(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Illinois Appellate Court Unpublished Opinions: first series"



72-3^ 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2010 with funding from 

CARLI: Consortium of Academic and Research Libraries in Illinois 






http://www.archive.org/details/illinoisappellat273illi 



772 3^ 



BOUND 



NOV 8 '60. 



hQOUU 



. L8fl f 



Lntiffa 
▼. 



-elieea. 




i 






. . , ■ . r nd . 

. .:,•, i,rt v i , i. ., 

a Oorpor«tion, 

aefendante, 

0» A^ptnl of ■, I*Q., *)*^ J-»ii«OUy 

-■ •;• lie** ) 

~:j#fend«nt *nd yllent. ) 

Opinion filed Deo. 13, 19?3 
NBL J 1 LMXOJ 

fW« ie an i by *taky UnlH ttion, inc., tr a 

I Judgment of the £*uniei?-*l Court of - - forcible 

detainer ar«u#t* egnlnet it Kiel IfcafM ether to U for the reoorary 

of the pNNMMtaa of certain reni e«t*te in Mm ^ity I ge. 

Kothing is before lit* covrt but the ooaaon law record eonaiatln 

the | ,-ie nktir-a, rooeee, • . Ml la 

no certificate of evidence or oill of cxce; tione. In the euit aa 

oxlAia-'ily eeamcnoed, the d«len4r<nt Mg not led a < rty. ubaeouently, 

the oca; l»int iron amended by the n«ae of t«kj ervi ion. 

Inc., «t r«rty defendant. -Juaaene we is ued, moed In the h"nda of 

the bailiff of the aunielu*.l Court who served It, ind flied in I 

office of the cierk of ouch court the following return* 

"Served tbie Mil on the ithin nnaed (*teky rrvlo 
Inc., ^iivoring ft. ©npy thereof with * Mpf of the oca >Int 

filed therein ettaefced to uorria -tat, ii •orron'Uon, 

aad #t tae s*ae tlae lnforalng hia of the oontanta thereof, at . 

r*ie return furtaer reoltee Mali none of t »e offloere or other *c*nta 

of the corporation were faatA In the city td kl ^f>» ueaequantiy. 

The - teky ervlne :t»tlon. I.e., entered I a eoii mnee "for 

the aaie r»nd exolueivn purpose of 'ticking and objecting to the jurle- 

diction of thie * * • Court over Hat eraon ef the a«ld >«»teky •rwiee 







SOd.A.I S ?s 



\ •¥i 






hurt* tfo 



\t%U 



I 

Station, Inc., 1 aoroor at lea* a 

Til* finding of faa court mA the faafeMaa) I aaaa&at frea 

■1 originally ent*r«»4 etaa *a follows: 

"Trisl by ©trt. i rvlj , . . / o:,f'T, 

M ayer, ,*orri& fctakpj ; -^^ 1 1. "fcy : .• ithholcJirv .-reaiaea de- 
scribed In eompi int. 

This t«Vf« coating on for further roeeedinga herein, 
it is considered by I iff h»v»e judg- 

ment herein on n* finalaaj • i. , 

have uul recover of and ?m the defendants, . • §r # 

Ben ^syer, Morris '--taky, er*ie* Station, Iaa« # ft 

Corp., eaaaansiaa *f fcaa praalaea de<s«ri'oed in the con. l?int 
her«in, and kiMWHI ia worthiest mill af tat Jaeksaa lr . 
*nd .south HHgiwam fca«* ;: ::.id t&i i nil of restitution Is ue 
therefor.* 

After the record, briefs snd abstract were filed in thia 

court, s^-eliaae *>■■■*'• red in the -uftioi I ered that oourt 

to WMHfei its finding by atltkSa HHil t • -' I la I vf been 

om&itted toy tM eaurt thro-. ^leric^i error in .-^klng ite original 

entry, i'his motion ana ulljw red tne following 

order: 

lit matter coming on to 1 on tie notion of 

*dolph Jald«etmidt« ft e.l«, i>l*intlffs herein, by -.-enrentheia 
4 lee # their -ttorneys, and on tea tad prober notice to 
counsel for iafaa sf , ewl the oo rt he rd the irgu- 

aenta of counsel tnd being fully ndyiead ll the real«?a, loee 
find: 

That by oleriovl error eJ viarlc in tr-naorlblng 

the order of the r»ourt, the aords *«nd tokjr errioe :t tion. 
Inc., ■ corporation* were otsltted in the fin i the am rt 

entered la the nova entitled eeuee} -nd t!»- t the *orde "of 
unlawfully* were likewise by cleric 1 ei the olerk 

oeitte" tftaf baa word "guilty" in a«id finding of I vtj 

end that the *ord "-la in tiff* w<*9, by cleric 1 error, written 
in lie* of the *©rd I liatlfft" e*ea tiae it r« in the 

jadgaent entered herein; ml IM or<l<- id finding 

awde by the court rt the tiae of the tri>l of tne ooee entitled 
cause ajul at the tiae of the making of aid finding by the 
court, ftjal laa filea in a id c^uae aho» thit the *iid worda 
"aad H?»t8lty -errioe Station, lne»^ ^ eorperation" "nd * 
«ord» •'of unlawfully* were oaitted by el*rio 1 error of the 
clerk T3 ?>fora»^ldj and that the word 'plaintiff* e*eh tiae 
it ftppt ra in the Jadgaent entered herein « a by olerlo-1 
•rr^r written inate d of the urord "plaintiffe*; 

Mow, therefore, it le hereby orl're'l m tune aa 

of Koeeaber 4, 1931 9 th t the record ej lndin^ eatvred 

In the shore entitled cnuee be eorreoted in confimity 






• 



s#*0 *tfi 






the ftfor«s*id mmoT*.n<l* «*de by the eett*t # to r* 1 *« 

foilowaj 

•Tri*! by -aurta Hi ;*fe»rt»r«te # -. . 

Waggoner, en feoyar* korria ~-?t*ty and "~t«ky -rviee 
3t»tioa # Inc., toy of > | , \iity of unl&v fully ith- 
fcoidlng r>ro*lao* deaeribecl in a* tt«| 

And it ie further Qr<ier«"i t nunc pvt tune, » of 
■VMriN* 4, lattL th t the WOO judgment entered 

In the sa>ov<8 entitle::* c*u»e be likewise corrected by the 
'ition ol tho i«vter •'a" to the lelatlff »bercrer 

it ■$$« ■■-■*« therein. 

h feti klif lata, ft* A. UN . 

John f. ■fttte§ 
- 
fMMaflgf$ *;\:<*ilece asorisd for lo*.f« to file tion?>l -nd 

eupplotaent 1 rooord in this court ah owing auoh *j*enda;enta ihie action 
hae b#en rf»-a^nr*d to HM btOJrl&gi "-rid Mi will dia;>oae of it before 
considering the its Mfttft* M «iil be obeerred in thle 

or lor the eourt flndu tgkfct it had before it evffiolent *o»or-?nd- to 
justify the entry t»r«of. ffet judgment fti ent^r*"* ia in«t all 
the defendants, |l -i.*nta I ail ilone would be sufficient 

aea»r»~nda from allien the court Staid aarfmd tbe finding. IM 10 t Ion 
of - ^iie*a for l«*ft It file the I ml record ia lloweda 

in it a brief ayfliwrt urgea fast tbe 4*rrlee of tbe 
auamona on defend: -.u, fcaky rrioe Station, loo., I ~<> >n, by 

ielireriiig i o*py of MM ••■plaint to aorria i?t*kr of auoh "ptwot Uoa. 
la not tbe e'rriee on I oor oration, rehired by the at«tute # *nd th««t 
the court had no jurisdiction of defendant* ihe only step t«ken by 
this defendant in tbe court below to h»re this mention paoooel uneo 
aaa to file Ml ».\ear«nee, aa eaid, "for th« soie *nd eveluaiea ur^oae 
of »tVoktng *nd objecting to the jurisdiction of onor-ble vourt." 
There w«a no action amdo to quaah the rstum or to otherwise r*>ise tbe 
question a« to the court* a Juriediotlon orer the t*ky ««nrio« t tion, 
Ino« iba finding of the court ir.dlo -tea tb^t * trnl w%m bad of tbe 
Cfsuea on ita werita, tad th t til.. >f eroortione » e proaented ta 












I 



■ <■-»: 



• .>»* 






4 

the trial court. 

*» grit "'.U^'i -M ▼• -^k of *inr.,^o, -5;. I. . R81, 

( rk.) the Supra** tfourt of »»rfcaaa«s held th«t * eonatrvetlvaly 
lerred lifUJliiMlj who * red es::eei%lly to more to cuaeh the aerTloa, 
abandoned the motion by not requesting | ruling before or st the tl 
the cause »-'» submitted to tb* court* 

; fter the shert record containing only the T 
process, ilfpfMllWIili finding of the court and the judgment were filed 
in this court, i g flmimtf filed aaseotion aurported by m sworn petition, 
praying fch-t I writ of ^.ndftwas issue, directed to the jud t ;e whe triad 
the ease in the nslMlstgai, vourt, eemnandlag hi« te sign, **al »*d fiis 
of record, petitioner's bill of exception*, fell oatitiem waa denied. 
Tha petition for su&ndsasua ia i pert of the recorda ^ere, *nd it a 
context a&owa tUfet defend ->rit t -?tafcy ©rrioe tnion. Inc., n. -'or; ora- 
tion, participate in the tri*l of the oe>*e in tha oourt bale*. Vha 
entry of the tytejel •fpttKMamNi of the defendant *«s o ly for the 
purpose of questioning the jurisdiction of the oourt - beenuge of tha 
alleged faulty serrio*/ se suggested - *nd it neena no stretch of tha 
imagination to determine that a bill of exceptions w» net dealred 
for the purpose of raising any jurisdictional question, b»sed on the 
alleged faulty service, but to \>t* «ent the icaues rnlssd on the tn .. 
Objections tc the service of jfflMMtf *re w ived by I tfansral MM 
isVamttaJst ▼• ^UU. 166 111* 308. 

*• ssc no re son for disturbing tha finding ad judgment 
of the court, &nA the judgment la. therefore, f firmed. 

a rr i »mid, 
hiLsoi Am man., jj. ooioviu 



'■■ 



. . 



- 

I 









' 






MM 



.;•• . -v 









;*# » 



1 1 ■ 









m m ■ 



50 



3SS76 



AppOllee, 



LOUI I , % J. Iftf n<J 

m i . , 










»o*i t r I 



. 



t 



27 3 I.A. 609 



•21 ukI* 



Opinion filed )«c. 13, 1S"»3 

isu MR PB ft, 

this |i H fM&i &i*s froai * Judgment of the 

HWltiytl ^'cmrt &t fejM \ m* Louis Kies, -'.at or J. «*y «n<i 

HllllfW a* BNdMlji «l«? | i'-: pfttiXlHig • to reoower a 

balance llilliid It be fatf vaae-r M - ^e^ed to hswe be«»n 

entered into b#twe*ft .i-<int. nte for the anle by Wn- 

tlff te defendants of eert r 42 l**«ee in the at te of 

Xeasna* The third «un»nded at <* tenant of ol*la u on which the e^use w*a 
tried oh**ge« ih;i oa the I4ta Aag of fenftttw* I • - I 111 te 

the def endnote 17 oil g&a leasee for the etui of 11," .30, on 
account of which defendant a paid laintiff ..l,S.'O.00 in o*eh emd 
OT&lly agreed t© ptf the b* l*uoe In i .at'liaente of , . n 

Gepteaher 39th # 1930, .-'•, en October \ . II » nd -e.o^.ai 

en Icveafeer 30th, 1930, together with intereet »t the r te of •> per 
?nnuj« fro* the tl«n ! . euoh deferred nyaenta bee*** due, until n«ldj 
th <t the as«lgn«ente of euoh leasee were to be a*de to the defendant, 
Unlter J. -*y, and delivery of euoh aealgnaente aide by for*-rdin« 
aaae to the ;i»erid*n Tnut a 3 Tinge Uenk, Ohie f «, Illlnola, en er 
before Auguet I th, NM« ihe at*toaent of elUai •lieges' that plain- 
tiff did deliver co-dee of theee lesaee, tegether with the »a«lgn«enta 
thereof, as »greedj th*t defendants entered into ec«ee*lon ef the 
l&nda eeverwd by the leaaee, and were in ooeaeeeion »t the tine the 



M IB 



QOd .A* I P. 



. 



. - 

. < ■ i to 

mhtilui* 



3 

suit Vftf instituted, l n:'i %h % the b&lsaaaa * pre ad u-on hnd not beea 

;>« id, 

*Y M» aap**ata affidavit of :»erite, the defendant, Louis 
Sles, denies tfeftl m entered into sap orsi or writ tan o* ritn 

plaintiff, together with % > ether defendant* or ctherwlse, for thf 
purchase of tfceaa la&aes, or taat he .".greed to pay trie sua 'i>«r»ti;msd 
in HmJ itvltMKl af £!*&% or say ©1 i w&, or th«t he vat ewer s 
party to ttf t W rtlf 'i flf •*•! or *Titt«>, by the terms of whieh defead- 
ant pWNlMMNsaj Ml RglHMi to :;vi;r«ha»e, say leases of r^ny .iuoh l«nd», 
or th-st he entered into possession of tue laato mentioned. This 
-?ffi&rrit of aerits ftflrlflMW raaltas that the defendant, M>uis tfiee, 
is not liable be©.%t»€ fcbe -sllaged >r».l promises, if a* da, oonstltutsd 
«n agraeaent not to fce EM**fbf**»< '"itnin I /ear, MHN rromiees to 
nasser for ta€ 4«%t if another, to witj- *rJL*«» J. nsjr, *ad were fsr 
the ««le of 4'©ods arid eh&sea its HPlAtR of to* value of SftOO.OO sai 
upward, and, therefore, beaause of eaatt of ^fenses, the ction of 

ai-intiff is barred by MM statute of muds. 

•. . ■ okerle a . intii , wtJ Mai Hi I M ipMrt r * , 
1930, the tars* defendants nHlfi ngeea all at his offies ia £dna, 
Kansas, sad requested to be shown eert~in §aa r.-ropertiee; that plain- 
tiff, together with the aefandajita '«nd a ama aaaed Brennen looked st 
the properties; that they returned to the of ioe of the ?i*intiff »nd 
the dafeadant £ies made M offer of il, . foT these l»««es *ad 
that the wl&intiff agreed to sooept th*t -mount; th*t lefeadint lies 
expreaeed % desire that defendant **y »ot ss trustee in the tr»aenotion, 
sad that plaintiff w«e iaetruoted to *a«ign the leasee to Mr. ; y, *ae 
that after the assignment w«a mada the laesaa »sre to be tent to the 
Sheridan Trust £ MpfcP «"** o* ^bie*«e, Illinois; th*t ea Aagaet 14th, 
1930, he reaaired | oheek aa looour.t from er« kiee for H t Wtitti Taa 
reoord shows th»t thereafter on the e»«e date . I .tiff and defead*at 
May entered into what ie ealled a eales afreeaent, wbiab vne ei^aed 



« 
to 

- •-' 

J •#* 






?.«#tftO«. 






$ 

fey plaintiff *nd defendant May, in whioh it ia reoited th-»t the • *rty 
Of the first ,^rt, starting yiaintiff, will sell, «>nd the r rty of 
the second part, MMMtMg the iftftm ■ /, viii !,x»y the oil and g%a 
!§■><■ referred to for the -rice »f . 11, ■ , *•-■'. in «*ah, the 
r«e*i.s?t if «hieh ia acknowledged by the ^re* sent, the b->i*att to be 
evidenced by throe* not*?*, one fc.r >•■?>,**>%■*>■; iue eptenber ?^th, 1330, 
one for HlfrUHMM due October SW** 1930, sag one for )4»10O # 00 iue 
Snwaber 3Hh, 1330, all of the notes to fem interest at the r^te of 
8> *fter maturity, end that the | ■ i.. MtKl of the g*s leases nt to fee 
delivered to the ilMUlflnil frust a t&rLngl .s-nn* of whio-.vf, Illinois, 
these notes were nreeutnd by teay, delivered, t. . ">■■', ni the 
ftgraeaent and the notes tat a pftft of the r«eord nerein. 

Ta«e*.ft«r *>& tag**! ?th, 19&0, toe three defendants, 
Louis Hies, jfetlf #• Ifef Wf iillsaj fi, Bvtlfc, ant* 1 - 4 into * written 
«£:r«4acnt bet»Mn th#asse'lv&«, signed by each defendant* in -hloh it le 
reoited ths.t an or about the 14th d-iy of August, 1930, the three defend- 
ants had smdn I fttfftttS agreement betaken the&aaivet to -uroh^se for 
their joint benefit certain sjgj| and gaa ls«;»ee of l*nda loo-ted in 
kabette County in the •tnte of UMM twm . . <»okerle of lefea, 
£&na%f», upon o«rt*.ift %ztsm Net conditions; thnt defendant Mies had 
dvtneed the sun of y '.&0 on behalf of -isaelf *nd the other twe 
defendants, 1, >0,0© of which «r*s to cover the first -ayiaant on suoh 
leases, the hi^noe to be used in drilling ■ veil, *nd thnt the e%reh«»e 
contract for these levees had been t 'ken in toe n*«e of **y, who held 
the leases for the benefit -f himself, Nice and aeink. (his 'greoaent 
entered into between theae three dafendanto oonWns the details of 
saitml arrangeaents and -*greanente feeteewn the three defendants con- 
cerning these pst l».nd leases* 

efen nt ales testified tn-«t on the 14th day ef August, 
1930, fee and defend-' at a, May and 3win* md s as* naaed e r e— o n , allied 
upon the plaintiff, n*d «t tut tl*e there » e no rtnerehip *rr« 



* ,*; 



it B 



i 






, 






H 






Mi P 






m&K% b«t«*en Hi«a na! MfosMtnati* yj ■ i ttm i » eoae 

coav#rs< tiou I i i gp* p**n«rtl«s t tot told laiMiff 

th- 1 he MM not interested if it ^n inv*at«i*nt of tart 'elend- 

aot furti^y testifier tu-t nl left the con fire-no* MMl I nt 

«s«e out to fci« MMl told ftia thnt he, >, a*4l benight the property, 
sad th*t th* def* ni would 

not sijsa. -ay inp**«| ' : • : •*• MMl to th* nleintiff, sked to eee 
th* » # ttt»Wrt ■.*nt<vr*d. into between l»intt> i l*f*i , ga- 

ther* told plaintiff ht -~ould h*.v« aothi . U do with the <«*tter and 
th^t he *n& acst interested, ft*f*«dtiat I 1*1 further testified th-^t «t 
th-t time M 'isvdebt** t© Hay in '>><*-rorin.?tely the sum of |S t l . , 

and Mm£ Kt MP*i wktu*** b* dre* i oheok ff*l 1, . to enable toy 
to saake |fefl flUWt 4 fell $9 g&aiatifl OAdftV the contract entered 

into bitwsen th* plaintiff m& ■ r, -iea faltfe** t**tlfi*4 that when 
h* signed MM *§p*mmL% entered 1st* h*t*«*n th* three d- -i>ndr>nts on 
August iftn* 1H8« h* *** not INMM nt the fact that it cent ined 
recitations ft* . feot Hint these three defendants had entered int* 

an &r«l MMMMoM MMM W fafc U ■•-*• leasee, y held MM title 

to the loan** for MM benefit if nU three. 

fa* voint. is mssde by thie dlf indent I int iff o^nnot 

recover until MM notee given to p&nlatlff »y tf*y -re surrendered, Th* 
record on th*$e no tea is th t they were reduced in 'vourt by ::l*intiff's 
attorney upon reoueet of d*f*n ant Mee. rh* tri I curl . orsltted 
the notes to remain in the n*ss**slon of plaintiff 1 * -ttoraey, with the 
following ass****** giv*n by hin t to-~tt: 

1 *li # a* far as our <*%ur noe is oouosrn*d f I &ive 
th* But*! tii* «:»fittr«inoe t <■ t nothing «-ill be done on theee 
notes until i - r court nee a«de this e*ae 

if Mm •&*• should go up to It* nor.rt, «*nd *e f»r *e 

^ny other liability of r, y ie oonceraed, tn* defentf* of 
Tea rctiudlO'ta would be ■ . erf eot defense^* 

IppMU rt' np^titlMI U I t fMM MMl M • iMii 

*p*n en tooount for whioh e note le glron, the pi I ?-«nnot recover 

«Bl*se he oroduoes the note mmm MM tri-1 nd off*re to deliver it wp 






..v. 



-J ■•■ 



$m 















. 









• 



• 



5 

ot ah©<e that it ha-ts been lost M bM tJMJN •, . < kma mm u f ej 

the law will ?reeuae the note h%g been peJUl 0* put in olroulnion If 
it is not ..rodvseed, (32i&a& *• U»*ftft«fr W IU. 4.) An the 

l&stnnt MUM) nm%® vf tae.^e ^resumption* e*e /reaent. Hal notea In 

sueation were produced is ejejajft ■ s # and 

by the trial }v£$* permitted to ftaj j Uef ouetody of pi-intiff»e 

mttoraey, aCMttAg thin e^ee* Vturther, w» m see no neejilbila eitui- 

tion arise where there ten be --my linbixlty ON tbe*e notee on MM rt 

of 9iea. 

fti N tia© : -tute of i'ravula* we hare only 

this t© ©eyt The e&ntrs.ot »"»• fully ^SfWRUd M the i rt of the 

plelntlff* the dc«ii p ^pi W ttl b»£ be$n pa&4 by the oaeek of defendant 

Sies, %nd if h« i« UUMe -■■■% nil, . M Itfl to be done but o*y 

the money. Hats defense hue no Mtit« In '^©./o^id ▼, roa . br. l.r ill. 

383* the *upva**t (Jourt es 

*i\« to Itee first* tiit? iiiff i •:•<,-, erly *u»t>--lned 

on the f ,;r0wnd th-'t the «ojvt.w©t ieo.1- sred « hm i felly *nd 
completely pfttfovi h intlff, wad 

nothing ee«s».it*ed to 'be done hf tk* ka bat to <y the 

*orry, (§24I$4& ¥ » »M&» ■ *«U W») M do not underet-nd 
under Hm nu« l% thie etnte the! the frtetwte el /rmde eae be 
interposed «ej i ioltoe so-ntrsot a* fuily performed 

en Hat pert el fc .tiff, - in other words, the Jtitute of 

Urswde gejjMMit be i ..■.■■■ I of for the Metyeee i etrotiag a 

fr*ud,* 

The oentr».©% plipill kwI executed If ■••iea and the other two 
defendants on Auguet 87tta # 1 ^33 # ©entwine ^n adaleitlon of the f-ote 
upon efcieb •;l«*intif.f , e 0*9* ie bedNMfla and M«s «*nnot eeoer© iiafcaUitf 
by the elala tint he did not trior vhut he Mi aigning« There ie not 
* eug£-*stion in the reoord Hall hia aignnture w»a obt IbM hy fr*ud 
or dureee* 

■at judgment of the ftBMAMi ^ourt of >-hioige la affirmed* 

tILSOS AIO ISSKL, J . 



■ 

■ 






^O l|HM 

- 

vauutxs c 

NfJ t* 

i 






36205 



I 




(i'l»intlff} At,B#Jt*<fl»j 

▼. 

Xmi* t, M9A8 Mid 5, . , ing 

buainees M KHSAI * : ■ X, ) A 60 9 

flWtjrtifilB) ipscallanlw, ) 

Opinion filed Deo. 13, 1933 

• . si .Dim w mm. 

this in hi 1 rrosB ■ judgment if the *unioip»l Oeurt 

of Oblongo for 903CUT4 reooT«*ed in « suit by plaintiff against 
tm tmtto& l m i wherein plaintiff olelnftd that defendant* were indebted 
to hiii for work done under ft *ritt«m eo'itr*ot between the p*rtie». 

i'hft **ritt*n contract h ■■■on which the ault is b«aed it 
dated Siovmteer IfttUg 1930. the defendants were the gtmwtl contractors 
in the erection of n buil&ing for the ©itjr of "MiTtyptj wad the pinin- 
tiff ft suV-eontrnctor* If the tftVM ftf Ihft contract, |L intiff agreed 
to lay certain briek sat ittt isfttnll cert- in iron work in the 

construction of the bi.-iiding gft ..ricies ftt 'ted therein, *nd th-.t the 
work «m« to be eeaspleted not i-«t<?T t)Mfl Oeoeaber 10th, but the oontr ot 
does not iftf wh&t year. It is -Uao provided aajong other things th*t 
should the subeontr&ctor b© elny«?d in the prosecution ind ooer-letion 
of the sorts by any fcftt of neglect, ftft&ftf or default of the oontr«otor 
or the arehlteet, or <?ny other sub-»eontr«otor employed by the oontrwe- 
tor, tfcftt the ti&e for MM eoepletion of t m MMft should be extended 
for | rerxod ftsjllliftHBf to llM tiee loet, but tn-t no *llow%nee should 
be wodc unlets » elela therefor oe presented in -riting to the eeft- 
tr otor within M hour* ftftftl the occurrence of eueb leley, n4 if 
the parties oould not rtgree u; on the length of such extension, eueh 
question should be decided by arbitration, *a -rowlded. ay the teres 
of MM contract, the contractor m e to furnieh all aeieri»ls 9 and it 
provides th t in the event of f-'ilurr in th t ireotion, then the 
contractor is to reiaburse the tub-contractor for tny loai e^ueed 






QQd .A. I 8 



Vi 



. 



1 1 1 . 


















■ 

i 
/ Ov .' 0©«wfo» »ffa blued* 

Htm »&» t* 

At »*©«• 

- 



awtf «« 



I 

thereby, m& if the sub-oontrnci yed trie a terial progress of 

the *Qrfc so M to MM1 " deiMgll to lb* contractor, th t he, the sub- 
contractor, should ftf linboa for my euoh f . It is further 
provided titoa the fin*i eerti flMtt or finr.i rasat should be oon- 
olutire evidence of ttee perforacnae of the iaatrea?, >nd 9l*o th' t 
if the parties oould Wrt »«*«* *Mtt fehe trerk to od or omitted, 
or upon the amount of *ny deaeges to either of the *rtie«, or m to 
-;ny of the setters oont».lnwd in the contrast , th t *ny *uoh I ;ilure 
to agree ehould a* subaitted fa Inane disinterested "rbltr*tore 
*.nd UmI the decision Ml Mf tM of thea should ^e binding. 

the affidavit of defense -vers th t- plaintiff did not 
•oaplste the eontrset imtil January IHh, 1 <'i'i, ,~hioh «ea not the 
date agreed ope* for cor. - , kni I 2 intiff sad not consisted 

such tmiMKI Ul MangieSftt ditto sttof t*ns)| th^t no sgreesMnt oould 
be or warn reached adrth N Msl ttu vtiss • le ■! fesf or dnatgs 

olninsd by the :\i*dntiff f Md tfeat tttd | liff Md refused to Tbit- 

fnna« and, the in fan *« BSuld .not recover, Md furtner that the i in- 
tiff had not pi rforaed the contract to he vtief^e-tion of the 
d^fendnnts or of rani BlfiflsWiltj «»r., tad -ity rcnitcet, without nhsee 
fin»l certificate defendants insist tint by the t r n»s of th« oontr«*ot, 
plaintiff Md no Vtgfct of SStian* The amount of ^ork done sad siter- 
ials furnished r- fe liifM If fen I intiff «ai -re not disputed, 
nor is it disputed taaa tf*s prices charged lit those firs'! by the 
oontr-.ot. It is not olaiJMl th I tiff«s w>rk was not dons 

•^ooordin^ to the oontr- at, exoe; t for soae dslsy in tMP&rttdBe 

intiff on his Mai insists U t MM Mats* th* oon- 
trsot v»-9 not aoapleted *' rlier -as beomu*© sf the dei-iy of the 
defendants in furnishing arterial M r uirftd. It ia »lso in«i»ted by 
plaintiff th t tnere r« s further deity occasioned by the igMts ssd 
represent tives tf the oity of "ble«go» who ordered »nd soused the work 
to be suspended on soeount of bad e«theT *nd holi dsys« ko d%si-ge 



, - 
- 



.ieifc 






i 

■ 

8 ' l . 



I to t«* 









; v. .' ■;■: u.1»' ,■■■.. ?;r- U t- n WW 1 

hat \o tmso*?* no 



I 



I 

Is cl&ljj»d by plaintiff for either of auoh allogti dei«*ys, <vnatever 
a*y have been the oauae of the delay t whether y MM f-»ult of plain- 
tiff or ti»« defendants, or the egtftta of the city of -hi" go, the 
reeord shows thit the «v©rk to be done under the contract between the 
defendant *ni the eity oi .1- been done, including plaintiff* s 

portion ther€of, Mi M*t 8 'i Mi by tne city of 

3hio;:go M lefMAante * awa of i ,1 ,. MM included the psjr- 

;«©nt for Mi *ork done by the plaintiff, Ui-re ie no sug eg t ion in tht 
reeord of any objection b< in Mil by Mf MpvMMMMM of the city ef 
Chicago th t tne arorfc t satisfactorily done, and froei the fatt 

that the MltiflmilMI KM1 which this voucher Mt issued was signed by 
: rul uera*rdt, Jr., city - rohiteot. Mi MM* city officials, se drue 
the ©onoluaion, MfMftt ttm i« nothing to tne oontr«ry, MM not only 
vma the contract bet --e en Ml M&& contractor* «nnd Mt oity of -hiov.o 
fully performed, but that the work c greed to fce tfonc I intiff h*d 

MM been fully itlfpMMa Neither ie th*»r<? 'ny claia MM* nor ia 
there | tug eetion in Mi record that defendants suffered any definite 

loss by reason of any Inijjjed delay in Mt • rforaanoe ef the work by 

is 
plaintiff. The defense/ urpred Met i intiff *sa obliged to svbalt his 

claia to or it rat ion before he m n ««int^in thia motion, but to Mil 

*• do not *gMi« -rin Ml tffMl defendant moved for it re to file 

an amended affidavit of MVitl setting up an entirely different defeat* 

thM that net u in the original, which the court denied. In the 

exercise, by the court, of its discretion, in this regard, there wws bo 

error. 

The trial court he>rd the witneeaee, and we see nothing 

In Hi record ehioh would justify this court in reversing ttas Jui*»ent. 

The judgment is l f firmed. 

AffSMMa 

m.9C« 9 AID HKBK1, JJ. MM . 



■ 

■ . 



'lit 

. ■ 

■ 



. 









ftl 



... ^ .,. • .-,■;« -v. v -i».L hsv/ X i<y "■■ am ' f* «WJ! 

ai 



-. . ■ 



36326 

■ , r 

duly &®tiB# ni ifittttMl 'i ■■■«'» 




. 




- i r 



5 . •-.,■':.,•... 
I Jorpor--'tlon f 



. 



27 3 I.A. 61 1 



Opinion filed )ec. 13, 1933 

Btifci in m ftj»pwtl ftom % gvAyMKl agalfiat defendant la a 
isttlt brought 'by pijfrHnHff M ^eeha on a certificate 

of i&«ttr«me« dated August ^ta, 13!*, aHfl Joeoofc leata*., the father 
of tfffis (Hi fcstjF 'ltS5V-'? # by & fMNtiltla* tMttnwM sooletjr, know* no 
the fittifii Itaaft of J«*oa, ! i a* 160, 

the li>ii1HmgMi of a&alfl B^ts forth feat it is rori<ied in 
this o«Ttifio%t« &&t upon tb« fetata tit HMI iMriM , . should be 

pmid to Anna < iafcke sr-i . .to her elataVj Q leahn. It it 

fMrtftif *liagad Ur I -■■■ ■■ry P&fgaO redeoe ed her father «nd sister, 
>sd th t *y the tense of tJM ©ertlfie to uon the de^th of Jo?e?h # 
the whole amount t. ; i#y©jof oo«;vao >ayaa4f, to ^ i tiff m guardian of 
Anna leaha. 

In KM ftl fid 'Tit 4 ;.erit« filed by defendant, it la 
alle&ed th t oe June ;: th, !•<•« fter the leeuanee of the certificate 
sued on, Joee : ,h Pimth , I lure.i, eontiMMl civil smrrive <*ad 

cohabited with hie wife; th t there Mi la effeot M the tine of the 
death of the insured | by-law of thie eoolety which .rowided that 
*Waoower shall enter into civil oontraot of aarrl *«• he shall 
thereby Ipso f cto , exoel Maaelf or herself from the Jalen. The 
persona who do not >*eloog into *ny :*tholm arlsh or huroa ■ ' 
•hall likewise be ineligible for «e«bereoii> in this orgsnintlonj* 
th*t by such afc.rri.ge Joseph leeh* violated euoh b/-la» ad thereby 






i 



- 



Yd 



•eased to be * sae&ber la good * tending in sue 3 aooiety, -md th"t, 
therefor* defendant »?*• not liable the certificate sued cb. 

It *•• stirsulfttea Ml the tri'i th t lMI|| leeb*- beoftae 
a amber of the society m tlle«ed on ftMfWH '4th, 1319j met ths 
•ertifie-te if iMMMHMi sued or sea iiiiid to hifs, rtyiftaa' fter 
his deeta to hie lilglft-lif MM U'^r .-*as; that Joseph 

i'leehft died OH July Sth, IM* tfl I Hm£ his 1%ught*r, tt' ry, rs- 
deeeaaed Joseph ISMM* Flti%n is no* sols bene f ioi v ry 

under nmtth eertifle r rtMIJ that in iBM - I «# de*th' of ■ amber vbea 
out or mm of t*.«e MMJaJtlglia iiw *«• not living, the satire sua of 
the deee&sed iMMftdiatiea tfMtiU vest in the rea*lning beaefloi ry, 
and tant the South &&««$• riUB&B -nk is the duiy prtllfHf ru-rd- 
laa of ^nn« *ls«u*. f pi&iflttffj to I cobb*. see asrried ta oae 

*>aaa Sectt on July 30ta # Htt| by * Jus ties of r«*ae in rosn ('oint, 
Indians, Ml th t Hm mm&ftgt was not a©lesaai*ed or r tilled *soord- 
ing to HMI yules Ml llifilfttrt OTi of fas MM .•"■\tholio ;hvrob; th t 
there wns i» ferae ea January 1st, fcBOfg i s>y-i«»w of suoh society 
ahieh ^rorided that Whoever sh^ll snta? into '• iril Jontrsot of 
■ffttidptj fl * sh»ll thereby |M I tMll •*T'*i Massif froa this Maiens* 
thfet on jaausry 1st, 1931, there mi mother by-lie in fores, vhlah 
provided that *;vh©ever sh«li cntor into l Mtt intrust of *irrln«e, 
ha ehftll thereby jpsq r-oto expel hiaself or her*elf froa th* nion. 
In ths event t&t euoh amber rwid *-«f ?«f#ss»snts tfter each expul- 
sion, ths saas ah' 11 ha returned to bi» without lat^rest.* 

It is furtbsr Ml falsi >J th t IMMM Mi I sbiid born of 
suoh awrria^a, whioh ohlld vaa b-ptisad aeoordiufr to ths oswn tholis 
■iMlll th t Ann« xlssha is the ohlld Ifll tiff by '• forasr 

a«rrlags; th t bis first vlfs lisd ;sptsabsr 5th, 1919 j th*t ths 
insured ^nd is ssaond vlfs ssrnmtad ia -)sptsaber, 192a» sad did ast 
lias together there fter; th>t ths insured Bag rlsited by I -oswa 
> tholis rriest nad reaeleed ths luet riiss of ths aaaa Sothalle Obureh 









, 






■ 

■ 






. 









■ 

; ' 
i 



i7T: ; :, 









. 

A 40 » » 



* fct)Yi*< 



3 

Just $Hm to hie 4e ib, nl ih t he **» buried by the oaan ^tholio 
Church in l %M MfcaiH s-ssaeteiy. it is further .-»d ta*t 

such by-Is.*-® pgaje&li ftae ftSU - | »f the &rff»al*fttloa| 

"to preserve tMattg its MWllII ■ iy tataaltt ^ftgtTftj ihue pro- 

moting tfetffti siamml (aairituA.1) a&] &aea»« m vigii- nt, th t 
aeabere pflttffcM their Wftlgtgwa $K$les -ad tbs dutlee of citizenship, 
thus to iaprore the society aa* saaktadU . /aSaber who does not xive 
the ills- of b good QBlHatiUt a* l&*tf la o-.«m '-it ts of liaJHif r 
asgiaots M reaalTa tl« ucly . ;: *cr«.mont& luring MM ImIM >«riod, or 
doe* MM M NMt thfi aafaall church, wherever he is <* *»mbsr, or 
does not UMl his child r*n to a '.--thoiie inlxoul, iHnmi **** is 
pKililif Hill af JWjHiiiliti fro® the Onion if it be a© roven. r It 
Is further stipulated tk».% the following rules i*J regulations of 

oenduet tii i $m% ot $m nfn^i-,i mm **a of tfct >o»aa 3*thoiio 

ci&arah Ittl »*@r# 1 (Mil thereof in the ye»* IS^S *nl rior ther«to: 

"Only those aavi&agsa aye valii which nre oontrsotsd 
before i eamft orient $2? th* Laaal ordinary ot i srlaat 
delegated by aitha* of taa» fe&d M laaafl two sltaaaeaa* 

that a&rri&ies c-ivtrr-ated by (tataollt* satslsa of the 
church, t*«* t el&ndsstiaa aarriaass *re not only illicit but 
»bsaluteiy invalid, (feat .^tholies aey not ra*rry before 
Ifcfil i^ntfiirilfi, Bt i nnMyntj sailed •■ 9qalre« 

fh' I m Hwasa etaalli hurch it not ©«- 

esenraniOHted frosa the .Jhureh by re> : r>on of altering into a 
marri rfestUd fcy a .ivil a>glstrste a :ueh jneaber le 

Ipso foefto , exeewmale> ted from . uroh by reason of #nte r- 

ing into i Marriage par foraed ay « yrieet or rf»ini»ter of 
another vaXlgtaa*" 

tae l«V« jaba .'.•.i«vnik of Joliet, illinoie, ■-■oirltual 

director of the defendant society, I litMNM offerod by defonlr:nt # 

testified th- 1 | aaWMal wrried by i civil MMjIfttMM ^nd not « 

. tholio priest ce*n«»a by th t to live Mai life of * good tft tholio >,ad 

th t if he ooHt»blt« t^ierenftffr #itb hie wife, be is llvtat; 15 «a i-*a 

etp.fe of 'vdult^ry within th» meontn^ of Mat by-l«^s of lefsnd^nt 

society, but that if ha »e^r^te» frws euo^ »lfs *nd no Ion. nr livee 

with her, he is not living in *n open et-<t» of iult*ry -itnin ths 

aeaalng of aaii ?>***&>» ^h. It will be noted th t the bylaws •hleb 






,.10 



■ 

■ 
■ 






i 






. 



it ai • ■■ . 



4 

|Wtf%ii for expelling the aeaber of the society the re fro* beo«u*e of 
the »UB|J)eii tif ■ civil ***ritt.ge ver* adopted ^fte? the certifio^te 
of iaeiureaoe ia this nmm wm issu- i**ur*d # Ml ^fter Joaeph 

jpleehs h^-d miitfmK i t*« cmi rssrri-^e. &« eug^eeted, it *^a 
stipulated ftai at **B tise* if the civil Murtlefl I the time 

the e«rtifio-it€ MM i«<*ued|i the folle-viag rule ud regulati** »• » 
part of $*t WWW law of the telle Church; *Th*t I m+aber 

of the &*•«& >> thai in 'Unureh la w,v exeom»imie\ted fro* the ohurnh 
hy wm H B > ft aftfcatlftfl into a an ••■ erfovMed by ■ civil vsgietrate." 

fh« testimony HiiitoiHli by defendant is ts> the effeet th*t 
eve© though i *?.rrift.ge it. not viaajp&Mftl by Dm church, if . • rtiea 
eer^rHte « they did &» this mm f j* no longer I Tiolfttioa 

©f the Cnm® 1^: ?.:>e a&ureli* 

fwm the ree©wi it -:./■■.©■ -r ft tbot the i — m I pal .of 
hi® dues up to the tiae it hi fcfe* pal the frets • .iiueed, in- 

eliiding the taetiacny ai 6»?«ift£atl$*s «itneaa, the -a^lntiff had 
the right to resov^r, fat fMflfMtMt ie Affirmed. 



tlUOH AS3 aS*. : , ■ ■ . 



/ 






■ 






■ 
to 



: * \iM*um 



■ 









MM 



ftUSfat* , of 

Shioetgo, Illinois, 

(KXaifitlff) '■■■ ,alie* # 

( a« f and$.nt > « HMUjurt* 



. 



. *. , 




. 



-1-A. 61C 






Opinion filed Deo. 13, 1933 

-. . mm i . i 

Efcefci Mi m : - lafasetaat twm i jwigmant of the 

Sttf»«:rioir IfeaWt of Ooafc taKfey '■-.?■' iixtt tafas&ailt snt red in i suit by 
O'lsiotiff to reooTer Wjiiytt aolleeted by total ..«ntof pliln- 

tiff 4 tflat jiiillWNJ? fif *i«fea?.i'ifit as itntt&ataiaiit d«<» him, 

tbe l«krti,n &L$pei . :o^e»bor <■ th t 

x Ml* baa*** Hm <>aa«*»i at*?-. ■■■ ■■'* HII4ttH| frnowa «a the 

•i-tehford itfUAfcajg* ew&ad tmA ©?:«•*:■» tad by plaintiff a witft w eei iy 
amounting to 4% of the eo.Ueotiona MMMI by defendant, M . roalded by 
■ reaolutiaA «tf V. - ei of Hnm l iU) i>f pSJ&Mtai Hi) thnt 

by aonaent of tfte r, 8l*£«a* d#fen''. «*•« aarriees vara discontinued 
tbout ap&l 1 | :■■' , . 'v- f am! tn- t itafJUwHawtl t. suoh ti*e oe «ed -anala* 
aollaotlona Mi turnad ©re* 8&* lesaea to **oth*x atnagar, rendered 
I r<? qrt of hla co-i^eatlons, hut rn MM ., *ni '.everted hie rl*,ht ta 
ret in, HM MNttt MMI for at *aaa»eie*ieme for ie «ea *nd r* new-alt, • 

la his affii vit of aerlta, defendant melata that hie 
employment unda? toe fras of the resolution of tae ha*rd of ireotore 
of the i<lntiff or; >r tion fixing hie eoa ene-tlon *t 10 of the 
auae eolleeted, t«r«aiir*ted bout apall ^7th, 1Mb* ln«te«d of on 
a rli 1st, 1 , ti alleged} that ha we thereafter retained la eueh 
a«ployv.«nt without «ny definite oontmet 'i to ea*4ne>tlon, nad ta*t 
aa a lleeaaad wml eat- N broaer, ad n aaabar of the Jhle«ge <e»l 
iateta a©*.rd, ha la entitled to xeeoTer the Quaternary "*aaunt uau-lly 
paid for auah eerwloea in thia ooaounity. It la not dieputed th*t 



matm 



"Qlt 



w» 






.... 







• 


• 


1 


. 


, 




•■•■ 


, 


1 


- 


■g IJfcfciV-.'n - ,..;.■■ ' rf*r ; '->j ■■(<$ ■•'. -. • , ■ i ■■ ■ 








$*• 


. 


$#■!■ 


• 


. 




»,; 




*iwM** •« 




• 






3 m 



'■'■c*J ka , 

Java** 



s 

•during this i ttr :^Hod ( def- to h *ve 93 hi* 00a •eae* tlaa 

sad tft^t be rat&iaad Uta of eoil^otlons aeda by hia, agreed to ©e 

paid under tb* t«r»a of bl» fonssey •a»ita*%« tttl UN •ttion to 

be dot oral nad i» vhatlMH* cr not aa la governed toy the contract, or la 

entitled to ret-In tha 1 .;-iitlr:5r.l MM if l # tl . . , the -mount of 

th# Jwdjpfltfl as tine Q\i*to«&rjr ebarga fat ••.» •STvioee rendered* 

J* SMBlUe v* Hlife»3Ji IU4 Ifif our Ihmm Jourt « Ida 

"th# rulf . . r.odly is t m»'*t If one person eanloy 

aaataar at fcj r*ad pv&#i : ■■.-.■ ■ • •'> 

aent is continued ftftM |i»i aspirstiofi on 

a&ftettt -my Mm - r -;y#*awsnt • I ■ ■■• » ■ ■ resumption is 

tb*t th* £«r*4*a 1&%da*Sfaad ft tat fcha :,rl I -ya- tn- 

8«iion i* ait© to fe# aa»*Iiait*| @& -.aa no difference 

tmat tb«r« «W^r fe€ $&&£ e i^rvicee required sad 

pOTfoiraiadj, &a« th«t t&aiMS tot Ml lAiTO M M iia&nution of the 

i*ttaa> *o long aa it la a&aaj&y within Um eaapc of the 

ayii^iaul <?&ploy;««mt. ilk* lamaaa is, I 1J the employee 
fOMlitlg is tba $««# fusclo/seat, aftiS Ilia t?r« of service h«e 
«xpirti # without aal&a - i$mM& : *ed pay* the employer 

stay *a&I ©gaaaati ffeat aa laifiaaaaal aaatpamaatlaa te expected 
©x 1 %iii aa rttpftifad* ©ad taaviag aatad aaaa t iM*vtion # 

aajl fftilad fta protaet nisaelf by a na* ©antraot, the ralayee 
will aa fca-U 'l® awa* - taaaad to a :<*rfortenaa of the service 
all Dai a^M^aal axiaa* *»a §lgM>fi • ilM employee tnd employer 
aaa aataal smd gaa4awaaal« *a layai *»raita a 

attatlaawaiaa of I2mi f^rsriet aftat tm taw I red, 

'*ith(^yt • n&w .ztliM'x . m to |%a price, 11 reeuacrt 

ta&i ba ex]»aated aad tatjamtal la aaf for the seTvioa of I 
ariglaal ao«pana?tion stipalated. Xn auch 9*m 9 the reoovery 
will not ba apaa tha ajaaaitaa ««ruit, uvt apaa the contr*at 
implied ay lam% aaat fat taa aaaaaaaaaalaa oraauawd to hrva beam 

flxad by tba paTtlaa« ■■ ■•^^j"^ v. ?1ov1. 6 .«*ey t 184; jiAffjL 

▼. <-lVn h%» • ■■■t> 567; ,% ^, Iron f-ctgry ▼. lgtl-rJfflB> 

£> ■» a> a»5; .r&v^r » ^.k« ^> .-■ Ja . v. ^UlUU ^S 111. 189.* 

Oader ta# holding in thia c«taa» abioh we *ra of th« 

opinian io the gaatatai r\0.a, we hold that the plaintiff ia entitled 

to raoover tha vao.mt of Ita ol^ifi. Hal jvd#**nt la 9 tharafara, 

affirmed, 

I 0. 

»i2o»0« k»t> m»%L t J4. Btl 












• 



■; f. ■:><- 



tmm 



■ .,- •■ *. 






3©343 

et©., / 

/ ) 

:. *e, ) 



. 






*IU.Uh KAlimi, Mai,, 



21 



I >I«HM 

Opinion filed Deo. 13, 1933 

**H. Nmsna nnfi^n . or the < . 

this is m 1 fy©« «. aeore* of the Jlreult )ourt of 

Ooofc County entered in i suit brought to foreclose I Mortgage truet 

d*«d # Msf ordering in* ml€ of the aijjmtf' >lodged to eeeure the 

P9«ftft$ ft* aaot« for H$ v 9@&*$$ t tfcg proceeding «-a instituted by 

oeaplainft&t M ©onssrT*tor £®r one -toss ush, inesns. It is vlsdttsd 

that there fcft4 fe««m ft defmat in the teres of the »ortg*ge deed. 

.defendant herein insist* the dsore* should be rerersed, beeauee the 

oonssrrnto* was not authorised toj the »— smlft Jourt to tnstituts the 

proceeding th*t in t< *ing the ©osta and charges of the suit, tbs 

court's allowance f©y -tsnogrftplisr's fsee v*s sxoes;lre, ?nd tb^t is 

allowing *&* «**t of * foreclosure minutes," ths ©ourt exceeded its 

powers. 

Ths statute (0»aili*s 111. et. Stat, 1931, 7h. 3?, ee.5) 

ss construed in M&tfUl *• -state of ttoueoror. Ml ill. . <#>«, 

dsteraines the nutation ».s to the Tight of oo«i l*in*nt to sue is the 

=*friravitive. ia© statute provides i 



"Suite in ohf-neery nwy be ooimtenoe . roeeeuted by infnnta, 

•itlMt by guardian or next friend, ajftl b/ no ns*» *■▼'<©©»» on 
behalf of the erasns they repraaent. ' 

In construing this statute, the court in the ones referred to, ealdt 

"It is true th?t the oonaarw'tor ia under the ,ener*l 
guldens© *nd superrleion of the rob^t* . curt, vhioh ahould 
hold bin to the atrloteet aooeuMtabl <. i ty in the exeeution of 
hie truet, *nd should carefully sorutlnlse hia -o-ounte in 
regard to the liabilities incurred or *r *n'Situree vide. Hut 
the I ithorlty to -ring n. evit in oh^ndery to roteot hla wrrd»e 
interests is glren b/ ths statute «nd, in eo iolag, he le 
noting under the statute* • 



(j © i:i « -»- 



■ - 
3 : . . ■ 






u 






■ 



. 






I 

No ©rdor of IM *Mta$t BgttH tM noeoa«< ry to -uthorlR* tht filing 
of |M bill herein. 

r tenants inoiot H * t enogr%; bar ♦ a o>i*rg*o ordor«d 

paid by th* doeroo Kit or«M»«aiTo. K ■ 'o*aia for «uoh content I 
urges oertnin n&ftgod f».ot« **o to th« aiMNMl of *ork don* by tha atoao- 
grabber* «&ie& <ao not g| war in tho ---bfitr»ot» thoro for< # *.o to thie 
point, tb#re is ftndfe&ng for th# •snort to pops 19H, 

fh« ab«tr*>et i» 8 •ie'vAing of I I iaa In | oourt of 
refi*w t and *H*tovor Ig oougnt t« bo r*rlo»ad >auat be contained there- 
in. jjt^mrtjEn ?» iAix ftf^:foafr.w&» * m. .■• i n J, ir*ed - 1 111. 

304. 

pM*t$ wbo bring.* 1 gojM MM IffllOt Jourt auat 

furnish I ooardd-te lafrgltfftfii or -'brldgtMat of the reoord, sad aaiet 

•bow everything in Hm ^botraot on whloh error 10 assigned. Jrahlll 

▼• Wk **& * iJL « <WN *W| 

as to I .loonneo for " f oreolesure 

minutes*, to ohlon d*-- -■ IdHM orooption 9 the follo^irv; ■■■.-.■• rs in 

tht abotjwot g# the -naoto* 1 s report, therein the tawunts found to bo 
duo are at- ted; *ineludia$ 117.38 for •nlnutso of forROlooura. - There 
la nothing lu fim Ut indicate »h t thie ite« lneludee, or 

any ito ^.lloannoo la dooanld exeeselee. 

Rtf dooree is ? fiiraod. 

4r» I 

OK AJU) HUfett*JL # JJ. 









- 






■ 
oJb 



, 









■ 



, 






.'.. 



36351 



u«o t 




/ 



! 



a ©orpor'v.tion. 



273I.A.610 






Opinion filed a©o. 13, 193? 

mi. 

Ma is MB a$$s)*3, trm » judgaumt of the atomic. | vurt 

of vhiosgo in %. a%it on I ;>©liey of inaur.<'noe« Tri**l v«8 h*.d before 
IlUt court* roawl ting in •>■ finding for plaintiff in the aua of 

,1,000*00,- sad jUtdgMmt gfti ©at r red Ml the 'i riding, 

the affl* -.vit of oiftia ■B^lflfifMf that fftfnrfnt is indsbted 
to plaintiff in the mm of H*$9 9* M fer WW t»m of I r>oliey of in- 
surance |g«Ktt& on tM lift at J,Ma»g |l«&it.J tJatt Met policy ,- rovlded 
that defendant wowld pay fo* the log.4 of the life of j-see iweid* if 
nia death MMMnMsi ^fey Htf burning of I building in *hieh tho sseured 
shall ho at the ho ginning Ml the fir-", M4 ulllf ■ that while the 
poiloy Wt& in foros EMM 1 v >iHMHW Sf tilt '^nd o-irbon ooooxlde poieea* 
ing, Ooi«8ior«iy lOMMM a® B*v* poisoning;, llreotly resulting fros the 
burning of * building in whioh the •MMPtsl una M the tine of the 
fire, the assured thereby s*t Mel death. 

The Ifflimtt of merits filed by defendant, *e abstracted 

is as follows: 

* Affidavit of aerite alleges th t insured sustained 
« loss af life by ee;>hysi*tion due to strangling fu»ee *nd 
ssoke while ©alloyed -a tunnel 1 borer within Intercepting 
ae*er tunnel of the sanitary i strict, which »*id tunnel 
w*»« under construction thirty-five feet below the surf* 00 
of the ground d street and L«fiin etrer-t, Jhie^ge, 

Illinois. fetid tsaitsunr >i«»trlot tu ..si, also v riously 
designated as s tunnel tors, trltndod nnswtsly 3*5 feet 
along 2>wA street on either elds of laflin etreet for * 
totfll length of 4M feet| th t said tunnel *»e under 04 
struotlon for lbs sole puy p — of tr**ne ortinf tewige.' 






■> 



. 









. 












• 


' 














■ 








. 







■.. 

-■ 

: 



*•»* 



The folioy of inouraaoe ■ e introduced la eriisnoe, bat 

nothing M in t I to indie* t* Its tenas, except the 

following lliiitfiml by oounael for th« etlv ; 

*9MHMtg gtft tflfflWK l v counsel in whioh he 

at^tesi •* thi»& %h' t the only ioout ha?t. of i<.«- sjsfl f<et 
li HM HHlHiU nil SllOthOf or m>t he *et hie ItaU fro« 
injury sustained fey Ike burning of *ne t . »axoh the 

inoured AlU be ftl the b'f,i.j'in;L - ■ i , 

for in the ^aitey, g&l40i is sua* of the eonditlono of liability, 

one if the oXMeiHo&tiottOf ** 

* Bt%tem«&t that Ml ,niy lueue 

thstt 1@ r*si«ed is I ' ■< outlined in. - | 4 of the tefend- 

■a£*i •■» f'f !:?.« vit of BO£it»| ejfeioJR oogrot 'if insured un-lnr the 
policy tugt^iftei Iho loss® of life by aoptarrlntloftf due to 
it&oaglisg fautfoM mA fmoke, tie)?' | i il tunnel • . tr 

ee&ot ruction thirty-five foot heloo the surf--o* and 

Leflin streets* ^hia-^o, Illinois* i presume ?.• Lot they 

swo.0 hero il th -t thS so-©-. l~<s : . T-annol «xo not •• building 
the t|lst» *ss i ti^feti, Oom&oe&j in %■ ! ent to the court 

that there ii m other issue involvodt 
Mr* teesdng: ( 'ttoraoy far dsfendatot) •tee, ts»-t i* right.' • 

I 4 tf)t Is B ptt&OfiiiQ *4 I -lies in ■ Oourt of 

review, Ojtfl tdwtlfif In nought to be reviewed &u8t In NBl< inod therein, 
^oaoyerft v. Jltf gJLiMittBso r ' n '~ *»-• • *'"'» '"firmed, 381 ill. 364. 

The s*rty Kfeo brings I iwtM to the I -sllfcte v*ourt wust 
furnish ■ ooieplote Kttootrsot W? gfl)Jl4fiOOHt *| tkt record, -»nd wust 
Show everything in Hst s l g lf& Ol' Ms *bi*h error ie anniffasd. arablll ▼. 
^en. 11* ill. I .-. iB7* 

uefende&t ftgpMK «t length th*-t rl"lflttff sssssfl recover 
for the re- eon th*-.t under fefef IttM Oi Uoy sB04 on, the ptttM 

where dofend^nt lost his life MM Bfl ss41ioJsJ in »hioh the 

eosured *<ne at the b< . The feete are not in dieiwte, 

'sttd ftffi to the offeet th?»t tho eoaared, with others, w-e omipcod in the 
work of eonetruoting * tunnel for fcbe .«nit*ry ietrict of Mengo. *t 
th© ourfo.ee of the ground there had beeo ereotod * etruoture 1} eterlee 
in height, with toilets, ete. >ro« thie etructur*? I *h»ft lt> feet 
square extended straight ilMI in the ground «bout Sh feet, built for 
the curpoae of affording Ingress »nd egress to and fro* the tunnel 
un-1er oonatruotion by «e >na of elevtore >nd 1» Mere. Iresjohiso: eff 
























■ 



»** !*»id* at 91 









■ 



I I 1 it 



Jut* 
too to **©<? 

» ftTOJflHI 



trm torn iewor oa& of tho abut* 0*0, *fe* ; % i« Umt, a drift 
walah r*» ohoa* 6* f*ot Mi <K«fl*ot»4 with tho a&la tawoU. 1% 
la thi* a&la tiwuiil that tho fir* o*eurro4, oaioh o«u»o4 tfao oourot's 
4ootiu All of tlaoo aaaorftoaaa taaaolo hn4 oars mania, to thorn, 
ttftd wove o ul?po4 with :>tp— ■■*!* rtx** fal fttfftlohiag air .--na il*ht. 
JTraa tho owi&on«o t it a^nnkts taot ad tho o*«aw*ttoa for tla InmI 
mil ao*t t ft oaypartlag atmatu* of haaoy oaoooa bo*ao »nd piAaks 
h&o. fcoefe hailt* *v* tla tlwv af tla firo, tho oooaroo wno oosklac la 
tho Hate taaaol at & palat flhoaft 1£§ to 136 foot fr«n tho lowor oat 
of tho j«rpia4iaalftr o*aft« 

la&tar a. ftco** * atoll oagiaoor oaplojr<>« hy tao 3o*it*r7 
dloirtot of innate* in u* aaastxuotioa of tha taaiol, tootlfloo «o 
to tha firo -,«« «Mte» In tte ^iaaol, whteh, it oooao to bo ntelttod, 
oomoaa th» 4o*fh if tho !fluB«Kro4« m «femm oy th» ohotroot, thu 
witaooo *t-ho« that w tho tbr® ot&rta* in tla ooot ho<*Afeci that it, 
th* ®ao 4o»4^s:to4 on tho rldht of tho olaa. In tho taaaol* X woo 
aet en tha 10© <aa& Not f 1*0 start**., *o* «Hmi X got thoro oaoko ooo 
aoatng out # tho shaft* «aat io, th* ohftft te too hoot hoooo* Tha 
mate mm oeainc oat la a ia&at volaat* X * o o ooai* 4 lato tho 
I wont 4o*a ia th» olaaator ia thi drift taamol *** loaho* aqroolf 
lata tha ooat haoa oafi fata* all tho flroaoa ooro fiaatiac ohot 
though* aaa tao fism, la thio *oHiaUo« tout rim*, t that tlao tho 
Mia taaaol mA tao **ift taaaol w*» fan of too «Maa. taw o*»t 
oad of %Tm look who ai**y«Ja« foot fioa tl» ocatwr lia* of ta» trift 
taaaol. X haow ti» aooonaai. Ho ooo workta* in tat ooot h ao al a g 
dariae tla firo. *** X firot oow dooooaoi waaa ho mm aroa#% op 
aotoooa tao howo tf 1C v , ad 1 .«• ■• ooo arou#t frai tao 
shaft, fioa thi tap of tla ohoft, ai owa tnkoa lata thlo offioo 
aw ca tha othor alia."' 

At tat tlao of tho flio, att tampamrjr wootoa oaapartiat 
•tsuotara, o<aoiotiac of hoooy aaiaa nal aioako tocotaor wila tha 












v- -,, |T< 



:m ■■>-' ;•?: •■ •■ * ;;-.'>*'■■ 






{■■■■' ■- M 

inr<iiiliiiliiiiiL «ljr 1* 



Mi : m 



M Ml 

HMD ii 












I ■ 






■ 

. ■'.••8*tn' «tf# .«MNr4fitf 



•' /•-•-.•. 



4 

pvtpmAXmlw ***t% iklsA mm mte of J»a*r tomv ».s* ptaUcs, d4 

tfc» SmlMitoC «tt *h» K»P «f *&» l*i ft, «€B«t&tH««4 OBtt OOBtftMM* 

*uiMl&& ..» &lxm$y «*>%•&* fr«n *fc*.t i» «mfe>m«d in tfct dMmo| t 
«• *am umabX* t© t«ll Jn»% «h®t t Up *«nw of tht policy were. Th» 
trtftl ocftirt haft «h» poUey ^«fw him, tarnr* it* *ittt»t— m a* 
the •«•• 9r*M»t«i %f d«f«MJ.^vw* f w* f«*i tti.«t t» At* not j** lifted 
Is i»t«rf«rt&« with tfen fia&i»$ sal jeA0»m%« JUMpunt is affim*t. 



* 



«l 4 jr, ,«g •• d ,-;:, . ■ ;<smk 9 



' >v 






■■»= *••».' *>. : . t ?. .;. ■::*,*: ■«*,. 












9 



i 



Mi m ■ i »ois ) / 

iJefend^nt in IfPMft ) i 

V. 

Mi . f 

fl^lntiff in . rror, ) £ '< I A 

ioion filed >eo, 13, 1 

<. ju rst 

this proceeding in her* u;x-rs i ••■•rtt tl i rror i* ued to 
review the record, NHMNttJI M va feftttt Ml order wso entered in 

the lilt MJ ml court if Qmk bounty fi I fcfea ; <1 iatiff in error 
guilty of I WfJWJIMfl aawtHSIJif «ftfl committing his* to the eoxmty | il 
of Cook County for a pp$*ji of five d©yi for s>id oontem t. 

From Mai ordar it h$ppt$a th--t there ma pending In the 
drirainnl jlpatt of So«k eternity, Ulincis, il indictment entitled, 
*The reopie of the i$&£§ of Illinois vers-os il otny l. Connolly *nd 
others;" th.->t iftli ateov* P*H$la4 &&#$ PHI on the 3th day of J?\«u^ry, 
A. 3, 133::, MMI Ml I MMP fWf seise Pt a lta as&tf thereto, on t»l?l before 

the Honors-hie tmm§ tt« ; isher, n $p|ga af tha maAaal »*ourt of 

Oook County, a&ttJj*l el+jh fpftajlia laPM U > elly *nd John I Iftti leki 
as advisers* i«ho PHFf a&aa ju ye? at Um ri-.i.-, i vourt; that »iid 
above cusc a*i pending to "xnd including J-.miary 14, 1932, t . t nav 
to the 9th dfvy of J»nucry, I'JiZ :, iJ - th T fc Connolly, ■ defend-nt, 
bad not been latoM into custody uron <s •■id Indictment, but for 
considerable pawlal of ti«e h*d b*en *> fugitive from Juatioe. 

fast an the Jth t*y of January, . , ^etltiea for 
h#be<$« corpus, sl§med by . tter, ^« filed In toe 'rlminnl 

Court of Cook county, in which etition it wee nlleged, among ether 
things, th t **ld fissot y . onnoily v»e held in ©vatudy by John *, 
2waneafr, <tnte*<) Attorney It Oouk ounty, rriuiunmed assistants of 
said John |« 'vanson; th" t M&i ormolly -r>s illegally hsld in the 
custody of the t't»*te*a 'ttoraey »nd hie lasletante* 



\ 



mm 






. 



B P ; ^ * 






• 



, 



Q$ &iS* 






eft* 

■ 



i«flii *• 



• ■ 






I 

MMP] *;;< I : on the 9th day 
of J nu«>?y, i>r , — «Hf < I 114 .. _ivr. nf 0BC 

of the fwtgMI tout Mitittf itlM of the. riadnaj ourt of 

Qook O O Mrtf , flat th t [ .Ui . tllliV*** aa one of the 

|l M Ml ill * Eft* orl*r*:d tfe&t the **lt of h*be\7» oo r /ed 

for, filg petotinuttoUt forthvlth} tfeast paj . m rroceeding 

»a« «B fo» faring tatftete the $t&£ eatturt on I«MMjf i., I uul 1*, 
193'- ! » MMl tqptti thess* various iMMMSi&flM ine] . ■'« .t:. (N lfn y i ti in open <v , 
trhien *iU M) ***ft ; I' R ;'->..■. |$4 , . Incident,* ■ aaoond 

Incident,* etc. 

Pltal iMgAast - tmmsy %X§ Ml i 

***• liattMN &r. iavtawa * t tea the -r at* Lteajfe 

Mr. iortbup then a&idi •#■*•■ for* x take the to 

eay th- t tfele p#titi«8 |« :. . ;■■; rieJtfj* it should be demurred. 
This mtlm is vJutiUy flfS P»j ftV9 -or--;- M >aore juris- 

diction th-n the -v.-;; U- a, in I *.* 

■•*her«s:icor. th* court «"xl, '.recced, team* the wltneee.* 
fee* fjr« BoffflnilP aeAe the for*ft*oii>f.; *t te^onti he ape*J I 
UNtfftg I W tone. Kit etal •:.'■:- **t ended directly I the 

ac-urt, gifa aid fiat aleaohad, and on tea let la ; . • I *nt 
turned hi a en e% U y froa 

th* fe? r." 

i^eooad incident - at fa* tatta* he ring on January 11, 1933* 

*1**« tye«ftt*3$r«8eifl r, Sarnneon)« Do yeu know *bere 
«r# &eele is I 

■t, kcrthupi Hef I petal thia out, in addition to what 
vr. -:f^nj»on lata tftSAl fa* atata'a attorney* a office h-d nothiof 
to do *?ith th* appreheaaioi , aa i testified, it 

ana the tfit Irene' Ueeel*tleft| '-ting entirely independently 
of ua. Mad •••■ickad the m rale, aai amenable to 

their *?iahee he mm Bade, aaeaeaeer. e - , etrwnware 

to Ian orooeeUing. It could not be aaythli i ?• *helr 
au»a^eng«r hae not bern preauaai bai , <■■* nybody K',o*e. 

?»»d. haa net been in tmia aountry. bat is three for the nourt 
to • ct u. onT vhat ia there t;o do except to dlamla? thi« »ntt*rT 

r. ; Just •■ ■ I ln£ before it la iii«laeed( I 

might aiig eat th t . kftatf enlighten ua whether he knora 

where Mv« Keele i», aiji whether he « c n re^ch hl* f nd If be 
csn, he ahould -rroduoe hi«. 

f hereupon Mr. Sorthur, in loud tonee *nd aanner, lndio- 
Ating he mi an^ry, •ai4 i *J kam*t tr^ve to do anytbinft of tht 
kind.* 

Thereupon the court aald f *fellf - 

fhereuron -r. Horthu. , ll I in an mi 

aianner, aaldl *l cton*t ha** to go* out ^nd %aoert in aa4 find 
out where ha ia now.* 






„ 









. 












jjM&fV I court tnidj 'toll, flo i ■ • _ 

•-hereupon fee owe latei , nhuo, who in 

v«ry loud tone® oaf, la en ■■» • r, | * extended 

sttd -I th his fiat olo»©<i -sud r la*-*, - Ut ' fhere i« no' o%ftr 
OB e-'rth that can ooayjel me, in fjowri or out of court.' 

Thereupon too foix©*.-t»»- took alaeet 

The Jourfc; i,et HI &«fe you ■ >.-■ rlon, «r. ?,orthun. 
You Ntatntt it M not. Ml you eiefc, .■•■•. aov where 

asr. Keele is? 

jfir, aort^mr^ I do J*9fc, I tail you the obeolute truth, 

ran ■.ourt: oil, i soeu&o jrou n-c tej ■ , truth. 

3o you tx?eet hi* in your office fcodarl 

r« sorthurt 1 loubt it. 

H^MNHJMM *h« eourt smldj 'if hi |0%a in touoh with 
you, or yt*u go*, in to*afc *ith hi*. »iii y;HJ 10k hlo to omi 
in hero teaorro-* «oryvin|:?» 

to which Mr. .'; orthupreplied, is v«=ry iomJ tonoo and in 
bii &**gr/ Mkftootl , loiU 00%, fee deeea*t belesc » 
ehouldn't M here,* ' ' 

tk&tmm* t ;.-..*■ :-.,vt g -j,.;. tj v , iU continue tnie untii 
ttatn'OW Mc-rni,, , |iv« you tim« to . fte4 hi«.« 

Et whleu tor. *o.rthu v - in a !■• e of relet n 

NNJf MNMttf MMMU Hho is going to BSfcO kh« effort to find hUT* 

fmmM iM&Mi - #mmxf is, 1JS8] 

•the ftPtfrt (oeNKtiffiOlng) ; ll vfett of the f*et - 

•■-.-hereupon it, SairthuB, in loud tones Ldi ( I « tryiiw 
to . et it (aeaaii:. o$#e] out of fettO /. I Mi tie J up 

down stairs ond held m; i .,- WHftft,! 

s following 0OOUV7I - 

*?. ^tteri I would like to r. ui r .ion. 

if the eourb o£emo*« 

If, Scrtteep: 3uoh ouostione to ne seked or, uingietoo 
MM i thottfiaftd g&d me thing*, . * ting to & ro *ith 

the l%e*#'e ittotney 4 . office in deiRf its pw i ty. 

or. bettor* I »» trying to fi:- . • if the :t tc» 
%ttovnoy'«ii office &aa - 

y-r. I : vrtvfup: 1 doA*t ksoi ;iot you KM oonoernod with 
it, but m hnvo Won iloteniag to it for II ninutes* 

i ! h€ l'r>-r«going rt . NvUmb wmo oodo in 

Xoua and angry tonoo* 

J *her*v: ■_ ©ourt oaidt »0f oow , I on pr^eiling here.' 

Ir« lertlmpt*! know pm iro 4 but ay time la valoohio* 1 

IM vourt: *i wodorotnnd th ••. : don't be oonoernod 
about toot. 1 

St. &orthu;:i »l -4» not. ,H 

.'ourth Incident - ■'■■00 1 J 14, If | 

HO ttr. fUrold KooXO v»e oxeolnod by AN MOhmoh, the 

following ooourred: 

x» Old you t*ik *ith r. rthup before you Loftl U Tee, «ir. 
x» aid yoii tell hio HtOM you *ero gologf a. I toid hl« »h«ro 
Z oae ^oing, which w«a to ayot different froo tno a pot to 
whioh 1 wont. Itirp©*ely aiare;. re tinted to ■>. Sorthup wh«re I 
oao going. 
• #or wh i 

«r. Tsylori Ihnt la objeoted to, na being iao«%orl»l, 
if the court jio^oe. 

The vourt; objection ow rruled. 



1 



tc -•■■ 









A b&lLqsi 



■ 









:-■ :-. 






tit mi 



:*•'■.• , ' " i. -: 






ft, X fcftJJ U • IfeK :i: !.■■ |J f or 

JT * u '* ' - : ■ ■■•intf to le'v© ifei tr la t. 

Jolif-t, atom I i.' ■ ■ 

-" ve Uu - ' • ' ■ '• ,. in «r iud*- 

isont. J 

***• " '•" I ,-,-., roagon for ieoeivin<- • r. 

Rf, i-yiors fast la efeJa#M to, 
|| 

aoreuror. £r. Sortfcwp, Is , ry toa**, «*id: 

•I hsro no obj»oU-:v« to gOiEg into it to tho fullest extent.' 

,<3 OOUXt laid »I li?!,.. ft.l t.0.» 

*•■■. r#a *» tr, rthup, in 1« • n &grj too 

•I a* reftdy •• MMWpl la this icind • 

Brooooding, • 

Mfe$r9tl$MtM I&4S ftSW$ $a&&| 

•fast is roat* pHttlm*,* &ad r. fiarthui> r iied. 
t#f*tftlatt?# • * 

Fifth ftMa&ftKfe - immSQ I 4 , II 

"AfttV the t»»ti«©»i »®4 fcll i>oen OOS&lOtOt, the follow- 

lag BffftMfttljigg t*o* /I ■■ o«: 

NWftl I >• I record ritton up in 

this o&oOj gojttiAata, I iul l«kt it mv, ,t. i riii 

let po» &it$&« 

r » t thia -rooeeding it, 

i ■ rti row v ■ lala tla*, r, 

iiy, -vrthup: la lain ■ . son tea *eling, 

or 1b It soaothin;?; «1ims1 

SNttdHM You bum | ti««, iou know, 

ttr« ivarthupi OmM ri ■ r it is i 

OonW.'H-.Jt pr&oeedin&o 01 WHBOtM* ils< » re in , <ut 

1 don't tea btVt for, 

kC court: fou don't* 

F« cytlat, ; l& 9 air* I don't know what w* »re here for. 
Isn't fma teaar silllag kail atf ( t i mo liae i 
toward t! MTlatoM u if to expoet r ■ 1 u «.) 

wUVtl f • tro, that in ««xe'>e». r. 

-orthup. 

Mr, 9e*tas\»3 1 nnTO fc^cn here hU '/ BOoriBf thoee 
proceedings, -r filed, no nothing. e 

are aot hor« aa tag aavt Of -rocsas or laaaattat I now 

anything "bovt, iw I like |« hy ^o nr« hero, sir, 

in* kl Soil. y©» y ■ -eturn 

of Lt, traverse to the orlt, nooo it, »ow # 

the ouestioa aae b B - 

thotoupun, . rthu.-, 1st implai by ssylag la a load 
tono: 'Let ®& ttnov, ' 

ntfmhaa#a tt»e eourt (oonilnuln ) •ai4l • f ro« MM tiae 
th-rjt the return %-<.a fllod a ao U V* not thf t- tt 1 ? 

ttornoy aa'le I oorroot im trur r«?turn in thie once, 1 

♦horeu Mr, , I :+ry tone, 

bin fi»t« oioa^d i lirooted tu the osurt a*l&i 

1 • rtm ao«a I [ f t *ir. th t 1 - 

I'horeu;on 1 ";, . : 4 i slnut*, *%lt * alnutf, 

I don't o-'T« f«l th-t, ,-. . , let ao *ug, «*t to you 

th^t i AawWM mp il < in «y oourt rooa. 1 ion't o*ro for your 
dogmrtio ox;;r«3.»io!i3 # for ycur vinroeetlo mrrti iey 



~ • • 



. 



. 






. 



'?*««? 












. 









*J si 






• 






neither iaipreat tm, Mi I m MM lh> t they do not ftoeroe or 
inti i te ««.* 

thereupon B«, RMiMaf snidl •! Mft't t*M t napping 

hit flMJiW ttti "iirectlrs; u Ml M of the - railing 

JUtjUlJ fw It Sit&er** 

''•hereupon the court s«44j 'faftt might be true, but yaw 
r- -^tnsblt to the r>o*?er th?*t this court Ik«. tied this court is 
going M M&N&M it, I Mf to you nor th- t tail Mwrl is 
going to t«kt this $&«* Kft&tff sdvise^ent, ill notify you 

wh&t the Judgment -of the MtSfft Uf§ < iu »» the other nouneel 
her*. • 

Mr, WmtHnmm !io©S! ts-t stag that your onor ia going 
to find out, &r M^fta&i to ascertain, aattntx there haa heen 
a fft&aa r-tturnf $* X MtftaffalHKB& taat frosa your reasrka, a 
f«li© return ts the writ? 

the §mw%l l *»»▼• txy.i^ined toy potltiM in the natter, 
and fctU t is all there -.ill fee to it," 

Oat of the p'iwaiiil U fcy rev^rsjil is thnt the language 

of the retoondtnt while Mil&lfc&p MMlMWt vigorous Mi not rervlly 
contemptuous, Mat tfeMl JlMta MM nothi .. ling before the court at 

the tiase of tMMltMtt&jp tiW aatee?8 ft$yp*i M*4M*a*Jaej I I in f^.ot 
pjj.(itlg «n& th© fifgpflMMft Mi in uouri m pff mttJMJ the ;:t>te*s 
' ttorney befort th* yonsr&Mt M»tMLp !• 'ulj.iv-/x, 1 ju?#e residing, 
in r<?apon»e to I iMMRilg h&i In this proceeding, NMl froa the inoi- 
lenta fully tg ftj i ai &ttg in the order, ItMl MUSI found th-t t v >e reanon- 
dent Mtl Intuiting in i 6*tl*m% Mi belligerent manner, ind th t hia 
conduct eat contemptuous tiMi d l the acurt. ihe attitude of the 
raamondent ind his MMMKV -nd aowduct, such M the clenching of hit 
fists. Hi MMpi ilMJ ^ Ml t Met court, md the turning of 

hia b<*ok tiki t M oourt m ■W fnnl i nl j *«re cSeaoribtd in the order, iad 
this court en o«ly consider the;?* ficte ii they aope* r in the order. 
The a pre* watt" on these occasions t be deaoribed by the trial 

court in the order, ini thia court i« not in a position to fairly 
deteraine thnt the rea .indent 1 a mtdmt Mi not *a deaorlbed in tne 
orier* 

at o»nnot agree with NNIMMMat th t he w?e net 

dlt|>ee,--'ectful in hia attitude, nor in the uae of rlgortue l-nxu*r« 
toward t'm court. 



' 



0© ^H 






frjBX** 



. 



! 






i 



?,..• 






. 









■ 



I 

Cm© serious defect *.n the order oi co aitmsnt it tnt it 
d©«» not |9Mi Ml t. Hal fe>tp»wit»l | at llki time of the 

«ntry of t M order. It is UM n.ie Hurt ilMal n order in a contort 
llHwUliilllj ie entered it nut ■ ;.. adtaient order th"t the 

respondent n« ptftMM in p**Mm a and flm the tHai it must ay 
th-t &t the time IM aWMS ku ent.?.re • .1 jurisdiction of 

the ytWii ffcftA does net aypftaf in the order in I ft oaae. 

It ia .-'datltted lay Ik* it U -rooeeding that *hile 

from the order it do@& not ap «as y :io*ily 

present in oeurt *feM t&S «•*•* i . . f M ki Mi in tha 

«©«■«©-& |m vfiimi ■ ■■■•■-. wmtmto mnm€ t*t ■ nor tr. i -.in 

arrest of judgment, m& fch-i fcfeg I MtMBai it ,.ir!r,r M . >>ile 

it is trvie kfcftt mufti M^asftM ■■-:■ »&* in th* SiSSMfl la« rvcor's, there 
is th« WMilwUiiity »* ifei u nj netiOSS *ere :»<"»de by the 

respondeat, •£ the &$$ th* tHNMW mm •«* i I i . it hat 

been held to he tfci sue fcq 7' 1 fca jurisdiction in 

this st»t* thftt Mtffc motions ttttit be .preserved by a btii of adap- 
tions, ml th-->t the entry of auoh wotiona In the ooamon l*i» record 
*ill not WMMf the pwtp*M>« mm mI *"• -swaon. II ill. Iff* S06| 
Iftft -£ , g . a» l ▼. ^ax^»x» "'-■ ffiU •■■■ . !■■'■ ; rrnhs* r. 1U* /conle . 115 
111. 566; ^rftifl v. ... _.,:_, i HI. 43d; ^oo^e T. Jennlnira. Ml 

111. 534; |gpmjg|| v. ^caa P ,r08 111* 459. Rat Mil mil remains 
th t the order la silent h ; tlon of the reepondsat'a being 

In court in , arson. 

In M| ort 6f Hm rule th- 1 the order aust eho« th-t tha 
respondent ■ | in ■MWt iMI ttM or-Je.r . liaheent »-a ant red, 

thia court In the q*.ph* of atraon v. ,waon. eunrtt. s<id; 

*Ia thia SeHUf no aeryiec on II tiff in arror la 

ahoan, !\ad it l«ea nut tht aha mm in 

court when ahe una »»d Judged fiaillf of r ^ t. 

oourt any 00 wait for oot«mv% in ita r>re«anoe t without the 
aerrice of '*ny p— Ita on the flrf^nd-nt, hut in aneh o»ae 
the order of eoanitment should who* th- t thr defandsnt 
w^a pre»«nt in omirt -hen tJjr judgment Mi enter#d t elae 
there la no wny of ■■6<lltlllS| »heth?r the oovrt h«4 
fwicdictioa of tha enon.* 



I 










' 










ftNApKBH 1 








• 



\i 















, 






aid* 



MMM^ i. ... 



■ J 1 ?* 



r»e 









" | : -; : 









M5 «iff» 



tmmm 

Mb 



tt 



7 

Thle rule *a« *g»ij ^p v# yior ^ 

where In ref*rrlnp to ,. t> th , ( ||ff UJ|8dJ 

•It fl-jo [mill t not ttM- , in ?rrOT 

*#re pretest b „J5 " P J 

alleged eontcrtj* \ ainet 

^nd the order should »hov %l ;• 

tiff 9 in error -hen I pfclllt. 

And again, | | t* deeiaion ottered la I . ;tei » y# 

<?<Wf,« ey„ yej, »l^zt -■- Ul. i . ■ , tut 0ouTt W |4 t 

!H£ ? r4 * r t*t«f*l siss fail* t, . . . r ,.. lt , ln . 

tiff ia err t i >©* La || . , , . ^ . - 

w».« entrred. fee , -^ 

its »**«*• «»l»iH 0| 13 orler p . t 

oourt of the pialstifi Ul fti 



It amy be ih t the respondent*- ■ t |g peWtif le, li-tie 
ae euggreeted by the st«t«? t&A tlsat £fe* tf MW . 

respondent's position mm largely the .< - ■ • * i^not, atiii 

the decision* of thia court are ft* ty • atnsttltl** b*aed upon 

the law &nd are advisory, If nut controlling, it ie not for tbia 
court to ttfMaUaft I ttft* m|« ft$t justified by authority on. 

Other -.lU^tlon* MAS* feft r - t kSntls** but 

in Ti«w of MM mm t m to*** h Ms , . to t«<j m thia 

•pftaUa, it will not be necessary to iiavoae of thaae ™emone. The 
order entered in tfcla • , tfesrsfsM b* reversed. 






I 



■ 



9tRlIsqqA 



36401 

*• ) 

jefend^at in &*rer t 

ti r. 

I 




r. 



1 



Opinion filed '.)•©• 13, I 
I . MfflS 

|g SJHMti || in fehiv. «:• it of error ?ireoted 

to th« lUfiffiif IfcMMFt ■■■-■ iMNMH/f ^her^by the il | seek* 

to reverse ■ divorce d«ore$ •*%« ,,.rt cm JMM lg - 

The eoaF>l*in*nt file;! 3 hill fat -Uvaroe ftfatnvl the defendant, hi* 

wife, on the MJMMMM *J !•■ il Mft&l TTMllHTMfil ?nd extreme *.nd re -.•*•• te4 

acta tf cruelty* Th« AtflMi ;. .• ' n Answer denying the charges 

in the Mllf ilnym MMMlti MNM ;~bx~ . Itml <runft*tui**s 

MM* P»%g— • end P»pfr*tii Mftf *l cruelty m - MM eo* 

fefef is trues ttef -''ouTt MMtJ the *vi '*n*e and *nter*d 

the deore*, wfcioir. in MM*t«MMl f$Ml I ties in f%vor of the 

•OMsplainant, finds UM - I extreme iMfl ted 

cruelty ml , ni dismisses the defendant's winded 

croc-bill for MMl M ■'•'/• WW deore* -^lao k *rovi*** for the pef* 

«ent of &M| eaflli seonth hy the *?:.. ■ W nt to the defend- nt >sy # 

*n<i directs the e< nt t . y to the defendant the sua of 4b 

*• bad for her solicitor** fee*. 

The dtfem-^nt contend* U*mt «<:r«', fro» * e*»elder*<tion of 
the whole recor* Mm evidence docs not justify or *u. > rt the deere*, 
tt i* the duty of the court, ■ Mi MMtflMj to revwrss th* decree, which 
of course »s»n* th-t in order to rewcr*e ■ Judgasmt or deer** *nt*r«d 
by the court u .; r ri , I CUM - Judflpemt *uet he «ic%in*t %h* 
weight of MM evidence. 

In t*>e corns! uestio*. the oourt he* cs«jj» 

ined the evidsiM* celled to our ttention hy MM hri*f* 'lied. 






• XI • J 






I kA 



»1 i .- 









3 

it is to b« noted th t t**9* ie i conflict in the sridenor in the 

record, in the first lnetanee it is | ,- ^cej.ior to determine 

the weight ftf the? ^riienoe *nd d«. t, if ■ ny , UsWM h*fl o^n euet m- 
ed by th« yrod'a, sad in the fce-.ringr ' } * **»* *wid«ue* the MM no 
doubt if a l lii |&f low s£1fetitag k&fl gasdrtiaa *1 erndlwillty of 
witneeneft, itnd unless the dearer f the caurt is »§nln«t t> 
s-elght of IIM «vldeno» t the dee.?©* stunt st-ivi, In order to det*raine 
when g judgment or ««* • » i ■ ftftnlfvtt *ei;>-ht of the eri- 

denon it aust i$**ftf fsroa a& «fttntt&n&ti@e *£ tfet evldenoe in the 
record ttet it ie obvious ;-iv • .1 thf~ fin«>i judgment ie 

not sustained If HHi ?■$*#« 

Xbt •napXni&gtnt *sd the? defendant were «*rried Juiy 7 # 
13';:7, ml lived fe 5 ?. f #thsr until §g*«M»t3 , . | , ^nd *t th*t ti«e the 
Htflfll its sat left the defen-^nt snd •$*& thereof t*r fU I till of 

there lis *$ dis.-ni.te- fen&t ffeg --.rfcies la thle ones indulged 
in iBtoxioatiiif ll^aMPj nati 1% |g /• 1 1 ttr-t the sjsultai 
driniiag intoxio.^nts am* I >. : MMMa &*a of MVfftl dieeueelone between 
the ilHUrtltlllBWt tm& the defendant* wbloh firmiy oulflin'-ted in the 
signing ©f 1 pledge b?.the defendant, M well ae by the eoail».in*mt, 
by whioh eaoh proaland to rito j atu from ill Ueohoiie beverages for eix 
aonths ending Uttober 9 # l$a§, 

Tanre i* conflict in the vi ienoo &* to what oeceioned 
the signing of this m Ulaii ledge, I pledge, of oour»«, ie nothing 
but s craulee, nevertheless in the in.<- ■ *e it we of evidential 

value M proof tb- t the u? <tion of 'rink we the subject of dispute 
between the nrtiea. There ie evidence ^>f MM Tinting of into^io nto 
Mat the effeot v:^on the physical rton'titian of the defendant. There ie 
eridenoe th t dostore were eslled to -dainieter wedatiwee to the 
defendant on different t*«o«eione, nd th t ehe wt.e "dwised thit ehe 
should stop rioning on oe^ount of her he-it'.; t.h t • nuree w*e *iee 



I 



a 94 Qt -..; #1 



i 
t Jbeii' 






■ 

i 

.. ■ ■ ■■" 
:r.n v. , ■ • MdHq I fcpV*J ■;■ «'■ '- 






,. > . w !•#■ fe&nii 



I 

e-^xed and remained *ith the toftmftant fi v eeeer>i nighte; th t Dr. 
Shipley testified thnt when tall HMMl her he ndviaed tiv*t her 

eondltion **f due Is tfcf e*cessair>f BUM La* - , I I - ted her "»a 

.■aa alcoholic, Fbi eoetpWfcnBt testified bo numerous d it |i ,-,t r.- 

eea *r hen his wife *••■« la i Iftsgftftttg and iuesherent condition, and 
uppetrred *i~d>eyed, fcfttf it et t d tft&t on *?v«?ry meti Mt §J -, in hia 
■ftttllg the defendant mi intoxicated* PM* defendant -ienlei eraoif> 
io»lly th*t eh® mm into*ie*tsd Ml tUf ft****! tified to by the 

eoaol*i.n<*nt« itiuttareift »itn«*een were he ■ rd, *nd from thie evi >*noe 
the eoxsrt MM^WMNI Heat the %WS$$MlMtiK&*a Sbarga of habltvl .mnk- 
enneea *aa ftUfttftaa*. t» £&&*& *• jjgUit *•■ Ui » '«• 1« onaaing 
«?«& the creation of when 'b^bitira mtcvlo^tion is formed, the oourt 

•aid: 

*¥ae hnfeit $£ |jriftp&4ft$ieii is formed , .^.y. There 

is ordinarily m .infinite liat eftm i i be i lii to 

■MP! begun.* 

And then again, in v^sin^ u-pon the ^-.ueation ef where i «r-ou «h-rged 

with hnbitu?*! iMHiNHnMM luring the t*o-ye«r *»rio'A -reoeding the 

filing of the ©lii, abstained froas drink for I . <m<vi -n.i therefore 

ws* not guilty of hf'biur.a drnn&enneea, the oourt »*idi 

*The fset tkat f«r i aertiea if the ti»e «ne pm not lntori- 
erted feeesuse she eouid not get <<ny intoxi II LI uer «nd 

tht;,t for short ^rioda «he voiunt-rliy -bat-ined ioee not 
indicate thai m* wm W% IWilty ef henttunl JrunKenneea 
during the time, iutos. without intermlaaion ie not 

n*oeea<>.ry to h?-foitu- : l Iftutkemnah , ■ the ewidenoe in oon- 
eluslwe th."t the defendant's n bit of intoxication waa newer 
reformed, 8 

The feet a in thie record ^rc auffioiwtit to euetaln the 
conolueion of the oourt th- t IM defendant * a guilty of habitual 
drunkenneae for the at tutory friod. /he def>ndf>nt ta«tified th t 
ehe una inatruoted while she «r«fi tlont in th'? a-iyo ftrethere 

aoa?it»l, and, further by ;)». hi .ley, her phyaioinn, «.a to the effeet 
of the uee of intoxlc ting liquor u on her -.•hyaio I condition* 

The pajim id «»de by the defendant tht the ariienee doea 
not ole- rly *at Uiah tht the defend*nt M guiity of h-bitu^l 



■ 

■ 



*** baa kt 

■ 






* ■ . / -. i ; « »« 






-MMNPMI ftitff Jfi «f C 

■ 

*mY*« tit «* to *** i * ***** 

*#«•** » to 



4 

tfrunfcrtmeas for the at fotory t^o-jteai eriod recuired by |naf i 

<vt tines she did not indulge in the use of iiM..r ( and that it does 

not ' teJ tWH tfet f»IW< tfeftt the roof mi sufficient M au«t || 

the charge of h"bitu 1 Srunkeanees. Th? t is * oueation tor the ooi.rt 

to determine froa sil the fteffti :vi circumstances in the tnnn, and 

*Ibo the Qftesties of the dei<md*&t*s habits in the uae of intoxio^nt». 

In the fliseuswion of t^e evi le&ee, the defendant oo<nn»nte 
u,-on the •Jllp1ltWiWt*a teatinoay $s being in *lsost .wrfect order 
and sequence and given *ith the exactness a^ recieion of nn adUng 
naehlne, ml her own aa heing free fro* such telltale easnsrks of 
impropriety, If itHs the credibility of witnesses is for the n;,urt # 
nmi no doubt the chancellor tested the eo» 1 .L<\ir-*.nt , s «redibii.ity in 
determining the vei^bt to M given the eea$laiB*at't evidence. 

thus defend&nt BiiplilllilM ft&ftt ehile one of the *ots ef 
cruelty charged in the bill of BHWplttlll is eorrobor ted, «till the 
ether acta -'re dependent «§«■ the tftfttMMf 1 of the co*.'l*in*nt •■'•lone. 
Mi therefore |fci repeated a*t« ef cruelty snagged in tht biil ire not 
sustained, especially where the defendant denied the oh*rge. 

ihn evidence of the complainant »a to the oecislon rhaa 
he brought »e«e ioe-erecs» home is oorrobor- tei by ttrs. tdna *• 
I ulerisiUt, ^h© testified th t the defendant norrvtohed the ngnyifttMal 
on tnnt oocaion. ibis is* one of the acta charged in the bill of 
eonrlsint. 

nother incident occurred when leaving the Bye " rtyt 
The defendant struck the complainant *hile driving hoee in an *uto- 
mobile. The oosnl«Jin«nt atopeed the utomcblle suddenly *ad ss s 
result the defendant fell forward «nd hit her hod on the inetruaent 
bo*rd of the o*r; HMMMqp n aha left the ear, ••n«l *hen he t rived hoee 
be fo-nd th t she h?-d alreidy rrived there, and *% the tins of his 
"srriT-nl the defen1*nt » truck and ^er«tohed hla nnd he left the ep«rt- 
nent «ad stytd -t the r-herm«n Betel, ^here he telephoned te Mre. May 



- 

■ 
.mas* ■ 

Hi 

....■■■ 

■ 

--» •*! JH « <w*» to *>*«•* 

tod «d ; hni-o^ »tf 



5 

SGimltr, .Mrs. (WWf'i sisst^r, fe$ take o r« ©f her, th t ehe w*-» in- 
toxicated, 'i'here N«| to tot Rfi di»;.fute III t (Mi this oc -us 
■ mwlt b&d tfcfli outeKitter-. FteS Alftgngt* is whether the ft . | nt 
lljiimllml the iifiliftwli M ^aether th* defer; •< nt *a» ths aggreseer 
ftlKl jfliSJtitti the ftjUpilMllWiillt without o xv.uc. rt« StaXtl rrived at 
the W||i||j l |mi|l't in vmn<mm to Ok; 9$$3 S laa&Vfl telephony! e»ll, ^nd 
©he testified m %• tfc« bruUsc* - - rat's body upon 
arriving: tA the ftgtt&HteMB&t* 

Another assault toos .uaee -whea the cc. . I nt -?nd ths 
defendant were invito fee dlanea &h« Ooiaeil's, *hich *»a *it- 

aessed by sjimm present Bitti efeifch If a&1 ti«] 1*4 oy the defead»nt. 

it is ■ ■ 0609 Pf ' >lty oosur in 

the jreaene© of !*• sritneesKSa, but HM chancellor awst find that the 
acts f oruelty j ig an £«$d&t*&ji i&A la so finding UM Mmfs was fui^y 
justified by the evidence in the reoetd.. 

It M •I,sc. ■•■.. | the defendant th>.t if both < rtisa 

to a suit for divorce «ft guilty of *sutu >1 MMpi the doctrine ef 
recrimination is • r;lio bi^s, ::.e>i neither will be entitled to relief, 
*«d it is euggeeted in the defe&dftj&ttej torief th*t if the testimony 
of MMft of the y-urties In of mpfti 1 credit sal the oc -it >nA the 

defendant charge MA other with the saae statutory offenses, ths 
court will not disturb the marital rc?i tions. 

The facts ere to be considered, 'nd we haws sxnained th* 
evidence snd find tb t the ttmplalnnnt tried un success fully to h«ve 
his wife, the defendant. 11 t -in from srinkine 'loo olic liquors. The 
doctors were r lied «t thr request of the complainant, who also advlied 
the defendant to abstain from the u«e tio»nt». Ths <lefeai*nt, 

on the other | sjsjg charges ths cost I with the use of liquor ««d 

of inducing the defenimt to orir.k. HMSM oh rges do not ope^r to 
be justified by the record* The charge by ths coskW -mt of ormelty 
aftd habitual drunkenness is sustained and established h. ths evidence. 



I 

- 

■ 

■ 

■ 

■ 

•• , 



6 

and ia MgpaVttl by WMI T"le ■■IMHWlHi in ; ■■■ ^ y, . f . ■ j . 

S34 lil. 3^7, »h«rain the court JfaJMU 

"It ha* fetal t*ld Mttf tfcNM ti'i -t it >iuu*t b*:- &i r o«ae 

whieb. will Ilium the wurt to r ., -.. iv^ree on the ••* .- n- 

C'-ition of the hue'©* ad for •■ru®ity tf the »lf«| but thia 

dots not naaJB tfeat any different fflneipla* oi' lav or rulea 

of ftt&tfwe :■'•.:>' la eaeaa «h*jr* the -is oo^ I • I fToa 

fBMMM vher© the wife la 00* tftl St** 

HM jgfiajdjMBi &a&iai&&9 4s)\.-.. i $& 1 iaiaaaft la vailtp 
of eonr&v^noe in briv. Ml ila ttaadltlea of habitual 

drunfceanees ftftl the uss« of llajmat 8$ hie wife, ©f whieb he now ooao- 
l&lna* and that ha en«aux , a-ge& H&tt habit solely for the poytti of 
aeouring I dirorst. H find nothing in tha record fron wbioh it would 
ayaaai tfcat the a affinal nniit ffat guilty of *iifuiiy tad aallalaaalf 
o.*.u»lag Hal (WMiffii fr&aa if HH defend--:-.* . m -tended by hen 

The defendant alaa &©.::.{ s&ft;i«> that the f*ota offered by 
bar aup---ort til onei-goa* eaiah wtrs of tha aaaai ateaaataa s» those 
amda by tba oompl.^tttsmt* ' : ni-i theyefsw Hat aaattt erred in not granting 
the relief grayed for la tier 9roa$*blli 9 atat ;?t h*aing filled 

to grant the 111)11*1 plfii for, neither the Ml nt nor the defend- 

•Ml ia entitled to relief, '«hila her paaitlon is ineoneietent upon 
thie • oint, still --.noellor aaa fully 1 ajpai by the reoord 

in maaltaaj the aaai I tl H Hat i .-uef ..:--.<yed for in hie mu of 

ooaplair.t. 

n hive aaaattMal t a evidence n an the question of 
repeated note of cruelty end bvbitu-d irunkenneea eharged in the eroce- 
bill, *nd find that the evidence offered by tha oroea-coa dnin*<nt doee 
not *uat&ls> her fuwendad oroe^-bill, 

Tha oooi^lainsint in aayaaVl of th* oroae-error aaaigned 
by hi« 9 aug^eeta th;it the oourt erred in alla^aal| the defrndeat I -50 
er.oh aanth ea alimony, end • further liowinee of '460"' nt nnd for 
the defendant* 3 «olieitora» feee» 



•«,_,..-... 



I NMH 






ifU.'^V ■ 






- 






Ml 



I 

in 






HI 









' --v.. ,■..:■,. ,-• ?(Mtffl ■? v.;. Mfi 



T 

The decree m fchia 9*M ie Inmm eooe neurd by 

the ©ourt ih-t ftf offered In aptl oow.rt *y tfei tlWfll ill wilt ■"nd 

defendant upoa the flMMMildL at*tu« •■;' • , ! ->iiity of tht com- 
PJfttlTiltn aad ttptA the ffl.mwuj.ill MNNtg All of the defend- 

ant, and the aoiirt -iireeted the ptgraftttl it the .iefen-«*nt oy the eom- 
pl&la&at of the MMM&te |HNMrl4tfMi for in the -i*o*ee» 

this eourt ia of UMl I a th»t u.-on this ^ueetion the 

tri?U. ocmrt ie eustslzued by Ih* evidftnoe is the record* The f*ote 
UN|| in ;,;*rt t tiltfl the A#fea«l5fit nag in. S*e«4jrt §£ en "viloeinee of 
ebout StOG • aestft« ftwi the •oas\L*.itv>.ftt # s&wi gifts of jewelry, and 
th t the oo*pl« law ■«* • I W ■ :. I £ -t© toatiaan iuoretire one* 

therefore, m are wailllfl to ftgrae »it& the eontentiwa of eoaoioin>-nt a e 
oouaael th*t the eourli entered i» tjlfff eggi 13 MMMI« 

The decree t« Atfiswaft. 

;». 



M «$$» 



■ 






• 



,,,:-*>< ' 



36425 

ttefeadant In Srver, 

T. 




t. 

Opinion filei Dec. 13, 1933 

this mmm in in tfaia court u an a W*U of error lireoted 
to the ftftNftml t«wH *J Mi M»K$F 4 (W r«9&M the record in I p*o- 
eeeding therein %im defendant mm found sr&ilty upon i fcmtMj before 
the trial eourt ff&tfefKg; I jury. 

the defea&ij»t va* M$f$M' in the Initl iH«<imiI *ith the 
©ffeaee of "driving i • «tf&#s£t the twner'e eoaeent, *nd in the 
eneenee ef the owner - •Vbiio MM*! or highly*, *nd jud^aent 

Mi entered eent<»Reing the IffMNiMi to fix *onthe Imprisonment In 
the House of Correction end fining ***• ■ 1» Ml aueh offenee. 

*ae MHttS Ufl *>«word i* in this Mell, M upon the 
record trie defendant eon tends Mat Mf Mp»fat MM* of Illinois in 
the ease of xflg. i.e.ojiAft ". al&tfu lU Ui. ««, held th*t eetion It 
of trie Illinois Motor *ehiel* Alt Mi onoo .fititutianU, on the ground 
th»t the penalty for ftMlAtg M MMSMlUl is mj/U.p ener A MMM 
Of the title of the *ot; Mttt the -j union of the fcMMM Jourt for 
the MM reason, inv aid tee other sections of the iotor vehiele «et 
charging ■ criae. 

fho defers *o co .tende ts»t the finding of the eowrt 

that the defendant is guilty of MlYUf without the oentr'a consent, 
merely adjudges the defendant guilty of e pert of the offenee charged 
In the fourth count of the indictment, *nd is insufficient u: on which 

to predion to & Mltsl Judgment, 









C$ 









■ 

■ 

. 

t at 



3 

Hi annver of KM | : . , , ixlnoil to ^ 

defendant'* Nit«iU M r u UReonetUuUo ^ 

a, ig mm *,,, mm*m th^eby MM . .., Ucm th t ^ onIy ^ 
***** by hm hum :,^ rt m , :, . : .. I | f tnit 

*hen 3 ««h u th« mwmm »i tn* i . , t u mmm§ 

******** m fcwlftg to vioi~.u<;n , -netitution of 

the ft** * uuwu, bat t ,, e ,,_. . nt tn %hB imttx% ^^ - T IiUi 

*»t t*g tt*t*&«i ft * , Jrt m ^.^^ v . ^^^ ^^^ ^ ^ 

lds.t«« iH »«etior*« of the h**** ... crl(B#> 

torn >m mm*mum ni^i ui« rt 

1r Ha B w^h i *. j&uk, mm * u -. : * »« t**i *,, oourt d* t * r3lln#0 

that tb* Ie*ialrtu;-* ** , , -ity N fix 1 different | iHiiimh for 

the staling if K» m^oU« fee* th.t ./-rovidnd for UMW* in 
general, *ni the fin* fcfti tn-t in ftitttt to do to the HfHlntwn 
suet «n£e the thsagt tqr i mm .*e ftli *nt |« 4n€ ,, rl/filnei ^^ ftnd 
the oovrt further Mi %lwt tbs ^ ift wmo> a , nnot ^ w , vlntd 
an «a tvftsfetst to tb« Mate** Serf** ft* t «« re *on Ml *, 

3*ea not ^ttflHftl to m m Gawndanut, MM the tliaal oh^ed i« net 

within %m snitia pmm f n* im* f t** - c t. rh mi th»t the 

Illinois UcUl»tu» **«•* ••« ■ -et owrin* the Greeny of «<n euta- 
Mobile «* *dd*d Hm liiilim to Chi !■■■■■! seotion of Mm Jrlsin | 
Code, but filed to iM Ml tff, lUftattl 3«de aeklng it mi 

offense for person to drive out th . otmar'a oonaent 

li*« no ft I lit*] |g the If*** o,«e. iafc^ T . ;i ,k. «u OM . i, ao t 
^ppllenUi. it in *le*r «M1 Motion 50 of !»• otor ^bioie m fi^et 
t p«n%lty for I eriae th t is MOjf oovnrni by thi. .notion of the «nt 9 
»■• ebarged in the nlln^.Uona of IM indiotnent. 

In tbe o^»e of • >e p^e t. iirjtt, 386 m. ear, the eeurt 
heid mention 16n f the *<otor v*biole lii. a « ^nondnd, ■akin* it 

* eriaina offenae t h-sre onee«*ion o/ «ny eotor reiuele free which 
the ^nnfaoturern* number bed been renored, wid. Tbie mm in of 









• 



ttftvflMUl I 






| M 







• til 










• ■•• 


1 urn 


d i 


iMf 1 






;. ..,..-. • 

! 

i« «i *m» titff .MJU-v >fc 



U K M 

■ 



- . 









3 

■stferi*! aid in Hgpliim ©f t&a defendant v « contention th t ths *et 

in H— ilia * is M* w*Ud. flMI e©ort Is Qm -sonic, v. ,: >-moy g id» 

"It is alleged ffeaft fa* section h*j ®or^ thsn <m<* object 
and th* object is net ele«rly la • title of the 

&*t. The object u single, sad altl the title sr.ya 

nothing shout t « partiwalar amttei I i tea^lon of 

* ssotor vehicle voon «fei#h th* mw£*£ Auaber' a** been changed, 
it eon** within W ural «*!»**« of the set, the net hat 

» ti«n«Tftl title ■&£ aya ;»■# gradation of ;.■■?; rtieultrs which tend 
rather to oeafuaico. fthaa certainty, but it includes the reaio- 
trfttion of *oto? vev.ielea rasji en i Itiac forth 

the mm if ft* wmm mi I the engine mi* er, 

and th* section is ^ueetion ia *it;iin ,. . puroos* of 

the ttM ft* iajtliiiii in the title.' 

Tnev* y«iani8* It He esnaidefred Hm tu*eti*a* w*e the 

trial eourt*a finding inenmolent i . • Keats * vUd 

judgaant. Yne d«fend«nt alte* m authority Dm cedM of foe « coole , v . 

Slue, £23 ill. *■■■.•. '•■--•. *U . art found la* infor«*ti*n 

defective in that it iid net sm>»# the mmm ef the vehicle, nor allege 

ffeftl it |»| driven *» &$*«»%* I R ft "street if b&gfeaaf of this 3t*te" # 

er s in to* ae««ite« if the leasts** Phi* **e« is not ■ a* to the 

indiotvent, afcftfl gfen#$ia in tas faafipfl count (feel the defendant, on 

June ?, Mia "did unlawfully a&& at&Mty drive . tttvte * notor 

vehicle, to wits an "-.oteeobila upon ■ street snd highway in »"id 

County of ooofe -and Bllii of lilin»l*» in the "bcenee of one -era** 

Undheiaer owner of *:»ld motor sehiel®, without toe consent of » id 

Hon?,©* i-indheiaser, owner if t*A4 Motor Tehiolc, contrary, etc. # 

the finding of the falsi court ia # in paiftaM foil*Ȥ: 

*/.nd the court being fui^y ftdflaai in the jvremiae^, doth find 
th* aeld defendant guilty of dr ivinff » e*r without the owner* e 
eoneent in **nn*r snd for* ^e olinrged therein. " 

The findinayfa* court is j;«n*r-»l »nd ia anffioient to aup >ort th* 

iudgiaent entered by the oourt. It ia not neoeaeery thtt the finding 

9p**ifi*ially 3«aori: ; e the offense ^hftrged in la* indlot*ent. ueh 



. 



• 









' 







' 












. 




• 









. '. 






■ 



i 



. 



Mil 1 n 



■'■>. < 




.;.— .::* 


r v 




5 



4 

is not the %Mm Mi it is tut oo&olu^Um fro* tm ti ion of the 

T*c?ord th-'t ft AaHftf of ■;«. K Lty ia Mfr&BitKt ?-her* UM oftf«n#« 
is dtaoribed in i*:ener<?>l i ilim mi llM&ttAit t? r*?>r«noe v in annnvv 
ad fo*m t M O iiyf in IM l»Ai*t»f«t, ,..-o^ e v. cUrn<n f f M Hi, 

..■or UMI Wksonn ir,4ie->tei in tfcis opinio** w find no 

mrersifele ®frsr in HM Biiif€# fittd toe ju%*snt; is onoriingly 

tlTjiiilii 












to 

:tf£««ft*6 ft! 
« 



/ 



$6450 

Corporation, 

A&P«lXt«, 



■ V ■ Y *.»d ' Lil. 



.; E?.«IlftSt«, 



t 

i 3 I. A, 611 



Opinion filed Deo. 13, 1933 

m* ■ mm 



Ta# 4*£#B&?s»fc§ mpp*ai«d ffeoa *ua ©r<i«r o mtW o in the 
Uuniaip&l ttNVt of ifeMlp 1 m $$t$$ifi 14, SJ88, donylng i motion of 
the defendants N IMiVli Mfti 9JNNI J? jud$»»nt entered by confession 
for £541,10, ojq October 10, li^a, &A for lofivo to • ad do fond, 

and. fia ■ stay of «x«Otttio:n« i'ho ;7*oai»«ory not* u-.->on which this 
oo&fto«ion of jw&g&Mftat »»« on to rod, HMI **••< /•bru:rry 16» 1$32, 
■ttl im* sign#d fey OAsr* ■ -oty r, MHHI e% §N#f| Dorothy mokiey, 
Saauei B. ftxrattt and &-»*» Cellar, wa*rein they jointly find severally 
proaii$« to pay to Utt order wi 7 the OUlntiff, fiftytwo seeks nfter 
date, 099$ with iaKcPOftt at th« rat* of 7> per «nnu«, nfter maturity} 
Savings Aooount Mo, ( HKP8 in said plaintiff b«.nk String boon assigns* 
*nd deposited with i*id ho&k ft* sollsteral security. Xhe signers of 
tho note, Jointly M*4 earerailr, roaia* to incresso the -nount of 
•eeurlty for this obllfr tion by depositing JB3 in e^id sr. rings as u a at 
on tho 16th dsy of o*«h month sftor d*te until >iJ, and if suoh 
deposits should not b« aado, or in tits orent of default in ^ny of 
tho Uras of Vi* note, then this obli t 1 1 ., ^t tho o-tlon of the 
holder, shall imaiedi ,tely boesxso duo -nd parable, shetber duo ftoeerd- 
ing to its tersss or not. The rrant of attorney is lnoluded in ths 
praalsaory noto, nnd roridss, eubst»nti%lly, tta*t sny %tto noy asy 
e-pposr in nay r*ourt nd oonfoss Judgment tgaiaet eeoh %ad *il of 
tho ashore of tho riots, without prooess, for tho «aount un -nid on 









\ 



.... - • tiq© 



■ 



- 

I lmm$M 



,■ .-■.■■ •• . •.-, .>.«■:.' -U ■■;■•; :-■ *H "i ."»? - • ' • *v ' *? UtM 

■ 

, „ •■■ ■ .- i * • ,,.,•.- tttfM |Mrf -' • "■ '■•' ***" ■ >; ',-'■?•. U.;-<- 

no bts*-rui two** »*- *t***9 *** 



% 

e*id note, together with ooets -.torneyU feoe. the amount due 

on aaid not© and .attorney 'a feea «*,» entered n 9 hereinabove stated. 

A notion and amount m October u, 1933, 

by the (fifllHliHill to open tfeO v. iar ie'.?v« to :<ie«d. rron 

the affidavit it tpntnff tfcfct tie ,. afianmt of ioatallnoats falling due 
on the ISth A»y of July, August, .ieptenoer, Oetober veaber, 

1333, vera ex leaded toy fcfae -. i^ii;tiff until the UMfe fey of :>eoeab r, 
1333, on oonaldoratioa that mid . . y ,y « ft i<i inet*il- 

ssenta e© iMIMiM at too fciae agreed e m\, bI thMafcif the i>i uff 
reived nny lltell in the ,- j *ynnat» for ,;uiy, ugoet, 'Jeptenber, 
<tetofeer MM* seveaner, lf£lj tfeevt by reason of suoh extenaion, none of 
asid ln»t<aiatnts *ero due on uetober 10, 133% Nm data mm* judg- 
ment by eonfsealon MM entered «f the ;. iur.tiff j thnt on 
October 14, 1333, the oo«rt overruled tad HfimlalV motion to wo*te 
the ^ud^psent, Mai |fc i lf i gW»W i the defendants, exc : iifr, 
appealed fron t.ue order MMMJRM ftofjiatt M* I I , Mnyfl the notion 
of the defendant** 

Uo other evidence #?*.« hoard by the court on **id notion, 
exoept the ffil: vit of tne dei > of the motion to 

meate* 

Tae question in thla (MM is, did the extenalon of the 

pnynanta, as above oot forth, lor the naount agreed upon by the defend* 

ante to be paid to the f, modify the written evidence of the 

indebtedneae ao that a judgment by confession oould not be rightfully 

entered. 

Upon on ex*ain*tlon of t-ie over of - ttomey ineiuded in 
the roaisaory note, it g nj .t the def*nd*nta Jointly And 
severally authoriaed any attorney of *ay court, *t »ny tine <»fter the 
d*te of the note, to an; ear for the nttorneye jox. \tly -nd *ever*lly, 
MM oonfeaa Judgment o ; -.inot OROh and all of the el^nero of the note, 
without prooea*, and in f-*vor of the holder of the reaiaaory note. 






V 












■ 









* 






i 






. 






■ 



. 



BttMMf w** Wi IM 



• 4'tft 

mr.- pi ■ 



I 

for the HMtl KRnniA* k . g «A* n , rn9r ♦, 

fees. 

It la the tttftj i4tT 

©f a note, under the I *f*nj| . , , the rlrfbt to bare • 

fr l tgi i lt entered *t «p Urn r,fter , M note# wn<m tft# a|||# 

a© provide*, H g eii Usa ©I t..e U;»* sfcftQ | i .? the noU 

©e©*^se 4ue« 

Hi* extension fe tae $MmHtt of •. , ,enta does 

not in say nay ***** the r*. fet d %h* rdntiff to have * jxid^tnt 
•stored * the note fef | ...-.- , iue , , ;r -^h«v ?. .-frneen. 01 111. 

*Pp« 44 | 

the \ • • it | | • 

of thn t&ftftiynl t| the MHi r* &| a?*»id, lt*bl* ground 

IJftllU*! in the *?*'idavit, Hgf the only aef#»se is tan* the un^-ld 
ln«t "iiaaents »-ere extended &y the .>.4*lntlff. 

the trial »«*** did net err U Attylnf defendants • notion 
to fcMftti ihI tf«i the fntilpftst* a&d tor Unvn to -lead. Therefore 
the order ia ■ ITj >*eC 



I 

?** nit 1#% 

. ■••• l 



i 



•<i# fll *?0«OQ« 






3048* 

.■■;.;■■, 
HfftWJimt I* I rror, 
v. 

VAfcffJ! .?**: , 

■l<intiff its 







• I f 






r 



. 



■■trot, 



1 



» 3I.A. 611' 

Opinion filed Dec. 13, 1933 

. « raugg i | r< 

rue defeBr: '- 8 Mi«t«4 isi trie! u Mm| alleging 

that on the i?th d,.y if ftfe** iy 4 J m# he did ux | y Con . 

©cnled on or shout hi* paraoa i emi %» igtol, fttfttimty to the 
st- tute. | 4ury I ■- -ived V/ the ftftftaatftftt, I the court found the 
lifMimi Iffility *£ carrying concealed weapons in sanner uM fora aa 
charged is the in4iot»c?.< ., ftrf |#| j .otlone for ft new tri , in 

arwet of Ju&gpent *«*« owrn^sd, v, rel the following or let 

and judgments 

*A»d the court Ifeftaii&g fcfeti tftsHMNf if *itnes s i*3 # and oem* 
fui~y a-iwisaA 1 in the p9«fltle*« t .loth rintf th* defi»nd»nt, -'iter 
imm -.-rager, &uUty ft* '3. raying eaac 1 in (banner 

and for© a* ibaxgftd in the indictment. 

"therefore U la aaaaider* ; , H& v.-dgei by the court 

that the tail ■ «t i iltfti . i •. , L) iity of the 

e»i& ©rime »f ftaawtllftj concealed wa*none in manner nnd fora ee 
charged in the ii ;; t, in this eiu*e, on the said findiag 

of guilty, «no. tivt hi he nad is hereby sentence- nfineaent 

in the county ^ssiX of 0e*i bounty, fo t% I rrylag 

oonoe*lad waapema in -nd fow «s ch r od in the indictment. 

whereof he atando ftomrie lud.red guilty for th*- t*>ra of 

six atonthc, 

~nd fined one dollar, 

tfpon l MH ftf *rror ireoted to the Jrialnil .'ourt of 
•Mfe -ounty, the record i« befor* this oourt for review. 

Two oucetlont ere releed in the brW filed hy the defend- 
ant . <>irat, th.t the finding, aentenoe «nd judpaent of the oourt, 
wherein the court adjudged toe defcn.i*nt guilty aarely of o-rrying 
coneenled weapons in aanner and fern »a charged in the indletaent, 
fail* to eho* th. t the defend a at aoaeltted any orlac, and thar*fore 



x "JL O •xi 



■:?:.■- 



■ 

Mi 

. i - 



, 



■ 



is insuffiolent on whioh to e*t4A4M%i ft judgment; N*f second, th*t 
the indictment i fc s vt S f sm' the eoat&lssion of Wm ■ .Uege.i ori«e of carry- 
ing *>■ concealed vee.pon on or sJMNEt tb> person of Mm defeniant in 
CJook :ounty, MMrtilJ the WtiiHi* af flmatively shove th-< t the £un 
or pietol MM fmund on the person of the f«f«84sJtt in rt<>«»ond. Indiums. 

the first B»a te «cH«B of the ttftfaMumttt i« th- t the finding 
•nd judgment of the C«tuftl MM &M$£ag in MM cmmcstitA element of the 
orl^e of carrying; t&e- caaoenitd wtftpNl ©a or -about the person of the 
defendant. 

It is the tule th-*t if i gift**** finding of uilty la 
manner MM farm M *^l 6« g N 1* th*> indl6t»ent is entered, the judgment 
so entered upon su*n |MHifll finding is sufficient. * so sic ▼. 

in 
*?vr>il«d/ determining th® mjffloieney of the finding of the court in 

the IMMMMl o-v.e» i» whether (Meg f||tf|a£ determines the Tueetlon «e 

to the defen -..(» tit *s pdlt, na §&&$•£ in the indictment. 

In the MmM kef&r* this MMflrt the mVimMmmmtl ie found 

guilty of the ertae §£ MHNyJUmf iMMM>*H Me IMMh 'his finding ie 

•titnf Mmf cert in Ml to una* «ri*se li oh -rgsil. There ie nothing left 

to sp*aul<?tloft, MHl no element is omitted. The trot th*t the irorde, 

*©n or ; bout his bMHMR* MM not included in the oourt 1 *? finding, doee 

not MUlilt l 4oubt Ml to the MMNK&Ag of the judgment entered by the 

court, fhe u MMt MN0M in th* e«se of * eoo^e ▼. >iernee. ?&n Hi, 

515, in construing the verdict of the jury vhiob found the defend nut 

guilty of robbery, a*, id J 

"A verdict is not to he c netrued *itb the ft*mm etrietness 
ft* an indict aent but is to be liberally oons trued, and ell 
re*.sonf*.ble intendmente will b* indulged in its eu pert, *n.l 
it sill not be held insuf •ieient unless, from neoeo sity, 
there is d&vbt ea to its *e*ning." fttiaj eorle r. jjpjt, 
iU. 373. 

The rule is th t in determining the euffioieney of s 

verliot and & judgment of oonviotion tebMM ther«on, the entire r«oerd 

will be *»?ireh#4 «nd *11 parts inter >reted together, *nd * Seflolenoy 



ai ■ 



t 
I H I 






fef: • 









; 








S r 


ni 








r M 1 1 * 
















• 15 u-o r 






Tianos ni ,ais 






, 










■ 
1 






I 

•I one pl*ee tmy be MN4 toy *h*t i n ir» »nother. ** , g ODiifl v , 

jaJMfr ■•■ m * •••* ftNMl •■ aVMataftt&M of the whole reoord in 
tola esse it U oleer «b*1 the finding: of the def nd*nt guilty of 
e^rrying ooadenled flUwagiM established tfttt f«4* th«t the *e- ->oa wbs 
o*rri«d upon the vereaa of the defend A»t, Ma* t* iyin*r th* rv,le m 
laid doen in i„ £ ft l >> A ft ▼. i^IMX* tti^i^* MM rMWl sufficiently shows 
ta*t th* defendant i .■ ,-ilty of tn« ori<«e, a* oh«rged in the iriiot- 
me«t« 

The tiCANd fiftd Uma -ueatloji BftUdd to the attention of 

this court by the defendant U # Ifeet the evidence tttt not affirma- 
tively shoe feat feft* ^risae, as SfeSfgid in the irdint-nent. Mi 
eeaaitted li Cooit %SKtf« Illinois* 

In dlapeaing of | | »»sti«a It will be well to eenatder 
the ryle aaliyittl "fey the fyxpmma Sfturl in the c- an of elnoertr ▼. 
I^i-£&&4£* WW HI* H| where the eov.rt said upon this cusstiom 

•It |« not neommvr th t mm one testify, in 90 **ny «ords* 

to the fejUMM riHHFf the ftffdftee em ooovftitted, but it ia 
sufficient l| the evidence, as *. whole, leaves no r*-sor^ble 
doubt M to th© sot Boon whioh the iwilot&ent ia b aed hnvla* 
been eoaaitted. ?t the r.iaee laid in the indictment. «• dorter 
v. ;>c=ue, iss i il# 370.) 

sad ouotea from _j&&£cM v. ttaVH , 34 seb. 14, as follows: 

"The venue of «■ offense »y be roven like nay other f-"t, 
ln 1 mm* i ft ■< »« it need not be established by oaitive 
testimony, nor in the VMFta if the inform tlonj but if froa 
the fKsts aapdafln*, in evidence the only rational oouoluaion 
^hieh earn be d*aM. ia th t the offense. * ooeualttod in the 
©aunty lle&*d, it la tmi Jtoient.* 

Frota the fteta ia the r^eord it m th t on >*ebrvnry 

17, 193 , in response to I report th- t windows in 1 brber ahoo 

loeated between Stete and *>&lti«ore f on ln|fr«he»i venue, in >»lu«e% 

ilty, iixinoia, Had been broken and leatroyed; th t >r«nk iotke, * 

pbllee offioer for - luawet City, roeeede.i to, fcN# loo t.ion ahea he 

he rd ehota firad frow I revolver on *t*te trr«t bet r /nhu 

*ad MMMWHl venae; thot ha r*n to t>,e corner -nd aaw * -hevrolet 

eouoe feeing driven «wey; th^t he reoopnalaed the auteejobile as be in* 

owned by the def*nient; HsJ he eh-aed the aatoa»bile, vhieh dle^ope^r- 






• .. 



«-*■■:. 






• ■ mm 



■ 






- 



trir r*r, i.' 



■ .,- 



. »tf / ; Mi I 



4 

ed, and ur>vn rtttm ta*aj£Sf lataflt tb t the o^ . .„ riwen to the 

voy :otel on .--tate tre-et, located u :-!«msB©nd # Xn.u*ne* 

It *leo appaaxa ta t offioer lotfce, **eo« anied by t*o 
•rt**l *lty polloe offloara, -nt into the hotel, and in the lobby 
mat the defendant; tfcal iiotk* ee&aafcad him -„v< *ataa1 5 ;^«toi in 
hi* oeat taffeta ad he exaainad th* • istol and found but one o-vrt ridge 
la it; Hurt five ainuteo after ftafaa aita'a unrtat ^hUe t th* 
Ksaaond iolioe ttailaN Hatfeti ?•■ tae dafaaaaat, - hat»e the idee, 

of ehootlng, »*opV BMl th*t t » . U, *0b, I juet shot 

Into this tatlldt l fl Ife**** I ansta* somebody to <so«e out, I «a going 
to get there. I m :M $$ N g*t hiss, ©van if a tv.kee ten ye»re. I 
sua going tf gat y©^&.* gfefl -Di- tbe olioe of floor). The a*ae offioer 
Identified the defend-mtU m? at the fesva? Hotel m toeing the e«.*e 
-vutoaoblla wblob mm driver, from the laantlon In ,'aluaet ?ity 

■»hen the shots Wttl fired* 

the d*fen.i*Gt lanled fftet he w*a in ;«lu«et -Ity *t the 
tlae the abota *er« fired, nrf fro® hi* evldeaea he elalaa he v< a In 
* rcat«iurejit in ■MttNMIg fllliaia when 1 friend, Joe -.*orrle, h*nded the 
defendant a pistol short Hfta before he **>» arreeted by thw -luaet 
tflty police; t aaat the MM eveni-.,:, rlor to hla Mlfl g he loaned Ma 
Chevrolet ooupe to his friend morris, who, without any , revioue arrange* 
aent for the return of the automobile, met tha iefen^nt in the 
reatfturatit In liaaaand, aB4 ratvrned the »utoaoblle to the defendant 
*t 3:30 a. a. 

It la ?lo© past of the da fen i^nt»* t>atl«ony th*t hla 
friend Joe ^urrle «-<ae into the teat w voy ioteX and 

"•lipped* the gun to the defendunt; tb/»t when aorrle g*ve the gun to 
the defendant, he aafta* "Here, I *» in » J**,' vanning of eouree that 
Uorrla are in trouble. 

fba atory told by the defendant --bout the reoeiot of 
the revolver and ite being found in Me poe«eaaion, •*•• fmeiful xad 



























. 



ipptP J' - -..* i--.: 



a*/. 

■ 



■ 



uAbellevibie, %nd no doubt Iki m- 1 eetnrl toi it so, • iua»t 

aity, ;ook Jouaty, Hiiaois, b«f it H line of Icditn*, 

«ad the city gfl KhmqmI ' ; ''lj»ina S&Untft -ity. i he truth of the 
teres *1 atrite^ents of Hit wJttoMMfcf ■ i i««i| uron toy the trial court, 

r»nd -*© *re of the • iivt Nut twtof&g ki ■ whole, waypi tt the 

Court's finding of thtf d6 : : Ms , vil*. Ihe oourt oooeldered the 

f*et th t the flftfl ilredl i« ,'"luaet *it ; ; tint ahota *er* fired 

froas % -!<i*toi 111 th*t oity; t&i&t At at** mwltnlHH warn »•#» 
leering th* p&tt** whey® the ahote ««re flr«4 4 -rid the evi *nee of the 
^daleaioa toy Dtfl £#$gat&i&| i'.r ; t ae fired s ahot it i building 1a 
ItmlliBlft v ity la order it 3ttr>et th* ittltttiw oi Mi m njslnt-noe 
that he M &it«r, the pim&t of this *utoaotoile it ving the eoene 
of the eri^e. Ml HM t*£ta$ tf Hm • .'■:■-•-■ = ■.:■ -a In XndiinA in roe<?eee- 
ion of | 4 ;>i«t«l ®£tte &U teat MM of the e*rtrid«te fired, Jheee 
facts aeet the i»ec : uirev#r>t Ivv-t the arise r«e eoousitted in lueet 
^ity t voofc w ounty 9 Illinois, M tte M^ pM t in the indictment. 
the fwjgatftt ■ Hm Al I ouTt i« * firmed. 



I 



I 

f tii 



i 



. 



36806 



» 



■**••, 



at, 




3 I.A. 619 



Opinion filed Deo. 13, 1933 

kh. IMS r« 

Tht jjfjWJBli ■ p&&ty Ml a saent oh^rgiag 

forgeyy of i tank deposit nil ■ I gXif! m the aaount of , 
&vi&#-»«e ama Itfwypi If the tarM awKr|.f m p&as of aaaltf the 

court acatcnaad the ;- : afct to tU* :/cnitenti*.ry s roe defead&nt w*e 

tofjtftat at Hal fant ti*c for ta^itltttantj *hioii hall at— I w>e 
jj\ by HMj Ititftfti if fca* ftsfca'a ttoraey. 



rrlor |t ii Wl i JW WI if the tafea m the olaa of guilty, 

HM| defendant £&&•£ fl *?ritt«.n Laa* together *ith 

sn ft.ffld-.Tit if J»fJiiiMHt*i cletar, r<_-o *ion aaa denied by the 
court, aaa Hal -•, fro* the «rd*r denying 

defendant* a MJjNaJal npHl Hi t4« , to tfel itf Court, tint 

Jistriot. 

I ^etiticn filed by fch* defendant for aie release on 
prob tien st<<t«», la substance, Mttrt he i§ re of -*.ge # barn In 

Ohio -go, livae with hi &*rrled slater; •*■ employed b/ 

the outavaat Trust p.nd >viage Bank fat iod of 1* yerre, *ad 

*w.e »t the ti«e of the forgery charged in the indlctaent, tuiot^at 
>.ohi«Tj th t he MM nenr arrested . rlor to the orlme oh»rged, nor 
convicted aj I oris* rior to the rooesdinge in the recent o.*eej 
that the d> stored 1,650, together with ftlO sdvaaead by aaf 

sister, *ad that thie total *«ount if U ll urety 

OoarMiny to apply on account of the Iocs, for which the urety ->sar«ny 
vac liable on itw bond to aaaaj hu rales* the Uouthasot mot aad tavtaga 



mm 



CB- 

.■•■■' 












■ 

I 



■ 
1 ,c*ta*1:ftA 

. 






$ 

bonk} tint there-after the litfiWhWrt lattfcllMHMl to his then attorney 
iljlllillillj $14 t CS0Q 4n «c»Ki«y MprifM&« eeouritlet •uid Mt ^ut©- 
aobile to b# tamed over to the .■■ | vaey to bo 

Ued os jJIWUMMt of Ma alvll ii^i-ity. 

The defendant «l^lna tlt&t I r*ty detti saiaed 

th t it MWili IWiiMMKi ■■ lifHf thn 

(lifmtfiUl'l forsser stfeMli" e&b*£«l«d. $£*• money ft*d aeeuritiee 9 tad 
ilMWiiti i Hal eaatteie to Ms eea. «6#, KRi tJ't :■ t the aaouat «%• not 
-• . . Uil in i redt*«tion ©f 'ais. IjgMUty to Hm . H tola aioe 

atteviMf *mi aubeecwenti ■■ WltfBfa&$ of trisse and to be laeeae* 

The evidana* »&d a4ej£ t$ the eourt in support of the 
d*fend-*mt*s& petition, Oram wblea It *-vpe-r«d tfeat the defead.*nt ftdaittad 
eaatftlttlag mother ferg^ry ««d &1«* tfe&t no bad eabeaaled ?30 # 000 # 
the property of the ftwwtlwra»l •:*«**, And ifft&ft tsaak, ?u*i th*t thie 
au« w\« NteW Iff a*fWBra* &*MB»&tfl duiln;: HM if two ye?ire« 

'fhe d#f«r^.int at*, tea in bis brief that tea u<?>tioa to be 
determined it* *?a©ther m if&K* entered If the oourt -ienyiag the 
release of the ii£ U«a h reviewable, rhe tri-*l eourt, 

<*fter sa iave m of the - ;» Ucstion for prob tion, 

ia ooftforaity *it . , r« 786, ^»ith-ifurd»« ill, *▼. Hjefcaw 

3.93:*, deuied the ieTfiejif a«t* I - Me* 

tfci r ^ ie ia the eejMtej| prooeedlnge end whieh 

la eu;,v-orted ky the deeiaione of the ./uyreae iMflf ia that the grnntinf 
Of probation upon tfejilantiafll rest* An the discretion of the tri*l 
oomtX, %nd the refaa*l of the oourt to releaae the defeadaat apeei 
prob-tioa ia act mlWittl, i«j2Eal ▼"• wheeler. M9 lli. ; gnule 

▼. 4iiuLflX# »' iil. 33} ,go,le v. ;at?I> ''l 7 Hie le»| j2»afiiAT. 
iiil&eJUfc 307 iU. 31«. 

the -=ine\rer of the defends at • to the appiie tion of thi« 
rule # i« th t he ia in aeaatd vith the i ranee Court deoiviona taat 
the order la not reviewable by the *upre«e Oaurt of thia Jt^ta, bat 



wmm 



.* 






• 



>■ . -"■ 












. 






-.'■* 









> 



' 






. 




• 






. 






' i 






i 


ft* #•: 




, 




• 


.. 



'■■ 









is ffifldWUltiMl toy th* t W« iar. 825, 

15 id tifcf N ^ ft W Bt lgil <?t# I^UI'l lll» UPT« ltft%i« 1939, whioh ii 



*a d«f«nti«xtf i&S i&fell h&ve iu*«#*«f«ii.y mvofcsdl tfcie pat* 

Yisi$ft$ of tfei* |g| HK| *&ftSm t • MM SAMMY* 

•g wm& MB MM &i a •$ 1$ §&ii oj l i £f$« tss airo-uit 
eourta |l M^MMMMI - «. syy-or* s»y order oh&ngiiig, 

sioAifyiiig Ml terrain? tir,,;.: Ihi &*ites%4#» sriod. 
eeuvt* of this *'••"' Hi . y to 

&s«r mi tttanMiM H wmm *r # oi 

suo.h. fNM&ti H f$llM| Twmu® if sao&ify suon ifMMi so 
tfcst $MI tHMI tih&ll Siiifarat $$ IDS gnjivisii I thii ct, 

-o &h&t Hi pus • •■'• I ■■■ laiiM) N of Justice 

■ i ... : ■ ■: ■ ! ' . '. ■ ■■■••■ 



A restsonsbls mmtnmtlm. #1 this MWtiiB would .len to 
Xm Wm% «*•»• % d«f«Bd.ttnt Ii suoasssfttl in irtYo'feiag I visions 

•f 4h§ i>ri^v tto» M%# S&$ *& ox3#r is MltiflM) by WWPt r«l«i»alng 

hi* 0» MJMiNtitiMfeg fei n ; ;■. -i ti this saort **#** |mi MMM) of 
fJilfftftMl is &&&lfi<fM$ im Hi t**. m •-> MiM too pro- 

fc&tlfti psriodi if t«y«ln»t9d f&& $ viols tl on by Sin I of its 

tt*M» # and tlwr d«f«adftnt it swmlttsd If | rt for ftia oriat, 

This m I IHNMI if UN legislature of the stats of 

Illinois in piigslag the MTOtlMI in j ":U<»?stic''', a I MMJ «o, this 

iil fro* ths ords? ■imv^lfm **I4 tiki d«f*n4snt MM] NMi tion, 

is not propsriy h*ftfr«* this tiwjrt* 

the MJMMil Ii j liasalsssd, 

. 






I 

u Si 












■ 





■ *3 §« J. . .i , 

, . . , 

* . and .v.. 
RSAt SSTM. - tS, *.n Hllnoie 

eiie«s, 

▼• ITT. 

I ., fAiH I, II , ) n - .< ~ T . _, 

*ailb/»- jr.* .-3K1 lmsu . . mm , I ^ ■*• ^ 

) 

\ ej§&&o&tMt« } 

Opinion filed Deo. 13, 1333 

Tteie $£ 9S& interior to ay ftjtftiftl fun ■ M 'enytag 

defondoAte' Motion to Mttfei omtf dissolve km orexy fcm$NNtt4B 
ieaued by feftti SHHfl* 

the PtiiMttiiiflflg o?d*r in in p*x% QUkt the defendants 
are restrained from »i»WJwjpHW|j fi NNHHng of the ©embers of the 
Aosoeifttlon gg ts§ tt.t-' N Hlpay fj q gig iHHBiilt to I i II for | meeting 
to tee held on the 14th d*.y of ir stern rjry 9 | - , except *• aodified by 
the court t© emit the colling of arid nest tig It order for the 
purpose of e-djournajen*} tfeat the tefeftdstati Bit further enjoined 
fro* talking or broadest in •<, u:--;n Um radio broadcasts ©outvoted 
for tey the defendant a««oei*ti© s| from interfering, o struotieg And 
violating or tors aflof jft i d by resolution tey the aoard of ireotore of 
the &saooletlon of d**tO faxpeyoro Corporation, *nd free per- 

feraln& the duties of officer* md coatee re of the xeoutive Je<aeittee 
of thie »i«o«i' -tlon ehile suspended* 

-*nda.nts MO *la© restrained *ro« 'king < eeseesion ef 
or dealing with ->,ny of the eeeete of the aeeo©i*tion until the 
further order of the court. 

The ootion to diseolro the injunction o»*s before the 
court u on verified bill of ooaplaint and answers of the d*fend*nt«, 
together with oertaln f>ffil*vit« ef aeateere ef the aceoei«tion, *nd 



2 









-'. >"■! 






• 












the court after giving ooMider*ticn to the defendant* • aotion to 
dissolve, on M&y §, SUB* imiidl i (4 motion. 

It is elenr fro® 9 mttai gg the bill of oonplftlat *ad 
the ilifiMAiAti* *.ns««r* tb*x«to tUftt (H fcc*t J *i y ont to 

control the I Ml *:«t*tr 9*a^K§r«*f toft*«& ^tion Hit the assets of this 
corporation, stoic*-, ftcsoei.-'tion w »« I i» •■ • ised no?. -,..,,. m rofit. 

The oourt ftiftcd its restraining ;»r J .er in , n the 

*Mgp Vnt the defendants «ra «&«fc**fel &] Issiiiistration *nd 

jeanagesetit of the corporation; !*•* 3.**8* sums for attorney's fsesj 
that the ti>f|#i of it* officers, »**§ pid in advance, *nd th»t the 
loyalty of UMlflMlli for the gatfMii ©f aonieo by the iesool»tlon 
is questioned* 

The briefs of the contending ^rties Hfc the nerlts 

of the controversy, and by the ft$| ^©VidiBg for interlocutory tppttfi 
(iraetiee Act *»**. 18ft, fee. || ^ ft ....... no) it v*s never ocnteaola- 

ted th**t the court &m - ■' H the merits of the cause* 

« action to dissolve | tHiy»l«lf injunction is not neoeee- 
ariiy a btttttag on MM neriw* fl 'tout Stfll>m»i the Question whether it 
is ?>dvieshle to aaintsli the ^tti 90ft until the chancellor has hod 
m opportunity to consider the «ni« upon its sprite. This oourt has 
held that the matter of wnylag i te*»por ,ry injunction r sts lsrgely 
within the discretion of the oourt. fl tifl v. ;i-;rfr P ^1 111. a !H >. *n. 
Tho question r^-raing the duty of the ohinoeilor is fully 
dieouascd, especially vbere the disposition of *e«ets of the eon tending 
parties is involved, in Uabsl2& ▼. ^1^ « 1U. *ppi.403, where 
the court s^idi 

* A cctioja/dissolve ■ tem-cr-ry injunction is not neoes»»rily 
J hearing on ths merit*, out presents the question whether it 
M attlaa aU to rc.srv* the M&SJML ML cf tbs otters in eon- 
Troyerey by a oontlnu-^noe of the tsnporry injunction until 
* final hearing on ths iserits of the c«se,» 






1 



: 



> 


















■ 
• 



■ 



—i ;■:'. 






-r ttex !)"•■■■>■ 



••shore tM aole ofejeot f«9 efetOfc Ik* teaqwveJTf injunction Is 
nougat is tha preservation of a fund in controversy or the 
aaiu.ten«ne* of tt*llteMMlU »«wi*» of the ri 

hOt a O em the parties o«n be dooided on final 00 rts , Bfca in- 
Junotioo is properly >*Xio«d or mifctmined even where- thera 
* aerieua doubt tea t$ the vitiate euooea-r of the 



Lalnt. ri 

The oourt a* id quoting fro« t;.>* 0*04 el ;-lty of i-awtop 7. 

Levis. 36 v. j. a. iei t ?» ltd. ns, 

"•The granting «jr withholding o£ e »s«2&a»JBnif injunction r*ata 

in the sound jtttieisl diaoretion of the aaurt, ^-n;S the only 
IBJotlOB i->re*«ated fey thie e$ m i ia mfeatitoff of not the oe*;rt 
below orred in the exerei** it discretion Motif the »at*b- 

llehod Iflfal ?*inttlf&00 whieh ohenld have guided it. The 
propriety of his actios :«oft tee WMi^<il< ftf the standpoint 
of that court * * * • Th« oontrolii;. re «■ fo* the «xi stance 
of the right to immfl 1 Bartl&rtmri injunction i* that th* 
court nay thereby > ng# v o n t Main 1 nh^are el or.-utiona and 

rela-ticna »l py gi w w i ai wed --,, .o-ty during tha litii • tion, aa 
nay result in irn?-..-<: laiary to i«M of the yirtiaa befor* 

their eleiao Mo be i. .r^. .-■.■^ ; lad ad v. iju^ic'-tta,*" 

it la to tot 8®t«$ tMt the alMMhftlit la not required to 

Mantli ninutoly the bill of eday>i<iint rior to the entry of an 

interlooutory dmxm for K$ injunction* in the caee of ■•rjfilun ▼• 

pokier. M ttl* • .;•. I'.', the court «*£*! 

*T»o mm of 1 tea^MVOSf injunction, wh-ea ls*t>ed by a 
Mart of first instance is 60 p reae i f O the *.■■■ 1 1 ■<■ re in at- tu^ 
8M until llMMJ OOuJrt fcm* tettl Ht Opj ortunlty to oonaidor tha 
oauao unoa its merits, of ujaoli it aatfH =r«a«ntod Mi irgu«4« 
ab intorloovtovy Il^mmI -t i»ton4o--l ii ■ oliort out to %a 

Ml tfi^<Bial| in tftlftl to dia;;»o«# of ?» o^uao u.ow lta «*rit« # 
without giving tlM tviftl oourt r.-ttmity to firat oonaiiff 

it.* 

a o • 

'•tho (Vial Mnorl la not rtqulyod to ex»mino -ulnut-ly tha bill 
of coup 1* in t jM&9 to tut entry of M int^rioov-tory daoroa 
for *n in Juno tic*, at t'ho entry of MNfei order la Justly within 
the diaorition of that aowt if« li ita o inion, it ia n«o*asnry 
to hold the atattara la atntu c- uo watil 1 wor*» ooaplat* hearing 
oajft be had u,;on th« bill. vO>.-rta of 19W%*m ^r» not inollnad to 
Interfere with thla dlaorotlon, where it w*".r* th't the re- 
ul reman ts of the statute on the granting of euon intarloeutory 
ordera hnee baen eoiapiled with the giving of not lea <md bond 
on the r*.rt of tha eonplninant*" 

On nyptnv fron wv intprloo»Uory daarea 1 rowidlnp for t | 

laauanoa of a ta«por*nry injunction, the IffnUHH Court will not 

interfere -rith the eaorolae of diaorition by the oh neailor in tha 

gmntin/ of auoh interlocutory ordar, ; rovl lad tha ,rovl«iona of tha 



' 



. vs 



. 



- 
■ ■■ 



1 1 M 









4 

etstute pi wKUg for tfce i»fu«M« of 8ji injunction »rc oom -lied 

with. 

-Tor the MUNI lndlo*ted in tain o iaion, we do not 
find th t the oourt* In the mm&lw Hsot fcion la denying 

the sotlun to dissolve, ooeu&itted error, rtorefore trie appeal 
■111 be diea&Uaed, 



ffJuL**, I * ♦ 



» *»• 






• , 



33963 

j cm BVNOMt, WB»m ■:- R , . 

.iu^KKAi4 ana li STI I 1 U IXAX1 
■ATXOiAli B Iff aJfli - 

■ ■v., %« Trustee under, k&xesasent 
dated 1*0*4 $# IMS* 

.eilefes, 





ISfR - 



I ■ 



JOSS L£IO f et al. # 



^e.fend*8t»j 



Interlocutory topM& of 

ftftft gg&l . 



F, 



O rv ci 



ltf 



Opinion filed Deo, 13, 1933 

tftu aoivti^- i i 1 1 mom r. 

Tale is m int^rloerutiHry If 8 S fcy the defendants Helaer 
LidstxoK *»& &&A& Li&MtTom. fr*« *n order SfptftTWtflU I receiver by 
the Haiti ttpm B bill §£ foreclosure filed by the co« : r.'-i'*lnonte f 
pPflBflj HI I Mtft ft the -relief, for tfite BfpMUatflMM of a receiver 
to take possession of the i%m&® mi improvements therein described 
Mi to collect the rents, is ws MM! rrofite of the building thereon. 

The order enter el on July u, 133"!, in :.>art, reoltee thet 
the oansiv. of the wguity of redemption, efts! lift other necessary 
parties having been served with notloe of the motion for the sp. oint- 
ment of % receiver, satf the court having reed the sworn bill of 
eoaplalnt, and wiring MNfcVi the evidence ee to the v^lue of the 
property involved, Ml *l»c *r$mment of counsel for the owners of 
the equity and for the costal «'.l--;s.nt», MM Jt ■'> eirini; to the court 
the* the remises are aesnt security for the naount due, and it alee 
Appearing from the order th t the court, fro* the evidence he rd, 
found th*t it was necessary for the reservation of the peeeiiaee 
th*t « receiver toe nr».*>ointed f «nd thereupon appointed the receiver 
MUMd in the order, ■ >on the receiver ivlng n bond to be a r- roved 
toy the court in the amount of ."V^, the bond for the oom7<l*ln«nt 






L gI8 #A.I 8 ' 



. 






■ *-»- 






■ 



til **': 

- 

ftsL *i x 

*o«lw»<r *.f,t lis a*l4*Tx*fi»%i 9 At t*1 v*fc*»MMl MM <i * 
fttwt^ :* MT ot bttvd * a«i*i ** •* *MUM 



mm*i 

tail 



s 

Continental Illinois Ittisaftl * Trust y ot Chicago be la* 

waived or. account of 8 id toapls.la*Mt fee in* iMat coso ay, 

i'ha defend nts ItefaMi l-id?trom n' Huid Lid*tro«, owner* 
of the eouity of redenption, «*£• th^t the vp->oint«ent of I r< e?iv»ir 
before na ^asssr is filed is erroneous in the iftMMRM of en -ffir».->- 
tive shoeing of an emergency. 

the aiotioa of the o©& I s in B&ti for the sr^pnintaeat, after 
notice to the def -nd nte, w&a continue 4 from June 30, 133?, tn July 
6, 1933, = nd after MMfftm the upMII oi dtafendftsta' counsel, the 
oourt enteT^d an order fcppoimtiaf the rooj'iver. 

It doee not iBtt t aif £*©& the V<MM>v4 tr-t the defend ate 
objected to the m try oi the ©r««r; it does rppe*r, however, fro« 
the order tlttl the court fownf!. M •& ultistM-e f ct %H .t it s&s n«te«s- 
s ry for the preservation of tne property involved t« -t a -receiver be 
ppointed, sad t is, in the oniuior tot the court, MM sufficient to 
* rr?. at the eetios ts&en t'y the court in hSpeistlag 1 *M iver. 

The principal contention if the del "r.*-nts however is 

th^t the bill of complaint is not r en riy verified, nd therefo*** it 

was Uaproper for the ?)n'<neellor to cor eider the bill oi comnl int. 

The verification is *»ubs?t -at tally in the follo*im. : f raj 

"Joseph • i'erry, * • * on o~tb deposes end eye tfct e is ■ 
the duly &uthcrixsd agist of id coarpioinsnts in trip beh If; 
that he hns Mas' the foregoing bill of complaint; that he 
bis persons! knowledge of the Matters and thin I tbr;rnin 
strted; end thst he kno^s the contents ther of *nd 
knots ss a. fact that the Exhibits tnarein set fo th --ad 
attached thereto UMl the MttiTf nd things ther in ft ed 
are true ;<nd corr-ct." 

e h*ve consider "J lit verific llff . " * lr H «r^rr- 
t ion oi the 1 agu* e used It tart the i i nt h * p»r*on 1 knowledge 
of the otters an things flat* la few bill of co.pl- tnt; t t he *no • 
the entente of the bill oi ooaplrint, > nd kao»s ns e f*ot th t the 
exhibits set forth in the bill of cosrvf mt *ad till* si IMlta^^t j 
the otters end thing? therein itatal ~re true and corr ct, II shnrge*/ 



si JaoO 

■ 

ft* *.»* . 
. 



- 
* 



I 
■ 






MCI 



•ut,* -j-'' :* n. 



Air t?«f#«a »di ti 
a Mil 



3 

of eoaplaint. hile the bill of eeaplelnt m v*ri:i«d 13 to he 

strictly construed, the rule does not operate ot «>ilit te ft t "«inet the 

rule tftnt the court i« to «Uv t ft r«*>eon?ble const rueti<*n of the vorde 

used in the verification. *'he eufflelenay of an af fid Tit denende 

u;»on whether it is so ele>r tnd cdWtnin tn-t 1 erjury oh« rj * «*y b« 

sustained on it if false. The affidavit in tbe innt^nt ense aeete 

thia requirement* 

Xt i» m y the defsifcrmta ka&l the notice received 

by then of I i . ligation for the 1 tlntieent of 1 receiver it 

faulty, for th* reason tfeft* tn« notiee is signed by ft«l| one of the 

aoaplninaats* The »n#w@r is, th t the notiee it sufficient for the 

pVfpfttf for shieh it Mi ttiven, ahen M note fraa the record th*-t the 

defendants IpMHtiMti in §*■£• ■ad *er« herd say counsel at the tiae 

the order for the apewad jafcftfta t wan considered by the oourt. I've orler 

and the notice of the asotior. tot the ftopoiataeat of - receiver, both 

bear the general fixing masher of t e euit filed by the ooav>i*in»nts, 

end froa the record the ap] Aiaation ana ^ro-erly aado aad the order 

Justified upon the notice M &iven. ioweve" •«• nation rleea, and 

th t is; ii the order for the s rolatsflent oouoly with . ■ r. BO Jnap, 

hill's 1999 .t -tfi. r Ul| the waiver of eoaplftlaeate* bend? 

The order provide* th- 1 the bond MM wired la these words j 

Mi for end ooa I, teaili sntej Lltnols 1 tionnl 

dank aad Trust innnany of 5hio*gn, bei*v. waived on account 
of e*»ld ooaplftln»nt being * truet com ny." 

The verified till of oonplrint tfMMJNJ th t tbe ba lured 
interest due on June ?, 193% is in Bnf naount of 1,.>90, -.ad *lee 
th*t the balance ef the ri. ci .1 of $6S # oto wee due eni unpaid ou 
said date* 

Tbe eoaplainante further charge that there ie * balance due 
for general t*xee for the ye r u 'n la the eua of 1,646. 87 j thit the 
taxee for the ye*r 1J30, la the eua of 1,778* 54 are due «ad uapald) 
and further, that the tnxee for the ye*r 1931 ire due la • large *aeuat. 



r 






n© fei^T-' 












f' M | 





• 


\o Han 




. 








■ \ ■ » 


,0S$ i 


m» *n' ! 






Ml 


. 



4 

whieh Is &**&* to the oo«ri*inantej tfcttt tha preaent f*ir oaea 

Market Hflart of the ;:ro;:-erty describes. MXl of eoavlnlnt it 

$40*000} th*.t this HMUKl 1* not sufficient to a-ntisfy tha indebtedn«aa| 

mad fro® the roeord IMl WWHfl W* WMBHMiNMl in the iu\yoint»ent of a> 
reeeiwer. 

While this eov.rt ItSi held thr,t the reoord way be exaained 
to determine whether ft bond eh«,- <\ired of the ©OMpliinant, it 

is %w% UIHKninlHTJ IMl Ifei mMMW a^ointi".-- receiver *here notiee 
has been gtoH oo:ut*in IMl f*«%8 *fcieh in th* I I I of the eourt 
excuse th® giving §* » *»»£• *** "• ' in th * bUI ot ••«i>l*int *■» 

fro® the evidonoe *.*• sufficient to sustain the anointment of a. 
receiver without the ijgl dMl to give bond to tha 

*dv#rse jM§tf« in tin ftmaf of j^&ByUBBM&Jfr *• Mmmmms *•* lU# 
Ml*. 45» the court considered an AMe»dcent to *n order whloh at-tedi 

*Aad ittii actioc sad fuli M , tha court MUM of tha 

frgiaiftt ffeat tM filing fey tha eonpl*.iO"nt of a bond to 
the adverse patty need 'not Its r*«uired* for good cause 
shovm, Mid baftc a receive; to be r i without 

feg fixing of cuca bend** 

and s^idi 

•*a think this saendwent shooed I sufficient o©»i>li*noe with 
the ststute and taarafato tha order ai ».ed froa ougM not 
to be r o e ois ed* W f — a » g | even if we war* of tha o rinien 
fkat the -t of the order »aa not preperiy aMe f i 

would not rawer ae tad or-ier beeeuee we are of the <> inicm 
that the aJOOf tione of the aerified bill *ere auffioiant to 
aotnariee the taent of the reoeirar without the oea* 

*l*in*>nt giving bond to the averse • rty. It showed 
there w^s • fault in »y»eru of pritu -nd * nt ' r#, *J 

th*t the .renewal taxes and special aeseesacnto were in def>; ltj 
ond os it, the property had be*n aoxd. * J* oh ^° J 

lien was filed, tad there is no contention th-t the blil aid 
not set up sue. Is *e vould wavrent the appointing or 

receiver, it would therefore 0* an idle oeraeon y to JOJOW 
the order, which »s aiil not do. ^U«X ». |*taaiU il •> J". 
'-pp. 130." iee ^l«o HJreb-u^h r. egflrciu c -' ul * • 47# 

it ia int<?reating to note wh*t Wat Mfll e«id in tha 

oeao if MHam^UMHMb Ui »*• '^- 130 ' in <»o«« i4 « Tln « th# f * ot 
that the order did ot rowide tit the ooaolsinent be exeuBOd freai 



* 



1 



■I 


















■ 









1 ft/. 



■til IMMM Ml $t 









I 

giving ■ bond &s ttfaffi by the statute. Hal oourt »ftid* 

•finally, it is jaaffltii th t the ordi ... lad f on is 

erroneous iaaaaii the e- xve bond to 

the a&ver<*« fmftf M red by scot ion i of the ;ot of 

1905, 'X—ttmJm tfee intent Mid ftfrflhafft of 

rteelvers, 4 nor van ui daaaa shoum via/ a receiver ought 
to be appointed vit&aai such bond, la this ad think the 
court erred, fed tha error sea not kAvsfttl* The statute 

■.»vides aaat the aaa at tball givd aaad to the 

a&VaMM aa*ty aaadlt laaad to pay nil di , etc., «in 

ease the *|rpaiataemt »i -sual* re <?elver is revoked or eet 
aside. 1 ilard R. B* f ed. 1903, p. £1, the cpss aaa » 
proper on* for Hm ap$a4ataaa?i of e receiver. The order 
appointing: ■ t*mlvm $ therefore, trill not be set ^eide 
or revoked, and there oould bo ao ra^overy by eppallaat 
on the bond if ©«e h an ,.-ivan«* 

fba dafattleaia aa tois - . gaaaiiaa the auffioienoy 

of the bill of aaaplaant ia I X ! I to digaloae the identity of the 

beneficial owuer« of the noises , *tea« Ml «ay event, r *re neoessary 
mrttm Is the bill. Tna ffaa^l&iaaata aaa*** in the bill of coaclslnt 
that they ays the holers ^nd oeaara of the no-tee secured by the 
bill ©f aaatplaiat, WR$ »woa ahstrga is auf fisiaat for the purpose of 
I tsotioa for the a^troinfeseut of s r^o^ivsr. the serits of the liti- 
gation fere Mat to be fl©t«r-5Kined. by this oourt ttpaa an int*rloe,.tory 

flf&| in etna? * 'oyds, by this short out this oourt rill not ooneidST 
setters that MM final in their nature and tend to determine the 
aarlts of the liti, tioa - Beat ia for tas ohaaeellar upon >• fin*l 
hearing. 

la are I th»t there le no error euoh ss 

would justify ■ latajLaal of the ©rlc. kag » receiver. 

HAL, , . . ami n « , . 



I 









- 

•A* *l 

i 

:■■':■ 



■ • . 



£6564 



fcppaUee a ) 




X 






I /. 



v» 



max s. ^iojoa, j #t 

ell&nt. 



... 



i 



I 
I.A. 612 



. 






Opinion filed Deo. 13, 1933 

m*. ju/n.' | 

il*lntiff, ffittfl t»tti feSttligat aid vtion effeftJaft *••« 9. 

Oiokle, ir.» the ad»££f&daAf« ea 1 Bote in the sua of I500 # together 
with issttrre^t at §fj psjWiftt p*f annua fr»«» June l 4 i j, ihe o >use 
wma Saear* by the court altaout i jury aftd a finding had in f^vor of 
the plaintiff for *** §«a of ••■7&1.79, u?on whioh finding judgment 
Mi entered. 

Plaintiff testified th-^t he Oievetd I aaail grocery stors 
at 8356 Jouta <i-sl»t«d atreet nttl *hvt ad ■•- • > if y«?*ra of afej thit 
in 19.35 he brought • fRett ftga&Msii *h©m •'. nning, r^si ieut of the 
IgOVi of trustees of the Cre<?r Vd <rio tors tea ny ni IM rear 
fr'abri eating Ooarp»«y, rifctdt uaisoa l**r trust, J'.la olala w*ia 

based upon the fJMt that he had reviouely • lid tad defendant in th«t 
proceeding i , to be - infected in the Cow^xxy^^hioh he was seeking to 
recover; Matt in th- t roecedlng the defendant Manning waa represented 
by £loklc» who aeked , ott # if aoae rr**.n< eaent oould not be «»de 
by whioh the roeeeding oould be di soon tinned igaSaWl the defend at 
*nd some adjust Mat of the olnim msdej th t the defendant lokle told 
hi» he, iokle, had considerable money imreated in the ?reer nbrie«tere 
Oeapeay and did not MM laf lall to t eubee^uently 

plaintiff *et iokle • t >iekle«a office where the document in arUenee 
vac drawn up by iokle and giren to the plaintiff. The note >e not 
signed by <iokle t but on the b*ok «r=« «n endorae^ent by the defendant 
sickle and in hi« handwriting, ae olalaed by I 'f, whleh readi 



N ^ 



. 



Cj 



' 




















. . 




. 




. 




, 







i 

■ 

I 

i 






"Installment f»ote» to* .:-, :io&ie # Jr. I :oott # >ate June, 

sjttount .■ . >«• 

Plaintiff testified that ;.>e *&de lesaand for >y*ent on the 
note froa HUM H tls*« but ma isfersttd by the defendant th-xt he w«e 
not able ' / but *?ould when he ws,* sJ&*« 

liefend&nt denied the erenution of I kfl ui denied thnt 

the writing ttfMNI the | . -ie by bljn, 

It is the rale of this state tfc:\t it is not necea^ry thnt 
the signature to the Mlffet be u.;"<on enjr particular part of the instru- 
ment if it is fiflHWM ^ith tbe intent to be bound, <his, ho were r, 
sntst &e shown by ia*l*£&*lMMf «Tl4*nc«« Kistner v. Etc re. Mi Ill.flOT* 

The fmeati&n t a i fia\ta& ' «*i v u'«'«siy one of fnct. this oourt 
will not disturb the finding of e. tri?-*I oourt unless, in itn opinion, 
the testimony is s«eh $fc&$ the .finding aould not toft been properly 
arrived alt by the fel&fit court. There wis eridenee etsj»i&Bf alone on 
the part of the plaintiff «hiea *euld hare Justified the finding »nd 
this court will not disturb it. 

*or (MM ffifiafilM I Ida this o ;inion the jud, «ent of th« 

Muni ei pal -'-ourt is ^.fflnsed. 

mil, r.j, cju« r, raa« 



I 

I 

: 



, 



?£o&) 



THOMAS r. Ml '-,"., 




v. 



.-ei.lee, 



iLt-J i •* a Mimleir^.l ,:*>*:;■ ©ration, 
.*..-;: , ■, ■■■»<■■< 

i-. as coawaia.sion#na of toii <)iatrict, 

and Ks&l 10 . •'» m UNrvHi ry vf *a&4 

district, 




-Mos or 
i 



ftfiti* 



2 



-•' 



A. 



61^ 



Opinion filed Dec. 13, 1933 

I ■-. . ■■■.■... 



T&i$ is M i -4. fro® % giidgaefit of the Superior Jourt 
directing that the rrit of sal i issue a* pr?y*d for in the 
petition, directs li the ,-^rth Shore foil aiatrict of w ook ;cunty, 
lilinois, I i&mioi r--d mrx-ter ;tico t ; : Raid . .^... -,ii, tyanal inselberg 
sund Howard . :- ? '» ■■..-. ..:.al»"loji«r-3 - I district, >'m I ry 

icfe-irtsr. Mi NNWtia y, tOTHmnifcnn tHea ttet they forthwith spread 
upon the reoords NttMal *f Midi Korth o-hore Nit Jistriot of 

Cock Oounty, Illinois, a deoi-r'. ration sat t the etitioner, fhosws r. 
^yer®, Jr., wp.» duly <iin|i< a eoaaisttionsr of ■ id district em April 
?, 1.731, and Hm them to tieU hla as one of the eoaalsalonara. 

The Matter *M IMNUNI in the tri«l mrl on ^tition, 
gMMOMl Mat special a i anit i liii thereto, and tue court 'sseaaed d<-a*ges 
in f vor of t->e petitioner thorn h ■• Myers, Jr. in the sua of Ha* 

Jounael lor defendants insist thrt the petition eont»lnez 

BaWaV no PaatWtfl allegations of ny right on ths ; rt 
of the relator, *yers, Jr., .. -lost Hi sorts hore PMi >latriotj 
eoond. in affiil il >r-otiaally the 4-tao a.a the firat. 

Third , th t lai ion in the etition tb-»t the atttsr 

b%d been adjudicated in a quo it rr*nto proceeding doe a not euffioiant- 
ly sho* the identity of the i>*rtles; *nd 

t ourta. the court erred In assesalng daasges without 









, 






kid A.I 8 

x ,■ I . r l Bin aomt. ) 



■ 

. 

ft 
. 
-##»i«>ittira tea ■«< 



. 



- 






' 






rft to 



- 



3 

proof in »uo ort of ins Hals* 

e h*re syaalnsd lad ttition sad find it sufficiently 

NMVtm !*• re^uire-.^nta I the e©urt irlj hexd it ««• 

grood upon demurrer, rne i i wn1 i»«d in th& otition were 

amply sufficient, particularly ui it sent i--.ed *n lion tofcc 

effect th*t in ■ ai^ I PSS&lfl r *■ Met Circuit ecwii of 

3ook ;ouaty, knoma ii t . - , voting out of the vae 

allegation, th t the o^vitt Sound n> t the «ti tinner yer», Jr. 

had been duly elected k . ittami af the lavta snore tat irtriot 

of dock aounty. t&ia Satt*t sin I i [III ■■inm of this cuniol ^lity 

together aita Its MNMH im£ laemtien, Moreover, thla MAwM kas boom 

before this court before tea. Be* ,:> », ta the records 

sustain th® »f»f»ji ti«B th'-t there MM such ■* park 11 strict nnd that 

there MM! such **« election held St the tijse at-- ted* i*y the deawrrer 

defendants admitted the sll®gatio» of the Siltlsa tot the judgment 

was entered in tut Jlreuit Court HaHflg that taere ems an election 

duly calls! J»..n4 held *t which the relator ma elected a so awl a a loner 

of the said perk district. 

«-fter order ct xng the writ to issue, the ;u peri or 

Court, R8 shorn by its order, hecjrtl evidence m M MM amount of 

damages. The order (WWUmim the following language i 

•• > "the BfltVs -" vd mi rd the arguments of counsel 
and being fully adtfieee' in Ins realises, "nd the tsmri hiring 

■ . ay is Is His mmmbI if •" id anaamMf it ale 

further Ordered '/■> t mid icfen y to the rrl t<>r, is 

nai fur aid damages wronftf\;lly ad, <nd is ttorneys 1 

fees the sua ef Fee nuiured *lfty loUtll (*C60,'V>), together 
with the ©oats of tie ;irooeedln* • • \* 

*his w a not n crier by default but ftr the entry of I nee 

.*.nd mil , *rti*e in oourt. 

The a«me partis* *ere before this court en appeal fro» «n 

interlocutory order of the Superior «ourt in l proceeding involving 

the s->«e question brought by the i»orth Jhore trlot *nd some ef 

the defendants to this .roceeding agalnet Thoens r. ~yerv, Jr., »nd 



s 

m Mi \<io*ii 
\L$ttzn 

■ 
• - t 

- 

i a* 

■ ■ 

to ii *»Jhr*« ' 1* *4juo*«i i.v i»»«o 

tan ».ll ilttfl »I •*■** 



I 

others, in wbioh the defendants here, *ho »<?re the ft§ there, 

©h«5TgWl th-:t the it . ■;„,-. H VI : ty, Mil— .1, 

w&s & swunioir,! - : -ii t | other* vere erecting 

g di»turb--noe itt ft* *f iort to Km .ambers of the t»o*rd. 

This oouv% IWUUl the or ; «r grsating the .» junction on the ground 
th*t the fe*l«l court did not ftATG jurisdiction of the *»tter, ^ro« 
the petition it appears fc&at i&frfts f%«f pftta Jr. ?nd others *ere 
deoiared duly sleeted eewHiri^gleaera for %i I k list riot, fhie 
jHHitiilWg before m %M tfci t&i$d --rooeeding growing out of the 
election whloh « w ■« held >% ril ?, I$$l 4 Mid so far as the reeord of 
these ipHiflHitipi ti.WttSUWWl, -netltloner has nut ta yet been inducted 
Into the office to wnion b© is evi neatly entitled. 

It is essential th.t Uteri should be Ml end to iiti^-tion 
sad in order to -venomplisb justice I arti *ill not indulge in 

refinements tfeftt will $*$t t i.h*t end. - . t te judici 1 

notioe of fcfci f?>et th^t the RieMMBl of the : •; returned in vis* of 

the extent of Mai iit4g$ftten ©oaid not possibly oo.nrens«*te the 
relator oqr*rs» Jr. for trie e »|nm Mat tangM ■oetaJUMML it is in- 
sisted th-st the only EttflRgftv* ta*t oould be assessed -'.ere thoee vhloh 
oeeurred through loses of salary ,<ert -inin," to the position. The 
statute on ssmd^asua provides th ; t the petitioner ah^ll reoorer hie 
AMMflM ml Goats* ssnd does not refer to 1 ry. The offioe in 
. ueafclon carried no a 1-ry, Moreover, nv objection w»e «*de nor 
exception t^Ken to the evidence I tered. 

tor the MMUM et ted in this o inion, the jud^sjeat of 
the u>erior ourt is affirmed. 

HAti., i-.j. Aire mmi, j. 









k 



■ 
i 

,-..;■• .v. *•;; 



I 

I 



,i>*! 









, 






36950 

THS PSC-PL'S 0i< THE BT.'lXHi 03" ILLINOIS 

ex rei. wm fxxftfuoa, 

Defendant in Srror 



vs. 

2AMBS k. 3PKR0S, 



Plaintiff in terror. 




ZKROfi TO BXKOTT Cot' I 
OF COOK Cfci .. 




UK, JUSTICE rngSUiULY B3LIVEHBB TdK 



27 3 I«A« 613 

opiwoa op not oouht. 






By this writ of error the reversal is sought of an order 
vacating a prior order -mien awarded the writ in a mandamus 
I> roc ceding-. 

Plaintiff, on the relation of John tfikstrom, commenced a 
suit in mandamus directed to defendant, James M. tferon, aeeliina to 
have Uim perform certain duties as a police magistrate of the 
Village of Oak Park; he filed an answer, statin-, that he had been 
duly elected a police magistrate but that in kareh, 1930, the 
"Village of Oak Park passed an ordinance purporting to abolish said 
office, -aid he ask-i trie oourt to determine his status. 

the cauae was heard by Judge A. ¥. Summers, a Judge of the 
City court of Eldorado, Illinois, holding a braneu of the Circuit 
court of Cook county, who on June 2d, 19U, entered an order f il 
that the ordinance purporting to abolian tne office of >olioe magis- 
trate in 0%a. r'ark m of no lores and effect; that tne defendant wae 
still the police magistrate of the Village of Oak Park, ej d ordering 
the writ of mandamus to issue. July loth, witnin the term, Hobsrt 
. .antwell, Jr., formerly the village attorney for the Village ef 
Oak Park, and wno had reuresented the Village in certain mandamus 
easee involving the title ef defendant to the offloe in -.uestloi., 
filed a sworn petition setting forth a number of reasons why Judge 
Summers should vacate the order of June 26th. Among other aatt«*re 
set forth in this petition, it was asesrted that before Judge 
fclarkowski in the Circuit court of Ceok county a suit involving 






i H| 



, 



818 .A I P tfi 



... 

- - : . 

H 
J 

•ghat Ito'Ittf 
j|ft. Hue b 



. 



: 






the title of the defendant Feron to the office of police magistrate 
of the Village? of Oak rark had been heard, Mid vnat It w»a there 
decided that euoh office lid not exist, and the petition lor aan- 
deanus in that case was denied. 

The petitioner furtuer asserted that another ai^il^r case 
involving the ft MM MMkVtltM WHS heard before Judge havanaugh of the 
Superior court of Cook county, who likewise held that the office of 
police magistrate of the Village ol Qafe ^axk did not exiat and de- 
nied the petition for the writ of MUtdABMft. BW petitioner uliegod 
that no office of police magistrate in the Village of Oak Park h*d 
since been eetablis .ed an! that the litigants were estopped by the 
Judgments of Judges £larke<ffski &nd kavanaugh. 

Judge Summer* thereupon, after hearing of evidence and 
arguments, found that the allegations in the petition of *.r. 
Cant* ell were true and it was thereupon ord«rd tuat the writ of 
mandaaus theretofore Issued be quashed *and the sai i oauae stand as 
if no order had been entered,* Subsequently, Judge summers added 
to the order that the finding of fraud set out ii* tne order was 
predicated solely upon the fact that the circuit court ana the 
Superior court of Cook county had theretofore passed upon and de- 
cided the issues involved in t.<is suit, which facts h,*d not been 

di seined Ml + hat court. An appeal was prayed for tut not perftcted. 

: relator \ 
The 0WW*£9»<«*, by this writ of error, seexe the r««ver»al oi this 

order. 

It is unnecessary to pass upon the various aattere presented 
by the briefs for the reason that trie order wjilch we are asked to 
revere* is not a final order. It vacated the previous order and 
orders* "that sal."; cause stand ae li no order had been Bads sr 
entered therein. - The cause, therefore, is still p filing in the 
Circuit court. 

In People ex rel. Hlnfi *% 1.. t. hoard of .duc-iilon . 234 



if 






- 



, I 



i 

. ■ . . • ■■ 



|g«l 



' ■ 

■ . 

- 
to 






■ 
. - 

■ 



• i 






ei 



HI. 1S4, it wm held th*t ft*, Mite if ^andamue if goT9rri0< , „ y 
the ? me rule, applicau. to other action, at U», , Jttl|Mrt 
1. !*»■§ only «*«, it tenant., the lttt*»U« bet.: nnPtl 

«pon the Writ*. ^aBAAJKJEi.a ^iiiLtt .>!, v. vin, .^^ 

Bafttt* 306 in. jut, 

HUB aourt Mi no .juri eviction to miUw thli caunt ln 
its present state, ifti the »rit of error is dismissed. 

WURJ BXttfXStsi, 

Metohett, F. J., on* c» Connor, J., ooccur. 



r 



- 






36547 



■« HATttmiAl et *!•• 

Appellants* 

b. KinroKiaAir et &i.. 

ppelleeo* 











COURT , COOK CoUBTY, 



Id this t;?urxov op tk: con •, 



8* Matbosi&n, A* i&boojlan nnd t?« loullan, complain- dUs, 
&o chairman, secretary r*«d treasurer t respectively, of the Central 
Council of the rmenian ftec en struct ion Union of Chunkounh, not 
incorporated, out organised as ft voluntary sesooi^ion not for 
profit* filed « bill of complaint torch 23, 1928, ano an Mcndorat 
thereto, in the -Miperior court, fox an account ing, injunctional 
and general relief against B« Kevorkian, linrkar rmoylan and 
H« Carigi&n (hereinafter referred to as defendants), aa custodians 
or trustees of a fund of $2,938,46 belon&ing to the Jhicpgo branch 
of th' above nan*o society* I ef end&nte filed their answer pril 
27, 1928, denying complainants' right to an accounting or to any 
of the relief prayed for. The Central Trust ompany, also made a 
defendant, answered that it had issued its certificate of deposit 
to Kevorkian and Csxiglan for #2, 938. 46, which certificate is 
still due and outstanding* Kevorkian and C«rlglan admit that 
this money wtm deposited by then for the Chi e go branch of the 
as«oolr tion. The cause was referieu to a Master in elianoery 
to take proofs and report his conclusions. rhe master *s report 
was filed June SO* 1951, «nd November 23, 1932, defendants* 
objections to the master's report were suetained by the court 



r^ 






tMM 



•ft! ' 






8 1 0. A.I St S ' 



Z$Mt» 9 emlL . i feu utUtfi&kft •& «*< 

rr«s: 

teu IK&lxafi" ■.*-! ef»JJ •€ Ssals^ t»£f*« X»t«in>) boa 

'X»«aif« nJtstlt S*I*x »;■'■ >» bj>ta»n «r«4s rf-l lo 

Y«* 94 X* $at44iW&»ft« OUi 414 A& Xtjweo a»llli*l» «*89I »?« 

JtJ fthCKK OSltt ^U*^ #«« -Mi J x» 

4i»oi»vj i* «s -i4i >»»uj, -»/» --bfl^'tfttt 

»2 »4ft«ill4xa« 4»lfl» v ftfr«S£V«£$ *•* NftAgi >T#-3 «4 

u 
Mtt tc lf»f«lV «t msi) ytf tut* tM$qu:> ««« \»««m a.! it-' 

X^osm/Iv si *»4«jim 41 •.- iJW »4ur£>o »ifT »«M»i*«lM»»a« 

Jtoqttt a't«4«uMS 9rt- .im Ml st04»tq tnte* «4 



•z* 



a decree «ats entered dismissing complalnanta' bill for want 
of equity. This appeal aeeka to rereree (he decree. 

Complainants sought, toy their bill to compel defendant* 
to turn over T8J* of the above sua of money* which belonged to the 
Chicago branch of the society, to the central council of th* 
organization whose office was in &he city of New York* and the 
other 28$ to another ehit«go branch with -hlch complainante and 
other member* of the central council attempts to supplant th* 
original ^hit.-sg* braath* after tte proclaimed dissolution by th* 
central council for alleged violation* of the bylaw* of the 
central organisation* principal Of ^hich wms its failure to comply 
with the demand of the central council for 78# of lte funds* 

their bill alleged that complainants were officers of 
the central council* rmenian Reconstruction Union of Chunkouah* 
organised in .-'.ngnst* 1919. and that they «?ere proceeding on behalf 
and with th* consent of Ha members throughout the United tatesf 
that the purpose of the organisation mm to render finanoial 
assistance to rmenian immigrants set ling In •merloa and t* 
educate thea to become useful and desirable citizens* (Purpose 
misstated* The real purpooe at? indicated by the bylaws* letter* 
and other document* in evident* was the reconstruction and re* 
establishment of the village of Chunkouah. taenia* whose residents 
**re expatriated by the 'urks curing the orld war* The by-laws 
of 1939 definitely stated that purpose* and the further purpose 
t* transport back to Chunkoush its deserving aad destitute people 
wherever thty might be found* and to protect the civil right* of 
Chunkoushans in all countries or colonise*) That at the time 
of it* organisation by-law* were adapted by the society (bill 
alleges that the bylawe set forth therein were adopted 1* ldl9* 
but they w*re in fact adapted In 1938) t* regulate it* business 



■ 

.. =; ■■:. 
-■': . ,;■.•-. ., - . ■. ' ■■■'": ''■> ■.;•.■ »d k : : ■■■■■'.: > . . •:' r?^-l . . *? ■■ , 

■ 

:•* ■ . ... -i: ■ ■«.■■. /.'... -~v c^!.: f-. ;>.••;..-. :.'X-- !*.*•' ':M;-;.. 

trinrrirffitfr r^:sn *£!«*$*;< 

■ 

- . 
el ta*» acivws* tit &til r *m* 

■ 

itf) *J»J ^ ***«* JgK» Bit lO 



•5* 

and conduct* and the business and concuct of lto branch** and 
members! that branches were organized In various p><rto of the 
United tates whose rights and duties *ere governed by the by- 
l&ws| that the central council of the Union sanctioned the 
organisation of the Chicago branch vthich ob*serve<i the by-laws 
until about 1988 $ that prior to 1925 the Omigage. branoh delivered 
to the central council upon Its) utmnna* its funds up to 75£f that 
defendants wore elected officers «rosd trustees of the Chicago 
branch in X/ocemmer* 1926, for a tern of one ye«r| thnt they re- 
fused to mil an election In >? camber* 1927 » as provided in the 
by-laws but eon tinted Ml hold their respect ire of.Ueaj that in 
i.ovemfeer* l$2g* the central council in conformity villi the by- 
laws deman&ee that defendants deliver to it 75$ of the accumulated 
funds belonging to aM held in trust by then for the Chicago branoh 
of the l»n ion j and ttmml defendants refused in violation of the by- 
laws to comply with the demand or render an accounting of the 
funds held by them* 

'Sh* amendment to the bill of complaint asserted that 
in &ureh, 1928* certain members of the Ohio go brunch called a 
meeting* pursuant to notice* for the purpose of el wo ting officers 
of Usftt branch! that »n election of officers way heldf that it 
beocjae and was the duty of tfefeneants to turn over to the newly 
sleeted officers such money or property as defendants hel* in 
trust for the new .;hierȣ0 branch and for oomplalnantsi and that 
the newly elected officers demanded in behalf of themselves, as 
well as complainants* that defendants turn over to them all 
records* money* property and effeots of the original Uhioigo 

branoh* 

Defendants 1 answer denied nil of the material allegations 
of the bill and asserted that they were not oonaeter in any way 



n 



mm iitttofeftsir t#* 1« JmvMm* Mm «a*ftlc*rtf «j& Mm «fwiMtt» Mm 

»f £ la *# i !«©»*• » iiMf awrffif tuMx 

i<ii; }« X£s»ju»<. uH dMf* taweX 

#«** tk&* •■' W «»**/'* **l Mj}»ft «»ii SMUT XX»twe» I ndi 9$ 

■ 

.;.... J I- :■'. -\ : --.-- ' • ..♦: , ■; .. ■; , •". ■ flfj dMU it' 

MjliulMMfinw mU 1M ?«wj»a»^8v» ijtfii &9tet«M9 muX 

■ 

«jmz*,* x* *X«f *Murt 

, 

XX*it «cU o anui 0s »#«*&< Mia ok***** 

>; .; . ■ . 1. : :,,-. V'»<J«»!I pi fNMM ***** -; >;ili» .^-ri> 

*iHt* fcOA l«*fMX; #9«*4 

sa tattvl^v rfMf ai ^&oMP»i> •ttt»i;a« M>* 

XXi» MM ¥9 fl*** «*««£- 1 .^tUa£«**9 Sil XX»w 

■ 

oflvi^j»)|*XX» X«1*»J«« mU 'io XX* h»ia-»a «•»**- 

^»W XMi ft- ... J«a ->!«,. x&t i.nri-J ft** \* 



with conplalnante nor the Contral ouneil of th* .ruwaiaa 
*ee©aBtruetion Onion ©i ctommmH, tout collect ec tag uoaey in 
quoation M ©ffto«ra of the aaenlaa Reeottfctructlon nion of 
Chun*ouea» arkeyi that ~fco«a*«r 3 § 191j f they e*gani7.ed a 
©oeiety hnowt as the ■atSilifcliuiiigg ftgiflglaitta of hunaoualu 
iurkey. (a*atotaB*l aaa*S] *• M*J :,sa*alaa iteeonutructioa Union 
of vhuafcoush. Turkey) -«hieh norer buesaae a part of tho organisation 
represented toy ©onplalJiattto* «ttl that their society hs«? at oil 
tiaes acted ladoatadently of tho centra council heretofore 
referred to* 

Caaplaiiuuite contrast that tho Chicago brunch during 
it* entlrft ftxlotonao was* a mmto&w tor>nch of tho rnenian fteeon- 
otruotion Union of Chttakottnh of which the eentrfel council mi the 
governing body aad «aa at no tiao an independent org«nia*iion| 
that tho Mi chioago ©ranch, anion the central council authorised 
as a f&ucoee&or to the original Chio^o brunch after lie 
dissolution a*BJ toe&n ordered, was &inoe aV.reh la* 1938* the date 
upon vfhich It not and essayed to ©rgaaiae aac elrct officer*, 
and to no* tho only legally constituted Ohio go tor*nohj Jione 
of tho defendant* have any right » title or into feet In the fund* 
on deposit In the naaes of Kevorkian aid Cariglaa; and that under 
the toy-laws of tho Heoona true t ion Union of Chunkouah ho eentral 
council la entitled to 75.21 of thft funde and the reorganised or 
successor Chic go toranoh Is entitled to the rea&lalag 25% thereof* 

£©fendairto* theory is that they held th< funde in question 
in tru t a* the officer* and representatives of tho 'Reconstruct lea 
Btioei.ttion of Chunkouahf urkoy," a society vhloh Bag not a part 
of and functioned independently of tho central council of tho 
-men Ian He ©en ss rue t ion Union of u'hunkouahl and that, la any event # 
a court of equity would not oaapel thea to deliver to eeaplslaanto 



■tUtt* Hi.- 
■ ■ 
, .. . . • . 

I ?<«•** «6sBi *««**) ,▼,*:. 

*#i 

I . 

. 



i 

*jsrtt 

■;. ..\,.. ••■ •. r. -. ■ •■:,. v.- • ■■-:. ,L: %f.i ....: u ;,-, ■ :■■-. • f ■ •: 

i 

?«teO» *ttt ! ?*i#t*«fc k *frt *» soft** ..«•» «* 

flWi#»Wtf^ ftl tebttirt «rf* i)X«Ji v.«Ji 4«lti! ** v**<** *•**»*«■•*«. 

•>■. • '«. :„-j •»' ••.. . ' .-'/i ■ .;.,-* tat* Mi >J ..: :.'- ... j ,■ U p| 



-5. 

Money belong lug to the Chic f ;o branch or roeogntxe tho ol, iaed 
right of the central council I* iloM&Vl the original ciuu go 
bran oh* 

Vfca evidence diaeXeaeo tliaS the "fceconBtruotiow 
'eacei'tion 01 hunaou: fr» 1 us* heyy Ml incorporated ^tcsabar It# 
1*2 , toy m«*o»«ro of too original &fei«ag« br&nuh anion «*a 
organized in Jeceraber, 2J&A» MBoea the ,"«■» of the *aeeon»tAU©tion 
Onion of BMtNMMfeto (JhiOftgo branch** and the p| further 

eoneltteiwely eet4*bliah«G *he fact* an the sfcatc- .fount # that 
»ub«e u©nt to the above incorporation neither the original 
Chicago branch nor it a mesoero ue*<i the incorporated mute or 
functions a» euoh eorjwr»-ti«n« ."he aiaat«r*» fl ^uid 

conclusion 011 thie ignite w&is proper ana eg hold Utet u«ft>ad*nt , o 
contention thss,t the Chicago branch functioned «us a carper t ton 
ana untie r the *bnwe inaorpnr&tea &mm in without uerit* 

Ii appoare thai in i>«?c*taber > X«»l3, ribe*tlw .JTter the 
^erld war armistice, a group of BaXeogoana, former realdente of 
Chunkouah* ^rawmia, met anc formed an org..ni~*tion known oa '.ho 
"Keconatruetien Union of CnuBkeuafco aIsa^o Branch,* for the 
pnrpooe of expediting th« i return to their own country of c!*etitnte 
smenlan refugeeo »he had been exiled during th» ear an* alee for 
the purpooe of reoonet rue ting their native Tillage ef Chunkonah 
ae a suitable home for their countrymen • A eonetitutlor. ant 
by-laws eere adopted, the nine end purpose » of the org*nlantlea 
eoro proclaimed to Choukouahanft throughout the United tatee by 
the Armenian newapapere. and the T.leogg aaeabere neaiated In 
establishing atailar aooietlea in oth*x it tea vt -he country 
with the result that, upon the inelt; tlon of the Chic < go organiaatien, 
delegaioa iron three eintlar societies of other eitice net In 
convention In Cbiougo in Ufcuat. UUa -it* delegate, froat the 



■ 

•: 
i 

wfr 

. 

**» 

,«0£*««iMft1Cft dp- 



CfeUag* orjuaoh and organic og ihs rt :2nio;i Tor the >e. . ,1 

of Chunkouuh"' and adopted, "by-l^wj >vhloh provide, aiaaai othaz 
lhiag»» for '*h® iBMttlltM ttf ft 'VcuUvU. flmiomUfg ^iunoil*" 

It i » frota a aaxaftfl ..-a» of 

the? tttJMhVlMSy aad othor cv Id :«:?.■.. . | 

have k*4« the in*efttl©» of tho loool OJ I he 

oenirsl 0'.?«neil Wtsy &»69ls&4! their /\*Ma, "but 

ttee It for Hm> distribution and application of th> c 11. ratlsoa 
•on <»? that lane of tho loe-a fer^aohoa ll a mo:- pi I I louo ^nJ 
•atlafnetory la&tsner toward o*r?jrlng out the purpo®*a of the nion, 
and |g reduoe to ard*?r « u^tfe** th*i rollof of deoer-fin?; and 
destitute Ghwtwuahaaa ttoMHWii thoy Mi&h;. bo loont . n© 
original central offgWWiitiiUittM fuaeitlon-sd but • >hort tiae. :he 
evidence clnclooco that it went oat of ejciateKOe shortly aftfcv 
ite inception oooattoe of faUUhrC of the brsmohfs to ooncri>i«to» 
and aloe be «&«**« of the iateai»# or misapplication by its or ioere 
of funds entrusted to It* and the original CJrigoU branoh continued 
to csxry on aa an individual and separate society until ;hc ;.h«.n 
existing local brnaoheo at fftllauelphla » ion York elty# *<a*jwnoo. 
Maae., and tfclcngo bant dolftgi.toe to a convention that act la 
Philadelphia In July* l»2fi» at VfcM time and plagt another central 
oounoll MM eoUthlicthed* The OTidOMM also disclosed tht t thu sJee 
aotiv«?e satf pur po boo actuated fcfcla fbsherlag th-.t p* oat? toe. -ho 
•ailing of the convention of Uftt« - the expedltioua uo6 •Ktlsfactorj 
dtatr tout ion and application of the collective fKos to bo contrUmtec 
by the v*rioun loetd br*nohea for the auccor Of rltef of native 
Chunkottahana in various parts of the world* While the Chiang* 
branch tent none of lis jaeabcra *a delegates* it *a>* rapreeeated 
In Uw oonventlon by A delegate fa« one of the eaatarn oil lea 
vrho hao credent ial* aao wo author ineu .o act In iU behalf* fhla 







1* 

.1 - 
■ 

■ 

- 

- 

.. . 

■■Ml-' Z'£9*QGr 
•ftij Ml 

•■».-.*« &u at 



c-wtntlr ■. fa.?ft 9t faMfeiaatag <*» the "Arweniaa 

fea**aatr&#tiaa Btetttn of Shur.lcwr.bt ©rfaaiuad l u«u«t t 1919,* 

s.n<? «s4ept?<£ by l&v» f the swtcrlftl neotlena of ?hieh» pertinent 

to Ulit p t#a I tf*$g AM At folic*? a* 

U&* «♦ (a) Xnafe WYaaaJl a* aforesaid has a 
right to tU posit fclM ruoucy tallaatea' a>t ■ :iou».l bank* 
legally reeegaisefv aafet the mtamu of the ehntrsmn ana 
treasurer* vat «h&ll bo wm arity* 9)*ea <J««aodt 

tiie araaaftea aaS.tia.ta fcaaaawrlaaa to send to the oaataal 
Auuritaiatration txm fcaeaty^ftTt pas aoal [Sea] to eeventy- 
fir® per teat (fipj of tha »o«ey coll^ctec, which li 
se aaea fas tag purpose af am ffigiiwiiniiotitBt 

Me) branch will be considered dia*»elved «hen 
its Beaafctttf aaaatlfcaia *aaa than fitt .-.efifcero. 

*{f) 'hem & branch is dissolved the probity ua4 
oeal MttM ae d^liverd u$ te the Central 'dralzsiatration.* 

*-. ttuia ?i {«.} Tha rebate tataaa ion of & branch 
shall be administer**} ay three to five ve&oerw* 

B (e) $»a, &&Rft&ist?atiaa or officers ?hs.ll bo 
elected ail y *>h« tag of the yaal la the uaetiaga of r!1 
asaaaigsaj vita tin: saasrat* eqa*ti &f<d general votes* 

*{d) Dm office *£ awl Off teats sal trustee* 
HAy •fcaatai e&eJJ, o« na« year* ?he ©ic officers siay a* 
re-elected** 

•j.rtiela !»• (a) The Ueatral Saaaeift is eeapeeed 
of f ive rceaiberet 

49 la) fb& taatttali 6aaa#& la a2,aet ka* westing 

Of the convention aM it aan&l be r^ spews ibl* for her 
activities fca bant *»©4y« 

"{©) The Central »au»cil will cemiuot vhe general 
activities af Dm argftnl an tlaa < 

"(a) faay will imrite Hal araiiaaea to th« ueetln& 
of the ttaaTfeaitaa aad nana I ,?y» an extraordinary 

convention* 

•(•J li 1 "'ounoll shall be generally 

responsible for the treiourer of the orgaai^Htion*" 

•411 correapotuiigoce, and the bueineae of l^oth the loeal 

hrnnchea ana the central boay« wne oonauct«o in the raeniaa 

langu«ce» and an inspection of the recoro inxiiontee th t it waa 

difficult far the pari toe to thl* Matt to agree on the preper 

interpretation of the multitudinous docuetuntnry exhibits. Ucnhera 

af the varloua local branches were in large part illiterate nnd 

the Tvwrti clucloeea ooneiuvr^ble inaptitude nud l^oxaace of the 

buoineaa in hand* Xhay were l**ue<J Uh hi^h loeala ana lafty 

purposes, and *ylR**C a fervent . ceire to uaalst their oenpatriets 

in need* and were singly seeking the b«st» aurest anu imfast nannaa 



■ 



] 






WV9 



9Mtl 

- > 


















• : ■ ■■ 



1 

■:l bar. 
mtmm t ■ >'■ -nam fti i » lf*4 i •■•.■<-■ I . 



ppn ■ 



■ 






. ■ ,.♦•■■ :- . 



of &##iyi»4> uic ftMftdi o* tfcntk LocsJL »rw«ci4<»» for the ^ccoaplieh- 
nent of Uwir ga^OOtf ahen v».«y organised tne central eouuvtl at 
their ©eli.ee* !▼« ai»trlouting agency* it, nutto »e tiMgAgl that 
neither any aqosO. BnnBetl nor ttt MliMWl vrrc to be the recipienta 
Of any fflfctWtllift be;"?fifca fatal the wntnl owieti. Chat i>n«Jy # tlM 
•fi£#Sff, afejiwna, vm MM »6$gF MP ttvrts%i(pMM| locate 

exilic IfHWBHiUlitoMi /v./u. LobttVeo th* relief 

flMaff fgatyttnj&Oel fcy tho SMMNkl Imutemoa fos the purpose of returning 
them to taoix Ba&i?« land* 

J\ ottit be tela* fe3 a ttatVsr Of lavr MM equity f that 
the c&nsral iijlaa'ifll l $#wmm$$ ftfap -sueh rights and po'noro M wor© 
exprcafcl/ gv&afc'v£ ,e It >; r .'a. l:irl brunchoo* It le lucanoeiTabla 
that th* local ar*i»eh*nj iSttOB&Sfi" ',© confer on the central council 
th*s ftafcltgaxp powor o" emoting fro» thm. 75$» or any other oon- 
aiC^TuhXn portion ef tboir fagot** without ft specific designation 
that the HNM| • laabS41|fti|p necessary for relief distribution 
as imiiofctsd la lt& f light it tOJMNte 

Coi«pliui5«tt}t, l ge?t«4§«tt their cl^la to 7&AS of the fund a 

•f the JMfigl *r«««Si afcld If ^*fend*»Bt» on the following prorUlon 

ef the lyafgp i adopted In fcfMU 

- ch brmoh s? ?? foresaid has a right to depoait the 
none/ eolleete<2 t a local bank, Log alX| r« coi;ni»eflt under tbo 
name of ihe MM lvm<.r. iWB tioauwetrf who ahftll be under arourlty# 
Upon deat&nd* the brnaohoB obligate thwurelve ■ to ©enG to the 
Central tdvlniat:rtitl«a fro* t-emy-flYe p*r ©*nt (?»*) to 
aerentyofiYe per o^at (75^) of UM won*y <j©.l - thlch lo 

-o by asset* for the purloin* of o*«* organl»*tlon*" 

It will he noted tint this amotion pre»uppon©e that any noney paid 

by tto* aVMMfeM upon the deaaud of the ©antral counoll "la to |j 

■jggj for the pjgggj of gg organisation «" A reaeonablo Inter- 

pro tat l«n ar^? com trtict ton of the language of thia by-l"e» In the 

ligbt of nil ««h« -rld^nce. e^napela the conelualon that tt w»e the 

lnten-ion of Uaa 1oo*a1 br<uiehea In hi ©f powor to the 



• 






I 

- 
■ma U 

■ 

































■ 
"Hi «Xtf*R«9 »■* t A * . «0*u 



central council to contribute to it frooi 2*% to 79$ of their 
funde» only in fehc svent that particular relief projects wore 
f>r*eented by the central council to the br inches meriting und 
necessitating auch eon tribut lane* 

In Hov-entaer » 1926 9 the central council called oa the 
OrtOtfa breneli for a contribution of 11700, and on the other 
branches for various afsounttt to eaver the expense of returning 
certain refugees fro* leppe« yri&» to kunkouah* This deamaa 
«ao reeagni-Aoa to tho extent that the Chicago branch at one of 
its tseetings voted to cent ribmsc tint atftVu amount* out later was 
advised that it wan IntffWlOBiiWlfy to ©aiw the contribution as an 
earthquake h»d precluded the accompli e&nent of this undertaking* 

ince it a eetabliahnent vm&*r tha by«lawa of 19&S, no such 
exercise of power had been attempted by the central tounoil ao 
ito aloilfoilf dewnno of payment by the ohloago branch of 75g of 
its total reauvraea* without • abatement of the purpose for 
which it was to bo used* 

$e evldenta wea Offered before the master to sustain 
the allegation of eoavlainanta* bill that the control eounoil 
sanctioned the organ taat tan of the original hie ^o bmnchf or 
that prior to 162* the Chicago branch delivered to the central 
council, upon ito demand, up to 75£ of its fnado. The evidenoe 
discleeca rather that the Chic ^o bramoh was the firet eoci.ty 
organised (If Id) in the United :>tat«o for the reconatruotlon 
of Chunbouohf that it aaeisted in the aatabliohnent of tho 
central council of the Armenian iteconatruotion Onion of Chunkeush 
in 19251 that it made no paymento to «ny central couneil or 
committee fromlb20 to 19251 that ito paymenta oa contrtbationo 
to the central council, after ito organisation in 191.5, coaoieted 
Of a total of $irf for tho period from July» 19a5. ahem tho 



•*« 

to*-.-. 

.- . 

1 

wij .WW *«»«•■■■■ 
*s«J to S«aatf,- itfMTOf OMriD *• 

»;. •:• •• ■ ;,■ -.o . ;. . ..-o- ... .* m u ■ '•• Xia«i i i\ mm 

%0 .: '.:««» *bt <# «tf«Mtff% Ott efeJMI *i 

3«P- ;*M«tOt ft** ttaL* f#M£ *tf WSe.l ru.Tt •-^Juw^o 

taJaJaiHW , li oftttfftsiln**** •** «»#»« «£i»lwo» : 

v ;< . ., , t . • o»«l }>oii^ Mi to* ttl-2 H* 1*405 « Ho 



-10. 

Philadelphia convention was held, until July, 19; 6 • 
convention wa» held in Union city, ft* J.j and that th* following 
y»ar» ending with the convention in L^renee, Hass«» in July, 
1927, it« payments to the e^n'iral council were $34«?0. 

the *j'Vid*aee conclusively demonstrates that none of 
th* br^aehe® contemplated a grant of po-«er to the emtral oounoil 
to make a general levy upon th* treasury of a local branch, or 
reeogai&ed its right to d*mmad payment from a branch except for a 
specific purpose within th« scope of the objects for which tho 
society wne- established I are convinced that none of th« 

branches intended, when they ©rented the central council in lv<:5# 
to invest it with power to reach out and take unto itself the 
major portion, or in fact any portion* of their funds without a 
definite understanding that th® mmy was to be spent for sobs 
relief project to which the society was dedicated. 

The «videnoc fails to reveal th?»t the central council 
during the entire period, of its existence, eomu«ncing with tho 
convention of 1928, concerned: itself with or called upon the 
branches to support financially nay concrete relief project 
except its endeavor to return to taenia the ten hunkouohaae 
■tannery *<ork*rs) who were located in leppe, yria, one who have 
been heretofore referred to. The record disclosed* moreover* 
that th* Chloago branch repeatedly urged that active st*ps he 
taken by the central council to traneport whunlwushane to their 
homeland, particularly those of them that h«<i been located in 

"ranee and ..yria* 

*'• are olenrly of the opinion that complainants 1 position 
is untenable, and ml are aware of no legal or equitable principle 
that supports their contention that defendants were bound to reapeet 
th* ultimatum of tho central body, constituted as it was* ami 



gala* .cart w -tsdi Jmm 1*1 • *^*i* i 

t 

*mm tan/! w&<#x0»m®&y yi#? : 

' ■■■■ 
- 

. 

■ 
■ 

■ 

UPS ») BvitMrcMT 
Wfl<l trf-' 

•-.. -i. ••• .••:*c-. .-. ■■•i;' ' .oq i m « tit ..-..■ I tttR* MM \c wUJ 



-11- 

deliver to it 78$ of the money *» their hanau belong ln« to tLe 
Wt Ugi branch* • tho aeeuanl tion of sixteen or seventeen year* 
of arduous endeavor, **iX nad scorifies, • to co with as it billed* 

Ac i result of a oeries of acr iaen loui; co&icunic ?, lone 
between the central council aiscS the Chicago brunch, and bcc*M*c of 
cxpressee" dioaufclofROtiott »it» tin central council 1 * deaande for 
aoney, its nffitaanl of dalag buslnessa, and it® failure to extend 
or of ford latUsf to suffering Ghunfcayshaas as anticipated and 
ordained by sue convent* oa of 19&8, the fbjfrjo' branch at * meetlag 
hold January 3B» &Sft§« resolved It t»i cadre* froa and eever ito 
relations with the central eeuncil of the &e sens trust lea Union of 
Chunkoush* and aaaouaeed its motion by public ;?. ion of the follow- 
ing netio«* in the? .raeaiaa press* 

"Gall to all Men of Qninkousa* 

"Bwr tug tho period of last y«».r and half, the activities 
of tho Eeeenstrmefciea that©xs of • hunkcush has boon haxuuul in- 
stead of beneficial for all the br&neheo of uhl» Union* j.itely, 
there has o UEOB $Rthlishe?d a pap*?T by the i'&oTur iionoluotaa' which 
represents it»elf fta th© ««rv®r of the people's boot interests* 
But ito real purpoge is to destroy V ttelia «nd hare a hold on 
everything that our \snimi poo^ooo. .. ?he author a of thio aoveaeat 
are only fe«»whe up la dtate, have a«t served our Union in any 
appro eiaale &*ay» 

"therefore, this Branch in its Meeting of January iifcnd, 
Keeolved to ere? Its delation* 1th the Central t-oaalttee of 
the Beeonetruotiion Onion of ■'"haakouBh and -o carry on its *ork 
separate an it hae boon done aince 1913 « 

*Uoder thooc conditions* thin Onion uenriioero ite duty 
to invite otter Brunches and disinterested im. ivlouale to 
cooperate with eaeh other to seve the Union froa thie obaotlc 
state, at the t&m* ti»e &onc financial help to ntarvtnc people 
of hunkoush in l-xaaco and yrio. 

"(lgned) Tho R« con » t rue t ion Union of Chunkouea 

HaniBugt Brenoh 
1 ecretary -hairneM 

"liarkar raclaa Bogdasar Ksvorklaa" 

hat the central council faiaao to luaotton and fulfill 

the alas and purposee of ite establishment to evideaoed ay par. 13 

of the ainuies of the convention of the Bsoenetruetlaa Union of 

Chunkouaa held at Lanreaee* Mass., July 3 aad 4, 1*27, *hieh read 

ao follows I 



i 

fQ 

I 

■ 
- 

ttC- 






Mil Mfl 

j 



-i2- 

"15. tarn m&memmmft ©f the cecrt© of the pr«vioue 

convention* 

*tfcj mooting t«iuUl% that the iae.tn objit ui our 
Union is to fcranufer to r»<*nia the ymcr.iono of Uhunkush 
&ud that on aomouwi of Various uif r Lenities thi*j «.im has not 
betsn accomplished^ re waived Ibmt the noviy oil et«c Control 
Gcswlttee ohoults givt e£foo& to this object. * 

^•oo^tumt to reoeipt of notice of its withdrawal the 

central oeuneil feroa Si 19SI3# o'n;rr;u' ti» dissolution of the 

origin*! Chle&g* branch, and «uJwri»«m certain int. iviuuole who 

had theretofore boen AomHora to orgunlaa* with, other** a now 

Chlo-go iNWil to ©uperncu© 'Uw original arganij&atien, and pur- 

ousyati to ouch purported uuifcority a mooting v«n hold liureh 12, 

19£3» Ml offlooro elcoton* ?h*oe officer* poromptoi- Uy demanded 

that tho offiooru of tho original wide • tt c branch uuru over to taooi 

its oooJL* reeodrdo» effcotu suna iionoy* It appeoxe« thnt »o*ie» at 

le&sfc» of too looker « ang off io«ro of fchfl Kg* Chicago branch had 

been in conflict fcith Use &c*i&ini»»j*Uttn o. tied original br^achf 

one had been ch^rgs^ siUa gJMIlif |ftl| 0£g»nl4«tlen Ctttflfl to his 

own u»ef another with ourroptltlgualy removing certain reooree and 

other o with unbecoming cattduct oi* v&rlouo «©rt»# thereafter 

tho central council proclaimed fch.*? dioaolution of the original 

Chicago branch by the follow tag notice t 

*To AH hem It May <*noerai 

*fttU la to oertlfy th*t tho Chic -go Bramoa of the 
Chunlcueh rmeni&n Be con Hi not Ion Union »l hich Bagdaaea* 
Kevorkian* Mortear rmoftan *nd aagop irarihian uro the ofrte*ro f 
hae boon and io hereby «ie»alv*d und«r the power veeted ta mo 
An Jentrol ifemtltteo of said Union ano th# eaio thro* peroer 
are no longer efi'ioere of the Chicago branch of our Unlon| 
and «o state, moreover, that a new hio«tgo Brnoh h«e been 
formed and that Hatehadoer Boroyan, hairuan, mrdlroo 
Hadgelourlan, eo*et*rp and Hagop I«*aclian. Tr**»urer, are 
to form and 1M rscogmifcod by uo ao the Kxfcmtive oanaittee 
of such Branch of htc *f0. *n« th .t due* of ne»ber* of aalo 

hic^go Branch *ill be paid into thoo ano the •ool of tho 
Onion ahould be delivered to th« lost r**»ed three offieere 
duly author laed by ue to reprcocnt the .nio^go »•*•»• 

-l« itaeee hereof* »« hare hereunto eet our handa 
this 6th day of prilt 1»2«* ^ w .. m 

-S. hathooiiui A - ^oojian, 

"Chalnaau coo»oiojry«" 



< 









v. &r* »«•#! 

jBStfi -ait 

t 

i o 



! 



, 



-13- 

It the central eoancil aosaeaaeo' the po^vr *.p eienolee the Chioaft 
branch and ataat$Mattt its fuade, aueh po*er aut-.t app«*r la -ht 
proviaiono of the %yla«i evi* *«clas *aeh authority a* w*e granted 
to it by the Xoeal br^nchee in the convention of 19@e, when the 
ey-la*?e were prenulgated • Hal <anly by*law tlalftal with «!ieeelutioB 
Of a branoh provide a for antte o»ly la the event that the member ehin 
of the bran eh f;-.lls below five in n«abi?y» Yhafc the ocntrnl c"uneil 
had 210 potwr or authority to dissolve the Chlo^e branch, mpplaat 
it vita. & net* Vr-nch, or eeawad th t It turn over ite anuey aad 
•f foots %e *suoh new branch, 1» eoaeluatvely efttubliehed by the 
reeerd in this e%us*. tte Ktteaqpt to supplant it aad oeprlYe It 
of Ha property, effeeta and «©n«y waa, in ear opinion, ah Idle 
gee tare* 

a heretofore stated, llal central council ought 

into being- for th«? sole purpose of aa^trtatsig* worthy objects for 
the benef&ofciene of the local branches owl diaburalniF the collective 
contributions of thoee bra*enne» It possessed no iahereat power a 
ovsr the brmiehee, end aaob pp Ud fl M *ere granted to it b. baa 
were eclely for the ? ©coapliehaent of th* perticular and op* elf led 
objects of the society. 

Ite attessp* at excrcire the extraordinary po*or of i - 
oUUag that T^'Ji of th* (Maa of the vhle*ge tfuuhut be turaad oeer 
to it, faaa*aa% aiai without any limitation or gftanl taUctaal aa to 
the aoe to whloh the aoney nis .o be pat, haa no Juotiiic- tion oa 
the r*ourd la tale oaoo oa any theory or pri :iple, oither of law 
or equity | aeith*r haa He attaapi to oteeelv« tbe original Uhloaga 
branoh, and ita further attempt to replace it vflth a a*' J branoh, 
aad coapel the transfer of all i%« aoney aafl effeoto to it. 

A court or equity coulo not peralt Mm oficers of a 
voluntary organ la tion, eueh ae the oentrel ccancil ho boea 



<< 



• 



■ 

. ■ 

■ 

■ 

tern wretM n 

■ 

: 

. « ..■',: 



,.--■-' 






no ufti. 
• mrt *« *»***» «%JfcJ , ;q. n i 



..' to*m*4* I 






1 1 



fcfrpttl btt 



' "»i) :. • ■- 



gaown :o lie* ta jpvwvsU on tao ekr ct»r of ciuin aet forth la 
ta« bill of ceaplftlnt In «.hia er»ee» UN I'r-iluro of the central 
council to function o« axdwlfliec't MHl it* Inordinate and un- 
irorr&ntod diatom; o en the v-htong© sx inch, furnish •<< »uf iclent 
jua&i fte-tion for tt» *i?&drawal« Its iUhdr&wal did not 
coulc net legally or estittaely auejoct It to diooolutlon or 
liability «B4i«r all the facto and elxouaBtanoea in tfii tnoo« 

In our opinion l>h« ehaacollar «<*.* fully ju. <.ified 
m obtaining the ©oj-eues® o the «^»ter'o NlftH end 
entering the AMM ditn*Usia£ ta# Hill for wnafc ef <*,uUy# 

Re* fcbe re&oeae elated aero in tao deeree of the 
uperior tiewt io *f finaod* 

Sridlsy and o&nlany JJ. t con our # 



<< 



- 

.■<■■". 
i,» • MM N 

■.'■•-''' 

. 



seeas 



0* A* CHRI.JTS1TSSI, 

Complainant • 

pay mn tt ai«» 

IwfewlMlts* 



,uou. ? a* frit*. 

Appellant * 

>ppeii«e* 





i -. i 



COttiT, COOK CvUETT. 



27 3 LA. 613 



sa&xvi&ij ?ss o^i^ias o? thk court. 



Bpon default in the p*iyment of principal and Interest 
the trustee wider a truat dod executed in 192©" securing a tea* 
issue of $90f000e jropresenteU by M bonds of $10<K> each* filed 
a bill to foreclose the trust deed In behalf of all the bsm dh oldcre* 
A decree of foreclosure nnc sale was entered finding that a#7 6.45 
«&• due the bom.noldere for principal and interest and the enle of 
the premises ordered* 

At the eftlc conducted by the raatter in chnnoerv and at 
shi eh the trust©* mar** no hid* one u*ust L« Vrlts. a stranger to 
tho foreclosure proceeding. »M $4000 for the property and In the 
Absence of other hide his was accepted by the nastor ooteber 13* 
1932, upon hie payment of $1000 ossh and his promise to nay tho 
balance of $3000 upon confirmation of the sole by the court. 
October tw f 1933* tho court entered an order confirming the eale and 
Ifttts paid the balance of #3000 to the maoser. waiter T. Larson, 
appellee* by leave of court filed hie apper.rsnee en the same day 









o X d < t 



:;•■. ■•■t../i4 



i 



.>■- 



Mm 



.,.., 



, ... sai 






• 



■ 



x* »: 



'■ . 

§At nt taut 

, . . • • . ■■*. Ml 



■>r -, .»• 



,:. , :' i-i .y ,• :■ ,: NTS! MU R >*;' 

•op *i» »y-*X v<f tftftlAwi 



and upon bis petition and prope? not lea <m order «a« «nt*red by 
the court October 22* 195;: , that vacate-.; the- order uoaflraia* 
the e«le* oo t aeide the onle aratf airecte* the naater to re» 
aftv#rtiae til* property and «U the com again* to certificate 
of cole had bo*a ecliverofi to appellant by the rata tor and no 
Ouplloslrt? e*; fcifleate aao recorder, this Appeal followed tha 
entry of the aawro order* 

Tito bill to forooloae f iled .*«c«&er 11* 1921* by the 
trustee, «xi««e* that it Maa or ought by mm Ml trustee for and 
t» behalf of the Mftm of the »©»&«• nad that the preaieoa in* 
v©lre& ecttolotcd of a au>dorn two s*i©ry brick built 4 lag containing 
too five room «a»4 two four roott ajpirtaouie of tho appro-vtuata 
value of jjffiPli 

October 22* 1952* appellee filed hio pat U ion alleging 
that ho *aa the legal bolder of lr , of the $20*000 bond ie.ua 
secured by tho tract deed under forecloaurof that October 13 » 19^2, 
tho preaieoe la question were Male at the avietcr'e sole to one 
nguet ie Frit* who &id la the property for $4 00* that Vrlt* v«o 
& total ®tr&ng«rr to mid had m interest la the foreclosure proea«C- 
iag# Hal that hie bid of $4000* after payment of the eoste aad 
expeneca of the foreclosure* weulc && to the oonciiolcere appro*. - 
euttcly oal/ ei ;ht cettto oa the collar I that that sum nae greenly 
Inadequate and >*©ulc> reeult ia aJuaoet a complete loos of his iarrat- 
BOat| that a better bid &euld be Mae la tho ercut the oale of 
October 12* 1938* «a» eot lieice by the court » ano prayed the eouxt 
to vacate the arc or of October 20* 1932, ooaf trains the sale* to 
act aoldo the oale and o tract tho aaeter to re-adv*rtleo tho 
property and sell it ugala* 

.' •polio* fal<i the eoato of tho original aale aad tuwserau 
to the uaeter hie betttis of tld.OOOto »uara*te* a bid of OlaVOu* 



*• 



V* JMre*4tt* I W* ftOft MftUJ*»% «id MM|V AMI 

• ■ 
,'£4Kt wta ^r»«i' ! ! fell* ftfcfttt Aft';- «M<fc* *«3 '*«X*» *#« 

, • . .;. ;»'•, 

■•?-. ■ .'.:. •-- ■: • :• J ■•■ •>■<■ .!!».!! Ml fc| II HM 3* 

•tefAtHQ . ■ :.j; l«i i. ■:• . . .-.-: -i» ■' • ••■ ...... 

i 

■■ 
•a9fft MV «M iMl4 i*:*f J 

V . i . • .: • •--'■.:. .■> .-v . •?.. fl f i:J •..,*.' 

■0 wi' ■*« . ',- . i mi i m • .> ; ... / . - * i.« .. j-. i 



i • 



i j l ■" ■ Ml 



r 



Hi - U 






which he undertook t© aakc at Nat aubaecuant salt* :he aeater 
tendered back to appellant tb*? #4000 received from nla ac pay 
nent for the property »* ■ reattlt of the aula of Oc-ober 13, 1938, 
out he refusal to accept it* 

Upon till* master' ;? cfccond sale of tiw property oveab.wr 
25, 1952* HM Bio. of -15,000 of appellee «as accept id and the 
property sole to him* Frit*, -i"OU<:li hia aUorney, attonded the 
second sale and again bid $4000* Upon the aaater'a report the 
second sale «aa confirmed by on order fcxitereu by the court 
Le •ember 7, 1952, nithout objection on the part of appellant* 
Appellant contend© that ait or bidding £4ono at tbo 
original motor 'a »*le of «bo property in question, tmc after a 
report of the sale rooitiMg bis payment of #1000 oaoh awl hie 
ability to pay tbo remaining #5000, upon cenf irmat ion of tbo 
sale by tbo court, and after tbo approval of the aaster*» report 
of tbo sale by tbo court and payment of the entire purehaa* prioe, 
bo was tbo owner of tbo property aubject only to ;.he contingency 
of redemption within tbo statutory period of fifteen uonthe, end 
that tbo chancellor did not hare the power to take the property 
aoay fro* hta by the order of ucsober 22, 1932. Appellee instate 
that tbo order of the chancellor was both proper Mid Just if table 
under all tbo elreumstanees and equities of tbo Matte 

ippolloo wa« not aotic a party to the bill to foreoleeo 
and bad no nof.iee or knowledge of -be abater's aale of October 13, 
1933, at which appellant bid in the property. 1 though the oeree 
Of aale provided that the ©uuotundin;: bonds and lntereet coupons 
aight be uood In payaent of any bid th*t might bo aade, exoept ao 
to tbo oosta and expenses of the proceeding* the trustee did not 



■.a mi £i 

- 

i 

b 
■ 

- 

■ 

■ 

juw»%^i# art* $ 

:-• . , .-' ■ :*.-: .. v*- ■' v lo ::;«r.v ^ - .-.- \ •■- ;•;•:.' •. >'■■-. i :.•■.-,.- ^'-. ',o 

tti- . . . , 

«6J n 

ttooqiro^ ***%«0»1 boa «««•&' 



»4* 

appear or old at that eale to jHOtc«t th& late i tate of the bead* 
fcolc*>ra ia vhoa* fcehrlJ he file* ihc bill wo fore old no oar did 
he afcviaa apaaile* that ta* sole waa to take plaeo« 

Ussy VMM! ha** »ee» oltatl that coafi ra tar rlftht 
fsjad pow«r of thw «sh?m©oHar to a©i **s?ic>«i » jaaatur •'« aale af pteperty 
«Bd«r faraelaaiir* aaaaaaa of inaaexaaoy of prioc couple with fraud* 
aecldeait »tafcs.te or wfaifcaaoa* £■ the in»t»jnt eaoo it is tiua 
that the elt*»eell«r eaiarod &ts ardor ootoa^i 20* 19*>«i, eppzoriag 
tits sola af Jiiafril Hi &*&£• it ia alaa true want *haa the aale 
was appraved' tho court we» net mjprjat< of the aheur inadequacy of 
tbt aaauat hist that It waal^ &fi : ar<5 the haleers af the M » 
worth af aanda approximately saly sight vents M the dollar i that 
tha traetee did not appear at the a<«le to pretect the latereata of 
the l»©adli©id«?rBi thai agpaUa^t aha aaa the aaaer of i. , 
of the boa«s did aat hmv« oit&sa aatiee a* kaeal*dGe af who uule, 
er that a at«a ftttajftj? *«*r ti»#» as large Wan a.Y*ilahle» There oan 
oo so kuaatlaa thai If MM ehaaoe-llor's attention aa* i treated to 
theae facta.. and taa farther facte that ia addition to the ?2o # 0Ov 
lncuaara&e* o» the Hiljiinin taare waa ■ junior incunfci'anee of 
fcaVtoantt af reeard» and thai tht trustee alleged ia his MSI of eeev 
plaint that taa property w»o KstateWaaV worth . . <• ha would haro 
withheld hit Rppraral af tho oalo af the proper t, &/ taa a**t»r 
far #4000* 

Thia appeal prea&uta ip oar heteraln*Uen tho (.uaaiiaa 
«o to whether or net taa oJaajoc«llar s*j ia t«m time n o»i« aa erd«P 
oamlmAn* a master *o sale, a |H ** • IM *••» ^wlae-* ar ie»a 
able ta learn after uillfient ae«rch thle preolae ^aoufiiaa Inel Ml 
oeea pteasated ta or paaaad apoa ay the «omta af review of this 
etate* haay eaeea hnre ee«a ciiec aoloiaa Maal it 9m aH aaljr tha 
right aut thai it w&« uh* dutjr oi the eeart to *ei a«id« a aiJa prior 



■ 
■ 



{•■; cat 

i 

I 

#ftt 



• 8« 

to it© eonf lrmntioT) srhcre in addition 1.0 inadequacy of price ths 
tale was shown to posttcse uw.v element of unfairness* >'• perceive 
»* reason -why th« same rule should not apply, en-n if auoh s«le 
had been eonflrisod, If the wo*; Ion to vacate the ortier of confirms- 
tion was ma/ie within tors time* 

*« are not fsjrilla-r *jith any rule of law or e\ulty chat 
precluded a chancellor two day 9 af ter Uh ntry of an order approv- 
ing a oalo and during the term of its on try from matting aeid an 
inequitable salt* If the facta pr«Monfc«d in the petition of appolloo 
to vacate the order confirming the »»JLo had been he for* the court 
ehcn the master's report of she original oalo had been presented 
for approval thoy would have » ot#ioar ity influenced the court to 
withhold confirmation*. In Bartsjt y. l^TOlt, 261 HI* 279» whore 
the chancellor refuses; to ■ m- t fci vtts that had been pre rented 

in support of n motion nig during the same term to Taoate a decree, 
the up rem* court said* p* 28&t 

"the fact that thoy wore not presented until after the 
entry of the d<-«rc« can make no «lf tore-nee* It was during the 
same term of cows' t, and oX though th* dofftw had been signed by 
tho judge a few days before. It wa® nevertheless ambulatory until 
the final atfjouramcat of tho term and subject to revision and 
modification In furtbeuoaoc of tho tn6a of justice*" 

So with this o?'lor* during &he term the court retalneo jurisdiction 

to revlee, modify or vneate It In furtherance of the ends of juntlce* 

Ho absolute right or Interest In ths property w«s vested 
In appellant by the order of October ao, 1932, .» eour of equity 
will not. If It Is within Its power to prevent it, permit a holder 
•f #*c»00a worth Of beads ascurod by real estate to be divested amd 
dsprlvod of hie security by s sals of property that Is palpably un- 
fair and at a price that Is grossly Inadequate. 

la view of what has been heretofore stated we ars of ths 
opinion that ths snas power was lahersnt In the chancellor during 
the tera to sot aside sad disapprove tae sale after the order of 



«-i* *■• «*© $41 94 

■ 

•WW* v. 

■ 
I 

, 

- - : 

* o4 

[r,,- '.-■-. -v. : •::■ itfty.l ; • ■.■'. ta» ... ■ -.**-> v, *> J..* « ■«*■■ > 

I 

'.-;••■■ :•'■*:;■« ;'/. - ..• . ...:■/,:.-,. ..'; *,■£'■>$ ■;•:;.' -■• -i ■■*■■ '■■ I £.*•** i •: - 

I '»# Mf* 3*1*1 

X>**p* *• .'WW '- •*§! t tmtt*w kJ 

ivrlo atf •* fttnta* i»«i ttf *•**••* Kite. 

.».*#« u©k*«U lit**?* »4 . I -: * $* htm *4*t 

mti "a 9*zn «w !»»i«i£ts <vxo'Vo4wNi *»»# <»i/t **trf* 14 wftlv al 

I»wuwl© wtt ftl tanx-iint •** ***«* mm *rfJ i*d* «#i«i%o 



-6- 

confirmation as he possessed prior thereto, fklll mere inadequacy 
el* price hats been held not to foe i;uf fie lent Jur.tlflci.tioB fox with- 
holding confirmation of a judicial stle* a price of #4000 for the 
property involved la so inadequate as to shook the conscience of 
the court and to amount to sufficient evidence of fraud in law to 
warrant the court in setting aside the aaae for were incx.s^uacy of 
price. Whore as in this ease tho property is valuable and the 
loso to the bondholders would amount to many thousand a of collar e* 
every aircumistano* connected with the o&le should be scrutinized 
eloef ly and the slightest ircegularlty should bo considered sufil- 
eient so order a resale* tj^faH ** ImmWrnn i15 Iil# ~2C#) hilo 
no absolute fraud i© disclosed by the record the emtlrt transaction 
is shrouded with suspicion* and the origin*;! tale undoubtedly 
impressed the chancellor*, no II does us, as being unconscionable* 

Appellee contends* and r,& scarce with him* vh»- under all 
the cirGumst$no@$ the bid of appellant toe so grossly inadequate 
no to constitute a legal fraud upon Hm bondholders* wid the 
chancellor woe fully iuatifitsd in ordering a resale ti tho property. 
In determining a somewhat similar question in Moeller v* Miller* 
515 111* 454* the court Raid* W 469* 4*0* 

The chancellor has a broaJ discretion in the natter of 
approving or disapproving a sale ware by the Master in chnnoery 
where there ie no right of redemption from the sale and where the 
deed is by the terms of the aule noi. to be maue by the master to 
the purchaser until after confirmation of the s*lc by thv court* 

here the aale has been conducted in at.%or«,unoe eltfc the oruti of 
the court and the purchaser is a stranger to the fjrtoi of male* as 
in this cas>e» mere inadequacy of price will not jua'.ijy & coux rt in 
not confirming '-he sale and depriving the purchaser of the benefits 
of his bargain unless the inadequacy it* »uoh ma to auoua. *0 fr*ufl. 

here inadequacy of price is relied upon as a ground for disturbing 
the sale, anc tho olahs lo that the price is so inadequata a* to 
amount to fraud t thoxo must exist the f ui th«r fact that there lo 
ac ri£ht of redemption from the »ale. (^fraiul v.»ele Traas. jUbllab/ 
lng Co.* 237 :il. 488} Bader v. Buosoy . 313 id* 5U>6.7 *n tkl s cms 
there is no ri£h« of red amp* ion from the sfJLe* us the fifteen 
months* period given by the atcttute for redemption had expired 
before sals* la tho ea»e of Bader v. Busuoy* Juot cited* the rule 



- .. 

to 

■ . . 

feft . ;?« »«" i r 

. 

:r:,, •»£» 

i*tfft •** 
>*rfn «i 

, . & ihnmh 

f . >$ «a 

*V 

00 i . , . • 

Mid ftttagw iw»i ••r>d# 0*ftJfv 

•i 

i 

.< 9 J 

I 

■ 

*.> ■'.... 

**&•* 1ft) ft4H- 
, , .x-JJ lO SMW?ft »f? 



i* laid down thnt where the bid at a Judicial ta|a i« a0 inadequate 
as ie shack UM ccnacieaae of the court or to amount to suf iciwt 
or i« cues of fraud in lam th* tala will t>« set aoids on that ground, 
alone. In determining this question no definite rule is laid dowm 
no to *hat per c*nt of the e^lue of the property mm% be bid »t the 
#eJ,« in order to amount to «ueh gross inadequacy au to he tvidnoe 
ox a legal fraud hut each ease must be detarmined by its own fi i raM . 
stances* * * e w w »» «ix«i«i 

*The rule has ©ft«m ©e©n announced that if in ao it ion to 
tho inadequacy of price there be any aopenraaoe of unfairness, or 
any cir cams tanoo, accid nt or occur renoo in relation to the aalfl of 
a ckmrut-ter toad tag to tattoo *>u®h inadequacy, then the sals will be 
act aside* (Borer on Judicial alts, p. 23a* ) * * * sh« not only 
receive* no Bat ice from the solicitor but receiver no notice from 
*ny source, as the record shown* this circumstance, counloc oil a th« 
groo© inadequacy of prlae, clearly entitle*, her to 'he rLht to LtT 
the oale set aside »» ^ m mT * 

'ffcis foreclosure ami tinged *iih suspicion from its rery 
inception. lthough the band hold or a were not sore, than five in 
nuaber they ware not ma«;c parties to the proceeding, and the trustee 
not only did not notify the bondholders of the sole nor bid himself 
nor secure other bidders to offer Hw fair market ralue of the 
property, bat ho actually permitted the court to confirm the sale 
*hea a word from hi* ould have I ompelled its disapproval. Appellee, 
ao eooa as ho aeeertaiaed the facts, presented them to the court 
and the court imr.-ed lately, as wae its duty, vaoateo the order, 

appellant, through his counsel, participated in the resals 
cf the property ordered by the court by again biddiag etooo, and 
although he had been permitted to file hie appearance in the canoe, 
ho entered ao objection to the order of confirmation of the nubsequemt 
oale of the property for * 15,000, In view of hie participation in 
the resale the question of waiver of any right that he may have had 
to appeal from the order of October 82, 1932, is presented and we 
seriously doubt his rlpht to prooecute this appeal* However, in 
the view that we take of the merits aad equities of the ckUso, it 
ia unnecessary to decide that quest ion* 

Par the reasons indicted the order of the uperier court 
Of October 28, 1938, is affirmed* 
Oricley and oanlan, JJ*, concur* 












• 






£■*. 






MVM \ 



■ 







- 


























'.,..,, • i - 


i 


a %9 






■ 






• 



■ 



i. 

••#•11 t# M f -MMW 

*w»9 jrftf «j ffeiCjf &*♦*» i Ml tm MHM 

r .• 

St swJt 

.-.ii v.' .,-...■ " : - >'■ - " '../•■ :i s^ri '.. :. ^ . . *;? ■ *£«••! Mil 

Imm - :;- j ■_ -._:■• . » : >> • ;•■ ■:'» ■■. •:*'. . ■ .;••■■-.. ;.■■.■■■ -r,"' .-.C ,: ' 






3«645 



AUMHU ?;TftffA» administratrix 
of tli# eatats of John Uposato* 
deoeassdf 

■-.ppt -lian 1 1 







s 9 mm wxmtr* 



JL I - .-_ .j. 



613" 



vyuraHOI THE OPISTOn* OOF .^Hi£ COUi.f. 



this wm an action on the c««e In the -uperior court 
Drought oy plaintiff * earmold 'ta£f&» administratrix of (he t state 
of John .,<po»ato» deoe&sodf under vhc Injuries et to recover 
damages for the alleged wrongful d*ath of poaato* 

March 1»» 193a, plaintiff filed a ocolMmilon in »nloh 
Barnett Vieher surari Jerome Fisher were naaeu defendants* H alleged 
that the death of plaintiff's intestate wee the result of an auto* 
Mobile accident vhtoli occurred : .;«ptem»er 9 # 1931* On notion of 
plaintiff the suit was dlaainaad January la 1933 » aa to Bamott 
Fisher* Thereafter on ?enru»ry 3» 1933» an amended declaration 
trno filed naming J rome Fioher aa the eole defendant* Be filed a 
plea of the gonoral i«.me and a plea of the tatute of Limitation a. 
Plaintiff filed a demurrer to the special plea which wh» overruled* 
C-ho elected to stand on nor demurrer and judgment *'*» entered 
against plaintiff for oobta* hie appeal aeeka to reverse the 
Judgment. 

i'lalnttfi contend <* Uhat the original declaration ttated 
a cause of action againat Jerome *iamer aa wall aa agalnat larnett 
fiaherf that the amended declaration filed more than ono year after 



■:■>.• -■■- 



Hi 



■ 



■ 

< 






U ■ 






i 



■ 

r 

■ 






fe»f«tj BeiJ&ttaJCftf 

r.-j»X MM ««*** •*•* 



. . I .ft J ; ;■ 



the death of plaintiff's intestate did nob state a new cause of 
action but «&s a restatement of the cause of action contained in 
the original declaration) that* since the original declaration 
was filed within one yoar of the death of plaintiff** intestate* 
plaintiff has complies with t-;e statute limiting the tine within 
which such an action way be brought; anc: that* even if the original 
declaration did not state a cause of action against Jerome J'iaher, 
see* 39 of the Practice lot authorised the filing of the amended 
declaration stating a sow e uae of action after the expiration of 
the one year limitation* 

Sofendant'o theory is that the original declaration 
stated a cause of action against Barnett Fisher only and did not 
state a cause of action against the defendant* Jerome Fisher; 
that the amended declaration states a new cause of action* and 
inasmuch as it w&a not filed within one year from the death of 
plaintiff's inte&tato plaintiff is barred from her action* 

An inspection of the declaration Is necessary to 
determine whether the original declaration stated a cause of 
action against Jerome Fisher. It contained fire counts and the 
pertinent portions of count one* which is typical of all the 
count o, are as follows i 

"Carmela taffa, administratrix of the ; state of 
John £posato, deceased* plaintiff, by Harry • ilverstein, 
her attorney* complains of Barnett Visiter and Jerome Fisher* 
defendants, in a plea of trespass on the case* * * * 

1 Plaintiff further allege* that on oo wit, September 
9th, A* 1 ;• 1931, the aald defendant, Barn ett Fisher, was then 
and there the owner of a c«rtairTnotor vehicle whioh whs then 
and there in the possession of Mi being driven, managed and 
operated by Jerome 'ishei , the agent and servant of said Barnett 
ffisher, duly authorized in that behalf, upon and ttlong said 
puollc highway known as Harrison treet in sn easterly direction 
at or -bout the said intersection of Keeler Avenue* 

•And plaintiff arers that it then and there beoame 
•no «•■ the duty of the defendant^ by his agent and »»ryant in 
that behalf, to drive, manage and operate said automobile in 
such a manner as not to injure plaint iff »s intestate who was 
then and there lawfully upon said highway, as afore a* id, yet 
said de fend nrtj by hio agent anc servant, in that behalf 
wholly Fogardlesa of the duty of w*id defendant, as aiereaaid, 



V 

toll «*tei^ J*sf 

. | 

si 

••■•-.. 7 ' 

a 

, IS 

I 1 I « 

... 

- 4« 

MM*4 ST"*/; bSL* flvi: ; :i J.-r«--, r«,*T« J i >tj -.-.;. .. OX'." 
tti I I *«•»* 






then and there to earelcsalyt negligently *nri improperly drove 

the aaid su*omeyil* easterly upon *#aid Harrison -treat, as 
;iXoi€t.aic» tUat aa a cire-ct a.wd pre tiieate revolt of enld 
improper conduct * carele&a«e«*3 «um1 negligence* {.tat? defendant ft 
toy Life said agent and servant aforesaid » ran into, upon and 
over tho plaintiff '« intestate rstth en la automobile | that 
as a result thereof the plaint, iff* « inteetsitc wns then and 
there thrown violently to ano u^on the pavement of said hi, h ay f 
by means whereof the plaintiff*© intestate received personal 
injuries which thereafter • em to wit* ieptember 9th» • • 
1931 » re suit sd in and caused hi a death** 

It will ho noted that while Jerome tfisher is named as 

a defendant in tin formal ItWlWIMmell* of the declaration no 

attempt in made in the charging portion of same to state a oauso 

of action against hiau it 1® uniformly held that in a ease of 

this chare- eter it is essential to charge the existence of | duty 

en the part of defendant to protect plaintiff from the injury 

complained oft the failure of defendant to perform that duty 

and that injury to plaintiff resulted from such failure* the 

original declaration is absolutely silent in eo fax &a any 

allegations of these necessary elements of a cause of action 

against Jerome Wisher are concerned* 

The law is well settled iihat vhere a declaration 
asserts a cause of « tion imperfectly, or where it is merely 
defective as tc some matter of pleading, an amended declaration 
may he filed after the expiration of the limitation period and 
the right to maintain the action will not toe barred* 

Wo ease has been cited , and we have found none* ihat 
holds that where no cause of act inn against a defendant is alleged 
in the original declaration* an amended declaration uhioa 
necessarily states a new oamse of action, - one whioh had net 
seen stated before # - may be filed after the limitation p*r led 
without being obnoxious to a plea of the tatmte of Limltntiene. 

The rule is clearly and correctly stated in jrl^fcldt 



I 



km nmt 

- 

- 

x£»-smb ft 

■ 

. 
■ 

lit ..,.: : ■-.'.... •• ■ iia '■■:. MM MM • - iv. : .JLJ uiMffMM 



•4* 

y. tl^lnola PMJJfcn IM Ul* Xa»» *he?e the court arid. p. 
18** 

"the >^ueetion then pW M M t il toy the record toetor* ut 
Is* whether the oounfcg filed toy sh« plf\iiK,Ui in January* 1895* 
after Dm two yeare proviriee toy the statute for bi inking an 
action had expired* set up a tin cause oi action* or whether 
they wort a wort restatement of th« enuae of action Already 
stated in the declaration* Upon an inspect ion of -he declaration 
first filed toy the plains iff It will too founo that who coomenee- 
ment of the declaration is in proper form In an action of trespass 
on the case* &ni no fault is found ^lth the conclusion of the 
declaration* therein dam&ges are claimed j out, »awn tat oocy of 
the declaration io examined* where the cnuae of action ahould too 
act up* no cause of action ahatevvr is averred In the declaration* 
I ho attended count does* however* set up a cause of notion* tout* 
inasmuch as the original declaration stated no ct»ui>* ot action* 
it seems to follow that the amended, declaration at* ted a now 
cause of action* • one shieh had tjovtu- been stated befor«* • and 
hence the -'tntute of Limitations tm® a good defense* .'here could 
toe no restatement of a c&uot? of action by Uie *ju&t*<j«iu dtcl^rntiom 
unless the cause of action had been stated toefore. If the plain- 
tiff had stated hie MUM of nation la ft defective &iann«r* emitting 
some feature which ahould hare toeen Incorporated in it* then an 
amendment restating th*» MttM of ft#tlM woulr uoi fall within the 
statute* But suea was not the ease** 

The original deolar&tlom in the instant case did not. eren 
pretend to state a cause of action against Jerome Fisher tout plain- 
tiff instate that even if it did hot sec* 39 of the Practice act 
sanctioned the filing of an amended declaration that neeeeaarlly 
stated a now eaves ef action* after the limitation period had run* 
end cites Jeter v. Pollack* 262 111* ejjpft 170* as desisiTO of 
her contention* Boo* 39 of chap* 110* cahlll's 1931 Rerlssd 
tatutes of Illinois* provides! 

•At any time toefore flnrl Judgment In a civil emit* 
amendments may he allowed, on smem terms aa art Just amn vsneem- 
tols* Introducing any party necessary to toe joined ae plaintiff 
or defendant* discontinuing a*, to **ny Joint plaiu-i;'i or Joint 
defendant* chant; ins the form of action* and in any matter either 
of form or sutoutanoe* in ai^y procca** plowing or pro*«»x.ing 
which May enable the plaintiff to sustain the action for the 
claim for which it was intended to toe brought or Vm ■OfoMOMJ 
to make a legal cefenee. The adjudication of the oemrt allowing 
an amenuuent shall toe conclusive evidence o* the id-n.l 
the action* 

hack 
the MmM 

ahall 

prcsorlolng or limiting • 

brought or right asserted, if the time prsscritoed or limits had 




• 



t 



■ n4 



M 









■ 






R«rv« asm 'US §?■ 
•trtf «*ti 

.-: ?«H8 M ' «J«.k« 

:.'£iSu* »>, VMM 



;■'••■ . ; v. ". ' .-.. ■ r . : i 



. .'. ■ 



j, 



. 



■ 



-■ 7: 






I • ' ■ c-.i 



-§. 




J&«. MB ■.** £f3 ..-**. i: -. - - - . . » 

I « I • -vw *« wk*.- I. ........ 

pejrfon&RMGc if MUM Ml **" Kttt K&iattait o** »o*# faoti . 'ju*. 
<tth«r MaltNM •! a*>fct«r*f «£»-.. nt 

t,« ttke rlgfet of rtMStnroafy ar ...;•, ( - ; juch a >c« 

MMMftM ■•*•■■* Ml .— MKt$H80 QBjpaitti | . K pre - 1 thn 

filing of * totiu&ttft&tM m%< lag for ;h n good ^ an of ootttN la tb* 
first la Blanco* 'Che aoiwe section glrayly .../.-. tgtMifltatty at... too 
that "ai^f 4Hfi#«daMMit ti a pleading ahaii be helG to relate batik to 
the &*U of i t&lttg fctf* $&%glm& g&*«ditt| * * < *ud * * * efr-ri not 
be barred by i&ene& or lapis© ol •■;!&& WMMtf un> awutute pttoMOrlUm 
or limiting MM t-uae wishin uhioli ah atfeiMI ;aay U* . I * 

if IM i-Lao prefer its ®<i ©r little,., .«&£ no* i sjp& *hea the original 
pleasing «a& f iXcwi *■ * * asati Jg » » I the coast; pj i fiopo rted 

i ■ ** 

X» the eaee at l*er the MMMfcNI M)ftlaMilMi stated ft goai 
eaus»e of Mlfelttl which MHt&d no*, p$aai&l# be mb^u.M^l^l jLy *ho 
Ofe»e ii» ihut sat uj? iii kJM Oi.i^luMl ..al.,r Ueo v.kUh» «« haY« 
her* tefe** jjJMli.1 au;., mm >4ttM« stated nor atu&atptiK 1 uo *ta'.« a 
cnaee of nation* gtcti ox oi.k».uxmu t agfeinel Jrreiu riwh*r# *r*l# 
tneiefbYe, tble eeuiion Oi. viae ^jr.otice *ot it M>t *tcabl« 

to th» qt'e«tion pr«»«atoo oy tali *p£uU« 

• arc in luXi <»c«?or(i «it.h u*« c«nuluai«n y«»oli»^ by 
the AttAxnMi 4uu«w» o* &he riritt f ivision of ihi» IHaTt "» th»i» 
opinion la th* ||gyn «&•«•» »up?» » Ho*«nr«i» i^« .h.^t «»-•» whlak 
w*« al»o br: a, hi und«r &a« >ron«f»l d»»th at^tatc, a caan* of motion 
«mn otaUo la th« origt»a «o«luir^tlon an*i <,** «««au«o d»«lamtioa 
flloo aftor tko liauiauion v«riod ha6 ran oiaply anpplitc th- tf«io 



■ 

t 

> 



■ '<• 

... *9 

- 
, ;,iJ Sx, lafUfci ;« ■■rf. : ..r.:. /.;«-• *?£. ..s... **&..-.■ ';. ■. -'i>,* „-.l."> . *.o'#* a| * ,v - * 

I 

, -•.■: 
I 

i 



■ 



-6- 

o£ Hm dwu «£ fjUiauff «s lat*»utt. t*. M **« jjllntji 

to she «Uu&U«b «k*r« prcstatt* «atf w*g oo«plt-%» authority 

for ta» holding ©i Ha court* 

Wo ore of tho opiaton feat fefctrt is ntUhe* fore© nr.r 

mri« to pi«.tiifaiff •■ wt milium «ai ti*t tno triia oourc *&o 

Justified is» overruling the dcmrzor to dafendiuit v o pl« a of .he 

latut© of Limitations, 

S'©* fca* y»MHH tttftintii th« Judgment of ch« -uporior 
eoart la &f ringed* 

APFXHHOU 

aridity and 3eaaiaa JJ#» concur* 






■ 

■ 

- 



f t 



5671* 



^ppaiiao* 

■•.ppellant. 





) afsbax, mess <u?. ; .ioi. © 



J;?TY. 

2V3 I., 



U 



14 



JR. PK...-;l^IKO JUSTICE ■-OLUV»JI 
I LiV .■; I MBS &J»I3I0S <» HB 0MB '. 



fhio appeal »ft#kfl fro reverse * Judgment for $8tSO 

entered la favor of plaintiff, Virginia Wd onover, against 

lsura &« Xleaolaan for personal injuries result lac froa a 

collision between defendant's fierce toww$9 auwonofcilet in 

which plaintiff w&$ riding ae a guest, &»d tht Ford or of 

one Bryant •$ the intersection of Washington boulevard and 

B til wood & venue, in the TJItigH of >ellwoed. The jury*s rerdlot 

assessed the danages at $5000, hut plaintiff consented to a 

remittitur of #2S0 and juagacat isae entered for the balance. 

The declaration alleged due oare on tho part of 

plaintiff, that defendant MM oegligsat in the operation of her 

oar and that she negligently, improperly and in violation of the 

rlfTht of «ay nt&tut* drove acres the street intersection whea a 

oar appre^ehiag froa the riiiht had the right of ^ay* 

defendant *e theory la that she aeted reneoaably aader 

the circumstances, that plaintiff was not in the exeroiee of dae 

caret and contends that the court, erred in firing oertoin instruo- 

requested by 
tione./ plaintiff to the Jury* and in refusing to give other 

instructions requested by defendant, ia admit* lag oertaia evldeno* 

and ia allowing plaintiff's attorney too great latitade in his 

argument to the Jury. defendant also <:ontendo that the dtaeages 






•■'•: 









J 



• 



■ 
- 

a a 

wwbtvi, at ■ 
«4tf u 



: 












• 



I | MM 



I 



■ 
Xd beiasapsi 



-3. 



allowed are exeesttiwe* 

no»tur*i mmm *» that d,f* n d*nt wao negligent m 

driving her ear a«r*M lamtotftffteii Boulevard, notwithstanding thai 
she M hee» warmcci Of the approach of the ether enr from h.r 
right in tin* to have stopped » -fare reaching the point of 
collision, and that tftofea* of etouplmc hex ear r ,he ac.eierated 
its Kfeed] an* etUmptec to pae* ia front »f the ot her car .hi eh 
clearly had the right of way under &u the facta and ctrcunsiano.s 
appearing in the trtim—i that plaintiff had aothtag to de with 
the operation of the automobile a»d th | when «he saw the other 
automobile approving; from the right on Washington oculeward .he 
immediately shouted ■ *armiBg to defendant while the oth«r ear was 
«UU at such a distance from the interaction that I fendant could 
haTc • tapped her ear hefore recking mmiB 

There is vary little soatroTerey on the fwcte* The 
undisputed VrUam diaelaeaa that plaintiff w«e fifteen year, eld 
at the time of the accident | that def eneast woe driving her ear 
containing her daughter, plaintiff and plaintiff's mother home from 
a children's party *eent * a, m» em the morning of aguet 9, 1950, 
that ahe was lookimg far haaahela read nnd had lost her way and 
finally had turned into Bellied ***** several block* outh of 
Washington boulevard, without kao*inff *hat read ahe v»« traveling 
cu er in which direction she vae fioingi that en she procs ded an 
Bellweea avenue she and her pas cugers were looking for street er 
rose eigne in em end>»vor to ascertain their whereabonte and te 
find the proper rente to their homes on the north old- of the 
city of Chleagei that plaintiff's mother was seated te the right 
of defendant on the front seat, plaintiff wee on the left side of 
the rear seat and defendants daughter on the right eide of the 
rear seat of the ear which was a two door brou*thamf that the ear 



. .. 

m 







fins 


■ 






- 


■ . - 


/ 




: ' 




' 




; is ■■•■! 



It »€ faftp ■ * - idt * 

fta* *»» «Nl *vri' H«EK -HAM tot &C >J£« #«tt 

*» fc*fe«*»«t4 A M)*4»*ti& ifoitf fti *♦ no 

«C# i- M ""'- a* m*m*A vlmCa o. Mtfo :q »di bell 

JO fbJ vd^ ft* 5*i«f ** *» *B.:ttft»t* v t* 

, ... .,/.,. - \ :■ .• ■ ■ ' rf»'.x'../. -.•■:.■ * > , >r 



-a. 

waa belne- tfrivwn north on Btllveednvemte at, a speso of bcUttn 
20 and 26 aileo an hour until the girls In th* re«r seat thou tec' 
"ear*" "look out** "lights" or '♦duekt* that the WRrnln,-? outertes 
were sustde by ih*s> when they saw, aljsc»t ylEniltfuuoutl/* the lights 
of a oar appr oaohing ^ellwood *r*nue on UtafctagW boulerard from 
the Omni antf to their right | th&t defendant he«rd the «xel*»atlone 
of the girls sod MM the llgfeta of -he oiht*r earj that she node no 
effort to stop or tur» her oar to the right or left hut Instantly 
accelerated its epeed and gWttfMNMlei into aao' across the? Intersection 
and the o&rs collided on the north half of Washington boulevard at 
it* intersection wltfc Bellwoodi ^voauef ta&t although she applied her 
brakes *so»etijae after the ta^aot* Ban feotlft foot anu energeney brakes 
«ere found locked tetsed.la.tely after the aolliaion* her ear continued 
in a northwesterly dirt (.-tie* on ftell«*od avenue PPM the 8 Inch 
west euro* over the higher parkway., »craptn*j ftlM bark of- : * a tree* 
and oror the at ill Ijlffllllll ai<ter?a!Ui» ias *>xi in&o and aaroes the 
uneven vacant lot on th« northwest corner* over rubbish anc ctuaps* 
a distance of hi least 60 f«*t# ana that it traveled * dlstanos of 
ot least 50 feet frea Mfet point of the Impacts that eh* was driving 
on the east tide of Bellaeed avenue* AMU runs north uoc south and 
la 3d feet wloet that Uoth streets WMW sell p&ved and - ashing ten 
boulevard* *hich runs eaat ant: wost» WW d$ or 7 r feet wide with 
a concrete rofcdwuy SO feet wide in th* ccnteri that < -fend jtt's oar* 
inducing Its brakes* was in good ueeh&nleal condition* both high- 
ways were dry vuai she could step MV oar under the- flxietlng ceadl- 
tioae ijotag SO idles an hour within M fectj sal that it wan s 
clear night with the Moon uhlniac brightly* 

Bryant* the driver of tho other onr# testified that he 
was traveling west on atshin^ton boulevard on the north side of 
the pavenent on hi a w«y to vork at a speed of between 20 and 25 
allets an hourf that at the tine of the tepuot defendant 1 *} e-r was 



- 



I>o ;. 38 feo & 





















- 



■ 

i ■ 

i 



'■•■'•- ( '• - i • •■•" «- • • ' 

y "?v ..:/ 



■ 



• 






■ I ■ 






ax • 









-4- 

gelng §0 to 5v mile?* m» hour} 'chat tunr bri^hl li^hta weru net 
turned on? that »ha gave no wigsml of her approach! that lie did 
aot «»ee defendant's 9tm until is m* only a aanrt t'le bailee froa 
htmf that he anWafijtianly laWMa 1 his frornfc wheels A -.ow«rd the ncrshi 
that the front Oatft of tho tail Sfiortl af eide w»ipod r-nch other | 
end thai ho brought. Me 9*3 to & atop about 18 feet to the ri#ht 
ob ilellened *irstrae with his right front vhoeX against the tjjfit curb. 

Tiefendaat testified thai she va« an experienced driver 
mild had been dririnr morions wakes? of earn far t»enty two years, 
and that ^heis s»he heard the «*rai«e eTiaa of £he girl* end mat the 
headlights of Bryant's car on ffti&AllgftWi boulevard* appro ehinc 
the interne at ion trim the east, her oar was &£ or 50 f<t*i south 
of the south liaa of Hal H foot. p*vea roacway ox that street* 
Plaintiff and her anther feemfcif* id fcfca! whoa Ian gills gave c«fend» 
oat ■aarninf; her »ar Wm alMM! W it B$ feet from the south line of 
'x ashing tea »oult'**«u.'« proper » or nhout 91 ox 3^ ft«t irea* the north- 
east qunrter of the pored iate«?*«i»ti«n annan thi, aocioent occurred* 

Plaintiff seetifi*t> that d-Oftrtf »♦! oar -«aa gelae wry 
fast h& &h* iiime el the iispaefc *afc* hot nether lea^ifiau that defend* 
ant woe driving 40 or 46' nlloa au hour a4 klH .ww Hal u&re collided! 
that she did not have her bright li,ta.ts en* uae. that- ahe ol« aet 
sound the horn as she apfffsiaanifl the intersection* 

Ko witness teat if ted at at the epeeo oi -he Bzyea. ear 
except the driver of that «©Xt ami s»h* only *it*e»fc %ho testified 
ae to the dletnaaa ef his ear froa the inter t,ectioa aa« viaiaitff. 
oho at one tine stated that at the line she iiiet baa the li^hte 
of hie oar approaehia,- the intereeetiea on -nahiBftaa boulevard 
it one f«Tther away from *h* lntere«etiea ti*au dcfeuo*ui;'s oar 
and again ehe etatert than fc| was oloser. 

It appeared there «ae a siga vtitieh reaO --.top Ohicaga 
Motor ulub" oa ihe east side ml BoaIwooo eventto ^ouih of the Manas 



- 

■;; ■■-», 

/. **l* tat* 






I 

i 

- 

■ 
,1 1» •©or 

■ 

■ 

:;. #a»<> y/*i.y no 



sidewalk line of ^ashing ten boulevard but that It MM unliyhted, 
<&nd that neither defendant or ny ©f ho* passengers saw tho step 
sign prior to tho eolliolM* Bryant testified that ho pauBOd 
•▼or tho later soot ion aoweral frlnoo daily and that he knev thoro 
wore stop signs on Idjft&Vftod avouao* tooth to the north ond south 
of ^aehlagtok boulevard* It is not. eotit ended there «»« any 
ertfinsaoe author isiag tho erection of he atop «ign or re uiring 
a etep on approaching v-.aehington boulevard* 

The glaaa on tho right «ioe of defendant's oar vae br< 
-<nd plain v iff *® f&et «■«« out* ftte voted* »<hich oao *XJ" shaped* 
b*gan Ju*t below tho eagle of th« aouth on tho right aide* going 
into the upper lip alight ly* cur ▼•;•".. duwn around the chin to tho Jan 
boao and than upward to the oeator of the right cheek* ho «ao 
taken to a hospital where It MM stitched and whore eho reaaiaed 
about a week* utter oho wont to a aanitariu* for About tea day* 
and about four months later an operation which required eu ting into 
tho soar one quarter of an inch over its entire course and thirty 
sutures was performed to remove unoo »ir able oo«r tissue in an on* 
deader to improve tho appOKranoo of the *ear left by the ound. 
Tho affected part healed rapidly* filling up again with a super- 
abundant growth of repair titiw and le ring a peruaneat extensive 
horseshoe soar on her right chin and cheek* 

Plaintiff testified aa to her nervous conditio* and the 
paia oho suffered from the date of her injury and it was stipulated 
that 7..J.-5 was a fnir »nt N onubl* en tge for san fcl sjanussj 
uedieal and surgical services rendered her. 

o kwr* of no theory undvr which defendant could eseapo 
liability in this case* Plaintiff* a guest in the oar • who sat 
la the rear seat and had nothing to do with ito operation -arned 
defend*** of tho approaoh of the other oar in sufiici-nt time for 



*f. 



■ 

• . i ■ ■ j 



■•V. -i". 



i-.-tu , L$M | 



..',.-•. «*. 






■ 






6A- :.«,*» ft© »t «4," fcl 

-Nl ©•** *• I*t? 

yd MM 4*»a ISO* «44 At 



•6* 

her to have stopped ox turned IMC o t >r and avoided the collision* 
She therefore cannot |M «a«rg*d nlta eontri&utory negligence. 
I/efendaat on her own evldeaao* interpreting It ab favorably as 
poeatble in her behalf, ttni elearly guilty of tUa n«,;llgaac* 
which resulted in »he injury to plaintiff* i*leregardlag the 
warning of plaintiff , and anr Sswn f^tt(HfllWlfir» of the laminent 
•pprn&eli of the ether few on ?aeniiigt«9 bota«rv*ard to her right, 
and disregarding the rftgat of 'nny rule which eh* testified she 
one fs&llla? with* and without »ny shewiag that, although oho 
nae oppronehlng the latcraeetftoa from the left* she had tho 
right of way, beo&uoo ** <*• reepeottre distances of the two 
oar» txm tho interaction «Bd the respective npeeds at whloh 
they wore* traveling, defendant pit tor foot on tho gas and 
accelerated the speed Of the oar oo that al the time she drove 
into and aoroe® the inter a&oi ion eho mm traveling it « high* 
a&ngcrous and excessive rate of sspood* the opeod of her oar vab 
clearly sho^n hy tho testimony of the witnesses and tho fact 
that after tho impact hor oar traveled mere than 90 feet over 
an a inch <mrh» a higher parkway und a etill higher aldrwallcp 
colliding with a tree and into tfeo uneven vacant lot over otuapo 
<*nd piles Of rubblah* 

The evidence at to the opeed of aryaat^e oar, the 
distance of tho respect !▼« car* fro* the inter sect ion whan 
defendant first saw tho other oar, the faot that tha other 
eat approaching froa &hc right and all the facto and ciri 
staneea appearing ia evidence, confirm the superior ripht of 
vay of hie oar at tho intersection. 

Defendant •• liability aai conclusively established, sad 
*here it is apparent that the Jury has not been aisled and the 
verdict io sate tan t tally correct sad speaks the truth, thie eeart 
sill not consider Imperfections ia the Instructions or errors of 






mm 

I 

... 

, ; : : 



I 

«> '• '• *'f ' »!•■.£ " . - v " 1. '' :' 



■. ... . ■ ■ >-■ .vi •. . tag MPtftQIB! 

■ 



i 
>-m» «t»*t «U Xi« ?»«trt ^iljil t ttxl 

erf? ;**«* ft«£«*n t**»<f Jon ,**&' v»H *<* ***** *ft«*»w« §j n »t*rfv 
*• M«rt« *t *• .teeil *dj aft •umU&**x»vrt "renin boo #•*• 



■ 

R 



bh# mjtLaX aatuxi, is* ..«*& «Mi<M****itttt fti ffl a* sufficient *■ round 

X**jf PfiNnRHA fet a jUddpsWl 4*1 ike &?1*1 court* i'eohaicaJL abjections, 
■trtiiti If ttpl «,» fet Hms aortal * *$$& »f ylftlntlify to recover* will be 
JnntgSjgejtfsd *«ii*i* M*^§&M»&£al Itfastio* ii&g been ssjttt between i» 
UltHljii 

J si pawing up«»a bhl« *tt*sti«a in arUnkw v. ImVMsM Mfc i 
Har* H|J S3* 111* »C4# S?4» HbB .;uj?xcm« court {juntos with approval 

*r*» I fil fjlftlssfr li i 'lit iPtllffiii "H i l l It IWlill 18B Use SQ%, 3lO» 
where it r id J 

"w»oji tib* |i|f|!| can ««« fran i>h& ;*@©crd that an error 
cosjultted by the ferial court in th» progyoas of the ease who a 
tmmless •»•» ■» ttMkll 111 inJurioHit off cat or h&mf ul character 
waa ©aviated, so as aat to affect injuriously* in the final Judg» 
scat, t«# rigbaa if th* p».?tgr <-%ifml*t»t «hom kh# errar was oessaittcd, 
it should not b« allanad to work a reToraal. it is more Important 
in Uit administration of Juetia* feh&t litig&tiaa ahould end in tho 
attainment of ouastimtial Justice than that a r score" of the pro* 
G«edlttgs should am built up *&iah la without flaw or blemish." 

It it ta conceivable in ihis c*m«e# even iiau the trial 

Judge refused or modified, plmimtiff •» given i»e -ructions to meet 

cefendant's oaj- : cttaaa «ntf had admitted none of the alleged 

incompetent evidence acfoauaat complains of, that any >, Iff event 

result could have boon arrive at by the Jury* fho Judgment 

will not bo reversed for errors in the instructions to the Jury 

or admission of evidence **herc th* Jury would have rendered no 

other T«rdiet consistent with the evldeaoe in the eaoo* 

In llMtUMHrjjA .3m*t9*A J«»«ill_CaJ|._ In§#. Cf_.# 3»e Bit 

.pp. 476, tho court oaidt p. 4S*/i 

"Our courts hmr« repestodly hold that tho ppollato 
curt* will not reverse a Judgment for errore in the ins-rue. ions 
to tho Jury or admlesloa of evidence where, und«r the IVUlMti 
the Jxnry could haws rendered no other v»rdtet consistent with the 

evid^noo la tho case. (^>«.%Jf^sf 2 ^ X } X * ;2* i!? 'us, 
Vinson r« cotl, 198 111, i42| T^^»ffl *' ^eonl** 126 ill. 1M| 

B BSMsBswa 71 ii1 * loo#) " 

Defendant strenuously insists that the court erred in 
samite lag ewidenoo ao to the presence and location of tho ". top # 
slca bec«u»o it was not shown to hare been authorised by ordinance. 









OStS Bt»tf ....... :.►' 

jUlfcJMfc 



♦ 



1 



j l 



■ 

•■'■■ 



£9MT *» ******* *S*»l 

i wltf *t; «3 loa 141 w 

; i ■;.-.'.■■• .'■} 

•ftc • 

. ; 

ai »ottt Juno •&« tsAt »$»lcai \k*mva*tJ* » m * lm m \ 

■_ . . j- ..,-;. . • • .,■■ .... >.i •.■ cm I ii •/ <i « i 



Ta ear 9T»lnt<m MnWi 1« nt foreo to thio cont»atton. It han been 
MM If thin fMNft that even in &mft alMNmfti ©f &*t ordinance 
Mrtae?t*lm? MM erection of enftfe *>lgnc their presenee and lee t ion 
mm? It nhtrm a* ntst of the faweral ssarroand ingr 8 . ntherl*ed or 
Bn%atbori*ed by ordinanoe HI tori a to are oennd to heed anefc algae. 
Their sort preeenee i« an indioetton ItlfaKt they hare «,?, leant been 
permitted »»d eonntenenoed fey the miflhlHft tl I M i x» f*et# the 
erect tea of Memo 1 M)jHH bj no tier B &llhfli at (lttWji'lfffnb' lliiitnmn' 
thromt$nnt ibia »ntf 06h#r etetea &&s been encouraged ♦ - hilo this 
pllilli.il ana* «da)ie*tnl*f tanre me farthA? evt*i*'wec that the ■ top* 
eign on tlii? eeet eiee of Bellaae* ^remi* south of Waohingtan 
bottlerer^ wa» unliftnted at the %1m9 defendant approached and pasee* 
It and that neitme? otto nor may of her pass stagers eaw it. Mamm* 
ant was driving her tarf it na» a eleur meonlltfht ni»ht ami there 
ttere so obstaolee in front of the «ign. I bother andev all of the 
facte &M elreumetftaeee in 4*vi«t®«ee ah# ^ould hav«? «*»» who »iga 
is the exercise of ordinary earn naa ft <<neetltn of fact for the 
Jury* However* it ia elear that hs? failure to boa the ciga and 
oh serve lie #»rning was? not ft determining' faeier ia thie caoe# 
*1m received an even more poignant weralag fro* '-he girle la :he 
rear eeat and totally ignored and diareisarded it# -'o are convince 
from a careful ex«aia:xiiea of all of %he eeie*aee ia the record that 
the heedleae aad reohlooe driving of defendant 9 a oar aeroeo the 
later section at a high Mel dangerena rate of epeed after ahe aav 
the other oar and ia violation of the right of najr stahate deter- 
mined the v«rdlet of the Jury* 

Defendant contend e that ihe d«n»gee net© exeeetivt and 
particularly nrger that the cotut erred in «irin« ia«imetion no# 
• requeeted by plaiatlff * *hieh la ae foUoaoi 

•if yon find for the plalatiff ynu aill be reqnired to 
determine the vacant of her damage* 

•In detomlninfi the »naMnt of da»ag»c the plaiatlff to 



■ 






WO:, v-l'-'" 






wU "be 

?ft«<t*3a.*iffe**» Iww ***** 

M) - * *«««t8ra» ** #«i#***» »** «* 

<a*y *** (M. #*»*I»* intf *«bU ***** At H iinwil. »9*t 

*ft|KWft#«* * ■*«« «*» gpliiwi *** t nu w uf t 

*i «*** .gftt«ts*w {Hwm#l«« ***© I I to****** *«r 

toftr- - - « ******** Aft* i 

«** »jfe %»t%* **•«« t* *#** a«««**M»» tout Jli>kA * ** o*****r»*«i 

i*l% -mS U toot *m %»*£*• «tfa 

• .. ; ■ ,, .■■ . .■- •■ . : ltd 

3 alii *«ImhnIu9* fu frjufrlft 
mm *tte *«tSt m&m \* 

.> «xa •*•* « 
««0*ac-' 
** Rl*«t*fti «*# «**«»»> ** mn m i «tM •» 



-n» 

entitled to reeawr In t!tl« angna 14 Mpl **t» Jury hnvo * -riijht 
io» and -ae/ iwuouiii. baa* lata Mto464t*t*M ail viap 1 &ufc» atta 
eianNaeeteJMnU M prawn hy fcttfl ttvirfaae* 'b^^orr *;h«fi T*"'i-t-tniag te 
y j.: ; iaa*Ji , ri |i*gfr(iwi«ai A^tu-ltioi wae »sifcur«f *a«i extent of tier 
physical injuries** It **nv» ee f»r np» Hm ftisae er# r-hrrun ey tit* 
e viiea a t w« e* Iks dig*** vaaN&i el the Isijuxyj hei psila ant 
suffering* II MVf renal ting free* suoh physical Injnr i *« , runi 

helley* frea tlw evident* ^®f«y® than in thin •»«• oh* he«, »u»~ 

j| A ia*d » k i' Kill fcUUiaia fey raaeon al j»u©k injur i.«u| ail ioeaeyo 
neeeeearily expended «nd become liable for, for riureea* hospital 
eh&rgea ixM ■'■*®i;i§% *® *>iXl»# 14 tUP* '-il- <.. *r*«.te<i for >*<uea 
injuria* tmd •my f lad for h«r auefc mm as la the juaptm or woo 
jury, nude? Uv. widen** tag Inatruaiiang at -fc« la ihie 

esse, will oe a fair eoapenuHtiaa for the injuria a eh* bae eua- 
tein*d or sr pyl ■->■..■■ <:<£&# ^ "^p yd f ?: aa «e« :u&gea and laJaT* 
ie*» if any* ar« oantaad and aliased in the deel&r»tlen aad proven 
ay* a yajpaiiffaf tiiilia of Iht ^^Maitaa* 1 (£ft*«ite our*.) 

?*fe»d<«i>t*e eajpetian to thk las motion 1* rtir^cterf to 
she 
she lan£uaj?* itaUtaiaad eg&/lsfeai ■ it that* ••«*» no evident* that 

plaintiff nag eufferinff fatiaa fren the sear at the tine of th* trial) 
that there nan y«a aWft&BJMH B upon llnflftl 14 has* any naea*4>a*nt af 
d flange a for future suffering! end taut* inarjnitih M the lav doaa 
©at pemit tat: rttnvery af iiSdagaa for «ffl»Grrftf^saent ar hamilit t.iaa 
by r«a»oa ©f HM «ljl)|Wal|litlii11 ©^ faelaJ. ^lafigurevnt or far the 
.^ere exiatena^ of I scar vcitftiufc the are^fnca of phyt*ie»<l pain» taa 
(&url aVWtf in iaatraeUatg 'the Jury taat *fat«rc Met erinc* Bight 
be ificlwkd ia llal dfitaw^a aaiiaa^acJ for plaintiff • 

ltitBhlff aoaaadaa Hall ewV:*w*ien»n* ajat hunlliattor 
fraai tha oott«aavalt>.tiaa of ^«* aaarred faaa i» aat a preper aleaani 
of h*r daaaa«a» hut aa««r^o that tJia inclusion of •fa*.ara Buffering - 
in the inevraotiaa ww -*azraa*e4 vu*4>*r th leal and had ^Antnjitial 
haeia in th* evident* that th* »oar w»e ugly and peeanauaae and in- 
volved and dinfignrad a eon«id«rahl« pertian ef her ehoefc aad 
chin* xoludiag jeaatal auff<?riag # xeaulting fram *aaa»ra*aaaat 
9x ehagri-n, aur aaaVaa af ravi*7 hjajfl kaH eaatl a diflfitTuriag 
sear reaal&iag fMal an aoeidt-nt i» a preper elenant 9t daanga. 

Pp. fiaerehead ttatifiad ae a aitneea tvc plalatiff 
that •aha had a very ugly, exteaoive agar aa th. right oheea 
and aaia, a har.e ehae aae* * - H M ••«« 4«»* «• * -**• 



t 



1 












orie 

- 

... 

: . ■ . •-■ 

... 
.:.. . . ■ v: .:• ,.*; ,; - « ...«;. f. .-«'.: ,,■ •; . ?, . - B . 

"Hijl tfte 

I ;J»«J!*e> *$*#-*** wM « a <%■«<*•-■. «Mfl 

****** v ■ ».»U «i 

:.iWiHnH{ MM * ■ «*■ *»a* Mb .-»*>' »*.- 

.*-. .; ••-., . .: "<■. no . i .■, ■■■:■■ ■ ■ fcl MM til ■ # I* %m *wtl&$ 

'x ■• ...-.•• .ti li • , hi . i jmh p tea i . .,- . • 

.si* w i". . r. .. 3 •»- ■.:■.: •. » r ^iv*- .; »J i,t- , aj ufg gg 

•»l>-w: W*C * *1 #«*Mvotf tu» aer. *alilttrt*t ***** 



•!*• 



of MM pavttu Ml ffelt it Wtwt 1^ : .f» kfea Byptr 11? all^atly, k»t«! 
MMMJal MNNM) Nal i?Mi, * * * iw>triK~ tfe* two l|#fl # th? t#o of 
MM cbotir an<3 the erMa t «f M fcfc* VteV&S** * * * Tfe*r* *«ns f 

IMMMMtMJff »« MiaallMJn bat * vwef *»**»<* tbiofctaiai * ■ *. 

Va*1 lot an i»t*o*»o of ti*#a« froa Injury- ■ * *. a rory dio- 
agroeablo liiMttall «jso a Tory n?Iy «eor« * * * "ho *o*r v&t what 
Ml ©-nil tftaggPINrtli la&l 1st •»« F*rfVe* r?*^ r*ioo<8 M bcr tfcwa 
ifc* 1 ot!a**r t iprf fcaMNi W'a.is & rt$gl sf tyypffll ' IHjgil i MaM tlr*a«% ao 
m toll tt.» dfeifM is®§ too" MM! iMBa be? BMM at a ?onato:or4blt 
Ginttmrn* ttm line of the MM* itself *** |a*H rlalalot • * * 
Th* wea»« boaloe T«*?y swaaatly «*n* Tory ML$xafo4rtMriklyb bat no 
bnnpona in a |pMjl ift S BQ" oaa#«t |s ««Tela»o<!» vtat aa e«ll byoor- 
trayaio oaar tlautto o? aaar kolaidf *bal ia» a attyombuntf dM groat* 
of roys.tr tt BMM i IftMfe $f a^Pt II «BM jMffaeltly sao«*,h «n«i «rea t 
out tbsre ajiyMHMl abat h.^^n^v aftor tbr. '-' raMM**p MaM to* 

filling aa vlll taMMM -gblafe tf MJMTOf a &Mya laaat ■ ™&r aeor. 
?bo otox still raaoiB* ftH MM* «en<?i'fioa. It la at tao yr«*aot 
tiao quite rlolalo a* 1 reasonable *iatMM*4 * * * Sntre-fW *bo 
MM 'alU ra*aln MM fifty « It la* and MMffi tfial "bo no furthor 
iapror»aftnt« ?iw a ear i* asar statlMbAft MM altab * l »Uy 

t«o yo^ra iw*or* tt&l ba a a aStengo** 

rjiat posaaasnt oioflaw?**<*nt of one' a facial ajwoarono 
Vy a soar la a /*oy*x NMMKl of d&»*g*fe MM JioM 1« J^t Tgaralfl i 
JbUEJki.ftlt..AftJM. W7 HI* »»• 4»S# I» that o»*« It apptarstf tl»t 
plaintiff aaa auataiaod* ^nong ot^r IfcJ^i. • ■"* 

«a«t'k ioo Had oao Mtf ^o tlttoo iaebfta UMJ l«fcTia« * »««■■»•■% 
«oar« Xlui eoaxt «ald y« 408 1 



« i 



Dm couri gave tito Jury an i»Mru*U«» »^_>< M H!?-- 
that If taoy b*14oTOd fro« tao evlooaoo plaintiff '•; #4 J^. a J?!J" 
nor faoo a> a MHMU M SUH ta«rc *i»a ^ 1 «*^ u !^ nt fc ™ ?J7J 2i« 
MM fao«# thon UM court ImNMMMmI boa tbat, anoor tho Mff« «»o 

tato, plaiati :coald noi r«cor«r any 4aaac«« oa *;«««* ■»•■ 
AiMTlMMMMN or MOMiMJ »f P«r«onal ayaooraWM. >bU taotrmotlaa 
oao glroo on bokalf of blay aao MM aar« faoarablo MJ iil» MMl ba 



- 












I 

.. . 

Utim *«»;■ 

,::.... . . a ..: . 

:, ■ 
i ...ovate m; m' 
<> . ■-. , :/. ,..: : 'tft« U **«* HftJ I II I MM -,, |*-j:. 

1*1 3* « Vf 

;« •■•.. :.; . :-*v i n I i ri p) 1 1 •■ - - I I n k .. iAMtfl 



■ 

1 *J «t.£tf*« 



■Ml brr»li 



-li- 
ves entitled to under the law. The in* only prohibited the 
recovery of daawsgee to aueh ti easse fox Hiatal Buffering which 
result?, from ciabayraetmenii, of ohiugrua axil which oafiertng has 
no relation to physical pain. $&l$*ig* c ifc&JJy« <; °* ▼• fri er mam* 
182 111. 296 • She night recevsv for dlsflt^jriannt' vnioih 
resulted from fch€ caamaem*," 

Xa the case of g^aai ^* ftfl&i ^ e ^ ***• A -PP* 373, the 
court said, p» 5??f 

"That the appellee h&s lost hair* suffered pain ana 
sustained & permanent injury to hex he-*.d ie ccneluelv<*ly whown 
by the if liti »ii Mething appeal's in the record , nor l? the 
location and character of the sear of such a nature to indicate 
that the Jury was not,- n&rxantcd in finding that the sort la 
disfiguring, fheee were all «l<Kf»nts5 of damages to ho considered 
by the frwj in arriving at Use amount »f its verdict | that they 
are not readily estimated in nsoaey tmu% b® ©©needed." 

It MM ni&llaxly held in So. oho v. 8J ronnelU 290 111* 

App* &44, -where the eaart said, pp» 8&4 5as * 

*2>efendant als«3 contends that the court erred in refuting 
to give as requested by defenc&at an instruction that the Marring 
of personal appearance aid humiliation resulting from the eon- 
tanplation of be* tlly di*?f iisnreaeat &re not elements pnterintf into 
occiputs tica of mcctgssaiy damagcc for personal Injuries »us twined 
by reason of alleged ttfeglig«ne«» arte it ie &«aerted that the 
•-.,ueetion of law vmtccs by um refusal of the court to ,-ive the 
instruction 'has sjovtr been put acuorely to the upreme Sgmpte* 
defendant says the question aag not before the court at all in 
UhieagO City_$v> %„yi.^t| t ••• Uo lit* N *»o not ao construe 
thai ease* Wreovcr* the question was paused on in Pttagerald 
t. tavUs 237 111* *pp, «§§* and *e adhere to that decision." 

la the 8*88 of g^m&%Sl&L.M.*^&S-7t, flHrVi a 2« ill. 

178 9 sunra* oar upreme court said, p. 184 t 

•chit instruction relate© to the element* of damages, 
aad tails the jury* among other elementa to be consider- d Ho 
what extent, if any* he (appellee) has been injured or narred la 
his personal appearance* mti to what extent, if any, he nay have 
endured physical and mental suffering as a natural and inevitable 
result of suoh injury, ■ • *• "Chit, instruction la alleged to 

be vicious (1) because there ia ao evidence in '-he record which 
authorised the Jury to eoneider the marring of appellee •« pergonal 
appearance as aa element of damages, (a) because the iaetraetlem 
authorlaed a recov ry for acre mental suffering not oennectod with 
phyeical injuries' ** *. ia regard to the flrct objection pointed 
oat to this instruction* the ovlcence sheas that appellee was mere 
or less disfigured about his face, head and shoal* er, and while it 
le true X*« Uder testified that he had examlaed appellee « short 
viae before the trial and that appellee* e ear that ha beea 
fractlcrlly severed from his he«« hftd asstaied lta natural petition, 
and that on close examination only -he acars could be seen, sad 
that there vas only a partial limitation of the use of one arm, 
•till, when all the evidence ie ceneidered, there le s substantial 
basis in it to warrant the instruction. M 



•XI- 






i 









! 












( ■ :■ . i. .1 



•13* 

These d*©ieions mfllJMi ■! totJtty oupport the propo-st-lon that plain* 
tiff waa entitled to reee-rey* as an element of the damage suffered 
by her* a aui table saoant fox" the pezmaneat a ief inurement of her 
faee hy the ©ear HI her chia Mi oheeh:« the judgowat WM for 
#a#7S0| of thai TtttouBt v-7a^ waa atipulated to have been for hospital 
alio nod leal eerrloe* a»d in our opinion UM h&lanee of $2*030 wae 
neither unreasonable aer eaoesgivn is view of plaintiff* • pain and 
•offering aa*i Ut* permanent dlefignreaent of & confcid©r*&le portion 
of her face* ant *r»» a een##rvative estimate of the damage enffered 
my her* 

c have read and oarefully oenelcerod plaintiff *e couaael'e 
argument to the Jury arte found in it nodiing '^hat «as intemperate 
or calculated to axouee passion or prejudice la the ai»£« of the Jury 
against defendant or te .her dotrUMat* In find nothing in it that 
weuli' warrant a rower nal of this Judgment* 

Instruction Mo* $$ retineoted by plaintiff* "»• inaptly 
and Improperly drawn* hut In view of the reasonable amount of the 
verdict ^e are of vhe ©pinion that the error of the court in giving 
it to the Jury wao harmless and Usat »ub*t&ntial Justice hae been 
done between the parties bold on the question of liability and 
damage* • 

?©r the r«»»oaa given the Judgment of the uperler ooart 
le affirmed* 

alVMrnfte 

Or idler and eanlan, JJ», concure 



fca nam 

■ 

bum ne*Jtatp*f mm x&t • 

...... , . 



c . .... ..-. i- r ■> 



3*754 



JUAJTC J» m» and 

AXt\ csmau 

flfttnt iff e in Brror# 
▼• 

B*f end ant in Error* 






• 



> 




wmm ft circuit emir, 

K Ml IT. 



LI 



14 






Plaintiffs RMfe J* Korbcr and &**» Xerber* hie wife, 
eeuineaood an notion In mmtmp-BH against Oooar S» Motilasson for 
alleged br**oh if warranty of a statutory warranty deed claiming 
that ft sonim* ordinance t enacted T&jr the city of Jmhurot in 
pursuance of the provision* of the ^entity act of toe ate to of 
Illinois* *»« an encumormnoe on she real estate conveyed ami 
woo not oxo«ploa as »uoh eneUKferanoe from the operation of tlw 
deed. Defendant* a AeaivrreY %0 plaintiff e* amended declaration 
was sustained by the court. Plaint iff o electing to stand by 
their declaration* judgment was entered in favor of defendant 
and against plaintiffs for costs. By this writ of error 
plaintiffs seek to reverse the judgment* 

Plaint iff 9 alleged in their emended declarntion that 
October 5» lt27» defendant being: the owner of certain described 
real estate conveyed same to plaintiffs by a atctutory warranty 
de*d for a valuable coneideratiom that defendant warranted by 
the deed that the property was fre« from all cncumbr»»neeo except 
taxes for the ftm lw2*» and a restriction that no building for 
residenoe purposes shall be erected on the land (barne. stables, 
sheds | garages or other out buildings used in connection with 



- 



'. 



■ 






■ ' ■ 

■ 

■ 



■ 



4. :- . . ■-. , •' .■ JtXJC 



« <}*:u , j«tt ft torn i»d i «$# wi »*x«4 



private residences excepted) that shall cost lose than #o^OO, 
and that no building* of any kirni shall b«? erected vlthln 40 
feet of the front line of the landf that defendant broached the 
warranty contained in hi a deed because both before and at the 
time of the execution of the deed the proper ty #as encumbered by 
a ssoning ordinance restriction whica limited lie use to residential 
purposes only and inhibited it» u«e for business purposes* and that 
the zoning ord Innace of the city of ^lxtmrot passed in 1924 was in 
fall force and effect »t the time too property vim conveyed* 

defend ant *« theory it that a zoning ordinance io not an 
encumbrance* and that *hem real estate is tmneferrec by a statutory 
warranty deed vhiem is silent aft to & legally existing zoning 
ordinanoe seeming and regulating tho use of the proper ty t the 
son lag ordinance being n 1«« of the land lo neither « cloud on the 
'title nor on encumbrance* ant? that, inasmuch as the deed contained 
a covenant restricting the n»o &l the property for "residence 
purposes* only* plaintiff® are in no position to complain of tho 
zoning ordinance vaiea did M mure than that* 

While the covenant in the deed (a» alleged in tho 
amended declaration) containing Hm restrictions ae to tho 
erection of a building for residence purpose* on the land die. net 
explicitly and absolutely prohibit by Mi terns the erection of 
a building Of any other olaoe or character* the language of the 
covenant 9 including the building line restrict ion* the Minimum 
cost of a residential building, and reference to out buildings 
that are &he ordinary adjuncts of rasidsneee, *euld seen to 
indicate that the property was adapted for and its use rsstriotcd 
to the erection of a building for residence purposes only* 

Plaintiffs oeuevdo that the onlng act of this state 
(Cahlll'c Hog eh* tip oeo* 321, et seu ») authorised tht ity 
Of Slnnarst to enact a aoning ordinance and that by rirtue of 



■ Ma vfevnrajae-K 9$ 

■ 



■ 
- 






.* , . : .'. : " • ;- Q 9mm 99 .' ' ..•';.'•■.■■ :■..'• -.1 - :> I 

■ 

■ 

■ 



MM to Mil 4 



J 



■ r 






. 

v ate fa ••*£» twUi • fectf fcliinf « 

MMlUlH •:■ »* aKJJiittf Mi J :- •.*!■.- .. 
K$»ib; ***«* Hffttt** 

*9. ,t* vet o*** fea *wV»«f«| ml* j*.«JftiU 

■ft* ***•«!*<* &wrfti>HM ifVUtifcl id* o." 

»#***< if *M»»«<»2 

<pj Hiim ■ 3> s ,|f- ■!&<? ♦•■■■ • 



•3» 

that authority aueh an orci inaneo tme enacted hy that city| that 
it oao lc full force antf effect at the* feint of the execution of 
thw ■ufBiiHlJf <leed In viuoatienf mi th,T.t it restricted the net of 
the preiaioe* cow-rayed to the ert-etion of a building for residence 
puxpooe* only* 

Cob there bs any o»*it to the contention that *ueh a 
zoning otdlaano* in legal contCMplatlon constitute an -ncjoebrncee 
when it to a lata cf she' land"" the anooe? to thia question »uwt 
ooooooajrily he in Ifett Btgwtive and it conclusively bars plaintiff* 
from an/ recovery in thio ioJHMN 

the p»rti»® m&st ho pt'llliill to hare a? ted eritlt te©»leda^r 
of the dotting act of tfee £ta*e of Illinois and the Zonin? ore i rifa.no e 
of the city of KlBhurott hut even tfcouch *e preowte th*t they were 
net swore of the oxiotenot of the zoning ordinance, platntlffe 
could readily end Ottoily hart actor tained that each on Mo laento 
die exist and it woo tfeair fluty o>o porchaoere to look out for their 
own interest a* in any event it le clear that they suffered no 
IMM oeeattge the warranty doed t£«tSf vse notice to the» that the 
laud w«,e adapted for recldenoe purpoees rather than hue in e so 
purposes* 

This easts quo ot ion «K1 presented to thia court in 
IbbbbbbbJI ». ,. R .fia»l#njL 25° BUU PP« 17* • where a *rittea oontmot 
had hoeo entered i«te for the purchase and * 1* of real estate 
and £ 1000 paid M earnest uoney* ftex the exeoution of the 

contract the purchaser learned that the property M auhj et to 
a zoning ordiuanoo and filed a bill to have the uontmot oeolarod 
▼old and io hare hie ouraoot noney returned to hi». ustmning 
a d*awtrre? to the bill one uitfsietfing it for w«at of equity 
thia court »*id # ?»• 177* 17dl 

";ue only question b^fora uo on thio appeal appoexa to 
he whether or not iterance of ouoh an urcinanoo is a mistake of 
fact or a mietake of lavf er t whether it io neither a miotaho 






■ 






-,.-•■: -..■-. . j . ■ • ; .• 

■ ■'■"'.■■" 



/it* »»*(f9<CI* '• 

•wwif off :tXi* « »nJ « . 



ullit fte ** »-s»%i*J 



.'••••.- 









of frvefc MR a mistake of law* 

"as «> general rid® it Is a aell-knoun mux la that 

ignorance of law oili n|| furnish an excuse for nny person 
either for a breach or for Ml omieKieK or duty; Loner an U 



IfMkn *m^m.,&L\m*k- *ad «»t» is »o well established In 
equity as in law* IfcHttf FindgalMC eertaia exceptions suck. 

as a fiduciary relr-.tlontmipi. but the c*.«e at bur comes within 
none of HlOMi exceptions* tery*e MJtttty Jur leprae ^noc* 
vol* 1* arte- • 173* 

•If individuals wore permit**: to void s-akean 
obligation* oeesooft if i>?noraaoe of existing laws in for or at 
the time of the exeeutioa of *aid instrument t iaea k»uch c. tot- 
ing ***• avmsa beoomo m ariose and of no onion* tory f o uuity 
Jurisprudence (14th M*)$ vol* 1» see, 17.. • 

"The or-, i nance la sue:* t ion was a matter of record 
in the Tillage where the property MM located and «*.s easily 
ascertainable by both plaintiff and defendant* If, ae alleged 
in the bill of oomploint neitmer aartf knew of that facte then 
it becomes the ttu&y ©f the .pur eh s*er to have adTtsed himself 
as to whether or not sash &a ore in&noe «»» in existence* The 
existence of law in % : >t*te is a matter coaearniag vhleh 
everyone is oappoood to novo tewwlodgo* * * » The rule io 
aoll stated la "*tery*« Equity Jurisprudence (14 2&d*)t vol* 1* 
par* 221, whore it is olmotdl 

**4 1 ilea 'prinelplo applies to eaeee where »he aw>.ae 
of information ore «p«n ti both pssrtieof one! where each is 
prestased to exereisc hi© own skill, diligence* and judgment in 
regsrd to all caaciaala circumstances* in ewes ansee equity 
will net relieve. ' 

"The ^oaiac '-at of this Sombo was in fall force and 
effooi on the statute book® of Illinois and the zoning ordinal 
of Mm village of Polos Par* appears to have been duly passed 
and become an existing ordinance Of Mm rtllog - *MBPi 'he 
prep-* &y MM located* "he fact as to whether there va» a r .o atn g 
Lsjw in force iMMVf the .property aag •ggmtgd ■ vl;.* a^ser* 

t&inaale and equally open sad accessible to ooth parties* and* 
ander the rule, courts of e.,ui*y vtXk no;- reliovo in order to 
make a aw eoatruet for the parties* 

"Ignoraace of the lab ad '••'-fined to be th« want of 
kno^leege or acquaintance with the laws of the land in so far 
«s they apply to the not, relation* doty or matter under eon- 
ration* 

•Under the f«ot* as charged in the bill of complaint 
Mat as oo hoTe the facto on fehio appeal, the sit maw ion is not 
one of mistake of law or foots oMl MaWI within the rule* 

There lo ao merit to plaintiff's content ion M»t &ao 
MMtMJ ordinanoo wan aa eacumbrunoe and the trial usurt was 
fully Justified in sua tela iag the demurrer to the ameaded 

deol«rtttoa* 

Por the reasoas stated nereia the Judgment of the 

Circuit court is affirmed* 
Gridley and ;eanlan, JJ»» concurs 









■ 









.-' • -- • - .V .v 



• 









. 



M • 









V , i.Vi 



»# I 



, «;• U T " £«.. ' '< 



* 



« 



ku aiti^ ■ 



37156 

| ' r T A. BJISf 

Appellee* 

V# 

ppellnnU 





JUIT 



614 



KB* nU0I|UM PI I :i,LJY.nJI 



July 3» Uttft complainant » Harriet A# :<ife» wae 
granted a decree of dtvor«* from her husband, liliam H. Hifo# 
defendant* By the texaui of *m« #«•*** property rlgmtO were 
settled between oompl&in&nt MWl defendant by bis conveyance 
to her of certain property and p^ywoat of #3ooo In btr behalf 
in lieu of alimony* the deoree contained i finding *that 
defendant has &gr*«d uo pay to said complainant the nun of 
■■,'le per week* in &dv&»ce§ for the support MM ec act ion of 
his child $ Ina aomlee Rif®, until the further orccr of the 
court*'" 

Pursuant to the decree defendant paid sie a veek 
for hie deitt^hter»» support up to and including the month of 
Ufeuet, 1931* aich payment e extended « i;jht month* beyond his 
daughter' e attainment of h<r majority. January Q» 1933* an 
order *ae entered by *ha chancellor directing defendant te pay 
to complainant in Hi divorce proceed ing $?53 as ane for support 
aoney for his daughter for a period of time after the child had 
reached her majority. x/efendant prayed and perfected an appeal 
from thio order which was decoketed in this court as ease Bo. 
36C47. iprtt 1°. 1»33, an order was entered by the chancellor 
requiring defendant to pay complainant #*V- oolleitor*s feeo 






I 



,skxh «a 






i 



. - . it 



■ 



- 



i 
. 

X*&(Xfl[J8 MA tot*-"'- ; "Bf 4««iH»»1 .-•' X1«t«« *»*< fe*J*WW>* 

YQUiftOaifo trtf* t«f &•*#*&» *«■«• «**«• ft* «««! *r*M£ 

••e ■ *a*fti*I*j*Q9 <|,<m «i I 



>2< 



for her defease of the shove appeal* The lacteal appeal seek* 
to rcrers* this order* 

la H ©pinion filed ttMnnftji 21, 1933, by this diviaioa 
of the appellate eotart for the firs** d*«t*i«t # in ©a« e fe, 366S7, 
we helit that the ehaaeellor had no po«er &© order or compel o*fead« 
ant to pay support aeaey for hi® doa&ater, muter the previaioao of 
the Mvoree aet, t*%m oh* had tf«aate«| her Majority. The court 

having no Jmrl^iotiM of the ouajeot »&*«r it »*ce& 8 arily followed 
that the ifrmWWMttf 1 eked authority t* enter Hi order for ealleltor-a 

fees or for any ottwr im'&tm* ?h® »$>£«» §3 pril i,, f 193i>> »uow- 

iag N06 solicitor's fees to *©»pl*iaftBt *© <; fc f*wd the & pp «r1 iB 

©see le* 3W5$9? io reyeroOiU 



♦ 



Grid ley and ^onl«n v JJ#, eeaotfr« 



■ 

■ . • ■ 

■ I 

■ : 









37220 



cxnr of chio as, 

Appellee, 

▼ • 

- ioi£ t;.ki co. t « 
corporation, et al«, 

Appellants* 





) 
) 
) SKBQbftatMKI 

SXR0OXT coufcr, Qtos equity. 



O T 



614 



Mi* »«ftl&lM JtJ:. I . ULSJLVAl 

m ufisioit oy tit; couit. 



By this Interlocutory appeal defendants ueek to 
reverse an order entered by the Circuit court November 1, 19a;s, 
granting to complainant, City of Chic tgtt a temporary injunction 
restraining t ; « fondants from operating certain taxic?*ba on the 
« tree to of the city of v Me go -without public vehicle licenses 
as provided by ordinance* 

October 31, 1933, the city of TMlSgg filed its bill 
to restrain defendants from oper 'wing taxicabs as public passenger 
vehicle*? for hire upon the streets of hicn«e without public vehicle 
licenses* The bill, after set; lag forth in full all orcinanoss 
of the Ci y of Jhicngo provioln for the operation and licencing 
of public motor vehicles, alleged that the unlawful operation of 
defendants* vehicles caused undue congestion on the streets, 
interfered with the ordinary and nccesa ry traveling of other 
vehicles toad pedestrians, was a menace to the a fety of persems 
and property lawfully upon the »tre< ts, was an undue burden 
the are ts and constituted a nuisance* 

fhe dill further alleged that thirty fire indiTlcual 
defendants originally made application October 24, 1933, for 
public vehicle licenses, claiming to be the owners of the 



f 



mi 



. 



■ 



■ 






Iff* Ijjt 

. t ■ 

; ^flfc>8 »* iftX*Bjrs$ 
•»r. 3«e<Ui to •*<&•**« 

WljcurtU vit*. no »JC4 1© 

It »*t«-X9«e Xw'i> X«tf a*** **rf* £»a*iX* 4 «»£«lJ**y tftJe* oilritpq *o 

«s»5"*i,v> «ftf Oft nolJ»*itiiM uattiaf >*♦»»*(& <t*l; £;!<:.* 'ttJrui&wltb 

• 

?•* ,£C*X «Mt 'XJJdttfsO aoi JmoXX^c «t»swn \XX-;»iJ\iro *3n -titttlaft 
•rfj lo »T*mra «i* •* ot zmimkmla ******* U •XoXxIot vlLiu% 



-2- 



vehicle* In question, and immediately after filing their applica- 
tions, and before the public vehicle coHaniedon hud an opportunity 
to consider the applications in accordance with the provision* of 
the city m i l Wm i JW f l i l iM to operate or cntteed to b« operated 
for hire the toxica** described in their appllo tionsi that the 
City of Chic^o mmm •***&* to be ft*d« of numerous chauffeurs 
of the taxleass for operating *h.em without public vehicle licenaosi 
that deep!!* *ueh arrest s v tamed lately after their release from 
custody on honde *«* p^iag fttsi trial of their eaoee, the chauf- 
femrs resumed the Sforatttt of th* taxi***, and threatened to con- 
tinue euoh op* r ties in violation of the ordinance* and la defiant* 
of the retirement* of the City of ,hlc^;o mi Its jamlio vehicle 
commission! that thereafter the mairidual defendante withdrew their 
application* for licenses and October 28, 1933, defendant Satf* 
Taxi Co* file* application for llsenss* for the * m Uxic»b*, 
claiming to be the natr of themf that it proceeded to operate, or 
caused them to be spsratsd, without having fir at eecured public 
vehicle liconats in violation of the ordinance, *f the city of 
bic go and in I****** of it aM it* public vehicle license 
eomaiasion. 

Befend&nta contend that court of equity 1* without 
4uri«a tlen to enter the restraining order in <,ue»tlon| that 
the bill of complaint ia Insufficient | that the ordinanoea tend to 
create a monopoly and are Inconsistent f and that the f eta d la- 
closed In the bill do not constitute a nuisance* 

Complainant 'a theory Is that the unlawful operation of 
the taxicabe ae public paarsenger vehiolea for hire upon the etre< ts 
of the city without puolio vehicle licenses constituted « menace 
to the sfety and convenience of the public | was an undue burden 
upon the streets* was a nule«ne«| and that the municipality amy 



■fc 



%Si am ite^t tva fa | ^ afti | 

Mb taM o* 

: #■#■ |I1'8 «U 

■ 

»***& ©•■ *<& «4? fttfltfttt ■*»»* 

tMl-' ! 

;;.oiu8fffWWH 









. 






* ■ -'■ •■ 






• ■ 




<■':' . 


■ 














■ 



. » eel ^ 



-i«Ks» *t iiio wi; 

1 J>9 •■ 



lit atlJ«'i.»ft X»V 

tt^uw£ j! k**i *,'**«»©** »£*4i<-** tiitfst tuocuiv \. it 

e#fri«rf ti. tt *t«ola»riit» be* v**** *** •' 

Xsa VJ-k*** ■'■*«*** «i(4 tot-' i*&tt«i«tim a %sd» %a)**t mv» 



-3» 

resort to equity to reetrnin nuisances and to avoid a null, i pile- 

ity of prosecutions* ?he following o; imncea, apon hi oh 'Oils 

action Mi predion ted # ««s In full /©roe an<; effect when the 

bill of complaint «a« filed in fehiw cause I 

&*•• *v77 of the ftefiaeo -hie -fro <©«« of 1931 provides 

substantially thai 

SO public vehicle ©hall operate AMI hire upon the street© of the 
city without f ir«t obtaining a liconae a© provided for In the 
ordinances* ueh licensee cha.il be issued &» of January 1 and 
expire on fcecenibor 31 n«£ miecoeding, unless aoonor suspends* 
or revoked, ppl teat ion for licensoo oh/All be isace by Si ©„ner 
upon blanks |g be furnished by the public vehicle license coaatt union 
and euch application shall centals the full nane and address of 
the o*ner» toe olaaa of the vehicle for «hich a 11 ense la desired* 
the length of llHt the vehicle has been in use, the mssber of 
persons It la capable of carrying » and r »ht-- actor po*er thereof • So 
public passenger vehicle shall be license** until It has bean thoroughly 
and carefully inspected and cxanine© and found to be in »* thoroughly 
safe condition for the teen ©per titles of passengers, clem, fit, of 
good appoarangot &A WAX painted and varnished* fng ceaMloolon 
©hall cause ouch ©jHOSination and inspection to be »a< e beiore lasuing 
the license and shall r^coenond the refusal of a license to any 
vehicle found to 'be unfit ®r unsulted fox public patronage ■ fhe 
costal^ a ion ssh&li withholi the issuance of a licence *© any person 
owning* controlling or operating a ia;sl©a» to which a taxlaeter lo 
attached » unleao ho a hall vure a certificate of inspection ao 

rrovidt-d In the o^inanee* ?he public vehicle license cesnUsslon 
authorised K.nd mpe acred to establish reasonable rule© and 
regulation* for the inspection of public vehicles and their 
sppur trances, e on struct ion and condition of fitness* if* upon 
inspect ion # a public vehicle la found to bo of lawful construction 
and In proper condition in accordance with tint provision© of the 
ordlnanoe upon payvent of the licenso foe the sen* shall bo lioeneed 
by the najror and a license and license card delivered to tno 
licensee* very u»o*ocil« licensee under the provision© ©f 
the ordlnanoe and ftolieitiag patronage on the public streets shall 
have the naao of she owner plainly painted in letter© at l*aet 
two incha© in length in the c«nter of the nain panel of the rear 
door of >he said vehicle* 

©•♦ 207gA of tno cod* provide© sutetanttally that 

no titxloab licenso ©hall be iaaued unless the coss»inei©n, after 
a hearing* shall by resolution ceclare that pucllo convenience nnd 
necessity require the prop©sod toxica* service for ehloh applie tlen 
for license 1© made. In determining «h*ther public convenience and 
necessity require the licensing of *uch taxloaba the ooasaission 
ehnll take into conolocr/.tion whether the demands of public esn- 
vonlonoo and neieaelty require »uch proposed or such additions! 
taxlesfc servlee within the city ©I hicgo, the financial respon- 
sibility of the applicant, the number, kind, type of equipment* 
the schedule of nnvtnum rate© proposed to be charged, the osier 
schema to be used by the applicant, the inereastd traf i 1© con- 
gestion and deaand for lnoreasod parking spaoos on the etreet© 



- 






1 




■ 


gjriMMi 








!£9^ 


a 






■ 



I 

■ 

■ 

.; i :.. . i ■*■•■ . .-. .-.*-■■ V •»;**. . ... , flj MlfMtf 



-*•«& 



** A 



1 




fccv 








|MI MMI IMfHM 1 




RT 




-B09 tu : 












\ 




■ 








*&* 





:••■ t>. I 



-4- 

of the city which may result*, anil vthether th: safe act of the 
streets by the public* both vehicular and pedestrian* will b« 
preserved by =-h«s pnoiliMl of uueh additional licenses* and such 
Other relevant facte Ml the commission »ay deea advisable or 

Mf a§g4 ieaat for a Hltllggi 11 cease shall make proper 
application therefor on blanks to bo furnished by tho commission 
and lssned lately UN tag filing of ®ueh application tho eommleeien 
•hall cnuee ■ unties to bo published in one of the loading daily 
newspapers of -he city*, which said notice ahull set forth the fast 
that tho fcflgMomttna has boon filed*, nam* of applicant* kind of 
equipment* and other information froa the applic- tion ^hioh tho 
oenalsoion may dee* n*9*e*oJ9rt notifying- all solders of existing 
taxieab Hansen Ileal ft. public meet lag; will be hold el a public 
place in the city of wMe^« deaigaattd by tho eeamlssioo. at a 
time not less than live asye nor more than fifteen oayo after tho 
date of the first publication* All Elders of existing taxlcub 
licenses will thereupon bo eat i tied to file say complaints and 
protests that said holders stay est fit* t %hc time of tho hold lag 
of the investigation and bearing with reference to whether tho 
public convenience and aeeessity require tho operation of auoh 
vehicle or vehicles covered in the upplter.<.tlott» the eomraisslou shall 
consider all of the e^mplaiato and protests and shall have the right 
to call such wltaeeseo *» 1* m«y $see fit* in aueh he a lags tho 
burden of proof shall be upon the applicant to establish by clear* 
cogent sad eonvineia^ c^tdeann vjiiieh shall satisfy the eomrlssien 
beyond a reasonable doubt* that public convenience and neceosity 
require such O^ratltH of lot vehicle or vehicles for which said 
application has boon andc* 

H #he cuamiosian finds froa its investigation and hearing 
that tho public cunvc-nioano and necessity justify tho op : -ion of 
the vehicle for which llcoaso is desired it shall notify the 
Applicant of its find lag « Hhia sixty days thereafter the 
applicant shall furnish to the commission say and all additional 
information which may be repaired and if the eom&isoien then finds 
that tho applicant is the owner and coma fide operator of tho 
vehicle for which license is desired one that suoh vehicle complies 
with all the ordinances of the city and all the rules and regulations 
enacted by the eomo]i*i*10tt» li.onse shall thereupon bo lseaod to tho 
appllcaat upon the payment of the proper license foe* If tho 
commission finds that the public convenience and neceeslty do not 
Justify the operation of the vehicle it snail forthwith notify 
the applicant of the finding* 

the applicant shall regularly and dally operate his or 
its liceased taxlcabs during each doy sf tho llceaee year to tho 
extent re «onably r;0©esaary to me».-t the public deaaad for suoh 
taxicab oervioe* Upon coaplete abandonment of tuxleoh service for 
s period of ten consecutive days* the oonmiosion upon he ring § 
after five days notice to the oeaer or operator, shall reoeanead 
to tho mayor that ths license of such owner or oper tor be revolted 
cover lag such toxica*** 



Sece* 597 and 590 of the Code pro ride nutstsatially t 

tho public vehlole license oommiosion shall consist of the cor- 
poration counsel, the city comptroller and the oommloeianer of 
police* 

It shall bo tho duty of the commission to m*he such 
investigations so amy ho necessary for the purpose of licensing 
sad inspecting public vehicles, to ooncuet the exsmlaation of 
applic tions for license* to crive puulle vehicle e* oad make 
recommoadatlons to the mayor as to the licensing of suoh drivers! 



. 






. 



Hi 









I UMH 



' 



O'jr 



ft«CI 

• 

at mr I 






■i 



.5. 

to make such investigations an may be newest ry to establish Just 
and reasonable rates of fare for public vehicles, am make recom- 
mendations as to rates of fare bo the city council} to moke suoh 
investigation, as nay he necessary to determine the number of taxi- 
cahe which way he operated on the .streets of th»? city with due re- 
gard to the safety of the put-lie* the demand for aervioe and the 
adequacy of the tamyaSnmt ion if the drivers of iaxtamngu ana muke 
reeom&end at ions regarding Lhe subject to the city council i and to 
make all necesy-ry rules and regulations for the proper enforcement 
of all ordinances relating to public veaicles. 

s ny person viol tint *>* failing to comply with any of 
the provisions of the ordnance for the licensing of vehicles and 
drivers shall be fined not lest; t.han five dollars nor more than 
hundred dollars for ewch offense • 

22aay eases have beers cited by complainant that uphold 

the doctrine that a court of equity has Jurisdiction to enjoin a 

public nuisance in a §»««e««l&g brought on behalf of the public 

the IWfc that the act aftm^m* to be enjoined may e.lso be a crime 

does not deprive the court of such Juried lotion* This rule of 

law nsn.o definitely settled as was also th« question that such an 

action* where the court had Jurisdiction under ite general equity 

powers* could be maintained to avoid a multiplicity of suits* In 

North ..a»« Ins* mmftJE* mmtjj* 214 sll# 2?2 » »*«r« the court said 

p. 285« 

"Wo do not agree with the contention th**t before the 
late* by its proper officer* can maintain a bill such as this* 
it must show an injury to civil or property rights* The rule 
invoked applies to the private aitUMM who seeks by Che writ to 
prevent a public *roag» because he is not the keeper of the 
public conscience or the conservator of <h« public rights 

C04 j C r ■nford„v. 1 „iyr.ell, 128 :• Y. 341 1 _J>axhawk 



gfojrm V s ' qnrOT riMr :. V» 341 f jgarhayk_y. Union *>§»» 
-p.. 54 £m* £*• 40l| High on injunctions* sec. 1544.) rhs rule 
li well illustrated in the eu»« of public nuisances, which may 
be prevented or abated at the suit of the ttorney General without 
shoeing actual injury to the public* the case of purpresture 
being a common one, while the private cltUon in such a ease must 
show not merely that the act complained of is s public wrong* 
but also that ho suffers special injury to hi* civil or property 
rights. (1 High on Injunctions, - 3rd ed. £*&».) in informations 
by the attorney General gma nil ohe violation o public laws by 
corporation* affected with a puolio Interest, injury tc the public 
will be presumed from the violations of the law. 

•we MM also of the opinion thnt the bUl could be 
maintained on the ground of wolding multiplicity of suits. 

la that ease the r.uper intone ent of ineuranoe of the tate 
of Illinois filed a bill to snjoia twenty foreign fire lanmVmmffl 



.. . 






.•<;•.? :.: v., i) , v; 



■ ■ ■ 



x 

■ 









: ■ 

49VD11W 

.. ...■■... kg i wtsJ .1.;. mi it^fln m i .■■:, mh *tv 

. •-> ■ . 

^ f AfiU aft It MWl -'• Rfl I "vt 4 

fu mt\ l»au»t-*« *<r tit* 



•6* 

companies *ind thirty three individuals noting as their agents 
from transacting any fire inimranee bu»ine«s in this state with* 
out first complying with the laws of the state rel ting to fir* 
insurance* The facts in the instant case arc analogous to tho 
situation presented In that Itttt Here we hare a large number 
of defendants who failed and refused to compl.? with ordinances 
of the Bltjr of Chicle regulating the: operation iind Hot-rising 
of t&xicabs. 

that Municipalities or othar governmental cogencies, 
entrusted with powers and duties to be exeroised and disohargod 
for the general welfare, imp resort to a court of equity for 
protection and assistance is abundantly supported by tho author- 
ities of this and sister states* In Blashf ieid»s y eloped la of 
utomoaile l*m 9 p» 145, It is stated* 

*The Jurisdiction of <R,uUy so protect the rights of 
the state is one of common exercise, usually upon the relation 
of the . t.orney Oener&l, bw*$ ahere th duty of protesting tho 
public interest a« against the unlawful operation of public 
serrloe vehicles is vested in the public utilities bo id, tho 
authority to vindio&te such public ri 4 ;ht is conferred by necessary 
implication, and the functions of HM t -orney Q«:ner«l are bestowed, 
and such hoard nay choose the remedy either In law or equity, 
which ever may more speedily <«id effectively produce relief* 
hue, where an action at law against the owners of ■ puolle 
utility jitney for violation of the conditions of its license 
would be inadequate, the board is entitled to an Injunction** 

Support of the principle is also found in 4 2 ♦ J* 699, par* 142, 

where it la said I 

"A person may be enjoined from oarrying on the business 
of transporting passengers or property for hire by Motor vehicles 
without obtaining a license or oertiflcute of convenience and 
necessity from the proper authorities, or without a license from 
the different municipalities through which the motor vehicles 
pass, or I thou t filing a bond and obtaining a certificate ami 
permit to oonduot such business from the proper official or depart- 
ment, or l.hout otherwise comply inc. with valid provisions of tho 
governing statute, or without complying with the conditions upon 
which the license or certificate w s granted} and if an owner or 
operator carries on such business in violation of sueh an injunction, 
he may be Judged in contempt** 

Complainant* s bill sufficiently alleges the essential 
facto n«t'ei;;ry to make out lte cuss. 11 ordinanoes pertinent 



9*m%- 






■■■ -U -...:■• : 



■ 
■ 



10 






: 



,. 








, 




* Ai Jtx t9 ' 


1 




- 






■ 






t 6*»»£a« 






i 












atf'-ii. <Si J Zt> SI 






*••»■. 




• 


1 







ttoqta «i»UJ-:i 
*o iwwro ma tJ ma |te; 
«n*i4*«tftni «« dam t« atiJ> 



- 



■ HMMM 






wo wf** 



-7- 

ic it» claused | td v f 

i«£tnd Ate resulting In . a bad u . 1 ■ irare have : 

set forth la full* Th« valid' Hj oj 
„wu twined by I - deeidioni « Hbo taut lull | i>.:r:e«s 

»#r<s declared v-li*; by sua u 2&S <Li_*JL-_: -^. *• 

:ixomii£>G.r* a 941 CU# i-~, w&trd in ... .<? pp< ldt f 1 ■-*. 

e* iULilifc UtUiUo^ ut aoea not take from clti*-* and 
villages the previously eonf orr<?d power to rtf&ulate taxiaabs. Ths 

tauwic&h buaujoss* &» a gOTtiil iuie» cco«» not include the opernilsa 
of a conveyance or vehicle «v<*r specified rtVfcsn, under a regular 
seaedul© ac b4i *Jm &r lw»w#$S daJfiasi'tl . uonce* v, ithin 

the nea&iiig of the ftsj&io Utilities act* a taxicab in not orctmrtly 
& public Ui.Li.ity. (|( fff ffflffi& v. i ~o_., /. J. R« l^l<-i*, 98,"*| 

aprntnm llllaole Ligh t artd y#yff r"^p" v. W or^on* Id. Vd7p ^ ustin 
5roT* Traftsfor, ya» v. 3>goni ft 5X1 jX* 455,] 21? right to rSOSbt 
includes tat right to tetpo®* 1 re ^enable cone it ion » one restrictions. 
b^jlUli v. -^yto : 'o-»n8hlp , s 162 K« *'• (iUch.) 422| ^o «^ ▼ , 
Aur orlTllVctrif T3ffi*jS pTlwwr o p *,* 2U£ ill. £id.) the" power to 
regu£*te tao us* of » treats &y vehicles iucluaee >.h<« power to pro- 
note the general welfare.' and prevent accidents* anc the reaeonable- 
MM of police regulation in not necessarily skat is cent but what 
is fairly appropriate Will nil circusttstancos* ■■• ekaJ Lcr ▼. u»UUn. 
31? -11* 132 f r ,„ Xl g |f V« ,q j^ogd. > 237 u. ,. 02.) AH oiti Inaace will 
be psresttnefi re.-,.«onable until the oontx^ry is proveu. i yiyy of 
c^icfrflo. v. '-%»b.inff te al &n i i:i ^o %fj , S$fl ii.u £06| t opl ^ t. village of 
Oak SSfc » '**& *^* MP*! W*« legislative branch of the tat* or city 
amy delegate to an ad»inistra« ive board < utiea involving the exorelae 
of pdatnistrativo discretion. City of uhio^gg t» Marrio . ti* 332 Ill# 
4 ^l BBttftl v# tilfe* ^ -tJ id * 63Sr" "Uo'ck v* 1 ot ty of -'hic'.-.»p , -,>9 id. 

Tluf ortj inanee in wueouion t'fose not delegate unregulated 
Oieoretion to the public vehicle licenoo eonaisaion. ( City of 

Wan ti jMtfwijfflftt Tlji .iiijiiiiriij Mkii.^iii* j^jbe^^ MQtfii 

r * EMBOLI 3 *' i ili# «*••# TUte foregoing author itTia sue U In who 
proposition *.>ifit a city council nay au^horlso other* to Ad things 
whtoh it. mUht, properly but cannot under standingly or advantageously 
do. 

"Ths ordinance is net d i scrim In .-.tory on the ground that 
it singles out taxicab® for regulation /tad do^s not o private 

vehicles or other public vehicles drawn by horsss. No one has an 
inherent right to use the streets or highways an s pi o« of business* 
here one seeks a special or extraoroinary uae of tkd atre- to <?r 
puolic highways for his private gain, as oy the op< > len of an 
osunibusf truck* atotorbus or the like, the tate nay regulate euoh 
use of the vehicle thereon or e^y even prohibit puch uk. bi c po 

m&L.zs&Pk ^vt v. m»ty pc^iyy-npi »«t «*• 2 •'■■•» him T ' 

Bantoni , 2d4 U. o# 140 J ^avlfl v. aae^chuacttr, 1 .3| _ 

PbTBslMi JUU2stie.« M 

In passing upon ordinances idvntical with those involved 
in this oause* and deciding ■ contention as to the alleged invalidity 
of the ordinances as tending to create a awnopoly, and in upholding 



. 



■ 



* ■■ i 



■ 






« 
:q& m to 
aaa 






tot . 

.1 .......■: 



■ 
%•«•«£ a utf lo *» 



Am 









0j» * - r -. •' 



a* mh io 



the rigfefc of tii* city Ml prohibit the mstom#s&tm&y ubs of tte 
street* for the purpose ©i **•«• &fe* l-'cit ourt 

for the i;©r thorn listriei of tniatig, with bh?o« Judges con- 
stituting the const lor Kin pftxtieul&x hearing* held ln : ftg1*iftft 

j^OJJ^ M J^Lt..JjUa^i3ttk» «° ^* (So) fi0 ®» P* €X2t 

■St tin a?fcun*nt that the ordin&r.co tends to create a 
ttonenolyt it is oufflolettt nnewo? that the city has not toy its 
lent elation* surrendered its right to grant ether oaf further 
uertlflontoo to nil other ajPjtf.ioasts* Si nay at 1X1 grant 
applies tigno* and undoubtedly uioquate remedy exloto' ngnlsot 
axfimatlwo exercise Of isxtoifcrary authority in that rc&peot* 
The paollc policy of .'-llihoia has boon declared toy the LegitdHturo 
of lllinoiet according to the intferiavv&tions of the SapKBi 
Benrte to he thai* toefore out utility or |>utoliu carrier is per- 
mitted to outer the o-uoincas of another already in Mm i."ield» it 
io out & natter of fairness ana justice that it toe shown that 
the new utility answers the &wmt&* of public convenience owl 
neod®sity#* 

the toil! all*ff*s th® efforts node toy the eiiy to enfore* 
compliance with the ordinance hz the nxroot >ma proaccutlon of nany 
of the individual defendanta in a court of lawf that such efforts 
wore unavailing! that dofeadagts jtei'tiete£ in the ual «f ul oper- 
ation of taxieab»jj thai they comainee and confoderotec to eefeat 
HM lawj that they defied the lawfully constituted author it lest 
that the arrest ana proa* tut ion of defendant* in a court of law 
•«as ineffective! and that the city was without an adequate remedy 
oxetpt in a court of equity* 

Under the eiseutestanees disclosed we .-or* const re inert to 
hold that the legal vmzody of. complainant if Brooecutlng th* ofi«nd« 
ing chauffeurs of defendants* taxioabo for their per»i: : t«it and 
coA'.inuec violations of the erclnoagoo wan inadequate* and that a 
oourt of equity was fully justified in exerctoine ito Jurtnd let too 
60 the end that the ton mf.tfu he afforded complete and adequate 
relief* There can too no tiueation but that th operation of the 
taxloabs in the nanner deacritoed in the toill in oontenyt and dis- 
regard of the ordinances of the ity 0/ Chicago const itn tec a 












. 



•■fej ' -1 US ' 



. 



- 






- i 
■ 

■ 






9$ **fti ' 

■i v ' i ., -,.« .-. ' ■ •■ •.: *ii :.;-. I. .Jt • •■■ v , ■:-•....• ■•. :, .,.,„^ 

»?atfpftfea fern *4e£4P*t> &0A***** *tf ft*, at* 4w «rfl ** 

-«l*a fern 4^p»«aa» III lite extt «ft &wfi 4OJU0I «b Ml erf— >»■ » 



public tiula«tt<te on the eHy"** streets, 

3?or the rrntma tafitot* herein th» vtftl <rf tk» 
circuit curt ****** a temper ry taction l .fit™,, 

D a; , 

Grid ley ams :e&alfta 9 jj„ t coao«# 



36 •MKMiwft tlltvq. 



. . , boa x»X5i^0 



5658* 



KY 




MLfftOtL CCfcP03U?tOH, 
Complainant and Appall*** 



ASl»aF:«Jni CCMPAnT 0? Alt ICA, 

• oorpor < tlon, : ;.00it MT.LZKDV* 

al«rsd f. romsai, 

oscuf fm.'viisr, wms waoaui si ctrw 

CGK?Ajrr* a oarpor&tlon* 

kef endnote. 



0RZ9GR ILJLi&W* AL>^.iD F , 

ppellnota. 



i 




A FRO* 

gouk co«mr« 



B7 3 I.A. 615 1 



mr. its?sa omul nsunanf. unarm of ?hk cob r* 



This appeal 1« pr©*ee<uted hy uregor aellkev and the 

three ^r led ere to rcr«r*e & final detre* ef the superior court 

of Cook county* entered oc toner 27* 1938* grant lag o perpetual 

injunction and a noncy Judgment of ^1649*10 against, thoa for 

coots* In the decree the court sad judged that the teapor *ry 

injunction order entered on June 11* 1927* as amended* enjoining 

and reetralniag defendant* Utellhov* the Vrlcdcrs and on* other 

now deceased)* so wad* permanent* and that said four defendant* 

and the erograph -ompany of merlon* their servants and agents* 

»e perpetually enjoined and restrained 

'from projecting or attempting to project words* letters* symbols* 
pictures or iaagee In or upon the shy or clouds hy ths use of said 

erograph. and froa malting or attempting to aaks s»ld threatened 
exhibit Uno and demonstrations of the fl*-*alled erograph and fraa 
aaklng or at cnptlag to aake any exhibit lens or demonstrations. 
public or private. Is or oeforc any person or peroans at any time 
or plsee of said so-called erograph, or of any apparatus or device 
constructed hy or for the said defendants for the purpose of pro- 
jecting in or on th* shy or clouds any letter** sores* symbols, 
pictures or laagss ami fpgoj makint , using or tran sorting any suaa 
devise cr apparatus or plans* draelags* phonographs or pictures 
thereof | and that the said defend***** thslr ageats* servants* 
employees* all and e.t*h of thoa* be furth*r enjolne*! froa old lag 
ferth hy letters* tslegraas or any fsra of advertising that they 



t 



mm 



( 



• 









,.Y ,. 



«. -«-», -■- 1<«-^ 



Cj -*- O • *i • -L Cf #. w» 

■ 



.. ■ : 

- 

t«U« ftue &a« »** 

•AMtNNfttffe %jm>* !M.-« J«M < J linn— i>i| *&** mT * '>'*»%•««% w*tt 

l b*jf.iOk 

Ii *$m*vl. >1 ■■ Hmt t yti tm-'j ■■■ ■.■ ^Hamm?-- , • ... tjM>?& 

■I | tou> .\ ■-:■-■ !*AU*-C '•:•• ''■'• »»t. -.*[J«ffv.* ■•• ..■'.■.'■;.•. j.-.-.x* 

ft«lV»* t» W*^ *1 !• V9 *rf£l»<ft©*« toll****! »**« 1« 9ft «!$ 10 

-o--. im\ to x<* faiuMmam 

l«XOtf%^l tS*««HV •< |M »*»fct* 'JO >(*B «Ul4 ft* 10 Oi ?*»i 

I* *• •«- -*i4^a*- "»« •*> ' 

».~'.'ft*rTMi ««iM*a« *J»jCJ , ' f dJ kn* tlo»i«tfi 

fcsltoXftf' miit Nraloptv iM(f'/ i« XX* * n &9\4ftXct&t 



•a- 

or any of thea are the taveatora or o«n#ra of the amid Aerograph, 
a sky projector or the complainant*.^ said Invention in any for* 
or under an/ nam* whatsoever! and frost s»*s«rtla£ or clnlEilaj; to 
have any ri.$ht# title ox interest in fc«,y fore in ox to afcid inven- 
tioa or way machine baaed la % : hole or in part upon »*ic invention! 
sad from nelling* Xoaolag* licensing, giving or leac. lag wo any 
p*xtion or peruana nhateo^ver Hm mil erograph or nay apparatus 
or device Involving oo%iiai»«mt*e s^id invention, or right to use 
the a-iae, or stay laforantion 1* sjsy taaaasf or form with rc»p«ot 
thereto and from advertising in gay form, MOlicUin# or obtaining 
contracts for uoo of » Mali erograph or Any device or >: pparut.ua 
embody lag any feature* of complainant* « taM invent ion in any form 
or under any naate whatsoever* " 

And th* court further adjudged that the def endmt, 

Soncral 1 etric Cos\paay# ita asrvar-ta and ngoalot be perpetually 

enjoined and restrained 

"from plana lag* eeetgmlag* constructing in hole or la part for 
the said a«featf.«tat»t erogxaph Company of merlon* CJregor -elikov, 
If red P* Fried or* O*osr Prl*d*** and ,nny one or nor* of the* any 
machine* device or appar^ta* for projecting or displaying letters, 
words* pictures or image* upon or in the clouds or sky which shall 
involve any Igfgf otlllli plana* speeii'ic '-lions or invention dis- 
closed to it ay the said ^elikovs and from aiming, abetting or 
assisting in nay mai$a*r tue said defendant* in the matter of the 
construct ion or use of ?^y such, projecting machines and froa re- 
ceiving or deliver lag to the gal* <^f*ndaat* any letters* tele- 
graae or inquiries In any form from advertisers or othe i as to 
say such device &x apparatus or as to the use* sr&lo* licensiag or 
leasing thereof! and trm holding itself forth »s receiving suea 
iBQulriee froa attvert isf.ro ©ar others* for the said defeadnatsf 
frea delivering to the defendant* aforesaid or to any of them or 
to anyone for them any sueh machin* or a chines or parta of any 
sueh machine or machines * w 



«d the court further ordered that said lectrie i- 
be "authorised to dismantle the why projecting aaehlne a*nufn< turod 
oy it for defendant ielikcv and to dispose of the part* thereof 
la sueh manner aa shall act be in violation of the laet preceding 
paragraph of this deoree«* Ko appeal was taken by the lectrie 
Company froa the iK-eree. 

la the preamble of the decree it la stated la nubntnaoo 
that the cauae came on for final hearing upon coaplainnnt*u bill, 
the answers thereto ©f iellkov, the Frl«d*r* and the lectrie 
Company* an* coapleiaeat** replio»tioae to said answer*! apoa the 
temporary Injunction orcer catered oa June U* 1927 (as aodtfle* 
by erd#r of vprll 2o* 1*29) enjoinia* acllkav aad the yrledere| 









' - 

9ft« . ■ 

.. 

4 t**mt *» 

. ! 
- 



1 



MMttfate-..; 
;.. ' .-• ; :;v,i • -... || NtfMi ■■'■< M l*» *<>*<£!*■ •*« M| toil "S<*1 2* -«;>:■ 
aBAJtaaorw *»* Nl tml4al*lv ft «*• «* *•**«« JftMni Hi 

lo - .o* ftfift 

m4 Aba vVBciMf i*«lt»j i -tnc ^ 



upon the Injunction order ef June 16 $ 1927, temporarily enjoining 

the 1-otrtc .©npanyf upon the order of pril yfi, 19:9, denying 

the Motion of &ellkow and the ?rlcdere to dissolve the temporary 

Injunction order entered against them, upon the order of this 

appellate court, entered October «*&• 1989, affirming the order 

denying the motion to dieoolre, upon the reports or Idney * 

»eli&ek* master in chancery, to whoa the notion to ■ leoqVlT *as 

referred and to whom aloe *#.s referred the cause for final hearing f 

upon the evidence lUMom 1 by the master M both referenced and upon 

exception* filed by ellkov and the Friedere to oaid report*. -j*s 

it la further atcted that the jeurt, having considered the evidence 

and hawing heard tae arguments Of opposing course!, rinds (a) that 

it bo© Jurisdiction of th«? parties and the subject nation (b) 

that all exceptions to the master' e reports should be overruled | 

and (c) that said report* should be &$2ror*& and cots flamed* <mcag 

the findings of the octizt ft-oa the evidence • aa act out in the 

decree* are the following in subs tan cot 

Thai eempl& im-mt is a stew York corporation, with principal 
office in Hew York Cat and engaged in the business of manuf cturlng. 
•ftrcting and" leasing ^o em1ri*i£ttiM li Mm ernsted kmicd -he ■§• 
celled *ylgr Projector** a mechanical device for projecting on the 

sky written and printed elite and images -or advertising purposes. 

;*h»t fe{. Orindell mat thews* a eitlaen ox -ugland ouring 
the or Id or in 191&, and while attached to the Beard of Invention 
and Research of the liriiiah 3 oven moot, wus engage* in u«vlaUig nemeie 
te ward off German cppelins in nglnndi that while so engaged he 
constructed a contrivance sestet sblmf "oX u lens of « fecal length 
of approximately 13 foot* with a la-inch optniru • placed in front of 
a 34* inch e»*rehltghLj* and that on one occasion while aaklmi oertas* 
observations he conceived the idon cf projecting *orde and images 
upon the sky* 

tlntt in January, 1926, Matthews, continuing with his 
experiments, went te eUler, Germany, and there caused te be con- 
structed a eky projecting machine which censistsd of a lens cf a 
fecal length of approximately 15 feet, with a 17-lA **«* opening, 
a cc-rchlight and a stencil containing the letters •» L.|* that 
when the stencil wac placed In frcnt ef and a certain distance from 
the se rehllght the letters ap> * red sharply defined in the uky| 
that another machine -as there constructed about the e«mc time| 
that the essential fe*tur«s of both machines e*M "a lens cf 17-1/J 
inch epenlng and I focal length ef approximately 15 feet|" and that 
afterwarde one machine was shipped te Lemdem emd the ether to 
dew York City# 



■ 



-;,. 












i 
■ 






."''■-:> *. ■ ■' '';. . ... : , ' 








M "J* «f? 




frfctAfa « 


• 




■ 




, 


•■•■' 








• 




. 




■Md : *.>'- 




• 




i 








*«u taut »1 





Hi | v !.' 

WW 



'■.' MMHffl 



-4- 

?hat In anMfca 1926, Atthewa applies for a patent 
e-owsriag what he ul« Imec to &e hi* Invention, in th* ^ateat 
iffieo of tfrent Britain, also saade applications for pateats la 
S*?r»«»y# ^ranoe ones i<anuda, aod Iti aftU ot, IVffi, sapling for a 
patent In the Jtateat ufflee of *hTlinTted tatceg. that there- 
after patents were granted to hia {though not yet issued J uy the 
aavernacnta of treat Brit&ia and Canada* Nana ao patent has yet 
toon granted to him for tho unitec ; tates, and his application 
therefor is ©till nsadiagt th»** said toffl teat tan Beg a secret, 
private ft»4 privileged eesiaflaieattoB from ala to a>*ld utent 
Cffltfft and not open to public inspection* taut ao disclosure of 
his Invention or device was swtdc other than to these persons 
necessarily ansae* ©ted -»uh ittef tha.t his invent! on » as claiaed, 
consists *©f a lens of ■ foe%l length of 15 feet, a powerful 
se»roallght and ■ stenetl* placed It foot sway fr * the lensi** 
aa*l that the device is of groat Valne for eea«eroiul *«iv»rtlst*( 
purposes* la that It can project letters, «*rds» pictures and 
laagen upon the «ky at night* 

that aatttaavo made arrangements wlta tht- parry 
Gyroscope Its •* S*& Serk to oouetruot a^.chln«s enbodylng his 
Invention! that ho assigned to ©eavplaiaaat all hit ri^ht, ;ltlt 
and la to root la and to sales invention sad the right to use the 
ftatse la the Baited vtatoa* ana euea title* iatereat and right 
was at the ttao of £h* filing of the present bill, and aow is, 
solely o^aed by ooaplalnani! Ban 1 that the machines built by 
Matthews la avrmaay and K&gao built by a»id perry gyroscope c©« 
"are subs tan t i -liy tao satta** 

Xaat Jease H* 'raiteley it? the Vice-president and general 
manager of complainant* and holno like official positions with 
Cecil* Bar#*io and ieeil, aju a4T*rti*i*g agency with ?rlnelpal 
offices also in Bow Y©rk Sltyi that la *ocea**r» 1926, hiteley 
had a «o»ii4fefltial iatotrritw in "'feica.^o olth .'/a Hip »'• rijrley, 
president of VHUUN •fcsmJwW ■■;©• of Waoflfa ia refsreaoe to the 
lattor*« tte® Of ■—jlntflWiirt ■ oky projecting device for newer tt slag 
purpose*! and that shortly thereafter Btlgagf **at to *»ew fork 
City antS and a o^ooad taterrlew wits hiteley, eeexia* furtaor 
information as to the device* etc. 

That defendant Melikov first oeesm lntersstsc la the 
possibility of pvtjeetlag lettorof etc* upon t-h« sky la 1919. ia 
Berlin, Of rstany, and afttrwagtfa awa<5d oxper taunts In Chisago with 
aaall steroopti^on a-vohlnosi %hat on January It lw^7, the Ohlomgo 
tribune published aa arslelo to the effect that a sky rittaa 
ts;;ehine had been Invented In •oagnaVl a^d tast kelikow read the 
article sag brought it to the attention of sono ex his frleado 
who had vltneejr.«c sosae of hia denonntrntlons with said stcreepttcon 
aaehlnes at his Ch tango resideaoe* 

faat about ?ebru«ry 9, Xwi7 f Uelikow called on riglay 
la Chioago snd told hia that he had n a^ehlso for projecting 
adwertUing upon the sskyi that ritrley a^ld ao had recently aado 
a trip to »ew York regarding * stailar amohine sad lie ««▼• 
hitelcy'c address to Melikevi that on aaram l&t lw^*, i^lltoj 
called on hiteley at the latter* • e* iork offtoa» and told hia 
that •»« w/!3 an en«lneer an* a*c been aent by oalo rl*iey ^to 
Inweotigate wh^t wao *ein*3 doao with the sky projector ^Alaa* 
and thU he wanted to report back to * i ^*^" J^J^iSHm* ?• 
tbtn ittrodue#d «as rl^leys eagiaaai and tecaateal •*^ l »« |i /• 
Matthews, and afterwnrgs, at tae plant sf the perry My g>» » • 
wao tntrodaood «ao *<rlgley*s cn ( iaeer and repreoeat aire to rraam 












-•-; 



.> :< 



I «■ -! . '« 
















' 






. 







:.• :*e»»e and ftreaftda Hi B**a«Ur fcafta enginearo In the employ 
of a -U --JyroeenpB u.| ami ahat Molikov had a<.wer&l lnt«rvieve 
sith all of yu^e max tiee and fk| Vhown the plfr.no* hlch were 
ther* being umA la the oor*ts tract ion of & a ohise by the «.»yroeeope 
Co* fo* oaap&eiaant, and alms was given "all tin Lmfavmatftoa aa 
to the wlACf of the lens HI searchlight, and the rsaieua item -less 
of in* fea*ou&A|a*f leno and etenell, an u«ed In .he machine." 

That on tf.-rch 19 • 19a?« hitoiey, at Atelikov** MWWU 
«rote a letter a&iaa ao a 4 to Uelikov at ^hionsdt in whieh httwley 
atated that *»i hep*? to be able to nhow you o demonstration of 
MM . ky Projector in two wooknt" and will advtoo you of lao dxact 
dayt ths.t, aa to taaj l**i an toad of leaeina *aaoain*a» "wo 

will agree to leneo to any mann/ac turer a machine with aa operator* 
either to b«? kept poxamnantly In cite city, or mounted on a truck 
so theft it can be a»V0H freely,*' am we mill 1*0*1 Kal «sxpan»»e of 

rafcia&g aftoaaUai f%#*§ this.* *our tsnaa, will toe e« proximately 
1 >0 9 33Q for 12 aaata* far a ofta»diB£ machine § and $12&»y>2u for 
12 Mattel fur ■ movable ma onto* f" fcmaft a ehinee can he rented for 
o months at a hi&her proportionate *m«a| that upon m aaoeanaM 
deaMaofcratioa of the a obinoe- **«o* aeiiigi ba&li Cor ua* by the 
ftyroceopc u.. *af will immcaiataaj jAaoo the machine on the 
market to bo laaaafff* ^. '«"•:; , v;c - * iaaoxataao' femafi Mr. riglcy, 
aa well as many o there, are prrtly tafcoyatftau' la tod machine, 
and we are billing to give ft laaaaataallaa t® any *»ho may attend, 
ana believe we aw supply *«• :;se8ea«tt.ry aaaaoa of suohJLnea for 
any advortioer In fairly Knave order » ihat tmroc ^«*jra later 
(Baroh lath) nno 1 again, && priX 16, 1^7, . hiteley -wrote to 
•rigley at Cfciea**« Hial ap la« firnft of wao»o leftt«ro -^hiteley 

writes that ho feu? a yloaoeait viaift froa dlker, -ich 

*^e ehew^- naUJaar jh« ipftljro liaaa yf Ufctft lai eald ":w would 
notify yo« that we "ha« a *^a©v Baaaaaiiioai 11 that bhu nacldne will 
be dewoo^trate^ about -»pril 4th» aii4 no eaali be pl«ueec to have 
you or o»o of your r*|>re»«»taiiv«* im fttl«aoaa#0« etc, 

7hafc an Afall ttf aMf| riglty MraftO hltely Mftnn 
lanft on hi« return to Bfctaeja from -rip he h»«3 founi 

hltelsjy»a l^iis-re aanAbaaf rtia» Untl "i. ; j yaai lOetOV of hartfh 
loth yon montion a Mr. &»likovi M th»t H my reoolleotion i» he U 
the fontloaai. who oanve UlaO my affioo one ntaeai he had * tlailav 
hind of a eenfcriv%»ee for aavortining in or on the ohyi" that 
the writer tola fcelihov that h* ha$ already had a similar 
proposition ma*^*» from your eonoern, aa<J# upon hie requeet, the 
writer grave him your name aoa ail r«i , I **• »re eivinm 

you thlo information* »» fth«vt you will und* retain* ftmal *&• *elimov 
Jdt»?>.>JLJW^.»ay,JjKgSft^^ 



ii «i inwentor himeelf and nan anxloni rfto ape jaj yfmjc, 

BBBBBHm»m\ i ft iii H i ■ 

That, ao app*are from a preponderanee of tae *?rideuoo, 
•aolikov did rej^ejiaaS-JL^J^ 
royrfteewfeHtivt, a/44 IbSl SS Biarm-iCion W-n him, as hereinbefore 

eet terth. nmjjUlML A^ by , y^ ^ ^-^^^^;;F" ?(^?^\f yl> 
fraud .ja^ot4«fisJaimji.aXLjl^^ £ Jr"l, *' 



%»id otatemeufto »«,v« hy «■? fend naft Hell kor to hitexey, ^.-.ie»e, 
aaoeott ano Houow, that ho wac ihe engineer and *«« l » u * 1 4 l ^3*"fJ 
to e»ld Philip a. rigloy *n* that he had be*» eent by "«l«/ •• 
leum the prosreee boin* nado by eeld ky Prajeetor cormM-tUao 
end to report b&ek to rijjley es to the ««»♦, wore el- 
oXthJa yholly X^Uf and wer«.>novn by t„ <&££-£ \ JJ™ 
faleo and novo mnao by him vith the lfftemft aiu « p»irp>«> on hie noai 






m MM ' * 



'-■"• 



. 



- • .. ■■ ■'. 

-'..'■ • -> 



■ i 



■ 















.« ■■£ '. I , 



,; - ,;. ,2.; - : ''■ 



I td 



■ L: ..> 



utt 



:iioiii 



Ill JHllil j WWrtn|WpMBjl ji|pli|l ji|| Iful H obtain 09112 

floentlal detailed laf ©r» a >t ion bclon^in-. >o eomplMnajU regarding 
eaid aky piajeeta?* Tor the purjpooe of 'ur.blin iijt» to appropriate 

^■.M™.M$£-mi iw j<i fei? «w **« % uti ! O?^^ftfw>.." 

I the FriederB), which to farm ^ Turn wa* in the Unltec! tales the 
sola pro-party of a^lc oojnpl&i»&nt#* 

That ©a March 17 » 1927, KtHfetV -aent to the office of 
the Oener&l JlOtfJ* | £o», it ohesiectfctfy, I'M York, for the pur- 
poec of ordering a aky projecting machine I thut tai 1 cuto o, 
did thereafter construct for bis ouch ■ machine "from plana i>re« 
pared therefor by oald .■.■,«! ikov fraudulently obtained by him from 
complainant |* that the »&enine, bo so constructed by the lectrio 
«e,» *ooaai»t«d of a high Intensity *^ j -.,rehli#ht, a plate or 
ataneil, and. i lang fooai length Ion a of the awm* a lay aa the 
loaa ueed la caawlainaat** maehlaai" that Hhe > apaciag be Ween 
the ae^r ©blight, plate or etenoil, and said lena, uaod In tho 
an china ©anoint© tad by oaid -laetrlo Go* for Mai I am I j are 
M!^ia*XU*Utf-l£e-SSML** * h *- apaoiag apeo triad la complainant* a 
©pacific* lions and pl&feot and thai tho only ah:-ngr from complain- 
ant*o maalUaa la tho enoloawro of the ooar*hligmt» etencll or 
loaa la a tuba tf aarral*" 

That holikavf ami ©ertals of tho other defendant a 
aeaoeiated »itb &i» and ©periling aa the erograpa ompany of 
America, Informed vnrio-iia adtoriiaoTa that on May t, 1927, la 
tho -ity of ^aahtngtaa, Se @ei thoy aamld • habit esild machine 
aa ao constructed by tho 4eo&ri© Ga©t avd th?<t on eaid day said 
aaohiao aao In tali Balm of iaamaBgtdft« 

that on BUMfl %j MBb -Kollkav filed an application 
la the f« §• Patomt Off too" for letter® patent for invention la 
". ky or K lag doviooaf* tlftftt jam i'urther explain <<tlun of tho lnven- 
tioa ■jfiawi In the evldenacf and that am hay &£• Utfe complain- 
ant warn advioed by tho 1% >» Imtdtti Off loo M th»t an interference 
wa© filed in ©aid off loo agalfltt »h© issuance of a patent covering 
aaid aky-proj eclar m- ehlao upon tho patent application of hatthowa* 1 

That tho lntorfcroaaa in tho B« * latent Off loo* 
entitled JLi-"olikouts M^tth,oyo.* w So, 55*63 » involved U) aa 
application for a patent, ^©* 1»4»1C®» filed by uollkov oa .jgJX 
15 # 102,7,* fa* a dt-Tloe aiailar to that of *iat.he«B ami U/ aa 
appllo%tioa for a patent filed by atthowa . u. u»t # 19&&M. ond 
that in tho interferonao proooodlag the invent ion la eaatamre »y 
wfea defined aa follow* t 

"Aaparataa for off acting optlo»l projection into 
the oky« a fcOarohlUht projootar* a tranaparenoy iliualnateo 
by aald projector, an^, objv'Ct lxo„hay tng,,a JfafU, IfM tfc of noj. 
Ult ^^>" aparaalamia^y tt?U«n fo.fl ao loc* ; tet rt-la lvoly 
to aald tranaparenoy a t ive remote real image thereof, 
and aeane for dtr«ottn« tail image aa a* to bo forme< high 
la tho aky,* 

fhat the Sxemlner of Xntorferonoosln the Pntoat Office, 
by rltten oplaloa dated agajlJ^ IMgj * u »° th « rt ll *««# *••"•• 
in favor of k*ttheoe and agalaet tieliaav the < t ae^tion of priority 
of invention of aald aky proJ*etor|* that «utbee,ue«tl/ oa hay 
t#, 1» jo, the 8o»rd of ppetao Of the ateat Office, to »hlak 
aellkov had appealed from the deoioion of the Examiner, deeUeO 
that tho lnterforenoo ahoulC be dla^olved on the greond that the 
laaaa vae uapatentabler arid thut on agm*t 18, 1930, the e.-olaloa 













■■■ 

. ■ - ' . 












.-,. As;-: ■: ■•■•: .. « 















V 



KJ 1* 






•7- 

Of the jtoard of ppeftla* a.nc ita rseoasiaanc tions* were approved 
ay the then a#aftag CoMaisaiener e£ Patents and the " In t#rf or eoce 
wao dissolved*" 

nd the court t In wi«w of th* above rvi<'«nti**ry flnclnas v 

»ad> among others the following anaclad ins finding® in h deorcei 

That the invention clalaed by complainant wae tho 
rtsult §f ttM *v.per inentiss ilftfmto< by aaitnewot a* hereinbefore 
set forth, aoe S#il^Jdfcil*& ..A, , T»X»R*>lo Jgro^r+.jr r^htj, Irrespective 
of tfc* question ©1" th# fTntJlags of th» voeaaTaoTbner cf - ntcntsi 
th&t tho construction of the m-'Ohlae Itt Lucetion was a aecrttt* 




ASP ftSTWflttiM. 



That th« Several Electric v-onpnny should oe permitted to 
dismantle |1M wigr projecting machine* ssanufnetuxod by it for 
elikov* and should be p«?;miU««s Ml o impose of th* part* of the 

noshing when dismantled* 

It appears tnat ee&nlaiuent's bill was filed in tho 
superior court o» June la* 1§£? (!•#•* about Un, months after 
Matthews hod filed his application for a patent in tho to • 
-atent Office* ohottt throe, months after feelifcov h»d there filed 
a eixiilsur application* atOeufc qp.f month after eoapl.it.nant had 
revived notice that on interference h&£ been declare*' nad bout 
too toJUUktt M i &si y q{ *** «*ei alone in ih* Patent Office ooneerniag 
the interference had atop rendered )| that on the fellealnff day (Jane 
11, Its?) the court* o» «©mplaina«t , & not lea one without netioe* 
grant a* a temporary injunction against defendants of substantially 
the sides import as tho permanent injunction now in <,ue.?tion| tb>t on 
June 17* 1037* after kelikov and the s?riedere had respectively filed 
answers* iieiikov presented a written motion (in whioh th* ^rieders 
subsequently Joined) to dio«olve the temporary injunction* emnaanau 
nl the wain grounda for the requested dloeolutlon (1) that there 
is no equity on the faee of tne sill$ (*) that th* court lo wUhjuj. 

Iwil "">' ill! MM atWannV ssnUssTi *■* ••* farfc * U th * o4U# 

to issue any l^snnuununl una W »■«* *»• owt u m{% *" % JurU ' 
diction IdJ lo ue any injunction "before th* patent applWo for* ao 



. 






. 





















n 

: 






. 






- 



ltd §44 •« 



i I f ' M H * 






set forth in the bill* to laouod| M that thereafter 

ordered that the hiring of the sol ion to diewoire be referred 

to a meter ?.© he&r e*io*n«e &nd to report bio findings and 
eonoXuoioo» of Ian aad faotf thai, hereafter a lengthy hp ring 
from time to tiao was h*-.o be fare the waster* %% "<hioa a book of 
oral and docuaeatary evidence oae introduced by the recpcotlvo 
parties} total on Kov oh 8©§ X928* the aaotc* fileo hia report. | in 
which he made nwrnxw* fine logo of fact, conelaoed that -.ho court 
had juried lotion of the cubioet aatter and xeooaaoadee that the 
teapor*ry Injunction ho continue*, la tiMra*J that an prlX **# 19JW* 
the court* 0,1* tor i hearing on esteeptiotio to the aster's report* 
entered an order denying tho action Ml cUf-olTe tho teapor «ry in* 
junction; and fcitai on c«f*»da?:fc»* interlocutory appeal therpfroa 
thio appellate court , on 9«ttfe«g 22., I$a9# affiraed a*id order* 
(£84 111* .|>i». 6X1 1 opinion not puhlieaod*) 

An examination of tho prints brief and *rguaoat hero 
filed on the intorXocutory appeal by counseX for defendants* 
ieXikev and the ?rioder>» diocloooo that She following contentions 
were oado &» grounds for a ft tf igga l of the interlocutorx order of 
April Mi X9S9I 

"X* There io no equity on :he faoc of the bill. 

3* The eoaplainant hao a good reaccy at law* 

3* Tho court U without Juri ad lotion over the subject 
aatter set forth in Ian bill to isutte any injunction. 

4* the court io without juried iotlen to ieeuo an in- 
junction in the c»aee before tho patent silled for* ao sot forth 
in the bill* io Issued* 

5* .nother action la pending* with r««peot to tho 
subject natter, in tho Xnterferonoo -ourt of the United t»ue« 
Patent Office* 

4* The reoorc and cTicence show that ooapXainant 
should be barred froa any relief * b*ouuee it ooaoe into eourt 
with uncle An hands*" 

In our unpublished opinion* filed October 32* X»8fc t 
we decided adTorooXy to all of defendants 1 said cententieae* 






-*. 



. 












■ 

■ 

i 

■ 






■ 






r#M 



• 6 



■I kMNMBI 









"AVfMftMf that in All case*} brought ta restrain i»- 
fringeiaeni of patent** the Federal courts of this country hare 
exclusive juried let lea (and citing sowon*-; other oatt« vh<t of 
Mwffft"! *T*1M %Uj ftf f Yr./<3hurst> 1« 115, 137)* defendants' 

counsel first contend that the aaoarior court of ~ook county wao 
without juried let ion ta enter the temporary injunction order of 
June 11 # 19S7* In our opinion there is no merit in the content ion. 
Cosjplainant'a uill de»»s no* seek to restrain tha infringement 
af a patent. rndaoCf it gagg not &p£j*ar that any patent on the 
ccTice or mobile in o/uoation tmn &s yet boon iaoued to anyone* 
:'he theory ©f eoepl^inant* g Mil Sa in aufetstane* that it, as 
aaaignee of festtha^a* la toe wfier of & now nad uaaful improve- 
ment in :ky ^ejaetora invented by lattfeeae* whi ch ia pi 
that by misrepresent at ion and fraud KeHkov i«raourVc" information 
aa ta tha eeaent ial featurca o: katthaee' invention! that *.«llkev 
and hia ee-def andante. In casing mftehiaes whleh embody thoee 
eesential feature® to bo maauf.-vt- tared and emmlblsed for ■*!#• 
**>** S&*$&1&*M*lZ.*f}8.9W%*%*& *■» Wwii» own u** aUheye 1 inwen- 
tiont gam KM (MwyilatmaH la eat i tied to an Lajaaet&ea to protect 
ltd property right &r.d py*reai other threatened unl> wful acta by 
defendants* In M Reft tag w&aa x-aa, p. 1153* svc. 4t| it le eatSi 

♦But although one who indent a or discovers, ana koapa 
secret, a precoma of siatfuf&«ture, whe titer % proper subject far a 
patent or naif hug Mil id t^ijftfftTl right to it aa again at the 
puoltc, or again at those who in geed faith acquire knowledge of 
lt# y«t he has a property In ||g «hi«h a court of chaneery will 
protect ag&inat one who la »la*&ti«n of aontmct t\ac5 or**-, oh of 
confidence undertakes to ' yply It to hia own uoe* or ta dtoolone 
It to third peraena* '?he jurisdiction In equity to Interfere 
by injunction ta arewnt ouch a brer; eh of truat* when the injury 
would be irreparable and the r«a\**iy ill 1«« inadeqa*te* ia wall 
established by authority** (Sat? P e &body v* or folk, wo Maae* 4*2, 
♦da.) 

ia ffllltl Milt. jig Ta ftatfi W> *H« ***• 65X » w 
upramd «©urt r&cogni*ed«thttt aft invention prior to tha l«>u-nee 
of a patent therefor la property, In Jleva t. ?olt*er« 75 111* 
475, 47** it ia said* 'Among the instances af property acquired 
by one's own act and f t e a g of original acquisition, ^iren by 
aaaaaatl ry ^rltcra and courtdf ie Wbal of literary property* 
eons?iatiag of jaapat ah'jrta» v*ritia«a and bookei ami of aj^ohanioa.4 
Anient ieojt# oanaijitiag of uaeful uaohlaaa or eleaorerlea, produo«d 
by the joint raaa&l of intellectual and u^aiiual labor.' In 

OM&aj^s&L^.iJLmtoMtoHb* 5a7 ul * *»»• 65 -» w *!i*'.i h# bU1 

prayec far an injunction, one of tne oppeAAale courte af thla 
diotrict rvoogaiaad that a property right existed in a certain 
llet of agenta* whlah 
at canal arable expenaOj 

againab on© who had fraudulently appropriated 
own ttb«i ± ytng (p# 559)i • e are not bere concerned with tne 
rUhta of either aide aa againat «.he people* but ^ith the righto 
of *aea aa agaiaat the ether* * ■ a between the partite* the 
liat of naaee »uat ba oanaldared* therefore* as prtptrtyi ■ km» 
-loo tone r» araa»eUl ^aealeal ^gjtt «& • J» •«• T * e » 1 J • 1 *f! e f c Co. 
ltit«gai"f. ntlmil Pajaa C 9jtx 15^ Ind. 673, (77-3| r >ea g |# St.C.o. 
?t. - f tc : r "-•:>,, r.ii'..' "SuTaVe 4«4t 478-^1 KendaUji _iSA|t» ** 
How. iB^ytaa, 5ta.) In In^le y. LaadIaJTuaJL«at» J** J»*; 
NlN l*#i 154* it is sftUi mam ia no proyielon 0. lau tjab 
pxwntB tha aaaignaaat of tha inwentiaa nat patented. uaa 
is regarded aa ather property. ?he law only takes it out af the 
ard laary when a patent therefor le granted. Then it Is that the 
statute, stotion 48W, «« . 0. • (Coaip. t. ••• 9444) applies* 



lat a prooerty rigat exiotwc in » wr»a« 
had been coaapilec by years of work aad 

to, and annul* be protected uy injunction 
MMdalentlv au^raariated the list to his 












' 



- 



M 



• 



' • ■ 



MM* 



■ 



•oo.o.^a *» 



_. 



inn;*** 
. u . 



. 



-10- 

aas requires th&t the as»igaacnt, conveyance or gr;nt, or what- 
ever interest therein, ahnll be la writing*' nd tn* fact tint 
Matthew* iooaplaiannt's &B»l£roor) had an application peaking for 
a patent on his oats 1 invention, docs not prevent eoaplaiaaat 
obtaining a t««por ry injunction agninst tiefmdunto, restraining 
thea froa usin# property fraudulently uppropr lated* ^f^ana Ti 
noj»tt*pr* » M t»i« ■>';•. latg ISM*] od when Matthew* iilcd 

his application for a patent on hie invention he die! not then 
disclose s&itf invention to the public, for said application until 
a patent ho is uto Is treated toy the Fattat fi loo as a confidential 

disclosure* 

-nd, after reviewing the voluminous evidence in the 
present east* *rs think that the meter's findings, conf inset, hy the 
court, are aaply smsit&inetf hy the «v id gate, and that the oourt did 
not err la denying deftadaato* aotion to dissolve whe temporary 
injunction* ad we think that the allegations of the hill, eupporteo 1 
•a they &r# ajf the evidence tataadaaod b*ftr« the naetcr, disclose 
a cle off right la toaploiaant to &he temporary injunetional relief 
as pr&yea* nd wo do not taluk t M defendants' counsel furthor 
contend, that the evideaaa ahoos any aaeh conduct on the part 
of complainant, or its officials* an should bar It froa the 
temporary lnjanetioa&l ffOaittf ao ar ay td for and ac ^mated hy the 
court** 

It aapaajr* fraa the mooter *s report, filer Jam* IS, 1932, 
as to tho proceedings had before aim on &h& final hearing, eoameneed 
on November 23* lf31, oad eontiauec on ^subsequent cays, that com- 
plainant introduced In ^videnoo nuMerouo portions of tho testimony 
of the witnonatn tall tit by |ajj| particc on ta« farmer he&rlmg oa the 
motion to dissolve the temporary injunction, and also two now 
exhibits * and that the only evidence introduced by defond&mt wore 
|aj new BJ sttllsV *■* ** furthor aaaaaaa that the *v id onto 
introduced on gall final Hoar las (excepting sale" exhibits) was 
sake can tidily the *»me ao that introduces on sal* action to 
dissolve. One of complainant's exhibits is a certified photostatic 
copy af the decision of the saaaaaaa' of Inter forences of the U# • 
latent Off loo, dated August 14, Mats *« which after a lengthy 
discussion of the evidence on the he ring of the particular inter- 
ference, the Kxaalner concluded in pert as followsi 

•fat award of prio ity is to bo entered in favor of 
Matthews ao tho f irot to conceive an< firot to reduce to practice 
(citing author It loo*) 

kat thews has presented teetiaeay and froa it, and cer- 
tain personal testinany of helikev'e# Matthews eontenos that 
■oils*! had a full opportunity to derive the invent ion in contro- 
versy froa him* ■ • 



-: »<v •: 



. 










- 

!*■■» 



iii-y 



G 






. pa i ■ 
MM 1 1 - . 



i *wc:t« wLg to 



i • I I I V ■ 



•■'.-. 









: M : J| 



-11» 

•rtority of Invention of thR uubjcct matter In lamia 
It hereby awarded to U* cJrlndell i.ut thews f the senior party." 

the oth«?r exhibit of eonpl&iimnt is & certified photo* 
static copy of tho decision of the Board of ppeala of said 
Patent Qffioe t dfttetf May %«» 1930, on appeal fro* said decision 
of the tosniner* to which after mucin, i^cuaaion the Bearu eon- 
eluded in part aB follows! 

"Wt aro •ftftloftc* that the ye i« nothing patent able in the 
Jj>Jfi*!t . Of the intorfer eaco j 

It to hardly necessary to eonalder the uenticn of 
priority hut it nay he pointed oat that Bat then* ia entitled to 
the date of March 17 # 1926* for eotiesptioa and reduction to 
pr etlee in view of the filing of hi* application for the shjso 
•ubj< ct natter in ^nglane. * * 

IfellhOT seeks to establish a concept ion dato in 1920 
through hi* Inhibits 1» a and 3# and the testimony with relation 

thereto of hie witnesses Santos* ^isen»t«dt# isicComick and 

cnlee* These i<xhibits co no% disclose anything relating 

to„ the. length of focus of the... l«at ^iek i* the only poeglhle 



>v elty of zhp ie^ H Q except in natter written on 
Xxhibit If mm none 'of these wltn«a**e* •*»» able to otate whether 

thio natter w-s on the #kete» when It *ae ohown to then in 1930« e * 

As to Exhibit 3» it is nothing more than an o rd inarr 
Lo lantern or project lag 4 «nric*?# s«eh *e y»» cocjpon lonff before 

»*. party_©^Jj^o_t5. . hjiyf. ■ncn_..hjJi.. ilW <■>■■% 

fhoro lo nothing in the tost teeny on behalf of *liker 
which *enld entitle him to a date of conception prior to U.-u-eJi 17 * 
1926# the date accorded to Mktthewe of conception and construct ire 

redaction to practice* if we were to make an avsarc of priority wo 



im.Bg... ygaflm *9*. <* i»tttr,lLba&jlfe^a5lbA^^ 

in riow of what we hawe said the inter ference l a dlswolreu 
M m* mrnmt HHt Hot tMsaVll ssWMtMbs IfM K JEtkE-JSliZZ^ 

efeudante' exhibit o# Ma *■ * certified oopy of the 
decision of the ctin« ConaioMiener of MaaHaaj dateo uguat Id, 
1930* os the reoeneaendtttion of a id Board of -ppoalat which Board 
had granted a rehearing on the ^ue«tlon of the patentability of 
the elite or count aa contained in «*t thews* application a* finally 
amended , (above sot forth in our statement of the court* s fiicings 
la the deoree In e,ue««Ua 9 ) and which JJoard on the rehcsrin*- 
decided that "wo see no reason for cuanging our oonclualon that 






•6 ■ 






, 






■ 



l| 









sir 













'■'■'■ ;■;..-.,■ ': . ■.:...-. • ' : - •'•• i ■■ 



use mi •**«{«) |9*te»a« 



-12- 

Hd yMW A s MBMrtMslHatti l ****** ** therefore reeoa -end ^hat th*» 
interference tie diooolwed,* iaid decision of the o- uiaaioner 
ic &s fellewet 

"The Beajfd of piwaia in Ui dcelelon of Bay 2d, li/3 . 
recoacsentfed that the interference b« <U$ -.olved on the ground that 
tho iseue sia def ined In the count js unpatentable* This being a 
rtconisena Hob aside by the Beard upon its own initiative, a re- 
hearing wae granted and upon auch rehearing the Board adhered to 
lte view that the count Wag- unpatentable and that the interfer- 
enoe should he dissolved* 

For the reasons set forth at length in the ceeislaa of 
the Board of Appeals* Its. recoawnd-Htien is .--.pproved end the 
interference is eioselvea,* 

i«fond»nt»* *xhi»it ,Io* a i« a eertifUd copy of 
Matthews* original application for a patent on his elniaec in-en- 
tion, filed ia tho 'J. §* Patent Office m August &■$ 193d* 
iefendanto* Exhibit • 3 'to 9, inclusive, are certified copies of 
letter* | relative to Xattaoat 9 slalna or counts and saendaeata 
thereto $ passing between Hal tana" is slower of Sfeflfttd and a stew 
York fira of patent solicitors, employed by £*! thong to ohtaia 
a patent* fr«t January 7, 1927 to ?i;*y Pf 192*?. 

Befendanta' counsel in taeir printed briaf and argaaeat 
filed oa tho pre eon t appeal ank«» as grounds for a reversal of 
tho dee o« now in wueotlen, the scour elx contentions that they 
aede oa the foracr appeal* in oar fo rater opinion eg aadc hold Inge 
contrary to all of thoee contentious and, after reviewing all of 
tho *widenoc contained in the present transcript, we adhere to our 
deelaien and holding* ae above oet forth* 

Bseaueo of the additional evidence introduced on the 
final hearing of the c use (wis*, said exhibits showing the 
deoieions of the Board of Appeals and the Cauwieaioaer of stents 
which are against the pat entability oi Mat those 1 clataed inven- 
tion), def endaate , counsel here also ooatend that the present 
decree should fee reversed Because hattaews* claiaed invention, 
act Being patentable t "cannot be the subject natter of ale* 



•:. ,•' ■ 



■ 

■*it I . 

1 •# Bl 



s 






mm 



, 






r 















-13- 

appropriation, by ffesjsj »r others toe, from compl all n - hy aaiy 
person," or, in other word a, fcma* "there v&e nothing of value 
whieh J-ielikor could hart fraudulently appropriated." Vo Utle 
con .en*. ton counsel for ggslfplgfinellos in their prints brief and 
argument aaxe the follow log reply or counter content ion i 

'.:-*• -■• ♦ frmt o mH i s ffi«e deeietene ditf not attempt to 

decide what right® mnttmows {eojapl*lna»t , si aaeigaor) might have 
against Aielixov, bui merely doeided that, although Matthew** 
olaim to a patent ems superior to th t of Molikev*s, »«lth«r of 
them wae entitled to a patens, i« e», a property riglv. aguinot 
the »hel* worltt. if sselikev h»d &i»d spend sail/ oi newer eu the 
ok/ propter without any . . f £ a^xjfrr e£c& M-jm*M*sa* 9 or ether 
improper oo»£U«l u^on his part, Ifet thews » ©von chough whs* prior 
inventor * ooulo not rootroin Helikgev front using the 'invention 
unless and until a pa ton* hod iaoited Ml jiintthewe* * * dut 
whore a man Uelikov) U3S&&mJ l ^m9ti*hMlA *** **•*«*** of 
another and seek* to mko u«» of it to she damage of .he owner 
( complainant }# the courts of thin -'.-tote and of other tatee, la 
the exercise of their ge«#r«i pewr* of equity Jurl diction, 
will restrain «uoh us**'" 

After considering the findings of thw court, w 4 he dooroo 

appealed from, which findings in our opinion are «u*ply euatained by 

tno evidence, v*e cannot agree wi^h defendant** counsels 1 inetamt 

contention* teat do agree with sfeo counter contention of wemplalnant'e 

eennael, whieh count** contention wo believe is amply omotainod by 

the authorities referred to in Hfit former opinion* above quoted* 

hat to said in Psabody fa serfolk^ wg &aa«« 45a, 457-e, we regard 

»s pat Ucularly applicable to tae facto as contained in the pre went 

v«cordt vis* » (italics our* it 

•It io the policy of the law, for the acmntage of the 
public, to encourage and protect invention and ©earner eial enter- 
prise* If a men establishes a buoinees and stakes it valuable by 
his skill and attention* the good will of tm-a business is recog- 
nised by the law ae property* if he adopte ami publiel/ uses a 
tr«ce mark* he has a remedy* either at l*w or in equity, against 
tones who undertake to use it Aithout hie permleslon* if be 
makes a now and useful Invention of any machine or oomposition of 
matter, he may, upon filing in a puollo offiee a deeeription which 
will enable an expert *• mmderetand and natmf etnre it, and thme 
affording to all pereone the »eews of ultimately availing them- 
selves of lt# obtnin letters patent fren the geverm-snt seemrimg 
to him its exclusive use and profit for a term of ysare. Xf he 
invents or discovers, and keepo eecret, a process of m»«uf« cture. 
Whether a proper eubj^ot far a p> T eii^ yr noU he has not indeed 
en exslusivs right to it no against.. the_ publis^ or against thoee 
wh * lo go» d fr-ith acquire knowledge of it| but ho mas a nrooer»Y 



, 












MM 






R| 



f 0*1 

-....■ 

■/.. MM 



I 
Mf» «£ft«OIM9 



■ 

YiJttOO 

- 

■ 

■ ' 

a 



•' u 



-J. - 



TiilTiion of eM«*aft ud toggfe o< ^«a^a 8 itnA<!rwE t* »5L 
U »• kl« evil U0«, or to olooloso it U» SffirWooss* Ik* ^^ 

* OteftOh fti ^mtf vkeo UM tftjNffy WOW b« irroottrofclo aitf tH. 
**»*dy «| Ion |««it«MWf ie wtll fuMftHMwi by o»t^r4fcy7" 

ax* in $«»«!. of gg££i, &JtaUM*..&*lmJi.£te& Co., Ida 
U» li 236, m> tnjuBOtioa o&oo involving Um u«« of «*rt*la &*%* 
viuousiows obtoiaod by b*«:fc«fe of ftrnifUlUBij, it la o*io (p* # «e.-i| 
itolie* our^ i 

«i ^•4**/ iB ft! f J r ** f**«*l •»»** **<* »r*ci*l objections, tho 
•J^Si 4 ? • •on*o%lw of *«*tftlU»« 1» entUlte to \Z arc'Jttioa 

f£ 4 Jf** f! •**«** iiiE « «* ***** •»****« ?U« lUllttlft tana 
Um rifc&t t*2j*tf MM work vfeioh it feus .<;«bo, o* yS for colo*. 

rssEvrs.*? mt t* ft co«rwe«ti«i r*x,tiwn; «; it«oif r«o? 

o contract mi to ***« it public* *». &%*«**«*• « t!ic trulft «ii 
bj rootrolnit, fr«tt gfttolftf M ttt« kaowi«« t e by tttduotas » brenofc 

of true* nM u^teg k8o«a.s%* ofct «!»«<) by &V« ImSE* °* 

3ttr ©oacliasioJS |« I&s* HM «eore« of %h» o^erlor court 
ef Oetob^r $7* |$tftt ftppoalcc IfeMfe «h«me fe§ r.-ftinnKi, otid It It 
oo or*Ser*a# 



I 

■ 












36013 

ml nmaumm aua wm& 

tAfftftflfSCfi, »» asaignoas of 

Daf and MMNI In TONM r , 

R^*U I. SfeOOK, 

Plaintiff in Arror. 








i .... . 



i- 



tn a first cl&»« action In .jytSHHBJSJJs ♦ cofcsatnoa*' un " r. u ry 
2?, lfM| by teH lig tifitawi mN &nmmIi F*4gMr*i*«R a it ai#*j.*;ii««t 
af Hanry Gross, against HfMffl X# itossk, MMJM «*• a trial vttt.out 
a jury or* tf*bi*u»ry 3, ^|^ r*8$&t$8Q in ti>.« ttfftft I Uft44ftg tha 
ifctuot agaififift tfttflWiditlt MM MHNMMfag ;"i'ii*itif f*' iiwi.a t ,«* in tht 
»u# af |4*8&4*S&« After daf «wv2.:j«I *s HMt&ftfta lor a ftew trial *nA 
in arrest of Jud^eant had MMI ©vam*l<M, ju 1 ,-. hm MtMMfl on 

«ass«» day MJfclftst Hiss {'or o&JUf MM, «hlaH $9&gfi&*% it is sou. t 
ay th«» pVMfBt writ of MfMM to r«w«OMM« SMajr MM MMMM law 
Witai la b«?for« **#. 

In tho tttat^'iant of alaisa pi^tttailXl llltjgMl ta^t on lay 
10, 19 5 V, "Umtry tiroo* axaaut&d two grj&jiftjLgA uonkractc 01 MMl 
dat* for tht MltfttMsH b> Ir of lota M ^ft'* i'S in I & D*a 'Cr wf©rd 
n'-auua fegMNMt 'L* wfedivi-aoit > * in Joofc ~ouflty, liliroia, «*id 
pr«t*Kf?»4 eontrnato fcsin* la «ord« >u.d flgMRMJ »• ftllMMN* ia«i 
fellow th« two in*tru«<gnto *hlc ■ MM a«t out li» fcjjj JLSJ&*. ia * n 
1« »ub9twritially tha «waa a» th* ot,h«r HMK ttMd MM r«f«r§ ta 
lot M nnfi th# o».h*r to lot M iii tho *ub4i vi sion. Saah qoa«no#i 
at follows: »Thia a«ra«««flt *ado I • i« 1 th day of aay, lv2«, bt- 
twooa Utf'iusaa *L* ICUi-HT MBtf, of wuian Uhlua*o Nttl I Iruot v.o. 
to tru«t»», un tar frvu»t co. 13V«3 , ilr*t part:., r 
•f Chicago, Xlllnaio, oeoon I ,"*rty, wi TiaawtH 1 • a»az* 1» un-lar 
•*al *«Ad oigned by tha ?>arti«», — th«» vlgrantura of uio iir»«t party 



IIMH 



, 









• I i 















. 



- 



■ 





» •# 


. '" • ' 
















■ 
Mo 



it «JaJ> 



•J 






■ ■ ■ 



toeing *by RMi Mi K« JMlfc*" I I <.<>,■ ) iio u;. the *ard "*it- 

ne*#eth" it i« pro-* tried: "i at the rirst party &**•«• uutt IT toe 
neconl party (Arose) •hui.i ■ •■■rfora ail aj the ■gTMMBtt 

hereinafter protHM t» fee Haiti mi perionaed by s^i'l eeeond o*riy, 
the f&ret party will ciwee to fee conveyed MM «*»8ur*d to *ald «te< 
on1 "»rty Ci*I th#> ri f ,ht, tlt&O aftd Interact ftJ . i >*.•;,■:■ . itle 

& Truet 0©. t xtii II li.ott •aVBaratiogt, ms *ru«tee, lii t. | to the 
following deacrlled Jot, pUu' ar ;.r,rc-l of gf tu >, '.o-wlt: - (then 
follow© the l»gal i*a4fi9ti«J of 0»44 lot 86 la one iiiatriiorra x<d 
•aid lot H i^-j MM oth*r) **tt*fe|a*t« however, to fcko following 
coYenante, MNMitliAl MM re*triotions. * (TtHi flilltw MMMMffuM 
conditions ^f\6 rafttViatiaM*] , It la tihm »ta ■. ■ ;;ec<-nd 

party cover, unto. MM Mfraai (a) to *a$ M luakc -liore Truet ■ -rivings 
Bunk, or to at;y nne taaiCAntai by Hr$t party, taa »iub ol' 
(1. e. , for 8MM lot} lis Hl« aanner fellawiMfi;) ftkitfi on the exe- 
cution of this contract, M ifflllagil ol* *aid trust (the 

receipt of whioh. is uereby aa^Mftwlad&aA) «<* tho *u& of il&6\. la 
mont il) installments °* MO or *•»• «*aoh, papaaaa n or before the 
lwth of each MM ©"very MMtfM MM .:fter ir>t< 4 iMMMMf, beginning June 
10, 19??9, 9i» A the final ln<'tulln*nt of |ttlt a t lM r><Ud on or be- 
fore the loth day of &ay, 193.5, wit .*,t :->?-. t 10 p«r annua, 
o*y?ble tMit » MMMMl Ijr. June -snd Decesiber, on the fealMMM remaining 
froei tiae to ti»e ur.p >id; (1) to pay *11 general t xes l^-viwd and 
aeaesaed ng«lnet tUd preibioes fat in* currant y«ur end eubeequent 
y*are," ete. Xhen follow nun«>rouo ot er oov«/.imte, not hero 
arterial. 

And In eald Ht«»f««.«nt of olain plaintiffe further allege: 

"Tuat on the dmt* of the execution of MM\4 iret^nded »#-.ree- 
tentr, i.%y 10 1 If 91 1 MM to#r«After, t^ero w«n p»i.i to defandaat 
on moerunt of mH or»t»nded agre»wont« the euio cf .4373, the re- 
ooipt wh*r<»of wae Mftiy aoicno«l -d^ed by iel>n'Sait, »'*iJ aafMMB%l 
b*vlng b#«« £»de •*» followe; May |O a lP^V, v 14, l*ap, 

JoO€; (tr »^ ,r u i y x* t 10 v>0 , .$7^ : t it thereefter on May 13, 192t 



ha 

■ 



■ 

- 






, ■• 
&a« &*»i\r*Jl tax*.* -U» ■»*'* 

', i St-,. i '•'■- •!■._, •• i / w - " .: '« ' i • C" : - ■»••■ 

■vs« ««>•* in 

■ r I ...-. .... . X. 



.3. 

(i. e. # three 4%.y» *fter the »ta1 to of the aK.reea.*r<tej aald 

henry wroae aaii,,-,i.fM BtM ftet over unto J&alatifffl all int*rc*t in 
and to 3*14 preten-Jed centrists tad all ri^t, till* su-»l lata!**! 
t i«»r*in t M | tiffe are ne«r tfei aot-i»i. fcu.n fr iijij taaaai v.*»r«- 

of, said aeai&njsiente bring la wcr:is iM iigu*ee ufa j'nllows;" 

In ere la then sot out in aaec. tlljyi T ' iiC t^o *rl ten assign- 
ments (one J'er each ?igr««i«fit) , ©acta d%t«d May L9 ( |$ , i.ri 
»i«n*d MM sealed by Heavy flftaaa Am two „<i untlife, ti. ■ ion, 

it It stated; "in aa**id«»**l*Ma of taa aaaali ealaaaa, at thia 
d;vte MMHW tin,.-, to |48SJ , 1 1 l«9l*3 -ro»a (h. drelaaftei Ballet 
•Assignor*), second petty Iffl the. a. tt veiled contract, -iited I ,y K , 
1929 # do hereby Mil, *eftige f i r «..*?, r.fnr gad set over unto ri.n»il 
FagorfftrcJB >i*nd ,ianri«h V'»g-eretr&», ^ife, (hereinafter called 
*As«lgne**) * * **11 vf ti*4 rigsii^ep'* right, title ».nd interest 
in *nd to said attaetMftl contrast. * egal in each aatfignjaect Is ulse 
eentained the folio* in*, words; 

* f fbls eeeigjMieat g&all b« &f no fares or -ft act uoleas ine 
written eonpent oi" Itf >. 4. .. t\ (hereinafter Ui rt d '*hlrd 
Party 1 ) la endorsed hereon, ftee a« i^nse herein aaaMMl (plaintiffs) 
does hereby aec*r>t u*is aeeitfnaaat subject Ml saga written conaent 
oi* tne .third i'-*rty, .nd W4»^t?at fce ;-,ii the teras, provisions, oon- 
ditiona Ml limitations in said astgghgg 1 mtmt on tuned. And 
the assignee i, t?l uintiJ Y*> ;*.»eg hereby covenant gad »*»rse to and 
with the assignor (tivagg) I Ifeg .third ftMftjf (staatefc) 1 ;t If s*id 
xhlrd J arty snail fully Sttaaeat J.*; sriiing- to tt.ia aestaaagat, the 
assignee (alalatlfft) will faiiy Tii avaaytly o»rry out and perform 
each and every of ttM MHms« ttlMlltiaaai etiVftiiiWita »cd a«re <•>.-: (-nt a 
oroviJed la «ai4 attackwd taalvaae to be p*rfor»ed by th«» aeeond 
party tnereto (Qro*>*«; " ■ 

In Qon«lrters*tion of MM aaaaaal of the lalH i'arty te thia 
aaeicnwer.t, the aasi|cr-or luro*e» ieea hereby 'il^chitrte and forewer 
releaae the fair! arty * f sal fftai any ^^<J all oblltjAtlona or 11m- 
billt.i'»a to the ««»lgnor (-rora) of any nature or kind whatpio»*er, 
arising fro* *ny eauae whnteoewer. ■ 

Kaeh of the aa*l,,n «»rta beara iaiook 'a written euneent 

thereto ->8 folio**: "the fore&olng ae»i . i'*«dt la oonaented to thia 

13th day of aay, ItaVa (signed) hO^iO. 1. MMK| i-'nird '-arty. • 

And in *aid atatenent of olaiai pi'xintiffa furtner alleged: 

it neitaer ol Uie alalaiilYl noi «jjij uro»a re- 

eeWed any coneiderHtion lvr the eeveral paynenta aa oJ'ore aid, 
and that defendant at no tiaje eenv« yed or offernd to convey or 
eauae to he conveyed to ol*intiff», or a.*ld tfrono, the real eatote 
described In the pretended ountracta; tnat n*i i pretended oon tm.ete 






itol 



■ 



■ 

- 



i 

i 



>*&!•■ -. ! 



It M 



- 






til 



, -: ' •" 






*j8 saJtc • t*4# 



.4- 

do not purport to be contract* by plaintiffs, or by their aatlf tT. 
Sre«», ijjfc-jji JktetiM-M, .^rUXAciiu, .P^ra^. but to be purported 
contracts between Mil ttvaai S3 a writ tea daawfttnt or «;•:*»*<» in 
action; that s*id our ported aatttraeti an and *l«-uy* w»r* n.ujy^ u>d 
ZiiAi * rt ' J ***** fry reanots thereoi tfca ic . ami (ttaaak) tHon M4 
there became obi l^.Hted arid indebted tl .,; « ■ .in t i ff » Tor m* atcnoy 
heretofore ?>«tid to tula on aocoHJit *f O&ld dad Mid purported 

contract* Is the «ssi»s of ;- f 4 .37^, lagat&*t aiftt Uttoraal fl th* 
datr of payment thereof at til* rata %t iii ". , a> MHat 1 

itiwjpmiijFlat the afcafaiiaai of s&aiJB is baa affidavit of 
a«ll tfi^eretrGia, ©n* of the plaintiff* *ad Uui authorised agent 
of the c titer plaintiff (hist wife), to fciaa t*nVct toot aft ha* knowl- 
edge of the ftatta as eet forth in tald *t&iaK*2»fe| fcaai tne ©ait i* 
fcr the recovery of MMy only; Nad &*&&$ fc&ejr* I* Sua to plaintiff* 
from defer.?? a&t| after a&*#witt$j to hiss all |ttat credit*.-, t ., the 
sum of |49f$i together *&tfc tart*y«*H i&asraa* at toted. 

Th© preaent record furti^r iiaaXaaeO ft it Ml •■' ■ i. ru-try 31, 

t#99 a del* sndaiU- filed IN affidavit ©f merit* tn part &s followet 

*(l) *?***% the alleged atfUt;,nmente, under which plaintiff* 
claim, do not purport, nor are they effective, to aaaldjp to pltiM* 
tiff* any right of action «&i«fe the aoici&nor, &raaa, alga* h*vo n«dd 
for the recovery of money paid by hi« to defendant. 

(4) And lafaadaat daniee tfc - id. %• Ma or 

to anyone in his ***aa*f by said SKanvy Uroep, the Mi of 44373,** 
but etat.ee Wurt the only i»oney paid ta hi» by aaid &9#M *a» **oo, 
end that no »on*jr feuui ffW been paid to lite by plaintiff*. * 

There are three other paragraph*, ffaa* '.', 3 and 5, in *»'<ld 
affidavit of jaerita, alle^in^ other olalwed defen*«n» to plaintiff** 
action, but the present record rfiacloeee that on July lu, 19 
the court, on plaintiff*' motion, ordered *aid paragraph*, >oa. 
2, 3 and 5, *trlo*en, *od gave leuve to defendant to fil* within 
3C daye hi* interlocutory bill of exertion* to euld order. in* 
record al*o dleelcee* that VltaAa tpt time a bill of exoeitione 
«a* preeented, but a* the »?»»* le not ft at! ad in tne or#**«t 
record the eorrectneee of the curt'* ruling in striking *aid 
nsiregrnnh* i« not before ua for review. 

7h* Rain contention of defendant'* oeun«el iu that plain- 



H I 



• £ !• 



: 
<>3 »*UK3 • 

■ 

- ■ 






kifl 






I it bka* i 



• tafc 0€ 

'■3«« 'to lb a»t# MMM 

;aer© tow *i #*** •xU' «*w 

■ .eft** ¥&»**« 






• 5» 

tiffs' statement of elate do«a »#t gt>*t« * «'«*»•« •* action, suffi- 
cient to sustain tM present fa&gsaai. >e M8ttftt igFM *lta the 
contention. In |&t c ; *ae of Jl&gjjOJjg ., v.,.. jMsJia&iJflttU *M S3UL. App. S.v , 
the el a in if Hit plaintiff wti for the recovery back of certain 
moneys pal6 under a taaffffeat tlltl&av contract cltfe the "j£h«klei--.n 
Brother* r»#**lty trust,* Mfti llM |«i$a#a* la fa»ar of th« plaintiff 
«a« affirmed, - the* court .h.al'Usg {p. Wf\ ta&fc the "contract lucks 
mutuality because ther-* id tm one fegalaat wham plaintiff could pro- 
ceed as vaado? to tso--;5»l -t tfonveyanea, * and furt.<«» saying (p. 536, 
italics ours); 

*itj« real poii-t at lusas sparing* frore th* caataatiaa that the 

contract is null an 4 void M till ffsalWT its the contract is neither 
an individual, a p&rtnerahip, nor » corporation, sad that therefor* 
a« defendant* received olaii-tlff *g a*&«f ua;ier the pretense that said 
contract was valid, ffe4* Ml liable to pay la* Mil back If paalatiff, 
as MM)f had and received for hie b-mefit. ft**. Utlali tne point Is 
well taksa. If the ▼*•<•»* im 88M& contract la Ml i partnership, an 
individual or a corporation, then a® action WfNtai li* tgslart it, 

an 4 m f in4 no, gtalMtti. i ; frfy* Tjcoa,M *1 . - uld wa,^^f>l,..,afix other 

e cocl uglpn. ibX* be lag eo, pfaiBtiff has a ri„ht to recover his 
taaMCa as for aaaay tuMl MM received by defendants to plaiatilT'l 
use. * (citing MHHMNNli airtaa'rliiaa* ) 

Defendant's counsel, la *rguin& (feat the iftWMBti set 
forth In plaintiffs* •%* MM! e>f aaallB are talis 1 »g;r events <nd net 
void for want of aatuality, Mil thut # hence, olalntiff*' etatwnt 
cf olaisi fa&ai to state any »«*«# if ftttlMi ; or the recovery back of 
money* s»aid on the ftftaaMBta, refer® to ttUl «a«e of U ell in v f JMBI 
| pr>to . tK 111. ?34. We fail to see *%«**!■ t)mt case is in point 
as regards th* contention that flaii ttatnatat of tlatfl does not 
rtsssst H MM of action, *s» was decided uoen evidence fciafti 

before court and Jury, ai* MM court eaid In. Mt)l "*he f cts con- 
vince us that the vendor was a legal entity. The vendor oonninted cf 
three living persons doin& smaisyMM uniwr a trnd« n.tste." «*at f**ts 
appeared en the trial oJ tn^ »>resent case ee ciu^iot detsrsiine, as 
ther* is no bill of exception* contained In the rscord, ^nrt we siust 
oresusie tnat the court f und from th€ evidence introJuoed upon the 
trial that the *ixorese 'L • healty in*st* was not a itia.nl entity, 



•*. 



. 






■ 



- 









: 



, 






lint 



, 












lift 1 1 ii mil *« •*•• wtt «* xt*v.-t , 



■ 



-.id am ni »<t«/U 



-6- 

that tho «gr *«♦::. erst* 99% forth l« p&alatlfft 1 ■totflMUtt or claln w«r« 
vi3 for 1- cs of Mutuality, it plftiAtiffl ha*! actually nftifl 

to 4«fenda«t un-1*r t':-* eontraei.« i In BttMjrt a&iajl with int«»r*et 
wiountM to $4,294. 80, WRd *uiort f|«£aiMtaitt n&& not paid tfHOK. It 
i« eairi in iMfojfl&Ji v «- JJMJJ £tftl3Ul&.« i •&• ili » 17 ^ * 17? » **• * h « 
prooe*«'tiii f .: wmM MM at Isw, it fill fe® ^r«liaM4, 14 MM itHlt of a 
bill of «xc nation *?, that tft« tvl&flifMg h«*JNI wa« *R,plo to oupport tto 
|M<HH1|n " (tM| alee, SA,'\£^ 3U.J ffe&8& $» i7;: ' ***• &©•« lil; I oyltp 

And thi# w#li aoitiel rul« is a.lwo a eosfenlet* answer, in 
oar opinion, to i«^«B4(M*t*« b« *##«! "® i'urv.T mi%«n%iMi a Yi*. , 
that ffci ittttcnBiiWtli «f Ha ' r^tewMMfJ (*e set forth la plaintiffs' 
■111 OT tl>t of el aim) ^Wfi#s. that- .lain tiffs shall pay t.n» bwlaneo 
of the purchase prle« due itMW $&* contract**, eftd no provision it 
*sde in th* mttgMfllH vr%ntiBi' t* ths aftetjyt ( oljvinti rf»; the 
ri|ht to bring an Mtlfttt for th« g» « 6 fl r w y of ssaonoy oai* by liojary 
Sror-e to the t lpr t M *!•* Kftalty £****%, or in ar*y event againet tho 
agwnt (Sjnoofc) of *raoh Truet," Vor aught that <#**■*• in the pr«»t- 
•nt reoord to tfc* contrary plaintiffs n&ay have actually paid to the 
a*f#ndant all of the s>©n*y8, Vttieh It is uJLleged defendant ( Haook) 
f ttifi, «nd tfroee ®»y not tafft p-*id «ny i>!irt t. \ mW 9M t t NVfMP" 
«»rt, t.^e contention is not nr,/:)?riy taffcrf usr for con«i Oration 
an the only error a* ■»-. i *:'... «d M) ttli reeord ie that "plalntif l e' 
st»te»*nt of claim enows no c*ae« of tot ion a^ainet the dof w.Avr t. " 

binding no r»v«»r«ibl<e er;or it. th* MCWN MM .1u<l*.,»»nt in 

question agnintt dof ^ndant, ecterod on yobru.try S # H***, i'%r 

if*/ 
44,294. ^, io affirm^. 

aJFIH* 

8»lllran, f. J., Msrf r-,t3 f. , '., cr»rcur. 






■ 









. 



, 



■ 



I M I : -'- f 






I 
I 

- *aj Inn **i9 

1*1 ■ ■ . 






. 




n 



5667S 



Compl&in&at and Appellant* 



v« 



HAI* hAliiiAh, C^GSLIA I&SiAE, 
hia wife* COSKXISSLIXAfl ggJStS 

BAtfK, & corpora tlon, as Trustee* 
et al«» 

i>efenda«ts.» 







, 



ClfiCWT COOhT, 



COSaiOJPOtlTAB StAfS BAK # 

...pp«ll@et 



odd uorarnr. 

7 ! 3 I.A. 615" 

mb. itmes qbzwlkt mwwmm tm onmo® of 'mi eott-T. 



Leona Kooalg* eoaplaitiaat ia a proceeding to foreclose 
a first trust deed ©a oortoia proaisos appeal** «.« stated in her 
appeal bonti , frost a * purity daoi&e, 1 " cnt^r^c by tue circuit court 
of Cock county 08 BaotvlMK 2^ ! » S$8Hi* WtK attendee bill was filed 
on January 26, 1932, to sjt&ofe tat: GkMMtipl&itia -tato dank, indivi- 
dually and ui farwtil under salo ttlHrt tWHi t*fc*d and alao as 
trustee- untie r e. junior tru&t 66g*j Xileo its answer* on ft hearing 
before a jeaetez- aut-h tviv«n«e was heard oa the ueation *hether 
the oo saw pollw^n ;:.tate lieaik (hereinafter Oili«. tbx oesaopelltan 
Bank) had in its individual capacity ! ' purchased" a certain past 
due principal note an** pawt cue coupon notes, executed by the 
Kortgagers (Caesar and v;ife) ana secured by shIg first trust deed* 
or whether the Bank, acting as ■ volunteer, hao "paid" eniu notes 
for and en behalf of the Haasurs. fns Master in Ms report, 
filed May ftf* 1932, found la effect that the uosaspolltan baak 
bad not purchased the notes, but on the contrary hac • under an 
agreement with the makers (the asoars) which was unknown to 






?'•:■■••• 












/ 



m n 






19 .A.I 8 



■ 



.. „ 

■ 

« 

r>..- • :.. . -. 

I 
. 

i x Bia «i X9**xt* mat -« 



i 

CIA K £ ( ■ 

ttfft 
.' 
' J .*-> TO 
»** **{. 5ttJt TOl 






ft* fjbctu « barf x*>i*f«M> **** HO **•* ««•#•• arti :>»aiiU««i loo <uvl 



-2- 

eomplairwat, roluntarily paid the note*, ana that the note* 

"thereupon became a«d awe subordinate r.o the lien" of said first 

trust deed "for the payment of li sums due or to b^oome due under 

• ic bntft Jeed and all unpaid notes end interest couponi secured 

thereby,* ete, tJpon exceptions of the Cosmopolitan Bank to the 

master's report, anc* &fter argument on a hearing , tn * court entered 

i. | U IHiflt in sT&iah it sasui© findings en the particular le^uo 

contrary to those of the master* hut in other respects e.ppwnre* 

and confirmed the meter's, report* Among the findings of the 

Kaeter are the following in subs tan oei 

2. That tn Hferoh 1? f 1987* Is .euro, husband anc 
wife, being Indebted in the ssum of $&4*0€0f executed and delivered 
thuii feus (4) primoiymi Kotos* p^y^.blj' ,■■. Tj-.-. u. g j| ma. fellows* 

Ea-t* Bo. 1* &$K U, i 8 .roh 1?, 1929. 

ilote So* 2* for flgOOO, due m^roh 17* 1930* 

Hots? K©. 3 # far ftUCOO, duo mar©* J*, lt»l, and 

Kote IT©* 4* for the halanee of 11* 00, due torch. 17, 1952 

with interest on said principal ©urns at 6 par cent per annum* pay- 
able aeml -annually, as »r<ri<?enee6. by attnchr<* Interest coupon notea* 
^J-* payable t o bearer* 

4* That to »eur® the payment of the indebtedness* oo 
arldeneo'* h:. r the noteo* the ammom*! on the tMM day executed and 
dcllrered the first trust deed in question to the Oooaiopolitan 
3ank* *a trustee* conveying the premises involved and contalnlmg 
the usual covenants* which truat ceci, was duly recorded* 

6. i'hat principal notes hog* 1 and 3* and tae interest 
due thereon* "sere paid st the respect Ito maturities thereof l that 
principal note bo* 3* for vl»u<JO* together with the accrued interest 
Of t3C thereon* due en Khrch 17* 1931* and coupon note* to* 8* for 
$530* (for interest on «i-iJ principal note tie* 4)* due an -wrch 17* 
itM.* "wore not^jpaid by the jamjtfgo; thereof * but were paid by the_ 
Cosmopolitan fjSSb t in aoemrdaaoe with ma agreement tuii tmo MdMrtf 
which agreement wr>.o unnown to complainant* and were and are hold 
by thfc oodsjopolitan ijsuim. unoan.c^lA.e^ i i;' that said payment by the 
3ank "constituted a volant ary payment for and on behalf of the 
makers of said note and interest coupons* auu th*«, uaio nute amd 
interest coupons thereupon he ce»e and are subordlmatc to the Hem 
of, the trus t deed herefirT&rTae lorecxoaed, i'ot in* payMotit o* -J.1 
sums due and to beoome dike under the trust deed and all unpaid 
notes* and interest coupons secured whereby* together slim *11 
adwaneemonts made ia connection therewith and eoetm incurred •• 

7* That on September 17* 1951, interest coupon note 
*o* 9* for 3350, became Our and paynbls, but the Hussars fallud 
to pay the same, that demands weie mule upon then for its paymeo 
but that neither the baaaure nor any of the othrr defendants pa' 



■■.'■ 

ftvsei tr.jOal 

. 



- 



« - 



• 






. 








- 








*!•* »i« 










HAW 





fctl 

I ■ ( 



:l afiou MA IfJlttW 






the seme or any part thereof* 

8* That complainant is the legal owner una holder of 
•aid principal note* No* 4* for llXfOOOi and of interest coupon 
notes* Nos. 9 and 10, each for the aum of $330* and that by 
reason of the default In the payment of ■sis' coupon note* Ho* 9* 
due on September J!f, 1931, she elected to declare* and on October 
17* 1931* did declare the vrhole indebtedness secured toy a Id 
trust deed to toe imueo lately due and payable and filed her original 
bill to foreclose in the present action* 

13* that there is due to complainant* under the terms 
of said trust deod* for principal* accrued Interest, solicitors' 
fees* expenses* etc* the total sum of J13*175*68* whioh amount the 
master finds? to be ■ v lid indebtedness due under the proviolons 
of said trust deed from the tfass&rs* who are personally liable 
therefor*, and for which amount said trust deed "constitutes a first* 
prior and paramount existing lien on the real estate deuer itoed and 
&he rents* issues and profits thereof** 

13* That j. here is due to the defendant* Cosmopolitan 
Bank* because of its payment of said principal note, iio* 3, fox 
|l»00t* due on March 17, 1931, <ns well as its payment of the 
coupon notes, aggregating 1360, also then due, together with 
accrued interest, stenographer's fees, expenses, etc* the sum of 
$1471*73* less the sum of §100* paid to siid 3ank by said Xasears, 
or a net sum of $1371*73* which amount the master finds to be a 
valid indebtedness due under the provisions of said trust deed 
from the Kassaxs* who are personally liable therefor* and for 
which amount said trust deed ■ constitutes a se c on d licfi on the 
re«JL estate described* and the rents* issues and profits thereof* 
.s ub ject onl^ to t h e^lien of com plain ant, under suid truct deed* 
ss here inb tfSremSi forlh* 5 """" 

16* That the Jfassatfs MP* she present owners of the 
equity of redemption of the premises herein involved* 

17* That the defendant, Saif Nassor* on or about 
tfaroh 21, 1928, toeing? indebted to the cosmopolitan Bank in the 
sum of $3500* executed and delivered to the bank his collateral 
note of that date and for that sum, and pledged as collateral 
security for the note a .Junior trust deed upon the premises* 
which deed has been duly recorded* and which collateral note has 
been reduced by payments aade to *1700* which sum remains due 
and unpaid* with interest thereon from January 13* 1932* 

19* That there is due to the defendant* Cosmopolitan 
Bank* from the two *assnjrs» under the terms of said collateral 
note and said junior trust deed, pledged as aforesaid* the sum 
of ; 1739. 66* which amount the master finds to be a valid lnt! ***- 
edness from the J* sneers* who are peraonally liable then for* ami 
for which amount "said junior trust deed constitutes a lien on 
the real estate described, and on the rents* issues and P r ° r JJf 
thereof, subject to the liens of complainant and the Cosmopolitan 
Bank, under said first trust deed, as uerelnb'-fore set forth. 

20* That the court has Jurioc lotion of the oubjeot 
matter of this oattse and of all the parties b *3* t0 ». th * t h ;^ 
material allegations of complainant's emended toill ^™ b## ". 
proven and are sustained by the eviaenesi and that the equities 
Of the cause are with complainant* 



*• lib. 

- 



- 

col jfaoi t°«R to* 9 •»•* •• 
I *ri* 



■ 

«tsii i»5. 



! k 
i 



■ 

I Ml 94 ' ' ■ ' 



-9i*& 



•. •. . . . i 









■■■=*-.. 



fc 



MU 



iioqoat* ©0 , 
X* ■ hi. am \o «mw 

MM «d* «b,t, 

-itfobfti bii 

, tan «*C 

u© «»*X « a sJ w.-. i- 

fifja^ilOQoaccD *tf* b«i l«a; 
!**•* til «-:£. 

*o«fc*uc «44 'to no «A auhC 4 



■ 



tit I'm n* Hsi 



-4* 

The master reiiomuinnded that a decree of foreclosure 
be e»tero<l in conformity with the above findings and conclusions 
and in accordance with the prayer of complainant •« amended bill* 
la the decree appealed from usany of %.he court's firxJingeare sub- 
stantially the seme as thoae of the maeter* but among the con- 
trary findings are the following In substance! 

That vrtiile, as found by the master in the 6th paragraph 
of his findings* principal note, ©♦ 3, for l,QOO» together with 
the aoerued interest thereon of #30, due on March 17* 1931* and 
coupon note, I©* 8, for $330 (for interest on said principal note* 
So* 4, for $11*000), due on 5fareh 17, 1931* **ere not paid by the 
■alters thereof (the .3ae«are)» but were paid by the Cosmopolitan 
Bank, in accordance with an agreement with said makers* which 
agreement was unknown to complainant, and were aid are held by vhe 
Cosmopolitan Bank uric<4acelled, w a«d while said payment by the 3ank 
"constituted a voluntary payment for and on behalf of the makers 
of said note a»d interest coupon o, w MtTt ft ■■!«■■ *said note and 
interest coupons thereupon became and are on a parity with the_ 
|1— of M m Jtrugt^deed ■*»•«■ sought to "be for- closed," for the 
payment of all sums due and to become due under the trust <seed 
and all unpaid notes, &»d interest coupon© securer ihex*eby, to- 
gether with all r*rvatt cement a made in connection therewith and 
costs incurred ** 

that there is due to complainant, under the terms of 
said trust deed, for principal, accrued interest, solicitors' 
fees, expenses, etc, the total sum of $12, 970,68 (instead of 
#13,175,68, as found by the master, which reduction of |M0 it 
on the amount of solicitors' fees allowed tc complainant*) 

That there i@ due to the defendant, Cosmopolitan dank, 
the total sua of &1371#?3, "which amount the court finds to be a 
valid and subsisting indebtedness <lue under t he terms and nrovl-'ioma 
of said tru s t deed from the defendants, the Nassers, who are 
personally liable therefor** 

"That the master in hie report found th t the Cosmopolitan 
Bank has a subordinated second lien, on the premises herein foreclosed 
upon, to the extent of $1371,73, * • which amount the master found 
was due to it by reason of it having paid principal note. No* 3, 
for tl»000, and interest coupon no tea for ,360, of the series of 
notes secure< by the trust de?d herein foreclosed uponi that the 
Cosmopolitan Bank heretofore filed objections before the master, 
which objections were by order herein ordered to stand as excep- 
tional that the court hereby sustains objections Soe« 1, 2 *nd 4, 
and overrules the remainder of the objections, and the court 
hereby orders that the master's report is hereby in said r<ipeots 
modified •" 

•And the court further finds that said principal note 
for 1,000, and said interest coupon notes for v360, were pnrcheed. 
by srid Cosmopolitan Bonk fjrom t 4« com plaina nt and -n t prior to 
the payment of the purchaoe price for'said note and coupons com- 
plainant and her husband, Ahymond Koeni,.;, as her agent* had plaoed 
eaid note and coupons *ith wild feeds* for col cot ion in the 
collection department of oaid bank, that on or about the drte of 












- . 
I 



m$ 














V 

1 


- 

- 
■ 

1 
r - : >' .. ~:. - ,-■■;' ■■•■ 
i ' ' 



■ 












»jii3 i**£* too*** i»o»<- ■ 
+ • : . -.; . 



I 






v « fj 



-li- 
the maturity af said netea »^id ; aymend Koenlg, acting for oom- 
plain&nfc, >*Rhdre^ mM note and coupons from the collection 

department of » aid bank, and t*t She time of such »ithdr.v-vol ao 
aevieed by the teller of e&id collection uepartment of the bank 
that sole note and coupons had not been paid by said liaeonri that 
on the »»»* day ■mil Koenig, being 00 Prised, withdrew aaid note 
and coupons and stated to said collection teller t&>t ho v/ould 
handle the collection thereof direct f that thereupon, on the sum 
day, said ICoaaig took said note and coupons to the bond department 
ic the ac Joining room, presented the same to the teller and re- 
ceived from hla the ehsck therefor which waa Intro* ucea in evi- 
dence; fch&t amid transaction boost U.uteu a ^ & Xo of oaid note and 
coupon* to the Cotmopolitan latftf sad tamT 0*13 purohnse by the 
bank woe mado at the rep.uest of sale nas^ar*** 

-&a4 the court in the itfOJNN! further found and ordered 

that the Cosmopolitan Bank *ha» a lien on the property foreclosed 

upon in the uvm of 11371 #?3» with interest thereon from May 12 , 

lt3i;# (the date of the starter *s report) on a parity with the Ilea 

of ecaplalnaafc ae hereinbefore fauna,* And in too decree are 

oontfetinec the following; statements* 

"from which mod if i eci portion of the master* s report and 
the decree entered herein oojsplais*ani prays an appeal," eto.f 
that the court orders that the master's report is in all other 
respects approved and confirmed, «aoa*i as aodlfied herein f that 
all other objections ex exceptions to said report, tit overruled! 
that "the onle of the premises herein forecloses upon may be 
proceeded unlth under la* d^ore* pending the <<rtrrwln tion by *he 
appellate cour - of the ituestian of the parity of lien involved 
he re in j that complainant and the Cossmopolitan Bank, through 
their respective solicitors, w here»y stipulate and *>gr«c th 
the appeal herein prayed may be taken soisly t\oj*_jhe_..purjo_»e. of_ 

trust deed foreclosed upon as against the claim of the cosmopolitan 
Bonk, which is hereby allowed in the oub of -1371*73, together 
with interest thereon from Bay 13, iiSBf at 7* per annum." 

And the court in the ordering part of the deoree ordered 
and adjudged, as la usual In foreclosure dtorees, that the property 
be sold by the master at puolic auction to the hi heat bidder far 
eash in the usual manner, etc., and thnt ihe master file his report 
•f &;&e and distribution, ete* 

nd the present record discloses that on February 3, 1I33» 
such 1 port of sale and distribution was filed, from ».hich It ufpuuVi 
that complainant was the highest bidder at the sale held on January 
le, 191',, that the property was sold to her for $12,000, and that 






■-■v 



■J; 



&&£■ 



■ 



a'rf 9$ fct«Wi«»a 



■ 
i 



■ 
. . .. 






HI 



1*1** OR* 4 . 



■ 



Mi i«##« .vmsat X«««tf ftrf? til jfoac 

i i 

11-v i ;*v MJ 



.6- 

there was a deficiency of v3»«09«W«« 

On the he ring before the master ootapl?* inani tout if led 
In her behalf anci she called as her witntsaaes her husband, ivaynond 
Koenigf the defendant. Half Hassan and Carl K. Borak and ; -sward 

I ilshek, employee ©f the Cojaaopolltan Bank* two other employ- 
ees of the bank* John P« .Ton* and Victor Jankowskl gare testimony 
In Its behalf. Certain ecetaaeata am' •.writings were intro<:ueeo In 
evidence* 

One of the contentions of counsel for complainant la in 
aubstance that the finding of the court in the decree (via., that 
oald principal note of ll,QQO, mm the two coupon notes aggregating 
$3g0, all due on March 17* 1951, were "purehneed,* as aiotin uished 
from being "paid** by the Cosmopolitan .fenk), contrary to the find- 
ing of the maeler in hi a report t i® wnalfeetly against the weight 
of ;he evidence. ■© eansot agres -. ith the content Ion. hile the 
evldense ©n this p&rb ieul-ar issue Vns conflicting, we are of the 
opinion, after a careful eea«idsr«'.tiea of all the evidence, that 
the court 'a findings M contained in the decree aa above set forth 
are sustained by a preponderance of -he evidenes* 

another of counsels' content iona la that "where there 
are several notes, secured by a trust deed, payable In install- 
nenta at different d»tea, a per eon paying any notes prior or at 
naturity *ill be subrogated, In law, but not._0B.a parity, with the 
original holder of notes subsequently maturing.* under the 
ovldenoe and the findings of the court baaed upon th-.t eviccnee, 
wo are unable to aoo wherein the doctrine of subrogation, or the 
adjudicated eiees olted by eouneel in support of their con ention, 
arehara applicable, nd we think that the holdings of thlo osnrt 
In the somewhat alallax c«ae of iiflJ^gf^^tsJlsnk t^. i sojfe 222 
111. vpp. 610, can properly be referred to. o there aald (pp. 



- 

-.' ■: !,.-■-.. k ■■ ■ .. . r -/ -j m | < t4l n ■:• H 

XHMtt?a»4 ftv*s fetii - ■ i • 

. 

... -Stt». 

■■ 

V:i ' . ..'-• .". y,i>:- •, ; :.. ' ,: a fc. ■■• i ■ :" v - > 

.... 

. 
ta te« *«i i HP* ff»a*yifa ****«(: • . vt aftren 

to &fcttlftl«f OtfJ tf AC( ■ JTO 

■ a* to*v»t*t •* **;•*•** caw 



-7- 



ei2-i3# itttiioM oui-ffM 

* th»? ,>©«<Jk ,* uoupoiis a* lag ^yahlc to bearer * the title 
thereto paeeed with delivery to ooKploinant on it« pi^rlng therefor 
(citing author 1 1 lee ) ♦ £he transact la* amounted to complainant *e 
purehnse of the s^mot and did not loee Ite emar .eter a* auch merely 
bee»uee »«ti<* feMftf or coupon® were firat negotiated through t»he hank 
of complainant or He prodooosuor and wmm ma*e pay hie thereat. 

Itex *«r* *&>„sma$IM±M,!m£m..M^&i. ?n«y *tui wmmJtmi en 

obligation of the ankere to wheateeeYer legally held then. Complain- 
ant wee not, therefore » eec&lag relief on the theory of subrogation 
hut m a valid bona fttfd agi&tfev and owner Of audi eticurltte*, and 
hence there le no rtaadB for dlatmoeing the doctrine of eubregatlon.* 
(See, also, jto^gum .▼ ,,. ...uncaju. ** y « ■• ••»• de2-3| nder oon ▼* 
JlmmilflRli HoteJ, Coj, x S€ red. 2!tap«, dn& t 933 9 992. J 



Our ecaeluelen is 



tft &mi i.t-ereo of sh« circuit court 



of Eeeember ao« 192a, 
so ordered* 



* should he *fi lraeri and It la 



& <>, 



ulliran, P« J., and iioaalaa, J*» concur* 



■ 



ml* «*»3] 



*▼"• ' •"■ '" •» • •• . •'■ ' "-.•-■' .1 :- |1 I I '■'•' 



36722 



OR MB* COHPAHY, 
a corporation, 




hat - cumu voiip»2nr t 

a oorpor tion t 

appellant g 







1 27 3 I.A. 615 



/ 



n£. JU-.ilC.-.. ai'.Ui«f S£*jXH»X£ rai itflHIOK g ' MB fiM . 



Is a lib class ao-fcion la contract con*i*n««i on June 
23 , 1932» and t3rl«tf without ■ 4 x * 3p F •■ 9(HtH*N& It Mile the 
court xoun the* indues ©gainst lafeHiiWtif assessed plaintiff's 
damngcw at <$M2»3$# ml entered Judgment against <iKfend*nt la 
that mm* The pari— t appeal followed* 

la plaintiff's nistumirti of eXsinl It <n-leged In sub- 
at&nee th t lis tl«l« Is for a balance of $542 «3t, due under a 
written contract* cs.toti .august Ins 1931, far ttrtain fidTertloa- 
scats published 1» plaintiff's t«o newspapers t lbany. Saw 
York, on o«f«ndent'^ order at variotac cinec between I MMNfl s## 
1931, and Hoveaibcr 13, 1951* MM that the total uasunt ef the 
advertising, at the stipulate*, rate p«i line, is $*4*i*SQ on 
vhlch defendant nade a partial payment on iiay 4, 1932* by cheek 
far ,30'j. Plaintiff alee alienee that said balance wae due 
to it under an account stater* 

The written concr ct was signed in defendant's neae 
by "A. Iresln, ^upt*" Defendant on the trial defended en the 
theories (l) that It did not authorise Breeln to sign the oon- 
tractj {'d) that when it was signed defendant was not a lefally 
organized cerporHtton, it not b<:cou\iJM such until Ueteber 17, 



:*.;: 



• 



v 



. 






.:.- % 









■ 

a 



am avStliv 

•;.•. -:. :■:• ,\ i -XL * " C* >aMW||lW| i J»J ■ ■■ If I *(MM I«»l " • -i' 

;,{ <.- : ■■•-:, .. ■ it -v ,u>.; .-•••■ fJ Mi ■ ;■ [ftj II 4 



1931 1 and (3) that after its Incorporation It did not. ratify 
the oontr&ct* 

Xt%m a careful anamination of the ornl and documentary 
evidence introduced upon *he trial we are of the opinion that the 
court* s finding and judgment were fully w&rrnnted* It is clerrly 
diecloeet that all chc advertisements were ordered and published 
at ordered end that tifter the oxg&nisatlnB of defendant corporation 
it ratified and confirmed the contract by making a partial payment 
on account and fcy writing letters to the firm of attorneys, which 
represented plaintiff, wherein it promised to make payment of the 
balance but requested further time* 

the Judgment of the municipal court, appealed from, 
ie affirmed* 

tawmuoh 

ullivan, P, J,, and Geanlaa, J#* concur. 



Jtv» 
tltrt 

J &M 
g&iS&W ■ T/l -toft tffUI0D9J» 00 

«3fe :RHW »^- All* 

. 




36741 



ItftffZa HTiSiaO«» f .vdalni»trat*v / ) 

of the estate of 2fc*ry iUiseiidorf # ] 
de«e«a«d f ) l u «»•! 

defendant i« ttW»f ) 




PHIL14CP aOLLBSJti 

Plaintiff in Unfit* 



... 

27 3 1X616* 



By thie #*it of error «h'fend«at seek* to rererse an 
gp*«0 or Judgwmti entered against his on ^bru^ry 15 » MNHi by 
the Municipal court (Judge ( ->*Cannell}> Is wfllijfcMMW ea followe* 
That defendeat't tset-eff be etriekon froa the file* (exception)! 
thai leave be tfiven to ^laiatiffg fcg MMOat ai« fctssteaoni of cX&la 
en tt« face tMJMtttti laa* ^ B plfciatiffU isetlon judgaent be 
entered "on th* pleRcinge* ugAlaot difjMfaall in the aum of *3#<J '-• 
and that execution issue therefor (exemption) | aati that deftadasl 
ho allows 60 dayn -within ??hieh Mi ftls I Mtti li «x.c«ptiono. n 
Maroh 27» 1933* within apt tin** diffiUMtlll proceutei* hie bill of 
exceptions and the saae was approved by tiae Judge and filed* uoh 
bill ie contained in the transcript of the record* Po appearance 
or brief he* hero boon filed by plaint U J' (dofendont in error). 

Plaintiff** flra* clsaa nction in IMaaaatl »*■ ce«ceneod 
in the aunielpal court on June 8. 1931. *"<> *» »*■ otwteaent of olaia 
ae originally filed he alleged that on July 10* 192«# oofonduit, 
for r> r^.luable consideration* executed and delivered to tho payees 
ht» sronissery note "wales waa thereafter asflgaed to Mary Kltsca* 
dorf, her heir a .und HnAtm» 9 " ae follows! 






- 
I 

■ 






. U x ,. : V 



■ 
- 

■ 

atiai • « li£ a i ikm» « « ■*»■ %<*# ai 

t dc ta 

: >v:-v • ■ ;.•••■■•.■: , .'m • .' ..■■:■•; h|iM | |f | Hi 

■ 



• 2« 



"jllttQ Chicago, 111., July 19, 198*. 

vine after date I promise to pay to th« order of 

IS jTVaI^T -' ' :' thirty tares hundred dollars at 

2ttrd & Archer ws. 

Value r*c? iwed with Interest at h MM of •# per oont 
o- s ' - mjmmmj 

(SiMBtttf) RHXEJUPT -OLU; 
Be. 1, Duo July 19* 1939* « 

And plaintiff further alleged that "where has been paid 
on account hy tftflililMt the sias of |§l » leaving a fcalanee duo 
thereon of the sum of 28 » ' hi<r,h tUh iatoreot amounts to a 
"total sum of tft#tt4e00e" 

On July 20, 1931, doff sonant filed an affidavit of merits 
and a sta toman t of elate of s«t*off« In the affidavit of merits* 
ae a defense to plaint iff* claim* it to n listed J 

*?ht» defendant denies that* after blowing to him all 

Just o edits » etc*, ho i& in4«bted Ml plains iff In the hub of 
15,834, or any auta. 

Thio defendant @%ys that ho has paid on the no to son* 
tionod in plaintiff •» statement of claim the <sum of ? • and that 
he is entitled te a set-off, as is shown by tmf claim of act-off 
filed herewith, in a sum greater than the amount of plaintiff's 
claim." 

On unjust d, 1931, defendant, by lesvo of court, filed 
an amended statement of elate of set-off (accompanied by an affi- 
davit of claim) in which it is alleged in aubaUnce that depend- 
ent's elate is "for money loaned and advanosd |g said liary 
Kit*en«erf during her life time,* and for money expended by 
def nosjst for her use and benefit and as her request, "in the 
aggregate sum sf $-5, oo, all of which she promiasd to pay to this 
def*ndant|" that said • ai of $5,ooo, as to dates and amounts Is 
itemized as follows * " uguet, 192a, - c**a*tf J»»ly» 192», - vl#00| 
June, 1926, - ?1,000| - that curing June, 1987, en id Mary Kltsemderf 
again promised this defendant that she would pay the aboTe sumsi 
an.: .h l fmjrfemj June, |Mm* Bnmunll I MMM ■•"* ■* Pmnnamnl 
on behalf of the estate of hary Kitsendort to pay to d.fendemi ths 
above mentioned 









. 






, - _ 



i '■• . 



%4 torn 

sa» ** '. . mix*. 









■ 



■ 
■ 

i 
»#«£»•«& tag 4- 









ita.«i«iv£ tot* MM*** > 

M(6 4BftitXf»l#8> oS XWL 






-5- 

tJ» ^UffOJit 14, 19*31, Ui« 991899 (JWl| rruled 

plaintiff** motion co strike titfi •'« taJd umttMM) 

if f-ea-eff froai bJhir ?il«« v ami. gave' l«afi «© plaiafelff fee sank* 
-■* ".hereto without filing m *£ti49ffri% of merits* 

M Mil of exoeptleaa dtecloeea thai on ffinia I J 18 # 
1935, plaintiff* afief B&9&99 It ctofendaflfe* » * t y» vney* » appeared 
by hi- afetarve? MM wave*? Ha* 9»U99 ; Judge ffjimll) for a Judg- 
r^at {r».lB»t e>fetida»t *M.^..*i»*#iB8»jL I4WW MM «»ue» 91* • 

9ll9g9l ay defend eBl fei be furtfeer &S8 to Ma ararflfe| N that che 
nttorneya for ©oih curt lea wesre p"ea$afe| ;h; -s. after : Arjain- , ion 
of all pl^dinga (**s afrltl g«t for fell ) Uw 09491* if He o%« noM)n 9 
ard *red atriekeft fiNt KlMi fllac daf ftltdaafe'a »ald aawaded etu tenon & 
Of set-off J ih*t thereupon plalati.--', a 

pAtt of hia triglaal etauMeeat of ch-m M I a* follow* 1 

"That shore has oeea pa its ca aacettft* *j • ■■ f . M aua of 7 

(iaftie«d of H ), leaving a ealaaee £«e thereon of Mat «uau of 
ffttoc (laeteae of PKMI|t* together w-nh lafeereet« eteefl *n<t that 
thereupon the court mrt&tmi the «r«i*r or judflMBl I >aore 

ateafei owed • 

After a careful iMUllrtiiallin *« have con- 

duced that the juagttent ahaulo (Ml TCfUTMi ***" who o.-uo* reaanded 
for a trial upon Hal is*meo raiee* If vh« i ... :a. ■* *ire I &*• 

opinion that it waa error for Dei court I tatei any jdOgaent with- 
out a hearing on the a«rlfee 9 »a\tK i frutant** afflirMflt 9f merite 9 
oenying any ia<i«etedBee*» remained on file* '^y.Ttu- ▼ •. <*ta*flJjbL. 
196 ill. a pp. 92 1 93 1 garth v. 7arstor*« eta . 3awk a 19* li. pp« 
51«,320| acker y iowte. 17^ - • • -"• 899-9f Icajrnajrjt 
iHMaLltfJMaVMi EUU INN ^ 5 » 4;5d » ftbttSI v * m^ o<i?r-?> 829 
1X1. pp. 164, ltflf nefcaaaall v > Uarta>> 22 Hie 1i» 39| JEftiyn T<, 
tohoU, a3 11. 449, 446). Jid, ae Judge Paddaa had 9p order 



. i>r - 






I 

■ 












• 






■ 
- 















■ 



frto 



■ 



oatercd on uguat H* 193l» .oTcrrj^wg, plain tiff •** M»tlcn to atrllM 
e?cf* k n#iw3f. , rt macndod statement 0-' -.'J .- in »f *?et~cfft v« ere further 
of tho opinion that tho court (Ju^c *Co«Rell), even if It might 
properly bo HWiUlTHl thot ©aid plana lag* should- be e crickcn* also 
*rr«d In tJNtertag *h« raie otrlokvn nlthottt first seuiag aside 
Judge ^MjK'.on'e said ordor a and in snterlng «he juagaaut in nuestion 
without first gtvlMf to 6«fl8ftNit fin opporsunUy of riling an 
aaesded atateasent ©f olala of 34 t -off* (s©« Port ■ » ^rbor n iodg n 
fl Battel ** 5 t3L l« * 77 » lSO-lf :,nryla y. Pr iddlo, 216 id. 653 t 

tht Ju-lgaent of iha auaiotpal court of .February 15 # 
193? § is rt-rraraed » and taa c&aao ,1» ronaiifUd for further proceed- 
Inga not iuconsiatont with Hit Ti«v« hare la cKjnresoad* 

i i nt &ma < 

.-ullieaB t ?• J»» and ; .oanlan, J«» eoaour* 



; 
i 

I 
- 









mot 



Complainant 



▼* 



and appellee* 



IXLXtt ulork of the Municipal Court 
of cnioago* a»d ,u»-.hT J* hcrai* 
bailiff of Bftld court* 

!■■«.' f««4attt»t 



ULL B13<X.3t£Z£* 







MTS&LOeUTCJ Y 
APHEaX. JfcCIt 

mmn coavr* 



ppellaat# 



27 3 I.A. 616 

# ju ;:ioa cEifLfcT m&wmm tm wtkivb mt ^hs dimes * 



\ 



va Sent cafes* 23* 1933*- ecmplntimat filed hie Terified 
bill tn the ouporlor ocurt of Cot* county Brnytog for the specif ie 
performance of no oral ngproowmi theretofore wado by hta and the 
defendant B«»rn»t*int and for ■ tempos"* ry in junction agalnoi 
defendants* Notice wa« given to them of an appllc <tion for suoh 
on Injunction* no prayed far la i*h« bill* to be HN bofore Judge 
Line; nay, ono of tn* Judges of said court, itofendfoito appeared 
by counsel and it was agreed that the hearing on the applic tion 
be act for a future d«gr« 1)3 the mean tin* the he ring on the 
applic tion uae assigned to Judge MetJoorty* another Judge of said 
court, and on October a* 1935* the court (Judge McOoorty) granted 
leare to complainant to file amendments to the bili* and continued 
too hearing to October «th. on which day complainant filed such 
OMRdnente» consisting of the addition of certain words at different 
porta of the bill* And on the stme day* October 4* 1933* the 

Pi iasued the following temporary injunction order* agalnet the 



*m turn 






■ 






i 

■ ■■ 



: 






■ 



■ 
■ 

.ft* ftA'V 1 
■.;. ■•■ ::: ■r:u j -.. :,»«4 ■.».«. »1 - ,. ft t ■ i 

iwnrtUJcrv© ten , 'it w M *XI* o* Job 

. Li.i .->.' .:,•■'■ i) gut -':'.:. . | | IN M4IN 
.'rtwr JttefxM 1« c 
ttfi . «• •«'■ '• **' \9 ** 

*dt U***** ««•*«» aoiJwuu •<**?* »atiroii9t *a* »»»«»* i v* 






I 



.2- 

three d«*fendaata, eub stirs t |i • 3.1;/ a» prayed, wist 

•Thai they do de&l&t and refrain £rtm in any warmer 
further pJt'Odtfcu-lttt- a* id suit in fereibl® detainer in the 
isunieipal court of eataaf»i tfase R©« 2o7ulll, or ny other 
•ait, to rceoYe* said ;>r*aieee tnm complainant, or diaturbtag 
complainant in hie poeaosaiow thereof, ant" from continuing to 
take iron the consult of compltsinant on complainant** preaAeea 
juiy air from the Iblaifflli fWRBtta ;o*» as(ja for com 1 cloning the 
air in coapl£ioaiit , e WtM re-atasrani, J^ndente Xttej and until 
the further order of the oourtf &»d that thYW^ flfi day notice 
and summon© in forcible detainer are stayed accordingly, until 
the for titer oro^r of the eeart. aa£ it to further erd*re4 that 
complainant file hia eaek bond in few sum of $300 with the clerk 
of thi* court inataat.«r» * m & •&• ^%»a of t*J$§ on the JUttll 4ajr of 
each and <?Yery month he.re**tf&«r umil &ha further order of the 
court** 

Cm the aaaa oasy (Octekr 4th) the uaual complainant* a 

injunction band in the nun of i&v:, approved by Mm court § -was 

filed and the injunction writ wa« aervwe on all cufendanta. «■ 

the eaae day, alee, aerna tela aavea to dia#olv« the Injunction, 

on the ground that "theare ia no equity on tha face of the hill.* 

The notion was continued until October Id, 1935, on which day* on 

the hairing d* »*** aotlaa, eaaplalaant was given leave tc file an 

emended hi.il within ®ix day© %itih«t4 prejudle* to she tempor: ry 

injunction heretofore entered teereiaf* and the court ordered that 

"the notion to dissolve the temporary injunction io h,i :b. deniaci." 

<3n October 1$, 1933, within apt time and in accordance 

with the provisions of section 18$ of the present Practic? at, 

fecmeteia filed hie appeal hand with the clt-rk of the euperier 

court, which wae approved by that official* praying an appeal to 

thi* appellate court from the order of vc-cober 4th, granting the 

Injunction, and oa October He &•»# alao within apt tiae, filed 

ttea clerk* « tranccript of the record in thia court, on :i©Yeaber 

7, 1»33, complainant (appallac) hare filed a written action 

eugficetiag a diminution of the record and aeklag laare If fila aa 

additional transcript of the record. The nation eae granted aa* 

on that d»y coaalaiaaat filed such ariditieaal transcript, atelote is 

complainant** aaaaaoa hill of coapl*iat, filed by leave of the 









. 



/ . -..-... I 



N '-. I 






i 



J flKKS 3:U ill fcaerf ff9ilh>f,. 

-: 






i 

i . 



fin U era ff*#*4*l «**£«)■»» f&MHC 



enpcrlor court on October %1* a$S3« (!•«•# 17 <i*»ya after tho 

superior court had entered the order granting the teajwrajy 

injunction now in <;ue8tiorj» and I ««»y» after Bernstein had perfected 

the present appeal from o&id order*) 

la complainant •» origin al MX ft* amended (upon vrhieh 

the injunction order of October 4, 1933 9 in question, nas entered)* 

it in Alleged in substance* 

That about Hay l t 19S3» the defendant, .Bernstein, was in 
peaseseiott of certain premises knowa an 12 SU Clark street, 
Gl rt o a g» | that prior thereto one nardlag* under le&Re from B rnuteln, 
had occupied and u«*d the basemont of **££ or ^raises a* a restaurant; 
that about May 1, lw£l« iiardlag abandoned said basement (herein- 
after called tho premises), *for the supposed reaooa that a 
restaurant at said location eould not be conducted At a profit*" 
and Ivft tho premises oa Boraot aim's aando» "subject, however* to 
Harding* a right to romovo tho fixtures* • ho holding the eame at 
a value of $5*0001* that therimj&oa* because of complainant 1 o 
experience a«d ability, Bernstein solicited aad "insistently urged* 
complainant to continue a restaurant business on the premises | that 
cemplainaat consented, to do a© and about Nay i* 1*35 » he and 
Berne tein made a verbal agreement | and that it «n» mutually n greed 
between them in oubetaato ao follow* * That eoatplaiaaa** "act tag 
as agent for Beraotola," should Obtain said fixtures from Ksrdlng 
and leave them oi tag pr«mio*&| '" wraotola "atMlM recouditioa 
tho premises and deliver p«s®eeoio» thereof to complainant in a 
condition suitable to yrOOOOd la '.Or conducting, H .mpl^-iaant'o 

sole control* of a r^efcauraati* that complainant at his expense 
shoal;:: provide all oaoaratlaj ULo aas aalioaooof pay the 



bills and pay to Bernstein for the electric ligJttiag| that com- 
plainant should be t -iv«a posaeeaion of the yr««ai«es * viUh, pu t j^aya gnt 
4f_*iat_uatiJ L . such time as the . buaiaejs_»hould .show a renao noble 
profit | * and that t hereafter eoaalal r should have a ^r it ton 

lease, in the usual form of provision©* for five years at a rental 
of -•■300 per month for the first three years ;.a per »onth for 

the next following two years , with privilege of renewal. 

rant in pursuance of the agreement 4«rnetein, on or about 
bay 1, 10^3 § 1st complainant into possession of the promisee and 
eomplainaat catered iato the performance of bio part of the agree* 
aontj •made a deal with Harding whereby ho obtained the fixtures for 
#2,000, thereby saving Bernstein $3,000, and left the fixtures on 
the premioeoi* procured the nejoss'-ry ttbleo, chairs, utensils am* 
appliances "at an expanse of about |»»000|" anc thoreaXier *.ta all 
due diligence began to conduct and manage a restaurant business em 
the premises and oontlauo-J to do so, Without the payment of aay 
rent,- down to "about a week before the filing of this bill !"*•• 
oe,w*be.- «3 1»3>* at -hip^imo^o^ux^o ^>..vt^ffift-fefR 

f roflt," That tho businoee"dtd not prior thereto produce a proris 
ut .ih^od a loos aggregating upwa*ds of bou. J* HV^w 

to which cammlaiaant* duriag uald time, made «™**;j*^^2umtiaa 
o Ht in- him for future performance and payment of ■oneyo jamming 

to about 9a*000«" 

fhrnt »hile oomplaiaaat was oper .tiag the restaur aat during 












1 




\ 


. 






- 






• 






• 










f. 



. ■ 






the smateer ane wnaa «-he weather was extremely how, Bernstein* 
without e©»plataa*3*«« consent, cl«a<ies&ineiy ana u«l .isf ully » 
"tapped the air coaduitt* s?ai*'h conveyed eccl . ma i.ii» 

^tfsma rnanel 3a« to the restaurant an« which cool air #ao 
weoeosary curing hot weather for Mm comfort of patrons nx. tu 
attract their patronage, stati thereby tUvertec from she reab.^arant 
"more than onts-aulf of the cool air fi.loUt'C to -vhe r**ur«urnjit»* 
and **toab» abole ajac ueed the same to condition t)M ml* la the 
upper stories if hi® ball* tag, not & p&rt of th<* real aim mat |" 
that the tunnel waagpaay h-ml refused to gitw .tferaatoln any oooled 
air for said upper otories, but fcltot complainant hnd obtained 
from it saufi'ielen* eaoled air for the root«Jtarant | that by reaaoa 
of »*id tapping, oio*» the &ir la the rwatflurftat «aa inauff icieatly 
cooled, m&ny patrons complained ©f execs* Ire host* and complainant 
lo*-t such patronage &a$ gentf will a*4 • .ffcred loBstai t.n* thnt 
when complainant complained to Bernstein or paid tojjpiai rtc»» the 
latter threatened tf ouo* taafil&lammt freai Hut restaurant and 
. that it woyl€ not be lon# before this Swat&i 'be £*■#« 

That about the middle of i.-.«pt«»bor , atSt* and when 
the restaarant fir«t shewed th*-t It was raaa&aa at « profit, 
complainant offered to b#£in pay tar N ^-■■rootoin the §966 monthly 
rtsiali aa prcrrid«*d i» sale' verbal agreement, an* tendered #SOC to 
hi*, hat that h# refuse Ha i*"-r.ders ano ftfeat he, "bec«oo« of enld 
shoeing of profit* sow eti-te to paasaas himself of the pi .-ml sen 
ancs restaurant business* to the exclusion of camplnlnant therefrom# 
and to complainant's loo© of s&oufc /I^.a;;, »e ir/ressec as afore- 
said.* 

that la furtherance of hie lataat to aeprlvo coaplala- 
saA aT 6ho r«? ; 5tRUrf:st bttpi%0*fi« ft»?t»«a«t»i oa • *•• K3i# 

filtd la tht aonlotyal coart of ©»!«*#■ a complaint in forcible 
fcaJjMNr i^-alast loaj^ , > -V.Mllf alia la Naa ha 

was aatitXtf to tho soaaooaloa of tho ;pre»i«oa aad that atwplala- 
aui unlawfully • 1 thholi - aaati araHiaiat wkita ior- -o-a 

"wholly f nil oo aad ttatmc and dosl^nod to ia^ura ani' defraud com* 
pii„iaarit; a that gnaaaani it- la« faraiwlo law aait« retaiaaala 

on aaptaabor 28* If83f h^a v »eeri setrod up«n oompl iaant» re^uiriag 
hto to appear aad <afaa4f at««$ and taat prior to thr banian in-: 
of auld suit Soraotoio a®rw«d: uooa oottplaiaafJt a "Landlord •* Flro 
.-ay Hotictf* 1 * alloilafl th«n*ln lattt ooaylatnaat is ladaatod to hta 
for raot for tho premies* la the sum of iSpltaelMf which HUegation 
is fplea and aaftrao and coatr^ry to the oral ««.t**»«»* n * •bora stated* 

"hat Bernfttaia'ff aotloas 14 ftbove oat forth "ju-a contrary 
to equity and «ood coaaoloaat *n«S toad to the manlfast prejutlioa mad 
iajury of ooapls tnaat , * ^rJbo now here offera to do whs tare r in acuity 
aad good conscience the court may de.« right and prspsx, tLit tr 
iernstein bo permit tod to pursue the suit in forcxbl* «uinor aa 
will eauao oomplalfc&nt to be ousted from tae pr«smiaea ar.d .a ' «»• 
hia inreetment in oald rootaaraJlt bunlna«a| •»**?•* U ? 1 ?I! T ! ?J 
la rostvainod ix am furtaor prcaocatia* the forcible detainer aott 
and io required to specifically perform said rer'sol Kgraemoat # 
complainant will s'offar irx= .-pax able injary» eto» 

o bar* road the mmsA a*Ui f il*« •/ «••!*•«■•■« ln 

the super iar ooart on IMspM tt« MN ™* ' hlch u ••»*^ ai * 
in the additUaal transcript hare filed. It eve. not change tho 
ob^et for mm *he bill waa filed or aak for differ oat rolief 






i\ '.;r 



■)i 



V 



i 
'■'■ 

I 



.3. 

thsa M aaked ia tao original bill* H wly allege* the o*»e 
facte la a wore eloborato sWttWN HeiJCC, It tftfltttft be s&lu that 
the? Injunction* «« gr ••■■■«♦ ; ? on HN» faot of the original >»iil* 
w«« rtn<s«70d ineffective by the filing of the attended bill* 

(iMtUMI H* IS? * Forester* ft| 'Wfe rlca v ». Corna ^ 278 ill, tub* 

«1| Cm** t* iBtfg i 173 ill. .pp. Ifif 17*. ) But couneol for 
euaplaiaant* a© appears from Utwir bxlsf here filed* eeens io 1m 
untiex the tefrre colon Uttta* Nfd&ttaa the allegations of the aawaded 
bill mc:k« a «troager «»«t m its £&e« for toe granting of the 
temporary injunction than did Hn original bill* ©aid Mwntlrv bill 
should be ooaslderod by sain court on the yr«#eat appeal. inaenuea 
as the teaper&ry injunction £9fdfW tifsi granted 03a sh>? face of the 
original bill and entered on ^c&ober 4* 1*39* «ad the jareeoat 
appeal from thai ortfor VMS' p€rf«a%ot! by Aarnateia three cayn before 
eaid ssjssjggd bill ua scwora io amS filed* at are of the opinioa 
th*t counsel* impression is an erroneous ©r»e. (800 M<;tdi*nlc'e« 
ct«. ^a»oeiatloa v. People , ex rej,. gjj^j 75 111, , P p. I*:,-* 170| 

iaggi9Agajt&jp»y.yyA ** J *i* s^4 # 5355 ffiOTWfflftrt Ti Hitni W. 

_:o , . « 330 111* 520* 933*) 

rhe asaia contention of couneel for Be rna tola* in urging 
a reversal of the interlocutory injunction order appealed froa* is 
that the verified allogasloao of the original bill are ineuf riclent 
to warrant tne entry of »«oh an injunction jag ad an to allid -**•* a 
careful r«ading of the bill we cannot agree with the content. ion* 
nd ** do not think that* ao argued by d»f *ndant'a counsel* the 
statute of frauds (the leaoe H bo scuie :oi live yearn undnr the 
verbal agreement ehen the running of ih» r etaurant deoitae profit- 
able) to here apflloAblo or should wilitase agilnat the granting 
•f an injunction, pendente 1U». r*n if the ntatuto algfct be 

eonold^red applicable, it io eell settled tast sueh statute should 
not be allowed to be used as aa *englne of fraud •* iL'nlon ete« 






- - 






i 












1 . 

# it » I 



* 

... 

'is 14 



uwh ,.„,«<» «... 



H E, wo, t. fctlti UM *3UU Iff 1*| «r "Invoke*! *• p©rpetr*t« 

& fra**.* (] mg t. Uttgi I 7 * KUU GSd t £«£♦) 

A»d *• co ttii vuixsk HhkI *Vre la »*}«• mitos b:\11t. l&l 
b&rit Iju the farther (HHttffSlifB of ^eraetffiw'e <-our..erl th*t 
h)M original oil! £oei? ft&1 5 out each a Yerbml £.gre*"«eat 
ne io *suf 'ioiiJBtly btfttlag wpon $«,£& ruinate in and eo*rl*tnMit. 

Our e««©lu*ion is fc!j*i the interlocutory injunction 
order of tfttftfet* 4» 195"J| *p#«&l*4 fr»# should be *ffir»wd 
M ip so ordtretU 

*m u * 



■ 



< 



i 



• 







■ 



34490 



i'lalntlff in Krror# 

▼• 

f TUV :.:nfM§ 

Betfendnnt in rror* 




m®% TO 8UKRX0R 

OOOK COtWTT. 

27 3 I«A* 616 



i 



Kb. jv^iia 1 iiC.-jti - u?o?ioh ot om coir h 

?IUe In an action en tho caste to recover drusagss for 
personal injuries sustained by plaint if as the result of hla 
being struck by an automobile driven by Ulifiwlmwli The Jury 
returned a verdict for defendant* 

The o eel- ration originally consisted of six counts* but 
plaintiff withdrew the fourth* fifth and «»ixth counts* which ch rged 
wilful and wanton negligence* The first* second «nd third counts 
wore negligence count e* Plaintiff's theory was "that he tiae struck 
by the utomobilr opera. tod by the defendant while he was crossing 
• ells treet fresi west to east on the north cross-walk of >daas 
treet* at at point about MJcway between the rail* of the south-bound 
•treet oar track on ells treetf that at the tine of the accident , 
plaintiff waa diking with the east-bound tmff io, the nlgnal lights 
be in, green for east and west traffic* Plaintiff contend that 
as ho laft the west curb on ells treet and walked east* defendant's 
autoaoblle approached from the north *nd ran hla down without sound- 
ing any horn or »rlvln.? any signal of approach, and without checking 
Its syoed or endeavoring to stop or turn out to avoid striking hla| 
thai as ho left th* west curb and walked oast on the cross-walk* 
the automobile of defendant was about fifty feet north of the cross- 
walk over which plaintiff was walking*" Defend ant's theory was 



itii 









3 [ 



5- \ V [ «■*' tfttoiMttott 






>j£U no aw**o* ft* ml 

i 

■ 

ioid* « « 

■•,-■■• -.if. : ... , " - i : :■: . •■■, (','; r. . . . s * 1; ■ 

rfwtj« M^f art 

&«oac f «xUfiP»a «U to olla* Otfi ess****' *•• >**#>- 

«4noMoo«s «&» *« »*X. o < • •« 'Xi--.« f»rxf« 

* ««w ] 

j . ... ■ »'m .:,,•>., . ; X : >* ■- - | i-i 94 

i*#IU0BOl9* « ■■/.!».* *«* I • -' ■ Jii- **»! 0* •* 

•taojoo ttratftfiv nmu «xr< *a* bin risio* «rf<J ■ *mmh«.- 

, Mil ao I ' **** 



•2* 

-that the plaintiff ran whan the lights were against him* from 
the northwest corner of MM intersection of ells and dans streets 
toward the southeast corner * when the defendant's .vat omo bile w&& so 
close that the defendant* driving it* was unable to stop he fore the 
pi in tiff wri struck* that there was no evidence that defendant's 
*,utoiaei>ile w»-.-s being operated at a high rate of speed •" 

Plaintiff contends that the rerciot is a&ainat the a/ini- 
fest weight of the evidence and ihat therefore the trial court erred 
in not granting his motion lor a n«m trial* fter a careful con- 
sider;. tion of fcfee evidence we hart reached the eonelu&ion tti 
there is no merit in this contention* 

Plaintiff next fatmtila that *the court erred in giving 
to the jury defendant's instructions :4imbe red 2* 3*4 and 5** This 
contention is argued upon HM atmumpuion that the enae went to the 
jury upon the three counts that charged negligence, and also upon 
the sixth count * which charged -ii^ul, canton and gross negligence • 
and plaintiff contends shiat the instructions were erroneous because 
they were based upon the theory that plaintiff could not recover if 
ht- wf.u -rullty of ■agMfBMM Am\s y.r<v i.ti:.t<-l.- « ■ tt l M me fe 1 M kit 
injuries* We are somewhat surprised that plaintiff should make 
this content ion* in view of what transpired at the conclusion of 
plaintiff's case. The bill of exceptions shews the following* 
which was omitted from plaintiff's abstracts "(The following pro- 
ceedings were then had la Chambers* out of the hearing and presenoe 
of the jury*) ■ * * The BtrnYwl "he fourth* 'the fifth and the 
sixth counts are all wmton nnd wilful counts* Mr* Bloomlngston 
(attorney for plaintiff) I Are they? ell* let's see. The Court i 
The first* second and the third are the negligence counts* The 
last three are wanton and wilful counts* wr*xy one of them* (Wi- 
eussien*) Ifr* Bloomingstont If the record will shew* then, that 



imtf. ** 

■ 

: 

to 

•on-.- 

i dS tit • «li )• 

/? tMTSfc 

1 •*» 
~et«) «BStfttf Id »Att v< t<j ««**» i*I 

#«** ««#<« ,v;-Ortr 



those counts are withdrawn from the consideration of the jury? 
The Courts Plaintiff withdraws the fourth* fifth an<: &ixth counts* 
which are the wanton and tlful counts* anc sfter th.. t is done the 
Court will deny a motion to direct a verdict ae to the remaining 
counts* 1 * That plaintiff withdrew th» wilful and wanton counts 
is further borne out by the tf&et that tfstfsaisttt requested per- 
emptory instructions ae to the first* sooornf aac third counts only* 
Moreover * plaintiff gave no instructions bor-rlng upon wilful or 
wanton conduct arcd he first two in bti actions given to the Jury 
at his request are based upon the theory that plaintiff was rs- 
quired to exercise ordinary care* EStc MM lfi true as to the In- 
structions be ax lag upon dtosagos* glv«a at plaintiff's request* 
hile it is true thai the Qamnum law record does not show gjL^t the 
slxtn count was withdrawn* nevertheless* in view of what wctually 
occurred in the setter of the counts** plaitttUf is not justified 
In making the instant content ion « 

We find no n«rit in the contention of plaintiff that the 
court erred la giving to the jury* at the request of defendant* 
instructions numbers five and seven* 

Plaintiff also contends that the court erred in sub- 
Mittlng to the jury* at the request of defendant* instruction 
number twelve* It is sufficient to say* in answer If this con- 
tention* that this Instruction bears solely upon the question of 
damages* and as the Jury found for defendant It Is evident that 
it could not have prejudiced plaintiff* 

Plaintiff contend* thwt the trisl court uade improper 
remarks to the counsel for plaintiff in the presence and hearing 
•f the jury* which wore prejudicial to plaintiff's rights mad 
deprived him of a fair and Impartial trial* fter a very careful 

consideration of the record we have reached the conclusion that 



- - 



•tfj 3 no*! si acur M4*aw ad* via etoiriw 

ytittiiixiyi ■ naitw a x«*>*« ^-J i »■ #r 

| Stft$«»fM»? J« fciiJ 7.0' **»« «fitT«fi ft ai 

■al x?**fMi 

C . .., ■:,-•/ f -. . -..:;, •. • i .. . • , ,- . Vv^lC-l 

J aid *« 

-ft, .*»*»-. -"**• 0-S 0*7 

■ , • | *>XU flJfc t'3-;?«t>00 

:.ni *x(i sai&/*i a* 

"to iT*»'i 

. .. . . • 

fc*: 7 ' -:'iii »Oft?J«t>m ftjj i&l<i IV OH tit AjftMSftY 

Aha nM&JtT **'l1i-'.iit'J.<\ oci: *,o 

' -.ruie Tfxav At. IslitflQHti Jteu» ■ 



-4- 

ecuneel for plaintiff has no Just grounds for complaining of the 
treatment he lOfwtf ni *% the hands of the trial court. The case 
wa« tried by one of the oldest and moot experience© judges in this 
county. Hi find that ooun sol's general attitude? toward the attor- 
neys for defendant Mml she trial cuurt, is* as defendant argues* 
subject to Ju«t oritlclem* Plaintiff's counseX repeatedly ignored 
the court's rulings and persist td in asking questions to which the 
court had sustained objections* His manner toward the trial court, 
at times* -was ma at provocative* and on several occasions it was 
impertinent and contemptuous* To illustrate 1 fter the court 
had told counsel ant to repeat certain questions* V'r. Blooming* ton 
saldt "^ell* between counsel and she court I don't se«a to h'vre 
much chance so get in iffy • much ^vldgnno hare.* Plaint ifff+g 
counsel alee accused one of d«f#nUani'£. attorneys* whoa hs doiig* 
nated as *that IH'.le fat Man* 1 * of "running out. tvmr since this 
case has oeen going «n» h®ixLa% what happened in list courtroom}" 
and in questions put to a witness he ch,rged f in effect* that one 
•f defendant* y counsel MM run > lag out of the courtroom and telling 
the witnesses who had not testified "what the other witnesses 
testified to** In wl&insgo city By* &»• r. ,.hawj, 220 ill* 532, 
556- V* the court saldi 

•The next contention is, that the court erred in making 
improper and unnecessary rmmsJrfcB throu-hou^ %h? entire trial* which 
were prejudicial to the appellant. fter a smrefml examination of 
the record upon these questions* vo Iml <hile the 09urt uii- 

■♦ceiH.irily made reisarks that were not entirely proper* yet to a 
great extent* if not altogether the remarks W9M cauosd by the 
persistency of counsel for appellant in trying to get ewldeno* 
before the Jury which wns highly improper and VBi ch 'uwJ been re- 
fnoed by the court* and by commenting upon rejected ewldennn in mis 
argument to the Jury. Ths r» orti chore th«t when evi rnce was 
offered by oounsei for nypellant and objection mace thereto* or 
when objection was made by him to evidence offeree by »J>*-»1^ and 
the court ruled adversely to the eontention of appellant, counsel 
for appellant would enter into a con tr ore rsy with the «JJSir2 th!% 
the propriety of his ruling, and in many instances in matters tna* 






. t .S'iA ■- ' 



■ 

« 












MM 



-5- 

were clearly Improper he #ould evade the ruling mmM lay the court 
by dividing the subject matter of the objectionable evic.enee into 
various part a and offer them separately* also that counsel for 
appellant, in his argument to the jury, u cortook to discuss evi- 
dence that had been excluded by she court* among which wae the 
verdict of the coroner's jury as to kit cause of the death of the 
notorman* who w**» killed, in the same accident* and Attempted to 
argue to the jury that tint verdict «ould aho* where the blame lay* 
and to thlfc the court sustained an objection* fa is course of 
appellant's counsel seems to have exasperate the court and to hare 
tailed forth reworks that mi&ht be rtgavuee' aw strictures upon 
counsel. It is the <:uty of the court to avoid mnkinv- remarks that 
stay in any degree refleot upon counsel* but it is not \lways rever- 
sible error if the remarks art Qualified by the conduct of counsel 
against when they are directed* It its the till* if coun»*l to submit 
to the rulings of the court* ami if he persists in a course that is 
clv-'-irly in violation of hio imty*. Iks court mm* be si TMtri some 
discretion in preserving' oxoe-r and ffMfflgiflWfl rttMtt to his rulings* 
From a earvful examination of thin reooro* while we do not wholly 
justify the court* we are satisfies ikfltt 6JtMt was such yfftft MtMmt 
.-•no that the remarks MM mot of such a ch&r^cter a© showed , in any 
degree, the views sff the court as to the merit! of the mm or 
tend ec to show any view© in f&ver of either party to the cause* and 
eoulc not be go un^-r stood by the jury* and we Mink T »he vercict 
should not for th t re&son be set aside** 

x » BlUftlll ifffTIf yiflii to $*£OJ3g£d.» 293 111* 55€, 563* the court 

said i 

"Counsel for appellants also argue that the court's 
or i tic ism of such NiUN&i frequently MM during the trial* was 
MM cesis? ry and unjust and. tended to prejudice their clients' 
interests in the minds of the jury. hilt e are of the opinion 
that some of the rem.rka of the court wore somewhat pointer • we 
are foroed to the conclusion from the MMg4 itself that counsel 
for appellants had so disregarded their proper attitude towards 
the court that the court was justified in lit criticism.* 

We believe that what the upreme court has said in these two eases 

is peculiarly applicable to the instant contention* hile the trial 

court upon two occasion© used expressions that were not entirely 

propers nevertheless* they referred only to the conduct of the counsel 

and they did not tend* in any degree* to indicate th t the court had 

any opinion touching the merits of the case, fter a our ful study 

of the entire record wo are surprise* that the trial court* in the 

several situations, kept his temper us ell as he did* 

Plaintiff contends that the trial court arbitrarily 

refused to p rmit counsel for plaintiff to make an offer of mroof * 

either within or without the presence and hearing of the jury. 

There is not the slightest merit in this contention. hen plain- 



■'.:-:■ :>.> 



HI 



M 






•■■; 



iimttts, 94 . 

■ 



t*l ic« fttoi 



Him* •*•» *•■ s-- < • ' >-■• * 






1*2. 






t MHM 
mi-stats 

■ 



•aUX« oorf .«*i*«i»*n«t> oJjij Ki $i**m #»«fcfe*x.? to* #o« ■* mtffl 



tiff's counsel asked le&we to intake an offer or evidence the court 
ruled that he would not allow the offer to be auuie in the presence 
of the jury but that he would allow the counsel to mak* the offer 
later* That the court was entirely correct in ivolding that ho 
would not allow the offer to be made in the presence and hearing of 
the Jury, see Oryatal Lain?, i>^rk : 4e u |» y» fttt MMEl °°« .ft s13 O^e 395, 
405. A» bearing upon the contention that plaintiff now urges, wo 
may add that counsel 4 Id not see fit to later make an offer of proof. 

hile we think there may be some merit in the contention 
of plaintiff that the .'ourt erred in atriklag out the nawer of the 
itnees Buoe-0 that he had- aitWH 60#m6aKt how the mm lilt happened 
and iiefenoajit'e answer wa« that he *dic not see the party** nerer- 
thcless* we are satisfied that this error, if it be one* is not 
sufficient to warrant a reversal of the judgment* 

Plaintiff contend© that the trial court Improperly limitea 
the c,ose«examlnatiott of defendant *« witnesses, -.e find no writ in 
this contention* 

After a painstaking eons t deration of the record and the 
contentions raised by pl-uintif 0* we haw* reached the conduction that 
ho has had a fair trial and th >t the judgment of the uperior court 
of Cook county should be affirmed * and it is* accordingly* so 

ordered* 

M * 

ulllvan* ?. J., and Orldley* J.» concur* 



- -■■JUn 

t ace . ... 

I I iw» *m 

to t»ffts 

. ,-3:,.iVsi* <ni i'Xvoftfc v™» Meed *• 

\ 



36611 



t I O',. M » Of 

M . - I tt£3t« uaiag booinvo* %a 
Kotcr Gftf oarta* w.» 
(flala&iff ) jUofooaaat Ik **XX9T§ 



■ «BAmi%8) *-lAlati?f o in UfrtKf* 







&b<a» yu 
MSB iufc (M I • 




*3 1«A« 616 



This is «B aotios in <N£|ti on & r&s&orla Heat- jiven to 
cefcalaat in orrov* Saaiflaa •# *rxyt : Oa» iftfaif? ei oek eouuwy 
tfcOfitlbftgf fallal tin pl*4a«iff}# by ] lalatlfffl in txat*« 

?ao «*«« T&aw tri#-<i by fetM HUB?! Rjgl MM I ficd-lKg: ia 

fmror cf a&aiafiff &rd &i# iiiinigliiw w*r<? aiNNNato' oa ;he .,ua of 
, . ?a tMo goa*^ a jvrijgiaoat of ijoveraaoo a© to - oula 

j inno, tafoadfati amp oatorod ani !**?• grasted Fioraoc* k. 

i'aafur^a MHl I*oa C« laaforthr defendant** to jtt*cr.eout« thio 

wit of err or aloBt# 

Tht fa*Mavftt| aro MM only coatontloas raiard by 

plaliitiff© In error (koroi*af |a* • Uc<: l|H c«f«nd«ats) in K .J* 

original brief t 

1* "Th.«? declaration A tl«4 to »*t up a o*u»o of 
ret ton and bb> Court 644 bat iiavo juriirilciion*"* 

a* "Sfct ju»49»<in<. Ma Hm -■ ~u™ oi Um pro^-ty 
1» oatftafiad by tin* <wiiv#vy ox a proper toa£a*« fl 

3* "Flndingo *«<i jua*m«nt; of «bn oax^ aro oftalnst 

ta* MTviit'ivst ^4^1;, «)u no . j.;,. ..v t ay ! *h« .'Vlcejioo*" 



At It ibo flzat point, j i'bo aoclar. tion conai it* of 



:■..:>■ 









- 



, 



, 



■ • 

■ 

- 






... 









Hi 















!:■■■: 



•a? «c-tts»vt MHl &tt*«he*' *e it to & ©epgr of the replevin «on<*i 
which It 8i*£ltM£ "<*•»* of Xs^viMaat good o»» H Xhe contention 
«: KitUta" itefet %ltia oojNr of the ia^ruaem form* BO p»- rt jf 

t tiaar t©fl ft&g ara&net bo oaue *o by ref«reaee thereto In 

taaitoji ^y ; s*i--<-mul»Xt but iw ooateado that the Mend r»ued HI warn 
act -arih 1© fcltt gQfllftffttftm ia A*e legal effeot and tb-t, u ' 
tbv duhosltiea* *&»*? trie i-c.i&rwwat la sot out In ?mb:*t»«ee» 
or eejrAJfflg to! Mk| isgal *f£ee*» i% HMM not be pl^nd-d ir^lv in*. 
That aueb M HM oatalAialMo rule of ffcea&iag NMM b* 1 (total toned • 
The i el&z:-:.i<m aet« out* *jj adbsjfcssmc*?* ghat on July |9g 19?Q» 
Mh^te filed feii reyl«?Tla Mft&MI in tJhe superior *Nwrt f entitled 
|o^a J&tem ta) y> ^ej i %»&«»» .fteJsejt, boato— « ej Votor or t»rrioo_ 
Copitoayj h eorpar^tiom sal Uurt the wit of replevin len**d» 
•lr:-*.t#c «o the sheriff of 6$aj| uetut/f MMtttttim M» th? t If 
J»ifc-to aneuld sire & bene If aiat, with. «eod ana* Mftffla&MI 
•eewHy, so pro*t-e«t« UWP fe**ia suit to effect 8 without felay, 
•ad *c a**** rrtWI •$ Ihs» jtali pMtibs and ch?»tt«!lo# tf return 
thereof ehnuld ba ' , -.aji, bo eeje* ane aeep harmless ouoh 

•fcertff 1» reulevvir?.;-;- -.fc-? aajjj yoode eBe 1 db> tfceln, the*s eueh 
ehertff shoul* libou ca3jo/ iiHHpiliff &m ccliver to ' intl© th« 
food* isd -battel* Vfetili MM eaie ebe* took anrt unjuetl »#d» 

ete»f •«n<! fc^areupon DM plttiH't'*f| »o bet**!? suoh dfcjOfiff aj .rere- 
uldt ^ook frojR the omii T»tHta uwto, awe? fron tV Mil Him -.««•« j1« 
Bonferth \nd :.f<an . - jxta »» good and r-iuf'ict'-nt »«X';tie»# Imt 
la double the value tf Ifcg . &1<J geooo »wJ chat t elm no : boul to bo 
replerUdf and on ttfcl t<.i-.-?*io 1 UMfl the o»W Lonir. -inat© # 
floroaoo «• J^ani*orth tad .l<»on '"• i-iatrorthi thai Ml MMIi lp whelr 
writ tn^ o°illa:.v«t>;ryt- ooea^only «»aied a replevin ben , bewrintf a*te 
of th* iiiy first efQresr.l^, ft! Jci»3/ arw! nercrfili;- aoJcao*leu#e 
thtL.eiT«b |« be held *ae fircay bouno uuwo the oJUtelelff oo 



- 

XX Vl &'. 

ti - t 

i I 
I 

:■.-....■? , s 
i i 'Sim, ni • 

I 

.... 
i , 

:, 

. 
••If ■ t«d 05 , 

sutu i - ewws tt*».jj «* .. -oIomI 

• '. M 9l«^4fttfo WJP tt«*t& 

bttt ] JeiT»Iq[M 
Tti ■ 

•4 

• 



tools*; isuol* timatiii &« *uoveaAlo.» in »h«t sum of tXO 9 O00» above 
AoMHfeftli i.o tee yuio to the |»i&l»viff| *hiok «aiU writing 
©oli^uiwy MM Mi 10 ttubjeet. *© a o«xtfel& eoaonion thereuauey 
t«Af *e *M iKfiNrtrt ti»*t If tho auid Louis X>in*to should 

j,iH.invi,it ii.i.6. tsis gw$t v$ i?£l'ro%t a»0 v.ithout <J«Iay» ami .should 
fefckf..- j^tUi-R 91 Hm sai« gooa© raid chattel^ If return thereof 
j&MKI too. MttNHAf M^ fi^P^M* »v$ ml keejf Mtt&MI the pliitttiff* 
Hi fet Ultf. MM KM* U >. M ajortfooidt Is re^le^io^ 'aha aattS gfooOe 
atati MMM&M MM <»h& e&ial Mtt&tf obligatory M4 Ml M ?oid# 
iDmii >!•• 10 rem** la -'all xorooj M toy the *«io MitlM obligatory 

Mm Mi ttistfitiGRJS tho* M£g rtMJgftMf- a,f£'il<;d tH Mt Mti 
court • oil! «w*i«»* THo ittiflMitiW &MMM r».lleg«« ttet the 

; U'i , by ¥i*$M §£ MS ^pl^rta writi replericti froa ' eher 
a»<5 Mil t*^M*«flMf it $*» Mi# g£fc*£<a to f MB&to M *7 M«» wll 
pl-Lvi;. ... iiom&M&i&t s 'a*wo- 5rhe jlvUni: « i« fagft MQFM waat 
t!: . iS ouio u«ta© did aofc psoooottte kin eota suit to effect* 

|m mm*m riM&ly fc U#ti Mi &hor-*tt$on aftmiwiiK in Mt ^u 
)toM torn* II .--, §£ M* ;$ai.^ court* II mm mmMhniI by Mm nM 
•Mil that the oail £***• J i$ft*4 MMtiM s«Jfc& nc-hiia^ toy hi* sold 
writ, ni th&t fcJM MM . , <--- ... . . tg haoiitooo a a Motor Uor 

Ml ■ - n , '' ■ M ■ •• feftH *M> Mi j«-Ye o 

|MHI «** Mo" ft li I I 1*; anti *he yiulutur iu* th«r 

to foot eay»» Mfct tB . &MUU MfiM tic not. &*ho « ii-iura of 

th* Mkii |itii Ifll eiv-ttrlu, h«1 hi tin I to rtftNMif *»* »lili ro« 
fo^^Pt mi to «?5| K*ie,T«hy or. action hM oocruoti to «A« plAlodfff 
to niMiood *f %ho *o£mfosl«t ***" Mm ' :<1 « *"*& oi * *' 

llO t -::_v; a v, vJ d'jpunditA* * * *- *.'>»{»t*# «mi ro ImH/DNK tilM -0 
Ihfe -mI ,- vi.>o. SOm MMl ■ ? !■*! : - ; « - ix '-' •■• 

%tto*<:io* Otort u« it f Xo tfc» iool •■>•! • 1 - ■■• NMM 

ju<i««'mt? j/o oro MtMfUnl tt»* hi loi nu»* bo 



■ 



- • 



■ 



fc ' 












. 



• 



. 



- 
- 
■ 

■ 






!' 









i 



li If tjbji » ob oj M i w',j>r: ota jvlftn^ff 

tt-nt Icnifar ■£*$ br *£■ ^-11; ;x)U-.V ••' luti ,»o.i ujXciHl 

i v&* **: - b,- Mms i ■*•:,, tfikiii vi . a - i . 

nOl •* ■>' = ,. Is,; V •'-:■:-: I* b«?3 . red) fc g ,aiww, 

o\1«c*,ton* gvt*«*£9 cf trjj^rr, end $M ■$ . \tz la &«ffe£«?f 
ifctwd **j HM ft? ei of _ ^ fc 

MfffttfM dffOStaofcli Oito Ifcti ;v' *rirf ff ,7c ir " »!£$> . l«> 

fctwtifiod ttmi In i i -<?-%. <- ; *>v . : I 

Vttll hip l» I N$ll Npra «u$9»o»!*Iet *.* ,? 'ft >•; /*£# 

Unit ••«! N lf&* yt**t »>* tattttttifi of ftflMNr# vh< : i» li r*nd 

*b«nr Iiim* ft OtJ0f*Vltt«$t1fe« {Mi e«m3.<scl far d-f mi;-.:.. ntfi ttolod to 
the emsrt fc&at tiwy fgMuNi ft® pptwr- th*vt &iw i« affn ~ tp vrtura 
the «•«* to HWbillJ* ?»* follevUafl H&3! ae«:WT.r'': T s " », ' tcj;.-** <•■•» 

(attorney fot jpfctfafciff ) t Thoro li a* ts#K* ea • - g& i itkt 
th*»t. ?*mr«t i» only s»o fl<*& Aaf *; v .*.t i- fclu ic: I evaor* 

»hi©# Tlier* ip or other l&fc* if wall U*i t<<y?M o&ioJl I be 

flle<» t*» oe optica If debt* Th*r» au^t %•' ft ■ btotil ..I « if 
t#»0>r» file Court! Sfo guooiloa about that* I will sir. v \U\ the 
objeotloitf" late*, i« ttM tt^Ursowy df ^hl« ottsooot I • uaw- 
fcg eeoux:"#rti "1fr« AAome (attorney fit tofOlloaWlt)i G# V I 
enytbio* kM ebou? the tmeatiott of til* r>*ltt« of aislo nu*o»oMi.e 
la your pr*iwme* betneea th«*c t*o woe? Vv« BttagAr tner * I 
•bjeet te tlict* that wey&sSuH ba • 'oaip* tw; *# «•« t«1u«« t 
▼errj»t Ion b*t*?*"m the tiro m«i« ^r# Aidrao4 fgwl4B f l iWi "«»• 
bo\i»l by Mo <rni 8%«>«»«of.»r t Mr* I IC* may . I« Jot 

Obiut «»j TblmOn ' ir -j | /« '2 j^ttid you alc^i to M -► - lfc » 
> to . you,* >i* rj«yo ' '-*ie o*r 

olaM fjfjrta «sy »or^ tthM tu^t, W v.m nurt -« k i o<i» it i* ou ..ii*o 
i y»u i*a ljfcT«» your Ml »• Ho« »»uwjft r trior * i obj'ct to 



- 






j 

- 

| 

; 
*; '?■, ■ ...■'.. 

. 

■ 

■ 

- 

■ 



•whet. tht WfftJ -h:i. Hft| .t.' . I l. oat 

UwraHgr ohaa$a Ilia fonac: c . . aot 

mSh aifela mim -.~: pl&&£$s$$« &za _. . ■ .. 

] ■ -i gtoQj »o a ta&ti tt^O« . . ■ -i . . . 

i •*-:!.; u$$K iUfce HuUwe «*. »&# ear* . . | v * 

a* tik . . . . v. . euwle $s t .• 2: I , . 

. . ij lit* i - . 

off m *• r«suxB Hm |»r«p«irtj* * * * Stew aely uui»t ^Aaiaaia'/ 

-...,- ■ .y ;« ;.-.■ Haiy ! - j ■ p t 

a i«wuirn» ouw *k* jar«p«rty sum o**; la&y&y fe* jrcarnod ir 

ox la llic ajwl ardar aaa eettdieittft, *r»a item*;* ia# lattox 

■.'-• |M 9t ! '■■■': * $E f "" ; ' [84 C* '*".« 

Mwr«$v*r* H&i esoHl vsms trlai fc# lU' eatast, surd BS4 hi ttm 

taoitslMd xuits* iks raswt $ar?a«im* fe&g$ fe&a aaatal MBiaJ - 1 ^ only 

la atfffl&iaaffi jynpni j #rtM«r«# ;';> t&9 NMMKNI Ni JiatUjf $h* 
ftJlpaaat* 

.xtex ** «twi-jMi. aaaHM&axa&laai ol &«** fwrtk <. (?- 

aaBaflauwtaa fca*r$s*s aajaai Mas MMUM aalfcantlawi wt itiiifmiiulai 

Hi aaa aafclatfldia' Hni Ml fca Bttlwitt iaaa4ti 

Sm jajtiajaaaat tl Uw s#iwr4ti mhwi a4 latifc "'«'•; 
ta a |bmm «&* «*Mti *« aaaai&ti aa a *•• •-«• a ■ .^c» 

auiaaa* r«, «»» aaht i&tiawLajrj !•• aaa*t*N 



• 



I 



tfj 





















• 



36668 



muzlu wnmm 9mwmutwxt 

a cor per tion, 

Appellant* 

▼• 

■art* mm, 




appellee* 




-X I3« MUAltt 

27 S I.A.617 



»« jtrstiCK scakla* msffMo im astsvm si rgi coir * 



Plaintiff reeoir%r<?<JS a judgment toy confession against 
defendant In the sum of ittffta thereafter, upon motion of 
defendant*- supported toy his verified pec it ton* he wne given 
leave to appear and defend* the juogaewi to st&nd att occur Ity* 
The e?ju«e «ae tried by the eoart ana the i&sues wer« found 
against plaintiff. He appeals from a judgment entered upon 
th« finding* 

me statement of elaia allege* that defendant* on 
May WH MWWi executed a lease for a certain apartment In the 
Cornelia .parnments* In Chicago* aa leoeee* toy which he ^agreed 
to pay plaintiff* as lesaor* a monthly rental of $350* in 
adeanee* for the period eommenelng Hay 1* 1927* and ending 
Mpril 30* 1933* and that there v»« due and owing te plaintiff 
from defendant a monthly balance of §100 for each of the months 
of December* 1931* and January* ^etoruary* Msrch and pril* 1932* 
together with the sum of $82*S0 for attorney's fees* defend- 
ant* s petition averred* inter alia * MM toe hid in all respects 
performed the covenants of the lease and paid all rentals therein 
•tipulated until I oeemtoer It* 1931* "and that prior te the date 
foresaid y»ur petitioner entered into an oral ugreement with 
plaintiff, toy and through its authorised officers and agents* 



Mtto 



■ • 



. - .'.. ..-•- '^; ! 



*- 






I 



♦Y 






i 



&«£&*» taw < 



imam**** m 

i 
( 



fe*»*«i* ■Ia?nos XZ> btag b«e» •**• t$) Hin****Q9 'nIJ tutmtv 

•*ttb Vl* ©J tohii - Vi!.C DBA" 

vr ?at«ift»*?ty) Xj**o cm 

t««A*«il fMfcf S1*Qll'£C b». 



-2- 

*hereby the rental of #360*00 per month, ae la en Id lease 
stipulated* vfr,a reduced 60 the um of 4450 »03 per montn, i©r the 
months of l-eeomber* 1931 and * * # January* k'ebrustry* k&reh and 
Apy 11 1 1952* And that your petitioner pursuant to the agreement 
afore&ald* paid to plaint, it £ the ;;.aa of #280 »00 per monbh in full 
payment of rentals <aue for the mont.h» of Tloi— jiii^ leal ana 
January to April, Cofch illusive* 34$*J ant that pluUiwiif 
accepted the en. id sum of *iiau»ww for the months aio*eaaia ae 
payment In full for any and all rental® aue under the lenao*" 

Plaintiff contends that "defendant failed to eaitain 
burden of proof to establish an oral agreement.* In our con- 
sideration of the instant contention *e hare re«c the short- Dill 
of exceptions* and. after a careful consideration of the facts 
and circumstances hearing upon the question of the alleged oral 
agreement we are satisfied that we would not he justified in die* 
turbing the fineing of the trial judge in rcf«*renoo thereto* He 
had a hotter opportunity than we tfl observe the witnesses and to 
determine the weight* if any* th&t sheulc he given to their 
testimony* and if hs bellowed def;on«ant , o testimony* as ho 
apparently did * he vus obliged to fine for him* defend *nt 
testified that he mate the oral agreement with John J. Murphy* 
oho appears to hare been the treasurer and president of plaintiff 
corporation* and plaintiff conceded* during the trial* that 
Murphy had uhc authority W make <yuch a contract. Murphy 
testified that the monthly payments of $250 wore by way of 
"temporary relief* and that the art** arrangement vas extended 
to the other tenantsf "tmsy could pay all but $100* to go on 
and bill them monthly for the difference and than at the 
expiration of thoir lease in a number oi eases we hav« so done* 
In granting a reduction we hare made the arrangement no that 



,■:», J, ■: »■■.■■ mrfB i .:• •> - - ■ • : ' ;■• ; ' BJ < " tifil ■■■■■ '» o W* MlH 

:.-,.r->:- 'J ■:,•; '«. »,- v.,..,.. .,:.;;. s .:'..• ■ . • ;■-.■- -it "m . ■_. '■■(■.'. «£i*>t 

■■■ 

' i 

jjU4taitf- 
D 

■ tti »'& -'10 gOiiaBJL* «f* S8i i 

or .j »#*»# a b«i 

yfoio. tin** « tf»ittt •&*? >*rfiiftft *<£* but xtf*"»* 

• ".>*• 10 3A^ *• ft*ft«ttv nt» i*4i i»Ms*»9 
■ xt*ax* 9 ** iwt*myt*ixa *mm **M 

f ISm tWl ■ i*tmm*t ***** *&i *4 
■ 
%*m* 9C *r»A ■ -a \o *&*\mm m tti ««*•£ it*A3 lo noitmrlq-x* 

1M* ■** immaprnvta *st* *b*m vfmt ** tt*l$*it**t * ^mitmr^ nl 



-3* 

they coulci apply future payments cowards ehtu unpaid balance. - 
Murphy further testified that def<$nda«t MM billed wm*hly i*or 
a #100 balance* hub defsneaat testified, that when h« received 
« ©ill for #100 balance he called the attention of Murphy to 
that fact aao the latter told aim that it was % alip apj uan't 
sorry about i*| i will |#JMi care of it* thai i« ui she auc Uing 
department* * * * to pay r.c attention Ml tie* rh« judgment hy 
oonf eeeion *as not ontorod until - ; v*'cuDei i* 1?&2* Jfeior thax-eto* 
plaintiff * apparently * took no steps >»o enforce &hu collection ef 
the alleged unpaid fcalanoo* nor did it mata* any written deaand 
upon defendant fox the pi«ysse»t of the alleged balance due. It 
also appears that plaintiff deslrsd a«f *ndaiit to make a no?, leans 
for a period c©m»@neiBg May 1 # 1&&2* Httfl that Kurphy *ea *.is- 
appolnted when iifilgmhlft did not do so* 

Plaintiff eontendfs that "an oral agr*t«v»nt to r.t'duao 
the monthly rental under a written losoe is a modifier tion of the 
written instrument and is a violation of HM rule of la* pro- 
hibiting a sealed instrument to he varied hy an oral agrertmentf* 
and that "an agroemest to reduce the monthly rental during vhe 
term of the tenancy is nudum pac tum ^, without corn* id oration and 
unenforceable.* In £j pi> v. Grtesh .cjpcr* roc Hie loe, lG8*v> 
the eeurt en id* 

**The a^re«nnent to reduce the rent fas rerhal* and It 
ie contended that the court erred In admitting tviaenoe that (he 
agreement too entered into* for the reason that an executory oon- 
tfmot u»d*r seal cannot be modified or changed by an agr««4stnt 
not under seal* 'hat its the settled lav* (^tldJborou^h,. 

Mttfti. 1<° OAe 2«0| }at>hu^r t. oosalli. *'•« lfc « ^ 98# ' ~° 
lonp as the contract eont*in*td in the lease under eeal remained 
executory, the plaimtiff had a right to repudiate the parol 
agreement and claim the full amount of rent contrasted for* 
The rule of law* however* is one ih»it d«fo»ts the intention of 
the parties* and while it auould he enforced in every eaee to 
ahleh it applies* it is not to he extended to other ot.ooa to 
which it Ocas not properly apply. U the parties have OMIMI 
the contract as moo if ted. so that nothing rsmains «o he o one ey 
either party, it is no j.OJig«f executory and the NHWI ■» 
executed will not he disarmed. OH louse •*&*** }•«* gj 

lift* before omit wae brought* a«a the <sTie«not tended to ens* 



* **s»a*i?«f ttagw s#A* «*iwn»t •#«««** ©*»***. *x«ss &£»** ***** 

. 

ooi«»i*- ilia # 

t ■ •■ 

«£* ©*& . * ' -iaX% 

■ ■ u :■ 



-..-» 



tfaat it h&ti feres fully ytrifWt fl toy ootii yiceu. ike f*ct &L*fc 
it fcni "been «* jMMrformed ooulfi *><s «ho\m in defense of the *mit# 
(JiijJSLX- .JM 1 ^ U1 * 4S *" S -orre^ t . gMagyw *<* *«*• *2| 
9 >yc. S97f UjjKmitc . T*..;^Xl««iU 53J «• Y« 26C**)* <S#e also 
IflUlJMMi ^ A ***• **§• ma«j 

Is the isawsjn u,um» <fc«tipi— ifiKWt |tt&fl JttQ p«j- MMIt&l i'xua ^ru*afcejr 
1, 1951 » usitU Mm wJLpixatioii ©£ the l«a«*» a»b the oral agree* 
awnt MM wh- iuily «.x««ikttt«&* 

l-JU-istiif Imi fcnl a fair l-^lftul aaA U*# ju..g&i«ijt of *he 
liuulcljpal eo«rt «f ■•hier&gi trill te &ff£sft*4, 

g :. , 

WUiTttlt ^ k » £** tat SrUleyt ?•» 9«tieuro 



u 



I 

Sam 

■ 



< i < 



3«709 



19 nscuaa, 

vs. 

SDWI* il. S3LUfcB et »!., 



R&I.A A, ITOS8& and SU.A 

1. 3IELRAIK (Petitioners), 

A9Jt#3AAft%C, 



WILLIAM H. ft.SLX.XlB, M TruotftC 
(Jleepondent) , 

Appellee. 





) Afi'-iAL fro* ma om 



of cook cowry. 



2? 3 I.A. 617 



««B, J98f2€a StASMX :ru.lv.--r.T TUB 0?m©* ( • 



On October 19, X*32, Rudolf JPlecher, a bondholder, filed 
hi 9 bill lo foreclose a trust deed securing a bond i*eut in the 
of ##©,000. Thie Is Mi Bfi»ll by Hen a A, Htveneen and -ilia ■« £«r*th, 
owners if the equity of redemption, tvm *n older directing the re- 
ceiver to turn over certain funds in his hands, as riaf/M kf his final 
report and account, to ViXXiasi 8, J*sllir, , as trustee, appellee. 

On JMovojafcer 3, 1952, upon a*otior. of MMfAailMMtf the ehRncel- 
lor appointed a receiver to take or. urge of the pre^ieee and eolieot 
the rente, le^aee and pr< J its, the order providing that "eald ap- 
pointment of said receiver shall become effective upon the ooL.piain- 
ant filing his bond in the su» of 14,000 nnd upon aaid receiver 
filing hi a bond herein in the euft cf $10,000, find upon the approval 
•f the said honla by the court within five days frorc ths <ata of 
ths entry of this order,* Neither bond was ever filed or approved 
by the court. On the sane date appellee, as trustee, filed In the 
Circuit court of Cool< oounty, his bill to foreclose the trust deed 
Involved in the instant cause and at the earns tine moved lor the ap- 
pointment of a receiver to take charge of the premlaea, but his 









. 






mam »**- F tid 

.... 
... 

:.. , . aarfatt»vc 

v'.iyo Ml »Vi*»*l'la »Jtt.3»d 

. It **• * 

I 

. 
• ill J wd ,«jri.'«t; orif to •% 



-2- 

eouneel, ascertaining that a r*«ehir had been appointed in the in. 
stent proceedings, withdraw the motion, On iovember 14, i932, ap- 
pellant* Rati their appearance In the instant cause. At the tint 
ef the entry ef the order appealed from, the solicitor lor complain- 
ant informed the court that pr*At<ure hid t>een brought to bear upon 
hie client to dictates the 1*111 and that the f^onde were net given 
because »WB|Aal— »l had decided te di tries hie bill. n November 
3 , 1935, e©Hiply.in.*i*t isoved to di«a<Aic»a hie bill and an order «ae 
entered th*.t the receiver rile his* final report and account within 
five days, on the eeae date appellee again moved the Circuit caurt 
for the appointment of a receiver for the pre&inee in question, and 
a receiver wast thereupon appointed in that proceeding, on I>eceaber 
7, 1932, tha receiver In the instant cause presented hie final re- 
part and account far approval, but no notice waa served en the 
eolleitor f&r appellants, Tha resort shored eclleetiona of rente 
in the amount of IS52, disbursements in the amount of $370,77, *nd 
a balance oc hand of $581.23, and the receiver asksd i or the allow- 
ance of receiver's faea and solicitor's fe*s in tha total sum of 
IISC. On the ea»e data, on motion of tha eolleitor far appellee, 
the receiver wae ordered to turn over to appellee all moneys in nie 
hand*, although at that time so appearance hud been entered for the 
appellee. Cn the seme date, an order was entered d i at. i • r in*, the 
bill et complainant's costs. On December 10 appellants filed 
their verified :etition |a the instant proceedings recltin fc , inter 
silo , tiat no oos.pl ilMtflo 's bend had ever been tiled in the causa 
and that the receiver had never qualified; thdt the rents collected 
by ths latter belenged to appellants, the ewnera of the equity af 
redettotien, and prying tuat the ehuneeller e^ter an order directing 
the receiver to pay ever tc them the bw.lnr.ee NMelBftaf in hie h*nde. 
Oa the same data, upon notice tc ail parties of record, the court 
entered en order finding, inter »U,lr» . that no complrilnint 'e bond 



- - 



- ■ 
ff»q u **■ 






■ 

, ; . : ■ ' .. J. - ■ - i- ■ '■ < 















t X*flf>tt*X * 






■ 



■ 
■ 

»a •mi 



I 



9df 



.3- 

vae frti filed, Uuet the receiver had never {gaalifttA, mi 

all the rente collected »y him *•*• Uu roprty of appellants 
and the receiver w»b ordered to tusa over to apaellaafci 2431.23 
within five ttfif *"fc«in# the fcfl&AAai or. hand a* lIltM by his 1'tnal 
account and report." 08 .'.jace^'ber u # 19 32, ■^cslionte .'*ov«d the 
court to vacate the or<ler of Deoaiab&r 7, 132", directing tne re- 
ceiver to pay to ftjijeaiiad th# bailee of f *uds, and 
en the sane date the BftaaagraBdHl of appellee was entered in tiic 
•ease for fcM first Lime. Or iiec«tsber 16, 1932, the motion of 
aoaellants t*ft4 on Vor tafca*4)&4 md fe&e chancellor *nt ered an order 
which vacated the order of "hjeeisber ?, 19 58, lireotiufc the receiver 
to pay to the jj pfrt & l Mi tdti ba&BHOd of &Ut4fl la all haad4| alee vacated 
the order «?nter«d apoa the same day daaaiaalJMJ the bill, h1»o vacated 
the order approving the receiver's final report and account, and alee 
vacated the ®r4$T entered ^eoeitber Iv, 1932, direct lag th* receiver 
to turn over t© appellants the hel«nc« ie hie hands, ihe erdsr pro- 
vided that appellee be given leave to file ait appearance and answer 
ie the. petition of (appellants filed on Be«e«iber 1- , II 18, sad that 
ihe cause be set down for hfwrtwg on said petition and an»*«r. Oa 
January 5, 193$, the petition catae on lor he *ring and the chancellor 
entered the order froau which appellants have appealed. It *a* eon- 
•eded that the reeeiver never qualified, althoug i it appear* that 
he collected certain renta from the tenants oi the bull Ung, and the 
eele question upon the hearing was: Who *aa entitled to tne rents 
•ell cteted by the reeeiver, - appellant*, ae owners of the equity of 
redeeptien, or apoellee, ae truotee under the truet deed? Beth 
parties siree, upon this appeal, that the answer to this question 
turns upon the answer to the following question: "tne the truetee 
in peeeeeolon of the premises ae orovided in said truet deed on the 
3rd dey of eoveriber, 18 52, the d «te the receiver in thi* caee was 
appointed?" Both parties further adxr.it that if the truetee, appellee, 



■ 



> 

- 

itiMi 






- 
■ ■ 

I 



•4- 



ves in poaeeeeicn &t thnt time, then the r< I Liitl •. few the 

receiver tiling sellee; feh&t if til it v*a nit Ha 

poflcesiiiou tt Hurt Ms ', torn rento sru»st &o to appall-: jr;ts, the 

owners of tfct tffiitj if I • g«Hptio&, ~he MMWT of appellee (net 

under tifkj alls gets tifeA>$ hi took ;?t»itfii 1;..', e1 tu>- pit ...lacs on 

septeaber :k?„ 198$, "by Bftrvl&g e iititt on ail ttnaatt vhltfe »et 

up the dafauita ...« • i.e i rent -e 

Appellants 
pail It him ai truetsex/deni^d U;--*t the truat ■ , slloe, had 

taken p«R«*salQis of the ;,)r>-.,i*^8 »rl©r It toe appointment oi the 
receiver, msd further denl*-:? Ui*1 • »f*X3L«w etllettii ra*;t» froa 
the tenants of tin I I (Itttfj* 

In tlit final order, directing tin* receiver to pay over the 
funds in hi a hands |o l^gMsaliig Xlm *hano»iior t&u&i Butt on fcoveaber 
3, 1332, the date of the &$#$imt&te&t of ths reeelver, tne trustee, 
appellor, *»ae in pifttiiiiii of the ■ si m4 c*»*ieGtiutf the 

rente and ia&uea and pr-jfita fts&illillg iroia eaid I . " 'Jeon a 

reading of the itaftlfiiafct of evidenae it * ind Uh; the eh»no«ller, 
upon tn* hearing, heard no evidence of ->.\y ki..,. i!3 .. . t ;:• 
certificate shii! li i i ..„»IIo<ijwy n the tbtnitaat* ..no Uie 

solioiters for the parties, .instead of IttiVftai evidence tu de- 
termine the vital issut- oi' f.tot i. the o»«u», uie cnancelior uon- 
ourred, apparently, in the arg.msnt jidv*tu«d by solicitors Atf ap- 
pellee that payment to the . ru^tee would lessen the auount yi Uie 
default sml would thereby aid appellants, owner* of the equity of 
redemption, "to eventually r.ideeu. " ,u argument »lo«e not set 

up a good defense to ttie petition of apueilant*. *he latter frankly 
concede Dial the truet de^d authorised the trustee to take peeeeeslon 
of the premises upon default, but they strenuuinly i;.siotod that 
this right had not been exercised at -he ti*e the receiver wae 
appointed Msfl that therefore under the lnw ( hohror v. Ucathoraao . 
336 111. Iff) thoy were entitled to the rente. It is olear that the 






- 

- 
■ 

■ 



e^ttellsqqA 



I 

•»fi* ft 8 






■ 

„ ;,- ^ ..:£ _. ■>;;.>. ■ . . ■,.. - . •<;>/'.-•••,. :?»»«-). tit KtlafQg 









: ill 



chancellor could not aafea the finding a* to pof nmrsi^n fro» the 
pleading*. 

In this court r*..-->»lX«« arguee that "«o Injustice hae boon 
done to anyone aonojrnad by ftisraatifti the receiver to rmy the 
aorta? to Vfei truetee. a default hae occurred under thle truwt 
dead and payment t© the traetee will ten ! to ieaeen the d-f«u»lt and 
will aid the >WIHf| cf til* *%ttlt* to eventually rrdees-. In th* 
•vent there i» ■ deficiency after gale it will tend to door?*** the 
deficiency agalaat the ei&ners of the paper, low^rer, in «xny event 
when a decree of icr-«elo*ttre i$ e&teradl in the circuit eourt, wherait 
thie foreclosure is no* ^en&iltg* t&4 o^mere of the equity will bi 
&iv?n a credit for all pay*ent» to th* truete*.* tl . v v^e hereto- 
fore ennwered this arpiEtent, 

'Hie order !■ thie c&ee is reversed Mid the cauei* i» re- 
aanded wit a direct lone to fife* afeaaaall lor te hear the petition of 
appellants de fievff: te take testimony for the ourneee of dotenr.ln- 
ing the vital creation ot fftat U. the case ae to afcatlM* cr not the 
appellee waa in the possession of tune pre&jieee et Out 'at- of the 
*ppolnt/;ent of the reeoiverj that if the chancellor rinds that ap- 
pellee was la possesion he ah all order the %oneys in the hands of 
the receiver to he paid la noeilee, *nd if he enall find that the 
appellee waa not in possesion of the araalaaa at tie sail tiae he 
ahall order tho sonsye pail la affal i aa f • 

;.iR8K0 AiiD iUUlAiUJMD t] II Ml . 

Sullivan, i\ J., and fVaa\*>ay« •'•'. , concur. 



. ■ 
- 

! 



■ 
■ 



1 
■ 

■ 



■ i 






. 



3d75? 







M I I ,.A^./K, 

D*f«adaiit la iHUi 



V. 

MRS* S» R. 



Plaintiff in rror* 




) 2&B0R TO 

) 

) QOttV.T OF Cv;OK CCWTTY. 

) . 

) 



617 



:. JU 7101 SCAlLAS LC : » 



C0UIT* 



Writ of error mod out to witw a judgment against 
defendant in the »\m of $8»390« The action mi in assumpsit 
and the cause was tried fey the court • 

The declaration eon®l#t«?d of the eoamon counts* The 
cotsnon law reoord shows that plaintiff filod* upon order* a bill 
ef particulars* JUef end ant ofe<Jeoted to the introduction in 
evidence of a chock drawn on the irlrsfc state Bank of Chicago 
heights* Illinois* on the ground th»t the bill of particulars 
stated that the cheek was drawn upon a different bank* The 
court adnittad the check and gave plaintiff leave to tmane tho 
bill of par uiculare* hut the cossaon law record does not show that 
such futendaent was filed* and defendant argues that "feec>%UMe of 
the variance between the check offered in evidence* and the check 
sued on* described in the bill of particulars* the exhibit o <gkt 
not have been received in evidence." The bill of particulars was 
not preserved in the bill of exceptions rind therefore it cannot 
be considered fey us* (See T ho >t* r Brewery y. rn sworth jL 1*8 
111* 247* 2»o* and cases cited therein! fl§jo County, tstf |fjfc 
v. P* 0* X* Contracting o.. 208 111. PI>. «3<>l "< ifcfcMMcVXl- 
CUr of ulliTan* 300 111. pp. 4t0* 4*9, and oasos cited therein.) 
Moreover* the alleged varianoe ie not covered fey the foraal 



nrm 



. 






fid .A. 

■ 

« 

■,■■;■ . ". -. ujr," : ' -■. .'-. X " ■ ■■•■'*■ ':.•■; >.■ • 'Jen ■ ■ • j ; •■-. > ':.■■•. 

fftttd MMfc Nil 'Iff/ i "n& 1JU4 

« 

a** '1 *■*;•'■ *«9»ft»'Jlr<t a! lyfj ;«^ ^^ jta 



-2« 

aeeigaaenta 4JT error Mrt therefor* e«uinet be reviewed. (See 
|BHLJ^JBfl^toi H AJMBKJSaH0bLJi«j| 259 n* ,,pp. 54, and caeen 

cited therein*) Indeed* U WNdM aeon, from a colloquy between 
the court and defendinnt'e oounwl* that the abjection ma net 
lneieted upon* 

i**feadaat contends that rlalntlff has net proven hie 
ease by a preponderance of the evidence* 

the theory of fact of plaintiff *ai tb»t he d«llvered 
a cheek for $8*000 to defendant* In paytaent of the purehafte prlee 
of a parcel of real eotatc. nsti that defendant nerox executed any 
convey anee of the real eetafcc and never returned the $2*000 to 
plaintiff* It la conceded that defendant never executed »ny con- 
veyance of the real eaiate to plaintiff* .Defendant r*ue» that 
the evidence ahe«e that "the |8>o»x check wan not delivered to 
her* a«d una not endcreed by h<sr* arid she did not receive any part 
of the proceed o thereof* * * * £h# cheek f«r $a*OQO vaa endorood 
with the Ran* of the d«fendant§ by defendant' e husband* and waa 
eaahed at a hank la the presence of the plaintiff | and the entire 

•mi of 32*00$ waa thereupon MMMtf over to the plaintiff*" 

The o;«.«e »r» tried by ihe court and the bill of excep- 
tlone ahowo that he paid close attention to the evloenno and took 
an active part in the examination of ".he vltnooaco* hi plaintiff 
•tr«nuouely complains that the abstract filed »«• insufficient 
and unfair* we have oeen fit to read th* entire bUl of except lone* 
end after a very careful examination of the evidence and exhibit 
we are oatlafled Ihhn the finding of the trial court nan fully 
justified and ehenid bo auateined* 

Plaintiff teat it led that he waa well aequo luted with the 
eXoaene, thnt ho had an oral acreeaent with defendant *nd her 
husband* !»• lfred V. oleaon* .0 purchase the prenleee known aa 



„ 



■ 

■ 

, ... 









••se- 
ll tea 9Wt*&iv* «.-' 

■ 
I 



Kff iw At»in 

tad to&tf tfrusfcr 









i 

■ttB«t*V 

■ 

... 



. 






-3- 

2C7 mi 2 9 $&et 16th 8tre*t, Balaam Keiffe**! „ook aeunty, Illi- 
nois, *or | t # €MM) taaa, he to aetata* a suart, *ge on Mm araiuieea in 

the sum of |# # SO0] that aflat fcfea agveeaeat was as*d« he. procured 
a eaanior'* aaeex on Lh© ffaMt &fcat« MAk of Bhfttam Might* • Bait 
out to 3r. Solomon, aKd by araaagemeat net -x. -.oio:r,on t lag ol- 
fice gf tag MMmay for tne MlaMg&B, Savii I, 0aalg«j that C»plow 
th*r* told hist tag e&aal B&tt&i not be uce*>;->t<?d, M the property u. 
longed to Kjra. M&mm Be* '<t a- gaggle 1 Bake out a new Magfe pay- 
able to h<»r; that ha gam took fe&* aheak gti r*d*oo»ited it in Ml 
tank; Mai ssok« time lager he *a&t fee, . Mg of tne Solo«.ono r*nd 

*ft*r aame talk vitn mm avaaa ou; a ae* $h oak lor #tf,i.oo, payable 
to th* order of M*g, ItgfrjltgB, afti atfaggmlee' it fce km* ho »ao I'ur- 
ther BBMYlmai si? ftgllawat »i|, r.>i ■; you giVg BO* t^i* oheek youn* 

aelf? A* Yea sir. /, fa ggf garemallyl .. fg)g a tn i -• tii of 

thea. %. 40u ii»es*ii |« Dr. Aii-i ,,-c. -eio. on'" «.. tea. .. ffhore 
•ui you turn it over to tkaaV* a. Xt ais ma uoutse. . lai 
tnie cheek been Mati ml ml ■ ' ft ma ftgkM * ; MM or »a« it 

Kiide cut |a the atiatj A* Bilk BV« teleaon'o pmj itid ink, in 
hit oen house, ■.„. You *er? , -- in egaeiiez'atiea af t.ii ■ 

oheek you w*rfi to gftt the lift • perty in Chicago Height e on 

loth »treef? h. Yea. . *hat kind of property !■ it ft* a let 

end atore. -,<,, m4 iJ*t<iT you £»to afcl laaH , ifgm you '.urnad thia 
check orer to Dr. inti kre. olpaon, Hi you *»rer oee thl» c.#»ok it«»r 
thnt until it waji returned to you b;/ the NHitl A. .nut'o wl). 
%• You aim 1 ! »e«» the on*ck atTtat jiving it to >-ro. and Dr. oloaaaT 
A. Rfc . You didn't »tny in their aam| t.rt«r th*t, lid yea? 

A. fco. . ow lon^ ltd you rem tin in their hou»ev a. Juot long 

enough to write the c*eok. . "ifou liin't «o to the bank *ith 

theei? a. t,o. . Vou I n't ( o to the ±tanj 4.olan4 ii«nkt 

A. &o, «sir. |. Mi you seo it. >olo«aa »ign «i» «»• M "»• 
back of th»t cheek? A. x.o rir, i. Mi vou «ee hi» olga .i« 
aaae to that cheek' a. ko." 



i 

©i Sue 

.ismu»X*£ .nit ti hotunl 

- 
• Xi •■ - »*wi t 

. . . 



; 









,■■■! 



,>;■' 



■ 

[•#1* <»ft.da *ldJ •■■• nw* 

|Mi IttfX .* *•»«•** ti-ii \i. ;w»i *»y hjfj ^a*! w»' r - ..' .«H .* 

•If ©,r rfjJVOft* 
.•K .A ?«»rfj» 

si. 



-4. 

Wotmimt ili not t*»uxy. B«r MitMMi ttftifled mm 

plalntiif'e <»t*t 'resent in rtfe-renee to thi first il «h« f-ilae 

In to, to, « *nd lift fyki>%t— I y stated that fee never MM or - new 
anything about MM a cheek. .!« testified further, in tuittMaa. 
that &»® Ueejen, dvftmiMift'l ftMUMffj o*«iJ plaintiff '■ irifi MM 
a\on#y; that the :>r»p*rt2 in qaaatiM had boon. EtiMB'i bat at tho 
tiK* «a* hald! in tffaat i'or 4 lifMKlMli ; that plaintiff »n.i no««n 
ease to kit iffiM in feis taMi Md ft datlff f;*id: Bf Wi ,r* going 
to paae a MMk now. Uef In git* ;<ou a ohftofc ior , 

the purpose oi' whic ; ; it to <4*©w M&*l£**atiai tl -< t*M f«f ol 
the property,' j&nd I aaid, 'Ail rig&fc* 1*13 t» * lut P«"»ui»d 

to be pattsvf act pry to lur. Ho sen, i&a ma familiar ;t laml* 

s . that did .ftp* en way* a* li, i&Mi aafcad o tale. 

The Court* ,i. Hun h* i&i&i *I M iivifif,; ; -cu Lis i'or tne purnoaa 
of enowing a dMa4Mva*iM« ' lid .:■'-© a en *«ay that was oil ri fcj ? t 
4. Ye*.* &UI ttllMNMi f&rtfoftf it&tM that plaiatiff o*r>* to Mi 
hou*o »it.:; tn- s-ieolc MiMJK out, Nit aj uorrected tula etatmant nd 
said Hurt h* , plaintiff ( in<4 NiiS aaat t tuny I*l*«nd t *te 

Saving* Smk| «a4 tn front if KM bank, la the witness's iuto. obllo, 
plaintiff wrote out a ch*ck fi* , ^ to lira. . . oin.on; tbat 
in. r>eiofuoB *«• not t-ert fceciau** M, tnd witneaa, did not wiah to 
hawe aer mixed up in MM i&atter; taat he indorsed h«r MM upon the 
back if Mi ©neck, "almuXatin* her signature,* and tnen indorsed 
hie own turn* beneath hi a wife'* no/tie; Mat he wae known at the bank 
and h&A an account MMM M4 UmI ^" , took th«r cheek to tha oaeniar 
el the h;»nk and reoeired fr<wc aim M»OM in M%| Mill he put the 
money in hi© pocket Mi afterward retun the car and tnare 

«%▼• plaintiff the |t 9 Mt« fait cJ»*»ck beara upon ite f-*oe the 
following word n, "Vor *•»! t t«? tr*n*. ' > okoo teatlfiai 

that he w»i certain that at the tiwe he c^«n«d tae cneek th#ee 
worda were not uoon it. a cioae ewtnlAa;lon of tu* photostatic copy 



- I 
I 

fll 

. 
mm* "• 

■ 

■ 

fc*a*Ot<fli 

iaji **v t MM n*c 

1ftlf{»C!3 •/<* «!■; tiOftdO £lUR>t)0<i A* Jut* hne 



• 5* 

of the cheek show* Innt the perforated cancellation mark mad* by 
the bar.k#t© indicate payment if tnf c latl •• , covers part of Ifct 
word* in question, and an inspection of these word* with a micro- 
•cope fail a to lndicata the atttaltitn Hint ■fH folio* if these 
word* mat 1 Net* ^riiten over the perforation*. Dr. ».©lof«on testi- 
fied, at first, tnmt tad check «aa not , Iven *ftf any real estate 
transfer* to be wade, a*. ws,» then, inter rtgaittf by the uourt: 
" <,. Yoa intended to gift tin i d««4, and at it hmananta 1 , ho gave 
yo l the #'*,C"X and fed was to get the de«d, -*nd Hun you thought 
you had better call up i*r. Sng&tW end Ur. L&plow said you enouldn't 
do it nftMtt thing© were gaffing a little ttnplitatnai A., ihat's 
right,* Final &9 the witness ngnlattd taut it. wa« understood in the 
discussion that lt # > plant in his house |ntt I ?»fore tn«y started 
for the bank that the deed tttttld be given It pi vintif J; that a deed 
wat to be given plaintiff ha tn.nl at ( Salttttft) con<i(,oneed to think, 
while he was at the bank, Una! the tfenlt transaction was not legal; 
that 1st "felt Wing about Ifet nfemlt thing," so he cailed up his at- 
torney, fter he iMUl tUtJItm 1 the on* ok and tur*. V '.he money t* 
plaintiff, &n:J tale 1 aim what h* had fttttt, n llM •*- '■•■■' '-ey "roui.-lly 
condemned* him said *aid that "the thing shouldn't have been done," 
that Rosen's business was getting bud r.nd that it w a » not advisable 
to make a transfer, defendant's attorney, Gaplow, t»^U J "i.*d that 
the testimony of slalntiff It the »fJ>c ne brought ■ chaos to 
the office of the witness, made oayafcle to j. aioo.ou, for :-, 
was false in to^ o. The trial ecurt, realising th* importance of 
this issue of f*>ot, adjourn*' -iwaring for a few days It order 
that elfttntiff might have an opportunity to rro-'uc* tb<» first check. 
♦men the hearing was resumed plaintiff oroducod ar.d introduced it. 
It was a certified cheek for , , dated September K>, 1029, 
signed by plaintiff and ***ude payable to Dr. *. K. Solomon Idefand- 
ant's nam* is Esther Koeamond *olot*on>. M th« baos of this oh oak , 



• 



t 
■ 

■ 
- 

: 

t*tU 
to */W 

■ 
lac ; .1* »**;• 



I 
•a 

- 

i 

! 

: 

■ ■ 



■ i 



-6- 

whie: had ba*n rsd i*pa«J ted by Plata tiff, -tooear the fallowing in- 
dorsements: "&. h. .^lowon &. 'ilMM ' Lhe doctor, ae we h*ve 
already >t»f i, teetified that he indorsed the nnnt *kra. i, u. 
Solomon* oia the eheek that was cashed, '.-hen plaintiff produced tne 
check dated If taalUff 30, !>§>$« B photostatic oooy of which %ppe*rs 

in the record, W, BilWKl tcfik the •land. -Jid testified, positively, 

indorsement 

that he 144 net write %h^/"'-i, ,-■ , lioioiaec" upon that check. *e have 

eery carefully examined the indorsements on both check* and w« arc 
satisfied that the trial court wa© fully ;}uetified la Holding that 
if the lector wrote the &aWA Bar*, .-. R« ^lo.^on upon the cheek that 
was cashed, then he also Wtta fcaa 8SJM t« ... aaiaatB upon the flrct 
check, i'he record shews? that the tri I W&% re^ irded the first 
cheek ae 4 esoet important piece of evidence la Aetajttiaiag the 
truth of the c&s*e, m& we entirely &##•* with hi* ii* that regard. 
As iff in till! strenuously aW§a*a« Callow test! ft ed that pl*iz;tiff 
had been at hie office waay Haffl siata tad eaaafc was cashed -r.<* on 
each occasion hud t#M aaa taat he bad gattaa hia money back; "svery 
tine, without fail,* he »o ta*4 mat] that even sf%a« plaintiff had 
etarted the instant suit fee tail the vltneas that he had gotten hia 
neney bask, "but Or. «olo*aon wouldn't b* *lle to prove he ^et hit 
aoney bvek, eo he was l>llf turcu | ,h wit.: tiM wuit. ,. ~v«ry tins 
he appeared at your office you asked la if he got o-iid the »?, 
be*k, is that correct? a. #hy, aure. * ihe trial court indicated 

aurorise at thia testimony bB4 it is evident from hia finding that 
ae did net believe it. ihi* attorney lurcher teoUi'Led that he 
handled the aatter or "put tin,: ^oaen's property in truat ior de- 
fendant," and that at the tin;* vhe ehec* was cashed ne told the 
Sector, over the telephone, that at Aid not Know hew long *o**n 
would be able to i.old out, that U thinga Aid not i-.orove there wae 
only one way out for .oi?eo, - b<*r.kriiptoy or tin a»»iKnment for the 

ereditcra, ind th*t he (Ouplew) would not «*llo» « trwjpfer of the 












■• 









■ 
i:ii 2i (-. t« a* 

ion •■«* »▼'■•• ' 

. .' i h, 

■ • 

-•fc 1« .v.<JO«Hr - 

ohm** ji«oX w • 

««v »«t >. Joa felt sa.if- 

•it* Tio't * a«iBa4isc« no i« t*- 

•iU lo »«1«ast* i» *olt* i«n\ 









-■ 



*'X*8 JfUt 



ill MW 






itf ^»n 






I ,* 



-7- 

property to iaeJjitJLff because that would "further complicate mat- 
ten." • wit,ne§» further testified that shortly after the oheok 
w*s eashed he acted na attorney x'or ham m in b^ikruptoy proceedings 
brought Against the latter, sad he ad&ittej that * -lid not schedule 
th« property in --m est. I. on in the I inkruptoy Br««aadingn, *aked to 
explain why, in view of that f et, objected to defend ant' a 
giving plaintiff a deed to the p roper ty 8 he stntod ho »u afraid 
thnt if th«? deed Vtra given ffjtrtr.1 ml&ht r:*iee a question of 
preference in taat bankruptcy p roe earnings were thereafter started. 
Rosen, th* fathar of def mi Mat* corroecratad the. testimony of 
Dr. ^olo»on th»t the latter gsv® back the }S V 990 to plaintiff. 
Mis testimony, in goat reenect©, Aaar net mi stain the testimony 
of Dr. Solomon. Rosea testified^ when eloaely interrogated by 
the court, that the un*f ere tanking of the parti ea wae that plaintiff 
was to give #g # 000 to defendant and that the latter was to &ive to 
plaintiff a deed to the property on 18th street, if Or. >olomon's 
lawyer "decided it ie all right." he further testified that after 
Dr. Solomon had cashed the* oht'ek, hat aafarr Mm tttMi tkm aon ey 
baek to plaintiff s the doctor had a telephone conversation with 
Caplow and then said to paaftfttlls*) *l m aorry. e can»t go 
through with the deal, bee.*u*?e Br« PtaJflTff objected to it," aatf 
that the doctor then t tvte plaintiff bach the money, *it waa fifty 
dollar billa <uad hundred- dollar bills;* that Dr. . olonon »Ud: 
"•Let's go out to tae fjutociobil* wd we'll eee, ' N went to the 
autoaoblle; we all tot in <*nd he eaid, 'Ur. ..alman, I am sorry 
we «an»t go through *ith the transaction, whatever it la. Z 
hare to give you the money brack.* >ie Just took out the money 
and gave it to hia.* Pluintiff testified that the testlaoay of 
Dr. "olomon and Ho sen ae to the o.ohinf- of thr ch<*ok \t the bank 
wee false in toto; th»t he never received b *ck nny money from 



I 

- 

f * 

{ > 

■ 
■ 

i 
X% ■ 

a ' . , 

m - 

•if* o* *n* v 1 - :1 °* ' 

^sncoe M i 4 «aai* 

X .»** •• * 



ml 



.1 ; * 



Li- U 






i a • o 






Lr. oleaoa. He further tegtififtd that the teetiaajey that he hud 

given the oheojs for the purpose of having it appear Mn a eufrae- 

s t uent bankruptcy proceeding that he had paid vU.uc to* (he 

property* «&• *« lief* Halt his agfmMMA ^Uh cafyndant had 

nothing to da with the iMM bankruptcy | tfcal he w:intftd the 

property and aaacidered it % fair ptoce of proper tyt" that the 

olonoas nevsr told Xiai ttnt Ko^an «*» yttttj into bankruptcy* not 

did they ever meatiaa Mb** ttita &i£<iti&imt held title through her 

father « Plaintiff farther tact if led that he had no lawyer in the 

transaction Ml thst Caplow premi».**I hia that he «euld he furnished 

eith an aaalttHl mM a daea* to ta* property *in « few days*" Aa 

InUe.iiw^ the altitasa of mUm of the plaintiff, 2?r, oloevon 

testified that plaint iff* after the tfaAavat tan ia iiuoatiea* la 

varleus public plaaect called hi» R oraok &m a swindler* and 

threatened to go to the aya&iogu*? ^here the doctor attended, and 

to the aocpit&l so *hieA h*f v< -\ohed* and denounce hi* an a 

crook* 

.Defendant* ia a final effort to -avoid the Judgment* 

etrenuoualy argues that ah* «vi>?enaa doe* not aho* "t/at she had 

received the check in the MM oi » # or that ithe derived any 

benefit* thereof** ?ha ta« inony of plain' islf aha*» that ha made 

•at the check to the defend -ant find handed it. to her, er» • he aleo 

•t&Us* *to her and her husband** &*** if aha permitted her hunbuttd 

to indorse her name to the chock mad to obtain the money or Lie 

ehe la la aa poeitioa to contend that she did not receive the 

■onty lbs* ".c<itttred by her hueb*nd» Her failure ta toot if y is aaot 
significant* 

i ha Judgment of the up*rinr eoart of nook county 1> a 
4a»t ane and it should bo raid It to affirmed* 

■' ■ i: P • 

ulllvun, ..\ J.* and o-rinluy, Fei concur* 



it 



eutv 

l 



■■i 






■ 












t 

Ntetf Ml **ti ' ■-'■ >zivz~*-.v ■ 

ft I 



.•i 



wrj 



1 






3«7dt 

Tt 







' 



appellee o 



appellant • 



mm MUH10IPAL 
.0. 

.617 



Y 



a. . J I «aff 'IHIOJf OV TH: C U * 



Pin 1st If l" sued defendant ta ■ fourth elnm Action la 
the Municipal court of Chicago* Eat ®&w wag tried by the 
court and there »a© ft finding its fatal of plaintiff and his 
damages were assessed at the ®va& of . o • • defend rait hue appealed 
from a Judgment entered upon the find teg* 

la plaintiff's statement of claim he alleges "that on, 
to-wlti the 1st lay of July* 1931, aft deposited the sum of £300 
with the defendant herein for the purpose or paying sftfftaJm' gaa 
and electric bills} * ■ * that the d nf I mi nt has failed It pay 
•ale bills or return the hove sum to the plaint i if* It the 
damage ftf the plaintiff in the worn of |M«» wherefore plaintiff 
•ring* this suit** LefendanW in hia affidavit of merito, states 
that he "was the escrowee under a contract between Israel Lewie 
and Jncob Arner» wherein ftyman ©boroff* as esoroweet whs to pay 
ftSO upoa certain conditions relative to th* payment of light , 
gae Hal telephone billo, among othera# and contingent upon the 
turning orer poaeeealott by J toon arner to lerael Lewisi" admits 
the receipt of the «750 in escrow, atid alleges that upon t e 
representation of plaintiff that all adjustments were made between 
the latter and Lewis pursuant to the terms of said essrow agree- 
ment, defendant paid to plaintiff the his* sf *450 of the e. or owed 









I 



■:, kl 






J * life jt.. o 



. 



■ 

■ '' ■■"■ '■■'■ "■ .£ 






ttt ROilOJI K 

Off* Tyf fcoi*^ Ml to J-zueo Xati'^laflJ «if* 

H 






.'. ■'.;' • * i 



» 

roowfoo? 40JtftfB99 J 
XW o* »*v ,*o«oioo» a« «%ll 
«*JtylX to Jnasttsoo; n*4 «l or. 

ojt# (toqp £aoasii«*tio9 6o* ««i»4M<; ^crowtf-. , »iuuUi».Lfrj| ten e.si 

ei irate "ioitro.1 I«««r»X o* Y»a«a f noJaoooooq two s*ri 

•-..* MOqu .fiiiJ b%**9XXa on* •- ad j So 4ql99*i 0*1*1 

«w»w4»rf 9b«M o*ow »*ao«*»i/t ^i Jjtinweotgo? 

•00*10 «o«o*0 »l»a lo mmI ocu o- iobtfruiv *lv*d tea toJ**I oalai 

OOWOIOoO o*U *• 08*4 10 MM «lfv m*B**Xq Oi t:j« 



-2« 

amount, withholding #300 to cover certain unpalc hllisj that on 

July If 1931, he received notice that plaintiff hat! collected 

rentals in utt Tenet in the mm of 773#50» ami that because of the 

misrepresentation made at Um time the |40O was paid to plaintiff 

no money wmi due to plaintiff from defeaeejBt as escrowee under the 

terms of male contract* 

The following ie the only contention raised by defendant 

In hie brief * Plaintiff in a civil eastee must make out hie case 

by a preponderance of the eTieeneo*" and plaintiff failed in that 

regard* After a careful consideration of the entire evidence in 

this oaae we haTe reached the conclusion that there is no Merit 

in the contention* which is based upon the argument th t "en 

affirm tiTe statement by one witness met by a flat and categorical 

denial by another of equal credibility doc© not me«t the requirement 

cf the Ian that the plaintiff must make out his or her caee by a 

preponderance of the evidence** It i« sufficient to ar»y, in 

answer to this -argument, tm&t j,he evideaee of plaintiff was 

corroborated by the following written instrument drafted by 

defendant, an attorney at law* 

"Hymen oboroff 

■otorney . t Law 
10 l?orth Slave Bt« 

* Chicago 
July If 1931 

"Received of Hyman oboref I , iiaorowec under the tense 
of an agreement be.rin?;: cute June 30, 1031, between Israel 
.ewis and Jacob arner, the sum of Mtgi the asmsl Hymen 
oboroff retaining irom the amount of 750 the urn of $300 
toward the payment of the electric light bills and gas bills 
OB premises 50-52 Her th Long venue* Chicago, Illinois* and 
the said Barman oboroff is hereby author iaed and oireoted 
out of said stat of $300 o pay such electric llgM bill and 
gas bill* and any deficit remaining due* the undersigned 
agrveo to pay to the said dyman oboroff upon temnnd* Tie 
eold Hyman :oboroff Is hereby authorised to pay the eluetrie 
light bills to June 3, 1951, In the sum of l-d.98 and the 
gas bills submitted in the sum of Ittemli and te deduct the 
same from the sum of >30\ by him retained* 

■( Igned) Jacob arner 

by 3cn H* Keller.* 



«tfc ***&«** B 5) -■■-* »£ ** .. >tf«a 6« 

. ■ 

*«*» sltf *&• ptfM ai-. 

HA » bug** 

u£ »w a«u?o old* 

-i «n«<B Vfttf t9 i t&ittt 1 ids to 

*c ... * tf«IUM 

. 



■ 






lo . ■-:,. 



-3- 

MtttsttiMi adais* that he Asmftaftd ^Jitt. UlstrmMlf .... iiile ha 
cnIIs. it & "reaeipti 1 ' &»d is urn? ill in,* to t«Mtd4 :. is In 

the n&tiure ©1 it eofit*uct» neYtsrihclass. It is a contract aflfl he 
ia soanu by its terms* gfffM t&*«0l h® did net aign it* .* to tlas 
alleged defease. It in tttffioi&ttt fc© ISjr »h&i thfc 1*1*1 .©our;; was 
fully Jttttiflod in find tags froa th& *Ytd«tt9*j Ufcat 13m tswf 
agreestent of Jan* 30» 1951* imti h#sn grmoWimtod sad vh^t . cfend* 
an., und«*r the ins^rtotent «£ Jul/ 1* *9$S»* mm u^iigated to pay 
the gats and tfieo*ri« litsht bills Witli & rv&aiiiec by bin or 

returu th«* stoney to plain* in on demand* H$ ooneoota that no 
did not pj*y the eleetrie light «M «a» hills* 

rfcsre is no aaerH in this app«al# (sad the judgment of 
tho municipal court of vhiev.go will be affiXWNU 

! * 



Silliyaa» ?« J.» sttd GrUiltey, J»# aoftonr* 



i 

i 

■ ' j. 



* 




&4tQ? 



PAF.X J^JX WTO. OGIU»AVr» 
it uorpor 'i&Aoni 

Appellant » 





ajhhral ww wnrici?ai 



jr/jk ^-tnaM* 



ppeiieet 



v^ 



- 



*R. Wffi ! ..-vr y -n<ar of 



.flnlafciff ottod eefendant in the aunielpra court of 
"hleago in as aetion of %h« fir»i olaoo* th« case was tried 
by the court aacr there vae a finding a»e judgtaent In faror oi 
defendant • ?laiatiff ha« appealed. 

the aitatowrat Of trial* alleg«s# in ,ub tnnee, that 
plaintiff is the owner of the prewUee kn«r*n aa the < ark Lttne 
Hotel, loeated at 234is n-herid&n uoadt -hleago§ and th&fc on 
?eeruary 7, 19£9# plaintiff and oetendant entered into a written 
lease "for ap&rtmntt swdeero 508*503 • to coameaee July l«t* 
1929 and expiring June 30th* 1931 » which lease provided for a 
■onthl^ rectal of 300 for the tern of e»iid leaue* a copy of 
ehieh lenae to hereto attached, anrked Exhibit A* and «*<:« part 
•f thle 9 plaintiff ♦ a statement of «lat»| * * * that defendant 
remained in poftneeulen of o*id pr^aaiaea rfter Jun* sotht 193l# 
the stated terminntlon date of the aforoenid l*ane» and continued 
to eoenpy «»td pr*aieee« and beer u*e of said holding over of 
•aid d~fe«d**t# the plaintiff herein eleeted to treat the 
defendant a* a tenant for another fmm wd*r tha terns of the 
aforesaid leases ■ • that < uring the period ooassenolng July 



( 



V >*.b 






■ 



■ 



*3tUit- 



•;'" .-•'}.■ t ■: 



J • •: . X ■'.:•■ 



. .»■-. i 



i ml* 9a«»J 

•it «• 

i i« 



1 






-2* 

let. 1931 # Ml expiring ^m»? 3Gth» 1932* the pum of $36<w* eon- 
ttinting of kwelwe months rent t the r*te <sf $900 per Month became 
due and payable from defendant to n&aticttff* nc f.h- 1 during mid 
period the defendant hat paid the plaintiff the sum of #55i.. # 1 raring 
« b&l&nee due- at thie time fro» *J *f eod&nt to platatlfff the aum of 
$3050. • 

&efend«nt*n aff ietawit of merits admits the execution of 
the lease au« awere that defendant terminated It by mailing to 
plaintiff a letter* dated M.nrefc 4* 1931* ^hlch statca that defend- 
ant "did not intend to renev my preoent lease unleo* & eubetantlal 
redaction io metfe," and to *&eeepfc thin lettor ae formal not lee of 
my intention io more when mm- pr?«ent leaae e*pireo«f" that prior 
to the termination of the* origliinl term* "defendant and hie wife* 
both* together and separately* elACttoonO with one Frederick C« 
tktllman* plaintiff f e manager in the operation of the anid Park 
Lane hotel* th** terms upon hich dojftaiant would enter into a now 
lea.ee of tho premiaeef* that after ?os« W# 1951* d afo mj t nBl end 
hia wife discussed with said mitiiiftWf the t<?rac upon which '-hey would 
continue te nee the premises* "that ■' the time of ruch dlpoueaion* 
defendant had continued with the knowledge «*jw- : conaent Of A- Intiff 
to uao end occupy the said p?rtmentf* "that* therefore* tenant did 
bo; held or ex after the teruinai. ion ft! the naib Enaeatar* of Lease | 
baat it aubeequently vai agreed with the said nlaaaHlffa through 
lta manager* Jfcrsderiek Be kilxman* that doftndant night continue 
to ue« and occupy the gold premiooo ae a month- ,o-menuh tenant! 
that* therefore* the defendant ditJ not hold owe* afte* the termination 
Of the cald Indenture of Loeee* hut did ocnpy the aaid oenaeed 
premiaea M tho tenant of plaintiff on a month* to-month tenaneyf 
that aubaequently* by notice* dated anc aerrod on July aoth* 1931, 
defendant terminated oald month- to-month tenftney aa of the Ifta4 day of 



1 i i ttafl ' t , iat 

t» saw 

i 

,:-:■:■ M ... x.. ..:■'. •"* ■ r.q MS >**tf ' v;» leu P»t.« frjfl -Oi^.-, 

|| ;*;^ MiJ SftHoUIq tft fe»t»zteli tort M1J3 »M4 H 3it< 3t£«I«ft* * 

■ 

■■ S«««£ 'Alt! 
t 

; . 
t ! 

, tnqaa sua ?•£• 

Ua «44 it tol MCI al Mt ^»««lIJbl."s 

I 
.tri 3 .■ aitf 

■ ' 

ii Igafrftatsa 
I | 

; 

sj;;«a«fi»« ti 4«JtJ 
i • • 

-,liian « a* %«•' : -. * 

| 

*o to! kl a* xsa.-aad «J: «o»-a< -ri* «o« tato bat/NUam* Jttale 



/cumstt 1951 f that prior to the let dny of September » 1931* defend- 
ant Yaeate«l t*i4 WTOlse* * * * aft*r iMftNg paid all guu due 
plaintiff for the occupancy thereof tm<*«r the month-to-taonth 
tenancy »* 

It Is conceded that defendant regained in the ^-siloes 
aft<>r tfe» iHcplrationi of &he term of the writ ton le*«jt?» and It is 
undoubtedly the law» a© p&&£*iiff eont end s f that "stairs, R tenant 
hclds evs>.r# after th* 8S9$Sm&l0& of his t«ra» the lav *ill imply 
an agre***?nt ti held for another ye^r* upon the tex'm* of who prior 
lease, at tho election of the landlord t in &hs »*fcoenoe of ^ eon- 
tr-.ry aereflMBt.* Is 1^>^LZi-_^ESM*< 213 Xll. 370, 58a. it is 
ttM » 

••""hsre a tenant for n year or yo*r» holdu over aft or 
the atpir at ion of hi© loaoi» w&tllsimi knv&Nft 1 mmsls any nee sdRNNMft" 
meat with his landlord under vfcioh mmss htl/Hmi over takes place, 
th, landlord * at hi o election, my treat the tenant as a trespasser, 
or as a tenant for another ymmtt wmn thf a*yse term* as in tho 
original leaae, and this though the tenant has no intention of 
holding e^er for a jroar, or of paying tho same rent. Vho las 
flxee the vensnt's liability for holdittj ov-.-r, independent of his 
intention* The legal preoumptlon of a renewal from the holding 
t?sr cannot >»e rebutted by yroa* of a contrary intention en 
part of \b« tenant alone.' (flnlaHH *fo? ^tfr. °** T* c * *<*"?*• 

til. 1G1). flM right of clc'.fon -:.-, '.,! ■ho , ^ioj r th 5T, 

remaining In possession affcor fch« expiration of the leees, is 
L»bj over upon thi srjew t«m &hc original le-:;e is a 

righ,, *hieh belongs to the landlord, nr.d not to the tenant* It 
is the landlord alone* who»o intention or list ."unmeet in to ho 
ascertained* as it is ho alone, who nay elect to treat th* tenant 

old in*- orr-* under the terns of the aid lor. to. ( x*<gan ▼ « 
Itanre. ir,3 111. 280. )» (See *?> ae *Jj&n3^j„AmU&£Kr*™ ai » 
Xpp. Mi.) 

If it wore necessary other caeoe H Mel n»ne effect »laht he eitod. 

That plaintiff BF<!n wt » prima feoio e«oo *ss ooaooded hy 
tht trial court and plaintiff esmtttBtf that io vh*t state of tho 
reooj:d tho hurden of proriac* oy e. prrpon-er,noe of the «eld#«eei 
«.ha* aaothoj agreement than smmi of l.oldia« ©ror w< or th* ters» of 
the loamtt wa-* ^iW» defendant, and that ho failed to om«t«im thms 
hmrccn. fter a rory oo:tfml oxtosi^tion of who facto and clreios- 
st&noes In eridenoe. «o hare reamed the? eonoluslon that this oom- 



- 

i 

I . :■ | - • 

t 



i 



i 

i 









i 



<fg IftftMttf)* 'i ft - i' •_ j ,wc » vw % .\l Vtl i<; i*f? 

- 

■ 



w" 



tent ion is a aeriioxloae one* i*h&t ttefend*mw him not consistent 
lo .He aatter of hi» defenoe, a«s plaintiff t rguea, aust be eon- 
eeoeu. © 111— 111 i I QM *fJ ' luavit or merit* 0tat«s thut it 
*"»« later agreed with plaintiff's manager that defendant mignt 
remain a* a mo;ith .0 csonth tenant* Urat» therefore. • aft. old 

not hole o\'&v after the termination ox »aid leaoo* aud what ovf end- 
ant terainat* <■,; a«id month to south tewaney ana vaoated too p) caisee. 
In hie tootiaony defendant etai'vd that the manage* told hia that 
If ho did no* succeed in getting the ovroera to agree to a rodaetioa 
of wofftudant's rant the latter wmb at liberty to more "at any i »me 
that I wonted to** Si tale eevrt dOfOBiaat otatee hie t n* cry of 
defense a» follow*,* «j»lof*j*iff is precluded from twwting .-1 --fondant 
ee a tenant froa yon* to yda.* after fen* -rxpir^ ion of tag lOnl of 
the -written l^ase for ti« &lXaw|sgg -.'oatsono' (a; iauediately 
prior to the expiration of Hm ■-rivfcoa l«aoo» plainti. . .fend* 
ant ^ieeasnoo the tome upon woion pleun iff might, continue o 

gy his &p,-*rtaent* *«d relying upon fcnft «xp*ee» etatenent by the 
agent of appellant that eueh aegeti ktlaag ooulo b-» « tiaf^eiorlly 
oen.plt.Uti within a abort, tune* o-^>ndfi*t eom. tnucu in pes*ee*lon 
of the premieaa after the expiration of tho mitten le*\«e# (b) 
anbee^uenfc to the expiration af tint written lenee there- aajaj 
neffoti .ienn between iafwH—t and plaintiff for <\ farther none I an 
le e upon terao rtifferent from cheee of the written leu.ee* amo 
by vl • .ui .hereof and bee tt*e def «iw«f*it w» * billed monthly for 
rant defendant became a tenant of plaintiff froa aonth to ■MUse* 
lain, iff content) a that Judgment should be entered hero ia the eaa 
of *S,050. for rent from September li IMU to M*f It MMa bat wo 

ore of the opinion* after siring thie contention serious oonstd- 
I 
oration, that Justiee demands that thero should be a retrial of this 



■ 





1 


' 






1 




' 


:•:■-' : ... 


■ 






• 




' 
















' 


. 






■ M tnttL 


■ 


. 




• 
















\ 




, 




. 



■Oil 



■ ■ 
m < , , | 

re ¥g 



•#■ 



m Smgmmt wi *l» Munietp*! wrt. of ***** U 



<*U4*wi, p. J# , mi rri«:i Vt ar #f 



ooacur* 












, 



* .. 



- . •■ ,.: \' •• t 






sn?9 



J1USE C. I UM| f*e««iT«jr # 





OTAJU2 JWI^ ana BtKTH 

Appellants* 



OKki 

27 3 LA. 618 

HR. JV I. , 



*mi# Id an appeal »y Btfuaiu' i vlfi *ntl Bwrtha He iff, 
dsfoiidanta* /ram an Interlocutory order appointing a receiver 
ef eertuia real estate ape© & bill for the foreclosure of a 
first aortgage trust *s#ed executed to *j«eur# tai payment of a 
principal note in the sun of $3»»$00 and eort&la interest 
notes* 

The Major evateatlgo ef ad flag tai at is that "to justify 
the appointment of a receiver upon the original to ill of complaint* 
the bill Must b« Only verifier, nan nelf>euf flelenlt and munt net 
he baaed on information ana belief* but met contain all ef the 
nssesssry allegations of feet that would Justify '.h* Court in 
appointing a receiver •" The following is *h* verification sf 
the bill i 

•*tafee sf Illinois 
county of Cook 



•1 II 



frank C. BafchJ*, ao -«^r«r of the a aaets of a trust 
estate ore* ted hy s certain brant IgrseMMnt executed by snt? 
between the /ereman Traot one Casings nank* a corpor- tlon, and 
A» G. Bseksr A Gae* a oorpor- 1. ion. b*i«/r first duly « ern upsn 
each* o eposes and says that no is the complainant in ths nbsve 
catltlee cause* that he haw re.u .he above ano for»*olng Bill of 
loaplaint by nim eubseribM | knows the contents thereof » asm 
thai the sua* is true of his oen kaeeltdgr* except ae to the 
Matters and things therein stated upon information and o»liei» 






I 






-- ■ 






• ft 

SW i&SW ftB* i M jMk Ml fNN UH «tft 



M m 



• 









tfe#D to vn*o : ' 



dAftA < 



(MM Y*» <> .*>'.•.•. I JWMHWtR' **« 



tat ti 






< 



M HHttf ■■ -■- - eJ "! ;i VPUNU 



. 



and »o to such out* t era ana vninga* he eel leva a them to bo true. 

v I itf»«d) ^rcjak C hntbjt 

^ubaeribe© «aci sworn *o 

before s« thio Sflth rUiy of Jim*, "» ''•• 1933* 

•Jfearlotte lw iMKHil 

S?et*.yy *itbliO* 

i>«fendf»»te a*ifu# t&mA # febe ywrywrl'iii twrifitntten statet that 
the nlleg*.tione ttjltntiii in %h» bill urn tru* o* ItM •*^tiiO*. , « 
•wn kntYlodfre «xoopt ae to the wati^rp and thin™ therein «tnt9< 
upon information ml belief and »g to such matters fa© *elteT*»o 
then to be true!* an*? 1 llftt *«3sn oTOdslfiat ton of the otll foils 
to JltsthlK what allegation:!* r>t® bm-e$ upon inform.- t. ion &nd 
belief.* HlfWOiiiili ei'4«» in afcijs^frrt of their cententiei 
the verification in th* ia>*fcr.ijt c&s«; If had* grsboasbi .y» 
»aoinsk*>» *»7 111* *.#*• 4S4 t actiota by the third cirtuion of 
this court* 3*1 a si I via ion of *.&e 098V I ie not ia Miif< eith 
th* rule 1*14 ctows in that UriMN (Sot Stlloaioo Itall & .Trujtt 
|» Lalacy it a$3 til* :*»p« S4$| aloo the *ble opinion of Ux* 
Justice 0*ftlinm la ja tar son §£4, Tl ^llfflflfTiM filffi ff ^ tm P*t ~^ 8 
111. .'pp. 5#2#) 

defendants contend that vfco onso marts out by the bill 
did not warrant fcho ap^otn talent of I PWMttfii and they cite* in 
support of tbia contention* fiHttflLX&J&MBfiss* 2«3 111* .uy* ^lfi* 
Rl concurred in the balding of the Majority opinion in that oaso 
thst even though the trust deed conveys th* rente and profits 
as security and provides thet a r*»«eiver of the preninee my bo 
appointed upon default in the paywent of nny of the indebted- 
ness! a receive* »»Houlti no*, bo *j*fg**tad oolcly upon the 
at *z Uona of the till to foreclose th'.t there Is such a 
default and a gcKoral allegation that th* security i»« ennt| 
and .e also concurred in ;i*c further welding that the burden 
om« upon the applicant for a raoelvo* to present facte by 



*mt jiM* •* «.« tarn 

i 

- Sip*-*** «yfc»l*t«at mm 
>sn$ <stf ©5 and* 

I ax£3 

I 

- 

; . ■ 

, ■ ■ . 
ftJt 

• .:■:■■ 

>iiihii 

•; ' ' . ; - •>;< - •*-.'*. ,. • :1 -.-r- \ -><.i >. .^ ■. , i -c* ■.■■■• t,« gj| 

MSl^WJ fl -.rf»on a 

I 
MM #Xu 



roffiftoi' blllt foti^iwi, Of ^y mr%&m»m ^Hovlng tho n??<j«ajjity 

£or auch M ap^icumfiit. • » i« ^i, H . « »*.ia bwt 

»c fcr* of *&« ©pinion Uteft frJtoe Utti «! ; „&* ixtoteuii bJLil 

«•&'« suffleU** fc* ttupyort tb» $*£$* »| 0J9*i*tMMfti tlfffllllj 
is vi«w ol UM totti *«*,*,! «* lofeaAfento is the txtul com .* hii« 

fchoy MllH'Ml *k*i* QfgOfrtitaOfl ha fcJt§ aoftstt HMf *** MM .aiau 
It viitf aixi. nui.- feia fciM|F «MN £44 *v iue on mil WOT vuv-^i© j/xivt 
&0 klM t**u>> of tfeo tiSlXgF a* fc&# o^fctr in ^uo&bioa* Vow* w«r« 
o*r*«a wiftfe noblco fciitefc at* «&#$>! t ©a V5Msi» BOttlrf ■« Bo4« lor t.u* 
AjwoiaiatMii of & **£*$?** gatf Uutix oolieliwrs ojbwcu-tffa ot *lt» 
h« rintf* Tiwy oi'i'«x«fe M evidoiSfiO in ©pposistoa Ml tho 
application gal '-fee K^nS f*lla li olao 1 ® l&ot &*iey oojectesc to 
thtf ap^ointnotre* In fm«* t a oi &&*»««& iaace vo ahto courti ty 
tho solicitor fox Ust MJWtf 1 mtwuilf ap^n llM orol argtmont of 
*h« c*tt*e» Ifcot <3 * f« il *tt1»» awlt MHQi obJsoUo» at. %bn MMrfefej to 
th« 9,^00 In ta0»t of & *0>«t&f*yf pMnMNl UJ»«o*iieng"«adt «ha wolict.or 
fO» dtfondoais ftonKXj «tiU.ag H&t t&oy itore oaslsflad &o at and 
•pan tHo ftll«gol dofooto ta tho ^Ui Htd t..*.< T<>rifie;iUon so tho 



Tht int*rl©<m%oiry order of tbv Clroutt oours of oo* 
HMMf to off trued* 

ulllrsn, :''. J., And ttrldloy, J»# oonoiur* 



I 

■ 
■ 
I 
■ 

i 

i 






§** 









■t -. 



i 







37 2 SO W 

. ... ■ I i , . 

slon # M flMllHJl 

(frlsjylatnaBl) • ^ee, 







.A. 618 



CtfMiiwiti j <t®. ) 

Opinion filed January 9, 1934 

ttfe i rt« 

fbif it Ml int'--.rlo«tttory l 1 by defendant*, 'mold J. 

tlMk aad &Xm li t fcn fwan a stoma of Mm t Jock 

Jaunty in I suit to il gWtiLfta C a atort£> « truat dae4 a ■ .-. ointiag * 
receive* for tha -'ro^erty &§***$&#$ in the bill. 

The bill H21*fif ^ffilas -a if- Hi I on MaMadPJ IMfe| 1937, 



r. Kuhlatann, ftajflHI I "Hi, Arnold J. leok -»n<* *ans ieck, 

being indebted |0 the holders of ftffta&l kflNsji rtl bonds, 19 

V uaber, r- -ting tha aittat of ■, . , ing at eert in 

periods eitnln five BJ*a** i'roai .fbn, F, executed *nd 

delivered to tha -hie *£© *itle I trust Qtsjpsjss/j ia truste<%»a Mortgage) 
trust 1*ed to the §1W|M a ieseribed in the bill of ooapl*lnt f » i 
deed being ao «wie t execute) I for th •* of securing 

the payaaart of the fore '-id bonds. The trust dead r-led^red the rents* 
isauea nnd rrofita aa additional eemirity for the pftyncnt of th* ■ Mount 
of the bonds, the trust deed iso . rovl led th-t the aortgsgora shottld 
Fay «11 lawful tvxo«, mi ?h t in tfttfl it should ba ant a in tha 

dua <>nd nunotu-tl payment af *ny of t - ri. 

of -iny intPTflst, and such gffanll should continue fej xod af 

30 dNya, then the *hole of MM ipaj. seoured by the trust deed, 

together ^ith tha Interest accrued thereon, anould t % M option of 
tha holder of any of the bonds, become due "id payable, *»nd further. 



I I 






£561 t 8 \*£ua&T, &9££S noinxqO 






J5. t 









H 



.! ■. ; ... 



M*l 



, 



a 

th^t II HMM default should be sjs&a in the due . ■ «nt 

of tad . -i of aav of the bond*, or of -my AataieaO -so*, ?^ad 

axiOh afiaaJLa in sayaoud aaaaldl oo&tiaaa for .0 daya* tbst 

the trusts should lavta the fajaf. §aa revises 

add reealr© oo'*::,;an»v.tl<->n for laa ad9tft$«e'>i, At ■ -.104 

by laid trust -ie^d taat i- -non to UN) right of Adiy in e*ee 

of ftofanSkti llu.11 %u« a .■;-■■-. I load aadJM Oa foTddtdoofl and tue 

«ort.. . v-ua#jrty sol-3, a&d t&ffi* ia a I I Liaf of any bill 

to foreslose IMP aaaitypdd ttust deed, l&ad th* oourt &ight st »ny 

tiae, l&tsadf ;.,efor« of tJtdl I I \M§ tad Bt1 w I ftotioe >nd without 

reg*?*d to the v«lo« of tad afdaAan » lnt 1 t d ddi fda for tad benefit 

of tad ligul holder of tma bonds, with tad power to oo,leet the 

rents, issues aad -jaafits ■ ,;. forc-oiosurfu 

fad bin further il f$0d tamt vat oonda for 

the suss tf , *•$£ daa i^bfunry l&fcft* ldaa* aaa - , th>t there 

nave beea default® In tee poptilfct vf -ri-wi 1 ;j interest, aad th t 

by the t^roe of the bonds and trust HMMSg I WW KM «*ue snd unpaid 

da aeeamnt thereof on IBt'h, ItS&j 1 totsl am •■'. ,-74.45. 

The bill confine MM ffi.i.1. Lett! 

*Tnet the »aaaaj>T alunnl is infomssd and beilevee and 
therefor* states tad tfadft to ad Wl I Mm reraises sought 
to be toreoloeed herein arc. located la Freniclla I ark* -nd 
arc lamafad with a aaa U ataay fr «a reoidenoe wit* 

brlox fawsdatloi^ ad story fr»sae resldenoe «»nd 

five greenhouse *?, one taras aaa frnf&e (at s* a la I the 

▼*iue of said aaildaai •, to^et ct of i«nd of 

aporoxlaately five latil rhich suoh buildings ere 

learned, la leas th :; , *.D0-. - 

further, 

*Tnat eoaplaiaaat ia infomed «nd_ hen. levee -»nd there- 
fore «t"te« the f;*ct to be tn-'t there ^re unapld ,er.*r 1 terea 
'^vr^pting the aum of ''.:.•,, G tor lad y f IM.« 

The bill reoltee th t unless u reoeiver be appointed for 

ell the rrealeee deeeribed in the U«st deed, ending the hearing of 

taaplalueaa*a bill yf tttfillldt^ eoaipininant will Iob* I lerge sua 

•f aoney, nd tbr t the pretalses »re soant, sagger and InedeqiMte 



■ 

MJ 

- • 



: 



£ .. 



^0 I i 






■ 



I 



Purity for the iudeeladatat due, «* th *t it i« »•«•„.,, for th. 
proteatlait «ai bHm| of Hm , Jd u* ^ ft. 1iM , tM 

« reeelstr ■ |g cc , ., |# %jmm im uTofiu 

during t:>« :.endenay of dm .,vut. 

The foll$*inf, ' rit i« itUHN It Mat Hill 

this affttarit in n* i^-if. 

Affiant furt^r says fcfeat N has ny t»»« ■-> r« *«* 

mi- " mm mmw* i m i , .J&f 

ne nuiiii t£te$ It ha * n*t»* ' 

, Ma* i***fc filed ft* ftJNM t | i she eftll ia * hl . h 
sue denies that the mart , i,^ iss wc3pth j0 ^ th , n 

»»d fcmtt it is s*UH neurit/ f« r I 1 febt, i| ,iso filed • 1 1 

submitted to the sou* on the *mm • . rt 

of i reesleer the - | ft* f **„« re , lX 0st . t , , ^ pho ^^ 

reepcoUv-iy tfc.'t the aori , «i» €e ^ tP wrth , d> ( 

N»t»iM MM Ntta «ot» of the .Ue,, tient U to the a*turity 

ef th* j«bt, ay the it fault* &t ^fmmt 9 m it tit I 

fter t efttftftjaj an Hm e*U, answer *nd sffU rite in 
•M» ort of the taster, the l „ lmi fT0-# 

•ittisUac * reeeive* for tr* worthed presisss. 

vefend^ntB p asta N M I as a*t orth in the brief, 

•»• as follows i 



1. 



SSL 522* %h * ***?* ** r * «»pro*«iy pledged in the 
trust dead « a security n . e the ispoint- 

«ent of retviver. I rt ghoul ,,*e suoh 

•'•■■■ointment where it «tl I 4 Im sit alt to do eo.- 

(b> "SLZTttf i ** w<5! ' i4 " r ofiti of .lortr-nad r-reaiaaa 
(a) -The burden of p«taf to ettibiish grouada upoa »Mish 









. 






*** ' 






. iiV . 



iT* (*) 



Kni (h&f U 1 lna4eqtta*f of «<*enrity. 

la u?;oa the asort *; ; \ • ■ ■ . ■' 

?• *fhe Mli tl pwy l ailit t la Ihi* eaee must b* oonatmed 

*0«t atTOr ; ,:i.y -mat Hug 

®q&% fftVOV ■ ,:,iy fa ■'. t ftllOO auat sup- 

port mi srdo anting it %fUr«»tiv« relief by i auf- 
f latent yeoorrf 

3, *andn tjha otJriMIt of - reooiv«?r •*.* 

WUU el eosipi'?int # th& tllegaiiena m$s ■ | the ».p- 
itaent of *. reoelver ^st fee gfeeltl . i rifled** 

4* *£n -til*: -.lion *that the -Jt&imrtf Ifl tedttt and insufflo- 

lent oddVjiiftf* «£U net export the f a 

reeeiver* &ut the -■ i ! ml to rreeent 

faete If i verified kill K»$wlag the necoasity I 
anon K;^-uintwmt»* 

&. "the 0niJ|)l*&»8ft* dots no* «**« «urh ■* by its bil^ 

Of eeat^lalut ed H&j I ■ ! m it I Astnent of * 

K t «tiV 0>. Oosy:i:iin-.frt K v m lh t I ■ *rty 

Ifl insufficient identity for the indebtedneaa sought to 
bo foreelooed. @n the ©ontr^ry, tb# reeord affirmatively 

^©ws that mji B^Qvtitf is m&ph%%* 

It io not dia f ,ut^3 that iimdd **tgn*t SStfef 1 ?38 t ebon 
HtXVJ. 3 PHI IHJ4| ttMN ndf been fee r ?«ys»ent of fdthei i/.t-rreat or 
prinoipal ©a the IwllUftWfllUlllt) gd J OOTWeatdd b| ft! »*cured by 

the trust dead tdUdW to bo fltiddldd$e| a of .sort than fire 

ye*ra; Heat the euea »iprood to tad 1 1 1 LdNf dflfdejjj Mi th*t a 

large eieount of tdadt s.re due tad ietpaedU MNKNi briefly, the total 
of defendants* grounda, urged for ft tee^ere** of too ordor appointing 
the reoeivar, i« ta*t taare la not sufficient showing in the bill 
th*t tho pdNftffty pledged la lnouffloioat aeo».;rity for the f«yaent 
of the ebt t and that the bill la a fly verified. al to the 

allegation In the bill upon whioh oenplalneat dr»ee lta oonelueion 
that tho property pledged le worth leae tinW , . • nd n eo*nt 
eeeurity, and to whioh def andante objeot *«o not »uffi«tent # thla 
•eurt s id, in Jwrlh ▼• eMMeMMlib >e8 ul » Ar ?'» 6CJ7 ( A batr«et 

opinion) j 

"The original nortg^* 7, -rtlon 

had been paid -nd it la ullegod in the bill th t the eua of 
^22^y'j la now dw* ind evil , L that t erty leeeribed it 

aonat aeouxlty, and net tho redff reeaonAble eaeh «*rket ealnd 
af th^ ty la lees then , . It le al*o -ixe^od V 

the r«nte t iaeuee ed rofite erlalng are pledged «• » nitloaal 






;V . .. -■- ., .--. A ■ 






( 



■ 

*td» It, 

■ 









- 
<9 SI t 



59 






i at a. 

■ 









>t*a tamm 



security, N tfti» bin Ik a worn BAfVei eat filed, in 
tliioh it is ell . fd lh I Hit fail aeaa <e»rket wviua of 

the *©rti,;-*«d .r< :; «rty is I ', i '• ring w*a had 

pn the Battee* bill sad «»9*er# Oa th# hearing it wee 
Admitted t&.-t t. : i# |Mffl2l tea** WB th« HJtaeill for 133* 
and 1-330 had not be'wn . i ,-*e :.>rinal] 1 I *?ntioa of 

ellaat is ttv t Dm -to the tela* of the 

oro^rty balaf t eaa JI ^?cnrity far the iadebtedneta it in- 
sufficient. I ob^set-a fee the at« tenant in aha bill 
that *i» the i> Inion of your affe%a*« I ent eaifcet of 
the property is leas than ., 1 • » it ia i>>aiat«d th t 
the allegation aa to the valvje &uat b«? •V'tegori.-vl. it in 
|jepeaalel« for any ■ §e mx9h at in leaned <*a esedajl 
knowledge ef teal eat itt valaaa« to a&fe aata II 
opinion mi Id vmSLiMN -uah felifaa i'a received uai Juatified 
in eeaaleae&tlea and all ethftr enaee where tfola fwetmea it 
in issue, WfcKl aore aamet tessttssony could my ritaeaa girt 
«a to the v^iue el vaal estate, taaai hia aeaaa *.on» 
There is notuing to this point, * 

In the taaal at fe*<? tae teill alleged aa information aad belief th-«t the 

Mrtr r ;«d ^aepatlf is «&£tfe iees th n I , ■. , which we deeai to 

be n sufficient » ll&g&tlegBj 

BaaetSfl inelata ihat WW! affidavit ttt&ehed to the bill 

it nst euffioieat* The laiajf of the | wit eafjaaa "th^t the s-ttera 

tad thin^a theiefta stated aart tawa la naaaaaaaai Ml in fad except «t 

to those aaltejre aa4 thing* 'which aid therein at t«»d to be u dc m a% 

*d*JLjJDaa>" lai aat%ata Hat tail —- atf in the bill ae be true on 

the iafataarliaa aaal belief of the awker of the tffldavlt nd vhieh we 

de«« to be aaiiaaial aa Halt 1 1Wial IJTj '-** 1 *' M to the vrdue of the mort- 

aaaaal prealtee f Hal thi* la at MNI on infornatlon and belief «o that 

there it no question at to *b»t i» saennt* 

ln iiliiM* v, ,-. , ».aa^ . , the Supreme *ourt tnldj 

pe«e 508 t 

"The effaeatfil aa to the repreteuf tlsnt »• le on 
inforantion r^nd belief in in the identic*! fom tpi rored in 
iaiXlii. ▼• Me lbagy . ?«3 111, 407, but -. eile^> intlttt thai 
th*t pert ox the affid.^Tit la lefRCtir© bec^uae it it i«- 
peaelble to tell *&-> % it avoro to potitirely nd vhat it 
atom to on lnf:>r*nt!on nd belief. It atetaa th«'t the 
for« ehould be, •except aa to those >v ttera therein at ted 
\<f b* on inforaetlon aa4 belief** It it true th t on uF 
fid--: Tit that the f-.ct* in « Lt ting ••re true, eneept ee 
f*r n» they «rc: tt- -ted on la nd belief, f h*t btea 

held defective in falling to dlttin«uith between nattert 
fitted ea the pleader* a own knowledge and thoee at -ted on 
lafan^tioa ^d belief, ( 'hTin^n ■toe-lr-l v « Itaaaai ■ ■ 






xfoiii 



ra 



• 












*«#*l 












m ■■■ 









Ill* 344.) Mil « ftftfUtatit* I . •. tn« 

eouTt to tho , , I Ui *h>t ia r*>;r<58entad to f m 

latflJTBftU^. VMMJJMj ' &»**•* " *e---*tli of ih« mind of the 
piesde* for «h«t h& imo&ood •., laert ©a infos :» n ad 
B*ll«f# ihafc, in gatl : " >, is B ■ -:>i th« vlt 

In thla •*■## its *or*i*» MWIf ♦eaca.-'t- Mi to arcttora therein 

t at forth, m intV.r 1 1 kit iiof* 1 • MM ?on to 

#p«trt fyo«» out fttSMft hoitlln.?;, >«ft':>fc thH for® ia good in 
o»ae» of tnie kind, lor? : ; :; i^i^f^j v . •■ i : ? n n , auayi f 

*** tSftMl kaA t^pftflpwl in j ^tv.3p v. :4^ r iios fl l u. ! h« 

tho petition in t&is hm iUMufty diaeleaoa aj I ia 

stated tneroin OS IftfOI i«B HUk bftliftj : tora of 

f ot Daftl aft ;.««itiv«ly Kftttttii fta »4 to 0« f-ota." 

(Itmlioa our*). 

m ar* of taa o, .-., - t th« 

court jpai fully juwtiflod in ^ ^oiaU^: the roooivonr ani too tacraa 

aaal ordax of tho 9v$p#9k®S Jourt is s.f firmed. 



' , -■■'. J 



. 












55300 

Anoellee, 



WIRE U , >>*KY 0*" 

*MM> , a Corporation, 




u. /*wa CIRC j | 

i •• x&m oonmnr. 




27 3 I.A. 618 



KR, MH - I ffl ■-■■■ rXQ» fcUTCff 

X. tfeif in an appeal by del -and ant iron* a Ju. jnent xn the 
•Ud of )U#§0(l i^ favor oi piaintifl entered upon t>; ■■ CiMlAf of 
til* court, ffcotwae for a new trial xuad la arrest n^ving been over- 
ruled. 2ae action itl in a»»usipeit. fne declaration consisted of 
the ca<iii..oii cuunts and s »p«oiai Geunt, itltsjli in »ufefit&nee alleged 
that on May 14, l£8$ a pi^Uitiif subscribed for 2(/0 shares of tha 
eaoital stock of def eada»* corporation at }f '. I a snare; that tha 
sub*oriotion agreement entered into between plaintiff and def er. lent 
provided that defendant irtiOWldi become incorporated under the l«i» 
of Illinois, wit.;. Ml authorised ■ oital stock of , , , , divided 
into 3i f 000 shares, of the pur value of 5*35 each, Mj be Mil for 
|62 # B0; that organisation Mil pra^otion expenses and oosufiission^ 
should not exceed ten per cent of the amount actually paid in cash 
upon subscriptions; Hurt def endtuit euould hare a paid-in capital 
stock of M 9 000 t 009 Mad • pnt4 tl cash nurylsi of M, . ; that 
plaintiff paid #12,500 and received 2vO snares of the capital stock; 
that defendant su incorporated under the insurance law of the state 
of Illinois but Id not have a capital stock paid in of >-,*-. 0, 
and a surolua paid in of 19,006,000, as prewired, but en the con- 
trary tne surplus paid in van only yl, 234,450; that when plaintiff 
discovered this f/»ot he rescinded the contract -nd offered to return 
the stoe* and demanded the return oi the ';i2,5oo, « ieh defendant 
refused to do. 

Defendant filed a plea of the general issus and a soeeial 






. 



* I 



lis &*iAJ«a*' 



: 

■ 



■ ■ ■ ■ 

fe»»»xe Sea tiuorfa 

; . . • 

->t fiuw OOfl . 

• • i .1 19 

' « *«• 

; 



I M 



_, , ■ '■■... • j,. I „■;";; 91 



Jtelo*?* A £«* ' 



t% 



plea, in autptance, that ol -iintiff -with knowi-d^c; pf (Jif^tVint'i 
financial structure accepted the shares of ftp** la ejuviange far 
interim certificates held by hin vni'X afterward offered to aoxl them, 
thus fairing any ri^nt he may hare h;*4 to object no such capital 
structure, 

the eridenoe for tho aio«t part ocneist* of the *riling» of 
th» parties and -.aa submitted by ift£ ,uitlion. 

II. Sofondant submitted ...ro.'.oaitions of fast and law, and 
tho ruling* of the court t.uereon clarified tho issue* betwetui tho 
parties. 

At tho request of def^'i&nt the court u*ld tnat defendant 
executed <m& delivered tho subeoriptioix ..^reeweBt on J#ay 14, 1928; 
that on .-unel4» l9S8 t plaintiff pain fcp tne parsons seat c luted i'or 
the purr>os« ©f inrgwit a tftfl tfei »tu« of ,1 V M -u, Mas Hint *aid bub 
came into the oooBOoolon of defendant upon its limfltfillf | that 
on the **»« date the ir.cor orators <,f JtB*Wnfl— I de. irered to plain- 
tiff two Interim certificates, etioh for MM uixaires of the c&.-ital 
stock of defendant, ehowinfe Raid d;are* i Ihi nuee of I ere* uff, 
and that said certificates wore endorsed &y -uif <iit. tf La sstflPJi or 
to plaintiff; that on yebrsiury S a l 1 -, It, £4, *§Sf a tuo .hartor of 
defendant was published la the Chicago Journal of -oau.'. -».ree , a p*uer 
Of K«n*ral circulation in t-.xe city of Chicago, -ook ooauij t 111.; 
that on August 9, 1929. tuft charter in the aunt* form as puollgnod 
In the Chicago Journal of Crasffsi in rebruury and certified by tne 
Department of Trade and Ceauaaree of Illinois, iogetaer with a report 
ef mmmim *lioa of defendant company, likewise certified, «ae filed 
in tiio offloe of the count./ elexi. of Coo* pounty, Illinolu; that 
•the oanltal PMMRl in the oixartor of defendant w%s , . ; tnst 
bo surplus wae mentioned in the charter; that the , «»• 

pall in full end whs held by defendant caaptny in cash on August 9, 
1999; that prior to August 9, 19:^9, cue etook of its' Mils •eBalutlng 



■ 



; 

- 

■ 






■ 

- 

■ 



. . ■ 

« 



»f M, . saaj •' aad fe*aa fuilj ■ -. p^i | | 

en August l| 14 I , I - Ittfce* fcf 1 ,7H9 , 36^. 7T? at stiXJ 
up;n .. ufc ccrip tier ; (I) . . ..<„<. 'V":j ,-. r- 

gaalsai j. ■.*. ..;.,■ . ... ci nc? bustn«i to l»eat | • | U 

(.is; ta c within i &af or two aftai Ba««L.a*y la, 1 , tiff 

rec »iYS4 aatial I tat c fc& ft, , tux lai i, I , | i ««& 

collected on c-beeripUonc, ma4 titat a, 70S,,.' »aa I • Isl »j 
afssaati rece*vu«lc . r duo en »uiyiut>; that on Jo. ', i: 

l&hiatifX WSsta del aadsat futk!ft£ allSB itt; i" la of»« I al t. t n,uld 

be We** out sad idMMt araffffftai w4*o t-ein* aa4t iu wua.. -.ke 

ftyaaliiif sa.4 pr©o«?:ding. grlth its aaaiataaj t.,ii sfcartij aftai 
•Waarj 7, 19 SO, Ci&i&til'i »• & s to ciir. elder of isfaade*t v&e noti- 
fied by del 'oatdjttt that II vat In * asaitiaa to acctpt the -various 
insurances governed by lis ©barter; (fcat la) I it »aKod alalatii? 

for * record of hie psaasaal ln«rur;Mie« requirements; tfcat o«>.tv«e» 
January 7, If SI, KM &>bru&ry 7, If 90, plaintiff atte*ipt*d to plhee 
fire Laaasaaaa upon sit own o»ii '-lingo vita iafaaAaat| tkai on *eb« 
ruary It, 1930, plaintiff caused interims certificate* r«*pr*s opting 
tCO shares cf stock subscribed i or by ai* to S4 ••at to def«ndant 
with a request that tae stock bo transferred to Bi* own nuua: that 
or. or (bout aarer* 4, 1930, f#f«a4«at c used a** BeWtlJ iw»;>i wa.usd 
•temporary certificates' la be iefcueu ead suit to plaintiff, nbawiag 
tbe ttcck issued in hi* naaie, and &t the sasto Hbh tke aft k&t>r»i 
wers entered on Iota stoc* books of del>ndMiit eoiupany, us ta^'Ung 
la his n&jus; tuat on or about April If, IfH), si iftfttlfM r«o«ived 
no Lice tnat as ol i>ec«nber ol f i*& t t»i«r«» »«» ui.pnld ow sab nor 1st ions 
91,480,631; tnat b«twe«o ^eoeiiber Mk fl i^:-<y, «uii < T un« 1, iw.>s a*fendaoi 
•■€•«•* in the nusln*ss oi writing firs insursnee *n«i wrsts <olloiss 
e« such Insurance un>ler miieu it ressiTod nat premiuas H ( >r« k nting 
•3,#do.50; tnat on June 7 # If 90, platmtiftf aatlflea aef«idstit ta.t 
he desired to roselnd his subscription sgrerasnt. 



, 












, , 6 

. ' I 

I 

I 

■ : 



ISM c art refu«t»;i to .uold &* re.qu*»v*d by tftfssWbMl thai on 
August «*, 1929, plHUti.it receiver notiec fcfert «bou '- p.*,- .,«. ,. w J 
subscriptions to fturplua Vfts being oi»rriM by the I o*.«&ny an M&la 
and aco unts receivable, and refused to hold tii**t s*t no ti*.e rr*or 
to the If rutm ©f tfcii suit did pi '.an tiff notiiy d*f«nri*ait th«t he 
■••J rescinded hi© subscription a^refsjaent, MkI that &t no time prior 
to brir.f.ing this suit (J id plaintiff »ff*r to return to del en 4 ant ens 
200 thars* pf A#f4ttdyMtt f i capital etock subscribed for by .->i. -, or 
the certificate© rep resenting such shares. 

Ml the request Of def fti&dgfti toe court hel* as ■ proposition 
of 3a» that the surplus of a fire in ru ranee company org mised an t 
the lws of the at&ts of 4 11 molt prior tr. th* s*ett4sumt of 1931 wu 
net required by Him to sdi fully paid up M & condition precedent to 
the granting of its, aiutrt** "hi the v^lid CSWHWMSSisM of its bt- si- 
ns**; that for th« affective rescission of >•?. fvibscrl^titn -i* reec.ent 
for otoeir of B c«rr„»oration to be forced, the subscriber, ns soon is 
he h«4& knowledge or the fact© giving a xiffct to rescind, an to 

the Institution of suit, mu R t ele&rly and unequivocally MKvqp 10 ths 

•erperation his intention to disaffirm and remind tV c^rtrnct "ind 

te 
s»nt offer to return/It, Wis eh a. res of stock subscribed. 

The court, hoover, refused to hold M requested by defend- 
ant that the eubserintio?. rt^rec^ent signed by plaintiff -fid net re- 
quire that the surplus of $-*5 t i/OO t -0Oi shoul -.1 b* fully o*id up ir; c.-.rh 
as a condition precedent to the co^pl^te organisation of the ooopnny 
sad the valid eottrcsn cement of its 'vusinese. «ftc couri further refused 
to hold thai nlsrintiff 'o subscription 6.gresu.«»nt "as fully performed by 
defendatit; thai plaintiff by ml— gtlf, til certificates and living 
the stock transferred te hie orn n »a.e after he hsd notice sf the fast 
tkat defendant -was organised an* authorised to begin its busiuee* *ith 
saly part of ite surplus r>aid up, «»ivsd and wae estopped from »s. ~rt- 
*»f »ny right he otherwise «i fe ht hive lid to recjv^r ths amsunt paid 



■ 






I 

■ 



I 

■ 

. I • •••■ 









I 



. 






• ■• i 1 






■ 

■ 



6 

by his upon his aubsoriptloa agreement, flfc* oeurt alee r»l'us«d to 
held %a requeeted by defendant that by taking no motion to r«*eeind 
hla subscription agreement an<? to reeuver the naaunt paid 111 HI 
ander for over oix month* art*r he aa4 uoiiat 01 the fact that d»- 
fondant waa organised MM was authorised t© bag in ita busin^oe 
with only part of its surplus paid up, j*» : >>ft«r defendant had 
actually latum its bualneae end. written i'ira insurance polioica on 
arhloh the net praasiu&i aa&eunted to over |S # #6i«t6 during said 
period Of over six months, waived and v^as eatopped from MMItif 
any ri^-ht he otherwiee Bigjat have had to recover fro» defendant the 
aaount paid by hisi upon Ma subscription agreement. 

Three controlling fH flattens appear in the record: (1) 
whether the subscription agreement rightly interpreted raquiree 
that the surplus ef ttM corporation which was to be organised 
should be fully padd la eaan at the tis&vs of ita cot.pl «-te orgnnlsa* 
tion; (2) whether, aa&uning the a^r*taav,ent should be construed aa 
containing ruch rehires. &nt, plaintiff loat the right te rescind 
by what defendant called equivocation and «i*ley; and (3) whether, 
accusing aueh cunatruetlcn, plaintiff * •■lived nla right to rescind 
by affinitive »cte a* a stockholder of tha ooRpuny. 

ill, *»s to the prooer Interpretation of the subscription 
agreement, the evidence snawe that 'lain tiff at the time oi theee 
transactions conducted a bueinesv In fcew Vor> «h«re he raaided. 
The promotion of defendant corporation -*aa carried on in Chicago by 
parti ea residing there. Baa aubaeri tion agreement wae d*ted Kay 
14, 1923, sad waa prepared and submitted ay the promoters of the 
defendant corporation who acted in behalf of the cerporatlon to 
be organised, it will therefore be ecnetrued most strongly 
again ?t defendant in eaea of ambiguity er doubt, faffenettl v. 
MfiUfijr, 323 111. 143. 

At the top ef tale agreement printed in type aueh larger 



■ ■ ■ 



■ ' 

» 















i i ■ i '", 






• 



: 

- 

. ; . . c ! 

I b»tt>A •«* ft* 

**tf*jtJ do 



than that lis the tody of the instrument and i»<m*diately under 
■subscription agrefim^at* appear t&M4 rs>rde: "Jf'lre IWfTMIM 
Cewearty ©f Chicago, Suite 18Q0— tOB South laSallc street, Chicago, 
capital |t,€ , , aurrlut '"',: 3,009, 1*3. tti oar tharo. • Tha 
agreement then recites that "the undersigned* (plkintiff) sub- 
scribes for 200 sha-ree of tha capital atock of a cerr»or<ition orgaals- 
lug under tha insurance 1«V of the • tnta of Illinoie under the naae 
of fire Insurance Coa-pary pf flfcl— f fsr HM nurone of transacting 
the business of flra insurance and exercising all powers sut'iorizsd 
to be exercised by any corporation organised under the act of 1809 
ae aaeended. ifol lowing the Bonos. UUI ad Irenes of che incorporators 
is this ataterjevnt: 

"It is understood and agreed that said corporation is te 
have an autuorissed capital stock of **a |Jk 9 eo§ 9 #00 divided into *** 
•0,000 shares of the pug value of ee* M§«0€ each, ofeioti are te be 
sold for »** MS. SO each. 

•It is further a rulers; ten* wm& a^resid that no sum sb«ll be 
used for coexists ion, promotion, and organization exoenaee an ac- 
count of any share of etoek la this corporation, whether sold 
within or without tui* State, in excess of tan per cent of the 
exeunt actually p%id in e sh upon separate subwert^tions for such 
steak, and the remainder shall be held or invested as autiiorlaed 
by th* Irwp gOTOfyj|ftg the Investments of such incorporation , «\nd hold 
by the corporators, and by the directors and officers of ouch cor- 
poration after organisation as taileas for U;e subscriber, It fcf 
used only in the conduct of tha business of insurance by much cor- 
poration sftsr having been licensed therefor by firmer authority." 

There is a further egre-'Kwnt &s to th* de?GFit of funds 'ind seoirl- 

tifs "ss bailees for the subscribers" and after t»e signature of 

plaintiff appear tha words: 

•dates' at Chicago, Illinois, 

May 14, 19 Pa. 

Received fro* the subscriber upon the above cootrnct tha sua 

ef i (cash or check) for shares of utoox in the 

flra tniuranoc Co .p«»nv of fhtoago, at $62.60 oer ?hare or 2h tireee 
its par value of $25. U>." 

there follows in pencil the signature of huff as representative. 

June 14, 192), nlilntiff paid to the incorporators $12,50u, «nd this 

Money oaas into the possession of defendant upon its incorporation, 

which took place August S, 19;?9. *t that tlsie, June 14th, there 

*»s delivered by the incorporators to plaintiff twe interla certifi- 



: 
■ 



" til 






- 

«. t 



"-.■•: 
*%mA3 % tiMU »a«X ,**!* t**S N ••§§! . • N 



tificates for 200 sh*ree o: the capita * ,ock of the eoioratioe. 
Ihese eerti icatee stated that "Huff bat subscribed lor loo snares 
of the capital etoe* of tha /ire Insurance uorepany of Chicago, *** 
of the par value of £28.00 per ehnjro, and hao paid up n said sub- 
scription the suKi of |MM*6I| «t tno rate of $63.50 per siiars. y 
It further stated that upon the organisation of the coapwny the 
legal welder of the certificate ahull be *ntitled to receiyo a cer- 
tificate for the aharea upon the surrender of the int<»ri* certifi- 
cate. &$&* the sane date, it appears, Huff duly endorsed theae 
certificates to plaintiff, 

"Defendant says (arid rightly) that the charter of the cor- 
poration loom*! by the director of trad# and cooan<»rco February 28, 
lt?S, eho^s that the inco? oratoro declared that tne capital stock 
Of the oeaoany should be , 3,008, divided into oX,<<00 snares of 
the par v\lue of |ff each but Ail not mention nay surplus whatsoever. 

Oof ex dan t say* (and rightly) that neither the wtitute under 
■which the corporation wa« organised (****. uhsill's 111. hev. >tats. 
19 ?9, chap. 73, pur. 134, sec. &) nor tho charter issued by the 
dopRrt.,*. i of eop!i»eroo required that tho eurolus should be paid in 
oe.sk prior to collet** organization; rur.d further ar. : u«?s M 

tWm th*» ntatuto, it is not necesaary that all or any part of the 
co^ C rn,tton> capital should be paid in prior to corporate existence 
or |VitV to it* rtRht to begin business. Defendant citee the ft st- 
ates ent the authorities, which under the particular statutss there 
oenstrvd, so hold. 

^eferdant further argues that the dete of oor&nlete orgenisa- 
tion of th# corporation is controlling, and, as sre understand do- 
fondant, that the question n re litlgUed could arise only on or 
prior to that dote, it is said that the subsorlbor i| the time of 
the org miration of the corporation beooaxes a etocknolder <*nd that 

if the iroT.oters ICft organized so-.: ox ding to tko oubBcription 






1 I 






■ 



tM MM 









■> 



■ 

■ 

I 

i 









agreement th* contract has been fulfilled: t -t t . <;*t noiiMit the 
eabecrlber becomes a stoc^h^l^er; i at he has then rf$»WH that 
for -rich he has barel^ed, M Hurt InsTtSiftat «»s ? y>b*rrtb<»r he 
nay net co*»<?l»tn; that 11* ||« haa any riifht tc cenpl'in, 111 wart 
do so thereafter as a -stockholder Mi act as a subscriber. a eCoy 
t. Colwarlan ix^orttton. 186 HI, ?56; l.arwleh Co. y. ...'gckadnj, 
30 Vn. |ff t li '-,. S« 377; JCTasrt fisttaa Mill Oa. ▼- MtMi IN 
Tenn. iff, BS I, «. fjw f Tf cited. 

Ml tX9*m4y rt«ted, the rtntute unrter Vfcisll i«f ejrtfai wae 
organized, ill cot require that the surplus of ti-r eurytrstita ri-ouM 
v a >-*irt in cash, r ' the shorter e*iid Rat, inr shout sur ,lu» at all; 
feat the question here i? not, whether tri r '. r..tior> was legally 

jlfl»tt<dl ti ■ *' if i% ■-' I rlj ' ti >■ i I I V i '-ii-. ' . he 
qaeeticn -it laatte ie wheti-pr the corse rati on -oji organize** *nd 
proceeded to if tai&MVi in cor fori tty with the arsmiacjl ..<*d 

la the subscription tgyew t o i . kin tiff ilfi»4 '. haWl ie 

no sajaralal»l by p3 li&tiff mi to (l« of the U MU 

Neither lo^s the icere f-ct J" the uora.iietici-. uf Hal ai :: ttlca, 
in | mot of Itbtf *' - i .1 I act ae an estoppel, pre- 

clude plaintiff from raecL.ling tfei eubseriution agreement and re- 
cover b.-ick MM ondil*r*-.tion he paid. In tai* re.v,>eot, it ss«as 

m% has iciacor.o ived ftfel issue ^r^»«nttid b> the plaadiiiga, 
.^rttles cited do not clarify but rather tend to confuae. 
-ft .1- i.i, the . 4 ue«tion of iirat i.. port ait oe on the record inv..*vae 
the int irpr station of tha contract, in) It ■ ay aa aaj inv-mrn 'h« 
it it necea-nary, of course, to resort i ee *o ttal 

words or . - .onu.tt MM MM lan^a^e euppeaed te expreea the In- 
tention of the partit-a, »niu*, vhsn aeoertaineu, ie ou<- vrol An*, 

It ie true that the preeiee words uaed do uot si any ni--.es 
In th* nub acr tot ion a«src6*-.ent eay that Use aurvlus ia to be i*ld up. 
It does, he ever, deoerlba the >ur,)iui iu tarais oi' doil ire, ihree 






m »f*j 









I 



I . 



. 















■ 

■ 






. »#ft #1 



Billions, vhe Bu«b«r used to eaprei.*. iuo aucuni o< t I v.r. iue, is 
preceded by tne dollar *ign, u. ic i,u* aver^a j>«r» , ; .ns 

efc.ih. ii it may iuirly be tald i-u&t i ta 1 i lag . aords i I 
standing alone ettel Beouxated t'x context, '. k it ■*> 

bigucue, never txiOlesa wu«fi :ai the laaguag}e oi' the aubean-rition 
u. riCTtlt, at W*U M ftlai tlSMMHM kaMM B4 •:-'■ Ul W*ta«! C lt| <•: tt 
y«l«r»rie« to tae ti-.*i-uinCtioa, in onai.lcred t!.fr« ' c Im M 

doubt oi" the interpretation. Dm j^pPt—nt states, fai Lb I ce, 
that the 3o,oOt» alUNrM oi UM y-*r v*ia» oi ok I la t« Mli 

lor ** |#JUSS each. " A s-iinpl* teayatatital BBOWl that l Mil c< fell 
the BiitU'o* aw thaw pi»w* "komIu j-l«^t* a. SKXalaa oi' exactly , , Ov. 
la another uart ©* the a^ree^ent it prsvi&a* that no wr« than ten 
per cent *of the a&ount a»taaJU| said &ji cash upon aayarata aobacrip- 
tione' shall ee u*fcti ;oi ctovuaiaaiatll aau prw.ot.ioa attd organisation 
expenses, ini* tastlaatai che iui i,--.ei Lutes vi.cn a<l UM v«rvi«» Ifeat 
the sash receive'! iui DM c\-iwux • wee* *uid surplus anouid we s«./e- 
1'uliy guarded fro& cne aaquisi uvtovat oi u*o piwi-oters. ii i. ■ ro 
was any doubt in tnie reepeet it wou^d oe i o^ivnd bj the receipt of 
Haii which apr»e*r* at Hat <*nd e» Hat subeuriuwion Msi rtsaaal t?xnr*»eaea 
the sale oi th« sn&r-e oi woe* "at *d2.bo per sauart or 8* tin.es ite 
par value of #28.00.* 

EM conclusion ceeaii.es trresistiole *uen we oonsi-ier tola 
transaction as a wuole dud ita purposes, ^laintlif paid .,1 ,3o0 la 
cash, representing a deii>>ite interest in the capit.i Hal **r MM 

oi s corporation to be organized, *nd ue amounts oi mat capital aai 
sumxus were definitely staged. EM record would indicate tnat 
platntiii is a aHaiaHH «<an oi soae oi sore v ion. way woulo it be 
aupoesed he would pay eaah lor „nat interest, while pro-etera night 
sell to others equivalent interests ior oash tc only iwo-Jiithe of 
that aaountr ouoft a transaction foul i have been in provident ea nla 
part, it ie true that the lew la eiieet at this tlsie did net require 



' 



- 




to 

■ 
t 

iisdsa mUrl EM 



10 

that the surplus should tot paid i»^ oash prior tu th* ooauueUon of 
the eo mo ration, hut that wss a m&tter of public rattier UuM private 
int*r<*at. Bt *s« conaemed with is own contract, it is |.ijj,aii> .. t , 
how<*wer, that the law of the Btftt* In this reelect was cnanged ey a 
•«»••* in »nt «n%ctfi>*nt { »«e Cabin •■ 111. h*v. Stats, 1W31, onap, 73, 
ear, 194 a sec, 6) which created &• a condition rr^cedent to any sueh 
cor«^r*tirn ietag buoines* that its eurplua should bo toil In cash. 

It pO.bg ©opfflats? that "tail* not y*t aaridatory by statut*, it 
hi* ***r» the custom of the Insurano* I>epart^ent to require an insur* 
ane* earp-ny to lneor-jorat* in it® charter a statement oi the amount 
of th» authorised. auDitto and a declaration that the earn* had boom 
p*ld in e%sh. Indesd, by » positive stsitut* I see Oahili'e ill. *\er. 
9t»t*. 1629, chap, 73, pars. Id&-1&8) the law provided la Ruostanc* 
that no fir* insurance company ml^ht represent it. any advertisement 
e.ny funds or asaets to bo in the poeeesrion of such co&pany not ac- 
tually avsiliblo lor th* psiyts^xit of losses by fire, /aid that "ewery 
advertisement ** ^hall exhibit the capital actually oal-1 in, in cash, 
<tfid th* amount of net surplus of asset* as allowed by the *uUtor of 

le o<winte of the tmtfi of Illinois - * but no such advertise- 
ment « » a eh«»ll include or contain any declaration or etatment r*e- 
?*etln*. any *itiorlx*d or eub sor I b^d capital, sav* only so much 
fetreff se shall hsv* h**n actually p*ld in ir* cash uid possessed by 
the c«^p*ny." 

The report of the examiner of tn* dep*rt***nt of insurance, 
which is in evidence, refused to allow as aaret* of the company ac- 
count* receivable amounting to #1, 768, 590, aad reduced th* allowed 
• ( Imi of dafendant by that ruaount. 

tfurtuer, th* *orr**pond»nc* b*tw*en th* pertie* and th* 
**>*rtlse't.enta of defendant corporation wifth «r« la *vidanc* sh*w 
that subsequent to this agreement d*f«j<iant eonstrued it as an 
agreement that the *ntir* surplus, as well ae the eaolial, WMfeM h* 



5 %V ''■ 



. 



i 



■ ■ • - 

■ 

. 

•fit 

ah** 

i 



11 

paid la, la cash., iittcn subsequ at oouati ,cuou oi a saat***t by 
one oi' the parties; tc it la persuatUva. wllirttj)^;^, ftl 111. 
1C6. It is unnecessary to describe the advetr *i ifc. »i»t* uj t,i« |#. 
fendant co&.pany *hic.a appeared in the J-aicafco ne*» f ..->o*rr» la detail. 
These advertisements st&ted in glawiag terns thai. •-• , , 
eerapany w*s i'or^ia^ tAd that the capital vsa »<.,vu^,^ w o*d lae 
surplus j5 t uLU ( uwu« »* cannot or****** thai b> «^aa aJTsf It a assail 
del t-ndant intended to violate we !<*«« ©* lbs Slat* «r to in, *rt 
»isieadin£ adTrertis.uj.fc. Moreover, section o 01 tue act ^pplicaoxe 
to iire insurance companies { see w«niii. , a 111* *.ev. ^tat»» || 
chap, ?9 a par. iao, see, «*) provided, in eu&st»noe, laat *ueh wur- 
plus would be til lo^ed only U x% had been paid in in onsh and was 
retainet! aitaav in c&eh or in government bonds or otner sec^rit. its 
provided by that section. SeSj prospectus wuicu pi<*lutili receive* 
prior to suhscrit ing ror the stoc* expressly stated u»/at "the sur- 
plus, however, is a¥aJ&aaIa a* wording capital.'* j.nis oould be true 
only ii tne surplus was smitf la cash and t'ither hold ae tasa sr in- 
vested in tne securities approved by eeetlon o oi the uot. < i .ink 
It quite unnecessary at recite in aetail the extended coi 
between the parties, all ei whicn ia tc th<- ea&u ! 1 1 1 ct >nd whlc 

tnlnk as tnou^htiul person can read without oomin F to tne coniluh.oa 

In 
that when/this stock subscription tne ten*, "capital* oj "burr-lue" 



usee it was the intention oi the parties laat It should In 
•ass represent cash paid into the company. 

IV. buch being the interpretation oi las oontraet II re- 
■ mns lor deterrin/.tlon whev.er plaint 111 *lth kneel^^e waived his 
rlgnt to rescind or by afiirns&tive acts *itu reference to the stock 
after the company was incorporated al'Ji rated the contract in such 
•anner as to *aive his rU'ht to resclsrion. if we ars eorrest la 
this Interpret ut ton oi the subscription agreement there oan be no 



! 

■ 

- 

. 

I 

**-* At»ft »«W- 

. 

. 



la 

dcutt that .: I ic.-.ti'-r of la*, upon aa*a?ti ir I in- 

tiff had a ri&nt to reoeind tfea ,_i mm ■' , return: nil ,: let 

■il receive fc civ the aactay paid* ..- I | — 

principle* of $ea%raeti would? aamaal that . ■ , 

theriii-p -re c,uite fc^reea unc* tti ■ - ■ r to ka 'aat. 1 "Utchir 

Cye. Ccrr% , '"■' 1X4* I aaaa j rrlaara af ftt3 , "sfraeh 

'•■* r » Bfr » ** 1 1 1 • " '"' 7 S ':U-13.?»cp..-- . ■■ >*•:■ -,■.. Ij ; ft* , 

are only ■ fan of I KB) aathariti as v.K :. t. be til 

. U &**> th t« eiuiB fe< Ail tat* cast kyftJB . ." til I L?i 

notic* c/ re&cicaiur, until a tirae as plaintiff 1 feai kaaviaiga of 

■:■•.: •' -■■:' itttplfrbei it- trg£u ir.atlon *ithoat ro- 
faf the ©ash eurpluR as sy rats , 

ft&f*&i&Rt :.:,/-;" /... ) . ' | .. ttOl r f It trat 

. i intiff ii&d colics af U.e *it&&Uaa »a aaguat I, 1 , t 

he took nc action la rcftftiftd fa* ever aS 3 tSi r .f 1 .iee 

uif tad batf&a tui.ir.er. it,, aiily part if lt6 *ur^iu» 
■ : l*« Hm court rafaaal U i , 1*4 wt tklal ii t t.y. 

vuite i« -extant i <i rll f is Uu fct I tiff 

*ae in iew lork vita l&lj fttttli spi-oxtue. I ty for A;e'l<<ige »» ttM 

tere tas fit to 1 [il ,« tc «1«» fraa kJjM It tia*. DM corr*e- 
po*.dence fttlti ia inf I raaaa that 1 ottri were jejdrtnnt 

to fin ruc.i information, Plaintiff w&e entitled to a frank die- 
closure oj tiifi whole situation. Bm court found MM d»t- of ■ ntice 
to plaiiiwiff to 1* j.pril 15, ifSO f MU that he tren leemed of a 
litwa tJM .uai, mm ir, 1 ,ct fjiiitfd i'ro» ;»ec«uber 31, Iff 9* 

Julie V, |fJMI ( pjatetify notified del endant 01 nte de«rir# to 
NMiH the eubeoxiptlori a^reaaoDt. In /ei.r^-»ry he n.d exohanftd 
the inttrla oerfcii ieat« | loi |M ^toe* eer ti « io*t?fi. The eorrei- 
pondenee t:u>«rn lajriflf ell thl« tl»e iia endeevor on hie p*rt to 
•KtVMt froa Ui iTOMotaJTI th>« actual xitubtiwi. under »uoh 



- 

; . . 

. ■ 






■ 

. 

i 

1*9 ji« ft>V. 



13 

circuasatanoee *»* hold tabfct tte it not estopped and cannot V | ^ld 
to be guilty of ^ acnes. 

There Is »orae suggestion thnt the int.- I fc« .r«e.;ii:r! *nd 

demand the return of hia money 1 .eked the necessary formalities. 
On -Tune 7, 1'—:, pi .intiff'e attorney »rc-t f t: 

*?• rtJpmsMMri ■-. Hfe«rt . ■. itl-*r of Mew fork Bltjr, -who 
subscribed for 200 »h?4rt* of the capital slock of your co^p^ny. 

Hjr. Mtl<*r c visit his subscription was Mtttyol upon 

the representation that the Cotip<>ny to be organised would have a 
capital stock of |3 9 $ , .00, and a surplus of , , ,00 f 
all Mis' in e<»sh, but that this program h-.te not, in f .ct, been 
laffiol out, .rul h« fca iif«r^f,r*» desirous of rescinding hie 
eubscrlotian and soaring the return of his money. 

is) should be |l«s>INs4 to .sisouao this Sts>tt*3V with your 
counsel if you will advise us* who is representing you." 

On July 17, 193 , defendant's g«uitral counsel called on plaintiff a 

attorney* in Chicago, who informed defendant 'a counsel that the 

etoek certificates were in i«ew York but would be produced when 

wanted, Mi Inter th?re wai some eufcgeetion that def«uidint might 

arrange a purch3.ee oi Vie stock by Wt0 of atttie&ent. it ia >.o* 

urged that thin was an affirmative aot wn -in*, to waiver. -e 

hold otherwise. Formalities are not import>At ii. such caeee «h*rs 

tho intention to rescind, ae here, ia apparent and clear, 13 Be>] . 

Jur. 616; -ill! v. Burgess . 134 1.11. App. 373} Mac* on hesuieeion 

k Caneellaticn, vol. 1, sec. 114, p. 351, tlso sec. Ml, n vol. 

?, aeo. 536, p. Mfl . 

*e think it unnecessary to further review the fattl which 
are recite* in the findings of the court. 

»• hold that the subsoriotion afireeseit, rigntly interpreted, 
provided that the surplus should be paid in cash, ?ci tnat plaintiff 

had an undoubted fijpst to rescind uit he c'i<i not wuive; that at ll 
net eatoppe! ly ay affir . tUYe »et,j..i tnat 0M iNillalf prelimine*- 
riot tax the en forspent oi /il» right el rescission were met. 
Irer the reason* in Heated uie Ju i^ment is efJir-ed, 

A#i 1M1KD. 

O'Connor and MsSurely, JJ. , concur. 



i 






- 



■ 






■ 

I i 

: 



I 









, 






tlU ». 



s lttf OH jtalt 



•»A .ft, 



369^4 



JULItJ:; a, SXflM et al* 9 

ppeliaata» 

T« 

VH.: ■Gftfl • ■ ' GHRalsi 
a corporation, aa adatnitj tr&tor § 
Appellee* 





JOS , I K ft/IUTY* 



' 273 I.A. 61# 



. ,U'imoi op ffflt count. 



This appeal li by plaintiffs Troia a Juogiseat in favor 
of defendant entered upon uie g tailing o£ the court at u;ie close 
of plaintiffs' evidence. Hie ft&4$ was in asautap^it for ooaaa Leo ions 
eifiaeti to be due under the terms of an agreement whereby plain- 
tiff e uncersook to find a puroh&aoi- for a busineta owned ami con- 
trolled by Edward £« ect^orth in hi a lifetime. The declaration 
*m upon this alleged &gre*ia$nt» and the ooaui.on counts were rv ■ ed. 

nt pliaasd fche general io^ue, and the trial Wi a by the court 
aa above atated. &ttf«ft| -nt adainlstrator has not f ll?d any brl<-f 
in uupport of the juii^eiit of the trial court. 

Xho principal *xxoj. . i^aed anc' =rgued is -h: I vcluaion 
by the trial court ©J evidence oficred by plaint iff u. 

It appeared that in the lif. tiiec of cnUorth platr.Uffs 
brought a suit in chancery in th.. av x tor court of Cook oour.ty 
agalnat antwortu and others, ?he wait ban for |M purpou* of ob- 
taining dUcovery of whether the deal, n *hieh plnintiffo elr. I nee 
eesaitsione, sas actually ooneuosaated . The cauoe was rrferr«>d te 
a amater who aade hia report, but antwerth died before -> deeree 
entered. The suit M thereupon d i* continues at to i« 



« 



' 



fciaJUBTS* 



I 



: 



as 

■ 



i 






•ID 

•»T0 



a . 

I mi 

i ■ 

■ 
I 

xoq»t sift •iftMi wfw i*j«ju 



**ua at .tCK(xr«t«/(4 ««tv 



-2« 



pro seeded ngainot the Kitrvlvinm defendants. fterward thin oult 
fegalnnt the administrator of the estate of entv>orth wns filed. 
Tn the chancery suit plaintiffs! demand *d from entworth an answer 
uncer onth, and this answer was filed* 

Upon the trial of this eauno plaintiffs offered ill evi- 
dence M llM first exhibit a tort if 1*4 copy of the bill of complaint 
in that suit, *,©§rether with the answer in *hleh entworth um er oath 
admitted eert&ia allocations contained in paragraphs of the bill. 
The court excluded 1*1* evidence upon objection by defendant on the 
theory that it was not i£ai««$tolj under section 2 of the violence 
set 1 mith-^rd*e 111. Soy* tats. 1*33, cha . 51, see. 2) which 
provides in MsmstrntMs* that no party to a civil set ion , suit *r 
proc diB&» or person directly interested in the event thereof* 
shall be allowed to teetify therein of hie own motion, or in his 
cm b<?h»lf » ir BjB ndverwe suit or d fense as the executory odminis- 
trstor, heir* legatee or devisee of am? deceased person, unless 
vhen Crlled rb p. witness by such - dvtrse party o »ulng or d. fend- 
ing, and except in crtnin other ea-ees named. 

The trial court, we think, misconstrued the language and 
mlsconc lved the purpose of th t statute. The answer under oath 
filed by catvfTtm contained admissions by him of facts material. 
Is wm bound by such RMfttf find it wan ndmifl. ibl* in evidence 
against him. ^chfll v. ^fttf|i 128 (U* PP* Iftf affirmed in 22* 
111. 159. the stntute merely r 1 qualifies certain persons as 
fitnesses. It does not make either oral or written st^temcjiitjL 

•f a deesased person Incompetent. The court erred in this respect, 

Joseph J. Ksuscb wan tilled as a witness and questioned 
with rcforeuoe to a meeting with p.\«ln».iffs end entworth in the 
office of ^isno ml which the lit.isse was present. He testified 
that entv,orth at that time snid htn business mm* wth i 60 ,000 



■ 

■ 



, . 



! 



I 



■ 






- hinm nmkt i*At t« j 



-2- 

nnd ifea he oul-: eell it at ttet price and proniaed ;o furnish 
fijrurcs and stntaaents to &*e ■■Uneea at a 1 at te j that Sisno 

Rt that time t«vii hie ccrniaiselon w I 5 f , O0# ttorney for plain- 

tiffs then asked the witness what ; entw©rth said, but Lefendant 
ebj*v*ted, and the court oust ined the objection* Forney foi 
plaintiff then offered to prove by »«• lUNHM Sanaa* that <bout 
I seek after fcngnet 1 • 19&9, he net enfc\;ot ,h i*no in 3isno»e 

officii that i -.trc> ucsc: to Siena J Must Sinai *alc auuoh 

while ent*orth was there that eat^orth wanted to sell hie busi- 
ness, etc. apparently m the «jaae theory tan court excluded all 
this evidence. Slw decree entered in the chanctry tmM vst also 
offered and rejected. Fh* witness wan neither a party nor an 
interested person* fa* evidence wo a material and proper and 
should hare been admitted, Ba gg T> 3bnalaan^ 46 Til* pp. ffi ; 
Keish f. taapwpft 193 Hi. 219* nffy v* nffy. 24* ill. 476. 

The re ere e In the ch- n« ry suit was also competent for 
the purpose of showing thr.t a part of the comciiarior, clr imcti had 
been aeeessed against othsr p rtiea interested in the buolners 
which was cold. Biano, one of the plaintiffs. offered to teat if y 
as to how much had been actually paid to hiw on account of the 
comis atoms under th« deoree after the death Of entworth, but 

this evidence aleo was excluded. These payoente concerned n> ttcre 

occurred 
which vraaxaaoxn sftcr the de?..th of ntworth. The witness was 

eenpetent, and his testimony should hare been received. 

-la in tiffs argue Msal this court ehould x<-wcrse with a 

finding of facts and enter Judgment here, beonuee the uncontra- 

dieted evidence offered is sufficient to sttttafci such J ■« t. 

rl r.a facie. M think» it ia sufficient, but the record before us 

fails to disclose that defendant closed its cece, and for that 

reasoa the Judgment, *e think, aust be reversed and the oanee 

remanded. KSVKKSK* aHu » J • 

be urely and ♦ onnor, J J., concur. 



1 
I 

■ 

- 

.'I 

i 

. v * 

&9TIU000 

mrawui mi ii 



36044 



JESLLft H. P3WBRS, 

defendant In ftrrvr, 




V0. 




) 

n -tir tiff In srror. J 

1 273 I.A. 619* 

fe'R. mtlS&ffl JVilTICE -AfCRSW 
rv&UKS ?JUi aPi:;tcu< Q§ ;• ... . 

Ill Mi %otio» on the cne* ft* pereonal ir.juriee and uoon 
trial by ih« court, there ^ae 1 finding for claim iri |a tnt eu» 
of ')1C # QOO with Jaftj,yK»nt thereon. '- : 'fce sourt *l«u «nt*red a .n#cfcl 
finding It th@ effect that defendant «ae guilty of wilful and wanton 
conduct in connection with the accident in which plaintiff wao 
injured. 

the declaration i« in four ©cunte. .ne firot alleged that 
on July ID, 19.11, plaintiff w&* riding in an automobile on u public 
highway tn Ch»i&p&lgn county, lllineie, at a point About one idle 
couth of ludlcv on the i-;tat« i-ond Xcwue route i«o. 28, driving in • 
northerly direction; tnat defendant *».p driving an automobile in a 
coutherly direction on the s&j&e route; that he negligent y drove 
at a Greater »p«*>d than neoo»».*rjr, nn ' thai w.ile plaintiff wa« in 
the "xeraioe of dug uare ran into and struck the nutoaoMle in which 
plaintiff was riding, demolishing the car and gr^wtly injuring her. 
The eecond count averred general ne <;i li,ience. i'he thirl averred that 
defendant operated hie automobile on that portion of the highway re* 
cerved for traffic proceeding in the opponlte Urectloa, and the 
fourth that def sedan t at the time and pl**oe was guilty ef wilful 
a»d wanton n»^llgence. Def endant riled a plea of the general l*»ue 
and a special plea denying control and omcianlp of the aut<no«ile 
which collided with that in which plaint if f w«- riding. 

Defendant oontonde that the trial court aOeuld h*ve arer „#d 
hie motion rcade at the elese of plaintiff '• eaee to rind in favor 
Of defendant upon the tneory tnat there wee no proof ef the eperatiei 



. 






-L t4jp 






. 



HOII 



. I 

. la 
salball 






■ 
fjur* I 9 lit 

bmrtm 






li 

sjS.n t«*« . i - 



*fc»w a 



a 

or control of Sefen' nt's ±ul, obile. &•« hot/ewer, Jitl a«t «leot 
|| «!ten* ujgv h! a section, but thereafter proceeded to In vru :uoe 
ewMonc* in hi* m behalf, ft thereby waived a^y error, if tn«re 
was any, in the denial of hie motion. 4c n no, t* .v. i.»*. Kfl BMLj 
UAUl«, Wl HI. **»* 132. 

Defendant also contends Hurt as a matter of Ihw plaintiff 
vat guilty of contributory seglifcsnce >aii<! cit<*« caaee, ef >*hioW 
there :r« Bsny, holding that ■ pluinti.V who is not it. the axcreiee 
©f <!u* car* suuy net recover. Hawenror, the uriai MMrt fMU thai 
the negligence if tcftfe&i&s *ae wilful ami vaKtafti ttUI la iuaii 
caee contributory fffltfJftglffFff la f-a defense, au^ko y T * 'auAtnel^ . 
260 111. Ap?. P.M. 

Ifl -duo axguee tfefet the aaaoutit oi t^e ^ud t .j-aj.t iu »rot»»ly 
excessive, bit", the MriUtOMM i» clearly to the contrary. Flail tiff 
did not testify in the case, -he evidence ix* the record 4how* 
that she wa« taken to the hospital Uw ietaltlfi aft«r the collinion 
in rhiei ahe received her ihjuriea; that there «iti a aw*l.».ii»g »< oTt 
the *yee Mi I* the fact, part) cul >vrly on .he ieft »ide ci Uie 
head; that tb* forehead «ea over the left eyebrow and over the left 

iHe of th* noee was lacerated; that ao&i of her teeth were kiiotaed 

there w«i 
loe*e; that there was a laceration of the lower lip; tiiajfe/e die- 
col /ration and swelling In thr left shoulder and upper left part of 
the cheat; that her ri&ht hip as f r *cstured and both jine*s aislo- 
ented; that there wee a coaminat'Sl fnoturo 01" tfcsl acetabulum, 
whlcH is the hip Joint aoca?t; that hor injuriee were ; >ar«u>«nt 
end that ah* now haa 1 deformity of the upper atarnuai du« te 
fUNttWI at that tiaie. The *Uendi::,i p...>'flioi*oi aleo testified 
that plaintiff aleo had a severe brain c.ntiieio« wt.laa produced 
uno^risctouenea* for a „?^riod ef weexe anJ whlan produced at tlr.ee 
Mental i responsibility. 

Hie contention of def *ndai»t, apparently wost relied uren, 



MM 












■ 

- 
t . 

i 



. 












■ 



ham *•-; ***« #w *t :.e*tf 

; 
■ 

ImMmm 



Is that the fi&tlliig and the Jud^asnt ars against the manifest 
weight of the ovidenee. a«ferd*r.t was the onlj witnes* rha 
testified in his behalf. Th« evidence tend* to anew that nlain- 
tiff tw injured an ft r«»«suli of a coJiifion waich took nlase on 
the s>tr*t«e Bond leeuo rout* i-o, 25 about on.« s.ile wouth of Ludlow, 
Illinois, and about at the ,©p of ft* ineline la thig highway. 
Plaintiff resided at >:ent©K, Illinois, arid on ths sorain <: of 
July lo, 1^31, left ; ;i«r teotto fa* Hit purpose of aafciag • trip to 
Lvdington, aftafeia*A« She was riding in a now lk>/1g« sed.n Iriroa 
bv her a»sa Mobert, aiarte^ years of ag@ at the limti. the evi- 
dence tends to shew that he had hid MM eanerierioe In hari.dl.inf 
aato!-oMm» # had -iriven .for about i year *nd was faailitvr with Um 
mechanism of oars and tae rulee ©f driving. PlalataiY eat in ths 
fr^nt ■•at by her soa and tw© iittie gir.i.s, ona har daughter, *ere 
riding in the b<%ek neat, They left heass on tag day in quest ion »t 
4t5C in tht QtorniiMs; it was a bright, clsar day. <tt about tan 
o'clock in the avowing, they were driving in a northerly direction 
•n the east side of the pavement at the place in question et a 
speed of about forty *fiil«*s an hour. At th« ea»e tine def.-r.dant was 
driving a Studeb*ker automobile la t southerly direction on t e 
highway. In the oar Vita hisi was his *ife und ciiild who was a 
little over five year* old. The evident* aa to hi» lrlvin* la 
conflicting. That rot plaintiff tenda If »ht* that hs was driving 
south at a spe#d of acre than 6C miles an hour, 3*f«ndanta aays 
that hs wag «olng about M mil*a an hour. BM p»v*»*nt har* was 
about 16 fe#t wide and i the c«nt*r ef it w»a a black line. 
TT*v/#iars coming north would go on the aast side of ths lit*, thoas 
traveling aouth on the west eid* of it, Ths evidence for plaintiff 
ie to the effect that as d*J'«ud*ut proceeded aouth he was Straddling 
this black llns in ths ce tar si *hm pawenent, thus invading that 
part of ths road desl^nsd for travelers going in ths sppoalte liree- 



. .. 
i 












* ill* 

-■Hi 

~lr- 

-:■'-■ 

a 

- ■ 

jut; 

... 
•«9J ' " 

•/.<■'■ i iff* 



turn 






tion. JMT tuflMrt i eeye he wa© driving un the west side ©f tbs blece 
Uo« and that he *a» east el it MMfli tfca act Idoist ©ceurxed. He 
say© the*, he could see plaintiff* Jiutcasebil* as tt approoe^ed; 
that he w»w it first when It *»• about Kv f .<»t rcuth ©f Mr. .he 
driver of plaiittin ' * w ear testified that by reason of the incline 
he wa« unable to se* the oar of defendant *• it apsreaohed. ::*- 
fendant ©ay* that the oelil ©ion occurred ©n the west ©ide of the 
blaefc line. All the other evidence is %a she effect that defendant 
was driving ©» the east »*id* of the black iiu« ?.tai i:u<* -collision 
e ecu -red. hany f*.ete and uir«a**©t©ttee« indicated UUtf ttl« witnesses 
for plaintiff ^awe the |H4 account of the HatfcMN 

As Tiire&dy stated, ittfettdflttt v&s the only witness who t*sti- 
fiod in his behalf, and his ftaettafflty is contradicted by the drivtr 
ef plaintiff** ear and in part i.«ul©r by ■ .11 ©interested wiLr-©es a 
Joseph .©aud i son , who w%* ' } h.i ten-hiking" w n the read ;-t UmI tint. 
Carl ©*itt, eue at t&at tine held the ^©allien of fctat© pollcex.v. ad 
who e*s patrolling Ht* hi^eay and ti»*wMl >.«« seen a of the ncrM«t 
isss#diat«ly after it ocearred, testified tfeat :h© wheel Ml Lao 
front left hand side of the >>©rig© oar was an.a«*u©d MMM MM) broken 
do ■-••••© and the windshield broken, ui«* *n;:ine block ©rac~*sl -aid 
f enters ©washed ; he said ho examined the £*tad*'wa*«r ©at ..%n1 I 
the front wheel was pushed eaok; that it ©as ItWMl «"<*y ViUMtts a 
derrlek; he ale© said ho exa ini»d tne pae**ent and observed a |ft| 
©f glass on the right hand ©Id© &oing north; that u»ere s©x« scratch©© 
in the pavement whore the iiep-t©t had ©aus«d tne oar l© *4ld on Uie 
right hand aide of tho pavenent; that the seratone* were ta the 
right ef the bleak line. 

Ja««© dheahan, keeper oJ a garage at ^udi©», iMI a i il Ml tftat 
he cleared away the wreek snortly alter tho aeeldent; that ehen he 
went there h* found the ol*e ear en the rignt hand »id* of the 
read, or. the eaet vide of the road and headed into the ©ltah; that 
the 3tud*bafcer was on the left hand elde ef the road; tuet it had 



I 









- 

■ 



1 

'■■ 



- 



■- i 



, 



call !• 






**-:!.' 



<ta -" 



■t* 



,&%•..:••* 



been puehad off the road, 

Under ■*«* evidence tlMffi wae clearly an ieauft 91* f ot, on 
which the finding o-i the court i. 'tiled upon review to the ease 
weijiht as ti»« verdict wl g jury, fg ewect 5 .. - * nr «. 

ponier^tea in favor gff u.' H Bt| o.. fcfet Ogatvagy Vg hnld that it 
clearly > ggjp a »aaga>gg in fgjfgi of plaintiff. 

defendant earnestly eont«aade Hurt t&tgre «&s ho f-r.rj f thet 

would Ratify the find in* «i' wilful «Bd wantoa pattaagt M hln -.art. 

the evidence show© wit&g&i §g&t*adi«tlga Hunt the if the 

road at this point «r«sated a aagggfgisJ ^tuiilun, of a*4ga it 

driver 
vee the gaty of any e±ir#ful/*atgjf to tggg u^tiow. lag it/taaagg for 

plaint iff taaaa to *$h©« taat with full knowledge uf this aituatioa 

defend *nt drove ami ear at a groat raie of speed and strudiied the 

blnek line in the center of the rcu*d, «h*?r*a& it -*«.« hit 'uty, 

under tr»« gtlggagt ga it 1 1 to *«<rp clearly to the right of it. The 

queetlon of whether this conduct was wilful gad agBwl und aie 

weight of the evidence in that ItgDMUl ^ere for the trial Ju'tfe, who 

earing and hearing the witnesses had adv intagee in weigAin*; the 

evidence w ieh this court do«s not po usees. '#• think thle ^ueptton 

aleo is o«^ which aust be retarded as a*ttled conclusively by the 

finding ef the court. 

Bsfend&it alee contends that the court erred in wdniiuing 
InnroDer evidence, bat where the trial ie by th*> oeurt without a 
Jury, it will be prerjaed uoon review thai the trial Judge in 
aaVin^ his ftoding disre* rded any evidence improperly admitted, 
srevided there was eufficient evidence in the record upon which to 
ease his fit.i*lnr. This record eontaine euch evidence. 

The Judgment of tne trial court ie af limed. 

ArvXHJlKD. 

leSurely and G*Cor.nor, JJ. , concur. 



•9*i . 



- 

■ 

I 

.•■.. • ■ 

%Ol$StMt>» at fc»*n 






levi-ife 



- 

I a*v 

■ 

• - 

■ ■ 

•c fawn jfoiiiv ■>■*;.» si c*JL« 

. 

tJffl 9«v •**«(* fe»*Ivn« 

• 



.in m 



, 



56991 

% . KTWUGHS A 60., 1 Corporation, 

I-.UPAL 
I 



! 




itSkXaT RICKMTS, ) 

f.n, *>K£&£&ijgi jtsai ion HAicsatf 
Dg^iv^KtiD an o?iMoji cor this ec 

**his Is an MjgtMft by defendant J'roc* a fuAflMftl In the «u« 
of $693.68 entered on the J in iing oJ the court. 

Plaintiff's i%*t«Mftt of elaiss discloses a dertand Tor 
noneye alleged! to be rtue Tor certain china and t;la.8«»are w.ieh , 
it ie averred, were &016 ant? delivered to defends:., hy ulnintiff 
September 24, October 22 and uetofeer 26, 1932. 

She affidavit of taerite denize thnt tne good! lu ru^ntion 
were purchased by defendant but avers tuat ail of tuo m«*r©>iai;d.t e 
was sold to Krnest A, hlcaetts, ino. , Mt4 defies taat defendant it 
obligated to pay J'or IA» part of the easse. 

It was »tipul*at©<! that the goode Vert delivered at the 
premises known as S24 Davie street in £vanston, where a restaurant 
was conducted under the MM "£rnaet a, hicketts, inc. - ; that tr.ic 
restaurant was conducted there by defendant, >*r 1 tnat tne prices 
clii»(«d were aa agreed. 

The sole question Li the trial court therefore wue *net <r 
the goode were sold to defendant or to this cor. oration if which 
he wae president, and the control i-ing issue la thic court is 
whether the finding of the court la Mgalnnt t.hc can 1 rest weight 
of the evidence. 

The evidence unions that pi win '.iff MMpMt* was a dealer in 
ehina and glassware i<< I icagc, slid e^poyed in itl business a 
saleeaan named Waters. In the early part of 19. w -l Aofendsftt con- 
ducted a restaurant at 2727 i<orth Clark street, Bhioafv. At that 
tine and thereafter ho lived at 609 Wellington avenue, t o blocks 









\..' .. i-: . 



• •* 



. 



el 













► «•*• 19 


. ■; 


. 




'' ' 




■XI MM 


, > 


(1»1W 9 I 






cfia»J««4i 




M l 





. - I I . ■ 

8*3 ■ 



r to #ia«f .»t***w fc»<tt*fl aaai»»£*s 



I 






away. *'*tera ' eMtiJBtM* if tifcftt he called on defendant at this 
reataursnt in XW31 and mbtaietedl e<-*ir.nle» of bit floods; tost de- 
fendant *ae Apparently lutaraatad, *nd th* mltiim froaa tijae ta 
ti&« thereafter oaii$4 on hia. defendant ' a tMtti cny le i.iat n« 
eoid thia re a t «iu ran* * at WSt lertfe (SUtfJt street *o his bretner in 
September, i$31, utf truit &f first raat. «JM aalctsuajui of plaintiff, 
Vetera, tnere afeout august, 1933, * 4 ien his brother was ii. l ,ct the 
owner ©r tha restaurant; that he (dgfaftdaat) wab only viaiting 
there. 4owewer tliat saa,y be, defendant admits that the e»les«,*ii 
euoted prices to aijsj that he w»s or tan around 2727 I#rth olark 
etra*t tfter^&fter, and t-rmt Adtfeftdiutt gavi to f*te>ra th* nuxber of 
hi* no«t* address and told hisi that h« v&a Inter ftac .n » restau- 
rant about to oe opened *t 6*4 Busri* street, *"vaT.«tor,. 

At any rate, plaintiff untfer date of August 25, H ! ^", 
preoared quotations on ware* end i Urn to d*f *r. taAt at bia 

hee\e address, totsetuer vitH • letter ft&draaaea 1 to him mere, 
atating that th© price liet ra» vncicsed ;snn forthef that "ftoae 
tune within the next w<s&k I *tili ,«.rrsJti4;e to MM ycu. ■ quotation a 
on other goods followed on tt§t<Hfot> 1, 7, 16, 17 ur»d 5 '. : , 1055?. 

Waters t*»a;ifi*»d that theae cjuoi^tiona w*»re eent at th* 
personal request of AtfattftNttl Wat on September 23, IV 3v, he net 
defendant by apr>oin ws.er.t at the office of an srebitect in 'Yan*ton 
where daf*»r:d a;t | .*.-»* hi» a werbal order or the goode, ihe follow- 
ing day Wotare Bade rut an order on th* printed stationary of 
Onondaga Pottery Co., Syracuse, flew York, the written portions of 
which were in bia own handwriting. *t th* top of this cheuorandua 
ia written •Riek*tte" and at the hotter*., also in neript, "tfor 
Im»at ^iokette. - 

September 26, 1832, plaintiff stalled a confirmation of tne 
order given to "Mr. ifirneet Kioitette, K'04 a. Clark tit., u.ieago, 
111." w^tern «ai,i that thie oonf inaction wa* aer.t to tnat ad- 
dreea at the request of defendant. Ot :er prloe liste were sent 



V%mtm*% siai biom 






. 



- ■. ■ 



: 

m% Latio**#ct 



. ■ 



,. ..' ,.. » . hi 






to itftads&t oa »*.jU,uki |d «*n a votober 2^, 1952, wnich wer* 
addr«xs«d *a*. >rw*s* Atokattt* * 

October 24, 19&&, plaintiff wrote; 



*: r. limeat ^i^csts, 
iftCM ■• Claris, at. 
^;o . 

Sear Br. ftlakftttai 

S3el« fallovi&f is i softy oj' order pis*** 1 with us 
for your new location, BS4 Davis St., Kraft* ton, IXXioolo] 
I itattt k»i **fc«p pet© |4*Sf P»'»' dan. 

I i©2«*n teaoots 10 ©5-., 12.95 per ^ox, 

the above is decorated w.lUi brown color lift** Mi ,r~cir.gs 
Ivory body. 

; .awaking yon for this business, f» »r*, 

Your* tiuij, , 

J®, ft. tlinrlchs i Co." 

Again, on October US, plaintiff wrote: 

■Mr. Ernest nicietts, 
LCC4 ... Clara. 3t. 
Chicago. 

#* ar* giving you below oony §f order v.iich you 
placed aith us; fog ywur fcj 'ternocn Xoa ^trviee fft* your n«w loca- 
tion, 624 Davis St., gvenston. 

OverglftWI F«ttb¥*)Kg«"> #hite iciy 

3? do£«r. Cups I A* SI per testa 

3 " ii&ucers 5.05 * 

3 ■ i'iatse »• S«4Q ■ " 

Again thanking you ror this business, we ar* 

iOuru V**J| truly, 

. . • . rilnrichs b uo. ' 

l>ef endnnt says (and ^^tars defies) that at ths t las ths 
orders la question were given ha told Waters that th«y were Tor 
ths corporation. Apparently, for the purpose of explaining nis 
failure to protest again»t tries* transactions being carried out In 
his name personally, t«f«steM says tnit I otober 26th he went to 
the hospital where he underwent an operation, \ | that he >\l* not 
•*e the Invoices whic\ were aJ 1 made out to his> person'illy, until 
about the middle of December; that he then called up plaintiff's 
place of buainene and told a f.irl wltb whom he talk«d to change 
the billing to Kme»t Hlcketts, Inc. 

Xhe charter for the Ernest a. KlcKOtts, inc. , a cor oration. 






I 



, 


■ 




w»n -xuox **>** 



■ 






; 



UQ% 



, XQlS 



■ 

I 



; ■ • • • 

MM 

ni $trt> feci it*, v #«•*«*$ «# Atulla'l 

m ./.i"'' I r r •*»« tilt 

il^aj. , . . <ti»<4 »■'■ 9 •&*•» li« MM asslovai #rtj ••• 

•.ill wi a y *3*Iq 

. 



was issued by the ^*er*t*r> 01 StiM if Illinois Jkly 9, 1932, and 

it vat recorded in we reorder '« olTiae of Cook county July IS, 

1932. Defendant, as eU r«ady &t<*ted, *aa the president of Uit 

•emoration. Hit lease lor the restaurant in i-vanston vua in the 

nam* of the corporation and «a> <l.«*ted jvu&ust 19, 1932, 

December 31, 1932, d*f*ivW/.t wrote: 

•I. A. ainrlche & Co., 
88 8. **eh in A;toa street 

Chicago, Illinois. 

aentle^en: In regard* to your invoice of .jecewber 30th, 
1 wieh to inform you tftat our invoice© fliiull he hilled te 
Rieketta, Incorporated. 

W$ »la© wish that you would pick up tne ol 1 iinfcti "*hieh 
we haw* here in stock. 

Yours tiwlj, 
hieketta, Incorporated 
j£rn«»t Hut Rlikotti, r'r«i. 
3AR:EM3 K, #v. Kickittft, fMs." 

In response to thie letter new inv ices billing the goods 
to the corporation «er* sent, and ae already atated, th* goods *ere 
delivered to 53d Davie street and received by peroona employed in 
and about the restaurant tu « re. 

We think MM ■>!*< is a fair recitation of the caterial 
facte appearing in the record. Bit issues on tail record see* to 
raise Questions of fact which would haws been for the decision of a 
jury if the oase had been tried by Jury. As tha case was tried by 
the court, thee* questions were lor the court, waeee linling upon 
then, upon rewiew or this court, is entitled to the suae weight as 
the verdict of a Jury. 

fher» ia some oomolaint about evidence admitted over objec- 
tion, but where the oase ia tried by tfte court, su«:i ruling, svsn 
if erroneous, is not revereiile if ther# is evident* in th* reoord 

upon which the o.urt could reasonably base its findings. 

Xh*r* is no reversible error in this record MM th* Jud ment 

• f th* trial court Ik therefore affirmed. 

a/yiKklB. 

0*C*nnor and fcctfurely, J J. , concur. 



t Si 0*W «*» *i 

arf£ ai gov «*.>•' 
•8 

:•$■-.-■ 

i • • • 



, 4 W! T»tf«at>^ 

■ 

, ■ . ■.;>■:...•■ 

«i»w aboo$ *, 
«i fo»x«i«? ; '' >vi»»ai km UaA 

rorfa fcaw 
X«iiaittJ» • . ::■ 1 1 f.i It-. 

a "to r. ifeii<* $v*i "tc »aai*a*»p aals? 

Xtf b*ltS 4«V 98*6 «i£? 8* 

a« Jyfalair acta 

•aattf* tore heitisxk* »o«- varft 

*f»*,:htft »iW ircu! fcxoaan »^ ri on ai •»■• 

•tawm* **© tat%t act* la 

. . , ^a loan 



3700* 

GUST ItdfcK&fMt } 

Appellee, ; 

) 




r 



VS. ) 

) : I . 



DAVID tfb^Al* et Hl. t i 

Appellants, j 

un Appeal of lin 0UHUI| ) 

AfK*ellant. ) 



27 3I.A.619 3 



■fclV&IVM) i-iK WlftUA C.' Ill 61 t I . 

In «n act Ion on the c«»e begun Auguat 2a, lv31, against 
David Sermain, David fianin t Jr., Beverly fnant and John rphan, 
anil upon trial by jury (the cause having been diaaiaaed by plaintiff 
as to David tttranin, i>r. , and I-everly '&«i«a) tuere *«■ a verdict of 
guilty at to John Orphan, with damages n gn t li n j at 12500 and a rrr- 
diet of not guilty M to w&vid *en:i»in, -- r r. motions in tfttnlf of 
Crphhi.: for a new trial ami in ^rrefit were over* .a art nu-i fndjpseVt 
vtt entered against hi» on tne verdict, fro«i wnich ne ein>eals. 

The declaration *ae In UUPM counta. ElM firet cuHrgeg 
that pl.-iintiff sustained injuries as a result of tue ne^Iii enee of 
defendants on January 26, 1931, nt the intersection of Harlem «md 
Aorth avenues in Coo* t»tt»t y t Illinoie, when a ii.otor Tdtoitll in 
which plaintiff was riding, driven by Orphan, collided -pith nnotntr 
auto obile driven by tferpialr, Jr.; that plaintiff was in tfie exer- 
eiee el' du* car*, and tnat def ndante drove their autoaobile 
negligently. The second count alleged UmI defendants were negli- 
gent in failing to keep a proper lookout. Bat tnird count c^rged 
wilful ind wanton negligence, «nd t/iis was withdrawn before the 
eauae was submitted to the Jury. Defendants pleaded th# general 
Issue. There *aa a motion by defendant Orphan at tie clou* of 
all the evidence that the court instruct the Jur,, to find in hi* 
favor, anion «ae denied, and tnia i* tne 1 irst »11*, ed error argued, 

Ihe evidence ahowed witaout con trad lot ion Ifcai defendant 
was injured January 26, 19 ,M, as a re*-- It of a eolxision when the 



, 



. 



c 



-, I . « X 



Q 






. 



•a? 



ii-^ii 



... 

"to *oAfo«r « e ^1t«C of •« 

t» 1 *n t« i» if? 

. 
■■ 
fen* «»l%«k "l© flc Vt»!S 

:* 9J6T I '-OilEr 

t* '"* v •**»« 

•Ij fttfl »i«w wi fe»»»*i« fouca *»«*>*»** erf. liglifetfl 

al ia»a 

*rf,? »i<A»J Off. ut» ,*»»a«»^/Aji*rt »tci40* few itrtllw 

tc ««c>; ••• * »** »M#ji» .««o«i 

• iii Hi j*:. *•«#**« CM »«JJ > V» »/t» 

,*»c; :'* hf> &*LU: taxi l *«iJ «1 •* i . ;»▼*** 

•Mi »riw aoiftJUoft I 'to w*M*t k»*«tni •** 



automobile driven by Orphan collided >*tth another auto. otile driven 

by Germain, Jr.; t at plaintiff »t that tiae mm rising in Orphan's 

automobile as the ftt«*t of 5W|lliM. rphan therefore contends that 

plaintiff jaay not recover by reason o3 paragraph "b* of the act 

•proved July 8, 1931, (see i-svw? of Illinois, 1931, u. 779). That 

act Weill section 42 of the &«tor Vehicle* c,ot ; ..roved June 30 

1919. fhe Tii.raij.raph In question is >»* folio**: 

"Provided, however, t-.fit M person riding in a motor 
vehicle as a gttwfti, wlttUMtt p*y»«&t for euen ride, nor his p*pivii»i 
re- resentative ir. the ever, t of the dsatn of such, gttoftt, shall h->ve 
a cause of action for damage 8 »t;;j*.inpt the driver ot operator of auch 
stotor vehicle or ite oener or his. esplt/tQ or ■feat i'or injury, 
death or lose, in c«ee of accident, unices such accident shall have 
bean caused fey t&a wilful and smn ton misconduct of the driver or 
operator of such motor ve b£el€ or its owner or his -rctployee or 
agent and -.snleos such -.•stlfui and wanton conduct contributed to the 
injury, d>=*t ■ or loss for which the ?..ot ioi. is hr<su. nt. * 

The wilful count having been withdrawn, an: It spearing 
that plaintiff w«$ rising with defendant orphan as his fc uest, it is 
now urged that this section was applicable, sad klust the instruction 
PtQUested should have been given i'or that reason. 

The accident occu -red January -26, 1931; the Mnsmtoemt to 
the kotor Vehicle law, of W'iioh the above quoted paragraph is a 
part, was am>roved July 5?, 1931. ihe inntant suit was begun aut.ust 
88, 1931. Ihe real question therefore raised by this contention is 
whether the MMMb mt rightly conn trued hns the effect of taking 
away the ri«,ht of action which ao cruet prior to its enacts <»i*t. 
fendar.t I rohan contends that is its efi eot *nd cites Vaftlnwqgon V . 
City of Chicago, 61 111. 31, followed in Vance v. a nkln . 194 111. 
625, and Pooler v. a<;uthwlo* . 200 111. App. 3vl. 

as plaintiff points at, there i« no doubt that unier the 
corawon law and independent of Msjf statute, a yl tintiff g.»est b«d a 
right of action against big host for ne^li^ence by which he «ee 
injured, layout v. rieadlrg Coal wo.. . 250 111. App. 4ftv; Xjajey__x. 
Crawford ,. 233 111. App. B90. This amendment t; the statute cont 
■e lancuago lndicatint, that it was the intention of the legislature 



rt»v I 



: • la 






. 



■ 









, 



' 






■ 

■ 

waa 

runu: •*• , 






: 



• 






•Mi* J 



■ 

i£Mqtlu}I *a 



3 

that the awenisumt should be retroactive. Ml it is ar^u <i f.*reua- 
siv«ly that aueh statute will rot fee given a retroepsotivtt effect 
unles* it is clearly manifest i'rem. the language then-of Heat the 
leglslat -re intended it ahoul 1 a*?w that effect. 

ihe taptalat'l court fix the fourth iiietrict has salt that 
this particular mania vmt la not retroactive in ttauMjoalter , v A 
B©wjyr§» 271 ill* App. 33S, aad that construction is, w* uinlc, eo«- 
oelled fro& a consideration of the authorities. In JVoplo v, 
Pout a ah ft ftMM&ftlfti 2 *$ iiJ " **•< lt ***« keld that a law la force 
July I, 1909, exempt in& certain property from taxation eoul 3 not be 
availed of as ag&lnet i tax levied AgiVll 1, MHa>« in . : il ch;»rdspn v, 
U, .a. Jfc gJKMJ JB*> ' 1** XijL » 269, iSi wa * k *l d W»** tu e »** »*' ***y 
86, 1997, which provided that ■ forei&n corporation amiaa fal*ai to 
comply wif. that act could not aaint&in * suit, c->uid not be con- 
strued to take away UkC rijgM aaiah had accrued un^«r a : >rior *ct 
of 187ft, giving each eon oration the ri f .>t to lean »»ney >nd bring 
euit in this State. Cas MVJrt th*»rc said that »uch statute would 
impair the obli*; tion of a contract. 

In gyennan v. Electrical Instal lat ion up .. IH 111. *pp. 
461, it appeared that Mrs. Jirennan sued on | rl*,ht of action which 
accrued to her under a statute ol' the state of Mississippi, giving 
a rl.<ht of action for n«glik,«i<ce causing the deatu of her husband. 
It appeared that nrannan di^i in July, 1969, ihe suit waw be«un in 
January, I9o0. While the action was pen ting on may 11, 1903, an 
act was passed by the Illinois legislature wuloh. It wae claimed, 
rightly construed, provided that no Motion should be brought or 
prosecuted in Illinois to recover damages for a death occurring 
outside the Hale)* Although th*re were ne expreee words of repeal, 
it w*e contended tnat this act had the effect of repeal in* the 
former act of ISftS, which permitted such actions to be H*lnt»inee 



• t 

. 

g 13* M 

... 
. - . 

I 



■ 






.:-.t- - ■■■■ 



■ 
■ 



■ 

TOO* 

.ftoactav :*»& •*•■• f0 **9 

a*w 4 2*;* ft 41 
oc . t** an | ««* aoifo* •< - , 

. Ct ««* *1 ,4ei UI«2§fti «■«* *** 

to •* *X««lto *•!*•* 0* J*«* »«< ,*ai/i*a<MMi xi*4*l<l 

,)4«Sft « *K0t «»4»A««h fvo**t 9t a to • tiaaaft?* 

*Aio« ««*f<iX9 en »«*« rr- 

A*; ; arf el »aol*t« ^u* * **** 



In the court* of this at&te, fnia court reviewed the aut oritlee 
■ai distinguishing V alBa m v . C j t y of Uii wo . 61 Ul. H| 
County of frott ard V. iilncaid. 71 111. 587, and other a*s«s, fteld, 
eitlag hi chard eon v. Akin,, 87 111. 138, *fhere if i vested ri t. 

in an accrued cause of lici.ion." •-•> said: 

**V©sted rife its cannot be destroyed, diveatod or iapaired 
by direct legislation. Shall 1 protection is Mi of the primary 
purposes of government, ihey are secured by the bill oi rights and 
the constitu Lionel limitations upon the exercise of the sovereign 
powers.* j-*wiss Sutherland on fttftttttavy Construction, section 671, 
and caeew there cited. 

"But ttiere are other reasons lor not nulling trie >*ct of May 
13, 19CJ3, retroactive. Ihere Is a general rule, that no statute 
will be construed Mi operate r-etrosneotively aalaaa MM intent 
that it shall cto so te manif e&ted by ol s-ar *>nd unequivocal laiifraage. 
liwieon v. Adam* Co ,.. 130 111. 558; |mj v. l.j.ehxls . 1*1 111. 128; 
Pepsle v. KeClellan. 137 in, 352; /lshe r v. SEBK 142 ***■ 80 5 
Vo igh t v . , . J 5 r s t en . 164 111. 31*; fcog,re. .V. jjjjjjSfti Cu^ra nty ^und 
Bj. . 178 111. SOSj taLJJ Siati l« HI. T»i "rtl chard so n 7t.» u - * • 
E»BMBI * t Tuat. Co.. , 10 1 1 1 1 . tit. " 

In fejjtfiML JbftBEte^l J&Sb* ?■• Indus tria l ,Cp»j.. 314 111, 261, 

our Supreme court distinguished the right granted unJar a public 

law from thaaa ^hich had beeoise the property of a;* individual -nd 

esid: 

*&o one has a vested ri fe ht in a public law, but the legis- 
lature may repeal or ai&end all legislative acta not in turn nature 
of contracts or private grants. Such repeal or amendment, however, 
eannot have the effect of extin^uiauint; ri<-;;ite which have been ac- 
quired under the law. ( Dob* ins v.. frirst J ia| '1 hank , ill 111. 5S3. ) 
'•* 4 statute can only he givtsj a retroactive effect w;ier» it does 
not iapair contracts or dlveet vested rights. Lane's appeal, 57 
Conn. 182, 14 a. ft, h. 94. ■ 

defendant Orphan In hi a reply brief cites loard of irustete 
of 111. | klchlttan Canal v . City of Chicago . 14 111. 334, Ml that 
eaee considered only 1 consistent statutes w.ioh related to the 
manner in •ahioh land night be appropriated for publio purposea. 
There was no question in tne case of veeted rights. 

If, as the declaration alleged, plaintiff was injured by 
defendant's negligence, the cause of Motion thereupon accrued which 
had all the qualities of a vested right, and the »ub»»u»nt rtatute 
could not take it away from him. #e hold the court 1id not »tt in 



, f> !».'•» ,3*:. 



fee 

I 



■ 

■ 



, - 



. 



. 






•■•■id ■fViSfi 









- ■ ■ .. 



Mtl 






HE M^rtf tt* #. t^^ to 



,e '♦ so *»*t> •*?* «Jt nolJ»<M:.$i oa «*w •n»jff 

lf»ldw *v>uto»« rtgatf»<x»&j aoJJ»* "»» »«ju» v MU ,Mh' -;' fa*i> ««•»{,% 

r-.t* Jmjrp*«tfb» Mil lOK ,*lf»ll •* -n/«t«» « ' ti* XX* fcfejf 






denying defendant's wotlon for an instruction in his l'*vor. 

Defendant next contends that the court erred in denying hit 
motion tar a new trial IHiilt, a* he eay», the verdict <>i the Jury 
was agttinet the muni feet wei^nt oi 0l« evidence, iho controlling 
facts in this case «re quit* 1 si«#le. Varies* avenue i» & public 
highway in Cook county axten4iac a#rt« *nd »outh. Barta *venue le a 
public highway extending east MM »••!• loth atreets were i'roa li 
to SO feet •wide; Sat&aa svenue Vat all p&ved; i.ort.'i ■faaat had a 
tO foot aighway on eaca side, ol" the street, with dirt in Ui* center 
■puce; there w«r« no street lasipa at Ui« intersection of tn*se 
street a, eat there were otaa eigaa oh both sides of eacu of tnen. 
The country about the inter eect ion HI faiaMs 1 prairie, *ltaough 
Lperon n^pos, who VHt ri "sing in iaffandJfcs vr .han's oar, said there 
was "eoae sort af a little hou»e* near by. 

At tae tine in question ai ..intiff , witn ;peroe, <*»s riding 
■outh on the west aide of Baff&a* avenue la a ; or-1 coupe driven by 
Orphan. All three c. c-...-u-:'--inaa. eat together In ta>4 front seat. It <rai 
■bout ei^rht o'clock la tfci evening. Orphan tuid Kapai testified tnet 
when ffTjJian*! ear awor opened fcfe* intersection it was etopped north 
Of the curb of &ortn. avenue; tne;y say they looked but eaw no other 
oar approaching frot& the weet; orphan say« he then proceeded to 
•rose the intersection at a speed of IB to ^S miles an hour, uod 
that when ulaest across the interaeotion he was struck by e tfuiok 
ear wr.ica was proceeding on the south side of horth uvenue in an 
eatUrly iiieotion ami '.riven by Certain, Jr. 

Uerutaiti, Jr., says that wneu he approaened KavMB avenue and 
reached the intersection no looked but lid Bat see Orphan'o ear; 
that he stopped at the aoutnwest curb; tnat .« started up hln car 
in i'irst speed *uid proceeded acro»» the intersection at t>ie rate 
• f i'ivo ulles an nour, he says he did not eoe orphan *s ear prior to 
the collision, and that uiat car hit is aut. mobile at the door on 
t.e ri^ht hnn& (evidently he aeaat the left h-Jid) side of the car. 



, 



■ 

I 

.- ■ 
. 



. 

- t&m 

■ tint • $* *** 



■ 












...• •■• 



, i: • 



oft *»« ; 

. 
JbOf. . <fi «Ai|ffi fl" 0* v'" i© hw»<jre £ 

ft U/sW »*J «tti*dO«lf#<Ki (Ml ■ H»ffw 

■ 

. Hamuli ^ aaviiJ» &a* 

$ •< . .: Ktti'iffl »Y . 



■ 






Orphan says nie car n» »truc* by the Bui ok on the ri^ht n?»nd aid* 
and pushed over It the other •!£• of Hat *treet. 

Plaintiff testified that jusy, prior to the aeUdwit ho 
called , "John, John." Etna* say«- that he heard this call. 
Plaintiff eaya that ho do&en't rtamrtai what .uajjpenad aft*r the 
car In which he wne rldln,s' was struck, i'h©tograph» of the *ar 
driven by GersfcUi, Jr., which nr* offered were excluded, Mid there 
Is little or U evidence in the r«cord as to the physical condition 
of the car froa srhich i&any oi the fa«ti *ith r#s*«*cmng to the col- 
lision •••ad h»Tt teen ieYttvnlMMU Plaintiff's injuria* were un- 
doubtedly severe. Tiuro ll no claiia that th<s damages allowed sjre 
•xe$s&lve. Without discussing the eviJei.ce in detail, nr thinx it 
ai^y be cai! that the Questions of the negil^once oi* defendants and of 
due care on the part of plaintiff wore both for the jury, and that 
the controlling question in the can* is raised by defendant Orphan '■ 
further contention that the court errea if, giving ',o th* Jury the 
third inetructien requested by plaintiff, which ia ao follows: 

*ln approaching a street intersection, 1; la the <iut> *f the 
motor vehicle driver to exercise due care in locking cut for vr.ilolec 
approaching frost the right hand s?id« and to giv* such vehicloe the 
ri.ht of way whenever, in the exercise of due care, it Kay appear 
te such &ctor vehicle dtiver that a vehicle accroaching fro» the 
right ie so nuAT or is moving at euch a fast rate of speed that a 
collision night occur unless tue rigM ol way wore *,iir*n It it." 

Defendant Orphan argues that this inetruction was ap arently 
baeed on oaragraph. 34 of section 33 of chapter 95a, w*hlll 'a llil- 
■ jIs Hevised Otntutes, 1933, which pi«vides in substance that •xoept 
a» thereinafter provided so tor vehiclee traveling upon publi« high- 
ways shall give the ri K ht-*f-way io vshioles approaching ilong in- 
tersecting highways i'rxm the right and snail u*v» the ri^ht-of-way 
over those approaching free the left. Def«md*nt Orphan aays that 
it has never been held that this n> uti t„i*en the ri<»ht-of-w%y 
driver the absolute ri^t to croaa the intersection ahead of a 
driver on tho l#ft under any and all cii«u«stancss ind conditions 



&ftrfao<r ham 

I 

... ' 

aoi? 

- 






! 



;s«oXX9*i: av 



« #Ai 









'■•.' .* . : 



•a»X#i&«*« I itwueilo iXa Na« x*» r*§X *IU no *«vJ?f> 



tf speed, Mil that this Instruction &« »itl*ading »•••«** it trforw* 
the jury ae a matter of la* that def <MifiaEt B«n till, Jr., had lh* 
ri^nt-of-way oTer the int*rs»>ot lor; of iorieru n# forth \v>.t:ei re- 
gardless of any rat© of fepe»d »t •&*•£ h« wa« (trivial Ms oar, if 
Orphan knew that a collision mi&ht occur unleey the ri»,<-.t-of-*ay 
was ,",W*n. Orphan furtr.fr say- that under this inetructicn if 
llllilli 'r. , MM fro* the trest on Htdrtfe aTMKMi at lie r.llee *n 
hour, or at any ©iher hi^h or dang*roua •*M«4 9 it »t«ld be the duty 
of Orphan to calculate that spaed and to t> i*c the rl r ..»«*-of .way to 
the other car no roatter how l y *.r back fro i the interaction tr.i* 
•ther oar way have appeared to his to ha; that ta* La t ruction 
thsr*for* ignore* any safety limits in apeed of tilt traveler »p- 
pronehing frow the right hand direction and ignor^a any iaty on 
the approaching driver from the right to coae through the inter*«o- 
tlon at a. reasonable or lawful speed: uii*t the instruction recog- 
nitor n© limits In the av»eed at which iwaala MlgMJ aapmaaa the 
intersection, and that ace r ding to it th* driirar frou. the left 
■net calculate the *pe*d of the as^ro-'.ch at hie peril. It is said 
that the instruction is not in aecordJUioe witu. the statute but, on 
the contrary, violate* its language and it* ra-jnr.ing. 3aloon v^ 
111 son,. 227 111. App. 2S6; Heldle r v. Wilson. 243 111. App. t» ; 

MBaliUa-*ll#flti4ii s &* J H» *»?• W»| iisVU l *« *«nfauay . 284 
111. App. OB, witu other caaee, are cited. 

Plaintiff argues k* the contrary, nloo citlMj and reri owing 
cases. 

Ah* juestton iggg not see* to be iupor-. mt on this record, 
sinoe th*r« was no evidence submitted by eitner of the partial tend- 
ing to show that the oar drir*n by 0*ru*in, Jr., "d the 
intersection at any unusual rate of speed. ur*u»ting, therefore, 
that the instruction is *ubjeot to criticise, it* effect would b* 
harml*** in t. 1* case and the firing of it would r.ot constitut* 



■ 

■ ' 
- 



■ 
. - 



■ 



••■> ,1U0i 



- 



.& 9t amour 
i 

■ 






• '•■<■ mil 



. 
*d :• ; * •*** ***** 



8 

rerer stole error. *t«t Chicago Jtrsqt t\y % „-,. v. gjjlfc, 138 Hi. 
308; uralnke t. ohliajip 01 ty )ty. gf^, 234 Hi. 564. *Xhe q»a set ions 
at iMNUI between the partial la this case a^at, it ise«.B(O p b« re- 
garded a« settled by the werdiot of trie jury, Mil the Jud»*ent 
of the trial court is therefore afiirsied. 

AFii 

Maturely, J. , concurs. 



KB. JTJ STICK 0*00 *M)R ~i»»enting: The question whether 
defendant David tiWualll, fr« , or defer. uUftt John Orphan was to 
Blame for plaintiff ♦» injuries wji» a eioae one. 

D«»ing the croae- examination of defendant orphan the curt 
interjected: Thy did you tuink you had the r&gM •* »ny* A. I •- 
cause pataiag; the tuidrile oi' the intersection 1 think I hivre the 
right of ^ay to cross there, * At the re^uast of plaintiff the 
court instructed the Jury on the question as to who hud the ri. t- 
ef-way at strest intersection, which instruction la nuotnd in the 
opinion. That Instruction, in ny opinion, is clearly wrong and in 
thie case was prejudicial to defendant orphan, it praotiosiiy 
toll the Jury, without oualiJ icatlon, that defendant Germain, wha 
waa a^nroac v »inu frm the riht, h«*d the ri^ht-of-way. ihir is 
net the l»w. *ard ▼ . Clark . 238 U. Y. 19fl; '-'mln t. irsud . 90 
k.J.L. 209; Paulsen w. iqinq o. 9 2 h.J.h. 99; ipawn r^ Go Uberf r. 
•4 &..7.h. 335; Saltan ▼. Wilson . 27 ill. App. 286; Mun/.s T. 
Chloago City Ky. Co .. 335 ill. Apn. 160; >el.Uer Co. t. Ml son A 
Bennett uo. f 243 111. App. 89; K iddle t. a answer . 254 ill. App. 68. 



; . . . . 

: 
..- 

trf fe*I*i»* *k btbivg 

■ 






, 



■ 



. 



■-: 






- 



»#tr *«at l ' 



- ■ • 

.mi. 
.8a. ••* 



■ 

• • • 



In ^arl.T. B&MTib HHUEJ a 8*1 ft. x. lvft, Judge Carlo so, in 
delivering the opinion oi' ttui court aaid (p. 198): "Tho -tefandant, 
it it said, b.%4 the right oi* *ay under the atfetsifct#« ? i.:v«ry driver 
of a Yehiele 9,p^ro:»c£iin4i tils intersection oi a etra^t er public 
road shall ^rant the) right oi' vagf at BH«b intersect Ion to any 
vehicle ar>f..roaciiii5g ftwei nia right, ' (u>nora.i Highway .raffle 
i-aw, eee. 12, tmbd, 4; £«&&, l»«r« a oh. ?#) , The orivixege tans 
conferred is net inflexible <*.c< u4uw, <* right of w*y, li** a 
burden of proof , will establish precedence when rights jai^ht other* 
wifco be b<*lauc«4. It halps u» little when witnout it the b.-ilance 
»cul« be vui^qumI. a right el' vsty sal&at turn the ao-u.es 11', when 
the plaintiff started to araaa, the 8am bag been equidistant, or 
nearly no, freffi the B#i$t ©tf $h# ©cliialeJj, Ana. r* ft ,»,rd belag aad 
also far til* speed of thai? ^ore&eh. Bf4Bi visa fcha distancee 
what they were, it MM aa Clones t which tha triera of the facts 
were ta consider in their eati.,*t* of conduct , Sha>t, in tue cir- 
euwstinces of this ciaaa,La, Wt t:»inJc, fcht extent of ita signifi- 
cance. Tiie plaintiff «&n not to w?*it until th"re vac no other 
oar in eight. Bach a rule would be unworkable in erowdM ciMee.* 

and in the fctg1ti&&J MM *i a^vr.a. 2b4 Hi. app. 6ci, £.r. 
Justice Jon«e, La taenhhag for the. court suid {.p. 7a): "una of 
ma principal viaes'ticne in tae oj.se la who had the right of way in 
the intersection, and on behalf of defendant ~an«;* ft ar, U« u»uit 
instructed Vae j-r> in. the lahgnag* of khi et-utute (uahili's 1933 
-i*tutes, eb. voa, par. Mi , HHat iotor vehicles traveling upon 
public htghnayj teuali ^ive lh« right of way to twiu1»i a - -roue ing 
along intersecting hignwuya ftrtn IhC right »nrt ahall hoWg tha r 
af way over those approaching frou- the left. ±he .it-Uute doee net 
aut.vcrise e*ch aeeertlon of tar right •»" w *y regard! eee of cireua- 
stanoee, U*tanee,or ejieed. it MM enor to ,..iv«? Uir inntructlon 
without prober qualification. < iiunr.s y. ',hicatto City .w. up.. 231 



tti 

- 

■ 



«I 



■ 









■ 



■ 



Ac 
IU 



- ai 



10 



111. Af ? . 15 ; HMHf ffjilml *fffig&3£ . &U, ^ * llMB & l^MUrtt jtfff . 
Co,., 243 in. .\p}». ^.* 

Sfct ItttfttlM nut *y th» sourt HB4 thi ; la . •.; | in- 
struction in ^ff«et •llaSa&tftd th* Aftfemdsat f»n:'*ln fruit tho 
on**, MM Ihli iff M«nM Ifft u&y th« **<" i1 Drphaa, 1 

think Ik* Jttdgnant should "bo reversed m& b.« acn*« r«um4«4 a 



ox 



Ml 

■ - 



S701 7 

TOfAKD QI.ICKAUF, ) 

Appellee, ) 




TH* CUlO CASUALTY IkUVHJ&G* ) 

$mann (o*' iaku.xq«, ohio), j 



APP'vAL FROM liMl.LftkL |OUJVr 
J fcftO, 




2^3 I;A. 619 



UK. prtisi otau Jusxicr. J AJtCSra 

B&1.IV ^iijsii ftp • l*llilu ; E 

This is ite *>-;p*«i fey &.*€m&m% fro& a |«4gK0*i La the rur> 
ef )#*»$• dr.t*r*<l *£*» th-': riaJLtttg gf tlte court i.v. m action of the 
f curt ■ class baaed upon an insurance >©licy, fey which, as the 
ftgtCBCBt ef claitc all <*£*»* m I tins prvuf %W&£*i to show, ittf— j—l 
undertook to indemnify plaintiff f»Wi loss fey theft, pilferage or 
robbery of * Htnsai f truck and its e<?uippont. 

'In** ytfttHttUt if claim averr*^ S»4 &• proof t©nd*d to 
sho-r that whilf» the policy was fee fore* on October 3 7, IfSS, two 
32 x 36 i'ireeton* tiree, tubes gad rirs, as well as a Jioyce 
ncteaneter and a radiator cap, *#** stolon fro» the truck. )e- 
fendant's adjuster rtpllttX th« tactometer, hut i«f«UUat| denied 
liability for the tires. She affidavit of aerits t«*»«4l that the 
tlrea ware covered by the contract of insurance and I— jg# that 
they were stolen October 17, 1932, or were of the value of 491. 95, 
ae alleged, and also defied that plaintiff complied -rlin conditions 
precedent to recovery contained in the policy. 

The aain contention f i«j t in the trial court was 

that the tires were not covered b kfcg pgJ. cy, and thie con to tion 
required the const ruetion ol the insurance contract. It is a 
lengthy and quite eorsnlicated doe • snt consirtin^ of eav#ral cages 
of printed matter In wuall type. ihe first page present! an ap- 
parently ooiaplete contract of insurance signed ty the agent Tor 
the company. It purports, in tttlM l*noe, to insure an unencumbered 
Diamond T two-and-a-H»lf-tnn true*, Serial l-o. 42896, Motor »o. 
T»-C, purchaeed fey the insured in 1W27 for #3400 againet 'theft, 



I 



. 



I 



,«v 



[ a . 









Y5 



»ii a©^« f;0«*^ *««£» i**«f>t 

■■ 

. 
- . 

vol ? = •■»,** »*tt V.J f>#0»X« tcsfli "»■**« 

.e* ««*aH a »tBK* .«U £**«•£ ,M«in# ■•*«%! - - - I hatmmkC 



a 

rob*? ry ~ r - ; * pilferage* frois ?aatta]f¥ SO, *f*8, to J*nu»ry 3C, 1933, 
to the amount of 2 800. 

On tn*' following nag* o* thi contract tinder the heading 
"damage to the aufcotacMle" and In atfftleJMl 9 t-h-re-f, o rtatn ex- 
eunt iono are note-3, one oi w.i;io- is "arid excepting iri any case, 
other titan that'll of 8ha entire autossobii*. doacribe'* herein, the 
theft, re's cry er piif«rage ©a tools or repair equipment," :>- 
x'M.^.-.nt o&nten&s that fefetat&sit el" Shis pj^ofieidii plaintiff may not 

,er f©r the lass of thnaa fcires. It «.r t >: una nuat 

be h<?l ! to "bo "repair equipment* and thevniara era aithln the ex- 
ion. 

Bafan&attt s&y» that he h&« been -oxal-le to find an applicable 
ease defining *re$alr h%ttigKBaK%* hut refer* to 'cuvier's i-aw Ma* 
tiorary, Ltfd #d. , p. 1046, v&ere II Is i i : ti at to repair eesie- 
tlaai nenn* to raplaa#] ale" to Tfo® J'*K'p^n. v.. . .yOu.y l ii»^rf-ra q f 
Kip^ ^ »y ? r IS8 111. 197, what** the cpir> ' I ctee that 

"'to restore' end *t.o Faae* 1 ' are givaa by lexicographer* *s oyt.e- 
oyiE« of repair"; l&aa to 9*8* mi tfa$ha&la rl Untlaa ■■■ . 

p. 2086, *h*tre repair is defined as "thp n recta* of raoairing, 
restoration after flatty, naS%a« injury, or partial destruction; 
suooly of loss; r*7.ar At ion, • ft*J center;'** that vithia tnese 

deflations it is clear that the oiicy should be oon*trued as ex- 
cepting from c©Y*ra«.-.e, panlate^ent equip-ent, *nd that spurs tirse 
fall within that category; that the words "repair equipment" »ust 
aean something in a-TUtton to tools; t at if the ~ord "real ate* eat" 
or "renewal" is substituted in plan* of "repair" it is aiala thai 
spare tirss would he within the exo<*ption. 

The langua«e used in this contract is by choice of the 
Insurance oospony. It is tjuite improbable tnat the insured erer 
read it, or knew of it, or r»*arded it as a p*rt of the contract. 
Under such circumstances, a court will, if possible, construe the 






, 






■ ? 

a ««a ,b*Joa I 

I 






- 
I 

; 

•s 

-*» a 



I 

. 

> ■ ■ . ; 



s 

language against d<*f eni*oit. jswery doubt and ambiguity wu*t *e re- 
solved La f-*wor if plaintiii t un I fcfcs «.tire laftguaff of the con- 
tract and all the tiv#an*t«BMt nusmiata 1 to aaeertr.ii. -'h?*t was the 
rsal intention of the parties to it. 

The proper construction will be found, ae it 9 9 nam to us, 
not so smch by lift at ill lag the atatttiag of a narticJl ,r word but 
rather by getting at the rearing of the pnr*«e, "or repair e^uip- 
sent." The conjunction **or w see«& to be tae ir?*port<*r.t word. .joaae- 
tlaes it it used, as the diet ion&ries iaittatt, to )oin together 
words conveying a£a&3*a? idee?. fct other tides, it ie used to loin 
together word* conveying dissimilar idwas. Deed in the first sense 
here, it would express the Intention of the parti** tiz.it the esceo- 
tion should vorer t#9lt rmd ataaMa* 1 articles tfeiah art La no senae a 
part of the truck and newer would become t purl of it. If under- 
stood in the other sense, it would *3*jjr**« the thought tn»»t articles 
dissimilar t« tools, euoh as material for the repair of the truck 
which »i,:ht it eoiae tiiae becoos a part of it, w-r« disc within the 
exception. Xhu* an aasbiguity ie created. If we turn It the other 
parte of the contract, we find that defendant asked plaintiff in hie 
application to etate the actual coet of the truck to assured, "in- 
tludlng equipment. ■ This would indicate that it was the inter. tion 
•f the par Ui that the equipment generally should be covered by 
the Ineur&uot. It ie therefore ooosiblt to hold that the tires were 
net a part of the repair equipment witnin th« aeoning of the entire 
ssntract. Xhs language used is mat of defendant, presumably an 
expert in its line, and it is only fair to adopt the construction 
that win carry out the main und controlling intention of the 
parties, namely, to orowlds insurance. *e tuink the trial court 
rightly held that the tires were cohered by the policy. 

Defendant further contends t .at th-re is no evidence In the 
record showing Ihst the tires were attached to this truck. Plaintiff, 






-♦*;■■ . I 






4 M«M W Bi « 

- 

gtf £■*>:■ vr. ■ 



■ 



0*»W ■ «?!£ *tU 

■J rift ftlU 

■a |i ti ■»••*«, , ■- •• '•■ ■ - >• ; '*•< *«<■ ' 
aol5o«jnt*«aap ftiiJ Jooh* o 

•fit to ■■•*«•• 

ititOS 1*1-1 J ft*tt Jifllxitf ft* .ftOAMt 

.X»lIO*. ftftv- 



oris aol. 



■ 

■ 
. 

■ - sit* !• 
Hi irti sri# 

• -■ ■ Jftfl! 

tJ 



.'ftli.- . 1i%9 «lrf* ft* i»*0**U **•% 



oris ftl 



hcwaver, fa** eoae leetii&ony to that "sffect , a** iafaadaat *ithout 
objection offered tat ewer*; a jta,.:..L &$ Edward ior«ky, whioh 
thews that the tlret -*ere fcajrt la taa body of Mm true* and ware 
locked with an or-Un^ry ahain ml »&41a«X£ iurtaer taaft ll *»* the 
cudton of plaintiff to carry two Hgiasra tiro* aafaffd Uio Iktft ©f 
these ©a" October 17 Us., Bttfaataftt *ays that t.hie statement woo 
offered for iii>p*aehing purposes aad therefore camot be considered 
09 eubetsntive evidence or pxoei of lb* eat contained there- 

in, cities jflUgffgfr ffrfo ,ftf« *»» - v * **?*• •■ * laiaa file* April 19, 
H<7, Ger.. Bo. 1804ft, i-*erefcy, nowewer, did not tcetify, :uad the 
etatea.ept therefor* could box aawe be«! for Hit purpose of i»t« 
pe.-icnlng hisu 

It to urg*ri tn&t a&atatifJ *£* not gl«* fcanediata notice 
of lose to the police, »• rectulred. by U-.e pwl-ioy. Vhe evidence 
upon that point was conflicting, atad the er?<-;j.i>ility of ui« wit- 
ne»«*a vaa for the ^<ip, * : ho aaw aa* aaaf* tfeeai testify, it it 
UT£C* th«it there waa r»o evif,'{«*iie<* fc&afe the truck irtm vfciaa tne 
tire* were stolen VM the* one covered ay the policy, but re mink 
there la evidence fros^ which wail faafi algki reasonably be in- 
ferred, moreover, that fact wat alleged La the « tat em eat of elala 
and not denied in the affidavit of merits. 

It is urg*d that plaintiff did not comply vita the oondi- 
tione ©f the ?>olloy &« to fmxalaalaa. proof of loes. ihere was ev4- 
dene* tending to ehow such nn-.d', tjt it *uy rnte we iiold that thie 
point w*« waived by defendant' o denial of liability nnd that it was 
unneoeasary to plead the waiver, bird y. taH *'■ iMali aSsMU Uo ' • 
318 Mich., 2C<5; Amer i can Central Irse. wo. v . J. h. / l ennlnger ■< Co .. 
87 111. Ai>p. 440; 4aldua*a» v. i'obln . 250 111. Apo. 252; uorv v . 
weodacq Accident io t . 883 111. App. 20; Onlo Power shovel *o. v . 
had* 8*7 III. App. 271. 

*t Ihiaa substantial Juatice wa* attained in tula ease, 



•law fcr.. 






-. ■ a 

8*W la-: Aft 9« 9 

- 

i 
«0 : 

. . . . 

I 

•oi »tf • ■ ■ . •■■■»! »t«i 

At#Xd to J t»* 

I iff fcJ 
-ifntao »xi; fiiiw ■ 

« £4 I 

SAW ■' t to /*;■ 

.AJUUiate: -A J** 8 ♦ .**»** »xt> 

tow ;S*8 .««A .ill Ml i Jjfcj " T - .IX| v&i 



and finding no rev<?r?rr.l«» *rrr.r la fefe« rooord, th« JndflpiMlt of 
tft« trial court is affiraod. 

mnmi, 

O'Connor «*n4 iis&uroly, W* ( soncur. 



I 

oaooO'O 




37076 



0T&JI.'Jf UJ ;HI0H f&Ui COM* « 
Appellant * 



ppellee. 




) 
) 

COHKf 0* CMICaQO. 

27 3 I.A.619 



MR. 1 ..jylfO JU5TIC* JSATCttiSXT 

warrass vm oyiHios op tHa court* 



pril 18 1 1933 1 plaintiff filed a statement of claim 
la the Municipal court » '«lileh avc-rres that defendant una Indebted 
by reason of a certain assignment of vmgetj nat-o to plaintiff by 
one A« • Usborn for a v luable consideration fte ^tenner 3, 1932* 
The astount claimed was $2*380* and the utatement averred that 
March 13* 1933* plaintiff served on defend .tat a notice of the 
asel invent ashl th at It became the duty of defendant to withhold 
oat of the vagee And commlaalone of Gsborn the eald bub and to 
turn It over to plaintiff* »hieh defendant f lied «n: refused to 
■o. a notice of the assignment waa attaateti to the at temeni of 
el* In and showed service of the sane upon defendant itarch 13* 
1933 9 at 10150 o'clock a* m* The claim was duly verified* the 
affidavit averring that the sun of #2*380 was due after allowing 
Juit credits* deductions %nd set cffs. 

A summon* is«ued and *as returned by the bailiff with 
the following natation of service i 

"Served this writ on the within named General Tires* 
Inc., a corporation* by deliver lag a copy (-.hereof to John Dee* 
agent* who refused to give true name* of said corporation ^nd at 
the s-me time informing him of the contents thereof in the ity 
of hlcnge this 19th day of pril, 1933* 

"The president* clerk* secretary* superintendent* 
general agent* en shier* principal* dlreetor* engineer* conductor 
•r ether agent of said corporation not found In the 'ity of 



« 






• 



.A.I 8TS 



> 



»THPW> BHT *« WK*1TO MIT UMXS* 

> 

• 

i 

arfj I ir atftlft fctfT dH • - 

. . .j 

■ 

- 

:■ 



-2- 



Bay 9, 1933 , an order «M entered by Judge J onald s* 
Mc inlay finding that it appeared that defendant was personally 
served with process Ae:oratjij- to law* that defendant was la default 
for want of an appearance, &*** that default should he entered and 
dosage* assessed at £2*360 with judgment thereon* 

July 13, 1933, defendant made a motion supported hy an 
affidavit before Jucge Harold •»« *Oonneli i,o vacate the default 
and judgment. &■ that day an order was entered on plaintiff to 
file a counter affidavit in five days, and the motion was continued 
to July 26, 1933, at which time Judge ; ©Car thy entered an order, 
giving defendant leave to amend the ptj.it. ion on :;he face iaotanter 
and to file an appearance and vacating Htf default and judgment of 
Hay l« 1933* From that order plaintiff ha a perfected thio appeal* 

A motion was mad© in this court so dismiss the appeal upon 
the ground that the order appealed from MM! not final* "he motion 
was denied hut in reargued in defendant's brief* e, however, adhere 
to our former ruling upon the authority of Uentral * ond & JMtJBHM ° f 

m Im— i 323 I13L * t0 » ftfltt. v * Bsia» ^ 57 **** -«• m » «■* 

go tef anp v* tailee, 266 111* App# 363. a tint motion .o vnoate 

was macte more than thirty days after the entry of the Judgment, 

the ;., voce ed lag was necea arily under section 21 of the Municipal 

Court act ('-afcilVs 111* &»▼• »tato*» chap. 37, sec. -1, par* 

409.) That section provided 

"If no motion to vacate, set aaide or modify any suoh 
Judgment, order or decree shall be entered within thirty days after 
the tntry of such Judgment, order or decree, the same shall not bo 
Vacated, set aside or modified excepting upon appeal or writ of 
trror, or by a bill in equity, or by a petition to said municipal 
court aettimg forth grounds for vae»tinfi, settlmg aside or modifying 
the same, which would bo sufficient to o*u*o the saaut to be ▼*•**•?• 
sot aside or modified by a bill in equity, provided , ho««T»*J th »* 
all errors in faot in the proceedings in such or.se, which migmt navo 
boon corrected at common law by the writ of error coram nobis may bo 
torreetPd by motion, or the Judgment may be set aside, in the manner 
provided by law for similar cases in the circuit court. 

Defendant contends that the affidavit submitted by it seta 



c 



- ■ 



«<? VOL 

■ 

i 

! I ' ■ • . • ■ 

v , : W 

oat *© •»!■ 

t 

-"■ • : f , - ... ■ • -.• . ..J, 

-« 4#* i ^*-t1 



• *•• *1 "•# 



-3» 

up facts which would be .sufficient la equity to justify the petting 
aside of a Judgment at law, *hlle plaintiff contends that the 
statute directs that a petition roust he filed in such o-'.se, and 
that this *ffld«vlt was no petition at all* Plaintiff says that 
an 01 al action only was made, ancs in support of that mot, ion the 
affidavit of C&rl H. Van laden can filed* It i« true that the 
affidavit filed July Id, 1953* was executed by 6ttr« K* Van indent 
who says that he is the president of the defendant corporation, 
the court seems to have regarded it a® a petition* and we are dis- 
posed to consider it not under tho name hy which it Is designated 
but rather with reference to the facts «hich It sets forth* Plain- 
tiff cites Ben tefan o y* JSttJjj 2C ® llJL * *WM &®3» ^he opinion in 
that case sst&tea that w ae petition nor &n& 'pleading in the nature 
•f a petition" was presented to th* trial court upon the hearing of 
the motion to vacate the judgment* 

We have carefully read the affidavit filed hy defendant 
July 13, 1933, in support of the mo I ton* and find that it is a 
document vrhieh, whatever Its technical deficiencies may he, is in 
the nature of a petition* indeed, it seems to have been so regarded 
by the court and by the parties to tlMI litigation In the trial court* 
*e therefore hold that the affidavit filed was in the noture of a 
petition and that it was sufficient to give the court Jurisdiction 
to consider the motion* aether It was sufficleat to Justify 

setting aside the Ju gmeat is, of course, another matter* Upon the 
■earing, however, the court permitted an amendment to be made la opea 
eeurt by the at orney for defendant who addod to the first paragraph 
•f the affidavit the wer»is, "and the d«feadnnt had no knowledge of 
•aid Judgment prior to July 14, 1933. * It does tiot «pi>e»r that the 
sffid-xvit was rover If led by petitioner as thus amended, and the 
practice of permitting amendments to pleadings by way of ecaauree 



•c- 



9fC* ***£j |NN ****** • *«©*»&*>t * *• 9bt9» 

*» ,»•*© JiMia «l fe*Xi t »«" *MM BO****** * ***■> : 

#J)(W ,.. .11* *««*Mi*<Ms©> 

•* *mu»«*j ** « •** *it«m*u 

«<» -1 ««l&«»X<r *»* "X** m **&* ■ ***** 






I UfttC 



I «** "«©ttfls©« * % 

7 OJ ROlJOffl Ml 



■ 
Bl il *ari« &«J^ MM «aai*Mf wf ; 
ai *i *»©* V»* U©iMt©< 

*©&««&©« ©8 «»*«* •▼*** •* Mr i*©*fefU 

m X»l** Ml *•* Mtt *rf *w« ' 

a lo iw^M MM a* «*w M^i ■ **• *' 

ttitfftjfi ©* *M*Jot»i«a mm si mu 

«cC# awiii .»«« wttorw .»st«w 1* - * :<bl9JB * r 

■»» fli tftU ©* ** /WMWIMM «• M>**hWMj <l©MMMl «1 

*,.- *4 M*&* M 

to ' ' 

Ml* #* • ' 

art* bn* |M*M*M ftMU ** '«** 

*»?«•««• to x*w V* M m»mmm» t»J 



-4- 

or interlineations has been heretofore condemned by bills court* 
Moprchead t. 3r iggs ff , 153 111* pp« 361* 

Ift however, we regard the nffidftVit as a petition woo 
this amendment as having been properly made, we think under cir- 
cumstances such aa appear in this record* it was inouffioient to 
justify the order of court sot: ins aside the judgment , rhe affidavit 
avers the Institution of the suit pril 18, 1933! that the sumnons 
was returned pril Mill showing: service on John i*»e» agent, eto#| 
the pntry of the Judgment? that no execution was ever served! that 
July 14, 1933, the Northern Trust Co. notified "the affiant* 
(petitioner) that a garnishment suiroen© w&» served upon the bankt 
that the statement of claim filed recited thnt September 8, 1932, 
&• S» Csborn made an assignment to plaintiff to secure $2,330, and 
that arch 18, 1933, a notice of mid assignment was served upon 
defendant and juogawnt mm prayed for that amount I that the statement 
of claim failed to allege that def&ndmt was indebted to said Csborn 
in that sum or amy other eumj that notwithstanding, the Judgment 
was enteredf thre,t no proper service w a ever had on defend ant | 
that affiant is the president of d< xuncmnt corpor tion, and that 
the rstmn of the bailiff Ifcl&i to <U close upon «ho* the summons 
was servedf that the affiant has always been in Jook county and 
else at his place of business, on the date of the service of the 
ramoRB) that the principal office of defendant is at 1111 *—% 
Jackson boulevard, "hicatf©, and Hobs there was no reason why ths 
smmmons should not have boon properly served upon him» that ths 
statement of claim is defeetlrs for failure to stnte th< t there 
was money due from defendant to Csborn at the time of ths insti- 
tution of the omit! that there were no moneys due Osbsrn and no 
moneys due under the assignment, uoh is ths substance of ths 

af flu* vit or petition. 

As alreridy stated, the court ruled plaintiff to flls 



tet* 

m# •*■-. * * ^ 

*** ■ . . 

©jfcj |f ^rfJ to *v £»•»«* I •** ** W4 

f*»1 XII-' I8WMW 

erf* v*w «••*•* on e*w m «''"■■' * n««it>j 

9 t«HJ !*#• a- 1 * '•' *«* «"• ' ■***• '-*• *«*«»** 

H •,-. r ,jifi :r-.-M-v.: •-/ .... i*'i^.'../ * Etd {...'»;■. . ■ V: . oi '. 

•lit a ttiial **•• •** * %p**xlm «A 



•9- 



* counter aff idavlt, and la response to that rule* plaintiff filed 
the affidavit of one .EeFco, who sta'WO that he was an attorney at 
law associated with the fira rtpre a ent lag plaiatlff and since its 
Incept ion had been la sole ch.rge of the la* suitf that k«raa 13, 
1933, he caused to be served upon gafilataiBI at 1111 West Jackson 
boulevard a notice oi wage «.oaignaent sa routed by unborn running to 
the plaintiff corpora 4 Ion J that aWflg re calved no acknowledgment 
of this notice froa defendant » he, a^raa II, 1933, addrssead a 
coauauiic&tion to o *f end aat, reciting: the service of notice of 
i'.- rch lath of the r,«Bi^naent by ^ shorn and stating that the purpose 
of the oonaamictifcian wt;» to inquire ho« &o&a the awn^y tfue snd owing 
by defendant to Osbora on the date of lip wage assignment notice 
slight bo received i that receiving no ackno^ledgaMmt of the s.s»ign- 
aeat or of this latter, on heron l@« x93i, he addre/.usd another 
coaaunic tion to defendant staging ia substance kinVt no reply had 
bees received to the letter of March &•$ and unless the information 
asked for was received by April 3rd, without further notice, additional 
aeasures would ba taken | that having received no acknowledgment of 
either of tha letters or of the notice of wage assignment on prll 14, 
193. >, affiant sailed defendant on the telephone -uid explained to the 
switchboard operator tiv -t he was calling with regard to *he • • 
Osborn natter and was ftnrrvA by the operator to a Mr* Iraham, whs 
la renpoase to an inquiry stated that he was the Manager of defendant! 
that affiaac told tiraham that he we the attorney who had ohargo 
of the wsborn ease, am* th t since no acknowledgment had boea re* 
•eived of ine notice of &ae wage assignment or of letters written, 
as was saillag to inquire whether d«feno?at owed Osborn my money 
am th* d*te of the service of the notice, aad, if so, whether 
tef'-ndint intends* to turn It oyer to affiant without the necessity 
tf a lawsuit | that orattan said smmi hs ould discuss the e«Bt with 



I 

1 
I 






.. . : :• ;. 









•6* 

one Van inden and would Gall affirm on the telephone <*t u. later 
date | that not having heart? front <*rahaa or any other repr even Satire 
of defendant* on ftprtn 17, 1933* affiant again c .lied Orahara on the 
telephone to inquire concerning the «atter and va* told by Graham, 
"ay company does not intend to do anything about the natter}* that 
suit was thereupon started pril 12, 1933| that pril 20, 1933 t 
Orahao nailed' affiant on the 'phone and said thai he had been served 
with a summons and aaked affiant not to prosecute the ease, stating 
that "shorn was no longer in the enploy of defendi-mt and adding* "I 
do not. wait say company to go to the expense of hiring a lawyer to 
defend She suttp that affiant told Graham that he would not dismiss 
the suit tad that St would hare to bs tried} Imat Graham then asked 
what would happen If neither h@ nor a represents tire of defend «tnt 
appe&red in court on Mftjr 1* 1953, and tfc&t affiant then answered that 
judgment for the full amount of the el^im sould foe entered against 
defendant* 

The affidavit of plaintiff's attorney further stated that 
affiant cheeked the retards of the Municipal court and feund no 
appearance had been entered by oefeadantj that a#ain on iiay 9, 1933, 
r.ff iant appeared In court mad *?he» the o»ae was culled neither a 
represent- tire of defendant nor an attorney t*r that company responded 
and affiant thereupon took Jucgmeni for £2»MG| tnat ;.^y l<i, 1933, 
Graham again o&lled r-tfi'iant on the telephone ane nuked what had 
occurred on *tay 1st nd affiant told him judgment had been entered for 
<2,3go | t.n t tfraham esid, "All yon will hare »o it now i* try to 

collect the judgment •" 

there wae no denial of the aaterial aliegntlane of this 
counter affidavit. The facts which nust he made to ■§§*** i« ardor 
to invoke the poeers of I oourt of equity to interfer* with the 
enferoement of a Judgment at law hare been stated by the uprsme 



I 

■. ■ . 

6W <<*« faftti ftOtttitt' •*• 



. • ■ • 

: " 

J 

UK b»%XU9+* 

■ 

* rata . , «tt»WO« <Ml4 **OVrti 

MMf «T«lf. «ftJ 



■ • ' •' 






. 


. 








k &&v 









court 1b Bargoaslci v« Baxdonalcl. 144 ill. 284, And have b**u con- 
sistently followed by ttUU court in the construction, of section 21 
of the Municipal court, act* *»h<s.?e application for relief Las been 
me.de by -s. petition In thr nature ©f • bill in equity* It eras said 

in th.it C ■-.:««* 

"It la well settled that equity will net interfere wltJl 
the enforcement of a judgment at law. males® the judgment debtor 

could not have availed fislaeelf of Hie defense mi las. oi vai pre- 
vented from so doing by the fraud of the opposite p^riy, or by 
accident or mistake mmwlmcc with fault or negligence on his own 
part.* 1 

Of the many cases® so hold lag we need eite only a few* Im bri.e y . * in 

teas* 83C ui. ,,pp. i55i &»JL&J^&aag&* **• &*• *Mh *>| ■ •He y 

T. Klein, iiS7 111. App. 171. 

Uefeadont also eon tend & that the statement of claim in 
this ease f f iil0 to state a e&use of action, whatever, the defeat* 
In this statement of claim aaay have bet© ane decided by rules 
applicable to a declaration in the Circuit or superior court, we 
think it reasonably informed defendant of the nature of the ftMM 
he was called upon to meet', ftcj ital :>tato JMBfa a *~* v * % fl( > 1 '' 
26b 1.. /»pp. 479. 

icfendant argues also t citing among, other eases. Jenymj L 
Bond | ilort gags Up. v . Koeser. 323 ill. 90 ) that the return of the 
bailiff w.s defective. However, in this case. <lef^nd<uit entered a 
general appearance which WWlUI waive any defects in <;he ^rvloe. 
Moreover, the service ami euffieleas mat** *he rule announced by 
the Supreme court in ■ern er v. Jhono. 341 ill* 478. 

For the reasons ine looter zhv orrvr of the trial court 

setting aoide the Judgment is reversed. 

V 

•rely and • Connor, JJ., eonour* 






I 



N 



&:i 









■ 



- 

■ 

I 

: 






■ 

• ■ . ■ . .- : 



- 



I 



37142 

THK WSm YOHK, W0 KaVFJR k KAlfftBgS® 

KAijLHQ*i> C&j^Pa&u" # a Corporation, 

Appall <•«, • ) MJ'^aI, W| gppUGB 



v«. rut ©f «po! '2 &**TY. 

T. P. COOfiBY and T. t, KGRSHAa, ?*©ii»g 

Bueinaa& as QOvhZY , JtORiiHAK, and 

■aETLASB CASUALTY CQKPa&T, a Corporation , ) 

Appellants*. } 





*oni 



lb, pamsiBiise ju stick matwsmt 

In mm action la debt upon a bond #iv«n WpMB lasaiaf an 
attachment In aid Mfel u«©n trial toy the ap«r6, the.ro waa i finding 
for plaintiff with Judgsent th*r»on for f8£0. IS, from waich §•■ 
fendant aopo&lc, 

Ikt declaration allayed that ©is June 3£ f 193i-, Ceoney and 
Kershak sr&yed a writ of attachment in aid out of .the ftuniolpal 
court of Chicago ag'-ilnet tfe* estate ©f plain tiff; that they »ade 
their writing obligatory of that 3-ata i?itn the Maryland vaaualty 
Company a.* auretj, whereby the Ki.»&era jointly Wfti severally ac- 
knowledged thesaeelvec to fee bound fey plaintiff ir. the stub, of 
31, ISO, too condition el the bond being that Cooney sad fcosehak 
should prosecute their WfeM wtUs oftfaat or la •*•* of failure pay 
ctsta and damage* to plaintiff, in ffeAab ©*^e tae ob ig ±tion waa to 
be wold. The declaration averred that defendants did not prose- 
cute the suit with off act, «ad fcfcatt lairs tiff incurred coat* and 
4a»*gee to the amount of $826.73. A copy of the tond Mat on and 
an affidavit of claim e«re attached to MM declaration. 

defendant a appeared wad filed « r>le?i of the general issue 
and a plea that plaintiff u^nt aot, to NKTO its action oacauae the 
"bond waa not required by sct^iute nnd beeauae the earn? waa made with- 
out any good or valuable consideration. An affidavit of carite »aa 
aloe attached, denying that plaintiff* were dat.^ed in the earn of 

$826,73 by renaon of tha attachment la aid «ued out, and denying 



■QS8.A.I-8T 



Htl 



. 



■ . 

US. *-i»Ul*U& 

. .. 



- - 

I ' ;■.■>-:• ':':.■. 

fcfttfft V. : I : • 

XAiXBS'J 

X»C! avail Mx/a«f» 

oJ ta* 

to* «*»09 M««JS»fiJ 

bar I M ©no* \tw*h 

6W3*I JUit»n-»;>j aril i« **£<; a afcj »t*a&0ft1 

•di •«iM»»rf aciJ»» «*1 ■ &<*« 

«**Jt* *fc~«? «aw 9 man aa* etftaaafttf f»a»» a#«ta#a %o 

«*w tJlvsift lo UraMtla a*. .oallaiaMaaoy «aa #*© 

'to »U9 *Ai ni aa&fsaui< »-x*-.« %*t'% ■ S*ito »J '* «w»Xa 

■■>& bo* ,lwo &9JUM 6l# ai j V »'•"*•▼ 



•2* 

that defendants were indebted. The affidavit further arerred that 
the 130184 was dananded by the olerk of the Municipal court and that 
defendants signed It to obtain the attachment in aid, although it 
was not required by the statute, and that there wan therefore no 
consideration* 

Plaintiff filed a demurrer to the second plea, which was 
sustained, whereupon ti-fendanta filed a second amended plea, ,hich 
averred that there was a© consideration for the bond, and that it 
was not required by the statutef that plaintiff eras a non-resident 
of the state and had no property in the state liable to be attached 
and that the att&c'iment snxii in aid iaeaed upon the filing of the 
affidavit with the clerk of the Municipal court on June :4th was 
issued for ttet mtmmm of persons named only as garnishees* An 
attended affidavit of merits was also filed* Plaintiff demurred to 
the amended plea and again the demurrer was sustained. Thereafter, 
defendants maue a motion to vacate this order ^hieh was denied on 
lecember S, 1932. nether MMilltSiil twtffMl plea wa> filed, and plain- 
tiff's demurrer was allowed to stand &m was again sustained. There- 
upon, the court heard Urn evidence, found the issues for plaint if f» 
and overruling motions for a new trial and in arrest, entered Judg- 
ment for Wfttam« 

The theory of ns-fendrants is that since the bond gir»n ran 
to the People of the stats of Illinois for the use of plaintiff , 
plaintiff cannot maintain an action on itj that the expenses incurred 
by plaintiff in the way of attorneys* fees were in fact for services 
performed on behalf of the garnishees* for which plaintiff was net 
entitled to recover! that the bond was not required by statute but 
was filed merely to obtain the writ as the olerk of the court, with- 
out authority, demanded Lt| that «he return of the bailiff an the 
attachment in aid showed that plntnttff was a nonresident of the 



< 

■ 
- 

I 

aft. - ; 

**■* (MM 

*; I . ■ ? " j 

■ 

' • -■• | 

10 bMTtt 

-"i 3^ 
»a*# 430 tf ftrf^ t* ni *».«i&»fe , 



et&te and it i plnee of re«i<l©n©«* in Haw Haven and Kino showed that 
it was a«?rved only upon vj ill lam Sherman Slay raid atafa* Ear tan en 
garni r.noaaf and that therefore thert was no liability on the bond 
ua€er the prevleioa* if section 31 of the Attachment act ftf extended* 

"est ion 51 of the act «a ^ttaafaaeata ( mith-Hurd*a 111* 
Eev. 'tats* lf>53* ehsp* 11 • $90 « 3l» p» 173) provide* in substance 
that a plaintiff is any set ton of &&&uB|Mitf debtt covenant treapaee* 
or treapssss on the e«e«, haying cornea ced an action fey aiaaHsona or 
cr;pi&.»t teay* at any time, pending the suit and before judjjaeist there- 
in • upon filing is Dai office of the clerk wfeere a»oh action ia pend- 
ing'* a auffioieht bond and affWairii s&owlag his right to an attach- 
ment under the first toe t ion of uh* act, »ue out an att &aJHMM rt againat 
the land at goodat chattel a* right *» aoneyat eredita and g-ffecta af 
defendant* which said attachment shall h© entitled ixs the s»uit pend- 
ing a*ad he in aid thereof | that the pxoeec-dinga whall thereupon be 
had aa repair $d or permitted ia original attachment® n& near ar aiay 
he. 

A a nine ad ed by an met approve June 24, 1929* Law a of 1929, 

p. 1C9, this section further provided* 

"However, no bend ©hall he required when the defend -tot ia 
a non-r^aident of thia Nail and ha a no property in this tate liable 
to be atifzoheai hut the attachment rit in aid in auch leaf for the 
anmnoning of persona named *sa garnieheee ahall he laaued upon the 
filing of the affidavit with the olevk*" 

it fippeara from the JNNMWd am* t Coon*y ana Kor»hok on 
March 23 * 1923, brought euit agalnut the Miaaourit Kaaaaa* Texaa 
Failroad Cat for ?868.75| that an affidavit far attachment in aid 
vae filed in that cauae June 24 t &£f*J that in the affidavit plain- 
tiff wne named co-defendant t thct the affidavit arars that the Sew 
Tork, Wm Karen & Hertford Mall H>< o. ia a nonreaident af tmo 
atatef that ita place af reaidemoe ia arm Haven* Connect ieut» "and 
that affiant (Cooney) makee the nfl ianvit for the purpoae of procurim 






..■:.. 
v.^.v .,. , . , \>.t.-v:v^; v. a;- ■•. .. ... :;".-..;•- ■ -.. ^ >,,■ :±u ..-;> -j. ... rjiiri 

■ < 

- 



-4» 

«it attachment against the property of the Hew York* Hew Havea A 
Hartford Katlroad. Company la aid of the suit at Xam pending ia 
said court f* that ob that aa&ft a wt%% of attaoteent ia aid laaued 
to the bailiff against the ffe-w York* eto* railroad company* It 
directed that such persons as might be requested 'by plniatiff 
stooule bo aummaaed to appear ass garateaaee June 30 » l$30e Tfco 
bailiff returned the writ - *$e property of the d?feadant fouod 
la tlit 'wity of Qhjgogf oa «hi«h to levy the «rit» aai by order of 
plaintiff* si attorney* I Have eerred tlie writ on illiaa -German 
Hay aa garnishee* and on Meyer .Morten aa garnishee by delivering 
copies thereof to them, &«d at the esaae tine Informing UsOl of the 
eon teat a thereof • on «/un® S4» If 30* at 12$'"U p* &** It seems that 
this euit was dismissed for want of preeeeutlon October 3, 1929, 
with judgment for costs bat that .plaint if ft la fcfc&ft suit (<: efendaats 
hore) oo Juno 9, lf>3u* procured &a order vacating this?, judgment. 
Defendant thcroia appealed to the appellate court -^here the order 
vacating the judgment wae r«ror»<pd* See gpaaiay m tf fjjJTiilfcilt T * 
jtisaourl* g&agaa* Xexas H* :.>* o* at el,*,,*. 263 ill* Ijqp*: 657. Upon 
the filial of tho mandate from the .\ppellats oourt ia th* Municipal 
cour ,, an order was entered vacating all previous orders and dis- 
missing the suit. Thio suit upon the bond given la that proceeding 
followed* 

Defendants here argue that the suasions on the attachment 
ia aid was for the purpose only of ■ summon tag of persona named as 
garnishees!* that no boad the; < ore should haaa been required, sad 
that slnoe no bond was necessary or required* It was without con- 
sideration and a nullity and will not support an action. They say 
that i,he olerk of the court had no right to demand a bond, and that 
the filiaa of a bond that was not repaired by statute could not be 
the basis of » valid obligation* 

lb is true that the summons issues la the attachment la 



a* 

■ 

■ :■•• ■ .... 

B»iH«0 

S UN alitS 

t ■•' 

... .... , 

■■; *MM 7S$T0 (i» tJVfe) 

•boar*. 

.»'■ ■ '.- : .•..:■■: :i T \io ■■.;■■ \, -3 ? ..: ;< :;>■- ■ > :i .. . -:v:'>-- 

t«f So rjRlami- : 9%wrm% <nii so* a .•■-*• 2>i« ju 

bar 1 rf wad bJtoorf* vTtit;-.-^.; nnstf ?:■-: *«» *|«««iialmiia 

'iwnaw Ji ,b( • a»#a mv MP** »a &oni» ftMltf 

XM T«Jff • ft*i*oa as j*ioq<:i*a Jen Hi* Utu* i « oaa «ola;- 

« bxuMttb oi iri&i 1 *a ba. ;*** 

ft* 4 ©a bJtooo «*!/*»;« ^ *»** Mi o«r *<ub 2>no« « 19 »«lXil »rfc> 

#«o>- oMlde biJUv * to .^Mtf mW •turn 
ai ?•'-;)*:.•. Mil ■! btmaJ immm m(j f«4J urx4 si J 1 



aid shows service only upon plaintiff railroad company and upon 
persona named &o garni&heest but there is m© tiling in the affidavit 
or tfct record teswiing; Ml ®hwi that oefendaato requested a writ 
time limited, upon vh& affidavit fe*i sutanitted to the clerk of 
the tfunlclpal court* no held it ®as the duty of the clerk of that 
court uas«x the statute to require a bond unless facts wre set up 
in the affidavit showing specifically that plaintiffs there 
(defendants here) had brought thmselveo within the exemption* The 
faefc that the bailiff found no property upon ^hloh he slight levy 
doee net change the situation in that regard* the affidavit whloli 
defendant* submitted being of s*uch ©harmcter that the duty under 
the statute ns« east upon t&e clerk of the court t© require a bond 
" before issuing the srit* W$ hold the bond woo therefore not in- 
valid, and it is «»a*?eeasary fco £ie#Uea the further question raised 
by plaintiff in this easo to the effects that vhethar the bond saj£ 
required or net it wag* under the clrcuwstp.noes binding M a eeasiioa 
lav obligation* 

n the next pl&ce, defendant f contend that plaintiff 
ean aofc recover feaoaltaO while the bond was given in the name of the 
People of i-he ..-ate of Illinois for the use of plain - iff # plaintiff 
here sues in hie own name* I>efe»d&nts cite to this point Uffleioann 
V« -U Louis Iron B. «, 194 ill* Iff* 42f Ahomaao n v. Black* 200 
111. 466 j .%-^ouolson v. Chamber o f Cotacm-oe, o05 111, bd9« This 
contention was not made in the trial court* and it its, we think* 
toe late to raise it hero* 

Moreover, section 4 of the Uuchments act i aith-fluu'p 
HI. Hot* tats* UWfcf ch&p« 11, sec. 4, p. 169) previa**, in sub* 
•tcyrjc*. t that before granting an attachment tht clerk shall take bond 
and gufi icieat security, cone .ltlgttOs fo. satisfying all ceete that 
■ay be awarded to defendant "or to any others interested in said 
proceed lags*" fa construed this section of uhe statute in 0— ha, 



-so ni s 

B H*J 

. 

i . - 1 

-" . . t ' -i • '•* » ■;. « * • ■ • ■ * ' ' '' • -' l"J 

fiMMtf 93U* IXAlfa *X.»X» vliW JCMWjrfu :,i ift I*.- 

fitfU «4a«B XX* aaixiil- 

Umi ai to3a»-x.*JfU BifixiJ© \«t* ©J t»* 5«>MiBtao •* lr»frs**» erf x* 



fc'l S an h »* a* ju fidelity & ffnayanty <5** * S44 ill* <\pp« 204 # 

aod follow tag the eoaotYuetloa adopted by fchig court in M.g^Uiotry 
X±Jl5M* M® OJL» *pp» <S4Sf held ia subetance stint the sea tut* 

entered laid and bwesae a JM&tft of fchs &tta«8lHSftl8t bend» ami that 
it wae the intention of tins legislature to pyeiritfe fch&t a reeoY<srjr 
fti#at be baa for deKageo unstained » net. only fey the defendant debtor 
bat ale® by any pereea latere* ted in the yf**#§« < il£gg who might hare 
b®*n dsoaaged by the wrongful suing sat of the writ* 

fiefetsOsnte also contend that the pxeof &e to dsusage* ehowei 
that a psrt of the services: perforated by iae attorney* for eefendant, 
wan la fact performed for the ft^rnlaltten ia time proceed iaf: by attaeh- 
Mttt in aid* It in therefore urged that plaintiff oan not recover 
for the daaagos auataiit«d by the sftrnlsae*** ffrom an additional 
abstract filed t we think it isg apjwirawt that the aerrleea of the 
lttern*y* in that proceeding wore perform**? at tifcs request af thn 
Sew York* ^ew Haven & Hartford Railroad ;o#» niul that It tons beeorne 
liable fa* aueh serv&ee** 'i 1 he* &ftr»iabeea# of e*uree» tad tie real 
|*teje*t ia the ean«« they wore only stakeholders* e think the 
proof f»uf riciont* 

fh« abstract furniehed by defendants is quit© inadequate 
and hae iatpesed unaeeesuary .labor upon the, court* 

The jptopmak oi 'ihe trial court la af firmed. 

' I . 

Maturely &nd O'Connor* JJ*, concur* 



tOAtm 

■ 
■, 

■< . 

1 



i 

■ . 

■, 



I 

■ 

I 



»■ 



37169 



1AMS0N & GOODIKW ItAErOTACTURIHO 
COMPANY, a corporation, 

Appellee , 



v. 



1. P. LARSON, JR. COMPANY, 
a corporation, 

Appellant • 





APPEAL FROM CIRCUIT 
COURT, COOK COUNTY. 



- r 



SB. PRESIDING JUSTICE MATCHETT 
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 



In an action for damages for refusal to receive and 
pay for goods as ordered, there was a finding for plaintiff qf 
$2046.27, on which the court entered judgment, which defendant 
asks us to reverse* 

The declaration averred in substance that September 14, 
1927, defendant ordered from plaintiff 10,000 sets of cutlery at 
the agreed price of one dollar a set; that pursuant to instructions 
from defendant, plaintiff delivered 6,733 sets and held up ship- 
ments of the remaining 3,267 sets, which were ready for shipment 
in November, 1927? that after many demands by plaintiff, defendant 
refused to accept the balance) that March 3, 1931, plaintiff noti- 
fied defendant in writing to accept the same in thirty days or 
plaintiff would sell the goods in the open market for the highest 
price obtainable and hold defendant for the difference; that 
defendant again refused to accept, and that April 21, 1931, plain- 
tiff sold the same for 41 cents a set, thereby sustaining damages 
of $1927.53. 

The affidavit of merits admitted the execution of the 

order on September 14, 1927, but averred that plaintiff refused 
to deliver the sets as rapidly as required; that this delay 






( m:.: 

I 

i 

| 



i *} 



■ j 






i 8?: ■ - 

aaoi: i i -~o2 tfifc , o soiiq toa 

(4 8J<9a '.', . a marl 

i i ■■■•«. o.t ooautsi 

no aT&ob y****^ nl 1 MBUsa net? ^qsooa od lib bail 

rf arf^ toI tf sot Tea I '. a boos ^il^ XXfl . ■ I'tUn. 

i | brta 4 Jq • tfo»imsl:9b 

i i rttii io 

*x£J T:o no/ exlJ |##tiai *ai lo > 



-2» 

Interfered with defendant's sale and distribution of the sets* 
and that by IHWttH ©I" the del*sy defendant was afcl© to ma© only 
€#735 s«t«| that plaintiff declined t© accept further orders at 
• dollar a sot and notified defendant that la Um future tho pari©© 
^©Uld &© £1*10 a *«t* 

rhc eourt heard the evidence and found for plaintiff a© 



Sefeodant eont««ds that under tho uneontvadiotod iTlillsTMtt 

plaintiff 9&i not ©ntitled t© recover for th© reason© ©S It ilntlj 
that plaintiff failed t© perform tho «&atra©t within the tin© agreed 
and *&«? therefore not entitled to reeover. l<©fend&at cite© Bond t* 
WmtmMtoLMM*. Iff Ofil« ^nu §fS| Till iPinwn, |fcJk.lNM—i.g^i y©, , 
ittK&J^Uift**. *** **** *iWM ®$» ««« pfrsjtoMMft.ya . &©!£», 109 HI* 
A|HM M®# nhioh© in »nfc©fc#Jt#»# h&ld that In ©rd« fe© recover upon a 
contract plaintiff must ©sfeanlion by a pr ©ponder An© e of th* ©vla«n©© 
his eonpllsno© with th© termo of th© contract. 

Plaintiff 1* a awnutf-a iurer of cutlery ftl I'helburno Fallot 
Kasaaohuaottoi defendant© a nanttfactu?«r and distributor of gun at 
chiOAgOs Illinois* Jieptenber 14© 1189© d«fend«nt gave to plaintiff 
an order la writing lb© 1681© whleh t« partly la printing and partly 
in writing. The printed portion ia a form u»«d by def»tidant# and th© 
written part of th© order i© in the handwriting of defendant* » 
manager* who affix©© hi» signature to the order* It reads© a© 
follows 1 

*L« i • Larson *Fr* Company* Bat© #-14-27 

711 w. lake at* 

Li?m«oa I Soodnow '«fg* Co* 
hslburn© ?alle© liass* 

Pleas© ship us pronptly the following. ubjeet to 
conditions printed* Xnrk each p ekage with thi© address and 
above order number* 

10, xo— 5 plee© outlcry set© s ! . II e««h as p«»r aampl© 



l 

us #»a * sml.lofti * 

■ 
■ 

■■■***mA 

■ ■ 

:i.^00 Hid 

i ■ ''i • i 



i 






, 












. . 


>'-• ■v,;.: '» 




fc'fv !* 


© »YCMf« 






llJ! 01 .:;-•:'• i v >■;■; -?t, i . - 



-3- 

eubaitted (ftet ?<o« 1) each to be l»c ivitfudly packed freight 
prepaid. 

To be shipped out ass rapidly as posratble until such time 
as we slight advise you to held shipments fox further instruct to i e. 



Conditions* 

1— Do not deliver any goods without written order* 

2— ►■©knowledge receipt of order* a toting probable ifttt 
of shipment. 

3»*fc®.il at one© upon shipment of this order or any part 
of it invoice be ring above order number. 

4— If tlo not psy for boxing or elating. 
By Vfet B* elch, V# £>re»#* 
The order waa written out at defendant 11 o place of business in 
Chicle and m handed to ttr* Qhmppoe, western «&!•• repxeoentsitivo 
of plaintiff, £ept caber 14, 1927, ill Chicago, the ovidcnM indicates 
that the order wai forwarded to plaintiff's place of business and a 
foriaal blank acceptance sailed. rhe first shipment under thie 
orcer woe made by plaintiff October 27th thereafter. Thins was not 
the first transaction between these parties. A prior or^er for 
5,000 sets of she a«a* kind of goods had been driven on ugast 17 f 
1927, and these were in process of being manuf I ctured and shipped 
at the time the order of ;>pte»ber 14th m executed. 

The correspondence between the parties, which is in evi- 
dence, indicates that defendant at this time MM MNtfM to have • 
■peedy aelivery of the goods* There is evidence tending to show 
that at the tine tho ordor of . September 14th *?>» gfiven, defendant 
det»irod the delivery of 1.0O0 sets a week but the.t plaintiff informed 
deftndant thnt it *ould be unable to deliver swre ihnm 600 to 7O0 
•ets * week, defendant doss not contend that pi inti f should have 
begun to ship under ornor Wo. ld«l at an earlier dnte than October 
87th, snd defendant* s *anager, who testified, onys that from October 
27, 1927, until the d*to when defendant gave plaintiff nn order to 



. 



■ . . . 

h > -dr. '£:':.'■ • , - r ' I ■ " '■ Vt\ v. | || 



m as* *«&*© 

m «v*ff o? sv<- 
vrwi* o; istAatl abo«i tdl 



hole up shipments*, the nmabyr of seta delivered were in exceed of 
700 seta a week* lefendis-nt argues that pX&ifitiff did not deliver 
the amount contemplated of 600 nets a weak but re&ches this result 
by in eluding In the time upon *aiel* 2a Is computation is baaed ttoe 
period from Jeptembffr !■-*• 1927* up to October 27, 1927, whom the 
first shipment under order #o« 1631 was made* &ft a ss&ttsr of fact, 
the shipment® »«4@ from i&«pt8»»®# 14th to October ktth were &a<ie 
under the prior order given on ! *Uiguat 17 * 1927. The manager of 
defendant Emitted that from October 27 # 1927 {vrhen the first ship- 
ment under the order sued on waa aid®) mp to :-:©vfember S, 1927 t (when 
defendant requested t-;at there should be a (MNMK tion of shipments) 
plaintiff shipped goods in exoeaa of the quota* Therefore* it 
appears that plaintiff did as a matte; of fact fully comply -with all 
the term* of Its agreement* hor covert even if it were masmed that 
it did net deliver the quota within that time the uncontradicted 
evidence shows that def and ant accepted the no shipments a& made and 
at no time undertook to reacted- fche contract fe#ea*u*« of any alleged 
delay and thereby waived any right it might have fens' to rcocind the 
contract as t© the balance. JMftrLY*.^S&&&l$j. 2 9fc ill* 254 » 
American fa & a* Co* v. Chicle- G* Gq«j 184 ill* pp* |99| §KX3t8BWHL 
Mining C q* y . ;id ridgo» 199 ill* App* 554* 

It further appears from the evidence thet the notict for 
an increase of price to 11*10 a set was given in vie* of >, iuruher 
order contemplated by the parties for the follow lag year* and that 
this therefore had nothing to Co with order Ko* 1681* upon which this 
suit is based* 

The defense therefore that plaintiff cannot recover because 
of lack of proof of its own compliance wich the terms of the contract 
cannot be sustained* 

At the clore of plaintiff's case* defendant moved fur leave 






1* «•» 

•ttftf if**a «i :' ■ i '.2N>r 1: Aval 

\ 10 *>;>.,'£*-. ■ 

(«4ft*«lJjls to col J co*& 

i 
II* x^Jr \,i 

; 

." 
I 



-nou m<; ** Mlifttf «U Hal* a on/»l i^jmor ■ 



■ t 

m tvmm 

■--Ai* »on*t»2r» 

•-£U< MBit Oil Jfl 

. ; : , ■(, ' i. ■ 



*^&»mk' «i tim 



M J 'j0 



»▼,•! i. 



, « 






-5- 

te file a plm of affect, fhe motion HM deniad and this ruling 
of the court is assigned *« error. The nubutunce of the pitta Is 
that plaintiff was indebted to defendant to the Amount if vl#l43*41 
for profit on 3*26? sets of cutlery* which it vac alleged plaintiff 
agreed te *nd failed to deliver to defendant within the time it 
agreed to and should hare delivered the aamef that i.h* acts whertto- 
fere cold in combination vlth certain mnabc-r of box*.-* ox cneaing guv 
manufactured ml sold "by <?ef end*jifc netted a profit to defendant of 
00 ■ oox; :.h . AtfiMg.Mil .- iAMj^Llii Mi Kfll * U waDuUnM ttfll 
combination offer by reason of the f&ilmre of pl&intiff to deliver 
these eet«* thereby preventing the combination offer* in which 
defendant would hove netted S5^ on e&eh combination set disposed of« 

The motion was net supported ay an affidavit* The rucord 
shove -hn« this suit Vat bsgun 'ecv*m»er 21 1 1'3.^1| that the trial 
took place seventeen months thereafter! that the motion was made 
after plaintiff's evidence had seen closed} thai neither by affidavit 
nor otherwl-ie w&s the delay excused* 

The righ- to file a plea of offset was not absolute at that 
stag© of the proceedings as it rested in the sound discretion of the 
court. flo circumstances appeared such as existtd in Carlson v« 
Johnson, 265 11. 556* upon which defendant relies* lefendant cites 
Cook v* Baker* 137 111. Kpp. 401* and Mlnard v. Lawler. 26 111* 302 # 
both of which were en see originating before a Ju.^ice of (he peace 
and fihieh for that reason are inapplicable. Hardy v. oblar* 249 111* 
App» 361, and v illarti v. Jriwtol* iifil 111* ^pp* 234* are conclusive 
against defendant's contention* in the instant case, as in the last 
earned case cited » witnesses from a dis^anoe were in attendance upon 
the trial. The court did not abuse its discretion In denying defend* 
est's motion for leave to file this plea* 

A further contention is mane that the finding and Judgment 



;*&? J» •Xt'i oJ 
- ■ Jlii It 

iq: *«& 

. 

•'• fun— 

J 
to 

tJ4f 7«dtf «*trft 



■ i ■ ■ i 



Nf*9 M 






* ■■ 

« ! . -, • ' 

MNpi * ;; ;■■ ft&flu • i rv.- t '. ■' .: •■• "!-' . ,..J*0 »»«• irw.-JS 

r«f| at «Oi -Joutfjii 

♦ a«I.q aiAJ »JCil OJ 

■ H mi tot'- ill : *U ■-.: i noun* aco i*^(^ A 



art tga&tft Kfca tm&it**% tre-1- i . >«•« .# .hi* point 

<s«f*. v ww aalXi wa Uttftttcm to la-ita** wrtttaa by U to aXalaiil 1 ^ 

oa i &3$fef let&tMH! lot-h i »■■ ftaiafeax 23 th urging tJM | 

glAjMlltf •'.' 0laistift! Of a»r« oJT E&*b* s^tsu 4g a saaUar «f fact 
the... till rsfcrtaes t« prior ord«stf©» aat tJu ono upon 

which thi& 3»lt It bas»d» &t already at&ta&j by aata^taatft ■$ U\a 
Ihljaaati iltta kin jrtlvtl & tea&smt «a4t»^ m*| I -• **lhi 

sac . - - } in »**«ial fclMl MMltflM S ■ siuon. c 

hav mtamlMei -he e Jii?:i-u and rt •: .'J the txiM | aoc 

fettvaas the p&artiea ^nd tat* b$I a&U is i ,:, tt ftadisg If 

•0al ftt* hut* ok .h- .;«.-, .,r«iry # a*« eonv&Mwi what tlw 

fii. lag ft! - ta - ft&« 

."':;. &8 INHrafriMBRMj afMJf i» ..... 

it in &ffis&td« 



Mq urely uujl ^Conner, Jj#, concur • 



- 

■ 

; 









36803 



VIU-lAk 8, £UH«, Jr., 

Appellee, I 




▼«. 







— •• I 27 3 I. A. 620 



*£• juuticb m«suk&.y nivim ta^ wunnt &* sua §mf« 

fait is M> action its recover dating** for fait* liifftimimtM 

end msli clout prosecution growing; out ef an attempt fef HUI JMT tW(l ' 
watt to identify the plaintiff at the writer ©J" certain extortion 
letter*. BM) aetion m brought *$ni»#* barton Wright, her f&tfcar, 
t'ililaa V«t) £>oren bright, Alexander Ja^ie, F,sSg;-i,r '."U'Uey MM) i'erdi- 
pond «at*ekj a ,?ury fattM Marion bright not guilty vgti the other 
defendafcia guilty MUl aasiouoed plaintiff *a iMMfttif in the sua of 
$30 ,€00 j plaintiff iaMtt*Jg>l at to tn« i## M&Kt 'tfattek. open sug- 
gestion by tfc* court plaintiff M tered a remittitur of f&& t $0i and 
Judgment was ts: t trad .gainst defendant* ^illlea bright, Ja&ie and 
Dudley for $2>. y. 

Thar* is no serious Jlaa^re^wnt a* to iho law to bo ap- 
plied in such «ua motion. before pl&intiff can rscover .no »utt 
prore »,ilic« on the p»rt if the person starting the prosecution 
and a wont oi prob%bl<» cause for believing that tho »eeuecd it 
guilty of the of font* charged, m noquittal or dismissal of the 
charge agals-tt the accused i» not proof of w<«»t of probxsl* cause. 
Malic* nay bt Inferred free want of probable cause although it it 
not % Q»ct«n*ry legal pretu^ption. If the U.iors 4ton required by 
a person ttarting the prosecution would induct a reasonably t%utlous 
perton to entertain M honest belief t.<»t the stoused was guilty, 
probHble cause it ettikblis-wd. ^ \ enn i, i, inrren eg . 2fJC ill. Ml; 
4a to It t. y»a X. 43 111. MM, Sweii if the presec.;tion MM insti- 

tuted tn rough malice, If probable cause existed a anlioious proseeu- 



. 



I M. 






. 



■ 









•ft* SV.f C 

I 












. 






1*4 y*n mmtlMti 

■ MWVM 

■ 



action 

tios/cannot be maintained, lucre must be a concurrence oi tw© 

fact* - aaliee and want of **»**%&* cause. jgfta&JEi .Vai&fllAj 

| m w ^« . tftd III. 8§0« respective counsel seer, to agree that Wile 
is a *f»«t* case, defendant* asserting that the siroof failed, to 
ehow either ealiee or wa^t of prohahle cause, u?hile plaintiU' MM* 
tends to tae contrary. 

in ItaO dcfVndaBt will less bright resided wtt& hiss wife .*nd 
daughter Marion III Bfc|.f«{|»| fee fsl a «ait cf fcuslnees JFtfMllHim 
ar-d apparently ©f wealth; S»eve&ife«>r S$ 4 &.§S$« &&ri«», then ftghtif 
years of agt, was afafKt to frak* her debut, Mb4 or that date received 
a typewritten latter signed In typewriting "i-eater fcoKny,* gesandiag 
|M,C00 ®r*i threatening. t» kill her and her father u/iltaa the jseney 
was paid; the letter directed t&ai ih» ifconey he una in a package 
MilTOtsN It Lester Bei-ay i«j care of keaeral delivery, Chicago; 
that if the demand was acceded t© sshe lit £c advertise in the 
personal C4>lu«m of the Chi cage tribune, saying, iKjffliBjr • everything 
-Jone as per instruction. * four ether letters waking eisll^r threats 
•w^re received fey Marion it intervals within the next fee days. In 
one of the letters Out writer etated he would, send an unknown per- 
sen fsr this package ef aoney, «M that any b&ov* to tra.ee nia would 
»#an the death of someone la the bright household; !■ the 1-ist letter 
the writer said it woulrl by neecsnary "to Ukf Mi example of this 
household, particularly your father," and, "Hemesubor the police hove 
ne use for a dead bedy, so take ay advice mi do as stated above. - 
All the letters contained threat* against the life of Mr. Wri&bt. 

The writing and sending of such letters is a felony. The 
■ end In*; and the receipt of the letters are undisputed. 

*T. Wright and hie family were frightened upon receiving 
these letters, and he provided a police eecort for hi* wife and 
daughter and an».««! alreeelf. 

Wrigwt, a bu«ine«e aiun witn no experience in the detection 



.'■<■■■ i ... • .. :' L. '-<-- 

■ 
•I 



* m afza.l 



■ 
■ 

I 



i 

t « 

■ 






u oa 



I 



» ft 



ef or lain*!.*, waa naturally daalroue of aooortau.iijK the identity 
of the writer with the view of ending aueh l*ttert or <»f pani«b,ii^ 
the percen res onsifcle for the». Upon inquiring of a businee* 
fri*n* # Kr. K&nr.ey, viee-preeident sf the til jltUmi RaWMfttV 
company, he obtained a letter of introduction fVMi Ma to de- 
fendant Alexander Jtaai* t ffet »»» a director of an organisation oail- 
ing itself the CoKssitte© for Prevention and ItmlihiniH.m of Crisje of 
the Chicago aeseelatlen of Comeree. Vha &«£i&ltte* •»»• or^a* ieed 
by the Aenoai&tioii of fl<WMltii of OltPJMJl) tffcl ite purpooo v&« to 
a»«ist the j*«li©# la the investigation and detection ©f origin ale 
to p >if «lt eritae in Chicago. Ihe pub! is (HMMM* il referring to 
this oofaffllttee, u»«d th** nm* * fiftOf w *si»* for the reason that the 
&en who tasked tat organisation did net de&ixe their hMH *aade 
oufclie. &e ohar&e* were %nd« by thie organisation for the services 

if ttiti. 

Urinal aubaitied the first extortion letter to JMUi *ith 
?he HIMl t that, if possibles, ine writer tee identified. Jasie wae 
b*»sy or another waiter and tamed this invent tgttttltM over to the 
eefendsuit Bdgar Dudley, HI «»j?loye# §1 ike eosa&ittoo wno wee ex- 
perienced in mmhlELft inveatigfttiaae. feftd&tf had a notice injsart#d 
in the ffMfUgj Tribune, reading *he?vay - everything done as per 
instruction. U» t*. * *hi» was in j— yl JMHHI vita the demand o.<«de 
by letter. A decoy pintMigi wae , 1 iO«d in tho General 

Delivery d*p*rt*-;*nt of trie poet of J ioe md two police of i leers of 
Chicago, Liewte«i»nt ttfpff and Serjeant ^nowlee, .*nd Tonnetvine, an 
investigator for tue committee, watched tue peat of J ice lor the 
person who VPftld evil lor the 9*e«»ij;«; tney eaw a *an cone into tiie 
post offlee acting saspici©u*iy , *,* Johnet-jn* »»ld; nowieo *»nd 
Johnstone endeavored to * >rr e ia*n at h«* e«out>*d i» the 

crowd. 

In the fcu-fOitlae Phlitlf fcfli ouefftlonwd fciee *ri«;nt *« to the 
young rr.en *itn whoa one had kept laMff, Aft thin tlaie tho fright 



■*•>'■ 






i hrl 






la 

■ 









T*XB 0$ 
. - 



! 
•04 9**1 »v 






. nn 



H- '>"-; 



f easily had a© clue or easplcion a* in the writer »tf Nta letter©. 

Kites irrit::Ut lis 14 of the plaintiff &ttd oi asr expert. «»>.©«• vita hie; 
**?# 4<"*cri>td' 1-4* conduct, tjfc&ife t«ad*4 to hie dlaereditj that oa 
on* eeoaeion eaen a^iiMf'iBjflJIg her he Wo»&e 3 rank and «« the w«y 
home aeted like i *cra«y* mana. tfifch tale information iMdley b^gaa 
an Investigation ©J' plaintiff© Audits m& wa» told ey proprietor© 
of eert*in *«p«ak*a»ie» < * tfcttt $&«&&%!£¥ luMH toeon &**rr*<i fro* taooo 
pla*e*« Ik at* h* vac a *<|tt«er m%PW* *ad g>et#d ia»HltiflWftlly« BttaU** 
then ©ailed at the ftotal «$t.»fa plaintiff iiv#d mi wa© in fa mod ho 
hid left for i->lti»i3urgh, aath.«a&« &* had told Hist Wri&iu lit was 
going to California. £5ad.l«y al©» i*hptif*« at the ofl'i«9* of 
f£atftur*f« fciteaeii & Co., MMtiN piAiafiff &&ft formerly aeon mn 
ployed, <st«d ascertained t&at pl&iniii'f had bee* Ik thee* office© 
©» the nig&tt is&a© a lately t*raeedin& ifee ife$$ti if t«© of the extor- 
tion letter©. Sudiey **&r*;.«d v:u*i &ua» h&d been '.lifcch&rged fro* 
thi* ei*pl©yi£.<sHt ofc aa© ■-.•«.,& t of #raak«nnee.»« &a*pl©« of writing ©n 
the typewriters la the office of »1 '■*!&* iff '0 »**pl©y©r were tatotfl 
for the purpose of ©o&aarittg such ©M&pXe* with the extortion let- 
tore, titer* la 11 acute |fl th« testimony a a to toe report on thi© 
ociwp&rieea. Oarbex, the ©aeaier iu I I office, testified that he 
peinted oat certain difference© betaee* oertain letter* in tn© 
•©■spit© t*i*©» tmi toe aatt« letter* lit the extortion writing*. 
Dudley anl Jaal© denied tail teoli&ony of aerbisr*©. on the ©am© 
day Dudley an* Joule talked to at brother of plaintiff, *endell 
Kuhn» wn© wat aieo employed la thle office, ifed MM hi* of the 
in veett patten they were making; Wendell I aha then called the 
aleintiff on long tllt—M ttltnntM at §9St#M 'and Dudley talked 
to ol*intiff on t.ie teiepaone; ho Utktwi Mf knowledge of the ex- 
tortion letters but orawieed to oo»e h^efc. to MUM0I tfUl aubait to 
•xri v ton at tl»« office os ta« aoiaailttee. 

The atuapif of ty^ewr.tinn, t.^ett,er witv; the extort ion 



c 


















! 
- 

1 '! 








«SdU(H 



s 

letter*, Wfti oufeotifctofi to ItoiiUMHMl Witssok, ■ defemiaut, who na d 
formerly >< MI on Inepootor ©f .Botoetiveo at fiiRKUfc, MM w**» then 
Ao*i*t*nt 'Ptrootor tf tho &ole«ttfl© Grlao Detection .Laboratory 
Maintained ©y lorth* astern University. 8-atae* &&risft| Dudley that 
In hi* opinion the o»%©rti©» lottoro and tho ooftple outfitted, 
written on tho typewriter of plaintiff** e«ipi©y«r, feuMI INMR 
written on tn** M8M iyj? writer; S:*t?«k nlftf HwMN H writiota report 
to t&4 ftMM effect. Plaintiff *« ferotnor was infon^. ©f this, 
fattok toot if led fey deposition in the trial ©f tnia ©»*» arid tt is 
epp&rent M **l cot qualified a* a. typewriting expert* 

Plaintiff returned to 'Chicago ©r» tut evening of 9»e«H)»«r 
?th Mti fttfcd SftXt merging nooosxpanlad fey his brother ^'endoii *ont 
voluntarily to the office of J*»io where &e waited until 'tjudloy 
©haul I arrive, t&lle) ha «&© waiting UMNri Jonnet^ti*?, Mftt had teen 
otatlened at the post ©ffie*, eotarod the office, aar* Raw plaintiff 
In the waiting re©»; Johnoton* aoyo ho rocoftni&ed. plaintiff *« the 
*«&* person ho kiwi soon acting oue^-lctouoly --4 the poet office; |M 
told tM« t» &©©*e« t Jamie 's tik#«i»tattt, till to i,..louten<*fit ^rr, who 
wore in Jwisle*e of floe at the ti«o. jjfolffltttetollfi it* iuei* t<-ld to 
look closely to aake our® tnat plaintiff was the eon* scan ho had 
•eon at tho poet office. ttMR 'Dudley arrived Joftnsstone tola ui» 
that plaintiff was the entree perecn ho had. MMK it tho poet office. 
«y wnd police ot'flear* Carr and MMPHMM thon ouoatlonod plain- 
tiff very ee-»er*ly. Dudley «ay« that In r«i»ly to hio que a lion ae 
to ■ehen olalntiff wao 1 fcg$ In lino poet ©ffie*, plaintiff replied, 
"I hawo nrvor boon in tho wiokon ark poot offico.* throo of tno 
oxtortieii l#ttor® woro nailed from iMo poet off loo. Plaintiff 
derioe t »»t ho nod* thto reply. Dudley thon re rented .iljintiff 
to oufemit hlaaeolf to what it called tno "lie detector" test under 
tho euperwlston of Dr. Jonn A. ^ »r*m, «n ^eaietwit t te riaain- 
ologlet and « oo^petettt mca oxperionood 1< tno cine of the toet. 



■ . 






i 

t 
I 

■ 

•JIM 
ij *SSW 

■ 

■ 



ihie lie detwctor in m aps>f*r**tu» which roister* fey trying* r*» 
•pir^tory, MtaMhfl pr#e«*r* Mbf eardlaft variation*; the teet ie pain* 
lee«? and involve* no phyeioal dieoosufort. Dudley, &*I9 and BiiB»Hlil 
were pree^nt whan the test ta» met** Or. JUareon firet taftliiftafti te 
plaintiff th# character (Kf the ^ueetiene that weuX^ fee put to hl», 
*:lch would include the question whether or net h« had exiled ine 
extortion letters; M &leo ield ijl&lsutff that fch# test »i&nt con- 
vict hies &nd that It Hi hoped to gat lnfcrigatlon which would 
either elesr the plaintiff or tell whether fea feat guilty jmowied&e 
or had himself b$#n involved in the e&ee. Plaintiff «ub»<itt«.d to 
the teet. there wa» i nersuii reaction to the gen&ral ^wostioitf 
oro pounded. When plaintiff tti aa*#.d whether te* had any guilty 
knowledge of the- exiortioft letter* and *h«ta®r he wr©te thes he 
anawered teeth ^aeotieBi in the negntivt, teat Us® recorded reactions 
♦ere registered as abnormal. At the e©ssr>letio» a J' MM teet ftp, 
Lareon advised fcsd&ii* that In hi® opinion the reeuite toiMWrtHl 
either that plaintiff was guilty or had guilty knowlssd^e. 1>:r 
J*ar»on *sAd plaintiff *tat*d that he fettf |HHi MHM tfSNHI a eanita* 
riuat in ftaseaehueetts wh«re he fe*J been treated for aleohollm, 
aed that plaintiff inquired whether, under such oi resistances, hie 
oerrou* condition would explain the record - lie detector. 

Dudley # Carr and fcnowles corroborate this, but plaintiff denies 
he nade this etet«nent« but eostlfied Hltti fed «&id, "i have been 
hating a third degree ill »er> in& and M pretty tired. ■ 

^Plaintiff's eouneel ar^uee that the lnee«t inters should 
have known that the indicator on the deteetor would tary bee<u<»e of 
the trying eiioerieciee they had eubjeetad hk to and because hie 
nvnree were raw. from eueh exy^rleiice. 

Dudley, ■Jttrr and . nowlee tnen rctun.ed vith pi Hint i J i te 
the «f 2 ices of the eo«>^lttee t where ur. #rerterieJt iurnhwe, plain- 
tiff •■ attorney, with plmntiff 'e brother, uwalted the*; they were 









•J 

• 1* »•»*»•« t- 






■ 

{|»X»tv d» Mr 
■M fir 

. jtsi Be.* 

.• - 
i. . 

■ 

.r r su-. 
S »M 






mtti 









told that B», fctdHMtt had given his opinion that the lie *iet*etor 
test indicated that plaintiff was guilty. Surahs* then with great 
real nrguei with Outlay to the effect that there were manifest tiff* 
ferences In the »ws$»le oi' typewriting upon which '#at*«k lUsI reported 
and the -writing 1b tit* extortion letters. IjuniJiw then asked what 
they intended to do and ItitnttMsfit i«rr replied that he was gtslng to 
pl*ee plaintiff under arreet, *nd in waws* to the Taxation M to 
whs had directed hi& t© 4a this, Carr replied, *Q» wsy tfsm 9 i an 
doing thie on m$ own accord.* warr «say« he based hie Belief of 
plaintiff's guilt upon HHI f'-ct* Hi had aftquireti during the inveetl* 
nation* It IM then agre*4 thai plaintiff should »e tak#n to a 
hotel. Vvtgjfc! waa not present either at the arrest or at any ef the 
above occurrence*. Plaintiff 'e Brother i'endell testified that fee- 
fore the arrest was sad* Dudley «W, *if Wright 8»y» to , a ahead 
we will ge .■fcheadt* that he and Carr then went in aittfttfottf roo» and 
•lowed the AhNP and when they asserted announced they were g<?ing 
ahead. Carr testified positiv«ly trial he 414 net eonault bright 
before mm ttmg the arrest. Snowies testified t-at *'right's nsat 
was not mentioned, bright testified that i« wa» ftft toltf t-hat an 
arreet was about to he ft&d«, although later on he was -i viced, whether 
he and his daughter would appear in court »*nd testify. Dudley tes- 
tlfled that he .■Sid not telephone to Iflsfjal before the arreet was 
jc*de but that afterward he called Wright to detersulns whether he 
end hie daughter would be witn«?»eee. v.arion Srl^t wm in iit. Louis 
when the arrest waa stade. 

after the wrr>?et plaintii'J wmm ml oed la * room at the . t. 
Clair hotel. A man noised Morion «*»* pieced in th« sa&s rn©»; he was 
an investigator f?r the oo»u,itte« *uid i* gtaff MtWiSti by plaintiff* 
counsel ae a "stool pigeon." -ort.j* *i»d plaintiff pi nyed carde 
toget :»r and conversed freely. oMon *ays 1 liatiff iold ;.i« he 
had »iide two mi stakes - that he h«d used »n |&4 typewriter, and 



■ 
- 



- 



:• ffla 




•* 




















■ 








■ 












. 











■ 



iiw ««< ;j««> x mwi 

■ 



. 






that when questioned shout the General poet oiJiee he had answered 
he hid newer been in the Vlgfegtf i'ark poet office. 

The following »ernlng plaintiff was (MjfeMi to thg offices 
of the eomsaittee, utMsffi he wss held pSftttAg the procuring of b»ll. 
In the afternoon pl&intlff wne taken to the Detective eUTtliU for 
booking, out about $lx o'eleeh p. m. w*mj released or* bull, 

09 the s*me day, i)#ee*&tK»r 0fch # &«rg*ant .;.wo»lee teat pre- 
pared end »i&ned ■ eostplaAai charging plaintiff with writing the 
estortion letters; MHMWflNV U-th the ee%plU.nt wt*« «»li*c3 for 
h—rtWg before Judge i.yle, taw* in the *>iony eourt branch of the 
fcunleipa-1 court; Judge JLyle refused So accept &«rg«*'*nt iuaewlee as 
the limgilalnkliMi; witness and d#***«d#d thst Jftlss Wright sign ins 
••sflpletat, fear lea Wriglat had. raturasd fjpea I4« EtgaJU «a# she mA 
her fatner, a&ta tfcidley, galled at the office ®i tag itggg'g At- 
torney and talked with Asei ii&at State** Attorney u. fgyiwi 
Brooke. Dudley says M related to hr. Brooics $*ii tag aatgJrlgi 
facte. Plaintiff argues here that important i'.-.qts were omitted 
and sows of the facta misrepresented. Gordon was present and re- 
lated to iter. Brooke what plaintiff nad s*l-l to Ma 'while t«ey were 
together in the lit. Clair hotel. Brocks testified that he 4©t the 
lapr«e«len from Gordon *e etata&ejvt «&&t plaintiff h*& ^onf#*««d 
guilt. 

Vri&nt end hie daughter objected to ai^in^ the co»pl*lr,t; 
kr. Breoka fg y g fi gl Mbit to hlo senior i Nag §%•*•*• Attorney's 
office, • fcr. ;fol**n § Ml repratad what kg had learned; hr. ..nUai 
told him to admire karlon to sl^n Nag ecswl'tint and timt she and 
her father, aet ing upon the advice of on Aaelstant state's Attorney, 
would be immune frost, any suit for d«m»&ee; Br. .Brooks ^lso r*nortsd 
the f toto to Judge Lyl* and naked hie adwioa; Judge Lf&g dsaarded 
thst alee Wright "in the complaint. Xhe name of Uer««ant wnowles 
was then stricken from the complaint and hi at Wright signed her 



... 






' 






.^Xltra 



tvu 






B&£«. RffigM «&i£ that hM was raluatant to appear In the matter; 
that all h* wan tod to do ffM to atop th* lottor* fro* bsin# writ tan. 
Abl oo&e *w continued UNH ti«# to tt»e» aod on J.*n»«ry 21, &§&, 

it was fiol'i* £jgnii o» saotioK. of tn» St&ta** ^ttornay. 

"^o fcsfti itotWfcti briefly tha aallant faota hi Mat o*ao 
whioh, *o MM told, t<50& thrao vwritl to try. 

Th# firot ^ui*»tlon «£&4& proa*nt* itaalf Is WJUrttHQ thar* 
w&* y,sy ovid*r*o« to ottbw.lt to tho jury tiftfttUg to »how that Willi «& 
Wright *a» guilty if saalio* til any of Bfei tfe&agi kit &MU ©Ml na- 
tion Nail oe answorod in tho ■$$•&&¥•« *ri#ht *«.» naturally cjurssad 
fey tha 111 Flit in tHf eharsotor of tho lott ora riNsaivod fey hio (tuightlFr 
alarmod not only J'fer feiaMMUMf out for tha asa&ifeara of MLfl fussily; upon 
tua odtioa ©f »> friond ft* suteittod tha letter* to the lafandant 
Jau&Io for investigation j aft or that Hi 414 n© Miffi than roooive ©e- 
aaaional raporia &» to tho progroao of tho ino*»t lotion; h«? All not 
undartako to eontrol it and Imk no mft* ir&*ttr* «t«p« tit tho atattor. 
Hi* rolo ^aa not »© *su*h that of * prooaoutor *>f plaintiff as a or©» 
tootor of hi a fosily, an^ to IHlXil h$M in IWWi#<i for that i« uft» 
eon«*louabla. Vha i«*w will aet s)««rtiU |h§ presumption that thore 
*aa aaiio* wnon all tha avidonea a^o^o tho contrary. IMHHMUU 

iJMMJlUlUJttaJkUUkJBti^^ 24a ill « *•»• 196 » 

Plaintiff 'a oaunoel argue* that Wright can bo hold under tho 
iootrin* of r*»Bondoat WUUMSU *? on *^* aaaus'.ption that Juii-io and 
Dudley *nd tho i>eliee offieora woro Hit jgf |l, Wrignt w«a not tho 
prinoipal of thoae owra^na; ho HI not hir« than or pay <u.yt in# lor 
tnoir aarricaa; ha had no control of than, m* of couraa h«d no au- 
thority to llocoarga any of tho». Jaaia and Du^liay war* aaplayaoa 
9i tha uhioa&o Aa»oai»tlon of C*Hus«rea t » ooooration not for profit. 
Xhoy *»r* aaoouiitakla only to tnia .ta»ooi*tion. <J*t*r orient l»a«d 
tha lattara in th*ir n*t*49 no oo.il'l not hf*v* p rotr «, t *■'• thtm fro» oon- 
tlnutn*; tha tnraatl«{%tlon. >-9 wo h%va notod, tho "eocuaittoa" waa 



• 



-'-■ 



J^M 






■ 

i 

i 

.< 



... 

1 

•«a ,*»oiTir#« y1«jU 

ft* 



10 



ergafiiwefl for llki j»ur?ore of us listing the olic® la tlMI i^vtetiga* 
li«M *»f erimee if extortion and the li&e, 

:V&nlf*^tJy, n&nw if &&i ?eii#e officers w<sr» me agents of 
»ri#ht» they were esrployed fey the City of ahte&go ,us«l were r«*pon~ 
eiole t» it olane. It I* well »«fetl»<5 th« I tfea relation of prinoijml 
an* .-trjent must actually «3tisi iififff one can be IntM liable for the 
terts of &» fl£iK%* 

it M&gM fee not #4 in tola a#nmeotio« feat ^rl^ai, *rh#» no 
brought the letter* to Jaa&ie, aoltod that tlfct s*u Worship mi#ht fee 
determined »» Hurt the l«t*»r» eii^ht fee etoippod. Police officer 
Carr teats f.i |ft tii&t he ®&4M fc&* &rr«»fc ©a :<&i» owe responsibility 
eua^ wit&oat the anoDflortge of f*£g!n%« AWl wtMN» f at the inwiat&aee 
of T »£#e Lyle, Syrian '^ri^ht signed the ©©aci^int, "^ri&ht efe4©«ted, 
saying **l h* wanted *a«r. to #top the writ leg und aeiifiinfc of these 
letters. 

Fl«*tatiff asserts i&it f'ri<&ht ®&« fee nelit «i>oa ttui theory 
that he WU in t eo»s#ir»*y ffit< the other defendant! and that any 
on* if th# conspirators is li&kle for tae &et* if the others, it 
le sufficient to say Dull there is no feast* for the ihilgj or con- 
sist r^cy. to -prove i original eon&pirs*.oy At »u»t be shown that ths 
e^rti*© chared eought to iiiiWp&l^l an illegal purpose or to con- 
sulate a 1*#&1 ebjset fey unlawful .means. It onnnot be seriously 
contended that when »ri !c .ht sought to ascertain the Mit/iorehif) of 
the extortion It iters he was engn^MI An i criminal oonsplrriey. 

A Ju'' t ;«ittiit ag'jilnet «****ral def m lAtftti in • tort action is a 
««"• aowth ?Ui .&!.., fi, ,^.. a.o.. t. ttffrto. IM EU« 4i3. ^a the 
Ju!/iB*»tit ■gntMt Vri^t au«t fee jre*>*r»ed it »uet also fee ravereed 
aa to the oU»«r ijfiiiiPtii 

But there in another reason why trie Ju) fc *.*i-t ^.litst Jua-ie 
etisi Dudley cannot nt»w-d. Uert«,ln f *ote were preee»it*"i to then c iit- 
ir.f to rlf Lntiff ae the *ut-.o» ol ttM lrt.tere. AAioog these vera hl» 












■ ■■ 

■ 



■ 



■ 



' 



. 






i 

■ 






irregular habit*; the report »f m mm *he* Huy believed t* !>• Hi 

expert th&t the extortion letters were ftpyHNMtt&f wrist*** tt£HH s* 
type* rtt<*r to willed pi Kin tiff Had see®**; the l&Hftfff |0&%ifta by 
Jehrietoia* of the ^laitttiff *,* the i&*& e««is *i«t !».{.: asusn>i^i»u&ly in 
the general poet effie*, ■gr&Hf'iftfi* !&**• IJH reavoiie* to the ttttHH 
tieeaeut i« Use 0&ie«*i» Tribune j the report t*mt the lie £*t*<«ter 
teet ia#ie«t«#. guilt s*r»tf the r^s>«rfc »£ @#r4el8 tff ita&HBftHti fey 
pl*i»tifl e- M ,tfie*le»i to i eeafeeeien, ft&S ftf these $&AH$S, if 
e»e.»e*tlened, i fcflffN probable e*u»e for beliftviivg U&&* pl&imlfi 
h%d e*»t the l.«tt*r». 68 the pthom km& t swae^of t&e t**th£*j*y 
•upperttjag these %lle#e$ fveis ^ai •#£&$&«£$ V&&&4NMNI fey tn.* 
eaeetieninc suad tw^lyei* ef a very able &sd taEptll ««*##$ attorney. 
Should Xassite Hfcl Builey have l$»er»$ the eif4j|$ti#e Hk&gi tested te 
prove tb« guilt ©l" plaintiff, *j%d in it» *ie*4 *.ee#pt *fee reeu.lt* 
er attorney iHirahaai * * £*»$©«« trail en of its HJHJBltHjff isudiey re- 
aarbed Ht the time that a* between the Nptft frf she typewrit Ittjg 
wxpert (HtHM he h#4 fcee« told wee Hi *3*p*rt) SR4 the apiaien ef 
the atieraey for the plaintiff, he gtiPHf HWNWl to MMN^I the e^iftioa 
ef the escort. 

there the f^ete relief upon a* ahewing probable HfeHHt HW 
eontrowerted., it is for the Jury to ietwr^in* what the f.-et* HfH« 
and th<? court «%y Inetruct ftfcae If whet •w.ount* Ik law to <> rob able 

««>»•. TifinititffH y*. ^if^ffti l49 Ul * M, » iiffiiii ?n fwii as ll3 »« 

106, Malice i» generally a fMNriiHH of feet for the jury, bji&JSLAEl 
t. aneel . 212 111. Aop. w», It doe* net require a* am eh avidenee it 
prere the existence of probable cause &s ie required to ebtela a 

•ribiinel ^onYictlen. AlelilinMI Ti flalMJi 3S I1J " 139 J A&8&5L-2» 
9.fA.tfrr«teh»jj # ?i9 m. \nn. M9« 

Can it he eaid UtM the vtriict of tae Jury flMlHi that 
proeecmtien HI without probable HHHM '*«<• inapirwd by aeliee wae 

juetlfiedf ^ - 

rlem in fldxid the ewi'iewoe preeented to dhe fetlnde ef 






i 

i-xwift* 

■ 






-49 SmmimXim 



■ 



'■ '.-'. ■. '- 



12 

Jessie «B4 Dudley tending to identify plaintiff a» the mitt* of the 
extortion letters, M well »s the evidence t© the ©oiityary, we u©ld 
that th« finding ©f the Jtary in l-ota reepeets was contrary t© the 
asanifest INtifc^Ml it MM evidence. Plaintiff uuet prove in »ucta & 
©see a* this the-, there was both »ai«« and want ef probable ©suss. 
It 'So** net necessarily fell©* thai If one lfe&kes an honest UK 
NMMlttl aaiasfc&k© to judgment as t« the strength ©f the evidence 
«£fei»rt a suwpaet, that there &• wont ©f p-rob&kl© •»&«*)• 

*• have net e©$»ent©d a$>©« the §t&t$m$i&t t© &**! stent 
State's Attorney Brooks, ui»©n *M«& he advised Umt prosecution be 
©iwtmeneed. It w&s a question for the Jfury to determine whether 
he wms tol--! all the f--?@t8, MMI plain tiff a counsel poiat ©ut & 
number ©f things which it is claimed were emitted in the statement 
t© &r. Brooke, 

«e »r* inclined to think tfeai the jury went astray u>;»©n this 
trial because of the envious f«©t tfeikt a*.© gas© wm uried a* if the 
iseue were the guilt ©r i&n©ee»ee ©f plaintiff with reference te 
11I1»H the letter*. Iwidenoe ts*ndin* te show prabsfeie cause wan 
treated as If offered t© pr$v» the gB&it ©f plaintiff, fh© Jury 
evidently was influenced fey the vulnerability §£ fe&c evidence when 
ntt netted by able. counsel for plaintiff, and tgMOTCll ite ©redlblllty 
»» it app*nred when first presented te Jamie MMI Dudley MM the 
police officers. 

there is much argument in the respective brisfe over alleged 
errors upon the trial MMI with reference to instructions. Cceecsnt 
noon these would too much eaten I thin opinion. If cnere ie another 
trial they will hardly occur Again. 

As applicable to this ease we quote from Astee v. 4nider . d? 

111. 376l 

"A ptrty ought j.ot to be hsld guilty when he oets in action a erixlna 
?roc*cut i©n, t>liailj because he fall I to c ; n«l«t the psrson accused, 
©r indeed in every ease MftCM he f Uls to anew the p^rty «»e guilty. 












■I I 






■■■nam*** 

■ 

. 

dathfto * J 

4* It/ mt 

■ 









IS 

ftM M&i*]F tl" I3M i»* 1* gtetfeftt ft# MMMMMTMi MM p*04«t tit* «si* 
©rteie&l* ! If •# ^ilty ef grav® ©17 #&*»#»; tut |J Hut p*g 

e«ti« f ; *>lw*»»» i» t» fe« «t*l«st#4 i« ^«ss,-ig«« f«r tm &#»*** • rarer ir. 
Ja<*£«*«st t *"•* 91^4 «i*t «k«n weuld ra» tfe« te**M« »tf i«*tit ■*&!»*; « 

a«4 #v#« Ktft p«rtlh«»t is Hm *.«&s**an*» ** &*« «&!#* /tt*t&9« 

*vur t*Btt4UMMM t*NMt<;#» at i&9r* ara S"«w $tt#flftj m n »;#r* $fc£« 

fleaife »i" t»pr? MM*!** fey * Jury* &UM9 &&««« valyr,. $jW«Sl tViftitf 
far M&AftifttMt pf o»*«yiU»»». it > ti«t 4&f¥£4fti&i *'©.r U*««s us »$$*•* 
3i»t» w i? ttt« :.i%'--«,tiST *&» t*tnily l®,m$,-m% a? ,. ; ;er wftAek 

h« WU :.-r9«»«i*t«.a # tJaatt fe# still tSNglti i$$ |£ »#«*ir#f, gfetftf ft* aot 

p§Md efito* «.r ©j'r«s®*» «m£ ar#% MiV ft* »#*«iMr** gfitiittft th* ?#•*•» 
sut©r Mini ft ft attt fl 1 fe&i .**rsr*«t ,u*>4 tin |Vlir1 lnilHi>iiillHi T ft4 ■ W4 MNMNHFVft* 

•f t&9 gMMMM ftf%4 Kiwi $$«w* 9##tt #Jf i9#i«%| t*Ng&t.S*> 4 Hurt #v<*b 
lms99<wsfc &«& s»*y fe# «ia»$>»;i.«MS t* Btttefcit ^# §£$•!$ HirtftfTirtltirtt ar.$ 
Hardship, rat&dg i«*b isildtfcflMi MtatisS I tM §4%##)N ifeg 

$re **«-.<, %!«»» «««r« (fetti* If ¥#*«$*4&l<4 ©r j •■■ ._ $#m&4M It &•• 
li*v« In HM1 o^-a.-^e ff g«UU&** 

*t UHI «1»«# *f UMI «*i £•«**• 4«tf»rt9~iMr»t»* &*m»J**| «*¥iM t&e 
wart t# 4ir»et tot J«ry fi fi»4 ia« «ft**tt4*tt* '-UU»* Wftflfti ««t 
guilty, VM4M «** ft«»i«(i« i^i« '■'if/ l««%fif»«til*B *Si^ul« fefeV* 

^* fliHgrniiffiii ■fflfctiati j^tlitm v«« Ihinmi I l •■ wil^m 

«b,».yg# ifjalttii Mm Hw iittM *iii »»t te# inmnnnfliii m to ;<i«. Hmi 
•Met *» t« Jaft.t® Mil iHittty i» ywiiiiail «U IM wmh a* t* 

tH«R 1« ro«e«»4*4. 



>C i . 



*'«t«U»tt, '. J, wr4 tNpMHHWi f«| iMMVVt 









■ 



I.' 
a 



s 

1 



■ 



■ 



Man i I WW if KH . . 

er*v* ati^r *f th« *ij»ri«» Ml ta* 4»«l*r*%i*ji *£>i*i«t tit* (t«fttt4«a* 



*9 %>' 



S0985 / 

/ 

p&q?l-; 0/ BUI tit we w nuuois ' A „■■ "' 

e^. rat, ammanm &&m3M8®, / ) / 

/ )/ im& mm <fia#w . i 

) OF G00& 

HKttf - r .^.Ai-AJS, ffMv^Mat of the CO©* ) 

County Board if OociBilaaionere, it *u. # ) 

^pp'«sXi*aatft« ) 

27 3 I!A. 620 1 

Htli is is sjanda^uae roe® til ing Ik rifclii ifei writ was MNHNfcM% 
ordering, ite* ft(H*WMbBi1ii %• pay Umi relator .;i?4i m eatery tai her. 

Th« relator miiegee li her petition HMfci ?*&« is^r* employed 
in tha olaesifitd servle* if Uoojj eo-^aty ae a Rarst and *»» la reed 
to obtain le&vfc of ebsenee on aeeount of tHHiHiil jfflii her recovery 
the iitettl to fee restored to her position "tout s.ii*s Civil Service cojss- 
sbireioa refused to reinstate n#.r; she Wm i lWj|ifl instituted an iitiiM 
el* MHUbHRHi to tSm&HX hs?r WJJMPi > I llWt and oh Jafie if i 1932, she 
w&e award «d the writ, and was re* to red to duty on July 21, 19 32, 
the j»r«?sent $ail%&6s1 is li jjigifi the def*ii-.*ante M liili a warrant 
for her iilitiTJ for UK time ifci was off duty, tuafc is, fr©» «pril 
2, 19 31, to th« ds*te »h* was restored to duty* July HL t MNNb* 

defendants f'il<?d a sieoitd a*ii««ded ejrsuwwr i. wnie't they 

asserted Hurt tt«e salary appropriated for the relator* e position 

woe, *urlng the time she *as ji lit lie* fi f pifffcMittg her duties, 

paid by the County fed goo?? faith t© a dj» faoto, liieuut>ant of her 

petition. The r«l«tor question* MM sufficiency of ths «*n«wer in 

this respect, i'he answer alleges: 

*** that for wi^l during th« entire period fro» April 2, 1931, to 
tad Iail«4ia4 Jfuiy ai, ItSft, Ui« ftutiii if Hie *»ld ocaition of 
itttMlag nuree 1. *. were perJor»e4 by mn incuatoent ^ fjgii of 
• el<} looltion, wM that nil isoueya up >r oprlated or iro^Hed b, the 
Be«r4 of wOiti&i u k ion ore of Cook County for attending nurses 1, V. 
for X,i\t -rrici <*f IfcM lr< '>ije»tAC<n , .i*.T#' b»feri pt.td by B o i l l county in 
£Of>d faith li the liiauAibent df f^ety ^ *nni deny tuat f*iiere •*» any 
eurrlue in the respective ■y^re^riallii iiSiMlei lo* cttetiding 
nureee I, J .'., but etate that eaoh po»ltion lor attm ling nuree 



• ; ; ■'•. 



) 






^O 



- 









9t 

■: J l 1 






at 






■ 

to bvmw* 
■ 



I. *, far which «p appropriotlOR HI .mad a waa filial fesn<S th# salary 
oaid to «*a,cb. ineuwbwt respective! v. * 

thia w«» i •$£££#***% aTOBSMBfft that fcha ©alary relator aaaftra fatal 

been paid to a dji £&SM iacowbent. It 18 *#11 e*taMieft«*d fcfeai <^eh 

a mmM i« i -e.oBt'f>l*ti» lafaaai la auch sua &§i£aiu 9>*<gaaftaar a » 

,Hlf »f Julaiiti 33? *"• sao; 11*1*11 ^ «m» ** mi l ^ mf as? m. 

**3; »aa*la ca* fa)| ff Ba yaata v> »ttgd«tt r 23,3 UUU *'?4; ^BftJJtt JBft* 

111. 4tpp« 1»6. 

ftal&tor argues fruat tue mm®T l&as. sat iaftf? Mat *1 lection 
of the p^fcitios t&af team vaa «. surplus la Hag up pimtyrf att aa» ;«r 
services, all Vfeat BMfflhl «T# afc'»l« ana attJffaaidat fiuaAa i*» the 

accounts froas whisk rol&t©r*« salary *ay b*> aa&d sol feaai aaaa* 
amount ti aft still available for this purpose. I&e petitioa s*te 
forth the $$&& county appropriation bill for the i,'Ur*inc I tPfiat 
Division if *S? - gfltl Merest Inatifcutloss. * fh# I1»f TEE art at li t 
*r<? aafi for aaHi pa#tlftdMMir ftaUNl r ?f MUNMNli fcagy *«re Hsmtinl 
and not in & lump tc». 9m appropriation for **t tend 1*14 JUtatlt 
I. IV* (Irresponsible fa*$| are distinct ms4 separate aweunts frotr. 

appropriations for ©the*" ©lasses of nun?®©. Ddifiailiaalt' answer 

denize that t&ar* la any surplus amount ta the account "for Attend- 
ing -Nurses, JL. f,* an^l ilUlItH Nukt eaten aatlajaji for on ivtiaallai 
auree .1. #. for which »tt n;--*roj>riatlon Jaal IHMB wade HI fill** "and 
th* salnry paid to each incumbent respectively.* iher* may be a sur> 
plue In seme of the amounts aprJroprlatod for »ta\tV claB*>«« of oorvioa, 
but ihio 1* not is.portwit, M a surplaa in ifaav aocoaato in not 
*Tail,-.blo for fho *>*>•» w.t if MM 'Ataai tia| fatM i tl K«W«" who eai» 
IWffaH/ bo paid only ox»t al HM laaaifia appropriation* for th#lr 
•al*ri*;». Helator** d«asurr«r adwita thio. 

Steals. ■•*. r»l. AioHomiigll v. ^xto ctpgon. 3ls ;ix. i„, citol 
by HM rol^tor, raatatos ta« latl U<at N^Miat of the eaiary of an 
officer to a 3* fftgtf , ofMear conotitutoa a fc'tr to au - ' action by tha 



■ 
a 



• 









q mi . 












a if wk 



i 1* 

■ 

■ 

... 









3 



&£ JUUH •**'*••* ft* *M »*lar;y t knit fttt&tt t-at r» *3Ecej>tioia ©M,?iin» 
*Wh«r# the relator 1« illegally removed fiNM Hi* ofi'laa wirt the 
salary ha* been paid to another r><*moii illegally i$|MNla%*4 in his 
stead,* There are no fwiti la t&e inetaiit ea*« t'l-u*. i«& it within 
thie exception. Sftfcf petition aao*» that th« relator «&s at«#nt 
fro* service on hfrtettB t of pnyeiaal .lieability, ifetci&g wfeitife ||M 
ahe received disability oays&ents frost the Co#k vouwty Sssmleye?*- 
Annuity and £ftt«f&$ .Aind, She was, IMflftfii net ill -sgally re- 
juewed freas off let and there it n«r, showing that the ineuitfeent wa» 
illegally appointed, is her et^ad. 

Beiator esys that, In iR|F WHMU >?he is? em i tied ttj ao®* 
pens«itien for the oeriod between June £7, afttft* ft&£ #»*• of the 
fMpteat order reinstating her, *A& July £1, I#fS8 a tsfom Hfc* was re- 
stored to duty, tinder the authority of Fgo^ft, , gj| „ jr el . | g*)ann gj^ _t . 
^fi£532(WJi£M§t relator was entitled to be paid Ms* salary J'or 
this eeriod. i)etfer»««wts argue ftgMUMt HUUl because th« petition 
4o*» not shew that relator was residy, wiliini; imi afea-ft to discharge 
the duties if Her ooaltion. It It sufficient ta say that the reia- 
tor by her petition was Ae&anding: payment for & ptftti up to and bs* 
eluding July ftlst, MN the answer asserts no d^t>nr*e to the claia 
for pa.yji.atJt for the period between IWN ffifti mi July £lat. 

tff hold that the deaiurrer to itfextfttfita 1 »fco»f? amended 
answer should have been overruled. The ^udl^wt awarding the writ 
it therefore reversed and the cmi»» is r ■ ? for further proceed- 

ings consie%ert wtth what we hwt eaid in thie opinion. 

kivskokd Aii nm, 

Match^tt, r. J., and G'CaflMMPf - T . » concur. 






■ 



■ 



■ 

1 Hi 



3? Ml 

v&xx<Mj& 9&sm a i.' ■ if east***, 

&•? oxidant in '-;.rror, 



ssask jms., Jr., 

Plaint* tT in lirrvr. 





0? @ne«p. 



27 3 I.A. 621 1 

V», JUCIZG* M«&*m*XY DSLIVXl&D ZHft &&$$i ©if THE COURT. 

i;«f«nda»t aalca for the r«v#r»»l of * $tMtgftMtt a&^inat his* 
acd that the ja gjtfli M JlidyLM&SyLsSilaS fe * qu&*h#d. 

A au^mona if»8 duly tis8?uod out of th« ^htuiolp*! o^art wnioh 
v»s duly sorved upon dsfondarat, e©ste*ttditt& «ii« ta ap yfif and dofond 
» auit i« tro"V*r. Flakniiff *• statos&oiit •£ «&*$Hi ft&ipMf ti»at the 
dofGr.dsufist had unlawfully, wilfully m& »aiicieualy &0Sfti*$4ft| Mtti 
iitpwi of an ftutewobil* to hl« own u»e wit*? $&f lt>.i«t»t te laffml 
and eh ©at tho plaintiff, and had B»alicioto»ly f»ll«,;d and reft? sod to 
4#11y#t tho automat 11 • to plaintiff; -alao, with oinail&r *tll«?g»tiono 
h* wao charge vitfe oonvsfrfcing another miHiwiilltTit b»t l Wi&faRf to 
plaintiff j Imigil woro alleged at §10f&«#$* MMi the eaaa *&i 
caiiert for trial defendant failod to apuear and dafault was ent*rod 
agnin»t Li* for want of hie apaoar&noo; cue court thereupon u »ard 
evidence and a«BP»x«d plaint iff * « iftMkgftt at ^1074. 6 d. 

Inis jari.vr..«nt was baaed §■ an action in tort ad plaintiff 
«ao entitled to the issuance of a flUJJHJ &£ B»tiafa«londu» o*> MM 
jttd*?r.ent. Ctfiap. 77, seo. 5, Cahlll't lllii.ola *>t*tut*a. Atopic v . 
»**«»?. »8e lil. »41; yiold fr, Co, v. *>ee4. 269 111. ft5d; l-cyy ,»• 
gahikowakl . 7S9 111. ftpp, 447; jfoti v. Pe or.lf . 2W 111. app. 2ft-. 

Mtf^n^ant MPS**! tnat p)U Ultitff v»» not tMiilftd to a eapl >t 
beeauae the Jul&aient order III cot r*«it* th*t dofrudnnt tailicicualy 
conv«rt«t« bho proptrty. iha d«f ftul I of l.m d«f-^d»irtt >»dnltt«*d tho 
olnkrgao of willul ajrid iaaliciou'9 c<.>nv*r«io» of tu« property of 



*\ 



s\ 



d **. 












I i 

**»»« fnam •#!»■•■ 



• A 



IMMt * 



. 



■ 



8 

plaintiff. k doi'&ult admito «r«ry a«t racial ss«$ 1 888888 88118 stat*- 
a;eat of facto ic the iffttiwttWt of cis.ii*, s&d it is anaegOiSSAry to 
wtato iu too ju&*?»otJi erdor ■&$ of th# prosodUs-*-:, ?86t8 sr the 8*8*88 
el th« action, whether eg j^ifljlft a* M c oivtraotu.. . Vrmwum o& •?ud» : - 
®oat», 1938 Edition, vol. X, pa*, tl; &6&pM V* W** q> l$$ Hi, a**, 

fll«4 in mi? aoart y«bruary Si. 1833} 8tt«$« If, 8888* #88, 
e»hlii*« Illinois §8ft8?it88, 18.11. 

Mcroovor, th# $tt<»ntioi'« of wh«ia«r or not isalic* ie ;h# giot 

of the action bee<»<*® ffi&torial only I&88 tiie $88#m*H 48fc$8S 8*8 
boon taksn into custody under a writ 8f ££&« S** 4 gtiM *$&*§ SgpjpUl*** 
tion undor the Xntoi-vont y«otor*« ***si for *lfl &i$o&&l'jga %u tho 
County court, it *aa **?>r*ealy ao doeioe£ Xii ^3M^M^A,^^Ji^iSSM^JLt 
239 Xii, Jtp»# 84&t lioo aloe, i',«S^£..Xs^Ji : li•^i!£A w ^M^S , . ^SLJSLMMSS,* 
264 1X1. a#o. 3?g; |jjgfiEJSE&, .-.^S*llutO^Sltij^^MaXi» 4*?» 

ia WJJ...fT ■l til<B **^TAn.iffltl»i» *** %*»** *- ft*!**?,* ff«8J> 
it t&i aX«e hoi 4 tiiat t*«88 *»• no aoooooily for sts^Xytng *o tho 
court rcr r*n or^er to i*ou# iao writ, feat teat it plaintiff, {3*>yin£ 
88*988*84 * J*48JMWil in tort, is entitlod to have t*a 88*8 ufcen 
ro<iu*#i to the elork of the <s«»urt. 

Counsel for 4*?«*<t8#t it i« 88*88 In 8t*%i*g that it i» the 
orsctieo in the courts to 8J888 4*888)88 8* 98 8 8 84 by ft .1«ry, 8*88*88 
a defaulted (tif08488t being ft* ft**! $&»ts not **.<vive bit Vi|0M to 8 
Jury trial in tort caaot. It w*o 1884884 88 888 contrary !■ *'ftvlieh 

?. ,SfI,*<H<&. 311 111. 149. 

48 tht reoord before u» 48*9 not er>nr.ain tho e-ri.i*t>ee hoard 
upon u.c triid., we *iil pr«.aoto« tu; it »a« R«IYi«l«Bt tc fu;,ort tn« 
fLn-liE«; and ju^»p<ax»t. JEf^ y. Lai— 14. 3!X1 XXX. <iy . I#9| •fi.lifJL-I* 

iiljtftjl, IX 3 ill. 113. 

i§9 tho r*a»ou9 iaAiaMtd llM I I r ' I3M 88d8ltl98i court 

ic affiraeU 

^%tOh*tt. 8, J.. afirf o«Cm.nar. J., concur. 



. 









. 

.. <h 












37035 r-* 

H. A. liaeTAVlSa and «UiS. $« A. 
iUelAVISH, hie Wife, 

Appellee*. 




Ai ! F;.AL /HO 



! ?»j? tax capo 




iSIPAi 



Z- 



27 E.A. 621 

mr. ju3ti« i«$ra£$ MUKfMi tm wrmm ®b ra ccukt. 

Is an act lor; of r^plrviis the 'eailiff £&&3{ ffcasa the de- 
fendant* csrt&itt neueefcel*?. fyxrJnxre bsM £ej&iY«**d $&* em* tu 
the plaintiff; the o&us* w«,a tried by i .fury, fiadlsg the right of 
property la the defend.ar't's ss-sd jii^^ieat was acocrrUn-.'j.v stottfred, 
f|NH *hiah f?l*L*ttiff appeals. 

F&ft3lMtfJ¥ lufcft&t it* ©&S&H 9$ rijfht U t«ta t&# pransrty 
KpsjBl tee '.f?o*i<s£iti«nal &al« eo»traet#* *&* t«$#fl te*$»*f S$ ( 3£ft$, 
and alle$«d to be SifHt*j£ by clef S£4#K$ I : * A. JK&e'i'avish, tin* other 
dat«& l>eei»b&r 9, l$S&a alletf^d to fee g§S«£gMNI by tlftt SA«4«f*aMtanA| 
tan, H. a. Mae'i&vish; these contractu recite tan i«4« "by pi sir tiff 
to defend«ot» of the furr.ltur* t*JMN UMbtt Ute writ, fdtn tit* r&j0Kt 
ts r«e*Yfr.r the property if the Kanthly inetalXfienta en the puroh*** 
price w«*~ n*3t pei.1 ft® stated. 'Plaintiff offered. **id.enee ten -sing 
to «h.©w that tne def -ndai.te, respectively, signed ti'i«»« ;?o currents. 

Both defendants categorically denied that theji had signed 
thee** iijimUJiti or that the signatures thereon wore their signa- 
ture*; they adfcit that th*?re is stili 'Hie a balance of aooroxiwately. 
UN oc tine furniture. Def endantj? say that while they fl«t«r signed 
these contracts they did sign. Jointly, • chattel mortgage. I'o sup- 
port this defendant* introduced Ui evidence an recount took >:iv*n 
them by plaintiff at the time of the* transaction. Ineid* the ©nver 
of this book is the following: 

"Notice. 
The following goods are secured by chattel fcortgage. All persons 
reaevlng goods a;ort,aged to husnak fcro*. wi tnout p^r. i s* ion frosi 



I 






ii m 



m 






. 



■ 



*•'■ 









■ 

. «•: 
fc- J 



■ 

ti 

■ . 

■ 



■ 









scot*. a ■■'■t-« I 

■ 






|b« ofTlety "•111 Ml |KT«»MMi*t#d U t*..*» full ftst&fct of th* lw* «jnd 
such »orti f ,a^« will be foreclosed at once. 

Rvbftncdi Brothers, * 

&r. yaoTavisb ri.iB.-y %$#tS,Tt#& that itMR* l&M thereafter he 

waa iteked by i»r. Jolink, credit t ma* g*r of plaintiff, ft© H&l at 

lt» off lea 0|4 he «»« there aaked to ®ign •* nr» 8&»tt4& Ete-rtgftg*." 
la,* JNtaMtt $i*£M ill th'i.t the gtsptajF had" changed twm & '-rirtner- 
•kip lata a corporation, delink did not testify, ee there tfiM ho 
denial of ■&&!© sofiv*f«fcicn. 

Alain tiff co&£»lain« gut* she fcrlflA ftfcttfH Sid not ?*r:ait It 
to exol&in ho"w the account took describing feka g$ &&* as secured by 
oh<*lt*l &io:rtg&ge V&jg g£?$B to iefsr.-^ts &t the lim*. the record 
*ee« not show Ha? |rtf«$HMr tfatatioE on thi* point. 4 witne«» for 
plaintiff «$# &8k<HS wh«th<»r he ®m&4 "oxplato timt book shoeing- 
here chattel &&&?£&$$$< * 59b* wttttvuft »&* k&&$W4MI %H testify that 
he saw owe of plaintiff 1 * <seploy«ev» &&C2.43 Use b©o«: to d.afsn -Santa, 
and attested & partial ^pianist £«*»• Stefi Wfti no ofi>r to explain 
why th* book characterized the t ran .$?v £%£<<*- ■■<- ft gifon ctcl oeri^figa, 

siitv-ou^a in plaintiff '« brief Vom attorney <■<% *,%*>* &&t He c^uia 
have shown, that this particular type ©1 b#ok was fciveii to defend 
ante by mistake. liven if eu&h evidenc* hatJt toMN llUlTitlKHi it 
w ul«S hardly have litpreeeed the ftfeSg » for the took sh©*# »o»e 
twenty-elx agpptftttti entered by plaintiff at difi Brent tiroee Ml 
each of th<»*e tiiae* Plaintiff aust have »*»*»r, that the book w aB a 
"chattel mortgage" book. Plointiff eought in rebuttal to nrove 
by m alleged hanflvriti&g expert the ^•riulneneee oJ' the »igr»a* 
turae on the conditional eale contract*. 

ilie Jury had the oooertunity of obaenrinsi: the nttn«we«»e and 
nuet hare been in}pr«*R«d by the positive utatewente of the <tef«nd- 
anta that they h ti not Ai^ned tn*ee contract*. It woul'l be diffi- 
cult for a reviewing court to *ay th*t the verdict MM nanil'eatly 
against tn* greater weight of the ev^.der.ce, »ltiicugti Bitting a* 



. 












b 









11 I 






■ 

■ 

ft»n«*Hfaii n»»rf »r«H j«j«b 
[«rU tatii tin* 

. -, . 



jurors we rai^it hm-va been of ■ contrary opinion. 

The record » however, fthiVf another natter which i» co&elu- 
•i*e upon t.iia court. '-h« Jury returnod a *&®ct-dl variiet finding 
that th<» conditional M&e contract* were not- »i£j8#6 fey IBM 1<»f>nd- 
antr. &o mention ©f the «peaial f indingewatt *tae> upon the motion 
for » nev trial. Si motion fas »a4e to set th«sa asstd* and they MNI 
gtt i*«nii <•>&<?.! in the **«!*: rotten to of error In this court. It haa 
Mt» repenteSly hel* that under such cirtfuau'tascee this oourt is 
conclusively fct&tiftd "by SU«3l special flikdtiitg of f&et. ^fca&ejli. 
K£ ahhf*rst t M4 111. 6fM», MM ftfltiHHl oite» in- Hftst opinion. 

ix^aLJ* jyye&&<^^ t *** m. «$*• i. 

The only ^u«snion inr aired VijUl **heih«r 3efyi;d»nta si^tiod 
tS».* ftsle '.tiUfi?rtatM , and ;a« the s|j#oiial fin- tings of i\*ct estaoiiah 
flUlt tfcsy did not, tfe* jjud'^ent of tha -..rial <3'»urt wuat of necessity 
be affimed. 

aftiam, 

wtftciiett, :•. J., Gift 1 v 'Censor, J. » i"]?h;*i*, 



^u. ao*» •▼ia 

aaijoj f»iu M6 aawag... tall c© aoimaat off .*<*nj? 

.Isltt *c*ft « to** 
• ait $1 
at ixu&n aaatt • - 



**i*aaaau I 



... 









. 






. 



37033 

V 9 . 



Apr: *!!*♦, 




. *TR QOtdPAKTi * Corporation, 

Appellant. 



. .. m 



*T, I , 




2 : < - A. 621 

»$, mttip K*sm&f MUfiHi m ipssssi e i mr&, 

risifitlff brought suit t# r?*tt&v#r ernnpwiwtion for Injuries 
roeolvftd itkfli n iiJMMWff** 1 is n« K£ltsi&&feil.i wis ion ffitti struck In the 
r«*#r fcy. a ftlliwiKg truoJe i*BR*l aft! tf»f*lMMl *$ i*tf«*$«i» 'J©©© 
trial «fc# ^a*1 ft r*»rd.ict tfp* |f$$$ 4 fif Wtlliil) M i$0&mt Wm stared. 
The i*f*»£eart &$$««&&« 

It 1 1! v-r^t'^ that p-'-.tetlff failed tfj oro** tlMfct fche «itt in 
the exorcism of ordi I r-ry a«f« ftv MP own tt&fftffcir, Kiwi HuHfe 2efs*jid«nt 
wok not g&llty of iftf n^li /«*»$* essuslnr the i&ii&fft*. 

Ab$ut nine- §*«|*4k t» IM MNWlltg «jf §ov«s*b*r 3,'/, lilt, 
rleln Uff ^ar is ■ T- nTt J B»i»i ^7 ».iit?--abil# fros Sfc&tafB t* A»r*r», 
I}H*<olft, to attend » Ifttiflttg ©f * l«Ai.ti' 4 elvbj Hftflgp mi jToing 
w*Bt'*»ard en rout.* 1?% % 3tate ■lif.hWftjr, ft* tftETO* ifttoJttfctlM running 
tBMi.11 f-latntlff rum $r> the bs.sk .sw&i of t&* IfeJtat 19 Ir.rt out owe* 
biXe (v* «J\ikl5 lUHNMiflM' iiWtgftfttll V'ile Mg ol^inttff** ««ur. ) it 
**a i darv ni«;ht, cfctlly, *ith MUM flurri**, b-.it the n-fcrRj«*nt *m» 
'fry. 

. rute 18 lit thf' :>JI?a©* ol Hm —Mini i» ft four Jane drive 
*\>r:it 40 fail in -width. !i©fond»*nt 's true* «♦<*.« a MMPjft on* with 
olx ^MMklLS, Itf f|. Ml loaded, g«iftf «#S|VaHU About a wil« or a 
■ Up nM n n«lf «««t iff -^*r* t<» Motion* B««unnN »l«lji%i/f*a 
■Wlf jUtli. -it i lf«*4 if fraa : 4 ort,y to forty- fi*« «ll«o %xi hour, 
H*«i onnood 4of«ndirf '• IffUftfi >lftfl «'« , ! , ' . 

M the *ittt ?r<? b l i « n«xfc «h«M of >1 l - »»<J t«« 

▼ lllaf# of Llal« it» loft front whool b«oo»»o not «»ad bo^oo to 
throw iff oparlco and amoico; ito driror brou^ut It l> a otop on tho 



, 









' 



I 






- 



■ 

' ■ 
urn <t»t» * • •«» bom • *"**<» 11 • »c 









ri^-.i. n>vl or Mitt trafi'ie Xune nut ta the outer c^rb; plaintiff's 
car ap p HI Mtead 1 s.hi« ste&diag oar ml either •lavad' de*» or ■'t#f»ttMt« 

Although $MHMI ie eoae ttVgtittfftt ta t&a liaim^i Ufc* cviddst** ^oc» 
fl&iiYtXy S&§vri Qfcat Hit tall li&ht on plaintiff* car w«» &«tt burn- 
ing and had »2© t "bfifiti burtri/"fc ffcff ee»e tia&e. At thie iaeisnt, at 
thie paint, tvt mtweal ii«» aaw Itawva-liag waafcwi&srtl wita Vri fe :it 

lig.bta; ;I*f wndiun's driver h&d dissmed his froaw&tgteta Ml up pMHMl 
MMNM easlfctund avitoRMjoilee; he .first taw -iw.ti if >© car nam k* 
was mtttt twenty-rive fe«t fTttn it; fat $&if liflrit ta nu g«4&g f**** 
twenty to iwis^-.i'ivi s*U *?© sua hoar; fe« put on MM brakes and 
swerved to ui* left, bat hi* ri^ut front winwl ana $&*$«# bit the 
lef'i. rear mimKf ftf t»iaintiff 'a £<yrj iua !»$&*$ broke the spindle 
halt ȣ the true!, itajtafe rci*j>**ae4 the brakes and it titem made a 
circle la the highway to th<e left, arsund £aa (§#00114 mteftaa&i*j 
pimmi plaintiff 'a car; then toath plaintiff *b car md ta,* truck 
turned to the ri&at and both raw off the read into a field era the 
ocrta ei&e ©f Wie read. Ca each stdts a£ ta*. airway wat m. earth 
shoulder nine feet in width on a level aith tae paved ni^hway. BM 
accident IbBfpaaal in the country; tne only toiAAmg in the vicinity 
wee a gas station ee the aeuth aide if toe Kligteaagr* '<■■ lain tiff vat 
taken to tne office of a doctor in Ma&OffXkk*, *h© dr**«ed the 
bruises en h«r legs; tae party mm »receeded *4tB i-l*.»ir.tiff to 
Aurora where the club seating was naid; taey ytaaiaat HHiH until 
•lewcn-tnlrty or twelve o'clock p. ». , when .plaintiff return*** to 
Chicago in another *ut« mobile. 

Whetnsr or net plaintiff, under la* uliaMaetmiil. e*a in 
the cxerolss of ordinary care lor n«r ©wn *»f«ty just pwfure tnc 
accilent wa» a question to be Aet#rmlned by the jury, ihc was 
riding ae e g.iect la td# rear eeav 01 tne aut<^*.ofil«, »*ud it would 
ee diiJicalt to cay what she coulf ■ »»e done Uiat would have pv^ 
vwnted the colli eion. 



bmt 






■i 



■••' [;>" :; 



| <• MM 

ft* 






I 

Bafore the plaintiff oafi reoovar aha a&uot prove by tha 
rreatsr Wfigjtet of ttW tvMUNKM Ufegt defsmdant *ae pU&ty of Ihe 

■tgliiMf ?hftr«e»d. g&ia&fflEJEe. #*&&SS&t -$ s n: *. ■ I •• c » *• »«1* 
that pla.lr.tlff til rot |»t«#f«f^llf KINll thia rwp tjrtflMmi* /lain- 
Uff'» ajtto/obUa >?«* wlt&fc&t a 1*11 light su:i >-*(! *U -:,;&& ** flowed 
u? on the felgfeftg$ IttVfdJ *t«ty 1« frDBt of l&f«t last** track; &c 
weriilssg wa* gfWM <ltf«sfcdant of It* ^retsnt©; ita i&rfc color, together 
with the fcri ,£htn®»e ©f th* pscsism «*iott* < feil#$ l m&&4 ii .'u*"ie;juU 
tft9 o»« *ps>r*>»«M«g fraa? $&« r*»» to *a* It fta? aftf gTtt&t d.iata^oa 
aitead. A» soon a® the trues driver «8.w the $&$,€ . .obila l«i faint of 
fete* "Shan about twenty- f If* feat a^&y, he did all fch.at yjuli b« 
exoeoted 14 avoid nltt.lng it, 

: :! lfUntlff «r&!3«» t'sat i*$ g&dta&$ ? ss driver H&oftld have *««n 
Hurt tiM ©$$otsd au'io-eMli, it frytfit »£ plaintiff 'a, w»# on fira, 
"here in **o evilunae th%% thin automobile *$t§ uk fl#«t] &&§ IdHfctal 
b*nd oa th« left front whael feUfel iMNMMfei Sauted gftd w ; i«4 tiiruwing- oJBT 
sparka and a gSWKt assount of jHtllfll. Several of pl-u^sitit'i' *» via* 
nes*e» t**etlfied $&4tt there WM Ha j&ttti* fill then*© r* , the ooou- 
pante of that Mltoifltllll were striding iJkfSfcl Hui iMMfc&tte 1 wh«*l,, 
thu* hiding the *parit» »»d IMtftt froa* vi«w of the truck driver. 

the statttte INMfll&tfel plaintiff *e aar t» h*v« a li^Ud red 
tall light, vbap. CSa, aee. la (a) Kahili) 1931. the statute A« 
prohibits the driver of a vehicle s-tonplng e» a stata highway axecpt 
In o'aos ef aa.argaooy. Chap. 121, pur». li>l {•!), (Ualtllli 1931. 
Dafendant had the rl^ut to aa«iu»a tlMat tit a 4rlv«ra of otUtr T«niolo« 
on the hi^haray MRU otay thono r«<iuir«^cnt«. r. ld<Ua t. itaaaa ^ar. 
284 111. App. ea; MmUUicT. AI»3ol. 215 111. Ap,;. 152. 

Undor eo»#w:;at *i&il jjr §i)N iMttaAMM tha owner of a i'ol owing 
auto oblla which hu»oed Into on« 1.. i'roiit htM roooverod dat»icao fra« 
tha owner or tha front automobile, harnotabla v. CalBtndjp . 7, 111. 
App. 67; Mayor ▼. Vattithan'a ae<>4 U tora. 342 ill. Apu. 30a. »o hold 






. 






< 









■■ Si . 












.. 






that tho verdict tl&&SM4 defendant guilty of negli^enee Is XMwrjifeatly 

*NS&'bist thi greater weight if th« evidence. 

/*l»e, certain crrore upon the trial require ft rover eel MmI 
rem vastest. Plaintiff failed to &rov# *»ny causal c?jrajseti«n be* 
t*«ei> the 31 exilities- of which -she »e®yl*ixiu mi4 the in <uri «» 
reesivod in tk« %eelde»t, Ttil® mm tai&ii to fctio attention of 
plaintiff *» eoujfii«»i who pXtiiKtlMNl &$ &.&ke Hug $***«# ct 106 %wf failed 
$■ ftg so. -ho banian of gnr$«f is §n the el&intiff $$ *?e.t&bliah i 
6«**«oJ. eo&&«otleji fe<*tw«an the alleged tit . ury a*t$ l&£ *Urs*H;lity 
Qiaiwed. gaj^fcayy Mftft rfr* ^ v. E^dteitg lffl &H6p i.o%l,fm. $41 £U« £38. 
RMtiSftji wsye KnAi to cir.ike out the teefc v:\ony if -mjiintlff*?. ohyei* 
gi&n a«* Is certain disabilities which he foitntt -tip-on his #;s^-,l,j5.&ti&n, 
m t' f je grraufc€ th«kt thlc o&useA ©e*Ms«otiett h&4 ®ofc %##w PSWNMH* *he*e 
lions to «ftr'i>:« oheul4 have fe#« &i lowed-. 

itoe proper forte ©f ^r* ln$s»rog-i.i«:»i*y to $ p&y*i©i.si! ai to 
the gmWiWljW»(fty of a plaintiff 'a condition is to &%fgttiti whether a* 
MMI »a opi^ior*, eased upon » reaeon&ble U nfit of certainty. 

wes^lgaet i» ftjli of the instructions s atte8 %t ta* rea.u^»t 
of ul&lntiff. In«trwati3S So. 1, wfeich is r&tuer liftgtfef, told the 
jyry they i&sld iReluJt s?s fla«M.3?e# •»«& suuse bo were H^flftilNS for 
ii HtW fcill* MM ae-dletne. withe-at lte!ti»e those gaywiiiJ N tnoeo 
M «#<• ew.rily i a our red Mf9 Mi to the reae ons'fc-le v*l*e if the medical 
eervicee, Stiff* ie no evidence tl th<* record »i to ho* #uo)^ plein- 
lltt *Trwi&*4 fer r«*/!ielfte. The tfttftometieji ei*o tal I HUI J^ry 
t^^y ii«il ^»ti««tte ^ftKairee, h«i! ape^ the ▼«.!«• ©f 'intJi'f •• 
tiei during th» r>erie4 »he **• iH»ehle<l, 'itoe ret-n .^1 ,. f^.ni no 
«tU«ico *e li Mm relue of her time. The rjme? urlticlwc coil* b« 
*»4e of the instruction «s to ol*tr>tiff , » "powre to MMH money.* 
There !« no cYl<ieno* a* to tnie. "ftxe in it ruction al»o improperly 
told the Jury tliat i\ oould *rewerd* trie plilntiff. Bmm&m are for 
eompena&tloa for injurl^a r«-oei>ed rmd not a reword. 





















••!.» 



0« »1 " 



.Utij y.tiut •tU 



. 



Plain tiff's given instruction $9* 9 w%« nianftfcotly errone- 
ous, A« submitted it was in two paragraphs. 3B»* first one 1* as 

folio**: 

*Th# Jury iff* instract^d, »e a R*H*X of %m % that the plaintiff 
Wtti tiie "trtver if the automobile 1b which ehe -*as fitting, hstd a 
i^rf^ct ri&ht, while in the sserelaa of erdinrgry cere for thslr 
e«» safety, to the nee W&d travel upon the highway wkere the se- 
al fl ea | hap p en ed . • 

fh# eeoead paragraph r$ad«: 

•If yea b«li«ve> that the highway was divided intu lories, H&4 thai 
the automobile in w&leh plaintiff was so rising was it; the cuter 
lane aJ&d there wa« sufficient apace for defendant *$ track to f&sa 
©a the inner lane MR4 its failure If da so was the pr0.xte.at® cause 
of th® collision which resulted 1st th*? lssjary aorsp.I &l&ftd of, then 
plaintiff has a*ade out her case a&*». .ast NUB &efsn4«ant asd yea 
should MB find. * 

The trial court, evidently re-#es;nisi«4: the impropriety of 

the neeead paragraph, drew a narrow line fros th«s ur^sr i*fl hand 

of the paragraph to the lower fi&itt n.*nd ©lotj ahe^. ttmj retired 

the Jury |$P& with them the instruction in this e^noition, 21* c 

entire paragraph could he easily read fey the ^ty, th® first 

paragraph Is a aero abstract et&teeient calculated to salalfeisd the 

i«»y. teaBHaLX»dMm&JBM*J&** 32» **** «**• '**»• proper MttH 

of striking eat the second p&ra# ,ra*h of the instruction *as fl#MM 
to have the instruction rewritten or the part stricken out com lettljp 
obliterated so that the Jury eauld not read it. IjjjgMt JU fciJMU 
S3t 111. 480 j %.,£. BatoLflftaJEj ftMJMBBtti •• &*« *»»• •*•* 

Plaintiff's given instruction Jso. I can be criticised as 
Instructing the Jury to find fro* the "weight" of the evidence in- 
stead of the -greater WHtflMj *•* to take iota eoneideraticn "puin 
and suffering endured* witnout ref eretsee to trie injury euatoin«d. 
Also, It limits the exercise of reasonable care on tne part of 
plaintiff to the tine of receiving the injuries in&tead of the 
tine of, and ia»edlat«ly prior to, the collision. Mlilana v. 
tHjBMU 256 111. App. 425. 






■ • 

i 
■ 

i 

■ 

... 

1 

. 



Plaintiff* given instruction *«o. 4 Is unintelligible, 
instructions should be sn clear ml ;<l&in as to b« r »%dlly un^«?r- 
stood by a Jury. 3Zfcjfl& ?. vlty of BJ&SMUh ^' >A lll « **$• 

Plaintiff * given IcstraetlffB Iff* B i© alto c<*ftfu»ing. It 

instructed a verdict for plaintiff if the Jury believed "that a 
reasonable) person in the poeitten of the driver at the tins of such 
negligent a«i soul 4 huve foreseen.* It is not what a driver "could' 
have foreseen, tout what he would have f&rtmm La Ihff exereiite of 
erdir.^ry oar*. The negH&eaat act flats, t N fsuoh as an tffjtftffrtljr 
prudent oereon tttg&t to have foreeessa might oeear a* the result 
of Ifeft Begli,~e»e«. UUnp.1* Central. .*toUrqa4 B& v. Oswald. M 

ni. 870; jgy^j^ &mmm&$k w&&&mMp * •** m. 3»». in 

Ford , v. . .^iae , Jrot, feo .. . $37 III. 4S3, the giving of a similar 
instruction *a» fi#ld to tee not reversible error, although X\ was 
criticised. 

J?ffr the reasons above indioat«?A , UMI fltiglifHt is reversed 
end the cause remanded, for anetnsr trial. 

ininimi w wriwBt 

Matchett, f, J., »nd O'Connor, J, # oonour. 















- 






' - 




■ . :- •' ' 



- 



« ~ '■; : ■■ 



3704? 

vXRQIfcXA XriOkPSOB, a ilnor, by 
her &ext Friend, JAEKC TBmPWS, 

Appellee, 

JG&EPH OUARAtfaUANO and 3S19tiHSGl 
ICK QOftPAST, a Corporation, 

Appeii*mt«. 



7 



*»•* 



/ 



On Appeal of JK«mS30M 101? S0&.PAK*, 
a Corporation, 

Appellant. 




) Aftsuft m» wpaapR 
sm$ @f cool, county. 



I.A. 621 



MR. JUaiXU* BttuVKbY SgUVSTOT THS OPINIO*: ©I T;Is COUH'i. 



©n the after: oon of June 3§ , 1931, s&*4jM££f, then eleven 
years ©Id, while upon the pre»'tt»e» of the Jefferson lee Company 
was ©truck and injured by a truck o oersted oy Joseph (Juaranguone; 
she "brought auit to recover damages, and upon trial the jury found 
Guarantiuano not guilty and defendant Jefferson Ice Conp^y guilty 
and* asaesaed. the, degree at |79O0» Xtefendant lee eosap^osy appeal* 
froas the judigatent on the- verdict. 

Defendant operated i station for the distribution of ice 
to lte customers on the eeuth aide of W%fe«5eia avenue in Chicago; 
there was an enclosure opening north onto W&feanaia about fifty-four 
feet long from east to west and thirty-five feet fro® north to 
•outh; tha aouth part waa a loading platform ten feet wide, leaving 
a apaee of about twenty-five feet for trucks and customers; the 
enoloaure had a ce»uent floor running out to the sidewalk and wae 
roofed over; at the east end of the ol&tfora- vao an office, reached 
by ■«veral steps leading up froru the oldewalk; large pieces of ice 
were brought onto the platform by insane of a cog chain which oulled 
them out to the ice cutter wuicn was about MM center of the plat- 
form, where the pieoee were cut up into the required eiree by the 
lee eutter. It waa tha custom for trueka to back into thia en- 
closure up to the platform to reeaive ice. Ihe evilenoe alao tends 



• 












&M>qp 1 I I 



. 



KM 






I 



?>«««**•* iMttt 



" 

t«w bM« MJjb - <0? « f»#a •^u«oion» 

■•-! ;«vo M I 
•oi 'I* a»o»lf J «q*Jn i«i0r»« \«f 

■ • 

♦ *>iastv ,wio't 

I *>>J-tO * fl .T0ii«» »»i 

B ,0ttl »vj»9M | 0TU8«1» 



to ohow t'.at defendant wietm. --rily aold Ice la chill ran all 
alone $&4fl plaiforr., fSfeia the ice cutter to the wm% end, the 
children fttftfMting on ilti floor level with the trucks. It *»» 
shown that i&ss«y children caise with little t»ag«ns wMftb they 
wouli %&&& u|» ?igrilnst the platform, sttl l*?sawin# thorn there *ouu 
go up the stairs to the office at the east «l and buy tickets, 
return to the platferrs ,-.ind esreh««5.ge the ticket*, for ice. It w<>& 
while plaintiff *»s ^taf.Kl.tng on the floor of this enclosure, 
fffHUift to the w#»t of the center of the plotfor&, that she waa 
struck by a truck ®nd injured. 

.Defendant contact 4* that it w*» tilt oustojs for children 
and pedestrian customers purchasing too to stand wltli&i 3 space 
about ien foot wide next to the *«si wall of this enclosure. 
Plaintiff contends that there was no such apace est off or as- 
aignad to the children or other customers by -my railing or other 
siark; that defendant did not exorcise ordiaary earn* for the safety 
of its cuato»«ra, ant! that n© sufficient supervision was kept over 
the ehil iron to avoid injury fro* backing truck®. 

On the day of the accident, in the it.ftarj*oon ( plain tiff 
oa&e from, the east on $abanaia avenue MMWN defendant's station; 
aha had fifteen cants with which to buy ice, and also a little 
wagon in which to haul it; ahe was ILiiMty antes' by a brother and a 
sister, five ■»! six years of B#t t respectively; ehe was on the 
aorta aide of ffabunsi* and aaw tttitt a large truck with trailer 
attached waa »aneuvering to b ics into Ita **ncloeure # The truck 
was twenty-five feet in length UMI the trailer twenty feet; the 
truck and trailer approached twwm VkM *^ct on Wab&nsia and gulled 
east paet the enclosure, and backed in fron. MM oaet; thus they 
were in a position to obstruct >l*intiff*s approach to MM en- 
closure on the east sloe. She testified that "the trailer waa 
backing in right 4 own there at the ticket office." 

3he went with her small wagon totiurrt the eentsr of the 



I 

■ ■• • ' ' , 

! 

I 

■xi* 



m 






■ 

- ' 









■ 

'to f. , i»i»lc 

•Ms iii-xoa 



platform* which would be^fcpUt opposite the cutter, mA testified 
that she «ri told by someone to wait at that poirit; the drivar of 
the truck and trailer oallad to her to get out of the way. At this 
time thero was another truck standing naxt to the west wall of the 
enclosure: plaintiff, with h«r brother and sister, w silked over to 
this truck and stood th*re watering the truci*. and trailer back In 
east of her; the space in which the children we»r® s tan -.ling wae ten 
or twelve feet wide; at this time the truck driven by Guaranguane 
backed into thifc spaco, moving somewhat diagonally , v*nd naught plain- 
tiff between the southwest corner of hie tiuok and the standing 
truck to the west. 

The .jury could properly believe that there were usually 
a large number of children at this station buying ico; fesUki some 
had wagon o Mt4 that ice was delivered to theaa all aloft*; the loading 
p2 atfOfB, although usually j0|Mr t trie io«B cutter; th*it trucks *nd 
t't.f children occupied the floor space prosaiscuouely. 

Defendant says that no ice wae delivered until the customer 
had procured tickets at the office at the east end of the enclosure, 
ar. d saastr M plaintifi h»& not procured her ticket, it is argued that 
*h< had not -ease to buy ico but had come merely to .>ick up pieces, 
and w»s therefore a treepasaer. *he jury, how#ver, coui:'t properly 
bell ere her testimony tnat sa« newer came to the plant to pick up 
pieces ol' ice but always oausue to buy; tnat she ■ 10,11 s left her 
wagon at the platiom, which could i^ot easily bo taktl up tho 
etalrway to the office, and (.hen she would *o upstairs to the office, 
g*t ggf ticket, end men return tn h«r wagon to *;et tne ico, and 
thnt this was vhat she intended to it at tula cine. xhe truck sad 
trailer, booking in, obstructed her approach to the office and she 
was waiting with h«T little brother and slater until th*»se vehicles 
to the east of n^r cane to a »t and still* 

Plnintiff charged that in conducting its business in this 



tlfti |MI .. ™ Jfamci •/(! 

-■ -. 

ni 3*** •*! '■■&& tfsuil tiff} 

•■.;.;.'-->. . ■•••-VI : • . - ■ .- ■ . • • > ; •• ' " ..>-•> 

•'■riW *9»1 •▼!•*$ t« 

-SM0b - | £X*< 

# H;i - ■:'■• • 

•»ew 

.••o»J " 'en b#*t *rt* 

dv u; oi edusa lor^fl *;%% J- ' C*d 

&KO »V».ri/r 1:d »0 J t« *»9«lQ 

fciW .•£>* MiJ *•» 

•£a r»>v> •:; ' 

, "in*. ft .*» •* •»>, .t*r»» «jf# ef 



Bsaaisr <Jel'*«ii i *x*t failed ;c tf^areiu* ftV&U&Aiy ~aru . - - bhi aaxety of 
ii» ^smBfn, SJIftlM&iAg ui»iluXUii of i,«i* i«r yc^ro, u^ii.^ ii* pireiai- 

aea at defendant 'a invitatieu, w&JUSij i'iu tut? m min mt irt ig i tgl t j tin tt 
of tiuaran^uano in backing hie true*, caused the injury la plaintiff. 
The jury's can cranio*! v»e Vual thie charge Ml pruvejt, m*4 Vt cannot 
•ay tftUfce ifeftl is contrary to Ilia i«unif«st fitilll *<«ignt of the 

»Vi"il.«RO«. 

Del* etidf-Hit gurguea tk**t the negligence charged doe* nothing 
«oro than furniah a condition by which the injury wai ftftfti possible 
through the subsequent independent act of tiMi driver oi i*he truck, 
citing a&ong oinera the familiar ease of ^i th... v . u Uoiff ac.*^ t?»l th, 
Electric Co, . 241 ill. XSS2. in this caee a wire auiargod with elec- 
tricity, belonging to the wQjtsuaonwe&itii *ileetric «cMt.p$«iy t burned, off 
between two polea and uie live *ir« foil to the ground; a. pui,ice 
of floor a truck it with hie olub^ knocking ii. against IkO plain tii l , 
tattniftfi her; the jua^ent for plaintiff was reversed on tne ground 
that the ii«ctric ecsspan.'. could not poaeibly have anticipated that a 
polleesaan would throw the wire upon plaint n'f with hie elub when the 
wire waa lying where no injury ■ 99X4 be *•»« by it. in SuSMlt-X* 
Boaton Store yj[ Chicago , a 265 ill. IS&« the JttAflpMnt for olaintlff *ii 
rev<*raed on the ground that the injurv could not have been antici- 
pated. In Illinois Central hajlrq ad JfcU 3Ei IffllMU **• ***• a7o » 
cited by defendant, the judvjajent for plaintifi waa revereed on tne 
eol* ground of contributory negligence; but in tha? oaee the eourt 
atated taat one of tne essential el-?n- *nt» in actionable n«gli,,enee 
waa, that tne injury roust be the natural and probable rsault of tne 
negligent act "and be of euoft a character as an ordinarily prudent 
peracn ought to have f'oreaeen usight probably occur aa a result of 
the negligence, althouga it 1» not eeaei.tiai that the person charged 
with MgllgflMM snouid have foreseen tae precise injury which wi^ht 
result Irom hi a act." l'o support ihe teienc* uiat the oreation of a 















• 






■ 

Hi 

■ 


















- 
I art* 



.jawtofr .Aft »**'* wim.* 

loa 
DO*«#t 



■ . 
1© i i it 11 

44*la rtoi-v» xiwtoi oai»->*i«j »oj <*moo 

* to noii«»«> • 



' *»« #a»*llBoa 

3 (IO«T»l( 



condition i» not MM proximate twin of an injury occasioned by 
the Put8#Gu«#it independent act of a third party. It «us<t be proven 
that the injury could not hwre been reasonably anticipated M lively 
to result frosa the condition. "Proximate oaust* 1« that whie. natu- 
rally leads to or produces, or contribute* directly to producing a 
result suel> as i&ifeht be expected by a NAMttkll an 4 prudent man as 
likely to directly und naturally follow and flow out of the perlorw- 
&rce or non-performance oi any act,* ifecCIure v «, jjjJSMtflB SflsVJsV* 
3CS 111. 39. Hi* def er-daat n» bound to NstlgifuM* the results 
naturally following' fro® ite failure to e*ercis© ftVitesfy care for 
the safety of its customer*, especially of children. Ill in ois centra} 
L W M t - £b. ■ . Xa» J3A&1 « *^ *H« •§©• Ao»eng ta* esse* tnat euyport the 
preposition tfcftt the te*t Is trh ether fche p%rty gv ,<ilty qj* ftfe* first 
aet nr omi«*io» anight reasonably have anticipated the intervening 
|HM M a natural and probable, consequence of <vi* WW MgligejiM, 
**<* &Sft]jg 8 .▼.» ,, ija'-.jal^e loantj. >.o-*l .^e^.» % ^d4 Ha. 88#| jj tjfjj >. f , [itM 
frroe. Jo. . 237 111. 463; j j e 1 1 ing ,T .. .,g . ,.3. f ,. I ,., * P . . |g . Co, . . S52 111. 

4 do. t, Trefca , 218 111. f.»62 t and many other oases* 

Defendant says that ^avn concurrent negligence oi two de- 
fendant* i» charged tH4 one If aequitvs-.'i Mad Mm otn#r not, Wier* is 
a fatal T?.riance, M MM cUnrge of joint negligence lM8 not been 
proven. Lhla ie not th*j la*. !■ :* v i arson v., ^.yp n * i'-aa ^jf;. *43 ill. 
J70, ulalnilff charged trie concurrent n<&li t ;ene* of Lyon a iiealy 
and of the City of Chicago; thw uity was found not guilty and Lyoa it 
Healy guilty; the sane point no* urged wa* made in MMl •«•«. MM 
eourt ?-i*ld igftlaMt tui* M*VMBti*JB« ■agrfta >t it was unnecessary 

in Tiotlonn of tort against several d*fef:darts to pr-jTe a joint 
liability; t.^t If the guilt of any one is proven » recovery oan be 
had an to puch def'Utlant. In Line villi this are i-ini ui fgi. v. p litea^ 
248 111. 491; ypstal Tel. gfjMM. Co. ▼. Likes . 828 111. *^49; Penning^ 
ton v. Rowley Bros Co., 24i ill. apw. 58; i»reanx*y ▼. iilooain»iton 



! 

-T#*> ©a; *i««r:'r iluvfiT o* 



• 



• 



■ 



But *.U»8»t 
o# y;X* 

.. : tot \tt tmtmM 

■ • - *& 



■ 

lot m 



• Ct»T01f 

. 

; o$*:. 1 t bo* 

v !«•£ 

HMM 

p aI 

- 



». J<.. »_. r C.. . 373 in, rt32. The oaae cited by rtufmiinQt, &lajyttMU 
feftjJEtmj 3B& fe&BZ&aJ&i. 3kuJSBfifclMa» WW £11. A99, Bdf, ■*« HI 

111. V3n. S64, in the reject under eon alteration 1* not in line 

wit.* th« wsitfbt of wathftffltgr* 

)«f ftadttStt tit** a mu&b<«r of aaaaw holding, geeiwnilljr, that 
en iavite** must uee ordinary MM cuetoiuary NUMH&f 01* ingresa »«d 
•gr^n^, for «n implied invitation will not extend bwyond the n*ee«- 
■ary Lines of tr«*l. 33i.lv «*y b* oonoeded »« i general 'rooo*it ion, 
but the Jury in this i*#8 couii orderly i'lnd. gkat children were 
invited |« buy ic*% all ttlw&g th4 olat forts, an 4 es;}*M t l-.:«Iiy froa i;-..t 
p *rt running fro?: Uie i«« eutt^r in tlie (MUStes tv» the east end of 
Ml plfttfftgBU ?h«re It no evidence Vk&% tiie i©e was delivered i'roa 
DM ofi*lc%, or ^-selasivtly Within the ten feet next to the office 
w*ll. The ovi-lcr.ce tfeffffi t&»t there urer© no limitations fixed te 
ttfttrtl or gsi&tt cue toners-, especially children, 

VfetatfeeV or no* ,nl*»lntiff fas guixty ci' contributory n«?gii- 
ftatt ill i'©r the jury fee detameia*, m4 as eaanat ?^ay that their 
WtlmatW In fc&lf r«*«*>*ct w«« agalttat ifea aaigat 01" the evi ience. 
i'..$i.ilLutvtti v. C. ■::: *...!_. gjfc. H..._v,Oj LT 8BU 111* t 142, and away © ^.er 

Def*rid.aJ.t atarplalltf tfeat llMi court ii nrouerly refuted to 
ad:. it certain evidence ttf tt l i on ite fea&alJf. » do noi find «u»y 
prepaf tffav of evidence KTttta m ret*- ■•'** . ih^r« w**<» a Iwm gasa* 
tion HT.1 *t'iifte«nt, covering five oagee cJ" the a^etr&ct, a» ki what 
counsel for defendant y y t a at ae ' la orove. -her* were many objection* 
able tlaaaatt Lfl tit* faaatlsv, aaaa at MM- ruie««d laptaaialHty, 
N ^'uifl'tlly, -.0 .-s'ilntain & private ertrvo^ Ml t ■ • gift, mi vhat 
the servio« of ftUftistaftag ice sit retuil is not part . cwlarly oougnt 
by iee -i«al^re; that thie wuj ioii'r sore ae un MMtanedation to noor 
Veor>ie living in t*ae aei^hboruo.-d, m%$ a great aar.y o'»b«r objc-ction- 
»B1-* eijr>Har Batters, Wh«ra any pirt of evidence offered ie objee- 



.... 
■ ' 

••'Ira? J Aft 

■ 

■ ■ 



il 


















- 

i 

■ ■ ..-.-., .... 

: 






tionable th# wholo must o* oxclutSod, and whoro nay past i« *toi8*ibl# 
It* exclusion tttfl not fco iu«»tion«d ftn3L#tl the offer of thio p^r- 
ticular #Yid.«rice was separately Kna4o. .U»y^ t>ju t, Inft lan. fcBMM 
Drainage i"igt» . 217 111. App. 502; The ?«gp l»- v. XttMME&j M* ***• 
App. 254; S&JBttBllH T. ftlomoKonlflt.r. 179 111. ftpf. 98ft; ItlMflt 

la, jhttittg: JU&ziiJUfcl ja&ma » * 7 & in. *•»« ti jiHwrni Ti Ttnmii 

856 111. 244. Ml find m prejudicial ojrror in th« rulings on the 
•ri^enc* nor in th« instruction© givon or refufced. 

;fc* verdict wae ^axr*ya,te$ py the «*i&#n.c« W.& <M th&re were 
no prejudicial crroro »<?on the trUO. the $wggMMf is affirmed. 

AJFI»iKI>. 

Jfc&tohett, f. J., an<3 O'Connor, J, , concur. 






■ 



. 



■ 



. 



'}**ii 



37056 

Mnm *\ say&s, 

we. 



A9f#ll*«, 



143x61 »4fiaaia kacuiis swtFAaY, 

» Corporation, 

Appellant, 








9» FRDii KUKlCIPftf, C0»*T 
OK CHICAGO. 



ab.. n&nsat utfsmm Mummo vm omios o» t 1 ■■ par, 

Plaintiff, bringing suit for sarwieaa Mi Mi attorney ren* 
dsred def and trot, upon trial by the court had judv-i&eal for ^169.40, 
from which defendant appeals. 

j&ef andant elaisit tiiat plain tiff mm* employed at ft monthly 
•alary which was to cover nil services. Plaintiff says tilt tsont^ly 
•alary waft to cover only suits for the def *mAm% ©n its account* 
receivable in the municipal ©eurt of CM©*®©, and ©a apo^als from 
the Justice of the i?eace courts, and if any other services were 
rendered defendant MfMal pay a fair and reasonable fee for the 
sarae. This suit was to recover for ssrviess rendered in four dif- 
ferent matters, plaintiff claiming that MMtVM fees wer»* jus a in for 

these. Sfct trial court allowed only th« last item. 

in 
T© support its' dofsnsa defendant in trodueajl/evi dance a let- 
ter written by plaintiff ■lllijiil Sllftl llg receipt of JMt*MftmMaV f I lat- 
ter of wsploysaant , in wnioh the MMMt* ly ratainar was stated at 
$175 for services in tiie fcunieip*;! court oi Chicago, and when it 
was ne«es*ary to represent d«i 'andant it; otuer court© plaintiff was 
to receive no additional compenuatian. Plaintiff iutreduoed evi- 
danea showing that the IMIMM of tnis latter ware abandoned by 
agreement of the parties. Plaintiff a darted to work August 1, 
1931, receiving -£175 a month, but by bov ember his pay was reduced 
te $100 a month; later hie **■ increased for awhlls MM than 
door* need. Tba monthly payment seemed to have vacillated eccnrd- 
lng to tfe* wish af *r. Taylor, the precedent oi t « dafandant 






I teXfAX 






— ~ 

■ 
t 

. 

•^>* tcflt 

0.1 Vl*BtOOOO •*» 

■ site. #«« to -*a«fln»«t^je 

mi. »*▼!#•** , iiti 

.i<m* a ooxi •# 

**w *Ht •# SAX 



oompetfsy, Plaintiff's Ywrelon, tuat h« <?&* to r««»i-y« extra eompan- 
saiion fftf extra earYiues raudared, ia aup^crtad b.j fkt t«»tiift©ny 
af ftt« "S&lfcar, Mm *a» the cr#dit Nat e©Ii?eU©« f»iff»igiM §f the 
dafenlant. Mar* talker Hived »l*iatif? or* 4&ti »«•&«. of }3,f| a Kenth, 
plaintiff to reoeive Additional »e*qpd»tat;&*ii feJ mg extra «ork oui- 
«ide of ilia M0&OpM*i« IttUfiaY testified that !«§&** m toi<! af 
this *£re*»ent ,uii *j>prov«vi ©i' it. xae uuu*'t KM 3ueti£fc«4 in fold- 
ing tft.*t plaintiff »*# entitled ?,© xa©«aiv« %i4»^i*us*tieu for extro 
aerri<*efl. 

*he oX&iis for extra services ailo*«d "i>y i>i*? ftNUrt #.** fewaes 
upon 8->rTiofta r«ii4#y«>d in ootti.1 eet ion wiUt a ©rii-ni^al tJMHUfflU ag»inat 
Walker. Walker ©ays Hurt aft U*« dir#et iiastrutsixoi*© af Fay&tff he 
restored m lot ©f JMwilHiLttK gdft&i ?nm a oejriair. pl.-*oe i'©r defendant 
and was arr»atad MM| charged with fc»r«gl&ry for £$&ltg this. i3©»ie©ne 
telephoned ao plaintiff , aa&ing iiisx to hand!* tn© matter. Although 
there ia some arguas#ni as t© tae identity ©f HM r<rrs«n to., ©snoring, 
the court *»§ justified in belie* tag it m& t'j*yi©j»» defvndejnt '• 
president, ia rtiygBI— to taie, pXcinilff n^ao ©ulte *etiv#. He 
auce©ftd«sd in haviwg talker Mat a til IMIBafll of «M>feiida»t who wae aJLao 
wrwated roloasod on bend; he «*^>p «*>•.*. r«d Iff WKll Mad r«? pro a en ted the 
pavti&e upon the trial and *uou©t»ded in tmving tue cix»rr« dlo iased. 
*n attorney teetified that th» re»»©nafcl© fee for auen aerwicoe 
wee #5RO. 

DM oourt round tna terviuee worth ,'.'•• . 1 \:ntiff had ra- 

etirad a ch»ok i'or |X5ft.»9 eovarifig >il-« aonthiy aaiary, *Hloh waa 

aadoraed In full payainct of all r.arvicae, <«nr5 pliklr.tifi had not 

eaahaa it. Xna court tharaupou wuMA if plaintiiT wouli oaea the 

cV.eok, ho would fiivo judiicent lor tho balunoe cf ^i*«.41. appcir«»nlly 
th« ohack wn« •ubo«,;uwitly «;i«Had ^.'1 fvd «j«nt vm nnttrad Jor tha 
Oal ?jr>c*. 

■i tftt no raaaan to it— gyt wit . tae trial ocurt, jid tho 
Jud^ent la ai'flniad. 

Mat«h*tt , 9m J. t and o'Gonior, J,, concur. 
























I 

.. . . . 

■ 

■ 

■ 



t. 

■ 
■ 



. 



; 



37065 

3$& JiAiJIuALUi*© and CC**&£liC UL mffif ) 

CQfcrMKY, i Corporation, / \ 

Aopolle0«> ) 




▼«, 



WMI vadium Casualty cumpaWT, 




f Ai**m *»«riatt!i ^al 

CfdlttT O'F C|TCA«J0. 

27 3 I'.A. 622 



... 



IB, 39f¥X0S Mo»iURfiL1f DsfiUVgRSB TK8 C^XSJOI r - ...... CoUR*. 



n.*ir.tiff c, in m matter. $tt m l»M$iJM$f p»JLt©$ i**w*,«| by 
tho Mf«ad»ai f af»tm trial by tho #®wrt Is I r ■ idgae* % for |88 •" , 
i#fan4«Rt apipoala. fh# fnu^ity wmM. tntmmi 1$ ***tor Or~:n--f«* ml Com- 
r<»rcial crMifc C©*ji<asy, g eoroft.r-atl.cn , *ad tho p.- ada tiff McS^'lapo 
t&fttSHMl a* M*l#l#f ©J* th« i»tftjr*»et of Or&m'.ia In tfto policy. 

To.tr* li no bill ©f oxo^ti?>ao lis tho r«wr<i bofore wo. Bo- 
f^n-iant attaefcr: tho Ot&tlK&Oftl of «al»i«, alleging, aoncoaapli'soc* with 
section 18 of the Practieo aot, which jjrcvidoo that an BiimtjpHK of 
rt»y oho »o In !»otie» way ot*« thoraor? ir ll|..i ow,-;, &$&#, dmMI tfBt&l i« 
hif p fading, fcy hiw affidavit 4 "alloge ttent tea li the actual booft 
Cli| ■*•*•* thWif «ni >-«t forth lum mi «9MB fc<* acquired tin*,* 

Too Bt*t*roist of elaiw befrr* u& ftl&ig»* that 

•©o, to-vit, tho 8Hfe «>y of §#%«**i a. D. !#*«, *Rid Fetor CSrmn.ita 
for « good, .v&luatlo and ouffi clout itS«i4&f«tiM a»ai&ned and tr n»- 
f?rre4 to the plaintiff, Jo* Boolgeluoo, all of hi« rl«Ht, Ut)o 
and interact in and to tha Mil policy a* tTHlirMifi asreinhofore 
Ecre fulJy Ml forth; ..hat till plalfitlff, $94 B&tigal-aoo, ie tho 
actual and b ona fiflc O'*no* of eaid &mt*V«tl of Peter Q ran at a. " 

The affidavit of claim filed heroin mi executed by tho plaintiff, 

Joe haolgaluao, etates that 

•he la tho actual and boat* fide owner of eaid interoot of oaid 
Peter 9ranata; that, oc , tc-wit, * l *f ..'•:. i i ftM «■!' wctchei , e* T>, 
ItM , he puranaaod th«* ccuae for a good *uid valuable coimi Aeration 
fro«n raid J-'et«»r tMMtlA* 41 

C«faadont firtt att«k«k« tho Tiq«ltcit. ih*r* it no a*rlt 

in thli cortcnticn. layjan v. Nation al aurct-V ^9 ,. S6d ill, Apo. 

S38; Lttit> Xt >v ohn. 22h Hi. gyp. 10ft; ^lohop v. .atgnan. 223 l\l. 



y ^ o 



--■ 






. bm W\ *&, 

■ 



. 









- 



i 

ha 






.... 
XtiBUtiL 



Safoiudant n«xt ftayfi *liat thm at&tmttnt <*©*?e not snow "iicw* 
ol&inti ff aoquirod tlble. aoit&or is Wior*; a&y a.rit in xhis e©n- 
ten-tion. lis trt* itfttomat of* olaiss pi&l&tiff aoworto MMtMW o*tta 
that ho aooulroo th# intoroot g?f araimta in t&i poiloy *f©r a fcO©*l, 
▼alwai>l«> sb4 wiffi«l«nt eonei-iormfcloa; * titatt tlx© plaintiff "it Uio 
actual, j|©&& H jg ©wror* ©f iftiis ifit«r«;-«t , hbA t&afc ja« aooulroA it 
©a October Id, In &• ItSS, w&en *k« $ureh&ip**£ t&«? ©ama for* good 
Ml valuable aonoiMoration frmt- ©aid #©t©r IWtftfftft** Tnie ts-%3 a 
$uffiei*z»t e*i4&3lisjfj«# wila ih© ©tatut*. 

Ae t&«r© it* m bill of ©a^r^tl©**© w« a*u«t presum© taat to© 
or oof #»© Mttffiol^t to juvtify ta© outer mg. of © joint jud&»e»t 
ia fttPSf «* th« flaiatiffo, 

tf©t«tt«tt # 9 m *Vj nn<i G*Conn©r, «?. # ©©near. 



■ . 

~tMV 

■ 



36324 

Appellee. 

WKMU, him ZMW*aM<M 00. # 

a Corporation, 

App«ll*mt. 





ciro ! . if . in 

27 3 I.A. 622" 



MR. JUSTICE OKC^hOii r>>'.i.XV,u-.;> Sffil SPZII If. 

By this appeal the 4afa&4tailt aee-ks to revere* a judi.;?ient 
for 33?*a. ?1, ertered on the verdict of a jury. i : he t?ult w$M 
brought toy plaintiff, ik* bM«l' Iclnry, ow a poi.toy of tain tilt 
Insurance issued by the defendant to benec* I. khv.dw.lck , Plain- 
tiff's iiUftbfU'ad. The material provision or ",...- ,-,>! ioy involved 
insured fttfftjjtat "death, *»* iwat&tiatf, within aijsfcj (6©) days 
frur. ma lata of accident, directly «ft| iodm; and *8 1. 1 y of all other 
oaueee froEt bodily injuries sustained tureugh external, violent and 
accidental means." 

Cn February 17, 19 $1, afetlf ta&iay *«# |ja full s'crce 

and effect, Uia assured was injured ftj) Ml ...uto .--oblie aaatif < sjsi 
I i April 12, 1931. 

Plaintiff's position ie t;utt us a. result of the injuries 
hypostatic pneumonia developed res itUis,, in 0MI assured 's death. 
Ihe defendant contends that the as&ured'e A aajjl kid not result from 
the injuries , but from a streptococci© sore throat from which 
rneumor.ia developed resulting in itaifc. 

Bach wide offered evidence of pi-y I UMM ItTTitlffl to sustain 
the r*^T>ective contentions, ihe jury were In u trusted at :it'e 

request, that if they found fmm the evidence fetal the ftsUtt •• of the 
assured "resulted from t*© causes, injury and disause, wnd you 
find that the disease vui net cauaed by tue accident," then plain- 
tiff eould not recover and their verdict must he I'oc tnu defendant. 
Ihe Jury found in f ^vor of plaintiff MMl defendant contands that 



vfc ' "^ '■ 



ȣ8M 






. 



I 

I 

•HI 
H b»t|Ol«r».b •ltt»aw«tftf 

avl.'ft' 



the Yardict ie against the tmnifeet weight of the awi4wt««, 

There is no ^!i»put« in Mae tvtJUNMMI tattept cue ttfrtlmttWfl 

^Iven by the ■jfcynioians, r>i.*iutiff oal&ttd ww ;*>ct.>ra, one the 
ftttottAlAf ohysitfi^n, tm& Dr. Vfj&ii ffht« »>«4e a po stiver tea «jcsu;4n*- 
-•ion of the t>ady. InJtandlai&l called Uiree efeyei el MM Hi if* tiiei r 
opinions in »n*vex to hypothetical $i&#tt%io&f put %t Hum* 

Ski evlAiffiHMi etatrwi the aosurad wae about |g yearn eld, *t. 
goo^ health, «s4 was injure in sfll nuto, n'hil« aoi&iaien la ln-H.*na 
on FobJW&ry 17, Iv21. it su twined fraeturee of ta« I»?i't pwtA&ln, 
two ribs wad one finger, nnd nu*»er»ue outs as ."■ ,; a '■■•ions; iM f&» 
takfja to a toap£ta& near th« pl»ce of I1M ,.c...\ lent *&«** a* re- 
aain^-.i fur five t&jrfti waft then iafedtt hoJ&e in in ;aitt-.,o..iiP and 
carried into his hound, «Uew he regained in teed until ae .'lied, 
April 1-Hh, e&eeat x-hut he was aafraaiaaaaly *Ia**d l« ft VteMO •aa&V 
about a reek before he ..lied. Sani'ily &£$•£ t&o uimrtd was in lured 
hie left leg was ij^iaobXlifced by MAttM of * splint rouea-ln.* froia hie 
r,i to nis foot. an° eomal^ .Juried of $k*4a in his knc** . . «t. 

aatftXy 'ifter the aeei ftamti he ii<. proved; ad **i OWrppoi uo |a bed at 
tinee in order to take his s;*iale, was anaO to write Isttere and eearced 
to ba getting better until April vth, i ohiil »*nd hie 

temperature rose to 104 or 10*;; ehortly fcaoroaftar the ^t ten linn 
physician Uacovered hypostatic gaMttatllia* 

Err. Cox, the attending physi-. ■•■.• , oalied by nl.Untiif, tea- 
fclftai MMMftJ other ttUuag* that he first «*&« tne assured on March 
2, 1&31; Hurt they kept an aluialnuni enXAat M his left leg frou. tae 
hip to Um foot for a period of about MiM weeke; that about « week 
before hie death the looter put him in a wheel eaalr for a s.tort 
time eaoh day; that the patient's weekneee wae out of proportion to 
hi* injuries; that the progr^ar c *de by the put lent wae »low but 
• teady; that he oa&e down uitu .. sail! aid hi^i i'eyor, end h<*d a 
eer« thryet, iort of toneiliitie infection, Md Um next day beeeae 



5 

- 

I 
1 

■ 



unconscious, hie tetaperature b«ixig about 104 \>o 108 nagr»*ai &d 

shortly thereafter a? aied; Uia c tk&re : -'ut3 no evidenea of bronchial 
pneumonia; kfeat ttunri wma a fillip up »f t&« feattefi uf uio lungs 
which proaent«d ft, physical consolidation S&Lied t£«a& fllMVt ttMl 
fluid fcMsmlaift&i wad that Uils jnu&lly svadaaad death, or LaHfl 
fePSMB out illaes«. Ike docto? fcuen bave <*« bis api&ioa fehat daate 
was tat to kyaattatia on eat. or* i»; iteat the throat lai&avaustiaa «ad 
no bearing on the hypostatic gtft«ta&aa£a« £&t d©«tor :art!:or testi- 
fied that fai all ©ninlon tfce fact 4b.;*t a KM §8 jraaart of iga lay 
in 'bed! aix or seven aaaka M & *#&&%.% of an ae<: I laxi | , ui.d be suf- 
ficient t© » y to ii hypostatic p«eu«<0y; ia i«4*??> a - ! af the 
throat taaaitiaBf that nypoft.:itio aaaaaaaia »«ld sat c« lifcaly to 
produce streptococcic i-ore Hufaaa« 

Dr, '4'ell*i testified that ue had perform ed about three 
thousand ftutcpeiea; that, &• aa&C a. ooist«-orts«n exas-in^t ion or* the 
body: that he found the fracture la tne fcaaaaag RSfelab afttf sapaaaa tly 
h*aled: &at the left 6ta and 7th. ribs Had been broken ibout the 
Bi-i-'le of the lattexal side but v«*r<? in ftpftfaxliutfMi af>*aai%AaB| that 
he found the ifgiai tut a whole in KKaallaal aaaAltiaa Jur ft can 65 
y*ar* old; that "Both lungs Bhowed iarg« lifliBHMJil tiuns of fluid in 
the b?*ek of the a* MM iaaa oortlono oi • MM lyin* in bed, Vfc&ll 
the front part %t the lunge *pm or aatlaa&aJF n#fi :*i," and U<&1 "If a 
p«r»or. is recutbbsnt j or latts time, ffeata It ■ ter.dency for ihe Hood 
to R#trle la the lower part of the body; " ti.at fluid -xocuatulates 
whioh i» "a beautiful culture aaalai jcteria;" that Ifcaat 

bccteria g#| ir.u the laa#4 sad tftta fevaaatatit oneur.onla de- 
velops; that this eort of pneumonia te easily dlstlagalaaala* frca 
the other sorts. The doctor then teetifi*-- it opinrn 

the hypop-tatle nneurscnia vas "a sequel to the injuries sad the 
neoenar;' r#curbent oerltion;" fefeat "the injuries t«r» «•>! lict i»r. t to 
o»use or brin^ about the hypostatic pn«u. -oni%." 



■ 

■ • 

;•:■■' 

■ • 

I 









3 ,. -> 1 



•0 



ftM dafandaat uailed t:iren physl alana, Saataau BJtaalar, 

ILe&uliy HOl Uiore; each, in ;». f ;mer trs a ay$*&h«tla&l ^u -<5^tor» 
gave his opinion th it the injuries such *e the aeattra* 1 received 
ware not sufficient, teAa$><aula»"U^ of all otii*»r aouaae, to 
C;uso till deata. 

Dr. Wheel er Ia»ti3 tat In his agtiftiaa, "ihe ay .otheti- 

eal person bad an acute g^aaaaaAift fall&wifljg aa I&featia* af the 
Ifcftftt.* Dr. Lvh ally testified that in hi® apinittR, "the trauraa 
suffered .>r> V&brvLHty I?, if SI, »*■ net raa$QSiai.*le fef thla inten- 
sive infection aft! lcte^r pneumonia found en *\pru J^/th;* fcfeftl the 
injuria received '"were not sufficient cti*«el&3l e»d i»A«|»endittt&jr 
of all otaer erases" to account Tor the iaafchj Hurt * tie 

pneu&onia nay follow & -pr^lengad disease *&a$t tne £»&tlant ie in- 
Qap&oitnted lor wee*? or months folios in*: @g»« great Injury MM it 
aay lollop ft throut e c^i i S tion. * Dt, Moorf? i--.:-x: H»t lii hie 

opinion the injuries enujaera^ed **ere not sufficient to cause death. 

fvew the fo reccing, ^e UaiaJt It aJLaftg! vuut afeatlM* ti:.> 

injuries, ,infi«»3«*/.derstly of ail attUOF onuses, §«»»« the aseured'e 

of fact 
death, t?ao & qaeatiofi/for the jury, m& »« ijP« also oj' the opinion 

we would not he warranted in >i sturbing the v&rdict on the fJfmtMi 

that it is eianifeetly ftgftjliat the Vftijjht of trxa evidence. 

Coihplulnt la Mftda tuat 014 court erred in refusing to *;ive 

an instruction requested by the at. Xhe offered instruction 

is as followa: "You art Jjrl^r instructed tnat II i: Ihia ease 

death nas bean caused by Ike Ml sj aada, injury tnd disease 

cot caused ty tne injury, it La MtfTiftlaftt la prever-t a recovery 

on tne policy if uny artlaary ilaeaaa, riot »aa a aaajrl3 I, ir.ouBd 

contribute wltn the injury to aastae Ifcd **atb; t. .at it-, if vltfcatl 

tne presence of the di**fc.ce the injury itself would not have teen 

rial em I to have caused the injury ex , it lr riot ;ifc»r,eary 

to show that the disease was such that it alone woul I have caused 









■ 

ioa't 'to 

si 









<J *€>•• 



ieath," t« think iMs in struct i or; wfcfi rrnr«>rly rsfu*s4, '. t If 
involve;* wd *ould not aefigt th* jury in ttAA#rf»tttn<£tBg the 
nuretion J >.r Ubtiy cu-nfi.H*ration, lt:t v«u&.4j ■■ ly t«&d to eon* 

ftlS« thssa, luor^ove: , t'h«? Jury rer fttU.J Inst r act ad by oSfttltttl 1 

ir- tructu-r* ,.i.y«i at the ft#f end^Rt * « 3*«^u*»«t, to atiiel *#. niurt 
^Vovc ref srr<*-i. "'<» fc&iaJK thr jur ; - ei««rXy understood Hi* last** 

Unrt&YfriU 

£fe* 3tt£gR*&t of Ihti circuit court of Cook camsty Is 
al"fir&*3. 





MHO 

LUCXUJB 8ALl»A, 

'Wmnatmt in ferror, /") 

) wmm to Kiseyii 

v.. 

) Of 9091 Q&mTt, I 

*JJU,I '• , ) _ 

Plaintiff in \rr*r. ) *> ^ <R 5^ 9 

12R. JU5-3TIGS 0*CQffilOit 3*tlVKR£S TH3 0Pl,,i *. 

it writ of 9SWI9 t ,e 'dwfofmant, Willie. v«b??r, aaeka 
to r«swer«e an or^ar entorad by tb* circuit owurt ©I" OOftA county 
denying J3i* sfeoti©* t* Quash a fj-2.a&l &g JEEft$i££ftSlSQ^Hi* 

Phe r«ce?rd dlaele&fta that jLuetlla a&liba fe rough t an action 
against tfed SaietnLsy&t to ra cower #***$*• ft*Of personal lnjarios sus- 
tained by her tfl &n autoiv-ofeile eolii&los.* rlsin tiff 'a declaration 
wee In oix couata, &B BttM ©i" which defendant **a eu''*,rgt*d with wil- 
ful suad Tftiitco eon due*. In driwing his attfc e de at fefca tint in 
queatton, Upon •*£#&$*&« b#in^ MSffftf with, i&roceas Mil appearance 
was entered 'toy counsel, vko pi§$titti&$4 HM»e IftffR&aita ill fiiteen 
years ef »#e and moved 'that a guard**! s& l,i,$ fflfe be appointed for 
hiHi. An order was sntsxed accordingly Mil pieae w«*re filed en be- 
half of the ftQffgBBt by hits guardian ad lijjgn. Bit eaee wae tried 
before the -our* without a jury •*«" ttWti *m * flfedl*i and Ju,u.a»ent 
in Plaintiff's favor for- |S a ftOO, UmI yourt •&«« made a soeeiel 
fltntlag aa follow*: The Court finds fro* MM evidence that tha de- 
fendant Silliaai *eber was driving, aaid ^utuotlla la a wilful and 
wanton suainer. * An appeal was prayed UMI ail©*ad fro* tha Jim ment 
ta thie court, but apparently was not pro routed. Afterward oopl ^c. 
a4 satlsf»ei«'?noua ) waa ieuued and ftfci defendant MJMB into ouatody by 
the sheriff. Shortly thereafter tm lent by hi a counsel filed 

a writ tan Motion praying that tha car lap bo quaehed and that ha ba 
discharged from the euatody of the uherlff. The notion aat ap (1) 
that unler section 12, article 2, of oar coneti tution, a body 
"**"" ,u " aaaAd be laauad only in t»o caaea: (l) vntrn tha debtor 



. 


















-•Si SUBW 
.Hill 

Uurf 

■ 

• Ad* oi 

1 • < • '. ; 

.4 U#JJ ^ 



s 

refuses td 0u:rr»j3;i§y hie *st*t« Ik satisfaction $t the $a ■ pa Mt , or 
•fcara thwre ie a fttttttg preemption of fraud; (9) that section 5, 
chanter 77, of the statute* pfffW&etal for the liW(0M »f a j BJtJg 
1b. an action not baaed os fraui, sad that that section is la oonfiiot 
with section SMI af article t t of oar cenafcitatloa; x ... I \*% the 
declaration filed ia the personal injury caae and the special flat* 
ing by the aourt #4d not show that the defendant fffVl Tad 9$**fltt«! 
the MiM>l|ll» t lit the ti&e la i« eat Ion, iattntionilly or aalieiously 
ag&lnet plaintiff 9 &ad therefore the @&t*«a$ court ft&ald not lawful^r 
ittnig % body execution; (4) ta&t the execution i» vaid xv.j af a© 
effect fe«#s$t*$ such an axecutloa ®&l&&.| mot lawfully issue i&aittftt 
an infant; and £$| that such execution oo-uld not luifiPally i&aue 
against MB infant unlaaa there ft! a trial tyf Jury. And aa stated 
the prayer was that the 888&&&1 ^® q»a«*a*sd end 4^*S4a&t dice.. surged 
from the custody of the sheriff. 

J3ef g&dattt contends that an i&faat cannot lawfully he i;:- 
pria ned under a body execution and ox tan fejjji §&&&&&MJJM Jttftt i39 
K&aa. 453. In that eaaa it was held tfe&c under the atatute of 
laeeachuKeita an infant was not liable to *rre»«t fey gd&t upon a 
civil arceaaa. ItiWW jf t no statute, of Ililnoia la referred to on 
thla point by counsel tat wo knovr of none, 

it is the firmly established MM !• kfe£l 99at« thuL ft oapiaa 

Hi. Vtt ^fftel&aduffr flvay be Issued aa a fthittftlf o» tour a* on a tort v 1udg» 

aent an:i without u> order of court. j JMfcl tf » IlMBMt* 286 Iil » 5 **S 

JtJBMM v. Jtoaraa-ox . MM IUU 409* W9. tm4 e* h«we alea held that 

■ueh g^o , i a^ may be l-mued on * tort judder* t MMl tt.ut the question 

whether laallae was the giet ftf tue tort action becomes aiaterial only 

when the ju^i^ent debtor applies tc the county court far hid discharge 

under the Insolvent bettor* a net. fteuiwatld v. kouro*.or . suprfl . The 
eqn laa h.'velnn; been l«*u«»d KMiKJtWg "in I 3T, ».>»♦► court correctly refu»e< 
to qua eh It. 

The order of the Circuit court of Uook county denying daftndar.t ♦■ 
motion to qu&eh tha oapiue Is aff Irwed. OKDXR A/FIKM3D, 

katohett, r« J. t *ad iioSurely, J., concur. 



' 
























■ 

i at 

■ 



■ 



lilflEI 



370CS 



I*Liu5 88&S& and 

appellees * 

▼ • 

1*631 B06fl and ttB&l B94£i 
Appellants* 








appeal mm municipal 



i 27 3 1 






c 



is;. *?usti& o'cosaos &3£E^m»ma tm opnrco* o? the cotr.?* 



Plaintiffs* real estate brokers* brought an aottoa 
against the c-efs-ndaats ftf l*MPNI tMJS© eHfttuN to be cut th*« 
for o©ffimis3laa» in obtain lag & purchaser of real ootato belonging 
to the l<fMftltm|ai there IBM! a trial before the fiWt without 
a Jury* aad a finding and judgment in plaint Iff a* favor for $430* 
and the defendants -appeal. 

£he record disc-leeee that plaintiffs wore real est&te 
brokers and wore employed by defendants as such, to obtain a pur- 
chaser for a piece af property ownetft by thorn* ?he price fixed 
at vhieh defondnnts would soil ras $0*000. hortly afterward 
plaint if fr> produced John Ztm al»\:i$ introduced hits to defendants* 
and showed hi* through the property. Ml cfferee |<fH 0| whiok 
defendants refused to accept. Kowalski to .-t If led that a short 
time thereafter he ens again passing the property and saw a siga 
of another brpker on the property* took the matter up with the 
other broker and In * few days the deal wa closed by the other 
broker, Eowalekl p&ylng C8*700 for the property! there is evidence 
to the effeot that defendants paid this broker $375 comeiiesion. 
Plaintiffs learning of the «al« demanded their coasts; lens* aae 
payment being refused this eult was brought. 

There is little or no dispute la the eyidenoe mcoeyt 






- 



■ 



■ 

«tt«ctebi. 

j»»/©jt* bos 

• 1* 

«*. *»l * M fa <f ?»&• 

. .»n«r 

■■■.'- t >' - j« ' ■-•• • • ■ ■ ■«•.'• •• '. ■■■ • ' ■ .'■ ' "i ■■r.i*Z< 

■ 



-2- 

thr*t defendant g s*?y that Eow^lski, the purchaser ef the proper ty f 
me not introduced to them by plaintiffs. Ttors was ft disput* on 
this question and apparently the- court rrae of the opinion that 
Kowalskl was introduced to defendants by plaintiffs. The tine 
the property mis listed ^ith plaintiffs until it was »old to 
Kewalski die? not e&eeed more than 3 or 4 weeks. 

The defendants contend that the eyidenee shows that 
Xowalskt mould not, buy the property for $9t300 *n< that shls was 
the beat price plaintiffs could obtain from the defosdjsmt oarers, 
that thereupon Kew&laki abamloseti the idea of purohasing the 
property! that shortly thereafter JKowtslski ret In touch with the 
other broker , and through n,he efforts of the e< comd broker the 
price ^afe rtfeutfeti to iSefQ&f W&i th** deal eonmawajat®! 4 ; uher^fare, 
it id sirynii plaintiffs w#¥« Rot ?»he preewrin^ 9dRJp# of the sole. 

*e t&iflgl Html whether plaintiffs were the procuring 
cuse Mm ft mi.tf.ea ^ues^ioa of law Mi fact to be determined by the 
trial Jajjf« He found in f&ror of the plaintiffs and w* are unable 
to say that his finding is against the isaulfest weight of the evi- 
dence* 

The faofc thut the property was sold ftt a leo,- price than 
that at whioh the owners listed it with p&fclStiffl is cot controlling, 
bee«ttse it la the law that where an agent is employed It sell real 
estate for the owner and In instrumental in bringing the owner and 
the bmyof together and afterward the owner, eith r through his own 
efforts or thiou h those of another broker, sells the property at a 
less; prion than the first broker was authorised bo well it for* the 
first broker Is entitle -o his eomi'sission. £ranolsoo v. Qoljj Hftfla.. 

ISO 111. .pp. 465| Hafner T* Herfpn. Ml 11. ^42| __righfc_J[. 

McOl intook i 136 ill. »pp* 4&&| _ilstfn v« ttason . 158 HI. 304. 

It is to b« regretted that defesdents are reculred to pay 



■ 






*. . . ■.' . '•». ' '>r. 












■ 












b JhlaXratil 

- 

i 

.■■/-< «*i 

■ 

- 

■ . • 



V4 9* >I 9-TJt ■ 



» 



•3» 

eowai* --ioa» u fcttt fexftltari w4 parflfcofcJj this rotfulted £*a» the 
feugr*r, ReveAekif getting ia tou^h .*iiii Uu tee&nd. torok*? *.p. .ly 

«U*i • ?i*^ oi buyir^ til* properly for leae »oaey| hut the £?fead<» 
ants should hav<a fcaen more «&r*Xul ua& ahattld taf* &> eta >hat the 
firet toi-okcra wesv, net t&*isti*g that -toy h&J. pt-ecw<-w Ktwalafcl 
If buy .he property* 

. j|u|gttB&$ if fckt iaaitcip*l court #f CJ&le&$9 is 

lUtchettt :-■« J« f anti lEt^urely* «J#* concur* 



■ 



I 



5T01C 



U. OIOLLI, 

Appellant § 

V* 

SilHAFIHO ULV y..mil and 
FILCagSSA ALFA$0 # 
Appellees* 





APPEAL flRGM MUNICIPAL 

mom of chic- go # 



27 



f\ 



i&. justice o'cobjqr sss&tf ms® tub opmioh o? m court. 



January 23, 1933, plaintiff, the payee of ft promissory 

note mace by lis} defendants, caused judgment oy confession to toe 

entered for -;}11?4*23» which included $134*43 attorney's fees. 

The note Is for >1209» as stated in figures* but in the body of 

dated July 20, 1932, 
the note the amount is written as §1009«00| it is/due aix Months 

after date, with interest at 6 per sent per s&MsBi after maturity* 
It is the ordinary judgment note* 

»prll 17, 1933, each of the defendants filed a petition 
to vacate the judgment and for leave to defend* Plaintiff filed 
a counter affidavit setting up facte tending to show that defend- 
ants were guilty of Inches in not sooner moving to vaonte the 
judgment* The motion of defendants to open up the judgment same 
on for he ring before the oour» without a jury and there is some 
confusion in the record* ltnessee were sworn and testified first 
with a view of showing that defendants were not guilty of laches 
in failing to move sooner to open up the judgment and there was 
evidence to show the contr ry» There was also some evidence that 
*ent to the merits of the •*••• Plaintiff objected to this evi- 
deneo but hie objection was overrule< and at the conclusion of 
the hearing, the oourt vacated and set aside the Judgment as to 






I 



■» 









i 



- 

- 

si t<t©» »rtS 



■ 

,2cei «0S \Lul beSab 
erf 1 i<sms «iii a* on ©da 

*^i t«J KHif t **«& i** 4 ** 

■•. :..' CJJJ R d* Ad »Jfa/..'--J- * -10 ROl-JMi Mil 

»at>o» »roai 93 ^akSJm^ til 

,%'i ■ -j ;:»©■;> •!*$ wOJl* 0* •0tt»8lT* 
««!*#« Mf* 0* *ttS« 



-2- 

defendant ;?ilomena lfano and dismissed the suit as to her* nd 
further ordered that the judgment against the other defendant » 
erafino ilvestri, stand to the extent of 1500; execution was 
stayed and the court reserved for further her ring the question 
as to whether era" in o owed anything in excess of the ;500 # and 
plaintiff appeals* 

Plaintiff contends that the judgment is wrong and should 
he rererai&a feeeauee the petitions filed by aafwlttiiBfca If open up 
and vacate the judgment were insufficient* and that they mutu bo 
considered as brought under sec* Ul§ of the Municipal ourt act* 
the petitions having been filed more than 30 d&y* after the judgment 
was entered t there is considerable argument on this point* It has 
no be ring on tlte question involved* ec* 21 does not apply to 
juogssente by confession because such judgments may be opened up 
after the 30 days and if bo opened up# the ord«r lo this effect is 
not nppealablo* This has lon& since been the firmly established 
law in this rtato* But plaintiff ap «?&le& not only from the order 
vacating the judgment but also from she dismissal of his suit against 
the defendant rilomena lfano* This, of course, is a final amd 
appcnlable order* 

The petitions filed by defendants tender to show that 

the note In suit was without consideration and that there was not 

such delay in filing the petitions »e would bar them from having the 

judgment opened up in case they showed a meritorious defense* The 

court was unwarranted in dismissing the suit as to the defendant 

niomena lfano and, wo think, was equally unwarranted in ordering 

for $500 
the Judgment^;© stand against the other defendant* e are clear 

that the court should have vaoated the judgment aa to both defend* 

ants, allowing the judgment to stand as security and then should 

have set the case for hearing on the merits* 



. 

■ 

>i n*i»» *i:**sii*jr, «tsM «4xto«Y baa 

, ,.■.;•■■ ' - - 

. 

I 












v 



>»q uU jj»Ui*s ttt x^X^b lion 

ib (Si ?>&*ft b *>»# 31U^9 

Mr «Swl* Mb>tX-' aitMjc 

» Mff « 






«3» 

For the reason* etated» the judgment of the Municipal 
court of Chicago ie reversed arid the cause remaaUed with dlreo* 
uiona Mi open up the judgment ana to give defendants leave to 
defend* the judgment to stand as security. 

ssyaa na ikb bbrxso rxri 2 c ;cria»a« 



iiatohett* ^» J.# and M«3ur®ly» J## concur* 



37050 

CHICaOO fXBUI & fililit CC&9AST, 
a Corporation, ml Traaiee, 
Appellee, 

VS, 

a Corporation, e v t ai. t 



Y \ 






0« Appeal of MS S. hUU-iO,, 

Trustee in Bankruptcy ir> the Estate 
of Wollenberger & Company, I^aikruot, 

■ ■ Pliant. 






/ 



QV GOGS hWim 




\ 



\ i ,w 



3 



'L. 



t&, JtlfetlCS O'COITCR VHUEYftRKB THE WZVZ«I 0* T»fc OOtfJ .. 



Coispl^iniitit filed, its till to fcreeiose a. trust deed given 
to secure a bond issue of §S? v,-' vC lesa*4 by DM defendant *>otei 
company. Apparently the bend i$mte Mfcl und^-rnri Ltan "by the de- 
fer, *&nt, Wollenberiier i( Co^p:-.^, a»d t&« bond* v»?re o.vyafcle at that 
company's office, and it apparently fl&Se ftO-ld all of the bond*. 
Afterward, as ta© l»on&& caue £»£ t.;.«y Pt£8 iv-p'irer'tly p HHit iri to 
tfollenberjs-er A Uo. for paysaent, MM sufficient money not having been 
made available by the hotel ocmp&ny, tue maker of trie bonds, «©l- 
lenberger k Qt« advanced it* era o..onfy to the extent ft more than 
$29,000 and obtained bonds i'o r fckust HMfWttt, 1'he o<sflp was referred 
to a master who took the proofs MBMl lfc&4* U P ^l c r*por-t. iie found, 
ajaona other things, that tasre aa <iu to the twiimra if certain 
bonds r*ere than $199,iKA> arid to ta« Hi ' , 'jrt>~*l , as trustee 

in bankruptcy for Pollen turgor i Co., (that wynny having been ad- 
judged a bankrupt) more thai* |fl9 v 600, sJMi HIP <>nd«d that a deoree 
of foreclosure be entered in Use usual form, flat bonds h»ld by the 
trustee of wpllenberger I wc. «sre tot MM the bonds 

held by the other parties. 

When tns matter oa&e on before the ciianoellor • although it 
is stated no objections or exc«>:i ns had teen »»de to the master's 
report - the chancellor on nie own motion ueld that the bonds, 
Aggregating |M»MI and held by MM trustee in bankruptcy, should be 






8 £8 *t 






. .t cw £ 









' 



Xfl 






■ •1UP9: 

a* , fe-x*<ri»JtA 

:»a»IX«* 



iiaXiarjB *b0« 



■ 



.:■> , »».' . f ft BOM* 

S htu ' lk'-i wmAt »i«a tbaoc* 

i roJcswtainatf al 

b9i«t3c» »<t 91 u«. via* tot !• 



abaorf •di *» * • . -j»btc*<#o*-XX0W lo »«*•«•** 

.a^n(<; t*n.+ o *f^ X<S bl9ii 

»'i»3*fii3 ».-C o* • b «»•--. a»* ' J an b»i#rf« ti 



subordinated to the tlC'J.UCO due and owing, to the ether bend . ciders, 
and a decree w&* aecordincly «nt*r©«t. U«Rntl # tha trustee in |>aaa> 
ruptcy of the aetata of Woli*nb*rg*r I co., app*«il6 aft6 eonterida 
that th<? bond* h«ld by «iu ahculd not have been subordinated to MM 
otner bonde, and hi is counsel ©ay in their brief Ufc&t t&a chancel lar 
or his? rcotlon "held that the bonds «y»<i coupon* eo fcwtted and lM&4 by 
this d-rfendoni w«r* subordinated to ail otner fetft&a and* coupons 
outstanding find unpaid, on the theory that Article IX, action 2 
of the trust deed, which proviaes that bond* and coupon® to* en up 
by v©ii«nb#rger A Company *a$h it® own fun-da wrt &«<$»«<$ to i-ave 
been pureh&aed by it NH4 aha*! be* iaeld by *Qia.anbfc-.r#er It Senpaay 
with its security in no wajr impaired, MM void a© against putlio 
policy." Juet why the provision of the trust i#«| wmM agttUavt 
public policy and void i» i*< no way pointed <>ut «*or is &«¥« 1 van 
a «u&&08tA©fi ©in Uiio, tine oj-ucial question in tue c^se, 

'i'fae cots.pi&inaut, the Cuic&go iitle i irust Co., as trustee 
in the trust deed, has filed a brief , but its counsel likewise nave 
fciTen no information on this point. ihere La not a ataxia case 
cited in complainant f s brief noi is any argument mmt* i'or or against 
the folding of the chancellor; and counsel »ay that because tna 
position 01' the appellee as trustee i'or all bondhol i«rs requires 
that it maintain sn impartial attitude in a uontrov -ray "** appellee 
submits to the court i'or its serious consideration and deeiaion the 
questions as to whether or net the provisions ai the trust deed" 
above referred to and the acquisition 01 feka bonds abarsgating 
#W,wO by th« underwriting houae is contrary to i>ubiio policy. 
Obviously, this brief is 01 no assistance to tka oourt. ^o we have 
but a brisf on one eids o: the ease - tJutt fixed on b«.-»ii of una.el , 
the trustee, Section « of the truat deed provides that in ease 
*elleat^rger I uo. snail at u<y MM pay out their individual .'unds 
to the nol <er or ncliers of -uiy bonde the asount clue tnereon, such 



■ 



•••• 9 *i j?«6 a bo* 



- 



,»baod i 



■ 

.•tu 



fit !• 









n m 



3d fwrin 
■J b»J*9 

... I *«ni 

-to ©J ee tniMaaiirr 

sia«« 01 [•««JtvtfQ 



•V 



4»«ra ,t 






3 

ImKB44 itolli fce deeded to feUKVl be*u purchaead by $©ll©nb«rger * Co. 
nn<S rahall be delivered ttBtanfalai to the*» and ph*3Jl become its 
y yyyt y without the nticeeeity of any no tie* IfraSttg gt>T*i of any 

eucfe purohe.Ee to the holder* of any ©f the other bond*, u©4 that 
no euoh payment te^&ll iMt considered, a voluntary payment for the 
benefit ef the »©rtg&ior or for the benefit of any other bond- 
holder, n«r shall taali i parent operate to «n*«i. the retirement 
of suck fondle or in. any way faayalr the security «,iven by the 
trsist de^d/ 

■ )fit the cirou&etsuioee in which this ^ueation is pre- 
Mstat, •• If no". j?*aa on the validity of the provision of the 
Ivaat di?«d In ittes&ittBf but *re are of opinio** Hint the iggffM can 
v^c '. rtatki because th**r© -s no oiio'fl'ing that any p*trt of fcne bond* 
renting $39 # fi@9 w&e acquired by - r oli3s/Wr>;;er A oo. before ail 
tit* ber<<5e wer*? diepoeed of to the public; ?»or i « there my ©wider/©* 
|M the record, that ftftJI "been pointed out, wte&att ahewe titer© w»» 
*ny *cf uit in pay^ant by the hotel ©os&pany before the bond* were 
■11 -ligpesod of to in* public, 5o tftat the record faila to ahow 
that any of the cwnore or hoiuora of the bund© aggregating $199,000 
were in any way prejudiced by the act of «ollenber&er I Co., in 
tstf.ing up the $29,OoO bonde. Plaintiff© having Buffered no in- 
jury on Ticoount of the action of Wallenber^er i Co. in the raunect 
mentioned, oufcht not to hare their bond* h^ld to be preferred oe«r 
those aoquized by ioilenbercer I Co. 

The decree of the Superior eourt ef wook county is r*ver*ad 
en4 the o<U3» remanded wltii direction* to anter a decree in accord- 
ance H-ith the recommendation* oi' th« naeter. 

kKVJBRSED AJ»J> HMfMGi IRKCT1' 

Katehett, 9, J., and feeBuraly, J., oonour. 



#<f IX- 

■ 






i. I ■ ■ 






I 

I 

. 

rtO (tilt 

Not 



57063 

Agon &«jaLY, 

Appellee, 
vs. 

a Corporation, 

Appellant. 



apf^ al /»«* « i e i pal ecu tf j 

0# CHICAGO. 







MB. JUSTICE O'CO&SOR BEJUlVTttLKD TUB OFU'IOH OK THIS COU'HT. 

Plaintiff feroMtii'it MS notion again *t &ne defend ant to re- 
cover Hie value of jewelry gfii other peraonal property the claimed 
to have lost throvtga the negltg*ne* of •»« if defendant '• o&b 
driver*, Ik driving away before plaintiff had titae to »©<? that all 
of hi*r property had been removed fSftn Use taxlo&b. Inere waa a jury 
trial and & verdict an* jfodt^ent in plaintiff's f^vor i'or .900 aid 
defendant appeal*. 

The record, discloses that on t&« j&oteiing of Ikay 7, 19X2, 
plaintiff arrived in On. i cage frot. ftnttfr.t on a Guic«£0 i liorth VtftfcMI 
train. i*fee had two handbags, one large, eonta-ining wearing apparel, 
and a »su*ll one containing aea.© WWUBJMg apparel and a em all leather 
jewel box which contained Jewelry. a%t rode in a taxicab frcw the 
fcort* ,r e»tern railroad station to Michigan avenue and Randolph 
etre&ta where she entered a store, tauing her two bags, wnd where 
■he transacted sozae business. Shortly thereafter she toox her two 
bags, w>iie:i eu? had left with an ei^oloyee 03 Use store, *ent out 
en i.ioiii{;Hn avenue, hailed a Yellow oab, . ot Into the oab, ?l>eed 
the njjioll bag to her left on thv> eeat Nti the large one at hef 
feet, Ml directed the driver te ta*e feel M the Lai* ills utreet 
railroad station at Van Buret) and La iiUle streets. The oab tVtdfi 
into the regular driveway of th station and *toop«d at the proper 
place for lalatiM to ?ilie.ht* M Ife a time a "red cap* or unher 
employed by one o*' tne railroad MMpaBitg opened the cub door; 
plaintiff alighted, Rtepped forward M pay her l vre, aid the 






<ik 






■ 



' 



9 

■ 

■ 

- 



at 

>Jttl 

-!«,■.• « . ■ • . H-il.i fi -n. t*.i .iii i -■-' o ,ic t; f *■■•;■.; f ■■ '■ "- 






to "cja-- 



2 

ueher removed the larjse bag, placed it on the floor 0b4 closed ths 
eab door. $hen .Plaintiff ha<! paid fc&i driver hir- fa ye, \ •* -rove 
away in the usual ffiwfiner. Plaintiff then turo«H ftirsmf and s-aw but 
one if her 'bag*; she and the u<?.u.er endeavored tc etc*; the eels, 
rifeii h was then about 100 to ll@ feet sway, leaving the rt-vtion, but 
apparently on account of the noise asNtds by nov^ml cribs &&*» in the 
station he did not hear titssi tffid tewt away, an f*y ta the record 
ahowB no on? hat since seen the small baj? «toieJn -?I*\nt.if r says, she 
left on the seat of the taxicab. 

It further snoeare from tn« evidence that pft a«*,iff I—Hit" 
atfcly &&de eossplaint to the officials of the 8«& #«Btg»gtay and the 
railroad company t wh© were then in th* station t and notified then 
of .t*?r loss. At that ttiae she i'liesl a written claim with the Kail- 
road eo&pany la wuio ■■ «h» fixed the <r&Xtta of the * r:.:'K~ rty sfMi had 
lost at t&2t. 

Plaintiff's et&tssieiit of ol&ln, in addition |« cLar ; ,.ing tna 
defendant with negligence in driving toe cab sway befr. re plaintiff 
had ti«e to mill all her property, charged defendant with con- 
verting the property to ite owr* u«t, After tfca verdict was returned 
fey the t 1ury, plaintiff, by leave of court, awiliiiti &** statement of 
data eliminating all charges except that of negligence. 

Ihe "red cap* or ueher m aallai by MUM aide uid t citified 
in substance that when the cab stopped at the proper place in the 
station he opened the cab door; that plaintiff then alighted fros. 
the uab tv d stepped forward; tnat while • the cab driver 

he, the uaher, took the large bag from the cab Msd placed it on 
the floor; that he did not see any other bat Mi t *e cab, «nd he 
thersu on olosed the eab door; tr;«t t/.« oab driver after receiving 
hit fare drove away in the usual manner, raid that plaintiff turned 
around and exclaimed that only one of her bags had been rer.oved; 
that thsy then endeavored to stop the cab, which was ICC to 150 
feet away, but were unable to «o so. fhe only other witness whs 



. 

■ 

JO Oil SWfflutis 



-it 












: 



■ 

■ 

dun ni 
i m iit -»i( ml#«*a 

u i ;k*. •■•••-./» .:,. , 

, **• » - 

Ittirliko^T Vfttt* i • ■ no. up- 



I 

t Ratified ob the subject f&s the ;,lt«ii;tiff . 

Sks! only wlu:B»a testifying ae to Uie v&u,ue ei Uie property 
plaintiff claims to have lost was plaintiff herself, ohe testified 
that her je*-alry was in **n vld*f&8:..ioned. red xlo recce jewel cast 
which aha carried la her as. ail feegj that she h&d had experience 1ft 
connection with the Market price of jewelry of the kind she had 
lost; that shortly after butt loss tue locked at Sue Baa* aind of 
jewelry at & jeweler 'e pleee of business in &<«w xork City and from 
this fins f.ot an estimate of its value; fe&Jti Bfee bad aad ior about 
I Mat J jr*MTl & hobiiy for a&tlf*i jewelry, mil wii*r..«ver pae went to 
e large city wuld go to auaeuue and Jewelry stores where jewelry 
was displayed; that the ;}*we.'i ry §&« hn& lost wag practica.iy all 

rti^ue • *J could tftll the price of each;" that nearly all if the 
jewelry «h« lift were gifts except a few modern pieces; tnat all 
of the antique Jewelry efei b*4 were gifts, s©s<e ©f theai having been 
in her family for years; that she had Hawaii OJ jewslry in fBllnfJI 
and Kew fork and had vieited approxi lately fifty plaaet where .ieewlry 
wfl»s displayed and sold. 

Plaintiff farther testified, giving her opinion of the 
Talus of a number of the ite»s aae asJkl&MHl to leave lost, '.ihs 
values placed upon theao iteisis fgytfritlHIl £4-55. *»e was not ae*ed 
about each item 9<>«jclf leally set forth in her ftfcseMttl of claim. 
After taatlfytag ue lo the value of UM xteus above ueutioned, a»> 
gftgatlng >d"!n t t?he gave las hff cation Hurt all of the jewels «hs 
h*d lo*t were worth ^900. ah* further gave l\*r opinion that the 
v»iue of itcmr other than jewslry la the bag was ...'i3, Making a 
tot-il of |#9ft« 

In this oourt lafiVAaat contends that plaintiff's t<%*tu-.ony 
as '.o the value of her Jewelry should h-tve been excluded because 
sh« was not qualified. V« think this contention cam.ot be su«tT.lned. 
▼hils olaintiff could not nroperly bo designated ait exoert on the 

































bsi 






























































■ 

I 

I 

. ■ 



I 



« 















■ 



1WI.M ©*" <«ra3.Ty, y** n*i« !v»d !M.fflclc,nt expavianoa te «%jfTnn^ tfto 
Admission of her taatfeaawjr; tt-j rtti^tt cr piatraft&ri , i« w«<i Tot 

|)M| Jury to <*i«elx J t<? f »nd In th<* *fe<a«aea of any avii^io* t<* (tot ion» 
t.rnry »»«> 'Mr>k w# wo»tjsl^ not hi trarrafcVted in Uc/l d.ia . V<nt hav aft* 
dune* w%a inmiffiaieut. Lors».ever, aa atft'MMlt './lH..u*tiff taa* 

lift ad that aim eattXd + <alX Uta ©ric* of i&afe friaaa i-tf JoMrwXry «ha 
hftf? loat; tut both aouri f««d couftail «»•««■» <kI to am oi t?>» ay 1 Tiff 
th*t th«* nriee rmii' fax Hw ,1«weiry ama to*tBta*tlAt aa tfei 
Qjaaatlaa of Y-Vlua, *nd tb«ra la no c^ntartton ta Qui aftAtfWPy 4o 
in ttt&a ccuti. Xfea theory MM ty a&& t&a aani&a as this tpt#a> 
tlen i* g&aaJ&y af$amaaaut« a*a.a»aa aDual atta p r$ • aagraaa J 
p»»faytjf *t :< fail? aaSJ - i&aya ■ :.'r- a& *£&taaia&a&s8*8 HM&t aaat&d 
*= *t '^uM an *-... v ga»<J ;'. 'tsi ^ ,J i&a i4Paaaa»atiei3 * if ul Jr,.f,\.-. o 
?xv*Y« tfca rajta« si" rus aYtltlft. e^faraa , »>. ffiUftfcfra « -31 111* 
143, w.-iii« t&« amount saic^d fey fcaa Jam? aa-ama Bt»aa&&t AaaaaaiTa 
and >aor^ Hmhb rsigut fcnva betn allowed tad Hal iraajpaaatailitjf bswn 
our*, >*«»t va la Kit feci *a^ww»staa\| it.r*J«w of i3P a#a to 

tb* a*a# 4 la &*toc*%£&€ the vaf&lat af Hal 3**?* aja^ffWal •■» it t*»a 
T -y t N e ferial ftt4$a< 

afaaianl fartfeair «o»fc«*i?»ai §j . ■. . aa ei-art arrad it. jTorrul- 
Laaa if »ii tfet «Viid*n««, **? atatiaa for a ."ir#at««s 
▼«r«jict: UUkt tti» tri<aaaa ifcxaa aHa-iaiiff r -v« auiity of oo&tributory 
aagliganco, iS4 U*at AifaMaail w »* guilty of no nogll^aaca. iut in 

• ty «vo*;t, tadfaaiaatt aay», Hw r*rii:?% it a#alaiat Km »tiaiitf<j*t weight 

of th€ »viiJawc«. a« a F v aii«jral orooosltion, tn«? ^a*«tiaB of nagll- 

u 

i^anea la u&* of faet ior ta* Jury, ^oj^/aometi^aa » qu«etion of l«w 
far xh« court wh«ra all roamonablo jatxjdto woulfl r.«oh ttta conclualon 
th*t tiiom wa« or wi%s not «r-y n*cili^o»o«. If thar* ba *ny diff«r«r.aa 
of ooii.lon at* tho Bja#aiiaai i no t/.at r«fteon«bl« minde %<xy nat 
arriTa nt Uia •»»• ooncl .*lon, thor- it i» a qup»tton of fuat for 
thf jury. w ot -old >. uoartnoy . -o. 36897, oplaiaa filai ■'•cw-bar 


















' 



■ 



u, i$??i Khfay », ekUm ffliY air- ■ *•* ***« t*ei MnmaB t» 

Chjcaf i j t ty >-y,_. v£. . 12 6 111. Ap :. $v : . 

Tn thi iretont eae« t&i *vtd*nc*i gj . _iii U to thi 

ef-'c-zt v.*-' K&i& -,-'-•. r j.ll,, .tp- fjMfl tic? t Ufcti <*';: ; - w . J ,;t*' >ed *on*rrt 
te pay hit fa*i ii the driver, a "red Gaj>* ill feakiae i;er W»„fc»^« 
froa thi cab **i placing it or* the floor of the station; that the 
cab driver pt-urt«d to drive tiway feifirf aha aa4 ia*4 nits, uis full 
fare, V-.it «sht stopped hia "by rfMu^sfc.ln I tt&tia 

pat* his in full; that whin Jas^ Wats paid he* dmv« w/*y; txt«k% isuste- 
ila%#*y i?h« turoel M.r:un.i MM! saw but one bag on *,- • ivur aaa cya- 
pialasd that the ot-er ba. *a§ tn thi cat, Shi $tti»tiia »• to 
wlvlhor the cK-b asa, la driving aw**y waiax the giffiu&vtaaiia Ala* 
c?.o--ed tey the iri&iBBi, w#m Bagllgiat, ?'hile Bat £**« fyaa B&Tfi* 
Bitty, we think wan for the jury to decide. v J g are B*Bi if thi 
opinion that whits** »1 sin tiff «ai guilt:; of Big] i&e»ii la failing 
tr. Bit that BiT two bago were reuoved fifaa thi taxioab, fM *use * 
cue ot ion for thi .lury. And we are furthrr if the opixiioi^ that w# 
mil rot br warranted in disturbing the finding of Urn #tt*) in favor 
cf Ihf ?laititlff or. the gwtM&t that it i» BgatwH thi Baaifiat 
rr ii;\t of thi BTig BBi B. 

Cerrl stint, if BABi that the court orred in in a true ting the 
, 4 vry. BiBBiil for ilaiatitff e&ys (and this *«««.& to hi acquiesced 
ir. by aaaaial I'cr dcf< UBaaSt) that to* couit iii&truct«d tne jury 
ll f*W% rirally Hti part ir writing. It is auid u.;...t thi court m- 
etrjetc^ the Jury orally on certaia rropo*i ticttit und thon r»ni4 
c* v er rrlttfi lr.« truetiona; but trt J.iiink t.i* 'cf» 01 t.ff.D ti »t 
tbf M«H HI not iM«trwc:t the .jury ornlly M tc all ol tUo ehnrgo 
within tbf r.^cr.lrif #f the Jaw. Bematal Tcr Aaf«&4aAt aaye that 
tVe U f i rvct <orr. Vhl«li Ihi court r^'.c 5 c the Jury *ere not la* en 
h] |hi Jury rhnr. they retir- oncider of t!:cir vcidict. Ihe 

fa«t that Ihi trial Juf»£re Vial text cf the ii^tructicnt ■'o^e not 









' 






• 









i 
■ 

■ 

*4 »3Qtli 



■ ■ 
I 

■ 

I 

- 



I HUM written 121 struct Lou », *itnin tfc* »#£&£&& 8f !!»• law, 

T-tic-ns 73 :,md 74 oi' tfi# *r.act.i«e ict of 1607 orovida ghat tn- 
rfcyaatla** u'uall "fee reduced to writing M4 Mutt tne Jul;* -*hall 
write ID t I RAVglti o- v-«os« ha *p ■ rave* tin® «**£ lil^wn" md on 
tboao he raj acts* vie word "iiafueed. * Tiie Municipal court, o ev»r 
provides Hurt the court awty laatvaat taw jury orally, but it &a«a 
not ehaAg* Ut« law Stiat where the court instructs instructs in 
ayitltfg &i aMat Basil &£ in at ruction* r.« approves on the MAS$fta 
"?■•.-&,.** Hi fctea laafta&t osee ail the in struct lone rmrt be rorfiid- 
erftd as oral instruction;:}. In u. great mmy »a««8 It ti tka prac- 
tice, feat aaJL? 1* tno &\3£&lat$al court but la $$MH f«4«P»S M »trt 1 , 
-- iral iaststtaiiaa* tart permitted, for »oun«ei to submit in 
arlttSg "aaggeai-latta* suric tne curt reaaas &© a o«.rt of felfl omU 

•■ », Counsel i'cr defendant orally .made object tons* tc MM of 
llfea in-., tructiorie, aoae of wnion ?ar« aoeepted by tn© court, k num- 
ber of abj^otions 'ire now uuide to the instructions but *a QiJ 
th»y tin. no I oro^erly be: ore ue Because not Bade At Ilia ttm tiki 

I !.,s were feiv^n, whicn ia the rule la u»e Raaiatpal c urt 
wher-" the Sal tractions *re orally ^iven; »nd the f&et tiiaft the oouit 
ft&t«4 at V:U; cioae of hie instructions that ffcfWMl nitfht h;.ve en 
ticn to ul\ at' tue instructions >i<* not taflPf the print. I ( 
. af on review, oral inatructicnr, rauet be •paalflaallj 
|% jetted to colore the jury retires?. 

^e ju l«£aent oi the Municipal court if Qtelatkfa i* affirmed. 

-,i. J*., eat *iCi»urely, J. , concur. 



! 
■ 

«>J | 

- 

' ■ 
■ 

I 

■ • 



I • ■ . • • 



wan 

una* &. iiMMif 

) AJ»T£*L tfR&M CIRCUIT C0UK1 
▼ S. | 

) oy cot>K 9mm. 

a. V. WALtSJI *t al. t j 

appellants. ) 




<w 4 3 I .A. 6 2 3> 



**. f&£3iai£a Julias luiujtfcm 

IRbSfm^ TKR oyXKIOV OF ZBK COUHT. 

mis is an appeal toy defendants Weloh, lu fl ftH and Klnger 
(director, assistant sJJwttf and •up<tr*i«or, respectively, of 
the department if yjgirtyttiB and education of tho state of 
Illinois) and defendants Harris, Oilsiore, aoiger, /itspatriek 
and $*ai (members of s medical ©osssiittee appointed by Walsh under 
authority of the statu to to sear charges preferred ag»in«t ftltt" 
nssn, a licensed physl&ian) from a dooroo granting a |HHmM in- 
junction restraining further proceeding* on the charges. The 
bill was filed toy fiaotnon January 1&, 1833. defendants Interposed 
a general dessurre* whiefr was ewsrrMied, and they sleeting to stand 
oy their desrurrer, a decree was entered making a temporary lnjune- 
tlon theretofore entered permanent. 

lit* -mestien for decision is whether tho bill statso a 
causa of action for equitable relief. 

The bill avers that Hnvmber tt, Mftf# complainant was duly 
license* to praotio* medietas and surgery ic th* state and that 
ho has einoe boon continuously engagsd Ifl tnat practice in Oilcago; 
that ho has enjoyed a good reputation *»d a lucrative praotloo; that 
Walsh is tho aotlng dlrootor el tho department of registration and 
education, and that it is hi* duty to draw up «nd prefer ail charges 
of unprofessional conduct torcu. ht for the purpose of revoking tho 
license of any physician and surgeon and oause the same to bs set 
for hearing befere tho medical cesualttee and at the conclusion of 
th» hearing to «et upon the report of tho oomnittoe either revoking 



■'- 












iXft|« 






4«V 






. 






rf?i iji' 






■ 

- 



■ 






I 
■ 

I 3rtUfc. 



iIakmu to 



I tH> 



m m 



the llc*»»e or dlteiarinfj the ehargaa; that def «*»>»»» t v. I, t^e^u* 
1* ifHlmi ae jt»»lttOTt director tf<Wf the departs en t mi taisec the 
place of 'tf&lsh wasm Walsh I* unable to perform his dutlea; tnat 
defendant hingor ll DM acting ouperYiaer of ©©atpls-inte for tne 
department, an 4 that It ia hie fluty to prosecute aucn complaints; 
that Edwards i« the chief ilia pretax H&d Ills duties are to investi- 
gate all ees&pl%ints, interview witnesses Mid prepare the eel denes; 
that Hvm, Sarris, ailsicre, aeiger, ihltspatric* stti K#tl »r* the 
duly apnolnttdl stetaber* of the so-called medical OQs$s»iitee of the 
IftlffltJDMt of registration and edacatlaaj tfoevi II it their <iuty to 
hear evidence in substantiation of §ft£ in defense of any -*»d all 
complaints brought to til* attention of the daoartmont and to report 
their findings to $al«h a* director, or in fe$.0 JMum to backus as 
assistant director, 

Xftto Bill says that M the evening of* aoril ft£, 1932, thara 
we* announced and broadcast fitaa certain radio stations tha fset 
that charges had been filed a&ainst ee«si$l*in«nt for the purpose of 
revoking his license; that early editions of the stern in^ aa pa W f of 
April "?6th In Chicago carried lurid staiarsents tt- the effect that 
eoaral^in&nt had boon charged wltfa Malpractice and extortion, and 
that tha revocation of his license would ba eou&nt. 

rhe bill further aver* that complainant appeared bafora tna 
medical committee May ©, 1933, at 9;3»i a. *., prepared to fully und 
ada juntftly defend against tueao tfu&rgee; llMtl great newepaper pub* 
llolty wu given to the neerin b .; that tha taking at' evidence started 
on that morning and continuad tnruu&b tha entire day of Friday and 
Saturday, and that whan tna antlra evidence at tha doarUent had 
baan received, tha aaaiatant atterney #enerei In charge of tha 
proaaoutlon announced to the eo«u£ittee tnat in view oi tha contra- 
diction and f list ay character of a great deal of the teatluony pro- 
ducts:, in an attempt ad aubetantiatlon of tha ehargee, he would like 



ft 






• 






■ . 



■ 

t MU ,f ftitt 

i of »di' 

- 

. 



. 






3 

oormlaoion to withdraw ttal rtieaJLea »o»« of tfea chargea and to &»i«nd 
the rwniJillll $H«Jft MUl to pooeibly Xiift acUltian&l afe&SWBgj that 
tonpl&in&nt protOftted a^ainet thie toec&u&e e*' IIM unfttvoiafcle nevs- 
paper publicity walefe would ihue go unanswered for an indefinite 
titse to complainant *e "insaloulable damage"; that not«ithsW>diBg 
•ot&plain&nt *a efejeetton, the §t«ttiet*)t gfWB%#i ti»e t«s the a«*ist» 
ant attorney g*F»«r&I until Itsijr 11, 1®'$2, to designate *hi«h oh&rgae 
would be iiml»Mil t ^hat at&eAd$eiitt» to the exi^tin^ ch&rgee Willi I b? 
®&de MM *ti»t new ehwrgee, if enjr, would be filed, 9»4 that the »afc* 
tor «u continued indef inifcely far further hearing vit)mi$ any op- 
portunity grants. eeaB.-slal».fijot to introduce evidence in ftftfiUM of 
the ehargea; that June 89, 1933, eofttplaitiaiBt not having la the MttV 
time been notified of any further action fey the 4e3>sstri$<!«it through 
his attorney »IHUi< to bo written aabfl Mft&ld to th« secret *ry if 
thp eoK&lttee a 1 otter. The letter pointed gait the prior part ft It* 
logo, the tJJatWiiW^i if the »ooiotsin.t attorney &en«rel at taat tl»e, 
and it*ttfl that the ffi|iWJ||iH had agreed to notify ecaap lain ant ao to 
Just vhnt MUUrgifl would be lali»adMH»l afjfi abaft MM onargea file"?, but 
that nothing further had been htmr4 of the committee for a parted of 
nearly two sonthe; that the whole waiter had fee«n <,,iven wi >e pub- 
lleity in the nawepapere Ml thie unfavorable publicity h*d gone out 
to the public while ©cu»s}*in*»t hod ebafciutaly no opportunity to 
refute the tent irony; that an lnventigution made at the offloe of 
the departrcant of regletratioa *nd education reveal*'] that the oom- 
aitte* va« eeheduicd to alt Again on July Id th ;-a1 tnat It wao there- 
fore urged v*ry etron^ly that the coanlttee waould •arrm. go to either 
proeeed wita the hearing of the defence on thcae ch&rgae" or "enter a 
final order dlepoeing of the ohargee. ■ 

The bill also avers that on July 16, 1932, complainant ap- 
peared before the judical committee by ni« counsel and demanded that 
the natter eitrter be »et for ioatedlate hearing or the onargeo di at. i«t ed 









•- 

i 

I 

r« art* . 

■ 

I 



:,(;.• • - .. : : ■■ ' : > 



- 



thai the CGK&ittee entered an order upon tiie officials wnos* duty 
It *as to ..-..»*• such cii*r*i«$s, that the sasae anould be s**de and 
should toe concluded toy July ftttfe| that the eoeaalttee itself and 
other offioials entirely tgMrtd tnie order, mmI thnt thereupon 
eowplalnant en July S§Ht caused ■ letter to fe* sent t© the secre- 
tary of the nodical c©K;*sitt«e, calling Its attention to eoxap 1:* tal- 
ent' s motion made July 16th to either &r»nt on ifcstsdiat* bear in* 
or dismiss the charges; that the officers la charge of the pros** 
oution had wished additional lift*, and asJfc*rt ttik&t the matter should 
be passed f*f at period ©f ten days, at ehioh ii&e it would he defi- 
nitely disposed of; that no notie* h&& been g&Vta or additional 
charges of any kind; that daring; all this tiiae the charges had been 
bandied about In the newspaper* without any opportunity for eonpi&in* 
ant to answer or dlsprow* th«&, with a PftMt&Vgtts 1 damage and injury 
to complainant's practise Mi »i*JB<ttltg| that ces..pl a In ant had. been 
assured that a definite disposal ■tltiUi be »*#* of the matter, and 
that if tae coKmitts*** order of July lath Hutt th« matter should be 
tried *r dieslsaed within ten day* ftMv, that -late as not carried 
out, it would fee neee*s>ary to file mandamus proceedings I* taat end. 

The bill avers Ut*s no further action new tag been taxen, 
on August 2, lw3JJ, sonplalnaat fil#d a »«titlen for ■ writ of man- 
damus against defendants in the .Superior court ol' cook county; t ;at 
dsfsriianta, as respondents in that action, "delayed »oid hindered the 
aatter until finally his honor Judge Roe* al ordered tns d*- 

psrtm«*nt to *ith*r proceed or :ii*mis* the matter, and then, on 
August 30, 1932, a so- called amended citation wee filed, in sub- 
etanee onar^lng oos.pl a In *nt with gro»e malpractice resulting in 
permanent injury or death of patients named, failure to use proper 
and required moans in connection villi the e*a. ■ ol patients 

to the end that a proper diagnosis might be mad* end proper reaedles 
preseribsd, failure to us* eare and caution required of a praetl* 



■ 
■ 

■ 

1 
■ 



tioner if the treatment of «uwan ai Indents, failure ftf ua« judgment 

and nieoretlon required of % praot it loner, intentional negleet of 

pationte for the purpose of increasing or enhancing daiftatf.es ta be 

persons 

recovered by psitiwts in civil raits against Uifi/«WHt» respon&li-le 
Tor injuries «fe&0& the patients had received, .she n&eaes of the 
patients, particular injuries, etc. , are ss<st forth in detail, aid 
complainant &Yere th*t a c©&j>ari»0» of the iMMl&MBs' with the 
original eitatie* IfeftWi sueh striking similarity as t« indicate that 
the ajwendasent pr.acU(3&ily «iaeunto t© a rests t*':..?n't »t the original 
charges, 

Hie bill farther avers the statute relative to the hearing of 
such proceedings provides that the department shall not continue 
such a hearing for a period to •awHhNI JO d**;i&, s&d "T***1 V* Tt ffWtllMg 
tiiie spe&ifie pro-vision, this purported tMHMrtlSg, was continued ever 
complain ant 1 * objection -and demand* from M&y 7, li?3£, to uepteGiber 
9, X932; that during this ti#« two of the vf tn«*«eas najfeed ^ho had 
testified in support of the purported charges voluntarily anoeared 
and confessed h-it the testimony they had given before the depart- 
ment eae wilful perjury , which they had been induced to eoae.it by 
another doctor; that this confession of perjury MM brought to the 
attention of the ©edical oojaetittee in open hearing July 16, 193ft, 
but the oosasjittee ignored th* situation and refused to disatigc the 
charges based en this ad&lttodly false, untrue and perjured testimony. 

The bill further *vers l statute (fcahill's 111. »#v. 

State. 1951, ohap. 91, par. 17, subhead •!>•) previdee that no al- 
leged improper aeta of any licnnsed phytic iun aid surgeon coowsitted 
•ere than three year© before th* 4 ... axing shall be inquired of or 
ftade the basis of any such charges, unlea* the phyuici«n or aurgeon 
eheul'1 be absent from the stat* during caid period; that oonplainant 
for a period ef nore than tern yeara haa been an actual and continued 
reeident of th« *tat« of Illinois and engaged aotively in hit profee- 









jdcx;x\ — 



i 

h*Xt 

■ 



■ 

; 



■ 






elon t but notwithstanding this plain provision ©i ih& law, and 
©ear th© objection of oewplainant, defendants' >r0»«©ator ©ro<3uo©4 
and the eojRF.itte© heard t*etiau©«y ©1" alleged ia>j»r©j»«r e©odv*©t ©J* 
e©Mpl*iwant ©eeurrin# «.©r© HMW tight ytar© prior to th© h©%rln.i>; 
that in. deliberate and utter violation ©f fcho propria J, ©a ©i the lM( 
Ringer snd IjWjgjg -.roducei fc«*tlj|&a$w ©f on© &UMN It the gflNHPt 
that «e»©lai.R'«f*t ImM ' i *3Ll#r©4tW< ■- - arising out of an 

autaipobil© ©olliwion, *vti* Uv.%t §*?£*£ thig altoro«ti©» oosip lair* ant 
forcibly took Bmn t© the hospital, ISOE—ld aM to ©©&*:■, it actual 
violence upon hies. Mid Dunn »ue$ <KWtl ilnmt for damage© arising 
out if the nll.#f?*id assault and recovered a |«4#A«Mtt a these thing©, 
th© bill svera, w«»rt *ll©g«d to have occurred &i»re than ©*v©n year© 
prior to th© hearing and th© filing ©f Mad ©©»pi&lht; that thee© 
©harge© war© not in any way as optioned. &1> r©f^r?«Ki Id Ida th© original 
©r a**, end© -3 citation; that dofwhrJant© iikewia© produced before th© 
©omstltte© a witness nossed Hart laud, who testified that »©r© than 
eight y«ara prior to th© -late of th© filing &x tfe« original eita» 
tion of charge©, he, although not lioent'Od to p root la* sjediein© and 
surgery, parti-. in**t®d Is th© oosacloftion of an. illegal abortion up©n 
a woman n©t na&ad, and that Ifeti wesson Ikfti te*H ia^an to th© hayetono 
hospital |g saw a h«r 1 il"#, MM eo»pI(*in.\uit discovering th© f%et© ex- 
tort«d a wert^a*?© on ©art ©in property ©«rn*-d U/ ^artlaub a© purported 
"huah* won©y; that all t.'iee© thing© war© ■&&<!§•# t« nav* ©o«urr©d 
»©re than eight years orlor to the filing of th© charges ©r t© th© 
hearing; that thl© matter h*d not b*en mentioned in th© written 
©har^ee filed; that th© witn©«© tflftlMTt ednipleinunt admitted on 
eroei examination that he had b#e> owfUtli of praetiolng si©dicin© 
without a lieene© and fined; that notwithstanding sen© defe; iant© 
newer attempted to collect the fine or to icprtonn him, end that 
h© ie at liberty »ud had been continuously no from the tin© of hi© 
conviction without any appeal pending; that during th© p.-snd«i.oy • f 



I 
■ 

•■ ,tt-t*r 

i 

"»« 
Oi Jlasm$* 

1« 

wm < 

- 

• ••: ■ 

9*" 

■ >»ti 

$* 



tnie hearing tklt sitn^aa oa«*. %c Km© tffift oi the itlUMf »f 

«oau->i&inant aai ©ffared If r«ptt-!i<ite bit teati-r.ony .Vor t'»t sum 
tf $£00; that thia w&a brought to f»© attention of 4«f ffndanta, «%• 
diertgarJed it; that til* eo^&itt©© ami othar defendant© atrmltted 
the introduction &f » r&at amount of Sa-rc^sr -m$ unwortny heareay 
teitisr©n> end t©9fim©Oy <s« smttera net charged in ©ttmti 1 ft*© original 
• r the as,e»d©d written t£uurg#© KM 8#«l»«t whieh ©©©Q}l&itt©n$; Had 
abeolut*ly no opportunity 4© prtpmvv ft defmee; that fe«©tkiatejit£ wae 
adduced in |Vf caisea * .#rs patient© were brought I© Hit I***©©*© 
hospital (upon the r.taff of Tr.uleli e©ff-pi-«i.in&nt is ofa.i@f aurgeen) 
Buffering from fcenults of ©a ©ttt©m©%lX© accident, fc© t&© offset 
that complainant had attempted to forc« them to ©&©©$$ Hi their 
lawyer a lawyer desalinated an J selestad by Ma ta Ife© prosecution 
Of thair claim for damage©; that there tfaa n© alluaian to or ssen- 
ti»n of th<tee j&a.tt*ra Is the a^i&Rded charge* £iJL©d ©ad wjiieh were 
the only notice* of any kind received fey ©©aj^©JjM©Bt Laf©saftajj ai * 
as to what a© would be required t© 4tfaa4 a^lnet. 

The bill ftf©J>£ l&at the hearings *?*?re concluded on or about 
October 6, IftSS) that com t fil©4 hi. a written argument within 

80 daya after th* MPJGMHUftt of Magd* was pr*»?.**r*d. -and ««rvod upon 
him; that on !>eoe»b^r 23, 1932, director "alfih ,iwt to oompl vinant 
a written not to© ta the *fff.>ot thut the medical ooj»jsittee recommended 
the suapmslon of conpl klaaat f f Hew*,-' a* ■ practitioner of m*di- 
oina lor a period of two year© in accordance witn the written r*»ort 
and recoo*a«ndation of th«? ooxmltte?*, a cop;' of ■&*©■ waa attaohed 
to and mad© a part of tha notice; that ooopluinant waa further noti- 
fiai that he »oul1 hava 30 iaja/i fron ih ,,x. 't to pr«aant aia «otion 
in writing for rahoarla^* a»cio*«4 In »>*il l^tt^r »er» the finilngs 
and r»eoaieen4atiotte A t -e 4*f«n4anta eonxpriein« the aeiical eo»- 
mlttee, which ur* eat up at length verbatim. 

The bill further avera that tha report did not cner«e aom- 



. 





















■ 
■ 















: 

«1 

tataritt**! Attn 

, .=>»»,* ire 



-«v a :*"..• 



pl&icant «ith groea asalpructice wnich reeulted in peratanant Injury 
or death of either of the patients ».«■*»..<? 4, fcut only that complain- 
ant vfti guilty of inefficiency and professional neglect, «Mftd that 
in one of the caaee inefficiency am* neglect consisted of failure 

to call in another physician and eurgeea in • consulting capacity; 
that this is not eauae for revocation under the provisions of tno 
statute; that as to another patient the report rttAfgt4 inof t icienoy 
and professional neglect in failing to a*put-'*.t« the leg oi a pa- 
tient, although tho patient admitted he had positively refused to 

peralt u explain ant to amputato the Hash; that other finding* were 

other 
that eoKplainant hm& not called i||/physlei«>ne tffea, flight aava per- 
suaded the pat i est to submit to M amputation; thai thia ia not 
required by the statute nor denounced a* constituting groea Bg&* 
practice nor as any reason for esupeneion if k&ke license of a 
physician or surgeon; that the ee&jr*itt«e aiao found complainant 
guilty of improperly instructing and inducing witnesses to testify, 
whlsh llaewiae ia not a ground for auspenaien under the atatute; 
that the report of the eoamittee, upon lUill they recommended the 
euapenelon of co&nltinant 'a license, i» Iftftj Squarely and entirely 
upon the testimony ee to conduct of complainant occurring over 
aee en. years age and ia therefore in direct violation of the 
epeelfle limitation of the medical practice aet; that another 
finding waa that eoitpl Minant had been g.,ilty of lending hla name 
to one Harry lea, which finding waa null and void snd of no effect; 
that for theee and ©tner reaeona the entire proceedings againat 
eeatplaicant were in direct violation ef his constitutional rights 
and the rights given hla under the statute* and laws of the atate 
ef Illinois, and that «alah aa director, an) tne other defendants, 
unless prevented by Injunction would enter an order in oonlomlty 
«lth the report, in violation oJ the legal rights ef complainants 
that he wee witnout an adequate remedy at law, "in tnat the only 



■ : s»»*s 

Una *$ 

\ 

ttUM 

jtoa *f -l«w 

-*i icH* 

•i,. Hi *«rw yili-. 

. : li&tO* ,**JL yvm* »«o ft* 
4* h«n ••»*** not 5*rff 

i 

*>H.t hvm 
t t4t turn t siualilX 1# 

^1 i «2 I** '•*« •••lM* 

oa "*• I t flour *' w 

;*© »4t tmAt at ■■■■» ** ***** 



remedy left him, after the auapenaion of ni» licMUkae, is by way of 
* certiorari to the Ulroult court JHartftg the pendency of which hi* 

license would. stand suspended or revoked, MM that therefore orator 
is without remedy In the premises except in a court of equity.* 

She brief of complainant states hi© teetsry to too that de- 
fondwntt were eng&ged Ik an illegal conspiracy gainst tikm which 
bad not thus far boon eonsuj»&t«d , and that «aeh of the defendant* 
in sea* respect or another was * actually and Actively participating 
in and respectively contributing to the auGceasasful perpetration of 
•Aid illegal oons$irss,ey w ; that unless a court of equity intorvoo»d 
complainant would suffer i rrepar&ble injury, Mid that Hftiaimfth as 
the only ressedy open to complaisant in ft court of law, &» dietla* 
gaiahed from ft court of equity, Wft§ tft wait until the unlawful 
conspiracy had been successfully ftwiwaii«mitf<8 by that defendant* «»d 
suffer the Irreparable Injury n*c**e*.rily ftttfflft&ftftt therewith, -and 
then seek to h&vs their act* «et '*side by certiorari, there was n* 
adequate remedy la a court of MM ope** li complainant. ■ tt&f 
theory, ao far 8* thi* record discloses, appears? to ftfttft been de- 
veloped for the firat time after the record was filed in this caurt, 
*o conspiracy ia mentioned in the bill. It la not permissible to 
deduct a conspiracy by inference from the language uaed ( Cj fjfc, fo 
Wamioner . Sbd 111, 199), but if it Mftft pernstiaalble to saic auoh 
inference, there la no language in the bill from vnloh »ueh conclu- 
sion aight be reasonably drawn. 

fhe practice of «i«dicin« Had aurg*ry, th« prooedure by which 
a license to practice ia granted, and the procedure by w.'iloh tueh 
lloenas may bo revoked are all aat forth Aft th* itmtute. ( ismtth- 
Kurd's 111. Kev. Stats. 1033, chap. 91, pp. ld.15.189v.) oectlon 16b 
of ohapter 91 provldce in aubatanoe tuat before a license ehall be 
revoked or suspended the holder muat be suRunened to appear; that ns 
citation shall be ineued excapt on a sworn oomolmnt; that upon the 



" 

- 
i 

fell* &1 

i 

■ 

■ 

. 
"iff »»l;«irt9 «<& 

I #•»•©: 

. ■ «'*»! 



■ 









ft* .q 






10 



filing §f »uca complaint the director shall ii-.au« a citation coo* 

teining & copy of it, notifying the p#r«on. of tlfci tiae and place 

when and where the hearing will h« had, eomsminding ni» to fill 

hie written answer under oath wltuin 20 day*, notifying feia that 

is 
if h* shall fall to f 11« Wtfl a»«wej/dafaalt will he taken Ml 

his license ®ay he suspended or revolted. It provided for pro- 
cedure in ease of a hearing 'and procedure in eaeo if a default; 
and providee that la all oaeee the court shall have power to re- 
view the suspension or revocation by a writ of feaHtleamai to the 
dapartM*nt, such writ In h<s issued by the i&iifi upon praecipe; that 
eervlee shall he had upon the director, as-aietant director or 
superintendent of the department and »ay fc* had by ssalltng notice 
at least ten daya before the return day if this writ; that in cases 
wnere the license hae been suspended or revoked, each court &my 
upon tiie filing of such suit hy writ of pffikimaaaA u on a hearing 
and proper showing of probable- error »u spend the operation ©f such 
suspension or revocation during tne pendency of the salt, and that 
either the department or the person affected way have the final 
judgment or order of the court reviewed by the Supreae court oi' the 
etate in its discretion, there are other provision* which indicate 
the intention on the part of the leg! el wt... re to confer jurisdiction 
upon the courts to the end that full and complete justice axy pre* 
vail in any such proceeding. 

Complainant says that the power oJ the department le not 
arbitrary or beyond ■■iiiiigit till by the ccurts, citing 1*00010 v . 
fl-cCoy . 125 ill. 239. It was eo held in that, case, »hlc<i see an 
original action at law lr. the Criminal court of Cook county to 
rccovar a statutory penalty imposed by section 13 of the act of 
1987. Tim oase can hardly bo regarded ae authority ior the inter- 
position of a court of equity. 

Complainant ssys that where it is apparent frost the ciaraete 



I J 



■ 
4 tl 









■ 



. 









ha* 

■ 

I ina 

. ::■ 1 9 






• 






em .tftf 

,X lit noi k *o>i Xeal^ito 

i-'O 4>«AB »*fif .f0Sl 

!fl>4»At*no *(U v»V 



11 

of ttt«» en^rgee and the attitude of defendant a that an accused "ill 
suffer irrepe-r&We injury, it i« ftfa Ittty of the court to iUh- 
vene, and cites haasay v t frhsltun . 329 111. 432, which was a euit 
in equity involving '->recenure under toe present la*. Hurt case* ie 
sisilar If this in »»»« respects but fundamentally and clearly ie 
distinguishable tWm it, Ul that U»« bill there set up f.-sets shoo- 
ing that the eoaa&ittee which was tc> try the lflHi|& silt waft was ille- 
gally constituted, lit this ease the bill alleges f-s«t» a'-io^ing 
that the cofeTsittee was la fast legally eoastituted and legally au- 
thorised to proceed under the law. g| | y %i Jwf fc Wf Hi. •>!, is 
olt#d, fcufe it differs frc«* the instant case in that tfeA biii there 
was teased upon the theory that defendants were proceeding under en 
invalid statute, turn validity ©J the et&tute BMNaT which the pro- 
ceeding here in question is brought ie net raised by any allegation . 
in the bill. ?ptiefl.V Ja&SUftl s^JMBst i&4 **^« **!, la cited, 
but in that ease the authorities if the si it? were iftoffilMrttllt that 
the petitioner should secure a licence to WMMiaoil a restaurant watts* 
he owned, »h*reas, according ie the allegation or tlM tUt, there 
«as no statute requiring aim to obtain aucn lieenae. 

Complainant cites other oases, clearly dlatingulshtttyle, such 
ss C»9onnell v. gearing . 3291 ill. IW, eltoMNI eenplainant falsi a bill 
to enjoin a trespass to land owned by hie, -hero the trespass, ac- 
cording to the snowing of the bill, resulted in irrfvrnraMe daaage. 
Kaehcohl v. inlander. taper Co .. &52 111. App. 178, is cited, but that 
was a omso where the o art of Justice of trie pence rendered Ju !#*nt 
in s oaso fii rein there had be or. no eervioe of a eur-mons on the de- 
fendant, if the defar.daut had taaen the case to the Circuit court 
oy Os rtlorarj (as he alg^t have done/ the effect would have been 
to giro the court jurisdiction wit .out the service of auN.ie.one. lhe 
remedy at law was therefore properly held to be inadequate. 

It ie undoubtedly true that equity will in proper eaees aeoasjt 






I 












■ ■■ 









■••1*0 oa «••* |j 
■ 
a»* »a«»b *• o:UiUlllft ** 

9*3 .«ao*>ui fi '• .vJ.«* ©J 

■ 



la 

jurisdiction where there is a remedy at law anion, however, is in- 
adequate, as held in Calflwcli v. fepffat. ?15 Hi. app. 5tf&, and 
W^lls v. Cogmty o f Pike.. US HI. App. 4v&, but in tft0h ©f these 
o*s*s there were unusual circus*! MH##1 very 3lfJ>r««»t frow any w-iteh 
ore mads to appear by the bill files? in tale oa»«. 

©n the ©ther liftnd, the rule in this i>tat*s i« firstly estab- 
lished that *&#&§ cos&pli&lnant has * plain, Adequate and complete 
re*r,edy at law which has not been exhausted, he cannot resort to a 
court of equity. JBflUsfjtf JiBJI 3fa fiffidUU * 4;5 **•*♦ lS4 « itMssst Ii 
i MEj fet ■** la. u>S; j^llatt . lUJteicttWfcssl » 31B *aut. loij flfiilB" 
JMfcJLsJst&BBb 1G0 m « *•*• l#*l fffljfJfrA^^-ff**** M * ft- ffft- 

tsJBBaiMttu *•• in* App. Mil ^gyuJWi llA ai - %*• !•»! 

fr aahattaa st a te jiia nJt.w. jftariti. 3Sa ill. App. 111. 

A careful sjtminl ©f the *n©l« bill here discloses that 
complainant desires to avoid UMI procedure 9Jft|gfe Is by statute ap- 
plicable, sie failed to teak* a wot ion for rehearing, for which the 
statute provides. £he Supreme court has held that the neglect of an 
accused to avail himself of this provision is fatal to a 1 ill for 
equitable relief. mm^mpsAmmw «u — ■*-, Hl ff ,ffiflffi| i ^HsKHJsitfci HI 
111. 115, 

The legislature h«&s tne undoubted V&frM to confer .luri Mic- 
tion in sofdal statutory procedures upon ®uch courts as it may 
choose to th» exclusion of others, ilUfff the fundamental rights of 
persons recwivo adequate protection. It has beer* so held in t.any 

•■>■»•• j*»op1o v. M t§MtM$ ■*• m » 61 °. BflU T « JUk g* vU&am* 

31 B 111. 472; Dos, QftJMsa JMMBsUstcJUJsslsU^ 33 » ill. Sid. 

In such case there Is no necessity for the intervention of a court 
of eauity. Illinois *cll Tel, fc fa v. Commerce ^om. . M 111. 10P; 
gldoiltr Investment jjjtfc v? Jtoaerson . 235 111. App., 21. Xhsre 

ore ale© oases which specifically hold that cert iorart provides an 
adeouate remedy at law. Held v. S t ock Yards. d8 111. App. 32; 






- 






■ 



■ .■ 
• -• *£UT. 

» tsi ft! 

■ b 

•-T atmf 
■ 

■ 

if* 

i 



.#t. »#*«»«i* 



13 

Ghwmm&i* t. ^ati a. $>? 111. A|m>* $07; if,gy < .|,g. r y.t,,.jfr t i ^ i i . ■;. I, I, 164; 
G rcmSckaaag ▼ . fee eorwlek. tt& fcioh. US*, 

The decr«« ol* ttec Circuit court is JroflMWWN MM tuo cause 
remanded with dir#cticrit to diami«*» Hm bill ftf StMplli&it. 

BXVXBtBTO &&D Mk'ttMD fffi ;>I«£C?Ii. . 

O'Connor nad isicSaxciy, JJ. , concur. 



■:■■ 



37062 

ju£& ism 



Apfjell^e, 



utTJtuptiLXTAi ura uissfiuacai ) 

0u*I>as«¥, a Cerp« ration, ) 

Appellant, ) 




nm oxitcux? cc 



OF c<: . »■■■ . 












MXXVAS3SB iiU Gi'iM • ?. 

in en s-elion ©f %»an»apait usjob s» inrarajuee policy ssnd MpMI 
trial fey jury iter® wa* a verdict for plsintiff is the sua* ©f 
I3S2S, upon -siilcu the iftUUrl* ov#rra.llfig atotl©n*s £«* % nm trial and 
in arreet, *»ntered jadj^aent, ishicte- ft4£<tt&MKt ftl&a as to r«vei*i#. 

Plaintiff i« the wife of Arthur fcooney, &«#*»•$§, and the 
feeneflel&ry named in an in»«r«nc« volley upon irhioh the motion is 
feaeed. Arthur SSeoney lit fell MJfct&MI WM an employee 01" the '^afeeah 
Hallway Syetess, ittl the ineurane© contrast upon whic:r: the suit if 
fereught i« kno**n as a "group policy,® It provided for indemnity In 
two r»a.nect»: (l) fiOfH MttMftlflBMli tt»©r* the deuth of the insursd, 
and (a) #3000 ad idl t ionai. conditioned upon AtttHl from accidental 

SftUae©. 

Arthur iMMy, the insured, died »?uly 4 f 1SU, in an autom©- 
bile accident n%&r &or©cao, lr* liana, IWwiiltIi p>|< to plaintiff 
beneficiary |9M9 lil'o indemnity without prejudice to lte ri»ht to 
eentest its liability un.ler the ol*\u«e relating to deatn fey acci- 
dent, this euit was femu.-at to recover on that promise of indemnity, 

lhe polioy provided that in ease of accidental d«ath defend- 
ant Insurance e©Hip*iiiy agreed to pay |Stti additional upon proof tnat 
asaured had sustained injury "ae a reeult directly aid independently 
of all other causae, of bodily injuries auai*ined, while lnaured 
hereunder, through violent, e*t»rr.el *«d aooldental mean*." The 
defense relied upon fey defendant 1» that the death of Jtooney vaa 









I g 



. 



, 



. 



. 



i;*«# A: 

a ««* rx-a.u v*<*i *d la*** 

2>*MMft ■ -rw«* 

y*aooi» liii'iTA .b»«««~ 

Y«*Xl*A 

« c» mnns •! Jitgwxtf 

(X) :«*3«tt«»nt ow* 

; m OOOCI (S ) 

. ivbnl till OC , dJfUttttf 

.•£.> t(4*«»f.iii 'to m .i •*» Stu9 nttCS »Sa»t 

■ 
•vv.oo • .turtumal la* 

• ildir ,**>, ,«4MMi •»•*!*<> IX* to 

iMMMI X*}Mti'>*« (MM Ii."»»Jvi. 4 ja»ieJv a^awijtJ ,*••« 



caused hf ar contributed to lireetly or indirectly, wholly or portly, 
by & diseased ©r bodily infirmity fcngun m bMSft diee*.«o, and that 
there was no liability for that N>m> 

The eeidenoe tende to ahov Hint dec •■■.<-* -i! Hired at 1554 Ra0t 
65th etreet, Chicago, ■!*£ ttas on fc»i morning »f -*uly | a iv 31, with 
hie *ife, hie daughter, -md 1 iM« Harris, his started by automobile 
to i-ogans?ort, Indiana, driving south on route 41; tbftt the deceased 
wae driving astJ t&ttt *s he appro aohedi a'.omocp, Ir-. , he p«$<icd 
«un automobile a.nead of him, "ouUing la* in front of it,; that he 
loot control of hie ear wfeiftl swervsd frees- one aside af the road to 
the other and collide*! with another automobile snaing it, the oppo- 
eite direction. All of the occupants of the c&r In which dece<*e«d 
wae riding *ere thrown out of the ear. When &##****« *«.i picked up 
he was unconscious; he w%» t^teen to Morocco ••mv.i riewer regained eon- 
eelouant'SB and died on the way, 

Ihe "body w*a taken firet to norooca end w->- the same owaning 
wae ferou&ht to iihioa^o fey the undertaker. J)r. Harrison, who ex- 
amined the body, tfiaiif i ,--<< if- ul tn nis if l»t«l t 4 AAMOl wae oausad 
from "heart failure." Ihe Chi cage Wi&mrtzkvir testified mat there 
wae an injury to ?.he foraheadi whic;* he filled with a plastic sufe- 
etanee. A number of witness?.** teeti fl ift#I the colllelon 

and whilo Hi— it! w«a unconscious he w.h» iMMMNf to moan stweral 
tiatee. A bottle of digitalis (a htaflTt stimulant) wae foind in hie 
pseket. 

Dr. Lapin called fey laintiif ( subpoenaed by fcotn ailes) 
testified that h* tn«d« en examination of th* de a eased about two 
weeks before the aocident. M n»d tr* »t*d deoe iced some tine be- 
fore. Ho eays that at the ti&#» oi hie exsmin vtion deea»tae4 said he 
**s feeling all ri*ht but thsaght he ai^.ht as well lwt the doctor 
take a look at hia. !>r. lm in -uyi he took tb« blood preseurs of 
deeeaesd at the t>ir of that examination, oxaci/ipd ni« heart and 






' 



&9«4»*«lf» A %4 

■ 









■ 



I ■•■.-*«*>» *«•£ 

f **#*• ,. 
» to lit fen* as." 















■-•■•« 

Ut«i Oft •■»* 

;»•»*•»•,& »Xl.tftr frn* 
. ***»»? 






gawe hl« * general physical • *as>l a at i on : that hi* fc, oed »r«8»uri w»« 
nor-al and hie heart va» *ir» » pretty good. s*a*ali>$«&«* in* lector 
had given dec*'i*s*d tr*atiaent *tout a year before the aesi^ent and 
had &,dvi«ed hits Is take a re»t at the hospital, Wiliah h* lid. nis 
oaaaiination disclosed a aur ur la the h#art. H* says: *lfeat was 
about a year b«for« th« M«tAiM aa&ali eauiaed hi a is&th. Kt ii* 
rest uj> «t that tine. X heard a tm&mx in hie heart at teat tl«e 
and I flgolrN a met w ul I p* -■■■■. &*i too. I gave ai« go»e 

■tjtttlf aa&ata was §#&£ f*im *£ digitalis. I s&tr i;iia aft** R* had 
r->stad *p« .d* fait & L*t b*/t*ar *ftd Ms ©ottditicu aafi fnirl.y well 
cleared up. Batatas thai Has | tm4 *; • Mma af his daa&a J 

©a* hi... practically dnily; h« was tt^ataBt&y iu j§&e4 physical condi- 
tion. At Utat ti»« I g«v*s him ««disi»e, 1 g«ve hits liquid, about $ 
an ounce of, 1 believe it was, ttgs&ittg i* *»» aaaataiag k* iaJte in a 
dropper. 1 gave it to hiss jufct ©nee, S« .•- i ■■■■;■>.* I iaate t;*ek s*ny .oaere. * 
On cross examination the Doctor said: "l aoalda't say his heart vti 
nor al, oraotleally normal. It iftl 14 lot hette*. It -who r. little 
enlarged. DM n-sdlcine I gaya tela #ould c®atr«4»t it. ' t say 

anything msase N >*• about tooro aadUUslaa.* Saa Stoat** aloe »ai<l that 
the deoeaeed had info jets ed bin (feat fee Bad beet; an atalet« if- hio 
youth, and the ^etor 1*44 that t&on who nave been la athletic* to a 
considerable ox tent nvmrly al»f»ye haw* enlarged hearts. It ales 
stated that ho h^ard deceased h*d an oporation later at th«» hospi- 
tal but that h* iid not treat ht fa« .>UUer*, and that 
aooney was la hie late fortiao when ho trended r.ia. 

Dr. JUinder, a ▼aterin^rlan ami also eoroner of the county in 
Indi na wh«r« th* accident occurred, testiried that he aaaisted r. 
Larriaon in the cxair-lnation of ttti tciy; ytat thero win a email 
bruise on the forehead and a bruise ou tae two*; Itutl he put oresfture 
en the skull iiukediately ot«r the bruise but could net determine 
whether it w»e a depressed t'raeture. 



. it&1% h ■ I *%#»! 

'HXTfcii feArf 

e iaatfa 

■ I 
■ 

■ . 

.«* bataaXo 

, XoHWjJl 

ifia* i 

.1 l»*i.ll0.iSi ,rH»-:1 h*a*aa«* »*** 

a o.t *»i; t rfJi»at 

i ion bit* *xt *«ct* 4vcf 

•a* \;onooi» 

wuatoo * *n» anr ifni 

■i# * t*. i.«aw* I toti-rtaJ 

«wsi»" »«« a baa ft* I <n» taiu** 

»n fan bXuaa U'i MiMt4 »it? i»vo -rictus*, i IXaia »d# «• 

,a ba«»**a*b a »*w *J «c»rf#»rf» 



©r. ^ri^ht, brot^er-lci-A**** ©Jf AeWftagftA, t«»ti.ri*d for 
plaintiff that he knew AMMHUMMl ten y®ar« nrior to 'hi a 4©*th; that 
he Baftf a phyeicfeJ. e»a«duaiia« of aim la Hay* IV It ; that, the heart 
©howed n© ©v 14 <?&.£-• of waleular 1 ©•&#**&© or diee&ee; Hftst the heart 
wa* set eiii&rgeds that Ita rata and ryihm war* nor; ^al and 'chat the 
firtdijif;* regarding it war* negative $ ths.t fefl used ft »teih©«co©e f*n& 

ptyraifsita Sts»sn*r, 8« a«y* tt>mt wfew is i i hhrS 9$ ■. ■■•:■ 1 hi 

went to !**Hama MM examined t&e to! *aafcJ*a" setafcliah- 

ment in *-©r©ece; that ha found evtd^noe of e^terr^-l injury en the 
forehead about as in©;* and a half abo^* tltft i*ft «y«fc«Hr{ that ttsere 
wee an ar«a ©f disagloration and contused or taniiaad arta about li 
to § inch long by 1 In&n wide, whtoh wa* ©vol 1 en m& dleeolor©*; 

[ ate the outer aide of the loft ssnouM^r, Hbmb ntpp*ap part ©1 tha 
arm, tiieri vraa auvoiaer *jfe» ©f di»«©l©rat ion about % la afc— in 
diameter; that there wue another bruise of a&OHt the asaie aixe in 
the a cap u It regiott, Hutt i*» Uta* a-*e* ol (tot l-: : ft nnc-ul-'er ;&nd 
eh*et; an abrasion about I inch*© long or, tha .sJclc «©l«v the elbow 
on the l?ft i'^raarts *n4 R&MiS aerat-she© mhout tin*? OtttifeJI of the 
hand* and both leg a. 

3ef*n riant cite* a large number of snoao Mft<t»H that there 
ean be no recovery wh<»r© th«*re It • contributing onuae Mi tha 
volley contains a condition eueh si felt one contained. ^randall t p 
Continental Cae ualty C o,. 179 111. Am), 13*1 »i^h t. honarah »<el- 
dent ino. g o. . 239 111. ikpi>. 479, MM two of tha numerou© eaaea 
■ ieh hold that the burden of proof is ©h the plaintiff to ahew mat 
the aecirient wae the aole MMHM Hi death. It would *er»e no useful 
©urr>oe© to analy** theae oaaea in detail. Xne irandal l oaae, wuare 
the opinion waa written by Jud#e cameo of Uie econd dlatrict, laawet 
little to be suld upon tha aubjnot, ^hio *-aa ii » a «n— I in » aott 
thorough way. The ihm Judge in the later eaae of >trehlew ea. 



tt»0fi 

hived* 

■ a fMTV 

■' 

■'• .-.: I • • r'* 
£l ;vr ?•: ; HO I fan 

. 

■ 

•flf "lo i\*Xr'-:i *A3 J cods - . ; .-* La*, sals*'; 

■*t.«y »9*iftX ft «' 

ft»tf* :; r 



n 0* 1 . ' «i to »J)lutf ftAf 

IHTftft I . *rt i 

J ft OS ft ffl fct'. ■ •t' r ,*ii 



5 

IflteftJfoyCl ..lliftA,. > e » # i# 3 ■**•*• *••'■ •• ' :i ■■• »>oint« out that where tha 
evidence l« e«mniet!.n e the igaattlafl It 1'jr tat Jarj under pjtfl 
instructions by the court. 

A. collision |a •&&*$ a susurc in apparently good Imm& til in ten- 
dered unconscious *yad die* attain « few hours, there aft t* eitheut 
regain lag joneeioueneei*,, eould tatm to **t*h.:i*h a .ftri&a, facie 
o&se ua4tr a putiuy tii%h &, oruvleion taab at t/ii* cne. Bit provi- 
sions of Bait policy, u&lia* waste aHus*** do not ***«• to laa&aAt in 
its e*ee?t. iajta* dirset tamaa*. ~-f inouree, ijn 0ii ' 8 ' *»®nae Lm «vsry 
C4.se tf laatSi ktart fulls*** la laa ttauntULJjm and trtaiaatt cause. 
The lacggr,4« of && InsursuiOfc taai^f it construed attt strictly 
a ainet tka insurance aoiaytit* tai iibsr?*iiy la fata* of the bene* 
ficiary, for r**»oa« %hia& **# aarfeefcly obvious mi (filial hawt beea 
repeatedly stated, 

"Defendant aays tfotti 9*% ^rirht, who was a brother-i«;-law 
of deceased, *ae iilpalilfiti to taatiiry as an e-s^srt because h« 
laeked Impartiality, this, w*&3 gt to the weight of iuis tsati&ony 
which woultf be « qufcetioii fat Ms* jur>. Kt n.t« net ir-cc»p stent. 

It Is urged tfeat the ©outt erred in reiu»la ft to iii'»t de- 
fendant's ratjtat&at instruction *•©♦ i. *»* brief of defend <uit does 

not est up the instruction, riald DM abstract taawt to baie been 

as follows: 

*Xhe court instructs tk* Jury t/mt even tfcaf^l you beii-ve 
th'«t th* de.Atu of Arthur aoo'.ey *»» caused by the ac<. idei-t in ,u*e- 
tioa, if you believe that uia Atata was contributed to by disease 
or infirmity, then you aust find the issues lor th* defendant.* 

Ths instruction *>te obviously erroneout sine* the Jury were not 

infers.- 1 tftat their decleioa must reet unon tae eTtd»no<9 which «»« 

before tiieoi. The question ot f*st in this o««e wm for the Jury, and 
it la not urged that th# verdlet it egwinet lat n&nlf»*t w>sik..-t of 
tii* STldence, 

Iher* i« no rtwerslble error la the record f and the Judtfaeut ie 
affiraed. 

AFFIAkXD. 

0»Connor and M«3ur»2y, J'., conaur. 



. 



. • 

I 

■ - ■ 

. ■■:. 
. 

ix • t lrn 






■ 



9XtT 

lanrtsl 



Na 



■ I 



.to; 
on a. 






. 



.. . . ,,•:-.-, N E Am «•■ !•••• 



37X33 

FfU&K J. BRGffCMl, ) 

Appellant, ; 

▼s. 

JOH* S. 8HARST, ) 

'Olioe. ) 




0/ wok &m*rt. 




27 3I.A. 624 



$m&mm the omito. of n ■ rt, 

Broueek filed a petition li the veucty court of vosfc county 
on fearon S§ 9 193?, la V&£l& -.« «et up &&*$ he had h«»» arrested 

under « (g<*B,i.m m jasia£aslas^ja» Umwmmi lis f«*w »f Umi t« ttngpjt. 

In the »u» of $S,OCO, gftd Ctmft he *at In custody of the sJMHrlff 
under the writ} that he dosirod to ©bt»l» sji order for hie release 
under the Insolvent debtor** act (Chilli's 111. ftev. Stfttt* 19.*1, 
chap, 75?, pa*. | f see, t}« On f\p?ll Plst thereafter the cause MM 
on for trial, MM QUI ©--urt having s<i&rd the. evi" : .- MHsf thst 

■•lice *a« t:*e gist of tilf action upon which the Sft ^j l l & »ued *«d 
remanded petitioner to the custody &i' tho sheriff. He fircsec.tee 
this appeal, 

Petitioner urge* t»<»t he wa* fo*t4i ( k*. to bo heard 

upon hit petition Hs4 defied due jjrooees of law, in that ho wao not 
allowed to intr.!uce evidence and in that the Judgment upon which 
IM MtfJH I**MJ WH not entered u.;on tho verdict of a Jury. 

Tho Bill of exe*v>tiena tlsiin a station by ;.»«tltioner for 
continuance of tho cause, but the raetion was not Mftpt "t Ml ^y Mf 
Offered evidence tending to show fottt which would Justify a con- 
tinuance. If petitioner deeded euob a continuance I eeeenury he 
should hav« filed an affl lav it in support oJ" his notion M ion f M 
have evade the f *cts ai>?oar to to court. There is noticing in tills 
record which would Justify MS i:. UM the court erred in 

denying such notion when unsupported hy nny showing as to the f*tts. 
Ths re cor* shows that tho petition w»« I iled i&areh 35, 1933; that 
en the se«e day petitioner gave bond and was released; that the 



cause tMM ©e fcr hearing on April 21st. fh« till of execution© 
shove that tiier© was.* % submit'* I . i».n of attaraoy J or petitioner on 
April ~lst, fcut there i» nothing tabftiig to ©how that the substi- 
tuted attorney wa« unpr«p*r«*d to try S&g MM*« Skf IsHHMM ar© suit© 
•leple, said th© procodur© is no I at ail ©o&*>X'icated, 

K««9©n#«nt offered It* W&&mm «x© record oi th© Circuit 
court of Stall county in ©as* A©.IWi$?g65 t in MUUtfe a JtirtgfllHrti in 
fawor of $h«jrdt Btti against Brs»o©k w&« ettl©r*d. In© declaration 
MM in two €Oar-t« MUl MM I* th* @«tture. of a &*•(■ ©f trespass on th* 
ease. Hip first osucit sworr©'! tnai ^ooiiirivin^ and maliciously in- 
iMltllg to injure th© plaintiff* m4 l# MflMl &&* iat© public 
s©*n!al MM) disgrace, ©», ie-wit, th© 18th day of *ar©h # a, l>, 1930, 
in t«© Comity afor©c&id, In a ««ri*i*.s dlscou?©©, which th* defend- 
ant MVMt MMH tfesMt had of MM ©ofia©r»i»& tfeg plaintiff, la MM 
preeence audi hearing of diver© por©«&©, fulacly and a&liciouely in 
tho pros«»oe and hearing ©*" MMM person*, ©pok© MM published of 
and concerning the plaintiff the felnlMf scaii'ltUou©, a^uioious * d 
defamatory *ord© following; tuat is to ©ayi ' M*M K< .jShardt 
(meaning MM pl&intifi i is a MMMMMtf* ' 'JjJM R* MMMtl (MMftJUAg 
the plaintiff) is an abort ioni st. ** the second count averred that 
at too esae time and place tjfWillMl in violation of th© statute 
broadcast ov*r the radio in the hearing of diver© person* of and 
concerning plaintiff **vcd further contriving said Intending, s© 
aforesaid, in the presence and hearing of thoo© persons, falsely, 
and maliciously , in the hearing of thes© persons, spoke and pub- 
lished of and concerning the plaintiff, the falee, scandalous, 
aaliaiou© and dafaaatory words, following: Xhat ia to eay: 'a©, 
John d. SLhardt (aeanlAg the plaintiff) is a aurderer. • Me (nieaning 
the plaintiff) poisoned a rfirl. ♦ 'in© people of I -srwyn will not 
elect an ex conviot P©llo© kaglstrat©, that's why you will n»t 
vot© for Jonn n. Lhardt,' ImmmIMJ the plaintiff.)" 



■ 

■ 

■ 

has *all ***4 «rt* #« 

• 

I la- 



Tho record ©f ftfct Circuit court cast In mriioRt* also 
thowt that on Marsh 16, 1933, Hit following, proceedings wort 
ant*rtd of rteord: 

*On action of plaintiff's attorney it las WNUHMMl tfeajf 
Itftft *# MM its bftrety glvaB {tbi plaiailff If flit fell* tf.U. illter 
MU ill* taffttB lttctatitur. 

And thtrtupoa this MUM taJjMt eaU»<! far trial sx parts 

torn** Hit plaintiff to litis auit by hi* atternty tttt4 it aaaaajriBf 
to tht court that Bait hit M ifciflf Oftf th# si*?!' ok it ant huffis made 

dtwas* or ptid far trial fey j^ry Is this $ajata as roqulrel by tho 

statute in s'ueh caf« ft*4Ut MM WP»vift#4 thill (jawoo it sufe*i,itts<£ t© 
the court for fefrial '^ilhoat % Jury m4 tht taurt ne'.? V>r* *ft«r 
henring ra.ll tho e*i«*pRco. ftitWMNi Mfef fcaSHfj fully u.dviwt«J in the 

pr^ia*** flaif tht &«f«»A«st ptilt^ tad ■aaaaadti I a fciff'a 

daisies at tho sue* ©f Fivt $&«&«$&& Sdllafi ($i0£S . .-.'}♦ 

And thsraupon tho aa&rt tatavs h*X*m itt finding* an tat 
quo*tt©» as n$to&itt«d t« it by I • I Uitiff h*r«in: 

John H. '"hnrdt 

vs. Caat B<*. &«*9?m 

Pfaajfc J, Sroucofc 

Was tho ooiadu«t of fch# 4MfttUlNKtf Fr&a* J, BthKH^T. at 
r';c*tj ly * pr«por d trajMM if tho ovidonuo., e;«proi*«ly aallolaai *nd 
aatu&tod by on ttll intent iaa&ajg. m$ |«t*SM>a«t 
Ar.«wor* Yoa. 

-art in I i f inr.;«rta 
Ia4gi 

Th^roi'oro it it tft>lliOT»ii b,y t&i s urt thai tht a&aiasa*? 

do hove and rocover of and fata fchd &aj , ftNMftl -'royeok, hit 

«*i<3 £«»»£«s of T 'ivo Htaaaahl QlXlari t '■ ; "' . a.) i;s fc.ru as afort- 
said by th«» court tHHHl ttfi'tthor trim his R4 Charcot in 

this b*!alf oxr*ondod an J h«r» sxacution ttMIWWP«r#* 

Yht eain contention of p«t.itio»*r ssons tr> b<? that tht 

c apiat tiio-11 not havo istuod upon thit Judys' t b*oaut«i tht r»oord 

*hf s ttel Hint wat in f.^ct «o trial by Jury, tl oittt articlt 

11, ttttioa 12 of tno wonoti uition of 13?c, nhlnh providtt: 

.\'«,;!i j.vill b« it>prittone'l lor 'l*bt, uultat ur»tn rt- 
fu«al te delivtr up hlo o»t#tt fo< the b*r;^l*it of his cr«'itort. 
In iuoh iftaniitr at o.'iall bt pr«torib«J by i-*», or in eaott wnort 
th rrt it ttroag prttuaptlor of fraud. - 

It it ptrftctly aop*r«-nt (•■! htt bton ktXi »o tfl * tht oitt- 

tion of autnorititi voul'f »toa< unn«o««t»ary) thai Noil provision of 
tho Ctaatitution If not tftflitAlal to t j*<l&m9n% entortd btsod udo» 
■ esutt of action in tort ajj tlltia ,ui«hod fro; ont * iox it \attd 
upon contract. Potittonor alto eontondt, citin« part. 763, chap. 












•4 















sa (sMth-sura** *3JU •*. ttate« a;33) «w»«i p*r*. its, «tu#, tv 

( aasith-chird** 111. R#vr« 8%&t*« *9&) Ifeftt If reaaoa of tue etatute 
inprleonv-ent is talftftal except upas, a^nvlati&ii ui«m trial by jury. 
Petitioner relics §0 %tji.^.Uf v f *>-.p«,!»a«i« §99 i.*i. i3i # w.lch een- 
*»true« £M atatutft. X&f ifi'Icaifey vita liiifc oowteistiefc is that 
the statu if? in §ft$tlil62i &;&» te*«fi »jK^r*»#ly held «nsoriHiitituti©sa"i 
by MM 8Mpr«aw court ftf |fei« itatftfe in th» later eaae of Sfc |y nj |n || 
Burn fffg._ Cs. v. l,utu&» ft. iafctel , 7 $v'i 111. «»5. ?k»4i court >.ra, 
of course, b«>und by t&ftt t Ell4&3 of uie gfeggdNBti r^arf. &rr#l»^A«tlfi 
of er*y cptf>l©B Vfeiffe Vt ^&y sar*t«ri«i«« 

*«%ltl«ft«* also oftataftd*, csiUag &&&££&& v . . ? ; jjjgjj 1 1 » i 
HI ni. A"?p. 94, thai where i detfe&dant «?»ter» it® ipyftiriiiiiii the 
prvper fsr;-., of jNllUMMt is fiil. £ajil» ^ 3d S^i"***** **y», eUing 
America n Uail fil&BLiSijl r * JJBBJfc i 3MMI $*«« fcMN a *&» *- l3 * t **ftar 
jlf—lt #jrfM&4UMftt is* •ttii*l4it to g*otioa of »r*e*8'dl«ig« la order 
thnt he may ore. as IttMblMi the «it»e«seis a& to the amount of daar-xt.ee, 
Thie ftti g p t t ft 'l, however, w^te &ot r«e4*r*d apou default. 2'he heartng 
w * 8 ££ i jgj jj » £■■■- ^ ii6? r««or4 tiMtfftl &&&1 4*f«»d«wi, >'«*d filed a plea 
an* th.*t def WH IftWt Froueeii RMMt4 tte aeawsusd that tni» eaee should be 
IIMVi by .Jury, the cases are HtfNrttfWri mil applicable. isoroover, 
if error la aj;y jucj* resist ft&i intervene, it eould be norrected 
only uoor« appftfl MP fcy *rifc of error* and suen error t wl i not be 
■ade the basis for a collateral attacJc upon the Juiwent. 

Petitioner oitee the tfe&rtottttk a»«jady:>ent to the Oanetitu- 
tlca of the Jaited 3tat#e WlAtfr iozbide el».irery, or i;<roluntrr 
• erYitiide, MMtyl at panie^twent lor crime, ^o oa»e i» cit<»d, %iid 
wt or*eu»» tiiat uone can be foarid, Hoidiiifj t^iet an ->rr*«t by 
•h*riff uuJer a aapiaj HUH tut«« either elne ry or laralwitafj 
tervltuda. The provision of th* etat^te to «-hich petitioner I - 
teal* hue often bees aonsti-ued ty tii courte of t »i» -.tate. 
Jernberg y. J^lx. 199 Hi. 354; ~evy y. ^eniitowakl . i?39 111. Apn.447; 









?•* 

. 
•; ...-......;. _.\ .- ._J 

! 

i 

■ • 






■ 



(Utoum&juJ&m&wA * ^41 in. app. *u; ttojMjkJtimmam* %** 

111. Aj>p. 8S1; gM&jfcj ,. 3U, J^alMSJl . 24<* 111. Aj?p, 492; ujaaQlflfi 
V. Wh»l«n. 249 111. App. 19 j Mq&o ...y^.T^l *.f oTifrfi . $*n, *>©. 36827, 
In which an opinion filed ifiVirtUt #, 1$>.33, It not y«t reported* 

It h&» been consistently haid in those eases ttxat where 
there are several counts, in fcfcit deel&r&tion, soa&e of wuieh «t*te 
a cause ©f *htoh malice is not the gist m& other* in which &#lic* 
is the gist, such record MiE§ jfttli •ho« r * Kallo* rod that the 
burden is oast upon p«ftitien*r to prove that sua! ice i© not in ffeft 
the gist of the action. 

In this ease both count* of th# deola.rat.ion i'ilt».d in the 
suit brought in the Circuit court expressly charge ml ft. the 
record ,doe» not sho* % scintilla, of testimony ©ffer©;l or received 
tending to disprove malice. The record &l*e fails to ah©* that 
any objection *ȥ made by petitioner to any tȣ the srvidene* if* 
fared or received in b*h*if ©J" the respondent. 

there is no error in the record, and the judgment of the 
trial court is therefore iffJHMML 

AVKBHMN 

O'Connor and *..'© Surely, «JJ. , concur. 



.ill 

ft a* * ' 

**MI OT* W 

■ 

**V fir i t«*> 

. 



37151 

CGR&SLiUS BUBO, 

Appellant, 

v*. 

MfiiJuiUAi. lvm tMtmuam Gm*jm 

QT ST. lAVXt, KSIMKli 

Arjf f ell#0. 




aWM mm m 

608JW OF CHIC. 



27 




Plaintiff sued let contract In an action of the fourth 

oiaee &;ieed ©is a*n insurance .policy isuowa ao a "travel hMI pjjiiw 
Irian Hi IftMoo policy.* Ski MMWj.ll ili&MMMl of claim *verr«d 
that plaintiff oaata'ijaea M *««id*Qt ora £t««ttb*r 13, 1932, waiie a 
0MW«9iyflllg paooomger on ono of th® otroot o*r» of the Chicago 
thirfaoe i-in^s; that ho otteiained injuries' fihltsfo r«euit«?d in daaage 
to tho amount of #93.33} that oador the torn* oi' the poiiey (with 
oil of wioh it woo averred Mi feii e» his $s*rt oo&plied) he was 
entitled tc recover thai awount. 

2»« off idavit of »erit» iMeaid 8*1 injurie* alleged and 
averred that tho policy of insurance Wit a ii8B.itt?d and restricted 
eolley wviioh provided indessnity only Hi the Mt«H therein llait- 
od and provided* MM that defendant wao sot liOsle under ito ten*e 
and provisions. 

There eae a trial by the court, /?itaout ■ Jury. iha court 
found the iooueo for defendant MM MJMtMit plaintiff, denied a 
motion for a n^w trial and entered |*40MMo ac ly. Plaintiff 

hao perfeotfti this appeal. 

There io practically no dispute no to tho fueta, Mso the 
question for determination le whether under the facte ao oetabliehod 
plaintiff io entitled to recover. 

The evid«-jr.ce tend* to ehow MUM on December %M t 1031, 
plolntlff was riding ao a pay *ae*enger in * etreet car westward 



i-j.ijdt.y, : 






. 



■■■: 

jh amlit 



u»t»fe it §l>Avt*f htm ha 

« ? #»<#*«! «iy fcauol 

l * tol aolio* 

» 



bound on Orand avenue; thai he boarded the car, paid his fare, 
started to walk through the car fro» the r^tar $t ttUi ;"ront; in at 
as ho reached the front door (inside the oar) the car stade a 
•harp turn and he m throw?* »g«i..nst the 'window. I# threw up his 
hand and it went through the inside pane of glass. ;i* sustained 
a gash, which he described »• * kind of *r&®u®& eat about an inch 
and a quarter,* on his ri te ht hand, 

.Plaintiff continued hi® ride on the ear to wariest avenue 
(an intersecting nortn and scuta street) , ia?h«re im alighted, went 
into a drug store and received first aid. ^'hereafter he was at- 
tended by his physician at whose offio* h*s called about tweira 
tiaies for the purpose ©f receiving treatment. Flaintilf was an 
operating engineer. Me was employed, m& his dutiea w»re to take 
•are of the heaters, bailers ■■wad f-4.rna«e» of hiss employer. Ht 
•ays ho became unable to perf cm th»?s« usual duties for his em- 
ployer for SS d&yu and was confine to his iroae. An adjuster for 
defendant testified that plaintiff told him u« ^ae away fpsji his 
work on account of the accident only two we*?k», tat plaintiff de- 
ni«d h« had any such conversation Vatfe the adjuster. 

the consideration for the insurance policy was a subscrip- 
tion by plaintiff to a t.iewsa*p»r and the ptgNMM of ten oents 
premius* p«ir Month. The policy limited the indemnity to auch dis- 
ability as aight result "direct* y, independently and exclusively 
• f all other causes free: bodily injuries off* ted solely through 
external, violent and accidental »e»n»." )*y anothsr provicion th« 
payment of the inde nlty was conditioned upon the clrc^at'tnoe 
that the Insured snould be "fro«. data of accident, wholly dis- 
abled and prevent** by injuries so received, frosi performing any 
s*d every duty pertaining to any huniness or occupation." it Is 
ar ued that these provisions exclude liability under the policy 
under f*.otc as here dieeloned. 









'J» S: 



iocs. #1 1 »J< •« 

•cu»< *6As«l »j&r ti&tie*tis tatt* $£ item tamd 
I « **» fe»rfJt*»M* ** ffaidv ,4M$ « 

al/fta; ' LUX* 

r. 



■ 



■ 



■■ - ; 

i ' 

■ 

■-»» » »«■ ■ 

««r»M « «4 *njtlnJ*Xf{ *d aai* 

••«li \0ii."ti »( ■■■"<« fTRilii3»T« 

■Ml «*« amu> i**tto XX* lo 
•« fco» #n»IoJLv , X**n*Jxi> 

I* •<* lX«»«tui *0*w«al •*« JurfJ 

i i ,- ■■ ..■■■>.•. ■. , •;*:•> •■...> >: • • "-■' i-'v^v" mm fct&M 

tl . 10 lO ■•»«lftWd ^/T* ,*•»▼• Ml* 

XO/Uc 0rfi i*fcav Xii >X« ««»ei*i »om »t»rf# ***-* 



lhe language of this fc©ntr*et i* that eposes by the iniurwe* 
oosipany, and under ft well settled rule It will, in c'*e» of aabtgulty, 
be construed MMHI etren.sly igfttofttl tftf oiBdU B rs ' sttl liberally in favor 
of the insure*!. Practically all the e&fi«ft st uold # said we there- 
fore cite only a f*w, Heajly 7 <i ..|tilu<^ Ae.gidqftt ft^wc. 1-33 111. 

Mil feu r ray v. iiMBatfidbl hJSELM&fcJ&M* Bfc»« ••• :ui * *»*• 563 : 

J o s eph .v.. itew IjBOUyy Si J8MUJ& &* « ^ )<a **■*• *^« Applying,, this rule 
of construction, we think it aiust be -■' littltti f f *l injuries, 

insofar *s his own disability fat* oonoemedj «(HN of the fcind against 
whieu the insurance iftfaqwH*? *&re@d ill indemnify hiss, smd that his 
disabilities were of a d«&re« for «iil$& ha would toe .entitled to re- 
cover, toil tatou iaJtaJLbJ^jaMyk* 8©« iu, bb#) m&uu 

1 1 g j.an4 c*»uaU* . gft . . \1H> 111. |f$« ;*»«; siMS.«xL.^JS.^i£iX^i;SJ|. 

Co. V. CQp.stft, JS«5 111. App. * 7 ®J I&jftl „*» J^UjJf^tt&l In*, tf.tt. . 271 

111. App. 103; Utol life .fo*,. ,gg., v,,. .^g.^Sftr. 5H S. I, ( -hd) 51u. 
So far as we are *.v*re, it h&e net b*«r« fcvU in ;*i-..y o<*ee t.»t total 
disability within the MftftltHig of a clause of tac Kind contained in 
this policy, weans that the insiure^ aneuld b?» rendered entirely, eb- 
selutoly mi physically nel plots in order to recover. *e inink alee 
the aoident was the sole c«u»® of plaintiff's disability within 
the manning of the policy. 

A store serious question is raised by defendant's contention 
that plaintiff cannot recover Iftftlftt the policy by its t*rw.s «x- 
e&pts from indemnity injuries froa accidents occ*rrin fe while the 
insured is a passenger upon a street ear, or similar conveyance, 
unless the aoeiient results IsT the wr««Kin« or disablement of the 
conveyar.ee. The provielone of the policy provide in »ub»t«nse that 
th» accident must result f row *t .0 wrecking or disablement* of any 
otroat railway oar ii ahiei; the insured is travelin fc ao a fara- 
poylng naesenger. Under tne general provisions of tne olioy, in 
suioh larger typo thaw the body of the instrument, la ths following 



teta •.->#« 

»«^ tv *«* 

bMSUM 

... ... 

f* «« • « T*t ft 

ii-' %* ******** 

« «i •* tt^fmtm 

•oial* *»ri# 
mimki 'Hoii «!*«• 

a! •l£u«»1 #fwfti»»a »J«* •••lav 

tt *ti*» ln*bh>tt« #rfi 
?«• tAtrtfm *•»* I • 
nl ,x»l I r«fc«tt .t»»n»«^e<7 »«• 



4 

•xnian.it Iob: 

*u»d#r th© provision© ©1 thi* policy In whleh the mh^mt'I 
liability is continent upon a Kr*«hia|| or AlMri&fttAftt oi" n convey- 
ance ©r Tdifcll tit ittial word© «e hereby defined to i >*y damage 
to suea o#nv«;y-<wie« or veuiel« ■%!<& r ■*©>*! t« tu the i t« ©top- 
ping ©f said ttonviyttMHl or v^adeli a»$ B©e«8t&i%&t$i x»r..vir© thereto 
before ©ucn ©©awe/anc© ©r veuicl© ©*>» b« ©&*'©iy operated fcga&aW* 

PiaiattiT argu«s t&ai alMl »»f mea $4«©M*d arit&iii Ukl ■ 
ing ©f thi© ©i att.ee and »»ya Hbfi.1 $&£ fh©** that th© aeeldeftt' hap- 
©•nad, $&©>t a window w&a broken, that th© ©treet car stopped laau#» 
di*tsly, titavt it, lid »ot proceed It&til th© ©wtt-iuatar had reastovad 
th* broken part© ©a thai ©ther jtattSona -weald nos fca injured, md 
that the ©traet ©*r while ©ft thi© mm® mm ie***!®!?** aietor trouble, 
pr©ve thai th* car *a» "disabled'* Wit&ih tin* seaming *f the policy. 

Th* rule that in ©ft*© ©1* ambiguity til© construction nuet 
b© in f>if©r ©i' th© insured i© re&ao&aot*?, .;*hd on© 'Wi-aea thi© court 
ha© n«sver heeitat«d i© mpply. however, in insurance as in ©th«r 
contracts, parti©© are still #t|BMNI In i..&w fr©« I© in ©art such pro- 
vision© a© th©y may agree ttgNHI in ©as© $&© mm* are Mil contrary to 
public olioy ©r th© statut#e -wx& law© of felaut 3©at#. It i» true, 
when thi© ©oliey ia eaf©i\*lly considered tnat tilt -^©rd "insurance* 
a© applied to It would ©©«& to be a v.ien©j&©jr, uowevar, tn© pr«'(iu» 
to b© paid was very ©nail, and an assured fcifciata, a policy *.v-r« th© 
aaiount ©f th© are»iust i© llHHs1lii«.i lit I Hi (MafJMI fcaWti&j t© expect t© 
receive sor« than a© pay© far. But w© ©annot by construction per* 
v©rt th© provision© ©i" thi© policy a© Mfl «xor©co©d ii* luin and 
unamblguou© la««u»fe©. This car in Vtei^b liaiKtilf wa© riding «a© 
a©ith«r wr«©K«d nor dlsati«d. VXmlMtttt'* injury, t;i»r©for« # i© 

a©t within th© indemnity pruwid«d by th© policy. It is not ur^sd 
that th© i'indin^ i th© oourt 1© ttguinit th© w©l*nt of th© ©wllcri©©. 
/l©w«T«r l a© a «att©r ©f lav, m4«r the r^ct© a© prowad, w© thick th© 
trial court could net have msd© a dilTerant fUidL 

/©r th© reason© inrtiuatad th© |«a^pMlt is afl'irsiad. 

AMRBNatb 
O»c©nr*or and h«Our©ly, JJ. , concur. 



tuaAtMttmlexM 















■ 

■ 

i 

, 

■ ■ 

■1 hi*?®* U •* 

v Mil «5 

©4 I I .S4Ji«Tt!| ♦^- *** #tWMtt 

fctt - ■># "*• «* 

*il uki «iv- NOMA t*»«§M«Mur 

■• »»« I* 






.•"' 



a •&*« ir»,. ion MfcOi #**•» X»ii=t 



. 



,**u *tf*tt fro* *«a«c, 



37154 

I s - , k 

Co oration, ait Trustee under a 
certain Insurance. Trust Agro*w*r:t 
doted June 12, 19 St, 

CoaiDl alnant , 



te. 



£A»GAR5T FRSLAX 



at ■&! • t 

Defendants, 



aA&GIAHXT jpbslab, 



vs. 



Appellant, 




th3 mispa rauat eofciAinr, * 

C©rr«erati©n, as Executor and 
Trustee under the Last *'ill of 

Churl es fhelan, dated June IS, 

jigs &, symsMLASf©, 

KSf f©8K H0UP1TAL, 

&$?»Slleas, 



itso. 



& mm CXhC: IT 



- • Jr\ 



4 



By this appeal there Is presented the question, "Shi eh of 
two wills wh&*> by HnHHai i*hisl»n shall control in the distribution 
• f « trust estate areata by his trust «gr»«»entv ttu of tho villa 
was executed on June IS, 19 £&, the other on &»y 1">, I9M| the latter 
w»a tha last will prior to the iJttHl of the testator. 

The fcorthem Trust Cor-pany, as trustee under the trust 
ft£re»#:*nt, filed a bill asking l'&r Instructions; itar&aret Fhelan, 
wife pi' the deoadmit, ihe i.ortr»#rn Trust Company, as executor 
and trustee andar the last will ©f Charles i'heinui dated *ay II , 
193o, and certain beneficiaries naraed in the 193U *»ili. , namely, tie 
aew Yor* hospital, Grover uensann, .Hsri* ice author land and Caroline 
Van Lsnr.ap, sister of decadent, were made defendants; answsrs were 
filed and replications thereto. The oauae was referred to a n aster 
in chancery who heard testimony and reported; ha r eoem» ended that 
the proceeds under the truat a^ree^ent euould be nald ewer te The 



















.... ... 



I .A 



- 1 

t to* f> 
j aJ • mlt—f t.tM*A c 



2 

serthern Trust Co«.->f»««y, trusts*, un-ier the residuary clauses! tht 
will of Charles JPhelan dated aay IS, 103; , , and should be dlspoeed 
of, administered t*nd distributed as therein provided. Cbj»ctione 
and MTitiptltllH were filed to UM Blaster** report, ter hearing 

the vhaneeller entered ■ dtdga jSJ overruling |]at exceptions and ap- 
proving the report ex-d decreeing that the initail of the trust 
should be disposed of under Hid terns of the trill of Charles 
rhelan dated May 15, 193c.'. JPresa tale deeree &ar&aret I h el an has 
appealed. 

Jane 12, &9S$, Charles Phelan entered Into ■ trust agree, 
stent whereby he appointed the horthera trust Company trustee ef 
mueerous life insurance policies aji&re^ating approximately #132, »<0; 
the trustee agreed, KptM the death of Fhel&n to collect the proceeds 
of the policies together with say other policies that thereafter 
night be added, and after deducting its reasonable eo>..p«*n nation to 
pay and transfer the net balance of such proceeds to itself, as 
trustee und*r the residuary clause of the last will sad testament 
of Phelan, to hold the same in trust for kar^arst ftielan, the wife, 
"and her appointees, subject to all of the provisions ol' the lust 
will and testament" of Fhelan. The agre^ent farther recited that 
Phslsn reserved the right <*** revoking this agreement either in w : .ole 
or in part, *or ef charging any or all of its tereis by aubeequent 
aodificatlon of the sane in writing. " 

On the eaaie date, June 19, %MtM t J?h«l»n stade and executed 
hie last will ani testament wherein Ths Northern Trust «o*p«ny was 
appointed exec* tor anl trustee under the will. Talc, mtt| otner 
thing* , provided for a bequest of 510,000 to uie wifo k*rg»»ret 
reel an, and dewlaed the residue «f his estate to The Northern Trust 
CoBrpeny, as trustee, with directions to p<*y to K s sT gf t Chelan the 
sua ef %2\. ,o Qt a year, subject, under certain conditions, to bs 



I 

■ 



' ' ' 

9«^ttlttJ 

. 

Malt »4i t>*tt*«ei jukitrfS 

, 
JtMtxHt ban iXlv 

-»**;«* ;»rx •** b»tlr«*j foil .ffttffttfi 

•ill jwi-^.'i jr. 



y 



reduced to $12,000 & year, the remainder uoen her death to be "held 
amd districted *« »h* R«y direct ts und by her last will ttM testa- 
aent," 

Anril 9, *f9$ 4 ffctiUn executed a codicil to hi« wil.; ©f 1928, 
The substance ©f thia codicil is net a e*«ft1 

tion. 

April 39, 1930, JPtitism w:rst« |a ■• . pa Ur.uu.^ than 

to f&tpmt* Km-:k*T codicil to his* w'ili. »£ If) ■■'.., . i. .1 rikculd 

rl :'e, sjsong other t'.->in&s, for %h% el l«s lotion of t&e provision in 
the will of 1922 for the Aid osltioR ©** the remainder of the estate 
by hi# vif#, and Hurt the codicil should yr*¥l4i "*>© that ay will 
■Mid gswrtaea instead, of Urm, fhmimi* &i«© t&fc* Hit codicil should 
prewide for four cash legacies of $5000 «a«h to !>« paid to certain 
named persons, KS4 %iso certain annuities! to hi* field* ttttd te a 
friend for life. Stat latter njnnf Hi the request to shsMfli hit will 
of 1922 go that his will should control the --li position of tho re- 
Kainder, instead of tho will of his wife» ttltd it requested that tht 
codicil should provide that pay&ente by the Trust Co-puiy to hor 
should cease Ml her death. 

9hen J'helan'e attorneys received, tnis milMimi I ft till they re- 
plied, suggesting * hft advisability of drafting ■ new will Instead of 
a second codicil to tho 192'! will, for the roaaen tuat the will, ~*ith 
two codicil*, would produce an inv?)lved cot of 1MB . ento with dif- 
ferent ceto of witneesee. Thia suggestion was approved by Phelan, 
and Jar. Gordon, his attorney, x>rta*r*$ a new will vhieh was executed 
sy Phelan on kay II, 1930, and which will was probated after his 
death, ffcit win was delivered to the hortnern "i'rust uoup,»»»y, which 
returned to Phelan the will of !*W with the suggestion that it be 
destroyed. A countermart of the 1922 trust agreement anJ a carbon 
copy of the 192? will were I'ound ir. Phelen's strong fcox »fter his 
death; the original vfll of 192? w«o not found as.ong his papers. 



f 



I : 

■ 

* lt% lie* Uf x* 

. 

oooa s, 

... 

I *•<(■ 

1« 

« US99 A . ?«•& 



. 
























. 






- 











Tha trill of 1930 lneraaaad tna b«iju»*»t 4o ni* wii'a fron 
tie.CoO, ae provided in the *UU of 1S2S>, to |M V 966« iha tilt 
will *c»vo tha wife sun annuity of *iX',wU, ; tu« will of 1930 gav* h«c 
$24,000 p«r annus far tha firet fiva ?«**«, #lb,wO f«r th* n«xt 
fiws years, and tl$ 9 $©0 p#r annon for tii# r«&aindar of har life; 
it alao a row i dad lor tha lag&oli&a and amyuitiaa K*nvion«d la 
Fh#lan'e latt&r to hia attorneys. 

J'hel&n diad August IS, 1931, At this tissa The Northern 
Trust ftHjpiiiljf, tru®t## under the inauratnoe trust, h&#J, m&Mwt*| tha 
nxiff. of $ttf t J$MNI a© the proceed* of all th« inauranoa fttHttft 
payable to MM deposited ffitkl it, as trustee. 

Phalan was also insured under polioWs not included in tha 
lnaur*unc« trust a^pr#«&isrt' of 19 : .:2, watch «er» ttn£j nl« to hie 

axecuter, in the principal UBfetSttt of ;»8u r 'i« ( upon tsrUeh n£« eatata 
has r*?alis«i3 tha M» of |1X t 8#Jt,3t$, fha> aaiate, eaoiusiwa of tha 
truat *atattf, inventoried at ',160,273, 

*« hold tiu-a Hit cha»o©.'l.l©r «or ■ a#ily found that the pro- 
aaeda h»ad by Tha a-orthern Trust -..;/, as |i er tha i - 

sursno* truat, should, undsr tha ttet&JfesnSf a&a$t0* if an* vial of 
Hay 15, If 10 1 be fcn*4 jnH ,liaj>oas>d of upon fcfoa terns, truat and 
•©editions aet forth i« that will. 

Tha insurance truat nfftMMMi «raa,lad Mi estate to ba dia- 
trlbuted aa iff. Phelan 6 ires ted III Ifcfl a, r:v ...-t,i, fens subject to 
hia "last will imd testament,* and to hia rlgnt to revoke, change 
ar oedify any of tha teraa of the ngrei»fc*nt. At tale tiae tha will 
tf 1922 would eontrol, but h« reserved tha rl.j.t to atURftfa hia will, 
which, however, ha ni^ht do oven without such reaerv*t ion. 

That it was eubeeuuantly tint, inuwutLon of Pheian to o. *nge 
tae method of distribution of bit ©state la conclusively naown by 
tha evidence. In April, 193 , I >«mn *rota to hlu InnjWN r« utatlng 
that » codicil b* *^de M tha 1922 will; by hia oonttun teat ion ha 



:-■■ . 

oats #1 
a eid », I s'ftaiwiPI 

- 

. ,31 t** 
»-|*4 *s :»rOC 

1 1 1 M *c 

., 
md mmttmul atom** ■' i ifco* « *•*«* 



clearly indicated his intention to change the beneflolariee of hie 

estate and v.© control the distribution el hie aetata hi^anlf. In- 
stead if through &re. i'nelan'e '#111, 

itffttt&Vftt argues thit even it taese shan&ee had bees* ineor- 
pcr<itei la » codicil to the *iii of *$&$, the original will «oula 
still control the distribution - t&ftt i», the insurance trust %«,;re«- 
nent ntd ths will of |§$8 constitute a nJxtdttaf a#re««ia.*it which could 
net he ©edified or altered In ajjy way by **helan„ Xhi» mtU he con- 
trary to tlM oxoreea xij^u t& js-&ke ifogngnft, r$64awt4 in ffeg In ear* 
ance truet a^resMssnt, and stake nk««#kin&le** the repeated language 
retaining such right. 

Counsel for tfim« $*halan rely largely KS tae decision in 
Padftsld y. g^yCjeJAi W X1.JL. Stl, In that ease UMBO! P««fiel4, 
In consideration of reeelvii..- @ & year, a^rewd to wv-Uie a will 

In fvear of two children, whic;. will was ttftti at the aarae tiree; 
thsre was no reservation in tv.c- i^pfi»egfe<wMt »# t&« rlgnt to change or 
aodify It. It was held that the contract ereuted a vested interest 
In the two ehiidren. HUM th*> a am* case was i ; :am I of ore MM •»• 
jir<?ae court ( ?a 111, 16) th* court h.*?ld that the contract naeaod 
titl* of the wropsrty and planed it beyond the rtWHHH of rhosias i'ad- 
field, n* hM 4M not TQtQrv* any interest in or control over it, end 
that it wa* evidently the- intention of rftenao fadfleld to tire two- 
thirds $t hie pro?*rty to his two children without recurving; any 

I to •aange thin M position, ta the instant case, ae we hare 
noted, P»>elen reserved the rlffat to revoke or change the trust, and 
this HlltmtlH cam?ot bo igr.errd. 

Although rt »fe iT< ••xmMl ftCVt presorted cuvny points in- 
tsn >d to shew the variant r--c*lts frosj distributing. I ae»>de 

undsr the will ©f i©e?, *n<t Nfctef the will of It 80, ruoh cons id era- 
tlmo are not conclusive; but it should br» noted that if Ire. Ph elan's 
•en tent lor is sustained, the orc^isions in tha |fM "ill for the two 



■ 

I t#t 

l ( 

■ 

- . 

■ 

. 

1 

t>n ■■ »t tifl I toil 

iff taw 
q «ixi ' 
- - 

&•▼*♦■«- 

fttfV aid* 

. 

I him #•« •«* ■ 



annuitant* and tha rarrsaindanusn tu*t nullit'lad, for thara would fea 
nothing l*ft for then.. 

It la a fair lnf«rcnea tftat Phalan physically daatroyaa tha 
will of l£tta« If th©ra had not been found a; ter hi® &«*t£i a copy 
of tnie will , ct-.uld any on a quaatlen tha #o«trci of tk* will of ktftl 
Tha will of l«30 # 1« law, da»troy*d th« will a!" |*Jt*. Xhi« will 
of 1930 1b tha only l»»t win and i«ftttiM&&, #£ taagupt follow tha 
MlgHMBt wnicn cencadaa that the will of 1930 rewefcaa the win of 
1983 and yat &B«»rt* taat tha will of %9'tM It the only document 
which eon t re 1 a tha distribution »&*«& i'nslan aitftstpt^-: to i,ontral 
by tha will of 193'.,. fhia would ga¥4 tha dastroyod will aor© 
pot*ney tnan that oosseesai by tha will s^iioh daairoyad it. 

Counsel a&y Sfeftf a van though ^halsm did raaor»# th« ri/.i-t 
to change tha trust, this right wa» never validly axereieed, siting 
s*e*s w^iich hold that ©jsceant tha wowsr is asarelaed It i« a nullity, 
aarvard Col . i»it* v. ,, Bal ch . 171 111. 27ft; *<*?*? W. ft yttMMr. 1*1 *.J. 
■q. 5R4. than tha trust ifttffiwmnl px'owida-d tiiMi the distribution 
of tha truet aetata should ha subject to Chelan's l*st will and 
t»sta»ant, ha defined tha MMfl by which any MUMBJPs in distribution 
should be #f facial, nasaely, fey Hi a will. So ©iodl float ion of tha 
language of tha truet a^ree&ent iter if wan needed tc effect such a 
©honge. The distribution w»a ■ flexillfl af.&ir, at all tisas e'..l«ly 
under tha control of Ph<»lan sjsj to ha determined by tn« orovislons 
of his laet win, whenever j&.tde. 

Tha giat of tha eontrov©ray ia over th* oro-rials* in tne 
Ineuraoee truat afreeweat Utut UM proceeds Hi for i-ra. t'hvlaa 
"an4 her aouotntaes. * tha evidently wleh«a to aontrol tha r*m»inder 
af tha astats, but, aa wa have 8*14, tha -tfereenant does not iw*i1« 
that aha shall h«a« tha Mftltftti 1 and sola distribution. 

Tha f undairteetal question or'jeentwd Is wv ' ■ t*lan, with 
ral>rrr,ca to tha diatribut ion of hla ©atate, *as inaluetably fccund 



j 



h\ a «i Si 

:■ , 111^ 
*§>!> t *«X nJ t» XXlw •j<T 

*«*X *1 OC«X *l© 

•tfX **» 



- 


















hi *« ,iirf ,•*•*•• »jQ 

»l* XJ> 

! 



by the terc* €■*' th* doeuaentft executed in 1999. DM toemfttta 

theauselvee, MU the eireuBkstBtfxeee, irresistibly "Aaad t© the con- 
clusion th&t he eae not. 

?'e have net ikttenpt«d t© note the la itade la the 

reopective brief* ^r to follow the order <m" k&4 ar.i. ^utas frfHtttttitft, 
There ie only one deciejhr* question- liireoived, .»« «ri .juet atated 

ft* tae r«m«©»» indicated we held Bfeftt th« £.«6jr#i of the 
eh*ne«llcr ia proper and it is e»ffiroed» 



Miktehett, ;-. J. t &a4 O'Connor, 3. # eefieur. 



- 

i 
arxq oi 



.... 






369 6 S 

:*I, vixliai.s, 

©•fend ant in Error, a 

J 

▼t. 

F9ttftAK-8$ASS HW8S AffP ia?3 

BASK, * Corporation, U IbcS#ttt*f 

el the Set&io of l.uo&e &• Wilii •*«*«, ] 

Plaintiff in Krror. ) 





*K to nut cikdjirlv 

Of V 



i o l.A. 6^5 



•&, JUdTIC* O'COKK'Oft CKLIVSBSO 'ill! uPIKlOfc OF . 

July 6, IS 31, Kiciiard !>« Willi a«e fU*l &i« claim in the 

k%« ♦■-'*urt of Coo*, county $pfc£j&$t £&# »»1 I* -^r, 

Migmi R« faltlJjMt* ilHMMMMMl* The claim PftMl #i«#m©«r#d ttftd el a in ant 
appeals to the Circuit tmiri $&«$$, nfter fe©arl»| by Dm wurt, tue 
el alar. *NMI allowed Tor $$ t 4£$ SMI $ elate of $£*& l&«e, MM the 

executor prpcecut^a this writ if <arr©r. 

The claim "*as based ok i jt$$ &y tt«t« »"-tH -fuly 83, 

1919, for $3,00§ ■*£• by .Lucas IU SFt$JLi»s«#, giagra&U to MM order 
of hiat son iileharsl .... Willises, .>■» jtf the father* • 

death. Dm note bor». MtwttMt a| s per ieatH p#* Mmm mh MM 
following endoraeue&tt *tbS4 I'hrec g&#ft&BJ&d toll A* t tdtfUMfl to ay 
daughter £difch '«. hunger wis day I Kftld MMMtRt ll to be IXUMfM 
at »y death fjrMi her eh art per teUSM of •* y rill. Chieage v'uly 83, 
ISIS, Lucae n, *iliia»e. a 

HM def er ee whs tfeal KM Rett "as satit,5- ; M&MSMfl 

by a written »gre#»ent and a KtffttM) release Mttfti into between 

the parties dated 'anu<ry 13, 1997, HUfcftsuHt*! I • ■*"> is t..at 

the 
the note wa» not included it MM Mill or../ release but if -till 

due mid unpaid. 

The question for dealeion i% MM constrict' -in of tha *.roa- 

Me*it and release. IpyeWM t. rice vtre of opinion Mm4 the 

agreement was atblgMH M and therefore extrinsic tridMNM was ad* 

alesibla, and a written ■tlfHiattpa of f»cts MM subnittes on the 



»ft«M 









■■- ■ • 



\m to 

srtt 

HI \ — 

t baa *u»u 



hearing, togethsr vita other *wid«no« frees which it Appears that 
Lucas H. iilltia vas a phyeician; that In %$Q9 ma for many VMM 
prior thereto "hs o«m.-d and s*ana&«d various «t epical offices and 
boeinese enterprises connects toerewith. In ilvtfist Battel of the 
United £%•%••** and in that ypJKf turned the buss in ©as ov*»r to his 
son Richard L, Will tans, ths olaiiMtfst, who eon duct*;.-. <$iness 

until 1904, when Victor §• fiiliw, i»*$a«r son, |ptn - bi tali 
in the »*»»$«& en t a **4 ©ontroi af ths business, it further ini>i>ffi 
fr©& ths evidence that from sisss to ti*a Mehard $«*« neaty to his 
father and hi© asother, Clara $»« tilllwas; %^&.t Clara 1, *11a1'j»k 
^ied before the death, of her huebsind, i-uoas K. fffofcliBBp, Mfefl ner 
••tats was bein^, probated in ths JPrssate court of uook scanty, 
ttildf (WMWI^l arose betwsen th« pjsrtiee &ni $4ith t, hunger 
{the sister of ft i shard and Tiotorl, .4ft *r ths ^eatft sf Clars - . 
«lilift%s, Sdi'th 9, hunger, her daughter, filed ■ petition in ths 
Circuit court of Csex county to perpetuate the teeti&.ony of luoaa 
«• Williams, her father, whs w«s in ill health md HiirnWitl la 
ago, asking MOT brothers ft ieh&rd ia£ Victor, nttd Lucas, her fsillsT. 
and othars parties defendant. 

Lucas A. Williaas, ths father, Wall dissatisfied with ths 
way his sons nlehara and Victor «©nd acted his buainas*, *nd filod 
a sill for an *ccs anting against tasa. in ths Circuit oourt sf 
Cook county, Edith w. Munger also filed s petition U ths Prebats 
court of Cook county la ths scatter oi ths estate of her aother, 
Cl«ra n. «ill 1 >*tiia # deeseaee;, iatfctaf to revoke letters of adminis- 
tration whieh had tarrstofers been j$ra;,ted to feet uncle, >eer«e J, 
Willi *»», co ths petition of her brothers Riaaari and Viutor. 

On the pet. lion to perpetuate testimony, tfcf !«"o»it on of 
Lusss ''. YllHann was tyuan before a u.%at*r la chancery eptewber 
*», 19*26, at whlc tins hiw «on Richard was present. j.ueas R. 
■illisms there testified that his «on hier.ard had been a*»ccl*tsd 
with him in business; that about f?S years ego hieherd too* cwsr 



i 

... 
.... 



.-»>a 



^istafc •♦.! hnC#4 fro* 

Hid « 

1*4 ©i . /»•»* *■ - U*l 

k«J«l»tf*cji n»t>* Jm* *i# »* •***" •-will!* 



the IBBirafliHHBl *f MM iBMEMdNMI MfcMJWi MM b* c.tt«*«ge in o«n#r*hip; 
that th*r* had nover bean an **« counting of MM UtWI of MM busi- 
ness; thai Hiehard h«d jMfc&£ IfciM &o*:-*y, "but I gave Ilia not?* for 
ail of it** that from l$>u£ until Mr*. IltUllMil liii her Income c*&* 

fro» ft i chard, for which Mm witness gaffi >1<MMINI notes; u.i*t the 
notes *ggr*g«t*d o*«r itias.ooO; «»»* in *§1S *sw, H&xians g*v* 

Richard a note for $S f <M$| tn«t, in LfSl MM f»tner transferred 
real esi&t® to liiehard t%f >*hich &i chard, wj*** || cancel all of the 
witness's notes; that instead ft! hi ©hard handing Mm •witness the 
nat*s, Kica*rd tore HUK u# Mi4. threw ife«& away; iu&i he itept * 
record ©f the notes )M fcM ^iven ?4<suwd mi a tsh^ftt of B*f M| that 
Kieu-urd had * copy of this list* Milch showed, notes IffirrilgBflltMJ 
about }aS§,Q$$i th»* a* 1^34 he M**M H4* daughter ;,'Uth a i*rter 
giving her a list of MM notes MSMgHt the ,.., I H$tt MlMM te 
Kiehurd by his wither which was not included in the list; u,st 
"Sine* that ii»* he (wleiiarfl) teg* not trlefS t<\- Mllggt ?*ny no tee;* 
that ni©h«r-l *t%t*4 he toad t#ra ue i&l MM notes svt M Itaf of the 
settlement; that he save an m,.uto-«r^il.« to his gwngfetM xdlth vhicli 
he "bought from hi* son nici-s.&rd *nd far which he g.awe hi chard a not* 
for M»OM« *he letter just to«niion<?d fro* the widens to hie 
daughter Math is iitMBMl te MM disposition as an exhibit, in 
which he giv«* a iiet of MM notes MMl »ays: "i might say rl«ht 
here that Mother informed ».e that one not* for |3,QGG. | <*«• not 
•anoeiled.* At the tla* this a«M>git*Mi van taken hiehard »■• 
present but on advice of counsel refuaed to testify on th* ground 
that the proceeding was irrggular and Tola. MM deposition wa* 
filed in the office of the clerk if the wircutt court Seassfcor 
80, 192g. 

Th« evidence furt. «r tende to sttgw that shortly after u.i» 
deposition was takon the parties, taro^ their counsel, bsgan 
negotiation* with a view of settling their Uj rewcee, »t.l C h re- 









■ 









■ 



. 






- 

■ 
. 

i%t 

•• £»** 

' a«n*Jt« 

J 

■ 

Mi 

MM *id to 

. K>0,*t tot 
• 

**<•** nmA 

kn ,*■> I wot iff*«»«4 

/• wilt 



suited in the #*x*eution if tub S$f*«&fM Mtt4 ral^se if fsssjmji 

15, 1$£7 V afeaye ??i«iitianed. 

The safcataac* oi" tue j^ree-jfcsnt la as fallows j 

•Whereas, there I© now per/ :i;;-.. in ih* Circuit court if 
Cos*, county, Illinois, a certain iittiiiftisg to pfir^etuate tiitl* 
bob/ tr- which *<Uth f. .Manger is plsdotiff and &£tf£k«*4 U« fall* 
lata*, Vlstor S. ^illiais*.. La a as &, fillips, AB4I »$&«?*, *r* de- 
fendanti. &»d there&s ther* Id b& so p««,flii,, i<\ the Circuit c.-urt 
of Cook oeunty, Illinois, ssB i$$4$a in chancery f&¥ *n as count lag 
1b which Lucas R« Willies la $3k* tfttifV «««t iiiaauwS 1», VtlliisjM 
and Victor w. Illliasvi are I$£iRiiBm%$, iWid 

'#h.ertas there 4 a ale«? gMMftl&MI I* the P'rofcat* court of Cook 
ecunty in thi Ratt«r of fc«e &»t*t« ©f Clara L, *illiaB«, tiiiwi, 
**» the petition of Kdith f. Mun&urr to revy*e Hut letters of «4- 
cinietratloB granted oy said oourt to tl^orge e% '-Ilii.-ces ©» the 
petition of Menard L. tfillloj&i and Victor ®, Villi oc&a, and 

Shereae It is UMI &eelr« of all parties iata yeitii in s*id 
controversies and tfTitiiiitlfJO to adjust mi cseor assise the ease and 
to effectuate sin Bit Billt tttstijl 1st ration of Hm MttNI&t of said Clara 
1. Villlaett, deceased, " 

The agression t than r«oit«-*» that in consideration of t.ho 
eutual eovoranta and agreements Ml if the mutual release* to he 
executed by the part loo they *gre«> M follows: Klohnri! shall pay 
Srtlth 310,000 in Oath and assign to ^dith Mi Victor all of hie 
interest in the estate of their Mother, Clara 1. f Hildas, deo«fc*ed. 
Richard an! Victor then Ussnvow all claims ae creditors against the 
estate of their mother and warrant tin at th«rc Is only one clala of 
•1150 agninst the Bother's estate. ( o) "Hihafi U* SilliMwe and 
Victor C. Wllllnao disavow »nd release all claims of any kind 
what «o ever against Lucas it. Willi aiaa froa the bigini irag of time 
to the tljne hsreof, nnd particularly »gree and iOT«nant with Lucas 



.}«*» ©i&fr ni, hit Its* 

. ■■•,-;■ .-■ ■■--.. , ■ ':<:,- f 

. 

- 

■mUom « . •#•• 



IU Williams and Kdlth *♦ Manger that they will never assert any 
elai* in or to any part of til* trust estate estafeii&ned fey IHltui 
R. Williams, i>ov«®toer 8, 1924,* The abreast en t then pros isles *:::*t 
£dith 1. Hunger agree* to diaries iMMf suit to Mf|Ni tuate the tes- 
timony; that Lucas 1« Williams agrees to disalus hie $uit lor 
us accounting and taat the sitate Ssjftfc of uhlea&o shall fee ap- 
ointed administrator oi' the <*»t*t# ei ulara ]»« iiiii**»s*, d«- 
««a«t(i, la lieu of t»*»i"g* J. Ulliataa* Richard, Viator mi fttiHl 
then &gr»e that their joint right to «»t«r th# sal sty deposit fcox 
formerly kept fey their s&otker &nali fe# tMiXftfti ©v#.r &f the t,t»te 
hank of Chigoe; that 

*(ll) the parties hereto a&ree to execute forthwith all 
necessary releases, stipulation as ft&dl ether doewsasnts t* carry out 
the terms of this fcgSJMsWJttt** &nd. fey paragraph (IS) L£it':; Ms4l her 
father, Lucas h, Williams, reie**e i,iehar« Modi victor "frcit, ths 
>HtnntllJ of tl»o 'and forever after from all of the oiai*>s fey then 
asserted in oatd suits W& from Hi$f and all other elai»a, debts and 
obligations WfcMgpfW s*rfl will aav# a4 *»*ip J MMW&sVM the s*»iti 
Hi chard 1, WiliiaisB and Vleoor ft« fHHtflMW oi' end frost way and all 
elalfts of whatsoever nature and charade* that M9 Mi a -<it by the 
administrator or executor of the est»t« of vilara t»« ~iiiiuis>s, de- 
ceased," fhe a&re^ent was signed fey MM four parties, nio&ard, 
Victor, Lucas and j£dith, *t m« IMMi lists fahc parties exeeutad 
releases. BM one exscuted by IfctfMtti s*f Victor recite! vaat In 
consideration or el .00 paid Oy Lucas and ..vdith, "and in considera- 
tion of the settlement of certain motions, controversies, claims 
and counter-oiaisui n ere to lore existing between the said parties, 
and In consideration of the releases of s*i<<. lucas R« '*llllaa>» wad 
said f-dlth V, hunger exscuted contemporaneously uerewlth in fMW 
of the unfersitjnsd, do hereby rest! eg, release and forever discharge) 
the said Lucas A. Willi ams and tne said /dith *. ■— ejs», t.ieii 



I 



• »» 

1 

. 
■ s 

■ 

■ 

30 ftflui 

BOtf •« • » '*» ? ' •**■ 

... . m ml. • 






. 



h.«irs, axacatora Mi. adtoinlatratora, ci' ana l'roic »il aag all a^ftner 
if action an 4 aetlana, causa aa4 sauets oX uctiwn, suits, dabts, 
<iu«a, »u»e of &&nm t accounts, yagaattl»ga« bunds, bills, apweiaA- 
ti*a, aovau&nta, oontr&aia, e^«t,ro--f#jr$l®a» ii&r««i»i«.anta, pyiataiij 
traapaaaaa, &a&aft#a« i&aistt aid d^^anda* «te<&t«i oarer &a law Q r in 
acuity 'al-ieli against tat au*l4 *..»«&• il. William* m& the «»ld -dith 
W, fcungar wa, NL#Kafi I*« ^iiliaaa and Victor 8« #iliiai»s, *r«r had, 
now &ar«, or waicix oar »i«irs # #j£*«utere aftd &d»iui»tr»iU;ra tt*reaJ"tar 
can or aajr hat* by ffa&aa* if «*sy Ka$MNT| cau&a Of Wing •fcuaisoerar 
fro.- the beginning of the -*crid It £to day if iij, &&$* of IHia ro» 
lea**." than fallgva a provision If wniob Rlafeard aal Victor par- 
ti ©wiarly r«lt«Ai all claims ag&is*i any fuunta ei»i.r Ait $4 'by -ucaa 
to th© $$&££ 'tiftftk of Chltsag;© according to a ir^oi &fc.ra«£iant iatad 
tttirtlitflld 1934, and iMUtt by i»tte«M» asid I bay saa&d n#*«r attack 

tka validity ©J' eueii truat. 

It *as fcrt&a* stipulated Itei at fete* »«*# tii>« *.uea# and 
£4ith M0Nttt«4 n r«el«»3»a, the taK* in §&!».{ tMl4M as Wfct * f *l*aaa Jaat 
»*r»licne4, r aliasing B'i© atari aa£ viator firga all eiaitft* mcj that 
aft«r HM tWMRrlifH 01" tta) t§3f«Wl#»l BB4 tf tha ra*«aa<* lw« pro- 
ceedings La tns Cirouli «*mrt to parpatnatc to»tlwo«y and the bill 
Tor an accounting W$9t l.is*wi*s«<l, tttd the atatc Baal of vhitsag© ap- 
pointor 'i^iiiiutrator of ih« estate of Clara i.. *ii;iaas, dscaaaeo', 
it liou of C«crg« J. WilliMMS« ' Uu <ii ll Mtil oi ww« pio- 

csedings to p«rp*ti*»t* teBt^ony ,,-rovluod uui, 0M t**il<M>ny u<«n 
in that cat* ciiould bo "witndr^wn Hoi ImAI lor MMf>l« a 

By tne writtPK «tipuli*tion it *aa furt*.«r a«,rooci that tno 
laot «111 .:,r-4 t»*tai.»nt ol «uoa« >. %illlafi.s a w&ic. wao oxoeatod 
January M a 19"?, ?.odt» no ^e\i«c ox boquoot to -dith I, kungfr; 
that Lucas wm gl » Lai and understood i>iiaa>| <>ucin«-oo 

tranraotioca at Ifea tlaa if tn« exaautian oi UH THrioua papara 
abava aentionad, and tnat on January IS, XV tl , Ui« tiaa oi tha 



' 



u ^c 



























■ 












. 









«« 



■ ■ 

ttJi 



, 






fiilllillf 1)1 if tho i fr » e» Wt ftttd if tho roll. *■»•#, Richard i.. K|&iiMMI a 
tho t&sistiMKfc, *h-i<S no olatr. against Lueoo R« • Upturn* or hi* o«t«ito, 

HUft ur>on fc&« not» ttfHia ^Jcn fctM el*im her* I? bft.oo'1. 1 " The 
written •%! -;«lNtle.n ffcft&if 1 proyid«d ifcjst any party coalo* ob.leot 
to my • ' the facts itlftttlftttd nn to** groutta' of In?.", or 

i teriality, 

By ftgHNAMftt tho tr«*u«oript 0f tltf feiitlitittgi I iven by 
Xe&ae r . PiVgi&iaft,, M tomev for !tte»o and. 3&Maft 4 cm the hearing 
if th? ilftii in th# ^rebate eourt, in* r*»J t ffMS afeiifei it app«ars 
I i% \±f 4 "monition of 'Lac«e, above r*S':'rr<M to, *»a» tataM prior 
to the ti«e of Hi* axeeutton of Hl« wr*w?.eui MM 8H ft* r<*'J.eaoea. 
Ho farther teotifiao 1 ao to the S#g»ti&iiil53| leading up to, and of 
V:* -5Tmh ration y*n1 «x*eutio« if* th* ftgpWHBR«a% mA release-*; that 
hi hM heard of note.* executea by Lugse to KioHard feat not of the 
*D»oifio note In «we*ti««. htwm obicot.i^r, , th* eourt excluded tho 
deposition if fetftwi *. VUltamt* life* ttife* after the ease »0» 
closed, vn$ ooneider&bie MRpHMRt had boon indulged in by counsel, 
counsel for cl*iff*nt offered to prove by Victor :. WUUaai that In 
ift— IliliT. it9S« wh*n there ■**) ba«» a o«ttl*»e»t between the father 
ond Kiohird In F fgi l i to tho various R*t*i if tho father above men- 
tioned, ml when Sishard dei lv«r*d fefet note* to the father or toro 
the» a*, tho note In cupnttoa «ai hunded to tho father at* returned 
it tc Kl shard, »oyirife ha would not M*e IJMsiH any ore-Jit for that 
note bootee it. woe not to b<? ittld JJKijI fron hit eetete. TMo 
evl t*»nce ni object**? to ■ ^ ' ■■'"-.' I litalwi on tho ground 

that t'-^o bo ttl <w. /-nt of 19??, V»i B#t i< lifNMI| llMKl IM only nntt«»r 
bofer* *h# nourt <*»o tho cuowtton of tht» Mt%i«MBt ovi<iMne«d by 
thi o?re«K«Bt. %n4 rol**o« if 19" 7 7. 

Counool f*r cf\n mint oont«n1« that th« roloaoo wmm aaroly 
•an offshoot or outfjro^th of VM orlplr.al a^rowraMJt" a«4 mutt be 
gofarnod by wiiat *%* laid U tM a^trooaont; Ui*i - It io oi*ar that 



3^ 



I ti 



■ 



► ■■< * 



- 

: . 



»■ 






■ 



this note wae not included if latin&to 1 *:o fee Uti&lUMMI la the t*me 

of (III >*#reer«nt. * a»<* that lift construing ■gJNMMNMHtg of -^rties 
If, It the 1*4* tn-it vfetit UK ».fcr«**R«»t fc if In 9 ffstji i p^,rtleul*r 
BfrstiMlM if the Matters If fee settled and. the umfflMK* of th^ir 
tett': ^*r»t, <m$ tn^aa are fa&&0W*| fey funeral worde ei" .*■<►* <*a«e t 
ttv* £**«**! «##4i if VtafNs&fi MP* Halted im4 restrained fey the 
particular recitals, s$4 that In Ihi tei»taet w&oe tfti recitals In 
the «4 ; :r#*«i#at %re (1) tfe&i thera *»»» )0#n.11»g in t&i -'Jl.roit- enurt 
of Batik county a proceeding to ^enset^te t^tleony ^you?ht fey- 
Edith -<#»le*t fttchafd, Victor, «ttl i1fc****i (t) that there was 
pen.*, in*- la the Circuit court if $»«$ county » fe&l* &B tfaanoery 
for an sfececuntlng fetittgM fey Uve father agpilnat hie tw» asms; 
(.'«} tast ther* *a,e ilii p *■«''!«£ |M Hit ,:*r-ote»t# court if fiiil county 
Ir. 'he r.&tter of the estate of Clara 1. IFi3JUlaStt ( dee*&«ed, a pe- 

|M to IWVOl[f the letters of a&&lxt4«$ rat ion; N&4 (4) that it 
was t&t deeire if ftal p-\r-.i •:•;;* iat«si"*.$t*»dl lis <<uoi~. oentro?*r«teo and 
pptt*aa > &l£fl Mi adjust sftg c^rvprosstee $&&■ egBNl in ©ffawtamtt amieafele 
Mkiinlr.trn^lcr of tfci ttoi&ta af (Staga J.. *\ti ■. !.•/.■..», i«%oe»ft*d, und 
it is nr*tt*| Hurt th* SSFfavaS agSttl tttttf follow^n*.-: MstiMI recitals 
•wet e* *j3n-*trvie* as Halted, to thaw* reelWi.^, a&i thit non* of 
the recitals in an? way refer i| UMI not* la suit. 

IMat the rul* of constriction 1» a* ttavttl fey ttWMMR\ 4 lr; a 

KMT unfte, ititl rale Is Kiiit a-v.lied. sfeM to* ttatl»l of the 
agreement or cor.treet i» plain «md «n«v»feigitea«.. And we taint the 
rule i» ln»<;t fc«r« feeoinafe It Is ofeYlour t.h»t tfce partita Intended 
aot cnly to dispose oi UM tart* r.tttere i«a4lM| l« ■*■»!, fewt rvlao 
Other watttra enu^erate^ i l Si »i I . Rsi ifjrtOMH provldol 

thst Rtcfcvrd should pay Vdlth 1 , I cash, a**lgn to Sdith «n<l 
Victor hU if hlr ii;t«rent ll Mki estate of Cl.<«r%; llMl M ««n<? 
v ictor fUjtaTc-wcd nil claims UUHjr ni t L'ifirw'o Awtats; 

that -. r r<nd victor "r^laasa all «3 ulsio of any kin^ » 4 \*tsc»*Tar 
against i>ueas H. r *'illl«uiS frot the fe^li.i.iu of tla«» to th« tins 



. *«W »S 






I 

■ 

■ 






j 



hereof.* Th«s «*r*ow«»t AurlMt pr"wi,i*<5 tn»t £iitfc au»<? .i>uea« 
•h^ttlA rslimoo oil &»$»* tifety luMI ftgttlBftt Ri«fe«N *fl4 ¥ictor *f>1 
the fc#gl£y&i&ig of tlao,* i&jj ;':u*i t&« pujrti*** aliould «xoouto mlfMH 
It ttt« others. Ski rol «*&«** VMM NT#St#I»,^f «s>u\.t -. lio q».o 
«*oout*4 by HtohaHl m& Victor ta lUiew? w;d -Mi tit, rele*«*di juM 
*io<*hnr«e<* ft***** &11- fttftiM th«y tfelj^t hair« &r,»t»»fc *»*#»« Ml 
SoMtfe, Htoif b*ir», o^oout^m as I ml inifstffftiors, of «$$ from ©ai 
o«<S all Bamil of &#t&ft8 f * #to. 

^« tklftl It Rltar hy a r-'.- c i>.,, of tfc.«? •&%?mmm% %u x I char 4 
I Vl*ty»l HftiiHiMfcfl Luc»e t t'is exeotftans, -sAtdalairotoro gfeg as* 
ftlf&t from all olaiisr is cotitldoratlor. of "; Hi 6ft tee 

o**»eut«3 try &M i ■ Uth Kfti its further oots. ."iteration »f the 

tiflMtStfel tf 1 1 ■ *■ Sue* »*lt*tt" r> 1 1 S I ■- •-. it eouzt, it tlM Pf&lMMt 

MBMhImHI fef fitofcsr^f m4 Vietcr ■:■ ft«1 |»$$ft$i {$11 B«t« Ir; p tt, 
thou Sletraif fWf ap ft# lis leg !»«$&& i* if ffftf it£$nftt&t#4 tfcttt M ii*4 

no oth^r elfcla again ot SriMNsi fefit* Ml Kfet i*f#ttt&§l of Ifci igffMMKt 

lift*?*?* 9$ tlil^it tfef »|tr#fweaf ■&$! fee fetid tt have it - 
9l*tt4 fttet t#tft In gfctttttn for lite PtftlMH! that it >,;:• MKPI that 

four tttttfet fetf*** tho |gtt fatal tiki t»Mwt$#l i>t£t** tut foft&tjr, 
totting ttSttt&lftt >a ..K"'X ooto gftrtj < ho 

el&iseod Khowl^ h«ve boon fctftttl&ti' it 1$°3; Mai Ik I . «- 

lIlftMf It VtttM fetttt Ifttn scatter:; t,r- vil hutu ittt tc eoj 

|Mv1 '-hon the Hfljlitll MM HRMtttH 1- • »j'' ; 7, tbo ioto 

w»o n^t rol ?apo<5. AM fkt f-ct tkd It «M not payubl*> «:<».- 
fro*: the Mt«M *'f Lvc.'ii tftwr fell 4 " WWtl'' ni, ; 

oltu&tlpn. | "• it k HM c! ir ghtttl I li«felXfeWfe4, «nd 

therefore tho jfuffWfrtt oi t»« Ircuit cc^urt of ook c ur.\y >flll 
fe| r*«vfr»o<l witt u rit'rp of f;ict. 

Votohott . P, T 0# MMl our< , '., MM«f« 

(Boo noxt pate. ) 



it oi 

■ ■ 

i 
■ 



W968 mam gi< **ct. 

V* i'Uhi ste a fisftt that. St&f § ) $ »«ffi L*W»X*«d nm» in» 



37043. 

BLIU! C. Fi^OIUS, for Hit »H of 

Appellee, 

JOH* ?. iTm>HAaY, 

Arrneii&nt, 





1PAL 

■ CHIC AC . 



*&• Juries, §*$@ks@$ svraii ties ®fj3&$i on ra *. 

wl ine C. »r«»iu», ft practicing lawyer, brought *uit *t*-«inet 
the defendant to reasrer $1,003*61 w„-iieh he elained was due hiss for 
leg'%1 services. EM gdUfsl 1««i*»d liability, there was a jury 

trial, Mfe4 i 1h»*n*«t &n4 fWtgfMKs in plaintiff* f&wor for #280, 
mad. defendant fvpf»t&l». 

The evidence is to the effect teat plaintiff owned an «ioajrt- 
jeent tea tiding in Chicago *fcad$) tf&f ll fetll *&##** nose: that it «u 
WIWIWI< bv three mortgagee, ©n« for |§$*9(EM » i ssoimd for about 
$65,000, and! * tftlrd for about ? 5,000, ail of which were in default; 
that the defendant, who owned seas* of the bands secured by the first 
nort.ger* ftftl ^lee a part 'of UN bonds secured by the second mort- 
gage, had filed a suit for a partial foreclosure ©f the first aort- 
gage, end in this way the pfftft&gf fceenw.e aecttutnted; tnat in 
February, 19 3<;, the parties orally agreed that if Uroeius would not 
delay the foreclosure nil Igftfti— I would gftvt him an additional 19 
months within which to redeem the property froi* the deeree of fore- 
cloture, tuad that thereupon Erosius agreed to render legal services 
for defendant without charge. 

The evidence f lit :er snows that shortly t<«r<-i»l'tar oi*lntiff 
bepan to render legal services for defendant and continued to 4o eo 
in a niueber of natters ui.t il about June, 19.51. Broslus' version of 
the natter wae that about July, 19. U, he aeked ^tephany to execute 
en option in writing Authorising olaintlff to rede** the property 






^ O *iri» -a- O 












' 



■ 

■•■!•& fcfta 

ill *s •/ •s»Hs>fci'r# tiff 

«»»*>*?<■. mi 9 mm 

■ 9 bam ,0Q . 

■ 

i ••*! 
li ban ,l|i| 

«i iu « our »; >*»te»l »rft % 

.v»*jMr» o* i- " BrtJrtoa 

•aulrtM Li etflaoiJ M ,«tuwolo 

9jff 

o« of« =-.j fcntfui/no* boa *;iai-/i»l»f» *•** a*«»i*™» U| »t 01 «*»»«* 

:ftv >ftfia<r?& .UOI ,auirt. !«*«** .-;•»•***« *• *••%«« * nl 

•#«»•*» ») Xt***' >• » tf • #••* • »* w *•*#»* •*» 

Xii*noi<: art* ana**-! oJ tta*i*»« »«iJli» nl aol*«t «• 



I 

within the tiae orally agraoa upon la February, 1990, but that 
HijImMj refused *« it so. 

There is M 41 sputa ta the e^tittanoo tuat it was orally 
If Mm parties that hreaius *$*&£ !*av« a*.. *>.xtra 15 a outfit ta r*d< 
the property ufter foreclosure; nor in Hueffa nay die^te that i>ro*ius 
agreed to perform legal terwieso lor iafaniaiit without eftarga, and 
that its ?td r<md*r saeh earwlcoa for g^fktfftl&sa&alf a y*ar and a half. 
But Hm ewid*n«o 1« ih oonfliet Ml to vh other oafaM&Bs reluft^d to 
glwe the option to plaintiff to redeem, the ffajMtirty as a&reed. 
Plaintiff's llif f Minis 1« I* Htft offset thai &*f0Kt&0&« refused to 
eyeeute a written arreej?>*nt and fc&at the oral one was Invalid be- 
c*u«» it involved real eatata and W9H eot to be perfon&ad within a 
year. On the other hand., defendant's t*att&#ny ii to DM effect 
that he was not asked for amy #3r£ ttan agr<e>#»ent until -July, 19 31. 
On the trial defendant teetifiad that he ta» still willing to turn 
the oroperty sack to plaintiff if plaintiff would pay the indebted* 
not* agvinst it. 

Plaintiff testified in detail at to the s«rvi©<»s he had ©er- 
f erased and also that «hen he WWfe MWti n4l first services he made a 
written nessor&ndusi ©f tbesi and continued to Aft m In Hfll| can*; 
that thoy w*re reasonably worth nor* than \ , ■ ... *** sailed two 
attorn i»ys as *itnee»es who gave tttfettv opinion that the reasonable 
charge lor the services rendered RH more tnan |§#§« 

Befandant contends that MM court ^rrsdt in *dj?.ittlng impmper 
evidence on the sort of plaintiff. 'the evi.ier.ea sua-e that July »$, 
1931, plaintiff omde out a number of bills detailing the services 
rendered by hin, and sent the«s to dof«*ndant. . rior to th# trial 
plaintiff serwad notieo on i/*tm4bm\ to produoo thaso bills nnd do- 
fon<s*nt dU so. JPlaintlff ofl>rod thosi in owidaneo and thoy woro 
rooeivod oor deforciant's objection. »o think this was srror. Thoy 
should haws boon ozoludod boeauoa plaintiff had testified in detail 



.»* 

■wi>.-M»«sE bib *A $m&i 
» ai *i tooftMv* *Ki Jut 

imp »4' #*rtJ 

•41 **«!*»* a»«a 
* >. ' 4*4* o« 1» *>«* b»flrto"t 

Mt>s nt-sw ^**i* $9& 

■ •■• . 

-*■>• i Jl :•:*>.• 

V -IT* wnr si »*A*Mfl 



3 

it the servie«sa an r*ft<i*r#d and it MM !«*$> roper to wtmp&mnjmjt or 
tc warroborute his teeti^ony by presenting the sills which he had 
rendered defendant. *aere *»• no dispute teat that defendant re- 
ceived the bills; but we sure am*&L« i© ©ay that they prejudicially 
affected the defendant, in vi«w e£ &1-! the evidence tn the ree-ord, 
end ti-i'" fact tfettt the verdict *m for less tuan ©ja«-tfel)Wl of the 
amount plaintiff fM ol fining. 

Defendant also contend© tfelsf the court «rr«4 in permitting 
evidence in reference to .$$,QOi* collected toy the reeaiver as re«t 
fro*, the premise© during the f©r#ei©»ure m»§ fading, $4QG$ of which 
•»** turned aver by order of court in the fereeXeaur© suit on a par- 
tial payment of the first ©K>rtgage. there was some evidence to the 
effect that this stonay "belonged to plaintiff., the property having 
been ©eld at fore© >.o sure ©alt f&x the amount of the decree, and that 
the effect of this w«i tftat pt'kimWdff g*f* ii#W4«Be I 10" I of this 
money which he could hare ferny! tie* &tflft*t&f . ffe think, tuts evidence 
should not nave been ad&itt*d became* plaintiff was suing for legal 
services rendered, eubet&ntially none of which were rendered in con- 
nection with the ItOM in the receiver'© hands. 

But the issue was elt&pie and was clearly understood by the 
jury. The court then instructed Uiem that if they believed from a 
oreoonderance of the evidence that plaintiff agreed t© perform legal 
©ervicee for defendant without charge, in coneider^tion of which de- 
fendant agreed to glv© Broslus *n option to redeem th© property after 
the legal peried ©f redemption had expired, and if they should rurtnsr 
find from the evidence t at plaintiff fully performed hi© agreement 
and defendant refused to earry out the agreement, then plaintiff 
w©« entitled to reoelv© compensation for the service© performed 
by him. 

a© complaint le mad© to the instructions *nd we think It 
•bvleue that the jury were net influenced to the prejudlee of the 









&.*'"■ 

























. 

. 

. i 

*3»Tta 

. 

-«f) .-iolJ* to ooi I I •••in** 

v a.' 3'j. «»t 

I JWITl 

#1 ■ *w bi*> sac. p# •*•* «i *ai«j.*««» •* 



defendant on Account of the admission of th<* ttiri4*MNI eoaplftluM 
of. §*# ar» also ©f opinion that the further oonten vi©« ©f defend- 
ant tnat he *as unduly limited in srcw e». &&a a ( i©n of plaintiff 
in connection *it>n the dof*n»» S#t up In |fei stfi i-lav.it of saerlte, 
was not roversibly erroneous, i"his Hofttii* w&«, that part of" tho 
consideration for the making of the «©ntr.»ot for In® rodent ion of 
the -.reosrty, as above .n«Btioa«4. t was tuafc dofendant fkgroed to 
antral so rens! •state for plaintiff , and $ta&% of plaintiff's claiai 
»»» for consul tsvt isms in i^flfcK&fiS to theso matters M 1'er 

services rondoroa by plaintiff for d«ffei^^.i. 'rule tho rulin,-. ©f 
the court might sot fee atnotly aeuurate, jr#4 def r;na*nt oJAfoWNl no 
evidence in hi a ©*» behalf that, K$ti&J t*n<S to support his defenoo 
above mentioned, although def*ndant $&4 te«t.if> !£»«,% many of tho 
©onoultatioa© h**d with plaintiff woro concerning plaintiff •» 
business. 

^hile, ao tlliiMa»d t the r ogijr d is not free from error, vnd 
if th« question© inYolved were eojsplloated or doubtful they might 
warrant a reversal , yet. the IfsMt iu $&* i&st.wU caa« <«*»s simpl© 
and easily understood by the jury. Plaintiff did not receive one- 
third of what he was claimie^, ?*r.d M M&4 in the ease of Lyons v . 
Ranter. 235 111., 3d©, wner© ittWlAnaiml justice has been done tho 
Judgment ©ught not fe© reversed to tiiilt' the parties to ©aite up a 
more perfect record. 

ihe judgment ©f xuv- Holt ilnill court of (.hi ©ago is affirmed. 

AmHUKl). 

Matohett, J*. J., and fce«4ureiy, J., concur. 



tsn em* 

■ 

Iviazu tat a*W 
It »*l# 



vr*bax< xilix* fro* 






tol 



370*3 



TRJt 90KBJ8&6 CiaPASI, sua ) 

Illinois - .;or>>o ration, J 

Appellee. ) 





▼ a. 

JU1-IUS ft. &*Hii, 



JL » ri. • *L» & nj 



*k. JUftucat 0«Giua«UH SSLIV1 ... 

Plaintiff br^ugh* *us «.« tints ftgs&ttst Ui% &#3"«&<&*ttt to re- 
cover $364. 03, elai^^d to b«? t»« ii f#f a«r»i«ea pftfffMUMl for 
aefoadaoit in e&eurittg * reliction of Hut tax*» levied, ugiuinet the 
defendant's real estate in &&#&£$, Bier# '«*« a trial before tho 
court "•tthoui a jstry, a finding. m& judgment in plaintiff** 
fmver fast Umi ataeunt el* its cl?ti*s, MM) ftfel*0&&attt •p»*tjii* a 

£h« record di»ai©*«.» that Jaeola $©»fe*rg *»» % r«»l eatato 
appraiser and president of plaintiff corporation. , ami Wwt about 
Kay, 1930, he called on iftfflfeftt&t aft the i*U«?r'» office ^Ith a 
▼ lew of W4>fcVttgl*m to yiiHii Uie tWeMfl a«fi«i a^inst an apart«.ae8 
biilding b*i orbing to defendant fcfei&a .« i.i*sti«r 6465-73 iSngleeid* 
a^etue, Chicago. The *viJenc« shows that at that time 

Qejnberg statel he Ui&u, t ht the property »&• aaaens^d too nl^h nnd 
that h« could obtain a redu<;t:on of Nat ti-oaa, <*n<i it was agreed 
that defendant pay plaintiff *88, and that If plaintiff obtained 
a reduction it vould charge onA-.ia.if if wh* a^oui.t oi Uie reiuc- 
tioa nn<j would apnly the 585 %M IfldTHstjM if MM one-half of the 
encunt sttved; that If thero was no redaction, k >i win tiff woul* 
retain the £93. 

«J*ti*mr%rd t'l.^ntiff fcai an appraisal of th* I ra»de, 

a-ncaro-J before tho Board of f**view, *nd *fter a hearing the *alaa- 
tion placed on tho iMildlag for aeifRSuaent purpose* *ac pMMtd 
$10,387, eo that, tkmn »es a saying of **9a.Co. Plaintiff claimed 



mm 






.•V 



: • . 






f $0*1 I 






■ • 



s.«i E r,s 111.rni.-r. 



I 

one-half of thie or |S4t»#3t tfMei which It d«ductsd the £85, leav- 
ing a balance ©iaiwed to be due ©l" 2264,03. there *us »c dispute 
ol* tit f eta ana defendant put Ml Bt evidence cut hit eola conten- 
tion Is that his agr««»ent lor the reaction of tfel IsjMM was i ith 
Jacob t*o«sfe«r& and. not with, pi ait. ti VI corporation. 

ttoaaberg gave teett^ony t« blis i ft I &s «ork 

and further tee tilled that he entered Into the <*, • ■ „th de- 

fsndant, hut it la altar tn»t he apoke of hii»aelf ae btfinfc th* cor- 
poration because h*» aaid "I VIM inoorpo rated In 193C and appeared 
before the bo»rd of revi«w the latter part of l#31 in this ease;" 
that the corporation *»t formed Sprier to His tisae I actually did 
the work.* It i* true tfe* evi, :*«»©« iigws fcjamt ftssfea&stfatg »ho waa 
an attorney at law, dictated ft letter on his letterhead embodying 
the terse of the agreement, which la si|pt«£ by Jacob Uoaherg, and 
the letter ie to the effect that Romberg personally agreed to do 
th* work. &ftt it appears, a* et~.ied, that SfMfeftffg often referred 
to himself as the corporation. 

The court atfftl well find t«tat Hit ;i& recent was aii<do with 
tho corporation and that it U work, c-f u- urea it stuet act 

through individuals, and although the work was adutally <lon© by 
Go** erg, he was act In | on b half of the con?© rati on. 

The judgment of the kunicipai court of unlcago la affirmed. 

JUDO* KM A/rlRki£D. 

Katchett, P. J. , and kshurely, J., concur. 









- -• 















■ 



. 



tunivu 






■ 
i 

:<. -.in* ■,.. . 






,#fr#r 



37091 

' / / 
F. A* B08C0, 



V»« 



mm mmi*f$*L mm 




Appellant*. ) T 

rfW ft O !-•■£*■• v^ #w *^ 



flail* tiff tertwa^at m soils* ag<%tofet Uie def -i-.-v.U $1 to 
H— TO #£Htt$#§ oij&lj»$d to lUWft b*en $a#%*l»fMS by roftAQKl oJ" an 
automobile oollis?ioa thro»^ 'tn# &f«(gl£j|0&et ftf &«£ Ml, Cf*u«ing 

dauaa^* to pl&lnti ff*» m .iosfuafcila. Sil-i.-^.ts f&*<Mt fta affidavit 
of merit* In whleb ih«y denied :ii ability and B*t«##'#$ to&t tho data* 
age »u stained by 1»1'*a vrttlfl', fflt « result t&f $Mf collision, *a» re- 
paired to plmintiff** t$R$lt$i *«£&•£ tfcg$&iH 4 N*d &b«$ | >ir\.iff, in 
eoneirter?tt ion of the MpKfcfS* released &#f$&&m&%M frws all liability, 
There W9M a trial before ill* court without ■ «Jury ttttl t ftodinjj *d 
Judgment in plaintiff* favor for $10© and d*f eK4aut« appaal. 
Defendant* took le**Y« to file bond and till of «ewtitvrjB. Th* 
bond was tiled and approved btu they 144 not J'il« ■ bill of ex- 
ception*. 

the only contention iMJiii by d*f <.'-n'i<*nt* why the ,1urf jaent 
•hould be rev-jreed lo that pi* ".ntiff* »t»fc«s&*nt ©I ci'tim ild not 
etate a caus* of action. It ie % l*te date to make *uch a point 
in this court, booaujs* lor a*ny y M91 thie court had Held tnat in 
actions of the fourth oia»fi, «ift*r Old MUM iv;« b*>«m triad tho 
eaaa la what tho evidence »•**«» it, tf*l we are not intereated in 
tho *l**4in«*. In thie a* ut, if tmtlljj folio* in* tho 8uprcao 
court. In 1909, whioh wti ■ f«* y*ar* *i"t«r tne ku/.i< ipnl ourt 
act wa» patsrtS, tho Supremo ^ourt, in ^dj.ar to . p ▼. fn „,..;-.t- l( -*- J-*— l_ 
w 7« Co . . ?40 111., 311, h#lfl thai in ©**<?a oi th* tourth Qiao*, 






' 









■ 

- 

■ 



■ 

■ 
■ 

- 

< .. ■ , ■ . . ■ , »« . . • , ■ • • . i ,« si j m U( fit 



where no written pleading* wer« required, if i ; <red on the 

whol« record that the pl&intiff sae «Rti1&*d to recover, and the 
court had Jusiediet ion, the |*4pi«Kt would not he disturbed on ae- 
c-unt of any insufficiency in pleading. Ife* court ih*re said 
(p. S&9)t "A.® to this* elaas of cape* Wtt&fef the fcunioipal Court ae* t 
where no written pleading* are required, the «s*s»« rule will govern 
ae eontrele the fern of aetloh» tafftf* $m$eie«P of the peace. -e 
have held that 'it ie the PfSU eettied practice Ht»| in euen court* 
(i. «?. , ltt*9f written ple-a4.in.gr ®Y* not require), the party euing 
need net even name hie action, or if jftian&fted, that will not affeet 
hie righte, if upon hearing the evidence &« appears to be entitled 
to recover and the court tag jurisdiction of ftSfee defendant and of the 
eubjaei Biatter.** Hm rale announced In the .^d ^rton , ©«4«e wae fol- 
lowed and applied by thie court in jffiKBfcJ^BllflLffinj JtfcJMJM yrene- 
ffir_Ca.. 1«7 111. *#?. ***( iifflKiimi Ti IMftfr— «*§■ »W Hi. App. 400, 
smd nuE«rrcue otner eaaee, And in i?r;.mgr „Y„.f, - ^,^-^4 I'Tun a: >-<'eat »rn Kjt. 
Co. , 319 111. 4 21, the Midi *M nflltOTMl to. In tfcM 9SM the court 
eaid (o. tftvfl "defendant ineirt? Htfct fiJMI «ult wafi in contract 
against Joint def indent*, ?«nd the Judjjsent should hare been against 
both def endart* or neither,, Xhis contention tne Appal l*te court h»id 
wa§ not tenatele a< the action w&« of |)M fourth class to rec vtr 
dosages for n*Ajlij?;ra«e and may be treated *i* in tort. i»o written 
pleaeln^a &re required, and the rules >--.i ::•'«. i,..-:i.Me are thn some ae 
govern actions before Justices of the p«»ee. lag ie in ae* 

eord&nce with sVdgcrton v. whica,&o f .t>p.c>" 4 ».i.*»n d n fl.d > acitlfc "*il'<ajf 
iLtt. 24C 111. 311. ■ 

In view of the holding* of the ftupreae oourt and of mis count 
there ie no iswrit in tnie appeal and the Jud^nent of the Municipal 
court is affirmed. 

AjrriKkjtD. 

Matohett,/. J., and kcuuroly, J., concur. 



( 

■in mm *x»rtw 






. ■ 
. ■ ■ ■ ■ 

aid 

■ 

i ... .1 f &X * . 

. 7 9 .: I 

• A MM 

m 






/ 

37100 

^pHK a, rsmmm wn4 mem twmssf, 




L, y. ITtiWIIf i GO* » Ifce. « k Si ? i'G ration, 

A#$#il£a£ti a 



■ I 7p pnxexm 
"UHX a* chx|aoi . 

£ ^ - <- - - - - 



Slaihtlff* llt<§tt£M us &»$i«S &jg«tljia>o klofwidswu to reeavar 
#300 olulaMK* It Ifcttfft. teoom dtpersited by t&#JM *lt& dafor.dant unlor 
tha Imn of a writto*i aajMalSMpt $&.&*?$£ it,io botwottiB tha plaintiff a 
r«i»d Joe Lfada &Jid Ami a fcuda, hi*? fflfftr, fMr Hit exchwi-ga. of two parelli 
of r@ai sstaia* lis $a*il ft&if&«&t of alalia :>I-r, stiffs ailego that 
they deposited tha »•■■-» #y «-£$& &w£'m&m,t '.a PO aft#0 fftt tilt* gijaift 
of the ItH tiaWSJ oc p>ro»e;rty at 341$ &©rth hm$ SWWUMI, Uxicago, 
«***<! ?*hleh tha Sud&a, uja.4ojr Utt terms of III* oon tract, wero to eonrey 
to plalatlffaj that dofeaisnt failed to $ay tit® 19 2& taxee, but 
«l*ia*9i |a have fjpf&iil the tt£Js#y t$t r*4«e*a *h« property froa t*x 
salon fat tftllttfffj to pay eertaiiu apaoial asaosaasouto oti the property. 

Defoliant filed an affidavit af &orlta dsr.yln^ 11 Ability 
and eat up that fieva&bor 9, 19$* f plalutliT a aad the WHiflU entered 
Into • contrast for tho IMttU0fJ|i of real aetata whereby plaiutiffa 
worn to convey |i ||M 3a,! . :> . »*iy txatna so Hal ItVtll Ls*ler 
ave&ue, M|4 the Be'tH war* la convey tc pl..,L;.t ii'J'a r^perty known aa 
2419 Jiortn 1.0*14; avenue, efeaMgtl that the written contract exeo ted 
by the partioe |JTfTtAH Mamt MM 1*4*4 ae4 §&Viel to tne defendant 
$300 ea earnaet aonoy ftteUli Mtw4mA% wmm t* auld totjothox wit^ tno 
euntraot, Ha4 that Ukaji laa doal wan closodi dof*EJat»l w»d to pay tho 
$3,0 to the Oudaa; that bVAttf ri*.raat plaistlffl '«oro r#qilr«4 

to ox««;it# ta#lr flfl miff ■#>%* i>»r ;.%u, aocared by truat «»od aa 
tn* prL'party at 241P MfUl oi» avauut, vhioh w»» pajrl oJ tiio aon- 
• ldoratlon to b« p -.i ' tho Dud^s for tho oxohauflO •*" MM orop«rtloa; 
that aft*r»ard, '•'haii the deal vaa elo»ed, Uoc«»bor lc , 19 31, tha 



, 



, 



, 



: 






I 

ill £ *tO •«'! 






, 






. 



« ■• ■ 



■ 

•.:■'•'..' ■ i.\ . % .' • , 1 ' ' .: '•' '■ ■■ '■■<■■■ 

„;„.., » • ... .,; im , >J , •■ •«. ... ■- ,- «X*S li ^"<'-ii »rfl 



defendant diebursed the §901 in aceerdMjaee ^ivu th* t©n»e of the 
eontraet and with the approval mad consent of plaint if fe --tud the 
3ttdaa. MM affidavit of userite further eet up wt**t pig ntiffo had 
fail#d k| gay KM |9i til net*. U»*r* KM ■ trial bgfg»e l&g court 
vltheut a J«ry hM i fiftdlag MMl |$4<tjfft«R$ in pisintiffe' favor for 
$tOfl»Sv, gad ia^gadtaat appeal*. 

The WMrt dieeleeee ti»at li., ?, ^y^fflurit, t lawyer practic- 
ing in Chicago l"t„r it y»i%r« t frag j^$#gi&g&7i of itiag tgfgft4 p<uiy. 
Zygtaunt r^preeented p&g&g|£f i's* who- »«re gxg&i) i f±?« roe» 
bungalow aifeg tfeg BaMt*8 far a s«m jpggSI butt j$ alow. KfciB attract 
fer the es.-6hsu.jg* wa* frfcajMBPed i-u ^#**ga4a*»*g j>l^o® of fetftg&agM and 
ia not ae g$#f&fl* Ml SJMiatf twa it sua© ild is. Ihe so** tract yrc- 
vided as tg gagfe gj UMI bui«&*,*ow», g&g$ the **#$CHUIla bil2 for 
Soneral Ta*eg to be pre fttttil sn gaaig of 1&$8 Sag bill." 

the ta&gg&agNi gg&Yg^gd few *.Vv- fggeligr* I* .u« ..aj.i* *&« to 
bo convey ad eubjaet to • first m&B%&mg& of |4@$i attd ft neaond Mtt* 
g*#c of §750; HM Utt bdag&igw convesyad gf u> I gtafag to th* UlMWI 
wa« aitj^ct to a firet aawtsagi of $4@@$ gad i ggggMi »or..tiage d* 
42uvU, u 1 . : it v* ■..•■;• « if ltd &&&$ Nit can Vgyga -fee fce «**de eubject to 
no special ft8s«tri^t». 

figg svldeneein the r*ord Ul gggtftigiai g*d it i* not eurprie- 
inti that the learned Iflial Judge MMM **>* «<"»*»P WM f *ote; upon * 
readin* ©f the record of Um trial It 1* obvious i.Jiat oountiel on 
neither aid* had the f^et* *o In aind that fcuey ouul-i bo i«t«iiiK.ai>t^r 
prc»«OBted. HMBT1 i» avidviice U th« raeord, howovor, luat oof*»^df«it 
rtiaburaofi nearly all the la tlMUriB| tht? sroporty at *41» l^orth 

hong avftriu* of liena if jy— lal aai»ec«&*Jiita, «nd Uiat plalBtlff ha4 
■ado but three ■Wtillj aayiuontB of ;3t2 u). thw ..to »««urod by 

tho |Mtl dood on thife property. 

ttlfWNtfl also cflcred to *fc«* M l * i>t auU*ori«od it 

to ac« the ^3i.O in clearing the xc<?«rt> of *i)*eial a«*esea«at li#ne, 
and that tftey alee aatuorlxed defandent to eoil*et the }KA) aertgage 



I 

- 

■ : 

; 
I 






e©t# »<*£« by plaint in* a ift4 *««mr«d by * trust 4e<H ©r; the *».ro©«r ty 
it M&S *. ; ©rth i-ong attrm«, MM Ml tt»e ©ufTici«nt_ if that ron«y to 
3»y ©fly uisp&ld 0gt*fcl*l fct##*i tt&ti *■ tJiat property, Vain •▼l^ene© 
was ©rrsn^ousily «x.©iwd»4, $&© e&*© fosrlftg to ©on triad by pi iir»t Iff •« 
e nun 6*1 or* %h? theory that tb© |3€$ (H$$M »©t tea ua«<i toy t*»« d»- 
fandojat to pay th© ©$4Mtiti3< ©,»»«?«©&«*; t» without Umh ^it-ority ©1* 
pl&lntiiT©. 

*« ax© glftafeai is gBft&ft£$%ml #3i$f UM &*&©« («&&«*© it i ay 
b* said tuxit lui; "»«r« I ty I ff©wi ^Rveving 

©i' 4.1a lOHNi KS| &6#4ft!MHi&lif} g£fc$l& ©Jflj I ■ tw Usui to un« 

tb© |30C to r#dee!& U\» -fc-.fi ; 2x€&$ •?*»«*# pygptffty ffn i *i aJL 

ft«»#ssM&« 4 fit s&lf-s. >. r*4©r $s# ifitt«B SSR'fcriwt lh« «®»«y **• It b© 
fLfm fcti U».«a, r > -ar* sl*s ^.- le t£ ■■•*(•-■" '■■■ ' I aflsjf v I »*«!** 

tiff a BftMMiM *»£«©»**© IkfrtT R#t£ £«f | it by & trait 

ltd ©a tfe© rorepsrty at 3419 $#rHa Mttf WMWTO** "•' l!4 * ■•* cobt*jM 
to tha* by fcfej BttA*ft« 3E» .; I wor<*a» -: taftffft, UftttV th« *%!«», 
e»n«d two ^raperty or. h#&& KftttMft g£ *&&&%i tb«y gttVf * aicrt.;^ 
for f5wc, vhic'ik mvfMmii wa© tc te* p*H fry Hmm fci t«f«ftAt*t, ^h© 
vat a.utMorii*d. ir. -rrltiftg b 3f **• ftti&i *<■ H> t]a ® «l»©«i«l ©»*©»■• 
oionta levied ©** the TtHlfl i*«SHt* fr&prrtjr. PXtkiMtift* **rm pa? leg 
■©cay to d«f errant to N iJHli to pay a 11 ^n ©a th*ir ©w '"ty. 

£ut thiu cpni'uaicfi ittfM If "k i3.#«r«4 up on I r«»t.ri*a. »f th« emee. 

*hert* is auti'i-r:g it. th« mrittWQ contr ot I ■ <■■ r>i#»» th*t 
tU© prop*rll©« w«r© cor.v<._,»<. i u I f M ( Uic |MMi of i•5 , *, b'»t th© 

ijfcplicutior. 1© vu%t th*y ^i»r«f net *• IMI •••V^Nl ^ubi^ot to th»t 
y©»r'a tux©© b»c©ue© tJU© acutraet ©xpr l f ^* ♦'■••» 

)'©r l»30»lt/;il ar© io ; itmi tB 111 I I I ' ■ »H1» 

«»d this in ii loiiCH'. ta«» prior to fctH iMi »^«i 

©©Id. 

Plaliitiff© w#r« no:. ©UU« . I <* ^ n * hn contr« 

ti»© «Tiioj.ce «i»o'? , '» that tUo aiocoy wae paid by t*©« t© thn d»f ndojil 



ttJSV 

I 

• ■ 

- ■ . 

hi MM 

i 

■ 

■ 

■ 



to t>« tur»#<! ©v«r hj <t»f ;■; » t l« ;.;:»« 9MtM{ 99 Uui JlHtpHMl.t can 



. 









. 







I MM I 

UtfLT A ., 

(I'lr'lntiff} tpp«ll#» 4 
V* 

tut y 11 8 Mi H fj 

(aefeadsnt) HjjjpH|,l>Mt< 

Opinion filed Feb. 7,. 1934 
MBU • BI8SJS3 Hftf| 

This i» an *$pta& frost i judgment if v. vrlor C-ourt 

of tfook Obvnty for )$g J . ■ . |i | ae-feieei brought by pl-irttiff 
*.gn.inst xefeadaat to r*oorer dsaf.y.cs f<af . . juries alleged 

to nara been sustained through the aagiigeno* of the defendant* The 
iMHNI WM hesrd in this court upon K.r ■ I of defendant ^nd HI 

order entered affirming ike Judgment upon th# gXttttMt fefel t *nrror had 
not been fttajgfted as; to the order of the trial eentrt, tMftflg ta * 
notion for a new tri >i, therefore, n& rsfl reralhla error hftt been 
*s»igned. Thereafter, the «M§#0 #&■ t-ken -to the I marl on 

ft writ of error, and fcffets e he^rir;^, as order w- -* DaMf entered 
th?t "the judgment of the Appellate ■*ou:rt is re verged \nd the e^uae 
reaandtd to thst court with dircotiona fet consider the merits of the 
••ee upon the errors assigned.* 

In its • uiniofi, the m Sourt awkea the following 

statement of fnota and its Ita&tag thereon* 

# &oy U raour, aaaoap&nied by #iiy ..naour, his rife, 
on the evening of ftaveabrr 3», i ?, boo*. liSO c*'iook, fro*" 

n utooobiie east on -,;e-renty-ninth treet it rstern « venue 
in the city of Phi— §a . ^bout t^o bi It of I I tr 

atreot t^o tr->CK8 wi t ..- PUi 
*;ilro"d ftrnpaay end ' Hit 1 i Mjrln ala 

ixrc ■-• -y cross eventyniatri atr«ot« The ep^ee between 

the tsMki of the s 'G railroad •:■ . • iiee la -• t «iy 

eighty-four feet. JJetee- ■ n *> :tern avenue •-•nnstylv I 

ilrosd trMJkl -ad iaM»edi?*taly south of eventy-'iint I atreat 
»r: tv-o fth-tties teat* BOAfft oil oJ ,. r- i i-f -r iffn foot 

ec.un.re, one weit of the lei tit K - nd Ohio ^hio- I 
railroad tr**cka ad t. be ether oeteeen ^nd it froa 

the tro seta of r-ilro- ; trnoke. fhe nty is ueed aa 

" telegraph office and the second -f fords to the 



r 






. 



it 



» T 1 ^ 

£561 t ? .de* Jbsin noiniqO 



. 



• 



( 






9*t ii^ifOTdi ^'.i JlJtt 0»9<t 8TnI 0* 

' i/oo aid* 'ti iir.»ri saw iinl 
.?*&-£&&£ 944 $fljflftitlft !>*< 



t . ■ 

i §#4 boa »*o 






Eft llfrfci 



. 



street ox oroa&iag *1 lafati by tba two r\tl<~ 

eoapnnies. seventy-ninth atonal La ■ ll tharantb.fs.Tl -n-1 
street anta aaa ••■ aa it. 'or nearly two thousand 

feet to the south' of SeaaawMttiatb street nsitaar tree nor 
building, save DM Na 8»&na4«% ^ . rlas fron 

astern' avonus to I vaeylvsmi^ tracks. 

ibe testimony of t m hus- 

band is th/t n© ■$*$ . I t ' smtnaobils la fhish taat were 
riding before they sraaaed Una MilaMi «aJ Ohio BajUa 
rertainftl railroad t r%«k.® ;. tbat aa tuoy prooseded the cross- 
ing fl£g&an stood. nana his «aa»ty and bin red l&ntsm was 
on the ground; tb- 1 just before W ' ansylv. i 

railroad tgaaia the l»ffl|M&8t»t in error liaaararao i freight 
train approaching fro® the south; th?-t aJ&fi canned bi 
husband wA He iimo&intely turned the &a$ aaafeila to the 
left sad ap»lie4 the brakes; ^ right si s I i - to- 

j&ooiie "s'^ss &ei&a{|e4, ami t/v-s aba, la sons* tan, aaa 
injured. a' hay farther t^tifi^I tb ! t ttta h 
running a% a ajMMat a£ thirty- five or forty Mill . • '.nd 

that they »*4 affcaaj fcftiran a*** the mm ■-■■■■ - , • 

; I-.iiai ti in erre ■'.' ■ ■• ^itnas^ febs erosgsu.^.. fl . - 

aa\a* the aaafeara of the a*#v whieh ops.e~.ted tba ?ra*gbt tr in, 
*.!*& en engineer, s c endue toi tan p»ll«a affiaaaa employed 

by the ia&|£aa>*a ■■■.•;. •. ny. 

Of these eitnessea, nine m nustber, a ever?*!, testified uv t the 
fcHtOBObiXa «as driven aaftftNNi the first Ins tracks at • 9M 
of thirty jailes -m hour; that the f la^-r n '.?t-o#ii la HM attanti 
stringing bis red i*nt?rh to gita e&raing of aa a i» 
train; th*t tha driver not only disregarded | 
eaapalled tbe fls^as&a to pt mi in J wry, aa4 

tbat the ^wtosaobiia o«?itlaii»d »t ajidia^Laiaaa ^ until 

it ran into fcbi $id,e of tba io5so«v>tiv® of lbs ao'viag freight 
tr^is. laaarly aJUL-#f Haa .» at f a nitnass&a taatifiaA 

tbst, aa tba frai^bt roaahad seventy-ninth atreat, 

th« vbiatla of tba looematlaa aaa oouadad; th f | diigbt 

was burning ^aa the ball riisgia^, sad taai fi 
running at a apfad of t^nnty-fi've or tbirl B hour* 

Hal oontention th -t ■■ Hft s-houir: hara 

daoidad whether, as » Matter 1 , tba Aa a error 

w&a goiity of aontributory aa^Lifaaaa, aaal abatber Laaaaiiataljr 
prior to «iad at the time of rrereieed .1oe 

oars wjkI oaution for aat oan safety isuat tftined. inese 

nuastions were presented for <?>; ;ion by the 

aintb &n& tenth aoeoifio ,>tions of tba aaalcawtat of errors 
and tba brief sad anwaant of tba plaintiff in error in 
support of theau nM iana so presented ^ere"- t U hie 

to the 0. lntlff in btt^t in the Appellate Court notwithstanding 
tba omission to assign error apaa ths denial of the motion 

?Sr i*f m J&& LtXm MaM ▼• ; '^ftiai,IMi4 AJLton U . 
■36 111. &89. « 

Ths deolsration filed in the oaaa oont ined two oounta 

in substanoe, ps foilove ; 

"The first oount prerred that plaintiff a * riding 
esat with her hus> 7jth Sttset and ok at 79tb 

rest by ■ rennsy Irani «t Aailaaoi tr^in running north. 3*id 
oount averred th.-t the dafaadattt t.-en aaal there negligently, 
o releaely, wllfxilly .-jnd w-ntoniy, by it« «erv nt.,-. -^a 



■ 






• 






. 


















, 



.11 III 



•ajp- a«d IM 






a * Xli. ***; Mil 






of a^id train, drove . -vr:--.ted the e^ae up fc© *,nd 

Midi intersection %t .'0:.:v- R • l* of spaed 

without giving notice or I tab by the uae 

or diaplsy of ligMui ax bell, g«ng f tniatl* or of .■■■ 
qu&te aean* of giving •* ■aaiai , • that b/ ea4 thro 
arid ne t ; licence, eaaalaaenti I ■■ , wilful • Rattan naiaoonauot 

ftd aaiaaioa of tne defendant, -id locomotive struck 

the ^utu&obiXe wherein the plaiatli ridiag tad inflicted 

n feftX the. injuria* fga^daiaga' vf if) taa&arsttiaa* 

he s-iecoad count itat " Ml ril 1 mmd com- 

pany gag y^er-'tiii;-. I raJJLva&& trails in B xi/->rt r^-iy direction 
aaroas tUfca street^. -*hio... ittaat i| rl ifcf i»=-a 

arossed by aa&i railroad ti - rigM &&gl« aa4 iaat the 

point of intersection wcui olotfly oulit up sith frnildlaga ao 
thnt the view of tag g*£4l r ilra'^J tag abjrfcruot^ until n 
person gag immediately aa&B m: -ithio a | -. ■ kgg mtf 

few feet fro® said Sfgggiagtl laag tag dgiaggiaai between the 
hours of 9I0Q ggi lOsOo g*gfgg$; operated I laaia conalstlng 
of ■ loOQsa&iiwe r«,nd freight gaxg a&ft&w&gd nggg Its ttagfeg 
toward s"ti& la teggaati aa a&ga ?9th ttaaag tad taat it vat 
the duty of the Aifaaaaal to uee taa«aaaa3Li anta to .r^vent 
the p&aintii'f aaa «&• lawfully tr&waiiag feg*ms$ imti numtai 
from eotaing on the gan* ??ith©ut knowledge of the log 

engine -sad train of tap! &a$ to tnag end it pea its duty to 
s^int in at tail igggaian gait tes ag bell a, or to 

hawe l aattaasa gfe&tiaagl there* yet tag aefeni-nt did not 
regard its duty la tfeat beh«lf, fesit then satf there negli t : mtly, 

v**5ies?ly # wilfully aad aaatasly f^iied aatf neglect eel to 
hawe snd aaiat&ia at 1*44 area ;:, hell or «*' toh«a»n # 

*nd did so drive ~nd gfgtanfg trail latataggtlggj 

at the high and gagagSl fcg gf speed of thirty .^iieg :jer 

hour aal through iftia a n . iju viXfwl aid v^^nton 

jsisoonduot. aadi oaiasion af iftt d»ftadaa%| aa mfaraaaid, the 
an Id loeoaiotlve struo^ I 
the plaintiff the injuries mm & UMNl of in the • tla] liaa< 

the decision Kl NMMi ^ourt o ate *|MM this oourt 

r-ha duty of det^rwlning, t'roa the ertdanoe ^dd\*eed, two quaetlone 9 
first, -a to whether or rwt i iatiff a '-a guilty of eojitribi;tory 
negligence, nvd aeootid, whether or not iaaediately prior to »«nd *t 
the tioe of the accident ^»he exerclaed due o->re -nd rrnition for 
her o*n aa fet/» ^lao 9 the oue*.tion la praaantad n.» to whether or not 
defendant was icuilty of the negli., enoa charged, in vnaaing upon the 
cueation s to vhather or not I •.■«■ i i tiff » guilty of contributory 
aegligenoe at the ti«a mmt pl^oe in rueatior.. It auat be kept in oind 
thit aha wna a paaoanger tad not gat iriv«<r of the 3uto*obile. 

i» £&JL ▼• "ity of ;eru, U ixi. *6 # the hinrema -ourt, 
aaid, pw gti 

"it is the duty of ■ pmaeenger in i vehicle, vhere 



...'♦3 '■.-'.': ?'■(* ■ 






• 



rroielosJb 
iwiK ai fqaJ v> *«* v.-ni/ art.* *c ftoayvsli^sfl 



he has tm opportunity to lansti of langa* km) fcn itfWati it, 
to e*rn fcan irivtsr of tana vehiale reanhiae dangea, 

*nd he has no ri^ht, b< MNHHgM else is driving, 'to 

©ait 8ani0§n&bie runent efforts on hit nm pajrt to 'void 

Ems *« .^4 alii ^uix-^j^Lx^> . «o is, Hoj ^ v. m 

fork :.>nti*l • ■.<••■ ■< •:.v.^.on :. ::.Ui*il^&m.. ill K. f. if»7l -hen 
there la say im*i|*»a s>efo.r* fan Jury whioh, t«kan eina Its 
reasonable infa maa aai In MM faaa*ejjii§ to the 

plaintiff, tends tc she* th-<v tana, the qn e at iaa of 

due eaie is one for the iu*7* . jheiht r L , there i£ any such 
evidence in a question of In*. iHSil v. ■JUa-^a ;itr ^llwa.T 
Jo iflft aoprg,.) In ietegnlaAag aunts f»ee , fciea this eeurt een 
iS5ySi SSI r««c/ : d ani? N ■ ■ ■■■ Mf ^ny evi- 

dence so tending to au?>oart Inn nana* of »afcian« ( Mlnohiiffe 
▼• 'gnlf ionise %.. 3?4 UU 41?} -giitH *• :l^l;:.£L-£^£ 

(it- ilea our a) 



aee also J 



^^^IJyL.^Jai--X. ilii t I 9 EUL 4-60, 



ne folio? 



♦•And rtere a pantaaffiftf tea tttnana In aooraaend danger 
he ig not ^it UMrty to la&ve the sterol??-- at num to the 
driver, alone. *'or ea&apie, where hua\vmd »nd wife were 
aittiag upon the neat *$•$ In a ?efeial# driven by the husband 
and both vera billed by i nayUta&an t > ii ,;, « 

motion nraught by the ndaialatrfttrtx of the nifn ; tnat tht 
milJNMiA ton^naf it we* at&a' and ne ri.-nt, beeauae 

her husband nan driving- in on&t some rea-son^ble km paavlAagt 
effort to snn for herself the* Inn croaking <r*a enf*. mi t i 
she *ms bound to look Liataju * • * In enaaa nf this kind 

it It no lees the duty of the &m&4m$&Xm share he h*ss the 
opportunity to do so, una* <h« dxlan*, to le-*rn of the danger 
and avoid it if poaalble, * * * the ( t«JU in thla 

olftss of osaes is, th-.t the burden of eatabliahing, sffima- 
tlvely, freedom fr^a nontyihmtavy naglJLgenaa i« ante the ^i"in- 
tiff, or, in the langaage of the o La i , oi r aw.n v. « j» l 

I j l.T. ft, -. ;o ., 98 »• Y. "02, that 'plaintiff i 
•* v r©6sinfi vh'ere the oolilsion aibfl Injury e«oarr< , ita rudenee 
and e^ra and with senses alarl to the j^s^ibllity of «pproaoh- 
Ing d^n£eT , » fend thi* role ehtains even where the rallreai 
eonpany negieots to rin;j ouiid lte rhi«tle, ea re- 

f^d irhen it a train roaalng* ( yulien v. 0. A a« 

0, Co., 113 |, f. 6S8 # ) * * * It la no lees toe duty of the 
peeaenger, where he has the o, ortunlty to do eo, thpn of the 
driver, to *4HUnl of danger «nd void it if »»aatleahlt« The 
plaintiff van aittln^: apa« the eaat *ith the driver, with the 
aaae fcuowledge of the rofid, lh« Grossing ^nd the envlronnenta, 
•ir>d itrj at MMUrt n%4 NOMj U ftM tt«'-r t « ptli oiity »l .U«- 
eovering dangers, that the firlvor .--•oaseeised ^nd without *ny 
emb^rrftaeiaent in eaautxume^tln^ then to hlnu The rule in euoh 
naae la laid down in jfo 7 ^ v. h.t* XnK m\X^\ "MAJMM* 'JTfl 
aallmad Uo.. Ill ;:, Y. 199, whet* huab'<nd -nd wife were atttlng 
upon the sane aeat In a vehiole iriven lif the hu«. nJ tnd both 
killed by a collision t ■ crossing, and in an action brought 



, 



fcl M N flM 



■ 






| 



i e* 



• - 



fey the a-i^lnistrf'tri* of fhti wife ega&Htf the r»ilro»d 
<W*l»Mli|| it wmt held Hhat she had no fight bec^u^e her 
busiruad was driving to oodi .1 -.-.ru'lent 

efiort to a** for herself tifti t»e ctwasim, m • i*i»«* 



I .>pl«o*&tlng the str-teiaent of the ':5upr#j;';se ^crurt, v« note 

th«t niniatiff testified Hi t m <>he -^nd km ismfcmaA. approached the 

ii*ltiwCHre and 0hl« HHWSfk*, they Ptftipti bomtsioe "*• fcesr- in 

f| t fcoJU block ©r s b&eek north on the 'sftltiaore and Ohio 
tr oks. 1$ looked to the south m& i I looted to the north ftttl saw 
nothing costing, as 3r<« tiki* tr-iv ing jitili, so we ventured to 

CrOS , I - | HfeOlf if that** | :^rior, the ^flfrgMPin WOUld 

be standing* in the center of" the &*«$ $m§* • orosood WW* 1 «*?w this 
train oozing and iwsodietelr cried to ay hiiotoaBd* 'There cones a 
train.* If out ©a the tarakoa amfi turned IfeS «m*i but the tr^in waa 
on us osfort we h&d a chance. $3 i i an t&« .ground alongside 

the s&a&ty. Hal flaxen was otaadiirv Nwl fefftU sr*r between the 
shanty Na£ the wlk. Hi train ws* a half blook &*0? when I first 
saw it. 'i'he headlight was f^ry H»«" ©n ovoae-ox^usi testi- 

fied that "no whistle w&« sounded an the train &• we e«*e ow#r the 
intersection that evening. The accident happened at nlpftt. Ike re 
were artificial lights. It wee aoatewhat like chsak* In going between 
the ialtliaore and Ohio *nd the ■-«?onsyir?>ni'* traoks I think *e were 
traveling "bout 10 or 12 miles eH hour. there were no warning belle 
or signals, or nny mechanical device for the indication of the approach 
•f a train except ■ flagaien." <$he was interrogated 01 follows: 

.. Ton awy at at* whether or not you or** saw | fl»> f *an 
on that crossing. * 

*A. Haft eeen a fligauut on the crossing and know there 
was | practice si ruing when trains ftp roaehod 
thflt oros^ing. '-hen there *«*« I ing 

the fi*g»*n vrr I IvnfB be in the Middle of the road. 
when it was night he would awing his l«nt^rn *nd if 
it was day he *ould owing the stop sign. 4 

Orer the obj otion of the defendant, or U x r«our # the 

hwsbMud of l^intiff and drirer of the oar in question, st-tcd t 



■ 

i tvwta 

.. . 

l 

«if if 

I *m ami 

< 



. 






e 

»* they were driviv . »n ? ; *tfe «tf««t t he stepped hi ft e«sr ft1 the 

initiator* nn& Ohio ewa&eijSg sad noticed h Xoeewaotive •taaAftJag ^>o«s- 
i ly ft blook ftfti R h&lf north of II* arising, 3U»A $fe*t he notloed 
the ftffijflflW t$ffift&ta$ ftftftf r>is shanty &tm on the we&fe between the 
t w o «et« of tr#eka m£ ttet he l»§* it wm imf< N graree&j tb/-t he 
erossed the ^.itiiaore &n& tmi© tr^ofes &md 8*ma?$#$ toward the 
Pennsylvania tr*ek.s; ftaftl fe§ Xo&kM north $ffl& south and .noticed the 
ratehami standing on the ^?\Ik{ that ewdilieniy ft&§ r-H'o ftt&i* "Here 
eomee i train,*'; f£fcft$ he g» the iooossoti-f® almost, u.-joh them, apo^ied 
the brakes -n& turned the autcnaotoile to the left, i&s 1 that ft* poMfr* 
tieelly the mmm tlsse the Xoeoaotiir® struck, m& that he wee in the 
h*bit o? goi^g ftjflftMB Kl &•&&$ twiee ft iPteHu 

On behalf of defendant, Rftftgt l« *'«rw«H, » olrtla Hjftftl of 
defendant eoapAny, testified - $f gfcig tisfti of the neeldent, 
standing on *e«tern avenue IflUflrimf, iftttt @fi 79th street on the south 
aide of 73th street, ther& were N •^itrastiona In the* vie- - it wsb 
ftll ©pen prairie; that the ftttEtliffitfrf ftgff @fe&3 and i ennsylv-nia tr*oks 
parallel eaoh other south of 79th street for L, ft 3* feet; 

th*t there ems one eleotri© light «3 . terseotion on the south side 

of 7Jth street lji|M»lTM<1| M flMl ■§•! ftl Maf oenter line on the 
•mat Baltimore & Ohio tr^.ok, '$sd Mid >>|ht on the «euth aide of 

73th street ^.proximately 3© feet e at of the center line of the west 
Pennsylvania tr .ofcj th t a fl&gpam'a stosjrity 6^ or 7 feet sonars w«s 
tatted on the south side of 79th street aidway between the two rights 
ef w*y, «tnd th t on the south side of 79th street ml vest of the 
Baltimore *nd Ohio tr*«ks thers MM ■ telegraph operator* s shanty. 
On ©ross-exajsinhtien, this witness tasetftl there were no lights on the 
south side of the street between the > ltiaore nJ Ohio ^nd ennaylr-ni? 
tr oka; th t there were no &' tes »t tue int»*raeotion ^nd no «utom*tlo 
•lgn'>ls 9 no bells eperited, and th t there were no fl*ahlighte. 



.. 









- 









■■* tQ*1 t 7C '« Ytttftftt £*iUMgJ 



- 



,-rt09if> 9«6 


tM m 








P Se 


. 


• '•■.;.. it. 


*«*• 




': ~ 




' 






|| '•• .:ol 






• 






Ml HI 1 



' t*fUH 



7 

Bart Hawaomb, ^araoyed by the ■ ltlm*f SB* Ofcit 'io-r«innl 
Railroad Costpany as 1 oonduetor, testified th'-t on the evening of 
•soveaber ?6th, 1537 # he o-~a in dwrgs of &» engine sfelofe stood on 
the .->- itinera asfl H*&0 traoko north of fits* street; tfc&i ae first 
saw the i'ftiinsylTf'Rla tr*in eoaing north i ben it m ■ it S7th street; 
ta-^t hi he-^rd th* whistle bio*, fsnsl that b* could boo the hfitifttjpjfl 
on tftfl fagtlt" distinctly, **»d Nmbs. %ht tool! on the engine of this 
tr<*ln mm ringing when it oro«»e& 79fca street. f|&£ witness further 
testified tfeoi bo Km i i-Su&aon Si&tii crostin^ from the root on. 73tb 
etreet* >al obit it run into th« ai;; / &&&yl¥*t&£j» **g£M b«ok 

of the cylinder. Jio «t#t«d that at thia tl&e, be *&a on bis wsy to 
« telephone booth at the southweat no mar of 7-th street m& the 

fe§| that Una jtatoaobile dii. not etc;..', but < zn% over the inter- 
vention by IT>|iT1i*|ll>ll into the side of tho mglntf We*.* the sutoa&abile 
vnu going fr©» 19 to 35 miles, ^jb hour, % that ti*e, the 

crossing flagasn o*-o between tie street Omr traoir* in the center of 
the street, swinging I re-3 iifkt, and that the automobile went right 
on post and did not cton or slack »ny. 

B* A* bowler tOOelflOS: Ibmt he mm I loooootlve engineer 
employed by the f QMHfl Millie ■■■•i.lro- -.: Sow;, .-my, in charge of the tr-in 
whioh collided with the autonobile m meatlon on the night of Xowaaher 
28th, 117; tfcftt the tr»l» involve i PRf freight trln on rhich there 
were 35 or 36 ears; th«t in appro ■■•x'nixm 7t*th street looking westward 
you can eee so far no wstera -venue, or tooout ■ cu^rter of « allc 
south of the intersection; that *a he ■ ro*ohe.1 73th street he sounded 
the HMMl crossing signal, t-»o long %nd two short bl .sts of the whistle, 
tb"t the boll w s ringing and th t the headlight we burning; th*t be 
oaa on the riybt eida of tno engine sari eould not see anything th t 
occurred on tho weet aide of it; that ha stopped the troll lweedl*telf 
after the -coident, whioh ha did not e*e. <<n crosn-exnain tion, this 
witness testified that ha etopped the tr in wi or 12 oer lengths. 



' 



,. .. . ;• ■• ; to 
• ■ 

I 

K to d& i 

' :; • '< .!—•■':■■ £l W 






•a* &ooI 

... 



4 1 Item J ■• ' 



; 



8 

On re-direct ow*ain*tic?i, this witness testified th-t shen be r-nohed 

the intersection in cuestion, MM) t rain wms going; - bout M ailea on 

hour. 

Orrin Srehruner testified on behalf of the defendant th-t 

on *oY©sber 18th, IfM?* he mm mploym^ by the • •■■*im»ylr I r.i a ilXvtil 
iMMJMMf as 1 flSMMMf that IMH WMslXii lag ft1 a rtisM] that 

he was th<* fireasan an the tr&in i« ej&Mt&oai m i itting on 

the west si&e of the O&fe going north, MMS th^t the Hi I xe*an *ns 

fitting *lth hiaj |a«t fee the tv-'i.: a '■ ^tM street it vr-% 

coasting clown to the ltttevlositiag owl ton; I i | on the 

engine v%* bunting. Mi £&&$ ho tmrd a whistle - In* long; blasts 
sad two short blasts - tamt the bell «m ft&glMJ B.t the time. Xhis 
witness further testified $a*ll he. MM arttsaofell* oomis'ig into 

th* crossing Mat thought it w*« going to M$*g% \«nieh it did aot do but 
ran into the engine; th fc tfe* &*c;*a& MM out is the ttfcddlo of the 
rosd with s, red light in hie hand, and Ma*j$ the flagman OSS using 
his signal lamp sit this tine; $%$$ the £$MMl of la* tiaja on *hich he 
M riling «a» from 15 to : ^0 ®ii«?g Ml hour; thst ©hen you aM) to th->t 
curr* you »SH see eatern ftMMMM* Ia£* witness further testified th*t 
the oeli on the engine t| the tl«e 0M3«%*4 mto>ft»tie-lly. the testi- 
mony of V"iis l*st witness MM corroborated in most respects by 
Martin ;torn©y, who testified that at MM . -iceman on the i ennsyl*~nl«= 
train in question, Ml M the time, *m sitting on the seat of the 
ess of the engine in the company of MM fireman. 

»• J. Beaklrk, | police offioer employed by the 1 time re 
and Ohio Mil MMI+ teetifled th t M MM at ?9th street *nd the 
Baltimore and Ohio MMl - ennsylr- ni ■ erosslng on the evening of 
■oTenber 6th, 132T, when the iMiillMit in oue«tion occurred; th?<t he 
saw the lennsylr-nia tr»in in cniesfcion coming from the south} that 
the headlight on this Vr*in arte burning, *nd that he could see it 
•Ming as far away »« 83rd street. This wltnees testified that he 






I 



i 



i 

> . '■ ■ ■ j,:\ v.Si ' tit v;J- .i 



■ 



. 
; 

ft£t 

t»At - hat> 

»* 1i ■ tit 



; 

■«'"■■'■ 
1 ' 



#1 ftftt 






I 

did not. t hft&ffiftg *ny thistle, but th t he did hesjf the bell 

t1: ■.,>■:;. b I pa* the flegw^n oat in - »f 7iHb str^t swinging 

I red iant*ra; t&ai h6 fir I' l y h- : t. .««-?» 7-Jth 

street tad western wnaBttS, -;...a tits,*, at r st, 11 ■■■-. ;. -,c *t 

Ly ; J -& mil^s Kg hoiarj th?t the smto»-.v>-n-> Ud not rtsg 
any tiae befcr* it sesrt to t<- Let -,, sad fel I M 

©rer the \.«lti»src '!;io It^qUm t© ' :■ syiVft&ii Is n<! 

into the *t&« of the £ean*ylw ia .n I I i*« .-"t-.> •. - ■• • §i tjwf 

there is nothing *© obstruct the Tie .. s -,■■" ; feet aoath 

of 73th street. 

rt Soiea testified ihnt tit m® .■'■?tr©l»sn employed 
by the ttalHftpftf *nd Ohio iaUfctig .-., ie«:J s&ejfe H.M Apt 

six ye r$; th t at the tine of the i <*bcut 

feel Miflfti of ?;>th street; tfe&t Hi f £f . in an tne 

i'sansylvsnis track coming aert'-.i whsa it $ feet south of 

?9tb street; ta?t s4 ttot lias* gat B&s&ligfct 

shining, the bell «■• ringing sat at he /;*•** the engine blow the regu- 
lar trasslng whistle for the crossing; fcaaj ■ (lcga»n *t 
the middle of the crossing swinging i red &*$] i t he sew the 
eutomobile nt the tiae of the iMAMst sal just before, when it 
?bo rest froa the engine, whi< - -. Nu 

i -i K. Jhewwidge testified on ssttltf of defendant th t 
on the evening in Question hi ine for the /e.ltimore 

sad Ohio RslXlttSdg and th t tla* in question, he so* vbout 50 

yards north of th* crossing; th t he gas the engine a ennsyii 

trteke ooaing north, end th- 1 he heord the blow of the whistle for 
the crossing; tht he s*?w the atf cowing down 79th street bo\>t I block 
off of western venue; tht the wutowobile li.i not tor>, Ms4 last hs 
judged it we naming -bout 3& miles ea hov , rentloa 

wee r»eid to the crossing rstehswn rith the red lsnt'rn; th-t the 
driver of the automobile almost r*n over ths «s,tsha*.n, who w*s twinging 



j 

.. 

■ 
tt tmi 

, BOflJ 



ID 

his lamp, and that there Li nothing to obstruet the irlalon of I train 
approaehing from Hfci south for ■- ■-•It mile* 

RBJ&jMhi ftm iifc 8&< &> iwtfrlfl ■ •■ •■ '.•• - .-red «*.* 

■temsJUtg flagman and *?.tflbaan si king Is , i blukt at 

tie time- is question be maw » -.'tmmobils SM9 it <r.;*t into the intl - 
seetlon ssst th-t Kf th*t time fee *-g standing right in the sld.U* 
of the erom-sing its! held tha rmf lantern ani aboo& it; tfest the auto- 
mobile osbs® froa the west to the f^t &£$i ths.t It &| .. itoj t| the 

!$&«*&« aftd rhir fcr&e&ij th«.t be ifil I Eel jumped in 

froat of the oar a»a bod to jjusi- Is - $.#• 60 - gild the atttdH biie t 
and t-'-^-t t that time, the 8 ttt m qg ( Hl ^ felt l&S engine* This witness 
toot If led th.-it be he^rd the whistle m$ mm the fce*dligbt ~nd thr t 
the boil on the iooosotive wm ringing* 

Ml intimated by the -/up?@©.«§ ftptErt* tlM r^o&yd discloses 
greater 

th t a/number of witness*® pr#is«rit#d g situation shlbb suggests th* 1 

- intlff mas guilty of contributory as^lift-ftnee It of ordinary 

. 1'his »*surt 8*4$ in BaSae&Bl *• .'•to ftlsoft* ^efrs A- a-*.nt« To 

y. ^Qf. 303 Ui. ■■- ~>. I* 

"it is the ;:Tovin@o of the Jury to determine the 
credibility of vitnesse;. i Lven their 

testimony* they may test the truti- I m ewidenoe 
by their knowledge ?;«& i^ tgwea t dmrired fro® experience, 
obaerr U >r- Uid reflection* •Thews a ..- thins* * >ioh 
* Jury obeereea on the trial in wa&k • t io'not appear 

from the printed record - the a nee of the reapeotire 
witnesses, their nanner of t^stifyin^ my other 

el renins tnnees* They ajma in s auoh better position in such 
enoo to determine the truth of the matter in controversy than 
I oourt of review* • (M#1jUl£*m. *• iuJUU ^33 111. . •) 

m , pjgk 7* ^ftr^gtoer ^onirr-ftUP- ^ t , aa in* •"^, the 

eourt •aid {?* 358): •One of the reooghiged benefits of tr: 
by jury la th.t the jury oeea rn the witnesses, whioh 

girea them superior asVrofttngt or«r i revioiflring oourt in deter- 
mining tJie oredibllity of the vitnesaea nd the weight "nd 
oredlt th't ohould fee f ;lren their laogr* 1 . tAf ..'thoritiea 

\<* the »a«!ie effeot migbt m oitod, The wiae rule of the lnw 
Ifcet the preponderrnoe of erldenoe ia not neoesi?:*iily i«tes> 
mined by the greater nuaber of vitneseea erne born of ex.erienoe. 
If the lew were frtfrjtiwlmm aaagf onoea »?ouid be determined by 
ttltneesee whom the jury sad trl^l court diabeliOTed* rfo»erer, 
the question of the preponderance of toe erldenoe doea not 
riie in this oourt. '.'n:irc the l*w we cunot disturb the 
▼eriict of the Jury unless it La olerly ammlMi the men! fast 



#M*r*etf* t c3s*X 

■ 

- 

, bad fia^ i«* arfif to fra< 

b& fata it lit 

\_ 

' .. 






11 

weight of the evldftnoft* . | mmm* el«r-.*ly evil«m.t t 

clear, plain, iMlayut-^Ie, ' 

Bf»l|llifal1JiBill| in view of %h® vtstftaent *%«• by the ^u^r^aw -'ourt in 
I <Sfts#, Ml fe«l ttat the of>..»« abeul& b« zvtTled, m& it is, tl)#r#- 

, ASS E$Kg JJ f centra. 



mass of 



*0, 36181. 

ossar j, tmoaw. 

Plaintiff In rror, 

I 
re. 

JAG OB .U)L;"*, 

O ; ■ 

Defendant In AHNNft ) ^ $ ^) jL 9 ri« O ^ t) 

Opinion filed Feb, 7, 1934 

IK, nMifl as -... . r ■ wti 

This Is en alpili fey plaintiff In a suit brou#t age Inst de- 
fendant in the vJircuit Court of Oook County to recover for & b&lanoe 





alleg&d to be due to plaintiff om aeeouat of eork s&id to teve 

for for 

done, aftd/ma terials charged to Mfi been furnished, nd/ decorating the 

plaoo of business of defendant, Th© ©cause was tried tsrtthout I Jury, 

The oo art found for defendant, upon lahich finding the ^u&ggspnt for 

tosta appealed from was entered* fhes declaration consisted of the 

Sanson counts, to which a plea of tits gp&nral issues nd special pleas 

of rsa ad judicata were filed. 'fhere is no contest ovsr the /mount of 

plaintiff's claim, or owr the fact that the labor >md materials were 

furnished. 

In the beginning, plaintiff contended that ho had entered 
into a contract with defendant for th© furnishing of lbar ?>nd mater- 
lals in nd about the decorating of defendant* a place of business. 
During the trial, he ob&nged his position, t n& sought to recover the 
▼sine of work done and aster In Is furnished. 

In February, 19 28, J« '. L inciter, • plastering contractor, 
filed a bill to foreclose o m chanio's lien on defendant's property 
far work alleged to hswe been done, - nd for ■ terials alleged to have 
seen furnished in usA about the improver* nt of defendant *s place of 
business. In December, 1934, Bodelson, plaintiff in the instant esse, 
filed an unswer in the nature of & cross bill in this mechanic's lien 
foreclosure suit, in *iioh it is i lleged that he, Bodelson, had entered 



. 






. ■■: r *i 






. 



£5GI t V .tfs^ b&ltt notatqO 

■ 

i»y©oo< :« ttuoij timniii add at ftnfci 



101 *»? 

runt* ©£$ .fraato*ta.& "to wcaJbuvdr %• 

>jh& «J* it soI<2 a d»14v o# ,**;• 
-•»*i« tec ■»<; .*& to* **»&«!>*«& /fcr.t too* « «r 

! 
OJU 30VW9* O* $ll'& ill Jf»«»,x..«i0 «*<! V £*M ttftt gjfll 

*& '(tor to >JJtX 

Nftf Hi 

X*vcoiq e*tf&nftfiit«& m m> «r*oXtx*'xol 0* llkd rt *>©£ 

I ofr hvfrt- .*mb oootf ovad of fcoe«>£X» :**©» « 

to »o^lq a'*a£&J»le& to friMaororcpaJt arfJ tootfit te • Hi &fA- 
,o*«« *«w**.Jii u** oi ttM , -To«£»i>o*l ,*ti«l , *s<fj»6©G a* .«»•** a 

AoiX • •©iwtoa* »M* at SOMA c*r*c a "to oiutaff ad J al *0*att» a» tel 



Into a contract vith one -Sohn&rtz to furnish labor mi mtarials upon 
defendant's premises, for the Talus of which labor nnd materials he 
not? seeks to recover in the instant ease* 'A© petition was dismissed 

as to Linster, the flfUpl itrnmt t neoaus* Ms claim was settled, *<nd as 
to Bodelson, the plaintiff herein m£ e-ross-petitioner there, for sent 
of equity. It is claimed by plaintiff that he did. not authorise the 
filing of tfee cross-petition t» tin mm tenia's lien suit, nor did he 
antheri&e the steteasnt aide therein that he wae t sab-contractor of 
Schwartz for the furnishing of- the ldsor mi materials Involved in that 
suit. Plaintiff testified in the instant onss to the ©f foot that his 

W&8 

oontracjj/with Adler, defend ant, >ad not Johwnrtn, the general contract- 
or, on eross-sxeminatlon, he stated that he had dictated to • stenog- 
rapher the items, indicating the anoint of labor performed, the mater- 
ials furniatoed and the prices therefor, which , after being transcribed, 
were delivered to the attorney who represented hiss, in the mechanic's 
lien case, and were ntfsjtfhjj to the ovoes bill filed in. ties* proessd- 
tag. 

Sehwarte, the general contractor, testified that he had the 
contract for remodeling rosd decorating defendant's pi see of business. 
A copy of such contract was offered md reoelved In evidence and shows 
this to be true. >ohwartej further testified that in April or tfey he 
informed plaintiff that he, .>oh«nrt£, had «uoh a eon tract with defend- 
snt, and that 'I want you (rasiuin^ plaintiff) to work ^ith me on tfce 
decorating of the place - I wsct you to handle the decorations for me,'' 
to which plaintiff assented, johwarts also testified that I gave him 
n general description of the work I wanted dene, und about what manner 
X would like to haw© it done, sjsj that Bodolson, at the re uest of 
tfohwnrta, prepared sketches of the proposed decor t ions end furnished 
them to iehwartz. 

The defendant testified as to the contract between him i.nd 
a, thht such contract was read to Bodelson in his, defendant's, 



I 

Off «UbJb»*flW fi«* <»«" t ***Xmn% «**jEEftfcn'* J ?»& 

&o«ala»££ a^» 

»rffr »si > to 

«r; *©£&«***»« #Sfr *rtflil 

.a a »•**? »4 . -?te«5 JfttNtrtaft «i^ *s*9ej#a* 

«iif t^M few lib ■ i fcttfl 

i 
-■■ .■••■;.:;.• :.*-5 : ; : j r;r..-: ,, ■' , .-; . *? . - -■' ,;::;,'. . ■ :•->->: n< ,v" . 

- t %S*tfJ. atf ar ****** 
. 

•^3 j^*f M Nat* *»2?.'. 

n--.fr, ■ , ■■ .. ■ .•;, . .,:.:>■- ;:.v .. ;■-<: ftfMM IP" t: :. ruic 
ttwojte 6 it ) **>/»& v* Hi X?a "j 

W of ntiSt 
-fta^dfr jrtTi a daw iwd tsftuswrfo-.: ,«! 

tftfT ao «■ l!«w ^ior o,t (11 aciJWe #*f* frv ,*» 

,*« fo':< mho sffttiMtttt** 

a/rf »▼«* I" *fe«tf btllAfatf o«£» vttwifi- ttta&i del iw o# 
•zwxitM f**» #♦»<*© tow ,»/»* Jbsrf IMP *ri* i« 

lo ' ... I I dill btuo* X 

■ ••<{&.-< «to JtauMptq i tfium i t! 

»»*asJ>j»l»fi ,«i nit Ml ot Imi 0i*v taovtaoo if tut Jail? ^mtfcA 



3 

presence, coifi that ho b»d no separate agreement with Bodelson, &lthou$i 
at vcirious times he ted at tie request of ^chwarta, paid Bo&elson some 
monoy on account of the work don®. 

;m tbs trial of this ease progressed, so&e confusion developed 
as to the character of plaintiff's action, m& the question arose as to 
whether plaintiff nougat to recover on an express contract between him- 
self saad the defendant, or on bm tallied contract elciiaed to have re- 
sulted from his haying furnished materials end labor for defendant. The 
question was asked of counsel for plaintiff fey counsel for def rodents 
"0o I understand that counsel elates to he suing upon an implied con- 
tract or an expirees contract? I would like to know, I had the Impres- 
sion from the evidence yesterday tnat counsel was sulnc on cm express 
contract* If 1 am wrong I would like to b© corrected at this moment,"' 
to i*kich counsel for plaintiff replied? *Yes, X will correct counsel, 
I think it is important to have a definite understanding. Ml had no ex- 
press contract either in writing or orally, We are suing upon an in- 
debitatus assumpsit for the materials supplied m& labor furnished ac- 
cording to the plan of installation *iich the parties recognised as 
veins their ©Aide in their work. 

From the cross bill filed in the mechanic's lien case, m& 
from the testimony of the witnesses, it is apparent to this court that 
plaintiff's contract for the furaiafclng of the labor v nd Tutorials sued 
for was with iichwartss, who had a contract for the work with defendant. 
I the trial court heard the evidence and arrived at th.-t conclusion, rjad 
we see no reason to disturb the finding or tha Judgnent. Thoref re, 
the Judgment is af filmed. 

• lLJfU :,nd HiiX, JJ, . SUK. 



'.■ ■ 
I 

lit 8sr£$ 

-elq; *ȣ&> 

»l$fc #U few 1 

■ ■■ai «?-irf sort 6tf 

•vrt a 

•-"■•- ■ — " ■ '••■" ; » - : * ■' ■■■ •>•• < ■-:■'■■ ?.'>'• ..-.j.; ,. .;/ . . . .:-.-. ...-.i 

** ■ .'.aXq «* ## »*ii 

'o »*fcr is 

b*t: A**4mv B'lltJWffi 

*d tzmv X*J"i4 

. tftillft 



. 



36395 

( ^ ••intiff) tpptSAiig 

HIM1 , , *.. J. 

LXI , ■ -fB smewaji i i i ,.y, 

foraerly I I WAJfTtaai 




'-' 



26^ 



(Defendants) Appellants* 

Opinion filed Feb. 7,. 1934 

mh. ! . m tm n m s iranm 

this it an spp^X from u judgment of the dlreuit -3aurt of 
flk«ok bounty against defendants is i suit, •wherein : :a«intifl charges 
t:« -t t&ioe defendants ofetalned various su&s of tnjy fro& her by 
fraud end ieeelt* The judg*«n.t i« upon the verdiet if a jury, fcftftf 
the record Mi filed in this eourt* plaintiff ssoved tfeat the bill 
of exceptions be sstrloken fre» tfee files j also th i Kb4 judgment of 
the Jirouit £out* be affiwsed. These eotions b*ve been referred 
to the he&ring-, but in flew of the t Att th«t MM fjjgiW i of the 
Jircuit Hjiil it *ffi*eed on the record, it gftJUl not be neeessory 
to >'(9« UfcMMi these actions. 

The M ring w&h had *pN( I tion eonai *.i . -if two 

counts, *n amended dealers tion filed January 13th, 133 | 4 Mi *»» 
additional count filed during the tri 1 on April 20th, MS* la 
the saended first count, it i» ehar$ed ^orge • Sheshan, 

Harrison *srker # U* S* lifka, lroctuola Trust ^oapany, a (torpor tion 
and Illinois v>lley trust Caia-.-tny, l MM9lf tion, through their 
egcats aad represent stirs a, tin, within the aoepe of their authority 
«ad in oonosrt, appeared t i intiff»a home bout abruary let, 133S, 
aad on ▼ rioue other tiwet ne> r tn I Ite, tad falsely wad fraudulent* 
ly told the plaintiff, ajaong other things, th-t in 1 * tftf 1934 a 
group of truet ooai any expert* beg n to look into the possibility of 
sstibllshing a truet ooamany, which in adstttiOT to conducting the 
well known trust ooaxanqr activities, oould legally operate nationally 



*oGI ,V •del Jbslxl noifliqO 









■ hi 



v 






. 



- 



3 

and aell trust funds on the monthly deposit or |jat%al.- ,~;&ut ;,i*n; th t 
they sought te supply I dea&ad of the immrtlfrfTfl l ?»ultitude» ^bo ^re 
now b-?.rred from or* l ting trusts; th*t for this atnfffNMM a reec&reh fund 
ve.s provided Mi offices evened in Um fork tfity k*4 I if tb*st 

lawyers, a*$stt*i*)sl and other sped all at s were retained; tSatt the 
trust lan-a af every at^te in the Stalest were codified (Mttdl analyzed} 
th*t the llwaltllH of exiating trust jjwgMBriUHi Wrf studied «,nd ©very 
important trust agreement and trust certificate of record e*e 
analysed; HuMl while this s?»>.s §oi&g; on, sa&thsr depart; on t horded 
by an expert of the Halted States aaaeua, nag working an i trust 
fund nontreot Han't eould be sold nationally on atjjflftiy <gpt»Jtf| thfit 
the result of the *.erk of both {gmtae wae the develoniaent of 1 plan 
to sell trust fond® on the installment plan, which plan h«d base 
pronounced legal m every etate la the Called ;jtviea f and iiiliaitlle 
sound; tti t fa. result of t.ie ch^rfe* research ate th* discovery ®* 
I truat Ooa^any charter fast would persitt M trust iBi a ^ i 'lHiy to 8*11 
trust fuada on the Monthly depoeit or installment -.la a in every sttte 
of the United .^t-iH-teaj tvi such ohwrter ana rented to Hal Iroguois 
Trust Company by the Sfi.ts of Illinois, with the permission of the 
banking department of that Itaeej th;>t eneh ■ trust eear.aay organised 
la soy stste other then Ililaoia is not permitted to do business* ia 
Ray »t*te oth*r than the at*te of its organisation, but Hate the 
oaarter granted to the Iroquois Trust -oa any permits it to do business 
ia every at- te of the United tfcfttsnl Mat in foreign countries; that 
auoh oa*rt*r aat {.rented |g y, I'll, for a period of £9 yeors, 
aad ia irrevocable* th t from I I to 19S6 the distinctly broad sad 
valuable eorpor te right a of the Iroquois >* vaay were unaupre* 

elated aad unexercised but th?*t its stock vae then being offered for 
•ale to a select group, among whioa the plaintiff aval one; ea t the 
treasury sh res of the Farmer* a loan A Trust w'oaviay of *ew York City 
••re origirwlly iaeued m , B f sad th- t they ^ere now selling far 



I 

- 

i 

! 

: 



br.i 



ttfti 



3 

$54g»00 p#r share; tb t the original tr*««uxy where « of the ftmUmji 
RMftil Sank of *•» fork §*f$* *»r» itauad at the a&n* price ani were 
now selling *t ffiia>ftfl ptf share; th?t the shares of the Iroquois 
t U Mtt Ooaspany were as valuable as the 8ter*i of either of these two 
eoap&niea and would rapidly te&?%&$#] th^.t the business expansion 
reasons for increasing the share® ©f the Iroquolt fittffft ^o?.an*ny WMWI 
exactly toe aos»e a* the toutineaa vaaeona fox increasing the eh*»ea 
©f the ftawwr*i 3*o&a I frott IfityHSip and also thoee of the vhsthuv* 
Fhenix *iank; that the shareholders *rh© purdiwMfl i$&fa$Mi i'ruat 
Oaareny treasury 'units or blocks could reasonably 100k forward to 
h-.ving the iwifflli shares retired at |&$$*Sd pg$ sb&xa within « 
short period; taat after tat piafax-Ttrfl a&area were retired, all of 
the profits would %MI dlwi&ad Mion^ the outstanding, aon-p*.r cutanea 
shares, which would aafce s«id non-par oosafton. shares &a»y tiaea their 
purchase price; th"t the corporation and oenking laws of the 3t*te of 
Illinois were the nott stringent of any atata in the Union; that the 
KUlmels Stftte Vonstitutioa forbids, aaong ather things, the issuance 
of any non-voting shares fef an Illinois e*«r or "tionj that no other 
st^te constitution has such « provision; th*,--t the legislature of any 
other »tr.te might pass * law depriving • stockholder of the right to 
rote in 1 corporation organisation in tint state* "mt the *3gisi*ture 
of the state f Illinois oould not pass tuoh a Iw; it would be unoon- 
stitutional; th*t this mm the reason for organising the Iroquois 
Tru*t *o«p&ny in Illinois, I nd tP-t on account thereof it would be 
iapos*lble for the shareholders in the Iroquois Trust **osipany to be 
defrauded or lose atoney on neaount of s~id investment. Mi th*t under 
the wise revision of the laws of Illinois it would be possible for 
the old and new subscriber* for the increased capital ie*ue of the 
Iroquois ;ruet Oaapaay to hold s^id shares for themselves, their 
children and their children's children, -».a ■ th»t they would receive 
the profits of the Iroquois Trust 3oauany on the b'Sis of ths present 



i 









i 



I fl»rf' 





















4 

oaplWir-^tion; ISA* the undeveloped field for tne *etiriti*8 of • 
truest company opsr-tint in s Rfttisasl •• •■/ Mf be gsttgsa 1 froa th<? fset 
thr*.t there rer© .8,844 oitiea oent^ini'iig 10p of tfet population of the 
United ^t'.it*« # without tho aervioe of W truat ttgg -any , NSf th*t the 
trsquoi* fru«t (ftsiUffSiy intended to operate in •*£& of these ?ltie*j 
th.-t in *44ifisB thereto tfcsy would &$tro*tliy Stot&la its proportion 
of trust IwilBHI i fro® the reaaisisg K>»i of the population of th* 
country, nost of whioh reeid* in Qities on joying t'a* ##**4s* of ic 
trust soa-p-anl*-*, whioh were SfSfstiSg within the S*Sft$ limited *oo,".s, 
but would not fesWl t&# facilities of the iroouols Trust ■ ■/; th t 

th* iroquoi* mint 3o*mny mm &g#mtl»& with few ssslsysfts and *&* 
writing iam»n3£ profits; th^t its business *MN u,-dsr the atriot «t*t* 
aup^rrision, Ms! ttnt the lesr* rsgul«ti»£ it* tal33««« **re such that 
I loss or depreciation in isvestaent mm imt-o®«ii&lo; t&st th* lroauols 
Trust fsJSpMMf intended to ooe.r»t* & trust oomp^ny <;m th<* enan b%Sia, 
th* gSMi ass SfcslJI stores, from kainet© GfelAfSffti&J th--t UM IroQuoi* 
Trust Cotap-any ssg the only ooaipmny now so txistiag whish eould so 
•P*r'«t«; th t the Iroquois Trust >SIIJlHHg VSS a "Steals^ trust eoa»> *ny, 
with a ess.tr il seeurity buying SffSttiStt&ss Is &ew fork Jity or 
tfhien,.© #ith distribution TPTSSilSil) iPggyslfcS lS^ ftaft imU sen* lte 
NlMMi into aaaller towns, selling rublio giSIISajSSfl sssuritis* Ntf 
tru«t funds os the monthly deposit W 111 I ill IS I p&ftfej th-t ite 
estuaries reported tfefcf th* profits froo I Minimus monthly deposit or 
isat*liB*nt truat fund, if lATSstsd in ft*Sil aortgr«ge* e mlng »>» 
inter; at, would r^verpge ?,8.83 oer /SSI over the trust fund period; 
th*t this flgur* would be net afttf *U allsvssss* bed bees sad* for 
aeiiing, %dainist ration, earning* on Met oumilntlv* trust fund, nsd 
•olleotion over the tru*t fund > eriod of 30 y*»r*| that figuring on 
th* tsgfta of tt«Mi truat fund*, wbieb grid -rtlfe told the rIM Stiff 
th* Iroouoie Tru.it Ooa^nny eltb«r h^d or would *oon h re, I net profit 
•f I3 # 633,&S0, per yenr would result to thla Institution -nd thut 



.•-?-. 












wf» 






.-..•■■ 









s 

at th« present tine, no other trust eomc'&ny in tftg United states* 

eaeept the Xroouets trust ^oap&ny, was selling ben-in on the install- 
ment plsn, 0& Hflt It sme selling hundreds of ssilll^ne yearly for 

itolt* 

It is also ehnrged in the declaration th ■■ t th««« eayttoa 

represented to plaintiff that the lrr*q«ol@ Yru\- ; &W§ IJpWiltlj 

in I actional way, would tewe opsn to it* various forms of trust 
eoap&ny service,- ohieh --ouldt eaehle it to e>rn *$Hl safety, dividends 
of flro* 19 to Sggf$ pen* year; th t if plaintiff had any securities now 
invests-** it would be to her advent a&* and iosMmoe profit to turn 
her securities into cash and invest the ooste in sterol of the Xrocuols 
Trust w'offl'^ny , AH§ that if *?is® would do so* it »ouM provide for 
her old *sge* sod thai if oho did 00 invest, the eould My shares in 
t»e Iroquois twmt '*o®^any on the instuUaent yl?n $ end tfcot if at 
*ny time within 60 or 80 days* ©r sjjj sjs/ tiaie Intel sjM desired to 
withdraw f rest the company* th*t they weul.; . 1 a$o* to sell her 
shares for % profit of $0$ on the ©mount of h*l isveetoent with the 
company. It is further alleged thet on IMfcruavy let* 13.38* upon the 
represent t ion of these persons* the slaUEttff iniPilmnort silvers sbarss 
of stock in the Iroquois trust '«m^.vty to the ?*aiount of , '. '* 
and that ail of the representation* »>&<© oy those persons at to the 
Iroouols trust voapnay *ere knowingly nd willfully false and aade 
for loo p oiyeo l of aisle ding, deceiving ' nd defrauding plaintiff of 
her aoneye. It is also alleged that the stock so purchased *** pf 
little ,r no value sad Mi not delivered to the plaintiff in seeord- 
nee with the t^riss of defend -*nts. It is further alleged tb*t plain- 
tiff bought suoh shares of stock solely upon the represent tions nade 
to her by thess defendants. 

In the amended declaration filed - ril *^th* 193;, it le 
charged thet in addition to the represent ntione alleged to have been 
osds in the first count of the decir tu.n, th t thsss people repre- 
sented to plaintiff, anong oth*r things, in ordsr to lnduoe her to 






l . oft 049 '-XU 

'..: ■■■■■■ ~- , 






mm 

■ 



• 



purehsae etook in Hi Iroquois t?m% ttomffcwy t tLv-t the atetffc of "ueh 
oearpoay me so valuable $ft*t the JftgHijH, Utwernment tmM offered one 
hundred aillioa dollar* for It© ©fetter, ehlOa w#is fnlne; th t th** 
Iroquois frost 0©#,raay r$a the eaaer of 9-a4 controlled the Xrosuoia 
tfoal 3ompaay, IroQuoia SHMNpl. l«^p«^| Xro«ruooo 8*»atraoiiOB CoaEN-ny 
•tad the Irosrnoia Hoonitsl, audi it is R|&*§ftft th-t asll of anon repre- 
sent t lone wes-e :fs,is## It id further «»*.rg*d in §§££ last aoatioaod 
ooont of the doolaretioa th*.t the Xroovela Truat 3*a°p«<&y a* a ©rgn.nl- 
*ed an »s<y 33rd, X32X # with l o*pit*l etook oi" |§@ entree, attV&Rg 
t par v«lu* of ■'4.;% '■■ p$$ eh»re t and Hgfet the 5 took *»a subaoribed 
by the orgrmieere, ssi th*t in order to a&ke it l$f$a* ta*t the sub- 
sjeriber© bad fully .paid, the orgwaisera flnarged ^inat the mirehaeo 
prieo of the atook -'•S^'toO.QO a* orfftBlr%tioa fees. §$§»$€ ■• ' ia 
protean* eeourltiea consisting of SO I wortbleea sharee of ooauion 
atook of the Fmoll Lithin %rtng$ i$$i$ flft HpB y f awl taa*. fc&tS . 
*erth of atoek eo aubaoribed waa uapaid for; that »&**♦ fey ft&fldg IMg 
the shares of atoefc in the Ire^uoi® fTuat --©apA-ny wre redistributed 
by issuing the sea* to eart*.ln pereoioa eotlng on behalf of the 
defendnate, and th-.i defendant, Harrison J^rker, in the f*ft* 4 1J39, 
in furtherance of the oonepiraey to defraud -inintif? *.ad otnero, 
eaaeed the err^n-1 ato«k of the Iroquois frost ffwymf to be inore-sed 
fro« &> to ty&S shares, and th*t in order to obt in the fraudulent 
atook without way lag for it, Nil iiArrieon <arker erased cert in 
worthless notes to bo -oeepted by dumay directors of the tstfttaa 
Truet Ooapa-..y # elected by hla,«* ^eyoent for euoh atoek, end that 
altogether by false re resent tione Mall by tboeo defendante, they 
lndaeed plaintiff froa tiae to time to turn over to them the sua of 
♦10,0 '•':. , for ehleh she hi? a received nothing exoeot receipt a, «sad 
tb^t no a took of any kind and nothing of rrlue h?a ever been delivered 
to bor on *eo > ont of euoh pnyaenta to the defend*nte. 

To the eaended firat oount in the deoi^r-tion, ■ oiee of 









. 



I 

: 

■ 



Qt 



■ ■ 
■ 



7 

the jpWW*S issue we* flXcd, md fee tnc addition*! count filed 

during the pft$t«£i of to* tri-*!, I Aeaturrer ore IfflBtfl ■*■ interponod 
tad overruled* thereupon the $!*« to the amended first count wm 
or-' rerd to «t«nd to the tdaitlon&i oou»t» 

the ground* for rover* ?& urged by def&ndssnt* «m§ tb-t 
tue e-titfflttff did not pm*e the fejtnj^y of any representation; Ian* 
fctf to tne first «o«»t there la no ^lieg^tion of a representation of 

ftfeftt »11 the representation* of the d«el&r*tie» «r«r* ii to something 
to occur in the future; timt the eh>"irge in the *dditiv>r^i coast || I 
tne i'nglith wOV*rns»r»t had offered &*» hundred niliion dollar* for 

the charter of te# Iroouola trust ooajaaiy or of ©my of the other 

energe* »**uslng the® to hnv* teen made %M to be fs,X&#, fos.vo not 

is 
been no -prevent th-t t hero/no evidence te Jwetify ft judgment Bgnl&n* 

the iliinoi* V alley trust 3enrs>*«gr, sad tn*t t therefore, the judgmnt 

| Joint in to the defendants, it amst he |i9iMiA| $Mi pie In tiff* a 

counsel Mi guilty of 1® proper conduct and speech throughout UMi trial 

of fad iaatj ths»t plaintiff 'ted received two dividend cheeks of I . 

or H43.00 e®oh *nd had retained tne® and sm&§ no tead&v or off*r to 

pay the a-sac bain* sod, Idiot the court ?.**raltt*d i bill of eoaplalnt to 

b« introduced in evidence which mi filed fey the Korth Maerienn Trust 

Ocnr^ay -'x'^lnat Harrison carter, and of the defendant*, in the Circuit 

Court of Oook County *hieh ©outlined pifffllititlll ohergoo agatnet 

r^rkor, «nd th»t the a&ount if tho fhnwirigltt ^»«<?osed by tue Jury «ind 

tho judgment entered thereon are excessive. 

Aa to the *,*«ad«d first n*nvt| iifiiiWill in tthoir brief 

aake the following atatem«nt end edatin«lon; "The i"^ in tiff "tteauted 

to prove, or oerhap* did arovc. llD I the*e MpMMil tadM *nd state* 

oents contained in th* e«ld saendea declaration *ere made to her, by 

introducing rl«»lntiff»» irhibite 1 wti . Hmm tvo exhibits wore 

■ml til or i»Mtphl«ts MMMi by the iroovols ftmtt Do-s'.-eny, ililntifftJ 

Exhibit 1 mi entitled »Th« beed r.nd the rield for a «*tl-mnllied 



• 















. . 












. 















•• 



I tiv«X 






»«tnj 



Yruat feM^M^siMl Mi *a outline of the ^oasibllitlM of profit- 
antklng to a trust MffpJMf th-t sold funds »* a trust estate on the 
installment plan. ■'' perusal of this >»i«phlet will show ib-.t ^laaoaft 
a jjfe of the* at^te&ents therein expressed §«® opinion as to future 
•profit-®; .... Mred the possibilities in the trust MettpMf field. It 
e«t» forth the profits tant truat companies hs.d S&&* &fsi iMJUltw* 
the present .qtaxket price of the e*?pit$l stoefc of various iJWrt 
companies lith the original offering jM&M)** therefore, insofar as 
the tended first ocmnt of th® ii®&i'AT<v%i®n if, iMiMHMft§ it ean bis 

MMi $&&t defendants admitted the trutk of HH -^i lotion* in 
suoh count, m to 8t& t » aMt j| mM to the "lwintiffg iriolv.din# the 
IJiliMBJ thot Hn stock of the iroqfuoia trust iMpM? mm oe«p«.r*bla 
in value with that of the pastes oomraniea -rationed. 

Plaintiff testified thftt #©« time in &$s"f or 1958 shs 
met | MM by the MM! of SN&ft Ik ilMWWii<l|||l with th& pilflMJili of 
stock in the Iroouoia trust fjlOTiiyf the wifcs^M stated th^t at th«t 
time she tms the hostess' of th« 8kok.it Country .;iub, of which one 
1ft :)r#for was the president, Hi that £ua*t told the witness that 
the yiMldtttt of Hvt club fesd* sent hlm f duprt, to the plaintiff with 
the tSiiMMatsHsil th*t she gMNMsil stool: in the ftlpHJl sruat 
Oo«- r ;r?ny. the witness further testified tin g rifci Mi given Miliali't'l 
by Mi defendant Bheehan, who ah® met in th* tfflM of tha Iroquois 
Trust MMfi *here shs Mi t*ken by MMFt* Mi stated further that 
at IM office* of to© oompsny «hs met in v ition to shsehaa, defend- 
ants -^rker and Lifka, to vhom she MS introduced; th^t while in 
this offlo* she VM shtann fffHti wIlimTSM i'hese *re the oiroulnrs 
in evidence referred to by defendants* counsel, and reolte among 
other thing* that the Iroquois NmI -ompany w*s ~.*>ting under a shorter 
granted by the at te of Illinois with the Msllu of the banking 
dapartsent of the st*te # arhloh oh^rter j>ernitt«»d the sale ef truat 
funds on the monthly deposit or instaUment plan, and th. t the 









IflHU I 









•• \ 



■ 






Iroquois trust fo wpft fl f ffMI the only trust etWIplllf la DM United Jt-tea 
selling trust funds on the monthly deposit or inatnllasnt p&nftj th | 
suoh IHW't fljBfiWy »&intained «?it& the -Midi tor #f Public -eaounts of 
the H*t« of Illinois t&* aswunt of ilpMltt required of ft trust 
t(Mpftl$< il M Mfl tlg trusts, fhia eiroular %l»o eont<«irt& this a t:\fcesMmt 
thi't eert&in persona, mentioning .John $* toe&efeiler, «v«?ry ?ster, 
every Vandernilt, every ■iarnegis, every d';rueu # every IfSflNMft ml 
evisry ?©rd, considered trust funds Si the fe«*t seeurity fer their 
investments; $Ml I group of businsss mm ufti tankers fe*d sKaatined 
the possibilities for profit la 31 trust oonpsny ttel veuld he legally 
HgMltit<ril te sell truet funds on the l»«t?u,is^ftt pltn t m& th&t 
offices were ®pQmt£. in itn Ttosk Mil v biea&* # rind lawyers, aetuarlss 
and ether speeisllst* irnre fSMftStf ttest tfet <jh*rt«r issued to the 
Iroouois trust ^oarpsny rnsuld pers&t it te sell trust funds on the 
installment piftft* this circular *?.lso recti sd t&t&t trust ijjQMniftis' 
of the character of the lratiueis trust %8Spa**y hsd enmed enomous 
profits, and ©caparison w*s saMs with the United Etn%«s ?OTWi l|pfi 
ahich h*»d paid a 80^ cash dividend for 8$ years; tfc"t the stock of 
the ;usr*nty trust aofl^mnjr, now h??d % stoek ■safest v<uus of \?96' ( . , 
*.nd had received oven, dividends for M sensseutive ye*.ra Usl that a 
person investing H» 819,30 in its stock now h.%® 5 cash 1 neons ef 
110,000*00 per year; th*t an Isvestaisut ef |OS&f8Q0* M in the nkers 
Truet Qimytwf showed »n increase in vL. Mt, . ■ g or H 9 fl . 

short of a million dollars profit on the Uw"tltlnf**| tvt - rsons *ho 
purohnsed 75 aharea of a'quitsbls Truet NnqMNsf in 1916 hid t -rofit ef 
Hy on the investment; th^t this trust eonp^ny h*d long bcnn looked 
upon M John 0. oekefellffr'a iruAt l«Mp«af| Is t the -stock of the 
ttu*rdi*n Trust voapany of Detroit, or; nijeed |mm th«.n a y**r ^ro # at 
UOO.OO -pmr sh».rs 9 hnd sold <*« high as . per ah^re. rhis 

•irsular nlae eont'ined the list of a gr**t w»ny imi oo* .- ; nies in 
ths uixn *t^t«a t ahoirin^ the value of trust eo».:any Atoeks *»t th- 1 





















■,•■ in 












L* I 



. 






10 

tias, ostpsrM the Iroquois trust ••c-iR.-my with th«» Mil suggested 
its prob^bl* BMfl possible <srrnin&s to feg MM$NMMi&i to theae MM^SAiMH 
It *•»« further reolted in this oirnular VfctM frmUdilHj for the 
he^d^u^rters for ths trust $gV|gM$|F had, tNMtt |M*ilMM*d for a ossh 
JWlUff if li il of .'405, ^*V V ■ "ifid was MtiNt Mm* Iro -yols ftttst Building, 
mi th/<t one of the fe«$ teMMR banker* fend been elected preside**, 
it states further that under the mm itM of th« I renvois Trust 
Company, trust funds would be sold by this eos/'imy in units of 
13,600,00 «a«h t &&d th»t a person may lnreet iHMgg i asonta for Ml 
months, or & total of §3,400,00 MMI tost ml th~ and of the SWBitVStft 
period be eould withdraw l 1 :3,I-no,0O, @M th~t tM difference between 

HjJDO ■ ri.i 'rs,e"n,;>o, or :i,aoo,oo, is $$9 Mmm*! •« profit -«hiou 

would be earned ©a the »aey Ml it ifti periodically deposited, it 
is SJMtti recited tMt under the ne* at?te IftiM if the Htlli of Illinois, 
bo trust isnmi^l incorporated 'asd<sr th# MM§ lit S* Uti Iroquois 
trust aanpany in the 'Stat® of Illinois h*e f«lie3. Ml MKt S Mfltl 
a*y I failure of e trust ooia^ny so i ^MM^ g MM WMMMi is tlaost ia-osaible, 
and th t ftuatWty ownership of auoh Ml institution, in which pftftl** 
tiff s^s ask ad tii tennmini t r^rticip-'mt, WfflSki in slA ^robv.biiity 
tarn a* *u«h for its holders M on* in Connecticut, which recently 
declared Ml extr* dividend, of 100.-U it is ■* on* rent th t these et^te* 
sents ware aids to induce ths p4ftjffittff MM others to beiierc thr.t 
the atook of the Iroquois f'ruat *oatv"-ny MM MMpMMttl in Talus to 
these r--riow9 companies* 

*aether circular r«»e shoen N dintiff in which it 
reoitea tfMt the i.j«*yera fflltfltfl ny of fter Yorlc sella eaoh yaar 

•§f # 000 t 000 of oonds and aortgegas; th«st it has sold 387, 300, 000 
•f auch bonds MM mortgagee *nd its or-sh -refit airoaadsd I mil ; ion 
<*oll»rs -&T ye r, I throughout these ciroul-ra it i« elAiaed ?»nd 
repreaeutad th t beonu^e of tte cb raster of the ohsrter isaued to 
the Iroquois Trurit w chb «my, auoh eeaoaay hns superior or-^ortuniti^w to 









tm *$:■>■■ t 






1 1 Jw> I v ■ 



u • :■■■' /!■ 



XX 

those of say ©tn*t IXttil iis^p aaf 1« Mte« bawl, audi gaf Nnr ;.s>»ibili- 
tles ftv s^fetftg enors&us ptofits fa? th<*»e gifee fceeosje customer 
osnersu this la the tneo* W&i#h ran* throughout ixstr. of these 
circulars* 'ih© j>i slut iff further testified i (h* .. giv* n these 

ttltwllil the first time the *§ft$ to the &#f&if el >, v In b«4s 
ft*** vtei.tsy 1H ?eeruery* i s i;:?f>. -he tef»tif.u-& t-rt i _x«d 

|i ;-*rk«r, MLfte&p -ill© -h-^a and ^u»\rt„ sud th- ■■% they told ter she *i 
get M$ return o& every dollar she invested, fcffi ' ; . ; i sod 

vU.ue of her investaeftt *r©al& fee 190$ on every dollar invested; gtet 
they told her fete* Iroquois trust Itflpttif i 1 the trust funds 

of the IHWHiiil J oal o-or^^ny; %tmt It hi I ia&gp of the Iroquois 
Oosti Jostpnaj^ fttti U$&fc It w«s ffet&f pg wp& tf lf * Hwi vMlWts «l*o testi- 
fied tm t they told her they owned the l:v:,^-;a® vte«l ftiMljmHi, 
Iroquois Construct iou . ■■• rd to* tm „•■.•;■■,■,., ■ | 

they sBd turned do*n S* ©tier fro* t:.;.- Wmtftl of t half 

■ilii n dollars f©r thfc - ©Sorter -"<f the Iroquois i'roat ^owpsay, and 
th^t there were plenty of people who HMftjl oup the stoolc MMl that she 
would beeo«e levaeftssly rihh, HlHto $f$ft&flfti ti-n.t she told these 
persons she had $4 9 I gMM and they ssfced far «ore 9 est tfo-t her 
tot.-.l investment - roxiawtcly 'i> 9 < ■'■•■•"' , 

Harrison .. .">rker, one gf Ifcg i l JlUJll if^ v«* e«iied by the 
plaintiff ?n<x testified cii t there w?a M sttoh Institution as the 
Iroquois *oal fetapMf, Iroquois fg Iroquois construction 

t t« s s f « sad th*t the Iroquois N it iMpMf ta-i no Interest in the 
Iroquois iioa Itnl, 

As grounds for rever«:-.l 9 counsel for iefeni-nts doss n t 
eoutend th t the }ury as not justified in oonol Urn? th«t these 
st*-tt«ents wsrs and* to the pXaistlf , Bf .^iieged mnd ma shs testified, 
the ease on sppesl is lvr t ,«?ly psjMUl I theTS 

was no allsg tion or proof as to any past or existing f set. Out 






■;*' : 



« 



. 



. 






1 

entirely m to eweo thing «hl«h might fe&fce piaoe In : sure. 

rlAintiff testified th-*t tnoso defendant « told fe*r fcfej^t Um English 
timNNUMHst fekffig Ms&t sm offer $g I If. ■iXii$& doll???& fa? their 
charts r, -Rd t.a't such offer &&& been p»;fu®e4» vt-tion 

»*de by defendants i a to an CU" -.. fc&§ tiae 

the jtOttMtUt '€' &»& W&i - G&&f I Iftflt* Xi:. Is tptA 

in Hm declaration ft&i proven that re-nreeeat^.ticn -• .- : . 

plelntiff by tue defendants* %hut I9MI ire^uois ■ ? ftm 
the iroquoie- ^#*3> «onpaBf, Iroquois MmA voa -- 1 -rif, $mtgm&M -i.-r.ut ruc- 
tion tjjBywf »&$ tin., irots-uols -:'oaoit*:l» ftift --•':, ::.-•;: ri son '^rker, 
ItotiflffA that &&m of kjmHi institution* exist*-;:-, $$; 
Ro»Pit--i, and i&.t in** Irwasjif £.rust 9 :■■ i va no i*a - in the 

IroQuois Bfcftf&la&i and dafsm^mts offered ft§ - 9 contrary. 

This is an tXJL#| tion and. p*oof of s ftagt ■■;"■., ■ ••-.■*t*d to 

have existed at the tiae the statement *-.-.« ar- tl&ltttiff. 

It is eantendod by A*£esd«i»til tivt thftre is no evidence 
in trie record whlih justified the judtftoeat .. Illinois 

?*lley trust tapuqr* *he evidence disoici-- , ml it is not denied, 
that the Illinois f&£i its of rices with «nd wae 

eont roiled ejftd by »©a$© of these to it* eho «nde these 

f*lse represent -ticno to p2Ulatlf1 . took her Money rv.-ny from her. 
It is represented here by the 1 , ; n» it 

does not sjysjr to h*ve ?sny adverse tstoiwet here, it *iso tpftuni 
that these ptftitf used letterheads Ml foil owe j 

fice of I resident 

Jeorge W. Shoehan 9om.-":ny 

Trust eeurities 

enernl IcMti for United ;t tee 

X944 bankers building, 

<-k *nd KAhju* .treets, 

vnio^o, iiiitioin 
one de«tr*l 71 

li ■ . 1 . \ . 

founded i a 
uthorisod by the 3t<*te of Uiinoie to .-ooept 
ixeeute Tru«t* Under t- • rvision 

i^sori*, iiiinoig 












Oj 












n 

Waited $%&%.«* VhmtoG* »i -tm 

UUiaol* @&ai8*»w of £*#«»«*«« 

Asaooift-te <**ato«r liiinoia S&afeftsp* ^aooiaticm*" 

and on tfel* stationery under c-t- glfe, 1?""-, , . | ..■&*« 

wrote i l«tt«r to plaintiff HgfttHt *a. ■, H -.- ., 

UllAel' Vftiley fXftft ®m.p*&f*4 It o?maot o*c ■n-i.'ity ilMMI ita 

W&tmmm apparently a&4* it a p^rt r*&$ 5M».r«*X of the oo ablation 

for th# •**§ g£8$$ft|$i union the otnere mm to few bad i-. aind* 

£fcl evidence tsijo^fc that toe a*fend*ut3 ftf**3f&sX«*$ly 
r>?^8ur«l. fro?s plnlatiff the aaount of «o &©3 .,:; L» 1 * M& t - 

tioB to ime fceen t*lcen from ber, &ns for Mitida $&$ verdlot »*« 
returned, «nd Hist ®&@ roofciirsd netting its rrtv.ri*, tt8**jpt two -Uvi- 
dend oheoke of N lg£0 and $#$#$® ftMfcj SfelOis letter i -.rently 

■ a into eenaider^tion in ta« iiawunt of u>.e verdiet returned. 

ISM Jury tea? tjftl nftftf* the ^itaes'K" ^ad upon the 

ftridoao®, *nd pi see ko roa.eon for disturbing the verdiot. The 
•est i« Rfftamtii 

J. 

nun mxkm i& ftgis . 






m 

[to* TMfeftK 



\*m 



**r ... 

■ 

■ 

otoi . 



, 



36369 

| OIL [HE ^T.TE OF ILLINOIS, 
Ex Rel. OSCAR K3LS0I, as -.uditor 



of Public .ceounts of the 
of Illinois, 



■tute 



/} 



. 



/ 






■UIHERD STATE B-JOt, a Corporation, 



In the Matter of the Intervening 
Petition of 3KERUIAH BKOIK.JiS JM- 
0C6RFCRATK9, a corporation, li BY :';, 
IMtlUJH, .-wdminiatratrlac r.nd P/UL 
H* JHOttHAN, administrator of tba 
Estate of Elizabeth II- Jhoridaa, 
Deo eased, 



ppellees, 



▼. 



IR .Ii; T. GILPSJTH, as Receiver of 
Brainatrd 3tat© Bank, a Corporation, 



AT -:m 

m& .31 OK J CURT 
IE 3GBKTY 

27 3 I.A. 65 



Opinion filed Feb. 7, 1934 
MR. . -i INC WBXM& HALL J8KJ? I I I. H J URT. 

This is an appeal from an order and decree of the Juptsrior Court 
of Cook County, directing Irwin T. Gilruth, Receiver of the Brainerd 
State Bank to set off against three certain notes aggregating £8,000.00, 
held by the bank and executed by Elisabeth K. :herjdan, deceased, and 
one note of §8, 000. 00, due and owing to the bank by Philip H. heridan, 
a certain deposit of ahoridan Brothers Incorporated for the sum of 
$2,535.54, on deposit with the Brainerd otate B mk at the time such bank 
was closed. 

In the proceeding instituted for the dissolution of the 
Brainerd ;;tate Bank, en intervening petition Ml filed by Sheridan 
Brothers Incorporated, Mary 1. Sheridan, tdministratrix, and Paul M. 
Sheridan, ..drainistrator, wherein it is recited that on or about pril 
5th, 1930, Slizabeth K. uheridan, now deoensed, executed her prcmissory 
note payable to said defendant bank in the sum of $15,000.00 nnd de- 
Posited with said bank, as security therefor, certain collateral then 



. 



88558 












- 
•: HTU . 

£561 t ? .tfs? Jbolil noiniqO 

- 

, j 

■ • 

are •*£■ , 

. 

r; .: .:-: ' •' ' •■ . • rr. U L< . • *;s s'v f.-o.-.c , ,,. .' ■■■ ,\. hwul.- 

a % xlrt ;*aM t te#0xoqxooa:X rxarfto: 

XAaq Jworfc to ao #.attt £ i«i*iiw t i0t(rttmlalam ,mbi.ret 

^oaKloo't- -xcrf 2>e?yoox3> % ijf38..vO(7i' von ,anJbJx IS ,0o? , 

-•: C| to bb* mii at iaatf tmborteft Mm o* •I4»t*Z •*< 






her property m& new the property if her estate} that the said ftllaebeth 
K. Sheridan executed said note as an aoeoawiod.&tieii maker t or the benefit 
of sherldA&~3o*tello Incorporated, & eerperatiom orpmlsed tmdsr the 
laws of the atets of Zlllnois, in which Philip H. 'Jmerldsa m* the prin- 
cipal stockholder | that the proceeds of the loan were not paid to 
Eli&abeth &• 3herld«i t hut were deposited then (M& there to the credit 
of the .QONoerelaX cheeking seeou&t of th© corporation and entered upon 
the jmm book ibareof i that Slisabeth iU Sherldim was pot a stockholder 
of said corporation nd had no Interest therein, but executed end de- 
livered the note merely m an acooamo&atloii to and at the request of the 
bank for md on behalf of th© corporation. 6 petition prayed that Ml 
order he entered directing the receiver of th© bank to credit Sherldan- 
Br others Incorporated with th© peyme&t of $8 t 58&*54 on said notes. 

Wm record discloses that about Hiy 5th, 1930, Philip It. 
Sheridan, i&o was the president ©f 3hsrid@n-^© stall© Incorporated, visited 
the B-mtoerd state Bank ad applied for a iftflft of £15,000.00. SherJdcan 
teatif lad that he was told, by m off leer of the hemic to bring his mother 
In and they would see ifeat souM he dme about it, snd that on the next 
day, Shtsridan ad hi® mother, Sllsabeth £. -JhsHdan, visited the bftik. 
Be stated that his mother, Mrs. Sheridan, put up certain securities, 
Hint a loan of #18,000 .00 was made, that Mrs. oner ldsn slaked the note, 
and that the witness was given the pass book. It whs stipulated that 
en pril 5th, 1930, three notes for £5,000.00 each were mads; and signed 
by Eliaubeth K. Jherldan. 

From the record, it ale© appears that the credit In juestion 
las extended to feme Sheridan} that th© lean was made to her for the 
purpose of enabling Philip H. >h&riAm to open a JPord i fipnoy; that his 
■other was the one who cidvaneed th© money to him, and that the proceeds 
of the loan were depots it ed to the account of Lsharldun-O as telle Incor- 
porated, .bout JUly 5th, 1930, when the notee cam® due, a payment of 
H, 000, 00 and interest was made on the loon, *>.nd the balance was re- 



■N »*!# *©* rafas *Dx*#fca«so©«i *B» ;; a !*#8&*>x® itV 

• mbl. ***• 

•flf UffH 

to a** MM p.. 

.«. 

^ ,.1* 1»W^ ' ****** ^ 

tUeooiq «tt fad* M» ,«M oJ T«no« *** X**0»*6« wtw *» «** «*>» 
^ 10 , ^ *> -. *U * b*nao*iBb «wr a 

teuo a«*oa aAi *•** ,0S« ,*i <&* *«* •*»*»4 



3 

newed by **»• Sheridan by giving two notes for $3,000.00 each, md an- 
other not© for #1,000.00, Mrs. :3ierldnn died on July 19 th, 1930. On 
September 3rd, 1930, « payment of |3,O0O,00 was nedo on i9 principal. 
The interest was paid on all the notes and they were extended periodi- 
cally up to March 1st, 1931. On March 1st, 1931, Philip II. ;h«ridan ex- 
ecuted a note Tor #8,000.00 for the unpaid fealsneo of principal. The 
notes of Hrs* Sheridan were retained by the bank* Philip H. Sheridan' a 
note far #8,000,00 n*s renewed about June 1st, 1931. This note %s still 
in the hands of the receiver* The pogpMnts of principal and imprest 
upon the Indebtedness were made by oheelcs drawa gainst the account of 
3heridoa-a©£stello Incorporated, The nam of this corporation was after* 
wards changed to Sheridan Brothers Incorporated* At the tine the bonk 
was closed by tho .•otdltor, Sheridan Brothers Incorporated had on de- 
posit a checking nee sunt of #S,©«©.S4* Certain ehaeka were thereafter 
presented, which were charged against the account, which reduoed the 
account to f% 330,04, and it is thin amount which the court ordered 
credited again at the- notes of Mrs. iherl&an. 

The receiver contends that the order of the superior Court 
should be reversed for the following reasons, to~wifc; that the natters 
of fact relied upon by the petitioners are not proper to be considered 
by the court for the purpose of granting the offset; that the testi- 
mony offered by the petitioners attempts to vary, disqualify, end, in 
subatenoe, contradict the terns of the note of glisabeth K. Sheridan 
and Philip H. Sheridan; that the facts relied upon by petitioners as 
shown by the evidence, falls to show right of set-off ; that the in- 
debtednesses are not mutual between the parties In that the debt of 
the bonk is to a corporation, end that the anount due to the bank is 
from individuals, and that in the event the off-set should be allowed, 
It Is in excess of the anount standing to the credit of -huridan 
Brothers Inaorpor?;ted, for the reason tint after the b«nk bad closed, 
checks to the amount of £ai5.oO were r turned for non-payment and 






•■?,. :' :.l. :X-: •:■ .-. 5 , ''-j? -n ['70 ■- . ' :. Ji r -. ; ;..;': J. •!-;'- o> N^w; k. :f;'r ' 

- : - ,, foon' vv>a:i rC- • ;-T ' . -;:\1 > . ■■:.■ ■ ••> ;••■■ .■:■ ■■.■ »•: . 

.,.•.. V:.-., ?t, f •: ,\,<f .. v , t ; ..-..; • : . ,.., f , , ... -• • 

l>»l»fti«iJoy »tf ami art /■:»tl»i aroat 

■*»4 «t» *i«f? j***Tfco »«# z\attmr& io efto«-.-;i«it 5rfi *frl *«*»© fcitf 

itt . ■ ftf<p*> :: ,J trf fertettto tj 

•* ewflsm**^ \tf aagv JH1I«* »aa*1 e; 
-rrt i-.ii / ffltf ;Tfro-*a» 1© dda^-r voria c-J eXJU* ( »4>j»&tve #xU s ^o* aro 
to tftft e* «1 a«Jt#%»g «rti .tsm»t»ii I*tf*HM *o*t *ja gttaa mfraa* 

ts ad* Jaffa »1 ■ o* mt stittd i 

,*a*re>ii> a<* blood* <iHH art *mmj & til cw 

jual-t ■ o* ant ftn :-^s tf«ar>rt". «n"J *ro «««0K« id 

t b9fi0lw bud. 'Jii d s»tt •»*!« *»i* r»*»»»r o«aI avarijo 

Jim ttn«taq-«0i-. »* *•«' **♦ i« ttuamu ad* ot *stm 






4 ■ 

charged against the <smount stand lag to tfe© credit of the corpora tion, 

thereby ra-ducing It to #3,330.04. 

In Mors® on Banks and Banking, 6 th M. Vol, 1, see. 354, page 
78, it Is stated that VJ the rules of law as to the right of set-off be- 
tween the b*mk fcnd it® depositors are not -tiff wont from lit se applic- 
able to other parties. £fcie debts Bust bo between the same parties end 
in the same right." 

In 7th 0. J. see. $5$, page 745, it Is said that "VtttMl debts 
sre not due to it fro® the sen* persons in the same capacity, the right 
of set-off doe© not exist. " 

In International Bank v.. Jon#s» Hi 111. 407, the. ,:; upraise Oourt 

of thiJ- state said: 

"The gmeral rule is that a bank 'has the rigat of set- 
off as against a deposit, only when the individual who is both 
depositor and debtor, stands, to beHt tfeeae ehe raster a alike, 
in precisely the seae relation, and on preelssly the sane foot- 
ing, towards the bonk, &n& hence an individual deposit cannot 
be set off agsiinst a partnership debt.* 

See also People eaurel. Kelson v. Bto&s. itate Bank. 267 111. 

App. 183. 

In the instant ease, It appears that Philip h. .-s^idea de- 
sired to borrow money from the Brained State Bask; that the bank de- 
clined to ndfet such & loan; that his mother, Hliaabstb K. Sheridan, cams 
to the bank tfei individually borrowed $15,000.00. It does not appear 
that either Philip H. shorl&eji, Sheridan- a ostello Xnooxp orated or Sher- 
idan Brothers Xmeorp orated were pot ties to this not®, or that Elisabeth 
I. sharidnn executed the note as Ml accommodation msfcer for the benefit 
sf -heridan-0 ostello Incorporated. It does appear that the money was 
deposited to the shoe king account of the eorp oration : nd entered upon 
the pess book of the corpora tion; that certain payments were made on 
said note either by Philip H. Jkerldan or the corporation, und that the 
notes of Philip B. Sheridan were token presumably as additional security 
for the loan made to his mother. *• sse nothing in this record ehioh 
•stabliahes any mutuality between either of these corpor tions nnd 



I 

■ 1 

■ 









.« 






i 

: v at <**,*.f<t&g ista^j -'J. 

■ )-iwc »rfi to tfittrooa* iftfetoo&i «rfa <tf fcifiaagd 

:. ' ■■.■■,.-.'■• .;?■ 

Y* trim.** lea* m&t *mm art It f£24<i la nfl 

*«•«•$ .*«rf*©«* •&«# moot +m -wA 

v**fr mmi$9 d %niAU*un via »*rf«il 



9 

Illaabeth K. ih art dan* atom borrowed the money for her son to be used by 
him to nd about the business of th® corporation. It is not suggested 
that th© bank: or its rea elver has a right of action a^ainat fehe corpora- 
tion on &m Elisabeth K, ;iharidsn note. Hi find nothing In the record 
which justifies the aetfcing Off of th© alalia of this corporation against 
the claim of the receiver on the Bllaafeelh K. :;he*:lda& not©, therefor© , 
th«s order of the inferior Court i» reversed and rosea Aed* 

r mm ' ■ . mm 

fXLsoir end SOWm JJ, Jafciuu.:. 



• ■ 
&4*a«3&tKi son -si 

-*a ©A* a©.. 
. 






So. 36378 
UVIB GRAY, 

..tppellsnt , 
vs. OIKJU 



«PE S&T.2B 0? 01 61 *X3©I SRIfl ., 

Deo eased, } ^ n _ (30C JOT 1 




' 




.627 



Opinion filed Feb. 7, 1934 
MR. Hi U I H,vLL i UV • ■ ' ' Nf« 

This- is «n appeal by o la loan t from • juag»£nt of the circuit 
Jourt of uoofe Jaunty, allotting i claim against the estate of Iwm ftlxon 
Price, deceased, for I108.00 . Wm cause m.® tried in the aizouit escort 
Ob appeal from the Probate Court of Ooofe County* Th.® elate as filed in 
the Probate Court ms for #1,896.00, mfl after a hearing in that court, 
the entire elate Met dis&lloised - hence the appeal to Hn Circuit Court* 

In tfe© b^glsming, ftl *u» the contention or eitain&nt that do- 
cedent hssi agreed that she would pf alaiiasnt ilS.00 pm month for stor- 
ing certain household furniture belonging to decedent; that the goods 
sere stored with el&im&nt frcra prior to Noveofeer 1st, 1913, until after 
RoYomber 1st, 1925, uad that thor© was nothing duo gftd O J P the contract 
until the goods ware removed in Kovofiber, 1985. 

It is claimed by i&e attorney for the iriee estate that there 
la no proof in the raoord that there was any agrae»nt or promise to pey 
ony amount for the ator«ge of the furniture in uestionj that if tiny 
ouoh promise could be said to exist that tsuoh promise was implied :nA 
not expressed; that if implied, the entire alalia, except 7 month's 
storage from .pril 12 th, 1925, to K'ovember '30th, 19/*, io burred by the 
Statute of Limitations, that no written pleas of the ctatute of Limita- 
tions is necessary in this proceeding, .nd thi>t the ol&im that the etat- 
uto ceased running while Mrs. Price was out of the at&te of Illinois is 
not pertinent because she one frequently in the state after the alleged 
•lftia ie alleged to have ocrued. 



. 






±SQl «? .cTs 1 ? bain noifliqO 

- . 

:€ L&l&tB OB ft . 

. 

arisj *wrtt Intent's a© 
. 

s JL& saw edtele mJttm tit 

30©!> #? &?r .ndftftUO* fltft^TBO S«t 

«•*!<* ii#fi» ,&£*! ,*«£ -jsx* no** #j t» 6rtwN ©•»» 

farariSOC »ft*<? ICJr-HJtf «J& . t>'*& hit: n 8M%X ,*«! *<HBBFTOS 

fcwyoH al &©rosit'i s-sew ft&oog «*> £2*8» 
•tftrf* tftd* «tafrae at; 

■i&q oJ o%&9o?q to tattoo^ • xw» *®» *'' & insn-oo'c I 3©*$ o 

Xxu ^1 f*J imrt %••■ .■•!»«•#• arff *>1 **8o«» v» 

1 matt »al> ■ *«!» *s.Jtx* c IJfcM oai»i? 4Mfti 

xon ? J(i&ax6 I tftftV ;A*aftO«(X» *©« 

arf* t* fc©Tx«rf e, m »<fcwroa o* ,« *o-rt •ftaio** 

eoolq Jioftlsw ©« */uAt ,aj».t#a*taLfcJ to «.»**#»#* 
-*«*s • * fnrfJ *i It ©d* **rf* tan t 3tttA©©©©iq[ «J*M .-.-I ft ::©*.•«» n a* *" 
mi m «©* o©m .MM olljfrf «mcutirt b«»«©© 

fi«»»XXr. e* *©tt* ©tftfft »i» fit \l*mo?9** turn «rf* •©*«*• tf #amUi©q 

.btanooH ©reef of I>«aoIX« ol Ml 



:: 



S 

For the claimant, boater Branson, ■ brother of decedent, testi- 
fied that about 1914 hi shipped the furniture in -it* at ion to this adamant 
at Bleoaincton, Illinois; that the goods ream-ined with her until 1939, 
when they were snipped to decedent in aalifornla, a nusbar cf letters 
•aid to have basis written by deeedeat to claimant were road in evidence, 
A perusal of the so letters am abstracted disc loses Hat nfoile the fur- 
aiture In quest ice is referred to, nothing Is said gkf to pftgr for its 
•torsos. She daughter of the claimant testified, over the objection of 
aerosol representing the ©state, that tho decadent told the witness that 
she, decedent, intended to pay claimant :f r storing the goods in uestion, 
end that she, the witness, saw the goods at the ham of claimant* ^hls 
witness furthar testified that no amount of pay for such aervloe was 
mentioned; that the floor ooaeo in olalaant's homo occupied by this 
furniture was 817 square foot, end that sho, the witness, saw the do- 
oedent at claimant's ho» in Bleosaington, Illinois, in 19a?, *»* again 
In zvanston, Illinois, In 1939. In the trial, claimant seems to have 
abandoned the theory of a definite contrast, end ooudat to recover the 
reasonable valu® of tha service alleged to haw boon rendered* 

The only ovldonoe as to a reasonable charge for the alleged 
eervioe, is the testimony of a otor&ip man, who stated that $15.00 par 
month, based on an estimate of 6$f per square foot of apace occupied, 
would be a reasonable m& customary charge, but this witness on cross- 
examination, stated that he did not know how Mich space the furniture 
occupied, JlaimanVa daughter testified that a large portion of the 
furniture was in a room in her mother** homo, formerly occupied by de- 
cedent, snd that the remainder was in the sttio of the house, Ine tes- 
timony as to what would bo a reasonable charge for storage is very in- 
definite. There is no evidence of an express contract, . nd if oloimant 
©an recover at all, it naxst bo on r*n implied promise to pay a monthly 
charge baaed an the testimony as to what would be a rer soluble and 

and cuatomory charge for such services in the joranunity where such eer- 






■:-■»■»*■ %mit mm 

..... 

~»fc o. vxe * 

, is&mi 

,1* * tot a* ,^md 

91 »e»v« &J& t» 

«J* *' 
-oft \rtf *«&<?*&, ,r3ar>it e'tedton ■«»»* «rir flue? * at tnr •• 

**- «rt* lad* ftai t 4iittoft 

twmi. j&t&biva vr. M ««fi •tttal 

. (mine**. b*llq/Bt an m #tf »*~ 
«C<faJ»MU30« * «H* PI X3T>«Jt0i*fc4 «.U m *•*** «B*tfdt 



3 

vices were a XI egad to have been rendered. It is eileged by @<m«»l for 

the estate that even if an implied contract 1b established, as suggested, 

that the statute of Limitations began to run when each jafMlWll be cane Sue, 

therefore, oxoept the saouat allowed by the trial court, the elate It 

barred by the five year statist® of Limitations. Sounoel for the el&ln- 

snt ineiete that no plea of the statute of Limitations has been filed, 

fnrth*r s that the decedent WBM out of the state during all the time before 

her death, when service night have been hud upon heri mA that, therefore, 

sueh Statute of limitations, even if pleaded, e eased to run during that 

period. As t® the question as to Aether it was necessary to fiie a plea 

ef the Statute of Limitations, m ere of the opinion that the ease of 

BromweH n Br&Biwe lJt, 3J@ 111- 4M> is decisive. In that ease, the 

JupreBse Jourt said: 

<*A period of almost ton years elapsed after the lest mm 
of nsoaey eorered by the plaintiff *s slain w&s paid over by her 
to h&r husband :j»d before the filing of her claim in the 'Probate 
aourt. If these transect ions WMNi in feel loans of money, they 
treated as indebtedness whleh n&s evidenced by no writing, and 
which was th#r<§sfere sub;} set to the 1 imitation of five yesro* Ho 
evidence was offered tending to take the ease out of the statute, 
or t© bring it within s&y of the exceptions therein contained, 
-nd the plaintiff's aial® must therefore be held, to have been 
barred by limitation nearly five years before it tpei filed in the 
Probate Oourt. Ho forn&l pleading being reaulred in the iTobate 
aourt, the .statute of tlnltntlone applied without hem® spool ally 
pleaded, end under the evidence in the record, there eel be no 
uestion that it constitutes a complete bar to said elaln*" 

It Is not disputed that the decedent was in the state on at 

least t» oco si one, once in 1937 end ease in 19S9, md on one of these 

on or ; si one was at the house of the illlitwwili In addition to this, the 

evidence adduced by olsinant as t© the validity of her chain, is not at 

all convincing. v«e hold that all the oluln exoept that allowed by the 

oourt, Is barred by the Statute of Limitations. «• see nothing in the 

record whloh would Justify this court in reversing the finding Ml iudg- 

nsnt of tin trial oourt. Therefore, the judgnsnt is ef fined. 

I'. H and H3B3L, JJ, OOKJUR. 



i, 



1 

■ ■• 
i 



el 









Ro. 36433 

obit;: l i }\mLi^ i i 

T, as Trusts©, 



vs, 



IHUT 



Appellee* 



■i /aoi 



rxuxji k. 



iKSBI f et el, 

defend .-*&*•• 




On Appeal of -brahsm Baer, 

appellant 



SMMMff 

'3 I ,.627 



3 



I Opinion filed Feb. 7, 1934 

m. m&swmQ msn.m u.m, wm»wm . urt. 

This is IN appeal from «n order denying a motion to set aside 
a sale made In a proceeding brought to foreclose « mortgage on real 
estate* end denying a petition for leave to file i bill of review in 
said csuso. Motion was made by the oompl&liisnt to diamine this appeal 
en the ground Hi at the order appealed from is not final, which motion 
b/ss been reserved to th© bearing* In view of the foot that tttf order 
of the Circuit Court ia affirmed, it will not bo necessary to pass up- 
on this motion. 

On Catcher &4tfe, 1930, aojjjplalaant filed its bill to fore- 
close the lien of a nortgnee trust deed im.de by the defend -At, ilmer 
*. Roberts and sue D. Roberts* The parties defend ssj| to this bill are 
Vllmer K. Roberta, awe D. Roberts, Oreeuebaim ..ons Investssnt Comply, 
Frederick J. Fadner, Kathryn M. Fadner, Meyer Goldstein, bel D&vis, 
B. M. /inston, Murray olbaoh, u, E. Oreenebttum, flucoma V.R. Thayer, 
John *« Oleson and Howard k, Loeb, members of a Bondholders rot.eot- 
ive Jonmitteo. Answers to the bill were filod by persons constituting 
the Bondholders IToteotiv© Coaranittoe und by Greanebnum ;ons investment 
iesuinny. from Baer*s statement of the case, we gather that ho ie np- 
parently attempting to have the court review the deoree of foreclosure 
end ordering sals in this cause entered on November F.Oth, 1931, the 
order of Jepteaber 1st, 1931, denying his petition to sot aside the 
sals held by the Master in Chancery uruat lGth, 1932, and also for 








H 








■ 






M 




: m 










,. 






• 








t* 










'': : : '•.■ 













V^G' »A 






W trnm U* titans **«• 

; V J 

■ . ■ 

■ . 

NMM^I v.' •.-.<-•.< ■ J I ;;■•-.' pf | ■ |#tJ Off' rt.'o--t-'i .r .i'rf.r" M 

•%tmolo*ool lo •9?9»6 9M vreiwi tfTt/or vd* evsd of p 

ttoi. «i*ctar<votf no bovtfn* muso st& bm 

mU */>*«;. .t-'i <rf a*:t> Lt»q alrt wU\m& , i*a*A»4qtf to i»**o 



leave to file a bill or review for the purpose of attacking the decree 
of Kovcsaber SOth, 1931, approvte^ tnl master's report, j-JLae, apparent* 
ly, petitioner seeks to new reviewed an order entered Sep teuton? S2nd, 
1932, conftrmlng the master's report of sale and distribution. The 
order of September SBnd, 1932, authorises the 3hio&go Title I?. Trust 
Jompany, as receiver by tins terse under foreclosure, to deliver posses- 
sion to Harry 0. ^inwrn&n * tfnl tb© order entered October BOtfe, 1933, 
approves the receiver's final. report and account and discharges the 
receiver. 

The record shews that on soptanbo? 1st, 1932, the order ap- 
pealed from was catered by <*• F* Batik, ,Tudg© pf *ae Circuit aourt, as 
follows: 

"On notion by abnlnsn, $b&t»«ft Mi ;&r«no, sol loiters 

for ^torshsn Baer, petitioner, to set aside tb© sal© hereto- 
fore had in this cans®, and Tor leave to file a Bill of He- 
view as per prayer of petition herein filed, Ml the court 
being fully advised in. the premises 

It Is ordered that the notion avA prayer of said 
petition be and is hereby den led* 

Bow oones pet&ioner cn& prays for an appeal to the 
appellate oow* of Illinois for the first district, wfcloh 
appeal is allowed upon the filing of an appeal bond in the 
sun of |10O»00 to be approved by the court within 10 days.'* 

rho appeal bond filed on ^optenbor find, 193 B, indicates that the ap- 
peal herein la from thfta order. On yaptambcr and, 193S, the court 
•altered the following ordor in this causes 

"This causa coming on further to b« heard on the 
notion of the complainant to approve the lis star's report 
of sale *nd distribution and upon the or*il objections of 
the petitioner Abreben Baer in his petition heretofore pre- 
sented to set aside the sale and who appealed from the de- 
nial of the relief prrayed in his petition ant whose object- 
ions are based on the sane grounds as urged in his petition 
on* for alleged errors apparent of record nd the court 
having overruled the objections ant approved the master's 
report and said petitioner now again preys for an appeal to 
the ppellate Oourt of Illinois for the first district fron 
this order. 

It is ordered that the appeal be allowed upon the 
filing of an appeal bond in the sun of 5,000.00 within ten 
days to be i pprovod by the court. 

To the entry of this order oonplalnant by Its coun- 
sel then t nd there excepted. 

G. ''. Rush, 

JUdge. ' 



I 

•'•*ara art J 9fliet%ltiK>c» «a££J 

,4M8 m«f«r«9 &**»*«» ^&*© «£<-: 'yjbmhet .tmih «tf role 

Htj ,.:■'••<: ■'•«•■;/:• ■•..■_•■ ' J Si >■:•■"■-■■ XML?] »*1 Vi»Mn MM a^V- 

fttP0£X4J 









fe o? ii 



#■ i 



:j"jifoj> a/J? . 369X «.&fi ; 












S 

The appeal bond provided for In this last order ens never filed, a© 
that there la nothing b afore the court but the appeal from the order 
of ^epttasber i3 *» 1933, denying petitioner's motion to aet aside the 
sale heretofore had in Um said cause, and for leave to file the peti- 
tion sot forth in the abstract end referred to as • bill of review. 

It is urged by counsel for ocnplr Incut th/*t the record does 
not disclose that ^br&hsra Saer, upon fines* motion the court w«s asked 
to set aside the sale, has easy interest in this proceeding* ft careful 
examination of &tc portion of the record pertt&ent to this inquiry, 
including the motion end petition sou^it to b@ filed, shows that there 
is not ■ uu^estion titers that Baer has any interest in this proceed- 
ing, 

Therefore, tte order of fie Circuit a©urt is affirmed. 



.■IL.;GK and JkB^L, JJ, GOIWUK, 



"to 

to 0»i 

i 






36444 

(,i*iotiff) ApptXlW, 

v. 

OffO 9. , 





wmiQi 



t5 i©ii# O 



27" 



Opinion filed Feb, 7, 1934 

this is «b n^tftl fron a judg»nt of tb« Hnaioi -a .;vmrt 
of Chicago for 3.3,l&o.oo # enter** in m notion in sseuapslt, 1 1 ill git 
by plaintiff ftgs&j&t defendant, the suit i« upon b written instru- 
ment, by *efcich def«nd«int gu&r?.nt*4d Htf onyannt of •****§* bond* whion 
were further seaurad fey l aartgag* trust dasd ©n .re a eat-te. rht 
trisl ma by the ftMWt without » ^tiry. 

It is sot l&gpttii ft&Kfc the bonds la -^ue^tion hsd *>< tared 

by Mlltt of on ftooeleroting *g*eea*nt in the taunt d^ed, ts tt d the 

defense is ta-t Ittesanoii *s plaintiff, th« owner of a mli portion 

•f the bond !««*«# aso'uired the® ^fter asturity, th- t, therefore, he 

took then subject to ■ defense AMI ief«nd*nt el- i*g to hm tgaiaal 

OrseasbKua lone Investment NvpHMTi «e origin*! o<*ner of the bonds 

in question. ner the bonds Had Hftfe&ftl itnnm»snia Im Inreeteaat 

Oonr-any entered into ?sn ogreeasat with th<5 defenwnt referred to, by 

the terms of whieh iaftaaafti an* to b« indemnified «nd .roteoted froa 

*ny liability u v n the bonds in question, Mi it in uoon thle ifMf* 

nent thn the defense i* predicated, such agreement being as follows* 

i«** . **4* 9**9 heretofore, to-wlt? the <r<id Krwsmer entered 
f» ! J ?«i*^la guaranty ***•»**** sitli the Ineetaent Jos> ny. 
EflB. S S! terw8 of "**•* « *** reoltod th t Kracaer eniid- 

™Z fFETliV'i R °?n>or tion, ■•■ •»»***** its bonds m the 

»»? J* * f Jaiii ? n Ttt **» itnndred rhouo*ad i>ollnre (s1l.800.ooo) 
Si.!**? iK °«»"«**tioa of the * id Investment woipiny 

^nt'nefJns^^fs Ks*^ * r: * e » #T ***•«» to gw£Stee the 

t2f P lJH?I L!J •I 4 5 bonds «™tloned ^ 'id deeoribed in 
that osrt>in deed of truet aee* by Xr emer duildin* Joroor*tion 

^Doo^nt Jo: h Slo?a?ir;nd f '^ #f ** ■"*' I1Unftl! 



■ ;->i v 






*56I ,t .ore 1 ? i>sli^ noiniqO 






I x if 



tmdtl 
„... ...* mUmh «J •**»* MM *«*** ******** *em «i M 

»lit yp bit* Ul 



. Ih , a j fcl»e to tfrr 



■ •' 






-™* *mJ£*%!3 % 5* tim &f •*• «*»«***«» of ami ioamate 
■aid twt d««d no«ir(? Kftatiomd, m* s«M <-r- e*.r *iiidin« 
vo*«cj-u™ <U»© .routed its nri^i^l n <** ?** rhrJ. 

£*&K?sr!i£*% (;Vx I • » ■ ■25 L «* 

jitter w f U»«Xf tm MftWfttf tfc. s$S* ^ & trmt.d.ed fw» it 
to t> mtst g*W*lttltt. Jr., M rmtft, .-,,.* aid trot 

wio^tj Aue mam to*** of »®*4 fcm*t ■ ■ -■ . xtlL* 

PMOMdlng. h*« b««a iMtituted by .... 

f« Tkm ;cu»dr«l forty fhoua'*d |»x i B ' , '.. 

*«. 5* ttB xt i@ Proposed by i:-, id g*«*M#j I* -viii 

deeeribcd in |&a trust d«ed ».bove MatiMfici to -rwiSua 

p?a*ii* of MM bonds umI inter*" ,.. . :HJ°L^! id 

trust mm »nd M »M.i in U. tdfcw35*Ti -iS^of L k 
wounty, &Umm* m **m^ii m. fSTtSSi 2d 

fc^ + *i»jr«8« 8*1 d pr«^.itiM bm | '« 0f . ", tl - ld 



Ny tb. mmmm ©f mm ihtm any. 



*^* g * i m? i f i ! i-i:f M ; yt y a ^^tiy her &fair rtLXY&Gm ic «aw^ TT7\ 



S^v Lf^S nt V* her€itc »«S^^, '••-rk.d. Exhibit *• 

So?*ort^LfL^r e l tb ^ e e****»t« t" be^xMi%d^; It. 
.SJ^fi L ^ ifcs ¥lc ® ^tldM** ittMttd by Its *#«r«t.r» 

f«^r fir»t MM« -rittM, (it^liea MMlJ F 

^r (siga«d) M. t, Qrinnibiiy^ Jr, # 
(3«<«1) ** i ' l0 * i're.id«nt« 

es J ( i,rned) Jo»eph , | ua# 

ltd* *at* -eoret^ry,'' 

it i. ■M^taM * * ft. muft i imum i mm en th , b,,,,,,^ 

«*» rtloh thl. MM* it tow**, ,„ d i, slj;nsrt by tl „ - |f „, , 
jotiita witu >-rt«ntbBu« ;ont Inttatmnt OMptar, for 









' 






Ml I 



• ♦ 









n • 



?» •! #1 






*'■ 



s 

the benefit of the holder of the rtthia bond,- 1 

It will to* sated *H»t the aggftinjut toft ween Ureeaebeua 
Sobs iasrestae&t Coapsjay sad the defcadABt Is ml ta«t the d*feBd:*nt 
vllX be diiete.rged f?*»is say liability &n tbe feoKds, hut thit -;;reeas- 
bm» Soas iarestBeat ^©»»ftay *vlll Hold the s--id ^raetaer harmless 
from aay ead ell liability, aoeis *ad efevrgee jjjfl&ftJj **y. he il-.bls 
or atth^eet P &roal&g out ©f or ©a &®^oua* of the ex®c«iti®» of s&JLd 
gftiBif to ssld iawst&eat eo.ana&y' of the said #u«r&aty &gJF«&aSfct 
deted S*e<reafeer SQth, 113%* (XtAllss ours) HI this t&mmft 
r-jsotiBts to is th^t If &T-mm®r Is eoispelXed to pay* thea sad la tl 
ease OrssaebauB Sons lares tmeat %afsa**y *1U iadeamify hi®. 

la our oplaie?>, this a^reeaent teas bo sffaot oa pSaUs* 
tiff'e right to a&iat&ln the «etio& la station, *a*ther ha required 
the boads before or after they Matured* in view ©f this fcoidiag. 
it eili not be aaeesaaxy toy this eourt to pass upoa the otaer 
oueatioas r»4.s*d toy defendant. The jtidgsisat is, therefore, sffiraed. 



■ _j .-■» . -.;.::,.■. I'., ■ ■ ■ J' 

■ 
. ... , • ;; ;•, ••:- , ij. ■■■' -w ■■-■ '• m*t ' f " 94 MM Ml 

■ 
• 

• 




36473 

ASTflA - Y B a 

eorporntion, 

3e fend* at in £rror, 
v. 
8* H. J rttg trading ta .. fia 

Uslatlff in teSfft, 

Opinion filed Feb. 7, 1934 

This l« a* a$»pea froa ft judgment of the oireuit Jourt 
•f Cook Couaty *£»ia«t defendant for the sua of i," ■■ -. y entered 
In »n notion in trover, brought by plaintiff to recover the v>lue 
of an e.uto«obil«. «m«A it U allied defendant avwgftuiy converted. 
The trial w*s by the court without ■ Jury. 

To the daol* ration filed In the taa** defeni«..nt filed a 
pie* of the &**** %mm *ad 1 special pie* tli dieoh.rgo 

in bankruptcy. If theae plena, plaintiff f||fta rriicUws, in 
whioh it is sieged taet the mm of <*otiun by .luntiff ia predicted 

a the mmm •* ■*!&* W* anlloleu, injury to toe pontiff. *nd 
ft* the ouu iu orated by frn»d, .vie., propria ion aad eaberrleaent, 
*M toe plaintiff M j ui y iot h, i>^9, »*. the owa** of *a ,:ubura 
Sport ladaa, *nd oa tan d*y delivered it to MM llf»i«wMl under a 
•eriee of doeuaenta known M ■ "floor pi*** . WJ1 &e«*nt, providing 
thtt the title *** retained in the pU&fttlf* until the fuU sua of 
'1,181.37 thould be pU by the !■ Initial to the plaintiff} taet the 
*uto«obile ehould oontinue U the poeaeeeion of the dafead nt until 
Minted froa the Om plan Wl^Mit, or removed by the plaintiff, 
•ad that eaid ro.erty ehould be r turned to the ; l^intif f on de«,nl; 
*M Ut ll^ltlff g fc l H not sell, loan. r«nt, deliver, lllHj J|_ 
**•**« or otherwiee diapoee r the rorerty, excet ,t on written order 











, 



£5ex t V •cfe'S fcaift noiciqO 



. 



ftp4*$* f* fl 









•If? r8,x 



i 

froa the plaintiff releasing the mm* upon p&yaent to plaintiff of 

the rmownt $ti3ul*.fced in the 8Mp>e«aeat} th^-t notwithstanding w%A 
written agreements, the defendant, without the knowledge or eonsent 
of the plaintiff, without obtaining *ay fidMNMMl 4 and without .ikying 
the dliffin sum of money, and in. violation af the defend&at'ft duties 
as bailee and trustee, eotst timt auvaetfueat *o July 10th, £9$# f 
sold, JBIgfiftjitt of, &nd oaswartad the pga p tl'tf $• h&t own uase 8 ., mi 
tit© proo©^® of the ®«le taereef • 

fiie defendant 9*9 in the business if dftn&tal in sutoa©— 
biles in §g£ $%ft tinder the nmse of &n.wi« K0$9S l$&99§ **l Inintiff 
99*1 in the t^ljagga of fine&ei&g sat#»Mle de->,l«ra§. ®a July 10th, 
1339* defendant* 9* Q'-Tia sinter 3*l#& by |« I« i*JR&9# «c#©ut^d 
<»jad deliwertd to plaintiff -a ebettal aaxtgaga oa an ailarfl Sport 
sedan* atrial So, 3T973808, motor la, 3$$4S, to seenr* the pay sent 
on B not® of th'-t date for fllil.Sf. &laa ©n the »**• data defendant 
gave to plaintiff what is referred to ia the ^ostr^.ct kg *?. trust 
reeaipt ei^aed # 3*wia Motor Sal©*, toy . ;. toffe*** &y sattifc the 
receipt of the *utoaoblla deaerltoed i« ftall^tfl edgaa BAA by «MQh the 
anker agreed to hold the ©utosiobiie at the property »f the &etna 
Aeeeptanee ao&r^ny* for the purpose at nt®tlng, the s*»ae, and "-greed 
to keep it MS and not to operate it for denenetrv.tion or otherwise, 
aad to return the property to the Aetn- MMH (4 MM J caps ay oa deaaad. 
Also, by the terns of this agreement* it fcg agreed th-t the M&B99 
would not sell, loan, rent, deliver, anrtg^e* -ledge or otherwise 
dispose of the automobile to any other parson exeept upon tbe written 
order froa the Aetna *eeept«noe oo-v. Nsf for release froa trust, 
apon payment to the eoapaay of the ->acnmt res /ulred by the order 
n the endorsement on the b ok of this eo*a<illed trust reoeir>t 
•f n release froa the trust aJJUsfttf to hr.we betn oreated thereby, 
^lso, there was delivered ftt the sassf tiae to the plaintiff e blU 
of sals i«M July 19th, 19^9, executed If ^ria «otor J*ies, by 

. . J wis, defendant, by *hi«h the -utoaobiie in rtue.it ion waa 
••■way ad to the plaintiff. 



.i autre «At 5«aiai**itr **i : *t 

v*»*$* »rfi ni aa# ;*awoirr 

tifcfa ftio- 

.-.anon to mm #voc« atf# 

, ' *»oe ,*»:' 

fro* % aav ff*a i yjhtaajorr t '.-o iwcoqiit ,fcio« 



m l tazavllti ha* 



WH*ft 9&t SO c . I £f * 40 

►anal** ai fatiw >t •▼«$ 

art* , ■ oat 

li batfZ: ►'Tiaoa* 

% t> I ton &«« aaa #1 <r»»< 90 

:■ \.-. v f. .' , • « riji ./..;.• - r • n 

i :>/(* v 
to agJbalc t »£i'3*xo» ,*av . #oxr alue* 

«•*. .ioaT»<r i*Ai9 t«* o* alitfoaotwp arf* to aaa<faifc 

»oaA anta* ad* aavi iab*a 

!.»*" a4# la x«*s«*s>f» ■ 
-©« ait aaraoa* arf# fl 

,^d«tr *aar# 9** aoti aaaaXi 

,oa-U 
^u , t9* *ItkQ %4 99tM99r9 ««&«! «*#'. bmUib 9l*t 



I c»' »-iT:fC-.!\ 



3 

The tri<L mm by %Ikv court without ft jury, tmA ».fter 

ijftlii flit linn <Saa evidence, tine oourt eatered the felloe-lag findiaga: 

•fh«s $*tsxt find*? fea&i the defena«nt *a§ not tataataa' 
by *ay wilful or exialrul lata*! ia Alaisoeiag of tnc mi 



*?h« 9aaaet finds .teaert a. @ via guilty of legal 
conversion of the property of the tafifi "*d 

In tue cotfat la trove* Heretofore file (§»** 

"fhe ESttttft find* il»i the BOfoBdaal in thla omae 

«a« not &«nu&t©d if say wilful, aaaiisv. ■-■ i-slnpl 

Intent in disposing of the O-ir in question.* 

"the asrtirt finds the defendant guilty of tronveTaioa*" 

fhereuwa the @m»yt entered §a&gmtt$ Ml trover e§e|JMt 
defea^Uat, and la eata by euoa judges t aa^NMOMft the g&aamti$J I gea 
la the ®um of :i # O00i»90 tad Ispiti of the euit* N #«MfcMfl l MMptti 
to the entry of thla Judgment, and froa thle $tg%a3a£ the 099a i 
herein use prayed awi g$|£a£&i 

The defendant «t®«a m ; ;rouiad§ for rerar*-.! th--t the 
alleged ooaversioR of the ia£ ia $a*at&08 ?vs ROt t etuatoi by *ay 
arllful, ralieiaaa or erisalwi intent; JMfc faO rltia of u*.i»tiff 
agaiaet defeadsat fag provable ia eatfaiMfligfla aed th t tefeaeaat»i 
dlteh rge ia bankruptcy whioa wse ^Torea, ?eted 5*,® 9 diaoaerga of the 
elftla unon «hiea the eetioa herein i« jjji/iay *t la further eoatandod 
by the defendant Hfcfci he aftl the figMf la Mill, the tat ia enaction 
and Arplj th# proceeds in payment of Ml iflMMM --liege?! to be duta froa 
plaintiff to defendant ia the sua of S& f 39a>4 -. 

li to jfrataei or not there aoot be 1 showing of aalloe 

or wrongful intent upon Mb&fll to MfOJUati Uor, !■ trover, tbia 

•a t ari in iata&tt. ▼. ^SiBl&* S5 ill, ■• ;.. 37/ ? ii; 

"A wrongful intent la oat aa eaeeatlel element of 
the conversion. It ia enough la this *ctior», th.t the 



rightful owner ha a been deprive;* of hi a property by 
unauthorised *ot of MMfaaa« aeeaaSJftf float 01 en or oontroi 
over it, jipyoe v. ,-?r90Kff,'.,Y. :1 . V. ISO. very alight 

agency or iaterferenoe pill a^ke one liable ia trover, 

IJI^ v » ■^-M-f l fflfftf» 5 ?>eoio, &?7; see ; ollatt 1 . _..__r,:.^ 
30 111. 1pp. 5$fi t oit^d.'* 



- I 









1 .. ,,. , 






.' -I %■ 






St « ■ 



•jrrir A&iii* swys mt*lo 
i io i 



■ 
■ 

• a 






4 

it la apparent fr©« th# v t1qu» fcgreeiaenta »»de bettrfi-m 

the parties th*t toe plaintiff r<?t~ined. euU title, doainioo *nd 

eontrol over tbia mitosobile, that the defendant toad no right to aell 

it without plalntlfPa eoneeat, *.nd th\t he iftd guilty of wrongful 

eoneersion when he Aid »o« After defendant eold this "<ot©;aobile, 

he filed a ▼oiuat&ry petition in bankrupt ey arid aoheduled (fee (tain 

of plaintiff «,id« hereia fagfei awed to plaintiff, ffltfjllimtfl 

«9« discharged in the fe a a towy tN^ pyo o yadl mg, and mob i ha 1st* tfcst 

auch dlaoh;.?rg« is - her to this proaee-dlng* I5ft iiOetg? ▼• • onthayn 

^purity 3a«. 14? . • "• i , m& $ the eourt sal |j 

*k creditor having; a debt eec na ra d by title to 
M*ptWt$g ehere hie debtor 1* ftdJodfed i Toiunt^yy haahrunt, 
©*m, if he does not prove hi* ieht in Dm a . -: r>t«y ©ourt, 
inatituto an aetioa i« trover fat the t ®w r mxf of wstik 
property, satg is entitled to obtain * money ,, • >. -, -mat 

hia debtor for the valne of the gt tpf flftfft y 
Last lad p&fta of dieohftrg* la tatafcrvntey* 

Thla court holds tMt this elnia &gsiaat aafendaat *&* a#t effected 

by defendant's discharge in bankruptcy, i'he p&&m% is, therefore, 

-f firmed. 



mM>* ■ ta aim, i : . . re , 






- 









- ' 

T9TtW 

AM *~* 

. ■ 









' 







*eso7 

WHUfl ■"•■• = -i- •' : 

QOttFAAT, M Trustee, 



0£- 



aafendsnt - Appellant* 
9% t. ft&HE V, .ec?ivcr # 



I - 







O 



1- 



Opinion filed Feb, 7, 1934 

The iffptal in this ©«*• involves the ease Gertie*, the 
aaa* properties* and the anaa questions as are InvoltrsKi in MMM 
*io. 30506, and ib« Jeeiaion the** is lenitive uer« a fatftfbMfg 
the o use is reversed HMl nmmiilnUrf for th* p#»«caui stated in e*ae 
ko. 2G506, aj|| ?:ith 'Ureotion® to ©nter fcjM Bf&S* M in 

*©. MfOaU 



-• ■ ;. 



I OK, J., ftttd ■. .., ... . 






. 












. 


-• 






. 



£Sei ,7 •09'? baLft noiniqO 

< 



bn* «• 










. . 1, *e«ivcr, 



n ..-■ 11 



3 i 



62 



Opinion filed Feb, 7, 1934 
KS. ; r|HQ fetflfi ;:..;,_.. -,.■.,••■ ■ . .■ ;;u ®j !... j j : >-< T . 

fat &pp*^1 in this §&M$ invc&v&s Hn §1 Bi ptgtiitf the 
INM properties? *m<i tfc# mm® -awtticms a© &$f Upps^lyii la «^»» 
So. KMflig ^ad Hut decision fc*a*sre !• 4e©i«si*o her®, th# reform, th* 
©%ue« is revSfsM nnd r«stt*ad4d for the mmm* ft fc I Iff «MNI ffff| 
36506. &sd wita directions to «nt*r th« •««• ff i ffl 14 in &©• 36506. 



.... .: . , ■'.. ■-. , 



« 



*Sei t 7 .de** *>»*** noinxqO 









. 












365^9 

Ml ...... 

MftPAJfY* M Tni9t«e 9 

Cos. pi * in*ni- : = pjp#3J 

U>fT «ffXS , | ft ,. .,:,., 

N f ©ad ant-* pr.oli 3Wt | 

■ i ffj ft******** 







Iff, 

27 3 I.A. t>28* 



Opinion filed Feb. 7, 1934 

**. .ijo ^ n . 

Wit iff*g| in %hU oase iWit&pti t i , ru»8, the 

a»at petit*** fttttf the „ H «**«* M * r . iaTolT^ i« fe*, 

«♦. 50506, «* th. a*** mm u mmm ****, hmmtom, m 

e»use i« mtrud &»$ MM f 0JP %h([ w . !0ORft „ t . ltfli lft mm 

Kt. 36506. ft* » lt Ji dlwiotlont U tKtft* «»* km „*, w ln ^o. 
36506. 



nU0B , -. 



£561 t T .del belli noiniqO 









36988 

Jefendsnt in fcrror, 
▼. 

KAIffl& a at ■£* 

•/I^intiffs in s:rr©r. 




b" 



Opinion filed Feb* 7, 1934 

fly this writ of err©*, Joseph £naakl snd 3t&ftlfty .urek # 
plaintiffs in error, Sftftll If have a finding -?n& $!^p£&$ of the 
Criminal :-.>urt of Oook bounty reversed in and by -ssaiaa ftftftSi of the 
dafend-mta wae judged to be guilty af the «riet« of ki<in.T:.v.'iag # as 
ohr-rged in an iadietaient against these. I&ay wiff found to be of the 
n^a of 19 and 30 year* respaotimLy, sad w&©h ma; seatanoad to the 
Iliinois -.-efcrastary 6$ i-©ntia# for ft term ©f ye^ra, not leas than 
•Aft nor mors IHftH five. In other worda, #n indefinite or indetermin- 
ate sentence, ffeft hearing waa by the court 'without ft jury. 

The indiotaent oa Related of ifcfftf counts, -t.nl ohnrgee th- 1 
Joseph K.&aaki ?md Stanley 2ur*k on Kaf let, i)?- 1 , in "ook bounty, did 
unlawfully, wilfully ?nd without Imffnl -ruthorlty, forcibly 
seeretly oonfine nnd imprison *ithin fefefti si inst 

har will; did forcibly seise and oonfine *ylaa. Rlftgf with intent to 
c*u«e har to be ceoretly aonfined ftm4 imprisoned within the atata 
•Vinat her wlllj did inveigle • nd kidn« -ylae harr with intent to 
e*use her to ba secretly confined *nd icr rieoned within the stste 
against her will, 

Tha statute undaT *hioh defend nta were indiet.ed ind ooa- 

▼ioted, MUU'I Illinois lewiaed Statutes, 1 , I •.», *&, I »r, r*77, 

prawidaet 

oarer wilfully ana without lawful authority for- 
oibly or secretly eon fines or iaorleens ftftf other «r«on 
within thia Btata ■ -\inat hla will, or foroibly o rries or 
sends auah person out of ths -.t, -te, <>r foroibly selsee or 
confines, or luvelgles, or kidnaps say oth r prion, ^ith 



\ 






I 



. 



. 



£5ei t T .del Jbelil noifliqO 



;»eot «toTT9 to fit* * 

rtftb 

'. * 

***& M 

7X*t9bRi. to »*i;flil«fe;. , »*»v.H a*-iii stott toa MM 

bit?. Yifx'iiMrf.* ,^i «YXXulw«Xmr 

ft* J >* *>i& |XX2* TO* 

o? tjiftial rfJl* TOJftltft *«Xr TPfdbiX Iuij> «X^iw<ii bib ;XXiw tod #mX*i* 
»*«*fi ftd* nidi iv fcOnoolt -ai *fl» fcoiUlnoo \I***0«ft *© o# tail «V*a 

• tut* to#OiJ»fll sis* I ••* xtoin tottfiu »#v#«*a «4T 

,W «qiufC . i>»»iv afcft ,i)a*olv 

; 
iw ten xXXttlXXw tift^OfiH* 

»• ^i.-^TOS, 

« Kid ta 

AtliX* tO t ««IaiOT*l to »••■**" 



- 






i-5dJo \oa oaool 


to toJhito 


il OTOt 


to aoaXo 


• tXefioto* 




the iat^at to &*$ui* such person to be s«er?tly confined or 

imprisoned In this stete * gainst His will, ©r to MM smeh 
person to tee sent out of the :;v v . «inst >jis will, shell 

be iiSprisoB^d in tae penitentiary for a §**• of not lesa 
than snt jr#Kf aiMl net exoe«din# £4*« *#*»•* or fined not 
exceeding il,000,$3 or both. * ' l ** 

it is Vie contention of defendant* thfct the trisl court 

wsa in error la %h~% no definite term of imprisonment ft** fixed by 
the judgment that the judgment should, flMft*#fs#% fee reversed, and 
they cite 0«?hiil*s Illinois 'usvised Statute*, 133&3, $**£• 9t, **»♦ 

795, aji futhority, sis follows : 

*§ee. 1. That in ail 9m«&8 where say ©erswm, isale or f sarnie, 
over ten y#«rsi of age, shall be ch^r^ed \<ath sita#t of the 
offenses of misprison of treason, carder* r^pe or fcid&sning, 
and the ease shell fee tried toy i jury, wm the jury ehe.ll 
find the defendant guilty, the jury sfeXl sIjhi by it* ver- 
dict fix the punishment, $nd if the punishment Iw??os©d is 
imprisonment, the jury sh^ll fix the $#.!« of such i&rrlson~ 
sent ; |f the. 8-r?.gg ,. l&jHflJKft ..h j..,t.M, .g g^rt,* .Jffi,M*QH.lL.g . 

ajJaai jaa»4ffiMffifctJy&bfi jiiiQiislL Hi j jmIm%^ Jm uL 

lwBri.»oanen|> and the court ia esoh 9s.se, shall fix lie |Ojmm 
of confiaeasent. In <ivery such ©*.$«? of fciqwisongient, the court 
ebsH sentence the defendant to the penitentiary, except *« 
ia provided in classes on® and two in section three of this 
Act, «nd ia such .oesee the court any, in its discretion, 
commit ns in those §iaB»#ii provided, ivery person so sentenced 
shall c* held in the •.©propria tc institution, ftamU is to say, 
the Illinois $*«*« t'eniteniinry or the $t*kt* ^fafttKteif for 
women, for an tturteg the definite t«m in §s4MI sentence nsaed, 
subject to parole end subject to m earlier iltch^r^a, ■'■■>; 
in this fcft provided, by the Sepertaeot of '-ublle Kclfa**, *nd 
it shell 1MB deemed MUt talMRi ft* Jto#t of every such sentence 
that %11 of the provisions for gavels - nd dluN in this 

ot contained s^sll he s pv.rt of sail A ily is 

though written in it, 

every person sentenced Mas eu^fuitted under thiesention 
•one 1 shall, in the discretion of the aepsrtasnt of ) uhlie 

•«lfare, be eligible to parole under rules ->ni regulation* 
adopted therefor by the BMSjrfmHKl of i'ublie 99Xtvn$ suoh 
p*roles to he as follows; i-ersojie tvKtfflMNM for life may he 
eligible for peroie ti the end of twenty yeare; oerson* not 
senteneed for life but esntemoed tot iefiait* t«r« of ye^rs 
shall not be eligible to pajftlt until tM or sh<* eh'-li h«!ve 
nervtd the sainimuai sentence : roviied by law for the orlse 
of which he or she was convicted, ,q:A ti:ae being *ilcwed as 
provided by ln»j nor until he or she 8h-*li h*ve served at 
le«s3t one third of Vie tl*e fixed in **ld definite sentence. 
1% is UBMMta provided thitt the definite s< nVmc* >rovldsd 
t M in thjg section 'one* *hall be r ? viic-bie only to the 
9Wffl fRMiitr^ted in t his eectlon 'one* -nl dsf.nlte acntf-nosf 
flhnll not be s: oilo-.ble to eny oth r oriae or effenss tinwr- {■*-' 
ilLJM § Mi ^4 further, th^t l.ndeter.nir ^ te in .-en*r»l 



r;rs» til m*v 
** r s.ktrl 3 titse^hul •At 

i t*t$t 

» ■■ 
< . . . 

i lf9t X9VO 



i 



->. 











• 


' 












mtj 


1 


',*„ 


I j . 


1 1 ■ 




' :•/.(: 1 






sentences shall fye&jji to alia g$&gl ggmlM '■"*** cffenaea 
en umerated GZBB 5£ frv* BuB 15 aJpfijal offenses 
enumerated I n this. jjJH M SBiVU 1 (IUlios ours) 

;3y this Act It is very definitely rsrovlaed th»t inon one 

being found guilty of kidnapping^ and "if the -punishment imposed is 

imprisonment" tb' 3 t •« definite iers of imprisonment" snail be fixed, 

aad the?® is no distinction in this ftynjNl made in the fc#t between 

the different kinds of kidmr.Tvlns; there defined. 

Counsel for the ttm-mi site the $*•§ of i-eoifta v. *old , « 

343 111, 402, n,& Authority for the proposition %m% she crime charged 

i.e», and of which defendant a eere found guilty, is *|MMMsn iss? kid- 

aappiag*, and th'--t the indefinite sentence imposed in the esse at 

bar was proper. In the esse eited, s*©ld iftt four ethers were indicted 

and 
for the eriai* of kidnapping for ransom, a sapaxtttn/diatlnet crime 

here 
from tnmt for which &afmnd^nt«/were indicted m& convicted. ?he jury 

in the '-old ess* found defendant® guilty if * kidnaping for renaoa in 

the manner KHi form m* charged in the Indictment** it vet there 

insisted by plaintiff® in trror in Htm I t lpWftaf Stales Hkftt the Terdiet 

as quoted above Noli only ft finding of guilty sf feidn&-.?pln£ t there 

being no finding thst there was I pugfijl or Intent to esttort ransom 

from the person* kidnapped as charged in the indictment," The oourt 

distinguished between the turn aeflnitions of fcldn* 9 ing, and held 

th't the verdict was proper* It did, not M the question 

raised here. 

In no Die v. ood r Hi ill, 388, the defendant **s found 

guilty of incest, i'he Question involved was in effect the same as 

is raised here, and the Supreme Oourt Smldf 

"The verdict found plaintiff in error • guilty of incest 
in mennsr end form as ehurged in V e indictment, the crime 
rith which plaintiff in error 7^3 oh-rged is that defined 
by section UN of the rimi s, and the -unishent fixed 
hy th^t section for its violation is imprisoa-uent in the 
penitentiary for ■ t«rm of not less than ons ye*r - nd not 
exceeding twenty ye-rs. lhe judgment antsred in this case 
does not seateaee plaintiff la error to imprisonment in the 










bas 
\ 



9iexf 



■ 






i 

MM I .•■ ft] ; - ;" • . 



ttA ■ i 



•A 



fcfli/ol ft 



Nftj 



•MM i 






■ 



»>•&%*(§* 



. "! If H 






.rout hero mine!.** *Witenti?*r/ or in ?ny ether ?«nrl insti- 
tution in tb« ftteti of Illinois. It MMW&f -3 treat* the 

sheriff to deliver the prisoner to t&* w«r&ea of the 
--enttftafci^Ty %t 4hMt#t &JS3 t*i§s*aSH&« the tardea to confine 
$feg niaewtf is safe and secure custody. *&if is not suffi- 
cient, ffti (MbmiM Mist definitely fis the p&a#* of lae 
orieansusnt sftl t&e place mn.st M oat fixed toy la>w« The 
»&§M&$ not only f*?.ils to 111 the g&aewp *f i«j>rie«naient hut 
it does act in tatf manner fi* th« fcersi of imprisonment, y 
virtue of the prevision® of t&e $9$ of UU in ral&iiaa to 
the sentence of per acne ©anviated of ®wtm $ i.he judgment of 
the smart should h/ ; v@ beta & geaernl s$n&gno« of imprison- 
ment in the ~'s©Mthem llljt&aia ftli&%ifel&ft|y fa* % %®m not 
exceeding treaty yew.rs. {smith's*, stat. Wm% p* fW$}$ £h# 
teres fixed by 1st section af tha tftiabMsI di&p pilatiag t© 
the eriaia of shies the prisoner ft and© convicted is ft 
lato every judgaieat, ant it iss necessary Is Stata 1b the 
judjgaaat the sa&g of the crime, or so deaeri&e it th»t it 
Otaim identified by tn-@ -mztimu in the s%s# of incest, 
there are two Motions at the ^Tissinnl tfa&e d^aorihiar; f*a 
different crimes &«d each fisting a 'different t#ra* af Igpfl a t afr" 
sent, plaintiff in error et&nda convicted of afehefciting 
with his own daughter, ajtft that |i tfera oris® Ifest <sust fee 
described in the judgment so thai tia# ^aithitMimt timd for 
thrs.t offense will ha t&feaa as s &«$i of U&t Sientcii<?«, ^srjfther 
written in tm j.tadgi©tnt or a©*« 

£l^iMiiX^AB.f,K T ^f l afiT^,ar ^^.fi^^^.1^ ff ^U> f-4l 

act eatitleft to -^acrthe? tnni agyttjy.^usc -tf bh<; €rror 

so3 ill. 164: frSftpa&.T. _iijy^, iii Ou ij ^.^j^m T..,u-gaU» 
153 id. 446.) iByugiLjpgal^ 

fhf jwi^#nt !• yT#g i 8 <wi ifti sh« s?: ; ?as-f? lis reaa^.rKitd to 
the ei remit court of •wlnski county witli l<s-fv* t',- ' •*t#p- , «i 

sitt©raey t& mo^t the sourt far the tBtry of i ^POfMnr ftjfiiWl 
ttpen ih« verdiot hm9 titu &i**«tiw»s ko th« tmrt to "ilor 
saeh aotioa Ukl r«-s«nt«na« plaintiff in &*!&*•* (It^llaa ours) 

M hold th>it the farlal IMWrl here mm in ers^or in wot fixing • 

definite terse of imprisonment. 

the judgment %M§ therefore, reversed ftnd MMMMiii rith 

the direction to the trial ocurt to re-sen tenae defendants for a 

definite tens, ^e provided by »t-mtute# 






■j 



i 



-•-■.. 









% mtto 



t 



tnl 



■ 



% *tx 



■ 



- 




[BtHt 



■•> at 



I ifOtfH 

I ■■• ■ ■ . . i «*** «• ' 

>« iSIll •til 






. -^ellee^ 



; .?H-HO ? * MURfAfftNl IlifWI 

Uie. t • Oerpor-ition, 




*y o 



\f 



Opinion filed Feb. ?, 1934 

Mil. isstiii mm& mm ■ 

fho defendant fe$$| M 1« to till* eeyr* frost ft jIlipWHIi for 
3SSS.30 entered |g£Nti§ i f^s&jug for tbe plai»tifjr by the oourt upoa 
■ trial -aitnout i jwry, the actios b<;tng n fowrtn *S&&na ©eat****, 
ease in the **uni«ip«A Osurt of %i)ftftjpt« 

The &otiou by tit® pl&iatiff li spiff I alaia for ooaittlasiona 
iiUegi'ift to h&Tc besa earned 03a sale® s&ds by the defendant to * oue- 
to&er (The uowta&a j$$$a§f ^HjiftHy| solicited L-y ■ O^intiff 8* s^les 
agent for the defendant* ffef defendant denied ttet tfe* . <i»intiff 
*a* its wlitfi »geat» 

ihe plaintiff entered into 1 &mtxu®t with the MfefttMi on 
*ore*b«r 1S # ia30 # and the defendant e#fc*«sS* Hftt the tip! effect 
of the written contract is that the plaintiff ^rs n independent dealer 
with non-exolu*i*e territory privileges, aavln^ the ^l i; ,r.t to buy and 
b*11 the £&f eadaat • a vacuum cleonere* and thai &f Mi i . «ent 

dealer the p&B&ttttJ i t in MMMMNI *lth nlj| itfeftV Hill 1 WW^ wr\a entitled 
%• a profit or dieeount only on ,;oode Turohe.aed by hla froa the 
defendant. 

fait court la not aided toy • brief of MM • Wntiff 
at^tlng hia side of the controversy. 

:he contract provided that tne defendant agreed, to a all nd 
dellTer to the iointiff lta L^->nit tion J yetem at ita re#il*r rholeeale 

rice, ejad reserved the right to make Aeliveriee vioon ooneignment. 
The iaintlff ■ a to give tAfl full time to the business, and to aell 






%J ft Iri «1 U ( 

££61 t ? .dsl £>sin noiniqO 









• 









• 















, -ma^lw nee n*qu &*- »**»»•* *r 

XX*« «* t» • . *A* *l •«** XX^l »- ? •** 



3 

the elsgasvs far o&*h t or u&on tias peyaents && tersts arssoribsd 
by the defendant; sad the plaintiff »•?■» to pny for the cleafflsfWS 
paTSaased by Ma by turalag $t®t to the dof«ad*nt 4,1 conditional 
sales oontrftOts* meed olaaasrs sad »Ma received If the p&a4atlff 
fro® his eustoaere* *ha glstintiff *** til ©wed ■ disoouat «f Wk «*ad 
aa additional discoaat of l&j» on sasa received, and 10* ©a *ocoaat 
of installment |M|NMHli Ml long ea lit realised ■ dealer • 

ThS plaintiff dsaoastrntea defendant's ola«a*TS Ml the 
Soaaaa feiry *©&x«ny plant, sad the i^rsaaslag &$fiHi of the OofHai^ny, 
*©y *• aarrili* tola the t&alatlff to rstura ©a M^roh l#« follsalag 
the demonstration of the cleaner, for ®a orasta lit the ft&sat&sIS 
Lawrence IJfffWfflla who wise also opermtfusg u»der contract with th© 
defendant aosppaay* sold the System, ao-ctlled, to the Jtoaisaa Ball* 
Company for «*$&• 

fhe^e la evidence ta-at fee plaintiff Informed om f-xraell 
ttd Jrraak aallahaa, officials of the defendant soar-say, t!rt the 
plaintiff had aa appoiatasat with herein of tht tioamaa Ml? Ooarmny, 
pad tast he *aa going t© give plaintiff an order* 

the sale aad* fey Stfasal to tht iHiry nniimnipfl t«* not 
recorded in the defeadaat's books as beisag sold to the v<rnay. 

There is evidence ay BtfllWts the sslesann who closed the flsnl^ 
th-.t he received information froa oae aasartaat he, ItJ ul, could aaKe 
a s*le to herrill of the i>»iry lllHIiMlsf if he would tail* The ticket 
oov?rlng tao s*le vat aado out and lieted in serrill's a»ae. the 
issue ies 9as the defendant liable to the plaintiff under the f«ets? 
The court heard the evidence, there is conflict in the tsstiaony, 
end SfpsVSntlf 9 the court, in deteralniag the issues, took into 
consider tlon the ver-dty sal credibility of the ?itn*s«es. This 






« 






. 






? 






« 

- 



3 

court will not r&vers© * judgment unless It i® #nter«& ftytfJMft the 
manifest weight of t -;« evldeso®, %nd It ■■!« out opinion ttat the 
finding for the $j£jKt£$* is sustained t>3T $MMW Mi tfc«f ■■ 4MV in 
tne record, ©xoept Mi It tii© Msmawfe of ; . ■ |Mfo 

The evidenoe -3 ta the ^.stsowRt of agtilntd by 

the plaintiff, ia thai uePsul, »gent of the defe^ 1 r*y # sold 

two r*ova» clesnera MK& received ftSi.14 for his services, MM) this 
is eorrober&tsd by , ; :oy f| *-«Trill # iiivehftaiag *g««t tor the Mft»«n 

• iry ;©» tftgr, who testified th»t the §fe&$f Sfoapftiiay ^urcir sed t*« 
v*euutt »l«*ne*« # mi the! &o»© were subsequently gn&JM&ftMNl by hi« 
for the ^©japsay* 

there is some evidence offsred by i Intitff thrt 

the defendant's agent Jane®, Ml instructor ^hosse Puty it sms to 
instruct -aen of the defendant MM j PMIf in ite NiflNl : ft^JMJ Its 

product, in his talks to the ®en, spoke of seventeen systeas having 
been sold, to the itoimnji iteiry 9hstpftBfF« the amount of the eottnission 
en s*lss received by EftfstsA is certain, *«d in the opinion of this 
court, MMJl the reeord, the plaintiff V&S entitled Ml I N MMM for 
$38*14; th-'t the trial court *as in error |fli svto ring' Jui^ent 
against the defendant for t9tt*38 r>a& if |1 ,\\ %\.ft had MJfMWi 
in this eourt I .remittitur of <; : 837«10 the ^udgaent would have 

been - ff iraied for 38.14* Ho*evvr, qMJB this WI M lN MM Judgment 
it reversed and the Mhhft remanded, 

JU UMMB* 

1A1L, ;. . WIISO*, J* ooiiou . 









I 



I 






« 






■-xoa tmwf 






IflMBjhVt 






36536 

. sua , 

for us© of AMAnkii &, • . , 

Appellee, 




. 



umwurf - •• i v, 



* rf^B^ 



<S_ 



. o rx.« 



: ; 



Opinion filed Feb. 7, 1934 

an. ,;• • i . | .- i {• i . i <r. 

iJefendonte nrvpesl f*ea a judgoent of Ml entered toy 
the court tt$>o» r hearing eithout i Jury in s« notion in the Mutt " 
ci tt| -tourfc tf '*ai«ago t ©a am *ttae)»Kent twsM Is »id of * suit 
then pending, ^ioh bond *;>« exeauted "by the d*£e»**ttt*. 

The eetlen of the alalntiff 1® upon, the bead given in 
the Rtt^ohaetit oroeoediiige eigaed 1»y 8ea.ry M»dftt* tferauan Hereon 
end KftJfylffi&d JaounXty Oomsmny, e« etirety. i:->intiff sllegee 

Want the court upon a proceeding cusehed the s.tt*M5ha>eat on July 8, 
1933, and after | hearing in the instant mm entered the judgment 
appealed from* 

file defendants eoatend that the fttteAfcMttt bond, the 
subject of the suit, w?ss not intredueed in evidence, *nd ae e 
result the finding of the court mo eontr- ry to the evidence. It 
doee not appear thnt the I ■ttr.chaene bond 0*1 offered by tie eioJjBllff 
ftnd received in evidence. 

It ie admitted by 1*4 defendant* hlooh nd eraon in 
their *ffld»vit of merits th<t the tttfttl ect *--» ousshed, but in 
order to eetwbiieh I riaa facte o«»e end to ennble tne court, from 
the evidence, to enter I .vroper firding, it **« necessary, in 

Ltlea to thie «t amission in the oftfcicfM of erite, Imrt the bond 
in uestion be offered and reoeived in evi donee. obertB v. , rep. 



• -:V 



i 






: 

! 

■ 



I 



- 

• ■ 

■ 



. .. . 






1 c-unwn, 396; jgt. < ■ I v, 'h>.ney. 1 Hli n, 563. 

The pi; iatil'J' fe&YiMg filled to oii>r the t$$&eiNtMt i.cnd 
in evidence, the 1*1*1 court errsjS la lte fliuUn^ KMi *he ftttffMMl 
for the pi? intift ■&• erroneously »»ot.er«<t. The fR&rtt&ii M 
properly ksfors t&i® court toy ttag 3iv£^3»at«' MBlgJttMt frJ 
error UMi "the flailing of ths court Is eoatrsry to ''fee evidetieo. 
The jud, . *ent le therefore PtfireiNMMI and. the SNftM taaPMfaNU 

fgff ' r • • •;.{). 

■AM., f. J. 113 HMtg J. CO%'-fK, 



* ***** {••* <*mm*r 

■ ■ 




MtiltlCilf JUL J0» 




tHK mi na& faast a s«xaa3 ato, 

eilnnt, 

ai>p©uc* ) 27 3 1 • A* '6 2 9 

Opinion filed Feb. 7, 1934 

sin. <yus?ias msm% mutm - si 

this U aa sijpesl by the plaintiff from a judgment for 
the defendant eat I red in the &uaioip®.l Court of $&fcM&&0 «<>oa a 
hearing without l jury* Hi **©tion if forolhle entry sad it$ttft»§f 
waa brought by the plaintiff $g«in»t the &*£aBdaM& to t*ke isotseaaioa 
of the pr«ai«08 doeorlbod ia the ooaplalat, t&s -.i-i.itiff sliegiag 
t;vt it is entitled to the -passevaioa of 8 eert^in »>v»rtrseat 
2545 Alt gold 3tr*et» CJaioago, Illinois, fc»fl taat 'be lopotaa unlaw- 
fully withholds possession. 

ivitiff la ttet trust** by reason of a oert*m trust 
deed whioh oosveyed the preaiaea involved in this «rooe** dings. . y» 
meat of rrinoiywsl due oa June 31, 1931, is in default nfltitTlUBH to 
the t^rae of the truat deed and fey ths prevision* of the trust deed, 
plaintiff ia given the rigftt to t*?ke possession of the preaises *ad 
to coilect thfi rents, laauaa sttfl , rofits taaieftWh On . , | , 

it entr-r^d into possession of the premise* sad appointed one Ike 
Fiaha: n, one of the grantor* in fjaftA truat deed, tf it* **£ent ia 
Managing the building. flehmnn, with thi knowledge *nt of 

the other groat ora in a* id truat deed -eat to the fouildi i, 

lWa # sad served notice signed by the plaintiff uioa the defendant, 
a tenant ©ooupying part of *ald preaises, to jwy rent only to the 
plaintiff *a agent, Lit* notioea were serred on the other tenants of 
the promisee to pay rent to plaintiff^ agent, and aotioee of the 
election by the trustee to ooileet the reata wer<* sent to the ankers 
of the trust deed, the owner* of the equity of re Amotion. *isha*n 



MM 



« 

i 

fli. 

1 »»«lat«l Mft 
tttttfss »i hnw •*(* *»*IXoo oJ Mliitnt «tf* Y« floi#»i«L« 



I 

ml plaintiff's S$9S$ managed the building for s^ver-si months, 
collected Ha rents, and HijlMHM to plaintiff on June 8, 1J33» 
*ug»«t 16 ttMtf 3S, 1933* 

jhraa the recounting it appmaTn that the dofendnnt p?id 
rent to the plaintiffs Sfcgta&f th--t Hshifian'a -'vuthority mi ngilft 
was rey©ked and tiv-t one. Joseph &• Lelbois «ii appointed fc«# 

14 plaintiff I agent; th- 1 statutory notion WW nereed upon the defend- 
ant by LcHMNff demn&iag payment of the seemed rent, meA mm i-.llure 
to p^y, the plaintiff demand #4 ponseosion of the premises occupied 
by the (lnfHiJUtlij 

the defendant upon the ferial of tae eeee offered no 
eTidenee, end upon the state of the record the court fo ottf the defend- 
ant not guilty of unlawfully withholding from the plaintiff possession 
of the premises described in plaintiff 'n eempinlht. 

n this appe^a no MHMM *?** entered by the defend- 

ant, MMl this court la without the benefit of the theory ur>on which 
he b-vsee hie defence. 

the plaintiff iij true tee contends Kri I '^ing entered 
upon the premise* for condition broken, 04 authorised vender the term* 
of UN) truet deed signed by the grantors, MM xeeeived payment of 
rent from the defendant, | tenant of the aortg-igorai, the r«l^tion of 
landlord and tenant exists, MMl the plaintiff em trustee can *>int*ln 
forcible entry and detainer upon failure or *#fu*-?-l Of the defendant 
to pay rent for the use of the premises occupied by hlmj thr>t payment 
of rent for the remise* by the defend*** to th* l intiff is *n 
attornment. 

It eurnt be -Imitted M « fact appearing from the record th*t 
defendant w»» in possession of the described promise's , rior to ths 
dats of plaintiff »s collection of rents; th t possession ass delivered 
to the defendant by' the mortgagors if landlord; and that defendant 
fcas slnee occupied the -remises as lessee* 






■ 






I 

1 

I 

toft #!»' 

■ 

■ 



3 

It naa been held to foe the rule toy the lu pta* * CJourt 
Id the cr.se of jm v. mflBW> 48 ill, 160, that I tensnt In 
possession oannot .tttom to ft itSWrngfts* or set up purchase of a 
title fcgriUfcft hi* landlord, although it may be ft paramount title, 
without first delivering poatession of tae ^remises to hi* landlord. 
••'** ; ^ieo a-.rdln v. Ew«vtfaa f at al. # 99 1U. al£* The tftftt th 
t&e defendant £|£ pay rent to the plaintiff does not, *.ft«T a default 

iftflfta t of rents due, gXre th© plaintiff right to possaaslon of 
th* premises* nor aid th® plaintiff in the ripht to maintain this 
for* of motion. 

The plaintiff bssas it® right of -nation ypen the trust 
deed signed by th© mortgagors conveying to the pls-intiff Hi *•** 
estate described, $6 secure th® payment of th® amount of the lv 
upon the conditions set forth in th* trust deed. Th® title no 
delivered is n baa* or determinatl* fee, and. in ym«lB$Hg upon fta anal- 
ogous question ftft to tfat right of th© trustee appointed in ■ trust 
deed to Mftl*ftt£X ft forcible entry H9ft# detainer motion, this oourt 
in the ana* of c p^y pi'm-it gagHHg *• ,J itt^ar. 9* .»x. Mb so. MM0 . 

*It ia the contention of tha plaintiff tfeai ftftff 
default the fa* is in itself, ft* 3ortg*>g*s, tai its right 
to forcible entry and. detainer imms&latmijr atsaafcaa, fti it 
is entitled immediately to the right . . ••> ■ :*ssion. the 
Supreme :. v r*urt an* raoogalxed the right t© possession on 
condition broken in -iohrer v. - either p \j ?. 33© Hi. 499a In 
that opinion it s&idi 'Upon dafa^Xt in the oendltion of th*? 
•artgftg* the mortgagee has the ri^ht to possession ngslnst 
the mortg^or, his grantee, less*® or anyone claiming under 
hi* by any right. In suoh ease the mortgagee has saver 1 
r*«edia* stolen ha may s*nrsu* to enforce the payment of his 
debt, hs m«y sue the mortgagor in assumpsit for I Judgment 
upon the personal obligation; p* may sue ia I uity for the 
foreclosure of tha mortgage; or he amy recover the possession 
of the mortgaged property by en otlon of eje . These 

remedies are concurrent or successive, si the a»ortg*g*e may 
d**» oroper, snd he a»j pursue »ny two or "11 thre<* of the 
remedies simultaneously. ( Bradley v. diAfio. 303 111. 1&4; 
Om% ▼ . BUgKl 1M id. 86; ,^p n T. JXjr, 1 > id. 681; o.ers 

*• ^SZiZia f* I*. 938 ^. T Tffi l , ^ ;->-.^, C id. 9; la^t 
t, <illmon # 33 id. 30. )• 

*»».**» *•» + »* 

it is significant, however, thit an action in forolbls 
entry and detainer is brought lor the purpose of resostesging 
re-a estnte *hieh w? t s originally in the ooctesqion of the 



- 

i 

... 
I 



.'■•:■' 
- ; :••■ 






pi ••■••intiff. *Aa -<<nion of forcible entry tad iit$|a< * is 
strictly possessory in its astuxe, Kftdj unless otherwise 

expressly provided by statute, i paffaan wn& hr.!,a never been 
in poesea^ion af laffed ia&aat sisint.-lw tlM -otion to obtain 
poeaes^ioii; and if he ana amy title ox interest in the l*.nd 
he sjust, aa aaa toftttt at.--ts;i, a«»k to establish it In some 
otbex form of -■■■set ion, ftmexaXiy a... -c.-.fci »:,'., iw WNMw to 
maintain th© motion, it ouat nagtnag tbat p>l&iatiff mm in 
peaceful and ©jtoluaive p©9«***t«a of tan panadaa* in son- 
txevexsy Ml the tlsie of the sifi com^itincK? .jf, nftl th t 
he had been farnialey ouatad if that pnaaaaaiaft m,n p«*«e- 
fully obtained and foroiblcy withheld 'by aafagtdaa*, 1© 
suet tin nlaintiff ■a xfcgbt to restitution &&1 *b»t need be 
eis.o^n is tii'ft ^l^intif? ami in the &#$$al aa don of 
tbe ,:TQpertf and mm foraibly-diepoaaeeaid by def «ndent* ' 
20 voxpua Juris-, foxeible *>ntxy and ..:•«! ?*iner, !«#« 4$« p» 81®, 

the foroible Sntxy and S#i&la#3 :: ot $ 9fen», St, o»hiii«» 
111, Hvt m atat, 193:'-, . *. r* 3, provides: 

•Ta« person entitled to the Ei a aiiat aa if Sanaa or 
tenements aay be xratored thereto is the ssnaer nexiV'ftir 

provided; * 



ftN» this prevlaioa it an$aati laat tan »araibl* intxy 
uet»*i&ex A«t w^s intended to provide i naajta if souring 
possession fox some party i&a da| previously nana is poaa- 
eaaioa. tbe ilaisndn 1 to ft inoluaiva of ; tjpeaaa 8- relnta 
to tbe rigat to sipaaanaaioa by a party who bad rerlcmsly 
been in ^oseeeeion* the ©th olauae, however, axa fox 

tbe first tine to provide fox B«t««g«i8ft by forcible er.try 
pind detainer fox thoan wbo were not originally -.-oaaeaaad 
of tbe land* this elunat xe^da as folio-was 

% M£MLr iV ben imnda or teaaaeat'is Inann been liiifiyad 
by any grantor in p-aasaaaian, or sold under- the indnaamt ox 
daerae of any oouxt in thia §ta*a t ox by virtue of any i 
in nay aortgtiga ox deed of trust aantalftad, end fcbe grantav 
In possession, ox £«!$? to such jtt4$a*Kt ox rleeree or to auoh 
aangmga ox deed of txu«tt# aftax the a*oir lion of Ilia tisae 
of xedeaptlon, riisn radaeiptlQn i.e alXaaid by lavi rafusaa or 
naglaeta to auxxendex poaeeasion therfeof aflav ad in 

writing by the paxaon entitled thereto, if aia egaat* 1 

In tbe osee of UtKLfi ,s^lfX» ISO iu, . 393. it 

appa?.va Cant «a action ami brou^bt in foxci ila entry aftl 
dai ■■ iner tv> obt 1 r< waiiijadii if H i ■ t 1;-^ irder »h-t epMiMi 
to be e. txurit deed ox aafteaca on the prittiiaa* Altai quail 
ol»use 6 of Moaffani I of the Faxaihle s-atxy aad e t-iner 
ct, «* herein set forth, the court in ita onlnion in th I 
e«se, es»idj 

Dlo^n h«d never been in ffjjiiailan^ llitltiai aai lifa 

rbeae l^nda dad not be fa sold under ■sny juij,r«eat ox <1eerea. 
/ bfld in iuxnjsi v. i ieroe. ; . . , thet forcible 

detainer oould not be amint'i-.fii where the parly suing bed 
never been in poaee«elon, tbe language of tbe first pave of 
eaation 2 being tbat the pataaa entitled to .-.-oasesslon "eyiy 
be xeatoxad thereto,* • 

The pxopaxty involved in thie -.xooeedin^ w^« not eold 
under the jud^eaa* ox decree of ■ ny oonrt in thla itaii nor by 
virtua of any foreoloeure ».«ia in a*f mortgage or ;aed of 










. 






I 



- 






■ 



- 



Wk 



trust pwrtmlnst i ^» »f <twm t3>y| Hit rMffct* if Mf rl&ht there 
is In MM - < eiff, would be In the ..>roviaio$\ oreible 

entry sat &SV«iwl3 gftf xie Mfeta I , tf tenements h*ve been 
conveyed by aay gva&ti&V in psttSBSSlsm* ■<■«* 'la not believe 
th t c trust deed aoawss within tue is rovision, 

but fftffeta tii t it p.vrpliess fee straight gy nl if i«miMi 
by deed or coaveynne®, ieterg v. JS&&JU i?° **!• 7 ' : ^» r " T ~ 
tioulariy *ire we impressed *dih this 'Interpret. lisM oe«*uae 
of tae fnot thst in the st li ci-;uae 8 of :, h | of the 

Md it it provided thrt, G M i roT^elauur* of it jaortgaga or 
trust deed «nd -.'fte* sale sag after t..-e #x^ir^ti«m of the tioe 
of redemption, the action «?ill lie SpSft At ■ I by the person 
entitled to p#s#S$si6ft tinder the foreclosure proceedings. 
It Is ?»lso • sell established prtaoi&le t'rrt the f, <s i re no 
equitable defeases permissible in an sotion for Forcible 
entry j md detainer, but suob &s#s$ tl* only in 

i_e^urt of equity, £&&&, v. Bfelfe *upr»j i21dj}fx v. worm . 



9o ill. <\>p. S8| faagjl ▼• tomb *»i ***• 

Applying the reasoning in the ltt£$ of j^teJEJBMfl ; ° « v « 
ultta»r. supra, the plaintiff does not sea* within the provisions 
of the Forcible Iggfegp Si£ '.;et''iner M*ti S«l therefore WllWiH ?.ssint*in 
this nation, i'or this reason utkd the other reasons indicated in 
thie opinion* the JiUlgiMHtl is affirmed. 

HALi, F.J. SIS 4 „.■:., J, 



, 



8 IT 



• ■■■•« 



S6S70 

m*fik& aotH ?«d %Attu mm, 

Appellees, 

. I 
If and JGtlfi 5. •:*..«. r^Y, 

Appellants* 







« OR 

j 

Opinion filed Feb, 7, 1934 




AT- 



MH* JfUSTl-; I - M&H ■ >Ufl T* 

This was. en motion of trespass on the <v--»e filed in 
the Superior vourt of #o©3t auunty between the -i tafcli I i sJMft Hit 
defendants bsubkIi ft trial was Mad before s Jury* feMi fct the close of 
the hearing the ;Jusy r§tired # considered, and returned a T< Ki| >tt for 
the plaintiffs in the sua of £<130r»SO» upon sfl&eti $te* court entered 
| judgment and freta waieh judgement the iefeniWftdl £«&» I. ^Iinsf 
■la to this <Jourt, 

p| the sjMBBJii deol* ration the defend' ■ nt filed a demurrer, 
which vee witndrnwn, and thereupon the defendant filed I e&M of non- 
joint liability and a pies of th* general issue* SpftAt the laauee 
being joined the ease mi tried, and froa the evidence offered by the 
liti, ; :mts it ap;-eere substantially tfest tha i&nlfitlf fe entered into 
two written oontrrrets for the purchase of two lota leo^tetf in 
Mundeieln, Illinois; th t prior to the puroh*$e of the real estate, 
it was represented to the pi; imtfffe by I . .. Hansen, noting as agent 
of the aellera, that the lots were lee the oorner of I k.e and 

Maple avenues in fchmdeieln, Illinois; th- t the vxintiffe purchased 
the oorner lot for 43600 sfti | i id on Recount of the ymrc" ioe 

$800 in gold bonda Ml I in or>ah; tb^t thereafter the >l*intlffs 
puroh"aed the adjoining lot* upon the m u ranee of fehe igent i >neon 
th*t it was located as represented, aid paid therefor I33IO, a part 
ef whieh was paid in %. gold bend for !•**» and $00 in SOsfcj that 



. 



G St o 

£S6X t T .del belli aoiatqO 



• 






# 



, 









at the time paya*nt* Mm o*d* to apply on th* puroaese price of the 
lots, a $seaaorendu» agT*6M*nt wft* received te? the ^Inintiffa In whi«fc 
the lot® sere described a* Lot* 4 »d 5 in £lli*y*s i*ubdlvi«lan of 
aundelein; tfeftt thereafter tfo*e*l *oat*ft*ts # tetlti #im$j| 1, IMfj 
and February 1* 13S7, were HEUbNNNMl to the plminttff} tte.t those 
contracts were *lgaed by th* defendant «loba &« a if*n©y # individually. 
In one, i»t Sfl * bene fiel&i owner In the other, sitf I b /een*baua 
-oris &*nk I Truet It** ii trustee. 

:y&tat* **r* atnd* "by the plaintiff* -until fcpgtl 1, 13??, 
when for the first tin** limns** tfata, on* of the -.1 -l stiffs, visited 
*und*l*ln '■»& l*»ra*d that tit* 1*** itMlilii in t'hc- eoatr-'Ots 
executed oy the defendant* e*r* not located ii the ®ormv of {*&• *snd 
Maple "veau** in Mundeleim, but **r* altuatad la 1 different part of 
the subdivision; that the eidei^lk* MHM not Install*** m& at***** 
were not improved na represented by the seller* a *$IB£ii $$t there-, ia 
evidence tast ;i>\naon nailed upon the plaintiffs it their hoas, ex- 
hibited & plat, and pointed out the location of the lots; th^.t the 

iatiffe believed that the lot© were tifitll ea ISMP WHM*! k* 

snd Maple Avenue* in Muadolela, Xiilaol*, Mi th.Tt the r*iKesaent* ; ti©ns 
aede by "ianeon Mint true, thftt *t th«t tlate the ;l-lnUff*» stated to 
Heason they * *Et < 4 to see the 8,MHt| gftMtit thereupon KHMNNsj the Sfsatj 
at ted he would shoe tbea the condition of the Isnd, kfti exhibited to 
thea ■ vieture of the property, showing th*t iatyrovesventa bad been 
n*t5e; th t curbing and road* h.nd been installed, aad • *ti . n theae 

represent- tions, the contracts were entered into for tfei purchase of 

the lota. 

There la evidence in the reeord tfe*t the defenl;nt QlMf| 

together with Killer, rm tb* owner*, <*o*nowledg*d th* making of the 
•ubdi vision known as Kill*y'a ^ubdiviaion of Kundeleit., in -which the 
real «st*t* described in the oontraete ia loo *4**| tht the defendant 
John * 4 Clancy sdvan**d $4 # 0G0 to Ailiey, JM of MM urehsea prise 
for the tract of lead subsequently subdivided and known %e Kiiiey's 












. 






■ 

- 

J 






: 






, 



lo *»■ 






. 



. . ■- 



■ 



B ana 

■ 



3 

Subdivision of -shm&eleln, Illinois; flat $nli - I *a conveyed to 

toe ::vreeneto'*u« Sons !3aak & frost ; >aia:«ny to • I I daf anient 

.John V« %tN*y for the money advanced to Klliay fca • Hmmmi the lajsl. 

Th® defendant contend* th*>.t tfeavo If i oo»j.ilete 
by the plalltiffs to offer en donee to sustain the allegstione of 

intiffe* amended declaration. In this connection it h^s been 
called to oux *;tta&tloi fey the plaintiff tastt no action for ■ now 
trial* or I ruling- of the trial eourt th#r#on, is aafosdlad in the 
bill of exceptions, and therefore the sufficiency of tin evidence to 
support the deals ration. is not s*-rad for- review, 0pon s» exAalnRtloa 
of the sbatre.ot this aeeaa to he i f»ot« It therefore follows ftfcst 
the question of the sufficiency of Utit erldaaoa, m i astter v.!' r>», 
to justify submission of the Hmmt to the Jury ta not e&rad for 
review, nd this applies even, na in thle mmUg "'hare l motion for a 
ne* trill certified to by the Clerk of the v$urt» $14 i I r In the 
tr**nseris>t of the oreeeedings. In the esse of J, a. (j ■ ,. "-. - ; . :;o. 
*• .r-eclw cod. 194 111* -69, the court, |l &ke question, 

said: 

'.a question of the auf fieieney of the evidence to 
support the verdict of a Jury and the la&pftnt waAwmt inert* 
on JM) not open to review, even in i i garta fearing jurisdiction 
to determine teat oueetlon, unless© s notion for ■ ner trial 
w*te made aid tlM motion overruled and exceptions thereto ert- 
aarved y a bill of c*oe?tione. (jBjLgh,?:.;^, v. .-ylftrd,* 7? 111. 
W*l *■*/• *ifSfito* M Id. 46; UtwUJ£PtM ^Uwd Jr., 
▼• k'Keefe. io4 id, 806.) <a will Seres* fter toe a*d* to rve-r, 
the record doe* not disclose tint • cation for a ne* trial ws?.a 
present ed to the trial court. * * * 

It appears froa the bill of e*cer:tions object lone vera 
aade and exceptions tnken to tit* rulings of the court on ~uea- 
tiona of the a.dalasiblilty of testimony, bat it ie eeeentl- 1 
to the right of appellant to h*ve such rulings reviewed. The 
trif-»l «ourt should hrt.ve been a-sked to grant i ne» trial snam 
of such rulings, (IqVU.S. ▼. -sporter. 13 111. 454; ^nlcla v. 
± M*M$ , M U.UJ] JU^MilSlajL^%SSi *frd Targe i^e ■ ■ liKr 4 
K v. *>racf> 68 id. 336; y,fon v. iejy^ 7 H. 71.) •..rrors 
of the court in rulings *a to the i sjiislbility of evidence 
constitute grounds for * new trial. It ie the duty of liti- 
gants to seek this mode of relief in the trial atari* anal 
resort to on ap 9*1 only in the event the trl*l Judge erroneous- 
ly rafusea to gr«nt e now trial, tatf such l i» excepted 

J« «\cftnfOB, 191 111. 694. A aotlon for « new tri-1 i 

in the Iraaaaarlat of the proaaedlnga end fiioa as certified 









yd 
h9bm 

■ , 



■ • a. ; ... - . .. ^wVHh 






to by tn* oxer*.. This motion on the KMrt of the cx«*rfc Is 
extra-offioioJU *b« ''ufciiority Ml certify tfci fe I etotiou 
for i Km tri-1 sma entered r©sta fl.iooe in fcft* trial judge, 
uoh actions only bseons n :>-.rt $£ the record by baiftjl 
tnaaa a> tfod in the bill of *3R««ftt«Wt** 

See s*lao Greeny #11 v. Hesa. ,; 338 111. 4&9« 

ny of the :->u$*tic>nn raised fey tas it>fWiiME| in thia 

I |fo to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain Us) I.'ltitiffa 1 

motion., »nd fro® the authorities referred to, %.ftf- it ssere 

not properly iSfttl for review* although from the faot* a* they 

in this ..pinion, the evidence in the record M^ttf sustains the 

verdict of the jury. 

The defendant ©osrplairts of the resp.As W8& the attitude 
of the tyi'vl court in the ~.reseneo of the Jury -^riag tH« tains as 
being highly prejudicial, m fe?we SKstsiined the ag & a&d sfti sSl not 
&bie to -find th^t the tri«i court* $ fictions WNNB tuoh * to re^udloe 
t&e jury tfolnst the defendant's <$mm $ or Hmt %ueh reamafes *ere 
■ode as would subject the trial court to erltieisflu Nl tavt examined 
the record and considered these natters notwithai- the defend nt 

Mil no objection to the «ll«gsd fflEjtrttftffil rewsTlCB :;nd attitude 
of tasl fteaurt in t*e areasno* of the 3«ry. 

further naatflslnt is snde hf the fti fOBAatft t liana the 
oourt did not "davit competent evidence »f£**ati n/ the def>nint. 
This evidence, if offered, is not pointed out e? the defendant, *nd 
for thia failure we will ©onaider the objection *, ivod. 

there la one further < ue^-tion to be sonaidered, >nd th-Jt 
iaj Old the court err in entering sal order dieaisjslna; the oeuso 
It to the eo-defend':nt artenaossut tons • nK .. rrust 3osreaiqr? this 
aetlon by the plaintiffs *«.* for fraud and deeelt to recover daauigss 
a\iat -ined, and not an motion to recover danagea because of a daf--v.lt 
or hreneh in the ?«rforaenoo of ■ contr ot. In • tart action, as 
In this ««se t the plaintiff amy Join <ever»l defendants Ml recover 
egalnst one or more of the defendants. 



va 






■' :: 



' 



■ 









5 

For IImi rs&tona indie- ted in thi« opinion, «• find 

Mi error in tiae record auoii &a would |g ! '-i r y & r#T*ir»Al $f th# judg* 
neat* Htwrrtfmgly tiie ju&gaaat i« affined* 



hau, ?•*« se mym $ i. 



. i .e«, n seiner, by sopfot* £. 
ieineke, his mother lap next friend. 




v. 




2 






Opinion filed Feb. 7, 1934 

The ©islntiff, Gordon i,eiAok«» *. mir*f>r, by &$$&£! . 
Ltine&e, his ssother W& nest friend, sued '^bert Saliibmry for 
personal injuries in an motion ©f tre«3>eft« on the mm* The ease 
was tried before a 3«ry, who fonnd the dofeadajit guilty <m& eseeaaod 
the plaintiff's famm$m at $l$$f$« **n%ment ro$ entered upon the 
verdlot, froaa Khloa the defendant 3.ppeilo to this eourt. 

The ae el dent ooourred about $f$S in the evening on 
October 28, 1930 1 at the inteveeetien of &»4» ffl$ Liberty streets in 
■■"the^t©n # iilinoie, tela street, which runs north m& eouth, is 46 
feet in width, and liberty -Street, voleh rune oust end ».-eat, is 
'♦bout 42 feet in ^idth, &#t$i streets &re paved with concrete. 
Although the night *»• dark when the accident occurred, the street 
lights etie 'burning *n& there 9*4 illumination from « gas station 
loo? ted b| ar ne?r the intersection. 

the plalaUff wpi t1 .-•-rriaon, I witness for the pXftfcfc* 
tiff, both testified th- t there * M | red wuehroos 11 gt »t the 
center of the intersection on the night of the accident. There is 
I oonfllet in the evidence if to whether the nuahroo* light was in 
fact Ml the interaeotion. The defendant, who had been Joanlsaloner 
of the Department of lublic Health a»d safety of ;he»ton fro* J037 
to 1331, *ad witnesses Ourran mnd I ederson, teatifiad tb^t there was 
no Mushroom light n\ the intersection. 

he i] i tiff, who *t thf time of the Aooident was 






„»*i . 



. 






£561 <? .ds'i Jbsll* aoiclqO 

- 

j 



I 

thirteen years of age, *&d another boy, &arl Harrison, used the 
letter's bicycle, *he plaintiff rode on the saddle and rl sat 
sideways on the |NW running fro* the handle boat* to the saddle, snd 
the boys ■orceeeded froa the aarrisoa home to the intersection * soae 
fourteen blocks* *he bicycle carried no light. Phi boy* sgumdtd 
riding in the as&nner described, going south on Main street, *.crosa 
the rsilposd Imtital of the sorth«restern K-rilroad i$d the ileotrio 
luterurbnn tracks, and down the incline to liberty -nreet, the 
bicycle *<se proceeding south and !*pt>r©aohin£ Liberty &$£•*$ when 
Earl Harrison saw the defendant's ^utoaobll© eeaing from the north on 
itein >treet« The defendant drww his sutonobile into stein Street, 
on© block louth of Liberty street, and proceeded in a northerly 
direction on Bain at rest • There is evidence tfc&t the automobile was 
■fftAg x ?bou| li or -' air.-, Ml feittfj Bl I f lt l'ffjHhf l fl ltt4Htl IfNI 

the **atam>bll€ «hea he reached liberty street end sssde a left-hsnd 
turn into liberty itPi>| # 

the conflict in the evidence is umn ths question as to 
the >oiat at which the defenl--<nt nMN the left-hand turn, aid he 
turn f^r to the right at the center of the intercieotion, or cut the 
corner! the defendant* a view, according to hie evidence, wna obatrao- 
ted by a great caany reflections in the windshield nnd windows of his 
ear, and he did not see the bicyele until witfein the range of his 
he&dllghts, at whion tiwe the bicycle was fro* 6 to 8 feet in front 
•f the defendant 1 a automobile Mi he liamedi* tely ut on the brakes. 

There is evidence lift! the defendant turned to the right 
of the center in Making the left-hand turn it the intsrseotlon of ths 
streets, nd that the boys on the bicycle hed croase.l liberty street 
from the north to the aouth on the vest elds of ■*!■ .treet *nd had 
tenoned a point variously estimated from I to 6 feet frosi ths drinking 
fountain located at the eouthweat comer, when the plaintiff w*>e 
struck by the defendant 1 a c r, and injured. The ;leintlff a« a 



t 

- 



I JHUI 

: 



- 






3 

result of the fitfjffiiWl suffered ■ fr^ctur^d ei-*.viole, which wns 
redueed, sad | vvunetured *ound 1» the * : nkle t «&U& p • ■ .< .■ ring 

the plaintiff*** three weeks' st%y In the 'hospital* 

The defend ant contends th^t the ertdenee llaelosee th*t 
the rlelntiff w*-,9 guilty of negligent eonduet, which contributed to 
the happening #J the necident «ad which bare his rsdowfy notwith- 
standing the f&tt that the plaintiff eng U year* of ag§ «t the tine 
of the accident. The plaintiff km required b; rule of Um to 
exercise th-<t decree of ittffa *n4 caution for hie mm safety emUfc *ould 
be exercised by i child of like age, intelligence sag experience 
under siall»r oirouowt^noee. The defendant, te^sr, stresses the 
point th-.t the pl&iatiff *a« propelling the Moyele without I light 
on the mm&m in creation, and tb>-t it mm held in g^j ▼• *o«artT. 
103 la. 500, mw| riding ■ bicycle by S pffBgB an ■ I !■>■■¥ 

*t night without | light constitutes n«,,. , Ml Cftnyt o»nnot 

agree with this view, whether the plaintiff ««.» negligent In riding 
the bicycle must be determined by the ftttfef sal oirc-uitst.»noes in 
evidence, lae court had this in aiind when tt t*4« in In* o-*e f ^ QO | 
▼. fp^rty, £J1B1&» to*l 



#• * • 



and * person who rides i bicycle without ■ light 
or ■UPO, of warning., in * MdfcU* t. b a. rough fa re, where he 
is UOU to meet .sowing vcbiolee or pedestrians, *t n 
tine when objects ear. be discerned readily *t distance 
of out ■ few feet, is guilty of negligenee." 

the degree of o«re to be used by the plaintiff under the 

rule ».bove st-ted Is for the jury, tn* jury N doubt had in mind 

the te«tiasony of the defendant th t - 

'the light wr. n good there. fenee limits h*d been in I long 
time. I knew bout tnnt. There m *n ordin ry hite ino*n- 
aeeoent light at the northwest corner. I wouldn't say 
exaotly where the lights *re, but there re lights nd they 
nre shown in the pieture. 1'nese were burning tt the time of 
the -ooijent. They were possibly |1 or U teet tig*, ihey 
ere oout 1 . or 13 foot iron *>o;ts with ■ round white ylobe 












I 



M| ■ 



• 






i 
9LU 






#«&*! * **&! 
«JB0UflL 






• .. I .' Y» • . 









. v»C.». 1 ••* 



on top. ftt the opposite owner, whet* the fi. v. | kl n 

«MU there ejan I lot of iight. Hta street etti e*5l lighted 
?t t'.-c tiae. I teal «tf difficulty in seeing objects 
persons on the street.** 

■■■■e have Htmlifliilii the other e^sea cited 'by the defen.v-nt 

on thia point m\& the aonolualona reached by *tt# *«ft«rt» # ajftl find 

that the decision of the o^urt in e-?eh particular &*&« where a 

negligent aot ©attributed to t.ne *»eoident is JMMMtf epd the f-.eta f *ad 

that these e^ses --re not of Sja>i#li«l i&f ttfWM Hte0 fa#atlajaj M they 

appear in the record in $&e inat^at ot.e«» The rule ^nnounaed by 

the Supreme ^ourt in the case of amlallunaa v. C», # '%« I. ■■':.. . ;o«. 

318 111. 142, is binding in these ^orda: 

"the lev ia clearly established by £F«ftt weight of «vtherlty, 
thet bet re en the ajgtt of seven till fourteen the gttaajfcieji of 
culpability ©f the child is m open question of >>$t 

be left to the Jury to determine,, taking into oonsider^tioa 
the age, capacity , intelligence ani tsatftlftaftt) of the child." 
( Chicago Bad Alton Is&lfOaJ wo. v. v^eker, sti n ; LaJti ; : -rie 
<md -'eatern lallxaei H* v. Ulafcyettt, 83f ill* 439; ^ity of 
Fating v. MeM^hon, 154 id. 141 j • -net ford, ©o* Ulead »nd 
;3t. Louis inilrossa v o. v, ftftla&ev, 93 id. 19§j Me>ldon ▼. 
;)rev # papa 1 *] fcak* Bvia mm est^rn ^uiroad *o. v, itaekey. 53 
Ohio ti» H4# 41 B« E.990| ?lty of Sft«wa*4 r« tank* 40 Okie* 
327, 137 rs.e. 734; Uepfel v. t, I *satJU iSLames >©lis *nd nito^a 
liars* Oo, If Minn. B8S, td 1. f* 1049.) 

Under the rule -above at?«t*<ft« the court properly aubaittad 
to the jury the creation of whether the pi ail tiff, -ho <t the tiae 
ef the accident sa 13 ye^re of «sge # as* guilty of contributory negli- 
geaee. *e *re of the opinion th> t the finding of the jury in this 
eaas ia suat^ined by the evidence, ml ia not contrary to the oanlfcet 
weight of the sroof. 

the defendant contends th^t the court erred in refuting 
te give to the Jury defendant's refuaed inatruotion wo. 5, whieh la 
aa foil oval 

"feu are instructed llut if raw believe froa the evidence 

th t th* plaintiff, ;ordon , eineoke, w.s guilty of contrib- 
utory aegiitf'-nce .*« defined in these laetn t 
yov<r vf*r<U<>< should be not guilty nd this is tru* *»ven 
though the defendant vae negligent." 

the Jury ana instructed by the court in defendant 'a instructions thit 



: ' - 
• -! 

■ . 

I 









-»t<»fcnft»* »tff dpi*. 
• -n rJb««t*6 ml #<ttf<* Mtf x tf £*>*»• 



s 

the JUlntUE m HI ffiVNi »V ! ■■'■*'-• 03 "''"" »c« . ■' nMUMMM WM Ml| 

ta»t the &*fw»1*ttt vat v-uilty of **gli g«fc— t but *lso taat the aiAlSi 
tiff a* In the exerols* of aafd&aaJfy e*r* if defined in the Instruc- 
tion* -at the tin* of and iana&iately be for* the -accident occurred, --ad 
th't no presumption arises Hud the d^fem al I t froa 

the fact th*.t the accident h&ppenedj aa4 further, th'-.t if the jury 
believe from the evidence t&&£ the defendant *m* not $uilty of negli- 
gence at tJWISpi t^y tb* plaintiff, or if tm jury fc*li*ve froa th* 
evidence ifeKt the plaintiff mm guilty of eaatributory negligence as 
defined in the instruction®, th@n they have n© right to coaproai .:•« 
the question ©f the defendant** liability Mat gr?.nt the piaimtiff sea* 
aaount merely baoeus* he mm injured. And it further *j$**li from 
th* instructions thrat the plaintiff *••<« required to exercise due <mre 
and caution for his own eefety as defined, aHfl hi* failure to ererclse 
such o&re $M0 enution eeuld be negligence. 

diile it is true th.<-.t tfci l&BWB in the ease before us **c 
whether the defendant was guilty of ttigltfilftii MMl the ; Irvintlff we* 
guilty of contributory negligence for | bff of ni* ftg* # capacity »ad 
•xp«rienee, then he, the p|alst|ff| could not recover, ifhis court 
ass *xsaln*d the instruction* *nd is of ta* opinio* th*t the instru*- 
tlons n* given fairly presented to MM jury not slone the law as 
spoiled to the plaintiff, but »l*o . >#d to the defendant, *nd 

we do not believe there w*s *u*h error in the giving of the inatrue- 
tions or th* refuaal to give instructions as would justify ■ reversal. 

the defendant riiso contends th«t the tri*l court should 
asvs received defendants Exhibit fco. 4 for identifio blon in evidence, 
which Exhibit is * certified copy of an ordinance of the Jity of 
*a**ton, la ihi itg* Oounty, Illinois, -»nd provides, in substance, th*t 
it is unlawful for *ny oerson to ride -<ny bicycle on *ny street or 
Public pl**a in the night tiae unless the bioyole is eouipped «vith a 
lighted bicycle light or other suit- bie light. It -?ppa»r* th? t -t the 



- 

nor* r 

finA . 

<d no*r» 



■ 






■ 






- 












t 






\0 



1 



©lose of the oeaa eounsel for the itfMHAftt - -^i vised the oourt th*t 
the d*fend^>nt would rely ogPMI the ordinance; *h>-t ft certified copy 
tmd not ft* yet arrived, in the court roots; tnati efforts hot been arde 
by the defendant to hsve it o» hand at the ftytftlffig of tilt oourt 
session* -i'he oourt, however* ordered tiwieel to proceed, UflwaftftH 
m <s«de by the attorney* for both parties, &$ the close of which a 
certified copy of Uti ordinance wee at n«*d mad offered in evidence 
by the tefMMiftftM i *he ease *a« »d^«nerned to the foii;-^ tap and 
the jfHnmiii KM ftpia offered by the defendant i&& denied by the 
court on th*» ground that the offer wm swde too SUMa* 

the defendant urges* that in the interest of juatioe the 
tri 1 oourt should h^ve reeeived the ordinance is evidence »\ the 
time it wen offered by $&a defesdant* Hovav«*., the *leintiff should 
have ft*4 18 opportunity in his argtueat to the Jury to discuss the 

iC^.bliity of the ordinance under the fiesta, whieh i splice bility 
would hsve been denied if the court, aftatt ^rgnaents *?ere closed, 
had ndaitted the ordinance in evidence, it wfeg aoiely i nutter of 
discretion on the part of the eourt efter the evidence hnd been 
eloeed *nd Rrguisenta »sde to the jury, to ftfflMftl Ma Ml to be opened 
up to ell©*? this evidence to be introduced, wtf under the fatta ^?e they 
*poear *e do not believe the discretion of the aourt mm abused by 
refualng fche offer. 

There being no reversible error, the Jud-.'*ent is >f firmed. 

IMMMm U 

HAU, . . K , . . 



■ 






■ 













' 






craopo 








•' 














' 


. 



* 



Mi 



t Jbi»|j 






I 4 


















36389 

■■mi* n tu ..... . urn, 

I Jorpor tlor». 



Appellant, 






•■: ellee* 







:-.JIC.'#0. 







Opinion filed Feb. 7, 1934 

as*, jusfiai; mm% m Ltvmm tm m i ; ; it, 

the plaintiff corporation was engaged in the business of 
discounting oeassreiai paper and buying from ^utemobile and. maehinery 
dealers oromlesory notes entwined from p8JPda«S#»8 of automobiles and 
adenines MB the iast&llateat :,?lim. an or &$$&! M'-rsh 38, 193f., the 
||4 intiff ptaFmmn«*d from toe Archer Motor ®m%fflg$ % promissory note 
in the principal SUM of -$£>?. 34, alleged to >i**e been signed toy 
John J. Btftaajfi the defeatlent, and delivered by aim to evidence time 
payment® in gfei purchase of l &$*£ c«briolet 'mtomofoilc. 

t the time of the curnorted anle of the ^utoaobile by the 
Archer sector Company to the defendant, g oenditio.-va sales agreement 
w-e entered into by the &otor ^o«;nny Ml the &*€iAdftmm* The pi-in- 
tifi, on the 14th day of July, 1933, obtained * judgment by confession 
ngnlnjtl the defendant under the power to aenfeee Judgment provided 
for in the note, i'he amount of the judgment entered in the wunieipal 
Court ■•• 399.05. 

Thereafter, the tofemmmmt on the 14th inf of 'ugust, a :~ , 
filed i petition under oath sieving the court to set aside the Judg- 
aent. i hi» petition states, in subst -mee/ ttmt the s*ls of the *ute~ 
aobile njtti by the holder of the note mi amount reoeived <*b applied 
to the etinti poA of the romiasory note ewecuted by the defendant, 
•as fraudulent; th t there was « failure of oo »,ion; th-t the 

plaintiff was not en lnnooent hollar for fltat) that the defendant 
wag aot allowed a credit by the Plaintiff for the sun of -183.74, 
unearned premium on the cancelled insurance policy for fire »nd theft. 



•wi 



, 



££ei «? .cf9l Jbelil nciniqO 












i-. 



•■ ■■: 



i 

; 



fl ftAl i 












.. J Ij;. ft. 



I v. #BiBl 



1 
ban »f<- |* •&*• »i:icf4** 



3 

upon the principal of the not®} Hurt the euteoobils v>ur«aased by the 

iifiiJUil w«* returned to the alotor v*oajr,»ny in full ■gntiafs.etion 
of thia elitlA nnd before the note *»■• negotiated nul delivered to 
the .'ialntifS, and that the plaintiff thereafter accepted the note 
Tith full knowledge of the fi.ot» 

fas court entered »n order th?t the defendant be given 
Itcve to defend* fcnd fcbat the defendant's -petition stand as an affi- 
d-vit of *e*itn f and after trial Ssy ^wry l vejrdiot mm returned 
finding the isuues for the defendant tiftt judpsent eai entered on the 
verdict by the court, from this judgment the plaintiff appeals to 
this court. In tfe* sons idsrtvt ion of this *#spt&l the court ia not 
p.ided by the brief ©f the defendant* nemo failed to file I aoe. 

Upon an sxaalttntion of the record ther re whet is 

purported to be Ml 9$0 g& feond signed - 

amttm BjiiJtoj *««« iai&ij 

__ L- MM 



Atiy, 

- j. 3t*ty« nasutri upsn nre em) 

Atterney-in-fasi 

in *n appeal from a judgment recovered If John J# IjMMMf on the 13 th 

day of November, a, o. 1933, in the Cirov.it iftflH if Itst -ounty, 

- rovci rhI ordered filed by a«or$e ?. siointyre. Judge, 

The condition provided for in tm bond is ti follows: 

*tbe condition of the above obligation is such, That wherexs, 
the said John Oonw-ry did, on the i:-«th toy of Jiovenber, A. D,, 
193??, in the Circuit Jourt of Bttft ;av.Aty, in th* et^te afore- 
said, and of the Term thereof, . . 1 1 , recover a 

iudgaent against h- above bounden Mercantile discount Corpora- 
tion for the eu« of,. MU fl 'ent? 9 beai es 

eoete of suit} from which a i ,j.< i-ment of the laid :;irouit 

Oourt of ^ock County, the ssld tea r ays I for ->n<& obtained 

an ao,3«nl to the Appellate Court, rithin end for the Urst 
9istrict in s'*id 3tatS?* 

The mpeal allowed the plaintiff by the order was froei s 

Judgment entered in the jtunioiprO. Jourt of the -ity of Jhio go on 

the i to -j ftl ,.ovfffl, r, .... | /-,,• £| W4 -t ■■ I . fci*?-«y 






■ 












;;«■ . .. 






or ■ *;; »••■:.' v t» ' ftjttJto iJUtl To 

(W*qTJ 









... 
■ 



MM I 



J X)<»W»i. 



« 



■ I trfl 



I 

for oosts of suit, i n ooaditiea that the Plaintiff file i bond 
within thirty dsya from tne entry of this jju^-raent. thewft<-r, 
In order to perfect *9 Bff«*l» tee elaiatiff *?*© 9%&i$*d to oonfom 
t© the order of *$$**&< *»• plaintiff . fg tied to flie n bond 

«ltnln thirty d*y» froas the judpieat ®nt«red in tfce aunlclva oourt 
of «hie*-go # *a provided for in the order, thia a rrly 

in this oourt. Mttflfc ^ I gj|jg 118 Ul. ai4:" UadA*E. v. JMBal a 
258 111. ftft^ 4S7. 

The {jurpojrtea bond filed provided for m I from a 

Jul^seni entered in the virouit Cburt of 3i«j« 3ou«ty i n-i the reoord 
filed in this* ©*•« It in ft pyaoteding ted in ta«S iteftieij N rt 
of the -ity of *hi©aga. it bond e*e mot properly executed amA 
filed by the plaintiff* and taerafore the ■ . . be dieaieaed. 

UK* .-. KB t ■ , 4, 



Trustee, 

. -.eii'vnt, 



0'. - n *J9 SS9l*ttXt] 

i, it 1., 

stefendsiite. 



11 t# ttfJUfWfHf neeeiver at @3&«*$t 
Lsen S%»t« IsSfcf ft Corporation, 




. . . 



27 3I.A.630' 



Appellee. ) 

Opinion filed Feb, 7, 1934 

this is am a^r^-'I by the ooapisis^tit from eai order 
entered on \M9emMT 14, l.-?33, tt$88 »a intervening oetitioa filed on 
December 8, lf$t, &y Irwin f. tftilruth, ii receiver of t>v nge 

Lssn atnte tamfe* in the then pending fareolpe&fff vtreeeedinga in 
the iuperior Ceufft of ivfth County, Illinois, IM WCf of 

the tmplli til tint to tat petition* 

it appears from the §*£•• ol I^MMNai 14, that the I 

heard the matter upon the verified petition of the r^eeiver for 

ls?ve to remove fro® the premises located ts% V&M Hmt% 63rd trfet, 

Ohio , o# Illinois, » certain reet^ngwl&r t-^ive inch v«ult door, 

and, hflfft&g hftmti the evidence of the xitnee^ee, found that the 

petitioner is the duly r-uslifled n»d noting receiver; nd 

"That the tv;elve lnehreot- n -lut do.,.»r sought by the 

petitioner herein is nersotj- arty lad is not oerm^nrntiy 

tt oned to tile real estate OMfl foreclosure bersin: th' t 
e*id door is one of the »-s$et* of the est- te of the ohleegn 
L*im vruat * BCftefl .- nfe, ■ nnrp t g i klMU tad th- t the 
petitioner, »e the reoeiver of such est te, is entitled to 
possession of the a* id entitls* te snter the 

asid premises nnd to remove the said aoor tb^r^from, i»d 
th lilt door is not subject to the lien of the trust 

deed herein.* 

it is eeltfent from this order tn t th* conclusion of 
the oourt th t the v •uit dorr in question is personal ot i <?rty -*nA 






. 



. 



q ^ o* 






#591 «? *cf9l Jbslil aoiaiqO 






I !)M ."■ ;,, 



V iL?^ 



■MJ 



flLi 

■ 



OS 



J * * 



z 

la not ytTWMWtWtly attached to the building* it in finding of an 

ultimate ffefftf feftft it bated *$*& the evidence H#«jNt fey the court. 
there it « suggestion % the tow i^U^mt in the foreclosure proceed* 
Inge ta*.t tat order em* tatef**" «>&ly ttlWfla the verified petition of 
the receiver* the verity of the reoord ©nnaet be tntl leaded by 
•nggtttion* The tftlal fv.-art htaid the evidence and this court will 
aeaunt tbat tlit fc#4£* li ®o »up< *rttd« The f*n«*t &f the complain- 
ing party to preeerve th« c'nie&tlas la a aie&e provided for toy la* 
would not Justify tills court in indulging in tpteuX*tion» 

it it contended tnet the order in in f^vor of the 9$&gfe§i 
Lawn trust I ,*%vlngt Bank; tnat men bank la not a mtty in the oaat 
and it not nsiaed as | mrty anywhere in the proeeedlnga. It is 
pointed cast tnat the dni*ag* ktm Stmt® flank was *ad* a party to the 
hill of fiMial fill lit p-nd taut Irwin I, ^llruth* at its reeeiver filed 
M &nt«er to the Mil* 

fat order before thit court dtttrihtt the petitioner at 
tht receiver of the Oaiew^o L&m. liruat ft Savings mnk. the that is 
thst the receiver wee 1 ,..ui«ted for the tfhlae.go Lawn tw**f In**, and 
the order of tpwtlwtwiwl MM entered in e&se number 640150, now 
pending in the iMpMift sourt of £5ook acunty. The complainant ufemed 
in the foreclosure proceedlnge perfected m t»| X tl fro* the order now 
under consideration allowing the receiver of the tfhlaag* Lawn .state 
Bank to remove tat valut doer in nueatior., - ni the >>;••* 1 bond filed 
by the oomplalaoat recitea that the complainant and the aurety therein 
nantd are firmly bound t© the rtoeiver for the vhlta^.o Liwn atrtte /*nk« 

The receiver, *e we riew the reoord, . « appointed «nd 
la noting aa receiver for the Jhloag* Lawn Hnte ganlt in oa.et number 
54015*, and aa euoh reoeiver w*a made a party to the pending fore- 
oloeure -vrooeedlnge. Fro* the record it clearly M thet the 
reoeiver i» noting for the Ohitag* Lawn ;t <te »Knk, and n regarded 
at eueh receiver by the tonpl-.ln ■ nt ahen he filed v ia appeal bond 
In the instant cat. 



I 

... ■ • '■■'■ ■•■■. '■■ 






:. i.-. 






- 

" r -■ -j 

"li*©* «i 



; c 

1 



s 

the complainant in the foreclosure pdTiflltWiilimi <WM|ilalHl 
th#.t the court erred in permitting the filing of the Intervening 
petition by the receiver of the Jhio^go Leim ®tnts K&nk; that the 
bunk esc made ft party to the oill to foreclose, and, answered by its 
receiver, ftftt in its answer failed t© mk for affirmative relief as 
to the ownership of the vault doorj that the v-nuli door is ft pert 
©f the security covered toy the trust deed, and the ownership should 
he determined u.oon the final bearing fc» the foreclosure ppgH»tt Hpl» 

It doe® not apmn.z th«t the filing of the petition by 
the receiver Mhf objected to in the answer of fehe eeespl&insnt, *nd 
the question cannot be raised in thle court for "the first tine* Ocas- 
plainant it not permitted to speculate as tothe possibility of a 
favorable outcome of the proceed! age, mM feting disappointed in this 
regard, question the procedure for tat. first time tup** appeal, 

the notion to strike the reply brief filed by IBTHjimtlll 
G, Kilpstrlek, Successor in trust, StWpXfl4m^»t, is not considered 
for the reason that we have considered the merits of the ipptftl* 

Having considered this appeal and the questions ceiled 
to our attention, we are unable to find th?.t the Hoiiillil cted 
without authority, and sf are satisfied th t there is no error in 
the reoord which would justify ■ reversal of the order. The order 
Is affirmed* 

I 

HAU., F.J, ASS IffctMi f* - 



- 

•■ ■' V"' '•■ -'■T 

■ >- : -J 

■ ■ 

- . 

■••■■<HH> «flftf 

c 

■ - m •# 

, . ... 



36608 



MILTOH ». fOSOWIf, at Trustee, 
H H.:Mti&'L, Intervener, 



Defend nts In Srrer, 



v. 




uo 



T • ! 






M10HAKL J. HARTLEY and Oft M,U B RfXSY, ) 
:>1* in tiffs In Krror, 

Opinion filed Feb 8 7, 1934 



) 



t> \J 



m. JUSTICE KEBEL I I4U0B OF ?H 

this e*uea is in tiEiifi court upon & "*rlt of eT.ror dir^oted 
to the Cixcro.it Court of Cook County bv the rlsint if fa in error, 
Michael J. Hartley and Cecelia Hartley, to review the record in 
I cert- in proceeding containing an order Otttered by the court 
directing Willis® ;:. Saeeiia, fie receiver appointed fey the court, 
to pay to -dolph Baam&l from the funde in hit aas&a, the sua of 
$750. 

i*he origin-*! faction «&• instituted by the complainant, 
Milton : . Yondoxf, M trustee, agftisjit the defendants ■ ic'nel 

rtley and Cecelia Bsrtley, and ie * foreclosure rcce ding 
to enforce & lien of a cert in trust de- d executed by tbeaf def n- 
dante as owners, conveying the real estate therein do cribed, 
loc ted in the fljty of Chicago, Illinois, to secure the p-;y«ent 
of toe lndebtednes , which ie more fully set forth in the bill of 
ooaspL int. 

On October ?9, 1931, an order MM enters J by the t* rt 
directing RlXlUUi " ! . Casnin, the then anointed receiver, to 
pay to the defendants, Mioh el 3. Oeceli> R rtley, 

from the funds? in his hfnds, the sue of $?,500 for 'he ourehase 
•f c<r t3in chattels in the premises owned by the defendants, 
$1,000 to bs pftld upon the entry of -he order m ' tue balance 



tmi 



- 



- 
- 



$f ■"; f 



a vA 









^£GI t ? .ds 1 ? Jbsin noiniqO 



I 



■ 






. 



• I 
■ 

'•r:t o* t«q 

toi » *fli *<Xjv bifi 000,1$ 



-2- 

in two installments - #750 in thirty toy*, nd |750 in eixty 
Bays. ,11 of the sua above asentioned, except |?50 in tat hands 
of the rfc ; iT«r, was pnid. 

On December 4, 1931, *.dolph Haumel filed his Internals* 
petition in this action, from which it appears thst on November 
16, 1931, he mmmmmi a Judj ment In the Municipal Court of 
Chicago in tne sua of 1849.70 agatmtfl Mich-el J. I Vtley and 
Cecelia BarUey, the defend-.-nte in the i Love *ntiti , e; 

' *aii judgment U wholly un^id; that an sxeoutle was UtMi 
and r turned emsstisfiti, and the intervener wked leave to 

rniehee the f un Is In the hands of the receiver, to apply in 
payment of the judgment. This petition *ma subsequently tended 
by leave of oou t shereby the petitioner pray**- that the court 
enter an order requiring, the receiver to p?>y the ftp* of #750 in hie 
h«nde to the intervener, or his solicitor of record, and for ?uob 
other and further relief as e uity amy require. 

On useeaber 5, 1931, the defend ate, liana*!. J. iartley 
«nd Ceceli* Hartley, filed their oetition in the : ,ore c use. 
stating substenti&ly that by an order entered in this court on 
October "9, 1931, the receiver Has directs! to pay to then $2,500 
for the purchase of the chattels in the premises described in the 
bill of complaint and owned by thse defendants; that §1,750 
b -s b. en p*id and that a balance of 1750 is still unpaid «nd in 
, the h*nds of the receiver; that the petitimere have assigned 
this sua to Heraan I. !, ndfield, »ho h^d made oert^in sdv^.noss 
of aoney for the chrttele So sold bv the r. c iver. The prayer 
of the petitioners is that the court se*filS] the **9i«;nment by the 
defendants to Herman . ; ndfleld, and direct the receiver to 
pay the balance of $750 to Herman I. Landfield. 

Thereafter, on March 30, 1933, the c^urt referred the 
aatter to John C. Lewe, a Master U Chancery, to he^r evidence 






itm* ' •* 

sdJ to 

■ 

****** 
iiin»»>i ^ ,I*«X ,iJ 

i 

?'«il MI* *• 

■ 

-« **r * castas o* «»* 

04 
fttff 



and file nie report and recommendations, 'she trster proceeded 
to httftf the evidence offered by the porHmm, and on October 19, 
1932, the master filed his report recommending th*-t the intervener, 
fcdolph Hsmasel, be permitted to serf- garnishee summons on the 
receiver, snd that the petition of Michael j, -rtlty and 
Cecelia. Bart lay be dismissed for *S*t of equity. 

On November 5, 193^, the court entered gg order directing 
the receiver to pay the |7BO in bis fcnade to the intervener, to 
apply on account of the Judgment recovered by at* in the Munici- 
pal Court of Chicago against ^icbsel 3, Bartley and cecmlla 
Bsrtiey, ?*nd the court further found IfeftH the def fcndnnts 1 aaeign- 
ment to Herman ?", L-t&df leld **a without cousl^e- ration, and directed 
th^.t def ndante* petition be dismissed for %mt of mcmity. 

the defendants Bartley contend t&gjt; the evidence in the 
oaea is insufficient to Justify the entry of the ordar, and that 
the court erred in directing the receiver in the oeuae to tura 
over to adolph Hemmel, the intervener, the a-urn of $750 then in 
the receiver* g h^nds. 

Thie court la mat at the out eat with the f*»ct appearing 
from the record that Michael J. i-artley wnd flgjtttt Hartley, the 
defendants, f-il«d to object to the maeter*s re ort, r nd no 
exceptione acre token when the report ami filed by the me*ter, 
and the defend»nte contend th t,tner f -re, the oue^tton of the 
sufficiency of the evidence is not befor this court. uch la 
the rule end no citation of a.uthoritiee la neoaeanry. 

The defend-nta contend, hov«v«r, to t it If not MMMMf 
to file objections or arceotiorip to the master's report ahere 
there la no dispute as to the f'ote and the conclusion of the 



» ,KE9f 

Ml ,£•■•«£ '■ 

. ■ ■ 



. 

> $A$ tec j^altrrsl 

- .- ■. ; ' ir. • :■ 

1 

ttt *«jo© »d* 
•til ! '• •■. : :• ' art* 

lei *•*»• *ac 

*0 ©IT %MT VJUtt fr rf-t 

. 

•Xtt O* 

• rftf 10 M. rjc ..it ©« «i *lt«l 



B&otei is contrary to 1**, Ktd cte Von Pi ten v. .■■latertothasBj, 
203 111. 198; Kurd v. g odrlch. 59 111. 450; Von Tot el v. 
Oetrnder. 158 111. 499. The sufficiency of tkt evidence, 
however, must be considers In order to determine whether or 
not the abater's conclusions as to the law are supported fey the 
evidence in he record, sad unless objections are a* do and 
except IttM taken, tali court will not consider the raff ici- r.cy 
of the uroof to sustain the ■mctftt'a conclusions, 

ihe defendants consider It necessary tarn* the court 
determine from the facte whether the orOer beio?- the oourt 
is sustained by the proof. That it is, is clear fro® the con- 
tention of the defendants that the evidence sustains their 
theory th?*t the assignment to Landf ield «?as supported by a 
valuable consideration --ad that the «*-eter*s conclusion is con- 
trary to the evidence %tsmt there ma w^nt of consideration for 
the aspif.-naent. 'ihe efead^nts a*V« pfttAtti out the evl..' . 
that they consider sufficient to support m tor the 

«Js»«ignxBent. It follows,' therefore, thnt consideration of 
the cues t ion of sufficiency of the evidence it* a«#a8M*? in 
order to determine whether or rot the assignment *d upon 
s valuaMe consideration. This court sill not consider the 
eufficiency of th eviden e ior he re— :ons above stated, 
*ihere no exceptions are taken, the asstsr's report is conclu- 
sive of the cueetio/iS of feet covered by it. heltenhsa Improve- 
Ment Co. v. -hitehe^d. 128 111.279; Wo.ri.-jg v. ;ho* • . 178 111.540. 

It is next oontended by the defen.r nts la** tt>e aawt 
erred in f filing to confirm the W - + !«»•■ report for sever 1 
reasons: First, that the due on the judgment entered in 
the aunicip 1 Court of Chicago ta« r duced to t7rc, aal toe 



I ■ . a 















. - - 

r* tl 












■ 

»f i ■ 



order entered by the court directs toe r ceiver to pay $750 - 
the amount In the hands oi the receiver - to dolph Hammel, 
which amount is more than the sum due. 

It appears from the reoord that the amount of tue 
•ester's fees, $28,90, together with interest at the rsta of 
fire tier cent per annum fired fey &tt* upon the amount of the 
judgment ttvm the date of the entry of the Judgment, Ml more 
thaa sufficient to justify the alloannea by the court, 

The next re-son sdmneed ie thst en execution issued 
uoon the judgment ami not served by the bailiff upon the defen- 
dant e, nnd therefore »?<« not a sufficient b; sis upon whleh to 
predicate a garnishment proceeding, ^ppsrontly, the defend-nte 
overlo ked the feet that the intervener amended hi?: petition so 
that the relief prayed for fey him vse that the court direct the 
receiver to psy the intervener, or his solicitors, the sum of 
$750, a ad not for lesve to serve garnishee summons on the receiver. 

The final reason aiWrtMMM is to the effect th*t the 
sesignment by the defendants to Herman . L ndfield ®«s prior ia 
frolnt of time to the filing of the final petition by Hemmel. 
laving considered the Question r ised by the defend nts tfcat the 
assignment »s3 based upon ft valuable ^oi:»i f er tiou, Nmi having 
retched a conclusion contrary to the contention of the defendants, 
it sill not be neces? ry to consider tbe above question. 

In the opinion of the court the errors contended for 
are not such it ro Id justify | reversal of the order. The 
order le therefore affirmed, 

OR DIP AFVIM . 

mil,?, j. add mm, .j. m. 



.*&& «tra aa*fr {tariff **©» *J tetania *!oir:» 
<l »c «o*£t aisaaqa #i 

* to a#efe ad'* ftoft teae 
t »WI *oa.;-«Aliq sd# ?*iff8ifi. off ffaaioitltfa aariff 

it txaa adT 

vt aUff ao«;jf 
i i « #afl a«* ate lai* t etoaa 

,4a£6*aMTe. foaav • <.**« 

.ihn .->«■:■. aa*ff baa* -©Itava 

.* alii fa t< /dff ff*d# 

»ff*ti atfff x<K o* tavieaat 

;j^i sad t avaaJ *©! #ea tan ,Q9T| 

aav (I l Istflil arfY 

oJ i^'.kfi9Ub ads v4 taaiMgiaaa 

gaili ' tail* to ffola* 

• iff8»aflf atf.t brtaMs/ieo gcivstt 

fcaaecf aa* ffaaaux&iaaa 

< aolaulaaoo a badoaat 

rabraixoo o* Yivi«fto*fl ad ton XXI* #1 

> riff la aatalqo adff a I 
.baarritt* tiolartdff si TaMe 

U .1 .?,, 



36633 

s. FR.SCIS BtH9t, 



Appellee, 




0YS08 &»•;, COfeP. &T, a 
Corpora t i n, 

Appellant. 



iWKRXOti ?OURt 




p 



Y, 

3 



Opinion filed Feb, 7, 1934 

MR. JUSTICE HEBKi BSUTOIB T»« &FE8I0S - ! BIB OOWHT. 

The defendant appeals from I judgment entered agi Inst it 
in f ver of the plaintiff in the uperior Court of ook 'aunty in the 
sua of $895,30, in an action of ffliirnKf It » The cause KM tried by 
the tllfl xithout I jury. The issue presented is whether the con- 
tract in question MM en obligation of the defendant cor of? t ion. 

The contract sued on is in writing, is eet forth La the 
plaintiff's second -mended count ©f the declaration, kttd is purported 
to be signed by J. B. Pherigo, the secret ry of the defendant corpo- 
ration. The execution and delivery of t is contract Is denied by a 
Tsrif ied special plea filed by the defendant on December 24, 1931, 
which is designated as a special pies to the H ird count of plaintiff »s 
deel ration. To this count there was sis© filed a pie of non- 
assumpsit sad aa affidavit of merits *se ->art of defendant's defease, 
which is: "That the person who signed the alleged contract *ith the 
plaintiff did not hate the authority to bind the corporation to suoh 
a contract ." On February £0, 1932, defendant** demurrer to the 
second count of the plaintiff 1 ** decl&r> ion *-*« east ined, ind there- 
after aa amended second count w^s filed by the laintiff, whioh Is 
snbstaati*lly in words as follows: 

■Thst on the 18th d»y of July, . . 1928, the def orient, Otsob 
igp Coap ny, l corporation, formerly known s Vorrie Ovion 
Company, * corporation, *nd by due proceedings pursuant to 
statute chaaged Its corporate n»me to Oveo: o<v>any, 
a oorporatio, , desiring to eagage the service? of the plain- 
tiff, . Srmcis Burns, in manner and for* ss herelaafter 
set forth, mnde, e*eoute^ and delivered its cwrtain contract 
in writing, in words and figure? ss follows, to-wlt: 



EtMt 






i ■ i .1.. . 

4 



£S6X t ? •cf9'3 Jbain noiniqO 

Wit «Xs»qq» t 

■ii to iOf ^i «i 
a* tU ,OS«8tt4 *© hub 

,0- urn «&£#•*«? «i #»«*** 






. 



vt «&!« J*<a*»s«? * a 



. 
sela Iflioaqa b»X1i?»7 

i *»6 Si 



aa baa JX aaau a a * 

:t»ix?}in adw ao***q ortt *«a f r" i»X 01 



•It- Etm ad* *vkc ten bib ititai&Sc 

tat ,sser ,08 ftxurtdax flO *,*aa«taa« a 

aft ••tlitrtialq ad* *o *ouo« baoo** 

ouot baooaa bafraa«a aa *»tle 

*d$ t 6Sti i . ,■ ivi, to t«t) d*6X edJ 

i 
■if *r. srcol baa «aaa*« ai ,a«*a« til 

*o«?ta*o aia#i»o ail bawrXXaa baa ba**oaxa ,aba* ,d*ioi *aa 

>>«/» abTaa a! ,saitXT« til 



-2- 



•MEttQRASDUM OF AORiUilEtfT - July 16, 19?S - ntered 
into Metvean . Frsncis Burns of Chicago, Illinci*;, tnrty 
of the second put. 

itnesreth. One. Party of the flrpt port ngvmoi 
to prosecute for the Morris Oveon Company, r> rties of the 
second part its protest tgfei&flf! the findings by Internal 
Revenue "gent *nd the Income fsi Ur It, -reposing ^dciltio al 
t xes and Densities tfmimft the Morris Orson Comedy for 
yerrs 1922, 1923, 1924, and 1925, <ae evidenced by letters 
from trie Income lax Unit, dated M^y 3, 1926. 



Y&AR ADO IT 10* At TAX 

1922 | 540.38 

1923 507.87 

1924 493.37 
1828 1.977.08 

S3, 524.80 



\ITY 

$ 270. 19 

253.84 

273.82 

993. 74 

*" 1,790. 



TOY 

I 810.57 

761.51 

773.19 

3.969.82 

|S,31t.09 



nd all accrued interest on shore taxes. 

Two. Parties of the second part, Merrlm Orson '■ ■own- ny, 
agrees to compensate the party of tse first post tf fallows: 

(a) Upon completion of the case a net fee ©1 50 (fiity 
percent) of the reduction or the elimination of the proposed 
tax as covered by the ye rs c;ore, including accrued interest. 

mRtfl >my 

By J. B. Pherigo, 

Taxpayer. 
. F*a*«*l Bums, 

Agent . * 

It also Ma alleged in substance that the def ■ataMl agreed 
to psy the ol iatiff the f e provided for, and the 1 intiff ->er- 
forsied the services re^niir&d under the contract; that on July 
10, 1930, the United ot*too Board of Tax nppimjf entered an order 
in the matter of the protest filed by the pi -Intiff as to the sua 
of |l,790.59, which was not allowed as a p nslty ind whlob was 
aocepte:. by the defendant, and thereby the MatttMA became Indebted 
under the terms of the contract in the sum of 1895.30. The deel - 
ration was verified by and on behalf of toe ftl iutilf. Upon this 
state of the pleadings the case was tri* d by the curt I nd judgment 
•as entered for the plaintiff, whioh was appealed from, as «e h*ve 
already indie- 1. d in this opinion. 

The prinoipal contention of the def nd»nt is that the 
court erred in admitting in evidence the oontrct su d on under 
the Diss dings over the objection of the def nd?nt; that the 
proof offered by the olaintiff did not eetsblieh the Authority 









- 











■en 




• 






i m 



! 



' 



' 



■ 

mi- 

•, aa* .rfoitfc < 66 .OflY ,!#''%• 

5?t»fc © 

: t**r 

- • t *© * ■ 



-3- 
of the defendant to sign the contract on t ehelf of the 
defend snt corporation. 

It Is In evidence th^t J. §, Pherigo, « secretary .?nd 
treasurer of the corporation, signed the contract of employment, 
and, further, signed the po*er of attorney on behllf of tne corp- 
oration empowering the plaintiff to ■ppmtti for the defendant in 
regard to the tax matter in the ea.ee of Morris Ovson 
Company vs. The Commissioner of Internal revenue, pending before 
the United --tatee Board of Tax &ppeiU.e 4 *nd the plaintiff oer- 
formed the services required under the contract sued upon, sad 
completed hie work and effected ss a saving the sum of 11,790.59, 
whioh is evidenced hy the decision of the United Hates* Btotfi of 
Tax Appesle, Thie i® not disputed toy the def -n&rmt, accept 
that the tax was not psid by the def BWribflit corpora tlon, but was 
paid hy the officers and directors of fc&fca eoasp^ny. The United 
states Board of fmi ppe Is fi*ed the amount of the $mS against 
the defendant corporation, and whether the def ndant itself paid 
the Imi is unimportant. The defendant attempted to shift it a 
burden by charging that its officers and directors had enter -d into 
* conspixxoy to defraud the defendant oomo'-ny by not accounting for 
the moneys received fro<* the MUM of empty egg oases end cartons, 
the property of the def ndant . The pi intiff in this MM rendered 
services, and as a result, the del ndsnt **e not required to rvy 
s penalty ^mounting to the sum of I 1,790. 59. It appears from 
the evidenoe that the officers had knowledge of this tor tatter. 
In fact, the plaintiff was retained ty the secretary snd treasurer 
of this company to appear, "according to the contract, belor ■ the 
United -tatcs Board of fax opeals. 

The defendant corporation, however, contends that it did 
not have knowledge of any kind of the pending t»* litigation. 
Thia le a rathe- peculiar content lor. to make. It *oul^ seem 



... 

. ■ 

»■■■■■'- 
. 

&«B US'. >d# t^ 

• •/■ 



-4- 

fross the evi- enee th ; t the oil leers of tne corporation tad 
knowledge of the pending litigation, sn«j if they fcftd knowledge, 
the defendant itechvrge&ble with knowledge. fait suggestion »sde 
by the def nd;nt ie but ■ ouibbi* and is ?&rh.d to give the 

appearance of confidence by the defendant in its noeitiot«. How- 
ever, HB »e have already indicated, it epuld isee® to this court 
th?t euch suggestion is? but i eh-am. The proof of the execution 
of the plaintiff's contract wm not required, because the defen- 
dant did not deny the execution of the contract by I verified 
ple& to the second ssendod count, ''till thie court is of the 
ooinion that the evidence is sofxieient to establish execution 
by *n officer of the defendant corporation, of «hich it had full 
knowledge, 

'^hile it is true that the corporation kftfl changed ite 
Mat, that fact of itself does not relieve the def sfttaai froa 
the liability incurred b* thie contract, the evidence justifies 
the judgment, and there ie no error apparent %hich eould justify 
e. rerorsol, The Judgment ie accord .in&ly affirmed, 

mmmm tmmi. 

HaLL, i\ J. AHO 3IL30S, J. Gm.OJR. 



/ 



it «rtrrt 

yfc ©d* 

- . . ftf »©£< 

. 

| 

0<MNl 

i 



• 



. . 




• 



y/ ^\ 



30643 

s. sitm* nn hi 

eli&nt, 



mmoittu ■■ 




* iIee - P #i Q I .A, ■ 



Opinion filed Feb, 7, 1934 

m. iwriii - >l juivs-.u rn i : 8n ■ ■». 

The judgment for th® defs>a<i s \nt i» M&f en afftt&l by the 
plaintiff sad nan entered in ft suit t© reenter the a&ouat due the 
plaintiff for rent of the |HM$&Mi occupied by $%$ d*>fsnd*nt *nd 
loe-t*d at BS 33 Prairie &v«?ftu©, O.J.e&go, Illinois, for llftt nonth* of 
June to veeeaiber, 133K, inclusive, »t ■ noathly rental of $#$, leas 
t M sun of : ..180 deposited with tafl ■ ; --l*intif? l« secure the ;>*sygient 
of re*nt due under the !#*$#• 

The defendant did not ayyaai in this **UTt ml file I 

brief. 

fhl evidence |i to the effect th*.t the defend: 'at entered 

into possession of the premise* under aa assignment by MM -ly PMtg 
dated January 3c, 1931, of § lnsee expiring *pfH B0 a UnVj th t the 
plaintiff is the assignee of the former lessor ;'■• J, oaohue, receiver, 
under «n saaignnent d»ied September 1, iJSl} tin I th* jr-.fendant 
Tenet ed the premiar?a on October 10, i •<:<.'■; th t the d<»'(>nd*nt tr^ns^oted 
his business with one irrry L'hlensay, who van* KM i intiff^s «#s»nt, 
*nd the defendant paid rent to this agent during MM eriod th t rent 
n«e paid; tbr.t no aotiee th?t Hut i»f»BHdli would Tenet e the preaisee 
upon the expir tion of the lease on dysil , » *«s served by 
the defendant on the plaintiff or his agent; th t the renins v*o*ted 
by the det>nd?nt was subsequently rented on the first d»y of J nuary, 
193?,, by the plaintiff, *nd the plaintiff contends Untt there is due 
to the plaintiff the b<*.lonoe of 135, due for aoerued rcat after 
allowing the defendant I credit of '180, the aaount depoeited with 
the plaintiff se security. 



KMM 



4 



£561 «V •cfQ'5 Jbalil noiniqO 






,l >i9t ■a:©"'. 
to o^riBil 

. 

i 

■ 

• amoral a »* an r»tau 

1 

t«ft •** t)fl» 

■ tnw 

b*s •at «o fa*fc/t 

t X<v .tv+tllm- ■ t"ba*yb »itJ xtf 

•in si »i-.riJ « 

*•#** #«»t fr«wi •• WHDiX** •«** I :I<? •** *# 



I 

This fiction by fe&i alHintiff k$ "ninet the defendsat is 
ucan the theory th- fl <t the defendant wmt liable OMi ■ holdover tenant 
for | period of one ye*r under the «a«a tense mA eonditleas as of 
the expired ie»se« 

The ev id ones* of $&§tipy&0f of tfci ;\.rea&s$e. by the del end- 
sat after the expiration of the written lesse iai until he «*tts|#| 
the premises ©a October ID, 133/? # is not la l$ifps$#« the defeadaat 
paid the May reat* sad is In default la payment for the aontha of 
June to fHifflflWtj l$33l* inclusive* 

the only theory of ih# oourt for too eatsy of the judg- 
ment •«• H&t the aga&oy of the witaoa* 3hl«nsky for the plaintiff 
■M aot established by the fvideaee. svoa if the court mm not satis- 
fied th^t the •vldc&eo established mge&ey, still the defendant 
liable Ml lewart for the ooeupsaey of the prsniaoo* less *>,ay aredit 
that the defendant mm entitled to from %te% plnlatiff* 

for the reasons stated la thiss opinion, there *ill have 
to oe ■ ne« t*£*l« NttS this court OJ ^ M POft^i so ©pinion sa to irhether 
the evidence establishes tte^t the defendant Mi a holdover t^n^nt for 
s period of one ye^r, or whether he «*s I IIMMlfl ftWWI month to month. 

tfpoa the questions of ffcHt the oourt erred in finding 
for the defendant find a^iaat the ,'-l»*intif f a taft the Judgment Is 
reversed and the cause reminded far i aenr trial, 

• . 



s 

dt \TQ9Si3 Oil* C 

ko £>oit»o i ict 

■< arf* *©*** fa* 
, k> a*aAHr*i; afiJ 

■it btsq 

i 

< It* *»n ■ &tf o$ 

.■ 

•1 ****** «i«#» 6«i« tttaJtaatfti! *4i *•! 

fwNri— t »«fwd »ii# few &**•< *▼€•■? 



37S14 

under Trust Iped &m%9& July 10, 1' 
«ttd recorded e« Doe, &»• 104 "-06- '■ - , 



Appellee j 



AJUU : , ©t *$* # 

On - of ASMA 91 




j' ft r 






■A. 630 



.r- 



Appellant. 

Opinion filed Feb. 7, 1934 

this fttiftg eoaen to this ftewt u on m inf-rlooutory 
1 froe Ml order eatexed on .septeiiber S, WM $ i aiatis 
receiver for tie ^reniaes d* sen bed in tne &m i fitwfliilfflt before 
aerviee of ets*i«8§ or snewer filed by tfet ^;'n-:,t9, 

©a Auguet 35, 2JS3, the eoar/.-isiA.nt filed it* bill to 
foreelea® the trust deed aeeuring eert'-.iYi bot*da described therein ejMI 
for the v;.:olnt®8nt of A fteeeiTex, fne aom;>lain«nt Is trustee under 
the t rate of the trust deed d*t*d July i 0# 1^7. i, roa the bill of 
ooavinint it eg effete thM on July 10, 1337, the defendant &iwn 
■erehkoff, feeing indebted in the mm of £4b,>'^, executed alxty-fiYe 
eende *ggregatiag «>id «u», *nd th l eenin of at Id bonde ortured 
y«**ly, ooatjienolng July 10, 1330, and ending July 10, 1936; th*t the 
trust deed ■•liiftaf mlA bond* was recorded on July 17, 1737; th>t 
•end* lee), 1 to 4 iaeluslve for th* ,.n^oie*l mm of IfOQ e-oh *ad 
all interest thereon, which aatured on » rtor to J*m»*ry 10, 1933, 

-Id; th t the peynent of honde Kee. 6, «, 7 nd fl, which matured 
July 10, 193 , ia the sum of SSOO e«ca wee In d*f»ult; nleo the 
interest on bonde nee. 5 to 65, Metf the payment of taxes; that atid 
iefeulte continued for over twenty ft*i MMl still continue; th-t oa 












I 



£S0I «? •cfa'5 l>9lil noiniqO 












■ 

Mag.u t 8, 1933, a written notice wste served OS the compl -> in»nt in 

-.ccord nee with the terns of e^ld trust dee'!, by ■ legal holder 

of one or more of said bonds, ohiofe notice set forth the default* 

sbove mentioned, and by reason ther of, ccmpl ■ innnt M trustee 

declared the entire amount so secured immediately due nnd aoy*ble. 

It lso * ope? re tb«t the defendant Amm ers&koff executed 
the tru^t deed conveying to the complainant m trustee the real 
estate described in the bill of complaint, and also the rents, issues 
and profits thereof, and that the persons n*»aed in the bill sere 
made defendants; that the premises sought to be foreclosed cot-?l*ts 
of s three story brick apartment building, occupied by tenants. 

This bill of complaint is not sworn to. * 

Ch; I uguet 28, 1933, the POtyloiBEttt filed It* petition under 
O'.th by le ve of court fir^t h'»d, praying for the I appointment of a 
reoeiver, which motion was continued until B to y ta a & Og 8, 1933. 
On Immtemfemy 8 the defendants Anna ershkoff, Id ershkoff, ?nd 
Sam ershkoff filed their appearance and their written met ion t§ 
strike the petition filed by the oompl*? ins nt , I ich motion led 

by tae court. 

From the petition it %ppe®T% th*t the comp 1 1 'inent is 
trustee mieY the trust deed sought to be foreclosed, which trust 
de d be re d te July 10, 1929, sad is recorded, and th t the complain- 
ant filed Its bill to foreclose the lien of the trupt deed on the 
premises looeted at the no thesst comer of Id *nd le «nd 13th itreet 
in Chicago, Illinois; that the indebtedness secured by the trust 
deed is in the sum of $46,000; thrt the time of payment of this 
amount h s b«en -ooeleratei tec use ol defaults, tht prior ther to 
$2,000 h*d been on id on aocount of the rrlncio»l, uad the rem in lug 
$43,000 is due end unpaid; knot on #anu ry 10, 1933, interest in 
the sum of $1,290 on all bonds outstanding matured, on w ich vei 



1 

: 

ktft al bullosa!* a 

ra4i c^ilotq baa 

to XXitf aidf 

. 

. 

■ mn *as at «i freal 

• ■ 

miu hae 9vt tl 



















■ 

















3 

paid the mm of 11,19^5 that thereafter on July i'>, 19^3, interest 

in the sum of §S*$4G on all, bonds outstanding sutured; thrt the 
a$kera of Bonde »«•• &» S* 7, rM $ In the au® of 6" «*>ah refused 

to pup ®#id bonds, slid *>laa Seftttad t© J»| the int^ront which had 

It alee affft da d fi froa the petition th^t the ; ; remises in 
question are improved with ft tare® story brick building *ith a» 
SBgllsh beacaent containing tarae five- room &^rt*ftSt«, nine f out- 
took »jw*tBafftt< and ta© shops; th^t fcbJ ^remises »!• srorth less thsn 
the «uaount of tae fiYst mortgage; to a* the petitioner abused, an 

liaal to he aada of said property, end it .-.-■;. >■ therefrom and 
the petitioner there fere states the faet to be that a&££ property is 
worth only "50,000, m& is there fare greatly insdefjuate for the py» 
aant of tad indebtedness kIu® under a*id ai,afjjp||§j s$*»$ numerous 
persons are occupying the praaiaaa «ho are paying rent which should 
he applied againat this said indebtedness?; ifmt the leg-'l title to 
said premises is veeted in the est side Trout mS V&I i ■•: of 
Chia^gOt Ml trustee under trust »o» 14$, 

it aleo ipgtfMKaif from the petition t*r t the t?»xee for the 
year lis? uuon iald property eaouat to $**4@&»3?« upon which has 
been petd on sceount the sum of -597,60, lowing ■ nuliMMH due of 
#810,67; tuat tha 1MB tnaea npen s*i«1 ■rorarty 'fljouat to *1, 337.09, 
upon Thieh hss been paid on account the MM of ' 500, 1* wing ». 
brlanoe of 73?. -J; th*t the 1929 ftlfltti m:>on said property --mount ta 
£l,3»b,5h, and tb»t the 1930 tMNM ur>on eWt4 property ^*»ount to 
11,479,19} th^t the 1931 taxaa MM the amounts bore stated ire unpaid. 

The defendant Anna $erehkoff contends th t the a^point- 
asnt of * reoeiver before ?newer filed is erroneous in the nbiiane* of 
MJ affirmative showing of an eaergenoy. e •<gre<? with the wug estion 
that the chancellor should exercise onutien in the ointuwnt of s 
receiver, and that the aotlon for the appolntaent is addressed to 



■ 


















i 91 It 

■ 



4 

- 



i 9d* tn*t ;f*.< 



*© 






4 

the sound disoratioa of the court, the def*nOnt her* enter*** her 
appearance* together *t$a £$&#£ nama* defendants* KBfi ?;;•;*■ red before 
the oh&noellor tBfl ssoved to strike the petition $f the ■^MQ&atai nt* 
sad to deny ita\pi*tin.sat*i itotloa for the *r : ;>©intsse&t of | receiver. 
Arguments of their solicitor* ««*•* henrd by the court, *nd -fter 
iiHjtJttlili<BI| the motion of tnt defendants to strike the r-etitloa 
filed herein attt to deny the ootlon for the srppoiatmsnt of 1 reeeiver 
were denied, this BpfHtsti from the order of the ohnaaallor in the 
record, fhls defen^nt* being before the eouri sat ta$lJS§ tl «etiv* 

I mt the tie* the motion fox the yppoiataent of % receiver mi 
aesrd. by the acurt* is not in l p&aitioa to ^ompiain of t, int- 

«snt, 33 it view Ifeg proceeding. 

It i« further urged by the timtm$m& $tef la* bill of 
complaint *u$t be verified «nd that before ^naser filed* the court 
aaanot flgmtrfil 1 petition or affidavit filed by the HHHf il llllHM 
in support ©f it® motion, but %k& court ?mw% look to the bill aloue, 
** *re unsble to Egret *ith this aant«nti*a« shen a bill of ooaaal^int 
is not verified the court sany henr the testimony of witnesses in 
support of the charges contained in the bill of iff In j at -md 
dot a rain* fro* the evidence *%fl!IH| the charges justify the appoint- 
ment of l receiver - provided, of course, th«-t the provisions of the 
statute are complied with at the time the upoolntment is m te, if 
* verified bill of oomolsint e<m be considered in the m^kln^; of suoh 
">>oint ft, tuen the psgAlMN N - Ml I Mil I MM&aiSl ■ -y 
be heard by the court, *heth r it be the testimony of witnesses or 
affidavits in support of the charges cont ined in the bill. Do law 
ass been called to our attention providing th t before r*n ^/ointment 
sea be BAde under olreumet^nees suoh at in thia o*s«, th« court is 
limited to the consideration of 1 verified bill of eom.il'Jint. The 
defendant here on nppeal appeared *nd Mf represented, -md, from the 
rsoord, took an active ;r-.rt vh<»m the motion for the ? ointment of 









- 
■ 






I 

... 
I 

I 



■ 



1 






h receiver ens hesrd. Upon hearing the aotion, the court properly 

ttillirtilfli toe verified petition of Htf iBQMjilmffi