era th.© 

onlr qtt«etloa proparly "bsrf-vre uti ox* this ph<»»« oJ" l^« caec ia 

wh9tli»r Ar<mn & Bat*, !»©. , ^*h» tbron^ii Ito <fcg«rit. sold tha tfccwsk 

to tha J5*«n*«, was a ••a*»sdi»r* vlthlB Uie ei^caUni^ of Section 14 of 

the Act, t1»» suidtftr h wine fpun<f that Evm-ai & D;4t<ji, lac, waa euda 

4«'aJ€?r by rsixaoxi of pATitfimph 5 of neetloB 3 ©f ths Act. 

£}«9tio& 14 -pTo-fL^n^: "After cuuHi'l cation of »6«iurlti«8 

in ei«v»« 'D' by the ianuor, oiiy 4''ttj«r or 9^msx .Tmy sell s-ch se- 

earities upon filixig In the offio* of the S»cTats»ry of State « 

■t&ti^Mit verified by thd oath of suol: dealor or owner tkiA utherif?i«o 

provided kijt this Aot, a atat^uect of Uax liBsrunt an<i d<}serlpti.oi:i of 

the oeouritieo to cd euld by hl£ or it, Ui« nuiKlstuGt prie«; i^'ox- which 

thoy 'Ar4f to bo t>&ld, hi& or its stddreso by street Hn«i auialer, quali* 

ficatioc, oooupatioB, (aiid buaiiitftsB fu^^ri^nc* oi »u.9h <ieiil«r or 

•^7S(»r f«r a period of tea y«Kra prior tc liling auoJ^ tstsLtf^^t, 

glviuf u(a^^ miA aA'lreaa cf each employor, th? period of «i»ployiit«nt 

mi th* r4»a»on for r^ai^^ation or di9uharg<^. " P«ia-aer$i|»h t of »«o« 

tloB 2, tti&ior tha tarns of which th« jnaeter fuun4 that crenn &. 9aio, 

Ice, waa a d<s^aler, ic aa folXovs: "Tha tare* M«al»r' or 'broker' 

(iliiill iuoluda avary parson and air«ry onj&pfmy ^ firm, truat, partner* 

■hip or aes eiation, inoorporatad or wiBiiiaorporai.e<l, o%h«r than a 

solicitor or i68vi<«r, that engiAitaa aithar wholly or in pi^rt ic tha - 

buciti«>ss of saliLing, off i^ria^t for sala, n«gatl«tin^ fojr/'«al« of 

or otlierwiaa daaling in any aaoiiritias ia»uodl by another or by 

•th«-ra uu Irrwriting, r^urohaainr. or athtarwisM aaoulring Bucb a<iou» 
ritiaa frout aaotiiar far the purpose of raaolling tltaei or of cffvr- 
Inta thftjs for aol*," ate. 

Sacticn 14 vf&a paa^ed in leif , waii® srHfrraph P we,p r^ot 
l^aaaai until 19:2J5, whisa it was ad«l«"? «8 an amandatent to aaotien t 
• f tha A«t. Th9 Blast ffr rtifi wet dinf, axcrrt Ini^rcotiiaiy, that 

- . „^ • 

(K*>l$i-XU<jvm to B©itA:«i'i JtUAtfP 'mS' 




■I'JU^U.Q ,..8:.. •>? ^■ivMf «n;^i* 


1*; . •/»i»i? r , 

£r«iia 4 Dato, Ins. « wft« a 4«alfir within thit *i««nizii; or s^otien 14 

of tJ»« Aot. 3»ut what«T«r »aj? bg/tru© Int^r^retatl&n ©f T>%r»grttpli 

9 and seotion 14 3iboT« quoted, w* ar» «! tba aplnioa tiiat %hM 

<;u<»9tlon It not 9f iBpertstion h«r«, bsaauee, we tltlnk, th« gtutate 

VMi substantlaaiy QOK|»lle4 vlth tmd all tha infonratloc rwqairad 

^ eeetion 14 wae on I'ila vith tha '^acr«tary of ^tata. 

iPebruary 1£» 1936, a nuaber al* papera ware filad in tha ef- 

fiaa df tha daer^tsrjr of dtata I'or tha purpoaa of qualifying tha 

11,000 aharaa of atoolc ucdar tha aaeuritiea Lav, Theaa p^tpera 

aontalnad an InTWvtory athd »ppr».i9«m6nt, Twanty-fiTO capita of tha 

wammmry w^tm also fllad, aa vaa a vrittan Irravoeabla cona«nt and 

pa«ar of attomay, roquirad by aaotion 16 of tha Aot, whioh vaa 

algnaoi by all of tha truat<?aa of tha truot and waa undar o<<ith. 

'i'h«o« p%p«ra al8o oontalnad a awam statement of tha anount and A 

daacriptlon of th« oaf^uritifta to b* aold, tha saxinuK priee for 

whleh thay vara to b« sold, tha addrais by atraat i^u.d aunbar, 

quail fl cation, oooupation tuad busineaa axparianea of aaoh of tha 

truata«« for a period of tan y^ara prior to tha filing of tha riioou- 

mant, givlnt; the nas« of tha «Biployara of tha iru8t«@a aa requirod. 

Tha eala of tha stoak waa brought about by KdoalX, an employ hh of 

Xrann ft Sato, Inc., and on karoh 9, 1925, oartaln rloeusio-nta W9t» 

flXad in tha offiea of tha Saoretary of Stata qualifying Bdnall aa 

ae«ct for tha aale of tha aaeurltlaa. Thaaa Bt^i^i^m^mta jsava tha 

prior oeoupatiea and axparionaa of i^daaXl and vera varifiad l>y him, 

3uppl«>u:ant«l «tat«&ent» aa raquirod by aeotion SO of tha Aot ^ttv 

•lao flltd «lth tha Saeretary of Stata in ^aptambar, 1929, and 

Marah and 3eptci&bar, 1926. B«ptaBberr. 1925, un application «aa 

t^iXad by i£.renn j>t Data with tha Baeratary of Sit&to for Ita reglatra- 

tloB undar tha law, ihia applicatien contained a Btat«B«nt of 

aa«a, reaidanea, quail n cat ion , atid buoinaaa ojtparlwica and eompllad 

with eaotiono 13 «nd 23 of tha 1:«, and complied ^Ith .action 14 of 

•tit ^nlx'iii»»i> t9 •M»<srTitir <- 

ft '; .7'- S lUtn ir 

ill n^£<3r 9 lit (19 ttm-« hL «iei.t99« jfi 



J lXij«i# 

;ia» tjf^r li> *3Kiaa ^Hi »n 

fti^li»Tt«" »^W MtC-" 

'. &«e. , . 

■i«i '"«».- 

uJi* 'to «!«.« ^ 

. ■■..i««wc>o. 

t^?^Jl X* ^'*iit 

b«lX<l«O0 tinUi 09n*)itft<TK* 9%tHS.l9Vf *■ 

tc >X aol*oo« riJi* f>«XrqflM»o biwi , 

tto« Aet, «xetpt that it eontained no st&temttnt of tb« amount and 
4««erlptl»B af the ••ourltics to be sold by it and th@ aaxlKUM 
friaa for vhiob thoy v«r« t« b# sold; that information, hovrror, 
wao eontninod in a atatanent fil«»d by tho truataoa Fobraasry 16, 
IfSB. So that it a|»p<»ar« that all tho infonaation roquirod by tha 
Statut* vaa en file in tha offiea of tha Soerotary of State and 
that there was subotantial eompllanea vith the lav - a literal 
ooKpllanoe ia not required. So far a« tha teebnieal violation of 
Saetion 14 by Krenn & Dato, Inc., is ooncemed, ii' it be h«ld to 
ba a dealer vitnin aeetion 14 of the Act, it in no way prejudicially 
affeoted the JDaanea, 

Za theae eireumstanoaa «e think tha daoree of the Cirouit 
aavrt of Caok oounty diemisaing the oroea-bill for want of equity 
aruat be affimed. 


UeSurely, P. J., and Mat chat t , J., eoneur. 

flWT^Tit- 9SL* hsat it x^ ^'^ ^^ !>* »«IiiiCtfft*a crft !« «tl^qlTo««ft 

boa at^Mi'ei *£« -^ii:»^'9Ta«^ ft«(:r lo •fti'ne wrid- ni «<rt n* mtv *$ytati 

XlX-^ • ^*'" '*"■'"■' ' " ^ '^•''A (ftii 'tA Jvr "ot#»»« tfiM^iw ii«l£#ii « •tf 

ij^l«f>« to .♦JWi''' -sot jt£M«a^<«a «<S# ;iftl«©ia«i^ t^iiMoa !»«> ■ -'09 

•iHBirsitlje »<S istim 



iilSLSOfi GULP, doing l:usln*«t ) 

»• Jitisoa Gulp it. Coatpany, ) 

D«fendskBt In Drfior, ) 


oir caic4fio. 

nam a. iusfaoi^. 

26 8 I.A. 631 

»K. rust 103 O^COiSltOR S^IV8KK9 TEE OPXl^lOJi Of TEI COUilT. 

Plaintiff brougut suit tigsiizivt dai>ndant to reooY«r 
#8617.1^7 Glain»4 to be :lu« his for s«rvie«0 in making «ui audit 
Wi<\ doin)2. oth«r work in eonnaction with certain ooBp»ni»« in 
whioh -'cifcii^dant va* iat«>r«Bt«d. 'Xh«r« vas a trial b9i'ore th« 
ftoiurt witfxaut a jury and ^ I'icding and ^U(!ijn«nt in piaintiTf *• 
fav«r for th« aoiount of aia «XaiB, and d»farid«nt appttal*. 

Xh« raeord diseloaaa that K. h, Uvaitsar «a« interested 
as a stockholder aiid otherwise in a nviab9r of corporations, and 
defendant, ii^asssiann, held so«e bends of one of tHe corporations. 
Beth these ston had considerable aioney invested in one or uere 
of the eompanies whioh appeared to be in an unsatiafuctory 
financial condition, and with a view of seeing what oould be 
dene a Meeting wae held, at whieh Sweitser and his attonney and 
liassBacn and his attorney were present; the eondition of the 
•ea^^aaies was diaeueeed and it was agreed that before any »ore 
aeney was invested an t^udit s^iould be suMie to deterniine the 
status of the eompanies. The evidenoe offered by plaititiff is 
to the effeet that at that Meeting Sweitser and feasaiaann autnorisedi 
their respective attorneys to have the werJn done. fh« evidence 
further is that afterwards 0ani3on, wiio was an attorney for l>^aoi»»«ir»r^, 
got in touoh with plaintiff, ^)Mi wae a certified publio aooountwit, 
and enployed hlK to 4o the work on a per di«Q basis, one-half to 
be paid by Jweitzer and the other half by i»asiaaarin. Ihe work was 
doae and tlie bill subsiitted, one-htaf was paid by Uweitzer, and 



v*^- ^.. , 

ili.d .A.1E-8 8S 



.-r-iUaO lEMT ".a %CMa; 

;' ' ^l>iTCiL»:. 


9# 'iUilH»ae «»l»iitf iu»ift 's^iQ m m *t(»m mdt o& of silti b*x9iqm» ham 
•«v tio« tilt .an*n««u x<r 11«cl MjUa •«!« ftoa itt>iiow^ i(d Ulsq. Atf 

to reeoir«r tk» other a.&li oi tU9 Mil plaintiff brings this suit. 

the defendiknt '• pofiitien in - an^l h« ©fferad evi-le^e© t« 
•ustalfi it •> that h« 4i4l net siuthoria* Ui« •a&pleym«nt of pXair.tlff 
ac as aeeount&r.t, or otn«rwiatt« pertenaXIy, but ti&at It w&e tJb>ci 
uadcrstsn^ifig the.t plaintiff, or vhe«irer waa emT»lo)r«d to do th«> 
work, would b« paid l^y the ooffipani«a «iio&« booiis plaintiff was t« 
aadit. Th«r« le a direct cenfllet wi tnle poict. 4)i stated, 
plaintiff *• evideoee teuded to show that the work vi»8 to ^« dose 
poro&nally for bweitaer and i^^asaaianii, whilo Viat offered on behalf 
of defendant wae that the vorJk was to be doae acd paid for by tha 
e«ai1»ai]i »• whose bociia were to be auditfd by plaintiff, thin wae 
a Otifitroverted queetioii of faot • tiie eTideiiOe vaa ooafllcting. 
Xke eottrt saw «m4 h«ard the witi^eceee and fouAd in favor of plt^in- 
ttff , ant we are eleariy of the opinion that we would not bo war- 
ranted in rew«reiog the findinig of the trial eourt on the ground 
that it wae i&iuBifceily ai^&inet the weight of the evideaaoe. frtm 
what we hav<» said we think it appears that the oontei^iion of de- 
fesdant that Craiiinen was aot autiiorised by hin to enploy plaintiff 
to Ao work for his, defendant, personally, ie equally untena1»le. 

Defendant further oonteads that the Jud^eat le wren^f aad 
sheiild be rewereed beeause, ewen if plaintiff were employed as h« 
eentcnde he was, to audit the books of the corporations involved, 
yet the evidenee siiows without oontradiotion that pl«»intiff did 
More than audit the books; that acoordini; to plaintiff's own tes- 
tiae«y he «ade investigations towards the rehabilitation of the 
properties, and that this work was net a part of the audit i'or 
whiaa he wae OKployed; « that if it b« hnld that defendwt author- 
ised aar»n©» to asploy plaintiff to »ak« an audit, this would not 
authorise plaintiff to perfont other services; and since It does 
net appear frosa the evidenee what part of th* chargae was jfcade for 
the audit and what part for the other work, the ^u4.a«Kit «au»t be 
reversed. In reply to thie oontention plaintiff's counsel says 

9M-' ,Tii.$-gii*tlH V.ii 6H$iin» tiv! Oi 9t»« •3i»«<tr fMOHV «*i0«fni» 

**«ir 't9 ifoi#''.»r<i«9 mat 9*!-^ rxj<mi^q« ti i:»itttf tw* 5t««t «fi»if i^w #«£l« 
sofii tao^v «1 i'ft»«t;,)£iSjf| ttii^ fAi^ mhmtsaoo TUttit'utt tsMhat^i.mV, 

-xQ'l 5l»xr^ titf to f%»v » ie^i* "''-^ ^"^''^«' " ^ '•'*' ^«^t bo* ««ttltt»tt<9 

thiit 9l&lQtl t'f testified h« was KBoloyed not only to do th« ao* 
O'liWtinf or audit lj!ig el' Xh* books of th« corpor&tioae, ^ut was «Ide 
mcpl^yitA to K&ke a i'lnsuaclaUi InYestigatien Into the wmXtt history 
ef thf) 09Spai3i«t; and furti;»r, that deXeridwvt la act ia a position 
it ralsd this question beo&usa iti his affidavit of aaerita he did 
a«t «!»«eifleally d«ny th« allegation 1& plaintiff** stat«ab«nt of 
claim, wlileh. wae that iptlaintiff was ^smployed "to pAxfoim firofes- 
•ioDAl servieea »• a publie aoeouiitaut in examir.lng the books , in« 
TOStigatlAg the fin«riOial status ouad audtitin^ the books, papers, 
asseta, and liabilities" of the oi>Hp«uies. ^9 think this latter 
soBtention is ontenable because tLe def <3ridaiit, in his affidavit 
•f B«rit«, deni(»d that plaintiff was employed by defendant "to 
ferfern professional serTiees as a public aeeountant in exaiaiirilag 
the books, investigating the VlA<uricial status arid auditinjj; the 
books, papers, assets, and llabilltlsa of the Aaerloan standard 
C«ri>oration. " 

But «e ti^ilnk defet-4dant*s oontentioa eam^ot be sustained 
beoause a cartful oonsideratioA of the entire record dissioses the 
fast that this point is new made for iht tlrst tifte. It vaa not 
mad* on the trial of the cause, an4 it is «legier.tary that a eon- 
tentloa sueh as this eannot be urt^ed fox the first tiK* in m 
•eurt of revlsnr* 

The jttdgmer4t of the Municipal court of Chiea^ is affirmed. 


M*Surely, P, J,, and ftiatehett, J., ooneur. 

bib »d 9it%9» 'i0 SltMy . . ni «au»d««( iK»l^a«£rp sMi «»i#t •# 

AS daifp-.; .4*iiXAe>m{i^& »di 'to *m^liilti^tl hum ,»>•»#«« 

fc-Mtfeaftii n»»J^'x$iSfi »M Ha $nblJ Lii<Sail has/ , «!«««.« .a-s-*©*!? ,0i{(»«if 
JTeiK JMk« <;^I ,futX4 iti^i - .-'i «i^»is ir«f:: «1 taiditE alii^ tiBcfdr ^s^sl 

,n;i3«J<)C- ll/o©aJ 

i>A£s mom e&mstm oLvm, 


y», ) sup'KKioK amp: ©y | 


xsftA BHA»i> mtmtm, mtEHh q, bkakd. 

^•"«'- '26 8 I. A. 6 Sr 


Counlainftnt, at l«s»«e, fli«4 lt« bl3,l to «b;!o1b tlifi 
4«l'«B<!anta, l««»ot*, from forf« its rl^ts und«r a vriticn 
1«*««, or to be rmli^nrtA fron * ferftttt If It hiut ftlroAdy ^««n 
4*«la7*4. After a hdiirlng the bill «»• 41cHile»<i4 for trant of 

Ik* rttttorA i)lsolo*«k tbat ob yebruiury 1« 1^09, Virgil 
II. ]hr«B4( HorMM JL. lirwnd and Arnin ^. ^rnstl, brothers, Itasod 
*l»pro>i]&at«ly 7A aems of Ititnd in CooJc eounty, whieh with About 
40 •thwr aer«« was to bo u««4 by ooBi^luinant &• a solf Qour»«. 
Th« porioi) eoTorodt by the written le>A«o w»t 30 jr«ar« •> fron tho 
lot of Aiiril, 1909, to th9 31st of MAreh, 1939. tho r<mt to b« 
9ai«1 w»« Ifi.OOO » y^sr for tho flrot f'ivo ;f«ax» and th«roaftor 
poriodlc&lly &'3T9jao«4» snd for tho lAot tMi ynaro wao 17,000 s 
joor. in A4iitlon to tho ront co&plaLnant «so roguirod to |»«y 
tojcos, ««ooaoK«hnt« and ineuraneo And to oreot » elub houoo on 
tho ^roisiooo At A ooot of not loss than |25,00C prior to A^ril 
1, 191S; the clubhouse to eonfiist of one builiiag or a cluster 
• f bulldinco eonneotod for olub rooao, eoiaploto with laeduti 
nplplinitsoo ASd o^uiimont. 

On tho Stttto day, Jfnhru^j 1, 1909, tho p»rti«o aim 
•xoeutod an option eontraot «horoby tho oo«pl idnont was giwoa 
tho right ts paroliass tho 76 Aoreo for 1^160, OC^ At Any time 
prior to Oooonbor 2, 1932, and aftor that dAte and prior to 




188 -A.I 8 as 

i*,;^i.v-:i ^w-Ai^ijs't* AaiiniX .>- 

•HI* •♦Jt^rittii!! •!(<; 

. m*xui 

•# ialii( f>Mi •tak iAAi «*4t« ftflM , , t«ifa«it*a •^ «eiii9 

I>«e«m1>«r S, 1»34, fr n7&,<>00, provl^^d It wm« not in d»f«tat 
under th« !•«••. Shortly mffr Um •x««utleia ol' the leu** 99»pX&ln- 
mat ae^ulred ai'eat 40 otHer »«r«» isttmliiitely ikdljelning th« 7d «er«s 
•B the eouth, antS t>roee«d«d to eonetruct « £olf et»uree on the 
property, r«o<t built « leeiier roo« end eiMl4y heuee ob the 76 aere* 
ttt « eeet of nore th«a #25,UOO. Ihe 76 acrei ley ij»e^e^lst«Xy woit 
of Sh«rldmn Koad (which m% thie foint rune in a ndrtiiorly direetioa) 
in the Berth «ad of Cook oeunty. laet of ah«riAaB Hoadl ««« a traet 
of a1«ttt 10 aeree whioh extends to the «at«>re of i-ake liitfiigaa. 
The elub eeeured thie traet and deelded to ereet ite nain olul> heuee 
there, iriiieh wae done at a eoet of no re thMn If 100,000. A euhway vae 
eenetruoted wuider Sheridan road ruruiing frois the au»iii elulBtwuee te 
the looker rooae aiad eaddy house, i^eur Kamhers of the o:iu1» vera 
permitted to build four prl'vate heueee on the 76 aerea, whieli were 
eeeueied by ihma in ewnner and for whioh the eiuh rAoeived ae gV0}m4 
rent IfiOO for each huildijuft. :rh« \>uilding» were paid for hy the four 
fartiee, eaeh building eoeiing about d8u,0u^ . fhe golf oouree and 
all the builflinge fiostioced wore eo^tUeted acd ueed by the a«abert 
eoati&uoaely; all rent, ineuranee and texee wer« j^aid by oo&olftlnaBt 
end the relation of the parti «e vae anieable in every rctepeet. U% 
objeotlofi er ooe^plaist wae ai^e that the olubheuee wae not built ea 
the 74 aeree, nor wae there any objeetlen to atiy thing dene er negleet- 
•4 to be done by oos^laim^t for a poried ef m»r9 than 17 years and 
net until after eo»>^laln»nt ^«roi^tber S4, 19S6, eerved aotlee on do- 
fendente that it would exeroiete ite option under the lease to buy %h% 
Vd aeres en Seytenber 30, 1987. Un Seiatewber 29, 1926, deferidants 

notifii^ comnvlainant in writing ti^tat It was in default under the 
l^ass Afid eottld net eleot te buy the 76 aeres, epeoifying nineteen ' 
different defaulte. , 

ilepteaber 30, 19£7, the eempli4.inant tiled its bill in the 
inperler oouri of Cook eaujaty againet ihe defesdairite for the 

■.;0d dvXo ;Ttii:<K; - * ♦ *t^'n- ;'r>-^ bn-^ i9MXi »itii IHTXUOM rf»X» 9ttt 

fede »«i'Sw':.3( 'iio.u . ■-•.9 ,«»1*1»<| 

la g*t»#Y ^^ ^^^^ «>^o« iC9.tK»lT'- tti»*lA t^iisos xi nmoh «ii oi iMft 

s|i««ifle 3i«rferK«s>e« of th» option contrftct, (m4 aft«r a h(»«ring » 
dterae was «ntflro4 requiring th« defendants to eonirejr tbo 76 »«r«i. 
8«fen<1aBta appeal 9d to the Sttprcme oourt, whcirc the doer«« of th9 
duporlor court wa* r«Y«reo<l and th« oahoo r<^iand«(l with aireetlont 
to alMi»» the «ult. X.^g Ittore Country Glub t. Jtrai^i, 339 111. 
804, About ftye jKonthe ifter the 4iB!^i»eal of that e&ee complain- 
•Dt fllM Its 'bill iB the tneta^t eaee to i>r«T«iit defen^anta I'res 
forfeiting the lea«« or, in the alternative, to r«ll«!To It froB a 
forfeiture if ojne hn4 fdrcady b«>en declared. 

ihe deferi'.lante in their answer to the bill aet up the pro* 
•eedlces hgA in thn ep^oifto perfoneanee oaee, elalmine that eom- 
Ulainoat eaa estopped to oontend thai it «ae not in default an<ler 
the terns of thn lease, ^xeeptions were filed to th4 aiasver \>vit 
they were orerrulH, The eaee then went to a hearing and the 
atianaeller limited the e-fidenoe, holding he was hound by the decie- 
lea of the Saprece eourt in the epeeific perfonr.anee oaae whleh, aa 
ke oecetrued it, estopped eoAt^^l&inent froaa queetiorsing that it waa 
1b default under the lease; a decree waa entered disi^iselng th* hill 
for «ant of Oi^ulty, nnd eoeprsinant appeals* 

She !£tt|>re»e court in ita opinion in the epeelfic perforstanee 
MM* disottaaed the lease, the option contract, ai.i the erldenca 
in considerable detail, ^nd held that eonplalnant ^&a in default 
under the leaoe, spe^eifying among other defaulta that eonplalnant 
luul not eonstruetad a eluh house on the 76 aorea; tliat it had 
i«k«B down iS9,000 which it had deposited with the Chicago Title & 
Truat Company, trustee, contrary tc the teme of the I«»a«; that It 
)Uk4 taken out ineuranea pelioies on the property, the loas elausa 
of vhioh waa nat nade payable aa the lease provided ; that eomplain* ' 
ant had yaid the taxea sostetlmea in ita own naae instead of that of 
defendenta; that it had pemitted the ereetion of the four auMsar 
haueea on the property; that it hod not sub»itted plaas of the 
bttlldings te be eeastrueted en the property; aod therefore waa 

•iii «w. ■thm.r^ix ..^.,4l>w.,^%Isxi^ii^ v%Bm .<»xg>i .fi«» »sii m^imu o* 

«»t'.n& Ham- . '»e4 l>«»i«io^s. 94 jb«6r<?etjv« e«\« ja«n2«Xv 

The wmt tV<^re «*!#. (i^p. ?2l»b2fr;; «Afi cptiee r<;nti'a«t i« net a «on- 
tr^^et «f ft»J.* vitfeia iofinitioa af %hm terr, a^d at fcCfit 'feat 
fi-rtfi te t):e cptioii Ucl^er a x-ight to 9)SLr&ttc.e« upon thd t»r^» «nd 
«9iii4l1ttene» it any, •p«sJfle'^ In tii« oplloR »4;re<9».nsnt. In order to 
ST911 hlaself ©f tfc« right t^e dj>tlon*« «u«t n«M6:*iy with tk-4 condi* 
tlons 8(»t out 1b the o^tiopi oentr.tot. *** An option contract doe* 
»ot oo»« '^lt>»lBi tlw •^ultabl* rult »®*ltt»t fdrf^lturei!!. XTn* <iu»«tl©n 
»f 4««lArin«!t < f<>jrf«ltur« 1« not lntfoiv»d. An ©utlefi s3o»tr»«t giT*« 
to %h» ©pt5on«« A iwdwr t>J» n«m»d oon^ltJout. If thof© «©n«» 
()itle>n0 ar? not m%t tto* ojrtMon^c <fo9S rot a«qvi!lr« ih« right. Bueh a 
Bituntten tnvolv«« nen«* of tho eifm^uts* of f'lr* ?ltuv€'. It derylYOo 
no party of «ny rlr>Jt wp<f aVro^atrt no etmtrect, l.ut, f>v ttt ether 
h«r!4, fp! b«t thf «nrorcerpfst of *.lie coRtn.ct t;»4o Vy U(«- pwrtiee,* 
Xbf court li^J^n (<iffo«i!*e(* th# f^urntlon sdvareei! ty ttse foiE^lalnifcBt 
that the AefwDltft wr*er the l*ae« hstA feecan t?i»li7ed >sy th« ^^fHrendamte, 
aB4 •aye tftat the #»vl««ncc te Ir^ufflcieist tc ohow that nlX Its© de- 
fendante kaeer «f (certain of the default* "aenttgned, and that there- 
fere the ^Tideaee wae Ineufflolent to tfita^llch ft valTvr «f eueb 
default e. 

the leaee provl<1e<l that before the iefendJWita ooull t»»ke ad- 
▼anta^w of at^y claiaed default* by co»t>l«)ktnant In %he ^Hysent ^.f roit 
reserved toy the lesee, they rjuct si'<» cowpltiinant SO wave notlne iB 
writlE»? ef sr\ioh «3efault: that if ♦.h«*re *•»« ?1«f»'ilt Ir th<? paysout of 
aii:f nth*»r manGyn under rhe l<f«inf>. pr ary ^th»r ^ftfftelts, thejt Rsaot 
fWe 60 day* vrltten notlee tr thP 4>j6plRtnftnt cf fiuch ?*of%alt*] »«id 
if sttea -Sefattlte oontlnue for the f»t) or <I0 4"!iyo reaprotlvelT', +he land 

lord o^til^l 4eel'?re the t«m! PB.!?ed «ltlieMt fvrth«r ootiee. J5» far as 
tH« re<'.'»'t*t '•tet' >»»'«> , tkiE deJ'€».!iiarite give no sue:^ fiotiee to eoi&plaln-^ 
•ttit e: «>ay ci»ir.,'d def»*ult» 'HKn » vJ*** to loriiiiatlr.R tae le'»*e. All 

thet .t^pc^re ir, tiile i^»p«jct viXt b, liual r of l«''>»r» «Tit*':it by the 

^al.f■■iat-i'\^^^^^ 9t'tl»#||l « 

..;:_. &dt mt too it99 "f^r^r 

•3SMf htf! 

Ji*?*'^?. '»'i? -t^JTf tft- 

> . , ^k O I « ^ 1 ». 

A%tmn4mRtm, «f «ok« «f tbcai, mtttralsf to aoraplalnent a iiv»b«Y of 
Qh*«ks e9W!»laln«ai3t h^4[ tent for tb« r«s% and In torn* of vhli^ it 
it otAtoA thAt, "tho owner* hi»YO Uorvtoforo torxslr^tod tho XeftH* 
• f th« Lak« iShor* Coontx^ ClttV for rm^mwa* with «^i«h yoia luro 
fMslIiar. " 

It furthor «?i>«ajr« tiuit atftor i^ODtOKbor S4, 10 S6, i^ok 
«o«pl«inant osrro^ tho aotloo that it wottl^ »x«reiB« ito eiption, 
dof«n4itf>to rmfute^ to aee«T)t any furthor ront «It}iou^ It ^a« 
tftiidorod ts tiioK fron ti«o to tlato tui it o^cru«4. 

Th» d«f#r>4«tf«to t^entoBj t^ot tho dooroo Is rii^t Mad ohouldi 
bo offin&o4 b««iiu9f> tlio eonpl&lnant diid not ooao into cojrt with 
•loan h^, th* argumont 1»'lng that it arbitrarily (Sofaultod In a 
Bvwbor of i»&rtioul»ri aB4or tlio l«aoo aexS wao not meting in food 
faith in nttomotinc to pdrovwat tko forfoituro of the lAaoo, l»ut 
vao enly ooaking to reiriTify tho option of tho oontraet. 

A ornoidoration cf tho ontiro rooorA dl»ttXoa««, wo think, 
tho faot that ecmrlainant aotod In entiro goei faith in oonotruet* 
ine tho eltt%hottO« aorooo Sh«ri4an Koad; in tho l»ull<llng of tho 
lookor ro«tt» and eaddy hoato; in tho i»a\oa«nt of taxoo; in tho 
^mym.9Mt of ront; in ito p«rR;isoion to tho four poroono to build 
tho four otuu&or hoaoo; in insurin<| tho proporty and in ovorything 
it did. It io truo t^at oeuntel I'or tho oom^l^iUAnt adraitt^d It 

lo ondoavoring to proTont a forfoituro of tho loaoo with th« riov 
•f roTitrifylnfi tho option eontraot, but wo thlnn. tho intontion of 
tlio oflBrploinant in this roopeot io not iar^ex-tant in this eaoo. 
fM qnootlon of tho o|»l;ion oontraot is in no vagr InTolvod horo. 
fha oBly <|uootio» boforo uo io whcthor tho dofondaotetshould ho 
proTontod froa forfeiting tho leaoo or, if tho orridoneo should 
dioelooo that thoy havo alroady doao ao, to roXiova fro« ouoh 

4 furtoojr arcuKOBt la «ado by tho dofendaata that oo»j»laU' 

fi tflirfw to •«>• ^S9x »fU lot 'Mi* lt»tf tammim f fn ufoMi 

,f-riin::>*^sf J i i»» S'-ai-f 9J sioi^ m>^t m»ds 9i hm%*kt»i 

' '■ ' ■'■* ■:-.* fcfiWtaSO B9aMbmt9f: •<(¥ 

. -jrvti.-. . '^.-i: \*^l?'v?.'f ?»^ |iatu<i*« yXs^ mam 

•lit rJ :t<^a. ; t< .••»»f«f)-i ■ ■ '^et 

to n©i .♦«»?. aj£fj »w *>iJnco ajiJ sai^lltrlr»^ "to 

.dYotif fcvvlavni ^w 40 ai ni d^ati^ftd ii«Jti«e ^ cJ^ittt^np •!(? 

•tf IiXju9$w 8 lfi(el^A*'i«ii^ •ii' t** {> t^oo tiff 

ftltfofi'a •eitnAlv* «iii> ti tit} ••«•: <»ji;r acu<f intio'i icoi't A«l(x»in»ti« 

4»«« aKinfl •v«II«i; 9;^ «oa •fiof> v;B>a*^ i>« dyMif x*^^ ^^^ •aolswift 

•at !• net in aourt with eleftici h^iA* teeikuse •tiortly 9>ft,«r tb« 
^•um wtM cxAvuted It «&t«r«4 into «n AKr^CKeat with th« ^^f^ra^* 
«Kt, Moraee !>. ^riLri^, whertl^^ It 1»e«&ht from hX» fiv« »«r«« 1-&* 
Asdiatfl^y aJJetniKg ih« 76 ecr«a iov u«m% 1^6,000 or 17,000 « as a 
•l»*«lkl and •c>6r«t «oo8i<i«ration to Hla •« ikat it el^bt Ia4u«« 
lilft to ••• that his tv« brothers, whe eii^n«d t]ri« lft«se wlt>i U,», 
«ettl^ rtli<?T« eoikplaiBaAt Treis building h. clubboue* o» th« 76 aer«« 
aB4 that aiMii^'itltiikBt deki also draw dorni th« |S5,000 It hmd ^a- 
l»eaitff< «ltH tK# Ohlcaca Titla A 7ru«t c«« aadiur ths la«««. ^« 
tklak th*r« la oa a*rlt in tills eontautlaa. 

]^«R a aonaldaration ojT th« raoord «• ard cloarly 9f th* 
•pinien that the tranaaetion i^ui in drary ^ay hanerabl«. W« think 
tha aatlor. of ocMaplaklnant, in bringlate tiiio auit in an ondsaTor ta 
frtrofjt a ttaiaeollatloa of its ioaaa, la nat unfair or inoQuitabXa 
la tmf 9«rti«ular aiU thorafora tha doetriaa oi' unel^aa han<)a ia 

JTroM a ooaaidaratioB of tha ei^lnioti oi' tha SivqfTVf eeart 
ia tha apaaifia pcrforaa^ea aaaa, froa whieii va hava atova quot«d, 
it ia aiaar that thara vara no aquitaUa aonaidarationa nor any 
fttoatioa af forfaitura ia^olvad iii that caaa. llaia ia el«arly 
atatad by tha eourt} bat tha tiaastioa imrolred vaa (tan of ooa* 
traot only, vhiia in tha in at ant aaaa aquita>}l« oonsX^Saratioaa 
ara inirclvad baaauaa tha bill ia iil«4 to pravtuit a ferfaitura af 
tha laaa«« and acuity will raliava froa a forfeitura wh^ra tha 
alaiaad hraairti haa haaa vaivad by tha landlord with Imovledur^ of 
tha fHOta, «h«ra tha hraaaih ia triTial an4 haa not Vaau mada in 
had faith, and *hara aoapansation oan ha isado. 111. l.arohant*a 
traat Se. ▼. g[arvay . 3^6 *!!• add; Ma yer v.aollinA . »65 111, 4|»p, 
319: -Piriiyafy T, Iftti, '^ ^11* y^\ ^(U^l „1,. '4tt3i3kl>\«> 7 Ui. 397: 
g^lfa ▼, A^»^ift, d9 Jl. T, 4M, 

la Tiav af tha Xiaitatian by the ^anaallor in tha adaiaait 

*iri 99ttbM »yi'i nisi *6'«Te id:^^tt9?l Si t^s'»it«x</*- ,f>iu , ?46l' 

•MdMU tf' N;!'i^«^«>Musod ^tttdsi fear iiKl»«fi 

,«W iWJ:* *a** oalt « !^«* *•« •* olii 

<in:S on at '<fi^ds titkdt 

yrtsri'} al Biff* ...;... -...-.. -. 

.-, »rn,-» *ffiti^ itkAi iuaXc ,-^ ^-. 
^■M if.. -J : Jii(c?a rn.f vcT hsiimtn 

of ftTi^wnv*, «• think it ou^ht not t>* h«X1 that tb« e^iai^i jii&ant 
voji ostoppod to i|uootioo tlio oXalsiAd l>r«Aoh«s or that tlioy h&A 
"boon v»iTt<l to^oauoo all of th« oirid^fiee cd^t ^ieelose thnt tho 
Uroanihoo had 'b*mi eurod or v«r« vai-voi, aa4 thAt upoa «11 tho 
vridoro* it wouia bo inoquitftblo to ponait a forfeiture* for 
iii«t«noo, tho anovor of 4l«for!<}«nti fil«<l in tho opoeiflo »«rfone- 
onoo eooo, expressly A<!{Bitt9d that thoy toftA aooo^tod tho ror^t with 
kBowlf»4c:o th«t tho elubhouoo ond othor buildin|[« w«^ro not orootod 
oa tho 76 aeroo. Oortolnly thio io ooao OTid«ieo of o «*iver of 
tlio brcftoh elaijooi in thio ros^oot. 

CoBipXttlnaJBt oonton<io thot oinoo Uortaoo h, Br«n4i, o&n of 
tho <!lofofid iSto, eonT«ye4 hio intereot in tho prmiisoo in 1931 to 
hio 4«ttght«r, Mrt. j;o44ioo, oho end tho oth^r loeooro wore tonanto 
Itt tOMMWi; that oil tononto ia ooM»oa, olont, h%To tho right to 
doolaoro o ferfoiture; that Mro. ^oddioo oeuXi not doolfuro n for* 
foititro for any broaoh which ooettrrod prior to 19 31, amd thoroforo 
none of tho looooro eon do oo; that m»ot of tho oloinod breaohoo 
ooourrod prior to that data and aro thoroforo not nrailablo to tho 
dofondanto. tn ottpi»ort of thio eon tout ion oomplalniimt eitoo Wi^o.f „. 
t. (i%m%» 527 111, 31 J ,?i:i:MfKf,.,^M:<t» ^llif^t WMMi J* ,mi¥]k, ^f Ul. 
Mfp* It ^ilWr? Ti %Jitti, lao 111. A9P. aat; Soj^tcn w. (Mia^if 

lariKi <?t*> i» 111* 318: Snyw.^ Tt>, Hmn„ ^^^ ^3.1. »^<^. 

^ 1^« *•••• aaoo, ousra . (327 ill. 2X) tho eoart oaid 

(pp. 3a»S3): *Tho rlgat to doolaro a forfelturo of tho loaoo for 

liroaoh of ito ooTonanto oeourring prior to tho tranofor did not 

paoo to ap?>ellant whoh ho puroiriaoed tho property. ( Soxtojc^ v^ 

9iHMfi ^HflflKi ^ffi» . 1^ 111. 31S! fatoon t. notehor. 49 id. 498; , 
Tartar w. Wateh iiill Firo l>iotrlat . S6 i»:. I, 1?36. L.R.A. insC.SdB.) 

Tho ooTOnant a#ainot aoslgroHiW}! of Xh«> loaao or oubletting of tho 
^roniaoo «ao inoort^d for tko benefit of tho losaor, und he alono 
OOttld inniat upon tho oovonant. Ho laay waive it if ho aooo fitg 

■t» if»yljiw n t© «»ai8ti>iv<> »•»« s* six-.* ijlfi' .•frt9«» dt ftift «i 

■•J ii^'i nJt s^-S'fl t,:MWiJ,; »»»:■* iii, ^ isr ;--*>■■ i .-ijt ■ .■..--...;, ,4|^lli^|^j(tAl«l» (Mil 

Ai^mi «i|»»r «we?-' - •"■ ••'•-■^■'- ^iM n«i«r, ^-■^ -■ ,a?»ti(g«i^ <i_14 

.XXI f«s rifiUfl, »i, „i4nitfP, ftitf^^, Ti?ils.g-.?..?.?ix-il I ..;... a 

To't ••««X 94(i l4^ 9iU9i9tX9'l M «»%|i««i 

«iA^ 1« %fkltipti*m to o id 9^ 

•A«X« art biM (tiMifloX ikiiJ 2:0 Ji.itiia,.a u. ''Tf 

ttfii If hm <to«t ii«t Inaivt uipon it no one «lsfi ean. asftit^x t^ .goodi a ^. ,. 
149 IlX. 7ft, • 

Ic the MkSk «»•«, «B££a, (a37 111. A))j». 1) the a«i!ii@R«« ef 
a Xftasi^oXd sa^Ji^S^ an mttoapt to lorfelt a 1«»8« uy^ols grouade 
Iia4 turl»«B prior to tb« a*»lgiaftftnt. V« titer* »al4 (p. 13): *7her« 
Is, v« think, ee dou^t tiukt sueh m e«u*« of ftutlott vtM not Rcslgn- 
aVX* at eoMftion law. fraoit ir. Wfaoglor . 7 All«a (Mass.) 1C;« • Ijiiffta 
V, aalth . lao IXI. App. 2m, 2h« eeatmon law ruXo was, hot^iror, 
ohaag«i by tlt« Btatut« of 3^d Hffiiiry M^^tb, sh. 34, aad ihlo 
•tatuto has 1»*ett adoj^tsd as a part of tno eoiwon lum by tho logis* 
laturo of Illinois. It has aevor boon ropoalod, mi^ we do not 
«iidorstaii4 dofondauta' elaisi tliat tandoar tho i^rovloioKs or tliat 
statuto this right of aotloB would bo aselgnablo.*''** 

*It would ••«« that, whoro a ri^t of ».etlott is flntiro and 
arlsos prior to tho aaslgnaoot, onljr tho aosii^aor eoulS tsalntain the 
•«it, whllo if tho hroaoA out of whioii tho owuso of aetlon arisot Is 
» ooBtinuing oao, it would, oi' coarse, i^ass to tho aseligQoo. tiov. 
oiroy, trtiothor a eourt of oquity, w^iioh looics to tho suhotanco rathor 
than to tho fora, alght not rot^ard tho ri^xht hero In quest ioc as 
alroady irosted lr> tho b^aoficlarles (as dof»r,<1ants «ti|;g@st) Is a 
fttostioB not fro« froa doubt, and vo ^rof^r to put our doeioion 
iti^m othor grounds." 

^B ^* ^fttoon easo. twjra . (lao 111. A|»p, 2m) an aaoignoo of 
tho roversloa s^a^t to forfolt h X«aso for a dofault whioh oo- 
•tirrod prior to tho asslgna<mt to hla. It was there said (p. 394): 
*9ttt tho dsfauXt In ths :payffi««t of rant took plaoo bof«>r9 ho as- 
^irod title to tho rovorsioB, tmd as asi!<ign«*?> thmrmif he oould not 
taho adTantaco of a oauno for forfoituro whioU aeerMod prior to tho 
assli;;jiOBt to hia of such roTorsloa. 18 Aaor. & ling, mef. of l>aw, 
(Sad •««) a»3; Watso n ▼ . yxotehor . 4« 111. 498; Trask t. Whfo ^or, 7 

,*mr^mi ♦«** «i .*?^-> .«}«*^ .Ul oel ,dtlflfi«*X 

»Jt!t* .Ssfflj?. ,J»in ,»i» ,,tWiJJT«i*' X.l.W'i''-. ;-«^^^ 'i» »5«i**vf-S »|«i ijfrf iHllfllllfd 
JjsiU 1» a««: full* "tsS-iMu #i»iSi' »ij»X» *9fmbti9t*tn^ %««*tt»f:«M» 

nni»,*«»5 two /«« 0* it'»1«?t<? »-# !*«B ,#tftfel> ffl<»*»i 

A11«B (iLa»».) lot; msax V. ClflurS^, 97 «&«. 304j gwifx T. awat^. l« 
iMt 444.* 

^A tta« t^xton eas«, auara . (l^ 111. 313} It v«« h«ld thftt 
t)M rigHt sf mtXry for ^« br«Aelt of s con<!ition «u'bK«^ta't»t w^a • 
»«r« «h4«t ia a«tlos Midi tli^rcfor* iaall4mabl«. 1!li« ooyrt* epciaiiiiig 
Hy Mr. Justlet 3«hofU14, tbtr* »al4 (ii. ?^32) : *7h» rlgkt U mfw 
t^r >r«aeh of •oaditUe ffubtt^ta^nt eould not l)« silltaatM, &§ it 
eettl4 hiiiirft b^^n ha4 it b««n «fi «»t«t«|i »Bd Cok« tftyt: *7h« reason 
li«r«9f in for ftTsl4iag of aiaint«nikce«, mpprdseion of ri^Ht wid 
•tlrrlxtg uf of •«lts, w.4 th*rerfor« scithin^ In Aotioii •titrlc «r r«» 
•Blrt* ens b« grant**! ov«r, * (Oitln^ author! ti«i». ; 

*It io sai4 la 1 Vaihbam on Koal Pro^t. (%id ei.) 474,*451i 
*&>&!» ft right* (1a^. , to «r>t«r for l^roaeh of oonvlitloa autoto^u^it) 
*io not a ror^rBioB, nor in it im oot«Lt« in land. It is a mor* 
oboeo in aotioa, aita, whea «Mafore«(^« t&« grantor la in \y tlia fnr- 
folturo of Ui» eondttioa, aad not l»y tho r9Y«rt«r. ** And the oourt 
thoro further aald t^at aootloa 14 of ti^o landlord ana Tcaant Aot 
did not oo&T«rt th« riwiit of antry for 1>raa6h of oevoniivst into aa 
•itato but that It still rer>aln»d l&ut a ohoBO in motion. 

In tho Bunn^ cwio, ajiaEa* ^Sl'^ ^1- 21S3I) It waa h<»l<! that a 

Tielatlon of the oan^lltlon aufcaaqu^nt In a doad or will Kiv»a tho 

right to ro«a«t«r to tho grantor or his h#iro onl^r. Tha court th«rr« 

•aid (]». 34U); "At ooot^rion law tUa right to taka adYaiit««« of a 

1»roa^ of j/oa'baa^uMat by «;forelBg a forfaituro, or tho right of 

ra-ontry, ao oailad, b«loK<|od oxelualTaly to thn graetor, »ad aftar 
hit daath to hia Hairs, tha hair of tho grantor la antltlad to avail 
hlasolf of tha teonaflt ol tba right though not axorawaly »>3nad ia 
a rosorvatioa tharaof. ^at rule of ooaaon laor Is aiiplieatla in 
thla Stata. iMom« v. ^ftrtf^ IS9 lU. 466. >• 

Xha sAawar of th* dafan4ar«ta to tJ^iia contaittlow, as stated 
by tholr eoucsol, it; "Coaoodiag for tha aaka ©f arguaaat that 

iioe«'- -■■'" "^s «»Jt«v &fiuf ,sij- T-- •- ■ tt |)iAjf >)•«# •T«lf ftXvsft 

, .-f- cTf ■'"' f « n, n fl ts m i 


'<i>f I^aI«i«!»^ XX;- 


till* »&« «o« th«c tli«r« ccoti V« ISO ferf»ltur«, imi theirm 1« .n« a*t4 
for the l»teri;esitioa tt the rftBirftinlag hfm& &f ^ court of ««tuif3r* 
at tb* r«s;cdy at lav vdold b« ftdiequti,t«« * A&d titat the l«ik«e irovldta 
that th« rigbt t4» forfeit it acdi to r^-^ator th« pr««b^l8ifi$ wa» oa^* 
yroaely fprantO'l to Ui« h«ira and aa^igna of th« original partial 
t9 th« laaao. And oontiauisc tboy oajr: **l'artl}«r&or«, we wish to 
faint out that tfe« eoBii>laiiii»nt hat alvaya cantetSidlod that the ri^t 
to forfoit noTor oaeM» into oxictaneo until tho Aotioo of aefmilt 
httd bow given undor elauao fifte^tnth 9i' tho loaao liOid i»h« I'aiiuro 
or tho Club t& T««od7 tho dofaulta within tho timo thor«in otij^U'* 
latod**** fh«i roeord lurthor ahovo that aa aoon at tho locforo 
had kaawl'^dtto oi «ho dofaulta thio fiotieo vao givan hy thaoo d«* 

Wo thifik aono of thoto a&«r«oro io oufficiimt. Co»pl«dnsnt 
wao not ro<»,uirod to wait until tho dofonlaiits tooJfc oono aotion 
toward ouotlng it froes tho p report j. It wao outitlod to hoTO 
tho taattar dotont inod »6 that it would know whothor ito rights 
ttndor tho l«aao had boos forfoitod. Tho anawor oV tho dofondantt 
that tho right of forf««itttro wao exprooaly graritod to the hoira 
and aooi(pio of tho original partioo, v» think io i&oufficiont 
kooauao tho loaot «iid not vest in tho hciro or granto«a tho 
landlord 'o groundo for forfoit ing the lo&ao which oxiotod prior to 
tho tiaio tho hoiro or tho graniooa ao^uired their intoroot in 
tho proi^arty: ^nd ao ahoro stated « oven if it was Kilter tal, vhioii 
vo think it waa not. no ottoh notico vaa givon by dofondanto of 
any elalaod defaults, with a vioor to torftin^ting tbo loaoo, tm 
1Sa»y3se&sm^spaBS£KK!isi!a^ and thcroforo eonftlainant^a rights uador it 
sottld not bo forfoitod. 

Undor tho author! tioa oitod, wo aro of tho ojilaion that the 
soatontion of tho eoieplainant in thia r«»>'«ot nust be ouotainod, 

Tho doero<! of tho Suj?#rior court of Cook eounty is rovorsod 


•ijuXjU't «»^ jba« i»«jt«i msit '19 4tia»»iti'^ ••iMlo «*ltiui mvt-^ Mit<f Jtiul 

KjrsutM^' £#«»{i« •lit *.%*^l«'t<i9t a»oi^ iD^ct •AJivi ikj^^ tmtaM 

#fMiolittM8%^ ai a.Tkldi 9v «a»l3'TM^! XA»i:b>HQ '' '.' 'r^ «tn3^Xe«« ham 

ilot.-ir ,X«it*^it« iMiv 111 li^ a$v« ,/l»#J-ii^8 vvotfx sa h- - adl 

ft znheiu »4itsli: ->*— • ■■'.., .'wi.ij.^j •tom ^tat±^r>caqf7astumOiWim 

»»W j«i.A4 a6ii-j.;;& a.., ^, - .j. fv ^hti^io e»i./i to ilium *rii "uafcftU 

,]b«aJUl«v8 9tf 1»MH ;»»•* -> •JttU hX $mt.almi^ '^^ ^4f 't« a«ki.t>i?>in?.8 


a«d th9 eanad r«(s«a4<N for furthttr BY«e««4tBgt In aeeor4i«De« vtth 
Uht Tliwa atfttc^ ia this eploioa. 

&«&u>-ely, ?. J. « and KatttHctt, if,, ttoeour. 


umOM BA£X or CaiCASO, auardlaa ) 

of the instate of Cii;^d./:>S aARGOl^A, ) 

a Mir.«r, ) 

Plaintiff In irror, ) 

Tft. } 



TXA COHfAiiT, • «orpor*Uon. ) 9^Q T M t^ h ^^ 

D«f«idiant In i^jrror. ) <W U O ±«ii/« O 3> ^ 



Plaintilf brougnt mn aovlon t^jiaiAat tim defnrnd^ait ie rocoTor 
damagos I'or petuonml injuries oltiioked to ii&v« 1>ean sttstalned ty 
Charles i*argola, a minoTt on aocevuat of tho aaXaficxl nftgllgeneo of 
the icfwiAwnt In operating a Botor truck wUieh oollidod vlt^ & atotor- 
•yola en which Uargola «aa rialng. At the (h1o»« of all tHu evlJer.Ga 
thare vaa a diiraotad Terdiot for the (iai«n<laat, judt^jKeot was «ttt«rad 
•a tha T«rdlot, and plaintiff appaalo, 

The record diselo»«« that about livo o'elook on th« iiftornooB 
• f May 8ft, 1931* plaintiff, a boy about •OTanteob year* of a^«, vat 
riding his aotoreyola north in VentvorUi avobua, Xher« naa a double 
line 01' street cars operated in that atreet and «rh«n he rea(t;.ed the 
InttrBeetlen of 57tii ^lace, »n east imA vest street whioh dees net 
extend weet of »ent«orth avenue, there «aa a eollioiofi between the 
■otoreyole and on« of del>iidant*s motor traoJce. tn^e KOtor trunk 
vas north of 57th place and was being dxiTsn south in Wentvorth 
•renue. icfore it reached ft7th place the driver and one of his t«« 
helpers, who vere with his on the seat of the truek, held out their 
hands signalling that the track was to turn east in b7th place. At 
that tiae a northbound street car vas approaching &7tn place, btreet 
cai^s did not stop at 57th place to take en passeiigers, but when the 
MCtonaan saw the uen on the truck signal that they desire<l to tura 
east in !i7th plaes, he slewed down and sigmsll^d the driver to pro- 
ceed, Jihead of thf street ear; the Btre«t ear then eaae to a rather 



.YTiiUot; h\y.r^ to ( 

gia .A.I 8 8 

Xi h^nt&impB iai«<r *Yssi «# b^aualo mtitaiak iMo^mrttq tot 9*ii»9mb 
-a^jfwc M il;»iv Ml)lilo& flttii-v doitvi teioiti a ineii #«<««> ^e nl ^raiftn»1t»|^ mtli 

.jiiAAqt^* ttiirajtAXq bam ,ts>ih'X9T 9eLt am 

ioa dAOij iioiiS^ ittft-x^a im^m ban ;re«9 <% .A&mlq iilffi I* acllasatflisl 

](»«n;t t«i<»<a sill' .«iu*i.ic^ lotfo* •'iii0&tT»'t(iJb to 9110 ban •Xof«««#Mi 

d#-xovr^a»% ml iUiid* a»Thc{> aiil«tf ««w hoM ^t^ml<^ iMVtt 1« /itton mm^it 

•vf aid ie VIM ^o* 1E•v-^1(^ lidJ •^mixi lUV'i b«{io4N»<i 11 (rto't»a .»»£!•▼« 

fi»ftj iuo fcXori ,ib}i.«%i 9iO to ^4Hi« «iil a« mid tit kit •ti»v M« ««t*«X#i< 

tA ,»9Mlx( ott'e ai #«4i^>' nttti oi ««« ^bju-si «iiit imtti aaiXU«j|l« •bmri 

^Tavi^To .••«Xq iiSfa %i<iiU»»oYQ4fa (i«v xao J«i«t*a t>afln»tf4t»Toa « •aril luiti 

•jll iifriiw ^ijtf ,aYftBi«ic««q oo aJLKi ci aaaXcr i&fTA #« <pp#« #ta 51ft •%«• 

OYMjr oi &*tla»l> X(»'^ ^<>^«^ Xitoala ^totrai •At ao a»« vil^ w«« OMMK^tMi 

-0T<r o<> «c»Tliib aiil ft*XX«Aj|la boa ovoj^ ^avaXa •« .taaXq <a*r« al »a«a 

«a<U«T M t aaBW «•«* ««• *aat<a ad* ;«» i«a^#a »it* ta Maiia .*aao 

•u4ien ttop and this tructk pas»«a is front of it« (Irari^AlA, ti^o w«a 
drlTinit hit seterttyel* •«st •!' th« •tr*«i cmr, dii not ««« tli« 
truck, «n4 th« aietoreycl* «n<l truek collided en(9 k^r «r»t •9Ter«l3r 

H« tftvtlfi^Hl that he droT* his ■ctoro;^Gl« fro* S^th atr««t, 
whl«h was two bloe^s south of ths pliio« of the aeoidl«nt; that aa 
h« t»roe •«!)•»<) north h« was driving 1>«tw«#n th« east aurb «nd th'f 
northbound str9«t ear track; that th«« str*«t ear overtook him and 
was SOBS 4iatane« ahead of the notoreyele as they aoproaehed 57th 
plassi that both were traY«Iliig at about 13 or 14 slles tm hourj 
that the street ear eaiee to rather a sudden Btoi» and he eontlnued 
north, mlim the eollicioQ eeeurred; that he did not see the truck 
until it struck hlMt that the street oar began to «laokc«a its 
•peed when aliout fifteen or twmty feet from 57th i^laee. 

The eridenee further is to the effect that plaintiff was 
driving his notoreyele about fifte«i bIIao an hour at and prior is 
the tliHfo of the oollision; that the truelt Bade the turn at 97th 
place at frtaa thre«» to five >r.lles an hour. There is other eYlienct 
in the record to the effect that plaintiff was driving hie wotor* 
cycle at fro« twenty. five to thirty miles sn hour. 

Vhere a notion for a lireetfid verdiet is Made at the close 
of all the evidenoe, the jRotion should be allowed if there is no 
evi<)enee, or but a scintilla of evidence, twidtng to prove the 
•aterial allegations of the deelaration. Lilby. it^eill & li^^Hi: 
▼« gce^ . 228 111, 806. Under the law in the Instant case, before 
plaintiff could recover he xust ; rove by a preponderance of the 
evidence that he was in the exereiee of due care for his own eafety 
and that the defmdant was guilty of negligi«nee whleh proximately 
sentributed to;kils injurli^s. If there 1« any evldenec, viewed sost 
favorably to the plaintiff, tending to eetabliah tliesc two facts, 
then it was error to direct a verdict lor the defendant, / 

;» ill / 

*;t2 ••« ^oa i th ^%mo ^•«ft3ii «rL* lo t%»^ •X«>Ytto^ «iK tiu '^aiTli|{> 

mm SmdJ iia»tt9m» •tiS to ••eX^ Mfi:^ to x(#»«» oisoXtf •«# tJiv j<«li|C« 

nuen m AAilB */ ' u^ii& iut 8«U{*«jBit^ •««« d^otf 4:^i^ :»0«>.X4 

t»ini *sm ft«Ht ^»» £>Xi> ^4 #^-4f^ :f^»^'XA!9do a9l9.11iM» a^Ut a»i^ Allt'Zfia 

.«af!X<f r.:ve tmit :m»t ^9^m»v» tm fm^t'tlt ttto^m '■''^ ^«»q« 

•tioXo »£i<t }»t »jiuii4ii ai toitfetev IkaidotiJb « ta't nollcu ji »T»JEf9 

•a aX "-Yt^tt? T^ iMrr^tUi •«r feXi^eila noi^oos 92(1 ,9«m>l>ir» atf^ XXa 'Xa 
atfi ^mcr^.'^ tti i«}lha»i ,9Sii«hiiv» lo leliitaiat Ji lt;4 to .aoAnbif* 

•'X«':a<f ,••«» »r^i«crjr ac^l ni v«X «(t^ -xa2k«U .»Ofi .til SSjS . ^a^U ^v 

•xf# ta 99{tjn[at>a!><iei<: « t<^ aro-xc* mw*. axl t*ro»j»T IXtmv Itltnl^iXft 

,^«ljit tpro aixf "xo't n*'? «tfl» to 9<«XeTMta aili «ti •«« «<£ i«4f aauaiXm* 

tX^tiMaXxei^ itsXHr •afmiiXsaa 1« f'fiAm a«* inaAjmlab «4I #«ifi fro* 
laiMK iHrwarXf .aaaa^fva -£i&r al «iMd# 11 ,«'<i««t«t tli^# ^a^atfl'xyaaa 

.^(ul^Jt«'K«^ AfU -tei ^oittav « ^aatif a# tattta a«v #1 a»il> 

Am • een«ral .ropoeitios, Ui« qiuedtion of t&'> neglifono* 
of « 4«fei]iant aS'! the Question of eontrll>utory n^s,li^,ttn9e on th* 
|i»rt of the plaintiff, in a aa«« such a* the 009 at bar, are ques* 
tions of fact for th# jury ttfid only booomo qu«ition« oi* li»xi vh^n 
all roasonalile alnds vould roaoh th« conoluaios that plAintiff vao 
net Id the «xorelso of due earo for hi» o«n safety, axii thAt tu» 
dof endant •^^aa guilty of neiilif^onoo in tJAO operation of Uie truolc 
vhidi oontributcd to plaintiff *o injuriiio. l.ou]t,fiaia v.. miicai^^g 
SjJLSLiiXi-Jiaj.. 1»8 ill. -^PP. 329; i:ale v. chiciu^Q JuAfction ay. .a., 
2il 111. 47«; £olly v. uhica&o ^iVj uy. wo .. 2<i^ ill, 64C. 

In tho K»3,ly caoo, after onnounoiug tho rule taat In a 
poroenal Injury oaio tlao question of contributory uo^iigenco la 
C«narally ono of fact for tho Jury, tho court eoutlnuin«; oaid 
(p. S4S): **T}ut eaooa eooaaionally arlso In whlon a peraon la ao 
•artl»aa or hia oonduet ao vlol%tlvo of all rational atandarda of 
conduct aopllcablo to poraona in a like aituatlon that tho eourt 
•an eay, aa a natter of la«, that no rational poraon vould haTo 
acted aa ha did, and rondor a jud«;nent for tho d«f«^idani." 

In the inatcuat eaae we think it olear, fro» all tno evi* 
dMioo, that plaintiff waa not in the exerttiaa of <tue earo for hi a 
o^ma aai'ety. He tea tl fled that he aaw the defendant 'a truck being 
drlTon aoutii aooie diatoiiee nortii of S7th pl^ee irhon hla aotercyole 
and the street oar vore some dlctanoe aouth of 67th place, ue aair 
the street ear alow doarn but did not endeavor to atop hla Botor- 
ayela, irtilah the eTldenee ahowa he eould hare dona In a very ahort 
dlatanoo - "a foot or ao* - before taere vould have Xidti a oolli* 
alon. koreoTer. ha teatlfled that he did not aoe the truek at all 
antll the colli sion. 

In theae elroumst^noea we think all reaaonable uinda would 
reach the eenolualon that he waa not in the exeroiee of due care 
f9T ala own aaf ety and that hla conduct waa "f lolativ« of ail rational 


m ■ 
•a ' 

i«v it I. 

.1*1 aae f>di an \iatiH »««» .. ni. ttlii tale. l«i 9Af " 

j£jcf^ aeJisti$Ii»A«'> A^i j(b«4»ir Mtiov tibaltt »Xtf«a9»««t XX* 
,"^«1#« a«<» sl^ tot titAd »u]b Id 9tloii»x<i mdi nl foa 

/i.c.i .ft.Hltutfli «'m*«i*Iii ci h» ji.di ; ^ '• 

■■ - •■,.;^„„:','-- • ■ ^X^^ :«K« .«j<«A .£XJ 8«I , .«ttO ,xf g^ lO 

■ nitft*? •♦<»t*t'' ,^»*t5 Jjrffc3" 9ii* no 

«j •Xdrs*>lx •'■-V? 

Hoiia x^'nv » al »aab stt»^ b£uG» &ii aife-«u.:'^ »»a»^ari» »ii} /ittlifw ,*I»t^ 

•XXloo A< ri»«if »v«f( kXifov «it»xti *te'i9i * "o« i(« loot «" - •onfiloiib 

XX4i 2« TtnTLt •di ••■ 99H itib rut«*i «£t ,<i*trQflto4 .fioie 

.nteiciXXod ••-»' ' * ' '■^■ 
itXifuw •oajUti T j.u/iiitpw^w-j ij,** «»-,«.«■, J xf'n *',»••. :!.■ •' .■' .WSJ - 1 >. o Hlft.ffJ aI 

^<ioU«i XX« Ttc *riittUlw* turn t^uhnim ilit this hoM xHta* tfo tin tol 

•iftn<!i&r<3» of ccnduet applieabl^ to ^•r»one in a Iilt« •Itaatlon,* 
Mid th9T*foT« the court properly ;1ireoted th« T^rdi^it. 

»e are further of th© oplnloo that all tij« «vli«ns« is 
to tha effaet that tha daf sndaat wa» guilty of no nagliganee rhioh 
IiroxiAateljr eontJrlfcutB<S ta plaintiff's injuries, and for tliis 
rsaaen ^Iso a diraetad Tardict was proper. 

7h« j^d^aat of the {Superior court of Cook eounty is 

K«3uraly, P. J., and Matehatt, J.» ae&our. 

,?fi •■.-:*•" ^T^.-tt boa 



A|»i>9llaat, ) 

Of coos cou»|?. 


« Cor'^oratJon, «t a1. ) I 

ftARIB MOSS, j O /^ = ) T 11 ' 

im. ^Ut'TICm 0»COKEOR SHLIT^RSU 138 OPHJIOI. Oi' tH25 COimi. 

By tbils a9p9ttl tb« eompl&liitmi aeekt to r<»v«r«« a 4«orc« 
of tiie ^pertor oc>art of Ooek ecunty iiust«inlng a dtamirr^r to hit 
bill for th« forcelosure of a mortifag« and diaaiosing th* vult for 
vant of ftquity. '£h« queation for daolsieB thttrefor« it the auffl- 
elaaey of tha bill, whieh vaa filed Jima 22, 1953. 

Shortly Rtatad, th<^ aubet&naa of tha allagationa of tha 
bill la that an Juaa 31, 19 3C, the dafendant, Irving Oil and 
8uY>Dly Company, a aorperation, b<»ing ir.dabted In tha aun of 
$60,000, «xaait«4 ita forty pro».i(i«ory notaa oayaV.le to baarar. 
Thar« «ara niaa notaa for $150C aaeh, two for $2,000 aaeh, nina 
f9T #8900 aaeh and twenty for tl.CKJO aaeh, tha first of which was 
dua and payabla Jun* 21, 1931, and tha last Juna 21, 1939. Tha 
natas bora interaat at d p«r eant par iionum until maturity and 
7 par oant thereafter. To aeeura tha pays^ant of tha iudabt»^n«>«s 
tha Irrlng Oil and Suoply Coi&pany exacuted ita trust (ia«d of tha 
aawa data oonv«:;in« eart&ln prsparty, toir«ther with tha rente, 
iaauaa and profits tharafrou to tha Uiticans State Bank of Chicago, 
as trustee; that tha ooaiplaintMiit vas net infonead as to rhlch of 
the notes and lnt«rest coupons had been paid; that h« la the oisitier 
sad holder of one of tha principal promiaaory notaa for linoo -whldh^ 
by ite terms aaturad on Beeeinbar 21. 1931, m4 that it had not 1»ei« 

•That on infortnatlon and belief, interest ooupona maturing 
June 21, 1932, saeured by aaid trust deed, were not paid;" that by 



,.^•?r Ci-ra*; 

( ,'--5/.'«;ija YsZllue (TSfA 410 OiUVHI 

•^O ^ 

O ^ ':^> ■ 

••nc*i» «f •arx«.> r'Cii.A' Xqac^u exiJ i^-^qae mini X'a 

'■ ■■'^ ?*■■ '■ .-U «ii illdf 

•rijfr: ,.= .,.1," .■.■■,.- ■: ,...,...^> ...,. tt*^a» tiaia •^tw »^*jlX 

««v tbyl^ '^<i isti'l .. „ ,4^i'» O- . ., 'iia»w* ftru (tea* OORCl "W^ 

♦rf5 to ^•»^ ys't^^ ari h<!>4u«»3E9 ^iw««ii;;c0 ^X<r<;tf& ham HO lairvl •tli 

,«qMi«tiifO to Knaff a»*4S viMaJtllO ft^t ott is(rxt*n«K^f stilo-xq ^tta ••vatl 

t« (ftsi!^ oi 8« f)ff«rte1fll t«is au»ir lonAi^Itr^ioo a«(t t«(fl ;a*t«int# •« 

at •£! im^ii ;htm^ £»atf iMiit siWfTVo^v tRf»nc<*ial kit* aa^oci •K# 

1 ta^ojrs t^Mta JI^Mi^ XnaitoMltis 9^1 to •«<> lo 'xa«>Xo«I frm 

on h»H $t iMH) hem »l:f rdrf«»a»«l m fe»T;y*»ai aina^ atl x^ 

StiatuiMa aMoquao Aaaiftlai , tailed: Itiin itMlfftintatvl o« tactT* 
Xd tmdi •jH*<r *«>« "•» .»••* iajrt# «»l#a x<> k«titf»«a ,ttOf .IS aaw^ 

reason or th« 4«f«mlt Ivi tU« paya^ent of oes^t^Iftl^nisuit *e t^ot* for 
#3.S00, eompl&ini^t '^hts <l«cl«ir«d i»nd does D<»r«l:»y d«ela»r« Ut« mu» 

tlr« ind'5b«4lne»s s«0ur«d by (tskld trust de«(S to 1»e li2b-:^94i3.i«X3r duo 

and payaJbl*," tegfttL^r "with a^I interest th«r«Qn« ''uztd oemnXsiJiaRt 

files the bill of ecmplaimt for tho fersolesuro of tho li«n of 

%k9 eald trust doed on b«half of and for the uso and bsnofit of 

^isaolf an<t tho holders si^^d ewnt^rs of eaoici anA erery on^ of the 

aetes and interest eoupens secured ^ said trust deed." 

It Is further alleised en irtfor»atio» imd belief that Marie 
Itess i9 the own#r and nolder of two of the notes for #1,000 eaeh. 
There is no allegation in the bill as to who was tlie o^mer, or 
owners, of the ether notes, but apparently they and ether parties 
are nade deft^ndants under the desigriatlon of "unknown owners.* 

The prayer for relief was the usual one oontatned in the 
foreelesure suits arid tnere was a prayer that a reeelYsr be ap- 
pointed pwdt»nt» lite . 


A oopy of coAplaia^nt 's |190^and of the trust deed are 

attaohed to and n.ade a part ol the bill, fhere is no previsioB 
la the note I'or the aeooleration o:!' the paj»sent of the indebtedness, 
so that if there is any authority for th<; legal holtler to aceeler- 
ate pajment of all the indebtodness, it r.ust be found in the trust 
deed, the pertinent parts of whioA are as fcllowe; 

"If dof&.ilt be Bade in the payment of said Indebtedness or 
any part thereof, or lx> the interest th«reon, or any wart thereof, 
at the time and in the sianner above epeoified for the payment 
thereof, **« t]ie whole of said indebtedness including prinoipal 
and accrued interest shall, at the option of the le^al holder 
thereof at onoe, without netioe, beo@»e and be due snd payable," 
and that in eueh a oase a bill of forecloeure mi^^t b« filed; 
"that in ease a right of foreoloeure *** ehall arise hereunder 
either upon maturity of said pri^ioipal notos, or by breach of any 
•f the eoTonatts" of the trupt d«e4* the "trustee or the le«ai 

t« 4ri'i»a»J »<«« q»u dif;^ <x; ''.ai.:ift^i a« ib»»Jt) iauii bi- 

*.b©«t! iRtrtci ftt*:o -^.i j>s'r,i;3'i.« s.toqijos Sn^%»inl brt« »«i^«a 

•fit •rf Tftv . , a*-^ AT9XU fofU! Hi^iAi* ©t*(«©iO*tO> 

>ii»Iv '. 4i/« ^n« el 9t0(H 11 ituiS CMS 

rt«c? x*"*' "S*^ ,Ro»Tlt'fl# ^ioi^itai »M^ ,to« «#*»-* *«£«? ■(£«• 

*,9lrf«Y«i9 bna eufa orf C»4» «<aoQ9!i ^itaii^a Sue/'Ji'^ ««o^tt ^«i ttf«i«lU 

;b*Xi't Ml ttlii^JjK •icusaX«tt-x9'i 'io Xliid « •««(} « Oatf ai tmAf hnM 

n»tmfri»d •mktm lUni» *•"» •xr.fftoXov tjfj^Xi m <>»«8 rti tmHt* 

h<kl4«r ©f B*l« |irl«ol^al not«« or «ith«r of fehe* may hrim.. »uoh 
legal ©r #«(uitatol» pro««*4lKfi« **©-* ^ii« coil«ctlo« oi" the »en«y» 
hRr«fey necurwd >*« aifty b« d#eKe<! Reoessary," and that «vli e;c?«»»«» 
paid or incurrtd Ic cotin«etio» wltii th« fcr«clo«ur«i by &h* "IruatM 
or the Xagal hoH«r th^rsjof* and all eo«ti paid Isy tha Tru»t«e or 
••ny holder rf any part of sai3 indetteteata," shall "be pati Ijy 
t)i0 grantor. 

Undl«r th« provialoBiJ al' tJi© trust deed above quoted, the 
queetion arleee trhether the oosipXainant, the owner and holder of 
one of the prineipal note* for 11500, secured by the trust deed, 
h»s the right to aceelerate the T)ay«i«nt of ^S%,5()0 of the Ind^bte^* 
neas« soKe of the cotes not helng due ond payahle until three 
years efter the bill was ftle4. 

Counsel for the def *n i.ant says In his brief that the 
ehanerller »u«t»lo«»d the der.urr«^r on two counts - (l) that the eo»» 
plaioant hn^ no rifjht to aeoelcratw the maturity of the entire In- 
debt«dn4»se: and (2) f^.at he h«d no right to maintain the bill en 
behalf of the evners and heldere of the other notes secured hy 
the trust deed. 

V« thiak the decree sustaining the domurrer and dlssiiissi&s 
the bill siust be sustained, the trust deed tr<xt. ythiith. ve have 
quoted proTides that in ease of lefsaalt In payment of the In^tJeTited- 
ness or any part of it, or the interest thereon, the whole of the 
indebtedaeee tnen remaining due and unpaid aslivht, at the option af 
tha "lesal holder* of the indebtedness beeoae i^Biaediately due and 
payable, i'hio prorision, as written In the trust de«d, 1« free 
from easbijjuity. It says the le^al holder of tha Indebtedni^ss ri-ht 
deelare it due and payable, - net the laical holder of p^irt of the 
Indebtedness. «e «uet eonetrue the trust de»d ao it i« written. 
There is apparent ambiir.ulty only when the orovislena of the tratet 
deed are applied to the faets in the ease, there being a number of 
different owners and holders of the notes. The other prcyisioc 
of the trust deed aboTO quoted has reference to tne expenses and 

t« t»ib£ci.! trie i^«w«i frif* ,iij.. 
^e-xAJ- Xi>»ttfe »ic'A.Y- 

i:»4iiifStfr ««*iT;- tH,.lJo- ; 

*9J^« loqianlYt; «rf/ to " -^ 

sua toXXuseuido 

:•■ aTftftVo «rl/ : ' ■'■;. •■* / 
»v«*i iiv -'iiilAw aini:** ^'!'«ft ♦«if^i *ftT ,*"^:i.}fljsi;« *cf i«v« ilitf *Af 
Id >. -^ .7xt»Ja blutfxw ham *uh ■^tti&imi'Stt% t»ti& saftfl&9itf»tial 

•Hi lo t-i/'T ><» t^bittrf Xs9«i •£<* JTaka - ^%i^.m\f^ h<im «w& *i •tiilftalb 

le t-^tf. «.-» r .•»<!» •!<* ill a5<Mi »«# •♦ i^ilcf* tiui b«tft 

aolv "l^o aiff .a<»t*»a »ll* ta ii«6£«it !»«• «x«Ji»o Jtiaialllft 

hoM aa«n»«x* aarwrtiTat »A.i fts^owp etarfft feeak tairtJ *ii# lo 

cc«tB incurred le c«»e #f .foreclosure, and we thtnk it does not 
help tke cc&pI&Uaact 'b o<mteiaieB tkat tlxe irielder of o»4» -ni' the 
setee had the rigUt to aeeelerttte the j^e^aaent of cac^ l)»iuria«. 

We h«d oeoaelOA to consider a ^roTielcn of a trunt deed 
«here « queotioc eissilor to the one before ue vae inrclTed, and 
»h«re the proTieioc wrb subBtuntlelly Use eame. and we httlf, that 
the ae«eleration of peyvent oouXd only b6 mtide hy the holder of 
th« tffeele of the iBdwbtedrieee. Se Jdel, y» A9I coatt . 249 111, App, 
10« Ve Uilnk there ie no euhstacitlal diff^rerjce in the proviaieoe 
of the trust deed In the iB»tarit caee rsnA the one in the tjrel4i|:) . 
ease. We etre trntlr^ly aatiefied vith oiur holding l£ Utat ease, 
iUid tne decree of the a^uperler eourt of Cook oouuty is affinaed. 

DldCK£^ AJTflKitBD. 

heSwrely, P. J., and katoiiett, <!., eoncur. 

Mis ,*»TXnr;-: >• -vi^jtr 

,ii^s»il-., , ai^^ fciiw ,.. . , ■;.i!«lW<".-'»4 


S, E. SOiCULTZ, ) 



ft iil«rpo ration. 

GQUSLt o» micmoj 

^6 8 I.a/632^ 

\y MM, jruSfXeS O'COHi^OR B]£HVBfiE3 ?HE OPIUIOH Oi^ TKS COfSf, 

Pl&intlff brought an »atlon ii^aibBt Ihe dufiitidMftts t« r«» 
6«Y«r the valus cf orrtftln ra,dl» oabiridts, ot^uuolf, eoK^l«%«d and 
imooK^let€^4 rAdiot, jl^j^lruln^ titat <lefftndacit8 r«£.o^«4 thmn frtat 8S47 
3oiith LifcBall« •trt«t without autheritj and oonv«rt«4 thtu to thmir 
<ytm u»e; th«.t h« r1<»«;sjid<»d the? return of the prop«riy, whioa «»• r«* 

Tht dttf^n'iAKtB In their aVfld«Yit of ffi«arii« d«ni«<l .ha/ 
ha4 r«Ricv#<! the nrdi^«»rty, denied JCiey had eun verged ax^y oi' the 
artielee te their o«» use and averred that U^ey oever hud imy ef 
the article* in their i>ese4»t»io». ^here nrae a iritfO, before the 
• ecurt irltiriottl a ^ary and a firiJln^ end judtindftt in pl&iiitiif *b fsiror 
for |r900, iiKd the def eflduL&te, 3eid£oh@r nai the JureJce eoa&peay, mp* 

Ihe evidenee of pls^iiitlff is «o the ofxeot Umt for a period 
of tttoeut tec year* he wae «&s»«ed ic the radio huaineea, huyin^* 
•eoeaihllfig mnA »elling ribdioB at vheleaale; thet he knew the do- 
fondants, ^eideeher and Duaae, and hiul businees deal Inge with thoM; 
that he had &«m«t radioo at 2247 La^itaie »ireet, Chieaso, whieh premi- 
aeo «er« ueed for warfriaiouee purpoeeo and for the nanul ooture of radios; 
that about April 10, 1931, hts wout to the prenlsea and that there ^ 
▼as equipiaent for the nanuf jkOture ei radioe and other owterial ownM 
by hiaeelf and the def ^4dant Beidsoher; that plaintiff ownod the etoek 
of seeds and at that tlae there were about 75 radios praetioally oom- 

imn ii£ 


.ad-as .' • ' "i^/. 

,0OiMl4K[«4»Jil S 

hfm W#*X«#R« , adX 


to Y«4i tM.& tS»V»a '^ft.i'^v ^'41^ £.«"S'^ 

" I ■ '^ 3 

.*■' r,6 'i«; 

pX*t«4 vbieh b«].oBg«Hi to ihtt plaintiff ; ih»)r v«r6 KfiQim a« t)k« 
*Min«rT»" r«4i»: tbut a^»ttt fi-v« day* thervaftvr h« agsailn metk% i« 
th« 9r«nl»et on JL«ji4ill« tftritvt saiA found th»t th« r«<lio* 9«r(» gon*; 
tUat h9 «all«d ap defendant Scideoher aua asii:i»4 's&#ra th« r«dlo» 
««rc and th&t S«>i«l»oi}«T •altf th»y ir«r« at Bunas* Wftr«hott»« on ^«,bacb 
•▼•naa; that th« iFitfi#SB th«ii a«li«4 «hy that was, ttnd S«l4s«h«r ra> 
9ll«<S that plaintiff ai^euld «•• th« dnff^innt, Bus>?i«: that shortly 
thsrsaftsr plaintiff w«nt to Dunns' varehoues on fali%8h avsuus hy 
ai'poin tfi-.«Rt and thsrs saw ths dsfcndants, Ssldsshsr «md IHinas: that 
hs isasndsd th* radios frsn tnsn, which thsy said wsrs thsrs, but 
wliieh ho did not soo; that later hs agaia «kSicod 3«idsc:h«r about tho 
Radios and ho said tiisy had bsim soli by dffifsn«}«nts for 31S arioso; 
that hoforo this last oonwsrsation plaintiff h>»d simt Jenson to tho 
Wabash awsnus wsx«'^uso to look ovor ths radios to sos hew nuoh It 
would soot to escapists thsju* and Jensen tsfttifi«d hs wsnt to ths 
varohouss on li^ahaoh awsnuo and saw tho hinsrva raidos thsro; that hs 
•ottld net be »lstais;sa bscauae tho Minerva radio was a **Aoaster;* 
that it was •ftomsly.* 

Xhs def«Rdaat Seidssher, alone, test! lied for the defend* 
asttt} I^ttnas was not called. Boidecher denied that h« told plaintiff 
that defendants had sold tho radios for H8 «pieeo «mi In ac swsr to 
a qutsstloR i»ttt to sxim. by tho oourt he said ho did not know whero tho 
radios were; ; that he had bought radios from plaintiff for vhieh ho 
had paid $t3 apieoo; that the defendants bought loo radios from 
flaintlff and a Mr. 31«m^s in A})ril but that there was a delirer^ of 
only 29 radios. Ho further testified that he was president of the 
defendant Sureka oo&pany; that defendanto did not buy the radios in 
question an4 ^id not h.%v« thea; tiiat he ^id not ren^ove any radios , 
froei the La3alle street ^res^dses without anyone's eonsent; ho furttieor 
testified that he re^oYOd the aaohlnery froa the prwiieesion i.a^alls 
stroot whieh he owned, but that he did net reiuowo any radios. 

Cefsndante oontoaA that tho jud«[sient is wrong Mid should be 


■ .'jiSJiSis'Nr' 

^*tj :■■? rtefl :; 

■. ♦ ■ ■ 

.ri rfc>«L-^< '♦•/^ 

•<i J«£U ;ti--' - 

• jt^^tawM'' Ci 

•fct'.»t»* 0i-.-' 

■■ i '> i ., fl '; ,^ 

iliii^i'jirr '■ i 

/;' ^-^l- 

ill Bi>ihmt »At xtui $on bit 

«• Jon E»ib •«( fioljaEw 

■.a»ti3 9^' aoi<^«»Mp 

r«vttrs*<l beo«u3« it. is ihm law, sa r&«tr}d hy <i«i'«nd9snts' eoMnixal^ 
th»t •*h«r« a party armmu lawi*uliy tn »©«»«»»ion 01' ss^Hsattftis <mA 
retains the Qropwrty, tt» put nijs in tfe^s wpon^, <l9ffi«H<* ^nc! mtu^aJL 
ar«i u«caB»ar7,* and that no dwumd was BAds, th« «Ti4'anee !• to %hm 
nonttaxy, i'ialatliT testit'lod h)^ madi« a «!«t;i3iiRirl for th« rftdtdn ost 
SoiiaoSier a&d I>uita«. i^cr^tovar, if 4af»afianta' ientlssony Xatkt thay 
aefar had t]M ra<tlo» la tjraa, &^an olc-viously no Ae&naxni waa n^ueeaariy. 
Xh« l»m crvar raqulraa ib.« doing «f « ufi<il«a» set. It 1b o^viaaa 
that :a <ltuisA4 wottl^ hare baac un»v»iliBg, lu which o«aa noaa ia ara* 
fvirad. gjt^,^,fi^\^ ,.2g,i34^4 .^A^ii.ia^,y|aX^<u>jrii_^'iJ6BA, «3f 111. Anp.figg. 

A further poict ia il&A* toat Uaa judi^«nt i« contrary to tha 
Mu.ifaat neli^ht oi tJna aTlda^ea. W« hsvft cat lorth tbaaabottine* of 
tha avid area aa it $>^pp*ars ir^ tae raaori and are oiaariy or tlia 
•pinion that we would not tea warrantad in diaturblnf); t,h9 1 inkling of 
Uia trial court on tba ftrounti tnat it ia acalcat tha aanifaat waight 
•f tha evidenaa. 1Qi« eaurt hnard «b<I avw tlia wltnaanaa tftetifying 
and waa in a auoh battar poaitien to Judi^^a i^>!»ra tha truth lay than ia 
a ooart of rairl<«w. Thara feeing a ooni'llet in tha avt'!anea, tha ouaa* 
ticn w%a ona far tha t.ri»il Ju'igo, 

9a ar» alao of tha o^iinion the contention »«i^» that tha 
4ud|pa«nt la wrsri^^, as ai^ainat tha defendant eori^orati^n^ la untanRhlo. 
Zt wftp^'ia'n that Saidaeltxar waa tha praaident or tha daf'sndant aorpora- 
tlon and at ona tlmo did buoineaa uadar tha aana naaa <^A it ia not 
at «11 3lt<>!»r that jui^e^ant a^ainat tha daf ^ndant cMtrr^oration w»« not 
varrantad uniar tha avidanoo jbj3?3 undar th** law, 

4 further contention ia Jk&da that th«^ trinX Jiidc;a wa» fraJItt* 
diood agKlnat tha daf <^.dant«; that ha rafui8«>d to 'narnit tha dafand* 
ant a to tjrcptnt t'i^ir «wid<